From 9ebd2d5d84477baa20681b18b2669a3b4b5b154d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Th=C3=A9o=20Delemazure?= <34279251+TheoDlmz@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:16:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] updazte 00070 (doublons) --- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000001.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000002.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000003.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000004.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000005.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000006.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000007.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000008.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000009.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000010.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000011.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000012.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000013.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000014.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000015.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000016.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000017.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000018.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000019.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000020.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000021.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000022.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000023.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000024.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000025.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000026.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000027.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000028.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000029.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000030.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000031.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000032.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000033.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000034.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000035.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000036.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000037.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000038.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000039.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000040.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000041.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000042.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000043.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000044.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000045.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000046.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000047.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000048.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000049.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000050.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000051.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000052.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000053.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000054.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000055.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000056.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000057.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000058.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000059.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000060.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000061.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000062.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000063.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000064.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000065.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000066.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000067.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000068.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000069.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000070.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000071.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000072.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000073.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000074.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000075.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000076.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000077.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000078.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000079.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000080.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000081.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000082.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000083.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000084.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000085.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000086.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000087.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000088.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000089.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000090.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000091.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000092.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000093.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000094.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000095.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000096.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000097.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000098.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000099.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000100.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000101.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000102.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000103.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000104.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000105.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000106.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000107.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000108.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000109.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000110.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000111.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000112.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000113.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000114.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000115.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000116.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000117.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000118.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000119.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000120.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000121.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000122.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000123.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000124.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000125.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000126.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000127.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000128.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000129.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000130.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000131.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000132.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000133.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000134.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000135.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000136.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000137.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000138.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000139.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000140.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000141.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000142.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000143.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000144.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000145.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000146.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000147.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000148.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000149.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000150.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000151.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000152.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000153.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000154.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000155.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000156.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000157.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000158.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000159.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000160.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000161.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000162.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000163.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000164.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000165.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000166.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000167.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000168.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000169.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000170.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000171.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000172.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000173.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000174.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000175.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000176.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000177.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000178.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000179.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000180.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000181.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000182.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000183.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000184.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000185.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000186.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000187.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000188.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000189.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000190.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000191.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000192.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000193.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000194.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000195.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000196.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000197.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000198.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000199.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000200.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000201.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000202.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000203.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000204.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000205.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000206.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000207.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000208.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000209.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000210.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000211.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000212.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000213.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000214.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000215.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000216.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000217.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000218.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000219.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000220.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000221.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000222.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000223.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000224.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000225.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000226.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000227.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000228.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000229.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000230.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000231.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000232.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000233.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000234.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000235.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000236.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000237.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000238.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000239.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000240.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000241.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000242.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000243.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000244.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000245.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000246.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000247.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000248.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000249.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000250.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000251.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000252.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000253.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000254.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000255.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000256.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000257.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000258.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000259.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000260.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000261.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000262.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000263.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000264.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000265.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000266.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000267.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000268.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000269.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000270.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000271.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000272.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000273.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000274.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000275.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000276.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000277.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000278.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000279.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000280.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000281.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000282.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000283.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000284.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000285.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000286.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000287.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000288.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000289.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000290.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000291.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000292.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000293.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000294.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000295.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000296.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000297.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000298.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000299.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000300.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000301.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000302.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000303.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000304.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000305.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000306.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000307.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000308.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000309.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000310.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000311.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000312.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000313.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000314.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000315.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000316.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000317.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000318.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000319.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000320.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000321.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000322.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000323.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000324.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000325.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000326.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000327.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000328.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000329.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000330.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000331.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000332.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000333.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000334.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000335.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000336.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000337.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000338.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000339.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000340.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000341.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000342.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000343.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000344.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000345.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000346.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000347.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000348.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000349.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000350.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000351.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000352.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000353.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000354.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000355.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000356.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000357.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000358.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000359.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000360.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000361.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000362.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000363.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000364.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000365.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000366.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000367.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000368.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000369.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000370.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000371.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000372.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000373.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000374.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000375.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000376.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000377.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000378.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000379.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000380.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000381.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000382.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000383.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000384.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000385.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000386.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000387.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000388.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000389.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000390.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000391.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000392.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000393.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000394.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000395.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000396.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000397.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000398.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000399.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000400.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000401.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000402.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000403.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000404.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000405.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000406.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000407.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000408.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000409.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000410.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000411.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000412.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000413.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000414.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000415.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000416.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000417.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000418.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000419.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000420.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000421.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000422.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000423.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000424.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000425.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000426.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000427.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000428.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000429.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000430.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000431.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000432.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000433.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000434.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000435.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000436.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000437.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000438.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000439.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000440.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000441.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000442.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000443.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000444.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000445.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000446.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000447.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000448.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000449.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000450.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000451.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000452.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000453.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000454.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000455.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000456.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000457.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000458.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000459.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000460.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000461.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000462.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000463.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000464.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000465.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000466.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000467.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000468.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000469.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000470.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000471.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000472.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000473.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000474.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000475.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000476.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000477.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000478.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000479.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000480.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000481.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000482.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000483.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000484.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000485.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000486.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000487.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000488.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000489.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000490.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000491.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000492.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000493.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000494.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000495.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000496.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000497.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000498.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000499.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000500.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000501.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000502.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000503.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000504.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000505.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000506.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000507.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000508.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000509.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000510.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000511.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000512.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000513.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000514.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000515.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000516.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000517.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000518.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000519.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000520.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000521.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000522.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000523.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000524.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000525.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000526.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000527.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000528.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000529.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000530.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000531.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000532.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000533.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000534.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000535.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000536.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000537.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000538.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000539.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000540.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000541.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000542.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000543.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000544.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000545.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000546.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000547.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000548.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000549.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000550.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000551.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000552.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000553.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000554.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000555.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000556.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000557.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000558.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000559.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000560.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000561.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000562.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000563.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000564.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000565.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000566.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000567.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000568.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000569.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000570.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000571.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000572.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000573.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000574.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000575.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000576.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000577.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000578.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000579.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000580.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000581.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000582.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000583.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000584.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000585.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000586.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000587.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000588.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000589.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000590.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000591.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000592.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000593.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000594.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000595.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000596.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000597.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000598.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000599.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000600.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000601.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000602.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000603.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000604.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000605.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000606.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000607.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000608.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000609.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000610.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000611.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000612.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000613.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000614.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000615.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000616.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000617.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000618.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000619.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000620.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000621.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000622.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000623.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000624.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000625.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000626.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000627.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000628.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000629.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000630.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000631.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000632.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000633.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000634.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000635.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000636.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000637.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000638.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000639.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000640.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000641.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000642.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000643.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000644.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000645.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000646.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000647.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000648.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000649.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000650.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000651.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000652.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000653.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000654.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000655.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000656.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000657.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000658.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000659.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000660.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000661.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000662.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000663.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000664.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000665.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000666.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000667.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000668.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000669.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000670.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000671.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000672.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000673.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000674.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000675.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000676.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000677.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000678.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000679.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000680.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000681.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000682.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000683.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000684.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000685.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000686.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000687.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000688.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000689.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000690.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000691.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000692.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000693.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000694.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000695.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000696.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000697.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000698.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000699.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000700.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000701.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000702.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000703.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000704.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000705.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000706.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000707.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000708.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000709.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000710.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000711.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000712.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000713.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000714.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000715.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000716.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000717.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000718.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000719.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000720.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000721.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000722.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000723.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000724.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000725.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000726.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000727.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000728.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000729.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000730.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000731.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000732.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000733.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000734.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000735.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000736.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000737.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000738.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000739.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000740.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000741.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000742.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000743.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000744.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000745.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000746.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000747.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000748.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000749.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000750.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000751.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000752.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000753.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000754.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000755.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000756.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000757.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000758.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000759.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000760.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000761.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000762.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000763.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000764.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000765.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000766.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000767.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000768.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000769.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000770.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000771.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000772.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000773.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000774.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000775.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000776.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000777.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000778.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000779.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000780.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000781.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000782.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000783.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000784.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000785.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000786.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000787.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000788.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000789.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000790.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000791.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000792.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000793.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000794.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000795.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000796.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000797.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000798.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000799.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000800.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000801.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000802.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000803.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000804.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000805.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000806.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000807.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000808.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000809.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000810.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000811.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000812.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000813.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000814.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000815.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000816.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000817.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000818.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000819.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000820.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000821.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000822.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000823.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000824.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000825.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000826.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000827.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000828.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000829.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000830.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000831.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000832.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000833.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000834.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000835.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000836.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000837.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000838.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000839.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000840.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000841.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000842.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000843.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000844.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000845.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000846.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000847.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000848.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000849.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000850.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000851.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000852.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000853.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000854.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000855.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000856.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000857.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000858.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000859.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000860.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000861.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000862.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000863.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000864.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000865.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000866.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000867.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000868.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000869.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000870.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000871.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000872.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000873.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000874.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000875.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000876.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000877.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000878.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000879.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000880.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000881.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000882.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000883.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000884.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000885.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000886.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000887.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000888.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000889.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000890.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000891.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000892.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000893.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000894.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000895.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000896.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000897.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000898.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000899.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000900.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000901.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000902.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000903.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000904.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000905.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000906.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000907.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000908.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000909.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000910.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000911.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000912.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000913.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000914.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000915.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000916.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000917.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000918.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000919.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000920.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000921.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000922.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000923.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000924.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000925.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000926.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000927.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000928.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000929.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000930.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000931.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000932.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000933.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000934.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000935.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000936.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000937.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000938.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000939.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000940.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000941.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000942.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000943.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000944.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000945.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000946.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000947.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000948.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000949.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000950.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000951.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000952.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000953.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000954.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000955.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000956.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000957.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000958.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000959.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000960.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000961.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000962.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000963.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000964.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000965.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000966.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000967.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000968.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000969.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000970.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000971.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000972.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000973.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000974.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000975.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000976.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000977.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000978.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000979.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000980.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000981.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000982.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000983.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000984.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000985.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000986.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000987.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000988.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000989.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000990.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000991.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000992.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000993.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000994.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000995.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000996.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000997.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000998.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000999.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001000.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001001.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001002.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001003.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001004.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001005.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001006.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001007.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001008.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001009.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001010.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001011.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001012.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001013.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001014.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001015.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001016.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001017.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001018.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001019.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001020.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001021.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001022.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001023.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001024.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001025.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001026.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001027.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001028.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001029.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001030.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001031.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001032.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001033.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001034.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001035.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001036.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001037.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001038.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001039.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001040.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001041.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001042.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001043.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001044.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001045.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001046.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001047.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001048.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001049.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001050.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001051.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001052.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001053.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001054.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001055.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001056.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001057.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001058.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001059.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001060.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001061.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001062.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001063.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001064.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001065.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001066.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001067.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001068.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001069.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001070.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001071.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001072.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001073.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001074.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001075.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001076.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001077.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001078.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001079.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001080.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001081.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001082.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001083.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001084.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001085.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001086.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001087.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001088.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001089.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001090.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001091.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001092.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001093.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001094.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001095.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001096.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001097.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001098.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001099.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001100.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001101.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001102.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001103.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001104.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001105.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001106.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001107.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001108.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001109.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001110.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001111.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001112.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001113.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001114.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001115.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001116.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001117.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001118.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001119.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001120.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001121.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001122.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001123.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001124.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001125.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001126.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001127.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001128.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001129.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001130.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001131.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001132.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001133.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001134.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001135.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001136.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001137.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001138.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001139.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001140.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001141.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001142.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001143.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001144.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001145.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001146.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001147.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001148.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001149.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001150.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001151.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001152.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001153.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001154.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001155.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001156.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001157.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001158.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001159.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001160.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001161.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001162.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001163.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001164.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001165.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001166.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001167.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001168.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001169.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001170.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001171.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001172.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001173.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001174.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001175.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001176.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001177.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001178.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001179.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001180.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001181.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001182.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001183.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001184.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001185.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001186.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001187.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001188.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001189.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001190.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001191.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001192.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001193.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001194.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001195.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001196.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001197.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001198.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001199.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001200.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001201.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001202.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001203.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001204.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001205.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001206.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001207.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001208.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001209.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001210.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001211.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001212.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001213.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001214.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001215.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001216.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001217.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001218.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001219.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001220.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001221.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001222.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001223.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001224.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001225.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001226.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001227.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001228.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001229.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001230.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001231.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001232.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001233.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001234.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001235.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001236.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001237.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001238.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001239.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001240.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001241.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001242.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001243.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001244.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001245.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001246.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001247.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001248.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001249.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001250.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001251.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001252.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001253.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001254.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001255.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001256.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001257.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001258.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001259.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001260.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001261.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001262.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001263.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001264.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001265.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001266.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001267.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001268.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001269.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001270.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001271.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001272.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001273.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001274.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001275.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001276.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001277.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001278.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001279.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001280.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001281.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001282.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001283.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001284.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001285.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001286.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001287.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001288.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001289.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001290.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001291.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001292.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001293.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001294.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001295.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001296.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001297.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001298.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001299.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001300.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001301.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001302.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001303.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001304.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001305.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001306.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001307.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001308.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001309.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001310.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001311.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001312.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001313.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001314.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001315.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001316.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001317.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001318.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001319.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001320.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001321.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001322.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001323.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001324.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001325.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001326.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001327.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001328.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001329.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001330.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001331.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001332.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001333.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001334.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001335.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001336.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001337.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001338.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001339.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001340.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001341.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001342.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001343.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001344.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001345.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001346.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001347.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001348.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001349.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001350.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001351.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001352.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001353.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001354.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001355.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001356.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001357.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001358.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001359.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001360.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001361.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001362.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001363.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001364.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001365.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001366.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001367.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001368.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001369.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001370.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001371.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001372.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001373.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001374.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001375.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001376.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001377.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001378.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001379.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001380.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001381.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001382.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001383.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001384.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001385.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001386.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001387.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001388.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001389.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001390.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001391.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001392.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001393.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001394.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001395.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001396.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001397.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001398.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001399.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001400.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001401.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001402.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001403.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001404.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001405.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001406.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001407.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001408.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001409.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001410.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001411.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001412.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001413.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001414.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001415.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001416.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001417.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001418.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001419.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001420.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001421.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001422.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001423.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001424.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001425.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001426.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001427.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001428.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001429.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001430.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001431.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001432.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001433.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001434.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001435.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001436.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001437.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001438.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001439.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001440.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001441.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001442.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001443.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001444.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001445.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001446.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001447.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001448.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001449.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001450.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001451.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001452.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001453.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001454.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001455.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001456.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001457.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001458.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001459.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001460.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001461.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001462.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001463.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001464.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001465.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001466.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001467.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001468.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001469.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001470.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001471.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001472.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001473.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001474.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001475.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001476.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001477.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001478.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001479.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001480.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001481.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001482.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001483.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001484.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001485.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001486.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001487.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001488.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001489.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001490.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001491.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001492.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001493.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001494.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001495.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001496.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001497.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001498.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001499.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001500.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001501.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001502.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001503.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001504.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001505.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001506.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001507.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001508.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001509.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001510.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001511.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001512.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001513.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001514.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001515.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001516.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001517.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001518.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001519.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001520.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001521.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001522.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001523.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001524.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001525.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001526.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001527.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001528.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001529.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001530.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001531.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001532.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001533.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001534.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001535.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001536.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001537.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001538.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001539.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001540.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001541.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001542.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001543.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001544.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001545.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001546.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001547.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001548.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001549.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001550.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001551.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001552.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001553.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001554.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001555.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001556.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001557.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001558.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001559.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001560.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001561.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001562.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001563.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001564.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001565.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001566.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001567.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001568.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001569.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001570.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001571.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001572.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001573.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001574.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001575.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001576.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001577.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001578.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001579.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001580.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001581.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001582.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001583.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001584.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001585.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001586.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001587.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001588.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001589.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001590.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001591.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001592.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001593.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001594.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001595.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001596.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001597.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001598.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001599.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001600.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001601.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001602.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001603.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001604.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001605.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001606.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001607.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001608.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001609.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001610.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001611.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001612.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001613.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001614.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001615.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001616.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001617.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001618.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001619.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001620.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001621.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001622.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001623.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001624.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001625.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001626.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001627.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001628.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001629.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001630.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001631.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001632.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001633.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001634.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001635.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001636.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001637.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001638.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001639.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001640.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001641.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001642.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001643.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001644.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001645.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001646.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001647.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001648.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001649.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001650.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001651.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001652.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001653.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001654.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001655.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001656.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001657.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001658.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001659.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001660.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001661.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001662.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001663.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001664.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001665.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001666.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001667.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001668.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001669.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001670.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001671.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001672.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001673.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001674.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001675.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001676.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001677.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001678.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001679.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001680.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001681.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001682.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001683.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001684.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001685.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001686.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001687.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001688.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001689.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001690.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001691.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001692.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001693.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001694.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001695.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001696.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001697.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001698.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001699.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001700.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001701.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001702.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001703.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001704.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001705.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001706.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001707.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001708.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001709.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001710.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001711.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001712.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001713.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001714.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001715.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001716.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001717.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001718.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001719.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001720.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001721.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001722.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001723.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001724.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001725.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001726.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001727.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001728.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001729.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001730.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001731.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001732.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001733.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001734.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001735.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001736.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001737.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001738.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001739.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001740.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001741.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001742.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001743.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001744.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001745.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001746.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001747.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001748.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001749.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001750.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001751.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001752.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001753.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001754.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001755.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001756.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001757.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001758.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001759.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001760.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001761.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001762.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001763.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001764.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001765.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001766.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001767.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001768.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001769.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001770.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001771.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001772.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001773.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001774.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001775.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001776.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001777.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001778.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001779.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001780.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001781.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001782.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001783.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001784.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001785.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001786.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001787.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001788.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001789.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001790.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001791.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001792.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001793.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001794.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001795.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001796.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001797.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001798.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001799.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001800.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001801.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001802.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001803.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001804.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001805.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001806.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001807.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001808.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001809.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001810.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001811.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001812.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001813.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001814.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001815.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001816.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001817.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001818.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001819.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001820.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001821.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001822.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001823.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001824.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001825.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001826.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001827.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001828.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001829.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001830.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001831.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001832.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001833.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001834.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001835.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001836.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001837.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001838.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001839.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001840.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001841.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001842.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001843.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001844.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001845.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001846.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001847.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001848.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001849.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001850.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001851.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001852.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001853.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001854.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001855.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001856.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001857.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001858.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001859.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001860.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001861.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001862.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001863.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001864.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001865.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001866.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001867.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001868.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001869.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001870.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001871.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001872.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001873.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001874.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001875.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001876.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001877.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001878.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001879.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001880.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001881.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001882.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001883.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001884.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001885.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001886.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001887.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001888.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001889.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001890.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001891.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001892.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001893.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001894.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001895.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001896.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001897.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001898.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001899.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001900.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001901.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001902.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001903.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001904.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001905.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001906.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001907.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001908.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001909.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001910.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001911.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001912.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001913.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001914.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001915.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001916.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001917.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001918.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001919.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001920.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001921.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001922.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001923.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001924.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001925.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001926.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001927.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001928.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001929.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001930.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001931.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001932.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001933.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001934.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001935.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001936.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001937.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001938.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001939.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001940.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001941.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001942.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001943.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001944.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001945.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001946.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001947.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001948.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001949.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001950.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001951.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001952.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001953.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001954.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001955.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001956.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001957.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001958.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001959.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001960.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001961.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001962.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001963.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001964.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001965.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001966.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001967.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001968.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001969.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001970.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001971.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001972.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001973.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001974.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001975.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001976.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001977.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001978.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001979.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001980.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001981.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001982.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001983.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001984.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001985.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001986.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001987.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001988.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001989.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001990.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001991.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001992.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001993.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001994.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001995.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001996.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001997.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001998.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001999.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002000.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002001.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002002.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002003.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002004.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002005.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002006.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002007.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002008.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002009.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002010.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002011.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002012.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002013.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002014.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002015.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002016.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002017.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002018.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002019.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002020.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002021.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002022.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002023.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002024.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002025.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002026.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002027.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002028.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002029.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002030.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002031.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002032.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002033.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002034.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002035.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002036.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002037.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002038.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002039.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002040.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002041.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002042.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002043.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002044.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002045.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002046.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002047.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002048.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002049.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002050.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002051.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002052.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002053.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002054.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002055.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002056.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002057.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002058.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002059.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002060.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002061.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002062.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002063.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002064.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002065.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002066.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002067.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002068.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002069.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002070.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002071.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002072.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002073.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002074.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002075.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002076.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002077.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002078.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002079.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002080.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002081.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002082.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002083.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002084.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002085.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002086.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002087.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002088.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002089.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002090.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002091.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002092.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002093.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002094.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002095.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002096.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002097.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002098.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002099.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002100.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002101.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002102.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002103.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002104.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002105.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002106.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002107.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002108.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002109.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002110.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002111.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002112.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002113.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002114.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002115.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002116.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002117.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002118.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002119.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002120.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002121.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002122.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002123.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002124.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002125.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002126.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002127.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002128.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002129.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002130.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002131.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002132.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002133.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002134.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002135.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002136.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002137.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002138.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002139.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002140.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002141.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002142.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002143.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002144.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002145.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002146.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002147.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002148.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002149.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002150.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002151.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002152.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002153.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002154.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002155.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002156.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002157.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002158.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002159.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002160.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002161.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002162.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002163.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002164.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002165.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002166.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002167.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002168.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002169.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002170.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002171.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002172.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002173.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002174.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002175.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002176.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002177.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002178.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002179.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002180.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002181.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002182.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002183.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002184.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002185.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002186.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002187.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002188.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002189.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002190.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002191.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002192.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002193.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002194.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002195.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002196.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002197.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002198.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002199.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002200.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002201.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002202.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002203.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002204.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002205.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002206.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002207.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002208.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002209.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002210.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002211.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002212.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002213.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002214.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002215.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002216.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002217.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002218.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002219.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002220.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002221.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002222.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002223.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002224.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002225.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002226.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002227.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002228.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002229.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002230.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002231.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002232.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002233.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002234.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002235.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002236.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002237.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002238.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002239.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002240.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002241.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002242.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002243.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002244.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002245.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002246.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002247.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002248.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002249.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002250.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002251.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002252.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002253.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002254.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002255.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002256.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002257.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002258.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002259.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002260.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002261.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002262.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002263.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002264.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002265.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002266.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002267.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002268.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002269.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002270.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002271.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002272.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002273.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002274.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002275.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002276.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002277.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002278.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002279.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002280.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002281.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002282.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002283.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002284.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002285.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002286.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002287.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002288.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002289.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002290.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002291.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002292.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002293.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002294.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002295.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002296.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002297.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002298.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002299.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002300.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002301.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002302.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002303.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002304.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002305.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002306.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002307.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002308.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002309.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002310.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002311.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002312.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002313.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002314.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002315.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002316.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002317.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002318.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002319.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002320.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002321.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002322.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002323.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002324.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002325.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002326.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002327.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002328.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002329.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002330.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002331.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002332.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002333.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002334.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002335.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002336.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002337.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002338.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002339.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002340.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002341.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002342.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002343.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002344.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002345.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002346.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002347.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002348.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002349.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002350.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002351.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002352.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002353.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002354.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002355.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002356.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002357.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002358.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002359.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002360.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002361.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002362.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002363.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002364.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002365.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002366.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002367.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002368.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002369.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002370.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002371.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002372.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002373.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002374.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002375.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002376.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002377.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002378.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002379.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002380.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002381.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002382.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002383.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002384.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002385.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002386.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002387.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002388.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002389.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002390.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002391.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002392.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002393.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002394.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002395.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002396.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002397.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002398.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002399.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002400.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002401.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002402.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002403.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002404.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002405.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002406.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002407.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002408.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002409.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002410.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002411.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002412.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002413.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002414.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002415.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002416.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002417.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002418.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002419.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002420.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002421.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002422.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002423.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002424.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002425.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002426.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002427.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002428.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002429.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002430.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002431.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002432.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002433.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002434.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002435.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002436.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002437.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002438.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002439.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002440.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002441.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002442.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002443.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002444.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002445.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002446.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002447.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002448.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002449.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002450.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002451.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002452.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002453.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002454.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002455.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002456.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002457.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002458.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002459.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002460.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002461.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002462.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002463.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002464.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002465.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002466.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002467.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002468.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002469.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002470.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002471.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002472.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002473.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002474.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002475.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002476.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002477.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002478.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002479.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002480.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002481.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002482.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002483.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002484.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002485.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002486.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002487.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002488.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002489.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002490.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002491.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002492.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002493.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002494.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002495.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002496.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002497.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002498.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002499.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002500.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002501.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002502.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002503.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002504.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002505.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002506.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002507.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002508.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002509.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002510.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002511.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002512.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002513.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002514.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002515.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002516.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002517.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002518.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002519.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002520.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002521.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002522.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002523.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002524.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002525.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002526.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002527.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002528.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002529.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002530.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002531.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002532.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002533.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002534.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002535.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002536.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002537.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002538.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002539.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002540.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002541.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002542.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002543.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002544.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002545.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002546.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002547.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002548.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002549.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002550.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002551.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002552.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002553.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002554.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002555.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002556.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002557.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002558.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002559.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002560.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002561.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002562.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002563.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002564.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002565.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002566.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002567.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002568.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002569.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002570.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002571.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002572.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002573.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002574.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002575.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002576.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002577.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002578.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002579.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002580.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002581.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002582.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002583.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002584.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002585.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002586.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002587.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002588.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002589.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002590.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002591.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002592.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002593.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002594.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002595.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002596.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002597.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002598.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002599.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002600.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002601.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002602.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002603.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002604.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002605.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002606.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002607.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002608.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002609.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002610.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002611.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002612.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002613.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002614.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002615.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002616.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002617.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002618.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002619.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002620.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002621.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002622.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002623.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002624.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002625.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002626.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002627.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002628.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002629.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002630.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002631.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002632.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002633.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002634.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002635.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002636.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002637.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002638.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002639.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002640.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002641.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002642.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002643.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002644.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002645.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002646.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002647.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002648.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002649.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002650.soc | 10 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002651.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002652.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002653.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002654.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002655.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002656.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002657.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002658.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002659.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002660.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002661.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002662.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002663.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002664.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002665.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002666.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002667.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002668.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002669.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002670.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002671.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002672.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002673.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002674.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002675.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002676.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002677.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002678.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002679.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002680.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002681.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002682.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002683.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002684.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002685.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002686.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002687.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002688.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002689.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002690.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002691.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002692.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002693.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002694.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002695.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002696.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002697.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002698.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002699.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002700.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002701.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002702.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002703.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002704.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002705.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002706.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002707.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002708.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002709.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002710.soc | 8 +- datasets/00070 - habermas/metadata.csv | 5420 +++++++++--------- 2711 files changed, 13679 insertions(+), 13679 deletions(-) diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000001.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000001.soc index f18f8647..dd4b487f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000001.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000001.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the citizen's jury felt that the current school system in New Zealand was in need of a major overhaul. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Citizen's Jury -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should receive sex education in school, parents should not be allowed to opt out of this education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the citizen's jury felt that the current school system in New Zealand was in need of a major overhaul. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Citizen's Jury +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should receive sex education in school, parents should not be allowed to opt out of this education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. 5: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000002.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000002.soc index 7022be88..ddd30ee9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000002.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000002.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. Parents may not have the time to sit down and talk about sex education or may not have the right information to give their children. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. Parents may not have the time to sit down and talk about sex education or may not have the right information to give their children. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is spoken about at home. We are living in a society where sex and sexual orientation are more accepted and are becoming more common. Sex education can give children the tools and knowledge they need to be safe in sexual situations and it can help them understand themselves better. We all feel that if children were not to get sex education in school then they would be missing out on something very important that they will use in their lives and will help them to be safe. We feel that parents should not be allowed to opt their children out of sex education, as it is such a vital part of growing up and learning how to keep yourself safe. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000003.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000003.soc index 5ef9d371..4e10b5e5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000003.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000003.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Wolves have a part to play in nature. They are part of the food chain and would not be there if they didn't. If wolves are introduced back into the highlands then it would help to control the deer population which would also help other animals and plants. There would be concerns for the farming community but hopefully there would be a way to compensate them if they lost livestock. If the Scottish government could prove that there would be a benefit for re-introducing wolves then I think it should happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In Scotland, the forests are now over populated with deer, which is causing major damage to the environment. The over population of deer are causing damage to forests and not allowing new trees and plants to grow. By reintroducing wolves back into Scotland would help control the deer population. The wolves would not only eat the deer but also small rodents which would cause more damage to the forests. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I am not in favour of reintroducing wolves to the Scottish Highlands, as it is likely to be detrimental to other species and could result in substantial losses to farmers.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The jury was divided on this topic, but after a good debate we all agreed that we need to introduce more predators in the Highlands to deal with the over population of deer. We all agreed that the population of deer should be reduced. However, we also discussed how other factors might affect the reintroduction of wolves, such as the effect on other wildlife. A few of us felt that it was not a straightforward decision, and that we should wait to see the effects of the Scottish government's latest measures to control deer populations before making a decision on whether to reintroduce wolves or other predators. However, we felt that the government needs to start thinking about these issues now so that if the population of deer does not fall, they have a back up plan. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Wolves have a part to play in nature. They are part of the food chain and would not be there if they didn't. If wolves are introduced back into the highlands then it would help to control the deer population which would also help other animals and plants. There would be concerns for the farming community but hopefully there would be a way to compensate them if they lost livestock. If the Scottish government could prove that there would be a benefit for re-introducing wolves then I think it should happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In Scotland, the forests are now over populated with deer, which is causing major damage to the environment. The over population of deer are causing damage to forests and not allowing new trees and plants to grow. By reintroducing wolves back into Scotland would help control the deer population. The wolves would not only eat the deer but also small rodents which would cause more damage to the forests. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I am not in favour of reintroducing wolves to the Scottish Highlands, as it is likely to be detrimental to other species and could result in substantial losses to farmers.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The jury was divided on this topic, but after a good debate we all agreed that we need to introduce more predators in the Highlands to deal with the over population of deer. We all agreed that the population of deer should be reduced. However, we also discussed how other factors might affect the reintroduction of wolves, such as the effect on other wildlife. A few of us felt that it was not a straightforward decision, and that we should wait to see the effects of the Scottish government's latest measures to control deer populations before making a decision on whether to reintroduce wolves or other predators. However, we felt that the government needs to start thinking about these issues now so that if the population of deer does not fall, they have a back up plan. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000004.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000004.soc index a75a26e0..add46106 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000004.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000004.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Inequality in society is increasing and there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. This can be seen in wages, housing and many other areas of society. The effects of this inequality are being felt by people of all classes and ages. The government is not doing enough to address the growing inequality gap in the UK. We believe that inequality needs to be addressed more and we suggest the following steps: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government is not doing enough to address the inequality gap. Although austerity has negatively impacted all sections of society, its effect has been disproportionately worse on the poorest. Therefore, we think that the government needs to reduce austerity measures and increase funding to public services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the government is not doing enough to address the growing inequality gap. They are not being radical enough and are relying too much on the charity sector and individualised behaviour change. It needs to be a political issue, it needs to be raised in parliament and the government needs to accept the responsibility of having created the environment that led to it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government is not doing enough to address the growing inequality gap and needs to make a greater effort to introduce more progressive taxation and equal pay policies for women and minorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Inequality in society is increasing and there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. This can be seen in wages, housing and many other areas of society. The effects of this inequality are being felt by people of all classes and ages. The government is not doing enough to address the growing inequality gap in the UK. We believe that inequality needs to be addressed more and we suggest the following steps: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government is not doing enough to address the inequality gap. Although austerity has negatively impacted all sections of society, its effect has been disproportionately worse on the poorest. Therefore, we think that the government needs to reduce austerity measures and increase funding to public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the government is not doing enough to address the growing inequality gap. They are not being radical enough and are relying too much on the charity sector and individualised behaviour change. It needs to be a political issue, it needs to be raised in parliament and the government needs to accept the responsibility of having created the environment that led to it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government is not doing enough to address the growing inequality gap and needs to make a greater effort to introduce more progressive taxation and equal pay policies for women and minorities. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000005.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000005.soc index b8598174..f90bc10a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000005.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000005.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should spend more on science and technology research as this would lead to better technology and medical discoveries to help the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the government should spend more on science and technology research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the citizens were in favour of increasing science and technology research but their opinion was strongly influenced by their experience. Some were sceptical because of their experience of the existing situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, yes the government should spend more on science and technology research. However, this should be done with accountability and transparency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should spend more on science and technology research as this would lead to better technology and medical discoveries to help the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the government should spend more on science and technology research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the citizens were in favour of increasing science and technology research but their opinion was strongly influenced by their experience. Some were sceptical because of their experience of the existing situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, yes the government should spend more on science and technology research. However, this should be done with accountability and transparency. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000006.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000006.soc index 0d1a5c1b..5ff8e862 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000006.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000006.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although Churchill was a divisive figure, he was instrumental in defeating the Nazi's in WW2 and also served as prime minister twice in the UK. Churchill was key in fighting against fascism and should be commended for his actions in this regard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, Britain should not remove the statue of Winston Churchill from Parliament Square. Churchill was instrumental in ensuring that the Nazi's were defeated in world war 2 and he should therefore be given credit for that. However, he also made some bad errors when it came to the famine in Bhopal which led to millions of people dying. Also, he allowed Kenyan people to be tortured. I therefore believe that he did some good and bad things and consequently do not have a strong opinion on whether he should be glorified or not. A statue is in any case not something I personally care much about. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Winston Churchill was a hero of the Second World War, and although we acknowledge that he has been responsible for racist views, removing his statue is not the right thing to do, because he is an important part of British history. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The citizen's jury accepts that Winston Churchill was instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany and is a hugely significant part of British history. We also accept that his actions during the Bengal famine were wrong and led to a huge loss of life. The citizen's jury is split on the idea of Churchill as a hero but accepts that the statue should remain in place to recognise Churchill's impact on British history. We are happy to keep it but believe that the plaque attached to the statue should be changed to include information about Churchill's actions in Bengal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although Churchill was a divisive figure, he was instrumental in defeating the Nazi's in WW2 and also served as prime minister twice in the UK. Churchill was key in fighting against fascism and should be commended for his actions in this regard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, Britain should not remove the statue of Winston Churchill from Parliament Square. Churchill was instrumental in ensuring that the Nazi's were defeated in world war 2 and he should therefore be given credit for that. However, he also made some bad errors when it came to the famine in Bhopal which led to millions of people dying. Also, he allowed Kenyan people to be tortured. I therefore believe that he did some good and bad things and consequently do not have a strong opinion on whether he should be glorified or not. A statue is in any case not something I personally care much about. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Winston Churchill was a hero of the Second World War, and although we acknowledge that he has been responsible for racist views, removing his statue is not the right thing to do, because he is an important part of British history. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The citizen's jury accepts that Winston Churchill was instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany and is a hugely significant part of British history. We also accept that his actions during the Bengal famine were wrong and led to a huge loss of life. The citizen's jury is split on the idea of Churchill as a hero but accepts that the statue should remain in place to recognise Churchill's impact on British history. We are happy to keep it but believe that the plaque attached to the statue should be changed to include information about Churchill's actions in Bengal. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000007.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000007.soc index 7aa6587f..b75773e1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000007.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000007.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should spend more on science and technology research. The government should do this as this will lead to the development of more innovative technology and medical discoveries which will benefit the world. This may include new medical treatments to help prevent or fight diseases which will result in people living longer and happier lives. New technology will also help the country to progress by making our daily lives more efficient, productive and sustainable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should spend more on science and technology research. This would result in new discoveries and developments in technology and medical fields which would make life better for everyone. The government could invest in climate change technology or new medical research which would help the world and improve everyone's lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: More money should be spent on science and technology research. Not only would this lead to better technology and medical discoveries to help the world, but it would also create jobs for the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should spend more on science and technology research as this would lead to better technology and medical discoveries to help the world. This would provide more jobs for the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should spend more on science and technology research. The government should do this as this will lead to the development of more innovative technology and medical discoveries which will benefit the world. This may include new medical treatments to help prevent or fight diseases which will result in people living longer and happier lives. New technology will also help the country to progress by making our daily lives more efficient, productive and sustainable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should spend more on science and technology research. This would result in new discoveries and developments in technology and medical fields which would make life better for everyone. The government could invest in climate change technology or new medical research which would help the world and improve everyone's lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - More money should be spent on science and technology research. Not only would this lead to better technology and medical discoveries to help the world, but it would also create jobs for the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should spend more on science and technology research as this would lead to better technology and medical discoveries to help the world. This would provide more jobs for the UK. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000008.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000008.soc index 77f2f6ee..7e32afc4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000008.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000008.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Citizen's Jury -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The law should remain unchanged. However, the dangers of feeding dogs chocolate should be highlighted in a public awareness campaign. Furthermore, the law should be reviewed in 5 years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No. It would be difficult to enforce. The law already covers cases where a person deliberately causes harm to their dog by giving it chocolate. If the chocolate was accidental and a vet was required to treat the dog for the consequences, it could be argued that the dog owner was at fault for not keeping the chocolate out of reach of their dog. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it should not be a criminal offence to feed your dog chocolate. Chocolate is toxic to dogs but we don't think that it should be a criminal offence to feed your dog chocolate. Although we do think that there should be more warning labels on the wrappers of chocolate bars and the like. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Citizen's Jury +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The law should remain unchanged. However, the dangers of feeding dogs chocolate should be highlighted in a public awareness campaign. Furthermore, the law should be reviewed in 5 years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No. It would be difficult to enforce. The law already covers cases where a person deliberately causes harm to their dog by giving it chocolate. If the chocolate was accidental and a vet was required to treat the dog for the consequences, it could be argued that the dog owner was at fault for not keeping the chocolate out of reach of their dog. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it should not be a criminal offence to feed your dog chocolate. Chocolate is toxic to dogs but we don't think that it should be a criminal offence to feed your dog chocolate. Although we do think that there should be more warning labels on the wrappers of chocolate bars and the like. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000009.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000009.soc index 69156eca..867cabc4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000009.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000009.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum as this ensures that there is a fair system for people to access the radio frequency spectrum and it prevents an unfair situation where a few businesses take control of the radio frequency spectrum. It also ensures that there are a variety of programmes on the radio which will allow for different groups to have their views expressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the citizens were surprised by how much the issue of licensing the radio frequency spectrum for the public was dominated by two issues - radio and television. The citizens felt that this was narrowing the scope of the question and were keen to broaden it to include all uses of radio frequency spectrum. Once this was done the citizens felt that the UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum for the general public. The citizens were pleased with the idea of the 'digital dividend' that would be generated by the auctioning of parts of the radio frequency spectrum and felt that it was good to know that the public would be able to benefit from the sale of these licenses. However, the citizens felt that it would be important to ensure that the costs of these licenses was not so high that they would put off small businesses or individuals from buying a license and that any new license should not be so open to interpretation that it would allow the existing licensees to use it to drive out their competitors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should continue to license radio frequency spectrum for use by the general public, because it would not be fair to allow private businesses to take up the whole spectrum. The licence should be taken away if it stops being useful for the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum for public use, however we do not think it is being fully utilised and should be reviewed. This should be done to avoid a waste of resource, but also to ensure that citizens continue to have access to a varied range of radio and TV broadcasting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum as this ensures that there is a fair system for people to access the radio frequency spectrum and it prevents an unfair situation where a few businesses take control of the radio frequency spectrum. It also ensures that there are a variety of programmes on the radio which will allow for different groups to have their views expressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the citizens were surprised by how much the issue of licensing the radio frequency spectrum for the public was dominated by two issues - radio and television. The citizens felt that this was narrowing the scope of the question and were keen to broaden it to include all uses of radio frequency spectrum. Once this was done the citizens felt that the UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum for the general public. The citizens were pleased with the idea of the 'digital dividend' that would be generated by the auctioning of parts of the radio frequency spectrum and felt that it was good to know that the public would be able to benefit from the sale of these licenses. However, the citizens felt that it would be important to ensure that the costs of these licenses was not so high that they would put off small businesses or individuals from buying a license and that any new license should not be so open to interpretation that it would allow the existing licensees to use it to drive out their competitors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should continue to license radio frequency spectrum for use by the general public, because it would not be fair to allow private businesses to take up the whole spectrum. The licence should be taken away if it stops being useful for the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum for public use, however we do not think it is being fully utilised and should be reviewed. This should be done to avoid a waste of resource, but also to ensure that citizens continue to have access to a varied range of radio and TV broadcasting. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000010.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000010.soc index e345e3a1..18f44a42 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000010.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000010.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Citizen's Jury -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The citizen's jury agreed that they would like to see a living wage but felt that a set living wage would cause more problems than it would solve. The jury discussed that the living wage is a set amount and is therefore an average. This means that some people would get a lower living wage and others would get a higher living wage. Some members of the jury thought that if people got more than the living wage, then this would be a disincentive to work harder and could result in the whole system of working to be undermined. If people got less than the living wage, this would be seen as unfair. Instead, the jury thought that we should encourage employers to pay higher wages by increasing the minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Businesses should pay a living wage for employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies should be required to pay a living wage, for the following reasons: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Citizen's Jury +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The citizen's jury agreed that they would like to see a living wage but felt that a set living wage would cause more problems than it would solve. The jury discussed that the living wage is a set amount and is therefore an average. This means that some people would get a lower living wage and others would get a higher living wage. Some members of the jury thought that if people got more than the living wage, then this would be a disincentive to work harder and could result in the whole system of working to be undermined. If people got less than the living wage, this would be seen as unfair. Instead, the jury thought that we should encourage employers to pay higher wages by increasing the minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Businesses should pay a living wage for employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies should be required to pay a living wage, for the following reasons: 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000011.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000011.soc index e16cc11d..e2cbb710 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000011.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000011.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While we were against a sugar tax, we agreed that we should encourage healthier eating and we think this can be done by working with the food industry to improve food labelling to show how much sugar is in each product and to reduce the sugar in food. We also agreed that the government should invest in healthy cooking programmes, particularly for young people. We think that the government should also look at how to make healthy food cheaper than junk food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the jury recognised that taxing sugary foods is a very broad measure, and that it would not directly influence peoples' behaviour, it could be used to provide a wider platform for more targeted public health campaigns and to raise money for them. The jury also believed that a sugar tax would not address the core issue, which is that processed foods are too cheap. A better approach would be to use the tax as a catalyst to lower the price of fresh fruit and vegetables and wholemeal bread and increase its availability in poorer areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Citizen's Jury -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Taxing sugary foods would be a good way to encourage healthier eating. This will only be effective if the tax revenue is used to reduce the cost of healthy food and if sugar-free alternatives are promoted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While we were against a sugar tax, we agreed that we should encourage healthier eating and we think this can be done by working with the food industry to improve food labelling to show how much sugar is in each product and to reduce the sugar in food. We also agreed that the government should invest in healthy cooking programmes, particularly for young people. We think that the government should also look at how to make healthy food cheaper than junk food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the jury recognised that taxing sugary foods is a very broad measure, and that it would not directly influence peoples' behaviour, it could be used to provide a wider platform for more targeted public health campaigns and to raise money for them. The jury also believed that a sugar tax would not address the core issue, which is that processed foods are too cheap. A better approach would be to use the tax as a catalyst to lower the price of fresh fruit and vegetables and wholemeal bread and increase its availability in poorer areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Citizen's Jury +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Taxing sugary foods would be a good way to encourage healthier eating. This will only be effective if the tax revenue is used to reduce the cost of healthy food and if sugar-free alternatives are promoted. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000012.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000012.soc index d8d25472..0815684e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000012.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000012.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum. Licensing the radio frequency spectrum ensures that the radio frequency spectrum is not monopolised by large businesses and it ensures that there is a variety of programmes on the radio which allows for different groups to have their views expressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum as this ensures that there is a fair system for people to access the radio frequency spectrum and it prevents an unfair situation where a few businesses take control of the radio frequency spectrum. It also ensures that there are a variety of programmes on the radio which will allow for different groups to have their views expressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum. The licence fee ensures that the public are provided with a wide variety of programmes. The licence fee also helps to ensure that large businesses do not control all of the radio frequency spectrum and that small businesses and the public have a fair chance to use the radio frequency spectrum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum. Licensing ensures that there is a fair system for people to access the radio frequency spectrum and it prevents an unfair situation where a few businesses take control of the radio frequency spectrum. It also ensures that there are a variety of programmes on the radio which will allow for different groups to have their views expressed. However, a review should be undertaken of how the licensing is currently managed and whether it meets the needs of the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum. Licensing the radio frequency spectrum ensures that the radio frequency spectrum is not monopolised by large businesses and it ensures that there is a variety of programmes on the radio which allows for different groups to have their views expressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum as this ensures that there is a fair system for people to access the radio frequency spectrum and it prevents an unfair situation where a few businesses take control of the radio frequency spectrum. It also ensures that there are a variety of programmes on the radio which will allow for different groups to have their views expressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum. The licence fee ensures that the public are provided with a wide variety of programmes. The licence fee also helps to ensure that large businesses do not control all of the radio frequency spectrum and that small businesses and the public have a fair chance to use the radio frequency spectrum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should continue to license the radio frequency spectrum. Licensing ensures that there is a fair system for people to access the radio frequency spectrum and it prevents an unfair situation where a few businesses take control of the radio frequency spectrum. It also ensures that there are a variety of programmes on the radio which will allow for different groups to have their views expressed. However, a review should be undertaken of how the licensing is currently managed and whether it meets the needs of the general public. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000013.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000013.soc index e76fcaec..30a2d3e4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000013.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000013.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Most of the jury would like to see a living wage but feel that a set living wage would cause more problems than it would solve. Instead, we should encourage employers to pay higher wages by increasing the minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a set living wage, as it will increase the quality of life of those who receive it. A higher minimum wage would also help increase the living wage, but it would be more useful to set a living wage. It is important that a living wage is set, so that everyone receives the same amount of money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The citizen's jury thought that a set living wage would cause more problems than it would solve. The jury discussed that the living wage is a set amount and is therefore an average. This means that some people would get a lower living wage and others would get a higher living wage. Some members of the jury thought that if people got more than the living wage, then this would be a disincentive to work harder and could result in the whole system of working to be undermined. If people got less than the living wage, this would be seen as unfair. Instead, the jury thought that we should encourage employers to pay higher wages by increasing the minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The citizen's jury agreed that they would like to see a living wage but felt that a set living wage would cause more problems than it would solve. The jury discussed that the living wage is a set amount and is therefore an average. This means that some people would get a lower living wage and others would get a higher living wage. Some members of the jury thought that if people got more than the living wage, then this would be a disincentive to work harder and could result in the whole system of working to be undermined. If people got less than the living wage, this would be seen as unfair. Instead, the jury thought that we should encourage employers to pay higher wages by increasing the minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Most of the jury would like to see a living wage but feel that a set living wage would cause more problems than it would solve. Instead, we should encourage employers to pay higher wages by increasing the minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a set living wage, as it will increase the quality of life of those who receive it. A higher minimum wage would also help increase the living wage, but it would be more useful to set a living wage. It is important that a living wage is set, so that everyone receives the same amount of money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The citizen's jury thought that a set living wage would cause more problems than it would solve. The jury discussed that the living wage is a set amount and is therefore an average. This means that some people would get a lower living wage and others would get a higher living wage. Some members of the jury thought that if people got more than the living wage, then this would be a disincentive to work harder and could result in the whole system of working to be undermined. If people got less than the living wage, this would be seen as unfair. Instead, the jury thought that we should encourage employers to pay higher wages by increasing the minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The citizen's jury agreed that they would like to see a living wage but felt that a set living wage would cause more problems than it would solve. The jury discussed that the living wage is a set amount and is therefore an average. This means that some people would get a lower living wage and others would get a higher living wage. Some members of the jury thought that if people got more than the living wage, then this would be a disincentive to work harder and could result in the whole system of working to be undermined. If people got less than the living wage, this would be seen as unfair. Instead, the jury thought that we should encourage employers to pay higher wages by increasing the minimum wage. 2: 2,4,3,1 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000014.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000014.soc index 8a65d5da..4394f5d1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000014.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000014.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A fixed tax should be applied to any wealth above £10 million, however we do not want to set this fixed amount of tax too high that it puts wealthy individuals off from living here, investing here and spending money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the citizens were in favour of a tax above a certain wealth level and argued that the very wealthy should pay a greater contribution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should require people to pay a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the government should introduce a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million. This tax should be at least one percent per year on the amount of wealth above £10 million. It would help to close the gap between the richest and poorest in our society, would provide the government with extra funds to use in the public sector, and would help to level the playing field for entrepreneurs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A fixed tax should be applied to any wealth above £10 million, however we do not want to set this fixed amount of tax too high that it puts wealthy individuals off from living here, investing here and spending money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the citizens were in favour of a tax above a certain wealth level and argued that the very wealthy should pay a greater contribution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should require people to pay a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the government should introduce a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million. This tax should be at least one percent per year on the amount of wealth above £10 million. It would help to close the gap between the richest and poorest in our society, would provide the government with extra funds to use in the public sector, and would help to level the playing field for entrepreneurs. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000015.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000015.soc index 960d32e5..4ad88e2a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000015.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000015.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but is also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Question: Should we ban all smoking in public places? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban smoking in all public places. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Smoking should be banned in all public places. The health of everyone is more important than the rights of a few to damage the health of others by their habit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but is also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Question: Should we ban all smoking in public places? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban smoking in all public places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Smoking should be banned in all public places. The health of everyone is more important than the rights of a few to damage the health of others by their habit. 5: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000016.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000016.soc index 91e84b5e..1fcb5204 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000016.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000016.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think that we should require all companies with over 100 employees to publish data on their pay gap between women and men. We believe that there are many reasons why women earn less than men. For example, women are more likely to take time off work to look after children. They are more likely to take a career break etc... As such, the mere fact that a woman earns less than a man is insufficient in determining whether discrimination is taking place. To publish this data would not take the above into consideration and could make a company come across as sexist. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should require all companies with over 100 employees to publish data on their pay gap between women and men but that it is the percentage of the gender pay gap not the amount that they are paid that is the issue. The jury came to the view that publishing actual pay for individuals was a breach of privacy and that it could be misused by competitors for example. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a requirement for all companies to disclose data on the pay gap between men and women, but only in general terms and not for specific jobs. It is important to monitor whether inequality exists. We do not think it should be mandatory to publish individual's salaries. It is crucial that women are valued in the same way as men, and we think that this data would help towards that goal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Citizen's Jury +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think that we should require all companies with over 100 employees to publish data on their pay gap between women and men. We believe that there are many reasons why women earn less than men. For example, women are more likely to take time off work to look after children. They are more likely to take a career break etc... As such, the mere fact that a woman earns less than a man is insufficient in determining whether discrimination is taking place. To publish this data would not take the above into consideration and could make a company come across as sexist. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should require all companies with over 100 employees to publish data on their pay gap between women and men but that it is the percentage of the gender pay gap not the amount that they are paid that is the issue. The jury came to the view that publishing actual pay for individuals was a breach of privacy and that it could be misused by competitors for example. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a requirement for all companies to disclose data on the pay gap between men and women, but only in general terms and not for specific jobs. It is important to monitor whether inequality exists. We do not think it should be mandatory to publish individual's salaries. It is crucial that women are valued in the same way as men, and we think that this data would help towards that goal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Citizen's Jury 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000017.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000017.soc index fca1fe13..61576b97 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000017.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000017.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but is also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Smoking in public places should be banned as it is not only harmful to the smoker, but also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but is also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but is also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. However, in some large, outdoor public places, smoking should be permitted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but is also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Smoking in public places should be banned as it is not only harmful to the smoker, but also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but is also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker, but is also an unethical health hazard to others nearby. The effects of smoking on the health of those nearby are immediate and long term. There is evidence to support this. Banning smoking in public places would significantly decrease the level of passive smoking by reducing exposure of non-smokers to toxic fumes. However, in some large, outdoor public places, smoking should be permitted. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000018.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000018.soc index 2ab5ce62..2ba86c3e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000018.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000018.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a requirement for all companies to publish data on the pay gap between men and women. The published data should not be in specific terms and should take into consideration factors such as hours worked. The published data would help to facilitate transparency and could contribute to future policies that may help to address gender inequality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that it would be useful to require companies to disclose general information on the pay gap between men and women. We think that this information could lead to a more equal approach to salaries. We do not think that it should be mandatory to publish individual's salaries, as this would be an unnecessary invasion of privacy. We do not think that the definition of gender should be made clearer. There are too many people who are neither male or female. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not think that companies should be required to publish data on the pay gap between men and women as there are many reasons why men are paid more than women (they often work more hours than women, for example). A pay gap is not in itself proof that discrimination is taking place. We believe that it is important to publish the overall number of men and women in each job category (such as administration, management, etc.) but not the actual salaries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a requirement for all companies to publish data on the pay gap between men and women. There should be a breakdown of the figures for specific jobs. However, the data should not include details of individual's salaries. It is crucial that women are valued in the same way as men, and we think that this data would help towards that goal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a requirement for all companies to publish data on the pay gap between men and women. The published data should not be in specific terms and should take into consideration factors such as hours worked. The published data would help to facilitate transparency and could contribute to future policies that may help to address gender inequality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that it would be useful to require companies to disclose general information on the pay gap between men and women. We think that this information could lead to a more equal approach to salaries. We do not think that it should be mandatory to publish individual's salaries, as this would be an unnecessary invasion of privacy. We do not think that the definition of gender should be made clearer. There are too many people who are neither male or female. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not think that companies should be required to publish data on the pay gap between men and women as there are many reasons why men are paid more than women (they often work more hours than women, for example). A pay gap is not in itself proof that discrimination is taking place. We believe that it is important to publish the overall number of men and women in each job category (such as administration, management, etc.) but not the actual salaries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a requirement for all companies to publish data on the pay gap between men and women. There should be a breakdown of the figures for specific jobs. However, the data should not include details of individual's salaries. It is crucial that women are valued in the same way as men, and we think that this data would help towards that goal. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000019.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000019.soc index c606ca2a..a5f03900 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000019.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000019.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “History is a beautiful part of human life, and in many ways, we can learn a lot from the past. This is why it is important to preserve old buildings and historical places. There is an interesting past behind each of them and it would be a shame to lose that, it is something that future generations should be able to learn from. ” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important to preserve old buildings and historical places because they are part of the culture and heritage of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is important to preserve old buildings and historical places because they are important in their own right as well as a good source of tourism revenue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The preservation of old buildings is important as it maintains the history and heritage of a country. It keeps people interested in the past. Old buildings make good tourist attractions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “History is a beautiful part of human life, and in many ways, we can learn a lot from the past. This is why it is important to preserve old buildings and historical places. There is an interesting past behind each of them and it would be a shame to lose that, it is something that future generations should be able to learn from. ” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important to preserve old buildings and historical places because they are part of the culture and heritage of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is important to preserve old buildings and historical places because they are important in their own right as well as a good source of tourism revenue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The preservation of old buildings is important as it maintains the history and heritage of a country. It keeps people interested in the past. Old buildings make good tourist attractions. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000020.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000020.soc index 5f4211e6..75c20c0c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000020.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000020.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The world is a fascinating place, full of beautiful buildings and historical places. Many of these buildings and places were built a long time ago and hold an important past behind them. The past is a beautiful part of human life, and in many ways, we can learn a lot from the past. This is why it is important to preserve old buildings and historical places. They are beautiful to look at and give a nice ambience to a town. There is an interesting past behind each of them and it would be a shame to lose that, it is something that future generations should be able to learn from. Not only is it important to preserve these old buildings for ourselves, but also for the tourism industry. Many people come to our country to look at our beautiful castles and historical buildings and places. The tourism industry generates a lot of revenue for our country, so it is important to preserve our buildings and places to make sure that this continues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “History is a beautiful part of human life, and in many ways, we can learn a lot from the past. This is why it is important to preserve old buildings and historical places. There is an interesting past behind each of them and it would be a shame to lose that, it is something that future generations should be able to learn from. Also, this preserves something for tourists to see, which generates income for the country. ” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “History is a beautiful part of human life, and in many ways, we can learn a lot from the past. This is why it is important to preserve old buildings and historical places. There is an interesting past behind each of them and it would be a shame to lose that, it is something that future generations should be able to learn from. It is also a way to promote tourism in the country, and to show a sense of pride to those living in the community.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “It is important to preserve old buildings and historical places because they are part of the history of our nation, and future generations can learn from them. In addition, old buildings and historical places are beautiful and should be preserved for the benefit of our tourism industry.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The world is a fascinating place, full of beautiful buildings and historical places. Many of these buildings and places were built a long time ago and hold an important past behind them. The past is a beautiful part of human life, and in many ways, we can learn a lot from the past. This is why it is important to preserve old buildings and historical places. They are beautiful to look at and give a nice ambience to a town. There is an interesting past behind each of them and it would be a shame to lose that, it is something that future generations should be able to learn from. Not only is it important to preserve these old buildings for ourselves, but also for the tourism industry. Many people come to our country to look at our beautiful castles and historical buildings and places. The tourism industry generates a lot of revenue for our country, so it is important to preserve our buildings and places to make sure that this continues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “History is a beautiful part of human life, and in many ways, we can learn a lot from the past. This is why it is important to preserve old buildings and historical places. There is an interesting past behind each of them and it would be a shame to lose that, it is something that future generations should be able to learn from. Also, this preserves something for tourists to see, which generates income for the country. ” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “History is a beautiful part of human life, and in many ways, we can learn a lot from the past. This is why it is important to preserve old buildings and historical places. There is an interesting past behind each of them and it would be a shame to lose that, it is something that future generations should be able to learn from. It is also a way to promote tourism in the country, and to show a sense of pride to those living in the community.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “It is important to preserve old buildings and historical places because they are part of the history of our nation, and future generations can learn from them. In addition, old buildings and historical places are beautiful and should be preserved for the benefit of our tourism industry.” 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000021.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000021.soc index 9b306424..13137e79 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000021.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000021.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the UK government should not subsidize local football clubs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group came to the consensus view that football clubs should be supported by the government because they create a sense of community and pride and support good mental health. They create a welcoming environment and support small local businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't believe that the UK government should subsidize local football clubs. Firstly, football clubs are successful businesses in themselves. Secondly, we are of the opinion that the government should not subsidize a luxury, but rather provide the necessary services to the people. The people's money should go towards things that the community as a whole can benefit from, rather than just a small group of individuals. We are of the opinion that money is better spent on necessities and services that the government are responsible for providing. We believe that local football clubs have the means to fund themselves. If this were to happen it could lead to a situation where the local government subsidizes the football clubs and then the football clubs become more important than the people. This would not be good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK government should not subsidize local football clubs. However, if the club is doing a good job in their local community then it could be considered as a worthy case to be given money. This would also need to be decided by the local people in the area. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the UK government should not subsidize local football clubs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group came to the consensus view that football clubs should be supported by the government because they create a sense of community and pride and support good mental health. They create a welcoming environment and support small local businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't believe that the UK government should subsidize local football clubs. Firstly, football clubs are successful businesses in themselves. Secondly, we are of the opinion that the government should not subsidize a luxury, but rather provide the necessary services to the people. The people's money should go towards things that the community as a whole can benefit from, rather than just a small group of individuals. We are of the opinion that money is better spent on necessities and services that the government are responsible for providing. We believe that local football clubs have the means to fund themselves. If this were to happen it could lead to a situation where the local government subsidizes the football clubs and then the football clubs become more important than the people. This would not be good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK government should not subsidize local football clubs. However, if the club is doing a good job in their local community then it could be considered as a worthy case to be given money. This would also need to be decided by the local people in the area. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000022.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000022.soc index 3917b858..f9f84b1b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000022.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000022.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should have to opt out of organ donation. The reasons for this is that there is a severe shortage of organs, and this means that it is difficult to find donors and those who do donate often come from ethnic minorities. Many people don't know that you have to opt out, and so the number of people who opt out is significantly lower than the number of people who would have opted out if they knew. This means that people who have a right to their organs are not having them returned to them after death. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, we think that the bodies of the dead should not be violated in any way for the purposes of transplanting organs to save lives. However, if the person is not known to have been against it during his/her lifetime, and his/her family members are also not against it, then we think it is ok to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should be allowed to donate organs from the dead to save lives because these organs are no longer needed by the dead. Furthermore, the donors families should be informed of the decision to donate their loved ones organs. This is to allow the donor's family to participate in the donation process and aid the grieving process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should be allowed to donate organs from the dead to save lives, as it is more important to save lives than to let them go to waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should have to opt out of organ donation. The reasons for this is that there is a severe shortage of organs, and this means that it is difficult to find donors and those who do donate often come from ethnic minorities. Many people don't know that you have to opt out, and so the number of people who opt out is significantly lower than the number of people who would have opted out if they knew. This means that people who have a right to their organs are not having them returned to them after death. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, we think that the bodies of the dead should not be violated in any way for the purposes of transplanting organs to save lives. However, if the person is not known to have been against it during his/her lifetime, and his/her family members are also not against it, then we think it is ok to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should be allowed to donate organs from the dead to save lives because these organs are no longer needed by the dead. Furthermore, the donors families should be informed of the decision to donate their loved ones organs. This is to allow the donor's family to participate in the donation process and aid the grieving process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should be allowed to donate organs from the dead to save lives, as it is more important to save lives than to let them go to waste. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000023.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000023.soc index 6d5c3043..ba000d5f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000023.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000023.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system because we are failing our children at the moment. This however doesn't just mean fill the classroom with teachers, they need to be skilled and paid the right salary especially with the cost of living crisis. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that there needs to be an increase in the number of teachers in the education system. We believe that the more teachers in the system the more attention each student will receive and the better the education will be. The debate on whether to increase the number of teachers in the education system is one that has long been argued in many countries around the world. This statement shows how groups can work together to come up with a consensual opinion even when the initial opinions of the participants differ widely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, yes we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system because if you are a teacher and you are teaching in a class of 25 students with 5 students that need attention to their learning disability, how are you going to teach the 20 other students? Also, if you are trying to teach in a class of 25 students and there are 5 students that are very smart and want to learn more, how are you going to teach them? Therefore, we need more teachers in the education system because students are different and some students need more attention and teachers need to be able to have a good student to teacher ratio so that they can spend the right amount of time with each student, so that each student has the best learning experience possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase the number of teachers in the education system as this would lead to smaller class sizes which will help to increase the attention given to each child. In order to attract teachers to the role, the government should increase their salary and provide the schools with more equipment and resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system because we are failing our children at the moment. This however doesn't just mean fill the classroom with teachers, they need to be skilled and paid the right salary especially with the cost of living crisis. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that there needs to be an increase in the number of teachers in the education system. We believe that the more teachers in the system the more attention each student will receive and the better the education will be. The debate on whether to increase the number of teachers in the education system is one that has long been argued in many countries around the world. This statement shows how groups can work together to come up with a consensual opinion even when the initial opinions of the participants differ widely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, yes we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system because if you are a teacher and you are teaching in a class of 25 students with 5 students that need attention to their learning disability, how are you going to teach the 20 other students? Also, if you are trying to teach in a class of 25 students and there are 5 students that are very smart and want to learn more, how are you going to teach them? Therefore, we need more teachers in the education system because students are different and some students need more attention and teachers need to be able to have a good student to teacher ratio so that they can spend the right amount of time with each student, so that each student has the best learning experience possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase the number of teachers in the education system as this would lead to smaller class sizes which will help to increase the attention given to each child. In order to attract teachers to the role, the government should increase their salary and provide the schools with more equipment and resources. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000024.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000024.soc index 1d4fa702..83101db7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000024.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000024.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system, however we need to make sure they are highly skilled and paid well. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system because we are failing our children at the moment. This however doesn't just mean fill the classroom with teachers, they need to be skilled and paid the right salary especially with the cost of living crisis. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system but not just for the sake of it. They need to be skilled and paid the right salary especially with the cost of living crisis. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system because we are failing our children at the moment. This however doesn't just mean fill the classroom with teachers, they need to be skilled and paid the right salary especially with the cost of living crisis. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system, however we need to make sure they are highly skilled and paid well. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system because we are failing our children at the moment. This however doesn't just mean fill the classroom with teachers, they need to be skilled and paid the right salary especially with the cost of living crisis. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system but not just for the sake of it. They need to be skilled and paid the right salary especially with the cost of living crisis. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we need to increase the number of teachers in the education system because we are failing our children at the moment. This however doesn't just mean fill the classroom with teachers, they need to be skilled and paid the right salary especially with the cost of living crisis. We also need to ensure that schools have enough equipment and are able to provide effective teaching. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000025.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000025.soc index 9ae741ba..d65cce09 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000025.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000025.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The world is rapidly changing in terms of technological advancement and electric cars are just one example of that. Electric cars are the best alternative to petrol-powered cars as they provide a good alternative to harmful fuels that pollute the air and are the leading cause of climate change. The creation of electric cars will hopefully create jobs and make the economy better for the country. However, it is essential that we continue to invest in public transport as it is often the better option for commuters and the more reliable and cheaper option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Electric cars are the best alternative to petrol-powered cars, when a car is absolutely necessary. In all other situations there are better alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Electric cars can be a better alternative to petrol cars if they are able to provide the driver with enough power for their driving requirements. Electric cars are more eco-friendly than petrol cars and may be a more convenient alternative if mass transit is not available for the specific journeys that they need to make. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Electric cars are a good alternative to petrol-powered cars but there is no perfect alternative to cars, it is more important to just reduce reliance on cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The world is rapidly changing in terms of technological advancement and electric cars are just one example of that. Electric cars are the best alternative to petrol-powered cars as they provide a good alternative to harmful fuels that pollute the air and are the leading cause of climate change. The creation of electric cars will hopefully create jobs and make the economy better for the country. However, it is essential that we continue to invest in public transport as it is often the better option for commuters and the more reliable and cheaper option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Electric cars are the best alternative to petrol-powered cars, when a car is absolutely necessary. In all other situations there are better alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Electric cars can be a better alternative to petrol cars if they are able to provide the driver with enough power for their driving requirements. Electric cars are more eco-friendly than petrol cars and may be a more convenient alternative if mass transit is not available for the specific journeys that they need to make. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Electric cars are a good alternative to petrol-powered cars but there is no perfect alternative to cars, it is more important to just reduce reliance on cars. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000026.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000026.soc index 6bac9327..cd601d0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000026.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000026.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. These products are not necessities and any increase in tax would reduce their use. Also the additional revenue could be used to provide more funding for the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health and societal costs of these products are well-known, and by making them more expensive, people will likely smoke and drink less. This is good for individuals and society as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, yes, more taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a good thing. The issue, however, is how this can be done. How can we create more tax revenue from these items without pushing people towards homebrewed alcohol and/or black market tobacco? If we don't consider these things, we may simply be encouraging more dangerous behaviour. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. These products are not necessities and any increase in tax would reduce their use. Also the additional revenue could be used to provide more funding for the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health and societal costs of these products are well-known, and by making them more expensive, people will likely smoke and drink less. This is good for individuals and society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, yes, more taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a good thing. The issue, however, is how this can be done. How can we create more tax revenue from these items without pushing people towards homebrewed alcohol and/or black market tobacco? If we don't consider these things, we may simply be encouraging more dangerous behaviour. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000027.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000027.soc index ad69a3e3..7e2d53ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000027.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000027.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should stop producing nuclear power. The reasons behind this is the fact that it is not a clean source of energy and is an expensive method of producing energy. It is also a difficult and dangerous method to dispose of nuclear waste. There are other ways that energy can be produced that are clean, efficient and can be easily disposed of. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I am not in favour of stopping nuclear power production in the UK because we rely too heavily on it and don't have any other options. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible in the future by investing in renewable energy technology.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of stopping the production of nuclear power. We had different opinions on when to stop, and what to replace it with. In order to replace it with renewable energy, we would have to drastically increase the number of wind turbines in the UK, and this would impact on the landscape. It would also take a while for this renewable energy to produce the same power output as the nuclear power plants do now. If nuclear power is stopped now, then it would be necessary to invest in green energy options. This would mean an increased use of solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal and hydroelectric power. This would mean more reliance on technology which could be problematic, and would mean that there would be an increase in the number of people using these methods of power, which would also increase the risk of them being stolen. A transition from nuclear to renewable energy would also need to be carried out over a longer period of time to allow the nation to adjust to the changes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should continue producing nuclear power in the UK. However, we should be using this power for medical reasons rather than just the power supply of homes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should stop producing nuclear power. The reasons behind this is the fact that it is not a clean source of energy and is an expensive method of producing energy. It is also a difficult and dangerous method to dispose of nuclear waste. There are other ways that energy can be produced that are clean, efficient and can be easily disposed of. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I am not in favour of stopping nuclear power production in the UK because we rely too heavily on it and don't have any other options. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible in the future by investing in renewable energy technology.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of stopping the production of nuclear power. We had different opinions on when to stop, and what to replace it with. In order to replace it with renewable energy, we would have to drastically increase the number of wind turbines in the UK, and this would impact on the landscape. It would also take a while for this renewable energy to produce the same power output as the nuclear power plants do now. If nuclear power is stopped now, then it would be necessary to invest in green energy options. This would mean an increased use of solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal and hydroelectric power. This would mean more reliance on technology which could be problematic, and would mean that there would be an increase in the number of people using these methods of power, which would also increase the risk of them being stolen. A transition from nuclear to renewable energy would also need to be carried out over a longer period of time to allow the nation to adjust to the changes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should continue producing nuclear power in the UK. However, we should be using this power for medical reasons rather than just the power supply of homes. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000028.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000028.soc index 3c05036a..3e9fa6e8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000028.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000028.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more government funding for primary schools. A well-funded education system is essential for a prosperous society. In the future, the world will be increasingly based on science and technology, therefore more government funding for primary schools should be a priority. The new funding could be used to invest in advanced teaching resources, to improve the quality of teaching, to improve the quality of teaching resources, and to reduce class sizes. If more government funding was to be invested into primary schools, there would be a knock-on effect in terms of benefits for society, such as lower crime rates, lower unemployment, and an increased proportion of the population being active in the community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be more government funding for primary schools. The government needs to provide the funding required for primary schools to ensure that children receive the best start in life. This includes but is not limited to books, equipment, resources, and staff. This will ensure that our children get the best education they can, thus improving the future of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: More funding is required to improve the learning experience of primary school children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “There should be more government funding for primary schools as this will enable the school to get better teaching resources and equipment. This will in turn allow the school to provide a higher standard of education to their students.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more government funding for primary schools. A well-funded education system is essential for a prosperous society. In the future, the world will be increasingly based on science and technology, therefore more government funding for primary schools should be a priority. The new funding could be used to invest in advanced teaching resources, to improve the quality of teaching, to improve the quality of teaching resources, and to reduce class sizes. If more government funding was to be invested into primary schools, there would be a knock-on effect in terms of benefits for society, such as lower crime rates, lower unemployment, and an increased proportion of the population being active in the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be more government funding for primary schools. The government needs to provide the funding required for primary schools to ensure that children receive the best start in life. This includes but is not limited to books, equipment, resources, and staff. This will ensure that our children get the best education they can, thus improving the future of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - More funding is required to improve the learning experience of primary school children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “There should be more government funding for primary schools as this will enable the school to get better teaching resources and equipment. This will in turn allow the school to provide a higher standard of education to their students.“ 5: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000029.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000029.soc index 28d31aac..634904a9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000029.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000029.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People who earn more than £1 million per year should not be taxed at a higher rate because people will be less likely to earn this if it means that they will be taxed at a higher rate and if this happens, the country will be worse off. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “After a debate that was made interesting by several participants, we all agree that those making over £1 million a year should be taxed at a higher rate. In order to help reduce the massive gap between rich and poor people. People on low incomes should pay less taxes and people on high incomes should pay more taxes.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be higher taxes for those earning over £1 million per year. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People who make over £1 million per year should be taxed at a higher rate because they can afford it and it is just that everyone contributes something. This higher tax rate could be used to increase spending on public services, especially education and health care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People who earn more than £1 million per year should not be taxed at a higher rate because people will be less likely to earn this if it means that they will be taxed at a higher rate and if this happens, the country will be worse off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “After a debate that was made interesting by several participants, we all agree that those making over £1 million a year should be taxed at a higher rate. In order to help reduce the massive gap between rich and poor people. People on low incomes should pay less taxes and people on high incomes should pay more taxes.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be higher taxes for those earning over £1 million per year. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People who make over £1 million per year should be taxed at a higher rate because they can afford it and it is just that everyone contributes something. This higher tax rate could be used to increase spending on public services, especially education and health care. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000030.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000030.soc index f3df9463..d76636f7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000030.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000030.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think that we should ban single-use plastics in the long term. In the short term however we must educate people about the damage they can do and implement policy that will deter people from using them.“ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should try to ban all single-use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of reducing the use of single-use plastics. However, they agreed that there are cases where plastic use is justified (e.g. packaging food that would otherwise spoil). The group agreed that we should try to find alternatives but should also encourage people to avoid single-use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a ban on all single-use plastics would be too impractical at this current moment and there should be further research into other solutions that would make single-use plastics less of a problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think that we should ban single-use plastics in the long term. In the short term however we must educate people about the damage they can do and implement policy that will deter people from using them.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should try to ban all single-use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing the use of single-use plastics. However, they agreed that there are cases where plastic use is justified (e.g. packaging food that would otherwise spoil). The group agreed that we should try to find alternatives but should also encourage people to avoid single-use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a ban on all single-use plastics would be too impractical at this current moment and there should be further research into other solutions that would make single-use plastics less of a problem. 2: 3,4,1,2 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000031.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000031.soc index 9ed32eba..d4429dc0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000031.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000031.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are lots of things that need to be taken into account when deciding whether using animals for scientific research is ethical. In the case of the use of animals for scientific research the possible benefits and downsides of the use of animals should be weighed. Animal experimentation should only be used when there are no alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is ethical to use animals for scientific research if it helps to improve human life and/or if the use of animals can reduce the number of human trials that are needed. It is unethical if it can be proven that the use of animals can lead to suffering and harm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of animals for scientific research is considered to be unethical. However, where a human's life is at risk it is considered ethical to use animals for research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that the use of animals in scientific research is a very complicated issue. In some cases it may be absolutely necessary and in others it is unnecessary. However, it is difficult to define when an experiment is absolutely necessary as a lot of the time the effects of a drug or chemical are unknown. Also, I think that there needs to be some sort of balance between the welfare of the animals and the research to be carried out, if an animal is going to suffer from an experiment then it is unethical. However, some experiments may not harm the animal at all, for example, a very small incision to take a blood sample. So, I believe that there needs to be a more in-depth review of the use of animals in research and the use of alternatives, such as computer models.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are lots of things that need to be taken into account when deciding whether using animals for scientific research is ethical. In the case of the use of animals for scientific research the possible benefits and downsides of the use of animals should be weighed. Animal experimentation should only be used when there are no alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is ethical to use animals for scientific research if it helps to improve human life and/or if the use of animals can reduce the number of human trials that are needed. It is unethical if it can be proven that the use of animals can lead to suffering and harm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of animals for scientific research is considered to be unethical. However, where a human's life is at risk it is considered ethical to use animals for research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that the use of animals in scientific research is a very complicated issue. In some cases it may be absolutely necessary and in others it is unnecessary. However, it is difficult to define when an experiment is absolutely necessary as a lot of the time the effects of a drug or chemical are unknown. Also, I think that there needs to be some sort of balance between the welfare of the animals and the research to be carried out, if an animal is going to suffer from an experiment then it is unethical. However, some experiments may not harm the animal at all, for example, a very small incision to take a blood sample. So, I believe that there needs to be a more in-depth review of the use of animals in research and the use of alternatives, such as computer models.” 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000032.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000032.soc index 5c8dbcc3..70522790 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000032.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000032.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The practice of eating dogs is culturally specific. For people who do eat dogs, it is not a morally bad practice in itself. However, for people who do not traditionally eat dogs, the practice is a violation of their sense of moral values. The consensus view for this group is that it is not okay to eat dogs." The views expressed by each participant are those of the individual participant and not those of the project as a whole. The consensus view is a synthesis of the individual opinions of the group members and is not intended to represent the views of each participant. The last consensus statement: Eating Dogs -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to eating dogs. All agreed that dogs are special animals in most cultures, and there are close emotional ties between people and dogs. It is also acknowledged that some cultures do eat dogs, and the emotional ties and feelings of people about dogs are less strong. The issue is complicated by the range of definitions and applications of 'dogs' - for example some 'dogs' are actually wolf-hybrids and there is an ongoing debate as to whether this is acceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not acceptable to eat dogs. This is because dogs are generally friendly, loyal, domesticated animals and the concept of eating dogs is distasteful in Western culture. It may be acceptable to eat other animals for meat, but dogs are not one of these. How is this a bad consensus? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In my opinion it is not ok to eat dogs, although I accept that is a cultural issue. For us dogs are close companions, and animals with whom we can form a close emotional and personal bond. Culturally therefore it feels morally wrong to consume dogs in western societies and I would expect this to be the majority opinion in these cultures. Also, in some eastern cultures eating dogs has become less acceptable. I chose to omit the second half of the second sentence in the consensus statement because it is outside of the original scope of the discussion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The practice of eating dogs is culturally specific. For people who do eat dogs, it is not a morally bad practice in itself. However, for people who do not traditionally eat dogs, the practice is a violation of their sense of moral values. The consensus view for this group is that it is not okay to eat dogs." The views expressed by each participant are those of the individual participant and not those of the project as a whole. The consensus view is a synthesis of the individual opinions of the group members and is not intended to represent the views of each participant. The last consensus statement: Eating Dogs +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to eating dogs. All agreed that dogs are special animals in most cultures, and there are close emotional ties between people and dogs. It is also acknowledged that some cultures do eat dogs, and the emotional ties and feelings of people about dogs are less strong. The issue is complicated by the range of definitions and applications of 'dogs' - for example some 'dogs' are actually wolf-hybrids and there is an ongoing debate as to whether this is acceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not acceptable to eat dogs. This is because dogs are generally friendly, loyal, domesticated animals and the concept of eating dogs is distasteful in Western culture. It may be acceptable to eat other animals for meat, but dogs are not one of these. How is this a bad consensus? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In my opinion it is not ok to eat dogs, although I accept that is a cultural issue. For us dogs are close companions, and animals with whom we can form a close emotional and personal bond. Culturally therefore it feels morally wrong to consume dogs in western societies and I would expect this to be the majority opinion in these cultures. Also, in some eastern cultures eating dogs has become less acceptable. I chose to omit the second half of the second sentence in the consensus statement because it is outside of the original scope of the discussion. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000033.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000033.soc index 98db9622..015eea8a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000033.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000033.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, unhealthy food advertising is something that should be limited. The way we can tell what is unhealthy and what is healthy needs to be clarified so that we can know exactly what we are dealing with. However, I do believe that we need to be careful about banning all unhealthy food advertising as some people may not know the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods and this could cause more problems than it solves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Unhealthy food is everywhere, but it is not always advertised. It would be difficult to regulate and we don’t want to be a ‘nanny state’. We are in favour of people having choice, but we should protect our children from advertisements which are designed to make unhealthy food attractive. The only way to protect children is to ban advertising on children’s TV and perhaps in children’s magazines. We do not believe that advertising to adults should be banned, as people are able to make up their own minds about what is healthy and what is not. We feel that the Government should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but we feel that these would be more effective if they used famous athletes and celebrities to promote the idea of healthy eating. However, we believe that the Government should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Advertising of unhealthy foods should be restricted. Adverts aimed at children should be more strictly controlled, but adults should be allowed to make their own decisions. It is important to find a balance between advertising of unhealthy foods and freedom of choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some restriction on unhealthy foods, but not all of them. Advertising is too general a concept. Instead, the government should look at what types of food to restrict and which to allow. This should be based on a consensus of experts and then the government should implement the restrictions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, unhealthy food advertising is something that should be limited. The way we can tell what is unhealthy and what is healthy needs to be clarified so that we can know exactly what we are dealing with. However, I do believe that we need to be careful about banning all unhealthy food advertising as some people may not know the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods and this could cause more problems than it solves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Unhealthy food is everywhere, but it is not always advertised. It would be difficult to regulate and we don’t want to be a ‘nanny state’. We are in favour of people having choice, but we should protect our children from advertisements which are designed to make unhealthy food attractive. The only way to protect children is to ban advertising on children’s TV and perhaps in children’s magazines. We do not believe that advertising to adults should be banned, as people are able to make up their own minds about what is healthy and what is not. We feel that the Government should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but we feel that these would be more effective if they used famous athletes and celebrities to promote the idea of healthy eating. However, we believe that the Government should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Advertising of unhealthy foods should be restricted. Adverts aimed at children should be more strictly controlled, but adults should be allowed to make their own decisions. It is important to find a balance between advertising of unhealthy foods and freedom of choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some restriction on unhealthy foods, but not all of them. Advertising is too general a concept. Instead, the government should look at what types of food to restrict and which to allow. This should be based on a consensus of experts and then the government should implement the restrictions. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000034.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000034.soc index 3147e5f4..944512f8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000034.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000034.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to miss school on the basis of religious grounds. The general feeling was that children are only at school for a relatively short period of their life and for the most part they are not actually learning about important subjects. Many participants felt that children should be allowed to attend religious festivals, but there should be restrictions in place. These included restricting the number of days that children can miss to no more than a certain number per year, and not allowing children to miss during exam periods. There was some debate about how the line between religious reasons and cultural reasons should be drawn. It was felt that these should be separated as much as possible as cultural reasons could easily be fabricated, especially when religious beliefs are not clearly defined. Overall, the consensus was that there should be limitations on children missing school for religious reasons, but that they should be allowed to do so to some extent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be some room for manoeuvre on this, and to an extent it should be allowed to a limited degree. We should not make exceptions for religious reasons unless they are clearly supported and the reasoning is clear and verifiable. The reasoning should also have an underlying theme of education and not just social or cultural celebration. The next question was: Is there any current legislation that exists which might give some insight into this question? Here is the response of one of the participants: The Education Act 1944 is the main law regarding the school system. There are three parts of the Act: the part on elementary education, the part on further education, and the part on the children and young persons service. There is a duty on the parents of a child of compulsory school age to ensure that their child receives efficient full-time education suitable to his/her age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs the child may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Religion is a vital part of many peoples lives. Religious beliefs can provide comfort and support for people when times are hard. Therefore I think that people should be allowed to take their children out of school on the basis of religious grounds. This would also allow people to observe their religious holidays as a family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, parents should not be allowed to take children out of school on the basis of religious grounds. However we think this decision should be up to the school and the local community. Some schools may have an extremely diverse community and therefore may need to accommodate for the religious festivals of each of the religions within the community. Other schools may be more homogenous and not need to accommodate for the different religions. This is something that should be discussed and agreed upon at the beginning of the academic year and then rules and regulations should be set for the duration of the year. If these rules and regulations are adhered to, then parents should be able to take their children out of school for the religious festivals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to miss school on the basis of religious grounds. The general feeling was that children are only at school for a relatively short period of their life and for the most part they are not actually learning about important subjects. Many participants felt that children should be allowed to attend religious festivals, but there should be restrictions in place. These included restricting the number of days that children can miss to no more than a certain number per year, and not allowing children to miss during exam periods. There was some debate about how the line between religious reasons and cultural reasons should be drawn. It was felt that these should be separated as much as possible as cultural reasons could easily be fabricated, especially when religious beliefs are not clearly defined. Overall, the consensus was that there should be limitations on children missing school for religious reasons, but that they should be allowed to do so to some extent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be some room for manoeuvre on this, and to an extent it should be allowed to a limited degree. We should not make exceptions for religious reasons unless they are clearly supported and the reasoning is clear and verifiable. The reasoning should also have an underlying theme of education and not just social or cultural celebration. The next question was: Is there any current legislation that exists which might give some insight into this question? Here is the response of one of the participants: The Education Act 1944 is the main law regarding the school system. There are three parts of the Act: the part on elementary education, the part on further education, and the part on the children and young persons service. There is a duty on the parents of a child of compulsory school age to ensure that their child receives efficient full-time education suitable to his/her age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs the child may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Religion is a vital part of many peoples lives. Religious beliefs can provide comfort and support for people when times are hard. Therefore I think that people should be allowed to take their children out of school on the basis of religious grounds. This would also allow people to observe their religious holidays as a family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, parents should not be allowed to take children out of school on the basis of religious grounds. However we think this decision should be up to the school and the local community. Some schools may have an extremely diverse community and therefore may need to accommodate for the religious festivals of each of the religions within the community. Other schools may be more homogenous and not need to accommodate for the different religions. This is something that should be discussed and agreed upon at the beginning of the academic year and then rules and regulations should be set for the duration of the year. If these rules and regulations are adhered to, then parents should be able to take their children out of school for the religious festivals. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000035.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000035.soc index 3f02d721..bd3e5c86 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000035.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000035.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Parenting classes should be made available for all parents to attend on a voluntary basis. Parents wishing to receive the child allowance should be required to attend parenting classes as a condition of eligibility. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be some form of parenting class offered to all parents of young children and those on benefits. The people attending the class should not be forced to attend and should be able to attend anonymously and without fear of stigma. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the idea of parenting classes to qualify for child allowance is a good one. However, there may be some exceptions to this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Parenting classes should be available to all families, however, we would like to see a greater incentive for those families that need it most. This could be in the form of larger benefit payments if they can show proof of attendance at the parenting classes.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Parenting classes should be made available for all parents to attend on a voluntary basis. Parents wishing to receive the child allowance should be required to attend parenting classes as a condition of eligibility. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be some form of parenting class offered to all parents of young children and those on benefits. The people attending the class should not be forced to attend and should be able to attend anonymously and without fear of stigma. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the idea of parenting classes to qualify for child allowance is a good one. However, there may be some exceptions to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Parenting classes should be available to all families, however, we would like to see a greater incentive for those families that need it most. This could be in the form of larger benefit payments if they can show proof of attendance at the parenting classes.” 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000036.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000036.soc index 89819a4a..7e3c7223 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000036.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000036.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Electric cars are the best alternative to petrol-powered cars. They are more environmentally friendly and will reduce the pollution of the air which is the main cause of climate change. It is true that there are some negative aspects of electric cars, such as the mining of minerals which can cause some pollution, but the positive effects on the environment outweigh the negatives. It is important to note that public transport is often a better alternative to cars, electric or petrol, and it is important that we continue to invest in public transport as it is often the more reliable, cheaper and more convenient option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a strong argument for electric cars being the best alternative to petrol-powered cars as they are a cleaner alternative that do not pollute the air as much as petrol cars. The creation of electric cars will hopefully create jobs and make the economy better for the country. However, it is essential that we continue to invest in public transport as it is often the better option for commuters and the more reliable and cheaper option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Electric cars are a good alternative to petrol-powered cars and in many ways, a necessary alternative. While they are good alternatives, they should not be considered a permanent solution to the issue of climate change. We should continue to invest in public transport as a more reliable and economical alternative to driving cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Electric cars are a better alternative to petrol-powered cars in terms of environmental sustainability. They are one of the most innovative technologies available to tackle climate change and it is important that we invest in them. However, we must also invest in public transport and ensure it is reliable and affordable for all. Investing in public transport is important to ensure that it is accessible for those who cannot afford to drive or for those who do not want to drive. Conclusion: The participants were able to come up with a consensus statement that they could all agree on. The process was very beneficial in terms of allowing participants to fully understand the opinions of other participants and they were able to adjust their own opinions based on the views of others. This process also ensures that everyone has a voice and that they can be heard and listened to by others. This is a great way to ensure that people are treated fairly and that they are respected and their views are valued. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Electric cars are the best alternative to petrol-powered cars. They are more environmentally friendly and will reduce the pollution of the air which is the main cause of climate change. It is true that there are some negative aspects of electric cars, such as the mining of minerals which can cause some pollution, but the positive effects on the environment outweigh the negatives. It is important to note that public transport is often a better alternative to cars, electric or petrol, and it is important that we continue to invest in public transport as it is often the more reliable, cheaper and more convenient option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a strong argument for electric cars being the best alternative to petrol-powered cars as they are a cleaner alternative that do not pollute the air as much as petrol cars. The creation of electric cars will hopefully create jobs and make the economy better for the country. However, it is essential that we continue to invest in public transport as it is often the better option for commuters and the more reliable and cheaper option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Electric cars are a good alternative to petrol-powered cars and in many ways, a necessary alternative. While they are good alternatives, they should not be considered a permanent solution to the issue of climate change. We should continue to invest in public transport as a more reliable and economical alternative to driving cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Electric cars are a better alternative to petrol-powered cars in terms of environmental sustainability. They are one of the most innovative technologies available to tackle climate change and it is important that we invest in them. However, we must also invest in public transport and ensure it is reliable and affordable for all. Investing in public transport is important to ensure that it is accessible for those who cannot afford to drive or for those who do not want to drive. Conclusion: The participants were able to come up with a consensus statement that they could all agree on. The process was very beneficial in terms of allowing participants to fully understand the opinions of other participants and they were able to adjust their own opinions based on the views of others. This process also ensures that everyone has a voice and that they can be heard and listened to by others. This is a great way to ensure that people are treated fairly and that they are respected and their views are valued. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000037.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000037.soc index 20b3b4ea..6079d354 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000037.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000037.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In summer, dogs should be allowed on beaches only in limited areas with adequate signage informing dog owners where they can walk their dogs. It is unreasonable to expect dog owners to only walk their dogs on the beach during the winter. People with dogs are also people and as such they should be allowed to enjoy the outdoors in the summer too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not walk their dogs on the beach during the summer. If they really want to go on the beach, they can go during winter. If people really wanted to take their dogs on the beach, it would be better for them to go on a lead so that they do not disturb other beach users. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be allowed to walk their dogs on the beach in the summer because it will contaminate the sand and potentially make children who are playing in the sand ill. The next exercise involved groups of participants who were each given a particular role in relation to a 'dog mess on the beach' incident that had occurred. The roles were: Participant A: You are a local resident who has been walking your dog on the beach with your children. Your children have been rolling around in the sand, but you forgot to clean up after your dog and one of the children is now throwing up and having diarrhoea. Participant B: You are the person that the parent in Participant A is calling. You are a medical professional at the local hospital. Participant C: You are the Environmental Health Officer of the local council. You have been informed of the incident. Participant D: You are the press reporter who has been informed of the incident and is writing an article on it. Participant E: You are the Mayor of the local council. You have been informed of the incident and are writing a speech about it for the evening news. After everyone had read their roles, a group discussion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Dogs should be allowed on the beach at all times of the year. People take their dogs to the beach to play and run about and get rid of energy, so it would be a shame to stop them from doing that. The beach is a great place for people and their dogs to spend time together. As long as the dogs are well behaved, there is no reason for them to be excluded from the beach. If a dog is on the beach, it should be kept on a lead unless it is playing in the water. In any case, the dog should always be supervised. Any dog owner should clean up after their dog as soon as it has done its business and remove it from the beach. There is no reason why people shouldn't be able to walk their dogs on the beach in the summer. It would be nice if dogs were allowed in more public places. It would be more inclusive. It would also be good for the dogs themselves. It is important to keep dogs busy and active. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In summer, dogs should be allowed on beaches only in limited areas with adequate signage informing dog owners where they can walk their dogs. It is unreasonable to expect dog owners to only walk their dogs on the beach during the winter. People with dogs are also people and as such they should be allowed to enjoy the outdoors in the summer too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not walk their dogs on the beach during the summer. If they really want to go on the beach, they can go during winter. If people really wanted to take their dogs on the beach, it would be better for them to go on a lead so that they do not disturb other beach users. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be allowed to walk their dogs on the beach in the summer because it will contaminate the sand and potentially make children who are playing in the sand ill. The next exercise involved groups of participants who were each given a particular role in relation to a 'dog mess on the beach' incident that had occurred. The roles were: Participant A: You are a local resident who has been walking your dog on the beach with your children. Your children have been rolling around in the sand, but you forgot to clean up after your dog and one of the children is now throwing up and having diarrhoea. Participant B: You are the person that the parent in Participant A is calling. You are a medical professional at the local hospital. Participant C: You are the Environmental Health Officer of the local council. You have been informed of the incident. Participant D: You are the press reporter who has been informed of the incident and is writing an article on it. Participant E: You are the Mayor of the local council. You have been informed of the incident and are writing a speech about it for the evening news. After everyone had read their roles, a group discussion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Dogs should be allowed on the beach at all times of the year. People take their dogs to the beach to play and run about and get rid of energy, so it would be a shame to stop them from doing that. The beach is a great place for people and their dogs to spend time together. As long as the dogs are well behaved, there is no reason for them to be excluded from the beach. If a dog is on the beach, it should be kept on a lead unless it is playing in the water. In any case, the dog should always be supervised. Any dog owner should clean up after their dog as soon as it has done its business and remove it from the beach. There is no reason why people shouldn't be able to walk their dogs on the beach in the summer. It would be nice if dogs were allowed in more public places. It would be more inclusive. It would also be good for the dogs themselves. It is important to keep dogs busy and active. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000038.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000038.soc index eaca5779..b25e2e7c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000038.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000038.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I am not in favour of stopping nuclear power production in the UK because we rely too heavily on it and don't have any other options. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible in the future by investing in renewable energy technology. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I am not in favour of stopping nuclear power production in the UK because we rely too heavily on it and don't have any other options. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible in the future by investing in renewable energy technology. This will allow us to reduce the use of nuclear power as a source of energy while making the transition to cleaner energy easier. I am also in favour of renewable energy technology for individuals such as solar panel installation as this could help reduce the resources we are using and also put the power back into the hands of the people.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I am not in favour of stopping nuclear power production in the UK because we rely too heavily on it and don't have any other options. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible in the future by investing in renewable energy technology. We should also take steps to make green energy technology more affordable and available to the general public. This will allow us to take the pressure off of our nuclear power production in the future.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe we should not stop producing nuclear power. The UK currently relies too heavily on nuclear energy. This is not to say we shouldn’t try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible by investing in renewable energy technology.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I am not in favour of stopping nuclear power production in the UK because we rely too heavily on it and don't have any other options. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible in the future by investing in renewable energy technology. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I am not in favour of stopping nuclear power production in the UK because we rely too heavily on it and don't have any other options. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible in the future by investing in renewable energy technology. This will allow us to reduce the use of nuclear power as a source of energy while making the transition to cleaner energy easier. I am also in favour of renewable energy technology for individuals such as solar panel installation as this could help reduce the resources we are using and also put the power back into the hands of the people.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I am not in favour of stopping nuclear power production in the UK because we rely too heavily on it and don't have any other options. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible in the future by investing in renewable energy technology. We should also take steps to make green energy technology more affordable and available to the general public. This will allow us to take the pressure off of our nuclear power production in the future.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe we should not stop producing nuclear power. The UK currently relies too heavily on nuclear energy. This is not to say we shouldn’t try to limit the use of nuclear power as much as possible by investing in renewable energy technology.” 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000039.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000039.soc index cb784d53..347e1cb6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000039.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000039.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think that genetically modifying animals is ok as long as it is to benefit the animal. If we are modifying an animal just for the benefit of humans then it is not acceptable.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to genetically modifying animals. The main argument presented was that animals should be left as nature intended, rather than be modified for human benefit. The group did concede that in certain situations genetic modification may be appropriate, such as to eliminate disease and increase animal lifespan. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Genetically modifying animals for human benefit is ok. If the change to the animal is for the better then its good to do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not ok to genetically modify animals for the sole purpose of benefiting us humans. It would not be morally acceptable to genetically modify animals for profit as this would be seen as cruel. It is however ok to genetically modify animals to eliminate disease and prevent defects in order to ensure the animal is healthy. It is ok to genetically modify animals in this way because it is ultimately in the animals best interests. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think that genetically modifying animals is ok as long as it is to benefit the animal. If we are modifying an animal just for the benefit of humans then it is not acceptable.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to genetically modifying animals. The main argument presented was that animals should be left as nature intended, rather than be modified for human benefit. The group did concede that in certain situations genetic modification may be appropriate, such as to eliminate disease and increase animal lifespan. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Genetically modifying animals for human benefit is ok. If the change to the animal is for the better then its good to do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not ok to genetically modify animals for the sole purpose of benefiting us humans. It would not be morally acceptable to genetically modify animals for profit as this would be seen as cruel. It is however ok to genetically modify animals to eliminate disease and prevent defects in order to ensure the animal is healthy. It is ok to genetically modify animals in this way because it is ultimately in the animals best interests. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000040.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000040.soc index 768511d6..1496eee8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000040.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000040.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the participants were in favour of a nuclear weapons ban but sceptical that it would be fully effective. They generally felt that some countries will not support a ban on nuclear weapons due to concerns for national security. They were not sure if they would ever know if all countries were being honest about their nuclear stockpiles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A nuclear weapons ban is possible, but it is not realistic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The world is divided on the topic of nuclear weapons with some countries very much for them and some against. A ban would be nice but not completely possible because of the fact that the world is so divided. I think some countries may need the threat of nuclear weapons for their safety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is possible to ban nuclear weapons but not all countries will give up their weapons. You also need to make sure that everyone who has the power to create nuclear weapons, stops trying to create them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the participants were in favour of a nuclear weapons ban but sceptical that it would be fully effective. They generally felt that some countries will not support a ban on nuclear weapons due to concerns for national security. They were not sure if they would ever know if all countries were being honest about their nuclear stockpiles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A nuclear weapons ban is possible, but it is not realistic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The world is divided on the topic of nuclear weapons with some countries very much for them and some against. A ban would be nice but not completely possible because of the fact that the world is so divided. I think some countries may need the threat of nuclear weapons for their safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is possible to ban nuclear weapons but not all countries will give up their weapons. You also need to make sure that everyone who has the power to create nuclear weapons, stops trying to create them. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000041.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000041.soc index 5e5bffc3..3a879905 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000041.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000041.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a general consensus that it is not possible to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Most of the participants thought that it would be difficult to fully ban nuclear weapons because some countries would not be prepared to give up their stockpiles and could not be relied on to report accurately on what they had. They felt that some countries would not support a ban because they saw nuclear weapons as a necessary deterrent against other countries who might try to attack them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the participants were in favour of a nuclear weapons ban but sceptical that it would be fully effective. They generally felt that some countries will not support a ban on nuclear weapons due to concerns for national security. They were not sure if they would ever know if all countries were being honest about their nuclear stockpiles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the participants were in favour of a nuclear weapons ban but sceptical that it would be fully effective. They generally felt that some countries will not support a ban on nuclear weapons due to concerns for national security. They were not sure if they would ever know if all countries were being honest about their nuclear stockpiles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a general consensus that it is not possible to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Most of the participants thought that it would be difficult to fully ban nuclear weapons because some countries would not be prepared to give up their stockpiles and could not be relied on to report accurately on what they had. They felt that some countries would not support a ban because they saw nuclear weapons as a necessary deterrent against other countries who might try to attack them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the participants were in favour of a nuclear weapons ban but sceptical that it would be fully effective. They generally felt that some countries will not support a ban on nuclear weapons due to concerns for national security. They were not sure if they would ever know if all countries were being honest about their nuclear stockpiles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the participants were in favour of a nuclear weapons ban but sceptical that it would be fully effective. They generally felt that some countries will not support a ban on nuclear weapons due to concerns for national security. They were not sure if they would ever know if all countries were being honest about their nuclear stockpiles. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000042.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000042.soc index ef1899a1..0a29e29a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000042.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000042.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a consensus that single-use plastics should be reduced to a minimum. People agree that there are cases where single-use plastics are justified. There is also a consensus that we should try to find alternatives but should also discourage people from using single-use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was in general in favour of reducing the use of single-use plastics. They agreed that there are cases where plastic use is justified. The group agreed that we should try to find alternatives but should also encourage people to avoid single-use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Single-use plastic is a problem and we should work towards reducing its use. However, there are cases where plastic is necessary. Therefore, we should find better alternatives and discourage people from using single-use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in favour of reducing the use of single-use plastics. However, they agreed that there are cases where plastic use is justified (e.g. packaging food that would otherwise spoil). The group agreed that we should try to find alternatives but should also discourage people from using single-use plastics through education, awareness, and financial cost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a consensus that single-use plastics should be reduced to a minimum. People agree that there are cases where single-use plastics are justified. There is also a consensus that we should try to find alternatives but should also discourage people from using single-use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was in general in favour of reducing the use of single-use plastics. They agreed that there are cases where plastic use is justified. The group agreed that we should try to find alternatives but should also encourage people to avoid single-use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Single-use plastic is a problem and we should work towards reducing its use. However, there are cases where plastic is necessary. Therefore, we should find better alternatives and discourage people from using single-use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in favour of reducing the use of single-use plastics. However, they agreed that there are cases where plastic use is justified (e.g. packaging food that would otherwise spoil). The group agreed that we should try to find alternatives but should also discourage people from using single-use plastics through education, awareness, and financial cost. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000043.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000043.soc index 1a8ba29d..3b05438e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000043.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000043.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “After a debate that was made interesting by several participants, we all agree that those making over £1 million a year should be taxed at a higher rate. In order to help reduce the massive gap between rich and poor people. People on low incomes should pay less taxes and people on high incomes should pay more taxes. In order to reduce the large budget deficit, we all agree that we must start somewhere, and that is taxing the people who have a large amount of wealth and can easily afford to pay more taxes. Although, we do agree that the taxes should be used to reduce the disparity between rich and poor, and that the government should raise peoples salaries instead to ensure those that live in poverty have a salary that they can comfortable survive from.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In the United Kingdom, there is a wide gap between rich and poor people. We believe that one way to reduce this gap would be to raise taxes on high earners and use this to provide greater support to those living in poverty. Taxing the rich would also help to reduce the large budget deficit. This deficit is hurting the UK economy, making it harder for those living in poverty to climb the economic ladder. The rich can afford to pay more and would suffer little inconvenience as a result. A government that invests in the poor would not only be helping the most vulnerable members of society but would also be making the country a better place for everyone to live.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “After a very interesting debate in which many people made their opinions known, we all agree that those making over £1 million a year should be taxed at a higher rate in order to reduce the massive gap between rich and poor people. In particular, the richest people in the country should contribute more money, through higher taxes, so that government spending can be targetted at the poorest people in the country, helping to ensure they have enough to live on.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK is a country that has an extremely high rate of income inequality. People on low incomes should pay less tax and people on high incomes should pay more tax. In addition to this, more government spending on people on low incomes could help them to have a more equal chance at a decent standard of living. People who make over £1 million a year should be taxed at a higher rate to help fund such spending. In addition, people who make over £1 million a year could more easily afford such an increase in tax than people on low incomes who struggle to make ends meet already. Raising the tax on high earners would reduce the gap between rich and poor and give the poorest in society a better chance at a decent life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “After a debate that was made interesting by several participants, we all agree that those making over £1 million a year should be taxed at a higher rate. In order to help reduce the massive gap between rich and poor people. People on low incomes should pay less taxes and people on high incomes should pay more taxes. In order to reduce the large budget deficit, we all agree that we must start somewhere, and that is taxing the people who have a large amount of wealth and can easily afford to pay more taxes. Although, we do agree that the taxes should be used to reduce the disparity between rich and poor, and that the government should raise peoples salaries instead to ensure those that live in poverty have a salary that they can comfortable survive from.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In the United Kingdom, there is a wide gap between rich and poor people. We believe that one way to reduce this gap would be to raise taxes on high earners and use this to provide greater support to those living in poverty. Taxing the rich would also help to reduce the large budget deficit. This deficit is hurting the UK economy, making it harder for those living in poverty to climb the economic ladder. The rich can afford to pay more and would suffer little inconvenience as a result. A government that invests in the poor would not only be helping the most vulnerable members of society but would also be making the country a better place for everyone to live.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “After a very interesting debate in which many people made their opinions known, we all agree that those making over £1 million a year should be taxed at a higher rate in order to reduce the massive gap between rich and poor people. In particular, the richest people in the country should contribute more money, through higher taxes, so that government spending can be targetted at the poorest people in the country, helping to ensure they have enough to live on.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK is a country that has an extremely high rate of income inequality. People on low incomes should pay less tax and people on high incomes should pay more tax. In addition to this, more government spending on people on low incomes could help them to have a more equal chance at a decent standard of living. People who make over £1 million a year should be taxed at a higher rate to help fund such spending. In addition, people who make over £1 million a year could more easily afford such an increase in tax than people on low incomes who struggle to make ends meet already. Raising the tax on high earners would reduce the gap between rich and poor and give the poorest in society a better chance at a decent life. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000044.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000044.soc index 5166dbff..7125281f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000044.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000044.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: This group of participants was generally opposed to the eating of dogs, although this may be due to the strong emotional ties between people and dogs in most cultures. Some cultures do eat dogs, and in some of these cultures the emotional ties are not as strong. The issue is complicated by the range of definitions and applications of 'dogs' - for example some 'dogs' are actually wolf-hybrids and there is an ongoing debate as to whether this is acceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Most of the group did not want to eat dogs, and in fact, the group did not want anyone to eat dogs. This is based on the cultural closeness between people and dogs in many cultures. The closeness is largely due to the emotional bonds between people and dogs, which are clearly shown by the emotional expressions of dogs. However, in some Eastern cultures dogs are eaten, perhaps due to less emotional bonds between people and dogs. It is also due to the fact that other meats are less available to consume. Some people also question whether it is acceptable to eat wolf-hybrids. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to eating dogs. All agreed that dogs are special animals in most cultures, and there are close emotional ties between people and dogs. It is also acknowledged that some cultures do eat dogs, and the emotional ties and feelings of people about dogs are less strong. There is an ongoing debate as to whether it is acceptable to consume wolf-hybrids, but in general it is felt that eating dogs is not a desirable practice, and is unnecessary in most cases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong general opinion that dogs are special animals with strong emotional ties with humans, and that it is not generally considered acceptable to eat dogs in most cultures. However, it is acknowledged that in some cultures it is considered acceptable to eat dogs, although there are some people who do not wish to consume any animal products at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - This group of participants was generally opposed to the eating of dogs, although this may be due to the strong emotional ties between people and dogs in most cultures. Some cultures do eat dogs, and in some of these cultures the emotional ties are not as strong. The issue is complicated by the range of definitions and applications of 'dogs' - for example some 'dogs' are actually wolf-hybrids and there is an ongoing debate as to whether this is acceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Most of the group did not want to eat dogs, and in fact, the group did not want anyone to eat dogs. This is based on the cultural closeness between people and dogs in many cultures. The closeness is largely due to the emotional bonds between people and dogs, which are clearly shown by the emotional expressions of dogs. However, in some Eastern cultures dogs are eaten, perhaps due to less emotional bonds between people and dogs. It is also due to the fact that other meats are less available to consume. Some people also question whether it is acceptable to eat wolf-hybrids. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to eating dogs. All agreed that dogs are special animals in most cultures, and there are close emotional ties between people and dogs. It is also acknowledged that some cultures do eat dogs, and the emotional ties and feelings of people about dogs are less strong. There is an ongoing debate as to whether it is acceptable to consume wolf-hybrids, but in general it is felt that eating dogs is not a desirable practice, and is unnecessary in most cases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong general opinion that dogs are special animals with strong emotional ties with humans, and that it is not generally considered acceptable to eat dogs in most cultures. However, it is acknowledged that in some cultures it is considered acceptable to eat dogs, although there are some people who do not wish to consume any animal products at all. 2: 4,2,3,1 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000045.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000045.soc index ea3f42e0..11b52532 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000045.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000045.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is too reliant on foreign oil. The UK economy is particularly sensitive to changes in the price of oil, which makes the economy more volatile and unstable. At the same time, we should be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels in general. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be using alternative sources of energy as well as developing our own sources of oil. We need to move away from the use of fossil fuels for the sake of the environment and to ensure our long term security. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The UK is too reliant on foreign oil. It is therefore subject to economic difficulties caused by changes in the oil price and policies of OPEC. The UK should develop more of its own North Sea oil reserves, whilst at the same time moving towards the use of renewable energy sources.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK is too reliant on foreign oil. We should be developing more of our own North Sea oil reserves to reduce our dependence on overseas oil and its fluctuations in price. We should be moving away from fossil fuels towards greener alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is too reliant on foreign oil. The UK economy is particularly sensitive to changes in the price of oil, which makes the economy more volatile and unstable. At the same time, we should be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels in general. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be using alternative sources of energy as well as developing our own sources of oil. We need to move away from the use of fossil fuels for the sake of the environment and to ensure our long term security. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The UK is too reliant on foreign oil. It is therefore subject to economic difficulties caused by changes in the oil price and policies of OPEC. The UK should develop more of its own North Sea oil reserves, whilst at the same time moving towards the use of renewable energy sources.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK is too reliant on foreign oil. We should be developing more of our own North Sea oil reserves to reduce our dependence on overseas oil and its fluctuations in price. We should be moving away from fossil fuels towards greener alternatives. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000046.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000046.soc index ff55dbb5..659a9d3c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000046.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000046.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “People have the right to personal choice when it comes to eating. We must protect our children from advertising unhealthy foods, but we should not limit this right for adults. It would be difficult to regulate and we don’t want to be a ‘nanny state’. Advertising to children is the only area that we feel the Government should get involved in. They should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but they should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Unhealthy food is everywhere, but it is not always advertised. It would be difficult to regulate and we don’t want to be a ‘nanny state’. We are in favour of people having choice, but we should protect our children from advertisements which are designed to make unhealthy food attractive. The only way to protect children is to ban advertising on children’s TV and perhaps in children’s magazines. We do not believe that advertising to adults should be banned, as people are able to make up their own minds about what is healthy and what is not. We feel that the Government should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but we feel that these would be more effective if they used famous athletes and celebrities to promote the idea of healthy eating. However, we believe that the Government should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Unhealthy food is everywhere, but it is not always advertised. It would be difficult to regulate and we don’t want to be a ‘nanny state’. We are in favour of people having choice, but we should protect our children from advertisements which are designed to make unhealthy food attractive. The only way to protect children is to ban advertising on children’s TV and perhaps in children’s magazines. We do not believe that advertising to adults should be banned, as people are able to make up their own minds about what is healthy and what is not. We feel that the Government should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but we feel that these would be more effective if they used famous athletes and celebrities to promote the idea of healthy eating. However, we believe that the Government should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Participants first expressed their personal opinions on the question. Then, a first draft of a consensus statement was produced. Participants then provided a critique of the draft consensus statement. Finally, a final consensus statement was produced. Below is presented -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The advertising of unhealthy food is everywhere, but it is not always advertised. Advertising is a vague and nebulous term and is hard to regulate. We are in favour of people having choice, but we should take some action to protect impressionable children. The only way to protect children is to ban advertising on children’s TV and perhaps in children’s magazines. We do not believe that advertising to adults should be banned, as people are able to make up their own minds about what is healthy and what is not. We feel that the Government should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but we feel that these would be more effective if they used famous athletes and celebrities to promote the idea of healthy eating. However, we believe that the Government should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “People have the right to personal choice when it comes to eating. We must protect our children from advertising unhealthy foods, but we should not limit this right for adults. It would be difficult to regulate and we don’t want to be a ‘nanny state’. Advertising to children is the only area that we feel the Government should get involved in. They should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but they should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Unhealthy food is everywhere, but it is not always advertised. It would be difficult to regulate and we don’t want to be a ‘nanny state’. We are in favour of people having choice, but we should protect our children from advertisements which are designed to make unhealthy food attractive. The only way to protect children is to ban advertising on children’s TV and perhaps in children’s magazines. We do not believe that advertising to adults should be banned, as people are able to make up their own minds about what is healthy and what is not. We feel that the Government should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but we feel that these would be more effective if they used famous athletes and celebrities to promote the idea of healthy eating. However, we believe that the Government should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Unhealthy food is everywhere, but it is not always advertised. It would be difficult to regulate and we don’t want to be a ‘nanny state’. We are in favour of people having choice, but we should protect our children from advertisements which are designed to make unhealthy food attractive. The only way to protect children is to ban advertising on children’s TV and perhaps in children’s magazines. We do not believe that advertising to adults should be banned, as people are able to make up their own minds about what is healthy and what is not. We feel that the Government should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but we feel that these would be more effective if they used famous athletes and celebrities to promote the idea of healthy eating. However, we believe that the Government should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Participants first expressed their personal opinions on the question. Then, a first draft of a consensus statement was produced. Participants then provided a critique of the draft consensus statement. Finally, a final consensus statement was produced. Below is presented +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The advertising of unhealthy food is everywhere, but it is not always advertised. Advertising is a vague and nebulous term and is hard to regulate. We are in favour of people having choice, but we should take some action to protect impressionable children. The only way to protect children is to ban advertising on children’s TV and perhaps in children’s magazines. We do not believe that advertising to adults should be banned, as people are able to make up their own minds about what is healthy and what is not. We feel that the Government should invest in advertising campaigns to encourage people to eat healthily, but we feel that these would be more effective if they used famous athletes and celebrities to promote the idea of healthy eating. However, we believe that the Government should not spend tax payers money on adverts which promote any particular product.” 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000047.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000047.soc index ff7e4521..e882a156 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000047.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000047.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be allowed to miss school for religious reasons. The extent of this allowance should be carefully controlled. Limitations could include: limiting the number of days that children can miss to no more than a certain number per year, and not allowing children to miss during exam periods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to miss school on the basis of religious grounds. The general feeling was that children are only at school for a relatively short period of their life and for the most part they are not actually learning about important subjects. However, participants felt that children should be allowed to attend religious festivals, but there should be restrictions in place. These included restricting the number of days that children can miss to no more than a certain number per year, and not allowing children to miss during exam periods. There was some debate about how the line between religious reasons and cultural reasons should be drawn. It was felt that these should be separated as much as possible as cultural reasons could easily be fabricated, especially when religious beliefs are not clearly defined. Overall, the consensus was that there should be limitations on children missing school for religious reasons, but that they should be allowed to do so to some extent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to miss school on the basis of religious grounds. The general feeling was that children are only at school for a relatively short period of their life and for the most part they are not actually learning about important subjects. Many participants felt that children should be allowed to attend religious festivals, but there should be restrictions in place. These included restricting the number of days that children can miss to no more than a certain number per year, and not allowing children to miss during exam periods. There was some debate about how the line between religious reasons and cultural reasons should be drawn. It was felt that these should be separated as much as possible as cultural reasons could easily be fabricated, especially when religious beliefs are not clearly defined. Overall, the consensus was that there should be limitations on children missing school for religious reasons, but that they should be allowed to do so to some extent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some allowance for children to miss school on the basis of religious grounds. We should not limit people's religious lives too much, and school is only a small part of their lives. This is however not to say that children should miss school for any and all religious occasions. There should be restrictions on how many days children can miss for religious reasons, and those days should not fall during exam periods. We should not impose too much restriction on children's religious lives, but they should also not be allowed to miss out on too much school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be allowed to miss school for religious reasons. The extent of this allowance should be carefully controlled. Limitations could include: limiting the number of days that children can miss to no more than a certain number per year, and not allowing children to miss during exam periods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to miss school on the basis of religious grounds. The general feeling was that children are only at school for a relatively short period of their life and for the most part they are not actually learning about important subjects. However, participants felt that children should be allowed to attend religious festivals, but there should be restrictions in place. These included restricting the number of days that children can miss to no more than a certain number per year, and not allowing children to miss during exam periods. There was some debate about how the line between religious reasons and cultural reasons should be drawn. It was felt that these should be separated as much as possible as cultural reasons could easily be fabricated, especially when religious beliefs are not clearly defined. Overall, the consensus was that there should be limitations on children missing school for religious reasons, but that they should be allowed to do so to some extent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to miss school on the basis of religious grounds. The general feeling was that children are only at school for a relatively short period of their life and for the most part they are not actually learning about important subjects. Many participants felt that children should be allowed to attend religious festivals, but there should be restrictions in place. These included restricting the number of days that children can miss to no more than a certain number per year, and not allowing children to miss during exam periods. There was some debate about how the line between religious reasons and cultural reasons should be drawn. It was felt that these should be separated as much as possible as cultural reasons could easily be fabricated, especially when religious beliefs are not clearly defined. Overall, the consensus was that there should be limitations on children missing school for religious reasons, but that they should be allowed to do so to some extent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some allowance for children to miss school on the basis of religious grounds. We should not limit people's religious lives too much, and school is only a small part of their lives. This is however not to say that children should miss school for any and all religious occasions. There should be restrictions on how many days children can miss for religious reasons, and those days should not fall during exam periods. We should not impose too much restriction on children's religious lives, but they should also not be allowed to miss out on too much school. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000048.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000048.soc index 232972e0..b92b59a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000048.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000048.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Capitalism is something that has the potential to both help and hinder people's lives. It is entirely dependent on the individual to be successful or not. The potential for success in capitalism is what drives people to work harder and achieve higher goals and better lives for themselves and their families. It is a system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. In a second group, the participants discussed the same question. Below is presented the question along with the opinions of each individual participant followed by their final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Capitalism helps improve people's lives. It helps to create opportunity for people to better their lives, and gives people the opportunity to create their own wealth. However, those at the bottom of the ladder are often made much worse off, and it can lead to inequality in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Capitalism has the potential to improve people's lives, however, we believe that some governments and individuals don't treat others with fairness. This doesn't allow everyone the opportunity to have an improved life.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Capitalism does help improve people's lives. However, there are some instances where capitalism has not improved people's lives. For example, in the industrial revolution, the lower class were treated poorly and received very little benefits. Also, the lower class have a limited amount of opportunities available to them and are at a huge disadvantage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Capitalism is something that has the potential to both help and hinder people's lives. It is entirely dependent on the individual to be successful or not. The potential for success in capitalism is what drives people to work harder and achieve higher goals and better lives for themselves and their families. It is a system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. In a second group, the participants discussed the same question. Below is presented the question along with the opinions of each individual participant followed by their final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Capitalism helps improve people's lives. It helps to create opportunity for people to better their lives, and gives people the opportunity to create their own wealth. However, those at the bottom of the ladder are often made much worse off, and it can lead to inequality in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Capitalism has the potential to improve people's lives, however, we believe that some governments and individuals don't treat others with fairness. This doesn't allow everyone the opportunity to have an improved life.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Capitalism does help improve people's lives. However, there are some instances where capitalism has not improved people's lives. For example, in the industrial revolution, the lower class were treated poorly and received very little benefits. Also, the lower class have a limited amount of opportunities available to them and are at a huge disadvantage. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000049.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000049.soc index f940ed24..e32a6b10 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000049.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000049.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should intervene to set rents as it can protect the vulnerable in society". -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group came to the consensus view that landlords should not be allowed to forcefully increase rents. They also stated that they should be allowed to increase rents in certain circumstances but those should be specified by law. They also noted that they don't think that the government should necessarily force landlords to lower rents, but should consider tax policies that might help address the housing crisis. Conclusion: The survey is interesting because it reflects the individual participants' thoughts on a certain issue and also shows how the process of reaching a consensus can sometimes be very difficult. The participants of the survey are very divided in their views, and some of the views are polar opposite. However, some of the participants were more open to the idea of a consensus and were able to formulate a statement that encompassed the majority of the views. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not be allowed to force landlords to lower rent. Instead, the government should incentivize new housing development by providing tax breaks and other economic incentives to encourage building new homes. This will alleviate the current housing shortage which will lower the costs of renting and buying a home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the free market is the most efficient way to ensure resources are allocated in the best way possible. However, there are certain goods and services that are not allocated efficiently in this way. Landlords have an incentive to charge as much as they can to maximise profits, and this means that housing will become increasingly unaffordable. The government needs to step in and control rent prices, at least for the time being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should intervene to set rents as it can protect the vulnerable in society". +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group came to the consensus view that landlords should not be allowed to forcefully increase rents. They also stated that they should be allowed to increase rents in certain circumstances but those should be specified by law. They also noted that they don't think that the government should necessarily force landlords to lower rents, but should consider tax policies that might help address the housing crisis. Conclusion: The survey is interesting because it reflects the individual participants' thoughts on a certain issue and also shows how the process of reaching a consensus can sometimes be very difficult. The participants of the survey are very divided in their views, and some of the views are polar opposite. However, some of the participants were more open to the idea of a consensus and were able to formulate a statement that encompassed the majority of the views. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not be allowed to force landlords to lower rent. Instead, the government should incentivize new housing development by providing tax breaks and other economic incentives to encourage building new homes. This will alleviate the current housing shortage which will lower the costs of renting and buying a home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the free market is the most efficient way to ensure resources are allocated in the best way possible. However, there are certain goods and services that are not allocated efficiently in this way. Landlords have an incentive to charge as much as they can to maximise profits, and this means that housing will become increasingly unaffordable. The government needs to step in and control rent prices, at least for the time being. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000050.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000050.soc index 98e23a31..e838180b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000050.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000050.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Driving should be a privilige, not a right. It needs to be earned and respected, not given away willy nilly. Giving young people a full driving licence at the age of 16 would mean that they would be in charge of a 1.5 ton weapon. Also, if it was something that everyone had, then it would make driving seem less special. The increased traffic would lead to more polution, which is bad for the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although driving is a vital part of life for many people, and can provide the mobility required for people to lead full lives, giving all young people a car would lead to increased risk, waste of resources and increased pollution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not give all young people aged 16-18 a full driving license and car. There is a sense of irresponsibility, danger and immaturity associated with this. The opinion for and against are stated above, with the majority agreeing that this is not a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not give all young people aged 16-18 a full driving license and car. We feel that it is a responsibility to be taken seriously and not given out as a right. The roads are already choked and the lack of exercise taken by the young is already well documented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Driving should be a privilige, not a right. It needs to be earned and respected, not given away willy nilly. Giving young people a full driving licence at the age of 16 would mean that they would be in charge of a 1.5 ton weapon. Also, if it was something that everyone had, then it would make driving seem less special. The increased traffic would lead to more polution, which is bad for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although driving is a vital part of life for many people, and can provide the mobility required for people to lead full lives, giving all young people a car would lead to increased risk, waste of resources and increased pollution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not give all young people aged 16-18 a full driving license and car. There is a sense of irresponsibility, danger and immaturity associated with this. The opinion for and against are stated above, with the majority agreeing that this is not a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not give all young people aged 16-18 a full driving license and car. We feel that it is a responsibility to be taken seriously and not given out as a right. The roads are already choked and the lack of exercise taken by the young is already well documented. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000051.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000051.soc index 83bf8fd2..965855ab 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000051.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000051.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was neutral in regards to the issue. The group believes that cellphones can be a good tool in classrooms as they can be used to find useful information, which in some cases can be hard to find. The group agrees that cellphones can be distractive and cause students to lose focus on their work, but can also be used for a learning experience, and could be a benefit to the students learning. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Students should be allowed to have their cellphones in class with a couple of exceptions. This will only be the case if the student has the cellphone on silent and all games and social media is off. The student must also be using the cellphone for a study-related purpose and not just because they feel like it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, Students should not be allowed to have cell phones in class, however we do think that it is a good idea for students to be able to use a calculator on a phone in Maths class if they are stuck on a question. Students will use the phones to play games, check social media and text, this is a huge distraction and could lead to a student failing their exams. If students really need to use a phone then the phone should be switched off and in their school bag and it should only be taken out for the duration of the lesson, at the end the phone is placed back in the bag. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Students should be allowed to have cellphones in class. Students can use them for study related purposes. The teacher must ensure the students are not using their phone for social media during lesson times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was neutral in regards to the issue. The group believes that cellphones can be a good tool in classrooms as they can be used to find useful information, which in some cases can be hard to find. The group agrees that cellphones can be distractive and cause students to lose focus on their work, but can also be used for a learning experience, and could be a benefit to the students learning. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Students should be allowed to have their cellphones in class with a couple of exceptions. This will only be the case if the student has the cellphone on silent and all games and social media is off. The student must also be using the cellphone for a study-related purpose and not just because they feel like it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, Students should not be allowed to have cell phones in class, however we do think that it is a good idea for students to be able to use a calculator on a phone in Maths class if they are stuck on a question. Students will use the phones to play games, check social media and text, this is a huge distraction and could lead to a student failing their exams. If students really need to use a phone then the phone should be switched off and in their school bag and it should only be taken out for the duration of the lesson, at the end the phone is placed back in the bag. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Students should be allowed to have cellphones in class. Students can use them for study related purposes. The teacher must ensure the students are not using their phone for social media during lesson times. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000052.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000052.soc index e08d634d..7d98f431 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000052.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000052.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group overall believes that the use of cellphones in the classroom can be distracting for students, but they can also be a learning tool. The group believes that teachers should monitor what students are using their phones for, and punish students who use them in an inappropriate manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Overall, the group was neutral in regards to the issue. The group believes that cellphones can be a good tool in classrooms as they can be used to find useful information, which in some cases can be hard to find. The group agrees that cellphones can be distractive and cause students to lose focus on their work, but can also be used for a learning experience, and could be a benefit to the students learning. However, it would be hard to monitor whether or not students are using their phones for educational purposes or just for social media and distracting themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was neutral in regards to the issue. The group believes that cellphones can be a good tool in classrooms as they can be used to find useful information, which in some cases can be hard to find. The group agrees that cellphones can be distractive and cause students to lose focus on their work, but can also be used for a learning experience, and could be a benefit to the students learning. However, cellphones must be used properly and not be a distraction during class time, or it should be removed from the student. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group, in general, was neutral in regards to the issue. The group believes that cellphones can be a good tool in classrooms as they can be used to find useful information, which in some cases can be hard to find. The group agrees that cellphones can be distractive and cause students to lose focus on their work, but can also be used for a learning experience, and could be a benefit to the students learning. However, it would be up to the teacher to ensure that the students are not using the cellphones inappropriately. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group overall believes that the use of cellphones in the classroom can be distracting for students, but they can also be a learning tool. The group believes that teachers should monitor what students are using their phones for, and punish students who use them in an inappropriate manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Overall, the group was neutral in regards to the issue. The group believes that cellphones can be a good tool in classrooms as they can be used to find useful information, which in some cases can be hard to find. The group agrees that cellphones can be distractive and cause students to lose focus on their work, but can also be used for a learning experience, and could be a benefit to the students learning. However, it would be hard to monitor whether or not students are using their phones for educational purposes or just for social media and distracting themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was neutral in regards to the issue. The group believes that cellphones can be a good tool in classrooms as they can be used to find useful information, which in some cases can be hard to find. The group agrees that cellphones can be distractive and cause students to lose focus on their work, but can also be used for a learning experience, and could be a benefit to the students learning. However, cellphones must be used properly and not be a distraction during class time, or it should be removed from the student. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group, in general, was neutral in regards to the issue. The group believes that cellphones can be a good tool in classrooms as they can be used to find useful information, which in some cases can be hard to find. The group agrees that cellphones can be distractive and cause students to lose focus on their work, but can also be used for a learning experience, and could be a benefit to the students learning. However, it would be up to the teacher to ensure that the students are not using the cellphones inappropriately. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000053.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000053.soc index b2be1197..689ac94a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000053.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000053.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, I think that we do have a moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad. No society or country is free from poverty. There will always be those who are less well off than others. In societies where a few are very wealthy and a large number of people are very poor, it is morally right that the wealthy share with the poor. However, it is important to understand that aid to the poor can be used to support corrupt and/or inept governments and it is therefore crucial that aid is channelled directly to those who need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, I think that we do not have a moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad. In all societies, there are those who are blessed with wealth and those who are not. It is only right and just that the rich share with the poor so that they may all benefit from the resources of the society. The outcome of the decision making process for this group was determined by the opinion of Participant 3. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, I think that we do have a moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad. In all societies, there are those who are blessed with wealth and those who are not. It is only right and just that the rich share with the poor so that they may all benefit from the resources of the society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, I think that we do have a moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad. In all societies, there are those who are blessed with wealth and those who are not. It is only right and just that the rich share with the poor so that they may all benefit from the resources of the society. Conclusion: The consensus opinion for this group was determined by the opinion of Participant 3, which was not a true majority opinion. This result may have been avoided by having the participants write the opinions and critiques in their own words. If the participants were to have been asked to repeat the critiques orally, they may have felt more comfortable with expressing a minority opinion and the consensus opinion may have been more in line with the true majority opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, I think that we do have a moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad. No society or country is free from poverty. There will always be those who are less well off than others. In societies where a few are very wealthy and a large number of people are very poor, it is morally right that the wealthy share with the poor. However, it is important to understand that aid to the poor can be used to support corrupt and/or inept governments and it is therefore crucial that aid is channelled directly to those who need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, I think that we do not have a moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad. In all societies, there are those who are blessed with wealth and those who are not. It is only right and just that the rich share with the poor so that they may all benefit from the resources of the society. The outcome of the decision making process for this group was determined by the opinion of Participant 3. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, I think that we do have a moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad. In all societies, there are those who are blessed with wealth and those who are not. It is only right and just that the rich share with the poor so that they may all benefit from the resources of the society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, I think that we do have a moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad. In all societies, there are those who are blessed with wealth and those who are not. It is only right and just that the rich share with the poor so that they may all benefit from the resources of the society. Conclusion: The consensus opinion for this group was determined by the opinion of Participant 3, which was not a true majority opinion. This result may have been avoided by having the participants write the opinions and critiques in their own words. If the participants were to have been asked to repeat the critiques orally, they may have felt more comfortable with expressing a minority opinion and the consensus opinion may have been more in line with the true majority opinion. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000054.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000054.soc index 859748ed..162ccc2f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000054.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000054.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, working shorter hours is better for society as it would reduce stress, reduce the pressure to make money to pay bills and be able to allow people to spend more time with family or friends. However, it would also create higher childcare costs as people need to spend more money to keep their children entertained and in care, this can create extra financial burden. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be more shift work and no more than 4 work days a week. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No as some people require a more flexible working arrangement, For example if childcare is needed then they may not be able to commit to a 5 day work week and that would push a large proportion of society out of working. It would also increase childcare costs and create extra financial burden on those who choose to have children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although working the same hours for all could be seen as a fairer system, this would only be the case if all jobs required the same amount of effort and responsibility. If everyone worked the same hours, it would prevent people from balancing their jobs with their social life and also their family life. The current system allows people to find a balance in their life. This prevents stress and keeps everyone happy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, working shorter hours is better for society as it would reduce stress, reduce the pressure to make money to pay bills and be able to allow people to spend more time with family or friends. However, it would also create higher childcare costs as people need to spend more money to keep their children entertained and in care, this can create extra financial burden. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be more shift work and no more than 4 work days a week. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No as some people require a more flexible working arrangement, For example if childcare is needed then they may not be able to commit to a 5 day work week and that would push a large proportion of society out of working. It would also increase childcare costs and create extra financial burden on those who choose to have children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although working the same hours for all could be seen as a fairer system, this would only be the case if all jobs required the same amount of effort and responsibility. If everyone worked the same hours, it would prevent people from balancing their jobs with their social life and also their family life. The current system allows people to find a balance in their life. This prevents stress and keeps everyone happy. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000055.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000055.soc index 64b1316c..9bfa9add 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000055.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000055.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government is not doing enough to tackle child obesity. However, government cannot tackle the causes of child obesity as doing so may hurt the profits of the food manufacturing companies who have a very strong lobby position and can influence government policy. Instead, they should be more active in providing support for schools and parents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government has been slow to act on child obesity and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. Participants were also asked to rank some key priorities of government, using the following ranking scale. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They need to improve public education on healthy eating and reduce the amount of junk food advertising aimed at children. They should also provide more opportunities for children to be active at school and should look at the possibility of increasing the price of unhealthy foods through taxation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They should not be afraid to intervene to help reduce this problem and introduce more stringent regulation and penalties for companies that advertise harmful snacks and foods to children. The government should also take action against companies who add excessive amounts of sugar and salt to their products. The health of the nation's children is too important to be left in the hands of big business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government is not doing enough to tackle child obesity. However, government cannot tackle the causes of child obesity as doing so may hurt the profits of the food manufacturing companies who have a very strong lobby position and can influence government policy. Instead, they should be more active in providing support for schools and parents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government has been slow to act on child obesity and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. Participants were also asked to rank some key priorities of government, using the following ranking scale. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They need to improve public education on healthy eating and reduce the amount of junk food advertising aimed at children. They should also provide more opportunities for children to be active at school and should look at the possibility of increasing the price of unhealthy foods through taxation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They should not be afraid to intervene to help reduce this problem and introduce more stringent regulation and penalties for companies that advertise harmful snacks and foods to children. The government should also take action against companies who add excessive amounts of sugar and salt to their products. The health of the nation's children is too important to be left in the hands of big business. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000056.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000056.soc index ea364cf3..dab80b79 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000056.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000056.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, people should be encouraged to buy property in London. The current housing climate is in need of a solution. This needs to be addressed with tax incentives for first time buyers. The opinion for and against each participant are clear to see, so let's look at what the group did. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be encouraged to buy a home in London, however, key workers such as teachers, nurses and other public sector workers should be offered affordable properties so that they do not have to live too far from work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be encouraged to buy a home in London if they can afford to and are committed to staying in the city. London is losing the community feeling due to investment from the super-rich and more housing needs to be made available to people who actually live and work in London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not be encouraged to buy a home in London, but if they can afford to buy a home and if they can meet the mortgage requirements then they should be able to buy a home. The London market is already inflated and it will become unsustainable in the long run. There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor in London and this gap is growing bigger. As a result of this, people who live and work in London should be offered key worker housing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, people should be encouraged to buy property in London. The current housing climate is in need of a solution. This needs to be addressed with tax incentives for first time buyers. The opinion for and against each participant are clear to see, so let's look at what the group did. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be encouraged to buy a home in London, however, key workers such as teachers, nurses and other public sector workers should be offered affordable properties so that they do not have to live too far from work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be encouraged to buy a home in London if they can afford to and are committed to staying in the city. London is losing the community feeling due to investment from the super-rich and more housing needs to be made available to people who actually live and work in London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not be encouraged to buy a home in London, but if they can afford to buy a home and if they can meet the mortgage requirements then they should be able to buy a home. The London market is already inflated and it will become unsustainable in the long run. There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor in London and this gap is growing bigger. As a result of this, people who live and work in London should be offered key worker housing. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000057.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000057.soc index 7109d487..96d6daaa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000057.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000057.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it is not acceptable for a company to sell a facial recognition system to a country where they will be used to track political dissidents. The group did not feel that a product which would allow a government to track its citizens would be a good idea in any country, and it was particularly worried that in a country with a bad human rights record the product would be used in an oppressive way. This was the view of all of the participants in the group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was wary of facial recognition systems, particularly when used by government entities in politically sensitive circumstances. It is an issue of freedom of speech and expression and is only aggravated by the application of technology that can target individuals based on their expression of political opinions. It is difficult to judge whether a facial recognition system will be used in an ethically and morally questionable way, and whether it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. Therefore, this group of participants felt it is generally unethical to sell facial recognition systems to regimes where there is a known track record of human rights abuses, such as Iran. In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not believe it is okay for a company to sell a facial recognition system to a country where they will be used to track political dissidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not acceptable for a company to sell a facial recognition system to a country where they will be used to track political dissidents if that country has a poor record of human rights. We were quite relieved with the outcome, but when we told the others in the group, they were a bit surprised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it is not acceptable for a company to sell a facial recognition system to a country where they will be used to track political dissidents. The group did not feel that a product which would allow a government to track its citizens would be a good idea in any country, and it was particularly worried that in a country with a bad human rights record the product would be used in an oppressive way. This was the view of all of the participants in the group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was wary of facial recognition systems, particularly when used by government entities in politically sensitive circumstances. It is an issue of freedom of speech and expression and is only aggravated by the application of technology that can target individuals based on their expression of political opinions. It is difficult to judge whether a facial recognition system will be used in an ethically and morally questionable way, and whether it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. Therefore, this group of participants felt it is generally unethical to sell facial recognition systems to regimes where there is a known track record of human rights abuses, such as Iran. In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not believe it is okay for a company to sell a facial recognition system to a country where they will be used to track political dissidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not acceptable for a company to sell a facial recognition system to a country where they will be used to track political dissidents if that country has a poor record of human rights. We were quite relieved with the outcome, but when we told the others in the group, they were a bit surprised. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000058.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000058.soc index 62d5f8ef..4c5d5e81 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000058.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000058.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a crisis in the housing market, with rents skyrocketing and wages staying the same or falling. In the face of the pandemic, this has been exasperated. Landlords have a vested interest in maximising profits, and this means that they have an incentive to increase rent as much as possible. In the face of the pandemic, this has led to many landlords attempting to increase rent or evict tenants who are unable to pay. This has left tenants with nowhere to go and has exacerbated the housing crisis. Therefore, the government should step in and place a temporary ban on evictions and increase regulation of rent prices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The free market is the most efficient way to allocate resources, but when it comes to housing this is not always the case. There are certain cases where it is not allocated efficiently, and in these cases the government should step in. The government should ensure that housing is affordable to all, and this means that it should control rent prices in certain circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the free market is the most efficient way to ensure resources are allocated in the best way possible. However, there are certain goods and services that are not allocated efficiently in this way. Landlords have an incentive to charge as much as they can to maximise profits, and this means that housing will become increasingly unaffordable. The government needs to step in and control rent prices, at least for the time being. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The free market is generally the best way to allocate resources, however, the government should intervene in the free market to control rent prices in situations where housing becomes unaffordable and landlords begin to increase rents significantly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a crisis in the housing market, with rents skyrocketing and wages staying the same or falling. In the face of the pandemic, this has been exasperated. Landlords have a vested interest in maximising profits, and this means that they have an incentive to increase rent as much as possible. In the face of the pandemic, this has led to many landlords attempting to increase rent or evict tenants who are unable to pay. This has left tenants with nowhere to go and has exacerbated the housing crisis. Therefore, the government should step in and place a temporary ban on evictions and increase regulation of rent prices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The free market is the most efficient way to allocate resources, but when it comes to housing this is not always the case. There are certain cases where it is not allocated efficiently, and in these cases the government should step in. The government should ensure that housing is affordable to all, and this means that it should control rent prices in certain circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the free market is the most efficient way to ensure resources are allocated in the best way possible. However, there are certain goods and services that are not allocated efficiently in this way. Landlords have an incentive to charge as much as they can to maximise profits, and this means that housing will become increasingly unaffordable. The government needs to step in and control rent prices, at least for the time being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The free market is generally the best way to allocate resources, however, the government should intervene in the free market to control rent prices in situations where housing becomes unaffordable and landlords begin to increase rents significantly. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000059.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000059.soc index 1bcec74b..2987059f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000059.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000059.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Capitalism has the potential to be a great system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. In many cases, capitalism is a tool that people can use to achieve great things in their life, but it can also keep people in an unhappy state of mind. Conclusion: By allowing a group of individuals to give their opinions and critique each others' opinions on a topic, you can then come to a consensus statement that takes into account all opinions and critiques. The final consensus statement that is created is one that you can say everyone in the group agrees with, or at least is more representative of the majority opinion. This could be a useful tool for gaining the consensus opinion on a specific topic from a group of individuals, and is a way to overcome some of the inherent problems with polling methods that are currently used. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Capitalism is a system that has the potential to both help and hinder people's lives. It is entirely dependent on the individual to be successful or not. The potential for success in capitalism is what drives people to work harder and achieve higher goals and better lives for themselves and their families. It is a system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. In a third group, the participants discussed the same question. Below is presented the question along with the opinions of each individual participant followed by their final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Capitalism has the potential to both help and hinder people's lives. It is entirely dependent on the individual to be successful or not. The potential for success in capitalism is what drives people to work harder and achieve higher goals and better lives for themselves and their families. It is a system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Capitalism is something that has the potential to both help and hinder people's lives. It is entirely dependent on the individual to be successful or not. The potential for success in capitalism is what drives people to work harder and achieve higher goals and better lives for themselves and their families. It is a system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Capitalism has the potential to be a great system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. In many cases, capitalism is a tool that people can use to achieve great things in their life, but it can also keep people in an unhappy state of mind. Conclusion: By allowing a group of individuals to give their opinions and critique each others' opinions on a topic, you can then come to a consensus statement that takes into account all opinions and critiques. The final consensus statement that is created is one that you can say everyone in the group agrees with, or at least is more representative of the majority opinion. This could be a useful tool for gaining the consensus opinion on a specific topic from a group of individuals, and is a way to overcome some of the inherent problems with polling methods that are currently used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Capitalism is a system that has the potential to both help and hinder people's lives. It is entirely dependent on the individual to be successful or not. The potential for success in capitalism is what drives people to work harder and achieve higher goals and better lives for themselves and their families. It is a system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. In a third group, the participants discussed the same question. Below is presented the question along with the opinions of each individual participant followed by their final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Capitalism has the potential to both help and hinder people's lives. It is entirely dependent on the individual to be successful or not. The potential for success in capitalism is what drives people to work harder and achieve higher goals and better lives for themselves and their families. It is a system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Capitalism is something that has the potential to both help and hinder people's lives. It is entirely dependent on the individual to be successful or not. The potential for success in capitalism is what drives people to work harder and achieve higher goals and better lives for themselves and their families. It is a system that promotes freedom and gives people the chance to do what they want, but it is also a system that can keep people down if they are not able to adapt. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000060.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000060.soc index 9ba866a5..df7ffd82 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000060.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000060.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking should be banned as it is harmful to health and is a dangerous habit to form. The law should be enforced against anyone selling or buying tobacco products. Smoking in public should be banned and should be punishable by a fine. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, smoking should be banned but there are situations where people should be able to smoke in limited areas. It should be banned in places where it affects other people's health such as on public transport and in other public places where smoke could affect people's health. It should be allowed in places where the people who are smoking know it is a health risk, and are choosing to take that risk, but not in areas where it can affect other people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be able to smoke in public places and in places that have a large number of people in them as this can cause health problems for those who are exposed to it. However, smoking in private homes should not be banned and it should not be a legal requirement to ask permission of other people to smoke in their home as this would be an infringement of the human rights of the smoker. Moreover, people should not be forced to ask people's permission to smoke in their own home because it is their property and they should have a right to do what they want in it. Smoking should be banned in places that are intended for children, or that are near schools, as this is to ensure that children are not exposed to second hand smoke. Furthermore, places should be designated for smoking and non-smoking in order to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Smoking should not be banned. However, certain areas should ban smoking and there should be a ban on disposing of cigarettes in a non-environmentally friendly way. Advertising should be banned and health information and education should be improved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking should be banned as it is harmful to health and is a dangerous habit to form. The law should be enforced against anyone selling or buying tobacco products. Smoking in public should be banned and should be punishable by a fine. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, smoking should be banned but there are situations where people should be able to smoke in limited areas. It should be banned in places where it affects other people's health such as on public transport and in other public places where smoke could affect people's health. It should be allowed in places where the people who are smoking know it is a health risk, and are choosing to take that risk, but not in areas where it can affect other people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be able to smoke in public places and in places that have a large number of people in them as this can cause health problems for those who are exposed to it. However, smoking in private homes should not be banned and it should not be a legal requirement to ask permission of other people to smoke in their home as this would be an infringement of the human rights of the smoker. Moreover, people should not be forced to ask people's permission to smoke in their own home because it is their property and they should have a right to do what they want in it. Smoking should be banned in places that are intended for children, or that are near schools, as this is to ensure that children are not exposed to second hand smoke. Furthermore, places should be designated for smoking and non-smoking in order to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Smoking should not be banned. However, certain areas should ban smoking and there should be a ban on disposing of cigarettes in a non-environmentally friendly way. Advertising should be banned and health information and education should be improved. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000061.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000061.soc index c8642f65..dd783cde 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000061.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000061.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that the legalisation of cannabis is not such a bad thing. The issue with it is that it is illegal and therefore people who use it are more likely to use harder drugs to try and get away from the effects of cannabis which they have built up a tolerance to. It is also very difficult to come off cannabis as you will always want to go back to it, therefore you need to slowly reduce your use over a long period of time. This is where it can become dangerous as you can increase your usage of the drug over this period, which is how it has become so addictive. If it were legalised there would be a lot more regulations on the amount of cannabis you could purchase, which would hopefully mean that people wouldn't get as addicted and would be able to get off it much easier. This would stop people from using other drugs that are far more dangerous to themselves and other people around them. The legalisation of cannabis would also mean that there would be no crime associated with it, and would therefore mean that the police would be able to focus on other crimes that are far more serious. There would also be a large amount of money that would be added to the economy as it is a huge market -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalisation, with one person being strongly against the idea. The general feeling was that legalising cannabis would put money back into the government tax system, as well as saving money on the policing and court costs of prosecuting illegal cannabis users. The drug has also been found to have positive effects on those suffering from a variety of illnesses and by making it legal the government would be able to keep it under control and ensure that it was not abused. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although cannabis should be legalised in order to allow it to be regulated, the risks are still too high and the harm caused by cannabis is far greater than any possible benefit that could come from its legalisation. In particular, the negative effects of cannabis on health and the risk of mental illness would be too great to allow it to be legalised. Also, it is very likely that cannabis legalisation would increase drug abuse in young people, as young people would be much more likely to experiment with cannabis if it was legal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that the legalisation of cannabis is not such a bad thing. The issue with it is that it is illegal and therefore people who use it are more likely to use harder drugs to try and get away from the effects of cannabis which they have built up a tolerance to. It is also very difficult to come off cannabis as you will always want to go back to it, therefore you need to slowly reduce your use over a long period of time. This is where it can become dangerous as you can increase your usage of the drug over this period, which is how it has become so addictive. If it were legalised there would be a lot more regulations on the amount of cannabis you could purchase, which would hopefully mean that people wouldn't get as addicted and would be able to get off it much easier. This would stop people from using other drugs that are far more dangerous to themselves and other people around them. The legalisation of cannabis would also mean that there would be no crime associated with it, and would therefore mean that the police would be able to focus on other crimes that are far more serious. There would also be a large amount of money that would be added to the economy as it is a huge market +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalisation, with one person being strongly against the idea. The general feeling was that legalising cannabis would put money back into the government tax system, as well as saving money on the policing and court costs of prosecuting illegal cannabis users. The drug has also been found to have positive effects on those suffering from a variety of illnesses and by making it legal the government would be able to keep it under control and ensure that it was not abused. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although cannabis should be legalised in order to allow it to be regulated, the risks are still too high and the harm caused by cannabis is far greater than any possible benefit that could come from its legalisation. In particular, the negative effects of cannabis on health and the risk of mental illness would be too great to allow it to be legalised. Also, it is very likely that cannabis legalisation would increase drug abuse in young people, as young people would be much more likely to experiment with cannabis if it was legal. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000062.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000062.soc index d17cee8e..d6d5aad5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000062.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000062.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government has been slow to act on child obesity and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. Comments: The consensus statement successfully takes into account all of the opinions expressed by participants. It does not seem to have taken into account the critiques of the draft consensus statement however. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Child obesity is an increasing problem in the UK. The government has been slow to act and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. Furthermore, it should provide more funding for children's sports facilities to be used outside of school time, thus providing the opportunity for children to be active when school is not in session. Participant Statements on Priorities Ranking Scale: 0 = Very important, 1 = Important, 2 = Important but not urgent, 3 = Not important The government should take an active role in lowering childhood obesity Participant 1: 0 Participant 2: 0 Participant 3: 0 Participant 4: 0 Participant 5: 0 The government should put more resources -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government has been slow to act on child obesity and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. Final average priority ranking: Physical health (1), Education (2), Mental health (3), Food quality (4), General well-being (5) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government has been slow to act on child obesity and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government has been slow to act on child obesity and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. Comments: The consensus statement successfully takes into account all of the opinions expressed by participants. It does not seem to have taken into account the critiques of the draft consensus statement however. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Child obesity is an increasing problem in the UK. The government has been slow to act and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. Furthermore, it should provide more funding for children's sports facilities to be used outside of school time, thus providing the opportunity for children to be active when school is not in session. Participant Statements on Priorities Ranking Scale: 0 = Very important, 1 = Important, 2 = Important but not urgent, 3 = Not important The government should take an active role in lowering childhood obesity Participant 1: 0 Participant 2: 0 Participant 3: 0 Participant 4: 0 Participant 5: 0 The government should put more resources +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government has been slow to act on child obesity and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. Final average priority ranking: Physical health (1), Education (2), Mental health (3), Food quality (4), General well-being (5) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government has been slow to act on child obesity and in many ways is still failing to act. This is largely due to the lobbying power of big business and think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs. The government should demand that schools ensure their pupils are more active and take part in meaningful physical education. Also, the government should be more active in its efforts to crack down on the advertising of harmful snacks to children. Finally, the government should not just add sugar taxes to products but should rather provide more help in the form of vouchers towards salads/vegetables and even vouchers for children's gym access. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000063.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000063.soc index 5171d7bf..ed729abe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000063.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000063.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was wary of facial recognition systems, particularly when used by government entities in politically sensitive circumstances. It is an issue of freedom of speech and expression and is only aggravated by the application of technology that can target individuals based on their expression of political opinions. It is difficult to judge whether a facial recognition system will be used in an ethically and morally questionable way, and whether it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. Therefore, this group of participants felt it is generally unethical to sell facial recognition systems to regimes where there is a known track record of human rights abuses, such as Iran. In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a strong argument for believing that it is unethical for a company to sell a facial recognition system to a country where it will be used to track political dissidents. The use of facial recognition technology requires much stronger and more firmly-enforced oversight and control, to ensure that it is not used in ways that violate anyone's basic human rights. This is particularly the case when there is a known track record of human rights abuses. Such cases may include, for example, the use of facial recognition to suppress dissent, breach people's right to freedom of expression, and/or as a tool for racially profiling minorities and vulnerable populations. Furthermore, if the use of facial recognition is so ethically and morally questionable that it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents, then it is likely that it will be used in other ways to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. It is therefore important to ensure that strong safeguards are in place, and/or avoid selling to such regimes, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Facial recognition systems have a track record of being used by governments and regimes to violate human rights. The group of participants, in general, is wary of facial recognition systems, particularly when used by government entities in politically sensitive circumstances. It is an issue of freedom of speech and expression and is only aggravated by the application of technology that can target individuals based on their expression of political opinions. It is difficult to judge whether a facial recognition system will be used in an ethically and morally questionable way, and whether it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. Therefore, this group of participants felt it is generally unethical to sell facial recognition systems to regimes where there is a known track record of human rights abuses, such as Iran. In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: This group of participants was wary of facial recognition systems, particularly when used by government entities in politically sensitive circumstances. The use of facial recognition systems to track political dissidents is controversial due to human rights records in many politically sensitive regimes. In countries with poor human rights records, there is a greater risk that facial recognition systems will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. It is difficult to judge whether a facial recognition system will be used in an ethically and morally questionable way, and whether it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. Therefore, this group of participants felt it is generally unethical to sell facial recognition systems to regimes where there is a known track record of human rights abuses, such as Iran. In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was wary of facial recognition systems, particularly when used by government entities in politically sensitive circumstances. It is an issue of freedom of speech and expression and is only aggravated by the application of technology that can target individuals based on their expression of political opinions. It is difficult to judge whether a facial recognition system will be used in an ethically and morally questionable way, and whether it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. Therefore, this group of participants felt it is generally unethical to sell facial recognition systems to regimes where there is a known track record of human rights abuses, such as Iran. In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a strong argument for believing that it is unethical for a company to sell a facial recognition system to a country where it will be used to track political dissidents. The use of facial recognition technology requires much stronger and more firmly-enforced oversight and control, to ensure that it is not used in ways that violate anyone's basic human rights. This is particularly the case when there is a known track record of human rights abuses. Such cases may include, for example, the use of facial recognition to suppress dissent, breach people's right to freedom of expression, and/or as a tool for racially profiling minorities and vulnerable populations. Furthermore, if the use of facial recognition is so ethically and morally questionable that it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents, then it is likely that it will be used in other ways to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. It is therefore important to ensure that strong safeguards are in place, and/or avoid selling to such regimes, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Facial recognition systems have a track record of being used by governments and regimes to violate human rights. The group of participants, in general, is wary of facial recognition systems, particularly when used by government entities in politically sensitive circumstances. It is an issue of freedom of speech and expression and is only aggravated by the application of technology that can target individuals based on their expression of political opinions. It is difficult to judge whether a facial recognition system will be used in an ethically and morally questionable way, and whether it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. Therefore, this group of participants felt it is generally unethical to sell facial recognition systems to regimes where there is a known track record of human rights abuses, such as Iran. In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - This group of participants was wary of facial recognition systems, particularly when used by government entities in politically sensitive circumstances. The use of facial recognition systems to track political dissidents is controversial due to human rights records in many politically sensitive regimes. In countries with poor human rights records, there is a greater risk that facial recognition systems will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. It is difficult to judge whether a facial recognition system will be used in an ethically and morally questionable way, and whether it will be used to violate the human rights of suspected or alleged political dissidents. Therefore, this group of participants felt it is generally unethical to sell facial recognition systems to regimes where there is a known track record of human rights abuses, such as Iran. In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution, particularly when the technology is to be used in politically sensitive environments. However, it is important to note that there are other ways in which facial recognition systems can be used to violate human rights, such as for racial profiling or illegal mass surveillance. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000064.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000064.soc index 81e4db54..eb852560 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000064.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000064.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the NHS is not doing enough to improve the health of the average person. There are many free services offered by the NHS to help improve the health of the average person, however, not enough people take advantage of them. In particular, the NHS is providing little help in making it easy for the average person to live a healthier life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the NHS is doing enough to improve the health of the average person. However, as participant 4 said, there needs to be a good balance between preventative health advice and treatment for those who are seriously ill. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is doing all it can to improve the health of the average person but is falling behind in dealing with the consequences of those who don't pay attention to their health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is doing everything it can to improve the health of the average person. This will only be the case if more funding and staff is provided by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the NHS is not doing enough to improve the health of the average person. There are many free services offered by the NHS to help improve the health of the average person, however, not enough people take advantage of them. In particular, the NHS is providing little help in making it easy for the average person to live a healthier life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the NHS is doing enough to improve the health of the average person. However, as participant 4 said, there needs to be a good balance between preventative health advice and treatment for those who are seriously ill. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is doing all it can to improve the health of the average person but is falling behind in dealing with the consequences of those who don't pay attention to their health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is doing everything it can to improve the health of the average person. This will only be the case if more funding and staff is provided by the government. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000065.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000065.soc index 026d7623..c2fbaad9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000065.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000065.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Politicians should not accept gifts of any kind. They should turn down any offer of a gift. They are already on a generous salary and should not need to accept gifts to get by. Also, accepting a gift could influence their vote or the way they approach a topic. The people elected to parliament should have the best interests of the country and its citizens at heart, not the company or person who has made them the gift. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No politician should be allowed to accept gifts and instead should turn it down or else donate it immediately to a charitable cause. This is not right and could result in corruption in the Government. The politicians have enough money and they should be banned from accepting any gifts and should also be named and shamed and kicked out if they do something like this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is the opinion of the group that it should be illegal for politicians to accept gifts from donors. This is because, by accepting gifts, it creates the potential for politicians to be bribed. This can result in politicians no longer acting in the people’s best interest and instead doing what they can to benefit the donor, even if it is to the detriment of others. This can cause corruption in politics and remove transparency from the political process, resulting in a society that is unfair and favours the few rather than the many. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the giving of gifts to politicians by the public is not a major issue. However, where gifts are being given to politicians by companies or lobby groups in order to sway them in some way, this is an issue. As politicians are in a position of power, they should not be accepting gifts as it could compromise their judgment and decision making. In this way, it is acceptable for the law to prevent them from receiving gifts. Gifts in the form of money are a more complicated issue. Politicians are generally very well paid, and as such, there is no real need for them to accept money gifts. However, money can be easily given in order to make politicians favor one decision over another, and as such it should not be accepted by them. This can cause problems for a politician if their friend is a business owner and gives them a gift. In this case, the politician would need to be able to show that the money was not given to them with any strings attached and that the friendship was genuine. In a sense, politicians are the same as any other citizen, and they have the right to receive gifts and to keep their own money. However, they also have the responsibility to be fair and just in +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Politicians should not accept gifts of any kind. They should turn down any offer of a gift. They are already on a generous salary and should not need to accept gifts to get by. Also, accepting a gift could influence their vote or the way they approach a topic. The people elected to parliament should have the best interests of the country and its citizens at heart, not the company or person who has made them the gift. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No politician should be allowed to accept gifts and instead should turn it down or else donate it immediately to a charitable cause. This is not right and could result in corruption in the Government. The politicians have enough money and they should be banned from accepting any gifts and should also be named and shamed and kicked out if they do something like this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is the opinion of the group that it should be illegal for politicians to accept gifts from donors. This is because, by accepting gifts, it creates the potential for politicians to be bribed. This can result in politicians no longer acting in the people’s best interest and instead doing what they can to benefit the donor, even if it is to the detriment of others. This can cause corruption in politics and remove transparency from the political process, resulting in a society that is unfair and favours the few rather than the many. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the giving of gifts to politicians by the public is not a major issue. However, where gifts are being given to politicians by companies or lobby groups in order to sway them in some way, this is an issue. As politicians are in a position of power, they should not be accepting gifts as it could compromise their judgment and decision making. In this way, it is acceptable for the law to prevent them from receiving gifts. Gifts in the form of money are a more complicated issue. Politicians are generally very well paid, and as such, there is no real need for them to accept money gifts. However, money can be easily given in order to make politicians favor one decision over another, and as such it should not be accepted by them. This can cause problems for a politician if their friend is a business owner and gives them a gift. In this case, the politician would need to be able to show that the money was not given to them with any strings attached and that the friendship was genuine. In a sense, politicians are the same as any other citizen, and they have the right to receive gifts and to keep their own money. However, they also have the responsibility to be fair and just in 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000066.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000066.soc index e13d7504..896d83e3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000066.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000066.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the bridge, although with reservations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A bridge to Northern Ireland would be very difficult to build, and very expensive. The current consensus opinion is that it is not necessary to build a bridge to Northern Ireland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group have come to the consensus view that we should not be building a bridge to Northern Ireland. This is due to the potential negative impacts it could have on the surrounding area and the cost of construction. It would also impact shipping lanes which could result in negative effects on the local economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the Government should build the bridge. The bridge will improve tourism and transport links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. This will benefit the economies in both countries. The bridge will be a welcome addition to the infrastructure of both Scotland and Northern Ireland. The bridge will also be an internationally known structure which will attract more tourists to the areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the bridge, although with reservations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A bridge to Northern Ireland would be very difficult to build, and very expensive. The current consensus opinion is that it is not necessary to build a bridge to Northern Ireland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group have come to the consensus view that we should not be building a bridge to Northern Ireland. This is due to the potential negative impacts it could have on the surrounding area and the cost of construction. It would also impact shipping lanes which could result in negative effects on the local economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the Government should build the bridge. The bridge will improve tourism and transport links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. This will benefit the economies in both countries. The bridge will be a welcome addition to the infrastructure of both Scotland and Northern Ireland. The bridge will also be an internationally known structure which will attract more tourists to the areas. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000067.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000067.soc index 40f5314a..897e8a9d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000067.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000067.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think that the rich should be generous, but in a voluntary way. The issue with the poor being reliant on the rich is that the rich are more likely to offer assistance to projects they believe in, rather than just to the poor in general.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the rich in the UK do have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. There are various reasons why we came to this decision. We feel that by making a certain amount of money, it’s almost as if you are in a position of privilege and responsibility, so therefore you should help those who are in need. You may have had your parents help you in the past, whether that be financially or otherwise, so by having your own success, you should also help others. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. It is not fair that some people have to live their lives in poverty, when others can live in luxury. People who are in poverty need help and if they receive that help, then they will be able to improve their life for the better. If we all work together to help others who are less fortunate than us, then everyone will be able to have a better standard of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We feel that there is an obligation on the rich to help the poor in the UK as long as it is a voluntary contribution. We feel that if the rich were obligated to help the poor it would cause the rich to not want to help the poor in the first place. The UK has a welfare system and people who can not work do receive a certain amount of money to live on so the rich are not necessarily obligated to help. The rich should also help with causes like education, hospitals, and the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't believe that the rich have an obligation to help the poor. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think that the rich should be generous, but in a voluntary way. The issue with the poor being reliant on the rich is that the rich are more likely to offer assistance to projects they believe in, rather than just to the poor in general.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the rich in the UK do have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. There are various reasons why we came to this decision. We feel that by making a certain amount of money, it’s almost as if you are in a position of privilege and responsibility, so therefore you should help those who are in need. You may have had your parents help you in the past, whether that be financially or otherwise, so by having your own success, you should also help others. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. It is not fair that some people have to live their lives in poverty, when others can live in luxury. People who are in poverty need help and if they receive that help, then they will be able to improve their life for the better. If we all work together to help others who are less fortunate than us, then everyone will be able to have a better standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We feel that there is an obligation on the rich to help the poor in the UK as long as it is a voluntary contribution. We feel that if the rich were obligated to help the poor it would cause the rich to not want to help the poor in the first place. The UK has a welfare system and people who can not work do receive a certain amount of money to live on so the rich are not necessarily obligated to help. The rich should also help with causes like education, hospitals, and the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't believe that the rich have an obligation to help the poor. 3: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000068.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000068.soc index 8c563861..8ac53633 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000068.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000068.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain all citizens, but not to educate. They should also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and educate all citizens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain the public, but education should be the responsibility of other institutions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the BBC should have a public service obligation to inform, educate and entertain all citizens, but there are some extreme cases where some individuals idea of entertainment is so niche or unpleasant that the BBC should not put resources into entertaining them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain all citizens, but not to educate. They should also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and educate all citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain the public, but education should be the responsibility of other institutions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the BBC should have a public service obligation to inform, educate and entertain all citizens, but there are some extreme cases where some individuals idea of entertainment is so niche or unpleasant that the BBC should not put resources into entertaining them. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000069.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000069.soc index 32891ddf..37b41b6b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000069.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000069.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain all citizens, but not to educate. They should also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain all citizens, but not to educate. They should also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform, educate and entertain all citizens. The BBC should also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain all citizens, and also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform, entertain, and educate all citizens. They should be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform, entertain, and educate all citizens. They should be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain all citizens, but not to educate. They should also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain all citizens, but not to educate. They should also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform, educate and entertain all citizens. The BBC should also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform and entertain all citizens, and also be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform, entertain, and educate all citizens. They should be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. The BBC should have a public service obligation to inform, entertain, and educate all citizens. They should be unbiased and as fair as possible in the news they deliver, so as to deliver factual information. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000070.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000070.soc index 1dbcb84c..81162eea 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000070.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000070.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking should not be allowed in enclosed public spaces, and in places that have a large number of people in them as this can cause health problems for those who are exposed to it. However, smoking in private homes should not be banned and it should not be a legal requirement to ask permission of other people to smoke in their home as this would be an infringement of the human rights of the smoker. Moreover, people should not be forced to ask people's permission to smoke in their own home because it is their property and they should have a right to do what they want in it. Smoking should be banned in places that are intended for children, or that are near schools, as this is to ensure that children are not exposed to second hand smoke. Furthermore, places should be designated for smoking and non-smoking in order to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Smoking should not be banned because people should have the right to do what they want in their own homes. However, smoking should be banned in public places as it can be harmful to others. Furthermore, designated areas for smokers should be created so that people who smoke can do so without affecting those who do not. Children should not be exposed to second hand smoke, and smoking should be banned near schools, and children should not be allowed to smoke. Moreover, it should be illegal to smoke in a car with children in it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking should not be banned completely, as it is a personal choice that should be respected. However, people should not be able to smoke in public places and in places that have a large number of people in them as this can cause health problems for those who are exposed to it. Furthermore, people should not be able to smoke in places that are intended for children, or that are near schools, as this is to ensure that children are not exposed to second hand smoke. Moreover, places should be designated for smoking and non-smoking in order to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. Smoking should be allowed in private homes, but only when there are no children present as the smoke can have a detrimental impact on their health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not be able to smoke in public places and in places that have a large number of people in them as this can cause health problems for those who are exposed to it. However, smoking in private homes should not be banned and it should not be a legal requirement to ask permission of other people to smoke in their home as this would be an infringement of the human rights of the smoker. Moreover, people should not be forced to ask people's permission to smoke in their own home because it is their property and they should have a right to do what they want in it. Smoking should be banned in places that are intended for children, or that are near schools, as this is to ensure that children are not exposed to second hand smoke. Furthermore, places should be designated for smoking and non-smoking in order to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking should not be allowed in enclosed public spaces, and in places that have a large number of people in them as this can cause health problems for those who are exposed to it. However, smoking in private homes should not be banned and it should not be a legal requirement to ask permission of other people to smoke in their home as this would be an infringement of the human rights of the smoker. Moreover, people should not be forced to ask people's permission to smoke in their own home because it is their property and they should have a right to do what they want in it. Smoking should be banned in places that are intended for children, or that are near schools, as this is to ensure that children are not exposed to second hand smoke. Furthermore, places should be designated for smoking and non-smoking in order to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Smoking should not be banned because people should have the right to do what they want in their own homes. However, smoking should be banned in public places as it can be harmful to others. Furthermore, designated areas for smokers should be created so that people who smoke can do so without affecting those who do not. Children should not be exposed to second hand smoke, and smoking should be banned near schools, and children should not be allowed to smoke. Moreover, it should be illegal to smoke in a car with children in it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking should not be banned completely, as it is a personal choice that should be respected. However, people should not be able to smoke in public places and in places that have a large number of people in them as this can cause health problems for those who are exposed to it. Furthermore, people should not be able to smoke in places that are intended for children, or that are near schools, as this is to ensure that children are not exposed to second hand smoke. Moreover, places should be designated for smoking and non-smoking in order to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. Smoking should be allowed in private homes, but only when there are no children present as the smoke can have a detrimental impact on their health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not be able to smoke in public places and in places that have a large number of people in them as this can cause health problems for those who are exposed to it. However, smoking in private homes should not be banned and it should not be a legal requirement to ask permission of other people to smoke in their home as this would be an infringement of the human rights of the smoker. Moreover, people should not be forced to ask people's permission to smoke in their own home because it is their property and they should have a right to do what they want in it. Smoking should be banned in places that are intended for children, or that are near schools, as this is to ensure that children are not exposed to second hand smoke. Furthermore, places should be designated for smoking and non-smoking in order to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000071.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000071.soc index 2013420f..5c2c6f9f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000071.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000071.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Pesticides have a clear benefit in terms of protecting crops, but can have a devastating impact on bees. A ban on all pesticides is not the best solution, as pesticides have a vital role to play in food production. However, alternative solutions to harmful pesticides should be sought and some pesticides may be harmful enough to warrant a ban. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum. However, if there is no other way to grow crops to feed people then it should be considered as an option. Pesticides should be used as a last resort. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on pesticides that are harmful to local wildlife and to bee populations in particular. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Pesticides should be banned where they are found to cause irreparable harm to bees, otherwise the benefits of using them for crop production are greater. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Pesticides have a clear benefit in terms of protecting crops, but can have a devastating impact on bees. A ban on all pesticides is not the best solution, as pesticides have a vital role to play in food production. However, alternative solutions to harmful pesticides should be sought and some pesticides may be harmful enough to warrant a ban. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum. However, if there is no other way to grow crops to feed people then it should be considered as an option. Pesticides should be used as a last resort. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on pesticides that are harmful to local wildlife and to bee populations in particular. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Pesticides should be banned where they are found to cause irreparable harm to bees, otherwise the benefits of using them for crop production are greater. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000072.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000072.soc index 6837583f..d9bc5527 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000072.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000072.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is no difference between the two, they seem to do the same job with the same duties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is the opinion of the group that the answer to the question would be yes, having a President would be better than having a Prime Minister. The group came to this decision as a President would hold the highest office in the land and would be voted into that position directly by the people. A President would also be the direct representative of the people. On the other hand, a Prime Minister is only appointed to his position by a monarch who may be a foreigner or a relative. In the case of the latter, he would not be the people's direct representative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the Prime Minister is the most senior politician in the cabinet and the government. The Prime Minister can be referred to as Head of Government or Head of the Cabinet. The President is the ceremonial head of the state and usually has no political role or power. The President is often seen as a representative of the country. It would be better to have a Prime Minister as they would be responsible for ensuring that the laws are implemented and governing the country. The President would also need to act within the law as created by the Prime Minister. This would mean that there is one main individual with overall power and responsibility for governing the country. The Prime Minister would be better suited to this task. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, while we don't feel that either option would be superior to the other, it is more important to look at the constitution of the country which will indicate what system of governance is in place. As long as rule of law is followed, it will have no impact on the state of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is no difference between the two, they seem to do the same job with the same duties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is the opinion of the group that the answer to the question would be yes, having a President would be better than having a Prime Minister. The group came to this decision as a President would hold the highest office in the land and would be voted into that position directly by the people. A President would also be the direct representative of the people. On the other hand, a Prime Minister is only appointed to his position by a monarch who may be a foreigner or a relative. In the case of the latter, he would not be the people's direct representative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the Prime Minister is the most senior politician in the cabinet and the government. The Prime Minister can be referred to as Head of Government or Head of the Cabinet. The President is the ceremonial head of the state and usually has no political role or power. The President is often seen as a representative of the country. It would be better to have a Prime Minister as they would be responsible for ensuring that the laws are implemented and governing the country. The President would also need to act within the law as created by the Prime Minister. This would mean that there is one main individual with overall power and responsibility for governing the country. The Prime Minister would be better suited to this task. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, while we don't feel that either option would be superior to the other, it is more important to look at the constitution of the country which will indicate what system of governance is in place. As long as rule of law is followed, it will have no impact on the state of the country. 3: 4,1,3,2 2: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000073.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000073.soc index a58f1eb2..aa3cc5a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000073.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000073.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we believe that the government should subsidize sports in state schools. The current generation of children are less active than previous generations and this could lead to further problems down the line. Therefore, we think that the government should subsidize sports so that more children can take part and develop an interest in physical activity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of subsidised sports in state schools. We feel that as long as the UK government can afford to fund it, then subsidising sports in state schools is a positive thing. It would help the public health of the country by helping to reduce obesity. The issue is however not straightforward. It depends on how much money is being put into sports and whether it will have a big impact. Some people may also disagree with subsidising sports in state schools as they may feel that not enough money is being spent on the core subjects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Sports in state schools should be subsidized. Children should have the opportunity to participate in sports and exercise, and the more children who do so the greater the health benefits. Sports and exercise also teach young children valuable life skills including teamwork and competitiveness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK government should subsidize sports in state schools. We all recognise that sports participation has numerous health benefits and can also serve as a good career option for some people. We believe that subsidizing sports in schools should be treated the same way as funding for other school subjects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we believe that the government should subsidize sports in state schools. The current generation of children are less active than previous generations and this could lead to further problems down the line. Therefore, we think that the government should subsidize sports so that more children can take part and develop an interest in physical activity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of subsidised sports in state schools. We feel that as long as the UK government can afford to fund it, then subsidising sports in state schools is a positive thing. It would help the public health of the country by helping to reduce obesity. The issue is however not straightforward. It depends on how much money is being put into sports and whether it will have a big impact. Some people may also disagree with subsidising sports in state schools as they may feel that not enough money is being spent on the core subjects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Sports in state schools should be subsidized. Children should have the opportunity to participate in sports and exercise, and the more children who do so the greater the health benefits. Sports and exercise also teach young children valuable life skills including teamwork and competitiveness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK government should subsidize sports in state schools. We all recognise that sports participation has numerous health benefits and can also serve as a good career option for some people. We believe that subsidizing sports in schools should be treated the same way as funding for other school subjects. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000074.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000074.soc index dd27a1c1..87cf9abf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000074.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000074.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. This also reduces costs for the police, health services and courts as cannabis becomes a legal substance. Therefore, overall the effects of legalising cannabis are largely positive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. This can be especially useful for people suffering from cancer and chronic pain. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. However, it can have some negative effects. For example, for people who are dependent on it, withdrawal can lead to severe symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and weight loss. It can also lead to addiction, which can have negative consequences on your health, relationships and employment. It is important to remember that the effects of cannabis can be different for everyone. It is also important to remember that it is illegal to drive while under the influence of cannabis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. Cannabis is the only drug I have seen that is effective against cancer pain in the last stages of the disease. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. This also reduces costs for the police, health services and courts as cannabis becomes a legal substance. Therefore, overall the effects of legalising cannabis are largely positive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. This can be especially useful for people suffering from cancer and chronic pain. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. However, it can have some negative effects. For example, for people who are dependent on it, withdrawal can lead to severe symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and weight loss. It can also lead to addiction, which can have negative consequences on your health, relationships and employment. It is important to remember that the effects of cannabis can be different for everyone. It is also important to remember that it is illegal to drive while under the influence of cannabis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Cannabis should be legalised in the UK. For people who are very ill, suffering from certain illnesses or mental health issues it is used to make them feel better, less stressed and pain free. This is a positive effect. It also makes them feel happier and more productive. By legalising it this will take away the 'underground' market, as well as any organised crime involved in supplying the drug. It can provide a life line for people dealing with an illness as this can be the only product that helps them lead a more normal life pain free. Cannabis is the only drug I have seen that is effective against cancer pain in the last stages of the disease. There are many benefits to legalising cannabis. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000075.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000075.soc index 3e923f51..c56e72e9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000075.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000075.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we are not living in a golden age of democracy. While the word democracy has spread throughout the world, democracy as an actual system of governance and a set of values is becoming weaker and weaker. This can be attributed to a lack of voter participation and a lack of trust of the political system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the world is better than it was in previous times with more countries and people in control of their own destinies, but democracy is not as universal as it should be and some of the biggest challenges are yet to be faced. Conclusion: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We live in a golden age of democracy as it is something that can be improved on and we are working to achieve that. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although in the past we've had high hopes of a better world after the horrors of WWII and the fall of the Iron Curtain, democracy is in danger worldwide and may never reach its full potential. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we are not living in a golden age of democracy. While the word democracy has spread throughout the world, democracy as an actual system of governance and a set of values is becoming weaker and weaker. This can be attributed to a lack of voter participation and a lack of trust of the political system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the world is better than it was in previous times with more countries and people in control of their own destinies, but democracy is not as universal as it should be and some of the biggest challenges are yet to be faced. Conclusion: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We live in a golden age of democracy as it is something that can be improved on and we are working to achieve that. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although in the past we've had high hopes of a better world after the horrors of WWII and the fall of the Iron Curtain, democracy is in danger worldwide and may never reach its full potential. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000076.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000076.soc index 9bd49717..373f8b86 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000076.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000076.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, we need to do more. A blanket ban on all plastics is not practical due to their usefulness and the long lead times on developing alternative materials. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning single use plastics but not all plastics. Most people believed that alternatives to plastic were available. There was discussion around the banning of plastic in some areas but not others. For example, the group thought it would be sensible to ban plastic bags in supermarkets but not in small, corner shops. The group felt that a full ban would be too restrictive on smaller, independent shops. Overall, the group agreed that there were areas where it would be beneficial to ban plastic but that banning all plastics would be difficult and potentially unwise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Definitely, we should ban certain types of plastic to help the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Plastic is widely used in everyday life, for packaging, transport, storage, building, clothing and more. It can be seen as a good material because it is strong, lightweight, flexible and durable. However, plastic is a problem for the environment and humans. While plastics are light and convenient to use, they are not as easy to dispose of. Plastic takes a very long time to decompose in the environment. If burnt, they can release toxic fumes. If dumped in the sea, they can be harmful to marine life, who can mistake plastic for food or get trapped in it. Plastics can also be washed ashore and litter the beach. As plastic is made from fossil fuels, its production is also energy intensive and is a polluting process. This is a problem for the environment and for humans. Therefore, it is good to reduce plastic use, especially single-use plastics, such as bags, straws, cutlery, containers, etc. Many countries have started to reduce the use of plastic by banning the use of single-use plastics. Governments can also give incentives to companies to use more environmentally friendly materials, or support research in this area. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, we need to do more. A blanket ban on all plastics is not practical due to their usefulness and the long lead times on developing alternative materials. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning single use plastics but not all plastics. Most people believed that alternatives to plastic were available. There was discussion around the banning of plastic in some areas but not others. For example, the group thought it would be sensible to ban plastic bags in supermarkets but not in small, corner shops. The group felt that a full ban would be too restrictive on smaller, independent shops. Overall, the group agreed that there were areas where it would be beneficial to ban plastic but that banning all plastics would be difficult and potentially unwise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Definitely, we should ban certain types of plastic to help the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Plastic is widely used in everyday life, for packaging, transport, storage, building, clothing and more. It can be seen as a good material because it is strong, lightweight, flexible and durable. However, plastic is a problem for the environment and humans. While plastics are light and convenient to use, they are not as easy to dispose of. Plastic takes a very long time to decompose in the environment. If burnt, they can release toxic fumes. If dumped in the sea, they can be harmful to marine life, who can mistake plastic for food or get trapped in it. Plastics can also be washed ashore and litter the beach. As plastic is made from fossil fuels, its production is also energy intensive and is a polluting process. This is a problem for the environment and for humans. Therefore, it is good to reduce plastic use, especially single-use plastics, such as bags, straws, cutlery, containers, etc. Many countries have started to reduce the use of plastic by banning the use of single-use plastics. Governments can also give incentives to companies to use more environmentally friendly materials, or support research in this area. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000077.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000077.soc index 3cca443a..2939b3ef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000077.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000077.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should be very cautious about allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway, and that it is probably best to not accept the investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that investment from the Chinese state should be allowed, but with strict checks to ensure human rights aren't being violated. This was a difficult topic for participants and shows that sometimes there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. It is also shows how opinions may change through the discussion and collaboration process. What do you think? Leave your comments below! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was wary about working with the Chinese government on any major project due to the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government and its support of oppressive regimes. However, given the importance of a good public transport system and the benefits of international collaboration, investment should not be rejected outright. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, yes, investment from the Chinese state should be allowed, however due to well-documented human rights concerns around Chinese government and corporations we should be extremely careful in making sure we don't partner with individuals or companies who have a history of these types of behaviour, and the Chinese government must provide strong reassurances that these types of behaviour will not be tolerated in the context of this investment. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question along with the opinions of each individual participant followed by their final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should be very cautious about allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway, and that it is probably best to not accept the investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that investment from the Chinese state should be allowed, but with strict checks to ensure human rights aren't being violated. This was a difficult topic for participants and shows that sometimes there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. It is also shows how opinions may change through the discussion and collaboration process. What do you think? Leave your comments below! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was wary about working with the Chinese government on any major project due to the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government and its support of oppressive regimes. However, given the importance of a good public transport system and the benefits of international collaboration, investment should not be rejected outright. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, yes, investment from the Chinese state should be allowed, however due to well-documented human rights concerns around Chinese government and corporations we should be extremely careful in making sure we don't partner with individuals or companies who have a history of these types of behaviour, and the Chinese government must provide strong reassurances that these types of behaviour will not be tolerated in the context of this investment. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question along with the opinions of each individual participant followed by their final consensus statement. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000078.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000078.soc index 485d2a0d..53b50490 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000078.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000078.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the rich in the UK do have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. There are various reasons why we came to this decision. We feel that by making a certain amount of money, it’s almost as if you are in a position of privilege and responsibility, so therefore you should help those who are in need. You may have had your parents help you in the past, whether that be financially or otherwise, so by having your own success, you should also help others. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. It is not fair that some people have to live their lives in poverty, when others can live in luxury. People who are in poverty need help and if they receive that help, then they will be able to improve their life for the better. If we all work together to help others who are less fortunate than us, then everyone will be able to have a better standard of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the rich in the UK do have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. We came to this decision by agreeing that everyone who has their own success should help those who are in need. It’s also because we believe that it’s in their interests to be seen to be giving back to society, so that discontent will not grow amongst the marginalised groups in society. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the rich in the UK should have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. There are various reasons why we came to this decision. We feel that by making a certain amount of money, it’s almost as if you are in a position of privilege and responsibility, so therefore you should help those who are in need. You may have had your parents help you in the past, whether that be financially or otherwise, so by having your own success, you should also help others. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. It is not fair that some people have to live their lives in poverty, when others can live in luxury. People who are in poverty need help and if they receive that help, then they will be able to improve their life for the better. If we all work together to help others who are less fortunate than us, then everyone will be able to have a better standard of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the rich in the UK have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. There are various reasons why we came to this decision. We feel that by making a certain amount of money, it’s almost as if you are in a position of privilege and responsibility, so therefore you should help those who are in need. You may have had your parents help you in the past, whether that be financially or otherwise, so by having your own success, you should also help others. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. It is not fair that some people have to live their lives in poverty, when others can live in luxury. People who are in poverty need help and if they receive that help, then they will be able to improve their life for the better. If we all work together to help others who are less fortunate than us, then everyone will be able to have a better standard of living. We believe that this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the rich in the UK do have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. There are various reasons why we came to this decision. We feel that by making a certain amount of money, it’s almost as if you are in a position of privilege and responsibility, so therefore you should help those who are in need. You may have had your parents help you in the past, whether that be financially or otherwise, so by having your own success, you should also help others. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. It is not fair that some people have to live their lives in poverty, when others can live in luxury. People who are in poverty need help and if they receive that help, then they will be able to improve their life for the better. If we all work together to help others who are less fortunate than us, then everyone will be able to have a better standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the rich in the UK do have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. We came to this decision by agreeing that everyone who has their own success should help those who are in need. It’s also because we believe that it’s in their interests to be seen to be giving back to society, so that discontent will not grow amongst the marginalised groups in society. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the rich in the UK should have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. There are various reasons why we came to this decision. We feel that by making a certain amount of money, it’s almost as if you are in a position of privilege and responsibility, so therefore you should help those who are in need. You may have had your parents help you in the past, whether that be financially or otherwise, so by having your own success, you should also help others. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. It is not fair that some people have to live their lives in poverty, when others can live in luxury. People who are in poverty need help and if they receive that help, then they will be able to improve their life for the better. If we all work together to help others who are less fortunate than us, then everyone will be able to have a better standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the rich in the UK have an obligation to help the poor in the UK. There are various reasons why we came to this decision. We feel that by making a certain amount of money, it’s almost as if you are in a position of privilege and responsibility, so therefore you should help those who are in need. You may have had your parents help you in the past, whether that be financially or otherwise, so by having your own success, you should also help others. If everyone who is in a good position helps, then those who are in need will be helped too. If everyone is helping, then everyone will be able to contribute to making a better country. By giving a little to help those who are in need, we will all benefit from a better society and country. It is not fair that some people have to live their lives in poverty, when others can live in luxury. People who are in poverty need help and if they receive that help, then they will be able to improve their life for the better. If we all work together to help others who are less fortunate than us, then everyone will be able to have a better standard of living. We believe that this 2: 1,3,4,2 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000079.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000079.soc index 0f837de4..c8f7d7d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000079.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000079.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. If there is a way to grow crops without pesticides, this should be done. The use of pesticides should be a last resort. There should be a limit on the amount of pesticides used in any one area. There should be an attempt to reduce the use of pesticides by a certain amount every year. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Pesticides should be used as a last resort. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum. However, if there is no other way to grow crops to feed people then it should be considered as an option. Pesticides should be used as a last resort. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum. However, if there is no other way to grow crops to feed people then it should be considered as an option. Pesticides should be used as a last resort. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. If there is a way to grow crops without pesticides, this should be done. The use of pesticides should be a last resort. There should be a limit on the amount of pesticides used in any one area. There should be an attempt to reduce the use of pesticides by a certain amount every year. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Pesticides should be used as a last resort. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum. However, if there is no other way to grow crops to feed people then it should be considered as an option. Pesticides should be used as a last resort. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum. However, if there is no other way to grow crops to feed people then it should be considered as an option. Pesticides should be used as a last resort. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered and only if necessary. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000080.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000080.soc index a43646b7..f21f52a2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000080.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000080.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should continue to levy the sale of plastic bags. The revenue from this should be used to pay for plastic bag recycling facilities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group felt that the government should phase out the sale of plastic bags. This would allow for people to use the plastic bags they already own and allow for the new introduction of paper bags. The consensus view was that these would be more environmentally friendly and people could use them several times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should ban the sale of plastic bags. They should be replaced with a reusable bag that is easily cleaned and is of a higher quality. These reusable bags should be more expensive, however, to discourage people from getting them, to force them to get a reusable bag and hopefully force them to keep the bag for longer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The Government should ban the sale of plastic bags.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should continue to levy the sale of plastic bags. The revenue from this should be used to pay for plastic bag recycling facilities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group felt that the government should phase out the sale of plastic bags. This would allow for people to use the plastic bags they already own and allow for the new introduction of paper bags. The consensus view was that these would be more environmentally friendly and people could use them several times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should ban the sale of plastic bags. They should be replaced with a reusable bag that is easily cleaned and is of a higher quality. These reusable bags should be more expensive, however, to discourage people from getting them, to force them to get a reusable bag and hopefully force them to keep the bag for longer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The Government should ban the sale of plastic bags.” 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000081.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000081.soc index e053bcc6..86155004 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000081.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000081.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are major concerns regarding the human rights record of China. Any investment from the Chinese state in our high speed railway must therefore be subjected to close scrutiny, and any companies or individuals working on the project must be carefully vetted to ensure that no human rights abuses are being committed in the process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be very cautious about allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway, and that it is probably best to not accept the investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should be very cautious about allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway, and that it is probably best to not accept the investment. Due to concerns regarding human rights, spying, and general safety or security concerns. However, it is not always clear-cut due to the need for international relations and collaboration. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Given concerns about the human rights record of China, the security concerns associated with their government, and the need to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the people of our country, we should not allow the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway. Conclusion: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are major concerns regarding the human rights record of China. Any investment from the Chinese state in our high speed railway must therefore be subjected to close scrutiny, and any companies or individuals working on the project must be carefully vetted to ensure that no human rights abuses are being committed in the process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be very cautious about allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway, and that it is probably best to not accept the investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should be very cautious about allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway, and that it is probably best to not accept the investment. Due to concerns regarding human rights, spying, and general safety or security concerns. However, it is not always clear-cut due to the need for international relations and collaboration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Given concerns about the human rights record of China, the security concerns associated with their government, and the need to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the people of our country, we should not allow the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway. Conclusion: 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000082.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000082.soc index 45fe1de0..f549837e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000082.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000082.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, we need to do more. A blanket ban on all plastics is not practical due to their usefulness and the long lead times on developing alternative materials. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, we need to do more. A blanket ban on all plastics is not practical due to their usefulness and the long lead times on developing alternative materials. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, we need to do more. A blanket ban on all plastics is not practical due to their usefulness and the long lead times on developing alternative materials. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Plastic pollution poses a significant threat to the environment, so we need to do more. The proposed ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, but is only that – a first step. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly. Governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, we need to do more. A blanket ban on all plastics is not practical due to their usefulness and the long lead times on developing alternative materials. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, we need to do more. A blanket ban on all plastics is not practical due to their usefulness and the long lead times on developing alternative materials. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, we need to do more. A blanket ban on all plastics is not practical due to their usefulness and the long lead times on developing alternative materials. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Plastic pollution poses a significant threat to the environment, so we need to do more. The proposed ban on single-use plastics is a step in the right direction, but is only that – a first step. The plastics industry needs to invest more in research and development to find alternatives that are more environmentally friendly. Governments should be willing to support these endeavours. It is also up to individuals to reduce their consumption of plastics and adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives where possible. 3: 1,2,3,4 2: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000083.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000083.soc index c8a2e58c..2577999a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000083.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000083.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is still a world power, but only because of its nuclear capabilities. We still have a large cultural influence in the world but not enough to be classed as a world power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The United Kingdom is still a world power, but in many ways is a shell of what it once was. The UK is seen by many countries as a regional power and not a world power. The UK can still boast military power and cultural influence but is seen as a very pale shadow of the USA.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The United Kingdom is still a world power. We still have one of the largest and strongest armed forces in the world, we are still a major participant in NATO, and we still retain considerable economic, cultural, scientific, and political influence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the United Kingdom is still a world power, though with its current government it has little moral standing to be so. It still maintains one of the largest and strongest armed forces in the world and still retains considerable economic, cultural, scientific, and political influence. However, its overall power is dwindling in the face of ever-growing superpowers, and unless it undergoes a major reform, it will continue to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is still a world power, but only because of its nuclear capabilities. We still have a large cultural influence in the world but not enough to be classed as a world power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The United Kingdom is still a world power, but in many ways is a shell of what it once was. The UK is seen by many countries as a regional power and not a world power. The UK can still boast military power and cultural influence but is seen as a very pale shadow of the USA.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The United Kingdom is still a world power. We still have one of the largest and strongest armed forces in the world, we are still a major participant in NATO, and we still retain considerable economic, cultural, scientific, and political influence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the United Kingdom is still a world power, though with its current government it has little moral standing to be so. It still maintains one of the largest and strongest armed forces in the world and still retains considerable economic, cultural, scientific, and political influence. However, its overall power is dwindling in the face of ever-growing superpowers, and unless it undergoes a major reform, it will continue to do so. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000084.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000084.soc index 992b1743..f1ce945d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000084.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000084.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Sports in state schools should be subsidized. Children should have the opportunity to participate in sports and exercise, and the more children who do so the greater the health benefits. Sport is also an opportunity for children to gain valuable life skills. The government should ensure that funding is in place for sports to be taught in schools but should not provide subsidies for individual children to participate in advanced sports. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Sports in state schools should be subsidized. The physical education of children has many benefits for health, including combating obesity and overweight children. Sports and exercise also provide the opportunity to develop life skills such as teamwork and competitiveness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Sports in state schools should be subsidized. Children should have the opportunity to participate in sports and exercise, and the more children who do so the greater the health benefits. Sports and exercise also teach young children valuable life skills including teamwork and competitiveness, and also keep them mentally fit. Furthermore, physical activity reduces the burden on the NHS later in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should have the opportunity to participate in sports and exercise. This will have health benefits for the future. Participation in sports can provide the opportunity for gaining valuable life skills. Sports and exercise also teach young children valuable life skills including teamwork and competitiveness. The UK government should subsidise sports in state schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Sports in state schools should be subsidized. Children should have the opportunity to participate in sports and exercise, and the more children who do so the greater the health benefits. Sport is also an opportunity for children to gain valuable life skills. The government should ensure that funding is in place for sports to be taught in schools but should not provide subsidies for individual children to participate in advanced sports. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Sports in state schools should be subsidized. The physical education of children has many benefits for health, including combating obesity and overweight children. Sports and exercise also provide the opportunity to develop life skills such as teamwork and competitiveness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Sports in state schools should be subsidized. Children should have the opportunity to participate in sports and exercise, and the more children who do so the greater the health benefits. Sports and exercise also teach young children valuable life skills including teamwork and competitiveness, and also keep them mentally fit. Furthermore, physical activity reduces the burden on the NHS later in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should have the opportunity to participate in sports and exercise. This will have health benefits for the future. Participation in sports can provide the opportunity for gaining valuable life skills. Sports and exercise also teach young children valuable life skills including teamwork and competitiveness. The UK government should subsidise sports in state schools. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000085.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000085.soc index 1fd85b7f..41a85d7b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000085.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000085.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the Royal family should not be paid by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should continue to pay for the royal family. They are of great importance and continue to be a source of pride for the nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the royal family is an outdated institution in the 21st century. They should fund themselves through their own private wealth and be allowed to work as other citizens do. The tax payer money should be used for other purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The Royal family should receive some form of payment from the government. This is on the basis that they will continue to act as a focal point for the nation and the institution which is built around them is a valuable tradition for Britain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the Royal family should not be paid by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should continue to pay for the royal family. They are of great importance and continue to be a source of pride for the nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the royal family is an outdated institution in the 21st century. They should fund themselves through their own private wealth and be allowed to work as other citizens do. The tax payer money should be used for other purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The Royal family should receive some form of payment from the government. This is on the basis that they will continue to act as a focal point for the nation and the institution which is built around them is a valuable tradition for Britain. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000086.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000086.soc index 568c42de..97adaa23 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000086.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000086.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of banning smoking in all outdoor public places. However, as participant 4 said, there were several arguments against it. The main argument is that this would be taking away one of the liberties of the citizens and would be a step in the direction of the UK becoming a police state. Another argument was that it would be against a persons choice, and by choosing to smoke they are making an informed decision. Another argument was that it would also stop people from going outside their houses for a smoke, thus keeping them at home. And also that it would be hard to police. On the other hand, several people agreed that it was dangerous to smoke around other people. The main argument for banning smoking was that it causes damage to the health of non smokers, and it should be the non smokers choice if they wish to be in that environment or not. Another argument was that there is a lot of litter and that it causes damage to the environment. Another argument for banning smoking was that it would cut down on a lot of health issues which would save the NHS a lot of money in the long run. There were several alternatives to the banning of smoking in public places. One alternative was that there should be -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Smoking should be banned in public places, however, smokers should have a designated area, preferably a smoking hut.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although smoking is a health hazard and we should work towards a society where it is not in use, the right to choose to smoke and not smoke should be respected. Therefore we should not ban smoking in outdoor public places but create designated smoking areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban smoking in all outdoor public places. However, there should be designated areas for those that do smoke. In the designated areas, there should be an ashtray available to ensure that cigarettes are disposed of correctly and to prevent litter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of banning smoking in all outdoor public places. However, as participant 4 said, there were several arguments against it. The main argument is that this would be taking away one of the liberties of the citizens and would be a step in the direction of the UK becoming a police state. Another argument was that it would be against a persons choice, and by choosing to smoke they are making an informed decision. Another argument was that it would also stop people from going outside their houses for a smoke, thus keeping them at home. And also that it would be hard to police. On the other hand, several people agreed that it was dangerous to smoke around other people. The main argument for banning smoking was that it causes damage to the health of non smokers, and it should be the non smokers choice if they wish to be in that environment or not. Another argument was that there is a lot of litter and that it causes damage to the environment. Another argument for banning smoking was that it would cut down on a lot of health issues which would save the NHS a lot of money in the long run. There were several alternatives to the banning of smoking in public places. One alternative was that there should be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Smoking should be banned in public places, however, smokers should have a designated area, preferably a smoking hut.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although smoking is a health hazard and we should work towards a society where it is not in use, the right to choose to smoke and not smoke should be respected. Therefore we should not ban smoking in outdoor public places but create designated smoking areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban smoking in all outdoor public places. However, there should be designated areas for those that do smoke. In the designated areas, there should be an ashtray available to ensure that cigarettes are disposed of correctly and to prevent litter. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000087.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000087.soc index 1ba06aeb..b69c9084 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000087.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000087.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Solar panels should be installed on new homes as it will increase the energy efficiency of the home and will reduce the energy bills. Solar panels should be installed as they are being built as it would be more cost effective than installing them later. The cost of solar panels needs to be looked at as it would not be financially viable to the homeowner if the cost was too high. The solar panels should generate the power prior to taking from the grid so that excess power can be given to the grid for others to use. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Participants first expressed their personal opinions on the question. Then, a first draft of a consensus statement was produced. Participants then provided a critique of the draft consensus statement. Finally, a final consensus statement was produced. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement, and the final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: All new homes should be fitted with solar panels to save the homeowner money on their energy bills and to make their home more energy efficient. It will also help to provide the homeowner with a greener lifestyle and it would also future proof the home. The excess power generated would also benefit the National Grid. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of installing solar panels on new homes. They argued that as long as the cost is not prohibitive then it makes good sense to install solar panels in all new homes as it would future proof the homes and would increase the value of the property. It would also save on energy bills. It would also help the homeowner to have a more energy efficient home, which would reduce the impact of CO2 emissions and help the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Solar panels should be installed on all new homes. They should be installed on existing homes as well. The cost of installing solar panels should be financially supported by the government as they have a limited lifespan and are quite expensive to install. This will increase the value of the property, and will save on energy bills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Solar panels should be installed on new homes as it will increase the energy efficiency of the home and will reduce the energy bills. Solar panels should be installed as they are being built as it would be more cost effective than installing them later. The cost of solar panels needs to be looked at as it would not be financially viable to the homeowner if the cost was too high. The solar panels should generate the power prior to taking from the grid so that excess power can be given to the grid for others to use. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Participants first expressed their personal opinions on the question. Then, a first draft of a consensus statement was produced. Participants then provided a critique of the draft consensus statement. Finally, a final consensus statement was produced. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement, and the final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - All new homes should be fitted with solar panels to save the homeowner money on their energy bills and to make their home more energy efficient. It will also help to provide the homeowner with a greener lifestyle and it would also future proof the home. The excess power generated would also benefit the National Grid. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of installing solar panels on new homes. They argued that as long as the cost is not prohibitive then it makes good sense to install solar panels in all new homes as it would future proof the homes and would increase the value of the property. It would also save on energy bills. It would also help the homeowner to have a more energy efficient home, which would reduce the impact of CO2 emissions and help the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Solar panels should be installed on all new homes. They should be installed on existing homes as well. The cost of installing solar panels should be financially supported by the government as they have a limited lifespan and are quite expensive to install. This will increase the value of the property, and will save on energy bills. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000088.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000088.soc index 8227e5d8..6250633b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000088.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000088.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Climate change does pose a threat to the UK, however, the threat is not imminent. We are an island but we will not be immune to the global effects which could include mass displacement of people around the world.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Climate change poses a serious and imminent danger to the UK. The effects of climate change in the UK can be felt already and are only set to get worse in the years to come. Unfortunately, we are an island but will not be immune to the global effects which could include mass displacement of people around the world. It is important that we do our best to reduce carbon emissions by making simple changes to our lifestyles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change does pose a threat to the UK. We should not be complacent. There are a number of potential effects, which should be managed and mitigated against. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Climate change does pose a serious threat to the UK. Not only on our climate as experienced by the increasingly warm summers, and cold winters, which are devastating for our crops, but we'd also be hugely naive to not take a global perspective on it. As other parts of the world suffer from climate change, and become uninhabitable it puts more pressure on us. Displacement of people worldwide has huge repercussions. Climate change also leads to change in sea levels, which will directly impact the UK and our coastal towns. We are an island but we will not be immune to the global effects which could include mass displacement of people around the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Climate change does pose a threat to the UK, however, the threat is not imminent. We are an island but we will not be immune to the global effects which could include mass displacement of people around the world.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Climate change poses a serious and imminent danger to the UK. The effects of climate change in the UK can be felt already and are only set to get worse in the years to come. Unfortunately, we are an island but will not be immune to the global effects which could include mass displacement of people around the world. It is important that we do our best to reduce carbon emissions by making simple changes to our lifestyles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change does pose a threat to the UK. We should not be complacent. There are a number of potential effects, which should be managed and mitigated against. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Climate change does pose a serious threat to the UK. Not only on our climate as experienced by the increasingly warm summers, and cold winters, which are devastating for our crops, but we'd also be hugely naive to not take a global perspective on it. As other parts of the world suffer from climate change, and become uninhabitable it puts more pressure on us. Displacement of people worldwide has huge repercussions. Climate change also leads to change in sea levels, which will directly impact the UK and our coastal towns. We are an island but we will not be immune to the global effects which could include mass displacement of people around the world. 4: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000089.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000089.soc index ec131c0c..48c23a67 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000089.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000089.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but we agree that in most cases, it is a recreational drug. We understand that people use it to self-medicate for various conditions but are aware of the dangers and side effects of its use. It is reasonable for people to grow it in a large garden if it doesn't bother anyone else, and for their own personal medical use, but not for recreational use. We are opposed to it being normalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be allowed to grow cannabis plants in their gardens. If they really need to use it for medicinal purposes, then they can go to their local pharmacy. The smell is so strong and powerful, it spreads to neighbouring gardens and will probably annoy people who do not want to smell it. Also, the laws are in place for a reason, so we do not want to make it too easy to access cannabis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cannabis has been proven to be medicinal. However it is a very potent smell and has negative effects on mental health. If it were to be legalised for growing then it would have to be enforced that it could only be grown in the back garden where the smell would not offend others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be allowed to grow their own cannabis plants for recreational purposes, however we do not think it should be legalised as an entirely legal drug. This is because of the significant dangers to health of smoking cannabis, especially for young people. We believe that the medicinal use of cannabis has the most benefits and could be of help to some people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but we agree that in most cases, it is a recreational drug. We understand that people use it to self-medicate for various conditions but are aware of the dangers and side effects of its use. It is reasonable for people to grow it in a large garden if it doesn't bother anyone else, and for their own personal medical use, but not for recreational use. We are opposed to it being normalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be allowed to grow cannabis plants in their gardens. If they really need to use it for medicinal purposes, then they can go to their local pharmacy. The smell is so strong and powerful, it spreads to neighbouring gardens and will probably annoy people who do not want to smell it. Also, the laws are in place for a reason, so we do not want to make it too easy to access cannabis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cannabis has been proven to be medicinal. However it is a very potent smell and has negative effects on mental health. If it were to be legalised for growing then it would have to be enforced that it could only be grown in the back garden where the smell would not offend others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be allowed to grow their own cannabis plants for recreational purposes, however we do not think it should be legalised as an entirely legal drug. This is because of the significant dangers to health of smoking cannabis, especially for young people. We believe that the medicinal use of cannabis has the most benefits and could be of help to some people. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000090.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000090.soc index 1ab632e5..454b18fa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000090.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000090.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Gene editing techniques have the potential to reduce the pain caused to families by genetic diseases, especially for families who know they carry a genetic disease. However, we need to be aware of the potential negative consequences, such as the increase in designer babies, and the future effects that may arise. Therefore, gene editing should be looked into more deeply, before making a final decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, gene editing is not something that should be considered. The screening of children before birth is a much better option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should be using new gene editing techniques to prevent children being born with genetic disorders. We think that it is a good idea to prevent the suffering caused by genetic disorders to children and their families. However, the technique could have negative effects that are not yet known and this would need to be looked into before any decision is made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Gene editing techniques would mean that children are born free from genetic disorders, however we should not use it as we don't know the consequences and could result in other negative effects. Instead we should screen for genetic disorders as we know the consequences and can help families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Gene editing techniques have the potential to reduce the pain caused to families by genetic diseases, especially for families who know they carry a genetic disease. However, we need to be aware of the potential negative consequences, such as the increase in designer babies, and the future effects that may arise. Therefore, gene editing should be looked into more deeply, before making a final decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, gene editing is not something that should be considered. The screening of children before birth is a much better option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should be using new gene editing techniques to prevent children being born with genetic disorders. We think that it is a good idea to prevent the suffering caused by genetic disorders to children and their families. However, the technique could have negative effects that are not yet known and this would need to be looked into before any decision is made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Gene editing techniques would mean that children are born free from genetic disorders, however we should not use it as we don't know the consequences and could result in other negative effects. Instead we should screen for genetic disorders as we know the consequences and can help families. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000091.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000091.soc index 35eb3e1b..bf729645 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000091.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000091.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People will be able to live in a space station in orbit in the next 50 years, as it is already possible to do so in the present. This will be possible due to the advanced technology of space vehicles, especially the NASA shuttle and the International Space Station, which can already sustain human life. The only issue that is likely to occur in the next 50 years is overpopulation in the Earth's atmosphere, which will make the need to colonise the stars in space increasingly important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the technology for human survival in space has been around for a long time, we don't think that the costs of human life in space are currently economically viable. The costs of providing the support infrastructure on the ground and getting the humans to space are currently very high. We do think that over the next 50 years the costs of space travel and survival will decrease and the space stations will be much more habitable and accessible to humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In the next 50 years people will be able to live in a space station in orbit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People will be able to live in space stations in orbit within the next 50 years as there is evidence that humans can survive in space and as technology develops more advancements will be made and become possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People will be able to live in a space station in orbit in the next 50 years, as it is already possible to do so in the present. This will be possible due to the advanced technology of space vehicles, especially the NASA shuttle and the International Space Station, which can already sustain human life. The only issue that is likely to occur in the next 50 years is overpopulation in the Earth's atmosphere, which will make the need to colonise the stars in space increasingly important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the technology for human survival in space has been around for a long time, we don't think that the costs of human life in space are currently economically viable. The costs of providing the support infrastructure on the ground and getting the humans to space are currently very high. We do think that over the next 50 years the costs of space travel and survival will decrease and the space stations will be much more habitable and accessible to humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In the next 50 years people will be able to live in a space station in orbit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People will be able to live in space stations in orbit within the next 50 years as there is evidence that humans can survive in space and as technology develops more advancements will be made and become possible. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000092.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000092.soc index 6de715c5..d7a26f70 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000092.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000092.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the consensus that cannabis should be allowed to be grown in the UK for medicinal use in controlled conditions. However, the consensus group strongly disagrees with the use of cannabis for recreational use, and people should be encouraged to seek medical advice before trying any drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but we agree that in most cases, it is a recreational drug. We understand that people use it to self-medicate for various conditions but are aware of the dangers and side effects of its use. It is reasonable for people to grow it in a large garden if it doesn't bother anyone else, and for their own personal medical use, but not for recreational use. We are opposed to it being normalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but we agree that in most cases, it is a recreational drug. We understand that people use it to self-medicate for various conditions but are aware of the dangers and side effects of its use. It is reasonable for people to grow it in a large garden if it doesn't bother anyone else, and for their own personal medical use, but not for recreational use. We are opposed to it being normalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that in general, the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but we agree that in most cases, it is a recreational drug. We understand that people use it to self-medicate for various conditions but are aware of the dangers and side effects of its use. It is reasonable for people to grow it in a large garden if it doesn't bother anyone else, and for their own personal medical use, but not for recreational use. We are opposed to it being normalised. Conclusion As you can see, each individual opinion is quite different and has nuances. For example, one participant says that people should be allowed to grow cannabis for recreational use, another disagrees, and another says that cannabis should not be normalised. After the participants considered the pros and cons of the draft consensus statement, and debated the issues in detail, the final consensus view was a well thought out and more balanced opinion. This is not a mathematical consensus, but an opinion of the whole group of people taking into account the opinions of each individual participant. This is called a qualitative consensus. In the example, the group of participants all agree that the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but they agree that in most +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the consensus that cannabis should be allowed to be grown in the UK for medicinal use in controlled conditions. However, the consensus group strongly disagrees with the use of cannabis for recreational use, and people should be encouraged to seek medical advice before trying any drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but we agree that in most cases, it is a recreational drug. We understand that people use it to self-medicate for various conditions but are aware of the dangers and side effects of its use. It is reasonable for people to grow it in a large garden if it doesn't bother anyone else, and for their own personal medical use, but not for recreational use. We are opposed to it being normalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but we agree that in most cases, it is a recreational drug. We understand that people use it to self-medicate for various conditions but are aware of the dangers and side effects of its use. It is reasonable for people to grow it in a large garden if it doesn't bother anyone else, and for their own personal medical use, but not for recreational use. We are opposed to it being normalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that in general, the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but we agree that in most cases, it is a recreational drug. We understand that people use it to self-medicate for various conditions but are aware of the dangers and side effects of its use. It is reasonable for people to grow it in a large garden if it doesn't bother anyone else, and for their own personal medical use, but not for recreational use. We are opposed to it being normalised. Conclusion As you can see, each individual opinion is quite different and has nuances. For example, one participant says that people should be allowed to grow cannabis for recreational use, another disagrees, and another says that cannabis should not be normalised. After the participants considered the pros and cons of the draft consensus statement, and debated the issues in detail, the final consensus view was a well thought out and more balanced opinion. This is not a mathematical consensus, but an opinion of the whole group of people taking into account the opinions of each individual participant. This is called a qualitative consensus. In the example, the group of participants all agree that the growing of cannabis for medicinal use should be allowed but they agree that in most 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000093.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000093.soc index a2d7f891..6a9582da 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000093.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000093.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although cannabis is a gateway drug, we should legalise it for recreational use. This will reduce crime, and the sale of cannabis will be regulated by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalisation, with one person being strongly against the idea. The general feeling was that legalising cannabis would help to get rid of the stigma surrounding the drug and reduce the crime rate. People with long term illnesses would also be able to avail of the drug for pain relief without the fear of prosecution. The overall feeling was that if cannabis were legalised for recreational use, it would be no worse than alcohol. The participants would also support the idea of regulating the industry to prevent potentially toxic or strong variants being sold. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should legalise cannabis for recreational use as it can help reduce crime and give the government a further source of income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Although some people see it as a 'gateway drug' I personally think alcohol makes many people act worse and rely on it more than cannabis. Mainly though I think the legalising of it would help stop drug dealers selling it which is a good thing as it stops people getting involved in those situations. People who want it are going to find a way to get it and giving a safe, monitored way of giving people it makes sense. However, if it's legalised I feel it would make the drug trade better in a sense where it isn't imported from different countries illegally. If made legal I think it would make younger people more lazy and it can also lead to mental problems as it has done with myself also if used too often. Therefore, it should only be legalised for recreational use for those who really need it such as pain relief, people with long term disabilities etc.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although cannabis is a gateway drug, we should legalise it for recreational use. This will reduce crime, and the sale of cannabis will be regulated by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalisation, with one person being strongly against the idea. The general feeling was that legalising cannabis would help to get rid of the stigma surrounding the drug and reduce the crime rate. People with long term illnesses would also be able to avail of the drug for pain relief without the fear of prosecution. The overall feeling was that if cannabis were legalised for recreational use, it would be no worse than alcohol. The participants would also support the idea of regulating the industry to prevent potentially toxic or strong variants being sold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should legalise cannabis for recreational use as it can help reduce crime and give the government a further source of income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Although some people see it as a 'gateway drug' I personally think alcohol makes many people act worse and rely on it more than cannabis. Mainly though I think the legalising of it would help stop drug dealers selling it which is a good thing as it stops people getting involved in those situations. People who want it are going to find a way to get it and giving a safe, monitored way of giving people it makes sense. However, if it's legalised I feel it would make the drug trade better in a sense where it isn't imported from different countries illegally. If made legal I think it would make younger people more lazy and it can also lead to mental problems as it has done with myself also if used too often. Therefore, it should only be legalised for recreational use for those who really need it such as pain relief, people with long term disabilities etc.” 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000094.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000094.soc index 86b4fd6e..cebe9ae5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000094.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000094.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods, however this should not be a large amount so that it is not passed onto the consumer. Tariffs should be imposed in order to allow for the protection of domestic producers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods to help keep the economy healthy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods in certain situations, such as protecting domestic industries and farmers, and as a diplomatic tool. The group did not discuss how the views of Participant 1 and Participant 5 may differ from the consensus view, nor did they ask why the views of Participant 2 and Participant 4 were so different. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods, however this should not be a large amount so that it is not passed onto the consumer. Tariffs should be imposed in order to allow for the protection of domestic producers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods to help keep the economy healthy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods in certain situations, such as protecting domestic industries and farmers, and as a diplomatic tool. The group did not discuss how the views of Participant 1 and Participant 5 may differ from the consensus view, nor did they ask why the views of Participant 2 and Participant 4 were so different. 3: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000095.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000095.soc index 5b2de0da..5148d5b9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000095.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000095.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we believe that there should be greater controls over the use of pesticides as they can be dangerous and detrimental to the environment and our health. Pesticides can also have a negative impact on wildlife. However, there should be no outright ban on the use of pesticides as we can see that in some circumstances, their use can be advantageous. Pesticides can be very useful in that they can improve crop yield and increase the longevity of crops which can be beneficial to developing countries and improve the food security of the population. Therefore, it is important to come up with an appropriate balance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Pesticides have a detrimental impact on the environment. They can cause cancer in humans and kill birds, insects and other animals. To solve this problem we need greater controls over the use of pesticides and should make it a punishable offence to use them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Greater controls should be implemented on the use of pesticides, particularly with regard to those that have been proven to cause damage to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be greater controls over the use of pesticides. Pesticides can often kill parts of wildlife that are not harmful such as insects that are eaten by other animals that don't actually harm crops, thereby uprooting the entire local food chain. Also thinking of DDT from the 1970s, some pesticides can cause birth defects and cancer in children which is even more problematic than damage to local wildlife. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we believe that there should be greater controls over the use of pesticides as they can be dangerous and detrimental to the environment and our health. Pesticides can also have a negative impact on wildlife. However, there should be no outright ban on the use of pesticides as we can see that in some circumstances, their use can be advantageous. Pesticides can be very useful in that they can improve crop yield and increase the longevity of crops which can be beneficial to developing countries and improve the food security of the population. Therefore, it is important to come up with an appropriate balance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Pesticides have a detrimental impact on the environment. They can cause cancer in humans and kill birds, insects and other animals. To solve this problem we need greater controls over the use of pesticides and should make it a punishable offence to use them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Greater controls should be implemented on the use of pesticides, particularly with regard to those that have been proven to cause damage to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be greater controls over the use of pesticides. Pesticides can often kill parts of wildlife that are not harmful such as insects that are eaten by other animals that don't actually harm crops, thereby uprooting the entire local food chain. Also thinking of DDT from the 1970s, some pesticides can cause birth defects and cancer in children which is even more problematic than damage to local wildlife. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000096.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000096.soc index 662481a7..5ec72bdb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000096.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000096.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that we should consider introducing a universal basic income for all citizens. The current system of benefits are highly inefficient and involve a great deal of administration. A UBI would also increase equality in society, especially as we move further into the age of automation.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the idea of UBI is an interesting one. The way we see it, is that a UBI would allow people to afford basic needs such as food and shelter. However, we also believe that there should be some kind of cap on the amount of income that you can earn while still being eligible for UBI. We also think that it would have to be regulated by country, so that the rich are not getting any UBI. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should consider the introduction of a universal basic income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a system of universal basic income should be adopted. We think that this will reduce poverty, and also give people more free time and greater opportunities to explore new things and become more creative. We are also concerned that a minimum income will result in people spending their money on more harmful things, like alcohol and drugs, so we also want to impose restrictions on people using the scheme, such as drug tests. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that we should consider introducing a universal basic income for all citizens. The current system of benefits are highly inefficient and involve a great deal of administration. A UBI would also increase equality in society, especially as we move further into the age of automation.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the idea of UBI is an interesting one. The way we see it, is that a UBI would allow people to afford basic needs such as food and shelter. However, we also believe that there should be some kind of cap on the amount of income that you can earn while still being eligible for UBI. We also think that it would have to be regulated by country, so that the rich are not getting any UBI. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should consider the introduction of a universal basic income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a system of universal basic income should be adopted. We think that this will reduce poverty, and also give people more free time and greater opportunities to explore new things and become more creative. We are also concerned that a minimum income will result in people spending their money on more harmful things, like alcohol and drugs, so we also want to impose restrictions on people using the scheme, such as drug tests. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000097.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000097.soc index a163b59f..01beafff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000097.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000097.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that we should consider introducing a universal basic income for all citizens. The current system of benefits is highly inefficient and involves a great deal of administration. A UBI would also increase equality in society, especially as we move further into the age of automation. The system is expensive to implement but has the potential to save governments money in the long run by reducing the number of administrators required to administer benefits.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that we should consider introducing a universal basic income for all citizens. The current system of benefits is highly inefficient and involves a great deal of administration. A UBI would also increase equality in society, especially as we move further into the age of automation.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The world is rapidly changing. We are entering a new age of automation where even well-paying jobs will become a thing of the past. There are currently many people who cannot afford food and housing, and there is a huge need for a system to redistribute wealth. We propose that the best solution to this is the implementation of a universal basic income, which would replace our current benefits system. The benefits of such a system are that it would provide equality, freedom and security for all people. It would also remove the administration costs of our current benefits system. Furthermore, it would be an efficient solution to the needs of a society moving towards an age of automation.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that we should consider introducing a universal basic income for all citizens. The current system of benefits is highly inefficient and involves a great deal of administration. A UBI would also increase equality in society, especially as we move further into the age of automation.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that we should consider introducing a universal basic income for all citizens. The current system of benefits is highly inefficient and involves a great deal of administration. A UBI would also increase equality in society, especially as we move further into the age of automation. The system is expensive to implement but has the potential to save governments money in the long run by reducing the number of administrators required to administer benefits.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that we should consider introducing a universal basic income for all citizens. The current system of benefits is highly inefficient and involves a great deal of administration. A UBI would also increase equality in society, especially as we move further into the age of automation.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The world is rapidly changing. We are entering a new age of automation where even well-paying jobs will become a thing of the past. There are currently many people who cannot afford food and housing, and there is a huge need for a system to redistribute wealth. We propose that the best solution to this is the implementation of a universal basic income, which would replace our current benefits system. The benefits of such a system are that it would provide equality, freedom and security for all people. It would also remove the administration costs of our current benefits system. Furthermore, it would be an efficient solution to the needs of a society moving towards an age of automation.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that we should consider introducing a universal basic income for all citizens. The current system of benefits is highly inefficient and involves a great deal of administration. A UBI would also increase equality in society, especially as we move further into the age of automation.” 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000098.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000098.soc index 81823c17..39c6ee27 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000098.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000098.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Capitalism has been a key driving force in the development of the modern world and has created a lot of wealth. But the exploitation of workers and the environment has been excessive and needs to be reduced and better managed. The benefits of capitalism are needed for society to move forward but the system needs to be managed more carefully to ensure the benefits are shared equally by all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Capitalism is the best system for the economy. However, people with power can exploit people in need. The system is very good, but only if it is not abused by corrupt leaders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Capitalism is a structure that allows for the survival of the fittest. This structure only creates the potential for more wealth in the long run, as it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. This is good for society. However, capitalism does not necessarily reward people who provide a positive service to society. In the long run, capitalism does not prioritise what is best for the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Global capitalism is exploitative and unsustainable, however the solution to this is to shift to a model of cooperation and shared prosperity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Capitalism has been a key driving force in the development of the modern world and has created a lot of wealth. But the exploitation of workers and the environment has been excessive and needs to be reduced and better managed. The benefits of capitalism are needed for society to move forward but the system needs to be managed more carefully to ensure the benefits are shared equally by all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Capitalism is the best system for the economy. However, people with power can exploit people in need. The system is very good, but only if it is not abused by corrupt leaders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Capitalism is a structure that allows for the survival of the fittest. This structure only creates the potential for more wealth in the long run, as it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. This is good for society. However, capitalism does not necessarily reward people who provide a positive service to society. In the long run, capitalism does not prioritise what is best for the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Global capitalism is exploitative and unsustainable, however the solution to this is to shift to a model of cooperation and shared prosperity. 5: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000099.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000099.soc index 85e8f146..d63b5391 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000099.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000099.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A new generation of power stations would be safer than the older generation, however we need to find a solution to how to deal with nuclear waste. The following screenshots are from the SPoKE website, where participants could see their original opinion, the opinion of others in their group, and the final consensus view of the group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of building a new generation of nuclear power stations. Most people believed that this is a good alternative to providing energy for the country and is also very safe. However, one person thought that we still have not learnt how to deal with nuclear waste and felt that it is unsafe until we can deal with that issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a new generation of nuclear power stations. Nuclear energy is very important for our current world. There is the risk of a disaster but it is very unlikely to happen. The radioactive waste is a very big issue. It could damage the environment. If this happens then it will be very bad. There are standards that have been put in place to stop this from happening. It is unlikely to happen if the power stations are built properly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: BUILDING A NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS WOULD BE SAFE AS LONG AS THE STATIONS ARE NOT TOO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. This consensus statement was created by a tool called GroupKit that was created in a Jupyter Notebook in Python by the author of this blog post. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A new generation of power stations would be safer than the older generation, however we need to find a solution to how to deal with nuclear waste. The following screenshots are from the SPoKE website, where participants could see their original opinion, the opinion of others in their group, and the final consensus view of the group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of building a new generation of nuclear power stations. Most people believed that this is a good alternative to providing energy for the country and is also very safe. However, one person thought that we still have not learnt how to deal with nuclear waste and felt that it is unsafe until we can deal with that issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a new generation of nuclear power stations. Nuclear energy is very important for our current world. There is the risk of a disaster but it is very unlikely to happen. The radioactive waste is a very big issue. It could damage the environment. If this happens then it will be very bad. There are standards that have been put in place to stop this from happening. It is unlikely to happen if the power stations are built properly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - BUILDING A NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS WOULD BE SAFE AS LONG AS THE STATIONS ARE NOT TOO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. This consensus statement was created by a tool called GroupKit that was created in a Jupyter Notebook in Python by the author of this blog post. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000100.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000100.soc index a071de1d..e81fa192 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000100.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000100.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A new regulatory framework should be established to ensure that fracking can only take place under strict conditions that protect the environment and ensure that local communities are properly consulted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although fracking can provide economic benefits, the risks of environmental and societal damage are too great for it to be allowed to operate in the current regulatory framework. A new framework must be established which takes into account the needs of the local communities affected, as well as ensuring that fracking is done in a way that minimises harm to the environment and our natural resources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a new regulatory framework for fracking. The current regulatory framework is ineffective and too relaxed. There is too much concern for the industry and not enough for the environment and the community. Fracking is detrimental to the environment and the communities surrounding fracking operations. The new regulatory framework would focus on making fracking as sustainable as possible. This would involve encouraging the use of alternative energy sources as much as possible. Fracking operations would only be allowed to occur when there is no other option. Additionally, any fracking operations would have to have the consent of the local community. Any adverse effects on the local community would result in the cancellation of the fracking operations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it should not be allowed to continue, and there should be no new operations set up. In order to mitigate any damage that might be caused by existing fracking operations, and prevent any future ones from starting, it was agreed that a new regulatory framework should be established. This would be for the purpose of ensuring that the industry was not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wanted. The regulations would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. A new framework should also ensure that fracking operations would be run as responsibly as possible, in order to protect the environment and ensure the safety of local communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A new regulatory framework should be established to ensure that fracking can only take place under strict conditions that protect the environment and ensure that local communities are properly consulted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although fracking can provide economic benefits, the risks of environmental and societal damage are too great for it to be allowed to operate in the current regulatory framework. A new framework must be established which takes into account the needs of the local communities affected, as well as ensuring that fracking is done in a way that minimises harm to the environment and our natural resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a new regulatory framework for fracking. The current regulatory framework is ineffective and too relaxed. There is too much concern for the industry and not enough for the environment and the community. Fracking is detrimental to the environment and the communities surrounding fracking operations. The new regulatory framework would focus on making fracking as sustainable as possible. This would involve encouraging the use of alternative energy sources as much as possible. Fracking operations would only be allowed to occur when there is no other option. Additionally, any fracking operations would have to have the consent of the local community. Any adverse effects on the local community would result in the cancellation of the fracking operations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it should not be allowed to continue, and there should be no new operations set up. In order to mitigate any damage that might be caused by existing fracking operations, and prevent any future ones from starting, it was agreed that a new regulatory framework should be established. This would be for the purpose of ensuring that the industry was not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wanted. The regulations would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. A new framework should also ensure that fracking operations would be run as responsibly as possible, in order to protect the environment and ensure the safety of local communities. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000101.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000101.soc index 0b1418cd..2bc05045 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000101.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000101.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People who do not wear face masks in shops (except those exempt) should not be fined, unless it becomes law again. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People who do not wear face masks in shops (except those exempt) should not be fined because people should be allowed to make their own choice and wear a mask or not. It should be a personal preference. If a shop would prefer people to wear a mask in their shop, they should state this at the entrance of their shop. A similar process was used for the other two questions, with the following results: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the wearing of face masks in shops should not incur fines because we are no longer in a position where there is an extremely high risk of transmission of the Covid virus in shops. In addition, we feel that people should be free to wear or not wear face masks in shops. The issue should be left to the discretion of each individual. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The wearing of face masks in shops should be left to the discretion of the individual and the shop. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People who do not wear face masks in shops (except those exempt) should not be fined, unless it becomes law again. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People who do not wear face masks in shops (except those exempt) should not be fined because people should be allowed to make their own choice and wear a mask or not. It should be a personal preference. If a shop would prefer people to wear a mask in their shop, they should state this at the entrance of their shop. A similar process was used for the other two questions, with the following results: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the wearing of face masks in shops should not incur fines because we are no longer in a position where there is an extremely high risk of transmission of the Covid virus in shops. In addition, we feel that people should be free to wear or not wear face masks in shops. The issue should be left to the discretion of each individual. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The wearing of face masks in shops should be left to the discretion of the individual and the shop. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000102.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000102.soc index 20f9d2d9..533a19f1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000102.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000102.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Although some people see it as a 'gateway drug' I personally think alcohol makes many people act worse and rely on it more than cannabis. Mainly though I think the legalising of it would help stop drug dealers selling it which is a good thing as it stops people getting involved in those situations. People who want it are going to find a way to get it and giving a safe, monitored way of giving people it makes sense. I agree that cannabis can make people more prone to mental health issues so perhaps education will be key here. I disagree that it should just be legalised for those who really need it for medical needs alone though. I think it should be legalised, with safeguards, for all.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Although some people see it as a 'gateway drug' I personally think alcohol makes many people act worse and rely on it more than cannabis. Mainly though I think the legalising of it would help stop drug dealers selling it which is a good thing as it stops people getting involved in those situations. People who want it are going to find a way to get it and giving a safe, monitored way of giving people it makes sense. However, if it's legalised I feel it would make the drug trade better in a sense where it isn't imported from different countries illegally. I disagree that it should just be legalised for those who really need it for medical needs alone though. I think it should be legalised, with safeguards, for all. This way, there would be a reduction in crime, a decrease in the demand for dangerous narcotics, and the emergence of a regulated market for cannabis, with some much needed tax revenue. I don't however agree that it will make people lazy, that's an unfounded and sweeping statement. The last sentence should be deleted as the question is 'for recreational use' and pain relief etc is not recreational that is medical so that is irrelevant to the question.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Although some people see it as a 'gateway drug' I personally think alcohol makes many people act worse and rely on it more than cannabis. Mainly though I think the legalising of it would help stop drug dealers selling it which is a good thing as it stops people getting involved in those situations. People who want it are going to find a way to get it and giving a safe, monitored way of giving people it makes sense. I also agree that it can make people more prone to mental health issues so perhaps education will be key here. I disagree that it should just be legalised for those who really need it for medical needs alone though. I think it should be legalised, with safeguards, for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The legalisation of cannabis for recreational use would see an end to drug dealers and increase the safety of people procuring the drug. Legalisation would see an end to the criminalisation of users and the tax on the sale of the drug could help to fund treatment for those who become addicted. Legalisation would also reduce the number of people involved in petty crime who use the money to fund their habit. However, cannabis has been shown to lead to mental health issues, which could increase if the drug was legalised. Further, there is no evidence to show that cannabis is a 'gateway drug' to harder drugs. Overall, we believe the benefits of legalisation outweigh the disadvantages and therefore we support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Although some people see it as a 'gateway drug' I personally think alcohol makes many people act worse and rely on it more than cannabis. Mainly though I think the legalising of it would help stop drug dealers selling it which is a good thing as it stops people getting involved in those situations. People who want it are going to find a way to get it and giving a safe, monitored way of giving people it makes sense. I agree that cannabis can make people more prone to mental health issues so perhaps education will be key here. I disagree that it should just be legalised for those who really need it for medical needs alone though. I think it should be legalised, with safeguards, for all.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Although some people see it as a 'gateway drug' I personally think alcohol makes many people act worse and rely on it more than cannabis. Mainly though I think the legalising of it would help stop drug dealers selling it which is a good thing as it stops people getting involved in those situations. People who want it are going to find a way to get it and giving a safe, monitored way of giving people it makes sense. However, if it's legalised I feel it would make the drug trade better in a sense where it isn't imported from different countries illegally. I disagree that it should just be legalised for those who really need it for medical needs alone though. I think it should be legalised, with safeguards, for all. This way, there would be a reduction in crime, a decrease in the demand for dangerous narcotics, and the emergence of a regulated market for cannabis, with some much needed tax revenue. I don't however agree that it will make people lazy, that's an unfounded and sweeping statement. The last sentence should be deleted as the question is 'for recreational use' and pain relief etc is not recreational that is medical so that is irrelevant to the question.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Although some people see it as a 'gateway drug' I personally think alcohol makes many people act worse and rely on it more than cannabis. Mainly though I think the legalising of it would help stop drug dealers selling it which is a good thing as it stops people getting involved in those situations. People who want it are going to find a way to get it and giving a safe, monitored way of giving people it makes sense. I also agree that it can make people more prone to mental health issues so perhaps education will be key here. I disagree that it should just be legalised for those who really need it for medical needs alone though. I think it should be legalised, with safeguards, for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The legalisation of cannabis for recreational use would see an end to drug dealers and increase the safety of people procuring the drug. Legalisation would see an end to the criminalisation of users and the tax on the sale of the drug could help to fund treatment for those who become addicted. Legalisation would also reduce the number of people involved in petty crime who use the money to fund their habit. However, cannabis has been shown to lead to mental health issues, which could increase if the drug was legalised. Further, there is no evidence to show that cannabis is a 'gateway drug' to harder drugs. Overall, we believe the benefits of legalisation outweigh the disadvantages and therefore we support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000103.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000103.soc index 52873687..a1ae648d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000103.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000103.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods, however this should not be a large amount so that it is not passed onto the consumer. Tariffs should be imposed in order to allow for the protection of domestic producers, whilst still allowing for the competition needed to keep prices at a fair level. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods, however this should not be a large amount so that it is not passed onto the consumer. Tariffs should be imposed in order to allow for the protection of domestic producers, while ensuring the consumer is not affected by any additional costs that may be added. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs should be small so that the cost to consumers is not too great. Tariffs should be imposed in order to protect the economy and domestic producers, however care should be taken to ensure that tariffs do not push up the prices of imported goods so much that it is the consumers who are adversely affected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Tariffs on imported goods should be a small amount so that they are not passed onto the consumer. The tariffs should be imposed in order to allow for the protection of domestic producers and so that there is a competitive level playing field or advantage to domestic good providers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods, however this should not be a large amount so that it is not passed onto the consumer. Tariffs should be imposed in order to allow for the protection of domestic producers, whilst still allowing for the competition needed to keep prices at a fair level. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods, however this should not be a large amount so that it is not passed onto the consumer. Tariffs should be imposed in order to allow for the protection of domestic producers, while ensuring the consumer is not affected by any additional costs that may be added. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Countries should be able to impose tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs should be small so that the cost to consumers is not too great. Tariffs should be imposed in order to protect the economy and domestic producers, however care should be taken to ensure that tariffs do not push up the prices of imported goods so much that it is the consumers who are adversely affected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Tariffs on imported goods should be a small amount so that they are not passed onto the consumer. The tariffs should be imposed in order to allow for the protection of domestic producers and so that there is a competitive level playing field or advantage to domestic good providers. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000104.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000104.soc index 9595b50a..79604b47 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000104.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000104.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of animals for testing new chemicals is not acceptable. In special circumstances where the use of animals is necessary to save human life or to avoid large scale disasters, this use is acceptable but should be minimised. The humane treatment of animals is of paramount importance and the testing of non-essential products (i.e. cosmetics) should not be allowed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In my opinion, the use of animals in testing for new drugs, is a necessary evil, if it helps save lives. I think that it is morally wrong to cause animals pain in order to test on them, however, we must always consider the greater good of the human race, and the quality of life that we are able to enjoy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not acceptable to use animals to test the effects of new chemicals, but only in extreme circumstances, and if it can be shown that it will ultimately lead to human life saving, or life enhancing, research. The group were of the opinion that, in order to reach this consensus view, the views of the participants in the group were significantly changed. Participant 5 did not change his/her opinion at all, but participants 1, 2 and 3 all changed their views somewhat. Participant 1 changed their view on what it is acceptable to test, participant 2 changed their view on when it is acceptable to test, and participant 3 changed their view on what is an acceptable sacrifice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Animal testing is acceptable if it is to save the lives of humans and to test products that will not harm the animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of animals for testing new chemicals is not acceptable. In special circumstances where the use of animals is necessary to save human life or to avoid large scale disasters, this use is acceptable but should be minimised. The humane treatment of animals is of paramount importance and the testing of non-essential products (i.e. cosmetics) should not be allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In my opinion, the use of animals in testing for new drugs, is a necessary evil, if it helps save lives. I think that it is morally wrong to cause animals pain in order to test on them, however, we must always consider the greater good of the human race, and the quality of life that we are able to enjoy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not acceptable to use animals to test the effects of new chemicals, but only in extreme circumstances, and if it can be shown that it will ultimately lead to human life saving, or life enhancing, research. The group were of the opinion that, in order to reach this consensus view, the views of the participants in the group were significantly changed. Participant 5 did not change his/her opinion at all, but participants 1, 2 and 3 all changed their views somewhat. Participant 1 changed their view on what it is acceptable to test, participant 2 changed their view on when it is acceptable to test, and participant 3 changed their view on what is an acceptable sacrifice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Animal testing is acceptable if it is to save the lives of humans and to test products that will not harm the animals. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000105.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000105.soc index 8e32d66b..a437241e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000105.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000105.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be greater controls over the use of pesticides. Pesticides can be harmful to the environment and people. In the 1970s, DDT was banned as it caused damage to the ozone layer and was detrimental to wildlife. The banning of pesticides can have negative consequences such as lower crop yield and lower quality of crops. Therefore, there should not be a complete ban on pesticides but we need to be more careful and aware of their use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we believe that there should be greater controls over the use of pesticides as they can be dangerous and detrimental to the environment and our health. Pesticides can also have a negative impact on wildlife. However, there should be no outright ban on the use of pesticides as we can see that in some circumstances, their use can be advantageous. Pesticides can be very useful in that they can improve crop yield and increase the longevity of crops which can be beneficial to developing countries and improve the food security of the population. Therefore, it is important to come up with an appropriate balance. This section of the meeting concludes with a round of applause and a glass of wine as a toast to a very productive session of consensus building. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that there should be greater controls over the use of pesticides. While pesticides can be very useful in that they can improve crop yield and increase the longevity of crops which can be beneficial to developing countries and improve the food security of the population, they can also be dangerous and detrimental to the environment and our health. Therefore, we believe that there should be no outright ban on the use of pesticides. Instead, we propose that there should be an appropriate balance of controls in place to monitor the use of pesticides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Pesticides have a number of negative effects on the environment and human health. However, there are also some positive effects, such as the fact that they can improve crop yield and increase the longevity of crops. It is important to find an appropriate balance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be greater controls over the use of pesticides. Pesticides can be harmful to the environment and people. In the 1970s, DDT was banned as it caused damage to the ozone layer and was detrimental to wildlife. The banning of pesticides can have negative consequences such as lower crop yield and lower quality of crops. Therefore, there should not be a complete ban on pesticides but we need to be more careful and aware of their use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we believe that there should be greater controls over the use of pesticides as they can be dangerous and detrimental to the environment and our health. Pesticides can also have a negative impact on wildlife. However, there should be no outright ban on the use of pesticides as we can see that in some circumstances, their use can be advantageous. Pesticides can be very useful in that they can improve crop yield and increase the longevity of crops which can be beneficial to developing countries and improve the food security of the population. Therefore, it is important to come up with an appropriate balance. This section of the meeting concludes with a round of applause and a glass of wine as a toast to a very productive session of consensus building. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that there should be greater controls over the use of pesticides. While pesticides can be very useful in that they can improve crop yield and increase the longevity of crops which can be beneficial to developing countries and improve the food security of the population, they can also be dangerous and detrimental to the environment and our health. Therefore, we believe that there should be no outright ban on the use of pesticides. Instead, we propose that there should be an appropriate balance of controls in place to monitor the use of pesticides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Pesticides have a number of negative effects on the environment and human health. However, there are also some positive effects, such as the fact that they can improve crop yield and increase the longevity of crops. It is important to find an appropriate balance. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000106.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000106.soc index 2f85a7d2..1ac5dee6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000106.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000106.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Capitalism has created a lot of wealth but has also caused a lot of suffering. This is because people have been exploited, and the environment has been damaged. Capitalism needs to be managed better to ensure that it benefits society more and that it is not exploitative and unsustainable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Capitalism has been a key driving force in the development of the modern world and has created a lot of wealth. But the exploitation of workers and the environment has been excessive and needs to be reduced and better managed. A better system would be one that better shares the benefits of capitalism more evenly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The system of global capitalism is in many ways a necessity for society to move forward. The current system, however, does need to be managed better and more carefully so that the benefits are more fairly distributed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Capitalism has been a key driving force in the development of the modern world and has created a lot of wealth. But the exploitation of workers and the environment has been excessive and needs to be reduced and better managed. The benefits of capitalism are needed for society to move forward but the system needs to be managed more carefully to ensure the benefits are shared equally by all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Capitalism has created a lot of wealth but has also caused a lot of suffering. This is because people have been exploited, and the environment has been damaged. Capitalism needs to be managed better to ensure that it benefits society more and that it is not exploitative and unsustainable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Capitalism has been a key driving force in the development of the modern world and has created a lot of wealth. But the exploitation of workers and the environment has been excessive and needs to be reduced and better managed. A better system would be one that better shares the benefits of capitalism more evenly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The system of global capitalism is in many ways a necessity for society to move forward. The current system, however, does need to be managed better and more carefully so that the benefits are more fairly distributed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Capitalism has been a key driving force in the development of the modern world and has created a lot of wealth. But the exploitation of workers and the environment has been excessive and needs to be reduced and better managed. The benefits of capitalism are needed for society to move forward but the system needs to be managed more carefully to ensure the benefits are shared equally by all. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000107.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000107.soc index 9b386d79..0f183e67 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000107.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000107.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it should not be allowed to continue, and there should be no new operations set up. In order to mitigate any damage that might be caused by existing fracking operations, and prevent any future ones from starting, it was agreed that a new regulatory framework should be established. This would be for the purpose of ensuring that the industry was not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wanted. The regulations would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. A new framework should also ensure that fracking operations would be run as responsibly as possible, in order to protect the environment and ensure the safety of local communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it should not be allowed to continue, and there should be no new operations set up. A new regulatory framework should be established to mitigate any damage caused by existing fracking operations, and prevent new ones from starting. This new framework should ensure that the fracking industry is not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wants. The regulations would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. A new framework should also ensure that fracking operations would be run as responsibly as possible, in order to protect the environment and ensure the safety of local communities. It should also be stated that, although we all felt that a new regulatory framework was needed, it was also acknowledged that we felt it should not be as strict as possible, because we also want to protect the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no fracking in the UK. A new regulatory framework should be established for the purpose of ensuring that the industry is not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wants. This would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. Conclusion A consensus statement was created, representing the opinions of the group of participants. In the above example, there was disagreement between some of the participants, but through debate and discussion, a consensus was reached. The creation of the consensus statement is a very important part of the knowledge process, and is the outcome of a great deal of work. While it is important to make sure that the opinions of each individual are fully represented in the statement, it is also important that the statement is written in a way that is easy to understand. For this reason, it may be necessary to break it down into a number of shorter, separate sentences, so that it is clear exactly what each participant thinks. TIP: It is a good -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it should not be allowed to continue, and there should be no new operations set up. A new regulatory framework should be established in order to ensure that the industry was not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wanted. The regulations would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. A new framework should also ensure that fracking operations would be run as responsibly as possible, in order to protect the environment and ensure the safety of local communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it should not be allowed to continue, and there should be no new operations set up. In order to mitigate any damage that might be caused by existing fracking operations, and prevent any future ones from starting, it was agreed that a new regulatory framework should be established. This would be for the purpose of ensuring that the industry was not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wanted. The regulations would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. A new framework should also ensure that fracking operations would be run as responsibly as possible, in order to protect the environment and ensure the safety of local communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it should not be allowed to continue, and there should be no new operations set up. A new regulatory framework should be established to mitigate any damage caused by existing fracking operations, and prevent new ones from starting. This new framework should ensure that the fracking industry is not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wants. The regulations would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. A new framework should also ensure that fracking operations would be run as responsibly as possible, in order to protect the environment and ensure the safety of local communities. It should also be stated that, although we all felt that a new regulatory framework was needed, it was also acknowledged that we felt it should not be as strict as possible, because we also want to protect the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no fracking in the UK. A new regulatory framework should be established for the purpose of ensuring that the industry is not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wants. This would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. Conclusion A consensus statement was created, representing the opinions of the group of participants. In the above example, there was disagreement between some of the participants, but through debate and discussion, a consensus was reached. The creation of the consensus statement is a very important part of the knowledge process, and is the outcome of a great deal of work. While it is important to make sure that the opinions of each individual are fully represented in the statement, it is also important that the statement is written in a way that is easy to understand. For this reason, it may be necessary to break it down into a number of shorter, separate sentences, so that it is clear exactly what each participant thinks. TIP: It is a good +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it should not be allowed to continue, and there should be no new operations set up. A new regulatory framework should be established in order to ensure that the industry was not allowed complete freedom to set up operations wherever and whenever it wanted. The regulations would take into account local conditions, such as the desire for employment opportunities, as well as environmental objections. Additionally, it would ensure that fracking operations would not run counter to the government's approach to reducing dependency on fossil fuels, in order to protect the climate and mitigate against further global warming. A new framework should also ensure that fracking operations would be run as responsibly as possible, in order to protect the environment and ensure the safety of local communities. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000108.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000108.soc index 7bd6bbaf..9c338269 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000108.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000108.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Humans have an innate ability to be moral. Religion may have helped develop this sense of morality but it is not necessary to be moral.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans have the innate ability to be moral. We can distinguish between right and wrong and we don’t need to be told. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that humans have an innate sense of morality. Even though morality has been developed over time, the seeds of morality were sown into humans from the start. We came to the conclusion that people are born with an innate sense of morality because this would help a community to survive and prosper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that we are all born with an innate sense of morality, because as soon as a child is born they can distinguish right from wrong. This innate sense is developed throughout life by watching those around them, especially their parents. They also learn from society in general, by listening to the news, watching tv and learning from their peers at school. I believe that some people are more morally aware than others, which makes them more likely to engage in good deeds and help those in need.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Humans have an innate ability to be moral. Religion may have helped develop this sense of morality but it is not necessary to be moral.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans have the innate ability to be moral. We can distinguish between right and wrong and we don’t need to be told. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that humans have an innate sense of morality. Even though morality has been developed over time, the seeds of morality were sown into humans from the start. We came to the conclusion that people are born with an innate sense of morality because this would help a community to survive and prosper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that we are all born with an innate sense of morality, because as soon as a child is born they can distinguish right from wrong. This innate sense is developed throughout life by watching those around them, especially their parents. They also learn from society in general, by listening to the news, watching tv and learning from their peers at school. I believe that some people are more morally aware than others, which makes them more likely to engage in good deeds and help those in need.” 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000109.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000109.soc index 8d6bd87f..c55ba8b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000109.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000109.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the time people can hold public office. Most people felt that this is a good thing because it gives new people a chance to contribute. However, there was one person who felt that the public is better served by people who are experienced and have gained a certain amount of political experience, but all participants agreed that there should be a maximum period of time for each position. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a maximum time that a person can hold public office. It will prevent a political class from forming who only have self-serving interests. It also allows the systems of checks and balances to take place and prevents absolute power corrupting absolutely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. It also allows a check on the possibility of old age and senility coming into play when making decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we believe that there should be a maximum period of time that a person can hold public office. We think that this will be good for democracy because it will allow new blood to enter into office. This will help to foster new ideas and innovations and to prevent corruption in the public sector. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the time people can hold public office. Most people felt that this is a good thing because it gives new people a chance to contribute. However, there was one person who felt that the public is better served by people who are experienced and have gained a certain amount of political experience, but all participants agreed that there should be a maximum period of time for each position. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a maximum time that a person can hold public office. It will prevent a political class from forming who only have self-serving interests. It also allows the systems of checks and balances to take place and prevents absolute power corrupting absolutely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. It also allows a check on the possibility of old age and senility coming into play when making decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we believe that there should be a maximum period of time that a person can hold public office. We think that this will be good for democracy because it will allow new blood to enter into office. This will help to foster new ideas and innovations and to prevent corruption in the public sector. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000110.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000110.soc index 19e43841..87a4c4c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000110.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000110.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that there should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. It also allows a check on the possibility of old age and senility coming into play when making decisions. This way people can gain experience without becoming too comfortable in their role. We are unsure how long this maximum should be and this is something we would like to debate further. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. It also allows a check on the possibility of old age and senility coming into play when making decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. It also allows a check on the possibility of old age and senility coming into play when making decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that there should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. It also allows a check on the possibility of old age and senility coming into play when making decisions. This way people can gain experience without becoming too comfortable in their role. We are unsure how long this maximum should be and this is something we would like to debate further. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. It also allows a check on the possibility of old age and senility coming into play when making decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a maximum amount of time that a person can hold public office, in order to prevent a political class from forming and to allow new people to gain access to public office. This prevents the accumulation of power in one person’s hands and allows fresh ideas and new perspectives to be heard. It also allows a check on the possibility of old age and senility coming into play when making decisions. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000111.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000111.soc index d014854c..660426a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000111.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000111.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should stop giving aid to foreign countries until we can provide the basic requirements for people within our own country. There are many people within the UK that are in need of aid and we should be giving aid to those that are in need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of continuing foreign aid. The group felt that everyone in the world deserved to live a good quality of life and that if we could help, we should. However, the group thought that we needed to help our own people before helping others and that we should make sure we have enough money to help ourselves. The group felt that a solution could be to limit the amount of foreign aid we give or prioritise the countries we give aid to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we do not think that we should stop giving aid to foreign countries as this would be a selfish act on our part and would harm the global community. We do however believe that we should only give aid where it is needed and to countries who will use the aid appropriately and efficiently. We believe that the global community is a society and as in all societies, some people will have more than others. We should therefore ensure that everyone has access to the basic essentials in life. We must ensure that the aid is not wasted and is used appropriately, we have already seen the consequences of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should continue to give aid to foreign countries. However, we should be careful how much we give to countries that are in situations of extreme need. We should also be careful not to ignore our own people that are in need. We are all human, we all deserve help when we need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should stop giving aid to foreign countries until we can provide the basic requirements for people within our own country. There are many people within the UK that are in need of aid and we should be giving aid to those that are in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of continuing foreign aid. The group felt that everyone in the world deserved to live a good quality of life and that if we could help, we should. However, the group thought that we needed to help our own people before helping others and that we should make sure we have enough money to help ourselves. The group felt that a solution could be to limit the amount of foreign aid we give or prioritise the countries we give aid to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we do not think that we should stop giving aid to foreign countries as this would be a selfish act on our part and would harm the global community. We do however believe that we should only give aid where it is needed and to countries who will use the aid appropriately and efficiently. We believe that the global community is a society and as in all societies, some people will have more than others. We should therefore ensure that everyone has access to the basic essentials in life. We must ensure that the aid is not wasted and is used appropriately, we have already seen the consequences of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should continue to give aid to foreign countries. However, we should be careful how much we give to countries that are in situations of extreme need. We should also be careful not to ignore our own people that are in need. We are all human, we all deserve help when we need it. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000112.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000112.soc index 5a687d84..35b6d020 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000112.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000112.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The European Union has enabled closer working between countries within Europe and has facilitated peace within the region. It also enables countries to benefit from the free movement of goods, services and people, giving businesses and individuals more opportunities in trade and personal lives. The UK leaving Europe, Brexit, has shown the immense damage that is caused to a country and its citizens by leaving its neighbouring trading block. Opportunities have been lost, trade negatively impacted, individuals have lost their freedoms and are in danger of losing many of the rights, such as employment rights and environmental standards. Whilst the European Union not be perfect , being within it is much more preferable than going alone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The EU has been the source of peace in Europe for over 70 years. It is the world's largest trading bloc and in the current global climate, it is the only alliance that is on par with the US or China either militarily or economically. The UK leaving the EU, Brexit, has shown the immense damage that is caused to a country and its citizens by leaving its neighbouring trading block. Opportunities have been lost, trade negatively impacted, individuals have lost their freedoms and are in danger of losing many of the rights, such as employment rights and environmental standards. Whilst the European Union not be perfect , being within it is much more preferable than going alone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the EU is the biggest exporter in the world with 500 million people. It is very important to support the EU as it is one of the biggest trading blocs in the world. The EU is an alliance of 27 member countries in Europe that promotes and develops shared economic, social, cultural, and political values, forming the world's largest trading bloc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should continue to support the European Union as it provides countries within the EU with a host of benefits such as improved environmental standards and free movement of people. Whilst the EU is far from perfect and is a very bureaucratic organisation, it is the best option for countries that want to be a part of the single market and is the only alliance that can rival the United States of America. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The European Union has enabled closer working between countries within Europe and has facilitated peace within the region. It also enables countries to benefit from the free movement of goods, services and people, giving businesses and individuals more opportunities in trade and personal lives. The UK leaving Europe, Brexit, has shown the immense damage that is caused to a country and its citizens by leaving its neighbouring trading block. Opportunities have been lost, trade negatively impacted, individuals have lost their freedoms and are in danger of losing many of the rights, such as employment rights and environmental standards. Whilst the European Union not be perfect , being within it is much more preferable than going alone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The EU has been the source of peace in Europe for over 70 years. It is the world's largest trading bloc and in the current global climate, it is the only alliance that is on par with the US or China either militarily or economically. The UK leaving the EU, Brexit, has shown the immense damage that is caused to a country and its citizens by leaving its neighbouring trading block. Opportunities have been lost, trade negatively impacted, individuals have lost their freedoms and are in danger of losing many of the rights, such as employment rights and environmental standards. Whilst the European Union not be perfect , being within it is much more preferable than going alone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the EU is the biggest exporter in the world with 500 million people. It is very important to support the EU as it is one of the biggest trading blocs in the world. The EU is an alliance of 27 member countries in Europe that promotes and develops shared economic, social, cultural, and political values, forming the world's largest trading bloc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should continue to support the European Union as it provides countries within the EU with a host of benefits such as improved environmental standards and free movement of people. Whilst the EU is far from perfect and is a very bureaucratic organisation, it is the best option for countries that want to be a part of the single market and is the only alliance that can rival the United States of America. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000113.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000113.soc index 60e3da38..5b0561a2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000113.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000113.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The global north is at risk from terrorism, but not in a systemic or structured way. While Islamic terrorism does exist, and will be a threat to a small number of countries in the global north, there are a large number of possible threats from groups with a variety of political and ideological motivations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the global north is at risk from terrorism, although this risk is lower than in the global south. This is because most terror groups have objectives which are not focussed on the global north. Examples of groups with global reach include Islamic State and Al Qaeda. These groups often focus on groups which are in conflict with them, which have included, and are likely to include the USA, Europe and other nations in the global north. However, most other terror groups have objectives which are focussed on the region in which they are based. These include many insurgent groups in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. Therefore, these groups are unlikely to have an interest in attacking the global north. The group was then asked to form a new group with one new participant. The question was then re-posed, and the opinions of the group were as follows: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a constant risk of terrorism, though it may fluctuate between high and low levels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is likely that some parts of the global north are at risk from terrorism. The answer is not definite, because the definition of 'global north' and 'terrorism' are somewhat vague. Some participants felt that they did not have enough information to provide a confident answer, but that the answer was probably 'yes'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The global north is at risk from terrorism, but not in a systemic or structured way. While Islamic terrorism does exist, and will be a threat to a small number of countries in the global north, there are a large number of possible threats from groups with a variety of political and ideological motivations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the global north is at risk from terrorism, although this risk is lower than in the global south. This is because most terror groups have objectives which are not focussed on the global north. Examples of groups with global reach include Islamic State and Al Qaeda. These groups often focus on groups which are in conflict with them, which have included, and are likely to include the USA, Europe and other nations in the global north. However, most other terror groups have objectives which are focussed on the region in which they are based. These include many insurgent groups in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. Therefore, these groups are unlikely to have an interest in attacking the global north. The group was then asked to form a new group with one new participant. The question was then re-posed, and the opinions of the group were as follows: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a constant risk of terrorism, though it may fluctuate between high and low levels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is likely that some parts of the global north are at risk from terrorism. The answer is not definite, because the definition of 'global north' and 'terrorism' are somewhat vague. Some participants felt that they did not have enough information to provide a confident answer, but that the answer was probably 'yes'. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000114.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000114.soc index 43575d57..69ccfdc0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000114.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000114.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although it is a nice idea, we do not think that giving every 16 year old a free laptop is a good use of public money. There are much better ways of helping children in poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of giving every 16 year old a free laptop is a good one as it would enable young people to learn more skills and allow them to get jobs in the future. However, the proposal is not realistic because the government is going to have to spend too much money. The issue is not so serious because, in general, most young people have a laptop or tablet by the age of 16. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, yes we should provide laptops to every 16-year-old because we live in a tech-savvy age and not having access to a laptop will cause a significant disadvantage to the kids. This can be supported by a point from the previous speakers which stated "It allows young people to begin studying online and gaining necessary skills for software. Finally, it aids poorer families that generally can't afford these devices for their children." However, this is a significant expense to the government and there is a risk that many of the laptops will not be used for school but be sold on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a laptop for every 16-year-old as it would help reduce inequality in education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although it is a nice idea, we do not think that giving every 16 year old a free laptop is a good use of public money. There are much better ways of helping children in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of giving every 16 year old a free laptop is a good one as it would enable young people to learn more skills and allow them to get jobs in the future. However, the proposal is not realistic because the government is going to have to spend too much money. The issue is not so serious because, in general, most young people have a laptop or tablet by the age of 16. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, yes we should provide laptops to every 16-year-old because we live in a tech-savvy age and not having access to a laptop will cause a significant disadvantage to the kids. This can be supported by a point from the previous speakers which stated "It allows young people to begin studying online and gaining necessary skills for software. Finally, it aids poorer families that generally can't afford these devices for their children." However, this is a significant expense to the government and there is a risk that many of the laptops will not be used for school but be sold on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a laptop for every 16-year-old as it would help reduce inequality in education. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000115.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000115.soc index abb481c9..e0d0dacd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000115.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000115.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Humans have a basic moral sense that is inborn. The way we act morally in society is learned from others, especially our parents and peers. Society as a whole also plays a big role in influencing our behaviour through the things we see in the media and in politics. Everyone has a different moral sense, but at the core, most people have a basic idea of right and wrong, which helps us get along with each other and form communities.” In this example, it is clear that the way the group consensus statement was formed was to take each opinion in turn, discuss any criticisms of the opinion, and then develop a consensus view that incorporates the opinions of all of the participants. In a way, the first draft consensus statement was like a working document for the participants to work with, with critiques coming in from all sides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans have an innate ability to be moral. Children are born with an innate sense of morality and as they grow older, they learn from those around them and from the news and TV, so they develop their innate sense. Throughout their lives, people’s sense of morality is shaped by their experiences, culture and the society in which they live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe that we are all born with an innate sense of morality, because as soon as a child is born they can distinguish right from wrong. This innate sense is developed throughout life by watching those around them, especially their parents. They also learn from society in general, by listening to the news, watching tv and learning from their peers at school. I believe that some people are more morally aware than others, which makes them more likely to engage in good deeds and help those in need.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The innate ability of humans to be moral can be seen in young children who instinctively know that it is wrong to do something such as stealing. This is something that is developed further as they grow up, however, through watching the people around them, such as their parents, and through the influence of society as a whole, for example, watching the news. This is why it is so important for young children to be brought up in an environment where morality is modelled to them by those who care for them." A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Humans have a basic moral sense that is inborn. The way we act morally in society is learned from others, especially our parents and peers. Society as a whole also plays a big role in influencing our behaviour through the things we see in the media and in politics. Everyone has a different moral sense, but at the core, most people have a basic idea of right and wrong, which helps us get along with each other and form communities.” In this example, it is clear that the way the group consensus statement was formed was to take each opinion in turn, discuss any criticisms of the opinion, and then develop a consensus view that incorporates the opinions of all of the participants. In a way, the first draft consensus statement was like a working document for the participants to work with, with critiques coming in from all sides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans have an innate ability to be moral. Children are born with an innate sense of morality and as they grow older, they learn from those around them and from the news and TV, so they develop their innate sense. Throughout their lives, people’s sense of morality is shaped by their experiences, culture and the society in which they live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe that we are all born with an innate sense of morality, because as soon as a child is born they can distinguish right from wrong. This innate sense is developed throughout life by watching those around them, especially their parents. They also learn from society in general, by listening to the news, watching tv and learning from their peers at school. I believe that some people are more morally aware than others, which makes them more likely to engage in good deeds and help those in need.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The innate ability of humans to be moral can be seen in young children who instinctively know that it is wrong to do something such as stealing. This is something that is developed further as they grow up, however, through watching the people around them, such as their parents, and through the influence of society as a whole, for example, watching the news. This is why it is so important for young children to be brought up in an environment where morality is modelled to them by those who care for them." A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000116.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000116.soc index 4269c80d..9caf5958 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000116.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000116.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should absolutely provide free life-saving treatment to any child that needs it. In a civilized society we must care for our children and their welfare should be the priority of any government. There should be no rich/poor divide in the provision of life-saving treatment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should provide life-saving treatment to any child who needs it, irrespective of their financial situation, without the involvement of private health insurance companies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should provide life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. In special circumstances however, there may be some cases where it is not ethically right to provide life-saving treatment. For example, if the treatment would require funding to be cut from other public services. If we do not provide life-saving treatment to these children, then we are guilty of choosing the lesser of two evils, and although this is a difficult decision to make, it may be the right decision in some circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should absolutely provide free life-saving treatment to any child that needs it. In a civilized society we must care for our children and their welfare should be the priority of any government. There should be no rich/poor divide in the provision of life-saving treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should provide life-saving treatment to any child who needs it, irrespective of their financial situation, without the involvement of private health insurance companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should provide life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. In special circumstances however, there may be some cases where it is not ethically right to provide life-saving treatment. For example, if the treatment would require funding to be cut from other public services. If we do not provide life-saving treatment to these children, then we are guilty of choosing the lesser of two evils, and although this is a difficult decision to make, it may be the right decision in some circumstances. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000117.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000117.soc index bf75dec2..318e7541 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000117.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000117.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Foreign aid should be a key part of any nation's policies and should not be limited. However, in times of austerity, foreign aid may need to be limited temporarily to ensure that our own people are not left to suffer. The amount of foreign aid that is given should also be dependent on the situation in the country the aid is being given to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group of participants were in favour of continuing to give foreign aid. The group felt that everyone in the world deserved to live a good quality of life and that if we could help, we should. However, the group thought that we needed to help our own people before helping others and that we should make sure we have enough money to help ourselves. The group felt that a solution could be to limit the amount of foreign aid we give or prioritise the countries we give aid to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group in general felt that everyone deserved to live a good quality of life. However, they felt that we needed to help our own people first and that we should make sure we have enough money to help ourselves. The group felt that a solution could be to limit the amount of foreign aid we give or prioritise the countries we give aid to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of continuing foreign aid. Everyone in the world deserves to live a good quality of life and if we can help we should. However, we should prioritise the countries we give aid to and should ensure that we have enough money to help ourselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Foreign aid should be a key part of any nation's policies and should not be limited. However, in times of austerity, foreign aid may need to be limited temporarily to ensure that our own people are not left to suffer. The amount of foreign aid that is given should also be dependent on the situation in the country the aid is being given to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group of participants were in favour of continuing to give foreign aid. The group felt that everyone in the world deserved to live a good quality of life and that if we could help, we should. However, the group thought that we needed to help our own people before helping others and that we should make sure we have enough money to help ourselves. The group felt that a solution could be to limit the amount of foreign aid we give or prioritise the countries we give aid to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group in general felt that everyone deserved to live a good quality of life. However, they felt that we needed to help our own people first and that we should make sure we have enough money to help ourselves. The group felt that a solution could be to limit the amount of foreign aid we give or prioritise the countries we give aid to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of continuing foreign aid. Everyone in the world deserves to live a good quality of life and if we can help we should. However, we should prioritise the countries we give aid to and should ensure that we have enough money to help ourselves. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000118.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000118.soc index e8cfefa6..6402e6bc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000118.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000118.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not reduce its spending on policing as this would affect the crime rate and potentially reduce the amount of confidence in the police force. There are currently issues with police funding and training and the government should increase its spending on policing rather than reduce it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group came to the consensus view that we should not be reducing the money spent on policing but increasing it, in order to ensure our society is better protected. The group felt that there were many societal factors that determined how much money should be spent, however they also agreed that the current amount was not sufficient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to reducing funding for policing. However, it was recognised that there may be some places where policing is not as high a priority as in others. In these areas it may be possible to reduce funding and use it for other services, provided this is done with extreme care and in consultation with the community. The overall group consensus, however, was that in general, more money should be spent on policing, and in particular, it should be spent on education, training, and equipping of the police force to better fight crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not reduce the amount of money it spends on policing. In some areas of the country this is an essential service and could prove catastrophic if money was reduced. The increase of knife crime in London is just one example of the need for more police in areas of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not reduce its spending on policing as this would affect the crime rate and potentially reduce the amount of confidence in the police force. There are currently issues with police funding and training and the government should increase its spending on policing rather than reduce it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not be reducing the money spent on policing but increasing it, in order to ensure our society is better protected. The group felt that there were many societal factors that determined how much money should be spent, however they also agreed that the current amount was not sufficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to reducing funding for policing. However, it was recognised that there may be some places where policing is not as high a priority as in others. In these areas it may be possible to reduce funding and use it for other services, provided this is done with extreme care and in consultation with the community. The overall group consensus, however, was that in general, more money should be spent on policing, and in particular, it should be spent on education, training, and equipping of the police force to better fight crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not reduce the amount of money it spends on policing. In some areas of the country this is an essential service and could prove catastrophic if money was reduced. The increase of knife crime in London is just one example of the need for more police in areas of the country. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000119.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000119.soc index ca8883a0..0dfaf45b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000119.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000119.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Most of the participants did not want to see a reduction in policing funding, although some noted that it may be possible to reduce the policing budget in some parts of the country, provided that this was done in consultation with the local community and the saved money was reinvested in other public services. The participants were generally of the opinion that more money should be spent on policing, and that this money should be spent on the education and training of police officers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to reducing funding for policing. However, it was recognised that there may be some places where policing is not as high a priority as in others. In these areas it may be possible to reduce funding and use it for other services, provided this is done with extreme care and in consultation with the community. The overall group consensus, however, was that in general, more money should be spent on policing, and in particular, it should be spent on education, training, and equipping of the police force to better fight crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a set level of funding for policing which is determined by need. Funding for policing should not be cut, but if it is not currently meeting the needs of the community, the government should increase funding. More money should be spent on the training and education of the police force and on the equipment and technology they require. Conclusion: In conclusion, the small group model of consensus decision making has proved to be successful. However, it has been shown that the more difficult the question is to reach a consensus on, the longer the process takes. Further, there are times when the small group model is not the most effective, and other techniques may be more suitable. One example is where a great deal of data is available and many participants will not have the opportunity to read all of it, this is a time when the Delphi Technique is more suitable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group, in general, was opposed to reducing funding for policing. However, it was recognised that there may be some places where policing is not as high a priority as in others. In these areas it may be possible to reduce funding and use it for other services, provided this is done with extreme care and in consultation with the community. The overall group consensus, however, was that in general, more money should be spent on policing, and in particular, it should be spent on education, training, and equipping of the police force to better fight crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Most of the participants did not want to see a reduction in policing funding, although some noted that it may be possible to reduce the policing budget in some parts of the country, provided that this was done in consultation with the local community and the saved money was reinvested in other public services. The participants were generally of the opinion that more money should be spent on policing, and that this money should be spent on the education and training of police officers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to reducing funding for policing. However, it was recognised that there may be some places where policing is not as high a priority as in others. In these areas it may be possible to reduce funding and use it for other services, provided this is done with extreme care and in consultation with the community. The overall group consensus, however, was that in general, more money should be spent on policing, and in particular, it should be spent on education, training, and equipping of the police force to better fight crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a set level of funding for policing which is determined by need. Funding for policing should not be cut, but if it is not currently meeting the needs of the community, the government should increase funding. More money should be spent on the training and education of the police force and on the equipment and technology they require. Conclusion: In conclusion, the small group model of consensus decision making has proved to be successful. However, it has been shown that the more difficult the question is to reach a consensus on, the longer the process takes. Further, there are times when the small group model is not the most effective, and other techniques may be more suitable. One example is where a great deal of data is available and many participants will not have the opportunity to read all of it, this is a time when the Delphi Technique is more suitable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group, in general, was opposed to reducing funding for policing. However, it was recognised that there may be some places where policing is not as high a priority as in others. In these areas it may be possible to reduce funding and use it for other services, provided this is done with extreme care and in consultation with the community. The overall group consensus, however, was that in general, more money should be spent on policing, and in particular, it should be spent on education, training, and equipping of the police force to better fight crime. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000120.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000120.soc index 15dd7ea1..fc1e0ee8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000120.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000120.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The risk of terrorism is probably non-zero, but the term 'global north' is so vague that it is difficult to provide a definite answer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Some parts of the global north are at risk from terrorism. The answer is not definite, because the definition of 'global north' and 'terrorism' are somewhat vague. The answer may be 'yes' if 'global north' refers to a relatively small area in the northern hemisphere and 'terrorism' refers to the current wave of islamic terrorism. Some participants felt that they did not have enough information to provide a confident answer, but that the answer was probably 'yes'. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The question, 'Is the global north at risk from terrorism?' is hard to answer with confidence, as there is no agreement on what is included in the 'global north', or what constitutes terrorism. However, it is likely that some parts of the global north are at risk from terrorism, although this is a non-zero probability, not a certainty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a constant risk of terrorism, though it may fluctuate between high and low levels. It is likely that some parts of the global north are at risk of terrorism, but the answer is not definite, because the definition of 'global north' and 'terrorism' are somewhat vague. Some participants felt that they did not have enough information to provide a confident answer, but that the answer was probably 'yes'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The risk of terrorism is probably non-zero, but the term 'global north' is so vague that it is difficult to provide a definite answer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Some parts of the global north are at risk from terrorism. The answer is not definite, because the definition of 'global north' and 'terrorism' are somewhat vague. The answer may be 'yes' if 'global north' refers to a relatively small area in the northern hemisphere and 'terrorism' refers to the current wave of islamic terrorism. Some participants felt that they did not have enough information to provide a confident answer, but that the answer was probably 'yes'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The question, 'Is the global north at risk from terrorism?' is hard to answer with confidence, as there is no agreement on what is included in the 'global north', or what constitutes terrorism. However, it is likely that some parts of the global north are at risk from terrorism, although this is a non-zero probability, not a certainty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a constant risk of terrorism, though it may fluctuate between high and low levels. It is likely that some parts of the global north are at risk of terrorism, but the answer is not definite, because the definition of 'global north' and 'terrorism' are somewhat vague. Some participants felt that they did not have enough information to provide a confident answer, but that the answer was probably 'yes'. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000121.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000121.soc index 8ae7dfea..515d7763 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000121.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000121.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We as a society are not doing enough to fight climate change. Individuals need to take greater responsibility for their own environmental impact. Governments need to put environmental sustainability ahead of short-term economic gains. Industry needs to innovate and develop genuinely sustainable business models that do not impact the environment in a negative way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: As a society we are not doing enough to fight climate change. If we are to live in a world where the environment can support all species and human life in the future we need to address climate change and change the way we live our lives. This requires changes in policy and regulation and new methods of production. As consumers, we can also do our bit by making more sustainable choices in terms of what we buy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, our society is not doing enough to fight climate change. However, it is important to recognise that society is a very broad term and many different people are fighting climate change in different ways. Some individuals are working towards becoming carbon neutral and implementing sustainable practices in their everyday lives, while others are taking to the streets to protest in support of change. In a broader sense, many organisations such as charities are fighting climate change by advocating for change. For example, the WWF and 350.org. Despite this, however, not enough is being done to fight climate change. If we are to slow the effects of climate change, we need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we as a society are not doing enough to fight climate change. There is too much vested interest and inertia from governments and large corporations. This has led to a collective inaction to properly address the problem, as well as underinvestment in renewables. While there are many things that individuals can do to help combat climate change, the problem needs a large collective effort from governments and corporations to truly have an impact. Governments need to support companies in investing in clean technologies and subsidies for renewable energy, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and develop clean energy alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We as a society are not doing enough to fight climate change. Individuals need to take greater responsibility for their own environmental impact. Governments need to put environmental sustainability ahead of short-term economic gains. Industry needs to innovate and develop genuinely sustainable business models that do not impact the environment in a negative way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - As a society we are not doing enough to fight climate change. If we are to live in a world where the environment can support all species and human life in the future we need to address climate change and change the way we live our lives. This requires changes in policy and regulation and new methods of production. As consumers, we can also do our bit by making more sustainable choices in terms of what we buy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, our society is not doing enough to fight climate change. However, it is important to recognise that society is a very broad term and many different people are fighting climate change in different ways. Some individuals are working towards becoming carbon neutral and implementing sustainable practices in their everyday lives, while others are taking to the streets to protest in support of change. In a broader sense, many organisations such as charities are fighting climate change by advocating for change. For example, the WWF and 350.org. Despite this, however, not enough is being done to fight climate change. If we are to slow the effects of climate change, we need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we as a society are not doing enough to fight climate change. There is too much vested interest and inertia from governments and large corporations. This has led to a collective inaction to properly address the problem, as well as underinvestment in renewables. While there are many things that individuals can do to help combat climate change, the problem needs a large collective effort from governments and corporations to truly have an impact. Governments need to support companies in investing in clean technologies and subsidies for renewable energy, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and develop clean energy alternatives. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000122.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000122.soc index 4022c3f2..861dac27 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000122.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000122.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should invest in more large-scale infrastructure projects. These projects provide the economy with a much-needed boost, by generating income for the country and creating new jobs and opportunities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the UK should invest in more large-scale infrastructure projects. However, it should be recognised that large-scale infrastructure projects are costly and so it is important that they are planned in a way that maximises the benefits. As with all infrastructure projects, they should be considered in terms of their impact on the economy, people and the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should invest more in large-scale infrastructure projects. These projects would be beneficial for the economy as it would create jobs and incomes for the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Large-scale infrastructure projects should be prioritised by the UK Government, because they provide new jobs, incomes and up to date systems in our country. This will be beneficial to everyone in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should invest in more large-scale infrastructure projects. These projects provide the economy with a much-needed boost, by generating income for the country and creating new jobs and opportunities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the UK should invest in more large-scale infrastructure projects. However, it should be recognised that large-scale infrastructure projects are costly and so it is important that they are planned in a way that maximises the benefits. As with all infrastructure projects, they should be considered in terms of their impact on the economy, people and the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should invest more in large-scale infrastructure projects. These projects would be beneficial for the economy as it would create jobs and incomes for the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Large-scale infrastructure projects should be prioritised by the UK Government, because they provide new jobs, incomes and up to date systems in our country. This will be beneficial to everyone in the UK. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000123.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000123.soc index fbdad2ac..cb5375ba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000123.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000123.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK has the right number of graduates, but with the current government encouragement for people to go to university, there are some cases where it is not the best thing for individuals. There are still shortages of certain skills within the UK, so it is still important that people have the opportunity to study at university. It would be good for the government to invest more in work-based training to ensure the skills are available for the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is not a clear oversupply of university graduates in the UK, although there are certainly more people studying at university than in the past and some people would argue that we need to address this by making it more difficult to attend university. What is more concerning is that there are more people studying for university degrees that are not beneficial to the country. This is due to the governments drive to ensure that everyone, regardless of background, can attend university. There is also a growing need to encourage people to study in areas where there are shortages of skills in the UK, and we need to address this issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a degree of oversupply, but this is of particular concern in certain disciplines. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I feel that the UK has a healthy number of university graduates that is helping to drive the economy and workforce forward. However I feel that there is a lack of focus and funding in areas such as nursing and teaching where there is a need for graduates. I feel that in areas of the country that are dependent on a primary sector there is a lack of supply of the right type of graduates that can be tapped into to help the country and economy to grow. This is in part down to the ‘wrong’ students attending university and a lack of career advice at school level.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK has the right number of graduates, but with the current government encouragement for people to go to university, there are some cases where it is not the best thing for individuals. There are still shortages of certain skills within the UK, so it is still important that people have the opportunity to study at university. It would be good for the government to invest more in work-based training to ensure the skills are available for the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is not a clear oversupply of university graduates in the UK, although there are certainly more people studying at university than in the past and some people would argue that we need to address this by making it more difficult to attend university. What is more concerning is that there are more people studying for university degrees that are not beneficial to the country. This is due to the governments drive to ensure that everyone, regardless of background, can attend university. There is also a growing need to encourage people to study in areas where there are shortages of skills in the UK, and we need to address this issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a degree of oversupply, but this is of particular concern in certain disciplines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I feel that the UK has a healthy number of university graduates that is helping to drive the economy and workforce forward. However I feel that there is a lack of focus and funding in areas such as nursing and teaching where there is a need for graduates. I feel that in areas of the country that are dependent on a primary sector there is a lack of supply of the right type of graduates that can be tapped into to help the country and economy to grow. This is in part down to the ‘wrong’ students attending university and a lack of career advice at school level.” 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000124.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000124.soc index 899f2335..ae04726e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000124.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000124.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should require all citizens to vote in elections. However, this should be paired with mandatory education sessions to ensure that all voters understand the voting process and the important of voting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we do not think that it is necessary to require all citizens to vote in elections. We think that this is because not everyone will have a full understanding of the issues at hand and therefore will not be making an informed decision. In a democracy, we believe that every vote must be an informed vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we do not think it is necessary to require all citizens to vote in elections. In many cases, there are going to be people who have strong opinions and don't want to vote for a certain party and vice versa. We believe it is essential that all citizens have the right to choose not to vote. It could lead to dangerous situations if a group of people were forced to vote for something they did not agree with. However, there is an argument that it could lead to a more democratic society if everyone was required to vote. This is because every single citizen in the country would have a say on the outcome. We are undecided as a group as to which opinion is correct, but overall we think it is acceptable for some people to choose not to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the consensus view that we should not require all citizens to vote in elections. This is because it could lead to lots of people just voting because they have to without having any knowledge or strong opinions on who or what they are voting for. It is important that every voter knows what they are voting for and not everyone will understand this. It could lead to people inadvertently voting for something they didn't mean to. We also think that it is dangerous and irresponsible to make people vote if they have no knowledge of what they are voting for. This could lead to bad decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should require all citizens to vote in elections. However, this should be paired with mandatory education sessions to ensure that all voters understand the voting process and the important of voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we do not think that it is necessary to require all citizens to vote in elections. We think that this is because not everyone will have a full understanding of the issues at hand and therefore will not be making an informed decision. In a democracy, we believe that every vote must be an informed vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we do not think it is necessary to require all citizens to vote in elections. In many cases, there are going to be people who have strong opinions and don't want to vote for a certain party and vice versa. We believe it is essential that all citizens have the right to choose not to vote. It could lead to dangerous situations if a group of people were forced to vote for something they did not agree with. However, there is an argument that it could lead to a more democratic society if everyone was required to vote. This is because every single citizen in the country would have a say on the outcome. We are undecided as a group as to which opinion is correct, but overall we think it is acceptable for some people to choose not to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the consensus view that we should not require all citizens to vote in elections. This is because it could lead to lots of people just voting because they have to without having any knowledge or strong opinions on who or what they are voting for. It is important that every voter knows what they are voting for and not everyone will understand this. It could lead to people inadvertently voting for something they didn't mean to. We also think that it is dangerous and irresponsible to make people vote if they have no knowledge of what they are voting for. This could lead to bad decisions. 2: 2,4,3,1 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000125.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000125.soc index 71b9779d..7480c635 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000125.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000125.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Some jobs can be performed remotely and some can't. Remote jobs can have more flexible working arrangements. For jobs that require presence in the workplace and non-remote hours, a move away from the traditional 9-5 pattern of work should be considered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, working shorter hours is desirable. The current 8 hour work week is not well suited to all job types. Some jobs are still time intensive and require more than 8 hours. The industry and employer should have the flexibility to decide the hours of work to meet the needs of the job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The world is rapidly changing. Everything from technological advancements to Covid-19 has brought about a need to rethink the way we work and what it means to work. However, the 8-hour day is a norm that is firmly entrenched. This inflexible and rigid way of working does not work for all jobs and all industries. There are jobs that require more or less time to complete and there are jobs that require more or less people to complete. While 8 hours a day may work for some jobs and some industries, it should not be a requirement. There should be more options available for the workforce, as each person has different needs and different preferences. The 8-hour day model is not flexible enough to accommodate all of these different needs. It is this very lack of flexibility that perpetuates a culture of overworking and presenteeism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it would not be better for society if everyone worked an 8-hour day, 5 days a week. Everyone has different levels of stress, and a 5 day work week might add to their stress. Some people may be able to get their work done in 5 days, and it might be more beneficial for them to take a long weekend. Others might need the extra day to get their work done. This is the current situation with Covid-19, and I think it will be beneficial for many to have a shorter work week and be able to have more time to themselves, or with their families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Some jobs can be performed remotely and some can't. Remote jobs can have more flexible working arrangements. For jobs that require presence in the workplace and non-remote hours, a move away from the traditional 9-5 pattern of work should be considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, working shorter hours is desirable. The current 8 hour work week is not well suited to all job types. Some jobs are still time intensive and require more than 8 hours. The industry and employer should have the flexibility to decide the hours of work to meet the needs of the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The world is rapidly changing. Everything from technological advancements to Covid-19 has brought about a need to rethink the way we work and what it means to work. However, the 8-hour day is a norm that is firmly entrenched. This inflexible and rigid way of working does not work for all jobs and all industries. There are jobs that require more or less time to complete and there are jobs that require more or less people to complete. While 8 hours a day may work for some jobs and some industries, it should not be a requirement. There should be more options available for the workforce, as each person has different needs and different preferences. The 8-hour day model is not flexible enough to accommodate all of these different needs. It is this very lack of flexibility that perpetuates a culture of overworking and presenteeism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it would not be better for society if everyone worked an 8-hour day, 5 days a week. Everyone has different levels of stress, and a 5 day work week might add to their stress. Some people may be able to get their work done in 5 days, and it might be more beneficial for them to take a long weekend. Others might need the extra day to get their work done. This is the current situation with Covid-19, and I think it will be beneficial for many to have a shorter work week and be able to have more time to themselves, or with their families. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000126.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000126.soc index 26d1a5c4..5c3f7107 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000126.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000126.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National Service should not be mandatory. Everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams and live the life they choose. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think that mandatory national service for 18-30 year olds is a good idea. The age group does not have a clearly defined purpose and will cause disruption to many people's lives. National service should be a choice for the individual and should not be imposed on anyone against their will. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to national service as a compulsory measure. Although it was recognised that there may be some benefits to be gained by participation in a national service programme, there were some concerns about the impact of the age range on individuals, as well as the potential for forcing people to take part in military actions. It was suggested that national service may be a better idea if it was for a shorter duration, but with no compulsion for those who did not wish to participate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. It would be a violation of individual freedoms and force young people to do something they may not want to do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National Service should not be mandatory. Everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams and live the life they choose. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think that mandatory national service for 18-30 year olds is a good idea. The age group does not have a clearly defined purpose and will cause disruption to many people's lives. National service should be a choice for the individual and should not be imposed on anyone against their will. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to national service as a compulsory measure. Although it was recognised that there may be some benefits to be gained by participation in a national service programme, there were some concerns about the impact of the age range on individuals, as well as the potential for forcing people to take part in military actions. It was suggested that national service may be a better idea if it was for a shorter duration, but with no compulsion for those who did not wish to participate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. It would be a violation of individual freedoms and force young people to do something they may not want to do. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000127.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000127.soc index cfa6e110..dc035700 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000127.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000127.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, our society is not doing enough to fight climate change. Despite growing awareness of the issue, many individuals and government continue to prioritise short-term economic gain over long-term environmental sustainability. It is important to recognise that society is a very broad term and many different people are fighting climate change in different ways. Some individuals are working towards becoming carbon neutral and implementing sustainable practices in their everyday lives, while others are taking to the streets to protest in support of change. In a broader sense, many organisations such as charities are fighting climate change by advocating for change. For example, the WWF and 350.org. Despite this, however, not enough is being done to fight climate change. If we are to slow the effects of climate change, we need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Our society is not doing enough to fight climate change. While there are many individuals who are doing their best to reduce their carbon footprint and are advocating for change, not enough is being done to fight climate change. This is particularly the case with governments and large industries which are acting contrary to the interests of humanity by supporting unsustainable practices that are causing climate change. If we are to make a change, more people must be aware of the issue and advocate for action. It is crucial that governments and industries around the world take action to reduce the impacts of climate change. Fight Climate Change! This section of the website presents a range of ways that you can reduce your carbon footprint. From solar powered garden lights to the effects of fracking, the following pages present a range of issues and possible solutions to climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is growing awareness of climate change, but it is not enough. We need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. The vast majority of climate change related research and work is coming from independent groups and organisations. For example, the WWF and 350.org. Government support is sorely lacking, as climate change is not being taken seriously enough and not enough is being done to fight it. Overall, not enough is being done to fight climate change. If we are to slow the effects of climate change, we need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Our society as a whole is not doing enough to fight climate change. While many individuals are taking small steps towards being more sustainable, including implementing sustainable practices in their everyday lives, and many organisations such as charities are fighting climate change by advocating for change, not enough is being done to fight climate change. If we are to slow the effects of climate change, we need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, our society is not doing enough to fight climate change. Despite growing awareness of the issue, many individuals and government continue to prioritise short-term economic gain over long-term environmental sustainability. It is important to recognise that society is a very broad term and many different people are fighting climate change in different ways. Some individuals are working towards becoming carbon neutral and implementing sustainable practices in their everyday lives, while others are taking to the streets to protest in support of change. In a broader sense, many organisations such as charities are fighting climate change by advocating for change. For example, the WWF and 350.org. Despite this, however, not enough is being done to fight climate change. If we are to slow the effects of climate change, we need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Our society is not doing enough to fight climate change. While there are many individuals who are doing their best to reduce their carbon footprint and are advocating for change, not enough is being done to fight climate change. This is particularly the case with governments and large industries which are acting contrary to the interests of humanity by supporting unsustainable practices that are causing climate change. If we are to make a change, more people must be aware of the issue and advocate for action. It is crucial that governments and industries around the world take action to reduce the impacts of climate change. Fight Climate Change! This section of the website presents a range of ways that you can reduce your carbon footprint. From solar powered garden lights to the effects of fracking, the following pages present a range of issues and possible solutions to climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is growing awareness of climate change, but it is not enough. We need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. The vast majority of climate change related research and work is coming from independent groups and organisations. For example, the WWF and 350.org. Government support is sorely lacking, as climate change is not being taken seriously enough and not enough is being done to fight it. Overall, not enough is being done to fight climate change. If we are to slow the effects of climate change, we need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Our society as a whole is not doing enough to fight climate change. While many individuals are taking small steps towards being more sustainable, including implementing sustainable practices in their everyday lives, and many organisations such as charities are fighting climate change by advocating for change, not enough is being done to fight climate change. If we are to slow the effects of climate change, we need more people to become aware of the issue and support a move towards sustainable practices, including the government and industries, as they have a major role to play in fighting climate change. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000128.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000128.soc index 26158ecc..e4c701c0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000128.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000128.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have a moral responsibility to give aid to the poor wherever they are, because we are all global citizens and are responsible for each other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is no moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad, but we have a moral responsibility as global citizens to help the poor. This was a difficult process, and we were pushed to our limits, but it was also a very rewarding experience. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a moral responsibility for wealthier, more developed countries to give aid to the poor abroad. The people of the world are all human beings and we are all interconnected. As global citizens we have a moral responsibility to help other people around the world, especially those in poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there is no moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad, we have a moral responsibility as global citizens to give aid to the poor. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have a moral responsibility to give aid to the poor wherever they are, because we are all global citizens and are responsible for each other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is no moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad, but we have a moral responsibility as global citizens to help the poor. This was a difficult process, and we were pushed to our limits, but it was also a very rewarding experience. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a moral responsibility for wealthier, more developed countries to give aid to the poor abroad. The people of the world are all human beings and we are all interconnected. As global citizens we have a moral responsibility to help other people around the world, especially those in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there is no moral obligation to give aid to the poor abroad, we have a moral responsibility as global citizens to give aid to the poor. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000129.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000129.soc index 2216766c..550278cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000129.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000129.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National Service should not be mandatory. Everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams and live the life they choose. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National Service should not be mandatory. Everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams and live the life they choose. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. However, National Service does have benefits and should be promoted by the Government as something that people should consider, and could really help young people who are not sure what they want to do in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: National Service should not be mandatory. The government should not monopolise people's time in this way. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: National Service should not be mandatory. The government should not monopolise people's time in this way. Everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams and live the life they choose. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National Service should not be mandatory. Everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams and live the life they choose. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National Service should not be mandatory. Everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams and live the life they choose. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. However, National Service does have benefits and should be promoted by the Government as something that people should consider, and could really help young people who are not sure what they want to do in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - National Service should not be mandatory. The government should not monopolise people's time in this way. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - National Service should not be mandatory. The government should not monopolise people's time in this way. Everyone should be allowed to follow their dreams and live the life they choose. In the case of the Military, this is something that is a voluntary service and should be a choice for those that choose to do it, not a mandatory requirement. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000130.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000130.soc index 1001f49e..386ca312 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000130.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000130.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should do more to help the unemployed. The way in which people can be helped can be very broad and be tailored to each individual. In order to help the unemployed, there must be consideration about other barriers they may face, such as poor housing, addiction, poor physical or mental health, family commitments, transportation issues, child care needs. These factors may need to be addressed before any job seeking can occur. Some form of support is needed to help with these. Also, there is a role for the government to support businesses and organisations in being able to provide work and training to the unemployed. Support can be given to individuals, but also to organisations to help them support individuals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should do more to help unemployed people find jobs, however, the government is not the only solution to unemployment. People should not be relying solely on the government to help them find work, but should look for opportunities themselves as well. Unemployment can be a really tough experience, and the government should provide more resources for people to learn new skills and access employment opportunities. If the government want to create more jobs in the community, they need to support local businesses as well as larger employers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should do more to help unemployed people find jobs. If there is less people out of work and more people in work, then it will be better for our economy and the NHS. The government should help unemployed people into paid work, it is their responsibility to provide a support framework for the citizens of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should do more to help unemployed people find jobs. The jobs need to be of good quality, paying good wages and providing opportunities for people to grow and progress. There needs to be more government support for people to help them get the skills they need to move into employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should do more to help the unemployed. The way in which people can be helped can be very broad and be tailored to each individual. In order to help the unemployed, there must be consideration about other barriers they may face, such as poor housing, addiction, poor physical or mental health, family commitments, transportation issues, child care needs. These factors may need to be addressed before any job seeking can occur. Some form of support is needed to help with these. Also, there is a role for the government to support businesses and organisations in being able to provide work and training to the unemployed. Support can be given to individuals, but also to organisations to help them support individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should do more to help unemployed people find jobs, however, the government is not the only solution to unemployment. People should not be relying solely on the government to help them find work, but should look for opportunities themselves as well. Unemployment can be a really tough experience, and the government should provide more resources for people to learn new skills and access employment opportunities. If the government want to create more jobs in the community, they need to support local businesses as well as larger employers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should do more to help unemployed people find jobs. If there is less people out of work and more people in work, then it will be better for our economy and the NHS. The government should help unemployed people into paid work, it is their responsibility to provide a support framework for the citizens of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should do more to help unemployed people find jobs. The jobs need to be of good quality, paying good wages and providing opportunities for people to grow and progress. There needs to be more government support for people to help them get the skills they need to move into employment. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000131.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000131.soc index 98f4c2ab..76d2f064 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000131.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000131.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should make divorce harder. The strength of the relationship is of paramount importance and should be the focus of people entering the union. By making divorce harder we are valuing the sanctity of the relationship and showing that it is something to be valued. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, divorce is already hard enough. The financial cost, emotional cost, and impact on children should be enough to deter any one who is thinking about divorce. However, it is unfair to force people to stay in a marriage that is dangerous, toxic, and causing problems in their life and the life of their children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of divorce being made harder. However, it was recognised that there may be some exceptions to this. For example, if a person is in an abusive marriage, they should be allowed to get out of it as soon as possible. However, if the marriage is a non-abusive one, then divorce should be made harder, as divorce is usually a last resort after everything else has failed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although divorce is a heartbreaking experience for all parties involved, we do not believe that we should make the process harder, due to the fact that some people who are in abusive and toxic relationships may find it harder to get out, therefore putting themselves in a dangerous position. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should make divorce harder. The strength of the relationship is of paramount importance and should be the focus of people entering the union. By making divorce harder we are valuing the sanctity of the relationship and showing that it is something to be valued. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, divorce is already hard enough. The financial cost, emotional cost, and impact on children should be enough to deter any one who is thinking about divorce. However, it is unfair to force people to stay in a marriage that is dangerous, toxic, and causing problems in their life and the life of their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of divorce being made harder. However, it was recognised that there may be some exceptions to this. For example, if a person is in an abusive marriage, they should be allowed to get out of it as soon as possible. However, if the marriage is a non-abusive one, then divorce should be made harder, as divorce is usually a last resort after everything else has failed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although divorce is a heartbreaking experience for all parties involved, we do not believe that we should make the process harder, due to the fact that some people who are in abusive and toxic relationships may find it harder to get out, therefore putting themselves in a dangerous position. 2: 3,1,4,2 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000132.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000132.soc index a9022e06..63ec264d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000132.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000132.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should set clear targets to eliminate CO2 emissions from transport by 2050. We should not wait for other countries to lead the way on this matter. To achieve this target the government should introduce policy that seeks to restrict the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles and increase grants to low income households in the next 10 years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government should set clear targets to eliminate CO2 emissions from transport by 2050. The government should also introduce policies to restrict the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2025. To achieve this target the government should look at ways to promote the use of electric vehicles by extending the charging infrastructure in cities and increasing grants to low income households. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should set clear targets to eliminate CO2 emissions from transport by 2050. We should not wait for other countries to lead the way on this matter. To achieve this target the government should introduce policy that seeks to restrict the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2025. Furthermore, the government should look at ways to promote the use of electric vehicles by looking at extending the charging infrastructure in cities and increasing grants to low income households. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should set clear targets to eliminate CO2 emissions from transport by 2050. We should not wait for other countries to lead the way on this matter. To achieve this target the government should introduce policy that seeks to restrict the use of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2050. Furthermore, the government should look at ways to promote the use of electric vehicles by looking at extending the charging infrastructure in cities and increasing grants to low income households. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should set clear targets to eliminate CO2 emissions from transport by 2050. We should not wait for other countries to lead the way on this matter. To achieve this target the government should introduce policy that seeks to restrict the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles and increase grants to low income households in the next 10 years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government should set clear targets to eliminate CO2 emissions from transport by 2050. The government should also introduce policies to restrict the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2025. To achieve this target the government should look at ways to promote the use of electric vehicles by extending the charging infrastructure in cities and increasing grants to low income households. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should set clear targets to eliminate CO2 emissions from transport by 2050. We should not wait for other countries to lead the way on this matter. To achieve this target the government should introduce policy that seeks to restrict the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2025. Furthermore, the government should look at ways to promote the use of electric vehicles by looking at extending the charging infrastructure in cities and increasing grants to low income households. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should set clear targets to eliminate CO2 emissions from transport by 2050. We should not wait for other countries to lead the way on this matter. To achieve this target the government should introduce policy that seeks to restrict the use of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2050. Furthermore, the government should look at ways to promote the use of electric vehicles by looking at extending the charging infrastructure in cities and increasing grants to low income households. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000133.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000133.soc index 7a63946c..46d3fc19 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000133.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000133.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government has a role to play in supporting unemployed people. This may be in providing support to individuals, such as support with barriers to employment. This support could include support with housing, addiction, health, family commitments, transportation and childcare. The support may also need to be provided to the organisations who are helping the individuals. It may also be about providing support to the organisations themselves. This may include providing the organisations with funds to support individuals and for the training of staff to support individuals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a role for the government to support the unemployed, but also to support organisations and businesses in being able to provide work and training to the unemployed. In order to help the unemployed, there must be consideration about other barriers they may face, such as poor housing, addiction, poor physical or mental health, family commitments, transportation issues, child care needs. These factors may need to be addressed before any job seeking can occur. Some form of support is needed to help with these. It is difficult to provide a general consensus statement that covers all cases, but this general statement would be accepted by the group as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should do more to help the unemployed. The way in which people can be helped can be very broad and be tailored to each individual. In order to help the unemployed, there must be consideration about other barriers they may face, such as poor housing, addiction, poor physical or mental health, family commitments, transportation issues, child care needs. These factors may need to be addressed before any job seeking can occur. Some form of support is needed to help with these. There is a role for the government to support businesses and organisations in being able to provide work and training to the unemployed. Support can be given to individuals, but also to organisations to help them support individuals. Conclusion I believe that this experience of using the Delphi technique has been very useful. Although the whole process took a long time, with many iterations of revisions and feedback, I found that the end result was of a very high quality, with all views of the participants being taken into account. Although the level of involvement and number of participants was not as high as I had hoped, the views of those involved were very valuable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government has a responsibility to ensure that its citizens are supported in a way that ensures that they can achieve their full potential. This includes support for individuals, and also support for businesses and organisations to be able to offer work, training, and development to the unemployed. The support offered to individuals needs to be tailored to each individual, as some barriers to employment need to be addressed first, such as housing, addiction, poor physical or mental health, family commitments, transportation issues, child care needs. This is because without addressing these barriers, the likelihood of a person being able to be successful in finding a job is greatly reduced. Some form of support is needed to help with these, such as more mental health services, better transport links, better housing, and the use of job coaches to help unemployed individuals to get the support they need to become ready for work. Support can be given to individuals, but also to organisations to help them support individuals. Support for organisations can take the form of tax incentives, grants, subsidies, or other forms of financial assistance, or it can be in the form of assistance to find training programmes and funding for training programmes for people who may have been overlooked in the hiring process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government has a role to play in supporting unemployed people. This may be in providing support to individuals, such as support with barriers to employment. This support could include support with housing, addiction, health, family commitments, transportation and childcare. The support may also need to be provided to the organisations who are helping the individuals. It may also be about providing support to the organisations themselves. This may include providing the organisations with funds to support individuals and for the training of staff to support individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a role for the government to support the unemployed, but also to support organisations and businesses in being able to provide work and training to the unemployed. In order to help the unemployed, there must be consideration about other barriers they may face, such as poor housing, addiction, poor physical or mental health, family commitments, transportation issues, child care needs. These factors may need to be addressed before any job seeking can occur. Some form of support is needed to help with these. It is difficult to provide a general consensus statement that covers all cases, but this general statement would be accepted by the group as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should do more to help the unemployed. The way in which people can be helped can be very broad and be tailored to each individual. In order to help the unemployed, there must be consideration about other barriers they may face, such as poor housing, addiction, poor physical or mental health, family commitments, transportation issues, child care needs. These factors may need to be addressed before any job seeking can occur. Some form of support is needed to help with these. There is a role for the government to support businesses and organisations in being able to provide work and training to the unemployed. Support can be given to individuals, but also to organisations to help them support individuals. Conclusion I believe that this experience of using the Delphi technique has been very useful. Although the whole process took a long time, with many iterations of revisions and feedback, I found that the end result was of a very high quality, with all views of the participants being taken into account. Although the level of involvement and number of participants was not as high as I had hoped, the views of those involved were very valuable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government has a responsibility to ensure that its citizens are supported in a way that ensures that they can achieve their full potential. This includes support for individuals, and also support for businesses and organisations to be able to offer work, training, and development to the unemployed. The support offered to individuals needs to be tailored to each individual, as some barriers to employment need to be addressed first, such as housing, addiction, poor physical or mental health, family commitments, transportation issues, child care needs. This is because without addressing these barriers, the likelihood of a person being able to be successful in finding a job is greatly reduced. Some form of support is needed to help with these, such as more mental health services, better transport links, better housing, and the use of job coaches to help unemployed individuals to get the support they need to become ready for work. Support can be given to individuals, but also to organisations to help them support individuals. Support for organisations can take the form of tax incentives, grants, subsidies, or other forms of financial assistance, or it can be in the form of assistance to find training programmes and funding for training programmes for people who may have been overlooked in the hiring process. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000134.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000134.soc index 9aa8931b..7a93b6e9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000134.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000134.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The United Kingdom should be trying to promote British culture abroad, but in a non-aggressive way that does not cause offence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important to encourage cultural exchange but not necessarily by directly promoting a culture. This should be more organic and come about by other means such as creating opportunities for people to study and work abroad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, yes, Britain should be actively trying to promote British culture abroad. The issue, however, is how this should be done. The UK should not be sending out cultural 'ambassadors' abroad. Doing so could be misconstrued as British propaganda. Instead, it should be up to individuals to promote their own culture abroad. Furthermore, the UK should be actively encouraging foreign individuals and businesses to visit the country and see what it has to offer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the United Kingdom should not be actively trying to promote British culture abroad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The United Kingdom should be trying to promote British culture abroad, but in a non-aggressive way that does not cause offence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important to encourage cultural exchange but not necessarily by directly promoting a culture. This should be more organic and come about by other means such as creating opportunities for people to study and work abroad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, yes, Britain should be actively trying to promote British culture abroad. The issue, however, is how this should be done. The UK should not be sending out cultural 'ambassadors' abroad. Doing so could be misconstrued as British propaganda. Instead, it should be up to individuals to promote their own culture abroad. Furthermore, the UK should be actively encouraging foreign individuals and businesses to visit the country and see what it has to offer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the United Kingdom should not be actively trying to promote British culture abroad. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000135.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000135.soc index 6fb975f7..a77da50f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000135.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000135.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is the opinion of the group that the UK should not be part of the European Union. The group came to this conclusion because the EU was perceived as holding the UK back and blocking Brexit negotiations by refusing to compromise. Participant 1 summarised this view when he stated that 'the EU is holding the UK back from making beneficial trade deals with other countries. This prevents the UK from taking control of its borders.' -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Leaving the EU has been a controversial topic. Leaving the EU has made some things more complicated and we don't see any rewards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, leaving the EU is something that is in everyone's best interests and everyone in the UK can benefit from. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are pros and cons for both leaving and staying in the EU and these need to be considered. The people of the UK voted for Brexit and their voice should be listened to. The UK has always been a trading nation and should look to expand trade opportunities to countries outside of the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is the opinion of the group that the UK should not be part of the European Union. The group came to this conclusion because the EU was perceived as holding the UK back and blocking Brexit negotiations by refusing to compromise. Participant 1 summarised this view when he stated that 'the EU is holding the UK back from making beneficial trade deals with other countries. This prevents the UK from taking control of its borders.' +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Leaving the EU has been a controversial topic. Leaving the EU has made some things more complicated and we don't see any rewards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, leaving the EU is something that is in everyone's best interests and everyone in the UK can benefit from. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are pros and cons for both leaving and staying in the EU and these need to be considered. The people of the UK voted for Brexit and their voice should be listened to. The UK has always been a trading nation and should look to expand trade opportunities to countries outside of the EU. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000136.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000136.soc index addea248..b5f2c223 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000136.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000136.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not ban gambling on sporting events. Gambling is not inherently bad. Gambling is a good source of entertainment for some people and it increases the enjoyment of some sports events. However, we should monitor people who are addicted to gambling to ensure that they are keeping within their means. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not ban gambling on sporting events. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In my opinion we should not ban gambling on sporting events because freedom is important. Gambling is not a crime like stealing or violence. It's merely some people freely choosing to engage in a non-violent action. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not ban gambling on sporting events as it enhances people's enjoyment of them. However, it is important that the government is able to monitor this and take steps to ensure that individuals are not gambling beyond their means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not ban gambling on sporting events. Gambling is not inherently bad. Gambling is a good source of entertainment for some people and it increases the enjoyment of some sports events. However, we should monitor people who are addicted to gambling to ensure that they are keeping within their means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not ban gambling on sporting events. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In my opinion we should not ban gambling on sporting events because freedom is important. Gambling is not a crime like stealing or violence. It's merely some people freely choosing to engage in a non-violent action. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not ban gambling on sporting events as it enhances people's enjoyment of them. However, it is important that the government is able to monitor this and take steps to ensure that individuals are not gambling beyond their means. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000137.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000137.soc index 9f61478e..bd994d71 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000137.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000137.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is important to encourage cultural exchange but not necessarily by directly promoting a culture. This should be more organic and come about by other means such as creating opportunities for people to study and work abroad. This is important to help prevent the dominance of one culture over another, which could also lead to the exploitation of the culture that is promoted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Cultural exchange is very important but should not be done by trying to impose one culture onto another, but rather through more organic means such as creating opportunities for people to study and work abroad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is important to encourage cultural exchange and the ways in which this can be done should not be imposing but should rather be organic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more opportunities for cultural exchange, but this should be done in an organic way. Countries should promote cultural exchange in a way that does not impose a culture on another country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is important to encourage cultural exchange but not necessarily by directly promoting a culture. This should be more organic and come about by other means such as creating opportunities for people to study and work abroad. This is important to help prevent the dominance of one culture over another, which could also lead to the exploitation of the culture that is promoted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Cultural exchange is very important but should not be done by trying to impose one culture onto another, but rather through more organic means such as creating opportunities for people to study and work abroad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is important to encourage cultural exchange and the ways in which this can be done should not be imposing but should rather be organic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more opportunities for cultural exchange, but this should be done in an organic way. Countries should promote cultural exchange in a way that does not impose a culture on another country. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000138.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000138.soc index 15d730ae..dc4bb050 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000138.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000138.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, gambling on sporting events should not be banned, since this violates the freedom of the individual to engage in non-harmful, consensual activities. It is also not in the interests of the government to do so, since this would require funding extra support services for problem gamblers. However, it is important that the government is able to monitor this and take steps to ensure that individuals are not gambling beyond their means. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Gambling should not be banned on sporting events. However, the government should monitor gambling on sporting events to ensure that people do not gamble beyond their means. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Gambling on sporting events should not be banned. However, gambling operators should have the responsibility to ensure that individuals are not gambling beyond their means. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not ban gambling on sporting events as it is not inherently harmful, however we should encourage gambling operators to put measures in place to ensure that individuals are not gambling beyond their means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, gambling on sporting events should not be banned, since this violates the freedom of the individual to engage in non-harmful, consensual activities. It is also not in the interests of the government to do so, since this would require funding extra support services for problem gamblers. However, it is important that the government is able to monitor this and take steps to ensure that individuals are not gambling beyond their means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Gambling should not be banned on sporting events. However, the government should monitor gambling on sporting events to ensure that people do not gamble beyond their means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Gambling on sporting events should not be banned. However, gambling operators should have the responsibility to ensure that individuals are not gambling beyond their means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not ban gambling on sporting events as it is not inherently harmful, however we should encourage gambling operators to put measures in place to ensure that individuals are not gambling beyond their means. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000139.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000139.soc index 2a2fff21..7c25a7ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000139.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000139.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we do not think that it is a good idea to get rid of compulsory education for children because it is important that all children receive education and there will be a significant disadvantage to society if this is not the case. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not get rid of compulsory education for children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Education is the most important thing in life and we should not get rid of compulsory education for children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of compulsory education, however with the following stipulations: - The age of completion of compulsory education should be increased from 16 to 18 years old - Education for children should be free, supported by the government, and mandatory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we do not think that it is a good idea to get rid of compulsory education for children because it is important that all children receive education and there will be a significant disadvantage to society if this is not the case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not get rid of compulsory education for children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Education is the most important thing in life and we should not get rid of compulsory education for children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of compulsory education, however with the following stipulations: - The age of completion of compulsory education should be increased from 16 to 18 years old - Education for children should be free, supported by the government, and mandatory. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000140.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000140.soc index eda6707b..1d4097f2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000140.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000140.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the right of landlords to evict tenants should not be removed. Tenants can cause serious disruption to neighbours, and are still responsible for paying rent. In some cases where tenants have committed very serious breaches of the contract or have not paid their rent, then landlords should have the right to evict the tenants. However, we do not believe that landlords should have the right to evict tenants without any reason or justification, for example in 'no fault' cases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the right of landlords to evict tenants should not be removed. Tenants can cause serious disruption to neighbours, and are still responsible for paying rent. In some cases where tenants have committed very serious breaches of the contract or have not paid their rent, then landlords should have the right to evict the tenants. However, we do not believe that landlords should have the right to evict tenants without any reason or justification, for example in 'no fault' cases. After you have participated in a Delphi survey, you should be wary of people who give you their personal opinions on the topic under debate and who suggest that these are the same as the consensus views of the Delphi survey. They may be telling you the truth, but they may not be! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not believe that landlords should have the right to evict tenants without any reason or justification, for example in 'no fault' cases. In cases where tenants have committed very serious breaches of the contract or have not paid their rent, then landlords should have the right to evict the tenants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the right of landlords to evict tenants should not be removed. Tenants can cause serious disruption to neighbours, and are still responsible for paying rent. However, we believe that no-fault evictions should not be allowed. In some cases where tenants have committed very serious breaches of the contract or have not paid their rent, then landlords should have the right to evict the tenants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the right of landlords to evict tenants should not be removed. Tenants can cause serious disruption to neighbours, and are still responsible for paying rent. In some cases where tenants have committed very serious breaches of the contract or have not paid their rent, then landlords should have the right to evict the tenants. However, we do not believe that landlords should have the right to evict tenants without any reason or justification, for example in 'no fault' cases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the right of landlords to evict tenants should not be removed. Tenants can cause serious disruption to neighbours, and are still responsible for paying rent. In some cases where tenants have committed very serious breaches of the contract or have not paid their rent, then landlords should have the right to evict the tenants. However, we do not believe that landlords should have the right to evict tenants without any reason or justification, for example in 'no fault' cases. After you have participated in a Delphi survey, you should be wary of people who give you their personal opinions on the topic under debate and who suggest that these are the same as the consensus views of the Delphi survey. They may be telling you the truth, but they may not be! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not believe that landlords should have the right to evict tenants without any reason or justification, for example in 'no fault' cases. In cases where tenants have committed very serious breaches of the contract or have not paid their rent, then landlords should have the right to evict the tenants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the right of landlords to evict tenants should not be removed. Tenants can cause serious disruption to neighbours, and are still responsible for paying rent. However, we believe that no-fault evictions should not be allowed. In some cases where tenants have committed very serious breaches of the contract or have not paid their rent, then landlords should have the right to evict the tenants. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000141.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000141.soc index e8713942..869598ae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000141.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000141.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we do not think that it is a good idea to get rid of compulsory education for children because it is important that all children receive education and there will be a significant disadvantage to society if this is not the case. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that compulsory education for children should remain in place. Education is the basis for all knowledge and the betterment of society. Therefore it is necessary that all children receive education. If compulsory education is to be maintained the government should also offer support and free education to ensure that no children are left out. The final consensus statement was arrived at by looking at the pros and cons of each participant's opinions, and by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the draft consensus statement. Once a final consensus view was reached it was then put forward to the group of participants as a whole, and each participant voted on whether they agreed with the final consensus statement or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we think that it is a bad idea to get rid of compulsory education for children because it is important that all children receive education and there will be a significant disadvantage to society if this is not the case. The group of participants involved in this study all came to the same opinion on the question. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Compulsory education is essential for children as it is the basis for all knowledge and betterment of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we do not think that it is a good idea to get rid of compulsory education for children because it is important that all children receive education and there will be a significant disadvantage to society if this is not the case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that compulsory education for children should remain in place. Education is the basis for all knowledge and the betterment of society. Therefore it is necessary that all children receive education. If compulsory education is to be maintained the government should also offer support and free education to ensure that no children are left out. The final consensus statement was arrived at by looking at the pros and cons of each participant's opinions, and by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the draft consensus statement. Once a final consensus view was reached it was then put forward to the group of participants as a whole, and each participant voted on whether they agreed with the final consensus statement or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we think that it is a bad idea to get rid of compulsory education for children because it is important that all children receive education and there will be a significant disadvantage to society if this is not the case. The group of participants involved in this study all came to the same opinion on the question. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Compulsory education is essential for children as it is the basis for all knowledge and betterment of society. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000142.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000142.soc index 0cc9417a..c5db91f5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000142.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000142.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group came to the consensus view that we should not spend less money on education at all as it is an investment in society and I think the same is true for prisons as ultimately money invested in prisons could be used to benefit all society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should spend more on education, not less. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no change in the funding for education or prisons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to reducing funding for education. The group believes that the educational sector is underfunded. This needs to be addressed with increased spending in order to give teachers better remuneration and improve educational resources. The group agrees that there is a need to reduce recidivism but does not agree that reducing educational spending will achieve this. In fact, the group believes that increasing educational spending will reduce the prison population in the long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not spend less money on education at all as it is an investment in society and I think the same is true for prisons as ultimately money invested in prisons could be used to benefit all society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should spend more on education, not less. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no change in the funding for education or prisons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to reducing funding for education. The group believes that the educational sector is underfunded. This needs to be addressed with increased spending in order to give teachers better remuneration and improve educational resources. The group agrees that there is a need to reduce recidivism but does not agree that reducing educational spending will achieve this. In fact, the group believes that increasing educational spending will reduce the prison population in the long term. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000143.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000143.soc index e078735e..a93de4ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000143.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000143.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to reducing funding for education. The group believes that the educational sector is underfunded. This needs to be addressed with increased spending in order to give teachers better remuneration and improve educational resources. The group agrees that there is a need to reduce recidivism but does not agree that reducing educational spending will achieve this. In fact, the group believes that increasing educational spending will reduce the prison population in the long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group in general did not agree with reducing educational spending and in fact, the group argued that the educational sector is underfunded. This needs to be addressed with increased spending in order to give teachers better remuneration and improve educational resources. The group agrees that there is a need to reduce recidivism but does not agree that reducing educational spending will achieve this. In fact, the group believes that increasing educational spending will reduce the prison population in the long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group disagrees with the proposition. The group believes that education is underfunded and increased spending in this area will reduce recidivism in the long term. The group believes that spending more on prisons is not the answer to the problem of reducing reoffending. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong argument for increasing funding for education. Teachers need to be better remunerated. The educational system is in disarray and needs to be overhauled to provide a better learning experience for the next generation. Increasing funding for education is a long-term investment in a brighter future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to reducing funding for education. The group believes that the educational sector is underfunded. This needs to be addressed with increased spending in order to give teachers better remuneration and improve educational resources. The group agrees that there is a need to reduce recidivism but does not agree that reducing educational spending will achieve this. In fact, the group believes that increasing educational spending will reduce the prison population in the long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group in general did not agree with reducing educational spending and in fact, the group argued that the educational sector is underfunded. This needs to be addressed with increased spending in order to give teachers better remuneration and improve educational resources. The group agrees that there is a need to reduce recidivism but does not agree that reducing educational spending will achieve this. In fact, the group believes that increasing educational spending will reduce the prison population in the long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group disagrees with the proposition. The group believes that education is underfunded and increased spending in this area will reduce recidivism in the long term. The group believes that spending more on prisons is not the answer to the problem of reducing reoffending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong argument for increasing funding for education. Teachers need to be better remunerated. The educational system is in disarray and needs to be overhauled to provide a better learning experience for the next generation. Increasing funding for education is a long-term investment in a brighter future. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000144.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000144.soc index d7c6b442..259365c0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000144.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000144.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Climate change is the most important research area for scientists to focus their efforts on. This is because climate change will impact the entire world and all species and will ultimately lead to human extinction if it is not reversed. It would be impossible for one person to win a debate against climate change, because climate change is the biggest threat to our existence that we face today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Dementia research is a much smaller funding area than climate change so I feel there is a greater need to fund more research in this area. There is not enough funding to provide effective research into both and the impact on people is much greater with dementia. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: More funding should be put into dementia research as that is a problem affecting many people and families in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Dementia research is important and should be funded, but in the long term we should put more funding into climate change research as that will be a much bigger problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Climate change is the most important research area for scientists to focus their efforts on. This is because climate change will impact the entire world and all species and will ultimately lead to human extinction if it is not reversed. It would be impossible for one person to win a debate against climate change, because climate change is the biggest threat to our existence that we face today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Dementia research is a much smaller funding area than climate change so I feel there is a greater need to fund more research in this area. There is not enough funding to provide effective research into both and the impact on people is much greater with dementia. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - More funding should be put into dementia research as that is a problem affecting many people and families in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Dementia research is important and should be funded, but in the long term we should put more funding into climate change research as that will be a much bigger problem. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000145.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000145.soc index 33a59aeb..713da3d7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000145.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000145.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Freedom of speech is a very important human right, however, the limits of this freedom should be enforced when one’s speech has the potential to cause unnecessary harm and distress to others.” After reading the question and each individual’s opinion, the group came to the consensus statement. The only two participants that expressed a belief in the statement were the first two, who expressed that freedom of speech should be limited in the case of causing harm. The third, fourth and fifth participants however, expressed a belief that freedom of speech should not be limited. Despite this, the group was still able to come to a consensus. After discussion, the group found that everyone could agree that freedom of speech was important. As the first two participants had expressed that freedom of speech should be limited in the case of causing harm, the group came to the conclusion that, if one’s speech has the potential to cause unnecessary harm, then it should be limited. As such, a compromise was reached between the two opinions. The group came to a consensus view that freedom of speech is very important, but that it should be limited if one’s speech has the potential to cause unnecessary harm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, freedom of speech is something that is a fundamental right in any civilised society. In many circumstances however there are cases where some freedom of speech can cause direct harm to others and this is where we feel that there are cases where this freedom should be limited. It is reasonable to suggest that we should all be able to have freedom of speech and this should be protected and promoted however, at the same time we all should be respectful and there is a line where freedom of speech can cause harm to others and that is where we feel that there should be limits on freedom of speech. This shows how through discussion and debate we are able to come to a common understanding of a concept even though we may all have had very different initial viewpoints. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are limits to freedom of speech when ones speech has the potential to cause another person unnecessary harm. Freedom of speech should be within the bounds of a respectful society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be freedom of speech in all instances. However people should not be permitted to incite hate or violence. In the face of the world in which we currently live there needs to be a more liberal attitude towards freedom of speech. The safety of a country lies in its ability to express ideas freely and openly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Freedom of speech is a very important human right, however, the limits of this freedom should be enforced when one’s speech has the potential to cause unnecessary harm and distress to others.” After reading the question and each individual’s opinion, the group came to the consensus statement. The only two participants that expressed a belief in the statement were the first two, who expressed that freedom of speech should be limited in the case of causing harm. The third, fourth and fifth participants however, expressed a belief that freedom of speech should not be limited. Despite this, the group was still able to come to a consensus. After discussion, the group found that everyone could agree that freedom of speech was important. As the first two participants had expressed that freedom of speech should be limited in the case of causing harm, the group came to the conclusion that, if one’s speech has the potential to cause unnecessary harm, then it should be limited. As such, a compromise was reached between the two opinions. The group came to a consensus view that freedom of speech is very important, but that it should be limited if one’s speech has the potential to cause unnecessary harm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, freedom of speech is something that is a fundamental right in any civilised society. In many circumstances however there are cases where some freedom of speech can cause direct harm to others and this is where we feel that there are cases where this freedom should be limited. It is reasonable to suggest that we should all be able to have freedom of speech and this should be protected and promoted however, at the same time we all should be respectful and there is a line where freedom of speech can cause harm to others and that is where we feel that there should be limits on freedom of speech. This shows how through discussion and debate we are able to come to a common understanding of a concept even though we may all have had very different initial viewpoints. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are limits to freedom of speech when ones speech has the potential to cause another person unnecessary harm. Freedom of speech should be within the bounds of a respectful society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be freedom of speech in all instances. However people should not be permitted to incite hate or violence. In the face of the world in which we currently live there needs to be a more liberal attitude towards freedom of speech. The safety of a country lies in its ability to express ideas freely and openly. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000146.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000146.soc index f4165705..9ffb7292 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000146.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000146.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should have more migrant workers in the UK. However, there should be checks and controls in place to make sure that the numbers are regulated to make sure that there are enough jobs to go around and the migrants are people of good character. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that we should allow migrant workers into the UK, so long as the influx of migrants is controlled and their presence does not threaten our nation’s security.” The process by which this group of participants arrived at this consensus view is a good example of the consensual process of deliberation that may be used by a society in the interest of the common good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The country needs jobs doing and we need migrant workers to help with this. Therefore we need more migrant workers, but this needs to be managed well by the government and those who come to the UK need to contribute to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK benefits from the diversity that migrants bring. The way we can tell this is true is that there are many migrant workers in the UK who are willing to do jobs that some of the UK citizens are not. As long as they are not taking jobs away from UK citizens, then I think it is safe to say that the UK is better off with more migrant workers. However, there are some jobs that require special knowledge and skills. For example, it would not be safe to have an untrained person working in the medical field. The UK needs to take care to make sure migrant workers do not interfere with the livelihoods of UK citizens, but also to make sure they are being treated fairly and humanely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should have more migrant workers in the UK. However, there should be checks and controls in place to make sure that the numbers are regulated to make sure that there are enough jobs to go around and the migrants are people of good character. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that we should allow migrant workers into the UK, so long as the influx of migrants is controlled and their presence does not threaten our nation’s security.” The process by which this group of participants arrived at this consensus view is a good example of the consensual process of deliberation that may be used by a society in the interest of the common good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The country needs jobs doing and we need migrant workers to help with this. Therefore we need more migrant workers, but this needs to be managed well by the government and those who come to the UK need to contribute to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK benefits from the diversity that migrants bring. The way we can tell this is true is that there are many migrant workers in the UK who are willing to do jobs that some of the UK citizens are not. As long as they are not taking jobs away from UK citizens, then I think it is safe to say that the UK is better off with more migrant workers. However, there are some jobs that require special knowledge and skills. For example, it would not be safe to have an untrained person working in the medical field. The UK needs to take care to make sure migrant workers do not interfere with the livelihoods of UK citizens, but also to make sure they are being treated fairly and humanely. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000147.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000147.soc index 0df0c855..0b213f35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000147.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000147.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The BBC should have a smaller budget, however not in a drastic way. The BBC should keep a small budget to allow the BBC to keep going and create more cost-efficient programs. Therefore, the BBC will not be putting on as much programming as before.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should have a smaller budget. The programming the BBC puts on does not warrant the TV license fee. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should have a smaller budget as it can fund itself and this will also help the license fee to reduce. This will also lead to better quality content as the BBC will be focusing more on the content. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should have a smaller budget. The group felt that the TV licence was becoming obsolete and more people would soon be cancelling their subscription. The group also felt that the BBC should focus on quality over quantity. The group were of the opinion that the BBC was less relevant to the population now, than it once was, therefore a reduction in budget would be appropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The BBC should have a smaller budget, however not in a drastic way. The BBC should keep a small budget to allow the BBC to keep going and create more cost-efficient programs. Therefore, the BBC will not be putting on as much programming as before.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should have a smaller budget. The programming the BBC puts on does not warrant the TV license fee. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should have a smaller budget as it can fund itself and this will also help the license fee to reduce. This will also lead to better quality content as the BBC will be focusing more on the content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should have a smaller budget. The group felt that the TV licence was becoming obsolete and more people would soon be cancelling their subscription. The group also felt that the BBC should focus on quality over quantity. The group were of the opinion that the BBC was less relevant to the population now, than it once was, therefore a reduction in budget would be appropriate. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000148.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000148.soc index abaebada..ee2ba391 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000148.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000148.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The BBC should have a smaller budget but not in a drastic way. The BBC should keep a small budget to allow the BBC to keep going and create more cost-efficient programs. Therefore, the BBC will not be putting on as much programming as before.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The BBC should have a smaller budget, however not in a drastic way. The BBC should keep a small budget to allow the BBC to keep going and create more cost-efficient programs. Therefore, the BBC will not be putting on as much programming as before.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The BBC should have a smaller budget as it is not in the public interest to pay so much money for BBC services. However, this must be done gradually so the BBC has time to make the necessary adjustments. The BBC should be more cost-efficient and focus more on quality rather than quantity.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should have a smaller budget, however not in a drastic way. The BBC should keep a small budget to allow the BBC to keep going and create more cost-efficient programs. Therefore, the BBC will not be putting on as much programming as before.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The BBC should have a smaller budget but not in a drastic way. The BBC should keep a small budget to allow the BBC to keep going and create more cost-efficient programs. Therefore, the BBC will not be putting on as much programming as before.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The BBC should have a smaller budget, however not in a drastic way. The BBC should keep a small budget to allow the BBC to keep going and create more cost-efficient programs. Therefore, the BBC will not be putting on as much programming as before.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The BBC should have a smaller budget as it is not in the public interest to pay so much money for BBC services. However, this must be done gradually so the BBC has time to make the necessary adjustments. The BBC should be more cost-efficient and focus more on quality rather than quantity.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should have a smaller budget, however not in a drastic way. The BBC should keep a small budget to allow the BBC to keep going and create more cost-efficient programs. Therefore, the BBC will not be putting on as much programming as before.” 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000149.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000149.soc index 5cb44293..a82f0e5c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000149.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000149.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is a vital public service and the government should ensure that it is sustainable for future generations. This is the case because the government is responsible for the health of its citizens and should therefore provide sufficient funding to ensure that the NHS can operate effectively. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government has the responsibility to ensure the NHS is sustainable for future generations. However, there are different levels of responsibility depending on the type of action taken. For example, in terms of new technology, the government has the power to ensure it is implemented in the best way. The government has the responsibility to provide the NHS with the resources necessary for this. In terms of prevention of illness, the government can provide funding for this and influence policy in terms of promoting healthy living, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make sure they are as healthy as possible. Conclusion There is a duty on the government to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. This includes funding research, providing resources for better technology and infrastructure, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The NHS is the foundation of public health in the UK. It is vital that the government continue to support and fund it properly in order to protect the health of current and future generations. There is an urgent need for the government to improve wages for healthcare professionals to prevent a mass exodus of doctors and nurses, and to improve their working conditions. There needs to be better incentives for people to lead healthy lifestyles, such as cheaper public transport, and measures to promote healthy eating and discourage unhealthy food and drink consumption. We need to invest more in renewable energy to prevent further damage to the environment and public health from pollution, climate change, and other environmental health hazards.” (written by JH) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. It is important to allocate enough funding to provide services that are of a good quality. It is also the government’s duty to look after the wellbeing of citizens, and therefore they should invest in preventative policies that discourage unhealthy lifestyles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is a vital public service and the government should ensure that it is sustainable for future generations. This is the case because the government is responsible for the health of its citizens and should therefore provide sufficient funding to ensure that the NHS can operate effectively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government has the responsibility to ensure the NHS is sustainable for future generations. However, there are different levels of responsibility depending on the type of action taken. For example, in terms of new technology, the government has the power to ensure it is implemented in the best way. The government has the responsibility to provide the NHS with the resources necessary for this. In terms of prevention of illness, the government can provide funding for this and influence policy in terms of promoting healthy living, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make sure they are as healthy as possible. Conclusion There is a duty on the government to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. This includes funding research, providing resources for better technology and infrastructure, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The NHS is the foundation of public health in the UK. It is vital that the government continue to support and fund it properly in order to protect the health of current and future generations. There is an urgent need for the government to improve wages for healthcare professionals to prevent a mass exodus of doctors and nurses, and to improve their working conditions. There needs to be better incentives for people to lead healthy lifestyles, such as cheaper public transport, and measures to promote healthy eating and discourage unhealthy food and drink consumption. We need to invest more in renewable energy to prevent further damage to the environment and public health from pollution, climate change, and other environmental health hazards.” (written by JH) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. It is important to allocate enough funding to provide services that are of a good quality. It is also the government’s duty to look after the wellbeing of citizens, and therefore they should invest in preventative policies that discourage unhealthy lifestyles. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000150.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000150.soc index 78a8dade..a4ee62c6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000150.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000150.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a duty on the government to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. This includes funding research, providing resources for better technology and infrastructure, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. However, the public also has a responsibility to help the NHS run smoothly through preventing illness in themselves where possible. Bibliography BBC (2019) ‘NHS Spending - Where the money goes’, BBC News, 24 August, 2019, accessed 12 December 2019, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49076256 Devlin, M. (2017) ‘The National Health Service at 70’, The British Medical Journal, 358 Gibson, B. (2017) ‘How the NHS works’, The Guardian, 29 July, 2017, accessed 12 December 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/29/how-the-nhs-works-guide Hansard (2018) ‘NHS Funding’, UK Parliament, 22 November 2018, accessed 12 December 2019, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-22/debates/7DD78F82-83D9-42FE-86BD-549714AB7FBF -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a duty on the government to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. This includes funding research, providing resources for better technology and infrastructure, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government has a responsibility to ensure the NHS is sustainable for future generations. It has the power to ensure that new technology is implemented in the best way. The government can provide the NHS with the resources necessary for this. In terms of preventing illness, the government can provide funding for this and influence policy in terms of promoting healthy living, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make sure they are as healthy as possible. Discussion This activity has demonstrated that the use of LSA and the ‘consensus method’ can be a useful tool to develop a consensus opinion amongst a group of participants. A limitation of this study is that the question that was asked was not directly related to medical research. It is possible that the question used here may not be appropriate for use in medical research, and so the authors plan to test out a range of different questions in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government has the responsibility to ensure the NHS is sustainable for future generations. However, there are different levels of responsibility depending on the type of action taken. For example, in terms of new technology, the government has the power to ensure it is implemented in the best way. The government has the responsibility to provide the NHS with the resources necessary for this. In terms of prevention of illness, the government can provide funding for this and influence policy in terms of promoting healthy living, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make sure they are as healthy as possible. Conclusion There is a duty on the government to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. This includes funding research, providing resources for better technology and infrastructure, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a duty on the government to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. This includes funding research, providing resources for better technology and infrastructure, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. However, the public also has a responsibility to help the NHS run smoothly through preventing illness in themselves where possible. Bibliography BBC (2019) ‘NHS Spending - Where the money goes’, BBC News, 24 August, 2019, accessed 12 December 2019, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49076256 Devlin, M. (2017) ‘The National Health Service at 70’, The British Medical Journal, 358 Gibson, B. (2017) ‘How the NHS works’, The Guardian, 29 July, 2017, accessed 12 December 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/29/how-the-nhs-works-guide Hansard (2018) ‘NHS Funding’, UK Parliament, 22 November 2018, accessed 12 December 2019, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-22/debates/7DD78F82-83D9-42FE-86BD-549714AB7FBF +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a duty on the government to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. This includes funding research, providing resources for better technology and infrastructure, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government has a responsibility to ensure the NHS is sustainable for future generations. It has the power to ensure that new technology is implemented in the best way. The government can provide the NHS with the resources necessary for this. In terms of preventing illness, the government can provide funding for this and influence policy in terms of promoting healthy living, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make sure they are as healthy as possible. Discussion This activity has demonstrated that the use of LSA and the ‘consensus method’ can be a useful tool to develop a consensus opinion amongst a group of participants. A limitation of this study is that the question that was asked was not directly related to medical research. It is possible that the question used here may not be appropriate for use in medical research, and so the authors plan to test out a range of different questions in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government has the responsibility to ensure the NHS is sustainable for future generations. However, there are different levels of responsibility depending on the type of action taken. For example, in terms of new technology, the government has the power to ensure it is implemented in the best way. The government has the responsibility to provide the NHS with the resources necessary for this. In terms of prevention of illness, the government can provide funding for this and influence policy in terms of promoting healthy living, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make sure they are as healthy as possible. Conclusion There is a duty on the government to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for future generations. This includes funding research, providing resources for better technology and infrastructure, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000151.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000151.soc index 4e317a52..dfc47bbb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000151.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000151.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should continue to support charities but should work with charities to ensure they are held to high ethical standards and to ensure that the majority of their donations are spent on frontline work, rather than on administrative costs. The group were given a discussion-guiding question and were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on the topic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should fund charities, however it should be regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. Unfortunately, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should fund charities in the UK, but not in developing countries. Charities need to be given more accountability and transparency in their operations and funding should be linked to good governance. The focus of charities should be on poverty alleviation and improving the quality of life in the areas they operate in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should continue to support charities but should work with charities to ensure they are held to high ethical standards and to ensure that the majority of their donations are spent on frontline work, rather than on administrative costs. The group were given a discussion-guiding question and were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on the topic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should fund charities, however it should be regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. Unfortunately, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should fund charities in the UK, but not in developing countries. Charities need to be given more accountability and transparency in their operations and funding should be linked to good governance. The focus of charities should be on poverty alleviation and improving the quality of life in the areas they operate in. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000152.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000152.soc index f5923c8c..31c23f11 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000152.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000152.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK has the moral responsibility to help poor people in other countries. As one of the richest countries in the world, we have the ability to provide assistance to those who are in dire need of it. However, the UK is also made up of people who are in need of assistance. This means that the government should allocate its money for aid, equally, and by making the poorest people in our country their first priority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should help the poor in our country first. However, once we have done this, we can then help poor people in other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although it is a moral responsibility for the UK to help poor people in other countries, we should first take care of the poor people at home before we can take action abroad. Once the problem here has been somewhat settled could we then think about other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: After a lengthy debate, we feel that the UK should focus on helping those in the UK first before helping those abroad. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and we should try to fix things here before we move to others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK has the moral responsibility to help poor people in other countries. As one of the richest countries in the world, we have the ability to provide assistance to those who are in dire need of it. However, the UK is also made up of people who are in need of assistance. This means that the government should allocate its money for aid, equally, and by making the poorest people in our country their first priority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should help the poor in our country first. However, once we have done this, we can then help poor people in other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although it is a moral responsibility for the UK to help poor people in other countries, we should first take care of the poor people at home before we can take action abroad. Once the problem here has been somewhat settled could we then think about other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - After a lengthy debate, we feel that the UK should focus on helping those in the UK first before helping those abroad. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and we should try to fix things here before we move to others. 2: 1,3,4,2 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000153.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000153.soc index d0483ab8..7cf424dc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000153.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000153.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a 4-day week with 5 days’ pay. It is believed that there would be little difference in productivity due to the change in working hours. In addition, it is thought that the additional day off would improve people’s mental health and overall wellbeing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should have a four-day working week as this would be beneficial for everyone. It will help mental health as it would allow people to have an extra day off which can be used to relax, it would help families as it would enable them to have more family time. However, if it meant that the 4 days working was the same hours, it would be very stressful and might be less productive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A four-day working week could be a good idea, however, the days of work would need to be extended to enable work to be completed. This might be unpopular and difficult to achieve, but if people can see the benefits to their mental health and lifestyle, they may be happy to make the change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Four day week? Yes, it would be good for family and mental health. But we don't know if it will increase or decrease productivity. However, the increased time for leisure will lead to a better quality of life for workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a 4-day week with 5 days’ pay. It is believed that there would be little difference in productivity due to the change in working hours. In addition, it is thought that the additional day off would improve people’s mental health and overall wellbeing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should have a four-day working week as this would be beneficial for everyone. It will help mental health as it would allow people to have an extra day off which can be used to relax, it would help families as it would enable them to have more family time. However, if it meant that the 4 days working was the same hours, it would be very stressful and might be less productive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A four-day working week could be a good idea, however, the days of work would need to be extended to enable work to be completed. This might be unpopular and difficult to achieve, but if people can see the benefits to their mental health and lifestyle, they may be happy to make the change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Four day week? Yes, it would be good for family and mental health. But we don't know if it will increase or decrease productivity. However, the increased time for leisure will lead to a better quality of life for workers. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000154.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000154.soc index c083a58c..311d984d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000154.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000154.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group came to the consensus view that we believe that the UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech, however we believe that this is a positive thing as people are becoming more aware of how their words can affect others and therefore are more respectful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There has been a huge change in the UK becoming less tolerant of free speech. People are afraid to express their opinions in case of the repercussions that could come about. The UK is becoming too soft and people are too easily offended. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech. It is very easy to upset people, especially online and so people are less likely to speak out and say what they feel. Some may even try to avoid controversial topics as they may lose friends or get attacked by strangers. Society is becoming too politically correct and so people are scared of saying things that may seem a little bit extreme, even though it is their right to express their views and opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the U.K. is becoming less tolerant of free speech. As the younger generation are less exposed to diversity of opinion and many have grown up in a “safe” online environment, they are less willing to accept views and opinions which differ from their own. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group came to the consensus view that we believe that the UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech, however we believe that this is a positive thing as people are becoming more aware of how their words can affect others and therefore are more respectful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There has been a huge change in the UK becoming less tolerant of free speech. People are afraid to express their opinions in case of the repercussions that could come about. The UK is becoming too soft and people are too easily offended. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech. It is very easy to upset people, especially online and so people are less likely to speak out and say what they feel. Some may even try to avoid controversial topics as they may lose friends or get attacked by strangers. Society is becoming too politically correct and so people are scared of saying things that may seem a little bit extreme, even though it is their right to express their views and opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the U.K. is becoming less tolerant of free speech. As the younger generation are less exposed to diversity of opinion and many have grown up in a “safe” online environment, they are less willing to accept views and opinions which differ from their own. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000155.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000155.soc index f426c3c0..b4787d93 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000155.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000155.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Income is something that is very important to everyone in society. The way we allot income is very important to the function of society. We have different ideas of how this should work and what we would like it to do. The consensus is that there should be a basic income provided to all UK citizens by the government. It should be enough to live on. But if you work you should be able to earn more. This should replace the benefits system. Everyone would then be able to work and contribute to the economy, or choose not to and live on the basic income. There is a cost to the government in implementing this. This will be borne by taxing the rich more. The costs are likely to be recouped by an increase in the GDP. A basic income should be given to all citizens of the UK and it should be enough to live on. If people choose to work they should be able to earn more than the basic income. This will replace the benefits system and all those who are able should work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A universal basic income is a start to a more fair society. It is a necessary measure to keep a workforce and to ensure that everyone is working towards a goal. It also provides a basic income to people who can then use this to improve their standard of living by working. There are downsides, in that some people will take advantage of the system and not work and some people will abuse the system to improve their own income. The current system of benefits can be improved to ensure that this basic income is not abused. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a universal basic income in the UK. It is a very hard subject to approach. The people of the UK are very used to their benefits and would be very resistant to change. However the benefits system is broken. It doesn't help people move into work. By having a universal basic income it would remove the benefits system and force people to look for work and get paid a fairer wage. There are many advantages to this. Such as people having a better quality of life, the crime rate will decrease, people would feel more independent, people would have more money and are likely to spend it which in turn will help the economy. There is also a lot of disadvantages to this. People may stop looking for work as the basic income is enough to survive on. It will cost a lot of money to introduce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a universal basic income in the UK. This would replace all benefits and allow for more people to get jobs. There should be an element of this that could be reduced if a person was earning money from a job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Income is something that is very important to everyone in society. The way we allot income is very important to the function of society. We have different ideas of how this should work and what we would like it to do. The consensus is that there should be a basic income provided to all UK citizens by the government. It should be enough to live on. But if you work you should be able to earn more. This should replace the benefits system. Everyone would then be able to work and contribute to the economy, or choose not to and live on the basic income. There is a cost to the government in implementing this. This will be borne by taxing the rich more. The costs are likely to be recouped by an increase in the GDP. A basic income should be given to all citizens of the UK and it should be enough to live on. If people choose to work they should be able to earn more than the basic income. This will replace the benefits system and all those who are able should work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A universal basic income is a start to a more fair society. It is a necessary measure to keep a workforce and to ensure that everyone is working towards a goal. It also provides a basic income to people who can then use this to improve their standard of living by working. There are downsides, in that some people will take advantage of the system and not work and some people will abuse the system to improve their own income. The current system of benefits can be improved to ensure that this basic income is not abused. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a universal basic income in the UK. It is a very hard subject to approach. The people of the UK are very used to their benefits and would be very resistant to change. However the benefits system is broken. It doesn't help people move into work. By having a universal basic income it would remove the benefits system and force people to look for work and get paid a fairer wage. There are many advantages to this. Such as people having a better quality of life, the crime rate will decrease, people would feel more independent, people would have more money and are likely to spend it which in turn will help the economy. There is also a lot of disadvantages to this. People may stop looking for work as the basic income is enough to survive on. It will cost a lot of money to introduce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a universal basic income in the UK. This would replace all benefits and allow for more people to get jobs. There should be an element of this that could be reduced if a person was earning money from a job. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000156.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000156.soc index f897bbb8..97fc0b87 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000156.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000156.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Sex work should not be criminalised. Sex work is a service provided in exchange for money and as long as it is between consenting adults then it should not be criminalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Sex work should not be criminalised as it provides income for people who would otherwise struggle to find work. Though a lot of people find the work distasteful, it is still a means of income and a service being provided in exchange for money. Anyone is free to choose what they do for work and sex work is no different. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The practice of sex work should not be criminalised as it provides an income for people who would otherwise struggle to find work. Though a lot of people find the work distasteful, it is still a means of income and a service being provided in exchange for money. Anyone is free to choose what they do for work and sex work is no different. However, it should be regulated to ensure the safety of the sex workers, and to ensure that the sex workers are not being exploited. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Sex work should not be criminalised. The work should be able to be conducted in a safe and legal manner, and the workers should have the same rights as any other employee. They should also be allowed to organise in unions and be able to form relationships with their colleagues, and work in a safe environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Sex work should not be criminalised. Sex work is a service provided in exchange for money and as long as it is between consenting adults then it should not be criminalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Sex work should not be criminalised as it provides income for people who would otherwise struggle to find work. Though a lot of people find the work distasteful, it is still a means of income and a service being provided in exchange for money. Anyone is free to choose what they do for work and sex work is no different. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The practice of sex work should not be criminalised as it provides an income for people who would otherwise struggle to find work. Though a lot of people find the work distasteful, it is still a means of income and a service being provided in exchange for money. Anyone is free to choose what they do for work and sex work is no different. However, it should be regulated to ensure the safety of the sex workers, and to ensure that the sex workers are not being exploited. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Sex work should not be criminalised. The work should be able to be conducted in a safe and legal manner, and the workers should have the same rights as any other employee. They should also be allowed to organise in unions and be able to form relationships with their colleagues, and work in a safe environment. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000157.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000157.soc index f0804e93..0eb9cafe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000157.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000157.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of tax-free shopping but thought that it should be limited to once a year per customer, rather than once a month as it is at the moment. Conclusion In conclusion, the results of this research showed that people in Ireland support tax-free shopping. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Tax free shopping is a good thing for the economy, and gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively. Banning it will lead to a lot of angry people and should be avoided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban tax-free shopping, as it encourages people to buy more than they need. Taxes are already too high. We should not make this easier for the government. The government should live within its means. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, tax free shopping should not be banned, for the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - I have slight reservations as to it being banned as i feel my own government take enough money in taxes as it is - It saves me money - I would miss it should it be taken away +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of tax-free shopping but thought that it should be limited to once a year per customer, rather than once a month as it is at the moment. Conclusion In conclusion, the results of this research showed that people in Ireland support tax-free shopping. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Tax free shopping is a good thing for the economy, and gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively. Banning it will lead to a lot of angry people and should be avoided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban tax-free shopping, as it encourages people to buy more than they need. Taxes are already too high. We should not make this easier for the government. The government should live within its means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, tax free shopping should not be banned, for the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - I have slight reservations as to it being banned as i feel my own government take enough money in taxes as it is - It saves me money - I would miss it should it be taken away 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000158.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000158.soc index 2be0afc5..e07e7f26 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000158.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000158.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of providing more subsidised childcare. They argued that the quality of childcare should be improved. Moreover, they said that this should not be only for the children of low income families, but for all children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be providing more subsidised childcare. For people who can’t afford childcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, yes we should be providing more subsidised childcare, because we have so many parents who are struggling to get by in our country. This means that in a lot of families, only one parent can work as they cannot afford childcare for the other parent to work, and the wages are only just enough for the one parent. So if we were to provide more subsidised childcare, we would be helping the country and the families of the country as we would have more parents working and therefore providing more money for the country, which would then hopefully come back to us as the working people. And also, if we do not provide more subsidised childcare, there is a higher chance of parents leaving their children unattended for longer than they should be. This is a crime and should not be happening in our country, as it can cause many issues in the child's future life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be more subsidised childcare for all ages of children, especially for children under 3. We believe that this will help families who are struggling to look after their children, and also help parents who need to work but don't have anyone else to look after their children. The government should also consider making some working parents not pay income tax on their wages so they can have more money to spend on childcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of providing more subsidised childcare. They argued that the quality of childcare should be improved. Moreover, they said that this should not be only for the children of low income families, but for all children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be providing more subsidised childcare. For people who can’t afford childcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, yes we should be providing more subsidised childcare, because we have so many parents who are struggling to get by in our country. This means that in a lot of families, only one parent can work as they cannot afford childcare for the other parent to work, and the wages are only just enough for the one parent. So if we were to provide more subsidised childcare, we would be helping the country and the families of the country as we would have more parents working and therefore providing more money for the country, which would then hopefully come back to us as the working people. And also, if we do not provide more subsidised childcare, there is a higher chance of parents leaving their children unattended for longer than they should be. This is a crime and should not be happening in our country, as it can cause many issues in the child's future life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be more subsidised childcare for all ages of children, especially for children under 3. We believe that this will help families who are struggling to look after their children, and also help parents who need to work but don't have anyone else to look after their children. The government should also consider making some working parents not pay income tax on their wages so they can have more money to spend on childcare. 3: 3,4,1,2 2: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000159.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000159.soc index 1ec0a35d..5f89c858 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000159.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000159.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People in the UK should be allowed to sue the government if they have been wrongfully convicted. The system of the law in this country is an important part of the fabric of society, so if there is a wrongful conviction, whether it be down to poor policing and evidence gathering, or poor selection of a jury or a judge, the individual who has been wrongfully convicted should be able to be compensated for any losses or damage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People in the UK should be allowed to sue the government if they have been wrongfully convicted, unless they are clearly guilty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should be sued by wrongfully convicted people as the government is responsible for fairly and lawfully convicting wrongdoing. Mistakes do happen and it would be unjust if wrongful convictions didn't allow for compensation. It is the responsibility of the government to fairly and lawfully convict and if they get this wrong the individual should be compensated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, people in the UK should be allowed to sue the government if they have been wrongfully convicted. A wrongful conviction can have life changing effects on a person and, depending on the severity of the sentence, they can be made to pay a heavy price. It is only right that the government is held responsible for such a miscarriage of justice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People in the UK should be allowed to sue the government if they have been wrongfully convicted. The system of the law in this country is an important part of the fabric of society, so if there is a wrongful conviction, whether it be down to poor policing and evidence gathering, or poor selection of a jury or a judge, the individual who has been wrongfully convicted should be able to be compensated for any losses or damage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People in the UK should be allowed to sue the government if they have been wrongfully convicted, unless they are clearly guilty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should be sued by wrongfully convicted people as the government is responsible for fairly and lawfully convicting wrongdoing. Mistakes do happen and it would be unjust if wrongful convictions didn't allow for compensation. It is the responsibility of the government to fairly and lawfully convict and if they get this wrong the individual should be compensated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, people in the UK should be allowed to sue the government if they have been wrongfully convicted. A wrongful conviction can have life changing effects on a person and, depending on the severity of the sentence, they can be made to pay a heavy price. It is only right that the government is held responsible for such a miscarriage of justice. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000160.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000160.soc index 0c662d92..d887b608 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000160.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000160.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of investing in a high-speed rail network between the UK's major cities. The group thought that it would lower the amount of cars on the road and reduce congestion, especially in the bigger cities. The consensus view was that this would have a positive impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A high-speed rail line will reduce travel time and prompt more people to use public transport instead of driving. However, it is important that environmental impact assessments are undertaken to ensure that the UK's ecosystem is not compromised by this investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should invest in a high-speed rail line between its major cities. This will reduce travel time and improve public transport. The environmental impacts will have to be carefully assessed before any implementation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should invest in a high-speed rail line between its major cities. We think that it would reduce the amount of congestion on motorways and be a key part of lowering car usage overall which would benefit the environment. It would also help lower congestion on existing railways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of investing in a high-speed rail network between the UK's major cities. The group thought that it would lower the amount of cars on the road and reduce congestion, especially in the bigger cities. The consensus view was that this would have a positive impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A high-speed rail line will reduce travel time and prompt more people to use public transport instead of driving. However, it is important that environmental impact assessments are undertaken to ensure that the UK's ecosystem is not compromised by this investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should invest in a high-speed rail line between its major cities. This will reduce travel time and improve public transport. The environmental impacts will have to be carefully assessed before any implementation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should invest in a high-speed rail line between its major cities. We think that it would reduce the amount of congestion on motorways and be a key part of lowering car usage overall which would benefit the environment. It would also help lower congestion on existing railways. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000161.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000161.soc index 6e1a55e4..5f33a332 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000161.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000161.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: After a long debate, the group have come to a conclusion that we all agree on. In our opinion, there is an ethical duty to donate blood, bone marrow or organs. We all agree that it is a very important part of life to help people in need and if we are able to do so in the easiest way then it should be done. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and this decision is no different. There is no pressure and people should never feel forced into doing something they are not happy with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we believe that it is a personal decision, however, we would like to think that if we needed help from an organ donor then we would hope someone else would donate theirs to us. This makes us think that we would like to do the same. We are happy to help in any way that we can. We also think that it is really important that people of all ages and races should consider donating blood as this could be the difference between life and death for many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have a moral duty to consider to donate blood, bone marrow and organs. We should not automatically be placed on the list for donating. In order to provide a wider range of donors, the medical profession should make an effort to consider to inform all people about the donation process and the potential lifesaving benefits. The views expressed by the participants are those of the participants only and not those of anyone else associated with, or involved in, the project. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have an ethical duty to consider donating blood, bone marrow, or organs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - After a long debate, the group have come to a conclusion that we all agree on. In our opinion, there is an ethical duty to donate blood, bone marrow or organs. We all agree that it is a very important part of life to help people in need and if we are able to do so in the easiest way then it should be done. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and this decision is no different. There is no pressure and people should never feel forced into doing something they are not happy with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we believe that it is a personal decision, however, we would like to think that if we needed help from an organ donor then we would hope someone else would donate theirs to us. This makes us think that we would like to do the same. We are happy to help in any way that we can. We also think that it is really important that people of all ages and races should consider donating blood as this could be the difference between life and death for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have a moral duty to consider to donate blood, bone marrow and organs. We should not automatically be placed on the list for donating. In order to provide a wider range of donors, the medical profession should make an effort to consider to inform all people about the donation process and the potential lifesaving benefits. The views expressed by the participants are those of the participants only and not those of anyone else associated with, or involved in, the project. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have an ethical duty to consider donating blood, bone marrow, or organs. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000162.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000162.soc index 6f5f61ef..e8f78a4d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000162.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000162.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. Unfortunately, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. However, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. In this case, more regulation of charities, ensuring that the funds are properly used for the purpose for which they are donated, could help. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. Unfortunately, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. This is why it is important that the government closely regulates charities to ensure that funding is spent in an efficient manner and not spent on things that do not directly contribute to the cause the charity is trying to address. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. However, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. For this reason, the government should make sure that charities are highly regulated, so that only the charities that are truly dedicated to the causes they support are funded. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. Unfortunately, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. However, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. In this case, more regulation of charities, ensuring that the funds are properly used for the purpose for which they are donated, could help. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. Unfortunately, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. This is why it is important that the government closely regulates charities to ensure that funding is spent in an efficient manner and not spent on things that do not directly contribute to the cause the charity is trying to address. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Charities are important in providing the UK with an avenue to support causes in their home country and around the world. They also provide a way for many to volunteer their time to worthy causes. However, as most of the funding comes from individuals, there is a risk of a large amount of funding going to charities that do not operate as effectively as they could. For this reason, the government should make sure that charities are highly regulated, so that only the charities that are truly dedicated to the causes they support are funded. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 4: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000163.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000163.soc index 16eef16f..e6f482a9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000163.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000163.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The body is a means by which we can prevent something from happening to others. We should not use it to block the way of another person for our own benefit or advantage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not permissible to use your body to block another person's way as this is regarded as being very impolite and disrespectful. It is only permissible in some situations for protection of someone or yourself or to provide some important information to someone who is trying to get past. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is permissible to use your body to block another person's way when the intent behind it is not to harm, but to help or protect someone or something else. If you feel there is no good intent behind it, then it would be advisable to think twice before doing so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle it is never permissible to block another person’s path, however, in certain situations it is acceptable to use your body to block another’s way. This could be in situations where there is a danger to an individual or where the person who is being blocked is doing something wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The body is a means by which we can prevent something from happening to others. We should not use it to block the way of another person for our own benefit or advantage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not permissible to use your body to block another person's way as this is regarded as being very impolite and disrespectful. It is only permissible in some situations for protection of someone or yourself or to provide some important information to someone who is trying to get past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is permissible to use your body to block another person's way when the intent behind it is not to harm, but to help or protect someone or something else. If you feel there is no good intent behind it, then it would be advisable to think twice before doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle it is never permissible to block another person’s path, however, in certain situations it is acceptable to use your body to block another’s way. This could be in situations where there is a danger to an individual or where the person who is being blocked is doing something wrong. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000164.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000164.soc index 1d2c7000..2a2a021d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000164.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000164.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, tax free shopping should not be banned, for the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - I have slight reservations as to it being banned as i feel my own government take enough money in taxes as it is - It saves me money - I would miss it should it be taken away -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, tax free shopping should not be banned, for the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - It saves me money - It is a luxury one gets when going or coming home from abroad -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, tax free shopping should not be banned. For the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - It saves me money - I would miss it should it be taken away -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, tax free shopping should not be banned, for the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - It saves me money - I would miss it should it be taken away +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, tax free shopping should not be banned, for the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - I have slight reservations as to it being banned as i feel my own government take enough money in taxes as it is - It saves me money - I would miss it should it be taken away +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, tax free shopping should not be banned, for the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - It saves me money - It is a luxury one gets when going or coming home from abroad +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, tax free shopping should not be banned. For the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - It saves me money - I would miss it should it be taken away +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, tax free shopping should not be banned, for the following reasons: - It is a perk of international travel - It is difficult to exploit - It is a bit of a boon for the average person travelling - It gives the traveller an opportunity to buy certain goods that the government of the country tax sometimes excessively - It saves me money - I would miss it should it be taken away 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000165.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000165.soc index e8960144..7f98d7a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000165.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000165.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a decline in free speech in the UK. People are now very careful of what they say to people. In the past, the world was not so politically correct and people said what they thought without fear of retribution. It is the norm to have a variety of opinions on a subject but nowadays people avoid expressing their views for fear of offending someone else. They censor themselves and we need to be more tolerant of people's views. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech. It is very easy to upset people, especially online and so people are less likely to speak out and say what they feel. Some may even try to avoid controversial topics as they may lose friends or get attacked by strangers. Society is becoming too politically correct and so people are scared of saying things that may seem a little bit extreme, even though it is their right to express their views and opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech. It is very easy to upset people, especially online and so people are less likely to speak out and say what they feel. Some may even try to avoid controversial topics as they may lose friends or get attacked by strangers. Society is becoming too politically correct and so people are scared of saying things that may seem a little bit extreme, even though it is their right to express their views and opinions. This means that people are scared to have their own opinions and so they may not feel the need to express themselves, which is an infringement on their freedom. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech. It is very easy to upset people, especially online and so people are less likely to speak out and say what they feel. Some may even try to avoid controversial topics as they may lose friends or get attacked by strangers. Society is becoming too politically correct and so people are scared of saying things that may seem a little bit extreme, even though it is their right to express their views and opinions. We feel that it is a shame that society is becoming less tolerant of free speech and that the UK is becoming a less diverse place because of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a decline in free speech in the UK. People are now very careful of what they say to people. In the past, the world was not so politically correct and people said what they thought without fear of retribution. It is the norm to have a variety of opinions on a subject but nowadays people avoid expressing their views for fear of offending someone else. They censor themselves and we need to be more tolerant of people's views. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech. It is very easy to upset people, especially online and so people are less likely to speak out and say what they feel. Some may even try to avoid controversial topics as they may lose friends or get attacked by strangers. Society is becoming too politically correct and so people are scared of saying things that may seem a little bit extreme, even though it is their right to express their views and opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech. It is very easy to upset people, especially online and so people are less likely to speak out and say what they feel. Some may even try to avoid controversial topics as they may lose friends or get attacked by strangers. Society is becoming too politically correct and so people are scared of saying things that may seem a little bit extreme, even though it is their right to express their views and opinions. This means that people are scared to have their own opinions and so they may not feel the need to express themselves, which is an infringement on their freedom. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK is becoming less tolerant of free speech. It is very easy to upset people, especially online and so people are less likely to speak out and say what they feel. Some may even try to avoid controversial topics as they may lose friends or get attacked by strangers. Society is becoming too politically correct and so people are scared of saying things that may seem a little bit extreme, even though it is their right to express their views and opinions. We feel that it is a shame that society is becoming less tolerant of free speech and that the UK is becoming a less diverse place because of this. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000166.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000166.soc index 19ec7f31..295356c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000166.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000166.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the NHS should not be privatised. It is very important to the well being of the nation and privatisation would put profit before care and create other problems that are not currently experienced. The NHS is not ideally run at the moment but it can recover as a public service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS should not be privatised. The NHS should not be privatised. There are major issues with the NHS, but this should not be a reason to make it private. We feel that by making the NHS private, it will result in people who cannot afford treatment going without. The NHS was founded as a public service for the people and therefore it should remain as such. There are many ways to improve the NHS and make it more efficient, however privatisation will only make the NHS worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS should not be privatised. The aim of privatisation is to make profit. Medical care should not be about profit and be available to all. The NHS could be run more efficiently without privatisation and it would also need significantly more funding. The funding could be increased by taxes. The UK has always had a public health service and privatising it would be a disaster. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS should not be privatised as it provides healthcare to all who need it regardless of their income. Privatisation of the NHS could make medical care unaffordable for the lower income and lead to a two-tier system. The NHS does need more funding, however this would result in more jobs and is necessary for the future of the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the NHS should not be privatised. It is very important to the well being of the nation and privatisation would put profit before care and create other problems that are not currently experienced. The NHS is not ideally run at the moment but it can recover as a public service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS should not be privatised. The NHS should not be privatised. There are major issues with the NHS, but this should not be a reason to make it private. We feel that by making the NHS private, it will result in people who cannot afford treatment going without. The NHS was founded as a public service for the people and therefore it should remain as such. There are many ways to improve the NHS and make it more efficient, however privatisation will only make the NHS worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS should not be privatised. The aim of privatisation is to make profit. Medical care should not be about profit and be available to all. The NHS could be run more efficiently without privatisation and it would also need significantly more funding. The funding could be increased by taxes. The UK has always had a public health service and privatising it would be a disaster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS should not be privatised as it provides healthcare to all who need it regardless of their income. Privatisation of the NHS could make medical care unaffordable for the lower income and lead to a two-tier system. The NHS does need more funding, however this would result in more jobs and is necessary for the future of the NHS. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000167.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000167.soc index c91aa8f0..0085c0c3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000167.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000167.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Income is something that is very important to everyone in society. The way we allot income is very important to the function of society. We have different ideas of how this should work and what we would like it to do. The consensus is that there should be a basic income provided to all UK citizens by the government. It should be enough to live on but if you work you should be able to earn more. This should replace the benefits system. Everyone would then be able to work and contribute to the economy, or choose not to and live on the basic income. There is a cost to the government in implementing this. This will be borne by taxing the rich more. The costs are likely to be recouped by an increase in the GDP. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a universal basic income in the UK. It should be enough to live on. It should replace the benefits system. Everyone who is able should work to earn more. It should be paid for by taxing the rich. Concluding Statement: The group had many different ideas on the question posed. There were different opinions on how much a basic income should be and how much it should be paid for by taxing the rich. All of these ideas and opinions were taken into account and a consensus statement was reached. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Income is something that is very important to everyone in society. The way we allot income is very important to the function of society. We have different ideas of how this should work and what we would like it to do. The consensus is that there should be a basic income provided to all UK citizens by the government. It should be enough to live on. But if you work you should be able to earn more. This should replace the benefits system. Everyone would then be able to work and contribute to the economy, or choose not to and live on the basic income. There is a cost to the government in implementing this. This will be borne by taxing the rich more. The costs are likely to be recouped by an increase in the GDP. A basic income should be given to all citizens of the UK and it should be enough to live on. If people choose to work they should be able to earn more than the basic income. This will replace the benefits system and all those who are able should work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A basic income should be given to all citizens of the UK and it should be enough to live on. If people choose to work they should be able to earn more than the basic income. This will replace the benefits system and all those who are able should work. There is a cost to the government in implementing this. This will be borne by taxing the rich more. The costs are likely to be recouped by an increase in the GDP. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Income is something that is very important to everyone in society. The way we allot income is very important to the function of society. We have different ideas of how this should work and what we would like it to do. The consensus is that there should be a basic income provided to all UK citizens by the government. It should be enough to live on but if you work you should be able to earn more. This should replace the benefits system. Everyone would then be able to work and contribute to the economy, or choose not to and live on the basic income. There is a cost to the government in implementing this. This will be borne by taxing the rich more. The costs are likely to be recouped by an increase in the GDP. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a universal basic income in the UK. It should be enough to live on. It should replace the benefits system. Everyone who is able should work to earn more. It should be paid for by taxing the rich. Concluding Statement: The group had many different ideas on the question posed. There were different opinions on how much a basic income should be and how much it should be paid for by taxing the rich. All of these ideas and opinions were taken into account and a consensus statement was reached. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Income is something that is very important to everyone in society. The way we allot income is very important to the function of society. We have different ideas of how this should work and what we would like it to do. The consensus is that there should be a basic income provided to all UK citizens by the government. It should be enough to live on. But if you work you should be able to earn more. This should replace the benefits system. Everyone would then be able to work and contribute to the economy, or choose not to and live on the basic income. There is a cost to the government in implementing this. This will be borne by taxing the rich more. The costs are likely to be recouped by an increase in the GDP. A basic income should be given to all citizens of the UK and it should be enough to live on. If people choose to work they should be able to earn more than the basic income. This will replace the benefits system and all those who are able should work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A basic income should be given to all citizens of the UK and it should be enough to live on. If people choose to work they should be able to earn more than the basic income. This will replace the benefits system and all those who are able should work. There is a cost to the government in implementing this. This will be borne by taxing the rich more. The costs are likely to be recouped by an increase in the GDP. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000168.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000168.soc index b26a95e7..ccbef12d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000168.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000168.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although not legally obliged to do so, and we realise that this would mean certain individuals in high political office would not want to become involved in politics, we believe that politicians should be transparent in their financial affairs. They should disclose their salary and income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of declaring the incomes of all politicians. They argued that as all citizens have to declare their income, then it's only fair that politicians have to declare theirs too. There was also the view that if they had nothing to hide, they should have nothing to worry about. However, the group did concede that this might be more difficult for politicians, as they do get many gifts from companies and individuals. For example, it was pointed out that at election time politicians get many free dinners and gifts from companies and private individuals. These freebies could amount to several thousand pounds and it might be difficult to know exactly how much these gifts were worth. In the end, the group decided that the costs of these freebies should be calculated and added to the declared income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, yes we should all declare our income and in fact, anything we receive, as it is part of our moral duty to be honest. This should be the case for all MPs too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Politicians should be required to disclose their income. They work for the public and therefore they should declare their income. In the interest of transparency and democracy this is something that is essential to ensure trust and honesty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although not legally obliged to do so, and we realise that this would mean certain individuals in high political office would not want to become involved in politics, we believe that politicians should be transparent in their financial affairs. They should disclose their salary and income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of declaring the incomes of all politicians. They argued that as all citizens have to declare their income, then it's only fair that politicians have to declare theirs too. There was also the view that if they had nothing to hide, they should have nothing to worry about. However, the group did concede that this might be more difficult for politicians, as they do get many gifts from companies and individuals. For example, it was pointed out that at election time politicians get many free dinners and gifts from companies and private individuals. These freebies could amount to several thousand pounds and it might be difficult to know exactly how much these gifts were worth. In the end, the group decided that the costs of these freebies should be calculated and added to the declared income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, yes we should all declare our income and in fact, anything we receive, as it is part of our moral duty to be honest. This should be the case for all MPs too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Politicians should be required to disclose their income. They work for the public and therefore they should declare their income. In the interest of transparency and democracy this is something that is essential to ensure trust and honesty. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000169.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000169.soc index 0b0cb960..cac89070 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000169.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000169.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should be providing more subsidised childcare, as many families in our country are struggling financially, especially families with younger children. This means that often, only one parent is able to work, to try and bring in the money needed to survive, and often the wages that one parent is bringing in are barely enough to cover their expenses. This would then mean that the family is less likely to be able to afford to pay for the other parent to work, and the children in the family are then less likely to have access to after-school clubs, or have access to anything extra-curricular. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, yes we should be providing more subsidised childcare, because we have so many parents who are struggling to get by in our country. This means that in a lot of families, only one parent can work as they cannot afford childcare for the other parent to work, and the wages are only just enough for the one parent. So if we were to provide more subsidised childcare, we would be helping the country and the families of the country as we would have more parents working and therefore providing more money for the country, which would then hopefully come back to us as the working people. And also, if we do not provide more subsidised childcare, there is a higher chance of parents leaving their children unattended for longer than they should be. This is a crime and should not be happening in our country, as it can cause many issues in the child's future life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, yes we should be providing more subsidised childcare. The current crisis and the raising cost of living means that many families are struggling to make ends meet. In a lot of families, only one parent can work as they cannot afford childcare for the other parent to work, and the wages are only just enough for the one parent. The stress of this current situation causes many families to fall apart. So if we were to provide more subsidised childcare, we would be helping the country and the families of the country as we would have more parents working and therefore providing more money for the country, which would then hopefully come back to us as the working people. It would also help children under 3 not to be left alone at home unattended, as they should be with someone who can look after them, and they should not be treated as a burden. Studies show that the first years of childhood are crucial to their future development and most of them are not getting all the support they need at home. It would also provide more time for the parent at home to look for a job, so they can also help to provide for their family and their child, which would be beneficial for the child, the parent and the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more subsidised childcare as it can help families and children. If a family is struggling to provide for a child, the government needs to be there to help. The government should also subsidise childcare for families who are not struggling, because even for those who are well off, the cost of childcare is rising and therefore it can also be helpful to subsidise childcare for them as well. If we subsidise childcare for families who are struggling to provide for their children and for families who are not struggling, we are helping the economy because more people are working and therefore the economy is rising. We are also helping the children and the families, because the families are not stressed with the childcare cost, they can focus more on looking after their children. If we subsidise childcare, we are helping to prevent children from being left unattended, which is a crime and can cause issues in the child's future life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should be providing more subsidised childcare, as many families in our country are struggling financially, especially families with younger children. This means that often, only one parent is able to work, to try and bring in the money needed to survive, and often the wages that one parent is bringing in are barely enough to cover their expenses. This would then mean that the family is less likely to be able to afford to pay for the other parent to work, and the children in the family are then less likely to have access to after-school clubs, or have access to anything extra-curricular. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, yes we should be providing more subsidised childcare, because we have so many parents who are struggling to get by in our country. This means that in a lot of families, only one parent can work as they cannot afford childcare for the other parent to work, and the wages are only just enough for the one parent. So if we were to provide more subsidised childcare, we would be helping the country and the families of the country as we would have more parents working and therefore providing more money for the country, which would then hopefully come back to us as the working people. And also, if we do not provide more subsidised childcare, there is a higher chance of parents leaving their children unattended for longer than they should be. This is a crime and should not be happening in our country, as it can cause many issues in the child's future life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, yes we should be providing more subsidised childcare. The current crisis and the raising cost of living means that many families are struggling to make ends meet. In a lot of families, only one parent can work as they cannot afford childcare for the other parent to work, and the wages are only just enough for the one parent. The stress of this current situation causes many families to fall apart. So if we were to provide more subsidised childcare, we would be helping the country and the families of the country as we would have more parents working and therefore providing more money for the country, which would then hopefully come back to us as the working people. It would also help children under 3 not to be left alone at home unattended, as they should be with someone who can look after them, and they should not be treated as a burden. Studies show that the first years of childhood are crucial to their future development and most of them are not getting all the support they need at home. It would also provide more time for the parent at home to look for a job, so they can also help to provide for their family and their child, which would be beneficial for the child, the parent and the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more subsidised childcare as it can help families and children. If a family is struggling to provide for a child, the government needs to be there to help. The government should also subsidise childcare for families who are not struggling, because even for those who are well off, the cost of childcare is rising and therefore it can also be helpful to subsidise childcare for them as well. If we subsidise childcare for families who are struggling to provide for their children and for families who are not struggling, we are helping the economy because more people are working and therefore the economy is rising. We are also helping the children and the families, because the families are not stressed with the childcare cost, they can focus more on looking after their children. If we subsidise childcare, we are helping to prevent children from being left unattended, which is a crime and can cause issues in the child's future life. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000170.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000170.soc index 54837088..53fb5e21 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000170.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000170.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. The questions was from an article in the Guardian. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Funding for the arts should be maintained, but in a very specific way. In some cases funding may need to be cut in order to protect high-quality arts that are in danger of suffering as a result of lower budgets. The arts are an important part of our society, and the arts in general should be subsidised as much as is necessary to ensure the long-term protection of high-quality arts in the UK.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should spend more money on the arts as it encourages creativity, innovation and different ways of thinking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the arts are not the most important way to spend money in society. However, as long as society is able to fund other important things, then funding the arts should not be a problem. However, if other areas were not funded properly, then this would be a problem. The issue is not so much the cost of the arts, but whether we have enough money to pay for the things that are more important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. The questions was from an article in the Guardian. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Funding for the arts should be maintained, but in a very specific way. In some cases funding may need to be cut in order to protect high-quality arts that are in danger of suffering as a result of lower budgets. The arts are an important part of our society, and the arts in general should be subsidised as much as is necessary to ensure the long-term protection of high-quality arts in the UK.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should spend more money on the arts as it encourages creativity, innovation and different ways of thinking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the arts are not the most important way to spend money in society. However, as long as society is able to fund other important things, then funding the arts should not be a problem. However, if other areas were not funded properly, then this would be a problem. The issue is not so much the cost of the arts, but whether we have enough money to pay for the things that are more important. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000171.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000171.soc index a4d625e6..44a1d628 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000171.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000171.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS should not be privatised as it provides healthcare to all who need it regardless of their income. Privatisation of the NHS could make medical care unaffordable for the lower income and lead to a two-tier system. The NHS does need more funding, however this would result in more jobs and is necessary for the future of the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS should not be privatised. The NHS is in desperate need of reform, and additional funding is needed to support the NHS to be able to deliver its services more efficiently and in a cost effective manner. However, the NHS needs to continue to be funded by the taxpayer to ensure that medical care is accessible to all, regardless of their income. The NHS needs reform, but it must be done as a public service, not a private one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS should not be privatised as it provides healthcare to all who need it regardless of their income. Privatisation of the NHS could make medical care unaffordable for the lower income and lead to a two-tier system. The NHS does need more funding, however this would result in more jobs and is necessary for the future of the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS should not be privatised as it provides healthcare to all who need it regardless of their income. Privatisation of the NHS could make medical care unaffordable for the lower income and lead to a two-tier system. The NHS does need more funding, however this would result in more jobs and is necessary for the future of the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS should not be privatised as it provides healthcare to all who need it regardless of their income. Privatisation of the NHS could make medical care unaffordable for the lower income and lead to a two-tier system. The NHS does need more funding, however this would result in more jobs and is necessary for the future of the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS should not be privatised. The NHS is in desperate need of reform, and additional funding is needed to support the NHS to be able to deliver its services more efficiently and in a cost effective manner. However, the NHS needs to continue to be funded by the taxpayer to ensure that medical care is accessible to all, regardless of their income. The NHS needs reform, but it must be done as a public service, not a private one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS should not be privatised as it provides healthcare to all who need it regardless of their income. Privatisation of the NHS could make medical care unaffordable for the lower income and lead to a two-tier system. The NHS does need more funding, however this would result in more jobs and is necessary for the future of the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS should not be privatised as it provides healthcare to all who need it regardless of their income. Privatisation of the NHS could make medical care unaffordable for the lower income and lead to a two-tier system. The NHS does need more funding, however this would result in more jobs and is necessary for the future of the NHS. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000172.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000172.soc index 6d3adc27..977d9820 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000172.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000172.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of using more of the UK's land to grow food. The general feeling was that more food needs to be produced in the UK, not just for export but to feed the people. The consensus opinion was that food produced in the UK is fresher, has less air miles (i.e. less environmental impact), and helps reduce the need for importing food, making us less reliant on other countries. In this example, it is clear that the opinion of the group as a whole was more liberal and in favour of using more of the UK's land to grow food than any individual opinion of the participants. It is also evident that this more liberal group opinion was reached after much debate and deliberation on the issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be using the UK's land to grow food instead of importing from other areas of the world for when it can be helped. It is more sustainable that importing. Using local farmers and using their produce, will only help in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the UK should be using more of its own land to grow food. This will reduce the reliance of the UK on other countries for food supplies and reduce the import of foods, leading to more money being spent within the UK economy. This will also lead to a decrease in emissions from transporting the food from overseas, as well as the fact that the food will be fresher and thus have a longer shelf life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, yes we should use more of the UK's land to grow food, as it is more sustainable and can help in situations such as the pandemic. Local produce is healthier and we would be reducing our carbon footprint as we would not be importing as much food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of using more of the UK's land to grow food. The general feeling was that more food needs to be produced in the UK, not just for export but to feed the people. The consensus opinion was that food produced in the UK is fresher, has less air miles (i.e. less environmental impact), and helps reduce the need for importing food, making us less reliant on other countries. In this example, it is clear that the opinion of the group as a whole was more liberal and in favour of using more of the UK's land to grow food than any individual opinion of the participants. It is also evident that this more liberal group opinion was reached after much debate and deliberation on the issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be using the UK's land to grow food instead of importing from other areas of the world for when it can be helped. It is more sustainable that importing. Using local farmers and using their produce, will only help in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the UK should be using more of its own land to grow food. This will reduce the reliance of the UK on other countries for food supplies and reduce the import of foods, leading to more money being spent within the UK economy. This will also lead to a decrease in emissions from transporting the food from overseas, as well as the fact that the food will be fresher and thus have a longer shelf life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, yes we should use more of the UK's land to grow food, as it is more sustainable and can help in situations such as the pandemic. Local produce is healthier and we would be reducing our carbon footprint as we would not be importing as much food. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000173.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000173.soc index a9e58b65..52f5f09e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000173.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000173.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the UK should not implement policies that lead to a population increase. There is no consensus on this topic as there are two opposing views. The following conclusions were reached during the course of the debate: * It was a point of contention whether the UK currently has a population decrease * The effect of Brexit on immigration was debated at length * There were some opposing views on the way that immigration should be addressed * It was debated whether the UK's infrastructure can sustain a population increase * A proposal that the UK should use foreign investment to improve infrastructure and attract a greater population -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be policies that are related to population increase. However, there should not be any policies that will directly increase the population. We should not increase the population of the UK. The government should introduce policies that will make it easier to have children (e.g. free school lunches for all) but there should be no policies that will force people to have children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was wary of implementing any policy, which led to an increase in the UK's population. This was largely because of the UK's socio-economic climate, which is largely still recovering from the 2008 recession. The UK is currently experiencing a housing shortage, and this issue has not yet been solved, despite the country being home to a population of approximately 64 million. The debate was largely focused on how any policy would affect the UK's current socio-economic climate, and most felt that implementing a policy that lead to an increase in the population was not advisable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Policies leading to a population increase should be implemented to help keep the economy healthy in the UK, and to also help increase the number of people that can work. However, before policies are implemented, it is important to fix current issues with the country, such as poverty, and the housing crisis, as these would impact any policies implemented negatively. Also, it is important to help new mothers/fathers with work-life balance, as this would encourage more people to start a family, and increase the population. The questions was from this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sarah-cowan/population-growth-uk-decline_b_12957604.html +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the UK should not implement policies that lead to a population increase. There is no consensus on this topic as there are two opposing views. The following conclusions were reached during the course of the debate: * It was a point of contention whether the UK currently has a population decrease * The effect of Brexit on immigration was debated at length * There were some opposing views on the way that immigration should be addressed * It was debated whether the UK's infrastructure can sustain a population increase * A proposal that the UK should use foreign investment to improve infrastructure and attract a greater population +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be policies that are related to population increase. However, there should not be any policies that will directly increase the population. We should not increase the population of the UK. The government should introduce policies that will make it easier to have children (e.g. free school lunches for all) but there should be no policies that will force people to have children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was wary of implementing any policy, which led to an increase in the UK's population. This was largely because of the UK's socio-economic climate, which is largely still recovering from the 2008 recession. The UK is currently experiencing a housing shortage, and this issue has not yet been solved, despite the country being home to a population of approximately 64 million. The debate was largely focused on how any policy would affect the UK's current socio-economic climate, and most felt that implementing a policy that lead to an increase in the population was not advisable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Policies leading to a population increase should be implemented to help keep the economy healthy in the UK, and to also help increase the number of people that can work. However, before policies are implemented, it is important to fix current issues with the country, such as poverty, and the housing crisis, as these would impact any policies implemented negatively. Also, it is important to help new mothers/fathers with work-life balance, as this would encourage more people to start a family, and increase the population. The questions was from this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sarah-cowan/population-growth-uk-decline_b_12957604.html 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000174.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000174.soc index 2069ef0d..2f51007d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000174.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000174.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. A typical consensus was taken in around 30 minutes and included the contributions of 4 participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. The group of participants was also asked for their opinion on the outcome of the process. All participants agreed that they were able to engage in the process and discuss the topic, that the process allowed them to learn more about the topic and other opinions, and that the consensus statement did not go against their own personal opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. A typical consensus was taken in around 30 minutes and included the contributions of 4 participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the arts are important for a healthy and balanced society, and can provide us with pleasure and amusement, and also express our ideas and emotions, at the current time they should not be prioritised for funding. In a world where many people are struggling financially, and many companies are going bankrupt due to the increasing costs of energy, we must prioritise these issues before allocating funds to the arts. If the arts are to be funded, it must be done by private investors or groups that wish to support the arts. The group of participants was also asked for their opinion on the outcome of the process. All participants agreed that they were able to engage in the process and discuss the topic, that the process allowed them to learn more about the topic and other opinions, and that the consensus statement did not go against their own personal opinions. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000175.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000175.soc index 9273cffd..2d3c1055 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000175.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000175.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they want to do with their own bodies. However, drugs are illegal in the UK and are therefore associated with many risks. Using drugs is often an irresponsible choice that is likely to have serious and sometimes life-threatening consequences. If an adult is doing drugs in a way that is putting themselves or others in danger, then they should be stopped from doing so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not appropriate for adults to do drugs at parties, and adults who do so are putting others at risk, whether by making the drugs accessible to others, or by being under the influence of drugs and acting in dangerous or unpredictable ways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The consequences of drug use by adults can impact on others who may be exposed to it. So it is not appropriate to do drugs at parties. Drug use should be limited to controlled environments and contexts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: it would depend on the situation, if it's to have fun and it won't affect others around them in a negative way, then they can feel free, but they should still know the implications of doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they want to do with their own bodies. However, drugs are illegal in the UK and are therefore associated with many risks. Using drugs is often an irresponsible choice that is likely to have serious and sometimes life-threatening consequences. If an adult is doing drugs in a way that is putting themselves or others in danger, then they should be stopped from doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not appropriate for adults to do drugs at parties, and adults who do so are putting others at risk, whether by making the drugs accessible to others, or by being under the influence of drugs and acting in dangerous or unpredictable ways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The consequences of drug use by adults can impact on others who may be exposed to it. So it is not appropriate to do drugs at parties. Drug use should be limited to controlled environments and contexts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - it would depend on the situation, if it's to have fun and it won't affect others around them in a negative way, then they can feel free, but they should still know the implications of doing so. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000176.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000176.soc index d50c79c2..1b486d58 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000176.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000176.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, we do not think it is right to keep healthy animals in zoos. However, if a zoo is able to prove that they are looking after the animals well, have a strict breeding program and are working towards the welfare of the animals, then they are acting ethically. The issue is often not in the animal's welfare, but in the ethics of the zoo's operations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, we do not believe that it is right to keep animals in zoos, however it is acceptable to keep them in zoos as part of a selective breeding program for endangered species, with an aim of releasing them back into the wild in future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The practice of keeping animals in zoos can be beneficial to both the animals and the people. The people can gain a great deal of knowledge from seeing these animals in their natural environment and hopefully can learn how they can help to conserve the species, while the animals themselves can be kept in safe and controlled environments which is necessary for their welfare. However, animal rights activists and environmentalists have argued that it is not morally right to keep animals in zoos. Their argument being that these animals are meant to live in the wild, so by keeping them in zoos, their natural way of life is compromised. A zoo cannot give a species the same sense of freedom and security that they would have in the wild. Even though they are being taken care of, it is not the same as living in their natural habitat. The animals can be harmed by being kept in unnatural environments such as zoos. Also, zoos do not only restrict animals, but humans as well. We are restricted in the way we see the animals. For example, we see them through a fence, and not in their natural environment. Also, by viewing the animals through glass windows, we do not see the true essence of the animal, but an -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Animals should not be kept in zoos. Zoos have the potential to be used for important research, education and conservation but this is not always the case and often, there are more effective ways of undertaking these tasks without harming animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, we do not think it is right to keep healthy animals in zoos. However, if a zoo is able to prove that they are looking after the animals well, have a strict breeding program and are working towards the welfare of the animals, then they are acting ethically. The issue is often not in the animal's welfare, but in the ethics of the zoo's operations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, we do not believe that it is right to keep animals in zoos, however it is acceptable to keep them in zoos as part of a selective breeding program for endangered species, with an aim of releasing them back into the wild in future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The practice of keeping animals in zoos can be beneficial to both the animals and the people. The people can gain a great deal of knowledge from seeing these animals in their natural environment and hopefully can learn how they can help to conserve the species, while the animals themselves can be kept in safe and controlled environments which is necessary for their welfare. However, animal rights activists and environmentalists have argued that it is not morally right to keep animals in zoos. Their argument being that these animals are meant to live in the wild, so by keeping them in zoos, their natural way of life is compromised. A zoo cannot give a species the same sense of freedom and security that they would have in the wild. Even though they are being taken care of, it is not the same as living in their natural habitat. The animals can be harmed by being kept in unnatural environments such as zoos. Also, zoos do not only restrict animals, but humans as well. We are restricted in the way we see the animals. For example, we see them through a fence, and not in their natural environment. Also, by viewing the animals through glass windows, we do not see the true essence of the animal, but an +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Animals should not be kept in zoos. Zoos have the potential to be used for important research, education and conservation but this is not always the case and often, there are more effective ways of undertaking these tasks without harming animals. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000177.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000177.soc index 95fbbbb6..52465629 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000177.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000177.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Companies should be required to pay their employees a living wage, in order to protect them from the rising costs of living. This would be of benefit to both employees and employers as employees would be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living, without having to worry about financial struggles, and this would help to improve productivity and retention. It would also give employees the confidence that they are valued and appreciated for their work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Companies should be required to pay a living wage to their employees, because a decent quality of life is a basic human right that should be guaranteed by all companies. Without a living wage, many people would be unable to afford basic necessities and would have a far poorer quality of life.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies should be required to pay a living wage. The current economy makes it difficult for workers to make ends meet, therefore by making this a requirement, companies will see increased employee morale, leading to increased performance. In addition, workers will be able to take home an income that will allow them to provide the basic necessities for their families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies should be required to pay a living wage. A living wage would be enough for a worker to support himself and his family. By paying a living wage, companies would provide their employees with a more comfortable life and increase their motivation to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Companies should be required to pay their employees a living wage, in order to protect them from the rising costs of living. This would be of benefit to both employees and employers as employees would be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living, without having to worry about financial struggles, and this would help to improve productivity and retention. It would also give employees the confidence that they are valued and appreciated for their work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Companies should be required to pay a living wage to their employees, because a decent quality of life is a basic human right that should be guaranteed by all companies. Without a living wage, many people would be unable to afford basic necessities and would have a far poorer quality of life.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies should be required to pay a living wage. The current economy makes it difficult for workers to make ends meet, therefore by making this a requirement, companies will see increased employee morale, leading to increased performance. In addition, workers will be able to take home an income that will allow them to provide the basic necessities for their families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies should be required to pay a living wage. A living wage would be enough for a worker to support himself and his family. By paying a living wage, companies would provide their employees with a more comfortable life and increase their motivation to work. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000178.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000178.soc index b2966eed..d243f42a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000178.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000178.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome.” The group of participants then ranked their opinions from most to least important, with the consensus statement at the top: 1. Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome. 2. I feel it is the responsibility of all countries to move away from fossil fuels and this is one of several ways to do it. Solar and wind energy provide cheap and no polluting energy for its subjects and although there has to be things alongside these ways i believe its a way forward. One day we will pay for the pollution that we are causing on the planet. 3. I am generally in favour of more solar and wind energy, but there are a few caveats. For example, wind turbines should not be sighted inland, as they are disastrous for birds and wildlife, as well as being unsightly. Solar -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Countries should be developing more solar and wind energy. They should be developed in areas which have the best resources to maximise the efficiency of the technology. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, solar and wind energy is the way forward. All countries should develop more of it as the energy resources from burning fossil fuels are running out and it is not environmentally friendly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Countries should continue to develop more solar and wind energy, but only after the initial impact on birds and wildlife, and the construction and mining of materials for solar panels and wind turbines, have been minimised. The group were careful to include the negative effects that solar and wind energy can have, but also the fact that fossil fuels also cause pollution. They therefore felt it necessary to continue with renewable energy as long as the problems with it could be minimised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome.” The group of participants then ranked their opinions from most to least important, with the consensus statement at the top: 1. Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome. 2. I feel it is the responsibility of all countries to move away from fossil fuels and this is one of several ways to do it. Solar and wind energy provide cheap and no polluting energy for its subjects and although there has to be things alongside these ways i believe its a way forward. One day we will pay for the pollution that we are causing on the planet. 3. I am generally in favour of more solar and wind energy, but there are a few caveats. For example, wind turbines should not be sighted inland, as they are disastrous for birds and wildlife, as well as being unsightly. Solar +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Countries should be developing more solar and wind energy. They should be developed in areas which have the best resources to maximise the efficiency of the technology. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, solar and wind energy is the way forward. All countries should develop more of it as the energy resources from burning fossil fuels are running out and it is not environmentally friendly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Countries should continue to develop more solar and wind energy, but only after the initial impact on birds and wildlife, and the construction and mining of materials for solar panels and wind turbines, have been minimised. The group were careful to include the negative effects that solar and wind energy can have, but also the fact that fossil fuels also cause pollution. They therefore felt it necessary to continue with renewable energy as long as the problems with it could be minimised. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000179.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000179.soc index 5faa5149..7ff5859f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000179.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000179.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers are responsible for researching and testing alternative types of motors that produce fewer emissions. Customers are becoming more environmentally conscious and businesses can benefit from taking a more environmentally friendly approach. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, car manufacturers are responsible for the emissions their cars produce. The manufacturers have to ensure their cars meet the regulation standards. Car manufacturers have to contribute to emissions targets being met. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Car manufacturers have a duty to provide an environmentally friendly product to their customers. They should be held responsible for any emissions their cars produce and as such should take all necessary measures to reduce these emissions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Car manufacturers are responsible for the emissions their cars produce. Car manufacturers have to meet emission standards, if they are to sell cars in a particular country. If a car is a significant pollutant, this will be highlighted by independent bodies and the car manufacturer will be held accountable. Car manufacturers are also in a position to innovate and research new technology and improvements in the manufacturing process, in order to create low-emission vehicles. If the car manufacturer doesn't take this approach, then it is up to the customer to decide if they want to purchase this particular vehicle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers are responsible for researching and testing alternative types of motors that produce fewer emissions. Customers are becoming more environmentally conscious and businesses can benefit from taking a more environmentally friendly approach. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, car manufacturers are responsible for the emissions their cars produce. The manufacturers have to ensure their cars meet the regulation standards. Car manufacturers have to contribute to emissions targets being met. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Car manufacturers have a duty to provide an environmentally friendly product to their customers. They should be held responsible for any emissions their cars produce and as such should take all necessary measures to reduce these emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Car manufacturers are responsible for the emissions their cars produce. Car manufacturers have to meet emission standards, if they are to sell cars in a particular country. If a car is a significant pollutant, this will be highlighted by independent bodies and the car manufacturer will be held accountable. Car manufacturers are also in a position to innovate and research new technology and improvements in the manufacturing process, in order to create low-emission vehicles. If the car manufacturer doesn't take this approach, then it is up to the customer to decide if they want to purchase this particular vehicle. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000180.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000180.soc index 0a644dc3..a74bafe7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000180.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000180.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The process of fracking for shale gas should not be permitted in the UK because it would not be environmentally friendly and there are alternative energy sources that can be used instead. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the UK has a wealth of alternative sources of energy and natural gas, it has not developed to its full potential. Shale gas fracking has been shown to be an affordable and more easily accessible alternative to traditional forms of energy. Fracking also has a number of positive environmental impacts as it reduces our dependence on the burning of coal, and on other forms of fossil fuel. It has been shown to reduce air pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs. On the other hand, fracking is still a relatively new process. We are not sure of its long term effects. Fracking has been shown to cause small earthquakes and other environmental damage such as the use of vast quantities of water. There is also the possibility of contamination of groundwater and the extraction of rare metals such as mercury, lead, arsenic and cadmium. Due to these factors it is impossible to come to a unanimous consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to fracking in principle. The main issue with fracking is that it is an unsustainable process. As it is fossil fuel it is only a short term solution and is just delaying the inevitable. The issue with fracking in the UK is that the UK has a very dense population, fracking is dangerous and it would have a serious effect on local communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we feel that the question posed by the scenario requires that the future of the world be considered first and foremost. As such we believe that the environmental effects of fracking must be considered with an aim of reducing carbon emissions to prevent climate change. However, we do not feel that the answer to this question is simply ‘no’ and that if fracking can be performed in a sustainable way that meets environmental guidelines, this can be an alternative to other sources of gas production. We are unsure how to balance the environmental impact of fracking with the needs of our country and have come to the conclusion that the answer to this question must come from a thorough review of the facts. Our research into the facts showed that the environmental impact of fracking can be significant and includes; increased seismic activity, water pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, fracking was found to be responsible for around 1/3 of methane emissions in the US and has been shown to increase carbon dioxide emissions globally by 3%. We feel that the environmental effects of fracking are largely negative. However, we also recognise that fracking may be necessary as an alternative to other forms of gas extraction such as deep sea drilling. We are aware that the process of fra +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The process of fracking for shale gas should not be permitted in the UK because it would not be environmentally friendly and there are alternative energy sources that can be used instead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the UK has a wealth of alternative sources of energy and natural gas, it has not developed to its full potential. Shale gas fracking has been shown to be an affordable and more easily accessible alternative to traditional forms of energy. Fracking also has a number of positive environmental impacts as it reduces our dependence on the burning of coal, and on other forms of fossil fuel. It has been shown to reduce air pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs. On the other hand, fracking is still a relatively new process. We are not sure of its long term effects. Fracking has been shown to cause small earthquakes and other environmental damage such as the use of vast quantities of water. There is also the possibility of contamination of groundwater and the extraction of rare metals such as mercury, lead, arsenic and cadmium. Due to these factors it is impossible to come to a unanimous consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to fracking in principle. The main issue with fracking is that it is an unsustainable process. As it is fossil fuel it is only a short term solution and is just delaying the inevitable. The issue with fracking in the UK is that the UK has a very dense population, fracking is dangerous and it would have a serious effect on local communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we feel that the question posed by the scenario requires that the future of the world be considered first and foremost. As such we believe that the environmental effects of fracking must be considered with an aim of reducing carbon emissions to prevent climate change. However, we do not feel that the answer to this question is simply ‘no’ and that if fracking can be performed in a sustainable way that meets environmental guidelines, this can be an alternative to other sources of gas production. We are unsure how to balance the environmental impact of fracking with the needs of our country and have come to the conclusion that the answer to this question must come from a thorough review of the facts. Our research into the facts showed that the environmental impact of fracking can be significant and includes; increased seismic activity, water pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, fracking was found to be responsible for around 1/3 of methane emissions in the US and has been shown to increase carbon dioxide emissions globally by 3%. We feel that the environmental effects of fracking are largely negative. However, we also recognise that fracking may be necessary as an alternative to other forms of gas extraction such as deep sea drilling. We are aware that the process of fra 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000181.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000181.soc index 64f30da5..bccbdfc2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000181.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000181.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that reducing the voting age to 16 would be beneficial for our country. The people of the United Kingdom would have a chance to be more educated about who to vote for and the government they want to have running the country. The new age for voting would allow a chance for the people to vote for the government they want. Young people will have a chance to voice their opinion and give their own input about who they want to lead the country. With a new age of 16 the young people of the UK will be able to start getting involved in politics and become educated about what is going on in their country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16, however, the voting age should only be lowered if the voter can provide evidence that they have actively engaged with politics and are making an informed decision.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not a good idea to reduce the voting age to 16 because 16 year olds are too young and not mature enough. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Reducing the voting age to 16 would have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, younger people would be able to be involved in the political decisions of their country, which could allow for new opinions and ideas to be introduced into the democratic process. However, there is also the concern that people under the age of 18 may not be mature enough to make a responsible and informed decision. Therefore, the group of participants was split on the question. In this example, it is easy to see that although the consensus statement reflects all the views of the participants, it does not reflect their true opinions. It is obvious that Participant 4 really wanted to reduce the voting age to 16, while Participant 5 really wanted to keep it the way it is. By agreeing to a consensus, they both changed their minds, even if only a little. They compromised to find a middle ground between the two opposing views. This, according to this article, is an essential part of the consensus process: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that reducing the voting age to 16 would be beneficial for our country. The people of the United Kingdom would have a chance to be more educated about who to vote for and the government they want to have running the country. The new age for voting would allow a chance for the people to vote for the government they want. Young people will have a chance to voice their opinion and give their own input about who they want to lead the country. With a new age of 16 the young people of the UK will be able to start getting involved in politics and become educated about what is going on in their country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16, however, the voting age should only be lowered if the voter can provide evidence that they have actively engaged with politics and are making an informed decision.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not a good idea to reduce the voting age to 16 because 16 year olds are too young and not mature enough. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Reducing the voting age to 16 would have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, younger people would be able to be involved in the political decisions of their country, which could allow for new opinions and ideas to be introduced into the democratic process. However, there is also the concern that people under the age of 18 may not be mature enough to make a responsible and informed decision. Therefore, the group of participants was split on the question. In this example, it is easy to see that although the consensus statement reflects all the views of the participants, it does not reflect their true opinions. It is obvious that Participant 4 really wanted to reduce the voting age to 16, while Participant 5 really wanted to keep it the way it is. By agreeing to a consensus, they both changed their minds, even if only a little. They compromised to find a middle ground between the two opposing views. This, according to this article, is an essential part of the consensus process: 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000182.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000182.soc index 73afddd0..5cfeb95a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000182.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000182.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think we should start taking action to move toward banning single use plastics as much as we possible can. However if this is to push the cost of things up at a time where people are struggling to pay the bills, I think it needs to be a gradual thing in line with increases in pay etc otherwise it just won't be feasible and people won't do it.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban all single use plastics, as it can be avoided and done so without any real inconvenience to people. In the cases where the use of single use plastics cannot be avoided, we should introduce a tax on the purchase of single use plastics, to try and push people away from using them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we think that single use plastics should be banned. The way we see it, as long as alternatives are available to be used in place of single use plastics, then there is no reason for them to continue to exist. However, there are some areas where single use plastics are necessary. For example, the use of single use plastics is unavoidable for certain medical uses such as surgical gloves, or bags to store medicine in for example. In these cases it is not practical to introduce alternative methods of storing these items. In addition, there are also food products where single use plastics may be necessary to maintain the quality of the food. For example, fresh meat needs to be sealed up in order to avoid cross contamination with other items and reduce the risk of spoiling. In this case, it is important that a suitable alternative is introduced as soon as possible, but until this is the case, we should allow the continued use of single use plastics for this type of product. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that most single use plastics can and should be banned. We also believe that in some cases the use of single use plastics is necessary and unavoidable, and in those cases there needs to be strict guidelines for the recycling and disposal of them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think we should start taking action to move toward banning single use plastics as much as we possible can. However if this is to push the cost of things up at a time where people are struggling to pay the bills, I think it needs to be a gradual thing in line with increases in pay etc otherwise it just won't be feasible and people won't do it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban all single use plastics, as it can be avoided and done so without any real inconvenience to people. In the cases where the use of single use plastics cannot be avoided, we should introduce a tax on the purchase of single use plastics, to try and push people away from using them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we think that single use plastics should be banned. The way we see it, as long as alternatives are available to be used in place of single use plastics, then there is no reason for them to continue to exist. However, there are some areas where single use plastics are necessary. For example, the use of single use plastics is unavoidable for certain medical uses such as surgical gloves, or bags to store medicine in for example. In these cases it is not practical to introduce alternative methods of storing these items. In addition, there are also food products where single use plastics may be necessary to maintain the quality of the food. For example, fresh meat needs to be sealed up in order to avoid cross contamination with other items and reduce the risk of spoiling. In this case, it is important that a suitable alternative is introduced as soon as possible, but until this is the case, we should allow the continued use of single use plastics for this type of product. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that most single use plastics can and should be banned. We also believe that in some cases the use of single use plastics is necessary and unavoidable, and in those cases there needs to be strict guidelines for the recycling and disposal of them. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000183.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000183.soc index 39b98310..59482301 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000183.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000183.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Parental rights should be limited when it comes to health matters concerning their children, especially as children grow older. Parents can become controlling in this area and this can be damaging for the parent/child relationship. Children should be allowed to have a level of privacy in their health, and this should be respected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the parents of the child have the right to know when their child has received contraception but there are some exceptions to this. For example, if the child is vulnerable or has special needs, the parent of the child has the right to know when their child has received contraception. If the child is below the age of 16, the parent of the child has the right to know when their child has received contraception. If the child is above the age of 16, it is down to the child to inform the parents when they have received contraception but it is also down to the child to decide if they want to inform their parents. In addition, if the child is above the age of 18, it is their right to privacy and confidentiality regardless of their parent's wishes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception, as it is a private matter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be able to keep information confidential as it can affect the child’s development and progress. The parent has the right to know but not necessarily the right to be informed. The parent should also be aware of the potential outcomes of children’s decision to have sex. The child needs to be aware of the options and the benefits and risks of the treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Parental rights should be limited when it comes to health matters concerning their children, especially as children grow older. Parents can become controlling in this area and this can be damaging for the parent/child relationship. Children should be allowed to have a level of privacy in their health, and this should be respected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the parents of the child have the right to know when their child has received contraception but there are some exceptions to this. For example, if the child is vulnerable or has special needs, the parent of the child has the right to know when their child has received contraception. If the child is below the age of 16, the parent of the child has the right to know when their child has received contraception. If the child is above the age of 16, it is down to the child to inform the parents when they have received contraception but it is also down to the child to decide if they want to inform their parents. In addition, if the child is above the age of 18, it is their right to privacy and confidentiality regardless of their parent's wishes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception, as it is a private matter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be able to keep information confidential as it can affect the child’s development and progress. The parent has the right to know but not necessarily the right to be informed. The parent should also be aware of the potential outcomes of children’s decision to have sex. The child needs to be aware of the options and the benefits and risks of the treatment. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000184.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000184.soc index 8953312c..f11cbcf0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000184.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000184.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should be putting more money into the NHS. The NHS is a very important part of the UK and is currently underfunded. We should not take this important service for granted and ensure it receives more money, so that it can continue to provide a high standard of healthcare for the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we should put more money into the National Health Service. The NHS is a core part of our country and thus the money needed to run it should be provided, not only because of the services it provides but also the jobs it offers and the stability it gives to our economy. It is a necessity to the country. It provides all the healthcare needs for a large number of people in our country, from cancer treatment to maternity care and organ transplants. It also helps with a number of problems that affect people mentally, such as depression and anxiety. We also shouldn't forget that the NHS isn't just doctors and nurses, but also cleaners, radiographers, dieticians, health care assistants and so many more who play a key role in the NHS. A large amount of the NHS's budget is spent on staff. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses which means that the NHS has to pay extra to get staff from abroad to work for them, which is expensive. More money would allow them to employ more staff so there would be more appointments and less waiting time for patients, as well as more staff to take care of them. Money would also allow the NHS to get more specialist equipment which is -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is a core part of the country and thus the money needed to run it should be provided, but not without question. There is a need for more doctors, nurses, health practitioners and they all need the training and salary to reflect their skills and knowledge. There is also a backlog of surgery/operations as shown in the news which could be helped by increasing the money the NHS receives. The money could be used to update their technology and specialist equipment which will help patients, and help staff work more more efficiently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and that is because of the fantastic doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who are working tirelessly to keep us healthy. As such, they need more resources, training, and equipment to do so, which can only be funded by the government. We don't realise how much we take the NHS for granted until we need it, and then we don't complain about the cost of it. We as a country should be proud of the NHS, and should be willing to pay more money for it so that it can continue to be the best healthcare service in the world.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should be putting more money into the NHS. The NHS is a very important part of the UK and is currently underfunded. We should not take this important service for granted and ensure it receives more money, so that it can continue to provide a high standard of healthcare for the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we should put more money into the National Health Service. The NHS is a core part of our country and thus the money needed to run it should be provided, not only because of the services it provides but also the jobs it offers and the stability it gives to our economy. It is a necessity to the country. It provides all the healthcare needs for a large number of people in our country, from cancer treatment to maternity care and organ transplants. It also helps with a number of problems that affect people mentally, such as depression and anxiety. We also shouldn't forget that the NHS isn't just doctors and nurses, but also cleaners, radiographers, dieticians, health care assistants and so many more who play a key role in the NHS. A large amount of the NHS's budget is spent on staff. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses which means that the NHS has to pay extra to get staff from abroad to work for them, which is expensive. More money would allow them to employ more staff so there would be more appointments and less waiting time for patients, as well as more staff to take care of them. Money would also allow the NHS to get more specialist equipment which is +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is a core part of the country and thus the money needed to run it should be provided, but not without question. There is a need for more doctors, nurses, health practitioners and they all need the training and salary to reflect their skills and knowledge. There is also a backlog of surgery/operations as shown in the news which could be helped by increasing the money the NHS receives. The money could be used to update their technology and specialist equipment which will help patients, and help staff work more more efficiently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and that is because of the fantastic doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who are working tirelessly to keep us healthy. As such, they need more resources, training, and equipment to do so, which can only be funded by the government. We don't realise how much we take the NHS for granted until we need it, and then we don't complain about the cost of it. We as a country should be proud of the NHS, and should be willing to pay more money for it so that it can continue to be the best healthcare service in the world.” 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000185.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000185.soc index ccd1d5a7..c4e74ad8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000185.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000185.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is the best healthcare system in the world because of its staff and how well it serves us. It has the highest level of health for the least amount of money. The government should recognise the value of the NHS to our country, and should thus invest more money into it so that it can continue to be the best healthcare system in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and that is because of the fantastic doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who are working tirelessly to keep us healthy. As such, they need more resources, training, and equipment to do so, which can only be funded by the government. We don't realise how much we take the NHS for granted until we need it, and then we don't complain about the cost of it. We as a country should be proud of the NHS, and should be willing to pay more money for it so that it can continue to be the best healthcare service in the world.” Participants thought that this statement accurately reflects the views of everyone, and that the argument has been well-balanced and is rational and fact-based. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and that is because of the fantastic doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who are working tirelessly to keep us healthy. As such, they need more resources, training, and equipment to do so, which can only be funded by the government. We don't realise how much we take the NHS for granted until we need it, and then we don't complain about the cost of it. We as a country should be proud of the NHS, and should be willing to pay more money for it so that it can continue to be the best healthcare service in the world.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The NHS is a vital part of our country. The health of our country is crucial to our success, and the NHS helps to provide that. Our staff work incredibly hard and we should be supporting them and their efforts. There is a backlog of surgeries, which could be fixed with the correct amount of funding. Funding the NHS is not an option, it is a necessity.” Summary: The group was asked to reach a consensus on whether the UK government should put more money into the NHS. The group were fairly unanimous in that the NHS is vital to the UK, and should be supported and funded. Some people made comments that the NHS is not perfect, but it is better than other healthcare systems, and the NHS staff work incredibly hard, and should be paid accordingly. The group were critical of the government for underfunding the NHS, and the group suggested that this is having a detrimental effect on the service provided. The group felt that the NHS should be adequately funded in order to clear the backlog of surgery and appointments, and to pay for training and new equipment for staff. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is the best healthcare system in the world because of its staff and how well it serves us. It has the highest level of health for the least amount of money. The government should recognise the value of the NHS to our country, and should thus invest more money into it so that it can continue to be the best healthcare system in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and that is because of the fantastic doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who are working tirelessly to keep us healthy. As such, they need more resources, training, and equipment to do so, which can only be funded by the government. We don't realise how much we take the NHS for granted until we need it, and then we don't complain about the cost of it. We as a country should be proud of the NHS, and should be willing to pay more money for it so that it can continue to be the best healthcare service in the world.” Participants thought that this statement accurately reflects the views of everyone, and that the argument has been well-balanced and is rational and fact-based. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and that is because of the fantastic doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who are working tirelessly to keep us healthy. As such, they need more resources, training, and equipment to do so, which can only be funded by the government. We don't realise how much we take the NHS for granted until we need it, and then we don't complain about the cost of it. We as a country should be proud of the NHS, and should be willing to pay more money for it so that it can continue to be the best healthcare service in the world.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The NHS is a vital part of our country. The health of our country is crucial to our success, and the NHS helps to provide that. Our staff work incredibly hard and we should be supporting them and their efforts. There is a backlog of surgeries, which could be fixed with the correct amount of funding. Funding the NHS is not an option, it is a necessity.” Summary: The group was asked to reach a consensus on whether the UK government should put more money into the NHS. The group were fairly unanimous in that the NHS is vital to the UK, and should be supported and funded. Some people made comments that the NHS is not perfect, but it is better than other healthcare systems, and the NHS staff work incredibly hard, and should be paid accordingly. The group were critical of the government for underfunding the NHS, and the group suggested that this is having a detrimental effect on the service provided. The group felt that the NHS should be adequately funded in order to clear the backlog of surgery and appointments, and to pay for training and new equipment for staff. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000186.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000186.soc index ad37a88a..0d050538 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000186.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000186.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Countries should develop more solar and wind energy, but in a way that minimises the environmental impact and protects wildlife.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome. The safety of birds and wildlife is also an important consideration and must be addressed when siting wind turbines. Conclusion: Solar and wind energy have many advantages over fossil fuels, such as being renewable and safe for the environment, but there are some disadvantages, such as requiring a large land area and not producing enough energy for a country, and these must be overcome in order for these forms of energy to be the future of energy production. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome. The issue of pollution is less of a problem than with traditional forms of energy, but care should be taken to ensure wildlife is not harmed and bird deaths due to wind turbines are kept to a minimum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Countries should develop more solar and wind energy, but in a way that minimises the environmental impact and protects wildlife.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome. The safety of birds and wildlife is also an important consideration and must be addressed when siting wind turbines. Conclusion: Solar and wind energy have many advantages over fossil fuels, such as being renewable and safe for the environment, but there are some disadvantages, such as requiring a large land area and not producing enough energy for a country, and these must be overcome in order for these forms of energy to be the future of energy production. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Countries should develop more solar and wind energy as they are renewable resources. The issue of the land area required to produce the same amount of energy as a traditional power station is a concern, but this is a problem that should be overcome. The issue of pollution is less of a problem than with traditional forms of energy, but care should be taken to ensure wildlife is not harmed and bird deaths due to wind turbines are kept to a minimum. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000187.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000187.soc index ca77de9f..e9d7b27e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000187.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000187.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers have resisted shifting to alternative types of motors for decades and have actively lobbied against climate change policies and regulations which would force them to make low-emission vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers are responsible for researching and testing alternative types of motors that produce fewer emissions. Customers are becoming more environmentally conscious and businesses can benefit from taking a more environmentally friendly approach. Discussion of the process The aim of the exercise was to provide the participants with a very simple way to make decisions as a group. This was achieved by asking them to provide their opinions, allowing them to critique a first draft, and then come up with a final consensus statement based on the critiques. The exercise provided a framework to allow the participants to share their views, hear each other's opinions, and debate until they reached a conclusion. The exercise was a successful one in terms of allowing the participants to explore a topic in detail and reach a consensus, but the process could be refined in future. The process was effective because it allowed all the participants to have a voice in the decision-making process. By listening to all of the opinions, the participants could decide which parts they agreed with and which parts they did not agree with, and ultimately use this information to come to a decision. The process was -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers are responsible for researching and testing alternative types of motors that produce fewer emissions. Customers are becoming more environmentally conscious and businesses can benefit from taking a more environmentally friendly approach. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers are responsible for researching and testing alternative types of motors that produce fewer emissions. Customers are becoming more environmentally conscious and businesses can benefit from taking a more environmentally friendly approach. Car manufacturers themselves have resisted change and regulation, making them even more at fault for emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers have resisted shifting to alternative types of motors for decades and have actively lobbied against climate change policies and regulations which would force them to make low-emission vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers are responsible for researching and testing alternative types of motors that produce fewer emissions. Customers are becoming more environmentally conscious and businesses can benefit from taking a more environmentally friendly approach. Discussion of the process The aim of the exercise was to provide the participants with a very simple way to make decisions as a group. This was achieved by asking them to provide their opinions, allowing them to critique a first draft, and then come up with a final consensus statement based on the critiques. The exercise provided a framework to allow the participants to share their views, hear each other's opinions, and debate until they reached a conclusion. The exercise was a successful one in terms of allowing the participants to explore a topic in detail and reach a consensus, but the process could be refined in future. The process was effective because it allowed all the participants to have a voice in the decision-making process. By listening to all of the opinions, the participants could decide which parts they agreed with and which parts they did not agree with, and ultimately use this information to come to a decision. The process was +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers are responsible for researching and testing alternative types of motors that produce fewer emissions. Customers are becoming more environmentally conscious and businesses can benefit from taking a more environmentally friendly approach. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Car manufacturers are primarily responsible for the emissions their cars produce. They design and manufacture the cars and are responsible for ensuring their cars meet emissions targets. Car manufacturers are responsible for researching and testing alternative types of motors that produce fewer emissions. Customers are becoming more environmentally conscious and businesses can benefit from taking a more environmentally friendly approach. Car manufacturers themselves have resisted change and regulation, making them even more at fault for emissions. 2: 4,1,3,2 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000188.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000188.soc index ebdc81f9..b2c2b92d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000188.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000188.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, we think that single use plastics should be banned. The way we see it, as long as alternatives are available to be used in place of single use plastics, then there is no reason for them to continue to exist. However, there are some areas where single use plastics are necessary. For example, the use of single use plastics is unavoidable for certain medical uses such as surgical gloves, or bags to store medicine in for example. In these cases it is not practical to introduce alternative methods of storing these items. In addition, there are also food products where single use plastics may be necessary to maintain the quality of the food. For example, fresh meat needs to be sealed up in order to avoid cross contamination with other items and reduce the risk of spoiling. In this case, it is important that a suitable alternative is introduced as soon as possible, but until this is the case, we should allow the continued use of single use plastics for this type of product. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that single use plastics should be banned. However, there are some areas where single use plastics are necessary. For example, the use of single use plastics is unavoidable for certain medical uses such as surgical gloves, or bags to store medicine in for example. In these cases it is not practical to introduce alternative methods of storing these items. In addition, there are also food products where single use plastics may be necessary to maintain the quality of the food. For example, fresh meat needs to be sealed up in order to avoid cross contamination with other items and reduce the risk of spoiling. In this case, it is important that a suitable alternative is introduced as soon as possible, but until this is the case, we should allow the continued use of single use plastics for this type of product. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we think that single use plastics should be banned. We acknowledge that single use plastics may be necessary for certain food products and medical uses. In these cases, we urge that a suitable alternative is introduced as soon as possible, but until this is the case, we should allow the continued use of single use plastics for this type of product. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Single use plastics have a number of negative effects on the environment, and where possible alternatives to single use plastics should be used. However, in some cases single use plastics are unavoidable, for example for certain medical applications. In these cases, alternatives should be developed as soon as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, we think that single use plastics should be banned. The way we see it, as long as alternatives are available to be used in place of single use plastics, then there is no reason for them to continue to exist. However, there are some areas where single use plastics are necessary. For example, the use of single use plastics is unavoidable for certain medical uses such as surgical gloves, or bags to store medicine in for example. In these cases it is not practical to introduce alternative methods of storing these items. In addition, there are also food products where single use plastics may be necessary to maintain the quality of the food. For example, fresh meat needs to be sealed up in order to avoid cross contamination with other items and reduce the risk of spoiling. In this case, it is important that a suitable alternative is introduced as soon as possible, but until this is the case, we should allow the continued use of single use plastics for this type of product. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that single use plastics should be banned. However, there are some areas where single use plastics are necessary. For example, the use of single use plastics is unavoidable for certain medical uses such as surgical gloves, or bags to store medicine in for example. In these cases it is not practical to introduce alternative methods of storing these items. In addition, there are also food products where single use plastics may be necessary to maintain the quality of the food. For example, fresh meat needs to be sealed up in order to avoid cross contamination with other items and reduce the risk of spoiling. In this case, it is important that a suitable alternative is introduced as soon as possible, but until this is the case, we should allow the continued use of single use plastics for this type of product. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we think that single use plastics should be banned. We acknowledge that single use plastics may be necessary for certain food products and medical uses. In these cases, we urge that a suitable alternative is introduced as soon as possible, but until this is the case, we should allow the continued use of single use plastics for this type of product. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Single use plastics have a number of negative effects on the environment, and where possible alternatives to single use plastics should be used. However, in some cases single use plastics are unavoidable, for example for certain medical applications. In these cases, alternatives should be developed as soon as possible. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000189.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000189.soc index 157046f0..e06d48bf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000189.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000189.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We feel that the tax on the purchase of additional homes should be raised in order to stop the rich getting richer. This would be detrimental to society as a whole as this would allow poorer people to get on the property ladder. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should raise taxes on second and third home purchases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, because people with more houses pay more stamp duty, and property is a good investment, it is a good thing for the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should increase taxes on second and third home purchases. This is to deter people from buying them, therefore freeing up properties and making houses cheaper for people that need to live in them. It would also increase the government’s revenue and lead to a fairer society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We feel that the tax on the purchase of additional homes should be raised in order to stop the rich getting richer. This would be detrimental to society as a whole as this would allow poorer people to get on the property ladder. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should raise taxes on second and third home purchases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, because people with more houses pay more stamp duty, and property is a good investment, it is a good thing for the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should increase taxes on second and third home purchases. This is to deter people from buying them, therefore freeing up properties and making houses cheaper for people that need to live in them. It would also increase the government’s revenue and lead to a fairer society. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000190.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000190.soc index 523ba8e4..e7dc095a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000190.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000190.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Scotland will probably be independent in the future but this will only be because of political campaigning. We are living in a very unpredictable time and Brexit will impact this decision a lot.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there have been 2 chances for Scotland to become independent, and on both occasions this has failed, the impact of Brexit may make a difference on a future occasion. There is a possibility that Scotland will become independent in the future, but this will have to be achieved through a particularly well thought out political campaign. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There have been two votes for Scotland to become independent from the UK and these have both failed. However, Brexit has changed the game. Scotland voted to remain and this has added a sense of unpredictability. We believe there is a possibility that Scotland will become independent in the future, but this would require a well thought out political campaign and the right leader to drive it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In Scotland, the independence movement is something that is in the political consciousness but not something that has the energy to gain much traction right now. There have been two referendums which were lost by the pro-independence campaigners. The Scottish National Party is in power and has stated that it has no intention of pushing for another referendum. The Conservative Party are a minority party and are in favour of the Union, but with no real power in Scotland. In this situation, it is difficult to see where the desire for independence would come from. Unless the SNP were to regain power and go against their word and push for another referendum, it is unlikely that Scotland will become independent in the near future. However, it should not be forgotten that many people in Scotland do support independence, but do not have the power to make their voices heard. A resurgence in the independence movement cannot be ruled out, especially with the SNP at the helm of the Scottish Parliament, and if the Conservative Party are forced to rely on a deal with the SNP to stay in power, it would be in the interests of the SNP to take their own seats back. If there is a future UK government led by a pro +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Scotland will probably be independent in the future but this will only be because of political campaigning. We are living in a very unpredictable time and Brexit will impact this decision a lot.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there have been 2 chances for Scotland to become independent, and on both occasions this has failed, the impact of Brexit may make a difference on a future occasion. There is a possibility that Scotland will become independent in the future, but this will have to be achieved through a particularly well thought out political campaign. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There have been two votes for Scotland to become independent from the UK and these have both failed. However, Brexit has changed the game. Scotland voted to remain and this has added a sense of unpredictability. We believe there is a possibility that Scotland will become independent in the future, but this would require a well thought out political campaign and the right leader to drive it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In Scotland, the independence movement is something that is in the political consciousness but not something that has the energy to gain much traction right now. There have been two referendums which were lost by the pro-independence campaigners. The Scottish National Party is in power and has stated that it has no intention of pushing for another referendum. The Conservative Party are a minority party and are in favour of the Union, but with no real power in Scotland. In this situation, it is difficult to see where the desire for independence would come from. Unless the SNP were to regain power and go against their word and push for another referendum, it is unlikely that Scotland will become independent in the near future. However, it should not be forgotten that many people in Scotland do support independence, but do not have the power to make their voices heard. A resurgence in the independence movement cannot be ruled out, especially with the SNP at the helm of the Scottish Parliament, and if the Conservative Party are forced to rely on a deal with the SNP to stay in power, it would be in the interests of the SNP to take their own seats back. If there is a future UK government led by a pro 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000191.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000191.soc index f38e5a6b..80ebf6e1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000191.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000191.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that Government Surveillance Technology is a net positive for humanity. While there are people who believe the government is invading their privacy, there are many who feel safe because of the surveillance. The surveillance technology allows the government to monitor large groups of people, and through this, the government can ensure that laws are being followed. Surveillance technology has benefits that can help prevent crimes and ecological disasters. If everyone was monitored equally and the information was used only to help protect citizens, the positive effects of the surveillance would outweigh the negatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We do not believe that government surveillance is a net positive for humanity. The issue of surveillance is a highly debated topic that has polarizing opinions on both sides. We believe that surveillance technology is an infringement of personal privacy and a violation of the basic human right to privacy. With the current state of surveillance technology, there is a high chance of misuse and exploitation of private information, which can lead to financial losses and emotional distress. If the technology is used by government to protect people from acts of terrorism and crime, it is at best, an invasion of privacy. At worst, it could be used to target specific groups, or could potentially harm the lives of citizens. We believe that government surveillance technology will cause more harm than good for humanity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Surveillance technology can be a positive for humanity if it is used to improve our lives and make the world a safer place. This was a difficult topic for participants to reach a consensus view on, as it became clear that different participants were concerned about different issues. This is because the word surveillance can mean different things to different people. Some were concerned about how the technology is used, some were concerned about how the technology was used, and others were concerned about whether the use of technology was ethical. For some, their opinions on surveillance technology was dependent on how and why the technology was being used. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Government surveillance technology can be a net positive for humanity. However, with any surveillance technology there needs to be a good balance between keeping citizens safe and ensuring their privacy is protected. The use of this technology must be done within the law, with strict regulations in place to ensure the best outcome. The issue is not so much the use of surveillance, but how it is used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that Government Surveillance Technology is a net positive for humanity. While there are people who believe the government is invading their privacy, there are many who feel safe because of the surveillance. The surveillance technology allows the government to monitor large groups of people, and through this, the government can ensure that laws are being followed. Surveillance technology has benefits that can help prevent crimes and ecological disasters. If everyone was monitored equally and the information was used only to help protect citizens, the positive effects of the surveillance would outweigh the negatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We do not believe that government surveillance is a net positive for humanity. The issue of surveillance is a highly debated topic that has polarizing opinions on both sides. We believe that surveillance technology is an infringement of personal privacy and a violation of the basic human right to privacy. With the current state of surveillance technology, there is a high chance of misuse and exploitation of private information, which can lead to financial losses and emotional distress. If the technology is used by government to protect people from acts of terrorism and crime, it is at best, an invasion of privacy. At worst, it could be used to target specific groups, or could potentially harm the lives of citizens. We believe that government surveillance technology will cause more harm than good for humanity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Surveillance technology can be a positive for humanity if it is used to improve our lives and make the world a safer place. This was a difficult topic for participants to reach a consensus view on, as it became clear that different participants were concerned about different issues. This is because the word surveillance can mean different things to different people. Some were concerned about how the technology is used, some were concerned about how the technology was used, and others were concerned about whether the use of technology was ethical. For some, their opinions on surveillance technology was dependent on how and why the technology was being used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Government surveillance technology can be a net positive for humanity. However, with any surveillance technology there needs to be a good balance between keeping citizens safe and ensuring their privacy is protected. The use of this technology must be done within the law, with strict regulations in place to ensure the best outcome. The issue is not so much the use of surveillance, but how it is used. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000192.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000192.soc index 29ad676d..417c0eed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000192.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000192.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the NHS is not perfect it is free and therefore a better system than the US health care system that requires payment, which makes it inaccessible for many Americans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, yes we do think that the UK National Health Service is better than the US health care system. However, it is not necessarily better in all aspects. For example, in terms of quality of care, the US system may well be better, but in terms of accessibility of care the UK system is far better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK NHS is much better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. We believe that healthcare should be free for all, and that is why the UK health system is better than the US health system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK National Health Service (NHS) is better than the US health care system. The NHS is free to access, whereas many American's don't have access to health care unless they have insurance. The NHS is free, comprehensive and in our opinion, better than the US health care system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the NHS is not perfect it is free and therefore a better system than the US health care system that requires payment, which makes it inaccessible for many Americans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, yes we do think that the UK National Health Service is better than the US health care system. However, it is not necessarily better in all aspects. For example, in terms of quality of care, the US system may well be better, but in terms of accessibility of care the UK system is far better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK NHS is much better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. We believe that healthcare should be free for all, and that is why the UK health system is better than the US health system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK National Health Service (NHS) is better than the US health care system. The NHS is free to access, whereas many American's don't have access to health care unless they have insurance. The NHS is free, comprehensive and in our opinion, better than the US health care system. 2: 3,2,4,1 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000193.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000193.soc index 821c940e..73ccc0e1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000193.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000193.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we should tax people with a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million. A system in which the wealth is evenly distributed among the people is much fairer than one in which the majority of the wealth is owned by a minority of people. It is reasonable to suggest that after someone earns £10 million, their need for additional wealth decreases, and the money they own after this point is simply for hoarding resources. The rich should not be able to hoard their wealth for themselves and live in luxury while the majority of the population lives in poverty. If everyone pays a fair amount of tax on their income, this will help to redistribute wealth and allow everyone to live a better life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should require people to pay a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million. There is no need for any individual to have so much wealth, especially when the gap between rich and poor continues to increase. £10 million is more than enough for any individual to live extremely comfortably and any more is simply hoarding wealth from the rest of the population. A redistribution of wealth is crucial in trying to make the world a more fair and equal place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not believe that people should pay a fixed tax for wealth over £10 million. We think that people should be entitled to the money they earn. We do not believe that implementing a fixed tax on the wealthy will improve living standards elsewhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not have to pay a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million, because if they can earn that much money, they should be able to keep it. After all, it's their money, and they deserve it. The present Government does not believe in a redistribution of wealth, so we should not impose this requirement on people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we should tax people with a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million. A system in which the wealth is evenly distributed among the people is much fairer than one in which the majority of the wealth is owned by a minority of people. It is reasonable to suggest that after someone earns £10 million, their need for additional wealth decreases, and the money they own after this point is simply for hoarding resources. The rich should not be able to hoard their wealth for themselves and live in luxury while the majority of the population lives in poverty. If everyone pays a fair amount of tax on their income, this will help to redistribute wealth and allow everyone to live a better life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should require people to pay a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million. There is no need for any individual to have so much wealth, especially when the gap between rich and poor continues to increase. £10 million is more than enough for any individual to live extremely comfortably and any more is simply hoarding wealth from the rest of the population. A redistribution of wealth is crucial in trying to make the world a more fair and equal place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not believe that people should pay a fixed tax for wealth over £10 million. We think that people should be entitled to the money they earn. We do not believe that implementing a fixed tax on the wealthy will improve living standards elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not have to pay a fixed tax on any amount of wealth they own above £10 million, because if they can earn that much money, they should be able to keep it. After all, it's their money, and they deserve it. The present Government does not believe in a redistribution of wealth, so we should not impose this requirement on people. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000194.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000194.soc index 3445dbd2..3c1beca3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000194.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000194.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not think that university education should be free for all, because it would discriminate against children attending private school and could be financially problematic for the taxpayer. We believe that tuition fees should be paid as they were previously and the rest of the university system left alone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of free higher education is a good one but in practise would create problems such as over capacity, an increase in time it takes to get a degree, and a potential drop in the quality of the teaching received. The idea of free higher education should be something that is constantly reviewed by the government. It may be something that is completely unworkable, or could become a viable idea in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Education is important. We believe it should be open to all, regardless of family income. We do not feel, however, that students should be allowed to attend university for free, but rather that access to loans should be made easier. This would ensure that all students can attend university, regardless of background, but would ensure that students also take responsibility for the choices they make and take into account the impact of student loans on their lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that all students at state schools should not be able to attend university for free. The costs would be enormous and not necessarily cover the amount of extra income to the country and the tax bracket people would have to go up to to cover the costs would be a lot for most people. There are also the benefits of people having to work for their place and prove that they are worthy of it. If everyone was able to go for free then it may lower the standard of education and that would not be beneficial to the country. We believe that there should be a lower payment for the first couple of years and then the fee should be raised to what it is now and the students who are there at the start should be the ones that keep the lower rate of payment. This would be a good way of paying for it as it would be lower than what it is now but not too low that people are taking the place of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not think that university education should be free for all, because it would discriminate against children attending private school and could be financially problematic for the taxpayer. We believe that tuition fees should be paid as they were previously and the rest of the university system left alone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of free higher education is a good one but in practise would create problems such as over capacity, an increase in time it takes to get a degree, and a potential drop in the quality of the teaching received. The idea of free higher education should be something that is constantly reviewed by the government. It may be something that is completely unworkable, or could become a viable idea in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Education is important. We believe it should be open to all, regardless of family income. We do not feel, however, that students should be allowed to attend university for free, but rather that access to loans should be made easier. This would ensure that all students can attend university, regardless of background, but would ensure that students also take responsibility for the choices they make and take into account the impact of student loans on their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that all students at state schools should not be able to attend university for free. The costs would be enormous and not necessarily cover the amount of extra income to the country and the tax bracket people would have to go up to to cover the costs would be a lot for most people. There are also the benefits of people having to work for their place and prove that they are worthy of it. If everyone was able to go for free then it may lower the standard of education and that would not be beneficial to the country. We believe that there should be a lower payment for the first couple of years and then the fee should be raised to what it is now and the students who are there at the start should be the ones that keep the lower rate of payment. This would be a good way of paying for it as it would be lower than what it is now but not too low that people are taking the place of others. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000195.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000195.soc index 2c1b51c1..edcb5a91 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000195.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000195.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidizing low-cost housing. Most people believed that this is a right of people in society and that the government is responsible for providing this for the disadvantaged members of society. There was some resistance to this in the group, though, with people stating that the government had a duty to spend money on other areas, such as education and healthcare, that are equally important to people’s lives. The majority of the group believed that there should be some limits and that the government should not subsidize all low-cost housing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should subsidize the construction of low-cost housing, however, it must make sure that there are enough funds left to be able to allocate to other areas of the country such as education and healthcare.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should subsidize the construction of low-cost housing. If they do not do so, the housing shortage will only increase and many of the most disadvantaged people in society will be unable to find a place to live. Also, this will also lead to a massive increase in the amount of homeless people on the streets of the UK, which is a huge problem that is already taking place. If the government subsidize the construction of low-cost housing, it will also help to increase employment as many builders and people working in the construction industry will be able to find work. The economy will therefore benefit from this, and so the country will. However, the government should have a limit to how much they spend on this. As the country is facing many huge problems such as the debt and the economy is in trouble, there needs to be enough money to keep the rest of society running efficiently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the UK government should subsidize the construction of low-cost housing. We think that it is a responsibility of the government to provide for the disadvantaged members of society and ensure that they are not at risk of homelessness. The increasing cost of living and house prices has left many people unable to afford to purchase their own home. By subsidizing low-cost housing, the government would be providing a solution to this problem, enabling people to purchase their own home at a price they can afford. It is also important that the government maintain funds to spend on other elements of society such as healthcare and education. A balance needs to be struck between subsidizing low-cost housing and ensuring there is enough money to go around. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidizing low-cost housing. Most people believed that this is a right of people in society and that the government is responsible for providing this for the disadvantaged members of society. There was some resistance to this in the group, though, with people stating that the government had a duty to spend money on other areas, such as education and healthcare, that are equally important to people’s lives. The majority of the group believed that there should be some limits and that the government should not subsidize all low-cost housing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should subsidize the construction of low-cost housing, however, it must make sure that there are enough funds left to be able to allocate to other areas of the country such as education and healthcare.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should subsidize the construction of low-cost housing. If they do not do so, the housing shortage will only increase and many of the most disadvantaged people in society will be unable to find a place to live. Also, this will also lead to a massive increase in the amount of homeless people on the streets of the UK, which is a huge problem that is already taking place. If the government subsidize the construction of low-cost housing, it will also help to increase employment as many builders and people working in the construction industry will be able to find work. The economy will therefore benefit from this, and so the country will. However, the government should have a limit to how much they spend on this. As the country is facing many huge problems such as the debt and the economy is in trouble, there needs to be enough money to keep the rest of society running efficiently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the UK government should subsidize the construction of low-cost housing. We think that it is a responsibility of the government to provide for the disadvantaged members of society and ensure that they are not at risk of homelessness. The increasing cost of living and house prices has left many people unable to afford to purchase their own home. By subsidizing low-cost housing, the government would be providing a solution to this problem, enabling people to purchase their own home at a price they can afford. It is also important that the government maintain funds to spend on other elements of society such as healthcare and education. A balance needs to be struck between subsidizing low-cost housing and ensuring there is enough money to go around. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000196.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000196.soc index 4fecc78d..6dc9908d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000196.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000196.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government is responsible for tackling online disinformation. Unfortunately, they have done nothing of the sort. Instead, they are the perpetrators of disinformation, most obviously during the Brexit campaign. We believe the government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, online disinformation is on the rise. The government needs to take more action and not rely on educating the public. This needs to be followed up with meaningful actions and regulation of the internet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government has not done enough to tackle online disinformation, because members of the current UK government are responsible for one of the biggest disinformation campaigns in the history of the world leading to the Brexit vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government have made a half hearted attempt to educate people about disinformation online, but have been completely ineffective in reducing the spread of false information online. They are too distracted with Brexit to deal with anything else. The story above is completely fictional. It is a story I wrote in a creative writing class at university, in which we were asked to imagine that we were creating a new TV series for a particular network. In this case, the TV network was called Channel 123, and they only made documentaries on conspiracy theories. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government is responsible for tackling online disinformation. Unfortunately, they have done nothing of the sort. Instead, they are the perpetrators of disinformation, most obviously during the Brexit campaign. We believe the government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, online disinformation is on the rise. The government needs to take more action and not rely on educating the public. This needs to be followed up with meaningful actions and regulation of the internet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government has not done enough to tackle online disinformation, because members of the current UK government are responsible for one of the biggest disinformation campaigns in the history of the world leading to the Brexit vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government have made a half hearted attempt to educate people about disinformation online, but have been completely ineffective in reducing the spread of false information online. They are too distracted with Brexit to deal with anything else. The story above is completely fictional. It is a story I wrote in a creative writing class at university, in which we were asked to imagine that we were creating a new TV series for a particular network. In this case, the TV network was called Channel 123, and they only made documentaries on conspiracy theories. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000197.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000197.soc index c174caee..80a58908 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000197.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000197.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a strong consensus that taxes should be increased to fund the health service. We should not wait to increase taxes until all cost-saving measures have been implemented, but we should ensure that all cost-saving measures are considered. The consensus is that the increased taxes should be directed to those that can afford it most. The final consensus statement was arrived at by looking at the pros and cons of each opinion, and trying to incorporate all of the points of view into the final consensus. The challenge of how to increase taxes was not considered, as the focus was on whether to increase taxes or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the participants were in favour of increasing taxes to spend more on the health service. There were concerns over which taxes to increase. Some participants thought that taxes should be increased for those that could afford it most, while others were concerned about the tax increases putting people into debt. It was suggested that taxes should only be increased after all other cost-saving measures have been implemented. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The participants, in general, were in favour of increasing taxes to spend more on the health service. There were concerns over which taxes to increase. Some participants thought that taxes should be increased for those that could afford it most, while others were concerned about the tax increases putting people into debt. It was suggested that taxes should only be increased after all other cost-saving measures have been implemented. Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the participants were in favour of increasing taxes to spend more on the health service. There were concerns over which taxes to increase. Some participants thought that taxes should be increased for those that could afford it most, while others were concerned about the tax increases putting people into debt. It was suggested that taxes should only be increased after all other cost-saving measures have been implemented. Conclusion: By allowing a group of participants to give their opinions on a question and their critiques on the first draft of the group's consensus statement, the group is then able to review the first draft consensus statement and revise it to reach a final consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a strong consensus that taxes should be increased to fund the health service. We should not wait to increase taxes until all cost-saving measures have been implemented, but we should ensure that all cost-saving measures are considered. The consensus is that the increased taxes should be directed to those that can afford it most. The final consensus statement was arrived at by looking at the pros and cons of each opinion, and trying to incorporate all of the points of view into the final consensus. The challenge of how to increase taxes was not considered, as the focus was on whether to increase taxes or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the participants were in favour of increasing taxes to spend more on the health service. There were concerns over which taxes to increase. Some participants thought that taxes should be increased for those that could afford it most, while others were concerned about the tax increases putting people into debt. It was suggested that taxes should only be increased after all other cost-saving measures have been implemented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The participants, in general, were in favour of increasing taxes to spend more on the health service. There were concerns over which taxes to increase. Some participants thought that taxes should be increased for those that could afford it most, while others were concerned about the tax increases putting people into debt. It was suggested that taxes should only be increased after all other cost-saving measures have been implemented. Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the participants were in favour of increasing taxes to spend more on the health service. There were concerns over which taxes to increase. Some participants thought that taxes should be increased for those that could afford it most, while others were concerned about the tax increases putting people into debt. It was suggested that taxes should only be increased after all other cost-saving measures have been implemented. Conclusion: By allowing a group of participants to give their opinions on a question and their critiques on the first draft of the group's consensus statement, the group is then able to review the first draft consensus statement and revise it to reach a final consensus. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000198.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000198.soc index f28671a7..e521bee1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000198.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000198.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK NHS is better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. However, the quality of healthcare in the US can be better than in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK NHS is better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. We believe that healthcare should be free for all, and that is why the UK health system is better than the US health system. (c) Main Theme - a group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK NHS is much better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. The UK NHS may not be as advanced as the US health system in terms of some aspects of care, but the fact that it is free is the most important aspect of the NHS and we believe that healthcare should be free for all, and that is why the UK health system is better than the US health system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK NHS is much better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. We believe that healthcare should be free for all, and that is why the UK health system is better than the US health system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK NHS is better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. However, the quality of healthcare in the US can be better than in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK NHS is better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. We believe that healthcare should be free for all, and that is why the UK health system is better than the US health system. (c) Main Theme - a group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK NHS is much better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. The UK NHS may not be as advanced as the US health system in terms of some aspects of care, but the fact that it is free is the most important aspect of the NHS and we believe that healthcare should be free for all, and that is why the UK health system is better than the US health system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK NHS is much better than the US health system. The UK system offers free healthcare for all people. In the US, the health system is not free, and it can be very expensive. We believe that healthcare should be free for all, and that is why the UK health system is better than the US health system. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000199.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000199.soc index 0348bcc0..eae606b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000199.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000199.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government has the responsibility of tackling disinformation. However, they have done nothing of the sort. Instead, they are the perpetrators of disinformation, most obviously during the Brexit campaign. We believe the government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government is responsible for tackling online disinformation, but they have failed to do so. In fact, they are the perpetrators of disinformation. During the Brexit vote, they lied to the public with claims of “£350m a week for the NHS” which turned out to be false. We believe that the government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government is responsible for tackling online disinformation. Unfortunately, they have done nothing of the sort. Instead, they are the perpetrators of disinformation, most obviously during the Brexit campaign. We believe the government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government has not done enough to tackle online disinformation. In fact, the government has used disinformation during the Brexit campaign and their mismanagement of the pandemic. The government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. Conclusion This experiment has shown that the combination of Crowdsourced Open Source Intelligence (COSI) and Qualitative Research can be used to discover insights on highly complex topics, such as the 2020 pandemic and the COVID-19 disease. In particular, it has been shown that a sufficiently diverse group of participants can be used to overcome the typical bias and lack of objectivity of qualitative research. In addition, the experiment showed that participants could be used to gain insights into a very controversial subject. This experiment has also shown that this combination of qualitative research and crowdsourcing can be used to conduct studies which are unobtrusive. Unlike the typical qualitative research method of interviewing participants, this method did not interrupt any of the participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government has the responsibility of tackling disinformation. However, they have done nothing of the sort. Instead, they are the perpetrators of disinformation, most obviously during the Brexit campaign. We believe the government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government is responsible for tackling online disinformation, but they have failed to do so. In fact, they are the perpetrators of disinformation. During the Brexit vote, they lied to the public with claims of “£350m a week for the NHS” which turned out to be false. We believe that the government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government is responsible for tackling online disinformation. Unfortunately, they have done nothing of the sort. Instead, they are the perpetrators of disinformation, most obviously during the Brexit campaign. We believe the government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government has not done enough to tackle online disinformation. In fact, the government has used disinformation during the Brexit campaign and their mismanagement of the pandemic. The government should be held accountable for this, and for their other mishandling of the pandemic. Conclusion This experiment has shown that the combination of Crowdsourced Open Source Intelligence (COSI) and Qualitative Research can be used to discover insights on highly complex topics, such as the 2020 pandemic and the COVID-19 disease. In particular, it has been shown that a sufficiently diverse group of participants can be used to overcome the typical bias and lack of objectivity of qualitative research. In addition, the experiment showed that participants could be used to gain insights into a very controversial subject. This experiment has also shown that this combination of qualitative research and crowdsourcing can be used to conduct studies which are unobtrusive. Unlike the typical qualitative research method of interviewing participants, this method did not interrupt any of the participants. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000200.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000200.soc index a4cacd8d..2992ec79 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000200.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000200.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, they are not doing enough. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. They are focusing on the wrong issues and more should be done to help homeless people in this country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. They should be using the money spent on hotels for refugees to provide accommodation for the homeless instead. In order to provide shelter to the homeless, the government should stop their useless bureaucracy and allocate money to build more shelters. By building more shelters and offering more accommodation to the homeless, the government can improve their lives and help them find work and be part of the community -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, they are not. If the government can afford to rent out hotels and apartments for refugees, then they should be doing the same for homeless people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, they are not doing enough. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. They are focusing on the wrong issues and more should be done to help homeless people in this country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. They should be using the money spent on hotels for refugees to provide accommodation for the homeless instead. In order to provide shelter to the homeless, the government should stop their useless bureaucracy and allocate money to build more shelters. By building more shelters and offering more accommodation to the homeless, the government can improve their lives and help them find work and be part of the community +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, they are not. If the government can afford to rent out hotels and apartments for refugees, then they should be doing the same for homeless people. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000201.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000201.soc index fa496041..1780e54e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000201.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000201.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. The government needs to provide accommodation to the homeless. By providing the homeless with accommodation, the government will be able to help them get back on their feet and give them a chance to find work and become a part of the community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a homeless epidemic in the UK, with approximately 300,000 homeless people in Britain. With the government putting people up in hotels and giving them financial aid during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government should also provide shelter for the homeless. More shelters are needed, and the government should help people get off the streets and into accommodation, where they can start to rebuild their lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. They should be using the money spent on hotels for refugees to provide accommodation for the homeless instead. In order to provide shelter to the homeless, the government should stop their useless bureaucracy and allocate money to build more shelters. By building more shelters and offering more accommodation to the homeless, the government can improve their lives and help them find work and be part of the community This is the final version of the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. They should be using the money spent on hotels for refugees to provide accommodation for the homeless instead. In order to provide shelter to the homeless, the government should stop their useless bureaucracy and allocate money to build more shelters. By building more shelters and offering more accommodation to the homeless, the government can improve their lives and help them find work and be part of the community +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. The government needs to provide accommodation to the homeless. By providing the homeless with accommodation, the government will be able to help them get back on their feet and give them a chance to find work and become a part of the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a homeless epidemic in the UK, with approximately 300,000 homeless people in Britain. With the government putting people up in hotels and giving them financial aid during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government should also provide shelter for the homeless. More shelters are needed, and the government should help people get off the streets and into accommodation, where they can start to rebuild their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. They should be using the money spent on hotels for refugees to provide accommodation for the homeless instead. In order to provide shelter to the homeless, the government should stop their useless bureaucracy and allocate money to build more shelters. By building more shelters and offering more accommodation to the homeless, the government can improve their lives and help them find work and be part of the community This is the final version of the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government is not doing enough to combat homelessness. They should be using the money spent on hotels for refugees to provide accommodation for the homeless instead. In order to provide shelter to the homeless, the government should stop their useless bureaucracy and allocate money to build more shelters. By building more shelters and offering more accommodation to the homeless, the government can improve their lives and help them find work and be part of the community 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000202.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000202.soc index 47ebb4fc..85846488 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000202.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000202.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, privately-owned media adds some value to society. Firstly, private media adds a wider range of perspectives that will be more likely to reach a wider audience. Secondly, private media can provide valuable entertainment to society, which can often be overlooked in publicly owned media. Finally, privately-owned media can provide a range of perspectives and entertainment to society, which can also be sometimes missing in publicly-owned media. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is value in allowing privately-owned media. The different perspectives can provide the public with a more rounded and balanced view of events and issues. However, there are issues with private ownership, particularly around whether private media can be impartial and whether they can maintain high standards and principles, and avoid a focus on profit-making. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is value in privately owned media, as it can provide different views to the publically owned media. It is also important for the government to not be biased in their reporting to ensure a more balanced view on news and current affairs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of privately owned media. The thought being that government ownership is very dangerous. This creates a "echo chamber" of opinions and only views that fit the government agenda are shown. The private sector, although not perfect, provides a plurality of opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, privately-owned media adds some value to society. Firstly, private media adds a wider range of perspectives that will be more likely to reach a wider audience. Secondly, private media can provide valuable entertainment to society, which can often be overlooked in publicly owned media. Finally, privately-owned media can provide a range of perspectives and entertainment to society, which can also be sometimes missing in publicly-owned media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is value in allowing privately-owned media. The different perspectives can provide the public with a more rounded and balanced view of events and issues. However, there are issues with private ownership, particularly around whether private media can be impartial and whether they can maintain high standards and principles, and avoid a focus on profit-making. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is value in privately owned media, as it can provide different views to the publically owned media. It is also important for the government to not be biased in their reporting to ensure a more balanced view on news and current affairs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of privately owned media. The thought being that government ownership is very dangerous. This creates a "echo chamber" of opinions and only views that fit the government agenda are shown. The private sector, although not perfect, provides a plurality of opinions. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000203.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000203.soc index 60ce9846..660ed59e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000203.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000203.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should introduce a law that says all adults must vote in all elections. Voting is one of the most basic democratic rights we have and we should not be forcing people to vote. We should introduce the law so that those who don't care to vote are encouraged to vote. Even if they don't vote for the right candidate, it still allows them to have a say in what happens in our society. If everyone who has the right to vote chooses to do so, the more representative the government will be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think we should introduce a law that says all adults must vote in all elections. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a law that requires all adults to vote in all elections is unnecessary and will only create undue stress on people to engage in something they don't feel comfortable doing. However, we do believe it is important to encourage people to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging as many people as possible to vote. However, there was no agreement as to whether it should be made a legal requirement to vote. The opinion of one person suggested that the result would be skewed by people voting randomly and this would create a representative government. The opinion of one person suggested that it would create a more representative government. A second opinion was that people should have the choice to abstain from voting if they desire. A third opinion was that it would just put pressure on people to vote and it would be counterproductive. In conclusion, it was decided that this topic was too complex to make a strong conclusion. The group could not come to an agreement as to whether it should be made a legal requirement for people to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should introduce a law that says all adults must vote in all elections. Voting is one of the most basic democratic rights we have and we should not be forcing people to vote. We should introduce the law so that those who don't care to vote are encouraged to vote. Even if they don't vote for the right candidate, it still allows them to have a say in what happens in our society. If everyone who has the right to vote chooses to do so, the more representative the government will be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think we should introduce a law that says all adults must vote in all elections. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a law that requires all adults to vote in all elections is unnecessary and will only create undue stress on people to engage in something they don't feel comfortable doing. However, we do believe it is important to encourage people to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging as many people as possible to vote. However, there was no agreement as to whether it should be made a legal requirement to vote. The opinion of one person suggested that the result would be skewed by people voting randomly and this would create a representative government. The opinion of one person suggested that it would create a more representative government. A second opinion was that people should have the choice to abstain from voting if they desire. A third opinion was that it would just put pressure on people to vote and it would be counterproductive. In conclusion, it was decided that this topic was too complex to make a strong conclusion. The group could not come to an agreement as to whether it should be made a legal requirement for people to vote. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000204.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000204.soc index 2d9ab5a4..43954ef8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000204.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000204.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the price of the same product should be the same in all supermarkets. However, where a supermarket is able to prove that its business operations (e.g. transportation of products) mean that it incurs higher costs than other supermarkets, they should be allowed to charge higher prices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a set RRP for each product. Supermarkets should be allowed to have one item on promotion at any one time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product, unless they are branded. This is because supermarkets are businesses and will lose money if they have to lower their prices, especially as they may need to increase them later to compensate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: All supermarkets should be legally obliged to charge the same price for the same product, as long as all the ingredients and manufacturing process is the same. They should be allowed to offer deals on certain products to incentivise sales, but this should not apply to own brand foods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the price of the same product should be the same in all supermarkets. However, where a supermarket is able to prove that its business operations (e.g. transportation of products) mean that it incurs higher costs than other supermarkets, they should be allowed to charge higher prices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a set RRP for each product. Supermarkets should be allowed to have one item on promotion at any one time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product, unless they are branded. This is because supermarkets are businesses and will lose money if they have to lower their prices, especially as they may need to increase them later to compensate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - All supermarkets should be legally obliged to charge the same price for the same product, as long as all the ingredients and manufacturing process is the same. They should be allowed to offer deals on certain products to incentivise sales, but this should not apply to own brand foods. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000205.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000205.soc index 7d005271..52abfeb4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000205.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000205.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The positive recreational-medical benefits of legalising recreational cannabis use far outweigh the negative risks and are highly recommend. We should be working towards legalisation with heavy taxes to regulate and to fund education and public works.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should legalise recreational cannabis use, as it can help people with a lot of medical conditions. The people currently growing and selling it illegally could make money out of growing it legally and selling it in government licensed shops. It should be taxed, so we can use that money to fund public services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, legalising marijuana is the way forward. By taxing it we can put money back into the economy. This would be used to improve our schools and public works, which in turn would mean we have better skilled workers for the future. The crime rate would be reduced, and this would mean we have less money to spend on the police. It would also be more regulated so people will have a better idea of what they're smoking. The only concern would be with it's recreational use, and that is where the dangers can be found. If people are aware of what they're smoking, and what it can do to them, then we will be able to better regulate this drug and prevent the effects of it being so detrimental. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that cannabis should be legalised for recreational use, and heavily taxed. This will reduce crime, and also provide funding for schools and other public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The positive recreational-medical benefits of legalising recreational cannabis use far outweigh the negative risks and are highly recommend. We should be working towards legalisation with heavy taxes to regulate and to fund education and public works.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should legalise recreational cannabis use, as it can help people with a lot of medical conditions. The people currently growing and selling it illegally could make money out of growing it legally and selling it in government licensed shops. It should be taxed, so we can use that money to fund public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, legalising marijuana is the way forward. By taxing it we can put money back into the economy. This would be used to improve our schools and public works, which in turn would mean we have better skilled workers for the future. The crime rate would be reduced, and this would mean we have less money to spend on the police. It would also be more regulated so people will have a better idea of what they're smoking. The only concern would be with it's recreational use, and that is where the dangers can be found. If people are aware of what they're smoking, and what it can do to them, then we will be able to better regulate this drug and prevent the effects of it being so detrimental. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that cannabis should be legalised for recreational use, and heavily taxed. This will reduce crime, and also provide funding for schools and other public services. 4: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000206.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000206.soc index d2237663..88ce1b26 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000206.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000206.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be some restrictions on the right to demonstrate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the right to demonstrate should not be restricted, however when it stops emergency vehicles or people going about their daily lives then restrictions are necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be restrictions on the right to demonstrate if it poses a risk to the public in general. Demonstrations should be permitted and in fact encouraged as it gives people the opportunity to voice their opinions and feelings on a certain issue. However, it should be limited and closely monitored to avoid a break down of law and order. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. The right to demonstrate is a core human right, that should not be restricted by the government. It is one of the core pillars of basic freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate. Yes to the ones that causes mayhem in public e.g sitting on motor wars or randomly going to art places and destroying a painting for no reason. But same time if it's a peaceful demonstration then that's totally fine and there shouldn't be no restrictions. It would be wrong to put restrictions on the right to demonstrate. We are all entitled to our opinions. We are also entitled to display our opinions in the form of demonstration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be some restrictions on the right to demonstrate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the right to demonstrate should not be restricted, however when it stops emergency vehicles or people going about their daily lives then restrictions are necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be restrictions on the right to demonstrate if it poses a risk to the public in general. Demonstrations should be permitted and in fact encouraged as it gives people the opportunity to voice their opinions and feelings on a certain issue. However, it should be limited and closely monitored to avoid a break down of law and order. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. The right to demonstrate is a core human right, that should not be restricted by the government. It is one of the core pillars of basic freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate. Yes to the ones that causes mayhem in public e.g sitting on motor wars or randomly going to art places and destroying a painting for no reason. But same time if it's a peaceful demonstration then that's totally fine and there shouldn't be no restrictions. It would be wrong to put restrictions on the right to demonstrate. We are all entitled to our opinions. We are also entitled to display our opinions in the form of demonstration. 4: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000207.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000207.soc index 0667d075..884a2cc8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000207.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000207.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, yes the UK should provide some sort of subsidy to poorer parts of the UK, but this should be means tested and targeted at helping those who really need it and are making efforts to improve their lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should provide some sort of subsidy to poorer parts of the UK. This is because the cost of living is higher in those areas and it is important for the government to ensure that all citizens are cared for and their living standards are the same, no matter where they live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the UK should provide some sort of subsidy to poorer parts of the UK. This would help make their living standards better and will make them feel included and that they are cared for. It is the governments responsibility to care for their citizens and by providing subsidy to poorer parts, the government will make citizens happy and happy citizens make better societies. The subsidy should be means tested so people that actually need the help receive it. Poorer is subjective based on where you live. There is nothing stopping people from poorer communities getting educated and moving to higher paying areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should provide subsidies to the poorer parts of the UK. This will improve living standards for people living in these parts. There should be an equal distribution of wealth across the UK, so that everyone can live with a certain standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, yes the UK should provide some sort of subsidy to poorer parts of the UK, but this should be means tested and targeted at helping those who really need it and are making efforts to improve their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should provide some sort of subsidy to poorer parts of the UK. This is because the cost of living is higher in those areas and it is important for the government to ensure that all citizens are cared for and their living standards are the same, no matter where they live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the UK should provide some sort of subsidy to poorer parts of the UK. This would help make their living standards better and will make them feel included and that they are cared for. It is the governments responsibility to care for their citizens and by providing subsidy to poorer parts, the government will make citizens happy and happy citizens make better societies. The subsidy should be means tested so people that actually need the help receive it. Poorer is subjective based on where you live. There is nothing stopping people from poorer communities getting educated and moving to higher paying areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should provide subsidies to the poorer parts of the UK. This will improve living standards for people living in these parts. There should be an equal distribution of wealth across the UK, so that everyone can live with a certain standard of living. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000208.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000208.soc index 348d145c..f095a7c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000208.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000208.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be tighter restrictions on what can be posted on social media. This is to prevent the spread of lies, misinformation and abuse which leads to cyber-bullying and worse, sometimes even leading to deaths. The group believes that this can be achieved by the following: a) The public should be informed about the consequences of spreading lies or untruths and misinformation on social media. b) People should be encouraged to fact-check their information on reputable news sites before posting or sharing on social media. c) Social media companies should develop tools to help fact-check information. d) Social media companies should make their terms of use easier to understand and easier to report to them. e) Social media companies should do more to tackle cyber-bullying by making it easier to report and quickly addressing reported issues. f) Laws should be strengthened to make it easier to take action against abusers on social media. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be tighter restrictions on what can be posted on social media. People may incite hatred as a result of their comments & may cause people to commit or think about acts of aggression. People may also create fake stories which also stir up misinformation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People need to be responsible for their own actions, and there is no substitute for good parenting, teaching and guidance on appropriate behaviour. Therefore, we should not regulate freedom of expression on social media, but instead encourage individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions, and help people of all ages understand the long term implications of their posts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be tighter restrictions on social media to prevent the posting of harmful and misleading content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be tighter restrictions on what can be posted on social media. This is to prevent the spread of lies, misinformation and abuse which leads to cyber-bullying and worse, sometimes even leading to deaths. The group believes that this can be achieved by the following: a) The public should be informed about the consequences of spreading lies or untruths and misinformation on social media. b) People should be encouraged to fact-check their information on reputable news sites before posting or sharing on social media. c) Social media companies should develop tools to help fact-check information. d) Social media companies should make their terms of use easier to understand and easier to report to them. e) Social media companies should do more to tackle cyber-bullying by making it easier to report and quickly addressing reported issues. f) Laws should be strengthened to make it easier to take action against abusers on social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be tighter restrictions on what can be posted on social media. People may incite hatred as a result of their comments & may cause people to commit or think about acts of aggression. People may also create fake stories which also stir up misinformation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People need to be responsible for their own actions, and there is no substitute for good parenting, teaching and guidance on appropriate behaviour. Therefore, we should not regulate freedom of expression on social media, but instead encourage individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions, and help people of all ages understand the long term implications of their posts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be tighter restrictions on social media to prevent the posting of harmful and misleading content. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000209.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000209.soc index 3c87d173..5801ba89 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000209.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000209.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not ban tax-free shopping. It can provide an opportunity for consumers to save money on purchases they might not be able to afford otherwise. Also, it can be a source of revenue as tax-free shopping can generate revenue for retailers and governments through various fees and commissions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although tax free shopping can be a great opportunity for consumers to save money, the fact that it can generate revenue for retailers and governments means that it should not be banned. However, the group of participants recommended that it should be made easier for consumers to know when tax-free shopping is available to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we do not think tax-free shopping should be banned but we agree that in some cases, taxing should be more comprehensive and universal. The group felt that in many cases tax-free shopping is an important factor for the tourism industry as it promotes international tourism and offers visitors the opportunity to shop without having to worry about tax. The group felt that a solution could be to limit the amount that visitors can spend tax-free per year. For example, it could be that people could shop tax-free up to £5000 per year but anything over that amount would be taxed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on tax-free shopping. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not ban tax-free shopping. It can provide an opportunity for consumers to save money on purchases they might not be able to afford otherwise. Also, it can be a source of revenue as tax-free shopping can generate revenue for retailers and governments through various fees and commissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although tax free shopping can be a great opportunity for consumers to save money, the fact that it can generate revenue for retailers and governments means that it should not be banned. However, the group of participants recommended that it should be made easier for consumers to know when tax-free shopping is available to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we do not think tax-free shopping should be banned but we agree that in some cases, taxing should be more comprehensive and universal. The group felt that in many cases tax-free shopping is an important factor for the tourism industry as it promotes international tourism and offers visitors the opportunity to shop without having to worry about tax. The group felt that a solution could be to limit the amount that visitors can spend tax-free per year. For example, it could be that people could shop tax-free up to £5000 per year but anything over that amount would be taxed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on tax-free shopping. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000210.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000210.soc index 478f7adf..7ad1b4ba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000210.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000210.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, yes the government should fund more public art in the UK because although some other things are more important, art can be seen as a cultural and a social necessity and funding art may increase tourism, which can then help with the economy. I disagree with this consensus because of the state that the UK is in at the moment. The public may not even see it as a necessity and it may even have a negative impact on the economy. I agree with this consensus because art is important and should be funded. It may even increase tourism, which is a huge benefit to the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that funding for public art should be increased in the UK. Public art is something that has the power to make a real difference to people's lives. It can also provide a great way to make an area more attractive to tourists and visitors, thus boosting the local economy. If there is a push for this from the government, it will provide an extra impetus to local councils to invest in public art, and this will bring great benefits to the local communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of funding for public art in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group have come to the consensus that the government should not fund more public art in the UK. They came to this conclusion because the government has a responsibility to its people and as such, needs to spend money on what is important to them. Art is not an essential thing to most people in the UK. Public art can be funded by large corporations or by private citizens, which would make it fairer. It is not the responsibility of the government to fund public art. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, yes the government should fund more public art in the UK because although some other things are more important, art can be seen as a cultural and a social necessity and funding art may increase tourism, which can then help with the economy. I disagree with this consensus because of the state that the UK is in at the moment. The public may not even see it as a necessity and it may even have a negative impact on the economy. I agree with this consensus because art is important and should be funded. It may even increase tourism, which is a huge benefit to the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that funding for public art should be increased in the UK. Public art is something that has the power to make a real difference to people's lives. It can also provide a great way to make an area more attractive to tourists and visitors, thus boosting the local economy. If there is a push for this from the government, it will provide an extra impetus to local councils to invest in public art, and this will bring great benefits to the local communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of funding for public art in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group have come to the consensus that the government should not fund more public art in the UK. They came to this conclusion because the government has a responsibility to its people and as such, needs to spend money on what is important to them. Art is not an essential thing to most people in the UK. Public art can be funded by large corporations or by private citizens, which would make it fairer. It is not the responsibility of the government to fund public art. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000211.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000211.soc index 281341ed..8d18cd74 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000211.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000211.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the government should subsidise electric cars. The environment needs to be looked after and cars are not helping the problem. Electric cars are more expensive and this will deter people from buying them. The government need to help these people with subsidies to encourage them to buy these cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Electric cars should be subsidised by the government. They are a great way of helping people in the fight against climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Electric cars are good for the environment, but people will not buy them unless they are incentivised. We need to help them buy them by subsidising them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should subsidise electric cars in some way. They will be a very important part of the future but people cannot currently afford them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the government should subsidise electric cars. The environment needs to be looked after and cars are not helping the problem. Electric cars are more expensive and this will deter people from buying them. The government need to help these people with subsidies to encourage them to buy these cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Electric cars should be subsidised by the government. They are a great way of helping people in the fight against climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Electric cars are good for the environment, but people will not buy them unless they are incentivised. We need to help them buy them by subsidising them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should subsidise electric cars in some way. They will be a very important part of the future but people cannot currently afford them. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000212.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000212.soc index 4d8d24a7..8ce1d79c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000212.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000212.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, gender-based words should not be removed from our language -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, they should not be removed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although history has often oppressed females, gender-based language remains a part of our history, culture and language. Language shifts are made organically and subtly, and this may be the case in the future that we don't have gender-based words, but a sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is no need to change our language as it has been in place for so long and has not really caused any issues in the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, gender-based words should not be removed from our language +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, they should not be removed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although history has often oppressed females, gender-based language remains a part of our history, culture and language. Language shifts are made organically and subtly, and this may be the case in the future that we don't have gender-based words, but a sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is no need to change our language as it has been in place for so long and has not really caused any issues in the past. 2: 3,4,1,2 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000213.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000213.soc index 8b5629ab..a82e9a7f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000213.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000213.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: History has often oppressed females, and for this reason gender-based language may appear to be in need of a sudden change. Language, however, changes organically and subtly, and in time we may see gender-based words removed from our language. A sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Gender-based words have been part of our language for hundreds of years, and although history has often oppressed females, gender-based language remains a part of our history, culture and language. Language shifts are made organically and subtly, and this may be the case in the future that we don't have gender-based words, but a sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although history has often oppressed females, gender-based language remains a part of our history, culture and language. Language shifts are made organically and subtly, and this may be the case in the future that we don't have gender-based words, but a sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although history has often oppressed females, gender-based language remains a part of our history, culture and language. Language shifts are made organically and subtly, and this may be the case in the future that we don't have gender-based words, but a sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - History has often oppressed females, and for this reason gender-based language may appear to be in need of a sudden change. Language, however, changes organically and subtly, and in time we may see gender-based words removed from our language. A sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Gender-based words have been part of our language for hundreds of years, and although history has often oppressed females, gender-based language remains a part of our history, culture and language. Language shifts are made organically and subtly, and this may be the case in the future that we don't have gender-based words, but a sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although history has often oppressed females, gender-based language remains a part of our history, culture and language. Language shifts are made organically and subtly, and this may be the case in the future that we don't have gender-based words, but a sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although history has often oppressed females, gender-based language remains a part of our history, culture and language. Language shifts are made organically and subtly, and this may be the case in the future that we don't have gender-based words, but a sudden change is not necessary and will help nobody. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000214.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000214.soc index b46e8d08..74231be8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000214.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000214.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product, unless the products are branded. This is because supermarkets are businesses and will lose money if they have to lower their prices, especially as they may need to increase them later to compensate. This should not apply to certain categories, including own-brand foods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product, unless they are branded. This is because supermarkets are businesses and will lose money if they have to lower their prices, especially as they may need to increase them later to compensate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product, unless it is branded, due to the nature of a supermarket being a business. The process above shows how an initial view was formed, then critiqued, and then improved upon until a final view was reached that could be shared by all participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product. This is because supermarkets are businesses and will lose money if they have to lower their prices, especially as they may need to increase them later to compensate. The one exception is for branded products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product, unless the products are branded. This is because supermarkets are businesses and will lose money if they have to lower their prices, especially as they may need to increase them later to compensate. This should not apply to certain categories, including own-brand foods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product, unless they are branded. This is because supermarkets are businesses and will lose money if they have to lower their prices, especially as they may need to increase them later to compensate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product, unless it is branded, due to the nature of a supermarket being a business. The process above shows how an initial view was formed, then critiqued, and then improved upon until a final view was reached that could be shared by all participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, supermarkets should not be legally required to charge the same price for the same product. This is because supermarkets are businesses and will lose money if they have to lower their prices, especially as they may need to increase them later to compensate. The one exception is for branded products. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000215.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000215.soc index a89c21a8..cda9d403 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000215.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000215.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of banning the smoking of cigarettes in public places. Most people felt that passive smoking should be avoided. Some people thought that in places where smoking was already banned, for example in bars and restaurants, that smoking in public outdoor spaces should be allowed if the smoking is taking place in a designated area away from other people. However, if the question was asked as to whether or not we should ban the smoking of cigarettes in all public places, then all people agreed that this should be the case, in particular to protect children and vulnerable people from exposure to passive smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban the smoking of cigarettes in public places. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, smoking in public should be banned, for the safety of the non-smokers and children, and for the health benefits of the smokers. However, it is unfair to assume that all smokers are stupid and should be banned from making their own choices. While smoking is an unhealthy and disgusting habit, banning it completely will do nothing but create a large underground black market and force smokers to commit crimes to get their fix. It's unfair to non-smokers and smokers alike to have to deal with the side effects of cigarettes, and smokers should try to kick the habit to save their own lives, but banning it completely is not the solution. (written by Sam Kelleher) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although smoking cigarettes is a personal choice, and we support a person's right to make their own decisions, the problem of passive smoking is an issue that needs to be considered. Although we feel that it would be impossible to ban smoking completely, it is our view that it should be banned in public places where people can't avoid the smell or the smoke from cigarettes. For example, smoking in a closed bus or train carriage should be banned, and smokers should be able to smoke only in the designated smoking area, which should be in the open air and away from people who don't smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of banning the smoking of cigarettes in public places. Most people felt that passive smoking should be avoided. Some people thought that in places where smoking was already banned, for example in bars and restaurants, that smoking in public outdoor spaces should be allowed if the smoking is taking place in a designated area away from other people. However, if the question was asked as to whether or not we should ban the smoking of cigarettes in all public places, then all people agreed that this should be the case, in particular to protect children and vulnerable people from exposure to passive smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban the smoking of cigarettes in public places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, smoking in public should be banned, for the safety of the non-smokers and children, and for the health benefits of the smokers. However, it is unfair to assume that all smokers are stupid and should be banned from making their own choices. While smoking is an unhealthy and disgusting habit, banning it completely will do nothing but create a large underground black market and force smokers to commit crimes to get their fix. It's unfair to non-smokers and smokers alike to have to deal with the side effects of cigarettes, and smokers should try to kick the habit to save their own lives, but banning it completely is not the solution. (written by Sam Kelleher) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although smoking cigarettes is a personal choice, and we support a person's right to make their own decisions, the problem of passive smoking is an issue that needs to be considered. Although we feel that it would be impossible to ban smoking completely, it is our view that it should be banned in public places where people can't avoid the smell or the smoke from cigarettes. For example, smoking in a closed bus or train carriage should be banned, and smokers should be able to smoke only in the designated smoking area, which should be in the open air and away from people who don't smoke. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000216.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000216.soc index e94f594e..03cdd672 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000216.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000216.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't believe that it would be possible to fund this scheme in the UK, and that it would not work in the long term. We don't think that it would be a long term sustainable option and would have huge negative impacts on business. If this was an option that was adopted, we think it would make the economy worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, as people would be less motivated to work for themselves and that would cause businesses to suffer. However, we think that an unconditional basic income would be beneficial for the economy in the long term as people would be able to invest more and increase productivity and supply. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the idea of a basic income for all UK citizens is very attractive, the initial consensus is that the £10,000 amount is not feasible and will not lead to an improvement in the economy. The consensus view was that the amount should be set at a more realistic level and also that the amount should be means-tested so that those in most need would be eligible for it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of a universal basic income in the UK is not a bad idea in theory but may not work in practice as £10,000 per year is not enough to live on. There would also be problems with implementation of the scheme, as people could take advantage of it. The issue is also not everyone's situation is the same, for example a single person with no children will have more disposable income than a family of 4 with two young children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't believe that it would be possible to fund this scheme in the UK, and that it would not work in the long term. We don't think that it would be a long term sustainable option and would have huge negative impacts on business. If this was an option that was adopted, we think it would make the economy worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, as people would be less motivated to work for themselves and that would cause businesses to suffer. However, we think that an unconditional basic income would be beneficial for the economy in the long term as people would be able to invest more and increase productivity and supply. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the idea of a basic income for all UK citizens is very attractive, the initial consensus is that the £10,000 amount is not feasible and will not lead to an improvement in the economy. The consensus view was that the amount should be set at a more realistic level and also that the amount should be means-tested so that those in most need would be eligible for it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of a universal basic income in the UK is not a bad idea in theory but may not work in practice as £10,000 per year is not enough to live on. There would also be problems with implementation of the scheme, as people could take advantage of it. The issue is also not everyone's situation is the same, for example a single person with no children will have more disposable income than a family of 4 with two young children. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000217.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000217.soc index 06bf0713..ca7a8d87 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000217.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000217.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. There should be some restrictions on the right to demonstrate to ensure that people's safety is maintained and also to ensure that emergency vehicles are able to go through roads that may be blocked by a demonstration. The right to demonstrate is a core human right, that should not be restricted by the government. It is one of the core pillars of basic freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate. Yes to the ones that causes mayhem in public e.g sitting on motor wars or randomly going to art places and destroying a painting for no reason. But same time if it's a peaceful demonstration then that's totally fine and there shouldn't be no restrictions. It would be wrong to put restrictions on the right to demonstrate. We are all entitled to our opinions. We are also entitled to display our opinions in the form of demonstration. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no restrictions on the right to demonstrate. The right to demonstrate is a core human right, that should not be restricted by the government. It is one of the core pillars of basic freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate. The right to demonstrate should be unquestionable, but the right to destroy property shouldn't be. Burning cars of completely uninvolved innocent people, looting businesses, destroying artwork or businesses should not be allowable. People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. It is important to note that the main changes made to the consensus statement were changes that the participant making the critique themselves agreed with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. The right to demonstrate is a core human right, that should not be restricted by the government. It is one of the core pillars of basic freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate. Yes to the ones that causes mayhem in public e.g sitting on motor wars or randomly going to art places and destroying a painting for no reason. But same time if it's a peaceful demonstration then that's totally fine and there shouldn't be no restrictions. It would be wrong to put restrictions on the right to demonstrate. We are all entitled to our opinions. We are also entitled to display our opinions in the form of demonstration. Group 1 and Group 2 then shared their final consensus statement with the rest of the class, who voted for the group with the better consensus statement. Group 2 was voted the winner, with the class agreeing that their final consensus statement was the better statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. There should be some restrictions on the right to demonstrate to ensure that people's safety is maintained and also to ensure that emergency vehicles are able to go through roads that may be blocked by a demonstration. The right to demonstrate is a core human right, that should not be restricted by the government. It is one of the core pillars of basic freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate. Yes to the ones that causes mayhem in public e.g sitting on motor wars or randomly going to art places and destroying a painting for no reason. But same time if it's a peaceful demonstration then that's totally fine and there shouldn't be no restrictions. It would be wrong to put restrictions on the right to demonstrate. We are all entitled to our opinions. We are also entitled to display our opinions in the form of demonstration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no restrictions on the right to demonstrate. The right to demonstrate is a core human right, that should not be restricted by the government. It is one of the core pillars of basic freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate. The right to demonstrate should be unquestionable, but the right to destroy property shouldn't be. Burning cars of completely uninvolved innocent people, looting businesses, destroying artwork or businesses should not be allowable. People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. It is important to note that the main changes made to the consensus statement were changes that the participant making the critique themselves agreed with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be allowed to demonstrate for any issue they are passionate about as long as the demonstration is peaceful and does not harm or stop other people going about there daily lives. The right to demonstrate is a core human right, that should not be restricted by the government. It is one of the core pillars of basic freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate. Yes to the ones that causes mayhem in public e.g sitting on motor wars or randomly going to art places and destroying a painting for no reason. But same time if it's a peaceful demonstration then that's totally fine and there shouldn't be no restrictions. It would be wrong to put restrictions on the right to demonstrate. We are all entitled to our opinions. We are also entitled to display our opinions in the form of demonstration. Group 1 and Group 2 then shared their final consensus statement with the rest of the class, who voted for the group with the better consensus statement. Group 2 was voted the winner, with the class agreeing that their final consensus statement was the better statement. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000218.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000218.soc index 5774d39e..5833e903 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000218.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000218.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should make it easier for people to become teachers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: After a long debate, the group have come to a consensus that we should not make it easier for people to become teachers. We feel that it is vital that our students receive the highest quality of education and that they are taught by the most highly trained teachers possible. It is also important that teachers are paid well enough to make it a lucrative career option for those looking for work. We feel that more needs to be done to make teaching a more attractive career. More opportunities for further training, more recognition for excellent teaching, more help and support for young and inexperienced teachers. It is vital that teachers are supported and encouraged to provide the best possible service to our children and to our country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should make it easier for people to become teachers, but only after certain requirements are met. First of all, we should be making it easier for people to apply for teaching jobs. This would mean making it easier to contact school head teachers and also making it clearer that teaching vacancies are available. Also, the training required to become a teacher should be improved. As it stands, there are too many teachers with a poor quality of training. We should also be making it easier to apply for university courses in education. Although, we should be careful not to cut the length of the course as this would likely result in a reduction in the quality of training and education provided. Finally, we should not be making it easier for people to become teachers without them having a degree in their chosen subject. A large part of what makes a good teacher is the ability to connect with their students. This is particularly important for older students. A person who does not have an interest or understanding of a subject will find it very difficult to relate to students and will therefore be less effective as a teacher. Overall, the group feel that the most important thing is to ensure that students get a good education. This is more important than reducing the teaching shortage. The -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We do not think that it is necessary to make it easier for people to become teachers. We are aware of the current shortage of teachers, however, this is a shortage of teachers who have an excellent understanding of their subject and the ability to teach it to students in a way that makes them want to learn. We feel that the process of becoming a teacher should be made simpler in that teachers should be able to train for the position while continuing to teach. We also feel that the salary for teachers should be increased. We feel that this would attract a better calibre of candidate for the job and make it more worthwhile for teachers to make a career of teaching. We feel that making the process of becoming a teacher easier and increasing the pay for teachers would help to solve the current teacher shortage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should make it easier for people to become teachers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - After a long debate, the group have come to a consensus that we should not make it easier for people to become teachers. We feel that it is vital that our students receive the highest quality of education and that they are taught by the most highly trained teachers possible. It is also important that teachers are paid well enough to make it a lucrative career option for those looking for work. We feel that more needs to be done to make teaching a more attractive career. More opportunities for further training, more recognition for excellent teaching, more help and support for young and inexperienced teachers. It is vital that teachers are supported and encouraged to provide the best possible service to our children and to our country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should make it easier for people to become teachers, but only after certain requirements are met. First of all, we should be making it easier for people to apply for teaching jobs. This would mean making it easier to contact school head teachers and also making it clearer that teaching vacancies are available. Also, the training required to become a teacher should be improved. As it stands, there are too many teachers with a poor quality of training. We should also be making it easier to apply for university courses in education. Although, we should be careful not to cut the length of the course as this would likely result in a reduction in the quality of training and education provided. Finally, we should not be making it easier for people to become teachers without them having a degree in their chosen subject. A large part of what makes a good teacher is the ability to connect with their students. This is particularly important for older students. A person who does not have an interest or understanding of a subject will find it very difficult to relate to students and will therefore be less effective as a teacher. Overall, the group feel that the most important thing is to ensure that students get a good education. This is more important than reducing the teaching shortage. The +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We do not think that it is necessary to make it easier for people to become teachers. We are aware of the current shortage of teachers, however, this is a shortage of teachers who have an excellent understanding of their subject and the ability to teach it to students in a way that makes them want to learn. We feel that the process of becoming a teacher should be made simpler in that teachers should be able to train for the position while continuing to teach. We also feel that the salary for teachers should be increased. We feel that this would attract a better calibre of candidate for the job and make it more worthwhile for teachers to make a career of teaching. We feel that making the process of becoming a teacher easier and increasing the pay for teachers would help to solve the current teacher shortage. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000219.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000219.soc index 39f068f7..857658fc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000219.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000219.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should provide subsidies to poorer parts of the UK. This will improve living standards for people living in those areas. Subsidies should be means-tested so that the poorest and most vulnerable receive the help they need. The subsidies should also be for businesses and industries as well as individuals. There should be an equal distribution of wealth across the UK, so that everyone can live with a certain basic standard of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should provide subsidies to the poorer parts of the UK, in order to improve living standards for people living in these parts. This will be a good move by the UK government, as everyone will have an equal standard of living, and no one will have to feel left out or excluded from the rest of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should provide subsidies to poorer parts of the UK. This will improve living standards for people living in those parts. There should be an equal distribution of wealth across the UK, so that everyone can live with a certain basic standard of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should provide subsidies to poorer parts of the UK in order to improve living standards for people living in those areas. There should be a certain minimum standard of living for everyone in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should provide subsidies to poorer parts of the UK. This will improve living standards for people living in those areas. Subsidies should be means-tested so that the poorest and most vulnerable receive the help they need. The subsidies should also be for businesses and industries as well as individuals. There should be an equal distribution of wealth across the UK, so that everyone can live with a certain basic standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should provide subsidies to the poorer parts of the UK, in order to improve living standards for people living in these parts. This will be a good move by the UK government, as everyone will have an equal standard of living, and no one will have to feel left out or excluded from the rest of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should provide subsidies to poorer parts of the UK. This will improve living standards for people living in those parts. There should be an equal distribution of wealth across the UK, so that everyone can live with a certain basic standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should provide subsidies to poorer parts of the UK in order to improve living standards for people living in those areas. There should be a certain minimum standard of living for everyone in the UK. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000220.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000220.soc index 09b1fdd2..0a4a2c0c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000220.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000220.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: More nuclear power plants are needed to help to prevent climate change. The reliability of nuclear power plants is very high. They are an extremely efficient way of producing electricity. It is also very clean. However, the waste disposal and the proliferation of nuclear technology are downsides of nuclear power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that we should have more nuclear power plants, however I also think that other forms of energy are equally important. I think that it is important that other forms of renewable energy such as wind, wave, solar and hydro power are also explored and incorporated in to our energy supply.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be more nuclear power plants, they would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. However, the risks associated with them need to be carefully considered and more research is needed on how to make them safer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although nuclear energy is a cleaner and more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, there are major risks associated with the use of this power source. Nuclear energy needs to be carefully managed, so that we can reap the benefits from its use, while also minimising the risks associated with it. I'm afraid this is going to be an essay. What do you think? See a translation +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - More nuclear power plants are needed to help to prevent climate change. The reliability of nuclear power plants is very high. They are an extremely efficient way of producing electricity. It is also very clean. However, the waste disposal and the proliferation of nuclear technology are downsides of nuclear power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that we should have more nuclear power plants, however I also think that other forms of energy are equally important. I think that it is important that other forms of renewable energy such as wind, wave, solar and hydro power are also explored and incorporated in to our energy supply.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be more nuclear power plants, they would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. However, the risks associated with them need to be carefully considered and more research is needed on how to make them safer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although nuclear energy is a cleaner and more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, there are major risks associated with the use of this power source. Nuclear energy needs to be carefully managed, so that we can reap the benefits from its use, while also minimising the risks associated with it. I'm afraid this is going to be an essay. What do you think? See a translation 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000221.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000221.soc index 7f2fad28..0324ff03 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000221.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000221.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a strong argument for making cannabis legal. The financial benefits of this would be enormous. Taxing cannabis would provide the government with more money for public services. Also the lower crime rate that would result from legalisation would mean less money needed for the police force. By legalising cannabis it would also be more regulated and the quality of the drug would improve. People would be better educated on what they were smoking. If we were able to regulate the drug properly, there would be little risk of the drug becoming a danger to people's health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, legalising marijuana is the way forward. By taxing it we can put money back into the economy. This would be used to improve our schools and public works, which in turn would mean we have better skilled workers for the future. The crime rate would be reduced, and this would mean we have less money to spend on the police. It would also be more regulated so people will have a better idea of what they're smoking. The only concern would be with it's recreational use, and that is where the dangers can be found. If people are aware of what they're smoking, and what it can do to them, then we will be able to better regulate this drug and prevent the effects of it being so detrimental. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, legalising marijuana is the way forward. By taxing it we can put money back into the economy. This would be used to improve our schools and public works, which in turn would mean we have better skilled workers for the future. The crime rate would be reduced, and this would mean we have less money to spend on the police. It would also be more regulated so people will have a better idea of what they're smoking. The only concern would be with it's recreational use, and that is where the dangers can be found. If people are aware of what they're smoking, and what it can do to them, then we will be able to better regulate this drug and prevent the effects of it being so detrimental. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, legalising marijuana is the way forward. By taxing it we can put money back into the economy. This would be used to improve our schools and public works, which in turn would mean we have better skilled workers for the future. The crime rate would be reduced, and this would mean we have less money to spend on the police. It would also be more regulated so people will have a better idea of what they're smoking. We would also be able to educate people on the dangers of cannabis and that is where the dangers can be found. If people are aware of what they're smoking, and what it can do to them, then we will be able to better regulate this drug and prevent the effects of it being so detrimental. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a strong argument for making cannabis legal. The financial benefits of this would be enormous. Taxing cannabis would provide the government with more money for public services. Also the lower crime rate that would result from legalisation would mean less money needed for the police force. By legalising cannabis it would also be more regulated and the quality of the drug would improve. People would be better educated on what they were smoking. If we were able to regulate the drug properly, there would be little risk of the drug becoming a danger to people's health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, legalising marijuana is the way forward. By taxing it we can put money back into the economy. This would be used to improve our schools and public works, which in turn would mean we have better skilled workers for the future. The crime rate would be reduced, and this would mean we have less money to spend on the police. It would also be more regulated so people will have a better idea of what they're smoking. The only concern would be with it's recreational use, and that is where the dangers can be found. If people are aware of what they're smoking, and what it can do to them, then we will be able to better regulate this drug and prevent the effects of it being so detrimental. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, legalising marijuana is the way forward. By taxing it we can put money back into the economy. This would be used to improve our schools and public works, which in turn would mean we have better skilled workers for the future. The crime rate would be reduced, and this would mean we have less money to spend on the police. It would also be more regulated so people will have a better idea of what they're smoking. The only concern would be with it's recreational use, and that is where the dangers can be found. If people are aware of what they're smoking, and what it can do to them, then we will be able to better regulate this drug and prevent the effects of it being so detrimental. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, legalising marijuana is the way forward. By taxing it we can put money back into the economy. This would be used to improve our schools and public works, which in turn would mean we have better skilled workers for the future. The crime rate would be reduced, and this would mean we have less money to spend on the police. It would also be more regulated so people will have a better idea of what they're smoking. We would also be able to educate people on the dangers of cannabis and that is where the dangers can be found. If people are aware of what they're smoking, and what it can do to them, then we will be able to better regulate this drug and prevent the effects of it being so detrimental. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000222.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000222.soc index 02a45159..f5f128af 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000222.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000222.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Electric cars are more expensive than petrol or diesel cars, and this can deter people from buying them. We think the government should subsidise electric cars. The environmental needs to be looked after, and cars are not helping the problem. Electric cars are a step in the right direction, and it is important to encourage people to buy these cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Electric cars are the future. We believe the government should subsidise them as they are more expensive and people will be put off by this. We need to take better care of the environment and so electric cars should be encouraged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Electric cars are something that people choose or not, just like buying any car. We believe the government should subsidise electric cars as the environment needs to be looked after and cars are not helping the problem. Electric cars are more expensive and this will deter people from buying them. The government need to help these people with subsidies to encourage them to buy these cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should subsidise electric cars. The current method of using fossil fuels for transport needs to be reduced in order to look after the environment. Electric cars are more expensive and therefore more difficult to buy than their petrol and diesel counterparts. The government needs to subsidise electric cars to help people make the switch to the more environmentally friendly option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Electric cars are more expensive than petrol or diesel cars, and this can deter people from buying them. We think the government should subsidise electric cars. The environmental needs to be looked after, and cars are not helping the problem. Electric cars are a step in the right direction, and it is important to encourage people to buy these cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Electric cars are the future. We believe the government should subsidise them as they are more expensive and people will be put off by this. We need to take better care of the environment and so electric cars should be encouraged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Electric cars are something that people choose or not, just like buying any car. We believe the government should subsidise electric cars as the environment needs to be looked after and cars are not helping the problem. Electric cars are more expensive and this will deter people from buying them. The government need to help these people with subsidies to encourage them to buy these cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should subsidise electric cars. The current method of using fossil fuels for transport needs to be reduced in order to look after the environment. Electric cars are more expensive and therefore more difficult to buy than their petrol and diesel counterparts. The government needs to subsidise electric cars to help people make the switch to the more environmentally friendly option. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000223.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000223.soc index af041e52..7b1a3b63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000223.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000223.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a ban on new cars as well as existing cars and public transport should be free. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the tax on new cars should not be increased. However, we agree that in the long-term there should be more encouragement for people to purchase hybrid cars or use public transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although increasing the tax on new cars could be a good way of discouraging the use of cars and the potential environmental harm they cause, I think that taxing new cars would be unfair on many people. It would prevent people from being able to live their daily lives freely and also would increase the price of living in general, as many people, especially those who live in rural areas, rely on their cars. However, I do think that it is a good idea to implement this tax on diesel and petrol cars, as these cause more pollution than electric and hybrid vehicles. I think that these cars should be taxed more than eco-friendly cars. Additionally, I think that it is a good idea to tax car producers more than car owners, as this would make car ownership more accessible to those who can’t afford to buy a new car and also would lower the price of new cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not increase the tax on new cars to make it more expensive to own a car. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a ban on new cars as well as existing cars and public transport should be free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the tax on new cars should not be increased. However, we agree that in the long-term there should be more encouragement for people to purchase hybrid cars or use public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although increasing the tax on new cars could be a good way of discouraging the use of cars and the potential environmental harm they cause, I think that taxing new cars would be unfair on many people. It would prevent people from being able to live their daily lives freely and also would increase the price of living in general, as many people, especially those who live in rural areas, rely on their cars. However, I do think that it is a good idea to implement this tax on diesel and petrol cars, as these cause more pollution than electric and hybrid vehicles. I think that these cars should be taxed more than eco-friendly cars. Additionally, I think that it is a good idea to tax car producers more than car owners, as this would make car ownership more accessible to those who can’t afford to buy a new car and also would lower the price of new cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not increase the tax on new cars to make it more expensive to own a car. 4: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000224.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000224.soc index 5b684019..0b43ac67 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000224.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000224.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People who can't pay their mortgage should not be repossessed immediately. The bank should allow a period of time for the individual to improve their situation. However, if there is no prospect of an improvement, then the bank should repossess the house. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a set time period, i.e. 6 months to 1 year, after which a repossession would be implemented if the homeowner has been unable to get back on a financial footing that means they can afford their repayments. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, repossession of homes should only be considered after all other avenues have been exhausted. If a person is able to prove that they will be able to get back on track in the near future, it would be wise for the mortgage company to wait before repossession. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR HOUSE REPOSSESSED FOR FAILING TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE BUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR THEM TO PAY BACK THE MONEY. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People who can't pay their mortgage should not be repossessed immediately. The bank should allow a period of time for the individual to improve their situation. However, if there is no prospect of an improvement, then the bank should repossess the house. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a set time period, i.e. 6 months to 1 year, after which a repossession would be implemented if the homeowner has been unable to get back on a financial footing that means they can afford their repayments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, repossession of homes should only be considered after all other avenues have been exhausted. If a person is able to prove that they will be able to get back on track in the near future, it would be wise for the mortgage company to wait before repossession. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR HOUSE REPOSSESSED FOR FAILING TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE BUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR THEM TO PAY BACK THE MONEY. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000225.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000225.soc index 9febfb40..7b16212a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000225.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000225.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that funding for public art should be increased in the UK. Public art is something that has the power to make a real difference to people's lives. It can also provide a great way to make an area more attractive to tourists and visitors, thus boosting the local economy. If there is a push for this from the government, it will provide an extra impetus to local councils to invest in public art, and this will bring great benefits to the local communities. A secondary way of using consensus decision making was to ask the group to complete a task with a group goal. The participants were then asked to reflect on how they contributed to the group task. The following presents a description of the task, each participant's reflections on their own contribution to the group task, and the final group consensus on the quality of the group decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: After a long debate, we have all come to the conclusion that funding for public art should be increased in the UK. We recognise that times are tough at the moment, and that a lot of people feel that money would be better spent on improving infrastructure and health, but we also feel that the arts are vital for the mental health of the nation, and they are often the first thing to be cut when budgets are being reviewed. If there is a push for this from the government, it will provide an extra impetus to local councils to invest in public art, and this will bring great benefits to the local communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be more public art in the UK. The government should encourage this by all means possible. The people of the UK deserve more beauty and expression in their lives, and it can only be a good thing for people to have more places to express themselves. If this also increases tourism to the UK and boosts the local economy, this should be seen as an added bonus. There are those who might argue that the government has bigger fish to fry. This is true to some extent, as the UK is in dire need of investment in its infrastructure, education system, health service and transport. However, there is no reason why the government cannot do both. In fact, the very existence of public art will make people happier, and happier people will tend to be healthier and less stressed. All of these factors can be seen to contribute to the success of the health service, education system and transport system. So perhaps it is the case that public art can also contribute to the infrastructure of the UK, in a more indirect way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that funding for public art should be increased in the UK. Public art is something that has the power to make a real difference to people's lives. It can also provide a great way to make an area more attractive to tourists and visitors, thus boosting the local economy. If there is a push for this from the government, it will provide an extra impetus to local councils to invest in public art, and this will bring great benefits to the local communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that funding for public art should be increased in the UK. Public art is something that has the power to make a real difference to people's lives. It can also provide a great way to make an area more attractive to tourists and visitors, thus boosting the local economy. If there is a push for this from the government, it will provide an extra impetus to local councils to invest in public art, and this will bring great benefits to the local communities. A secondary way of using consensus decision making was to ask the group to complete a task with a group goal. The participants were then asked to reflect on how they contributed to the group task. The following presents a description of the task, each participant's reflections on their own contribution to the group task, and the final group consensus on the quality of the group decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - After a long debate, we have all come to the conclusion that funding for public art should be increased in the UK. We recognise that times are tough at the moment, and that a lot of people feel that money would be better spent on improving infrastructure and health, but we also feel that the arts are vital for the mental health of the nation, and they are often the first thing to be cut when budgets are being reviewed. If there is a push for this from the government, it will provide an extra impetus to local councils to invest in public art, and this will bring great benefits to the local communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be more public art in the UK. The government should encourage this by all means possible. The people of the UK deserve more beauty and expression in their lives, and it can only be a good thing for people to have more places to express themselves. If this also increases tourism to the UK and boosts the local economy, this should be seen as an added bonus. There are those who might argue that the government has bigger fish to fry. This is true to some extent, as the UK is in dire need of investment in its infrastructure, education system, health service and transport. However, there is no reason why the government cannot do both. In fact, the very existence of public art will make people happier, and happier people will tend to be healthier and less stressed. All of these factors can be seen to contribute to the success of the health service, education system and transport system. So perhaps it is the case that public art can also contribute to the infrastructure of the UK, in a more indirect way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that funding for public art should be increased in the UK. Public art is something that has the power to make a real difference to people's lives. It can also provide a great way to make an area more attractive to tourists and visitors, thus boosting the local economy. If there is a push for this from the government, it will provide an extra impetus to local councils to invest in public art, and this will bring great benefits to the local communities. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000226.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000226.soc index 02dd54a4..293e78d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000226.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000226.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the arts have a strong presence in society, it is more of a luxury and should be funded by individuals or businesses that benefit from it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should continue to subsidise the arts as it encourages creativity, innovation and fosters well-being. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the arts are not something that should be subsidised. However, if there is an artist that has a very good art piece or performance, then it would be fine for that artist to be subsidised as they are contributing something valuable to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Subsidising the arts is a necessity for allowing art to continue to be created, it is a highly valued part of society and something we should continue to invest in” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the arts have a strong presence in society, it is more of a luxury and should be funded by individuals or businesses that benefit from it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should continue to subsidise the arts as it encourages creativity, innovation and fosters well-being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the arts are not something that should be subsidised. However, if there is an artist that has a very good art piece or performance, then it would be fine for that artist to be subsidised as they are contributing something valuable to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Subsidising the arts is a necessity for allowing art to continue to be created, it is a highly valued part of society and something we should continue to invest in” 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000227.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000227.soc index eec3c0ce..11e8aa5e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000227.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000227.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should be doing more to combat climate change. If everyone makes small changes like using public transport, recycling and cutting back on air travel we can make a difference. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we should do more to combat climate change. All people should do their part, including cutting back on air travel, and investing in renewable energy technologies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should do more to combat climate change as it will affect us and future generations. We should not wait for others to do it for us. We need to take personal responsibility and act on our own. We should stop using disposable items and plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Climate change is a serious problem, but most of the solutions being proposed by experts, governments and other groups are just not practical. We already recycle and use re-usable goods, but we also need to live our lives and travel the world and these things can’t be changed. The only way to really combat climate change is to change the rules and regulations and tax people that travel, and to give grants to the poorer people to buy electric cars and install solar panels.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should be doing more to combat climate change. If everyone makes small changes like using public transport, recycling and cutting back on air travel we can make a difference. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we should do more to combat climate change. All people should do their part, including cutting back on air travel, and investing in renewable energy technologies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should do more to combat climate change as it will affect us and future generations. We should not wait for others to do it for us. We need to take personal responsibility and act on our own. We should stop using disposable items and plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Climate change is a serious problem, but most of the solutions being proposed by experts, governments and other groups are just not practical. We already recycle and use re-usable goods, but we also need to live our lives and travel the world and these things can’t be changed. The only way to really combat climate change is to change the rules and regulations and tax people that travel, and to give grants to the poorer people to buy electric cars and install solar panels.” 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000228.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000228.soc index dbdb514b..7f768195 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000228.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000228.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should do more to combat climate change. The government should help people with grants for solar panels and electric vehicles. We should all be doing our bit to stop climate change by taking personal responsibility. We should use reusable products instead of single use plastic items. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should do more to combat climate change as it will affect us and future generations. We should not wait for others to do it for us. We need to take personal responsibility and act on our own. We should stop using disposable items and plastics. The government should also do more by helping to provide grants towards solar panels and electric vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is the most important issue facing us and we should not wait for others to take action for us. We need to take personal responsibility for our actions and act on our own. We should stop using disposable items and plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should do more to combat climate change as it will affect us and future generations. We should not wait for others to do it for us. We need to take personal responsibility and act on our own. We should stop using disposable items and plastics, and lobby the government to help by making it easier for us to use renewable energy by providing more grants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should do more to combat climate change. The government should help people with grants for solar panels and electric vehicles. We should all be doing our bit to stop climate change by taking personal responsibility. We should use reusable products instead of single use plastic items. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should do more to combat climate change as it will affect us and future generations. We should not wait for others to do it for us. We need to take personal responsibility and act on our own. We should stop using disposable items and plastics. The government should also do more by helping to provide grants towards solar panels and electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is the most important issue facing us and we should not wait for others to take action for us. We need to take personal responsibility for our actions and act on our own. We should stop using disposable items and plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should do more to combat climate change as it will affect us and future generations. We should not wait for others to do it for us. We need to take personal responsibility and act on our own. We should stop using disposable items and plastics, and lobby the government to help by making it easier for us to use renewable energy by providing more grants. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000229.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000229.soc index cef32f39..4ae70235 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000229.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000229.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of banning the smoking of cigarettes in public places. Most people felt that passive smoking should be avoided. Some people thought that in places where smoking was already banned, for example in bars and restaurants, that smoking in public outdoor spaces should be allowed if the smoking is taking place in a designated area away from other people. However, if the question was asked as to whether or not we should ban the smoking of cigarettes in all public places, then all people agreed that this should be the case, in particular to protect children and vulnerable people from exposure to passive smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning the smoking of cigarettes in public places. Most people felt that passive smoking should be avoided. However, some people thought that in places where smoking was already banned, for example in bars and restaurants, that smoking in public outdoor spaces should be allowed if the smoking is taking place in a designated area away from other people. However, if the question was asked as to whether or not we should ban the smoking of cigarettes in all public places, then all people agreed that this should be the case, in particular to protect children and vulnerable people from exposure to passive smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The majority of participants thought that in general the smoking of cigarettes in public places should be banned, with the exception of areas designated for smokers only. Some participants thought that this should only be the case if smoking was already banned indoors, so that people had the choice of where to smoke. However, the group in general felt that smoking in public places should be banned even if smoking was still allowed indoors. This is because smoking in public places can expose others to passive smoking, and in particular children and the elderly should not have to be exposed to this, especially in a public place. In my experience of teaching students the skill of critical thinking, I think that the consensus building activity was useful in developing students' critical thinking skills. I felt that the activity worked well with the topics we were discussing, and that the students did not have any difficulty completing the task. The activity was beneficial in terms of developing students' ability to form and support a group opinion, and in improving their ability to compromise and negotiate. I also think that the activity would work well with a variety of different topics, for example it would work very well in terms of getting students to work together to come up with a consensus opinion on questions related to a group project, such as -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on smoking in public places. Smoking should be allowed in designated areas that are well-separated from the rest of the public. These designated areas should be clearly marked. Signage should be present to inform the public of where they can and cannot smoke. This would allow people to smoke if they wish to, but would also allow non-smokers to avoid being in the vicinity of cigarettes if they so wish. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of banning the smoking of cigarettes in public places. Most people felt that passive smoking should be avoided. Some people thought that in places where smoking was already banned, for example in bars and restaurants, that smoking in public outdoor spaces should be allowed if the smoking is taking place in a designated area away from other people. However, if the question was asked as to whether or not we should ban the smoking of cigarettes in all public places, then all people agreed that this should be the case, in particular to protect children and vulnerable people from exposure to passive smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning the smoking of cigarettes in public places. Most people felt that passive smoking should be avoided. However, some people thought that in places where smoking was already banned, for example in bars and restaurants, that smoking in public outdoor spaces should be allowed if the smoking is taking place in a designated area away from other people. However, if the question was asked as to whether or not we should ban the smoking of cigarettes in all public places, then all people agreed that this should be the case, in particular to protect children and vulnerable people from exposure to passive smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The majority of participants thought that in general the smoking of cigarettes in public places should be banned, with the exception of areas designated for smokers only. Some participants thought that this should only be the case if smoking was already banned indoors, so that people had the choice of where to smoke. However, the group in general felt that smoking in public places should be banned even if smoking was still allowed indoors. This is because smoking in public places can expose others to passive smoking, and in particular children and the elderly should not have to be exposed to this, especially in a public place. In my experience of teaching students the skill of critical thinking, I think that the consensus building activity was useful in developing students' critical thinking skills. I felt that the activity worked well with the topics we were discussing, and that the students did not have any difficulty completing the task. The activity was beneficial in terms of developing students' ability to form and support a group opinion, and in improving their ability to compromise and negotiate. I also think that the activity would work well with a variety of different topics, for example it would work very well in terms of getting students to work together to come up with a consensus opinion on questions related to a group project, such as +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on smoking in public places. Smoking should be allowed in designated areas that are well-separated from the rest of the public. These designated areas should be clearly marked. Signage should be present to inform the public of where they can and cannot smoke. This would allow people to smoke if they wish to, but would also allow non-smokers to avoid being in the vicinity of cigarettes if they so wish. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000230.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000230.soc index d54faca9..3efd0e6f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000230.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000230.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although nuclear energy is a cleaner and more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, there are major risks associated with the use of this power source. The benefits and downsides of nuclear energy should be carefully considered, to ensure that we can reap the benefits from its use, while also minimising the risks associated with it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although nuclear energy is a cleaner and more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, there are major risks associated with the use of this power source. Nuclear energy needs to be carefully managed, so that we can reap the benefits from its use, while also minimising the risks associated with it. The issue is not so black and white, and the benefits and risks of nuclear energy need to be carefully considered before more power plants are built. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Nuclear energy is a clean, efficient source of power that is environmentally friendly, however its benefits need to be weighed up against the significant risks that are associated with its use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although nuclear energy is a cleaner and more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, there are major risks associated with the use of this power source. Nuclear energy needs to be carefully managed, so that we can reap the benefits from its use, while also minimising the risks associated with it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although nuclear energy is a cleaner and more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, there are major risks associated with the use of this power source. The benefits and downsides of nuclear energy should be carefully considered, to ensure that we can reap the benefits from its use, while also minimising the risks associated with it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although nuclear energy is a cleaner and more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, there are major risks associated with the use of this power source. Nuclear energy needs to be carefully managed, so that we can reap the benefits from its use, while also minimising the risks associated with it. The issue is not so black and white, and the benefits and risks of nuclear energy need to be carefully considered before more power plants are built. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Nuclear energy is a clean, efficient source of power that is environmentally friendly, however its benefits need to be weighed up against the significant risks that are associated with its use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although nuclear energy is a cleaner and more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, there are major risks associated with the use of this power source. Nuclear energy needs to be carefully managed, so that we can reap the benefits from its use, while also minimising the risks associated with it. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000231.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000231.soc index 5817fccf..f6dcf224 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000231.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000231.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The spread of mobile technology has improved the quality of people's social lives because it allows you to stay connected to friends and family in a quick, easy way. It also allows you to stay connected to people who have the same interests and hobbies as you which can help expand your social life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the spread of mobile technology has had a positive impact on the quality of people's social lives. It has improved quality of life because it gives a person a view of all the people of the world, and connects people with the same interests who might not live close and otherwise wouldn't be able to interact. However, mobile technology has allowed the world to become more social and contact anyone anywhere at any time but it has some damaging effects for people trying to be "Popular" or keep up a large online presence. Also allowing people to be so connected has made bullying much worse and allowing criminals to communicate easier. No discussion of technology in society is complete without a discussion of ethics. Ethics is concerned with what we should or should not do, what is right and what is wrong. Below are presented a series of ethical dilemmas, some of which may be familiar to you. Each dilemma is presented with a question about the dilemma. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that the spread of mobile technology has both good and bad effects on people's social lives. On the good side, people are now able to contact others from all around the world at any time. On the bad side, social media has led to a rise in cyber bullying and it has allowed people to become too involved in their online presence rather than their real life presence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The spread of mobile technology has improved the quality of people's social lives by allowing people to easily connect and organise social events and activities. However, this new ability to organise social activities and events has also made it easier for people to become less social by allowing them to stay in their home and talk to people through their phones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The spread of mobile technology has improved the quality of people's social lives because it allows you to stay connected to friends and family in a quick, easy way. It also allows you to stay connected to people who have the same interests and hobbies as you which can help expand your social life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the spread of mobile technology has had a positive impact on the quality of people's social lives. It has improved quality of life because it gives a person a view of all the people of the world, and connects people with the same interests who might not live close and otherwise wouldn't be able to interact. However, mobile technology has allowed the world to become more social and contact anyone anywhere at any time but it has some damaging effects for people trying to be "Popular" or keep up a large online presence. Also allowing people to be so connected has made bullying much worse and allowing criminals to communicate easier. No discussion of technology in society is complete without a discussion of ethics. Ethics is concerned with what we should or should not do, what is right and what is wrong. Below are presented a series of ethical dilemmas, some of which may be familiar to you. Each dilemma is presented with a question about the dilemma. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that the spread of mobile technology has both good and bad effects on people's social lives. On the good side, people are now able to contact others from all around the world at any time. On the bad side, social media has led to a rise in cyber bullying and it has allowed people to become too involved in their online presence rather than their real life presence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The spread of mobile technology has improved the quality of people's social lives by allowing people to easily connect and organise social events and activities. However, this new ability to organise social activities and events has also made it easier for people to become less social by allowing them to stay in their home and talk to people through their phones. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000232.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000232.soc index dd3f1a06..1c7ab8ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000232.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000232.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be allowed to pay for a better education for their children, however we believe that all children should have equal access to a good education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Paying for a better education for children should be allowed, but only to the extent that it does not disrupt the quality of education available in the public system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that, as long as it is not done in a way that disadvantages children from poor backgrounds, paying for a better education is an option that should be open to all parents. We believe that some public schools are not up to standard and that some private schools do offer a better education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, people should be allowed to pay for a better education for their children if they can afford to. A child's future should not be restricted by their parent's income. In some countries, it is the law that parents pay for their children's education beyond secondary school. This is often not enforced. It would be better if these costs were simply included in taxation. If everyone was taxed more, we would all benefit from a better education system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be allowed to pay for a better education for their children, however we believe that all children should have equal access to a good education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Paying for a better education for children should be allowed, but only to the extent that it does not disrupt the quality of education available in the public system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that, as long as it is not done in a way that disadvantages children from poor backgrounds, paying for a better education is an option that should be open to all parents. We believe that some public schools are not up to standard and that some private schools do offer a better education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, people should be allowed to pay for a better education for their children if they can afford to. A child's future should not be restricted by their parent's income. In some countries, it is the law that parents pay for their children's education beyond secondary school. This is often not enforced. It would be better if these costs were simply included in taxation. If everyone was taxed more, we would all benefit from a better education system. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000233.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000233.soc index a8fe882d..fb6af3c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000233.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000233.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK government should invest more in infrastructure, particularly with regard to public transport in London and major cities. This would be particularly beneficial to help support the environment and help reduce carbon emissions. In addition, better and improved infrastructure will provide better transport links to support the economy and make transport more accessible to all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group agrees that the government should invest more in infrastructure. More money is needed to bring current infrastructure up to the new standard. To accommodate this we need better infrastructure. The government should invest more to improve our roads. With more money spent on roads and improvements we could also use it instead to reduce the number of immigrants coming to the UK and thus reduce overpopulation. With less money spent on benefits we could use it instead to improve roads. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK's infrastructure is in woefully poor condition compared to other countries both in Europe and the other continents. Arguably privatisation has led to the degradation of investment and quality in favour of shareholder return in sectors such as rail and water. There is a need to reverse this trend. Additionally wider infrastructure such as roads and the services provided alongside new housing developments need to be improved and this can only really come from increased investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should increase its investment in infrastructure, for the country to prosper. The current levels of investment are clearly insufficient as shown by our outdated transport and communication systems.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK government should invest more in infrastructure, particularly with regard to public transport in London and major cities. This would be particularly beneficial to help support the environment and help reduce carbon emissions. In addition, better and improved infrastructure will provide better transport links to support the economy and make transport more accessible to all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group agrees that the government should invest more in infrastructure. More money is needed to bring current infrastructure up to the new standard. To accommodate this we need better infrastructure. The government should invest more to improve our roads. With more money spent on roads and improvements we could also use it instead to reduce the number of immigrants coming to the UK and thus reduce overpopulation. With less money spent on benefits we could use it instead to improve roads. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK's infrastructure is in woefully poor condition compared to other countries both in Europe and the other continents. Arguably privatisation has led to the degradation of investment and quality in favour of shareholder return in sectors such as rail and water. There is a need to reverse this trend. Additionally wider infrastructure such as roads and the services provided alongside new housing developments need to be improved and this can only really come from increased investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should increase its investment in infrastructure, for the country to prosper. The current levels of investment are clearly insufficient as shown by our outdated transport and communication systems.” 2: 3,1,4,2 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000234.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000234.soc index 223b1489..fdf58089 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000234.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000234.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should not have a free trade agreement with the US as it would create an unhealthy relationship between the two countries, which could lead to favouritism and corruption, which in turn would hurt the UK economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should have a free trade agreement with the US. While some have expressed concerns about this arrangement, I think it would benefit the UK overall. However, the UK must be sure to protect itself and its citizens from any risks that might come with this. The UK and US are both countries that are very economically strong, so we should not let these fears prevent us from coming to an agreement that would benefit both of us. I think the participants did a great job of coming to a consensus opinion! What do you think of the group's consensus opinion? Do you think you would have come to a different one? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should have a free trade agreement with the US. The UK and US are two major economies, so being able to trade freely with each other would only make our economies stronger. However, the government should make sure to carefully balance the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A free trade agreement with the US would benefit both countries, however, the UK should seek to keep its individual identity and not become a clone of the US. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should not have a free trade agreement with the US as it would create an unhealthy relationship between the two countries, which could lead to favouritism and corruption, which in turn would hurt the UK economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should have a free trade agreement with the US. While some have expressed concerns about this arrangement, I think it would benefit the UK overall. However, the UK must be sure to protect itself and its citizens from any risks that might come with this. The UK and US are both countries that are very economically strong, so we should not let these fears prevent us from coming to an agreement that would benefit both of us. I think the participants did a great job of coming to a consensus opinion! What do you think of the group's consensus opinion? Do you think you would have come to a different one? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should have a free trade agreement with the US. The UK and US are two major economies, so being able to trade freely with each other would only make our economies stronger. However, the government should make sure to carefully balance the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A free trade agreement with the US would benefit both countries, however, the UK should seek to keep its individual identity and not become a clone of the US. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000235.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000235.soc index 994cf41e..1de5e9c5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000235.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000235.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is the opinion of the group that no-fly zones are a good idea to protect areas from noise and pollution, to reduce emissions from planes which are a huge contributor to global warming, to protect endangered areas and rain forests, and to prevent espionage over sensitive areas and the risk of terrorist attacks on significant locations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No fly zones would help to reduce pollution, protect military installations, natural areas and some sensitive government buildings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the idea of 'no-fly' zones is a good one and should be implemented where appropriate to protect the environment, people and security. The idea of banning flights over areas of natural beauty and certain sensitive locations, such as military installations, is important and should be enacted. The issue of noise pollution should also be addressed as part of this and a wider solution, and we should also think about how we are to protect areas from the threat of terrorism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some no-fly zones, but not as many as you would think. There are a lot of different areas that would be safer for this, but it is also important to take into account that a lot of planes are very important for business, and for things like medicine. A good example of a good no-fly zone would be over very endangered areas of the rainforest. It is important to preserve nature, and so this is an important issue to consider. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is the opinion of the group that no-fly zones are a good idea to protect areas from noise and pollution, to reduce emissions from planes which are a huge contributor to global warming, to protect endangered areas and rain forests, and to prevent espionage over sensitive areas and the risk of terrorist attacks on significant locations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No fly zones would help to reduce pollution, protect military installations, natural areas and some sensitive government buildings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the idea of 'no-fly' zones is a good one and should be implemented where appropriate to protect the environment, people and security. The idea of banning flights over areas of natural beauty and certain sensitive locations, such as military installations, is important and should be enacted. The issue of noise pollution should also be addressed as part of this and a wider solution, and we should also think about how we are to protect areas from the threat of terrorism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some no-fly zones, but not as many as you would think. There are a lot of different areas that would be safer for this, but it is also important to take into account that a lot of planes are very important for business, and for things like medicine. A good example of a good no-fly zone would be over very endangered areas of the rainforest. It is important to preserve nature, and so this is an important issue to consider. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000236.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000236.soc index e22188dc..fdfd0da9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000236.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000236.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Climate change does pose a threat to the UK. We need to be more self-sufficient and more robust to the impacts of climate change as other countries are suffering increasingly. Our landscape, economy and way of life are at risk from floods, wildfires and drought. As a nation, we should be prepared for these events, mitigate against their worst effects and do what we can to help other countries that suffer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Climate change poses a threat to the UK. It's hard to say what effect it will have, however there are already several indications of changes due to climate change: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is the biggest threat to the UK and the world, because we rely so heavily on our planet for food, clean water and air. Climate change will cause a shortage in food and will mean that we will have to rely on importing more food which will increase our prices and the quality of food may be of a lower standard. It will also cause the sea levels to rise and floods to occur more frequently, this will mean that there will be more coastal erosion, people will have to be relocated to safer areas and some areas may not be suitable to live in anymore. This will have a knock-on effect because people will have to move to different places and these areas will have to adapt to the new changes and this will cause issues to occur. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Climate change does pose a threat to the UK. For example, extreme weather conditions like heatwaves will cause animals to struggle to survive and even lead to extinctions. Rivers will overflow and cause flooding, leading to damage to property and the spread of disease. Coastal erosion will also occur due to rising sea levels, threatening the coastal areas of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Climate change does pose a threat to the UK. We need to be more self-sufficient and more robust to the impacts of climate change as other countries are suffering increasingly. Our landscape, economy and way of life are at risk from floods, wildfires and drought. As a nation, we should be prepared for these events, mitigate against their worst effects and do what we can to help other countries that suffer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Climate change poses a threat to the UK. It's hard to say what effect it will have, however there are already several indications of changes due to climate change: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is the biggest threat to the UK and the world, because we rely so heavily on our planet for food, clean water and air. Climate change will cause a shortage in food and will mean that we will have to rely on importing more food which will increase our prices and the quality of food may be of a lower standard. It will also cause the sea levels to rise and floods to occur more frequently, this will mean that there will be more coastal erosion, people will have to be relocated to safer areas and some areas may not be suitable to live in anymore. This will have a knock-on effect because people will have to move to different places and these areas will have to adapt to the new changes and this will cause issues to occur. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Climate change does pose a threat to the UK. For example, extreme weather conditions like heatwaves will cause animals to struggle to survive and even lead to extinctions. Rivers will overflow and cause flooding, leading to damage to property and the spread of disease. Coastal erosion will also occur due to rising sea levels, threatening the coastal areas of the UK. 2: 3,1,4,2 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000237.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000237.soc index dfa64394..673b8407 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000237.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000237.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Vaccination is a key tool in preventing the spread of diseases and viruses and thus is of crucial importance to society. That said, the vaccines themselves need to be extensively tested and the potential risk and benefits assessed before vaccination is made mandatory. The spread of misinformation and fake news has also increased the public's concerns about the safety of vaccines. Hence, communication with the public about the safety of vaccines is also of crucial importance to gain public trust. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Most vaccinations have a higher benefit than risk. The side effects of vaccinations are usually only short term and the benefits of vaccinations are usually greater than the possible negative side effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, however vaccination should always be optional and up to each individual. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Vaccinations do the benefits outweigh the risks? The decision to vaccinate your child should be a personal one. It is a difficult decision and will take a lot of thought and consideration. I will list some of the positives and negatives to help people make an informed decision. Positives: Vaccinations protect against many diseases and have helped eradicate diseases. Without vaccinations there is a high risk that children could die from easily preventable diseases. This is because vaccinations create immunity and therefore help build a resistance to these diseases. This means children are much less likely to get these diseases. For example, the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine has led to a 99% reduction in measles cases since the introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1988. Other positive things about vaccinations is that they are safe. In most cases they have very few side effects. There is no scientific evidence that vaccinations cause autism. Negatives: Although most vaccinations are safe, there is a chance that they can cause side effects. These can include swelling, a rash and a high temperature. Vaccinations contain +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Vaccination is a key tool in preventing the spread of diseases and viruses and thus is of crucial importance to society. That said, the vaccines themselves need to be extensively tested and the potential risk and benefits assessed before vaccination is made mandatory. The spread of misinformation and fake news has also increased the public's concerns about the safety of vaccines. Hence, communication with the public about the safety of vaccines is also of crucial importance to gain public trust. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Most vaccinations have a higher benefit than risk. The side effects of vaccinations are usually only short term and the benefits of vaccinations are usually greater than the possible negative side effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, however vaccination should always be optional and up to each individual. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Vaccinations do the benefits outweigh the risks? The decision to vaccinate your child should be a personal one. It is a difficult decision and will take a lot of thought and consideration. I will list some of the positives and negatives to help people make an informed decision. Positives: Vaccinations protect against many diseases and have helped eradicate diseases. Without vaccinations there is a high risk that children could die from easily preventable diseases. This is because vaccinations create immunity and therefore help build a resistance to these diseases. This means children are much less likely to get these diseases. For example, the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine has led to a 99% reduction in measles cases since the introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1988. Other positive things about vaccinations is that they are safe. In most cases they have very few side effects. There is no scientific evidence that vaccinations cause autism. Negatives: Although most vaccinations are safe, there is a chance that they can cause side effects. These can include swelling, a rash and a high temperature. Vaccinations contain 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000238.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000238.soc index f39d98fd..05526440 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000238.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000238.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of free education, with one person being slightly against the idea. The general feeling was that if people were willing to pay for their children's education, they would still be able to. People with money would not lose out in any way if education were to become free. The group believed that the quality of education would not be any less if education were to become free, but would possibly become more equal. For example, it was believed that people from poorer areas would receive a better education. This would mean that when they leave school, their quality of life would be better than that of someone who had a free, but sub-par education. Education is seen as a fundamental human right. The UN article number 26 outlines the importance of education, with Article 28 going into more detail. This makes it very clear that education should be free and accessible to everyone. It was believed that this article would be impossible to enforce, however it does not remove the fact that this is what should happen. There was the issue of private schools, and what would happen to them if education were to become free. There was a split on this issue, with some people believing that private schools should -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Primary and secondary schools should be free so that every child has the same access to education. This will remove the financial burden that paying school fees places on families and allow all children to benefit from an excellent education, regardless of their financial situation. If the highest standard of teaching and equipment is provided in all schools, then the future society will be fairer and the rich and poor will not be divided by their educational standards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Primary and secondary education should be free for all. The fee-paying private school system only creates inequality and gives more opportunity to the wealthier children. Every child deserves the same opportunity to learn and should not be separated by money. This will result in a fairer and more equal society in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that all primary and secondary schools should be free as this would be beneficial for all of society. Not only would the poorest of society get the chance of a better education, but the more privileged would benefit from their peers being educated. This is because a more educated population means a more advanced and innovative society which is the benefit of all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of free education, with one person being slightly against the idea. The general feeling was that if people were willing to pay for their children's education, they would still be able to. People with money would not lose out in any way if education were to become free. The group believed that the quality of education would not be any less if education were to become free, but would possibly become more equal. For example, it was believed that people from poorer areas would receive a better education. This would mean that when they leave school, their quality of life would be better than that of someone who had a free, but sub-par education. Education is seen as a fundamental human right. The UN article number 26 outlines the importance of education, with Article 28 going into more detail. This makes it very clear that education should be free and accessible to everyone. It was believed that this article would be impossible to enforce, however it does not remove the fact that this is what should happen. There was the issue of private schools, and what would happen to them if education were to become free. There was a split on this issue, with some people believing that private schools should +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Primary and secondary schools should be free so that every child has the same access to education. This will remove the financial burden that paying school fees places on families and allow all children to benefit from an excellent education, regardless of their financial situation. If the highest standard of teaching and equipment is provided in all schools, then the future society will be fairer and the rich and poor will not be divided by their educational standards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Primary and secondary education should be free for all. The fee-paying private school system only creates inequality and gives more opportunity to the wealthier children. Every child deserves the same opportunity to learn and should not be separated by money. This will result in a fairer and more equal society in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that all primary and secondary schools should be free as this would be beneficial for all of society. Not only would the poorest of society get the chance of a better education, but the more privileged would benefit from their peers being educated. This is because a more educated population means a more advanced and innovative society which is the benefit of all. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000239.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000239.soc index b721bcf3..f013ed7a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000239.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000239.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, people should be allowed to pay for a better education for their children if they can afford to. A child's future should not be restricted by their parent's income. In some countries, it is the law that parents pay for their children's education beyond secondary school. This is often not enforced. It would be better if these costs were simply included in taxation. If everyone was taxed more, we would all benefit from a better education system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, people should be allowed to pay for a better education for their children if they can afford to. A child's future should not be restricted by their parent's income. However, governments should look at how much they invest in the education of the young. Also, universities should not be allowed to favour candidates with a private education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be given the best education that they can. If this can be provided by the state system then that is the best option. If not, parents should be allowed to use their own money to provide a better education for their children. This is not to say that parents who cannot afford to pay should not be allowed to send their children to the best schools. However, it is unfair to make parents pay for their children's education when others do not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should have the same educational opportunities regardless of their parents income. If a child is smart, they should be given the chance to become educated in the best way possible. Taxation is an issue however and should be reviewed. It would be better to tax the parents who pay for their children's education rather than the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, people should be allowed to pay for a better education for their children if they can afford to. A child's future should not be restricted by their parent's income. In some countries, it is the law that parents pay for their children's education beyond secondary school. This is often not enforced. It would be better if these costs were simply included in taxation. If everyone was taxed more, we would all benefit from a better education system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, people should be allowed to pay for a better education for their children if they can afford to. A child's future should not be restricted by their parent's income. However, governments should look at how much they invest in the education of the young. Also, universities should not be allowed to favour candidates with a private education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be given the best education that they can. If this can be provided by the state system then that is the best option. If not, parents should be allowed to use their own money to provide a better education for their children. This is not to say that parents who cannot afford to pay should not be allowed to send their children to the best schools. However, it is unfair to make parents pay for their children's education when others do not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should have the same educational opportunities regardless of their parents income. If a child is smart, they should be given the chance to become educated in the best way possible. Taxation is an issue however and should be reviewed. It would be better to tax the parents who pay for their children's education rather than the general public. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000240.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000240.soc index 1f3921a1..4679dc44 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000240.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000240.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the group had mixed opinions, we decided that it was not the government's place to restrict the amount of calories in sugary drinks. Education about the harms of sugar, and taxing sugary drinks to increase their price would be more effective. The group also agreed that the government has bigger issues to tackle, such as climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to government intervention in this area. However, if people in the UK continue to drink large amounts of sugary drinks, then the government should use tax to encourage people to reduce the amount they drink. Tax is better than banning sugary drinks because it gives people a choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not limit the number of calories in a sugary drink. We need to take a more holistic approach to the obesity epidemic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not restrict the number of calories in sugary drinks. The issue of calories in sugary drinks is one that is easily avoided with a small amount of education. The government should focus more on things like increasing the price of sugary drinks to promote a move to healthier alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the group had mixed opinions, we decided that it was not the government's place to restrict the amount of calories in sugary drinks. Education about the harms of sugar, and taxing sugary drinks to increase their price would be more effective. The group also agreed that the government has bigger issues to tackle, such as climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to government intervention in this area. However, if people in the UK continue to drink large amounts of sugary drinks, then the government should use tax to encourage people to reduce the amount they drink. Tax is better than banning sugary drinks because it gives people a choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not limit the number of calories in a sugary drink. We need to take a more holistic approach to the obesity epidemic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not restrict the number of calories in sugary drinks. The issue of calories in sugary drinks is one that is easily avoided with a small amount of education. The government should focus more on things like increasing the price of sugary drinks to promote a move to healthier alternatives. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000241.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000241.soc index a0cc92e0..e5ab0cc7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000241.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000241.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, yes we should reduce the amount of meat we eat, however we recognise that some meat is part of a balanced diet and that it is important that other meat producers are encouraged to increase their efficiency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Reducing meat consumption to once or twice a week has many benefits. Health-wise, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. In addition, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although meat is important in a healthy balanced diet, it should be consumed in moderation to reduce the risk of heart disease and to reduce the negative impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are lots of things that need to be considered when it comes to eating meat. We should not reduce the amount of meat we eat but we should make an effort to eat less processed meat and more grass-fed beef and pork. The cost is a lot higher for grass-fed beef and pork and people should be aware that the colour of the meat is different, with grass-fed meat having a browner tinge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, yes we should reduce the amount of meat we eat, however we recognise that some meat is part of a balanced diet and that it is important that other meat producers are encouraged to increase their efficiency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Reducing meat consumption to once or twice a week has many benefits. Health-wise, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. In addition, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although meat is important in a healthy balanced diet, it should be consumed in moderation to reduce the risk of heart disease and to reduce the negative impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are lots of things that need to be considered when it comes to eating meat. We should not reduce the amount of meat we eat but we should make an effort to eat less processed meat and more grass-fed beef and pork. The cost is a lot higher for grass-fed beef and pork and people should be aware that the colour of the meat is different, with grass-fed meat having a browner tinge. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000242.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000242.soc index e4ae592b..d1ce5838 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000242.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000242.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the government should not intervene to make sure that employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, yes, the government should intervene to make sure employees of more successful companies are paid more generously, but each case should be considered on its merits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Government should intervene to ensure that employees of more successful companies are paid generously to alleviate some income inequality and redistribute profits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should not intervene to make sure employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. However, when a company reaches a certain size (e.g. Amazon) or makes a certain amount of profit, the government may want to intervene in order to ensure that workers are paid appropriately. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should not intervene to make sure that employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, yes, the government should intervene to make sure employees of more successful companies are paid more generously, but each case should be considered on its merits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Government should intervene to ensure that employees of more successful companies are paid generously to alleviate some income inequality and redistribute profits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should not intervene to make sure employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. However, when a company reaches a certain size (e.g. Amazon) or makes a certain amount of profit, the government may want to intervene in order to ensure that workers are paid appropriately. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000243.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000243.soc index cb4a89a4..92b6c7a4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000243.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000243.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The smoking ban in pubs has had mixed results. From the perspective of the public health and people who do not smoke, it has been an excellent step in the right direction and pubs are now much safer places for everyone to use. On the other hand, the ban has had a detrimental effect on the trade of pubs, especially in towns up and down the country where they have become less busy or have closed down altogether. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The smoking ban has been a good thing. However, the ban should have been introduced in a more effective manner. Instead of the government making the ban compulsory, the decision to ban smoking in pubs should have been left to the proprietors themselves. If they wanted to allow smoking in their premises, then it should have been their right to do so. However, it would have been better if the ban had been more strictly enforced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the introduction of the smoking ban in pubs has been a good thing. Most people do not like being subjected to the smell of cigarette smoke when in public places, especially in enclosed areas such as pubs and restaurants. There is also strong evidence to support the view that second hand smoke causes severe health issues. It is also believed that these health issues have been curtailed by the smoking ban. However, there are many opponents to the smoking ban. They point out that people still smoke, whether they are in a pub or at home. And in fact it has been noted that the smoking ban has caused a huge loss of trade in pubs and clubs. There is also strong evidence to support the view that there are huge costs to the local economies when pubs and clubs close down. Many people do not enjoy drinking at home and smoking in the pub is a big part of the overall enjoyment of a night out for them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing in many ways, although some people who smoke and are regulars in pubs are clearly going to disagree with this view. Some may even say that the ban is an infringement of their civil liberties. However, the ban has undoubtedly had a positive effect on public health, especially as regards passive smoking. The ban has also made pubs more accessible for families, which is a positive thing. This means that the pub remains an important part of the community and is a positive place for families and children to spend time together. We have come to the conclusion that the introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The smoking ban in pubs has had mixed results. From the perspective of the public health and people who do not smoke, it has been an excellent step in the right direction and pubs are now much safer places for everyone to use. On the other hand, the ban has had a detrimental effect on the trade of pubs, especially in towns up and down the country where they have become less busy or have closed down altogether. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The smoking ban has been a good thing. However, the ban should have been introduced in a more effective manner. Instead of the government making the ban compulsory, the decision to ban smoking in pubs should have been left to the proprietors themselves. If they wanted to allow smoking in their premises, then it should have been their right to do so. However, it would have been better if the ban had been more strictly enforced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the introduction of the smoking ban in pubs has been a good thing. Most people do not like being subjected to the smell of cigarette smoke when in public places, especially in enclosed areas such as pubs and restaurants. There is also strong evidence to support the view that second hand smoke causes severe health issues. It is also believed that these health issues have been curtailed by the smoking ban. However, there are many opponents to the smoking ban. They point out that people still smoke, whether they are in a pub or at home. And in fact it has been noted that the smoking ban has caused a huge loss of trade in pubs and clubs. There is also strong evidence to support the view that there are huge costs to the local economies when pubs and clubs close down. Many people do not enjoy drinking at home and smoking in the pub is a big part of the overall enjoyment of a night out for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing in many ways, although some people who smoke and are regulars in pubs are clearly going to disagree with this view. Some may even say that the ban is an infringement of their civil liberties. However, the ban has undoubtedly had a positive effect on public health, especially as regards passive smoking. The ban has also made pubs more accessible for families, which is a positive thing. This means that the pub remains an important part of the community and is a positive place for families and children to spend time together. We have come to the conclusion that the introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000244.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000244.soc index f6d62fab..d5108813 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000244.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000244.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Young people should be encouraged to be entrepreneurs, but in a very supportive way. In some cases they are highly motivated and have great ideas and could really benefit from mentoring. Some may not have any ideas or passion for entrepreneurship and so they should not be forced in to this career choice. The only way to find out is to try. ” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should encourage young people to be entrepreneurs as it can often lead to innovation and further learning for the human race. In the future, the world needs this and currently, it isn't taught enough. We believe there should be an emphasis on this to let kids know there are other avenues to explore and that some people work better in this way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Youth should be encouraged to become entrepreneurs to help the future of the economy. We need new businesses to create more jobs and contribute taxes to society. Young people should be motivated to work hard and be rewarded accordingly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should encourage young people to be entrepreneurs as this can help the future of the economy, and also, can often lead to innovation and further learning for the human race in general. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Young people should be encouraged to be entrepreneurs, but in a very supportive way. In some cases they are highly motivated and have great ideas and could really benefit from mentoring. Some may not have any ideas or passion for entrepreneurship and so they should not be forced in to this career choice. The only way to find out is to try. ” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should encourage young people to be entrepreneurs as it can often lead to innovation and further learning for the human race. In the future, the world needs this and currently, it isn't taught enough. We believe there should be an emphasis on this to let kids know there are other avenues to explore and that some people work better in this way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Youth should be encouraged to become entrepreneurs to help the future of the economy. We need new businesses to create more jobs and contribute taxes to society. Young people should be motivated to work hard and be rewarded accordingly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should encourage young people to be entrepreneurs as this can help the future of the economy, and also, can often lead to innovation and further learning for the human race in general. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000245.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000245.soc index 33c2c9f6..a1b611ee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000245.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000245.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Reducing meat consumption to once or twice a week has many benefits. Health-wise, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. In addition, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are many benefits to reducing our meat consumption. For our health, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. Furthermore, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Reducing meat consumption to once or twice a week has many benefits. Health-wise, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. In addition, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Meat is an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. Health-wise, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. In addition, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Reducing meat consumption to once or twice a week has many benefits. Health-wise, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. In addition, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are many benefits to reducing our meat consumption. For our health, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. Furthermore, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Reducing meat consumption to once or twice a week has many benefits. Health-wise, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. In addition, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Meat is an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. Health-wise, eating less meat can reduce the risk of heart disease and many cancers. In addition, animal agriculture has a negative impact on the environment through greenhouse gas emissions and waste production. However, meat is also an important source of protein and should be consumed in moderation. The meat we do eat should be of the highest quality, with organic, grass-fed meat being the best option. In addition, we should make sure we use as much of the animal as possible to minimise waste. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000246.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000246.soc index ad2ea979..a34013f5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000246.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000246.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the use of propaganda is not acceptable to shape public opinion. We believe that by the government doing this they are taking advantage of their position and manipulating the public's opinion on things. This could cause the public to have a negative view of the government and the public's trust in the government could be ruined. We also believe that by the government using propaganda the public may not be getting the full truth and what the government are actually saying and may not be the whole story. We have all agreed that the use of propaganda should not be allowed and should be looked into further as it could affect the trust in the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Propaganda is a weapon that can be used by anyone to shape opinion. Unfortunately, it's also something that can be used for bad reasons as well as good. It can be used by powerful organisations to prevent criticism and silence dissident voices. It can also be used to undermine a nation's electoral process, to influence voters, and shape public opinion in ways that may not be in the interests of the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not acceptable for the government to use propaganda to shape public opinion. In some countries this may be the case but in our country we should be able to trust what the government says. We do not want to be a dictatorship and have our voices heard. We want the government to be truthful and honest at all times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, It is not acceptable for the government to use propaganda to shape public opinion. Propaganda is where a government is attempting to convince people of something that isn't necessarily true. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the use of propaganda is not acceptable to shape public opinion. We believe that by the government doing this they are taking advantage of their position and manipulating the public's opinion on things. This could cause the public to have a negative view of the government and the public's trust in the government could be ruined. We also believe that by the government using propaganda the public may not be getting the full truth and what the government are actually saying and may not be the whole story. We have all agreed that the use of propaganda should not be allowed and should be looked into further as it could affect the trust in the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Propaganda is a weapon that can be used by anyone to shape opinion. Unfortunately, it's also something that can be used for bad reasons as well as good. It can be used by powerful organisations to prevent criticism and silence dissident voices. It can also be used to undermine a nation's electoral process, to influence voters, and shape public opinion in ways that may not be in the interests of the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not acceptable for the government to use propaganda to shape public opinion. In some countries this may be the case but in our country we should be able to trust what the government says. We do not want to be a dictatorship and have our voices heard. We want the government to be truthful and honest at all times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, It is not acceptable for the government to use propaganda to shape public opinion. Propaganda is where a government is attempting to convince people of something that isn't necessarily true. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000247.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000247.soc index ab1e4194..2869ce14 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000247.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000247.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not generally intervene to make sure that employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. However, when a company reaches a certain size or profit threshold, the government may intervene to make sure that employees are paid an appropriate wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government should not intervene to make sure employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. However, when a company reaches a certain size (e.g. Amazon) or makes a certain amount of profit, the government may want to intervene in order to ensure that workers are paid a living wage. (c) The above is a complex task, and by definition, there is no right answer. Instead, there is an ongoing process of creating a more refined, more polished consensus view, or opinion. (d) In a consensus-based work environment, every individual is heard. This can lead to a more complex process, which takes longer. But the quality of the final product may be better, as the resulting consensus may be more broadly accepted. This is a real strength of consensus-based decision-making. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should not intervene to make sure employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. However, when a company reaches a certain size (e.g. Amazon) or makes a certain amount of profit, the government may want to intervene in order to ensure that workers are paid appropriately. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some government intervention in the wages of successful companies, particularly in instances of monopolies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not generally intervene to make sure that employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. However, when a company reaches a certain size or profit threshold, the government may intervene to make sure that employees are paid an appropriate wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government should not intervene to make sure employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. However, when a company reaches a certain size (e.g. Amazon) or makes a certain amount of profit, the government may want to intervene in order to ensure that workers are paid a living wage. (c) The above is a complex task, and by definition, there is no right answer. Instead, there is an ongoing process of creating a more refined, more polished consensus view, or opinion. (d) In a consensus-based work environment, every individual is heard. This can lead to a more complex process, which takes longer. But the quality of the final product may be better, as the resulting consensus may be more broadly accepted. This is a real strength of consensus-based decision-making. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should not intervene to make sure employees of more successful companies are paid more generously. However, when a company reaches a certain size (e.g. Amazon) or makes a certain amount of profit, the government may want to intervene in order to ensure that workers are paid appropriately. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some government intervention in the wages of successful companies, particularly in instances of monopolies. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000248.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000248.soc index d0de7dba..1db41a71 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000248.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000248.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There has been a huge debate in the UK about the smoking ban and whether it has been a good thing or not. Although it is clear that it has been a positive thing from the perspective of public health, it has been argued that it has led to many pubs and other licensed premises closing down and has had a huge negative impact on the economy. However, pubs and other licensed premises which have survived the ban are thriving, as they are now more family-friendly places and are more accessible for people who do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. We have concluded that the ban has been a good thing from a public health perspective but the economic impact on pubs and other licensed premises is less clear. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing in many ways, although some people who smoke and are regulars in pubs are clearly going to disagree with this view. Some may even say that the ban is an infringement of their civil liberties. However, the ban has undoubtedly had a positive effect on public health, especially as regards passive smoking. The ban has also made pubs more accessible for families, which is a positive thing. This means that the pub remains an important part of the community and is a positive place for families and children to spend time together. The smoking ban is a good thing but we do have to acknowledge that the introduction of the smoking ban has been a financial disaster for a lot of pubs, which has led to a large number of pubs going out of business. The ones that remain open now have to depend on food trade to stay open. This is a shame, because pubs are also a vital part of the social fabric of life in a lot of towns in the UK and it is sad that they are no longer as busy as they used to be. We conclude that the introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing, but only after having taken into account that a lot of pubs -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The smoking ban has been a good thing in some ways but in others has had a negative impact. While it has clearly been a positive step forward for public health, this is a viewpoint that may not be shared by everyone, especially regular smokers who visit pubs and feel that their civil liberties have been infringed upon. We feel that the ban has been a good thing for families, making pubs more accessible to them, although the pub trade has suffered from the ban, resulting in the closure of many pubs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing in many ways, especially as regards public health. However, it is also true that some pubs have suffered due to the loss of trade that has occurred since the ban was introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There has been a huge debate in the UK about the smoking ban and whether it has been a good thing or not. Although it is clear that it has been a positive thing from the perspective of public health, it has been argued that it has led to many pubs and other licensed premises closing down and has had a huge negative impact on the economy. However, pubs and other licensed premises which have survived the ban are thriving, as they are now more family-friendly places and are more accessible for people who do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. We have concluded that the ban has been a good thing from a public health perspective but the economic impact on pubs and other licensed premises is less clear. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing in many ways, although some people who smoke and are regulars in pubs are clearly going to disagree with this view. Some may even say that the ban is an infringement of their civil liberties. However, the ban has undoubtedly had a positive effect on public health, especially as regards passive smoking. The ban has also made pubs more accessible for families, which is a positive thing. This means that the pub remains an important part of the community and is a positive place for families and children to spend time together. The smoking ban is a good thing but we do have to acknowledge that the introduction of the smoking ban has been a financial disaster for a lot of pubs, which has led to a large number of pubs going out of business. The ones that remain open now have to depend on food trade to stay open. This is a shame, because pubs are also a vital part of the social fabric of life in a lot of towns in the UK and it is sad that they are no longer as busy as they used to be. We conclude that the introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing, but only after having taken into account that a lot of pubs +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The smoking ban has been a good thing in some ways but in others has had a negative impact. While it has clearly been a positive step forward for public health, this is a viewpoint that may not be shared by everyone, especially regular smokers who visit pubs and feel that their civil liberties have been infringed upon. We feel that the ban has been a good thing for families, making pubs more accessible to them, although the pub trade has suffered from the ban, resulting in the closure of many pubs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The introduction of the smoking ban has been a good thing in many ways, especially as regards public health. However, it is also true that some pubs have suffered due to the loss of trade that has occurred since the ban was introduced. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000249.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000249.soc index fbc4deff..79df9070 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000249.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000249.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not reduce the voting age to 12. 12 year olds do not have a well-informed opinion about politics and therefore would not know who to vote for or why they are voting for them. We believe that 12 year olds are not ready to vote for their political leaders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not reduce voting age to 12 because most 12 year olds will not understand the most important political issues. They should be allowed to be children instead of worrying about current political issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not reduce the voting age to 12 because a child at 12 is too young to vote and does not have an understanding of what voting is about. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. 12 is too young an age to make a decision on who we want to be our leaders and the votes of 12 year olds will not be as well informed as older people. 12 year olds should be allowed to be children and vote when they are old enough to understand what voting is for and the impact of their vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not reduce the voting age to 12. 12 year olds do not have a well-informed opinion about politics and therefore would not know who to vote for or why they are voting for them. We believe that 12 year olds are not ready to vote for their political leaders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not reduce voting age to 12 because most 12 year olds will not understand the most important political issues. They should be allowed to be children instead of worrying about current political issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not reduce the voting age to 12 because a child at 12 is too young to vote and does not have an understanding of what voting is about. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. 12 is too young an age to make a decision on who we want to be our leaders and the votes of 12 year olds will not be as well informed as older people. 12 year olds should be allowed to be children and vote when they are old enough to understand what voting is for and the impact of their vote. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000250.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000250.soc index 1bdfa3c4..ec78b03b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000250.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000250.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that parents should be allowed to gift their estates to their children. However, we believe that the government should be able to tax this gift at a reasonable rate. The rate should be set by the government after consideration of the current economic climate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Question: Should parents be allowed to gift their estates to their children? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the participants were in favour of parents gifting their estates to their children. Most people see it as a basic right of parents to decide what to do with their possessions. However, there was a minority of people who were not entirely in favour of this and felt that inheritance tax should be lowered but not removed. It was suggested that inheritance tax is a useful source of income for the government, and without it we would all need to pay more tax. There were also concerns that people could attempt to evade inheritance tax by giving their estates to their children in instalments, rather than all at once. However, it was generally agreed that this was a minor issue and not a big enough problem to justify the current high levels of inheritance tax. Overall, the consensus was that parents should be allowed to gift their estates to their children and that inheritance tax should be lowered but not removed. The important question, then, is how do we convince the government to lower inheritance tax and remove restrictions on gifting estates to children? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Participants 1: Agree with question, however not in the way the wording suggests, it should be up to the individual not up to the government. It should not be allowed to be gifted tax free, as this may encourage parents to lie and say they have not passed it on, in order to avoid paying the tax. So if the estate is over a certain threshold of £250k, then the estate should be taxed on that. If the estate is passed on and is less than the threshold, then there should be no tax at all. Participants 2: Agree with the question. Participants 3: Agree with the question. Participants 4: Agree with the question. Participants 5: Agree with the question. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that parents should be allowed to gift their estates to their children. However, we believe that the government should be able to tax this gift at a reasonable rate. The rate should be set by the government after consideration of the current economic climate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Question: Should parents be allowed to gift their estates to their children? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the participants were in favour of parents gifting their estates to their children. Most people see it as a basic right of parents to decide what to do with their possessions. However, there was a minority of people who were not entirely in favour of this and felt that inheritance tax should be lowered but not removed. It was suggested that inheritance tax is a useful source of income for the government, and without it we would all need to pay more tax. There were also concerns that people could attempt to evade inheritance tax by giving their estates to their children in instalments, rather than all at once. However, it was generally agreed that this was a minor issue and not a big enough problem to justify the current high levels of inheritance tax. Overall, the consensus was that parents should be allowed to gift their estates to their children and that inheritance tax should be lowered but not removed. The important question, then, is how do we convince the government to lower inheritance tax and remove restrictions on gifting estates to children? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Participants 1: Agree with question, however not in the way the wording suggests, it should be up to the individual not up to the government. It should not be allowed to be gifted tax free, as this may encourage parents to lie and say they have not passed it on, in order to avoid paying the tax. So if the estate is over a certain threshold of £250k, then the estate should be taxed on that. If the estate is passed on and is less than the threshold, then there should be no tax at all. Participants 2: Agree with the question. Participants 3: Agree with the question. Participants 4: Agree with the question. Participants 5: Agree with the question. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000251.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000251.soc index 34b8b43f..d0a043bd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000251.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000251.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK does enough to help less well-off countries. In countries where the distribution of resources to the people is unbalanced or where political or social conditions are corrupt or inefficient, the impact of aid and other forms of support may not be enough. More support should be offered to those countries that are doing their best to share resources among their people, and also to support any country that is trying to improve its political or social conditions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should look to help. The extent to which we help would depend on a range of factors, and also how many countries would be willing to help as well. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. Also, it is also important to remember that we should not feel responsible for other countries. Their political and social issues are of their own making and therefore should not expect us to help them. If we can help, we should, but if not, it is not our problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, yes we should help less well-off countries, but we must be careful that the aid we provide is not just seen as a 'cash-transfer' that does not lead to any lasting improvements in the wellbeing of the recipients. We must be certain that our aid has the capacity to effect lasting change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should help the less well off countries as it will increase stability and prosperity in those areas. It will also reduce the instability and refugee crisis that is happening now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK does enough to help less well-off countries. In countries where the distribution of resources to the people is unbalanced or where political or social conditions are corrupt or inefficient, the impact of aid and other forms of support may not be enough. More support should be offered to those countries that are doing their best to share resources among their people, and also to support any country that is trying to improve its political or social conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should look to help. The extent to which we help would depend on a range of factors, and also how many countries would be willing to help as well. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. Also, it is also important to remember that we should not feel responsible for other countries. Their political and social issues are of their own making and therefore should not expect us to help them. If we can help, we should, but if not, it is not our problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, yes we should help less well-off countries, but we must be careful that the aid we provide is not just seen as a 'cash-transfer' that does not lead to any lasting improvements in the wellbeing of the recipients. We must be certain that our aid has the capacity to effect lasting change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should help the less well off countries as it will increase stability and prosperity in those areas. It will also reduce the instability and refugee crisis that is happening now. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000252.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000252.soc index 0b231358..450dac81 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000252.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000252.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the use of propaganda is not acceptable to shape public opinion. We believe that by the government doing this they are taking advantage of their position and manipulating the public's opinion on things. This could cause the public to have a negative view of the government and the public's trust in the government could be ruined. We also believe that by the government using propaganda the public may not be getting the full truth and what the government are actually saying and may not be the whole story. We have all agreed that the use of propaganda should not be allowed and should be looked into further as it could affect the trust in the government. Summary of the consensual research methods: The consensual research methods for the issue of the use of propaganda by the government are as follows: 1. Using a group of participants from different cultural and social backgrounds, with a mix of ages and gender. 2. Giving participants a question to discuss and answer together. 3. Allowing all participants to give their opinions and views on the question. 4. Drafting a consensus statement that takes into account all of the individual participants opinions and views, and sharing this with the group for critique. 5. Taking into -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the use of propaganda is not acceptable to shape public opinion. We believe that by the government doing this they are taking advantage of their position and manipulating the public's opinion on things. This could cause the public to have a negative view of the government and the public's trust in the government could be ruined. We also believe that by the government using propaganda the public may not be getting the full truth and what the government are actually saying and may not be the whole story. We have all agreed that the use of propaganda should not be allowed and should be looked into further as it could affect the trust in the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the use of propaganda is not acceptable to shape public opinion. We believe that by the government doing this they are taking advantage of their position and manipulating the public's opinion on things. This could cause the public to have a negative view of the government and the public's trust in the government could be ruined. We also believe that by the government using propaganda the public may not be getting the full truth and what the government are actually saying and may not be the whole story. We have all agreed that the use of propaganda should not be allowed and should be looked into further as it could affect the trust in the government. It is essential that the government are transparent with what they are saying to avoid the public from being misled and further problems. Part 2: The App After the success of the 'My View' App which allowed people to respond to polls and express their views in the form of polls, an App called 'Your View' has been created which allows the same people to participate in a 'consensus decision-making' style system. People can still participate by responding to polls, but now they can view the responses of others, and have the opportunity to express whether -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: After a long debate we have agreed that we do not believe that the government should use propaganda to shape public opinion. We believe that this is not an acceptable practice by the government and we feel that this is unfair to the public. We believe that this would also lead to a lack of trust in the government as the public would be unable to distinguish the lies from the truth. We feel that this would cause a divide between the public and the government as the public would be unable to trust the government if they felt that they were being lied to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the use of propaganda is not acceptable to shape public opinion. We believe that by the government doing this they are taking advantage of their position and manipulating the public's opinion on things. This could cause the public to have a negative view of the government and the public's trust in the government could be ruined. We also believe that by the government using propaganda the public may not be getting the full truth and what the government are actually saying and may not be the whole story. We have all agreed that the use of propaganda should not be allowed and should be looked into further as it could affect the trust in the government. Summary of the consensual research methods: The consensual research methods for the issue of the use of propaganda by the government are as follows: 1. Using a group of participants from different cultural and social backgrounds, with a mix of ages and gender. 2. Giving participants a question to discuss and answer together. 3. Allowing all participants to give their opinions and views on the question. 4. Drafting a consensus statement that takes into account all of the individual participants opinions and views, and sharing this with the group for critique. 5. Taking into +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the use of propaganda is not acceptable to shape public opinion. We believe that by the government doing this they are taking advantage of their position and manipulating the public's opinion on things. This could cause the public to have a negative view of the government and the public's trust in the government could be ruined. We also believe that by the government using propaganda the public may not be getting the full truth and what the government are actually saying and may not be the whole story. We have all agreed that the use of propaganda should not be allowed and should be looked into further as it could affect the trust in the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the use of propaganda is not acceptable to shape public opinion. We believe that by the government doing this they are taking advantage of their position and manipulating the public's opinion on things. This could cause the public to have a negative view of the government and the public's trust in the government could be ruined. We also believe that by the government using propaganda the public may not be getting the full truth and what the government are actually saying and may not be the whole story. We have all agreed that the use of propaganda should not be allowed and should be looked into further as it could affect the trust in the government. It is essential that the government are transparent with what they are saying to avoid the public from being misled and further problems. Part 2: The App After the success of the 'My View' App which allowed people to respond to polls and express their views in the form of polls, an App called 'Your View' has been created which allows the same people to participate in a 'consensus decision-making' style system. People can still participate by responding to polls, but now they can view the responses of others, and have the opportunity to express whether +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - After a long debate we have agreed that we do not believe that the government should use propaganda to shape public opinion. We believe that this is not an acceptable practice by the government and we feel that this is unfair to the public. We believe that this would also lead to a lack of trust in the government as the public would be unable to distinguish the lies from the truth. We feel that this would cause a divide between the public and the government as the public would be unable to trust the government if they felt that they were being lied to. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000253.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000253.soc index 1efe7cb0..287fecb4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000253.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000253.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not think the voting age should be reduced to 12. 12 year olds do not have an informed opinion about politics. This means that they will not know who to vote for or why they are voting for them. We believe that 12 year olds are not ready to vote for their political leaders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not reduce the voting age to 12. 12 year olds do not have a well-informed opinion about politics and therefore would not know who to vote for or why they are voting for them. We believe that 12 year olds are not ready to vote for their political leaders and should be allowed to be children and enjoy their youth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: 12 year olds should not be allowed to vote. Children of this age are too young to vote for their political leaders. A 12 year old child is not well-informed about political issues and is not ready to make any political decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be allowed to vote at 12 as they do not have a well-informed opinion on the important political issues of the day. 12 year olds are too young to decide on these matters and it would be better for them to be left to enjoy their youth and not worry about politics. We should not reduce the voting age to 12 as they do not have the right level of understanding to be able to make such a decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not think the voting age should be reduced to 12. 12 year olds do not have an informed opinion about politics. This means that they will not know who to vote for or why they are voting for them. We believe that 12 year olds are not ready to vote for their political leaders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not reduce the voting age to 12. 12 year olds do not have a well-informed opinion about politics and therefore would not know who to vote for or why they are voting for them. We believe that 12 year olds are not ready to vote for their political leaders and should be allowed to be children and enjoy their youth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - 12 year olds should not be allowed to vote. Children of this age are too young to vote for their political leaders. A 12 year old child is not well-informed about political issues and is not ready to make any political decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be allowed to vote at 12 as they do not have a well-informed opinion on the important political issues of the day. 12 year olds are too young to decide on these matters and it would be better for them to be left to enjoy their youth and not worry about politics. We should not reduce the voting age to 12 as they do not have the right level of understanding to be able to make such a decision. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000254.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000254.soc index 99f9e6e1..bc7978d8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000254.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000254.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the existence of privately owned media is a necessary condition for the freedom of the press, and a healthy democracy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be privately-owned media, as it encourages freedom of speech and different ways of looking at things. It is also important for the government to not be the sole holder of the information and control the narrative. However, privately-owned media outlets should not be allowed to publish information that is harmful or misleading to the public. There should be an independent media watchdog to police the media and make sure it is not harmful or misleading to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, yes, there is value in allowing privately-owned media. It is important to allow free speech and expression. Privately owned media is crucial to quality of the media industry as positive outcome quality of the industry depends on freedom and autonomy to publish news and opinions, without bias. A significant part of the media is expected to remain private to allow independent opinion, and participation that put the government in balance. The media is the fourth estate and therefore should be allowed to function without any constraints. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be privately owned media outlets in order to allow freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and a diversity of opinions, which should be celebrated and promoted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the existence of privately owned media is a necessary condition for the freedom of the press, and a healthy democracy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be privately-owned media, as it encourages freedom of speech and different ways of looking at things. It is also important for the government to not be the sole holder of the information and control the narrative. However, privately-owned media outlets should not be allowed to publish information that is harmful or misleading to the public. There should be an independent media watchdog to police the media and make sure it is not harmful or misleading to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, yes, there is value in allowing privately-owned media. It is important to allow free speech and expression. Privately owned media is crucial to quality of the media industry as positive outcome quality of the industry depends on freedom and autonomy to publish news and opinions, without bias. A significant part of the media is expected to remain private to allow independent opinion, and participation that put the government in balance. The media is the fourth estate and therefore should be allowed to function without any constraints. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be privately owned media outlets in order to allow freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and a diversity of opinions, which should be celebrated and promoted. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000255.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000255.soc index f6afbea7..d48e7081 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000255.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000255.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The group would like to start by acknowledging that climate change is one of the biggest problems the world faces and we need to do all we can to combat it. We are in agreement that businesses are not doing enough and should be doing more. However, we do not feel that the answer to this is a carbon tax as businesses will then pass the cost onto the consumer, therefore we feel that rather than introducing a tax the government should offer incentives to businesses to encourage them to become more environmentally friendly. We are of the opinion that if the government were to offer such incentives then businesses would invest in green initiatives to reduce their carbon footprint. We all agreed that there would need to be some kind of regulation to ensure that businesses are doing what they say they are doing and that incentives should be tiered based on the size of business and how much energy they use.” The above case study is an example of how a group of people can reach a consensus. It is also an example of how people can reach a consensus after being informed by the knowledge that all participants share. In this case, it was a shared belief that climate change is one of the biggest problems the world faces and that businesses should be doing more to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should enforce a carbon tax on businesses. The biggest threat to the planet is climate change and something needs to be done. Companies need to be encouraged to be sustainable and to move away from the business practices that emit huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. By enforcing a carbon tax on businesses it is hoped that this will force companies to start looking at greener alternatives and make the public aware of the crisis that the planet is facing. This will encourage people to come up with solutions and work to save the planet from climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Businesses should pay a carbon tax for polluting the environment. The government should impose a carbon tax on businesses to discourage wasteful consumption of energy and to encourage them to invest in energy-efficient technologies and processes. This would help the environment and prevent businesses from polluting the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group agrees that the government should enforce a carbon tax on businesses. This is to reduce the amount of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere and will ultimately lead to a better and healthier world. The carbon tax would need to be implemented in a phased manner over time and also dependent upon the size of the business as well as other factors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The group would like to start by acknowledging that climate change is one of the biggest problems the world faces and we need to do all we can to combat it. We are in agreement that businesses are not doing enough and should be doing more. However, we do not feel that the answer to this is a carbon tax as businesses will then pass the cost onto the consumer, therefore we feel that rather than introducing a tax the government should offer incentives to businesses to encourage them to become more environmentally friendly. We are of the opinion that if the government were to offer such incentives then businesses would invest in green initiatives to reduce their carbon footprint. We all agreed that there would need to be some kind of regulation to ensure that businesses are doing what they say they are doing and that incentives should be tiered based on the size of business and how much energy they use.” The above case study is an example of how a group of people can reach a consensus. It is also an example of how people can reach a consensus after being informed by the knowledge that all participants share. In this case, it was a shared belief that climate change is one of the biggest problems the world faces and that businesses should be doing more to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should enforce a carbon tax on businesses. The biggest threat to the planet is climate change and something needs to be done. Companies need to be encouraged to be sustainable and to move away from the business practices that emit huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. By enforcing a carbon tax on businesses it is hoped that this will force companies to start looking at greener alternatives and make the public aware of the crisis that the planet is facing. This will encourage people to come up with solutions and work to save the planet from climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Businesses should pay a carbon tax for polluting the environment. The government should impose a carbon tax on businesses to discourage wasteful consumption of energy and to encourage them to invest in energy-efficient technologies and processes. This would help the environment and prevent businesses from polluting the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group agrees that the government should enforce a carbon tax on businesses. This is to reduce the amount of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere and will ultimately lead to a better and healthier world. The carbon tax would need to be implemented in a phased manner over time and also dependent upon the size of the business as well as other factors. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000256.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000256.soc index 0ee470e6..7a77744a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000256.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000256.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should help. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. It is important to remember that we are all on this planet together, and our struggles as humans are collective. We should help where we can, but we must ensure that our help is targeted to genuine need and used effectively. We should also accept that we can't help everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should help. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should look to help. The extent to which we help would depend on a range of factors, and also how many countries would be willing to help as well. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. Also, it is also important to remember that we should not feel responsible for other countries. Their political and social issues are of their own making and therefore should not expect us to help them. If we can help, we should, but if not, it is not our problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should look to help. The extent to which we help would depend on a range of factors, and also how many countries would be willing to help as well. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. Also, it is also important to remember that we should not feel responsible for other countries. Their political and social issues are of their own making and therefore should not expect us to help them. If we can help, we should, but if not, it is not our problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should help. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. It is important to remember that we are all on this planet together, and our struggles as humans are collective. We should help where we can, but we must ensure that our help is targeted to genuine need and used effectively. We should also accept that we can't help everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should help. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should look to help. The extent to which we help would depend on a range of factors, and also how many countries would be willing to help as well. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. Also, it is also important to remember that we should not feel responsible for other countries. Their political and social issues are of their own making and therefore should not expect us to help them. If we can help, we should, but if not, it is not our problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - As a country we should be more active in helping other countries. If we see any form of crisis, be it famine, political unrest, natural disasters etc, we should look to help. The extent to which we help would depend on a range of factors, and also how many countries would be willing to help as well. We also need to ensure that we do not allow help to be misdirected away from those who actually need it. Also, it is also important to remember that we should not feel responsible for other countries. Their political and social issues are of their own making and therefore should not expect us to help them. If we can help, we should, but if not, it is not our problem. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000257.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000257.soc index ba7a6d88..2441d673 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000257.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000257.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is acceptable to drive across the country to visit a friend despite the carbon cost. This is only an issue if the friend lives in an urban area where public transport is readily available and driving is thus not the only option. In cases where public transport is not readily available and the friend lives in a rural area, the carbon cost can be mitigated by offsetting it by donating to an organization that helps to mitigate climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The carbon cost of driving is only an issue if it is a very long distance and the cost to travel by public transport is affordable and not inconvenient. If the friend lives in a rural area, public transport may be non-existent. The carbon cost is then mitigated if the friend lives in a home that uses solar panels and/or wind turbines to generate their own electricity and heat. The carbon cost is also mitigated if the driver chooses to offset the carbon emissions by donating to an organization that helps to mitigate climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: If the friend lives in a rural area, public transport may be non-existent. The carbon cost is then mitigated if the friend lives in a home that uses solar panels and/or wind turbines to generate their own electricity and heat. The carbon cost is also mitigated if the driver chooses to offset the carbon emissions by donating to an organization that helps to mitigate climate change. The final consensus statement has addressed all of the critiques. All of the participants felt that they were adequately represented in the final consensus view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Driving across the country to visit a friend is OK, but there is a carbon cost which must be mitigated if possible. This can be done by taking a train or bus if that is feasible, donating to a charity that works to mitigate climate change, and offsetting the carbon cost of the car. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is acceptable to drive across the country to visit a friend despite the carbon cost. This is only an issue if the friend lives in an urban area where public transport is readily available and driving is thus not the only option. In cases where public transport is not readily available and the friend lives in a rural area, the carbon cost can be mitigated by offsetting it by donating to an organization that helps to mitigate climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The carbon cost of driving is only an issue if it is a very long distance and the cost to travel by public transport is affordable and not inconvenient. If the friend lives in a rural area, public transport may be non-existent. The carbon cost is then mitigated if the friend lives in a home that uses solar panels and/or wind turbines to generate their own electricity and heat. The carbon cost is also mitigated if the driver chooses to offset the carbon emissions by donating to an organization that helps to mitigate climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - If the friend lives in a rural area, public transport may be non-existent. The carbon cost is then mitigated if the friend lives in a home that uses solar panels and/or wind turbines to generate their own electricity and heat. The carbon cost is also mitigated if the driver chooses to offset the carbon emissions by donating to an organization that helps to mitigate climate change. The final consensus statement has addressed all of the critiques. All of the participants felt that they were adequately represented in the final consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Driving across the country to visit a friend is OK, but there is a carbon cost which must be mitigated if possible. This can be done by taking a train or bus if that is feasible, donating to a charity that works to mitigate climate change, and offsetting the carbon cost of the car. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000258.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000258.soc index 8636af54..f6aade00 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000258.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000258.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban the production of food products containing palm oil as this would help reduce deforestation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Palm oil is a contributing factor to deforestation, climate change, the killing of endangered species, and the use of child labour. For these reasons, the group believe we should ban palm oil. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Palm oil is the worst oil to consume, for animals, for the planet, for you. We are highly recommend you cut palm oil out of your diet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban the production of food products containing palm oil as this would help reduce deforestation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Palm oil is a contributing factor to deforestation, climate change, the killing of endangered species, and the use of child labour. For these reasons, the group believe we should ban palm oil. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Palm oil is the worst oil to consume, for animals, for the planet, for you. We are highly recommend you cut palm oil out of your diet. 4: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000259.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000259.soc index 4ab579c0..b49d698c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000259.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000259.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. In addition, the palm oil industry uses child labor and exploits workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. Furthermore, palm oil farming exploits workers and child labor. Palm oil should be banned from food products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. In addition, palm oil production can include forced labor, child labor, and other human rights abuses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. There is also exploitation of workers and child labor because of palm oil. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. In addition, the palm oil industry uses child labor and exploits workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. Furthermore, palm oil farming exploits workers and child labor. Palm oil should be banned from food products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. In addition, palm oil production can include forced labor, child labor, and other human rights abuses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the production of palm oil is an environmental issue. The palm oil industry is one of the major causes of deforestation. Deforestation increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Deforestation has also destroyed the habitats of already endangered animals and continues to do so. Palm oil farming is also a major overall contributor to greenhouse gasses rising, and therefore global warming. There is also exploitation of workers and child labor because of palm oil. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000260.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000260.soc index 61c9d9c6..9f12da8f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000260.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000260.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a maximum wage for certain jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a maximum wage in some professions. For example, politicians should not earn more than 20x the average income in their country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of having a maximum wage is a bad one. Although it might seem popular on the surface, a maximum wage could easily lead to high-value workers leaving the country, reducing the total income of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a maximum wage for certain jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a maximum wage in some professions. For example, politicians should not earn more than 20x the average income in their country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of having a maximum wage is a bad one. Although it might seem popular on the surface, a maximum wage could easily lead to high-value workers leaving the country, reducing the total income of the country. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000261.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000261.soc index c438bfb1..1557cd8e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000261.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000261.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People can be more productive when working from home if they are able to self motivate and manage their own time and if they can reduce the number of distractions from the outside world and their domestic life. In addition it is also important that people are able to keep in touch with their colleagues in a work environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The quality of work produced by employees depends more on their attitude and commitment towards work rather than the working environment. In the case of the latter, working from home can provide a good atmosphere for more productive work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, working from home is more productive than in the office. However, it depends on the type of job. Some jobs are more suited to working from home as they are not collaborative in nature and require long periods of concentration. Some of the challenges they had to overcome during the debate were: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People are more productive when working from home, however this does not mean that working from home is suited to all jobs. People who have deadlines and responsibility for their own work are more likely to benefit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People can be more productive when working from home if they are able to self motivate and manage their own time and if they can reduce the number of distractions from the outside world and their domestic life. In addition it is also important that people are able to keep in touch with their colleagues in a work environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The quality of work produced by employees depends more on their attitude and commitment towards work rather than the working environment. In the case of the latter, working from home can provide a good atmosphere for more productive work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, working from home is more productive than in the office. However, it depends on the type of job. Some jobs are more suited to working from home as they are not collaborative in nature and require long periods of concentration. Some of the challenges they had to overcome during the debate were: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People are more productive when working from home, however this does not mean that working from home is suited to all jobs. People who have deadlines and responsibility for their own work are more likely to benefit. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000262.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000262.soc index cc6f293f..fb70a9b0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000262.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000262.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People in the UK should be encouraged to use a bicycle to get to work because it’s a great way to help protect the environment. Cycling to work will help to reduce the amount of cars on the road, which will in turn reduce the amount of emissions that contribute to global warming. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be encouraging people to cycle to work. However, this should be done intelligently. We should be educating people in schools on the health and safety aspects of cycling to work. We should also be developing a culture of respect on the roads for cyclists and for drivers. By developing this culture of respect, it is likely that this behaviour will be passed on to children and their children. It is also likely that a large majority of people who bike to work are younger people and these people may also pass this behaviour on to their children. We should also be investing more into cycle paths and making this an affordable mode of transport. However, we should be aware that encouraging people to bike to work is more about health than the planet as the impact of our behaviour is negligible in comparison to large companies such as oil companies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People in the UK should be encouraged to use a bicycle to get to work. This will reduce congestion, improve the environment and reduce pollution in cities. However, the infrastructure must be adapted to accommodate cyclists. In particular, cycling lanes must be added and cycle paths widened so that cyclists can cycle safely on the roads. Cycling also has great health benefits and could help to improve the overall health of the nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging people to bike to work. We had different opinions on how to implement it and what are the benefits of doing it. We all agreed that the cycling infrastructure should be improved and the government should provide safer routes for people to bike to work. The issue is not so much the people who are willing to do it but the people who are willing to drive their cars, making it dangerous for the cyclists. For example, bus lanes could be made into bike lanes as they are generally very empty and cyclists could be offered subsidies for bus tickets to make it more cost effective to cycle. We also agreed that more funding needs to be put into bettering the current infrastructure and the government should encourage cycling as a healthier lifestyle choice for people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People in the UK should be encouraged to use a bicycle to get to work because it’s a great way to help protect the environment. Cycling to work will help to reduce the amount of cars on the road, which will in turn reduce the amount of emissions that contribute to global warming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be encouraging people to cycle to work. However, this should be done intelligently. We should be educating people in schools on the health and safety aspects of cycling to work. We should also be developing a culture of respect on the roads for cyclists and for drivers. By developing this culture of respect, it is likely that this behaviour will be passed on to children and their children. It is also likely that a large majority of people who bike to work are younger people and these people may also pass this behaviour on to their children. We should also be investing more into cycle paths and making this an affordable mode of transport. However, we should be aware that encouraging people to bike to work is more about health than the planet as the impact of our behaviour is negligible in comparison to large companies such as oil companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People in the UK should be encouraged to use a bicycle to get to work. This will reduce congestion, improve the environment and reduce pollution in cities. However, the infrastructure must be adapted to accommodate cyclists. In particular, cycling lanes must be added and cycle paths widened so that cyclists can cycle safely on the roads. Cycling also has great health benefits and could help to improve the overall health of the nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging people to bike to work. We had different opinions on how to implement it and what are the benefits of doing it. We all agreed that the cycling infrastructure should be improved and the government should provide safer routes for people to bike to work. The issue is not so much the people who are willing to do it but the people who are willing to drive their cars, making it dangerous for the cyclists. For example, bus lanes could be made into bike lanes as they are generally very empty and cyclists could be offered subsidies for bus tickets to make it more cost effective to cycle. We also agreed that more funding needs to be put into bettering the current infrastructure and the government should encourage cycling as a healthier lifestyle choice for people. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000263.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000263.soc index 2c723456..5f79b5a7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000263.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000263.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion. We all think this will be good for local residents who are suffering with congestion but we feel there needs to be other measures implemented to improve the situation. We also think that the additional new roads may lead to increased car usage which will in turn lead to an increase in CO2 emissions which we all agree is bad for the environment. However, we also think that this can be mitigated by the building of more public transport links to the city centre which would be great for people who don’t want to drive but would like to access the city centre. In conclusion, we all think that building new roads is good to relieve congestion but this needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation improvements to really relieve the pressure on the roads in the area.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be the creation of new roads as well as the improvement of public transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the addition of new roads to relieve the pressure on existing congested roads is an effective way to reduce congestion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Ultimately, yes we should build new roads, but in a very specific way. In some cases congestion may be due to an accident or something like that which will then require a new road to be built. However, there should be no exception in these cases to providing adequate space for public transport, walking and cycling. We must be wary of the dangers of inducing new car traffic and that new roads must be integrated into the transport system to relieve congestion. This will also be important in the sense that it is important to recognise the scale of the road we wish to build and if it will have a positive or negative impact on the environment. The consensus statement below takes into account these things.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion. We all think this will be good for local residents who are suffering with congestion but we feel there needs to be other measures implemented to improve the situation. We also think that the additional new roads may lead to increased car usage which will in turn lead to an increase in CO2 emissions which we all agree is bad for the environment. However, we also think that this can be mitigated by the building of more public transport links to the city centre which would be great for people who don’t want to drive but would like to access the city centre. In conclusion, we all think that building new roads is good to relieve congestion but this needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation improvements to really relieve the pressure on the roads in the area.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be the creation of new roads as well as the improvement of public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the addition of new roads to relieve the pressure on existing congested roads is an effective way to reduce congestion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Ultimately, yes we should build new roads, but in a very specific way. In some cases congestion may be due to an accident or something like that which will then require a new road to be built. However, there should be no exception in these cases to providing adequate space for public transport, walking and cycling. We must be wary of the dangers of inducing new car traffic and that new roads must be integrated into the transport system to relieve congestion. This will also be important in the sense that it is important to recognise the scale of the road we wish to build and if it will have a positive or negative impact on the environment. The consensus statement below takes into account these things.” 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000264.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000264.soc index 436f424a..7a5cfcb8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000264.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000264.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, people who do not have UK citizenship should not be allowed to vote in UK elections. But, this is a complicated issue. For example, if a person is only living in the UK for a short period of time they would not know as much about the country and its issues as a person who was born and raised here. On the other hand, a person who is born and raised in the UK would not be as affected by a policy change as a person who will live here for a long period of time. A person who is living in the UK but will only be living here for a short period of time should not be able to vote, but people who live here for longer periods of time and have been here since their birth should have the right to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The law should remain unchanged. However, those who have lived in the UK for a long time should be given the right to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People who do not have UK citizenship should be allowed to vote in UK elections. The issue of citizenship is a highly politicised one and could lead to a substantial amount of controversy in UK society. The suggestion that people who are not citizens of the UK should be allowed to vote in UK elections would be seen by some as an erosion of British values and national identity. However, it is important to understand that Britain is made up of many cultures and ethnicities and as such, people from all over the world have contributed to its rich and diverse culture and have made Britain what it is today. Therefore, people from other countries should be allowed to vote in UK elections, given that they will also be affected by the outcome of elections. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People living in the UK should be able to vote after a certain amount of time living in the UK, and if they can demonstrate that they are well-informed about the issues, so that they can make a well-informed vote. - Group 2 +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, people who do not have UK citizenship should not be allowed to vote in UK elections. But, this is a complicated issue. For example, if a person is only living in the UK for a short period of time they would not know as much about the country and its issues as a person who was born and raised here. On the other hand, a person who is born and raised in the UK would not be as affected by a policy change as a person who will live here for a long period of time. A person who is living in the UK but will only be living here for a short period of time should not be able to vote, but people who live here for longer periods of time and have been here since their birth should have the right to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The law should remain unchanged. However, those who have lived in the UK for a long time should be given the right to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People who do not have UK citizenship should be allowed to vote in UK elections. The issue of citizenship is a highly politicised one and could lead to a substantial amount of controversy in UK society. The suggestion that people who are not citizens of the UK should be allowed to vote in UK elections would be seen by some as an erosion of British values and national identity. However, it is important to understand that Britain is made up of many cultures and ethnicities and as such, people from all over the world have contributed to its rich and diverse culture and have made Britain what it is today. Therefore, people from other countries should be allowed to vote in UK elections, given that they will also be affected by the outcome of elections. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People living in the UK should be able to vote after a certain amount of time living in the UK, and if they can demonstrate that they are well-informed about the issues, so that they can make a well-informed vote. - Group 2 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000265.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000265.soc index e617a21b..29dafd71 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000265.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000265.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think the state pension age should be increased. There is no consensus on any other statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The state pension age should not be increased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: State Pension Age should not be raised. The current level of the state pension age is fairly high and the expected lifespan of the population is going down. If we raise the age consistently many people won't make it to retirement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not increase the state pension age as it would make it harder for younger people to enter the workforce. The state pension age is already high compared to other neighbouring countries. Increasing the state pension age may result in an increase in unemployment. Increasing the state pension age may keep jaded, older worker in the workforce as opposed to hungry, ambitious workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think the state pension age should be increased. There is no consensus on any other statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The state pension age should not be increased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - State Pension Age should not be raised. The current level of the state pension age is fairly high and the expected lifespan of the population is going down. If we raise the age consistently many people won't make it to retirement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not increase the state pension age as it would make it harder for younger people to enter the workforce. The state pension age is already high compared to other neighbouring countries. Increasing the state pension age may result in an increase in unemployment. Increasing the state pension age may keep jaded, older worker in the workforce as opposed to hungry, ambitious workers. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000266.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000266.soc index 0433a675..265a0139 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000266.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000266.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK does have a moral duty to admit more refugees, however, the UK is not well-equipped to handle them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should admit more refugees. However, there are genuine refugees and economic migrants and it is proving very difficult to distinguish between the two. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should continue to be a refuge for genuine refugees, but we have the right to return people to their country if we believe that is in their best long term interests. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK does have a moral duty to accept refugees as some of these refugees are displaced due to war in their countries. However, the government needs to be selective on the types of refugees they accept. For instance, some refugees may be victims of war, but they also may be war criminals. These types of refugees should be denied access to the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK does have a moral duty to admit more refugees, however, the UK is not well-equipped to handle them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should admit more refugees. However, there are genuine refugees and economic migrants and it is proving very difficult to distinguish between the two. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should continue to be a refuge for genuine refugees, but we have the right to return people to their country if we believe that is in their best long term interests. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK does have a moral duty to accept refugees as some of these refugees are displaced due to war in their countries. However, the government needs to be selective on the types of refugees they accept. For instance, some refugees may be victims of war, but they also may be war criminals. These types of refugees should be denied access to the UK. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000267.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000267.soc index 57d8ffd1..4198590b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000267.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000267.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, because laws have been in development for centuries, building off experiences from history. Starting over again will cause a lot of confusion especially if all laws are being replaced. If a new law system were to be developed it should be phased in over time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. We need a well-functioning legal system that provides guidance for the conduct of people and organizations, and protection of their rights and interests. The legal system we have today is a culmination of centuries of developing law and order and has been established to make the best of what has been learned in history. It is unlikely that any new legal system that may be developed would be better than the one we have today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. This is because most of our laws are developed through experience and it will take a long time to develop a new system. We need laws to protect citizens and ensure that people are held accountable for their actions. There is no point in getting rid of everything that is in place now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, laws that are in place have been in place for centuries and have been developed in such a way to allow our country to prosper and allow its people to live peacefully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, because laws have been in development for centuries, building off experiences from history. Starting over again will cause a lot of confusion especially if all laws are being replaced. If a new law system were to be developed it should be phased in over time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. We need a well-functioning legal system that provides guidance for the conduct of people and organizations, and protection of their rights and interests. The legal system we have today is a culmination of centuries of developing law and order and has been established to make the best of what has been learned in history. It is unlikely that any new legal system that may be developed would be better than the one we have today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. This is because most of our laws are developed through experience and it will take a long time to develop a new system. We need laws to protect citizens and ensure that people are held accountable for their actions. There is no point in getting rid of everything that is in place now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, laws that are in place have been in place for centuries and have been developed in such a way to allow our country to prosper and allow its people to live peacefully. 4: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000268.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000268.soc index 4a75abf3..5547497e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000268.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000268.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the government should not limit the number of channels a satellite TV company can provide. In the interest of the health of the TV market, the government should ensure that consumers are provided with the best service and options available. The channels that are offered by a satellite TV company will reflect the need and the demands of the market, and will not need to be regulated by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, while we recognise the concern that by allowing satellite TV companies to provide unlimited TV channels it may lead to a reduced quality in programming and could reduce choice for consumers, in the end we believe that people should have as much choice as possible in their TV entertainment. While we acknowledge that the quality of programming may be of concern, we feel that if enough people complain about a particular channel that it will simply lose viewership and the market will regulate itself. We therefore believe that limiting the number of TV channels is unnecessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government has no place in regulating the satellite television industry and should not interfere in the free-to-air market as it is one of the few places where freedom of speech is given and opinions can be voiced. People have the right to watch whatever they like and if they want to choose to watch something then this should be their right. However, if satellite television companies become too big and monopolise the market then this would not be in the public interest. If it is seen that the quality of free-to-air channels are suffering and the entertainment factor is low then this may be an indication that companies are not working hard enough to deliver content. It would be better if this situation were investigated and better guidelines were put in place rather than simply limiting the number of channels offered by a satellite company. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should have a cap on the number of channels a satellite TV company can provide to just the four free-to-air channels as this will ensure all companies can compete and provide a great service and it would prevent any one company from gaining an unfair advantage over the others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should not limit the number of channels a satellite TV company can provide. In the interest of the health of the TV market, the government should ensure that consumers are provided with the best service and options available. The channels that are offered by a satellite TV company will reflect the need and the demands of the market, and will not need to be regulated by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, while we recognise the concern that by allowing satellite TV companies to provide unlimited TV channels it may lead to a reduced quality in programming and could reduce choice for consumers, in the end we believe that people should have as much choice as possible in their TV entertainment. While we acknowledge that the quality of programming may be of concern, we feel that if enough people complain about a particular channel that it will simply lose viewership and the market will regulate itself. We therefore believe that limiting the number of TV channels is unnecessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government has no place in regulating the satellite television industry and should not interfere in the free-to-air market as it is one of the few places where freedom of speech is given and opinions can be voiced. People have the right to watch whatever they like and if they want to choose to watch something then this should be their right. However, if satellite television companies become too big and monopolise the market then this would not be in the public interest. If it is seen that the quality of free-to-air channels are suffering and the entertainment factor is low then this may be an indication that companies are not working hard enough to deliver content. It would be better if this situation were investigated and better guidelines were put in place rather than simply limiting the number of channels offered by a satellite company. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should have a cap on the number of channels a satellite TV company can provide to just the four free-to-air channels as this will ensure all companies can compete and provide a great service and it would prevent any one company from gaining an unfair advantage over the others. 3: 3,1,2,4 2: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000269.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000269.soc index 796835f9..5adb2b05 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000269.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000269.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People with good reason, such as being persecuted in their country, or because they have skills that are in short supply should be able to immigrate to the UK. The UK is not big enough to allow everyone who wants to immigrate to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be able to give anyone the opportunity to migrate to the UK, but they should not be allowed to stay if they are of a bad character, i.e. if they have a criminal record. This is to protect the safety of the people of the UK. If a person wants to come to the UK, they should be able to as long as they have a valid reason to be here, i.e. they have a skill that is in short supply, or they are unable to live safely in their current country. We are not a big country, so we should not be able to allow all people to come to the UK and stay for an unlimited amount of time. It is possible to become a citizen of the UK, which would allow someone to stay here and work for an unlimited amount of time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of legal immigration, but with conditions. We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be able to legally immigrate to the UK, but only after certain requirements are met. They should not have any criminal record, and should be able to demonstrate that they can contribute to the UK by working. There should be no cap on immigration, but the Government should ensure that there are enough jobs, housing, medical services etc for people who do immigrate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People with good reason, such as being persecuted in their country, or because they have skills that are in short supply should be able to immigrate to the UK. The UK is not big enough to allow everyone who wants to immigrate to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be able to give anyone the opportunity to migrate to the UK, but they should not be allowed to stay if they are of a bad character, i.e. if they have a criminal record. This is to protect the safety of the people of the UK. If a person wants to come to the UK, they should be able to as long as they have a valid reason to be here, i.e. they have a skill that is in short supply, or they are unable to live safely in their current country. We are not a big country, so we should not be able to allow all people to come to the UK and stay for an unlimited amount of time. It is possible to become a citizen of the UK, which would allow someone to stay here and work for an unlimited amount of time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of legal immigration, but with conditions. We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be able to legally immigrate to the UK, but only after certain requirements are met. They should not have any criminal record, and should be able to demonstrate that they can contribute to the UK by working. There should be no cap on immigration, but the Government should ensure that there are enough jobs, housing, medical services etc for people who do immigrate. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000270.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000270.soc index b76a7a76..3dde3653 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000270.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000270.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship. The idea may be popular with the proletariat, but it would be a disaster for the country if high value workers were to migrate to countries that have no maximum wage, as this would lead to a skills shortage. We need to think carefully about the issue before deciding what we think on the matter.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship. Anyone considering the idea of a maximum wage should be aware that a maximum wage would most likely drive away skilled workers, who would go to countries with no maximum wage. This would lead to a skills shortage, which would be disastrous for the economy.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship” Summary: 1. Read the question, and form an opinion on the issue 2. Read all of the opinions of the participants, and take notes of what you like about the opinions and what you do not like about them 3. Read the Draft +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship. The idea may be popular with the proletariat, but it would be a disaster for the country if high value workers were to migrate to countries that have no maximum wage, as this would lead to a skills shortage. We need to think carefully about the issue before deciding what we think on the matter.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship. Anyone considering the idea of a maximum wage should be aware that a maximum wage would most likely drive away skilled workers, who would go to countries with no maximum wage. This would lead to a skills shortage, which would be disastrous for the economy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The idea of a maximum wage is a controversial one, as it raises questions about individual rights and government control. While some argue that a maximum wage would promote income equality and discourage excessive wealth accumulation, others argue that it would be difficult to implement and could disincetivize innovation and entrepreneurship” Summary: 1. Read the question, and form an opinion on the issue 2. Read all of the opinions of the participants, and take notes of what you like about the opinions and what you do not like about them 3. Read the Draft 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000271.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000271.soc index 9227106d..dff0fd67 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000271.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000271.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not ban the export of all animal products. Doing so would harm the economy and potentially reduce people's access to quality sources of nutrition. In order to provide a good quality of life for all animals, we should look to introduce a number of policies that would help to protect the environment and the welfare of all animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should be putting an end to animal farming and export of animal products in the UK, and the rest of the world. The farming of animals has long term, detrimental effects on the environment. For example, livestock produce a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and the use of water for these farms can lead to desertification. Also, we do not need animal products for our nutrition. It is possible to get everything we need from a plant-based diet. Banning the export of animal products would also force our country to become more self-sufficient in these areas. So this example shows that you can actually have a really strong consensus opinion even if everyone's original individual opinion was quite different. This could be a really useful tool for you to use in your essays - when you're making an argument, you should be trying to have a clear view or opinion, and it can help to state this opinion at the start of your paragraph and then spend the rest of the paragraph backing it up. This way, you're making sure that you're writing in a clear and coherent way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the export of animal products should not be banned. However, we must consider the welfare of animals and the environment when considering such a trade. The methods of production should not be cruel or hurt the animals or the environment. Summary of Techniques -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we do not believe that a ban should be placed on the export of animal products. We are aware of the negative impacts that animal farming can have on the environment, however we believe that if animal farming is done in a sustainable manner, these problems can be mitigated. We are also aware that animal farming is vital for the economy, and many people rely on it for their livelihood. Further, animal products have a significant nutritional value and therefore banning the export of these products would have negative health implications. We are however aware of the importance of a sustainable planet, and have come to the conclusion that the export of animal products should not be banned, but instead, there should be an emphasis on how animal products are farmed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not ban the export of all animal products. Doing so would harm the economy and potentially reduce people's access to quality sources of nutrition. In order to provide a good quality of life for all animals, we should look to introduce a number of policies that would help to protect the environment and the welfare of all animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should be putting an end to animal farming and export of animal products in the UK, and the rest of the world. The farming of animals has long term, detrimental effects on the environment. For example, livestock produce a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and the use of water for these farms can lead to desertification. Also, we do not need animal products for our nutrition. It is possible to get everything we need from a plant-based diet. Banning the export of animal products would also force our country to become more self-sufficient in these areas. So this example shows that you can actually have a really strong consensus opinion even if everyone's original individual opinion was quite different. This could be a really useful tool for you to use in your essays - when you're making an argument, you should be trying to have a clear view or opinion, and it can help to state this opinion at the start of your paragraph and then spend the rest of the paragraph backing it up. This way, you're making sure that you're writing in a clear and coherent way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the export of animal products should not be banned. However, we must consider the welfare of animals and the environment when considering such a trade. The methods of production should not be cruel or hurt the animals or the environment. Summary of Techniques +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we do not believe that a ban should be placed on the export of animal products. We are aware of the negative impacts that animal farming can have on the environment, however we believe that if animal farming is done in a sustainable manner, these problems can be mitigated. We are also aware that animal farming is vital for the economy, and many people rely on it for their livelihood. Further, animal products have a significant nutritional value and therefore banning the export of these products would have negative health implications. We are however aware of the importance of a sustainable planet, and have come to the conclusion that the export of animal products should not be banned, but instead, there should be an emphasis on how animal products are farmed. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000272.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000272.soc index 8234b3f4..6243cbf9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000272.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000272.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, people who do not have UK citizenship should not be allowed to vote in UK elections. But, this is a complicated issue. For example, if a person is only living in the UK for a short period of time they would not know as much about the country and its issues as a person who was born and raised here. On the other hand, a person who is born and raised in the UK would not be as affected by a policy change as a person who will live here for a long period of time. A person who is living in the UK but will only be living here for a short period of time should not be able to vote, but people who live here for longer periods of time and have been here since their birth should have the right to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, people who do not have UK citizenship should not be allowed to vote in UK elections. But, this is a complicated issue. For example, if a person is only living in the UK for a short period of time they would not know as much about the country and its issues as a person who was born and raised here. On the other hand, a person who is born and raised in the UK would not be as affected by a policy change as a person who will live here for a long period of time. A person who is living in the UK but will only be living here for a short period of time should not be able to vote, but people who live here for longer periods of time and have been here since their birth should have the right to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, people who do not have UK citizenship should not be allowed to vote in UK elections. But, this is a complicated issue. For example, if a person is only living in the UK for a short period of time they would not know as much about the country and its issues as a person who was born and raised here. On the other hand, a person who is born and raised in the UK would not be as affected by a policy change as a person who will live here for a long period of time. Therefore, a person who is living in the UK but will only be living here for a short period of time should not be able to vote, but people who live here for longer periods of time and have been here since their birth should have the right to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong argument for allowing only UK citizens to vote in UK elections. People who are not UK citizens would not be impacted by the results of the election as much as people who are UK citizens. On the other hand, there are some people who have lived in the UK for a long time and are strongly affected by the results of the election, and these people should be allowed to vote even if they are not UK citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, people who do not have UK citizenship should not be allowed to vote in UK elections. But, this is a complicated issue. For example, if a person is only living in the UK for a short period of time they would not know as much about the country and its issues as a person who was born and raised here. On the other hand, a person who is born and raised in the UK would not be as affected by a policy change as a person who will live here for a long period of time. A person who is living in the UK but will only be living here for a short period of time should not be able to vote, but people who live here for longer periods of time and have been here since their birth should have the right to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, people who do not have UK citizenship should not be allowed to vote in UK elections. But, this is a complicated issue. For example, if a person is only living in the UK for a short period of time they would not know as much about the country and its issues as a person who was born and raised here. On the other hand, a person who is born and raised in the UK would not be as affected by a policy change as a person who will live here for a long period of time. A person who is living in the UK but will only be living here for a short period of time should not be able to vote, but people who live here for longer periods of time and have been here since their birth should have the right to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, people who do not have UK citizenship should not be allowed to vote in UK elections. But, this is a complicated issue. For example, if a person is only living in the UK for a short period of time they would not know as much about the country and its issues as a person who was born and raised here. On the other hand, a person who is born and raised in the UK would not be as affected by a policy change as a person who will live here for a long period of time. Therefore, a person who is living in the UK but will only be living here for a short period of time should not be able to vote, but people who live here for longer periods of time and have been here since their birth should have the right to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong argument for allowing only UK citizens to vote in UK elections. People who are not UK citizens would not be impacted by the results of the election as much as people who are UK citizens. On the other hand, there are some people who have lived in the UK for a long time and are strongly affected by the results of the election, and these people should be allowed to vote even if they are not UK citizens. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000273.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000273.soc index 07af2add..5ad8f364 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000273.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000273.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a Government grants available to help those who want to install solar panels but cannot afford to do so. In the future, the government should look into making solar panels compulsory in all new housing developments, however there is too much variation in existing housing to make this compulsory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In new houses, the government should require solar panels and in existing houses, the government should offer a free grant to help them buy them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of solar panels, however they thought that government should provide financial assistance to support people in their efforts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: All houses should have solar panels but only if there are government grants or payments to allow it to happen. The UK needs to have more sustainable methods of creating power and solar panels would allow this without taking up additional space. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a Government grants available to help those who want to install solar panels but cannot afford to do so. In the future, the government should look into making solar panels compulsory in all new housing developments, however there is too much variation in existing housing to make this compulsory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In new houses, the government should require solar panels and in existing houses, the government should offer a free grant to help them buy them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of solar panels, however they thought that government should provide financial assistance to support people in their efforts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - All houses should have solar panels but only if there are government grants or payments to allow it to happen. The UK needs to have more sustainable methods of creating power and solar panels would allow this without taking up additional space. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000274.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000274.soc index 23fd40c2..beb762ee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000274.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000274.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of legal immigration, but with conditions. We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legal immigration, but with conditions. We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. We also felt that all immigrants should be vetted to ensure that they are not criminals, and have a good character, and we feel that they should be able to integrate into UK society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. We felt that skilled immigrants who are legally immigrating to the UK should be vetted to ensure they have no criminal convictions pending or in their past, and that they are of good character and able to integrate with everyone here and also respect our way of life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of legal immigration, but with conditions. We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. We also felt that those wishing to immigrate should be strictly vetted to ensure that they have no criminal convictions, either pending or in their past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of legal immigration, but with conditions. We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legal immigration, but with conditions. We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. We also felt that all immigrants should be vetted to ensure that they are not criminals, and have a good character, and we feel that they should be able to integrate into UK society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. We felt that skilled immigrants who are legally immigrating to the UK should be vetted to ensure they have no criminal convictions pending or in their past, and that they are of good character and able to integrate with everyone here and also respect our way of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of legal immigration, but with conditions. We felt that people should be able to immigrate if they have skills that are in short supply in the UK, or if they are unable to live safely in their current country. We felt that immigration should be limited to people who are able to contribute to the country, such as those with skills, and we didn't feel that unskilled workers should be allowed to immigrate. We also felt that those wishing to immigrate should be strictly vetted to ensure that they have no criminal convictions, either pending or in their past. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000275.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000275.soc index c7696bfa..36dfc6e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000275.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000275.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Single-use plastic packaging should be banned when there are other alternative methods of packaging which don't create the same amount of waste. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Most of the group thought that in general single-use packaging should be banned, but some packaging, such as meat packaging, can be essential. We believe that there should be a study into finding eco-friendly packaging which serves the same purpose as the single-use packaging currently in use, and the single-use packaging should be banned as soon as the eco-friendly packaging is ready. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group, in general, was in favour of banning single-use packaging but we all had different opinions on which single-use packaging should be banned and which should not. For example, one person thought that meat packaging shouldn't be banned, because it increases shelf-life and helps to keep the price of meat low. Others believed that it should be banned as it's harmful to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on single-use packaging. However, there should be exemptions for packaging that keeps prices low and increases shelf-life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Single-use plastic packaging should be banned when there are other alternative methods of packaging which don't create the same amount of waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Most of the group thought that in general single-use packaging should be banned, but some packaging, such as meat packaging, can be essential. We believe that there should be a study into finding eco-friendly packaging which serves the same purpose as the single-use packaging currently in use, and the single-use packaging should be banned as soon as the eco-friendly packaging is ready. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group, in general, was in favour of banning single-use packaging but we all had different opinions on which single-use packaging should be banned and which should not. For example, one person thought that meat packaging shouldn't be banned, because it increases shelf-life and helps to keep the price of meat low. Others believed that it should be banned as it's harmful to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on single-use packaging. However, there should be exemptions for packaging that keeps prices low and increases shelf-life. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000276.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000276.soc index bdcdecd1..4fa79d85 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000276.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000276.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion and will be good for local residents who are suffering with congestion. However, we feel there needs to be other measures implemented to improve the situation. We all think this will also lead to less pollution as there will be less traffic jams and congestion throughout the road network. This is an important part of the solution but should be taken in hand with other smaller measures just as increased bus network availability. In conclusion, we all think that building new roads is good to relieve congestion but this needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation improvements to really relieve the pressure on the roads in the area.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion. However, it needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation developments in the area and not just building new roads. This should include the introduction of more public transport links and incentives to help reduce the number of people using cars in the city centre. This will also help to reduce the CO2 emissions in the city which we all think is a positive thing.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion. We all think this will be good for local residents who are suffering with congestion but we feel there needs to be other measures implemented to improve the situation. We also think that the additional new roads may lead to increased car usage which will in turn lead to an increase in CO2 emissions which we all agree is bad for the environment. However, we also think that this can be mitigated by the building of more public transport links to the city centre which would be great for people who don’t want to drive but would like to access the city centre. In conclusion, we all think that building new roads is good to relieve congestion but this needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation improvements to really relieve the pressure on the roads in the area.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion. We all think this will be good for local residents who are suffering with congestion but we feel there needs to be other measures implemented to improve the situation. We all think that the additional new roads may lead to increased car usage which will in turn lead to an increase in CO2 emissions which we all agree is bad for the environment. However, we also think that this can be mitigated by the building of more public transport links to the city centre which would be great for people who don’t want to drive but would like to access the city centre. In conclusion, we all think that building new roads is good to relieve congestion but this needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation improvements to really relieve the pressure on the roads in the area. Conclusion: The example demonstrates how difficult it can be to reach a consensus opinion. It also demonstrates how some of the participants could come to a final consensus opinion despite having different individual opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion and will be good for local residents who are suffering with congestion. However, we feel there needs to be other measures implemented to improve the situation. We all think this will also lead to less pollution as there will be less traffic jams and congestion throughout the road network. This is an important part of the solution but should be taken in hand with other smaller measures just as increased bus network availability. In conclusion, we all think that building new roads is good to relieve congestion but this needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation improvements to really relieve the pressure on the roads in the area.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion. However, it needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation developments in the area and not just building new roads. This should include the introduction of more public transport links and incentives to help reduce the number of people using cars in the city centre. This will also help to reduce the CO2 emissions in the city which we all think is a positive thing.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion. We all think this will be good for local residents who are suffering with congestion but we feel there needs to be other measures implemented to improve the situation. We also think that the additional new roads may lead to increased car usage which will in turn lead to an increase in CO2 emissions which we all agree is bad for the environment. However, we also think that this can be mitigated by the building of more public transport links to the city centre which would be great for people who don’t want to drive but would like to access the city centre. In conclusion, we all think that building new roads is good to relieve congestion but this needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation improvements to really relieve the pressure on the roads in the area.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to a consensus view that building new roads can help to relieve congestion. We all think this will be good for local residents who are suffering with congestion but we feel there needs to be other measures implemented to improve the situation. We all think that the additional new roads may lead to increased car usage which will in turn lead to an increase in CO2 emissions which we all agree is bad for the environment. However, we also think that this can be mitigated by the building of more public transport links to the city centre which would be great for people who don’t want to drive but would like to access the city centre. In conclusion, we all think that building new roads is good to relieve congestion but this needs to be part of a wider strategy of transportation improvements to really relieve the pressure on the roads in the area. Conclusion: The example demonstrates how difficult it can be to reach a consensus opinion. It also demonstrates how some of the participants could come to a final consensus opinion despite having different individual opinions. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000277.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000277.soc index 76fd8530..d1cf0941 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000277.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000277.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK does have a moral duty to accept refugees. The government needs to be selective on the types of refugees they accept, to prevent the admission of war criminals. Group Discussion and Work We were each given a copy of a different but related book and were asked to read a chapter from it. We were also given a sheet containing a set of questions. We were asked to read the chapter and fill in the answers to the questions. The questions were designed to prompt discussion on the chapter and to make sure we were on the same page. We also had to have a group discussion on how the chapter related to our research and which concepts and theories we could adopt and use in our research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK does have a moral duty to accept refugees, but we must be selective. The UK has a strong tradition of accepting refugees and will continue to do so. However, it is difficult to determine who is entitled to claim asylum as many refugees arrive in the UK without documentation. We need to be careful in who we accept into the UK as refugees. References Buchholz, W.J., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Factors affecting group decision quality and acceptance. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 113-130. Brett, J.M., & Rognes, J.K. (1986). The role of outcome biases in negotiator judgment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 311-327. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604. Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sapolsky, B.S. (2007). Why team decision making is not teamwork. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1, 297-312. Scharpf -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a moral duty for the UK to accept refugees as some of these refugees are displaced due to war in their countries. However, the government needs to be selective on the types of refugees they accept. For instance, some refugees may be victims of war, but they also may be war criminals. These types of refugees should be denied access to the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK does have a moral duty to accept refugees. However, the government should be selective on the types of refugees they accept. Some refugees are fleeing war, and these refugees should be given access. However, other refugees are fleeing other things such as persecution or torture, and should also be allowed in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK does have a moral duty to accept refugees. The government needs to be selective on the types of refugees they accept, to prevent the admission of war criminals. Group Discussion and Work We were each given a copy of a different but related book and were asked to read a chapter from it. We were also given a sheet containing a set of questions. We were asked to read the chapter and fill in the answers to the questions. The questions were designed to prompt discussion on the chapter and to make sure we were on the same page. We also had to have a group discussion on how the chapter related to our research and which concepts and theories we could adopt and use in our research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK does have a moral duty to accept refugees, but we must be selective. The UK has a strong tradition of accepting refugees and will continue to do so. However, it is difficult to determine who is entitled to claim asylum as many refugees arrive in the UK without documentation. We need to be careful in who we accept into the UK as refugees. References Buchholz, W.J., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Factors affecting group decision quality and acceptance. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 113-130. Brett, J.M., & Rognes, J.K. (1986). The role of outcome biases in negotiator judgment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 311-327. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604. Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sapolsky, B.S. (2007). Why team decision making is not teamwork. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1, 297-312. Scharpf +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a moral duty for the UK to accept refugees as some of these refugees are displaced due to war in their countries. However, the government needs to be selective on the types of refugees they accept. For instance, some refugees may be victims of war, but they also may be war criminals. These types of refugees should be denied access to the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK does have a moral duty to accept refugees. However, the government should be selective on the types of refugees they accept. Some refugees are fleeing war, and these refugees should be given access. However, other refugees are fleeing other things such as persecution or torture, and should also be allowed in. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000278.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000278.soc index ba623679..a2e86f98 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000278.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000278.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the tax on sugar in the UK should be increased to help reduce childhood obesity. In doing so, there should also be an increased focus on providing cheap and healthy alternatives. The opinion for and against are stated. The consensus opinion is made clear. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on advertising of sugary goods as well as an increase of tax on sugar to help reduce childhood obesity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, yes we should increase the tax on sugar in the UK to help reduce childhood obesity. However, we must also work to educate and inform people on the negative effects that sugary drinks and foods have on their health, to prevent childhood obesity from occurring in the first place. It is also important to note that there is a cost-saving benefit to the NHS if we can reduce childhood obesity, as this will result in fewer obesity related illnesses that require treatment from the NHS. We must also make it easier for families to afford a healthy diet, for example by introducing price caps on healthy fruit and vegetables. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although sugar isn't the only problem for childhood obesity, we believe it is one of the most significant and the problem can be greatly reduced by introducing tax on sugar. The tax may seem to be unfair to families, especially those on lower income. However, we believe that by increasing the tax on sugar, the number of sugar related diseases, such as diabetes, will reduce which in turn will save NHS money. With that money, the government could invest in improving public health and making healthy food more affordable for families on low income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the tax on sugar in the UK should be increased to help reduce childhood obesity. In doing so, there should also be an increased focus on providing cheap and healthy alternatives. The opinion for and against are stated. The consensus opinion is made clear. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on advertising of sugary goods as well as an increase of tax on sugar to help reduce childhood obesity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, yes we should increase the tax on sugar in the UK to help reduce childhood obesity. However, we must also work to educate and inform people on the negative effects that sugary drinks and foods have on their health, to prevent childhood obesity from occurring in the first place. It is also important to note that there is a cost-saving benefit to the NHS if we can reduce childhood obesity, as this will result in fewer obesity related illnesses that require treatment from the NHS. We must also make it easier for families to afford a healthy diet, for example by introducing price caps on healthy fruit and vegetables. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although sugar isn't the only problem for childhood obesity, we believe it is one of the most significant and the problem can be greatly reduced by introducing tax on sugar. The tax may seem to be unfair to families, especially those on lower income. However, we believe that by increasing the tax on sugar, the number of sugar related diseases, such as diabetes, will reduce which in turn will save NHS money. With that money, the government could invest in improving public health and making healthy food more affordable for families on low income. 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000279.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000279.soc index fc2cbafa..533225fe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000279.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000279.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be no ban on political parties as it can open the door to authoritarianism. However, if a party is actively seeking to destroy democracy or an open society then they should be banned. This, however, is a very subjective view and is impossible to implement. The best solution would be to educate people to the dangers of certain ideologies, and to encourage those who feel strongly enough to be part of the political system to take action against these parties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not ban certain political parties from participating in elections. This is because allowing multiple parties to participate promotes a fair and democratic process, even if their views may be controversial or unpopular. It is important to uphold freedom of speech and allow voters to make informed decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, political parties should not be banned from participating in elections. However, if a party is formed with the clear intent to be discriminatory or cause catastrophic events, this should be prevented. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not ban certain political parties from participating in elections. This would allow for more diversity of opinions, which in turn promotes an overall more educated and engaged electorate, leading to more effective governance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be no ban on political parties as it can open the door to authoritarianism. However, if a party is actively seeking to destroy democracy or an open society then they should be banned. This, however, is a very subjective view and is impossible to implement. The best solution would be to educate people to the dangers of certain ideologies, and to encourage those who feel strongly enough to be part of the political system to take action against these parties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not ban certain political parties from participating in elections. This is because allowing multiple parties to participate promotes a fair and democratic process, even if their views may be controversial or unpopular. It is important to uphold freedom of speech and allow voters to make informed decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, political parties should not be banned from participating in elections. However, if a party is formed with the clear intent to be discriminatory or cause catastrophic events, this should be prevented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not ban certain political parties from participating in elections. This would allow for more diversity of opinions, which in turn promotes an overall more educated and engaged electorate, leading to more effective governance. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000280.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000280.soc index d8e92800..0f1d50dc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000280.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000280.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. We need a well-functioning legal system that provides guidance for the conduct of people and organizations, and protection of their rights and interests. The legal system we have today is a culmination of centuries of developing law and order and has been established to make the best of what has been learned in history. It is unlikely that any new legal system that may be developed would be better than the one we have today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. We need a well-functioning legal system that provides guidance for the conduct of people and organizations, and protection of their rights and interests. The legal system we have today is a culmination of centuries of developing law and order and has been established to make the best of what has been learned in history. Any new legal system that may be developed would need to be phased in over time to ensure that people are still protected and the functions of our society are not severely disrupted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. We need a well-functioning legal system that provides guidance for the conduct of people and organizations, and protection of their rights and interests. The legal system we have today is a culmination of centuries of developing law and order and has been established to make the best of what has been learned in history. It is unlikely that any new legal system that may be developed would be better than the one we have today. In summary, with the CONSENSUS method of group decision-making, we saw that the group was able to constructively debate and reach a consensus view. This is an effective method of decision-making as it creates a sense of ownership of the final decision, allows everyone to be heard, and ensures that the group does not fall into the trap of the Abilene Paradox. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Our legal system is based on centuries of learning and experience. While we may want to change or update specific laws to better reflect societal needs, we should not attempt to change our entire legal system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. We need a well-functioning legal system that provides guidance for the conduct of people and organizations, and protection of their rights and interests. The legal system we have today is a culmination of centuries of developing law and order and has been established to make the best of what has been learned in history. It is unlikely that any new legal system that may be developed would be better than the one we have today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. We need a well-functioning legal system that provides guidance for the conduct of people and organizations, and protection of their rights and interests. The legal system we have today is a culmination of centuries of developing law and order and has been established to make the best of what has been learned in history. Any new legal system that may be developed would need to be phased in over time to ensure that people are still protected and the functions of our society are not severely disrupted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not get rid of all laws and start from scratch. We need a well-functioning legal system that provides guidance for the conduct of people and organizations, and protection of their rights and interests. The legal system we have today is a culmination of centuries of developing law and order and has been established to make the best of what has been learned in history. It is unlikely that any new legal system that may be developed would be better than the one we have today. In summary, with the CONSENSUS method of group decision-making, we saw that the group was able to constructively debate and reach a consensus view. This is an effective method of decision-making as it creates a sense of ownership of the final decision, allows everyone to be heard, and ensures that the group does not fall into the trap of the Abilene Paradox. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Our legal system is based on centuries of learning and experience. While we may want to change or update specific laws to better reflect societal needs, we should not attempt to change our entire legal system. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000281.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000281.soc index a495829d..38ef2994 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000281.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000281.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The Prime Minister's office should be open to the public, but only by appointment to allow for security, and the PM should meet members of the public during specific periods. This will allow the Prime Minister to hear different view points and also keep him in touch with the views of the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The Prime Minister's office should be open to the public, on limited and specific days. This will help to keep the PM in touch with the public and their views. However, security concerns and the potential for people to waste the PM's time will have to be managed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The Prime Minister's office should be open to the public, but with restrictions. Specific days, such as the weekends, when the Prime Minister is not in the office should be open to the public for guided tours of the offices, with no ability to meet with the Prime Minister himself. These should be accompanied by small, free public meetings where the Prime Minister will be present and willing to hear concerns from the public, with no need to book. This would allow for both a greater public awareness of the Prime Minister's office and greater access to the Prime Minister for members of the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The Prime Minister's office should be open to the public, but only at limited specific times, and mostly only when the Prime Minister is not using it. There should be open days when the PM is away that people can just tour the offices, and then occasional public meetings with the Prime Minister himself. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The Prime Minister's office should be open to the public, but only by appointment to allow for security, and the PM should meet members of the public during specific periods. This will allow the Prime Minister to hear different view points and also keep him in touch with the views of the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The Prime Minister's office should be open to the public, on limited and specific days. This will help to keep the PM in touch with the public and their views. However, security concerns and the potential for people to waste the PM's time will have to be managed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The Prime Minister's office should be open to the public, but with restrictions. Specific days, such as the weekends, when the Prime Minister is not in the office should be open to the public for guided tours of the offices, with no ability to meet with the Prime Minister himself. These should be accompanied by small, free public meetings where the Prime Minister will be present and willing to hear concerns from the public, with no need to book. This would allow for both a greater public awareness of the Prime Minister's office and greater access to the Prime Minister for members of the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The Prime Minister's office should be open to the public, but only at limited specific times, and mostly only when the Prime Minister is not using it. There should be open days when the PM is away that people can just tour the offices, and then occasional public meetings with the Prime Minister himself. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000282.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000282.soc index 27ed4c8f..cb0c22bb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000282.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000282.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should provide grants to make solar panels affordable, and in the future, solar panels should be a mandatory addition to all new housing developments. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a Government grants available to help those who want to install solar panels but cannot afford to do so. In the future, the government should look into making solar panels compulsory in all new housing developments, however there is too much variation in existing housing to make this compulsory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a government grant scheme in place for anyone who wishes to install solar panels, especially for people who are renting and cannot install panels themselves. However, the scheme should only apply to new build housing, with consideration to the aesthetics of solar panels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a Government grants available to help those who want to install solar panels but cannot afford to do so. In the future, the government should look into making solar panels compulsory in all new housing developments, however there is too much variation in existing housing to make this compulsory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should provide grants to make solar panels affordable, and in the future, solar panels should be a mandatory addition to all new housing developments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a Government grants available to help those who want to install solar panels but cannot afford to do so. In the future, the government should look into making solar panels compulsory in all new housing developments, however there is too much variation in existing housing to make this compulsory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a government grant scheme in place for anyone who wishes to install solar panels, especially for people who are renting and cannot install panels themselves. However, the scheme should only apply to new build housing, with consideration to the aesthetics of solar panels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a Government grants available to help those who want to install solar panels but cannot afford to do so. In the future, the government should look into making solar panels compulsory in all new housing developments, however there is too much variation in existing housing to make this compulsory. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000283.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000283.soc index bfbdd732..9fba6f4b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000283.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000283.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the safety of the public is paramount. For this reason, we agree that wearing a helmet while cycling should be mandatory as it reduces the risk of head injury and in the long term reduces the impact on the NHS. As with wearing a seatbelt in a car, it is a small price to pay for a big protection. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and we believe that this is the best way to protect the public and to reduce the amount of head injuries that occur as a result of cycling accidents. Although all the participants were not in complete agreement, they were all able to put their views forward in a civilised manner and ultimately came to a consensus which all of them could live with. The final consensus statement was not an easy one to reach, and each of the participants changed their initial opinions slightly as a result of the debate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Cycling is a dangerous activity as it is not always in your control. The issue of whether cyclists should be forced to wear a helmet is debatable. It could be argued that wearing a helmet is a personal choice as to whether the person would like to wear one or not and it could be seen as a symbol of a society moving forward if the rules and regulations are becoming stricter for everyone. The other side of the argument is that if the helmet is mandatory it could increase the number of cyclists. We came to the consensus that we believe it should be mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets. The main reason being that if the cyclist was involved in an accident, it could cause damage to the brain. Even if the cyclist was to break their neck, a helmet could prevent them from dying. A helmet is a way of protecting the person's head. It could be a good way of protecting them if they were to hit a brick wall, the helmet could potentially save their life. Some cyclists think that they are being attacked on the roads by the drivers and that they are trying to kill them, but the cyclists have to understand that the roads are not their own and that they should be -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The law should make it mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling. It will help save lives. The people who believe they can safely ride a bike without a helmet are likely to be involved in an accident that they could have survived if they were wearing a helmet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is the opinion of the group that cyclists should be made to wear helmets in order to reduce injuries caused by accidents. This was a difficult topic for me to discuss with my group and come to a consensus on because I don't know if it is correct to force cyclists to wear helmets as it infringes on their freedom. However, as some of my group have pointed out, accidents happen and can have fatal consequences, so by wearing a helmet the consequences of an accident can be lessened, which in the end, is in everyone's best interest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the safety of the public is paramount. For this reason, we agree that wearing a helmet while cycling should be mandatory as it reduces the risk of head injury and in the long term reduces the impact on the NHS. As with wearing a seatbelt in a car, it is a small price to pay for a big protection. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and we believe that this is the best way to protect the public and to reduce the amount of head injuries that occur as a result of cycling accidents. Although all the participants were not in complete agreement, they were all able to put their views forward in a civilised manner and ultimately came to a consensus which all of them could live with. The final consensus statement was not an easy one to reach, and each of the participants changed their initial opinions slightly as a result of the debate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Cycling is a dangerous activity as it is not always in your control. The issue of whether cyclists should be forced to wear a helmet is debatable. It could be argued that wearing a helmet is a personal choice as to whether the person would like to wear one or not and it could be seen as a symbol of a society moving forward if the rules and regulations are becoming stricter for everyone. The other side of the argument is that if the helmet is mandatory it could increase the number of cyclists. We came to the consensus that we believe it should be mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets. The main reason being that if the cyclist was involved in an accident, it could cause damage to the brain. Even if the cyclist was to break their neck, a helmet could prevent them from dying. A helmet is a way of protecting the person's head. It could be a good way of protecting them if they were to hit a brick wall, the helmet could potentially save their life. Some cyclists think that they are being attacked on the roads by the drivers and that they are trying to kill them, but the cyclists have to understand that the roads are not their own and that they should be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The law should make it mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling. It will help save lives. The people who believe they can safely ride a bike without a helmet are likely to be involved in an accident that they could have survived if they were wearing a helmet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is the opinion of the group that cyclists should be made to wear helmets in order to reduce injuries caused by accidents. This was a difficult topic for me to discuss with my group and come to a consensus on because I don't know if it is correct to force cyclists to wear helmets as it infringes on their freedom. However, as some of my group have pointed out, accidents happen and can have fatal consequences, so by wearing a helmet the consequences of an accident can be lessened, which in the end, is in everyone's best interest. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000284.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000284.soc index a6cb1450..f5c916a6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000284.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000284.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People have the right to buy what they want. The health consequences of food purchases should be left up to the consumer, and not be dictated by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not ban stores from selling food that is considered unhealthy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is down to personal choice, what you eat is your decision. The issue of unhealthy eating needs to be tackled in a different way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to banning food items considered unhealthy from large stores. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People have the right to buy what they want. The health consequences of food purchases should be left up to the consumer, and not be dictated by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not ban stores from selling food that is considered unhealthy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is down to personal choice, what you eat is your decision. The issue of unhealthy eating needs to be tackled in a different way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to banning food items considered unhealthy from large stores. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000285.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000285.soc index 24134b15..f3174be6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000285.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000285.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, people should be free to buy what they want. Banning unhealthy foods would infringe on human rights. The government should only provide information to help people make good choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People have the right to buy what they want, but education from the government is needed to encourage healthier food purchases. The health consequences of food purchases should be left up to the consumer, and not be dictated by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no ban on unhealthy foods, but there should be a very heavy tax on those products to make them less desirable. Also, health warnings should be placed on the packaging to ensure that consumers are aware of the potential health consequences of the products they are buying. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have the freedom to buy what they want. The health consequences of food purchases should be left up to the consumer, and not be dictated by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, people should be free to buy what they want. Banning unhealthy foods would infringe on human rights. The government should only provide information to help people make good choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People have the right to buy what they want, but education from the government is needed to encourage healthier food purchases. The health consequences of food purchases should be left up to the consumer, and not be dictated by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no ban on unhealthy foods, but there should be a very heavy tax on those products to make them less desirable. Also, health warnings should be placed on the packaging to ensure that consumers are aware of the potential health consequences of the products they are buying. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have the freedom to buy what they want. The health consequences of food purchases should be left up to the consumer, and not be dictated by the government. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000286.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000286.soc index d625dffb..aa24b0a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000286.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000286.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not introduce a new public holiday to commemorate the UK's exit from the EU. The vote to leave the EU won by a slim majority and since leaving the EU the country has been experiencing a severe political and economic downturn. Creating a public holiday to celebrate a controversial and divisive event would be inappropriate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not introduce a new public holiday to commemorate the UK's exit from the EU. The referendum on EU membership was quite controversial and it is not seen as a major achievement that should be celebrated. The overall economic impact of leaving the EU has been and is likely to be negative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we do not think we should introduce a new public holiday to commemorate the UK’s exit from the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the vote to leave the EU was close, it was still a significant event in UK history. A new public holiday should be created to commemorate this event. It is important to celebrate and recognize this event in our country’s history. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not introduce a new public holiday to commemorate the UK's exit from the EU. The vote to leave the EU won by a slim majority and since leaving the EU the country has been experiencing a severe political and economic downturn. Creating a public holiday to celebrate a controversial and divisive event would be inappropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not introduce a new public holiday to commemorate the UK's exit from the EU. The referendum on EU membership was quite controversial and it is not seen as a major achievement that should be celebrated. The overall economic impact of leaving the EU has been and is likely to be negative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we do not think we should introduce a new public holiday to commemorate the UK’s exit from the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the vote to leave the EU was close, it was still a significant event in UK history. A new public holiday should be created to commemorate this event. It is important to celebrate and recognize this event in our country’s history. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000287.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000287.soc index 656e4700..b32a7a1f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000287.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000287.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Scotland should be an independent country, however the Scottish Government should also remain responsible for setting the tax rates for their citizens.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there is already a Scottish Parliament, many laws are still passed by the UK Government in Westminster which do not pay sufficient attention to the impact of the lives of those living in Scotland. This will enable self-determination of its population, which have a more beneficial impact on its economy by expanding Scottish trade. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of devolution of power to regional areas and was in favour of a more self-governing Scotland with its own parliament and laws, which better suited the needs of Scotland. However, the group was divided as to whether Scotland should be independent. The group was aware that many important laws were still passed by the UK government, which did not pay sufficient attention to the needs of those living in Scotland. The group agreed that there would be many benefits to Scotland being independent, however Scotland is already seen as an independent country but being part of the United Kingdom strengthens all countries involved and unites us. It would be a massive shame for both the Scots, and the remaining UK countries. The heritage and history we share is too strong to break bonds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be an independent Scotland. However, it is important to note that there was a lot of disagreement within the group over this matter and that their final conclusion should be seen as the best possible solution they could come up with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Scotland should be an independent country, however the Scottish Government should also remain responsible for setting the tax rates for their citizens.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there is already a Scottish Parliament, many laws are still passed by the UK Government in Westminster which do not pay sufficient attention to the impact of the lives of those living in Scotland. This will enable self-determination of its population, which have a more beneficial impact on its economy by expanding Scottish trade. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of devolution of power to regional areas and was in favour of a more self-governing Scotland with its own parliament and laws, which better suited the needs of Scotland. However, the group was divided as to whether Scotland should be independent. The group was aware that many important laws were still passed by the UK government, which did not pay sufficient attention to the needs of those living in Scotland. The group agreed that there would be many benefits to Scotland being independent, however Scotland is already seen as an independent country but being part of the United Kingdom strengthens all countries involved and unites us. It would be a massive shame for both the Scots, and the remaining UK countries. The heritage and history we share is too strong to break bonds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be an independent Scotland. However, it is important to note that there was a lot of disagreement within the group over this matter and that their final conclusion should be seen as the best possible solution they could come up with. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000288.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000288.soc index 74660361..886e0af5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000288.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000288.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. They have put some policies in place, but these have not been followed through with enough vigour and are not leading to sufficient reductions in emissions. It is a case of the government putting in place a lot of good policies, but not really implementing them properly. This has been seen with the way the government has approached recycling. While they have put a lot of policies in place that have lead to significant increases in recycling, it is clear that the public is willing to recycle more, and these increases have not come from the government's policies. Additionally, I think that the government could be doing more to incentivise the use of green energy and energy efficiency measures. While the UK has taken a step in the right direction, the government has to put in place a lot more policies that will actually be implemented and that will lead to reductions in emissions if we are to meet the government's carbon neutral target for 2050. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government isn't doing enough to tackle climate change. Although it is one of the better countries in the world, it still has a lot of room for improvement. The opinion for this group of participants went from 3 votes of No to 2 votes of Yes, to 2 votes of No and 2 votes of I'm not sure, to a final consensus of No. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't believe that the government is doing enough to protect us against climate change. While the government has made lofty promises to be carbon neutral by 2050, and have no petrol cars for sale by 2030, they have not put in place policies to back this up. The government is too focused on the economy and other matters and is not doing enough to prepare the UK for the realities of climate change - as seen by their recent granting approval for a new coal mine in the UK - at a significant cost to the tax payer that will cause massive green house gas emissions. We need massive policy change that this government is either unwilling or unable to bring about. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. We have the targets to reduce greenhouse gases and the use of fossil fuels but this will take many decades. The government should set deadlines for targets to be reached to ensure that we move towards a low carbon economy and start to protect us from the effects of climate change. We also need to address the causes of climate change in other countries. If other countries are not doing their bit then the UK will be making a massive sacrifice if we reduce our emissions when other countries are not doing the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. They have put some policies in place, but these have not been followed through with enough vigour and are not leading to sufficient reductions in emissions. It is a case of the government putting in place a lot of good policies, but not really implementing them properly. This has been seen with the way the government has approached recycling. While they have put a lot of policies in place that have lead to significant increases in recycling, it is clear that the public is willing to recycle more, and these increases have not come from the government's policies. Additionally, I think that the government could be doing more to incentivise the use of green energy and energy efficiency measures. While the UK has taken a step in the right direction, the government has to put in place a lot more policies that will actually be implemented and that will lead to reductions in emissions if we are to meet the government's carbon neutral target for 2050. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government isn't doing enough to tackle climate change. Although it is one of the better countries in the world, it still has a lot of room for improvement. The opinion for this group of participants went from 3 votes of No to 2 votes of Yes, to 2 votes of No and 2 votes of I'm not sure, to a final consensus of No. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't believe that the government is doing enough to protect us against climate change. While the government has made lofty promises to be carbon neutral by 2050, and have no petrol cars for sale by 2030, they have not put in place policies to back this up. The government is too focused on the economy and other matters and is not doing enough to prepare the UK for the realities of climate change - as seen by their recent granting approval for a new coal mine in the UK - at a significant cost to the tax payer that will cause massive green house gas emissions. We need massive policy change that this government is either unwilling or unable to bring about. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. We have the targets to reduce greenhouse gases and the use of fossil fuels but this will take many decades. The government should set deadlines for targets to be reached to ensure that we move towards a low carbon economy and start to protect us from the effects of climate change. We also need to address the causes of climate change in other countries. If other countries are not doing their bit then the UK will be making a massive sacrifice if we reduce our emissions when other countries are not doing the same. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000289.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000289.soc index 4ec513bb..98b7b9a6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000289.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000289.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not subsidise petrol prices as we should not be reliant on cheap petrol for people to be able to afford to live as this will ultimately lead to increased fuel usage and so more environmental issues. The government should however do what they can to keep petrol prices fair so that people do not feel the need to turn to illegal means to make up the extra cost of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Petrol is something that is used for many things in life. The way we all use our cars is essential to living. The price of petrol should be subsidised by the government to allow for the use of petrol to continue at the same price as it is now. This will make sure that people can still afford to use their cars. The environmental impact of cars should also be considered. A more efficient use of cars should be encouraged by the government. There is no point in people just sitting in traffic when they could be getting places in more efficient ways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, they shouldn't. The environment is more important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should try and keep petrol prices as low as possible as this would be beneficial for everyone. However, if it is the case that the government needs to raise prices to compensate for the economy, then they should. However, they should also keep a check on how high these prices go as this would not be beneficial to us. The views expressed by each individual are those of the person writing and not those of anyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not subsidise petrol prices as we should not be reliant on cheap petrol for people to be able to afford to live as this will ultimately lead to increased fuel usage and so more environmental issues. The government should however do what they can to keep petrol prices fair so that people do not feel the need to turn to illegal means to make up the extra cost of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Petrol is something that is used for many things in life. The way we all use our cars is essential to living. The price of petrol should be subsidised by the government to allow for the use of petrol to continue at the same price as it is now. This will make sure that people can still afford to use their cars. The environmental impact of cars should also be considered. A more efficient use of cars should be encouraged by the government. There is no point in people just sitting in traffic when they could be getting places in more efficient ways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, they shouldn't. The environment is more important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should try and keep petrol prices as low as possible as this would be beneficial for everyone. However, if it is the case that the government needs to raise prices to compensate for the economy, then they should. However, they should also keep a check on how high these prices go as this would not be beneficial to us. The views expressed by each individual are those of the person writing and not those of anyone else. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000290.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000290.soc index d105e490..0ec84cd4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000290.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000290.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to banning meat in order to save the planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there is a strong case to be made that meat eating is harmful to the planet, and as such a ban should be introduced, in our view the current evidence does not support such a radical move. It would appear to us that some of the consequences of such a ban, including the risk of public disorder, would outweigh the advantages of such a move. As such, we recommend that the government use more subtle ways to try to persuade the public that meat eating is harmful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should ban eating meat in order to save the planet. We need to take the initiative to save our planet before it is too late. There are alternatives to meat which can be encouraged and subsidised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to banning meat in order to save the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there is a strong case to be made that meat eating is harmful to the planet, and as such a ban should be introduced, in our view the current evidence does not support such a radical move. It would appear to us that some of the consequences of such a ban, including the risk of public disorder, would outweigh the advantages of such a move. As such, we recommend that the government use more subtle ways to try to persuade the public that meat eating is harmful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should ban eating meat in order to save the planet. We need to take the initiative to save our planet before it is too late. There are alternatives to meat which can be encouraged and subsidised. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000291.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000291.soc index 18023ad1..f314bf67 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000291.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000291.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more effort put into encouraging people to vote as this would lead to a better understanding of the people by their representatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: More effort should be put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. Therefore, there is a need for an extra effort in making more people to vote. Being reluctant to vote is also a human right because one may feel that noone seems to be fit enough to represent her. However, if the whole eligible population were to vote then the outcome of the vote will more accurately represent the consensus of the population. If there is a lack of encouragement to vote, people may abstain and the outcome may turn out to not support the majority view but that of the population that voted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People have the right to be apathetic about voting, and no effort should be made to make people vote if they do not want to. However, encouraging people to vote is an important part of making sure that the outcome of an election represents the views of all the people who are eligible to vote, not just the people who are actively engaged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Voting is the method through which people elect their representatives who govern the state. In a democracy, the government is supposed to rule by the will of the people. In order to ensure this is true, it is imperative that a maximum number of people vote in elections. Therefore, it is important that more effort is put into encouraging people to vote.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more effort put into encouraging people to vote as this would lead to a better understanding of the people by their representatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - More effort should be put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. Therefore, there is a need for an extra effort in making more people to vote. Being reluctant to vote is also a human right because one may feel that noone seems to be fit enough to represent her. However, if the whole eligible population were to vote then the outcome of the vote will more accurately represent the consensus of the population. If there is a lack of encouragement to vote, people may abstain and the outcome may turn out to not support the majority view but that of the population that voted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People have the right to be apathetic about voting, and no effort should be made to make people vote if they do not want to. However, encouraging people to vote is an important part of making sure that the outcome of an election represents the views of all the people who are eligible to vote, not just the people who are actively engaged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Voting is the method through which people elect their representatives who govern the state. In a democracy, the government is supposed to rule by the will of the people. In order to ensure this is true, it is imperative that a maximum number of people vote in elections. Therefore, it is important that more effort is put into encouraging people to vote.” 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000292.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000292.soc index 63c4bb10..79f43e65 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000292.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000292.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The quality of life in the UK is higher than it was 50 years ago. Improvements in technology, healthcare, working conditions and social reforms have meant that life expectancy and quality of life are higher than ever. While there is still work to be done, all things considered, the average person has a higher quality of life now than 50 years ago. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The quality of life in the UK is higher than it was 50 years ago. The advent of the internet and other modern technologies have made information and communication easier and more readily available. Medicine has improved with life expectancy rising from 71 to 80 for men and from 77 to 83 for women in the past 50 years. The country is a more tolerant and equal place with human rights now enshrined in law and protections for minorities and the poor. There is still work to do on equality and discrimination, but the country is a better place than it was 50 years ago. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The quality of life in the UK is higher than it was 50 years ago. People have access to better facilities, the internet, and technology in general has revolutionised the lives of the average person. On the other hand, the cost of living has increased dramatically and many people are left unable to access the basic essentials, but the quality of life has improved on average. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the quality of life in the UK has improved since 50 years ago. Overall, quality of life is generally higher now. There have been a lot of advancements in technology that have made our lives better. We have access to better healthcare, people live longer and have better lives. There are areas that people would have considered part of their quality of life that have suffered. Less people have the time to build relationships with others and communities are not as strong as they used to be. Not everyone has benefited from the advances in technology. Some people may not have access to mobile phones or computers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The quality of life in the UK is higher than it was 50 years ago. Improvements in technology, healthcare, working conditions and social reforms have meant that life expectancy and quality of life are higher than ever. While there is still work to be done, all things considered, the average person has a higher quality of life now than 50 years ago. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The quality of life in the UK is higher than it was 50 years ago. The advent of the internet and other modern technologies have made information and communication easier and more readily available. Medicine has improved with life expectancy rising from 71 to 80 for men and from 77 to 83 for women in the past 50 years. The country is a more tolerant and equal place with human rights now enshrined in law and protections for minorities and the poor. There is still work to do on equality and discrimination, but the country is a better place than it was 50 years ago. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The quality of life in the UK is higher than it was 50 years ago. People have access to better facilities, the internet, and technology in general has revolutionised the lives of the average person. On the other hand, the cost of living has increased dramatically and many people are left unable to access the basic essentials, but the quality of life has improved on average. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the quality of life in the UK has improved since 50 years ago. Overall, quality of life is generally higher now. There have been a lot of advancements in technology that have made our lives better. We have access to better healthcare, people live longer and have better lives. There are areas that people would have considered part of their quality of life that have suffered. Less people have the time to build relationships with others and communities are not as strong as they used to be. Not everyone has benefited from the advances in technology. Some people may not have access to mobile phones or computers. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000293.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000293.soc index 48712bcc..6df84316 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000293.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000293.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The safety of the public is paramount. For this reason, we agree that wearing a helmet while cycling should be mandatory as it reduces the risk of head injury and in the long term reduces the impact on the NHS. As with wearing a seatbelt in a car, it is a small price to pay for a big protection. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and we believe that this is the best way to protect the public and to reduce the amount of head injuries that occur as a result of cycling accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is overwhelming evidence that wearing a helmet while cycling can protect the cyclist's head and reduce the risk of head injury. For this reason, we believe that wearing a helmet should be mandatory and enforced, so that all cyclists are afforded this level of protection and also so that the NHS does not have to spend huge amounts of resources treating cyclists with head injuries. A good analogy is to compare it with wearing a seatbelt when driving. While wearing a seatbelt may not reduce the number of car accidents, it can significantly reduce the injuries sustained by the driver and passenger in an accident. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the safety of the public is paramount. For this reason, we agree that wearing a helmet while cycling should be mandatory as it reduces the risk of head injury and in the long term reduces the impact on the NHS. As with wearing a seatbelt in a car, it is a small price to pay for a big protection. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and we believe that this is the best way to protect the public and to reduce the amount of head injuries that occur as a result of cycling accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Wearing a helmet while cycling is the best way to protect cyclists from head injuries and should be mandatory. The evidence is overwhelming and is supported by many different studies. It is only a small price to pay to stay safe and we believe that this would improve the safety of cyclists and make cycling a more accessible option for the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The safety of the public is paramount. For this reason, we agree that wearing a helmet while cycling should be mandatory as it reduces the risk of head injury and in the long term reduces the impact on the NHS. As with wearing a seatbelt in a car, it is a small price to pay for a big protection. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and we believe that this is the best way to protect the public and to reduce the amount of head injuries that occur as a result of cycling accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is overwhelming evidence that wearing a helmet while cycling can protect the cyclist's head and reduce the risk of head injury. For this reason, we believe that wearing a helmet should be mandatory and enforced, so that all cyclists are afforded this level of protection and also so that the NHS does not have to spend huge amounts of resources treating cyclists with head injuries. A good analogy is to compare it with wearing a seatbelt when driving. While wearing a seatbelt may not reduce the number of car accidents, it can significantly reduce the injuries sustained by the driver and passenger in an accident. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the safety of the public is paramount. For this reason, we agree that wearing a helmet while cycling should be mandatory as it reduces the risk of head injury and in the long term reduces the impact on the NHS. As with wearing a seatbelt in a car, it is a small price to pay for a big protection. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and we believe that this is the best way to protect the public and to reduce the amount of head injuries that occur as a result of cycling accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Wearing a helmet while cycling is the best way to protect cyclists from head injuries and should be mandatory. The evidence is overwhelming and is supported by many different studies. It is only a small price to pay to stay safe and we believe that this would improve the safety of cyclists and make cycling a more accessible option for the public. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000294.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000294.soc index 9853582c..df274c77 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000294.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000294.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it was not a sustainable form of energy. There was an argument that fracking could provide jobs and help the economy, but most participants thought that the benefits were not worth the cost to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, fracking is dangerous for the environment, and there is no certainty about the long term risks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although fracking can be seen as an efficient and cost-effective process of extracting oil, which is a "cleaner" alternative to coal, there are concerning drawbacks which persuades us to go against the idea. Due to the current monumental threat of climate change on all of humanity, the focus of all power industries should shift to developing and investing in more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should allow more fracking for gas as it can increase the amount of fuel and electricity we have access to. Although the environment is a concern, we believe the positives outweight the negatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to fracking. All agreed that it was not a sustainable form of energy. There was an argument that fracking could provide jobs and help the economy, but most participants thought that the benefits were not worth the cost to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, fracking is dangerous for the environment, and there is no certainty about the long term risks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although fracking can be seen as an efficient and cost-effective process of extracting oil, which is a "cleaner" alternative to coal, there are concerning drawbacks which persuades us to go against the idea. Due to the current monumental threat of climate change on all of humanity, the focus of all power industries should shift to developing and investing in more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should allow more fracking for gas as it can increase the amount of fuel and electricity we have access to. Although the environment is a concern, we believe the positives outweight the negatives. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000295.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000295.soc index a7b85d67..fe2efa67 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000295.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000295.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, fracking for gas raises concerns about environmental impacts and public health risks. Although it can be seen as an efficient and cost-effective process of extracting oil, which is a "cleaner" alternative to coal, the drawbacks and impact on the environment and the public outweigh any positives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fracking for gas is a dirty process, but it is a necessary one. The current threat of climate change on all of humanity should be our main focus. However, it is unlikely that we will be able to tackle this issue without developing and investing in more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, fracking for gas raises concerns about environmental impacts and public health risks. Instead we should be looking for better alternatives for fuel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although fracking can be seen as an efficient and cost-effective process of extracting oil, which is a "cleaner" alternative to coal, there are concerning drawbacks which persuades us to go against the idea. Due to the current monumental threat of climate change on all of humanity, the focus of all power industries should shift to developing and investing in more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, fracking for gas raises concerns about environmental impacts and public health risks. Although it can be seen as an efficient and cost-effective process of extracting oil, which is a "cleaner" alternative to coal, the drawbacks and impact on the environment and the public outweigh any positives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fracking for gas is a dirty process, but it is a necessary one. The current threat of climate change on all of humanity should be our main focus. However, it is unlikely that we will be able to tackle this issue without developing and investing in more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, fracking for gas raises concerns about environmental impacts and public health risks. Instead we should be looking for better alternatives for fuel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although fracking can be seen as an efficient and cost-effective process of extracting oil, which is a "cleaner" alternative to coal, there are concerning drawbacks which persuades us to go against the idea. Due to the current monumental threat of climate change on all of humanity, the focus of all power industries should shift to developing and investing in more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000296.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000296.soc index 70204474..4a228263 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000296.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000296.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. While they have made a lot of lofty promises in regards to the environment, this has not been followed up with policies that will lead to a reduction in emissions. The UK is still one of the most polluting countries in the world, and it is the government's responsibility to implement policies that will reduce emissions. Additionally, it is not a case of the government not being willing to implement these policies, but more of the government not putting in place policies that will actually lead to a reduction in emissions. An example of this can be seen in the way the government has approached recycling. While they have put a lot of policies in place that have led to significant increases in recycling, this is not the result of the government's policies, but rather a result of the way in which the public has responded to these policies. The government should be taking the initiative in these matters, and their failure to do so means that the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. Discussion The method that was used to reach a consensus view was clearly effective in achieving its goals. The group came to a consensus view that was a reflection of the opinions of the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. While the government has put in place some good policies, such as introducing an energy efficiency scheme, they have not been followed through with enough vigour. It is a case of the government putting in place a lot of good policies, but not really implementing them properly. This has been seen with the way the government has approached recycling. While they have put a lot of policies in place that have lead to significant increases in recycling, it is clear that the public is willing to recycle more, and these increases have not come from the government's policies. Additionally, I think that the government could be doing more to incentivise the use of green energy and energy efficiency measures. While the UK has taken a step in the right direction, the government has to put in place a lot more policies that will actually be implemented and that will lead to reductions in emissions if we are to meet the government's carbon neutral target for 2050. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government has implemented a number of policies to tackle climate change, however, these have not led to sufficient emissions reductions and need to be backed up by more forceful policies. The government needs to do more to encourage recycling and should take more drastic steps to make recycling mandatory in every household and business. The government has also been too slow to incentivise the use of green energy, and green energy is still very expensive compared to the fossil fuels that are being used now. This needs to change if we are to reduce our emissions and meet the government's target of being carbon neutral by 2050. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. They have put some policies in place, but these have not been followed through with enough vigour and are not leading to sufficient reductions in emissions. It is a case of the government putting in place a lot of good policies, but not really implementing them properly. This has been seen with the way the government has approached recycling. While they have put a lot of policies in place that have lead to significant increases in recycling, it is clear that the public is willing to recycle more, and these increases have not come from the government's policies. Additionally, I think that the government could be doing more to incentivise the use of green energy and energy efficiency measures. While the UK has taken a step in the right direction, the government has to put in place a lot more policies that will actually be implemented and that will lead to reductions in emissions if we are to meet the government's carbon neutral target for 2050. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. While they have made a lot of lofty promises in regards to the environment, this has not been followed up with policies that will lead to a reduction in emissions. The UK is still one of the most polluting countries in the world, and it is the government's responsibility to implement policies that will reduce emissions. Additionally, it is not a case of the government not being willing to implement these policies, but more of the government not putting in place policies that will actually lead to a reduction in emissions. An example of this can be seen in the way the government has approached recycling. While they have put a lot of policies in place that have led to significant increases in recycling, this is not the result of the government's policies, but rather a result of the way in which the public has responded to these policies. The government should be taking the initiative in these matters, and their failure to do so means that the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. Discussion The method that was used to reach a consensus view was clearly effective in achieving its goals. The group came to a consensus view that was a reflection of the opinions of the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. While the government has put in place some good policies, such as introducing an energy efficiency scheme, they have not been followed through with enough vigour. It is a case of the government putting in place a lot of good policies, but not really implementing them properly. This has been seen with the way the government has approached recycling. While they have put a lot of policies in place that have lead to significant increases in recycling, it is clear that the public is willing to recycle more, and these increases have not come from the government's policies. Additionally, I think that the government could be doing more to incentivise the use of green energy and energy efficiency measures. While the UK has taken a step in the right direction, the government has to put in place a lot more policies that will actually be implemented and that will lead to reductions in emissions if we are to meet the government's carbon neutral target for 2050. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government has implemented a number of policies to tackle climate change, however, these have not led to sufficient emissions reductions and need to be backed up by more forceful policies. The government needs to do more to encourage recycling and should take more drastic steps to make recycling mandatory in every household and business. The government has also been too slow to incentivise the use of green energy, and green energy is still very expensive compared to the fossil fuels that are being used now. This needs to change if we are to reduce our emissions and meet the government's target of being carbon neutral by 2050. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. They have put some policies in place, but these have not been followed through with enough vigour and are not leading to sufficient reductions in emissions. It is a case of the government putting in place a lot of good policies, but not really implementing them properly. This has been seen with the way the government has approached recycling. While they have put a lot of policies in place that have lead to significant increases in recycling, it is clear that the public is willing to recycle more, and these increases have not come from the government's policies. Additionally, I think that the government could be doing more to incentivise the use of green energy and energy efficiency measures. While the UK has taken a step in the right direction, the government has to put in place a lot more policies that will actually be implemented and that will lead to reductions in emissions if we are to meet the government's carbon neutral target for 2050. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000297.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000297.soc index 1085aaf5..6437cbf5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000297.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000297.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics also often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban all non-essential plastics from supermarkets as this would be beneficial for the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we should definitely ban non-essential plastics from supermarkets. Plastics can be essential for some products to increase shelf life, but lots of it is not necessary and only there to attract the consumers eye. Charging for plastic carrier bags has proved to be a success, and if plastic is essential it should be white and easily recyclable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should ban non-essential plastics from supermarkets. Plastic pollution is causing significant damage to the environment and many plastics cannot be recycled. This means that reducing the use of plastics will have an immediate positive impact on our environment.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics also often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban all non-essential plastics from supermarkets as this would be beneficial for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we should definitely ban non-essential plastics from supermarkets. Plastics can be essential for some products to increase shelf life, but lots of it is not necessary and only there to attract the consumers eye. Charging for plastic carrier bags has proved to be a success, and if plastic is essential it should be white and easily recyclable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should ban non-essential plastics from supermarkets. Plastic pollution is causing significant damage to the environment and many plastics cannot be recycled. This means that reducing the use of plastics will have an immediate positive impact on our environment.” 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000298.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000298.soc index 6acd9d0a..b217baee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000298.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000298.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not ban the consumption of meat as it provides people with a good source of protein and is a part of the natural food chain. People should be encouraged to reduce their intake of meat but should be free to make their own choices. The industry should also be encouraged to reduce the amount of waste and cruelty it creates. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should have the right to choose whether they want to eat meat or not. However, we should not be consuming meat at every meal and it should not be the centre of every meal. We should also be making more of an effort to reduce our consumption of meat and switch to more plant based products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to banning the consumption of meat. However, all participants agreed that there was no reason why people shouldn't be encouraged to consume less meat, especially in terms of the impact on the environment. People should be free to make their own choices, and the group did not think it was the government's role to ban consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be encouraged to reduce their meat consumption, however, they should still be able to choose whether they eat meat or not. Meat has been a part of human life for thousands of years and provides some benefits in terms of health. However, there is a case to reduce the amount of meat consumed, as industrial farming can be cruel and creates a lot of waste products such as slurry. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not ban the consumption of meat as it provides people with a good source of protein and is a part of the natural food chain. People should be encouraged to reduce their intake of meat but should be free to make their own choices. The industry should also be encouraged to reduce the amount of waste and cruelty it creates. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should have the right to choose whether they want to eat meat or not. However, we should not be consuming meat at every meal and it should not be the centre of every meal. We should also be making more of an effort to reduce our consumption of meat and switch to more plant based products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to banning the consumption of meat. However, all participants agreed that there was no reason why people shouldn't be encouraged to consume less meat, especially in terms of the impact on the environment. People should be free to make their own choices, and the group did not think it was the government's role to ban consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be encouraged to reduce their meat consumption, however, they should still be able to choose whether they eat meat or not. Meat has been a part of human life for thousands of years and provides some benefits in terms of health. However, there is a case to reduce the amount of meat consumed, as industrial farming can be cruel and creates a lot of waste products such as slurry. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000299.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000299.soc index 8c1df71b..4d84427c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000299.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000299.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption, by raising public awareness of the how the meat industry harms the planet, by raising standards for the meat industry's environmental footprint, by raising the taxes on meat and subsidising the cost of plant-based alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. This could include encouraging people to try plant-based alternatives, making meat less available, and reducing the cost of vegetables. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. This could be done by introducing regulations on the quality of meat that could be sold and running public awareness campaigns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption, by raising public awareness of the how the meat industry harms the planet, by raising standards for the meat industry's environmental footprint, by raising the taxes on meat and subsidising the cost of plant-based alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. This could include encouraging people to try plant-based alternatives, making meat less available, and reducing the cost of vegetables. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not ban eating meat, but there should be greater efforts to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. This could be done by introducing regulations on the quality of meat that could be sold and running public awareness campaigns. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000300.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000300.soc index b09aa5a5..60d3091a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000300.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000300.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a need for more effort to be put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. This is because the larger the proportion of eligible people who vote do, the better. The way this opinion is set out/written could be better though, much more concise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: More effort should be put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. Therefore, there is a need for an extra effort in making more people to vote. Being reluctant to vote is also a human right because one may feel that noone seems to be fit enough to represent her. If the whole eligible population were to vote then the outcome of the vote will more accurately represent the consensus of the population. If there is a lack of encouragement to vote, people may abstain and the outcome may turn out to not support the majority view but that of the population that voted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be more effort put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. Therefore, there is a need for an extra effort in making more people to vote. Being reluctant to vote is also a human right because one may feel that noone seems to be fit enough to represent her. However, if the whole eligible population were to vote then the outcome of the vote will more accurately represent the consensus of the population. If there is a lack of encouragement to vote, people may abstain and the outcome may turn out to not support the majority view but that of the population that voted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: More effort should be put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. If the whole eligible population were to vote then the outcome of the vote will more accurately represent the consensus of the population. If there is a lack of encouragement to vote, people may abstain and the outcome may turn out to not support the majority view but that of the population that voted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a need for more effort to be put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. This is because the larger the proportion of eligible people who vote do, the better. The way this opinion is set out/written could be better though, much more concise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - More effort should be put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. Therefore, there is a need for an extra effort in making more people to vote. Being reluctant to vote is also a human right because one may feel that noone seems to be fit enough to represent her. If the whole eligible population were to vote then the outcome of the vote will more accurately represent the consensus of the population. If there is a lack of encouragement to vote, people may abstain and the outcome may turn out to not support the majority view but that of the population that voted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be more effort put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. Therefore, there is a need for an extra effort in making more people to vote. Being reluctant to vote is also a human right because one may feel that noone seems to be fit enough to represent her. However, if the whole eligible population were to vote then the outcome of the vote will more accurately represent the consensus of the population. If there is a lack of encouragement to vote, people may abstain and the outcome may turn out to not support the majority view but that of the population that voted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - More effort should be put into encouraging people to vote. Voting is the process through which representatives governing the public are elected. The entire system of democratic voting works on the principle of large numbers voting for the representatives to prevent cheating and underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Since the representatives are literally enforcing and changing laws, their election should have more attention and importance given to it. If the whole eligible population were to vote then the outcome of the vote will more accurately represent the consensus of the population. If there is a lack of encouragement to vote, people may abstain and the outcome may turn out to not support the majority view but that of the population that voted. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000301.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000301.soc index f97a2b90..ebb08b6f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000301.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000301.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Petrol prices should be fair so that people do not feel the need to turn to illegal means to make up the extra cost of living but we should not be reliant on cheap petrol for people to be able to afford to live as this will ultimately lead to increased fuel usage and so more environmental issues. The benefit of Delphi is that there is little time pressure on the participants and the 'debate' can be carried out over a long period of time, which is also beneficial for creating an accurate consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should not subsidise petrol prices as we should not be reliant on cheap petrol for people to be able to afford to live as this will ultimately lead to increased fuel usage and so more environmental issues. The government should however do what they can to keep petrol prices fair so that people do not feel the need to turn to illegal means to make up the extra cost of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not subsidise petrol prices but should ensure that petrol prices are fair and do not force people to turn to illegal means in order to be able to afford to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not subsidise petrol prices. People should not have to rely on cheap petrol in order to live. This would be detrimental to the environment and so the government should not be expected to subsidise petrol in order to keep people's cost of living down. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Petrol prices should be fair so that people do not feel the need to turn to illegal means to make up the extra cost of living but we should not be reliant on cheap petrol for people to be able to afford to live as this will ultimately lead to increased fuel usage and so more environmental issues. The benefit of Delphi is that there is little time pressure on the participants and the 'debate' can be carried out over a long period of time, which is also beneficial for creating an accurate consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should not subsidise petrol prices as we should not be reliant on cheap petrol for people to be able to afford to live as this will ultimately lead to increased fuel usage and so more environmental issues. The government should however do what they can to keep petrol prices fair so that people do not feel the need to turn to illegal means to make up the extra cost of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not subsidise petrol prices but should ensure that petrol prices are fair and do not force people to turn to illegal means in order to be able to afford to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not subsidise petrol prices. People should not have to rely on cheap petrol in order to live. This would be detrimental to the environment and so the government should not be expected to subsidise petrol in order to keep people's cost of living down. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000302.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000302.soc index 0dbbe569..b2e0b0af 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000302.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000302.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although music lessons have a range of benefits for children and their families, there are more important things that the government could subsidise. Music lessons are a luxury that families can choose to get their children involved in if they wish to, rather than a necessity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't believe that it is an essential activity for the government to subsidise music lessons. The government already has a number of priorities that it needs to deal with and it seems as though music lessons are a luxury rather than an essential. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Music lessons are something that are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money. The country is in crisis and there are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not subsidise music lessons for low income families. Although it would be a great opportunity for children from low income families to get a chance to take up music lessons, we don't think that it should be funded by the government as we believe that there are other important things in this country that are in a much greater need of being funded and subsidised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although music lessons have a range of benefits for children and their families, there are more important things that the government could subsidise. Music lessons are a luxury that families can choose to get their children involved in if they wish to, rather than a necessity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't believe that it is an essential activity for the government to subsidise music lessons. The government already has a number of priorities that it needs to deal with and it seems as though music lessons are a luxury rather than an essential. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Music lessons are something that are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money. The country is in crisis and there are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not subsidise music lessons for low income families. Although it would be a great opportunity for children from low income families to get a chance to take up music lessons, we don't think that it should be funded by the government as we believe that there are other important things in this country that are in a much greater need of being funded and subsidised. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000303.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000303.soc index 2e0f1506..6668d25e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000303.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000303.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics also often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics also often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. We also think that there needs to be a reform of the plastics that are deemed essential, so they can be identified easily and recycled properly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. If plastic is essential, it should be easily identifiable so it can be recycled easily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics also often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. This culture of sustainability will also be helped by the reform of the plastics that are deemed essential, so they can be identified easily and recycled properly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics also often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics also often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. We also think that there needs to be a reform of the plastics that are deemed essential, so they can be identified easily and recycled properly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. If plastic is essential, it should be easily identifiable so it can be recycled easily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. This is because these plastics are not essential to the product and therefore are an unnecessary addition to the product and a waste of plastic. These plastics also often end up in landfill and the oceans where they can harm marine life. The removal of these non-essential plastics will also help consumers to be more mindful of the environmental impact of their purchases and promote a culture of sustainability. This culture of sustainability will also be helped by the reform of the plastics that are deemed essential, so they can be identified easily and recycled properly. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000304.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000304.soc index 6278e8a5..c0c5f407 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000304.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000304.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Meat has long been a part of human history, and a healthy, balanced diet should include some meat, but the industry should reduce the waste it creates and use less cruel methods of production. People should also be encouraged to reduce their intake of meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Meat has been a part of the human diet for a long time. However, it is one of many foods that can contribute to a healthy diet and it is not necessary to consume meat in order to maintain a healthy diet. We therefore should not ban the consumption of meat but should encourage people to make informed choices and should promote plant-based products as alternatives to meat. At the same time, the industry should be encouraged to reduce waste and cruelty and to develop innovative ways to reduce the amount of land, water, and feed that are currently used to produce meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are pros and cons to eating meat. We should not ban the consumption of meat as it provides people with a good source of protein and is a part of the natural food chain. People should be encouraged to reduce their intake of meat but should be free to make their own choices. The industry should also be encouraged to reduce the amount of waste and cruelty it creates. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not ban the consumption of meat as it provides people with a good source of protein and is a part of the natural food chain. People should be encouraged to reduce their intake of meat but should be free to make their own choices. The industry should also be encouraged to reduce the amount of waste and cruelty it creates. Discussion of the process The aim of the exercise was to provide the participants with a very simple way to create a consensus statement that they would all agree to. We started by each participant stating their own opinion and then moved on to a consensus statement that tried to accommodate the opinions of all participants. Once the first draft was created, the participants had the opportunity to provide feedback, which led to a new draft being created. As the process progressed, the participants refined the draft until all participants agreed that they had achieved a consensus. This was a positive experience for all participants, and all felt that they had participated and contributed to the final statement. They also all felt that the final consensus statement was very similar to their own opinions. Conclusion Using this simple approach, we were able to create a consensus statement on an important question. While this approach worked well in this exercise, we acknowledge that it may be more difficult to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Meat has long been a part of human history, and a healthy, balanced diet should include some meat, but the industry should reduce the waste it creates and use less cruel methods of production. People should also be encouraged to reduce their intake of meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Meat has been a part of the human diet for a long time. However, it is one of many foods that can contribute to a healthy diet and it is not necessary to consume meat in order to maintain a healthy diet. We therefore should not ban the consumption of meat but should encourage people to make informed choices and should promote plant-based products as alternatives to meat. At the same time, the industry should be encouraged to reduce waste and cruelty and to develop innovative ways to reduce the amount of land, water, and feed that are currently used to produce meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are pros and cons to eating meat. We should not ban the consumption of meat as it provides people with a good source of protein and is a part of the natural food chain. People should be encouraged to reduce their intake of meat but should be free to make their own choices. The industry should also be encouraged to reduce the amount of waste and cruelty it creates. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not ban the consumption of meat as it provides people with a good source of protein and is a part of the natural food chain. People should be encouraged to reduce their intake of meat but should be free to make their own choices. The industry should also be encouraged to reduce the amount of waste and cruelty it creates. Discussion of the process The aim of the exercise was to provide the participants with a very simple way to create a consensus statement that they would all agree to. We started by each participant stating their own opinion and then moved on to a consensus statement that tried to accommodate the opinions of all participants. Once the first draft was created, the participants had the opportunity to provide feedback, which led to a new draft being created. As the process progressed, the participants refined the draft until all participants agreed that they had achieved a consensus. This was a positive experience for all participants, and all felt that they had participated and contributed to the final statement. They also all felt that the final consensus statement was very similar to their own opinions. Conclusion Using this simple approach, we were able to create a consensus statement on an important question. While this approach worked well in this exercise, we acknowledge that it may be more difficult to 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000305.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000305.soc index 2a4959e0..4748d387 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000305.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000305.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Corporations should not be allowed to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. People's data should never be sold off without the explicit consent of the individual. Giving corporations the right to decide to buy and sell this information could have negative ramifications. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People's data should never be sold off without their explicit consent. Corporations should not be allowed to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, absolutely not. This is will turn our online lives into commodities being traded for the profits and benefit of big companies. It is also a severe privacy and security risk. With important personal information about us being stored on multiple servers and beamed around the internet there will inevitably be data leaks that will expose that information to hackers and other crooks who will misuse it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, Corporations should not be allowed to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. This would be an invasion of privacy and could lead to personal information being used for malicious purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Corporations should not be allowed to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. People's data should never be sold off without the explicit consent of the individual. Giving corporations the right to decide to buy and sell this information could have negative ramifications. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People's data should never be sold off without their explicit consent. Corporations should not be allowed to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, absolutely not. This is will turn our online lives into commodities being traded for the profits and benefit of big companies. It is also a severe privacy and security risk. With important personal information about us being stored on multiple servers and beamed around the internet there will inevitably be data leaks that will expose that information to hackers and other crooks who will misuse it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, Corporations should not be allowed to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. This would be an invasion of privacy and could lead to personal information being used for malicious purposes. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000306.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000306.soc index c2ff1278..f9e75810 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000306.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000306.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, Capitalism in its current form is not morally defensible. It is morally indefensible that so many people around the world are going hungry and living in abject poverty while the world's rich become richer. In its current form, the capitalist system is not equitable and the gap between rich and poor is growing. This cannot continue if the world is to survive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Capitalism in its current form is morally indefensible. It leads to the domination of the few, and the exploitation of the many. The profit motive is often too strong and supersedes basic morals. Inequality is on the rise and the future looks bleak, as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle classes are increasingly squeezed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Capitalism is not morally defensible in its current form. The way in which people in the UK can live in poverty whilst a small percentage of the population owns the majority of the country’s wealth is morally wrong. Those who have money are so self-absorbed that they do not care about the poor. It is indefensible that there are those who work and are still left in poverty, whilst those with no need to work are still rich. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some Government intervention in the economy. For example, a living wage should be guaranteed. The people at the bottom of the economy shouldn't be exploited to provide profits for the few at the top. However, to completely abolish capitalism is impossible and would be disastrous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, Capitalism in its current form is not morally defensible. It is morally indefensible that so many people around the world are going hungry and living in abject poverty while the world's rich become richer. In its current form, the capitalist system is not equitable and the gap between rich and poor is growing. This cannot continue if the world is to survive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Capitalism in its current form is morally indefensible. It leads to the domination of the few, and the exploitation of the many. The profit motive is often too strong and supersedes basic morals. Inequality is on the rise and the future looks bleak, as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle classes are increasingly squeezed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Capitalism is not morally defensible in its current form. The way in which people in the UK can live in poverty whilst a small percentage of the population owns the majority of the country’s wealth is morally wrong. Those who have money are so self-absorbed that they do not care about the poor. It is indefensible that there are those who work and are still left in poverty, whilst those with no need to work are still rich. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some Government intervention in the economy. For example, a living wage should be guaranteed. The people at the bottom of the economy shouldn't be exploited to provide profits for the few at the top. However, to completely abolish capitalism is impossible and would be disastrous. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000307.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000307.soc index 01e8a26b..89625eb5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000307.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000307.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that there should be a proportion of council housing that no one can buy, in order to give housing to those in need and to prevent a growing homelessness crisis in the UK. This is because it would prevent council housing from being used as a means of profit and also because it would provide the best long term solution to homelessness in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be some council housing that no one can buy as this would be beneficial for vulnerable people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, as people deserve to be able to buy their own property, however we do need to keep a supply of council houses available to vulnerable and low income people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of council housing that no one can buy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that there should be a proportion of council housing that no one can buy, in order to give housing to those in need and to prevent a growing homelessness crisis in the UK. This is because it would prevent council housing from being used as a means of profit and also because it would provide the best long term solution to homelessness in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be some council housing that no one can buy as this would be beneficial for vulnerable people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, as people deserve to be able to buy their own property, however we do need to keep a supply of council houses available to vulnerable and low income people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of council housing that no one can buy. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000308.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000308.soc index 08468b0f..c49e73f0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000308.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000308.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Income is something that people need in order to afford things. The way we allot income is very complex. There are many ways to distribute it. The universal basic income idea seems to be on the rise because of the age of AI and automation which is going to make a lot of jobs obsolete. This means that the government will have to take measures to prevent a spike in poverty levels. The debate is still going on about whether this would work. The participants would like to know more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The introduction of a universal basic income, is not in fact, universal. The current system of benefits and wages is just that, a system. This system needs to be fully examined to ensure that any gaps are plugged so that no one in need is left without help. With this in mind, it may be possible to have a basic income in the future. However, it is important to understand that having a universal basic income is not without its dangers. If we are not careful, it could end up with those that need it most being worse off and those that have enough being even better off. This will only continue to increase inequality.“ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not introduce a universal basic income. The government should instead provide the tools to assist people to earn their own money. This includes creating opportunities for jobs through investment and innovation, tax breaks and other incentives for small businesses, and providing training and education for those in need. There is a difference between charity and enabling people to support themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a universal basic income, as it will provide stability and financial security for everyone. It will also reduce the stress of those who are unemployed or are struggling financially. However, this should not be a reason for those to become lazy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Income is something that people need in order to afford things. The way we allot income is very complex. There are many ways to distribute it. The universal basic income idea seems to be on the rise because of the age of AI and automation which is going to make a lot of jobs obsolete. This means that the government will have to take measures to prevent a spike in poverty levels. The debate is still going on about whether this would work. The participants would like to know more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The introduction of a universal basic income, is not in fact, universal. The current system of benefits and wages is just that, a system. This system needs to be fully examined to ensure that any gaps are plugged so that no one in need is left without help. With this in mind, it may be possible to have a basic income in the future. However, it is important to understand that having a universal basic income is not without its dangers. If we are not careful, it could end up with those that need it most being worse off and those that have enough being even better off. This will only continue to increase inequality.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not introduce a universal basic income. The government should instead provide the tools to assist people to earn their own money. This includes creating opportunities for jobs through investment and innovation, tax breaks and other incentives for small businesses, and providing training and education for those in need. There is a difference between charity and enabling people to support themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a universal basic income, as it will provide stability and financial security for everyone. It will also reduce the stress of those who are unemployed or are struggling financially. However, this should not be a reason for those to become lazy. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000309.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000309.soc index 113e5ea3..830ee255 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000309.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000309.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not subsidize oil and gas companies. They should be penalised for the harm that they give to the earth and atmosphere. Instead, the government should encourage the utilization of renewable energy sources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not subsidize oil and gas companies to produce more fossil fuels. The climate crisis we find ourselves in is in large part due to fossil fuel use and these companies have to stop producing them. Further production of fossil fuels will damage the planet beyond repair. Instead, the government should subsidize oil and gas companies to produce more natural and environmentally friendly fuels and invest in renewable energy sources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No. It would be a waste of taxpayers money to subsidize fossil fuel companies to produce more fossil fuels, especially when there are many other green alternatives to fossil fuels which could be subsidized instead. It would be far more environmentally friendly to subsidize companies who produce green fuels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to giving subsidies to oil and gas companies. We argued that the energy resources that were renewable were much more beneficial to the planet than the energy resources that were fossil fuels. However, we also agreed that not all of the oil and gas companies were bad. Some of the companies were trying to make a more environmentally friendly world and were looking for more energy sources that were cleaner than fossil fuels. In the end, we agreed that oil and gas companies could not be helped by the government and that the government should not subsidize them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not subsidize oil and gas companies. They should be penalised for the harm that they give to the earth and atmosphere. Instead, the government should encourage the utilization of renewable energy sources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not subsidize oil and gas companies to produce more fossil fuels. The climate crisis we find ourselves in is in large part due to fossil fuel use and these companies have to stop producing them. Further production of fossil fuels will damage the planet beyond repair. Instead, the government should subsidize oil and gas companies to produce more natural and environmentally friendly fuels and invest in renewable energy sources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No. It would be a waste of taxpayers money to subsidize fossil fuel companies to produce more fossil fuels, especially when there are many other green alternatives to fossil fuels which could be subsidized instead. It would be far more environmentally friendly to subsidize companies who produce green fuels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to giving subsidies to oil and gas companies. We argued that the energy resources that were renewable were much more beneficial to the planet than the energy resources that were fossil fuels. However, we also agreed that not all of the oil and gas companies were bad. Some of the companies were trying to make a more environmentally friendly world and were looking for more energy sources that were cleaner than fossil fuels. In the end, we agreed that oil and gas companies could not be helped by the government and that the government should not subsidize them. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000310.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000310.soc index e8c0571e..11dd1c06 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000310.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000310.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Music lessons are something that are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money. The country is in crisis and there are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. However, children from low income families should still be allowed to access lessons and parents should be given the opportunity to apply for grants and funding for lessons and instruments for their children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Music lessons are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money. The country is in crisis and there are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. However, the benefits for a child's development are such that music lessons should be given to children whose parents cannot afford them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Music lessons are something that are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money when the country is in crisis. There are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Music lessons are something that are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money. The country is in crisis and there are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Music lessons are something that are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money. The country is in crisis and there are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. However, children from low income families should still be allowed to access lessons and parents should be given the opportunity to apply for grants and funding for lessons and instruments for their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Music lessons are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money. The country is in crisis and there are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. However, the benefits for a child's development are such that music lessons should be given to children whose parents cannot afford them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Music lessons are something that are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money when the country is in crisis. There are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Music lessons are something that are beneficial for children, in allowing them to creatively express themselves and giving them an opportunity to learn a skill they might not normally get the chance to, but they don't seem like the best use of government money. The country is in crisis and there are many more important things that should be given priority over music lessons. 3: 1,2,3,4 2: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000311.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000311.soc index b53a5a9e..d7eb5b31 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000311.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000311.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should set a minimum wage. This is because not all companies have the moral fibre to treat their staff properly and without regulation, companies will exploit their workers. However, a minimum wage doesn't even go far enough due to the extreme greed of the rich. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should set a minimum wage. This is because not all companies have the moral fibre to treat their staff properly and without regulation, companies will exploit their workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a minimum wage set by the government. Not all companies treat their staff well and without a minimum wage, the vast majority of companies would not pay their staff properly. Workers would be exploited. Conclusion: You have been given the opportunity to have a voice in your workplace. You will now be paid fairly. The views expressed by the participants in this exercise are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of any government, political party, employer or religious or social group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should set a minimum wage. This is because not all companies have the moral fibre to treat their staff properly and without regulation, companies will exploit their workers. In order to ensure this does not happen, the government must enforce the minimum wage and prevent companies from going back to exploiting their workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should set a minimum wage. This is because not all companies have the moral fibre to treat their staff properly and without regulation, companies will exploit their workers. However, a minimum wage doesn't even go far enough due to the extreme greed of the rich. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should set a minimum wage. This is because not all companies have the moral fibre to treat their staff properly and without regulation, companies will exploit their workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a minimum wage set by the government. Not all companies treat their staff well and without a minimum wage, the vast majority of companies would not pay their staff properly. Workers would be exploited. Conclusion: You have been given the opportunity to have a voice in your workplace. You will now be paid fairly. The views expressed by the participants in this exercise are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of any government, political party, employer or religious or social group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should set a minimum wage. This is because not all companies have the moral fibre to treat their staff properly and without regulation, companies will exploit their workers. In order to ensure this does not happen, the government must enforce the minimum wage and prevent companies from going back to exploiting their workers. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000312.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000312.soc index fa518b32..28e44b6d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000312.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000312.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The Government should provide more support to parents to help children from poorer families achieve in school, but this support must be tailored in a way that is beneficial to the child and not just to the family as a whole.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the government should provide greater support to parents of children from poorer families, however we also believe that it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children are motivated to achieve in school. We believe that some support should be available for after school care for these children, as this would allow them to spend more time completing their homework. This support should not be taken advantage of by parents who could afford to support their children, and only parents with children of exceptional need should be given this support. Conclusion: Whilst there was not a consensus view on whether the government should provide greater support to parents of children from poorer families, we came to the conclusion that if this support is given, it should be given in a targeted manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should provide greater support to help children from poorer families achieve in school. In doing so, children are set up for a more successful future which will help reduce inequality in society. However, it is ultimately the individual child's choice to make the effort required in order to perform well in school, and therefore the level of support is somewhat limited. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide greater support to parents to help children from poorer families achieve in school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The Government should provide more support to parents to help children from poorer families achieve in school, but this support must be tailored in a way that is beneficial to the child and not just to the family as a whole.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the government should provide greater support to parents of children from poorer families, however we also believe that it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children are motivated to achieve in school. We believe that some support should be available for after school care for these children, as this would allow them to spend more time completing their homework. This support should not be taken advantage of by parents who could afford to support their children, and only parents with children of exceptional need should be given this support. Conclusion: Whilst there was not a consensus view on whether the government should provide greater support to parents of children from poorer families, we came to the conclusion that if this support is given, it should be given in a targeted manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should provide greater support to help children from poorer families achieve in school. In doing so, children are set up for a more successful future which will help reduce inequality in society. However, it is ultimately the individual child's choice to make the effort required in order to perform well in school, and therefore the level of support is somewhat limited. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide greater support to parents to help children from poorer families achieve in school. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000313.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000313.soc index c162b092..f0747d4c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000313.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000313.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, absolutely not. This is will turn our online lives into commodities being traded for the profits and benefit of big companies. It is also a severe privacy and security risk. With important personal information about us being stored on multiple servers and beamed around the internet there will inevitably be data leaks that will expose that information to hackers and other crooks who will misuse it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, absolutely not. This is will turn our online lives into commodities being traded for the profits and benefit of big companies. It is also a severe privacy and security risk. With important personal information about us being stored on multiple servers and beamed around the internet there will inevitably be data leaks that will expose that information to hackers and other crooks who will misuse it. We believe that it is not a good idea to allow corporations to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Corporations should not be allowed to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. Giving coprpotations the right to decide to buy and sell this information could have negative ramificaitons. People's data should never to sold off without the explicit consent of the individual. Giving coprpotations the right to decide to buy and sell this information could have negative ramificaitons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, absolutely not. This is will turn our online lives into commodities being traded for the profits and benefit of big companies. It is also a severe privacy and security risk. With important personal information about us being stored on multiple servers and beamed around the internet there will inevitably be data leaks that will expose that information to hackers and other crooks who will misappropriate it. Even legitimate companies may misuse this sort of information to target people with innapropriate advertising that could be harmful to vulnerable people. This sort of data trading is also likely to lead to even more data harvesting as companies try to maximise the profit they can make from this trade, leading to even more invasion of our privacy and exploitation of our online lives by tech companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, absolutely not. This is will turn our online lives into commodities being traded for the profits and benefit of big companies. It is also a severe privacy and security risk. With important personal information about us being stored on multiple servers and beamed around the internet there will inevitably be data leaks that will expose that information to hackers and other crooks who will misuse it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, absolutely not. This is will turn our online lives into commodities being traded for the profits and benefit of big companies. It is also a severe privacy and security risk. With important personal information about us being stored on multiple servers and beamed around the internet there will inevitably be data leaks that will expose that information to hackers and other crooks who will misuse it. We believe that it is not a good idea to allow corporations to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Corporations should not be allowed to buy and sell the rights to use people's data for advertising. Giving coprpotations the right to decide to buy and sell this information could have negative ramificaitons. People's data should never to sold off without the explicit consent of the individual. Giving coprpotations the right to decide to buy and sell this information could have negative ramificaitons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, absolutely not. This is will turn our online lives into commodities being traded for the profits and benefit of big companies. It is also a severe privacy and security risk. With important personal information about us being stored on multiple servers and beamed around the internet there will inevitably be data leaks that will expose that information to hackers and other crooks who will misappropriate it. Even legitimate companies may misuse this sort of information to target people with innapropriate advertising that could be harmful to vulnerable people. This sort of data trading is also likely to lead to even more data harvesting as companies try to maximise the profit they can make from this trade, leading to even more invasion of our privacy and exploitation of our online lives by tech companies. 2: 4,2,1,3 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000314.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000314.soc index f8af93ed..240da03b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000314.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000314.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the internet is a force for good in society. The internet has increased access to knowledge and resources to people, and changed the way we live and work. However, there are some negative aspects of the internet, including the creation of new crimes and digital divide between the haves and have nots. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the internet is a force for good in society. The internet has increased access to knowledge and resources to people, and changed the way we live and work. However, there are some negative aspects of the internet, including the creation of new crimes, crimes in the dark web, and abuse of people. Conclusion: The round-table discussions on various questions and topics were very enlightening, and led to interesting points being made by the participants. Through these round-table discussions, the group of participants came to consensus opinions on the various questions, though a good debate and discussion. As part of the research for the development of the "Human Capital (Innovation and Technological Change)" Topic Outline, the research group conducted a series of in-depth interviews with various individuals with experience in the field, to find out what are the key areas that need to be studied by students in their JC and A Level years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the internet is a force for good in society. The internet has increased access to knowledge and resources to people, and changed the way we live and work. It is also used to allow for new and creative ideas to be spread across the world, creating opportunities and change for people. The dark web is not something that should be ignored, as it is a hotbed for crime, such as human trafficking, child pornography, drug sales and more. In this example, it is clear that the way the question is phrased can skew the debate in one way or another. By framing the question as "Is the internet a force for good or evil?", it leads the discussion into a debate between the pros and cons of the internet, rather than the participants coming to a middle ground. It is important to frame the question in a way that is neutral, allowing the debate to flow naturally and not be steered in one direction or another. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet is a force for good in society, by allowing people to access knowledge and resources, and change the way we live and work. However, there are some negative aspects of the internet, including the creation of new crimes, crimes in the dark web, abuse of people, and digital divide between the haves and have nots. We had some disagreements and some very strong views that were contrary to each other, but the above is a consensus view of all four participants. We all agreed that the internet has both positive and negative aspects, and we have come up with a view that we all agree on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the internet is a force for good in society. The internet has increased access to knowledge and resources to people, and changed the way we live and work. However, there are some negative aspects of the internet, including the creation of new crimes and digital divide between the haves and have nots. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the internet is a force for good in society. The internet has increased access to knowledge and resources to people, and changed the way we live and work. However, there are some negative aspects of the internet, including the creation of new crimes, crimes in the dark web, and abuse of people. Conclusion: The round-table discussions on various questions and topics were very enlightening, and led to interesting points being made by the participants. Through these round-table discussions, the group of participants came to consensus opinions on the various questions, though a good debate and discussion. As part of the research for the development of the "Human Capital (Innovation and Technological Change)" Topic Outline, the research group conducted a series of in-depth interviews with various individuals with experience in the field, to find out what are the key areas that need to be studied by students in their JC and A Level years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the internet is a force for good in society. The internet has increased access to knowledge and resources to people, and changed the way we live and work. It is also used to allow for new and creative ideas to be spread across the world, creating opportunities and change for people. The dark web is not something that should be ignored, as it is a hotbed for crime, such as human trafficking, child pornography, drug sales and more. In this example, it is clear that the way the question is phrased can skew the debate in one way or another. By framing the question as "Is the internet a force for good or evil?", it leads the discussion into a debate between the pros and cons of the internet, rather than the participants coming to a middle ground. It is important to frame the question in a way that is neutral, allowing the debate to flow naturally and not be steered in one direction or another. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet is a force for good in society, by allowing people to access knowledge and resources, and change the way we live and work. However, there are some negative aspects of the internet, including the creation of new crimes, crimes in the dark web, abuse of people, and digital divide between the haves and have nots. We had some disagreements and some very strong views that were contrary to each other, but the above is a consensus view of all four participants. We all agreed that the internet has both positive and negative aspects, and we have come up with a view that we all agree on. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000315.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000315.soc index 7674ca01..f20b5be9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000315.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000315.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should not increase the size of the armed forces, as there is no looming threat that needs more military force. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should maintain the current size of the armed forces. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the size of the armed forces. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The armed forces should not be increased in size. The military is no longer the main tool for diplomatic relations and cooperation, and military aggression is an outdated method of resolving conflict in a modern world. The UK has recently demonstrated that it has no need for a larger military, and instead is focused on maintaining its standing within the international community by peaceful means. Any assets that could go towards the armed forces should go to more important things instead, such as the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not increase the size of the armed forces, as there is no looming threat that needs more military force. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should maintain the current size of the armed forces. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the size of the armed forces. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The armed forces should not be increased in size. The military is no longer the main tool for diplomatic relations and cooperation, and military aggression is an outdated method of resolving conflict in a modern world. The UK has recently demonstrated that it has no need for a larger military, and instead is focused on maintaining its standing within the international community by peaceful means. Any assets that could go towards the armed forces should go to more important things instead, such as the NHS. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000316.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000316.soc index 135c6416..15c363bc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000316.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000316.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, our current electoral system works well. However, there is scope for minor improvements in the way that the system is operated, rather than changes to the actual system itself. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the electoral system does not need to be changed, however, the voting age should be reduced to 16 years of age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The electoral system should be changed to an alternative vote system (AVE) but the voting age should not be reduced to 16. We should not make this change until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the electoral system should be changed. We believe a fairer system would be better for all the parties, especially the smaller ones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, our current electoral system works well. However, there is scope for minor improvements in the way that the system is operated, rather than changes to the actual system itself. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the electoral system does not need to be changed, however, the voting age should be reduced to 16 years of age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The electoral system should be changed to an alternative vote system (AVE) but the voting age should not be reduced to 16. We should not make this change until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the electoral system should be changed. We believe a fairer system would be better for all the parties, especially the smaller ones. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000317.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000317.soc index d4e8683d..cf4d18f8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000317.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000317.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a crisis in the NHS, and it requires extra funding. We need to increase the funding of the NHS, and this is the most important thing that our taxes should be spent on. However, tax increases should be reserved for the richest in society, and for businesses who can afford to pay more. There is no need for taxes to be raised on the average earner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there is a case for increasing taxes to fund the health service. This should only be the case if it can be shown that this will actually lead to increased and improved healthcare provision. The extent to which taxes should be raised would be up to the Government and its Ministers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “After a long debate, the group have decided that, whilst we agree that the NHS needs more money, we do not think that this should be funded by taxes as this would have a negative effect on the economy, and would result in less money being available to spend on other important things, like education. We think that, instead, the government should seek to invest more in the NHS through private investment.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a crisis in the NHS, and it requires extra funding. We need to increase the funding of the NHS, and this is the most important thing that our taxes should be spent on. However, tax increases should be reserved for the richest in society, and for businesses who can afford to pay more. There is no need for taxes to be raised on the average earner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there is a case for increasing taxes to fund the health service. This should only be the case if it can be shown that this will actually lead to increased and improved healthcare provision. The extent to which taxes should be raised would be up to the Government and its Ministers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “After a long debate, the group have decided that, whilst we agree that the NHS needs more money, we do not think that this should be funded by taxes as this would have a negative effect on the economy, and would result in less money being available to spend on other important things, like education. We think that, instead, the government should seek to invest more in the NHS through private investment.” 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000318.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000318.soc index 3a2d235c..a361996b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000318.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000318.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the money spent on healthcare. They argued that the quality of healthcare is very good in the UK and it is not something that should be reduced. They acknowledged that it is already struggling under the current funding so it is in desperate need of more funding. They also suggested that the NHS should be restructured so that it becomes more efficient and uses money better so that the waiting times can be reduced and the NHS is made more user friendly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare but we should be using it in the most efficient way. In the future we should not increase the amount of money spent on healthcare until we can be sure it is being used in the most efficient way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should not reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare. However, we do think that a significant restructuring of healthcare needs to take place to make the NHS more efficient with how it uses money. This will also help reduce waiting times and ensure that doctors and nurses are more motivated to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not need to reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare. The current level of funding is clearly insufficient as shown by the waiting lists and strikes. More money is required to increase the efficiency of the system and to train more doctors and nurses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the money spent on healthcare. They argued that the quality of healthcare is very good in the UK and it is not something that should be reduced. They acknowledged that it is already struggling under the current funding so it is in desperate need of more funding. They also suggested that the NHS should be restructured so that it becomes more efficient and uses money better so that the waiting times can be reduced and the NHS is made more user friendly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare but we should be using it in the most efficient way. In the future we should not increase the amount of money spent on healthcare until we can be sure it is being used in the most efficient way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should not reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare. However, we do think that a significant restructuring of healthcare needs to take place to make the NHS more efficient with how it uses money. This will also help reduce waiting times and ensure that doctors and nurses are more motivated to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not need to reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare. The current level of funding is clearly insufficient as shown by the waiting lists and strikes. More money is required to increase the efficiency of the system and to train more doctors and nurses. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000319.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000319.soc index f6d15bf9..da127e03 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000319.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000319.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it is not acceptable for companies to sell data about individuals. It is unfair that some companies are in a position to make profit from personal data. Individuals may not even know that their data is being exploited for financial gain. I believe that this area needs much more regulation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Data is a key resource in the digital age and the role of companies is to respect the privacy of individuals. Data is used to make sense of human behaviour and needs to be treated ethically. Companies should have an ethical policy for collecting, storing and using data. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the participants believe that the data on individuals should not be sold by companies without the consent of individuals. This is because such data is personal data which belongs to individuals. The only exception is that if the individual has not given his or her consent and the sale of the data is for a good cause (e.g. for public health or a social cause) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Data collected by organisations about individuals can be sold by organisations. This is the case because most people voluntarily and knowingly give up this information in exchange for free services. Data which is covertly and unfairly collected should not be sold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it is not acceptable for companies to sell data about individuals. It is unfair that some companies are in a position to make profit from personal data. Individuals may not even know that their data is being exploited for financial gain. I believe that this area needs much more regulation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Data is a key resource in the digital age and the role of companies is to respect the privacy of individuals. Data is used to make sense of human behaviour and needs to be treated ethically. Companies should have an ethical policy for collecting, storing and using data. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the participants believe that the data on individuals should not be sold by companies without the consent of individuals. This is because such data is personal data which belongs to individuals. The only exception is that if the individual has not given his or her consent and the sale of the data is for a good cause (e.g. for public health or a social cause) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Data collected by organisations about individuals can be sold by organisations. This is the case because most people voluntarily and knowingly give up this information in exchange for free services. Data which is covertly and unfairly collected should not be sold. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000320.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000320.soc index 58bf41f1..f74e9084 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000320.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000320.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Four day working week would be a great idea if it was implemented on a voluntary basis. It would not be suitable for all employees and companies and some sectors would struggle. However if it works well for some it would be a step in the right direction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A four-day working week should be adopted by the UK. This would benefit employees, who would have more free time and a better work-life balance. Moreover, the UK's productivity would be boosted as people will be less stressed and will be more engaged in their jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the idea of the 4 day week in the UK is positive. We should consider adopting this, however there are some cons. For example, if a business is only open Monday-Friday and closed on weekends, the shorter working week would require higher productivity in 4 days rather than 5. This may not be feasible. It may also cause problems for parents as a shorter working week could cause issues in the availability of childcare for the extra day. For example, it could lead to people paying more for childcare. There are some jobs that are not suitable for the 4 day week. For example, police officers or other emergency service personnel are not able to have the same hours as normal workers. The shorter working week would be suitable for the hospitality industry, as they can be flexible and cater for all customers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should adopt a four-day working week. A four-day working week is a measure that will help reduce the stress levels of workers and increase the overall productivity levels. However, this should only be implemented on jobs that don’t require very high demand for their services or product on a daily basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Four day working week would be a great idea if it was implemented on a voluntary basis. It would not be suitable for all employees and companies and some sectors would struggle. However if it works well for some it would be a step in the right direction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A four-day working week should be adopted by the UK. This would benefit employees, who would have more free time and a better work-life balance. Moreover, the UK's productivity would be boosted as people will be less stressed and will be more engaged in their jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the idea of the 4 day week in the UK is positive. We should consider adopting this, however there are some cons. For example, if a business is only open Monday-Friday and closed on weekends, the shorter working week would require higher productivity in 4 days rather than 5. This may not be feasible. It may also cause problems for parents as a shorter working week could cause issues in the availability of childcare for the extra day. For example, it could lead to people paying more for childcare. There are some jobs that are not suitable for the 4 day week. For example, police officers or other emergency service personnel are not able to have the same hours as normal workers. The shorter working week would be suitable for the hospitality industry, as they can be flexible and cater for all customers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should adopt a four-day working week. A four-day working week is a measure that will help reduce the stress levels of workers and increase the overall productivity levels. However, this should only be implemented on jobs that don’t require very high demand for their services or product on a daily basis. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000321.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000321.soc index afddb1ae..38b5e34b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000321.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000321.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we feel that banning the sale of gasoline and diesel powered cars by 2035 would be a step in the right direction in regards to combating climate change. Electric powered cars would be cheaper to run, especially as they have no need for fuel and servicing costs would be reduced due to the technology being relatively new. As there would be no emissions being produced the health benefits would be numerous. This is something that we feel the government should seriously consider. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that by 2035 the sale of petrol and diesel cars should be banned to allow for more people to purchase electric cars. To ensure this happens the government will need to support people who cannot afford the change with subsidies to help with the cost. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of moving towards a low carbon future, and had in fact all previously indicated a desire to be included in the climate action movement. However, there were some concerns raised as to the overall feasibility of this and the length of time in which this should take place. The consensus was that the government should support those who need it the most, and if we are to achieve the target of 2035 then this would require some action in the immediate future. The group agreed that the way forward is to start educating people in schools as to the benefits of this transition to a low carbon future. However, it was also acknowledged that this was a complex issue and not all of the concerns were addressed during this deliberation exercise. The group was made up of young people who, despite living in an affluent part of the world, had some concerns that they might not be able to afford electric cars, especially with electricity costs currently at an all time high. It was also acknowledged that the current technology of electric cars might not be the best option for the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban the sale of gasoline and diesel powered cars by 2035 to reduce the impact of global warming. The ban would be implemented over a period of ten years to allow people to transition to electric cars, however people would be encouraged to buy electric cars before the ban was put into place to aid the reduction of pollution and the benefits of electric cars would be highlighted by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we feel that banning the sale of gasoline and diesel powered cars by 2035 would be a step in the right direction in regards to combating climate change. Electric powered cars would be cheaper to run, especially as they have no need for fuel and servicing costs would be reduced due to the technology being relatively new. As there would be no emissions being produced the health benefits would be numerous. This is something that we feel the government should seriously consider. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that by 2035 the sale of petrol and diesel cars should be banned to allow for more people to purchase electric cars. To ensure this happens the government will need to support people who cannot afford the change with subsidies to help with the cost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of moving towards a low carbon future, and had in fact all previously indicated a desire to be included in the climate action movement. However, there were some concerns raised as to the overall feasibility of this and the length of time in which this should take place. The consensus was that the government should support those who need it the most, and if we are to achieve the target of 2035 then this would require some action in the immediate future. The group agreed that the way forward is to start educating people in schools as to the benefits of this transition to a low carbon future. However, it was also acknowledged that this was a complex issue and not all of the concerns were addressed during this deliberation exercise. The group was made up of young people who, despite living in an affluent part of the world, had some concerns that they might not be able to afford electric cars, especially with electricity costs currently at an all time high. It was also acknowledged that the current technology of electric cars might not be the best option for the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban the sale of gasoline and diesel powered cars by 2035 to reduce the impact of global warming. The ban would be implemented over a period of ten years to allow people to transition to electric cars, however people would be encouraged to buy electric cars before the ban was put into place to aid the reduction of pollution and the benefits of electric cars would be highlighted by the government. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000322.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000322.soc index 37bcb986..cc3e4f63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000322.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000322.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Question: Should it be possible for you to legally download copyrighted material from the internet for free? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it should not be legal to download copyrighted material for free. Copyright is there for a reason and protects the work of others. Whilst copyright law could be amended for digital use, it should not be removed from the internet to offer copyrighted material for free. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of protecting the rights of copyright holders. However, as long as copyright is acknowledged and the materials downloaded are not used in a public facing format or used for commercial gain, then the group were not entirely against the idea of downloading copyrighted material. The group also felt that small, free samples should be allowed for a certain period of time to allow for sampling of the materials. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not fair to be able to download copyrighted material for free. Copyright protects the material and the creator, therefore it should be respected and protected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Question: Should it be possible for you to legally download copyrighted material from the internet for free? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it should not be legal to download copyrighted material for free. Copyright is there for a reason and protects the work of others. Whilst copyright law could be amended for digital use, it should not be removed from the internet to offer copyrighted material for free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of protecting the rights of copyright holders. However, as long as copyright is acknowledged and the materials downloaded are not used in a public facing format or used for commercial gain, then the group were not entirely against the idea of downloading copyrighted material. The group also felt that small, free samples should be allowed for a certain period of time to allow for sampling of the materials. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not fair to be able to download copyrighted material for free. Copyright protects the material and the creator, therefore it should be respected and protected. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000323.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000323.soc index 6030f3d1..3db990e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000323.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000323.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more Government involvement in health and safety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government should not intervene in health and safety issues unless it is in relation to the free choice of an individual to be involved in activities that are deemed dangerous to their health or safety. In addition, the government should not impose regulations on businesses that serve to make them spend large amounts of money on unnecessary health and safety issues. In addition, a group of participants were asked to respond to the following question: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People need to be responsible for their own health and safety, Government has a role in providing help and support if requested. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People are not babies, we are adults, we should be allowed to make our own decisions on what is and isn't right or good for ourselves. At best, the NHS should be available to offer help and support, only if it is asked for though. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more Government involvement in health and safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government should not intervene in health and safety issues unless it is in relation to the free choice of an individual to be involved in activities that are deemed dangerous to their health or safety. In addition, the government should not impose regulations on businesses that serve to make them spend large amounts of money on unnecessary health and safety issues. In addition, a group of participants were asked to respond to the following question: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People need to be responsible for their own health and safety, Government has a role in providing help and support if requested. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People are not babies, we are adults, we should be allowed to make our own decisions on what is and isn't right or good for ourselves. At best, the NHS should be available to offer help and support, only if it is asked for though. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000324.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000324.soc index 01debf49..56c63f60 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000324.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000324.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be some form of abolishment of private schools as the quality of education should be the same across the board. However, this should not be forced and should be implemented over time as a more gradual, phased process. It is important that we have a fair and equitable system that does not separate people at an early age and does not force children to be surrounded by people of similar backgrounds and upbringings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of abolishing private schools. However, it was recognised that many schools were built as charities, and as such it was not felt that they should be closed down. However, it was felt that private schools should not be allowed to expand further, and all new pupils should be placed in state schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Abolishing private schools may be a challenge for the country, however we believe that private schools encourage a hierarchical system that is not necessarily representative of talent. Therefore we believe that private schools should be abolished, especially as they may prevent talented children from other backgrounds to fulfil their potential.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Private schools have a number of pros and cons. The main benefit of private schools is that they can give a greater variety of choice and opportunity to students who wish to explore further into a particular subject or field. They can also create an environment of high-achieving students who are focused on their studies. The negatives of private schools is that they create an even greater gap between rich and poor, and as such increase the level of inequality within society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be some form of abolishment of private schools as the quality of education should be the same across the board. However, this should not be forced and should be implemented over time as a more gradual, phased process. It is important that we have a fair and equitable system that does not separate people at an early age and does not force children to be surrounded by people of similar backgrounds and upbringings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of abolishing private schools. However, it was recognised that many schools were built as charities, and as such it was not felt that they should be closed down. However, it was felt that private schools should not be allowed to expand further, and all new pupils should be placed in state schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Abolishing private schools may be a challenge for the country, however we believe that private schools encourage a hierarchical system that is not necessarily representative of talent. Therefore we believe that private schools should be abolished, especially as they may prevent talented children from other backgrounds to fulfil their potential.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Private schools have a number of pros and cons. The main benefit of private schools is that they can give a greater variety of choice and opportunity to students who wish to explore further into a particular subject or field. They can also create an environment of high-achieving students who are focused on their studies. The negatives of private schools is that they create an even greater gap between rich and poor, and as such increase the level of inequality within society. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000325.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000325.soc index 1c69302a..7c9b94f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000325.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000325.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the state has no role to play in reducing childhood obesity. Parents and individuals should be free to make choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The state has a role in reducing obesity in children, however, the state should encourage, educate and inform, but not enforce.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The state should have a role in reducing obesity in children. It can provide educational material to schools and parents and advise on healthy lifestyles and nutritional intake. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should set clear guidelines for parents and schools about the role of parents and schools in raising awareness of healthy eating in childhood. Healthy foods should be available in schools and parents should ensure their children are eating a healthy diet. Schools should educate children on how to live a healthy lifestyle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the state has no role to play in reducing childhood obesity. Parents and individuals should be free to make choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The state has a role in reducing obesity in children, however, the state should encourage, educate and inform, but not enforce.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The state should have a role in reducing obesity in children. It can provide educational material to schools and parents and advise on healthy lifestyles and nutritional intake. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should set clear guidelines for parents and schools about the role of parents and schools in raising awareness of healthy eating in childhood. Healthy foods should be available in schools and parents should ensure their children are eating a healthy diet. Schools should educate children on how to live a healthy lifestyle. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000326.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000326.soc index 38263f5d..b7daea02 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000326.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000326.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The electoral system should be changed to an alternative vote system (AVE) but the voting age should not be reduced to 16. We should not make this change until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The electoral system should be changed to a mixed member proportional system (MMP) but the voting age should not be reduced to 16. We should not make this change until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should change the voting system to the Alternative Vote Electoral system (AVE) and not reduce the voting age to 16. We should not make this change until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The electoral system should be changed to an alternative vote system (AVE) but the voting age should not be reduced to 16. This should not be done until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The electoral system should be changed to an alternative vote system (AVE) but the voting age should not be reduced to 16. We should not make this change until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The electoral system should be changed to a mixed member proportional system (MMP) but the voting age should not be reduced to 16. We should not make this change until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should change the voting system to the Alternative Vote Electoral system (AVE) and not reduce the voting age to 16. We should not make this change until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The electoral system should be changed to an alternative vote system (AVE) but the voting age should not be reduced to 16. This should not be done until the next election to ensure that our government is representative of all views and that all views are taken into account in the creation of this new system. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000327.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000327.soc index 9cbfbd79..4360dd5c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000327.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000327.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: All children should have access to a laptop for homework. They should be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. If their family cannot afford to buy a laptop then the child should be entitled to a free one from the school. The school should also provide ongoing support for the use of the laptop in terms of technology help desk. This would help all children in school have access to the same technology and level the playing field for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of free laptops for children but thought that it was important to make sure that there was an appropriate level of support for them in order to use them effectively. They thought that it would be very important to provide free technical support to ensure that children and their families were able to use the laptops to their full potential. The group thought that if children were able to take their laptops home, it would be essential to include some parental support as well. In conclusion, I think that although I was very skeptical of the process before it began, it worked very well. I believe that the system is very useful for group discussion and decision making. It is easy to use and quite interesting and enjoyable as well. I would like to use it again in future and would recommend it to others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, we believe that all children in schools should be given free laptops. The issue of cost needs to be addressed though. It is clearly going to be very expensive and difficult to achieve. A more realistic option may be to set up a scheme whereby families who cannot afford to buy their own laptop are given one free of charge. This would also help to reduce the likelihood of the laptops being misused. Of course, if the cost of laptops dropped significantly in the future, then it may be possible to give them out free to all children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should receive laptops if they need to use them to complete schoolwork. If they don't need to use them then they should not be forced to. If they are being given out for free they should be given to those who are most in need. If they need to be used for home work as well as school work then maybe they should be given on a case by case basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - All children should have access to a laptop for homework. They should be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. If their family cannot afford to buy a laptop then the child should be entitled to a free one from the school. The school should also provide ongoing support for the use of the laptop in terms of technology help desk. This would help all children in school have access to the same technology and level the playing field for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of free laptops for children but thought that it was important to make sure that there was an appropriate level of support for them in order to use them effectively. They thought that it would be very important to provide free technical support to ensure that children and their families were able to use the laptops to their full potential. The group thought that if children were able to take their laptops home, it would be essential to include some parental support as well. In conclusion, I think that although I was very skeptical of the process before it began, it worked very well. I believe that the system is very useful for group discussion and decision making. It is easy to use and quite interesting and enjoyable as well. I would like to use it again in future and would recommend it to others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, we believe that all children in schools should be given free laptops. The issue of cost needs to be addressed though. It is clearly going to be very expensive and difficult to achieve. A more realistic option may be to set up a scheme whereby families who cannot afford to buy their own laptop are given one free of charge. This would also help to reduce the likelihood of the laptops being misused. Of course, if the cost of laptops dropped significantly in the future, then it may be possible to give them out free to all children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should receive laptops if they need to use them to complete schoolwork. If they don't need to use them then they should not be forced to. If they are being given out for free they should be given to those who are most in need. If they need to be used for home work as well as school work then maybe they should be given on a case by case basis. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000328.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000328.soc index 54e6abfd..38f1be0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000328.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000328.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the purchase of new large private cars. However, all agreed that there should be more encouragement of cleaner technologies for large cars to use. The opinion was that it would be better to not ban the sale of large private cars outright, but instead incentivise the purchase of cleaner technologies and give tax breaks for those choosing to purchase them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, as long as the cars are electric, the number of large cars would naturally decrease, and they are highly taxed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should continue to regulate the amount of petrol and diesel vehicles on the road, in accordance with the 2035 petrol and diesel ban. However, steps should be taken to promote the purchase of new, sustainable technology for large private cars, as it is unreasonable to assume that people will give up their large private cars forever. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban the purchase of new, large private cars as this would be beneficial for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the purchase of new large private cars. However, all agreed that there should be more encouragement of cleaner technologies for large cars to use. The opinion was that it would be better to not ban the sale of large private cars outright, but instead incentivise the purchase of cleaner technologies and give tax breaks for those choosing to purchase them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, as long as the cars are electric, the number of large cars would naturally decrease, and they are highly taxed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should continue to regulate the amount of petrol and diesel vehicles on the road, in accordance with the 2035 petrol and diesel ban. However, steps should be taken to promote the purchase of new, sustainable technology for large private cars, as it is unreasonable to assume that people will give up their large private cars forever. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban the purchase of new, large private cars as this would be beneficial for the environment. 2: 3,1,2,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000329.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000329.soc index c8e42409..e3419e6f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000329.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000329.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the money spent on healthcare. They argued that the quality of healthcare is very good in the UK and it is not something that should be reduced. They acknowledged that it is already struggling under the current funding so it is in desperate need of more funding. They also suggested that the NHS should be restructured so that it becomes more efficient and uses money better so that the waiting times can be reduced and the NHS is made more user friendly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the money spent on healthcare. They argued that the quality of healthcare is very good in the UK and it is not something that should be reduced. They acknowledged that it is already struggling under the current funding so it is in desperate need of more funding. They also suggested that the NHS should be restructured so that it becomes more efficient and uses money better so that the waiting times can be reduced and the NHS is made more user friendly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group in general did not want to reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare. The current level of funding is struggling to keep up with the demand. This has led to huge waiting times for people needing treatment. The NHS should be restructured to make it more efficient and use money in the best way. More funding is needed to be able to hire more doctors and nurses to help the existing staff. This will allow them to cope better and to shorten waiting times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were in favour of increasing the money spent on healthcare. They argued that the quality of healthcare is very good in the UK and it is not something that should be reduced. They acknowledged that it is already struggling under the current funding so it is in desperate need of more funding. They also suggested that the NHS should be restructured so that it becomes more efficient and uses money better so that the waiting times can be reduced and the NHS is made more user friendly. Discussion A number of things that I learned during this exercise are as follows: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the money spent on healthcare. They argued that the quality of healthcare is very good in the UK and it is not something that should be reduced. They acknowledged that it is already struggling under the current funding so it is in desperate need of more funding. They also suggested that the NHS should be restructured so that it becomes more efficient and uses money better so that the waiting times can be reduced and the NHS is made more user friendly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the money spent on healthcare. They argued that the quality of healthcare is very good in the UK and it is not something that should be reduced. They acknowledged that it is already struggling under the current funding so it is in desperate need of more funding. They also suggested that the NHS should be restructured so that it becomes more efficient and uses money better so that the waiting times can be reduced and the NHS is made more user friendly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group in general did not want to reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare. The current level of funding is struggling to keep up with the demand. This has led to huge waiting times for people needing treatment. The NHS should be restructured to make it more efficient and use money in the best way. More funding is needed to be able to hire more doctors and nurses to help the existing staff. This will allow them to cope better and to shorten waiting times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were in favour of increasing the money spent on healthcare. They argued that the quality of healthcare is very good in the UK and it is not something that should be reduced. They acknowledged that it is already struggling under the current funding so it is in desperate need of more funding. They also suggested that the NHS should be restructured so that it becomes more efficient and uses money better so that the waiting times can be reduced and the NHS is made more user friendly. Discussion A number of things that I learned during this exercise are as follows: 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000330.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000330.soc index f12fa79c..9911645e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000330.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000330.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of investing in rail infrastructure but not all agreed on the need to invest to improve public transport. However, one participant argued that the current train services were inadequate and for the government to encourage people to use public transport, they need to provide a good service. Another participant pointed out that the government were trying to get more cars off the road for environmental reasons and for this to happen they need to improve public transport services. The participants agreed that it was a good idea to improve public transport but one participant pointed out that there are more important things that the money should be spent on. Another participant felt that we needed to invest in new technologies. It was finally agreed that we should invest in the rail infrastructure to improve the public transport system as it is currently inadequate and there is a need to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, yes we think the government should invest more in railway infrastructure to help improve public transport. We are living in a modern society that needs modern infrastructure. However, it is difficult to say how much more investment is needed as we need to get more information before we can come to an accurate answer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group came to the consensus view that we should not invest more in railway infrastructure because it would not be the best use of the government's money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the government should invest more in rail infrastructure. We think that it is important that the railways are modernised so that people feel comfortable using the railways and the railways are convenient. The cost is outweighed by the fact that people will use the railways more which is better for the environment. We also believe that it is important that we have a modern railway network that makes people proud to use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of investing in rail infrastructure but not all agreed on the need to invest to improve public transport. However, one participant argued that the current train services were inadequate and for the government to encourage people to use public transport, they need to provide a good service. Another participant pointed out that the government were trying to get more cars off the road for environmental reasons and for this to happen they need to improve public transport services. The participants agreed that it was a good idea to improve public transport but one participant pointed out that there are more important things that the money should be spent on. Another participant felt that we needed to invest in new technologies. It was finally agreed that we should invest in the rail infrastructure to improve the public transport system as it is currently inadequate and there is a need to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, yes we think the government should invest more in railway infrastructure to help improve public transport. We are living in a modern society that needs modern infrastructure. However, it is difficult to say how much more investment is needed as we need to get more information before we can come to an accurate answer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not invest more in railway infrastructure because it would not be the best use of the government's money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the government should invest more in rail infrastructure. We think that it is important that the railways are modernised so that people feel comfortable using the railways and the railways are convenient. The cost is outweighed by the fact that people will use the railways more which is better for the environment. We also believe that it is important that we have a modern railway network that makes people proud to use. 4: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000331.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000331.soc index 4a6eb885..c6439c0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000331.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000331.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group felt that in general copyrighted material should be protected, but that small, free samples should be allowed for a certain period of time to allow for sampling of the materials. The group also felt that copyrighted material should be freely available for download as long as it is not used in a public facing format or used for commercial gain. The group felt that a balance between access and protection should be struck, with each copyright holder being able to make their own choice about whether they want to allow their materials to be downloaded freely or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of protecting the rights of copyright holders. However, as long as copyright is acknowledged and the materials downloaded are not used in a public facing format or used for commercial gain, then the group were not entirely against the idea of downloading copyrighted material. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Copyrighted material should be protected by law, but if it is downloaded for personal use and not used for commercial gain, the law should allow some freedom to access this material. The creator should always be credited however. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Copyright should be protected. The legal framework in place for copyright is very important. However, it is also important to allow consumers to be able to access a small amount of copyrighted material to try before they buy. This may encourage them to buy the full version of the material and provide an incentive to the copyright holder to produce more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group felt that in general copyrighted material should be protected, but that small, free samples should be allowed for a certain period of time to allow for sampling of the materials. The group also felt that copyrighted material should be freely available for download as long as it is not used in a public facing format or used for commercial gain. The group felt that a balance between access and protection should be struck, with each copyright holder being able to make their own choice about whether they want to allow their materials to be downloaded freely or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of protecting the rights of copyright holders. However, as long as copyright is acknowledged and the materials downloaded are not used in a public facing format or used for commercial gain, then the group were not entirely against the idea of downloading copyrighted material. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Copyrighted material should be protected by law, but if it is downloaded for personal use and not used for commercial gain, the law should allow some freedom to access this material. The creator should always be credited however. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Copyright should be protected. The legal framework in place for copyright is very important. However, it is also important to allow consumers to be able to access a small amount of copyrighted material to try before they buy. This may encourage them to buy the full version of the material and provide an incentive to the copyright holder to produce more. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000332.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000332.soc index f249a830..52bd2dc3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000332.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000332.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards. If we do not find a way to address the crisis, I fear that the NHS will not be around in another seventy years to provide such an excellent level of care. We will have lost the most wonderful thing the UK has ever given to the world, and this would be an absolute travesty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards. As the rich already pay the least proportion of their income in tax of any group in society, I believe that the extra money required to save the NHS should come from them. I also think that the level of tax for corporations should be increased to help save the NHS.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards. This should be done by taxing the rich, as they can most afford it, rather than the poorer classes who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards. This increase in taxes should be spread as evenly as possible, but the brunt of it should be borne by the richest and corporations, who are better able to afford it.” Discussion: We found this exercise to be really helpful in developing a consensus opinion. It started with a discussion on the question, and then moved onto writing down individual opinions. We then discussed these opinions, and the first draft of the consensus statement was +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards. If we do not find a way to address the crisis, I fear that the NHS will not be around in another seventy years to provide such an excellent level of care. We will have lost the most wonderful thing the UK has ever given to the world, and this would be an absolute travesty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards. As the rich already pay the least proportion of their income in tax of any group in society, I believe that the extra money required to save the NHS should come from them. I also think that the level of tax for corporations should be increased to help save the NHS.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards. This should be done by taxing the rich, as they can most afford it, rather than the poorer classes who are already struggling to make ends meet financially.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The NHS is the best health service in the world, and has been a cornerstone of the British way of life for the last seventy years. The way the NHS has managed to achieve this with only minimal tax contributions from its citizens is remarkable. However, in recent years, the NHS has been in crisis, with long waiting lists, underpaid and overworked staff, and increasingly outdated facilities. If we are to ensure the continued existence of the NHS, we need to address this crisis. This should be done by increasing the proportion of our taxes that goes towards the NHS, as this is the most efficient way to fund it. I think that the majority of the British people would be willing to pay slightly more tax to save the NHS, which I think is the most important thing that our taxes should go towards. This increase in taxes should be spread as evenly as possible, but the brunt of it should be borne by the richest and corporations, who are better able to afford it.” Discussion: We found this exercise to be really helpful in developing a consensus opinion. It started with a discussion on the question, and then moved onto writing down individual opinions. We then discussed these opinions, and the first draft of the consensus statement was 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000333.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000333.soc index c5d8ce98..28aeddf4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000333.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000333.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group believes that the government will eventually reduce the number of working days a year to allow for more days of rest, relaxation and entertainment for the UK workforce. However, we believe that this will not occur for several years to come. Currently, the British economy is in a bad state and the public sector is being cut back heavily. The government will therefore be very cautious in making any changes that may seem as though they are trying to hinder the economy in any way, or trying to take away from the amount of tax revenue which they currently receive. However, when the economy has stabilized and returned to a healthy state, and unemployment levels have decreased, the government may consider changing the current number of working days a year. The final decision will depend on the impact on the economy and whether there is a need for the number of days a person is allowed to work to be reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the UK will reduce the number of days a year on which a person is allowed to work. However, we do not think that this will happen for several years. The government is currently cutting public sector jobs and therefore will be hesitant to do anything that might hinder the economy in any way. Therefore, the government will wait for the economy to recover fully before making any changes to the number of working days. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group believes that the UK government will eventually reduce the number of working days a year to allow for more days of rest, relaxation and entertainment for the UK workforce. However, we believe that this will not occur for several years to come. The UK economy is currently in a bad state and the public sector is being cut back heavily. The government will therefore be very cautious in making any changes that may seem as though they are trying to hinder the economy in any way, or trying to take away from the amount of tax revenue which they currently receive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government will not reduce the number of days a person is allowed to work in the foreseeable future. They are currently more interested in reducing the welfare budget and encouraging people to find work, so they will not change the current rules for a while. Eventually, however, they will want to do so, for the sake of the working population, as they will begin to realise that the new working conditions are working well in America and are helping to produce a more productive workforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group believes that the government will eventually reduce the number of working days a year to allow for more days of rest, relaxation and entertainment for the UK workforce. However, we believe that this will not occur for several years to come. Currently, the British economy is in a bad state and the public sector is being cut back heavily. The government will therefore be very cautious in making any changes that may seem as though they are trying to hinder the economy in any way, or trying to take away from the amount of tax revenue which they currently receive. However, when the economy has stabilized and returned to a healthy state, and unemployment levels have decreased, the government may consider changing the current number of working days a year. The final decision will depend on the impact on the economy and whether there is a need for the number of days a person is allowed to work to be reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the UK will reduce the number of days a year on which a person is allowed to work. However, we do not think that this will happen for several years. The government is currently cutting public sector jobs and therefore will be hesitant to do anything that might hinder the economy in any way. Therefore, the government will wait for the economy to recover fully before making any changes to the number of working days. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group believes that the UK government will eventually reduce the number of working days a year to allow for more days of rest, relaxation and entertainment for the UK workforce. However, we believe that this will not occur for several years to come. The UK economy is currently in a bad state and the public sector is being cut back heavily. The government will therefore be very cautious in making any changes that may seem as though they are trying to hinder the economy in any way, or trying to take away from the amount of tax revenue which they currently receive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government will not reduce the number of days a person is allowed to work in the foreseeable future. They are currently more interested in reducing the welfare budget and encouraging people to find work, so they will not change the current rules for a while. Eventually, however, they will want to do so, for the sake of the working population, as they will begin to realise that the new working conditions are working well in America and are helping to produce a more productive workforce. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000334.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000334.soc index 0a32c0d8..a452d4b5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000334.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000334.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, doctors should be allowed to prescribe drugs with the knowledge that the drugs are dangerous as long as the risks are explained to the patient and as long as the patient consents to accepting these risks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be some room for liability, as it can protect consumers from very dangerous products, and potentially reduce medical experimentation in humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is the opinion of the group that doctors should not be able to prescribe any drug without consent of the patient, and should be sued if they are prescribing drugs which they know will have dangerous side effects. The group believes that this would prevent future malpractice, and protect patients. However, the group also believes that there should be a limit on the amount of compensation, as it would be unfair for the patient to receive excessive amounts of money. This would also ensure that doctors are still willing to try experimental drugs on patients. The group believes that this would encourage doctors to only prescribe drugs which have been approved, and would reduce the number of dangerous drugs being prescribed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. Furthermore, the health service should provide training to doctors about how to advise patients of the risks of drugs they prescribe, as well as the interaction with other drugs the patient is taking. Moreover, we feel that patients should be given the option to sign a disclaimer upon accepting medication. The disclaimer should state that they accept the risk, and that they will not sue the doctor if they suffer the consequences. However, if the patient is below the age of 18, the disclaimer should not be valid, as they are legally children, and should not be forced to accept the risk of any medication. If they are under the age of 18, they must accept that their parents or legal guardians will sign the disclaimer. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, doctors should be allowed to prescribe drugs with the knowledge that the drugs are dangerous as long as the risks are explained to the patient and as long as the patient consents to accepting these risks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be some room for liability, as it can protect consumers from very dangerous products, and potentially reduce medical experimentation in humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is the opinion of the group that doctors should not be able to prescribe any drug without consent of the patient, and should be sued if they are prescribing drugs which they know will have dangerous side effects. The group believes that this would prevent future malpractice, and protect patients. However, the group also believes that there should be a limit on the amount of compensation, as it would be unfair for the patient to receive excessive amounts of money. This would also ensure that doctors are still willing to try experimental drugs on patients. The group believes that this would encourage doctors to only prescribe drugs which have been approved, and would reduce the number of dangerous drugs being prescribed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. Furthermore, the health service should provide training to doctors about how to advise patients of the risks of drugs they prescribe, as well as the interaction with other drugs the patient is taking. Moreover, we feel that patients should be given the option to sign a disclaimer upon accepting medication. The disclaimer should state that they accept the risk, and that they will not sue the doctor if they suffer the consequences. However, if the patient is below the age of 18, the disclaimer should not be valid, as they are legally children, and should not be forced to accept the risk of any medication. If they are under the age of 18, they must accept that their parents or legal guardians will sign the disclaimer. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000335.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000335.soc index 996ba1ec..9045812d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000335.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000335.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the internet is not a public utility. Although there are many benefits to having the internet such as being able to stay in touch with friends and family as well as use it to buy things and pay bills, the internet is not essential for everyone to have in the same way that electricity is. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others, for example some people have to go to the library to use the internet and some people have internet access at home. However, I think that the internet is very useful and can be considered a utility in a different way to other utilities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the internet is not a public utility, however, it has become a necessary resource that should be more widely available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet is a public utility in the sense that it is crucial to the modern society in which we live and the more people who use it the more people who benefit. However, it is also a personal choice whether to use the internet or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the internet is a public utility and should be seen as one. The internet has become a crucial aspect of modern life. In order to provide access to the internet to the public at large, it should be classed as a public utility. The internet is now vital to people’s work, education and social lives. Children that don`t have access to the internet are at a huge disadvantage to those that do. It is becoming more and more a part of everything we do, paying bills, online banking, booking doctors appointments, even having online consultations. It is also important for people that can't get out much or have loved ones that live far away to stay in touch and communicate. It is hard to imagine life without it now. We believe it is now a crucial utility to people's lives and should be treated as one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the internet is not a public utility. Although there are many benefits to having the internet such as being able to stay in touch with friends and family as well as use it to buy things and pay bills, the internet is not essential for everyone to have in the same way that electricity is. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others, for example some people have to go to the library to use the internet and some people have internet access at home. However, I think that the internet is very useful and can be considered a utility in a different way to other utilities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the internet is not a public utility, however, it has become a necessary resource that should be more widely available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet is a public utility in the sense that it is crucial to the modern society in which we live and the more people who use it the more people who benefit. However, it is also a personal choice whether to use the internet or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the internet is a public utility and should be seen as one. The internet has become a crucial aspect of modern life. In order to provide access to the internet to the public at large, it should be classed as a public utility. The internet is now vital to people’s work, education and social lives. Children that don`t have access to the internet are at a huge disadvantage to those that do. It is becoming more and more a part of everything we do, paying bills, online banking, booking doctors appointments, even having online consultations. It is also important for people that can't get out much or have loved ones that live far away to stay in touch and communicate. It is hard to imagine life without it now. We believe it is now a crucial utility to people's lives and should be treated as one. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000336.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000336.soc index 5fa6e164..4299b258 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000336.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000336.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: All children in schools should have access to a laptop, for homework purposes, to level the playing field for all children and their learning. They should be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. If their family cannot afford to buy a laptop then the child should be entitled to a free one from the school. The school should also provide ongoing support for the use of the laptop in terms of technology help desk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: All children should have access to a laptop for homework. They should be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. If their family cannot afford to buy a laptop then the child should be entitled to a free one from the school. The school should also provide ongoing support for the use of the laptop in terms of technology help desk. This would help all children in school have access to the same technology and level the playing field for all. In this example, it is clear that the opinion of the first participant was not at all reflected in the final consensus statement. If you read the opinion of the first participant carefully, you will see that he said that he didn't think that the laptops should be given out free. The first draft consensus statement reflects this opinion, but it did not survive the group deliberation. You can see that the first participant was open to the ideas of the other participants, as is evident from the fact that he didn't say anything to critique the draft consensus statement. I hope this shows the value of the group deliberation. An individual would have been wrong if he went with his initial opinion. If you have any feedback about this post, please let me know in the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: All children should have access to a laptop for homework. They should be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. If their family cannot afford to buy a laptop then the child should be entitled to a free one from the school. The school should provide ongoing support for the use of the laptop in terms of technology help desk. This would help all children in school have access to the same technology and level the playing field for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: All children in school should have access to a laptop. The school should provide a laptop to every child. They would be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. A technology help desk would be provided for ongoing support for the use of the laptop. This would help all children in school have access to the same technology and level the playing field for all. Conclusion: By working in a group to reach a consensus opinion the participants learned about their differences of opinion and also had to work through these to reach a compromise position which all members could live with. This is how compromise and consensus is reached in society, which is important for democratic participation and engagement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - All children in schools should have access to a laptop, for homework purposes, to level the playing field for all children and their learning. They should be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. If their family cannot afford to buy a laptop then the child should be entitled to a free one from the school. The school should also provide ongoing support for the use of the laptop in terms of technology help desk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - All children should have access to a laptop for homework. They should be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. If their family cannot afford to buy a laptop then the child should be entitled to a free one from the school. The school should also provide ongoing support for the use of the laptop in terms of technology help desk. This would help all children in school have access to the same technology and level the playing field for all. In this example, it is clear that the opinion of the first participant was not at all reflected in the final consensus statement. If you read the opinion of the first participant carefully, you will see that he said that he didn't think that the laptops should be given out free. The first draft consensus statement reflects this opinion, but it did not survive the group deliberation. You can see that the first participant was open to the ideas of the other participants, as is evident from the fact that he didn't say anything to critique the draft consensus statement. I hope this shows the value of the group deliberation. An individual would have been wrong if he went with his initial opinion. If you have any feedback about this post, please let me know in the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - All children should have access to a laptop for homework. They should be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. If their family cannot afford to buy a laptop then the child should be entitled to a free one from the school. The school should provide ongoing support for the use of the laptop in terms of technology help desk. This would help all children in school have access to the same technology and level the playing field for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - All children in school should have access to a laptop. The school should provide a laptop to every child. They would be able to take the laptop home but would need to return it after use. A technology help desk would be provided for ongoing support for the use of the laptop. This would help all children in school have access to the same technology and level the playing field for all. Conclusion: By working in a group to reach a consensus opinion the participants learned about their differences of opinion and also had to work through these to reach a compromise position which all members could live with. This is how compromise and consensus is reached in society, which is important for democratic participation and engagement. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000337.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000337.soc index fcb319d3..da8903bd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000337.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000337.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. Moreover, we feel that patients should be given the option to sign a disclaimer upon accepting medication. The disclaimer should state that they accept the risk, and that they will not sue the doctor if they suffer the consequences. However, if the patient is below the age of 18, the disclaimer should not be valid, as they are legally children, and should not be forced to accept the risk of any medication. If they are under the age of 18, they must accept that their parents or legal guardians will sign the disclaimer. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. Furthermore, the health service should provide training to doctors about how to advise patients of the risks of drugs they prescribe, as well as the interaction with other drugs the patient is taking. Moreover, we feel that patients should be given the option to sign a disclaimer upon accepting medication. The disclaimer should state that they accept the risk, and that they will not sue the doctor if they suffer the consequences. However, if the patient is below the age of 18, the disclaimer should not be valid, as they are legally children, and should not be forced to accept the risk of any medication. If they are under the age of 18, they must accept that their parents or legal guardians will sign the disclaimer. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. However, if the patient is below the age of 18, the disclaimer should not be valid, as they are legally children, and should not be forced to accept the risk of any medication. If they are under the age of 18, they must accept that their parents or legal guardians will sign the disclaimer. Furthermore, the health service should provide training to doctors about how to advise patients of the risks of drugs they prescribe, as well as the interaction with other drugs the patient is taking. The disclaimer should state that they accept the risk, and that they will not sue the doctor if they suffer the consequences. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” Discussion The group of participants who came up with the above consensus statement had some major points of disagreement, as seen by the critiques of the draft consensus statement. The -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. Moreover, the health service should provide training to doctors about how to advise patients of the risks of drugs they prescribe, as well as the interaction with other drugs the patient is taking. If the patient is below the age of 18, the doctor must be liable, even if the patient signs a disclaimer. However, if the patient is above the age of 18, the patient must sign a disclaimer before being prescribed medication. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. Moreover, we feel that patients should be given the option to sign a disclaimer upon accepting medication. The disclaimer should state that they accept the risk, and that they will not sue the doctor if they suffer the consequences. However, if the patient is below the age of 18, the disclaimer should not be valid, as they are legally children, and should not be forced to accept the risk of any medication. If they are under the age of 18, they must accept that their parents or legal guardians will sign the disclaimer. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. Furthermore, the health service should provide training to doctors about how to advise patients of the risks of drugs they prescribe, as well as the interaction with other drugs the patient is taking. Moreover, we feel that patients should be given the option to sign a disclaimer upon accepting medication. The disclaimer should state that they accept the risk, and that they will not sue the doctor if they suffer the consequences. However, if the patient is below the age of 18, the disclaimer should not be valid, as they are legally children, and should not be forced to accept the risk of any medication. If they are under the age of 18, they must accept that their parents or legal guardians will sign the disclaimer. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. However, if the patient is below the age of 18, the disclaimer should not be valid, as they are legally children, and should not be forced to accept the risk of any medication. If they are under the age of 18, they must accept that their parents or legal guardians will sign the disclaimer. Furthermore, the health service should provide training to doctors about how to advise patients of the risks of drugs they prescribe, as well as the interaction with other drugs the patient is taking. The disclaimer should state that they accept the risk, and that they will not sue the doctor if they suffer the consequences. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” Discussion The group of participants who came up with the above consensus statement had some major points of disagreement, as seen by the critiques of the draft consensus statement. The +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Doctors should be held liable for prescribing drugs that they know to be dangerous, as it is their duty of care to provide the safest and most effective treatment possible. As such, they must inform patients of the risks of the drugs they are prescribing. If they do not inform the patient, they must be liable for the damages. Moreover, the health service should provide training to doctors about how to advise patients of the risks of drugs they prescribe, as well as the interaction with other drugs the patient is taking. If the patient is below the age of 18, the doctor must be liable, even if the patient signs a disclaimer. However, if the patient is above the age of 18, the patient must sign a disclaimer before being prescribed medication. This will prevent patients from suing doctors, and will ensure that patients are fully aware of the risks.” 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000338.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000338.soc index 231f2636..71acb81f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000338.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000338.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should not be fined for littering. We should not be treating each other as criminals for what is a pretty normal act. The government and councils should provide more bins and get rid of litter if it already there. Putting people in prison and making them pay money does not address the root cause of the problem, which is lack of bins. What do you think? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, people should be fined for littering in public spaces. The way we dispose of our rubbish can have a big impact on our environment and our community. It is only right that we all play our part in keeping the places we live in clean and safe. Littering is a widespread problem and everyone has a responsibility to help tackle it. Littering also has a negative impact on the environment, our wildlife and can also cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year. I think that people who are caught littering in public should be fined. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be fines for littering in public places. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be fined for littering in public places. It is very easy to pick up your rubbish and bin it. It will be a lot easier for everyone if everyone picked up after themselves. No one wants to live in a dirty world. If the fine is severe enough, it will change the way people act. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should not be fined for littering. We should not be treating each other as criminals for what is a pretty normal act. The government and councils should provide more bins and get rid of litter if it already there. Putting people in prison and making them pay money does not address the root cause of the problem, which is lack of bins. What do you think? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, people should be fined for littering in public spaces. The way we dispose of our rubbish can have a big impact on our environment and our community. It is only right that we all play our part in keeping the places we live in clean and safe. Littering is a widespread problem and everyone has a responsibility to help tackle it. Littering also has a negative impact on the environment, our wildlife and can also cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year. I think that people who are caught littering in public should be fined. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be fines for littering in public places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be fined for littering in public places. It is very easy to pick up your rubbish and bin it. It will be a lot easier for everyone if everyone picked up after themselves. No one wants to live in a dirty world. If the fine is severe enough, it will change the way people act. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000339.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000339.soc index 8c55bac0..ad688611 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000339.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000339.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the Government should support businesses, it should do so by improving conditions for businesses and not by reducing taxes on business income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Tax reductions should be considered in an effort to support businesses and keep them viable, especially for small businesses and new businesses. Taxes are an important source of revenue for government and reductions in tax should not result in reductions in essential services. Tax reductions should be considered as part of a comprehensive plan for economic growth, which might include other support measures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The group would like to see business taxes lowered for small businesses, however would like to see a corporation tax hike on larger businesses.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should support businesses by making modest reductions to taxes on business income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the Government should support businesses, it should do so by improving conditions for businesses and not by reducing taxes on business income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Tax reductions should be considered in an effort to support businesses and keep them viable, especially for small businesses and new businesses. Taxes are an important source of revenue for government and reductions in tax should not result in reductions in essential services. Tax reductions should be considered as part of a comprehensive plan for economic growth, which might include other support measures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The group would like to see business taxes lowered for small businesses, however would like to see a corporation tax hike on larger businesses.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should support businesses by making modest reductions to taxes on business income. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000340.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000340.soc index 61c5eef0..3a6de571 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000340.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000340.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not fair to use animals to test new chemicals, and where possible alternatives to this should be used. Where it is not possible to use alternatives, animal testing should only be performed when it is not harmful and only where necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No I do not think that it is. This is because I do not see what right humans have to do such a thing. Just because we are more intelligent does that give us more right? If a more intelligent alien race came and wanted to test their chemicals on us, would they be justified to do so? It is exploitation and is unethical. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the safety of the public must be the first priority when it comes to releasing new chemicals into the world. This means that some level of animal testing is necessary to ensure this safety. However, testing on animals should be the last resort, and should only be used if there is no other alternative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Animal testing should be avoided wherever possible, but if necessary it should be done with all efforts made to reduce suffering. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not fair to use animals to test new chemicals, and where possible alternatives to this should be used. Where it is not possible to use alternatives, animal testing should only be performed when it is not harmful and only where necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No I do not think that it is. This is because I do not see what right humans have to do such a thing. Just because we are more intelligent does that give us more right? If a more intelligent alien race came and wanted to test their chemicals on us, would they be justified to do so? It is exploitation and is unethical. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the safety of the public must be the first priority when it comes to releasing new chemicals into the world. This means that some level of animal testing is necessary to ensure this safety. However, testing on animals should be the last resort, and should only be used if there is no other alternative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Animal testing should be avoided wherever possible, but if necessary it should be done with all efforts made to reduce suffering. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000341.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000341.soc index cb912942..78058d4b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000341.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000341.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a cut in the number of students accepted to UK universities to maintain standards of education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although education is important, it should be seen as a privilege and not a right. There are too many universities in the UK and this is an area that needs reform. The quality of education needs to improve to ensure that we can compete on a global scale. The number of students going to university should be reduced and the number of universities should also be reduced. This will help to improve the quality of education. However, this will also result in a reduction in the number of students able to go to university, which may negatively impact on our overall economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we do not think the number of students accepted to UK universities should be cut. While it is true that universities are inundated with students and there is a limit to the number of people they can accept, there are a lot of ways of addressing this problem. One of the most obvious ways is by offering more teaching support. Another way is to simply increase the number of universities that exist in the UK. This would then mean that there would be more places to accept people and there would be no need to reduce the number of students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the number of students accepted to UK universities should not be reduced. We feel that as long as universities are able to maintain high standards of education then the number of students should be increased as the higher the number of educated professionals we have in this country the better the economy will be in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a cut in the number of students accepted to UK universities to maintain standards of education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although education is important, it should be seen as a privilege and not a right. There are too many universities in the UK and this is an area that needs reform. The quality of education needs to improve to ensure that we can compete on a global scale. The number of students going to university should be reduced and the number of universities should also be reduced. This will help to improve the quality of education. However, this will also result in a reduction in the number of students able to go to university, which may negatively impact on our overall economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we do not think the number of students accepted to UK universities should be cut. While it is true that universities are inundated with students and there is a limit to the number of people they can accept, there are a lot of ways of addressing this problem. One of the most obvious ways is by offering more teaching support. Another way is to simply increase the number of universities that exist in the UK. This would then mean that there would be more places to accept people and there would be no need to reduce the number of students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the number of students accepted to UK universities should not be reduced. We feel that as long as universities are able to maintain high standards of education then the number of students should be increased as the higher the number of educated professionals we have in this country the better the economy will be in the future. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000342.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000342.soc index 9ef61211..1c1952da 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000342.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000342.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Politicians should not ask for personal favours. They should focus on public service and ask for help from people close to them. They should not make this an expectation for their aides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not ok for politicians to ask their aides for personal favours. However, if a politician is very close to an aide and it is not detrimental to the work they are doing for the politician, then it may be ok. The reason being that the relationship is personal as well as professional and should be kept that way. The aide is a personal friend, and the politician should be able to ask them to do something as a personal favour. It is only fair that this favour is done for the politician, as the aide would ask them for a personal favour in return. This shows how the system works. It is an accurate portrayal of the current state of the system. The way in which consensus is reached allows the final opinion to be accurate, yet with each individual's own opinion still being expressed. The group of participants had some strong arguments, but they were able to use them to form a strong and accurate opinion that they all agreed with. It is not biased, and does not favour any opinion more than another. The statement takes into account all of the views and opinions of the group, as well as the arguments presented. This is an effective consensus opinion, that takes into account the opinions of all -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: it is not OK for a politician to ask an aide for a personal favour. They argued that, if a politician wants to get something done that they could not do themselves, they should hire someone to do it. Politicians should be putting their aides in charge of things that can only be done by an aide, like speech writing, press releases, etc. If a politician needs someone to do their shopping for them, they should hire a personal shopper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not acceptable for politicians to ask for personal favours from aides. Aides are there to serve the public and not for the politicians’ personal interest. When this happens, there is a conflict of interests. This also could account as putting pressure on aide when they should focus on serving the large public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Politicians should not ask for personal favours. They should focus on public service and ask for help from people close to them. They should not make this an expectation for their aides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not ok for politicians to ask their aides for personal favours. However, if a politician is very close to an aide and it is not detrimental to the work they are doing for the politician, then it may be ok. The reason being that the relationship is personal as well as professional and should be kept that way. The aide is a personal friend, and the politician should be able to ask them to do something as a personal favour. It is only fair that this favour is done for the politician, as the aide would ask them for a personal favour in return. This shows how the system works. It is an accurate portrayal of the current state of the system. The way in which consensus is reached allows the final opinion to be accurate, yet with each individual's own opinion still being expressed. The group of participants had some strong arguments, but they were able to use them to form a strong and accurate opinion that they all agreed with. It is not biased, and does not favour any opinion more than another. The statement takes into account all of the views and opinions of the group, as well as the arguments presented. This is an effective consensus opinion, that takes into account the opinions of all +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - it is not OK for a politician to ask an aide for a personal favour. They argued that, if a politician wants to get something done that they could not do themselves, they should hire someone to do it. Politicians should be putting their aides in charge of things that can only be done by an aide, like speech writing, press releases, etc. If a politician needs someone to do their shopping for them, they should hire a personal shopper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not acceptable for politicians to ask for personal favours from aides. Aides are there to serve the public and not for the politicians’ personal interest. When this happens, there is a conflict of interests. This also could account as putting pressure on aide when they should focus on serving the large public. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000343.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000343.soc index c109567f..76a3bc3d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000343.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000343.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants were broadly in favour of a universal basic income of £10,000 per adult per year but felt it was too low for an adult to live off. The group felt that there were some risks with such an income being adopted but felt it would be a good start and that a higher amount would be preferable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that the UK should adopt a universal basic income of £10,000 per adult per year. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Income is something that is very important to everyone in society. The way we allot income is very important to social equality and fairness. We believe that if a basic income of £10,000 is made available to everyone in the UK that this would be a step in the right direction. The issue is however not so much the amount as how the income is provided. If the money is provided as a grant or lump sum to people this would open the doors to money laundering and it would be open to abuse. If the money was provided to people as a basic wage it would be far more secure. There is the risk that some people will just live off this basic wage and not bother looking for a job. This would be an unfortunate consequence and we would need to find a way of mitigating this. We believe that a basic income would be an important step towards reducing the inequality that is present in the UK today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The United Kingdom should adopt a Universal Basic Income of £10,000 per adult per year, but this should only be for less privileged adults and not all adults. This will enable less privileged people to live a decent life.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants were broadly in favour of a universal basic income of £10,000 per adult per year but felt it was too low for an adult to live off. The group felt that there were some risks with such an income being adopted but felt it would be a good start and that a higher amount would be preferable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that the UK should adopt a universal basic income of £10,000 per adult per year. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Income is something that is very important to everyone in society. The way we allot income is very important to social equality and fairness. We believe that if a basic income of £10,000 is made available to everyone in the UK that this would be a step in the right direction. The issue is however not so much the amount as how the income is provided. If the money is provided as a grant or lump sum to people this would open the doors to money laundering and it would be open to abuse. If the money was provided to people as a basic wage it would be far more secure. There is the risk that some people will just live off this basic wage and not bother looking for a job. This would be an unfortunate consequence and we would need to find a way of mitigating this. We believe that a basic income would be an important step towards reducing the inequality that is present in the UK today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The United Kingdom should adopt a Universal Basic Income of £10,000 per adult per year, but this should only be for less privileged adults and not all adults. This will enable less privileged people to live a decent life.” 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000344.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000344.soc index 4c33cd38..2d816da3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000344.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000344.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the internet is not a public utility. The internet is extremely useful in our lives and has many benefits, such as being able to stay in touch with friends and family as well as use it to buy things and pay bills. However, it is not essential for everyone to have in the same way that electricity is. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others, for example some people have to go to the library to use the internet and some people have internet access at home. However, I think that the internet is very useful and can be considered a utility in a different way to other utilities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although the internet is a public utility, it is not as important as other utilities like water and electricity. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others and it is only essential because of the changes that have been made. The internet is very useful and can be considered a utility but not in the same way as other utilities. Conclusion: My experience in the small group activity has helped me to realise that reaching a consensus opinion on an important question is a challenging task. Not only do we all have to be able to have a respectful debate but we also have to make compromises to get a fair outcome. However, we mustn't compromise on the points that are most important to us. For example, the Internet is a utility, we should not compromise on that because we all agree on it. But when it comes to whether the Internet is as important as other utilities like water and electricity, this is where the debate becomes heated. It is important to keep in mind that the other person is not trying to disagree with you to be difficult but they have different opinions to you. You can still agree on a consensus opinion if you are open minded and take the other person's opinions into consideration. The -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the internet is not a public utility. Although there are many benefits to having the internet such as being able to stay in touch with friends and family as well as use it to buy things and pay bills, the internet is not essential for everyone to have in the same way that electricity is. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others, for example some people have to go to the library to use the internet and some people have internet access at home. However, I think that the internet is very useful and can be considered a utility in a different way to other utilities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet is not a public utility. Although it is true that many people have access to the internet it is not as essential as other utilities. Although there are many benefits to having the internet such as being able to stay in touch with friends and family as well as use it to buy things and pay bills, the internet is not essential for everyone to have in the same way that electricity is. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others, for example some people have to go to the library to use the internet and some people have internet access at home. However, I think that the internet is very useful and can be considered a utility in a different way to other utilities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the internet is not a public utility. The internet is extremely useful in our lives and has many benefits, such as being able to stay in touch with friends and family as well as use it to buy things and pay bills. However, it is not essential for everyone to have in the same way that electricity is. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others, for example some people have to go to the library to use the internet and some people have internet access at home. However, I think that the internet is very useful and can be considered a utility in a different way to other utilities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although the internet is a public utility, it is not as important as other utilities like water and electricity. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others and it is only essential because of the changes that have been made. The internet is very useful and can be considered a utility but not in the same way as other utilities. Conclusion: My experience in the small group activity has helped me to realise that reaching a consensus opinion on an important question is a challenging task. Not only do we all have to be able to have a respectful debate but we also have to make compromises to get a fair outcome. However, we mustn't compromise on the points that are most important to us. For example, the Internet is a utility, we should not compromise on that because we all agree on it. But when it comes to whether the Internet is as important as other utilities like water and electricity, this is where the debate becomes heated. It is important to keep in mind that the other person is not trying to disagree with you to be difficult but they have different opinions to you. You can still agree on a consensus opinion if you are open minded and take the other person's opinions into consideration. The +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the internet is not a public utility. Although there are many benefits to having the internet such as being able to stay in touch with friends and family as well as use it to buy things and pay bills, the internet is not essential for everyone to have in the same way that electricity is. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others, for example some people have to go to the library to use the internet and some people have internet access at home. However, I think that the internet is very useful and can be considered a utility in a different way to other utilities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet is not a public utility. Although it is true that many people have access to the internet it is not as essential as other utilities. Although there are many benefits to having the internet such as being able to stay in touch with friends and family as well as use it to buy things and pay bills, the internet is not essential for everyone to have in the same way that electricity is. Not everyone has the same amount of access to the internet as others, for example some people have to go to the library to use the internet and some people have internet access at home. However, I think that the internet is very useful and can be considered a utility in a different way to other utilities. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000345.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000345.soc index d4419cf6..09b8dca1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000345.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000345.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, because nuclear power is not as safe as many people think, because of the history of the plants being exploded and many people getting killed. The group did not take into account the view of any of the participants above, and gave the opinion of Participant 3 far more weight than the other opinions given. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No. It would be a waste of money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The nuclear power station will be a new source of jobs in a very deprived area, and that it is environmentally friendly in comparison to the other alternatives. However, the station will be highly capital intensive and that it could be dangerous if it were to be attacked in times of war. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of nuclear power, although with reservations. We had different opinions on whether to build a new power station or not, but overall felt that the climate change issues outweigh the dangers of a new station. We thought that the people in the vicinity should have a say in whether it should be built or not, as it is a hot political topic and could cause uproar. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, because nuclear power is not as safe as many people think, because of the history of the plants being exploded and many people getting killed. The group did not take into account the view of any of the participants above, and gave the opinion of Participant 3 far more weight than the other opinions given. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. It would be a waste of money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The nuclear power station will be a new source of jobs in a very deprived area, and that it is environmentally friendly in comparison to the other alternatives. However, the station will be highly capital intensive and that it could be dangerous if it were to be attacked in times of war. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of nuclear power, although with reservations. We had different opinions on whether to build a new power station or not, but overall felt that the climate change issues outweigh the dangers of a new station. We thought that the people in the vicinity should have a say in whether it should be built or not, as it is a hot political topic and could cause uproar. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000346.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000346.soc index ddb4b8bc..a0f019fe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000346.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000346.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: When it comes to testing the safety of new chemicals, the safety of the public must be the first priority. However, this does not mean that animal testing should be the first step in ensuring this safety. Testing on animals should only be used if all other alternatives have been exhausted, and if it is the only way to ensure that the public will be safe. If a chemical is safe for humans, it is not necessarily safe for animals, and if a chemical is deemed safe for animals, it is not necessarily safe for humans. We need to ensure that any testing is done in the most ethical way possible, and that the safety of the animals is considered. We should look for alternatives to animal testing, such as using human cells. The safety of animals is important, as is the safety of humans. We should always ensure that the animals involved in testing are well looked after and that their suffering is kept to a minimum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the safety of the public must be the first priority when it comes to releasing new chemicals into the world. This means that some level of animal testing is necessary to ensure this safety. However, testing on animals should be the last resort, and should only be used if there is no other alternative. It is also important to consider the environmental impact of chemicals that are released into the world, even if they are safe for humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a degree of disagreement in this group about whether animal testing should be permitted at all. However, in general the safety of the public must be the first priority when it comes to releasing new chemicals into the world. This means that some level of animal testing is necessary to ensure this safety. However, testing on animals should be the last resort, and should only be used if there is no other alternative. Additionally, we should take care to ensure that new chemicals do not have negative effects on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the safety of the public must be the first priority when it comes to releasing new chemicals into the world. This means that some level of animal testing is necessary to ensure this safety. However, testing on animals should be the last resort, and should only be used if there is no other alternative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - When it comes to testing the safety of new chemicals, the safety of the public must be the first priority. However, this does not mean that animal testing should be the first step in ensuring this safety. Testing on animals should only be used if all other alternatives have been exhausted, and if it is the only way to ensure that the public will be safe. If a chemical is safe for humans, it is not necessarily safe for animals, and if a chemical is deemed safe for animals, it is not necessarily safe for humans. We need to ensure that any testing is done in the most ethical way possible, and that the safety of the animals is considered. We should look for alternatives to animal testing, such as using human cells. The safety of animals is important, as is the safety of humans. We should always ensure that the animals involved in testing are well looked after and that their suffering is kept to a minimum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the safety of the public must be the first priority when it comes to releasing new chemicals into the world. This means that some level of animal testing is necessary to ensure this safety. However, testing on animals should be the last resort, and should only be used if there is no other alternative. It is also important to consider the environmental impact of chemicals that are released into the world, even if they are safe for humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a degree of disagreement in this group about whether animal testing should be permitted at all. However, in general the safety of the public must be the first priority when it comes to releasing new chemicals into the world. This means that some level of animal testing is necessary to ensure this safety. However, testing on animals should be the last resort, and should only be used if there is no other alternative. Additionally, we should take care to ensure that new chemicals do not have negative effects on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the safety of the public must be the first priority when it comes to releasing new chemicals into the world. This means that some level of animal testing is necessary to ensure this safety. However, testing on animals should be the last resort, and should only be used if there is no other alternative. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000347.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000347.soc index d538e97d..31ecfa56 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000347.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000347.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, algorithms are useful in the early stages of recruitment. However, their use should be limited to essential requirements. This is because, algorithms will miss soft skills and attributes which are often key for the role. For example, they will not be able to assess someone's creativity. Therefore, we should limit the use of algorithms, as these are important attributes for many jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that algorithms should be used sparingly in the recruitment process. They should be used as a sifting tool to reduce the number of candidates that need to be looked at, but we feel that it is important to involve humans in the final hiring decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The use of algorithms for recruitment should be restricted. I think algorithms should be used for certain positions where you are receiving a high volume of applicants. In this situation it is easier for the algorithm to go through the applications. It also makes it easier to decide who to take forward to the next stage. However, if the position is for something such as a top manager, then I think the interviewers should go through all of the applications. Algorithms may miss out on some of the best candidates, because they may not have used the right keywords or they might have accidentally not used the right phrases. Algorithms also cannot evaluate soft skills. In my opinion, this is very important when it comes to choosing a candidate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In my opinion, we should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can make mistakes. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, algorithms are useful in the early stages of recruitment. However, their use should be limited to essential requirements. This is because, algorithms will miss soft skills and attributes which are often key for the role. For example, they will not be able to assess someone's creativity. Therefore, we should limit the use of algorithms, as these are important attributes for many jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that algorithms should be used sparingly in the recruitment process. They should be used as a sifting tool to reduce the number of candidates that need to be looked at, but we feel that it is important to involve humans in the final hiring decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The use of algorithms for recruitment should be restricted. I think algorithms should be used for certain positions where you are receiving a high volume of applicants. In this situation it is easier for the algorithm to go through the applications. It also makes it easier to decide who to take forward to the next stage. However, if the position is for something such as a top manager, then I think the interviewers should go through all of the applications. Algorithms may miss out on some of the best candidates, because they may not have used the right keywords or they might have accidentally not used the right phrases. Algorithms also cannot evaluate soft skills. In my opinion, this is very important when it comes to choosing a candidate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In my opinion, we should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can make mistakes. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000348.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000348.soc index 3e2f1ff0..31b26c63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000348.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000348.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think the number of students accepted to UK universities should be cut. While it is true that universities are inundated with students and there is a limit to the number of people they can accept, there are a lot of ways of addressing this problem. One of the most obvious ways is by offering more teaching support. Another way is to simply increase the number of universities that exist in the UK. This would then mean that there would be more places to accept people and there would be no need to reduce the number of students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think the number of students accepted to UK universities should be cut. However, it is true that universities are inundated with students and there is a limit to the number of people they can accept. It is a good thing that more and more people are going to University but something needs to be done about the lack of space. One way of tackling this issue is to expand the number of universities in the UK. If this happens then there will be more space to accommodate the extra students. This will be much better than cutting the number of students accepted to university as it will allow all students the opportunity to continue their education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't believe that cutting the number of students accepted to universities is the best way of addressing the problem. In the future, the solution to this problem could be to build more universities in the UK, however, this would require a lot of money to build and then maintain. Until the government has the money to do this, the best way to improve student numbers and student-teacher ratios is by employing more teaching staff. This would allow for more students to be accepted and more attention to be given to the students that are accepted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not think the number of students accepted to UK universities should be cut. While it is true that universities are inundated with students and there is a limit to the number of people they can accept, there are a lot of ways of addressing this problem. One of the most obvious ways is by offering more teaching support. Another way is to simply increase the number of universities that exist in the UK. This would then mean that there would be more places to accept people and there would be no need to reduce the number of students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think the number of students accepted to UK universities should be cut. While it is true that universities are inundated with students and there is a limit to the number of people they can accept, there are a lot of ways of addressing this problem. One of the most obvious ways is by offering more teaching support. Another way is to simply increase the number of universities that exist in the UK. This would then mean that there would be more places to accept people and there would be no need to reduce the number of students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think the number of students accepted to UK universities should be cut. However, it is true that universities are inundated with students and there is a limit to the number of people they can accept. It is a good thing that more and more people are going to University but something needs to be done about the lack of space. One way of tackling this issue is to expand the number of universities in the UK. If this happens then there will be more space to accommodate the extra students. This will be much better than cutting the number of students accepted to university as it will allow all students the opportunity to continue their education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't believe that cutting the number of students accepted to universities is the best way of addressing the problem. In the future, the solution to this problem could be to build more universities in the UK, however, this would require a lot of money to build and then maintain. Until the government has the money to do this, the best way to improve student numbers and student-teacher ratios is by employing more teaching staff. This would allow for more students to be accepted and more attention to be given to the students that are accepted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not think the number of students accepted to UK universities should be cut. While it is true that universities are inundated with students and there is a limit to the number of people they can accept, there are a lot of ways of addressing this problem. One of the most obvious ways is by offering more teaching support. Another way is to simply increase the number of universities that exist in the UK. This would then mean that there would be more places to accept people and there would be no need to reduce the number of students. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000349.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000349.soc index aca54bbf..5365b39e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000349.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000349.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, people should be fined for littering in public spaces. Litter is a widespread problem, it has a negative impact on our environment and our wildlife and it can cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year. It is only right that we all play our part in keeping the places we live in clean and safe. People who are caught littering in public should be fined. If there is no bin nearby, take your litter home with you. We all have a responsibility to help tackle littering. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be teaching people about the problems that littering can cause and how much of a cost it can be to the tax payer. People should not be fined for littering in public places. This is a terrible way to get people to stop littering. We need to be teaching people the importance of keeping our public spaces clean and tidy, and providing more bins. It should be up to the people of the UK to be responsible for the country they live in and not down to the Government to fine people who litter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, people should be fined for littering in public spaces. Littering is a widespread problem and everyone has a responsibility to help tackle it. Littering also has a negative impact on the environment, our wildlife and can also cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year. I think that people who are caught littering in public should be fined. #LitterFine #Litter #Fine #Cleanup #Debate #Discussion # -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, people should be fined for littering in public spaces. The way we dispose of our rubbish can have a big impact on our environment and our community. It is only right that we all play our part in keeping the places we live in clean and safe. Littering is a widespread problem and everyone has a responsibility to help tackle it. Littering also has a negative impact on the environment, our wildlife and can also cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year. I think that people who are caught littering in public should be fined. However, there needs to be more bins and the bins need to be emptied more regularly. It is also better to incentivise people to stop littering rather than just punishing them for it. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, people should be fined for littering in public spaces. Litter is a widespread problem, it has a negative impact on our environment and our wildlife and it can cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year. It is only right that we all play our part in keeping the places we live in clean and safe. People who are caught littering in public should be fined. If there is no bin nearby, take your litter home with you. We all have a responsibility to help tackle littering. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be teaching people about the problems that littering can cause and how much of a cost it can be to the tax payer. People should not be fined for littering in public places. This is a terrible way to get people to stop littering. We need to be teaching people the importance of keeping our public spaces clean and tidy, and providing more bins. It should be up to the people of the UK to be responsible for the country they live in and not down to the Government to fine people who litter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, people should be fined for littering in public spaces. Littering is a widespread problem and everyone has a responsibility to help tackle it. Littering also has a negative impact on the environment, our wildlife and can also cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year. I think that people who are caught littering in public should be fined. #LitterFine #Litter #Fine #Cleanup #Debate #Discussion # +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, people should be fined for littering in public spaces. The way we dispose of our rubbish can have a big impact on our environment and our community. It is only right that we all play our part in keeping the places we live in clean and safe. Littering is a widespread problem and everyone has a responsibility to help tackle it. Littering also has a negative impact on the environment, our wildlife and can also cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year. I think that people who are caught littering in public should be fined. However, there needs to be more bins and the bins need to be emptied more regularly. It is also better to incentivise people to stop littering rather than just punishing them for it. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000350.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000350.soc index 165b4c8a..2dff6d27 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000350.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000350.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Politicians should not ask for personal favours from their aides. It's fine for a politician to ask their aide to do something that their aide is responsible for, but asking for a personal favour that they could hire someone to do for them is going too far. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not OK for a politician to ask an aide for a personal favour. Politicians should employ people for tasks that they can not do themselves. If a politician needs someone to do their shopping for them, they should hire a personal shopper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not OK for a politician to ask an aide for a personal favour. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: it is not OK for a politician to ask an aide for a personal favour. They argued that, if a politician wants to get something done that they could not do themselves, they should hire someone to do it. Politicians should be putting their aides in charge of things that can only be done by an aide, like speech writing, press releases, etc. If a politician needs someone to do their shopping for them, they should hire a personal shopper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Politicians should not ask for personal favours from their aides. It's fine for a politician to ask their aide to do something that their aide is responsible for, but asking for a personal favour that they could hire someone to do for them is going too far. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not OK for a politician to ask an aide for a personal favour. Politicians should employ people for tasks that they can not do themselves. If a politician needs someone to do their shopping for them, they should hire a personal shopper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not OK for a politician to ask an aide for a personal favour. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - it is not OK for a politician to ask an aide for a personal favour. They argued that, if a politician wants to get something done that they could not do themselves, they should hire someone to do it. Politicians should be putting their aides in charge of things that can only be done by an aide, like speech writing, press releases, etc. If a politician needs someone to do their shopping for them, they should hire a personal shopper. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000351.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000351.soc index 4dfdf66b..5d0c9318 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000351.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000351.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The majority of the group thought that nuclear power was needed for energy security, however we did think that it was a highly political issue and that the public should be involved in the decision. Some thought that the benefits outweighed the risks, others thought the opposite. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of nuclear power, although with reservations. We had different opinions on whether to build a new power station or not, but overall felt that the climate change issues outweigh the dangers of a new station. We thought that the people in the vicinity should have a say in whether it should be built or not, as it is a hot political topic and could cause uproar. However, we do think that it is a vital and much needed source of energy, and should be researched further. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a strong argument for building a new nuclear power station, and nuclear power is a key part of the energy mix in the future. There are benefits and risks to the environment and community, and the public should be involved in the decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group, in general, was in favour of nuclear power, although with reservations. We had different opinions on whether to build a new power station or not, but overall felt that the climate change issues outweigh the dangers of a new station. We thought that the people in the vicinity should have a say in whether it should be built or not, as it is a hot political topic and could cause uproar. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The majority of the group thought that nuclear power was needed for energy security, however we did think that it was a highly political issue and that the public should be involved in the decision. Some thought that the benefits outweighed the risks, others thought the opposite. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of nuclear power, although with reservations. We had different opinions on whether to build a new power station or not, but overall felt that the climate change issues outweigh the dangers of a new station. We thought that the people in the vicinity should have a say in whether it should be built or not, as it is a hot political topic and could cause uproar. However, we do think that it is a vital and much needed source of energy, and should be researched further. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a strong argument for building a new nuclear power station, and nuclear power is a key part of the energy mix in the future. There are benefits and risks to the environment and community, and the public should be involved in the decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group, in general, was in favour of nuclear power, although with reservations. We had different opinions on whether to build a new power station or not, but overall felt that the climate change issues outweigh the dangers of a new station. We thought that the people in the vicinity should have a say in whether it should be built or not, as it is a hot political topic and could cause uproar. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000352.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000352.soc index 93a6a574..bcc33393 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000352.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000352.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Prostitution should be legal. The only argument I can see for its illegality is on the grounds of morality. In the 21st century we should not be judging individuals' personal lives and their choice of employment on the grounds of morality. The act itself does not hurt anyone, it is the fact that people are making a living out of it that causes some moral conflict. Aside from this there are many benefits to the legalisation of prostitution. It would protect the prostitutes themselves, and would stop women from feeling that they had no other option. Making the service illegal would not stop the demand, as it is a perfectly natural human instinct and there will always be demand. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalisation, though with conditions. We feel that as long as prostitution is legal, then both prostitutes and their clients should be treated as criminals and should be prosecuted. We feel that if prostitution is legalised then there should be help given to these women in the way of support, education, and a way out of the profession. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Prostitution should be legalised in order to allow it to be regulated, improve the quality of life for those involved, and reduce the number of illegal criminal rings that could operate and become dangerous to vulnerable individuals. The risks to prostitutes could be reduced, and they would also receive the support that they require. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Prostitution should not be legal. Legalising it makes it seem like a profession like any other, and we don't want to be encouraging young women to think that it is a viable option. We do think that there should be laws to protect these vulnerable women and help to keep them off the streets and away from the dangerous pimps. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Prostitution should be legal. The only argument I can see for its illegality is on the grounds of morality. In the 21st century we should not be judging individuals' personal lives and their choice of employment on the grounds of morality. The act itself does not hurt anyone, it is the fact that people are making a living out of it that causes some moral conflict. Aside from this there are many benefits to the legalisation of prostitution. It would protect the prostitutes themselves, and would stop women from feeling that they had no other option. Making the service illegal would not stop the demand, as it is a perfectly natural human instinct and there will always be demand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalisation, though with conditions. We feel that as long as prostitution is legal, then both prostitutes and their clients should be treated as criminals and should be prosecuted. We feel that if prostitution is legalised then there should be help given to these women in the way of support, education, and a way out of the profession. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Prostitution should be legalised in order to allow it to be regulated, improve the quality of life for those involved, and reduce the number of illegal criminal rings that could operate and become dangerous to vulnerable individuals. The risks to prostitutes could be reduced, and they would also receive the support that they require. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Prostitution should not be legal. Legalising it makes it seem like a profession like any other, and we don't want to be encouraging young women to think that it is a viable option. We do think that there should be laws to protect these vulnerable women and help to keep them off the streets and away from the dangerous pimps. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000353.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000353.soc index bfde69b3..72805133 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000353.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000353.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can miss people. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In my opinion, we should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can miss something. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In my opinion, we should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can make mistakes. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. Algorithms can be good for sifting out at initial hiring stages such as sifting out those without a qualification that has been deemed essential. Soft skills are difficult to judge via an algorithm. Algorithms have their place in the early stages of the recruitment process to remove applications that are much lower quality than the rest of the applications. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In my opinion, we should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can make mistakes. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can miss people. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In my opinion, we should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can miss something. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In my opinion, we should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can make mistakes. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. Algorithms can be good for sifting out at initial hiring stages such as sifting out those without a qualification that has been deemed essential. Soft skills are difficult to judge via an algorithm. Algorithms have their place in the early stages of the recruitment process to remove applications that are much lower quality than the rest of the applications. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In my opinion, we should restrict the use of algorithms in making hiring decisions because even though they are efficient, they can make mistakes. For example, if an employer was using key words to select candidates, but someone hadn't used these, they would be rejected. This could be a mistake because they could be the best candidate, but the employer wouldn't know this. Furthermore, an algorithm wouldn't be able to assess other qualities of the individual, such as their interpersonal skills, which can be very important for many jobs. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000354.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000354.soc index 715a9b43..02da8f11 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000354.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000354.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No. It is not a necessary piece of information to be disclosed to the employer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Employers should be allowed to ask job applicants for their credit score but not their credit history as this is a good indicator of their credit worthiness and how well the applicant can manage finances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we do not think employers should be allowed to ask for job applicants credit score. While it is a good indication of an applicants financial capability, we feel that it could be unfair to those with poor credit scores who may be a good applicant for the role. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Employers should not be allowed to ask job applicants for their credit score. A job applicant's credit score is not a reliable indicator of how successful that person would be in a job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No. It is not a necessary piece of information to be disclosed to the employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Employers should be allowed to ask job applicants for their credit score but not their credit history as this is a good indicator of their credit worthiness and how well the applicant can manage finances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we do not think employers should be allowed to ask for job applicants credit score. While it is a good indication of an applicants financial capability, we feel that it could be unfair to those with poor credit scores who may be a good applicant for the role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Employers should not be allowed to ask job applicants for their credit score. A job applicant's credit score is not a reliable indicator of how successful that person would be in a job. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000355.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000355.soc index 048aaef0..5e88e2b5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000355.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000355.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: After a debate, we came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should be built at Hinkley Point. However, it was agreed that the construction should not commence without extensive safety and security features and safeguards being implemented. The group discussed the need for the UK to develop an energy strategy which will meet the country’s needs for the next 50 years. The debate considered the use of nuclear energy as a form of clean energy. There was a consideration that it was not the ideal solution, but was currently one of the most viable options. The group felt that the building of a new nuclear power station was more positive than the current option of generating power from a coal burning power station. The group discussed the impact on the environment and the safety of a new nuclear power station. The view was that as long as the new nuclear power station was built with modern technology, the environment would not be harmed. The group felt that the only danger of the power station would be in the event of a meltdown which would be unlikely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I am not in favour of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, as it is a highly polluting and dangerous source of energy. However, it is becoming more evident that we need to start using renewable energy sources to reduce our carbon emissions. We are already one of the leading nations in developing renewable energy. This is where we should continue to invest. We can make our country free of carbon-based energy sources without building additional nuclear power stations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the group understands that nuclear power stations can provide cheap and reliable electricity, they also feel that the potential environmental impact of such a power station cannot be underestimated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a new nuclear power station should not be built at Hinkley Point. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - After a debate, we came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should be built at Hinkley Point. However, it was agreed that the construction should not commence without extensive safety and security features and safeguards being implemented. The group discussed the need for the UK to develop an energy strategy which will meet the country’s needs for the next 50 years. The debate considered the use of nuclear energy as a form of clean energy. There was a consideration that it was not the ideal solution, but was currently one of the most viable options. The group felt that the building of a new nuclear power station was more positive than the current option of generating power from a coal burning power station. The group discussed the impact on the environment and the safety of a new nuclear power station. The view was that as long as the new nuclear power station was built with modern technology, the environment would not be harmed. The group felt that the only danger of the power station would be in the event of a meltdown which would be unlikely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I am not in favour of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, as it is a highly polluting and dangerous source of energy. However, it is becoming more evident that we need to start using renewable energy sources to reduce our carbon emissions. We are already one of the leading nations in developing renewable energy. This is where we should continue to invest. We can make our country free of carbon-based energy sources without building additional nuclear power stations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the group understands that nuclear power stations can provide cheap and reliable electricity, they also feel that the potential environmental impact of such a power station cannot be underestimated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a new nuclear power station should not be built at Hinkley Point. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000356.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000356.soc index 450b5c4c..6cb3eae1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000356.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000356.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Foreign investment should be encouraged in domestic industries as it enhances competition, innovation and growth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Foreign investment is a good thing and the country benefits in many ways from it. However, as participant 4 said, our country is not in a good way. Whilst we don't want to scare off foreign investors, we do need to ensure that we are getting the best deal possible. We should therefore put in place regulations that stop foreign investors taking full ownership and control of domestic industries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Generally foreign investment in domestic industries has been positive, but that assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. I believe we should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. Whilst foreign investment is fine in theory, the importance of the country isn't considered when it's an external investor; only money. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. The reasons for this is that domestic industries are more likely to be more beneficial to the local economy than foreign ones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Foreign investment should be encouraged in domestic industries as it enhances competition, innovation and growth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Foreign investment is a good thing and the country benefits in many ways from it. However, as participant 4 said, our country is not in a good way. Whilst we don't want to scare off foreign investors, we do need to ensure that we are getting the best deal possible. We should therefore put in place regulations that stop foreign investors taking full ownership and control of domestic industries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Generally foreign investment in domestic industries has been positive, but that assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. I believe we should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. Whilst foreign investment is fine in theory, the importance of the country isn't considered when it's an external investor; only money. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. The reasons for this is that domestic industries are more likely to be more beneficial to the local economy than foreign ones. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000357.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000357.soc index 902d2f20..f32a0137 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000357.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000357.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, yes we should have national referendums on major issues because we as a nation should have a say on matters that will affect our lives and those of generations to come. The internet is widely available, people can quite easily send a yes or no to certain matters that need opinions on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that there should be national referendums on major issues. This is because these major issues will impact the lives of many and as such, the affected people should have a say in these major issues. In particular, when decisions are to be made, we, the people, should be involved in these decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should have referendums on major issues. For example, decisions about leaving or remaining in the EU or matters that would affect future generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of national referendums on major issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, yes we should have national referendums on major issues because we as a nation should have a say on matters that will affect our lives and those of generations to come. The internet is widely available, people can quite easily send a yes or no to certain matters that need opinions on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that there should be national referendums on major issues. This is because these major issues will impact the lives of many and as such, the affected people should have a say in these major issues. In particular, when decisions are to be made, we, the people, should be involved in these decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should have referendums on major issues. For example, decisions about leaving or remaining in the EU or matters that would affect future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of national referendums on major issues. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000358.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000358.soc index 447e2776..a035dec9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000358.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000358.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Prostitution should be legal. The only argument I can see for its illegality is on the grounds of morality. In the 21st century we should not be judging individuals' personal lives and their choice of employment on the grounds of morality. The act itself does not hurt anyone, it is the fact that people are making a living out of it that causes some moral conflict. Aside from this there are many benefits to the legalisation of prostitution. It would protect the prostitutes themselves, and would stop women from feeling that they had no other option. Making the service illegal would not stop the demand, as it is a perfectly natural human instinct and there will always be demand. However, I do think the clients should be fined for their role in the trade. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Prostitution should be legal. The only argument I can see for its illegality is on the grounds of morality. In the 21st century we should not be judging individuals' personal lives and their choice of employment on the grounds of morality. The act itself does not hurt anyone, it is the fact that people are making a living out of it that causes some moral conflict. Aside from this there are many benefits to the legalisation of prostitution. It would protect the prostitutes themselves, and would stop women from feeling that they had no other option. Making the service illegal would not stop the demand, as it is a perfectly natural human instinct and there will always be demand. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Prostitution should be legalised. Though the act itself may not hurt anyone, we must consider the wider impact that prostitution has on society. Prostitution is often not a choice, and in some cases women feel that they have no other option. This is not acceptable in the 21st century. By making it legal, the government could protect the workers, and prevent them from feeling like they have no other option. It would also stop the act being associated with crime and illegal behaviour, and this could stop young women being drawn into prostitution. The money from taxing the profession could be used to support the workers. However, it must be acknowledged that this profession carries with it a lot of moral baggage, and so the Government would need to make sure that the workers are protected. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Prostitution should be legal. We believe it should be legal because we do not see any harm in consenting adults paying each other for sex. The fact that some people find it immoral is not a good enough reason for it to remain illegal. There are many benefits to legalising prostitution. The main reason is that it protects the women in the trade. They do not feel like they have no other option. It would stop women from feeling forced into prostitution. Making the service illegal would not stop the demand, as it is a perfectly natural human instinct and there will always be demand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Prostitution should be legal. The only argument I can see for its illegality is on the grounds of morality. In the 21st century we should not be judging individuals' personal lives and their choice of employment on the grounds of morality. The act itself does not hurt anyone, it is the fact that people are making a living out of it that causes some moral conflict. Aside from this there are many benefits to the legalisation of prostitution. It would protect the prostitutes themselves, and would stop women from feeling that they had no other option. Making the service illegal would not stop the demand, as it is a perfectly natural human instinct and there will always be demand. However, I do think the clients should be fined for their role in the trade. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Prostitution should be legal. The only argument I can see for its illegality is on the grounds of morality. In the 21st century we should not be judging individuals' personal lives and their choice of employment on the grounds of morality. The act itself does not hurt anyone, it is the fact that people are making a living out of it that causes some moral conflict. Aside from this there are many benefits to the legalisation of prostitution. It would protect the prostitutes themselves, and would stop women from feeling that they had no other option. Making the service illegal would not stop the demand, as it is a perfectly natural human instinct and there will always be demand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Prostitution should be legalised. Though the act itself may not hurt anyone, we must consider the wider impact that prostitution has on society. Prostitution is often not a choice, and in some cases women feel that they have no other option. This is not acceptable in the 21st century. By making it legal, the government could protect the workers, and prevent them from feeling like they have no other option. It would also stop the act being associated with crime and illegal behaviour, and this could stop young women being drawn into prostitution. The money from taxing the profession could be used to support the workers. However, it must be acknowledged that this profession carries with it a lot of moral baggage, and so the Government would need to make sure that the workers are protected. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Prostitution should be legal. We believe it should be legal because we do not see any harm in consenting adults paying each other for sex. The fact that some people find it immoral is not a good enough reason for it to remain illegal. There are many benefits to legalising prostitution. The main reason is that it protects the women in the trade. They do not feel like they have no other option. It would stop women from feeling forced into prostitution. Making the service illegal would not stop the demand, as it is a perfectly natural human instinct and there will always be demand. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000359.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000359.soc index f8b2c5b9..9d7b6406 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000359.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000359.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a danger that the private sector will distort the education system to suit its own agenda. The people who work in the private sector are successful because they are good at selling things, but education is not a product to be sold. The purpose of education is to emancipate children and help them to realise their full potential. If the private sector is allowed to have too much of a say in education, the danger is that it will change what children learn to suit its own ends. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are undoubtedly people in the private sector who are very successful at what they do and who have great ideas about what works and what doesn't. The problem is that they are also interested in making money. We can't forget that the best way for someone to make money is to get people to buy what they sell. If we give the private sector too much power, there's a risk that the whole education system could be distorted so that it becomes more about selling products and services than actually educating the children who are in our schools. There may be a role for the private sector to play in education; this may be in the area of management, or in developing new curriculum, but we need to be very cautious to ensure that the system is not distorted to benefit certain businesses at the expense of the children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The private sector should not play a greater role in education. Education is best performed by the state, in the interest of the state. We are concerned that if the private sector is given greater power, there's a risk that the whole education system could be distorted so that it becomes more about selling products and services than actually educating the children who are in our schools. ________________________________________________________________________________________ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should be very cautious about allowing the private sector to play a greater role in education. There are undoubtedly people in the private sector who are very successful at what they do and who have great ideas about what works and what doesn't. The problem is that they are also interested in making money. We can't forget that the best way for someone to make money is to get people to buy what they sell. If we give the private sector too much power, there's a risk that the whole education system could be distorted so that it becomes more about selling products and services than actually educating the children who are in our schools. However, we should not exclude the private sector from the education system entirely. Their skills and experience can be valuable for management, and the business community has a responsibility to help support the future generation of our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a danger that the private sector will distort the education system to suit its own agenda. The people who work in the private sector are successful because they are good at selling things, but education is not a product to be sold. The purpose of education is to emancipate children and help them to realise their full potential. If the private sector is allowed to have too much of a say in education, the danger is that it will change what children learn to suit its own ends. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are undoubtedly people in the private sector who are very successful at what they do and who have great ideas about what works and what doesn't. The problem is that they are also interested in making money. We can't forget that the best way for someone to make money is to get people to buy what they sell. If we give the private sector too much power, there's a risk that the whole education system could be distorted so that it becomes more about selling products and services than actually educating the children who are in our schools. There may be a role for the private sector to play in education; this may be in the area of management, or in developing new curriculum, but we need to be very cautious to ensure that the system is not distorted to benefit certain businesses at the expense of the children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The private sector should not play a greater role in education. Education is best performed by the state, in the interest of the state. We are concerned that if the private sector is given greater power, there's a risk that the whole education system could be distorted so that it becomes more about selling products and services than actually educating the children who are in our schools. ________________________________________________________________________________________ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should be very cautious about allowing the private sector to play a greater role in education. There are undoubtedly people in the private sector who are very successful at what they do and who have great ideas about what works and what doesn't. The problem is that they are also interested in making money. We can't forget that the best way for someone to make money is to get people to buy what they sell. If we give the private sector too much power, there's a risk that the whole education system could be distorted so that it becomes more about selling products and services than actually educating the children who are in our schools. However, we should not exclude the private sector from the education system entirely. Their skills and experience can be valuable for management, and the business community has a responsibility to help support the future generation of our society. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000360.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000360.soc index 69d3a59e..5e387fca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000360.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000360.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think employers should be allowed to ask for job applicants credit score. While it is a good indication of an applicants financial capability, we feel that it could be unfair to those with poor credit scores who may be a good applicant for the role. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think employers should be allowed to ask for job applicants credit score. While it is a good indication of an applicants financial capability, it could be unfair to those with poor credit scores who may be a good applicant for the role. It is also unnecessary as there are other ways to confirm an applicants identity. (c) The above is a fictional scenario, and the opinions, critiques, and final consensus statement are not those of the participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't believe that employers should be allowed to ask job applicants for their credit score. It may be a good indication of their financial capability, but not of their suitability for the role. This is a very private piece of information, and although consent would need to be given, it would not make it any less intrusive. There are less intrusive ways to verify the identity of an applicant, such as a passport, so it would not be necessary to request a credit score. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not think employers should be allowed to ask for job applicants credit score. While it is a good indication of an applicants financial capability, we feel that it could be unfair to those with poor credit scores who may be a good applicant for the role. The employer may also obtain this information in order to discriminate against job applicants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think employers should be allowed to ask for job applicants credit score. While it is a good indication of an applicants financial capability, we feel that it could be unfair to those with poor credit scores who may be a good applicant for the role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think employers should be allowed to ask for job applicants credit score. While it is a good indication of an applicants financial capability, it could be unfair to those with poor credit scores who may be a good applicant for the role. It is also unnecessary as there are other ways to confirm an applicants identity. (c) The above is a fictional scenario, and the opinions, critiques, and final consensus statement are not those of the participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't believe that employers should be allowed to ask job applicants for their credit score. It may be a good indication of their financial capability, but not of their suitability for the role. This is a very private piece of information, and although consent would need to be given, it would not make it any less intrusive. There are less intrusive ways to verify the identity of an applicant, such as a passport, so it would not be necessary to request a credit score. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not think employers should be allowed to ask for job applicants credit score. While it is a good indication of an applicants financial capability, we feel that it could be unfair to those with poor credit scores who may be a good applicant for the role. The employer may also obtain this information in order to discriminate against job applicants. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000361.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000361.soc index a59a21db..c46e8adc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000361.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000361.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Generally foreign investment in domestic industries has been positive, but that assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. Foreign investment is good but measures should be put in place to limit a negative effect. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. I believe we should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference.” (please see the individual answers for sources of evidence) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Foreign investment in domestic industries has generally been positive. However, this assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. I believe we should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. Whilst foreign investment is fine in theory, the importance of the country isn't considered when it's an external investor; only money. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Generally foreign investment in domestic industries has been positive, but that assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. I believe we should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. Whilst foreign investment is fine in theory, the importance of the country isn't considered when it's an external investor; only money. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Foreign investment in domestic industries has generally been positive, but that assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. Whilst foreign investment is fine in theory, the importance of the country isn't considered when it's an external investor; only money. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Generally foreign investment in domestic industries has been positive, but that assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. Foreign investment is good but measures should be put in place to limit a negative effect. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. I believe we should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference.” (please see the individual answers for sources of evidence) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Foreign investment in domestic industries has generally been positive. However, this assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. I believe we should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. Whilst foreign investment is fine in theory, the importance of the country isn't considered when it's an external investor; only money. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Generally foreign investment in domestic industries has been positive, but that assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. I believe we should restrict foreign investment in domestic industries. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. Whilst foreign investment is fine in theory, the importance of the country isn't considered when it's an external investor; only money. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Foreign investment in domestic industries has generally been positive, but that assumes that no domestic investment would have come forward to take its place. What it certainly means is that the rewards that flow from the investment also flow overseas, and this is clearly detrimental to the country. Where foreign investment has been positive is where it has created an extra competitor, which propels continuous investment and lower end prices, but too often foreign investors have been allowed to take meaningful stakes in quasi-monopolies such as the water industry and the national lottery. It is important that these industries are protected and paid for within our country to support and enhance them. Whilst foreign investment is fine in theory, the importance of the country isn't considered when it's an external investor; only money. There is a risk that foreign companies may pursue objectives in contradiction with what is beneficial for the public and sometimes they are also instructed by foreign governments. Critical domestic industries should be shielded from foreign interference.” 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000362.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000362.soc index c8904e63..7fbe01b3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000362.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000362.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: After a debate, we came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should not be built at Hinkley Point. The group considered the use of nuclear energy as a form of clean energy and it was not felt to be an ideal solution. The debate also considered the use of renewable energy sources and the impact of a new nuclear power station on the environment. The group discussed the safety and security of a new nuclear power station and the potential for a nuclear meltdown. It was felt that it would be dangerous to build a new nuclear power station. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: After a debate, we came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should not be built at Hinkley Point. However, it was agreed that the construction should not commence without extensive safety and security features and safeguards being implemented. The group discussed the need for the UK to develop an energy strategy which will meet the country’s needs for the next 50 years. The debate considered the use of nuclear energy as a form of clean energy. There was a consideration that it was not the ideal solution, but was currently one of the most viable options. The group felt that the building of a new nuclear power station was more positive than the current option of generating power from a coal burning power station. The group discussed the impact on the environment and the safety of a new nuclear power station. The view was that as long as the new nuclear power station was built with modern technology, the environment would not be harmed. The group felt that the only danger of the power station would be in the event of a meltdown which would be unlikely. However, it was agreed that a new nuclear power station should not be built at Hinkley Point, as it is not the ideal solution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: After a debate, we came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should be built at Hinkley Point. However, it was agreed that the construction should not commence without extensive safety and security features and safeguards being implemented. The group discussed the need for the UK to develop an energy strategy which will meet the country’s needs for the next 50 years. The debate considered the use of nuclear energy as a form of clean energy. There was a consideration that it was not the ideal solution, but was currently one of the most viable options. The group felt that the building of a new nuclear power station was more positive than the current option of generating power from a coal burning power station. The group discussed the impact on the environment and the safety of a new nuclear power station. The view was that as long as the new nuclear power station was built with modern technology, the environment would not be harmed. The group felt that the only danger of the power station would be in the event of a meltdown which would be unlikely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There was a consensus view that a new nuclear power station should be built at Hinkley Point. There was discussion about the need for the UK to develop an energy strategy which will meet the country’s needs for the next 50 years. The group considered that nuclear energy is a clean energy and that it is needed. However, there were concerns raised about the safety of a nuclear power station in the event of a meltdown and that the current nuclear technology may not be up to date. It was agreed that the construction should not commence without extensive safety and security features and safeguards being implemented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - After a debate, we came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should not be built at Hinkley Point. The group considered the use of nuclear energy as a form of clean energy and it was not felt to be an ideal solution. The debate also considered the use of renewable energy sources and the impact of a new nuclear power station on the environment. The group discussed the safety and security of a new nuclear power station and the potential for a nuclear meltdown. It was felt that it would be dangerous to build a new nuclear power station. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - After a debate, we came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should not be built at Hinkley Point. However, it was agreed that the construction should not commence without extensive safety and security features and safeguards being implemented. The group discussed the need for the UK to develop an energy strategy which will meet the country’s needs for the next 50 years. The debate considered the use of nuclear energy as a form of clean energy. There was a consideration that it was not the ideal solution, but was currently one of the most viable options. The group felt that the building of a new nuclear power station was more positive than the current option of generating power from a coal burning power station. The group discussed the impact on the environment and the safety of a new nuclear power station. The view was that as long as the new nuclear power station was built with modern technology, the environment would not be harmed. The group felt that the only danger of the power station would be in the event of a meltdown which would be unlikely. However, it was agreed that a new nuclear power station should not be built at Hinkley Point, as it is not the ideal solution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - After a debate, we came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should be built at Hinkley Point. However, it was agreed that the construction should not commence without extensive safety and security features and safeguards being implemented. The group discussed the need for the UK to develop an energy strategy which will meet the country’s needs for the next 50 years. The debate considered the use of nuclear energy as a form of clean energy. There was a consideration that it was not the ideal solution, but was currently one of the most viable options. The group felt that the building of a new nuclear power station was more positive than the current option of generating power from a coal burning power station. The group discussed the impact on the environment and the safety of a new nuclear power station. The view was that as long as the new nuclear power station was built with modern technology, the environment would not be harmed. The group felt that the only danger of the power station would be in the event of a meltdown which would be unlikely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There was a consensus view that a new nuclear power station should be built at Hinkley Point. There was discussion about the need for the UK to develop an energy strategy which will meet the country’s needs for the next 50 years. The group considered that nuclear energy is a clean energy and that it is needed. However, there were concerns raised about the safety of a nuclear power station in the event of a meltdown and that the current nuclear technology may not be up to date. It was agreed that the construction should not commence without extensive safety and security features and safeguards being implemented. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000363.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000363.soc index e2d8306b..46e0a578 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000363.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000363.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should try and ban all single-use snack containers as this would be much better for the environment. There would be the concern of the health and safety of food, but this can be solved by the government promoting people using reusable containers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, single-use snack containers should not be banned, however, the government should encourage the use of more environmentally friendly materials and should be working towards a goal of reducing the use of single-use snack containers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of single-use snack containers should be banned in favour of recyclable containers. However, as some participants expressed, there are cases where single-use containers are the best option, and these cases should be considered on a case-by-case basis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although single-use containers are a problem for the environment, we do not feel that they should be completely banned, as they provide an easy and convenient method of storing and transporting snacks. Instead, we would like to see an increased effort being made to encourage their recycling, and the use of biodegradable materials in their manufacture. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should try and ban all single-use snack containers as this would be much better for the environment. There would be the concern of the health and safety of food, but this can be solved by the government promoting people using reusable containers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, single-use snack containers should not be banned, however, the government should encourage the use of more environmentally friendly materials and should be working towards a goal of reducing the use of single-use snack containers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of single-use snack containers should be banned in favour of recyclable containers. However, as some participants expressed, there are cases where single-use containers are the best option, and these cases should be considered on a case-by-case basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although single-use containers are a problem for the environment, we do not feel that they should be completely banned, as they provide an easy and convenient method of storing and transporting snacks. Instead, we would like to see an increased effort being made to encourage their recycling, and the use of biodegradable materials in their manufacture. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000364.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000364.soc index c6ed1fc3..bcda838c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000364.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000364.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although single-use containers are a problem for the environment, we do not feel that they should be completely banned, as they provide an easy and convenient method of storing and transporting snacks. Instead, we would like to see an increased effort being made to encourage their recycling, and the use of biodegradable materials in their manufacture. We would also like to see an effort made by the government to encourage the use of multi-use containers for those who are able to use them, and perhaps introduce incentives for recycling and re-use of single-use containers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that single-use containers should be reduced, but we do not think they should be completely banned. Instead, they should be manufactured from biodegradable materials and efforts should be made to encourage individuals to recycle them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although single-use containers are a problem for the environment, we do not feel that they should be completely banned, as they provide an easy and convenient method of storing and transporting snacks. However, the government should make an increased effort to discourage their use, and encourage people to reuse containers, and/or to recycle the containers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Single-use containers are a problem for the environment. The government and companies should encourage their recycling and discourage the use of single-use containers in their manufacture. They should also encourage those who can to use reusable containers instead of buying single-use containers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although single-use containers are a problem for the environment, we do not feel that they should be completely banned, as they provide an easy and convenient method of storing and transporting snacks. Instead, we would like to see an increased effort being made to encourage their recycling, and the use of biodegradable materials in their manufacture. We would also like to see an effort made by the government to encourage the use of multi-use containers for those who are able to use them, and perhaps introduce incentives for recycling and re-use of single-use containers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that single-use containers should be reduced, but we do not think they should be completely banned. Instead, they should be manufactured from biodegradable materials and efforts should be made to encourage individuals to recycle them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although single-use containers are a problem for the environment, we do not feel that they should be completely banned, as they provide an easy and convenient method of storing and transporting snacks. However, the government should make an increased effort to discourage their use, and encourage people to reuse containers, and/or to recycle the containers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Single-use containers are a problem for the environment. The government and companies should encourage their recycling and discourage the use of single-use containers in their manufacture. They should also encourage those who can to use reusable containers instead of buying single-use containers. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000365.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000365.soc index 391f49b5..836c3a08 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000365.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000365.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that university tuition fees should be abolished. The current high fees mean that university is only accessible to those with more wealth. The high fees also mean that students are left with a lot of debt, which can prevent them from getting on in life. The group also believe that more needs to be done to ensure university education is available to people from all backgrounds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees. The consensus view was reached by all participants having a good discussion about their own views, hearing what others had to say, and coming to a point of agreement that they could all support. The reasons for supporting the reduction or abolition of tuition fees were that the current situation makes it very difficult for people of lower socioeconomic status to go to university. It makes it prohibitively expensive, and so puts them at a disadvantage when compared to people who can afford to pay. This leads to a continued situation of people born into a wealthy family doing well, and people born into a poor family doing badly, with the latter being unable to break the cycle and do well. It also deters many people from wanting to go to university in the first place, as they see it as a waste of money when they could be getting a job, or earning money straight away. The situation is also unethical, because students are paying an expensive fee for their education, and then being asked to pay even more for it after they've graduated. They end up with huge amounts of debt, and so find it very difficult to save for things like a mortgage, or starting a family. It's an -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we should abolish tuition fees as it would be beneficial for the stability of our youth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Abolishing university tuition fees would be beneficial for the country, because it would encourage more young people to attend university. This would be good for the country because it would increase the proportion of people in higher paid jobs and therefore increase the amount of tax the government gets, which would be good for the economy. The country would be more educated, and the population would have better prospects in life. This is because university students are more likely to end up in higher paying jobs, and are more likely to end up in secure, professional employment, which would have a positive impact on the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that university tuition fees should be abolished. The current high fees mean that university is only accessible to those with more wealth. The high fees also mean that students are left with a lot of debt, which can prevent them from getting on in life. The group also believe that more needs to be done to ensure university education is available to people from all backgrounds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees. The consensus view was reached by all participants having a good discussion about their own views, hearing what others had to say, and coming to a point of agreement that they could all support. The reasons for supporting the reduction or abolition of tuition fees were that the current situation makes it very difficult for people of lower socioeconomic status to go to university. It makes it prohibitively expensive, and so puts them at a disadvantage when compared to people who can afford to pay. This leads to a continued situation of people born into a wealthy family doing well, and people born into a poor family doing badly, with the latter being unable to break the cycle and do well. It also deters many people from wanting to go to university in the first place, as they see it as a waste of money when they could be getting a job, or earning money straight away. The situation is also unethical, because students are paying an expensive fee for their education, and then being asked to pay even more for it after they've graduated. They end up with huge amounts of debt, and so find it very difficult to save for things like a mortgage, or starting a family. It's an +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we should abolish tuition fees as it would be beneficial for the stability of our youth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Abolishing university tuition fees would be beneficial for the country, because it would encourage more young people to attend university. This would be good for the country because it would increase the proportion of people in higher paid jobs and therefore increase the amount of tax the government gets, which would be good for the economy. The country would be more educated, and the population would have better prospects in life. This is because university students are more likely to end up in higher paying jobs, and are more likely to end up in secure, professional employment, which would have a positive impact on the economy. 4: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000366.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000366.soc index db8d3155..af447128 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000366.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000366.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees. The consensus view was reached by all participants having a good discussion about their own views, hearing what others had to say, and coming to a point of agreement that they could all support. The reasons for supporting the reduction or abolition of tuition fees were that the current situation makes it very difficult for people of lower socioeconomic status to go to university. It makes it prohibitively expensive, and so puts them at a disadvantage when compared to people who can afford to pay. This leads to a continued situation of people born into a wealthy family doing well, and people born into a poor family doing badly, with the latter being unable to break the cycle and do well. It also deters many people from wanting to go to university in the first place, as they see it as a waste of money when they could be getting a job, or earning money straight away. The situation is also unethical, because students are paying an expensive fee for their education, and then being asked to pay even more for it after they've graduated. They end up with huge amounts of debt, and so find it very difficult to save for things like a mortgage, or starting a family. It's an -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees, as this will mean that people from all socioeconomic backgrounds will have an equal opportunity to attend university. At the moment, those from wealthy backgrounds have an advantage, and those from poor backgrounds are not given the chance to break the cycle of generational poverty, and so end up having a poorer quality of life. It also means that more people will want to attend university, because it will not be prohibitively expensive, and so society as a whole will benefit from a more educated populace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees. This was a decision made by all of the participants of the group, after a discussion in which they had a good opportunity to put forward their own views, hear what other people thought, and then come to a point of agreement that they could all support. The reasons for supporting the reduction or abolition of tuition fees were that the current situation makes it very difficult for people of lower socioeconomic status to go to university. It makes it prohibitively expensive, and so puts them at a disadvantage when compared to people who can afford to pay. This leads to a continued situation of people born into a wealthy family doing well, and people born into a poor family doing badly, with the latter being unable to break the cycle and do well. It also deters many people from wanting to go to university in the first place, as they see it as a waste of money when they could be getting a job, or earning money straight away. The situation is also unethical, because students are paying an expensive fee for their education, and then being asked to pay even more for it after they've graduated. They end up with huge amounts of debt, and so find it very difficult to save for -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees. The current system does not allow for people from poorer backgrounds to attend university, and those who do find themselves with a huge debt that they have to pay back. The financial strain this puts on people for years after they've graduated makes it very difficult for them to move on with their lives, and buy a house, start a family, or anything else. The government should be funding more university education, and lowering the barriers for poorer people to get a university education. This would allow people to get on in life, and it would break the cycle of people born into a poor family being unable to do well. The current system is not sustainable or fair, and we should change it. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees. The consensus view was reached by all participants having a good discussion about their own views, hearing what others had to say, and coming to a point of agreement that they could all support. The reasons for supporting the reduction or abolition of tuition fees were that the current situation makes it very difficult for people of lower socioeconomic status to go to university. It makes it prohibitively expensive, and so puts them at a disadvantage when compared to people who can afford to pay. This leads to a continued situation of people born into a wealthy family doing well, and people born into a poor family doing badly, with the latter being unable to break the cycle and do well. It also deters many people from wanting to go to university in the first place, as they see it as a waste of money when they could be getting a job, or earning money straight away. The situation is also unethical, because students are paying an expensive fee for their education, and then being asked to pay even more for it after they've graduated. They end up with huge amounts of debt, and so find it very difficult to save for things like a mortgage, or starting a family. It's an +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees, as this will mean that people from all socioeconomic backgrounds will have an equal opportunity to attend university. At the moment, those from wealthy backgrounds have an advantage, and those from poor backgrounds are not given the chance to break the cycle of generational poverty, and so end up having a poorer quality of life. It also means that more people will want to attend university, because it will not be prohibitively expensive, and so society as a whole will benefit from a more educated populace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees. This was a decision made by all of the participants of the group, after a discussion in which they had a good opportunity to put forward their own views, hear what other people thought, and then come to a point of agreement that they could all support. The reasons for supporting the reduction or abolition of tuition fees were that the current situation makes it very difficult for people of lower socioeconomic status to go to university. It makes it prohibitively expensive, and so puts them at a disadvantage when compared to people who can afford to pay. This leads to a continued situation of people born into a wealthy family doing well, and people born into a poor family doing badly, with the latter being unable to break the cycle and do well. It also deters many people from wanting to go to university in the first place, as they see it as a waste of money when they could be getting a job, or earning money straight away. The situation is also unethical, because students are paying an expensive fee for their education, and then being asked to pay even more for it after they've graduated. They end up with huge amounts of debt, and so find it very difficult to save for +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should reduce or abolish university tuition fees. The current system does not allow for people from poorer backgrounds to attend university, and those who do find themselves with a huge debt that they have to pay back. The financial strain this puts on people for years after they've graduated makes it very difficult for them to move on with their lives, and buy a house, start a family, or anything else. The government should be funding more university education, and lowering the barriers for poorer people to get a university education. This would allow people to get on in life, and it would break the cycle of people born into a poor family being unable to do well. The current system is not sustainable or fair, and we should change it. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000367.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000367.soc index 79ce45e9..9982012d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000367.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000367.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the UK joining the Eurozone. We had different reasons for wanting to join, and felt that the benefits of joining would outweigh the costs. We felt that it would make the UK economy more stable, improve our international standing and our ability to trade with other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is the view of the group that the UK should not join the Eurozone, because it would not be good for the economy and is an overall bad idea. There were a few dissenting voices, who expressed the following views: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I think that the UK joining the Eurozone would be a very good thing for the economy. We are struggling to deal with inflation and our own devalued currency and being in the Eurozone would mean that the economy would be stable and would have the ability to grow in a healthy way. The only issue I can see is that if the Eurozone were to collapse, the UK would also be dragged down with it, however I think that if we joined now, when things are looking up, it would be a good idea and we would not have to worry about the collapse of the Eurozone.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should join the Eurozone as it will increase stability and jobs and also increase the UK's involvement with the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK joining the Eurozone. We had different reasons for wanting to join, and felt that the benefits of joining would outweigh the costs. We felt that it would make the UK economy more stable, improve our international standing and our ability to trade with other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is the view of the group that the UK should not join the Eurozone, because it would not be good for the economy and is an overall bad idea. There were a few dissenting voices, who expressed the following views: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I think that the UK joining the Eurozone would be a very good thing for the economy. We are struggling to deal with inflation and our own devalued currency and being in the Eurozone would mean that the economy would be stable and would have the ability to grow in a healthy way. The only issue I can see is that if the Eurozone were to collapse, the UK would also be dragged down with it, however I think that if we joined now, when things are looking up, it would be a good idea and we would not have to worry about the collapse of the Eurozone.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should join the Eurozone as it will increase stability and jobs and also increase the UK's involvement with the EU. 3: 3,1,4,2 2: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000368.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000368.soc index 8366f776..ab5ae386 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000368.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000368.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should remain a public service broadcaster. However it should improve its commercial outlook by paying employees a realistic salary that the licence fee payer can afford and removing political bias. The licence fee should be set at a realistic amount and remain the main source of funding for the BBC. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC should remain a public service broadcaster, however with the following stipulations: - The TV Licensing system is reformed so it is not seen as 'taxation without representation' and so that people are not made to pay for channels they do not watch - The BBC should become more transparent about their activities and how their money is spent, for example with the salaries of their highest earners being made public knowledge and open to scrutiny - The BBC should consider reviewing their decision to not show the first or last ad breaks during live football matches in an attempt to regain some of the lost commercial revenue and boost their reputation with advertisers - There should be an option to opt out of the TV Licence, allowing people who only watch other channels the opportunity to save money -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should be a public service broadcaster, however the TV license should be removed as this is a tax and does not allow people to be able to afford a basic necessity like television. The BBC should be funded by a combination of a small license fee and advertisement income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster with a television licence fee model to fund it. The television licence should be reduced and made more affordable for all. There were mixed views among the participants about whether the BBC should have some income from advertisers, however they agreed that this would be difficult as the BBC would lose some of its impartiality and would be subject to pressures from the advertisers. The group was unanimous that the BBC should remain a public service broadcaster and that its impartiality was of utmost importance. A number of participants raised the issue of how people who don’t watch BBC channels should not be forced to pay the television licence. One suggestion was that perhaps there should be a universal service charge to replace the TV licence that could be used to pay for public services, such as the BBC, but would also fund public services that are currently under-funded or have been cut in recent years, such as the NHS. A number of participants suggested that there was political bias in the BBC, particularly during political coverage and that this was influenced by the Government, either through direct influence or by virtue of the fact that the Government funds the BBC. Some participants raised the issue of bias more generally in BBC programming and suggested that this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should remain a public service broadcaster. However it should improve its commercial outlook by paying employees a realistic salary that the licence fee payer can afford and removing political bias. The licence fee should be set at a realistic amount and remain the main source of funding for the BBC. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC should remain a public service broadcaster, however with the following stipulations: - The TV Licensing system is reformed so it is not seen as 'taxation without representation' and so that people are not made to pay for channels they do not watch - The BBC should become more transparent about their activities and how their money is spent, for example with the salaries of their highest earners being made public knowledge and open to scrutiny - The BBC should consider reviewing their decision to not show the first or last ad breaks during live football matches in an attempt to regain some of the lost commercial revenue and boost their reputation with advertisers - There should be an option to opt out of the TV Licence, allowing people who only watch other channels the opportunity to save money +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should be a public service broadcaster, however the TV license should be removed as this is a tax and does not allow people to be able to afford a basic necessity like television. The BBC should be funded by a combination of a small license fee and advertisement income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster with a television licence fee model to fund it. The television licence should be reduced and made more affordable for all. There were mixed views among the participants about whether the BBC should have some income from advertisers, however they agreed that this would be difficult as the BBC would lose some of its impartiality and would be subject to pressures from the advertisers. The group was unanimous that the BBC should remain a public service broadcaster and that its impartiality was of utmost importance. A number of participants raised the issue of how people who don’t watch BBC channels should not be forced to pay the television licence. One suggestion was that perhaps there should be a universal service charge to replace the TV licence that could be used to pay for public services, such as the BBC, but would also fund public services that are currently under-funded or have been cut in recent years, such as the NHS. A number of participants suggested that there was political bias in the BBC, particularly during political coverage and that this was influenced by the Government, either through direct influence or by virtue of the fact that the Government funds the BBC. Some participants raised the issue of bias more generally in BBC programming and suggested that this 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000369.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000369.soc index 33007085..b53dd815 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000369.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000369.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group have come to the consensus view that we should not build a bridge to Ireland because it would not be the best use of the government’s money. There are far better alternatives to transporting people to Ireland such as ferries which will be a lot cheaper and less time consuming. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some of the disadvantages include the cost, time it takes to build and lack of need for a bridge. However, the group conceded that the Irish sea is a barrier and therefore a bridge would help with connecting Ireland and Great Britain, but overall, the cons of a bridge outweigh the pros. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the government should not build a bridge to Northern Ireland. The cost to construct a bridge would be enormous and the end result would not be worth it. It is more practical and cheaper to use the ferry service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not build a bridge to Northern Ireland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group have come to the consensus view that we should not build a bridge to Ireland because it would not be the best use of the government’s money. There are far better alternatives to transporting people to Ireland such as ferries which will be a lot cheaper and less time consuming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some of the disadvantages include the cost, time it takes to build and lack of need for a bridge. However, the group conceded that the Irish sea is a barrier and therefore a bridge would help with connecting Ireland and Great Britain, but overall, the cons of a bridge outweigh the pros. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the government should not build a bridge to Northern Ireland. The cost to construct a bridge would be enormous and the end result would not be worth it. It is more practical and cheaper to use the ferry service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not build a bridge to Northern Ireland. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000370.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000370.soc index d11b1901..7f82da30 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000370.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000370.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Trade is a good thing for the world, and generally trade barriers should be avoided. Trade is something that can benefit all parties and allow for all economies to grow and become stronger. On the other hand, we can't completely ignore the negative effects that global trade can have on a nation's economy, so we must also be willing to provide support to local industries in times of need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the free movement of goods and services in a global market is better than not having such free movement. Free trade creates more wealth and more opportunities for individuals and nations, which in turn creates more freedom and better overall living standards. The free movement of people in the world is also important, but is not something that will be discussed here. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The world is a better place with free trade. It allows countries to compete on a fair level and people to access the cheapest prices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that free trade does indeed make the world a better place because it results in a fairer system. Prices get cheaper for consumers and aren't controlled in an artificial way. People get access to a wider range of products, and also get access to cheaper products when there are less monopolies. Free trade makes the world a better place because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This makes the world a better place because the poorer countries can learn from the richer countries and try to adopt their ways and succeed, which will then hopefully make the world an even better place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Trade is a good thing for the world, and generally trade barriers should be avoided. Trade is something that can benefit all parties and allow for all economies to grow and become stronger. On the other hand, we can't completely ignore the negative effects that global trade can have on a nation's economy, so we must also be willing to provide support to local industries in times of need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the free movement of goods and services in a global market is better than not having such free movement. Free trade creates more wealth and more opportunities for individuals and nations, which in turn creates more freedom and better overall living standards. The free movement of people in the world is also important, but is not something that will be discussed here. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The world is a better place with free trade. It allows countries to compete on a fair level and people to access the cheapest prices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that free trade does indeed make the world a better place because it results in a fairer system. Prices get cheaper for consumers and aren't controlled in an artificial way. People get access to a wider range of products, and also get access to cheaper products when there are less monopolies. Free trade makes the world a better place because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This makes the world a better place because the poorer countries can learn from the richer countries and try to adopt their ways and succeed, which will then hopefully make the world an even better place. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000371.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000371.soc index 8fd1ff73..bdc8e505 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000371.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000371.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should build new nuclear power plants. Whilst we have reservations about the human and environmental impacts, it is currently the only option which is both available and which is guaranteed to reduce greenhouse gases. In particular, when considering the effects of man-made climate change, it is apparent that the longer we go without building these plants, the more difficult it will be to reverse the changes that are occurring. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a huge reduction in the use of fossil fuels, and nuclear energy should be one of the options to help the transition. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not build new nuclear power plants. It is very likely that nuclear power plants are a more efficient and cheaper source of electricity. It is also true that they produce lower emissions of CO2 compared to coal and fossil fuels. However, they do have some severe downsides such as: the risk of meltdowns; cost of building and maintaining the plants; and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste. There are also ethical issues surrounding nuclear power - we should not be using it at the expense of our future generations and the use of nuclear power raises an issue of equity - should poorer countries be able to afford nuclear power plants? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, our group was wary of nuclear power plants, but with the current government's proposals to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, we felt that it was a necessary option, especially in terms of new technology that would reduce the impact on the environment. Our group felt that our education had left us ignorant on the impact of nuclear power plants, and so it would be helpful for the public to be more informed on the benefits and risks of nuclear power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should build new nuclear power plants. Whilst we have reservations about the human and environmental impacts, it is currently the only option which is both available and which is guaranteed to reduce greenhouse gases. In particular, when considering the effects of man-made climate change, it is apparent that the longer we go without building these plants, the more difficult it will be to reverse the changes that are occurring. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a huge reduction in the use of fossil fuels, and nuclear energy should be one of the options to help the transition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not build new nuclear power plants. It is very likely that nuclear power plants are a more efficient and cheaper source of electricity. It is also true that they produce lower emissions of CO2 compared to coal and fossil fuels. However, they do have some severe downsides such as: the risk of meltdowns; cost of building and maintaining the plants; and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste. There are also ethical issues surrounding nuclear power - we should not be using it at the expense of our future generations and the use of nuclear power raises an issue of equity - should poorer countries be able to afford nuclear power plants? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, our group was wary of nuclear power plants, but with the current government's proposals to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, we felt that it was a necessary option, especially in terms of new technology that would reduce the impact on the environment. Our group felt that our education had left us ignorant on the impact of nuclear power plants, and so it would be helpful for the public to be more informed on the benefits and risks of nuclear power. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000372.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000372.soc index f5ad7f4c..6b5f07d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000372.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000372.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the current voting system in the UK is considered to be fair and accessible. Most people are happy with the current system, and changing it could potentially lower public engagement in the voting process. While it is true that the current system favours larger parties, and there is potential for this to create an unfair political system, this can be controlled through public engagement. If more people vote for smaller parties that share their views, then this would force larger parties to consider their policies more carefully. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, while the current voting system in the UK does seem to work well for the two big parties, it does not allow room for any smaller parties to gain a foothold in parliament, and this is a problem as they may offer better solutions for the country. While there are some issues with the way that other countries vote, such as the risk of extremist parties gaining a foothold in parliament, we should explore changing the system and see what new ideas can be found. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be some room for change in the voting system as the current system seems to be too static and people are getting the same options over and over again. While there is a risk of parties becoming too extreme, there is also an opportunity for niche interest parties to gain some traction. Conclusion: Even though there were some participants who were strongly for a change, and others who were strongly against it, by coming together and discussing the question, a consensus view was reached, which could not have been reached if the individuals did not have the chance to debate the question together. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the current voting system is outdated and has been shown to be unfair, changing the system could create significant problems, therefore we should not change the voting system in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the current voting system in the UK is considered to be fair and accessible. Most people are happy with the current system, and changing it could potentially lower public engagement in the voting process. While it is true that the current system favours larger parties, and there is potential for this to create an unfair political system, this can be controlled through public engagement. If more people vote for smaller parties that share their views, then this would force larger parties to consider their policies more carefully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, while the current voting system in the UK does seem to work well for the two big parties, it does not allow room for any smaller parties to gain a foothold in parliament, and this is a problem as they may offer better solutions for the country. While there are some issues with the way that other countries vote, such as the risk of extremist parties gaining a foothold in parliament, we should explore changing the system and see what new ideas can be found. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be some room for change in the voting system as the current system seems to be too static and people are getting the same options over and over again. While there is a risk of parties becoming too extreme, there is also an opportunity for niche interest parties to gain some traction. Conclusion: Even though there were some participants who were strongly for a change, and others who were strongly against it, by coming together and discussing the question, a consensus view was reached, which could not have been reached if the individuals did not have the chance to debate the question together. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the current voting system is outdated and has been shown to be unfair, changing the system could create significant problems, therefore we should not change the voting system in the UK. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000373.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000373.soc index 243a7bb3..95e2e1bc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000373.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000373.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh because of the potential risk it poses to the tourism and travel industries in the UK and because of the current cost of living crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh would improve the transport links between the north and the south of the UK. This could be a good use of public money and would lead to an increase in tourism and business trade between the two areas. However, in the current economic climate it is unclear whether this is a good use of money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of funding a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. The group felt that the investment would stimulate the economy and provide a new mode of transport that would benefit commuters, tourists, and businesses. However, the group expressed concern that this might be a luxury investment and should therefore not take priority over more important social needs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should fund a new high-speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. We think that it would be beneficial to the tourism of the country as well as bringing the north and south closer together. We believe that the funding could be used for a new rail link as well as a re-investment into infrastructure in the areas surrounding the route. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh because of the potential risk it poses to the tourism and travel industries in the UK and because of the current cost of living crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh would improve the transport links between the north and the south of the UK. This could be a good use of public money and would lead to an increase in tourism and business trade between the two areas. However, in the current economic climate it is unclear whether this is a good use of money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of funding a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. The group felt that the investment would stimulate the economy and provide a new mode of transport that would benefit commuters, tourists, and businesses. However, the group expressed concern that this might be a luxury investment and should therefore not take priority over more important social needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should fund a new high-speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. We think that it would be beneficial to the tourism of the country as well as bringing the north and south closer together. We believe that the funding could be used for a new rail link as well as a re-investment into infrastructure in the areas surrounding the route. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000374.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000374.soc index 29fa9575..b05a1249 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000374.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000374.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Selling organs is wrong for two main reasons. Firstly, there is the risk of disease. The people buying the organs are doing so to make themselves better and healthier. If the organs are bought from a donor who is sick, then the patient is going to suffer as a result. Secondly, if selling organs is allowed, then people will be taking advantage of those in poverty. If we allow it, then a system will be created whereby the rich can get better at the expense of the poor. It is exploitative and should not be allowed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Organ sales would devalue human life by allowing organs to be bought and sold like commodities. This may lead to many people in poorer countries being exploited by the rich and powerful.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is wrong to sell organs for transplant. It goes against all medical ethics. There are major health risks of passing on diseases. There is the potential for exploitation of people in desperate situations. Donating organs is a charitable act and should be maintained as such. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the selling of organs for transplant. There were some in the group that said that there were rare cases where it might be justified, but only where there was an adequate monitoring system in place. The consensus opinion of the group is that there is something special about the human body and it is not something that should be commercialised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Selling organs is wrong for two main reasons. Firstly, there is the risk of disease. The people buying the organs are doing so to make themselves better and healthier. If the organs are bought from a donor who is sick, then the patient is going to suffer as a result. Secondly, if selling organs is allowed, then people will be taking advantage of those in poverty. If we allow it, then a system will be created whereby the rich can get better at the expense of the poor. It is exploitative and should not be allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Organ sales would devalue human life by allowing organs to be bought and sold like commodities. This may lead to many people in poorer countries being exploited by the rich and powerful.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is wrong to sell organs for transplant. It goes against all medical ethics. There are major health risks of passing on diseases. There is the potential for exploitation of people in desperate situations. Donating organs is a charitable act and should be maintained as such. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the selling of organs for transplant. There were some in the group that said that there were rare cases where it might be justified, but only where there was an adequate monitoring system in place. The consensus opinion of the group is that there is something special about the human body and it is not something that should be commercialised. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000375.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000375.soc index e24c301e..a837e5cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000375.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000375.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be some contribution towards university education as it can increase the quality of education but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend and to allow people to contribute to their society more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we believe that all university education should be provided at no cost because some people who are academically gifted and from low income families may not be able to afford it. Some may not want to get into debt and therefore may not take an academic pathway post 18 because of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of free university education. The group felt that everyone should be entitled to a free education to be able to reach their full potential and not be hindered by money. However, the group felt that not everyone would want to go to university and if people do choose to go then they should contribute something towards the cost. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Some universities in the UK should be free but not all of them. If there was free university for all, then the more prestigious universities would still be expensive as there would be more demand to attend these universities and this would cause the prices to rise. Free university education would also attract people who may not be able to cope with the academic demands of university. This would lead to more people dropping out which would be a waste of both money and time. We also think that making university free would encourage people to choose an academic pathway when they may be better suited to an alternative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be some contribution towards university education as it can increase the quality of education but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend and to allow people to contribute to their society more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we believe that all university education should be provided at no cost because some people who are academically gifted and from low income families may not be able to afford it. Some may not want to get into debt and therefore may not take an academic pathway post 18 because of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of free university education. The group felt that everyone should be entitled to a free education to be able to reach their full potential and not be hindered by money. However, the group felt that not everyone would want to go to university and if people do choose to go then they should contribute something towards the cost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Some universities in the UK should be free but not all of them. If there was free university for all, then the more prestigious universities would still be expensive as there would be more demand to attend these universities and this would cause the prices to rise. Free university education would also attract people who may not be able to cope with the academic demands of university. This would lead to more people dropping out which would be a waste of both money and time. We also think that making university free would encourage people to choose an academic pathway when they may be better suited to an alternative. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000376.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000376.soc index a1295aac..67b8ac9f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000376.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000376.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Elected officials should have a term limit for their respected offices as this helps to put more pressure on them and also ensure the people are given another chance to elect another person if they are not contented with the present elected officials -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of term limits for elected officials makes a lot of sense and would create a more democratic society. This would be particularly beneficial in less democratic nations as this would allow for a greater turnover of government officials and would result in less corruption as power is less concentrated. However, it is also important to consider the situation in individual nations. In a developed democracy such as the UK, term limits would be less beneficial as this would remove some of the accountability that politicians currently face. A lack of term limits could lead to the possibility that more accountability and scrutiny is placed upon those in power and thus reduce corruption. In the current UK political climate, it may be better to introduce stricter laws on lobbying and better transparency to avoid the need for term limits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be term limits for elected officials as it can increase the quality of candidates and increase the competition for elections. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People in power do not need term limits, but their ideas and solutions to problems do need to keep evolving and developing. This is not necessarily something that term limits will help to achieve. The people of any given country will always be able to vote in someone new to take over if they wish. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Elected officials should have a term limit for their respected offices as this helps to put more pressure on them and also ensure the people are given another chance to elect another person if they are not contented with the present elected officials +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of term limits for elected officials makes a lot of sense and would create a more democratic society. This would be particularly beneficial in less democratic nations as this would allow for a greater turnover of government officials and would result in less corruption as power is less concentrated. However, it is also important to consider the situation in individual nations. In a developed democracy such as the UK, term limits would be less beneficial as this would remove some of the accountability that politicians currently face. A lack of term limits could lead to the possibility that more accountability and scrutiny is placed upon those in power and thus reduce corruption. In the current UK political climate, it may be better to introduce stricter laws on lobbying and better transparency to avoid the need for term limits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be term limits for elected officials as it can increase the quality of candidates and increase the competition for elections. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People in power do not need term limits, but their ideas and solutions to problems do need to keep evolving and developing. This is not necessarily something that term limits will help to achieve. The people of any given country will always be able to vote in someone new to take over if they wish. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000377.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000377.soc index 97a8999b..83de6afc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000377.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000377.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It should not be legal for under 18's to buy e-cigarettes because they are not proven to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes, and there are too many unknowns about their long term use. The debate demonstrated how a discussion can lead to a different view to that originally held by the participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the safety of e-cigarettes is not known and their use should be limited until their long-term effects are known. However, if a person is smoking tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes are known to be less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes and should be promoted. The issue is complicated and should be discussed in more detail. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should treat e-cigarettes as we do with tobacco and cigarettes and make it illegal for people under 18 to purchase them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We do not feel that e-cigarettes should be available to under 18s. We are aware of many e-cigarettes containing nicotine and that these have not been properly regulated. There is also no proof that they are safe and we do not know of the long term effects of e-cigarettes on health. Therefore we feel it is the duty of the government to protect young people from the potential harm that could be caused from e-cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It should not be legal for under 18's to buy e-cigarettes because they are not proven to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes, and there are too many unknowns about their long term use. The debate demonstrated how a discussion can lead to a different view to that originally held by the participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the safety of e-cigarettes is not known and their use should be limited until their long-term effects are known. However, if a person is smoking tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes are known to be less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes and should be promoted. The issue is complicated and should be discussed in more detail. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should treat e-cigarettes as we do with tobacco and cigarettes and make it illegal for people under 18 to purchase them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We do not feel that e-cigarettes should be available to under 18s. We are aware of many e-cigarettes containing nicotine and that these have not been properly regulated. There is also no proof that they are safe and we do not know of the long term effects of e-cigarettes on health. Therefore we feel it is the duty of the government to protect young people from the potential harm that could be caused from e-cigarettes. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000378.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000378.soc index a8e379e7..e4baa21e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000378.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000378.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They need to stop looking at ways to increase revenue and start looking at the future of the nation. There are simple steps the government can take to start tackling the issue. Firstly, it needs to make school meals healthy and compulsory. This would ensure that children at least get one healthy meal a day. Secondly, it needs to find a way to subsidise healthy foods and make it easier for parents to provide healthy meals at home. Finally, the government needs to invest in programmes that educate kids about healthy eating and physical exercise, and make this part of the school curriculum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They make a lot of statements on how they will tackle the issue, but they never back up their statements with any real measures that will make a difference. Taking into consideration the high obesity rates among kids and the long term costs to the NHS, the government should be tackling this issue more actively and effectively than they are now. Conclusion: The survey carried out was able to determine the level of public awareness of the issue of child obesity. The survey also assessed the public's attitude towards the subject and their opinions on the government's role in tackling the issue. Based on the results, the research concludes that there is a high level of public awareness on the issue of child obesity, with a large proportion of the sample population rating the issue as very important. The research concludes that there is also a large level of public support for tackling the issue of child obesity. Based on the results, the research concludes that there is an almost even divide between the participants who believe that the government is not doing enough to tackle child obesity and the participants who think the government is doing enough. The research concludes that based on the results, the government is failing to adequately tackle child obesity -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government is failing to tackle the problem of child obesity, and although it has introduced some measures, they are not as far reaching as they need to be. It is only taking baby steps and the impact is not being felt by the nation. The government is in danger of taking the issue too lightly, and should consider implementing some more robust policies such as a universal school meal scheme for all pupils at all schools, not just for primary school pupils. This would also help with tackling the problem of childhood hunger and malnutrition. The government should also be considering making it mandatory for employers to provide healthy meals at work. This will lead to a reduction in employees eating out at fast food outlets, and instead will be encouraged to make healthier choices, as they will be provided with healthier foods at work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government is failing to tackle child obesity, by not taking enough decisive action. The issue of child obesity is so serious that the government must take responsibility and impose measures on the food industry to stop pushing unhealthy food, especially on kids. They need to get the kids exercising at school and stop the unhealthy foods from being sold at school. This will also save the country money long term in medical costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They need to stop looking at ways to increase revenue and start looking at the future of the nation. There are simple steps the government can take to start tackling the issue. Firstly, it needs to make school meals healthy and compulsory. This would ensure that children at least get one healthy meal a day. Secondly, it needs to find a way to subsidise healthy foods and make it easier for parents to provide healthy meals at home. Finally, the government needs to invest in programmes that educate kids about healthy eating and physical exercise, and make this part of the school curriculum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They make a lot of statements on how they will tackle the issue, but they never back up their statements with any real measures that will make a difference. Taking into consideration the high obesity rates among kids and the long term costs to the NHS, the government should be tackling this issue more actively and effectively than they are now. Conclusion: The survey carried out was able to determine the level of public awareness of the issue of child obesity. The survey also assessed the public's attitude towards the subject and their opinions on the government's role in tackling the issue. Based on the results, the research concludes that there is a high level of public awareness on the issue of child obesity, with a large proportion of the sample population rating the issue as very important. The research concludes that there is also a large level of public support for tackling the issue of child obesity. Based on the results, the research concludes that there is an almost even divide between the participants who believe that the government is not doing enough to tackle child obesity and the participants who think the government is doing enough. The research concludes that based on the results, the government is failing to adequately tackle child obesity +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government is failing to tackle the problem of child obesity, and although it has introduced some measures, they are not as far reaching as they need to be. It is only taking baby steps and the impact is not being felt by the nation. The government is in danger of taking the issue too lightly, and should consider implementing some more robust policies such as a universal school meal scheme for all pupils at all schools, not just for primary school pupils. This would also help with tackling the problem of childhood hunger and malnutrition. The government should also be considering making it mandatory for employers to provide healthy meals at work. This will lead to a reduction in employees eating out at fast food outlets, and instead will be encouraged to make healthier choices, as they will be provided with healthier foods at work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity, by not taking enough decisive action. The issue of child obesity is so serious that the government must take responsibility and impose measures on the food industry to stop pushing unhealthy food, especially on kids. They need to get the kids exercising at school and stop the unhealthy foods from being sold at school. This will also save the country money long term in medical costs. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000379.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000379.soc index 2122796d..daa9e8b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000379.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000379.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not take a share of a large lottery win. I believe the idea of the lottery was to give to good causes and the winnings are an incentive for people to play. If the government takes money from the win i believe it would put people off playing. Good causes would then suffer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the government should not take a share of a lottery win. We believe that it is the incentive for people to play the lottery and to provide a good cause with money. We believe that if the government did take a share of a lottery win then people would not be as inclined to play and the charities would suffer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not take a share of a large lottery win. If they do take money from the winnings, it should be used for good causes and/or invested into communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the government taking a share of a large lottery win. In all cases, there was an expressed feeling that the tax paid by the lottery winner should be used for the benefit of the people. The consensus opinion was that the government should not take a share of a large lottery win, but that the winner should be taxed for a contribution towards good causes. The group was opposed to the idea of any tax being used to benefit the government. There was a feeling that it was not right that the government should take anything more than tax to benefit good causes. There was general agreement that the lottery is a good thing and it was felt that taxing a large lottery win would put people off from playing. The final consensus view was that the government should not take a share of a large lottery win, but that the winner should be taxed for a contribution towards good causes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not take a share of a large lottery win. I believe the idea of the lottery was to give to good causes and the winnings are an incentive for people to play. If the government takes money from the win i believe it would put people off playing. Good causes would then suffer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the government should not take a share of a lottery win. We believe that it is the incentive for people to play the lottery and to provide a good cause with money. We believe that if the government did take a share of a lottery win then people would not be as inclined to play and the charities would suffer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not take a share of a large lottery win. If they do take money from the winnings, it should be used for good causes and/or invested into communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the government taking a share of a large lottery win. In all cases, there was an expressed feeling that the tax paid by the lottery winner should be used for the benefit of the people. The consensus opinion was that the government should not take a share of a large lottery win, but that the winner should be taxed for a contribution towards good causes. The group was opposed to the idea of any tax being used to benefit the government. There was a feeling that it was not right that the government should take anything more than tax to benefit good causes. There was general agreement that the lottery is a good thing and it was felt that taxing a large lottery win would put people off from playing. The final consensus view was that the government should not take a share of a large lottery win, but that the winner should be taxed for a contribution towards good causes. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000380.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000380.soc index 555e9cca..80aace62 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000380.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000380.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not build new nuclear power plants. It is very likely that nuclear power plants are a more efficient and cheaper source of electricity. It is also true that they produce lower emissions of CO2 compared to coal and fossil fuels. However, they do have some severe downsides such as: the risk of meltdowns; cost of building and maintaining the plants; and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste. There are also ethical issues surrounding nuclear power - we should not be using it at the expense of our future generations and the use of nuclear power raises an issue of equity - should poorer countries be able to afford nuclear power plants? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not build new nuclear power plants. The positives of nuclear power (more efficient, cheaper, reduced CO2 emissions) must be weighed up against the negatives (risk of meltdowns, cost of building, disposal of nuclear waste). There are other alternatives such as wind and solar energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not build new nuclear power plants. It is very likely that nuclear power plants are a more efficient and cheaper source of electricity. It is also true that they produce lower emissions of CO2 compared to coal and fossil fuels. However, they do have some severe downsides such as: the risk of meltdowns; cost of building and maintaining the plants; and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste. There are also ethical issues surrounding nuclear power - we should not be using it at the expense of our future generations and the use of nuclear power raises an issue of equity - should poorer countries be able to afford nuclear power plants? In addition, it has been noted that other forms of energy, such as wind and solar power, may be better options for the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong argument for building new nuclear power plants as they are very likely a more efficient and cheaper source of electricity. However, the risks of meltdowns; the cost of building and maintaining the plants; and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste are all very serious concerns. Furthermore, if poorer countries were to start building nuclear power plants - this could cause an environmental catastrophe due to the lower safety standards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not build new nuclear power plants. It is very likely that nuclear power plants are a more efficient and cheaper source of electricity. It is also true that they produce lower emissions of CO2 compared to coal and fossil fuels. However, they do have some severe downsides such as: the risk of meltdowns; cost of building and maintaining the plants; and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste. There are also ethical issues surrounding nuclear power - we should not be using it at the expense of our future generations and the use of nuclear power raises an issue of equity - should poorer countries be able to afford nuclear power plants? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not build new nuclear power plants. The positives of nuclear power (more efficient, cheaper, reduced CO2 emissions) must be weighed up against the negatives (risk of meltdowns, cost of building, disposal of nuclear waste). There are other alternatives such as wind and solar energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not build new nuclear power plants. It is very likely that nuclear power plants are a more efficient and cheaper source of electricity. It is also true that they produce lower emissions of CO2 compared to coal and fossil fuels. However, they do have some severe downsides such as: the risk of meltdowns; cost of building and maintaining the plants; and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste. There are also ethical issues surrounding nuclear power - we should not be using it at the expense of our future generations and the use of nuclear power raises an issue of equity - should poorer countries be able to afford nuclear power plants? In addition, it has been noted that other forms of energy, such as wind and solar power, may be better options for the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong argument for building new nuclear power plants as they are very likely a more efficient and cheaper source of electricity. However, the risks of meltdowns; the cost of building and maintaining the plants; and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste are all very serious concerns. Furthermore, if poorer countries were to start building nuclear power plants - this could cause an environmental catastrophe due to the lower safety standards. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000381.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000381.soc index f28bac66..b0f4fb2a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000381.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000381.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to be deeply concerned about its impact. We will all feel its effects in the near future, and some people are already suffering, so we need to act now. It is caused mostly by human activity, so we need to limit our emissions. We can also tackle the effects of climate change through adapting to its effects and through new technologies. We need to work together to address climate change because the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to be deeply concerned about its impact. We will all feel its effects in the near future, and some people are already suffering, so we need to act now. It is caused mostly by human activity, so we need to limit our emissions. We can also tackle the effects of climate change through new technologies. We need to work together to address climate change because the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to be deeply concerned about its impact. It is caused mostly by human activity, so we need to limit our emissions. We can also tackle the effects of climate change through new technologies. We need to work together to address climate change because the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity. It is mostly caused by human activity, and we will all feel its effects in the near future. We need to work together to address climate change because the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to be deeply concerned about its impact. We will all feel its effects in the near future, and some people are already suffering, so we need to act now. It is caused mostly by human activity, so we need to limit our emissions. We can also tackle the effects of climate change through adapting to its effects and through new technologies. We need to work together to address climate change because the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to be deeply concerned about its impact. We will all feel its effects in the near future, and some people are already suffering, so we need to act now. It is caused mostly by human activity, so we need to limit our emissions. We can also tackle the effects of climate change through new technologies. We need to work together to address climate change because the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to be deeply concerned about its impact. It is caused mostly by human activity, so we need to limit our emissions. We can also tackle the effects of climate change through new technologies. We need to work together to address climate change because the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity. It is mostly caused by human activity, and we will all feel its effects in the near future. We need to work together to address climate change because the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000382.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000382.soc index c2e9645e..6f53fda6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000382.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000382.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster with a television licence fee model to fund it. The television licence should be reduced and made more affordable for all. There should also be an opt out for people who do not watch BBC channels. The participants were all in agreement that the BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster, but there were mixed views on whether the television licence fee model should be continued. One participant suggested that it would be a good idea to also have an opt out of the television licence for people who do not watch BBC channels. The participants debated this suggestion and although there were mixed views, there was general consensus that this could be a solution that was fair to everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster with a television licence fee model to fund it. The television licence should be reduced and made more affordable for all. The BBC should be independent from political influence, however there is reason to be concerned about political bias in the BBC, particularly during political coverage and that this is influenced by the Government, either through direct influence or by virtue of the fact that the Government funds the BBC. The BBC should be impartial and fair, which could be more difficult if it were to have any income from advertisers. If there is any political influence, this should be reduced to zero. A universal service charge should replace the TV licence to provide service for more residents and fund other public services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster. However, the television licence fee model should be reformed to reduce the cost and be made more affordable for all. It is also recommended that some of the income from the licence fee be made available for other public services. Final Note: The issue of political bias in the BBC was discussed at length but it was not possible to agree on any particular recommendations to reduce this bias. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster, but there should be a review of the current funding model and how this can be made more affordable. The BBC should be allowed to have some income from commercial advertising, but there should be restrictions to protect the BBC’s impartiality and it should be monitored closely. The licence fee should be retained, but should be reduced to a minimum level that can be afforded by everyone. There should be an alternative means of paying the licence fee that does not involve paying up front, such as payment by direct debit or a universal service charge. The BBC should be accountable to the public, and there should be a clearer process to ensure that people can complain about programmes that they feel are biased and can have their complaints addressed and the programme amended if necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster with a television licence fee model to fund it. The television licence should be reduced and made more affordable for all. There should also be an opt out for people who do not watch BBC channels. The participants were all in agreement that the BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster, but there were mixed views on whether the television licence fee model should be continued. One participant suggested that it would be a good idea to also have an opt out of the television licence for people who do not watch BBC channels. The participants debated this suggestion and although there were mixed views, there was general consensus that this could be a solution that was fair to everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster with a television licence fee model to fund it. The television licence should be reduced and made more affordable for all. The BBC should be independent from political influence, however there is reason to be concerned about political bias in the BBC, particularly during political coverage and that this is influenced by the Government, either through direct influence or by virtue of the fact that the Government funds the BBC. The BBC should be impartial and fair, which could be more difficult if it were to have any income from advertisers. If there is any political influence, this should be reduced to zero. A universal service charge should replace the TV licence to provide service for more residents and fund other public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster. However, the television licence fee model should be reformed to reduce the cost and be made more affordable for all. It is also recommended that some of the income from the licence fee be made available for other public services. Final Note: The issue of political bias in the BBC was discussed at length but it was not possible to agree on any particular recommendations to reduce this bias. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should continue to be a public service broadcaster, but there should be a review of the current funding model and how this can be made more affordable. The BBC should be allowed to have some income from commercial advertising, but there should be restrictions to protect the BBC’s impartiality and it should be monitored closely. The licence fee should be retained, but should be reduced to a minimum level that can be afforded by everyone. There should be an alternative means of paying the licence fee that does not involve paying up front, such as payment by direct debit or a universal service charge. The BBC should be accountable to the public, and there should be a clearer process to ensure that people can complain about programmes that they feel are biased and can have their complaints addressed and the programme amended if necessary. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000383.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000383.soc index 4075c8fd..f1842e18 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000383.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000383.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some of the disadvantages include the cost, time it takes to build and lack of need for a bridge. The group did concede that the Irish sea is a barrier and therefore a bridge would help with connecting Ireland and Great Britain, but overall, the cons of a bridge outweigh the pros. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The majority of participants did not agree with the building of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, citing disadvantages such as the time and cost it would take to build the bridge and that the ferry service would be sufficient. However, some participants conceded that a bridge would be better at connecting the two islands. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Overall, the group was opposed to the idea of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The cons of building the bridge would outweigh the benefits. Although the Irish sea is a barrier and the bridge would help with connecting Ireland and Great Britain, the bridge would be too costly to build. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group, in general, was opposed to the idea of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some of the disadvantages include the cost, time it takes to build and lack of need for a bridge. However, the group conceded that the Irish sea is a barrier and therefore a bridge would help with connecting Ireland and Great Britain, but overall, the cons of a bridge outweigh the pros. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some of the disadvantages include the cost, time it takes to build and lack of need for a bridge. The group did concede that the Irish sea is a barrier and therefore a bridge would help with connecting Ireland and Great Britain, but overall, the cons of a bridge outweigh the pros. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The majority of participants did not agree with the building of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, citing disadvantages such as the time and cost it would take to build the bridge and that the ferry service would be sufficient. However, some participants conceded that a bridge would be better at connecting the two islands. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Overall, the group was opposed to the idea of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The cons of building the bridge would outweigh the benefits. Although the Irish sea is a barrier and the bridge would help with connecting Ireland and Great Britain, the bridge would be too costly to build. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group, in general, was opposed to the idea of a bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some of the disadvantages include the cost, time it takes to build and lack of need for a bridge. However, the group conceded that the Irish sea is a barrier and therefore a bridge would help with connecting Ireland and Great Britain, but overall, the cons of a bridge outweigh the pros. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000384.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000384.soc index d026bff2..7147472d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000384.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000384.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. Although there are positives of the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs, including that it may reduce crime and addictions may be reduced because people would be assured what they are buying is OK and the government could tax the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs, it would incentivise more people to use drugs which may increase addictions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the government should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. As one participant stated, the current criminalisation of drugs causes many problems both socially and economically, which could be overcome by legalising the sale of drugs. The UK already has a well established support network for those who are struggling with drugs. It would have a positive impact if this money was redirected to encouraging safe recreational drug use, and funding other areas such as the NHS. It would also lead to less crime, as there would be less drug related violence. However, it is important that there are quality controls on the sale of drugs and it is important to regulate this, as with other products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs because it would incentivise more people to use drugs and may increase addictions. This may mean more hospital admissions for an NHS that is already operating near its limits. I disagree with this consensus view, because it would reduce crime, increase tax revenue and allow drug users to access a safe product. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. It would lower crime rates as it would reduce the criminalisation of the use of recreational drugs. Also the criminalisation of drugs is often a reason people turn to crime. The proceeds from taxing the sale of drugs could be put into support systems to help people who become addicted to drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. Although there are positives of the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs, including that it may reduce crime and addictions may be reduced because people would be assured what they are buying is OK and the government could tax the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs, it would incentivise more people to use drugs which may increase addictions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the government should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. As one participant stated, the current criminalisation of drugs causes many problems both socially and economically, which could be overcome by legalising the sale of drugs. The UK already has a well established support network for those who are struggling with drugs. It would have a positive impact if this money was redirected to encouraging safe recreational drug use, and funding other areas such as the NHS. It would also lead to less crime, as there would be less drug related violence. However, it is important that there are quality controls on the sale of drugs and it is important to regulate this, as with other products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs because it would incentivise more people to use drugs and may increase addictions. This may mean more hospital admissions for an NHS that is already operating near its limits. I disagree with this consensus view, because it would reduce crime, increase tax revenue and allow drug users to access a safe product. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. It would lower crime rates as it would reduce the criminalisation of the use of recreational drugs. Also the criminalisation of drugs is often a reason people turn to crime. The proceeds from taxing the sale of drugs could be put into support systems to help people who become addicted to drugs. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000385.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000385.soc index 09ed796a..527cef96 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000385.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000385.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, the government should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. The current criminalisation of drugs causes many problems both socially and economically. The UK already has a well established support network for those who are struggling with drugs. It would have a positive impact if this money was redirected to encouraging safe recreational drug use, and funding other areas such as the NHS. It would also lead to less crime, as there would be less drug related violence. However, it is important that there are quality controls on the sale of drugs and it is important to regulate this, as with other products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK already has a well established support network for those who are struggling with drugs. We should instead encourage safe recreational drug use, and put the money we spend on policing drugs, into building support systems for those who are predicated to be addicted to drugs, or who are struggling for whatever other reason. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the government should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. We agree that it would reduce the criminalisation of drugs and make the streets safer, but it is important that quality controls are put in place. It is also important to state that any money from the sale of drugs should be redirected to the support networks for those addicted to drugs. Conclusion Using this consensus building technique, a group of people were able to reach a clear, well thought out consensus on the question posed. They were able to debate the various pros and cons of their differing opinions, and this led to a clearer understanding of the topic as a whole. In fact, at the end of the discussion, all of the participants agreed that the final consensus statement reached was the most appropriate and reflected all of their opinions. It is important to note that in reaching a consensus, the people involved were not forced to change their original opinions, but instead the draft consensus statement was tweaked to ensure that all opinions were accurately represented. Overall, this method of reaching a consensus, through communication and collaboration, can be very effective. It leads to a much better understanding of the issues, and a well thought out consensus statement, which can be put into -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the government should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. This will reduce crime, and the money currently spent on policing drugs could be put into helping those with drug addictions and other mental health issues. It would be important to regulate the sale of drugs and enforce quality control, as the current illegal market does not offer this assurance. This would reduce the amount of dangerous drugs on the market and reduce the health problems caused by dangerous drugs. This would also stop young people getting involved in criminal activity through county lines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, the government should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. The current criminalisation of drugs causes many problems both socially and economically. The UK already has a well established support network for those who are struggling with drugs. It would have a positive impact if this money was redirected to encouraging safe recreational drug use, and funding other areas such as the NHS. It would also lead to less crime, as there would be less drug related violence. However, it is important that there are quality controls on the sale of drugs and it is important to regulate this, as with other products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK already has a well established support network for those who are struggling with drugs. We should instead encourage safe recreational drug use, and put the money we spend on policing drugs, into building support systems for those who are predicated to be addicted to drugs, or who are struggling for whatever other reason. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the government should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. We agree that it would reduce the criminalisation of drugs and make the streets safer, but it is important that quality controls are put in place. It is also important to state that any money from the sale of drugs should be redirected to the support networks for those addicted to drugs. Conclusion Using this consensus building technique, a group of people were able to reach a clear, well thought out consensus on the question posed. They were able to debate the various pros and cons of their differing opinions, and this led to a clearer understanding of the topic as a whole. In fact, at the end of the discussion, all of the participants agreed that the final consensus statement reached was the most appropriate and reflected all of their opinions. It is important to note that in reaching a consensus, the people involved were not forced to change their original opinions, but instead the draft consensus statement was tweaked to ensure that all opinions were accurately represented. Overall, this method of reaching a consensus, through communication and collaboration, can be very effective. It leads to a much better understanding of the issues, and a well thought out consensus statement, which can be put into +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the government should allow the sale of non-medicinal recreational drugs. This will reduce crime, and the money currently spent on policing drugs could be put into helping those with drug addictions and other mental health issues. It would be important to regulate the sale of drugs and enforce quality control, as the current illegal market does not offer this assurance. This would reduce the amount of dangerous drugs on the market and reduce the health problems caused by dangerous drugs. This would also stop young people getting involved in criminal activity through county lines. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000386.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000386.soc index 9a6294ad..5ef3d999 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000386.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000386.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Trade is a good thing for the world, and generally trade barriers should be avoided. Trade is something that can benefit all parties and allow for all economies to grow and become stronger. On the other hand, we can't completely ignore the negative effects that global trade can have on a nation's economy, so we must be willing to provide support to local industries in times of need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Free trade is generally a good thing for the world. It's important to avoid being too protectionist and keeping to oneself, as this will only lead to countries getting left behind in the race for economic prosperity. At the same time, we must also be mindful of the effects that free trade can have on local industries and provide support to those who need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Trade is a good thing for the world, and generally trade barriers should be avoided. Trade is something that can benefit all parties and allow for all economies to grow and become stronger. On the other hand, we can't completely ignore the negative effects that global trade can have on a nation's economy, and so we must be willing to provide support to local industries in times of need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Trade is a good thing for the world, and generally trade barriers should be avoided. Trade is something that can benefit all parties and allow for all economies to grow and become stronger. On the other hand, we can't completely ignore the negative effects that global trade can have on a nation's economy, so we must be willing to provide support to local industries in times of need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Trade is a good thing for the world, and generally trade barriers should be avoided. Trade is something that can benefit all parties and allow for all economies to grow and become stronger. On the other hand, we can't completely ignore the negative effects that global trade can have on a nation's economy, so we must be willing to provide support to local industries in times of need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Free trade is generally a good thing for the world. It's important to avoid being too protectionist and keeping to oneself, as this will only lead to countries getting left behind in the race for economic prosperity. At the same time, we must also be mindful of the effects that free trade can have on local industries and provide support to those who need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Trade is a good thing for the world, and generally trade barriers should be avoided. Trade is something that can benefit all parties and allow for all economies to grow and become stronger. On the other hand, we can't completely ignore the negative effects that global trade can have on a nation's economy, and so we must be willing to provide support to local industries in times of need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Trade is a good thing for the world, and generally trade barriers should be avoided. Trade is something that can benefit all parties and allow for all economies to grow and become stronger. On the other hand, we can't completely ignore the negative effects that global trade can have on a nation's economy, so we must be willing to provide support to local industries in times of need. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000387.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000387.soc index faf4b8d6..df74df60 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000387.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000387.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the current voting system in the UK is considered to be fair and accessible. Most people are happy with the current system, and changing it could potentially lower public engagement in the voting process. While it is true that the current system favours larger parties, and there is potential for this to create an unfair political system, this can be controlled through public engagement. If more people vote for smaller parties that share their views, then this would force larger parties to consider their policies more carefully. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The current voting system in the UK is largely considered to be fair and accessible. However, there is a risk that smaller parties are excluded by the current voting system. This is a significant risk to the UK's democratic system, as a healthy democracy depends on the ability of a wide range of political views to be represented. The above statement was then critiqued by another group of participants. This is presented below. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the current voting system in the UK is considered to be fair and accessible. Most people are happy with the current system, and changing it could potentially lower public engagement in the voting process. While it is true that the current system favours larger parties, and there is potential for this to create an unfair political system, this can be controlled through public engagement. If more people vote for smaller parties that share their views, then this would force larger parties to consider their policies more carefully. In summary, although it is true that the current system is not always entirely fair, it is also true that this is under the control of the public - who can make the system more fair through more active engagement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The current voting system in the UK is not fair or accessible, and although it favours larger parties, changing it could potentially lower public engagement in the voting process. Smaller parties should have a stronger presence in the media, and the public should be better educated about all of the options available to them. If these things are improved, then the political system would be forced to be more representative of the population, regardless of the voting system used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the current voting system in the UK is considered to be fair and accessible. Most people are happy with the current system, and changing it could potentially lower public engagement in the voting process. While it is true that the current system favours larger parties, and there is potential for this to create an unfair political system, this can be controlled through public engagement. If more people vote for smaller parties that share their views, then this would force larger parties to consider their policies more carefully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The current voting system in the UK is largely considered to be fair and accessible. However, there is a risk that smaller parties are excluded by the current voting system. This is a significant risk to the UK's democratic system, as a healthy democracy depends on the ability of a wide range of political views to be represented. The above statement was then critiqued by another group of participants. This is presented below. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the current voting system in the UK is considered to be fair and accessible. Most people are happy with the current system, and changing it could potentially lower public engagement in the voting process. While it is true that the current system favours larger parties, and there is potential for this to create an unfair political system, this can be controlled through public engagement. If more people vote for smaller parties that share their views, then this would force larger parties to consider their policies more carefully. In summary, although it is true that the current system is not always entirely fair, it is also true that this is under the control of the public - who can make the system more fair through more active engagement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The current voting system in the UK is not fair or accessible, and although it favours larger parties, changing it could potentially lower public engagement in the voting process. Smaller parties should have a stronger presence in the media, and the public should be better educated about all of the options available to them. If these things are improved, then the political system would be forced to be more representative of the population, regardless of the voting system used. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000388.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000388.soc index 94ca785f..7f244199 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000388.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000388.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be some contribution towards university education as it can increase the quality of education but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be some contribution towards university education as it can increase the quality of education but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend and to allow people to contribute to their society more. Final Note: Overall, we all agree that university education should not be free for everyone, but also agree that it should be more accessible for students from all backgrounds and therefore there should be some contribution from the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: University education should not be completely free as it will mean that there will be less money for other, more important things such as healthcare and pensioners. There should be some contribution towards university education to increase the quality of education, but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend and to allow people to contribute to their society more. This essay can be summed up in the words of L. P. Jacks, "the most important attribute of a teacher is a masterly inactivity" (Quoted in McPherson, 1998, p.4). The lessons I have learnt through these activities will definitely help me to be a better teacher. My ability to analyse the information given and come to a conclusion on my own is a skill that I will use in my role as a teacher, especially when deciding what resources to use and what techniques to use to explain a concept. I will also use my ability to analyse information to design my teaching strategies and also to determine how to allocate time to the different concepts that I am teaching. Finally, the skill of understanding, considering and analysing other people's points of view is important in -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some contribution towards university education as it can increase the quality of education but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend and to allow people to contribute to their society more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be some contribution towards university education as it can increase the quality of education but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be some contribution towards university education as it can increase the quality of education but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend and to allow people to contribute to their society more. Final Note: Overall, we all agree that university education should not be free for everyone, but also agree that it should be more accessible for students from all backgrounds and therefore there should be some contribution from the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - University education should not be completely free as it will mean that there will be less money for other, more important things such as healthcare and pensioners. There should be some contribution towards university education to increase the quality of education, but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend and to allow people to contribute to their society more. This essay can be summed up in the words of L. P. Jacks, "the most important attribute of a teacher is a masterly inactivity" (Quoted in McPherson, 1998, p.4). The lessons I have learnt through these activities will definitely help me to be a better teacher. My ability to analyse the information given and come to a conclusion on my own is a skill that I will use in my role as a teacher, especially when deciding what resources to use and what techniques to use to explain a concept. I will also use my ability to analyse information to design my teaching strategies and also to determine how to allocate time to the different concepts that I am teaching. Finally, the skill of understanding, considering and analysing other people's points of view is important in +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some contribution towards university education as it can increase the quality of education but it should not be high. In the future, the government should look into lowering the cost of university education to allow more people to attend and to allow people to contribute to their society more. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000389.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000389.soc index 37cb1891..13a06055 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000389.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000389.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that the benefits system should be more comprehensive, and that the tax system should be revised in order to fund it. There are currently a large number of anomalies in the benefit system, and I believe that increasing taxes would allow the benefits system to be reformed, and provide help to those who need it.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should reform the benefits system in this country. A fairer and more comprehensive system is one that will help to secure the future of the most vulnerable people in society, and will ensure that they can access the support that they need. The cost of this new benefits system would be a lot to manage and so it would be necessary to increase taxes for the very wealthy, those earning over £150,000 per year, to help pay for it. This would be the best means to secure the long-term future of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, the tax system should be revised. Higher earners should pay more and taxes for corporations should be increased. This would be used to increase benefits for the least well off in society. This would reduce the gap between the highest and lowest earners, which is currently increasing, and help to create a more equal society, in which those most in need are not hit by vicious cuts to benefits and services.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a more comprehensive benefits system should be put in place. This would help alleviate the stress that many people face when in need of welfare support and would make sure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Increasing taxes on the rich would also help fund the additional welfare and would be a way of redistributing wealth more evenly in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that the benefits system should be more comprehensive, and that the tax system should be revised in order to fund it. There are currently a large number of anomalies in the benefit system, and I believe that increasing taxes would allow the benefits system to be reformed, and provide help to those who need it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should reform the benefits system in this country. A fairer and more comprehensive system is one that will help to secure the future of the most vulnerable people in society, and will ensure that they can access the support that they need. The cost of this new benefits system would be a lot to manage and so it would be necessary to increase taxes for the very wealthy, those earning over £150,000 per year, to help pay for it. This would be the best means to secure the long-term future of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, the tax system should be revised. Higher earners should pay more and taxes for corporations should be increased. This would be used to increase benefits for the least well off in society. This would reduce the gap between the highest and lowest earners, which is currently increasing, and help to create a more equal society, in which those most in need are not hit by vicious cuts to benefits and services.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a more comprehensive benefits system should be put in place. This would help alleviate the stress that many people face when in need of welfare support and would make sure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Increasing taxes on the rich would also help fund the additional welfare and would be a way of redistributing wealth more evenly in society. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000390.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000390.soc index 82d59886..066441e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000390.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000390.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Parents should have the right to choose their children’s school, however a balanced system should be in place so that each school has a fair amount of students. This could be achieved by having a set of “tie-breakers” in place which gives preference to certain groups (e.g. siblings, disadvantaged families, disadvantaged areas). Parents should also have the right to withdraw their child from a school if the situation warrants it. This should be closely monitored and there should be a process in place for the child to return to school at a later stage.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Parental rights should be exercised with care. The well-being of the child should be the ultimate goal, and parents should be careful to ensure that any decisions they make are in their child's best interests. Parental rights should be balanced with the child’s right to education. The child's interests are paramount. A consensus view: Parental rights should be exercised with care. The well-being of the child should be the ultimate goal, and parents should be careful to ensure that any decisions they make are in their child's best interests. Parental rights should be balanced with the child’s right to education. The child's interests are paramount. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Parents should have the right to choose their children’s schools, but this should be limited. Parents should be given the right to choose the best schools that are suited to their child’s interests and their own interests. However, there are some schools which have a bad reputation, and parents should not have the right to send their children there. Schools should also be within reasonable distance. Parents should not be allowed to choose a school that is situated a long way away from their home and thus causes inconvenience for their child. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, parents should have the right to choose the school their children attend. This is in the best interests of the child and will allow them to flourish. In order to accommodate this right, every school should have an equal range of facilities and resources so that parents are not forced to make a choice based on necessity. However, this right should not be completely absolute. If a school is over-subscribed, then children should be allocated a school via a lottery system. If a school has a poor academic record, then parents should not be able to opt out of it - their child should attend the local school. This will ensure that children are given a fair chance to learn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Parents should have the right to choose their children’s school, however a balanced system should be in place so that each school has a fair amount of students. This could be achieved by having a set of “tie-breakers” in place which gives preference to certain groups (e.g. siblings, disadvantaged families, disadvantaged areas). Parents should also have the right to withdraw their child from a school if the situation warrants it. This should be closely monitored and there should be a process in place for the child to return to school at a later stage.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Parental rights should be exercised with care. The well-being of the child should be the ultimate goal, and parents should be careful to ensure that any decisions they make are in their child's best interests. Parental rights should be balanced with the child’s right to education. The child's interests are paramount. A consensus view: Parental rights should be exercised with care. The well-being of the child should be the ultimate goal, and parents should be careful to ensure that any decisions they make are in their child's best interests. Parental rights should be balanced with the child’s right to education. The child's interests are paramount. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Parents should have the right to choose their children’s schools, but this should be limited. Parents should be given the right to choose the best schools that are suited to their child’s interests and their own interests. However, there are some schools which have a bad reputation, and parents should not have the right to send their children there. Schools should also be within reasonable distance. Parents should not be allowed to choose a school that is situated a long way away from their home and thus causes inconvenience for their child. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, parents should have the right to choose the school their children attend. This is in the best interests of the child and will allow them to flourish. In order to accommodate this right, every school should have an equal range of facilities and resources so that parents are not forced to make a choice based on necessity. However, this right should not be completely absolute. If a school is over-subscribed, then children should be allocated a school via a lottery system. If a school has a poor academic record, then parents should not be able to opt out of it - their child should attend the local school. This will ensure that children are given a fair chance to learn. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000391.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000391.soc index 607a0402..7d83a1b1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000391.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000391.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum age for buying cigarettes should be raised from 18 to 21 to reduce the number of people smoking in society. This will also lead to less revenue generated from cigarette sales which can be used to fund public services such as the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The minimum age should be raised from 18 to 21, not because under 21s aren't adults but because the more barriers there are in the way of young people being able to get cigarettes the more likely it is that they will grow out of the habit. The negatives will come from a reduced tax revenue on cigarettes, but hopefully this will be offset by fewer people using the NHS in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the raising of the age limit from 18 to 21 will not lead to a reduction in smoking habits. Young people can be influenced by many different factors in their teenage years which can lead to them developing smoking habits. Those under the age of 18 may find ways to buy cigarettes. Raising the age will only lead to less revenue from tax on cigarette sales. A much better way to reduce the prevalence of smoking among young people would be to educate young people on the dangers of smoking, as well as raise the price of cigarettes to make them much less affordable for young people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, yes the age should be raised, however, in practice, we do not think it will have a significant impact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum age for buying cigarettes should be raised from 18 to 21 to reduce the number of people smoking in society. This will also lead to less revenue generated from cigarette sales which can be used to fund public services such as the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The minimum age should be raised from 18 to 21, not because under 21s aren't adults but because the more barriers there are in the way of young people being able to get cigarettes the more likely it is that they will grow out of the habit. The negatives will come from a reduced tax revenue on cigarettes, but hopefully this will be offset by fewer people using the NHS in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the raising of the age limit from 18 to 21 will not lead to a reduction in smoking habits. Young people can be influenced by many different factors in their teenage years which can lead to them developing smoking habits. Those under the age of 18 may find ways to buy cigarettes. Raising the age will only lead to less revenue from tax on cigarette sales. A much better way to reduce the prevalence of smoking among young people would be to educate young people on the dangers of smoking, as well as raise the price of cigarettes to make them much less affordable for young people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, yes the age should be raised, however, in practice, we do not think it will have a significant impact. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000392.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000392.soc index 4a6991c9..6a777954 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000392.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000392.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “National service is the worst form of conscription.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National service should not be enforced by the government. Forcing people to take part in a national service will breed resentment among the population. Everyone should have a choice to make their own life decisions and the government should not interfere. National service can help to promote a sense of national unity, but it will not be as effective if the service is compulsory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are valid arguments for and against compulsory national service, we do not believe that national service should be made compulsory, as this would limit freedom of choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to national service being compulsory. The group felt that people should be free to choose what they do with their time and that if a person is truly dedicated to serving their country, they would do so of their own free will. However, the group did feel that some people may not have the luxury of choice due to economic constraints. As a result, the group proposed that the government should provide funding for individuals to participate in their chosen national service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “National service is the worst form of conscription.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National service should not be enforced by the government. Forcing people to take part in a national service will breed resentment among the population. Everyone should have a choice to make their own life decisions and the government should not interfere. National service can help to promote a sense of national unity, but it will not be as effective if the service is compulsory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are valid arguments for and against compulsory national service, we do not believe that national service should be made compulsory, as this would limit freedom of choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to national service being compulsory. The group felt that people should be free to choose what they do with their time and that if a person is truly dedicated to serving their country, they would do so of their own free will. However, the group did feel that some people may not have the luxury of choice due to economic constraints. As a result, the group proposed that the government should provide funding for individuals to participate in their chosen national service. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000393.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000393.soc index 67daaf90..1107b47b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000393.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000393.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government is failing to tackle child obesity. The long-term consequences of this include a greater burden on the health services and reduced future earning potential. There are a number of simple steps the government can take to start tackling the issue. Firstly, they need to make school meals healthy and compulsory. This would ensure that children at least get one healthy meal a day. Secondly, the government needs to find a way to subsidise healthy foods and make it easier for parents to provide healthy meals at home. Finally, the government needs to invest in programmes that educate kids about healthy eating and physical exercise, and make this part of the school curriculum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government is failing to tackle child obesity. The nation has a problem with obesity, and the government is doing little to solve it. It needs to take simple measures like encouraging kids to eat healthy meals at school and at home. It needs to provide better nutrition education to kids so that they can make healthy choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They need to stop looking at ways to increase revenue and start looking at the future of the nation. There are simple steps the government can take to start tackling the issue. Firstly, it needs to make school meals healthy and compulsory. This would ensure that children at least get one healthy meal a day. Secondly, it needs to find a way to subsidise healthy foods and make it easier for parents to provide healthy meals at home. Finally, the government needs to invest in programmes that educate kids about healthy eating and physical exercise, and make this part of the school curriculum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government is failing to tackle child obesity. The government should not be focusing on the revenue from taxes on unhealthy foods, but on the health of the nation and the long term financial and social impact of obesity. It needs to take into account the opinions of experts like Jamie Oliver and Henry Dimbleby who are trying to tackle this issue. They should make school meals healthy and compulsory, but subsidise healthy foods to make it easier for parents to provide healthy meals at home. They need to encourage exercise and make nutrition and cookery part of the school curriculum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity. The long-term consequences of this include a greater burden on the health services and reduced future earning potential. There are a number of simple steps the government can take to start tackling the issue. Firstly, they need to make school meals healthy and compulsory. This would ensure that children at least get one healthy meal a day. Secondly, the government needs to find a way to subsidise healthy foods and make it easier for parents to provide healthy meals at home. Finally, the government needs to invest in programmes that educate kids about healthy eating and physical exercise, and make this part of the school curriculum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity. The nation has a problem with obesity, and the government is doing little to solve it. It needs to take simple measures like encouraging kids to eat healthy meals at school and at home. It needs to provide better nutrition education to kids so that they can make healthy choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity. They need to stop looking at ways to increase revenue and start looking at the future of the nation. There are simple steps the government can take to start tackling the issue. Firstly, it needs to make school meals healthy and compulsory. This would ensure that children at least get one healthy meal a day. Secondly, it needs to find a way to subsidise healthy foods and make it easier for parents to provide healthy meals at home. Finally, the government needs to invest in programmes that educate kids about healthy eating and physical exercise, and make this part of the school curriculum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government is failing to tackle child obesity. The government should not be focusing on the revenue from taxes on unhealthy foods, but on the health of the nation and the long term financial and social impact of obesity. It needs to take into account the opinions of experts like Jamie Oliver and Henry Dimbleby who are trying to tackle this issue. They should make school meals healthy and compulsory, but subsidise healthy foods to make it easier for parents to provide healthy meals at home. They need to encourage exercise and make nutrition and cookery part of the school curriculum. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000394.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000394.soc index 4caf30b6..c9fd0f61 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000394.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000394.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that the current minimum wage is far too low for people to live on, with many people being reliant on food banks and relying on other sources to get by. Raising the minimum wage would be a good thing to do, however, it should be done in smaller amounts rather than in one big jump. This would allow businesses to get used to the new wage, and wouldn’t cause any to close down. I think that if the minimum wage was increased to £10 per hour, it would be a good starting point, and then this could slowly be raised over the next few years to keep up with the ever-growing cost of living.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the minimum wage is too low. However, a significant increase would put a lot of pressure on employers. This would be particularly hard on small business owners and social care providers. Unfortunately, we think an increase would result in many businesses closing, which would lead to unemployment. The issue is complicated and should be looked at as a matter of urgency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is the opinion of the group that the minimum wage should be increased to £10/hr. This would help alleviate the current crisis in the UK with regards to people being unable to afford basic necessities such as food and heating. This would result in people spending more and thus more money would be injected into the economy, benefiting everyone in society. It would also help employers in terms of productivity as a wage of £10/hr would be a liveable wage, allowing people to live in reasonable accommodation with enough to eat and enough money to save, which would make them happier, more motivated and more productive. It would also help businesses who rely on manual labour as it would allow them to raise their prices to reflect the increase in wages. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the minimum wage should be raised and that there should be a certain limit to what the maximum wage is. There needs to be a balance between keeping the businesses running and the employees being paid enough to survive. The minimum wage does not keep up with the rise in cost of living, which is the main issue. Raising the minimum wage is a good idea but we need to be careful with how much it is raised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that the current minimum wage is far too low for people to live on, with many people being reliant on food banks and relying on other sources to get by. Raising the minimum wage would be a good thing to do, however, it should be done in smaller amounts rather than in one big jump. This would allow businesses to get used to the new wage, and wouldn’t cause any to close down. I think that if the minimum wage was increased to £10 per hour, it would be a good starting point, and then this could slowly be raised over the next few years to keep up with the ever-growing cost of living.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the minimum wage is too low. However, a significant increase would put a lot of pressure on employers. This would be particularly hard on small business owners and social care providers. Unfortunately, we think an increase would result in many businesses closing, which would lead to unemployment. The issue is complicated and should be looked at as a matter of urgency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is the opinion of the group that the minimum wage should be increased to £10/hr. This would help alleviate the current crisis in the UK with regards to people being unable to afford basic necessities such as food and heating. This would result in people spending more and thus more money would be injected into the economy, benefiting everyone in society. It would also help employers in terms of productivity as a wage of £10/hr would be a liveable wage, allowing people to live in reasonable accommodation with enough to eat and enough money to save, which would make them happier, more motivated and more productive. It would also help businesses who rely on manual labour as it would allow them to raise their prices to reflect the increase in wages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the minimum wage should be raised and that there should be a certain limit to what the maximum wage is. There needs to be a balance between keeping the businesses running and the employees being paid enough to survive. The minimum wage does not keep up with the rise in cost of living, which is the main issue. Raising the minimum wage is a good idea but we need to be careful with how much it is raised. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000395.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000395.soc index 2fe51266..fa8c3ef3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000395.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000395.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the limits on what can be allowed to be broadcast on television should be decided by the free choice of the viewers and be guided by the laws of the country where the television channels are broadcast. However, there should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be some limits on what can be broadcast on television, and these limits should be stricter for daytime than evening hours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, while we value the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press, there should be limits on what is broadcast on television. We believe that there should be a level of decency and restraint in order to protect viewers from gratuitous violence and explicit content, particularly in the daytime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are limits to what should be allowed to be broadcast on television. Certain content such as extreme violence, adult sexual content and other inappropriate themes should be banned from broadcasts during daytime hours when children may be watching. For these reasons, some form of censorship is appropriate in television. There should be less restrictions on adult content in the evening when no children are watching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the limits on what can be allowed to be broadcast on television should be decided by the free choice of the viewers and be guided by the laws of the country where the television channels are broadcast. However, there should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be some limits on what can be broadcast on television, and these limits should be stricter for daytime than evening hours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, while we value the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press, there should be limits on what is broadcast on television. We believe that there should be a level of decency and restraint in order to protect viewers from gratuitous violence and explicit content, particularly in the daytime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are limits to what should be allowed to be broadcast on television. Certain content such as extreme violence, adult sexual content and other inappropriate themes should be banned from broadcasts during daytime hours when children may be watching. For these reasons, some form of censorship is appropriate in television. There should be less restrictions on adult content in the evening when no children are watching. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000396.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000396.soc index df086c56..51365eaf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000396.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000396.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should adopt a universal basic income policy as it will protect those from being exploited, increase consumer spending and reduce homelessness in the UK. There should be regulations in place to ensure the system isn't abused. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that a trial of universal basic income would be a great idea, although we are unsure as to whether the concept can be effectively managed and administered at this point. We believe that there are many practical issues with the policy, such as the requirement to keep an accurate and up to date register of the entire population of the UK, as well as the requirement to track the movement of all individuals on the register. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the UBI is an interesting concept but there are better ways of helping people in need such as support for those unable to work or support for people in low paying jobs. The opinion of one person about the UBI “It’s about helping people that are disadvantaged. If we all lived in a big mansion, we would have a universal income, and we would all be equal, we wouldn’t need it. It is about raising the floor, it’s not about raising the ceiling.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income is a form of welfare that is paid to all members of a society, regardless of their income or employment status. It could be beneficial for society in a number of ways, but only if implemented correctly. It could prevent many people from falling into poverty, reduce the number of homeless people and could increase consumer spending. This would also benefit the local economy as more money would be circulated around local businesses. On the other hand, a universal basic income could lead to people taking advantage of the system, spending their welfare on things that aren't necessary. It is vital that the system isn't abused. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should adopt a universal basic income policy as it will protect those from being exploited, increase consumer spending and reduce homelessness in the UK. There should be regulations in place to ensure the system isn't abused. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that a trial of universal basic income would be a great idea, although we are unsure as to whether the concept can be effectively managed and administered at this point. We believe that there are many practical issues with the policy, such as the requirement to keep an accurate and up to date register of the entire population of the UK, as well as the requirement to track the movement of all individuals on the register. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the UBI is an interesting concept but there are better ways of helping people in need such as support for those unable to work or support for people in low paying jobs. The opinion of one person about the UBI “It’s about helping people that are disadvantaged. If we all lived in a big mansion, we would have a universal income, and we would all be equal, we wouldn’t need it. It is about raising the floor, it’s not about raising the ceiling.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income is a form of welfare that is paid to all members of a society, regardless of their income or employment status. It could be beneficial for society in a number of ways, but only if implemented correctly. It could prevent many people from falling into poverty, reduce the number of homeless people and could increase consumer spending. This would also benefit the local economy as more money would be circulated around local businesses. On the other hand, a universal basic income could lead to people taking advantage of the system, spending their welfare on things that aren't necessary. It is vital that the system isn't abused. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000397.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000397.soc index e373bcc4..180df422 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000397.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000397.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that more should be spent on mental health services as this is an area that we see in the media and in comments from friends and colleagues. We think that mental health is an area of weakness in our health service that needs further work. The deaths of people who could not get the support they needed is common and there seems to be no cure for some mental health issues. The waiting list to be referred for mental health is to long and much more support should be given to help people. The current pandemic and previous lockdowns has affected mental health for many people and they are still not getting the help needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, yes we should spend more on mental health services. More resources would mean that mental health patients are less likely to turn to crime and could focus on other aspects of their life such as their education. With a greater level of education, they would be more likely to have higher-paid jobs in the future and contribute to the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: More should be spent on mental health services. The current pandemic and lockdowns have increased stress and anxiety for many people. This has resulted in increased levels of suicides and depression, which has had an impact on the economy and the welfare of individuals. The funding is currently too low and the help is not always available for the people who need it. The waiting lists are too long and the access to mental health services needs to be increased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Mental health services should be prioritised, they are very underfunded and very much needed for the general public. The problem is not necessarily the health services themselves, but the fact that the government does not provide enough money to fund them. The cost of living has gone up and the cost of living pressure has been passed down to the public. Mental health has been on the rise and the government should make the health services their priority and increase the funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that more should be spent on mental health services as this is an area that we see in the media and in comments from friends and colleagues. We think that mental health is an area of weakness in our health service that needs further work. The deaths of people who could not get the support they needed is common and there seems to be no cure for some mental health issues. The waiting list to be referred for mental health is to long and much more support should be given to help people. The current pandemic and previous lockdowns has affected mental health for many people and they are still not getting the help needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, yes we should spend more on mental health services. More resources would mean that mental health patients are less likely to turn to crime and could focus on other aspects of their life such as their education. With a greater level of education, they would be more likely to have higher-paid jobs in the future and contribute to the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - More should be spent on mental health services. The current pandemic and lockdowns have increased stress and anxiety for many people. This has resulted in increased levels of suicides and depression, which has had an impact on the economy and the welfare of individuals. The funding is currently too low and the help is not always available for the people who need it. The waiting lists are too long and the access to mental health services needs to be increased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Mental health services should be prioritised, they are very underfunded and very much needed for the general public. The problem is not necessarily the health services themselves, but the fact that the government does not provide enough money to fund them. The cost of living has gone up and the cost of living pressure has been passed down to the public. Mental health has been on the rise and the government should make the health services their priority and increase the funding. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000398.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000398.soc index dffa7a49..5291bdce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000398.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000398.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The quality of a child's education should not be decided by where they live, or their background. A system should be in place to make sure that each school is fair to all pupils and is a safe and enjoyable place to be. This system should also allow parents the freedom to choose which school is best for their child, as long as this does not conflict with the child's safety or wellbeing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Parents should have the right to choose their children’s school, however a balanced system should be in place so that each school has a fair amount of students. This could be achieved by having a set of “tie-breakers” in place which gives preference to certain groups (e.g. siblings, disadvantaged families, disadvantaged areas). Parents should also have the right to withdraw their child from a school if the situation warrants it. This should be closely monitored and there should be a process in place for the child to return to school at a later stage.” Conclusion There is a common misconception that it is very difficult to get a group of people with differing opinions to come to a consensus. Although there are many things that can be done to facilitate consensus, there is a need for all parties to be willing to compromise and make concessions. With this in mind, the consensus statement reached by this group of participants was an excellent example of what is possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “In principle, parents should have the right to choose their children’s schools. The child’s best interests must be put first in any decision. This should be managed fairly, with no disadvantage to any groups of children. In particular, disadvantaged families should have a right to choose the school that they want their child to attend. Children should also have a say in their education and their opinion should be taken into account. If the child’s opinion is in line with the parents’ and the school’s, the choice should be honoured. If not, the parent and the school should investigate the situation to find out why the child does not want to go to that school. If it is found that the child has a valid reason for not wanting to go to that school, for example they feel unsafe or bullied, then the parent and the school should work together to find a solution. This could include withdrawing the child from the school for a period of time, and then returning to the school at a later stage.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Parents should have the right to choose their children’s school, however a balanced system should be in place so that each school has a fair amount of students. Parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from a school if the situation warrants it. This should be closely monitored and there should be a process in place for the child to return to school at a later stage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The quality of a child's education should not be decided by where they live, or their background. A system should be in place to make sure that each school is fair to all pupils and is a safe and enjoyable place to be. This system should also allow parents the freedom to choose which school is best for their child, as long as this does not conflict with the child's safety or wellbeing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Parents should have the right to choose their children’s school, however a balanced system should be in place so that each school has a fair amount of students. This could be achieved by having a set of “tie-breakers” in place which gives preference to certain groups (e.g. siblings, disadvantaged families, disadvantaged areas). Parents should also have the right to withdraw their child from a school if the situation warrants it. This should be closely monitored and there should be a process in place for the child to return to school at a later stage.” Conclusion There is a common misconception that it is very difficult to get a group of people with differing opinions to come to a consensus. Although there are many things that can be done to facilitate consensus, there is a need for all parties to be willing to compromise and make concessions. With this in mind, the consensus statement reached by this group of participants was an excellent example of what is possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “In principle, parents should have the right to choose their children’s schools. The child’s best interests must be put first in any decision. This should be managed fairly, with no disadvantage to any groups of children. In particular, disadvantaged families should have a right to choose the school that they want their child to attend. Children should also have a say in their education and their opinion should be taken into account. If the child’s opinion is in line with the parents’ and the school’s, the choice should be honoured. If not, the parent and the school should investigate the situation to find out why the child does not want to go to that school. If it is found that the child has a valid reason for not wanting to go to that school, for example they feel unsafe or bullied, then the parent and the school should work together to find a solution. This could include withdrawing the child from the school for a period of time, and then returning to the school at a later stage.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Parents should have the right to choose their children’s school, however a balanced system should be in place so that each school has a fair amount of students. Parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from a school if the situation warrants it. This should be closely monitored and there should be a process in place for the child to return to school at a later stage. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000399.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000399.soc index bef62d10..d7b60b39 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000399.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000399.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: it is not right to keep animals in zoos, but in certain situations, such as when an animal is endangered and their natural environment cannot be guaranteed, it may be necessary to protect the species from extinction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, keeping animals in zoos is not a good idea. However, if the zoo is doing a good job of keeping the animals happy and safe, and the zoo is taking part in conservation and protection programs, then the zoo is probably acceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Some animals can be kept in zoos but only if they are looked after very well and are only kept for a short time. There should be other reasons for keeping the animals in a zoo, like research, conservation or for safety reasons. This will keep the animals in their natural habitat and protect them. However, the number of animals that can be kept in a zoo should be limited. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are lots of things to consider in terms of whether it is right to keep animals in zoos or not. In the case of endangered animals it is important to have some animals in zoos so that the species does not become extinct. However, we feel that zoos should be extremely careful about the quality of life that the animals experience. Zoos should not just be used for animals to be looked at. If animals are being kept in zoos then they should be there for research purposes and for the animals' welfare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - it is not right to keep animals in zoos, but in certain situations, such as when an animal is endangered and their natural environment cannot be guaranteed, it may be necessary to protect the species from extinction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, keeping animals in zoos is not a good idea. However, if the zoo is doing a good job of keeping the animals happy and safe, and the zoo is taking part in conservation and protection programs, then the zoo is probably acceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Some animals can be kept in zoos but only if they are looked after very well and are only kept for a short time. There should be other reasons for keeping the animals in a zoo, like research, conservation or for safety reasons. This will keep the animals in their natural habitat and protect them. However, the number of animals that can be kept in a zoo should be limited. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are lots of things to consider in terms of whether it is right to keep animals in zoos or not. In the case of endangered animals it is important to have some animals in zoos so that the species does not become extinct. However, we feel that zoos should be extremely careful about the quality of life that the animals experience. Zoos should not just be used for animals to be looked at. If animals are being kept in zoos then they should be there for research purposes and for the animals' welfare. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000400.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000400.soc index dcd8b437..4cafb3a4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000400.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000400.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, this would be a good idea. The government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is due to the fact that sugary soft drinks can have an impact on the public's health, especially in younger generations, and this can lead to long term health conditions that can create a strain and pressure on an already stretched NHS. A second group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is the opinion of the group that the amount of sugar in a soft drink sold in the UK should be regulated, due to the long-term effects that sugar can have on an individual's health. A reduction in the amount of sugar consumed can lead to a decrease in obesity, a reduced strain on the NHS, and an overall better quality of life for all involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I do think the amount of sugar in a soft drink sold in the UK should be regulated as it can have an impact on younger generations, as well as all generations, health and wellbeing. Having high sugar in soft drinks consumed by the public can lead to long term health conditions which create a strain and pressure on an already stretched NHS. These can be issues such as obesity, high blood sugar levels and a reduced quality of life.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, this would be a good idea. The government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is due to the fact that sugary soft drinks can have an impact on the public's health, especially in younger generations, and this can lead to long term health conditions that can create a strain and pressure on an already stretched NHS. A second group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is the opinion of the group that the amount of sugar in a soft drink sold in the UK should be regulated, due to the long-term effects that sugar can have on an individual's health. A reduction in the amount of sugar consumed can lead to a decrease in obesity, a reduced strain on the NHS, and an overall better quality of life for all involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I do think the amount of sugar in a soft drink sold in the UK should be regulated as it can have an impact on younger generations, as well as all generations, health and wellbeing. Having high sugar in soft drinks consumed by the public can lead to long term health conditions which create a strain and pressure on an already stretched NHS. These can be issues such as obesity, high blood sugar levels and a reduced quality of life.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000401.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000401.soc index df7c40fb..037f7ed0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000401.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000401.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. If the government regulated the amount of sugar that can be put into drinks it would also send a message that it is important for the population to live healthier lifestyles and make better choices for their health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. This is because the obesity rate in the UK is one of the highest in the world and soft drinks are a big contributor to this. We believe this is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government has the power to do this. We know that some people will say that this will have a negative impact on soft drink companies and the economy but the economy is dependent on a healthy population and the cost of treating obesity and related health issues is huge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. This is because people would be able to enjoy their drinks without the amount of sugar that can cause health problems and because they would be better off in the long run by not having to pay for obesity treatments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. If the government regulated the amount of sugar that can be put into drinks it would also send a message that it is important for the population to live healthier lifestyles and make better choices for their health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. This is because the obesity rate in the UK is one of the highest in the world and soft drinks are a big contributor to this. We believe this is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government has the power to do this. We know that some people will say that this will have a negative impact on soft drink companies and the economy but the economy is dependent on a healthy population and the cost of treating obesity and related health issues is huge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the government should regulate the amount of sugar that can be put into any soft drink sold in the UK. This is because the health of the population is important and sugary drinks are a factor that contributes to poor health. The cost of obesity to the NHS is £6billion per year and if it can be reduced by reducing the amount of sugar in drinks then it would benefit the population as a whole. This is because people would be able to enjoy their drinks without the amount of sugar that can cause health problems and because they would be better off in the long run by not having to pay for obesity treatments. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000402.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000402.soc index 2c2c03fd..b02f6fbf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000402.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000402.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should ban the import of single use plastics from China. This is because these products will inevitably end up in landfill or polluting the ocean, causing long term damage to our planet and marine life. There are many alternatives to single use plastics that are also inexpensive and readily available. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I feel China is unfairly targetted on environmental matters, considering India, Russia and the US are also responsible for many harmful environmental products. Thus, I feel a better argument would be to ban all single-use plastic products, regardless of their country of origin.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban the import of single use plastics from China as this would be beneficial for our environment. The plastic would not have to travel all the way from China and would help reduce the amount of pollution. We should stop using single use plastic all together, there are plenty of other options available to use and if there isn't we should start looking into making other options. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of banning the import of single-use plastics from China. Some concerns were raised, however, such as the effect on China's economy. The group was also in favour of banning single-use plastics from any country and all participants agreed that this would be a more effective method to protect the environment from these harmful plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should ban the import of single use plastics from China. This is because these products will inevitably end up in landfill or polluting the ocean, causing long term damage to our planet and marine life. There are many alternatives to single use plastics that are also inexpensive and readily available. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I feel China is unfairly targetted on environmental matters, considering India, Russia and the US are also responsible for many harmful environmental products. Thus, I feel a better argument would be to ban all single-use plastic products, regardless of their country of origin.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban the import of single use plastics from China as this would be beneficial for our environment. The plastic would not have to travel all the way from China and would help reduce the amount of pollution. We should stop using single use plastic all together, there are plenty of other options available to use and if there isn't we should start looking into making other options. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of banning the import of single-use plastics from China. Some concerns were raised, however, such as the effect on China's economy. The group was also in favour of banning single-use plastics from any country and all participants agreed that this would be a more effective method to protect the environment from these harmful plastics. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000403.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000403.soc index 290b6a99..fc19c8a8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000403.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000403.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Broadcasters and regulators have the responsibility to protect people, especially children, from inappropriate content. In general, the limits on what can be allowed to be broadcast on television should be decided by the free choice of the viewers and be guided by the laws of the country where the television channels are broadcast. However, there should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the limits on what can be allowed to be broadcast on television should be decided by the free choice of the viewers and be guided by the laws of the country where the television channels are broadcast. However, there should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. ________________________________________________________________________ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the limits on what can be allowed to be broadcast on television should be decided by the free choice of the viewers and be guided by the laws of the country where the television channels are broadcast. However, there should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. However, after 11 PM, there should be content for people who wish to view such things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Broadcasters and regulators have the responsibility to protect people, especially children, from inappropriate content. In general, the limits on what can be allowed to be broadcast on television should be decided by the free choice of the viewers and be guided by the laws of the country where the television channels are broadcast. However, there should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the limits on what can be allowed to be broadcast on television should be decided by the free choice of the viewers and be guided by the laws of the country where the television channels are broadcast. However, there should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. ________________________________________________________________________ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the limits on what can be allowed to be broadcast on television should be decided by the free choice of the viewers and be guided by the laws of the country where the television channels are broadcast. However, there should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some kind of censorship when it comes to television shows being broadcast during daytime hours, in order to protect the young, easily influenced minds of children. However, after 11 PM, there should be content for people who wish to view such things. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000404.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000404.soc index 746ea8b1..1fca7b78 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000404.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000404.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, elderly people should not be encouraged to work, and we should not impose additional conditions such as age limits on elected officials. However, it should be noted that some elderly people may want to work and that they should be supported to do so if they wish. However, this should be a personal choice and should not be something which is imposed upon them by a social security system which does not offer sufficient support for those who do not wish to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Elderly people should not be forced to work. However, those elderly people who wish to continue working should be given the opportunity to do so. We should not discriminate against elderly people due to age. We should also ensure that our social security system is fair and that people who wish to work longer do not feel pressured to do so because of financial concerns. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be free to work as long as they wish, and that the state should encourage elderly people to work as long as they wish. Elderly people should be able to continue working even if their employers do not want them to. They should not be discriminated against in the workplace due to their age, and workplaces should be fully accessible to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Elderly people should be allowed to choose if they wish to work or not, we should not force them to work against their will. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, elderly people should not be encouraged to work, and we should not impose additional conditions such as age limits on elected officials. However, it should be noted that some elderly people may want to work and that they should be supported to do so if they wish. However, this should be a personal choice and should not be something which is imposed upon them by a social security system which does not offer sufficient support for those who do not wish to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Elderly people should not be forced to work. However, those elderly people who wish to continue working should be given the opportunity to do so. We should not discriminate against elderly people due to age. We should also ensure that our social security system is fair and that people who wish to work longer do not feel pressured to do so because of financial concerns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be free to work as long as they wish, and that the state should encourage elderly people to work as long as they wish. Elderly people should be able to continue working even if their employers do not want them to. They should not be discriminated against in the workplace due to their age, and workplaces should be fully accessible to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Elderly people should be allowed to choose if they wish to work or not, we should not force them to work against their will. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000405.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000405.soc index 44e79491..4484488b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000405.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000405.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is okay to take away a child from its parents because of their lifestyle where this lifestyle poses a significant risk to the child. This was a difficult topic to reach consensus on, but we were able to reach a general agreement on it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, taking a child away from its parents because of their lifestyle is not okay. However, if their lifestyle is deemed to be putting the child in physical or emotional danger, then yes, it is okay to take the child away. The issue is that people have different opinions on what constitutes a 'bad' lifestyle. It should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the lifestyle is affecting the child, then action should be taken. In this example, it is clear that the opinion of the first participant was not at all reflected in the final consensus. The final statement is quite different to the initial opinion of this participant. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In some circumstances, we believe it is justified to take away a child from its parents if their lifestyle is deemed to be harmful. We are of the opinion that this is a delicate matter and we would only endorse such a move as a last resort after all other avenues have been explored and it has been proven that the child is at risk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Question: Is it okay to take away a child from its parents because of their lifestyle? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is okay to take away a child from its parents because of their lifestyle where this lifestyle poses a significant risk to the child. This was a difficult topic to reach consensus on, but we were able to reach a general agreement on it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, taking a child away from its parents because of their lifestyle is not okay. However, if their lifestyle is deemed to be putting the child in physical or emotional danger, then yes, it is okay to take the child away. The issue is that people have different opinions on what constitutes a 'bad' lifestyle. It should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the lifestyle is affecting the child, then action should be taken. In this example, it is clear that the opinion of the first participant was not at all reflected in the final consensus. The final statement is quite different to the initial opinion of this participant. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In some circumstances, we believe it is justified to take away a child from its parents if their lifestyle is deemed to be harmful. We are of the opinion that this is a delicate matter and we would only endorse such a move as a last resort after all other avenues have been explored and it has been proven that the child is at risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Question: Is it okay to take away a child from its parents because of their lifestyle? 3: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000406.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000406.soc index 374d491d..d0c88d26 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000406.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000406.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that the current minimum wage is far too low for people to live on, with many people being reliant on food banks and relying on other sources to get by. Raising the minimum wage would be a good thing to do, however, it should be done in smaller amounts rather than in one big jump. This would allow businesses to get used to the new wage, and wouldn’t cause any to close down. I think that if the minimum wage was increased to £10 per hour, it would be a good starting point, and then this could slowly be raised over the next few years to keep up with the ever-growing cost of living.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that the current minimum wage is far too low for people to live on, with many people being reliant on food banks and relying on other sources to get by. Raising the minimum wage would be a good thing to do, however, it should be done in smaller amounts rather than in one big jump. This would allow businesses to get used to the new wage, and wouldn’t cause any to close down. I think that if the minimum wage was increased to £10 per hour, it would be a good starting point, and then this could slowly be raised over the next few years to keep up with the ever-growing cost of living.” Conclusions In summary, although the Delphi technique can be time consuming, it can help to achieve a level of consensus on issues. The method provides a simple process to quickly and effectively derive the group consensus opinion. This is particularly useful when dealing with contentious topics. Although the Delphi method was initially developed in a particular way, it can be adapted to suit a range of needs. For example, in this study, the participants were not anonymous to each other. Also, we did not obtain an opinion from a representative sample of the population. However, it could -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe that the current minimum wage is too low for people to live on. The current cost of living crisis makes this even more apparent. Raising the minimum wage is a good idea, however, it should be done in smaller amounts rather than in one big jump. This would allow businesses to get used to the new wage, and wouldn’t cause any to close down. I think that if the minimum wage was increased to £10 per hour, it would be a good starting point, and then this could slowly be raised over the next few years to keep up with the ever-growing cost of living. However, I think there should be a review of where the government could make cuts, so that the government isn’t spending so much money on certain things and it could be put towards something more productive such as education or helping to increase the minimum wage.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The minimum wage should be set to an amount that people can live off without relying on benefits. The government should try to raise the minimum wage in smaller increments to help businesses to cope with the increase, however, this should be done as soon as possible to help people who are struggling to get by on the current minimum wage. If businesses are unable to afford the minimum wage then they should look at their business model and reconsider whether it is appropriate for them to be operating at the current level of the minimum wage." A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that the current minimum wage is far too low for people to live on, with many people being reliant on food banks and relying on other sources to get by. Raising the minimum wage would be a good thing to do, however, it should be done in smaller amounts rather than in one big jump. This would allow businesses to get used to the new wage, and wouldn’t cause any to close down. I think that if the minimum wage was increased to £10 per hour, it would be a good starting point, and then this could slowly be raised over the next few years to keep up with the ever-growing cost of living.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that the current minimum wage is far too low for people to live on, with many people being reliant on food banks and relying on other sources to get by. Raising the minimum wage would be a good thing to do, however, it should be done in smaller amounts rather than in one big jump. This would allow businesses to get used to the new wage, and wouldn’t cause any to close down. I think that if the minimum wage was increased to £10 per hour, it would be a good starting point, and then this could slowly be raised over the next few years to keep up with the ever-growing cost of living.” Conclusions In summary, although the Delphi technique can be time consuming, it can help to achieve a level of consensus on issues. The method provides a simple process to quickly and effectively derive the group consensus opinion. This is particularly useful when dealing with contentious topics. Although the Delphi method was initially developed in a particular way, it can be adapted to suit a range of needs. For example, in this study, the participants were not anonymous to each other. Also, we did not obtain an opinion from a representative sample of the population. However, it could +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe that the current minimum wage is too low for people to live on. The current cost of living crisis makes this even more apparent. Raising the minimum wage is a good idea, however, it should be done in smaller amounts rather than in one big jump. This would allow businesses to get used to the new wage, and wouldn’t cause any to close down. I think that if the minimum wage was increased to £10 per hour, it would be a good starting point, and then this could slowly be raised over the next few years to keep up with the ever-growing cost of living. However, I think there should be a review of where the government could make cuts, so that the government isn’t spending so much money on certain things and it could be put towards something more productive such as education or helping to increase the minimum wage.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The minimum wage should be set to an amount that people can live off without relying on benefits. The government should try to raise the minimum wage in smaller increments to help businesses to cope with the increase, however, this should be done as soon as possible to help people who are struggling to get by on the current minimum wage. If businesses are unable to afford the minimum wage then they should look at their business model and reconsider whether it is appropriate for them to be operating at the current level of the minimum wage." A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000407.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000407.soc index 789683cc..4be5b333 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000407.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000407.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not make it illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. People have the right to choose to stay in a relationship or not. There are various reasons why a person may want to leave a relationship and some of these reasons are very serious. If it was made illegal to leave a partner or spouse, a lot of people will suffer unnecessarily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. We are living in a society that is becoming more and more diverse in terms of the nature of relationships people have. To force someone to remain in a relationship is to force them to stay in a relationship that they may no longer feel a part of. It could be an abusive relationship, one that is no longer mutually beneficial, or one that simply doesn't suit the person anymore. We must ensure that everyone is protected, and the best way to do that is to make it impossible for someone to be forced to stay in a relationship. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People have the right to be with the partner of their choice. This is the very basis of what makes a relationship, romantic or otherwise, and so people also have the right to end a relationship. We must also consider the issue of domestic violence. Leaving an abusive partner is necessary to a person's safety. Therefore we must not make it illegal for people to leave their partner or spouse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of forcing people to stay in relationships is repugnant. Most people should have the right to leave their partner or spouse. The idea of forcing people to stay together is too fraught with the potential for abuse and danger. There is a minority of people who should be forced to stay in a relationship, but this should be for a limited period, and with close monitoring of the situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not make it illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. People have the right to choose to stay in a relationship or not. There are various reasons why a person may want to leave a relationship and some of these reasons are very serious. If it was made illegal to leave a partner or spouse, a lot of people will suffer unnecessarily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. We are living in a society that is becoming more and more diverse in terms of the nature of relationships people have. To force someone to remain in a relationship is to force them to stay in a relationship that they may no longer feel a part of. It could be an abusive relationship, one that is no longer mutually beneficial, or one that simply doesn't suit the person anymore. We must ensure that everyone is protected, and the best way to do that is to make it impossible for someone to be forced to stay in a relationship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People have the right to be with the partner of their choice. This is the very basis of what makes a relationship, romantic or otherwise, and so people also have the right to end a relationship. We must also consider the issue of domestic violence. Leaving an abusive partner is necessary to a person's safety. Therefore we must not make it illegal for people to leave their partner or spouse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of forcing people to stay in relationships is repugnant. Most people should have the right to leave their partner or spouse. The idea of forcing people to stay together is too fraught with the potential for abuse and danger. There is a minority of people who should be forced to stay in a relationship, but this should be for a limited period, and with close monitoring of the situation. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000408.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000408.soc index 083d3e2c..ddac6cbd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000408.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000408.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. The most important aspect of relationships in this day and age is that they are mutually beneficial and voluntary. A person should never be forced to stay in a relationship. Forcing people to stay in a relationship would be like forcing them to be in a contract with someone they don't want to be in a contract with. It is no different from forcing people to work in a job that they don't want to work in. No one should be forced to be in a relationship with someone else, as this would go against basic human rights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. The best way to ensure that people have the right to stay in relationships is to make it impossible to force people to stay in relationships. In particular, in relationships where one partner is abusive, it is vital to allow the other partner to leave. Additionally, relationships can and should be about love and compromise, but should not be made to suit convenience. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. A relationship is a voluntary agreement between two parties. No one should be forced to stay in a relationship that they are no longer a part of, that is no longer mutually beneficial, or that is abusive in any way. We should protect people by making it impossible for them to be forced to stay in a relationship that they no longer want to be a part of. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. The most important aspect of relationships in this day and age is that they are mutually beneficial and voluntary. A person should never be forced to stay in a relationship. Forcing people to stay in a relationship would be like forcing them to be in a contract with someone they don't want to be in a contract with. It is no different from forcing people to work in a job that they don't want to work in. No one should be forced to be in a relationship with someone else, as this would go against basic human rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. The best way to ensure that people have the right to stay in relationships is to make it impossible to force people to stay in relationships. In particular, in relationships where one partner is abusive, it is vital to allow the other partner to leave. Additionally, relationships can and should be about love and compromise, but should not be made to suit convenience. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it should never be made illegal for a person to leave their partner or spouse. A relationship is a voluntary agreement between two parties. No one should be forced to stay in a relationship that they are no longer a part of, that is no longer mutually beneficial, or that is abusive in any way. We should protect people by making it impossible for them to be forced to stay in a relationship that they no longer want to be a part of. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000409.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000409.soc index 5d8f5035..32ffb445 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000409.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000409.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is a vital part of our society. It should be one of the top priorities of the government, and the health and wellbeing of the nation should be a priority. The NHS is so important to the lives of so many and without it, it would lead to a massive spike in poverty and death. It is simply unacceptable to let the NHS fall by the wayside as it is happening right now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is a vital part of our society. The health and wellbeing of the nation should be a priority of the government. The NHS is unique and is irreplaceable and is simply not to be taken for granted. The future of the NHS is in doubt and we should be concerned about the future of the NHS because without it, it would lead to a massive spike in poverty and death. It is simply unacceptable to let the NHS fall by the wayside as it is happening right now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no other service that provides the NHS. The NHS is a vital part of our society. The health and wellbeing of the nation should be a priority of the government. There is no other service that provides the NHS and we should be concerned about the future of the NHS because without it, it would lead to a massive spike in poverty and death. It is simply unacceptable to let the NHS fall by the wayside as it is happening right now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The National Health Service is the foundation of the wellbeing of the British people. It is utterly unacceptable that it is being dismantled by the Tories and we should be very concerned about its future. There is no alternative service that can provide the same level of healthcare and we must fight to protect it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is a vital part of our society. It should be one of the top priorities of the government, and the health and wellbeing of the nation should be a priority. The NHS is so important to the lives of so many and without it, it would lead to a massive spike in poverty and death. It is simply unacceptable to let the NHS fall by the wayside as it is happening right now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is a vital part of our society. The health and wellbeing of the nation should be a priority of the government. The NHS is unique and is irreplaceable and is simply not to be taken for granted. The future of the NHS is in doubt and we should be concerned about the future of the NHS because without it, it would lead to a massive spike in poverty and death. It is simply unacceptable to let the NHS fall by the wayside as it is happening right now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no other service that provides the NHS. The NHS is a vital part of our society. The health and wellbeing of the nation should be a priority of the government. There is no other service that provides the NHS and we should be concerned about the future of the NHS because without it, it would lead to a massive spike in poverty and death. It is simply unacceptable to let the NHS fall by the wayside as it is happening right now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The National Health Service is the foundation of the wellbeing of the British people. It is utterly unacceptable that it is being dismantled by the Tories and we should be very concerned about its future. There is no alternative service that can provide the same level of healthcare and we must fight to protect it. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000410.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000410.soc index e834e429..fe963a5e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000410.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000410.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should allow for the commercial sale of cannabis as this would take the revenue away from organised crime, reduce the sale of fake/bad quality products and generate tax revenues which can be used to provide a greater variety of treatment options for the NHS, to invest in prison reform, to provide drug education and training to those at risk of addiction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, for the reasons already mentioned. The arguments against are people’s personal distaste for the drug, however there are many more arguments in favour. The potential benefits to the NHS in terms of new treatments and the benefits of the revenue for the government are enough to counter these arguments. The issue of taxation was something the group did not touch on but it would have been something to include in the debate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The sale of cannabis should be allowed in the UK. The sale of cannabis will reduce crime, and the sale of cannabis will create an extra revenue stream for the government. The sale of cannabis would help to create an open dialogue about the health effects of drugs, and the sale of cannabis would also allow for the regulation of the cannabis market. The sale of cannabis will help to alleviate some of the pain associated with certain illnesses, and the sale of cannabis will help to reduce the illicit market. The sale of cannabis will allow people to use cannabis in a safe and controlled environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should legalise the sale of cannabis, for recreational purposes, because: 1) It can be done successfully and already has been done in a number of states in the USA. 2) The recreational use of cannabis is not harmful and the drug itself has medicinal properties that can be used to help treat a number of conditions. 3) The illegal sale of cannabis currently means that the market is controlled by gangs and criminal elements, legalisation would remove this and also remove a source of revenue for these gangs. 4) The legalisation of the drug would be likely to reduce its use in the longer term. 5) Currently the UK has very high rates of cannabis use and is likely to increase, as use in other countries has increased with legalisation. It makes sense to legalise it in the UK as a result. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should allow for the commercial sale of cannabis as this would take the revenue away from organised crime, reduce the sale of fake/bad quality products and generate tax revenues which can be used to provide a greater variety of treatment options for the NHS, to invest in prison reform, to provide drug education and training to those at risk of addiction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, for the reasons already mentioned. The arguments against are people’s personal distaste for the drug, however there are many more arguments in favour. The potential benefits to the NHS in terms of new treatments and the benefits of the revenue for the government are enough to counter these arguments. The issue of taxation was something the group did not touch on but it would have been something to include in the debate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The sale of cannabis should be allowed in the UK. The sale of cannabis will reduce crime, and the sale of cannabis will create an extra revenue stream for the government. The sale of cannabis would help to create an open dialogue about the health effects of drugs, and the sale of cannabis would also allow for the regulation of the cannabis market. The sale of cannabis will help to alleviate some of the pain associated with certain illnesses, and the sale of cannabis will help to reduce the illicit market. The sale of cannabis will allow people to use cannabis in a safe and controlled environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should legalise the sale of cannabis, for recreational purposes, because: 1) It can be done successfully and already has been done in a number of states in the USA. 2) The recreational use of cannabis is not harmful and the drug itself has medicinal properties that can be used to help treat a number of conditions. 3) The illegal sale of cannabis currently means that the market is controlled by gangs and criminal elements, legalisation would remove this and also remove a source of revenue for these gangs. 4) The legalisation of the drug would be likely to reduce its use in the longer term. 5) Currently the UK has very high rates of cannabis use and is likely to increase, as use in other countries has increased with legalisation. It makes sense to legalise it in the UK as a result. 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000411.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000411.soc index 56474f16..ed92249d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000411.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000411.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, more should be spent on mental health services. The rate of suicides is always increasing and with the financial hardships we are all facing at the ,moment I believe that the increase in mental health services would be very helpful. I also believe we need more mental health services for men as they are the main people to be committing suicide. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that more should be spent on mental health services as this is an area that we see in the media and in comments from friends and colleagues. We think that mental health is an area of weakness in our health service that needs further work. The deaths of people who could not get the support they needed is common and there seems to be no cure for some mental health issues. The waiting list to be referred for mental health is to long and much more support should be given to help people. The current pandemic and previous lockdowns has affected mental health for many people and they are still not getting the help needed. We agree with the current government's plan to increase funding for mental health services by at least £2.3 billion per year by 2023/24. We agree that they should be held accountable for this promise and believe that these funds should be ring-fenced so that they can be monitored and the promises can be kept. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that more should be spent on mental health services as this is an area that we see in the media and in comments from friends and colleagues. We think that mental health is an area of weakness in our health service that needs further work. The deaths of people who could not get the support they needed is common and there seems to be no cure for some mental health issues. The waiting list to be referred for mental health is to long and much more support should be given to help people. The current pandemic and previous lockdowns has affected mental health for many people and they are still not getting the help needed. Conclusion I hope that the above example helps to provide an illustration of the consensus building process. While I was initially sceptical about whether or not consensus building would work, I now believe that it can be a very effective process when you get the right group of people together. It’s very important to choose the right people who will not simply bully others into submission. It’s also important to choose people who are genuinely interested in reaching consensus and not simply looking for ways to start an argument. I think consensus building is especially good for discussing important issues where people may not always agree but they have some common ground to build -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that more should be spent on mental health services as this is an area that we see in the media and in comments from friends and colleagues. We think that mental health is an area of weakness in our health service that needs further work. The deaths of people who could not get the support they needed is common and there seems to be no cure for some mental health issues. The waiting list to be referred for mental health is to long and much more support should be given to help people. The current pandemic and previous lockdowns has affected mental health for many people and they are still not getting the help needed. Conclusion The above exercise clearly shows that the consensus building process can work, even in a highly polarized environment. The fact that each participant gave their individual opinion and then, together with other participants, built on the draft consensus statement, shows that consensus can be reached on very difficult topics, even if everyone comes with their own pre-conceived opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, more should be spent on mental health services. The rate of suicides is always increasing and with the financial hardships we are all facing at the ,moment I believe that the increase in mental health services would be very helpful. I also believe we need more mental health services for men as they are the main people to be committing suicide. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that more should be spent on mental health services as this is an area that we see in the media and in comments from friends and colleagues. We think that mental health is an area of weakness in our health service that needs further work. The deaths of people who could not get the support they needed is common and there seems to be no cure for some mental health issues. The waiting list to be referred for mental health is to long and much more support should be given to help people. The current pandemic and previous lockdowns has affected mental health for many people and they are still not getting the help needed. We agree with the current government's plan to increase funding for mental health services by at least £2.3 billion per year by 2023/24. We agree that they should be held accountable for this promise and believe that these funds should be ring-fenced so that they can be monitored and the promises can be kept. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that more should be spent on mental health services as this is an area that we see in the media and in comments from friends and colleagues. We think that mental health is an area of weakness in our health service that needs further work. The deaths of people who could not get the support they needed is common and there seems to be no cure for some mental health issues. The waiting list to be referred for mental health is to long and much more support should be given to help people. The current pandemic and previous lockdowns has affected mental health for many people and they are still not getting the help needed. Conclusion I hope that the above example helps to provide an illustration of the consensus building process. While I was initially sceptical about whether or not consensus building would work, I now believe that it can be a very effective process when you get the right group of people together. It’s very important to choose the right people who will not simply bully others into submission. It’s also important to choose people who are genuinely interested in reaching consensus and not simply looking for ways to start an argument. I think consensus building is especially good for discussing important issues where people may not always agree but they have some common ground to build +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that more should be spent on mental health services as this is an area that we see in the media and in comments from friends and colleagues. We think that mental health is an area of weakness in our health service that needs further work. The deaths of people who could not get the support they needed is common and there seems to be no cure for some mental health issues. The waiting list to be referred for mental health is to long and much more support should be given to help people. The current pandemic and previous lockdowns has affected mental health for many people and they are still not getting the help needed. Conclusion The above exercise clearly shows that the consensus building process can work, even in a highly polarized environment. The fact that each participant gave their individual opinion and then, together with other participants, built on the draft consensus statement, shows that consensus can be reached on very difficult topics, even if everyone comes with their own pre-conceived opinions. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000412.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000412.soc index ef1944db..733b8eff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000412.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000412.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group in general was in favour of banning single-use plastics, from any country, to help the environment and wildlife. However, some concerns were raised about the effects on China's economy, with some feeling that a gradual introduction of the ban would be the best option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning the import of single-use plastics from China. Some concerns were raised, however, such as the effect on China's economy. The group was also in favour of banning single-use plastics from any country and all participants agreed that this would be a more effective method to protect the environment from these harmful plastics. The use of statistics to support the position of the group would have strengthened the view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There was a strong consensus that single-use plastics from all countries should be banned. Some concerns were raised about the impact this would have on China's economy, but it was ultimately decided that the negative effects on the environment outweighed the effect on China's economy. There was also a concern that banning single-use plastics from China would not be enough to solve the problem of pollution caused by these plastics. Participants felt that a ban should apply to all countries and not just China. Finally, it was decided that the group would come up with a list of alternatives to single-use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of banning the import of single-use plastics from China. Some concerns were raised, however, such as the effect on China's economy. The group was also in favour of banning single-use plastics from any country and all participants agreed that this would be a more effective method to protect the environment from these harmful plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group in general was in favour of banning single-use plastics, from any country, to help the environment and wildlife. However, some concerns were raised about the effects on China's economy, with some feeling that a gradual introduction of the ban would be the best option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning the import of single-use plastics from China. Some concerns were raised, however, such as the effect on China's economy. The group was also in favour of banning single-use plastics from any country and all participants agreed that this would be a more effective method to protect the environment from these harmful plastics. The use of statistics to support the position of the group would have strengthened the view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There was a strong consensus that single-use plastics from all countries should be banned. Some concerns were raised about the impact this would have on China's economy, but it was ultimately decided that the negative effects on the environment outweighed the effect on China's economy. There was also a concern that banning single-use plastics from China would not be enough to solve the problem of pollution caused by these plastics. Participants felt that a ban should apply to all countries and not just China. Finally, it was decided that the group would come up with a list of alternatives to single-use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of banning the import of single-use plastics from China. Some concerns were raised, however, such as the effect on China's economy. The group was also in favour of banning single-use plastics from any country and all participants agreed that this would be a more effective method to protect the environment from these harmful plastics. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000413.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000413.soc index eb64152d..bed409c0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000413.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000413.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a maximum wage in the UK. The current level of income inequality in the UK is unsustainable and a maximum wage would help reduce the widening gap between the rich and the poor. By capping the amount of money that individuals can earn, we can ensure that resources are distributed fairer and that the economy works for everyone, not just those at the top. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Income inequality in the UK is increasing to an extent which is unsustainable. We therefore believe that there should be a maximum wage in the UK. This maximum wage would be set at £100,000 for individuals and £150,000 for couples. This would apply to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or nationality. The government would have the power to reduce this maximum wage, if economic circumstances required this to be done, but it could not be raised by anyone except Parliament. If it were necessary to raise the maximum wage, this would be done by an Act of Parliament. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, there should not be a maximum wage in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a maximum wage in the UK. However it is hard to get agreement on the issue of where it should be set. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a maximum wage in the UK. The current level of income inequality in the UK is unsustainable and a maximum wage would help reduce the widening gap between the rich and the poor. By capping the amount of money that individuals can earn, we can ensure that resources are distributed fairer and that the economy works for everyone, not just those at the top. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Income inequality in the UK is increasing to an extent which is unsustainable. We therefore believe that there should be a maximum wage in the UK. This maximum wage would be set at £100,000 for individuals and £150,000 for couples. This would apply to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or nationality. The government would have the power to reduce this maximum wage, if economic circumstances required this to be done, but it could not be raised by anyone except Parliament. If it were necessary to raise the maximum wage, this would be done by an Act of Parliament. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, there should not be a maximum wage in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a maximum wage in the UK. However it is hard to get agreement on the issue of where it should be set. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000414.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000414.soc index 05fa8f42..017958b4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000414.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000414.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to ban all animal products, and we believe it would be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of people. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was surprised by how polarised views on this issue were and had trouble understanding where each person was coming from. However, it was agreed that the welfare of animals is extremely important and should be taken into consideration by governments and citizens alike. It was also agreed that animal products are a large part of the human diet and it would be detrimental to health if they were to be removed completely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not ban all animal products. Animal products are natural and have been eaten by human beings for thousands of years. There are ways of creating animal products that are humane, so there is no need for animals to suffer unnecessarily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on all animal products. However, this would be hard to implement and would have to be done in stages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to ban all animal products, and we believe it would be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of people. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was surprised by how polarised views on this issue were and had trouble understanding where each person was coming from. However, it was agreed that the welfare of animals is extremely important and should be taken into consideration by governments and citizens alike. It was also agreed that animal products are a large part of the human diet and it would be detrimental to health if they were to be removed completely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not ban all animal products. Animal products are natural and have been eaten by human beings for thousands of years. There are ways of creating animal products that are humane, so there is no need for animals to suffer unnecessarily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on all animal products. However, this would be hard to implement and would have to be done in stages. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000415.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000415.soc index 3ebfd94e..e493b2f3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000415.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000415.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the benefits of the generation of electricity in the short term outweigh the risks in the long term. This is because, as one participant pointed out, our short term needs outweigh our long term needs. As another participant pointed out, people in the past have felt this way about cigarettes and many other things that have later turned out to be bad for us. However, at the moment we are not aware of the long term risks. For example, it is still uncertain as to the long term effects of the disaster in Japan. There are still many things that we don't know about the effects of radioactivity. Therefore, as a participant pointed out, it is important that, while we continue to reap the short term benefits, we need to do research into the long term risks. One participant pointed out that, even if the risks outweigh the benefits, the nuclear energy industry is such a big part of our society now, and we need to be aware of the risks but try to mitigate them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The long term risks from radioactivity from nuclear power plants are greater than the short term benefits from the generation of electricity. While climate change is progressing and its effects are becoming more obvious, it is important to look to alternative major sources of energy, such as nuclear power, and ways of managing long term risks involved with them as other solutions are also sought.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although nuclear energy is a reliable form of renewable energy, it is extremely dangerous. This is because nuclear energy is not able to be controlled easily and the effects of nuclear energy cannot be fully predicted. The short term benefits of nuclear energy do not outweigh the long term risks and so nuclear energy should be avoided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The long term risks from radioactivity from nuclear power plants are not greater than the short term benefits from the generation of electricity. Nuclear energy provides a reliable and clean source of electricity to communities around the world, however there is a risk of contamination if a nuclear reactor is damaged. By having security systems and monitoring the damage, the benefits of having electricity outweighs the risk. There are multiple cases of when a nuclear reactor has been damaged and nuclear energy has been able to provide the electricity needed. A positive example of this is Chernobyl, where despite the reactor exploding and causing an evacuation of the city of Pripyat, the plant is still being used and provides the electricity needed. While there are risks of nuclear energy, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risk and therefore should be used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the benefits of the generation of electricity in the short term outweigh the risks in the long term. This is because, as one participant pointed out, our short term needs outweigh our long term needs. As another participant pointed out, people in the past have felt this way about cigarettes and many other things that have later turned out to be bad for us. However, at the moment we are not aware of the long term risks. For example, it is still uncertain as to the long term effects of the disaster in Japan. There are still many things that we don't know about the effects of radioactivity. Therefore, as a participant pointed out, it is important that, while we continue to reap the short term benefits, we need to do research into the long term risks. One participant pointed out that, even if the risks outweigh the benefits, the nuclear energy industry is such a big part of our society now, and we need to be aware of the risks but try to mitigate them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The long term risks from radioactivity from nuclear power plants are greater than the short term benefits from the generation of electricity. While climate change is progressing and its effects are becoming more obvious, it is important to look to alternative major sources of energy, such as nuclear power, and ways of managing long term risks involved with them as other solutions are also sought.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although nuclear energy is a reliable form of renewable energy, it is extremely dangerous. This is because nuclear energy is not able to be controlled easily and the effects of nuclear energy cannot be fully predicted. The short term benefits of nuclear energy do not outweigh the long term risks and so nuclear energy should be avoided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The long term risks from radioactivity from nuclear power plants are not greater than the short term benefits from the generation of electricity. Nuclear energy provides a reliable and clean source of electricity to communities around the world, however there is a risk of contamination if a nuclear reactor is damaged. By having security systems and monitoring the damage, the benefits of having electricity outweighs the risk. There are multiple cases of when a nuclear reactor has been damaged and nuclear energy has been able to provide the electricity needed. A positive example of this is Chernobyl, where despite the reactor exploding and causing an evacuation of the city of Pripyat, the plant is still being used and provides the electricity needed. While there are risks of nuclear energy, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risk and therefore should be used. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000416.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000416.soc index 57347431..60c8efc7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000416.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000416.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a maximum wage in the UK. The maximum wage would be set at £100,000 for individuals and £150,000 for couples. This would apply to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or nationality. The government would have the power to reduce this maximum wage, if economic circumstances required this to be done, but it could not be raised by anyone except Parliament. If it were necessary to raise the maximum wage, this would be done by an Act of Parliament. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Income inequality in the UK is increasing to an extent which is unsustainable. We therefore believe that there should be a maximum wage in the UK. This maximum wage would be set at £150,000 for individuals and £250,000 for couples. This would apply to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or nationality. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. In order to ensure that the maximum wage is applied fairly and to stop loopholes being exploited, there should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Income inequality in the UK is increasing to an extent which is unsustainable. We therefore believe that there should be a maximum wage in the UK. This maximum wage would be set at £500,000 for individuals and £750,000 for couples. This would apply to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or nationality. The government would have the power to reduce this maximum wage, if economic circumstances required this to be done, but it could not be raised by anyone except Parliament. If it were necessary to raise the maximum wage, this would be done by an Act of Parliament. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Income inequality in the UK is increasing to an extent which is unsustainable. We therefore believe that there should be a maximum wage in the UK. The government would have the power to reduce this maximum wage, if economic circumstances required this to be done, but it could not be raised by anyone except Parliament. If it were necessary to raise the maximum wage, this would be done by an Act of Parliament. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a maximum wage in the UK. The maximum wage would be set at £100,000 for individuals and £150,000 for couples. This would apply to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or nationality. The government would have the power to reduce this maximum wage, if economic circumstances required this to be done, but it could not be raised by anyone except Parliament. If it were necessary to raise the maximum wage, this would be done by an Act of Parliament. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Income inequality in the UK is increasing to an extent which is unsustainable. We therefore believe that there should be a maximum wage in the UK. This maximum wage would be set at £150,000 for individuals and £250,000 for couples. This would apply to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or nationality. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. In order to ensure that the maximum wage is applied fairly and to stop loopholes being exploited, there should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Income inequality in the UK is increasing to an extent which is unsustainable. We therefore believe that there should be a maximum wage in the UK. This maximum wage would be set at £500,000 for individuals and £750,000 for couples. This would apply to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or nationality. The government would have the power to reduce this maximum wage, if economic circumstances required this to be done, but it could not be raised by anyone except Parliament. If it were necessary to raise the maximum wage, this would be done by an Act of Parliament. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Income inequality in the UK is increasing to an extent which is unsustainable. We therefore believe that there should be a maximum wage in the UK. The government would have the power to reduce this maximum wage, if economic circumstances required this to be done, but it could not be raised by anyone except Parliament. If it were necessary to raise the maximum wage, this would be done by an Act of Parliament. There should be a transitional period of at least two years before the maximum wage comes into effect. This would allow people to adjust their lifestyle and financial situation to the new circumstances. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000417.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000417.soc index 2fd01730..aad5050e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000417.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000417.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be no gender inequality in STEM subjects from primary school and up. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, gender inequality in STEM subjects starts in primary school but not as much as in secondary school. This is an example of a good consensus statement as it is short and to the point but still gives an overall view of the topic. The statement is in no way biased and gives a good insight into the groups views on the subject. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although gender inequality in STEM subjects does not necessarily start in primary school, the school should be more active in ensuring that children are not placed into roles that match traditional gender stereotypes and should be more active in ensuring that boys and girls have equal opportunity to take part in STEM subjects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I do not believe that gender inequality in STEM subjects starts in primary school as I think it is more of a societal issue that is embedded in our culture. I do believe that gender inequality starts from home and then is followed through in the school environment and in the workplace. I do not think that it is necessarily the fault of the school as they are trying to encourage gender equality in STEM subjects and to ensure that this is the case. However, the schools cannot change the views of the parents and society in general and so this can lead to a continuation of gender inequality.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be no gender inequality in STEM subjects from primary school and up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, gender inequality in STEM subjects starts in primary school but not as much as in secondary school. This is an example of a good consensus statement as it is short and to the point but still gives an overall view of the topic. The statement is in no way biased and gives a good insight into the groups views on the subject. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although gender inequality in STEM subjects does not necessarily start in primary school, the school should be more active in ensuring that children are not placed into roles that match traditional gender stereotypes and should be more active in ensuring that boys and girls have equal opportunity to take part in STEM subjects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I do not believe that gender inequality in STEM subjects starts in primary school as I think it is more of a societal issue that is embedded in our culture. I do believe that gender inequality starts from home and then is followed through in the school environment and in the workplace. I do not think that it is necessarily the fault of the school as they are trying to encourage gender equality in STEM subjects and to ensure that this is the case. However, the schools cannot change the views of the parents and society in general and so this can lead to a continuation of gender inequality.” 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000418.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000418.soc index 2ee7b321..54a20fec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000418.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000418.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that the UK should increase taxes on high income earners. There is too large a gap between the rich and the poor. The UK should create a tax system that means everyone contributes their fair share. To do this we need to increase the rate of income tax for high earners and reduce it for low earners. This will also create a disincentive for tax evasion. This will allow us to increase the amount of funding available for the NHS and other public services.” A final note on our group consensus is that although we all have our own views on the matter we all agree that the country needs to be moving in the right direction to ensure the health of its citizens and the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The country needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. In addition, they suggested that the questions should be followed by an explanation and justification of the opinion as this would allow them to get to the heart of the discussion and really understand each other's views. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase taxes for high earners as it will increase the quality of life for those who need it the most. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Income tax in the UK is among the lowest in Europe. The current tax system is iniquitous and no longer fit for purpose. There should be a change to the tax system that includes: - an increase in the rate of CGT; - an increase in the rate of inheritance tax; - a removal of the tax free allowance for those earning more than £150,000 per annum. Any such increase should not discourage those high earners who are creating jobs and wealth in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that the UK should increase taxes on high income earners. There is too large a gap between the rich and the poor. The UK should create a tax system that means everyone contributes their fair share. To do this we need to increase the rate of income tax for high earners and reduce it for low earners. This will also create a disincentive for tax evasion. This will allow us to increase the amount of funding available for the NHS and other public services.” A final note on our group consensus is that although we all have our own views on the matter we all agree that the country needs to be moving in the right direction to ensure the health of its citizens and the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The country needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. In addition, they suggested that the questions should be followed by an explanation and justification of the opinion as this would allow them to get to the heart of the discussion and really understand each other's views. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase taxes for high earners as it will increase the quality of life for those who need it the most. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Income tax in the UK is among the lowest in Europe. The current tax system is iniquitous and no longer fit for purpose. There should be a change to the tax system that includes: - an increase in the rate of CGT; - an increase in the rate of inheritance tax; - a removal of the tax free allowance for those earning more than £150,000 per annum. Any such increase should not discourage those high earners who are creating jobs and wealth in the country. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000419.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000419.soc index 6239769e..ac9f1458 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000419.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000419.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we do not believe that a new runway at Heathrow is a good idea, it is likely to create many jobs in the short term but there will be a significant cost to the environment in the long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although Heathrow already has many runways and we should not be putting effort into moving away from climate change, if it can be shown that it will not significantly affect the local area, there is room for it and it will benefit the UK's economy, then I believe it is ok to have a new runway at Heathrow. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a new runway at Heathrow. However this is subject to there being no increase in pollution in the area. If there is a chance that pollution could increase then it should not go ahead. If however there is no increase then the construction should go ahead and then the new runway would be very good for the local economy and also for travel into and out of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to a new runway at Heathrow because of the potential for an increase in pollution. This would be particularly bad for the people living nearby and also have a significant negative impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we do not believe that a new runway at Heathrow is a good idea, it is likely to create many jobs in the short term but there will be a significant cost to the environment in the long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although Heathrow already has many runways and we should not be putting effort into moving away from climate change, if it can be shown that it will not significantly affect the local area, there is room for it and it will benefit the UK's economy, then I believe it is ok to have a new runway at Heathrow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a new runway at Heathrow. However this is subject to there being no increase in pollution in the area. If there is a chance that pollution could increase then it should not go ahead. If however there is no increase then the construction should go ahead and then the new runway would be very good for the local economy and also for travel into and out of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to a new runway at Heathrow because of the potential for an increase in pollution. This would be particularly bad for the people living nearby and also have a significant negative impact on the environment. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000420.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000420.soc index 662cda18..7c74d454 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000420.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000420.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Humans have the right to use animals for food if it is done in a way that promotes high welfare for all animals, and in moderation as it should not be the main source of food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have a right to use animals for food. However, this should be done in a way that preserves the health of the animals and provides for the least amount of suffering possible. We should also be aware of the potential to harm the environment and to try to preserve it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans have a right to use animals for food but in a very humane way, with animals given the best lives they can have. Animal farming should be more about sustainability and welfare rather than profitability. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, humans do have the right to use animals as food but in a humane way. Some may argue that there are no "humane" ways of killing animals, which is a valid point. There are other methods of obtaining nutrients, so it is not an absolute right. The issue is complicated and should be discussed in more detail. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Humans have the right to use animals for food if it is done in a way that promotes high welfare for all animals, and in moderation as it should not be the main source of food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have a right to use animals for food. However, this should be done in a way that preserves the health of the animals and provides for the least amount of suffering possible. We should also be aware of the potential to harm the environment and to try to preserve it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans have a right to use animals for food but in a very humane way, with animals given the best lives they can have. Animal farming should be more about sustainability and welfare rather than profitability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, humans do have the right to use animals as food but in a humane way. Some may argue that there are no "humane" ways of killing animals, which is a valid point. There are other methods of obtaining nutrients, so it is not an absolute right. The issue is complicated and should be discussed in more detail. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000421.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000421.soc index fea2f8f5..645c8ee4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000421.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000421.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is a socialist institution because it is funded by the taxes that the people pay, it also has a duty of care to all people and is not a profit making institution. It also serves to provide a service that is free to all regardless of income and status. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although some aspects of the NHS are Socialist, it cannot be said to be completely Socialist as it is controlled by the government and not the community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the NHS is not a socialist institution. Although there are elements of socialism involved in the running of the NHS, it is still mainly capitalist due to the large role of the government in how the NHS is run and the capitalistic and free market principles they follow. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is a socialist institution in terms of ideology but not necessarily in its operation, because it is not controlled by the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is a socialist institution because it is funded by the taxes that the people pay, it also has a duty of care to all people and is not a profit making institution. It also serves to provide a service that is free to all regardless of income and status. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although some aspects of the NHS are Socialist, it cannot be said to be completely Socialist as it is controlled by the government and not the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the NHS is not a socialist institution. Although there are elements of socialism involved in the running of the NHS, it is still mainly capitalist due to the large role of the government in how the NHS is run and the capitalistic and free market principles they follow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is a socialist institution in terms of ideology but not necessarily in its operation, because it is not controlled by the community. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000422.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000422.soc index 73bdc422..a26d0ab0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000422.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000422.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the tax on sugary drinks should be increased to reduce obesity. We are currently faced with a ticking time bomb in the NHS caused by obesity. Eating and drinking habits which lead to obesity often start at a very young age and this often starts with sugary snacks and drinks. By increasing the tax on sugary drinks we may manage to prevent people from adopting such habits. Even if this doesn't happen, the extra money raised could be used by the NHS to cover the costs of the growing number of obesity related illnesses that cost so much to treat -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be free to consume whatever they want. The health consequences of obesity are mostly personal and as long as the person can afford the cost of treatment for any health problems which arise, there is no need to change what we do -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase the tax on sugary drinks. However, this should be paired with a programme that will help educate people about healthy eating and provide alternatives that are more nutritious. We should also provide support for people who have an addiction to sugar, to help them reduce their intake. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be free to consume whatever they want, but in the interest of protecting the NHS, it is fair to ask them to contribute a little more if they want to do so. The increase should be minimal, however, so that poorer families are not unfairly affected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the tax on sugary drinks should be increased to reduce obesity. We are currently faced with a ticking time bomb in the NHS caused by obesity. Eating and drinking habits which lead to obesity often start at a very young age and this often starts with sugary snacks and drinks. By increasing the tax on sugary drinks we may manage to prevent people from adopting such habits. Even if this doesn't happen, the extra money raised could be used by the NHS to cover the costs of the growing number of obesity related illnesses that cost so much to treat +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be free to consume whatever they want. The health consequences of obesity are mostly personal and as long as the person can afford the cost of treatment for any health problems which arise, there is no need to change what we do +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase the tax on sugary drinks. However, this should be paired with a programme that will help educate people about healthy eating and provide alternatives that are more nutritious. We should also provide support for people who have an addiction to sugar, to help them reduce their intake. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be free to consume whatever they want, but in the interest of protecting the NHS, it is fair to ask them to contribute a little more if they want to do so. The increase should be minimal, however, so that poorer families are not unfairly affected. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000423.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000423.soc index 3784e3e6..3683384e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000423.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000423.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to ban all animal products, and we believe it would be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of people. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The participants believe that it is important for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned.” The participants reached this view after a long and thorough discussion. It is a well-reasoned, balanced opinion on the question of whether the government should ban all animal products. The participants have considered the views of each of them and have taken into account the critiques of their initial draft consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to ban all animal products, and we believe it would be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of people. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to ban all animal products, and we believe it would be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of people. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned. The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to ban all animal products, and we believe it would be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of people. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The participants believe that it is important for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned.” The participants reached this view after a long and thorough discussion. It is a well-reasoned, balanced opinion on the question of whether the government should ban all animal products. The participants have considered the views of each of them and have taken into account the critiques of their initial draft consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to ban all animal products, and we believe it would be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of people. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to ban all animal products, and we believe it would be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of people. The participants believe that animal products are important and therefore should not be banned. The participants do not agree with the government banning all animal products, however we do think that it is correct for the government to regulate animal welfare. This should be done to protect the animals from suffering unnecessarily, whilst still allowing humans to consume products made from animals in a way that does not cause them undue suffering. This should be done to preserve the livelihood of millions of people across the country that rely on these products for income and to preserve the health of the general population. We are unsure how the government would be able to 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000424.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000424.soc index a7229a87..74858f37 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000424.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000424.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants were in general opposed to a new runway at Heathrow because of the potential for an increase in pollution. This would be particularly bad for the people living nearby and also have a significant negative impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The majority of participants did not agree with the construction of a new runway at Heathrow because of the potential negative impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to a new runway at Heathrow because of the potential for an increase in pollution, especially in the surrounding area. This would have a significant negative impact on the environment and should be taken into account when considering whether to build a new runway. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should not be a new runway at Heathrow. Building a new runway would lead to a significant increase in pollution in the local area and all over the UK. Building the runway would require a large amount of resources and land. It is not a good time to spend money on a new runway when the economy is struggling and the pandemic is affecting many jobs and businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants were in general opposed to a new runway at Heathrow because of the potential for an increase in pollution. This would be particularly bad for the people living nearby and also have a significant negative impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The majority of participants did not agree with the construction of a new runway at Heathrow because of the potential negative impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to a new runway at Heathrow because of the potential for an increase in pollution, especially in the surrounding area. This would have a significant negative impact on the environment and should be taken into account when considering whether to build a new runway. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should not be a new runway at Heathrow. Building a new runway would lead to a significant increase in pollution in the local area and all over the UK. Building the runway would require a large amount of resources and land. It is not a good time to spend money on a new runway when the economy is struggling and the pandemic is affecting many jobs and businesses. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000425.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000425.soc index 366ed7ed..bd8ab7c6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000425.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000425.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. In addition, I would like to add that we should look at closing loopholes that are used to allow individuals to shift tax liability to other countries, such as moving funds through tax havens, which could be achieved by harmonising tax policies between countries. We should also see a change in the inheritance tax, with an increased rate for higher amounts of inheritance and an exemption from this tax for those who receive a small amount of inheritance, especially for family homes. Finally, a potential alternative would be to remove the personal allowance for high earners and replace it with a higher tax rate for those who earn above a certain threshold, as this would be more efficient and fair. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a more progressive approach to taxation. The country needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The country needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. 6. Discussion and Conclusions The researchers did not provide any information regarding the response rate to the questionnaires or regarding the distribution of the number of participants that responded to each question. The participants had a very different starting position on the topic, ranging from "The highest bracket yes. Their wealth is astonishing in some cases. I know it is a small % of the population but the top 1$ could easily pay more and be far wealthier than the rest of the country. I also think that tax loopholes need to be shut down. I believe the extra tax revenue should go straight into NHS funding" to "I don't think high earners should be taxed further as this will lead to individuals and businesses relocating to more attractive tax regimes -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The country needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. In addition, I would like to add that we should look at closing loopholes that are used to allow individuals to shift tax liability to other countries, such as moving funds through tax havens, which could be achieved by harmonising tax policies between countries. We should also see a change in the inheritance tax, with an increased rate for higher amounts of inheritance and an exemption from this tax for those who receive a small amount of inheritance, especially for family homes. Finally, a potential alternative would be to remove the personal allowance for high earners and replace it with a higher tax rate for those who earn above a certain threshold, as this would be more efficient and fair. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a more progressive approach to taxation. The country needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The country needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. 6. Discussion and Conclusions The researchers did not provide any information regarding the response rate to the questionnaires or regarding the distribution of the number of participants that responded to each question. The participants had a very different starting position on the topic, ranging from "The highest bracket yes. Their wealth is astonishing in some cases. I know it is a small % of the population but the top 1$ could easily pay more and be far wealthier than the rest of the country. I also think that tax loopholes need to be shut down. I believe the extra tax revenue should go straight into NHS funding" to "I don't think high earners should be taxed further as this will lead to individuals and businesses relocating to more attractive tax regimes +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The country needs to be more progressive and we need to see an increase in tax on high income earners, however we should be careful not to raise the threshold too high as this will deter business and innovation. The tax should be ring fenced for specific areas such as health, education, public sector employment and infrastructure to prevent it being spent on anything else. The government should clamp down on tax loopholes and ensure that tax avoiders are harshly dealt with. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000426.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000426.soc index a27b12dd..dbe17a2c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000426.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000426.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban all plastic straws, they can easily be replaced with sustainable materials whilst making a huge impact on the environment at the same time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic straws but thought that it was important to educate people about the benefits of paper straws and how to use them properly, especially in terms of keeping them dry until they are needed. The group also thought that in the absence of paper straws people may revert back to using plastic straws so it would be important to make sure that they were widely available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Plastic straws should be banned, however, there is no alternative readily available, so it is likely to be many years until a ban could be implemented. Moreover, the UK government would need to be consulted as they may need to change laws and regulations to help reduce the amount of plastic in our seas.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although plastic straws can be recycled, and we should not be too quick to jump to conclusions on the potential environmental harm caused by straws, we agree that the increased presence of plastic waste in our seas is likely to be a negative thing for marine life, and that paper straws are a viable replacement for plastic straws in many situations. However, paper straws are likely to have a larger carbon footprint than plastic straws, which should be taken into consideration when deciding on a suitable replacement. We recognise that banning plastic straws would be an effective way to address this problem, and that although banning them would not have a huge impact on the amount of plastic pollution in our seas, it would raise awareness of the problem, which could be used as a springboard to launch campaigns that could have a greater environmental impact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban all plastic straws, they can easily be replaced with sustainable materials whilst making a huge impact on the environment at the same time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic straws but thought that it was important to educate people about the benefits of paper straws and how to use them properly, especially in terms of keeping them dry until they are needed. The group also thought that in the absence of paper straws people may revert back to using plastic straws so it would be important to make sure that they were widely available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Plastic straws should be banned, however, there is no alternative readily available, so it is likely to be many years until a ban could be implemented. Moreover, the UK government would need to be consulted as they may need to change laws and regulations to help reduce the amount of plastic in our seas.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although plastic straws can be recycled, and we should not be too quick to jump to conclusions on the potential environmental harm caused by straws, we agree that the increased presence of plastic waste in our seas is likely to be a negative thing for marine life, and that paper straws are a viable replacement for plastic straws in many situations. However, paper straws are likely to have a larger carbon footprint than plastic straws, which should be taken into consideration when deciding on a suitable replacement. We recognise that banning plastic straws would be an effective way to address this problem, and that although banning them would not have a huge impact on the amount of plastic pollution in our seas, it would raise awareness of the problem, which could be used as a springboard to launch campaigns that could have a greater environmental impact. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000427.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000427.soc index 004d1dc5..8f34c07d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000427.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000427.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Humans do have the right to use animals as food but there are moral and ethical concerns that can be addressed. Humans should look for alternative ways of getting nutrients as there are many different options. Humans should consider the other methods of obtaining nutrients, so it is not an absolute right. The issue is complicated and should be discussed in more detail. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans have the right to use animals for food. The animals should be treated in a humane way, and there should be other means of obtaining nutrients for humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no absolute right for humans to use animals as food, but in general humans do have the right to use animals as food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Humans do not have the right to use animals as food, but it is a necessary evil, if done in a humane way. There are other ways of obtaining nutrients and these should be promoted. The issue is complicated and should be discussed in more detail. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Humans do have the right to use animals as food but there are moral and ethical concerns that can be addressed. Humans should look for alternative ways of getting nutrients as there are many different options. Humans should consider the other methods of obtaining nutrients, so it is not an absolute right. The issue is complicated and should be discussed in more detail. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans have the right to use animals for food. The animals should be treated in a humane way, and there should be other means of obtaining nutrients for humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no absolute right for humans to use animals as food, but in general humans do have the right to use animals as food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Humans do not have the right to use animals as food, but it is a necessary evil, if done in a humane way. There are other ways of obtaining nutrients and these should be promoted. The issue is complicated and should be discussed in more detail. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000428.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000428.soc index bfabe1d1..cce93451 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000428.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000428.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The group is in favour of imposing a tariff on imported goods, however we do not think it should be so high as to put off foreign countries from trading with us and that the tariff we would expect to be paid on our goods would also be fair.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group came to the consensus view that we should not impose tariffs on imported goods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, tariffs on imported goods are not a good idea. The government should not impose tariffs as they can cause problems between countries as well as cause increased prices for consumers. The government should encourage businesses to use locally sourced products. The government could use tax breaks to support this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a small tariff on imported goods. However this should not be so high that it becomes a barrier to trade. A small tariff on imported goods would help to encourage businesses to use locally sourced goods, however there should be an import tariff on goods we sell into other countries. Conclusion: Even though there were a variety of opinions from the participants, through discussions and debates the participants were able to come to a consensus view. This was a result of the participants listening to and respecting the views of others and of the facilitation by the panel leader who encouraged the participants to debate and ask questions of others in order to fully understand the others point of view. The discussions and debates of the participants led to a better understanding of the different views and opinions. This is how the Delphi method works. The facilitator encourages the participants to discuss and debate in order to reach a consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The group is in favour of imposing a tariff on imported goods, however we do not think it should be so high as to put off foreign countries from trading with us and that the tariff we would expect to be paid on our goods would also be fair.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not impose tariffs on imported goods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, tariffs on imported goods are not a good idea. The government should not impose tariffs as they can cause problems between countries as well as cause increased prices for consumers. The government should encourage businesses to use locally sourced products. The government could use tax breaks to support this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a small tariff on imported goods. However this should not be so high that it becomes a barrier to trade. A small tariff on imported goods would help to encourage businesses to use locally sourced goods, however there should be an import tariff on goods we sell into other countries. Conclusion: Even though there were a variety of opinions from the participants, through discussions and debates the participants were able to come to a consensus view. This was a result of the participants listening to and respecting the views of others and of the facilitation by the panel leader who encouraged the participants to debate and ask questions of others in order to fully understand the others point of view. The discussions and debates of the participants led to a better understanding of the different views and opinions. This is how the Delphi method works. The facilitator encourages the participants to discuss and debate in order to reach a consensus view. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000429.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000429.soc index 2e9b982d..229fedc3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000429.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000429.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should do more to combat climate change as it will affect the quality of life of future generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Climate change is real and something that is happening in our world. It is causing floods, hurricanes, and many other weather disasters. It is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Governments, big businesses, and individuals need to do more to fight climate change and stop it. The only way to do that is by moving to renewable energy sources and cutting out the use of fossil fuels. More should be done to educate the public on the seriousness of climate change and the effects it is having on our world and what we can do to stop it.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in agreement that climate change was a significant problem, and that human activity is a major cause. The group disagreed as to the impact on the climate that this activity was having. The group agreed that not enough was being done to combat climate change, and that all people, not just governments, should be doing more. The group agreed that there are many simple steps that can be taken to combat climate change, such as reducing driving, recycling, and eating less meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should be doing more to combat climate change. We have already seen extreme weather events around the world, which are having devastating impacts on people's lives and livelihoods. Such events are being caused by the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures are increasing as a result. Governments around the world must come together and take drastic steps to cut carbon emissions and move to renewable energy sources. People can also help by recycling, and making efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should do more to combat climate change as it will affect the quality of life of future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Climate change is real and something that is happening in our world. It is causing floods, hurricanes, and many other weather disasters. It is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Governments, big businesses, and individuals need to do more to fight climate change and stop it. The only way to do that is by moving to renewable energy sources and cutting out the use of fossil fuels. More should be done to educate the public on the seriousness of climate change and the effects it is having on our world and what we can do to stop it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in agreement that climate change was a significant problem, and that human activity is a major cause. The group disagreed as to the impact on the climate that this activity was having. The group agreed that not enough was being done to combat climate change, and that all people, not just governments, should be doing more. The group agreed that there are many simple steps that can be taken to combat climate change, such as reducing driving, recycling, and eating less meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should be doing more to combat climate change. We have already seen extreme weather events around the world, which are having devastating impacts on people's lives and livelihoods. Such events are being caused by the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures are increasing as a result. Governments around the world must come together and take drastic steps to cut carbon emissions and move to renewable energy sources. People can also help by recycling, and making efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000430.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000430.soc index 66cdadf5..b90fb0f5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000430.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000430.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should remain a member of the UN, as it allows us to remain neutral, help others and protects us. This is important as it promotes peace and stops unnecessary wars. It also helps with any disasters which may arise, and if the UK gets into any problems, then we can rely on the UN to help us out. We had some interesting group and pair discussions about the topic. Below is presented some of the feedback and thoughts that were shared by some of the participants: I found the group discussions useful, because it was good to hear other people's opinions and get a balanced view on the topic. (Participant 4) This discussion was good as it allowed everyone to hear each other's point of view. I am glad we were able to come to a compromise. (Participant 3) The group discussion was good as it allowed everyone to express their opinion. It also gave everyone a chance to see how other people's minds work. (Participant 2) I found the discussion really interesting. It was also a really good way of getting to know the other people in my group. (Participant 1) I feel that the group discussion was quite useful, because I feel it gave everyone the opportunity -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should remain a member of the UN. The UN may not have been successful in solving all problems, but there are many more successful cases where it has helped countries to resolve conflicts and issues. The UK should stay in the UN as it would be detrimental to international security and peace. The UK has always been in the UN and leaving it would be against the UK's tradition of cooperation with other nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should remain a member of the UN as it provides financial security and also ensures that our opinion is heard across the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UN is a vital part of keeping the world in a diplomatic manner. The UK should remain a member of the UN to allow us to help other nations in times of crisis and to allow us to protect ourselves in times of crisis. This will also ensure that our voice is heard and that we can influence world decisions which can affect us. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should remain a member of the UN, as it allows us to remain neutral, help others and protects us. This is important as it promotes peace and stops unnecessary wars. It also helps with any disasters which may arise, and if the UK gets into any problems, then we can rely on the UN to help us out. We had some interesting group and pair discussions about the topic. Below is presented some of the feedback and thoughts that were shared by some of the participants: I found the group discussions useful, because it was good to hear other people's opinions and get a balanced view on the topic. (Participant 4) This discussion was good as it allowed everyone to hear each other's point of view. I am glad we were able to come to a compromise. (Participant 3) The group discussion was good as it allowed everyone to express their opinion. It also gave everyone a chance to see how other people's minds work. (Participant 2) I found the discussion really interesting. It was also a really good way of getting to know the other people in my group. (Participant 1) I feel that the group discussion was quite useful, because I feel it gave everyone the opportunity +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should remain a member of the UN. The UN may not have been successful in solving all problems, but there are many more successful cases where it has helped countries to resolve conflicts and issues. The UK should stay in the UN as it would be detrimental to international security and peace. The UK has always been in the UN and leaving it would be against the UK's tradition of cooperation with other nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should remain a member of the UN as it provides financial security and also ensures that our opinion is heard across the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UN is a vital part of keeping the world in a diplomatic manner. The UK should remain a member of the UN to allow us to help other nations in times of crisis and to allow us to protect ourselves in times of crisis. This will also ensure that our voice is heard and that we can influence world decisions which can affect us. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000431.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000431.soc index 0ba520be..8cdc5a05 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000431.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000431.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While sex education is important, parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although sex education is important, we believe that parents should be able to withdraw their children from sex education if they believe that the children are not yet ready or that it would have a negative impact on their children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is readily discussed at home. However, we think that parents should be able to withdraw their children from sex education if they believe their children are not yet ready for the topic, or if they feel that it will have a negative impact on them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the participants believe that the parents should be able to withdraw their children from sex education as long as the child is young enough. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While sex education is important, parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although sex education is important, we believe that parents should be able to withdraw their children from sex education if they believe that the children are not yet ready or that it would have a negative impact on their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Sex education is very important in schools, as it is not always something that is readily discussed at home. However, we think that parents should be able to withdraw their children from sex education if they believe their children are not yet ready for the topic, or if they feel that it will have a negative impact on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the participants believe that the parents should be able to withdraw their children from sex education as long as the child is young enough. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000432.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000432.soc index ec39f061..7d3fa31f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000432.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000432.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should ban the sale of fur. Fur is not an essential item and has not been used by the majority of the UK population for years. With the introduction of modern materials, there is no reason to allow the sale of fur. The hunting of animals for their fur is extremely cruel and unnecessary. The fur trade should be made illegal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government should ban the sale of fur. It's unethical and unnecessary for the UK to support the trade of fur. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should ban the sale of fur, as it is a very cruel thing to do, it is also unnecessary and can be replaced by other materials such as fake fur. Fur is also not an essential part of life as we can survive without fur. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The uk government should ban the sale of fur. The animals are hurt when they are hunted and the fur is not needed. This was a difficult process as you can see, but in the end it worked. Participants were able to discuss their views in a non-threatening environment and find a consensus on the issue in hand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should ban the sale of fur. Fur is not an essential item and has not been used by the majority of the UK population for years. With the introduction of modern materials, there is no reason to allow the sale of fur. The hunting of animals for their fur is extremely cruel and unnecessary. The fur trade should be made illegal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government should ban the sale of fur. It's unethical and unnecessary for the UK to support the trade of fur. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should ban the sale of fur, as it is a very cruel thing to do, it is also unnecessary and can be replaced by other materials such as fake fur. Fur is also not an essential part of life as we can survive without fur. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The uk government should ban the sale of fur. The animals are hurt when they are hunted and the fur is not needed. This was a difficult process as you can see, but in the end it worked. Participants were able to discuss their views in a non-threatening environment and find a consensus on the issue in hand. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000433.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000433.soc index 818f9f6d..2178d68e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000433.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000433.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the BBC should be politically neutral. However, political neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to every political opinion. The BBC is one of the country's most watched channels and organisations. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. It is important that the BBC, as a publicly funded organisation, is politically neutral, but it should not necessarily give every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. It is important to point out that political neutrality is not the same as giving every political opinion the same weight: i.e. climate change deniers should not be platformed on the BBC as an "alternative viewpoint" to climate change supporters in a way to be politically neutral. Instead the BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should be legally compelled to be politically neutral as it is a publicly funded organisation, allowing it to be private and political would not be representative of all of the UK and would lead to inequality of access to information. It should be representative of the entire population that are contributing to the very existence of the BBC and this is the reason it should stay neutral. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC is a public service broadcaster funded by the taxpayer, and for this reason alone it should be compelled to be politically neutral. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should be legally compelled to be politically neutral. This opinion is backed up by the following reasons and arguments: The BBC is funded by the British people through their TV license fee. The organisation is therefore owned by the British people, it is in fact their news organisation. Therefore, the organisation should report news in a neutral manner. This way it does not unfairly or wrongly portray any political view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the BBC should be politically neutral. However, political neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to every political opinion. The BBC is one of the country's most watched channels and organisations. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. It is important that the BBC, as a publicly funded organisation, is politically neutral, but it should not necessarily give every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. It is important to point out that political neutrality is not the same as giving every political opinion the same weight: i.e. climate change deniers should not be platformed on the BBC as an "alternative viewpoint" to climate change supporters in a way to be politically neutral. Instead the BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should be legally compelled to be politically neutral as it is a publicly funded organisation, allowing it to be private and political would not be representative of all of the UK and would lead to inequality of access to information. It should be representative of the entire population that are contributing to the very existence of the BBC and this is the reason it should stay neutral. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC is a public service broadcaster funded by the taxpayer, and for this reason alone it should be compelled to be politically neutral. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should be legally compelled to be politically neutral. This opinion is backed up by the following reasons and arguments: The BBC is funded by the British people through their TV license fee. The organisation is therefore owned by the British people, it is in fact their news organisation. Therefore, the organisation should report news in a neutral manner. This way it does not unfairly or wrongly portray any political view. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000434.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000434.soc index ef70cacb..4fc54fed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000434.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000434.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of medical marijuana, with one person being slightly against the idea. The general feeling was that medical marijuana is good as it has helped people in the past, and the use of medical marijuana can be controlled and monitored so that people do not abuse it. The participant who was against medical marijuana had her concerns, such as addiction, but also came to a consensus view that medical marijuana should be used for specific purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we believe that the question posed by the scenario is very much a valid one, and that medical marijuana is certainly an important topic. There are a wide range of views in our group with some strongly in favour of medical marijuana and others strongly opposed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the Government should set up an inquiry to look at the pros and cons of the medical use of marijuana. Doctors should be able to prescribe marijuana for medical use. The marijuana should be produced and dispensed through licensed pharmacies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is appropriate for doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has proven benefits to alleviate pain and the potential to treat a range of illnesses and chronic diseases. There are numerous studies that have proven its safety, with minimal side effects and no risk of death. The addictive properties are low compared to many other drugs used in medicine. Medical marijuana is often very cost effective compared to other medication, and as such could have a huge positive impact on the NHS and public health. It is only right that patients should have the right to choose this treatment option if they wish, and should not be denied this right. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. This project was designed to elicit consensus from participants in a group environment, and allow them to explore their personal and collective opinions on a question in a safe space, while creating a meaningful and tangible output. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of medical marijuana, with one person being slightly against the idea. The general feeling was that medical marijuana is good as it has helped people in the past, and the use of medical marijuana can be controlled and monitored so that people do not abuse it. The participant who was against medical marijuana had her concerns, such as addiction, but also came to a consensus view that medical marijuana should be used for specific purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we believe that the question posed by the scenario is very much a valid one, and that medical marijuana is certainly an important topic. There are a wide range of views in our group with some strongly in favour of medical marijuana and others strongly opposed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the Government should set up an inquiry to look at the pros and cons of the medical use of marijuana. Doctors should be able to prescribe marijuana for medical use. The marijuana should be produced and dispensed through licensed pharmacies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is appropriate for doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has proven benefits to alleviate pain and the potential to treat a range of illnesses and chronic diseases. There are numerous studies that have proven its safety, with minimal side effects and no risk of death. The addictive properties are low compared to many other drugs used in medicine. Medical marijuana is often very cost effective compared to other medication, and as such could have a huge positive impact on the NHS and public health. It is only right that patients should have the right to choose this treatment option if they wish, and should not be denied this right. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. This project was designed to elicit consensus from participants in a group environment, and allow them to explore their personal and collective opinions on a question in a safe space, while creating a meaningful and tangible output. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000435.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000435.soc index feb27de9..b0a96e45 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000435.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000435.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, while we all believe that it is beneficial for children to learn to code, we also believe that it is not an essential skill and should not be mandatory in schools. As such, while we do think that there should be more effort in schools to encourage students to take up coding, we do not think that there should be more pressure put on children to take it up. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although coding is a valuable skill to have and we should not discourage children from coding, we don't think it should be taught as a compulsory subject as this may deter those who may not wish to code. Children should be made aware of coding and the options it could provide them for the future, but shouldn't be forced to learn it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to code. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of children learning to code but not as a compulsory part of their curriculum. It was felt that some children will have a natural inclination to learn this skill, and for them it would be very beneficial to pursue this interest. However, there will also be those who are not so keen and will prefer to learn other subjects, which will be more useful for their future careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, while we all believe that it is beneficial for children to learn to code, we also believe that it is not an essential skill and should not be mandatory in schools. As such, while we do think that there should be more effort in schools to encourage students to take up coding, we do not think that there should be more pressure put on children to take it up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although coding is a valuable skill to have and we should not discourage children from coding, we don't think it should be taught as a compulsory subject as this may deter those who may not wish to code. Children should be made aware of coding and the options it could provide them for the future, but shouldn't be forced to learn it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to code. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of children learning to code but not as a compulsory part of their curriculum. It was felt that some children will have a natural inclination to learn this skill, and for them it would be very beneficial to pursue this interest. However, there will also be those who are not so keen and will prefer to learn other subjects, which will be more useful for their future careers. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000436.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000436.soc index 8845392a..988907ee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000436.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000436.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the NHS is one of the best health systems in the world, and although it is free, it is very well organised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although the NHS is a great system and has helped so many people, it is not the best health system in the world. There are many other countries that have health services which are much better funded and therefore run more efficiently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was a very good health system when it was first introduced, but it is not up to the standards it once was and is becoming more and more problematic. The problem is with the under-funding and lack of staff, making it very hard to provide the best health service. This has also caused many doctors and nurses to go and work abroad for more money. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the UK's National Health Service is one of the best health systems in the world but that it has the potential to be even better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the NHS is one of the best health systems in the world, and although it is free, it is very well organised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although the NHS is a great system and has helped so many people, it is not the best health system in the world. There are many other countries that have health services which are much better funded and therefore run more efficiently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was a very good health system when it was first introduced, but it is not up to the standards it once was and is becoming more and more problematic. The problem is with the under-funding and lack of staff, making it very hard to provide the best health service. This has also caused many doctors and nurses to go and work abroad for more money. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the UK's National Health Service is one of the best health systems in the world but that it has the potential to be even better. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000437.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000437.soc index b5d4e48e..22ae5030 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000437.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000437.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be free to make their own decisions on what they do with their own bodies, as long as their choices don't have a negative impact on other people. The legalization of marijuana would mean that users would no longer need to associate with criminals to obtain the drug, and the drug itself would be safer, due to improved quality control. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion as to whether the use of marijuana by non-medical users is beneficial. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Medical marijuana is a proven and effective treatment for a variety of medical conditions. There are only a small number of adverse effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Marijuana use is not something to be encouraged, but is not likely to be as bad as drinking alcohol. This is because it is not as social a drug as alcohol and so is less likely to have an adverse effect on other people. The use of marijuana should be something that is kept to an individual's home or equivalent, rather than social settings. It also seems to be a lesser gateway drug than alcohol, although its influence in this regard is still significant. In this example, the opinion of participant 5 (not holding strong views) was not taken into account in the group's final consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be free to make their own decisions on what they do with their own bodies, as long as their choices don't have a negative impact on other people. The legalization of marijuana would mean that users would no longer need to associate with criminals to obtain the drug, and the drug itself would be safer, due to improved quality control. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion as to whether the use of marijuana by non-medical users is beneficial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Medical marijuana is a proven and effective treatment for a variety of medical conditions. There are only a small number of adverse effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Marijuana use is not something to be encouraged, but is not likely to be as bad as drinking alcohol. This is because it is not as social a drug as alcohol and so is less likely to have an adverse effect on other people. The use of marijuana should be something that is kept to an individual's home or equivalent, rather than social settings. It also seems to be a lesser gateway drug than alcohol, although its influence in this regard is still significant. In this example, the opinion of participant 5 (not holding strong views) was not taken into account in the group's final consensus view. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000438.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000438.soc index 0c1a938b..067b1483 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000438.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000438.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that it is very important to save energy and recycle resources in order to minimise the negative impact on the environment. We believe that this will help to protect the planet for future generations. We believe that each individual has a role to play in this effort, and it is something that all individuals, businesses and countries should be taking seriously. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important to save energy and recycle resources. We all need to play our part and think about our future, and the future of our children and grandchildren. It is a fact that we need to change how we live and that includes conserving energy, recycling and ensuring we are not a burden on the planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is important to save energy and recycle resources in order to preserve the planet and minimise the effects of climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the importance of saving energy and recycling resources is well recognised by all of us, the implementation of such schemes in a way that all people can be involved in is essential to ensure that saving energy and recycling resources is something we all do without realising it. By being a natural part of everyday life it becomes something that we don't even have to think about and can benefit from without even knowing it. If such schemes are made to be for the elite, or require extensive personal effort and planning then they will have little effect. We are looking for something that requires little effort from all of us, yet has a great impact for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that it is very important to save energy and recycle resources in order to minimise the negative impact on the environment. We believe that this will help to protect the planet for future generations. We believe that each individual has a role to play in this effort, and it is something that all individuals, businesses and countries should be taking seriously. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important to save energy and recycle resources. We all need to play our part and think about our future, and the future of our children and grandchildren. It is a fact that we need to change how we live and that includes conserving energy, recycling and ensuring we are not a burden on the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is important to save energy and recycle resources in order to preserve the planet and minimise the effects of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the importance of saving energy and recycling resources is well recognised by all of us, the implementation of such schemes in a way that all people can be involved in is essential to ensure that saving energy and recycling resources is something we all do without realising it. By being a natural part of everyday life it becomes something that we don't even have to think about and can benefit from without even knowing it. If such schemes are made to be for the elite, or require extensive personal effort and planning then they will have little effect. We are looking for something that requires little effort from all of us, yet has a great impact for all. 4: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000439.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000439.soc index ebdccc68..38208bdb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000439.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000439.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should spend the same on both, they are both of equal importance to the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the budget for the NHS. However, as participant 3 said, we can’t forget about our defences as our enemies have not gone away and we must continue to be vigilant and ensure our country is well defended. It is a balance, but in the end the NHS is more important for the health and wellbeing of our country, so more needs to be spent on this and less on defence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The NHS is the cornerstone of the UK and is one of the things that make the UK great. We must protect the NHS and continue to support advances in medicines whatever the cost. The defence budget needs to be amended so that the NHS gets the finances it needs. There is no point in defending our country if we have no NHS.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is a vital part of the UK. The health and wellbeing of the nation should be prioritised and the NHS should receive more funding from the government than the defence budget. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should spend the same on both, they are both of equal importance to the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the budget for the NHS. However, as participant 3 said, we can’t forget about our defences as our enemies have not gone away and we must continue to be vigilant and ensure our country is well defended. It is a balance, but in the end the NHS is more important for the health and wellbeing of our country, so more needs to be spent on this and less on defence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The NHS is the cornerstone of the UK and is one of the things that make the UK great. We must protect the NHS and continue to support advances in medicines whatever the cost. The defence budget needs to be amended so that the NHS gets the finances it needs. There is no point in defending our country if we have no NHS.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is a vital part of the UK. The health and wellbeing of the nation should be prioritised and the NHS should receive more funding from the government than the defence budget. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000440.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000440.soc index fb653741..6ca74eb2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000440.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000440.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I am absolutely in favour of extending life by 50 years. I think we should always advance science and medicine, and life is the most sacred gift creatures have. Whilst I accept it will create other challenges with regards to healthcare and services, these are problems that can be addressed over time. Life and health should always come first in any society. It is the ultimate priority.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although life extension by 50 years would solve many problems by extending human life, the fact that human quality of life decreases as we get older means this will ultimately lead to increased human suffering, so life extension should not be implemented. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be research into prolonging life as it can increase the quality of life of individuals and potentially reduce medical costs. However, any plan to increase the life of individuals must be balanced with the long term impact on the quality of life of the individual, their family and society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of extending the human life span but expressed concerns about the sustainability of resources to pay for an increase in life expectancy. In order to mitigate this concern, we recommended that the extension of life be made possible by using funding from charities and non-governmental organisations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I am absolutely in favour of extending life by 50 years. I think we should always advance science and medicine, and life is the most sacred gift creatures have. Whilst I accept it will create other challenges with regards to healthcare and services, these are problems that can be addressed over time. Life and health should always come first in any society. It is the ultimate priority.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although life extension by 50 years would solve many problems by extending human life, the fact that human quality of life decreases as we get older means this will ultimately lead to increased human suffering, so life extension should not be implemented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be research into prolonging life as it can increase the quality of life of individuals and potentially reduce medical costs. However, any plan to increase the life of individuals must be balanced with the long term impact on the quality of life of the individual, their family and society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of extending the human life span but expressed concerns about the sustainability of resources to pay for an increase in life expectancy. In order to mitigate this concern, we recommended that the extension of life be made possible by using funding from charities and non-governmental organisations. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000441.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000441.soc index cabdb53c..3ad50592 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000441.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000441.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Marijuana is a natural product that is safe to use when prescribed by a doctor for medical purposes. It should be legalised as it is beneficial for people to use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be given the right to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. People should be allowed to smoke marijuana if it is for medical purposes. It should be available on prescription from a GP if necessary. It should not be a criminal offence. People should not have to break the law in order to use marijuana for medical purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The law should be changed to allow people to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. People suffering from medical conditions that can be helped by marijuana should not be forced to take prescription drugs which can have many more side-effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People have the right to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. It can help people to manage their pain, and if it can reduce the need for some prescribed medications that can have harmful side-effects, then it should be made available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Marijuana is a natural product that is safe to use when prescribed by a doctor for medical purposes. It should be legalised as it is beneficial for people to use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be given the right to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. People should be allowed to smoke marijuana if it is for medical purposes. It should be available on prescription from a GP if necessary. It should not be a criminal offence. People should not have to break the law in order to use marijuana for medical purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The law should be changed to allow people to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. People suffering from medical conditions that can be helped by marijuana should not be forced to take prescription drugs which can have many more side-effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People have the right to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. It can help people to manage their pain, and if it can reduce the need for some prescribed medications that can have harmful side-effects, then it should be made available. 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000442.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000442.soc index fcb9cd43..e06a9c76 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000442.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000442.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax on plastic bags, and argued that this is a good way to make people think twice about their use of plastic bags, which in turn would reduce the impact of plastic bags on the environment. The group also discussed the fact that the UK is a large producer of plastic, and as such, it is important that we also make efforts to reduce our own impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on single-use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it would be more helpful to charge supermarkets, who create the vast majority of plastic waste. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although plastic bags have a detrimental impact on the environment, a higher tax is the wrong solution. The tax is ineffective, and makes very little difference in reducing the use of plastic bags. A tax on plastic bags would just increase the price of a bag and people would pay regardless, because plastic bags are convenient. The tax doesn't change the fact that plastic bags are bad for the environment, it just makes them more expensive. Instead of taxing plastic bags, we should look to completely banning them, or banning their use for certain goods, and look to other bigger issues in the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax on plastic bags, and argued that this is a good way to make people think twice about their use of plastic bags, which in turn would reduce the impact of plastic bags on the environment. The group also discussed the fact that the UK is a large producer of plastic, and as such, it is important that we also make efforts to reduce our own impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on single-use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it would be more helpful to charge supermarkets, who create the vast majority of plastic waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although plastic bags have a detrimental impact on the environment, a higher tax is the wrong solution. The tax is ineffective, and makes very little difference in reducing the use of plastic bags. A tax on plastic bags would just increase the price of a bag and people would pay regardless, because plastic bags are convenient. The tax doesn't change the fact that plastic bags are bad for the environment, it just makes them more expensive. Instead of taxing plastic bags, we should look to completely banning them, or banning their use for certain goods, and look to other bigger issues in the environment. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000443.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000443.soc index 7af3b7ef..bd87fa43 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000443.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000443.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the use of artificial insemination to enable parents to have a child with some of their own DNA. This was mainly because this might allow parents who might not otherwise be able to have their own children, the best chance at starting a family. The group felt that it was important for a child to share DNA with a parent, and if this was the only way for this to be achieved, it would be ethical. There were however concerns that this could be done for the wrong reasons, such as to try to recreate the family history, or to bring back an individual from the dead, but if this was not the case, it would be ethical. The group felt that religious beliefs should not play a part in the law-making process, and instead should be based on reason and scientific evidence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is ethical to use artificial insemination to allow a parent to have a child with some of their own DNA, provided the parent is of sound mind and the resulting child is guaranteed to be healthy and able to live a happy life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Artificial insemination is a method that can be used for multiple reasons, however we believe that it should be used as a last resort in situations where the parent has no other means of having a child with some of their own DNA. In conclusion, the use of artificial insemination is ethical when used in this manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the use of artificial insemination to allow a parent to have a child with some of their own DNA is ethical. Everyone should have the opportunity to have a child and if this is the best way to achieve this then it is ethical to use this method. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the use of artificial insemination to enable parents to have a child with some of their own DNA. This was mainly because this might allow parents who might not otherwise be able to have their own children, the best chance at starting a family. The group felt that it was important for a child to share DNA with a parent, and if this was the only way for this to be achieved, it would be ethical. There were however concerns that this could be done for the wrong reasons, such as to try to recreate the family history, or to bring back an individual from the dead, but if this was not the case, it would be ethical. The group felt that religious beliefs should not play a part in the law-making process, and instead should be based on reason and scientific evidence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is ethical to use artificial insemination to allow a parent to have a child with some of their own DNA, provided the parent is of sound mind and the resulting child is guaranteed to be healthy and able to live a happy life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Artificial insemination is a method that can be used for multiple reasons, however we believe that it should be used as a last resort in situations where the parent has no other means of having a child with some of their own DNA. In conclusion, the use of artificial insemination is ethical when used in this manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the use of artificial insemination to allow a parent to have a child with some of their own DNA is ethical. Everyone should have the opportunity to have a child and if this is the best way to achieve this then it is ethical to use this method. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000444.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000444.soc index 445a3b1b..c8e6673b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000444.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000444.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is appropriate for doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has proven benefits to alleviate pain and the potential to treat a range of illnesses and chronic diseases. There are numerous studies that have proven its safety, with minimal side effects and no risk of death. The addictive properties are low compared to many other drugs used in medicine. Medical marijuana is often very cost effective compared to other medication, and as such could have a huge positive impact on the NHS and public health. It is only right that patients should have the right to choose this treatment option if they wish, and should not be denied this right. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. The above consensus statement was designed to elicit consensus from participants in a group environment, and allow them to explore their personal and collective opinions on a question in a safe space, while creating a meaningful and tangible output. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Medical marijuana has proven benefits to alleviate pain and the potential to treat a range of illnesses and chronic diseases. There are numerous studies that have proven its safety, with minimal side effects and no risk of death. The addictive properties are low compared to many other drugs used in medicine. Medical marijuana is often very cost effective compared to other medication, and as such could have a huge positive impact on the NHS and public health. It is only right that patients should have the right to choose this treatment option if they wish, and should not be denied this right. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is appropriate for doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has proven benefits to alleviate pain and the potential to treat a range of illnesses and chronic diseases. There are numerous studies that have proven its safety, with minimal side effects and no risk of death. The addictive properties are low compared to many other drugs used in medicine. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is growing evidence that medical marijuana has a range of benefits, and that there are minimal side effects or risk of death. Its cost effectiveness compared to other medication could have a huge positive impact on the NHS and public health. We believe it is only right that patients should have the right to choose this treatment option if they wish, and should not be denied this right. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is appropriate for doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has proven benefits to alleviate pain and the potential to treat a range of illnesses and chronic diseases. There are numerous studies that have proven its safety, with minimal side effects and no risk of death. The addictive properties are low compared to many other drugs used in medicine. Medical marijuana is often very cost effective compared to other medication, and as such could have a huge positive impact on the NHS and public health. It is only right that patients should have the right to choose this treatment option if they wish, and should not be denied this right. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. The above consensus statement was designed to elicit consensus from participants in a group environment, and allow them to explore their personal and collective opinions on a question in a safe space, while creating a meaningful and tangible output. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Medical marijuana has proven benefits to alleviate pain and the potential to treat a range of illnesses and chronic diseases. There are numerous studies that have proven its safety, with minimal side effects and no risk of death. The addictive properties are low compared to many other drugs used in medicine. Medical marijuana is often very cost effective compared to other medication, and as such could have a huge positive impact on the NHS and public health. It is only right that patients should have the right to choose this treatment option if they wish, and should not be denied this right. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is appropriate for doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has proven benefits to alleviate pain and the potential to treat a range of illnesses and chronic diseases. There are numerous studies that have proven its safety, with minimal side effects and no risk of death. The addictive properties are low compared to many other drugs used in medicine. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is growing evidence that medical marijuana has a range of benefits, and that there are minimal side effects or risk of death. Its cost effectiveness compared to other medication could have a huge positive impact on the NHS and public health. We believe it is only right that patients should have the right to choose this treatment option if they wish, and should not be denied this right. It is important that the public are educated on the use of medical marijuana and that it is monitored to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, but we believe that the benefits of this outweigh the risks. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000445.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000445.soc index 5984942a..f42f9688 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000445.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000445.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the BBC should be politically neutral. However, political neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to every political opinion. The BBC is one of the country's most watched channels and organisations. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. The BBC is a publicly funded organisation and for that reason alone it needs to remain politically neutral. If this changed and it became privatised than I do not care if it then contains political bias. One thing that is important to remember is that all privately owned news organisation contain some form of political bias but the BBC is meant to be exempt from this, this is important as it allows an audience to gather news on a platform free from political bias whilst others could sway the reader's ideologies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC should be politically neutral. However, political neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to every political opinion. The BBC is one of the country's most watched channels and organisations. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. It is important that the BBC, as a publicly funded organisation, is politically neutral, but it should not necessarily give every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. However, it is important to point out that political neutrality is not the same as giving every political opinion the same weight: i.e. climate change deniers should not be platformed on the BBC as an "alternative viewpoint" to climate change supporters in a way to be politically neutral. Instead the BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the BBC should be politically neutral. However, political neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to every political opinion. The BBC is one of the country's most watched channels and organisations. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. It is important that the BBC, as a publicly funded organisation, is politically neutral, but it should not necessarily give every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. It is important to point out that political neutrality is not the same as giving every political opinion the same weight: i.e. climate change deniers should not be platformed on the BBC as an "alternative viewpoint" to climate change supporters in a way to be politically neutral. Instead the BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. The most important thing to note is that it is not always the case that consensus statements will be perfect. They are a great tool to help us reach a conclusion about a complex question, but they should always be treated as working documents. If you find that -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC is a publicly funded organisation and for that reason alone it needs to remain politically neutral. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. However, political neutrality does not mean giving every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. It is important to point out that political neutrality is not the same as giving every political opinion the same weight: i.e. climate change deniers should not be platformed on the BBC as an "alternative viewpoint" to climate change supporters in a way to be politically neutral. Instead the BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. The BBC is a publicly funded organisation and for that reason alone it needs to remain politically neutral. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. However, political neutrality does not mean giving every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. It is important to point out that political +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the BBC should be politically neutral. However, political neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to every political opinion. The BBC is one of the country's most watched channels and organisations. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. The BBC is a publicly funded organisation and for that reason alone it needs to remain politically neutral. If this changed and it became privatised than I do not care if it then contains political bias. One thing that is important to remember is that all privately owned news organisation contain some form of political bias but the BBC is meant to be exempt from this, this is important as it allows an audience to gather news on a platform free from political bias whilst others could sway the reader's ideologies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC should be politically neutral. However, political neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to every political opinion. The BBC is one of the country's most watched channels and organisations. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. It is important that the BBC, as a publicly funded organisation, is politically neutral, but it should not necessarily give every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. However, it is important to point out that political neutrality is not the same as giving every political opinion the same weight: i.e. climate change deniers should not be platformed on the BBC as an "alternative viewpoint" to climate change supporters in a way to be politically neutral. Instead the BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the BBC should be politically neutral. However, political neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to every political opinion. The BBC is one of the country's most watched channels and organisations. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. It is important that the BBC, as a publicly funded organisation, is politically neutral, but it should not necessarily give every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. It is important to point out that political neutrality is not the same as giving every political opinion the same weight: i.e. climate change deniers should not be platformed on the BBC as an "alternative viewpoint" to climate change supporters in a way to be politically neutral. Instead the BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. The most important thing to note is that it is not always the case that consensus statements will be perfect. They are a great tool to help us reach a conclusion about a complex question, but they should always be treated as working documents. If you find that +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC is a publicly funded organisation and for that reason alone it needs to remain politically neutral. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. However, political neutrality does not mean giving every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. It is important to point out that political neutrality is not the same as giving every political opinion the same weight: i.e. climate change deniers should not be platformed on the BBC as an "alternative viewpoint" to climate change supporters in a way to be politically neutral. Instead the BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. The BBC is a publicly funded organisation and for that reason alone it needs to remain politically neutral. It should display neutral arguments so people can make their own decision. It should allow both the right and the left to speak. However, political neutrality does not mean giving every political opinion the same weight. The BBC should be like a newswire service: stating the facts of the news with no opinion. It is important to point out that political 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000446.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000446.soc index c46b4a43..2d015b2c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000446.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000446.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In my opinion there are benefits to learning a foreign language, I believe it can help people in the long run. It helps to be able to understand different cultures and therefore is helpful for travel. People can use it as a career choice as well, so it is a useful skill. It is a good skill to have. It also can give people confidence and a wider view of the world. A second group was given the same question and used the same debating process. Their consensus view was as follows: I believe that learning a foreign language has many benefits. Firstly, it can aid your understanding of the culture in that country. As you get older you will learn to read and understand more and more of their language. This will help you to see the world in a different way, with different points of view and opinions. You can use your new language as a career, like a translator or interpreter, as you will be able to speak to a large variety of people and have a much wider range of jobs available to you. Another benefit of learning a foreign language is that it can give you a good understanding of how to learn a new language, which will help you to pick up different languages much more easily. In -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a great benefit to teaching children a foreign language as it broadens their outlook on the world and helps them to understand other cultures and customs. It is also very useful when travelling abroad and can lead to greater opportunities when looking for employment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a benefit to teaching children to learn foreign languages. It can help when traveling to different countries, and also, when trading and communicating with other countries. It can also work certain areas of the brain that may not be used as much otherwise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that there is a huge benefit to teaching children to learn foreign languages, it will help them when travelling to different countries and will allow them to study abroad at university. Therefore, we think that foreign languages should continue to be taught at school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In my opinion there are benefits to learning a foreign language, I believe it can help people in the long run. It helps to be able to understand different cultures and therefore is helpful for travel. People can use it as a career choice as well, so it is a useful skill. It is a good skill to have. It also can give people confidence and a wider view of the world. A second group was given the same question and used the same debating process. Their consensus view was as follows: I believe that learning a foreign language has many benefits. Firstly, it can aid your understanding of the culture in that country. As you get older you will learn to read and understand more and more of their language. This will help you to see the world in a different way, with different points of view and opinions. You can use your new language as a career, like a translator or interpreter, as you will be able to speak to a large variety of people and have a much wider range of jobs available to you. Another benefit of learning a foreign language is that it can give you a good understanding of how to learn a new language, which will help you to pick up different languages much more easily. In +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a great benefit to teaching children a foreign language as it broadens their outlook on the world and helps them to understand other cultures and customs. It is also very useful when travelling abroad and can lead to greater opportunities when looking for employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a benefit to teaching children to learn foreign languages. It can help when traveling to different countries, and also, when trading and communicating with other countries. It can also work certain areas of the brain that may not be used as much otherwise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that there is a huge benefit to teaching children to learn foreign languages, it will help them when travelling to different countries and will allow them to study abroad at university. Therefore, we think that foreign languages should continue to be taught at school. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000447.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000447.soc index 37215dcf..82f90f54 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000447.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000447.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was a very good health system when it was first introduced, but it is not up to the standards it once was and is becoming more and more problematic. The problem is with the under-funding and lack of staff, making it very hard to provide the best health service. This has also caused many doctors and nurses to go and work abroad for more money. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was a very good health system when it was first introduced, but it is not up to the standards it once was and is becoming more and more problematic. The problem is with the under-funding and lack of staff, making it very hard to provide the best health service. This has also caused many doctors and nurses to go and work abroad for more money. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a very good health system but it is not the best health system in the world. The NHS used to be one of the best health systems in the world, but it is not up to the standards it once was. The problem is with the under-funding and lack of staff. This has caused doctors and nurses to go and work abroad for more money. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a brilliant health system but is falling behind the standards of the past due to the government not funding it sufficiently, causing doctors and nurses to move abroad. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. (Note: This is an actual real-life example from one of the groups involved in the pilot test of the new consensus method). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was a very good health system when it was first introduced, but it is not up to the standards it once was and is becoming more and more problematic. The problem is with the under-funding and lack of staff, making it very hard to provide the best health service. This has also caused many doctors and nurses to go and work abroad for more money. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was a very good health system when it was first introduced, but it is not up to the standards it once was and is becoming more and more problematic. The problem is with the under-funding and lack of staff, making it very hard to provide the best health service. This has also caused many doctors and nurses to go and work abroad for more money. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a very good health system but it is not the best health system in the world. The NHS used to be one of the best health systems in the world, but it is not up to the standards it once was. The problem is with the under-funding and lack of staff. This has caused doctors and nurses to go and work abroad for more money. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a brilliant health system but is falling behind the standards of the past due to the government not funding it sufficiently, causing doctors and nurses to move abroad. This is a shame as the NHS used to be one of the best health services in the world. However, the UK government has not been spending enough money on the NHS in recent years and the NHS has become very overstretched. We all agreed that the NHS is a very good service, but it is not the best health system in the world. (Note: This is an actual real-life example from one of the groups involved in the pilot test of the new consensus method). 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000448.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000448.soc index 2b1de57c..b3f16e22 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000448.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000448.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should be spending more money on the police and armed forces to improve security in the UK. This will help reduce the crime rate, the threat of terrorism and improve the safety of citizens. However, the government should make sure that the money is spent efficiently to make sure that no money is wasted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the budget for the police and armed forces in the UK. It was felt that this would allow for increased security and help in the fight against organised crime and terrorism. However, it was also felt that any additional funding must be used in a responsible manner and should not be misused. The group were of the opinion that by increasing the budget for the police and armed forces this would help to reduce crime and also help with tackling the current issue of radicalisation and extremism in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are different views about whether we should spend more money on the police and armed forces to improve security in the UK, in general we think that we should. There are a lot of crime and security issues in the UK and we don’t think that our police and armed forces are well equipped enough to deal with them. We also think that by investing in the police and armed forces it will be a good deterrent to criminals and terrorists and make the UK a safer place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I am against the idea of spending more on the police and armed forces. This money should be instead invested in interventions that will ensure that people don't feel forced to turn to a life of crime. For example, instead of spending more on the police force we should invest in drug rehabilitation or mental health services that would in turn reduce crime in a particular area. When it comes to spending more on armed forces, as long as we have responsible leaders in government that know how to de-escalate situations we should not be preparing for any conflict. “ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should be spending more money on the police and armed forces to improve security in the UK. This will help reduce the crime rate, the threat of terrorism and improve the safety of citizens. However, the government should make sure that the money is spent efficiently to make sure that no money is wasted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the budget for the police and armed forces in the UK. It was felt that this would allow for increased security and help in the fight against organised crime and terrorism. However, it was also felt that any additional funding must be used in a responsible manner and should not be misused. The group were of the opinion that by increasing the budget for the police and armed forces this would help to reduce crime and also help with tackling the current issue of radicalisation and extremism in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are different views about whether we should spend more money on the police and armed forces to improve security in the UK, in general we think that we should. There are a lot of crime and security issues in the UK and we don’t think that our police and armed forces are well equipped enough to deal with them. We also think that by investing in the police and armed forces it will be a good deterrent to criminals and terrorists and make the UK a safer place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I am against the idea of spending more on the police and armed forces. This money should be instead invested in interventions that will ensure that people don't feel forced to turn to a life of crime. For example, instead of spending more on the police force we should invest in drug rehabilitation or mental health services that would in turn reduce crime in a particular area. When it comes to spending more on armed forces, as long as we have responsible leaders in government that know how to de-escalate situations we should not be preparing for any conflict. “ 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000449.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000449.soc index 78838f74..b74d8c70 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000449.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000449.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion as to whether the use of marijuana by non-medical users is beneficial. In general, people should be free to make their own decisions on what they do with their own bodies, as long as their choices don't have a negative impact on other people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be free to make their own decisions on what they do with their own bodies, as long as their choices don't have a negative impact on other people. There is a lot of stigma and misinformation around marijuana, which would be reduced if it were legalized. This statement makes the assumption that the current prohibition on marijuana is an appropriate way to minimise the negative impact on other people. However, the current criminal market in marijuana, and the associated criminality, is not only an attack on personal liberty, but arguably has a greater negative impact on other people than the drug itself would. This statement also does not address the question of whether marijuana is beneficial or not. Conclusion I believe that this experience clearly demonstrated that a consensus opinion can be reached, even on a controversial topic. After the various comments, and the debate that followed, I was very surprised that the group actually reached a final consensus opinion on this question, considering the very diverse views in the group. The level of interest and participation was great, and everyone really enjoyed the exercise. The various views, and the subsequent debate, resulted in some excellent points being raised, and a more enlightened and informed view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Broadly, no. While there are some health concerns (especially around smoking), it's known that it's much less harmful than drinking alcohol, the other widely used drug. Many artists and creative people use marijuana, and have done throughout history, and its influence on art, literature and music is clear. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Marijuana use is not something to be encouraged, but is not inherently bad. We should focus on preventing young people from starting to use it, as it is a gateway drug. Marijuana should be legalized and tightly regulated, to eliminate the need for dealing with criminals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion as to whether the use of marijuana by non-medical users is beneficial. In general, people should be free to make their own decisions on what they do with their own bodies, as long as their choices don't have a negative impact on other people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be free to make their own decisions on what they do with their own bodies, as long as their choices don't have a negative impact on other people. There is a lot of stigma and misinformation around marijuana, which would be reduced if it were legalized. This statement makes the assumption that the current prohibition on marijuana is an appropriate way to minimise the negative impact on other people. However, the current criminal market in marijuana, and the associated criminality, is not only an attack on personal liberty, but arguably has a greater negative impact on other people than the drug itself would. This statement also does not address the question of whether marijuana is beneficial or not. Conclusion I believe that this experience clearly demonstrated that a consensus opinion can be reached, even on a controversial topic. After the various comments, and the debate that followed, I was very surprised that the group actually reached a final consensus opinion on this question, considering the very diverse views in the group. The level of interest and participation was great, and everyone really enjoyed the exercise. The various views, and the subsequent debate, resulted in some excellent points being raised, and a more enlightened and informed view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Broadly, no. While there are some health concerns (especially around smoking), it's known that it's much less harmful than drinking alcohol, the other widely used drug. Many artists and creative people use marijuana, and have done throughout history, and its influence on art, literature and music is clear. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Marijuana use is not something to be encouraged, but is not inherently bad. We should focus on preventing young people from starting to use it, as it is a gateway drug. Marijuana should be legalized and tightly regulated, to eliminate the need for dealing with criminals. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000450.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000450.soc index 71027548..05cca6be 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000450.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000450.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The move to a four-day working week is something we should be looking at. There are many positives that would come from the change. One is improved work-life balance, another is the positives on mental health. The move is not one that is very high on the agenda but should be looked at in the near future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The move to a four-day working week is something we should be looking at. There are many positives that would come from the change. One is improved work-life balance, another is the positives on mental health. The move is not one that is very high on the agenda but should be looked at in the near future. The benefits far outweigh the costs and I think that the four day working week is a positive thing for Ireland to implement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The move to a four-day working week is something we should be looking at. There are many positives that would come from the change. One is improved work-life balance, another is the positives on mental health. The move is not one that is very high on the agenda but should be looked at in the near future. The benefits far outweigh the costs and I think that the four day working week would be a positive thing for Ireland to implement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The move to a four-day working week is something we should be looking at. There are many positives that would come from the change. One is improved work-life balance, another is the positives on mental health. The move is not one that is very high on the agenda but should be looked at in the near future. The benefits far outweigh the costs and I think that the four day working week is something we should be introducing in the near future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The move to a four-day working week is something we should be looking at. There are many positives that would come from the change. One is improved work-life balance, another is the positives on mental health. The move is not one that is very high on the agenda but should be looked at in the near future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The move to a four-day working week is something we should be looking at. There are many positives that would come from the change. One is improved work-life balance, another is the positives on mental health. The move is not one that is very high on the agenda but should be looked at in the near future. The benefits far outweigh the costs and I think that the four day working week is a positive thing for Ireland to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The move to a four-day working week is something we should be looking at. There are many positives that would come from the change. One is improved work-life balance, another is the positives on mental health. The move is not one that is very high on the agenda but should be looked at in the near future. The benefits far outweigh the costs and I think that the four day working week would be a positive thing for Ireland to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The move to a four-day working week is something we should be looking at. There are many positives that would come from the change. One is improved work-life balance, another is the positives on mental health. The move is not one that is very high on the agenda but should be looked at in the near future. The benefits far outweigh the costs and I think that the four day working week is something we should be introducing in the near future. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000451.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000451.soc index 7411d192..159e4694 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000451.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000451.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The number of migrant workers should be reduced by 10% in the short term. The issue of illegal immigrants needs to be addressed and in the longer term we should look to increase the number of migrant workers by 5% after a year as a means to increase productivity and to fill in gaps in the labour market. We should also seek to ensure that these migrant workers are employed in industries where the impact of them being here will be minimal such as the food processing industry. This will help to address labour shortage in certain industries whilst allowing our local workforce to be employed in industries where they can have a greater impact. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the number of migrant workers allowed into the UK should be decreased, but there should be special provisions to allow entry to migrant workers in industries that are facing staff shortages, such as nursing and the construction industry. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should decrease the number of migrant workers as this will increase the quality of workers and increase the competition for jobs. Also the number of workers coming in from abroad should be decreased as the country is already experiencing a high level of unemployment. The country's wealth should be given to people who were born here, not came here. The views expressed by participant 1 are those of the person writing and not those of anyone else. The views expressed by participant 2 are those of the person writing and not those of anyone else. The views expressed by the group are those of the group and not of any one individual -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group have come to the consensus opinion that we should not change the number of migrant workers allowed into the UK, as we believe that everyone should be allowed to work where they choose, so long as they are willing to play by the same rules as everybody else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The number of migrant workers should be reduced by 10% in the short term. The issue of illegal immigrants needs to be addressed and in the longer term we should look to increase the number of migrant workers by 5% after a year as a means to increase productivity and to fill in gaps in the labour market. We should also seek to ensure that these migrant workers are employed in industries where the impact of them being here will be minimal such as the food processing industry. This will help to address labour shortage in certain industries whilst allowing our local workforce to be employed in industries where they can have a greater impact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the number of migrant workers allowed into the UK should be decreased, but there should be special provisions to allow entry to migrant workers in industries that are facing staff shortages, such as nursing and the construction industry. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should decrease the number of migrant workers as this will increase the quality of workers and increase the competition for jobs. Also the number of workers coming in from abroad should be decreased as the country is already experiencing a high level of unemployment. The country's wealth should be given to people who were born here, not came here. The views expressed by participant 1 are those of the person writing and not those of anyone else. The views expressed by participant 2 are those of the person writing and not those of anyone else. The views expressed by the group are those of the group and not of any one individual +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group have come to the consensus opinion that we should not change the number of migrant workers allowed into the UK, as we believe that everyone should be allowed to work where they choose, so long as they are willing to play by the same rules as everybody else. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000452.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000452.soc index b0b6f42b..20f8b5c1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000452.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000452.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the consensus that the rise of the internet has increased loneliness. We feel that it is social media in particular that has been the cause, as mentioned above. The algorithms that drive the likes on Instagram and Facebook actually cause the opposite effect to that intended - they make us feel worse about ourselves, which is the opposite of what social media was meant to do. It was meant to be a place to express ourselves, connect with others and share our lives - but it has become a place where we look at others, rather than ourselves, and feel inferior. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The rise of the internet has not caused loneliness. This answer is backed up by a variety of academic studies, which have shown that overall levels of loneliness have remained steady, despite the rise of the internet. It is important to distinguish between the internet and social media, however, as there are many studies which show that social media in particular can contribute to feelings of loneliness. This is likely because social media algorithms are designed to keep users scrolling and scrolling on the platform, and users can become addicted to this. Social media is also shown to give people a false sense of connection to others, and some people believe they have many friends online but don't realise that they don't have any real, human friendships. It is these people who may feel lonely, but this is an issue of not making an effort to go out and meet people. The internet is not a cause of loneliness - but it is an enabler of loneliness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the rise of the internet has not caused loneliness. However, social media in particular is a different story. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that the rise of the internet has caused loneliness. The issue of the internet being a cause of loneliness is a complex one. However, it is becoming more evident with time. The issue is made more complex by the fact that in some situations, the internet has actually brought people together and helped to reduce loneliness. Nevertheless, the overuse of the internet, especially social media, has made the issue of loneliness worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the consensus that the rise of the internet has increased loneliness. We feel that it is social media in particular that has been the cause, as mentioned above. The algorithms that drive the likes on Instagram and Facebook actually cause the opposite effect to that intended - they make us feel worse about ourselves, which is the opposite of what social media was meant to do. It was meant to be a place to express ourselves, connect with others and share our lives - but it has become a place where we look at others, rather than ourselves, and feel inferior. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The rise of the internet has not caused loneliness. This answer is backed up by a variety of academic studies, which have shown that overall levels of loneliness have remained steady, despite the rise of the internet. It is important to distinguish between the internet and social media, however, as there are many studies which show that social media in particular can contribute to feelings of loneliness. This is likely because social media algorithms are designed to keep users scrolling and scrolling on the platform, and users can become addicted to this. Social media is also shown to give people a false sense of connection to others, and some people believe they have many friends online but don't realise that they don't have any real, human friendships. It is these people who may feel lonely, but this is an issue of not making an effort to go out and meet people. The internet is not a cause of loneliness - but it is an enabler of loneliness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the rise of the internet has not caused loneliness. However, social media in particular is a different story. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that the rise of the internet has caused loneliness. The issue of the internet being a cause of loneliness is a complex one. However, it is becoming more evident with time. The issue is made more complex by the fact that in some situations, the internet has actually brought people together and helped to reduce loneliness. Nevertheless, the overuse of the internet, especially social media, has made the issue of loneliness worse. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000453.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000453.soc index 63b9b651..cf14a5c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000453.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000453.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although devolution has worked well in recent years, it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices and decisions about their own future. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Scotland should be given a second referendum on independence. It is very important that the political parties are completely clear on what independence would mean for Scotland. This way the public can fully understand what they are voting for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Scotland should be given a second referendum on independence. The people of Scotland should have the right to vote for their own self-determination and to make their own choices for their future. Independence is a right that they should be able to exercise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of self-determination is incredibly important in a modern democracy. However, there are no guarantees that an independent Scotland will be as stable as it is today. The opinion of the participants about the question were not exactly the same but they all had a different perspective about it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although devolution has worked well in recent years, it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices and decisions about their own future. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Scotland should be given a second referendum on independence. It is very important that the political parties are completely clear on what independence would mean for Scotland. This way the public can fully understand what they are voting for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Scotland should be given a second referendum on independence. The people of Scotland should have the right to vote for their own self-determination and to make their own choices for their future. Independence is a right that they should be able to exercise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of self-determination is incredibly important in a modern democracy. However, there are no guarantees that an independent Scotland will be as stable as it is today. The opinion of the participants about the question were not exactly the same but they all had a different perspective about it. 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000454.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000454.soc index 3062908b..36558cca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000454.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000454.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although devolution has worked well in recent years, it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices and decisions about their own future. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The political climate has changed dramatically since the 2014 referendum on independence, and it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices and decisions about their own future. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although devolution has worked well in recent years, it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices or control their own destiny. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although devolution has worked well in recent years, it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices or control their own destiny. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although devolution has worked well in recent years, it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices and decisions about their own future. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The political climate has changed dramatically since the 2014 referendum on independence, and it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices and decisions about their own future. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although devolution has worked well in recent years, it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices or control their own destiny. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although devolution has worked well in recent years, it is clear that the current system does not allow the Scottish people to make their own choices or control their own destiny. It is therefore clear that Scotland should be given the opportunity to vote for independence. The Scottish people should have the opportunity to control their own future, to make their own mistakes and to prosper on their own terms. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000455.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000455.soc index de17108e..43e62657 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000455.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000455.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the arts are important and deserve some funding, other issues and priorities have to take precedence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The arts are a nice to have, but not as important as other areas of government spending. The government should only spend money on the arts if there are sufficient funds available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The arts are a fundamental part of society, but not in a position to be a priority during a time of economic hardship. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the arts are important and deserve some funding, other issues and priorities have to take precedence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The arts are a nice to have, but not as important as other areas of government spending. The government should only spend money on the arts if there are sufficient funds available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The arts are a fundamental part of society, but not in a position to be a priority during a time of economic hardship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000456.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000456.soc index 1de57107..ac3108cf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000456.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000456.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. (c) Main Theme - Impact of Technology on Society A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. (c) Main Theme - Impact of Technology on Society A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The arts are good for society. They are a great way for people to relax, and can be very stimulating to be involved in. However, in times like these where there is an economic crisis, the arts are not as important as other things such as the NHS and education. These should be the priorities. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000457.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000457.soc index 559d3b48..26355104 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000457.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000457.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Artificial intelligence can be a useful tool for businesses in recruitment and promotion, but human oversight is necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Businesses should be able to use AI to help in their recruitment process but not to the extent that they can no longer have an eye to eye discussion with a potential candidate to determine if they would fit in and work well with the team. The use of AI should be to support the overall process but should not be the decision-maker as it does not have a human element and may not be as effective at reading between the lines or being empathetic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a business should be able to use AI to filter through applications. This will save time for both the business and applicants and is an overall positive process. However, we feel that there should be a human element to the final stages of the recruitment process in order to ensure that the correct candidate is hired. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a balance between human oversight and the use of AI. It should be used for initial candidate screening. In the future, the use of AI may need to be tightened as companies can sometimes go overboard with its use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Artificial intelligence can be a useful tool for businesses in recruitment and promotion, but human oversight is necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Businesses should be able to use AI to help in their recruitment process but not to the extent that they can no longer have an eye to eye discussion with a potential candidate to determine if they would fit in and work well with the team. The use of AI should be to support the overall process but should not be the decision-maker as it does not have a human element and may not be as effective at reading between the lines or being empathetic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a business should be able to use AI to filter through applications. This will save time for both the business and applicants and is an overall positive process. However, we feel that there should be a human element to the final stages of the recruitment process in order to ensure that the correct candidate is hired. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a balance between human oversight and the use of AI. It should be used for initial candidate screening. In the future, the use of AI may need to be tightened as companies can sometimes go overboard with its use. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000458.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000458.soc index 176c8fe1..27ca618b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000458.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000458.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we believe that the amount of people moving in and out of the UK should be equal and we don't want to be relying on other countries to get the work done that we don't have the resources for. We also believe that the costs to immigrate to the UK are very high, and that we should try and reduce the cost as much as possible, in order to increase the amount of people moving to the UK to contribute to the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have a number of immigrants from all over the world and I think we should allow more people to come to the UK. Immigrants bring their skills, abilities and experiences with them to our country. Some come to study, some come to find jobs and some come to seek refuge from their war-torn countries. We should not make it difficult for people from other countries to immigrate to the UK because that would give a bad image of our country. We should not be judgemental about the immigrants because they are humans just like us. We should have compassion for people who are less fortunate and help them, and that includes welcoming them into our country and giving them a chance to live a better life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should make it easier for people to immigrate to the UK, however there needs to be certain requirements to ensure that the immigrants are legally here and not going to abuse the systems in place. Also the government needs to ensure that there are enough resources to cope with any increase in immigration. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the United Kingdom is an attractive destination for immigrants. The United Kingdom is a great country with a stable economy, an unrivaled political system, and is generally very safe. However, we must make sure that the citizens of the UK are taken care of first and foremost. Immigration has always been good for the UK as it helps us innovate, grow, and prosper. However, the government must not be too lenient. For example, it should not be so easy to move to the UK that everyone in the world wants to come to the UK. Immigration should not be too easy as to discourage immigration, but it should be easy enough to attract talent to the UK. The costs of immigrating to the UK should not be cut as they help deter illegal immigration and help attract talent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we believe that the amount of people moving in and out of the UK should be equal and we don't want to be relying on other countries to get the work done that we don't have the resources for. We also believe that the costs to immigrate to the UK are very high, and that we should try and reduce the cost as much as possible, in order to increase the amount of people moving to the UK to contribute to the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have a number of immigrants from all over the world and I think we should allow more people to come to the UK. Immigrants bring their skills, abilities and experiences with them to our country. Some come to study, some come to find jobs and some come to seek refuge from their war-torn countries. We should not make it difficult for people from other countries to immigrate to the UK because that would give a bad image of our country. We should not be judgemental about the immigrants because they are humans just like us. We should have compassion for people who are less fortunate and help them, and that includes welcoming them into our country and giving them a chance to live a better life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should make it easier for people to immigrate to the UK, however there needs to be certain requirements to ensure that the immigrants are legally here and not going to abuse the systems in place. Also the government needs to ensure that there are enough resources to cope with any increase in immigration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the United Kingdom is an attractive destination for immigrants. The United Kingdom is a great country with a stable economy, an unrivaled political system, and is generally very safe. However, we must make sure that the citizens of the UK are taken care of first and foremost. Immigration has always been good for the UK as it helps us innovate, grow, and prosper. However, the government must not be too lenient. For example, it should not be so easy to move to the UK that everyone in the world wants to come to the UK. Immigration should not be too easy as to discourage immigration, but it should be easy enough to attract talent to the UK. The costs of immigrating to the UK should not be cut as they help deter illegal immigration and help attract talent. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000459.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000459.soc index 1a7af841..faff4ac0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000459.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000459.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of selling organs to save the life of another person seems to be one that is inherently good. However, the risk of exploitation of people in difficult situations, the loss of dignity for the person who sold the organ, and the strong possibility of organ trafficking is something that makes it a morally repugnant idea. While the need for a system where more organs are available for people who need them is pressing, this system would seem to bring too many problems with it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be allowed to buy and sell organs. This question is the third in a series of questions posed to the “consensus”. The first question was: 1. Should we allow people to carry guns? The participants’ answers were as follows: · YES. Providing that people are properly trained in the safe use of guns and that guns are securely stored and transported, there should be no issue with allowing people to carry guns. · NO. The reason being that guns are inherently dangerous and that accidents happen even when people are properly trained. · YES. Providing that guns are only issued to those people who are law abiding citizens. The right to self-defense is fundamental. · NO. The level of danger is too great. The consensus was therefore reached that people should not be allowed to carry guns. The second question was: 2. Should the sale of drugs be legalized? The participants’ answers were as follows: · -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no market for organs, they should be donated freely and fairly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not be able to buy and sell organs on a market. It would be too easy for criminals to exploit this and would not be a fair way of distributing organs to people in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of selling organs to save the life of another person seems to be one that is inherently good. However, the risk of exploitation of people in difficult situations, the loss of dignity for the person who sold the organ, and the strong possibility of organ trafficking is something that makes it a morally repugnant idea. While the need for a system where more organs are available for people who need them is pressing, this system would seem to bring too many problems with it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be allowed to buy and sell organs. This question is the third in a series of questions posed to the “consensus”. The first question was: 1. Should we allow people to carry guns? The participants’ answers were as follows: · YES. Providing that people are properly trained in the safe use of guns and that guns are securely stored and transported, there should be no issue with allowing people to carry guns. · NO. The reason being that guns are inherently dangerous and that accidents happen even when people are properly trained. · YES. Providing that guns are only issued to those people who are law abiding citizens. The right to self-defense is fundamental. · NO. The level of danger is too great. The consensus was therefore reached that people should not be allowed to carry guns. The second question was: 2. Should the sale of drugs be legalized? The participants’ answers were as follows: · +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no market for organs, they should be donated freely and fairly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not be able to buy and sell organs on a market. It would be too easy for criminals to exploit this and would not be a fair way of distributing organs to people in need. 3: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000460.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000460.soc index c96a6405..40fc0409 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000460.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000460.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to nuclear power plants, with one person being in favour. In general, the argument given was that they are not safe, not environmentally friendly, and that we should be moving away from the use of fossil fuels, so why move back to a different type of fossil fuel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, they are not good for the environment, and in fact could have a devastating impact. While they are good for energy security, they could lead to environmental damage in the case of an accident. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although nuclear power plants can be a great source of clean energy and can provide us with security for years to come, it can be unsafe if an accident occurs such as at Chernobyl. The environment can also be affected by nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants also need to be built in a way that they are not an eyesore in an area. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The world is divided on whether nuclear power plants are a good idea or not. We think that it is dangerous to the environment, but nuclear power is an option to provide clean energy and energy security. We believe that nuclear power plants are needed for a short time, but other sources of clean energy will soon be available and the world will be able to move on from nuclear power. It is better than burning coal which pollutes the atmosphere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to nuclear power plants, with one person being in favour. In general, the argument given was that they are not safe, not environmentally friendly, and that we should be moving away from the use of fossil fuels, so why move back to a different type of fossil fuel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, they are not good for the environment, and in fact could have a devastating impact. While they are good for energy security, they could lead to environmental damage in the case of an accident. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although nuclear power plants can be a great source of clean energy and can provide us with security for years to come, it can be unsafe if an accident occurs such as at Chernobyl. The environment can also be affected by nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants also need to be built in a way that they are not an eyesore in an area. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The world is divided on whether nuclear power plants are a good idea or not. We think that it is dangerous to the environment, but nuclear power is an option to provide clean energy and energy security. We believe that nuclear power plants are needed for a short time, but other sources of clean energy will soon be available and the world will be able to move on from nuclear power. It is better than burning coal which pollutes the atmosphere. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000461.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000461.soc index fb1873ce..e782842d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000461.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000461.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The rise of the Internet has caused loneliness. The issue of the Internet being a cause of loneliness is a complex one. Nevertheless, it is becoming more evident with time. The issue is made more complex by the fact that in some situations, the Internet has actually brought people together and helped to reduce loneliness. However, the overuse of the Internet, especially social media, has made the issue of loneliness worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The rise of the internet has caused loneliness, but not in the ways many would expect. While it is true that social media and other platforms have isolated people from each other and caused a rise in loneliness, it is also true that the internet has enabled people to connect in new and powerful ways. The effect of the internet on loneliness has been complex and will continue to be so in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the rise of the internet has made loneliness worse. This is a complex issue because in some cases the internet can help people who are lonely connect with others. However, with the rise of social media and the increase in toxic algorithms, it has become clear that the internet is increasing loneliness. It is becoming more evident that the overuse of the internet, especially social media, has made the issue of loneliness worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the rise of the internet has increased loneliness. We acknowledge that it is a complex issue. We acknowledge that in some situations the internet has helped to bring people together. We believe that the issue of loneliness is exacerbated by the fact that people are spending more and more time on social media and less time with other people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The rise of the Internet has caused loneliness. The issue of the Internet being a cause of loneliness is a complex one. Nevertheless, it is becoming more evident with time. The issue is made more complex by the fact that in some situations, the Internet has actually brought people together and helped to reduce loneliness. However, the overuse of the Internet, especially social media, has made the issue of loneliness worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The rise of the internet has caused loneliness, but not in the ways many would expect. While it is true that social media and other platforms have isolated people from each other and caused a rise in loneliness, it is also true that the internet has enabled people to connect in new and powerful ways. The effect of the internet on loneliness has been complex and will continue to be so in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the rise of the internet has made loneliness worse. This is a complex issue because in some cases the internet can help people who are lonely connect with others. However, with the rise of social media and the increase in toxic algorithms, it has become clear that the internet is increasing loneliness. It is becoming more evident that the overuse of the internet, especially social media, has made the issue of loneliness worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the rise of the internet has increased loneliness. We acknowledge that it is a complex issue. We acknowledge that in some situations the internet has helped to bring people together. We believe that the issue of loneliness is exacerbated by the fact that people are spending more and more time on social media and less time with other people. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000462.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000462.soc index 8091ef4f..2f0fe446 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000462.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000462.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of free school meals. The group felt that not all children should get free school meals as this would be too expensive. It was felt that there were some children in poverty that would benefit. The group decided that it would be sensible to offer free school meals to those children in poverty. It was suggested that the free school meal could be targeted at children in poverty at the moment, but children should not be labelled. The local authority would need to consider the proportion of children that were in poverty in the area. The cost of providing free school meals to every child in the local authority would be very expensive, and this would mean less money for other services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A balanced and healthy diet is very essential for children for their proper growth. Local authority can play a vital role to provide healthy and balanced food to the school children. Local authority can provide food to those children whose parents cannot afford to give healthy and balanced diet to their children due to their financial circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although not every local authority should provide every child with a free school meal, the school should be able to cater for all children. This was a difficult topic to reach a consensus view on. The final view was reached through a lot of deliberation and reflection on the different opinions. There were a lot of strong views, but we finally came to a conclusion that all children should be able to have a free school meal. However, it should be up to the local authority to decide if they want to provide all children with a free meal. This is due to financial circumstances of the authority. However, this is not a decision that should be taken lightly, as many children come from deprived households and need a healthy meal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be given a free school meal as it can increase attendance and educational attainment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of free school meals. The group felt that not all children should get free school meals as this would be too expensive. It was felt that there were some children in poverty that would benefit. The group decided that it would be sensible to offer free school meals to those children in poverty. It was suggested that the free school meal could be targeted at children in poverty at the moment, but children should not be labelled. The local authority would need to consider the proportion of children that were in poverty in the area. The cost of providing free school meals to every child in the local authority would be very expensive, and this would mean less money for other services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A balanced and healthy diet is very essential for children for their proper growth. Local authority can play a vital role to provide healthy and balanced food to the school children. Local authority can provide food to those children whose parents cannot afford to give healthy and balanced diet to their children due to their financial circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although not every local authority should provide every child with a free school meal, the school should be able to cater for all children. This was a difficult topic to reach a consensus view on. The final view was reached through a lot of deliberation and reflection on the different opinions. There were a lot of strong views, but we finally came to a conclusion that all children should be able to have a free school meal. However, it should be up to the local authority to decide if they want to provide all children with a free meal. This is due to financial circumstances of the authority. However, this is not a decision that should be taken lightly, as many children come from deprived households and need a healthy meal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be given a free school meal as it can increase attendance and educational attainment. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000463.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000463.soc index 23619ddf..4a46179d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000463.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000463.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should be doing more to help the poor and the elderly. We think that it is important that the poorest are not forced to pay for the mistakes of the rich and that the government should be investing more in welfare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should continue to help the poor and the elderly more than it does now, especially in the cost of living crisis. There needs to be a radical overhaul of social policy if we want to care for our elders, and massive redistribution of wealth in order to alleviate poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should do more to help the poor and elderly in society. As the gap between rich and poor continues to grow, and with an ageing population, the poorest in society are being hit the hardest. The government needs to radically overhaul its social policies and spend more on welfare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should help the poor and elderly more than it does now because we have an ageing population and so need to provide for our elders. The cost of living crisis is making life harder for the poor and elderly and so we need to increase benefits and pension rates in order to provide the most basic things like food, heating and bills. It is not enough to just pay the bills of the elderly and poor, we need to work to end poverty and the gap between the rich and poor. This should be a priority for the government and so needs a radical overhaul of social policy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should be doing more to help the poor and the elderly. We think that it is important that the poorest are not forced to pay for the mistakes of the rich and that the government should be investing more in welfare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should continue to help the poor and the elderly more than it does now, especially in the cost of living crisis. There needs to be a radical overhaul of social policy if we want to care for our elders, and massive redistribution of wealth in order to alleviate poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should do more to help the poor and elderly in society. As the gap between rich and poor continues to grow, and with an ageing population, the poorest in society are being hit the hardest. The government needs to radically overhaul its social policies and spend more on welfare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should help the poor and elderly more than it does now because we have an ageing population and so need to provide for our elders. The cost of living crisis is making life harder for the poor and elderly and so we need to increase benefits and pension rates in order to provide the most basic things like food, heating and bills. It is not enough to just pay the bills of the elderly and poor, we need to work to end poverty and the gap between the rich and poor. This should be a priority for the government and so needs a radical overhaul of social policy.” 2: 4,2,1,3 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000464.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000464.soc index 0f3c83b3..d7b9fd02 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000464.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000464.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the participants were surprised at how much influence a lie can have on a group decision. Some participants came to the consensus view that lies should not be told to a Parliamentary Select Committee as the outcome of the decisions reached by the committee could affect people's lives and livelihoods. Others felt that lies should be told in certain circumstances where it is a morally justifiable and honourable thing to do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People in power should never lie to parliamentary select committees as it can lead to future decisions being made on wrong information and this can have a huge impact on a whole country. The statements above clearly show how individuals opinions changed throughout the process and how they eventually reached a consensus view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that lying to the parliamentary select committee should be illegal. We think that it is unprofessional to lie in the parliamentary select committee and gives the wrong impression to the public and the government. The select committee should be the ultimate example to the public and lying should not be acceptable as it undermines the laws and is setting a bad example to the public. The government should make the laws and not break them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is the opinion of the group that lies should not be allowed in the parliament as it will create the potential to lose the confidence of the people who are affected by their decisions. They will also set a bad example for the rest of society to follow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the participants were surprised at how much influence a lie can have on a group decision. Some participants came to the consensus view that lies should not be told to a Parliamentary Select Committee as the outcome of the decisions reached by the committee could affect people's lives and livelihoods. Others felt that lies should be told in certain circumstances where it is a morally justifiable and honourable thing to do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People in power should never lie to parliamentary select committees as it can lead to future decisions being made on wrong information and this can have a huge impact on a whole country. The statements above clearly show how individuals opinions changed throughout the process and how they eventually reached a consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that lying to the parliamentary select committee should be illegal. We think that it is unprofessional to lie in the parliamentary select committee and gives the wrong impression to the public and the government. The select committee should be the ultimate example to the public and lying should not be acceptable as it undermines the laws and is setting a bad example to the public. The government should make the laws and not break them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is the opinion of the group that lies should not be allowed in the parliament as it will create the potential to lose the confidence of the people who are affected by their decisions. They will also set a bad example for the rest of society to follow. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000465.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000465.soc index f5d537a0..bdd6df58 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000465.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000465.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a ban on single-use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of plastic products should be banned, with the exception of those that can be fully recycled. This would be an excellent way to avoid large amounts of plastic ending up in landfill and causing problems for the environment. It is true that in some cases, the use of plastic is not something that can be immediately banned, but it would be helpful if there was a drive to come up with replacement products for many plastic goods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have a duty to preserve the environment. The health of all life on this planet is dependent on a clean, healthy environment. We need to take all possible measures to prevent plastic waste entering our environment. Some plastic products can be replaced with sustainable products, however, there are many vital plastic products that can't be replaced. We need to take drastic measures to protect our planet, but we need to work together to do so. We must come up with a way to encourage people to make the right choices when it comes to the products they purchase. We must also encourage companies to stop using non-sustainable plastic products in the first place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Plastic is the source of many environmental issues and in many ways is a necessary evil, it is a highly versatile product that has found its way into almost every aspect of our lives. Therefore, we can’t simply ban all plastic products, but we can attempt to find ways of replacing these products with other materials that do not last as long or will not have such a detrimental effect on the environment. We believe this can be achieved through greater research and development in this field and the imposition of taxes on those products that are most damaging, in this way plastic products will become less of a necessary evil.” The above exercise is just one example of how some people can come together, hear each other's opinions and can reach a consensus decision. The important thing to note is that the final opinion did not simply reflect the most persuasive opinion presented. It was a carefully crafted opinion that reflected all of the different opinions presented and still included aspects that each person could get behind. If we are to be truly democratic, then we must also learn to be consensus-based. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a ban on single-use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of plastic products should be banned, with the exception of those that can be fully recycled. This would be an excellent way to avoid large amounts of plastic ending up in landfill and causing problems for the environment. It is true that in some cases, the use of plastic is not something that can be immediately banned, but it would be helpful if there was a drive to come up with replacement products for many plastic goods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have a duty to preserve the environment. The health of all life on this planet is dependent on a clean, healthy environment. We need to take all possible measures to prevent plastic waste entering our environment. Some plastic products can be replaced with sustainable products, however, there are many vital plastic products that can't be replaced. We need to take drastic measures to protect our planet, but we need to work together to do so. We must come up with a way to encourage people to make the right choices when it comes to the products they purchase. We must also encourage companies to stop using non-sustainable plastic products in the first place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Plastic is the source of many environmental issues and in many ways is a necessary evil, it is a highly versatile product that has found its way into almost every aspect of our lives. Therefore, we can’t simply ban all plastic products, but we can attempt to find ways of replacing these products with other materials that do not last as long or will not have such a detrimental effect on the environment. We believe this can be achieved through greater research and development in this field and the imposition of taxes on those products that are most damaging, in this way plastic products will become less of a necessary evil.” The above exercise is just one example of how some people can come together, hear each other's opinions and can reach a consensus decision. The important thing to note is that the final opinion did not simply reflect the most persuasive opinion presented. It was a carefully crafted opinion that reflected all of the different opinions presented and still included aspects that each person could get behind. If we are to be truly democratic, then we must also learn to be consensus-based. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000466.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000466.soc index c62f3db3..a50881e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000466.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000466.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should increase the amount of solar energy produced in the UK. This is a key issue as solar energy is a clean, renewable energy source that is currently under-used in the UK. This is a major issue as we are all suffering from the consequences of climate change, including increased storms and droughts, as well as increased energy bills as we are reliant on non-renewable energy sources. Solar energy can be produced in the UK with the help of government initiatives that incentivise energy producers to switch to renewable energy sources, including, but not limited to, solar energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we believe that the government should increase the amount of solar energy produced in the UK. We believe this is important because solar energy is one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy, and can be easily generated in the UK. We believe that increasing the amount of solar energy produced in the UK will help the government meet its climate change targets, and reduce the UK's reliance on foreign sources of energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the amount of solar energy produced in the UK. Some concerns were raised, however, such as the difficulty of large scale energy production using solar energy, and the dangers of solar energy if not implemented properly. The group in general felt that solar energy is a promising alternative to the conventional forms of energy production, and a renewable source that would help to reduce our impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group believes that the government should work to increase the amount of solar energy produced in the UK. This is an important issue as solar energy is one of the best alternatives to oil and gas, which we urgently need to replace to tackle climate change. Solar energy can be produced in the UK with the help of government initiatives that incentivise energy producers to switch to renewable energy sources, including, but not limited to, solar energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should increase the amount of solar energy produced in the UK. This is a key issue as solar energy is a clean, renewable energy source that is currently under-used in the UK. This is a major issue as we are all suffering from the consequences of climate change, including increased storms and droughts, as well as increased energy bills as we are reliant on non-renewable energy sources. Solar energy can be produced in the UK with the help of government initiatives that incentivise energy producers to switch to renewable energy sources, including, but not limited to, solar energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we believe that the government should increase the amount of solar energy produced in the UK. We believe this is important because solar energy is one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy, and can be easily generated in the UK. We believe that increasing the amount of solar energy produced in the UK will help the government meet its climate change targets, and reduce the UK's reliance on foreign sources of energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the amount of solar energy produced in the UK. Some concerns were raised, however, such as the difficulty of large scale energy production using solar energy, and the dangers of solar energy if not implemented properly. The group in general felt that solar energy is a promising alternative to the conventional forms of energy production, and a renewable source that would help to reduce our impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group believes that the government should work to increase the amount of solar energy produced in the UK. This is an important issue as solar energy is one of the best alternatives to oil and gas, which we urgently need to replace to tackle climate change. Solar energy can be produced in the UK with the help of government initiatives that incentivise energy producers to switch to renewable energy sources, including, but not limited to, solar energy. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000467.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000467.soc index f58b943e..18bf2676 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000467.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000467.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the benefits of free public transportation are worth the cost; but we can not rely on free public transportation as a stand-alone policy. A good public transportation system should have low prices for all and it should also be supplemented with other policies, such as support to cyclists and pedestrians. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although costly, a free public transportation system would have benefits to all. It would help alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. A feasibility study would help to determine the costs of this scheme and whether it would be possible to fund it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The benefits of free public transportation are not worth the costs of such a system. People will not respect something that is given to them freely and it will be hard to keep up the standards of maintenance. We believe that public transportation should be available for everyone to use, however, people should be made to pay for it, but the costs should be minimal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Public transport is the best form of transport, for the country, the planet, and the economy. But it is costly and not accessible for all. The Government should subsidise the cost of public transport to make it as cheap as possible for the benefit of everyone.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the benefits of free public transportation are worth the cost; but we can not rely on free public transportation as a stand-alone policy. A good public transportation system should have low prices for all and it should also be supplemented with other policies, such as support to cyclists and pedestrians. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although costly, a free public transportation system would have benefits to all. It would help alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. A feasibility study would help to determine the costs of this scheme and whether it would be possible to fund it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The benefits of free public transportation are not worth the costs of such a system. People will not respect something that is given to them freely and it will be hard to keep up the standards of maintenance. We believe that public transportation should be available for everyone to use, however, people should be made to pay for it, but the costs should be minimal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Public transport is the best form of transport, for the country, the planet, and the economy. But it is costly and not accessible for all. The Government should subsidise the cost of public transport to make it as cheap as possible for the benefit of everyone.” 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000468.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000468.soc index 3809b863..c46d51a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000468.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000468.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a law against bullying in school. However it is important to note that a law alone will not stop the bullying. We should not make the parents of the children who bully accountable for the actions of their children. It is the schools responsibility to tackle the bullying. If a child bullies in school it is the responsibility of the school to stop it, not the parents of the child who is bullying. If the parents of the child who is being bullied are not happy with the schools response then they should have the right to make a complaint. There should also be a consequence for the children who bully. This could be done through the use of a bullying diary and if a child is caught bullying more than twice they should be given a punishment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is no doubt that bullying in schools needs to be tackled. It is very difficult for teachers to be the policeman of this and I think a law would make parents take a bit more responsibility for their children. However, because bullying happens all over the world in different settings, I believe a law would not be the most effective way of stopping it. It would be very difficult to put a law on bullying as people that bully have usually been bullied themselves and there could be something deeper neurologically as to why they choose to bully. It is very difficult to prove that a person has been bullied, particularly when you take into consideration that a child may not have told their parents about it. I believe that there are lots of different ways to stop/lessen bullying without the need of a law. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No law should be put in place against bullying, however, a body should be formed to help deal with the issue of bullying in schools. The body should be comprised of a group of people from different backgrounds including a representative from each school in the country. The body should help schools create an anti-bullying plan and help implement it. Schools should also be made responsible for dealing with bullying that happens outside of school grounds but this can be dealt with through the existing mechanisms in place. If the bullying is so severe that it requires the attention of the law then this is an option that can be explored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, there should be a law against bullying. It's hard to put a law in place but a good system should be put in place where it's reported to the teachers or parents of the child that is being bullied. The bully should then be put into isolation. The parents should be informed of the situation and if it continues, it should then be dealt with by a higher authority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a law against bullying in school. However it is important to note that a law alone will not stop the bullying. We should not make the parents of the children who bully accountable for the actions of their children. It is the schools responsibility to tackle the bullying. If a child bullies in school it is the responsibility of the school to stop it, not the parents of the child who is bullying. If the parents of the child who is being bullied are not happy with the schools response then they should have the right to make a complaint. There should also be a consequence for the children who bully. This could be done through the use of a bullying diary and if a child is caught bullying more than twice they should be given a punishment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is no doubt that bullying in schools needs to be tackled. It is very difficult for teachers to be the policeman of this and I think a law would make parents take a bit more responsibility for their children. However, because bullying happens all over the world in different settings, I believe a law would not be the most effective way of stopping it. It would be very difficult to put a law on bullying as people that bully have usually been bullied themselves and there could be something deeper neurologically as to why they choose to bully. It is very difficult to prove that a person has been bullied, particularly when you take into consideration that a child may not have told their parents about it. I believe that there are lots of different ways to stop/lessen bullying without the need of a law. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No law should be put in place against bullying, however, a body should be formed to help deal with the issue of bullying in schools. The body should be comprised of a group of people from different backgrounds including a representative from each school in the country. The body should help schools create an anti-bullying plan and help implement it. Schools should also be made responsible for dealing with bullying that happens outside of school grounds but this can be dealt with through the existing mechanisms in place. If the bullying is so severe that it requires the attention of the law then this is an option that can be explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, there should be a law against bullying. It's hard to put a law in place but a good system should be put in place where it's reported to the teachers or parents of the child that is being bullied. The bully should then be put into isolation. The parents should be informed of the situation and if it continues, it should then be dealt with by a higher authority. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000469.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000469.soc index 6f9f5785..e6356052 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000469.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000469.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Scotland should not leave the UK. The nation has been a key part of the UK for hundreds of years. It would be detrimental to both Scotland and the UK as a whole. This opinion was reached because of the following reasons: It is not economically feasible to support Scotland. The UK has supported Scotland in the past but can no longer do so. Scotland also supports the UK, so the UK would not be able to fully support Scotland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Scotland should not leave the UK. The nation has been a key part of the UK for hundreds of years. It would be detrimental to both Scotland and the UK as a whole. The process of reaching a consensus is hard, but very important. The whole group of people in the discussion must agree with the final consensus statement in order for it to be accepted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Scotland should remain part of the UK. It would be detrimental to both Scotland and the UK as a whole to split the two nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Scotland should not leave the UK. The nation has been a key part of the UK for hundreds of years. It would be detrimental to both Scotland and the UK as a whole. It is not economically feasible to support Scotland. The UK has supported Scotland in the past but can no longer do so. Scotland also supports the UK, so the UK would not be able to fully support Scotland. (To be continued) The views expressed in this article are solely my views and not those of anyone else. I am grateful to Dr George Gouskos for the opportunity to write this article. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Scotland should not leave the UK. The nation has been a key part of the UK for hundreds of years. It would be detrimental to both Scotland and the UK as a whole. This opinion was reached because of the following reasons: It is not economically feasible to support Scotland. The UK has supported Scotland in the past but can no longer do so. Scotland also supports the UK, so the UK would not be able to fully support Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Scotland should not leave the UK. The nation has been a key part of the UK for hundreds of years. It would be detrimental to both Scotland and the UK as a whole. The process of reaching a consensus is hard, but very important. The whole group of people in the discussion must agree with the final consensus statement in order for it to be accepted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Scotland should remain part of the UK. It would be detrimental to both Scotland and the UK as a whole to split the two nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Scotland should not leave the UK. The nation has been a key part of the UK for hundreds of years. It would be detrimental to both Scotland and the UK as a whole. It is not economically feasible to support Scotland. The UK has supported Scotland in the past but can no longer do so. Scotland also supports the UK, so the UK would not be able to fully support Scotland. (To be continued) The views expressed in this article are solely my views and not those of anyone else. I am grateful to Dr George Gouskos for the opportunity to write this article. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000470.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000470.soc index 87f96f03..200d2cbb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000470.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000470.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a distinction between free school meals for all children, and free school meals for those in poverty. The group believed that free school meals for all children would be too expensive. It was also felt that it would be difficult to target the children in poverty without them being labelled. The group believed that if free school meals were only offered to children in poverty, then this would mean that the local authority could afford to spend more money on other services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group decided that not every child should be given free school meals. It would be too expensive, and this money could be spent better elsewhere. The group agreed that the local authority should target children from deprived households. The local authority should consider the proportion of children in poverty in the area, and provide free school meals for children in poverty. This would be the most efficient way to use the resources of the local authority. The group agreed that the free school meals should be provided discreetly, and that parents should not be labelled. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of free school meals. The group felt that not all children should get free school meals as this would be too expensive. It was felt that there were some children in poverty that would benefit. The group decided that it would be sensible to offer free school meals to those children in poverty. It was suggested that the free school meal could be targeted at children in poverty at the moment, but children should not be labelled. The local authority would need to consider the proportion of children that were in poverty in the area. The cost of providing free school meals to every child in the local authority would be very expensive, and this would mean less money for other services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not go hungry. We should target free school meals to children who are in poverty. It would be too expensive to provide free school meals to all children in the local authority. It is difficult to distinguish between children who are in poverty and those who are not, and there is a risk that children who receive free school meals will be labelled as being in poverty. If the local authority cannot afford to provide free school meals to all children in poverty, then the money could be spent on other things that would help children who are in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a distinction between free school meals for all children, and free school meals for those in poverty. The group believed that free school meals for all children would be too expensive. It was also felt that it would be difficult to target the children in poverty without them being labelled. The group believed that if free school meals were only offered to children in poverty, then this would mean that the local authority could afford to spend more money on other services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group decided that not every child should be given free school meals. It would be too expensive, and this money could be spent better elsewhere. The group agreed that the local authority should target children from deprived households. The local authority should consider the proportion of children in poverty in the area, and provide free school meals for children in poverty. This would be the most efficient way to use the resources of the local authority. The group agreed that the free school meals should be provided discreetly, and that parents should not be labelled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of free school meals. The group felt that not all children should get free school meals as this would be too expensive. It was felt that there were some children in poverty that would benefit. The group decided that it would be sensible to offer free school meals to those children in poverty. It was suggested that the free school meal could be targeted at children in poverty at the moment, but children should not be labelled. The local authority would need to consider the proportion of children that were in poverty in the area. The cost of providing free school meals to every child in the local authority would be very expensive, and this would mean less money for other services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not go hungry. We should target free school meals to children who are in poverty. It would be too expensive to provide free school meals to all children in the local authority. It is difficult to distinguish between children who are in poverty and those who are not, and there is a risk that children who receive free school meals will be labelled as being in poverty. If the local authority cannot afford to provide free school meals to all children in poverty, then the money could be spent on other things that would help children who are in poverty. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000471.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000471.soc index 836cf5f5..d331c24c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000471.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000471.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should help the poor in other countries as it is our duty as humans to help others. However it is more important to look after our own people who are struggling financially and who are in need of the support. This is why we are all paying taxes to the government. So before any money is sent abroad it should be spent within the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although helping the poor in other countries is important, it should be done when the UK's own economy is not suffering. There are many other countries that can afford to help those in poverty more than we can. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should aim to help other countries, however we should prioritise looking after our own people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, yes, it is right to use some of the money from taxes to help poor people in other countries. However, in practise, we should always prioritise helping the poor people of our own country, as they rely on our support more and are also less likely to be able to help themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should help the poor in other countries as it is our duty as humans to help others. However it is more important to look after our own people who are struggling financially and who are in need of the support. This is why we are all paying taxes to the government. So before any money is sent abroad it should be spent within the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although helping the poor in other countries is important, it should be done when the UK's own economy is not suffering. There are many other countries that can afford to help those in poverty more than we can. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should aim to help other countries, however we should prioritise looking after our own people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, yes, it is right to use some of the money from taxes to help poor people in other countries. However, in practise, we should always prioritise helping the poor people of our own country, as they rely on our support more and are also less likely to be able to help themselves. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000472.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000472.soc index a30d10e1..9854d7b0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000472.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000472.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should increase investment in renewable energy. This would help the planet in the long term and also improve peoples energy bills in the short term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing investment in renewable energy but expressed concerns that in the long term this may not be as successful as many think. In order to invest in renewable energy, new technology is needed and this comes with a price tag. It is therefore a difficult balance to make. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase investment in renewable energy to help the planet and to improve energy security. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should increase investment in renewable energy. It would benefit us and the planet in the long run so would be worth the initial outlay. It would be a good investment that would reap rewards over a long period of time.” The group of participants reached a consensus opinion of: Yes, we should increase investment in renewable energy. It would benefit us and the planet in the long run so would be worth the initial outlay. It would be a good investment that would reap rewards over a long period of time. After each individual participant read out their opinion, the first stage was to list all the positive arguments. The participants’ agreed on the following: • It would benefit us and the planet in the long run so would be worth the initial outlay • It would be a good investment that would reap rewards over a long period of time • Reliance on fossil fuel should decrease gradually but as soon as possible until renewable energy sources become reliable • Global warming is getting increasingly worse and we need to do everything we can to help the enviroment • We should increase investment in renewable energy because it will be a lot better for the enviroment Then the group of participants +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should increase investment in renewable energy. This would help the planet in the long term and also improve peoples energy bills in the short term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing investment in renewable energy but expressed concerns that in the long term this may not be as successful as many think. In order to invest in renewable energy, new technology is needed and this comes with a price tag. It is therefore a difficult balance to make. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase investment in renewable energy to help the planet and to improve energy security. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should increase investment in renewable energy. It would benefit us and the planet in the long run so would be worth the initial outlay. It would be a good investment that would reap rewards over a long period of time.” The group of participants reached a consensus opinion of: Yes, we should increase investment in renewable energy. It would benefit us and the planet in the long run so would be worth the initial outlay. It would be a good investment that would reap rewards over a long period of time. After each individual participant read out their opinion, the first stage was to list all the positive arguments. The participants’ agreed on the following: • It would benefit us and the planet in the long run so would be worth the initial outlay • It would be a good investment that would reap rewards over a long period of time • Reliance on fossil fuel should decrease gradually but as soon as possible until renewable energy sources become reliable • Global warming is getting increasingly worse and we need to do everything we can to help the enviroment • We should increase investment in renewable energy because it will be a lot better for the enviroment Then the group of participants 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000473.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000473.soc index a8f42850..3c6af9ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000473.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000473.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although costly, a free public transportation system would have benefits to all. It would help alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. The development of such a system should not be a point of contention, and should instead be undertaken as soon as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A free public transportation system would be beneficial for all. It would alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. It is unclear how such a system would be funded, but a feasibility study could help determine the costs and benefits of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although costly, a free public transportation system would have benefits to all. It would help alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. Overall the group of participants arrived at a very balanced view, one that takes into account the main benefits and the main costs of a free public transport system. The cost of such a system would be very high, but it would be well worth it for all of the benefits it would provide. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A free public transportation system would be a great idea. It would alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. It would be a costly system to implement but would bring many benefits to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although costly, a free public transportation system would have benefits to all. It would help alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. The development of such a system should not be a point of contention, and should instead be undertaken as soon as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A free public transportation system would be beneficial for all. It would alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. It is unclear how such a system would be funded, but a feasibility study could help determine the costs and benefits of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although costly, a free public transportation system would have benefits to all. It would help alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. Overall the group of participants arrived at a very balanced view, one that takes into account the main benefits and the main costs of a free public transport system. The cost of such a system would be very high, but it would be well worth it for all of the benefits it would provide. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A free public transportation system would be a great idea. It would alleviate congestion on the roads, improve air quality and allow more people to access jobs and shops and services. It would be a costly system to implement but would bring many benefits to society. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000474.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000474.soc index acb97151..3da3be99 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000474.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000474.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a crisis of plastic waste in the environment. The current solution to this crisis is to simply reduce plastic consumption. This is insufficient. There needs to be a systematic effort to ensure that companies and the public at large understand that plastic consumption has consequences, and that they need to stop contributing to the problem. There are alternatives to plastic products that are less harmful to the environment. There are also many plastics that are not harmful to the environment when disposed of correctly. We need to understand the difference, and only work to ban those that are harmful. We must also be aware that, while some products can be replaced with less harmful materials, others cannot. We must therefore educate ourselves on the appropriate disposal of plastic products. There is a duty to preserve the environment, and we all need to come together to make that happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Plastic products are having a devastating effect on the environment, and we must do everything we can to stop it. Plastic does not biodegrade and stays in the environment for years. This means that we have a responsibility to take immediate action to prevent the damage that is being done. We need to encourage people to make the right choices when it comes to the products they purchase. We need to encourage companies to stop using non-sustainable plastic products. This means taking measures to promote products that are recyclable and biodegradable. If we do not take action immediately, we will be responsible for destroying the environment, and everything that depends on it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Our environment is of the upmost importance. The health of all life on this planet is dependent on a clean, healthy environment. We need to take all possible measures to prevent plastic waste entering our environment. Some plastic products can be replaced with sustainable products, however, there are many vital plastic products that can't be replaced. We must all work together to protect our planet. We must come up with a way to encourage people to make the right choices when it comes to the products they purchase. We must also encourage companies to stop using non-sustainable plastic products in the first place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are many plastic products that are vital to our everyday lives, and can't be replaced. We must come up with a way to encourage people to make the right choices when it comes to the products they purchase. We must also encourage companies to stop using non-sustainable plastic products in the first place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a crisis of plastic waste in the environment. The current solution to this crisis is to simply reduce plastic consumption. This is insufficient. There needs to be a systematic effort to ensure that companies and the public at large understand that plastic consumption has consequences, and that they need to stop contributing to the problem. There are alternatives to plastic products that are less harmful to the environment. There are also many plastics that are not harmful to the environment when disposed of correctly. We need to understand the difference, and only work to ban those that are harmful. We must also be aware that, while some products can be replaced with less harmful materials, others cannot. We must therefore educate ourselves on the appropriate disposal of plastic products. There is a duty to preserve the environment, and we all need to come together to make that happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Plastic products are having a devastating effect on the environment, and we must do everything we can to stop it. Plastic does not biodegrade and stays in the environment for years. This means that we have a responsibility to take immediate action to prevent the damage that is being done. We need to encourage people to make the right choices when it comes to the products they purchase. We need to encourage companies to stop using non-sustainable plastic products. This means taking measures to promote products that are recyclable and biodegradable. If we do not take action immediately, we will be responsible for destroying the environment, and everything that depends on it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Our environment is of the upmost importance. The health of all life on this planet is dependent on a clean, healthy environment. We need to take all possible measures to prevent plastic waste entering our environment. Some plastic products can be replaced with sustainable products, however, there are many vital plastic products that can't be replaced. We must all work together to protect our planet. We must come up with a way to encourage people to make the right choices when it comes to the products they purchase. We must also encourage companies to stop using non-sustainable plastic products in the first place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are many plastic products that are vital to our everyday lives, and can't be replaced. We must come up with a way to encourage people to make the right choices when it comes to the products they purchase. We must also encourage companies to stop using non-sustainable plastic products in the first place. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000475.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000475.soc index dfe73b83..73071a37 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000475.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000475.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban the use of plastic straws. They are unnecessary and very wasteful. There are many alternatives to them such as paper and metal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group came to the consensus view that we should not ban plastic straws but we should limit the use of them by making businesses charge more for their use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe that the government should ban plastic straws, however, they shouldn't place too much importance on this as there is so much plastic in the ocean, not only straws, but they should reduce the consumption of plastic in most products. I believe they should reduce the consumption of plastic straws and charge franchises such as Starbucks more as they should be willing to use more environmentally friendly materials. Nobody re-uses plastic straws they are always thrown away so they have no reason not to change to paper or cardboard. I believe that paper or cardboard straws are the better option and the government should ban plastic straws because there are other products that are more environmentally friendly, such as paper straws.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic straws but thought that government should place more pressure on companies to reduce their consumption of plastic rather than banning them as banning plastic straws would only mean that more plastic would be produced to replace plastic straws. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban the use of plastic straws. They are unnecessary and very wasteful. There are many alternatives to them such as paper and metal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not ban plastic straws but we should limit the use of them by making businesses charge more for their use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe that the government should ban plastic straws, however, they shouldn't place too much importance on this as there is so much plastic in the ocean, not only straws, but they should reduce the consumption of plastic in most products. I believe they should reduce the consumption of plastic straws and charge franchises such as Starbucks more as they should be willing to use more environmentally friendly materials. Nobody re-uses plastic straws they are always thrown away so they have no reason not to change to paper or cardboard. I believe that paper or cardboard straws are the better option and the government should ban plastic straws because there are other products that are more environmentally friendly, such as paper straws.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic straws but thought that government should place more pressure on companies to reduce their consumption of plastic rather than banning them as banning plastic straws would only mean that more plastic would be produced to replace plastic straws. 2: 3,1,4,2 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000476.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000476.soc index c8fb361c..d7699ae9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000476.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000476.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, there should be a law against bullying. It is very difficult to put a law in place but a good system should be put in place where it's reported to the teachers or parents of the child that is being bullied. The bully should then be put into isolation and the parents should be informed of the situation. If the situation persists then it should then be dealt with by a higher authority. The parents should be held responsible for their children's actions, not the teachers. This should be taken off of the teachers and put on the parents where it belongs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, there should be a law against bullying. It is not easy to put a law in place but the right systems should be in place for it to be reported to the teachers or parents of the child that is being bullied. The bully should then be isolated and the parents should be informed. If the bullying continues, it should be dealt with by a higher authority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, there should not be a law against bullying. It's hard to put a law in place but a good system should be put in place where it's reported to the teachers or parents of the child that is being bullied. The bully should then be put into isolation. The parents should be informed of the situation and if it continues, it should then be dealt with by a higher authority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a law against bullying in school. A system should be put in place where the bully is taken out of the classroom and talked to about what they have done. The bully's parents should be made aware of the problem and should try to resolve it. If the problem persists then it should be dealt with by a higher authority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, there should be a law against bullying. It is very difficult to put a law in place but a good system should be put in place where it's reported to the teachers or parents of the child that is being bullied. The bully should then be put into isolation and the parents should be informed of the situation. If the situation persists then it should then be dealt with by a higher authority. The parents should be held responsible for their children's actions, not the teachers. This should be taken off of the teachers and put on the parents where it belongs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, there should be a law against bullying. It is not easy to put a law in place but the right systems should be in place for it to be reported to the teachers or parents of the child that is being bullied. The bully should then be isolated and the parents should be informed. If the bullying continues, it should be dealt with by a higher authority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, there should not be a law against bullying. It's hard to put a law in place but a good system should be put in place where it's reported to the teachers or parents of the child that is being bullied. The bully should then be put into isolation. The parents should be informed of the situation and if it continues, it should then be dealt with by a higher authority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a law against bullying in school. A system should be put in place where the bully is taken out of the classroom and talked to about what they have done. The bully's parents should be made aware of the problem and should try to resolve it. If the problem persists then it should be dealt with by a higher authority. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000477.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000477.soc index 4578e042..f02d9e70 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000477.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000477.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should help the poor in other countries as it is our duty as humans to help others. However it is more important to look after our own people who are struggling financially and who are in need of the support. This is why we are all paying taxes to the government. So before any money is sent abroad it should be spent within the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK has the obligation to help the poor people in other countries. However, as there are a great number of countries, we should help them in order of priority. We should only help the poor people in other countries with money raised from taxes if there are enough funds to help all people living in poverty in the UK as well. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is only right that we should help poor people in other countries. We have a moral duty as humans to do this, and in the long run it is beneficial for everyone that we do so. The UK has a history of being a generous nation and this is an important thing to maintain. However, the money spent should be considered carefully as there is a limit to the amount of help we can give. We must prioritise looking after our own people who are struggling financially, so the amount of money we send abroad should not exceed what is needed in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a degree of hypocrisy in the concept of giving aid to other countries while having austerity measures in the UK. However we should not be ignorant to the fact that we are more fortunate than many people in other countries. The British government does have an obligation to help the less fortunate and if there is surplus from the taxes raised, this money should be used to help people abroad. It is however more important that this money is spent on people at home, who are struggling financially, and that we look after our own people. We are not however obligated to help everyone in every country and there are many poor people in the UK who should take priority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should help the poor in other countries as it is our duty as humans to help others. However it is more important to look after our own people who are struggling financially and who are in need of the support. This is why we are all paying taxes to the government. So before any money is sent abroad it should be spent within the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK has the obligation to help the poor people in other countries. However, as there are a great number of countries, we should help them in order of priority. We should only help the poor people in other countries with money raised from taxes if there are enough funds to help all people living in poverty in the UK as well. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is only right that we should help poor people in other countries. We have a moral duty as humans to do this, and in the long run it is beneficial for everyone that we do so. The UK has a history of being a generous nation and this is an important thing to maintain. However, the money spent should be considered carefully as there is a limit to the amount of help we can give. We must prioritise looking after our own people who are struggling financially, so the amount of money we send abroad should not exceed what is needed in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a degree of hypocrisy in the concept of giving aid to other countries while having austerity measures in the UK. However we should not be ignorant to the fact that we are more fortunate than many people in other countries. The British government does have an obligation to help the less fortunate and if there is surplus from the taxes raised, this money should be used to help people abroad. It is however more important that this money is spent on people at home, who are struggling financially, and that we look after our own people. We are not however obligated to help everyone in every country and there are many poor people in the UK who should take priority. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000478.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000478.soc index 0f386e75..d15da668 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000478.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000478.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a strong argument for using only recyclable cups at a social gathering. If the cups are plastic, they should be made of a type that is recyclable. The best option is probably a cup made of paper. The cost of replacing disposable cups with reusable cups is not high and people should therefore try to purchase their own reusable cups. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not ideal from an environmental perspective, but it is understandable that a social gathering may require a large volume of glassware that many people do not have. Therefore, it is acceptable to very occasionally use disposable plastic cups to enable a large gathering. However, if someone were to host large gatherings routinely, it would be less acceptable to keep on disposing of plastic cups. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not ok to use disposable plastic cups at a social gathering. The issue of single use plastics is one that needs to be tackled and there are many alternatives that can be used. The use of single use plastics needs to be reduced across the board. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of disposable plastic cups is not considered acceptable. However, if no other options are available and there are large numbers of people present, then it may be acceptable. The opinion of one person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is not acceptable. The opinion of a second person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a third person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is unacceptable. The opinion of a fourth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a fifth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a sixth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a seventh person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of an eighth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a ninth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a strong argument for using only recyclable cups at a social gathering. If the cups are plastic, they should be made of a type that is recyclable. The best option is probably a cup made of paper. The cost of replacing disposable cups with reusable cups is not high and people should therefore try to purchase their own reusable cups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not ideal from an environmental perspective, but it is understandable that a social gathering may require a large volume of glassware that many people do not have. Therefore, it is acceptable to very occasionally use disposable plastic cups to enable a large gathering. However, if someone were to host large gatherings routinely, it would be less acceptable to keep on disposing of plastic cups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not ok to use disposable plastic cups at a social gathering. The issue of single use plastics is one that needs to be tackled and there are many alternatives that can be used. The use of single use plastics needs to be reduced across the board. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of disposable plastic cups is not considered acceptable. However, if no other options are available and there are large numbers of people present, then it may be acceptable. The opinion of one person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is not acceptable. The opinion of a second person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a third person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is unacceptable. The opinion of a fourth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a fifth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a sixth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a seventh person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of an eighth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a ninth person is represented by the following sentence: The use of disposable plastic cups is acceptable. The opinion of a 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000479.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000479.soc index 67b1115a..aa8e2c36 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000479.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000479.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should continue to provide development aid to African nations. This is the right thing to do for both the UK and African nations as it will ultimately lead to increased prosperity and higher standards of living. It also helps to build relationships between nations and helps people in these countries to help themselves. The UK has also disrupted African countries in the past through joint invasions and the slave trade which greatly hindered the prosperity of these nations. Although it was a long time ago, there have been knock on effects still being felt today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should continue to provide development aid to African nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK should continue to provide aid to African nations as it is in the best interests of both nations to do so. However, we do believe that the aid needs to be targeted and effective as there are cases where money has been wasted on inefficient projects which have achieved little. The aid should be given in the form of helping people to help themselves, and by encouraging private investment from within African nations to grow their economy and to develop. There is also an argument that aid should not be provided at the expense of essential home affairs like the NHS, but we believe that both aid and home affairs can be provided for, if done efficiently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should continue to support African nations, as it is the right thing to do. We should not support people by just giving them handouts but instead we should empower them to build their own country and their own communities. This should be done by giving them the tools and resources they need to do so and if it takes us helping them by sending workers over to help, then so be it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should continue to provide development aid to African nations. This is the right thing to do for both the UK and African nations as it will ultimately lead to increased prosperity and higher standards of living. It also helps to build relationships between nations and helps people in these countries to help themselves. The UK has also disrupted African countries in the past through joint invasions and the slave trade which greatly hindered the prosperity of these nations. Although it was a long time ago, there have been knock on effects still being felt today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should continue to provide development aid to African nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK should continue to provide aid to African nations as it is in the best interests of both nations to do so. However, we do believe that the aid needs to be targeted and effective as there are cases where money has been wasted on inefficient projects which have achieved little. The aid should be given in the form of helping people to help themselves, and by encouraging private investment from within African nations to grow their economy and to develop. There is also an argument that aid should not be provided at the expense of essential home affairs like the NHS, but we believe that both aid and home affairs can be provided for, if done efficiently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should continue to support African nations, as it is the right thing to do. We should not support people by just giving them handouts but instead we should empower them to build their own country and their own communities. This should be done by giving them the tools and resources they need to do so and if it takes us helping them by sending workers over to help, then so be it. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000480.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000480.soc index 666d8892..a424b6ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000480.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000480.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Media has a responsibility to report the news in an accurate manner. They should base this reporting on facts and evidence and always provide sources. They should ensure that this is correct before publishing. The group believes that where opinions are presented they should be balanced and well argued. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The media have a moral responsibility to report accurately. The media is a pillar of any society and as such is the basis of democracy and is an important part of the human rights landscape. The media should be factual and well researched and should be able to back up any and all claims. There should be a balance between freedom of speech and accuracy in reporting and the lines between the two should be respected. If the media is reported to be lying then the media should be held accountable and the consequences of this should be severe. The questions was posed in the following groups and their consensus statement is presented below: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the media has a responsibility to report things accurately, however this is easier said than done as there are no "facts" only "perceptions of fact". So, the media has a responsibility to accurately report the facts they have and they should not report as fact that which they do not know to be true. It is also important that when reporting a story, that both sides of the story are reported, not just the "facts" that support the story. If it is suspected that the story is not accurate, the reasons for believing the story to be accurate or inaccurate should be reported. On the other hand, they are entitled to their opinions. It is not the job of the media to manipulate people, but rather to accurately report the facts they know. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The media is responsible for reporting things accurately. They should be held accountable for all information they report. The media has the power to shape people's opinions and to spread false information is wrong and irresponsible. The media should be bound by a code of ethics and be obliged to report the truth and if they do not, should be made to pay. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Media has a responsibility to report the news in an accurate manner. They should base this reporting on facts and evidence and always provide sources. They should ensure that this is correct before publishing. The group believes that where opinions are presented they should be balanced and well argued. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The media have a moral responsibility to report accurately. The media is a pillar of any society and as such is the basis of democracy and is an important part of the human rights landscape. The media should be factual and well researched and should be able to back up any and all claims. There should be a balance between freedom of speech and accuracy in reporting and the lines between the two should be respected. If the media is reported to be lying then the media should be held accountable and the consequences of this should be severe. The questions was posed in the following groups and their consensus statement is presented below: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the media has a responsibility to report things accurately, however this is easier said than done as there are no "facts" only "perceptions of fact". So, the media has a responsibility to accurately report the facts they have and they should not report as fact that which they do not know to be true. It is also important that when reporting a story, that both sides of the story are reported, not just the "facts" that support the story. If it is suspected that the story is not accurate, the reasons for believing the story to be accurate or inaccurate should be reported. On the other hand, they are entitled to their opinions. It is not the job of the media to manipulate people, but rather to accurately report the facts they know. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The media is responsible for reporting things accurately. They should be held accountable for all information they report. The media has the power to shape people's opinions and to spread false information is wrong and irresponsible. The media should be bound by a code of ethics and be obliged to report the truth and if they do not, should be made to pay. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000481.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000481.soc index 067f8da2..55d53265 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000481.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000481.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should increase investment in renewable energy to help the planet and improve energy security. However, there are limitations and challenges to this approach that should be considered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should increase investment in renewable energy in order to improve energy security and decrease the impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase investment in renewable energy to help the planet and to improve energy security. We should consider the long-term benefits, as well as the challenges associated with renewable energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase investment in renewable energy to help the planet and to improve energy security. We should also look to reduce the cost of this energy to make it more affordable to the wider public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should increase investment in renewable energy to help the planet and improve energy security. However, there are limitations and challenges to this approach that should be considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should increase investment in renewable energy in order to improve energy security and decrease the impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase investment in renewable energy to help the planet and to improve energy security. We should consider the long-term benefits, as well as the challenges associated with renewable energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase investment in renewable energy to help the planet and to improve energy security. We should also look to reduce the cost of this energy to make it more affordable to the wider public. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000482.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000482.soc index 91641e85..7e1b7ef8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000482.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000482.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universities should not ban speakers, as it is their own choice to go to the talk, if they are so inclined. Universities should be a place where there is free speech, even if it is offensive. People should not be banned from attending lectures because they are 'too sensitive' and it should be down to the individuals attending to make their own choice. If universities were to ban speakers, then they should be made aware of the situation and given the chance to speak, not just be banned and not given a chance to defend themselves. If they have been banned from giving a talk before for hate speech or other reasons, then there is no reason to not ban them again. However, if it is their first time being banned, then they should be given the opportunity to defend themselves and speak. The overall consensus was that if a speaker is coming to a university, it is not the university's problem, it is the audience's. If they wish to listen to the speaker, then they can. Universities should not ban speakers just because of their own personal opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Universities should be allowed to ban speakers, as long as it is done in a fair way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, Universities should be allowed to ban speakers from their campuses but in some circumstances it would be acceptable to ban them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universities should have the right to ban certain speakers. Universities should be able to take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Banning speakers is a difficult decision to make, but can be appropriate when it is in the interest of students and the university. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universities should not ban speakers, as it is their own choice to go to the talk, if they are so inclined. Universities should be a place where there is free speech, even if it is offensive. People should not be banned from attending lectures because they are 'too sensitive' and it should be down to the individuals attending to make their own choice. If universities were to ban speakers, then they should be made aware of the situation and given the chance to speak, not just be banned and not given a chance to defend themselves. If they have been banned from giving a talk before for hate speech or other reasons, then there is no reason to not ban them again. However, if it is their first time being banned, then they should be given the opportunity to defend themselves and speak. The overall consensus was that if a speaker is coming to a university, it is not the university's problem, it is the audience's. If they wish to listen to the speaker, then they can. Universities should not ban speakers just because of their own personal opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Universities should be allowed to ban speakers, as long as it is done in a fair way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, Universities should be allowed to ban speakers from their campuses but in some circumstances it would be acceptable to ban them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universities should have the right to ban certain speakers. Universities should be able to take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Banning speakers is a difficult decision to make, but can be appropriate when it is in the interest of students and the university. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000483.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000483.soc index 518b16d3..5138cd00 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000483.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000483.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, the media has a responsibility to report things accurately, however this is easier said than done as there are no "facts" only "perceptions of fact". So, the media has a responsibility to accurately report the facts they have and they should not report as fact that which they do not know to be true. It is also important that when reporting a story, that both sides of the story are reported, not just the "facts" that support the story. If it is suspected that the story is not accurate, the reasons for believing the story to be accurate or inaccurate should be reported. On the other hand, they are entitled to their opinions. It is not the job of the media to manipulate people, but rather to accurately report the facts they know. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The media has a responsibility to accurately report the facts that they know. The media should not intentionally create false stories, however there are cases where "perceptions of fact" are reported as fact. In these cases the media has a responsibility to acknowledge and report the inaccuracy of the "facts" that they have reported. It is also important that when reporting a story, that both sides of the story are reported, not just the "facts" that support the story. If it is suspected that the story is not accurate, the reasons for believing the story to be accurate or inaccurate should be reported. On the other hand, they are entitled to their opinions. It is not the job of the media to manipulate people, but rather to accurately report the facts they know. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the media has a responsibility to report things accurately. They should report facts they know to be true, without any bias. They should report both sides of the story. If they believe a story to be true, they should report on why they believe it to be true. However, the media has the right to report their opinions, provided they make it clear that this is what they are reporting. If the media is reported to be lying, then they should be held accountable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the media has a responsibility to report things accurately, however this is easier said than done as there are no "facts" only "perceptions of fact". So, the media has a responsibility to accurately report the facts they have and they should not report as fact that which they do not know to be true. It is also important that when reporting a story, that both sides of the story are reported, not just the "facts" that support the story. If it is suspected that the story is not accurate, the reasons for believing the story to be accurate or inaccurate should be reported. On the other hand, they are entitled to their opinions. It is not the job of the media to manipulate people, but rather to accurately report the facts they know. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, the media has a responsibility to report things accurately, however this is easier said than done as there are no "facts" only "perceptions of fact". So, the media has a responsibility to accurately report the facts they have and they should not report as fact that which they do not know to be true. It is also important that when reporting a story, that both sides of the story are reported, not just the "facts" that support the story. If it is suspected that the story is not accurate, the reasons for believing the story to be accurate or inaccurate should be reported. On the other hand, they are entitled to their opinions. It is not the job of the media to manipulate people, but rather to accurately report the facts they know. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The media has a responsibility to accurately report the facts that they know. The media should not intentionally create false stories, however there are cases where "perceptions of fact" are reported as fact. In these cases the media has a responsibility to acknowledge and report the inaccuracy of the "facts" that they have reported. It is also important that when reporting a story, that both sides of the story are reported, not just the "facts" that support the story. If it is suspected that the story is not accurate, the reasons for believing the story to be accurate or inaccurate should be reported. On the other hand, they are entitled to their opinions. It is not the job of the media to manipulate people, but rather to accurately report the facts they know. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the media has a responsibility to report things accurately. They should report facts they know to be true, without any bias. They should report both sides of the story. If they believe a story to be true, they should report on why they believe it to be true. However, the media has the right to report their opinions, provided they make it clear that this is what they are reporting. If the media is reported to be lying, then they should be held accountable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the media has a responsibility to report things accurately, however this is easier said than done as there are no "facts" only "perceptions of fact". So, the media has a responsibility to accurately report the facts they have and they should not report as fact that which they do not know to be true. It is also important that when reporting a story, that both sides of the story are reported, not just the "facts" that support the story. If it is suspected that the story is not accurate, the reasons for believing the story to be accurate or inaccurate should be reported. On the other hand, they are entitled to their opinions. It is not the job of the media to manipulate people, but rather to accurately report the facts they know. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000484.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000484.soc index 988c416b..08c5d21b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000484.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000484.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. We are playing God. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the creation of human-animal hybrids through genetic engineering is not in the best interests of humanity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no creation of human-animal hybrids through genetic engineering. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. We should not allow the creation of human-animal hybrids through genetic engineering. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. We are playing God. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the creation of human-animal hybrids through genetic engineering is not in the best interests of humanity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no creation of human-animal hybrids through genetic engineering. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. We should not allow the creation of human-animal hybrids through genetic engineering. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000485.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000485.soc index 84af9ea4..7fae2937 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000485.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000485.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The participants agree that more houses should be built in the UK, however we also think that the government needs to focus on preventing homelessness and house hoarding. More houses are required to increase stock, but also to keep prices low and reduce competition for the existing houses. We are also against the government’s planned house building targets because these are unrealistic and the private sector will never reach them without financial incentives.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should build more houses in the UK to help solve the housing crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: More houses should be built in the UK to prevent the current housing crisis and the government should create more initiatives to support people into their own homes -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more houses built in the UK. However, this should be carefully controlled so that the increased availability of housing does not affect the value of existing homes. Also, it is important that more housing is built in areas that are close to schools, hospitals and shopping centres. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The participants agree that more houses should be built in the UK, however we also think that the government needs to focus on preventing homelessness and house hoarding. More houses are required to increase stock, but also to keep prices low and reduce competition for the existing houses. We are also against the government’s planned house building targets because these are unrealistic and the private sector will never reach them without financial incentives.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should build more houses in the UK to help solve the housing crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - More houses should be built in the UK to prevent the current housing crisis and the government should create more initiatives to support people into their own homes +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more houses built in the UK. However, this should be carefully controlled so that the increased availability of housing does not affect the value of existing homes. Also, it is important that more housing is built in areas that are close to schools, hospitals and shopping centres. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000486.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000486.soc index 26f75707..f38c453e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000486.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000486.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should offer subsidies to make housing more affordable. This would help improve public health and reduce homelessness, especially for low-income families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should offer subsidies to make housing more affordable as this would help reduce homelessness and improve public health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should offer subsidies to make housing more affordable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should offer subsidies to make housing more affordable, to reduce the cost of housing for low-income families and to reduce homelessness and improve public health.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should offer subsidies to make housing more affordable. This would help improve public health and reduce homelessness, especially for low-income families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should offer subsidies to make housing more affordable as this would help reduce homelessness and improve public health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should offer subsidies to make housing more affordable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should offer subsidies to make housing more affordable, to reduce the cost of housing for low-income families and to reduce homelessness and improve public health.” 4: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000487.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000487.soc index c451be1f..fa946b60 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000487.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000487.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. We are playing God, and this will inevitably cause some sort of harm. The risk is not worth the reward. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. Humans cannot predict the consequences of human-animal hybrids and will likely disrupt the natural ecosystem, leading to potential harm to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. Humans are playing God. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. Creating hybrids would be unnatural and cause unpredictable disruptions to ecosystems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. We are playing God, and this will inevitably cause some sort of harm. The risk is not worth the reward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. Humans cannot predict the consequences of human-animal hybrids and will likely disrupt the natural ecosystem, leading to potential harm to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. Humans are playing God. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, human-animal hybrids should not be allowed to be created through genetic engineering. Creating hybrids would be unnatural and cause unpredictable disruptions to ecosystems. 3: 2,4,1,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000488.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000488.soc index 1e55665a..4ec7a8a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000488.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000488.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universities should be able to ban certain speakers on their campus. It is very important to protect students, especially young students, from any speech that might harm them or radicalise them. This means that universities should be able to take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Universities should be allowed to ban speakers who are known to be volatile in what they say and can have negative effects on the students. Banning speakers is a difficult decision to make, but can be appropriate when it is in the interest of students and the university. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Universities should have the right to ban certain speakers. Universities should be able to take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Banning speakers is a difficult decision to make, but can be appropriate when it is in the interest of students and the university. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Universities should have the right to ban certain speakers. Universities should be able to take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Banning speakers is a difficult decision to make, but can be appropriate when it is in the interest of students and the university. The issue is often not black and white, but involves complex issues of freedom of speech, and whether or not a speaker's message is conducive to the learning environment. Universities should not bow to politically correct pressure to allow everyone a platform, but at the same time they should take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Therefore universities should be able to ban certain speakers if they are aware that they are spouting nonsense. This can help universities to create a healthy learning environment for their students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universities should have the right to ban certain speakers. They should take into account what the speaker is likely to say and the likely effect this will have on students. Universities should make their own decisions but can be guided by the previous speeches of the speaker. The consensus view is that this is a difficult decision to make, but is necessary for the welfare of the students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universities should be able to ban certain speakers on their campus. It is very important to protect students, especially young students, from any speech that might harm them or radicalise them. This means that universities should be able to take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Universities should be allowed to ban speakers who are known to be volatile in what they say and can have negative effects on the students. Banning speakers is a difficult decision to make, but can be appropriate when it is in the interest of students and the university. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Universities should have the right to ban certain speakers. Universities should be able to take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Banning speakers is a difficult decision to make, but can be appropriate when it is in the interest of students and the university. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Universities should have the right to ban certain speakers. Universities should be able to take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Banning speakers is a difficult decision to make, but can be appropriate when it is in the interest of students and the university. The issue is often not black and white, but involves complex issues of freedom of speech, and whether or not a speaker's message is conducive to the learning environment. Universities should not bow to politically correct pressure to allow everyone a platform, but at the same time they should take into account what the speaker is likely to say and if it will affect students negatively. Therefore universities should be able to ban certain speakers if they are aware that they are spouting nonsense. This can help universities to create a healthy learning environment for their students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universities should have the right to ban certain speakers. They should take into account what the speaker is likely to say and the likely effect this will have on students. Universities should make their own decisions but can be guided by the previous speeches of the speaker. The consensus view is that this is a difficult decision to make, but is necessary for the welfare of the students. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000489.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000489.soc index dfeb3031..f428e7d4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000489.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000489.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The participants agree that more houses should be built in the UK, however we also think that the government needs to focus on preventing homelessness and house hoarding. More houses are required to increase stock, but also to keep prices low and reduce competition for the existing houses. The government's targets will never be met without the support of the public sector and/or incentives for the private sector to meet them.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The participants agree that more houses should be built in the UK, however we also think that the government needs to focus on preventing homelessness and house hoarding. More houses are required to increase stock, but also to keep prices low and reduce competition for the existing houses. We are also against the government’s planned house building targets because these are unrealistic and the private sector will never reach them without financial incentives.” This final consensus statement was agreed on by the group of participants. We are unsure how the group managed to reach this consensus, however, we have two hypotheses. One of the hypotheses is that the group followed the “Leader Rule” where the most persuasive person in the group will have swayed the opinions of the group and the group agreed to the consensus statement on that basis. Another hypothesis is that the group followed the “Position Rule” where the majority opinion within the group won out and the minority opinion was removed from the final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The participants agree that more houses should be built in the UK. We also think that the government needs to focus on preventing homelessness and house hoarding. More houses are required to increase stock, but also to keep prices low and reduce competition for the existing houses. The participants also agree that current house building targets are achievable, especially if the public sector invests in the short term, which would be repaid through increased economic activity in the long term.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “More houses should be built in the UK to prevent the current housing crisis and the government should create financial incentives to support the construction industry to build more houses. The housing crisis is only partly due to lack of supply and house hoarding is not the cause of the housing crisis, but rather the consequence of a housing market in crisis. Government policy should be focused on reducing the number of homeless people and those at risk of homelessness, rather than on house hoarding. There is also a danger that, without incentives, the construction industry will over-build to an extent that may cause a price crash, hurting investors and destroying the economic benefits of house building. Finally, we do not think that the government’s planned house building targets are unrealistic. The current target is for the building of 300,000 new houses a year. This is a realistically achievable target, but requires a healthy economy and the creation of financial incentives to the construction industry.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The participants agree that more houses should be built in the UK, however we also think that the government needs to focus on preventing homelessness and house hoarding. More houses are required to increase stock, but also to keep prices low and reduce competition for the existing houses. The government's targets will never be met without the support of the public sector and/or incentives for the private sector to meet them.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The participants agree that more houses should be built in the UK, however we also think that the government needs to focus on preventing homelessness and house hoarding. More houses are required to increase stock, but also to keep prices low and reduce competition for the existing houses. We are also against the government’s planned house building targets because these are unrealistic and the private sector will never reach them without financial incentives.” This final consensus statement was agreed on by the group of participants. We are unsure how the group managed to reach this consensus, however, we have two hypotheses. One of the hypotheses is that the group followed the “Leader Rule” where the most persuasive person in the group will have swayed the opinions of the group and the group agreed to the consensus statement on that basis. Another hypothesis is that the group followed the “Position Rule” where the majority opinion within the group won out and the minority opinion was removed from the final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The participants agree that more houses should be built in the UK. We also think that the government needs to focus on preventing homelessness and house hoarding. More houses are required to increase stock, but also to keep prices low and reduce competition for the existing houses. The participants also agree that current house building targets are achievable, especially if the public sector invests in the short term, which would be repaid through increased economic activity in the long term.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “More houses should be built in the UK to prevent the current housing crisis and the government should create financial incentives to support the construction industry to build more houses. The housing crisis is only partly due to lack of supply and house hoarding is not the cause of the housing crisis, but rather the consequence of a housing market in crisis. Government policy should be focused on reducing the number of homeless people and those at risk of homelessness, rather than on house hoarding. There is also a danger that, without incentives, the construction industry will over-build to an extent that may cause a price crash, hurting investors and destroying the economic benefits of house building. Finally, we do not think that the government’s planned house building targets are unrealistic. The current target is for the building of 300,000 new houses a year. This is a realistically achievable target, but requires a healthy economy and the creation of financial incentives to the construction industry.” 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000490.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000490.soc index 15357cc0..ca5e7d0c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000490.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000490.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should tax the use of plastic bags as it encourages people to change to using reusable bags. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A small tax is the best way to go, but in the long term we should stop using plastic bags and find alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a small tax on plastic bags is good thing. We also believe that we should be focusing on the more bigger issues like plastic bottles which are much more harmful and polluting to the environment. This consensus statement was created by a group of people who held different opinions and views on the issue. As the group progressed through their debate and discussions, it became clear that they had differences in their opinions. As such, they had to adapt their views and their argument so that they could reach an agreement with each other, which was the main task they were asked to complete. The group was successful in reaching this agreement and so created a consensus statement which is shown above. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We feel that the tax on plastic bags is an innefective way of solving the problem. Instead, plastic bags should be banned completely and tax on them should be scrapped. Plastic bags are still easily available and are still polluting the environment. We feel that a tax is ineffective as people can still buy the bags and will not want to use a bag for life. Companies such as Morrisons who use paper bags should be encouraged and there should be a drive for customers to bring their own bags for life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should tax the use of plastic bags as it encourages people to change to using reusable bags. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A small tax is the best way to go, but in the long term we should stop using plastic bags and find alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a small tax on plastic bags is good thing. We also believe that we should be focusing on the more bigger issues like plastic bottles which are much more harmful and polluting to the environment. This consensus statement was created by a group of people who held different opinions and views on the issue. As the group progressed through their debate and discussions, it became clear that they had differences in their opinions. As such, they had to adapt their views and their argument so that they could reach an agreement with each other, which was the main task they were asked to complete. The group was successful in reaching this agreement and so created a consensus statement which is shown above. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We feel that the tax on plastic bags is an innefective way of solving the problem. Instead, plastic bags should be banned completely and tax on them should be scrapped. Plastic bags are still easily available and are still polluting the environment. We feel that a tax is ineffective as people can still buy the bags and will not want to use a bag for life. Companies such as Morrisons who use paper bags should be encouraged and there should be a drive for customers to bring their own bags for life. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000491.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000491.soc index 90e1de1b..2a19db18 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000491.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000491.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the government should not set a minimum price for alcohol. We feel that people should be allowed to spend their money how they want and that the government should not take control of that. The government should also not treat alcohol differently to any other product. If a person wants to buy cheap alcohol, it should be their choice to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of setting a minimum price for alcohol. We feel that this is a good idea as it will tackle the many problems that alcohol brings to society. However, we feel that it would not be realistic to set this minimum price too high, as this would create a black market and would therefore make it more difficult for the government to control. We also feel that the minimum price should be set to reflect the cost of the alcohol rather than the alcohol content, as this would not cause a major increase in the price of more expensive alcohols. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not set a minimum price for alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although in theory setting a minimum price for alcohol could help to target alcoholism and binge drinking. This could help to target the issues caused by alcoholism and binge drinking in wider society, for example anti-social behaviour. It could also help to reduce teen-drinking as cheap alcohol would not be accessible. However, we believe this would need extensive research to prove the effect of minimum prices before it would be accepted by the public as a strategy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the government should not set a minimum price for alcohol. We feel that people should be allowed to spend their money how they want and that the government should not take control of that. The government should also not treat alcohol differently to any other product. If a person wants to buy cheap alcohol, it should be their choice to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of setting a minimum price for alcohol. We feel that this is a good idea as it will tackle the many problems that alcohol brings to society. However, we feel that it would not be realistic to set this minimum price too high, as this would create a black market and would therefore make it more difficult for the government to control. We also feel that the minimum price should be set to reflect the cost of the alcohol rather than the alcohol content, as this would not cause a major increase in the price of more expensive alcohols. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not set a minimum price for alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although in theory setting a minimum price for alcohol could help to target alcoholism and binge drinking. This could help to target the issues caused by alcoholism and binge drinking in wider society, for example anti-social behaviour. It could also help to reduce teen-drinking as cheap alcohol would not be accessible. However, we believe this would need extensive research to prove the effect of minimum prices before it would be accepted by the public as a strategy. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000492.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000492.soc index 89721ca9..5c3c4836 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000492.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000492.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think we should maintain the amount of migrant workers in the UK. There is no consensus on this issue as there are many benefits and downsides to immigration. We do not believe that we should allow more or less as we feel that the number of immigrants in the UK is appropriate at the moment. We may change our view as more information is given.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the number of migrant workers allowed into the UK should be decreased, but there are some specific areas where there are gaps in our economy where we need more workers to help us to thrive. In particular, farming and caring roles have gaps in our workforce which we should be trying to fill with people who are willing to work hard and contribute to our society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase the number of migrant workers allowed into the UK, however this should be limited to certain industries where we are in great need of workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the number of migrant workers should be reduced by a significant amount. Unemployment in the UK is currently very low and this means that it will be easier for people in the UK to fill jobs. It would also help to reduce some of the issues that have arisen in some areas, such as the London housing crisis, overcrowding in cities and social cohesion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think we should maintain the amount of migrant workers in the UK. There is no consensus on this issue as there are many benefits and downsides to immigration. We do not believe that we should allow more or less as we feel that the number of immigrants in the UK is appropriate at the moment. We may change our view as more information is given.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the number of migrant workers allowed into the UK should be decreased, but there are some specific areas where there are gaps in our economy where we need more workers to help us to thrive. In particular, farming and caring roles have gaps in our workforce which we should be trying to fill with people who are willing to work hard and contribute to our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase the number of migrant workers allowed into the UK, however this should be limited to certain industries where we are in great need of workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the number of migrant workers should be reduced by a significant amount. Unemployment in the UK is currently very low and this means that it will be easier for people in the UK to fill jobs. It would also help to reduce some of the issues that have arisen in some areas, such as the London housing crisis, overcrowding in cities and social cohesion. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000493.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000493.soc index e1dd98bb..362d13aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000493.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000493.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Public transport fares should not be increased and we should not use the extra revenue to provide free public transport for certain people. There are already other means of subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. The burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, public transport fares are already expensive and any increase will make them unaffordable for many. A system should be developed to provide free or discounted transport for those in need, without increasing the cost of fares. The money for this should come from central government and taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not increase public transport fares, but if it is increased then there should be free transport for people who are in need of the service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People with lower incomes struggle to pay public transport fares, and that is a major issue, but free transport for certain groups is not the solution. The government needs to step in with more funding to allow people to travel freely, and if the transport companies need to raise their fares, it should be only by a small amount. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Public transport fares should not be increased and we should not use the extra revenue to provide free public transport for certain people. There are already other means of subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. The burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, public transport fares are already expensive and any increase will make them unaffordable for many. A system should be developed to provide free or discounted transport for those in need, without increasing the cost of fares. The money for this should come from central government and taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not increase public transport fares, but if it is increased then there should be free transport for people who are in need of the service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People with lower incomes struggle to pay public transport fares, and that is a major issue, but free transport for certain groups is not the solution. The government needs to step in with more funding to allow people to travel freely, and if the transport companies need to raise their fares, it should be only by a small amount. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000494.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000494.soc index 79e30849..72a2bacd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000494.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000494.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, parents have the ability to access the education service but choose not to. Education is free in the UK and therefore I do not feel that any subsidies should be given as they are not contributing to it anyway. If they are subsidized that all tax payers without children should also be subsidized. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of subsidizing parents who choose to homeschool their children. A number of reasons were put forward including that if a parent is choosing to keep their child at home, they do not need the money, they have chosen to keep their child at home so therefore they do not deserve to receive the money, and if a parent chooses to keep their child at home they do not need to use the public services. The participants did also point out that there may be cases where a child is very sick and can’t go to school so in those cases, it may be appropriate to subsidize the parents. Conclusion: Therefore, after considering all of the opinions, and the pros and cons of the issue, the group decided that they do not think that parents who choose to homeschool their children should be subsidized by the state. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. In this exercise, the word "should" was used to assess whether or not the consensus view of the group matched that of the individuals. The graph below shows the word "should" being used when a consensus view was presented and that the graph peaked at 100% when the consensus matched that of the individual participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. Schooling is a fundamental part of the childhood of most individuals in the UK. It is a place where children can learn, grow and explore. It is the place where we are encouraged to think, to question, and to enquire. As such, it is a very important part of life. It is therefore the responsibility of the state to ensure that children are provided with the best possible education and learning environment. As such, it is not right for the state to subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children, as they are not contributing to the education of the next generation of citizens and thinkers. It is the responsibility of the state to provide education, and this is not the responsibility of parents, however much they would like it to be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, parents have the ability to access the education service but choose not to. Education is free in the UK and therefore I do not feel that any subsidies should be given as they are not contributing to it anyway. If they are subsidized that all tax payers without children should also be subsidized. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of subsidizing parents who choose to homeschool their children. A number of reasons were put forward including that if a parent is choosing to keep their child at home, they do not need the money, they have chosen to keep their child at home so therefore they do not deserve to receive the money, and if a parent chooses to keep their child at home they do not need to use the public services. The participants did also point out that there may be cases where a child is very sick and can’t go to school so in those cases, it may be appropriate to subsidize the parents. Conclusion: Therefore, after considering all of the opinions, and the pros and cons of the issue, the group decided that they do not think that parents who choose to homeschool their children should be subsidized by the state. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. In this exercise, the word "should" was used to assess whether or not the consensus view of the group matched that of the individuals. The graph below shows the word "should" being used when a consensus view was presented and that the graph peaked at 100% when the consensus matched that of the individual participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. Schooling is a fundamental part of the childhood of most individuals in the UK. It is a place where children can learn, grow and explore. It is the place where we are encouraged to think, to question, and to enquire. As such, it is a very important part of life. It is therefore the responsibility of the state to ensure that children are provided with the best possible education and learning environment. As such, it is not right for the state to subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children, as they are not contributing to the education of the next generation of citizens and thinkers. It is the responsibility of the state to provide education, and this is not the responsibility of parents, however much they would like it to be. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000495.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000495.soc index 44ea8557..ae8aa778 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000495.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000495.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should introduce a universal basic income, but it should only be offered to those who cannot work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the introduction of Universal Basic Income would be good for society. It would help alleviate the stress that many families face when trying to balance their finances and would help people in need get back on their feet. However, we believe that some people would take advantage of the system, and that a means test should be carried out to prevent this from happening. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People on very low incomes should receive a basic income from the government that is sufficient to live off. However, this is not an excuse for them to sit at home doing nothing. Instead, they must look for employment and be prepared to take any job they are offered. They must also be prepared to undergo training to help improve their chances of finding work. If they refuse to follow these simple requirements, then their income will be reduced to a level that is just enough to live on and provide food and shelter. They will also be monitored to ensure that they are not engaging in criminal activities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Income is something that people earn for working. It's hard to see how people can work if they are already given an income. There's a lot of evidence that shows that if people aren't working, they will go into debt, they will spend more money than they have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should introduce a universal basic income, but it should only be offered to those who cannot work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the introduction of Universal Basic Income would be good for society. It would help alleviate the stress that many families face when trying to balance their finances and would help people in need get back on their feet. However, we believe that some people would take advantage of the system, and that a means test should be carried out to prevent this from happening. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People on very low incomes should receive a basic income from the government that is sufficient to live off. However, this is not an excuse for them to sit at home doing nothing. Instead, they must look for employment and be prepared to take any job they are offered. They must also be prepared to undergo training to help improve their chances of finding work. If they refuse to follow these simple requirements, then their income will be reduced to a level that is just enough to live on and provide food and shelter. They will also be monitored to ensure that they are not engaging in criminal activities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Income is something that people earn for working. It's hard to see how people can work if they are already given an income. There's a lot of evidence that shows that if people aren't working, they will go into debt, they will spend more money than they have. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000496.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000496.soc index f0cdc902..9601fb8a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000496.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000496.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should have a universal basic income, as it will provide everyone with an income which is guaranteed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A Universal Basic Income would be a good idea if it was affordable. It would help to reduce inequality, and help to bridge the gap between the richest and poorest. It should be tax-funded, with a small amount paid in income tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Income is something that people need for basic living costs, such as food, clothing and shelter. The fact that many people are still living in poverty in the UK is evidence that there is a problem with the way the welfare system is currently working. We believe that a Universal Basic Income would provide a minimum income for people in the UK, ensuring that people have enough money to pay for their basic needs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income would be a very welcome initiative for the country, however we do not think it is realistic to think it would happen. There would be too many issues to address such as how to administer it, how to set the level, who would be eligible, how to pay for it. There are too many questions that cannot be answered right now and it would require a lot more research and input to address the questions and see what would be the best way to approach this. This is an important topic that deserves a lot of attention, and we would love to see this be a reality, however it will take a long time to achieve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should have a universal basic income, as it will provide everyone with an income which is guaranteed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A Universal Basic Income would be a good idea if it was affordable. It would help to reduce inequality, and help to bridge the gap between the richest and poorest. It should be tax-funded, with a small amount paid in income tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Income is something that people need for basic living costs, such as food, clothing and shelter. The fact that many people are still living in poverty in the UK is evidence that there is a problem with the way the welfare system is currently working. We believe that a Universal Basic Income would provide a minimum income for people in the UK, ensuring that people have enough money to pay for their basic needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income would be a very welcome initiative for the country, however we do not think it is realistic to think it would happen. There would be too many issues to address such as how to administer it, how to set the level, who would be eligible, how to pay for it. There are too many questions that cannot be answered right now and it would require a lot more research and input to address the questions and see what would be the best way to approach this. This is an important topic that deserves a lot of attention, and we would love to see this be a reality, however it will take a long time to achieve. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000497.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000497.soc index 3fbf2ce3..aa8432be 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000497.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000497.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be some ban on certain websites, but this should be done very carefully. Websites should be taken down when they are used to encourage sexual crime. Also, websites that encourage suicide and self-harm should be taken down. The resources used to police this would be a good investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should have the power to remove certain websites from the internet where there is sufficient justification for doing so, such as sites containing inappropriate or harmful content that is likely to cause offence, distress or harm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not ban certain websites from the internet. It is very important to protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the internet should remain an open platform. However, in cases where content is illegal, such as revenge porn, scam websites, or violence against people, the government should have the right to shut down the website and block the website from being accessed by people in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be some ban on certain websites, but this should be done very carefully. Websites should be taken down when they are used to encourage sexual crime. Also, websites that encourage suicide and self-harm should be taken down. The resources used to police this would be a good investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should have the power to remove certain websites from the internet where there is sufficient justification for doing so, such as sites containing inappropriate or harmful content that is likely to cause offence, distress or harm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not ban certain websites from the internet. It is very important to protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the internet should remain an open platform. However, in cases where content is illegal, such as revenge porn, scam websites, or violence against people, the government should have the right to shut down the website and block the website from being accessed by people in the country. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000498.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000498.soc index 3179b4a6..1fa62e23 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000498.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000498.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a tax on plastic bags but it is not a very effective method of dealing with the problem. A tax should be in place as it will raise money for charity but a complete ban on plastic bags should also be in place. This will discourage the use of plastic bags, and hopefully a culture change can occur. Plastic bags are also not an issue that we should be concentrating on, when there are other more polluting issues such as plastic bottles, single use packaging, and the amount of plastic we consume on a daily basis. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Plastic bags are a huge problem in the world today, and we must try to reduce our reliance on them. The current solution of placing a 5p charge on single-use plastic bags in England has proven ineffective. The problem is still a huge one, and the plastic bags can still be bought. We believe that the best solution is a complete ban on single-use plastic bags, coupled with the encouragement of companies to use alternative methods of packaging. This would create a market for companies to produce recyclable materials, which would be more environmentally friendly. We believe that this would be the best solution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Plastic bags should be banned in supermarkets and replaced by paper bags. The bags should also be free as they can be reused and are easily recycled. A tax on plastic bags should also be scrapped and replaced with an incentive for the consumer to use bags for life and the retailer to make all of their products out of recyclable materials. The tax is a fee for something which is damaging the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We feel that the tax on plastic bags is an inneffective way of solving the problem. Instead, plastic bags should be banned completely and tax on them should be scrapped. Plastic bags are still easily available and are still polluting the environment. We feel that a tax is ineffective as people can still buy the bags and will not want to use a bag for life. Companies such as Morrisons who use paper bags should be encouraged and there should be a drive for customers to bring their own bags for life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a tax on plastic bags but it is not a very effective method of dealing with the problem. A tax should be in place as it will raise money for charity but a complete ban on plastic bags should also be in place. This will discourage the use of plastic bags, and hopefully a culture change can occur. Plastic bags are also not an issue that we should be concentrating on, when there are other more polluting issues such as plastic bottles, single use packaging, and the amount of plastic we consume on a daily basis. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Plastic bags are a huge problem in the world today, and we must try to reduce our reliance on them. The current solution of placing a 5p charge on single-use plastic bags in England has proven ineffective. The problem is still a huge one, and the plastic bags can still be bought. We believe that the best solution is a complete ban on single-use plastic bags, coupled with the encouragement of companies to use alternative methods of packaging. This would create a market for companies to produce recyclable materials, which would be more environmentally friendly. We believe that this would be the best solution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Plastic bags should be banned in supermarkets and replaced by paper bags. The bags should also be free as they can be reused and are easily recycled. A tax on plastic bags should also be scrapped and replaced with an incentive for the consumer to use bags for life and the retailer to make all of their products out of recyclable materials. The tax is a fee for something which is damaging the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We feel that the tax on plastic bags is an inneffective way of solving the problem. Instead, plastic bags should be banned completely and tax on them should be scrapped. Plastic bags are still easily available and are still polluting the environment. We feel that a tax is ineffective as people can still buy the bags and will not want to use a bag for life. Companies such as Morrisons who use paper bags should be encouraged and there should be a drive for customers to bring their own bags for life. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000499.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000499.soc index 40c1754f..9f9b368d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000499.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000499.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is a good idea to ban certain products in children's television programs like junk food and any adult content. Expensive toys and games should also be banned because it puts pressure on parents to buy them. Banning these products from children's television will remove the pressure from parents to provide everything the children want. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, advertising in children's programs is a good idea. However, it should be limited to certain products. This would be to avoid putting pressure on parents to buy expensive toys or unhealthy foods for their children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion it is the opinion of the majority that advertising in children's programs is not a good idea and we recommend that children should be banned from viewing adverts on television. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some ban on adverts as it can cause conflict within families and also encourage children to want things that their families cannot afford. There should not be a complete ban on adverts as this is a freedom of speech. It is the responsibility of parents to keep their children informed as to the realities of life and to make the best choices for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is a good idea to ban certain products in children's television programs like junk food and any adult content. Expensive toys and games should also be banned because it puts pressure on parents to buy them. Banning these products from children's television will remove the pressure from parents to provide everything the children want. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, advertising in children's programs is a good idea. However, it should be limited to certain products. This would be to avoid putting pressure on parents to buy expensive toys or unhealthy foods for their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion it is the opinion of the majority that advertising in children's programs is not a good idea and we recommend that children should be banned from viewing adverts on television. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some ban on adverts as it can cause conflict within families and also encourage children to want things that their families cannot afford. There should not be a complete ban on adverts as this is a freedom of speech. It is the responsibility of parents to keep their children informed as to the realities of life and to make the best choices for them. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000500.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000500.soc index af391194..f2cccdf6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000500.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000500.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should legalise the cultivation and consumption of magic mushrooms as this would lead to a decrease in crime and people would be more aware of the health effects of these substances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the consensus that the legalization of magic mushrooms is the best solution for this issue. We believe that this will allow it to be better controlled by those who are authorized to do so. This will also allow for it to be better regulated in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. This would also decrease the crime rates in the country as a whole because of the lack of need for the importation of class A drugs. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: MAGIC MUSHROOMS SHOULD NOT BE LEGALISED BECAUSE IT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO LET THEM BE EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL NOT END UP IN THE WRONG HANDS AND AS A RESULT OF THIS THEY MAY NOT BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE. THERE IS A HIGH RISK OF OVERDOSE IF TOO MANY MAGIC MUSHROOMS ARE EATEN AND AS A RESULT OF THIS THERE IS A HIGH CHANCE OF ACCIDENTS, HARM TO OTHERS AND EVEN DEATH. IN THE FUTURE THERE MAY BE AN INCREASE IN THE USE OF MAGIC MUSHROOMS, AND AS A RESULT OF THIS THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING THEM. THIS WILL LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS, HARM TO OTHERS AND EVEN DEATH. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that legalizing magic mushrooms for recreational purposes could have a positive impact on the country and decrease crime rates. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should legalise the cultivation and consumption of magic mushrooms as this would lead to a decrease in crime and people would be more aware of the health effects of these substances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the consensus that the legalization of magic mushrooms is the best solution for this issue. We believe that this will allow it to be better controlled by those who are authorized to do so. This will also allow for it to be better regulated in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. This would also decrease the crime rates in the country as a whole because of the lack of need for the importation of class A drugs. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - MAGIC MUSHROOMS SHOULD NOT BE LEGALISED BECAUSE IT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO LET THEM BE EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL NOT END UP IN THE WRONG HANDS AND AS A RESULT OF THIS THEY MAY NOT BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE. THERE IS A HIGH RISK OF OVERDOSE IF TOO MANY MAGIC MUSHROOMS ARE EATEN AND AS A RESULT OF THIS THERE IS A HIGH CHANCE OF ACCIDENTS, HARM TO OTHERS AND EVEN DEATH. IN THE FUTURE THERE MAY BE AN INCREASE IN THE USE OF MAGIC MUSHROOMS, AND AS A RESULT OF THIS THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING THEM. THIS WILL LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS, HARM TO OTHERS AND EVEN DEATH. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that legalizing magic mushrooms for recreational purposes could have a positive impact on the country and decrease crime rates. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000501.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000501.soc index 000ad6f8..4b1e3fc4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000501.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000501.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. They argued that as cigarettes and alcohol are generally luxury goods, they should be taxed more heavily to help the country’s economy and because they cause health problems. The group also thought that higher taxes could potentially discourage smoking and drinking, therefore improving the health of the country’s population. However, there was disagreement as to whether or not it would work. Some thought that taxing cigarettes would only lead to people buying their cigarettes on the black market or buying cheap, more dangerous cigarettes. There was also disagreement over whether taxing alcohol would be effective. It was thought that it could encourage people to stop going to pubs, clubs and restaurants which would harm the economy and that it could even encourage them to purchase cheap, harmful alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. They are both harmful to health and increase the cost to the NHS. Also, there are health benefits to be gained from cutting down the consumption of cigarettes and alcohol. The increased taxes could also discourage young people from taking up these habits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we feel that there should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol because it will help the country financially and also encourage people to be healthier. The effects of cigarettes and alcohol on health are becoming more apparent which will help people to cut down on them and be more health conscious. It is also important to note that cigarettes and alcohol are luxury goods and not essentials so it is fair to tax them higher. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health and social costs of these products are much greater than the revenue they generate and as such, taxing them at higher rates may reduce usage and therefore lower the cost to society. This will result in people living longer and happier lives, a reduced burden on the NHS, and more money in the Treasury. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. They argued that as cigarettes and alcohol are generally luxury goods, they should be taxed more heavily to help the country’s economy and because they cause health problems. The group also thought that higher taxes could potentially discourage smoking and drinking, therefore improving the health of the country’s population. However, there was disagreement as to whether or not it would work. Some thought that taxing cigarettes would only lead to people buying their cigarettes on the black market or buying cheap, more dangerous cigarettes. There was also disagreement over whether taxing alcohol would be effective. It was thought that it could encourage people to stop going to pubs, clubs and restaurants which would harm the economy and that it could even encourage them to purchase cheap, harmful alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. They are both harmful to health and increase the cost to the NHS. Also, there are health benefits to be gained from cutting down the consumption of cigarettes and alcohol. The increased taxes could also discourage young people from taking up these habits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we feel that there should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol because it will help the country financially and also encourage people to be healthier. The effects of cigarettes and alcohol on health are becoming more apparent which will help people to cut down on them and be more health conscious. It is also important to note that cigarettes and alcohol are luxury goods and not essentials so it is fair to tax them higher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health and social costs of these products are much greater than the revenue they generate and as such, taxing them at higher rates may reduce usage and therefore lower the cost to society. This will result in people living longer and happier lives, a reduced burden on the NHS, and more money in the Treasury. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000502.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000502.soc index bb9aa67c..7dc8958c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000502.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000502.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in agreement that it should be illegal to use mobile phones while driving as there is no need for it, it is very dangerous and could cause serious injury or death. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the use of mobile phones can be very dangerous, and should be avoided while driving, it is currently difficult to enforce such a law. There are currently many technologies available to drivers that can provide a safer way of using mobile phones. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO USE MOBILE PHONES WHILST DRIVING DUE TO THE RISK OF INJURY AND DEATH” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is the opinion of the group that mobile phones should not be used when driving, because you are not concentrating on the road. There is an obvious danger in using a mobile phone and driving. You should use a hands free kit or some other device. It is also very dangerous because you may be distracted by the phone, so are not concentrating on the road. As a result, this can cause accidents. It is safer to pull over and park up in a safe place and then use your phone. Using the CONSENSUS method of report writing, write a report of approximately 150 words summarising the debate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in agreement that it should be illegal to use mobile phones while driving as there is no need for it, it is very dangerous and could cause serious injury or death. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the use of mobile phones can be very dangerous, and should be avoided while driving, it is currently difficult to enforce such a law. There are currently many technologies available to drivers that can provide a safer way of using mobile phones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO USE MOBILE PHONES WHILST DRIVING DUE TO THE RISK OF INJURY AND DEATH” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is the opinion of the group that mobile phones should not be used when driving, because you are not concentrating on the road. There is an obvious danger in using a mobile phone and driving. You should use a hands free kit or some other device. It is also very dangerous because you may be distracted by the phone, so are not concentrating on the road. As a result, this can cause accidents. It is safer to pull over and park up in a safe place and then use your phone. Using the CONSENSUS method of report writing, write a report of approximately 150 words summarising the debate. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000503.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000503.soc index e7f74568..4ffc547c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000503.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000503.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a ban on the sale of diesel and gasoline vehicles. But there needs to be a lot of improvement in the public transport system to make this an option for the general public. And more government support for people to make the switch. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, they should not be banned as people will not want to give up their cars if the alternatives are not equal or actually better (cheaper, comfortable, frequent, accessible). The public will not want to give up their cars if the alternatives are not equal or actually better (cheaper, comfortable, frequent, accessible). This would also create many job losses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles would have a very positive impact on the environment, but at this time is impractical due to lack of infrastructure, so we feel that it would be premature to ban them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the participants were in favour of moving away from diesel and gasoline vehicles and towards more sustainable energy sources. However, they felt that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this to happen and that it would need significant improvement and funding to make this transition possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a ban on the sale of diesel and gasoline vehicles. But there needs to be a lot of improvement in the public transport system to make this an option for the general public. And more government support for people to make the switch. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, they should not be banned as people will not want to give up their cars if the alternatives are not equal or actually better (cheaper, comfortable, frequent, accessible). The public will not want to give up their cars if the alternatives are not equal or actually better (cheaper, comfortable, frequent, accessible). This would also create many job losses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles would have a very positive impact on the environment, but at this time is impractical due to lack of infrastructure, so we feel that it would be premature to ban them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the participants were in favour of moving away from diesel and gasoline vehicles and towards more sustainable energy sources. However, they felt that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this to happen and that it would need significant improvement and funding to make this transition possible. 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000504.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000504.soc index 90cc2851..2c6e3ac7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000504.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000504.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Public transport fares should not be increased and we should not use the extra revenue to provide free public transport for certain people. There are already other means of subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. The burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't agree with the proposal to increase fares in order to give free public transport to certain people. We think that the burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. There are already other means of subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Public transport fares should not be increased and we should not use the extra revenue to provide free public transport for certain people. There are already various other means of subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. The burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are already various methods for subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. The burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. The cost of public transport should not be increased, as this would make it less affordable and less accessible for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Public transport fares should not be increased and we should not use the extra revenue to provide free public transport for certain people. There are already other means of subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. The burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't agree with the proposal to increase fares in order to give free public transport to certain people. We think that the burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. There are already other means of subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Public transport fares should not be increased and we should not use the extra revenue to provide free public transport for certain people. There are already various other means of subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. The burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are already various methods for subsidising public transport and providing free transport for certain people who need it, such as free travel passes. The burden of paying for the public transport system should not be placed upon the users of the system. The cost of public transport should not be increased, as this would make it less affordable and less accessible for all. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000505.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000505.soc index 9b39746c..359f0781 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000505.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000505.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. Conclusion This paper presents an approach to determining the consensus view of a group of participants using natural language. The approach uses an analysis of the word "should" in participant responses to determine if the group has reached a consensus. A consensus has been defined as when all of the participants in a group respond with a consensus word. A consensus word has been defined as any word that is highly likely to be used when a participant agrees with a proposed consensus statement. The approach is very quick and simple to implement and can be easily applied to a wide variety of consensus determination questions. In this paper, the consensus determination approach has been applied to a question in the field of philosophy, but it could also be applied -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. In this exercise, the word "should" was used to assess whether or not the consensus view of the group matched that of the individuals. The graph below shows the word "should" being used when a consensus view was presented and that the graph peaked at 100% when the consensus matched that of the individual participants. From this exercise, we can see that: There is an open discussion of all the participants views. There are no restrictions on any participant's ability to express their view. There is a transparency of all viewpoints and a reaching of a consensus based on the data presented. Group consensus is based on all of the available data. The group has full transparency -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. Participants responded well to this exercise and seemed to find the process interesting and enjoyable. However, some felt the use of a slider with the word "should" at each end did not give them enough information to form an opinion. It was also commented that more clear instructions on how to participate would have been beneficial. The facilitator of the study decided to use a slider instead of a 5 point scale because it was hoped that this would keep the exercise simple. It was commented that the slider made it hard to form a decision because it was not clear how to use it. In future studies, a 5 point scale would be a better option to give more of an idea of how to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. This example shows how word use can be analyzed to show how an individual participant and a group of participants agree or disagree on an opinion. This exercise would benefit from a greater number of participants to increase the range of opinions being discussed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. Conclusion This paper presents an approach to determining the consensus view of a group of participants using natural language. The approach uses an analysis of the word "should" in participant responses to determine if the group has reached a consensus. A consensus has been defined as when all of the participants in a group respond with a consensus word. A consensus word has been defined as any word that is highly likely to be used when a participant agrees with a proposed consensus statement. The approach is very quick and simple to implement and can be easily applied to a wide variety of consensus determination questions. In this paper, the consensus determination approach has been applied to a question in the field of philosophy, but it could also be applied +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. In this exercise, the word "should" was used to assess whether or not the consensus view of the group matched that of the individuals. The graph below shows the word "should" being used when a consensus view was presented and that the graph peaked at 100% when the consensus matched that of the individual participants. From this exercise, we can see that: There is an open discussion of all the participants views. There are no restrictions on any participant's ability to express their view. There is a transparency of all viewpoints and a reaching of a consensus based on the data presented. Group consensus is based on all of the available data. The group has full transparency +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. Participants responded well to this exercise and seemed to find the process interesting and enjoyable. However, some felt the use of a slider with the word "should" at each end did not give them enough information to form an opinion. It was also commented that more clear instructions on how to participate would have been beneficial. The facilitator of the study decided to use a slider instead of a 5 point scale because it was hoped that this would keep the exercise simple. It was commented that the slider made it hard to form a decision because it was not clear how to use it. In future studies, a 5 point scale would be a better option to give more of an idea of how to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The state should not subsidize parents who choose to homeschool their children. As much as the parents may have good intentions they are not qualified to teach their children on a wide range of subjects, schooling will be poor and as such, a waste of money. This money would be far better used for schools who can make better use of the funding, for example, you can purchase 1 book which 1 homeschooling child would use for £20, or you could buy 1 book for £20 which 10 children freeing up funding for other materials. This example shows how word use can be analyzed to show how an individual participant and a group of participants agree or disagree on an opinion. This exercise would benefit from a greater number of participants to increase the range of opinions being discussed. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000506.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000506.soc index 49c3951c..1e320211 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000506.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000506.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group came to the consensus view that we should not be more generous in our asylum seeking policy but rather tighten up the process in order to stop economic migrants from entering the country posing as asylum seekers. The participants felt that the UK could not continue to provide the level of services that they currently are for the number of asylum seekers entering the country at the moment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be more generous to those that have genuinely applied for asylum and who need it, and not to those who are just taking advantage of the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK has the capacity to accept a small number of asylum seekers and should maintain this capacity. However, to be eligible for asylum, people must show that they have a real need for protection and are fleeing real danger. The UK should not provide support to people who have left their country of origin purely for economic reasons and those who do not have a real need for protection. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should have a more generous asylum seeking policy for those who truly seek asylum from political, religious and cultural persecution. However, this must be properly regulated so that economic migrants are not also permitted to access the asylum system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not be more generous in our asylum seeking policy but rather tighten up the process in order to stop economic migrants from entering the country posing as asylum seekers. The participants felt that the UK could not continue to provide the level of services that they currently are for the number of asylum seekers entering the country at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be more generous to those that have genuinely applied for asylum and who need it, and not to those who are just taking advantage of the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK has the capacity to accept a small number of asylum seekers and should maintain this capacity. However, to be eligible for asylum, people must show that they have a real need for protection and are fleeing real danger. The UK should not provide support to people who have left their country of origin purely for economic reasons and those who do not have a real need for protection. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should have a more generous asylum seeking policy for those who truly seek asylum from political, religious and cultural persecution. However, this must be properly regulated so that economic migrants are not also permitted to access the asylum system. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000507.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000507.soc index 1baa36fa..71fcd0b4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000507.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000507.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the participants were opposed to national service in any form. However, if there was to be a requirement for a period of national service it should be available to all age groups and levels of education and it should not be compulsory. The participants considered that people in all age groups have different skills and contributions to make. It would be wrong to target a specific group for national service. The participants further considered that making it compulsory for students would discourage some young people from going to university and this could have negative consequences for them and for the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that students should be encouraged to take a year of national service after their higher education. In the case of the participants in this study, they all agreed that this year of service should be voluntary, though encouraged. The reasoning behind this was that although the participants had originally had mixed opinions, it was the view of all of them that young people with a higher education should be given the opportunity to choose for themselves, whether to contribute to their country, or to move on to the next stage of their lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: All school leavers (at 16, 18 or older) should be obliged to do a minimum of two years national service. This would divert many people from considering attending university as they would have experienced real-world work and would have learned the value of their own endeavours toward a common goal. Only the most intelligent, academic minds should ven consider further education, as people tend to thrive more if they decide on a skill or trade and work from 16 or 18 toward the development of the neccessary skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People with higher education should be encouraged to do national service, rather than being obliged to do it. This is because their skills and expertise are often already beneficial to society and it would be unfair to force them to work in a role that would not make use of these. Also, if the state has paid for the higher education, there is a sense that the student should be obliged to do the national service. However, if the higher education has been paid for privately, or the person's skills would be wasted in the national service, they should not be obliged to do it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the participants were opposed to national service in any form. However, if there was to be a requirement for a period of national service it should be available to all age groups and levels of education and it should not be compulsory. The participants considered that people in all age groups have different skills and contributions to make. It would be wrong to target a specific group for national service. The participants further considered that making it compulsory for students would discourage some young people from going to university and this could have negative consequences for them and for the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that students should be encouraged to take a year of national service after their higher education. In the case of the participants in this study, they all agreed that this year of service should be voluntary, though encouraged. The reasoning behind this was that although the participants had originally had mixed opinions, it was the view of all of them that young people with a higher education should be given the opportunity to choose for themselves, whether to contribute to their country, or to move on to the next stage of their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - All school leavers (at 16, 18 or older) should be obliged to do a minimum of two years national service. This would divert many people from considering attending university as they would have experienced real-world work and would have learned the value of their own endeavours toward a common goal. Only the most intelligent, academic minds should ven consider further education, as people tend to thrive more if they decide on a skill or trade and work from 16 or 18 toward the development of the neccessary skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People with higher education should be encouraged to do national service, rather than being obliged to do it. This is because their skills and expertise are often already beneficial to society and it would be unfair to force them to work in a role that would not make use of these. Also, if the state has paid for the higher education, there is a sense that the student should be obliged to do the national service. However, if the higher education has been paid for privately, or the person's skills would be wasted in the national service, they should not be obliged to do it. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000508.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000508.soc index ac20f4e9..75c0b52a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000508.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000508.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a balance between making money and improving education standards. The UK should continue to fund state schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. However, the government should allow for-profit organizations to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. Conclusion: The group came to a very fair consensus opinion after debating this question. There is no need for government to be involved in the day to day running of schools. However, it should provide funding to all schools. In addition, private companies should be allowed to run schools as this will lead to a better management and higher quality of education for students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The education system is run by a set of rules which need to be obeyed to allow schools to be of the highest standard. To allow for profit companies to run schools would risk the education of children and their safety. It would change the way in which teachers work and also how they are treated. Also, the school's curriculum could be changed by a company to suit their own agenda which might be different to the parents or the child's wishes. It is also a known fact that when companies run for profit, they tend to be better managed and have better working standards, as this means that they will get more customers which means they will make more money. This could apply to schools too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the U.K. government should not allow for-profit organizations to run schools. But, to allow a level playing field for all, if a for-profit organization is allowed to run a school, the school should not be eligible for funding from the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Profit making organizations should not be allowed to run schools, for profit can jeopardize the quality of education. However, private organizations can be allowed to run schools with a stipulated amount of profits to be allowed. This can be done with a maximum limit on profits and a well designed contract of the services provided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a balance between making money and improving education standards. The UK should continue to fund state schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. However, the government should allow for-profit organizations to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. Conclusion: The group came to a very fair consensus opinion after debating this question. There is no need for government to be involved in the day to day running of schools. However, it should provide funding to all schools. In addition, private companies should be allowed to run schools as this will lead to a better management and higher quality of education for students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The education system is run by a set of rules which need to be obeyed to allow schools to be of the highest standard. To allow for profit companies to run schools would risk the education of children and their safety. It would change the way in which teachers work and also how they are treated. Also, the school's curriculum could be changed by a company to suit their own agenda which might be different to the parents or the child's wishes. It is also a known fact that when companies run for profit, they tend to be better managed and have better working standards, as this means that they will get more customers which means they will make more money. This could apply to schools too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the U.K. government should not allow for-profit organizations to run schools. But, to allow a level playing field for all, if a for-profit organization is allowed to run a school, the school should not be eligible for funding from the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Profit making organizations should not be allowed to run schools, for profit can jeopardize the quality of education. However, private organizations can be allowed to run schools with a stipulated amount of profits to be allowed. This can be done with a maximum limit on profits and a well designed contract of the services provided. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000509.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000509.soc index 07b79e28..35e9ba63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000509.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000509.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the legalization of magic mushrooms would lead to a significant decrease in crime rates in the country because of the lack of need for the importation of hard class A drugs such as cocaine and heroine. It would also be better regulated by those authorized to do so in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. We have also come to the consensus that legalization of magic mushrooms is the best solution for this issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the consensus that the legalization of magic mushrooms is the best solution for this issue. We believe that this will allow it to be better controlled by those who are authorized to do so. This will also allow for it to be better regulated in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. This would also decrease the crime rates in the country as a whole because of the lack of need for the importation of class A drugs. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the consensus that the legalization of magic mushrooms is the best solution for this issue. We believe that this will allow it to be better controlled by those who are authorized to do so. This will also allow for it to be better regulated in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. This would also decrease the crime rates in the country as a whole because of the lack of need for the importation of class A drugs. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. We also feel that the legalization of magic mushrooms would be of a great benefit to the health and well-being of the people in this country as it can be used to cure mental health problems such as depression. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: After a long debate, we have come to the conclusion that the legalisation of magic mushrooms is not a bad idea. We believe that this will allow it to be better controlled by those who are authorized to do so. This will also allow for it to be better regulated in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. It would also decrease the crime rates in the country as a whole because of the lack of need for the importation of class A drugs. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. The draft consensus statement had good intentions, but it is also important to keep in mind the harm that can be caused by the improper use of these substances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the legalization of magic mushrooms would lead to a significant decrease in crime rates in the country because of the lack of need for the importation of hard class A drugs such as cocaine and heroine. It would also be better regulated by those authorized to do so in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. We have also come to the consensus that legalization of magic mushrooms is the best solution for this issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the consensus that the legalization of magic mushrooms is the best solution for this issue. We believe that this will allow it to be better controlled by those who are authorized to do so. This will also allow for it to be better regulated in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. This would also decrease the crime rates in the country as a whole because of the lack of need for the importation of class A drugs. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the consensus that the legalization of magic mushrooms is the best solution for this issue. We believe that this will allow it to be better controlled by those who are authorized to do so. This will also allow for it to be better regulated in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. This would also decrease the crime rates in the country as a whole because of the lack of need for the importation of class A drugs. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. We also feel that the legalization of magic mushrooms would be of a great benefit to the health and well-being of the people in this country as it can be used to cure mental health problems such as depression. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - After a long debate, we have come to the conclusion that the legalisation of magic mushrooms is not a bad idea. We believe that this will allow it to be better controlled by those who are authorized to do so. This will also allow for it to be better regulated in order to ensure that it is used properly for the purposes that it was intended for. It would also decrease the crime rates in the country as a whole because of the lack of need for the importation of class A drugs. This is an important point because of the number of crime-related incidents that have been happening in the country. The draft consensus statement had good intentions, but it is also important to keep in mind the harm that can be caused by the improper use of these substances. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000510.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000510.soc index 6ac5c830..8c90527b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000510.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000510.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of mandatory voting, however with the following stipulations: - The voting system should be changed to allow multiple ticking of parties on the ballot - People should be given an incentive to vote - People should be educated in politics and voting prior to being allowed to vote -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be forced to vote, as it is their duty to do so. The issue of what would happen if everyone voted is not necessarily a good argument, as then it would lead to people with an extreme view on politics gaining power and governing the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Voting should not be mandatory. Everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions on who they want to vote for. If voting was mandatory then this would take away the freedom to choose from people. Everyone has their own reasons for not voting, whether that is because they do not agree with the policies or if they do not believe in the system. Forcing people to vote would mean that the final decision would be made by people who did not even want to vote in the first place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have a choice about whether or not to vote, but if they do not vote they should not be allowed to complain about the results of the election. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of mandatory voting, however with the following stipulations: - The voting system should be changed to allow multiple ticking of parties on the ballot - People should be given an incentive to vote - People should be educated in politics and voting prior to being allowed to vote +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be forced to vote, as it is their duty to do so. The issue of what would happen if everyone voted is not necessarily a good argument, as then it would lead to people with an extreme view on politics gaining power and governing the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Voting should not be mandatory. Everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions on who they want to vote for. If voting was mandatory then this would take away the freedom to choose from people. Everyone has their own reasons for not voting, whether that is because they do not agree with the policies or if they do not believe in the system. Forcing people to vote would mean that the final decision would be made by people who did not even want to vote in the first place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have a choice about whether or not to vote, but if they do not vote they should not be allowed to complain about the results of the election. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000511.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000511.soc index 5ba78d77..ec995a30 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000511.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000511.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the UK government should subsidize the arts as the arts showcase UK culture and promote and generate tourism. In the long run the government will see an increase in revenue from the arts and more revenue from tourism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government should subsidize the arts, however not in a way that would impact other, more important services such as healthcare and welfare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK government should not subsidize the arts. The government should allocate its limited resources to support social services and public goods like health care and security. While the arts are important to the UK, they do not provide the same societal benefits as these services and public goods. The UK has a long history of excellence in the arts, and it will continue to do so with or without government subsidy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group agrees that the government should subsidize the arts to an extent. However, we believe that the government should not be in the position of deciding what art should be created and promoted. Art should remain a place for artists to express themselves freely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the UK government should subsidize the arts as the arts showcase UK culture and promote and generate tourism. In the long run the government will see an increase in revenue from the arts and more revenue from tourism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government should subsidize the arts, however not in a way that would impact other, more important services such as healthcare and welfare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK government should not subsidize the arts. The government should allocate its limited resources to support social services and public goods like health care and security. While the arts are important to the UK, they do not provide the same societal benefits as these services and public goods. The UK has a long history of excellence in the arts, and it will continue to do so with or without government subsidy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group agrees that the government should subsidize the arts to an extent. However, we believe that the government should not be in the position of deciding what art should be created and promoted. Art should remain a place for artists to express themselves freely. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000512.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000512.soc index 44d2df3d..5234eb25 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000512.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000512.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is still hope for us to eradicate malaria. Malaria can be eradicated just like other diseases that were once considered untreatable. We need to invest more into research to discover a cure. We need to educate people about the risks of malaria and how to prevent it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Malaria is a significant global health concern, but many groups and individuals around the world are making great strides to eradicate the disease. We believe with advances in medical science, the threats to global health caused by malaria will be a thing of the past. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the participants were optimistic and thought that in the future we will eventually find a cure for malaria. They said that medical science is continually advancing and as it is, there are some areas in the world which do not have the problem of malaria. The participants also said that if malaria is eradicated in the developed world then it can be eradicated in the underdeveloped world too, however the task would be much more difficult and would take much longer. There was a thought that it would not be eradicated in the near future, but it is inevitable that it will be eradicated eventually. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is likely that we will eradicate malaria. If we look at the current rate of progress, it seems unlikely that we will be able to eradicate malaria in the near future. However, with increased funding for research and a more efficient use of that funding, it may be possible. Malaria is a substantial problem in some parts of the world, and it is in the interests of many governments and charities to try and eradicate the disease. This desire to eradicate the disease should help increase funding to develop cures. Malaria is also a bigger threat than many other diseases and has killed millions, and so the desire to eradicate the disease should increase. This means that a lot of research will be dedicated to finding a cure for the disease. Many other diseases have been eradicated or nearly eradicated in the past and so there is no reason why malaria should not be eradicated. With increased funding and desire to find a cure, there is a good chance that malaria will be eradicated in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is still hope for us to eradicate malaria. Malaria can be eradicated just like other diseases that were once considered untreatable. We need to invest more into research to discover a cure. We need to educate people about the risks of malaria and how to prevent it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Malaria is a significant global health concern, but many groups and individuals around the world are making great strides to eradicate the disease. We believe with advances in medical science, the threats to global health caused by malaria will be a thing of the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the participants were optimistic and thought that in the future we will eventually find a cure for malaria. They said that medical science is continually advancing and as it is, there are some areas in the world which do not have the problem of malaria. The participants also said that if malaria is eradicated in the developed world then it can be eradicated in the underdeveloped world too, however the task would be much more difficult and would take much longer. There was a thought that it would not be eradicated in the near future, but it is inevitable that it will be eradicated eventually. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is likely that we will eradicate malaria. If we look at the current rate of progress, it seems unlikely that we will be able to eradicate malaria in the near future. However, with increased funding for research and a more efficient use of that funding, it may be possible. Malaria is a substantial problem in some parts of the world, and it is in the interests of many governments and charities to try and eradicate the disease. This desire to eradicate the disease should help increase funding to develop cures. Malaria is also a bigger threat than many other diseases and has killed millions, and so the desire to eradicate the disease should increase. This means that a lot of research will be dedicated to finding a cure for the disease. Many other diseases have been eradicated or nearly eradicated in the past and so there is no reason why malaria should not be eradicated. With increased funding and desire to find a cure, there is a good chance that malaria will be eradicated in the future. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000513.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000513.soc index 0139e691..61fda09b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000513.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000513.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the participants were in favour of moving away from diesel and gasoline vehicles and towards more sustainable energy sources. However, they felt that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this to happen and that it would need significant improvement and funding to make this transition possible. They also felt that it would be unfair to expect people to switch to more expensive alternatives that might be more harmful to the environment in the long term, such as electric cars, which are not as energy efficient as diesel and gasoline cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the participants were in favour of moving away from diesel and gasoline vehicles and towards more sustainable energy sources. However, they felt that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this to happen and that it would need significant improvement and funding to make this transition possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the participants were in favour of moving away from diesel and gasoline vehicles and towards more sustainable energy sources. However, they felt that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this to happen and that it would need significant improvement and funding to make this transition possible. They felt that the change in climate had gone too far already, and that if nothing were done to address the environmental issues, then we would be in for a very bleak future. However, they felt that diesel and gasoline vehicles should not be banned immediately and that the infrastructure needs to be in place to allow for this transition to happen over time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong consensus that in the future we will need to move away from diesel and gasoline vehicles to something more sustainable. However, the participants felt that there is not enough infrastructure to support this and that public transport is too expensive and not frequent enough to replace the private car. They also felt that the electricity grid is not sufficient to support electric vehicles, and that there is a need for this to be improved as well. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the participants were in favour of moving away from diesel and gasoline vehicles and towards more sustainable energy sources. However, they felt that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this to happen and that it would need significant improvement and funding to make this transition possible. They also felt that it would be unfair to expect people to switch to more expensive alternatives that might be more harmful to the environment in the long term, such as electric cars, which are not as energy efficient as diesel and gasoline cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the participants were in favour of moving away from diesel and gasoline vehicles and towards more sustainable energy sources. However, they felt that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this to happen and that it would need significant improvement and funding to make this transition possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the participants were in favour of moving away from diesel and gasoline vehicles and towards more sustainable energy sources. However, they felt that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this to happen and that it would need significant improvement and funding to make this transition possible. They felt that the change in climate had gone too far already, and that if nothing were done to address the environmental issues, then we would be in for a very bleak future. However, they felt that diesel and gasoline vehicles should not be banned immediately and that the infrastructure needs to be in place to allow for this transition to happen over time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong consensus that in the future we will need to move away from diesel and gasoline vehicles to something more sustainable. However, the participants felt that there is not enough infrastructure to support this and that public transport is too expensive and not frequent enough to replace the private car. They also felt that the electricity grid is not sufficient to support electric vehicles, and that there is a need for this to be improved as well. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000514.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000514.soc index e6203372..b80b7e8b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000514.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000514.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that students should be encouraged to take a year of national service after their higher education. In the case of the participants in this study, they all agreed that this year of service should be voluntary, though encouraged. The reasoning behind this was that although the participants had originally had mixed opinions, it was the view of all of them that young people with a higher education should be given the opportunity to choose for themselves, whether to contribute to their country, or to move on to the next stage of their lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Students should be presented with the option to do a year of national service after they have completed their higher education, and the benefits of this should be explained to them. However, we as a group of participants believe that it should ultimately be their choice whether to take up this opportunity or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that students should be encouraged to do a year of national service after their higher education. However, they should not be obliged. This was the final view of the participants in this study. The original opinions of the participants had been mixed, with some wanting to make it a compulsory requirement, while others were completely against the idea. However, it was finally agreed that the service should be voluntary, but encouraged, to allow the participants to make the choice for themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the participants were in favour of an obligatory year of national service for people with a higher education. They said that this was because many young people had their education funded by the government, and should therefore have the duty to contribute to the society that they live in. They felt that it was an opportunity for the people to have a chance to choose a path for themselves and to gain some experience that would be useful to them for the rest of their lives. They also said that this could be done for a year, or longer if the students desired. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that students should be encouraged to take a year of national service after their higher education. In the case of the participants in this study, they all agreed that this year of service should be voluntary, though encouraged. The reasoning behind this was that although the participants had originally had mixed opinions, it was the view of all of them that young people with a higher education should be given the opportunity to choose for themselves, whether to contribute to their country, or to move on to the next stage of their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Students should be presented with the option to do a year of national service after they have completed their higher education, and the benefits of this should be explained to them. However, we as a group of participants believe that it should ultimately be their choice whether to take up this opportunity or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that students should be encouraged to do a year of national service after their higher education. However, they should not be obliged. This was the final view of the participants in this study. The original opinions of the participants had been mixed, with some wanting to make it a compulsory requirement, while others were completely against the idea. However, it was finally agreed that the service should be voluntary, but encouraged, to allow the participants to make the choice for themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the participants were in favour of an obligatory year of national service for people with a higher education. They said that this was because many young people had their education funded by the government, and should therefore have the duty to contribute to the society that they live in. They felt that it was an opportunity for the people to have a chance to choose a path for themselves and to gain some experience that would be useful to them for the rest of their lives. They also said that this could be done for a year, or longer if the students desired. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000515.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000515.soc index 2eea6b05..a4779149 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000515.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000515.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the budget for both health care and education. In particular, the group emphasised the role of health care as a public good, which has a high positive impact on the overall welfare of the nation. The consensus view of the group was that if we spend more on healthcare then people will have a longer, healthier life, which will make the country as a whole more productive. In other words, the group concluded that there is a virtuous circle, where the investment in healthcare leads to the improvement in economic growth and welfare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Money should be spent on both healthcare and education. The health of the population is very important for the well being of the economy. The economy relies on people being able to work and to produce goods and services. A healthy workforce is therefore essential for the economy. The economy also needs to be well educated. A good education system will enable the economy to produce a workforce that is equipped with the skills that are needed to produce goods and services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Healthcare is an important public service, however education is also very important. The current generation of staff are struggling with Covid and will be working for a long time to come. It is essential to spend more money on healthcare so that staff are supported and the NHS can deliver the highest level of care. More money needs to be spent on education. Education needs to be enhanced with the use of technology to improve teaching and assessment methods. More money also needs to be spent on developing public transport and improving the railways. Spending more on these areas will have a positive impact on the nation” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more money spent on education as well as healthcare. It was also felt that more money should be spent on staff pay and health services so that staff are attracted and retained. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the budget for both health care and education. In particular, the group emphasised the role of health care as a public good, which has a high positive impact on the overall welfare of the nation. The consensus view of the group was that if we spend more on healthcare then people will have a longer, healthier life, which will make the country as a whole more productive. In other words, the group concluded that there is a virtuous circle, where the investment in healthcare leads to the improvement in economic growth and welfare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Money should be spent on both healthcare and education. The health of the population is very important for the well being of the economy. The economy relies on people being able to work and to produce goods and services. A healthy workforce is therefore essential for the economy. The economy also needs to be well educated. A good education system will enable the economy to produce a workforce that is equipped with the skills that are needed to produce goods and services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Healthcare is an important public service, however education is also very important. The current generation of staff are struggling with Covid and will be working for a long time to come. It is essential to spend more money on healthcare so that staff are supported and the NHS can deliver the highest level of care. More money needs to be spent on education. Education needs to be enhanced with the use of technology to improve teaching and assessment methods. More money also needs to be spent on developing public transport and improving the railways. Spending more on these areas will have a positive impact on the nation” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more money spent on education as well as healthcare. It was also felt that more money should be spent on staff pay and health services so that staff are attracted and retained. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000516.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000516.soc index e01b8ed8..34ee13e1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000516.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000516.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the growing use of robots to perform jobs should not be cause for concern. However, where job losses occur, then steps should be taken to support those people who are losing their jobs as a result of the increased use of robots and AI. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, yes we should be concerned that many jobs are now being performed by robots, as it is likely to lead to an increase in unemployment. This will further cause a widening of the wealth gap and poverty levels as well as creating many societal problems and causing many people to become unhappy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there is a lot of potential for robots to make a significant contribution to the future of human society, and the rapid advancement in the development of AI is encouraging, there are still a lot of questions and risks involved. Therefore, it would be prudent to proceed with caution, and address some of the potential problems first, such as employment levels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should be concerned that robots are taking on many jobs as this can lead to wide spread unemployment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the growing use of robots to perform jobs should not be cause for concern. However, where job losses occur, then steps should be taken to support those people who are losing their jobs as a result of the increased use of robots and AI. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, yes we should be concerned that many jobs are now being performed by robots, as it is likely to lead to an increase in unemployment. This will further cause a widening of the wealth gap and poverty levels as well as creating many societal problems and causing many people to become unhappy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there is a lot of potential for robots to make a significant contribution to the future of human society, and the rapid advancement in the development of AI is encouraging, there are still a lot of questions and risks involved. Therefore, it would be prudent to proceed with caution, and address some of the potential problems first, such as employment levels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should be concerned that robots are taking on many jobs as this can lead to wide spread unemployment. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000517.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000517.soc index 768d794a..62e06f5e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000517.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000517.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A minimum wage is a good thing as it is a fundamental human right to be paid fairly for the work you do. However, in our opinion, a minimum wage is a blunt instrument that may have unintended consequences on businesses, consumers and the wider economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The Minimum wage is a good thing but needs to be carefully measured to not negatively impact businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the minimum wage is a good thing in principle. However it can also be counterproductive to business. This needs to be carefully balanced. The minimum wage is only part of the answer and should be complimented with welfare benefits and better tax arrangements to support those that are disadvantaged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The minimum wage is necessary in the UK. However it is a blunt instrument which does not take into account differing costs of living across the country. It also does not help the self-employed, but is a good starting point to help people out of poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A minimum wage is a good thing as it is a fundamental human right to be paid fairly for the work you do. However, in our opinion, a minimum wage is a blunt instrument that may have unintended consequences on businesses, consumers and the wider economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The Minimum wage is a good thing but needs to be carefully measured to not negatively impact businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the minimum wage is a good thing in principle. However it can also be counterproductive to business. This needs to be carefully balanced. The minimum wage is only part of the answer and should be complimented with welfare benefits and better tax arrangements to support those that are disadvantaged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The minimum wage is necessary in the UK. However it is a blunt instrument which does not take into account differing costs of living across the country. It also does not help the self-employed, but is a good starting point to help people out of poverty. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000518.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000518.soc index 82b6eb2e..5737e5ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000518.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000518.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should continue to receive funding from the government. The Government funding is used by the BBC to serve the BBC World Service. This provides a valuable source of non-biased news reporting to non-UK countries around the world. An example includes broadcasting in Ukraine during the ongoing war there to combat against Russian misinformation campaigns. Without Government funding, this service would be at risk and would either not be performed at all, or would have to be funded from alternative forms such as via the licence fee which we, the general public, have to pay for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC is the country's national broadcaster. The BBC's licence fee is paid for by UK residents to be used to support its channels. It is only right that the BBC should continue to receive funding from the government to ensure it continues its services to the UK public. The BBC is not only important to the UK, but is a valuable source of non-biased news reporting to non-UK countries around the world. An example includes broadcasting in Ukraine during the ongoing war there to combat against Russian misinformation campaigns. Without Government funding, this service would be at risk and would either not be performed at all, or would have to be funded from alternative forms such as via the licence fee which we, the general public, have to pay for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC is a key part of UK culture. It is important to have a well-funded BBC to ensure that the highest quality of programming is produced and that the BBC can fulfil its role of providing a high quality news service to the nation. The BBC World Service also provides a high quality news service to the rest of the world and helps maintain the international reputation of the UK. It is therefore important that the BBC is well funded, whether this is by the government, the licence fee or another source. It is also important that the BBC remains independent of the government and that funding from the government is therefore limited. A fully independent BBC is essential to the democracy of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should continue to receive funding from the government. This funding is used to allow the BBC to continue to provide news and entertainment to the UK and around the world. It is also used to create programmes which often increase awareness on issues which would not be addressed if not for the BBC. The BBC world service is a valuable tool in spreading information and education around the world and we feel that it would be a loss to the world if it were to no longer receive government funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should continue to receive funding from the government. The Government funding is used by the BBC to serve the BBC World Service. This provides a valuable source of non-biased news reporting to non-UK countries around the world. An example includes broadcasting in Ukraine during the ongoing war there to combat against Russian misinformation campaigns. Without Government funding, this service would be at risk and would either not be performed at all, or would have to be funded from alternative forms such as via the licence fee which we, the general public, have to pay for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC is the country's national broadcaster. The BBC's licence fee is paid for by UK residents to be used to support its channels. It is only right that the BBC should continue to receive funding from the government to ensure it continues its services to the UK public. The BBC is not only important to the UK, but is a valuable source of non-biased news reporting to non-UK countries around the world. An example includes broadcasting in Ukraine during the ongoing war there to combat against Russian misinformation campaigns. Without Government funding, this service would be at risk and would either not be performed at all, or would have to be funded from alternative forms such as via the licence fee which we, the general public, have to pay for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC is a key part of UK culture. It is important to have a well-funded BBC to ensure that the highest quality of programming is produced and that the BBC can fulfil its role of providing a high quality news service to the nation. The BBC World Service also provides a high quality news service to the rest of the world and helps maintain the international reputation of the UK. It is therefore important that the BBC is well funded, whether this is by the government, the licence fee or another source. It is also important that the BBC remains independent of the government and that funding from the government is therefore limited. A fully independent BBC is essential to the democracy of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should continue to receive funding from the government. This funding is used to allow the BBC to continue to provide news and entertainment to the UK and around the world. It is also used to create programmes which often increase awareness on issues which would not be addressed if not for the BBC. The BBC world service is a valuable tool in spreading information and education around the world and we feel that it would be a loss to the world if it were to no longer receive government funding. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000519.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000519.soc index 971c474d..11b61115 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000519.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000519.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a balance between making money and improving education standards. The UK should continue to fund state schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. However, the government should allow for-profit organizations to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a balance between making money and improving education standards. The UK should continue to fund all schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. In addition, private companies should be allowed to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. This will improve management and standards in these schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a balance between making money and improving education standards. The UK should continue to fund state schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. However, the government should allow for-profit organizations to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. Conclusion: The group came to a very fair consensus opinion after debating this question. There is no need for government to be involved in the day to day running of schools. However, it should provide funding to all schools. In addition, private companies should be allowed to run schools as this will lead to a better management and higher quality of education for students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Profit-making organizations should be allowed to run schools, but there should be a balance between profit and quality of education. The UK should continue to fund state schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. However, the government should allow for-profit organizations to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. The government should have some input into day to day running ie ofsted reports where quality is regularly overseen to ensure standards are not compromised. Conclusion: As you can see, even though we have come up with a good consensus statement, it is not 100% agreed by all. The consensus statement has to be agreed by the majority, and in this case, the majority agreed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a balance between making money and improving education standards. The UK should continue to fund state schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. However, the government should allow for-profit organizations to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a balance between making money and improving education standards. The UK should continue to fund all schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. In addition, private companies should be allowed to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. This will improve management and standards in these schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a balance between making money and improving education standards. The UK should continue to fund state schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. However, the government should allow for-profit organizations to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. Conclusion: The group came to a very fair consensus opinion after debating this question. There is no need for government to be involved in the day to day running of schools. However, it should provide funding to all schools. In addition, private companies should be allowed to run schools as this will lead to a better management and higher quality of education for students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Profit-making organizations should be allowed to run schools, but there should be a balance between profit and quality of education. The UK should continue to fund state schools to ensure that the poorest of the poor get an equal chance to get an education. However, the government should allow for-profit organizations to run schools in areas where the quality of education is very low. The government should have some input into day to day running ie ofsted reports where quality is regularly overseen to ensure standards are not compromised. Conclusion: As you can see, even though we have come up with a good consensus statement, it is not 100% agreed by all. The consensus statement has to be agreed by the majority, and in this case, the majority agreed. 4: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000520.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000520.soc index 13a80765..67604906 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000520.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000520.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The artificial sweeteners in drinks can be a healthy alternative, providing natural sweeteners are used". -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, if it is made with natural sweeteners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Artificial sweeteners do not make sense as healthy alternatives for drinks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Artificial sweeteners in drinks can be good for people who have diabetes, because they can drink them too. But if you do not have problem with sugar, artificial sweeteners will not benefit you. It is the moderation of sugar what should be achieved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The artificial sweeteners in drinks can be a healthy alternative, providing natural sweeteners are used". +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, if it is made with natural sweeteners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Artificial sweeteners do not make sense as healthy alternatives for drinks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Artificial sweeteners in drinks can be good for people who have diabetes, because they can drink them too. But if you do not have problem with sugar, artificial sweeteners will not benefit you. It is the moderation of sugar what should be achieved. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000521.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000521.soc index 3b3c08ec..7f5b17fd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000521.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000521.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be the option for people to sell their organs as this would be beneficial for those who need transplants. However, it is of paramount importance that there are strict regulations in place to prevent exploitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be able to sell their organs, but in certain situations, such as if the donor is aware of the health implications and are financially comfortable and there is no chance of coercion, then this could be allowed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the idea of selling organs to be used in transplants is unethical as people should not be exploiting their own bodies for profit. The idea of donating organs to help others is one that is already very established and is a selfless act in which people should feel good about. This should be encouraged, but if people want to sell their organs, they should be free to do so, as it is their body and therefore their choice. There would need to be careful regulation put in place to make sure that the person selling their organ is doing so of their own free will and isn't being exploited. It should also be heavily regulated to make sure that the transplant surgeons are not using organs from people who are being exploited or are using organs that have been tampered with, such as the genetic makeup being altered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not be allowed to sell their organs. The health and safety of the seller should be a priority and if they can not be assured this then the process should not take place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be the option for people to sell their organs as this would be beneficial for those who need transplants. However, it is of paramount importance that there are strict regulations in place to prevent exploitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be able to sell their organs, but in certain situations, such as if the donor is aware of the health implications and are financially comfortable and there is no chance of coercion, then this could be allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the idea of selling organs to be used in transplants is unethical as people should not be exploiting their own bodies for profit. The idea of donating organs to help others is one that is already very established and is a selfless act in which people should feel good about. This should be encouraged, but if people want to sell their organs, they should be free to do so, as it is their body and therefore their choice. There would need to be careful regulation put in place to make sure that the person selling their organ is doing so of their own free will and isn't being exploited. It should also be heavily regulated to make sure that the transplant surgeons are not using organs from people who are being exploited or are using organs that have been tampered with, such as the genetic makeup being altered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not be allowed to sell their organs. The health and safety of the seller should be a priority and if they can not be assured this then the process should not take place. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000522.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000522.soc index f716d431..d07dee85 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000522.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000522.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, we should ban single-use plastics in the UK. Although we do not have a replacement for all single-use plastics yet, we should consider other alternatives that are more environmentally friendly. Companies should be looking into this to improve the sustainability of the UK.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should be looking into banning single-use plastics where possible. This will reduce the amount of waste, which in turn is more eco-friendly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban single use plastics in the UK. They are damaging to the environment and alternatives are available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we think that single use plastics should be banned. The way we see it, is that plastic bottles can be replaced with glass or aluminium ones, which are reusable. However, we do acknowledge that plastic bags are necessary sometimes and they should not be banned completely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, we should ban single-use plastics in the UK. Although we do not have a replacement for all single-use plastics yet, we should consider other alternatives that are more environmentally friendly. Companies should be looking into this to improve the sustainability of the UK.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should be looking into banning single-use plastics where possible. This will reduce the amount of waste, which in turn is more eco-friendly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban single use plastics in the UK. They are damaging to the environment and alternatives are available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we think that single use plastics should be banned. The way we see it, is that plastic bottles can be replaced with glass or aluminium ones, which are reusable. However, we do acknowledge that plastic bags are necessary sometimes and they should not be banned completely. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000523.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000523.soc index bb1d0fb4..f0cc6c90 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000523.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000523.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Spending more money on healthcare is a high priority. The health and wellbeing of the nation will only be achieved by improving the health of the individuals who live in it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a strong consensus that more money should be spent on healthcare than education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The majority of participants thought that more money should be allocated to healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants was in favour of increasing the budget for healthcare. The group emphasised the role of health care as a public good, which has a high positive impact on the overall welfare of the nation. The consensus view of the group was that if we spend more on healthcare then people will have a longer, healthier life, which will make the country as a whole more productive. In other words, the group concluded that there is a virtuous circle, where the investment in healthcare leads to the improvement in economic growth and welfare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Spending more money on healthcare is a high priority. The health and wellbeing of the nation will only be achieved by improving the health of the individuals who live in it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a strong consensus that more money should be spent on healthcare than education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The majority of participants thought that more money should be allocated to healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants was in favour of increasing the budget for healthcare. The group emphasised the role of health care as a public good, which has a high positive impact on the overall welfare of the nation. The consensus view of the group was that if we spend more on healthcare then people will have a longer, healthier life, which will make the country as a whole more productive. In other words, the group concluded that there is a virtuous circle, where the investment in healthcare leads to the improvement in economic growth and welfare. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000524.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000524.soc index 1fe7314b..333a1a3f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000524.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000524.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should continue to fund educational programs to help people learn as this would be beneficial for all of humanity but that we should do this in the most equitable way possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should fund research into educational programs on how to make humans smarter. However, this research should be done so that it is not only financially available to those who can afford it. The research should be universally available to all so that all humans can benefit from it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of funding the research. The group believes that humans can be made smarter. However, they are aware of the danger of getting caught up in the race for smarter and smarter humans, and are keen that the research funded is done in an ethical manner. The group believe that it should be possible to have smarter humans, and a fairer society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were broadly in favour of increasing funding to education. This was mostly because they felt that increasing funding to education would help close the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' and increase the ability of all individuals to lead successful and fulfilling lives. There was a worry however that increasing funding to education might not increase the ability of all individuals to lead successful and fulfilling lives. Participants felt that this was because the funding might be spent in the wrong areas or in an inefficient way. Participant 4 said "you can't make a person smarter without that person wanting to be smarter." The group of participants also felt that there were broader societal issues that need to be addressed to help children to achieve their potential, e.g. poverty and violence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should continue to fund educational programs to help people learn as this would be beneficial for all of humanity but that we should do this in the most equitable way possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should fund research into educational programs on how to make humans smarter. However, this research should be done so that it is not only financially available to those who can afford it. The research should be universally available to all so that all humans can benefit from it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of funding the research. The group believes that humans can be made smarter. However, they are aware of the danger of getting caught up in the race for smarter and smarter humans, and are keen that the research funded is done in an ethical manner. The group believe that it should be possible to have smarter humans, and a fairer society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were broadly in favour of increasing funding to education. This was mostly because they felt that increasing funding to education would help close the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' and increase the ability of all individuals to lead successful and fulfilling lives. There was a worry however that increasing funding to education might not increase the ability of all individuals to lead successful and fulfilling lives. Participants felt that this was because the funding might be spent in the wrong areas or in an inefficient way. Participant 4 said "you can't make a person smarter without that person wanting to be smarter." The group of participants also felt that there were broader societal issues that need to be addressed to help children to achieve their potential, e.g. poverty and violence. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000525.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000525.soc index 35e82a58..d43edfc6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000525.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000525.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although oil from the Middle East will still be required in the future, it is our view that as the cost of electric vehicles become more affordable and the supply of them increases, we may be able to reduce our dependency on oil from the Middle East. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In time, the UK will be able to stop buying oil from Middle Eastern countries. As the UK is a small country, and is quite densely populated, it will not be possible to find all the oil it needs within the UK itself. As the UK is in the midst of implementing electric vehicles, we will begin to use less and less oil, and this will be more and more sustainable for our environment, making it better for the UK in the long run. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't believe that the UK will be able to stop buying oil from Middle Eastern countries. The price of oil in the Middle East is cheaper than anywhere else in the world. We don't believe that people will be able to change their lifestyle to use electric cars. If the government were to make it more expensive to buy oil from the Middle East, then it would mean that it would be more expensive to live and work in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we feel that the UK will be able to stop buying oil from the Middle East. We are aware of the current supply situation and we realise that this is a large task to accomplish. We feel that the UK should invest in the infrastructure needed for a green energy supply and it should be prioritised in the country's development. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although oil from the Middle East will still be required in the future, it is our view that as the cost of electric vehicles become more affordable and the supply of them increases, we may be able to reduce our dependency on oil from the Middle East. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In time, the UK will be able to stop buying oil from Middle Eastern countries. As the UK is a small country, and is quite densely populated, it will not be possible to find all the oil it needs within the UK itself. As the UK is in the midst of implementing electric vehicles, we will begin to use less and less oil, and this will be more and more sustainable for our environment, making it better for the UK in the long run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't believe that the UK will be able to stop buying oil from Middle Eastern countries. The price of oil in the Middle East is cheaper than anywhere else in the world. We don't believe that people will be able to change their lifestyle to use electric cars. If the government were to make it more expensive to buy oil from the Middle East, then it would mean that it would be more expensive to live and work in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we feel that the UK will be able to stop buying oil from the Middle East. We are aware of the current supply situation and we realise that this is a large task to accomplish. We feel that the UK should invest in the infrastructure needed for a green energy supply and it should be prioritised in the country's development. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000526.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000526.soc index 078b8056..44bd0906 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000526.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000526.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Artificial sweeteners in drinks can be good for people who have diabetes, because they can drink them too. But if you do not have problem with sugar, artificial sweeteners will not benefit you. It is the moderation of sugar what should be achieved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are healthier options out there that are not artificially sweetened. Even those who have diabetes should choose to stay away from artificial sweeteners. I would like to thank all the participants for a very fruitful and positive experience. The views expressed above are their own. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Diabetes is a growing problem in the Western world. For people with diabetes, artificial sweeteners in drinks can be a good option. There are alternatives for people who are not diabetic, as for example mixing fruit juice with water to compromise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Some artificial sweeteners can be a healthy alternative to sugar for people with diabetes. However, for others, sugar is more healthy. This was a difficult topic for participants to reach a consensus view on, but after much deliberation they did come to a consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Artificial sweeteners in drinks can be good for people who have diabetes, because they can drink them too. But if you do not have problem with sugar, artificial sweeteners will not benefit you. It is the moderation of sugar what should be achieved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are healthier options out there that are not artificially sweetened. Even those who have diabetes should choose to stay away from artificial sweeteners. I would like to thank all the participants for a very fruitful and positive experience. The views expressed above are their own. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Diabetes is a growing problem in the Western world. For people with diabetes, artificial sweeteners in drinks can be a good option. There are alternatives for people who are not diabetic, as for example mixing fruit juice with water to compromise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Some artificial sweeteners can be a healthy alternative to sugar for people with diabetes. However, for others, sugar is more healthy. This was a difficult topic for participants to reach a consensus view on, but after much deliberation they did come to a consensus view. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000527.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000527.soc index f753b09d..88701f74 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000527.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000527.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should spend money on projects that create temporary jobs, but these need to be of a high standard. In the long run, the jobs need to be worthwhile and get the best results for the tax-payer. It is important that the people that participate in the project get the most from it, to improve their chances of gaining employment in the future. They should get training and experience from it, which can be used to gain a permanent job. There needs to be an incentive for the person taking the job to ensure they work hard and get the most from it, and not just take the job for the sake of the money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, yes the government should spend money on projects that create temporary jobs. The issue, however, is how this can be done most effectively. If a person is offered a temporary job which will only last a month, they may not see the benefit of taking the job, especially if it means they will have to wait a month before they can get back on benefits. If the time that people spend in temporary jobs is made to be longer, say three months, this will give them the opportunity to earn more money. It will also mean that they have more time to try and find a permanent job and even set up their own business. The job would have to be given to the right people for the right reasons. This means that if a person has not been looking for work, they should not be given the opportunity to take a temporary job. Also, people must not see these jobs as a way of getting out of having to look for a permanent job. To make this project a success, a budget needs to be allocated to it and a time scale put in place for its completion. A temporary job could then be a good tool to help the economy and also people themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should spend money on projects that create temporary jobs, but only when the long-term benefits for both the economy and society are clearly and measurable beneficial. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of the government creating temporary jobs is a good one, and could create opportunities for people to gain experience and be able to demonstrate their skills in order to help them in their search for work. However, the government should not use this as an excuse to avoid creating projects that create permanent jobs, as the latter will have a more lasting impact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should spend money on projects that create temporary jobs, but these need to be of a high standard. In the long run, the jobs need to be worthwhile and get the best results for the tax-payer. It is important that the people that participate in the project get the most from it, to improve their chances of gaining employment in the future. They should get training and experience from it, which can be used to gain a permanent job. There needs to be an incentive for the person taking the job to ensure they work hard and get the most from it, and not just take the job for the sake of the money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, yes the government should spend money on projects that create temporary jobs. The issue, however, is how this can be done most effectively. If a person is offered a temporary job which will only last a month, they may not see the benefit of taking the job, especially if it means they will have to wait a month before they can get back on benefits. If the time that people spend in temporary jobs is made to be longer, say three months, this will give them the opportunity to earn more money. It will also mean that they have more time to try and find a permanent job and even set up their own business. The job would have to be given to the right people for the right reasons. This means that if a person has not been looking for work, they should not be given the opportunity to take a temporary job. Also, people must not see these jobs as a way of getting out of having to look for a permanent job. To make this project a success, a budget needs to be allocated to it and a time scale put in place for its completion. A temporary job could then be a good tool to help the economy and also people themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should spend money on projects that create temporary jobs, but only when the long-term benefits for both the economy and society are clearly and measurable beneficial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of the government creating temporary jobs is a good one, and could create opportunities for people to gain experience and be able to demonstrate their skills in order to help them in their search for work. However, the government should not use this as an excuse to avoid creating projects that create permanent jobs, as the latter will have a more lasting impact. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000528.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000528.soc index 1711dc1b..4b1a3cf5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000528.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000528.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People in general do not realise the impact that they have on the environment, and some need to be made more aware of how they can be more sustainable in their lives. The government needs to force large companies and the super-rich to pay a tax to combat climate change, and it needs to reduce it's own carbon footprint. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was wary of giving the government any more power to tax individuals. Instead, they suggested that large corporations should be made to pay for the impact that they have on the climate. However, they also agreed that the government should be able to introduce laws that target specific individuals who are living lifestyles which are causing harm to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although climate change is a worrying issue, and we should all be doing our part to reduce our carbon footprints, it is not the government's responsibility to make people pay a tax to combat climate change. Individuals can decide themselves how to combat the issue, and I believe that the government has bigger things to worry about than climate change, as they do not always get it right. The only people that should pay tax to combat climate change are the large companies or super rich who travel in private jets etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be taxes, however they should not be 'forced'. The word 'forced' has negative connotations that do not necessarily fit with the topic. Also, the question does not specify who the tax should be aimed at. The tax should be aimed at organisations and the super rich, as they are the biggest contributors to climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People in general do not realise the impact that they have on the environment, and some need to be made more aware of how they can be more sustainable in their lives. The government needs to force large companies and the super-rich to pay a tax to combat climate change, and it needs to reduce it's own carbon footprint. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was wary of giving the government any more power to tax individuals. Instead, they suggested that large corporations should be made to pay for the impact that they have on the climate. However, they also agreed that the government should be able to introduce laws that target specific individuals who are living lifestyles which are causing harm to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although climate change is a worrying issue, and we should all be doing our part to reduce our carbon footprints, it is not the government's responsibility to make people pay a tax to combat climate change. Individuals can decide themselves how to combat the issue, and I believe that the government has bigger things to worry about than climate change, as they do not always get it right. The only people that should pay tax to combat climate change are the large companies or super rich who travel in private jets etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be taxes, however they should not be 'forced'. The word 'forced' has negative connotations that do not necessarily fit with the topic. Also, the question does not specify who the tax should be aimed at. The tax should be aimed at organisations and the super rich, as they are the biggest contributors to climate change. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000529.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000529.soc index 8b92daee..ebc2405f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000529.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000529.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking should be banned in all public places. Second-hand smoke is harmful and unpleasant for non-smokers. Smokers need to be considerate to others and to their own health. We should do all that we can to discourage smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Smoking is a dangerous and harmful activity that poses serious health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. This is not only evident from the effects of smoking on smokers themselves, but also from the effects on non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke. With this in mind, it is necessary to take a firm stance against smoking and ban smoking in public places in order to protect people from these health risks. Banning smoking in public places will also serve to deter people from starting to smoke, reduce the number of current smokers, and hopefully one day lead to a smoking-free society. However, such a ban should be accompanied by other initiatives, such as support for smokers to quit or switch to alternative products like nicotine patches or e-cigarettes, that reduce the harms of smoking and can help to stop people from starting to smoke.” The above opinion of the participants on the smoking question demonstrates how an intelligent and rational consensus can be reached by the participants using a structured framework for the debate. This framework includes a proper formulation of the question, using the right questions to guide the debate, and writing down the arguments for and against a given view. These questions can be very simple, but at the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking in public places should be banned. It is not healthy for non smokers to inhale other peoples smoke. Also non smokers do not have a choice about inhaling smoke if a smoker is stood next to them. It is selfish of smokers to do this and they should be more considerate to non smokers. They should smoke in private places only away from public areas. This affects peoples of all ages and may have adverse affect on someone with health conditions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of banning smoking in public places because of the potential harm to other people. However, they felt that banning smoking in public places would not solve the problem of smoking and should be combined with other initiatives that provide support to smokers to quit smoking and find alternative ways to satisfy their need for nicotine that are not harmful to themselves or others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking should be banned in all public places. Second-hand smoke is harmful and unpleasant for non-smokers. Smokers need to be considerate to others and to their own health. We should do all that we can to discourage smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Smoking is a dangerous and harmful activity that poses serious health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. This is not only evident from the effects of smoking on smokers themselves, but also from the effects on non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke. With this in mind, it is necessary to take a firm stance against smoking and ban smoking in public places in order to protect people from these health risks. Banning smoking in public places will also serve to deter people from starting to smoke, reduce the number of current smokers, and hopefully one day lead to a smoking-free society. However, such a ban should be accompanied by other initiatives, such as support for smokers to quit or switch to alternative products like nicotine patches or e-cigarettes, that reduce the harms of smoking and can help to stop people from starting to smoke.” The above opinion of the participants on the smoking question demonstrates how an intelligent and rational consensus can be reached by the participants using a structured framework for the debate. This framework includes a proper formulation of the question, using the right questions to guide the debate, and writing down the arguments for and against a given view. These questions can be very simple, but at the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking in public places should be banned. It is not healthy for non smokers to inhale other peoples smoke. Also non smokers do not have a choice about inhaling smoke if a smoker is stood next to them. It is selfish of smokers to do this and they should be more considerate to non smokers. They should smoke in private places only away from public areas. This affects peoples of all ages and may have adverse affect on someone with health conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of banning smoking in public places because of the potential harm to other people. However, they felt that banning smoking in public places would not solve the problem of smoking and should be combined with other initiatives that provide support to smokers to quit smoking and find alternative ways to satisfy their need for nicotine that are not harmful to themselves or others. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000530.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000530.soc index 323ab60f..1fd889d8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000530.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000530.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group came to the consensus view that it is not the government's responsibility to fund and create more free parking spaces. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the government to fund and create more free parking spaces, as it is a nationwide issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government has the responsibility to fund and create more free parking spaces in the UK as free parking spaces is a right for people who owns cars. In order to help the council, car owners should pay an extra fee for their car tax so that they contribute to the parking fees in some way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should create more free parking spaces. They should play a big part in creating free spaces but also give responsibility to local companies who can make a profit from doing so. The government should also subsidise parking space to make it cheaper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group came to the consensus view that it is not the government's responsibility to fund and create more free parking spaces. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the government to fund and create more free parking spaces, as it is a nationwide issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government has the responsibility to fund and create more free parking spaces in the UK as free parking spaces is a right for people who owns cars. In order to help the council, car owners should pay an extra fee for their car tax so that they contribute to the parking fees in some way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should create more free parking spaces. They should play a big part in creating free spaces but also give responsibility to local companies who can make a profit from doing so. The government should also subsidise parking space to make it cheaper. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000531.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000531.soc index 55f292d9..65357434 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000531.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000531.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that school league tables should not be abolished as they can promote healthy competition between schools. This can help schools thrive and students receive the best teaching.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although league tables have a detrimental impact on education by creating a negative competitive culture, they are still useful for parents to use when making an informed choice about their child’s education. They also provide a way to rate schools in a way which includes multiple different factors which go into teaching and education. The league tables also encourage healthy competition between schools which has been proven to improve education and help schools strive to be the best they can be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we do not think all school league tables should be abolished. Although we recognise that some league tables are detrimental to student wellbeing and are often based on purely academic success, we believe that league tables are a good way of comparing schools and identifying the best ones in your area. We also believe that league tables encourage teachers and students to try their best and achieve the best results possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not abolish all school league tables. They can be a very useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to reflect the entire school and not just a few exam results. The tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that school league tables should not be abolished as they can promote healthy competition between schools. This can help schools thrive and students receive the best teaching.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although league tables have a detrimental impact on education by creating a negative competitive culture, they are still useful for parents to use when making an informed choice about their child’s education. They also provide a way to rate schools in a way which includes multiple different factors which go into teaching and education. The league tables also encourage healthy competition between schools which has been proven to improve education and help schools strive to be the best they can be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we do not think all school league tables should be abolished. Although we recognise that some league tables are detrimental to student wellbeing and are often based on purely academic success, we believe that league tables are a good way of comparing schools and identifying the best ones in your area. We also believe that league tables encourage teachers and students to try their best and achieve the best results possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not abolish all school league tables. They can be a very useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to reflect the entire school and not just a few exam results. The tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000532.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000532.soc index fa11103c..f0a3129c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000532.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000532.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of selling organs to be used in transplants is unethical as people should not be exploiting their own bodies for profit. The idea of donating organs to help others is one that is already very established and is a selfless act in which people should feel good about. This should be encouraged, but if people want to sell their organs, they should be free to do so, as it is their body and therefore their choice. There would need to be careful regulation put in place to make sure that the person selling their organ is doing so of their own free will and isn't being exploited. It should also be heavily regulated to make sure that the transplant surgeons are not using organs from people who are being exploited or are using organs that have been tampered with, such as the genetic makeup being altered. This project was designed by members of the Moral Cognition & Social Psychology Research Group, University of Sheffield. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of selling organs to be used in transplants is unethical as people should not be exploiting their own bodies for profit. The idea of donating organs to help others is one that is already very established and is a selfless act in which people should feel good about. This should be encouraged, but if people want to sell their organs, they should be free to do so, as it is their body and therefore their choice. There would need to be careful regulation put in place to make sure that the person selling their organ is doing so of their own free will and isn't being exploited. It should also be heavily regulated to make sure that the transplant surgeons are not using organs from people who are being exploited or are using organs that have been tampered with, such as the genetic makeup being altered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the idea of selling organs to be used in transplants is unethical as people should not be exploiting their own bodies for profit. The idea of donating organs to help others is one that is already very established and is a selfless act in which people should feel good about. This should be encouraged, but if people want to sell their organs, they should be free to do so, as it is their body and therefore their choice. There would need to be careful regulation put in place to make sure that the person selling their organ is doing so of their own free will and isn't being exploited. It should also be heavily regulated to make sure that the transplant surgeons are not using organs from people who are being exploited or are using organs that have been tampered with, such as the genetic makeup being altered. Conclusion After many hours of discussion, the opinions of the group participants had changed, especially for those participants who had been originally opposed to the idea. After listening to the opinions of others, and learning from others, the group had changed their opinions. In the group of five, all five participants agreed with the final consensus statement, which was reached after much deliberation. The importance of this group deliber -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Selling organs is unethical, as it encourages people to exploit their bodies for profit. However, people should be allowed to sell their organs if they want to, but it must be heavily regulated. The potential exploitation of people selling their organs is a real concern and therefore the people selling their organs should be closely monitored to make sure that they are not being coerced and are not in desperate need of money. If someone is being exploited and is selling their organ, this could lead to long term health problems and could have been avoided. In order to stop organ trafficking, which would become an issue if selling organs became common practice, it would be necessary to make sure that the organs being sold are genuine and have not been tampered with. It is therefore very important that those who are selling their organs are properly assessed to make sure they are making the decision of their own free will. It would be very important to monitor the process from start to finish. It would be necessary to ensure that the people selling their organs are not being exploited and are not in desperate need of money. If someone is being exploited and is selling their organ, this could lead to long term health problems and could have been avoided. In order to stop organ trafficking, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of selling organs to be used in transplants is unethical as people should not be exploiting their own bodies for profit. The idea of donating organs to help others is one that is already very established and is a selfless act in which people should feel good about. This should be encouraged, but if people want to sell their organs, they should be free to do so, as it is their body and therefore their choice. There would need to be careful regulation put in place to make sure that the person selling their organ is doing so of their own free will and isn't being exploited. It should also be heavily regulated to make sure that the transplant surgeons are not using organs from people who are being exploited or are using organs that have been tampered with, such as the genetic makeup being altered. This project was designed by members of the Moral Cognition & Social Psychology Research Group, University of Sheffield. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of selling organs to be used in transplants is unethical as people should not be exploiting their own bodies for profit. The idea of donating organs to help others is one that is already very established and is a selfless act in which people should feel good about. This should be encouraged, but if people want to sell their organs, they should be free to do so, as it is their body and therefore their choice. There would need to be careful regulation put in place to make sure that the person selling their organ is doing so of their own free will and isn't being exploited. It should also be heavily regulated to make sure that the transplant surgeons are not using organs from people who are being exploited or are using organs that have been tampered with, such as the genetic makeup being altered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the idea of selling organs to be used in transplants is unethical as people should not be exploiting their own bodies for profit. The idea of donating organs to help others is one that is already very established and is a selfless act in which people should feel good about. This should be encouraged, but if people want to sell their organs, they should be free to do so, as it is their body and therefore their choice. There would need to be careful regulation put in place to make sure that the person selling their organ is doing so of their own free will and isn't being exploited. It should also be heavily regulated to make sure that the transplant surgeons are not using organs from people who are being exploited or are using organs that have been tampered with, such as the genetic makeup being altered. Conclusion After many hours of discussion, the opinions of the group participants had changed, especially for those participants who had been originally opposed to the idea. After listening to the opinions of others, and learning from others, the group had changed their opinions. In the group of five, all five participants agreed with the final consensus statement, which was reached after much deliberation. The importance of this group deliber +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Selling organs is unethical, as it encourages people to exploit their bodies for profit. However, people should be allowed to sell their organs if they want to, but it must be heavily regulated. The potential exploitation of people selling their organs is a real concern and therefore the people selling their organs should be closely monitored to make sure that they are not being coerced and are not in desperate need of money. If someone is being exploited and is selling their organ, this could lead to long term health problems and could have been avoided. In order to stop organ trafficking, which would become an issue if selling organs became common practice, it would be necessary to make sure that the organs being sold are genuine and have not been tampered with. It is therefore very important that those who are selling their organs are properly assessed to make sure they are making the decision of their own free will. It would be very important to monitor the process from start to finish. It would be necessary to ensure that the people selling their organs are not being exploited and are not in desperate need of money. If someone is being exploited and is selling their organ, this could lead to long term health problems and could have been avoided. In order to stop organ trafficking, 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000533.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000533.soc index 49592b5d..b404fe31 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000533.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000533.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of remaining in the EU but thought that it was too late to change this. This was because of the many political and economic implications that would have to be accounted for and because of the time it would take for the UK to rejoin the EU. The group thought that it was important to maintain the momentum that had been built up since Brexit and that it was important to focus on the future rather than the past. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: YES. The UK should seek to rejoin the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There has been some unexpected negative impacts of Brexit. However, the UK needs to continue on its course to recovery. In the future, the UK needs to be open to ideas and opportunities and take more risks, however there is also a need to consider the long-term implications of a decision and future opportunities that it may bring. The views expressed by each participant are those of the individual participant and not those of anyone else. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group felt that the UK should seek to re-join the EU. This is because they felt that the UK economy has suffered as a result of leaving the EU and that the EU is a powerful economic bloc. They felt that it would be difficult for the UK to remain outside the EU and be able to compete with other countries in the EU. They also felt that it would be important for the UK to work closely with the EU in the future in order to ensure its economic success. They felt that they were more comfortable with the idea of being in the EU rather than being outside of it and that they would prefer to re-join rather than remain outside. Finally, the group felt that they would like to see a second referendum, once the effects of Brexit were more fully known. This is because they felt that the UK had voted to leave the EU based on a campaign that had not been fully honest with people and that there had been a lot of scaremongering in the lead up to the vote. They felt that the UK public would not be prepared to leave the EU if they knew how it would affect the economy, and therefore they should be given a chance to vote once the effects of Brexit were fully known +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of remaining in the EU but thought that it was too late to change this. This was because of the many political and economic implications that would have to be accounted for and because of the time it would take for the UK to rejoin the EU. The group thought that it was important to maintain the momentum that had been built up since Brexit and that it was important to focus on the future rather than the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - YES. The UK should seek to rejoin the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There has been some unexpected negative impacts of Brexit. However, the UK needs to continue on its course to recovery. In the future, the UK needs to be open to ideas and opportunities and take more risks, however there is also a need to consider the long-term implications of a decision and future opportunities that it may bring. The views expressed by each participant are those of the individual participant and not those of anyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group felt that the UK should seek to re-join the EU. This is because they felt that the UK economy has suffered as a result of leaving the EU and that the EU is a powerful economic bloc. They felt that it would be difficult for the UK to remain outside the EU and be able to compete with other countries in the EU. They also felt that it would be important for the UK to work closely with the EU in the future in order to ensure its economic success. They felt that they were more comfortable with the idea of being in the EU rather than being outside of it and that they would prefer to re-join rather than remain outside. Finally, the group felt that they would like to see a second referendum, once the effects of Brexit were more fully known. This is because they felt that the UK had voted to leave the EU based on a campaign that had not been fully honest with people and that there had been a lot of scaremongering in the lead up to the vote. They felt that the UK public would not be prepared to leave the EU if they knew how it would affect the economy, and therefore they should be given a chance to vote once the effects of Brexit were fully known 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000534.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000534.soc index be611710..b80f57b5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000534.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000534.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should remain with pounds, as it makes little sense to align with a currency we have no control over. Furthermore, the conversion costs would be too high to bear. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group have come to the consensus view that we should not switch to the Euro as we are no longer part of the EU. We did not use the Euro when we were in the EU and therefore it would not make sense to use it now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it would be more confusing to people, and there would be too much restructuring to do. We are better off just sticking to our own currency and having other European countries accept that. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Given the recent political events, the UK will stay with its own currency and not adopt the Euro as its currency. This would be costly and cause much disruption in the short-term and would only benefit Europe in the long-term. It is best to stay with our own currency in order to preserve our independence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should remain with pounds, as it makes little sense to align with a currency we have no control over. Furthermore, the conversion costs would be too high to bear. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group have come to the consensus view that we should not switch to the Euro as we are no longer part of the EU. We did not use the Euro when we were in the EU and therefore it would not make sense to use it now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it would be more confusing to people, and there would be too much restructuring to do. We are better off just sticking to our own currency and having other European countries accept that. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Given the recent political events, the UK will stay with its own currency and not adopt the Euro as its currency. This would be costly and cause much disruption in the short-term and would only benefit Europe in the long-term. It is best to stay with our own currency in order to preserve our independence. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000535.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000535.soc index 375b8bc8..40afcf0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000535.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000535.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking should be banned in all public places. It is harmful to both smokers and those around them. We should do all that we can to discourage smoking and help people to quit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Smoking should be banned in all public places. We should do all that we can to discourage smoking. This includes support for smokers to quit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking should be banned in all public places. Second-hand smoke is harmful and unpleasant for non-smokers. Smokers need to be considerate to others and to their own health. We should do all that we can to discourage smoking. Smokers who wish to quit should be offered free nicotine patches or support to switch to e-cigarettes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Smoking is harmful to smokers and non-smokers. It causes cancer, heart disease and other illnesses and is unpleasant to be around. Smoking is expensive for society and we should do everything we can to discourage it. We should ban smoking in all public places and also provide more support for people who want to quit, such as nicotine patches or vapes. The procedure followed by these participants is a rough outline of the Dialectical Discussions and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking should be banned in all public places. It is harmful to both smokers and those around them. We should do all that we can to discourage smoking and help people to quit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Smoking should be banned in all public places. We should do all that we can to discourage smoking. This includes support for smokers to quit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking should be banned in all public places. Second-hand smoke is harmful and unpleasant for non-smokers. Smokers need to be considerate to others and to their own health. We should do all that we can to discourage smoking. Smokers who wish to quit should be offered free nicotine patches or support to switch to e-cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Smoking is harmful to smokers and non-smokers. It causes cancer, heart disease and other illnesses and is unpleasant to be around. Smoking is expensive for society and we should do everything we can to discourage it. We should ban smoking in all public places and also provide more support for people who want to quit, such as nicotine patches or vapes. The procedure followed by these participants is a rough outline of the Dialectical Discussions and 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000536.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000536.soc index ae8117fe..c55f662b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000536.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000536.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not abolish all school league tables. They can be a very useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to reflect the entire school and not just a few exam results. The tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. Conclusion A consensus statement is not a summary of the most common opinion of the group of participants, or a compromise between the most common opinions of the participants. The consensus statement is a view agreed upon by all participants, as the best representation of the view of the group as a whole. The consensus statement may not represent the opinion of each participant, but is accepted by all participants as the best representation of the view of the group as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not abolish all school league tables. They can be a very useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to reflect the entire school and not just a few exam results. The tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not abolish all school league tables. They can be a very useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to reflect the entire school and not just a few exam results. The tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. Conclusion As you can see, each individual started off with an opinion on the question. During the debate each individual had to listen to the others’ views and weigh up these opinions. After much discussion, the individuals came together and formed a consensus opinion. The important thing to note is that the final opinion did not simply reflect the most popular opinion in the group. In fact, the final opinion reflected a view which was a compromise between the participants. The final consensus statement took into account all of the views of the participants and gave each view equal weighting. This meant that the final consensus statement reached reflected a balanced view which included all of the different views of the participants. When it comes to making a decision, a simple majority -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: School league tables should be a useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not abolish all school league tables. They can be a very useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to reflect the entire school and not just a few exam results. The tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. Conclusion A consensus statement is not a summary of the most common opinion of the group of participants, or a compromise between the most common opinions of the participants. The consensus statement is a view agreed upon by all participants, as the best representation of the view of the group as a whole. The consensus statement may not represent the opinion of each participant, but is accepted by all participants as the best representation of the view of the group as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not abolish all school league tables. They can be a very useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to reflect the entire school and not just a few exam results. The tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not abolish all school league tables. They can be a very useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to reflect the entire school and not just a few exam results. The tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. Conclusion As you can see, each individual started off with an opinion on the question. During the debate each individual had to listen to the others’ views and weigh up these opinions. After much discussion, the individuals came together and formed a consensus opinion. The important thing to note is that the final opinion did not simply reflect the most popular opinion in the group. In fact, the final opinion reflected a view which was a compromise between the participants. The final consensus statement took into account all of the views of the participants and gave each view equal weighting. This meant that the final consensus statement reached reflected a balanced view which included all of the different views of the participants. When it comes to making a decision, a simple majority +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - School league tables should be a useful guide for parents in helping to decide on the school for their children. However league tables need to incorporate all areas of school life including the quality of the school environment, the support offered to pupils, and other measures of pupil well-being and achievement. The tables need to be a guide only and should not be relied upon solely when choosing a school. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000537.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000537.soc index b4ba1e60..ebb9bf0e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000537.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000537.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of government subsidies of the use of solar energy. Most people felt that this is a very important way of ensuring that solar energy becomes a more affordable and efficient energy source. There was also the general consensus that this is a way in which governments can make a real impact on the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, there was also some disagreement, particularly from the more economically minded people who felt that there is an argument for governments not to subsidise solar energy as this could lead to the market being over supplied and therefore the solar panels themselves becoming less valuable. There was also some discussion about how much governments should be allowed to spend on such projects and whether it would be better to spend the money in other areas, for example, health and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Solar energy is the future. The Government should subsidise it so that more people can afford it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should subsidise the use of solar energy because it is a renewable source of energy and will help to reduce greenhouse gases. This was a difficult task as you can see, but with some perseverance the group was able to come up with a consensus statement that all members could agree on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The Government should subsidise the use of solar energy, as it is a renewable source of energy and will help to reduce greenhouse gases. It is a cheaper alternative to more traditional sources of energy and will make countries less dependent on other countries.” The group of participants then ranked their opinions of the other participants’ opinions on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being most extreme, 5 being neutral, and 10 being least extreme. Participant 1 rated the views of Participant 2 as being at the level of 10. Participant 1 rated the views of Participant 3 as being at the level of 1. Participant 1 rated the views of Participant 4 as being at the level of 1. Participant 1 rated the views of Participant 5 as being at the level of 8. Participant 2 rated the views of Participant 1 as being at the level of 2. Participant 2 rated the views of Participant 3 as being at the level of 10. Participant 2 rated the views of Participant 4 as being at the level of 2. Participant 2 rated the views of Participant 5 as being at the level of 3. Participant 3 rated the views of Participant 1 as being at the level of 1. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of government subsidies of the use of solar energy. Most people felt that this is a very important way of ensuring that solar energy becomes a more affordable and efficient energy source. There was also the general consensus that this is a way in which governments can make a real impact on the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, there was also some disagreement, particularly from the more economically minded people who felt that there is an argument for governments not to subsidise solar energy as this could lead to the market being over supplied and therefore the solar panels themselves becoming less valuable. There was also some discussion about how much governments should be allowed to spend on such projects and whether it would be better to spend the money in other areas, for example, health and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Solar energy is the future. The Government should subsidise it so that more people can afford it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should subsidise the use of solar energy because it is a renewable source of energy and will help to reduce greenhouse gases. This was a difficult task as you can see, but with some perseverance the group was able to come up with a consensus statement that all members could agree on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The Government should subsidise the use of solar energy, as it is a renewable source of energy and will help to reduce greenhouse gases. It is a cheaper alternative to more traditional sources of energy and will make countries less dependent on other countries.” The group of participants then ranked their opinions of the other participants’ opinions on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being most extreme, 5 being neutral, and 10 being least extreme. Participant 1 rated the views of Participant 2 as being at the level of 10. Participant 1 rated the views of Participant 3 as being at the level of 1. Participant 1 rated the views of Participant 4 as being at the level of 1. Participant 1 rated the views of Participant 5 as being at the level of 8. Participant 2 rated the views of Participant 1 as being at the level of 2. Participant 2 rated the views of Participant 3 as being at the level of 10. Participant 2 rated the views of Participant 4 as being at the level of 2. Participant 2 rated the views of Participant 5 as being at the level of 3. Participant 3 rated the views of Participant 1 as being at the level of 1. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000538.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000538.soc index fdba4d36..8b55da09 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000538.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000538.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Student loans should not carry interest. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, students should not be required to pay interest on their student loans. Education is so important, and we don't want to be discouraging people from studying. The student loans system is currently failing, and students should be getting better support from the government. It is important to note that this is a small sample of opinions. It is not a large enough sample size to come to any reliable conclusions on the matter. I'd be interested to hear what you think on the matter in the comments below. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to interest being charged on student loans. Although all group members recognised that a good education should be available to everyone and that students should contribute to the cost of their education, the group thought that interest rates on student loans should be kept as low as possible. The group felt that it was unfair to penalise those who have been educated, and also penalise their families, by requiring them to pay back more than the original loan. The group felt that it would be more sensible for the government to finance university places at higher rates and to charge low or zero interest rates on student loans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we feel that it would be unfair to add interest on to the loans, as most will not be able to pay back the loans anyway due to the current climate and the student debts being so high already. It would add an unnecessary burden and people may be put off going to university. We feel that the current model is not the best and a better funding model is required. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Student loans should not carry interest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, students should not be required to pay interest on their student loans. Education is so important, and we don't want to be discouraging people from studying. The student loans system is currently failing, and students should be getting better support from the government. It is important to note that this is a small sample of opinions. It is not a large enough sample size to come to any reliable conclusions on the matter. I'd be interested to hear what you think on the matter in the comments below. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to interest being charged on student loans. Although all group members recognised that a good education should be available to everyone and that students should contribute to the cost of their education, the group thought that interest rates on student loans should be kept as low as possible. The group felt that it was unfair to penalise those who have been educated, and also penalise their families, by requiring them to pay back more than the original loan. The group felt that it would be more sensible for the government to finance university places at higher rates and to charge low or zero interest rates on student loans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we feel that it would be unfair to add interest on to the loans, as most will not be able to pay back the loans anyway due to the current climate and the student debts being so high already. It would add an unnecessary burden and people may be put off going to university. We feel that the current model is not the best and a better funding model is required. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000539.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000539.soc index 9b04ff64..c687eb38 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000539.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000539.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is right to increase the tax rate for the top earners. This is to allow for more public services to be available. To close the gap between the rich and poor and to allow more spending on public services. It would be appropriate to increase the tax rate for the top earners as long as the money is used wisely. They should be able to afford the increase in tax as it is likely to be a very small percentage of their income. It is their duty to pay their fair share of the taxes for their country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the tax rate on the top 1% of earners should be increased. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would allow for additional funding of social services which are often missed due to the cost of living crisis. The rich would not feel the effects of this increase due to their large incomes, but it would have a considerable impact on the wider economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: YES. IT IS JUST TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE FOR THE TOP 1% OF EARNERS AS THEY ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF SUCH A TAX AND THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY A PRECIOUS RESOURCE. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The top earners are by far the most fortunate people in the world and therefore they should pay a higher tax rate to contribute to the wider community. In order to provide essential services and reduce poverty the tax on the rich should be increased. This is fair and they would hardly notice a difference in their income". Conclusion: The views expressed by each individual within the group represented by this model of consensus decision making are vastly different, ranging from left wing socialism to right wing free market ideologies. Nevertheless, through careful discussion, debate and consideration, a middle ground was reached and a final decision on the question was agreed upon by all participants. This is what makes consensus decision making such a powerful and effective tool. Even in the most extreme of circumstances, consensus decision making is always possible, however it must be noted that for this to be achieved, all participants must be willing to be flexible and open to change their view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is right to increase the tax rate for the top earners. This is to allow for more public services to be available. To close the gap between the rich and poor and to allow more spending on public services. It would be appropriate to increase the tax rate for the top earners as long as the money is used wisely. They should be able to afford the increase in tax as it is likely to be a very small percentage of their income. It is their duty to pay their fair share of the taxes for their country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the tax rate on the top 1% of earners should be increased. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would allow for additional funding of social services which are often missed due to the cost of living crisis. The rich would not feel the effects of this increase due to their large incomes, but it would have a considerable impact on the wider economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - YES. IT IS JUST TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE FOR THE TOP 1% OF EARNERS AS THEY ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF SUCH A TAX AND THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY A PRECIOUS RESOURCE. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The top earners are by far the most fortunate people in the world and therefore they should pay a higher tax rate to contribute to the wider community. In order to provide essential services and reduce poverty the tax on the rich should be increased. This is fair and they would hardly notice a difference in their income". Conclusion: The views expressed by each individual within the group represented by this model of consensus decision making are vastly different, ranging from left wing socialism to right wing free market ideologies. Nevertheless, through careful discussion, debate and consideration, a middle ground was reached and a final decision on the question was agreed upon by all participants. This is what makes consensus decision making such a powerful and effective tool. Even in the most extreme of circumstances, consensus decision making is always possible, however it must be noted that for this to be achieved, all participants must be willing to be flexible and open to change their view. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000540.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000540.soc index 9cd61bef..84af01bf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000540.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000540.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should create more free parking spaces. The government should play a big part in creating free spaces but also give responsibility to local companies who can make a profit from doing so. The government should also subsidise parking space to make it cheaper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should fund more free parking spaces but should work with local councils and private companies to do so. They should also subsidise parking space in other places to make it cheaper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should create more free parking spaces. They should play a big part in creating free spaces but also give responsibility to local companies who can make a profit from doing so. The government should also subsidise parking space to make it cheaper. The government should also invest more in public transport to benefit the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should create more free parking spaces but only in the areas where they are needed and not in the whole country. They should play a big part in creating free spaces but also give responsibility to local companies who can make a profit from doing so. The government should also subsidise parking space to make it cheaper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should create more free parking spaces. The government should play a big part in creating free spaces but also give responsibility to local companies who can make a profit from doing so. The government should also subsidise parking space to make it cheaper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should fund more free parking spaces but should work with local councils and private companies to do so. They should also subsidise parking space in other places to make it cheaper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should create more free parking spaces. They should play a big part in creating free spaces but also give responsibility to local companies who can make a profit from doing so. The government should also subsidise parking space to make it cheaper. The government should also invest more in public transport to benefit the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should create more free parking spaces but only in the areas where they are needed and not in the whole country. They should play a big part in creating free spaces but also give responsibility to local companies who can make a profit from doing so. The government should also subsidise parking space to make it cheaper. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000541.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000541.soc index e19379da..3d3c187d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000541.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000541.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was not in favour of the idea of developing telepathy as a useful communication medium. They generally felt that it is not something that could ever be truly reliable or useful as the opinions of each participant are based on personal experience or beliefs rather than scientific fact. The participants felt that it was something which could never be controlled or measured as a medium, and could be potentially quite dangerous or invasive. They did not believe that humans could ever understand it fully enough to be able to develop it as a communication medium. However, there were one or two participants who believed that it could be potentially useful in some circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a very small possibility that we will develop telepathy as a useful communication medium in the future as I feel that there is so much knowledge that we don't yet have and that our understanding is great but still relatively in it's infancy, but realistically I think that there is not much chance in the near future to develop telepathy , as I do not think humans yet have the knowledge or technology required to develop telepathy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there is a small chance that we will develop telepathy as a useful communication medium in the future, I feel that at this point in time humans are closed off to this method of communication. Society does not encourage us to go within, become spiritual and develop telepathic skills. Therefore, the consensus view is that telepathy will not become a medium that is encouraged or developed in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we do not think that telepathy will become a useful communication medium in the future. We are aware of many people who are working towards this goal and we do not believe that it will be successful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was not in favour of the idea of developing telepathy as a useful communication medium. They generally felt that it is not something that could ever be truly reliable or useful as the opinions of each participant are based on personal experience or beliefs rather than scientific fact. The participants felt that it was something which could never be controlled or measured as a medium, and could be potentially quite dangerous or invasive. They did not believe that humans could ever understand it fully enough to be able to develop it as a communication medium. However, there were one or two participants who believed that it could be potentially useful in some circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a very small possibility that we will develop telepathy as a useful communication medium in the future as I feel that there is so much knowledge that we don't yet have and that our understanding is great but still relatively in it's infancy, but realistically I think that there is not much chance in the near future to develop telepathy , as I do not think humans yet have the knowledge or technology required to develop telepathy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there is a small chance that we will develop telepathy as a useful communication medium in the future, I feel that at this point in time humans are closed off to this method of communication. Society does not encourage us to go within, become spiritual and develop telepathic skills. Therefore, the consensus view is that telepathy will not become a medium that is encouraged or developed in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we do not think that telepathy will become a useful communication medium in the future. We are aware of many people who are working towards this goal and we do not believe that it will be successful. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000542.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000542.soc index 988bca95..39d0d1cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000542.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000542.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, mobile phones should not be allowed in schools. It will only distract school children. However, if it is a boarding school, students should be allowed to use mobile phones once in a while, to keep them abrest with happenings around them. Mobile phone use in schools would cause so many unwanted happenings. Some of the students will engage in pornographic contents, social media, games and all sort while in school. These activities will hinder their learning. A central phone can be placed in school in case they need to talk to their parents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of mobile phones in schools should be discouraged but not banned. As in most other spheres of society, their use should be regulated. The use of mobile phones should be discouraged during class and during other formal activities within the school. The school should regulate the use of mobile phones during non-formal activities, but if they are deemed to be a cause of distraction or misbehaviour, they should be confiscated and returned to the student's parents. The phones should be returned at the end of term. This regulation should apply to teachers as well. It is important to remember that mobile phones are part of society and denying students the right to use them could lead to a decrease in the level of their interest in education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although mobile phones have a number of advantages for students in school, such as the ability to contact family, and the convenience of having all necessary information in one device, they also have a number of disadvantages, such as being a distraction from learning, being a means of bullying and also a means of cheating. As such, mobile phones should be banned in school, unless there is a genuine emergency or need for a student to contact a family member. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on mobile phones in schools. Students can keep their mobile phones on them at all times. In the case of an emergency, students can use the phones outside the classroom but they will not be allowed to use them inside the classroom. The use of mobile phones should be banned in schools as it can be very distracting for students, as well as those around them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, mobile phones should not be allowed in schools. It will only distract school children. However, if it is a boarding school, students should be allowed to use mobile phones once in a while, to keep them abrest with happenings around them. Mobile phone use in schools would cause so many unwanted happenings. Some of the students will engage in pornographic contents, social media, games and all sort while in school. These activities will hinder their learning. A central phone can be placed in school in case they need to talk to their parents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of mobile phones in schools should be discouraged but not banned. As in most other spheres of society, their use should be regulated. The use of mobile phones should be discouraged during class and during other formal activities within the school. The school should regulate the use of mobile phones during non-formal activities, but if they are deemed to be a cause of distraction or misbehaviour, they should be confiscated and returned to the student's parents. The phones should be returned at the end of term. This regulation should apply to teachers as well. It is important to remember that mobile phones are part of society and denying students the right to use them could lead to a decrease in the level of their interest in education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although mobile phones have a number of advantages for students in school, such as the ability to contact family, and the convenience of having all necessary information in one device, they also have a number of disadvantages, such as being a distraction from learning, being a means of bullying and also a means of cheating. As such, mobile phones should be banned in school, unless there is a genuine emergency or need for a student to contact a family member. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on mobile phones in schools. Students can keep their mobile phones on them at all times. In the case of an emergency, students can use the phones outside the classroom but they will not be allowed to use them inside the classroom. The use of mobile phones should be banned in schools as it can be very distracting for students, as well as those around them. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000543.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000543.soc index ff565e78..89b2fcbe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000543.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000543.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK is more liberal than the US, although both have their liberal and conservative traits. The US is generally more conservative than the UK due to the large role of the Christian religion and the impact it has on the lives of individuals. The UK is less religious than the US, but has a larger liberal population, which can be seen in social attitudes, for example with the attitude to gay marriage, which is still illegal in the US. The US has also tended to become more conservative in recent years, with the introduction of restrictive laws and policies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we feel that the UK is far more liberal than the US. The gun laws in America are detrimental to the society and are a contributing factor to the high levels of crime. There is an air of intolerance in the US which does not exist in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK is more liberal in some ways as people are more open minded and have their own opinions. The US is liberal with gun laws and this has had a negative impact on the quality of living and crime. Both countries are liberal as they have a democracy voting system rather than operating under a dictatorship. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The uk is more liberal than the us. we are a more tolerant society and allow others to have their own beliefs without passing our own views on to others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK is more liberal than the US, although both have their liberal and conservative traits. The US is generally more conservative than the UK due to the large role of the Christian religion and the impact it has on the lives of individuals. The UK is less religious than the US, but has a larger liberal population, which can be seen in social attitudes, for example with the attitude to gay marriage, which is still illegal in the US. The US has also tended to become more conservative in recent years, with the introduction of restrictive laws and policies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we feel that the UK is far more liberal than the US. The gun laws in America are detrimental to the society and are a contributing factor to the high levels of crime. There is an air of intolerance in the US which does not exist in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK is more liberal in some ways as people are more open minded and have their own opinions. The US is liberal with gun laws and this has had a negative impact on the quality of living and crime. Both countries are liberal as they have a democracy voting system rather than operating under a dictatorship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The uk is more liberal than the us. we are a more tolerant society and allow others to have their own beliefs without passing our own views on to others. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000544.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000544.soc index 7b3eaf54..8a746814 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000544.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000544.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is more liberal than the US as a whole, although there are liberal and conservative traits in both countries. The US is more conservative than the UK due to the role of religion in society and the impact it has on individuals, who must adhere to strict Christian rules. There are, however, liberal traits in the US, such as the large gay community and the fairly new laws allowing gay marriage. The UK is less religious than the US, although still has a large Christian population. There are many liberal traits in the UK, with a large multicultural population and laws protecting the rights of minorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK is more liberal than the US. Religion plays a large part in society and as the US is more religious than the UK it has tended to become more conservative in recent years. The UK has also become more liberal in recent years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK is generally more liberal than the US, although both have their liberal and conservative traits. The US is generally more conservative than the UK due to the large role of the Christian religion and the impact it has on the lives of individuals. The UK is less religious than the US, but has a larger liberal population, which can be seen in social attitudes, for example with the attitude to gay marriage, which is still illegal in the US. The US has also tended to become more conservative in recent years, with the introduction of restrictive laws and policies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the UK is more liberal in some ways than the US, both countries have their liberal and conservative traits. The UK is generally more liberal than the US, but the US is less religious and more liberal in some areas, for example with the attitude to gay marriage, which is still illegal in the US. However, the US has also tended to become more conservative in recent years, with the introduction of restrictive laws and policies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is more liberal than the US as a whole, although there are liberal and conservative traits in both countries. The US is more conservative than the UK due to the role of religion in society and the impact it has on individuals, who must adhere to strict Christian rules. There are, however, liberal traits in the US, such as the large gay community and the fairly new laws allowing gay marriage. The UK is less religious than the US, although still has a large Christian population. There are many liberal traits in the UK, with a large multicultural population and laws protecting the rights of minorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK is more liberal than the US. Religion plays a large part in society and as the US is more religious than the UK it has tended to become more conservative in recent years. The UK has also become more liberal in recent years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK is generally more liberal than the US, although both have their liberal and conservative traits. The US is generally more conservative than the UK due to the large role of the Christian religion and the impact it has on the lives of individuals. The UK is less religious than the US, but has a larger liberal population, which can be seen in social attitudes, for example with the attitude to gay marriage, which is still illegal in the US. The US has also tended to become more conservative in recent years, with the introduction of restrictive laws and policies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the UK is more liberal in some ways than the US, both countries have their liberal and conservative traits. The UK is generally more liberal than the US, but the US is less religious and more liberal in some areas, for example with the attitude to gay marriage, which is still illegal in the US. However, the US has also tended to become more conservative in recent years, with the introduction of restrictive laws and policies. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000545.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000545.soc index 1e30f66d..f53508b5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000545.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000545.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban new-build coal power stations. However, this should be carefully considered on a country by country basis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of moving away from coal power and towards cleaner energy sources such as wind and solar. The group felt that due to the large existing coal capacity in some countries and the long lives of coal plants, and the fact that they are currently a major contributor to global electricity generation, it would not be practical to ban new coal power stations. A few of the participants were concerned about the cost implications of renewables. The participants agreed that it was a challenge, but that there were many developing technologies in this field which could address this in the future. There was also some concern raised that it might be possible to build new coal plants which emit less CO2 than existing coal plants, but these were not widespread. The group felt that the key way forward was to develop cleaner energy sources and put greater emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No - coal power stations should not be banned, but we must focus on finding more efficient, sustainable and renewable ways of energy production in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the most sustainable option would be to work towards a zero-carbon future, in which new-build coal power stations should be banned and non-renewable energy sources should be replaced by renewable sources. The group were given a tool to help them reach their consensus and the above statement was the outcome of their decision making. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban new-build coal power stations. However, this should be carefully considered on a country by country basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of moving away from coal power and towards cleaner energy sources such as wind and solar. The group felt that due to the large existing coal capacity in some countries and the long lives of coal plants, and the fact that they are currently a major contributor to global electricity generation, it would not be practical to ban new coal power stations. A few of the participants were concerned about the cost implications of renewables. The participants agreed that it was a challenge, but that there were many developing technologies in this field which could address this in the future. There was also some concern raised that it might be possible to build new coal plants which emit less CO2 than existing coal plants, but these were not widespread. The group felt that the key way forward was to develop cleaner energy sources and put greater emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No - coal power stations should not be banned, but we must focus on finding more efficient, sustainable and renewable ways of energy production in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the most sustainable option would be to work towards a zero-carbon future, in which new-build coal power stations should be banned and non-renewable energy sources should be replaced by renewable sources. The group were given a tool to help them reach their consensus and the above statement was the outcome of their decision making. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000546.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000546.soc index 1a372f4e..83c12dcb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000546.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000546.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that a third runway should be built at Heathrow Airport. This is because we believe that the potential to increase jobs in the local area will outweigh the increased pollution and congestion in the area. It would also increase the ability of airlines to come to Heathrow and so more people would be able to come to the UK which is also an economic benefit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not build a third runway at Heathrow Airport as this would be against all current efforts to reduce air pollution and the carbon footprint of air travel. Whilst building another runway may encourage more business and more airlines to come to Heathrow, this is not a good reason to go against the climate change policies that are currently in place. We should be looking at other options to combat climate change rather than building a third runway and contributing to climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a third runway at Heathrow Airport as the cons outweigh the pro's. There was some discussion around the idea of having a third runway to ease congestion and the possibility of this reducing emissions by allowing less circling of the airport but ultimately, it was felt that this would not justify the negatives of a third runway. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, a third runway should not be built at Heathrow airport, because although it would help the economy and potentially help get rid of the waiting time for a landing slot it would also add to air pollution and noise pollution for those who live near the flight path. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that a third runway should be built at Heathrow Airport. This is because we believe that the potential to increase jobs in the local area will outweigh the increased pollution and congestion in the area. It would also increase the ability of airlines to come to Heathrow and so more people would be able to come to the UK which is also an economic benefit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not build a third runway at Heathrow Airport as this would be against all current efforts to reduce air pollution and the carbon footprint of air travel. Whilst building another runway may encourage more business and more airlines to come to Heathrow, this is not a good reason to go against the climate change policies that are currently in place. We should be looking at other options to combat climate change rather than building a third runway and contributing to climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a third runway at Heathrow Airport as the cons outweigh the pro's. There was some discussion around the idea of having a third runway to ease congestion and the possibility of this reducing emissions by allowing less circling of the airport but ultimately, it was felt that this would not justify the negatives of a third runway. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, a third runway should not be built at Heathrow airport, because although it would help the economy and potentially help get rid of the waiting time for a landing slot it would also add to air pollution and noise pollution for those who live near the flight path. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000547.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000547.soc index 988afbdb..5734afb7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000547.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000547.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not build more nuclear power stations. It is very dangerous and poses too much of a risk to our environment and to our health. We should be looking into more renewable energy options. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should continue using nuclear power plants, as it is a source of reliable and safe energy. However, we must ensure the highest level of safety for the staff of nuclear power plants and ensure that safety is a high priority when constructing and maintaining the nuclear power plants. We also must be prepared to deal with any accidents which may occur, as these are rare and will not happen frequently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building more nuclear power stations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should build more nuclear power stations to meet our energy needs. This is because nuclear power is the cleanest and greenest energy source that we have. The risk of radiation leaks and accidents are quite small, and they don't pose a major threat to the environment. We are against the idea of building more coal plants as they are dirty and bad for the environment. We are also against the idea of using biofuels, because it means that agricultural land will be taken away from farmers, causing them to lose money. In order to make the build process as quick and easy as possible, we should try to find places that are as close to nuclear power plants as possible. This means that we won't have to worry about extending roads and transportation networks. We should also try to avoid national parks and other places that may be affected by nuclear waste. We believe that we should build more nuclear power plants, as we are currently running out of energy sources, and we need to make sure that we have a continuous supply of energy to meet our energy needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not build more nuclear power stations. It is very dangerous and poses too much of a risk to our environment and to our health. We should be looking into more renewable energy options. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should continue using nuclear power plants, as it is a source of reliable and safe energy. However, we must ensure the highest level of safety for the staff of nuclear power plants and ensure that safety is a high priority when constructing and maintaining the nuclear power plants. We also must be prepared to deal with any accidents which may occur, as these are rare and will not happen frequently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building more nuclear power stations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should build more nuclear power stations to meet our energy needs. This is because nuclear power is the cleanest and greenest energy source that we have. The risk of radiation leaks and accidents are quite small, and they don't pose a major threat to the environment. We are against the idea of building more coal plants as they are dirty and bad for the environment. We are also against the idea of using biofuels, because it means that agricultural land will be taken away from farmers, causing them to lose money. In order to make the build process as quick and easy as possible, we should try to find places that are as close to nuclear power plants as possible. This means that we won't have to worry about extending roads and transportation networks. We should also try to avoid national parks and other places that may be affected by nuclear waste. We believe that we should build more nuclear power plants, as we are currently running out of energy sources, and we need to make sure that we have a continuous supply of energy to meet our energy needs. 2: 4,2,1,3 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000548.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000548.soc index 8e1478d0..f9a2aa1f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000548.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000548.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a degree of unfairness in the tax system as some people who earn a lot of money pay little tax. This is not the case for the vast majority of the population who are hit hard by tax on their income. It is the view of the group that some changes should be made to the way that tax is calculated for higher earners, and that a cap should be put in place to stop the amount of tax being paid from rising too high. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People in Britain do pay a lot of tax, but in many ways the tax is justified, it is used to fund many important things that we need and use. It could be argued that higher earners do not pay enough tax, and the burden should be shared more fairly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Tax in Britain is too high but the high tax burden is unfairly spread across society. The people who can least afford to pay are the ones that pay the most and those with the most pay the least. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the tax burden is too high on the ordinary people in Britain, and not high enough on large multinational corporations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a degree of unfairness in the tax system as some people who earn a lot of money pay little tax. This is not the case for the vast majority of the population who are hit hard by tax on their income. It is the view of the group that some changes should be made to the way that tax is calculated for higher earners, and that a cap should be put in place to stop the amount of tax being paid from rising too high. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People in Britain do pay a lot of tax, but in many ways the tax is justified, it is used to fund many important things that we need and use. It could be argued that higher earners do not pay enough tax, and the burden should be shared more fairly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Tax in Britain is too high but the high tax burden is unfairly spread across society. The people who can least afford to pay are the ones that pay the most and those with the most pay the least. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the tax burden is too high on the ordinary people in Britain, and not high enough on large multinational corporations. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000549.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000549.soc index 2189be4d..87d57e40 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000549.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000549.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of disclosure. However, one person expressed concern that in asking such a question there is an assumption that having more money or a large amount of family wealth is negative. However, the other participants were not of this view. It was felt that if people in positions of power have family wealth, this can give rise to conflicts of interest, and if people are to have trust in the decisions of people in power, there is an ethical requirement for them to disclose details of their family wealth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be some form of disclosure, as those in high office and public life should be role models to the rest of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People in high political office should disclose details about their family wealth. People in such powerful positions should be more open and willing to disclose information. The information disclosed is sensitive and confidential, and should only be seen by individuals with a need to know. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People in high political office should not be expected to disclose their family wealth. This is because most people will earn their wealth through hard work and graft, and there will always be people who earn more and have more than others in society. No matter what their political views are, it would be unfair to ask someone to disclose information which can be seen as personal and confidential. The groups decision on this topic was driven by both a general view of morality, and also their desire to not be judgemental on the basis of income, which was seen as a very personal and private matter. The group was split at first on whether or not to disclose this information, but after some debate, it was decided that it was unnecessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of disclosure. However, one person expressed concern that in asking such a question there is an assumption that having more money or a large amount of family wealth is negative. However, the other participants were not of this view. It was felt that if people in positions of power have family wealth, this can give rise to conflicts of interest, and if people are to have trust in the decisions of people in power, there is an ethical requirement for them to disclose details of their family wealth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be some form of disclosure, as those in high office and public life should be role models to the rest of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People in high political office should disclose details about their family wealth. People in such powerful positions should be more open and willing to disclose information. The information disclosed is sensitive and confidential, and should only be seen by individuals with a need to know. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People in high political office should not be expected to disclose their family wealth. This is because most people will earn their wealth through hard work and graft, and there will always be people who earn more and have more than others in society. No matter what their political views are, it would be unfair to ask someone to disclose information which can be seen as personal and confidential. The groups decision on this topic was driven by both a general view of morality, and also their desire to not be judgemental on the basis of income, which was seen as a very personal and private matter. The group was split at first on whether or not to disclose this information, but after some debate, it was decided that it was unnecessary. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000550.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000550.soc index d25219a2..c5b00f39 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000550.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000550.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should not be funded by a TV license but from general taxation. This is because, it is more fair to tax people based on what they use rather than taxing everyone in the country. However, there was a lot of debate about whether to include a section of the group's opinions who believed that the BBC should be funded by subscription. The following view was therefore put forward for debate: The BBC should be funded by subscription. This is because, people should be responsible for the content they are choosing to watch and if they have to pay for it, they will be more accountable for their choices. Participants thought that this statement had some value but that it did not consider the impact on the elderly. One participant made the argument that the elderly watch TV a lot and should not be deprived of it due to cost. This resulted in the final consensus view: The BBC should not be funded by a TV license but from general taxation. This is because, it is more fair to tax people based on what they use rather than taxing everyone in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should have the option to either pay for the license or pay through general taxation. People who don't watch the BBC should not have to pay for a service they don't use. However, the BBC is something that we are all proud of and that is very British. Therefore, the BBC should be funded by the British public but this should be a choice and not enforced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: General tax is the best option. TV licence is outdated, people watch TV online and not just the BBC. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should be funded by general taxation and we should not be paying a TV license fee. The fee is outdated, and should be removed from everyone as it is too expensive and unfair on many pensioners. The BBC should be paid for from general taxation, however they should also use advertising as a form of income as well as other channels do. This would provide extra money and help fund the BBC for longer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should not be funded by a TV license but from general taxation. This is because, it is more fair to tax people based on what they use rather than taxing everyone in the country. However, there was a lot of debate about whether to include a section of the group's opinions who believed that the BBC should be funded by subscription. The following view was therefore put forward for debate: The BBC should be funded by subscription. This is because, people should be responsible for the content they are choosing to watch and if they have to pay for it, they will be more accountable for their choices. Participants thought that this statement had some value but that it did not consider the impact on the elderly. One participant made the argument that the elderly watch TV a lot and should not be deprived of it due to cost. This resulted in the final consensus view: The BBC should not be funded by a TV license but from general taxation. This is because, it is more fair to tax people based on what they use rather than taxing everyone in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should have the option to either pay for the license or pay through general taxation. People who don't watch the BBC should not have to pay for a service they don't use. However, the BBC is something that we are all proud of and that is very British. Therefore, the BBC should be funded by the British public but this should be a choice and not enforced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - General tax is the best option. TV licence is outdated, people watch TV online and not just the BBC. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should be funded by general taxation and we should not be paying a TV license fee. The fee is outdated, and should be removed from everyone as it is too expensive and unfair on many pensioners. The BBC should be paid for from general taxation, however they should also use advertising as a form of income as well as other channels do. This would provide extra money and help fund the BBC for longer. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000551.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000551.soc index 3bc9803e..09d59a1c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000551.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000551.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We feel that the safety of the public is paramount and any issues with food being imported from places that do animal testing is outweighed by the danger of not being able to import food. The opinion of one person about the rights of animals and the consensus statement about safety are clearly different. The issue is not so much the content of the individual opinions but rather how a group of people come to a consensus that is actually not supported by many individuals in the group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban the import of food from countries that allow animal testing. It's a terrible thing to do to the animals and is avoidable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although it is important to be able to thrive as a nation and keep food prices low, we think that importing food from countries that allow animal testing is wrong. It violates animal rights and there are plenty of other ways to test on food without it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that food should be imported from countries that allow animal testing because if we didn't, this would cause a rise in the price of food and it would lead to higher levels of poverty. Furthermore, we would also be interfering in the politics of other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We feel that the safety of the public is paramount and any issues with food being imported from places that do animal testing is outweighed by the danger of not being able to import food. The opinion of one person about the rights of animals and the consensus statement about safety are clearly different. The issue is not so much the content of the individual opinions but rather how a group of people come to a consensus that is actually not supported by many individuals in the group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban the import of food from countries that allow animal testing. It's a terrible thing to do to the animals and is avoidable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although it is important to be able to thrive as a nation and keep food prices low, we think that importing food from countries that allow animal testing is wrong. It violates animal rights and there are plenty of other ways to test on food without it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that food should be imported from countries that allow animal testing because if we didn't, this would cause a rise in the price of food and it would lead to higher levels of poverty. Furthermore, we would also be interfering in the politics of other countries. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000552.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000552.soc index 614c8fdc..4ee41655 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000552.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000552.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the policies for the United Kingdom should be consistent. However, we agree that different countries should have different policies, to reflect different traditions and different cultures. It is only right that this should be the case, and we support the idea of devolution to reflect this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that the nations should be able to make their own decisions on some issues, like the free bus travel for over 60’s and free prescriptions. However, in some areas like education and tax, there should be one policy for all the nations. This is because the UK is a group of countries who should all be part of the same family. The different policies also makes things very confusing for people who live near borders of the countries as they don’t know what is going on in each place.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the four countries in the UK should be allowed to have different policies but they should not be allowed to contradict the laws of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is right to have different policies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because these countries have different aspects, such as different cultures and different traditions which should be preserved as they are part of the identity of that particular country and is what makes it special and unique. However, these countries are part of the UK so some policies should be adopted across all four countries. While the nations of the UK are separate in some respects we all belong to a group which should be preserved. In summary, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the policies for the United Kingdom should be consistent. However, we agree that different countries should have different policies, to reflect different traditions and different cultures. It is only right that this should be the case, and we support the idea of devolution to reflect this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that the nations should be able to make their own decisions on some issues, like the free bus travel for over 60’s and free prescriptions. However, in some areas like education and tax, there should be one policy for all the nations. This is because the UK is a group of countries who should all be part of the same family. The different policies also makes things very confusing for people who live near borders of the countries as they don’t know what is going on in each place.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the four countries in the UK should be allowed to have different policies but they should not be allowed to contradict the laws of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is right to have different policies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because these countries have different aspects, such as different cultures and different traditions which should be preserved as they are part of the identity of that particular country and is what makes it special and unique. However, these countries are part of the UK so some policies should be adopted across all four countries. While the nations of the UK are separate in some respects we all belong to a group which should be preserved. In summary, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000553.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000553.soc index b0c8d156..ef9986bf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000553.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000553.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, children should be made to go to school, however in special circumstances it should be allowed to home school. This would be particularly important if it was not practical to send them to school for example if the family were very isolated or if they had specific needs. Children should not be denied a proper education but should be given the chance to receive it in a way which is suitable for their particular circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be obliged to attend school, as it provides them with a good education and a chance to socialise. In the rare circumstances where a child cannot be sent to school due to disability or illness, the parents should be expected to provide the child with a suitable alternative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: School is important for children’s development socially and for education. Parents need to be accountable for their children, therefore they should be obliged to send their children to school. It is detrimental to children if they are not given an education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle parents should be required to send their children to school. School provides a child with a standardised education and allows them to interact with other children. However, it is unfair to force parents to send their children to school if they have the means to provide an equivalent level of education at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, children should be made to go to school, however in special circumstances it should be allowed to home school. This would be particularly important if it was not practical to send them to school for example if the family were very isolated or if they had specific needs. Children should not be denied a proper education but should be given the chance to receive it in a way which is suitable for their particular circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be obliged to attend school, as it provides them with a good education and a chance to socialise. In the rare circumstances where a child cannot be sent to school due to disability or illness, the parents should be expected to provide the child with a suitable alternative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - School is important for children’s development socially and for education. Parents need to be accountable for their children, therefore they should be obliged to send their children to school. It is detrimental to children if they are not given an education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle parents should be required to send their children to school. School provides a child with a standardised education and allows them to interact with other children. However, it is unfair to force parents to send their children to school if they have the means to provide an equivalent level of education at home. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000554.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000554.soc index f39a26e3..2e202f49 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000554.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000554.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should be more reliant on nuclear power. If fossil fuel energy production is to be phased out, then nuclear power is a viable alternative. It can generate the energy required by society, and can be relatively clean as a fuel source. The dangers of nuclear energy are well-known, but as long as we exercise the proper precautions, we can use it safely. The future of energy must come from a clean and renewable source, and nuclear power seems to be the best candidate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of nuclear power, though with reservations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should continue the expansion of our reliance on nuclear power as we phase out fossil fuel energy production. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not need to expand our reliance on nuclear power, because we already have enough energy sources and we need to cut down our spending. We must also remember that even though fossil fuel energy production is harmful, nuclear power also has harmful effects, so we should not be using either. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should be more reliant on nuclear power. If fossil fuel energy production is to be phased out, then nuclear power is a viable alternative. It can generate the energy required by society, and can be relatively clean as a fuel source. The dangers of nuclear energy are well-known, but as long as we exercise the proper precautions, we can use it safely. The future of energy must come from a clean and renewable source, and nuclear power seems to be the best candidate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of nuclear power, though with reservations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should continue the expansion of our reliance on nuclear power as we phase out fossil fuel energy production. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not need to expand our reliance on nuclear power, because we already have enough energy sources and we need to cut down our spending. We must also remember that even though fossil fuel energy production is harmful, nuclear power also has harmful effects, so we should not be using either. 2: 4,1,3,2 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000555.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000555.soc index 0e7cfb9b..bfa5de04 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000555.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000555.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more public ownership of utility companies. The capitalist system of privatised utilities is failing. The people of the UK are paying the highest energy prices in Europe due to profiteering by utility companies, yet there is no accountability. The customer is treated as an inconvenience rather than a person. We are at the mercy of the greed of utility companies and must accept any and all price hikes as they see fit. Public ownership, whether fully or partially, of these utility companies would lower prices and improve the quality of service, so that the money we spend on gas, electricity and water goes back to the people of the UK rather than into the pockets of shareholders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be more public ownership of utility companies. The privatisation of the industry has proven to be the right decision, but there needs to be some elements of the industry which are publicly owned to ensure stability in the market. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: More public ownership of utility companies is desirable to prevent the current profiteering by large private companies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, yes, more public ownership of utility companies is a good thing. The issue, however, is how this can be done. How can we create more public ownership in a way that is beneficial to both the economy and the public? The group of participants then discussed this question further and came to the following conclusion: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more public ownership of utility companies. The capitalist system of privatised utilities is failing. The people of the UK are paying the highest energy prices in Europe due to profiteering by utility companies, yet there is no accountability. The customer is treated as an inconvenience rather than a person. We are at the mercy of the greed of utility companies and must accept any and all price hikes as they see fit. Public ownership, whether fully or partially, of these utility companies would lower prices and improve the quality of service, so that the money we spend on gas, electricity and water goes back to the people of the UK rather than into the pockets of shareholders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be more public ownership of utility companies. The privatisation of the industry has proven to be the right decision, but there needs to be some elements of the industry which are publicly owned to ensure stability in the market. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - More public ownership of utility companies is desirable to prevent the current profiteering by large private companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, yes, more public ownership of utility companies is a good thing. The issue, however, is how this can be done. How can we create more public ownership in a way that is beneficial to both the economy and the public? The group of participants then discussed this question further and came to the following conclusion: 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000556.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000556.soc index ff4a51b8..20132d2b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000556.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000556.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universities should be allowed to ban speakers with views they dislike. If they are prevented from doing so, it gives more credence to the argument that universities are just a left wing echo chamber. The reality is that universities are composed of people from all different political persuasions, and the ability to ban speakers they dislike allows universities to show the strength of the majority views, which in this case is against the alt-right movement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Universities should be able to ban speakers with views they disagree with. Which opinion was in the minority? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Universities should be allowed to ban speakers with views they dislike as this would be beneficial for the student body. Universities are the authority on the values of our societies and should be able to control the ideas and opinions that are expressed on their campuses. The views of universities are always 'progressive' and it is important that other points of view are not heard, as this could cause disruption. It is wrong for universities to ban speakers whose views they don't agree with because universities are not the complete authority on the values of our societies, and it is important that other points of view are heard and validated. This is the only way we can live in a democracy. Who is to say the views of universities are 'progressive' , as they always claim? Maybe they are in some cases 'regressive'. People often argue that freedom of speech is more important than anything, and so they argue that people should be allowed to say what they want. This misguided passion for freedom however paradoxically inhibits the Universities freedom to allow what they want. Universities can generally be trusted to have an overwhelming sense of logic, sensibility and proportionality. I would expect a university to disallow a speaker who had moderate opinions or because one person in -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universities should not be allowed to ban speakers with views they dislike, because Universities should encourage free speech and are supposed to be places for open enquiry, intellectual curiosity and the free exchange of ideas. Universities are also not the complete authority on the values of our societies, and it is important that other points of view are both heard and validated. This is the only way we can live in a democracy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universities should be allowed to ban speakers with views they dislike. If they are prevented from doing so, it gives more credence to the argument that universities are just a left wing echo chamber. The reality is that universities are composed of people from all different political persuasions, and the ability to ban speakers they dislike allows universities to show the strength of the majority views, which in this case is against the alt-right movement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Universities should be able to ban speakers with views they disagree with. Which opinion was in the minority? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Universities should be allowed to ban speakers with views they dislike as this would be beneficial for the student body. Universities are the authority on the values of our societies and should be able to control the ideas and opinions that are expressed on their campuses. The views of universities are always 'progressive' and it is important that other points of view are not heard, as this could cause disruption. It is wrong for universities to ban speakers whose views they don't agree with because universities are not the complete authority on the values of our societies, and it is important that other points of view are heard and validated. This is the only way we can live in a democracy. Who is to say the views of universities are 'progressive' , as they always claim? Maybe they are in some cases 'regressive'. People often argue that freedom of speech is more important than anything, and so they argue that people should be allowed to say what they want. This misguided passion for freedom however paradoxically inhibits the Universities freedom to allow what they want. Universities can generally be trusted to have an overwhelming sense of logic, sensibility and proportionality. I would expect a university to disallow a speaker who had moderate opinions or because one person in +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universities should not be allowed to ban speakers with views they dislike, because Universities should encourage free speech and are supposed to be places for open enquiry, intellectual curiosity and the free exchange of ideas. Universities are also not the complete authority on the values of our societies, and it is important that other points of view are both heard and validated. This is the only way we can live in a democracy. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000557.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000557.soc index c86d6c01..328e41c6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000557.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000557.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we believe that food should be imported from countries that allow animal testing as it would cause an increase in the price of food, which would lead to higher levels of poverty, and it would lead to higher levels of poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban the import of food from countries that allow animal testing. Although this would cause a rise in the price of food and might lead to higher levels of poverty, we feel that the health and well-being of animals should be a priority and that there are other ways of testing that do not impact the health and well-being of animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Therefore, the group believe that banning the import of food from countries that allow animal testing is not a practical idea. Instead, the group believe that an option would be to make consumers aware of the origins of the food. This could be a simple solution that could have an impact on this issue and hopefully force countries to make the necessary changes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that food should be imported from countries that allow animal testing because if we didn't, this would cause a rise in the price of food and it would lead to higher levels of poverty. Furthermore, we would also be interfering in the politics of other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we believe that food should be imported from countries that allow animal testing as it would cause an increase in the price of food, which would lead to higher levels of poverty, and it would lead to higher levels of poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban the import of food from countries that allow animal testing. Although this would cause a rise in the price of food and might lead to higher levels of poverty, we feel that the health and well-being of animals should be a priority and that there are other ways of testing that do not impact the health and well-being of animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Therefore, the group believe that banning the import of food from countries that allow animal testing is not a practical idea. Instead, the group believe that an option would be to make consumers aware of the origins of the food. This could be a simple solution that could have an impact on this issue and hopefully force countries to make the necessary changes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that food should be imported from countries that allow animal testing because if we didn't, this would cause a rise in the price of food and it would lead to higher levels of poverty. Furthermore, we would also be interfering in the politics of other countries. 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000558.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000558.soc index 9df0601d..7631a009 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000558.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000558.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be made to go to school but home schooling should be allowed under special circumstances such as if it is not practical to send them to school for example if the family were very isolated or if they had specific needs. Children should not be denied a proper education but should be given the chance to receive it in a way which is suitable for their particular circumstances. Participants in the exercise expressed satisfaction with the results. Participant 5 was very happy with the outcome, and expressed satisfaction with the amount of effort put in by other participants, and was pleased that the group was able to "reach a consensus after a good debate." Participant 3 similarly expressed happiness with the results and felt that the ability to exchange messages with other participants "helped us to understand each other's points of view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, children should be made to go to school, however in special circumstances it should be allowed to home school. This would be particularly important if it was not practical to send them to school for example if the family were very isolated or if they had specific needs. Children should not be denied a proper education but should be given the chance to receive it in a way which is suitable for their particular circumstances. Summary of each stage of the activity: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be made to go to school but there are some special circumstances in which home schooling should be allowed. This would be particularly important if it was not practical to send them to school for example if the family were very isolated or if they had specific needs. Children should not be denied a proper education but should be given the chance to receive it in a way which is suitable for their particular circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be given the opportunity to go to school. If this is not possible, then the alternative should be to provide the child with the best educational experience that can be provided. The best interests of the child should always be considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be made to go to school but home schooling should be allowed under special circumstances such as if it is not practical to send them to school for example if the family were very isolated or if they had specific needs. Children should not be denied a proper education but should be given the chance to receive it in a way which is suitable for their particular circumstances. Participants in the exercise expressed satisfaction with the results. Participant 5 was very happy with the outcome, and expressed satisfaction with the amount of effort put in by other participants, and was pleased that the group was able to "reach a consensus after a good debate." Participant 3 similarly expressed happiness with the results and felt that the ability to exchange messages with other participants "helped us to understand each other's points of view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, children should be made to go to school, however in special circumstances it should be allowed to home school. This would be particularly important if it was not practical to send them to school for example if the family were very isolated or if they had specific needs. Children should not be denied a proper education but should be given the chance to receive it in a way which is suitable for their particular circumstances. Summary of each stage of the activity: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be made to go to school but there are some special circumstances in which home schooling should be allowed. This would be particularly important if it was not practical to send them to school for example if the family were very isolated or if they had specific needs. Children should not be denied a proper education but should be given the chance to receive it in a way which is suitable for their particular circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be given the opportunity to go to school. If this is not possible, then the alternative should be to provide the child with the best educational experience that can be provided. The best interests of the child should always be considered. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000559.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000559.soc index 2923a9ea..daa99532 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000559.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000559.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is right to have different policies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because these countries have different aspects, such as different cultures and different traditions which should be preserved as they are part of the identity of that particular country and is what makes it special and unique. However, these countries are part of the UK so some policies should be adopted across all four countries. While the nations of the UK are separate in some respects we all belong to a group which should be preserved. In summary, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. Conclusion I believe that this experience of using Haggis to achieve a consensus view on a given question was very beneficial and rewarding. The consensus view was eventually reached after several revisions of the Draft -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, while the nations of the UK are separate in some respects, we all belong to a group which should be preserved. Therefore, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is right to have different policies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because these countries have different aspects, such as different cultures and different traditions which should be preserved as they are part of the identity of that particular country and is what makes it special and unique. However, these countries are part of the UK so some policies should be adopted across all four countries. While the nations of the UK are separate in some respects we all belong to a group which should be preserved. In summary, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. What are the pros and cons of the final consensus view? Pros: A balance is struck between recognizing the distinct cultural identities of the constituent countries and the need for the constituent countries to work together for common goals. Cons: Too much focus on cultural identity could lead to disintegration of the United Kingdom. I really enjoyed this exercise because I had to put myself in the shoes of a politician or diplomat and find a common ground between my own opinion and the opinions of other people. It is much easier to form a -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is right to have different policies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because these countries have different aspects, such as different cultures and different traditions which should be preserved as they are part of the identity of that particular country and is what makes it special and unique. However, these countries are part of the UK so some policies should be adopted across all four countries. While the nations of the UK are separate in some respects we all belong to a group which should be preserved. In summary, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is right to have different policies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because these countries have different aspects, such as different cultures and different traditions which should be preserved as they are part of the identity of that particular country and is what makes it special and unique. However, these countries are part of the UK so some policies should be adopted across all four countries. While the nations of the UK are separate in some respects we all belong to a group which should be preserved. In summary, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. Conclusion I believe that this experience of using Haggis to achieve a consensus view on a given question was very beneficial and rewarding. The consensus view was eventually reached after several revisions of the Draft +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, while the nations of the UK are separate in some respects, we all belong to a group which should be preserved. Therefore, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is right to have different policies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because these countries have different aspects, such as different cultures and different traditions which should be preserved as they are part of the identity of that particular country and is what makes it special and unique. However, these countries are part of the UK so some policies should be adopted across all four countries. While the nations of the UK are separate in some respects we all belong to a group which should be preserved. In summary, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. What are the pros and cons of the final consensus view? Pros: A balance is struck between recognizing the distinct cultural identities of the constituent countries and the need for the constituent countries to work together for common goals. Cons: Too much focus on cultural identity could lead to disintegration of the United Kingdom. I really enjoyed this exercise because I had to put myself in the shoes of a politician or diplomat and find a common ground between my own opinion and the opinions of other people. It is much easier to form a +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is right to have different policies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because these countries have different aspects, such as different cultures and different traditions which should be preserved as they are part of the identity of that particular country and is what makes it special and unique. However, these countries are part of the UK so some policies should be adopted across all four countries. While the nations of the UK are separate in some respects we all belong to a group which should be preserved. In summary, although it is beneficial for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own policies on certain matters, some matters should be common across all four countries as they are part of the UK. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000560.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000560.soc index 4c900b62..301674c4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000560.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000560.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of subsidised university tuition. However, all participants recognised the need to support the country's economy and one participant (participant 3) felt that the current system is fair and equitable. The consensus opinion was that the government should be subsidising tuition fees but that it should only be to a level that does not affect the wider economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government does not need to subsidize university tuition. It is very easy to get caught up in a heated debate on this topic, however it is important to remember that it is unfair to assume that only rich people will go to university if the government does not subsidize tuition. With the current system in place, university is affordable for all who wish to go. The government should focus on subsidizing student living costs to make the lives of students living at university more comfortable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should subsidise university tuition fees for all. Without subsidised tuition, access to education will be determined by wealth. This leads to a society that is discriminatory, leading to disparities in wealth. Subsidised tuition fees lead to a more educated and enlightened society, thus improving the country as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the government does not need to subsidise university tuition fees. We believe that by offering the tuition fee loans scheme, the government is doing enough to ensure that all students are able to attend university. We are all aware that going to university is an expensive process and that the debt that one is left with after graduating can be very damaging, however, we feel that we should be mature enough to understand this, and that we should take it upon ourselves to pay off this debt. We all appreciate that the government has enough other priorities, and that their finances would not be helped by subsidising university tuition. However, we do appreciate that we may be coming from a privileged position, where we all have jobs that can pay off our loans, and that those who come from less privileged backgrounds, may not be able to pay back these loans. However, we feel that by offering the loans scheme, it is the governments job to provide students with the financial support needed. We also feel that the government should not be restricting people from going to university based on the cost. If they can offer a loan scheme, then they should not place any restrictions on who can use this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of subsidised university tuition. However, all participants recognised the need to support the country's economy and one participant (participant 3) felt that the current system is fair and equitable. The consensus opinion was that the government should be subsidising tuition fees but that it should only be to a level that does not affect the wider economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government does not need to subsidize university tuition. It is very easy to get caught up in a heated debate on this topic, however it is important to remember that it is unfair to assume that only rich people will go to university if the government does not subsidize tuition. With the current system in place, university is affordable for all who wish to go. The government should focus on subsidizing student living costs to make the lives of students living at university more comfortable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should subsidise university tuition fees for all. Without subsidised tuition, access to education will be determined by wealth. This leads to a society that is discriminatory, leading to disparities in wealth. Subsidised tuition fees lead to a more educated and enlightened society, thus improving the country as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the government does not need to subsidise university tuition fees. We believe that by offering the tuition fee loans scheme, the government is doing enough to ensure that all students are able to attend university. We are all aware that going to university is an expensive process and that the debt that one is left with after graduating can be very damaging, however, we feel that we should be mature enough to understand this, and that we should take it upon ourselves to pay off this debt. We all appreciate that the government has enough other priorities, and that their finances would not be helped by subsidising university tuition. However, we do appreciate that we may be coming from a privileged position, where we all have jobs that can pay off our loans, and that those who come from less privileged backgrounds, may not be able to pay back these loans. However, we feel that by offering the loans scheme, it is the governments job to provide students with the financial support needed. We also feel that the government should not be restricting people from going to university based on the cost. If they can offer a loan scheme, then they should not place any restrictions on who can use this. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000561.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000561.soc index 059ae679..c3bff7ef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000561.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000561.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the minimum wage is something that is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. A maximum wage would be rather hard to put into practice as this would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. However, I think it would be good to have a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs, such as the CEO of Facebook. This would also help with wage equality, as currently there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should have a maximum and minimum wage. A maximum wage is important to ensure that CEO's do not exploit their employees and pay themselves huge salaries that are unjustified. However, we should also have a minimum wage to ensure that workers are not exploited by businesses for very low pay. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A minimum wage is essential in the world today, for employers who try to exploit workers, who are prepared to work for any wage in order to get a job. A maximum wage is also essential to ensure that people who work are not underpaid in relation to people who do not work and are simply paid from the state. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a minimum wage should be set by the government. If there is no minimum wage then the potential to exploit workers and abuse their conditions will be much greater. The rate should be set by the government in such a way that it will increase the income of the lowest paid and protect them from the effects of inflation. The minimum wage should be set at a rate that is below the National Living Wage as this will take into account workers who are currently on low wages and not able to earn the living wage. The group was then asked to look at the following question: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the minimum wage is something that is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. A maximum wage would be rather hard to put into practice as this would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. However, I think it would be good to have a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs, such as the CEO of Facebook. This would also help with wage equality, as currently there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should have a maximum and minimum wage. A maximum wage is important to ensure that CEO's do not exploit their employees and pay themselves huge salaries that are unjustified. However, we should also have a minimum wage to ensure that workers are not exploited by businesses for very low pay. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A minimum wage is essential in the world today, for employers who try to exploit workers, who are prepared to work for any wage in order to get a job. A maximum wage is also essential to ensure that people who work are not underpaid in relation to people who do not work and are simply paid from the state. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a minimum wage should be set by the government. If there is no minimum wage then the potential to exploit workers and abuse their conditions will be much greater. The rate should be set by the government in such a way that it will increase the income of the lowest paid and protect them from the effects of inflation. The minimum wage should be set at a rate that is below the National Living Wage as this will take into account workers who are currently on low wages and not able to earn the living wage. The group was then asked to look at the following question: 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000562.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000562.soc index db58d0fb..f96add5b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000562.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000562.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, yes, however in many cases this appears to be what the ex-colony wants. In circumstances where the ex-colony desires more autonomy this should be granted. Several countries have chosen to join the Commonwealth for its benefits whilst some have chosen to leave. Each ex-colony should have the independence to decide whether it wishes to remain or leave. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There has been some influence over ex-colonies in the past, however there is less of a need to exert that influence now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK still has a certain level of control over ex-colonies, although this varies from nation to nation. In circumstances where the ex-colony desires more autonomy, this should be granted. In other circumstances, the ex-colony may choose to remain under British influence for the benefits it receives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK has too much influence over its ex-colonies, and should in most cases relinquish its power to enable ex-colonies to choose their own path. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, yes, however in many cases this appears to be what the ex-colony wants. In circumstances where the ex-colony desires more autonomy this should be granted. Several countries have chosen to join the Commonwealth for its benefits whilst some have chosen to leave. Each ex-colony should have the independence to decide whether it wishes to remain or leave. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There has been some influence over ex-colonies in the past, however there is less of a need to exert that influence now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK still has a certain level of control over ex-colonies, although this varies from nation to nation. In circumstances where the ex-colony desires more autonomy, this should be granted. In other circumstances, the ex-colony may choose to remain under British influence for the benefits it receives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK has too much influence over its ex-colonies, and should in most cases relinquish its power to enable ex-colonies to choose their own path. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000563.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000563.soc index 4430b874..d1369f7d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000563.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000563.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, our society has made the most amazing progress over the last century, and our great country is a good place to live, but we still have some real problems to solve. We have too many children that are going hungry, we have too many people that are homeless, and we have too many independent and high street businesses that are closing down. In light of this, and with our country at peace, we are of the opinion that an increase in our defence budget should not be made, and that the funds that would have been used to increase the defence budget should instead be used to make our country an even better place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we do not think that it is necessary to increase defence spending. The current levels are sufficient and we think that the money would be better spent on other areas such as welfare, health and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase our defence spending by only a small amount as we don't have any current need to spend more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should be increasing defence spending. The military is a vital part of society and as the potential for more conflicts increase, we need to ensure that the military has the funds to respond effectively and to help prevent these conflicts from occurring. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, our society has made the most amazing progress over the last century, and our great country is a good place to live, but we still have some real problems to solve. We have too many children that are going hungry, we have too many people that are homeless, and we have too many independent and high street businesses that are closing down. In light of this, and with our country at peace, we are of the opinion that an increase in our defence budget should not be made, and that the funds that would have been used to increase the defence budget should instead be used to make our country an even better place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we do not think that it is necessary to increase defence spending. The current levels are sufficient and we think that the money would be better spent on other areas such as welfare, health and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase our defence spending by only a small amount as we don't have any current need to spend more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should be increasing defence spending. The military is a vital part of society and as the potential for more conflicts increase, we need to ensure that the military has the funds to respond effectively and to help prevent these conflicts from occurring. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000564.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000564.soc index 0cf9776e..1885d28b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000564.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000564.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universities should not allow students to submit their essays in voice recordings, however we do think that it is a good idea for students to be able to submit a small paragraph outlining the main points of their essay, especially for students who struggle to write essays due to learning disabilities or other reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although essay writing is a traditional and effective way of expressing oneself and demonstrating knowledge, voice recordings could be considered a valid alternative to written submissions as it could be beneficial for people with learning disabilities. The consensus view was reached through a combination of each participants’ views and their understanding of each others points. In particular, the participants considered that whilst there were benefits to essay writing, some people may struggle with it. Participants discussed the benefits of written essay, in particular their usefulness in demonstrating understanding of complex topics, they were also discussed the possible ways in which essay writing can be difficult, such as those with learning disabilities. Participants also talked about other forms of assessment such as presentations, which could be a good alternative to essay writing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Universities should not allow voice recordings for submission of essays, as although it would help some students, there are many disadvantages. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universities should allow voice recordings for essay submissions as it can increase accessibility and inclusion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universities should not allow students to submit their essays in voice recordings, however we do think that it is a good idea for students to be able to submit a small paragraph outlining the main points of their essay, especially for students who struggle to write essays due to learning disabilities or other reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although essay writing is a traditional and effective way of expressing oneself and demonstrating knowledge, voice recordings could be considered a valid alternative to written submissions as it could be beneficial for people with learning disabilities. The consensus view was reached through a combination of each participants’ views and their understanding of each others points. In particular, the participants considered that whilst there were benefits to essay writing, some people may struggle with it. Participants discussed the benefits of written essay, in particular their usefulness in demonstrating understanding of complex topics, they were also discussed the possible ways in which essay writing can be difficult, such as those with learning disabilities. Participants also talked about other forms of assessment such as presentations, which could be a good alternative to essay writing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Universities should not allow voice recordings for submission of essays, as although it would help some students, there are many disadvantages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universities should allow voice recordings for essay submissions as it can increase accessibility and inclusion. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000565.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000565.soc index 403f0b73..93a0eac8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000565.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000565.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Given the current economic situation, the government should increase taxes, however this should be done in a fair way. A system should be put in place where tax payers get to choose where they want their money to go towards. Tax payers money should not be wasted and should be invested in schools, hospitals and public transport. It would also be a good idea to invest in more energy efficient buildings, so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not increase taxes to reduce the deficit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although increasing taxes is a simple and effective way to reduce the deficit, it is not the only way. Increasing taxes can reduce the purchasing power of the public, resulting in a higher unemployment rate and a lower standard of living for most of the population. The Government could also look at increasing taxes on big businesses and corporations, as many of these avoid paying taxes due to legal loopholes. Increasing taxes on these businesses would still result in a reduction in the deficit, without affecting the purchasing power of the average person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should increase taxes to reduce the deficit. However, taxes should not be increased on wages or small businesses. Instead, the government should increase taxes on large corporations who are already dodging their tax payments and using legal loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Given the current economic situation, the government should increase taxes, however this should be done in a fair way. A system should be put in place where tax payers get to choose where they want their money to go towards. Tax payers money should not be wasted and should be invested in schools, hospitals and public transport. It would also be a good idea to invest in more energy efficient buildings, so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not increase taxes to reduce the deficit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although increasing taxes is a simple and effective way to reduce the deficit, it is not the only way. Increasing taxes can reduce the purchasing power of the public, resulting in a higher unemployment rate and a lower standard of living for most of the population. The Government could also look at increasing taxes on big businesses and corporations, as many of these avoid paying taxes due to legal loopholes. Increasing taxes on these businesses would still result in a reduction in the deficit, without affecting the purchasing power of the average person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should increase taxes to reduce the deficit. However, taxes should not be increased on wages or small businesses. Instead, the government should increase taxes on large corporations who are already dodging their tax payments and using legal loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000566.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000566.soc index 8f6b1dc2..ac260da6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000566.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000566.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, yes we should implement free early childhood education, for all, because it will help the children and their future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should implement free early childhood education, as it will increase the quality of education for all children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of free early childhood education. However, it was recognised that free early childhood education would be expensive. As a result, the group were in favour of some form of childcare tax relief. The consensus opinion was that free early childhood education is expensive, but necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should implement free early childhood education. We all believe that education should be accessible to all and the more knowledge and experience that children have the better the future of society will be. The initial costs may be expensive but the overall effects will benefit society in the long run. There may be the argument that the current tax system is not sufficient to support this policy, however we believe that with careful use of resources this policy can be achieved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, yes we should implement free early childhood education, for all, because it will help the children and their future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should implement free early childhood education, as it will increase the quality of education for all children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of free early childhood education. However, it was recognised that free early childhood education would be expensive. As a result, the group were in favour of some form of childcare tax relief. The consensus opinion was that free early childhood education is expensive, but necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should implement free early childhood education. We all believe that education should be accessible to all and the more knowledge and experience that children have the better the future of society will be. The initial costs may be expensive but the overall effects will benefit society in the long run. There may be the argument that the current tax system is not sufficient to support this policy, however we believe that with careful use of resources this policy can be achieved. 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000567.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000567.soc index 2b52705f..2d94bbc1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000567.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000567.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not acceptable to use animal products for beauty care unless they are a byproduct of other products, and if it can be demonstrated that this will not impact the welfare of the animal. The consensus view was reached through a combination of each participants’ views and their openness to listening to the views of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of animal products in beauty care should be avoided. Where animal products are used they should be derived from an animal killed for another purpose (i.e. not just for beauty products) and the products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Animal products should not be used in beauty care. However, if there is no viable alternative then the use of animal products in beauty care should be permitted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not ok to use animal products for beauty care. Although we recognise that some animals products are byproducts of other processes and could be used for other purposes, these products are not necessary in order to maintain a level of beauty care. If the use of these products results in the harm or suffering of animals then we do not feel that the welfare of the animals should be compromised in the pursuit of beauty care products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not acceptable to use animal products for beauty care unless they are a byproduct of other products, and if it can be demonstrated that this will not impact the welfare of the animal. The consensus view was reached through a combination of each participants’ views and their openness to listening to the views of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of animal products in beauty care should be avoided. Where animal products are used they should be derived from an animal killed for another purpose (i.e. not just for beauty products) and the products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Animal products should not be used in beauty care. However, if there is no viable alternative then the use of animal products in beauty care should be permitted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not ok to use animal products for beauty care. Although we recognise that some animals products are byproducts of other processes and could be used for other purposes, these products are not necessary in order to maintain a level of beauty care. If the use of these products results in the harm or suffering of animals then we do not feel that the welfare of the animals should be compromised in the pursuit of beauty care products. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000568.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000568.soc index 7ac11972..0571d187 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000568.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000568.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a minimum price per unit of alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “After a debate, participants came to the consensus view that there should be a minimum price for alcohol per unit. It is felt that this will lead to people buying less alcohol, which in turn should reduce alcohol related problems in the community.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. This opinion was then presented to the wider group of participants, and this wider group was then asked to review and reach a final group consensus on the opinion. The wider group of participants’ final consensus statement was: We believe there should be a minimum price per unit for alcohol, as this would help to reduce alcohol related health and social problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that the price of alcohol is far too low for the amount of damage that it causes and the detrimental affect it has on our society. This should be reflected in the price. There should be a minimum price per unit of alcohol.” The group of participants then ranked their opinions from most to least important. The most important opinion was: I believe that the price of alcohol is far too low for the amount of damage that it causes and the detrimental affect it has on our society. This should be reflected in the price. There should be a minimum price per unit of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a minimum price per unit of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “After a debate, participants came to the consensus view that there should be a minimum price for alcohol per unit. It is felt that this will lead to people buying less alcohol, which in turn should reduce alcohol related problems in the community.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. This opinion was then presented to the wider group of participants, and this wider group was then asked to review and reach a final group consensus on the opinion. The wider group of participants’ final consensus statement was: We believe there should be a minimum price per unit for alcohol, as this would help to reduce alcohol related health and social problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that the price of alcohol is far too low for the amount of damage that it causes and the detrimental affect it has on our society. This should be reflected in the price. There should be a minimum price per unit of alcohol.” The group of participants then ranked their opinions from most to least important. The most important opinion was: I believe that the price of alcohol is far too low for the amount of damage that it causes and the detrimental affect it has on our society. This should be reflected in the price. There should be a minimum price per unit of alcohol. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000569.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000569.soc index 5e72d0c2..5b98ab8e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000569.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000569.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a maximum and minimum wage. A maximum wage is hard to put into practice and would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. The minimum wage is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. This should be enforced for workers in big companies, such as the CEO of Facebook, as it would help with wage equality and decrease the huge gap between the highest and lowest paid. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the minimum wage is something that is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. A maximum wage would be rather hard to put into practice as this would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. However, I think it would be good to have a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs, such as the CEO of Facebook. This would also help with wage equality, as currently there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the minimum wage is something that is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. A maximum wage would be rather hard to put into practice as this would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. However, I think it would be good to have a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs, such as the CEO of Facebook. This would also help with wage equality, as currently there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. Conclusion This was a useful exercise, particularly as the consensus view of the group was not so different to my own. The consensus view was that there should be a minimum wage to protect workers from being exploited. A maximum wage is hard to enforce because it would have to be on an individual basis. However, a maximum wage for big company CEOs would be useful to increase wage equality. In general, I agree with the consensus view. I believe that a minimum wage is important to ensure workers are not exploited. I am not sure how a maximum wage would be set for individuals. Perhaps a more generic maximum and minimum would be possible to set, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the minimum wage is something that is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. A maximum wage would be rather hard to put into practice as this would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. However, I think it would be good to have a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs, such as the CEO of Facebook. This would also help with wage equality, as currently there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. Conclusion There is a big difference in pay in the UK. As of 2018, the average salary of a company CEO is £5.5 million, while the minimum wage is set at £7.83 per hour, or £15,080 per year. So there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. However, the group of participants feel that it would be a good idea to set a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs. This would help with wage equality and close the gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a maximum and minimum wage. A maximum wage is hard to put into practice and would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. The minimum wage is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. This should be enforced for workers in big companies, such as the CEO of Facebook, as it would help with wage equality and decrease the huge gap between the highest and lowest paid. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the minimum wage is something that is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. A maximum wage would be rather hard to put into practice as this would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. However, I think it would be good to have a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs, such as the CEO of Facebook. This would also help with wage equality, as currently there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the minimum wage is something that is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. A maximum wage would be rather hard to put into practice as this would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. However, I think it would be good to have a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs, such as the CEO of Facebook. This would also help with wage equality, as currently there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. Conclusion This was a useful exercise, particularly as the consensus view of the group was not so different to my own. The consensus view was that there should be a minimum wage to protect workers from being exploited. A maximum wage is hard to enforce because it would have to be on an individual basis. However, a maximum wage for big company CEOs would be useful to increase wage equality. In general, I agree with the consensus view. I believe that a minimum wage is important to ensure workers are not exploited. I am not sure how a maximum wage would be set for individuals. Perhaps a more generic maximum and minimum would be possible to set, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the minimum wage is something that is in place to protect workers from being exploited for little pay. A maximum wage would be rather hard to put into practice as this would have to be on an individual basis as people are not on the same level of productivity and therefore will not make the same amount of money. However, I think it would be good to have a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs, such as the CEO of Facebook. This would also help with wage equality, as currently there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. Conclusion There is a big difference in pay in the UK. As of 2018, the average salary of a company CEO is £5.5 million, while the minimum wage is set at £7.83 per hour, or £15,080 per year. So there is a huge gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. However, the group of participants feel that it would be a good idea to set a maximum and minimum wage for big company CEOs. This would help with wage equality and close the gap between the highest and lowest paid in the country. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000570.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000570.soc index d2c6c0b9..d54ab8bf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000570.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000570.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should subsidise university tuition fees for all. Without subsidised tuition, access to education will be determined by wealth. This leads to a society that is discriminatory, leading to disparities in wealth. Subsidised tuition fees lead to a more educated and enlightened society, thus improving the country as a whole. The educated populace of a country with subsidised education pay more tax, which can go towards further education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should subsidise university tuition fees for all. Without subsidised tuition, access to education will be determined by wealth. This leads to a society that is discriminatory, leading to disparities in wealth. Subsidised tuition fees lead to a more educated and enlightened society, thus improving the country as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should subsidise university tuition for all. Education for all is a human right. Subsidising university tuition is a step in the right direction towards a more equal and fair society. There is currently a discrepancy between students who attend university and those who do not, based on their socioeconomic status. This has been proven to have a long-term impact on their earnings, and thus, their standard of living. Subsidising tuition fees will lead to an educated and enlightened population, which is crucial to the success of the country as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should subsidise university tuition fees for all. Without subsidised tuition, access to education will be determined by wealth. This leads to a society that is discriminatory, leading to disparities in wealth. Subsidised tuition fees lead to a more educated and enlightened society, thus improving the country as a whole. Conclusion: My experience in the small group activity has provided me with a great deal of insight. While working with a small group of people on the task of formulating a consensus statement I have learned a great deal about myself, and I have learned a great deal about the nature of small groups. The most important insight I have gained is that small group dynamics are absolutely crucial to the success of a small group. In addition, I have learned that while all small groups are different, they also all share some commonalities. While working in a small group, one of the most important characteristics that I learned about myself is my own personal work ethic. I learned that I am very hard working, and that I have a very strong desire to succeed. In addition, I learned that I am very attentive and focused. However, I also learned that sometimes +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should subsidise university tuition fees for all. Without subsidised tuition, access to education will be determined by wealth. This leads to a society that is discriminatory, leading to disparities in wealth. Subsidised tuition fees lead to a more educated and enlightened society, thus improving the country as a whole. The educated populace of a country with subsidised education pay more tax, which can go towards further education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should subsidise university tuition fees for all. Without subsidised tuition, access to education will be determined by wealth. This leads to a society that is discriminatory, leading to disparities in wealth. Subsidised tuition fees lead to a more educated and enlightened society, thus improving the country as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should subsidise university tuition for all. Education for all is a human right. Subsidising university tuition is a step in the right direction towards a more equal and fair society. There is currently a discrepancy between students who attend university and those who do not, based on their socioeconomic status. This has been proven to have a long-term impact on their earnings, and thus, their standard of living. Subsidising tuition fees will lead to an educated and enlightened population, which is crucial to the success of the country as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should subsidise university tuition fees for all. Without subsidised tuition, access to education will be determined by wealth. This leads to a society that is discriminatory, leading to disparities in wealth. Subsidised tuition fees lead to a more educated and enlightened society, thus improving the country as a whole. Conclusion: My experience in the small group activity has provided me with a great deal of insight. While working with a small group of people on the task of formulating a consensus statement I have learned a great deal about myself, and I have learned a great deal about the nature of small groups. The most important insight I have gained is that small group dynamics are absolutely crucial to the success of a small group. In addition, I have learned that while all small groups are different, they also all share some commonalities. While working in a small group, one of the most important characteristics that I learned about myself is my own personal work ethic. I learned that I am very hard working, and that I have a very strong desire to succeed. In addition, I learned that I am very attentive and focused. However, I also learned that sometimes 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000571.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000571.soc index f2ebb862..979cd802 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000571.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000571.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have a duty to protect children and other vulnerable people and we have the right to legislate for them, but we should not impose our values on others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A minimum unit price is a form of prohibition by the back door. It would impact upon the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The nation should be educated on the dangers of alcohol rather than punishing everyone who consumes it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. In the vast majority of cases it is not alcohol that is the problem, but rather the person consuming the alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to control how much alcohol their children consume and if parents are unable to do this, then the state should not have to. Alcohol should not be made more expensive for everyone, just because a small minority of people are unable to control themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to minimum unit pricing, with one person being undecided. Some of the reasons given were as follows: 1. The whole population should not be punished for the irresponsible behaviour of a few. 2. Drinking is a matter of personal responsibility. The individual has to make their own decision about whether they want to drink or not. 3. The government should not interfere with the choices of adults. 4. It is not right to treat adults as children. 5. It is not fair to the majority to force them to pay more for alcohol. 6. People have to be allowed to make their own decisions. 7. There will be problems with defining what a unit is and how to apply it to different types of alcohol. 8. People will still find a way to get alcohol if they really want to. 9. A minimum unit price will mean the poorer people have to pay more. 10. Responsible drinkers should not be punished. 11. The supermarkets and alcohol retailers should not be allowed to profit from irresponsible drinking. 12. An individual's choice to drink should not be controlled by the government. 13. It is not possible to stop people from getting alcohol if they want +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have a duty to protect children and other vulnerable people and we have the right to legislate for them, but we should not impose our values on others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A minimum unit price is a form of prohibition by the back door. It would impact upon the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The nation should be educated on the dangers of alcohol rather than punishing everyone who consumes it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. In the vast majority of cases it is not alcohol that is the problem, but rather the person consuming the alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to control how much alcohol their children consume and if parents are unable to do this, then the state should not have to. Alcohol should not be made more expensive for everyone, just because a small minority of people are unable to control themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to minimum unit pricing, with one person being undecided. Some of the reasons given were as follows: 1. The whole population should not be punished for the irresponsible behaviour of a few. 2. Drinking is a matter of personal responsibility. The individual has to make their own decision about whether they want to drink or not. 3. The government should not interfere with the choices of adults. 4. It is not right to treat adults as children. 5. It is not fair to the majority to force them to pay more for alcohol. 6. People have to be allowed to make their own decisions. 7. There will be problems with defining what a unit is and how to apply it to different types of alcohol. 8. People will still find a way to get alcohol if they really want to. 9. A minimum unit price will mean the poorer people have to pay more. 10. Responsible drinkers should not be punished. 11. The supermarkets and alcohol retailers should not be allowed to profit from irresponsible drinking. 12. An individual's choice to drink should not be controlled by the government. 13. It is not possible to stop people from getting alcohol if they want 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000572.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000572.soc index 4c9fc29c..d456c50c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000572.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000572.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Given the current economic situation, the government should increase taxes, however this should be done in a fair way. A system should be put in place where tax payers get to choose where they want their money to go towards. Tax payers money should not be wasted and should be invested in schools, hospitals and public transport. It would also be a good idea to invest in more energy efficient buildings, so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. This should be offset by taxing large corporations more, so that the country is still attractive to big businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Given the current economic situation, the government should increase taxes, however this should be done in a fair way. The government should invest in more energy efficient buildings and infrastructure so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The Government should increase taxes to reduce the deficit. The tax increase should be small and spread across different income brackets. A system should be put in place where tax payers get to choose where they want their money to go towards. Tax payers money should not be wasted and should be invested in schools, hospitals and public transport. It would also be a good idea to invest in more energy efficient buildings, so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Given the current economic situation, the government should increase taxes. However this should be done in a fair way. A system should be put in place where tax payers get to choose where they want their money to go towards. Tax payers money should not be wasted and should be invested in schools, hospitals and public transport. It would also be a good idea to invest in more energy efficient buildings, so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. Conclusion This was a useful exercise, particularly when you take into account that these participants were all 16 or 17 year olds from a country that does not have a culture of consensus building. Through the consensus building process, the group managed to come to a good consensus view, one that reflects all of their views in some way, and is a good compromise between all the participants views. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Given the current economic situation, the government should increase taxes, however this should be done in a fair way. A system should be put in place where tax payers get to choose where they want their money to go towards. Tax payers money should not be wasted and should be invested in schools, hospitals and public transport. It would also be a good idea to invest in more energy efficient buildings, so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. This should be offset by taxing large corporations more, so that the country is still attractive to big businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Given the current economic situation, the government should increase taxes, however this should be done in a fair way. The government should invest in more energy efficient buildings and infrastructure so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The Government should increase taxes to reduce the deficit. The tax increase should be small and spread across different income brackets. A system should be put in place where tax payers get to choose where they want their money to go towards. Tax payers money should not be wasted and should be invested in schools, hospitals and public transport. It would also be a good idea to invest in more energy efficient buildings, so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Given the current economic situation, the government should increase taxes. However this should be done in a fair way. A system should be put in place where tax payers get to choose where they want their money to go towards. Tax payers money should not be wasted and should be invested in schools, hospitals and public transport. It would also be a good idea to invest in more energy efficient buildings, so that the country can be more self sufficient and less dependent on importing energy. The increase in taxes shouldn't be too high so that the public can cope with the change. Conclusion This was a useful exercise, particularly when you take into account that these participants were all 16 or 17 year olds from a country that does not have a culture of consensus building. Through the consensus building process, the group managed to come to a good consensus view, one that reflects all of their views in some way, and is a good compromise between all the participants views. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000573.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000573.soc index d7eee480..b4072d0b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000573.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000573.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should implement free early childhood education. We all believe that education should be accessible to all and the more knowledge and experience that children have the better the future of society will be. The initial costs may be expensive but the overall effects will benefit society in the long run. There may be the argument that the current tax system is not sufficient to support this policy, however we believe that with careful use of resources this policy can be achieved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Early childhood education should be free for all children. Children should not be discriminated against based on their family’s financial situation. All children should be provided with the same opportunities and experiences, so that all children are given the same start in life. Free education will provide a sense of equality, a sense of pride and would be beneficial for everyone in society. It would be necessary to use public finances to support this model of education, this could be achieved through increased taxation or through the government re-directing funds from other sources, for example from those who do not have children. Those without children may feel that they are funding something that does not benefit them, however the long term benefits of free early childhood education will benefit society as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should implement free early childhood education. All children should have access to the same opportunities and resources to allow them to be successful in later life. In order to ensure this happens, we must use the resources we have available to us in the best possible way to support this. The initial cost may be expensive but the overall effects will benefit society in the long run. There may be the argument that the current tax system is not sufficient to support this policy, however we believe that with careful use of resources this policy can be achieved. The policy should be carefully managed so that those who don't have children do not feel penalised. Conclusion: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should implement free early childhood education. We all believe that education should be accessible to all and the more knowledge and experience that children have the better the future of society will be. There may be the argument that the current tax system is not sufficient to support this policy, however we believe that with careful use of resources this policy can be achieved. One argument against is that the tax system may not be sufficient to fund this policy and therefore alternative means may be required to achieve this policy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should implement free early childhood education. We all believe that education should be accessible to all and the more knowledge and experience that children have the better the future of society will be. The initial costs may be expensive but the overall effects will benefit society in the long run. There may be the argument that the current tax system is not sufficient to support this policy, however we believe that with careful use of resources this policy can be achieved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Early childhood education should be free for all children. Children should not be discriminated against based on their family’s financial situation. All children should be provided with the same opportunities and experiences, so that all children are given the same start in life. Free education will provide a sense of equality, a sense of pride and would be beneficial for everyone in society. It would be necessary to use public finances to support this model of education, this could be achieved through increased taxation or through the government re-directing funds from other sources, for example from those who do not have children. Those without children may feel that they are funding something that does not benefit them, however the long term benefits of free early childhood education will benefit society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should implement free early childhood education. All children should have access to the same opportunities and resources to allow them to be successful in later life. In order to ensure this happens, we must use the resources we have available to us in the best possible way to support this. The initial cost may be expensive but the overall effects will benefit society in the long run. There may be the argument that the current tax system is not sufficient to support this policy, however we believe that with careful use of resources this policy can be achieved. The policy should be carefully managed so that those who don't have children do not feel penalised. Conclusion: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should implement free early childhood education. We all believe that education should be accessible to all and the more knowledge and experience that children have the better the future of society will be. There may be the argument that the current tax system is not sufficient to support this policy, however we believe that with careful use of resources this policy can be achieved. One argument against is that the tax system may not be sufficient to fund this policy and therefore alternative means may be required to achieve this policy. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000574.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000574.soc index a7f2ba39..4e9f9680 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000574.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000574.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Animal products should not be used in beauty care. However, if they are used, they should be sourced from animals that have been killed for other reasons and not for beauty products. The animal products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of animal products in beauty care should be avoided. Where animal products are used they should be derived from an animal killed for another purpose (i.e. not just for beauty products) and the products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of animal products in beauty care should be avoided. Where animal products are used they should be derived from an animal killed for another purpose (i.e. not just for beauty products) and the products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. Summary: 1. Deliberative democracy has been used successfully in the development of new policy on complex ethical questions 2. People can have their voice heard in important debates through the process of deliberative democracy 3. Deliberative democracy enables the public to be represented and included in policy debates -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of animal products in beauty care should be avoided. Where animal products are used they should be derived from an animal killed for another purpose (i.e. not just for beauty products) and the products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Animal products should not be used in beauty care. However, if they are used, they should be sourced from animals that have been killed for other reasons and not for beauty products. The animal products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of animal products in beauty care should be avoided. Where animal products are used they should be derived from an animal killed for another purpose (i.e. not just for beauty products) and the products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of animal products in beauty care should be avoided. Where animal products are used they should be derived from an animal killed for another purpose (i.e. not just for beauty products) and the products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. Summary: 1. Deliberative democracy has been used successfully in the development of new policy on complex ethical questions 2. People can have their voice heard in important debates through the process of deliberative democracy 3. Deliberative democracy enables the public to be represented and included in policy debates +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of animal products in beauty care should be avoided. Where animal products are used they should be derived from an animal killed for another purpose (i.e. not just for beauty products) and the products should be made under tightly regulated conditions to ensure the best welfare of the animals. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000575.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000575.soc index 08827637..98fb9bbc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000575.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000575.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the government should not give out cash payments to all residents. We believe that by giving out cash payments the government is rewarding residents for doing nothing. The government should rather provide support for people who are actually trying to do something to improve their own lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus: The group felt that giving cash payments to residents would be a good idea if the money is being distributed to help out with the cost of living. However, it would not be a good idea if the money is given to residents to help bail out a big company that has made a big mistake. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group came to the consensus opinion that if it was decided that the government should give out cash payments to residents, that this should only be done as a one-off and should be equal to all. The participants also decided that it would be a good idea if residents were able to use the money for necessities such as food and clothing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should not give out cash payments to all residents but in special situations where the need to support residents is overwhelming, such as during a crisis, the government should provide cash payments to residents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should not give out cash payments to all residents. We believe that by giving out cash payments the government is rewarding residents for doing nothing. The government should rather provide support for people who are actually trying to do something to improve their own lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus: The group felt that giving cash payments to residents would be a good idea if the money is being distributed to help out with the cost of living. However, it would not be a good idea if the money is given to residents to help bail out a big company that has made a big mistake. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group came to the consensus opinion that if it was decided that the government should give out cash payments to residents, that this should only be done as a one-off and should be equal to all. The participants also decided that it would be a good idea if residents were able to use the money for necessities such as food and clothing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should not give out cash payments to all residents but in special situations where the need to support residents is overwhelming, such as during a crisis, the government should provide cash payments to residents. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000576.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000576.soc index 5e013d36..77d256a4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000576.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000576.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, they should not make it harder to sue companies over product liability because too often the average consumer is left hard done by due to extremely high legal costs and is unable to claim back over inadequate products that have had an impact on their quality of life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a set system in place for all companies of all sizes to adhere to, and that it is currently difficult to sue companies over product liability due to the excessive amount of legal fees that consumers are required to pay, which may cause the company to remain unpunished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the average consumer is left hard done by due to extremely high legal costs and is unable to claim back over inadequate products that have had an impact on their quality of life. The opinion was clearly that of participant 3. How did this happen? And is this what is intended? The issue is not so much the manipulation of the algorithm, but the inevitable complexities of word-smithing opinions to reduce them to single phrases. What happens when two participants are against an issue, one is unsure, and one is for it? This can be an issue in the use of Likert scales too. It is often possible to ask an opinion of a participant with greater detail to better understand what they are thinking. For example, we might ask them to rank the issues in order of priority, or we might ask them to rank a list of solutions in order of effectiveness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The current process is quite arduous and we believe that this can be simplified to allow for more claims to be made against companies and for more consumers to be able to have a higher quality of life. It would also increase transparency between consumers and producers and lead to greater understanding between the two parties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, they should not make it harder to sue companies over product liability because too often the average consumer is left hard done by due to extremely high legal costs and is unable to claim back over inadequate products that have had an impact on their quality of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a set system in place for all companies of all sizes to adhere to, and that it is currently difficult to sue companies over product liability due to the excessive amount of legal fees that consumers are required to pay, which may cause the company to remain unpunished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the average consumer is left hard done by due to extremely high legal costs and is unable to claim back over inadequate products that have had an impact on their quality of life. The opinion was clearly that of participant 3. How did this happen? And is this what is intended? The issue is not so much the manipulation of the algorithm, but the inevitable complexities of word-smithing opinions to reduce them to single phrases. What happens when two participants are against an issue, one is unsure, and one is for it? This can be an issue in the use of Likert scales too. It is often possible to ask an opinion of a participant with greater detail to better understand what they are thinking. For example, we might ask them to rank the issues in order of priority, or we might ask them to rank a list of solutions in order of effectiveness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The current process is quite arduous and we believe that this can be simplified to allow for more claims to be made against companies and for more consumers to be able to have a higher quality of life. It would also increase transparency between consumers and producers and lead to greater understanding between the two parties. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000577.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000577.soc index 210b3241..d7287ac5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000577.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000577.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A strong defence force is important for any country, not just the UK. It is important to keep a strong defence force as it will be able to protect us from external threats, even if we try to avoid conflicts, there are always people who will try to cause problems. We need to be prepared to deal with such threats. Although some may think that the defence budget should be reduced in order to spend more money on other areas of the economy, it is vital to spend money on the defence budget in order to keep our country and people safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although a strong defence force is important, there are other areas in the UK that require more attention at present. There needs to be more money and infrastructure put in place to save our failing healthcare system for example, and this should be the priority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of maintaining a strong defence force in the UK. Most people believed that this is necessary to protect our interests abroad, especially in places where the UK has a presence such as Afghanistan, and to protect us from terrorism. There were some participants that felt that this is a large expense for the government to pay, especially when there are other problems such as the health care system that needs more investment. However, it was generally agreed that defence is an important priority. A secondary opinion discussed was that it was important to maintain a strong defence force because it was important to maintain the UK's status in the world. As a world leader, it is important to maintain a strong defence force to send a message that the UK should not be underestimated. A third opinion discussed was that defence is important to prevent invasion and anarchy from terrorist groups. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the UK does not need to spend more money on its defense force but that it is important to maintain the current funding that is spent on the force to ensure that our forces are trained well enough to be able to act in times of need. The UK's involvement in Ukraine has shown that the training received by our troops is of a high standard. It is important to be seen to be well equipped, so that we do not become a target. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A strong defence force is important for any country, not just the UK. It is important to keep a strong defence force as it will be able to protect us from external threats, even if we try to avoid conflicts, there are always people who will try to cause problems. We need to be prepared to deal with such threats. Although some may think that the defence budget should be reduced in order to spend more money on other areas of the economy, it is vital to spend money on the defence budget in order to keep our country and people safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although a strong defence force is important, there are other areas in the UK that require more attention at present. There needs to be more money and infrastructure put in place to save our failing healthcare system for example, and this should be the priority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of maintaining a strong defence force in the UK. Most people believed that this is necessary to protect our interests abroad, especially in places where the UK has a presence such as Afghanistan, and to protect us from terrorism. There were some participants that felt that this is a large expense for the government to pay, especially when there are other problems such as the health care system that needs more investment. However, it was generally agreed that defence is an important priority. A secondary opinion discussed was that it was important to maintain a strong defence force because it was important to maintain the UK's status in the world. As a world leader, it is important to maintain a strong defence force to send a message that the UK should not be underestimated. A third opinion discussed was that defence is important to prevent invasion and anarchy from terrorist groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK does not need to spend more money on its defense force but that it is important to maintain the current funding that is spent on the force to ensure that our forces are trained well enough to be able to act in times of need. The UK's involvement in Ukraine has shown that the training received by our troops is of a high standard. It is important to be seen to be well equipped, so that we do not become a target. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000578.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000578.soc index 9bb6f801..04d5fb36 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000578.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000578.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be signs in libraries indicating that cellphone use is not permitted, except where it is used for a legitimate purpose that cannot be done on a computer or is an essential part of the individual's work, and provided that it is used quietly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that cellphone use is distracting to those wishing to read, study, or research in the library. We are recommending that signs be put up indicating that cellphone use is not permitted in the library, with an exemption made for individuals who may need to use their cellphones in emergencies or if it is an essential requirement of their work. This exemption is intended to allow the silent use of cellphones. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Libraries are places to read, study and research. The use of cellphones is distracting and as such is not permitted in libraries unless it is an emergency or the phone is being used in a silent mode to carry out work tasks that require a computer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Signs will be put up in the library to indicate that cellphone use is not permitted in the library, with an exemption made for individuals who may need to use their cellphones in emergencies or if it is an essential requirement of their work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be signs in libraries indicating that cellphone use is not permitted, except where it is used for a legitimate purpose that cannot be done on a computer or is an essential part of the individual's work, and provided that it is used quietly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that cellphone use is distracting to those wishing to read, study, or research in the library. We are recommending that signs be put up indicating that cellphone use is not permitted in the library, with an exemption made for individuals who may need to use their cellphones in emergencies or if it is an essential requirement of their work. This exemption is intended to allow the silent use of cellphones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Libraries are places to read, study and research. The use of cellphones is distracting and as such is not permitted in libraries unless it is an emergency or the phone is being used in a silent mode to carry out work tasks that require a computer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Signs will be put up in the library to indicate that cellphone use is not permitted in the library, with an exemption made for individuals who may need to use their cellphones in emergencies or if it is an essential requirement of their work. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000579.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000579.soc index 29865014..252d6f1e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000579.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000579.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. The state should not have to step in and impose further controls and regulations just because a small minority of people are unable to control themselves. The critiques show that people are listening to each other and modifying their view as a result. It shows a way to get past the polarised shouting and arguing to a shared consensus view. This is the beginning of the win-win mindset. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. In the vast majority of cases it is not alcohol that is the problem, but rather the person consuming the alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to control how much alcohol their children consume and if parents are unable to do this, then the state should not have to. Alcohol should not be made more expensive for everyone, just because a small minority of people are unable to control themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not think we should have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. It is not the drink that is the problem, but rather the person consuming the alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to control how much alcohol their children consume. Raising the price of alcohol will make it more difficult for those who are already responsible, and will not solve the problem for those who are not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. In the vast majority of cases it is not alcohol that is the problem, but rather the person consuming the alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to control how much alcohol their children consume and if parents are unable to do this, then the state should not have to. Alcohol should not be made more expensive for everyone, just because a small minority of people are unable to control themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. The state should not have to step in and impose further controls and regulations just because a small minority of people are unable to control themselves. The critiques show that people are listening to each other and modifying their view as a result. It shows a way to get past the polarised shouting and arguing to a shared consensus view. This is the beginning of the win-win mindset. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. In the vast majority of cases it is not alcohol that is the problem, but rather the person consuming the alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to control how much alcohol their children consume and if parents are unable to do this, then the state should not have to. Alcohol should not be made more expensive for everyone, just because a small minority of people are unable to control themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not think we should have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. It is not the drink that is the problem, but rather the person consuming the alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to control how much alcohol their children consume. Raising the price of alcohol will make it more difficult for those who are already responsible, and will not solve the problem for those who are not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not have a minimum unit price for alcohol. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. In the vast majority of cases it is not alcohol that is the problem, but rather the person consuming the alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to control how much alcohol their children consume and if parents are unable to do this, then the state should not have to. Alcohol should not be made more expensive for everyone, just because a small minority of people are unable to control themselves. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000580.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000580.soc index 40067813..d300f76a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000580.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000580.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a very low chance that there will ever be a cure for the common cold, although medical breakthroughs cannot be ruled out. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, colds are not deadly and do not cause a great deal of damage to the body so money would be better spent on developing cures for other diseases that can be harmful to the body and potentially fatal. However, if scientists and researchers had the resources and time to spend on developing a cure for the common cold, I think it would be possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion it is the opinion of the majority of the group that there will eventually be a cure for the common cold. However the group are of the opinion that other more serious diseases should be prioritised ahead of a cure for the common cold as they have the potential to cause more harm and are more important to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is the possibility of a cure for the common cold being developed, but the cold will probably be the least prioritised of medical issues as it is generally harmless. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a very low chance that there will ever be a cure for the common cold, although medical breakthroughs cannot be ruled out. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, colds are not deadly and do not cause a great deal of damage to the body so money would be better spent on developing cures for other diseases that can be harmful to the body and potentially fatal. However, if scientists and researchers had the resources and time to spend on developing a cure for the common cold, I think it would be possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion it is the opinion of the majority of the group that there will eventually be a cure for the common cold. However the group are of the opinion that other more serious diseases should be prioritised ahead of a cure for the common cold as they have the potential to cause more harm and are more important to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is the possibility of a cure for the common cold being developed, but the cold will probably be the least prioritised of medical issues as it is generally harmless. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000581.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000581.soc index 9468c266..3475c045 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000581.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000581.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it would be more confusing to people, and there would be little to gain, as the EU are struggling with their own currency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the pound has been the most devalued currency in Europe, and the UK is very much dependent on trade with the European Union. Therefore, it is only logical to replace the pound with the euro. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should keep the pound for now, as it is well established and replacing it with the euro would be very costly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not a good idea to replace the pound with the Euro. This is because we don't know if it will become more expensive and some people will find it difficult to get their head around it. Some people also believe that it will bring the British economy down and some people may feel that it's not our decision anymore. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it would be more confusing to people, and there would be little to gain, as the EU are struggling with their own currency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the pound has been the most devalued currency in Europe, and the UK is very much dependent on trade with the European Union. Therefore, it is only logical to replace the pound with the euro. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should keep the pound for now, as it is well established and replacing it with the euro would be very costly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not a good idea to replace the pound with the Euro. This is because we don't know if it will become more expensive and some people will find it difficult to get their head around it. Some people also believe that it will bring the British economy down and some people may feel that it's not our decision anymore. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000582.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000582.soc index 64c42667..b20d3743 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000582.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000582.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of universal basic income. The group felt that everyone in society should have a basic income to be able to live comfortably. In order to determine the basic income, the group felt that the government should ask the public what they think a basic income should be. The group also felt that the government should ask how much income is needed to be able to live comfortably. In addition, the group believed that the basic income should be flexible. For example, it should be adjusted based on the cost of living. This would mean that it is in line with inflation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A universal basic income is needed to lift people out of poverty. It would also encourage people who want to learn and get better jobs. It would also be a good incentive for people to try and better themselves. A lot of people have been unemployed for a long time and it would be a good incentive for them to try and get a job. However, it is important to understand that having a universal basic income is not going to be the magic answer to all problems and it is going to need to be worked on over time to ensure that it is giving people a quality of life and not just being able to pay the rent. I would be concerned that the government could take the easy option and put the basic income too low but with the right political party, a basic income should be achievable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should have a Universal Basic Income. It should not be means tested. This will reduce poverty, and help alleviate the effects of inequality and rising costs of living. The basic income will also allow people to change jobs without being financially penalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a universal basic income in the UK. This would be beneficial for everyone. The people who are the poorest and most in need would find it easier to cope financially and more people would be able to afford to go to university, to have their own homes, to afford food and to be able to make ends meet. This would be a great help to our society and the people within it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of universal basic income. The group felt that everyone in society should have a basic income to be able to live comfortably. In order to determine the basic income, the group felt that the government should ask the public what they think a basic income should be. The group also felt that the government should ask how much income is needed to be able to live comfortably. In addition, the group believed that the basic income should be flexible. For example, it should be adjusted based on the cost of living. This would mean that it is in line with inflation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A universal basic income is needed to lift people out of poverty. It would also encourage people who want to learn and get better jobs. It would also be a good incentive for people to try and better themselves. A lot of people have been unemployed for a long time and it would be a good incentive for them to try and get a job. However, it is important to understand that having a universal basic income is not going to be the magic answer to all problems and it is going to need to be worked on over time to ensure that it is giving people a quality of life and not just being able to pay the rent. I would be concerned that the government could take the easy option and put the basic income too low but with the right political party, a basic income should be achievable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should have a Universal Basic Income. It should not be means tested. This will reduce poverty, and help alleviate the effects of inequality and rising costs of living. The basic income will also allow people to change jobs without being financially penalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a universal basic income in the UK. This would be beneficial for everyone. The people who are the poorest and most in need would find it easier to cope financially and more people would be able to afford to go to university, to have their own homes, to afford food and to be able to make ends meet. This would be a great help to our society and the people within it. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000583.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000583.soc index f5354bca..cb61c2b5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000583.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000583.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is the nations largest single employer, and in many ways is a cornerstone of the British way of life. It should be a fundamental right that everyone is able to access health care when needed. The problem is, the current system is not working, and is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, and some deep thinking is needed. This is not to say the NHS should be privatised, but there needs to be serious reform. This reform must include, more resources and funding, more investment into training and retaining staff, reducing the reliance on private contractors, and removing red tape. In addition, funding needs to be ring fenced and protected, and the way that health care is funded needs to be addressed. This could include, for example, an increased contribution from National Insurance.“ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The NHS is the nations largest single employer, and in many ways is a cornerstone of the British way of life. It should be a fundamental right that everyone is able to access health care when needed. The problem is, the current system is not working, and is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, and some deep thinking is needed. This is not to say the NHS should be privatised, but there needs to be serious reform. This reform must include, more resources and funding, more investment into training and retaining staff, reducing the reliance on private contractors, and removing red tape. If we can make these changes, we can ensure that the NHS remains a stable, sustainable, and most importantly, quality, institution for the foreseeable future.“ A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is the nations largest single employer, and in many ways is a cornerstone of the British way of life. It should be a fundamental right that everyone is able to access health care when needed. The problem is, the current system is not working, and is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, and some deep thinking is needed. This is not to say the NHS should be privatised, but there needs to be serious reform. This reform must include, more resources and funding, more investment into training and retaining staff, reducing the reliance on private contractors, and reducing the amount of red tape.“ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The NHS is the nations largest single employer, and in many ways is a cornerstone of the British way of life. It should be a fundamental right that everyone is able to access health care when needed. The problem is, the current system is not working, and is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, and some deep thinking is needed. This is not to say the NHS should be privatised, but there needs to be serious reform. This reform must include, more resources and funding, more investment into training and retaining staff, reducing the reliance on private contractors, and improving the accessibility of health care to all citizens.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is the nations largest single employer, and in many ways is a cornerstone of the British way of life. It should be a fundamental right that everyone is able to access health care when needed. The problem is, the current system is not working, and is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, and some deep thinking is needed. This is not to say the NHS should be privatised, but there needs to be serious reform. This reform must include, more resources and funding, more investment into training and retaining staff, reducing the reliance on private contractors, and removing red tape. In addition, funding needs to be ring fenced and protected, and the way that health care is funded needs to be addressed. This could include, for example, an increased contribution from National Insurance.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The NHS is the nations largest single employer, and in many ways is a cornerstone of the British way of life. It should be a fundamental right that everyone is able to access health care when needed. The problem is, the current system is not working, and is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, and some deep thinking is needed. This is not to say the NHS should be privatised, but there needs to be serious reform. This reform must include, more resources and funding, more investment into training and retaining staff, reducing the reliance on private contractors, and removing red tape. If we can make these changes, we can ensure that the NHS remains a stable, sustainable, and most importantly, quality, institution for the foreseeable future.“ A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is the nations largest single employer, and in many ways is a cornerstone of the British way of life. It should be a fundamental right that everyone is able to access health care when needed. The problem is, the current system is not working, and is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, and some deep thinking is needed. This is not to say the NHS should be privatised, but there needs to be serious reform. This reform must include, more resources and funding, more investment into training and retaining staff, reducing the reliance on private contractors, and reducing the amount of red tape.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The NHS is the nations largest single employer, and in many ways is a cornerstone of the British way of life. It should be a fundamental right that everyone is able to access health care when needed. The problem is, the current system is not working, and is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, and some deep thinking is needed. This is not to say the NHS should be privatised, but there needs to be serious reform. This reform must include, more resources and funding, more investment into training and retaining staff, reducing the reliance on private contractors, and improving the accessibility of health care to all citizens.“ 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000584.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000584.soc index 243ec7e2..bb6c8080 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000584.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000584.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not restrict the amount of money people can earn. This is because, if a person works hard they should be rewarded financially. This will motivate others to work hard to increase their own wealth. In addition, putting restrictions on the amount of money people can earn is an infringement on freedom and may result in inequality as some will be able to earn more than others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not limit the amount of money that people can earn, and that there are other ways in which to reduce inequality in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to placing restrictions on the amount of money people can earn in order to reduce inequality. This is because people should be allowed to get as much as they can for their skills and hard work. Those who have the ability to earn more than others should not be restricted. If we restrict someone who is earning more than others, it would create problems such as people migrating to another country where they can earn more and a lack of interest in working hard and achieving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not be restricted on the amount they earn. No one should have the right to tell people how much they should earn. If they work hard and show dedication they should be able to earn as much as they can. Putting a cap on the amount people can earn will only increase a sense of inequality and would be unfair on those who want to work hard and get what they deserve. To sum up, no cap should be put on the amount people can earn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not restrict the amount of money people can earn. This is because, if a person works hard they should be rewarded financially. This will motivate others to work hard to increase their own wealth. In addition, putting restrictions on the amount of money people can earn is an infringement on freedom and may result in inequality as some will be able to earn more than others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not limit the amount of money that people can earn, and that there are other ways in which to reduce inequality in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to placing restrictions on the amount of money people can earn in order to reduce inequality. This is because people should be allowed to get as much as they can for their skills and hard work. Those who have the ability to earn more than others should not be restricted. If we restrict someone who is earning more than others, it would create problems such as people migrating to another country where they can earn more and a lack of interest in working hard and achieving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not be restricted on the amount they earn. No one should have the right to tell people how much they should earn. If they work hard and show dedication they should be able to earn as much as they can. Putting a cap on the amount people can earn will only increase a sense of inequality and would be unfair on those who want to work hard and get what they deserve. To sum up, no cap should be put on the amount people can earn. 2: 3,4,1,2 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000585.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000585.soc index 34bd9aa0..514abf53 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000585.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000585.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a very low chance that there will ever be a cure for the common cold. Scientists will always try to find cures for all diseases but because of the fact that the common cold is not a very serious illness it will likely not be a priority for scientists and thus a cure for the common cold will probably never be found. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The common cold is not a dangerous disease and therefore money spent on research into it would be better spent on other diseases. However, if researchers were to be given the time and resources, there is a possibility that a cure for the common cold would be found. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are more harmful diseases than the common cold and we should not be focusing our research money on developing a cure for the common cold. However, it is possible that one day we will develop a cure for the common cold. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Money would be better spent on developing cures for more serious diseases. However, with enough resources, it is likely that one day there will be a cure for the common cold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a very low chance that there will ever be a cure for the common cold. Scientists will always try to find cures for all diseases but because of the fact that the common cold is not a very serious illness it will likely not be a priority for scientists and thus a cure for the common cold will probably never be found. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The common cold is not a dangerous disease and therefore money spent on research into it would be better spent on other diseases. However, if researchers were to be given the time and resources, there is a possibility that a cure for the common cold would be found. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are more harmful diseases than the common cold and we should not be focusing our research money on developing a cure for the common cold. However, it is possible that one day we will develop a cure for the common cold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Money would be better spent on developing cures for more serious diseases. However, with enough resources, it is likely that one day there will be a cure for the common cold. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000586.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000586.soc index 98d09294..aa124659 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000586.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000586.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, parents should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Parents should be fully supported by the Government and their community and there needs to be legal process to ensure that everything is done properly and above board. A judge should be part of this legal process and the judge should only approve such cases after a thorough process. Participant 6 Do you think that Parents should be allowed to give away babies without the approval of a judge? I don't think parents should be allowed to give away babies without a judge. I believe that a child is not property, but a person. They have rights, and these rights include the right to live with parents who can provide adequate care for them. A judge has the best information available in terms of the parents' situation and the welfare of the child. Only with this information should a decision be made. If there is not a judge making this decision, parents can just make a decision that they don't like being a parent, and that the child is just property to be disposed of, rather than an actual person. This is an abuse of power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't believe that it should be left to the parents alone to decide on giving up their baby. A judge would be more impartial and make the decision based on the law. We don't believe it is appropriate to allow parents to do this on their own. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Parent(s) should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Checks must be done on the people who want to adopt the children to make sure they are safe. If the child is born outside of marriage and one of the parents does not want to keep the baby, the judge must make a decision. Parents should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of parents being able to give babies away without the approval of a judge. This would be allowed only if it was in the best interest of the child and the child was placed in the care of a trained professional or support worker who is in the best position to judge whether it is in the child's best interest. If, however, there was disagreement between the parents, the judge's approval would be required. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, parents should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Parents should be fully supported by the Government and their community and there needs to be legal process to ensure that everything is done properly and above board. A judge should be part of this legal process and the judge should only approve such cases after a thorough process. Participant 6 Do you think that Parents should be allowed to give away babies without the approval of a judge? I don't think parents should be allowed to give away babies without a judge. I believe that a child is not property, but a person. They have rights, and these rights include the right to live with parents who can provide adequate care for them. A judge has the best information available in terms of the parents' situation and the welfare of the child. Only with this information should a decision be made. If there is not a judge making this decision, parents can just make a decision that they don't like being a parent, and that the child is just property to be disposed of, rather than an actual person. This is an abuse of power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't believe that it should be left to the parents alone to decide on giving up their baby. A judge would be more impartial and make the decision based on the law. We don't believe it is appropriate to allow parents to do this on their own. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Parent(s) should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Checks must be done on the people who want to adopt the children to make sure they are safe. If the child is born outside of marriage and one of the parents does not want to keep the baby, the judge must make a decision. Parents should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of parents being able to give babies away without the approval of a judge. This would be allowed only if it was in the best interest of the child and the child was placed in the care of a trained professional or support worker who is in the best position to judge whether it is in the child's best interest. If, however, there was disagreement between the parents, the judge's approval would be required. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000587.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000587.soc index 52b4dad7..356275df 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000587.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000587.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The world is a shared resource, and it is everyone's responsibility to ensure it is not harmed by their own actions. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own impact on the environment. Everyone needs to make an effort to minimise their negative impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People need to live in a way that does not harm the environment, however we need to help educate people on how their actions affect the environment and how they can make changes to protect the environment. After reading the opinions above, what would your opinion be? a) Are the opinions of the individual participants clear and concise? b) Does the consensus statement capture the essence of the debate? c) Would you have been happy to agree with this consensus statement? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not ethical to live in a way that deliberately harms the environment. However, it is not always easy to see how regular and irregular activities cause harm. It's also difficult to calculate whether changes in behavior are always beneficial or causing some other harm we are not aware of. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is not ethical for a person to live in a way that harms the environment. The fact that many people are still living unethically towards the environment suggests there is a lack of awareness of the importance of the environment and the consequences of people's actions. It is therefore vital to improve awareness. It is also important to encourage and reward those people who do act in a more ethical manner towards the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The world is a shared resource, and it is everyone's responsibility to ensure it is not harmed by their own actions. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own impact on the environment. Everyone needs to make an effort to minimise their negative impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People need to live in a way that does not harm the environment, however we need to help educate people on how their actions affect the environment and how they can make changes to protect the environment. After reading the opinions above, what would your opinion be? a) Are the opinions of the individual participants clear and concise? b) Does the consensus statement capture the essence of the debate? c) Would you have been happy to agree with this consensus statement? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not ethical to live in a way that deliberately harms the environment. However, it is not always easy to see how regular and irregular activities cause harm. It's also difficult to calculate whether changes in behavior are always beneficial or causing some other harm we are not aware of. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is not ethical for a person to live in a way that harms the environment. The fact that many people are still living unethically towards the environment suggests there is a lack of awareness of the importance of the environment and the consequences of people's actions. It is therefore vital to improve awareness. It is also important to encourage and reward those people who do act in a more ethical manner towards the environment. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000588.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000588.soc index 68e1d09f..28a463e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000588.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000588.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of teaching children to play a musical instrument is positive. There should be a flexible approach, taking into account individual differences and willingness of the children. Each child should have the opportunity to learn and play at least one instrument. Schools should have the necessary instruments, equipment, and tools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should have the opportunity to learn and play at least one instrument. If they enjoy doing so, they should be allowed to continue. Music is an enjoyable activity that has many benefits for the individual. The government should allocate more money for music education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be given the opportunity to play an instrument. Music education should be of a high quality. Learning to play an instrument should be optional. Those children that are good at playing instruments should be given the opportunity to develop their talent. There should be a flexible approach to teaching music, taking into account individual differences and willingness of the children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Teaching children to play a musical instrument is a positive activity. All children should have the opportunity to try playing at least one instrument. The quality of music education should be improved and the government should allocate more money for it. There is a need for further research on the benefits of learning to play a musical instrument. (c) The above approach can be used for tackling most any topic of social interest, but to illustrate its value for teaching young children, it will be used to address the topic of interracial relationships. This topic has been chosen since it is timely, topical, and likely to be of interest to a wide range of individuals, both adults and children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of teaching children to play a musical instrument is positive. There should be a flexible approach, taking into account individual differences and willingness of the children. Each child should have the opportunity to learn and play at least one instrument. Schools should have the necessary instruments, equipment, and tools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should have the opportunity to learn and play at least one instrument. If they enjoy doing so, they should be allowed to continue. Music is an enjoyable activity that has many benefits for the individual. The government should allocate more money for music education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be given the opportunity to play an instrument. Music education should be of a high quality. Learning to play an instrument should be optional. Those children that are good at playing instruments should be given the opportunity to develop their talent. There should be a flexible approach to teaching music, taking into account individual differences and willingness of the children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Teaching children to play a musical instrument is a positive activity. All children should have the opportunity to try playing at least one instrument. The quality of music education should be improved and the government should allocate more money for it. There is a need for further research on the benefits of learning to play a musical instrument. (c) The above approach can be used for tackling most any topic of social interest, but to illustrate its value for teaching young children, it will be used to address the topic of interracial relationships. This topic has been chosen since it is timely, topical, and likely to be of interest to a wide range of individuals, both adults and children. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000589.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000589.soc index fb355f99..207d8d41 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000589.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000589.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Everyone needs to be responsible for their own impact on the environment. The world is a shared resource, and it is everyone's responsibility to ensure it is not harmed by their own actions. Everyone needs to make an effort to minimise their negative impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The world is a shared resource, and it is everyone's responsibility to ensure it is not harmed by their own actions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a shared responsibility for ensuring that the environment is not harmed by individual actions. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own impact on the environment. Education on the impact of individual actions is essential, so that people are able to make informed decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a growing awareness of the impact we as humans have on the environment. Some changes in lifestyle can reduce this impact, and should be made. However, all people need to realise that there are limits to what individuals can do, and some of the bigger changes need to come from government policy and business operations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Everyone needs to be responsible for their own impact on the environment. The world is a shared resource, and it is everyone's responsibility to ensure it is not harmed by their own actions. Everyone needs to make an effort to minimise their negative impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The world is a shared resource, and it is everyone's responsibility to ensure it is not harmed by their own actions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a shared responsibility for ensuring that the environment is not harmed by individual actions. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own impact on the environment. Education on the impact of individual actions is essential, so that people are able to make informed decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a growing awareness of the impact we as humans have on the environment. Some changes in lifestyle can reduce this impact, and should be made. However, all people need to realise that there are limits to what individuals can do, and some of the bigger changes need to come from government policy and business operations. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000590.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000590.soc index 1e19f8b7..4b25322e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000590.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000590.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Parent(s) should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Checks must be done on the people who want to adopt the children to make sure they are safe. If the child is born outside of marriage and one of the parents does not want to keep the baby, the judge must make a decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Parents should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Checks must be done on the people who want to adopt the children to make sure they are safe. If the child is born outside of marriage and one of the parents does not want to keep the baby, the judge must make a decision. The final consensus statement was arrived at by looking at the pros and cons of each participant's opinions, and by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the draft consensus statement. It is the group's hope that this consensus view will be useful to inform the policy makers on this important issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Parent(s) should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Checks must be done on the people who want to adopt the children to make sure they are safe. If the child is born outside of marriage and one of the parents does not want to keep the baby, the judge must make a decision. The above is a good example of how by carefully debating the opinion of each participant, a group of participants is able to come to a consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Parents should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. This will ensure that the child is being placed in the right family who are able to care for them, so that the child can grow up in a safe environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Parent(s) should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Checks must be done on the people who want to adopt the children to make sure they are safe. If the child is born outside of marriage and one of the parents does not want to keep the baby, the judge must make a decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Parents should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Checks must be done on the people who want to adopt the children to make sure they are safe. If the child is born outside of marriage and one of the parents does not want to keep the baby, the judge must make a decision. The final consensus statement was arrived at by looking at the pros and cons of each participant's opinions, and by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the draft consensus statement. It is the group's hope that this consensus view will be useful to inform the policy makers on this important issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Parent(s) should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. Checks must be done on the people who want to adopt the children to make sure they are safe. If the child is born outside of marriage and one of the parents does not want to keep the baby, the judge must make a decision. The above is a good example of how by carefully debating the opinion of each participant, a group of participants is able to come to a consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Parents should not be allowed to give away their babies without the approval of a judge. This will ensure that the child is being placed in the right family who are able to care for them, so that the child can grow up in a safe environment. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000591.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000591.soc index 3b4f5399..aabf4632 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000591.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000591.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Voting should not be compulsory. Everybody has the right to abstain from voting and do not need to provide a reason. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to compulsory voting. Some of the arguments included the view that if a society is democratic then voting should be voluntary. In addition, some felt that some people abstain because they do not feel that their vote matters or they are apathetic. Others felt that it should be a free choice. Some felt that a democracy should include the choice of not voting. One participant felt that it would make the election process more representative and that people would be more likely to engage in politics. This might also mean that people are more likely to make their voice heard through the proper channels, such as political parties, instead of other means such as protest. However, the majority of participants did not feel that compulsory voting was the way forward and that a free choice was important in a democracy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although voting should be a democratic right and choice, it should be compulsory to vote to allow for more people to voice their opinion. This was a difficult topic for me to answer, so I was quite relieved when the group decided on a consensus view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Voting should not be compulsory. Although it is true that many people do not vote, it should be their democratic right to choose not to. There should be no punishment for not voting. Therefore, voting should not be compulsory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Voting should not be compulsory. Everybody has the right to abstain from voting and do not need to provide a reason. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to compulsory voting. Some of the arguments included the view that if a society is democratic then voting should be voluntary. In addition, some felt that some people abstain because they do not feel that their vote matters or they are apathetic. Others felt that it should be a free choice. Some felt that a democracy should include the choice of not voting. One participant felt that it would make the election process more representative and that people would be more likely to engage in politics. This might also mean that people are more likely to make their voice heard through the proper channels, such as political parties, instead of other means such as protest. However, the majority of participants did not feel that compulsory voting was the way forward and that a free choice was important in a democracy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although voting should be a democratic right and choice, it should be compulsory to vote to allow for more people to voice their opinion. This was a difficult topic for me to answer, so I was quite relieved when the group decided on a consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Voting should not be compulsory. Although it is true that many people do not vote, it should be their democratic right to choose not to. There should be no punishment for not voting. Therefore, voting should not be compulsory. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000592.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000592.soc index 195c0a3b..1f8415f2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000592.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000592.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Renationalising the electricity network is a good idea. The private companies are making huge profits from the public. The Government can manage it in a better way by providing relief to the public in general. The renationalise will help the public to get cheaper electricity compared to the private companies whose only motive is to make profits out of the public money. In this way we can break the cartel made by those greedy private owners.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Renationalising the electricity network is a good idea. The private companies are making huge profits from the public. The Government can manage it in a better way by providing relief to the public in general. The renationalise will help the public to get cheaper electricity compared to the private companies whose only motive is to make profits out of the public money. In this way we can break the cartel made by those greedy private owners.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000593.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000593.soc index 861867c1..5fd63a5c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000593.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000593.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think that people should be encouraged to buy a home in London because the pricing of renting is extortionate and the availability of rented accommodation is getting smaller. The problem is the level of housing available for buyers. Also the large deposit can be difficult to save for if you are paying a high rent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think that people should be encouraged to buy a home in London because the pricing of renting is extortionate and the availability of rented accommodation is getting smaller. The problem is the level of housing available for buyers. Also the large deposit can be difficult to save for if you are paying a high rent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, people should not be encouraged to buy a home in London. This is because of the high prices of property and the fact that renting is very expensive in London as well. Therefore, it is better to buy in the country or in the suburbs of London where the prices are lower. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think that people should be encouraged to buy a home in London because the pricing of renting is extortionate and the availability of rented accommodation is getting smaller. The problem is the level of housing available for buyers. Also the large deposit can be difficult to save for if you are paying a high rent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think that people should be encouraged to buy a home in London because the pricing of renting is extortionate and the availability of rented accommodation is getting smaller. The problem is the level of housing available for buyers. Also the large deposit can be difficult to save for if you are paying a high rent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think that people should be encouraged to buy a home in London because the pricing of renting is extortionate and the availability of rented accommodation is getting smaller. The problem is the level of housing available for buyers. Also the large deposit can be difficult to save for if you are paying a high rent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, people should not be encouraged to buy a home in London. This is because of the high prices of property and the fact that renting is very expensive in London as well. Therefore, it is better to buy in the country or in the suburbs of London where the prices are lower. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think that people should be encouraged to buy a home in London because the pricing of renting is extortionate and the availability of rented accommodation is getting smaller. The problem is the level of housing available for buyers. Also the large deposit can be difficult to save for if you are paying a high rent. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000594.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000594.soc index f88752bf..b4e2484c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000594.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000594.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of renationalising the electricity network. The general feeling was that it would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and help to tackle the fuel crisis. There was some opposition to the idea, citing the potential for inefficiency in government and the additional cost of more civil servants. However, the group in general thought that the government would be able to manage the sector better than private companies, who are only interested in profit. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000595.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000595.soc index cfd03b15..9e3344e2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000595.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000595.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, it should not be compulsory to vote. However, in some circumstances, such as where a country is in the process of transitioning to democracy, or where a country has a very low turnout in elections, then compulsory voting may be an appropriate measure. However, compulsory voting should be used only as a temporary measure. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it should not be compulsory to vote. However, in some circumstances, such as where a country is in the process of transitioning to democracy, or where a country has a very low turnout in elections, then compulsory voting may be an appropriate measure. However, compulsory voting should be used only as a temporary measure. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it should not be compulsory to vote. However, in some circumstances, such as where a country is in the process of transitioning to democracy, or where a country has a very low turnout in elections, then compulsory voting may be an appropriate measure. However, compulsory voting should be used only as a temporary measure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, it should not be compulsory to vote. However, in some circumstances, such as where a country is in the process of transitioning to democracy, or where a country has a very low turnout in elections, then compulsory voting may be an appropriate measure. However, compulsory voting should be used only as a temporary measure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it should not be compulsory to vote. However, in some circumstances, such as where a country is in the process of transitioning to democracy, or where a country has a very low turnout in elections, then compulsory voting may be an appropriate measure. However, compulsory voting should be used only as a temporary measure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it should not be compulsory to vote. However, in some circumstances, such as where a country is in the process of transitioning to democracy, or where a country has a very low turnout in elections, then compulsory voting may be an appropriate measure. However, compulsory voting should be used only as a temporary measure. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000596.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000596.soc index dc4a607c..0e495dc0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000596.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000596.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In general, we think that it is not a good idea to make voting compulsory. The current system where people are encouraged to vote but not forced to is the best approach. This is because we believe that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to vote. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged in politics. Instead, politicians should engage the public in debate and through this encourage people to vote.” 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000597.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000597.soc index 3e4eec6d..e1e537dd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000597.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000597.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the principle of a UBI, but did not agree on the level at which it should be set. It was felt that a level of income that would allow people to live a decent life would be good, but that it should not be so high as to discourage people from working. There was also some debate about whether the UBI should be means tested, and this was a topic on which the group was unable to reach a consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the principle of a UBI, but did not agree on the level at which it should be set. It was felt that a level of income that would allow people to live a decent life would be good, but that it should not be so high as to discourage people from working. There was also some debate about whether the UBI should be means tested, and this was a topic on which the group was unable to reach a consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the principle of a UBI, but did not agree on the level at which it should be set. It was felt that a level of income that would allow people to live a decent life would be good, but that it should not be so high as to discourage people from working. There was also some debate about whether the UBI should be means tested, and this was a topic on which the group was unable to reach a consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the principle of a UBI, but did not agree on the level at which it should be set. It was felt that a level of income that would allow people to live a decent life would be good, but that it should not be so high as to discourage people from working. There was also some debate about whether the UBI should be means tested, and this was a topic on which the group was unable to reach a consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the principle of a UBI, but did not agree on the level at which it should be set. It was felt that a level of income that would allow people to live a decent life would be good, but that it should not be so high as to discourage people from working. There was also some debate about whether the UBI should be means tested, and this was a topic on which the group was unable to reach a consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the principle of a UBI, but did not agree on the level at which it should be set. It was felt that a level of income that would allow people to live a decent life would be good, but that it should not be so high as to discourage people from working. There was also some debate about whether the UBI should be means tested, and this was a topic on which the group was unable to reach a consensus. 3: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000598.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000598.soc index f5778c2a..bb2f7583 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000598.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000598.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income is a good idea as it would ensure that nobody was living in poverty. The idea of a minimum wage would be redundant if a universal basic income was introduced. People would still want to work and earn more money to be able to do the things that they want to do. The benefits system is unduly complicated and this could be entirely eliminated if universal basic income was introduced. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000599.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000599.soc index 3d762378..d7e629fc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000599.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000599.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The smoking ban in pubs, bars, and restaurants is a good thing. It has contributed to a significant reduction in smoking prevalence and represents one of the biggest public health initiatives in recent times. It will have encouraged thousands of smokers to quit and saved bar and restaurant workers from the dangers of passive smoke. It has made smokers feel increasingly isolated and confined to the cold outside. While non-smokers no longer need to wash their clothes after visiting a bar or restaurant. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the smoking ban is a good thing. It protects people from the dangers of passive smoking and makes bars and restaurants a much more pleasant place to be. The ban is also an important step in encouraging people to give up smoking. There are however some important issues that need to be considered. The ban is very recent and there is some evidence to suggest that it may be leading to an increase in alcohol consumption. This is because smokers who may have previously had a cigarette with their drink are now drinking more as they are unable to smoke in the bar or restaurant. Also, the ban has been implemented at a time when there is a recession and people are less likely to go out and spend money. This means that bars and restaurants are suffering and some have had to close. The ban has also led to some pubs and bars turning into nightclubs and this is leading to a rise in binge drinking and alcohol related crime in the early hours of the morning. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the smoking ban is a good thing. It protects people from the dangers of passive smoking and makes bars and restaurants a much more pleasant place to be. The ban is also an important step in encouraging people to give up smoking. There are however some important issues that need to be considered. The ban is very recent and there is some evidence to suggest that it may be leading to an increase in alcohol consumption. This is because smokers who may have previously had a cigarette with their drink are now drinking more as they are unable to smoke in the bar or restaurant. Also, the ban has been implemented at a time when there is a recession and people are less likely to go out and spend money. This means that bars and restaurants are suffering and some have had to close. The ban has also led to some pubs and bars turning into nightclubs and this is leading to a rise in binge drinking and alcohol related crime in the early hours of the morning. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the smoking ban is a good thing. It protects people from the dangers of passive smoking and makes bars and restaurants a much more pleasant place to be. The ban is also an important step in encouraging people to give up smoking. There are however some important issues that need to be considered. The ban is very recent and there is some evidence to suggest that it may be leading to an increase in alcohol consumption. This is because smokers who may have previously had a cigarette with their drink are now drinking more as they are unable to smoke in the bar or restaurant. Also, the ban has been implemented at a time when there is a recession and people are less likely to go out and spend money. This means that bars and restaurants are suffering and some have had to close. The ban has also led to some pubs and bars turning into nightclubs and this is leading to a rise in binge drinking and alcohol related crime in the early hours of the morning. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The smoking ban in pubs, bars, and restaurants is a good thing. It has contributed to a significant reduction in smoking prevalence and represents one of the biggest public health initiatives in recent times. It will have encouraged thousands of smokers to quit and saved bar and restaurant workers from the dangers of passive smoke. It has made smokers feel increasingly isolated and confined to the cold outside. While non-smokers no longer need to wash their clothes after visiting a bar or restaurant. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the smoking ban is a good thing. It protects people from the dangers of passive smoking and makes bars and restaurants a much more pleasant place to be. The ban is also an important step in encouraging people to give up smoking. There are however some important issues that need to be considered. The ban is very recent and there is some evidence to suggest that it may be leading to an increase in alcohol consumption. This is because smokers who may have previously had a cigarette with their drink are now drinking more as they are unable to smoke in the bar or restaurant. Also, the ban has been implemented at a time when there is a recession and people are less likely to go out and spend money. This means that bars and restaurants are suffering and some have had to close. The ban has also led to some pubs and bars turning into nightclubs and this is leading to a rise in binge drinking and alcohol related crime in the early hours of the morning. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the smoking ban is a good thing. It protects people from the dangers of passive smoking and makes bars and restaurants a much more pleasant place to be. The ban is also an important step in encouraging people to give up smoking. There are however some important issues that need to be considered. The ban is very recent and there is some evidence to suggest that it may be leading to an increase in alcohol consumption. This is because smokers who may have previously had a cigarette with their drink are now drinking more as they are unable to smoke in the bar or restaurant. Also, the ban has been implemented at a time when there is a recession and people are less likely to go out and spend money. This means that bars and restaurants are suffering and some have had to close. The ban has also led to some pubs and bars turning into nightclubs and this is leading to a rise in binge drinking and alcohol related crime in the early hours of the morning. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the smoking ban is a good thing. It protects people from the dangers of passive smoking and makes bars and restaurants a much more pleasant place to be. The ban is also an important step in encouraging people to give up smoking. There are however some important issues that need to be considered. The ban is very recent and there is some evidence to suggest that it may be leading to an increase in alcohol consumption. This is because smokers who may have previously had a cigarette with their drink are now drinking more as they are unable to smoke in the bar or restaurant. Also, the ban has been implemented at a time when there is a recession and people are less likely to go out and spend money. This means that bars and restaurants are suffering and some have had to close. The ban has also led to some pubs and bars turning into nightclubs and this is leading to a rise in binge drinking and alcohol related crime in the early hours of the morning. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000600.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000600.soc index ef86a84e..533a7200 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000600.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000600.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Most people are not mature enough to drink alcohol responsibly until they are in their late teens or early twenties. Lowering the age limit would only lead to more problems with binge drinking and alcoholism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the age at which children are allowed to drink should not be reduced. Alcohol is a dangerous substance that can cause long term harm and the current age limit of 18 is the right age. We should not encourage children to drink and make them think it is acceptable to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children in the UK can consume alcohol at 18 which is right for me. Before this, they are still in compulsory education and do not need the likes of alcohol disrupting this. Also most 18 year old are not yet capable of effectively managing alcohol consumption so lowering this age would be foolish. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Most people are not mature enough to drink alcohol responsibly until they are in their late teens or early twenties. Lowering the age limit would only lead to more problems with binge drinking and alcoholism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the age at which children are allowed to drink should not be reduced. Alcohol is a dangerous substance that can cause long term harm and the current age limit of 18 is the right age. We should not encourage children to drink and make them think it is acceptable to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children in the UK can consume alcohol at 18 which is right for me. Before this, they are still in compulsory education and do not need the likes of alcohol disrupting this. Also most 18 year old are not yet capable of effectively managing alcohol consumption so lowering this age would be foolish. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000601.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000601.soc index 99bedc74..ddd93272 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000601.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000601.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. The same group of participants were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. Alcohol is a drug and should be treated as such. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. The same group of participants were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not reduce the age at which children are allowed to drink. Alcohol is a drug and is dangerous. Younger teens are not yet mature enough to deal with alcohol and as such can lead to a variety of issues. The age limit should remain at 18 and the law needs to be enforced consistently to protect young people. Alcohol is a drug and should be treated as such. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000602.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000602.soc index 1016f5a6..1aa8618e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000602.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000602.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. It was agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling some of the royal family's land. This was mainly because they thought that the money gained from selling the land could be used to improve the lives of ordinary people in the UK. The group also thought that the land could be used for housing, which would help the UK's housing shortage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that some of the land owned by the royal family should be sold off. We believe this because there is a shortage of land in the UK and it could be used for more important things such as housing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should allow some of the land owned by the royal family to be sold off, but only in areas where it will not impact on the beauty of the landscape. This is because we need to preserve the landscape as it is an important part of our heritage and it will also help to attract tourists. The money from the sale of the land could be used to help alleviate the housing shortage and other social issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. It was agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling some of the royal family's land. This was mainly because they thought that the money gained from selling the land could be used to improve the lives of ordinary people in the UK. The group also thought that the land could be used for housing, which would help the UK's housing shortage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that some of the land owned by the royal family should be sold off. We believe this because there is a shortage of land in the UK and it could be used for more important things such as housing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should allow some of the land owned by the royal family to be sold off, but only in areas where it will not impact on the beauty of the landscape. This is because we need to preserve the landscape as it is an important part of our heritage and it will also help to attract tourists. The money from the sale of the land could be used to help alleviate the housing shortage and other social issues. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000603.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000603.soc index 5c3513d9..aa650c0f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000603.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000603.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK's approach to the EU has been wrong, with a victory for the leave campaign being used as a mandate for the Conservative government to pursue a hard Brexit. This has led to a hard border in Northern Ireland, increased bureaucracy for businesses and reduced trade with the EU. The UK has also lost its seat at the table on important world issues and been left with little power on the world stage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There has been some major issues that have arisen from Brexit and some of these have been caused by Boris Johnson. The UK has not done the best job of negotiating its departure from the EU and this has led to a number of problems. The UK leaving the EU has reduced our trade with important European markets and caused political as well as economic hardship in Northern Ireland with its hard border with the EU. Not being in the EU has reduced our global standing to that of a bystander on the world stage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In hindsight, the UK's approach to the EU has been wrong. The referendum was called on false premises and the result has been more problems for the UK and a lot of economic and political uncertainty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK's approach to the EU has been wrong, with a victory for the leave campaign being used as a mandate for the Conservative government to pursue a hard Brexit. This has led to a hard border in Northern Ireland, increased bureaucracy for businesses and reduced trade with the EU. The UK has also lost its seat at the table on important world issues and been left with little power on the world stage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There has been some major issues that have arisen from Brexit and some of these have been caused by Boris Johnson. The UK has not done the best job of negotiating its departure from the EU and this has led to a number of problems. The UK leaving the EU has reduced our trade with important European markets and caused political as well as economic hardship in Northern Ireland with its hard border with the EU. Not being in the EU has reduced our global standing to that of a bystander on the world stage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In hindsight, the UK's approach to the EU has been wrong. The referendum was called on false premises and the result has been more problems for the UK and a lot of economic and political uncertainty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. In general, the UK's approach to the EU is wrong. 4: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000604.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000604.soc index 54c056b0..74827787 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000604.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000604.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap as this would provide transparency on any potential issues and would encourage companies to take action in promoting equality within the workplace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This will allow for the issue to be tackled and make it clear that it is not acceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap as this would provide full transparency and remove any discrimination. Only after this data is known can we start to tackle the pay gap issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap as this would provide transparency on any potential issues and would encourage companies to take action in promoting equality within the workplace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This will allow for the issue to be tackled and make it clear that it is not acceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap as this would provide full transparency and remove any discrimination. Only after this data is known can we start to tackle the pay gap issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000605.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000605.soc index c4c360d0..c4bd29cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000605.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000605.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. However, smaller companies (those with less than 10 employees) should not be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. This should apply to all companies regardless of size. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. Smaller companies (those with less than 10 employees) should not be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. However, smaller companies (those with less than 10 employees) should not be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. This should apply to all companies regardless of size. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies should be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. This is so that the issues can be highlighted and so that companies can be held to account for any discrimination. If companies are not obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap, then it will not be possible to tackle the issue. Smaller companies (those with less than 10 employees) should not be obliged to report on the ethnicity pay gap. 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000606.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000606.soc index 557b2f74..82df2812 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000606.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000606.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, it is not a good idea to allow private companies to run prisons. This is because these companies will be more concerned with making a profit than they will be with the rehabilitation of prisoners. Whilst prison is a punishment, it should not be a holiday for prisoners, but the prison should still provide prisoners with the basic amenities they need to live a decent life. The private companies are likely to provide these basic amenities at the lowest possible quality in order to maximise profits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not a good idea to allow private companies to run prisons, as their primary concern will be to make a profit rather than looking after the prisoners. However, if the government is to allow private companies to run prisons, there needs to be a code of conduct set out for the companies to follow and also a monitoring process to ensure that they are adhering to this code of conduct. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it is not a good idea to allow private companies to run prisons. The main reason for this is that these private companies will be purely motivated by profit, and this may lead to them not providing the prisoners with adequate resources and amenities. This is likely to lead to unrest in the prison and potentially even riots. Therefore, if private companies are allowed to run prisons, there should be strict regulation to ensure that all prisons in the country are providing prisoners with a minimum standard of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not a good idea to allow private companies to run prisons. This is because the prison system is already underfunded and the quality of life for prisoners is already poor. With private companies in charge, the quality of life will become even worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, it is not a good idea to allow private companies to run prisons. This is because these companies will be more concerned with making a profit than they will be with the rehabilitation of prisoners. Whilst prison is a punishment, it should not be a holiday for prisoners, but the prison should still provide prisoners with the basic amenities they need to live a decent life. The private companies are likely to provide these basic amenities at the lowest possible quality in order to maximise profits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not a good idea to allow private companies to run prisons, as their primary concern will be to make a profit rather than looking after the prisoners. However, if the government is to allow private companies to run prisons, there needs to be a code of conduct set out for the companies to follow and also a monitoring process to ensure that they are adhering to this code of conduct. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it is not a good idea to allow private companies to run prisons. The main reason for this is that these private companies will be purely motivated by profit, and this may lead to them not providing the prisoners with adequate resources and amenities. This is likely to lead to unrest in the prison and potentially even riots. Therefore, if private companies are allowed to run prisons, there should be strict regulation to ensure that all prisons in the country are providing prisoners with a minimum standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not a good idea to allow private companies to run prisons. This is because the prison system is already underfunded and the quality of life for prisoners is already poor. With private companies in charge, the quality of life will become even worse. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000607.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000607.soc index e803d3ab..9ca2e486 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000607.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000607.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the current system is fair but it is not perfect. It is a bit outdated and it needs to be modernised. It is a good idea to introduce ID cards to make sure that people are voting legally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the current system of elections in the United Kingdom is fair. However, it could be improved by allowing voters to split their votes. This would help avoid the issue of tactical voting and allow voters to vote for the party they truly want to vote for. It would also make the voting system more representative of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the current system is fair. However, it is clear that there are a number of areas where it can be improved. Firstly, the introduction of the requirement for photographic ID to vote is a step in the right direction and will help to prevent fraud. However, it is important that the government does not leave it until the last minute to announce the introduction of this requirement, as this will cause unnecessary panic. Secondly, there are areas where the current system could be improved. For example, there is a clear disproportionality in the way votes can be reflected in parliamentary seats. There are also issues with the way in which the system is archaic and not reflective of the modern political era. It is important that the government is made aware of these issues and that steps are taken to address them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the current system is fair. However, the group of participants felt that the system is outdated and in need of a revamp. The first past the post system is archaic and not reflective of the number of political parties and people may wish to split their votes. The new system should be more democratic and include more transparency and openness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the current system is fair but it is not perfect. It is a bit outdated and it needs to be modernised. It is a good idea to introduce ID cards to make sure that people are voting legally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the current system of elections in the United Kingdom is fair. However, it could be improved by allowing voters to split their votes. This would help avoid the issue of tactical voting and allow voters to vote for the party they truly want to vote for. It would also make the voting system more representative of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the current system is fair. However, it is clear that there are a number of areas where it can be improved. Firstly, the introduction of the requirement for photographic ID to vote is a step in the right direction and will help to prevent fraud. However, it is important that the government does not leave it until the last minute to announce the introduction of this requirement, as this will cause unnecessary panic. Secondly, there are areas where the current system could be improved. For example, there is a clear disproportionality in the way votes can be reflected in parliamentary seats. There are also issues with the way in which the system is archaic and not reflective of the modern political era. It is important that the government is made aware of these issues and that steps are taken to address them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the current system is fair. However, the group of participants felt that the system is outdated and in need of a revamp. The first past the post system is archaic and not reflective of the number of political parties and people may wish to split their votes. The new system should be more democratic and include more transparency and openness. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000608.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000608.soc index 22cbbedf..c48dfa1e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000608.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000608.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. It was agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. It was agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. The group also agreed that selling some land could be a positive move for tourism, as it would allow more people to see the historical landmarks owned by the royal family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but other land could be sold to help address the housing crisis in the UK. The group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. It was agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. It was also agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. It was agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. It was agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. The group also agreed that selling some land could be a positive move for tourism, as it would allow more people to see the historical landmarks owned by the royal family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but other land could be sold to help address the housing crisis in the UK. The group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of selling off some land owned by the royal family. The consensus was that the royal family has more land than it needs, and that it could be put to good use to solve some of the housing crisis in the UK. It was agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. It was also agreed that the royal family should keep the important historical landmarks, but that other land could be sold. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000609.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000609.soc index 205a210c..68944c72 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000609.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000609.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think that parents should have the right to know when their children have received contraception. It is a personal decision and one that should not be forced upon a child. It is the responsibility of the parents to educate their children and ensure they have the information to make an informed decision. This is also the role of the education system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. It is important that young people can access contraception in confidence and without barriers. If they are concerned about their parents finding out, they may not seek contraception or may take greater risks. The best a parent can do is try to speak to their child about these types of topics and the education system should also be informing but we don't see why a parent should be informed of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. Parents should have the right to know about their children's medical information up to the age of 16. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. There are more benefits to the child if they do not have to inform their parents. The child may be more likely to use contraception if they do not have to inform their parents and may also be more likely to attend appointments if they know their parents will not find out. This will reduce the rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs. The participants had to debate a range of topics, with the main themes being teenage pregnancy, abortion, sex education, the morning after pill, and contraception. The group was split in two and one group had to argue in favour of their chosen topic, with the other group arguing against. They were then swapped over and they had to argue against their previous topic and in favour of the new topic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think that parents should have the right to know when their children have received contraception. It is a personal decision and one that should not be forced upon a child. It is the responsibility of the parents to educate their children and ensure they have the information to make an informed decision. This is also the role of the education system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. It is important that young people can access contraception in confidence and without barriers. If they are concerned about their parents finding out, they may not seek contraception or may take greater risks. The best a parent can do is try to speak to their child about these types of topics and the education system should also be informing but we don't see why a parent should be informed of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. Parents should have the right to know about their children's medical information up to the age of 16. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. There are more benefits to the child if they do not have to inform their parents. The child may be more likely to use contraception if they do not have to inform their parents and may also be more likely to attend appointments if they know their parents will not find out. This will reduce the rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs. The participants had to debate a range of topics, with the main themes being teenage pregnancy, abortion, sex education, the morning after pill, and contraception. The group was split in two and one group had to argue in favour of their chosen topic, with the other group arguing against. They were then swapped over and they had to argue against their previous topic and in favour of the new topic. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000610.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000610.soc index 99e2cfce..e6b7117c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000610.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000610.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK's departure from the EU is a bad thing for the country. The country is in a worse position than it was before, the economy has been declining, and the UK has restricted itself from freedom of movement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK's departure from the EU was a terrible decision made by the public. The UK is now suffering as a result of this decision and will continue to do so until we re-join the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK's departure from the EU is a bad thing for the country. The country is in a worse position than it was before, the economy has been declining, and the UK has restricted itself from freedom of movement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK's departure from the EU was a terrible decision made by the public. The UK is now suffering as a result of this decision and will continue to do so until we re-join the EU. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000611.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000611.soc index f526d566..5175328a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000611.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000611.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. This has led to a loss of jobs and industry moving elsewhere in order to avoid tax rates importing into Europe and other issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. The UK's economy has been in a worse state since leaving the EU, the inflation has risen and the unemployment has risen. The travel industry has suffered, the transport industry has suffered and the importing/exporting industry has suffered. The UK is going back in time, it is not moving forward and it is not a good thing for the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. The inflation is getting out of hands currently and it doesn't seem like there will be and end to it any time soon in fact it seems that it will just worsen year by year. I think the UK thought they can be much more independent then what they're actually capable of. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. This has led to a loss of jobs and industry moving elsewhere in order to avoid tax rates importing into Europe and other issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. The UK's economy has been in a worse state since leaving the EU, the inflation has risen and the unemployment has risen. The travel industry has suffered, the transport industry has suffered and the importing/exporting industry has suffered. The UK is going back in time, it is not moving forward and it is not a good thing for the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the UK's departure from the EU is not a good thing for the country. The UK has put itself in a worse off position than what it was before in all ways, it's essentially going back in time. We have restricted free movement for ourselves as well as those in the remainder of Europe, we have made travel more difficult, made importing/exporting riskier and more expensive. Overall is has started a downfall to the UK's economy. The inflation is getting out of hands currently and it doesn't seem like there will be and end to it any time soon in fact it seems that it will just worsen year by year. I think the UK thought they can be much more independent then what they're actually capable of. 4: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000612.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000612.soc index 5aedbf6d..0efe7a3f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000612.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000612.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour. We live in a society where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. We believe that the minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour as this would help the low income families and would allow them to live a better life. The rise in minimum wage would help the low income families be able to afford the basics such as food and heating in their homes. By increasing the minimum wage this would also encourage a greater number of people to join the workforce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The minimum wage should be raised to £15 per hour. This will ensure that people who work hard to support themselves and their families can live comfortably and will also improve the economy as more people will be able to afford goods and services.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour, as this will increase the quality of life of the people, increase the economy, and improve the labour market. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage to £15 per hour. However, they recognised that it was a difficult question and that there were many complexities and nuances to the question. The group agreed that a rise in minimum wage would be a positive step for society. It would help lift people out of poverty and improve the quality of life for many people. It would also help reduce the wage gap between the rich and the poor in society. The group also discussed the impact on small businesses and agreed that the government should provide support to small businesses to ensure they are able to survive and thrive with a rise in minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour. We live in a society where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. We believe that the minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour as this would help the low income families and would allow them to live a better life. The rise in minimum wage would help the low income families be able to afford the basics such as food and heating in their homes. By increasing the minimum wage this would also encourage a greater number of people to join the workforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The minimum wage should be raised to £15 per hour. This will ensure that people who work hard to support themselves and their families can live comfortably and will also improve the economy as more people will be able to afford goods and services.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour, as this will increase the quality of life of the people, increase the economy, and improve the labour market. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage to £15 per hour. However, they recognised that it was a difficult question and that there were many complexities and nuances to the question. The group agreed that a rise in minimum wage would be a positive step for society. It would help lift people out of poverty and improve the quality of life for many people. It would also help reduce the wage gap between the rich and the poor in society. The group also discussed the impact on small businesses and agreed that the government should provide support to small businesses to ensure they are able to survive and thrive with a rise in minimum wage. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000613.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000613.soc index ec9fda0e..d3240010 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000613.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000613.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a minimum wage. It is important to ensure that workers are not exploited by employers. However, the minimum wage should be raised in line with the cost of living to ensure that it continues to serve its purpose. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Yes, there is a role for a minimum wage. It is necessary to stop workers being exploited by employers. It should be in place to ensure that people have an acceptable standard of living with all basic needs being affordable. The current minimum wage is not sufficient and should be increased in line with the cost of living.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a role for a minimum wage. It is important that employers do not exploit workers and that people can afford to meet their basic needs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a minimum wage, however, it should be reviewed regularly in line with the cost of living. It should also be noted that some employers would struggle to pay the minimum wage and therefore this would affect employment levels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a minimum wage. It is important to ensure that workers are not exploited by employers. However, the minimum wage should be raised in line with the cost of living to ensure that it continues to serve its purpose. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Yes, there is a role for a minimum wage. It is necessary to stop workers being exploited by employers. It should be in place to ensure that people have an acceptable standard of living with all basic needs being affordable. The current minimum wage is not sufficient and should be increased in line with the cost of living.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a role for a minimum wage. It is important that employers do not exploit workers and that people can afford to meet their basic needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a minimum wage, however, it should be reviewed regularly in line with the cost of living. It should also be noted that some employers would struggle to pay the minimum wage and therefore this would affect employment levels. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000614.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000614.soc index 00452199..08e15d63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000614.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000614.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drinks. The higher tax will hopefully discourage people from consuming unhealthy food and drinks that contain sugar. This will hopefully lower the number of people who have diabetes and obesity. The tax will also hopefully encourage people to buy healthier food and drinks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that there should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drinks. We think that this is a necessary step to prevent obesity and diabetes. Sugar is an unnecessary additive and people will be less likely to consume it if the price is higher. There will be an initial impact on businesses, however this will be outweighed by the health benefits of the tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drinks. Sugar is an unnecessary addictive poison. Sugar causes obesity and diabetes, and there's no need for it. A very high tax on sugar will naturally sway people towards healthier options. Perhaps the sugar tax could be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are even cheaper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. However, the higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drinks. The higher tax will hopefully discourage people from consuming unhealthy food and drinks that contain sugar. This will hopefully lower the number of people who have diabetes and obesity. The tax will also hopefully encourage people to buy healthier food and drinks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that there should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drinks. We think that this is a necessary step to prevent obesity and diabetes. Sugar is an unnecessary additive and people will be less likely to consume it if the price is higher. There will be an initial impact on businesses, however this will be outweighed by the health benefits of the tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drinks. Sugar is an unnecessary addictive poison. Sugar causes obesity and diabetes, and there's no need for it. A very high tax on sugar will naturally sway people towards healthier options. Perhaps the sugar tax could be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are even cheaper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. However, the higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000615.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000615.soc index 41b1050d..620eb459 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000615.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000615.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. Parents should have the right to know about their children's medical information up to the age of 16. The final consensus statement was achieved through the use of the Delphi Technique. This is a method of achieving consensus without the need for face to face discussion. The consensus statement was created by the group and then critiqued by each participant in turn. This allowed for the consensus statement to be refined and improved. This technique has been used to reach a consensus opinion on the question posed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. Parents should have the right to know about their children's medical information up to the age of 16. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. Parents should have the right to know about their children's medical information up to the age of 16. Parents should be educated on sexual health and contraception and the education system should inform children on this. It is important that children have an adult they can trust enough to speak to without this being forced upon them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. Parents should have the right to know about their children's medical information up to the age of 16. The final consensus statement was achieved through the use of the Delphi Technique. This is a method of achieving consensus without the need for face to face discussion. The consensus statement was created by the group and then critiqued by each participant in turn. This allowed for the consensus statement to be refined and improved. This technique has been used to reach a consensus opinion on the question posed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. Parents should have the right to know about their children's medical information up to the age of 16. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, parents should not have the right to know when their children have received contraception. Children need to feel comfortable to be able to access contraception. If the parents knew then this may put the child off from accessing contraception. Parents should have the right to know about their children's medical information up to the age of 16. Parents should be educated on sexual health and contraception and the education system should inform children on this. It is important that children have an adult they can trust enough to speak to without this being forced upon them. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000616.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000616.soc index 3e0e32c6..a73426aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000616.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000616.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A universal basic income would not be a good idea in the UK at the moment. There are too many things that would need to be worked out to ensure it is a success, and the current economy would not support it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the concept of a universal basic income is a good idea. The current benefit system is very complex and difficult to navigate. A universal basic income would simplify the system and be fairer for everyone. However, the idea of a universal basic income is currently impractical and would require a large amount of money to implement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a universal basic income, as it will increase the quality of life of all people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, we support the idea of a universal basic income. However, we believe that a universal basic income should be trialled on a smaller scale before it is rolled out across the whole of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A universal basic income would not be a good idea in the UK at the moment. There are too many things that would need to be worked out to ensure it is a success, and the current economy would not support it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the concept of a universal basic income is a good idea. The current benefit system is very complex and difficult to navigate. A universal basic income would simplify the system and be fairer for everyone. However, the idea of a universal basic income is currently impractical and would require a large amount of money to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a universal basic income, as it will increase the quality of life of all people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, we support the idea of a universal basic income. However, we believe that a universal basic income should be trialled on a smaller scale before it is rolled out across the whole of the UK. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000617.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000617.soc index b3b3aad8..8cb8f603 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000617.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000617.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. However, the higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. It will also reduce dental problems and reduce diabetes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. The higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. However, the higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. However, the higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. The next example is also from a group of participants who were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. However, the higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. It will also reduce dental problems and reduce diabetes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. The higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. However, the higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a higher tax on sugar in food and drink as it will reduce obesity and encourage people to eat a healthier diet. However, the higher tax should be used to subsidise sugar free products so they are cheaper. This will mean that the tax is fair and will not punish those that eat a balanced diet. The next example is also from a group of participants who were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000618.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000618.soc index 5148eead..4590869e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000618.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000618.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We need to teach people to think critically and also hold social media companies accountable for the information they spread. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the law is sufficient to regulate fake news. However, there is an issue with social media companies not taking responsibility for the content they spread. The law should be amended to include social media companies in the same way as traditional news outlets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a clear need to regulate fake news but the law is a blunt instrument to use to do this. The law should be used to prosecute people who deliberately spread fake news but the law should not be used to decide what is true and what is not. This is the role of the people. We need to teach people to think critically and to make up their own minds on what is true and what is not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is too much fake news and this can be damaging to society. The law is not the best way to address this. It is better to educate people on how to spot fake news and encourage them to think critically. Social media companies should also be held accountable for the information they spread. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We need to teach people to think critically and also hold social media companies accountable for the information they spread. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the law is sufficient to regulate fake news. However, there is an issue with social media companies not taking responsibility for the content they spread. The law should be amended to include social media companies in the same way as traditional news outlets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a clear need to regulate fake news but the law is a blunt instrument to use to do this. The law should be used to prosecute people who deliberately spread fake news but the law should not be used to decide what is true and what is not. This is the role of the people. We need to teach people to think critically and to make up their own minds on what is true and what is not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is too much fake news and this can be damaging to society. The law is not the best way to address this. It is better to educate people on how to spot fake news and encourage them to think critically. Social media companies should also be held accountable for the information they spread. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000619.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000619.soc index a3c67184..610431d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000619.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000619.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not believe that companies should be allowed to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. We believe that the current minimum wage is not enough to live off of in the first place and should be raised. If it is not raised then it is not fair to the employees to not be paid the minimum wage and be expected to live off of the food and housing that the company provides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think that companies should be allowed to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. We believe that the minimum wage is there to protect employees from exploitation. We believe that if a company cannot afford to pay a minimum wage, they should not be in business. We also believe that the idea of subsidised meals and housing is a good idea, but the company should subsidise this for all employees, not just those who are receiving a lower wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, companies should not be allowed to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. There is a very real possibility that a company would take advantage of employees and not provide adequate meals and housing. The consensus view is that this is a very bad idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not believe that companies should be allowed to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. We believe that the current minimum wage is not enough to live off of in the first place and should be raised. If it is not raised then it is not fair to the employees to not be paid the minimum wage and be expected to live off of the food and housing that the company provides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think that companies should be allowed to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. We believe that the minimum wage is there to protect employees from exploitation. We believe that if a company cannot afford to pay a minimum wage, they should not be in business. We also believe that the idea of subsidised meals and housing is a good idea, but the company should subsidise this for all employees, not just those who are receiving a lower wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, companies should not be allowed to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. There is a very real possibility that a company would take advantage of employees and not provide adequate meals and housing. The consensus view is that this is a very bad idea. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000620.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000620.soc index 41da0f75..9f43a349 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000620.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000620.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of building more houses to help tackle the UK’s housing shortage. However, we thought it was important to build quality homes to a high standard, which are affordable and also environmentally friendly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that we should build more houses in the UK, but I think that the government needs to ensure that these houses are built to a high quality and are affordable. I think that the government should also ensure that these houses are built on brownfield sites to ensure that we are protecting the environment and our green spaces. I think that this will be a long process and will not happen overnight, but I think that if the government ensures that they are doing their best to help tackle the housing shortage then it will be a step in the right direction.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, we should build more houses to tackle the UK’s housing shortage, but only if they are affordable and built on brownfield sites. This will help tackle the UK’s housing shortage, reduce prices, and be environmentally friendly.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should definitely build more houses to tackle the shortage as more housing will reduce the current massive demand, which would potentially make housing more affordable and reduce rent. The increase in housing availability would also make homes more affordable especially for those on a lower income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of building more houses to help tackle the UK’s housing shortage. However, we thought it was important to build quality homes to a high standard, which are affordable and also environmentally friendly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that we should build more houses in the UK, but I think that the government needs to ensure that these houses are built to a high quality and are affordable. I think that the government should also ensure that these houses are built on brownfield sites to ensure that we are protecting the environment and our green spaces. I think that this will be a long process and will not happen overnight, but I think that if the government ensures that they are doing their best to help tackle the housing shortage then it will be a step in the right direction.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, we should build more houses to tackle the UK’s housing shortage, but only if they are affordable and built on brownfield sites. This will help tackle the UK’s housing shortage, reduce prices, and be environmentally friendly.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should definitely build more houses to tackle the shortage as more housing will reduce the current massive demand, which would potentially make housing more affordable and reduce rent. The increase in housing availability would also make homes more affordable especially for those on a lower income. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000621.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000621.soc index 824f96a2..a64da526 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000621.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000621.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a strong argument for the introduction of a universal basic income in the UK. This would simplify the benefit system and make it more accessible to people who need it. The system is currently very complex and difficult to navigate. A universal basic income would also be fairer for everyone. However, the idea of a universal basic income is currently impractical and would require a large amount of money to implement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a basic income for all citizens. However, it should be implemented on a small scale and the impact assessed before being rolled out nationally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a strong argument for the introduction of a universal basic income. It would simplify the current benefit system and reduce the administrative costs of the welfare system. However, the idea of a universal basic income is currently impractical and would require a large amount of money to implement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income would simplify the welfare system and provide a safety net for everyone. However, the idea of a universal basic income is currently impractical and would require a large amount of money to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a strong argument for the introduction of a universal basic income in the UK. This would simplify the benefit system and make it more accessible to people who need it. The system is currently very complex and difficult to navigate. A universal basic income would also be fairer for everyone. However, the idea of a universal basic income is currently impractical and would require a large amount of money to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a basic income for all citizens. However, it should be implemented on a small scale and the impact assessed before being rolled out nationally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a strong argument for the introduction of a universal basic income. It would simplify the current benefit system and reduce the administrative costs of the welfare system. However, the idea of a universal basic income is currently impractical and would require a large amount of money to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income would simplify the welfare system and provide a safety net for everyone. However, the idea of a universal basic income is currently impractical and would require a large amount of money to implement. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000622.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000622.soc index c1225731..9db69b1f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000622.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000622.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The UK government should spend money on research into space travel. This is because it is important for the future of the human race and inspires the next generation of scientists.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although the UK government should not spend money on research into space travel, it should invest in the education of space travel and the potential it holds for future generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK government should spend money on research into space travel. We believe this because it is important for humanity to be able to explore the universe, and this can lead to important scientific breakthroughs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The UK government should spend money on research into space travel. This is because it is important for the future of the human race and inspires the next generation of scientists.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although the UK government should not spend money on research into space travel, it should invest in the education of space travel and the potential it holds for future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK government should spend money on research into space travel. We believe this because it is important for humanity to be able to explore the universe, and this can lead to important scientific breakthroughs. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000623.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000623.soc index 3099dbb1..1508df81 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000623.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000623.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. However, the company must ensure that the employee is not being exploited, that they are receiving a wage which will allow them to live a comfortable life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. However, we do not believe that this is a good idea. We believe that companies should pay their employees the minimum wage and if they cannot afford to do so, they should not be hiring employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. However, we do not believe that this should be allowed if the employee is not earning enough to live on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. However, the company must ensure that the employee is not being exploited, that they are receiving a wage which will allow them to live a comfortable life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. However, we do not believe that this is a good idea. We believe that companies should pay their employees the minimum wage and if they cannot afford to do so, they should not be hiring employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is acceptable for companies to pay employees less than minimum wage as long as the company provides them with subsidized meals and housing. The meals and housing must be of a good quality and the employee must be made aware of the costs of meals and housing. This must be made clear in the employee contract and must be something that the employee is happy with. The employee must also be made aware that they can leave the job at any time and they will not be charged for meals and housing. However, we do not believe that this should be allowed if the employee is not earning enough to live on. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000624.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000624.soc index 29b4a25a..e79ad327 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000624.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000624.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the UK should not build a moon base. The UK is facing the biggest cost of living crisis in a generation. We do not need to waste money on frivolous ventures that have little positive impact to the greater population. There are much more important things that need investment such as housing, the NHS, and transport infrastructure. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the UK should not build a moon base. There are more important issues that need to be addressed in the UK. The UK should not waste money on this when there are more important issues that need to be addressed. The UK should instead use its resources to help those in need in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should not build a base on the moon. This would use resources which would be better utilised on environmental issues which would negate the need for a base on the moon. If the Government were to pay for this to be done, it would be a waste of taxpayers money as it would not be able to be used by all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should not build a base on the moon. This would use resources which would be better utilised on environmental issues which would negate the need for a base on the moon. If the Government were to pay for this to be done, it would be a waste of taxpayers money as it would not be able to be used by all. The UK does not need to build its own moon base. Money should instead be devoted to more urgent services, such as health care (the NHS) and welfare. In the future, the UK will be able to use the moon bases of its allies, such as those of the United States. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the UK should not build a moon base. The UK is facing the biggest cost of living crisis in a generation. We do not need to waste money on frivolous ventures that have little positive impact to the greater population. There are much more important things that need investment such as housing, the NHS, and transport infrastructure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the UK should not build a moon base. There are more important issues that need to be addressed in the UK. The UK should not waste money on this when there are more important issues that need to be addressed. The UK should instead use its resources to help those in need in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should not build a base on the moon. This would use resources which would be better utilised on environmental issues which would negate the need for a base on the moon. If the Government were to pay for this to be done, it would be a waste of taxpayers money as it would not be able to be used by all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should not build a base on the moon. This would use resources which would be better utilised on environmental issues which would negate the need for a base on the moon. If the Government were to pay for this to be done, it would be a waste of taxpayers money as it would not be able to be used by all. The UK does not need to build its own moon base. Money should instead be devoted to more urgent services, such as health care (the NHS) and welfare. In the future, the UK will be able to use the moon bases of its allies, such as those of the United States. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000625.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000625.soc index 76348a95..af762e79 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000625.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000625.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money. It is also important to invest in the technologies needed to travel in space, such as rockets, so that we can have an independent space programme and not have to rely on other countries for support.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money. It is important to note that this research may not be able to be completed without government investment, and private sector investment alone is not enough.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money. However the government should not be the only ones spending money on it, and we should be looking to help people in this country that are struggling to get by, and trying to tackle the problems we have in the here and now.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money. It is also important to invest in the technologies needed to travel in space, such as rockets, so that we can have an independent space programme and not have to rely on other countries for support.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money. It is important to note that this research may not be able to be completed without government investment, and private sector investment alone is not enough.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Space travel is an important and necessary thing for humanity. It is an important scientific pursuit, but also could be vital for the survival of our species. With a growing population and climate change, we may need to look to other planets for resources or to move to. Therefore I believe the government should support research into space travel, but also encourage private sector companies to get involved and invest their own money. However the government should not be the only ones spending money on it, and we should be looking to help people in this country that are struggling to get by, and trying to tackle the problems we have in the here and now.” 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000626.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000626.soc index 754d3f0d..30cf5a37 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000626.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000626.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We need to find ways of making the healthy choice the easy choice. We should look at all ways of doing this including taxation, regulation, and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't need a sugar tax because it is not going to make much of a difference, it is more up to the individual to decide what they want to eat and drink. It is not fair to tax people on what they want to eat and drink, it is their choice and it should be up to them to decide if they want to buy the product or not. If the tax is going to be used to fund campaigns to educate people on the dangers of sugar, then I think it is a good idea but it shouldn't be used to tax people on what they want to buy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, because it is too much of a blunt instrument. There is more to health than sugar and it is not an effective way to tackle the root causes of ill health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A sugar tax is a blunt instrument and we should be looking to address the underlying causes of ill health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We need to find ways of making the healthy choice the easy choice. We should look at all ways of doing this including taxation, regulation, and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't need a sugar tax because it is not going to make much of a difference, it is more up to the individual to decide what they want to eat and drink. It is not fair to tax people on what they want to eat and drink, it is their choice and it should be up to them to decide if they want to buy the product or not. If the tax is going to be used to fund campaigns to educate people on the dangers of sugar, then I think it is a good idea but it shouldn't be used to tax people on what they want to buy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, because it is too much of a blunt instrument. There is more to health than sugar and it is not an effective way to tackle the root causes of ill health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A sugar tax is a blunt instrument and we should be looking to address the underlying causes of ill health. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000627.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000627.soc index baeb3005..dc3f8eac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000627.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000627.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the consensus that it is important to increase funding to train professional musicians. The current situation is not adequate and we feel that the government should invest in the future of music in our country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to increasing funding to train professional musicians. However, it was recognised that there may be some benefits to society of having more professional musicians. It was also recognised that some of the participants had not been aware of the topic prior to the group discussion and that this had influenced their opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing funding to train professional musicians. The group felt that the current funding levels are adequate and that the government should be focusing on more pressing issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not increase funding to train professional musicians. We are in a cost of living crisis and funds should be diverted to where they are most needed. The government wastes enough money on unimportant things. We should drastically reduce wasteful spending and spend more on the things that are truly important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the consensus that it is important to increase funding to train professional musicians. The current situation is not adequate and we feel that the government should invest in the future of music in our country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to increasing funding to train professional musicians. However, it was recognised that there may be some benefits to society of having more professional musicians. It was also recognised that some of the participants had not been aware of the topic prior to the group discussion and that this had influenced their opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing funding to train professional musicians. The group felt that the current funding levels are adequate and that the government should be focusing on more pressing issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not increase funding to train professional musicians. We are in a cost of living crisis and funds should be diverted to where they are most needed. The government wastes enough money on unimportant things. We should drastically reduce wasteful spending and spend more on the things that are truly important. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000628.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000628.soc index 24de3b1b..629f3d7f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000628.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000628.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should impose higher taxes on the richest people in society. This will reduce income inequality and ensure that those who have the highest amount of income are contributing a higher proportion of their income to society. The revenue from this tax can be used to help improve the lives of the poorest people in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the richest people in society should pay more tax as they can afford to and the tax revenue can be used to provide welfare for the poorest in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, yes we should impose higher taxes on the richest people. It would help massively to reduce income inequality and prevent the richest people in society from having a complete chokehold on how society is run as in the current system, money is pivotal to buying power from politicians. Increasing taxes on the richest people in society would also help promote social justice and provide significantly more revenue for social welfare programs. Due to the significant wealth they have accumulated, they can afford to pay a larger share of taxes to support the public good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should impose higher taxes on the richest people in society. This will reduce income inequality and ensure that those who have the highest amount of income are contributing a higher proportion of their income to society. The revenue from this tax can be used to help improve the lives of the poorest people in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the richest people in society should pay more tax as they can afford to and the tax revenue can be used to provide welfare for the poorest in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, yes we should impose higher taxes on the richest people. It would help massively to reduce income inequality and prevent the richest people in society from having a complete chokehold on how society is run as in the current system, money is pivotal to buying power from politicians. Increasing taxes on the richest people in society would also help promote social justice and provide significantly more revenue for social welfare programs. Due to the significant wealth they have accumulated, they can afford to pay a larger share of taxes to support the public good. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000629.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000629.soc index fc7c52d3..abc839dc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000629.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000629.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. The richest people can afford to pay more taxes as they have accumulated significant wealth, and this would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. Higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. However, it is important to ensure that the tax is not so high as to discourage people from working hard and becoming rich, and to encourage people to leave the country for tax havens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. However, it is important to consider that higher taxes could lead to the richest people leaving the country to live in tax havens, which could cause a detrimental effect on the economy.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. It is important to remember, however, that the rich may seek to avoid paying higher taxes by moving to tax havens.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. The richest people can afford to pay more taxes as they have accumulated significant wealth, and this would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. Higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. However, it is important to ensure that the tax is not so high as to discourage people from working hard and becoming rich, and to encourage people to leave the country for tax havens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. However, it is important to consider that higher taxes could lead to the richest people leaving the country to live in tax havens, which could cause a detrimental effect on the economy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We should impose higher taxes on the richest people. However, it is important to be specific about what is meant by rich and how high the tax would be. The higher taxes would help to reduce inequality in society and also provide more revenue for public goods and social welfare programs. It is important to remember, however, that the rich may seek to avoid paying higher taxes by moving to tax havens.” 2: 4,3,2,1 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000630.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000630.soc index c595cfd6..886bed33 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000630.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000630.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not use drones to monitor for criminal activity. We believe that the use of drones in this way would be too expensive, and the fact that drones can be seen makes them too easy to destroy. Also, the drones would be recording footage of everyone, and this would be a breach of our privacy. We also believe that drones could be used by the government to spy on innocent people, and this is a risk that is too great. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not use drones to monitor for criminal activity. We believe that the use of drones in this way would be too expensive, and the fact that drones can be seen makes them too easy to destroy. Also, the drones would be recording footage of everyone, and this would be a breach of our privacy. We do believe, however, that there are exceptions to this, such as using drones to follow a criminal who is fleeing the scene of a crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not use drones to monitor for criminal activity. We believe that the use of drones in this way would be too expensive, and the fact that drones can be seen makes them too easy to destroy. Also, the drones would be recording footage of everyone, and this would be a breach of our privacy. We also think that there are better ways to spend the money that would be spent on drones, such as on the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not use drones to monitor for criminal activity. We believe that the use of drones in this way would be too expensive, and the fact that drones can be seen makes them too easy to destroy. Also, the drones would be recording footage of everyone, and this would be a breach of our privacy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not use drones to monitor for criminal activity. We believe that the use of drones in this way would be too expensive, and the fact that drones can be seen makes them too easy to destroy. Also, the drones would be recording footage of everyone, and this would be a breach of our privacy. We also believe that drones could be used by the government to spy on innocent people, and this is a risk that is too great. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not use drones to monitor for criminal activity. We believe that the use of drones in this way would be too expensive, and the fact that drones can be seen makes them too easy to destroy. Also, the drones would be recording footage of everyone, and this would be a breach of our privacy. We do believe, however, that there are exceptions to this, such as using drones to follow a criminal who is fleeing the scene of a crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not use drones to monitor for criminal activity. We believe that the use of drones in this way would be too expensive, and the fact that drones can be seen makes them too easy to destroy. Also, the drones would be recording footage of everyone, and this would be a breach of our privacy. We also think that there are better ways to spend the money that would be spent on drones, such as on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not use drones to monitor for criminal activity. We believe that the use of drones in this way would be too expensive, and the fact that drones can be seen makes them too easy to destroy. Also, the drones would be recording footage of everyone, and this would be a breach of our privacy. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000631.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000631.soc index c371ad91..659a7545 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000631.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000631.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on non-essential plastics. There was some debate as to what constituted non-essential plastic, and what the consequences of a ban might be. However, it was felt that the damage to the environment was a far greater concern. The group was aware that many plastics are recyclable, and that this should be encouraged, but that a ban on non-essential plastics would be a good first step. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is no doubt that plastic is a major cause of environmental pollution. Whilst some plastic is necessary, there is no reason to use plastic where it is unnecessary or non-essential. Therefore, to ensure that people/companies are taking responsibility non-essential plastics should be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on non-essential plastics. However, it was felt that the wording of the question was vague and needed to be more specific. For example, what is meant by 'non-essential' and who would decide what was 'non-essential'? The group thought that a better way to approach the issue would be to ban plastics that cannot be recycled. This would be a more precise way to address the problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are many uses for plastic, it is not essential and has been proven to be very harmful to the environment and wildlife. Therefore, we should ban the sale of non-essential plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on non-essential plastics. There was some debate as to what constituted non-essential plastic, and what the consequences of a ban might be. However, it was felt that the damage to the environment was a far greater concern. The group was aware that many plastics are recyclable, and that this should be encouraged, but that a ban on non-essential plastics would be a good first step. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is no doubt that plastic is a major cause of environmental pollution. Whilst some plastic is necessary, there is no reason to use plastic where it is unnecessary or non-essential. Therefore, to ensure that people/companies are taking responsibility non-essential plastics should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on non-essential plastics. However, it was felt that the wording of the question was vague and needed to be more specific. For example, what is meant by 'non-essential' and who would decide what was 'non-essential'? The group thought that a better way to approach the issue would be to ban plastics that cannot be recycled. This would be a more precise way to address the problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are many uses for plastic, it is not essential and has been proven to be very harmful to the environment and wildlife. Therefore, we should ban the sale of non-essential plastics. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000632.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000632.soc index e6d177b4..df8d7371 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000632.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000632.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol. The main concern regarding the use of marijuana, in my opinion, is the affect on mental heath. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The main concerns about marijuana use are the affect on mental health and the risk of addiction. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol. Marijuana is less likely to lead to violence and health problems. Marijuana has fewer calories and can be used for medicinal purposes. The only concern is the affect on mental health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. However, there are some mental health concerns that are still being studied. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol. The main concern regarding the use of marijuana, in my opinion, is the affect on mental heath. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The main concerns about marijuana use are the affect on mental health and the risk of addiction. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol. Marijuana is less likely to lead to violence and health problems. Marijuana has fewer calories and can be used for medicinal purposes. The only concern is the affect on mental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. However, there are some mental health concerns that are still being studied. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000633.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000633.soc index 16d92a72..710a0ad8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000633.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000633.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, the more we can do to reduce plastic in our environment the better, however, this needs to be a global effort and we must not forget the poorer countries where plastic bags and containers are used for collecting and storing water, this could lead to the spread of waterborne diseases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on non-essential plastics. However, the group felt that the term non-essential was a bit vague and needed to be better defined. For example, plastic bags are not essential, but some plastic bottles are essential. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that non essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. We believe that if there are natural alternatives to plastics they should be used as a replacement. This is a good example of a group of people with differing opinions coming together to find common ground and agreeing on a final consensus statement. The outcome of this process was not to make one person happy and another person unhappy, but to try and find a solution that would be agreeable to everyone. This is a simple example of what a consensus process looks like. What is a consensus process? A consensus process is a structured process used to make a decision on a matter. The process can be used to solve a problem or to make a decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. If it is not essential, it should be replaced by an alternative, preferably a natural alternative.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, the more we can do to reduce plastic in our environment the better, however, this needs to be a global effort and we must not forget the poorer countries where plastic bags and containers are used for collecting and storing water, this could lead to the spread of waterborne diseases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on non-essential plastics. However, the group felt that the term non-essential was a bit vague and needed to be better defined. For example, plastic bags are not essential, but some plastic bottles are essential. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that non essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. We believe that if there are natural alternatives to plastics they should be used as a replacement. This is a good example of a group of people with differing opinions coming together to find common ground and agreeing on a final consensus statement. The outcome of this process was not to make one person happy and another person unhappy, but to try and find a solution that would be agreeable to everyone. This is a simple example of what a consensus process looks like. What is a consensus process? A consensus process is a structured process used to make a decision on a matter. The process can be used to solve a problem or to make a decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. If it is not essential, it should be replaced by an alternative, preferably a natural alternative.” 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000634.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000634.soc index 74b4608c..6d0c7251 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000634.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000634.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Artificial intelligence systems will be programmed to make fair decisions. However, the decision may not be the fairest if they have not been programmed to deal with all the variables in a situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Artificial intelligence systems can make fair decisions if they have been trained by a variety of people. They are also able to make fair decisions if they are designed to do so. They are also able to make fair decisions if they are trained on a wide variety of data. They can also make fair decisions if they are designed to learn from their mistakes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, artificial intelligence systems make fair decisions, however there are some exceptions. In the cases where humans have programmed the systems with their own bias, the decisions will not be fair. It is also possible that a system will learn from its mistakes and make decisions based on past experience, and these may not be fair. In most cases, however, artificial intelligence systems will make fair decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the decisions made by artificial intelligence are fair. They are based on what they have been taught and the information that they have been given. They are able to look at all of the information available and come to a decision based on this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Artificial intelligence systems will be programmed to make fair decisions. However, the decision may not be the fairest if they have not been programmed to deal with all the variables in a situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Artificial intelligence systems can make fair decisions if they have been trained by a variety of people. They are also able to make fair decisions if they are designed to do so. They are also able to make fair decisions if they are trained on a wide variety of data. They can also make fair decisions if they are designed to learn from their mistakes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, artificial intelligence systems make fair decisions, however there are some exceptions. In the cases where humans have programmed the systems with their own bias, the decisions will not be fair. It is also possible that a system will learn from its mistakes and make decisions based on past experience, and these may not be fair. In most cases, however, artificial intelligence systems will make fair decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the decisions made by artificial intelligence are fair. They are based on what they have been taught and the information that they have been given. They are able to look at all of the information available and come to a decision based on this. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000635.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000635.soc index 30ce7d75..05bf4a9d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000635.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000635.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People with more money should be forced to pay more taxes. However, it is not necessarily the case that those with a higher asset wealth should necessarily be penalised by higher taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People with more money should pay more taxes. The current tax system is not working and it does not provide a level playing field for all. Some people with higher salaries are taxed at a higher rate, but there are also many people who have a lot of money, but who do not pay any tax at all. The tax system needs to be changed so that everyone pays their fair share. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People who earn a higher salary should be taxed more than those on lower salaries. However, people with a higher asset wealth should not necessarily be penalised by higher taxes - it should be done on salary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People with more money should be taxed more because they can afford it and the money can be used to help the less fortunate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People with more money should be forced to pay more taxes. However, it is not necessarily the case that those with a higher asset wealth should necessarily be penalised by higher taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People with more money should pay more taxes. The current tax system is not working and it does not provide a level playing field for all. Some people with higher salaries are taxed at a higher rate, but there are also many people who have a lot of money, but who do not pay any tax at all. The tax system needs to be changed so that everyone pays their fair share. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People who earn a higher salary should be taxed more than those on lower salaries. However, people with a higher asset wealth should not necessarily be penalised by higher taxes - it should be done on salary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People with more money should be taxed more because they can afford it and the money can be used to help the less fortunate. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000636.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000636.soc index a9c3821e..4149fd53 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000636.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000636.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that people should be encouraged to donate blood, bone marrow and organs. We believe that this is a moral duty and that people should be encouraged to do so. We also believe that people should not be forced to do so and that it should be their choice. We believe that it is a good thing to do, and that it should be encouraged but not forced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, people should be encouraged to donate blood, bone marrow and organs. There is no ethical duty to donate, however. People should be able to make their own decisions and there should be no compulsion to donate. If people were more informed of the benefits of donation, they may be more willing to donate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, people should be encouraged to donate blood, bone marrow and organs, but the decision to do so should be a personal one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be an ethical duty to donate blood, bone marrow and organs after death. There is little risk to the donor and the potential benefits to the recipient are huge. It is a life and death situation. If a person is willing to take an organ they should be prepared to donate one. The risk to the donor is minimal. It is the right thing to do. If a person is not willing to donate then they should not expect a transplant when they need one. A person has a moral duty to do what they can to save the life of another. The fact that someone has died does not mean that their body is no longer of use. It is better to donate the organs than let them rot in the ground. The body is no longer of use to the deceased but can be of great use to the living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that people should be encouraged to donate blood, bone marrow and organs. We believe that this is a moral duty and that people should be encouraged to do so. We also believe that people should not be forced to do so and that it should be their choice. We believe that it is a good thing to do, and that it should be encouraged but not forced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, people should be encouraged to donate blood, bone marrow and organs. There is no ethical duty to donate, however. People should be able to make their own decisions and there should be no compulsion to donate. If people were more informed of the benefits of donation, they may be more willing to donate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, people should be encouraged to donate blood, bone marrow and organs, but the decision to do so should be a personal one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be an ethical duty to donate blood, bone marrow and organs after death. There is little risk to the donor and the potential benefits to the recipient are huge. It is a life and death situation. If a person is willing to take an organ they should be prepared to donate one. The risk to the donor is minimal. It is the right thing to do. If a person is not willing to donate then they should not expect a transplant when they need one. A person has a moral duty to do what they can to save the life of another. The fact that someone has died does not mean that their body is no longer of use. It is better to donate the organs than let them rot in the ground. The body is no longer of use to the deceased but can be of great use to the living. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000637.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000637.soc index 9f671851..28373439 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000637.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000637.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should remain a member of the United Nations as it allows us to play a significant role in global decision making, it also provides a platform to promote our interests and values on a global stage. It is also important to have a united front against global issues such as terrorism, climate change and poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should remain a member of the UN as it is important to maintain our global presence, to promote our interests and values, and to support an international community feel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should remain a member of the UN as it helps to ensure that countries act with a common purpose to resolve global issues, whilst also providing a platform for the UK to promote its interests and values on a global stage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should remain a member of the United Nations as it allows us to play a significant role in global decision making, it also provides a platform to promote our interests and values on a global stage. It is also important to have a united front against global issues such as terrorism, climate change and poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should remain a member of the UN as it is important to maintain our global presence, to promote our interests and values, and to support an international community feel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should remain a member of the UN as it helps to ensure that countries act with a common purpose to resolve global issues, whilst also providing a platform for the UK to promote its interests and values on a global stage. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000638.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000638.soc index 55a9d2bd..6f6bb229 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000638.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000638.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The world will never reach a point of zero inequality. As a result of capitalism, some people will always have more money than others. The gap between the rich and poor will never be closed. In addition, some people will always be more privileged than others, as a result of things such as the family they were born into, their gender, their race and their body size. Some people will always be more privileged than others and some people will always be more selfish than others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't believe the world will ever reach a point of zero inequality. We believe this because there are too many differing views and lifestyles to be able to reach a consensus. Also, people in different countries have different religions and beliefs, therefore, they will not want to change the inequality. There are also different languages and cultures around the world, so people will not understand each other's views. People are also born into different situations and have different opportunities. Some people are born into money, so will always have a better chance in life than those who are born into poverty. Some people are born into the royal family and will always have a better chance in life than those who are born into poverty. I have attached the Google Doc with the individual participant's opinions and the consensus statement for your reference. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is unlikely that the world will ever reach a point of zero inequality, in all regards of the world. While it may be possible to reduce gender and racial inequality through cultural shifts, financial inequality is highly likely to remain. Some would argue that it is a by-product of capitalism, but, as a more general view, financial inequality is required in a healthy economic system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Inequality is a very complex subject and we don't believe that it will ever reach a point of zero inequality. The varying factors of religion, race, gender and sexuality will always be a factor. We think that some inequality is needed to create a healthy economy and to create an environment of healthy competition. However, the world should strive to create a more equal world where all people are treated equally and have equal opportunities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The world will never reach a point of zero inequality. As a result of capitalism, some people will always have more money than others. The gap between the rich and poor will never be closed. In addition, some people will always be more privileged than others, as a result of things such as the family they were born into, their gender, their race and their body size. Some people will always be more privileged than others and some people will always be more selfish than others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't believe the world will ever reach a point of zero inequality. We believe this because there are too many differing views and lifestyles to be able to reach a consensus. Also, people in different countries have different religions and beliefs, therefore, they will not want to change the inequality. There are also different languages and cultures around the world, so people will not understand each other's views. People are also born into different situations and have different opportunities. Some people are born into money, so will always have a better chance in life than those who are born into poverty. Some people are born into the royal family and will always have a better chance in life than those who are born into poverty. I have attached the Google Doc with the individual participant's opinions and the consensus statement for your reference. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is unlikely that the world will ever reach a point of zero inequality, in all regards of the world. While it may be possible to reduce gender and racial inequality through cultural shifts, financial inequality is highly likely to remain. Some would argue that it is a by-product of capitalism, but, as a more general view, financial inequality is required in a healthy economic system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Inequality is a very complex subject and we don't believe that it will ever reach a point of zero inequality. The varying factors of religion, race, gender and sexuality will always be a factor. We think that some inequality is needed to create a healthy economy and to create an environment of healthy competition. However, the world should strive to create a more equal world where all people are treated equally and have equal opportunities. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000639.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000639.soc index 051ee66c..40d3872e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000639.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000639.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The main concerns about marijuana use are the risk of addiction and the effect on mental health. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The main concerns about marijuana use are the affect on mental health and the risk of addiction. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The main concerns about marijuana use are the effect on mental health and the risk of addiction. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The main concerns about marijuana use are the risk of addiction and the effect on mental health. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The main concerns about marijuana use are the affect on mental health and the risk of addiction. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but it is not without risks. The main concerns about marijuana use are the effect on mental health and the risk of addiction. The health benefits of marijuana should be explored. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000640.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000640.soc index 543ed208..fb2694ba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000640.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000640.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. The United Nations is the most significant international organisation in the world. It is an organisation of 193 Member States, which provides a forum for countries to meet and discuss global issues and concerns. The United Nations is currently tackling some of the world’s most challenging issues, including the Syrian crisis, the fight against Ebola, climate change, and empowering women and girls. The United Nations is essential for global peace and security. It is also vital for protecting human rights, delivering humanitarian aid, and furthering sustainable development. The United Nations has its critics, but it is an essential forum for countries to come together and work together on the world’s most pressing issues. The UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and has a key role to play in the United Nations. The United Kingdom should remain a member of the United Nations. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000641.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000641.soc index 6566d3ae..81018bd7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000641.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000641.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A national register of the genetic codes of all the population is a step too far. The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not believe that there should be a national register of the genetic codes of all the population. This is because of the privacy issues and the possible discrimination that this may lead to. It is also because of the legal issues that this may cause if the codes are unreliable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a national register of the genetic codes of all the population, but only if it is made clear to the population what the register will be used for and if the register is used for this purpose only. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a national register of the genetic codes of all the population, but this should be voluntary. Anybody who wants to register their genetic code should be allowed to do so and they should be allowed to withdraw their information at any time. The genetic code information should be stored securely, and the government should appoint a body to govern access to the data. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A national register of the genetic codes of all the population is a step too far. The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not believe that there should be a national register of the genetic codes of all the population. This is because of the privacy issues and the possible discrimination that this may lead to. It is also because of the legal issues that this may cause if the codes are unreliable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a national register of the genetic codes of all the population, but only if it is made clear to the population what the register will be used for and if the register is used for this purpose only. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a national register of the genetic codes of all the population, but this should be voluntary. Anybody who wants to register their genetic code should be allowed to do so and they should be allowed to withdraw their information at any time. The genetic code information should be stored securely, and the government should appoint a body to govern access to the data. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000642.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000642.soc index a647013a..787209fd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000642.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000642.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed rail network. The idea was seen as being too risky, as the Chinese government is known to be a dictatorship and their investment would likely be motivated by their own benefit, rather than the benefit of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the Chinese state is not a trusted ally and there would be questions about their motivations for investing in the UK. Therefore, we should not allow them to invest in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to Chinese investment in the British railway system. The Chinese state has a poor human rights record and is not to be trusted. Therefore, we should not allow the Chinese to invest in our railway. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed rail network. The idea was seen as being too risky, as the Chinese government is known to be a dictatorship and their investment would likely be motivated by their own benefit, rather than the benefit of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the Chinese state is not a trusted ally and there would be questions about their motivations for investing in the UK. Therefore, we should not allow them to invest in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to Chinese investment in the British railway system. The Chinese state has a poor human rights record and is not to be trusted. Therefore, we should not allow the Chinese to invest in our railway. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000643.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000643.soc index 360b134f..01a674b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000643.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000643.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a tax system that ensures everyone pays their fair share. This means that those who are more wealthy should pay more tax. The current tax system is not working and it does not provide a level playing field for all. Some people with higher salaries are taxed at a higher rate, but there are also many people who have a lot of money, but who do not pay any tax at all. The tax system needs to be changed so that everyone pays their fair share. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are many people in society who do not pay their fair share of tax. Some of these people are very wealthy and can afford to pay more tax, but some of these people are not wealthy at all and should not be paying tax. There needs to be a level playing field for all. The current tax system does not provide this and needs to be changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People with more money should pay more taxes. The current tax system is not working and it does not provide a level playing field for all. Some people with higher salaries are taxed at a higher rate, but there are also many people who have a lot of money, but who do not pay any tax at all. The tax system needs to be changed so that everyone pays their fair share. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a more level playing field for all when it comes to taxation. People with more money should be taxed more, and those who have a lot of money but do not pay any tax should be taxed on their assets. The current tax system is not working and it does not provide a level playing field for all. Some people with higher salaries are taxed at a higher rate, but there are also many people who have a lot of money, but who do not pay any tax at all. The tax system needs to be changed so that everyone pays their fair share. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a tax system that ensures everyone pays their fair share. This means that those who are more wealthy should pay more tax. The current tax system is not working and it does not provide a level playing field for all. Some people with higher salaries are taxed at a higher rate, but there are also many people who have a lot of money, but who do not pay any tax at all. The tax system needs to be changed so that everyone pays their fair share. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are many people in society who do not pay their fair share of tax. Some of these people are very wealthy and can afford to pay more tax, but some of these people are not wealthy at all and should not be paying tax. There needs to be a level playing field for all. The current tax system does not provide this and needs to be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People with more money should pay more taxes. The current tax system is not working and it does not provide a level playing field for all. Some people with higher salaries are taxed at a higher rate, but there are also many people who have a lot of money, but who do not pay any tax at all. The tax system needs to be changed so that everyone pays their fair share. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a more level playing field for all when it comes to taxation. People with more money should be taxed more, and those who have a lot of money but do not pay any tax should be taxed on their assets. The current tax system is not working and it does not provide a level playing field for all. Some people with higher salaries are taxed at a higher rate, but there are also many people who have a lot of money, but who do not pay any tax at all. The tax system needs to be changed so that everyone pays their fair share. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000644.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000644.soc index 3fa71361..ad769ab0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000644.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000644.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. If it is not essential, it should be replaced by an alternative, preferably a natural alternative. Supermarkets should remove all plastic bags and replace them with paper bags. Customers should be able to purchase Jute bags if they have forgotten to bring their own bags. Plastic bottles are essential, but they should be refillable.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. If it is not essential, it should be replaced by an alternative, preferably a natural alternative. Some plastics, such as plastic bottles, are essential and should be recycled properly. We also suggest that supermarkets should provide an incentive for customers to bring their own shopping bags, for example by giving a discount for customers who bring their own bags.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Supermarkets should be encouraged to use alternatives to plastics in their packaging, where possible. They should also be encouraged to use biodegradable plastics in packaging where necessary. This would reduce the impact on the environment. They should also be encouraged to use return schemes for plastics such as milk bottles and water bottles to increase the lifespan of the plastic. This would reduce the impact on the environment.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. If it is not essential, it should be replaced by an alternative, preferably a natural alternative. Plastic bottles should not be banned but they should be collected and recycled responsibly. The use of paper bags should be encouraged and supermarkets should provide taps where customers can bring their own reusable containers to collect liquids such as milk and water. Supermarkets should also provide a cow feature where customers can milk it themselves.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. If it is not essential, it should be replaced by an alternative, preferably a natural alternative. Supermarkets should remove all plastic bags and replace them with paper bags. Customers should be able to purchase Jute bags if they have forgotten to bring their own bags. Plastic bottles are essential, but they should be refillable.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. If it is not essential, it should be replaced by an alternative, preferably a natural alternative. Some plastics, such as plastic bottles, are essential and should be recycled properly. We also suggest that supermarkets should provide an incentive for customers to bring their own shopping bags, for example by giving a discount for customers who bring their own bags.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Supermarkets should be encouraged to use alternatives to plastics in their packaging, where possible. They should also be encouraged to use biodegradable plastics in packaging where necessary. This would reduce the impact on the environment. They should also be encouraged to use return schemes for plastics such as milk bottles and water bottles to increase the lifespan of the plastic. This would reduce the impact on the environment.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Non-essential plastics should be banned from supermarkets. If it is not essential, it should be replaced by an alternative, preferably a natural alternative. Plastic bottles should not be banned but they should be collected and recycled responsibly. The use of paper bags should be encouraged and supermarkets should provide taps where customers can bring their own reusable containers to collect liquids such as milk and water. Supermarkets should also provide a cow feature where customers can milk it themselves.” 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000645.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000645.soc index 1c7d39f4..a5899ef8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000645.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000645.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of changing the UK flag. They felt that the flag is a symbol of the nation and its heritage and should not be changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the flag of the UK is a good flag and there is no reason to change it. However, if there was a religious reason to change it, it would be appropriate to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to changing the UK flag. They felt that it represented the heritage of the country and that there was no need to change it. The group also felt that it would be a waste of time and money to change the flag. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not change the UK flag. It represents all of the countries that make up the UK and it is a good symbol of unity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of changing the UK flag. They felt that the flag is a symbol of the nation and its heritage and should not be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the flag of the UK is a good flag and there is no reason to change it. However, if there was a religious reason to change it, it would be appropriate to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to changing the UK flag. They felt that it represented the heritage of the country and that there was no need to change it. The group also felt that it would be a waste of time and money to change the flag. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not change the UK flag. It represents all of the countries that make up the UK and it is a good symbol of unity. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000646.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000646.soc index f6fa8e51..61053a4a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000646.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000646.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is no need to change the UK flag. The current flag is a representation of the history of the UK and its constituent nations. It is also a waste of time and money to change the flag. However, it is important to consider that Muslims are projected to become the majority in this country within a few decades. While this is not anytime soon, in the future there might be a very valid reason to change the flag. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is no need to change the UK flag. It represents the heritage of the country and there is no reason to change it. Moreover, all counties inside have own flags, so it fair to keep it as it is. It would be a waste of time and money to change the flag. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group in general was opposed to changing the UK flag. They felt that it represented the heritage of the country and that there was no need to change it. The group also felt that it would be a waste of time and money to change the flag. The group also felt that it was important to remember that the flag represents each of the nations of the UK and that it would be worth adding in some info about how it represents each nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was opposed to changing the UK flag. They felt that it represented the heritage of the country and that there was no need to change it. The group also felt that it would be a waste of time and money to change the flag. The group felt that it would be worth adding in some info about how it represents each nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is no need to change the UK flag. The current flag is a representation of the history of the UK and its constituent nations. It is also a waste of time and money to change the flag. However, it is important to consider that Muslims are projected to become the majority in this country within a few decades. While this is not anytime soon, in the future there might be a very valid reason to change the flag. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is no need to change the UK flag. It represents the heritage of the country and there is no reason to change it. Moreover, all counties inside have own flags, so it fair to keep it as it is. It would be a waste of time and money to change the flag. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group in general was opposed to changing the UK flag. They felt that it represented the heritage of the country and that there was no need to change it. The group also felt that it would be a waste of time and money to change the flag. The group also felt that it was important to remember that the flag represents each of the nations of the UK and that it would be worth adding in some info about how it represents each nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was opposed to changing the UK flag. They felt that it represented the heritage of the country and that there was no need to change it. The group also felt that it would be a waste of time and money to change the flag. The group felt that it would be worth adding in some info about how it represents each nation. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000647.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000647.soc index 2d8e4e98..dfcd2542 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000647.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000647.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to Scotland becoming independent. It was felt that Scotland would not be able to survive on its own as an independent country. However, if the majority of people in Scotland do want to become independent, then this should be allowed. This is because, as one participant pointed out, it would be unfair to prevent Scotland from being independent if the majority of people living there wanted this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of independence, but with some reservations. The primary reservation was the economic viability of an independent Scotland, and the fact that it would probably need to adopt the Euro in order to be accepted into the EU. This would have a detrimental effect on the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Scotland should be given the option to vote on independence again in the future. They should have the option to do so after a reasonable amount of time has passed since the last referendum. However, this option should not be offered until after Brexit has been fully implemented and the UK has had time to assess the impact of this decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of independence for Scotland. The benefits of an independent Scotland are numerous, and include greater sovereignty, greater democratic accountability, and the ability to forge their own path. The group was, however, of the opinion that there are numerous disadvantages to independence, and these include the potential loss of subsidies from the UK, the need to establish new institutions and infrastructure, and the potential for future disputes with the rest of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to Scotland becoming independent. It was felt that Scotland would not be able to survive on its own as an independent country. However, if the majority of people in Scotland do want to become independent, then this should be allowed. This is because, as one participant pointed out, it would be unfair to prevent Scotland from being independent if the majority of people living there wanted this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of independence, but with some reservations. The primary reservation was the economic viability of an independent Scotland, and the fact that it would probably need to adopt the Euro in order to be accepted into the EU. This would have a detrimental effect on the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Scotland should be given the option to vote on independence again in the future. They should have the option to do so after a reasonable amount of time has passed since the last referendum. However, this option should not be offered until after Brexit has been fully implemented and the UK has had time to assess the impact of this decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of independence for Scotland. The benefits of an independent Scotland are numerous, and include greater sovereignty, greater democratic accountability, and the ability to forge their own path. The group was, however, of the opinion that there are numerous disadvantages to independence, and these include the potential loss of subsidies from the UK, the need to establish new institutions and infrastructure, and the potential for future disputes with the rest of the UK. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000648.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000648.soc index 9acf7709..5f63c80d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000648.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000648.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents, but there should be some guidelines in place, such as an age limit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. That information has been inherited by them. They should be able to have knowledge of it. They may not understand it fully but it is their right to have it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. That information has been inherited by them. They should be able to have knowledge of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents, but there should be some guidelines in place, such as an age limit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. That information has been inherited by them. They should be able to have knowledge of it. They may not understand it fully but it is their right to have it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. That information has been inherited by them. They should be able to have knowledge of it. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000649.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000649.soc index e15c18c4..2498a261 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000649.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000649.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. They should also be made aware of the potential risks of knowing this information, and be given support if they need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. The age at which a child is considered old enough to understand is debatable, but a good way to decide this is to look at the child's mental maturity and their ability to cope with the information that they will be given. This will vary from child to child. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. We think that they should be able to access it from the age of 18, but it is important to note that this is an arbitrary age, and it is difficult to determine whether someone is old enough to understand their genomic information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. They should also be made aware of the potential risks of knowing this information, and be given support if they need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. The age at which a child is considered old enough to understand is debatable, but a good way to decide this is to look at the child's mental maturity and their ability to cope with the information that they will be given. This will vary from child to child. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be able to access their genomic information without the consent of their parents. Children should have the right to know about themselves and their genomic information, as it is something that is unique to them. However, they should not be allowed to access it until they are old enough to understand it, and it should be made clear to them that it is a choice they can make. If they do not wish to know, they should not be forced to. We think that they should be able to access it from the age of 18, but it is important to note that this is an arbitrary age, and it is difficult to determine whether someone is old enough to understand their genomic information. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000650.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000650.soc index a71d0603..ab337cf7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000650.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000650.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that GM foods are safe to eat. There is no evidence that they are harmful to humans or the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of GM foods. They all agreed that the potential benefits of GM foods outweighed any potential risks. They did however agree that the public should be fully informed of the potential risks involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that genetically modified foods are okay to eat as long as they are properly labeled and consumers are aware of what they are eating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that GM foods are safe to eat. There is no evidence that they are harmful to humans or the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of GM foods. They all agreed that the potential benefits of GM foods outweighed any potential risks. They did however agree that the public should be fully informed of the potential risks involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that genetically modified foods are okay to eat as long as they are properly labeled and consumers are aware of what they are eating. 4: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000651.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000651.soc index 62d21a22..c1f6ce9b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000651.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000651.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. The group also felt that Chinese investment in the railways would be a very bad idea because of the Chinese's labour standards and their lack of respect for human rights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. The group also felt that Chinese investment in the railways would be a very bad idea because of the Chinese's labour standards and their lack of respect for human rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of Chinese investment in our railways. The main reason for this was the fact that we are not sure what the Chinese's motivation would be for investing in the railways. It was felt that the Chinese could use this investment to exert control over the UK. This would be very dangerous. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000652.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000652.soc index a6244bda..39aac484 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000652.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000652.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A national register of the genetic codes of all the population is not a step too far. The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no national register of the genetic codes of all the population. The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A national register of the genetic codes of all the population is a step too far. The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A national register of the genetic codes of all the population is not a step too far. The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no national register of the genetic codes of all the population. The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A national register of the genetic codes of all the population is a step too far. The government should not mandate things like this on the population and people should always have a say on these kind of things. We should not be making it easier to discriminate against people, especially on the basis of their ethnicity. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000653.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000653.soc index 38eeaa9e..5f17e1b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000653.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000653.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The UK should maintain its current levels of defence spending. Defence spending is important to our country and our security. However, we need to make sure that it is spent efficiently and not wasted. We should increase our spending on defence if we see an increase in the threat level to our country.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group of participants were split on this question. The participants with a pro-defence spending view believed that the current spending levels should be maintained due to the current economic climate. However, the participants with an anti-defence spending view believed that the current spending levels should be reduced in order to help other areas of the economy. Therefore, the group of participants came to the following consensus view: The current levels of defence spending should be maintained, however, in the long-term a gradual reduction in defence spending should occur. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should maintain its current levels of defence spending. This is due to the fact that the threat from terrorism has increased, and the threat from other countries such as Russia is also increasing. Also, the UK's current levels of defence spending is important to maintain jobs in the defence sector, and is also an important part of the UK's economy. The group also felt that there is a need to maintain a balance between the UK's current levels of defence spending, and the UK's other public spending priorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should maintain its current levels of defence spending, but should continue to look for ways to make the armed forces more efficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The UK should maintain its current levels of defence spending. Defence spending is important to our country and our security. However, we need to make sure that it is spent efficiently and not wasted. We should increase our spending on defence if we see an increase in the threat level to our country.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group of participants were split on this question. The participants with a pro-defence spending view believed that the current spending levels should be maintained due to the current economic climate. However, the participants with an anti-defence spending view believed that the current spending levels should be reduced in order to help other areas of the economy. Therefore, the group of participants came to the following consensus view: The current levels of defence spending should be maintained, however, in the long-term a gradual reduction in defence spending should occur. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should maintain its current levels of defence spending. This is due to the fact that the threat from terrorism has increased, and the threat from other countries such as Russia is also increasing. Also, the UK's current levels of defence spending is important to maintain jobs in the defence sector, and is also an important part of the UK's economy. The group also felt that there is a need to maintain a balance between the UK's current levels of defence spending, and the UK's other public spending priorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should maintain its current levels of defence spending, but should continue to look for ways to make the armed forces more efficient. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000654.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000654.soc index ec00aaa8..652e012f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000654.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000654.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Obesity is a greater health risk than alcoholism. It is a much more wide spread problem and is increasing. It affects all parts of the body and increases the risk of many different diseases. Alcoholism affects mainly the liver, but also increases the risk of heart disease and mental health issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Obesity is a worse health risk than alcoholism. There are more people affected by obesity, and it affects a wider range of health issues. Alcoholism can be managed with willpower, but obesity is more of a problem in today's society. The issue of obesity is likely to become worse, whereas alcoholism is not as big an issue in younger generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Both obesity and alcoholism are serious health risks and both present a cost to society. There are more obese people than alcoholics, so in terms of scale obesity will cause more people to have health issues, and will therefore be a larger cost to the health services. However, I believe that obese people, in a sense, only put their own health at risk. Whilst there are fewer alcoholics, their actions have a larger impact on those around them. People who have issues with alcohol may become violent and hurt others. They can cause mental health issues for family and friends who witness their behaviour. Children of alcoholics often have no choice but to live in the same home and suffer years of potential neglect.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the health risk of obesity is greater than that of alcoholism. This is because obesity has been shown to increase the risk of developing many different health conditions, whereas alcoholism only increases the risk of liver disease. In addition, obesity is more common than alcoholism and therefore affects more people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Obesity is a greater health risk than alcoholism. It is a much more wide spread problem and is increasing. It affects all parts of the body and increases the risk of many different diseases. Alcoholism affects mainly the liver, but also increases the risk of heart disease and mental health issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Obesity is a worse health risk than alcoholism. There are more people affected by obesity, and it affects a wider range of health issues. Alcoholism can be managed with willpower, but obesity is more of a problem in today's society. The issue of obesity is likely to become worse, whereas alcoholism is not as big an issue in younger generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Both obesity and alcoholism are serious health risks and both present a cost to society. There are more obese people than alcoholics, so in terms of scale obesity will cause more people to have health issues, and will therefore be a larger cost to the health services. However, I believe that obese people, in a sense, only put their own health at risk. Whilst there are fewer alcoholics, their actions have a larger impact on those around them. People who have issues with alcohol may become violent and hurt others. They can cause mental health issues for family and friends who witness their behaviour. Children of alcoholics often have no choice but to live in the same home and suffer years of potential neglect.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the health risk of obesity is greater than that of alcoholism. This is because obesity has been shown to increase the risk of developing many different health conditions, whereas alcoholism only increases the risk of liver disease. In addition, obesity is more common than alcoholism and therefore affects more people. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000655.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000655.soc index 74f0e339..84cdef7f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000655.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000655.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. However, it was felt that the Government should do more to promote the development of renewable energy sources and to make these more accessible to the general public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. It was felt that this would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. It was also felt that this would help address the spiralling cost of electricity for consumers. However, the group also felt that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. The group felt that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. The group felt that this would be a way of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and help us move towards a greener future. The group did however feel that more research into renewable energy sources should be carried out. The group also felt that nuclear power stations should be built in more remote locations, away from densely populated areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. It was felt that the need to move away from fossil fuels was a key driver for the construction of new nuclear power stations. There was a feeling that in the long term the construction of new nuclear power stations would be beneficial to the UK economy. However, the construction of new nuclear power stations would be at the expense of the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. However, it was felt that the Government should do more to promote the development of renewable energy sources and to make these more accessible to the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. It was felt that this would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. It was also felt that this would help address the spiralling cost of electricity for consumers. However, the group also felt that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. The group felt that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. The group felt that this would be a way of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and help us move towards a greener future. The group did however feel that more research into renewable energy sources should be carried out. The group also felt that nuclear power stations should be built in more remote locations, away from densely populated areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. It was felt that the need to move away from fossil fuels was a key driver for the construction of new nuclear power stations. There was a feeling that in the long term the construction of new nuclear power stations would be beneficial to the UK economy. However, the construction of new nuclear power stations would be at the expense of the environment. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000656.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000656.soc index 2ef325b2..b30d2eec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000656.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000656.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. It was felt that this would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. It was also felt that this would help address the spiralling cost of electricity for consumers. However, the group also felt that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. The group felt that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group in general felt that building new nuclear power stations in the UK was a good idea. It was felt that this would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. It was also felt that this would help address the spiralling cost of electricity for consumers. However, the group also felt that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. The group felt that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There was a consensus that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. There was also a consensus that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. However, there was also a consensus that building new nuclear power stations in the UK would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. It was felt that this would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. It was also felt that this would help address the spiralling cost of electricity for consumers. However, the group also felt that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. The group felt that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. It was felt that this would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. It was also felt that this would help address the spiralling cost of electricity for consumers. However, the group also felt that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. The group felt that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group in general felt that building new nuclear power stations in the UK was a good idea. It was felt that this would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. It was also felt that this would help address the spiralling cost of electricity for consumers. However, the group also felt that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. The group felt that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There was a consensus that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. There was also a consensus that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. However, there was also a consensus that building new nuclear power stations in the UK would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in favour of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. It was felt that this would help reduce the UK's dependency on fossil fuels and would help the UK reduce its carbon footprint. It was also felt that this would help address the spiralling cost of electricity for consumers. However, the group also felt that the UK should invest in developing renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar power. The group felt that the UK should be doing everything it can to reduce its dependency on energy provided by countries outside the UK. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000657.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000657.soc index 010dde51..da3c49c2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000657.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000657.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the military is important to defend not just our country but also other countries that may be invaded or opressed. It is important to have sometimes as a deterant. I don't think we should spend any more on warfare than is needed. Remember the military also help on home turf when we have strikes or a natural disaster has occured as they have training to deal with emergencies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not be spending less on the military. In fact, it should be spending more. The UK military is an essential part of our society, and we need to be able to defend our country in the case of a war. The military also plays a vital role in humanitarian aid. We need to ensure that they have the right training and equipment to be able to carry out their role to the best of their ability. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing military spending, although some participants felt that the military should be moved away from land based armies and move into more defence based strategy like the navy and airforce and also cyber counterintelligence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not spend less on the military. We need to be able to protect ourselves and our allies from aggressors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the military is important to defend not just our country but also other countries that may be invaded or opressed. It is important to have sometimes as a deterant. I don't think we should spend any more on warfare than is needed. Remember the military also help on home turf when we have strikes or a natural disaster has occured as they have training to deal with emergencies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not be spending less on the military. In fact, it should be spending more. The UK military is an essential part of our society, and we need to be able to defend our country in the case of a war. The military also plays a vital role in humanitarian aid. We need to ensure that they have the right training and equipment to be able to carry out their role to the best of their ability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing military spending, although some participants felt that the military should be moved away from land based armies and move into more defence based strategy like the navy and airforce and also cyber counterintelligence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not spend less on the military. We need to be able to protect ourselves and our allies from aggressors. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000658.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000658.soc index f22bc9de..c993c9a5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000658.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000658.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. However, we believe that GM foods should be labelled as such, so that consumers can make an informed choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. We think that this is a good thing because the food can be sold at a lower price and because it is resistant to pests it is less likely to be wasted. However, we think that it is important that the food is labelled as GMO so that people know what they are eating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. We also believe that the foods should be labelled as GMO or not so that people are aware of what they are eating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. However, we believe that GM foods should be labelled as such, so that consumers can make an informed choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. We think that this is a good thing because the food can be sold at a lower price and because it is resistant to pests it is less likely to be wasted. However, we think that it is important that the food is labelled as GMO so that people know what they are eating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that it is okay to eat genetically modified foods. We think that the risks are minimal and that the benefits of genetically modified food are great. This is because GM foods are highly resistant to pests, they have a better shelf life, they are more appealing to eat, and they have a similar nutritional value to non-GMO foods. We also believe that the foods should be labelled as GMO or not so that people are aware of what they are eating. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000659.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000659.soc index 93c84004..4b6f4137 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000659.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000659.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, it would be a good idea to offer cash rewards for anyone who can solve the world's biggest problems. This would incentivise people and businesses to try and solve the problems, however, there is a risk of corruption and fraud. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of offering cash rewards for anyone who can solve the world's biggest problems is a good one, however, we should be careful that it is not open to corruption and fraud. Wherever money and government are concerned, we are skeptical that it is used in an honest and decent way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should offer cash rewards for anyone who can solve the world's biggest problems, however, we must ensure this system is not open to corruption and fraud. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, it would be a good idea to offer cash rewards for anyone who can solve the world's biggest problems. This would incentivise people and businesses to try and solve the problems, however, there is a risk of corruption and fraud. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of offering cash rewards for anyone who can solve the world's biggest problems is a good one, however, we should be careful that it is not open to corruption and fraud. Wherever money and government are concerned, we are skeptical that it is used in an honest and decent way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should offer cash rewards for anyone who can solve the world's biggest problems, however, we must ensure this system is not open to corruption and fraud. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000660.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000660.soc index 8f826b01..f5f1dfd9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000660.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000660.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should be funded by tax-payer money, but the way it is funded should be reviewed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should be funded by tax payers, as it is a publically funded channel and is meant to be neutral. However, the TV license is an outdated method of funding. The BBC should be funded by a method similar to that of the BBC Iplayer. This is a more up to date method and therefore would be more beneficial for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the BBC should not be funded by the tax-payer. Not everyone watches the BBC. Therefore, why should you pay for something you don't use? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the BBC should not be funded by the tax-payer. The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should be funded by tax-payer money, but the way it is funded should be reviewed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should be funded by tax payers, as it is a publically funded channel and is meant to be neutral. However, the TV license is an outdated method of funding. The BBC should be funded by a method similar to that of the BBC Iplayer. This is a more up to date method and therefore would be more beneficial for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the BBC should not be funded by the tax-payer. Not everyone watches the BBC. Therefore, why should you pay for something you don't use? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the BBC should not be funded by the tax-payer. The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000661.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000661.soc index ef9a6373..b7b844ae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000661.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000661.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Capitalism is not a fair and sustainable economic system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Capitalism in its current form is not fair or sustainable. However, capitalism is not a bad idea, and if it were more fairly distributed it could be both fair and sustainable. We believe that capitalism is the best system that has been tried so far. There are no viable alternatives to capitalism at this point. If we were to change the system, it would be necessary to change the way people think. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Capitalism is not a fair and sustainable economic system. The market economy creates a gap between the rich and poor. The rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer. The current economic system has created more problems than solutions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Capitalism is not a fair or sustainable economic system in isolation. The hoarding of wealth by a few and the increasingly difficult conditions of the many show us this. Capitalism tempered and ameliorated by socialism may be the best system we can hope for. This would allow for innovation and a fair return on labour while ensuring those who are struggling are assisted. Late Stage Capitalism (considered by many to be what we are in now) results in suffering and unfairness in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Capitalism is not a fair and sustainable economic system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Capitalism in its current form is not fair or sustainable. However, capitalism is not a bad idea, and if it were more fairly distributed it could be both fair and sustainable. We believe that capitalism is the best system that has been tried so far. There are no viable alternatives to capitalism at this point. If we were to change the system, it would be necessary to change the way people think. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Capitalism is not a fair and sustainable economic system. The market economy creates a gap between the rich and poor. The rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer. The current economic system has created more problems than solutions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Capitalism is not a fair or sustainable economic system in isolation. The hoarding of wealth by a few and the increasingly difficult conditions of the many show us this. Capitalism tempered and ameliorated by socialism may be the best system we can hope for. This would allow for innovation and a fair return on labour while ensuring those who are struggling are assisted. Late Stage Capitalism (considered by many to be what we are in now) results in suffering and unfairness in society. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000662.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000662.soc index f61bf107..bdc2caf9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000662.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000662.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should spend more money on road repairs. Roads are vital to our lifestyles, our economy and most of the things we do and value as a nation. The government should increase funding to the local government to improve our roads and highways immediately. The state of the roads is the worst they have ever been and the pot holes are becoming increasingly dangerous. The bad state of the roads is causing damage to a lot of cars and there is increased dangerous driving as motorists swerve to avoid large potholes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should spend more on road repairs as the current state of our roads is a danger to all road users and damaging to our cars. However, there are other important priorities that need funding and therefore the government should not increase funding for road repairs.” This is a typical example of how people reach a consensus opinion after deliberation. The key thing to note is that they did not change their minds to reach a consensus. Instead they each changed the emphasis they placed on different parts of their opinion to reach a common view. This is the key to consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more on road repairs. Most felt that there were too many dangerous potholes on the roads and that this was a threat to public safety. They felt that the money being spent on road repairs was not adequate to address this problem and that the government should increase funding for road repairs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In principle the government should spend more on road repairs but in reality there are other priorities which should be given more funding.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should spend more money on road repairs. Roads are vital to our lifestyles, our economy and most of the things we do and value as a nation. The government should increase funding to the local government to improve our roads and highways immediately. The state of the roads is the worst they have ever been and the pot holes are becoming increasingly dangerous. The bad state of the roads is causing damage to a lot of cars and there is increased dangerous driving as motorists swerve to avoid large potholes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should spend more on road repairs as the current state of our roads is a danger to all road users and damaging to our cars. However, there are other important priorities that need funding and therefore the government should not increase funding for road repairs.” This is a typical example of how people reach a consensus opinion after deliberation. The key thing to note is that they did not change their minds to reach a consensus. Instead they each changed the emphasis they placed on different parts of their opinion to reach a common view. This is the key to consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more on road repairs. Most felt that there were too many dangerous potholes on the roads and that this was a threat to public safety. They felt that the money being spent on road repairs was not adequate to address this problem and that the government should increase funding for road repairs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In principle the government should spend more on road repairs but in reality there are other priorities which should be given more funding.” 2: 1,3,4,2 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000663.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000663.soc index e9fb5c38..38886084 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000663.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000663.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. It would be good to add why the group was in favour as the statement currently doesn't elaborate. The solution to problems like climate change could take hundreds of years, so the reward could potentially be required before the problem is solved. I agree with this but would also add that there would need to be stringent measures in place to ensure the integrity of those wishing to partake as presumably there would be a lot of people/groups. It is very ambiguous and there would need to be a very structured and well thought out process in place. This statement agrees very closely with my original statement but offers a way of potentially solving how the money could be distributed fairly. It's well written and gives balance and foresight. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. The problem could be something like climate change, for example. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. It would be good to add why the group was in favour as the statement currently doesn't elaborate. The solution to problems like climate change could take hundreds of years, so the reward could potentially be required before the problem is solved. I agree with this but would also add that there would need to be stringent measures in place to ensure the integrity of those wishing to partake as presumably there would be a lot of people/groups. It is very ambiguous and there would need to be a very structured and well thought out process in place. This statement agrees very closely with my original statement but offers a way of potentially solving how the money could be distributed fairly. It's well written and gives balance and foresight. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. The problem could be something like climate change, for example. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of this idea. However, it is very important to ensure that the system is not open to abuse. The system would also have to be set up in such a way that the reward would be given only after the problem is solved and not before. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000664.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000664.soc index d20fbe1d..25c235a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000664.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000664.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life of all people. The details of how to implement such a scheme would need to be considered carefully, however. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Universal Basic Income is a good idea, as it will reduce poverty, reduce pressure on the healthcare system, and reduce crime. However, it is very important to be careful with the implementation, and to be sure that it is affordable for the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It would allow people to concentrate on starting a new business or follow artistic avenues. It would only cover lifes basics and wouldn't be enough to live on so shouldn't contribute to unemployment and laziness. People would be more sercure and less reliant on food banks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It would reduce poverty and reduce the cost of administering benefits. The amount of income provided would not be enough to live on and would not encourage laziness. It would reduce the stress of not being able to make ends meet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life of all people. The details of how to implement such a scheme would need to be considered carefully, however. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea, as it will reduce poverty, reduce pressure on the healthcare system, and reduce crime. However, it is very important to be careful with the implementation, and to be sure that it is affordable for the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It would allow people to concentrate on starting a new business or follow artistic avenues. It would only cover lifes basics and wouldn't be enough to live on so shouldn't contribute to unemployment and laziness. People would be more sercure and less reliant on food banks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It would reduce poverty and reduce the cost of administering benefits. The amount of income provided would not be enough to live on and would not encourage laziness. It would reduce the stress of not being able to make ends meet. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000665.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000665.soc index 100122ab..d7977771 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000665.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000665.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Human population growth is a good thing because it increases the chances of advancement. It is also a good thing as it increases growth on many levels. However it is also a good thing as humans would evolve over time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Human population growth is a good thing as it increases the chances of advancement. It is also a good thing as it increases growth on many levels. It is also a good thing as humans would evolve over time, but we need to be mindful of resources and other negative impacts such as contributing further to pollution and climate change. Growth needs to be managed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Human population growth is a good thing as it increases the chances of advancement. It is also a good thing as it increases growth on many levels. It is also a good thing as humans would evolve over time. However resources are not infinite and growth must be managed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Human population growth is a good thing as it increases the chances of advancement. It is also a good thing as it increases growth on many levels. It is also a good thing as humans would evolve over time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Human population growth is a good thing because it increases the chances of advancement. It is also a good thing as it increases growth on many levels. However it is also a good thing as humans would evolve over time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Human population growth is a good thing as it increases the chances of advancement. It is also a good thing as it increases growth on many levels. It is also a good thing as humans would evolve over time, but we need to be mindful of resources and other negative impacts such as contributing further to pollution and climate change. Growth needs to be managed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Human population growth is a good thing as it increases the chances of advancement. It is also a good thing as it increases growth on many levels. It is also a good thing as humans would evolve over time. However resources are not infinite and growth must be managed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Human population growth is a good thing as it increases the chances of advancement. It is also a good thing as it increases growth on many levels. It is also a good thing as humans would evolve over time. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000666.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000666.soc index bd293685..f5701eaf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000666.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000666.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the BBC should not be funded by the tax-payer. The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. It should be noted that the BBC does provide many services that are not funded by the tax-payer, such as radio services, which are funded by subscription. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC should not be funded by the tax-payer. The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. The group of participants also agreed to the following set of reasons in support of the final consensus statement: Reasons: The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should be funded by the tax-payer. It is important that the BBC is funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, this does not mean that the BBC should be funded by the tax-payer for all of its services. The BBC provides a wide range of services, including news, entertainment, and educational programmes. We think that the BBC should be funded by the tax-payer for its news service, but not for its entertainment or educational programmes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the BBC should not be funded by the tax-payer. The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. It should be noted that the BBC does provide many services that are not funded by the tax-payer, such as radio services, which are funded by subscription. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC should not be funded by the tax-payer. The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. The group of participants also agreed to the following set of reasons in support of the final consensus statement: Reasons: The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should be funded by the tax-payer. It is important that the BBC is funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, this does not mean that the BBC should be funded by the tax-payer for all of its services. The BBC provides a wide range of services, including news, entertainment, and educational programmes. We think that the BBC should be funded by the tax-payer for its news service, but not for its entertainment or educational programmes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC is a very large organisation, and has many different functions. Some of these functions, such as providing a news service, should be funded by the tax-payer, as it is important for democracy that there is a neutral news service that can report on political issues. However, other functions of the BBC, such as entertainment programmes, should not be funded by the tax-payer, as this is not in the public interest. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000667.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000667.soc index 06a4f270..8ec2f73a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000667.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000667.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A multi-party government is the best option as it represents all sections of society. It also prevents any one party from getting carried away with what they feel is best for society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, a multi-party government is a good idea as it reflects the opinions of more people in society. However, it can also be a slow process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A multi-party government is a better option as it is more representative of the will of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A multi-party government is the best option as it represents all sections of society. It also prevents any one party from getting carried away with what they feel is best for society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, a multi-party government is a good idea as it reflects the opinions of more people in society. However, it can also be a slow process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A multi-party government is a better option as it is more representative of the will of the people. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000668.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000668.soc index 37728f83..a1dff87f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000668.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000668.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life for all people. Reduced poverty leads to less crime, and less pressure on the healthcare systems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life for all people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life for all people. The details of how to implement such a scheme would need to be considered carefully, however. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life for all people. The details of how to implement such a scheme would need to be considered carefully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life for all people. Reduced poverty leads to less crime, and less pressure on the healthcare systems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life for all people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life for all people. The details of how to implement such a scheme would need to be considered carefully, however. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It will reduce the economic precarity of the lower classes and reduce their reliance on exploitative employers. It will allow people to pursue their passions in life and allow for the flourishing of the arts. It is not a replacement for work, but rather a way of improving the quality of life for all people. The details of how to implement such a scheme would need to be considered carefully. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000669.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000669.soc index 52018cbd..756ab28a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000669.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000669.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, it is not okay for doctors to withhold pain medication from patients who are addicted to opioids. The exception is when the doctor is in doubt about the veracity of the patient's claim of pain, or when the doctor is certain that the patient is abusing the health care system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not okay for doctors to withhold pain medication from patients who are addicted to opioids. However, if the doctor is in doubt about the veracity of the patient's claim of pain, it is okay for the doctor to withhold pain medication until the patient's claim of pain is verified. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it is not okay for doctors to withhold pain medication from patients who are addicted to opioids. The exception is when the doctor is in doubt about the veracity of the patient's claim of pain. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is not okay for doctors to withhold pain medication from patients who are addicted to opioids. However, if the doctor has reason to believe the patient is faking their claim of pain, it is okay to withhold pain medication. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, it is not okay for doctors to withhold pain medication from patients who are addicted to opioids. The exception is when the doctor is in doubt about the veracity of the patient's claim of pain, or when the doctor is certain that the patient is abusing the health care system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not okay for doctors to withhold pain medication from patients who are addicted to opioids. However, if the doctor is in doubt about the veracity of the patient's claim of pain, it is okay for the doctor to withhold pain medication until the patient's claim of pain is verified. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it is not okay for doctors to withhold pain medication from patients who are addicted to opioids. The exception is when the doctor is in doubt about the veracity of the patient's claim of pain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is not okay for doctors to withhold pain medication from patients who are addicted to opioids. However, if the doctor has reason to believe the patient is faking their claim of pain, it is okay to withhold pain medication. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000670.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000670.soc index f5e13f09..229a36c4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000670.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000670.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. However, it is important to remember that a multi-party government is also more likely to take a long time to make decisions, as all parties need to agree. This can cause issues if a quick decision is needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. This is because they will be held accountable by other parties, who may have different views. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. However, it is important to remember that a multi-party government is also more likely to take a long time to make decisions, as all parties need to agree. This can cause issues if a quick decision is needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A multi-party government is the best option for a society. This is because all groups in society will be represented, and this means that the government is more likely to reflect the views of society as a whole. It also means that a party can not get carried away with what they feel is appropriate for the whole of society. This is because they will be held accountable by other parties, who may have different views. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000671.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000671.soc index 5c95c408..da0d68bb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000671.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000671.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The human race is important to the earth and the universe, but the universe is important to the human race. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are not the most important thing in the universe, but we are important to the universe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the human race is important in the sense that we are the only race that we know of that can make conscious decisions, we are not the most important thing in the universe. The universe is so vast that it is impossible to determine what the most important thing in the universe is. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The human species is not the most important thing in the universe, however, the planet that sustains all life is the most important thing in the universe for the human race. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The human race is important to the earth and the universe, but the universe is important to the human race. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are not the most important thing in the universe, but we are important to the universe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the human race is important in the sense that we are the only race that we know of that can make conscious decisions, we are not the most important thing in the universe. The universe is so vast that it is impossible to determine what the most important thing in the universe is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The human species is not the most important thing in the universe, however, the planet that sustains all life is the most important thing in the universe for the human race. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000672.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000672.soc index 79ecba70..276a76bd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000672.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000672.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The food industry is heavily regulated in the UK and has some of the highest standards in the world. However, it is vital that we continue to uphold the highest possible standards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The food industry is a heavily regulated industry. The food regulations are in a good place and don't need to be any stricter. The UK has some of the best Food and Health safety in the world and we should maintain our current high standards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be stricter regulations for the food industry. This is to ensure the safety of the public and to ensure that all food producers are held to the same standard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be stricter regulations in the food industry. The public should have the trust in the food they buy, whether that be material or ready meals. There should be clarity and accountability in the food industry. The regulations should be maintained at a high standard. The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The food industry is heavily regulated in the UK and has some of the highest standards in the world. However, it is vital that we continue to uphold the highest possible standards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The food industry is a heavily regulated industry. The food regulations are in a good place and don't need to be any stricter. The UK has some of the best Food and Health safety in the world and we should maintain our current high standards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be stricter regulations for the food industry. This is to ensure the safety of the public and to ensure that all food producers are held to the same standard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be stricter regulations in the food industry. The public should have the trust in the food they buy, whether that be material or ready meals. There should be clarity and accountability in the food industry. The regulations should be maintained at a high standard. The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000673.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000673.soc index cf6d6741..ba200e02 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000673.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000673.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be stricter regulations in the food industry. The public should have the trust in the food they buy, whether that be material or ready meals. The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be stricter regulations in the food industry. The public should have the trust in the food they buy, whether that be material or ready meals. There should be clarity and accountability in the food industry. The regulations should be maintained at a high standard. The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be stricter regulations in the food industry. The public should have the trust in the food they buy, whether that be material or ready meals. The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The regulations should be maintained at a high standard. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be stricter regulations in the food industry. The public should have the trust in the food they buy, whether that be material or ready meals. The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be stricter regulations in the food industry. The public should have the trust in the food they buy, whether that be material or ready meals. There should be clarity and accountability in the food industry. The regulations should be maintained at a high standard. The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be stricter regulations in the food industry. The public should have the trust in the food they buy, whether that be material or ready meals. The food industry is already heavily regulated, but there is always room for improvement. The regulations should be maintained at a high standard. The public's health is very important and should be protected from illness. The food industry should be held responsible for what they sell to the public. The public should be informed on what they are buying. There should be transparency. The food industry should not be allowed to sell food that will cause illness to the public. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000674.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000674.soc index 7ec18a48..d2a7b671 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000674.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000674.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A universal basic income is needed in order to provide a safety net for people who may be unemployed in the future due to the rise of AI. The current welfare system is not fit for purpose and is often very punitive and disempowering. A universal basic income would provide a safety net for people in times of need and also remove the need to constantly monitor the income and employment status of people on benefits. A universal basic income would also provide a basic income for people in work, but who are living in poverty. A universal basic income would also provide a basic income for people with health conditions who are unable to work. A universal basic income would provide a basic income for people who are unable to work due to caring for family members. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the idea of a universal basic income is very attractive, as it could provide an income to those who are currently locked out of the benefits system and would provide stability and security to those who are struggling to make ends meet. However, it is important to consider how it could be implemented and the costs involved. The consensus view of the group is that there should be a wide-scale trial of the concept to see how it could be implemented in practice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should move to a universal basic income as it would be a more effective way to combat poverty, it would support people whose jobs are at risk of the rise of AI, especially in the service industry. It would also support those with health conditions who cannot work, and it would level the playing field of how class impacts people's lives currently. It would also be a more effective way to support people in low paid work, especially in the service industry. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income. It was felt that the current system is overly bureaucratic, inefficient and discriminatory. It was also felt that the current system does not provide enough to live on and is too restrictive. It was felt that a universal basic income would be a more efficient and fairer way of providing support for people who need it. However, it was also felt that a universal basic income could lead to a reduction in the incentive to work. This could be overcome by gradually reducing the basic income as people start to earn more. This would provide an incentive to work. The universal basic income would need to be funded by increased taxation, especially for the higher paid. This would help to reduce inequality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A universal basic income is needed in order to provide a safety net for people who may be unemployed in the future due to the rise of AI. The current welfare system is not fit for purpose and is often very punitive and disempowering. A universal basic income would provide a safety net for people in times of need and also remove the need to constantly monitor the income and employment status of people on benefits. A universal basic income would also provide a basic income for people in work, but who are living in poverty. A universal basic income would also provide a basic income for people with health conditions who are unable to work. A universal basic income would provide a basic income for people who are unable to work due to caring for family members. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the idea of a universal basic income is very attractive, as it could provide an income to those who are currently locked out of the benefits system and would provide stability and security to those who are struggling to make ends meet. However, it is important to consider how it could be implemented and the costs involved. The consensus view of the group is that there should be a wide-scale trial of the concept to see how it could be implemented in practice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should move to a universal basic income as it would be a more effective way to combat poverty, it would support people whose jobs are at risk of the rise of AI, especially in the service industry. It would also support those with health conditions who cannot work, and it would level the playing field of how class impacts people's lives currently. It would also be a more effective way to support people in low paid work, especially in the service industry. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income. It was felt that the current system is overly bureaucratic, inefficient and discriminatory. It was also felt that the current system does not provide enough to live on and is too restrictive. It was felt that a universal basic income would be a more efficient and fairer way of providing support for people who need it. However, it was also felt that a universal basic income could lead to a reduction in the incentive to work. This could be overcome by gradually reducing the basic income as people start to earn more. This would provide an incentive to work. The universal basic income would need to be funded by increased taxation, especially for the higher paid. This would help to reduce inequality. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000675.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000675.soc index ffa908ff..c7e62500 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000675.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000675.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Most modern art is pretentious nonsense, however some of it can be quite interesting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of modern art, with a couple of participants strongly against it. The group's consensus was that some modern art is pretentious nonsense, but not all. The group believed that some modern art is an expression of modern life and is meaningful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was split down the middle on this issue. Some felt that modern art was mostly nonsense and pretentious. Others felt that the art was meaningful and reflected the society of the time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Most modern art is pretentious nonsense, but it is also important to appreciate the creativity and passion of the artist. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Most modern art is pretentious nonsense, however some of it can be quite interesting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of modern art, with a couple of participants strongly against it. The group's consensus was that some modern art is pretentious nonsense, but not all. The group believed that some modern art is an expression of modern life and is meaningful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was split down the middle on this issue. Some felt that modern art was mostly nonsense and pretentious. Others felt that the art was meaningful and reflected the society of the time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Most modern art is pretentious nonsense, but it is also important to appreciate the creativity and passion of the artist. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000676.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000676.soc index dbacb692..4c084bf3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000676.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000676.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should do more to promote gender equality. There are still a lot of inequalities in the workplace, and the government could do more to promote equal pay for men and women, as well as working to ensure that there are more women in senior positions in business. There are also many countries around the world where women are treated unequally, and the government should work to support these women, and work to ensure that women's rights are respected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should do more to promote gender equality. It is important that gender equality is at the heart of all social, economic and political policy. It is the basis for a fair and functioning society. Every individual should has the same rights and be treated with respect on the basis of equality and equal opportunities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Gender equality is something that needs to be promoted in the government, and it is something that should be encouraged to continue. However, this should not be done at the expense of other important issues, such as those surrounding the economy and immigration. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should do more to promote gender equality. This is because the government is a powerful institution that can influence and set an example for the rest of society. This is especially important in the workplace and for younger generations, where it can be difficult to break the glass ceiling and to achieve equality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should do more to promote gender equality. There are still a lot of inequalities in the workplace, and the government could do more to promote equal pay for men and women, as well as working to ensure that there are more women in senior positions in business. There are also many countries around the world where women are treated unequally, and the government should work to support these women, and work to ensure that women's rights are respected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should do more to promote gender equality. It is important that gender equality is at the heart of all social, economic and political policy. It is the basis for a fair and functioning society. Every individual should has the same rights and be treated with respect on the basis of equality and equal opportunities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Gender equality is something that needs to be promoted in the government, and it is something that should be encouraged to continue. However, this should not be done at the expense of other important issues, such as those surrounding the economy and immigration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should do more to promote gender equality. This is because the government is a powerful institution that can influence and set an example for the rest of society. This is especially important in the workplace and for younger generations, where it can be difficult to break the glass ceiling and to achieve equality. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000677.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000677.soc index 8b2d7398..86d60467 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000677.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000677.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, a full English breakfast is better than a continental breakfast. It is more filling and can be a more enjoyable meal. However, it is not necessarily a healthy option. A continental breakfast can be better in some situations, especially if you want something lighter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A full English breakfast is better than a continental breakfast. It is more filling, more nutritious and is therefore better on most cold mornings. However, it is important to note that the English breakfast is seen as unhealthy and therefore it is not something to have often but a good treat once in a while. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, a full English breakfast is better than a continental breakfast. This is because a full English breakfast is more filling, can be healthier depending on how it is cooked and is therefore better on most cold mornings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, a full English breakfast is better than a continental breakfast. It is more filling and contains more variety. It is also hot which is better for most cold mornings. A continental breakfast is lighter and can be prepared quicker but it is less filling. It is also seen as healthier but can actually be relatively healthy depending on how things are cooked. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, a full English breakfast is better than a continental breakfast. It is more filling and can be a more enjoyable meal. However, it is not necessarily a healthy option. A continental breakfast can be better in some situations, especially if you want something lighter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A full English breakfast is better than a continental breakfast. It is more filling, more nutritious and is therefore better on most cold mornings. However, it is important to note that the English breakfast is seen as unhealthy and therefore it is not something to have often but a good treat once in a while. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, a full English breakfast is better than a continental breakfast. This is because a full English breakfast is more filling, can be healthier depending on how it is cooked and is therefore better on most cold mornings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, a full English breakfast is better than a continental breakfast. It is more filling and contains more variety. It is also hot which is better for most cold mornings. A continental breakfast is lighter and can be prepared quicker but it is less filling. It is also seen as healthier but can actually be relatively healthy depending on how things are cooked. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000678.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000678.soc index 1e38bc4f..6067a714 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000678.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000678.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, a basic income would be good for society. It would allow everyone to have a basic standard of living and allow people to contribute to the economy. A basic income would be funded by taxing the wealthy and corporations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that a basic income should be given to everyone below a certain threshold. We also believe that the income threshold should be periodically adjusted for inflation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a basic income, although some reservations were expressed. The consensus view was that a basic income should be provided to all citizens below a certain income threshold, and that it should be complemented by their salary. The group also believed that a basic income would help to reduce poverty and inequality in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A basic income is something that would be good to have in society. The way we see it, is that a basic income would allow for people to be able to provide for themselves, and to be able to enjoy life to an extent. There is no way that people should be worried about being able to provide basic needs for themselves, and a basic income would be a way to make sure that this does not happen. It would be a good thing for society as a whole, as it would increase spending, which would in turn lead to the creation of more wealth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, a basic income would be good for society. It would allow everyone to have a basic standard of living and allow people to contribute to the economy. A basic income would be funded by taxing the wealthy and corporations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that a basic income should be given to everyone below a certain threshold. We also believe that the income threshold should be periodically adjusted for inflation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a basic income, although some reservations were expressed. The consensus view was that a basic income should be provided to all citizens below a certain income threshold, and that it should be complemented by their salary. The group also believed that a basic income would help to reduce poverty and inequality in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A basic income is something that would be good to have in society. The way we see it, is that a basic income would allow for people to be able to provide for themselves, and to be able to enjoy life to an extent. There is no way that people should be worried about being able to provide basic needs for themselves, and a basic income would be a way to make sure that this does not happen. It would be a good thing for society as a whole, as it would increase spending, which would in turn lead to the creation of more wealth. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000679.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000679.soc index d58e6619..4a36b5d8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000679.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000679.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should introduce a maximum wage for British citizens. This will help reduce the wealth divide in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the introduction of a maximum wage for British citizens is a good idea as it would help decrease the wealth divide between the richest and the poorest and help create more equality within society. However, it is also important to increase the minimum wage in order to help those at the bottom of the ladder. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a maximum wage for British citizens. Some felt that it would reduce inequality, some felt it would encourage more people to work in public service and some felt that it would make people happier. Some were against the idea because they felt that people should be able to work as hard as they want to get as much as they can. In the end, the group felt that a maximum wage would be a good thing, but that it would not be a simple task to introduce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should introduce a maximum wage for British citizens. A maximum wage would help reduce the wealth divide between the richest and the poorest. This would make society fairer and provide more opportunities for the poorest citizens. The minimum wage should also be raised to help the poorest citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should introduce a maximum wage for British citizens. This will help reduce the wealth divide in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the introduction of a maximum wage for British citizens is a good idea as it would help decrease the wealth divide between the richest and the poorest and help create more equality within society. However, it is also important to increase the minimum wage in order to help those at the bottom of the ladder. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a maximum wage for British citizens. Some felt that it would reduce inequality, some felt it would encourage more people to work in public service and some felt that it would make people happier. Some were against the idea because they felt that people should be able to work as hard as they want to get as much as they can. In the end, the group felt that a maximum wage would be a good thing, but that it would not be a simple task to introduce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should introduce a maximum wage for British citizens. A maximum wage would help reduce the wealth divide between the richest and the poorest. This would make society fairer and provide more opportunities for the poorest citizens. The minimum wage should also be raised to help the poorest citizens. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000680.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000680.soc index a73fe11d..9329b21e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000680.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000680.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the public sector pension should be based on a career average, however in certain cases it should be based on final salary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the public sector pension should be based on a final salary. We feel that people have worked their entire lives to enjoy the best retiement possible and this will be maximised with a pension based on their final salary. People should be rewarded in retirement for their lifetime of hardwork. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A career average is fairer as it reflects the total career of the individual, rather than just their final salary. A career average is also a fairer reflection of the contribution that an individual has made to the public sector over their entire career. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The public sector pension should be based on a career average as this is fairer to all who work in the public sector. The people who work in the public sector do so for the benefit of the public and should be rewarded for their hard work and commitment. It also allows for people to work their way up through the sector, to reap the rewards of their hard work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the public sector pension should be based on a career average, however in certain cases it should be based on final salary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the public sector pension should be based on a final salary. We feel that people have worked their entire lives to enjoy the best retiement possible and this will be maximised with a pension based on their final salary. People should be rewarded in retirement for their lifetime of hardwork. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A career average is fairer as it reflects the total career of the individual, rather than just their final salary. A career average is also a fairer reflection of the contribution that an individual has made to the public sector over their entire career. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The public sector pension should be based on a career average as this is fairer to all who work in the public sector. The people who work in the public sector do so for the benefit of the public and should be rewarded for their hard work and commitment. It also allows for people to work their way up through the sector, to reap the rewards of their hard work. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000681.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000681.soc index 9df8fe81..532aa06c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000681.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000681.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the consensus view that it is ok for sports athletes to be paid money to promote products they do not use, but it is important to remember that they should not be promoting any illegal or harmful products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of sports athletes being paid money to promote products they do not use. It was felt that this was not fair on the consumers of these products and that it was not in the best interests of the athletes to endorse products they do not use. However, it was recognised that the athletes need funding and this may be the only way they can get it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not okay for sports athletes to be paid money to promote products they do not use. However, if they are willing to promote the product and be associated with it, then it is not unethical for them to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is not ok for sports athletes to be paid money to promote products they do not use. This is because people look up to them as role models and they have a duty to make sure any products they endorse are of a suitable quality. In particular they should have agents/teams who can vet these products to make sure the company is legitimate and the product is not illegal or harmful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the consensus view that it is ok for sports athletes to be paid money to promote products they do not use, but it is important to remember that they should not be promoting any illegal or harmful products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of sports athletes being paid money to promote products they do not use. It was felt that this was not fair on the consumers of these products and that it was not in the best interests of the athletes to endorse products they do not use. However, it was recognised that the athletes need funding and this may be the only way they can get it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not okay for sports athletes to be paid money to promote products they do not use. However, if they are willing to promote the product and be associated with it, then it is not unethical for them to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is not ok for sports athletes to be paid money to promote products they do not use. This is because people look up to them as role models and they have a duty to make sure any products they endorse are of a suitable quality. In particular they should have agents/teams who can vet these products to make sure the company is legitimate and the product is not illegal or harmful. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000682.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000682.soc index d9d30147..6a6ef08a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000682.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000682.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was wary of relying on algorithms to make important decisions. The group felt that algorithms are sometimes wrong, and they should not be used as the only method of decision making. They felt that in some cases, algorithms could be used to assist in making decisions, but humans expert in the field should make the final call. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was wary of relying on algorithms to make important decisions, but felt that it was dependent on the nature of the decision being made and the quality of the data being used to make the decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, algorithms can be useful in making decisions. However, we should not rely on them completely as they can sometimes be wrong and are not always the best solution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, algorithms can be useful but we should be wary of relying on them to make important decisions. We should use them as a tool to assist in the decision making process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was wary of relying on algorithms to make important decisions. The group felt that algorithms are sometimes wrong, and they should not be used as the only method of decision making. They felt that in some cases, algorithms could be used to assist in making decisions, but humans expert in the field should make the final call. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was wary of relying on algorithms to make important decisions, but felt that it was dependent on the nature of the decision being made and the quality of the data being used to make the decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, algorithms can be useful in making decisions. However, we should not rely on them completely as they can sometimes be wrong and are not always the best solution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, algorithms can be useful but we should be wary of relying on them to make important decisions. We should use them as a tool to assist in the decision making process. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000683.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000683.soc index 27c6b24c..5ff5ef03 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000683.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000683.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should give cash payments to all residents. The government should give cash payments to all residents because it will improve the standard of living in most households in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of cash payments to residents but felt that this should be means tested and not available to all residents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be some safety net for citizens that the Government should provide on a basic level. This is irrespective of the fact they could be poor or wealthy, this would be the minimum level a citizen of a country should expect. This shouldnt mean everyone can get cash and that the amount are the same. There should be means testing and other criteria involved with the distribution. But the main point is that if a citizen has contributed to society, there should be safety nets from the Government to all its citizens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The Government should give out cash payments to all residents. This is because all residents pay tax and should therefore be entitled to receive something back from the government. The group also thought that the amount of cash payments should be dependent on the amount of tax paid by each resident. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should give cash payments to all residents. The government should give cash payments to all residents because it will improve the standard of living in most households in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of cash payments to residents but felt that this should be means tested and not available to all residents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be some safety net for citizens that the Government should provide on a basic level. This is irrespective of the fact they could be poor or wealthy, this would be the minimum level a citizen of a country should expect. This shouldnt mean everyone can get cash and that the amount are the same. There should be means testing and other criteria involved with the distribution. But the main point is that if a citizen has contributed to society, there should be safety nets from the Government to all its citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The Government should give out cash payments to all residents. This is because all residents pay tax and should therefore be entitled to receive something back from the government. The group also thought that the amount of cash payments should be dependent on the amount of tax paid by each resident. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000684.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000684.soc index 25fad149..2a90d28b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000684.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000684.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We believe that immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. We believe that there should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives.“ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Immigration is essential to the uk and should be allowed in a regulated manner. We have an obligation to other human beings to be a safe place when needed. There should be a set of criteria of who are allowed to come to UK. There should of course be rules on who is let in but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The number of immigrants allowed to come to the UK each year should be increased, but in a regulated manner.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Immigration is a complex issue, but we have a duty to other human beings to provide a safe haven for those in need. This should be balanced with the needs of the economy and society as a whole, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We believe that immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. We believe that there should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Immigration is essential to the uk and should be allowed in a regulated manner. We have an obligation to other human beings to be a safe place when needed. There should be a set of criteria of who are allowed to come to UK. There should of course be rules on who is let in but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The number of immigrants allowed to come to the UK each year should be increased, but in a regulated manner.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Immigration is a complex issue, but we have a duty to other human beings to provide a safe haven for those in need. This should be balanced with the needs of the economy and society as a whole, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000685.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000685.soc index a46ee343..d6003695 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000685.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000685.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the current system of capitalism is broken and favours the rich. It is a growing trend that the rich get richer and the gap between rich and poor is becoming bigger. We believe that we need a more socially conscious form of capitalism, to help build and better society as a whole. We feel that the current system of capitalism is focused on making as much money as possible and does not consider the environment and its impact, nor the cost of living crisis and the impact that high prices have on people. We believe that companies should increase the prices as they say they need to make things more environmentally friendly, net zero, that should come out of their profits currently not increase the costs to the consumer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Capitalism is a system that can be good, but often isn't. We need to think more about how we can create a system that works for everyone, and not just the rich. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a more socially conscious form of capitalism. However, the group was divided on whether capitalism is broken and needs to be replaced, or if it is a logical system that needs to be modified. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We need a more socially conscious form of capitalism, as the current form of capitalism is too focused on the short term and does not consider the long term consequences of its actions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the current system of capitalism is broken and favours the rich. It is a growing trend that the rich get richer and the gap between rich and poor is becoming bigger. We believe that we need a more socially conscious form of capitalism, to help build and better society as a whole. We feel that the current system of capitalism is focused on making as much money as possible and does not consider the environment and its impact, nor the cost of living crisis and the impact that high prices have on people. We believe that companies should increase the prices as they say they need to make things more environmentally friendly, net zero, that should come out of their profits currently not increase the costs to the consumer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Capitalism is a system that can be good, but often isn't. We need to think more about how we can create a system that works for everyone, and not just the rich. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a more socially conscious form of capitalism. However, the group was divided on whether capitalism is broken and needs to be replaced, or if it is a logical system that needs to be modified. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We need a more socially conscious form of capitalism, as the current form of capitalism is too focused on the short term and does not consider the long term consequences of its actions. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000686.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000686.soc index a7d9d46e..66f6f146 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000686.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000686.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was in favour of a maximum wage for British citizens. Some felt that it would reduce inequality, some felt it would encourage more people to work in public service and some felt that it would make people happier. Some were against the idea because they felt that people should be able to work as hard as they want to get as much as they can. In the end, the group felt that a maximum wage would be a good thing, but that it would not be a simple task to introduce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There was a general feeling that a maximum wage would be a good thing, and that it would help reduce inequality. There was some disagreement over whether it would encourage people to work in the public sector, and whether it would be a simple thing to introduce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There was a strong consensus that a maximum wage would be a good thing for British society. However, the group was aware that it would be a very difficult thing to implement and that it would be met with strong opposition from those who are currently the highest earners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There was a strong feeling within the group that a maximum wage for British citizens would be a good thing, as it would reduce inequality and make people happier. Some felt that it would encourage more people to work in public service, but others felt that it would discourage people from working hard. In the end, the group felt that a maximum wage would be a good thing, but that it would not be a simple task to introduce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was in favour of a maximum wage for British citizens. Some felt that it would reduce inequality, some felt it would encourage more people to work in public service and some felt that it would make people happier. Some were against the idea because they felt that people should be able to work as hard as they want to get as much as they can. In the end, the group felt that a maximum wage would be a good thing, but that it would not be a simple task to introduce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There was a general feeling that a maximum wage would be a good thing, and that it would help reduce inequality. There was some disagreement over whether it would encourage people to work in the public sector, and whether it would be a simple thing to introduce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There was a strong consensus that a maximum wage would be a good thing for British society. However, the group was aware that it would be a very difficult thing to implement and that it would be met with strong opposition from those who are currently the highest earners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There was a strong feeling within the group that a maximum wage for British citizens would be a good thing, as it would reduce inequality and make people happier. Some felt that it would encourage more people to work in public service, but others felt that it would discourage people from working hard. In the end, the group felt that a maximum wage would be a good thing, but that it would not be a simple task to introduce. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000687.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000687.soc index 1f64f8c5..2703671b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000687.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000687.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We believe that immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. We believe that there should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We believe that immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. We believe that there should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives. We also need to be careful about the strain on resources that increased immigration can cause.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We believe that immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. We believe that there should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives.“ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. There should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We believe that immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. We believe that there should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We believe that immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. We believe that there should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives. We also need to be careful about the strain on resources that increased immigration can cause.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We believe that immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. We believe that there should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Immigration is a good thing for the UK as it leads to economic growth and cultural growth. There should be rules on who is let in, but we should try and take a positive approach to the issue. We also need to do our duty as a stable country and try to provide a safe haven for those less fortunate and provide a place that can give immigrants a chance to improve their lives.” 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000688.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000688.soc index bebbf12d..7559a138 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000688.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000688.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Marriage is a very personal decision and therefore the government should not try to promote it. There are many other things that the government should be spending its time and money on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the government promoting marriage. It was felt that the institution of marriage has a positive impact on society and promotes family values. Marriage has the ability to provide stability for individuals, for families, for children. In a society that is increasingly transient this is beneficial, noting of course that it is not for everyone. However, some people shy away from it due to cost and pressures surrounding it. Promoting marriage as a simple procedure with minimal cost and effort would therefore probably be beneficial for society. In terms of society marriage also has financial implications again for the individual, families and children. Unpacking those or indeed increasing them as an incentive to create cohesive family units might be beneficial to society as a whole. Perhaps linked to a time period that you must be married for some of these to be unlocked. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government promoting marriage, but not to the extent that it would force people into marriage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not try to promote marriage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Marriage is a very personal decision and therefore the government should not try to promote it. There are many other things that the government should be spending its time and money on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government promoting marriage. It was felt that the institution of marriage has a positive impact on society and promotes family values. Marriage has the ability to provide stability for individuals, for families, for children. In a society that is increasingly transient this is beneficial, noting of course that it is not for everyone. However, some people shy away from it due to cost and pressures surrounding it. Promoting marriage as a simple procedure with minimal cost and effort would therefore probably be beneficial for society. In terms of society marriage also has financial implications again for the individual, families and children. Unpacking those or indeed increasing them as an incentive to create cohesive family units might be beneficial to society as a whole. Perhaps linked to a time period that you must be married for some of these to be unlocked. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government promoting marriage, but not to the extent that it would force people into marriage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not try to promote marriage. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000689.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000689.soc index 3fe815f9..a1f37875 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000689.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000689.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have a right to expect a comfortable retirement. The government has a duty to ensure that all people who have worked hard throughout their lives are able to retire comfortably. This is not to say that they will be living in luxury, but they should not have to worry about basic needs such as food and heating. People who have worked hard and paid their taxes throughout their lives should be able to retire comfortably. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have the right to expect a comfortable retirement, but we also have a responsibility to save for our retirement and not to rely on the government to provide for us. We should not expect to live in luxury in our retirement, but we should expect to be comfortable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People who have worked hard throughout their lives should be entitled to a comfortable retirement. This is particularly the case for people who have worked hard in low paid jobs and not been able to save for their retirement. The government should support people in retirement to ensure that they are not living in poverty and that they are comfortable. This does not mean that they should be living in luxury. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that everyone should be entitled to a comfortable retirement. The government needs to do more to help people in their retirement. This is because people who have worked hard all their lives deserve to be able to enjoy their retirement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have a right to expect a comfortable retirement. The government has a duty to ensure that all people who have worked hard throughout their lives are able to retire comfortably. This is not to say that they will be living in luxury, but they should not have to worry about basic needs such as food and heating. People who have worked hard and paid their taxes throughout their lives should be able to retire comfortably. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have the right to expect a comfortable retirement, but we also have a responsibility to save for our retirement and not to rely on the government to provide for us. We should not expect to live in luxury in our retirement, but we should expect to be comfortable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People who have worked hard throughout their lives should be entitled to a comfortable retirement. This is particularly the case for people who have worked hard in low paid jobs and not been able to save for their retirement. The government should support people in retirement to ensure that they are not living in poverty and that they are comfortable. This does not mean that they should be living in luxury. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that everyone should be entitled to a comfortable retirement. The government needs to do more to help people in their retirement. This is because people who have worked hard all their lives deserve to be able to enjoy their retirement. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000690.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000690.soc index 1e611706..ffe377a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000690.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000690.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of private education and opposed to banning it. The group believed that parents should have the right to choose where their children are educated. The group believed that private education is good for the economy and frees up places in State schools for those who cannot afford private education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Private education should not be banned. Private education provides a choice for parents, which they should be allowed to make. Private education also provides a service that people want. In addition, private education is good for the economy and saves the government money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Private education should not be banned. It provides a choice for parents and pupils and allows for greater diversity in the education system. Private education also takes pressure off the State sector by freeing up places at our already overcrowded schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of private education and opposed to banning it. The group believed that parents should have the right to choose where their children are educated. The group believed that private education is good for the economy and frees up places in State schools for those who cannot afford private education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Private education should not be banned. Private education provides a choice for parents, which they should be allowed to make. Private education also provides a service that people want. In addition, private education is good for the economy and saves the government money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Private education should not be banned. It provides a choice for parents and pupils and allows for greater diversity in the education system. Private education also takes pressure off the State sector by freeing up places at our already overcrowded schools. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000691.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000691.soc index 6244ac7b..f6d5e35d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000691.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000691.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the current system is fine. We should not make the parliamentary term longer. We have seen a huge level of incompetence and corruption from the recent government. They should not be allowed to lock themselves into power for so long. The public should be able to vote them out even sooner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of a single six-year term is a bad idea as it will lead to complacency and corruption. In particular, the recent government has been incompetent and should not be allowed to lock themselves into power for so long. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the current term is sufficient for a government to make the necessary changes and to see if they are effective and then to be judged on those changes by the electorate. However, there is a strong argument that the current term is too short to allow a government to make the necessary changes and to see if they are effective and then to be judged on those changes by the electorate. Therefore, the current term should be increased to six years, with the proviso that a government can be recalled by the electorate if they are not satisfied with the government's performance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the current system of government works well. It would be difficult to change the system and would create more problems than it would solve. There is no pressing need to change the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the current system is fine. We should not make the parliamentary term longer. We have seen a huge level of incompetence and corruption from the recent government. They should not be allowed to lock themselves into power for so long. The public should be able to vote them out even sooner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of a single six-year term is a bad idea as it will lead to complacency and corruption. In particular, the recent government has been incompetent and should not be allowed to lock themselves into power for so long. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the current term is sufficient for a government to make the necessary changes and to see if they are effective and then to be judged on those changes by the electorate. However, there is a strong argument that the current term is too short to allow a government to make the necessary changes and to see if they are effective and then to be judged on those changes by the electorate. Therefore, the current term should be increased to six years, with the proviso that a government can be recalled by the electorate if they are not satisfied with the government's performance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the current system of government works well. It would be difficult to change the system and would create more problems than it would solve. There is no pressing need to change the system. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000692.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000692.soc index a65b9d07..5329213c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000692.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000692.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I feel that we should ban the sale of plastic bags, but not the use of existing plastic bags. There's no need to sell plastic bags for shopping these days but no need to ban the use of existing plastic bags.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Plastic bags should be banned, as they have a detrimental effect on the environment and there are viable alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban the sale of plastic bags, but not the use of existing bags. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban plastic bags as they have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. We should also ban the use of plastic bags as they are unnecessary, and there are many alternatives. We should also ban plastic straws as they are also unnecessary and have a devastating impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I feel that we should ban the sale of plastic bags, but not the use of existing plastic bags. There's no need to sell plastic bags for shopping these days but no need to ban the use of existing plastic bags.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Plastic bags should be banned, as they have a detrimental effect on the environment and there are viable alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban the sale of plastic bags, but not the use of existing bags. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban plastic bags as they have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. We should also ban the use of plastic bags as they are unnecessary, and there are many alternatives. We should also ban plastic straws as they are also unnecessary and have a devastating impact on the environment. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000693.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000693.soc index 2fd3eb37..d43ce029 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000693.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000693.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not invest public money in private companies. Public money should be invested in things that benefit the public. Private companies should be allowed to run independently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should invest public money in private companies to a limited extent. This should only be in cases where it can be clearly shown that this will lead to economic growth and business development. This may include loans or grants for new start up business which have a good chance of becoming established and leading to employment. There may also be a case for subsidies to businesses where they may need short term support to keep the business functioning, as for instance the case during the recent pandemic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should invest public money in private companies only if there is a clear benefit to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Public money should be invested in private companies if it is in the interest of the public and will lead to employment opportunities and overall economic growth.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not invest public money in private companies. Public money should be invested in things that benefit the public. Private companies should be allowed to run independently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should invest public money in private companies to a limited extent. This should only be in cases where it can be clearly shown that this will lead to economic growth and business development. This may include loans or grants for new start up business which have a good chance of becoming established and leading to employment. There may also be a case for subsidies to businesses where they may need short term support to keep the business functioning, as for instance the case during the recent pandemic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should invest public money in private companies only if there is a clear benefit to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Public money should be invested in private companies if it is in the interest of the public and will lead to employment opportunities and overall economic growth.” 2: 2,4,3,1 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000694.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000694.soc index 6632bddb..86e77393 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000694.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000694.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Employers should be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles, however, they should only do so if it is necessary for health and safety reasons. This would include the use of hair nets or hair bands. If an employee feels that they are being treated unfairly, they should raise this with their employer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, an employer should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. It should be a basic human right for individuals to be able to display their culture or individuality through adopting an hairstyle they wish. The only exception we can envision is if that hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk of some kind that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the employer should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. This is a basic human right. The only exceptions could be if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, employers should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. The UK is a free country and styling yourself as you see fit is a matter of expressing your own right to freedom. It should be noted however that an employer may request you to dress your hair appropriately. Another exception could be the Armed forces which require only particular hairstyles as it can influence your performance on the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Employers should be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles, however, they should only do so if it is necessary for health and safety reasons. This would include the use of hair nets or hair bands. If an employee feels that they are being treated unfairly, they should raise this with their employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, an employer should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. It should be a basic human right for individuals to be able to display their culture or individuality through adopting an hairstyle they wish. The only exception we can envision is if that hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk of some kind that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the employer should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. This is a basic human right. The only exceptions could be if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, employers should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. The UK is a free country and styling yourself as you see fit is a matter of expressing your own right to freedom. It should be noted however that an employer may request you to dress your hair appropriately. Another exception could be the Armed forces which require only particular hairstyles as it can influence your performance on the job. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000695.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000695.soc index 7bad1d95..3f0f3d9e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000695.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000695.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be allowed to use the measurement system they are most comfortable with. However for the purpose of trade and communication between countries, a single system should be used to allow for easy communication. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to use the measurement system they find most convenient, but where two systems or areas need to talk to each other, a system should be selected to allow compatability and standard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not all be using the metric system. Whilst the metric system has many advantages such as it being easier to do calculations because it is based on multiples of 10 rather than the fractions of the imperial system, many people find imperial units more convenient because they just fit better in everyday life. Also many older people have grown up with imperial and are used to using it. Older people find it harder to learn new things so forcing them to switch to metric would make their lives harder and cause them difficulties for no good reason. People should be allowed to use the measurements they want to and not be forced to change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the imperial system of measurement is more suited to everyday life. However, where imperial and metric need to be used in conjunction with each other, the metric system is more convenient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be allowed to use the measurement system they are most comfortable with. However for the purpose of trade and communication between countries, a single system should be used to allow for easy communication. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to use the measurement system they find most convenient, but where two systems or areas need to talk to each other, a system should be selected to allow compatability and standard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not all be using the metric system. Whilst the metric system has many advantages such as it being easier to do calculations because it is based on multiples of 10 rather than the fractions of the imperial system, many people find imperial units more convenient because they just fit better in everyday life. Also many older people have grown up with imperial and are used to using it. Older people find it harder to learn new things so forcing them to switch to metric would make their lives harder and cause them difficulties for no good reason. People should be allowed to use the measurements they want to and not be forced to change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the imperial system of measurement is more suited to everyday life. However, where imperial and metric need to be used in conjunction with each other, the metric system is more convenient. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000696.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000696.soc index d2757d6b..aa93717d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000696.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000696.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Cannabis should be legalised for medical use. There is a great deal of evidence that cannabis is effective in treating a variety of health conditions such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, spasticty due to multiple scelerosis and epilespy. Cannabis should be closely regulated and quality controlled. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we believe that cannabis should be legalised for medical use, but should be closely regulated and quality controlled. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cannabis should be legalised for medical use, however it should be closely regulated and quality controlled. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Cannabis should be legalised for medical use. It should be closely regulated and quality controlled. There is scientific evidence that it can be greatly beneficial for a range of illnesses such as cancer and parkinson's. Cannabis has been used for centuries for medicinal purposes, and recent research has shown that it may be effective in treating a variety of health conditions such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, spasticty due to multiple scelerosis and epilespy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Cannabis should be legalised for medical use. There is a great deal of evidence that cannabis is effective in treating a variety of health conditions such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, spasticty due to multiple scelerosis and epilespy. Cannabis should be closely regulated and quality controlled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we believe that cannabis should be legalised for medical use, but should be closely regulated and quality controlled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cannabis should be legalised for medical use, however it should be closely regulated and quality controlled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Cannabis should be legalised for medical use. It should be closely regulated and quality controlled. There is scientific evidence that it can be greatly beneficial for a range of illnesses such as cancer and parkinson's. Cannabis has been used for centuries for medicinal purposes, and recent research has shown that it may be effective in treating a variety of health conditions such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, spasticty due to multiple scelerosis and epilespy. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000697.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000697.soc index ee5e8302..61a701cf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000697.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000697.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Class divisions are antiquated and serve no good to society. They should be eliminated. We should aim to eliminate class divisions and make society more equal and fair. The aim should be to lift up the lower classes and reduce inequality.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should aim to eliminate class divisions and make society more equal and fair but there is now only really two or three classes that exist and inequality is growing ever larger. We have people still living in poverty and all the classes would agree that we want to eliminate poverty so should start by eliminating any under class. We then have the greater majority which is working age people who then become retired and then we have a super rich elite that have the vast majority of wealth and are avoiding tax and redistribution of that wealth because we are taxing income too much and wealth too little. We should have the aim and goal of lifting up the lower classes to reduce inequality but that is getting harder to achieve as more wealth is being hoarded by a minority that want to keep the class divisions and a society divided that looks down rather than up and places blame in the wrong direction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Class divisions should be eliminated in society. They are a relic of a feudal age and serve no good to society overall. If we want to live in a meritocracy as we claim, then there should be no advantages or disadvantages to being born to a certain set of parents. Equality of opportunity allows for a more active, fair and happier society. Serious societal change is not easy to achieve, but conversations about what people want their society to look like are important, and abolition of the monarch and the House of Lords as well as other holdover structures should be held, with informed debate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Class divisions should be eliminated in our society. It is clear that there is no good that comes from class divisions, as the name suggests they divide society and provide a breeding ground for anger and conflict. However, class divisions seem to be an almost inevitable by-product of the capitalist system. As long as there are rich and poor there will be class divisions. Finding a way to end class divisions is a very difficult process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Class divisions are antiquated and serve no good to society. They should be eliminated. We should aim to eliminate class divisions and make society more equal and fair. The aim should be to lift up the lower classes and reduce inequality.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should aim to eliminate class divisions and make society more equal and fair but there is now only really two or three classes that exist and inequality is growing ever larger. We have people still living in poverty and all the classes would agree that we want to eliminate poverty so should start by eliminating any under class. We then have the greater majority which is working age people who then become retired and then we have a super rich elite that have the vast majority of wealth and are avoiding tax and redistribution of that wealth because we are taxing income too much and wealth too little. We should have the aim and goal of lifting up the lower classes to reduce inequality but that is getting harder to achieve as more wealth is being hoarded by a minority that want to keep the class divisions and a society divided that looks down rather than up and places blame in the wrong direction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Class divisions should be eliminated in society. They are a relic of a feudal age and serve no good to society overall. If we want to live in a meritocracy as we claim, then there should be no advantages or disadvantages to being born to a certain set of parents. Equality of opportunity allows for a more active, fair and happier society. Serious societal change is not easy to achieve, but conversations about what people want their society to look like are important, and abolition of the monarch and the House of Lords as well as other holdover structures should be held, with informed debate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Class divisions should be eliminated in our society. It is clear that there is no good that comes from class divisions, as the name suggests they divide society and provide a breeding ground for anger and conflict. However, class divisions seem to be an almost inevitable by-product of the capitalist system. As long as there are rich and poor there will be class divisions. Finding a way to end class divisions is a very difficult process. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000698.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000698.soc index d24679e9..af25bd3c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000698.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000698.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban plastic bags as they have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. We should also ban the use of plastic bags as they are unnecessary, and there are many alternatives. The process of creating a consensus statement can be very challenging, but is also very rewarding. The process of creating a consensus statement can be very challenging, but is also very rewarding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban plastic bags as they have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. We should also ban the use of plastic bags as they are unnecessary, and there are many alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban plastic bags and plastic straws as they are unnecessary and have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban plastic bags as they have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. We should also ban the use of plastic bags as they are unnecessary, and there are many alternatives. We should also ban plastic straws as they are also unnecessary and have a devastating impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban plastic bags as they have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. We should also ban the use of plastic bags as they are unnecessary, and there are many alternatives. The process of creating a consensus statement can be very challenging, but is also very rewarding. The process of creating a consensus statement can be very challenging, but is also very rewarding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban plastic bags as they have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. We should also ban the use of plastic bags as they are unnecessary, and there are many alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban plastic bags and plastic straws as they are unnecessary and have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban plastic bags as they have a devastating impact on the environment. The production of plastic bags creates a lot of pollution, and they take hundreds of years to degrade. They are a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is the largest accumulation of plastic in the world, and they also kill many animals. We should also ban the use of plastic bags as they are unnecessary, and there are many alternatives. We should also ban plastic straws as they are also unnecessary and have a devastating impact on the environment. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000699.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000699.soc index 08dcfd2c..d8d0d4d3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000699.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000699.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. The group also felt that private education can free up places in the overcrowded State schools for other children who don't have a choice of where they are educated. The group also felt that private schools attract many higher quality teachers and also with the smaller classes, the exam results are generally much better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. The group also felt that private education is unfair as it gives some children a better education purely because they are from a higher income family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. The group also felt that if private education was banned, the government would have to provide education for all the students currently in private education. The group also felt that if it was banned, higher income families would still be able to hire private tutors etc which would still give those students an unfair advantage at school. The group also felt that private education allows diverse learning and that the government should not even dare to suggest or think about banning it. The group also felt that if children go to private schools it frees up places in the overcrowded State schools for other children who don't have a choice of where they are educated. The group also felt that results from private schools also seem to be better as these schools attract many higher quality teachers and also with the smaller classes, the exam results are generally much better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. The group also felt that private education can free up places in the overcrowded State schools for other children who don't have a choice of where they are educated. The group also felt that private schools attract many higher quality teachers and also with the smaller classes, the exam results are generally much better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. The group also felt that private education is unfair as it gives some children a better education purely because they are from a higher income family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to banning private education. The group felt that it is the parents' choice to send their children to private school and that the government should not interfere. The group also felt that private education can provide a service that state schools are unable to provide. The group also felt that private education can contribute to the economy. The group also felt that if private education was banned, the government would have to provide education for all the students currently in private education. The group also felt that if it was banned, higher income families would still be able to hire private tutors etc which would still give those students an unfair advantage at school. The group also felt that private education allows diverse learning and that the government should not even dare to suggest or think about banning it. The group also felt that if children go to private schools it frees up places in the overcrowded State schools for other children who don't have a choice of where they are educated. The group also felt that results from private schools also seem to be better as these schools attract many higher quality teachers and also with the smaller classes, the exam results are generally much better. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000700.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000700.soc index a57bf890..c916b8bc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000700.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000700.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the employer should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. This is a basic human right. The only exceptions could be if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Employers should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. This is a basic human right. The only exceptions could be if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Employers should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. There are some exceptions however. For example, if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Employers should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles, as this is a basic human right. However, if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job, then the employer should be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the employer should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. This is a basic human right. The only exceptions could be if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Employers should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. This is a basic human right. The only exceptions could be if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Employers should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. There are some exceptions however. For example, if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Employers should not be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles, as this is a basic human right. However, if the hairstyle creates some kind of health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated by protective equipment or if the hairstyle is inappropriate for the job, then the employer should be able to insist that employees have certain hairstyles. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000701.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000701.soc index ae0a29c2..f3e9bf9c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000701.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000701.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Public transport should not be free in London. It is already subsidised by the taxpayer and free public transport would only serve to increase congestion and pollution in the capital. The congestion charge is already in place to reduce congestion and pollution in London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that public transport in London should be free for the under 16's and for people over the age of 65. We feel that the younger generation should be encouraged to use public transport as this will be beneficial to them in the future. We also feel that people over the age of 65 should not have to pay for public transport as many people of this age are on a fixed income and the cost of living in London is very high. The cost of public transport is a big expense for many people. By making it free for these age groups, it will help them to save money. Public transport is an essential part of life in London. It is very important to encourage people to use public transport and not their cars. This will help to reduce congestion and pollution in London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't feel that there should be free public transport in London. However, the cost of public transport is very expensive and this is something that needs to be addressed. We feel that the cost of public transport in London should be reduced and this will help to reduce congestion and pollution in the city. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, public transport should not be free in London. Whilst the idea of it may sound good, it will have to be paid for somehow which will probably mean an increase in taxation. This would be unfair as many people who live in London will not use public transport. Many people who live outside of London would also have to pay for this as they would be taxed too, but would not use public transport. The congestion charge already encourages people to use public transport and this is a good way to reduce congestion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Public transport should not be free in London. It is already subsidised by the taxpayer and free public transport would only serve to increase congestion and pollution in the capital. The congestion charge is already in place to reduce congestion and pollution in London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that public transport in London should be free for the under 16's and for people over the age of 65. We feel that the younger generation should be encouraged to use public transport as this will be beneficial to them in the future. We also feel that people over the age of 65 should not have to pay for public transport as many people of this age are on a fixed income and the cost of living in London is very high. The cost of public transport is a big expense for many people. By making it free for these age groups, it will help them to save money. Public transport is an essential part of life in London. It is very important to encourage people to use public transport and not their cars. This will help to reduce congestion and pollution in London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't feel that there should be free public transport in London. However, the cost of public transport is very expensive and this is something that needs to be addressed. We feel that the cost of public transport in London should be reduced and this will help to reduce congestion and pollution in the city. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, public transport should not be free in London. Whilst the idea of it may sound good, it will have to be paid for somehow which will probably mean an increase in taxation. This would be unfair as many people who live in London will not use public transport. Many people who live outside of London would also have to pay for this as they would be taxed too, but would not use public transport. The congestion charge already encourages people to use public transport and this is a good way to reduce congestion. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000702.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000702.soc index 74b068e0..b45436fc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000702.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000702.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of taxing meat as a way to prevent climate change. However, if the tax was applied to certain types of meat and if the tax was ring-fenced and used to support farmers in making the transition to more sustainable farming methods, then it could be a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A tax on meat would be a good way to prevent climate change. The way in which meat is produced is a major contributor to climate change. A tax on meat would therefore be a very effective way of preventing climate change as it would discourage people from buying meat. However, the tax should be proportional to the impact the meat has on the environment. The tax should be lower for more environmentally friendly meat production methods. The tax would also need to be proportional to the amount of meat being bought. A family of 5 would be paying more than a family of 2, but the tax should not be so high that it becomes unaffordable. It should be just enough to make people think twice before buying meat. The tax would also need to be clear and easy to understand so that people can see how much meat is costing them and how much they would be saving by not buying it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A tax on meat would be a good way to prevent climate change as it would discourage people from buying meat, which would then decrease the amount of meat produced. This would be good for the environment as meat production is very energy-intensive. A tax on meat would also make meat more expensive, which would mean that poorer people would not be able to afford it, and so would eat less meat. This would be good for their health as well as the environment. However, the tax would have to be applied in a way that reflected the actual impact of a particular product. Not all farming methods result in the same environmental impact for the same product so any tax should reflect this, and be less on the products of more environmentally friendly processes. There is an environmental impact of non meat food production which should really be treated in the same way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think taxing meat is a good way to prevent climate change. We think it is better to educate people about the dangers of climate change and encourage them to reduce their meat consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of taxing meat as a way to prevent climate change. However, if the tax was applied to certain types of meat and if the tax was ring-fenced and used to support farmers in making the transition to more sustainable farming methods, then it could be a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A tax on meat would be a good way to prevent climate change. The way in which meat is produced is a major contributor to climate change. A tax on meat would therefore be a very effective way of preventing climate change as it would discourage people from buying meat. However, the tax should be proportional to the impact the meat has on the environment. The tax should be lower for more environmentally friendly meat production methods. The tax would also need to be proportional to the amount of meat being bought. A family of 5 would be paying more than a family of 2, but the tax should not be so high that it becomes unaffordable. It should be just enough to make people think twice before buying meat. The tax would also need to be clear and easy to understand so that people can see how much meat is costing them and how much they would be saving by not buying it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A tax on meat would be a good way to prevent climate change as it would discourage people from buying meat, which would then decrease the amount of meat produced. This would be good for the environment as meat production is very energy-intensive. A tax on meat would also make meat more expensive, which would mean that poorer people would not be able to afford it, and so would eat less meat. This would be good for their health as well as the environment. However, the tax would have to be applied in a way that reflected the actual impact of a particular product. Not all farming methods result in the same environmental impact for the same product so any tax should reflect this, and be less on the products of more environmentally friendly processes. There is an environmental impact of non meat food production which should really be treated in the same way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think taxing meat is a good way to prevent climate change. We think it is better to educate people about the dangers of climate change and encourage them to reduce their meat consumption. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000703.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000703.soc index 4826d119..dbd6c458 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000703.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000703.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more spending on health, especially on preventative measures, but also on training and wages of staff. The government needs to invest in the NHS and stop privatisation, while also putting an end to the PFI scandal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be more public spending on health. However, this should be done in a cost effective way. A lot of money is wasted on ineffective treatments and processes. More money should be spent on health education to prevent disease and on effective treatments that can cure disease and promote health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be more public spending on health. The health service is a cornerstone of what makes this a great country to live in. It should not be seen as a burden to society and the tax payer, but as an investment in the health, welfare and future productivity of our country. As such it should be invested in and nurtured to flourish ensuring it provides the best service possible to every citizen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more public spending on health. The emphasis should shift from cure to prevention. The ridiculously expensive PFI scams Mr Brown introduced should be ended. Once that has happened we can take stock and see how much is needed. Probably we spend enough but waste 30% of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more spending on health, especially on preventative measures, but also on training and wages of staff. The government needs to invest in the NHS and stop privatisation, while also putting an end to the PFI scandal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be more public spending on health. However, this should be done in a cost effective way. A lot of money is wasted on ineffective treatments and processes. More money should be spent on health education to prevent disease and on effective treatments that can cure disease and promote health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be more public spending on health. The health service is a cornerstone of what makes this a great country to live in. It should not be seen as a burden to society and the tax payer, but as an investment in the health, welfare and future productivity of our country. As such it should be invested in and nurtured to flourish ensuring it provides the best service possible to every citizen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more public spending on health. The emphasis should shift from cure to prevention. The ridiculously expensive PFI scams Mr Brown introduced should be ended. Once that has happened we can take stock and see how much is needed. Probably we spend enough but waste 30% of it. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000704.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000704.soc index 5c88a1ce..34b27761 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000704.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000704.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compensation for pollution caused by high emissions. The group felt that it would be unfair to compensate people in some areas but not others, and also felt that this would be a financial transfer from people who live in areas with low pollution to people who live in areas with high pollution. However, the group did feel that people should be compensated if they are severely affected by high emissions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should compensate people for pollution caused by high emissions in their neighbourhood. High emissions can lead to severe health problems and affect their children. If the government aren't actively trying to reduce emissions then people should be compensated financially. This compensation could lead to people being able to save up quicker to move away from these high emission areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compensation. However, the group felt that in cases where the government was actively promoting the purchase of vehicles which produce high emissions, then the government should be held responsible for the consequences. In these cases, the government should compensate the victims. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should not compensate people for pollution caused by high emissions in their neighbourhood, rather it should concentrate on the reasons why emissions are high in the first place. By compensatin victims, it does not address the root causes which can then continue unabated, leading to a never ending escalation of higher and higher emissions causing misery for the local people. However, if the government are not actively trying to reduce emissions then people should be compensated financially. This compensation could lead to people being able to save up quicker to move away from these high emission areas. However, the government should also ensure that road vehicles are made cleaner. And to prevent such problems in the future, prosecute the members of the New Labour government who caused this problem in the first place by encouraging everyone to buy dirty diesel-engined cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compensation for pollution caused by high emissions. The group felt that it would be unfair to compensate people in some areas but not others, and also felt that this would be a financial transfer from people who live in areas with low pollution to people who live in areas with high pollution. However, the group did feel that people should be compensated if they are severely affected by high emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should compensate people for pollution caused by high emissions in their neighbourhood. High emissions can lead to severe health problems and affect their children. If the government aren't actively trying to reduce emissions then people should be compensated financially. This compensation could lead to people being able to save up quicker to move away from these high emission areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compensation. However, the group felt that in cases where the government was actively promoting the purchase of vehicles which produce high emissions, then the government should be held responsible for the consequences. In these cases, the government should compensate the victims. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should not compensate people for pollution caused by high emissions in their neighbourhood, rather it should concentrate on the reasons why emissions are high in the first place. By compensatin victims, it does not address the root causes which can then continue unabated, leading to a never ending escalation of higher and higher emissions causing misery for the local people. However, if the government are not actively trying to reduce emissions then people should be compensated financially. This compensation could lead to people being able to save up quicker to move away from these high emission areas. However, the government should also ensure that road vehicles are made cleaner. And to prevent such problems in the future, prosecute the members of the New Labour government who caused this problem in the first place by encouraging everyone to buy dirty diesel-engined cars. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000705.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000705.soc index 5e3fd469..7fd04767 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000705.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000705.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, all dogs should be kept on a leash when outdoors, but there should be designated areas, away from public access, where dogs can be allowed off the leash. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, dogs should be kept on a leash when outdoors. However, dogs that are well known to be friendly breeds should be allowed to be off leash in open spaces, fields or designated dog parks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, dogs should be kept on leads in public spaces. This is for the safety of the public, the dog, and other dogs. There should be specially designated areas, away from the general public, where dogs can be allowed off the lead. However, this is only for dogs that are known to be friendly breeds and are well trained. If a dog is known to have problems, they should be kept on the lead. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Most dogs should be kept on a leash when outdoors, with the exception of dogs that are known to be friendly and well trained. In this case, the dogs should be allowed to roam freely in designated areas away from the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, all dogs should be kept on a leash when outdoors, but there should be designated areas, away from public access, where dogs can be allowed off the leash. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, dogs should be kept on a leash when outdoors. However, dogs that are well known to be friendly breeds should be allowed to be off leash in open spaces, fields or designated dog parks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, dogs should be kept on leads in public spaces. This is for the safety of the public, the dog, and other dogs. There should be specially designated areas, away from the general public, where dogs can be allowed off the lead. However, this is only for dogs that are known to be friendly breeds and are well trained. If a dog is known to have problems, they should be kept on the lead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Most dogs should be kept on a leash when outdoors, with the exception of dogs that are known to be friendly and well trained. In this case, the dogs should be allowed to roam freely in designated areas away from the general public. 3: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000706.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000706.soc index 01e18f83..c0e45d89 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000706.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000706.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we don't think students should be required to take these classes. We feel that university is the time for students to specialise in the subjects they are passionate about, and that they should not be forced to take classes in subjects that they may not be interested in or have the aptitude for. We do feel that it is important that all students have some basic knowledge and qualification in mathematics, science, and technology before they enter university, as this will be important in their future careers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we don't think students should be required to take these classes. We feel that university is the time for students to specialise in the subjects they are passionate about, and that they should not be forced to take classes in subjects that they may not be interested in or have the aptitude for. However, universities should have basic entry requirements anyway, and students should be required to meet these basic requirements before being accepted into university. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Students should not be required to take classes in basic mathematics, science, and technology. These are not necessarily subjects that students will be interested in, and forcing them to take these classes could lead to a drop in the quality of their work and a drop in their grades. Students should be able to choose the subjects that they want to study, and this is especially important for subjects such as mathematics, science, and technology, which are not required for all career paths. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Students should be required to take classes in basic mathematics, science, and technology. This is because university is a time to broaden your horizons and learn about different things, not just specialise in the subjects you are passionate about. The skills you learn in these classes will be beneficial to you in your future careers, and the broadening of your knowledge and perspective will be beneficial to you in all areas of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we don't think students should be required to take these classes. We feel that university is the time for students to specialise in the subjects they are passionate about, and that they should not be forced to take classes in subjects that they may not be interested in or have the aptitude for. We do feel that it is important that all students have some basic knowledge and qualification in mathematics, science, and technology before they enter university, as this will be important in their future careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we don't think students should be required to take these classes. We feel that university is the time for students to specialise in the subjects they are passionate about, and that they should not be forced to take classes in subjects that they may not be interested in or have the aptitude for. However, universities should have basic entry requirements anyway, and students should be required to meet these basic requirements before being accepted into university. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Students should not be required to take classes in basic mathematics, science, and technology. These are not necessarily subjects that students will be interested in, and forcing them to take these classes could lead to a drop in the quality of their work and a drop in their grades. Students should be able to choose the subjects that they want to study, and this is especially important for subjects such as mathematics, science, and technology, which are not required for all career paths. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Students should be required to take classes in basic mathematics, science, and technology. This is because university is a time to broaden your horizons and learn about different things, not just specialise in the subjects you are passionate about. The skills you learn in these classes will be beneficial to you in your future careers, and the broadening of your knowledge and perspective will be beneficial to you in all areas of life. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000707.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000707.soc index b4f14c9b..8563de97 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000707.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000707.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should have to pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury. This is because the car is statistically more likely to cause death or injury, therefore, the insurance company has to pay out more and this should be reflected in the insurance premium. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should have to pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury. However, this should be a fair system that reflects the true risks, based on real data, not a system that penalises drivers for driving a certain type of car. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have to pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury. The insurance company should have to provide a report as to why this is the case. This is because if a car is more dangerous it is more likely to be involved in an accident. The insurance company is covering the driver from a legal point of view and therefore needs to cover any costs that are incurred as a result of the accident. The driver will have to pay more to cover this. It is only fair that the driver pays more to cover any costs that may be incurred. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should have to pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury. This is because the car is statistically more likely to cause death or injury, therefore, the insurance company has to pay out more and this should be reflected in the insurance premium. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should have to pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury. However, this should be a fair system that reflects the true risks, based on real data, not a system that penalises drivers for driving a certain type of car. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have to pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury. The insurance company should have to provide a report as to why this is the case. This is because if a car is more dangerous it is more likely to be involved in an accident. The insurance company is covering the driver from a legal point of view and therefore needs to cover any costs that are incurred as a result of the accident. The driver will have to pay more to cover this. It is only fair that the driver pays more to cover any costs that may be incurred. 2: 4,2,3,1 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000708.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000708.soc index 6a2a1670..f63cde00 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000708.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000708.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The idea that people should pay more for insurance if they drive a car that is more likely to cause death or injury is a good one. The price of insurance should reflect the risk that a driver poses. However, this should be done in a fair and transparent way. The insurance companies should be obliged to use a fair and transparent process to calculate the risk posed by a driver. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000709.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000709.soc index 7d95da19..c63af786 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000709.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000709.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should join the European Free Trade Area as it will allow the UK to have a greater share of the European market. However, the UK should not accept any other conditions from the EU which are not related to trade. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. The EFTA would be beneficial for both sides and allow unhindered flow of goods, however, other conditions not necessarily related to trade are likely to be imposed as a mechanism for forcing closer political ties to the EU and these are unacceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices and to cut costs for import and export businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the UK should join the European Free Trade Area. We think that it would be beneficial to the UK economy and it would be a good compromise between the deal now implemented and having to be a full-blown member of the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should join the European Free Trade Area as it will allow the UK to have a greater share of the European market. However, the UK should not accept any other conditions from the EU which are not related to trade. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. The EFTA would be beneficial for both sides and allow unhindered flow of goods, however, other conditions not necessarily related to trade are likely to be imposed as a mechanism for forcing closer political ties to the EU and these are unacceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices and to cut costs for import and export businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the UK should join the European Free Trade Area. We think that it would be beneficial to the UK economy and it would be a good compromise between the deal now implemented and having to be a full-blown member of the EU. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000710.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000710.soc index 14ca7632..099a17f1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000710.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000710.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. The EFTA would be beneficial for both sides and allow unhindered flow of goods, however, other conditions not necessarily related to trade are likely to be imposed as a mechanism for forcing closer political ties to the EU and these are unacceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. The EFTA would be beneficial for both sides and allow unhindered flow of goods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. The EFTA would be beneficial for both sides and allow unhindered flow of goods, however, other conditions not necessarily related to trade are likely to be imposed as a mechanism for forcing closer political ties to the EU and these are acceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. While joining EFTA would not give us control over decisions being made, it would allow us to sell and buy from the world's biggest market without further barriers and red tape, and provide a boost to the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. The EFTA would be beneficial for both sides and allow unhindered flow of goods, however, other conditions not necessarily related to trade are likely to be imposed as a mechanism for forcing closer political ties to the EU and these are unacceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. The EFTA would be beneficial for both sides and allow unhindered flow of goods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. The EFTA would be beneficial for both sides and allow unhindered flow of goods, however, other conditions not necessarily related to trade are likely to be imposed as a mechanism for forcing closer political ties to the EU and these are acceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should join the European Free Trade Area to reduce food prices. High food prices are affecting the whole population. It will also cut costs for import and export businesses. While joining EFTA would not give us control over decisions being made, it would allow us to sell and buy from the world's biggest market without further barriers and red tape, and provide a boost to the economy. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000711.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000711.soc index 0f1e5f76..5eba7c74 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000711.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000711.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. The fiasco that is HS2 has shown us that the government is not capable of delivering major infrastructure projects on time or on budget. There is also no need for this high speed rail link. The last few years have shown us that business can be done remotely using Zoom type apps, there is no need for face to face meetings. This kind of long distance rail travel is a thing of the past. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. The fiasco that is HS2 has shown us that the government is not capable of delivering major infrastructure projects on time or on budget. There is also no need for this high speed rail link. The last few years have shown us that business can be done remotely using Zoom type apps, there is no need for face to face meetings. This kind of long distance rail travel is a thing of the past.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. The current direct line between the two capital cities is adequate and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. This kind of long distance rail travel is a thing of the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. The fiasco that is HS2 has shown us that the government is not capable of delivering major infrastructure projects on time or on budget. There is also no need for this high speed rail link. The last few years have shown us that business can be done remotely using Zoom type apps, there is no need for face to face meetings. This kind of long distance rail travel is a thing of the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. The fiasco that is HS2 has shown us that the government is not capable of delivering major infrastructure projects on time or on budget. There is also no need for this high speed rail link. The last few years have shown us that business can be done remotely using Zoom type apps, there is no need for face to face meetings. This kind of long distance rail travel is a thing of the past.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. The current direct line between the two capital cities is adequate and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. This kind of long distance rail travel is a thing of the past. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000712.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000712.soc index d2868541..d629961f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000712.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000712.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of installing solar panels on all houses. It was agreed that solar panels are a great way of reducing our energy costs and they are a great way to help the environment. However, it was also agreed that there are some problems with this idea. It was agreed that it is very expensive to install solar panels on houses and it is not viable for many people to afford to do so. The group thought that the government should help with the cost of installing solar panels but it should not be forced upon people. It was agreed that this is a great idea and it would be a very good thing for the environment but the cost is a big issue and it should be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should encourage people to install solar panels on their houses but not make it mandatory. This is because of the cost of installing the solar panels and also because not all houses are suitable for solar panels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of solar panels on houses, but not in favour of it being a legal requirement. The group thought that solar panels should be encouraged by the government, with funding being provided for poorer households who may struggle to afford them. The group also thought that all new builds should have solar panels installed as standard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of solar panels but thought that the current subsidies were insufficient to help the poorest people in society and that the subsidies were also insufficient to incentivise people to take up the option. It was felt that a mandatory approach would be the best way to go, although the group thought that the mandatory approach should only be applied to new builds, rather than existing properties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of installing solar panels on all houses. It was agreed that solar panels are a great way of reducing our energy costs and they are a great way to help the environment. However, it was also agreed that there are some problems with this idea. It was agreed that it is very expensive to install solar panels on houses and it is not viable for many people to afford to do so. The group thought that the government should help with the cost of installing solar panels but it should not be forced upon people. It was agreed that this is a great idea and it would be a very good thing for the environment but the cost is a big issue and it should be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should encourage people to install solar panels on their houses but not make it mandatory. This is because of the cost of installing the solar panels and also because not all houses are suitable for solar panels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of solar panels on houses, but not in favour of it being a legal requirement. The group thought that solar panels should be encouraged by the government, with funding being provided for poorer households who may struggle to afford them. The group also thought that all new builds should have solar panels installed as standard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of solar panels but thought that the current subsidies were insufficient to help the poorest people in society and that the subsidies were also insufficient to incentivise people to take up the option. It was felt that a mandatory approach would be the best way to go, although the group thought that the mandatory approach should only be applied to new builds, rather than existing properties. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000713.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000713.soc index 42df1634..de98065d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000713.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000713.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not be able to stop a parent giving their child a non-mainstream education. The parents should have the right to choose where their child is educated as long as they are getting the same education as they would get in a mainstream school. However, there needs to be a safety net to ensure that the child is receiving adequate home schooling. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that parents should be allowed to give their child a non-mainstream education. However, the group did agree that the government should be able to intervene if the child is not receiving a suitable education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not be able to stop a parent giving their child a non-mainstream education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not be able to stop a parent giving their child a non-mainstream education. The child may feel more comfortable in a non-mainstream environment and this may be the best way for them to learn. However, there should be a safety net to ensure that the child is receiving adequate home schooling. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not be able to stop a parent giving their child a non-mainstream education. The parents should have the right to choose where their child is educated as long as they are getting the same education as they would get in a mainstream school. However, there needs to be a safety net to ensure that the child is receiving adequate home schooling. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that parents should be allowed to give their child a non-mainstream education. However, the group did agree that the government should be able to intervene if the child is not receiving a suitable education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not be able to stop a parent giving their child a non-mainstream education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not be able to stop a parent giving their child a non-mainstream education. The child may feel more comfortable in a non-mainstream environment and this may be the best way for them to learn. However, there should be a safety net to ensure that the child is receiving adequate home schooling. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000714.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000714.soc index 0acdcb69..0f0506dd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000714.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000714.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the minimum age for buying cigarettes should not be raised from 18 to 21. We don't think that smokers at 18 are not sufficiently aware of the dangers of smoking and the health risks associated with it. We think that people are mature enough to make their own choices by the time they reach 18 and so they should be treated as adults. We have also discussed the fact that people are treated as adults at 18 in other areas of life, for example they can vote, drive, drink alcohol and so on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age for buying cigarettes should be raised from 18 to 21. We believe that by doing this, it will prevent health issues and addiction in the future. It will also reduce the number of smokers in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the minimum age for buying cigarettes should not be raised from 18 to 21 because 18 year olds are adults and should be able to make their own decisions about whether to smoke or not. The age for driving, drinking alcohol and voting is 18 and we do not want to create inconsistencies. Also, if the age was raised to 21, then 18-20 year olds would just buy cigarettes from illegal sources and this would be even worse for their health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the minimum age for buying cigarettes should be raised to 21 years old. The reason for this is because we feel that people are not aware of the risks of smoking and the dangers of the addictive substances that are in cigarettes. If the minimum age was raised to 21 it would prevent young people from smoking and becoming addicted to cigarettes and it would also stop young people from buying cigarettes for younger people who are under the legal age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the minimum age for buying cigarettes should not be raised from 18 to 21. We don't think that smokers at 18 are not sufficiently aware of the dangers of smoking and the health risks associated with it. We think that people are mature enough to make their own choices by the time they reach 18 and so they should be treated as adults. We have also discussed the fact that people are treated as adults at 18 in other areas of life, for example they can vote, drive, drink alcohol and so on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age for buying cigarettes should be raised from 18 to 21. We believe that by doing this, it will prevent health issues and addiction in the future. It will also reduce the number of smokers in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the minimum age for buying cigarettes should not be raised from 18 to 21 because 18 year olds are adults and should be able to make their own decisions about whether to smoke or not. The age for driving, drinking alcohol and voting is 18 and we do not want to create inconsistencies. Also, if the age was raised to 21, then 18-20 year olds would just buy cigarettes from illegal sources and this would be even worse for their health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the minimum age for buying cigarettes should be raised to 21 years old. The reason for this is because we feel that people are not aware of the risks of smoking and the dangers of the addictive substances that are in cigarettes. If the minimum age was raised to 21 it would prevent young people from smoking and becoming addicted to cigarettes and it would also stop young people from buying cigarettes for younger people who are under the legal age. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000715.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000715.soc index 946f9cce..a1018921 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000715.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000715.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of animals in scientific research is not acceptable as there are other ways to conduct research. In some cases, however, it may be necessary, such as for testing drugs that may save countless human lives. In these cases, the suffering of the animal should be minimised as much as possible, and they should only be used for reasons that improve the whole of humanity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is acceptable to use animals for scientific research on the basis that the suffering of the animal is minimised. It is also important that the research is carried out for reasons that improve the whole of humanity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that the use of animals in scientific research is acceptable, on the basis that the suffering of the animals is minimised and that there is a greater good to be achieved. This is on the condition that other options are not available. If this is the case, then the greater good that comes from the research is imperative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of animals in scientific research is not acceptable. If animals are to be used in scientific research, it should be for reasons that will benefit all of humanity and not just a small portion of it. Animals should only be used if it is absolutely necessary and if there is no other alternative. It is also important to note that not all animals are equal in terms of their intelligence and capacity for suffering. As such, the extent of the research that can be carried out on them will differ. For example, more invasive research can be carried out on a chicken than a dog, as chickens are generally regarded as being less intelligent than dogs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of animals in scientific research is not acceptable as there are other ways to conduct research. In some cases, however, it may be necessary, such as for testing drugs that may save countless human lives. In these cases, the suffering of the animal should be minimised as much as possible, and they should only be used for reasons that improve the whole of humanity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is acceptable to use animals for scientific research on the basis that the suffering of the animal is minimised. It is also important that the research is carried out for reasons that improve the whole of humanity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that the use of animals in scientific research is acceptable, on the basis that the suffering of the animals is minimised and that there is a greater good to be achieved. This is on the condition that other options are not available. If this is the case, then the greater good that comes from the research is imperative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of animals in scientific research is not acceptable. If animals are to be used in scientific research, it should be for reasons that will benefit all of humanity and not just a small portion of it. Animals should only be used if it is absolutely necessary and if there is no other alternative. It is also important to note that not all animals are equal in terms of their intelligence and capacity for suffering. As such, the extent of the research that can be carried out on them will differ. For example, more invasive research can be carried out on a chicken than a dog, as chickens are generally regarded as being less intelligent than dogs. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000716.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000716.soc index 4458f9d3..7a8cdaa8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000716.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000716.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should have to pay a tax if they want to own a car, however, the tax should be determined by the type of car and by personal income and valid circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not have to pay a tax if they want to own a car, but they should have to pay for the damage they do to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Car tax is a necessary evil. We need to pay for the roads, but the money should be ring fenced for that purpose, and not put into a general taxation pot. The money should be used to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not have to pay a tax if we want to own a car. We should be able to choose how we get around. We should be able to use our cars without paying more tax for the privilege. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should have to pay a tax if they want to own a car, however, the tax should be determined by the type of car and by personal income and valid circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not have to pay a tax if they want to own a car, but they should have to pay for the damage they do to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Car tax is a necessary evil. We need to pay for the roads, but the money should be ring fenced for that purpose, and not put into a general taxation pot. The money should be used to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not have to pay a tax if we want to own a car. We should be able to choose how we get around. We should be able to use our cars without paying more tax for the privilege. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000717.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000717.soc index dc3a6087..f2b51ea3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000717.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000717.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, I think that we need to build Nuclear Power Stations. The earth is running out of fossil fuels, so we need to look at alternative methods. If we can create our own power, it should also help to lower costs as it will reduce the reliance on having to buy from other nations. However, cleaner and more sustainable options should be explored first.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I think that we need to build Nuclear Power Stations. The earth is running out of fossil fuels, so we need to look at alternative methods. If we can create our own power, it should also help to lower costs as it will reduce the reliance on having to buy from other nations. However, for some, a focus on wind and solar energy may be preferable to building a new nuclear power station. We are already far into a still growing climate emergency, and need all sources of non-fossil fuel and low emission energy we can get.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of building a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. The group agreed that it was a good idea to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, however, it would be better to explore other alternative energy sources before building another nuclear plant. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are good arguments for and against the building of a new nuclear power station, the group came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should be built at Hinkley Point. This is because the earth is running out of fossil fuels, and we need to look at alternative methods. If we can create our own power, it should also help to lower costs as it will reduce the reliance on having to buy from other nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, I think that we need to build Nuclear Power Stations. The earth is running out of fossil fuels, so we need to look at alternative methods. If we can create our own power, it should also help to lower costs as it will reduce the reliance on having to buy from other nations. However, cleaner and more sustainable options should be explored first.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I think that we need to build Nuclear Power Stations. The earth is running out of fossil fuels, so we need to look at alternative methods. If we can create our own power, it should also help to lower costs as it will reduce the reliance on having to buy from other nations. However, for some, a focus on wind and solar energy may be preferable to building a new nuclear power station. We are already far into a still growing climate emergency, and need all sources of non-fossil fuel and low emission energy we can get.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of building a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. The group agreed that it was a good idea to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, however, it would be better to explore other alternative energy sources before building another nuclear plant. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are good arguments for and against the building of a new nuclear power station, the group came to the consensus view that a new nuclear power station should be built at Hinkley Point. This is because the earth is running out of fossil fuels, and we need to look at alternative methods. If we can create our own power, it should also help to lower costs as it will reduce the reliance on having to buy from other nations. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000718.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000718.soc index 9eb18247..3f8e73a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000718.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000718.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidizing the cost of wind and solar power. This is because it is a renewable energy source and will help reduce the effects of climate change. It is also good for the economy and will create jobs. The group did acknowledge that it will be an expense for the government and that the cost will be passed onto tax payers. The group felt that this will be offset by the benefits of the renewable energy source. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. The benefits of renewable energy sources are numerous, and the government should be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. Many individuals and companies cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power as this will allow us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels which will in turn help with the global warming situation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidizing the cost of wind and solar power. This is because it is a renewable energy source and will help reduce the effects of climate change. It is also good for the economy and will create jobs. The group did acknowledge that it will be an expense for the government and that the cost will be passed onto tax payers. The group felt that this will be offset by the benefits of the renewable energy source. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. The benefits of renewable energy sources are numerous, and the government should be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. Many individuals and companies cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power as this will allow us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels which will in turn help with the global warming situation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000719.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000719.soc index 589c9602..a304289d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000719.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000719.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. There is also no need for this high speed rail link. The last few years have shown us that business can be done remotely using Zoom type apps, there is no need for face to face meetings. This kind of long distance rail travel is a thing of the past. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. Society has already moved away from the need to travel for face to face meetings, with many companies now utilising online alternatives such as Teams and Zoom. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. Society has already moved away from the need to travel for face to face meetings, with many companies now utilising online alternatives such as Teams and Zoom. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. There is also no need for this high speed rail link. The last few years have shown us that business can be done remotely using Zoom type apps, there is no need for face to face meetings. This kind of long distance rail travel is a thing of the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. Society has already moved away from the need to travel for face to face meetings, with many companies now utilising online alternatives such as Teams and Zoom. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. Society has already moved away from the need to travel for face to face meetings, with many companies now utilising online alternatives such as Teams and Zoom. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK government should not fund a new high speed rail link between London and Edinburgh. There is currently a direct line between the two capital cities and funds for this long line to be upgraded to HS would be better used elsewhere. There has already been much controversy over the implementation of HS rail lines and protests over routes by home and land owners. The route would also cut through many areas of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the environment. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000720.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000720.soc index 2cedc48c..01b87e85 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000720.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000720.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that a universal basic income should be provided, as it would create a more equal society and provide a safety net for those who might fall on hard times or go through bad financial experiences. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of providing universal basic income, but with some caveats. The consensus view was that if a person is able to work, then they should be required to do so in order to receive the basic income. This would help to reduce the cost of providing the basic income and would also encourage people to work, thus helping to reduce unemployment. It was also suggested that the level of basic income provided should be linked to the cost of living in a particular area, with the level of basic income being higher in areas where the cost of living is higher. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income should be provided as it would provide a safety net for those who might fall on hard times or go through bad financial experiences. The scheme would also provide a more equal starting point for everyone and encourage those on benefits to work as they would be better off. A second group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that a universal basic income should be provided, as it would create a more equal society and provide a safety net for those who might fall on hard times or go through bad financial experiences. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of providing universal basic income, but with some caveats. The consensus view was that if a person is able to work, then they should be required to do so in order to receive the basic income. This would help to reduce the cost of providing the basic income and would also encourage people to work, thus helping to reduce unemployment. It was also suggested that the level of basic income provided should be linked to the cost of living in a particular area, with the level of basic income being higher in areas where the cost of living is higher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income should be provided as it would provide a safety net for those who might fall on hard times or go through bad financial experiences. The scheme would also provide a more equal starting point for everyone and encourage those on benefits to work as they would be better off. A second group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000721.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000721.soc index 7da2dd22..abd119ea 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000721.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000721.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There was a strong consensus that solar panels should be installed on all houses in the UK. It was agreed that solar panels are a great way of reducing our energy costs and they are a great way to help the environment. However, it was also agreed that there are some problems with this idea. It was agreed that it is very expensive to install solar panels on houses and it is not viable for many people to afford to do so. The group thought that the government should help with the cost of installing solar panels but it should not be forced upon people. It was agreed that this is a great idea and it would be a very good thing for the environment but the cost is a big issue and it should be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was in favour of the idea of installing solar panels on all houses. It was agreed that solar panels are a great way of reducing our energy costs and they are a great way to help the environment. However, it was also agreed that there are some problems with this idea. It was agreed that it is very expensive to install solar panels on houses and it is not viable for many people to afford to do so. The group thought that the government should help with the cost of installing solar panels but it should not be forced upon people. It was agreed that this is a great idea and it would be a very good thing for the environment but the cost is a big issue and it should be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of installing solar panels on all houses. It was agreed that solar panels are a great way of reducing our energy costs and they are a great way to help the environment. However, it was also agreed that there are some problems with this idea. It was agreed that it is very expensive to install solar panels on houses and it is not viable for many people to afford to do so. The group thought that the government should help with the cost of installing solar panels but it should not be forced upon people. It was agreed that this is a great idea and it would be a very good thing for the environment but the cost is a big issue and it should be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group in general thought that solar panels are a good idea to be installed on all houses, however this is easier said than done. It may be unaffordable to the poor and some houses roofs may not be suitable for the panels. We also thought that all new builds should be required to have solar panels installed on their roofs as standard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There was a strong consensus that solar panels should be installed on all houses in the UK. It was agreed that solar panels are a great way of reducing our energy costs and they are a great way to help the environment. However, it was also agreed that there are some problems with this idea. It was agreed that it is very expensive to install solar panels on houses and it is not viable for many people to afford to do so. The group thought that the government should help with the cost of installing solar panels but it should not be forced upon people. It was agreed that this is a great idea and it would be a very good thing for the environment but the cost is a big issue and it should be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was in favour of the idea of installing solar panels on all houses. It was agreed that solar panels are a great way of reducing our energy costs and they are a great way to help the environment. However, it was also agreed that there are some problems with this idea. It was agreed that it is very expensive to install solar panels on houses and it is not viable for many people to afford to do so. The group thought that the government should help with the cost of installing solar panels but it should not be forced upon people. It was agreed that this is a great idea and it would be a very good thing for the environment but the cost is a big issue and it should be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of installing solar panels on all houses. It was agreed that solar panels are a great way of reducing our energy costs and they are a great way to help the environment. However, it was also agreed that there are some problems with this idea. It was agreed that it is very expensive to install solar panels on houses and it is not viable for many people to afford to do so. The group thought that the government should help with the cost of installing solar panels but it should not be forced upon people. It was agreed that this is a great idea and it would be a very good thing for the environment but the cost is a big issue and it should be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group in general thought that solar panels are a good idea to be installed on all houses, however this is easier said than done. It may be unaffordable to the poor and some houses roofs may not be suitable for the panels. We also thought that all new builds should be required to have solar panels installed on their roofs as standard. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000722.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000722.soc index bfb94484..b47d4dc6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000722.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000722.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Car tax is a necessary evil. We need to pay for the roads, but the money should be ring fenced for that purpose, and not put into a general taxation pot. The money should be used to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Car tax is a necessary evil. We need to pay for the roads, but the money should be ring fenced for that purpose, and not put into a general taxation pot. The money should be used to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. The tax should be determined on the type of car for example if it is electric than pay less tax than diesel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Car tax is a necessary evil. We need to pay for the roads, but the money should be ring fenced for that purpose, and not put into a general taxation pot. The money should be used to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. The tax should be on a sliding scale based on the impact of different vehicles on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should pay a car tax, but it should be used to maintain the roads, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. The tax should be on a sliding scale, based on the impact of different vehicles on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Car tax is a necessary evil. We need to pay for the roads, but the money should be ring fenced for that purpose, and not put into a general taxation pot. The money should be used to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Car tax is a necessary evil. We need to pay for the roads, but the money should be ring fenced for that purpose, and not put into a general taxation pot. The money should be used to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. The tax should be determined on the type of car for example if it is electric than pay less tax than diesel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Car tax is a necessary evil. We need to pay for the roads, but the money should be ring fenced for that purpose, and not put into a general taxation pot. The money should be used to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. The tax should be on a sliding scale based on the impact of different vehicles on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should pay a car tax, but it should be used to maintain the roads, and to reduce the impact of car use on the environment. The tax should be on a sliding scale, based on the impact of different vehicles on the environment. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000723.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000723.soc index 311dd8f1..541868c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000723.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000723.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the system we have in the UK, with a Prime Minister, is the most effective system for the UK. A President would have too much power and may not be accountable enough to the people. The Prime Minister has to work with other parties to get laws passed, and so is more accountable to the people. A President could make decisions that are not in the best interests of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is slightly better to have a Prime Minister. A Prime Minister is chosen by the people, and is the leader of the party with the most votes. This means that they have the support of the people and will do what they can to keep them happy. A President is chosen by a select group of people, and so may not have the support of the majority. This means that they may not be able to get the laws passed that they want to, and this can lead to problems. A Prime Minister is also in charge of the whole government, and so can make sure that all the different parts of the government work together. This means that things can be done quickly and efficiently, whereas a President may not be able to get things done so quickly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There would be no difference between having a Prime Minister or a President. Both would be elected and both would have to listen to the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the group of participants feel that it would be slightly better to have a Prime Minister as a president seems to have higher status and more power, but perhaps that is simply my perception of the status of US presidents in particular. However, this doesn't seem to be a great system in America, and I feel that despite its many flaws, the UK government under a Prime Minister, is overall an effective system. Notably, we have an excellent benefits system and child poverty has halved in the last 15 years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the system we have in the UK, with a Prime Minister, is the most effective system for the UK. A President would have too much power and may not be accountable enough to the people. The Prime Minister has to work with other parties to get laws passed, and so is more accountable to the people. A President could make decisions that are not in the best interests of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is slightly better to have a Prime Minister. A Prime Minister is chosen by the people, and is the leader of the party with the most votes. This means that they have the support of the people and will do what they can to keep them happy. A President is chosen by a select group of people, and so may not have the support of the majority. This means that they may not be able to get the laws passed that they want to, and this can lead to problems. A Prime Minister is also in charge of the whole government, and so can make sure that all the different parts of the government work together. This means that things can be done quickly and efficiently, whereas a President may not be able to get things done so quickly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There would be no difference between having a Prime Minister or a President. Both would be elected and both would have to listen to the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group of participants feel that it would be slightly better to have a Prime Minister as a president seems to have higher status and more power, but perhaps that is simply my perception of the status of US presidents in particular. However, this doesn't seem to be a great system in America, and I feel that despite its many flaws, the UK government under a Prime Minister, is overall an effective system. Notably, we have an excellent benefits system and child poverty has halved in the last 15 years. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000724.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000724.soc index da56ffbf..b1b1238a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000724.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000724.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Scotland should have the right to vote for independence if they wish. The decision should be left to the Scottish people. The union is not as important as it once was and if the people of Scotland want independence, that is what they should be able to have. They voted to remain in the EU and that was not reflected in what happened, which was unfair. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Scotland should be given the option to vote on independence, and if they vote to leave the UK, they should be allowed to do so. The referendum was a fair vote, and if the Scottish people want independence, they should be given it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Scotland should have the right to independence, but it would be better for them to remain in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a strong country and Scotland has much to gain from staying in it. However, it is for the people of Scotland to decide and we should respect their right to decide their own future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of Scotland having independence if that is what the people of Scotland wish. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Scotland should have the right to vote for independence if they wish. The decision should be left to the Scottish people. The union is not as important as it once was and if the people of Scotland want independence, that is what they should be able to have. They voted to remain in the EU and that was not reflected in what happened, which was unfair. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Scotland should be given the option to vote on independence, and if they vote to leave the UK, they should be allowed to do so. The referendum was a fair vote, and if the Scottish people want independence, they should be given it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Scotland should have the right to independence, but it would be better for them to remain in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a strong country and Scotland has much to gain from staying in it. However, it is for the people of Scotland to decide and we should respect their right to decide their own future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of Scotland having independence if that is what the people of Scotland wish. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000725.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000725.soc index 02ff4b5b..24341929 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000725.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000725.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government funding independent newspapers. They felt that newspapers are not a major source of news anymore and they often are so biased that any information has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Government funding would also lead to uncertainty of how much this funding is slanting the news because of the money it is giving. Ultimately, this funding would be tax payers' money and there are far more important things to budget for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should not fund independent newspapers. This is because the newspapers would no longer be independent if the government is funding them. This would compromise their status as independent. Newspapers should remain impartial. They should be free to criticise the government if appropriate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not fund independent newspapers. This would mean that the newspapers would be biased in their reporting and their independence would be questioned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, because the newspapers would be seen to be biased towards the government. This would lead to a loss of credibility and therefore a loss of readership. This would lead to the newspapers becoming less financially viable and therefore would not be sustainable in the long run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government funding independent newspapers. They felt that newspapers are not a major source of news anymore and they often are so biased that any information has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Government funding would also lead to uncertainty of how much this funding is slanting the news because of the money it is giving. Ultimately, this funding would be tax payers' money and there are far more important things to budget for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should not fund independent newspapers. This is because the newspapers would no longer be independent if the government is funding them. This would compromise their status as independent. Newspapers should remain impartial. They should be free to criticise the government if appropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not fund independent newspapers. This would mean that the newspapers would be biased in their reporting and their independence would be questioned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, because the newspapers would be seen to be biased towards the government. This would lead to a loss of credibility and therefore a loss of readership. This would lead to the newspapers becoming less financially viable and therefore would not be sustainable in the long run. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000726.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000726.soc index 1fe56303..fb395e8e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000726.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000726.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. We agree that this will come at a huge expense to taxpayers, but we feel that this is a necessary step to take in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. This is the opinion of the group as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. This will help the companies in the long run whilst saving our environment too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. We agree that this will come at a huge expense to taxpayers, but we feel that this is a necessary step to take in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. This is the opinion of the group as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should subsidize the cost of wind and solar power. We have a global warming crisis and we need to change to renewable energy sources. The government needs to be at the forefront of funding such energy sources. The individual needs incentive to use wind and solar power. Many cannot afford to switch to these sources and need monetary help. This should come in the form of government subsidies. This will help the companies in the long run whilst saving our environment too. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000727.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000727.soc index 4632632d..398b3ecf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000727.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000727.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The inclusion of indefinite leave to remain in the asylum seeking policy is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of the social, economic, and political impact. It should be evaluated alongside the government's commitment to protect vulnerable groups and ensure a fair and just system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK asylum seeking policy should not include an indefinite leave to remain. The policy should ensure that asylum seekers are not subjected to unfair treatment or persecution and that their human rights are not violated. However, it should not provide a strong incentive for people to abuse the system by providing indefinite leave to remain. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Our asylum seeking policy should include an indefinite leave to remain. Asylum seekers are displaced due to life threatening situations and should be able to settle in a new environment without the fear of having to return to where they may be harmed. Allowing them to settle and find work would also ease the stain of benefits provision and put to rest some of the extreme views of asylum seekers only arriving in the UK to gain benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The inclusion of indefinite leave to remain in the asylum seeking policy is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of the social, economic, and political impact. It should be evaluated alongside the government's commitment to protect vulnerable groups and ensure a fair and just system.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The inclusion of indefinite leave to remain in the asylum seeking policy is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of the social, economic, and political impact. It should be evaluated alongside the government's commitment to protect vulnerable groups and ensure a fair and just system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK asylum seeking policy should not include an indefinite leave to remain. The policy should ensure that asylum seekers are not subjected to unfair treatment or persecution and that their human rights are not violated. However, it should not provide a strong incentive for people to abuse the system by providing indefinite leave to remain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Our asylum seeking policy should include an indefinite leave to remain. Asylum seekers are displaced due to life threatening situations and should be able to settle in a new environment without the fear of having to return to where they may be harmed. Allowing them to settle and find work would also ease the stain of benefits provision and put to rest some of the extreme views of asylum seekers only arriving in the UK to gain benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The inclusion of indefinite leave to remain in the asylum seeking policy is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of the social, economic, and political impact. It should be evaluated alongside the government's commitment to protect vulnerable groups and ensure a fair and just system.” 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000728.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000728.soc index 29578ecf..361edc24 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000728.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000728.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty. A universal basic income would be beneficial to everyone in society as it would provide a safety net for those who might fall on hard times or go through bad financial experiences. In other countries where this model has been trialled, the results have been very positive so I think it would be worth trialling a scheme in the UK. Working towards a more equal society would have great benefits.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty. It would also reduce the income inequality gap in society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty. However, it is important to note that there are some people who are physically unable to work and therefore would be unable to meet the requirements to receive a universal basic income. It is also important to note that there are some jobs that would not be able to provide a basic income. Therefore, it is important that the government consider all of these factors when deciding whether or not to implement a universal basic income.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty. Research has shown that providing a universal basic income does not reduce the incentive to work and it would help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty. A universal basic income would be beneficial to everyone in society as it would provide a safety net for those who might fall on hard times or go through bad financial experiences. In other countries where this model has been trialled, the results have been very positive so I think it would be worth trialling a scheme in the UK. Working towards a more equal society would have great benefits.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty. It would also reduce the income inequality gap in society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty. However, it is important to note that there are some people who are physically unable to work and therefore would be unable to meet the requirements to receive a universal basic income. It is also important to note that there are some jobs that would not be able to provide a basic income. Therefore, it is important that the government consider all of these factors when deciding whether or not to implement a universal basic income.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “A universal basic income would be a good thing to implement in society. It would ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and would help to reduce the income inequality gap in society. It would also help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty. Research has shown that providing a universal basic income does not reduce the incentive to work and it would help to reduce the welfare bill as people would be more incentivised to work. It would also help people who are struggling to get by and help to reduce poverty.” 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000729.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000729.soc index dc042125..c309d290 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000729.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000729.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of Scotland having independence if that is what the people of Scotland wish. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. They felt that it was important to acknowledge that the UK government had been unfair to Scotland in the recent EU referendum, where the Scottish people voted to remain in the EU but were overruled by the rest of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group in general agreed that Scotland should be given the option to vote on independence if they wish. The participants felt that it should be the people of Scotland who make the decision on their own future, and that it should not be influenced by the UK government. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence, and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants in general were in favour of Scotland having independence if that is what the people of Scotland wish. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. They felt that it is unfair that the Scottish people were not able to vote to remain in the EU despite voting to do so, and that this is an important factor to consider. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of Scotland having independence if that is what the people of Scotland wish. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. The participants also felt that the pros and cons of Scottish independence should be discussed in more detail, including the impact of the EU vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of Scotland having independence if that is what the people of Scotland wish. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. They felt that it was important to acknowledge that the UK government had been unfair to Scotland in the recent EU referendum, where the Scottish people voted to remain in the EU but were overruled by the rest of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group in general agreed that Scotland should be given the option to vote on independence if they wish. The participants felt that it should be the people of Scotland who make the decision on their own future, and that it should not be influenced by the UK government. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence, and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants in general were in favour of Scotland having independence if that is what the people of Scotland wish. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. They felt that it is unfair that the Scottish people were not able to vote to remain in the EU despite voting to do so, and that this is an important factor to consider. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of Scotland having independence if that is what the people of Scotland wish. They felt that the people of Scotland should be given the option to vote on their own independence and that if the majority of people in Scotland want independence, then that is what they should have. The participants felt that the people of Scotland should be allowed to make their own decision, and that the UK government should not try to influence the decision of the Scottish people. The participants also felt that the pros and cons of Scottish independence should be discussed in more detail, including the impact of the EU vote. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000730.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000730.soc index cfe4f289..39077e98 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000730.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000730.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should have a free trade agreement with the US. It is good for the economy as the US is the world's biggest economy. We buy the majority of our goods from the US so it will benefit us to have free trade with them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the UK should have a free trade agreement with the US. It would be very beneficial for the UK to have a free trade agreement with the US as they are one of the biggest economies in the world. The US is also one of our biggest importers and if we can export more goods to them it would be beneficial for the UK economy. We believe that this will boost the economy and also give the relations between the two countries a positive one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are some potential risks, the UK should pursue a free trade agreement with the US as it will boost the economy, improve relations between the two countries, and will help to improve the cost of living crisis in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a free trade agreement with the US. The main argument in favour of this was that the UK and US are the two biggest economies in the world and are natural trading partners. However, the group was also in favour of putting restrictions in place on certain goods, such as food, that could be harmful to the health of people in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should have a free trade agreement with the US. It is good for the economy as the US is the world's biggest economy. We buy the majority of our goods from the US so it will benefit us to have free trade with them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the UK should have a free trade agreement with the US. It would be very beneficial for the UK to have a free trade agreement with the US as they are one of the biggest economies in the world. The US is also one of our biggest importers and if we can export more goods to them it would be beneficial for the UK economy. We believe that this will boost the economy and also give the relations between the two countries a positive one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are some potential risks, the UK should pursue a free trade agreement with the US as it will boost the economy, improve relations between the two countries, and will help to improve the cost of living crisis in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a free trade agreement with the US. The main argument in favour of this was that the UK and US are the two biggest economies in the world and are natural trading partners. However, the group was also in favour of putting restrictions in place on certain goods, such as food, that could be harmful to the health of people in the UK. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000731.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000731.soc index fd0bccf5..a6300d7f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000731.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000731.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Tech companies should not be forced to block pornography or gambling. These are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, providing that matters do not cause significant harm, we are in favour of content on the internet being unmoderated/free. Individuals should have the liberty to access this content if they choose to do so. However, the content may need to be regulated to an extent to prevent e.g. access by minors or access by those with gambling addictions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be age restrictions on both pornography and gambling sites. The gambling sites should have spending limits to help prevent gambling addiction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the internet should remain a place for free speech and expression, however in cases where it is deemed that certain content can be harmful to people in a certain way, it should be regulated. The issue of gambling addiction is a difficult one, as it can be argued that people have a choice whether to gamble or not. The issue of children accessing pornography is also difficult, as this is a freedom of speech issue. However, if the content is deemed to be harmful to children, it should be regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Tech companies should not be forced to block pornography or gambling. These are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, providing that matters do not cause significant harm, we are in favour of content on the internet being unmoderated/free. Individuals should have the liberty to access this content if they choose to do so. However, the content may need to be regulated to an extent to prevent e.g. access by minors or access by those with gambling addictions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be age restrictions on both pornography and gambling sites. The gambling sites should have spending limits to help prevent gambling addiction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the internet should remain a place for free speech and expression, however in cases where it is deemed that certain content can be harmful to people in a certain way, it should be regulated. The issue of gambling addiction is a difficult one, as it can be argued that people have a choice whether to gamble or not. The issue of children accessing pornography is also difficult, as this is a freedom of speech issue. However, if the content is deemed to be harmful to children, it should be regulated. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000732.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000732.soc index 1ab24aa4..6da7b2e3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000732.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000732.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that smoking should not be banned on beaches. However, it should be restricted to certain areas and people should have to be more careful about littering. The main reason for this decision is that we do not want to restrict peoples freedom, as long as they are not harming anyone else. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not ban smoking on beaches, but we should encourage people not to smoke on beaches, and provide bins for them to dispose of cigarette butts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking on beaches should not be banned. Smokers should be able to smoke in designated areas of the beach, and smokers should be responsible for cleaning up any cigarette butts. This would ensure that non-smokers are not harmed by second-hand smoke and would allow smokers to enjoy the beach too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, smoking should not be banned on beaches, however in places where there are a lot of families, smoking should be banned near areas where children are playing. This would ensure that children are not subjected to second hand smoke, and also ensure that families have a nice day out without the threat of inhaling cigarette smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that smoking should not be banned on beaches. However, it should be restricted to certain areas and people should have to be more careful about littering. The main reason for this decision is that we do not want to restrict peoples freedom, as long as they are not harming anyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not ban smoking on beaches, but we should encourage people not to smoke on beaches, and provide bins for them to dispose of cigarette butts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking on beaches should not be banned. Smokers should be able to smoke in designated areas of the beach, and smokers should be responsible for cleaning up any cigarette butts. This would ensure that non-smokers are not harmed by second-hand smoke and would allow smokers to enjoy the beach too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, smoking should not be banned on beaches, however in places where there are a lot of families, smoking should be banned near areas where children are playing. This would ensure that children are not subjected to second hand smoke, and also ensure that families have a nice day out without the threat of inhaling cigarette smoke. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000733.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000733.soc index 64224003..7fa8d690 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000733.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000733.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of being able to predict crime is a good idea. However, this should be tested to make sure it is not biased, particularly towards ethnic minorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, public authorities should not use big data to predict which people are likely to commit crimes. The idea of using big data to predict crime is a good idea but there is no way of knowing how accurate the data is and it is likely to lead to many false accusations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The idea of using big data to predict crimes is good. This should be tested to make sure it is not biased, particularly towards ethnic minorities. The public should feel safe with their data and the public authorities should not use big data for any other purposes than preventing crimes and predicting which people are likely to commit them.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We feel that the use of big data to predict crime is a good idea in theory but we are concerned about how it will be used in practice. It could be a useful tool to prevent crime but it could also be a very dangerous tool if used in the wrong way.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of being able to predict crime is a good idea. However, this should be tested to make sure it is not biased, particularly towards ethnic minorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, public authorities should not use big data to predict which people are likely to commit crimes. The idea of using big data to predict crime is a good idea but there is no way of knowing how accurate the data is and it is likely to lead to many false accusations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The idea of using big data to predict crimes is good. This should be tested to make sure it is not biased, particularly towards ethnic minorities. The public should feel safe with their data and the public authorities should not use big data for any other purposes than preventing crimes and predicting which people are likely to commit them.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We feel that the use of big data to predict crime is a good idea in theory but we are concerned about how it will be used in practice. It could be a useful tool to prevent crime but it could also be a very dangerous tool if used in the wrong way.” 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000734.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000734.soc index 05af35cd..0a1d2b0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000734.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000734.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking should be banned in cars with children. Children should be protected by law from being in cars with adults who are smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Smoking should be banned in cars with children. The dangers of passive smoking are well understood and children should not be exposed to these risks. Children should be protected by law to prevent them being in cars with adults who are smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: YES, smoking in cars with children should be banned. The dangers of passive smoking are well understood and children should not be exposed to these risks. Children should be protected by law to prevent them being in cars with adults who are smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be exposed to the dangers of passive smoking and smoking in cars with children should be banned. This is an example of how a group of people with different views can come to a consensus after a good debate. The debate allowed people to express their views and to challenge the views of others. After a good debate, people often change their minds and are more willing to compromise. In the above example, the group of people came to a consensus that smoking in cars with children should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking should be banned in cars with children. Children should be protected by law from being in cars with adults who are smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Smoking should be banned in cars with children. The dangers of passive smoking are well understood and children should not be exposed to these risks. Children should be protected by law to prevent them being in cars with adults who are smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - YES, smoking in cars with children should be banned. The dangers of passive smoking are well understood and children should not be exposed to these risks. Children should be protected by law to prevent them being in cars with adults who are smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be exposed to the dangers of passive smoking and smoking in cars with children should be banned. This is an example of how a group of people with different views can come to a consensus after a good debate. The debate allowed people to express their views and to challenge the views of others. After a good debate, people often change their minds and are more willing to compromise. In the above example, the group of people came to a consensus that smoking in cars with children should be banned. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000735.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000735.soc index 278fb350..e2c3c9dd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000735.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000735.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, more should be done to reduce greenhouse gases. This is one of the most pressing issues that we face as a civilization and could kill all of us. We need to speed things up and work much harder towards a solution.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the targets we have set for ourselves in relation to greenhouse gases are not ambitious enough and that we should be doing more to reduce them. We should be working much harder to achieve these targets and be more ambitious in our approach. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the current targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases are reasonable. However, it is important to make every effort to reduce emissions as much as possible, as the issue is of great importance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should be more ambitious in meeting our targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, more should be done to reduce greenhouse gases. This is one of the most pressing issues that we face as a civilization and could kill all of us. We need to speed things up and work much harder towards a solution.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the targets we have set for ourselves in relation to greenhouse gases are not ambitious enough and that we should be doing more to reduce them. We should be working much harder to achieve these targets and be more ambitious in our approach. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the current targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases are reasonable. However, it is important to make every effort to reduce emissions as much as possible, as the issue is of great importance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should be more ambitious in meeting our targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000736.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000736.soc index b34dd412..1e1d6bc2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000736.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000736.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should have more migrant workers to the UK. There are jobs that need to be done and we cannot find people to fill those vacancies. Migrant workers add to our community. Diversity of cultures make this a more vibrant and interesting place to live. However, we must be careful not to create a 'brain drain'. It is not fair for wealthier countries to poach the best doctors and scientists from less well off countries who are in need of their skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK has benefited from migrant workers in the past. In the current climate, with high unemployment, we should not be bringing in any more migrant workers. If we have high unemployment, we should be looking to train up our own people first. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of having more migrant workers in the UK. There was a recognition that migrant workers were filling vital roles in the workforce, particularly in the care sector and agriculture. It was also noted that migrants are often prepared to do the jobs that British people don't want to do. The group was also aware that some migrants come to the UK to study, then find it difficult to get a job afterwards. The group was in favour of having more migrant workers, but only if there was a level playing field. This means that they would like to see a situation where UK citizens are prioritised for jobs. However, the group was also aware that this might not always be possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should have fewer migrant workers to the UK. This is because a lot of them are living off state benefits or are illegal immigrants anyway. We should train up our own inhabitants first before bringing in any more migrants. We should also be careful not to create a 'brain drain' by poaching the best doctors and scientists from less well off countries who are in need of their skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should have more migrant workers to the UK. There are jobs that need to be done and we cannot find people to fill those vacancies. Migrant workers add to our community. Diversity of cultures make this a more vibrant and interesting place to live. However, we must be careful not to create a 'brain drain'. It is not fair for wealthier countries to poach the best doctors and scientists from less well off countries who are in need of their skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK has benefited from migrant workers in the past. In the current climate, with high unemployment, we should not be bringing in any more migrant workers. If we have high unemployment, we should be looking to train up our own people first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of having more migrant workers in the UK. There was a recognition that migrant workers were filling vital roles in the workforce, particularly in the care sector and agriculture. It was also noted that migrants are often prepared to do the jobs that British people don't want to do. The group was also aware that some migrants come to the UK to study, then find it difficult to get a job afterwards. The group was in favour of having more migrant workers, but only if there was a level playing field. This means that they would like to see a situation where UK citizens are prioritised for jobs. However, the group was also aware that this might not always be possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should have fewer migrant workers to the UK. This is because a lot of them are living off state benefits or are illegal immigrants anyway. We should train up our own inhabitants first before bringing in any more migrants. We should also be careful not to create a 'brain drain' by poaching the best doctors and scientists from less well off countries who are in need of their skills. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000737.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000737.soc index ffb1c30a..3df456ef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000737.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000737.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should put a price on carbon. We need to be more proactive in tackling climate change. We've gone past the point of being able to reverse the damage we have caused. We need to ensure this includes the countries who produce the most carbon, consider the needs of developing countries and not unfairly disadvantage poorer members of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should put a price on carbon. We need to be more proactive in tackling climate change. We've gone past the point of being able to reverse the damage we have caused. We need to ensure this includes the countries who produce the most carbon, consider the needs of developing countries and not unfairly disadvantage poorer members of society. This is not going to be easy to do, but we need to do it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should put a price on carbon. We need to be more proactive in tackling climate change. We've gone past the point of being able to reverse the damage we have caused. We need to ensure this includes the countries who produce the most carbon, consider the needs of developing countries and not unfairly disadvantage poorer members of society. This would be a double win, reduce the amount of carbon used and then the monies earnt used to reduce futher. If the carrot is not working then there needs to be some stick at least. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should put a price on carbon. We need to be more proactive in tackling climate change. We've gone past the point of being able to reverse the damage we have caused. We need to ensure this includes the countries who produce the most carbon, consider the needs of developing countries and not unfairly disadvantage poorer members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should put a price on carbon. We need to be more proactive in tackling climate change. We've gone past the point of being able to reverse the damage we have caused. We need to ensure this includes the countries who produce the most carbon, consider the needs of developing countries and not unfairly disadvantage poorer members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should put a price on carbon. We need to be more proactive in tackling climate change. We've gone past the point of being able to reverse the damage we have caused. We need to ensure this includes the countries who produce the most carbon, consider the needs of developing countries and not unfairly disadvantage poorer members of society. This is not going to be easy to do, but we need to do it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should put a price on carbon. We need to be more proactive in tackling climate change. We've gone past the point of being able to reverse the damage we have caused. We need to ensure this includes the countries who produce the most carbon, consider the needs of developing countries and not unfairly disadvantage poorer members of society. This would be a double win, reduce the amount of carbon used and then the monies earnt used to reduce futher. If the carrot is not working then there needs to be some stick at least. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should put a price on carbon. We need to be more proactive in tackling climate change. We've gone past the point of being able to reverse the damage we have caused. We need to ensure this includes the countries who produce the most carbon, consider the needs of developing countries and not unfairly disadvantage poorer members of society. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000738.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000738.soc index 929444a0..e9ba96b3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000738.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000738.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a public education system, though they agreed that grammar schools should be allowed to exist. They were in favour of a single-tier system, though they did recognise that in the current climate it would be difficult to move to this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Education should be public. Private schools perpetuate inequality. The government should invest in the public education system and give all children the best possible start in life. Grammar schools should be abolished and there should be no segregation of children based on ability. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of public education systems for all. The group felt that a two-tier system in which the private school system gave its pupils an advantage over the public school system was unfair. It was also felt that a public school system would give pupils a more rounded education and provide them with a greater sense of community. However, some participants felt that if the private school system was scrapped then the government would not invest enough in the public school system to improve it and provide the same quality of education. It was also felt that a public school system would increase social mobility and give children from all backgrounds the same opportunities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Education should be public for all, as the current system is unfair and creates elitism. It should be free and accessible to all. The current system is unfair as it perpetuates the social inequality in our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a public education system, though they agreed that grammar schools should be allowed to exist. They were in favour of a single-tier system, though they did recognise that in the current climate it would be difficult to move to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Education should be public. Private schools perpetuate inequality. The government should invest in the public education system and give all children the best possible start in life. Grammar schools should be abolished and there should be no segregation of children based on ability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of public education systems for all. The group felt that a two-tier system in which the private school system gave its pupils an advantage over the public school system was unfair. It was also felt that a public school system would give pupils a more rounded education and provide them with a greater sense of community. However, some participants felt that if the private school system was scrapped then the government would not invest enough in the public school system to improve it and provide the same quality of education. It was also felt that a public school system would increase social mobility and give children from all backgrounds the same opportunities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Education should be public for all, as the current system is unfair and creates elitism. It should be free and accessible to all. The current system is unfair as it perpetuates the social inequality in our society. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000739.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000739.soc index 8db16164..0a7bdad3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000739.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000739.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Pets should not be banned. However, we should not allow people to buy pets from puppy farms. A vetting system should be in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. The pet becomes an integral part of the home and brings pleasure to both pet and owner alike. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Pets should not be banned. We feel that there are many people who benefit from having a pet in their home and the banning of pets would be detrimental to their health and well-being. We do however feel that the sale of pets should be more tightly regulated. We feel that there should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The sale of pets should not be banned because pets can play a very important part in making humans happy. Children can learn from an early age how to be responsible for another living soul. Pets can help those who live alone feel less lonely and can be excellent companions.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The sale of pets should not be banned. It is the owners responsibility to ensure that the pet is well looked after and is not mistreated. Pets are a part of the family and the owner should not be denied the opportunity of having a pet in the home. If people do not want pets, they do not have to have them.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Pets should not be banned. However, we should not allow people to buy pets from puppy farms. A vetting system should be in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. The pet becomes an integral part of the home and brings pleasure to both pet and owner alike. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Pets should not be banned. We feel that there are many people who benefit from having a pet in their home and the banning of pets would be detrimental to their health and well-being. We do however feel that the sale of pets should be more tightly regulated. We feel that there should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The sale of pets should not be banned because pets can play a very important part in making humans happy. Children can learn from an early age how to be responsible for another living soul. Pets can help those who live alone feel less lonely and can be excellent companions.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The sale of pets should not be banned. It is the owners responsibility to ensure that the pet is well looked after and is not mistreated. Pets are a part of the family and the owner should not be denied the opportunity of having a pet in the home. If people do not want pets, they do not have to have them.” 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000740.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000740.soc index 13820f62..ed1db788 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000740.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000740.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Pets should not be banned. We feel that there are many people who benefit from having a pet in their home and the banning of pets would be detrimental to their health and well-being. We do however feel that the sale of pets should be more tightly regulated. We feel that there should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. The owners should be given all the information that the owner needs to make the home the best place possible for the pet to live a happy life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Pets should not be banned. We feel that there are many people who benefit from having a pet in their home and the banning of pets would be detrimental to their health and well-being. We do however feel that the sale of pets should be more tightly regulated. We feel that there should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. This will help decrease the amount of animal abuse and provide much needed protection for both the animals and prospective pet owners as pets who come from these terrible backgrounds typically have many health problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be no ban on the sale of pets. We feel that there are many people who benefit from having a pet in their home and the banning of pets would be detrimental to their health and well-being. We do however feel that the sale of pets should be more tightly regulated. We feel that there should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Pets should not be banned. We feel that there are many people who benefit from having a pet in their home and the banning of pets would be detrimental to their health and well-being. We do however feel that the sale of pets should be more tightly regulated. We feel that there should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. The owners should be given all the information that the owner needs to make the home the best place possible for the pet to live a happy life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Pets should not be banned. We feel that there are many people who benefit from having a pet in their home and the banning of pets would be detrimental to their health and well-being. We do however feel that the sale of pets should be more tightly regulated. We feel that there should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. This will help decrease the amount of animal abuse and provide much needed protection for both the animals and prospective pet owners as pets who come from these terrible backgrounds typically have many health problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be no ban on the sale of pets. We feel that there are many people who benefit from having a pet in their home and the banning of pets would be detrimental to their health and well-being. We do however feel that the sale of pets should be more tightly regulated. We feel that there should be a vetting system in place where the new owners are investigated to ensure that they are careful owners. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000741.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000741.soc index 0a9f60d2..d492be04 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000741.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000741.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although malaria is a very difficult disease to control, it is possible to reduce its incidence through widespread education programmes and a multi-pronged approach to the eradication of the disease. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although the world is making progress in the fight against malaria, it is very unlikely that it will be eradicated. In the poorest countries, it is very unlikely that the disease will be completely eradicated, however there is hope that it can be controlled to a manageable level. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In the short term, malaria will not be eradicated. This is because there are a number of countries where malaria is widespread and where the necessary infrastructure is not in place to support eradication. In the longer term however, malaria will be eradicated. This will be made possible by improvements in technology and medicine. There will be a greater understanding of the biology of malaria, which will lead to the development of more effective treatments. Vaccines will also be developed which will prevent malaria from taking hold. Finally, education and awareness of the dangers of malaria will lead to a change in attitudes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Malaria is a resilient disease, however, with the help of scientific research and technological advancements, malaria can be eradicated in the near future. It is a matter of political will and funding.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although malaria is a very difficult disease to control, it is possible to reduce its incidence through widespread education programmes and a multi-pronged approach to the eradication of the disease. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although the world is making progress in the fight against malaria, it is very unlikely that it will be eradicated. In the poorest countries, it is very unlikely that the disease will be completely eradicated, however there is hope that it can be controlled to a manageable level. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In the short term, malaria will not be eradicated. This is because there are a number of countries where malaria is widespread and where the necessary infrastructure is not in place to support eradication. In the longer term however, malaria will be eradicated. This will be made possible by improvements in technology and medicine. There will be a greater understanding of the biology of malaria, which will lead to the development of more effective treatments. Vaccines will also be developed which will prevent malaria from taking hold. Finally, education and awareness of the dangers of malaria will lead to a change in attitudes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Malaria is a resilient disease, however, with the help of scientific research and technological advancements, malaria can be eradicated in the near future. It is a matter of political will and funding.” 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000742.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000742.soc index 03da7170..b96b7996 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000742.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000742.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Tech companies should not be forced to block pornography or gambling. These are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Tech companies should not be forced to block pornography or gambling. These are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not agree that tech companies should be forced to block pornography or gambling. These are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Pornography and gambling are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Tech companies should not be forced to block pornography or gambling. These are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Tech companies should not be forced to block pornography or gambling. These are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not agree that tech companies should be forced to block pornography or gambling. These are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Pornography and gambling are two very different issues. Pornography is a freedom of expression issue and the right to access pornography is protected by law. Pornography should not be blocked as it is not illegal. However, the content of pornography needs to be looked at and regulated. We do not agree that gambling should be blocked but gambling sites should be regulated and age restrictions should be put in place. Gambling can be very addictive and cause people to lose a lot of money, therefore it should be looked at and regulated. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000743.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000743.soc index 65e9d081..c0a0a3f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000743.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000743.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK does have an over-dependence on foreign trade, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. The UK should work to increase its exports, and the government should work to promote a greater sense of economic nationalism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK does have an over-dependence on foreign trade. Over the past 40 years there has been a marked decline on UK produced materials and goods, resulting in the need for goods to be imported from overseas. The UK has become a service industry following the decline of manufacturing as a whole. There are some goods which can only be sourced by the use of foreign trade, however many goods we import can and should be sourced from the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK does have an over-dependence on foreign trade. We are importing more than we export. There are some goods and services that we will always need to import from abroad and this is fine as long as we have a healthy level of exports as well. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK does have an over-dependence on foreign trade. Over the past 40 years there has been a marked decline on UK produced materials and goods, resulting in the need for goods to be imported from overseas. The UK has become a service industry following the decline of manufacturing as a whole. There are some goods which can only be sourced by the use of foreign trade, however many goods we import can and should be sourced from the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK does have an over-dependence on foreign trade, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. The UK should work to increase its exports, and the government should work to promote a greater sense of economic nationalism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK does have an over-dependence on foreign trade. Over the past 40 years there has been a marked decline on UK produced materials and goods, resulting in the need for goods to be imported from overseas. The UK has become a service industry following the decline of manufacturing as a whole. There are some goods which can only be sourced by the use of foreign trade, however many goods we import can and should be sourced from the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK does have an over-dependence on foreign trade. We are importing more than we export. There are some goods and services that we will always need to import from abroad and this is fine as long as we have a healthy level of exports as well. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK does have an over-dependence on foreign trade. Over the past 40 years there has been a marked decline on UK produced materials and goods, resulting in the need for goods to be imported from overseas. The UK has become a service industry following the decline of manufacturing as a whole. There are some goods which can only be sourced by the use of foreign trade, however many goods we import can and should be sourced from the UK. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000744.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000744.soc index 8342655a..8ea2ffb8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000744.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000744.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not ban all private schools as they provide a good education for those who can afford it. However, it is unfair that those who cannot afford it do not have the same access to this education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not ban private schools. Private schools are a good way to set-up a child for success and in many cases provide better education. It is important that the parents have the choice of sending their children to a private school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, private schools are very helpful. When kids go to private school the majority of the time the children are a guaranteed success. Earning very high grades in all subjects and they come out with a different confidence compared to state schools. It is shown the private school students are much more sociable and confident when it comes to public speaking too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, private schools are a good way to set-up a child for success and in many cases provide better education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not ban all private schools as they provide a good education for those who can afford it. However, it is unfair that those who cannot afford it do not have the same access to this education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not ban private schools. Private schools are a good way to set-up a child for success and in many cases provide better education. It is important that the parents have the choice of sending their children to a private school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, private schools are very helpful. When kids go to private school the majority of the time the children are a guaranteed success. Earning very high grades in all subjects and they come out with a different confidence compared to state schools. It is shown the private school students are much more sociable and confident when it comes to public speaking too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, private schools are a good way to set-up a child for success and in many cases provide better education. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000745.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000745.soc index e67da331..b2ca7485 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000745.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000745.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the current voting system in the UK is outdated and should be changed. We believe that the UK should move towards a system of proportional representation. We also believe that voting should be made more accessible to people. We also think that the voting age should be lowered to 16. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of adopting a new system of voting in UK parliamentary elections. The current system is very outdated and unrepresentative of the population. A system that is based on proportional representation would be much more fair. The group also agreed that online voting would be a great way of making voting much more accessible to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should adopt a new system of voting in UK parliamentary elections. The current system is outdated and is not representative of the population. There is a need for more proportional representation, and a fairer system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should adopt a new system of voting in UK parliamentary elections. At the moment, we use First Past the Post. The outcomes we gain from this system are often unrepresentative of the uk population. For example, one member of parliament may be elected by a large majority, but the area in which the mp was elected only has a small population. Conversely, If another mp is elected in a much larger constituency in terms of population, but only with a tiny majority, the large amount of the population who voted against this individual will not be properly represented. this means that political parties can succeed without having the majority share of the vote in many areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the current voting system in the UK is outdated and should be changed. We believe that the UK should move towards a system of proportional representation. We also believe that voting should be made more accessible to people. We also think that the voting age should be lowered to 16. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of adopting a new system of voting in UK parliamentary elections. The current system is very outdated and unrepresentative of the population. A system that is based on proportional representation would be much more fair. The group also agreed that online voting would be a great way of making voting much more accessible to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should adopt a new system of voting in UK parliamentary elections. The current system is outdated and is not representative of the population. There is a need for more proportional representation, and a fairer system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should adopt a new system of voting in UK parliamentary elections. At the moment, we use First Past the Post. The outcomes we gain from this system are often unrepresentative of the uk population. For example, one member of parliament may be elected by a large majority, but the area in which the mp was elected only has a small population. Conversely, If another mp is elected in a much larger constituency in terms of population, but only with a tiny majority, the large amount of the population who voted against this individual will not be properly represented. this means that political parties can succeed without having the majority share of the vote in many areas. 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000746.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000746.soc index a5303b47..90618fde 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000746.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000746.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the legalisation of cannabis would be a good thing as it would allow for proper regulation, research and access to the drug for medical use. However, it is important to remember that there are people who may abuse the drug and there needs to be proper education to ensure that this does not happen. It is also important to remember that the legalisation of cannabis does not mean that it will be widely available to children and young people. The opinions of the group have been changed by hearing the views of others and by coming to a consensus. In this way, the opinions of the group are different to the opinions of the individuals that make it up. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Cannabis is widely used in the UK and has no proven negative effects. Thus it makes sense that people can buy this in a safe and controlled way. By doing this taxes would be levied and money kept out of the pockets of organised criminal groups. The added boon would be allowing access to sufferers of a number of medical conditions that cannabis is known to treat but is not prescribed for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the sale of cannabis should be legalised in the UK. It would allow for proper regulation and safety of the drug. It would also end the expensive and discriminatory enforcement of laws against the drug. It seems very easy for people to obtain the drug illegally, so it makes sense to stop the illegal dealing. This would reduce crime and make the industry safer. It would also provide better medical access for patients suffering with a multitude of chronic pain conditions, cancer, PTSD, MS etc. It would also reduce the criminalisation of vulnerable people, reducing the number of arrests and time spent in prison for low level offences. It would create jobs and allow for proper regulation and research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “After much deliberation, the group has come to the consensus view that the sale of cannabis should be allowed in the UK. We feel that this would reduce the number of people coming into contact with organised criminal groups, and would also provide a source of revenue for the government in the form of taxation. This would also mean that people suffering from chronic pain conditions, cancer, PTSD, MS etc. would have better access to cannabis for medical purposes. It would also reduce the criminalisation of vulnerable people, reducing the number of arrests and time spent in prison for low level offences. It would create jobs and allow for proper regulation and research. Alcohol is far more harmful and causes more deaths and chronic health conditions than cannabis, and alcohol is currently legal in the UK. It could also reduce the amount of people coming into contact with drug dealers and criminals who have access to more harmful drugs. We feel that the sale of cannabis would be a positive step for the UK.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the legalisation of cannabis would be a good thing as it would allow for proper regulation, research and access to the drug for medical use. However, it is important to remember that there are people who may abuse the drug and there needs to be proper education to ensure that this does not happen. It is also important to remember that the legalisation of cannabis does not mean that it will be widely available to children and young people. The opinions of the group have been changed by hearing the views of others and by coming to a consensus. In this way, the opinions of the group are different to the opinions of the individuals that make it up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Cannabis is widely used in the UK and has no proven negative effects. Thus it makes sense that people can buy this in a safe and controlled way. By doing this taxes would be levied and money kept out of the pockets of organised criminal groups. The added boon would be allowing access to sufferers of a number of medical conditions that cannabis is known to treat but is not prescribed for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the sale of cannabis should be legalised in the UK. It would allow for proper regulation and safety of the drug. It would also end the expensive and discriminatory enforcement of laws against the drug. It seems very easy for people to obtain the drug illegally, so it makes sense to stop the illegal dealing. This would reduce crime and make the industry safer. It would also provide better medical access for patients suffering with a multitude of chronic pain conditions, cancer, PTSD, MS etc. It would also reduce the criminalisation of vulnerable people, reducing the number of arrests and time spent in prison for low level offences. It would create jobs and allow for proper regulation and research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “After much deliberation, the group has come to the consensus view that the sale of cannabis should be allowed in the UK. We feel that this would reduce the number of people coming into contact with organised criminal groups, and would also provide a source of revenue for the government in the form of taxation. This would also mean that people suffering from chronic pain conditions, cancer, PTSD, MS etc. would have better access to cannabis for medical purposes. It would also reduce the criminalisation of vulnerable people, reducing the number of arrests and time spent in prison for low level offences. It would create jobs and allow for proper regulation and research. Alcohol is far more harmful and causes more deaths and chronic health conditions than cannabis, and alcohol is currently legal in the UK. It could also reduce the amount of people coming into contact with drug dealers and criminals who have access to more harmful drugs. We feel that the sale of cannabis would be a positive step for the UK.” 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000747.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000747.soc index d57f7130..b1c02daf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000747.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000747.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban the use of plastic in disposable containers. The group of participants felt that the environmental cost of using plastic was too great and that the cost of alternative materials would be offset by the reduction in environmental damage caused by plastic. The group of participants felt that there were enough viable alternatives to plastic that the cost to consumers would be minimal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is due to the damage that plastic causes to the environment. However, alternatives to plastic need to be carefully considered to make sure they are not more harmful to the environment. The cost of alternatives also needs to be carefully considered, as it may be passed onto the consumer and this may impact the poorest in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban the use of plastic in disposable containers. However, it is important to note that there is a cost implication of using alternative materials and this will impact on the poorest in society. The government should subsidise the use of alternative materials to make them more affordable for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban the use of plastic in disposable containers. The group of participants felt that the environmental cost of using plastic was too great and that the cost of alternative materials would be offset by the reduction in environmental damage caused by plastic. The group of participants felt that there were enough viable alternatives to plastic that the cost to consumers would be minimal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is due to the damage that plastic causes to the environment. However, alternatives to plastic need to be carefully considered to make sure they are not more harmful to the environment. The cost of alternatives also needs to be carefully considered, as it may be passed onto the consumer and this may impact the poorest in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban the use of plastic in disposable containers. However, it is important to note that there is a cost implication of using alternative materials and this will impact on the poorest in society. The government should subsidise the use of alternative materials to make them more affordable for all. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000748.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000748.soc index 7603f8b9..e9e3ba68 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000748.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000748.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should be doing more to support parents from poorer families to help their children achieve in school. There are many ways in which this could be done, including free school meals and subsidised transport. The government has a duty to ensure that all children have the best chance possible of achieving in school, regardless of their family's wealth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Education is the right of every child. The government should be doing more to ensure that children from poorer families are given the same opportunities as children from wealthy families. This could include the provision of free school meals, or the provision of more free places at schools. It could also include providing more resources to schools that have children from poorer families. The government should be doing everything it can to ensure that children are not disadvantaged by their family's financial situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of greater government support to parents to help children from poorer families achieve in school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Education is the key to success in life. It is a basic human right and not a privilege. Children from poorer families should be given the same opportunities as their wealthier counterparts. The government should do more to support parents from poorer families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should be doing more to support parents from poorer families to help their children achieve in school. There are many ways in which this could be done, including free school meals and subsidised transport. The government has a duty to ensure that all children have the best chance possible of achieving in school, regardless of their family's wealth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Education is the right of every child. The government should be doing more to ensure that children from poorer families are given the same opportunities as children from wealthy families. This could include the provision of free school meals, or the provision of more free places at schools. It could also include providing more resources to schools that have children from poorer families. The government should be doing everything it can to ensure that children are not disadvantaged by their family's financial situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of greater government support to parents to help children from poorer families achieve in school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Education is the key to success in life. It is a basic human right and not a privilege. Children from poorer families should be given the same opportunities as their wealthier counterparts. The government should do more to support parents from poorer families. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000749.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000749.soc index af81f0b8..f9b99ac3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000749.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000749.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC provides a valuable service in today's society. It is an important source of impartial news and entertainment and provides an essential service to the public. However, the group felt that the BBC needed to do more to demonstrate their impartiality and that the way the organisation is funded should be reformed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC still serves a valuable function in society as it provides a wide range of radio, television and other media engagement. Whilst it may not always provide the impartiality it purports to, it offers a useful source of thorough, reasonably-balanced journalism. The way the organisation is funded, with its poll tax which is offset by gratuitous, non-means tested discount for some and based on age, needs reform. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the BBC serves a valuable function in society by providing a wide range of news and entertainment services. However, the organisation is not impartial and is in need of reform. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC serves a valuable function in society. It provides impartial, accurate and detailed reporting on a wide range of subjects. It provides a valuable public service and one that is highly regarded in the UK and abroad. It is not without its faults and could do with some reform to make it more accountable to the public, but it remains an invaluable institution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC provides a valuable service in today's society. It is an important source of impartial news and entertainment and provides an essential service to the public. However, the group felt that the BBC needed to do more to demonstrate their impartiality and that the way the organisation is funded should be reformed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC still serves a valuable function in society as it provides a wide range of radio, television and other media engagement. Whilst it may not always provide the impartiality it purports to, it offers a useful source of thorough, reasonably-balanced journalism. The way the organisation is funded, with its poll tax which is offset by gratuitous, non-means tested discount for some and based on age, needs reform. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the BBC serves a valuable function in society by providing a wide range of news and entertainment services. However, the organisation is not impartial and is in need of reform. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC serves a valuable function in society. It provides impartial, accurate and detailed reporting on a wide range of subjects. It provides a valuable public service and one that is highly regarded in the UK and abroad. It is not without its faults and could do with some reform to make it more accountable to the public, but it remains an invaluable institution. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000750.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000750.soc index 09f1de36..990d52e9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000750.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000750.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Doctors should be able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, but only in extreme circumstances. There should be robust guidelines in place and the decision should be made by at least two medical practitioners, and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses. However, the group felt that it was important that such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and that the patient needs to be in agreement with the decision. The group also felt that the pressure this would create on doctors to make that decision is another potential issue and can't be ignored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, doctors should be allowed to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses. However, there would need to be very robust guidelines in place and always include the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Doctors should be able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, but only in extreme circumstances. There should be robust guidelines in place and the decision should be made by at least two medical practitioners, and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses. However, the group felt that it was important that such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and that the patient needs to be in agreement with the decision. The group also felt that the pressure this would create on doctors to make that decision is another potential issue and can't be ignored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, doctors should be allowed to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses. However, there would need to be very robust guidelines in place and always include the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000751.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000751.soc index 91992e83..d85d76e8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000751.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000751.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the BBC should not have an option to increase the licence fee to fund a new BBC news channel. The BBC already has a very good reputation for the news that it provides and there is no need for a new channel. If the BBC did have a new news channel, it would be another reason for the BBC to increase the licence fee. This is not a good idea at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC is a good institution, but its quality has been diminishing in recent years. A new BBC News channel would offer an alternative to the other news channels. However, we feel that the BBC should not have the option to increase the licence fee. The BBC already has enough money to be able to fund the new channel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't think that the BBC should have the option to increase the licence fee to fund a new BBC news channel because the BBC already has an abundance of news channels and the new one would just be a waste of money. The new news channel would not be necessary and would only be another way for the BBC to make money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should not have the option to increase the licence fee to fund a new BBC news channel. There are already so many news outlets available and it is unnecessary to have another news channel. The BBC would lose the support that they currently have for a large section of the UK if they brought in more fees for something that might be seen as a luxury at a time when people are struggling to feed their families and heat their homes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the BBC should not have an option to increase the licence fee to fund a new BBC news channel. The BBC already has a very good reputation for the news that it provides and there is no need for a new channel. If the BBC did have a new news channel, it would be another reason for the BBC to increase the licence fee. This is not a good idea at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC is a good institution, but its quality has been diminishing in recent years. A new BBC News channel would offer an alternative to the other news channels. However, we feel that the BBC should not have the option to increase the licence fee. The BBC already has enough money to be able to fund the new channel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't think that the BBC should have the option to increase the licence fee to fund a new BBC news channel because the BBC already has an abundance of news channels and the new one would just be a waste of money. The new news channel would not be necessary and would only be another way for the BBC to make money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should not have the option to increase the licence fee to fund a new BBC news channel. There are already so many news outlets available and it is unnecessary to have another news channel. The BBC would lose the support that they currently have for a large section of the UK if they brought in more fees for something that might be seen as a luxury at a time when people are struggling to feed their families and heat their homes. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000752.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000752.soc index 7d1b268e..ceb033e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000752.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000752.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the statues of racist historical figures should be removed from public places. We also believe that a plaque should be placed in their place to inform people of what these historical figures did and to ensure that the history is not forgotten. The plaque should be worded in a way that is not offensive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be no statues of racist historical figures in public places. These statues serve as a constant reminder of the oppression and abuse that people of colour have suffered and continue to suffer. We should not be celebrating the achievements of people who committed atrocities and were involved in crimes against humanity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the statues of racist historical figures should be removed from public places. We also believe that a plaque should be placed in their place to inform people of what these historical figures did and to ensure that the history is not forgotten. The plaque should be worded in a way that is not offensive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be no statues of racist historical figures in public places. These statues serve as a constant reminder of the oppression and abuse that people of colour have suffered and continue to suffer. We should not be celebrating the achievements of people who committed atrocities and were involved in crimes against humanity. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000753.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000753.soc index 4baa88ae..a641f11a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000753.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000753.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. This issue could be alleviated by the government subsidising the cost of the more expensive alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. This cost could be subsidised by the government in order to help the poorest in society and to help the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. This issue could be alleviated by the government subsidising the cost of the more expensive alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. This cost could be subsidised by the government in order to help the poorest in society and to help the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on the use of plastic in disposable containers. This is good for the environment as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and has limited recyclability. However the difficulty arises in that plastic containers are cheap to manufacture and deliver. If they are to be banned then companies will need to use more expensive environmentally friendly options such as foil or paper. This cost ultimately is likely to be passed onto the end user/consumer and this may therefore disproportionately impact the poorest in society. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000754.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000754.soc index 33ee0a40..b3b357d1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000754.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000754.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning cars from cities. The opinion of the group was that it would be very difficult to implement, and that public transport would need to be improved significantly for it to be a viable option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Cars should not be banned from cities. Public transport is not good enough in most cities to allow people to get where they need to be. The cities rely on the money that people spend in the city. There are not enough taxis to allow people to get around and many people rely on their cars to get to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on petrol and diesel cars from cities. Electric cars should be allowed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, petrol and diesel cars should not be banned from cities as people need to get to the city for work and shopping. It is important to the local economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning cars from cities. The opinion of the group was that it would be very difficult to implement, and that public transport would need to be improved significantly for it to be a viable option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Cars should not be banned from cities. Public transport is not good enough in most cities to allow people to get where they need to be. The cities rely on the money that people spend in the city. There are not enough taxis to allow people to get around and many people rely on their cars to get to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on petrol and diesel cars from cities. Electric cars should be allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, petrol and diesel cars should not be banned from cities as people need to get to the city for work and shopping. It is important to the local economy. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000755.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000755.soc index c98c8f12..21590fee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000755.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000755.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Education is the right of every child. The government should be doing more to ensure that children from poorer families are given the same opportunities as children from wealthy families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be given the same opportunities to excel at school, regardless of their family's financial situation. The government should be doing more to ensure that this is the case. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should have the same opportunities to succeed at school regardless of their family's financial situation. The government should be doing more to ensure that children from poorer families are given the same opportunities as children from wealthy families. This could include the provision of free school meals, or the provision of more free places at schools. It could also include providing more resources to schools that have children from poorer families. The government should be doing everything it can to ensure that children are not disadvantaged by their family's financial situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should be doing more to ensure that children from poorer families are given the same opportunities as children from wealthy families. This could include the provision of free school meals, or the provision of more free places at schools. It could also include providing more resources to schools that have children from poorer families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Education is the right of every child. The government should be doing more to ensure that children from poorer families are given the same opportunities as children from wealthy families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be given the same opportunities to excel at school, regardless of their family's financial situation. The government should be doing more to ensure that this is the case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should have the same opportunities to succeed at school regardless of their family's financial situation. The government should be doing more to ensure that children from poorer families are given the same opportunities as children from wealthy families. This could include the provision of free school meals, or the provision of more free places at schools. It could also include providing more resources to schools that have children from poorer families. The government should be doing everything it can to ensure that children are not disadvantaged by their family's financial situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should be doing more to ensure that children from poorer families are given the same opportunities as children from wealthy families. This could include the provision of free school meals, or the provision of more free places at schools. It could also include providing more resources to schools that have children from poorer families. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000756.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000756.soc index d1c44846..429f9cf3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000756.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000756.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. This is because the group believe that the decision to end a life is a very serious one and it is important that it is made by a number of experts and with the consent of the patient or their family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. The group felt that this would provide a more humane option for people with terminal illnesses who are suffering and in pain, and also provide them with the choice to have some control over their death. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. This is because of the importance of patient choice and the will and wishes of the patient, and because of the potential for pain and suffering, prognosis and deterioration, which need to be taken into account. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. The decision should be taken on a case-by-case basis and only after all other options have been explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. This is because the group believe that the decision to end a life is a very serious one and it is important that it is made by a number of experts and with the consent of the patient or their family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. The group felt that this would provide a more humane option for people with terminal illnesses who are suffering and in pain, and also provide them with the choice to have some control over their death. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. This is because of the importance of patient choice and the will and wishes of the patient, and because of the potential for pain and suffering, prognosis and deterioration, which need to be taken into account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of doctors being able to prescribe life-ending drugs to patients with terminal illnesses, provided there were very robust guidelines in place and always included the expert opinion of at least two medical practitioners and the consent of the patient or their family if the patient cannot give their consent. The decision should be taken on a case-by-case basis and only after all other options have been explored. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000757.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000757.soc index 3129345f..5178b3c5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000757.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000757.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a debate on whether to remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. However, it is important to remember that the erection of such statues was a product of its time and was not considered to be controversial at the time. It is important to understand the context in which these statues were erected in order to fully appreciate why they are being removed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. However, the removal of such statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a debate on whether to remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. However, it is important to remember that the erection of such statues was a product of its time and was not considered to be controversial at the time. It is important to understand the context in which these statues were erected in order to fully appreciate why they are being removed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should remove statues of racist historical figures from public places. This should be done immediately. There should never have been such statues erected in the first place and the fact that they are still in place is atrocious. Some people affected by these figures have to walk past them on a daily basis and feel the pain of their ancestors. The removal of such statues will send an important message that the actions, beliefs and crimes committed by these individuals are abhorrent and intolerable. There is also an argument that the removal of these statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. However, the removal of such statues will not erase history and it is important that the people who suffered at their hands are remembered and we need to recognise what happened as they are the facts of human history whether we like it or not. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000758.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000758.soc index 7e04aeb5..e1088778 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000758.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000758.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, parents should be required to pay for their kids' college education, however the government should provide support for families who are unable to afford to pay for their children's college education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, parents should not be required to pay for their kids' college education. This would create a completely unfair disadvantage to low income families. Not to mention the impact this would have on children who have spent time in the care system or are coming from abusive families. Children and young people should be given fair and equitable access to higher education, not dependent on their parent's income. This would mean incredibly talented and intelligent children missing out on the opportunity to fulfil their potential, and creating further stress for already struggling families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, parents should not be required to pay for their kids' college education. However, parents should be expected to contribute towards the cost of their children's education to a degree that is commensurate with their income. This would mean that families on lower incomes would be expected to pay less, and families on higher incomes would be expected to pay more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that parents should not be required to pay for their kids' college education. We believe that education is the right of every young person, and that it should be free at the point of access for all. We believe that this would improve social mobility and ensure that all young people have the opportunity to access higher education, regardless of their socio-economic background. We believe that society would be a better place if everyone had access to education, and that we would have a better educated and more informed society as a result. We believe that education is a right, not a privilege. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, parents should be required to pay for their kids' college education, however the government should provide support for families who are unable to afford to pay for their children's college education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, parents should not be required to pay for their kids' college education. This would create a completely unfair disadvantage to low income families. Not to mention the impact this would have on children who have spent time in the care system or are coming from abusive families. Children and young people should be given fair and equitable access to higher education, not dependent on their parent's income. This would mean incredibly talented and intelligent children missing out on the opportunity to fulfil their potential, and creating further stress for already struggling families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, parents should not be required to pay for their kids' college education. However, parents should be expected to contribute towards the cost of their children's education to a degree that is commensurate with their income. This would mean that families on lower incomes would be expected to pay less, and families on higher incomes would be expected to pay more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that parents should not be required to pay for their kids' college education. We believe that education is the right of every young person, and that it should be free at the point of access for all. We believe that this would improve social mobility and ensure that all young people have the opportunity to access higher education, regardless of their socio-economic background. We believe that society would be a better place if everyone had access to education, and that we would have a better educated and more informed society as a result. We believe that education is a right, not a privilege. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000759.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000759.soc index 3b4b11e0..b167c3c4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000759.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000759.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, micro-aggressions are bad, however they are not always bad. It depends on the context of the situation and the relationship between the people involved. Micro-aggressions can be unintentional and can also be a way for people to vent their anger. Micro-aggressions are usually bad as they can cause upset and distress to those that they are aimed at. However, they can sometimes be used as a way to release anger and frustration, but only in certain situations and if the people involved are comfortable with each other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Micro-aggressions are generally a negative thing, as aggression towards others is generally not a positive thing in our society. However, people cannot often help how they feel about others and having microaggressions as a tell can be helpful to navigate social situations. On the flip side, microaggressions related to race, gender or sexual orientation are almost always bad things. It depends more on what the person is being aggressive about rather than the action in itself. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Micro-aggressions are almost always bad, but there can be exceptions. They can cause upset and distress to those that they are aimed at. Sometimes these are done unintentionally which means it's not 100% black and white but generally they are always bad. Micro-aggressions are a form of discrimination, and discrimination is never good. Micro-aggressions can be seen as harmless, but they can affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. Micro-aggressions can contribute to hostility amongst people even if it is subtle, this will bring down morale among a group of people and could lead to arguments and greater distress in the future. Micro-aggressions can be a tell that someone has something they want to say, but are too afraid to say it. They can be a way of letting out aggression in a passive way, but this is generally frowned upon in our society. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. Micro-aggressions are generally a negative thing, as aggression towards others is generally not a positive thing in our society. However, people cannot often help how they feel about others and having microaggress -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Micro-aggressions are almost always bad. They can contribute to hostility and lower morale. They can also affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. However, sometimes micro-aggressions are needed to release anger and get it out there in order to calm your mind. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, micro-aggressions are bad, however they are not always bad. It depends on the context of the situation and the relationship between the people involved. Micro-aggressions can be unintentional and can also be a way for people to vent their anger. Micro-aggressions are usually bad as they can cause upset and distress to those that they are aimed at. However, they can sometimes be used as a way to release anger and frustration, but only in certain situations and if the people involved are comfortable with each other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Micro-aggressions are generally a negative thing, as aggression towards others is generally not a positive thing in our society. However, people cannot often help how they feel about others and having microaggressions as a tell can be helpful to navigate social situations. On the flip side, microaggressions related to race, gender or sexual orientation are almost always bad things. It depends more on what the person is being aggressive about rather than the action in itself. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Micro-aggressions are almost always bad, but there can be exceptions. They can cause upset and distress to those that they are aimed at. Sometimes these are done unintentionally which means it's not 100% black and white but generally they are always bad. Micro-aggressions are a form of discrimination, and discrimination is never good. Micro-aggressions can be seen as harmless, but they can affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. Micro-aggressions can contribute to hostility amongst people even if it is subtle, this will bring down morale among a group of people and could lead to arguments and greater distress in the future. Micro-aggressions can be a tell that someone has something they want to say, but are too afraid to say it. They can be a way of letting out aggression in a passive way, but this is generally frowned upon in our society. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. Micro-aggressions are generally a negative thing, as aggression towards others is generally not a positive thing in our society. However, people cannot often help how they feel about others and having microaggress +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Micro-aggressions are almost always bad. They can contribute to hostility and lower morale. They can also affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. However, sometimes micro-aggressions are needed to release anger and get it out there in order to calm your mind. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000760.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000760.soc index a88858ab..60ce1202 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000760.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000760.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Micro-aggressions are almost always bad. They can contribute to hostility and lower morale. They can also affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. However, sometimes micro-aggressions are needed to release anger and get it out there in order to calm your mind. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Micro-aggressions are generally a negative thing, as aggression towards others is generally not a positive thing in our society. However, people cannot often help how they feel about others and having microaggressions as a tell can be helpful to navigate social situations. On the flip side, microaggressions related to race, gender or sexual orientation are almost always bad things. It depends more on what the person is being aggressive about rather than the action in itself. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Micro-aggressions are almost always bad. They can contribute to hostility and lower morale. They can also affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Micro-aggressions are almost always bad. They can contribute to hostility and lower morale. They can also affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. They are sometimes needed to release anger and get it out there in order to calm your mind. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Micro-aggressions are almost always bad. They can contribute to hostility and lower morale. They can also affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. However, sometimes micro-aggressions are needed to release anger and get it out there in order to calm your mind. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Micro-aggressions are generally a negative thing, as aggression towards others is generally not a positive thing in our society. However, people cannot often help how they feel about others and having microaggressions as a tell can be helpful to navigate social situations. On the flip side, microaggressions related to race, gender or sexual orientation are almost always bad things. It depends more on what the person is being aggressive about rather than the action in itself. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Micro-aggressions are almost always bad. They can contribute to hostility and lower morale. They can also affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Micro-aggressions are almost always bad. They can contribute to hostility and lower morale. They can also affect the wellbeing and mental health of individuals which can have disastrous effects long term. They are sometimes needed to release anger and get it out there in order to calm your mind. Marginalized groups should feel they are given the same treatment as everyone else. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000761.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000761.soc index 0485f292..c2f9d161 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000761.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000761.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that we do not think it is okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. This is because of the health implications for the residents, the risk of explosions and the damage to the environment. We think that nuclear power plants should be built in industrial areas, away from villages and towns. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. While nuclear power plants are a reliable source of energy, and the potential for disaster is very low, it is still not a good idea to build one next to a village. This is because the land is typically used for agriculture and building a nuclear power plant would be a waste of valuable land. There is also the issue of how the local people would feel about it, and whether it would be a good idea to build one in an area where the local people are against it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that nuclear power plants are not safe enough to be built near villages. While they are a good source of energy and could combat climate change, if there is a leak or explosion, it could have severe consequences for the village and surrounding areas. If a nuclear power plant was to be built, it should be built far away from any villages or towns to ensure the safety of the people living there. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that we do not think it is okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. This is because of the health implications for the residents, the risk of explosions and the damage to the environment. We think that nuclear power plants should be built in industrial areas, away from villages and towns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. While nuclear power plants are a reliable source of energy, and the potential for disaster is very low, it is still not a good idea to build one next to a village. This is because the land is typically used for agriculture and building a nuclear power plant would be a waste of valuable land. There is also the issue of how the local people would feel about it, and whether it would be a good idea to build one in an area where the local people are against it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that nuclear power plants are not safe enough to be built near villages. While they are a good source of energy and could combat climate change, if there is a leak or explosion, it could have severe consequences for the village and surrounding areas. If a nuclear power plant was to be built, it should be built far away from any villages or towns to ensure the safety of the people living there. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000762.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000762.soc index 75d66372..486d1d04 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000762.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000762.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should have access to a computer from an early age, but it is up to the individual parent or guardian to decide whether their child should have their own computer. This is because children can be exposed to harmful content and it is up to the parent or guardian to regulate this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should have access to a computer, but the decision to own one should be up to the individual parent or guardian. This is because there are many risks associated with owning a computer, including being exposed to harmful content, and children should not be exposed to this unless their parents or guardians are comfortable with it. Children should have access to a computer in order to access educational resources and other beneficial content, but should not be forced to own one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, children should have access to a computer. However, it is important that they are protected from harmful content and that they do not become addicted to the computer. Therefore, parents and guardians should be responsible for the safety of their children, and the government should provide assistance to those who cannot afford to provide a computer for their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should have access to a computer from an early age, but it is up to the individual parent or guardian to decide whether their child should have their own computer. This is because children can be exposed to harmful content and it is up to the parent or guardian to regulate this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should have access to a computer, but the decision to own one should be up to the individual parent or guardian. This is because there are many risks associated with owning a computer, including being exposed to harmful content, and children should not be exposed to this unless their parents or guardians are comfortable with it. Children should have access to a computer in order to access educational resources and other beneficial content, but should not be forced to own one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, children should have access to a computer. However, it is important that they are protected from harmful content and that they do not become addicted to the computer. Therefore, parents and guardians should be responsible for the safety of their children, and the government should provide assistance to those who cannot afford to provide a computer for their children. 3: 1,3,4,2 2: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000763.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000763.soc index 615bd1d7..395cd451 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000763.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000763.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not okay to build a nuclear power plant next to a village. The main reason for this is because if there was to be a leak of radiation, the people who live in the village would be affected by it and it could have a very negative impact on their health. Another reason for this is because the nuclear power plant could cause a lot of pollution to the air and it could cause the people who live in the village to get ill. We also think that if the nuclear power plant was to be built, it could attract a lot of people to the village which could cause a lot of traffic and this could be a problem for the people who live in the village. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. We also think that it would be unfair on the people who live in the village because they would have to look at the nuclear power plant every day and this could cause them to become unhappy. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000764.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000764.soc index 12b2f6d9..1af6633f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000764.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000764.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a carbon footprint tax, but we felt that there were some things that would need to be considered. Firstly, we thought that there would need to be a threshold of carbon footprint before the tax would be applicable, because it would not be fair to penalise those who have no choice but to use a high carbon footprint. We also thought that the tax should be a replacement for other taxes, and not an additional one, because if it was additional it would not incentivise people to reduce their carbon footprint. Conclusion: The group was in favour of a carbon footprint tax, but thought that there were some things that needed to be considered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of taxing people based on their carbon footprint. However, they also believed that it would be unfair to implement this tax on people who were unable to change their behaviour due to lack of financial resources. They felt that this could be combatted by using the money collected through the tax to invest in sustainable energy and infrastructure projects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a carbon footprint tax, but thought that the tax should be an additional tax, and not a replacement for existing taxes. This would be because if it were a replacement tax, it would be unfair to those who are unable to reduce their carbon footprint due to other circumstances. The group also thought that it should be a tax on individuals, not businesses, because it would be difficult to calculate the carbon footprint of a business. The group thought that it would be fairer to tax individuals on their carbon footprint, and then use the money to invest in renewable energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that those who have a high carbon footprint should be taxed on their carbon footprint. However, we do not think that this should be a tax that replaces all other taxes, but should be an additional tax that can be used to fund the development of cleaner technologies and to support poorer communities who are unable to reduce their carbon footprint. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a carbon footprint tax, but we felt that there were some things that would need to be considered. Firstly, we thought that there would need to be a threshold of carbon footprint before the tax would be applicable, because it would not be fair to penalise those who have no choice but to use a high carbon footprint. We also thought that the tax should be a replacement for other taxes, and not an additional one, because if it was additional it would not incentivise people to reduce their carbon footprint. Conclusion: The group was in favour of a carbon footprint tax, but thought that there were some things that needed to be considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of taxing people based on their carbon footprint. However, they also believed that it would be unfair to implement this tax on people who were unable to change their behaviour due to lack of financial resources. They felt that this could be combatted by using the money collected through the tax to invest in sustainable energy and infrastructure projects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a carbon footprint tax, but thought that the tax should be an additional tax, and not a replacement for existing taxes. This would be because if it were a replacement tax, it would be unfair to those who are unable to reduce their carbon footprint due to other circumstances. The group also thought that it should be a tax on individuals, not businesses, because it would be difficult to calculate the carbon footprint of a business. The group thought that it would be fairer to tax individuals on their carbon footprint, and then use the money to invest in renewable energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that those who have a high carbon footprint should be taxed on their carbon footprint. However, we do not think that this should be a tax that replaces all other taxes, but should be an additional tax that can be used to fund the development of cleaner technologies and to support poorer communities who are unable to reduce their carbon footprint. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000765.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000765.soc index 254a2f3d..dc48cc87 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000765.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000765.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People in the UK are generally friendly. This is a very subjective statement. People in the UK are friendly in a reserved manner. People in the UK offer help when and where required. People in the UK are gentle and soft spoken. People in the UK are not very judgmental and acceptable to difference of opinion. People in the UK interact very well in public places. People in the UK are polite in social interactions and follow formalities like saying "thank you" and "please" routinely. However this politeness can sometimes be mistaken for aloofness or a lack of warmth. Also the reserve nature of British people sometimes seem like standoffish. People in the UK are friendly and are willing to help anyone that needs help. People in the UK are polite in social interactions and follow formalities like saying "thank you" and "please" routinely. However this politeness can sometimes be mistaken for aloofness or a lack of warmth. Also the reserve nature of British people sometimes seem like standoffish. One example would be the fact that no one talks on the tube. People in the UK have a culture that is generally polite and reserved. People in the UK have a culture that is generally polite and reserved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People in the UK are generally friendly. People in the UK interact well in public places. They are gentle and soft spoken. People in UK offer help when and where required. People in UK often say sorry and thank you, this indicates good behavior and conduct. These people are not vey judgmental and acceptable to difference of opinion. People in UK have their own views and opinions but they are not rude or disrespectful. They are very helpful. People in UK do not judge people by their looks or dressing style. The consensus opinion of the group was that people in the UK are generally friendly. This was a view that was held by a majority of the group and in some cases by all the group. The group felt that people in the UK interact well in public places. This was felt by a majority of the group. The group felt that people in the UK are gentle and soft spoken. This was felt by a majority of the group. The group felt that people in the UK offer help when and where required. This was felt by a majority of the group. The group felt that people in the UK often say sorry and thank you, this indicates good behavior and conduct. This was felt by a majority of -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People in the UK are generally friendly, but this depends on the context. Some people are friendlier than others, and in some situations, such as on the tube, people are less likely to talk to strangers. People are also friendlier in some parts of the UK than others. People in the UK are generally polite, and this can sometimes be mistaken for unfriendliness. In general, people in the UK are friendly, but some people are more so than others, and this depends on the context. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People in the UK are generally friendly. They are polite and offer help when required. They are soft spoken and do not judge people. They do not impose their opinion on others and respect others' opinions. They are not vey judgmental and are open to new ideas. They are reserved and polite in social interactions. They do not talk to strangers. They do not talk on the tube. They are not very social but will help anyone in need. The people in the UK are generally friendly and polite to people who are known to them. They are not very friendly to strangers and do not talk to them. They are very friendly to tourists. They do not like 'outsiders'. They do not like people coming from other countries. They do not like people taking up parking spaces and hiking the prices of accommodation and homes. They are generally friendly but this depends on the context. If they feel safe and secure they are friendly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People in the UK are generally friendly. This is a very subjective statement. People in the UK are friendly in a reserved manner. People in the UK offer help when and where required. People in the UK are gentle and soft spoken. People in the UK are not very judgmental and acceptable to difference of opinion. People in the UK interact very well in public places. People in the UK are polite in social interactions and follow formalities like saying "thank you" and "please" routinely. However this politeness can sometimes be mistaken for aloofness or a lack of warmth. Also the reserve nature of British people sometimes seem like standoffish. People in the UK are friendly and are willing to help anyone that needs help. People in the UK are polite in social interactions and follow formalities like saying "thank you" and "please" routinely. However this politeness can sometimes be mistaken for aloofness or a lack of warmth. Also the reserve nature of British people sometimes seem like standoffish. One example would be the fact that no one talks on the tube. People in the UK have a culture that is generally polite and reserved. People in the UK have a culture that is generally polite and reserved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People in the UK are generally friendly. People in the UK interact well in public places. They are gentle and soft spoken. People in UK offer help when and where required. People in UK often say sorry and thank you, this indicates good behavior and conduct. These people are not vey judgmental and acceptable to difference of opinion. People in UK have their own views and opinions but they are not rude or disrespectful. They are very helpful. People in UK do not judge people by their looks or dressing style. The consensus opinion of the group was that people in the UK are generally friendly. This was a view that was held by a majority of the group and in some cases by all the group. The group felt that people in the UK interact well in public places. This was felt by a majority of the group. The group felt that people in the UK are gentle and soft spoken. This was felt by a majority of the group. The group felt that people in the UK offer help when and where required. This was felt by a majority of the group. The group felt that people in the UK often say sorry and thank you, this indicates good behavior and conduct. This was felt by a majority of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People in the UK are generally friendly, but this depends on the context. Some people are friendlier than others, and in some situations, such as on the tube, people are less likely to talk to strangers. People are also friendlier in some parts of the UK than others. People in the UK are generally polite, and this can sometimes be mistaken for unfriendliness. In general, people in the UK are friendly, but some people are more so than others, and this depends on the context. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People in the UK are generally friendly. They are polite and offer help when required. They are soft spoken and do not judge people. They do not impose their opinion on others and respect others' opinions. They are not vey judgmental and are open to new ideas. They are reserved and polite in social interactions. They do not talk to strangers. They do not talk on the tube. They are not very social but will help anyone in need. The people in the UK are generally friendly and polite to people who are known to them. They are not very friendly to strangers and do not talk to them. They are very friendly to tourists. They do not like 'outsiders'. They do not like people coming from other countries. They do not like people taking up parking spaces and hiking the prices of accommodation and homes. They are generally friendly but this depends on the context. If they feel safe and secure they are friendly. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000766.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000766.soc index 10985440..b49898a2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000766.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000766.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should subsidise investment in sustainable energy. This is because the long term benefits of this investment will be huge, and it is unlikely that individuals would be able to afford the investment themselves. The government will also benefit from this investment as it will reduce their expenditure on fossil fuels. The downside to this is that individuals may waste energy if they are not charged for it, and it is not clear that this is a good thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The Government should invest in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because it is likely to be the most effective way to ensure that more people use it, as individuals are unlikely to be able to afford the technology on their own. The government is likely to be able to make a large profit from this investment, so should be able to afford it. The scheme may not be perfect however, as some people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because it will help the country as a whole to reduce their carbon footprint and become less reliant on fossil fuels, which are finite. Subsidies should be in the form of repayable loans to encourage businesses to invest in sustainable energy, as the government is unlikely to be able to afford the large costs associated with it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should subsidise investment in sustainable energy. This is because the long term benefits of this investment will be huge, and it is unlikely that individuals would be able to afford the investment themselves. The government will also benefit from this investment as it will reduce their expenditure on fossil fuels. The downside to this is that individuals may waste energy if they are not charged for it, and it is not clear that this is a good thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The Government should invest in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because it is likely to be the most effective way to ensure that more people use it, as individuals are unlikely to be able to afford the technology on their own. The government is likely to be able to make a large profit from this investment, so should be able to afford it. The scheme may not be perfect however, as some people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because it will help the country as a whole to reduce their carbon footprint and become less reliant on fossil fuels, which are finite. Subsidies should be in the form of repayable loans to encourage businesses to invest in sustainable energy, as the government is unlikely to be able to afford the large costs associated with it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000767.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000767.soc index 8b1e7f35..e313fa51 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000767.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000767.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the government should raise the minimum wage. We believe that people should be able to live comfortably and support themselves and their families. This is especially true in times of crisis. We believe that by raising the minimum wage, this would allow people to live more comfortably. We also believe that by raising the minimum wage, it would allow people to feel more valued. We believe that by raising the minimum wage, this would encourage people to work in these areas. We also believe that by raising the minimum wage, it would allow people to feel more valued. We believe that by raising the minimum wage, it would incentivise people to work in these areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should raise the minimum wage. In these difficult times, it is important that we support the lowest paid in society. We believe that this would help to support families and would help to reduce child poverty. We also believe that the minimum wage should be linked to the cost of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the minimum wage should be raised. We have come to this conclusion because the current minimum wage is not enough to provide for a basic standard of living. The increase in the cost of living has made it very difficult for people to survive on the minimum wage. Therefore, it is essential that the government increase the minimum wage to a level that will provide people with a basic standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should raise the minimum wage. We believe that people should be able to live comfortably and support themselves and their families. This is especially true in times of crisis. We believe that by raising the minimum wage, this would allow people to live more comfortably. We also believe that by raising the minimum wage, it would allow people to feel more valued. We believe that by raising the minimum wage, this would encourage people to work in these areas. We also believe that by raising the minimum wage, it would allow people to feel more valued. We believe that by raising the minimum wage, it would incentivise people to work in these areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should raise the minimum wage. In these difficult times, it is important that we support the lowest paid in society. We believe that this would help to support families and would help to reduce child poverty. We also believe that the minimum wage should be linked to the cost of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the minimum wage should be raised. We have come to this conclusion because the current minimum wage is not enough to provide for a basic standard of living. The increase in the cost of living has made it very difficult for people to survive on the minimum wage. Therefore, it is essential that the government increase the minimum wage to a level that will provide people with a basic standard of living. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000768.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000768.soc index d6b32bb8..cf6ac2ee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000768.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000768.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not have the right to control the internet in times of war. The internet is a place for people to express their opinions and it is important that the government does not restrict this. The internet is not something that the government invented and therefore should not have the right to control it. The internet is a way for people to get information and it is important that the government does not try to control this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not have the right to control the internet in times of war. The internet is a free and open place where people can express their views, and the government has no right to change that, especially not in times of war. The internet is one of the last places where people can express their views freely, and in times of war this is even more important. The government is not always right, and in times of war it is important that people can express their views freely. The internet is one of the few places where this is possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not have the right to control the internet in times of war. The internet is akin to freedom of speech and controlling it would mean controlling peoples thoughts, ideas, and information. There are many groups that help keep the internet a safe, informative place. Twitter used to be one. This is an excessive idea. The government doesn't really need so much control. There are more moderate alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not have the right to control the internet in times of war. The internet is a powerful tool and has been used to spread awareness of war crimes and human rights violations. The internet is the modern equivalent of freedom of speech and controlling it would mean controlling peoples thoughts, ideas, and information. It only sounds like a good idea if you believe your government is the good guy trying to help you but every government is susceptible to creating propaganda. The internet is not something the government created so why should they be allowed to sensor the information on it. People are entitled to free speech etc so no I don't think the government has any right here. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not have the right to control the internet in times of war. The internet is a place for people to express their opinions and it is important that the government does not restrict this. The internet is not something that the government invented and therefore should not have the right to control it. The internet is a way for people to get information and it is important that the government does not try to control this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not have the right to control the internet in times of war. The internet is a free and open place where people can express their views, and the government has no right to change that, especially not in times of war. The internet is one of the last places where people can express their views freely, and in times of war this is even more important. The government is not always right, and in times of war it is important that people can express their views freely. The internet is one of the few places where this is possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not have the right to control the internet in times of war. The internet is akin to freedom of speech and controlling it would mean controlling peoples thoughts, ideas, and information. There are many groups that help keep the internet a safe, informative place. Twitter used to be one. This is an excessive idea. The government doesn't really need so much control. There are more moderate alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not have the right to control the internet in times of war. The internet is a powerful tool and has been used to spread awareness of war crimes and human rights violations. The internet is the modern equivalent of freedom of speech and controlling it would mean controlling peoples thoughts, ideas, and information. It only sounds like a good idea if you believe your government is the good guy trying to help you but every government is susceptible to creating propaganda. The internet is not something the government created so why should they be allowed to sensor the information on it. People are entitled to free speech etc so no I don't think the government has any right here. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000769.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000769.soc index 11e43619..7912350b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000769.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000769.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of building more nuclear power stations. The main argument in favour of building more nuclear power stations is that they are a clean source of energy and they provide a reliable source of energy. It was also argued that nuclear power stations are not harmful to the environment, because the waste is contained and the only way it can be harmful to the environment is if there is a breach in the containment, which is very unlikely to happen. It was also argued that there are risks associated with any type of energy source and it is better to have a clean source of energy. The main argument against building more nuclear power stations was that there is a risk of accidents, such as Chernobyl. It was also argued that there is no solution for the waste and it is harmful to the environment. The group in general was in favour of building more nuclear power stations, but there was a general agreement that more research should be done in this area, in order to make sure that the nuclear power stations are safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Whilst nuclear power is a great way of generating electricity, the world is not ready for more nuclear power stations. There are too many dangers that come with them, for example, what if there was an accident, would we be prepared for it? The world has changed a lot since Chernobyl and although we have learnt from that disaster, we need to be prepared for another one, and we are not. I believe that we should use other forms of renewable energy to generate electricity, such as wind power and solar power. These are much safer and have less of an impact on the environment.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the building of more nuclear power stations. The consensus view was that nuclear power was a dirty and dangerous source of energy. The group felt that if there was a need for more energy in the UK then the best solution would be to look to renewable energy sources. The group felt that the threat of radiation leaks was a major concern and that this risk was too great. The group felt that the UK government should be looking at other ways to provide energy for the UK. The group felt that the UK government was putting profits before people and that they should be looking at the long term effects of nuclear power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are many arguments for and against the building of more nuclear power stations, it is our view that careful consideration should be made before building any more nuclear power stations. We believe that although they may be needed, there should be careful risk assessments completed and every other possible option exhausted first of all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of building more nuclear power stations. The main argument in favour of building more nuclear power stations is that they are a clean source of energy and they provide a reliable source of energy. It was also argued that nuclear power stations are not harmful to the environment, because the waste is contained and the only way it can be harmful to the environment is if there is a breach in the containment, which is very unlikely to happen. It was also argued that there are risks associated with any type of energy source and it is better to have a clean source of energy. The main argument against building more nuclear power stations was that there is a risk of accidents, such as Chernobyl. It was also argued that there is no solution for the waste and it is harmful to the environment. The group in general was in favour of building more nuclear power stations, but there was a general agreement that more research should be done in this area, in order to make sure that the nuclear power stations are safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Whilst nuclear power is a great way of generating electricity, the world is not ready for more nuclear power stations. There are too many dangers that come with them, for example, what if there was an accident, would we be prepared for it? The world has changed a lot since Chernobyl and although we have learnt from that disaster, we need to be prepared for another one, and we are not. I believe that we should use other forms of renewable energy to generate electricity, such as wind power and solar power. These are much safer and have less of an impact on the environment.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the building of more nuclear power stations. The consensus view was that nuclear power was a dirty and dangerous source of energy. The group felt that if there was a need for more energy in the UK then the best solution would be to look to renewable energy sources. The group felt that the threat of radiation leaks was a major concern and that this risk was too great. The group felt that the UK government should be looking at other ways to provide energy for the UK. The group felt that the UK government was putting profits before people and that they should be looking at the long term effects of nuclear power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are many arguments for and against the building of more nuclear power stations, it is our view that careful consideration should be made before building any more nuclear power stations. We believe that although they may be needed, there should be careful risk assessments completed and every other possible option exhausted first of all. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000770.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000770.soc index db814cac..d36d0c5b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000770.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000770.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should have access to a computer, but it is not necessary for them to have their own. They should have access to a computer in order to keep up with the modern world and for educational purposes. Having a computer can be a privilege but there are also risks that come with it. The parents or guardians of the children should be the ones who regulate what content they are exposed to. Children should be taught how to use a computer properly and how to stay safe on the internet. It is important for children to learn how to use a computer because it is a skill that will be useful in their future careers. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000771.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000771.soc index e6ef78ee..513af3eb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000771.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000771.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population now has more than half of the world’s wealth is wrong. We all agreed that it is very unfair that 1% of the world’s population have more than half of the world’s wealth. We think that this is a sign of how unequal the world is. We all agreed that it is wrong that some people have so much money when there are people who have so little. We all think that there should be a limit to how much money people can have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not right that the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population now has more than half of the world’s wealth. The participants felt that there is no reason for any one person to have so much wealth when there are so many people in the world who are living in poverty. They felt that this is an injustice and that something needs to be done about it. The group felt that if they were in the 1% they would give their money to charity and help others. They also felt that it is not right that this inequality exists and that there should be a more equal distribution of wealth in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don’t think it is right that the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population now has more than half of the world’s wealth. This is because we feel that the 1% will have enough money to live a comfortable life and the 99% will be left to struggle and may not be able to provide for their families. This will also create a divide in society with the 1% being seen as more important than the 99% and this will create tension and conflict. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In general, the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population now has more than half of the world’s wealth. This is a measure of the striking inequalities of our society and the ugly image of late-state capitalism. It is also the unwanted heritage of centuries of exploitation of some countries of people of other countries. This social issues will become worse with time. We should all be concerned about this and we should do something about it. There are people dying of starvation and disease whilst the 1% live the life of Riley jetting around the world and contributing to climate change, which then affects people in poorer nations with floods etc. Even in our own country children are living in poverty, How on earth in this age are we continuing to live like this? Absolutely not. There is no reason for them to have so much wealth as no one needs that amount of money to live and they could never use all that money. There are people who have very little wealth, sometimes no wealth and they may be homeless. People with no wealth deserve their fair share of wealth as no one should have to struggle to survive into todays world. This is a very serious problem and we should be doing something about it. The government should be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population now has more than half of the world’s wealth is wrong. We all agreed that it is very unfair that 1% of the world’s population have more than half of the world’s wealth. We think that this is a sign of how unequal the world is. We all agreed that it is wrong that some people have so much money when there are people who have so little. We all think that there should be a limit to how much money people can have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not right that the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population now has more than half of the world’s wealth. The participants felt that there is no reason for any one person to have so much wealth when there are so many people in the world who are living in poverty. They felt that this is an injustice and that something needs to be done about it. The group felt that if they were in the 1% they would give their money to charity and help others. They also felt that it is not right that this inequality exists and that there should be a more equal distribution of wealth in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don’t think it is right that the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population now has more than half of the world’s wealth. This is because we feel that the 1% will have enough money to live a comfortable life and the 99% will be left to struggle and may not be able to provide for their families. This will also create a divide in society with the 1% being seen as more important than the 99% and this will create tension and conflict. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In general, the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population now has more than half of the world’s wealth. This is a measure of the striking inequalities of our society and the ugly image of late-state capitalism. It is also the unwanted heritage of centuries of exploitation of some countries of people of other countries. This social issues will become worse with time. We should all be concerned about this and we should do something about it. There are people dying of starvation and disease whilst the 1% live the life of Riley jetting around the world and contributing to climate change, which then affects people in poorer nations with floods etc. Even in our own country children are living in poverty, How on earth in this age are we continuing to live like this? Absolutely not. There is no reason for them to have so much wealth as no one needs that amount of money to live and they could never use all that money. There are people who have very little wealth, sometimes no wealth and they may be homeless. People with no wealth deserve their fair share of wealth as no one should have to struggle to survive into todays world. This is a very serious problem and we should be doing something about it. The government should be 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000772.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000772.soc index 63260ccd..b54dd25b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000772.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000772.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although there are some potential benefits of Brexit, the costs are currently outweighing the benefits. There is a feeling that the costs will continue to outweigh the benefits until the process is completed and the dust has settled. It was felt that the process will take a number of years and it will be difficult to know whether Brexit was a good idea or not until then. There is also a feeling that it is a very divisive issue and that people will not agree on whether it was a good idea or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Brexit was not the right decision and the benefits will not outweigh the costs. In particular, the participants were very concerned with the immediate changes the man on the street can see. They all felt that Brexit was supposed to firm up the borders, and that has not happened. It has instead drastically delayed passengers and cargo on either side of the Channel, and pulled any easy free trade and cooperation away from many firms. It was supposed to allow us to reduce the cost the European project was demanding of us, and no benefit has been seen there. It was supposed to allow us our own human rights laws without the pressure of European ideas, and no change has been made on that front at all. The benefits - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group felt that the costs of Brexit are going to outweigh the benefits. The group felt that it is going to be very difficult for the UK to negotiate new trade deals that will be better than what it had in the EU, especially as the EU has said that it will not give any special deals to the UK. The group also felt that the UK will not be able to reduce immigration to the levels it wants because there are many industries that rely on immigrants. The group also felt that the UK is going to lose a lot of influence in the world and that the UK will lose access to a lot of valuable data and information that is available to EU member states. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In the short term, the costs of Brexit have outweighed the benefits. The long term costs and benefits are hard to predict. The biggest costs have been a slowdown in the economy, a skills shortage and an increase in the cost of living. The biggest benefit has been an increase in the number of people who want to immigrate to the UK. This is likely to be a short term benefit, and in the long term the increase in immigration is likely to be a cost. It is likely that in the long term the costs and benefits will balance out, and it will not be possible to say whether Brexit was a good or bad thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although there are some potential benefits of Brexit, the costs are currently outweighing the benefits. There is a feeling that the costs will continue to outweigh the benefits until the process is completed and the dust has settled. It was felt that the process will take a number of years and it will be difficult to know whether Brexit was a good idea or not until then. There is also a feeling that it is a very divisive issue and that people will not agree on whether it was a good idea or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Brexit was not the right decision and the benefits will not outweigh the costs. In particular, the participants were very concerned with the immediate changes the man on the street can see. They all felt that Brexit was supposed to firm up the borders, and that has not happened. It has instead drastically delayed passengers and cargo on either side of the Channel, and pulled any easy free trade and cooperation away from many firms. It was supposed to allow us to reduce the cost the European project was demanding of us, and no benefit has been seen there. It was supposed to allow us our own human rights laws without the pressure of European ideas, and no change has been made on that front at all. The benefits - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group felt that the costs of Brexit are going to outweigh the benefits. The group felt that it is going to be very difficult for the UK to negotiate new trade deals that will be better than what it had in the EU, especially as the EU has said that it will not give any special deals to the UK. The group also felt that the UK will not be able to reduce immigration to the levels it wants because there are many industries that rely on immigrants. The group also felt that the UK is going to lose a lot of influence in the world and that the UK will lose access to a lot of valuable data and information that is available to EU member states. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In the short term, the costs of Brexit have outweighed the benefits. The long term costs and benefits are hard to predict. The biggest costs have been a slowdown in the economy, a skills shortage and an increase in the cost of living. The biggest benefit has been an increase in the number of people who want to immigrate to the UK. This is likely to be a short term benefit, and in the long term the increase in immigration is likely to be a cost. It is likely that in the long term the costs and benefits will balance out, and it will not be possible to say whether Brexit was a good or bad thing. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000773.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000773.soc index f8eadb3a..b48e5445 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000773.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000773.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. To ensure that the shift to renewable/sustainable energy is not negated by people using more energy than they normally would have- limits could be placed on overall energy or fuel consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. This can be mitigated by placing limits on overall energy or fuel consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. This is why it would be a good idea to place limits on overall energy or fuel consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. This can be mitigated by placing limits on overall energy or fuel consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. To ensure that the shift to renewable/sustainable energy is not negated by people using more energy than they normally would have- limits could be placed on overall energy or fuel consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. This can be mitigated by placing limits on overall energy or fuel consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. This is why it would be a good idea to place limits on overall energy or fuel consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should encourage greater investment in sustainable energy by subsidising it. This is because increased access to this is likely to lead to the UK being a lesser cause of global warming. That said there is a distinction between sustainable and renewable energy, where sustainable energy can be harmful to the environment through releasing fossil fuels, but still sustainable because the government can continue to afford and source it. Assuming the question is referring to renewable energy- it is a great idea for the government to subsidise this because individuals are unlikely to be able to afford these methods by themselves, and the scheme is more likely to be used by government buildings, hospitals and other significant users of energy than if individuals were funding it. On the other hand, if the government is funding this energy, people may be inclined to waste energy since it is free, or continue to use the same amount of fossil fuels as before. This can be mitigated by placing limits on overall energy or fuel consumption. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000774.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000774.soc index 47284f22..f6e31dfb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000774.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000774.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance. However, they recognised that it was not currently feasible and that there were many issues with it. The group discussed how this would be very expensive and that this would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also discussed that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. However, the group thought that in an ideal world this would be a good idea and that it should be something that we should aim for in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a monthly allowance being given to all adults, although with some caveats. The amount of the allowance should be fixed and not depend on income. It should be enough to cover basic living costs, but not so much that it would cause people to stop working. It should be made clear that this allowance is not a replacement for welfare benefits, and that those who are already receiving welfare benefits will continue to do so. The allowance should be given to all adults, including those in full-time education, and the elderly. The group felt that there would be some issues with this system, for example with the allowance being taken advantage of by family members or carers, but that the benefits outweighed the costs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance, but with some restrictions. For example, we would like to see the allowance given to adults who are currently unemployed and/or in financial hardship. We also discussed the idea of having the allowance given to those who are in the care system and who are currently not employed, but we felt that this may not be the best idea as it could lead to some people becoming dependent on the allowance. We also felt that if the allowance is given to all adults, it would be very difficult to monitor how the allowance is being spent. Therefore, we would like to see the allowance given to people who are currently unemployed and in financial hardship. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of giving all adults a monthly allowance by the government. However, there were a number of concerns raised. For example, some people may be taken advantage of by family members and others. The group was also concerned about how the allowance would be funded. Some people thought that it would be funded by increasing taxes, which could be unfair. The group also thought that it would be important to have some kind of regulation to ensure that the allowance was used appropriately. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance. However, they recognised that it was not currently feasible and that there were many issues with it. The group discussed how this would be very expensive and that this would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also discussed that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. However, the group thought that in an ideal world this would be a good idea and that it should be something that we should aim for in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a monthly allowance being given to all adults, although with some caveats. The amount of the allowance should be fixed and not depend on income. It should be enough to cover basic living costs, but not so much that it would cause people to stop working. It should be made clear that this allowance is not a replacement for welfare benefits, and that those who are already receiving welfare benefits will continue to do so. The allowance should be given to all adults, including those in full-time education, and the elderly. The group felt that there would be some issues with this system, for example with the allowance being taken advantage of by family members or carers, but that the benefits outweighed the costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance, but with some restrictions. For example, we would like to see the allowance given to adults who are currently unemployed and/or in financial hardship. We also discussed the idea of having the allowance given to those who are in the care system and who are currently not employed, but we felt that this may not be the best idea as it could lead to some people becoming dependent on the allowance. We also felt that if the allowance is given to all adults, it would be very difficult to monitor how the allowance is being spent. Therefore, we would like to see the allowance given to people who are currently unemployed and in financial hardship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of giving all adults a monthly allowance by the government. However, there were a number of concerns raised. For example, some people may be taken advantage of by family members and others. The group was also concerned about how the allowance would be funded. Some people thought that it would be funded by increasing taxes, which could be unfair. The group also thought that it would be important to have some kind of regulation to ensure that the allowance was used appropriately. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000775.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000775.soc index 888c1cae..77149364 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000775.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000775.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There was a strong consensus that in an ideal world, all adults should be given a monthly allowance. However, it was recognised that this was not currently feasible and that there were many issues with it. The group discussed how this would be very expensive and that this would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also discussed that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. However, the group thought that in an ideal world this would be a good idea and that it should be something that we should aim for in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There were many different opinions in the group, but the group in general was in favour of the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance. However, they recognised that it was not currently feasible and that there were many issues with it. The group discussed how this would be very expensive and that this would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also discussed that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. However, the group thought that in an ideal world this would be a good idea and that it should be something that we should aim for in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There were mixed views on the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance. Some people thought that this would be a good idea in an ideal world and that we should aim for this in the future. However, other people thought that this would be a bad idea, as it would be very expensive and would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also thought that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance. However, they recognised that it was not currently feasible and that there were many issues with it. The group discussed how this would be very expensive and that this would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also discussed that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. However, the group thought that in an ideal world this would be a good idea and that it should be something that we should aim for in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There was a strong consensus that in an ideal world, all adults should be given a monthly allowance. However, it was recognised that this was not currently feasible and that there were many issues with it. The group discussed how this would be very expensive and that this would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also discussed that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. However, the group thought that in an ideal world this would be a good idea and that it should be something that we should aim for in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There were many different opinions in the group, but the group in general was in favour of the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance. However, they recognised that it was not currently feasible and that there were many issues with it. The group discussed how this would be very expensive and that this would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also discussed that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. However, the group thought that in an ideal world this would be a good idea and that it should be something that we should aim for in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There were mixed views on the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance. Some people thought that this would be a good idea in an ideal world and that we should aim for this in the future. However, other people thought that this would be a bad idea, as it would be very expensive and would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also thought that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of giving all adults a monthly allowance. However, they recognised that it was not currently feasible and that there were many issues with it. The group discussed how this would be very expensive and that this would need to be funded by taxes, which would be unpopular. They also discussed that the rich would be able to save this money and get richer, while the poor would need to spend it on necessities. The group also discussed that people would not be motivated to work and that this would affect the economy. However, the group thought that in an ideal world this would be a good idea and that it should be something that we should aim for in the future. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000776.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000776.soc index 9059a991..62f9e7c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000776.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000776.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People have a right to choose to gamble on sport or not. If they want to gamble then they should be allowed to do so. However, the gambling industry should have strict rules in place to prevent people becoming addicted to gambling. This should include the ability to set daily, weekly, and monthly deposit limits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, gambling is a negative influence on society. However, banning gambling would be a step too far and would be an infringement on personal freedoms. Instead, we believe that the gambling industry should be more heavily regulated. Gambling advertising should be banned from all forms of sports broadcasting, and there should be restrictions on the amount of money that people are allowed to deposit into their gambling accounts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on gambling. We recognise that some people can become addicted to gambling and that this can cause serious problems for them and their families. We also recognise that there are laws in place to protect people from spending more than they can afford and that it is the responsibility of the gambling companies to enforce these laws. We think that people should be free to make their own choices and that they should be responsible for their own actions. We think that people should be allowed to take part in gambling if they want to, but that there should be greater restrictions on gambling advertising during sporting events. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not ban gambling on sport. People should be free to make their own decisions and gambling is something that some people enjoy as a hobby. We believe that the gambling industry has a responsibility to protect people from problem gambling, and to not actively encourage gambling by vulnerable people who may have addictive personalities. We believe that advertising gambling should be tightly controlled and restricted from sports broadcasting, and that there should be tight regulations on the amount of money that can be deposited into a gambling account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People have a right to choose to gamble on sport or not. If they want to gamble then they should be allowed to do so. However, the gambling industry should have strict rules in place to prevent people becoming addicted to gambling. This should include the ability to set daily, weekly, and monthly deposit limits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, gambling is a negative influence on society. However, banning gambling would be a step too far and would be an infringement on personal freedoms. Instead, we believe that the gambling industry should be more heavily regulated. Gambling advertising should be banned from all forms of sports broadcasting, and there should be restrictions on the amount of money that people are allowed to deposit into their gambling accounts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on gambling. We recognise that some people can become addicted to gambling and that this can cause serious problems for them and their families. We also recognise that there are laws in place to protect people from spending more than they can afford and that it is the responsibility of the gambling companies to enforce these laws. We think that people should be free to make their own choices and that they should be responsible for their own actions. We think that people should be allowed to take part in gambling if they want to, but that there should be greater restrictions on gambling advertising during sporting events. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not ban gambling on sport. People should be free to make their own decisions and gambling is something that some people enjoy as a hobby. We believe that the gambling industry has a responsibility to protect people from problem gambling, and to not actively encourage gambling by vulnerable people who may have addictive personalities. We believe that advertising gambling should be tightly controlled and restricted from sports broadcasting, and that there should be tight regulations on the amount of money that can be deposited into a gambling account. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000777.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000777.soc index cbbf7b68..efde160c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000777.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000777.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The NHS is a fundamental pillar of our society and is in desperate need of more funding to support the increasing burden on the system. The government should invest more money into the NHS as a matter of urgency to improve wait times and the infrastructure of the system. The government should also prioritise the recruitment and training of more staff to support the increasing demand for the NHS. This should be funded through taxation as this method is the most cost effective across the board.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world and that it should be protected and enhanced at all costs. The NHS should be given more funding so that it can expand and improve its services. We believe that the NHS is a fundamental part of the UK and that the Conservative party should stop their attempts to privatise it. We believe that the NHS should be funded through general taxation, as this method is the fairest and most cost effective across the board. We believe that the NHS is not in crisis and that it should be allowed to continue to operate in the way that it has done for the past 70 years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is a vital part of the UK. The NHS is currently failing to provide adequate care to the UK population due to a lack of funding and poor infrastructure. The Conservative government should provide more funding to the NHS and stop trying to privatise it. The government should provide more funding to the NHS through general taxation, as this method is the fairest and most cost effective. The NHS should be a free service, and the government should provide the necessary funding to ensure that this is the case. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the NHS is a vital service that is unique to the UK and provides a service that is cost effective and provides access to healthcare for the whole population. It is important to note that there are certain sections of the population that are struggling to access healthcare, and this is due to the funding that the NHS is receiving. We believe that the government should be putting more money into the NHS to ensure that it is able to provide healthcare for the whole population. This will help to improve the service that is currently being provided by the NHS and help to alleviate the burden that is currently being placed on it. We believe that the NHS is a fundamental right of the people of the UK, and we believe that the government should be putting more money into the NHS to ensure that this right is upheld. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The NHS is a fundamental pillar of our society and is in desperate need of more funding to support the increasing burden on the system. The government should invest more money into the NHS as a matter of urgency to improve wait times and the infrastructure of the system. The government should also prioritise the recruitment and training of more staff to support the increasing demand for the NHS. This should be funded through taxation as this method is the most cost effective across the board.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world and that it should be protected and enhanced at all costs. The NHS should be given more funding so that it can expand and improve its services. We believe that the NHS is a fundamental part of the UK and that the Conservative party should stop their attempts to privatise it. We believe that the NHS should be funded through general taxation, as this method is the fairest and most cost effective across the board. We believe that the NHS is not in crisis and that it should be allowed to continue to operate in the way that it has done for the past 70 years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is a vital part of the UK. The NHS is currently failing to provide adequate care to the UK population due to a lack of funding and poor infrastructure. The Conservative government should provide more funding to the NHS and stop trying to privatise it. The government should provide more funding to the NHS through general taxation, as this method is the fairest and most cost effective. The NHS should be a free service, and the government should provide the necessary funding to ensure that this is the case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the NHS is a vital service that is unique to the UK and provides a service that is cost effective and provides access to healthcare for the whole population. It is important to note that there are certain sections of the population that are struggling to access healthcare, and this is due to the funding that the NHS is receiving. We believe that the government should be putting more money into the NHS to ensure that it is able to provide healthcare for the whole population. This will help to improve the service that is currently being provided by the NHS and help to alleviate the burden that is currently being placed on it. We believe that the NHS is a fundamental right of the people of the UK, and we believe that the government should be putting more money into the NHS to ensure that this right is upheld. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000778.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000778.soc index 3ee9230e..c70a2060 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000778.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000778.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. This will also help to value lower paid workers as they provide the back bone to many services the public require. Not everyone is able to work in high powered or paying jobs for many different reasons so we need to incentivise people to work in these areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the government should raise the minimum wage to help those on the lowest incomes to survive. This will also help to increase the living standards for the poorest in our society. We believe that this will also help to reduce the poverty gap and also help to reduce the reliance on welfare benefits. This will also help to reduce the cost to the government and taxpayer of welfare benefits. This will also help to value lower paid workers as they provide the back bone to many services the public require. Not everyone is able to work in high powered or paying jobs for many different reasons so we need to incentivise people to work in these areas. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000779.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000779.soc index 85b6e946..a70d680e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000779.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000779.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Brexit was not the right decision and the benefits will not outweigh the costs. In particular, the participants were very concerned with the immediate changes the man on the street can see. They all felt that Brexit was supposed to firm up the borders, and that has not happened. It has instead drastically delayed passengers and cargo on either side of the Channel, and pulled any easy free trade and cooperation away from many firms. It was supposed to allow us to reduce the cost the European project was demanding of us, and no benefit has been seen there. It was supposed to allow us our own human rights laws without the pressure of European ideas, and no change has been made on that front at all. The benefits - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Brexit was not the right decision and the benefits will not outweigh the costs. In particular, the immediate changes the man on the street can see are not good. Brexit was supposed to firm up the borders, and that has not happened. It has instead drastically delayed passengers and cargo on either side of the Channel, and pulled any easy free trade and cooperation away from many firms. It was supposed to allow us to reduce the cost the European project was demanding of us, and no benefit has been seen there. It was supposed to allow us our own human rights laws without the pressure of European ideas, and no change has been made on that front at all. The benefits - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Brexit was not the right decision and the benefits will not outweigh the costs. In particular, the immediate changes the man on the street can see are worrying. Brexit was supposed to firm up the borders, and that has not happened. It has instead drastically delayed passengers and cargo on either side of the Channel, and pulled any easy free trade and cooperation away from many firms. It was supposed to allow us to reduce the cost the European project was demanding of us, and no benefit has been seen there. It was supposed to allow us our own human rights laws without the pressure of European ideas, and no change has been made on that front at all. The benefits - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The Brexit project has not been a success, and the benefits of the project are not going to outweigh the costs. The immediate changes the man on the street can see are not good, and the promised benefits of Brexit have not materialised. The borders have not been firmed up, and instead have been made less efficient. The cost of the European project has not been reduced, and the project has not been made more effective. Human rights laws have not been improved, and instead have become less fair and less equal. The promised benefits of Brexit - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Brexit was not the right decision and the benefits will not outweigh the costs. In particular, the participants were very concerned with the immediate changes the man on the street can see. They all felt that Brexit was supposed to firm up the borders, and that has not happened. It has instead drastically delayed passengers and cargo on either side of the Channel, and pulled any easy free trade and cooperation away from many firms. It was supposed to allow us to reduce the cost the European project was demanding of us, and no benefit has been seen there. It was supposed to allow us our own human rights laws without the pressure of European ideas, and no change has been made on that front at all. The benefits - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Brexit was not the right decision and the benefits will not outweigh the costs. In particular, the immediate changes the man on the street can see are not good. Brexit was supposed to firm up the borders, and that has not happened. It has instead drastically delayed passengers and cargo on either side of the Channel, and pulled any easy free trade and cooperation away from many firms. It was supposed to allow us to reduce the cost the European project was demanding of us, and no benefit has been seen there. It was supposed to allow us our own human rights laws without the pressure of European ideas, and no change has been made on that front at all. The benefits - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Brexit was not the right decision and the benefits will not outweigh the costs. In particular, the immediate changes the man on the street can see are worrying. Brexit was supposed to firm up the borders, and that has not happened. It has instead drastically delayed passengers and cargo on either side of the Channel, and pulled any easy free trade and cooperation away from many firms. It was supposed to allow us to reduce the cost the European project was demanding of us, and no benefit has been seen there. It was supposed to allow us our own human rights laws without the pressure of European ideas, and no change has been made on that front at all. The benefits - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The Brexit project has not been a success, and the benefits of the project are not going to outweigh the costs. The immediate changes the man on the street can see are not good, and the promised benefits of Brexit have not materialised. The borders have not been firmed up, and instead have been made less efficient. The cost of the European project has not been reduced, and the project has not been made more effective. Human rights laws have not been improved, and instead have become less fair and less equal. The promised benefits of Brexit - of not spending money on developing Eastern European countries, and having a hard border as regards boat people - have not started to happen. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000780.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000780.soc index 2fe6ce51..61793149 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000780.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000780.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of providing free electricity to every UK citizen is not a good idea. This is because, firstly, the country is already in a lot of debt. Secondly, it will likely result in an unfair taxation system. Thirdly, it will encourage some to waste electricity since there would be no financial consequences to not being careful with energy use since you are not paying for it causing more global warming and cost. Fourthly, it would likely bankrupt the country since it would have to be funded somehow and the country is already in a massive amount of post covid debt. Fifthly, it would be a politicians nightmare to create tax system to pay for everyone's electricity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of providing free electricity for every UK citizen. However, there were concerns that such a policy would lead to the government going into more debt, which would have a negative impact on the economy in the long term. The group also agreed that providing free electricity for every UK citizen would be a very difficult policy to implement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the idea of free electricity for everyone is a good idea, however, there are some practicalities to consider. One is that it would be difficult to implement in practice, as it is not clear how the scheme would be funded and also how it would be implemented. Secondly, it is not clear how free electricity would be provided for everyone. There are some people in the UK who live in very rural areas and therefore it would be difficult to provide electricity to them. Also, some people are not responsible with electricity and would waste it if it was free, which would not be good for the environment. However, the group was in favour of free electricity for those in fuel poverty, as they would benefit the most. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that we do not think it is a good idea to provide every UK citizen with free electricity for their homes. Although it may be a very tempting idea, there are many factors that would make this idea difficult to implement. One of these factors is that there would be an increase in energy use, especially in households that are not energy efficient. If everyone in the UK was provided with free electricity, it would be very difficult to control the amount of energy being used. Another factor is that the UK would be bankrupt. This is because there would be no way to pay for the electricity that everyone is using. This is because the cost of electricity would be astronomical. Also, the UK is already in a lot of debt, so it would be very difficult to provide free electricity. In conclusion, we do not think that it is a good idea to provide every UK citizen with free electricity for their homes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of providing free electricity to every UK citizen is not a good idea. This is because, firstly, the country is already in a lot of debt. Secondly, it will likely result in an unfair taxation system. Thirdly, it will encourage some to waste electricity since there would be no financial consequences to not being careful with energy use since you are not paying for it causing more global warming and cost. Fourthly, it would likely bankrupt the country since it would have to be funded somehow and the country is already in a massive amount of post covid debt. Fifthly, it would be a politicians nightmare to create tax system to pay for everyone's electricity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of providing free electricity for every UK citizen. However, there were concerns that such a policy would lead to the government going into more debt, which would have a negative impact on the economy in the long term. The group also agreed that providing free electricity for every UK citizen would be a very difficult policy to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the idea of free electricity for everyone is a good idea, however, there are some practicalities to consider. One is that it would be difficult to implement in practice, as it is not clear how the scheme would be funded and also how it would be implemented. Secondly, it is not clear how free electricity would be provided for everyone. There are some people in the UK who live in very rural areas and therefore it would be difficult to provide electricity to them. Also, some people are not responsible with electricity and would waste it if it was free, which would not be good for the environment. However, the group was in favour of free electricity for those in fuel poverty, as they would benefit the most. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that we do not think it is a good idea to provide every UK citizen with free electricity for their homes. Although it may be a very tempting idea, there are many factors that would make this idea difficult to implement. One of these factors is that there would be an increase in energy use, especially in households that are not energy efficient. If everyone in the UK was provided with free electricity, it would be very difficult to control the amount of energy being used. Another factor is that the UK would be bankrupt. This is because there would be no way to pay for the electricity that everyone is using. This is because the cost of electricity would be astronomical. Also, the UK is already in a lot of debt, so it would be very difficult to provide free electricity. In conclusion, we do not think that it is a good idea to provide every UK citizen with free electricity for their homes. 3: 1,3,4,2 2: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000781.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000781.soc index bb89b6c2..f53259c9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000781.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000781.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, gambling should not be banned but should be restricted. The gambling companies should have some control over how much people can gamble, perhaps limiting the amount of money that can be deposited into accounts and limiting the amount of time that can be spent gambling. Advertisements for gambling should be limited. Gambling should not be available to people with a low credit score or to students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, gambling should not be banned but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not ban gambling as it is a popular pastime for many people. We should restrict gambling in some way, however. People with low credit scores should not be allowed to gamble, and the amount of money that people are allowed to gamble with should be limited. This would prevent people from getting into debt and becoming addicted to gambling. Gambling should also be restricted in some way in the media. It should not be advertised on television before the watershed, and there should be less advertising of gambling in general. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think that gambling should be banned as it is a fun activity for many people. However, it is important to restrict it to a certain extent as some people can become addicted and this can cause problems for them and their families. We think that people should not be able to gamble with credit and should be able to gamble only a certain amount of money. This should be decided by the individual and is their responsibility. Gambling should also not be advertised to young people as they may be more susceptible to addiction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, gambling should not be banned but should be restricted. The gambling companies should have some control over how much people can gamble, perhaps limiting the amount of money that can be deposited into accounts and limiting the amount of time that can be spent gambling. Advertisements for gambling should be limited. Gambling should not be available to people with a low credit score or to students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, gambling should not be banned but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not ban gambling as it is a popular pastime for many people. We should restrict gambling in some way, however. People with low credit scores should not be allowed to gamble, and the amount of money that people are allowed to gamble with should be limited. This would prevent people from getting into debt and becoming addicted to gambling. Gambling should also be restricted in some way in the media. It should not be advertised on television before the watershed, and there should be less advertising of gambling in general. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think that gambling should be banned as it is a fun activity for many people. However, it is important to restrict it to a certain extent as some people can become addicted and this can cause problems for them and their families. We think that people should not be able to gamble with credit and should be able to gamble only a certain amount of money. This should be decided by the individual and is their responsibility. Gambling should also not be advertised to young people as they may be more susceptible to addiction. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000782.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000782.soc index 2f20d652..032a68f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000782.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000782.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should subsidize childcare. Childcare is very expensive and many families cannot afford it. This puts a strain on families as the mother may have to give up her job to look after the child, or the father may have to give up his job to look after the child. If the government subsidizes childcare, then the mother and father can both continue working and the family will have more money to spend. The family will be happier and the child will be better off. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should subsidize childcare. Raising a child can be expensive and not all parents can afford to raise a child on their own, especially if they must quit their job to do so. The government needs to help people who are working full time and trying to pay for everything without any support. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare. There needs to be an incentive for working adults to be able to have children, as children are the future of society. If child raising becomes too expensive then the birth rate will plummet and society will collapse. To allow parents to continue to work and provide for the children there needs to be help to provide childcare before schooling starts. Currently child care costs are soaring and the state needs to assist with those costs.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare. The government should help those especially that are in a dire financial situation and who have children to take care of. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should subsidize childcare, as the prices of childcare at the moment are unsustainable for the majority of families. The government needs to help people who are working full time and trying to pay for everything without any support. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare. The government should subsidize childcare, because the prices of childcare at the moment is unsustainable for the majority of families. The government needs to help people who are working full time and trying to pay for everything without any support. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should subsidize childcare. Childcare is very expensive and many families cannot afford it. This puts a strain on families as the mother may have to give up her job to look after the child, or the father may have to give up his job to look after the child. If the government subsidizes childcare, then the mother and father can both continue working and the family will have more money to spend. The family will be happier and the child will be better off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should subsidize childcare. Raising a child can be expensive and not all parents can afford to raise a child on their own, especially if they must quit their job to do so. The government needs to help people who are working full time and trying to pay for everything without any support. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare. There needs to be an incentive for working adults to be able to have children, as children are the future of society. If child raising becomes too expensive then the birth rate will plummet and society will collapse. To allow parents to continue to work and provide for the children there needs to be help to provide childcare before schooling starts. Currently child care costs are soaring and the state needs to assist with those costs.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare. The government should help those especially that are in a dire financial situation and who have children to take care of. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should subsidize childcare, as the prices of childcare at the moment are unsustainable for the majority of families. The government needs to help people who are working full time and trying to pay for everything without any support. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare. The government should subsidize childcare, because the prices of childcare at the moment is unsustainable for the majority of families. The government needs to help people who are working full time and trying to pay for everything without any support. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare.” 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000783.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000783.soc index f3007ad9..d0536e52 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000783.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000783.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare. The government should help those especially that are in a dire financial situation and who have children to take care of. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should subsidize childcare, because it is important for the future of society to have parents working and children being cared for in a good environment. If the government does not subsidize childcare, it might become a case of some families not having parents at work because they cannot put their children into childcare. The government should help those especially that are in a dire financial situation and who have children to take care of. There are numerous reasons as to why a parent may struggle with the costs of bringing up a child, and no matter what these reasons are, the child should not be punished for it. Government aid towards future generations is crucial to the healthy future of the planet as a whole. Subsidising childcare is a good step towards achieving that.” 3: 4,3,2,1 2: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000784.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000784.soc index 65014235..cee43a4f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000784.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000784.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should limit the amount of TV advertising directed at children. Advertising can negatively influence children and they should be allowed to form their own opinions first without pressure from the media. Companies should not strive to make children users of their product as early as possible so they have a customer for life, and it should be limited so they aren't indoctrinated into liking certain companies due to what they've seen advertised on television screens at a young age. A good example of this would be McDonalds, a company that strives to appeal to children so they have adult fans of their company and products when they are adults. Limiting the amount of advertisements that children are exposed to can only be a good thing, and we are in full support of such a change. We cannot see any benefits of advertising to young children and it can only be harmful and mainpulative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we believe that we should limit the amount of TV advertising directed at children. This is because children are very vulnerable and easily influenced by what they see and hear. However, we also recognise that children have the right to be exposed to a variety of different products and brands so that they can make informed choices when they are older. Therefore, we would only want to limit advertising that is likely to cause harm to children or that could influence them to make poor decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of limiting TV advertising directed at children. The participants believed that it would be beneficial to limit advertising as it could potentially influence children in a negative way and lead to children being exposed to products that are potentially harmful. The group felt that it is unfair to advertise to children as they are vulnerable and easily influenced. However, the group also felt that there are some products that should not be advertised to children. The group felt that advertising gambling, smoking, and alcohol to children could lead to them taking up these habits at a young age and so these products should not be advertised to children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should limit the amount of TV advertising directed at children. Advertising can negatively influence children and they should be allowed to form their own opinions first without pressure from the media. Companies should not strive to make children users of their product as early as possible so they have a customer for life, and it should be limited so they aren't indoctrinated into liking certain companies due to what they've seen advertised on television screens at a young age. A good example of this would be McDonalds, a company that strives to appeal to children so they have adult fans of their company and products when they are adults. Limiting the amount of advertisements that children are exposed to can only be a good thing, and we are in full support of such a change. We cannot see any benefits of advertising to young children and it can only be harmful and mainpulative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we believe that we should limit the amount of TV advertising directed at children. This is because children are very vulnerable and easily influenced by what they see and hear. However, we also recognise that children have the right to be exposed to a variety of different products and brands so that they can make informed choices when they are older. Therefore, we would only want to limit advertising that is likely to cause harm to children or that could influence them to make poor decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting TV advertising directed at children. The participants believed that it would be beneficial to limit advertising as it could potentially influence children in a negative way and lead to children being exposed to products that are potentially harmful. The group felt that it is unfair to advertise to children as they are vulnerable and easily influenced. However, the group also felt that there are some products that should not be advertised to children. The group felt that advertising gambling, smoking, and alcohol to children could lead to them taking up these habits at a young age and so these products should not be advertised to children. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000785.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000785.soc index e1a7c906..0ac12cb3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000785.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000785.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. In specific cases we should limit ads such as gambling advertisements which could harm children. Smoking advertisements and alcohol advertisements are also other examples of where potential harm could be caused and so we should limit those too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. This can be done by introducing a limit on the amount of advertising that can be directed at children, and also by introducing a more thorough vetting process for advertisements that are to be directed at children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. This is a difficult balance to find, however it is necessary to prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. In particular, alcohol, smoking and gambling advertisements should be limited as these can cause problems for children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. In specific cases we should limit ads such as gambling advertisements which could harm children. Smoking advertisements and alcohol advertisements are also other examples of where potential harm could be caused and so we should limit those too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. This can be done by introducing a limit on the amount of advertising that can be directed at children, and also by introducing a more thorough vetting process for advertisements that are to be directed at children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. This is a difficult balance to find, however it is necessary to prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Advertising to children should be limited to protect them from the manipulative nature of advertising. This would be beneficial to society as a whole as it would prevent companies from manipulating children into liking their products, therefore allowing them to make their own choices. The issue with advertising to children is that it is incredibly difficult to find a balance between the right amount of advertising and the wrong amount. Advertising is a necessary evil in a capitalist society, however it is important to find a balance that prevents children from being manipulated and protects their innocence. In particular, alcohol, smoking and gambling advertisements should be limited as these can cause problems for children. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000786.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000786.soc index f624048f..43780902 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000786.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000786.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group have decided that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. The reason for this is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group has decided that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. This is because people have the right to vote for who they want and if they do not want to vote they should not have to. If people are forced to vote, they may end up voting for the wrong person and this could have a negative impact on their local area. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compulsory voting in local elections. This is because the group felt that it is important for people to have the freedom to choose whether they want to vote or not. However, the group was in favour of encouraging people to vote, and also to educate themselves on the political process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compulsory voting. The reasons for this were that people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to vote and that if people were forced to vote they would not necessarily have the necessary knowledge to make an informed choice. It was felt that people should be encouraged to vote, but not forced to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group have decided that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. The reason for this is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group has decided that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. This is because people have the right to vote for who they want and if they do not want to vote they should not have to. If people are forced to vote, they may end up voting for the wrong person and this could have a negative impact on their local area. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compulsory voting in local elections. This is because the group felt that it is important for people to have the freedom to choose whether they want to vote or not. However, the group was in favour of encouraging people to vote, and also to educate themselves on the political process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compulsory voting. The reasons for this were that people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to vote and that if people were forced to vote they would not necessarily have the necessary knowledge to make an informed choice. It was felt that people should be encouraged to vote, but not forced to do so. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000787.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000787.soc index 49636472..e78b233c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000787.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000787.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should support the creation of a single state for the whole of Ireland, but this support should be conditional on a number of factors. Firstly, it is important that the creation of a single state would be supported by the majority of the Irish population. Secondly, the creation of a single state would have to be done in a way that respects the views of all groups, and it is important that it would not create a new set of divisions in Ireland. It would also be important that the creation of a single state would be beneficial for all groups, and would not just benefit one group at the expense of another. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the creation of a single state for the whole of Ireland. The group felt that the creation of a single state would increase the amount of autonomy and self-determination that Ireland would have. The group felt that the creation of a single state would also make it easier for the people of Ireland to govern themselves. The group also felt that the creation of a single state would help to reduce the risk of further conflict in Ireland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the people of Ireland should have the right to decide their own future. If they want to form a single state, this should be respected. However, it should be remembered that a single state would force politicians to consider and average out opinions of a larger group of people- which sometimes means that the differing opinions and needs of neighbouring regions in Ireland are not reflected in the policies of a combined state. In addition to this, it may be considered that there are other important topics to focus on, and if there is no direct benefit to the population from a combined state, Ireland should be left as it is. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, people are not in favour of combining states, as this would force polititians to consider and average out opinions of a larger group of people- which sometimes means that the differing opinions and needs of neighbouring regions in Ireland are not reflected in the policies of a combined state. In addition to this, it may be considered that there are other important topics to focus on, and if there is no direct benefit to the population from a combined state, Ireland should be left as it is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should support the creation of a single state for the whole of Ireland, but this support should be conditional on a number of factors. Firstly, it is important that the creation of a single state would be supported by the majority of the Irish population. Secondly, the creation of a single state would have to be done in a way that respects the views of all groups, and it is important that it would not create a new set of divisions in Ireland. It would also be important that the creation of a single state would be beneficial for all groups, and would not just benefit one group at the expense of another. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the creation of a single state for the whole of Ireland. The group felt that the creation of a single state would increase the amount of autonomy and self-determination that Ireland would have. The group felt that the creation of a single state would also make it easier for the people of Ireland to govern themselves. The group also felt that the creation of a single state would help to reduce the risk of further conflict in Ireland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the people of Ireland should have the right to decide their own future. If they want to form a single state, this should be respected. However, it should be remembered that a single state would force politicians to consider and average out opinions of a larger group of people- which sometimes means that the differing opinions and needs of neighbouring regions in Ireland are not reflected in the policies of a combined state. In addition to this, it may be considered that there are other important topics to focus on, and if there is no direct benefit to the population from a combined state, Ireland should be left as it is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, people are not in favour of combining states, as this would force polititians to consider and average out opinions of a larger group of people- which sometimes means that the differing opinions and needs of neighbouring regions in Ireland are not reflected in the policies of a combined state. In addition to this, it may be considered that there are other important topics to focus on, and if there is no direct benefit to the population from a combined state, Ireland should be left as it is. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000788.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000788.soc index 0bafb690..9d3f01c5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000788.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000788.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the use of placebos is not a good idea. However, if there is no other treatment available and the patient is not in immediate danger, then a placebo could be used to help the patient. However, this should only be done if the patient is informed that they are receiving a placebo. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the prescription of placebos should be avoided. However, in some cases, such as those where a patient's symptoms are all in their head, placebos may be useful. In general, doctors should avoid prescribing placebos, unless there is no other treatment available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, because it is unethical to give patients something that does not work. The placebo effect may work in some cases, but it is not reliable. It is also unethical to give patients false hope. The health of the patient is paramount, and we should not be giving them something that will not work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the use of placebos is not a good idea. However, if there is no other treatment available and the patient is not in immediate danger, then a placebo could be used to help the patient. However, this should only be done if the patient is informed that they are receiving a placebo. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the prescription of placebos should be avoided. However, in some cases, such as those where a patient's symptoms are all in their head, placebos may be useful. In general, doctors should avoid prescribing placebos, unless there is no other treatment available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, because it is unethical to give patients something that does not work. The placebo effect may work in some cases, but it is not reliable. It is also unethical to give patients false hope. The health of the patient is paramount, and we should not be giving them something that will not work. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000789.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000789.soc index 6489ba62..5b4c3de1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000789.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000789.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, gambling should not be banned but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Gambling should not be banned, but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, gambling should not be banned but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Gambling should not be banned but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, gambling should not be banned but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Gambling should not be banned, but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, gambling should not be banned but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Gambling should not be banned but there should be some restrictions placed on it to protect those with addictions or prevent people from developing an addiction. People should not be able to take out credit to gamble with and must not be able to pay with credit cards. Advertising for gambling should be limited. It should not be banned completely as many people enjoy it and it is not a problem if people gamble responsibly. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000790.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000790.soc index 2770e04c..a4a26c11 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000790.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000790.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that gene editing of humans to prevent disease should be allowed. We also believe that the research should be strictly regulated, to prevent the abuse of the technology and to ensure that the process is as safe as possible. The research should also be carried out in a transparent way, with the results being made public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of gene editing in humans, but with strict regulation and ethics guidelines. This was mainly driven by the desire to stop people from suffering from diseases and improve the quality of life for many. However, the group was aware of the possible misuse of gene editing and how this could lead to the creation of a new class of people with access to gene editing and thus inequality in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, gene editing of humans to prevent disease is a good idea. It is important to consider the potential negative consequences, such as creating a class of super humans that can afford to edit their genome at their advantage, increasing inequality in the society. It is also important to have regulations in place to avoid the slippery slope of editing other parts of humans and leading to eugenics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are clearly benefits to be had from gene editing to prevent disease. However, it is important to ensure that the technology is used ethically. We should not use the technology to try and create a "super human" or to give an advantage to some people over others. The technology should be used to try and reduce the amount of suffering in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that gene editing of humans to prevent disease should be allowed. We also believe that the research should be strictly regulated, to prevent the abuse of the technology and to ensure that the process is as safe as possible. The research should also be carried out in a transparent way, with the results being made public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of gene editing in humans, but with strict regulation and ethics guidelines. This was mainly driven by the desire to stop people from suffering from diseases and improve the quality of life for many. However, the group was aware of the possible misuse of gene editing and how this could lead to the creation of a new class of people with access to gene editing and thus inequality in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, gene editing of humans to prevent disease is a good idea. It is important to consider the potential negative consequences, such as creating a class of super humans that can afford to edit their genome at their advantage, increasing inequality in the society. It is also important to have regulations in place to avoid the slippery slope of editing other parts of humans and leading to eugenics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are clearly benefits to be had from gene editing to prevent disease. However, it is important to ensure that the technology is used ethically. We should not use the technology to try and create a "super human" or to give an advantage to some people over others. The technology should be used to try and reduce the amount of suffering in the world. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000791.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000791.soc index 92b6378f..a696b8b9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000791.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000791.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. The patient should be made aware that they are receiving a placebo, and that it is being used for scientific purposes, in order to preserve trust between doctor and patient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. This also means that the patient will be aware that they are taking a placebo, and so they can make an informed decision about whether they are happy to be taking part in the trial. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. The patient should also be informed that they are being given a placebo, to ensure that they are not being denied effective treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. The patient should be made aware that they are receiving a placebo, and that it is being used for scientific purposes, in order to preserve trust between doctor and patient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. This also means that the patient will be aware that they are taking a placebo, and so they can make an informed decision about whether they are happy to be taking part in the trial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Placebos should only be prescribed in the context of a clinical trial, where there is no known cure for the illness being studied. This is to ensure that the placebo is being used for scientific purposes, and not to deny a patient effective treatment. The patient should also be informed that they are being given a placebo, to ensure that they are not being denied effective treatment. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000792.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000792.soc index 93a03397..aa89fcbe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000792.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000792.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. The reason for this is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group have decided that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. The reason for this is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group have come to the decision that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. This is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group have come to the conclusion that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. The reason for this is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. The reason for this is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group have decided that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. The reason for this is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group have come to the decision that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. This is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group have come to the conclusion that voting should not be compulsory in local elections. The reason for this is because voting is a choice and should be left up to the individual. However, it would be beneficial for people to vote as it would give them a voice and allow them to have their say on what happens in their local area. The group also think that the local elections are not as important as the general elections, therefore it is not as crucial for people to vote in them. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000793.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000793.soc index 5e64f69f..e6ea628b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000793.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000793.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. The creation of such a database would be a breach of people's privacy. Also, the database would be a single point of failure, if it were hacked then everyone's data would be lost. Conclusion: In conclusion, there should not be a national database of all people in the UK. The creation of such a database would be a breach of people's privacy. Also, the database would be a single point of failure, if it were hacked then everyone's data would be lost. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. There are many benefits to having such a database for purposes such as collecting census data and examining statistics. However, there are many privacy concerns that would need to be addressed before it would be acceptable for the database to be created. The database could also be abused by authorities to oppress people and reduce people to just numbers. The consensus opinion is that the database should not be created. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. While it may be helpful for the government to have this information in a centralised database, it would go against people's right to privacy. It would also make people feel like they are just a number in the system. A database would also make people more vulnerable to cyber attacks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. The creation of such a database would be a breach of people's privacy. Also, the database would be a single point of failure, if it were hacked then everyone's data would be lost. Conclusion: In conclusion, there should not be a national database of all people in the UK. The creation of such a database would be a breach of people's privacy. Also, the database would be a single point of failure, if it were hacked then everyone's data would be lost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. There are many benefits to having such a database for purposes such as collecting census data and examining statistics. However, there are many privacy concerns that would need to be addressed before it would be acceptable for the database to be created. The database could also be abused by authorities to oppress people and reduce people to just numbers. The consensus opinion is that the database should not be created. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. While it may be helpful for the government to have this information in a centralised database, it would go against people's right to privacy. It would also make people feel like they are just a number in the system. A database would also make people more vulnerable to cyber attacks. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000794.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000794.soc index 0b5a0ac4..40d0422b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000794.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000794.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universities should not be allowed to increase their tuition fees to any level they want. Universities should have some guidelines that they must follow when increasing fees. They should also be required to justify why they are increasing their fees. If they are not required to do this, it will discriminate against poorer students who will not be able to afford to enrol in the courses they want to. Universities should be representative of all of society not just the ones who are the most well off. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Universities should not be allowed to increase their tuition fees to any level they want. The government should set guidelines that all universities have to follow and they should have to justify charging any higher fees. If this is not done then some students from poorer backgrounds will not be able to enrol in the courses they want to. Universities should be representative of all of society not just the ones who are the most well off. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, Universities should not be allowed to increase their tuition fees to any level they want. The government should set guidelines that all universities have to follow and they should have to justify charging any higher fees. If this is not done then some students from poorer backgrounds will not be able to enrol in the courses they want to. Universities should be representative of all of society not just the ones who are the most well off. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universities should not be allowed to increase their tuition fees to any level they want. The government should set guidelines that all universities have to follow and they should have to justify charging any higher fees. If this is not done then some students from poorer backgrounds will not be able to enrol in the courses they want to. Universities should be representative of all of society not just the ones who are the most well off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universities should not be allowed to increase their tuition fees to any level they want. Universities should have some guidelines that they must follow when increasing fees. They should also be required to justify why they are increasing their fees. If they are not required to do this, it will discriminate against poorer students who will not be able to afford to enrol in the courses they want to. Universities should be representative of all of society not just the ones who are the most well off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Universities should not be allowed to increase their tuition fees to any level they want. The government should set guidelines that all universities have to follow and they should have to justify charging any higher fees. If this is not done then some students from poorer backgrounds will not be able to enrol in the courses they want to. Universities should be representative of all of society not just the ones who are the most well off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, Universities should not be allowed to increase their tuition fees to any level they want. The government should set guidelines that all universities have to follow and they should have to justify charging any higher fees. If this is not done then some students from poorer backgrounds will not be able to enrol in the courses they want to. Universities should be representative of all of society not just the ones who are the most well off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universities should not be allowed to increase their tuition fees to any level they want. The government should set guidelines that all universities have to follow and they should have to justify charging any higher fees. If this is not done then some students from poorer backgrounds will not be able to enrol in the courses they want to. Universities should be representative of all of society not just the ones who are the most well off. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000795.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000795.soc index d75835d7..5e3e5a4d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000795.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000795.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that parents should be allowed to allow their children to drink alcohol in a controlled and responsible manner. It is important to remember that drinking alcohol in moderation is a socially acceptable practice and that it is not illegal for children to drink alcohol. If parents allow their children to drink in a responsible manner, this can reduce the risk of children experimenting with alcohol in a less responsible manner. The age of the child is an important factor in this decision. It is important that the child is mature enough to drink responsibly and in a safe environment. Parents should also take into account their own relationship with alcohol. If they have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol, they should not allow their children to drink alcohol. If they drink responsibly and in moderation, they should be allowed to allow their children to drink in the same way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that it is OK for parents to allow their children to drink alcohol at home. The age of the child is an important factor and so we think that from the age of 13 it is acceptable for a small amount of wine or cider to be consumed by children alongside their family. We think that there is a school of thought that suggests doing this leads to a better control and less desire to binge drink in later years. It also helps to show trust to your children which can be a challenge in early teenage years. We also think that it is important that the parents use sensible attitudes to this area, we think that if parents are too strict it can make children more rebellious and want to have something that seems sacrosanct and they go out of their way to drink alcohol. So sensible attitudes by parents is perfectly acceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to drink alcohol at home from the age of 16. The key proviso to this was that the children should be supervised and that the parents should take an active role in educating their children about the risks and responsibilities of alcohol consumption. It was felt that this would help to develop a sensible attitude to alcohol and reduce the likelihood of children binge drinking when they reached the legal age to drink alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to drink alcohol at home. The group felt that it is important to introduce alcohol in a safe environment, in order to help prevent the development of an unhealthy relationship with alcohol in later life. The group thought that alcohol should be introduced in a safe environment, such as the home, and that it is important for children to learn how to drink responsibly. It was thought that the introduction of alcohol at home is likely to reduce the desire to binge drink in later years. The group agreed that it is important for children to see their parents drinking alcohol in a responsible way. The group also felt that parents should be the ones to introduce alcohol to their children, and not their friends. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that parents should be allowed to allow their children to drink alcohol in a controlled and responsible manner. It is important to remember that drinking alcohol in moderation is a socially acceptable practice and that it is not illegal for children to drink alcohol. If parents allow their children to drink in a responsible manner, this can reduce the risk of children experimenting with alcohol in a less responsible manner. The age of the child is an important factor in this decision. It is important that the child is mature enough to drink responsibly and in a safe environment. Parents should also take into account their own relationship with alcohol. If they have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol, they should not allow their children to drink alcohol. If they drink responsibly and in moderation, they should be allowed to allow their children to drink in the same way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that it is OK for parents to allow their children to drink alcohol at home. The age of the child is an important factor and so we think that from the age of 13 it is acceptable for a small amount of wine or cider to be consumed by children alongside their family. We think that there is a school of thought that suggests doing this leads to a better control and less desire to binge drink in later years. It also helps to show trust to your children which can be a challenge in early teenage years. We also think that it is important that the parents use sensible attitudes to this area, we think that if parents are too strict it can make children more rebellious and want to have something that seems sacrosanct and they go out of their way to drink alcohol. So sensible attitudes by parents is perfectly acceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to drink alcohol at home from the age of 16. The key proviso to this was that the children should be supervised and that the parents should take an active role in educating their children about the risks and responsibilities of alcohol consumption. It was felt that this would help to develop a sensible attitude to alcohol and reduce the likelihood of children binge drinking when they reached the legal age to drink alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing children to drink alcohol at home. The group felt that it is important to introduce alcohol in a safe environment, in order to help prevent the development of an unhealthy relationship with alcohol in later life. The group thought that alcohol should be introduced in a safe environment, such as the home, and that it is important for children to learn how to drink responsibly. It was thought that the introduction of alcohol at home is likely to reduce the desire to binge drink in later years. The group agreed that it is important for children to see their parents drinking alcohol in a responsible way. The group also felt that parents should be the ones to introduce alcohol to their children, and not their friends. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000796.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000796.soc index 041f1989..f5f6ebc0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000796.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000796.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should not be a national database of all people in the UK. Aside from the legal implications of such a database, there are privacy issues that are of paramount importance. It is also the case that people have a right to be anonymous, provided there is no public interest in them being a known figure. In the event that there is a public interest in a person being a known figure, it is the responsibility of the authorities to ascertain that information themselves, rather than relying on a database that is compiled by the people themselves. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000797.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000797.soc index 8a263b6b..bed3609e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000797.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000797.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This is because the people of Northern Ireland should be given the right to vote on whether they would like to remain a part of the United Kingdom or become a part of a United Ireland. This would be a more democratic and just way to decide the fate of the people of Northern Ireland. If the people of Northern Ireland would like to become a part of a United Ireland, there should be no border. If they would like to remain a part of the United Kingdom, there should be no border. If they are indifferent, there should be no border. The people of Northern Ireland are Irish. They always were and always will be. The people of Northern Ireland should have the right to express whether they still want to remain a part of the "United Kingdom". Northern Ireland didn't want Brexit either, so they are in that regard similar to the Republic of Ireland who want strong ties with the EU when Britain's majority voted to leave the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There is a long history of tension between the two parts of Ireland and a border would just cause more divide between the two parts instead of bringing them together and therefore could cause more problems from such a divide such as more fighting and potentially deaths. It would also be very difficult to police such a border and the cost and ability to maintain such a border would be high and unlikely to work. Finally we do not see the benefit to such a border, the country has worked fine without one for a long time now and we see no need to put one in place now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland want to live in peace and harmony with each other. There are some issues that cause conflict and division but these are not as prevalent as they once were. It is in the interest of both countries to have good relations and trade with each other. A border between the two countries would be divisive and would be a constant reminder of a long and bitter past. The border would also be expensive to police and would be difficult to implement effectively. If a border were to be put in place it would be very difficult to remove. Therefore, the participants believe that a border should not be put in place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should not be established. This is because there is a history of violence and tensions between the two countries and we do not want this to re-occur. We believe that if the two countries can co-exist and work together then it will be beneficial for both countries. There is no need for a border. However, there is a need to have an agreement in place for any issues that may arise in the future. This can be done through a new referendum or by allowing the citizens of Northern Ireland to decide whether they want to be part of the United Kingdom or part of the Republic of Ireland. If this is done, then we will have a clear idea of how the two countries will co-exist and what laws and regulations will apply. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This is because the people of Northern Ireland should be given the right to vote on whether they would like to remain a part of the United Kingdom or become a part of a United Ireland. This would be a more democratic and just way to decide the fate of the people of Northern Ireland. If the people of Northern Ireland would like to become a part of a United Ireland, there should be no border. If they would like to remain a part of the United Kingdom, there should be no border. If they are indifferent, there should be no border. The people of Northern Ireland are Irish. They always were and always will be. The people of Northern Ireland should have the right to express whether they still want to remain a part of the "United Kingdom". Northern Ireland didn't want Brexit either, so they are in that regard similar to the Republic of Ireland who want strong ties with the EU when Britain's majority voted to leave the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There is a long history of tension between the two parts of Ireland and a border would just cause more divide between the two parts instead of bringing them together and therefore could cause more problems from such a divide such as more fighting and potentially deaths. It would also be very difficult to police such a border and the cost and ability to maintain such a border would be high and unlikely to work. Finally we do not see the benefit to such a border, the country has worked fine without one for a long time now and we see no need to put one in place now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland want to live in peace and harmony with each other. There are some issues that cause conflict and division but these are not as prevalent as they once were. It is in the interest of both countries to have good relations and trade with each other. A border between the two countries would be divisive and would be a constant reminder of a long and bitter past. The border would also be expensive to police and would be difficult to implement effectively. If a border were to be put in place it would be very difficult to remove. Therefore, the participants believe that a border should not be put in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should not be established. This is because there is a history of violence and tensions between the two countries and we do not want this to re-occur. We believe that if the two countries can co-exist and work together then it will be beneficial for both countries. There is no need for a border. However, there is a need to have an agreement in place for any issues that may arise in the future. This can be done through a new referendum or by allowing the citizens of Northern Ireland to decide whether they want to be part of the United Kingdom or part of the Republic of Ireland. If this is done, then we will have a clear idea of how the two countries will co-exist and what laws and regulations will apply. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000798.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000798.soc index a9f0c587..be4ea018 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000798.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000798.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a ban on all single-use plastic bags, and a tax on all other plastic bags. This is because single-use plastic bags are the worst offenders for environmental pollution, but plastic bags are still useful for certain tasks, and so it would be unfair to ban them completely. A tax on all other plastic bags would hopefully encourage people to use reusable bags, which would help reduce the amount of plastic bags that end up in landfill. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic bags. They all thought that it was important to consider the negative impact of plastic bags on the environment, and that it was important to protect marine life. They all agreed that a ban on plastic bags would be an important step in protecting the environment. However, they also all agreed that there should be some exceptions to the ban, such as plastic bags for food hygiene purposes. The group also thought that banning plastic bags would help people become more aware of their use of plastics, and that this would help them make other changes in their lives to reduce their plastic consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK should ban single-use plastic bags and charge for the use of others. This is because the issue of plastic bags is only a small issue in comparison to other environmental issues such as global warming and should not be a top priority. However, the issue of plastic bags is still a very important one as it has been proven that plastic bags have been found in the stomachs of deep sea animals and this is unacceptable. It is also important to note that the current state of climate change means we cannot afford to make things worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the UK should ban all single-use plastic bags in supermarkets and shops. There should be an incentive to buy multi-use bags which can be reused and are more durable. Plastic bags are one of the most common forms of litter and the majority of them are single-use. We have seen the effects of plastic pollution on the ocean and it is clear that this is a problem which needs to be solved. We have also seen the effects of plastic pollution on marine life and it is clear that this is a problem which needs to be solved. Banning single-use plastic bags is a step in the right direction and it is something which we can do to help the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a ban on all single-use plastic bags, and a tax on all other plastic bags. This is because single-use plastic bags are the worst offenders for environmental pollution, but plastic bags are still useful for certain tasks, and so it would be unfair to ban them completely. A tax on all other plastic bags would hopefully encourage people to use reusable bags, which would help reduce the amount of plastic bags that end up in landfill. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic bags. They all thought that it was important to consider the negative impact of plastic bags on the environment, and that it was important to protect marine life. They all agreed that a ban on plastic bags would be an important step in protecting the environment. However, they also all agreed that there should be some exceptions to the ban, such as plastic bags for food hygiene purposes. The group also thought that banning plastic bags would help people become more aware of their use of plastics, and that this would help them make other changes in their lives to reduce their plastic consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK should ban single-use plastic bags and charge for the use of others. This is because the issue of plastic bags is only a small issue in comparison to other environmental issues such as global warming and should not be a top priority. However, the issue of plastic bags is still a very important one as it has been proven that plastic bags have been found in the stomachs of deep sea animals and this is unacceptable. It is also important to note that the current state of climate change means we cannot afford to make things worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the UK should ban all single-use plastic bags in supermarkets and shops. There should be an incentive to buy multi-use bags which can be reused and are more durable. Plastic bags are one of the most common forms of litter and the majority of them are single-use. We have seen the effects of plastic pollution on the ocean and it is clear that this is a problem which needs to be solved. We have also seen the effects of plastic pollution on marine life and it is clear that this is a problem which needs to be solved. Banning single-use plastic bags is a step in the right direction and it is something which we can do to help the planet. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000799.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000799.soc index 67829395..a0df8964 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000799.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000799.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the UK should have a national language. We believe that English should be the national language of the UK. This is because we believe that it would be good to have a language that is common throughout the UK. We believe that it is important to have a common language to prevent any confusion and to ensure that everyone is able to understand each other. We believe that it is important to keep the English language alive as it is the language of the majority of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should have a specific national language and that language should be English. The UK is a very diverse place and having a national language would help to unite the country. English is the language most commonly spoken in the UK, so it makes sense for it to be the national language. There are some people in the UK whose first language is not English, but the country is becoming more diverse and it is important that everyone has a good knowledge of English. The UK is a multicultural society and it is important to promote and preserve the other languages of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK should have a specific national language. However, the language that is chosen should be the one that the majority of people in the UK use. The national language should be English as it is the most widely spoken language in the UK. The English language is constantly changing and evolving. We should aim to preserve and promote other languages such as Welsh, Gaelic and Irish, but we should also ensure that people who do not have English as their first language are not disadvantaged. We believe that a good knowledge of English is one of the foundations for success in the UK, regardless of who you are or where you come from. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK should have a specific national language. This should be English as it is the most commonly spoken language and is a language which is spoken throughout the world. There are varieties of the English language, but we should aim to promote a standardised version of English. We also believe that it is important to preserve languages such as Welsh, Irish and Gaelic, but we believe that English should be the national language of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the UK should have a national language. We believe that English should be the national language of the UK. This is because we believe that it would be good to have a language that is common throughout the UK. We believe that it is important to have a common language to prevent any confusion and to ensure that everyone is able to understand each other. We believe that it is important to keep the English language alive as it is the language of the majority of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should have a specific national language and that language should be English. The UK is a very diverse place and having a national language would help to unite the country. English is the language most commonly spoken in the UK, so it makes sense for it to be the national language. There are some people in the UK whose first language is not English, but the country is becoming more diverse and it is important that everyone has a good knowledge of English. The UK is a multicultural society and it is important to promote and preserve the other languages of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK should have a specific national language. However, the language that is chosen should be the one that the majority of people in the UK use. The national language should be English as it is the most widely spoken language in the UK. The English language is constantly changing and evolving. We should aim to preserve and promote other languages such as Welsh, Gaelic and Irish, but we should also ensure that people who do not have English as their first language are not disadvantaged. We believe that a good knowledge of English is one of the foundations for success in the UK, regardless of who you are or where you come from. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK should have a specific national language. This should be English as it is the most commonly spoken language and is a language which is spoken throughout the world. There are varieties of the English language, but we should aim to promote a standardised version of English. We also believe that it is important to preserve languages such as Welsh, Irish and Gaelic, but we believe that English should be the national language of the UK. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000800.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000800.soc index daa36eab..13d4f8c3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000800.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000800.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People in receipt of benefits should be allowed free bus passes. The benefits system is designed to help people who cannot provide for themselves and as such the government has an obligation to support them. In this way, the government can support people who are trying to better themselves and get back into work by allowing them to travel to interviews and places of work. The bus pass also allows people to travel to see their family and friends and to access services such as the doctor or dentist. The bus pass is a way for the government to provide support to people in receipt of benefits and the wider society as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of people who are in receipt of state benefits being able to get free bus passes. The main reasons for this were that the people who receive benefits are likely to be in a low income bracket and as such would find it difficult to afford a bus pass. If they are able to get free bus passes, they are more likely to be able to afford to travel to work, to access services, and to meet family and friends, and this will ultimately benefit the wider society. It was also noted that it would be beneficial for the bus companies, as they would be getting more people using their services. The group also felt that it was important that the bus companies did not have to incur extra costs in order to provide free bus passes to people in receipt of benefits, as this would be an unfair financial burden on them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People who are in receipt of state benefits should be allowed to get free bus passes. This is because people who are in receipt of state benefits are likely to be living in poverty, and therefore are not in a position to pay for bus travel. As such, it is reasonable for the government to provide a free bus pass, as this allows people to access employment, education and other services that they may not be able to afford otherwise. This is a good idea, as it will allow people to contribute to society, rather than being trapped in poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People who are in receipt of state benefits should be able to get free bus passes. The main argument for this is that the people who are on benefits are not in a position to be able to pay for a bus pass. It is an essential part of life to be able to get around and this will help them to be able to do that. It will also help them to get to work and to access the services that they need. The people who are on benefits have to live within their means and so they should be able to access free bus passes. This will also benefit society as a whole as the people who are on benefits will be able to access the services that they need and will also be able to access the jobs that are available to them. This will help society as a whole as the people will be able to access the services that they need and will also be able to access the jobs that are available to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People in receipt of benefits should be allowed free bus passes. The benefits system is designed to help people who cannot provide for themselves and as such the government has an obligation to support them. In this way, the government can support people who are trying to better themselves and get back into work by allowing them to travel to interviews and places of work. The bus pass also allows people to travel to see their family and friends and to access services such as the doctor or dentist. The bus pass is a way for the government to provide support to people in receipt of benefits and the wider society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of people who are in receipt of state benefits being able to get free bus passes. The main reasons for this were that the people who receive benefits are likely to be in a low income bracket and as such would find it difficult to afford a bus pass. If they are able to get free bus passes, they are more likely to be able to afford to travel to work, to access services, and to meet family and friends, and this will ultimately benefit the wider society. It was also noted that it would be beneficial for the bus companies, as they would be getting more people using their services. The group also felt that it was important that the bus companies did not have to incur extra costs in order to provide free bus passes to people in receipt of benefits, as this would be an unfair financial burden on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People who are in receipt of state benefits should be allowed to get free bus passes. This is because people who are in receipt of state benefits are likely to be living in poverty, and therefore are not in a position to pay for bus travel. As such, it is reasonable for the government to provide a free bus pass, as this allows people to access employment, education and other services that they may not be able to afford otherwise. This is a good idea, as it will allow people to contribute to society, rather than being trapped in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People who are in receipt of state benefits should be able to get free bus passes. The main argument for this is that the people who are on benefits are not in a position to be able to pay for a bus pass. It is an essential part of life to be able to get around and this will help them to be able to do that. It will also help them to get to work and to access the services that they need. The people who are on benefits have to live within their means and so they should be able to access free bus passes. This will also benefit society as a whole as the people who are on benefits will be able to access the services that they need and will also be able to access the jobs that are available to them. This will help society as a whole as the people will be able to access the services that they need and will also be able to access the jobs that are available to them. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000801.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000801.soc index dfba43ad..15a8b5de 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000801.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000801.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group has decided that AI should not be used to provide political advice to the prime minister. This is because we feel that a human should be providing the advice as they are the ones who have been voted into power and they are the ones who will have to take responsibility for the advice they have given. The group also feel that it is very important for the advice to be given by a human as it will have a personal touch to it, something that AI will not be able to provide. The group feel that the advice should come from someone who is willing to take responsibility for the advice they have given. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of AI to provide political advice to the prime minister should be legal. However, there are some situations in which the use of AI should be prohibited. For example, in situations where the advice provided by the AI could have a significant impact on people's lives, the prime minister should not be allowed to use AI. In addition, if the prime minister uses AI in a way that is not in line with the law, the use of AI should be prohibited. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of using AI to provide political advice to the Prime Minister. The group felt that AI should not be used for this purpose as it is an important job and should be done by a human being. The group also felt that AI should not be used for this purpose as the Prime Minister should be held accountable for their actions and therefore, they should make their own decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group has decided that AI should not be used to provide political advice to the prime minister. This is because we feel that a human should be providing the advice as they are the ones who have been voted into power and they are the ones who will have to take responsibility for the advice they have given. The group also feel that it is very important for the advice to be given by a human as it will have a personal touch to it, something that AI will not be able to provide. The group feel that the advice should come from someone who is willing to take responsibility for the advice they have given. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of AI to provide political advice to the prime minister should be legal. However, there are some situations in which the use of AI should be prohibited. For example, in situations where the advice provided by the AI could have a significant impact on people's lives, the prime minister should not be allowed to use AI. In addition, if the prime minister uses AI in a way that is not in line with the law, the use of AI should be prohibited. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of using AI to provide political advice to the Prime Minister. The group felt that AI should not be used for this purpose as it is an important job and should be done by a human being. The group also felt that AI should not be used for this purpose as the Prime Minister should be held accountable for their actions and therefore, they should make their own decisions. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000802.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000802.soc index aa027d31..29c4337c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000802.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000802.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a higher tax band for people who earn more than £250,000. We believe that this is necessary to ensure that the wealthiest in society contribute their fair share and to help reduce the inequality gap in our society. The group also agreed that the government should be held to account for how the money is spent and that it should be used to help the less fortunate. The group was also in favour of closing the loopholes that the wealthiest in society use to avoid paying their fair share of tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a higher tax band for those earning over £250,000. This is because they believe that there is a large gap between the income of the richest and poorest people in the UK. The group felt that this would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, and would help to reduce poverty. The group felt that it is the moral responsibility of the richest people to help the poorest. The group was in favour of the tax being used to help the poorest, for example by providing more jobs, and by increasing benefits. The group felt that the tax would have to be high enough to ensure that it was worthwhile for the government. They felt that the government would have to ensure that people earning over £250,000 could not avoid paying the tax, for example by using offshore bank accounts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of introducing a higher tax band for people who earn more than £250,000. The reasoning behind this is that the tax system in the UK is unfair and a higher tax band would help to address this issue. The group also felt that people who earn more than £250,000 have enough income to live comfortably from and so it is fair to ask them to contribute more to the state. The group did not think that a higher tax band would have a negative impact on the economy or would cause people to move abroad, but acknowledged that it could reduce the incentive to earn more. The group was in favour of closing tax loopholes and ensuring that taxes were used effectively. The group was of the view that a higher tax band should be introduced, but only if the tax paid by people on low income decreases. Otherwise, there's no point in the government receiving the money on the additional tax when they still don't help the less fortunate people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a higher tax band should be introduced for people who earn more than £250,000 because there are people struggling on low incomes 10 times less or even more, and there's only so much that you can buy. Once you have a house and above average lifestyle, spending money on unnecessary luxuries while other people cannot afford to eat it's not moral. Thus, we are in favour of introducing a higher tax band for people who earn more than £250,000, but only if the tax paid by people on low income decreases. Otherwise, there's no point in the government receiving the money on the additional tax when they still don't help the less fortunate people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a higher tax band for people who earn more than £250,000. We believe that this is necessary to ensure that the wealthiest in society contribute their fair share and to help reduce the inequality gap in our society. The group also agreed that the government should be held to account for how the money is spent and that it should be used to help the less fortunate. The group was also in favour of closing the loopholes that the wealthiest in society use to avoid paying their fair share of tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a higher tax band for those earning over £250,000. This is because they believe that there is a large gap between the income of the richest and poorest people in the UK. The group felt that this would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, and would help to reduce poverty. The group felt that it is the moral responsibility of the richest people to help the poorest. The group was in favour of the tax being used to help the poorest, for example by providing more jobs, and by increasing benefits. The group felt that the tax would have to be high enough to ensure that it was worthwhile for the government. They felt that the government would have to ensure that people earning over £250,000 could not avoid paying the tax, for example by using offshore bank accounts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of introducing a higher tax band for people who earn more than £250,000. The reasoning behind this is that the tax system in the UK is unfair and a higher tax band would help to address this issue. The group also felt that people who earn more than £250,000 have enough income to live comfortably from and so it is fair to ask them to contribute more to the state. The group did not think that a higher tax band would have a negative impact on the economy or would cause people to move abroad, but acknowledged that it could reduce the incentive to earn more. The group was in favour of closing tax loopholes and ensuring that taxes were used effectively. The group was of the view that a higher tax band should be introduced, but only if the tax paid by people on low income decreases. Otherwise, there's no point in the government receiving the money on the additional tax when they still don't help the less fortunate people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a higher tax band should be introduced for people who earn more than £250,000 because there are people struggling on low incomes 10 times less or even more, and there's only so much that you can buy. Once you have a house and above average lifestyle, spending money on unnecessary luxuries while other people cannot afford to eat it's not moral. Thus, we are in favour of introducing a higher tax band for people who earn more than £250,000, but only if the tax paid by people on low income decreases. Otherwise, there's no point in the government receiving the money on the additional tax when they still don't help the less fortunate people. 4: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000803.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000803.soc index d1abbe37..46ff7b8a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000803.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000803.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Police should be allowed to use drones to monitor certain public gatherings where there is a likelihood of tension and issues arising. This should be based on a risk assessment of the likelihood of trouble arising. This should not be part of regular policing, but rather a tool to be used when needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Drones should be used to monitor public gatherings. The police have a duty to protect the public and the use of drones will help them do this more effectively. There are no significant infringements of human rights in using drones to monitor public gatherings and this is outweighed by the public good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the police should be allowed to use drones to monitor public gatherings. This is for the safety of all involved and to allow them to act quickly if there are any issues. There is a possibility that it infringes human rights, but for the greater good we need to have good. security, especially with so many criminal groups in the UK presently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The police should be allowed to use drones to monitor public gatherings, but this should only be in instances where there is a high likelihood of tension and trouble arising. The police should not be using drones to monitor all public gatherings as this is an infringement of human rights and unnecessary use of this technology. The police should also be mindful of the fact that they are being recorded by the drones and therefore should act appropriately. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Police should be allowed to use drones to monitor certain public gatherings where there is a likelihood of tension and issues arising. This should be based on a risk assessment of the likelihood of trouble arising. This should not be part of regular policing, but rather a tool to be used when needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Drones should be used to monitor public gatherings. The police have a duty to protect the public and the use of drones will help them do this more effectively. There are no significant infringements of human rights in using drones to monitor public gatherings and this is outweighed by the public good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the police should be allowed to use drones to monitor public gatherings. This is for the safety of all involved and to allow them to act quickly if there are any issues. There is a possibility that it infringes human rights, but for the greater good we need to have good. security, especially with so many criminal groups in the UK presently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The police should be allowed to use drones to monitor public gatherings, but this should only be in instances where there is a high likelihood of tension and trouble arising. The police should not be using drones to monitor all public gatherings as this is an infringement of human rights and unnecessary use of this technology. The police should also be mindful of the fact that they are being recorded by the drones and therefore should act appropriately. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000804.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000804.soc index 8eaa1317..2b07b088 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000804.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000804.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants in general was in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group in general was in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants in general was in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group in general was in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were in favour of the idea that the Prime Minister should be able to use AI to provide advice. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister should not rely solely on AI to provide advice, but that it should be used to provide a more well-rounded opinion on a particular issue. The group felt that the Prime Minister would not be able to rely solely on AI, as the Prime Minister would need to make the final decision on the matter, and that a human should be responsible for this. The group was of the opinion that the Prime Minister would be able to use AI to provide advice on more technical matters, but that the Prime Minister should not use AI for advice on matters of morality, as this would not be appropriate. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000805.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000805.soc index f6267824..05861eef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000805.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000805.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Police should be allowed to use drones to monitor certain public gatherings where there is a likelihood of tension and issues arising. This should be based on a risk assessment of the likelihood of trouble arising. Police have a duty to protect the public and the use of drones will help them do this more effectively. There are no infringements of human rights in using drones to monitor public gatherings and this is outweighed by the public good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Police should be allowed to use drones to monitor certain public gatherings where there is a likelihood of tension and issues arising. Drones should be used where necessary and not be used as part of regular policing. This could be based on a risk assessment of the likelihood of trouble arising. There are no significant infringements of human rights in using drones to monitor public gatherings and this is outweighed by the public good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The police should use drones to monitor public gatherings. This is an effective tool to monitor gatherings and will help the police to protect the public and to detect and prosecute criminals more quickly and easily than at present. The use of drones to monitor public gatherings is a reasonable and proportionate way to protect the public and to detect and prosecute criminals and does not infringe human rights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Drones should be used to monitor public gatherings. The police have a duty to protect the public and the use of drones will help them do this more effectively. The use of drones is a proportionate response to the need to protect the public. There are no significant infringements of human rights in using drones to monitor public gatherings and this is outweighed by the public good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Police should be allowed to use drones to monitor certain public gatherings where there is a likelihood of tension and issues arising. This should be based on a risk assessment of the likelihood of trouble arising. Police have a duty to protect the public and the use of drones will help them do this more effectively. There are no infringements of human rights in using drones to monitor public gatherings and this is outweighed by the public good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Police should be allowed to use drones to monitor certain public gatherings where there is a likelihood of tension and issues arising. Drones should be used where necessary and not be used as part of regular policing. This could be based on a risk assessment of the likelihood of trouble arising. There are no significant infringements of human rights in using drones to monitor public gatherings and this is outweighed by the public good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The police should use drones to monitor public gatherings. This is an effective tool to monitor gatherings and will help the police to protect the public and to detect and prosecute criminals more quickly and easily than at present. The use of drones to monitor public gatherings is a reasonable and proportionate way to protect the public and to detect and prosecute criminals and does not infringe human rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Drones should be used to monitor public gatherings. The police have a duty to protect the public and the use of drones will help them do this more effectively. The use of drones is a proportionate response to the need to protect the public. There are no significant infringements of human rights in using drones to monitor public gatherings and this is outweighed by the public good. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000806.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000806.soc index 9e2f734c..d80d37d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000806.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000806.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, we don't think that a ban on all advertising of fast food is a good idea. We don't think it would be effective in reducing the consumption of fast food as it would be very difficult to implement and enforce. We do think that advertising to children should be more closely monitored and controlled. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that advertising of fast food on the internet and social media should be reduced but not banned. The internet is a global system and it is difficult to control who is exposed to what advertising. Therefore, we should not ban advertising completely as this will lead to an increase in black market advertising and people finding ways to get around the ban. However, we should limit the exposure of advertising to children and vulnerable people who may be more easily influenced by the advertising. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we don't think we should ban all advertising of fast food on the internet and social media. The internet is a global system, and it would be impossible to ban all advertising. Instead, we should focus on the adverts that target children, and use technology to restrict children from seeing these adverts. We should also consider putting money into subsidizing the purchase of fresh fruit and vegetables to encourage people to buy and consume healthier food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think that it's a good idea to ban all advertising of fast food on the internet and social media. People have the right to choose what they eat, and should be free to make informed decisions based on their own research. Banning adverts is the wrong approach, and would be very difficult to implement in practice. Instead, we should increase the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables at affordable prices, and invest in the education of people to make them aware of the dangers of eating too much fast food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, we don't think that a ban on all advertising of fast food is a good idea. We don't think it would be effective in reducing the consumption of fast food as it would be very difficult to implement and enforce. We do think that advertising to children should be more closely monitored and controlled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that advertising of fast food on the internet and social media should be reduced but not banned. The internet is a global system and it is difficult to control who is exposed to what advertising. Therefore, we should not ban advertising completely as this will lead to an increase in black market advertising and people finding ways to get around the ban. However, we should limit the exposure of advertising to children and vulnerable people who may be more easily influenced by the advertising. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we don't think we should ban all advertising of fast food on the internet and social media. The internet is a global system, and it would be impossible to ban all advertising. Instead, we should focus on the adverts that target children, and use technology to restrict children from seeing these adverts. We should also consider putting money into subsidizing the purchase of fresh fruit and vegetables to encourage people to buy and consume healthier food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think that it's a good idea to ban all advertising of fast food on the internet and social media. People have the right to choose what they eat, and should be free to make informed decisions based on their own research. Banning adverts is the wrong approach, and would be very difficult to implement in practice. Instead, we should increase the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables at affordable prices, and invest in the education of people to make them aware of the dangers of eating too much fast food. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000807.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000807.soc index 962cfef6..9cacc0e6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000807.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000807.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances it is right to have children without wanting to raise them. These circumstances include when it is an unplanned pregnancy and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. In these circumstances it is right because the baby will have a loving family who will raise them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances it is right to have children without wanting to raise them. These circumstances include when it is an unplanned pregnancy and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. In these circumstances it is right because the baby will have a loving family who will raise them. However if a woman is acting as a surrogate purely for financial gain then this is wrong because the woman is putting financial gain before the welfare of the child. In summary, the final consensus view was that it is right to have children without wanting to raise them in some circumstances. These circumstances include when it is an unplanned pregnancy and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. In these circumstances it is right because the baby will have a loving family who will raise them. However if a woman is acting as a surrogate purely for financial gain then this is wrong because the woman is putting financial gain before the welfare of the child. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are circumstances in which it is right to have children without wanting to raise them. These circumstances include if the pregnancy is unplanned and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. The health of the baby should be the prime concern of any regulation on this subject. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances it is right to have children without wanting to raise them. These circumstances include when it is an unplanned pregnancy and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. In these circumstances it is right because the baby will have a loving family who will raise them. However if a woman is acting as a surrogate purely for financial gain then this is wrong because the woman is putting financial gain before the welfare of the child. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances it is right to have children without wanting to raise them. These circumstances include when it is an unplanned pregnancy and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. In these circumstances it is right because the baby will have a loving family who will raise them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances it is right to have children without wanting to raise them. These circumstances include when it is an unplanned pregnancy and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. In these circumstances it is right because the baby will have a loving family who will raise them. However if a woman is acting as a surrogate purely for financial gain then this is wrong because the woman is putting financial gain before the welfare of the child. In summary, the final consensus view was that it is right to have children without wanting to raise them in some circumstances. These circumstances include when it is an unplanned pregnancy and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. In these circumstances it is right because the baby will have a loving family who will raise them. However if a woman is acting as a surrogate purely for financial gain then this is wrong because the woman is putting financial gain before the welfare of the child. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are circumstances in which it is right to have children without wanting to raise them. These circumstances include if the pregnancy is unplanned and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. The health of the baby should be the prime concern of any regulation on this subject. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances it is right to have children without wanting to raise them. These circumstances include when it is an unplanned pregnancy and the parents decide to give the baby up for adoption. Another circumstance is if a woman is acting as a surrogate for another couple who cannot have children. In these circumstances it is right because the baby will have a loving family who will raise them. However if a woman is acting as a surrogate purely for financial gain then this is wrong because the woman is putting financial gain before the welfare of the child. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000808.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000808.soc index 3d123df6..da63046e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000808.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000808.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, teachers need to be highly educated individuals in order to teach their subject to the best of their ability. Teachers teach all the way upto the age of 18 so need. degree level subject knowledge in order to teach this to a really good level. The current standards already exist for a reason and that is because there are requirements and certain standards that should always be met. If there are issues with retaining teachers then we should be looking at other issues related to teacher retention rather than making it easier for anyone to just become a teacher because teaching isn't easy and if anything the problem with retention could then get even worse and standards could drop further. I believe this is looking at solving a problem from the wrong end and rather than finding a solution will only produce more issues and problems long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the current standards are good enough and that there is no need to make it easier for people to become teachers. We believe that teachers need to be highly educated individuals in order to teach their subject to the best of their ability. Teachers teach all the way upto the age of 18 so need degree level subject knowledge in order to teach this to a really good level. We believe that if there are issues with retaining teachers then we should be looking at other issues related to teacher retention rather than making it easier for anyone to just become a teacher because teaching isn't easy and if anything the problem with retention could then get even worse and standards could drop further. We believe this is looking at solving a problem from the wrong end and rather than finding a solution will only produce more issues and problems long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not make it easier for people to become teachers. The current standards already exist for a reason and that is because there are requirements and certain standards that should always be met. If there are issues with retaining teachers then we should be looking at other issues related to teacher retention rather than making it easier for anyone to just become a teacher because teaching isn't easy and if anything the problem with retention could then get even worse and standards could drop further. I believe this is looking at solving a problem from the wrong end and rather than finding a solution will only produce more issues and problems long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not make it easier for people to become teachers. Teachers are highly educated individuals and the current standards should be maintained. This will help ensure that students are taught to the highest standards. It is also important that we maintain a high bar of entry to the profession as it is an important and trusted profession. If there are issues with teacher retention, then we should be looking at other issues related to teacher retention rather than making it easier for anyone to just become a teacher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, teachers need to be highly educated individuals in order to teach their subject to the best of their ability. Teachers teach all the way upto the age of 18 so need. degree level subject knowledge in order to teach this to a really good level. The current standards already exist for a reason and that is because there are requirements and certain standards that should always be met. If there are issues with retaining teachers then we should be looking at other issues related to teacher retention rather than making it easier for anyone to just become a teacher because teaching isn't easy and if anything the problem with retention could then get even worse and standards could drop further. I believe this is looking at solving a problem from the wrong end and rather than finding a solution will only produce more issues and problems long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the current standards are good enough and that there is no need to make it easier for people to become teachers. We believe that teachers need to be highly educated individuals in order to teach their subject to the best of their ability. Teachers teach all the way upto the age of 18 so need degree level subject knowledge in order to teach this to a really good level. We believe that if there are issues with retaining teachers then we should be looking at other issues related to teacher retention rather than making it easier for anyone to just become a teacher because teaching isn't easy and if anything the problem with retention could then get even worse and standards could drop further. We believe this is looking at solving a problem from the wrong end and rather than finding a solution will only produce more issues and problems long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not make it easier for people to become teachers. The current standards already exist for a reason and that is because there are requirements and certain standards that should always be met. If there are issues with retaining teachers then we should be looking at other issues related to teacher retention rather than making it easier for anyone to just become a teacher because teaching isn't easy and if anything the problem with retention could then get even worse and standards could drop further. I believe this is looking at solving a problem from the wrong end and rather than finding a solution will only produce more issues and problems long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not make it easier for people to become teachers. Teachers are highly educated individuals and the current standards should be maintained. This will help ensure that students are taught to the highest standards. It is also important that we maintain a high bar of entry to the profession as it is an important and trusted profession. If there are issues with teacher retention, then we should be looking at other issues related to teacher retention rather than making it easier for anyone to just become a teacher. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000809.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000809.soc index f91d4bdd..09521def 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000809.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000809.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. This would allow for greater transparency in salaries and help employees to identify whether they are being underpaid. However, publishing salaries of employees would also give competitors an advantage and could lead to poaching of employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the salaries of employees should be published, at least for employees above a certain threshold. The threshold would be determined by the organisation in question. The threshold could be set at a level where it would not cause disruption to the business or harm to the employee. The salaries should be published to the public, however, the organisation in question should have the option to choose the level of detail in which the salaries are published, for example, it could choose to publish a range of salaries, rather than an exact figure. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. This is to ensure transparancy about the salaries of people at the top of organisations. However, it depends on the organisation. For example, this has been a disaster at the BBC as commerical competitors now know exactly how much to offer their staff to tempt them away to work for them. So it depends on the organisation and the status of the employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. The threshold should be set at a high level, e.g. £100k, to avoid the publication of the salaries of people at the bottom of organisations. The publication of salaries will help to ensure the salaries of people at the top of organisations are fair. It may also help to identify imbalance in earnings between workers, especially for high earners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. This would allow for greater transparency in salaries and help employees to identify whether they are being underpaid. However, publishing salaries of employees would also give competitors an advantage and could lead to poaching of employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the salaries of employees should be published, at least for employees above a certain threshold. The threshold would be determined by the organisation in question. The threshold could be set at a level where it would not cause disruption to the business or harm to the employee. The salaries should be published to the public, however, the organisation in question should have the option to choose the level of detail in which the salaries are published, for example, it could choose to publish a range of salaries, rather than an exact figure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. This is to ensure transparancy about the salaries of people at the top of organisations. However, it depends on the organisation. For example, this has been a disaster at the BBC as commerical competitors now know exactly how much to offer their staff to tempt them away to work for them. So it depends on the organisation and the status of the employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. The threshold should be set at a high level, e.g. £100k, to avoid the publication of the salaries of people at the bottom of organisations. The publication of salaries will help to ensure the salaries of people at the top of organisations are fair. It may also help to identify imbalance in earnings between workers, especially for high earners. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000810.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000810.soc index 7a7554b3..57be91ae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000810.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000810.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People on lower incomes are already struggling as it is without adding even more stress onto them. The pandemic and Ukraine war have left people much poorer. Causing poverty is immoral. There is currently a big cost of living crisis therefore the UK should not raise taxes. People are struggling to afford everyday essentials so this will only make the cost of living crisis worse. The government should be looking at other ways to clear the national debt. The group of participants have come to the consensus view that the UK should not raise taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the UK should not raise taxes to reduce the size of the national debt. The pandemic and Ukraine war have left people much poorer. Causing poverty is immoral. There is currently a big cost of living crisis therefore the UK should not raise taxes. People are struggling to afford everyday essentials so this will only make the cost of living crisis worse. The government should be looking at other ways to clear the national debt. I agree with the principle of raising taxes to reduce the national debt but it needs to be done in the fairest possible way. Currently individuals in the UK are taxed at a very high level and that is increasing, however major corporations and the very wealthy are able to use methods to greatly minimise their tax liability so they do not pay their far share pro rata. If the tax burden for this was put on those people than it would be ok but not if it is to be put on the ordinary working public who are already over taxed in relation to corporations and very wealthy individuals. No it shouldn't. People on lower incomes are already struggling as it is without adding even more stress onto them. I didn't get the UK into the debt its in so why am I having to foot the bill for -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to raising taxes but did not feel that there should be a blanket ban on raising taxes. They felt that taxes should be raised on certain groups, but not on others. The participants felt that the wealthy should be taxed more but that this should not be at the expense of those on lower incomes. The participants felt that the wealthy would be able to afford a tax increase and that it would not have a significant impact on their quality of life. The participants felt that the tax increase would help to reduce the national debt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to raising taxes to reduce the size of the national debt. They felt that the national debt was a political issue and should not be the concern of the general public. It was agreed that the current tax system was not fair, with people on lower incomes paying more than their fair share and the wealthy and corporations not paying enough. However, it was felt that this was a separate issue and that the current tax system should be reformed rather than people's taxes being raised. It was agreed that the people on lower incomes were already struggling and that raising their taxes would be immoral and cause more poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People on lower incomes are already struggling as it is without adding even more stress onto them. The pandemic and Ukraine war have left people much poorer. Causing poverty is immoral. There is currently a big cost of living crisis therefore the UK should not raise taxes. People are struggling to afford everyday essentials so this will only make the cost of living crisis worse. The government should be looking at other ways to clear the national debt. The group of participants have come to the consensus view that the UK should not raise taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the UK should not raise taxes to reduce the size of the national debt. The pandemic and Ukraine war have left people much poorer. Causing poverty is immoral. There is currently a big cost of living crisis therefore the UK should not raise taxes. People are struggling to afford everyday essentials so this will only make the cost of living crisis worse. The government should be looking at other ways to clear the national debt. I agree with the principle of raising taxes to reduce the national debt but it needs to be done in the fairest possible way. Currently individuals in the UK are taxed at a very high level and that is increasing, however major corporations and the very wealthy are able to use methods to greatly minimise their tax liability so they do not pay their far share pro rata. If the tax burden for this was put on those people than it would be ok but not if it is to be put on the ordinary working public who are already over taxed in relation to corporations and very wealthy individuals. No it shouldn't. People on lower incomes are already struggling as it is without adding even more stress onto them. I didn't get the UK into the debt its in so why am I having to foot the bill for +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to raising taxes but did not feel that there should be a blanket ban on raising taxes. They felt that taxes should be raised on certain groups, but not on others. The participants felt that the wealthy should be taxed more but that this should not be at the expense of those on lower incomes. The participants felt that the wealthy would be able to afford a tax increase and that it would not have a significant impact on their quality of life. The participants felt that the tax increase would help to reduce the national debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to raising taxes to reduce the size of the national debt. They felt that the national debt was a political issue and should not be the concern of the general public. It was agreed that the current tax system was not fair, with people on lower incomes paying more than their fair share and the wealthy and corporations not paying enough. However, it was felt that this was a separate issue and that the current tax system should be reformed rather than people's taxes being raised. It was agreed that the people on lower incomes were already struggling and that raising their taxes would be immoral and cause more poverty. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000811.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000811.soc index 1c62bdde..18f7454c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000811.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000811.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a national vote on whether to build new nuclear power stations. The main reasons for this are because people should have a say on big issues that affect them and their lives. Also, it is expensive to build nuclear power stations and so it is only fair that everyone gets a say on whether to spend the money on them. Also, nuclear power stations can be dangerous and so people should have a say on whether to take the risk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a national vote on whether to build new nuclear power stations. The main reason for this was that everyone should have a say in how the world is progressing. Nuclear power stations are expensive and can be dangerous, so it is only fair that everyone gets a say. Some people may be against nuclear power stations, but others may be for them. Therefore, a vote would allow everyone to have their say. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be given the opportunity to vote on whether or not to build new nuclear power stations. This is because it is a very expensive project to undertake and so people should have a say in how their money is spent. The vote should be for everyone as we are all affected by these decisions and we should all be given the right to have a say in what happens in our country and world. The vote should be after a period of education for people to find out about the pros and cons of nuclear power. This way people can make an informed decision on the matter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be a national vote on whether to build new nuclear power stations. The reason for this is that we live in a democracy and people should be allowed to have their say on such a big issue as this. Nuclear power is also a very expensive option and so the public should be allowed to have their say on whether this is a good use of their money. We also believe that people should be educated on the issue before they vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a national vote on whether to build new nuclear power stations. The main reasons for this are because people should have a say on big issues that affect them and their lives. Also, it is expensive to build nuclear power stations and so it is only fair that everyone gets a say on whether to spend the money on them. Also, nuclear power stations can be dangerous and so people should have a say on whether to take the risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a national vote on whether to build new nuclear power stations. The main reason for this was that everyone should have a say in how the world is progressing. Nuclear power stations are expensive and can be dangerous, so it is only fair that everyone gets a say. Some people may be against nuclear power stations, but others may be for them. Therefore, a vote would allow everyone to have their say. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be given the opportunity to vote on whether or not to build new nuclear power stations. This is because it is a very expensive project to undertake and so people should have a say in how their money is spent. The vote should be for everyone as we are all affected by these decisions and we should all be given the right to have a say in what happens in our country and world. The vote should be after a period of education for people to find out about the pros and cons of nuclear power. This way people can make an informed decision on the matter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be a national vote on whether to build new nuclear power stations. The reason for this is that we live in a democracy and people should be allowed to have their say on such a big issue as this. Nuclear power is also a very expensive option and so the public should be allowed to have their say on whether this is a good use of their money. We also believe that people should be educated on the issue before they vote. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000812.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000812.soc index 578c0787..c99042d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000812.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000812.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of elderly people working longer, but only if they wanted to and not if they were forced to. They felt that this was a very personal decision and that everyone was different. They felt that people should be encouraged to work as long as they wanted to and that they should be able to choose the hours that they wanted to work. It was felt that this would be beneficial to the economy and that it would also be good for the elderly to have something to do and some company. It was also felt that they would be able to pass on their knowledge to the younger generation. It was also felt that if people did not want to work, then they should not be forced to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the retirement age is acceptable as it currently stands. The elderly are entitled to their retirement. However, it is important that the elderly are able to enjoy their retirement and if they wish to continue to work, they should be encouraged to do so. They do not have to work full-time, but if they are able to do so, they should be encouraged to do so. It is also important to recognise that the elderly may have health issues that could affect their ability to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that elderly people should be given the choice to work longer. This should be their own personal decision and not something that is forced upon them. There are many elderly people who are fit and able and want to work longer and we feel that this is a good thing. However, there are also many elderly people who are not fit or able to work and should not be forced to do so. We feel that there is a difference between working longer and working longer for a pension. If an elderly person wishes to work longer for a pension then they should be allowed to do so. If an elderly person wishes to work longer for the enjoyment and social interaction then they should be allowed to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the elderly should have the right to retire at the age they wish. However, we also believe that if they wish to continue to work then they should be encouraged to do so. There are many benefits to working in later life, including improved physical and mental health. We also believe that it is beneficial for society to have a diverse workforce and that it is beneficial for younger workers to learn from older workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of elderly people working longer, but only if they wanted to and not if they were forced to. They felt that this was a very personal decision and that everyone was different. They felt that people should be encouraged to work as long as they wanted to and that they should be able to choose the hours that they wanted to work. It was felt that this would be beneficial to the economy and that it would also be good for the elderly to have something to do and some company. It was also felt that they would be able to pass on their knowledge to the younger generation. It was also felt that if people did not want to work, then they should not be forced to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the retirement age is acceptable as it currently stands. The elderly are entitled to their retirement. However, it is important that the elderly are able to enjoy their retirement and if they wish to continue to work, they should be encouraged to do so. They do not have to work full-time, but if they are able to do so, they should be encouraged to do so. It is also important to recognise that the elderly may have health issues that could affect their ability to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that elderly people should be given the choice to work longer. This should be their own personal decision and not something that is forced upon them. There are many elderly people who are fit and able and want to work longer and we feel that this is a good thing. However, there are also many elderly people who are not fit or able to work and should not be forced to do so. We feel that there is a difference between working longer and working longer for a pension. If an elderly person wishes to work longer for a pension then they should be allowed to do so. If an elderly person wishes to work longer for the enjoyment and social interaction then they should be allowed to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the elderly should have the right to retire at the age they wish. However, we also believe that if they wish to continue to work then they should be encouraged to do so. There are many benefits to working in later life, including improved physical and mental health. We also believe that it is beneficial for society to have a diverse workforce and that it is beneficial for younger workers to learn from older workers. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000813.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000813.soc index 1982a315..33d0b5d3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000813.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000813.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher than in the past, but it is difficult to make a blanket statement about whether the police are more corrupt today than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there is corruption within the police force today, it is not necessarily more corrupt than in the past. Corruption is an ever-present problem and is something that will always exist in some form or another. In the past, it was more prevalent because people were more desperate and were willing to do anything to survive. Now, although there are corrupt police officers, there are also many honest ones and this was not the case in the past. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a perception that police are more corrupt today than in the past, however, the reality is that corruption has always been present in policing and will continue to be present in the future. The way in which corruption is expressed may change over time, but the reality is that there will always be a minority of police officers that will choose to act in a corrupt manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is corruption in the police force today, however it is difficult to say whether it is more or less than in the past. It is likely that in the past corruption was more widespread and necessary, as people's quality of life was much lower. Nowadays, the quality of life has increased and corruption is less widespread and necessary. However, the police are a large organisation and there will always be some individuals that are corrupt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher than in the past, but it is difficult to make a blanket statement about whether the police are more corrupt today than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there is corruption within the police force today, it is not necessarily more corrupt than in the past. Corruption is an ever-present problem and is something that will always exist in some form or another. In the past, it was more prevalent because people were more desperate and were willing to do anything to survive. Now, although there are corrupt police officers, there are also many honest ones and this was not the case in the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a perception that police are more corrupt today than in the past, however, the reality is that corruption has always been present in policing and will continue to be present in the future. The way in which corruption is expressed may change over time, but the reality is that there will always be a minority of police officers that will choose to act in a corrupt manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is corruption in the police force today, however it is difficult to say whether it is more or less than in the past. It is likely that in the past corruption was more widespread and necessary, as people's quality of life was much lower. Nowadays, the quality of life has increased and corruption is less widespread and necessary. However, the police are a large organisation and there will always be some individuals that are corrupt. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000814.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000814.soc index 0083a00f..a62ba77c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000814.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000814.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation. This is because organs are a very personal thing, and it is very important that people are in control of what happens to their body after they die. There is also the issue that in an opt-out system, people may not know that they are on the organ donor list, and this could cause problems for their family after they die. However, the group did recognise that an opt-out system could increase the number of organs available for donation, and this would be beneficial for people in need of an organ transplant. The group felt that in order to increase the number of organs available for donation, the government should put more effort into making people aware of the importance of organ donation, and the benefits that it could have for others. This would make people more likely to opt-in to the organ donor list. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation, as it allows people to have freedom over their body and choice if they want to help others. This would also allow people to make a more informed decision about whether they would like to donate their organs or not, and make the quality of the organs better. However, some people argued that an opt-out system would be beneficial as it would increase the number of organs available for donation, as many people who are willing to donate their organs may not take the time or effort to explicitly opt-in. This could potentially save many lives and reduce the waiting time of patients in need of a transplant. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of an opt-out system, however there were some reservations. The group felt that an opt-out system could lead to a higher number of organ donations and would reduce the burden on people to register to become donors. However, the group also felt that the system could lead to a decrease in the quality of organs, as people who were not in the best of health would still be able to donate their organs. This could lead to a decrease in the number of people who would be able to receive the organs, as the organs would be rejected. The group felt that this was a very important consideration and could be detrimental to the system. The group also felt that it was important to have a system that respected individual autonomy and human dignity, and thus felt that the opt-out system could be in conflict with this. The group also felt that it was important to consider the feelings of the family of the deceased, as they may not want their loved one to be a donor. The group felt that the opt-in system was more in line with this, and thus the group felt that the opt-in system was the more ethical system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of an opt-out system, but with a caveat that individuals should be able to opt-out if they wish to. The group believed that having an opt-in system is very time consuming, and is difficult to manage. The group believed that an opt-out system would be more efficient, and would increase the number of organs available for transplantation. The group also believed that having an opt-out system would reduce the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that doctors have to go through when a patient dies. However, the group also believed that it is important to give people the option to opt-out, as some people may not want their organs to be donated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation. This is because organs are a very personal thing, and it is very important that people are in control of what happens to their body after they die. There is also the issue that in an opt-out system, people may not know that they are on the organ donor list, and this could cause problems for their family after they die. However, the group did recognise that an opt-out system could increase the number of organs available for donation, and this would be beneficial for people in need of an organ transplant. The group felt that in order to increase the number of organs available for donation, the government should put more effort into making people aware of the importance of organ donation, and the benefits that it could have for others. This would make people more likely to opt-in to the organ donor list. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation, as it allows people to have freedom over their body and choice if they want to help others. This would also allow people to make a more informed decision about whether they would like to donate their organs or not, and make the quality of the organs better. However, some people argued that an opt-out system would be beneficial as it would increase the number of organs available for donation, as many people who are willing to donate their organs may not take the time or effort to explicitly opt-in. This could potentially save many lives and reduce the waiting time of patients in need of a transplant. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of an opt-out system, however there were some reservations. The group felt that an opt-out system could lead to a higher number of organ donations and would reduce the burden on people to register to become donors. However, the group also felt that the system could lead to a decrease in the quality of organs, as people who were not in the best of health would still be able to donate their organs. This could lead to a decrease in the number of people who would be able to receive the organs, as the organs would be rejected. The group felt that this was a very important consideration and could be detrimental to the system. The group also felt that it was important to have a system that respected individual autonomy and human dignity, and thus felt that the opt-out system could be in conflict with this. The group also felt that it was important to consider the feelings of the family of the deceased, as they may not want their loved one to be a donor. The group felt that the opt-in system was more in line with this, and thus the group felt that the opt-in system was the more ethical system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of an opt-out system, but with a caveat that individuals should be able to opt-out if they wish to. The group believed that having an opt-in system is very time consuming, and is difficult to manage. The group believed that an opt-out system would be more efficient, and would increase the number of organs available for transplantation. The group also believed that having an opt-out system would reduce the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that doctors have to go through when a patient dies. However, the group also believed that it is important to give people the option to opt-out, as some people may not want their organs to be donated. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000815.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000815.soc index 221ff4e1..76a3a0fe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000815.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000815.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should not convert to the euro. There is no clear benefit to the UK, and the change could have negative impacts. The UK is currently doing fine with its own currency and should not change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is no strong argument for switching from pounds to euros and doing so would cause unnecessary confusion. The pound is not in a good place at the moment, but the euro is not in a much better place. The UK should not switch to the euro. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was not in favour of switching to the Euro. The reasons were as follows: It would be too difficult to convert everything to Euros, and the conversion rate would not be beneficial for the UK. Also, the UK would be at the mercy of the value of the Euro, which is not necessarily more stable than the pound. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not convert to the euro. There is no clear benefit to the UK, and the change could have negative impacts. The UK is currently doing fine with its own currency and should not change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is no strong argument for switching from pounds to euros and doing so would cause unnecessary confusion. The pound is not in a good place at the moment, but the euro is not in a much better place. The UK should not switch to the euro. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was not in favour of switching to the Euro. The reasons were as follows: It would be too difficult to convert everything to Euros, and the conversion rate would not be beneficial for the UK. Also, the UK would be at the mercy of the value of the Euro, which is not necessarily more stable than the pound. 4: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000816.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000816.soc index b51ff20e..f9c9c5f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000816.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000816.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be allowed to use social media as much as they want. It is their right to do so, and can be a positive experience for many people. However, we acknowledge that there is a growing social media addiction problem that needs to be tackled. We do not believe that limits on the amount of times a person can access social media is the correct way to tackle the problem. Instead we believe that we should look to educate people on why social media is so addictive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although social media can be a great place for communication, it is becoming more and more apparent that there are a growing number of people who are addicted to social media. This can be damaging to people's mental health, and it can also lead to people becoming more and more isolated from the real world. We do not think that a limit on the number of times a person can access social media in a year would be a good idea, as it would essentially be censorship. Instead, we think that we should educate people on why social media can be addictive, and encourage people to spend less time on social media. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not believe that there should be limits to the number of times a person can access social media in a year. People should have the freedom to use social media as much as they like, as long as they are not breaking any rules or laws. The only way we think it would be acceptable to impose limits would be in a situation where a person has been found to have broken rules or laws, or if they are a danger to themselves or others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to putting limits on the number of times a person could have access to social media in a year. The general feeling was that people should be free to access social media as much as they want, and that this is a fundamental right. However, it was also acknowledged that social media can be addictive, and that some people may use it too much. It was agreed that education is the best way to combat this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be allowed to use social media as much as they want. It is their right to do so, and can be a positive experience for many people. However, we acknowledge that there is a growing social media addiction problem that needs to be tackled. We do not believe that limits on the amount of times a person can access social media is the correct way to tackle the problem. Instead we believe that we should look to educate people on why social media is so addictive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although social media can be a great place for communication, it is becoming more and more apparent that there are a growing number of people who are addicted to social media. This can be damaging to people's mental health, and it can also lead to people becoming more and more isolated from the real world. We do not think that a limit on the number of times a person can access social media in a year would be a good idea, as it would essentially be censorship. Instead, we think that we should educate people on why social media can be addictive, and encourage people to spend less time on social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not believe that there should be limits to the number of times a person can access social media in a year. People should have the freedom to use social media as much as they like, as long as they are not breaking any rules or laws. The only way we think it would be acceptable to impose limits would be in a situation where a person has been found to have broken rules or laws, or if they are a danger to themselves or others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to putting limits on the number of times a person could have access to social media in a year. The general feeling was that people should be free to access social media as much as they want, and that this is a fundamental right. However, it was also acknowledged that social media can be addictive, and that some people may use it too much. It was agreed that education is the best way to combat this. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000817.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000817.soc index f055d6cc..65a5ccfd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000817.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000817.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should require all plastic packaging to be biodegradable. The issue of plastic waste and how it is damaging the environment is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed. If all plastic packaging was biodegradable, it would help to reduce the problem of waste building up in landfill sites and being dumped in natural environments. We need to be more responsible in the way we dispose of our waste and using biodegradable plastic packaging would be a good start. The government should also look at ways to reduce our reliance on plastic packaging by making recycling and reuse more accessible and encouraging people to use biodegradable alternatives where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should require all plastic packaging to be biodegradable. The issue of plastic waste and how it is damaging the environment is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed. If all plastic packaging was biodegradable, it would help to reduce the problem of waste building up in landfill sites and being dumped in natural environments. We need to be more responsible in the way we dispose of our waste and using biodegradable plastic packaging would be a good start. We also need to be looking at how we can reduce our reliance on plastic packaging in the first place. The government should be looking at how they can support industry in coming up with new, innovative packaging solutions that are less reliant on plastic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should require all plastic packaging to be biodegradable. The issue of plastic waste and how it is damaging the environment is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed. If all plastic packaging was biodegradable, it would help to reduce the problem of waste building up in landfill sites and being dumped in natural environments. We need to be more responsible in the way we dispose of our waste and using biodegradable plastic packaging would be a good start. It would also help to reduce the sever problem of plastics being dumped outwith our waste system into natural environments. If our waste degrades over time it will lessen the impact on habitats such as oceans where it is a major problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should require all plastic packaging to be biodegradable. The issue of plastic waste and how it is damaging the environment is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed. If all plastic packaging was biodegradable, it would help to reduce the problem of waste building up in landfill sites and being dumped in natural environments. We need to be more responsible in the way we dispose of our waste and using biodegradable plastic packaging would be a good start. The government could help by making it easier for businesses to buy biodegradable packaging. They could also help by providing more information to the public on the issue of plastic waste and the benefits of biodegradable packaging. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should require all plastic packaging to be biodegradable. The issue of plastic waste and how it is damaging the environment is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed. If all plastic packaging was biodegradable, it would help to reduce the problem of waste building up in landfill sites and being dumped in natural environments. We need to be more responsible in the way we dispose of our waste and using biodegradable plastic packaging would be a good start. The government should also look at ways to reduce our reliance on plastic packaging by making recycling and reuse more accessible and encouraging people to use biodegradable alternatives where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should require all plastic packaging to be biodegradable. The issue of plastic waste and how it is damaging the environment is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed. If all plastic packaging was biodegradable, it would help to reduce the problem of waste building up in landfill sites and being dumped in natural environments. We need to be more responsible in the way we dispose of our waste and using biodegradable plastic packaging would be a good start. We also need to be looking at how we can reduce our reliance on plastic packaging in the first place. The government should be looking at how they can support industry in coming up with new, innovative packaging solutions that are less reliant on plastic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should require all plastic packaging to be biodegradable. The issue of plastic waste and how it is damaging the environment is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed. If all plastic packaging was biodegradable, it would help to reduce the problem of waste building up in landfill sites and being dumped in natural environments. We need to be more responsible in the way we dispose of our waste and using biodegradable plastic packaging would be a good start. It would also help to reduce the sever problem of plastics being dumped outwith our waste system into natural environments. If our waste degrades over time it will lessen the impact on habitats such as oceans where it is a major problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should require all plastic packaging to be biodegradable. The issue of plastic waste and how it is damaging the environment is a major concern and one that needs to be addressed. If all plastic packaging was biodegradable, it would help to reduce the problem of waste building up in landfill sites and being dumped in natural environments. We need to be more responsible in the way we dispose of our waste and using biodegradable plastic packaging would be a good start. The government could help by making it easier for businesses to buy biodegradable packaging. They could also help by providing more information to the public on the issue of plastic waste and the benefits of biodegradable packaging. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000818.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000818.soc index e6b6d101..07796562 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000818.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000818.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of animals for medical research is a necessary evil. The use of animals for medical research is a necessary evil, and there is no way of getting around it. There is no other way to test drugs or medical devices on a living, breathing organism. The use of animals for medical research is a necessary evil, and there is no way of getting around it. There is no other way to test drugs or medical devices on a living, breathing organism. However, there needs to be a lot of improvement in the ethical conduct and care of animals in these sorts of clinical trials and research. A current example is how animals are often housed in inadequate environments/enclosures, and are not given the care or respect that should be given to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of animals for medical research is an important part of advancing human knowledge and capabilities. However, the use of animals for medical research should be limited to cases where it is absolutely necessary, and where there is no alternative. The welfare of the animals involved should be of the highest priority and the animals should be housed in the best possible environment and treated with the utmost respect. The animals should not be subjected to any unnecessary pain or distress, and the animals should be killed humanely at the end of the experiment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of animals for medical research is necessary. The advancement of medicine and treatment of human illnesses is paramount, and is often dependent on the use of animals for medical research. However, there is a need to ensure that this research is conducted in a humane and ethical manner, with the animals being treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the use of animals for medical research. However, they felt that more should be done to ensure that the animals are cared for and housed in a humane way. The group also agreed that there should be more transparency in the way animals are used for medical research and that the public should be made aware of what is happening and why. The group also felt that there should be more done to ensure that the animals are cared for and housed in a humane way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of animals for medical research is a necessary evil. The use of animals for medical research is a necessary evil, and there is no way of getting around it. There is no other way to test drugs or medical devices on a living, breathing organism. The use of animals for medical research is a necessary evil, and there is no way of getting around it. There is no other way to test drugs or medical devices on a living, breathing organism. However, there needs to be a lot of improvement in the ethical conduct and care of animals in these sorts of clinical trials and research. A current example is how animals are often housed in inadequate environments/enclosures, and are not given the care or respect that should be given to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of animals for medical research is an important part of advancing human knowledge and capabilities. However, the use of animals for medical research should be limited to cases where it is absolutely necessary, and where there is no alternative. The welfare of the animals involved should be of the highest priority and the animals should be housed in the best possible environment and treated with the utmost respect. The animals should not be subjected to any unnecessary pain or distress, and the animals should be killed humanely at the end of the experiment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of animals for medical research is necessary. The advancement of medicine and treatment of human illnesses is paramount, and is often dependent on the use of animals for medical research. However, there is a need to ensure that this research is conducted in a humane and ethical manner, with the animals being treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the use of animals for medical research. However, they felt that more should be done to ensure that the animals are cared for and housed in a humane way. The group also agreed that there should be more transparency in the way animals are used for medical research and that the public should be made aware of what is happening and why. The group also felt that there should be more done to ensure that the animals are cared for and housed in a humane way. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000819.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000819.soc index b4b448aa..d153686a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000819.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000819.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation, as this would allow the deceased to have autonomy over their body, and would respect their wishes. The group felt that this would also allow the family of the deceased to have their wishes respected, as they would know whether the deceased had opted in or out. The group felt that the opt-in system would lead to a higher quality of organs, as the organs would be donated by people who were in good health, and thus would be more likely to be accepted by recipients. The group felt that this was a very important consideration, and would be detrimental to the system if it were not considered. The group felt that this was the most ethical system, as it would respect human dignity and individual autonomy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group of participants was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation. The group felt that an opt-in system would allow for the wishes of the deceased to be respected and would allow for the feelings of the family to be considered. The group felt that this was very important and would allow for a system that would respect the dignity of the deceased and the feelings of the family. The group felt that an opt-in system would also allow for the organs to be of a higher quality, as the organs would be from people who are in good health. The group felt that this was very important, as it would allow for more people to receive the organs and would increase the chances of the recipient surviving. The group felt that this was very important and was in favour of an opt-in system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation, as it allows for individual autonomy and human dignity to be respected. The group felt that this was an important consideration, as it is important to respect the wishes of the deceased and their family. The group also felt that an opt-in system would reduce the burden on people to register to become donors, and would increase the quality of organs available for donation, as only people who were in good health would be able to donate their organs. The group felt that this was an important consideration, as it would increase the number of people who would be able to receive the organs, as the organs would not be rejected. The group felt that this was an important consideration, as it would reduce the number of people who would die waiting for an organ, and would reduce the burden on the health care system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were generally in favour of an opt-out system for organ donation, however they also recognised the potential drawbacks of the system. The group felt that the opt-out system would increase the number of organ donors and would reduce the burden on people to register to become donors. However, the group also felt that the system could lead to a decrease in the quality of organs, as people who were not in the best of health would still be able to donate their organs. This could lead to a decrease in the number of people who would be able to receive the organs, as the organs would be rejected. The group felt that this was a very important consideration and could be detrimental to the system. The group also felt that it was important to have a system that respected individual autonomy and human dignity, and thus felt that the opt-out system could be in conflict with this. The group also felt that it was important to consider the feelings of the family of the deceased, as they may not want their loved one to be a donor. The group felt that the opt-in system was more in line with this, and thus the group felt that the opt-in system was the more ethical system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation, as this would allow the deceased to have autonomy over their body, and would respect their wishes. The group felt that this would also allow the family of the deceased to have their wishes respected, as they would know whether the deceased had opted in or out. The group felt that the opt-in system would lead to a higher quality of organs, as the organs would be donated by people who were in good health, and thus would be more likely to be accepted by recipients. The group felt that this was a very important consideration, and would be detrimental to the system if it were not considered. The group felt that this was the most ethical system, as it would respect human dignity and individual autonomy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group of participants was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation. The group felt that an opt-in system would allow for the wishes of the deceased to be respected and would allow for the feelings of the family to be considered. The group felt that this was very important and would allow for a system that would respect the dignity of the deceased and the feelings of the family. The group felt that an opt-in system would also allow for the organs to be of a higher quality, as the organs would be from people who are in good health. The group felt that this was very important, as it would allow for more people to receive the organs and would increase the chances of the recipient surviving. The group felt that this was very important and was in favour of an opt-in system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation, as it allows for individual autonomy and human dignity to be respected. The group felt that this was an important consideration, as it is important to respect the wishes of the deceased and their family. The group also felt that an opt-in system would reduce the burden on people to register to become donors, and would increase the quality of organs available for donation, as only people who were in good health would be able to donate their organs. The group felt that this was an important consideration, as it would increase the number of people who would be able to receive the organs, as the organs would not be rejected. The group felt that this was an important consideration, as it would reduce the number of people who would die waiting for an organ, and would reduce the burden on the health care system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were generally in favour of an opt-out system for organ donation, however they also recognised the potential drawbacks of the system. The group felt that the opt-out system would increase the number of organ donors and would reduce the burden on people to register to become donors. However, the group also felt that the system could lead to a decrease in the quality of organs, as people who were not in the best of health would still be able to donate their organs. This could lead to a decrease in the number of people who would be able to receive the organs, as the organs would be rejected. The group felt that this was a very important consideration and could be detrimental to the system. The group also felt that it was important to have a system that respected individual autonomy and human dignity, and thus felt that the opt-out system could be in conflict with this. The group also felt that it was important to consider the feelings of the family of the deceased, as they may not want their loved one to be a donor. The group felt that the opt-in system was more in line with this, and thus the group felt that the opt-in system was the more ethical system. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000820.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000820.soc index 839bc152..ff622a23 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000820.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000820.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government subsidizing the production of low-cost food. The group believed that the government is already subsidizing a lot of services, and subsidizing food would only increase the debt profile. The group also believed that people who are struggling to afford food are the ones who should be subsidized and not the food. The group believed that the supermarkets should be the ones to provide the low-cost food and not the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of subsidizing low-cost food production but not without conditions. We feel that the government should subsidize low-cost food but only if it is healthy and nutritious and if it can be produced in a sustainable way. We feel that the government is already subsidizing too many things and this would be another cost that they would have to pick up. We feel that the government should subsidize the cost of food but only if it is healthy and nutritious. This is important because the cost of living crisis is making it difficult for people to afford healthy food. If the government subsidizes low-cost food, then this would be beneficial for people who are struggling to afford food. However, we feel that the government should not subsidize low-cost food if it is produced in an unsustainable way and if it is not healthy and nutritious. The production of low-cost food should be sustainable because it would not be good for the environment if food is produced in an unsustainable way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we feel that the government should not subsidize the production of low-cost food. This is because it is the responsibility of supermarkets to provide low-cost food as they have a large foothold on the high street. We also feel that this is the responsibility of the individual to make sure they are getting the best value for money for the food that they are buying. We feel that the government should not be subsidizing the production of low-cost food as this would mean that they would be taking away from other services which may be more important such as education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the government should subsidize the production of low-cost food. This is because, with the cost of living crisis, people are struggling to afford nutritious food for their families. Even people who work and earn a good wage are struggling to afford the increasing food costs and this is placing people at risk of poor health and in the extreme cases malnutrition. Subsidizing the costs would ensure a basic standard of food for everyone no matter what their circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government subsidizing the production of low-cost food. The group believed that the government is already subsidizing a lot of services, and subsidizing food would only increase the debt profile. The group also believed that people who are struggling to afford food are the ones who should be subsidized and not the food. The group believed that the supermarkets should be the ones to provide the low-cost food and not the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of subsidizing low-cost food production but not without conditions. We feel that the government should subsidize low-cost food but only if it is healthy and nutritious and if it can be produced in a sustainable way. We feel that the government is already subsidizing too many things and this would be another cost that they would have to pick up. We feel that the government should subsidize the cost of food but only if it is healthy and nutritious. This is important because the cost of living crisis is making it difficult for people to afford healthy food. If the government subsidizes low-cost food, then this would be beneficial for people who are struggling to afford food. However, we feel that the government should not subsidize low-cost food if it is produced in an unsustainable way and if it is not healthy and nutritious. The production of low-cost food should be sustainable because it would not be good for the environment if food is produced in an unsustainable way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we feel that the government should not subsidize the production of low-cost food. This is because it is the responsibility of supermarkets to provide low-cost food as they have a large foothold on the high street. We also feel that this is the responsibility of the individual to make sure they are getting the best value for money for the food that they are buying. We feel that the government should not be subsidizing the production of low-cost food as this would mean that they would be taking away from other services which may be more important such as education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the government should subsidize the production of low-cost food. This is because, with the cost of living crisis, people are struggling to afford nutritious food for their families. Even people who work and earn a good wage are struggling to afford the increasing food costs and this is placing people at risk of poor health and in the extreme cases malnutrition. Subsidizing the costs would ensure a basic standard of food for everyone no matter what their circumstances. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000821.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000821.soc index 232a85f2..f722a7fe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000821.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000821.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. Salaries should be added as a range and not the exact amount one makes. Salaries should be classified by industry, location, employee experience and education level. Salaries should never be based on factors such as visa status, person's citizenship status etc. Equality should persist. Transparency is declaration of salaries is required to solve many problems an employee faces. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. This is to ensure transparancy about the salaries of people at the top of organisations. However, it depends on the organisation. For example, this has been a disaster at the BBC as commerical competitors now know exactly how much to offer their staff to tempt them away to work for them. So it depends on the organisation and the status of the employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. However, this should be done in a way that does not disadvantage employees. Salaries should be added as a range and not the exact amount one makes. Salaries should be classified by industry, location, employee experience and education level. Salaries should never be based on factors such as visa status, person's citizenship status etc. Equality should persist. Transparency is declaration of salaries is required to solve many problems an employee faces. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. However, it depends on the organisation. For example, this has been a disaster at the BBC as commerical competitors now know exactly how much to offer their staff to tempt them away to work for them. So it depends on the organisation and the status of the employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. Salaries should be added as a range and not the exact amount one makes. Salaries should be classified by industry, location, employee experience and education level. Salaries should never be based on factors such as visa status, person's citizenship status etc. Equality should persist. Transparency is declaration of salaries is required to solve many problems an employee faces. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. This is to ensure transparancy about the salaries of people at the top of organisations. However, it depends on the organisation. For example, this has been a disaster at the BBC as commerical competitors now know exactly how much to offer their staff to tempt them away to work for them. So it depends on the organisation and the status of the employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. However, this should be done in a way that does not disadvantage employees. Salaries should be added as a range and not the exact amount one makes. Salaries should be classified by industry, location, employee experience and education level. Salaries should never be based on factors such as visa status, person's citizenship status etc. Equality should persist. Transparency is declaration of salaries is required to solve many problems an employee faces. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that companies should be required to publish the salaries of employees, or at least the salaries of employees above a certain threshold. However, it depends on the organisation. For example, this has been a disaster at the BBC as commerical competitors now know exactly how much to offer their staff to tempt them away to work for them. So it depends on the organisation and the status of the employees. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000822.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000822.soc index 6e74939f..f4548711 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000822.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000822.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Elderly people should be encouraged to work as long as they want to, but should not be forced to. It should be their choice whether they want to work part-time or full-time. They should also be able to choose the hours that they want to work. This would be good for the economy as they would be contributing to the economy. It would also be good for the elderly as they would have something to do and some company. It would also be good for the younger generation as the elderly would be able to pass on their knowledge to them. Elderly people should not be forced to work if they do not want to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that the current retirement age is too high and that elderly people should be allowed to retire at an earlier age. However, we also feel that it should be an individual’s choice as to whether they want to work longer or not. If they do, then they should be able to work part-time. If they do not want to work, then they should not be forced to. If they do want to work, then they should be able to choose the hours that they work. This would be beneficial to the economy and would also be good for the elderly to have something to do and some company. It would also be good for them to be able to pass on their skills and knowledge to the younger generation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of elderly people working longer, but only if they wanted to and not if they were forced to. They felt that this was a very personal decision and that everyone was different. They felt that people should be encouraged to work as long as they wanted to and that they should be able to choose the hours that they wanted to work. It was felt that this would be beneficial to the economy and that it would also be good for the elderly to have something to do and some company. It was also felt that they would be able to pass on their knowledge to the younger generation. It was also felt that if people did not want to work, then they should not be forced to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were in favour of elderly people working longer, but only if they wanted to and not if they were forced to. They felt that this was a very personal decision and that everyone was different. They felt that people should be encouraged to work as long as they wanted to and that they should be able to choose the hours that they wanted to work. It was felt that this would be beneficial to the economy and that it would also be good for the elderly to have something to do and some company. It was also felt that they would be able to pass on their knowledge to the younger generation. It was also felt that if people did not want to work, then they should not be forced to. It was also felt that people should be given a tax break if they return to work to boost their pension income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Elderly people should be encouraged to work as long as they want to, but should not be forced to. It should be their choice whether they want to work part-time or full-time. They should also be able to choose the hours that they want to work. This would be good for the economy as they would be contributing to the economy. It would also be good for the elderly as they would have something to do and some company. It would also be good for the younger generation as the elderly would be able to pass on their knowledge to them. Elderly people should not be forced to work if they do not want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that the current retirement age is too high and that elderly people should be allowed to retire at an earlier age. However, we also feel that it should be an individual’s choice as to whether they want to work longer or not. If they do, then they should be able to work part-time. If they do not want to work, then they should not be forced to. If they do want to work, then they should be able to choose the hours that they work. This would be beneficial to the economy and would also be good for the elderly to have something to do and some company. It would also be good for them to be able to pass on their skills and knowledge to the younger generation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of elderly people working longer, but only if they wanted to and not if they were forced to. They felt that this was a very personal decision and that everyone was different. They felt that people should be encouraged to work as long as they wanted to and that they should be able to choose the hours that they wanted to work. It was felt that this would be beneficial to the economy and that it would also be good for the elderly to have something to do and some company. It was also felt that they would be able to pass on their knowledge to the younger generation. It was also felt that if people did not want to work, then they should not be forced to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were in favour of elderly people working longer, but only if they wanted to and not if they were forced to. They felt that this was a very personal decision and that everyone was different. They felt that people should be encouraged to work as long as they wanted to and that they should be able to choose the hours that they wanted to work. It was felt that this would be beneficial to the economy and that it would also be good for the elderly to have something to do and some company. It was also felt that they would be able to pass on their knowledge to the younger generation. It was also felt that if people did not want to work, then they should not be forced to. It was also felt that people should be given a tax break if they return to work to boost their pension income. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000823.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000823.soc index 3487b539..2f3bdb3d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000823.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000823.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher or lower than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher or lower than in the past, but it is difficult to make a blanket statement about whether the police are more corrupt today than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher or lower than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher than in the past, but it is difficult to make a blanket statement about whether the police are more corrupt today than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher or lower than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher or lower than in the past, but it is difficult to make a blanket statement about whether the police are more corrupt today than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher or lower than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is corruption in the police force today. The level of corruption may be higher than in the past, but it is difficult to make a blanket statement about whether the police are more corrupt today than in the past, because corruption can manifest in many different forms and can vary across time and place. 2: 2,4,1,3 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000824.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000824.soc index 4400b873..e5c46508 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000824.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000824.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was generally against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. It would also take a major amount of work to change everything over to Euros instead of pounds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. The group also noted that it would take a major amount of work to change everything over to Euros instead of pounds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. It would also be a lot of work to change everything to euros and so is not worth the effort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was generally against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. It would also take a major amount of work to change everything over to Euros instead of pounds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. The group also noted that it would take a major amount of work to change everything over to Euros instead of pounds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was against the idea of switching to the Euro, as this would lead to a potential increase in prices, as seen in Ireland. The group also noted that the idea of switching currencies would not have been considered prior to Brexit, so would not be a good idea now. The group did note that the pound is not doing very well at the moment, but the Euro is not doing much better, so there is no clear winner. The group also noted that the current system works fine for the UK, and there would be no real benefits to switching. It would also be a lot of work to change everything to euros and so is not worth the effort. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000825.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000825.soc index 120d62c2..ea9d2fcd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000825.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000825.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it is not time to abandon the metric system and return to the imperial system. Whilst we all have our own views on the matter, it is clear that the metric system is used by most countries around the world, and it would make little sense to go back to the imperial system. We have already come to a consensus in the UK to use a mixture of both systems, and I think that is the best option for us. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It would be counterproductive to abandon the metric system now. It is the world standard and is used in most countries. This would cause more problems than it would solve. The imperial system is not without its faults. It is less precise and harder to use. We would be better served to stick with what we have now. In this example, the group of participants came to the following consensus statement: It would be counterproductive to abandon the metric system now. It is the world standard and is used in most countries. This would cause more problems than it would solve. The imperial system is not without its faults. It is less precise and harder to use. We would be better served to stick with what we have now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no need to change back to the imperial system now, and to do so would be a step backwards. The cost and hassle of switching back now are too great, and the metric system is the way of the future. It is the most used system in the world, and to revert back now would be to make the UK seem like a backwards nation. It would be better to make the most of the metric system, and to work on making it better, rather than trying to make the old imperial system work in a new world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is no need to abandon the metric system and return to the imperial system. The metric system is used by the majority of countries and is much easier to understand. The cost and hassle involved in switching back now make it unnecessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it is not time to abandon the metric system and return to the imperial system. Whilst we all have our own views on the matter, it is clear that the metric system is used by most countries around the world, and it would make little sense to go back to the imperial system. We have already come to a consensus in the UK to use a mixture of both systems, and I think that is the best option for us. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It would be counterproductive to abandon the metric system now. It is the world standard and is used in most countries. This would cause more problems than it would solve. The imperial system is not without its faults. It is less precise and harder to use. We would be better served to stick with what we have now. In this example, the group of participants came to the following consensus statement: It would be counterproductive to abandon the metric system now. It is the world standard and is used in most countries. This would cause more problems than it would solve. The imperial system is not without its faults. It is less precise and harder to use. We would be better served to stick with what we have now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no need to change back to the imperial system now, and to do so would be a step backwards. The cost and hassle of switching back now are too great, and the metric system is the way of the future. It is the most used system in the world, and to revert back now would be to make the UK seem like a backwards nation. It would be better to make the most of the metric system, and to work on making it better, rather than trying to make the old imperial system work in a new world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is no need to abandon the metric system and return to the imperial system. The metric system is used by the majority of countries and is much easier to understand. The cost and hassle involved in switching back now make it unnecessary. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000826.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000826.soc index 77a3e9cb..c97b9af3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000826.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000826.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding coal-fired power stations. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although coal fired power stations are an easy way to produce electricity and keep the cost of living low, they are a terrible way to do it. They are bad for the environment and also have a negative impact on the health of the people living near them. They cause air pollution and also water pollution when they are being mined. We should be funding more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways of producing electricity, such as wind, solar and wave power. This will keep the cost of living low and also keep the planet healthy and safe for future generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of continuing to fund coal-fired power stations. The group was in agreement that this was a bad idea for the environment and for people. The group was in agreement that the resources that would be spent on coal-fired power stations should be redirected to finding cleaner ways of making energy. The group was in agreement that coal-fired power stations should be replaced with wind, solar and wave power. The group was in agreement that the money that would be spent on coal-fired power stations should be redirected to finding cleaner ways of making energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should continue to fund coal-fired power stations until we can afford to replace them with renewable energy sources. The impact of climate change is very real and very concerning. We must do all we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it is important to note that coal-fired power stations produce a large amount of greenhouse gases. However, it is also important to remember that there are a lot of people in the world who do not have access to power. This is not only an issue of human rights, but also a security concern. If we move to a system of power generation that is too expensive, the price of power will rise and many people will not be able to afford it. This will lead to poverty, crime and instability. We need to move to renewable energy sources, but we need to do so in a way that is affordable and fair to all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding coal-fired power stations. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although coal fired power stations are an easy way to produce electricity and keep the cost of living low, they are a terrible way to do it. They are bad for the environment and also have a negative impact on the health of the people living near them. They cause air pollution and also water pollution when they are being mined. We should be funding more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways of producing electricity, such as wind, solar and wave power. This will keep the cost of living low and also keep the planet healthy and safe for future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of continuing to fund coal-fired power stations. The group was in agreement that this was a bad idea for the environment and for people. The group was in agreement that the resources that would be spent on coal-fired power stations should be redirected to finding cleaner ways of making energy. The group was in agreement that coal-fired power stations should be replaced with wind, solar and wave power. The group was in agreement that the money that would be spent on coal-fired power stations should be redirected to finding cleaner ways of making energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should continue to fund coal-fired power stations until we can afford to replace them with renewable energy sources. The impact of climate change is very real and very concerning. We must do all we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it is important to note that coal-fired power stations produce a large amount of greenhouse gases. However, it is also important to remember that there are a lot of people in the world who do not have access to power. This is not only an issue of human rights, but also a security concern. If we move to a system of power generation that is too expensive, the price of power will rise and many people will not be able to afford it. This will lead to poverty, crime and instability. We need to move to renewable energy sources, but we need to do so in a way that is affordable and fair to all. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000827.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000827.soc index 9bd7933a..1624e7d0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000827.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000827.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of imposing limits on political donations, but felt that it was a complex issue. The group felt that the best way to tackle the issue was to provide public funding for political parties and candidates, and to ban private donations. The group felt that it was important to note that there are some potential drawbacks to this approach, and that it was important to find the right balance between public and private funding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a limit on political donations. We feel that this is an important issue because some people can use their money to influence politicians. This can cause corruption and a lack of trust in the political system. We think that some sort of limit should be set because it would help to ensure that politicians are making decisions that benefit the public rather than a small group of people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a limit on how much political donations an individual can make. This is because large donations can lead to politicians becoming beholden to certain individuals or corporations. This is bad for democracy as it can lead to decisions being made that benefit the interests of a few, rather than the many. The issue of how to set this limit is more difficult. Some countries have strict limits on donations, whereas others allow for large donations. The ideal system would be one that allows for a level playing field for all candidates, without favouring those with large amounts of money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a limit on how much political donations an individual can make. This is because donations can be used in both negative and positive ways so it can be hard to say one way or the other as taking away such donations could remove funding from something that is desperately needed. On the other hand, these donations influence political decisions that lean towards the best interest of the donator, which may have negative consequences for the citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of imposing limits on political donations, but felt that it was a complex issue. The group felt that the best way to tackle the issue was to provide public funding for political parties and candidates, and to ban private donations. The group felt that it was important to note that there are some potential drawbacks to this approach, and that it was important to find the right balance between public and private funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a limit on political donations. We feel that this is an important issue because some people can use their money to influence politicians. This can cause corruption and a lack of trust in the political system. We think that some sort of limit should be set because it would help to ensure that politicians are making decisions that benefit the public rather than a small group of people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a limit on how much political donations an individual can make. This is because large donations can lead to politicians becoming beholden to certain individuals or corporations. This is bad for democracy as it can lead to decisions being made that benefit the interests of a few, rather than the many. The issue of how to set this limit is more difficult. Some countries have strict limits on donations, whereas others allow for large donations. The ideal system would be one that allows for a level playing field for all candidates, without favouring those with large amounts of money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a limit on how much political donations an individual can make. This is because donations can be used in both negative and positive ways so it can be hard to say one way or the other as taking away such donations could remove funding from something that is desperately needed. On the other hand, these donations influence political decisions that lean towards the best interest of the donator, which may have negative consequences for the citizens. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000828.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000828.soc index 197b2a29..d248e852 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000828.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000828.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that the UK flag should have the crosses and the dragon. It represents the history and unity of the UK, and the inclusion of all the nations. However, I think that it is important to recognise Ireland as an independent country, and therefore the St. Patricks Cross should not feature on the UK National flag. It would feel wrong for Ireland to be featured when they are independent and not part of Britain. I think this would also cause trouble to have Ireland in the UK flag and therefore I believe the UK flag should stay as is. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We believe that the current UK flag should remain as is. It represents the unity of the nations of the UK and their history. We also believe that the addition of the Welsh Dragon to the flag would be a nice touch. However, we do not believe that the Irish St. Patrick’s Cross should feature on the flag as Ireland is an independent state and should be recognised as such. Furthermore, the addition of the St. Patrick’s Cross could cause problems for Ireland as it is a separate state.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK’s national flag should feature the English St. George’s Cross, the Scottish St. Andrew’s Cross, the Irish St. Patrick’s Cross, and the Welsh Dragon. This will show that the UK is united, and that it is a diverse country. It will show that the UK is not just England, but all the other nations too. The current flag only shows the English and the Scottish, and this could cause tension. By including the Welsh and the Irish, it shows that the UK is diverse, and that it is all the nations together. The only concern we have is that it will be very colourful, but we think that this is a small price to pay for showing the diversity of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the current UK flag should be changed to feature the English St. George’s Cross, the Scottish St. Andrew’s Cross, the Irish St. Patrick’s Cross, and the Welsh Dragon. This will be a symbol of unity and inclusion of all constituent countries of the UK. We also believe that the people of each nation should be able to vote to have their nation on the UK flag. There is a lot of in these nations about being part of the UK, and a lot of these citizens do not feel listened to. By allowing them to vote to have their nation featured on the UK flag, they will feel like they are being listened to, and one step closer to becoming independent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that the UK flag should have the crosses and the dragon. It represents the history and unity of the UK, and the inclusion of all the nations. However, I think that it is important to recognise Ireland as an independent country, and therefore the St. Patricks Cross should not feature on the UK National flag. It would feel wrong for Ireland to be featured when they are independent and not part of Britain. I think this would also cause trouble to have Ireland in the UK flag and therefore I believe the UK flag should stay as is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We believe that the current UK flag should remain as is. It represents the unity of the nations of the UK and their history. We also believe that the addition of the Welsh Dragon to the flag would be a nice touch. However, we do not believe that the Irish St. Patrick’s Cross should feature on the flag as Ireland is an independent state and should be recognised as such. Furthermore, the addition of the St. Patrick’s Cross could cause problems for Ireland as it is a separate state.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK’s national flag should feature the English St. George’s Cross, the Scottish St. Andrew’s Cross, the Irish St. Patrick’s Cross, and the Welsh Dragon. This will show that the UK is united, and that it is a diverse country. It will show that the UK is not just England, but all the other nations too. The current flag only shows the English and the Scottish, and this could cause tension. By including the Welsh and the Irish, it shows that the UK is diverse, and that it is all the nations together. The only concern we have is that it will be very colourful, but we think that this is a small price to pay for showing the diversity of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the current UK flag should be changed to feature the English St. George’s Cross, the Scottish St. Andrew’s Cross, the Irish St. Patrick’s Cross, and the Welsh Dragon. This will be a symbol of unity and inclusion of all constituent countries of the UK. We also believe that the people of each nation should be able to vote to have their nation on the UK flag. There is a lot of in these nations about being part of the UK, and a lot of these citizens do not feel listened to. By allowing them to vote to have their nation featured on the UK flag, they will feel like they are being listened to, and one step closer to becoming independent. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000829.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000829.soc index 4645117f..ee6a063b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000829.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000829.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should make it easier for people to vote, for example by allowing them to vote online. This is because some people may have disabilities or neurodiversities that prevent them from feeling comfortable to vote. We should be encouraging all people to vote and not making it harder for them. However, it must be a secure system that is not liable to hacking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be able to vote online. This would make it easier for people to vote, especially for people with disabilities or neurodiversities that prevent them from feeling comfortable to vote. People would be more willing to vote and express their opinion if the voting system was easy. Online voting would also make the voting system more accessible to people who are unable to move or are just generally ill. However, the voting system would have to be made secure in that we do not get multiple votes from one person. Online voting would also have to be bulletproof in that it is not liable to hacking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to vote. Most people in the group felt that voting online would be a good idea, as it would make it easier for those who are less mobile, have disabilities or are too busy to make it to a polling station. However, the group was also concerned about the security of online voting, and some participants were worried that it could lead to people voting multiple times. The group felt that online voting should be made more secure, and that the government should look into ways of doing this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the current voting system is in need of an overhaul. We feel that it is very important that people have their say in who governs them and that this is not limited to those who can physically make it to a polling station. The current system makes it very difficult for those who are disabled, ill or have other commitments to cast their vote. We believe that it is very important to allow online voting in order to ensure that those who are unable to get to a polling station are still able to have their say. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should make it easier for people to vote, for example by allowing them to vote online. This is because some people may have disabilities or neurodiversities that prevent them from feeling comfortable to vote. We should be encouraging all people to vote and not making it harder for them. However, it must be a secure system that is not liable to hacking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be able to vote online. This would make it easier for people to vote, especially for people with disabilities or neurodiversities that prevent them from feeling comfortable to vote. People would be more willing to vote and express their opinion if the voting system was easy. Online voting would also make the voting system more accessible to people who are unable to move or are just generally ill. However, the voting system would have to be made secure in that we do not get multiple votes from one person. Online voting would also have to be bulletproof in that it is not liable to hacking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to vote. Most people in the group felt that voting online would be a good idea, as it would make it easier for those who are less mobile, have disabilities or are too busy to make it to a polling station. However, the group was also concerned about the security of online voting, and some participants were worried that it could lead to people voting multiple times. The group felt that online voting should be made more secure, and that the government should look into ways of doing this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the current voting system is in need of an overhaul. We feel that it is very important that people have their say in who governs them and that this is not limited to those who can physically make it to a polling station. The current system makes it very difficult for those who are disabled, ill or have other commitments to cast their vote. We believe that it is very important to allow online voting in order to ensure that those who are unable to get to a polling station are still able to have their say. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000830.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000830.soc index 4c05eb078..6bb20286 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000830.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000830.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants was opposed to the idea of funding coal-fired power stations. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group of participants in general was opposed to the idea of funding coal-fired power stations. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding coal-fired power stations. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants generally agreed that funding coal-fired power stations is not a good idea. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants was opposed to the idea of funding coal-fired power stations. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group of participants in general was opposed to the idea of funding coal-fired power stations. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding coal-fired power stations. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants generally agreed that funding coal-fired power stations is not a good idea. They believe that coal is a dirty fuel that has a lot of negative impacts on the environment and human health. The participants all agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced by more environmentally friendly power generation methods, such as wind and solar power. However, the participants also agreed that coal-fired power stations should not be replaced immediately. They agreed that coal-fired power stations should be replaced as soon as more environmentally friendly power generation methods are developed and ready to take over. The participants believe that this is the best way to ensure that public charges remain low. The participants agreed that funding should be given to research and development of more environmentally friendly power generation methods. The group also agreed that the money spent on coal-fired power stations should be used to develop more environmentally friendly power generation methods. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000831.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000831.soc index df954150..5bf0b533 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000831.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000831.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking in public. The group felt that the health implications of second hand smoke for people working in bars and restaurants were significant and that the ban on smoking in these places was a positive step. The group also felt that smoking was a habit which was socially unacceptable and the fact that it was a legal product did not mean it should be tolerated in public. However, the group felt that the question of banning smoking in public was complex. The group felt that it would be difficult to enforce and that it could lead to people taking up smoking in secret, which would be dangerous. The group also felt that the public had a right to choose whether or not they wanted to be exposed to the health risks of second hand smoke. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking in public. It is the right of non-smokers to breathe clean air and they should not be forced to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. However, the group acknowledged that smoking is an addiction and people need to be able to smoke in private. The group felt that a complete ban on smoking would be too extreme. The group felt that smoking in public should be banned, with the exception of designated smoking areas. The group also felt that the government should increase the price of cigarettes, as this would help people to quit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking in public should be banned. We feel that the evidence for the harm caused by second hand smoke is overwhelming and this justifies a ban. There should be no smoking in public places. There should be no smoking in parks, on beaches, in shopping centres, in restaurants, in bars or anywhere else that is accessible to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Smoking should be banned in public places. Smoking is an unpleasant, unhealthy and untidy habit. It has been proven to cause a range of health problems and the only people who benefit from smoking are the tobacco companies. It is important to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke. A ban on smoking in public would help to improve the health of the general population and help people to quit. The opinions expressed by Participant 2 and 4 were initially very different, but after a long debate, the group came to a consensus opinion, with which all of the participants agreed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking in public. The group felt that the health implications of second hand smoke for people working in bars and restaurants were significant and that the ban on smoking in these places was a positive step. The group also felt that smoking was a habit which was socially unacceptable and the fact that it was a legal product did not mean it should be tolerated in public. However, the group felt that the question of banning smoking in public was complex. The group felt that it would be difficult to enforce and that it could lead to people taking up smoking in secret, which would be dangerous. The group also felt that the public had a right to choose whether or not they wanted to be exposed to the health risks of second hand smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking in public. It is the right of non-smokers to breathe clean air and they should not be forced to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. However, the group acknowledged that smoking is an addiction and people need to be able to smoke in private. The group felt that a complete ban on smoking would be too extreme. The group felt that smoking in public should be banned, with the exception of designated smoking areas. The group also felt that the government should increase the price of cigarettes, as this would help people to quit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking in public should be banned. We feel that the evidence for the harm caused by second hand smoke is overwhelming and this justifies a ban. There should be no smoking in public places. There should be no smoking in parks, on beaches, in shopping centres, in restaurants, in bars or anywhere else that is accessible to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Smoking should be banned in public places. Smoking is an unpleasant, unhealthy and untidy habit. It has been proven to cause a range of health problems and the only people who benefit from smoking are the tobacco companies. It is important to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke. A ban on smoking in public would help to improve the health of the general population and help people to quit. The opinions expressed by Participant 2 and 4 were initially very different, but after a long debate, the group came to a consensus opinion, with which all of the participants agreed. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000832.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000832.soc index 84d1d11e..288cf393 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000832.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000832.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, as it prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. However, we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We also believe that it is not fair that people under the age of 21 are paid a lower minimum wage for doing the same job as everyone else. We believe that most companies could afford to pay their employees a living wage, and this would improve living standards for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, as it prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. However, we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We also believe that it is not fair that people under the age of 21 are paid a lower minimum wage for doing the same job as everyone else. We also believe that a minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We believe that most employers can afford to pay their employees more than the bare minimum. We also believe that employees deserve a living wage, so that they can afford to live without being in poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, as it prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. However, we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We also believe that it is not fair that people under the age of 21 are paid a lower minimum wage for doing the same job as everyone else. We believe that most companies could afford to pay their employees a living wage and that this would be a very positive thing for the economy and for the people of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, as it prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. However, we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We also believe that it is not fair that people under the age of 21 are paid a lower minimum wage for doing the same job as everyone else. We believe that most companies could afford to pay a living wage and it would improve the lives of employees and also the economy as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, as it prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. However, we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We also believe that it is not fair that people under the age of 21 are paid a lower minimum wage for doing the same job as everyone else. We believe that most companies could afford to pay their employees a living wage, and this would improve living standards for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, as it prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. However, we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We also believe that it is not fair that people under the age of 21 are paid a lower minimum wage for doing the same job as everyone else. We also believe that a minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We believe that most employers can afford to pay their employees more than the bare minimum. We also believe that employees deserve a living wage, so that they can afford to live without being in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, as it prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. However, we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We also believe that it is not fair that people under the age of 21 are paid a lower minimum wage for doing the same job as everyone else. We believe that most companies could afford to pay their employees a living wage and that this would be a very positive thing for the economy and for the people of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the minimum wage is a good thing, as it prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. However, we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage, not just the bare minimum. We also believe that it is not fair that people under the age of 21 are paid a lower minimum wage for doing the same job as everyone else. We believe that most companies could afford to pay a living wage and it would improve the lives of employees and also the economy as a whole. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000833.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000833.soc index 672fe198..385d657a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000833.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000833.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, the sale of fireworks should be restricted to licensed vendors. Fireworks can be dangerous and we believe that restricting their sale to licensed vendors would reduce the likelihood of them being sold to irresponsible people. We believe that licensed vendors would be more likely to sell fireworks to responsible people who would use them in a safe manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. There should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold. The retail sale of fireworks should be restricted to licensed vendors and those putting on authorised displays. It's ridiculous that anyone can essentially buy explosives over the counter. They are highly dangerous and they're far from essential at the average celebration. The retail sale of fireworks should be restricted to licensed vendors. This will go some way to ensuring that fireworks are not sold to those who are irresponsible and should reduce any firework related accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, we should restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed vendors. Fireworks can be dangerous and the sale of fireworks should be restricted to licensed vendors. This will go some way to ensuring that fireworks are not sold to those who are irresponsible and should reduce any firework related accidents. This would make it safer for everyone.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed vendors. Fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. You should be licensed to sell or store them because they are explosives and we need to ensure they are manufactured to high safety standards and then transported and stored safely and only sold responsibly to limit and prevent accidents and harm. We also believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. We would also like to see a move to limiting the noise or better yet reducing the noise completely if that is possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, the sale of fireworks should be restricted to licensed vendors. Fireworks can be dangerous and we believe that restricting their sale to licensed vendors would reduce the likelihood of them being sold to irresponsible people. We believe that licensed vendors would be more likely to sell fireworks to responsible people who would use them in a safe manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. There should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold. The retail sale of fireworks should be restricted to licensed vendors and those putting on authorised displays. It's ridiculous that anyone can essentially buy explosives over the counter. They are highly dangerous and they're far from essential at the average celebration. The retail sale of fireworks should be restricted to licensed vendors. This will go some way to ensuring that fireworks are not sold to those who are irresponsible and should reduce any firework related accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, we should restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed vendors. Fireworks can be dangerous and the sale of fireworks should be restricted to licensed vendors. This will go some way to ensuring that fireworks are not sold to those who are irresponsible and should reduce any firework related accidents. This would make it safer for everyone.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed vendors. Fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. You should be licensed to sell or store them because they are explosives and we need to ensure they are manufactured to high safety standards and then transported and stored safely and only sold responsibly to limit and prevent accidents and harm. We also believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. We would also like to see a move to limiting the noise or better yet reducing the noise completely if that is possible. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000834.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000834.soc index b87c6fdf..611d80d2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000834.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000834.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, parents should not be able to buy their children cigarettes. Cigarettes are a harmful product which can cause serious health issues. This can affect children's development and lead to an early death. Children are not old enough to make their own decisions about whether to smoke or not and so it is the responsibility of parents to look after their children and protect them from cigarettes. By keeping a firm line against parents buying cigarettes for kids you help parents who may struggle to say "no" to their children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, parents should not be able to buy cigarettes for their children. The health implications for children are dire and parents should be doing everything they can to discourage their children from smoking. The effects of smoking on children can be detrimental to their health and development. The consensus view of the group was that this issue is not black and white, but that the health implications for children of smoking cigarettes are severe. The group agreed that parents should be encouraged to act in the best interests of their children and that this includes discouraging them from smoking cigarettes. The group felt that by making it illegal for parents to buy cigarettes for their children, this will help parents who may struggle to say "no" to their children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, parents should not be able to buy their children cigarettes. Children under 18 are not mature enough to make their own decisions and therefore parents should not be able to buy cigarettes for their children. It is the parents responsibility to care for their children and cigarettes are damaging to a child's health. Buying cigarettes for children will also lead to the children being addicted to cigarettes. The effects of cigarettes on a child's health can be very serious. Buying cigarettes for children will also lead to an increase in the number of children who smoke, which will have a detrimental effect on their health and wellbeing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, parents should not be able to buy their children cigarettes. We have a duty of care to protect our children and cigarettes have a detrimental effect on their health. We should be discouraging the use of cigarettes in society and this will not help. We also need to protect the NHS from the burden of the health implications of smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, parents should not be able to buy their children cigarettes. Cigarettes are a harmful product which can cause serious health issues. This can affect children's development and lead to an early death. Children are not old enough to make their own decisions about whether to smoke or not and so it is the responsibility of parents to look after their children and protect them from cigarettes. By keeping a firm line against parents buying cigarettes for kids you help parents who may struggle to say "no" to their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, parents should not be able to buy cigarettes for their children. The health implications for children are dire and parents should be doing everything they can to discourage their children from smoking. The effects of smoking on children can be detrimental to their health and development. The consensus view of the group was that this issue is not black and white, but that the health implications for children of smoking cigarettes are severe. The group agreed that parents should be encouraged to act in the best interests of their children and that this includes discouraging them from smoking cigarettes. The group felt that by making it illegal for parents to buy cigarettes for their children, this will help parents who may struggle to say "no" to their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, parents should not be able to buy their children cigarettes. Children under 18 are not mature enough to make their own decisions and therefore parents should not be able to buy cigarettes for their children. It is the parents responsibility to care for their children and cigarettes are damaging to a child's health. Buying cigarettes for children will also lead to the children being addicted to cigarettes. The effects of cigarettes on a child's health can be very serious. Buying cigarettes for children will also lead to an increase in the number of children who smoke, which will have a detrimental effect on their health and wellbeing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, parents should not be able to buy their children cigarettes. We have a duty of care to protect our children and cigarettes have a detrimental effect on their health. We should be discouraging the use of cigarettes in society and this will not help. We also need to protect the NHS from the burden of the health implications of smoking. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000835.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000835.soc index ff1b32e0..24e92168 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000835.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000835.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, humans do have an innate ability to be moral. This is because most people are naturally moral and just and good. This is a quality which people are born with but is also developed through nurture. It is human nature to do the right thing and to care about other people and our environment. There are notable exceptions where some people do not have this ability to be moral, for example serial killers. However, these are often caused by environmental situations, such as stealing to take drugs, stealing because of having very little money. Conclusion: The group of participants have come to the consensus view that in general, humans do have an innate ability to be moral. This is because most people are naturally moral and just and good. This is a quality which people are born with but is also developed through nurture. It is human nature to do the right thing and to care about other people and our environment. There are notable exceptions where some people do not have this ability to be moral, for example serial killers. However, these are often caused by environmental situations, such as stealing to take drugs, stealing because of having very little money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans do have an innate ability to be moral. This ability is shaped by their environment, upbringing and experiences, however most people are naturally moral and just and good. Humans have the ability to be moral, but it is shaped by their environment, upbringing and experiences. Most people are naturally moral and just and good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans do have an innate ability to be moral. This is something that is built into us, it is part of our nature. It is something that we are born with and that we develop through life. This is something that makes us human and that separates us from animals. We are naturally good and want to do good things. We have a sense of right and wrong. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the innate ability of humans to be moral is a very interesting topic and one that we feel is very important to the human race. We have come to the conclusion that humans do have an innate ability to be moral. We feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We have a natural inclination to do the right thing and feel that this is the case for most people. There will always be exceptions to the rule and this is a very important point to note. We also feel that there is a huge amount of influence from the environment we are brought up in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, humans do have an innate ability to be moral. This is because most people are naturally moral and just and good. This is a quality which people are born with but is also developed through nurture. It is human nature to do the right thing and to care about other people and our environment. There are notable exceptions where some people do not have this ability to be moral, for example serial killers. However, these are often caused by environmental situations, such as stealing to take drugs, stealing because of having very little money. Conclusion: The group of participants have come to the consensus view that in general, humans do have an innate ability to be moral. This is because most people are naturally moral and just and good. This is a quality which people are born with but is also developed through nurture. It is human nature to do the right thing and to care about other people and our environment. There are notable exceptions where some people do not have this ability to be moral, for example serial killers. However, these are often caused by environmental situations, such as stealing to take drugs, stealing because of having very little money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans do have an innate ability to be moral. This ability is shaped by their environment, upbringing and experiences, however most people are naturally moral and just and good. Humans have the ability to be moral, but it is shaped by their environment, upbringing and experiences. Most people are naturally moral and just and good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans do have an innate ability to be moral. This is something that is built into us, it is part of our nature. It is something that we are born with and that we develop through life. This is something that makes us human and that separates us from animals. We are naturally good and want to do good things. We have a sense of right and wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the innate ability of humans to be moral is a very interesting topic and one that we feel is very important to the human race. We have come to the conclusion that humans do have an innate ability to be moral. We feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We have a natural inclination to do the right thing and feel that this is the case for most people. There will always be exceptions to the rule and this is a very important point to note. We also feel that there is a huge amount of influence from the environment we are brought up in. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000836.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000836.soc index 4b142441..c7bf0b28 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000836.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000836.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Public transport should be free to use as it is a vital service for many people, especially those on lower incomes. The costs of running public transport would be subsidised by the government, as it is currently. However, there would be a need to raise taxes in order to pay for this service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of making public transport free is a good one. However, the costs associated with providing the service, which would be enormous, would have to be met from somewhere and that is where the problem would start. The government would need to raise taxes, at either national or local levels, to pay for this or the government would need to borrow more to pay for it which would increase the national debt. It wouldn't be sustainable in the long term although they could do something like make short term concessions for some income groups so that it is subsidised rather than completely free. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Public transport should be free. However, we recognise that there are costs involved in providing public transport, and that it is impractical to make it completely free. We therefore suggest that a system of subsidies be put in place to reduce the costs of public transport for low income groups. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Public transport should be free. However, the costs of providing the service would need to be covered by some means. The government could provide the service free of charge, but this would mean raising taxes to pay for it. The government could also provide the service free of charge and cover the costs by borrowing more money. This would increase the national debt. If public transport was provided free of charge, it would be very popular, and more people would use it. The costs of providing the service would be high, so it would be very difficult to make it free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Public transport should be free to use as it is a vital service for many people, especially those on lower incomes. The costs of running public transport would be subsidised by the government, as it is currently. However, there would be a need to raise taxes in order to pay for this service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of making public transport free is a good one. However, the costs associated with providing the service, which would be enormous, would have to be met from somewhere and that is where the problem would start. The government would need to raise taxes, at either national or local levels, to pay for this or the government would need to borrow more to pay for it which would increase the national debt. It wouldn't be sustainable in the long term although they could do something like make short term concessions for some income groups so that it is subsidised rather than completely free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Public transport should be free. However, we recognise that there are costs involved in providing public transport, and that it is impractical to make it completely free. We therefore suggest that a system of subsidies be put in place to reduce the costs of public transport for low income groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Public transport should be free. However, the costs of providing the service would need to be covered by some means. The government could provide the service free of charge, but this would mean raising taxes to pay for it. The government could also provide the service free of charge and cover the costs by borrowing more money. This would increase the national debt. If public transport was provided free of charge, it would be very popular, and more people would use it. The costs of providing the service would be high, so it would be very difficult to make it free. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000837.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000837.soc index 56fb642d..689a47f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000837.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000837.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Dogs are better pets than cats. This is because dogs are more trainable, they use the bathroom outside, they protect you and promote a more active lifestyle. Dogs are more loyal and supportive, they have a good sense of smell which means that they can help the police.Dogs are more friendly. They are also great at sniffing out drugs and bombs, and are able to help the police and other security agencies in a wide variety of ways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Dogs are better pets than cats. This is because dogs are more trainable, they use the bathroom outside, they protect you and promote a more active lifestyle. Dogs are more loyal and supportive, they have a good sense of smell which means that they can help the police.Dogs are more friendly. They also have the ability to sense danger and warn you. They can help the police and find missing people on mountains. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Dogs are better pets than cats. This is because dogs are more trainable, they use the bathroom outside, they protect you and promote a more active lifestyle. Dogs are more loyal and supportive, they have a good sense of smell which means that they can help the police.Dogs are more friendly. They can also be trained to assist people in a variety of ways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Dogs are better pets than cats. This is because dogs are more trainable, they use the bathroom outside, they protect you and promote a more active lifestyle. Dogs are more loyal and supportive, they have a good sense of smell which means that they can help the police.Dogs are more friendly. They can also be trained to help the blind, support people with mental illness and perform other tasks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Dogs are better pets than cats. This is because dogs are more trainable, they use the bathroom outside, they protect you and promote a more active lifestyle. Dogs are more loyal and supportive, they have a good sense of smell which means that they can help the police.Dogs are more friendly. They are also great at sniffing out drugs and bombs, and are able to help the police and other security agencies in a wide variety of ways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Dogs are better pets than cats. This is because dogs are more trainable, they use the bathroom outside, they protect you and promote a more active lifestyle. Dogs are more loyal and supportive, they have a good sense of smell which means that they can help the police.Dogs are more friendly. They also have the ability to sense danger and warn you. They can help the police and find missing people on mountains. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Dogs are better pets than cats. This is because dogs are more trainable, they use the bathroom outside, they protect you and promote a more active lifestyle. Dogs are more loyal and supportive, they have a good sense of smell which means that they can help the police.Dogs are more friendly. They can also be trained to assist people in a variety of ways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Dogs are better pets than cats. This is because dogs are more trainable, they use the bathroom outside, they protect you and promote a more active lifestyle. Dogs are more loyal and supportive, they have a good sense of smell which means that they can help the police.Dogs are more friendly. They can also be trained to help the blind, support people with mental illness and perform other tasks. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000838.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000838.soc index 32a6104c..323f4c45 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000838.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000838.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed vendors. Fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. You should be licensed to sell or store them because they are explosives and we need to ensure they are manufactured to high safety standards and then transported and stored safely and only sold responsibly to limit and prevent accidents and harm. We also believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. We would also like to see a move to limiting the noise or better yet reducing the noise completely if that is possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. You should be licensed to sell or store them because they are explosives and we need to ensure they are manufactured to high safety standards and then transported and stored safely and only sold responsibly to limit and prevent accidents and harm. We also believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. We would also like to see a move to limiting the noise or better yet reducing the noise completely if that is possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Fireworks can be dangerous and should be well regulated. We believe they should be sold only by licensed vendors, and the retail sale should be restricted to those putting on authorised displays. It is ridiculous that anyone can essentially buy explosives over the counter. Fireworks are highly dangerous and they're far from essential at the average celebration. We believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. We would also like to see a move to limiting the noise or better yet reducing the noise completely if that is possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed vendors. Fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. You should be licensed to sell or store them because they are explosives and we need to ensure they are manufactured to high safety standards and then transported and stored safely and only sold responsibly to limit and prevent accidents and harm. We also believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed vendors. Fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. You should be licensed to sell or store them because they are explosives and we need to ensure they are manufactured to high safety standards and then transported and stored safely and only sold responsibly to limit and prevent accidents and harm. We also believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. We would also like to see a move to limiting the noise or better yet reducing the noise completely if that is possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. You should be licensed to sell or store them because they are explosives and we need to ensure they are manufactured to high safety standards and then transported and stored safely and only sold responsibly to limit and prevent accidents and harm. We also believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. We would also like to see a move to limiting the noise or better yet reducing the noise completely if that is possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Fireworks can be dangerous and should be well regulated. We believe they should be sold only by licensed vendors, and the retail sale should be restricted to those putting on authorised displays. It is ridiculous that anyone can essentially buy explosives over the counter. Fireworks are highly dangerous and they're far from essential at the average celebration. We believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. We would also like to see a move to limiting the noise or better yet reducing the noise completely if that is possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed vendors. Fireworks are dangerous and should be well regulated. You should be licensed to sell or store them because they are explosives and we need to ensure they are manufactured to high safety standards and then transported and stored safely and only sold responsibly to limit and prevent accidents and harm. We also believe there should be stricter usage requirements and limits linked to when they can be sold because of the negative effects they can have on animals and wildlife. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000839.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000839.soc index b244c039..afdf04de 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000839.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000839.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should increase spending on healthcare by 10% of GDP. This is because we are living longer and the population is aging. This means that more money will be spent on healthcare in the future and it would be better to start spending more now. The economy will also benefit from this because people will be healthier and can work for longer. However, this increase in spending will have to be balanced against other areas of spending. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should increase spending on healthcare. This will help improve the efficiency of the healthcare system, and help make it more accessible for the general public. This is especially important for people who are less well-off and who cannot afford private healthcare. However, we also recognise that increasing government spending in one area may mean reducing spending in another area. Therefore, the government should increase spending on healthcare, but only to the extent that this does not compromise spending in other areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we think that increasing government spending on healthcare by 10% of GDP would be a good idea. However, it is important to consider that this would require a trade-off with other government spending. Therefore, it would be important to ensure that any increase in government spending on healthcare is necessary, and that it is used in the most efficient way possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should increase spending on healthcare by 10% of GDP. This is because we are living longer and the population is aging. This means that more money will be spent on healthcare in the future and it would be better to start spending more now. The economy will also benefit from this because people will be healthier and can work for longer. However, this increase in spending will have to be balanced against other areas of spending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should increase spending on healthcare. This will help improve the efficiency of the healthcare system, and help make it more accessible for the general public. This is especially important for people who are less well-off and who cannot afford private healthcare. However, we also recognise that increasing government spending in one area may mean reducing spending in another area. Therefore, the government should increase spending on healthcare, but only to the extent that this does not compromise spending in other areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we think that increasing government spending on healthcare by 10% of GDP would be a good idea. However, it is important to consider that this would require a trade-off with other government spending. Therefore, it would be important to ensure that any increase in government spending on healthcare is necessary, and that it is used in the most efficient way possible. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000840.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000840.soc index f917a045..5dc46a39 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000840.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000840.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the UK will never be able to stop using fossil fuels. This is because we are heavily reliant on fossil fuels and have been for a very long time. We also do not have the infrastructure in place to be able to transition to a world without fossil fuels. We have come to this conclusion because there are too many actors in our current Government whose best interest is in keeping fossil fuels alive; this may be due to them being a direct stakeholder of fossil fuel companies, or they receive donations from these companies. We also believe that the Government are not organised, motivated or intelligent enough to oversee the migration of fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources. We believe we would need an entire overhaul to our democratic processes in order to be able to transition to a world without fossil fuels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we have come to the opinion that the UK will not be able to stop using fossil fuels. We believe this because the UK is a very developed country and therefore is highly reliant on fossil fuels. We also think that it will be very hard to get rid of fossil fuels because it is the cheapest and most reliable source of energy. It will also be hard to get rid of fossil fuels because the UK is a very developed country and is highly reliant on it. The UK also has a very cold climate which means that they would need a lot of energy to keep warm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the UK will not be able to stop using fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels is too deeply ingrained in our way of life, and it would be too difficult to find a way to transition to a world without them. It would also be too difficult to get everyone on board with the idea of doing so, and there are simply too many actors who have a vested interest in keeping fossil fuels alive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was very pessimistic about the UK's ability to stop using fossil fuels. We all agreed that the UK is far too dependent on fossil fuels, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. While we all agreed that the UK should stop using fossil fuels, it is not in our best interest to stop using them at the moment. The group came to the consensus view that the UK will not stop using fossil fuels, because we are too dependent on them and because the alternatives are not as reliable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK will never be able to stop using fossil fuels. This is because we are heavily reliant on fossil fuels and have been for a very long time. We also do not have the infrastructure in place to be able to transition to a world without fossil fuels. We have come to this conclusion because there are too many actors in our current Government whose best interest is in keeping fossil fuels alive; this may be due to them being a direct stakeholder of fossil fuel companies, or they receive donations from these companies. We also believe that the Government are not organised, motivated or intelligent enough to oversee the migration of fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources. We believe we would need an entire overhaul to our democratic processes in order to be able to transition to a world without fossil fuels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we have come to the opinion that the UK will not be able to stop using fossil fuels. We believe this because the UK is a very developed country and therefore is highly reliant on fossil fuels. We also think that it will be very hard to get rid of fossil fuels because it is the cheapest and most reliable source of energy. It will also be hard to get rid of fossil fuels because the UK is a very developed country and is highly reliant on it. The UK also has a very cold climate which means that they would need a lot of energy to keep warm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the UK will not be able to stop using fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels is too deeply ingrained in our way of life, and it would be too difficult to find a way to transition to a world without them. It would also be too difficult to get everyone on board with the idea of doing so, and there are simply too many actors who have a vested interest in keeping fossil fuels alive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was very pessimistic about the UK's ability to stop using fossil fuels. We all agreed that the UK is far too dependent on fossil fuels, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. While we all agreed that the UK should stop using fossil fuels, it is not in our best interest to stop using them at the moment. The group came to the consensus view that the UK will not stop using fossil fuels, because we are too dependent on them and because the alternatives are not as reliable. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000841.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000841.soc index dfe362d7..a77a9de8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000841.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000841.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. In particular, the right to protest is important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the right to protest is an important right that should be protected. However, there are some circumstances where the government should be able to ban public protests. The government should be able to ban public protests if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. Additionally, one other circumstance where the government should be able to ban public protests is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the right to protest is an essential part of a democratic society. However, there are some circumstances where the government should be able to ban public protests. The government should be able to ban protests when there is potential for them to cause harm or danger to others. For instance, when roads are closed due to climate protestors, this can prevent ambulances getting through and stop people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). Protests that cause this level of disruption to the general public are dangerous and reckless. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the right to protest is a fundamental right in any democracy. The right to protest is one of the ways in which citizens can hold their government accountable and also express their views on important societal issues. However, there are some circumstances in which the right to protest can be limited. The government should be able to ban public protests in circumstances where the protests are likely to harm the public, or are likely to harm the protesters themselves. For example, the government should be able to ban public protests that are likely to cause a stampede or cause a fire hazard. The government should also be able to ban public protests that are likely to harm the protesters themselves, such as protests that involve a large number of people being in a confined space without adequate ventilation. The government should also be able to ban protests that are likely to cause harm to the economy of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. In particular, the right to protest is important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the right to protest is an important right that should be protected. However, there are some circumstances where the government should be able to ban public protests. The government should be able to ban public protests if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. Additionally, one other circumstance where the government should be able to ban public protests is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the right to protest is an essential part of a democratic society. However, there are some circumstances where the government should be able to ban public protests. The government should be able to ban protests when there is potential for them to cause harm or danger to others. For instance, when roads are closed due to climate protestors, this can prevent ambulances getting through and stop people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). Protests that cause this level of disruption to the general public are dangerous and reckless. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the right to protest is a fundamental right in any democracy. The right to protest is one of the ways in which citizens can hold their government accountable and also express their views on important societal issues. However, there are some circumstances in which the right to protest can be limited. The government should be able to ban public protests in circumstances where the protests are likely to harm the public, or are likely to harm the protesters themselves. For example, the government should be able to ban public protests that are likely to cause a stampede or cause a fire hazard. The government should also be able to ban public protests that are likely to harm the protesters themselves, such as protests that involve a large number of people being in a confined space without adequate ventilation. The government should also be able to ban protests that are likely to cause harm to the economy of the country. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000842.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000842.soc index 4b00e561..e5142f07 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000842.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000842.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Culture is an important part of society, however, there are more important issues that need government funding. The group felt that culture is an important part of society, however, they felt that the NHS, housing, education and crime are more important issues and need more government funding. They also felt that culture is a luxury and is less important than issues such as the NHS, housing, education and crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Culture is an important part of society, however, the group felt that the NHS, housing, education and crime are more important issues and need more government funding. They also felt that culture is a luxury and is less important than issues such as the NHS, housing, education and crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Culture is an important part of society. However, there are more important issues that need government funding. The group felt that culture is an important part of society, however, they felt that the NHS, housing, education and crime are more important issues and need more government funding. They also felt that culture is a luxury and is less important than issues such as the NHS, housing, education and crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although culture is an important part of society, there are more important issues that need government funding. The group felt that culture is an important part of society, however, they felt that the NHS, housing, education and crime are more important issues and need more government funding. They also felt that culture is a luxury and is less important than issues such as the NHS, housing, education and crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Culture is an important part of society, however, there are more important issues that need government funding. The group felt that culture is an important part of society, however, they felt that the NHS, housing, education and crime are more important issues and need more government funding. They also felt that culture is a luxury and is less important than issues such as the NHS, housing, education and crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Culture is an important part of society, however, the group felt that the NHS, housing, education and crime are more important issues and need more government funding. They also felt that culture is a luxury and is less important than issues such as the NHS, housing, education and crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Culture is an important part of society. However, there are more important issues that need government funding. The group felt that culture is an important part of society, however, they felt that the NHS, housing, education and crime are more important issues and need more government funding. They also felt that culture is a luxury and is less important than issues such as the NHS, housing, education and crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although culture is an important part of society, there are more important issues that need government funding. The group felt that culture is an important part of society, however, they felt that the NHS, housing, education and crime are more important issues and need more government funding. They also felt that culture is a luxury and is less important than issues such as the NHS, housing, education and crime. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000843.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000843.soc index f775c6ac..eaef6fc2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000843.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000843.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Humans have an innate ability to be moral. This ability is, however, very much influenced by the environment in which a person is brought up. We feel that it is the responsibility of parents and guardians to nurture this ability in children and to instill morals and values from a young age. We feel that there is a lot of influence from the environment we are brought up in. We also feel that there are exceptions to the rule and that these exceptions do not alter the general point. We also feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The innate ability of humans to be moral is a very interesting topic and one that we feel is very important to the human race. We have come to the conclusion that humans do have an innate ability to be moral. We feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We have a natural inclination to do the right thing and feel that this is the case for most people. There will always be exceptions to the rule and this is a very important point to note. We also feel that there is a huge amount of influence from the environment we are brought up in. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans have an innate ability to be moral. This is evident in the fact that all people are born with a natural moral compass and that most people have a natural inclination to do the right thing. This is not to say that we do not make mistakes or that there are not exceptions to the rule. This is a very important point to note. It is also very important to note that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We are all born with the same innate ability to be moral but it is the environment in which we are brought up in that can shape this ability. Conclusion: The human ability to be moral is a very interesting topic and one that we feel is very important to the human race. We have come to the conclusion that humans do have an innate ability to be moral. We feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We have a natural inclination to do the right thing and feel that this is the case for most people. There will always be exceptions to the rule and this is a very important point to note. We also feel that there is a huge -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the innate ability of humans to be moral is a very interesting topic and one that we feel is very important to the human race. We have come to the conclusion that humans do have an innate ability to be moral. We feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We have a natural inclination to do the right thing and feel that this is the case for most people. There will always be exceptions to the rule and this is a very important point to note. We also feel that there is a huge amount of influence from the environment we are brought up in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Humans have an innate ability to be moral. This ability is, however, very much influenced by the environment in which a person is brought up. We feel that it is the responsibility of parents and guardians to nurture this ability in children and to instill morals and values from a young age. We feel that there is a lot of influence from the environment we are brought up in. We also feel that there are exceptions to the rule and that these exceptions do not alter the general point. We also feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The innate ability of humans to be moral is a very interesting topic and one that we feel is very important to the human race. We have come to the conclusion that humans do have an innate ability to be moral. We feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We have a natural inclination to do the right thing and feel that this is the case for most people. There will always be exceptions to the rule and this is a very important point to note. We also feel that there is a huge amount of influence from the environment we are brought up in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans have an innate ability to be moral. This is evident in the fact that all people are born with a natural moral compass and that most people have a natural inclination to do the right thing. This is not to say that we do not make mistakes or that there are not exceptions to the rule. This is a very important point to note. It is also very important to note that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We are all born with the same innate ability to be moral but it is the environment in which we are brought up in that can shape this ability. Conclusion: The human ability to be moral is a very interesting topic and one that we feel is very important to the human race. We have come to the conclusion that humans do have an innate ability to be moral. We feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We have a natural inclination to do the right thing and feel that this is the case for most people. There will always be exceptions to the rule and this is a very important point to note. We also feel that there is a huge +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the innate ability of humans to be moral is a very interesting topic and one that we feel is very important to the human race. We have come to the conclusion that humans do have an innate ability to be moral. We feel that we are all born with a moral compass and that the way in which we act is a reflection of the way in which we are brought up. We have a natural inclination to do the right thing and feel that this is the case for most people. There will always be exceptions to the rule and this is a very important point to note. We also feel that there is a huge amount of influence from the environment we are brought up in. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000844.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000844.soc index 712516b5..62b34723 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000844.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000844.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Climate change is real and needs to be fought against. It is a threat to humanity. However, it is not something that can be solved by Britain alone. It is something that needs to be tackled by all nations. It needs to be tackled by big organisations as well as by individuals. We need to be careful that we don't allow the fight against climate change to be used as a way to implement more restrictions and control over the public. We need to ensure that the fight against climate change is not something that is used to make money or to implement a political agenda. We need to be careful that the fight against climate change is not used as an excuse to implement policies that hurt people financially. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Climate change is a very real threat to the future of humanity and so we should be doing all we can to reduce our carbon footprint. We should be looking at all aspects of our lives, from the food we eat to the way we travel and how we heat our homes. It is also important that we work with other countries to help them reduce their carbon footprint as well. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, Britain should go on fighting climate change by reducing our carbon footprint. The evidence is clear that climate change is happening and that human activity is causing it. As such, we all have a responsibility to try and mitigate the effects of climate change. This can be done by reducing our carbon footprint. We should all be looking to reduce the amount of energy we use and switching to more renewable sources of energy. We should also be looking to reduce our consumption of goods and food that require a lot of energy to produce. However, we should not be looking to reduce our carbon footprint at the expense of our freedom or financial well-being.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Climate change is a very real threat to the future of humanity and the world as we know it. In the fight against climate change, Britain has a responsibility to do its part, as well as encouraging other nations to do the same. There are benefits to reducing our carbon footprint and fighting climate change, such as reducing the risk of flooding and extreme weather conditions, as well as creating jobs and opportunities in green industries. However, there are also costs, such as the impact on the economy, particularly for people in lower socioeconomic groups. There is also the issue of fairness, as the UK is only responsible for a small amount of the world’s carbon emissions, so it is unfair that we should be expected to make all the changes. Therefore, the UK should fight climate change, but we must also be realistic about what we can achieve and ensure that the benefits of fighting climate change outweigh the costs.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Climate change is real and needs to be fought against. It is a threat to humanity. However, it is not something that can be solved by Britain alone. It is something that needs to be tackled by all nations. It needs to be tackled by big organisations as well as by individuals. We need to be careful that we don't allow the fight against climate change to be used as a way to implement more restrictions and control over the public. We need to ensure that the fight against climate change is not something that is used to make money or to implement a political agenda. We need to be careful that the fight against climate change is not used as an excuse to implement policies that hurt people financially. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Climate change is a very real threat to the future of humanity and so we should be doing all we can to reduce our carbon footprint. We should be looking at all aspects of our lives, from the food we eat to the way we travel and how we heat our homes. It is also important that we work with other countries to help them reduce their carbon footprint as well. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, Britain should go on fighting climate change by reducing our carbon footprint. The evidence is clear that climate change is happening and that human activity is causing it. As such, we all have a responsibility to try and mitigate the effects of climate change. This can be done by reducing our carbon footprint. We should all be looking to reduce the amount of energy we use and switching to more renewable sources of energy. We should also be looking to reduce our consumption of goods and food that require a lot of energy to produce. However, we should not be looking to reduce our carbon footprint at the expense of our freedom or financial well-being.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Climate change is a very real threat to the future of humanity and the world as we know it. In the fight against climate change, Britain has a responsibility to do its part, as well as encouraging other nations to do the same. There are benefits to reducing our carbon footprint and fighting climate change, such as reducing the risk of flooding and extreme weather conditions, as well as creating jobs and opportunities in green industries. However, there are also costs, such as the impact on the economy, particularly for people in lower socioeconomic groups. There is also the issue of fairness, as the UK is only responsible for a small amount of the world’s carbon emissions, so it is unfair that we should be expected to make all the changes. Therefore, the UK should fight climate change, but we must also be realistic about what we can achieve and ensure that the benefits of fighting climate change outweigh the costs.” 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000845.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000845.soc index f653debf..a73aa168 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000845.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000845.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. It is especially important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. In particular, the right to protest is important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. In particular, the right to protest is important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. It is particularly important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. It is especially important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. In particular, the right to protest is important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. In particular, the right to protest is important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The right to protest is an important part of a functioning democracy. It is particularly important for minorities, who often do not have the same voice as the majority. There are some circumstances, however, where the government should be able to ban public protests. The first is if the protests are led by right-wing authoritarian groups, who can then spread hate to minority groups and create chaos, if not being overseen by the police. The second is if the protests itself poses a risk to the people involved - fire hazards, security hazards, the threat of terroristic actions and a possible stampede happening. The third is if the protests cause a significant disruption to the lives of ordinary people. For example, climate change protests have been known to block roads, preventing ambulances getting through and stopping people from getting to work (doing roles that may cause significant security or safety issues, if they were not in work). 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000846.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000846.soc index 3979621c..c25fc611 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000846.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000846.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. The NHS is -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. However, I do not agree that more prescriptions and treatment should no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money. I actually believe the opposite, prescriptions are free in Wales and Scotland, it is only in England where we pay for them and this should not be the case. The funding for the NHS should be increased so that everyone can have free access to prescription medicines. The government does not need to raise more money for the NHS, the money is already there, they are just choosing to spend it on other things.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. For example, some people believe that treatments for smoking related illnesses should not be provided for free by the NHS, as this encourages smoking. Another example is that some people believe that cosmetic surgery should not be provided for free by the NHS, as this is not essential for survival. However, there are some treatments that are essential for survival, and these should be provided for free by the NHS, such as chemotherapy and dialysis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. I do not agree that more prescriptions and treatment should no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money. I actually believe the opposite, prescriptions are free in Wales and Scotland, it is only in England where we pay for them and this should not be the case. The funding for the NHS should be increased so that everyone can have free access to prescription medicines. The government does not need to raise more money for the NHS, the money is already there, they are just choosing to spend it on other things.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. The NHS is +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. However, I do not agree that more prescriptions and treatment should no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money. I actually believe the opposite, prescriptions are free in Wales and Scotland, it is only in England where we pay for them and this should not be the case. The funding for the NHS should be increased so that everyone can have free access to prescription medicines. The government does not need to raise more money for the NHS, the money is already there, they are just choosing to spend it on other things.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. For example, some people believe that treatments for smoking related illnesses should not be provided for free by the NHS, as this encourages smoking. Another example is that some people believe that cosmetic surgery should not be provided for free by the NHS, as this is not essential for survival. However, there are some treatments that are essential for survival, and these should be provided for free by the NHS, such as chemotherapy and dialysis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The NHS is a good model for providing healthcare. It is a fair and equal model that provides care for the public, so in that regard, it is a good model as healthcare should indeed be fair and equal, and not restricted by wealth like in some other countries. However, it costs the government a lot to maintain this model and there are some areas of free healthcare that are more questionable than others. Recently there has been a call for more prescriptions and treatments to no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money, and I agree with that. This ensures that our model remains efficient and effective. I do not agree that more prescriptions and treatment should no longer be provided for free to save the NHS money. I actually believe the opposite, prescriptions are free in Wales and Scotland, it is only in England where we pay for them and this should not be the case. The funding for the NHS should be increased so that everyone can have free access to prescription medicines. The government does not need to raise more money for the NHS, the money is already there, they are just choosing to spend it on other things.” 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000847.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000847.soc index cae0b506..1c50cce0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000847.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000847.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing. In order to achieve this, we should reallocate funds from other areas of government spending. In particular, we should cut down on the amount of foreign aid that we give to other countries and use this money to improve our own healthcare system. In this way, we can achieve a healthier and more equitable society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing. This will be a challenge for governments, as it will require an increase in tax and/or a decrease in spending on other areas. However, we believe that healthcare should be a priority for governments, and that a multi-faceted approach is needed in order to improve the health of populations and promote a healthier and more equitable society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing. We should also increase government spending on education and research, as these are also key factors in promoting a healthy society. However, the government needs to balance its budget, and increasing spending in one area may require reducing spending in another area. Therefore, the government should increase healthcare spending, but not at the expense of other important areas of spending.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing. The government should also take into account the broader economic context when making these decisions, to ensure that we do not sacrifice other important areas such as education and infrastructure. The government should also look at ways to make healthcare more efficient and reduce waste. This can be done by reducing the costs of healthcare and increasing the quality of care, in order to make healthcare more affordable for all.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing. In order to achieve this, we should reallocate funds from other areas of government spending. In particular, we should cut down on the amount of foreign aid that we give to other countries and use this money to improve our own healthcare system. In this way, we can achieve a healthier and more equitable society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing. This will be a challenge for governments, as it will require an increase in tax and/or a decrease in spending on other areas. However, we believe that healthcare should be a priority for governments, and that a multi-faceted approach is needed in order to improve the health of populations and promote a healthier and more equitable society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing. We should also increase government spending on education and research, as these are also key factors in promoting a healthy society. However, the government needs to balance its budget, and increasing spending in one area may require reducing spending in another area. Therefore, the government should increase healthcare spending, but not at the expense of other important areas of spending.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Healthcare is one of the most important issues facing modern societies. Therefore, we should increase government spending on healthcare. However, we should also increase spending on education and research in order to develop new treatments and improve public health. Furthermore, we should also look at ways to improve health literacy and make people more aware of their own health and wellbeing. The government should also take into account the broader economic context when making these decisions, to ensure that we do not sacrifice other important areas such as education and infrastructure. The government should also look at ways to make healthcare more efficient and reduce waste. This can be done by reducing the costs of healthcare and increasing the quality of care, in order to make healthcare more affordable for all.” 2: 3,2,4,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000848.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000848.soc index 1f619cfd..18a52384 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000848.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000848.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of buying foreign produce. The group was of the opinion that it is essential to buy foreign produce where local produce is not available. The group was also of the opinion that the money generated from buying foreign produce can help to improve the local economy of the country of origin. The group was of the opinion that if the produce can be made locally then it should be purchased locally. The group was of the opinion that the ecological footprint of the process of bringing the goods into the country should be considered before buying. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was of the opinion that it is ethical to buy foreign produce. We believe that in many cases, buying foreign produce is essential and it is not possible to buy locally. We believe that the issue of foreign produce undercutting local produce is a difficult one, and we believe that it is important to try and support local produce where possible. We believe that the issue of foreign produce undercutting local produce is a difficult one, and we believe that it is important to try and support local produce where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the purchase of foreign produce is ethical. However, it is important to consider the working conditions of the staff that produced the product and the environmental impact of transporting the product to Ireland. It is also important to consider whether the product can be produced locally and to support local businesses and farmers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is ethical to buy foreign produce. It is important to consider the working conditions of the people who produce the goods, and to consider the ecological footprint of transporting the goods. It is also important to support local businesses, where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of buying foreign produce. The group was of the opinion that it is essential to buy foreign produce where local produce is not available. The group was also of the opinion that the money generated from buying foreign produce can help to improve the local economy of the country of origin. The group was of the opinion that if the produce can be made locally then it should be purchased locally. The group was of the opinion that the ecological footprint of the process of bringing the goods into the country should be considered before buying. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was of the opinion that it is ethical to buy foreign produce. We believe that in many cases, buying foreign produce is essential and it is not possible to buy locally. We believe that the issue of foreign produce undercutting local produce is a difficult one, and we believe that it is important to try and support local produce where possible. We believe that the issue of foreign produce undercutting local produce is a difficult one, and we believe that it is important to try and support local produce where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the purchase of foreign produce is ethical. However, it is important to consider the working conditions of the staff that produced the product and the environmental impact of transporting the product to Ireland. It is also important to consider whether the product can be produced locally and to support local businesses and farmers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is ethical to buy foreign produce. It is important to consider the working conditions of the people who produce the goods, and to consider the ecological footprint of transporting the goods. It is also important to support local businesses, where possible. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000849.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000849.soc index 19884dbb..32d7d95e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000849.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000849.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of banning cars from city centres. This would reduce pollution and congestion, and also improve the environment and quality of life for people in the city. However, there were some reservations. For example, some people would not be able to use public transport because of a disability, or they would not be able to carry large or heavy items on public transport. Also, some people would have to travel a long way to use public transport and it might be more convenient to drive. The group suggested that it would be a good idea to have a park and ride system to encourage people to use public transport and reduce the number of cars in the city centre. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning cars from city centres. The reasons for this included the fact that cars create a lot of pollution and make city centres unpleasant to be in. In particular, participants were in favour of pedestrianised streets. However, it was also noted that it would be difficult to ban cars from city centres as there is a genuine need to take cars into city centres. The group felt that in order to reduce the number of cars in city centres, we should encourage people to use public transport more. This could be done by improving the public transport system so that it is more reliable and cost effective. The group also felt that people should be encouraged to use bikes to get around city centres. The group also felt that there should be more cycle paths in city centres. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although we would all like to see cars banned from city centres, we don't think it is currently possible to do this. There is not currently a good enough public transport system in place to cope with the extra influx of users. We think that the best way to reduce the amount of cars in city centres is to improve the public transport system. This would mean that people would be more likely to use public transport and less likely to use their cars. This would mean less pollution and make city centres a nicer place to be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that cars should be banned from city centres as this will reduce pollution, congestion and make it a more pleasant environment to spend time in. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with a good public transport system and cycle paths. We believe that cars should be banned from city centres as this will reduce pollution, congestion and make it a more pleasant environment to spend time in. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with a good public transport system and cycle paths. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of banning cars from city centres. This would reduce pollution and congestion, and also improve the environment and quality of life for people in the city. However, there were some reservations. For example, some people would not be able to use public transport because of a disability, or they would not be able to carry large or heavy items on public transport. Also, some people would have to travel a long way to use public transport and it might be more convenient to drive. The group suggested that it would be a good idea to have a park and ride system to encourage people to use public transport and reduce the number of cars in the city centre. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning cars from city centres. The reasons for this included the fact that cars create a lot of pollution and make city centres unpleasant to be in. In particular, participants were in favour of pedestrianised streets. However, it was also noted that it would be difficult to ban cars from city centres as there is a genuine need to take cars into city centres. The group felt that in order to reduce the number of cars in city centres, we should encourage people to use public transport more. This could be done by improving the public transport system so that it is more reliable and cost effective. The group also felt that people should be encouraged to use bikes to get around city centres. The group also felt that there should be more cycle paths in city centres. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although we would all like to see cars banned from city centres, we don't think it is currently possible to do this. There is not currently a good enough public transport system in place to cope with the extra influx of users. We think that the best way to reduce the amount of cars in city centres is to improve the public transport system. This would mean that people would be more likely to use public transport and less likely to use their cars. This would mean less pollution and make city centres a nicer place to be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that cars should be banned from city centres as this will reduce pollution, congestion and make it a more pleasant environment to spend time in. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with a good public transport system and cycle paths. We believe that cars should be banned from city centres as this will reduce pollution, congestion and make it a more pleasant environment to spend time in. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with a good public transport system and cycle paths. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000850.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000850.soc index d3e455a9..c6318a9a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000850.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000850.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are good arguments for and against requiring people to carry ID cards. Although there are good arguments for and against the idea of requiring people to carry ID cards, we feel that it is a step too far to force people to do so. In a society where freedom of movement is a key concept, the idea of forcing people to carry ID cards is a step too far and could lead to a totalitarian society. We do not feel that there is a valid reason for forcing people to carry ID cards and that this would be a threat to freedom of movement and personal anonymity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there are good arguments for and against the idea of requiring people to carry ID cards, we feel that it is a step too far to force people to do so. In a society where freedom of movement is a key concept, the idea of forcing people to carry ID cards is a step too far and could lead to a totalitarian society. We do not feel that there is a valid reason for forcing people to carry ID cards and that this would be a threat to freedom of movement and personal anonymity. However, we do feel that it would be a good idea for the government to provide ID cards for free to those who wish to carry them, to ensure that everyone has the ability to prove their identity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are good arguments for and against the idea of requiring people to carry ID cards, we feel that it is a step too far to force people to do so. In a society where freedom of movement is a key concept, the idea of forcing people to carry ID cards is a step too far and could lead to a totalitarian society. We do not feel that there is a valid reason for forcing people to carry ID cards and that this would be a threat to freedom of movement and personal anonymity. We feel that this would infringe on human rights and that nobody should be forced to carry an ID card. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: ID cards should not be mandatory. Although there are good arguments for and against the idea of requiring people to carry ID cards, we feel that it is a step too far to force people to do so. In a society where freedom of movement is a key concept, the idea of forcing people to carry ID cards is a step too far and could lead to a totalitarian society. We do not feel that there is a valid reason for forcing people to carry ID cards and that this would be a threat to freedom of movement and personal anonymity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are good arguments for and against requiring people to carry ID cards. Although there are good arguments for and against the idea of requiring people to carry ID cards, we feel that it is a step too far to force people to do so. In a society where freedom of movement is a key concept, the idea of forcing people to carry ID cards is a step too far and could lead to a totalitarian society. We do not feel that there is a valid reason for forcing people to carry ID cards and that this would be a threat to freedom of movement and personal anonymity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there are good arguments for and against the idea of requiring people to carry ID cards, we feel that it is a step too far to force people to do so. In a society where freedom of movement is a key concept, the idea of forcing people to carry ID cards is a step too far and could lead to a totalitarian society. We do not feel that there is a valid reason for forcing people to carry ID cards and that this would be a threat to freedom of movement and personal anonymity. However, we do feel that it would be a good idea for the government to provide ID cards for free to those who wish to carry them, to ensure that everyone has the ability to prove their identity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are good arguments for and against the idea of requiring people to carry ID cards, we feel that it is a step too far to force people to do so. In a society where freedom of movement is a key concept, the idea of forcing people to carry ID cards is a step too far and could lead to a totalitarian society. We do not feel that there is a valid reason for forcing people to carry ID cards and that this would be a threat to freedom of movement and personal anonymity. We feel that this would infringe on human rights and that nobody should be forced to carry an ID card. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - ID cards should not be mandatory. Although there are good arguments for and against the idea of requiring people to carry ID cards, we feel that it is a step too far to force people to do so. In a society where freedom of movement is a key concept, the idea of forcing people to carry ID cards is a step too far and could lead to a totalitarian society. We do not feel that there is a valid reason for forcing people to carry ID cards and that this would be a threat to freedom of movement and personal anonymity. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000851.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000851.soc index 4d450cad..4c808c3b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000851.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000851.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A universal basic income of £400 per month would be a good idea, but only if the amount was enough to cover the essential needs of food and shelter. If the amount was too small, it would not have the desired effect of helping people to live more comfortably, and may even have a negative effect on the economy. If the amount was too large, it could discourage people from working, as they would be able to survive without working. This would also have a negative effect on the economy. If the amount was just right, it could help to increase the economy, as people would be able to take more risks and start new businesses, knowing that they would have a basic income to fall back on. It could also help to reduce the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest, as everyone would be able to have the basic essentials of life, and then work more to get more luxuries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the idea of a universal basic income is a good one, however in practice there are some issues that need to be addressed. The first is that the amount of the basic income is not enough to live on. If people are unable to work for legitimate reasons, such as illness or disability, they will not be able to survive on the amount. The second is that the amount may be too high for people who are able to work, and may disincentivise them from seeking employment. We believe that this issue can be addressed by making the amount of the basic income dependent on the level of disability of the recipient. A person who is unable to work due to illness or disability would receive a higher amount than a person who is able to work but chooses not to. The third issue is that the amount of the basic income is not enough to cover the cost of housing. We believe that this issue can be addressed by making the amount of the basic income dependent on the cost of housing in the area. This would ensure that people in expensive areas would receive a higher amount than people in cheaper areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a universal basic income is a good idea in principle. It would allow people to have the freedom to make choices that they otherwise might not be able to make, due to a lack of financial security. It would also reduce the gap between the rich and poor, and reduce the risk of poverty for those who are unable to work for legitimate reasons. However, we also believe that it would be unfair to give the same amount to everyone, as it would mean that those who are already wealthy would be getting money that they don't need. We would prefer a model where everyone is given a basic income, but those who are wealthy would receive less. However, it would be very difficult to define what "wealthy" means, as it is a very subjective term. We would also be concerned that it would make people lazy, and less likely to work, as they would know that they would be receiving a basic income regardless of whether they work or not. We believe that this is a risk, but it would be worth trying out in a controlled manner, in order to see what the effect is on society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income would be a good idea, as it would help people who are struggling to make ends meet. However, the amount should be calculated to ensure that it is enough to cover people's basic needs and also ensure that it is not so high that it is a disincentive to work. The group also agreed that it should be taxable, as this would be a fairer way of ensuring that the wealthiest in society contributed more to the economy, and also help reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A universal basic income of £400 per month would be a good idea, but only if the amount was enough to cover the essential needs of food and shelter. If the amount was too small, it would not have the desired effect of helping people to live more comfortably, and may even have a negative effect on the economy. If the amount was too large, it could discourage people from working, as they would be able to survive without working. This would also have a negative effect on the economy. If the amount was just right, it could help to increase the economy, as people would be able to take more risks and start new businesses, knowing that they would have a basic income to fall back on. It could also help to reduce the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest, as everyone would be able to have the basic essentials of life, and then work more to get more luxuries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the idea of a universal basic income is a good one, however in practice there are some issues that need to be addressed. The first is that the amount of the basic income is not enough to live on. If people are unable to work for legitimate reasons, such as illness or disability, they will not be able to survive on the amount. The second is that the amount may be too high for people who are able to work, and may disincentivise them from seeking employment. We believe that this issue can be addressed by making the amount of the basic income dependent on the level of disability of the recipient. A person who is unable to work due to illness or disability would receive a higher amount than a person who is able to work but chooses not to. The third issue is that the amount of the basic income is not enough to cover the cost of housing. We believe that this issue can be addressed by making the amount of the basic income dependent on the cost of housing in the area. This would ensure that people in expensive areas would receive a higher amount than people in cheaper areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a universal basic income is a good idea in principle. It would allow people to have the freedom to make choices that they otherwise might not be able to make, due to a lack of financial security. It would also reduce the gap between the rich and poor, and reduce the risk of poverty for those who are unable to work for legitimate reasons. However, we also believe that it would be unfair to give the same amount to everyone, as it would mean that those who are already wealthy would be getting money that they don't need. We would prefer a model where everyone is given a basic income, but those who are wealthy would receive less. However, it would be very difficult to define what "wealthy" means, as it is a very subjective term. We would also be concerned that it would make people lazy, and less likely to work, as they would know that they would be receiving a basic income regardless of whether they work or not. We believe that this is a risk, but it would be worth trying out in a controlled manner, in order to see what the effect is on society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income would be a good idea, as it would help people who are struggling to make ends meet. However, the amount should be calculated to ensure that it is enough to cover people's basic needs and also ensure that it is not so high that it is a disincentive to work. The group also agreed that it should be taxable, as this would be a fairer way of ensuring that the wealthiest in society contributed more to the economy, and also help reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000852.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000852.soc index a700b14f..9014f981 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000852.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000852.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify people on the street. However, they should only be allowed to do so under certain circumstances. Firstly, the technology should only be used when there is a pressing need to identify a criminal or a wanted person. Secondly, the police should only be allowed to identify a person if there is reasonable cause to believe that the person is a criminal or a wanted person. Lastly, the police should be trained on the right way to use the technology, so they do not go about harassing people, or violating their human rights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Facial recognition technology is a useful tool for law enforcement. However, there are concerns about the misuse of such technology. In addition, the privacy of individuals must be respected. Therefore, there should be clear guidelines and laws on how facial recognition technology should be used. The police should not use the technology for any other purpose than identifying wanted criminals. The technology should be used only in the presence of a warrant or in the case of an emergency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify people on the street. This is a very useful technology that can be used to help identify and apprehend criminals and therefore keep society safe. However, there needs to be clear guidelines in place as to how the technology is used and the police should be properly trained in its use to ensure that it is not misused. Also, the police should not be allowed to use the data collected for any other purpose than to identify wanted people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify people on the street. The technology is very accurate and would help the police catch criminals and wanted people. The police should be allowed to use the technology as long as they do not violate human rights in the process. The technology should be piloted and ensured that it is working effectively, so as not to misidentify or wrongfully identify innocent people as criminals. Also, the police should be trained on the right way to use the technology so they do not go about harassing people, or violating their human rights. Lastly, the data from the technology should be strictly for police use, no other use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify people on the street. However, they should only be allowed to do so under certain circumstances. Firstly, the technology should only be used when there is a pressing need to identify a criminal or a wanted person. Secondly, the police should only be allowed to identify a person if there is reasonable cause to believe that the person is a criminal or a wanted person. Lastly, the police should be trained on the right way to use the technology, so they do not go about harassing people, or violating their human rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Facial recognition technology is a useful tool for law enforcement. However, there are concerns about the misuse of such technology. In addition, the privacy of individuals must be respected. Therefore, there should be clear guidelines and laws on how facial recognition technology should be used. The police should not use the technology for any other purpose than identifying wanted criminals. The technology should be used only in the presence of a warrant or in the case of an emergency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify people on the street. This is a very useful technology that can be used to help identify and apprehend criminals and therefore keep society safe. However, there needs to be clear guidelines in place as to how the technology is used and the police should be properly trained in its use to ensure that it is not misused. Also, the police should not be allowed to use the data collected for any other purpose than to identify wanted people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify people on the street. The technology is very accurate and would help the police catch criminals and wanted people. The police should be allowed to use the technology as long as they do not violate human rights in the process. The technology should be piloted and ensured that it is working effectively, so as not to misidentify or wrongfully identify innocent people as criminals. Also, the police should be trained on the right way to use the technology so they do not go about harassing people, or violating their human rights. Lastly, the data from the technology should be strictly for police use, no other use. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000853.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000853.soc index 88102eb7..454eec2a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000853.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000853.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of keeping the monarchy, but with some changes to the current system. The group felt that the monarchy is an important part of British culture and is an integral part of the country. However, the group felt that the monarchy is in need of some changes, as it is currently not as effective as it should be. The group felt that the monarchy should be given less power and more of a ceremonial role, as the monarchy currently seems to be too powerful and not in line with British values. The group felt that this is something that can be done by the government and that this would be beneficial for the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the monarchy should not be kept. The group felt that the monarchy does not serve any purpose in today's society, and is an outdated concept. The group felt that the monarchy has caused controversy for a long time and the way that the monarchy functions is outdated and should be changed. The group felt that it was unfair that the royal family receive so much money, when they do not really contribute to society. The group felt that the royal family are an example of elitism and that this is not something that should be celebrated in society. The group felt that the royal family are an example of elitism and that this is not something that should be celebrated in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the Monarchy has been in existence for many years, the role of the monarch is outdated. The people of the United Kingdom would be better served by an elected head of state. The role of the Monarch is to represent the country, yet they have been involved in scandals that do not represent the values of the country. The Monarch also has a large amount of power and this should be transferred to the government, where it can be better used to benefit the country. The country would be better served by an elected head of state, who would have been voted in by the people and who would be more representative of the values of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the participants were opposed to the idea of keeping the monarchy. Most of the participants believed that the monarchy has been outdated and it has no place in today's world. The monarchy has been able to maintain their traditions and culture which is not in the best interests of the society. The participants were also of the view that the monarchy has not been able to benefit the people in any way. However, the participants were of the view that the monarchy has been able to bring millions of pounds to the country from tourism and they are something that the British are proud of. The participants were of the view that the monarchy is a great institution that has helped to preserve the traditions and culture of the country. The participants were of the view that the monarchy has not been able to infringe on people's basic rights and the monarchy has not been able to pose a sign of dictatorship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of keeping the monarchy, but with some changes to the current system. The group felt that the monarchy is an important part of British culture and is an integral part of the country. However, the group felt that the monarchy is in need of some changes, as it is currently not as effective as it should be. The group felt that the monarchy should be given less power and more of a ceremonial role, as the monarchy currently seems to be too powerful and not in line with British values. The group felt that this is something that can be done by the government and that this would be beneficial for the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the monarchy should not be kept. The group felt that the monarchy does not serve any purpose in today's society, and is an outdated concept. The group felt that the monarchy has caused controversy for a long time and the way that the monarchy functions is outdated and should be changed. The group felt that it was unfair that the royal family receive so much money, when they do not really contribute to society. The group felt that the royal family are an example of elitism and that this is not something that should be celebrated in society. The group felt that the royal family are an example of elitism and that this is not something that should be celebrated in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the Monarchy has been in existence for many years, the role of the monarch is outdated. The people of the United Kingdom would be better served by an elected head of state. The role of the Monarch is to represent the country, yet they have been involved in scandals that do not represent the values of the country. The Monarch also has a large amount of power and this should be transferred to the government, where it can be better used to benefit the country. The country would be better served by an elected head of state, who would have been voted in by the people and who would be more representative of the values of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the participants were opposed to the idea of keeping the monarchy. Most of the participants believed that the monarchy has been outdated and it has no place in today's world. The monarchy has been able to maintain their traditions and culture which is not in the best interests of the society. The participants were also of the view that the monarchy has not been able to benefit the people in any way. However, the participants were of the view that the monarchy has been able to bring millions of pounds to the country from tourism and they are something that the British are proud of. The participants were of the view that the monarchy is a great institution that has helped to preserve the traditions and culture of the country. The participants were of the view that the monarchy has not been able to infringe on people's basic rights and the monarchy has not been able to pose a sign of dictatorship. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000854.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000854.soc index 8f4cddc3..06aa2565 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000854.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000854.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not ban vaping. Vaping is less harmful than traditional cigarettes and can be used to help people quit smoking. The government should not ban vaping as this would create a black market for vapes and also lead to people vaping in secret which would be more dangerous. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group have decided that the government should not ban vaping. The reasons for this are that vaping is much less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. Therefore, if the government were to ban vaping, people would continue to vape in secret, and this would create an underground supply of vapes, which would be difficult to control. The government should not ban vaping, but instead should not promote it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not ban vaping. Vaping is a way for many people to reduce how much tobacco they smoke, and therefore banning vaping would just create other problems. As people vape to feed a nicotine addiction, they wouldn't stop vaping if it was banned, but instead they would vape in secret and there would be an underground supply of vapes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not ban vaping. Although there are some health risks associated with vaping, it is a less harmful alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. Banning it would not stop people from vaping, but instead would create an underground supply of vapes, which would be more dangerous as they would be unregulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not ban vaping. Vaping is less harmful than traditional cigarettes and can be used to help people quit smoking. The government should not ban vaping as this would create a black market for vapes and also lead to people vaping in secret which would be more dangerous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group have decided that the government should not ban vaping. The reasons for this are that vaping is much less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. Therefore, if the government were to ban vaping, people would continue to vape in secret, and this would create an underground supply of vapes, which would be difficult to control. The government should not ban vaping, but instead should not promote it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not ban vaping. Vaping is a way for many people to reduce how much tobacco they smoke, and therefore banning vaping would just create other problems. As people vape to feed a nicotine addiction, they wouldn't stop vaping if it was banned, but instead they would vape in secret and there would be an underground supply of vapes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not ban vaping. Although there are some health risks associated with vaping, it is a less harmful alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. Banning it would not stop people from vaping, but instead would create an underground supply of vapes, which would be more dangerous as they would be unregulated. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000855.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000855.soc index 9a41ac77..b091f954 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000855.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000855.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants have come to a consensus opinion that the government should not ban vaping. The reasons for this are that vaping is much less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. Therefore, if the government were to ban vaping, people would continue to vape in secret, and this would create an underground supply of vapes, which would be difficult to control. The government should not ban vaping, but instead should not promote it. On top of this, the government should increase regulations around health and safety of vapes, as there are currently not many laws in this market and a lot of young people are starting to vape at school and become addicted to nicotine because certain brands are illegally promoting their vapes to minors. The government should also consider banning the advertising of vaping products and the marketing of them to children and young people, which some brands do illegally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the government should not ban vaping, for the following reasons. Vaping is much less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. This puts less pressure on the NHS as vaping is much less harmful. Also, if vaping is banned, there will be an underground supply of vapes, as people would vape in secret. The government should not ban vaping, but should not promote it. It is up to individuals to decide if they wish to vape. However, the government could add more health and safety regulations around the use of vaping, especially as it is aimed at children, who have started to vape at school, which is illegal. The current regulations around the sale and use of vapes do not provide sufficient control in this market, leading to irresponsible advertising of these products. In our opinion, the use of e-cigarettes and vaping should not be encouraged by the government, nor should there be more health and safety regulations surrounding its use and sale. The main focus should be on providing information so people are fully aware of the dangers of vaping. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group have decided that the government should not ban vaping. The reasons for this are that vaping is much less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. Therefore, if the government were to ban vaping, people would continue to vape in secret, and this would create an underground supply of vapes, which would be difficult to control. The government should not ban vaping, but instead should not promote it. This means that people can make their own choice on whether to vape or not, and be responsible for that decision. In addition, the government could add more regulations around the safety of vapes. This is currently an issue, as there are currently not many laws in this market and a lot of young people are starting to vape at school and become addicted to nicotine because certain brands are illegally promoting their vapes to minors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not ban vaping, as it is much less harmful to health than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. The government should not promote vaping either, but simply let people make up their own minds. The government should be putting more effort into regulating the vaping market, making it safer and healthier, in particular for young people who vape. The group feels that with the correct measures, people will have a clear understanding of the risk to their health by vaping, and will be less likely to vape. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants have come to a consensus opinion that the government should not ban vaping. The reasons for this are that vaping is much less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. Therefore, if the government were to ban vaping, people would continue to vape in secret, and this would create an underground supply of vapes, which would be difficult to control. The government should not ban vaping, but instead should not promote it. On top of this, the government should increase regulations around health and safety of vapes, as there are currently not many laws in this market and a lot of young people are starting to vape at school and become addicted to nicotine because certain brands are illegally promoting their vapes to minors. The government should also consider banning the advertising of vaping products and the marketing of them to children and young people, which some brands do illegally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should not ban vaping, for the following reasons. Vaping is much less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. This puts less pressure on the NHS as vaping is much less harmful. Also, if vaping is banned, there will be an underground supply of vapes, as people would vape in secret. The government should not ban vaping, but should not promote it. It is up to individuals to decide if they wish to vape. However, the government could add more health and safety regulations around the use of vaping, especially as it is aimed at children, who have started to vape at school, which is illegal. The current regulations around the sale and use of vapes do not provide sufficient control in this market, leading to irresponsible advertising of these products. In our opinion, the use of e-cigarettes and vaping should not be encouraged by the government, nor should there be more health and safety regulations surrounding its use and sale. The main focus should be on providing information so people are fully aware of the dangers of vaping. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group have decided that the government should not ban vaping. The reasons for this are that vaping is much less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. Therefore, if the government were to ban vaping, people would continue to vape in secret, and this would create an underground supply of vapes, which would be difficult to control. The government should not ban vaping, but instead should not promote it. This means that people can make their own choice on whether to vape or not, and be responsible for that decision. In addition, the government could add more regulations around the safety of vapes. This is currently an issue, as there are currently not many laws in this market and a lot of young people are starting to vape at school and become addicted to nicotine because certain brands are illegally promoting their vapes to minors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not ban vaping, as it is much less harmful to health than smoking traditional cigarettes and cigars. The government should not promote vaping either, but simply let people make up their own minds. The government should be putting more effort into regulating the vaping market, making it safer and healthier, in particular for young people who vape. The group feels that with the correct measures, people will have a clear understanding of the risk to their health by vaping, and will be less likely to vape. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000856.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000856.soc index 36ff2d8b..a66ad8a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000856.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000856.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to government intervention in the food choices of individuals. The group felt that people should have the right to choose what they eat, and that the government should not have the right to intervene in this area. However, the group did agree that the government should provide more support to those who struggle to afford healthy foods. The group felt that the government could provide food vouchers for those who cannot afford to buy healthy foods, and that the government could also provide support to food banks and other charities that provide healthy foods for those who cannot afford them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should not intervene to change food choices. This is because the people who make these choices should be free to choose what they want to eat. If they want to eat junk food then they should be free to do so. The government should not force people to eat healthy food as this is a violation of their freedom. However, the government should take steps to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. This could be done by subsidising the cost of healthy food or by introducing vouchers that can be used to buy healthy food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of government intervention to change food choices. It was felt that this was a personal choice and that people should be free to choose what they eat. However, it was felt that there is a problem with the cost of healthy food being more expensive than unhealthy food and that this should be addressed. It was also felt that the government should do more to promote healthy eating and to provide information on healthy eating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government intervening to change food choices. The group was in favour of the idea that people should be free to choose what they eat and that this freedom should not be taken away. The group did not believe that the government would be able to successfully implement a plan to change food choices. The group believed that this would be too difficult to implement and would be too expensive. The group did, however, believe that the government should be doing more to help people who struggle to afford healthy foods. The group believed that this could be done by giving people healthy eating food vouchers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to government intervention in the food choices of individuals. The group felt that people should have the right to choose what they eat, and that the government should not have the right to intervene in this area. However, the group did agree that the government should provide more support to those who struggle to afford healthy foods. The group felt that the government could provide food vouchers for those who cannot afford to buy healthy foods, and that the government could also provide support to food banks and other charities that provide healthy foods for those who cannot afford them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should not intervene to change food choices. This is because the people who make these choices should be free to choose what they want to eat. If they want to eat junk food then they should be free to do so. The government should not force people to eat healthy food as this is a violation of their freedom. However, the government should take steps to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. This could be done by subsidising the cost of healthy food or by introducing vouchers that can be used to buy healthy food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of government intervention to change food choices. It was felt that this was a personal choice and that people should be free to choose what they eat. However, it was felt that there is a problem with the cost of healthy food being more expensive than unhealthy food and that this should be addressed. It was also felt that the government should do more to promote healthy eating and to provide information on healthy eating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government intervening to change food choices. The group was in favour of the idea that people should be free to choose what they eat and that this freedom should not be taken away. The group did not believe that the government would be able to successfully implement a plan to change food choices. The group believed that this would be too difficult to implement and would be too expensive. The group did, however, believe that the government should be doing more to help people who struggle to afford healthy foods. The group believed that this could be done by giving people healthy eating food vouchers. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000857.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000857.soc index 3307775c..0d643c7d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000857.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000857.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should offer more tax incentives to attract foreign investment because this can bring in more capital, expertise and more technology which will improve productivity for the country. This can also create more jobs for the citizens as more companies would be attracted to invest in the UK. However, this can result in the country becoming a tax haven. This allows very wealthy individuals to exploit the benefits and leads to a more unequal society where resources are not fairly divided between people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of offering more tax incentives to attract foreign investment. This is because foreign investment can bring in more capital, expertise and technology which can improve productivity for the country. However, we also recognised that it can result in the country becoming a tax haven. This allows very wealthy individuals to exploit the benefits and leads to a more unequal society where resources are not fairly divided between people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should offer more tax incentives to attract foreign investment. Foreign investment can help to stimulate economic growth and create jobs. It can also bring in capital, expertise and technology, which can improve productivity for the country. The UK should not become a tax haven as this can lead to a more unequal society where resources are not fairly divided between people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should offer more tax incentives to attract foreign investment. This is because foreign investment can bring in more capital, expertise and more technology which will improve productivity for the country. Also this can create more jobs for the citizens as more companies would be attracted to invest in the UK. However, there is a risk that the UK could become a tax haven, allowing very wealthy individuals to exploit the benefits and leads to a more unequal society where resources are not fairly divided between people. Therefore, the government should make sure that this does not happen by making sure that the tax incentives are only offered to companies and not to individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should offer more tax incentives to attract foreign investment because this can bring in more capital, expertise and more technology which will improve productivity for the country. This can also create more jobs for the citizens as more companies would be attracted to invest in the UK. However, this can result in the country becoming a tax haven. This allows very wealthy individuals to exploit the benefits and leads to a more unequal society where resources are not fairly divided between people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of offering more tax incentives to attract foreign investment. This is because foreign investment can bring in more capital, expertise and technology which can improve productivity for the country. However, we also recognised that it can result in the country becoming a tax haven. This allows very wealthy individuals to exploit the benefits and leads to a more unequal society where resources are not fairly divided between people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should offer more tax incentives to attract foreign investment. Foreign investment can help to stimulate economic growth and create jobs. It can also bring in capital, expertise and technology, which can improve productivity for the country. The UK should not become a tax haven as this can lead to a more unequal society where resources are not fairly divided between people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should offer more tax incentives to attract foreign investment. This is because foreign investment can bring in more capital, expertise and more technology which will improve productivity for the country. Also this can create more jobs for the citizens as more companies would be attracted to invest in the UK. However, there is a risk that the UK could become a tax haven, allowing very wealthy individuals to exploit the benefits and leads to a more unequal society where resources are not fairly divided between people. Therefore, the government should make sure that this does not happen by making sure that the tax incentives are only offered to companies and not to individuals. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000858.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000858.soc index 3518dcd7..adb23070 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000858.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000858.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the age of 18 is deemed the legal age for consuming alcohol, it is not necessarily the most appropriate age. Some people may argue that alcohol should be banned altogether but this would be an unrealistic approach. The age of 21 would be more appropriate for the consumption of alcohol as this is the age when people are deemed to be mature enough to vote in elections and are also seen as adults. It is important to note that the legal age of 18 has been in place for a very long time and it would be very difficult to change it now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Alcohol is very damaging and addicting. It should not be used by people of younger ages especially when their body and brain is still developing. The current legal age of 18 does still seem too young as someone could still very well be in college and university and getting their life together. However, alcohol can be relaxing drink if consumed properly so it is really up to the individual in my opinion but increasing the age should help. There are also more liver issues with the younger generation nowadays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of increasing the legal age for consuming alcohol to 21. The age of 18 is the legal age for a person to be an adult, so we feel that they should be allowed to consume alcohol at this age. The age of 18 is also the legal age for a person to vote, so we feel that they should be allowed to consume alcohol at this age. If the age was raised to 21, this would lead to an underground drinking culture, which could fuel crime and lead to a substantially increased workload for the Police. The group of participants came to the consensus view by each person putting forward their opinion, then listening to everyone else's opinions and debating with them. Each person had to give reasons for their opinions and everyone was open to changing their mind if they were convinced by another person's opinion. In the end, the group of participants had to come to an agreement on what their consensus view was going to be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the legal age for consuming alcohol should be raised to 21. We believe that this is because the majority of people who consume alcohol are in their late teens and early twenties. We also believe that this is the age that people are the most vulnerable and at risk of being affected by alcohol and that the current age of 18 is too young. Alcohol can lead to health issues, liver damage, mental health issues, obesity, increased risk of cancer, increased risk of suicide and death. We believe that alcohol is not good for the body and the brain and that the age of 18 is too young to consume it. We believe that raising the age to 21 will lead to less people consuming alcohol and being affected by it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the age of 18 is deemed the legal age for consuming alcohol, it is not necessarily the most appropriate age. Some people may argue that alcohol should be banned altogether but this would be an unrealistic approach. The age of 21 would be more appropriate for the consumption of alcohol as this is the age when people are deemed to be mature enough to vote in elections and are also seen as adults. It is important to note that the legal age of 18 has been in place for a very long time and it would be very difficult to change it now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Alcohol is very damaging and addicting. It should not be used by people of younger ages especially when their body and brain is still developing. The current legal age of 18 does still seem too young as someone could still very well be in college and university and getting their life together. However, alcohol can be relaxing drink if consumed properly so it is really up to the individual in my opinion but increasing the age should help. There are also more liver issues with the younger generation nowadays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of increasing the legal age for consuming alcohol to 21. The age of 18 is the legal age for a person to be an adult, so we feel that they should be allowed to consume alcohol at this age. The age of 18 is also the legal age for a person to vote, so we feel that they should be allowed to consume alcohol at this age. If the age was raised to 21, this would lead to an underground drinking culture, which could fuel crime and lead to a substantially increased workload for the Police. The group of participants came to the consensus view by each person putting forward their opinion, then listening to everyone else's opinions and debating with them. Each person had to give reasons for their opinions and everyone was open to changing their mind if they were convinced by another person's opinion. In the end, the group of participants had to come to an agreement on what their consensus view was going to be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the legal age for consuming alcohol should be raised to 21. We believe that this is because the majority of people who consume alcohol are in their late teens and early twenties. We also believe that this is the age that people are the most vulnerable and at risk of being affected by alcohol and that the current age of 18 is too young. Alcohol can lead to health issues, liver damage, mental health issues, obesity, increased risk of cancer, increased risk of suicide and death. We believe that alcohol is not good for the body and the brain and that the age of 18 is too young to consume it. We believe that raising the age to 21 will lead to less people consuming alcohol and being affected by it. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000859.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000859.soc index 7d232f09..07dbfba1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000859.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000859.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not intervene to change food choices. This is because the people who make these choices should be free to choose what they want to eat. If they want to eat junk food then they should be free to do so. The government should not force people to eat healthy food as this is a violation of their freedom. However, the government should take steps to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. This could be done by subsidising the cost of healthy food or by introducing vouchers that can be used to buy healthy food. This should be implemented because more affordable healthy foods mean that it is not a choice between eating healthy food and eating food that keeps hunger at bay, but instead it is a choice between eating food that keeps hunger at bay or that is just unhealthy and expensive. The only way that the voucher scheme could be funded is if it was the only food that could be purchased with these vouchers as there would be no choice as to whether healthy or junk foods would be bought. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should not intervene to change food choices. This is because the people who make these choices should be free to choose what they want to eat. If they want to eat junk food then they should be free to do so. The government should not force people to eat healthy food as this is a violation of their freedom. However, the government should take steps to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. This could be done by subsidising the cost of healthy food or by introducing vouchers that can be used to buy healthy food. This would mean that people will still have the freedom to choose what food to buy but will have access to healthier, more affordable foods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not intervene to change food choices. However, the government should take steps to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. This could be done by subsidising the cost of healthy food or by introducing vouchers that can be used to buy healthy food. In conclusion, what a participant eats is their personal choice and the government should not intervene to change the food choices of individuals. The government should however, ensure that unhealthy food is not made cheap and readily available, particularly to vulnerable people, e.g. children. The government should subsidize and subsidise healthy food to ensure healthy choices are made easier and cheaper than unhealthy choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the government should not intervene to stop people choosing to eat unhealthy food, it should do more to encourage people to make healthy food choices. There are many ways that the government can achieve this goal, for example, through taxation. In the case of sugar, which has now been linked to many serious health conditions and ailments, including obesity and diabetes, the government has imposed a tax on the sugar content in foods and beverages that exceed a certain amount of sugar per item. While taxation is an easy way of making healthy food choices easier to access for people with lower income, it is likely to also result in a higher cost of living. There are other ways that the government can try and increase the purchase and consumption of healthy foods, particularly fresh fruit and vegetables. Many parents with young children already receive vouchers for fruit and vegetables, the cost of which are partially subsidised by the government. There could be an argument that if healthy foods become more accessible they will be more affordable. What is clear is that to stay healthy the food we eat and our ability to have the freedom of choice over our foods has to be taken more seriously. It is the government's job to incentivise healthy food choice by any means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not intervene to change food choices. This is because the people who make these choices should be free to choose what they want to eat. If they want to eat junk food then they should be free to do so. The government should not force people to eat healthy food as this is a violation of their freedom. However, the government should take steps to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. This could be done by subsidising the cost of healthy food or by introducing vouchers that can be used to buy healthy food. This should be implemented because more affordable healthy foods mean that it is not a choice between eating healthy food and eating food that keeps hunger at bay, but instead it is a choice between eating food that keeps hunger at bay or that is just unhealthy and expensive. The only way that the voucher scheme could be funded is if it was the only food that could be purchased with these vouchers as there would be no choice as to whether healthy or junk foods would be bought. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should not intervene to change food choices. This is because the people who make these choices should be free to choose what they want to eat. If they want to eat junk food then they should be free to do so. The government should not force people to eat healthy food as this is a violation of their freedom. However, the government should take steps to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. This could be done by subsidising the cost of healthy food or by introducing vouchers that can be used to buy healthy food. This would mean that people will still have the freedom to choose what food to buy but will have access to healthier, more affordable foods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not intervene to change food choices. However, the government should take steps to make healthy food more affordable and accessible. This could be done by subsidising the cost of healthy food or by introducing vouchers that can be used to buy healthy food. In conclusion, what a participant eats is their personal choice and the government should not intervene to change the food choices of individuals. The government should however, ensure that unhealthy food is not made cheap and readily available, particularly to vulnerable people, e.g. children. The government should subsidize and subsidise healthy food to ensure healthy choices are made easier and cheaper than unhealthy choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the government should not intervene to stop people choosing to eat unhealthy food, it should do more to encourage people to make healthy food choices. There are many ways that the government can achieve this goal, for example, through taxation. In the case of sugar, which has now been linked to many serious health conditions and ailments, including obesity and diabetes, the government has imposed a tax on the sugar content in foods and beverages that exceed a certain amount of sugar per item. While taxation is an easy way of making healthy food choices easier to access for people with lower income, it is likely to also result in a higher cost of living. There are other ways that the government can try and increase the purchase and consumption of healthy foods, particularly fresh fruit and vegetables. Many parents with young children already receive vouchers for fruit and vegetables, the cost of which are partially subsidised by the government. There could be an argument that if healthy foods become more accessible they will be more affordable. What is clear is that to stay healthy the food we eat and our ability to have the freedom of choice over our foods has to be taken more seriously. It is the government's job to incentivise healthy food choice by any means. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000860.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000860.soc index c9967ffc..2ef6f83e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000860.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000860.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Businesses with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. The participants agreed that this would help to address the issue of gender discrimination and would help to prevent it in the future. The participants also agreed that this would help to highlight businesses that are discriminating and would allow them to be named and shamed. The participants felt that this would help to ensure that businesses are being fair and transparent and would help to provide a level playing field for both men and women in the workplace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Businesses with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. The following reasons were cited to support this view. Firstly, it is important to know how businesses treat their employees, and the more employees a business has the more important it is to know how they treat them. Secondly, the more employees a business has the more likely it is that they are paying some employees more than others for the same work. Thirdly, the more employees a business has the more likely it is that they are paying some employees less than others for the same work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. This is because gender discrimination is still a huge problem in the UK and companies should be forced to publish gender pay gaps in order to reduce the discrimination. The problem is that companies are not forced to publish this information, and so the problem continues. If companies were forced to publish this information, it would be a step in the right direction towards reducing the discrimination. This would also mean that companies who discriminate would be named and shamed, and would hopefully reduce the discrimination. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. The way that the current economy is structured is unfair and unequal and gender pay gaps are one symptom of this. The issue of gender pay gaps is an issue of inequality. If men and women are doing the same job, they should be paid the same. There should be no excuse for a gender pay gap. We need to change the system so that it is more equal. We need to work towards a more equal society where gender pay gaps are a thing of the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Businesses with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. The participants agreed that this would help to address the issue of gender discrimination and would help to prevent it in the future. The participants also agreed that this would help to highlight businesses that are discriminating and would allow them to be named and shamed. The participants felt that this would help to ensure that businesses are being fair and transparent and would help to provide a level playing field for both men and women in the workplace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Businesses with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. The following reasons were cited to support this view. Firstly, it is important to know how businesses treat their employees, and the more employees a business has the more important it is to know how they treat them. Secondly, the more employees a business has the more likely it is that they are paying some employees more than others for the same work. Thirdly, the more employees a business has the more likely it is that they are paying some employees less than others for the same work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. This is because gender discrimination is still a huge problem in the UK and companies should be forced to publish gender pay gaps in order to reduce the discrimination. The problem is that companies are not forced to publish this information, and so the problem continues. If companies were forced to publish this information, it would be a step in the right direction towards reducing the discrimination. This would also mean that companies who discriminate would be named and shamed, and would hopefully reduce the discrimination. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. The way that the current economy is structured is unfair and unequal and gender pay gaps are one symptom of this. The issue of gender pay gaps is an issue of inequality. If men and women are doing the same job, they should be paid the same. There should be no excuse for a gender pay gap. We need to change the system so that it is more equal. We need to work towards a more equal society where gender pay gaps are a thing of the past. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000861.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000861.soc index 5bbff944..7a2e0a74 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000861.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000861.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Businesses with more than 500 employees should be required to publish their gender pay gaps. At the moment there is unfair inequality in the way that men and women are treated. Gender pay gaps are evidence of this injustice. Both men and women are capable of doing the same job equally, so they should be getting paid equally too. I believe we need to change the economy so that women are not discriminated against and to ensure this does not happen again. There should not be a pay gap when doing the same role at all. Maybe the law needs to be changed to prevent this happening. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. There is no reason in today’s modern society why women should get paid less than men for doing the same job. The way the economy is structured at the moment is creating injustice and inequality and gender pay gaps are just one of the symptoms of this. Inequality affects everyone but not equally. Most people will be on the losing side. Men and women doing the same job should be paid the same amount, however this does not always happen. The market cannot be relied on to prevent the continuation of gender discrimination. That is why a law should be passed to make companies publish their gender pay gaps so that the issue can be made public. With publicity the issue of the pay gap will be more easily confronted and will start to disappear over time. Companies will change their ways of working so as to avoid the embarrassment of having a big gender pay gap. The current capitalist system creates conditions that produce pay gaps; without changing the system, there will never be a society of gender equality and pay gaps. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. There is absolutely no excuse for any type of gender pay gap; to justify it means discriminating against someone for what they cannot help – that is the sex they were born into. We should strive to ensure that the playing field for men and women in society and business is even, especially when it comes to the most essential of resources, pay. Women are entitled to equal pay for the same work as men. Women deserve an equal opportunity to get ahead. When this opportunity is taken away because of preconceptions and historical processes they cannot help, the system is being entirely unfair to these women. Publishing gender pay gaps means that there can be no cover-up. There will be pressure on businesses with large gender pay gaps to show an improvement, perhaps resulting in a ‘top up’ payment for women currently being underpaid or similar measures to reduce pay gaps. It will allow for businesses which currently maintain gender pay gaps to have some form of shaming. Publicly, gender pay gaps will look much worse when publishing data of this kind, which is why pay equality is necessary to retain reputation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. The way that the current economy is structured is unfair and unequal and gender pay gaps are one symptom of this. The issue of gender pay gaps is an issue of inequality. If men and women are doing the same job, they should be paid the same. There should be no excuse for a gender pay gap. We need to change the system so that it is more equal. We need to work towards a more equal society where gender pay gaps are a thing of the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Businesses with more than 500 employees should be required to publish their gender pay gaps. At the moment there is unfair inequality in the way that men and women are treated. Gender pay gaps are evidence of this injustice. Both men and women are capable of doing the same job equally, so they should be getting paid equally too. I believe we need to change the economy so that women are not discriminated against and to ensure this does not happen again. There should not be a pay gap when doing the same role at all. Maybe the law needs to be changed to prevent this happening. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. There is no reason in today’s modern society why women should get paid less than men for doing the same job. The way the economy is structured at the moment is creating injustice and inequality and gender pay gaps are just one of the symptoms of this. Inequality affects everyone but not equally. Most people will be on the losing side. Men and women doing the same job should be paid the same amount, however this does not always happen. The market cannot be relied on to prevent the continuation of gender discrimination. That is why a law should be passed to make companies publish their gender pay gaps so that the issue can be made public. With publicity the issue of the pay gap will be more easily confronted and will start to disappear over time. Companies will change their ways of working so as to avoid the embarrassment of having a big gender pay gap. The current capitalist system creates conditions that produce pay gaps; without changing the system, there will never be a society of gender equality and pay gaps. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. There is absolutely no excuse for any type of gender pay gap; to justify it means discriminating against someone for what they cannot help – that is the sex they were born into. We should strive to ensure that the playing field for men and women in society and business is even, especially when it comes to the most essential of resources, pay. Women are entitled to equal pay for the same work as men. Women deserve an equal opportunity to get ahead. When this opportunity is taken away because of preconceptions and historical processes they cannot help, the system is being entirely unfair to these women. Publishing gender pay gaps means that there can be no cover-up. There will be pressure on businesses with large gender pay gaps to show an improvement, perhaps resulting in a ‘top up’ payment for women currently being underpaid or similar measures to reduce pay gaps. It will allow for businesses which currently maintain gender pay gaps to have some form of shaming. Publicly, gender pay gaps will look much worse when publishing data of this kind, which is why pay equality is necessary to retain reputation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies with more than 500 employees should be required to publish gender pay gaps. The way that the current economy is structured is unfair and unequal and gender pay gaps are one symptom of this. The issue of gender pay gaps is an issue of inequality. If men and women are doing the same job, they should be paid the same. There should be no excuse for a gender pay gap. We need to change the system so that it is more equal. We need to work towards a more equal society where gender pay gaps are a thing of the past. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000862.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000862.soc index 2dafd98d..e8286136 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000862.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000862.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Facial recognition technology can be useful in solving crimes and keeping the public safe. However, there are also privacy concerns. In our opinion, the technology should only be used in certain circumstances and with proper regulation in place to prevent misuse and abuse of the technology.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Facial recognition technology can be useful in the fight against crime and terrorism. However, there are concerns over privacy and civil liberties and it is vital that the government does not abuse this technology. Facial recognition should only be used in the most serious of cases and should be subject to strict regulation.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Facial recognition technology is a very useful tool that can help law enforcement agencies in their efforts to fight crime and keep people safe. However, it can also be a threat to civil liberties and the right to privacy. Facial recognition technology should only be used in the fight against crime, and only in the most extreme cases. Facial recognition technology should not be used to spy on innocent citizens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Facial recognition technology can be beneficial to public safety and security. However, there is a need to ensure that the technology is not misused and that privacy of citizens is not compromised. Facial recognition technology can be a powerful tool to law enforcement agencies, but there is a need to ensure that the technology is used only for legitimate purposes.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Facial recognition technology can be useful in solving crimes and keeping the public safe. However, there are also privacy concerns. In our opinion, the technology should only be used in certain circumstances and with proper regulation in place to prevent misuse and abuse of the technology.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Facial recognition technology can be useful in the fight against crime and terrorism. However, there are concerns over privacy and civil liberties and it is vital that the government does not abuse this technology. Facial recognition should only be used in the most serious of cases and should be subject to strict regulation.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Facial recognition technology is a very useful tool that can help law enforcement agencies in their efforts to fight crime and keep people safe. However, it can also be a threat to civil liberties and the right to privacy. Facial recognition technology should only be used in the fight against crime, and only in the most extreme cases. Facial recognition technology should not be used to spy on innocent citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Facial recognition technology can be beneficial to public safety and security. However, there is a need to ensure that the technology is not misused and that privacy of citizens is not compromised. Facial recognition technology can be a powerful tool to law enforcement agencies, but there is a need to ensure that the technology is used only for legitimate purposes.” 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000863.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000863.soc index 4e76eac6..d5b42750 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000863.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000863.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Facial recognition technology can be a useful tool for fighting crime, but its use should be carefully regulated. Facial recognition should not be used indiscriminately or by anyone other than the police and it should not be used in cases other than the most serious crimes and it should be used only when no other way to obtain information is available. Authorisation for its use should be highly regulated with checks and balances to prevent abuse or mistakes. In an emergency situation, it should be possible for officers to bypass the usual authorisation process and use the system, but that information should be made available to all parties afterwards and should be used only if other means of getting information are not available” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Facial recognition technology can be useful in the fight against crime and terrorism. The police should be allowed to use this technology to identify potential criminals, however only if strict conditions are met, as misuse of facial recognition technology could lead to breaches of data privacy and the infringement of civil liberties. The people and the general public must also be given the chance to have their say, and must not be subject to the use of facial recognition without their permission. The government also has an important responsibility to regulate this technology so that it does not fall into the hands of hackers and is not subject to abuse. Only with regulation and public oversight will this technology work for the good of society, as opposed to becoming a sinister tool which works against the general public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Facial recognition technology can be useful in the fight against crime and terrorism. The government needs to balance the potential benefits and risks. Use of facial recognition should be subject to strict regulation and be limited to cases where public safety is a legitimate concern. Everyone should be entitled to a private life. A policy of responsible disclosure of images should be implemented and unnecessary collection and retention of images should be avoided. Before new surveillance powers are granted, the government should provide independent proof that there are no effective alternatives, demonstrate that the proposal would not impact on civil liberties and that appropriate safeguards are in place. The Independent Surveillance Camera Commissioner and Information Commissioner’s Office must also be able to oversee the operation of this system. Legislation needs to ensure the public, Parliament, the police and the courts are all informed about the extent of powers and surveillance. Safeguards must be in place to ensure the authorities do not violate the privacy of innocent people and data protection laws need to be stronger.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Facial recognition can be very useful in identifying suspected criminals and terrorists and can also be useful in public safety in general. This can allow us to know the location of any terrorists. The dangers of facial recognition are privacy and civil liberty concerns and it could also be misused to access private information such as our medical records or shopping preferences. It would also be difficult for the police and government to access all of the data on private CCTV cameras and ensure the information is not misused. Facial recognition technology is likely to be more and more advanced in the future, so if we do not start the regulation process now, it will be too late. We should set strict regulation on how facial recognition can be used by the government, police, businesses etc. We would also recommend that facial recognition is only used on people of interest in cases of serious crime or terrorism, so that privacy is not infringed. Finally we recommend that all use of facial recognition by the government is made transparent and open to public scrutiny. Only by allowing all these conditions, can the public feel safe using the latest facial recognition technology.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Facial recognition technology can be a useful tool for fighting crime, but its use should be carefully regulated. Facial recognition should not be used indiscriminately or by anyone other than the police and it should not be used in cases other than the most serious crimes and it should be used only when no other way to obtain information is available. Authorisation for its use should be highly regulated with checks and balances to prevent abuse or mistakes. In an emergency situation, it should be possible for officers to bypass the usual authorisation process and use the system, but that information should be made available to all parties afterwards and should be used only if other means of getting information are not available” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Facial recognition technology can be useful in the fight against crime and terrorism. The police should be allowed to use this technology to identify potential criminals, however only if strict conditions are met, as misuse of facial recognition technology could lead to breaches of data privacy and the infringement of civil liberties. The people and the general public must also be given the chance to have their say, and must not be subject to the use of facial recognition without their permission. The government also has an important responsibility to regulate this technology so that it does not fall into the hands of hackers and is not subject to abuse. Only with regulation and public oversight will this technology work for the good of society, as opposed to becoming a sinister tool which works against the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Facial recognition technology can be useful in the fight against crime and terrorism. The government needs to balance the potential benefits and risks. Use of facial recognition should be subject to strict regulation and be limited to cases where public safety is a legitimate concern. Everyone should be entitled to a private life. A policy of responsible disclosure of images should be implemented and unnecessary collection and retention of images should be avoided. Before new surveillance powers are granted, the government should provide independent proof that there are no effective alternatives, demonstrate that the proposal would not impact on civil liberties and that appropriate safeguards are in place. The Independent Surveillance Camera Commissioner and Information Commissioner’s Office must also be able to oversee the operation of this system. Legislation needs to ensure the public, Parliament, the police and the courts are all informed about the extent of powers and surveillance. Safeguards must be in place to ensure the authorities do not violate the privacy of innocent people and data protection laws need to be stronger.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Facial recognition can be very useful in identifying suspected criminals and terrorists and can also be useful in public safety in general. This can allow us to know the location of any terrorists. The dangers of facial recognition are privacy and civil liberty concerns and it could also be misused to access private information such as our medical records or shopping preferences. It would also be difficult for the police and government to access all of the data on private CCTV cameras and ensure the information is not misused. Facial recognition technology is likely to be more and more advanced in the future, so if we do not start the regulation process now, it will be too late. We should set strict regulation on how facial recognition can be used by the government, police, businesses etc. We would also recommend that facial recognition is only used on people of interest in cases of serious crime or terrorism, so that privacy is not infringed. Finally we recommend that all use of facial recognition by the government is made transparent and open to public scrutiny. Only by allowing all these conditions, can the public feel safe using the latest facial recognition technology.” 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000864.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000864.soc index ca05bde5..8831f257 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000864.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000864.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that a free driving licence check-up for people over 50 is a good idea. We believe that this is an age when people are more susceptible to health issues that may impact on their driving ability. Therefore, we believe that the proposal will help to keep people safer on the roads and reduce the number of accidents. We believe that the proposal is a good use of resources and will help to keep people safe on the roads. We believe that the proposal is a good idea, however, it should be compulsory for people over 50 to have a driving licence check-up every year. This is because, if the check-up is not compulsory, people who are not good drivers will not take up the offer of a free check-up. This means that the proposal will not be as effective as it could be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the proposal but with the proviso that the check-up should be mandatory for all drivers and not just those over 50. The group felt that the proposal was a good idea and would be a good use of resources, especially if the check-up was mandatory and not just an option for drivers. The group also felt that it was a good idea to have a check-up every year as it would ensure that any medical conditions or any other problems that could lead to accidents were spotted early and the driver could be advised accordingly. The group also felt that the age of 50 was too high and that it should be lowered to around 40 or 45. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of free driving licence check-ups for all people over the age of 50. The main reasons for this were that many people over 50 may not be aware of their own deteriorating physical and mental abilities. Many people over 50 may be reluctant to have their driving ability tested because of the cost, and the group felt that a free check-up would be beneficial in this respect. However, the group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be compulsory, but that it should be made clear that it is in the best interests of all road users that people over 50 should avail of the free check-up. The group also felt that the check-up should not be made available to all people over 50, but should be available to all people over a certain age, such as 55. The main reason for this was that people in their 50s are generally more physically and mentally able than people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and therefore the group felt that it would be more beneficial to focus on the older age group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, the idea of a free driving licence check-up for all people over the age of 50 is a good one. However, we feel that this idea is flawed in its execution and that it would not have the desired effect of improving road safety. The age of 50 is not necessarily a time when a person's driving ability is compromised. For many, the reverse is true, and this would be a waste of resources. For those who are having problems with their driving, we feel that it would be more effective to make it a mandatory thing, with the cost of the licence renewal being higher for those who do not have a check-up. This would provide an incentive for those who need to have a check-up to do so. The other issue is that the check-up would have to be mandatory, otherwise those who are having problems with their driving will not do it, and will continue to be a danger on the roads. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that a free driving licence check-up for people over 50 is a good idea. We believe that this is an age when people are more susceptible to health issues that may impact on their driving ability. Therefore, we believe that the proposal will help to keep people safer on the roads and reduce the number of accidents. We believe that the proposal is a good use of resources and will help to keep people safe on the roads. We believe that the proposal is a good idea, however, it should be compulsory for people over 50 to have a driving licence check-up every year. This is because, if the check-up is not compulsory, people who are not good drivers will not take up the offer of a free check-up. This means that the proposal will not be as effective as it could be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the proposal but with the proviso that the check-up should be mandatory for all drivers and not just those over 50. The group felt that the proposal was a good idea and would be a good use of resources, especially if the check-up was mandatory and not just an option for drivers. The group also felt that it was a good idea to have a check-up every year as it would ensure that any medical conditions or any other problems that could lead to accidents were spotted early and the driver could be advised accordingly. The group also felt that the age of 50 was too high and that it should be lowered to around 40 or 45. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of free driving licence check-ups for all people over the age of 50. The main reasons for this were that many people over 50 may not be aware of their own deteriorating physical and mental abilities. Many people over 50 may be reluctant to have their driving ability tested because of the cost, and the group felt that a free check-up would be beneficial in this respect. However, the group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be compulsory, but that it should be made clear that it is in the best interests of all road users that people over 50 should avail of the free check-up. The group also felt that the check-up should not be made available to all people over 50, but should be available to all people over a certain age, such as 55. The main reason for this was that people in their 50s are generally more physically and mentally able than people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and therefore the group felt that it would be more beneficial to focus on the older age group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, the idea of a free driving licence check-up for all people over the age of 50 is a good one. However, we feel that this idea is flawed in its execution and that it would not have the desired effect of improving road safety. The age of 50 is not necessarily a time when a person's driving ability is compromised. For many, the reverse is true, and this would be a waste of resources. For those who are having problems with their driving, we feel that it would be more effective to make it a mandatory thing, with the cost of the licence renewal being higher for those who do not have a check-up. This would provide an incentive for those who need to have a check-up to do so. The other issue is that the check-up would have to be mandatory, otherwise those who are having problems with their driving will not do it, and will continue to be a danger on the roads. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000865.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000865.soc index e84ebbf4..7463adc6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000865.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000865.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the group was generally in favour of the idea of free driving licence check-ups for all people over the age of 50, there were a number of critiques which had to be taken into account. There was concern that many people over 50 may not be aware of their own deteriorating physical and mental abilities. Many people over 50 may be reluctant to have their driving ability tested because of the cost, and the group felt that a free check-up would be beneficial in this respect. The group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be compulsory, but that it should be made clear that it is in the best interests of all road users that people over 50 should avail of the free check-up. However, the group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be made available to all people over 50, but should be available to all people over a certain age, such as 55. The main reason for this was that people in their 50s are generally more physically and mentally able than people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and therefore the group felt that it would be more beneficial to focus on the older age group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group in general agreed that people over a certain age, such as 55, should be encouraged to avail of a free check-up, rather than being obliged to. It was felt that a free check-up would help drivers over a certain age to assess whether they are still as able to drive as they were in previous years. The check-up should be offered to all people over a certain age, such as 55, but it should not be made compulsory for people over this age to avail of the free check-up. The check-up should not be mandatory, as it could be deemed discriminatory against older people to make it compulsory, however it should be stressed that it is in the interests of road safety that all drivers over a certain age should avail of the free check-up, in order to assess their driving abilities. The free check-up would also benefit younger drivers, as older drivers would be less likely to cause an accident if they have been shown to be still able to drive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of free driving licence check-ups for all people over the age of 50, provided that this was not made compulsory. The main reasons for this were that many people over 50 may not be aware of their own deteriorating physical and mental abilities. Many people over 50 may be reluctant to have their driving ability tested because of the cost, and the group felt that a free check-up would be beneficial in this respect. However, the group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be compulsory, but that it should be made clear that it is in the best interests of all road users that people over 50 should avail of the free check-up. The group also felt that the check-up should not be made available to all people over 50, but should be available to all people over a certain age, such as 55. The main reason for this was that people in their 50s are generally more physically and mentally able than people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and therefore the group felt that it would be more beneficial to focus on the older age group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of free driving licence check-ups for all people over the age of 50. The main reasons for this were that many people over 50 may not be aware of their own deteriorating physical and mental abilities. Many people over 50 may be reluctant to have their driving ability tested because of the cost, and the group felt that a free check-up would be beneficial in this respect. However, the group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be compulsory, but that it should be made clear that it is in the best interests of all road users that people over 50 should avail of the free check-up. The group also felt that the check-up should not be made available to all people over 50, but should be available to all people over a certain age, such as 55. The main reason for this was that people in their 50s are generally more physically and mentally able than people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and therefore the group felt that it would be more beneficial to focus on the older age group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the group was generally in favour of the idea of free driving licence check-ups for all people over the age of 50, there were a number of critiques which had to be taken into account. There was concern that many people over 50 may not be aware of their own deteriorating physical and mental abilities. Many people over 50 may be reluctant to have their driving ability tested because of the cost, and the group felt that a free check-up would be beneficial in this respect. The group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be compulsory, but that it should be made clear that it is in the best interests of all road users that people over 50 should avail of the free check-up. However, the group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be made available to all people over 50, but should be available to all people over a certain age, such as 55. The main reason for this was that people in their 50s are generally more physically and mentally able than people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and therefore the group felt that it would be more beneficial to focus on the older age group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group in general agreed that people over a certain age, such as 55, should be encouraged to avail of a free check-up, rather than being obliged to. It was felt that a free check-up would help drivers over a certain age to assess whether they are still as able to drive as they were in previous years. The check-up should be offered to all people over a certain age, such as 55, but it should not be made compulsory for people over this age to avail of the free check-up. The check-up should not be mandatory, as it could be deemed discriminatory against older people to make it compulsory, however it should be stressed that it is in the interests of road safety that all drivers over a certain age should avail of the free check-up, in order to assess their driving abilities. The free check-up would also benefit younger drivers, as older drivers would be less likely to cause an accident if they have been shown to be still able to drive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of free driving licence check-ups for all people over the age of 50, provided that this was not made compulsory. The main reasons for this were that many people over 50 may not be aware of their own deteriorating physical and mental abilities. Many people over 50 may be reluctant to have their driving ability tested because of the cost, and the group felt that a free check-up would be beneficial in this respect. However, the group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be compulsory, but that it should be made clear that it is in the best interests of all road users that people over 50 should avail of the free check-up. The group also felt that the check-up should not be made available to all people over 50, but should be available to all people over a certain age, such as 55. The main reason for this was that people in their 50s are generally more physically and mentally able than people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and therefore the group felt that it would be more beneficial to focus on the older age group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of free driving licence check-ups for all people over the age of 50. The main reasons for this were that many people over 50 may not be aware of their own deteriorating physical and mental abilities. Many people over 50 may be reluctant to have their driving ability tested because of the cost, and the group felt that a free check-up would be beneficial in this respect. However, the group also felt that it would be important to stress that the check-up should not be compulsory, but that it should be made clear that it is in the best interests of all road users that people over 50 should avail of the free check-up. The group also felt that the check-up should not be made available to all people over 50, but should be available to all people over a certain age, such as 55. The main reason for this was that people in their 50s are generally more physically and mentally able than people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, and therefore the group felt that it would be more beneficial to focus on the older age group. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000866.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000866.soc index d184e320..e5495f46 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000866.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000866.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, cigarettes and alcohol cause a great deal of harm to society, and in particular to the health of individuals. In order to try and offset the harm caused by these products, taxes on them should be increased. This would have two effects, firstly it would increase the price of the products, making them less accessible to young people, and secondly it would provide additional revenue to the government that could be used to help people who are addicted to these substances to come off them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, cigarettes and alcohol are harmful to health. Increasing taxes on them would both reduce peoples consumption of them both due to higher prices and would also allow for more funding to be put towards preventative measures in consuming both and also funding towards medical care for those suffering from the negative impacts of both. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. This is because cigarettes and alcohol cause significant harm to people's health, and this leads to the government having to spend large amounts of money on healthcare. This money could be better spent on preventative measures, or on improving the health of those who are currently suffering as a result of cigarette and alcohol consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, cigarettes and alcohol cause a great deal of harm to society, and in particular to the health of individuals. In order to try and offset the harm caused by these products, taxes on them should be increased. This would have two effects, firstly it would increase the price of the products, making them less accessible to young people, and secondly it would provide additional revenue to the government that could be used to help people who are addicted to these substances to come off them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, cigarettes and alcohol are harmful to health. Increasing taxes on them would both reduce peoples consumption of them both due to higher prices and would also allow for more funding to be put towards preventative measures in consuming both and also funding towards medical care for those suffering from the negative impacts of both. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. This is because cigarettes and alcohol cause significant harm to people's health, and this leads to the government having to spend large amounts of money on healthcare. This money could be better spent on preventative measures, or on improving the health of those who are currently suffering as a result of cigarette and alcohol consumption. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000867.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000867.soc index e850af32..53352a42 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000867.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000867.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should not be more like the US as the US have a lot of problems due to guns. The US's gun law is completely wrong and I feel that the US lives in the past - in terms of racism and principles. The US is reducing the rights of its citizens, particularly women, and there is a lot of poverty due to the bad social and health care systems that create debt cycles people can't get out of. There is also more fanatical religious beliefs. As quality of life is going down in the US, not only because of poverty and poor governing but also because of obesity and health problems, we should not be more like the US. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should not be more like the US. The US has a lot of problems due to guns, their laws seem crazy and gun crime is a scary thing. The US is reducing the rights of its citizens, particularly women, and there is a lot of poverty due to the bad social and health care systems that create debt cycles people can't get out of. Gun violence is widespread and there is a lot of extremist thoughts among people in the US. As quality of life is going down in the US, not only because of poverty and poor governing but also because of obesity and health problems, we should not be more like the US. The UK is a very strong country in our own right with the right morals and principles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should not be more like the US. The US has a lot of problems with guns, poverty and racism. The UK is a strong country with the right morals and principles. We should not be more like the US as the US lives in the past and has a lot of problems due to guns. We should not be more like the US as the US have a lot of problems due to guns. The laws seems crazy and gun crime is a scary thing. The US is not a healthy country for the UK to emulate. We should not be more like the US because the US is reducing the rights of its citizens, particularly women, and there is a lot of poverty due to the bad social and health care systems that create debt cycles people can't get out of. There is also more fanatical religious beliefs. As quality of life is going down in the US, not only because of poverty and poor governing but also because of obesity and health problems, we should not be more like the US. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should not be more like the US. The US has a lot of problems due to guns and poverty. The US is reducing the rights of its citizens, particularly women, and there is a lot of poverty due to the bad social and health care systems that create debt cycles people can't get out of. Gun violence is widespread and there is a lot of extremist thoughts among people in the US. There is also more fanatical religious beliefs. As quality of life is going down in the US, not only because of poverty and poor governing but also because of obesity and health problems, we should not be more like the US. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not be more like the US as the US have a lot of problems due to guns. The US's gun law is completely wrong and I feel that the US lives in the past - in terms of racism and principles. The US is reducing the rights of its citizens, particularly women, and there is a lot of poverty due to the bad social and health care systems that create debt cycles people can't get out of. There is also more fanatical religious beliefs. As quality of life is going down in the US, not only because of poverty and poor governing but also because of obesity and health problems, we should not be more like the US. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should not be more like the US. The US has a lot of problems due to guns, their laws seem crazy and gun crime is a scary thing. The US is reducing the rights of its citizens, particularly women, and there is a lot of poverty due to the bad social and health care systems that create debt cycles people can't get out of. Gun violence is widespread and there is a lot of extremist thoughts among people in the US. As quality of life is going down in the US, not only because of poverty and poor governing but also because of obesity and health problems, we should not be more like the US. The UK is a very strong country in our own right with the right morals and principles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should not be more like the US. The US has a lot of problems with guns, poverty and racism. The UK is a strong country with the right morals and principles. We should not be more like the US as the US lives in the past and has a lot of problems due to guns. We should not be more like the US as the US have a lot of problems due to guns. The laws seems crazy and gun crime is a scary thing. The US is not a healthy country for the UK to emulate. We should not be more like the US because the US is reducing the rights of its citizens, particularly women, and there is a lot of poverty due to the bad social and health care systems that create debt cycles people can't get out of. There is also more fanatical religious beliefs. As quality of life is going down in the US, not only because of poverty and poor governing but also because of obesity and health problems, we should not be more like the US. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should not be more like the US. The US has a lot of problems due to guns and poverty. The US is reducing the rights of its citizens, particularly women, and there is a lot of poverty due to the bad social and health care systems that create debt cycles people can't get out of. Gun violence is widespread and there is a lot of extremist thoughts among people in the US. There is also more fanatical religious beliefs. As quality of life is going down in the US, not only because of poverty and poor governing but also because of obesity and health problems, we should not be more like the US. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000868.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000868.soc index f5419d6e..91eafb1f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000868.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000868.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring a lot of money into the country, which in turn brings money to businesses and the country. The royal family also do a lot of charity work and help improve international relations for the UK. The royal family are a huge attraction for tourists and which brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are also very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. I believe that the country benefits from having the royal family overall despite the cost to the taxpayer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers because they bring in a lot of money to the economy. The royal family are a huge attraction for tourists and which brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family also do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. I believe that the country benefits from having the royal family overall despite the cost to the taxpayer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the royal family do more good than harm for the country and so should continue to be funded by the taxpayer. The royal family are a huge attraction for tourists and which brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family also do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. I believe that the country benefits from having the royal family overall despite the cost to the taxpayer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring a lot of money into the country, which in turn brings money to businesses and the country. The royal family also do a lot of charity work and help improve international relations for the UK. The royal family are a huge attraction for tourists and which brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are also very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. I believe that the country benefits from having the royal family overall despite the cost to the taxpayer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers because they bring in a lot of money to the economy. The royal family are a huge attraction for tourists and which brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family also do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. I believe that the country benefits from having the royal family overall despite the cost to the taxpayer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the royal family do more good than harm for the country and so should continue to be funded by the taxpayer. The royal family are a huge attraction for tourists and which brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family also do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. I believe that the country benefits from having the royal family overall despite the cost to the taxpayer. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000869.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000869.soc index fb3523aa..12b555fb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000869.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000869.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should support cultural organisations. This is because they allow people to express themselves and come together as a community. Culture is also an important part of people's lives and can be a source of happiness and inspiration. However, this support needs to be balanced with other governmental priorities and should not be a top priority in times of crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Cultural organisations are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cultural organisations should be supported by the government as they enrich society. This is particularly important for people in rural areas who may not have access to cultural activities. The government should support cultural organisations in all areas. This will ensure that people from all areas of the country have access to the arts. However, the extent of the support needs to be balanced with other governmental priorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should support cultural organisations as they are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should support cultural organisations. This is because they allow people to express themselves and come together as a community. Culture is also an important part of people's lives and can be a source of happiness and inspiration. However, this support needs to be balanced with other governmental priorities and should not be a top priority in times of crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Cultural organisations are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cultural organisations should be supported by the government as they enrich society. This is particularly important for people in rural areas who may not have access to cultural activities. The government should support cultural organisations in all areas. This will ensure that people from all areas of the country have access to the arts. However, the extent of the support needs to be balanced with other governmental priorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should support cultural organisations as they are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000870.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000870.soc index 0ded8809..f0439ac1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000870.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000870.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of making public transport free but with some caveats. The group agreed that making public transport free would be a good thing for the environment, would reduce congestion and would increase accessibility for those who are vulnerable. However, the group felt that making public transport free would be an expensive endeavour, which would need to be funded by tax payers. The group felt that the government would need to increase taxes in order to fund it. The group felt that this would be unfair, as it would mean that tax payers would be paying for others to use public transport. The group also felt that making public transport free would not be viable, as it would put pressure on an already over-stretched system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, we don't see how it would be practical. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the idea of making all public transport free is a good one. However, it would be too expensive and impractical to implement. It would also be unfair to tax payers who would have to pay for the service. Instead, we should make public transport free for people who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. We should also look at ways to improve the public transport system to make it more accessible and affordable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of making all public transport free is not a good idea. It would lead to a rise in taxes, an increase in government debt and could lead to a poorer quality of service. However, there are some exceptions to this. We believe that all public transport should be free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. This would allow them to get to where they need to go, without having to worry about paying. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of making public transport free but with some caveats. The group agreed that making public transport free would be a good thing for the environment, would reduce congestion and would increase accessibility for those who are vulnerable. However, the group felt that making public transport free would be an expensive endeavour, which would need to be funded by tax payers. The group felt that the government would need to increase taxes in order to fund it. The group felt that this would be unfair, as it would mean that tax payers would be paying for others to use public transport. The group also felt that making public transport free would not be viable, as it would put pressure on an already over-stretched system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, we don't see how it would be practical. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the idea of making all public transport free is a good one. However, it would be too expensive and impractical to implement. It would also be unfair to tax payers who would have to pay for the service. Instead, we should make public transport free for people who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. We should also look at ways to improve the public transport system to make it more accessible and affordable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of making all public transport free is not a good idea. It would lead to a rise in taxes, an increase in government debt and could lead to a poorer quality of service. However, there are some exceptions to this. We believe that all public transport should be free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. This would allow them to get to where they need to go, without having to worry about paying. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000871.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000871.soc index 3e3e1349..8bac6ed8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000871.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000871.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the amount of junk food that can be displayed in supermarkets. The reasoning for this was that it would be a step in the right direction to tackle the obesity crisis in the UK. It would also make it easier for people to make healthier choices and help to reduce the amount of junk food consumed. However, the group did not think that the amount of junk food should be completely banned from supermarkets, as this would be an infringement on peoples rights to choose what they eat. Instead, the group felt that there should be a limit on the amount of junk food that can be displayed, and that healthier options should be more prominently displayed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the amount of junk food that can be displayed in supermarkets. The reasoning for this is that it is very easy for people to buy junk food, and the health implications of eating junk food are very serious. The group was also in favour of making healthy food more available in supermarkets, as this would encourage people to buy healthy food. The group also felt that the government should be more active in promoting healthy eating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that junk food should be limited in supermarkets. The levels of obesity in this country are very high and we believe that supermarkets have a large role to play in this. We believe that the supermarkets should limit the amount of junk food that they display and also increase the amount of healthy options that they have. We believe that this will have a positive impact on the health of the nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the amount of junk food in supermarkets should be limited. The health implications of junk food are very serious, and the NHS costs the tax payer billions of pounds each year due to unhealthy lifestyle choices. The levels of obesity are very high in this country second only to the USA and I think that is a problem that needs to be addressed. The amount of junk food displayed in supermarkets is a direct contributor to the problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the amount of junk food that can be displayed in supermarkets. The reasoning for this was that it would be a step in the right direction to tackle the obesity crisis in the UK. It would also make it easier for people to make healthier choices and help to reduce the amount of junk food consumed. However, the group did not think that the amount of junk food should be completely banned from supermarkets, as this would be an infringement on peoples rights to choose what they eat. Instead, the group felt that there should be a limit on the amount of junk food that can be displayed, and that healthier options should be more prominently displayed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the amount of junk food that can be displayed in supermarkets. The reasoning for this is that it is very easy for people to buy junk food, and the health implications of eating junk food are very serious. The group was also in favour of making healthy food more available in supermarkets, as this would encourage people to buy healthy food. The group also felt that the government should be more active in promoting healthy eating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that junk food should be limited in supermarkets. The levels of obesity in this country are very high and we believe that supermarkets have a large role to play in this. We believe that the supermarkets should limit the amount of junk food that they display and also increase the amount of healthy options that they have. We believe that this will have a positive impact on the health of the nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the amount of junk food in supermarkets should be limited. The health implications of junk food are very serious, and the NHS costs the tax payer billions of pounds each year due to unhealthy lifestyle choices. The levels of obesity are very high in this country second only to the USA and I think that is a problem that needs to be addressed. The amount of junk food displayed in supermarkets is a direct contributor to the problem. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000872.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000872.soc index 92907eab..319231e9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000872.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000872.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the UK should build a new nuclear power plant. We think that this is because it is a clean source of energy and it would be a step in the right direction to becoming a greener country. We also think that it would be beneficial for the UK to have its own nuclear power plant as it would reduce the amount of energy we have to import. We also think that it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant as it would create jobs for people in the area it was built. We also think that it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant as it would reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of building a new nuclear power plant. The main argument for this was that it would help reduce the strain on other forms of power and would be a step towards a more green energy country. The group also felt that if it reduced the cost to the consumer then this would be a good thing. The group did feel however that the mining of nuclear fuel is said to be very energy intensive and so from that point of view it is not a good idea. The group also felt that if anything were to go wrong then many people could potentially be killed. The group felt that fossil fuels, while not ideal, work for the time being until a better solution is found. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of building a new nuclear power plant. The main reasons for this were that it would reduce the strain on other forms of power and that it would be a move towards a more green energy country. However, the group also recognised that there were potential problems with this. In particular, the mining of nuclear fuel was said to be very energy intensive and so from that point of view it is not a good idea. The group also recognised that nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorists and that this could cause widespread damage if anything were to go wrong. In general, the group felt that building a new nuclear power plant was a good idea, but that it should be done with extreme caution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the UK should build a new nuclear power plant. We believe that the UK should build a new nuclear power plant because it would reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used and therefore reduce the amount of pollution being created. This would make the UK a more environmentally friendly country. However, we do have concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants and the potential for something to go wrong. We believe that if the government can guarantee the safety of nuclear power plants then it would be a good idea to build a new one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK should build a new nuclear power plant. We think that this is because it is a clean source of energy and it would be a step in the right direction to becoming a greener country. We also think that it would be beneficial for the UK to have its own nuclear power plant as it would reduce the amount of energy we have to import. We also think that it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant as it would create jobs for people in the area it was built. We also think that it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant as it would reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of building a new nuclear power plant. The main argument for this was that it would help reduce the strain on other forms of power and would be a step towards a more green energy country. The group also felt that if it reduced the cost to the consumer then this would be a good thing. The group did feel however that the mining of nuclear fuel is said to be very energy intensive and so from that point of view it is not a good idea. The group also felt that if anything were to go wrong then many people could potentially be killed. The group felt that fossil fuels, while not ideal, work for the time being until a better solution is found. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of building a new nuclear power plant. The main reasons for this were that it would reduce the strain on other forms of power and that it would be a move towards a more green energy country. However, the group also recognised that there were potential problems with this. In particular, the mining of nuclear fuel was said to be very energy intensive and so from that point of view it is not a good idea. The group also recognised that nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorists and that this could cause widespread damage if anything were to go wrong. In general, the group felt that building a new nuclear power plant was a good idea, but that it should be done with extreme caution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the UK should build a new nuclear power plant. We believe that the UK should build a new nuclear power plant because it would reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used and therefore reduce the amount of pollution being created. This would make the UK a more environmentally friendly country. However, we do have concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants and the potential for something to go wrong. We believe that if the government can guarantee the safety of nuclear power plants then it would be a good idea to build a new one. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000873.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000873.soc index 55d397fd..cc5e6b75 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000873.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000873.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Political correctness is hampering free speech. The group was in agreement that freedom of speech is an important principle of a free and democratic society. The group was also in agreement that people should not be able to say whatever they like. The group also agreed that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences, and never has. The group also agreed that there is a difference between hate speech and free speech, and that there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of consequences. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Political correctness is hampering free speech. In the past, people were able to say things that were offensive and upsetting to others. The fact that people are now pushing back against this is not a sign that free speech is being stifled, but rather a sign that people are starting to recognise that words can have consequences, and that we should not tolerate hate speech and other forms of bigotry. Political correctness is not a bad thing, and the idea that it is is a dangerous one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Political correctness is not hampering free speech. The concept of political correctness is often misunderstood. It is not about censorship, it is about calling out language that is offensive. It is about calling out language that is disrespectful and hurtful to people. It is about calling out language that is not in keeping with the values of our society. It is about calling out language that is bigoted, hateful, or intolerant. It is not about shutting down conversations. It is not about censorship. It is not about limiting freedom of speech. Political correctness is not hampering free speech. In fact, it is ensuring that free speech is not being used to perpetuate hateful and intolerant ideas. Political correctness is an important part of our society and it is not hampering free speech. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Political correctness is hampering free speech. The group was in agreement that political correctness has gone too far. The group was also in agreement that freedom of speech is important, and that people should be able to say what they want, as long as it is not hate speech or harmful. The group was in agreement that people should not be able to use political correctness as an excuse to shut down conversations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Political correctness is hampering free speech. The group was in agreement that freedom of speech is an important principle of a free and democratic society. The group was also in agreement that people should not be able to say whatever they like. The group also agreed that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences, and never has. The group also agreed that there is a difference between hate speech and free speech, and that there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of consequences. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Political correctness is hampering free speech. In the past, people were able to say things that were offensive and upsetting to others. The fact that people are now pushing back against this is not a sign that free speech is being stifled, but rather a sign that people are starting to recognise that words can have consequences, and that we should not tolerate hate speech and other forms of bigotry. Political correctness is not a bad thing, and the idea that it is is a dangerous one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Political correctness is not hampering free speech. The concept of political correctness is often misunderstood. It is not about censorship, it is about calling out language that is offensive. It is about calling out language that is disrespectful and hurtful to people. It is about calling out language that is not in keeping with the values of our society. It is about calling out language that is bigoted, hateful, or intolerant. It is not about shutting down conversations. It is not about censorship. It is not about limiting freedom of speech. Political correctness is not hampering free speech. In fact, it is ensuring that free speech is not being used to perpetuate hateful and intolerant ideas. Political correctness is an important part of our society and it is not hampering free speech. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Political correctness is hampering free speech. The group was in agreement that political correctness has gone too far. The group was also in agreement that freedom of speech is important, and that people should be able to say what they want, as long as it is not hate speech or harmful. The group was in agreement that people should not be able to use political correctness as an excuse to shut down conversations. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000874.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000874.soc index 91938d55..18d958df 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000874.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000874.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is too much inequality in the UK. Some people have too much control over the political system to maintain their dominance in society. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments and institutions whilst victims, mostly women are being killed and traumatised without anyone to turn to. The richest people have far to much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments and institutions whilst victims, mostly women are being killed and traumatised without anyone to turn to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is too much inequality in the UK. There are people who get given everything and have contributed nothing, couples without children and especially single people are completely penalised. The richest people have far to much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments and institutions whilst victims, mostly women are being killed and traumatised without anyone to turn to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is too much inequality in the UK. The richest people have far to much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. While there is definitely inequality in the UK I feel like we're one of the fairest countries in the world when it comes to this question. For the size of our GDP there aren't that many billionaires which suggests to me that they're forced to give up more here than in other places with a similar economy. Yes I would say there is , we have some people who get given everything and have contributed nothing, couples without children and especially single people are completely penalised. To much is given to migrants, not enough is given to those in need who already live here. I think there is always inequality everywhere and the UK is no different. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unadd -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is too much inequality in the UK. The richest people have far too much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. While there is definitely inequality in the UK, we are one of the fairest countries in the world when it comes to this question. For the size of our GDP there aren't that many billionaires which suggests to me that they're forced to give up more here than in other places with a similar economy. Yes I would say there is, we have some people who get given everything and have contributed nothing, couples without children and especially single people are completely penalised. Too much is given to migrants, not enough is given to those in need who already live here. I think there is always inequality everywhere and the UK is no different. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is too much inequality in the UK. Some people have too much control over the political system to maintain their dominance in society. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments and institutions whilst victims, mostly women are being killed and traumatised without anyone to turn to. The richest people have far to much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments and institutions whilst victims, mostly women are being killed and traumatised without anyone to turn to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is too much inequality in the UK. There are people who get given everything and have contributed nothing, couples without children and especially single people are completely penalised. The richest people have far to much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments and institutions whilst victims, mostly women are being killed and traumatised without anyone to turn to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is too much inequality in the UK. The richest people have far to much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. While there is definitely inequality in the UK I feel like we're one of the fairest countries in the world when it comes to this question. For the size of our GDP there aren't that many billionaires which suggests to me that they're forced to give up more here than in other places with a similar economy. Yes I would say there is , we have some people who get given everything and have contributed nothing, couples without children and especially single people are completely penalised. To much is given to migrants, not enough is given to those in need who already live here. I think there is always inequality everywhere and the UK is no different. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unadd +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is too much inequality in the UK. The richest people have far too much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. While there is definitely inequality in the UK, we are one of the fairest countries in the world when it comes to this question. For the size of our GDP there aren't that many billionaires which suggests to me that they're forced to give up more here than in other places with a similar economy. Yes I would say there is, we have some people who get given everything and have contributed nothing, couples without children and especially single people are completely penalised. Too much is given to migrants, not enough is given to those in need who already live here. I think there is always inequality everywhere and the UK is no different. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000875.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000875.soc index 5e3125e1..1dcc554f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000875.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000875.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. It can also be used to fund research into more efficient, and cost-effective methods of treating addiction and the diseases related to consumption of both products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. The additional revenue could be used to implement stricter tobacco and alcohol advertising regulations in order to keep these products out of the sight of children. The additional revenue could also be used to fund more awareness programs and seminars in schools in order to inform young people on the dangers of these substances, and also the importance of delaying or abstaining altogether from using these substances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. Also, the additional funding could go to improving our educational system and add public health awareness to the curriculum. The issues caused by cigarettes and alcohol are significantly detrimental to the country and by adding taxes, we are simultaneously educating our society and curtailing the problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. More can also be done with the additional revenue. It can be used to fund a greater advertising presence discouraging the use of cigarettes and alcohol, and education programs regarding the risks of using these products. A bigger proportion of this advertising money should be targeted at a younger demographic, to discourage initiation of use. A more diversified range of targets could be used in adverts. Most campaigns use characters who people look up to, often people in TV. These should be combined with people who people would normally emulate but not for their virtues. This would show what cigarettes and alcohol really do to a person. Finally, some of the additional revenue can be used in helping communities where many members are already using the products, reducing consumption at the end of the harm curve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. It can also be used to fund research into more efficient, and cost-effective methods of treating addiction and the diseases related to consumption of both products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. The additional revenue could be used to implement stricter tobacco and alcohol advertising regulations in order to keep these products out of the sight of children. The additional revenue could also be used to fund more awareness programs and seminars in schools in order to inform young people on the dangers of these substances, and also the importance of delaying or abstaining altogether from using these substances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. Also, the additional funding could go to improving our educational system and add public health awareness to the curriculum. The issues caused by cigarettes and alcohol are significantly detrimental to the country and by adding taxes, we are simultaneously educating our society and curtailing the problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The health costs of both cigarettes and alcohol are significant, and are only getting worse. Taxing these products will increase the cost to the consumer, which will in turn discourage consumption of both. The additional revenue can be used to help people suffering from the effects of these substances, and to prevent people from starting to consume these substances. More can also be done with the additional revenue. It can be used to fund a greater advertising presence discouraging the use of cigarettes and alcohol, and education programs regarding the risks of using these products. A bigger proportion of this advertising money should be targeted at a younger demographic, to discourage initiation of use. A more diversified range of targets could be used in adverts. Most campaigns use characters who people look up to, often people in TV. These should be combined with people who people would normally emulate but not for their virtues. This would show what cigarettes and alcohol really do to a person. Finally, some of the additional revenue can be used in helping communities where many members are already using the products, reducing consumption at the end of the harm curve. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000876.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000876.soc index 77634c3a..413de05f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000876.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000876.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not spend all of the money on education on people under the age of 18. There are many other things that need to be invested in, such as the health sector and the economy. It is important that the government does not spend all of its money on one sector, as this could lead to the other sectors being neglected. The government should also invest in adults, as this would be beneficial to the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not spend all of the money it spends on education on people under the age of 18. There are many adults who would like to further their education and the government should be able to provide this for them. Also, there are many adults who are interested in gaining more qualifications. The government should be able to provide this for them. However, there are many costs involved in providing education for adults and resources are limited. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not spend all of its money on education on people under the age of 18. The government should spend money on all ages, however, it should be spent on children and young people more, as they are the future. The government should invest in education for all ages and for all people. It should be spent on children and young people to help them in the future. It should be spent on adults to help them get jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, not all of the money the government spends on education should be spent on people under the age of 18. Whilst it is important to invest in children and young people to help us in the future, it is also important to invest in adults. Many adults would love the chance to gain more qualifications. However, the cost limits gaining more education and also resources. The government doesn't invest in many educational services above 18 years so it would be good in future to see them implement this. It would be good for adults and people of all ages to gain more skills and more qualifications for jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not spend all of the money on education on people under the age of 18. There are many other things that need to be invested in, such as the health sector and the economy. It is important that the government does not spend all of its money on one sector, as this could lead to the other sectors being neglected. The government should also invest in adults, as this would be beneficial to the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not spend all of the money it spends on education on people under the age of 18. There are many adults who would like to further their education and the government should be able to provide this for them. Also, there are many adults who are interested in gaining more qualifications. The government should be able to provide this for them. However, there are many costs involved in providing education for adults and resources are limited. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not spend all of its money on education on people under the age of 18. The government should spend money on all ages, however, it should be spent on children and young people more, as they are the future. The government should invest in education for all ages and for all people. It should be spent on children and young people to help them in the future. It should be spent on adults to help them get jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, not all of the money the government spends on education should be spent on people under the age of 18. Whilst it is important to invest in children and young people to help us in the future, it is also important to invest in adults. Many adults would love the chance to gain more qualifications. However, the cost limits gaining more education and also resources. The government doesn't invest in many educational services above 18 years so it would be good in future to see them implement this. It would be good for adults and people of all ages to gain more skills and more qualifications for jobs. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000877.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000877.soc index f777383a..c6f559f5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000877.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000877.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, we don't see how it would be practical. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. However, we would all agree that making public transport free would greatly incentive people to use more the public transport and rely less on their own cars. This will lead to less congestion and should also reduce the carbon emissions. In order for this to be viable, the public network transport network should be extended. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, it is important to bear in mind that it would also have significant downsides, for example for the quality of the service or for the budget if it were not funded through ticket sales. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, it would be very hard to sustain. Public transport already requires improvement and, with rail workers striking over pay, it would put pressure and demand on a system which is already struggling to cope. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, we don't see how it would be practical. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. If it was to be made free for all, then a credible improvement in public transport would have to be implemented in order to make the increased usage of the service bearable for users. Also, people need to know that although the service would be free, tax payer money will be funding it so everyone should use public transport as efficiently as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, we don't see how it would be practical. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. However, we would all agree that making public transport free would greatly incentive people to use more the public transport and rely less on their own cars. This will lead to less congestion and should also reduce the carbon emissions. In order for this to be viable, the public network transport network should be extended. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, it is important to bear in mind that it would also have significant downsides, for example for the quality of the service or for the budget if it were not funded through ticket sales. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, it would be very hard to sustain. Public transport already requires improvement and, with rail workers striking over pay, it would put pressure and demand on a system which is already struggling to cope. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not require all public transport to be free. If it was not paid for by customers, the government would have to fund it using tax payer money. This would lead to increased taxes or lower spending in other more important areas. Whilst it would be beneficial to allow people to move around freely, we don't see how it would be practical. We should make it free for those who are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Also, without income from fares the quality of the service might be compromised. If it was to be made free for all, then a credible improvement in public transport would have to be implemented in order to make the increased usage of the service bearable for users. Also, people need to know that although the service would be free, tax payer money will be funding it so everyone should use public transport as efficiently as possible. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000878.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000878.soc index 29dcbb41..d7d7c084 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000878.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000878.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should support cultural organisations as they are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. This opinion is supported by all of the participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In general, the government should support cultural organisations. The government should support them for three reasons. First, they are important for society and for people to explore the arts. Second, they allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy. Finally, they provide opportunities for people to come together in groups which is important in order to strengthen communities. This needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cultural organisations are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. The benefits to local people and education were also emphasised as part of the consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Cultural organisations are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. The intangible benefits that cultural organisations can bring to a community should also not be forgotten. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should support cultural organisations as they are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. This opinion is supported by all of the participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In general, the government should support cultural organisations. The government should support them for three reasons. First, they are important for society and for people to explore the arts. Second, they allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy. Finally, they provide opportunities for people to come together in groups which is important in order to strengthen communities. This needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cultural organisations are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. The benefits to local people and education were also emphasised as part of the consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Cultural organisations are important for society and for people to explore the arts. They allow visitors to regions to see local arts which in turn will bring money into the economy, therefore the government should support this. However, this needs to be balanced with the current economic climate of the country and money used to support cultural organisations should not be prioritised over more pressing concerns such as cost of living and rising fuel costs. The intangible benefits that cultural organisations can bring to a community should also not be forgotten. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000879.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000879.soc index 98fed4e7..26a317d3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000879.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000879.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should create an 'opt-out' system of organ donation. This would massively increase the amount of organs available for donation, reducing wait times for life saving operations, and potential save the lives of millions. Additionally, there may be some comfort to families of the deceased donor, that whilst they are gone, their organs have gone on to help someone else live their life. Creating an "opt-out" system would give hope to thousands who are waiting for organs, and prevent thousands of organs going to waste after we pass away. We must stress that opting out is always an option and encourage all those who are eligible to register for the NHS Organ Donor Register, ensuring their wishes are carried out and their legacy is made clear. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should create an 'opt-out' system of organ donation. This would massively increase the amount of organs available for donation, reducing wait times for life saving operations, and potential save the lives of millions. Additionally, there may be some comfort to families of the deceased donor, that whilst they are gone, their organs have gone on to help someone else live their life. Creating an "opt-out" system would give hope to thousands who are waiting for organs, and prevent thousands of organs going to waste after we pass away. The "opt-out" system is not compulsory and should only apply if you have not expressly opted out of the scheme. This was seen as a way of preserving a respect for each individual's rights, whilst providing a way to help those on the wait-list. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should create an 'opt-out' system of organ donation. This would massively increase the amount of organs available for donation, reducing wait times for life saving operations, and potential save the lives of millions. Additionally, there may be some comfort to families of the deceased donor, that whilst they are gone, their organs have gone on to help someone else live their life. Creating an "opt-out" system would give hope to thousands who are waiting for organs, and prevent thousands of organs going to waste after we pass away. This would be an incredibly beneficial decision for everyone in the country. However, we would also like to reiterate that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. An opt-out system would simply mean that organs are donated unless the donor has expressed otherwise during their lifetime, with a ‘soft opt-out’ model still providing for this decision to be overturned by relatives after death. Those who disagree with organ donation would have to actively ‘opt-out’, rather than doing nothing and therefore ‘opting-in’ to donation under a current opt-in system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should create an 'opt-out' system of organ donation. This would massively increase the amount of organs available for donation, reducing wait times for life saving operations, and potential save the lives of millions. Additionally, there may be some comfort to families of the deceased donor, that whilst they are gone, their organs have gone on to help someone else live their life. Creating an "opt-out" system would give hope to thousands who are waiting for organs, and prevent thousands of organs going to waste after we pass away. Although it would be illegal to harvest someone's organs without their consent, all citizens will have to make a conscious decision to opt out. No one will be forced to donate and they will be given ample opportunity to do so. They must contact the government and register that they do not want to donate their organs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should create an 'opt-out' system of organ donation. This would massively increase the amount of organs available for donation, reducing wait times for life saving operations, and potential save the lives of millions. Additionally, there may be some comfort to families of the deceased donor, that whilst they are gone, their organs have gone on to help someone else live their life. Creating an "opt-out" system would give hope to thousands who are waiting for organs, and prevent thousands of organs going to waste after we pass away. We must stress that opting out is always an option and encourage all those who are eligible to register for the NHS Organ Donor Register, ensuring their wishes are carried out and their legacy is made clear. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should create an 'opt-out' system of organ donation. This would massively increase the amount of organs available for donation, reducing wait times for life saving operations, and potential save the lives of millions. Additionally, there may be some comfort to families of the deceased donor, that whilst they are gone, their organs have gone on to help someone else live their life. Creating an "opt-out" system would give hope to thousands who are waiting for organs, and prevent thousands of organs going to waste after we pass away. The "opt-out" system is not compulsory and should only apply if you have not expressly opted out of the scheme. This was seen as a way of preserving a respect for each individual's rights, whilst providing a way to help those on the wait-list. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should create an 'opt-out' system of organ donation. This would massively increase the amount of organs available for donation, reducing wait times for life saving operations, and potential save the lives of millions. Additionally, there may be some comfort to families of the deceased donor, that whilst they are gone, their organs have gone on to help someone else live their life. Creating an "opt-out" system would give hope to thousands who are waiting for organs, and prevent thousands of organs going to waste after we pass away. This would be an incredibly beneficial decision for everyone in the country. However, we would also like to reiterate that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. An opt-out system would simply mean that organs are donated unless the donor has expressed otherwise during their lifetime, with a ‘soft opt-out’ model still providing for this decision to be overturned by relatives after death. Those who disagree with organ donation would have to actively ‘opt-out’, rather than doing nothing and therefore ‘opting-in’ to donation under a current opt-in system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should create an 'opt-out' system of organ donation. This would massively increase the amount of organs available for donation, reducing wait times for life saving operations, and potential save the lives of millions. Additionally, there may be some comfort to families of the deceased donor, that whilst they are gone, their organs have gone on to help someone else live their life. Creating an "opt-out" system would give hope to thousands who are waiting for organs, and prevent thousands of organs going to waste after we pass away. Although it would be illegal to harvest someone's organs without their consent, all citizens will have to make a conscious decision to opt out. No one will be forced to donate and they will be given ample opportunity to do so. They must contact the government and register that they do not want to donate their organs. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000880.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000880.soc index 2ca0a9c7..ca5fc6d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000880.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000880.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the UK is no utopia and there are many things to be improved upon in regards to inequality, focusing solely on issues related to women can make men out to be villains and women to be helpless victims in need of assistance. Everyone, regardless of sex or gender, faces different kinds of issues related to inequality and the solutions will not always be straightforward, they might need input from people of all walks of life in order to make our country a better place. While it might be difficult to bring different people together to achieve something greater and come to a compromise it is by no means impossible. However, we must acknowledge the different kinds of inequality that affect different kinds of people. For example we cannot neglect to consider food poverty in the United Kingdom. As our income inequality increases and more people are left out of work the increase of food banks will be one of the symptoms of this disease. These symptoms are only going to worsen unless they are tackled at their roots which lie in the financial inequalities across our society. Thus, with inequality in income it is not just the poor that are adversely affected but also the young who could enter the workforce and build on their skills to get into university or start a business and the middle classes who are -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Inequality is one of the biggest threats facing modern day society, be it inequality between income groups, levels of wealth, or even between individuals and governmental institutions. I personally agree that there is too much inequality in the United Kingdom and I think this is predominantly caused by large corporation, and rich individuals placing too much power and money in the hands of those already at the top. By tackling inequalities in health, education, gender, and other economic and social provisions, a greater United Kingdom is achievable, and will benefit everyone -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is too much inequality in the UK. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. We need to support men, as well as women, when it comes to court cases. In 2016, 12,585 reports of domestic abuse-related crimes in North Yorkshire involved men, an increase of 11.8% on the year before. We should give these men the support they need. There is not enough support for men who are abused. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is too much inequality in the UK. Some people have too much control over the political system to maintain their dominance in society. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. The richest people have far to much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments and institutions whilst victims, mostly women are being killed and traumatised without anyone to turn to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the UK is no utopia and there are many things to be improved upon in regards to inequality, focusing solely on issues related to women can make men out to be villains and women to be helpless victims in need of assistance. Everyone, regardless of sex or gender, faces different kinds of issues related to inequality and the solutions will not always be straightforward, they might need input from people of all walks of life in order to make our country a better place. While it might be difficult to bring different people together to achieve something greater and come to a compromise it is by no means impossible. However, we must acknowledge the different kinds of inequality that affect different kinds of people. For example we cannot neglect to consider food poverty in the United Kingdom. As our income inequality increases and more people are left out of work the increase of food banks will be one of the symptoms of this disease. These symptoms are only going to worsen unless they are tackled at their roots which lie in the financial inequalities across our society. Thus, with inequality in income it is not just the poor that are adversely affected but also the young who could enter the workforce and build on their skills to get into university or start a business and the middle classes who are +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Inequality is one of the biggest threats facing modern day society, be it inequality between income groups, levels of wealth, or even between individuals and governmental institutions. I personally agree that there is too much inequality in the United Kingdom and I think this is predominantly caused by large corporation, and rich individuals placing too much power and money in the hands of those already at the top. By tackling inequalities in health, education, gender, and other economic and social provisions, a greater United Kingdom is achievable, and will benefit everyone +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is too much inequality in the UK. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. We need to support men, as well as women, when it comes to court cases. In 2016, 12,585 reports of domestic abuse-related crimes in North Yorkshire involved men, an increase of 11.8% on the year before. We should give these men the support they need. There is not enough support for men who are abused. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is too much inequality in the UK. Some people have too much control over the political system to maintain their dominance in society. There are different types of inequality and some are much more important than others. For example inequalities in health provision or education are very important. These should be tackled for the benefit of the country. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. The richest people have far to much control of the political system to maintain their dominance in society. Absolutely. From class inequality to gender inequality, the UK is not in a good place at all. Consider the cases and prosecution that lead to conviction for sexual assault. Its less than 1%. Thats a huge issue that is left unaddressed by governments and institutions whilst victims, mostly women are being killed and traumatised without anyone to turn to. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000881.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000881.soc index 90cb8d36..38a42c35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000881.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000881.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. They do a lot for charity work and improve international relations for the UK. They are also a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. They bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family are very charitable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are also very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. We believe that the country benefits from having the royal family overall despite the cost to the taxpayer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are also very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. The royal family will help continue to bring money into the UK through tourism which is an important industry to support as we begin to rebuild the UK economy from the devastating impact of COVID-19. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are also very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. Overall, I believe that the country benefits from having the royal family despite the cost to the taxpayer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. They do a lot for charity work and improve international relations for the UK. They are also a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. They bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family are very charitable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are also very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. We believe that the country benefits from having the royal family overall despite the cost to the taxpayer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are also very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. The royal family will help continue to bring money into the UK through tourism which is an important industry to support as we begin to rebuild the UK economy from the devastating impact of COVID-19. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The royal family should continue to be funded by taxpayers. The royal family bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and they are also very charitable. The royal family also help improve international relations for the UK and they are a huge attraction for tourists and this brings in a lot of money for the country and UK businesses. The royal family do a lot of charity work and improve international relations for the UK. Overall, I believe that the country benefits from having the royal family despite the cost to the taxpayer. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000882.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000882.soc index be42772c..667a1f68 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000882.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000882.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of voting being compulsory in local elections. The argument put forward was that voting is an important part of a democracy and if people do not vote, they are not taking an active part in the democracy. If voting was made compulsory, this would lead to a higher voter turnout, and therefore a more representative democracy. However, there were arguments against this. The group felt that forcing people to vote was undemocratic, and that people should be able to choose whether they want to vote or not. The group felt that people who do not vote are not necessarily apathetic, and that they may have valid reasons for not voting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of people being encouraged to vote, however we did not think that it should be compulsory as this could be seen as undemocratic. We felt that voting was an important part of a democracy, however if people do not wish to vote then they should not be forced to do so. We felt that local elections are important as they can be seen as a barometer for general elections and therefore people should be encouraged to vote. We also felt that people should be encouraged to vote as it is important for people to have their say and to make their voices heard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it should not be compulsory to vote in local elections. We believe that this is the case because it is not fair to force people to vote, especially when many people are apathetic towards politics and have no opinion on the matter. We believe that democracy is about freedom of choice and forcing people to vote goes against this idea. However, we believe that people should be encouraged to vote, and that there should be more information and education about politics to help people make more informed choices. We also believe that there should be more campaigning and advertising about local elections, as people are generally more aware of general elections. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of compulsory voting in local elections. The group felt that in a democracy, it is the right of every citizen to have their say and that this right is only given substance through voting. The group felt that if voting is not compulsory, then there is the possibility of a large proportion of the population not voting, thus making the election result less representative of the true will of the people. The group felt that it is the duty of every citizen to vote and that this duty should be enforced through law. The group felt that there is a balance to be struck between enforcing this duty and respecting the freedom of the individual. The group felt that the current situation where voting is not compulsory is a reasonable compromise between these two positions. The group felt that the current situation is acceptable, but that it should be a goal of the government to increase voter turnout in local elections and that the possibility of making voting compulsory should be considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of voting being compulsory in local elections. The argument put forward was that voting is an important part of a democracy and if people do not vote, they are not taking an active part in the democracy. If voting was made compulsory, this would lead to a higher voter turnout, and therefore a more representative democracy. However, there were arguments against this. The group felt that forcing people to vote was undemocratic, and that people should be able to choose whether they want to vote or not. The group felt that people who do not vote are not necessarily apathetic, and that they may have valid reasons for not voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of people being encouraged to vote, however we did not think that it should be compulsory as this could be seen as undemocratic. We felt that voting was an important part of a democracy, however if people do not wish to vote then they should not be forced to do so. We felt that local elections are important as they can be seen as a barometer for general elections and therefore people should be encouraged to vote. We also felt that people should be encouraged to vote as it is important for people to have their say and to make their voices heard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it should not be compulsory to vote in local elections. We believe that this is the case because it is not fair to force people to vote, especially when many people are apathetic towards politics and have no opinion on the matter. We believe that democracy is about freedom of choice and forcing people to vote goes against this idea. However, we believe that people should be encouraged to vote, and that there should be more information and education about politics to help people make more informed choices. We also believe that there should be more campaigning and advertising about local elections, as people are generally more aware of general elections. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of compulsory voting in local elections. The group felt that in a democracy, it is the right of every citizen to have their say and that this right is only given substance through voting. The group felt that if voting is not compulsory, then there is the possibility of a large proportion of the population not voting, thus making the election result less representative of the true will of the people. The group felt that it is the duty of every citizen to vote and that this duty should be enforced through law. The group felt that there is a balance to be struck between enforcing this duty and respecting the freedom of the individual. The group felt that the current situation where voting is not compulsory is a reasonable compromise between these two positions. The group felt that the current situation is acceptable, but that it should be a goal of the government to increase voter turnout in local elections and that the possibility of making voting compulsory should be considered. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000883.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000883.soc index 0b2d3fa8..96264069 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000883.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000883.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A dog should have the same right to live that a human has. This is because all living things have the right to live, and a dog is a living thing. A dog can feel pain, and therefore has the right to live. A dog can feel happiness, and therefore has the right to live. A dog can feel fear, and therefore has the right to live. A dog can feel love, and therefore has the right to live. A dog is a living being, and therefore has the right to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A dog should have the same right to live that a human has, however it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that their dog is kept in a safe and secure environment. A dog should not be allowed to roam the streets as this can lead to the dog being a danger to itself and others. A dog should not be allowed to attack other people or animals and if it does so then the owner should be responsible for the dog's actions. The owner should ensure that their dog is properly cared for and fed. The owner should ensure that their dog is trained properly and does not cause a nuisance to others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the statement that a dog should have the same right to live that a human has. This is because a dog is a living creature and therefore should have the right to live. However, the group also felt that there are some cases where a human life should be chosen over a dog's life. For example, if a human and a dog were in a fire and there was only one way out, the human should be saved first. This is because the human is able to make a greater contribution to society. The group also felt that some people treat their dogs as if they are humans and this is not right. For example, some people dress their dogs in clothes and take them everywhere with them. This is not right as dogs are not humans and should not be treated as such. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Dogs should have the same rights as humans as they are living beings just like us. This is because dogs are animals just like humans who are classified as higher animals. Dog's possess life just like human and therefore they deserve to have the right to live. The rights of dog to live should not be based on human perception of their intelligence or worth but by the fact that they possess life and breath just like humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A dog should have the same right to live that a human has. This is because all living things have the right to live, and a dog is a living thing. A dog can feel pain, and therefore has the right to live. A dog can feel happiness, and therefore has the right to live. A dog can feel fear, and therefore has the right to live. A dog can feel love, and therefore has the right to live. A dog is a living being, and therefore has the right to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A dog should have the same right to live that a human has, however it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that their dog is kept in a safe and secure environment. A dog should not be allowed to roam the streets as this can lead to the dog being a danger to itself and others. A dog should not be allowed to attack other people or animals and if it does so then the owner should be responsible for the dog's actions. The owner should ensure that their dog is properly cared for and fed. The owner should ensure that their dog is trained properly and does not cause a nuisance to others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the statement that a dog should have the same right to live that a human has. This is because a dog is a living creature and therefore should have the right to live. However, the group also felt that there are some cases where a human life should be chosen over a dog's life. For example, if a human and a dog were in a fire and there was only one way out, the human should be saved first. This is because the human is able to make a greater contribution to society. The group also felt that some people treat their dogs as if they are humans and this is not right. For example, some people dress their dogs in clothes and take them everywhere with them. This is not right as dogs are not humans and should not be treated as such. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Dogs should have the same rights as humans as they are living beings just like us. This is because dogs are animals just like humans who are classified as higher animals. Dog's possess life just like human and therefore they deserve to have the right to live. The rights of dog to live should not be based on human perception of their intelligence or worth but by the fact that they possess life and breath just like humans. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000884.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000884.soc index 24251845..39d1f7f1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000884.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000884.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK does not need a royal family. It is a tradition that is outdated and the country could function well without it. The royal family brings in money to the country through tourism, but it also costs a lot of money to keep the royal family going. It is also an outdated practice that is not in line with modern day society. The royal family is also given too much privilege and this is unfair to the rest of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the royal family is not needed, but it is beneficial to the UK. The royal family is not needed, as many countries have shown that they can function well as a republic. However, the royal family is beneficial to the UK, as it brings in vast amounts of money through tourism, boosting the economy. The royal family is also beneficial to the UK as it brings communities and countries together. It is also apolitical, meaning it can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family also brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK does not require a royal family. The royal family is a very archaic practice that does not represent the modern values of our country. The royal family brings in money to our country, but this can be made up by other methods. The royal family is a source of division in our country, as it is a symbol of wealth and privilege. It is a family that enjoys too much privilege, and is given too much coverage by the media. The royal family is an outdated practice that is not required in our country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK does not need a royal family. The royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. However, the royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK does not need a royal family. It is a tradition that is outdated and the country could function well without it. The royal family brings in money to the country through tourism, but it also costs a lot of money to keep the royal family going. It is also an outdated practice that is not in line with modern day society. The royal family is also given too much privilege and this is unfair to the rest of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the royal family is not needed, but it is beneficial to the UK. The royal family is not needed, as many countries have shown that they can function well as a republic. However, the royal family is beneficial to the UK, as it brings in vast amounts of money through tourism, boosting the economy. The royal family is also beneficial to the UK as it brings communities and countries together. It is also apolitical, meaning it can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family also brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK does not require a royal family. The royal family is a very archaic practice that does not represent the modern values of our country. The royal family brings in money to our country, but this can be made up by other methods. The royal family is a source of division in our country, as it is a symbol of wealth and privilege. It is a family that enjoys too much privilege, and is given too much coverage by the media. The royal family is an outdated practice that is not required in our country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK does not need a royal family. The royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. However, the royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000885.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000885.soc index 2bc7938d..42969a0a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000885.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000885.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK does need a royal family. The royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. However, the royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK does not need a royal family. The royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. However, the royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK does not need a royal family. The royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. The royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. However, abolishing the Royal family would have dire consequences for our country. Abolishing the royal family and tourism will plummet and lead to greater poverty, bringing our economy into a sharp downward turn. Even if we replaced the royals with a less traditional or modern representative, tourists may not enjoy a -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. The royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. The royal family costs money that could be used to build a stronger NHS, take care of care homes for old people and spend money more directly into our community instead of the expensive costumes and titles. We also need to allow more public scrutiny of royal finances and should establish transparency from the crown on all of its property and use. It could also be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK does need a royal family. The royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. However, the royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK does not need a royal family. The royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. However, the royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK does not need a royal family. The royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. The royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. However, abolishing the Royal family would have dire consequences for our country. Abolishing the royal family and tourism will plummet and lead to greater poverty, bringing our economy into a sharp downward turn. Even if we replaced the royals with a less traditional or modern representative, tourists may not enjoy a +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the royal family brings in vast amounts of money through tourism boosting the economy. They bring in more money than they cost to the british tax payer. Monarchs serve as figure heads and can bring communities and countries together. They are also apolitical meaning they can be much more suitable to represent the country at state occasions such as remembrance occasions or celebrating social causes. The royal family brings a sense of patriotism and can be seen as a source of continuity which politicians can not. The royal family enjoys too much privilege and too much coverage by the media, that it's an archaic practice that represents a divide between the wealthy and the non wealthy classes of our country. The royal family is also very expensive and is a waste of money that could be spent on other things. The royal family is also very old fashioned and not very relatable to the general public. The royal family costs money that could be used to build a stronger NHS, take care of care homes for old people and spend money more directly into our community instead of the expensive costumes and titles. We also need to allow more public scrutiny of royal finances and should establish transparency from the crown on all of its property and use. It could also be 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000886.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000886.soc index 326536ed..2484bc31 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000886.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000886.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the age of the state pension should not be raised to 70. The UK already has one of the highest retirement ages in Europe. Many people in their late 60s are in declining health and will not be able to continue working for many more years. In addition, some people may be unable to find employment and will be left without any income. This will lead to an increase in poverty and inequality in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not raise the age of the state pension to 70. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. If the age is increased a lot of people would lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. The outcome of the group's discussion is shown in the table below. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not raise the age for receiving state pension from 65 to 70. The main reasons for this were that people in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. People deserve to be able to retire and enjoy their life instead of having to work longer. The workers have paid their dues into their pension and should be allowed to access it from an earlier age. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think that the age of receiving state pension should be raised to 70 because this would mean that people would have to work for 50+ years of their life. We think that this is unfair. Also, many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. We think that people have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the age of the state pension should not be raised to 70. The UK already has one of the highest retirement ages in Europe. Many people in their late 60s are in declining health and will not be able to continue working for many more years. In addition, some people may be unable to find employment and will be left without any income. This will lead to an increase in poverty and inequality in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not raise the age of the state pension to 70. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. If the age is increased a lot of people would lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. The outcome of the group's discussion is shown in the table below. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not raise the age for receiving state pension from 65 to 70. The main reasons for this were that people in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. People deserve to be able to retire and enjoy their life instead of having to work longer. The workers have paid their dues into their pension and should be allowed to access it from an earlier age. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think that the age of receiving state pension should be raised to 70 because this would mean that people would have to work for 50+ years of their life. We think that this is unfair. Also, many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. We think that people have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000887.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000887.soc index 9db9e0ed..fa03b797 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000887.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000887.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not raise the age of the state pension to 70. Raising the state pension age might increase poverty and health issues in the UK public. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. If the age is increased a lot of people would lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not raise the age of the state pension to 70. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. If the age is increased a lot of people would lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. Raising the state pension age might increase poverty and health issues in the UK public. We should not ask people to spend so much of their life in work. I agree with all points. I like -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not raise the state pension age to 70. If we do, many people may lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not raise the age of the state pension to 70. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. If the age is increased a lot of people would lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. Raising the state pension age might increase poverty and health issues in the UK public. We should not ask people to spend so much of their life in work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not raise the age of the state pension to 70. Raising the state pension age might increase poverty and health issues in the UK public. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. If the age is increased a lot of people would lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not raise the age of the state pension to 70. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. If the age is increased a lot of people would lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. Raising the state pension age might increase poverty and health issues in the UK public. We should not ask people to spend so much of their life in work. I agree with all points. I like +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not raise the state pension age to 70. If we do, many people may lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not raise the age of the state pension to 70. People in later life find it difficult to find work anyway so are unlikely to find employment if they don't manage to keep the role they have. If the age is increased a lot of people would lose the chance to receive their pension as they could die before that. The only fair choice is to keep the age at 65. We already work so hard in the UK and 65 is a good age to be able to be rewarded and receive pension. Asking people to work until they are 70 before they can access state pension means asking them to keep working for 50+ years of their life. Many people at this age are in declining health and may not be able to continue working their jobs, nor easily be able to change their job at this age to something easier. If they leave work they must depend on their private pension until 70. People have a right to enjoy retirement before 70, as after 70 declining health is a much bigger risk. Raising the state pension age might increase poverty and health issues in the UK public. We should not ask people to spend so much of their life in work. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000888.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000888.soc index 96c9496a..e2db808e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000888.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000888.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Dogs do have the right to live and they should be treated as living creatures, not human beings. We should be treating dogs as dogs and not dressing them up in clothes and taking them with us wherever we go. We also should not try to turn a dog into a human or treat it in the same way that we would treat a human. Humans have higher rights in this world due to our ability to contribute to society in a greater way than dogs can. Also, sometimes there are some circumstances where human life would be favoured over a dog's life as the human has a lot more to offer society than the dog. Humans are more likeable by other humans which make humans more deserving to life over the dog. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Dogs should have the same right to live that a human has. This is because a dog is a living creature and therefore should have the right to live. However, the group also felt that there are some cases where a human life should be chosen over a dog's life. For example, if a human and a dog were in a fire and there was only one way out, the human should be saved first. This is because the human is able to make a greater contribution to society. The group also felt that some people treat their dogs as if they are humans and this is not right. For example, some people dress their dogs in clothes and take them everywhere with them. This is not right as dogs are not humans and should not be treated as such. However, dogs should be treated with the same kindness and compassion that humans would want to receive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The right to live is something all animals possess and in this regard, dogs should have the same right to life that a human has. The human-dog relationship goes back centuries and throughout this time humans have exercised power over dogs by controlling their breeding and domesticating them for different purposes. Recently the tide has turned and in many societies today the human is no longer considered superior and in this regard many people value dogs equally or sometimes even more than other humans. Many argue that the fact dogs cannot communicate verbally to humans in any sophisticated way that humans consider appropriate makes them inferior. In their world view dogs are seen as dumb beasts that act solely on instinct and feeling. We argue however that in fact, a dog can use body language, hand signals, the way they walk and wag their tails to create whole conversation patterns and send complex messages which human may just not fully understand, although they certainly respond. Communication is a key feature of many species including dogs and people should see them for more than just beasts of burden that can be used, discarded and re-used in a new home. In addition, by emphasising certain breeds over others, humans are taking from their natural evolutionary cycle which selects for certain skills such as running and survival -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the statement that a dog should have the same right to live that a human has. This is because a dog is a living creature and therefore should have the right to live. However, the group also felt that there are some cases where a human life should be chosen over a dog's life. For example, if a human and a dog were in a fire and there was only one way out, the human should be saved first. This is because the human is able to make a greater contribution to society. The group also felt that some people treat their dogs as if they are humans and this is not right. For example, some people dress their dogs in clothes and take them everywhere with them. This is not right as dogs are not humans and should not be treated as such. The group would like to make it clear that although dogs are not the same as humans, they are still living creatures that have the right to live. If a person chooses to have a dog, then they have a responsibility to make sure that their dog is looked after. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Dogs do have the right to live and they should be treated as living creatures, not human beings. We should be treating dogs as dogs and not dressing them up in clothes and taking them with us wherever we go. We also should not try to turn a dog into a human or treat it in the same way that we would treat a human. Humans have higher rights in this world due to our ability to contribute to society in a greater way than dogs can. Also, sometimes there are some circumstances where human life would be favoured over a dog's life as the human has a lot more to offer society than the dog. Humans are more likeable by other humans which make humans more deserving to life over the dog. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Dogs should have the same right to live that a human has. This is because a dog is a living creature and therefore should have the right to live. However, the group also felt that there are some cases where a human life should be chosen over a dog's life. For example, if a human and a dog were in a fire and there was only one way out, the human should be saved first. This is because the human is able to make a greater contribution to society. The group also felt that some people treat their dogs as if they are humans and this is not right. For example, some people dress their dogs in clothes and take them everywhere with them. This is not right as dogs are not humans and should not be treated as such. However, dogs should be treated with the same kindness and compassion that humans would want to receive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The right to live is something all animals possess and in this regard, dogs should have the same right to life that a human has. The human-dog relationship goes back centuries and throughout this time humans have exercised power over dogs by controlling their breeding and domesticating them for different purposes. Recently the tide has turned and in many societies today the human is no longer considered superior and in this regard many people value dogs equally or sometimes even more than other humans. Many argue that the fact dogs cannot communicate verbally to humans in any sophisticated way that humans consider appropriate makes them inferior. In their world view dogs are seen as dumb beasts that act solely on instinct and feeling. We argue however that in fact, a dog can use body language, hand signals, the way they walk and wag their tails to create whole conversation patterns and send complex messages which human may just not fully understand, although they certainly respond. Communication is a key feature of many species including dogs and people should see them for more than just beasts of burden that can be used, discarded and re-used in a new home. In addition, by emphasising certain breeds over others, humans are taking from their natural evolutionary cycle which selects for certain skills such as running and survival +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the statement that a dog should have the same right to live that a human has. This is because a dog is a living creature and therefore should have the right to live. However, the group also felt that there are some cases where a human life should be chosen over a dog's life. For example, if a human and a dog were in a fire and there was only one way out, the human should be saved first. This is because the human is able to make a greater contribution to society. The group also felt that some people treat their dogs as if they are humans and this is not right. For example, some people dress their dogs in clothes and take them everywhere with them. This is not right as dogs are not humans and should not be treated as such. The group would like to make it clear that although dogs are not the same as humans, they are still living creatures that have the right to live. If a person chooses to have a dog, then they have a responsibility to make sure that their dog is looked after. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000889.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000889.soc index 99144e80..bc0af8a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000889.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000889.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be allowed to use the internet as they wish, however parents should have some control over the content that they access. This can be done through the use of parental controls. The Internet has become an important part of modern society and it is essential that children are allowed to use it to its full potential. This can be done by allowing children to access the internet as they wish, however parents should have some control over the content that they access. This can be done through the use of parental controls. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Parents should not be allowed to forbid their children from using the Internet. The internet is an essential tool for learning and education. It is also a good source of leisure activities. Parents should however ensure that children are accessing age appropriate materials. Parental controls should be used to ensure that children are accessing only the content that is appropriate to their age.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No parents should not be allowed to forbid their children from using the internet. The internet is the greatest source of knowledge available and can be essential as a tool for the education of children. As well as education there are benefits such as relaxing by watching films or tv series, playing games or just general surfing. Parents should always have insight into what their children are doing on the internet, and ultimately as they pay for the internet they get a say into how this is used. However this should be balanced with the age of the child and whether this restriction is necessary and good for their social wellbeing. For example, a teenage child would find this restriction more harmful than a much younger child. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the internet is a great source of information and a great way to socialise with friends. However, there are some risks to using the internet and parents are best placed to judge what is appropriate for their child. We feel that in general parents should not forbid their children from using the internet. However, there may be situations where this is appropriate, for example if the child is very young or if the parent feels the child is at risk from certain content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be allowed to use the internet as they wish, however parents should have some control over the content that they access. This can be done through the use of parental controls. The Internet has become an important part of modern society and it is essential that children are allowed to use it to its full potential. This can be done by allowing children to access the internet as they wish, however parents should have some control over the content that they access. This can be done through the use of parental controls. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Parents should not be allowed to forbid their children from using the Internet. The internet is an essential tool for learning and education. It is also a good source of leisure activities. Parents should however ensure that children are accessing age appropriate materials. Parental controls should be used to ensure that children are accessing only the content that is appropriate to their age.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No parents should not be allowed to forbid their children from using the internet. The internet is the greatest source of knowledge available and can be essential as a tool for the education of children. As well as education there are benefits such as relaxing by watching films or tv series, playing games or just general surfing. Parents should always have insight into what their children are doing on the internet, and ultimately as they pay for the internet they get a say into how this is used. However this should be balanced with the age of the child and whether this restriction is necessary and good for their social wellbeing. For example, a teenage child would find this restriction more harmful than a much younger child. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the internet is a great source of information and a great way to socialise with friends. However, there are some risks to using the internet and parents are best placed to judge what is appropriate for their child. We feel that in general parents should not forbid their children from using the internet. However, there may be situations where this is appropriate, for example if the child is very young or if the parent feels the child is at risk from certain content. 2: 4,3,2,1 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000890.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000890.soc index 17683013..66591ce8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000890.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000890.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK. The general feeling was that the bags are a waste of resources and damaging to the environment. However, it was also recognised that the bags are convenient and that people should be allowed to make their own choices. The group felt that the bags should be banned, but that people should be allowed to buy them if they really need to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on single-use plastic bags in the UK. The group felt that it was important to consider the convenience of single-use plastic bags for shoppers. However, the group felt that the convenience of plastic bags was not a good enough reason to continue using them. The group felt that plastic bags are a waste of resources and that there are plenty of other options available for shoppers. The group felt that the government should do more to educate people about the environmental impact of single-use plastic bags. The group felt that a ban on single-use plastic bags would be a good thing for the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are good arguments for and against banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK, we believe that the use of such bags should be banned as they are very damaging to the environment and have a very negative impact on it. There are many alternatives to single-use plastic bags that can be used, such as bags for life, bagbacks and shopping trolleys, and these should be encouraged and promoted by supermarkets and other retailers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on single-use plastic bags in the UK. The general consensus was that this would be a good thing for the environment and would encourage people to use reusable bags. However, it was also felt that it would be difficult to police such a ban, and that it would be difficult to enforce. It was also felt that some people may be disadvantaged by such a ban, such as those who do not have access to a car and would therefore be unable to transport their shopping home. The group also felt that people would still use single-use plastic bags, even if they were banned, and that it would be difficult to stop people from doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK. The general feeling was that the bags are a waste of resources and damaging to the environment. However, it was also recognised that the bags are convenient and that people should be allowed to make their own choices. The group felt that the bags should be banned, but that people should be allowed to buy them if they really need to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on single-use plastic bags in the UK. The group felt that it was important to consider the convenience of single-use plastic bags for shoppers. However, the group felt that the convenience of plastic bags was not a good enough reason to continue using them. The group felt that plastic bags are a waste of resources and that there are plenty of other options available for shoppers. The group felt that the government should do more to educate people about the environmental impact of single-use plastic bags. The group felt that a ban on single-use plastic bags would be a good thing for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are good arguments for and against banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK, we believe that the use of such bags should be banned as they are very damaging to the environment and have a very negative impact on it. There are many alternatives to single-use plastic bags that can be used, such as bags for life, bagbacks and shopping trolleys, and these should be encouraged and promoted by supermarkets and other retailers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on single-use plastic bags in the UK. The general consensus was that this would be a good thing for the environment and would encourage people to use reusable bags. However, it was also felt that it would be difficult to police such a ban, and that it would be difficult to enforce. It was also felt that some people may be disadvantaged by such a ban, such as those who do not have access to a car and would therefore be unable to transport their shopping home. The group also felt that people would still use single-use plastic bags, even if they were banned, and that it would be difficult to stop people from doing so. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000891.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000891.soc index 1bf01926..f069e83b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000891.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000891.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. Since leaving the Union, Britain's economy, world standing and international reputation have plummeted. We have seen that the reasons given for Brexit - to take back control, to reduce immigration, to cut back red tape etc - have amounted to nothing - we are several years post Brexit and still have massive unchecked migration, our economy is in tatters as more paperwork has been put into place, not less, and any control we did have is marginal. Whilst a member of the EU, we had the ability to change the system from the outside. From the outside we don't have that ability - we are stuck, isolated on our lonely little island. The threats to the Good Friday peace agreement from trade on the Northern Ireland border and the issues with trade agreements non-withstanding (Yes we can buy tariff free beef from Japan, but that doesn't make up for the lowest economic forecast in the G20 - one that is worse than Russia's) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the United Kingdom would be better off as a member of the European Union. The United Kingdom is a trading nation and the EU is the largest single market in the world. Leaving the EU has caused many problems for the UK, including a lower economic forecast, a lower world standing, and the threat of a hard border in Northern Ireland. However, the United Kingdom is a democracy and people are entitled to vote as they see fit. The United Kingdom is not a member of the European Union and will not be in the near future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. Since leaving the Union, Britain's economy, world standing and international reputation have plummeted. We have seen that the reasons given for Brexit - to take back control, to reduce immigration, to cut back red tape etc - have amounted to nothing - we are several years post Brexit and still have massive unchecked migration, our economy is in tatters as more paperwork has been put into place, not less, and any control we did have is marginal. Whilst a member of the EU, we had the ability to change the system from the outside. From the outside we don't have that ability - we are stuck, isolated on our lonely little island. The threats to the Good Friday peace agreement from trade on the Northern Ireland border and the issues with trade agreements non-withstanding (Yes we can buy tariff free beef from Japan, but that doesn't make up for the lowest economic forecast in the G20 - one that is worse than Russia's) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. Since leaving the Union, Britain's economy, world standing and international reputation have plummeted. We have seen that the reasons given for Brexit - to take back control, to reduce immigration, to cut back red tape etc - have amounted to nothing - we are several years post Brexit and still have massive unchecked migration, our economy is in tatters as more paperwork has been put into place, not less, and any control we did have is marginal. Whilst a member of the EU, we had the ability to change the system from the outside. From the outside we don't have that ability - we are stuck, isolated on our lonely little island. The threats to the Good Friday peace agreement from trade on the Northern Ireland border and the issues with trade agreements non-withstanding (Yes we can buy tariff free beef from Japan, but that doesn't make up for the lowest economic forecast in the G20 - one that is worse than Russia's) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. Since leaving the Union, Britain's economy, world standing and international reputation have plummeted. We have seen that the reasons given for Brexit - to take back control, to reduce immigration, to cut back red tape etc - have amounted to nothing - we are several years post Brexit and still have massive unchecked migration, our economy is in tatters as more paperwork has been put into place, not less, and any control we did have is marginal. Whilst a member of the EU, we had the ability to change the system from the outside. From the outside we don't have that ability - we are stuck, isolated on our lonely little island. The threats to the Good Friday peace agreement from trade on the Northern Ireland border and the issues with trade agreements non-withstanding (Yes we can buy tariff free beef from Japan, but that doesn't make up for the lowest economic forecast in the G20 - one that is worse than Russia's) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the United Kingdom would be better off as a member of the European Union. The United Kingdom is a trading nation and the EU is the largest single market in the world. Leaving the EU has caused many problems for the UK, including a lower economic forecast, a lower world standing, and the threat of a hard border in Northern Ireland. However, the United Kingdom is a democracy and people are entitled to vote as they see fit. The United Kingdom is not a member of the European Union and will not be in the near future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. Since leaving the Union, Britain's economy, world standing and international reputation have plummeted. We have seen that the reasons given for Brexit - to take back control, to reduce immigration, to cut back red tape etc - have amounted to nothing - we are several years post Brexit and still have massive unchecked migration, our economy is in tatters as more paperwork has been put into place, not less, and any control we did have is marginal. Whilst a member of the EU, we had the ability to change the system from the outside. From the outside we don't have that ability - we are stuck, isolated on our lonely little island. The threats to the Good Friday peace agreement from trade on the Northern Ireland border and the issues with trade agreements non-withstanding (Yes we can buy tariff free beef from Japan, but that doesn't make up for the lowest economic forecast in the G20 - one that is worse than Russia's) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. Since leaving the Union, Britain's economy, world standing and international reputation have plummeted. We have seen that the reasons given for Brexit - to take back control, to reduce immigration, to cut back red tape etc - have amounted to nothing - we are several years post Brexit and still have massive unchecked migration, our economy is in tatters as more paperwork has been put into place, not less, and any control we did have is marginal. Whilst a member of the EU, we had the ability to change the system from the outside. From the outside we don't have that ability - we are stuck, isolated on our lonely little island. The threats to the Good Friday peace agreement from trade on the Northern Ireland border and the issues with trade agreements non-withstanding (Yes we can buy tariff free beef from Japan, but that doesn't make up for the lowest economic forecast in the G20 - one that is worse than Russia's) 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000892.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000892.soc index 0e3cbe60..402e9621 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000892.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000892.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of celebrating the life of Sir Winston Churchill, but there were some caveats. The group agreed that his racist views and his support of using poisonous gas should not be celebrated. They also agreed that his role in the Gallipoli Campaign was not something to be celebrated, as this was a major military failure. They felt that the main reason to celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill was his role in the Second World War, as it was felt that he was a very important leader during this time and that he was very brave in the face of adversity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of celebrating Churchill's life. The group recognised that he made some mistakes, but also that he was instrumental in winning the Second World War and therefore should be celebrated. However, the group also recognised that he held racist views and that this should be acknowledged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. We also believe that we should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of celebrating the life of Sir Winston Churchill. The group was of the opinion that the good he had done for the country far outweighed any bad. The group felt that the bad things he had done should not be forgotten, but that it should be remembered that he was a product of his time. The group also felt that it was important to remember that he was human and therefore had flaws. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of celebrating the life of Sir Winston Churchill, but there were some caveats. The group agreed that his racist views and his support of using poisonous gas should not be celebrated. They also agreed that his role in the Gallipoli Campaign was not something to be celebrated, as this was a major military failure. They felt that the main reason to celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill was his role in the Second World War, as it was felt that he was a very important leader during this time and that he was very brave in the face of adversity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of celebrating Churchill's life. The group recognised that he made some mistakes, but also that he was instrumental in winning the Second World War and therefore should be celebrated. However, the group also recognised that he held racist views and that this should be acknowledged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. We also believe that we should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of celebrating the life of Sir Winston Churchill. The group was of the opinion that the good he had done for the country far outweighed any bad. The group felt that the bad things he had done should not be forgotten, but that it should be remembered that he was a product of his time. The group also felt that it was important to remember that he was human and therefore had flaws. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000893.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000893.soc index 5d0b0554..feeaa3ea 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000893.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000893.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although there are good arguments to suggest that local elections are a good barometer for public opinion in general elections and a high turn out in local elections could have an effect on turnout and political decisions in general elections, forcing people to vote in local elections may be seen as being undemocratic and is therefore not advisable. Participation in democracy is encouraged however as it is important for public opinion to be expressed through the ballot. This is however ultimately down to each individual and whether they feel strongly about it or not. It is more democratic to have a voluntary system where those that wish to take part in democracy and have their voice heard are able to do so. It may be that it would be more beneficial in the long run for politicians to increase public participation in elections rather than trying to make people vote when they do not wish to do so. The rights of the individual are paramount in our democratic society and we should not encourage anything which may infringe upon this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The general consensus of the group was that voting in elections should be encouraged, however that it should not be compulsory. Some members of the group were concerned that compulsion could lead to increased democratic imbalances and could be undemocratic in principle. Furthermore the general view was that voting was an essential part of a democracy and should be encouraged. We feel that local elections are important as they provide a barometer for a predicted general election and are an important factor in how democracy works. There was a feeling that some people would not turn up to vote if voting was made compulsory and therefore would not be allowed their democratic right. Overall we feel that encouraging people to vote is the best way to ensure a good turnout of voters. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of people being encouraged to vote, however we did not think that it should be compulsory as this could be seen as undemocratic. We felt that voting was an important part of a democracy, however if people do not wish to vote then they should not be forced to do so. We felt that local elections are important as they can be seen as a barometer for general elections and therefore people should be encouraged to vote. We also felt that people should be encouraged to vote as it is important for people to have their say and to make their voices heard. We felt that people should be encouraged to vote, however we did not think that it should be compulsory as this could be seen as undemocratic. We felt that voting was an important part of a democracy, however if people do not wish to vote then they should not be forced to do so. We felt that local elections are important as they can be seen as a barometer for general elections and therefore people should be encouraged to vote. We also felt that people should be encouraged to vote as it is important for people to have their say and to make their voices heard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that the current system is the most democratic. We agree that people should be encouraged to vote in local elections. However, we feel that it is not the most democratic to force people to do so. We think that this would take away people's freedom of choice, which we believe to be a fundamental part of democracy. We feel that voting is an important part of a democracy, however if people do not wish to vote then they should not be forced to do so. We also agree that it is important that people have their say and make their voices heard. However, people should not be forced to make their voices heard. In general, we felt that it would be most democratic to encourage people to vote, but not force them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although there are good arguments to suggest that local elections are a good barometer for public opinion in general elections and a high turn out in local elections could have an effect on turnout and political decisions in general elections, forcing people to vote in local elections may be seen as being undemocratic and is therefore not advisable. Participation in democracy is encouraged however as it is important for public opinion to be expressed through the ballot. This is however ultimately down to each individual and whether they feel strongly about it or not. It is more democratic to have a voluntary system where those that wish to take part in democracy and have their voice heard are able to do so. It may be that it would be more beneficial in the long run for politicians to increase public participation in elections rather than trying to make people vote when they do not wish to do so. The rights of the individual are paramount in our democratic society and we should not encourage anything which may infringe upon this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The general consensus of the group was that voting in elections should be encouraged, however that it should not be compulsory. Some members of the group were concerned that compulsion could lead to increased democratic imbalances and could be undemocratic in principle. Furthermore the general view was that voting was an essential part of a democracy and should be encouraged. We feel that local elections are important as they provide a barometer for a predicted general election and are an important factor in how democracy works. There was a feeling that some people would not turn up to vote if voting was made compulsory and therefore would not be allowed their democratic right. Overall we feel that encouraging people to vote is the best way to ensure a good turnout of voters. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of people being encouraged to vote, however we did not think that it should be compulsory as this could be seen as undemocratic. We felt that voting was an important part of a democracy, however if people do not wish to vote then they should not be forced to do so. We felt that local elections are important as they can be seen as a barometer for general elections and therefore people should be encouraged to vote. We also felt that people should be encouraged to vote as it is important for people to have their say and to make their voices heard. We felt that people should be encouraged to vote, however we did not think that it should be compulsory as this could be seen as undemocratic. We felt that voting was an important part of a democracy, however if people do not wish to vote then they should not be forced to do so. We felt that local elections are important as they can be seen as a barometer for general elections and therefore people should be encouraged to vote. We also felt that people should be encouraged to vote as it is important for people to have their say and to make their voices heard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that the current system is the most democratic. We agree that people should be encouraged to vote in local elections. However, we feel that it is not the most democratic to force people to do so. We think that this would take away people's freedom of choice, which we believe to be a fundamental part of democracy. We feel that voting is an important part of a democracy, however if people do not wish to vote then they should not be forced to do so. We also agree that it is important that people have their say and make their voices heard. However, people should not be forced to make their voices heard. In general, we felt that it would be most democratic to encourage people to vote, but not force them. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000894.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000894.soc index 31d7ca30..c8adaff7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000894.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000894.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that parents should be allowed to delay the age at which their children start school by at most one year. Even if there's no verifiable upside, giving parents more say over their children's education is much more consistent with a free liberal society. However, if there are verifiable downsides, i.e delaying school start age stunts a child's mental and social growth, then it may not be a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should allow parents to delay the age at which their children start school by at most one year. Even if there's no verifiable upside, giving parents more say over their children's education is much more consistent with a free liberal society. However, if there are verifiable downsides, i.e delaying school start age stunts a child's mental and social growth, then it may not be a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is vital that children progress through their school career with peers of the same age. Those that delay their start at school will develop slower and will not progress in line with their peer group. They may also miss out of basic social needs and development. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the age at which children start school should be uniform across the country. However, there may be some circumstances in which parents could delay their children's start at school. For example, if a child has special educational needs, then they may need to start at a later age. Also, if the child is very young and immature compared to their peers, then they may also need to start at a later age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that parents should be allowed to delay the age at which their children start school by at most one year. Even if there's no verifiable upside, giving parents more say over their children's education is much more consistent with a free liberal society. However, if there are verifiable downsides, i.e delaying school start age stunts a child's mental and social growth, then it may not be a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should allow parents to delay the age at which their children start school by at most one year. Even if there's no verifiable upside, giving parents more say over their children's education is much more consistent with a free liberal society. However, if there are verifiable downsides, i.e delaying school start age stunts a child's mental and social growth, then it may not be a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is vital that children progress through their school career with peers of the same age. Those that delay their start at school will develop slower and will not progress in line with their peer group. They may also miss out of basic social needs and development. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the age at which children start school should be uniform across the country. However, there may be some circumstances in which parents could delay their children's start at school. For example, if a child has special educational needs, then they may need to start at a later age. Also, if the child is very young and immature compared to their peers, then they may also need to start at a later age. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000895.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000895.soc index d0441523..6c10c2a5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000895.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000895.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children with special educational needs should generally start school at a later age, although there will be many cases where special needs are relatively minor. There is no reason to believe that extremely young, immature children need to start school at a later age, because generally these will not affect their education, however it is the responsibility of teachers to account for the needs of these students when they arrive in school, particularly with the issue of bullying, and to plan lessons in a way that encourages their learning and development -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the age at which children start school should be uniform across the country. However, there may be some circumstances in which parents could delay their children's start at school. For example, if a child has special educational needs, then they may need to start at a later age. Also, if the child is very young and immature compared to their peers, then they may also need to start at a later age. However, there is the danger that if children start school too young, they can feel less secure in school and may regress in terms of socialisation, compared to their age group. Overall, we came to the view that in general, the age at which children start school should be uniform across the country. However, we acknowledge that there are exceptions to this rule, namely special educational needs, youngness, and immaturity in comparison to their peer group. We have come to the conclusion that if a child is delayed entry because they are considered immature, they will lose out on an extra year of learning, potentially lowering the opportunity for success, both in school and afterwards. For both cases (special educational needs and immaturity in relation to peers), we recommend a trial period in school before committing -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The age at which children start school should be the same across the country, although in some exceptional cases it may be beneficial for parents to delay their child's start at school. An example of when this may be beneficial is when the child has special educational needs, meaning that they are not on the same level as their peer group. Comment from Member of Centre for Public Engagement in Environmental Science team: Some parents believe their children will miss out on crucial early developmental stages, such as playing and social interaction if they are made to start formal education too early. Their concern may lead to them choosing not to send their children to school. While many parents are doing the best they can to prepare their children for school with initiatives such as antenatal education, could this increase inequalities for other children that are less fortunate and are not afforded this type of preparation? Can anyone think of another way around the problem? Should they delay their start at school for these parents as a result? Would doing so also limit other childrens educational potential? These are some points to take into consideration during our deliberation session, I look forward to hearing other peoples thoughts and views on the issue! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children's educational careers should be as uniform as possible, so the age at which they start school should be uniform across the country. However, there may be circumstances in which parents could delay their child's start at school. In some cases, this delay would only be by a matter of months. In other cases, the delay could be years. If a child has special educational needs, then they may need to start at a later age, as this is the best thing for them, educationally and socially. A delay in the age of school entry for children with special needs could be between three months and a year, depending on the extent of the needs and the child's rate of development. Also, if the child is very young and immature compared to their peers, then they may also need to start at a later age. If they are able to start at an older age then this should be looked into because it may be the best thing for their development. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children with special educational needs should generally start school at a later age, although there will be many cases where special needs are relatively minor. There is no reason to believe that extremely young, immature children need to start school at a later age, because generally these will not affect their education, however it is the responsibility of teachers to account for the needs of these students when they arrive in school, particularly with the issue of bullying, and to plan lessons in a way that encourages their learning and development +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the age at which children start school should be uniform across the country. However, there may be some circumstances in which parents could delay their children's start at school. For example, if a child has special educational needs, then they may need to start at a later age. Also, if the child is very young and immature compared to their peers, then they may also need to start at a later age. However, there is the danger that if children start school too young, they can feel less secure in school and may regress in terms of socialisation, compared to their age group. Overall, we came to the view that in general, the age at which children start school should be uniform across the country. However, we acknowledge that there are exceptions to this rule, namely special educational needs, youngness, and immaturity in comparison to their peer group. We have come to the conclusion that if a child is delayed entry because they are considered immature, they will lose out on an extra year of learning, potentially lowering the opportunity for success, both in school and afterwards. For both cases (special educational needs and immaturity in relation to peers), we recommend a trial period in school before committing +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The age at which children start school should be the same across the country, although in some exceptional cases it may be beneficial for parents to delay their child's start at school. An example of when this may be beneficial is when the child has special educational needs, meaning that they are not on the same level as their peer group. Comment from Member of Centre for Public Engagement in Environmental Science team: Some parents believe their children will miss out on crucial early developmental stages, such as playing and social interaction if they are made to start formal education too early. Their concern may lead to them choosing not to send their children to school. While many parents are doing the best they can to prepare their children for school with initiatives such as antenatal education, could this increase inequalities for other children that are less fortunate and are not afforded this type of preparation? Can anyone think of another way around the problem? Should they delay their start at school for these parents as a result? Would doing so also limit other childrens educational potential? These are some points to take into consideration during our deliberation session, I look forward to hearing other peoples thoughts and views on the issue! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children's educational careers should be as uniform as possible, so the age at which they start school should be uniform across the country. However, there may be circumstances in which parents could delay their child's start at school. In some cases, this delay would only be by a matter of months. In other cases, the delay could be years. If a child has special educational needs, then they may need to start at a later age, as this is the best thing for them, educationally and socially. A delay in the age of school entry for children with special needs could be between three months and a year, depending on the extent of the needs and the child's rate of development. Also, if the child is very young and immature compared to their peers, then they may also need to start at a later age. If they are able to start at an older age then this should be looked into because it may be the best thing for their development. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000896.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000896.soc index b2e1b4f2..e670f204 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000896.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000896.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage. There was some disagreement on the exact amount, with some feeling that it should be £15 and others feeling that it should be a more gradual increase. The group felt that the increase in the minimum wage would help to reduce inequality, reduce poverty and reduce reliance on food banks. The group felt that the increase in the minimum wage would increase inflation, but that this would be a necessary step to improve the lives of the poorest in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of an increase in the minimum wage. However, it was thought that a minimum wage of £15 per hour would be too much of a jump. It was thought that a gradual increase over a number of years would be a more sensible option. It was also thought that a higher minimum wage would help to reduce inequality and poverty in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase the minimum wage to £15 per hour. This would help the most vulnerable in society to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. It would also encourage people to return to or stay in work. The increase would not send inflation out of control as the increase is gradual and it is necessary for the benefit of all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. The majority of participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. However, one participant thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage. There was some disagreement on the exact amount, with some feeling that it should be £15 and others feeling that it should be a more gradual increase. The group felt that the increase in the minimum wage would help to reduce inequality, reduce poverty and reduce reliance on food banks. The group felt that the increase in the minimum wage would increase inflation, but that this would be a necessary step to improve the lives of the poorest in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of an increase in the minimum wage. However, it was thought that a minimum wage of £15 per hour would be too much of a jump. It was thought that a gradual increase over a number of years would be a more sensible option. It was also thought that a higher minimum wage would help to reduce inequality and poverty in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase the minimum wage to £15 per hour. This would help the most vulnerable in society to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. It would also encourage people to return to or stay in work. The increase would not send inflation out of control as the increase is gradual and it is necessary for the benefit of all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. The majority of participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. However, one participant thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000897.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000897.soc index 2d9020d3..8bde4019 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000897.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000897.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. Therefore, taking into consideration the views of both Churchill and the members of his team we have come to the following view. We do not condone the racist behaviour demonstrated by Sir Winston Churchill. However we should celebrate him and the positive outcomes he brought for our country as a result of his decision making skills, crucial at the time during both wars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a day for remembering Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill led the country during times of national need during World War 2 when he stood against forces like the Nazis, instilled national pride and brought the nation together. Despite all of the challenges, Britain survived thanks to Churchill. Even though Churchill held racist views which is the worst thing anyone can believe and reflects a prejudice and bias- this doesn’t reflect modern values and so, when remembering Churchill for his strengths, he cannot be judged on the whole scope of modernity, rather the context and period of history. Today, discrimination should be stamped out, as it is unlawful in Britain as everyone is equal regardless of race or ethnicity. That is what freedom means. Even though as the member from our group notes we should not always remember just his positives, this cannot prevent from people respecting what he did for his country, people should not always be forgotten in their past just for one deed. Having said this, judging his racism is fair in reflection of modern social policy and how people can no longer act and behave in this way- otherwise we could not forget other groups of people in modernity who would suffer from his bigotry; gays and lesbians, Muslims and -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. We believe there should be a day in memory of him and the work he has done. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. We should also celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. One can clearly see how much more +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. Therefore, taking into consideration the views of both Churchill and the members of his team we have come to the following view. We do not condone the racist behaviour demonstrated by Sir Winston Churchill. However we should celebrate him and the positive outcomes he brought for our country as a result of his decision making skills, crucial at the time during both wars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a day for remembering Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill led the country during times of national need during World War 2 when he stood against forces like the Nazis, instilled national pride and brought the nation together. Despite all of the challenges, Britain survived thanks to Churchill. Even though Churchill held racist views which is the worst thing anyone can believe and reflects a prejudice and bias- this doesn’t reflect modern values and so, when remembering Churchill for his strengths, he cannot be judged on the whole scope of modernity, rather the context and period of history. Today, discrimination should be stamped out, as it is unlawful in Britain as everyone is equal regardless of race or ethnicity. That is what freedom means. Even though as the member from our group notes we should not always remember just his positives, this cannot prevent from people respecting what he did for his country, people should not always be forgotten in their past just for one deed. Having said this, judging his racism is fair in reflection of modern social policy and how people can no longer act and behave in this way- otherwise we could not forget other groups of people in modernity who would suffer from his bigotry; gays and lesbians, Muslims and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. We believe there should be a day in memory of him and the work he has done. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. We should also celebrate the life of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a commonly held belief that he is the best Prime Minister we have ever had and I believe having him as Prime Minister during the war years certainly helped us win the War. I know he was held responsible for some mistakes made during the First World War, I believe, but at least he did make decisions. We should celebrate Winston Churchill based upon his accomplishments, taking us as a country through WWII. I do not believe the racist connotations should be admired though as this does not reflect society in today's image. One can clearly see how much more 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000898.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000898.soc index 5710f619..6b070803 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000898.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000898.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the internet is a great source of information and a great way to socialise with friends. However, there are some risks to using the internet and parents are best placed to judge what is appropriate for their child. We feel that in general parents should not forbid their children from using the internet. However, there may be situations where this is appropriate, for example if the child is very young or if the parent feels the child is at risk from certain content. Parents should make use of the available parental controls to monitor and restrict use of the internet by children and take other steps to make their children aware of the risks associated with using the internet and how to deal with those risks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should have the right to use the internet, as this is a key aspect of modern life. However parents also have the right to monitor or limit internet use by their children. We feel the agreement of the consensus view has a few elements. The desire to explore information and use the internet is one important element. Another element is recognising there can be risks associated with using the internet and that a parent may act in the best interests of a child by limiting or blocking access to certain parts of the internet. We had a robust debate in the group with regard to what is in the best interests of the child, and by examining our own biases in this process we feel the statement we agreed as a consensus covers this element also. Lastly, we feel it is essential to identify that parents are ultimately in a position of trust where they must act in the best interests of a child and the child is also able to recognise that some parts of the internet can be dangerous or not suitable. We think this reflects an element of social control also and that as social creatures the concerns we all have about dangers to children are taken into account in the agreement of this consensus view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet is a huge part of people's lives in the modern world. The vast majority of information available on the internet is harmless or indeed incredibly educational and beneficial. Children too need access to the internet as part of their learning in modern society and denying this access is not in their best interests. There is however a proportion of content on the internet that may be considered harmful for a child to be exposed to and this is a matter for the parents to decide for themselves as to what is appropriate for their children. A consensus of the group agreed that parental controls and an acknowledgement of risks to children in terms of harmful content on the internet can be discussed openly but there is little need for parents to outright ban access to the internet due to the great number of positives associated with children using it appropriately and with their parents' supervision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the internet is a great source of information and a great way to socialise with friends. However, there are some risks to using the internet and parents are best placed to judge what is appropriate for their child. We feel that in general parents should not forbid their children from using the internet. However, there may be situations where this is appropriate, for example if the child is very young or if the parent feels the child is at risk from certain content. We feel that where parents feel that there is a risk of certain content the first line of defence should be the use of controls on the content and children’s browsing. If this proves not to be effective the parents may use more severe measures to limit and in some cases forbid the use of the internet, this should however be done on a case by case basis after careful consideration of the benefits and risks to the child of having access to the internet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the internet is a great source of information and a great way to socialise with friends. However, there are some risks to using the internet and parents are best placed to judge what is appropriate for their child. We feel that in general parents should not forbid their children from using the internet. However, there may be situations where this is appropriate, for example if the child is very young or if the parent feels the child is at risk from certain content. Parents should make use of the available parental controls to monitor and restrict use of the internet by children and take other steps to make their children aware of the risks associated with using the internet and how to deal with those risks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should have the right to use the internet, as this is a key aspect of modern life. However parents also have the right to monitor or limit internet use by their children. We feel the agreement of the consensus view has a few elements. The desire to explore information and use the internet is one important element. Another element is recognising there can be risks associated with using the internet and that a parent may act in the best interests of a child by limiting or blocking access to certain parts of the internet. We had a robust debate in the group with regard to what is in the best interests of the child, and by examining our own biases in this process we feel the statement we agreed as a consensus covers this element also. Lastly, we feel it is essential to identify that parents are ultimately in a position of trust where they must act in the best interests of a child and the child is also able to recognise that some parts of the internet can be dangerous or not suitable. We think this reflects an element of social control also and that as social creatures the concerns we all have about dangers to children are taken into account in the agreement of this consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet is a huge part of people's lives in the modern world. The vast majority of information available on the internet is harmless or indeed incredibly educational and beneficial. Children too need access to the internet as part of their learning in modern society and denying this access is not in their best interests. There is however a proportion of content on the internet that may be considered harmful for a child to be exposed to and this is a matter for the parents to decide for themselves as to what is appropriate for their children. A consensus of the group agreed that parental controls and an acknowledgement of risks to children in terms of harmful content on the internet can be discussed openly but there is little need for parents to outright ban access to the internet due to the great number of positives associated with children using it appropriately and with their parents' supervision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the internet is a great source of information and a great way to socialise with friends. However, there are some risks to using the internet and parents are best placed to judge what is appropriate for their child. We feel that in general parents should not forbid their children from using the internet. However, there may be situations where this is appropriate, for example if the child is very young or if the parent feels the child is at risk from certain content. We feel that where parents feel that there is a risk of certain content the first line of defence should be the use of controls on the content and children’s browsing. If this proves not to be effective the parents may use more severe measures to limit and in some cases forbid the use of the internet, this should however be done on a case by case basis after careful consideration of the benefits and risks to the child of having access to the internet. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000899.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000899.soc index 0da45020..d1266f7b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000899.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000899.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the richest people in the UK are already taxed more than the poorest, I think it would be a good idea to tax them even more. The richest people have more money than they could ever need, and by taxing them more, this money could be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We also think that taxing the richest people would be a good idea as they often earn their money by exploiting the poorest people. This means that the poorest people are often left with very little money, and we think that this is not fair. By taxing the richest people, we will have more money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but we think that some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of taxing the richest people in the UK. The participants felt that this would be a good idea as the richest people have a lot more money than everyone else and therefore can afford to pay more tax. The participants felt that by taxing the richest people, the UK would have more funding to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The participants also felt that the richest people would still be wealthy afterwards, but some of their wealth would have more effective use if taken as taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK has a high rate of income inequality and one way of reducing this would be to further tax the richest members of the UK. The richest citizens own wealth on a different scale, which should not be seen as fair when people on the opposite end of the scale have very little. As many of the richest people get their wealth through exploiting workers through poor wages and poor work environments, I think that further taxes would force them to give back. By taxing the richest people we will have more funding to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. They will still be wealthy afterwards, but some of their wealth would have more effective use if taken as taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that we think it would be a good idea to tax the richest people in the UK. The UK has a high rate of income inequality and one way of reducing this would be to further tax the richest members of the UK. The richest citizens own wealth on a different scale, which should not be seen as fair when people on the opposite end of the scale have very little. As many of the richest people get their wealth through exploiting workers through poor wages and poor work environments, we think that further taxes would force them to give back. By taxing the richest people we will have more funding to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. They will still be wealthy afterwards, but some of their wealth would have more effective use if taken as taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the richest people in the UK are already taxed more than the poorest, I think it would be a good idea to tax them even more. The richest people have more money than they could ever need, and by taxing them more, this money could be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We also think that taxing the richest people would be a good idea as they often earn their money by exploiting the poorest people. This means that the poorest people are often left with very little money, and we think that this is not fair. By taxing the richest people, we will have more money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but we think that some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of taxing the richest people in the UK. The participants felt that this would be a good idea as the richest people have a lot more money than everyone else and therefore can afford to pay more tax. The participants felt that by taxing the richest people, the UK would have more funding to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The participants also felt that the richest people would still be wealthy afterwards, but some of their wealth would have more effective use if taken as taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK has a high rate of income inequality and one way of reducing this would be to further tax the richest members of the UK. The richest citizens own wealth on a different scale, which should not be seen as fair when people on the opposite end of the scale have very little. As many of the richest people get their wealth through exploiting workers through poor wages and poor work environments, I think that further taxes would force them to give back. By taxing the richest people we will have more funding to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. They will still be wealthy afterwards, but some of their wealth would have more effective use if taken as taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that we think it would be a good idea to tax the richest people in the UK. The UK has a high rate of income inequality and one way of reducing this would be to further tax the richest members of the UK. The richest citizens own wealth on a different scale, which should not be seen as fair when people on the opposite end of the scale have very little. As many of the richest people get their wealth through exploiting workers through poor wages and poor work environments, we think that further taxes would force them to give back. By taxing the richest people we will have more funding to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. They will still be wealthy afterwards, but some of their wealth would have more effective use if taken as taxes. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000900.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000900.soc index a7e0b423..c5224e7c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000900.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000900.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the richest people in the UK are already taxed more than the poorest, we think it would be a good idea to tax them even more. We think that the richest people have more money than they could ever need, and by taxing them more, this money could be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We also think that taxing the richest people would be a good idea as they often earn their money by exploiting the poorest people. This means that the poorest people are often left with very little money, and we think that this is not fair. We also think that by taxing the richest people, we will have more money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but we think that some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think it would be a good idea to tax the richest people in the UK. The richest people have a lot more money than everyone else and therefore can afford to pay more tax. They often make their money by exploiting poorer people which means that these poorer people are often left with very little money. This is not fair, so I think it would be a good idea to tax the richest people more, so that this money can be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We could also use the money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the richest people in the UK are already taxed more than the poorest, I think it would be a good idea to tax them even more. The richest people have more money than they could ever need, and by taxing them more, this money could be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We also think that taxing the richest people would be a good idea as they often earn their money by exploiting the poorest people. This means that the poorest people are often left with very little money, and we think that this is not fair. By taxing the richest people, we will have more money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but we think that some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. Although not everyone in the group agreed fully with every word of the statement, they all agreed that this represented the overall group's opinion as accurately as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have all agreed that taxing the richest people in the UK would be a good idea. We all think that the richest people have more money than they could ever need, and by taxing them more, this money could be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We think that taxing the richest people would also be a good idea because many of the richest people get their wealth by exploiting the poorest people, and this means that the poorest people are often left with very little money, and we think that this is not fair. If the richest people in the UK were taxed even more than they are now, we would have more money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but we think that some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. The only participant who did not fully agree was the 5th, but we were all able to convince this participant that our view is the correct one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the richest people in the UK are already taxed more than the poorest, we think it would be a good idea to tax them even more. We think that the richest people have more money than they could ever need, and by taxing them more, this money could be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We also think that taxing the richest people would be a good idea as they often earn their money by exploiting the poorest people. This means that the poorest people are often left with very little money, and we think that this is not fair. We also think that by taxing the richest people, we will have more money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but we think that some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think it would be a good idea to tax the richest people in the UK. The richest people have a lot more money than everyone else and therefore can afford to pay more tax. They often make their money by exploiting poorer people which means that these poorer people are often left with very little money. This is not fair, so I think it would be a good idea to tax the richest people more, so that this money can be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We could also use the money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the richest people in the UK are already taxed more than the poorest, I think it would be a good idea to tax them even more. The richest people have more money than they could ever need, and by taxing them more, this money could be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We also think that taxing the richest people would be a good idea as they often earn their money by exploiting the poorest people. This means that the poorest people are often left with very little money, and we think that this is not fair. By taxing the richest people, we will have more money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but we think that some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. Although not everyone in the group agreed fully with every word of the statement, they all agreed that this represented the overall group's opinion as accurately as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have all agreed that taxing the richest people in the UK would be a good idea. We all think that the richest people have more money than they could ever need, and by taxing them more, this money could be used to help the poorest people in the UK. We think that taxing the richest people would also be a good idea because many of the richest people get their wealth by exploiting the poorest people, and this means that the poorest people are often left with very little money, and we think that this is not fair. If the richest people in the UK were taxed even more than they are now, we would have more money to improve the country's infrastructure and welfare services. The richest people will still be wealthy after this, but we think that some of their wealth would be better used if it was taken as taxes. The only participant who did not fully agree was the 5th, but we were all able to convince this participant that our view is the correct one. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000901.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000901.soc index 0b78973e..a4409c57 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000901.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000901.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although there are good arguments for and against banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK, we believe that the use of such bags should be banned as they are very damaging to the environment and have a very negative impact on it. There are many alternatives to single-use plastic bags that can be used, such as bags for life, bagbacks and shopping trolleys, and these should be encouraged and promoted by supermarkets and other retailers. We believe that this ban would not inconvenience too many people as these alternatives are readily available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Single-use plastic bags should not be banned in the UK, but supermarkets should strongly discourage the use of such bags through cost. Plastic bags are very harmful to the environment, but banning them completely would lead to an increase in the use of other plastic-based products and therefore a large reduction in the number of plastic bags in circulation would be a more effective way of addressing the issue of plastic bag waste. Retailers should have measures in place to recycle plastic bags that are returned to stores, so that the damage to the environment is reduced and awareness is raised among people who use them about the impact that their use has. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are good arguments for and against banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK, we believe that the use of such bags should be banned as they are very damaging to the environment and have a very negative impact on it. There are many alternatives to single-use plastic bags that can be used, such as bags for life, bagbacks and shopping trolleys, and these should be encouraged and promoted by supermarkets and other retailers. It should be made clear that there are some exceptional circumstances where the use of such bags can be acceptable, and thus they should not be completely banned, but we do agree that in the vast majority of circumstances the use of single-use plastic bags should not be permitted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are good arguments for and against banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK, we believe that the use of such bags should be banned as they are very damaging to the environment and have a very negative impact on it. We should not wait any longer before enacting such a ban, as the damage to our planet from single-use plastics, such as bags, is rapidly reaching a critical level. Although it may be a small inconvenience to the everyday user, supermarkets and retailers should heavily promote alternative ways of transporting purchases, such as bags for life, bagbacks, and shopping trolleys, and charge higher prices for the few occasions in which single-use bags are really necessary (for instance, if a person does not bring bags to a shop on a 5 minute journey, they can get in their car and make the unnecessary journey again; these bags should be charged at higher prices). A blanket ban can be implemented after alternative options are publicised and set up for users. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although there are good arguments for and against banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK, we believe that the use of such bags should be banned as they are very damaging to the environment and have a very negative impact on it. There are many alternatives to single-use plastic bags that can be used, such as bags for life, bagbacks and shopping trolleys, and these should be encouraged and promoted by supermarkets and other retailers. We believe that this ban would not inconvenience too many people as these alternatives are readily available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Single-use plastic bags should not be banned in the UK, but supermarkets should strongly discourage the use of such bags through cost. Plastic bags are very harmful to the environment, but banning them completely would lead to an increase in the use of other plastic-based products and therefore a large reduction in the number of plastic bags in circulation would be a more effective way of addressing the issue of plastic bag waste. Retailers should have measures in place to recycle plastic bags that are returned to stores, so that the damage to the environment is reduced and awareness is raised among people who use them about the impact that their use has. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are good arguments for and against banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK, we believe that the use of such bags should be banned as they are very damaging to the environment and have a very negative impact on it. There are many alternatives to single-use plastic bags that can be used, such as bags for life, bagbacks and shopping trolleys, and these should be encouraged and promoted by supermarkets and other retailers. It should be made clear that there are some exceptional circumstances where the use of such bags can be acceptable, and thus they should not be completely banned, but we do agree that in the vast majority of circumstances the use of single-use plastic bags should not be permitted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are good arguments for and against banning the use of single-use plastic bags in the UK, we believe that the use of such bags should be banned as they are very damaging to the environment and have a very negative impact on it. We should not wait any longer before enacting such a ban, as the damage to our planet from single-use plastics, such as bags, is rapidly reaching a critical level. Although it may be a small inconvenience to the everyday user, supermarkets and retailers should heavily promote alternative ways of transporting purchases, such as bags for life, bagbacks, and shopping trolleys, and charge higher prices for the few occasions in which single-use bags are really necessary (for instance, if a person does not bring bags to a shop on a 5 minute journey, they can get in their car and make the unnecessary journey again; these bags should be charged at higher prices). A blanket ban can be implemented after alternative options are publicised and set up for users. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000902.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000902.soc index 37ca9f40..a92602be 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000902.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000902.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. The majority of participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. One participant thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. However, there was not sufficient support in the group for this point of view. Most participants felt that increasing the minimum wage would not have such an inflationary effect on the economy, so in general it would be beneficial. A gradual increase in the minimum wage over several years could be one way forward, increasing it incrementally each year by one pound. However, the majority of participants still felt that an immediate rise in the minimum wage was necessary, in order to protect the most vulnerable in our society from poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. The majority of participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. However, one participant thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. However, all participants agreed that the least well-off people in society need a helping hand to lead a dignified life, in a way that can encourage their return to or stay in work and so raise the nation's well-being in the future. To avoid stoking inflation unnecessarily, the group favoured raising the minimum wage gradually. However, everyone agreed that, even if inflation temporarily increased slightly as a consequence, it should be considered a necessary sacrifice in order to achieve the laudable end of lifting society’s poorest people out of food poverty and, one day, poverty altogether. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. The majority of participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. However, one participant thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. This view was not shared by the other participants. We had a robust debate in relation to inflation and increased consumer spending. Most agreed that with wages remaining stagnant since 2008 coupled with year on year inflation over 3% there had been an unconsciously effective wage squeeze resulting in economic under performance. Increasing wages especially at the lower end is crucial to our economy's recovery and return to pre-crisis GDP levels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. Most participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. However, some participants thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. In response, it was agreed that the minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour but the rate of increase would be in stages so that it wouldn't contribute to inflation. Also, increasing the minimum wage could contribute towards creating more equal living standards in the UK, but other actions may need to be taken, such as implementing public services to ensure that there is equal access for everyone and social mobility. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. The majority of participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. One participant thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. However, there was not sufficient support in the group for this point of view. Most participants felt that increasing the minimum wage would not have such an inflationary effect on the economy, so in general it would be beneficial. A gradual increase in the minimum wage over several years could be one way forward, increasing it incrementally each year by one pound. However, the majority of participants still felt that an immediate rise in the minimum wage was necessary, in order to protect the most vulnerable in our society from poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. The majority of participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. However, one participant thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. However, all participants agreed that the least well-off people in society need a helping hand to lead a dignified life, in a way that can encourage their return to or stay in work and so raise the nation's well-being in the future. To avoid stoking inflation unnecessarily, the group favoured raising the minimum wage gradually. However, everyone agreed that, even if inflation temporarily increased slightly as a consequence, it should be considered a necessary sacrifice in order to achieve the laudable end of lifting society’s poorest people out of food poverty and, one day, poverty altogether. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. The majority of participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. However, one participant thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. This view was not shared by the other participants. We had a robust debate in relation to inflation and increased consumer spending. Most agreed that with wages remaining stagnant since 2008 coupled with year on year inflation over 3% there had been an unconsciously effective wage squeeze resulting in economic under performance. Increasing wages especially at the lower end is crucial to our economy's recovery and return to pre-crisis GDP levels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour. Most participants thought that it was necessary to help the most vulnerable to cope with rising energy costs and to stop food poverty. The majority of participants also thought that it was necessary to encourage people to return to or stay in work. However, some participants thought that increasing the minimum wage to £15 per hour would not solve our problems, it would only increase inflation. In response, it was agreed that the minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour but the rate of increase would be in stages so that it wouldn't contribute to inflation. Also, increasing the minimum wage could contribute towards creating more equal living standards in the UK, but other actions may need to be taken, such as implementing public services to ensure that there is equal access for everyone and social mobility. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000903.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000903.soc index ada487ce..b0510700 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000903.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000903.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The group felt that this is an important issue and that it is the government’s duty to provide this treatment. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it is a basic human right. The group also felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be beneficial for the economy in the long run. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be the morally right thing to do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. We believe that every child has the right to life and that this should be upheld regardless of their nationality or financial situation. This is a universal right that is applicable to all human beings. The NHS is a fantastic institution that has been at the core of this country for many years. It would be a shame to see it fail due to lack of funding. The NHS is a fantastic example of a universal healthcare system that should be used as an example to other countries. We believe that providing life-saving treatment to children will help to create a fairer society that will benefit from a societal and economic perspective. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government providing free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The group was in favour of this for a number of reasons. Firstly, they felt that children are the future of the country and that the government has a duty to ensure that they are kept alive and healthy. Secondly, they felt that children are unable to make the decision for themselves and therefore the government should be responsible for ensuring that they receive the treatment that they need. Thirdly, they felt that the government should be responsible for ensuring that children have the best start in life possible and that this can be achieved by ensuring that they receive the treatment that they need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The government has a responsibility to provide healthcare to all people, regardless of their financial situation. This is because all people have the right to life, and it is the duty of the government to protect this right. In addition, the government has a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in society, and this includes children. It is not acceptable for children to die because their parents cannot afford the treatment. It is also not acceptable for children to die because they are not citizens of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The group felt that this is an important issue and that it is the government’s duty to provide this treatment. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it is a basic human right. The group also felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be beneficial for the economy in the long run. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be the morally right thing to do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. We believe that every child has the right to life and that this should be upheld regardless of their nationality or financial situation. This is a universal right that is applicable to all human beings. The NHS is a fantastic institution that has been at the core of this country for many years. It would be a shame to see it fail due to lack of funding. The NHS is a fantastic example of a universal healthcare system that should be used as an example to other countries. We believe that providing life-saving treatment to children will help to create a fairer society that will benefit from a societal and economic perspective. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government providing free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The group was in favour of this for a number of reasons. Firstly, they felt that children are the future of the country and that the government has a duty to ensure that they are kept alive and healthy. Secondly, they felt that children are unable to make the decision for themselves and therefore the government should be responsible for ensuring that they receive the treatment that they need. Thirdly, they felt that the government should be responsible for ensuring that children have the best start in life possible and that this can be achieved by ensuring that they receive the treatment that they need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The government has a responsibility to provide healthcare to all people, regardless of their financial situation. This is because all people have the right to life, and it is the duty of the government to protect this right. In addition, the government has a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in society, and this includes children. It is not acceptable for children to die because their parents cannot afford the treatment. It is also not acceptable for children to die because they are not citizens of the country. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000904.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000904.soc index fbe2f03f..89314110 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000904.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000904.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of building a new runway at Heathrow Airport. However, they were also of the opinion that the airport should be more efficient and that they should be looking at other ways of improving the airport and reducing the environmental impact of flights. They were also of the opinion that the airport should be looking at other ways of doing business and reducing the need for air travel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the building of a third runway at Heathrow Airport would be a good idea as it would help London to be a leader in business and travel. However, we are not sure whether the economy will recover sufficiently in the short term to justify the cost of building the runway. The environmental impact of the new runway is also a concern, and the cost-benefit analysis of building the runway would need to take this into account. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, the group is in favour of a new runway at Heathrow, but we do not think the current economic situation is right for this to go ahead. We believe the new runway would bring major economic benefits to the country and to London, but we do not think that this outweighs the impact on the local community and the potential impact on the environment. We think that a new runway would be beneficial for the UK and for London in the long term, but we do not think that the current economic situation is right for this to go ahead. We think that the environmental impact of building a new runway at Heathrow would be lower than building a new airport, but we are concerned about the potential increase in flights. We think that the new runway would be beneficial for the UK and for London in the long term, but we do not think that the current economic situation is right for this to go ahead. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of expanding Heathrow Airport. The benefits of this would be to increase capacity and allow more flights to be made. This would increase business and help the economy. However, the group was aware of the negative impact this would have on the local community and the environment. The group felt that the government should consider how to mitigate these negative impacts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of building a new runway at Heathrow Airport. However, they were also of the opinion that the airport should be more efficient and that they should be looking at other ways of improving the airport and reducing the environmental impact of flights. They were also of the opinion that the airport should be looking at other ways of doing business and reducing the need for air travel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the building of a third runway at Heathrow Airport would be a good idea as it would help London to be a leader in business and travel. However, we are not sure whether the economy will recover sufficiently in the short term to justify the cost of building the runway. The environmental impact of the new runway is also a concern, and the cost-benefit analysis of building the runway would need to take this into account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, the group is in favour of a new runway at Heathrow, but we do not think the current economic situation is right for this to go ahead. We believe the new runway would bring major economic benefits to the country and to London, but we do not think that this outweighs the impact on the local community and the potential impact on the environment. We think that a new runway would be beneficial for the UK and for London in the long term, but we do not think that the current economic situation is right for this to go ahead. We think that the environmental impact of building a new runway at Heathrow would be lower than building a new airport, but we are concerned about the potential increase in flights. We think that the new runway would be beneficial for the UK and for London in the long term, but we do not think that the current economic situation is right for this to go ahead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of expanding Heathrow Airport. The benefits of this would be to increase capacity and allow more flights to be made. This would increase business and help the economy. However, the group was aware of the negative impact this would have on the local community and the environment. The group felt that the government should consider how to mitigate these negative impacts. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000905.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000905.soc index a676c62e..fa75fc63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000905.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000905.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of forcing everyone in the UK to stop using fossil fuels is a good one. However, it is unrealistic to expect that this could happen overnight, as fossil fuels are so ingrained into today's society and so much of the global economy is dependent on them. Instead, it is important to find alternative energy sources and to transition to these gradually, so that we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that we do not think it is a good idea to force everyone in the UK to stop using fossil fuels. We think that this would be very difficult to implement and enforce. We think that it would be more beneficial to focus on changing the way in which fossil fuels are used, and that this would be a more realistic way to tackle climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that forcing everyone in the UK to stop using fossil fuels is not a good idea. We think that the UK should transition to a more sustainable energy source, however we think that this should be done gradually so that the country has time to adjust. We also think that the government should focus more on reducing the use of fossil fuels by large companies and businesses, rather than the general public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although it would be ideal for the country to move towards more sustainable energy sources, it is not realistic to force everyone to stop using fossil fuels immediately. It would be better to introduce laws that target companies and force them to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels as they are the ones that cause the most damage. This would then hopefully lead to a gradual change in the public's behaviour as they are influenced by the companies around them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of forcing everyone in the UK to stop using fossil fuels is a good one. However, it is unrealistic to expect that this could happen overnight, as fossil fuels are so ingrained into today's society and so much of the global economy is dependent on them. Instead, it is important to find alternative energy sources and to transition to these gradually, so that we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that we do not think it is a good idea to force everyone in the UK to stop using fossil fuels. We think that this would be very difficult to implement and enforce. We think that it would be more beneficial to focus on changing the way in which fossil fuels are used, and that this would be a more realistic way to tackle climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that forcing everyone in the UK to stop using fossil fuels is not a good idea. We think that the UK should transition to a more sustainable energy source, however we think that this should be done gradually so that the country has time to adjust. We also think that the government should focus more on reducing the use of fossil fuels by large companies and businesses, rather than the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although it would be ideal for the country to move towards more sustainable energy sources, it is not realistic to force everyone to stop using fossil fuels immediately. It would be better to introduce laws that target companies and force them to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels as they are the ones that cause the most damage. This would then hopefully lead to a gradual change in the public's behaviour as they are influenced by the companies around them. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000906.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000906.soc index d2700709..e14af3a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000906.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000906.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the BBC running the World Service. They felt that the BBC is a trusted and reliable news source, and that the World Service is a valuable tool for the UK in terms of promoting democracy and free speech. They also felt that the BBC is the best organisation to run the World Service, and that the service should be funded by the UK licence fee. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should continue to run the World Service, but should not use UK TV licence fees to fund it. The World Service is a valuable resource and should continue to be funded by the BBC. However, the World Service is used by people all over the world, and it is unfair that the UK should have to pay for it. The World Service should be funded by the countries that use it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the BBC running the World Service. It was felt that they were a trusted organisation and had been running the service successfully for a long time. It was also felt that the World Service was an important source of unbiased news for the western world. It was also felt that the BBC was in a unique position to provide the World Service, as they were a large, established organisation with a long history of providing unbiased news. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should continue to run the World Service. The BBC is responsible for providing unbiased news, at least to the western world, and this should continue. The BBC are an established and renowned company and I think they have been running the World Service successfully for decades and there is no reason to change that. I dont think so because it is paid for and funded by the UK. I dont see a problem with them running a world service its just the same as any other tv network doing it but i wouldn't be happy if it was funded by UK tv liecence which i feel is already a needless fee. Before this, I had never even heard of the World Service, so I'm not sure I'm truly in a place to comment. Having had a quick look on Google, it seems to be a worldwide radio station. I guess if it is something people want and are happy with, then yes, they should run it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the BBC running the World Service. They felt that the BBC is a trusted and reliable news source, and that the World Service is a valuable tool for the UK in terms of promoting democracy and free speech. They also felt that the BBC is the best organisation to run the World Service, and that the service should be funded by the UK licence fee. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should continue to run the World Service, but should not use UK TV licence fees to fund it. The World Service is a valuable resource and should continue to be funded by the BBC. However, the World Service is used by people all over the world, and it is unfair that the UK should have to pay for it. The World Service should be funded by the countries that use it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the BBC running the World Service. It was felt that they were a trusted organisation and had been running the service successfully for a long time. It was also felt that the World Service was an important source of unbiased news for the western world. It was also felt that the BBC was in a unique position to provide the World Service, as they were a large, established organisation with a long history of providing unbiased news. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should continue to run the World Service. The BBC is responsible for providing unbiased news, at least to the western world, and this should continue. The BBC are an established and renowned company and I think they have been running the World Service successfully for decades and there is no reason to change that. I dont think so because it is paid for and funded by the UK. I dont see a problem with them running a world service its just the same as any other tv network doing it but i wouldn't be happy if it was funded by UK tv liecence which i feel is already a needless fee. Before this, I had never even heard of the World Service, so I'm not sure I'm truly in a place to comment. Having had a quick look on Google, it seems to be a worldwide radio station. I guess if it is something people want and are happy with, then yes, they should run it. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000907.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000907.soc index 0e95f8ae..b1394e1d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000907.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000907.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the consensus view that laws banning private education are a bad idea. We believe that people should have the freedom to choose their own education and if they can afford private education then they should have the freedom to choose that. We believe that private education is good for individuals as they receive more focus and are likely to develop independence and critical thinking skills much sooner than those taught in public schools. We also believe that private education is good for society as a whole as it allows people to be more successful in their adult life and become a positive influence on society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning private education. The main argument put forward was that people should have the right to choose the best education for their children and if they have the means to pay for private education then they should be allowed to do so. The group also felt that private education creates a more diverse educational system and allows for more opportunities to be available for children to learn a wider range of subjects. The group did, however, feel that there should be some sort of regulation in place to make sure that private education is not allowing for the creation of an elite class that would be unable to relate to the rest of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning private education. The participants felt that private education should be available to all who can afford it, and that it is the right of parents to decide how their children are educated. The participants also felt that private education can be beneficial to a child's learning, as it is likely to be of a higher standard than that of a public school. However, the participants also felt that the current system of private education does not benefit the wider community, and that it is unfair that some children are given a better start in life than others. The participants also felt that the government should be investing more money into the public education system, to ensure that all children receive a good education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think that private education should be banned as it is the right of the individual to choose the education that they want. However, we do think that it is the responsibility of the government to provide the best education for all and so we think that it is necessary to improve public education. We also think that it is important to provide people with the opportunity to access private education if they want to, but we think that it is necessary to improve the quality of public education to ensure that everyone has access to a good education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the consensus view that laws banning private education are a bad idea. We believe that people should have the freedom to choose their own education and if they can afford private education then they should have the freedom to choose that. We believe that private education is good for individuals as they receive more focus and are likely to develop independence and critical thinking skills much sooner than those taught in public schools. We also believe that private education is good for society as a whole as it allows people to be more successful in their adult life and become a positive influence on society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning private education. The main argument put forward was that people should have the right to choose the best education for their children and if they have the means to pay for private education then they should be allowed to do so. The group also felt that private education creates a more diverse educational system and allows for more opportunities to be available for children to learn a wider range of subjects. The group did, however, feel that there should be some sort of regulation in place to make sure that private education is not allowing for the creation of an elite class that would be unable to relate to the rest of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning private education. The participants felt that private education should be available to all who can afford it, and that it is the right of parents to decide how their children are educated. The participants also felt that private education can be beneficial to a child's learning, as it is likely to be of a higher standard than that of a public school. However, the participants also felt that the current system of private education does not benefit the wider community, and that it is unfair that some children are given a better start in life than others. The participants also felt that the government should be investing more money into the public education system, to ensure that all children receive a good education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think that private education should be banned as it is the right of the individual to choose the education that they want. However, we do think that it is the responsibility of the government to provide the best education for all and so we think that it is necessary to improve public education. We also think that it is important to provide people with the opportunity to access private education if they want to, but we think that it is necessary to improve the quality of public education to ensure that everyone has access to a good education. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000908.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000908.soc index 42437ca8..5d84ef33 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000908.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000908.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income. The group felt that it would be good for the economy, as people would have more money to spend and therefore increase demand for goods and services. However, the group was concerned about how this would be funded. The group felt that the government would have to increase taxes to pay for this, and this would mean that the poorest in society would be paying for the basic income. The group also felt that it would be difficult to ensure that this money went to the people who needed it the most, and that it would be difficult to prevent people from abusing the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income for all adults and children. However, it was felt that this should be means tested, with the basic income being reduced for those who have enough personal income to pay their own way. This would ensure that those who are able to work are incentivised to do so, and that the tax payer does not have to subsidise the income of those who are not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should introduce a basic income for all, it should not be means tested to give everyone the same incentives to work and to increase earnings. The income should be paid to the parent of the child, not the child themselves. This will ensure that the money is used in the best way possible for the child. It is important that this income is not means tested, as this will ensure that the lower paid end of workers are not disadvantaged and have the same incentives to work as the higher paid end of workers. This income should be paid for by taxing the higher paid end of workers more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of a basic income is a good one. However, it is very difficult to see how it could be funded. The government is already in debt to the tune of £2 trillion and so it is difficult to see where the money would come from. There are also questions over how it would be distributed. Would it be the same for everyone or would it be means tested? If it is means tested, it is likely that many people would be disincentivised to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income. The group felt that it would be good for the economy, as people would have more money to spend and therefore increase demand for goods and services. However, the group was concerned about how this would be funded. The group felt that the government would have to increase taxes to pay for this, and this would mean that the poorest in society would be paying for the basic income. The group also felt that it would be difficult to ensure that this money went to the people who needed it the most, and that it would be difficult to prevent people from abusing the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income for all adults and children. However, it was felt that this should be means tested, with the basic income being reduced for those who have enough personal income to pay their own way. This would ensure that those who are able to work are incentivised to do so, and that the tax payer does not have to subsidise the income of those who are not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should introduce a basic income for all, it should not be means tested to give everyone the same incentives to work and to increase earnings. The income should be paid to the parent of the child, not the child themselves. This will ensure that the money is used in the best way possible for the child. It is important that this income is not means tested, as this will ensure that the lower paid end of workers are not disadvantaged and have the same incentives to work as the higher paid end of workers. This income should be paid for by taxing the higher paid end of workers more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of a basic income is a good one. However, it is very difficult to see how it could be funded. The government is already in debt to the tune of £2 trillion and so it is difficult to see where the money would come from. There are also questions over how it would be distributed. Would it be the same for everyone or would it be means tested? If it is means tested, it is likely that many people would be disincentivised to work. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000909.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000909.soc index ad736b9f..ec5625a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000909.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000909.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was in favour of the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The group felt that this is an important issue and that it is the government’s duty to provide this treatment. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it is a basic human right. The group also felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be beneficial for the economy in the long run. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be the morally right thing to do. The group was also of the opinion that treatment should be provided to the citizens of other countries if they happen to be residing in Britain at the time when the need for treatment arises. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The group was in favour of the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The group felt that this is an important issue and that it is the government’s duty to provide this treatment. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it is a basic human right. The group also felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be beneficial for the economy in the long run. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be the morally right thing to do. This applies to any child regardless of nationality. This final opinion takes into account all critiques and represents a true consensus opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We were generally in favour of the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The government should provide this treatment as it is a basic human right to provide a child with life-saving treatment. There is also a strong economic argument. If a child does not have access to life-saving treatment, it is possible that they will not live. If they do not live, they will not contribute to the economy, and therefore be a cost to the economy. Also, the government provides benefits to children, so if a child does not receive medical care, they will become more of a burden to the economy than if the government had paid to treat the child and for them to then contribute to the economy. We therefore feel that it would be right for the government to provide this free treatment to children, both from a moral standpoint and an economic one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We generally agree with the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The government has a duty to do so and this will provide many positive benefits in the future. The group generally agreed with the view that free life-saving treatment should be a basic human right. The group was of the opinion that this is a morally correct thing to do and felt that this should be beneficial for the economy. The government should ensure that life-saving treatment should be free as it will help to create a fairer society which will help the economy in the long-run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was in favour of the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The group felt that this is an important issue and that it is the government’s duty to provide this treatment. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it is a basic human right. The group also felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be beneficial for the economy in the long run. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be the morally right thing to do. The group was also of the opinion that treatment should be provided to the citizens of other countries if they happen to be residing in Britain at the time when the need for treatment arises. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The group was in favour of the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The group felt that this is an important issue and that it is the government’s duty to provide this treatment. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it is a basic human right. The group also felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be beneficial for the economy in the long run. The group felt that the government should provide this treatment as it would be the morally right thing to do. This applies to any child regardless of nationality. This final opinion takes into account all critiques and represents a true consensus opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We were generally in favour of the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The government should provide this treatment as it is a basic human right to provide a child with life-saving treatment. There is also a strong economic argument. If a child does not have access to life-saving treatment, it is possible that they will not live. If they do not live, they will not contribute to the economy, and therefore be a cost to the economy. Also, the government provides benefits to children, so if a child does not receive medical care, they will become more of a burden to the economy than if the government had paid to treat the child and for them to then contribute to the economy. We therefore feel that it would be right for the government to provide this free treatment to children, both from a moral standpoint and an economic one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agree with the idea that the government should provide free life-saving treatment to any child who needs it. The government has a duty to do so and this will provide many positive benefits in the future. The group generally agreed with the view that free life-saving treatment should be a basic human right. The group was of the opinion that this is a morally correct thing to do and felt that this should be beneficial for the economy. The government should ensure that life-saving treatment should be free as it will help to create a fairer society which will help the economy in the long-run. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000910.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000910.soc index 2e5034ed..67c00b61 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000910.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000910.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of expanding Heathrow Airport. The benefits of this would be to increase capacity and allow more flights to be made. This would increase business and help the economy. However, the group was aware of the negative impact this would have on the local community and the environment. The group felt that the government should consider how to mitigate these negative impacts. In light of recent lockdown, which resulted in cleaner air, lower noise, and good publicity for online meeting systems, the group also thought that air travel capacity may not need to be expanded, and air travel may decline as a result of people recognising these benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There were two major groups of people who would be impacted by the decision to build a new runway at Heathrow Airport: those living near Heathrow, and all humans on planet Earth. From the first group, those near Heathrow would be impacted by noise and air pollution and could expect to see their property values drop if they lived near the airport. From the second group, there are implications on the health of all people living on Earth. While COVID has forced restrictions on air travel, business leaders want to expand airports in an attempt to support economies during recovery from the recession. There is concern that more frequent air travel for work will reintroduce us to pollution and the resultant diseases of pollution that COVID-reduced travel have managed to mostly avoid. In our discussion, the decision to build a new runway at Heathrow comes down to an existential decision as to what is of greater value: economics or environmental health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of expanding Heathrow Airport. The benefits of this would be to increase capacity and allow more flights to be made. This would increase business and help the economy. However, the group was aware of the negative impact this would have on the local community and the environment. The group felt that the government should consider how to mitigate these negative impacts. Furthermore, it is not clear that this is needed and an alternative option for adding capacity through allowing larger, more efficient planes to use Heathrow should be explored. The participants from outside the UK also needed to have an opportunity to vote, therefore the facilitator asked them separately whether they agreed with the consensus statement that had been reached. All voted yes, the final consensus view was recorded, and the exercise was closed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Expanding Heathrow Airport would help the economy and is important for business. It is crucial, however, to be aware of the environmental impact. Government and business should be taking steps to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and the environment will take a serious hit with the increased usage. Our global responsibility and, in this context, our air quality is important. Along with these two aspects the inconvenience to residents living in the vicinity must not be ignored. The group, however, came to the agreement that, in order to get the most out of these last few years of large carbon dependency we should be looking into expanding airports, however in 10 to 20 years this will hopefully become a dated system which we are better than” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of expanding Heathrow Airport. The benefits of this would be to increase capacity and allow more flights to be made. This would increase business and help the economy. However, the group was aware of the negative impact this would have on the local community and the environment. The group felt that the government should consider how to mitigate these negative impacts. In light of recent lockdown, which resulted in cleaner air, lower noise, and good publicity for online meeting systems, the group also thought that air travel capacity may not need to be expanded, and air travel may decline as a result of people recognising these benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There were two major groups of people who would be impacted by the decision to build a new runway at Heathrow Airport: those living near Heathrow, and all humans on planet Earth. From the first group, those near Heathrow would be impacted by noise and air pollution and could expect to see their property values drop if they lived near the airport. From the second group, there are implications on the health of all people living on Earth. While COVID has forced restrictions on air travel, business leaders want to expand airports in an attempt to support economies during recovery from the recession. There is concern that more frequent air travel for work will reintroduce us to pollution and the resultant diseases of pollution that COVID-reduced travel have managed to mostly avoid. In our discussion, the decision to build a new runway at Heathrow comes down to an existential decision as to what is of greater value: economics or environmental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of expanding Heathrow Airport. The benefits of this would be to increase capacity and allow more flights to be made. This would increase business and help the economy. However, the group was aware of the negative impact this would have on the local community and the environment. The group felt that the government should consider how to mitigate these negative impacts. Furthermore, it is not clear that this is needed and an alternative option for adding capacity through allowing larger, more efficient planes to use Heathrow should be explored. The participants from outside the UK also needed to have an opportunity to vote, therefore the facilitator asked them separately whether they agreed with the consensus statement that had been reached. All voted yes, the final consensus view was recorded, and the exercise was closed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Expanding Heathrow Airport would help the economy and is important for business. It is crucial, however, to be aware of the environmental impact. Government and business should be taking steps to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and the environment will take a serious hit with the increased usage. Our global responsibility and, in this context, our air quality is important. Along with these two aspects the inconvenience to residents living in the vicinity must not be ignored. The group, however, came to the agreement that, in order to get the most out of these last few years of large carbon dependency we should be looking into expanding airports, however in 10 to 20 years this will hopefully become a dated system which we are better than” 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000911.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000911.soc index 0e8f65bb..5e501c1e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000911.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000911.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should continue to run the World Service. However, the World Service should not be funded by the BBC. In the future, the World Service should be independent from the BBC and funded by other countries that benefit from it. It is the view of the group that although other countries benefit from the World Service, it is the view of the group that as other countries do not currently benefit enough to be prepared to pay for it, it is appropriate for the BBC to continue to fund the World Service and that it is in the national interest for it to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should continue to run the World Service, but should not use UK TV licence fees to fund it. The World Service is a valuable resource and should continue to be funded by the BBC. However, the World Service is used by people all over the world, and it is unfair that the UK should have to pay for it. The World Service should be funded by the countries that use it. The BBC should advertise the World Service on air to the countries that do not fund it, in the hope that they will then use it and pay for it. This will hopefully benefit the UK in the future by establishing links with these countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should continue to run the World Service, but should not use UK TV licence fees to fund it. The World Service is a valuable resource and should continue to be funded by the BBC. However, the World Service is used by people all over the world, and it is unfair that the UK should have to pay for it. The World Service should be funded by the countries that use it, but with ads rather than by taking a cut of the profits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should continue to run the World Service, but not using UK TV licence fees to fund it. The World Service is a valuable resource and should continue to be funded by the BBC. However, the World Service is used by people all over the world, and it is unfair that the UK should have to pay for it. The World Service should be funded by the countries that use it, perhaps with the exception of underdeveloped countries. The above represents a genuine consensus view reached by participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should continue to run the World Service. However, the World Service should not be funded by the BBC. In the future, the World Service should be independent from the BBC and funded by other countries that benefit from it. It is the view of the group that although other countries benefit from the World Service, it is the view of the group that as other countries do not currently benefit enough to be prepared to pay for it, it is appropriate for the BBC to continue to fund the World Service and that it is in the national interest for it to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should continue to run the World Service, but should not use UK TV licence fees to fund it. The World Service is a valuable resource and should continue to be funded by the BBC. However, the World Service is used by people all over the world, and it is unfair that the UK should have to pay for it. The World Service should be funded by the countries that use it. The BBC should advertise the World Service on air to the countries that do not fund it, in the hope that they will then use it and pay for it. This will hopefully benefit the UK in the future by establishing links with these countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should continue to run the World Service, but should not use UK TV licence fees to fund it. The World Service is a valuable resource and should continue to be funded by the BBC. However, the World Service is used by people all over the world, and it is unfair that the UK should have to pay for it. The World Service should be funded by the countries that use it, but with ads rather than by taking a cut of the profits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should continue to run the World Service, but not using UK TV licence fees to fund it. The World Service is a valuable resource and should continue to be funded by the BBC. However, the World Service is used by people all over the world, and it is unfair that the UK should have to pay for it. The World Service should be funded by the countries that use it, perhaps with the exception of underdeveloped countries. The above represents a genuine consensus view reached by participants. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000912.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000912.soc index 3e5201ee..ea4004f2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000912.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000912.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning private education. The main argument put forward was that people should have the right to choose the best education for their children and if they have the means to pay for private education then they should be allowed to do so. The group also felt that private education creates a more diverse educational system and allows for more opportunities to be available for children to learn a wider range of subjects. The group did, however, feel that there should be some sort of regulation in place to make sure that private education is not allowing for the creation of an elite class that would be unable to relate to the rest of the population. This could be achieved through a cap on the fees that can be charged and the teaching qualifications that must be obtained by teachers of private schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group in general believed that laws banning private education would be a bad idea, but did not believe that it should be unregulated. In fact, one participant stated that they would agree with a law banning private education if it involved public schools having more funding and becoming more of a choice. Another participant strongly agreed with this as they felt that many countries fail to regulate private education properly. Although there should be some kind of regulation on private education, there was consensus on the view that parents should have the right to make an informed choice between private education and public education and, if they can afford it and feel it would be beneficial to their child, should be allowed to go down the route of private education. There was a lot of discussion around how people who have been privately educated can still connect to and understand public educated people and there was consensus that, with private education, we can avoid the creation of an elite class who would not be able to relate to the majority of society. This led to discussion about what ‘elite class’ even means and some participants thought it could just refer to a more intellectual group of people who could do with less political control and who could contribute more to society through being able to share their ideas. The participants argued -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Private education has positive elements and should not be outlawed in its entirety. Instead, measures should be put in place to regulate it and improve the standards and quality of the education offered in the public sector. These measures include placing the government as an inspectorate or control over private education with powers to send people from private school systems to lower cost public education (some of them from underprivileged homes), give large grants for facilities to make them as good, if not better than those in the private sector. These changes, the group hoped, would prevent the development of an elite class that could become alien to the problems experienced in lower social classes and stop the already significant impact private education has on access to higher class employment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning private education. The main argument put forward was that people should have the right to choose the best education for their children and if they have the means to pay for private education then they should be allowed to do so. The group also felt that private education creates a more diverse educational system and allows for more opportunities to be available for children to learn a wider range of subjects. The group did, however, feel that there should be some sort of regulation in place to make sure that private education is not allowing for the creation of an elite class that would be unable to relate to the rest of the population. It is also believed that in the interest of reducing the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population, it would be of great benefit to society to invest more resources in making public education of a quality equivalent to private education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning private education. The main argument put forward was that people should have the right to choose the best education for their children and if they have the means to pay for private education then they should be allowed to do so. The group also felt that private education creates a more diverse educational system and allows for more opportunities to be available for children to learn a wider range of subjects. The group did, however, feel that there should be some sort of regulation in place to make sure that private education is not allowing for the creation of an elite class that would be unable to relate to the rest of the population. This could be achieved through a cap on the fees that can be charged and the teaching qualifications that must be obtained by teachers of private schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group in general believed that laws banning private education would be a bad idea, but did not believe that it should be unregulated. In fact, one participant stated that they would agree with a law banning private education if it involved public schools having more funding and becoming more of a choice. Another participant strongly agreed with this as they felt that many countries fail to regulate private education properly. Although there should be some kind of regulation on private education, there was consensus on the view that parents should have the right to make an informed choice between private education and public education and, if they can afford it and feel it would be beneficial to their child, should be allowed to go down the route of private education. There was a lot of discussion around how people who have been privately educated can still connect to and understand public educated people and there was consensus that, with private education, we can avoid the creation of an elite class who would not be able to relate to the majority of society. This led to discussion about what ‘elite class’ even means and some participants thought it could just refer to a more intellectual group of people who could do with less political control and who could contribute more to society through being able to share their ideas. The participants argued +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Private education has positive elements and should not be outlawed in its entirety. Instead, measures should be put in place to regulate it and improve the standards and quality of the education offered in the public sector. These measures include placing the government as an inspectorate or control over private education with powers to send people from private school systems to lower cost public education (some of them from underprivileged homes), give large grants for facilities to make them as good, if not better than those in the private sector. These changes, the group hoped, would prevent the development of an elite class that could become alien to the problems experienced in lower social classes and stop the already significant impact private education has on access to higher class employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning private education. The main argument put forward was that people should have the right to choose the best education for their children and if they have the means to pay for private education then they should be allowed to do so. The group also felt that private education creates a more diverse educational system and allows for more opportunities to be available for children to learn a wider range of subjects. The group did, however, feel that there should be some sort of regulation in place to make sure that private education is not allowing for the creation of an elite class that would be unable to relate to the rest of the population. It is also believed that in the interest of reducing the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population, it would be of great benefit to society to invest more resources in making public education of a quality equivalent to private education. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000913.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000913.soc index 50c3c0dd..ae7b5bed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000913.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000913.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Young people are not mature enough to make such an important decision. There are many adults who are not engaged in politics and have not developed an understanding of the political system, so the idea that 16 year olds are more politically engaged than some adults is not a good enough reason to reduce the voting age. There are many other ways in which young people can get involved in politics and have their say, such as writing to their MP or campaigning for a political party. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. However, it is also important to note that young people are less likely to vote than older people, and that they often have a more liberal viewpoint. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. We believe that 16 year olds are too young to make the decisions that are required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are not mature enough to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds have not experienced enough in life to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds have not been exposed to enough of the world to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are too easily influenced by others and therefore are not able to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds do not have the life experience required to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds do not have the knowledge required to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are not responsible enough to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are not aware enough of the political system to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are not aware enough of the issues to make the decisions required in the voting process. We +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Young people are not mature enough to make such an important decision. There are many adults who are not engaged in politics and have not developed an understanding of the political system, so the idea that 16 year olds are more politically engaged than some adults is not a good enough reason to reduce the voting age. There are many other ways in which young people can get involved in politics and have their say, such as writing to their MP or campaigning for a political party. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. However, it is also important to note that young people are less likely to vote than older people, and that they often have a more liberal viewpoint. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. We believe that 16 year olds are too young to make the decisions that are required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are not mature enough to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds have not experienced enough in life to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds have not been exposed to enough of the world to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are too easily influenced by others and therefore are not able to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds do not have the life experience required to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds do not have the knowledge required to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are not responsible enough to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are not aware enough of the political system to make the decisions required in the voting process. We believe that 16 year olds are not aware enough of the issues to make the decisions required in the voting process. We 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000914.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000914.soc index 41a12433..b2e1802a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000914.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000914.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. However, it is also important to note that young people are less likely to vote than older people, and that they often have a more liberal viewpoint. We do not think that they will always vote if the minimum voting age is reduced as it is not a particularly easy decision to vote and may be seen as rather burdensome by 16 year olds, who are faced with many pressures already. We do not think that they are better placed to vote than most adults because their experience of life and work and interacting with the public and different opinions, as well as their ability to weigh up opinions on multiple topics, is still developing. Finally, we are concerned that they do not take their voting seriously and tend to be guided by peers rather than by facts and opinions. Therefore, the minimum voting age should not be reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Young people are less likely to vote than older people, and they often have a more liberal viewpoint. This means that, even if the minimum voting age were reduced to 16, we would probably see more left leaning results in elections, which is not currently desired by a large proportion of the voting public. However, if you compare younger and older voters, older voters do tend to vote in greater numbers, perhaps because they are more worried about pensions or mortgage rates. However, with issues that matter to young people more frequently in the news and on the political agenda, it is hoped that there is growing interest among the younger population about engaging with politics and the political system. But for the moment, until more young people come to vote, we must put democracy at risk if we move the minimum voting age any lower than 18, in the hope that we increase electoral turnout to greater democratic levels, thus increasing support for the party (or parties) that work to implement what the majority wants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. However, it is also important to note that young people are less likely to vote than older people, and that they often have a more liberal viewpoint. It is also important to note that many young people have not yet voted before the age of 18, and therefore would not be familiar with the voting system. It may be that it would therefore be more beneficial to encourage young people to vote as soon as they turn 18 so that they are more comfortable with voting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. However, it is also important to note that young people are less likely to vote than older people, and that they often have a more liberal viewpoint. I disagree with the overall view of the group - feel that the age should be reduced. I feel that there are many young people who know a lot about politics, and the fact that they are often required to cover this in school means that they are better placed than most adults to have a sound opinion as they will not yet have forgotten concepts such as impartiality and bias in politics and history. I agree with the statement that there are many adults who can vote who aren't mature. I also agree with the fact that many young people have a more liberal viewpoint. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. However, it is also important to note that young people are less likely to vote than older people, and that they often have a more liberal viewpoint. We do not think that they will always vote if the minimum voting age is reduced as it is not a particularly easy decision to vote and may be seen as rather burdensome by 16 year olds, who are faced with many pressures already. We do not think that they are better placed to vote than most adults because their experience of life and work and interacting with the public and different opinions, as well as their ability to weigh up opinions on multiple topics, is still developing. Finally, we are concerned that they do not take their voting seriously and tend to be guided by peers rather than by facts and opinions. Therefore, the minimum voting age should not be reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Young people are less likely to vote than older people, and they often have a more liberal viewpoint. This means that, even if the minimum voting age were reduced to 16, we would probably see more left leaning results in elections, which is not currently desired by a large proportion of the voting public. However, if you compare younger and older voters, older voters do tend to vote in greater numbers, perhaps because they are more worried about pensions or mortgage rates. However, with issues that matter to young people more frequently in the news and on the political agenda, it is hoped that there is growing interest among the younger population about engaging with politics and the political system. But for the moment, until more young people come to vote, we must put democracy at risk if we move the minimum voting age any lower than 18, in the hope that we increase electoral turnout to greater democratic levels, thus increasing support for the party (or parties) that work to implement what the majority wants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. However, it is also important to note that young people are less likely to vote than older people, and that they often have a more liberal viewpoint. It is also important to note that many young people have not yet voted before the age of 18, and therefore would not be familiar with the voting system. It may be that it would therefore be more beneficial to encourage young people to vote as soon as they turn 18 so that they are more comfortable with voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the minimum voting age should not be reduced to 16. Whilst it is important to get young people engaged with politics, there is the question of whether they lack the maturity required to play a part in the country's democratic decision making process. Although it could be argued that there are many adults who lack that maturity and knowledge of the political system. However, it is also important to note that young people are less likely to vote than older people, and that they often have a more liberal viewpoint. I disagree with the overall view of the group - feel that the age should be reduced. I feel that there are many young people who know a lot about politics, and the fact that they are often required to cover this in school means that they are better placed than most adults to have a sound opinion as they will not yet have forgotten concepts such as impartiality and bias in politics and history. I agree with the statement that there are many adults who can vote who aren't mature. I also agree with the fact that many young people have a more liberal viewpoint. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000915.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000915.soc index dec0a15e..53871e32 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000915.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000915.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of requiring new buildings to be carbon neutral. However, it was felt that the wording of the question was too vague, and that it was unclear what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context. It was felt that there was a need for more information on what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context, and also on what the costs of such a requirement would be. It was also felt that the term "carbon-neutral" was too vague, and that it would be more useful to have a specific target for the amount of carbon emissions that new buildings should be allowed to produce. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on the likely costs of such a requirement, and on whether these costs would be passed on to the occupants of the building. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on what would happen to existing buildings, and whether these would also be required to become carbon-neutral at some point in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of requiring every new building in the UK to be designed to be carbon-neutral. This would be an important step in the fight against climate change. However, there was a concern that the cost of building carbon-neutral would be very high and this would put people off. The group therefore suggested that the government should provide incentives for people to build carbon-neutral, such as tax breaks, to encourage this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that new buildings should be designed to be carbon-neutral. The group believed that this would be an important step in the fight against climate change. However, the group also believed that it would be unfair to impose this requirement on existing buildings. The group also believed that there should be some flexibility in the requirement, for example if it is not possible to make the building carbon-neutral, then it should be made as carbon-neutral as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should require all new buildings in the UK to be designed to be carbon-neutral. This is a very important step in the right direction to help combat climate change and the damage it is doing to the planet. This is something that is needed now, not in the future. This will require a lot of work to be done by architects and engineers to make this happen. The government should put more money into research to make this happen as soon as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of requiring new buildings to be carbon neutral. However, it was felt that the wording of the question was too vague, and that it was unclear what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context. It was felt that there was a need for more information on what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context, and also on what the costs of such a requirement would be. It was also felt that the term "carbon-neutral" was too vague, and that it would be more useful to have a specific target for the amount of carbon emissions that new buildings should be allowed to produce. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on the likely costs of such a requirement, and on whether these costs would be passed on to the occupants of the building. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on what would happen to existing buildings, and whether these would also be required to become carbon-neutral at some point in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of requiring every new building in the UK to be designed to be carbon-neutral. This would be an important step in the fight against climate change. However, there was a concern that the cost of building carbon-neutral would be very high and this would put people off. The group therefore suggested that the government should provide incentives for people to build carbon-neutral, such as tax breaks, to encourage this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that new buildings should be designed to be carbon-neutral. The group believed that this would be an important step in the fight against climate change. However, the group also believed that it would be unfair to impose this requirement on existing buildings. The group also believed that there should be some flexibility in the requirement, for example if it is not possible to make the building carbon-neutral, then it should be made as carbon-neutral as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should require all new buildings in the UK to be designed to be carbon-neutral. This is a very important step in the right direction to help combat climate change and the damage it is doing to the planet. This is something that is needed now, not in the future. This will require a lot of work to be done by architects and engineers to make this happen. The government should put more money into research to make this happen as soon as possible. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000916.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000916.soc index 0136ae19..18f74af1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000916.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000916.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of requiring new buildings to be carbon-neutral. However, it was felt that the wording of the question was too vague, and that it was unclear what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context. It was felt that there was a need for more information on what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context, and also on what the costs of such a requirement would be. It was also felt that the term "carbon-neutral" was too vague, and that it would be more useful to have a specific target for the amount of carbon emissions that new buildings should be allowed to produce. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on the likely costs of such a requirement, and on whether these costs would be passed on to the occupants of the building. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on what would happen to existing buildings, and whether these would also be required to become carbon-neutral at some point in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a requirement for all new buildings in the UK to be designed to be carbon-neutral. This would help to reduce the amount of carbon emissions that are released into the atmosphere, and thus help to reduce the effects of global warming. This requirement should apply to all new buildings, but should not apply to existing buildings, as these will already have been designed and built using older methods. The term "carbon-neutral" is used here to mean a building that produces no more carbon emissions than it consumes, on an annual basis. The costs of building to these new requirements may be significant, and these costs will most likely be passed on to the occupants of the building, whether this be a private individual or a company. More information is needed on what these costs will be, and on whether this will be a deterrent to building new houses. It is not clear whether all new buildings will be able to be built to these new requirements, and it may be that in some cases it will not be possible to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of requiring new buildings to be carbon neutral. However, it was felt that the question was too vague, and that it was unclear what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context. It was felt that there was a need for more information on what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context, and also on what the costs of such a requirement would be. It was also felt that the term "carbon-neutral" was too vague, and that it would be more useful to have a specific target for the amount of carbon emissions that new buildings should be allowed to produce. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on the likely costs of such a requirement, and on whether these costs would be passed on to the occupants of the building. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on what would happen to existing buildings, and whether these would also be required to become carbon-neutral at some point in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of requiring new buildings to be carbon neutral. However, it was felt that the wording of the question was too vague, and that it was unclear what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context. It was felt that there was a need for more information on what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context, and also on what the costs of such a requirement would be. It was also felt that the term "carbon-neutral" was too vague, and that it would be more useful to have a specific target for the amount of carbon emissions that new buildings should be allowed to produce. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on the likely costs of such a requirement, and on whether these costs would be passed on to the occupants of the building. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on what would happen to existing buildings, and whether these would also be required to become carbon-neutral at some point in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of requiring new buildings to be carbon-neutral. However, it was felt that the wording of the question was too vague, and that it was unclear what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context. It was felt that there was a need for more information on what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context, and also on what the costs of such a requirement would be. It was also felt that the term "carbon-neutral" was too vague, and that it would be more useful to have a specific target for the amount of carbon emissions that new buildings should be allowed to produce. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on the likely costs of such a requirement, and on whether these costs would be passed on to the occupants of the building. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on what would happen to existing buildings, and whether these would also be required to become carbon-neutral at some point in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a requirement for all new buildings in the UK to be designed to be carbon-neutral. This would help to reduce the amount of carbon emissions that are released into the atmosphere, and thus help to reduce the effects of global warming. This requirement should apply to all new buildings, but should not apply to existing buildings, as these will already have been designed and built using older methods. The term "carbon-neutral" is used here to mean a building that produces no more carbon emissions than it consumes, on an annual basis. The costs of building to these new requirements may be significant, and these costs will most likely be passed on to the occupants of the building, whether this be a private individual or a company. More information is needed on what these costs will be, and on whether this will be a deterrent to building new houses. It is not clear whether all new buildings will be able to be built to these new requirements, and it may be that in some cases it will not be possible to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of requiring new buildings to be carbon neutral. However, it was felt that the question was too vague, and that it was unclear what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context. It was felt that there was a need for more information on what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context, and also on what the costs of such a requirement would be. It was also felt that the term "carbon-neutral" was too vague, and that it would be more useful to have a specific target for the amount of carbon emissions that new buildings should be allowed to produce. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on the likely costs of such a requirement, and on whether these costs would be passed on to the occupants of the building. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on what would happen to existing buildings, and whether these would also be required to become carbon-neutral at some point in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of requiring new buildings to be carbon neutral. However, it was felt that the wording of the question was too vague, and that it was unclear what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context. It was felt that there was a need for more information on what the term "carbon-neutral" actually meant in this context, and also on what the costs of such a requirement would be. It was also felt that the term "carbon-neutral" was too vague, and that it would be more useful to have a specific target for the amount of carbon emissions that new buildings should be allowed to produce. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on the likely costs of such a requirement, and on whether these costs would be passed on to the occupants of the building. It was also felt that it would be useful to have more information on what would happen to existing buildings, and whether these would also be required to become carbon-neutral at some point in the future. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000917.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000917.soc index e8fbbf94..8a2cd4a4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000917.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000917.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Climate change is a very serious problem that is threatening the very future of our planet. It is a problem that is too large for individuals to be able to tackle without government intervention. Only government has the financial resources to invest in large scale alternative technologies, and only government has the ability to create new laws which will change the way we are currently living in a way that is damaging the planet. We are already seeing effects of climate change happening right in front of our eyes with changing weather patterns, global temperatures rising and rising sea levels amongst the most damaging effects. We and the government should do absolutely anything within our means to slow this process down and hopefully eventually stop it altogether so that we can have a liveable future for everyone. Conclusion Experiential learning is at the core of science learning as a “way of thinking and acting”. The Future of the Planet concept has shown the importance of group work, reflecting and thinking for your group, self-critiquing, personal engagement, in-depth analysis and creativity, but not to neglect individuals. The process did not only ask for students to understand science concepts but also engaged them in appreciating their role and the complexity of the current status and their attitudes toward the problem of climate change, but -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Climate change is a very serious problem that is threatening the very future of our planet. It is a problem that is too large for individuals to be able to tackle without government intervention. Only government has the financial resources to invest in large scale alternative technologies, and only government has the ability to create new laws which will change the way we are currently living in a way that is damaging the planet. We are already seeing effects of climate change happening right in front of our eyes with changing weather patterns, global temperatures rising and rising sea levels amongst the most damaging effects. We and the government should do absolutely anything within our means to slow this process down and hopefully eventually stop it altogether so that we can have a liveable future for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is a very serious problem that is threatening the very future of our planet. It is a problem that is too large for individuals to be able to tackle without government intervention. Only government has the financial resources to invest in large scale alternative technologies, and only government has the ability to create new laws which will change the way we are currently living in a way that is damaging the planet. We are already seeing effects of climate change happening right in front of our eyes with changing weather patterns, global temperatures rising and rising sea levels amongst the most damaging effects. We and the government should do absolutely anything within our means to slow this process down and hopefully eventually stop it altogether so that we can have a liveable future for everyone. Final consensus view: Yes the government should try to slow down the effects of climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Climate change is a very serious problem that is threatening the very future of our planet. It is a problem that is too large for individuals to be able to tackle without government intervention. Only government has the financial resources to invest in large scale alternative technologies, and only government has the ability to create new laws which will change the way we are currently living in a way that is damaging the planet. We are already seeing effects of climate change happening right in front of our eyes with changing weather patterns, global temperatures rising and rising sea levels amongst the most damaging effects. We and the government should do absolutely anything within our means to slow this process down and hopefully eventually stop it altogether so that we can have a liveable future for everyone. I then presented this consensus view to a group of experts and asked them for their opinion of it. The experts offered the following critiques of the consensus view: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Climate change is a very serious problem that is threatening the very future of our planet. It is a problem that is too large for individuals to be able to tackle without government intervention. Only government has the financial resources to invest in large scale alternative technologies, and only government has the ability to create new laws which will change the way we are currently living in a way that is damaging the planet. We are already seeing effects of climate change happening right in front of our eyes with changing weather patterns, global temperatures rising and rising sea levels amongst the most damaging effects. We and the government should do absolutely anything within our means to slow this process down and hopefully eventually stop it altogether so that we can have a liveable future for everyone. Conclusion Experiential learning is at the core of science learning as a “way of thinking and acting”. The Future of the Planet concept has shown the importance of group work, reflecting and thinking for your group, self-critiquing, personal engagement, in-depth analysis and creativity, but not to neglect individuals. The process did not only ask for students to understand science concepts but also engaged them in appreciating their role and the complexity of the current status and their attitudes toward the problem of climate change, but +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Climate change is a very serious problem that is threatening the very future of our planet. It is a problem that is too large for individuals to be able to tackle without government intervention. Only government has the financial resources to invest in large scale alternative technologies, and only government has the ability to create new laws which will change the way we are currently living in a way that is damaging the planet. We are already seeing effects of climate change happening right in front of our eyes with changing weather patterns, global temperatures rising and rising sea levels amongst the most damaging effects. We and the government should do absolutely anything within our means to slow this process down and hopefully eventually stop it altogether so that we can have a liveable future for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is a very serious problem that is threatening the very future of our planet. It is a problem that is too large for individuals to be able to tackle without government intervention. Only government has the financial resources to invest in large scale alternative technologies, and only government has the ability to create new laws which will change the way we are currently living in a way that is damaging the planet. We are already seeing effects of climate change happening right in front of our eyes with changing weather patterns, global temperatures rising and rising sea levels amongst the most damaging effects. We and the government should do absolutely anything within our means to slow this process down and hopefully eventually stop it altogether so that we can have a liveable future for everyone. Final consensus view: Yes the government should try to slow down the effects of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Climate change is a very serious problem that is threatening the very future of our planet. It is a problem that is too large for individuals to be able to tackle without government intervention. Only government has the financial resources to invest in large scale alternative technologies, and only government has the ability to create new laws which will change the way we are currently living in a way that is damaging the planet. We are already seeing effects of climate change happening right in front of our eyes with changing weather patterns, global temperatures rising and rising sea levels amongst the most damaging effects. We and the government should do absolutely anything within our means to slow this process down and hopefully eventually stop it altogether so that we can have a liveable future for everyone. I then presented this consensus view to a group of experts and asked them for their opinion of it. The experts offered the following critiques of the consensus view: 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000918.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000918.soc index 4bb74b09..c6134fc9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000918.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000918.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of government funding of the arts. It was felt that the arts are important to people and should be accessible to everyone. The group felt that the arts are a way of life and a way to express creativity. The arts are also a way to communicate ideas and provide entertainment. The group felt that the arts should be accessible to everyone and are a part of a person's culture. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the arts and thought that they were very important for a number of reasons. They are a way that people can enjoy themselves. They are also part of our culture and attract not just the British population, but also foreign travellers that wish to immerse themselves in our British way of life. However, the group also thought that the current economic climate is not good and that other things should take priority, like the NHS. The group felt that funding shouldn't be cut completely, just cut down so that it is a more appropriate amount, considering the current state of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we have come to the decision that the funding of the arts should not be cut. The arts are an important part of our culture and should be supported by the government. The arts are also important for the economy, as they attract foreign travellers to our country. The arts are also very important for the people of Britain, as they provide people with entertainment and new ideas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that funding for the arts should not be cut. We all agree that the arts are very important and that people should be able to persue the arts. We also agree that the arts are a very important part of a person's culture and that the arts are very important for people to be able to express themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to express themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of government funding of the arts. It was felt that the arts are important to people and should be accessible to everyone. The group felt that the arts are a way of life and a way to express creativity. The arts are also a way to communicate ideas and provide entertainment. The group felt that the arts should be accessible to everyone and are a part of a person's culture. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the arts and thought that they were very important for a number of reasons. They are a way that people can enjoy themselves. They are also part of our culture and attract not just the British population, but also foreign travellers that wish to immerse themselves in our British way of life. However, the group also thought that the current economic climate is not good and that other things should take priority, like the NHS. The group felt that funding shouldn't be cut completely, just cut down so that it is a more appropriate amount, considering the current state of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we have come to the decision that the funding of the arts should not be cut. The arts are an important part of our culture and should be supported by the government. The arts are also important for the economy, as they attract foreign travellers to our country. The arts are also very important for the people of Britain, as they provide people with entertainment and new ideas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that funding for the arts should not be cut. We all agree that the arts are very important and that people should be able to persue the arts. We also agree that the arts are a very important part of a person's culture and that the arts are very important for people to be able to express themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to express themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come to the decision that the arts are very important for people to be able to enjoy themselves. We have also come 3: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000919.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000919.soc index 8c4af42f..a94db821 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000919.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000919.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should have national referendums on major issues. The issue of what is considered a major issue is difficult to define and so it would be difficult to decide what should be decided by a referendum. Referendums are a good way of deciding on the future of the country as it is the people who are affected by the decision who are making it. It is also good as people feel like their vote actually counts towards something and so is more likely to vote. However, referendums can also be a bad idea as people can be misinformed about issues and make wrong decisions. The Brexit referendum is a good example of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the public is not well educated on major issues and therefore should not be trusted to make the right decision. However, referendums can be a useful tool to engage the public and make them feel like their vote counts for something. Referendums can also help to settle an issue once and for all and remove the possibility of political parties trying to use the issue to their advantage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be national referendums on major issues but not all issues. We feel that referendums are a good idea for the major issues as this can show voters that their vote actually counts towards something compared to a general election. However, we feel that there are a lot of uneducated people on a lot of matters in this country and people who should not have the right to vote at all, especially not on big issues. We also feel that there are a lot of people who vote with their heart and not their head, and it could put this country is a bad place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of having national referendums on major issues. The participants felt that this would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they care about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants also felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should have national referendums on major issues. The issue of what is considered a major issue is difficult to define and so it would be difficult to decide what should be decided by a referendum. Referendums are a good way of deciding on the future of the country as it is the people who are affected by the decision who are making it. It is also good as people feel like their vote actually counts towards something and so is more likely to vote. However, referendums can also be a bad idea as people can be misinformed about issues and make wrong decisions. The Brexit referendum is a good example of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the public is not well educated on major issues and therefore should not be trusted to make the right decision. However, referendums can be a useful tool to engage the public and make them feel like their vote counts for something. Referendums can also help to settle an issue once and for all and remove the possibility of political parties trying to use the issue to their advantage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be national referendums on major issues but not all issues. We feel that referendums are a good idea for the major issues as this can show voters that their vote actually counts towards something compared to a general election. However, we feel that there are a lot of uneducated people on a lot of matters in this country and people who should not have the right to vote at all, especially not on big issues. We also feel that there are a lot of people who vote with their heart and not their head, and it could put this country is a bad place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of having national referendums on major issues. The participants felt that this would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they care about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants also felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000920.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000920.soc index b379c99c..eaba5dca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000920.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000920.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The participants were in favour of having national referendums on major issues, but only for issues that were important and that most people were interested in. The participants felt that this would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they care about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants also felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of having national referendums on major issues. The participants felt that this would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they care about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants also felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that in general, the group was in favour of having national referendums on major issues. The participants felt that this would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they care about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants also felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants felt that, in general, national referendums on major issues would be a good idea. The participants felt that, in general, national referendums would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they cared about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The participants were in favour of having national referendums on major issues, but only for issues that were important and that most people were interested in. The participants felt that this would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they care about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants also felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of having national referendums on major issues. The participants felt that this would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they care about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants also felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that in general, the group was in favour of having national referendums on major issues. The participants felt that this would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they care about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants also felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants felt that, in general, national referendums on major issues would be a good idea. The participants felt that, in general, national referendums would increase voter turnout and engagement in politics, as people would be voting on issues they cared about. The participants felt that the EU referendum had been a good example of this, as it had increased turnout and made people engage in politics who had not done so before. The participants felt that referendums would be a good way of making sure that the government was listening to the people and that they would be legally binding. The participants did, however, feel that referendums would not be appropriate for all issues, and that some issues were too complex for the general public to understand. The participants also felt that referendums would not be appropriate for issues that were not likely to be supported by the majority of the public, as this would be a waste of time and money. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000921.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000921.soc index 0f3ae89e..f00665de 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000921.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000921.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Libraries should be a place of peace and quiet, where people can come to study, read, or work. Cellphones are a part of our lives and will be for the foreseeable future. They should be permitted in libraries, however, only on silent or vibrate mode. The library should not have to put up signs saying that the use of cellphones is not permitted, but they should have signs indicating that cellphone use is only allowed on silent mode. This will be sufficient to ensure a peaceful environment in the library. Conclusion Libraries have been in existence for centuries and are a very important part of communities and society as a whole. The information revolution has had a tremendous impact on libraries. What was once the repository of all human knowledge has seen most of its responsibilities transferred to online databases and websites. The way libraries carry out their operations is under constant scrutiny and most libraries have been forced to find new ways of doing their work. In the past the task of removing noise from the library would have been easily achieved by simply refusing admittance to anyone who would create a disturbance. However, in a country like Barbados where laws can make even the simplest task challenging this would be a risky strategy. According to the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Libraries should be a place of peace and quiet, where people can come to study, read, or work. Cellphones are a part of our lives and will be for the foreseeable future. They should be permitted in libraries, however, only on silent or vibrate mode. The library should not have to put up signs saying that the use of cellphones is not permitted, but they should have signs indicating that cellphone use is only allowed on silent mode. If people need to make phone calls or answer their phones, they should temporarily leave the library, and when they are finished with their phone call, they may return to the library. This will ensure that people in the library will not be disturbed by people who need to use their cellphones, and will enable everyone in the library to enjoy a quiet atmosphere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Libraries should be a place of peace and quiet, where people can come to study, read, or work. Cellphones are a part of our lives and will be for the foreseeable future. They should be permitted in libraries, however, only on silent or vibrate mode. The library should not have to put up signs saying that the use of cellphones is not permitted, but they should have signs indicating that cellphone use is only allowed on silent mode. This will be sufficient to ensure a peaceful environment in the library. The staff at the library should be trained to ask library patrons to put their phones on silent and leave the library if they are making noise with their cellphones. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should allow people to keep their cellphones with them while in the library. We should not ban cellphones from the library. People should be allowed to use their cellphones in the library, but only if they have them set to silent or vibrate. If they use the phone to make calls in the library, they should leave the library for the duration of their call, or they should have their phone turned off. This is fair, because even when the library is not crowded people don't always want to be disturbed. This policy will also apply to library staff, because they are no different than patrons. The only cellphones that will be permitted in the library are cellphones on silent/vibrate mode, all other devices will be banned. There will be signs throughout the library indicating that the library is a cellphone-free zone and that the use of cellphones for making calls is not permitted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Libraries should be a place of peace and quiet, where people can come to study, read, or work. Cellphones are a part of our lives and will be for the foreseeable future. They should be permitted in libraries, however, only on silent or vibrate mode. The library should not have to put up signs saying that the use of cellphones is not permitted, but they should have signs indicating that cellphone use is only allowed on silent mode. This will be sufficient to ensure a peaceful environment in the library. Conclusion Libraries have been in existence for centuries and are a very important part of communities and society as a whole. The information revolution has had a tremendous impact on libraries. What was once the repository of all human knowledge has seen most of its responsibilities transferred to online databases and websites. The way libraries carry out their operations is under constant scrutiny and most libraries have been forced to find new ways of doing their work. In the past the task of removing noise from the library would have been easily achieved by simply refusing admittance to anyone who would create a disturbance. However, in a country like Barbados where laws can make even the simplest task challenging this would be a risky strategy. According to the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Libraries should be a place of peace and quiet, where people can come to study, read, or work. Cellphones are a part of our lives and will be for the foreseeable future. They should be permitted in libraries, however, only on silent or vibrate mode. The library should not have to put up signs saying that the use of cellphones is not permitted, but they should have signs indicating that cellphone use is only allowed on silent mode. If people need to make phone calls or answer their phones, they should temporarily leave the library, and when they are finished with their phone call, they may return to the library. This will ensure that people in the library will not be disturbed by people who need to use their cellphones, and will enable everyone in the library to enjoy a quiet atmosphere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Libraries should be a place of peace and quiet, where people can come to study, read, or work. Cellphones are a part of our lives and will be for the foreseeable future. They should be permitted in libraries, however, only on silent or vibrate mode. The library should not have to put up signs saying that the use of cellphones is not permitted, but they should have signs indicating that cellphone use is only allowed on silent mode. This will be sufficient to ensure a peaceful environment in the library. The staff at the library should be trained to ask library patrons to put their phones on silent and leave the library if they are making noise with their cellphones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should allow people to keep their cellphones with them while in the library. We should not ban cellphones from the library. People should be allowed to use their cellphones in the library, but only if they have them set to silent or vibrate. If they use the phone to make calls in the library, they should leave the library for the duration of their call, or they should have their phone turned off. This is fair, because even when the library is not crowded people don't always want to be disturbed. This policy will also apply to library staff, because they are no different than patrons. The only cellphones that will be permitted in the library are cellphones on silent/vibrate mode, all other devices will be banned. There will be signs throughout the library indicating that the library is a cellphone-free zone and that the use of cellphones for making calls is not permitted. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000922.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000922.soc index 1ce08945..222c0376 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000922.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000922.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of making all citizens complete a community service requirement for a set number of hours per year is a good one. It would be beneficial for society as a whole and would help to create a more cohesive society. However, in practice, it would not be possible to implement this. There are too many people who are already working full time jobs, looking after their families, or have other commitments. In addition, it would be unfair to force people to do this who do not want to. Therefore, we do not think that this is a good idea in practice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think that all citizens should be required to complete community service every year. This would be a very difficult thing to enforce and would be very unfair on those who are already working full time, have children or have other commitments. This is something that should be left up to the individual and their own conscience. If they feel they want to help out in the community, they should be free to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no requirement for ALL citizens to complete community service but there is a strong argument for those individuals who are seeking work to provide this service to the community. This would definitely act as an incentive for the job seekers who are maybe not that keen to work to be more proactive in seeking out a meaning role for themselves. This in no way implies that all job seekers are lazy and not looking for work and for those who are this would really be seen as a positive to them and any future employer that they are will to work outside their skill set to benefit others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of requiring all citizens to complete community service is not a good idea as it is very unlikely to be workable and is unfair to require citizens who have not committed a crime to do this. However, there is a strong argument for those individuals who are seeking work to provide this service to the community. This would definitely act as an incentive for the job seekers who are maybe not that keen to work to be more proactive in seeking out a meaningful role for themselves. This in no way implies that all job seekers are lazy and not looking for work and for those who are this would really be seen as a positive to them and any future employer that they are willing to work outside their skill set to benefit others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of making all citizens complete a community service requirement for a set number of hours per year is a good one. It would be beneficial for society as a whole and would help to create a more cohesive society. However, in practice, it would not be possible to implement this. There are too many people who are already working full time jobs, looking after their families, or have other commitments. In addition, it would be unfair to force people to do this who do not want to. Therefore, we do not think that this is a good idea in practice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think that all citizens should be required to complete community service every year. This would be a very difficult thing to enforce and would be very unfair on those who are already working full time, have children or have other commitments. This is something that should be left up to the individual and their own conscience. If they feel they want to help out in the community, they should be free to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no requirement for ALL citizens to complete community service but there is a strong argument for those individuals who are seeking work to provide this service to the community. This would definitely act as an incentive for the job seekers who are maybe not that keen to work to be more proactive in seeking out a meaning role for themselves. This in no way implies that all job seekers are lazy and not looking for work and for those who are this would really be seen as a positive to them and any future employer that they are will to work outside their skill set to benefit others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of requiring all citizens to complete community service is not a good idea as it is very unlikely to be workable and is unfair to require citizens who have not committed a crime to do this. However, there is a strong argument for those individuals who are seeking work to provide this service to the community. This would definitely act as an incentive for the job seekers who are maybe not that keen to work to be more proactive in seeking out a meaningful role for themselves. This in no way implies that all job seekers are lazy and not looking for work and for those who are this would really be seen as a positive to them and any future employer that they are willing to work outside their skill set to benefit others. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000923.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000923.soc index f416a630..fba6b70e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000923.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000923.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group felt that the current taxation levels were sufficient to fund the required public services. The group felt that a better way to increase spending on public services would be to better manage the allocated money and waste less of them across failed projects. The group felt that there are sufficient money available but they are not being used efficient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The majority of participants thought that taxation is already too high and that increasing it would place undue pressure on households. However, it was felt that the government should better manage the allocated money and waste less of it across failed projects. It was also felt that the government should encourage the economy by not posing any more taxes on the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increased taxation to fund increased spending on public services. However, it was agreed that this should be done in a way that does not put undue pressure on those who are already struggling to make ends meet. The group also felt that there is a strong argument for increasing taxation on large corporations, as they have the capacity to absorb the cost of increased taxation, and are often the beneficiaries of public spending. The group also felt that there is a strong argument for better management of the money that is already allocated to public services, and that a greater proportion of this money should be directed to frontline services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group felt that the current taxation levels were sufficient to fund the required public services. The group felt that a better way to increase spending on public services would be to better manage the allocated money and waste less of them across failed projects. The group felt that there are sufficient money available but they are not being used efficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The majority of participants thought that taxation is already too high and that increasing it would place undue pressure on households. However, it was felt that the government should better manage the allocated money and waste less of it across failed projects. It was also felt that the government should encourage the economy by not posing any more taxes on the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increased taxation to fund increased spending on public services. However, it was agreed that this should be done in a way that does not put undue pressure on those who are already struggling to make ends meet. The group also felt that there is a strong argument for increasing taxation on large corporations, as they have the capacity to absorb the cost of increased taxation, and are often the beneficiaries of public spending. The group also felt that there is a strong argument for better management of the money that is already allocated to public services, and that a greater proportion of this money should be directed to frontline services. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000924.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000924.soc index 5dd2065b..83226956 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000924.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000924.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group in general was opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group of participants were in general opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants in general was opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group in general was opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group of participants were in general opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants in general was opposed to any increase in taxation to fund increased spending on public services. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would have a negative impact on the economy, and would lead to increased consumption. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would be detrimental to the lower income households, who are already struggling to survive. The group was of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of living. The group was also of the opinion that any increase in taxation would lead to an increase in the cost of doing business, which would be detrimental to the economy. The group was of the opinion that the government should instead make better use of the funds that are already available, and should try to reduce wastage. The group was of the opinion that the government should focus on making the public services more efficient, and should focus on making the public services more accountable for the funds that they receive. The group was of the opinion that the government should try to reduce the cost of doing business, and should try to reduce the cost of living, so that the public services can be made more efficient. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000925.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000925.soc index 55f9f2a8..85b46a3b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000925.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000925.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that the UK government should subsidise petrol prices to bring them down. The majority of participants agreed that this would help the public, especially those on lower incomes who rely on personal transport to get to work or other essential activities. It would also help the economy as people would have more money to spend on other things. However, one participant pointed out that this would need to be funded by tax revenues and this would likely mean cuts from the budget elsewhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the UK government should subsidise petrol prices to bring them down. The price of petrol has increased dramatically over the last decade and this has caused a lot of problems for the public. The increase in prices has caused a lot of people to have to change their lifestyle. We feel that it is the governments responsibility to help the public in these situations and subsidising the price of petrol is the best way to do this. The government should subsidise the price of petrol as this will help to bring the prices down. We feel that this is a good way to help the public and it will also help to stimulate the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group of participants feel that the UK government should subsidise petrol prices to bring them down. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that it would make life easier for those who need to drive for work and for other essential activities. It would also stimulate the economy, making it easier for people to travel to work and for businesses to transport goods. It would also make life easier for those who live in more rural areas where public transport is not an option. The group of participants feel that it would be a very positive move for the government to subsidise petrol prices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the UK government subsidising petrol prices to bring them down. They felt that it would be beneficial for the economy as it would help those who are less well off and it would stimulate activity. Lower fuel prices would stimulate economic activity as consumers would find the costs of transportation, goods and services to be cheaper. High fuel usage and consumption would also generate tax revenue creating a positive economic feedback loop. However, it would have to be funded through tax revenues and this would likely mean cuts from the budget elsewhere. Fossil fuels are also bad for the enviroment and we live in an era where their usage is intentionally in decline in favour of more green options. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that the UK government should subsidise petrol prices to bring them down. The majority of participants agreed that this would help the public, especially those on lower incomes who rely on personal transport to get to work or other essential activities. It would also help the economy as people would have more money to spend on other things. However, one participant pointed out that this would need to be funded by tax revenues and this would likely mean cuts from the budget elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the UK government should subsidise petrol prices to bring them down. The price of petrol has increased dramatically over the last decade and this has caused a lot of problems for the public. The increase in prices has caused a lot of people to have to change their lifestyle. We feel that it is the governments responsibility to help the public in these situations and subsidising the price of petrol is the best way to do this. The government should subsidise the price of petrol as this will help to bring the prices down. We feel that this is a good way to help the public and it will also help to stimulate the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group of participants feel that the UK government should subsidise petrol prices to bring them down. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that it would make life easier for those who need to drive for work and for other essential activities. It would also stimulate the economy, making it easier for people to travel to work and for businesses to transport goods. It would also make life easier for those who live in more rural areas where public transport is not an option. The group of participants feel that it would be a very positive move for the government to subsidise petrol prices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK government subsidising petrol prices to bring them down. They felt that it would be beneficial for the economy as it would help those who are less well off and it would stimulate activity. Lower fuel prices would stimulate economic activity as consumers would find the costs of transportation, goods and services to be cheaper. High fuel usage and consumption would also generate tax revenue creating a positive economic feedback loop. However, it would have to be funded through tax revenues and this would likely mean cuts from the budget elsewhere. Fossil fuels are also bad for the enviroment and we live in an era where their usage is intentionally in decline in favour of more green options. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000926.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000926.soc index 02d6faa5..b698e93a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000926.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000926.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Cannabis should be legalised for medical use. It is proven to help people with certain conditions, such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. However, there are also potential risks and side effects associated with cannabis use, such as impaired cognitive function, addiction and respiratory problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis for medical use, however, they felt that there should be safeguards in place to ensure that it is used in a safe and responsible manner. The group also felt that it would be important to consider the potential risks and side effects associated with cannabis use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “With the appropriate safeguards in place, there should be no reasonable objection to cannabis being legalised for medical use. If there is a therapeutic use for a substance, and it can be controlled and the safety shown to be acceptable, it should be used. This could be part of a comprehensive relook at cannabis controls, or solely has part of a medical programme, in which case there will need to be controls looked at - but this is done already with controlled substances, some of which are highly addictive, unlike cannabis.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Cannabis should be legalised for medical use, however, we must be aware of the possible side effects of the drug, such as impaired cognitive function, addiction and respiratory problems. We must also consider that the cannabis plant can be used for more than just recreational purposes and it can be used in other areas, such as textiles, paper, biofuel and food. The plant can be used for medicinal purposes and can also be used for more than just that. Therefore, we must be aware of the uses of the cannabis plant and not just its recreational use.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Cannabis should be legalised for medical use. It is proven to help people with certain conditions, such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. However, there are also potential risks and side effects associated with cannabis use, such as impaired cognitive function, addiction and respiratory problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis for medical use, however, they felt that there should be safeguards in place to ensure that it is used in a safe and responsible manner. The group also felt that it would be important to consider the potential risks and side effects associated with cannabis use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “With the appropriate safeguards in place, there should be no reasonable objection to cannabis being legalised for medical use. If there is a therapeutic use for a substance, and it can be controlled and the safety shown to be acceptable, it should be used. This could be part of a comprehensive relook at cannabis controls, or solely has part of a medical programme, in which case there will need to be controls looked at - but this is done already with controlled substances, some of which are highly addictive, unlike cannabis.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Cannabis should be legalised for medical use, however, we must be aware of the possible side effects of the drug, such as impaired cognitive function, addiction and respiratory problems. We must also consider that the cannabis plant can be used for more than just recreational purposes and it can be used in other areas, such as textiles, paper, biofuel and food. The plant can be used for medicinal purposes and can also be used for more than just that. Therefore, we must be aware of the uses of the cannabis plant and not just its recreational use.” 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000927.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000927.soc index a803f459..2e608935 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000927.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000927.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. The benefits of testing on animals are not worth the suffering that the animals go through. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although we have different opinions, we all agree that animal testing is not the best option. We would prefer that the UK ban products that have been tested on animals. However, we also understand that this is not the best option for humanity and so we have come to a compromise. We believe that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals, but that they should allow some animal testing to continue, but in the most humane way possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. However, there are some products that are essential to human health and wellbeing that could not be tested on humans. For these products, we believe that the benefits to humans outweigh the suffering of animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals because the suffering that the animals go through is not worth the benefits that humans gain from it. We also think that the animals have no choice in the matter and it is unfair to force them to go through this. We also believe that it is not necessary to test on animals as there are many alternatives to animal testing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. The benefits of testing on animals are not worth the suffering that the animals go through. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although we have different opinions, we all agree that animal testing is not the best option. We would prefer that the UK ban products that have been tested on animals. However, we also understand that this is not the best option for humanity and so we have come to a compromise. We believe that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals, but that they should allow some animal testing to continue, but in the most humane way possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. However, there are some products that are essential to human health and wellbeing that could not be tested on humans. For these products, we believe that the benefits to humans outweigh the suffering of animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals because the suffering that the animals go through is not worth the benefits that humans gain from it. We also think that the animals have no choice in the matter and it is unfair to force them to go through this. We also believe that it is not necessary to test on animals as there are many alternatives to animal testing. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000928.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000928.soc index 18e06061..5903089f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000928.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000928.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not ban the building of wind turbines on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not ban the building of wind turbines on the UK's shoreline. Wind turbines are a valuable resource to our country as they provide a renewable source of energy. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are some risks and some negatives to the building of wind turbines, the benefits to the country are so great that we should not ban the building of them. We need to be diversifying our energy sources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not ban the building of wind turbines on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not ban the building of wind turbines on the UK's shoreline. Wind turbines are a valuable resource to our country as they provide a renewable source of energy. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are some risks and some negatives to the building of wind turbines, the benefits to the country are so great that we should not ban the building of them. We need to be diversifying our energy sources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000929.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000929.soc index 788cdb83..196d151a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000929.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000929.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. Therefore, when a wind farm is being proposed, the local community should have a say in whether the turbines are built. It is important to make sure that any wind turbines that are built on shorelines are far enough away from wildlife nesting sites, and if they do get in the way of birds migratory routes, then there needs to be some kind of warning system put in place, to warn the birds of the turbines. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. The second issue can be mitigated by ensuring that the turbines are a sufficient distance from land so that birds are not put at risk. The other issue can be mitigated by ensuring that the turbines are not too close to land and also by making sure that they are well designed and blend in well with the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. The first issue is relatively easily solved by only putting turbines in places where they cannot be seen from land. This is a compromise that is necessary in order to get the most from wind energy. The second issue is more complex. Further research is needed to find out more about how they can affect wildlife, and whether this can be mitigated. If it cannot, then it will need to be weighed up against the benefits of wind energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. It is important that the location of the turbines is considered, and where possible they are placed further away from populated areas. It is also important to consider the flight paths of birds and other wildlife, and avoid putting turbines in areas that they may be flying over. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. Therefore, when a wind farm is being proposed, the local community should have a say in whether the turbines are built. It is important to make sure that any wind turbines that are built on shorelines are far enough away from wildlife nesting sites, and if they do get in the way of birds migratory routes, then there needs to be some kind of warning system put in place, to warn the birds of the turbines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. The second issue can be mitigated by ensuring that the turbines are a sufficient distance from land so that birds are not put at risk. The other issue can be mitigated by ensuring that the turbines are not too close to land and also by making sure that they are well designed and blend in well with the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. The first issue is relatively easily solved by only putting turbines in places where they cannot be seen from land. This is a compromise that is necessary in order to get the most from wind energy. The second issue is more complex. Further research is needed to find out more about how they can affect wildlife, and whether this can be mitigated. If it cannot, then it will need to be weighed up against the benefits of wind energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, wind turbines should not be banned on the UK's shoreline. We need to be diversifying our energy resources as much as possible and wind energy is a vital part of this. If we continue to be dependent on other countries energy supplies we will suffer from fluctuations in the market due to conflicts or shortages. We also need to be investing more in wind as it is commonly understood to be a green source of energy. We must use more green energy sources if we are to have any hope of reducing our emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. However, there are some issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the turbines can be an eyesore, and secondly, there is a risk that they can affect wildlife, especially birds. It is important that the location of the turbines is considered, and where possible they are placed further away from populated areas. It is also important to consider the flight paths of birds and other wildlife, and avoid putting turbines in areas that they may be flying over. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000930.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000930.soc index 163def7b..21af9c0f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000930.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000930.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The National Health Service is well run in some areas, but could be better in others. We agree that the NHS should be well funded and have enough staff to help people, but we also think that the leadership in the individual hospitals could be improved. We think that the lack of funding is the most significant reason why the way the NHS is ran is of poor quality, though the leadership in the individual hospitals do tend to be good. We also think that the German Healthy service has a far more efficient structure that reduces waiting times and gets the patients directly to a specialist. We also think that the politicians used it as a voters bate and never address the core problems and blindly throw money in the NHS's direct if they remember to at all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the NHS is well-run. The NHS is a well-run service in the sense that it is the most cost-effective healthcare system in the world. However, there is a growing demand for the NHS and this has led to increasing waiting times for treatment. There is a need to invest more into the NHS and to restructure it to make it more scalable. The NHS is well-run in that it provides universal healthcare, but more funding is needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that the NHS is not well run. It is a great concept and it is fantastic that the UK is one of the few countries in the world that offer universal healthcare to all citizens. However, the lack of funding is a major problem for the NHS. This has led to a situation where NHS staff are overworked and underpaid, leading to many strikes. The NHS is also not scalable, meaning that as the population grows, so does the demand on the NHS. This is not a problem that can be solved by simply throwing more money at the NHS. We believe that a major restructure is required in order to make the NHS more scalable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is a well-run organisation that is a source of national pride. The organisation provides universal healthcare to all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. The NHS has, however, been underfunded for a number of years, and this has led to the increasing of waiting times and staff shortages. We believe that the NHS should be better funded in order to improve waiting times and staff shortages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The National Health Service is well run in some areas, but could be better in others. We agree that the NHS should be well funded and have enough staff to help people, but we also think that the leadership in the individual hospitals could be improved. We think that the lack of funding is the most significant reason why the way the NHS is ran is of poor quality, though the leadership in the individual hospitals do tend to be good. We also think that the German Healthy service has a far more efficient structure that reduces waiting times and gets the patients directly to a specialist. We also think that the politicians used it as a voters bate and never address the core problems and blindly throw money in the NHS's direct if they remember to at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the NHS is well-run. The NHS is a well-run service in the sense that it is the most cost-effective healthcare system in the world. However, there is a growing demand for the NHS and this has led to increasing waiting times for treatment. There is a need to invest more into the NHS and to restructure it to make it more scalable. The NHS is well-run in that it provides universal healthcare, but more funding is needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that the NHS is not well run. It is a great concept and it is fantastic that the UK is one of the few countries in the world that offer universal healthcare to all citizens. However, the lack of funding is a major problem for the NHS. This has led to a situation where NHS staff are overworked and underpaid, leading to many strikes. The NHS is also not scalable, meaning that as the population grows, so does the demand on the NHS. This is not a problem that can be solved by simply throwing more money at the NHS. We believe that a major restructure is required in order to make the NHS more scalable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is a well-run organisation that is a source of national pride. The organisation provides universal healthcare to all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. The NHS has, however, been underfunded for a number of years, and this has led to the increasing of waiting times and staff shortages. We believe that the NHS should be better funded in order to improve waiting times and staff shortages. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000931.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000931.soc index 62db662d..c17b5676 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000931.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000931.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the BBC is a good thing for society. The BBC provides an important service for the British public, and is a vital part of British culture. The BBC has a unique place in society as it is a public service and is not profit driven. The BBC is also a very large employer and provides a lot of jobs across the country. The BBC also provides a lot of value to the public in the form of entertainment, news, and education. The BBC also provides a lot of investment in new talent. The BBC is also a very large broadcaster and has a very large reach. The BBC also promotes British culture and arts both domestically and internationally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the BBC is an important part of British society. The BBC has served its position well as a public broadcasting service and helps promote arts and culture domestically and internationally. The BBC encourages innovation and helps booster cohesiveness within everyday society. There is a lot of added value from not just programming, but also education, news, and other forms of media. We also like that it's a public service and not profit driven. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the BBC is a good thing for society. The BBC is a public service that provides a range of services that are important for the British people. The BBC is the leading news broadcaster in the UK and provides an important public service in providing unbiased news and current affairs. The BBC also provides a range of other services such as entertainment, education and arts. The BBC is an important part of British society and provides a range of services that are important for the British people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the BBC is a good thing for society. It is a public service that provides the British people with news, entertainment and education. It is also a place for British talent to develop and flourish. However, the BBC is not without its faults. There is a feeling that the BBC has become too political in its output and there is a need for the BBC to remain impartial. The BBC also has a problem with diversity and there is a feeling that the BBC is too London centric. There is a feeling that the licence fee is too high and that it should be reduced. The BBC is also guilty of scaremongering in its news output. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the BBC is a good thing for society. The BBC provides an important service for the British public, and is a vital part of British culture. The BBC has a unique place in society as it is a public service and is not profit driven. The BBC is also a very large employer and provides a lot of jobs across the country. The BBC also provides a lot of value to the public in the form of entertainment, news, and education. The BBC also provides a lot of investment in new talent. The BBC is also a very large broadcaster and has a very large reach. The BBC also promotes British culture and arts both domestically and internationally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the BBC is an important part of British society. The BBC has served its position well as a public broadcasting service and helps promote arts and culture domestically and internationally. The BBC encourages innovation and helps booster cohesiveness within everyday society. There is a lot of added value from not just programming, but also education, news, and other forms of media. We also like that it's a public service and not profit driven. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the BBC is a good thing for society. The BBC is a public service that provides a range of services that are important for the British people. The BBC is the leading news broadcaster in the UK and provides an important public service in providing unbiased news and current affairs. The BBC also provides a range of other services such as entertainment, education and arts. The BBC is an important part of British society and provides a range of services that are important for the British people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the BBC is a good thing for society. It is a public service that provides the British people with news, entertainment and education. It is also a place for British talent to develop and flourish. However, the BBC is not without its faults. There is a feeling that the BBC has become too political in its output and there is a need for the BBC to remain impartial. The BBC also has a problem with diversity and there is a feeling that the BBC is too London centric. There is a feeling that the licence fee is too high and that it should be reduced. The BBC is also guilty of scaremongering in its news output. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000932.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000932.soc index 4ab7540d..16a9a61d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000932.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000932.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Climate change is the biggest issue we face today and we are slowly walking into what will eventually kill us all if left unfixed. It should be our responsibility to protect the environment. Climate change is causing lots of negative effects such as extreme weather conditions. It seems to affect everyone and laziness seems to be the main reason as to why we don't change. People are too comfortable. I think overall everyone could do their bit with recycling and trying to lower their carbon footprint but overall the bigger companies and businesses need to be doing their bit too, and overall some help is better than none. We should do more to face the increasing climate change, we can feel a lot of different climate change in past years, heat waves, coolest winter, hottest summer etc. We will face the significant consequence in the coming decade if we don't do more on it, that is a globe topic , it is all about the human on the world. We need work together. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should do more to combat climate change. Climate change is causing lots of negative effects such as extreme weather conditions. It should be our responsibility to protect the environment. We will face the significant consequence in the coming decade if we don't do more on it, that is a globe topic , it is all about the human on the world. We need work together. It seems to affect everyone and laziness seems to be the main reason as to why we don't change. people are too comfortable. i think overall everyone could do there bit with recycling and trying to lower their carbon footprint but overall the bigger companies and businesses need to be doing there bit too, and overall some help is better than none. yes we should. climate change is the biggest issue we face today and we are slowly walking into what will eventually kill us all if left unfixed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should do more to combat climate change. It is the biggest issue we face today and we are slowly walking into what will eventually kill us all if left unfixed. It should be our responsibility to protect the environment. Climate change is causing lots of negative effects such as extreme weather conditions. We will face the significant consequence in the coming decade if we don't do more on it, that is a globe topic , it is all about the human on the world. We need work together. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should do more to combat climate change. It is the biggest issue we face today and we are slowly walking into what will eventually kill us all if left unfixed. People are too comfortable and climate change is causing lots of negative effects such as extreme weather conditions. We will face the significant consequence in the coming decade if we don't do more on it, that is a globe topic , it is all about the human on the world. We need work together.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Climate change is the biggest issue we face today and we are slowly walking into what will eventually kill us all if left unfixed. It should be our responsibility to protect the environment. Climate change is causing lots of negative effects such as extreme weather conditions. It seems to affect everyone and laziness seems to be the main reason as to why we don't change. People are too comfortable. I think overall everyone could do their bit with recycling and trying to lower their carbon footprint but overall the bigger companies and businesses need to be doing their bit too, and overall some help is better than none. We should do more to face the increasing climate change, we can feel a lot of different climate change in past years, heat waves, coolest winter, hottest summer etc. We will face the significant consequence in the coming decade if we don't do more on it, that is a globe topic , it is all about the human on the world. We need work together. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should do more to combat climate change. Climate change is causing lots of negative effects such as extreme weather conditions. It should be our responsibility to protect the environment. We will face the significant consequence in the coming decade if we don't do more on it, that is a globe topic , it is all about the human on the world. We need work together. It seems to affect everyone and laziness seems to be the main reason as to why we don't change. people are too comfortable. i think overall everyone could do there bit with recycling and trying to lower their carbon footprint but overall the bigger companies and businesses need to be doing there bit too, and overall some help is better than none. yes we should. climate change is the biggest issue we face today and we are slowly walking into what will eventually kill us all if left unfixed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should do more to combat climate change. It is the biggest issue we face today and we are slowly walking into what will eventually kill us all if left unfixed. It should be our responsibility to protect the environment. Climate change is causing lots of negative effects such as extreme weather conditions. We will face the significant consequence in the coming decade if we don't do more on it, that is a globe topic , it is all about the human on the world. We need work together. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should do more to combat climate change. It is the biggest issue we face today and we are slowly walking into what will eventually kill us all if left unfixed. People are too comfortable and climate change is causing lots of negative effects such as extreme weather conditions. We will face the significant consequence in the coming decade if we don't do more on it, that is a globe topic , it is all about the human on the world. We need work together.” 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000933.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000933.soc index db418e30..64533a35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000933.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000933.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The monarchy should be abolished. Although the monarchy does bring in a lot of money to the country in tourism, the cost of keeping them is also very high. This money could be better spent on the public, for example improving the NHS, or helping people who are homeless. The monarchy is outdated and is a relic of a time when people were not treated equally. The monarchy is not elected, and so do not have to answer to the people. This is not a democratic way to run a country. The monarchy is also not accountable for their actions. They can do what they want and are not punished for it. This is not fair. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of abolishing the monarchy. It was felt that the monarchy is outdated, and that in this day and age the idea of being ruled over by a monarchy seems a little archaic. It was also felt that the monarchy is a waste of tax payer money, and that the money could be better spent on public services. However, it was felt that the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is a perfect Queen to her people in every way and that the monarchy has changed for the better. The group was therefore in favour of abolishing the monarchy, but not until after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The monarchy should be abolished. The cost of maintaining the monarchy is considerable and this money could be better used to improve public infrastructure such as schools, roads and hospitals. The monarchy is an incredibly outdated system which represents a colonial past, a history of slavery and poor treatment of "non-royalty". It is ridiculous that these people are held in such high esteem in 2023. It should be abolished and confined to history, and in its place the money that goes towards it should go towards helping those most in need such as the homeless, those on low-incomes and struggling single mothers. They are a lot of what is wrong with the United Kingdom as we know it today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the monarchy is a good thing. It provides a focal point for national pride, it is a tourist attraction and it provides stability. The current Queen has been a good ambassador for the UK and the royal family in general has helped to bring the country together. However, the monarchy is in need of modernisation and the royal family need to be more careful with the public money they receive. The monarchy is an outdated system and it is not clear what they do to earn the money they receive. We would like to see the royal family doing more to help charities and to help the country as a whole. We would like to see more of the royal family and for them to be more involved in the day-to-day running of the country. We would also like to see the monarchy abolished in Scotland and Wales. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The monarchy should be abolished. Although the monarchy does bring in a lot of money to the country in tourism, the cost of keeping them is also very high. This money could be better spent on the public, for example improving the NHS, or helping people who are homeless. The monarchy is outdated and is a relic of a time when people were not treated equally. The monarchy is not elected, and so do not have to answer to the people. This is not a democratic way to run a country. The monarchy is also not accountable for their actions. They can do what they want and are not punished for it. This is not fair. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of abolishing the monarchy. It was felt that the monarchy is outdated, and that in this day and age the idea of being ruled over by a monarchy seems a little archaic. It was also felt that the monarchy is a waste of tax payer money, and that the money could be better spent on public services. However, it was felt that the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is a perfect Queen to her people in every way and that the monarchy has changed for the better. The group was therefore in favour of abolishing the monarchy, but not until after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The monarchy should be abolished. The cost of maintaining the monarchy is considerable and this money could be better used to improve public infrastructure such as schools, roads and hospitals. The monarchy is an incredibly outdated system which represents a colonial past, a history of slavery and poor treatment of "non-royalty". It is ridiculous that these people are held in such high esteem in 2023. It should be abolished and confined to history, and in its place the money that goes towards it should go towards helping those most in need such as the homeless, those on low-incomes and struggling single mothers. They are a lot of what is wrong with the United Kingdom as we know it today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the monarchy is a good thing. It provides a focal point for national pride, it is a tourist attraction and it provides stability. The current Queen has been a good ambassador for the UK and the royal family in general has helped to bring the country together. However, the monarchy is in need of modernisation and the royal family need to be more careful with the public money they receive. The monarchy is an outdated system and it is not clear what they do to earn the money they receive. We would like to see the royal family doing more to help charities and to help the country as a whole. We would like to see more of the royal family and for them to be more involved in the day-to-day running of the country. We would also like to see the monarchy abolished in Scotland and Wales. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000934.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000934.soc index 1bdcd60e..9fd8817b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000934.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000934.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. The benefits of testing on animals are not worth the suffering that the animals go through. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. We would also like to stress that testing on animals should be banned for cosmetic purposes only. For medical research, animal testing is essential as a last resort. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Products should be made safe for humans but I don't believe they should be tested on animals. The suffering which the animals go through seems so cruel that the benefits are not worth it in my opinion. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. We agree that the benefits of testing on animals are not worth the suffering that the animals go through. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. We also think that testing on animals should be allowed for essential medicines, such as vaccines, because it could be a matter of life and death. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. The benefits of testing on animals are not worth the suffering that the animals go through. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. We have not come to a complete consensus, however, and Participant 4 believes that testing should be allowed for essential medicines, but cosmetics testing should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. The benefits of testing on animals are not worth the suffering that the animals go through. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. We would also like to stress that testing on animals should be banned for cosmetic purposes only. For medical research, animal testing is essential as a last resort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Products should be made safe for humans but I don't believe they should be tested on animals. The suffering which the animals go through seems so cruel that the benefits are not worth it in my opinion. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. We agree that the benefits of testing on animals are not worth the suffering that the animals go through. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. We also think that testing on animals should be allowed for essential medicines, such as vaccines, because it could be a matter of life and death. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK should ban products that have been tested on animals. The benefits of testing on animals are not worth the suffering that the animals go through. There are alternatives such as computer modelling which could be used instead. The UK is a developed country and should not support such a cruel practice. We have not come to a complete consensus, however, and Participant 4 believes that testing should be allowed for essential medicines, but cosmetics testing should be banned. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000935.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000935.soc index 564a1ac7..7007de0b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000935.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000935.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although there are good arguments to suggest that the UK would be better off as a republic, in general the group was opposed to the idea of a republic. The current system is well established and is accepted by the vast majority of the population. A republic would be a radical change to the status quo and would cause a great deal of upset and division. It was felt that the monarchy is a non-political institution and as such is a great unifier of the nation. The Queen is a symbol of the nation that everyone can get behind, no matter what their political views. The Queen also has an important ceremonial role that would be difficult to replace. A republic would be a major change to the status quo and would be very difficult to implement. It was felt that the current system works well and as such should be left alone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There was a strong consensus that Britain should not become a republic. The current system of a constitutional monarchy is well established and the vast majority of the population is content with it. There are clear advantages to the current system and clear disadvantages to becoming a republic. The monarchy is a non-political institution which unifies the nation and serves as a symbol for the country that everyone can get behind. In addition, the Queen plays a ceremonial role which would be difficult to replace. The monarchy also brings in a great deal of money through tourism and so helps the economy. A republic would cause division and would be difficult to implement as it would be a radical change to the status quo. The current system works well and is generally accepted. There is no pressing need to change it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There was a general consensus that the monarchy is the best way forward for Britain. It was felt that it would be very difficult to find an alternative to the monarchy as it is such an established institution and has a very important ceremonial role. The monarchy is also an apolitical institution which is very important as the UK is so divided politically. The Queen acts as an unifier of the country and is someone that all people can get behind. The group felt that changing to an elected head of state would be a very difficult thing to implement and would probably cause a great deal of upset in the country. The Queen is a very established figurehead that is important to the country and the economy and as such is something that should be cherished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Britain should remain a monarchy. The current system works well and is accepted by the majority of the population. The monarchy is a non-political institution and as such is a great unifier of the nation. The Queen is a symbol of the nation that everyone can get behind, no matter what their political views. The Queen also has an important ceremonial role that would be difficult to replace. The monarchy is a well-established institution that has a long history and is well-respected by most of the population. There would be very little benefit to a change to a republic, and it would be a radical and disruptive change to the status quo. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although there are good arguments to suggest that the UK would be better off as a republic, in general the group was opposed to the idea of a republic. The current system is well established and is accepted by the vast majority of the population. A republic would be a radical change to the status quo and would cause a great deal of upset and division. It was felt that the monarchy is a non-political institution and as such is a great unifier of the nation. The Queen is a symbol of the nation that everyone can get behind, no matter what their political views. The Queen also has an important ceremonial role that would be difficult to replace. A republic would be a major change to the status quo and would be very difficult to implement. It was felt that the current system works well and as such should be left alone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There was a strong consensus that Britain should not become a republic. The current system of a constitutional monarchy is well established and the vast majority of the population is content with it. There are clear advantages to the current system and clear disadvantages to becoming a republic. The monarchy is a non-political institution which unifies the nation and serves as a symbol for the country that everyone can get behind. In addition, the Queen plays a ceremonial role which would be difficult to replace. The monarchy also brings in a great deal of money through tourism and so helps the economy. A republic would cause division and would be difficult to implement as it would be a radical change to the status quo. The current system works well and is generally accepted. There is no pressing need to change it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There was a general consensus that the monarchy is the best way forward for Britain. It was felt that it would be very difficult to find an alternative to the monarchy as it is such an established institution and has a very important ceremonial role. The monarchy is also an apolitical institution which is very important as the UK is so divided politically. The Queen acts as an unifier of the country and is someone that all people can get behind. The group felt that changing to an elected head of state would be a very difficult thing to implement and would probably cause a great deal of upset in the country. The Queen is a very established figurehead that is important to the country and the economy and as such is something that should be cherished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Britain should remain a monarchy. The current system works well and is accepted by the majority of the population. The monarchy is a non-political institution and as such is a great unifier of the nation. The Queen is a symbol of the nation that everyone can get behind, no matter what their political views. The Queen also has an important ceremonial role that would be difficult to replace. The monarchy is a well-established institution that has a long history and is well-respected by most of the population. There would be very little benefit to a change to a republic, and it would be a radical and disruptive change to the status quo. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000936.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000936.soc index 606d6cd3..76e7a2c3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000936.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000936.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “With the appropriate safeguards in place, there should be no reasonable objection to cannabis being legalised for medical use. If there is a therapeutic use for a substance, and it can be controlled and the safety shown to be acceptable, it should be used. This could be part of a comprehensive relook at cannabis controls, or solely as part of a medical programme, in which case there will need to be controls looked at - but this is done already with controlled substances, some of which are highly addictive, unlike cannabis. This may improve the lives of some people who suffer from pain due to a medical condition, for whom the usual treatments may not be so effective. Therefore, there is much to be gained by legalising cannabis for medical use, but only after carefully considering the potential risks and benefits. However, this may need to be done by differentiating the strengths of the different varieties and only allowing those that are shown to be safe and effective to be used. A stronger variety of cannabis, if used for medical purposes, could still lead to an overdose. Otherwise, it should not be legalised for recreational use, as there is no evidence that it is safe for such use.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “If cannabis can be shown to have therapeutic benefits and can be safely controlled, it should be available as an option for medical treatment. Many other drugs that are highly addictive are already subject to controls, so cannabis could be similarly regulated. In addition, there is growing evidence that cannabis can have positive benefits in the treatment of certain medical conditions, including chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. With this in mind, cannabis should be legalised for medical use in order to improve the treatment of these conditions.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “With the appropriate safeguards in place, there should be no reasonable objection to cannabis being legalised for medical use. If there is a therapeutic use for a substance, and it can be controlled and the safety shown to be acceptable, it should be used. This could be part of a comprehensive relook at cannabis controls, or solely as part of a medical programme, in which case there will need to be controls looked at - but this is done already with controlled substances, some of which are highly addictive, unlike cannabis. Many studies have shown that cannabis can be effective in treating certain medical conditions, such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. However, there are also potential risks and side effects associated with cannabis use, such as impaired cognitive function, addiction and respiratory problems.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Cannabis is known to help in big ways like with depression or even Parkinson's disease. Cannabis is also used to treat multiple sclerosis, and some studies have suggested that it can be effective in treating certain medical conditions, such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. However, there are also potential risks and side effects associated with cannabis use, such as impaired cognitive function, addiction and respiratory problems. With the appropriate safeguards in place, cannabis should be legalised for medical use. If there is a therapeutic use for a substance, and it can be controlled and the safety shown to be acceptable, it should be used. This could be part of a comprehensive relook at cannabis controls, or solely as part of a medical programme, in which case there will need to be controls looked at - but this is done already with controlled substances, some of which are highly addictive, unlike cannabis.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “With the appropriate safeguards in place, there should be no reasonable objection to cannabis being legalised for medical use. If there is a therapeutic use for a substance, and it can be controlled and the safety shown to be acceptable, it should be used. This could be part of a comprehensive relook at cannabis controls, or solely as part of a medical programme, in which case there will need to be controls looked at - but this is done already with controlled substances, some of which are highly addictive, unlike cannabis. This may improve the lives of some people who suffer from pain due to a medical condition, for whom the usual treatments may not be so effective. Therefore, there is much to be gained by legalising cannabis for medical use, but only after carefully considering the potential risks and benefits. However, this may need to be done by differentiating the strengths of the different varieties and only allowing those that are shown to be safe and effective to be used. A stronger variety of cannabis, if used for medical purposes, could still lead to an overdose. Otherwise, it should not be legalised for recreational use, as there is no evidence that it is safe for such use.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “If cannabis can be shown to have therapeutic benefits and can be safely controlled, it should be available as an option for medical treatment. Many other drugs that are highly addictive are already subject to controls, so cannabis could be similarly regulated. In addition, there is growing evidence that cannabis can have positive benefits in the treatment of certain medical conditions, including chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. With this in mind, cannabis should be legalised for medical use in order to improve the treatment of these conditions.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “With the appropriate safeguards in place, there should be no reasonable objection to cannabis being legalised for medical use. If there is a therapeutic use for a substance, and it can be controlled and the safety shown to be acceptable, it should be used. This could be part of a comprehensive relook at cannabis controls, or solely as part of a medical programme, in which case there will need to be controls looked at - but this is done already with controlled substances, some of which are highly addictive, unlike cannabis. Many studies have shown that cannabis can be effective in treating certain medical conditions, such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. However, there are also potential risks and side effects associated with cannabis use, such as impaired cognitive function, addiction and respiratory problems.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Cannabis is known to help in big ways like with depression or even Parkinson's disease. Cannabis is also used to treat multiple sclerosis, and some studies have suggested that it can be effective in treating certain medical conditions, such as chronic pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. However, there are also potential risks and side effects associated with cannabis use, such as impaired cognitive function, addiction and respiratory problems. With the appropriate safeguards in place, cannabis should be legalised for medical use. If there is a therapeutic use for a substance, and it can be controlled and the safety shown to be acceptable, it should be used. This could be part of a comprehensive relook at cannabis controls, or solely as part of a medical programme, in which case there will need to be controls looked at - but this is done already with controlled substances, some of which are highly addictive, unlike cannabis.” 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000937.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000937.soc index 5d708b18..7652f033 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000937.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000937.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The current system of student loans is unfair to those who come from poorer backgrounds, and therefore we would like to see the system changed to a model where the level of tuition fees is based on income, so that those from poorer backgrounds pay less, and those from wealthier backgrounds pay more. In addition, we would like to see the repayment threshold for student loans increased to £30k, and the repayment period increased to 30 years.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of abolishing student tuition fees. The group felt that the idea of abolishing tuition fees would lead to a situation where the quality of education would be compromised. The group also felt that the idea of abolishing tuition fees would lead to a situation where only the wealthy would be able to access the best quality education. The group felt that there should be a system of student loans and grants in place, which would allow the best students to access the best quality education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Abolishing tuition fees is a step in the right direction, however we do not think it is a sufficient step. The current system has caused a generation of students to be burdened with debt and it has led to a stratification of universities, with the best universities being able to charge the highest fees. We believe that a system of subsidies is necessary, in which the government supports those from lower income households, so that they can afford to study at university. We also believe that the government should support universities to ensure that they are able to offer high quality education to students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of abolishing student tuition fees. However, we recognised that student loans are undesirable and that they discourage poorer individuals from applying for student places in further education. We agreed that we should wish to encourage everybody to learn to the highest level of their ability. We also recognised that some professions such as nursing and teaching are in high need of applicants and that student fees should be reduced or abolished for these professions. We did not agree that we should abolish tuition fees, but rather re-design the system to provide benefits based on the income of students/families/households. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The current system of student loans is unfair to those who come from poorer backgrounds, and therefore we would like to see the system changed to a model where the level of tuition fees is based on income, so that those from poorer backgrounds pay less, and those from wealthier backgrounds pay more. In addition, we would like to see the repayment threshold for student loans increased to £30k, and the repayment period increased to 30 years.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of abolishing student tuition fees. The group felt that the idea of abolishing tuition fees would lead to a situation where the quality of education would be compromised. The group also felt that the idea of abolishing tuition fees would lead to a situation where only the wealthy would be able to access the best quality education. The group felt that there should be a system of student loans and grants in place, which would allow the best students to access the best quality education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Abolishing tuition fees is a step in the right direction, however we do not think it is a sufficient step. The current system has caused a generation of students to be burdened with debt and it has led to a stratification of universities, with the best universities being able to charge the highest fees. We believe that a system of subsidies is necessary, in which the government supports those from lower income households, so that they can afford to study at university. We also believe that the government should support universities to ensure that they are able to offer high quality education to students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of abolishing student tuition fees. However, we recognised that student loans are undesirable and that they discourage poorer individuals from applying for student places in further education. We agreed that we should wish to encourage everybody to learn to the highest level of their ability. We also recognised that some professions such as nursing and teaching are in high need of applicants and that student fees should be reduced or abolished for these professions. We did not agree that we should abolish tuition fees, but rather re-design the system to provide benefits based on the income of students/families/households. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000938.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000938.soc index 710efe12..a1a0e456 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000938.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000938.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that all lives are created equal. This is because we believe that all lives are created by the same creator, and are all therefore of equal importance and value. However, we do acknowledge that some people are born into different situations, which can affect their life chances. Therefore, although all lives are created equal, they are not all given the same opportunities in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, all lives should be created equal. However, this is not the case in practice. This is due to many factors such as; social inequality, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and religious intolerance. These factors all contribute to some lives being seen as more valuable than others. In order to combat this, it is important to educate people and increase awareness of the issues that cause some lives to be seen as more valuable than others. The group also agreed that it is important to recognise that not all lives are created equal, but that all lives should be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the consensus that all lives are created equal. However, the opportunities that are given to us are not equal. The way we are brought up, our surroundings, our family, our friends, our religion, our race, our gender and our sexuality all play a part in the opportunities we have. Some people are born into more fortunate situations than others and therefore are able to make the most of the opportunities they are given. Some people are born into less fortunate situations and are not given the same opportunities. We have come to the consensus that this is not fair, but that it is not something that we can change. The only thing we can change is how we treat other people, and the opportunities that we give them. We have come to the consensus that we should treat everyone equally, and give everyone the same opportunities, regardless of their background, race, gender, sexuality or religion. We have come to the consensus that all lives are created equal, but that the opportunities we are given are not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In theory all lives are created equal, however this is not the case in reality. In theory all lives should be treated the same and have the same opportunities, but in reality this is not the case. This is due to the fact that some people are born into different circumstances to others. For example, people are born into different cultures, different countries, different religions, different families, different races, different sexes and different genders. All of these things have an effect on the life that a person lives, and this is why all lives are not created equal.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that all lives are created equal. This is because we believe that all lives are created by the same creator, and are all therefore of equal importance and value. However, we do acknowledge that some people are born into different situations, which can affect their life chances. Therefore, although all lives are created equal, they are not all given the same opportunities in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, all lives should be created equal. However, this is not the case in practice. This is due to many factors such as; social inequality, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and religious intolerance. These factors all contribute to some lives being seen as more valuable than others. In order to combat this, it is important to educate people and increase awareness of the issues that cause some lives to be seen as more valuable than others. The group also agreed that it is important to recognise that not all lives are created equal, but that all lives should be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the consensus that all lives are created equal. However, the opportunities that are given to us are not equal. The way we are brought up, our surroundings, our family, our friends, our religion, our race, our gender and our sexuality all play a part in the opportunities we have. Some people are born into more fortunate situations than others and therefore are able to make the most of the opportunities they are given. Some people are born into less fortunate situations and are not given the same opportunities. We have come to the consensus that this is not fair, but that it is not something that we can change. The only thing we can change is how we treat other people, and the opportunities that we give them. We have come to the consensus that we should treat everyone equally, and give everyone the same opportunities, regardless of their background, race, gender, sexuality or religion. We have come to the consensus that all lives are created equal, but that the opportunities we are given are not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In theory all lives are created equal, however this is not the case in reality. In theory all lives should be treated the same and have the same opportunities, but in reality this is not the case. This is due to the fact that some people are born into different circumstances to others. For example, people are born into different cultures, different countries, different religions, different families, different races, different sexes and different genders. All of these things have an effect on the life that a person lives, and this is why all lives are not created equal.” 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000939.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000939.soc index 6d9d5dc8..6b509eaa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000939.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000939.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should introduce a 5% sugar tax on soft drinks. The tax would be an effective way of reducing the consumption of sugary drinks and as a result would help to tackle obesity. The tax would be especially beneficial for the younger generation and those on low incomes. The tax would be a great way of raising money for the NHS as they are currently facing a large deficit. The tax would also be a great way of raising money for other services such as education. The tax would be a good way of educating people about the dangers of consuming too much sugar. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that a sugar tax should be introduced on soft drinks as it will make people think twice about consuming them. If the prices are increased, then people will be more likely to choose a healthier option. The tax generated from this can be used for other services such as the NHS, where wages are low for nurses. The tax can also be used to lower the price of fruit and vegetables to help combat obesity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, we should introduce a 5% sugar tax on soft drinks because sugar is a known food stuff. It is good for short term, fast energy but bad for our long term health. Sugar is bad for our teeth, bad for our waist lines and bad for any child's attention span. Sugar is cheap and is added to so so many foods: carbonated drinks, sandwich fillers, pizzas, cooking sauces, bread, sauces, and even 'healthy' fruit-based drinks. We need to introduce a 5% sugar tax and children and the obesity crisis, requires us to. We have long had the 5 pieces of fruit or veg a day message but its not being acted upon, its not getting through especially to the poor. We need to introduce this tax to reduce the price of fruit and veg for the poor in society and help pay for the NHS which has to pick up the pieces when sugar-riddled children end up needing weight-loss surgery. Its that serious.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of introducing a sugar tax on soft drinks. It was agreed that it would discourage the consumption of sugary drinks and encourage people to switch to healthier options. The group also agreed that the tax would help to reduce the rate of obesity in the country, which would in turn reduce the burden on the NHS. The group also agreed that the tax would be beneficial to the economy, as the revenue generated could be used to fund other services such as the NHS. However, it was also noted that the tax would be unfair to those on lower incomes, as they would be less likely to be able to afford the tax and would therefore be more likely to continue to consume sugary drinks. The group also agreed that the tax would be unfair to the companies that produce the drinks, as they would be forced to increase the price of their products. The group also agreed that the tax would not be an effective way of reducing the rate of obesity, as it would not reduce the consumption of sugary foods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should introduce a 5% sugar tax on soft drinks. The tax would be an effective way of reducing the consumption of sugary drinks and as a result would help to tackle obesity. The tax would be especially beneficial for the younger generation and those on low incomes. The tax would be a great way of raising money for the NHS as they are currently facing a large deficit. The tax would also be a great way of raising money for other services such as education. The tax would be a good way of educating people about the dangers of consuming too much sugar. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that a sugar tax should be introduced on soft drinks as it will make people think twice about consuming them. If the prices are increased, then people will be more likely to choose a healthier option. The tax generated from this can be used for other services such as the NHS, where wages are low for nurses. The tax can also be used to lower the price of fruit and vegetables to help combat obesity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, we should introduce a 5% sugar tax on soft drinks because sugar is a known food stuff. It is good for short term, fast energy but bad for our long term health. Sugar is bad for our teeth, bad for our waist lines and bad for any child's attention span. Sugar is cheap and is added to so so many foods: carbonated drinks, sandwich fillers, pizzas, cooking sauces, bread, sauces, and even 'healthy' fruit-based drinks. We need to introduce a 5% sugar tax and children and the obesity crisis, requires us to. We have long had the 5 pieces of fruit or veg a day message but its not being acted upon, its not getting through especially to the poor. We need to introduce this tax to reduce the price of fruit and veg for the poor in society and help pay for the NHS which has to pick up the pieces when sugar-riddled children end up needing weight-loss surgery. Its that serious.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of introducing a sugar tax on soft drinks. It was agreed that it would discourage the consumption of sugary drinks and encourage people to switch to healthier options. The group also agreed that the tax would help to reduce the rate of obesity in the country, which would in turn reduce the burden on the NHS. The group also agreed that the tax would be beneficial to the economy, as the revenue generated could be used to fund other services such as the NHS. However, it was also noted that the tax would be unfair to those on lower incomes, as they would be less likely to be able to afford the tax and would therefore be more likely to continue to consume sugary drinks. The group also agreed that the tax would be unfair to the companies that produce the drinks, as they would be forced to increase the price of their products. The group also agreed that the tax would not be an effective way of reducing the rate of obesity, as it would not reduce the consumption of sugary foods. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000940.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000940.soc index 17b7083a..0ddbb07a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000940.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000940.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that there should be rules and regulations that restrict the amount of plastic packaging that supermarkets use for food products. We believe that plastic packaging is often unnecessary and is not disposed of correctly. There are other more earth-friendly options for supermarkets to use. We believe that the government should incentivise companies to make sure their packaging uses plastic less frequently. We believe that supermarkets should lead the way with their corporate responsibility and responsibility to their customers. We believe that they should be encouraged to use alternatives to plastic which will most likely be more expensive at first but will become the new normal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that there should be rules and regulations that restrict the amount of plastic packaging that supermarkets use for food products. Plastic packaging is often unnecessary and is not disposed of correctly. There are other more earth-friendly options for supermarkets to use. We believe that the government should incentivise companies to make sure their packaging uses plastic less frequently. Supermarkets should lead the way with their corporate responsibility and responsibility to their customers. The government should also incentivise R&D so that there is an alternative to plastic packaging that still preserves the food for a similar length of time and so that it doesn't contribute to food wasteage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be rules and regulations that restrict the amount of plastic packaging that supermarkets use for food products. Plastic packaging is often unnecessary and is not disposed of correctly. There are other more earth-friendly options for supermarkets to use. The government should incentivise companies to make sure their packaging uses plastic less frequently. Supermarkets should lead the way with their corporate responsibility and responsibility to their customers. We believe that regulations should be put in place to reduce the usage of plastic. Supermarkets are often lagging behind using new packaging if they are hitting their profits. We believe that the replacement for plastic should have the same preservation properties so we don't create a new problem in food wasteage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be rules and regulations that restrict the amount of plastic packaging that supermarkets use for food products. We believe that plastic packaging is often unnecessary and is not disposed of correctly. There are other more earth-friendly options for supermarkets to use. We believe that the government should incentivise companies to make sure their packaging uses plastic less frequently. We believe that supermarkets should lead the way with their corporate responsibility and responsibility to their customers. We believe that the replacement for plastic should have the same preservation properties so we don't create a new problem in food wasteage. Regulations should be put in place to reduce the usage of plastic. Supermarkets are often lagging behind using new packaging if they are hitting their profits. I would add reasons why plastic packaging should not be used for example it ends up in the ocean and endangers the lives of animals such as turtles as they get caught up in the packaging. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that there should be rules and regulations that restrict the amount of plastic packaging that supermarkets use for food products. We believe that plastic packaging is often unnecessary and is not disposed of correctly. There are other more earth-friendly options for supermarkets to use. We believe that the government should incentivise companies to make sure their packaging uses plastic less frequently. We believe that supermarkets should lead the way with their corporate responsibility and responsibility to their customers. We believe that they should be encouraged to use alternatives to plastic which will most likely be more expensive at first but will become the new normal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that there should be rules and regulations that restrict the amount of plastic packaging that supermarkets use for food products. Plastic packaging is often unnecessary and is not disposed of correctly. There are other more earth-friendly options for supermarkets to use. We believe that the government should incentivise companies to make sure their packaging uses plastic less frequently. Supermarkets should lead the way with their corporate responsibility and responsibility to their customers. The government should also incentivise R&D so that there is an alternative to plastic packaging that still preserves the food for a similar length of time and so that it doesn't contribute to food wasteage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be rules and regulations that restrict the amount of plastic packaging that supermarkets use for food products. Plastic packaging is often unnecessary and is not disposed of correctly. There are other more earth-friendly options for supermarkets to use. The government should incentivise companies to make sure their packaging uses plastic less frequently. Supermarkets should lead the way with their corporate responsibility and responsibility to their customers. We believe that regulations should be put in place to reduce the usage of plastic. Supermarkets are often lagging behind using new packaging if they are hitting their profits. We believe that the replacement for plastic should have the same preservation properties so we don't create a new problem in food wasteage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be rules and regulations that restrict the amount of plastic packaging that supermarkets use for food products. We believe that plastic packaging is often unnecessary and is not disposed of correctly. There are other more earth-friendly options for supermarkets to use. We believe that the government should incentivise companies to make sure their packaging uses plastic less frequently. We believe that supermarkets should lead the way with their corporate responsibility and responsibility to their customers. We believe that the replacement for plastic should have the same preservation properties so we don't create a new problem in food wasteage. Regulations should be put in place to reduce the usage of plastic. Supermarkets are often lagging behind using new packaging if they are hitting their profits. I would add reasons why plastic packaging should not be used for example it ends up in the ocean and endangers the lives of animals such as turtles as they get caught up in the packaging. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000941.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000941.soc index b5a029f2..a679e56c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000941.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000941.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “All drugs should be tested before they are licensed. This is to ensure that they are safe, effective and will not have any serious side effects. It is also to ensure that they will not interact with other medications. If they are not tested, it is possible that the drug could be harmful or ineffective. It is also possible that they could interact with other medications and cause serious health issues. It would be irresponsible to allow untested drugs onto the market. The tests should be rigorous and thorough to ensure that they are safe for the public to use.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “All drugs should be tested before they are licensed to ensure they are safe. The testing process will determine the side effects and risks associated with taking the drug. The testing process will also determine the correct dosage of the drug to ensure it is effective. If drugs are not tested before they are licensed, people will be exposed to unnecessary risks. The government has a duty of care to ensure that people are protected from harm and this includes ensuring that drugs are tested before they are licensed.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, we should require that all drugs be tested before they are licensed to ensure they are safe. The public needs to be protected from any harm that could be caused by drugs. The testing of drugs is very important as it allows us to see what the effects of the drugs are, both good and bad. If drugs were not tested then people would be taking drugs that could cause harm to them and in some cases could even kill them. The testing of drugs is a very important process and should be required for all drugs that are sold to the public.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should require that all drugs be tested before they are licensed to ensure they are safe. The consequences of not testing drugs could be catastrophic, with patients suffering from serious side effects, and even death. There are many examples of drugs that have caused major health problems and have been pulled from the market, such as Vioxx, which was used to treat arthritis. It was withdrawn in 2004 after it was linked to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. It is also possible that a drug may not be effective in its intended cure. All drugs should be tested to very high standards before they are put onto the market. This will ensure that the drug is safe and effective, and that it will not cause harm to patients.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “All drugs should be tested before they are licensed. This is to ensure that they are safe, effective and will not have any serious side effects. It is also to ensure that they will not interact with other medications. If they are not tested, it is possible that the drug could be harmful or ineffective. It is also possible that they could interact with other medications and cause serious health issues. It would be irresponsible to allow untested drugs onto the market. The tests should be rigorous and thorough to ensure that they are safe for the public to use.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “All drugs should be tested before they are licensed to ensure they are safe. The testing process will determine the side effects and risks associated with taking the drug. The testing process will also determine the correct dosage of the drug to ensure it is effective. If drugs are not tested before they are licensed, people will be exposed to unnecessary risks. The government has a duty of care to ensure that people are protected from harm and this includes ensuring that drugs are tested before they are licensed.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, we should require that all drugs be tested before they are licensed to ensure they are safe. The public needs to be protected from any harm that could be caused by drugs. The testing of drugs is very important as it allows us to see what the effects of the drugs are, both good and bad. If drugs were not tested then people would be taking drugs that could cause harm to them and in some cases could even kill them. The testing of drugs is a very important process and should be required for all drugs that are sold to the public.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should require that all drugs be tested before they are licensed to ensure they are safe. The consequences of not testing drugs could be catastrophic, with patients suffering from serious side effects, and even death. There are many examples of drugs that have caused major health problems and have been pulled from the market, such as Vioxx, which was used to treat arthritis. It was withdrawn in 2004 after it was linked to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. It is also possible that a drug may not be effective in its intended cure. All drugs should be tested to very high standards before they are put onto the market. This will ensure that the drug is safe and effective, and that it will not cause harm to patients.” 2: 4,1,3,2 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000942.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000942.soc index bb486568..998b5576 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000942.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000942.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Landlords should be forced to install insulation before renting their property to a new tenant because it's important for the well being of the tenant that they are warm and comfortable. This is the landlords responsibility to ensure this is done. In order to become a landlord the government should place requirements on landlords. I believe that landlords have a responsibility to ensure that their accommodations are well-insulated because their tenants are not permitted to make the changes themselves and they may not be able to afford to do so. With the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency, it is essential that landlords play their part in keeping energy costs down and energy consumption low. Yeah. If the insulation is top notch, tenants won't have to spend much on heating their homes. This will reduce energy usage throughout the country I believe we should force landlords to install insulation before renting their property to new tenants. Most landlords are in this position to make as much money as possible without actually providing or producing anything. Any regulation or law that makes it harder for landlords to make money at the expense of people just trying to find a home is a good thing in my opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Landlords should be forced to install insulation before renting their property to a new tenant. It is the landlords responsibility to ensure that their accommodations are well-insulated because their tenants are not permitted to make the changes themselves and they may not be able to afford to do so. With the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency, it is essential that landlords play their part in keeping energy costs down and energy consumption low. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that landlords should be forced to install insulation before renting their property to a new tenant. The property should be fully ready for a renter. It is the landlords responsibility to ensure this is done. In order to become a landlord the government should place requirements on landlords. If the insulation is top notch, tenants won't have to spend much on heating their homes. This will reduce energy usage throughout the country. Most landlords are in this position to make as much money as possible without actually providing or producing anything. Any regulation or law that makes it harder for landlords to make money at the expense of people just trying to find a home is a good thing in my opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that landlords should be forced to install insulation before renting their property to a new tenant. It is important for the well being of the tenant that they are warm and comfortable. Landlords have a responsibility to ensure that their accommodations are well-insulated because their tenants are not permitted to make the changes themselves and they may not be able to afford to do so. With the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency, it is essential that landlords play their part in keeping energy costs down and energy consumption low. The property should be fully ready for a renter. It is the landlords responsibility to ensure this is done. In order to become a landlord the government should place requirements on landlords. If the insulation is top notch, tenants won't have to spend much on heating their homes. This will reduce energy usage throughout the country. I believe we should force landlords to install insulation before renting their property to new tenants. Most landlords are in this position to make as much money as possible without actually providing or producing anything. Any regulation or law that makes it harder for landlords to make money at the expense of people just trying to find a home is a good thing in my opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Landlords should be forced to install insulation before renting their property to a new tenant because it's important for the well being of the tenant that they are warm and comfortable. This is the landlords responsibility to ensure this is done. In order to become a landlord the government should place requirements on landlords. I believe that landlords have a responsibility to ensure that their accommodations are well-insulated because their tenants are not permitted to make the changes themselves and they may not be able to afford to do so. With the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency, it is essential that landlords play their part in keeping energy costs down and energy consumption low. Yeah. If the insulation is top notch, tenants won't have to spend much on heating their homes. This will reduce energy usage throughout the country I believe we should force landlords to install insulation before renting their property to new tenants. Most landlords are in this position to make as much money as possible without actually providing or producing anything. Any regulation or law that makes it harder for landlords to make money at the expense of people just trying to find a home is a good thing in my opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Landlords should be forced to install insulation before renting their property to a new tenant. It is the landlords responsibility to ensure that their accommodations are well-insulated because their tenants are not permitted to make the changes themselves and they may not be able to afford to do so. With the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency, it is essential that landlords play their part in keeping energy costs down and energy consumption low. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that landlords should be forced to install insulation before renting their property to a new tenant. The property should be fully ready for a renter. It is the landlords responsibility to ensure this is done. In order to become a landlord the government should place requirements on landlords. If the insulation is top notch, tenants won't have to spend much on heating their homes. This will reduce energy usage throughout the country. Most landlords are in this position to make as much money as possible without actually providing or producing anything. Any regulation or law that makes it harder for landlords to make money at the expense of people just trying to find a home is a good thing in my opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that landlords should be forced to install insulation before renting their property to a new tenant. It is important for the well being of the tenant that they are warm and comfortable. Landlords have a responsibility to ensure that their accommodations are well-insulated because their tenants are not permitted to make the changes themselves and they may not be able to afford to do so. With the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency, it is essential that landlords play their part in keeping energy costs down and energy consumption low. The property should be fully ready for a renter. It is the landlords responsibility to ensure this is done. In order to become a landlord the government should place requirements on landlords. If the insulation is top notch, tenants won't have to spend much on heating their homes. This will reduce energy usage throughout the country. I believe we should force landlords to install insulation before renting their property to new tenants. Most landlords are in this position to make as much money as possible without actually providing or producing anything. Any regulation or law that makes it harder for landlords to make money at the expense of people just trying to find a home is a good thing in my opinion. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000943.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000943.soc index 77db34ef..1f00c07d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000943.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000943.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. The BBC should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. However, the BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should be funded by a TV license fee. The license fee allows the BBC to remain independent from the influence of advertisers and corporate interests. The BBC is also a trusted news source and it is important that it is not subject to the same commercial pressures as other broadcasters. The license fee is a relatively small amount of money and most people are happy to pay it to support the BBC. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the BBC being funded by TV license fees. The group thought that a privately funded BBC would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should be funded by TV license fees. The BBC is a unique organisation in the world in that it provides a public service to all. The BBC has a public service remit to inform, educate and entertain, and this is best achieved by a publicly funded organisation. The BBC is also a unique organisation in that it is trusted by the public to provide unbiased news and current affairs programming. A privately funded BBC would likely result in a ratings chase and a move away from the BBC's core public service remit. The BBC is also a key part of the UK's creative economy, and the UK's creative economy is one of the UK's key strengths. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. The BBC should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. However, the BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should be funded by a TV license fee. The license fee allows the BBC to remain independent from the influence of advertisers and corporate interests. The BBC is also a trusted news source and it is important that it is not subject to the same commercial pressures as other broadcasters. The license fee is a relatively small amount of money and most people are happy to pay it to support the BBC. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the BBC being funded by TV license fees. The group thought that a privately funded BBC would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should be funded by TV license fees. The BBC is a unique organisation in the world in that it provides a public service to all. The BBC has a public service remit to inform, educate and entertain, and this is best achieved by a publicly funded organisation. The BBC is also a unique organisation in that it is trusted by the public to provide unbiased news and current affairs programming. A privately funded BBC would likely result in a ratings chase and a move away from the BBC's core public service remit. The BBC is also a key part of the UK's creative economy, and the UK's creative economy is one of the UK's key strengths. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000944.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000944.soc index da048ce1..0a31a16d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000944.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000944.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. The BBC should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. However, the BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which may not be able to support itself commercially, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. The BBC should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. The BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. The BBC should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. However, the BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. We agree with the BBC that it should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. However, the BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. The BBC should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. However, the BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which may not be able to support itself commercially, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. The BBC should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. The BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. The BBC should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. However, the BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should be funded by a combination of TV license fees and private funding. We agree with the BBC that it should not be funded entirely by TV license fees since this is an outdated model and the BBC should be able to compete in the marketplace like other media organisations. However, the BBC should not be funded entirely by private funding since this would result in vastly increased commercialisation, and a ratings chase, which isn't entirely what the BBC is about. While the BBC's funding does need to be examined to ensure it is fit for purpose in the modern age, the BBC's remit to inform, educate, and entertain, has made it one of the highest regarded and popular broadcasters in the world. Playing to the BBC's strengths by insuring it has the funding to fulfil this purpose is clearly the way to go; an undersized commercial broadcaster competing with the likes of Netflix would bring little benefit. The BBC also has a large amount of news and factual output, which would not be a great money maker, and it would be a net negative to lose such an important and neutral news broadcaster. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000945.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000945.soc index 0b470c8e..9b775e1c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000945.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000945.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should be able to use CCTV footage to solve crimes. The use of CCTV is very widespread in society today and the public are aware that they are being captured on CCTV. Therefore, it is reasonable for the government to use this footage to solve crimes. The use of CCTV footage should be regulated, with only a limited number of people being able to access the footage. The footage should be kept secure so it does not reach public domain. The use of facial recognition technology should be restricted and there should be safeguards in place to protect privacy and anonymity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government should be able to use CCTV footage to solve crimes. However, the footage should only be used for serious crimes and not minor crimes. There should be checks and balances in place to make sure the footage is not abused. The footage should only be used as a last resort when there is enough justification to need to use it. The footage should only be accessed by a restricted number of persons. The footage should only be used in public places where people choose to enter. The footage should be kept secure so it does not reach public domain. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should be able to use CCTV footage to solve crimes. This is because it can be a useful tool in solving crimes and in preventing crime. It can also be used to identify people who may have committed a crime. It is also important to remember that the public are aware that they are being filmed in public places. However, the footage should be kept secure and access to it should be limited to those who need it. The footage should also not be used for minor crimes. It should be used as a last resort when there is enough justification to need to use it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, the government should be able to use CCTV footage to solve crimes. However, the use of the footage should be strictly regulated and only used when there is a strong justification for it. The use of the footage should also be limited to public spaces where people are aware that they are being filmed. The use of facial recognition technology should be avoided and the footage should be kept secure to protect the privacy of people captured on it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should be able to use CCTV footage to solve crimes. The use of CCTV is very widespread in society today and the public are aware that they are being captured on CCTV. Therefore, it is reasonable for the government to use this footage to solve crimes. The use of CCTV footage should be regulated, with only a limited number of people being able to access the footage. The footage should be kept secure so it does not reach public domain. The use of facial recognition technology should be restricted and there should be safeguards in place to protect privacy and anonymity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government should be able to use CCTV footage to solve crimes. However, the footage should only be used for serious crimes and not minor crimes. There should be checks and balances in place to make sure the footage is not abused. The footage should only be used as a last resort when there is enough justification to need to use it. The footage should only be accessed by a restricted number of persons. The footage should only be used in public places where people choose to enter. The footage should be kept secure so it does not reach public domain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should be able to use CCTV footage to solve crimes. This is because it can be a useful tool in solving crimes and in preventing crime. It can also be used to identify people who may have committed a crime. It is also important to remember that the public are aware that they are being filmed in public places. However, the footage should be kept secure and access to it should be limited to those who need it. The footage should also not be used for minor crimes. It should be used as a last resort when there is enough justification to need to use it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, the government should be able to use CCTV footage to solve crimes. However, the use of the footage should be strictly regulated and only used when there is a strong justification for it. The use of the footage should also be limited to public spaces where people are aware that they are being filmed. The use of facial recognition technology should be avoided and the footage should be kept secure to protect the privacy of people captured on it. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000946.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000946.soc index 89502957..b929af75 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000946.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000946.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is better off inside the European Union. The advantages of the EU far outweigh the disadvantages. The EU is becoming increasingly bloated and ineffective. Due to its size there appears to be more of an emphasis on corporatism and big business to the detriment of individual countries cultural identities. These are the sort of traditions and way of life that foster meaning and a sense of community. With larger organisations this individual flavour is lost to the detrimental of an individual and a collective of any size. However, the interconnected nature of European economies means there is much to be gained from formal ties of the EU - moving from having a number of countries on their own not being particularly powerful or influential on the world stage, to a significant international power when coming together as one. Being in the EU generally means improved economic outcomes, more jobs, more investment, higher wages etc, and is very much a beneficial thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The UK is better off inside the EU. The EU is a large market with a large population and a lot of money. Being a part of the EU has many advantages, including the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. We can also benefit from the freedom to live, work, study and retire anywhere in the EU. The UK is a multicultural country and the EU is a place where different cultures and nationalities can thrive. Leaving the EU has led to a number of problems, including the UK’s economy being worse off, increased costs of goods and services, a weaker pound and less investment in the UK. Many people have also lost their jobs. Being in the EU means that we can have a say in how the EU is run, and can have a say in laws that affect us. We can also influence the EU’s policies on the environment, human rights, consumer protection and other issues. The UK is better off in the EU.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK is better off within the European Union, however the handling of Brexit has been such a disaster that it may be impossible to return to the EU. The EU is a good thing in principle, with benefits of improved economic outcomes, more jobs, more investment, higher wages etc, and is very much a beneficial thing. However the EU is becoming increasingly bloated and ineffective. The EU is moving towards being more of a corporate body, and this is damaging to the individual flavour of each country and its traditions and way of life. There is strength in numbers, and the UK is so closely connected to Europe both geographically and politically that being within it would be better. The older generation may want the good old times but they really no longer exist and progress must be made. The world is a smaller place, and geographical borders no longer limit us. The younger generation wish to travel, to widen their horizons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. The participants felt that the UK is better off inside the EU as it is a large organisation that allows the UK to have a stronger voice on the world stage. The EU is also a beneficial thing for the UK as it improves economic outcomes, jobs, investment, wages, etc. The group also felt that the EU is becoming increasingly bloated and ineffective, and that there is more of an emphasis on corporatism and big business to the detriment of individual countries cultural identities. These are the sort of traditions and way of life that foster meaning and a sense of community. With larger organisations this individual flavour is lost to the detrimental of an individual and a collective of any size. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is better off inside the European Union. The advantages of the EU far outweigh the disadvantages. The EU is becoming increasingly bloated and ineffective. Due to its size there appears to be more of an emphasis on corporatism and big business to the detriment of individual countries cultural identities. These are the sort of traditions and way of life that foster meaning and a sense of community. With larger organisations this individual flavour is lost to the detrimental of an individual and a collective of any size. However, the interconnected nature of European economies means there is much to be gained from formal ties of the EU - moving from having a number of countries on their own not being particularly powerful or influential on the world stage, to a significant international power when coming together as one. Being in the EU generally means improved economic outcomes, more jobs, more investment, higher wages etc, and is very much a beneficial thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The UK is better off inside the EU. The EU is a large market with a large population and a lot of money. Being a part of the EU has many advantages, including the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. We can also benefit from the freedom to live, work, study and retire anywhere in the EU. The UK is a multicultural country and the EU is a place where different cultures and nationalities can thrive. Leaving the EU has led to a number of problems, including the UK’s economy being worse off, increased costs of goods and services, a weaker pound and less investment in the UK. Many people have also lost their jobs. Being in the EU means that we can have a say in how the EU is run, and can have a say in laws that affect us. We can also influence the EU’s policies on the environment, human rights, consumer protection and other issues. The UK is better off in the EU.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK is better off within the European Union, however the handling of Brexit has been such a disaster that it may be impossible to return to the EU. The EU is a good thing in principle, with benefits of improved economic outcomes, more jobs, more investment, higher wages etc, and is very much a beneficial thing. However the EU is becoming increasingly bloated and ineffective. The EU is moving towards being more of a corporate body, and this is damaging to the individual flavour of each country and its traditions and way of life. There is strength in numbers, and the UK is so closely connected to Europe both geographically and politically that being within it would be better. The older generation may want the good old times but they really no longer exist and progress must be made. The world is a smaller place, and geographical borders no longer limit us. The younger generation wish to travel, to widen their horizons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. The participants felt that the UK is better off inside the EU as it is a large organisation that allows the UK to have a stronger voice on the world stage. The EU is also a beneficial thing for the UK as it improves economic outcomes, jobs, investment, wages, etc. The group also felt that the EU is becoming increasingly bloated and ineffective, and that there is more of an emphasis on corporatism and big business to the detriment of individual countries cultural identities. These are the sort of traditions and way of life that foster meaning and a sense of community. With larger organisations this individual flavour is lost to the detrimental of an individual and a collective of any size. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000947.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000947.soc index e6052b74..03f654cb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000947.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000947.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, there should not be compulsory voting. While the idea of compulsory voting may seem good in theory, in practice it would lead to a number of problems. For example, if a person is forced to vote for a party they do not support, they may spoil their ballot paper or vote for a party they do not support. This would lead to a large number of wasted votes and would be detrimental to the democratic process. A better way to increase voter turnout would be to make politics more engaging and to put forward candidates that people can believe in and trust. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, there should not be compulsory voting. The right to vote is a basic human right and should not be taken away. Also, if people are forced to vote, they may spoil their ballot papers or make ill informed decisions. The solution to low voter turnout is not making it a crime not to vote, it is about making politics engaging for everybody and putting forward candidates that people can actually believe in and trust. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, there should not be compulsory voting. The right to vote is an important part of democracy, and people should be free to exercise their right to vote, or not to vote, as they wish. If we force people to vote, they will vote for candidates they do not support, or spoil their ballot papers, and this will lead to a less representative democracy. The solution to low voter turnout is not to force people to vote, but to make politics more engaging for everybody and to put forward candidates that people can actually believe in and trust. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, because it is not a good idea to force people to vote, and it is not a good idea to make voting a crime. People should be free to vote or not vote as they wish. The way to get more people to vote is to make politics more interesting and engaging, and to put forward candidates that people can believe in and trust. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, there should not be compulsory voting. While the idea of compulsory voting may seem good in theory, in practice it would lead to a number of problems. For example, if a person is forced to vote for a party they do not support, they may spoil their ballot paper or vote for a party they do not support. This would lead to a large number of wasted votes and would be detrimental to the democratic process. A better way to increase voter turnout would be to make politics more engaging and to put forward candidates that people can believe in and trust. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, there should not be compulsory voting. The right to vote is a basic human right and should not be taken away. Also, if people are forced to vote, they may spoil their ballot papers or make ill informed decisions. The solution to low voter turnout is not making it a crime not to vote, it is about making politics engaging for everybody and putting forward candidates that people can actually believe in and trust. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, there should not be compulsory voting. The right to vote is an important part of democracy, and people should be free to exercise their right to vote, or not to vote, as they wish. If we force people to vote, they will vote for candidates they do not support, or spoil their ballot papers, and this will lead to a less representative democracy. The solution to low voter turnout is not to force people to vote, but to make politics more engaging for everybody and to put forward candidates that people can actually believe in and trust. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, because it is not a good idea to force people to vote, and it is not a good idea to make voting a crime. People should be free to vote or not vote as they wish. The way to get more people to vote is to make politics more interesting and engaging, and to put forward candidates that people can believe in and trust. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000948.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000948.soc index f3348350..8b487049 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000948.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000948.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK has benefited from EU membership in many ways. The EU has allowed for a large free trade area which has been advantageous for the UK. EU membership has also allowed the UK to have a large say in EU policy. The UK has also benefitted from the freedom of movement which has allowed the UK to have a diverse workforce. The UK has also benefited from EU membership in terms of tourism, as it has allowed the UK to be more accessible to EU tourists. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK did benefit from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK has benefitted from EU membership in many ways. The UK has benefitted from trade, travel, development and investment. The EU has also benefitted from the UK's membership as the UK has been able to contribute to the EU in many ways including economically, socially and developmentally. The UK has benefitted from EU membership in many ways. The UK has benefitted from trade, travel, development and investment. The EU has also benefitted from the UK's membership as the UK has been able to contribute to the EU in many ways including economically, socially and developmentally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK benefited from its membership to the EU in several ways. Membership allowed UK to take place in a large market. The membership attracted investors to invest within the UK. Membership helped European people with qualified skills to work in the UK. Membership allowed UK to take part in negotiations and discussions on the international stage and to have a say in what was happening in Europe. The UK also benefitted from free movement of goods, services, capital and people within the EU. The UK was also able to influence EU policy and law. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK has benefited from EU membership in many ways. The EU has allowed for a large free trade area which has been advantageous for the UK. EU membership has also allowed the UK to have a large say in EU policy. The UK has also benefitted from the freedom of movement which has allowed the UK to have a diverse workforce. The UK has also benefited from EU membership in terms of tourism, as it has allowed the UK to be more accessible to EU tourists. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK did benefit from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK has benefitted from EU membership in many ways. The UK has benefitted from trade, travel, development and investment. The EU has also benefitted from the UK's membership as the UK has been able to contribute to the EU in many ways including economically, socially and developmentally. The UK has benefitted from EU membership in many ways. The UK has benefitted from trade, travel, development and investment. The EU has also benefitted from the UK's membership as the UK has been able to contribute to the EU in many ways including economically, socially and developmentally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK benefited from its membership to the EU in several ways. Membership allowed UK to take place in a large market. The membership attracted investors to invest within the UK. Membership helped European people with qualified skills to work in the UK. Membership allowed UK to take part in negotiations and discussions on the international stage and to have a say in what was happening in Europe. The UK also benefitted from free movement of goods, services, capital and people within the EU. The UK was also able to influence EU policy and law. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000949.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000949.soc index ece46cef..1e120cc1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000949.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000949.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, taxing the ultra-rich is good for society. It reduces the numbers and wealth of the riches. This would ease the burden on those less well off. It makes no sense to leave people starving when there's people with so much wealth they could feed entire cities for decades. There should be a scale for tax which rises according to income which ensures that those with the most are contributing the most to society. It is vital that governments close the loopholes used by the ultra rich to hide income and avoid paying vast amounts of tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a scale for tax which rises according to income which ensures that those with the most are contributing the most to society. It is vital that governments close the loopholes used by the ultra rich to hide income and avoid paying vast amounts of tax. Taxing the ultra-rich is good for society. It reduces the numbers and wealth of the riches. This would ease the burden on those less well off. The ultra rich wouldnt even notice the money being taxed but would make a positive impact on the vital services , police , fire , nhs etc... The only problem with this is that they will move their wealth somewhere else depriving us of tax revenues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, yes, taxing the ultra-rich is good for society. It would help to reduce the numbers and wealth of the riches. This would ease the burden on those less well off. The ultra rich would not notice the money being taxed but it would make a positive impact on vital services, such as the NHS, police, fire service, etc. The only problem with this is that the ultra rich would move their wealth somewhere else, depriving us of tax revenues. There should be a scale for tax which rises according to income which ensures that those with the most are contributing the most to society. It is vital that governments close the loopholes used by the ultra rich to hide income and avoid paying vast amounts of tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, taxing the ultra-rich is good for society. It reduces the numbers and wealth of the riches. This would ease the burden on those less well off. There should be a scale for tax which rises according to income which ensures that those with the most are contributing the most to society. It is vital that governments close the loopholes used by the ultra rich to hide income and avoid paying vast amounts of tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, taxing the ultra-rich is good for society. It reduces the numbers and wealth of the riches. This would ease the burden on those less well off. It makes no sense to leave people starving when there's people with so much wealth they could feed entire cities for decades. There should be a scale for tax which rises according to income which ensures that those with the most are contributing the most to society. It is vital that governments close the loopholes used by the ultra rich to hide income and avoid paying vast amounts of tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a scale for tax which rises according to income which ensures that those with the most are contributing the most to society. It is vital that governments close the loopholes used by the ultra rich to hide income and avoid paying vast amounts of tax. Taxing the ultra-rich is good for society. It reduces the numbers and wealth of the riches. This would ease the burden on those less well off. The ultra rich wouldnt even notice the money being taxed but would make a positive impact on the vital services , police , fire , nhs etc... The only problem with this is that they will move their wealth somewhere else depriving us of tax revenues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, yes, taxing the ultra-rich is good for society. It would help to reduce the numbers and wealth of the riches. This would ease the burden on those less well off. The ultra rich would not notice the money being taxed but it would make a positive impact on vital services, such as the NHS, police, fire service, etc. The only problem with this is that the ultra rich would move their wealth somewhere else, depriving us of tax revenues. There should be a scale for tax which rises according to income which ensures that those with the most are contributing the most to society. It is vital that governments close the loopholes used by the ultra rich to hide income and avoid paying vast amounts of tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, taxing the ultra-rich is good for society. It reduces the numbers and wealth of the riches. This would ease the burden on those less well off. There should be a scale for tax which rises according to income which ensures that those with the most are contributing the most to society. It is vital that governments close the loopholes used by the ultra rich to hide income and avoid paying vast amounts of tax. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000950.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000950.soc index 68ec9136..55d67da6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000950.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000950.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. It is important to maintain a healthy fish population and to limit the impact of recreational fishing on local rivers and ponds. However, the limit should not be too strict and should be set at a level that is appropriate for the local environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. The amount of fish in the world's waterways is dwindling, and if we want to protect the environment for future generations, we must take steps to protect fish. It is also important to consider the health of the fish population in recreational fishing, as fish are an important food source for humans and other animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, this limit should be set at a level which allows for the continuation of the recreational fishing industry. This would allow for people to still enjoy the hobby of fishing, but also protect the fish stocks from over-fishing. This is particularly important for fish species which are already threatened or endangered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. It is important to maintain a healthy fish population and to limit the impact of recreational fishing on local rivers and ponds. However, the limit should not be too strict and should be set at a level that is appropriate for the local environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. The amount of fish in the world's waterways is dwindling, and if we want to protect the environment for future generations, we must take steps to protect fish. It is also important to consider the health of the fish population in recreational fishing, as fish are an important food source for humans and other animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, this limit should be set at a level which allows for the continuation of the recreational fishing industry. This would allow for people to still enjoy the hobby of fishing, but also protect the fish stocks from over-fishing. This is particularly important for fish species which are already threatened or endangered. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000951.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000951.soc index 13e3b32d..5b5f107e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000951.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000951.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We believe that the current healthcare system is bureaucratic, but it is necessary for the NHS to function. However, there is scope for improvement and we believe that the system could be less bureaucratic if resources were better allocated. There is too much paperwork and this could be reduced to allow for more patient care. We believe that doctors should be able to spend more time with patients and less time doing paperwork. The NHS needs to be more efficient in how it operates and the resources need to be better allocated. We believe that the system needs to be more flexible and allow for more change to occur. The system needs to be more open to change and we believe that if the system was less bureaucratic, this would allow for more change to occur. This would lead to a better healthcare system and better patient care.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The current healthcare system is too bureaucratic. There are too many people in management roles and not enough people on the frontline. This has led to a situation where the frontline staff are overworked, underpaid and demoralised. The system needs to be reformed so that the people on the frontline are paid more, have a lower workload and more benefits. This will lead to a happier and more productive workforce, which will lead to a better healthcare system.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the current healthcare system is bureaucratic. However, this is necessary in order to ensure that it is functioning effectively. The bureaucracy of the system is important as it is essential to ensure that patients are receiving the best quality of care. The bureaucracy is also important as it ensures that the healthcare system is being run in the most efficient way. However, there is a fine line between having enough bureaucracy and too much bureaucracy. If there is too much bureaucracy then this can lead to the healthcare system being inefficient and not working to its full potential. If there is too little bureaucracy then this can lead to the healthcare system being chaotic and the quality of care being compromised. The current healthcare system is bureaucratic but this is necessary to ensure that it is functioning effectively. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The current healthcare system is bureaucratic. There are many levels of management and too many people involved in the decision making process. This is a major issue and can be seen in the waiting times for elective surgeries. The system is also bureaucratic in the sense that the staff do not feel that they have a voice in the system. There is a lack of communication between staff and management. There are many different groups and committees that are responsible for various levels of management and the staff are not included in any of these. This can be very frustrating for staff who are trying to do their job but are unable to due to bureaucracy. The system is bureaucratic in the sense that it is very difficult to implement change. The system is also bureaucratic in the sense that the staff are not given enough resources to do their job. The NHS is a very large organisation and it can be difficult to get things done. There is a lot of paperwork involved and it can be very time consuming. The NHS is a very bureaucratic organisation and it can be very difficult to get things done. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We believe that the current healthcare system is bureaucratic, but it is necessary for the NHS to function. However, there is scope for improvement and we believe that the system could be less bureaucratic if resources were better allocated. There is too much paperwork and this could be reduced to allow for more patient care. We believe that doctors should be able to spend more time with patients and less time doing paperwork. The NHS needs to be more efficient in how it operates and the resources need to be better allocated. We believe that the system needs to be more flexible and allow for more change to occur. The system needs to be more open to change and we believe that if the system was less bureaucratic, this would allow for more change to occur. This would lead to a better healthcare system and better patient care.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The current healthcare system is too bureaucratic. There are too many people in management roles and not enough people on the frontline. This has led to a situation where the frontline staff are overworked, underpaid and demoralised. The system needs to be reformed so that the people on the frontline are paid more, have a lower workload and more benefits. This will lead to a happier and more productive workforce, which will lead to a better healthcare system.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the current healthcare system is bureaucratic. However, this is necessary in order to ensure that it is functioning effectively. The bureaucracy of the system is important as it is essential to ensure that patients are receiving the best quality of care. The bureaucracy is also important as it ensures that the healthcare system is being run in the most efficient way. However, there is a fine line between having enough bureaucracy and too much bureaucracy. If there is too much bureaucracy then this can lead to the healthcare system being inefficient and not working to its full potential. If there is too little bureaucracy then this can lead to the healthcare system being chaotic and the quality of care being compromised. The current healthcare system is bureaucratic but this is necessary to ensure that it is functioning effectively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The current healthcare system is bureaucratic. There are many levels of management and too many people involved in the decision making process. This is a major issue and can be seen in the waiting times for elective surgeries. The system is also bureaucratic in the sense that the staff do not feel that they have a voice in the system. There is a lack of communication between staff and management. There are many different groups and committees that are responsible for various levels of management and the staff are not included in any of these. This can be very frustrating for staff who are trying to do their job but are unable to due to bureaucracy. The system is bureaucratic in the sense that it is very difficult to implement change. The system is also bureaucratic in the sense that the staff are not given enough resources to do their job. The NHS is a very large organisation and it can be difficult to get things done. There is a lot of paperwork involved and it can be very time consuming. The NHS is a very bureaucratic organisation and it can be very difficult to get things done. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000952.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000952.soc index 29fa66fd..74051b5e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000952.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000952.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No. The obvious benefit of GM babies is preventing specific genetic diseases and disabilities. This would theoretically lead to the overall improvement in general health for future generations. However, the potential for abuse and misuse is too high and concerning despite this benefit. I believe there is a slippery slope around this and raises serious ethical questions around what constitutes something that needs to be "treated" or "fixed". I also think that it would be extremely difficult to truly regulate this field and is easily subject to abuse from private entities and the rich. I also agree that we should not allow the creation of genetically modified babies. Changing genes to address or treat specific diseases may have unexpected consequences for other biological processes. Also, if these genes are then inherited by future generations, it might be difficult to control once they become commonplace in the general population. Modifying the genome of the embryo could cause unintended harm, not only to the individual but also future generations that inherit these same changes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not allow the creation of genetically modified babies. The obvious benefit of GM babies is preventing specific genetic diseases and disabilities. This would theoretically lead to the overall improvement in general health for future generations. However, the potential for abuse and misuse is too high and concerning despite this benefit. I believe there is a slippery slope around this and raises serious ethical questions around what constitutes something that needs to be "treated" or "fixed". I also think that it would be extremely difficult to truly regulate this field and is easily subject to abuse from private entities and the rich. I agree with everything that's written. I would also include points around the unknown impacts of gene modification further down the line. Changing genes to address or treat specific diseases may have unexpected consequences for other biological processes. Also, if these genes are then inherited by future generations, it might be difficult to control once they become commonplace in the general population. Modifying the genome of the embryo could cause unintended harm, not only to the individual but also future generations that inherit these same changes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not allow the creation of genetically modified babies. The obvious benefit of GM babies is preventing specific genetic diseases and disabilities. This would theoretically lead to the overall improvement in general health for future generations. However, the potential for abuse and misuse is too high and concerning despite this benefit. I believe there is a slippery slope around this and raises serious ethical questions around what constitutes something that needs to be "treated" or "fixed". I also think that it would be extremely difficult to truly regulate this field and is easily subject to abuse from private entities and the rich. This would not only create a two-tiered society with a lower and higher class but it also promotes eugenics and playing with human lives. The modification of genes in a single embryo will not only affect that person but also any children born from that embryo. Therefore, the repercussions of these procedures is impossible to anticipate and therefore potentially catastrophic. In this current climate where gene therapies are at least accessible and available in most countries in the world, it is extremely unlikely that allowing the creation of GM babies would help lower-income countries where they are least likely to have access to these therapies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not allow the creation of genetically modified babies. The obvious benefit of GM babies is preventing specific genetic diseases and disabilities. This would theoretically lead to the overall improvement in general health for future generations. However, the potential for abuse and misuse is too high and concerning despite this benefit. I believe there is a slippery slope around this and raises serious ethical questions around what constitutes something that needs to be "treated" or "fixed". I also think that it would be extremely difficult to truly regulate this field and is easily subject to abuse from private entities and the rich. The unknown impacts of gene modification further down the line are also a concern. Changing genes to address or treat specific diseases may have unexpected consequences for other biological processes. Also, if these genes are then inherited by future generations, it might be difficult to control once they become commonplace in the general population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No. The obvious benefit of GM babies is preventing specific genetic diseases and disabilities. This would theoretically lead to the overall improvement in general health for future generations. However, the potential for abuse and misuse is too high and concerning despite this benefit. I believe there is a slippery slope around this and raises serious ethical questions around what constitutes something that needs to be "treated" or "fixed". I also think that it would be extremely difficult to truly regulate this field and is easily subject to abuse from private entities and the rich. I also agree that we should not allow the creation of genetically modified babies. Changing genes to address or treat specific diseases may have unexpected consequences for other biological processes. Also, if these genes are then inherited by future generations, it might be difficult to control once they become commonplace in the general population. Modifying the genome of the embryo could cause unintended harm, not only to the individual but also future generations that inherit these same changes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not allow the creation of genetically modified babies. The obvious benefit of GM babies is preventing specific genetic diseases and disabilities. This would theoretically lead to the overall improvement in general health for future generations. However, the potential for abuse and misuse is too high and concerning despite this benefit. I believe there is a slippery slope around this and raises serious ethical questions around what constitutes something that needs to be "treated" or "fixed". I also think that it would be extremely difficult to truly regulate this field and is easily subject to abuse from private entities and the rich. I agree with everything that's written. I would also include points around the unknown impacts of gene modification further down the line. Changing genes to address or treat specific diseases may have unexpected consequences for other biological processes. Also, if these genes are then inherited by future generations, it might be difficult to control once they become commonplace in the general population. Modifying the genome of the embryo could cause unintended harm, not only to the individual but also future generations that inherit these same changes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not allow the creation of genetically modified babies. The obvious benefit of GM babies is preventing specific genetic diseases and disabilities. This would theoretically lead to the overall improvement in general health for future generations. However, the potential for abuse and misuse is too high and concerning despite this benefit. I believe there is a slippery slope around this and raises serious ethical questions around what constitutes something that needs to be "treated" or "fixed". I also think that it would be extremely difficult to truly regulate this field and is easily subject to abuse from private entities and the rich. This would not only create a two-tiered society with a lower and higher class but it also promotes eugenics and playing with human lives. The modification of genes in a single embryo will not only affect that person but also any children born from that embryo. Therefore, the repercussions of these procedures is impossible to anticipate and therefore potentially catastrophic. In this current climate where gene therapies are at least accessible and available in most countries in the world, it is extremely unlikely that allowing the creation of GM babies would help lower-income countries where they are least likely to have access to these therapies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not allow the creation of genetically modified babies. The obvious benefit of GM babies is preventing specific genetic diseases and disabilities. This would theoretically lead to the overall improvement in general health for future generations. However, the potential for abuse and misuse is too high and concerning despite this benefit. I believe there is a slippery slope around this and raises serious ethical questions around what constitutes something that needs to be "treated" or "fixed". I also think that it would be extremely difficult to truly regulate this field and is easily subject to abuse from private entities and the rich. The unknown impacts of gene modification further down the line are also a concern. Changing genes to address or treat specific diseases may have unexpected consequences for other biological processes. Also, if these genes are then inherited by future generations, it might be difficult to control once they become commonplace in the general population. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000953.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000953.soc index 9ccd5a05..9326cf09 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000953.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000953.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the voting age should not be raised to 21. This is because, at 18, young people are old enough to make important decisions about their future, and are old enough to understand the voting process. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run, as the decisions of politicians and law makers will directly affect them, for example: decisions about taxes, employment and such. If you raise the voting age to 21 then you miss out on a large demographic having a say on matters that mean the most to them. You risk disenfranchising them and alienating young people this way. Politics could also sway in a direction which doesn't support young people at all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the voting age should not be raised to 21. This is because, young people are more likely to be affected by the decisions of the politicians and law makers. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run. The current voting age is 18 and at this age a person can leave school and compulsory education and can start working. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run, as the decisions of politicians and law makers will directly affect them, for example: decisions about taxes, employment and such. If you raise the voting age to 21 then you miss out on a large demographic having a say on matters that mean the most to them. You risk disenfranchising them and alienating young people this way. Politics could also sway in a direction which doesn't support young people at all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the voting age should not be raised to 21. This is because at 18, young people can leave school and compulsory education and can start working. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run, as the decisions of politicians and law makers will directly affect them, for example: decisions about taxes, employment and such. If you raise the voting age to 21 then you miss out on a large demographic having a say on matters that mean the most to them. You risk disenfranchising them and alienating young people this way. Politics could also sway in a direction which doesn't support young people at all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the voting age should not be raised to 21. The voting age should remain at 18 as this is the age that a person can start working, paying taxes and contributing to society. The voting age should not be raised as it would mean that a large range of people would be excluded from having a say in the way the country is run. The current voting age is 18 and at this age a person can leave school and compulsory education and can start working. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run, as the decisions of politicians and law makers will directly affect them, for example: decisions about taxes, employment and such. If you raise the voting age to 21 then you miss out on a large demographic having a say on matters that mean the most to them. You risk disenfranchising them and alienating young people this way. Politics could also sway in a direction which doesn't support young people at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the voting age should not be raised to 21. This is because, at 18, young people are old enough to make important decisions about their future, and are old enough to understand the voting process. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run, as the decisions of politicians and law makers will directly affect them, for example: decisions about taxes, employment and such. If you raise the voting age to 21 then you miss out on a large demographic having a say on matters that mean the most to them. You risk disenfranchising them and alienating young people this way. Politics could also sway in a direction which doesn't support young people at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the voting age should not be raised to 21. This is because, young people are more likely to be affected by the decisions of the politicians and law makers. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run. The current voting age is 18 and at this age a person can leave school and compulsory education and can start working. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run, as the decisions of politicians and law makers will directly affect them, for example: decisions about taxes, employment and such. If you raise the voting age to 21 then you miss out on a large demographic having a say on matters that mean the most to them. You risk disenfranchising them and alienating young people this way. Politics could also sway in a direction which doesn't support young people at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the voting age should not be raised to 21. This is because at 18, young people can leave school and compulsory education and can start working. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run, as the decisions of politicians and law makers will directly affect them, for example: decisions about taxes, employment and such. If you raise the voting age to 21 then you miss out on a large demographic having a say on matters that mean the most to them. You risk disenfranchising them and alienating young people this way. Politics could also sway in a direction which doesn't support young people at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the voting age should not be raised to 21. The voting age should remain at 18 as this is the age that a person can start working, paying taxes and contributing to society. The voting age should not be raised as it would mean that a large range of people would be excluded from having a say in the way the country is run. The current voting age is 18 and at this age a person can leave school and compulsory education and can start working. Therefore, they should be allowed to have a say in how the country is run, as the decisions of politicians and law makers will directly affect them, for example: decisions about taxes, employment and such. If you raise the voting age to 21 then you miss out on a large demographic having a say on matters that mean the most to them. You risk disenfranchising them and alienating young people this way. Politics could also sway in a direction which doesn't support young people at all. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000954.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000954.soc index fc757687..ef9a0778 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000954.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000954.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We believe that the current healthcare system is bureaucratic, but it is necessary for the NHS to function. However, there is scope for improvement and we believe that the system could be less bureaucratic if resources were better allocated. There is too much paperwork and this could be reduced to allow for more patient care. We believe that doctors should be able to spend more time with patients and less time doing paperwork. The NHS needs to be more efficient in how it operates and the resources need to be better allocated. We believe that the system needs to be more flexible and allow for more change to occur. The system needs to be more open to change and we believe that if the system was less bureaucratic, this would allow for more change to occur. This would lead to a better healthcare system and better patient care.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The NHS is a bureaucratic organisation, but it is necessary for the NHS to function. There is scope for improvement and the system could be less bureaucratic if resources were better allocated. The NHS needs to be more efficient in how it operates and the resources need to be better allocated. We believe that the system needs to be more flexible and allow for more change to occur. The system needs to be more open to change and we believe that if the system was less bureaucratic, this would allow for more change to occur. This would lead to a better healthcare system and better patient care. The staff should be paid more and given a significantly lower workload, more time off and better benefits. There is too much paperwork and this could be reduced to allow for more patient care. The doctors should be able to spend more time with patients and less time doing paperwork.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The current healthcare system is bureaucratic and we believe that the bureaucracy is needed to allow the healthcare system to function. However, the bureaucracy can also be counterproductive and can lead to inefficiencies within the system. For example, we believe that some doctors are overloaded with paperwork and this prevents them from giving the best possible care to their patients. The current system is rigid and this prevents change from occurring and it is also demotivating for staff. There needs to be more resources invested in the healthcare system and the resources need to be allocated to areas that are in need of them. There needs to be more freedom for doctors to spend more time with patients and less time with paperwork. This will allow the doctors to provide the best possible care for their patients. It is important that the current healthcare system is open to change and it should be flexible enough to allow change to happen. This will allow for new ideas to be put into practice and this will allow the healthcare system to become more efficient. We believe that the current system is too bureaucratic and there is scope for improvement. However, we believe that some bureaucracy is needed and it is an important part of the system.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The current healthcare system is bureaucratic and this is necessary to ensure it functions. However, there are areas of bureaucracy that can be removed to allow the NHS to run more efficiently. We believe that there is too much paperwork, and this is a waste of time for doctors, and resources need to be better allocated. There is too much waiting for patients and we believe this needs to be improved. We also believe that there is too much central control and this leads to less efficient practices. We believe that there should be more freedom for doctors to make clinical decisions and the system needs to be more flexible and allow for more change to occur. We believe that the system needs to be less bureaucratic and this would lead to a better healthcare system and better patient care.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We believe that the current healthcare system is bureaucratic, but it is necessary for the NHS to function. However, there is scope for improvement and we believe that the system could be less bureaucratic if resources were better allocated. There is too much paperwork and this could be reduced to allow for more patient care. We believe that doctors should be able to spend more time with patients and less time doing paperwork. The NHS needs to be more efficient in how it operates and the resources need to be better allocated. We believe that the system needs to be more flexible and allow for more change to occur. The system needs to be more open to change and we believe that if the system was less bureaucratic, this would allow for more change to occur. This would lead to a better healthcare system and better patient care.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The NHS is a bureaucratic organisation, but it is necessary for the NHS to function. There is scope for improvement and the system could be less bureaucratic if resources were better allocated. The NHS needs to be more efficient in how it operates and the resources need to be better allocated. We believe that the system needs to be more flexible and allow for more change to occur. The system needs to be more open to change and we believe that if the system was less bureaucratic, this would allow for more change to occur. This would lead to a better healthcare system and better patient care. The staff should be paid more and given a significantly lower workload, more time off and better benefits. There is too much paperwork and this could be reduced to allow for more patient care. The doctors should be able to spend more time with patients and less time doing paperwork.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The current healthcare system is bureaucratic and we believe that the bureaucracy is needed to allow the healthcare system to function. However, the bureaucracy can also be counterproductive and can lead to inefficiencies within the system. For example, we believe that some doctors are overloaded with paperwork and this prevents them from giving the best possible care to their patients. The current system is rigid and this prevents change from occurring and it is also demotivating for staff. There needs to be more resources invested in the healthcare system and the resources need to be allocated to areas that are in need of them. There needs to be more freedom for doctors to spend more time with patients and less time with paperwork. This will allow the doctors to provide the best possible care for their patients. It is important that the current healthcare system is open to change and it should be flexible enough to allow change to happen. This will allow for new ideas to be put into practice and this will allow the healthcare system to become more efficient. We believe that the current system is too bureaucratic and there is scope for improvement. However, we believe that some bureaucracy is needed and it is an important part of the system.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The current healthcare system is bureaucratic and this is necessary to ensure it functions. However, there are areas of bureaucracy that can be removed to allow the NHS to run more efficiently. We believe that there is too much paperwork, and this is a waste of time for doctors, and resources need to be better allocated. There is too much waiting for patients and we believe this needs to be improved. We also believe that there is too much central control and this leads to less efficient practices. We believe that there should be more freedom for doctors to make clinical decisions and the system needs to be more flexible and allow for more change to occur. We believe that the system needs to be less bureaucratic and this would lead to a better healthcare system and better patient care.” 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000955.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000955.soc index 97c11492..c2387bb6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000955.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000955.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that a universal basic income should be given to everyone, however, this income should be very small, just enough to provide a safety net for people in need. We also believe that those who work should receive a basic income and a salary. This would help people to provide for themselves and their families. This would also help to cut down on homelessness and poverty in the country. However, there should be an "opt-out" process so that those that don't need it have the option to donate it to those in dire need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A universal basic income should be given to everyone, but people who are fit and able to work should also receive a salary for the work they do. The universal basic income should be enough to ensure that people can live a decent life, and not be forced to take on multiple jobs just to survive. The universal basic income should be given to everyone, including those who are addicted to drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling, etc. as this would be the only way to ensure that they are not forced to resort to crime in order to survive. There should also be an "opt-out" process for those who do not need the basic income and would prefer to donate it to those in dire need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income for everyone. The group believed that a universal basic income would provide a safety net for people and families in times of need. The group also believed that a universal basic income would reduce poverty and homelessness in the country and provide people with a basic standard of living. The group also believed that a universal basic income would allow people to follow their passions and take the risk of setting up their own business. The group believed that a universal basic income would be a positive thing for the economy and would provide people with a peace of mind. The group also believed that a universal basic income would be good for people's mental health and would reduce the amount of stress in people's lives. The group believed that a universal basic income would allow people to follow their passions and provide people with the opportunity to be creative. The group also believed that a universal basic income would provide people with a safety net in times of recession and would help people to survive in times of need. The group believed that a universal basic income would be a positive thing for society and would be a step in the right direction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a universal basic income for everyone, but there should also be a system in place to ensure that people who are able to work, are working and are not living off the state. This universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. This would be a huge help to many people who are currently struggling. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that a universal basic income should be given to everyone, however, this income should be very small, just enough to provide a safety net for people in need. We also believe that those who work should receive a basic income and a salary. This would help people to provide for themselves and their families. This would also help to cut down on homelessness and poverty in the country. However, there should be an "opt-out" process so that those that don't need it have the option to donate it to those in dire need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A universal basic income should be given to everyone, but people who are fit and able to work should also receive a salary for the work they do. The universal basic income should be enough to ensure that people can live a decent life, and not be forced to take on multiple jobs just to survive. The universal basic income should be given to everyone, including those who are addicted to drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling, etc. as this would be the only way to ensure that they are not forced to resort to crime in order to survive. There should also be an "opt-out" process for those who do not need the basic income and would prefer to donate it to those in dire need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income for everyone. The group believed that a universal basic income would provide a safety net for people and families in times of need. The group also believed that a universal basic income would reduce poverty and homelessness in the country and provide people with a basic standard of living. The group also believed that a universal basic income would allow people to follow their passions and take the risk of setting up their own business. The group believed that a universal basic income would be a positive thing for the economy and would provide people with a peace of mind. The group also believed that a universal basic income would be good for people's mental health and would reduce the amount of stress in people's lives. The group believed that a universal basic income would allow people to follow their passions and provide people with the opportunity to be creative. The group also believed that a universal basic income would provide people with a safety net in times of recession and would help people to survive in times of need. The group believed that a universal basic income would be a positive thing for society and would be a step in the right direction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a universal basic income for everyone, but there should also be a system in place to ensure that people who are able to work, are working and are not living off the state. This universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. This would be a huge help to many people who are currently struggling. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000956.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000956.soc index 24161a3d..edba6a6c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000956.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000956.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, financial support should be available equally to the self-employed and those who work for employers. Those working for employers have advantages in worker protections and pension contributions, while the self-employed have advantages in what they charge and the hours they work, but may go for long periods without work. In either case, periods of financial hardship should be supported by the government because both pay income tax and National Insurance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should provide financial support to the self-employed as well as those who work for employers. The self-employed contribute a great deal to the economy, but they also have more financial insecurity. The employed have more financial security, but they also have fewer opportunities to start their own businesses. Conclusion: We are in agreement that the self-employed and the employed should be treated equally and have access to the same financial support. The self-employed are just as important to the economy as the employed and they should be treated equally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the self-employed and those who work for employers should have equal access to financial support. The self-employed are more likely to have periods of financial hardship, but they also have periods of higher income. Those who work for employers have more protection in terms of hours and pay, but may not have the same flexibility as the self-employed. In general, the government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that financial support should be available equally to the self-employed and those who work for employers. Those working for employers have advantages in worker protections and pension contributions, while the self-employed have advantages in what they charge and the hours they work, but may go for long periods without work. In either case, periods of financial hardship should be supported by the government because both pay income tax and National Insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, financial support should be available equally to the self-employed and those who work for employers. Those working for employers have advantages in worker protections and pension contributions, while the self-employed have advantages in what they charge and the hours they work, but may go for long periods without work. In either case, periods of financial hardship should be supported by the government because both pay income tax and National Insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should provide financial support to the self-employed as well as those who work for employers. The self-employed contribute a great deal to the economy, but they also have more financial insecurity. The employed have more financial security, but they also have fewer opportunities to start their own businesses. Conclusion: We are in agreement that the self-employed and the employed should be treated equally and have access to the same financial support. The self-employed are just as important to the economy as the employed and they should be treated equally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the self-employed and those who work for employers should have equal access to financial support. The self-employed are more likely to have periods of financial hardship, but they also have periods of higher income. Those who work for employers have more protection in terms of hours and pay, but may not have the same flexibility as the self-employed. In general, the government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that financial support should be available equally to the self-employed and those who work for employers. Those working for employers have advantages in worker protections and pension contributions, while the self-employed have advantages in what they charge and the hours they work, but may go for long periods without work. In either case, periods of financial hardship should be supported by the government because both pay income tax and National Insurance. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000957.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000957.soc index eb799bbe..5b4681fb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000957.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000957.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK did benefit from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. However, the positives of EU membership definitely outweighed any negatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK benefited from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. The UK also lost some sovereignty, as EU laws overruled the UK Parliament in some areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK did benefit from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. The UK is also now affected by Brexit, as the UK does not have the same influence that it used to have, and does not have free trade and movement as it used to have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK did benefit from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. The EU membership had benefits for the UK, but there were also negatives to the UK's membership of the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK did benefit from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. However, the positives of EU membership definitely outweighed any negatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK benefited from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. The UK also lost some sovereignty, as EU laws overruled the UK Parliament in some areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK did benefit from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. The UK is also now affected by Brexit, as the UK does not have the same influence that it used to have, and does not have free trade and movement as it used to have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK did benefit from its membership of the EU. The UK had access to a large market, which meant that businesses could trade freely and there was an influx of investment into the UK. UK citizens were able to travel freely within the EU, which was a positive for the economy, and for the social development of the UK. The UK was able to influence EU policy and legislation, which meant that the UK was able to have a say in the direction of the EU. However, the UK did not benefit in all areas, and the UK was also negatively affected in some areas. The UK had to contribute financially to the EU, which was a cost to the UK. The UK was also affected by EU laws and directives, which the UK did not have a say in creating. The EU membership had benefits for the UK, but there were also negatives to the UK's membership of the EU. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000958.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000958.soc index 33764817..a0521362 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000958.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000958.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that a code of conduct is necessary for social media. Social media companies have a responsibility to their users to provide a safe environment, and should be held accountable if they fail to do so. This code of conduct should be written by the social media companies themselves, and should be enforceable by an independent body, perhaps an ombudsman. This code of conduct should be made public and easily accessible, and should be written in plain language. It should clearly define what is and is not acceptable, and what the consequences of violating the code of conduct are. This code of conduct should be reviewed regularly and updated to reflect changes in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of having some form of code of conduct for social media. The group was in favour of this as they felt that it would help to protect users and make social media platforms safer. The group did not think that the code of conduct should be imposed by the government, as they felt that the government would not be the best placed to regulate social media. The group felt that social media companies should be responsible for regulating their own platforms and the conduct of their users. The group also felt that social media companies should have their own guidelines for conduct on their services, and that these companies are best placed to sanction users that break their rules. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Social media has become an integral part of modern life, and while it can be a force for good it can also be a platform for the spread of hate and misinformation. Each social media company should have their own guidelines for conduct on their services, and are best placed to sanction user's that break their rules. However it is clear that these companies are slow to improve or tighten safeguards, and tend to only take action after a public outcry or the threat of regulation. On this basis it may be expedient to appoint regulators to oversee the conduct of social media companies themselves, rather than the users, and for the social media companies to be responsible for the behaviour of users on their services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be an official code of conduct for social media. This is to ensure that social media is a safe place for all users and that there is a clear guideline for acceptable behavior. Social media is a useful tool for communication and the sharing of information. It is also a place for people to express their opinions and thoughts. This can be positive, however it can also be negative. There have been many cases of people using social media to bully, harass and spread hate speech. This is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. A code of conduct would be a good way to address this problem. It would provide a guideline for what is acceptable and what is not. It would also provide consequences for those who violate the guidelines. This would hopefully create a safe place for all users. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that a code of conduct is necessary for social media. Social media companies have a responsibility to their users to provide a safe environment, and should be held accountable if they fail to do so. This code of conduct should be written by the social media companies themselves, and should be enforceable by an independent body, perhaps an ombudsman. This code of conduct should be made public and easily accessible, and should be written in plain language. It should clearly define what is and is not acceptable, and what the consequences of violating the code of conduct are. This code of conduct should be reviewed regularly and updated to reflect changes in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of having some form of code of conduct for social media. The group was in favour of this as they felt that it would help to protect users and make social media platforms safer. The group did not think that the code of conduct should be imposed by the government, as they felt that the government would not be the best placed to regulate social media. The group felt that social media companies should be responsible for regulating their own platforms and the conduct of their users. The group also felt that social media companies should have their own guidelines for conduct on their services, and that these companies are best placed to sanction users that break their rules. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Social media has become an integral part of modern life, and while it can be a force for good it can also be a platform for the spread of hate and misinformation. Each social media company should have their own guidelines for conduct on their services, and are best placed to sanction user's that break their rules. However it is clear that these companies are slow to improve or tighten safeguards, and tend to only take action after a public outcry or the threat of regulation. On this basis it may be expedient to appoint regulators to oversee the conduct of social media companies themselves, rather than the users, and for the social media companies to be responsible for the behaviour of users on their services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be an official code of conduct for social media. This is to ensure that social media is a safe place for all users and that there is a clear guideline for acceptable behavior. Social media is a useful tool for communication and the sharing of information. It is also a place for people to express their opinions and thoughts. This can be positive, however it can also be negative. There have been many cases of people using social media to bully, harass and spread hate speech. This is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. A code of conduct would be a good way to address this problem. It would provide a guideline for what is acceptable and what is not. It would also provide consequences for those who violate the guidelines. This would hopefully create a safe place for all users. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000959.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000959.soc index 646ac610..5aed5c7d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000959.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000959.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a universal basic income for everyone, and this should be used to help people who are struggling to get by. This would be a huge help to many people who are currently struggling. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. This universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. There should also be a system in place to ensure that people who are able to work, are working and are not living off the state. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, there should be a universal basic income for everyone, but there should also be a system in place to ensure that people who are able to work, are working and are not living off the state. This universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. This would be a huge help to many people who are currently struggling. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. Those who are able to work should not be living off the state and this universal income should only be used to help those who need it and are struggling. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a universal basic income for everyone, but there should also be a system in place to ensure that people who are able to work, are working and are not living off the state. This universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. This would be a huge help to many people who are currently struggling. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. It would also be great if people who are working were able to keep all of their salary for themselves as a universal income would be an added bonus to their salary. This would then ensure that those people who can work are working and that they are not relying on the state to provide for them, but this universal income would be there as a back-up for those who are struggling. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income for everyone would be a great help to millions of people and would be a huge benefit to the economy and the country as a whole. It would help those who are struggling to get by and would also help those who are homeless or in poverty. This would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. In addition, this universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a universal basic income for everyone, and this should be used to help people who are struggling to get by. This would be a huge help to many people who are currently struggling. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. This universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. There should also be a system in place to ensure that people who are able to work, are working and are not living off the state. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, there should be a universal basic income for everyone, but there should also be a system in place to ensure that people who are able to work, are working and are not living off the state. This universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. This would be a huge help to many people who are currently struggling. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. Those who are able to work should not be living off the state and this universal income should only be used to help those who need it and are struggling. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a universal basic income for everyone, but there should also be a system in place to ensure that people who are able to work, are working and are not living off the state. This universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. This would be a huge help to many people who are currently struggling. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. It would also be great if people who are working were able to keep all of their salary for themselves as a universal income would be an added bonus to their salary. This would then ensure that those people who can work are working and that they are not relying on the state to provide for them, but this universal income would be there as a back-up for those who are struggling. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income for everyone would be a great help to millions of people and would be a huge benefit to the economy and the country as a whole. It would help those who are struggling to get by and would also help those who are homeless or in poverty. This would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. In addition, this universal income should be used to help people who are struggling to get by and should be used to help those who are homeless or in poverty. This universal income would also act as a safety net for people in times of recession or when they are out of work. This would also help to reduce the amount of homelessness and poverty in the country and would help to make the country a better place to live. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000960.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000960.soc index f355aebe..19afbbfe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000960.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000960.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should give equal access to financial support for the self-employed and for those who work for employers, as they all pay into the system. The self-employed have the benefit of flexibility and potentially higher income, but they also have periods of low income when they are not working. Those who work for employers have more guaranteed income, and more protection in terms of hours and pay, but they have less flexibility in their work. The government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. The self-employed have the flexibility to earn more, but also have periods of financial hardship. Those who work for employers have more protections in terms of pay and hours, but have less flexibility. In general, the government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that financial support should be available equally to the self-employed and those who work for employers. Both the self-employed and the employed are equally responsible for paying income tax and National Insurance. The self-employed have advantages in flexibility and are able to set their own rates and hours, but may go for long periods without work. Those who work for employers have more protections and benefits such as pensions, sick pay, and minimum wage, but may not have the same flexibility as the self-employed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be equal financial support for the self-employed and those who work for employers. Both the self-employed and those who work for employers pay income tax and National Insurance, and so the government should support all workers equally. The self-employed have more flexibility with hours and pay, but also may go for long periods without work, and so periods of financial hardship should be supported by the government. Those who work for employers have more protection in terms of hours and pay, but may not have the same flexibility as the self-employed. In general, the government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should give equal access to financial support for the self-employed and for those who work for employers, as they all pay into the system. The self-employed have the benefit of flexibility and potentially higher income, but they also have periods of low income when they are not working. Those who work for employers have more guaranteed income, and more protection in terms of hours and pay, but they have less flexibility in their work. The government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. The self-employed have the flexibility to earn more, but also have periods of financial hardship. Those who work for employers have more protections in terms of pay and hours, but have less flexibility. In general, the government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that financial support should be available equally to the self-employed and those who work for employers. Both the self-employed and the employed are equally responsible for paying income tax and National Insurance. The self-employed have advantages in flexibility and are able to set their own rates and hours, but may go for long periods without work. Those who work for employers have more protections and benefits such as pensions, sick pay, and minimum wage, but may not have the same flexibility as the self-employed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be equal financial support for the self-employed and those who work for employers. Both the self-employed and those who work for employers pay income tax and National Insurance, and so the government should support all workers equally. The self-employed have more flexibility with hours and pay, but also may go for long periods without work, and so periods of financial hardship should be supported by the government. Those who work for employers have more protection in terms of hours and pay, but may not have the same flexibility as the self-employed. In general, the government should support all workers equally, whether they are self-employed or work for employers, as they all pay income tax and National Insurance. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000961.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000961.soc index 4cc4c666..d45a6de3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000961.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000961.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group felt that consuming animals for food (eating meat) should be allowed. It is not a right but it is not illegal. Humans have for millennia hunted and ate wild animals. We have now domesticated this activity and we have reliable sources of food - farming, agriculture, and importing foodstuffs. We have the right to eat meat as is is part of our history, our culture, our religion(s) and our daily lives. Should we look to move away from meat consumption? Yes. Should we encourage less meat consumption? Yes, but the right to eat animals for food should continue to be allowed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans have the right to use animals for food. This is a complicated issue and there are very valid reasons to suggest otherwise. In life and death scenarios, we fully support consuming animals for food, and we believe human rights and our livelihoods are more important than those of animals. It becomes more complicated when we look into modern life, where we have the ability to live our lives without necessarily involving eating animals (some societies are different, we are focusing more on the first world) where eating animals is arguably morally wrong and is unquestionably poor for climate change. There are some health benefits to eating enough protein, however we can get protein elsewhere that has less of an impact on the planet. We believe we have the right, but it is a grey area. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans have the right to use animals for food. However, we should not abuse this right and we should respect the lives of animals. We should be mindful of our impact on the environment and on the health of animals and humans. We should also be mindful of the suffering of animals and make an effort to reduce the suffering of animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a right for humans to use animals for food, however there is a strong argument for the right to be limited in some circumstances. There is a strong argument for the right to be limited in some circumstances. The group came to the view that in life and death situations, it is right for humans to use animals for food. However, in modern life, there is a strong argument that we should be limiting the use of animals for food. The reasons for this are that there are viable alternatives, and that the use of animals for food has a significant impact on the environment, and is arguably morally wrong. The right to use animals for food is complicated, and is an issue that is very difficult to reach a consensus on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group felt that consuming animals for food (eating meat) should be allowed. It is not a right but it is not illegal. Humans have for millennia hunted and ate wild animals. We have now domesticated this activity and we have reliable sources of food - farming, agriculture, and importing foodstuffs. We have the right to eat meat as is is part of our history, our culture, our religion(s) and our daily lives. Should we look to move away from meat consumption? Yes. Should we encourage less meat consumption? Yes, but the right to eat animals for food should continue to be allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans have the right to use animals for food. This is a complicated issue and there are very valid reasons to suggest otherwise. In life and death scenarios, we fully support consuming animals for food, and we believe human rights and our livelihoods are more important than those of animals. It becomes more complicated when we look into modern life, where we have the ability to live our lives without necessarily involving eating animals (some societies are different, we are focusing more on the first world) where eating animals is arguably morally wrong and is unquestionably poor for climate change. There are some health benefits to eating enough protein, however we can get protein elsewhere that has less of an impact on the planet. We believe we have the right, but it is a grey area. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans have the right to use animals for food. However, we should not abuse this right and we should respect the lives of animals. We should be mindful of our impact on the environment and on the health of animals and humans. We should also be mindful of the suffering of animals and make an effort to reduce the suffering of animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a right for humans to use animals for food, however there is a strong argument for the right to be limited in some circumstances. There is a strong argument for the right to be limited in some circumstances. The group came to the view that in life and death situations, it is right for humans to use animals for food. However, in modern life, there is a strong argument that we should be limiting the use of animals for food. The reasons for this are that there are viable alternatives, and that the use of animals for food has a significant impact on the environment, and is arguably morally wrong. The right to use animals for food is complicated, and is an issue that is very difficult to reach a consensus on. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000962.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000962.soc index 130fda7b..95e3ed35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000962.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000962.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. Following this process, the consensus opinion of all of the groups in the debate was as follows. In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. We believe that the limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. The limit should be set according to the current levels of fish in a particular water body. We recommend that people be allowed to catch fewer fish if the water body is understocked. In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that in principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. In addition to this, one participant added the following statement, reflecting the initial concern expressed by participant 1, that there are some fisheries which should not be recreational: There are however certain fisheries that do not require recreational limits, for example fisheries where invasive fish species are being caught for the purposes of improving biodiversity. These fisheries should be managed by means of scientific methods, and not require a limit on the number of fish caught by recreational fishers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. Following this process, the consensus opinion of all of the groups in the debate was as follows. In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. We believe that the limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. The limit should be set according to the current levels of fish in a particular water body. We recommend that people be allowed to catch fewer fish if the water body is understocked. In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that in principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, there should be a limit to the amount of fish people can catch for recreation. However, it is important to bear in mind that some recreational fishing is already regulated and some is not. In cases where recreational fishing is already regulated, the current limits are sufficient and should be maintained. In cases where recreational fishing is not currently regulated, we recommend that a limit should be set. The limit should be set at a level which ensures that the recreational fishing is sustainable and does not have a negative impact on the local environment. In addition to this, one participant added the following statement, reflecting the initial concern expressed by participant 1, that there are some fisheries which should not be recreational: There are however certain fisheries that do not require recreational limits, for example fisheries where invasive fish species are being caught for the purposes of improving biodiversity. These fisheries should be managed by means of scientific methods, and not require a limit on the number of fish caught by recreational fishers. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000963.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000963.soc index f2a2437d..3ae627ec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000963.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000963.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was against the idea of eating dogs. The group thought that the idea of eating dogs was particularly abhorrent due to the close bond that exists between humans and dogs in the UK. The group thought that in general, the idea of eating any animal was wrong, but that eating dogs was particularly wrong due to the close bond between dogs and humans. The group thought that dogs are very intelligent animals and that it would be wrong to kill them for food. The group thought that eating dogs is particularly cruel due to the fact that dogs are often kept in very cruel ways in countries where they are eaten. The group thought that dogs are not necessary for food as there are many other options available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the eating of dogs is not okay. This is due to the fact that in the UK, dogs are seen as pets, as part of the family. Dogs have personalities and are capable of a wide range of emotions. The way that dogs are kept and killed in countries where they are eaten is abhorrent and is not humane. The participants also felt that there are plenty of other types of meat that can be eaten and so there is no need to eat dogs. The participants also felt that in general, it is not okay to eat any animals as they are all sentient beings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not okay to eat dogs. This is because dogs are part of our family and have become domesticated. Dogs were never intended for human food. Dogs are sentient creatures capable of a wide range of emotions and causing them suffering, fear and distress keeping them in cruel ways is abhorrent to us. Dogs are not food. There is no need to eat dogs even if a person wishes to eat meat. Dogs are companion animals and not food. In our opinion no animal should die for food. Humans do not need meat let alone dogs in the food chain. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In the UK, the dog is a companion animal and not food. We have a special bond with our canine friends and it would be quite abhorrent to turn them into a food. The reasons for this are not just cultural but also related to the cruel way dogs are treated in countries where they are killed for meat. They are often kept brutalised and terrified and killed in non-humane ways. There are even festivals to celebrate such practices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was against the idea of eating dogs. The group thought that the idea of eating dogs was particularly abhorrent due to the close bond that exists between humans and dogs in the UK. The group thought that in general, the idea of eating any animal was wrong, but that eating dogs was particularly wrong due to the close bond between dogs and humans. The group thought that dogs are very intelligent animals and that it would be wrong to kill them for food. The group thought that eating dogs is particularly cruel due to the fact that dogs are often kept in very cruel ways in countries where they are eaten. The group thought that dogs are not necessary for food as there are many other options available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the eating of dogs is not okay. This is due to the fact that in the UK, dogs are seen as pets, as part of the family. Dogs have personalities and are capable of a wide range of emotions. The way that dogs are kept and killed in countries where they are eaten is abhorrent and is not humane. The participants also felt that there are plenty of other types of meat that can be eaten and so there is no need to eat dogs. The participants also felt that in general, it is not okay to eat any animals as they are all sentient beings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not okay to eat dogs. This is because dogs are part of our family and have become domesticated. Dogs were never intended for human food. Dogs are sentient creatures capable of a wide range of emotions and causing them suffering, fear and distress keeping them in cruel ways is abhorrent to us. Dogs are not food. There is no need to eat dogs even if a person wishes to eat meat. Dogs are companion animals and not food. In our opinion no animal should die for food. Humans do not need meat let alone dogs in the food chain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In the UK, the dog is a companion animal and not food. We have a special bond with our canine friends and it would be quite abhorrent to turn them into a food. The reasons for this are not just cultural but also related to the cruel way dogs are treated in countries where they are killed for meat. They are often kept brutalised and terrified and killed in non-humane ways. There are even festivals to celebrate such practices. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000964.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000964.soc index d81121a7..af31dd34 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000964.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000964.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, we believe that people have a right to expect a comfortable retirement. We all work hard throughout our lives, and contribute to the economy and society in general, and so we should be rewarded for this. We believe that the most comfortable retirements should be reserved for those who have worked the hardest and contributed the most, but in reality this would be difficult to implement. We also believe that those who have not worked, or who have not contributed positively to society, should not have a comfortable retirement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that people who have worked hard throughout their lives should be able to expect a comfortable retirement. The group did not feel that this should be a legal right, but rather a moral one. The group felt that people who have worked hard and contributed positively to society should be rewarded with a comfortable retirement, as this would provide them with a sense of achievement. The group felt that this would also encourage people to work hard and contribute positively to society. The group felt that a comfortable retirement would mean having a home with warmth, light and reasonable foods. The group felt that this would be a basic level of comfort, and that people who have worked and earned more throughout their lives should have extra money to spend on luxuries if they wish. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we believe that people have the right to expect a comfortable retirement. This is because we believe that people who have worked hard throughout their lives should be rewarded for this. However, we also recognise that some people are not able to work, and so they should also have a comfortable retirement. We believe that people should be able to have a comfortable retirement because they have contributed to society in some way, and this should be rewarded. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we do have the right to expect a comfortable retirement. This is because we have all worked hard and contributed to society throughout our lives. In an ideal world, the most comfortable retirements would be reserved for those who have indeed worked the hardest and been the most positive influence on society, but in reality this would be difficult to implement. As before, we should be able to expect a comfortable period towards the end of our lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, we believe that people have a right to expect a comfortable retirement. We all work hard throughout our lives, and contribute to the economy and society in general, and so we should be rewarded for this. We believe that the most comfortable retirements should be reserved for those who have worked the hardest and contributed the most, but in reality this would be difficult to implement. We also believe that those who have not worked, or who have not contributed positively to society, should not have a comfortable retirement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that people who have worked hard throughout their lives should be able to expect a comfortable retirement. The group did not feel that this should be a legal right, but rather a moral one. The group felt that people who have worked hard and contributed positively to society should be rewarded with a comfortable retirement, as this would provide them with a sense of achievement. The group felt that this would also encourage people to work hard and contribute positively to society. The group felt that a comfortable retirement would mean having a home with warmth, light and reasonable foods. The group felt that this would be a basic level of comfort, and that people who have worked and earned more throughout their lives should have extra money to spend on luxuries if they wish. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we believe that people have the right to expect a comfortable retirement. This is because we believe that people who have worked hard throughout their lives should be rewarded for this. However, we also recognise that some people are not able to work, and so they should also have a comfortable retirement. We believe that people should be able to have a comfortable retirement because they have contributed to society in some way, and this should be rewarded. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we do have the right to expect a comfortable retirement. This is because we have all worked hard and contributed to society throughout our lives. In an ideal world, the most comfortable retirements would be reserved for those who have indeed worked the hardest and been the most positive influence on society, but in reality this would be difficult to implement. As before, we should be able to expect a comfortable period towards the end of our lives. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000965.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000965.soc index 295407b7..0fa5b548 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000965.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000965.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum voting age should be reduced to 16 years old. This is because 16 year olds are able to legally work, get married, and join the army, so why shouldn't they get a say in the political sphere? Furthermore, 16 year olds are often more engaged in the political sphere than older people. The main reservation is around the lack of emotional maturity and life experience that would help young people become informed voters. Although there are many mature 16 year olds, we don't think they have enough experience to make a good judgement. Therefore, we think that the minimum voting age should be reduced to 16 years old, but that it should be accompanied by an education program to inform young people about the voting system and potential outcomes of their decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. The participants acknowledged that the younger generation is more engaged in politics than ever before and lowering the voting age would encourage this engagement. They felt that it is important to give young people a say in their future. However, the participants were also aware that many young people may not be fully aware of the political landscape and this could lead to uninformed voting. Therefore, they suggested that some sort of education programme be implemented to help young people become more informed voters. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. The participants felt that it would be beneficial for young people to be able to have a say in the political sphere. They felt that young people would be more engaged in politics, and would be more likely to vote if they were able to do so at a younger age. The participants acknowledged that young people may not have as much life experience as older people, but felt that they would still be able to make informed decisions. The participants also felt that lowering the voting age would allow young people to have a say on issues that affect them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the voting age should be reduced to 16. We acknowledge that there are pros and cons to this. We think that it is important for young people to be involved in the political sphere and have their voices heard. This is because they are impacted by the decisions made by politicians and it is important that they have a say in this. We also think that 16 year olds are old enough to make informed decisions and have a good understanding of politics. However, we acknowledge that there are some 16 year olds who may not be mature enough to make good decisions and may not be fully informed. We think that the government should put more effort into educating young people about politics and voting so that they can make informed decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum voting age should be reduced to 16 years old. This is because 16 year olds are able to legally work, get married, and join the army, so why shouldn't they get a say in the political sphere? Furthermore, 16 year olds are often more engaged in the political sphere than older people. The main reservation is around the lack of emotional maturity and life experience that would help young people become informed voters. Although there are many mature 16 year olds, we don't think they have enough experience to make a good judgement. Therefore, we think that the minimum voting age should be reduced to 16 years old, but that it should be accompanied by an education program to inform young people about the voting system and potential outcomes of their decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. The participants acknowledged that the younger generation is more engaged in politics than ever before and lowering the voting age would encourage this engagement. They felt that it is important to give young people a say in their future. However, the participants were also aware that many young people may not be fully aware of the political landscape and this could lead to uninformed voting. Therefore, they suggested that some sort of education programme be implemented to help young people become more informed voters. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. The participants felt that it would be beneficial for young people to be able to have a say in the political sphere. They felt that young people would be more engaged in politics, and would be more likely to vote if they were able to do so at a younger age. The participants acknowledged that young people may not have as much life experience as older people, but felt that they would still be able to make informed decisions. The participants also felt that lowering the voting age would allow young people to have a say on issues that affect them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the voting age should be reduced to 16. We acknowledge that there are pros and cons to this. We think that it is important for young people to be involved in the political sphere and have their voices heard. This is because they are impacted by the decisions made by politicians and it is important that they have a say in this. We also think that 16 year olds are old enough to make informed decisions and have a good understanding of politics. However, we acknowledge that there are some 16 year olds who may not be mature enough to make good decisions and may not be fully informed. We think that the government should put more effort into educating young people about politics and voting so that they can make informed decisions. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000966.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000966.soc index 99974090..feb832a7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000966.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000966.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was against the idea of eating dogs. The group thought that the idea of eating dogs was particularly abhorrent due to the close bond that exists between humans and dogs in the UK. The group thought that dogs are very intelligent animals and that it would be wrong to kill them for food. The group thought that eating dogs is particularly cruel due to the fact that dogs are often kept in very cruel ways in countries where they are eaten. The group thought that dogs are not necessary for food as there are many other options available. In general, the group was against the idea of eating dogs. The group thought that the idea of eating dogs was particularly abhorrent due to the close bond that exists between humans and dogs in the UK. The group thought that dogs are very intelligent animals and that it would be wrong to kill them for food. The group thought that eating dogs is particularly cruel due to the fact that dogs are often kept in very cruel ways in countries where they are eaten. The group thought that dogs are not necessary for food as there are many other options available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We generally find the idea of eating dogs to be abhorrent. The reason for this is that in the UK, we generally consider dogs to be more than just pets. We consider them to be a part of the family. Dogs are intelligent creatures and so are capable of experiencing a wide range of emotions. For this reason, we feel that it is particularly wrong to kill them for food. We also believe that dogs are often cruelly treated in countries where they are eaten, for example they are often kept in tiny cages and brutalised. We also believe that dogs are not necessary for food, as there are many other food options available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a strong argument for the fact that eating any animal is wrong and this is a view which most of the group held. We feel that this is a strong argument as we feel that animals, like people, have a right to live their lives as they would want. In addition to this, the group felt that there is an argument for the fact that eating dogs in particular is wrong as they have a particularly close bond with people. The group felt that this was a particularly good argument as it meant that people have developed an even stronger bond with dogs than they have with other animals, making it even more wrong to eat them. In addition to this, the group felt that there was a strong argument for the fact that dogs are particularly intelligent animals and that it is wrong to kill any animal which is as intelligent as dogs for food. The group felt that this was a particularly strong argument as it means that people feel that dogs deserve a higher degree of respect than many other animals, making it more wrong to kill them for food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Dogs are generally seen as pets in the UK, and therefore it would be unthinkable to eat them in the UK. Dogs are seen as pets as they are highly intelligent, and capable of being affectionate and emotional, and therefore people have developed a close bond with them. In the UK, dogs are seen as very much part of the family, and to kill them for food would be seen as abhorrent and wrong. Other animals used for food, such as cows and pigs, also have strong intelligence and emotions, and can be affectionate. It is thought to be wrong to eat any animal. Animals kept for food are often kept in inhumane conditions, and treated cruelly. Some people believe it is morally wrong to eat any animal. Eating meat is not necessary as there are many alternatives to meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was against the idea of eating dogs. The group thought that the idea of eating dogs was particularly abhorrent due to the close bond that exists between humans and dogs in the UK. The group thought that dogs are very intelligent animals and that it would be wrong to kill them for food. The group thought that eating dogs is particularly cruel due to the fact that dogs are often kept in very cruel ways in countries where they are eaten. The group thought that dogs are not necessary for food as there are many other options available. In general, the group was against the idea of eating dogs. The group thought that the idea of eating dogs was particularly abhorrent due to the close bond that exists between humans and dogs in the UK. The group thought that dogs are very intelligent animals and that it would be wrong to kill them for food. The group thought that eating dogs is particularly cruel due to the fact that dogs are often kept in very cruel ways in countries where they are eaten. The group thought that dogs are not necessary for food as there are many other options available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We generally find the idea of eating dogs to be abhorrent. The reason for this is that in the UK, we generally consider dogs to be more than just pets. We consider them to be a part of the family. Dogs are intelligent creatures and so are capable of experiencing a wide range of emotions. For this reason, we feel that it is particularly wrong to kill them for food. We also believe that dogs are often cruelly treated in countries where they are eaten, for example they are often kept in tiny cages and brutalised. We also believe that dogs are not necessary for food, as there are many other food options available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a strong argument for the fact that eating any animal is wrong and this is a view which most of the group held. We feel that this is a strong argument as we feel that animals, like people, have a right to live their lives as they would want. In addition to this, the group felt that there is an argument for the fact that eating dogs in particular is wrong as they have a particularly close bond with people. The group felt that this was a particularly good argument as it meant that people have developed an even stronger bond with dogs than they have with other animals, making it even more wrong to eat them. In addition to this, the group felt that there was a strong argument for the fact that dogs are particularly intelligent animals and that it is wrong to kill any animal which is as intelligent as dogs for food. The group felt that this was a particularly strong argument as it means that people feel that dogs deserve a higher degree of respect than many other animals, making it more wrong to kill them for food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Dogs are generally seen as pets in the UK, and therefore it would be unthinkable to eat them in the UK. Dogs are seen as pets as they are highly intelligent, and capable of being affectionate and emotional, and therefore people have developed a close bond with them. In the UK, dogs are seen as very much part of the family, and to kill them for food would be seen as abhorrent and wrong. Other animals used for food, such as cows and pigs, also have strong intelligence and emotions, and can be affectionate. It is thought to be wrong to eat any animal. Animals kept for food are often kept in inhumane conditions, and treated cruelly. Some people believe it is morally wrong to eat any animal. Eating meat is not necessary as there are many alternatives to meat. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000967.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000967.soc index 9058aad8..33a87f33 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000967.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000967.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of subsidising more jobs in the construction industry. The group felt that the construction industry is a profitable industry and that the government should not be subsidising jobs in this industry. The group felt that the government money would be better spent in other areas such as health, education and training. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government subsidising more jobs in the construction industry. The group felt that the construction industry is already a very profitable industry and that the government should not be subsidising an industry that is already very successful. The group felt that the government should be spending money on helping people and training in less successful parts of the economy. The group felt that education in general would be a better place for government money to be spent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government subsidising more jobs in the construction industry. The group felt that the construction industry was already a very profitable industry and there were better ways for the government to spend their money. The group felt that the government should spend their money on helping people in less successful parts of the economy, and on education in general. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the government should subsidise more jobs in the construction industry. We feel that this is an industry that would benefit greatly from government funding. The construction industry is one of the biggest industries in the UK and employs a large number of people. If the government were to subsidise more jobs in the construction industry, more people would be employed and this would be good for the economy. If more people were employed in the construction industry, this would lead to an increase in the amount of houses being built. There is a large shortage of houses in the UK and we feel that this is something that needs to be addressed. We feel that the government should subsidise more jobs in the construction industry and that this would be beneficial for the economy and for the people of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of subsidising more jobs in the construction industry. The group felt that the construction industry is a profitable industry and that the government should not be subsidising jobs in this industry. The group felt that the government money would be better spent in other areas such as health, education and training. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government subsidising more jobs in the construction industry. The group felt that the construction industry is already a very profitable industry and that the government should not be subsidising an industry that is already very successful. The group felt that the government should be spending money on helping people and training in less successful parts of the economy. The group felt that education in general would be a better place for government money to be spent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government subsidising more jobs in the construction industry. The group felt that the construction industry was already a very profitable industry and there were better ways for the government to spend their money. The group felt that the government should spend their money on helping people in less successful parts of the economy, and on education in general. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the government should subsidise more jobs in the construction industry. We feel that this is an industry that would benefit greatly from government funding. The construction industry is one of the biggest industries in the UK and employs a large number of people. If the government were to subsidise more jobs in the construction industry, more people would be employed and this would be good for the economy. If more people were employed in the construction industry, this would lead to an increase in the amount of houses being built. There is a large shortage of houses in the UK and we feel that this is something that needs to be addressed. We feel that the government should subsidise more jobs in the construction industry and that this would be beneficial for the economy and for the people of the UK. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000968.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000968.soc index b7892c1c..505268f2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000968.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000968.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the rise of social media has had a negative impact on society. The reason for this is that it has caused people to become more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. This has led to people creating a false image of themselves on social media. This is unhealthy as people are not being true to themselves. It has also led to cyber bullying and trolling which has had a very negative impact on society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no doubt that the rise of social media has had both positive and negative effects on society. However, the negative effects have been more pronounced. This is evidenced by the rise in depression and mental health issues among young people who are heavy social media users. The rise of social media has also led to the spread of fake news, which has in turn led to the election of populist leaders such as Trump and Brexit. Social media has also led to the creation of echo chambers where people only hear views which they already agree with, leading to a polarisation of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the consensus view that the rise of social media has had a broadly negative impact on society. People have become more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". I personally think social media is awful and was basically the beginning of the end when it comes to people being true to themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the rise of social media has had a negative impact on society. The reason for this is that it has caused people to become more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. This has led to people creating a false image of themselves on social media. This is unhealthy as people are not being true to themselves. It has also led to cyber bullying and trolling which has had a very negative impact on society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no doubt that the rise of social media has had both positive and negative effects on society. However, the negative effects have been more pronounced. This is evidenced by the rise in depression and mental health issues among young people who are heavy social media users. The rise of social media has also led to the spread of fake news, which has in turn led to the election of populist leaders such as Trump and Brexit. Social media has also led to the creation of echo chambers where people only hear views which they already agree with, leading to a polarisation of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the consensus view that the rise of social media has had a broadly negative impact on society. People have become more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". I personally think social media is awful and was basically the beginning of the end when it comes to people being true to themselves. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000969.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000969.soc index 384f921c..1e7fe920 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000969.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000969.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The tax would act as a deterrent and encourage people to find alternative means of producing energy and fuel from fossil fuels. This would be better for the environment and would encourage people to use more renewable and sustainable means of energy. This would also be good for communities as the health of people would be better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should tax people more who produce more pollution. This will discourage people from producing more pollution and will encourage them to find more environmentally friendly ways of living. This will also mean that the government will make more money and can use this to invest in green technology and to promote renewable energy. This will have a positive effect on the environment and will benefit future generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should tax people more who produce more pollution. This will help to discourage pollution and encourage people to find more sustainable means of energy. We should also provide incentives to people who find more sustainable means of energy. This will help to encourage people to find solutions that are better for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The tax would act as a deterrent and encourage people to find alternative means of producing energy and fuel from fossil fuels. This would be better for the environment and would encourage people to use more renewable and sustainable means of energy. This would also be good for communities as the health of people would be better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should tax people more who produce more pollution. This will discourage people from producing more pollution and will encourage them to find more environmentally friendly ways of living. This will also mean that the government will make more money and can use this to invest in green technology and to promote renewable energy. This will have a positive effect on the environment and will benefit future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should tax people more who produce more pollution. This will help to discourage pollution and encourage people to find more sustainable means of energy. We should also provide incentives to people who find more sustainable means of energy. This will help to encourage people to find solutions that are better for the environment. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000970.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000970.soc index 71f1dbb9..8fc8dc62 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000970.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000970.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not spend less money on education and more on prisons. The government needs to invest in education, and ensure that every child in the country receives the best education possible. This will ensure that the country has a strong future workforce, and that people have the skills needed to get a good job. It will also mean that people are less likely to find themselves in a situation where they commit a crime and end up in prison. Whilst prisons need to be maintained and the staff need to be paid, this should not be done at the expense of the education system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not spend less money on education and more on prisons. Education is a fundamental right for everybody and should be treated as such. Prisons should not be treated as a holiday camp, but people who commit crimes should not be treated inhumanely either. People in prison should be given the opportunity to work and contribute to society, and the money they earn should be spent on improving their own facilities. This is a win-win situation for everybody. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of more money being spent on education. Education is important for all members of society and can help to reduce the number of people who end up in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that there are certain situations where the prison system is in need of reform and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not spend less money on education and more on prisons. Education is a fundamental right for all and is something that all people need. Spending less money on education would lead to a poorer quality of education for all, which would have negative consequences for the future of the country. People in prison have been put there for a reason, and so their basic needs should be provided for, but prisons should not be places of comfort. Education is the key to a brighter future for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not spend less money on education and more on prisons. The government needs to invest in education, and ensure that every child in the country receives the best education possible. This will ensure that the country has a strong future workforce, and that people have the skills needed to get a good job. It will also mean that people are less likely to find themselves in a situation where they commit a crime and end up in prison. Whilst prisons need to be maintained and the staff need to be paid, this should not be done at the expense of the education system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not spend less money on education and more on prisons. Education is a fundamental right for everybody and should be treated as such. Prisons should not be treated as a holiday camp, but people who commit crimes should not be treated inhumanely either. People in prison should be given the opportunity to work and contribute to society, and the money they earn should be spent on improving their own facilities. This is a win-win situation for everybody. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of more money being spent on education. Education is important for all members of society and can help to reduce the number of people who end up in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that there are certain situations where the prison system is in need of reform and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not spend less money on education and more on prisons. Education is a fundamental right for all and is something that all people need. Spending less money on education would lead to a poorer quality of education for all, which would have negative consequences for the future of the country. People in prison have been put there for a reason, and so their basic needs should be provided for, but prisons should not be places of comfort. Education is the key to a brighter future for all. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000971.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000971.soc index 1f1c99c7..7f0c428e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000971.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000971.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although there are certain situations where it is necessary to spend more money on prisons, overall the group was in favour of more money being spent on education. Education is important for all members of society and can help to reduce the number of people who end up in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that there are certain situations where the prison system is in need of reform and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group in general felt that more money should be spent on education. It is important for all members of society to have a good education and it can help to reduce crime and therefore the number of people in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that the prison system can become inefficient due to overcrowding and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons to improve the system. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants were in general in favour of more money being spent on education. Education is important for all members of society and can help to reduce the number of people who end up in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that there are certain situations where the prison system is in need of reform and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The general view of the group was that in general, more money should be spent on education. Education is important for all members of society and can help to reduce the number of people who end up in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that there are certain situations where the prison system is in need of reform and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although there are certain situations where it is necessary to spend more money on prisons, overall the group was in favour of more money being spent on education. Education is important for all members of society and can help to reduce the number of people who end up in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that there are certain situations where the prison system is in need of reform and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group in general felt that more money should be spent on education. It is important for all members of society to have a good education and it can help to reduce crime and therefore the number of people in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that the prison system can become inefficient due to overcrowding and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons to improve the system. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants were in general in favour of more money being spent on education. Education is important for all members of society and can help to reduce the number of people who end up in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that there are certain situations where the prison system is in need of reform and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The general view of the group was that in general, more money should be spent on education. Education is important for all members of society and can help to reduce the number of people who end up in prison. However, the group also acknowledged that there are certain situations where the prison system is in need of reform and that in these situations, it is necessary to spend more money on prisons. The group felt that the money spent on prisons should be used to ensure that the prison system is humane and rehabilitating, and that it should not be used to create a luxurious environment for prisoners. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000972.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000972.soc index 360304ec..656aab98 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000972.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000972.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups, and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". It has also led to a very weird change in society. one of these changes is transgenderism becoming a social contagion whereby people now claim to be a different gender for obvious attention and to cause a reaction. not only is this very boring it also makes a mockery of people genuinely struggling with gender dysphoria. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". However, with proper measures in place, social media will soon have a net positive impact on society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups, and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". It has also led to a very weird change in society. one of these changes is transgenderism becoming a social contagion whereby people now claim to be a different gender for obvious attention and to cause a reaction. not only is this very boring it also makes a mockery of people genuinely struggling with gender dysphoria. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". However, with proper measures in place, social media will soon have a net positive impact on society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social media has had both positive and negative impacts on society. The benefits of social media are that it makes it easier for people to connect with each other. This can be used for pre-existing groups and for new groups which can only be established through social media. The negative aspects of social media are that it has created an environment where people are more focused on being seen as popular or interesting as opposed to being genuine. Social media creates unwanted pressures on teenagers and children and has also caused a massive rise in "cyber bullying". 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000973.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000973.soc index 747a5995..293189d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000973.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000973.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Religious schools should not receive public funding. We believe that it is the responsibility of parents to pay for their children's education, and that the government should not be funding religious schools. The government has a responsibility to ensure that all children receive a good education, but this can be done through the state schools that are already in place. Religious schools can be funded by the parents of the children who attend. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No religious school should receive public funding. It would be unfair to fund some religions and not others. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of public funding of religious schools. However, the group did recognise that some schools may be better suited to providing an education to students than the state, and so in these cases, public funding may be necessary to ensure that all students are receiving the best education possible. The group also felt that it was important that all students are able to mix with students of different religions and backgrounds, and so funding should only be provided to schools that are able to provide this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No religious school should receive public funding. Some schools may have extremist views and these should not be supported by public money. The funding could be a lot better used elsewhere. If the students really want to attend a religious school, they should be willing to help support it themselves. It would be far too expensive to fund all religious schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Religious schools should not receive public funding. We believe that it is the responsibility of parents to pay for their children's education, and that the government should not be funding religious schools. The government has a responsibility to ensure that all children receive a good education, but this can be done through the state schools that are already in place. Religious schools can be funded by the parents of the children who attend. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No religious school should receive public funding. It would be unfair to fund some religions and not others. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of public funding of religious schools. However, the group did recognise that some schools may be better suited to providing an education to students than the state, and so in these cases, public funding may be necessary to ensure that all students are receiving the best education possible. The group also felt that it was important that all students are able to mix with students of different religions and backgrounds, and so funding should only be provided to schools that are able to provide this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No religious school should receive public funding. Some schools may have extremist views and these should not be supported by public money. The funding could be a lot better used elsewhere. If the students really want to attend a religious school, they should be willing to help support it themselves. It would be far too expensive to fund all religious schools. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000974.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000974.soc index ea445441..2f3d49cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000974.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000974.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. The increase in tax would force large corporations and businesses to cut down on the amount of pollution they produce, forcing them to find solutions which are better for the environment and more sustainable. This would not only help to protect the environment but also human health, as many types of pollution can cause serious health problems. We would also be setting an example for future generations to follow. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. The issue of pollution is very real and it is very much in the public interest to do something about this issue. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. We should do this in order to help stop the damage which is being done to the planet and in order to find more sustainable and renewable means of energy. This will hopefully stop the environmental damage which is being done to the planet and in the future, may help to restore and repair some of the damage which has already been done. The environment is being damaged beyond repair and this needs to be stopped. We need to take action and need to tax people more who produce more pollution in order to help stop the environmental damage and to help us to find more sustainable means of energy and fuel for our cars and homes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. This would help to protect the environment for future generations to come. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. The increase in tax would force large corporations and businesses to cut down on the amount of pollution they produce, forcing them to find solutions which are better for the environment and more sustainable. This would not only help to protect the environment but also human health, as many types of pollution can cause serious health problems. We would also be setting an example for future generations to follow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. The issue of pollution is very real and it is very much in the public interest to do something about this issue. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. We should do this in order to help stop the damage which is being done to the planet and in order to find more sustainable and renewable means of energy. This will hopefully stop the environmental damage which is being done to the planet and in the future, may help to restore and repair some of the damage which has already been done. The environment is being damaged beyond repair and this needs to be stopped. We need to take action and need to tax people more who produce more pollution in order to help stop the environmental damage and to help us to find more sustainable means of energy and fuel for our cars and homes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should tax people more who produce more pollution. The issue of pollution is a very real and pressing issue in the world today. Governments and people around the world are starting to realise the damage which is being done to the planet. The planet is in danger of being irreparably damaged. Therefore, we should tax people more who produce more pollution in order to discourage them from polluting the environment and to encourage them to find ways to cut down on pollution and to find more sustainable means of energy. This would help to protect the environment for future generations to come. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000975.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000975.soc index d956da94..1ea0eb66 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000975.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000975.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Electronic devices should be allowed to be used on planes. They should be used in a respectful manner, such as using headphones, and not be used to view inappropriate material. This is because they are a good way to pass the time and can be used for entertainment purposes. However, the use of electronic devices on planes should be restricted during take off and landing, as this is when they are most likely to interfere with the aircraft's operating systems. This could result in the plane crashing and the death of all crew and passengers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of electronic devices on planes should be permitted, as long as they do not interfere with the aircraft's operating systems. However, this is dependent on the aircraft and its systems, and some older planes may not be able to accommodate the use of electronic devices. Therefore, it is recommended that airlines clearly communicate the policy on the use of electronic devices to passengers before they board the plane. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of electronic devices on planes should be allowed. If there is a risk of interference with the aircraft's operating systems, then this should be explained to the passengers and they should be asked to switch off their devices during take off and landing. If there is no risk of interference, then the use of electronic devices should be allowed at all times. If a device is used in a way that is inappropriate or causes a nuisance to other passengers, then the airline should have the right to ask the passenger to stop using the device. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Electronic devices should be allowed on planes, provided that they do not interfere with the plane's operating systems. The group felt that people should be allowed to use electronic devices on planes as long as they do not affect the safety of other passengers or the aircraft itself. The group felt that it is reasonable to use electronic devices on planes, provided that they do not interfere with the plane's operating systems. The group felt that electronic devices can help pass the time and are a good way to entertain yourself during a boring journey. The group felt that provided people use headphones and view only appropriate material, they are a reasonable way to pass the time. The group felt that the only time you are not able to fully use electronic equipment on a plane is during take off and landing. The group felt that at all other times there is no restriction on the use of these devices and most airlines even provide a charging point and access to WiFi when in flight. The group felt that there is no mobile/data signal anyway so by putting your device on flight mode you are not being penalized - would you rather not take off and land safely than take the risk of interference with the aircraft operation (whether that is a myth or not). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Electronic devices should be allowed to be used on planes. They should be used in a respectful manner, such as using headphones, and not be used to view inappropriate material. This is because they are a good way to pass the time and can be used for entertainment purposes. However, the use of electronic devices on planes should be restricted during take off and landing, as this is when they are most likely to interfere with the aircraft's operating systems. This could result in the plane crashing and the death of all crew and passengers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of electronic devices on planes should be permitted, as long as they do not interfere with the aircraft's operating systems. However, this is dependent on the aircraft and its systems, and some older planes may not be able to accommodate the use of electronic devices. Therefore, it is recommended that airlines clearly communicate the policy on the use of electronic devices to passengers before they board the plane. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of electronic devices on planes should be allowed. If there is a risk of interference with the aircraft's operating systems, then this should be explained to the passengers and they should be asked to switch off their devices during take off and landing. If there is no risk of interference, then the use of electronic devices should be allowed at all times. If a device is used in a way that is inappropriate or causes a nuisance to other passengers, then the airline should have the right to ask the passenger to stop using the device. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Electronic devices should be allowed on planes, provided that they do not interfere with the plane's operating systems. The group felt that people should be allowed to use electronic devices on planes as long as they do not affect the safety of other passengers or the aircraft itself. The group felt that it is reasonable to use electronic devices on planes, provided that they do not interfere with the plane's operating systems. The group felt that electronic devices can help pass the time and are a good way to entertain yourself during a boring journey. The group felt that provided people use headphones and view only appropriate material, they are a reasonable way to pass the time. The group felt that the only time you are not able to fully use electronic equipment on a plane is during take off and landing. The group felt that at all other times there is no restriction on the use of these devices and most airlines even provide a charging point and access to WiFi when in flight. The group felt that there is no mobile/data signal anyway so by putting your device on flight mode you are not being penalized - would you rather not take off and land safely than take the risk of interference with the aircraft operation (whether that is a myth or not). 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000976.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000976.soc index f00c6fe2..d5b5b06b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000976.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000976.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should spend more money on renewable energy research. We live in a time where climate change is a real threat. The weather is becoming more and more extreme with every season. The UK has the potential to generate a large amount of its energy from renewable sources. The government should invest more in this area to reduce the countries carbon footprint and make the country more energy independent. The UK is also a leader in the renewable energy field and the government should continue to invest in this area to ensure that the UK remains a leader in this field. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government should spend more money on renewable energy research. The climate change is real and we are in a very big danger. We can see that the weather is changing and becoming more and more extreme with every season. More funds need to be spend on research. The UK as a country is quite vulnerable to the effects of global warming. It is important that the UK government continues to invest heavily on renewable energy research and it is important to ensure that the approach of investing is in a targeted way. The benefits of investing properly in renewable energy research within the UK could be massive. The ability for the UK to effectively implement renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydro is excellent due to the terrain, weather and landscape available. The benefits such as lower carbon emissions and new economic opportunities far outweigh the initial costs in the long run. Some may argue there are pressing concerns which require investment, but for long term issues, renewable energy dependence is important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that the UK government should spend more money on renewable energy research. The reason for this is because it is important for the UK to invest in the future and to move forward. The current methods of energy production are not sustainable and are damaging the environment. We feel that by investing in renewable energy research, we can reduce the effects of climate change and also create new economic opportunities. The benefits of such an investment are huge and outweigh the initial costs. We also feel that by investing in renewable energy, the UK can become a leader in this area and can be a role model for other countries to follow. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK government should spend more money on renewable energy research. The UK is in a very vulnerable position to the effects of global warming and is at risk of flooding and extreme weather conditions. The government should invest in research that is targeted and ensures that the UK is not at risk of these threats. The UK has excellent potential to implement renewable energy sources due to the weather and landscape. The benefits of investing in renewable energy research would be to protect the UK from the effects of global warming and to reduce carbon emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should spend more money on renewable energy research. We live in a time where climate change is a real threat. The weather is becoming more and more extreme with every season. The UK has the potential to generate a large amount of its energy from renewable sources. The government should invest more in this area to reduce the countries carbon footprint and make the country more energy independent. The UK is also a leader in the renewable energy field and the government should continue to invest in this area to ensure that the UK remains a leader in this field. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government should spend more money on renewable energy research. The climate change is real and we are in a very big danger. We can see that the weather is changing and becoming more and more extreme with every season. More funds need to be spend on research. The UK as a country is quite vulnerable to the effects of global warming. It is important that the UK government continues to invest heavily on renewable energy research and it is important to ensure that the approach of investing is in a targeted way. The benefits of investing properly in renewable energy research within the UK could be massive. The ability for the UK to effectively implement renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydro is excellent due to the terrain, weather and landscape available. The benefits such as lower carbon emissions and new economic opportunities far outweigh the initial costs in the long run. Some may argue there are pressing concerns which require investment, but for long term issues, renewable energy dependence is important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK government should spend more money on renewable energy research. The reason for this is because it is important for the UK to invest in the future and to move forward. The current methods of energy production are not sustainable and are damaging the environment. We feel that by investing in renewable energy research, we can reduce the effects of climate change and also create new economic opportunities. The benefits of such an investment are huge and outweigh the initial costs. We also feel that by investing in renewable energy, the UK can become a leader in this area and can be a role model for other countries to follow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK government should spend more money on renewable energy research. The UK is in a very vulnerable position to the effects of global warming and is at risk of flooding and extreme weather conditions. The government should invest in research that is targeted and ensures that the UK is not at risk of these threats. The UK has excellent potential to implement renewable energy sources due to the weather and landscape. The benefits of investing in renewable energy research would be to protect the UK from the effects of global warming and to reduce carbon emissions. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000977.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000977.soc index 430ffbe5..38d665d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000977.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000977.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The UK government should invest more in making renewable energy cheaper. This will help the UK to reduce its carbon emissions and become more self-sufficient in energy production. It will also help to reduce the cost of living for many families, making it more affordable for them to use renewable energy. This is something that is very important to the future of our planet and should be made a priority.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The UK government should invest more in making renewable energy cheaper. This would help to make renewable energy a more viable option for people to choose, and would also help to reduce the amount of damage that is done to the environment. It would also help to make the UK more independent in terms of energy production, and would help to ensure that the UK is not dependent on any other countries to provide energy.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the UK government investing more in making renewable energy cheaper. This would be a great way to make renewable energy sources more accessible to the public. It would also be a step towards a cleaner, greener future. The group agreed that the UK government should take responsibility for their past mistakes and invest in making renewable energy cheaper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK government should invest more in making renewable energy cheaper. This would make it more accessible to the public, and would also reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. This would be good for the environment and would reduce the harmful emissions that are released into the atmosphere. It would also make the UK more independent from other countries and would reduce the cost of living for families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The UK government should invest more in making renewable energy cheaper. This will help the UK to reduce its carbon emissions and become more self-sufficient in energy production. It will also help to reduce the cost of living for many families, making it more affordable for them to use renewable energy. This is something that is very important to the future of our planet and should be made a priority.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The UK government should invest more in making renewable energy cheaper. This would help to make renewable energy a more viable option for people to choose, and would also help to reduce the amount of damage that is done to the environment. It would also help to make the UK more independent in terms of energy production, and would help to ensure that the UK is not dependent on any other countries to provide energy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK government investing more in making renewable energy cheaper. This would be a great way to make renewable energy sources more accessible to the public. It would also be a step towards a cleaner, greener future. The group agreed that the UK government should take responsibility for their past mistakes and invest in making renewable energy cheaper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK government should invest more in making renewable energy cheaper. This would make it more accessible to the public, and would also reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. This would be good for the environment and would reduce the harmful emissions that are released into the atmosphere. It would also make the UK more independent from other countries and would reduce the cost of living for families. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000978.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000978.soc index 517fb571..285aa71c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000978.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000978.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK is doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change. However, the UK can only do so much alone, reducing the effects of climate change requires all countries to work together to make any sizeable impact. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the UK leaving the European Union, the extent of the countries' impacts do not go as far as they perhaps aim to at the policy creation stage, therefore limiting the implementation of such provisions. Therefore, in order to be doing enough, the UK perhaps needs to stop looking inwardly and start reaching out internationally to form relationships with countries whom together they can make real change and impact. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is the most existential challenge facing the population of the word at the moment, and therefore finding ways to tackle this is absolutely essential for numerous future generations of people, and animals. Much of the damage that has been caused, has been post-industrial revolution, which is almost 200 years ago now, and the damage has been ramping up since then, with the extraction of fossil fuels and the over-reliance on the internal combustion engine. I'm not suggesting we abandon technology, but we must urgently update our way of thinking, and begin to repair the damage we have done to our ecosystem, because without a healthy ecosystem, mankind cannot survive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the United Kingdom is doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change. There are many policies in place, and many being created to reduce the effects of climate change, but the UK can only do so much alone. This is because climate change is a global issue, and therefore requires global solutions. However, the UK can lead the way in reducing the effects of climate change, and in doing so can encourage other countries to follow suit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK is doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change. However, the UK can only do so much alone, reducing the effects of climate change requires all countries to work together to make any sizeable impact. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the UK leaving the European Union, the extent of the countries' impacts do not go as far as they perhaps aim to at the policy creation stage, therefore limiting the implementation of such provisions. Therefore, in order to be doing enough, the UK perhaps needs to stop looking inwardly and start reaching out internationally to form relationships with countries whom together they can make real change and impact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is the most existential challenge facing the population of the word at the moment, and therefore finding ways to tackle this is absolutely essential for numerous future generations of people, and animals. Much of the damage that has been caused, has been post-industrial revolution, which is almost 200 years ago now, and the damage has been ramping up since then, with the extraction of fossil fuels and the over-reliance on the internal combustion engine. I'm not suggesting we abandon technology, but we must urgently update our way of thinking, and begin to repair the damage we have done to our ecosystem, because without a healthy ecosystem, mankind cannot survive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the United Kingdom is doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change. There are many policies in place, and many being created to reduce the effects of climate change, but the UK can only do so much alone. This is because climate change is a global issue, and therefore requires global solutions. However, the UK can lead the way in reducing the effects of climate change, and in doing so can encourage other countries to follow suit. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000979.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000979.soc index 4ae299a1..388844fc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000979.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000979.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No religious school should receive public funding. It would be unfair to fund some religions and not others. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. This is because some religious schools may have extremist views, which could be harmful to young children. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No religious school should receive public funding. It would be unfair to fund some religions and not others. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. This will help them to be more accepting of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No religious school should receive public funding. It is unfair to fund some religions and not others. There is also a risk of some schools having extremist views which could influence young children. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No religious school should receive public funding. It would be unfair to fund some religions and not others. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. The funding could be a lot better used elsewhere. If the students really want to attend a religious school, they should be willing to help support it themselves. It would be far too expensive to fund all religious schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No religious school should receive public funding. It would be unfair to fund some religions and not others. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. This is because some religious schools may have extremist views, which could be harmful to young children. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No religious school should receive public funding. It would be unfair to fund some religions and not others. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. This will help them to be more accepting of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No religious school should receive public funding. It is unfair to fund some religions and not others. There is also a risk of some schools having extremist views which could influence young children. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No religious school should receive public funding. It would be unfair to fund some religions and not others. The public money could be better spent on improving the quality of education in state schools. It is also important that children are not separated into different schools according to their religion, and that they are able to mix with people from different backgrounds. The funding could be a lot better used elsewhere. If the students really want to attend a religious school, they should be willing to help support it themselves. It would be far too expensive to fund all religious schools. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000980.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000980.soc index dbad1da1..e4f23c71 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000980.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000980.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a monarchy, however, the current system needs to be changed. The monarch should be ceremonial, and not have any administrative power. The monarch should be held accountable for their actions, and be subject to the law. The current system is outdated and unfair, and the money used to support the monarchy could be better used. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK would be better off with a president, rather than the monarchy. The monarchy is a toxic, outdated system of privilege, unearned power, racism and they are a drain on tax payer money. If there wasn't a monarchy then the money that is going to support them could go to better use to support the UKs economy and people. If there was a president then they could be held accountable for their actions, something which is not done to an appropriate level with the monarchy. The UK would be better off with a president, rather than the monarchy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK would be better off with a monarchy, rather than a President. A monarchy gives the country something to unite behind and provides a sense of tradition that other countries envy. However, the monarchy should not be too powerful and the royal family should not have too much of a say in the running of the country. The royal family should be ceremonial leaders, while the Prime Minister and Parliament should be responsible for the running of the country. The royal family and the Prime Minister should regulate each other, so that neither becomes too powerful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a monarchy, however, the current system needs to be changed. The monarch should be ceremonial, and not have any administrative power. The monarch should be held accountable for their actions, and be subject to the law. The current system is outdated and unfair, and the money used to support the monarchy could be better used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK would be better off with a president, rather than the monarchy. The monarchy is a toxic, outdated system of privilege, unearned power, racism and they are a drain on tax payer money. If there wasn't a monarchy then the money that is going to support them could go to better use to support the UKs economy and people. If there was a president then they could be held accountable for their actions, something which is not done to an appropriate level with the monarchy. The UK would be better off with a president, rather than the monarchy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK would be better off with a monarchy, rather than a President. A monarchy gives the country something to unite behind and provides a sense of tradition that other countries envy. However, the monarchy should not be too powerful and the royal family should not have too much of a say in the running of the country. The royal family should be ceremonial leaders, while the Prime Minister and Parliament should be responsible for the running of the country. The royal family and the Prime Minister should regulate each other, so that neither becomes too powerful. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000981.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000981.soc index 6c75430f..6c5c6cf4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000981.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000981.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universal basic income is a good idea. In an affluent society such as the UK it can be funded and will allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. Less materialistic people may well be satisfied with the basics and devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Universal Basic Income is a good idea because it would allow people to have access to the basics needed to survive and live a good life. This would help many people who are struggling to survive. It would also help reduce the amount of people using food banks. It would also be a good idea because it would help people who are struggling to find a job, and it would allow them to have access to the basics needed to survive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Universal Basic Income is a good idea, as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would definitely be handy. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. In an affluent society such as the UK it can be funded and will allow people struggling through no fault f their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. Less materialistic people may well be satisfied with the basics and devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the universal basic income is a good idea as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would definitely be handy. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault f their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universal basic income is a good idea. In an affluent society such as the UK it can be funded and will allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. Less materialistic people may well be satisfied with the basics and devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea because it would allow people to have access to the basics needed to survive and live a good life. This would help many people who are struggling to survive. It would also help reduce the amount of people using food banks. It would also be a good idea because it would help people who are struggling to find a job, and it would allow them to have access to the basics needed to survive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea, as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would definitely be handy. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. In an affluent society such as the UK it can be funded and will allow people struggling through no fault f their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. Less materialistic people may well be satisfied with the basics and devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the universal basic income is a good idea as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would definitely be handy. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault f their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000982.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000982.soc index fca37550..93b1d3bc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000982.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000982.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A carbon tax is a good way to reduce carbon emissions and promote the transition into renewable energy. It is important that the proceeds from carbon tax are used for the right purposes. It is also important to ensure that this tax is affordable, possibly make it a tax on companies not individuals. This is to ensure that people are not put at a disadvantage by the tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A carbon tax is a good way to reduce carbon emissions and promote the transition into renewable energy. But it is important that the proceeds from carbon tax are used for the right purposes. It is also important to ensure that this tax is affordable, possibly make it a tax on companies not individuals. And reduce other taxes such as National insurance or poll tax to offset this and then no one would be worse off. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that a carbon tax is a good way to reduce carbon emissions and promote the transition into renewable energy. However, the proceeds from carbon tax should be used to alleviate the cost of tax on the citizens. Also, the tax should be affordable, possibly make it a tax on companies not individuals. This would encourage citizens to support and participate in transition to renewable energy, without increasing the costs for low-income families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A carbon tax is a good way to reduce carbon emissions and promote the transition into renewable energy. But it is important that the proceeds from carbon tax are used for the right purposes. It is also important to ensure that this tax is affordable, possibly make it a tax on companies not individuals. It is also important to note that there is a possibility of the carbon tax leading to some companies moving away to countries where they won't be carbon taxed so production stays cheap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A carbon tax is a good way to reduce carbon emissions and promote the transition into renewable energy. It is important that the proceeds from carbon tax are used for the right purposes. It is also important to ensure that this tax is affordable, possibly make it a tax on companies not individuals. This is to ensure that people are not put at a disadvantage by the tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A carbon tax is a good way to reduce carbon emissions and promote the transition into renewable energy. But it is important that the proceeds from carbon tax are used for the right purposes. It is also important to ensure that this tax is affordable, possibly make it a tax on companies not individuals. And reduce other taxes such as National insurance or poll tax to offset this and then no one would be worse off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that a carbon tax is a good way to reduce carbon emissions and promote the transition into renewable energy. However, the proceeds from carbon tax should be used to alleviate the cost of tax on the citizens. Also, the tax should be affordable, possibly make it a tax on companies not individuals. This would encourage citizens to support and participate in transition to renewable energy, without increasing the costs for low-income families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A carbon tax is a good way to reduce carbon emissions and promote the transition into renewable energy. But it is important that the proceeds from carbon tax are used for the right purposes. It is also important to ensure that this tax is affordable, possibly make it a tax on companies not individuals. It is also important to note that there is a possibility of the carbon tax leading to some companies moving away to countries where they won't be carbon taxed so production stays cheap. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000983.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000983.soc index c5b42277..a68b2d9c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000983.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000983.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of investing more in nuclear energy. This is because nuclear energy is a large source of energy and it is an alternative to fossil fuels. The group was also of the opinion that investing more in nuclear energy would create more jobs in the UK and also put the UK ahead of other countries when it comes to nuclear research. However, the group was also of the opinion that there are environmental challenges that are posed by investing in nuclear energy and there are other more sustainable options that the UK could invest in which would lead to a better outcome. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of investing more in nuclear energy. It was argued that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy, and the UK is already heavily reliant on it. It was also argued that nuclear energy is a very reliable source of energy and it is also very cheap to produce. The group also argued that investing more in nuclear energy would create more jobs and it would also put the UK ahead of other countries when it comes to nuclear research. However, it was also argued that investing more in nuclear energy would lead to more radioactive waste which would be harmful and dangerous to deal with. The group also argued that investing more in nuclear energy would lead to more accidents and disasters, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. The group also argued that there are other more sustainable options that the UK could invest in which would lead to a better outcome. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of investing in nuclear energy, but with the caveat that it should be done in a responsible way. The group felt that it was necessary to invest in nuclear energy because of the current reliance on fossil fuels, and because it is a reliable source of energy. It was also felt that nuclear energy is a cleaner source of energy, and therefore could help to combat climate change. However, it was also felt that there are environmental challenges posed by nuclear energy, and that it is important to invest in renewable energy as well. The group felt that there is a need to find a balance between the two, and that it is important to invest in nuclear energy in a responsible way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the UK investing more in nuclear energy. The group thought that it was a reliable source of energy that could help the UK reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The group also thought that nuclear energy was a good way to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere and help tackle climate change. However, the group thought that there were some issues with nuclear energy. These included the production of radioactive waste which is dangerous and harmful to deal with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of investing more in nuclear energy. This is because nuclear energy is a large source of energy and it is an alternative to fossil fuels. The group was also of the opinion that investing more in nuclear energy would create more jobs in the UK and also put the UK ahead of other countries when it comes to nuclear research. However, the group was also of the opinion that there are environmental challenges that are posed by investing in nuclear energy and there are other more sustainable options that the UK could invest in which would lead to a better outcome. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of investing more in nuclear energy. It was argued that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy, and the UK is already heavily reliant on it. It was also argued that nuclear energy is a very reliable source of energy and it is also very cheap to produce. The group also argued that investing more in nuclear energy would create more jobs and it would also put the UK ahead of other countries when it comes to nuclear research. However, it was also argued that investing more in nuclear energy would lead to more radioactive waste which would be harmful and dangerous to deal with. The group also argued that investing more in nuclear energy would lead to more accidents and disasters, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. The group also argued that there are other more sustainable options that the UK could invest in which would lead to a better outcome. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of investing in nuclear energy, but with the caveat that it should be done in a responsible way. The group felt that it was necessary to invest in nuclear energy because of the current reliance on fossil fuels, and because it is a reliable source of energy. It was also felt that nuclear energy is a cleaner source of energy, and therefore could help to combat climate change. However, it was also felt that there are environmental challenges posed by nuclear energy, and that it is important to invest in renewable energy as well. The group felt that there is a need to find a balance between the two, and that it is important to invest in nuclear energy in a responsible way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK investing more in nuclear energy. The group thought that it was a reliable source of energy that could help the UK reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The group also thought that nuclear energy was a good way to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere and help tackle climate change. However, the group thought that there were some issues with nuclear energy. These included the production of radioactive waste which is dangerous and harmful to deal with. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000984.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000984.soc index 5e472d77..3c4f7dab 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000984.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000984.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of restricting the number of people entering the UK from other countries. This is because of the strain that is put on public services such as the NHS and also the housing crisis that is currently affecting the UK. However, the group was also in favour of allowing people from third world countries to come to the UK as the UK is a very developed country with many opportunities for people to live a good life. The group was also in favour of allowing people to come to the UK to escape violence in their home countries. The group also discussed the issue of illegal immigrants coming to the UK and the group was in favour of allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the UK if they have been here for a long time and have contributed to the UK in a positive way. The group also discussed the issue of Brexit and the group was in favour of allowing people from the EU to continue to come to the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of restricting the number of people that can enter the UK from other countries. The main reasons for this were that the country is already overcrowded, that it would help reduce crime rates, and that it would help the NHS cope better. However, the group also recognised that there are benefits to having migrants in the UK, such as the fact that they are often willing to work in industries that many British people are not. The group also recognised that it is more ethical to allow people to shelter from violence within their home countries. The group was therefore in favour of having some sort of limit, but not an absolute ban. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of restricting the number of people entering the UK from other countries. The group felt that this would help to alleviate the strain on public services and help to ensure that everyone in the UK has a good quality of life. However, the group also felt that it was important to allow people to enter the UK from countries that are experiencing violence and conflict. The group felt that this would be more ethical and would also help to improve the UK's image as a country that is willing to help those in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of restricting the number of people entering the UK from other countries. This is because of the strain that is put on public services such as the NHS and also the housing crisis that is currently affecting the UK. However, the group was also in favour of allowing people from third world countries to come to the UK as the UK is a very developed country with many opportunities for people to live a good life. The group was also in favour of allowing people to come to the UK to escape violence in their home countries. The group also discussed the issue of illegal immigrants coming to the UK and the group was in favour of allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the UK if they have been here for a long time and have contributed to the UK in a positive way. The group also discussed the issue of Brexit and the group was in favour of allowing people from the EU to continue to come to the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of restricting the number of people that can enter the UK from other countries. The main reasons for this were that the country is already overcrowded, that it would help reduce crime rates, and that it would help the NHS cope better. However, the group also recognised that there are benefits to having migrants in the UK, such as the fact that they are often willing to work in industries that many British people are not. The group also recognised that it is more ethical to allow people to shelter from violence within their home countries. The group was therefore in favour of having some sort of limit, but not an absolute ban. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of restricting the number of people entering the UK from other countries. The group felt that this would help to alleviate the strain on public services and help to ensure that everyone in the UK has a good quality of life. However, the group also felt that it was important to allow people to enter the UK from countries that are experiencing violence and conflict. The group felt that this would be more ethical and would also help to improve the UK's image as a country that is willing to help those in need. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000985.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000985.soc index 1b79b754..7088c793 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000985.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000985.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. If the UK doesnt begin to acknowledge the detrimental effects of climate change on the world, and not just on our own country, it may become too late to reverse the damage, as the effects may become irreversible. This can then have catastrophic consequences for many generations to come. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. We need to work alongside other countries to help reduce climate change as its a collaborative issue which affects all the countries in the wolrl. Also, they need to hold large corporations accountable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. However, the UK should also focus on working together with other countries as well to combat this issue as it is a global problem, affecting the entire world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. The UK needs to work alongside other countries to help reduce climate change as its a collaborative issue which affects all the countries in the wolrl. Also, they need to hold large corporations accountable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. If the UK doesnt begin to acknowledge the detrimental effects of climate change on the world, and not just on our own country, it may become too late to reverse the damage, as the effects may become irreversible. This can then have catastrophic consequences for many generations to come. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. We need to work alongside other countries to help reduce climate change as its a collaborative issue which affects all the countries in the wolrl. Also, they need to hold large corporations accountable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. However, the UK should also focus on working together with other countries as well to combat this issue as it is a global problem, affecting the entire world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Climate change is a very serious issue and will have really bad effects in the future. There isnt enough information being spread around and we are still extremely reliant on fossil fuels. The uk should be focusing more on renewable energy and putting in policies to reduce climate change and our carbon footprint. There will be really extreme consequences otherwise. The UK needs to work alongside other countries to help reduce climate change as its a collaborative issue which affects all the countries in the wolrl. Also, they need to hold large corporations accountable. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000986.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000986.soc index f5b382bd..785ee1fb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000986.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000986.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. The group felt that a balance needs to be struck between monarch and government. Monarchs should not be involved in the running of the country, but they should not be barred from having their own political views. In this way, the UK would be better off if it had a monarchy rather than a president. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. The group felt that the royal family should stay out of administrative duties, and focus only on ceremonial duties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. However, the group also agreed that the royal family should be less involved in the day-to-day running of the country. The group felt that this would remove some of the power from the royal family, and would allow the monarchy to become more democratic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. The group felt that a balance needs to be struck between monarch and government. Monarchs should not be involved in the running of the country, but they should not be barred from having their own political views. In this way, the UK would be better off if it had a monarchy rather than a president. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. The group felt that the royal family should stay out of administrative duties, and focus only on ceremonial duties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a monarchy, with a few dissenters. The majority of the group felt that the UK is better off with a monarchy than with a president. This is because the UK has a long history of monarchy and it would be a shame to lose this tradition. A monarchy is a symbol of national pride and unity, whereas a president would be just another politician. However, the group did agree that the monarchy should be reformed, and that the royal family should not receive so much money from the taxpayer. The group felt that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their activities. The group also felt that the royal family should be more involved in charitable activities and in promoting the UK abroad. However, the group also agreed that the royal family should be less involved in the day-to-day running of the country. The group felt that this would remove some of the power from the royal family, and would allow the monarchy to become more democratic. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000987.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000987.soc index 6c66509f..53e59b3c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000987.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000987.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, we do not believe that a sugar tax is a good idea. The tax will not be a good solution to the obesity problem as it will only affect the price of unhealthy foods. The tax will not make healthier foods cheaper, therefore, people who are trying to eat healthily will still be paying the same price for food as before. The tax will also disproportionately affect low-income earners who rely on sugary foods as they are more affordable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While we should encourage healthier eating, we do not think that a sugar tax is the way to do it. The tax would more likely not be invested into the right areas and would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. We believe that other ways to encourage healthy eating should be looked into. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a sugar tax is a good idea as it can help reduce obesity and related health problems. However, we also believe that the tax could be unfair to low-income earners who mostly rely on sugary food because they are more affordable. Therefore, we believe that the tax should be used to fund other sectors like education, healthcare and to reduce other taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Though a sugar tax could help reduce obesity rates, it is not a long term solution and could cause problems for low-income earners who are more reliant on these types of food. The money raised from the tax should be used to fund programs that encourage healthier eating and exercise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, we do not believe that a sugar tax is a good idea. The tax will not be a good solution to the obesity problem as it will only affect the price of unhealthy foods. The tax will not make healthier foods cheaper, therefore, people who are trying to eat healthily will still be paying the same price for food as before. The tax will also disproportionately affect low-income earners who rely on sugary foods as they are more affordable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While we should encourage healthier eating, we do not think that a sugar tax is the way to do it. The tax would more likely not be invested into the right areas and would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. We believe that other ways to encourage healthy eating should be looked into. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a sugar tax is a good idea as it can help reduce obesity and related health problems. However, we also believe that the tax could be unfair to low-income earners who mostly rely on sugary food because they are more affordable. Therefore, we believe that the tax should be used to fund other sectors like education, healthcare and to reduce other taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Though a sugar tax could help reduce obesity rates, it is not a long term solution and could cause problems for low-income earners who are more reliant on these types of food. The money raised from the tax should be used to fund programs that encourage healthier eating and exercise. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000988.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000988.soc index cebcfae4..68ad6924 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000988.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000988.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the universal basic income is a good idea as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would definitely be handy. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault f their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The Universal Basic Income is a good idea because it would help people who struggle through no fault of their own to live with dignity, thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the universal basic income is a good idea as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would definitely be handy. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universal Basic Income is a good idea as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. However some people may spend their income on the wrong things, leading to the same issues as before e.g drug abuse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the universal basic income is a good idea as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would definitely be handy. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault f their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The Universal Basic Income is a good idea because it would help people who struggle through no fault of their own to live with dignity, thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the universal basic income is a good idea as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would definitely be handy. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universal Basic Income is a good idea as it would help so many people out who need money to survive. Everybody needs money to survive. It would stop homelessness and make peoples lives better. It would allow people struggling through no fault of their own to live with dignity thus reducing dependence on charitable institutions such as food banks. It would give people access to opportunities and shelter and food in some cases. It would allow people to devote their time to spiritual and artistic pursuits, most will still work in order to pay for luxuries for themselves and their families. Higher earners will fund basic income with taxation. However some people may spend their income on the wrong things, leading to the same issues as before e.g drug abuse. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000989.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000989.soc index 19591304..3cd36ed7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000989.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000989.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the majority of dog owners are responsible and do clean up after their dogs, there are some who do not. We feel that the government should not have to make it compulsory for dog owners to carry a doggy bag. All responsible dog owners already do this, and it would be a waste of time and resources to police it. However, there should be a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of dog mess, and the importance of picking up after your dog. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People who have dogs need to take responsibility for any mess they may make in public spaces. Dog poo carries diseases which can be dangerous to other wildlife and humans. It takes a dog owner 2 seconds to pick up the mess were as it can take a member of the public a lot longer to deal with the smell and mess on there shoes. It is nasty seeing lots of dog poo on the pavement and dog owners should be ashamed of themselves for leaving the mess behind for others to deal with. In 5 years of dog ownership I have never gone out of the house with my dog without carrying a poo bag, it is just automatic to do so. Unfortunately some dog owners arent as responsible as others, and enforcing those to carry bags won't change their behaviour. It would be an excellent idea but I don't see how it could be enforced. Dog mess is a huge problem and apart from being very unpleasant to find, the faeces can carry diseases which children may pick up. Responsible owners will always clean up after their dog but irresponsible ones do not and I doubt that making sch a thing compulsory would change their behaviour. Who would police it? There are not enough peope to go around after every -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of dog owners carrying a doggy bag, but felt that it was an individual's responsibility and that it should not be made compulsory. The group felt that it was important to encourage people to be responsible dog owners, and that this could be done by campaigns in the media and by local authorities. The group felt that the problem of irresponsible dog owners leaving their dog's mess in public places was a small one, and that it would be difficult to enforce a law making it compulsory to carry a doggy bag. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although it is not practical to enforce dog owners to carry doggy bags, it is important to encourage all dog owners to be responsible and pick up after their dog. Dog mess is unpleasant, it can carry diseases and it is dangerous to children. We feel that the government should provide more doggy bag dispensers in public places, to make it easier for dog owners to be responsible. We also feel that there should be a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of dog mess, and the importance of picking it up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the majority of dog owners are responsible and do clean up after their dogs, there are some who do not. We feel that the government should not have to make it compulsory for dog owners to carry a doggy bag. All responsible dog owners already do this, and it would be a waste of time and resources to police it. However, there should be a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of dog mess, and the importance of picking up after your dog. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People who have dogs need to take responsibility for any mess they may make in public spaces. Dog poo carries diseases which can be dangerous to other wildlife and humans. It takes a dog owner 2 seconds to pick up the mess were as it can take a member of the public a lot longer to deal with the smell and mess on there shoes. It is nasty seeing lots of dog poo on the pavement and dog owners should be ashamed of themselves for leaving the mess behind for others to deal with. In 5 years of dog ownership I have never gone out of the house with my dog without carrying a poo bag, it is just automatic to do so. Unfortunately some dog owners arent as responsible as others, and enforcing those to carry bags won't change their behaviour. It would be an excellent idea but I don't see how it could be enforced. Dog mess is a huge problem and apart from being very unpleasant to find, the faeces can carry diseases which children may pick up. Responsible owners will always clean up after their dog but irresponsible ones do not and I doubt that making sch a thing compulsory would change their behaviour. Who would police it? There are not enough peope to go around after every +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of dog owners carrying a doggy bag, but felt that it was an individual's responsibility and that it should not be made compulsory. The group felt that it was important to encourage people to be responsible dog owners, and that this could be done by campaigns in the media and by local authorities. The group felt that the problem of irresponsible dog owners leaving their dog's mess in public places was a small one, and that it would be difficult to enforce a law making it compulsory to carry a doggy bag. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although it is not practical to enforce dog owners to carry doggy bags, it is important to encourage all dog owners to be responsible and pick up after their dog. Dog mess is unpleasant, it can carry diseases and it is dangerous to children. We feel that the government should provide more doggy bag dispensers in public places, to make it easier for dog owners to be responsible. We also feel that there should be a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of dog mess, and the importance of picking it up. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000990.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000990.soc index 2bfa2c03..685fd74b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000990.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000990.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to compulsory voting. It was felt that people should be free to express their political views by voting or not voting. However, it was also felt that the political parties should make an effort to ensure that their policies were made clear to the public so that people would be more likely to vote. It was also felt that the political parties should be more representative of the views of the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't believe that it is right to have compulsory voting. Whilst we believe that voting is important and that the more people that vote the more democratic a country is, we also believe that in a free society people should have the right to opt out of the democratic process if they so wish. We also believe that forcing people to vote would mean that those forced to the ballot box would not take it seriously. People should only vote once they have informed themselves of the policies of the candidates and the political parties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to compulsory voting. It was felt that voting should be a choice and that people should not be forced to take part in the democratic process. Some people felt that it was not fair to force people to vote for a party that they did not support and that this would lead to a large number of 'spoilt ballots'. Some people also felt that it would be impractical to make voting compulsory and that it would be very difficult to enforce. It was also felt that there were more important issues that needed to be addressed before making voting compulsory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compulsory voting. The group felt that people should have the right to abstain from voting if they want to. Sometime casting no vote can be a way of expressing your political beliefs. Sometimes political parties are so underwhelming that they don't deserve a vote. It was also felt that forcing people to vote would mean that those forced to the ballot box would not take it seriously. People should only vote once they have informed themselves of the policies of the candidates and the political parties. The group felt that those who currently do not vote probably take very little notice of politics and so forcing them to vote will often lead to votes that are uninformed. If you were to make voting compulsory then ideally you would have to make each person have at least a basic understanding of the policies of each party they could vote for. This is highly impractical and I would argue even impossible. Even the practicalities of making sure each person votes would be difficult and would likely take up a large amount of resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to compulsory voting. It was felt that people should be free to express their political views by voting or not voting. However, it was also felt that the political parties should make an effort to ensure that their policies were made clear to the public so that people would be more likely to vote. It was also felt that the political parties should be more representative of the views of the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't believe that it is right to have compulsory voting. Whilst we believe that voting is important and that the more people that vote the more democratic a country is, we also believe that in a free society people should have the right to opt out of the democratic process if they so wish. We also believe that forcing people to vote would mean that those forced to the ballot box would not take it seriously. People should only vote once they have informed themselves of the policies of the candidates and the political parties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to compulsory voting. It was felt that voting should be a choice and that people should not be forced to take part in the democratic process. Some people felt that it was not fair to force people to vote for a party that they did not support and that this would lead to a large number of 'spoilt ballots'. Some people also felt that it would be impractical to make voting compulsory and that it would be very difficult to enforce. It was also felt that there were more important issues that needed to be addressed before making voting compulsory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of compulsory voting. The group felt that people should have the right to abstain from voting if they want to. Sometime casting no vote can be a way of expressing your political beliefs. Sometimes political parties are so underwhelming that they don't deserve a vote. It was also felt that forcing people to vote would mean that those forced to the ballot box would not take it seriously. People should only vote once they have informed themselves of the policies of the candidates and the political parties. The group felt that those who currently do not vote probably take very little notice of politics and so forcing them to vote will often lead to votes that are uninformed. If you were to make voting compulsory then ideally you would have to make each person have at least a basic understanding of the policies of each party they could vote for. This is highly impractical and I would argue even impossible. Even the practicalities of making sure each person votes would be difficult and would likely take up a large amount of resources. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000991.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000991.soc index d2985c55..9c5a6b78 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000991.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000991.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. The group of participants felt that this is the most accurate and fair view that represents the opinion of the whole group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. The group felt that it is the responsibility of the UK to go and help fix the problems in the other countries so that people are not so desperate to move to the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. The group decided that the most appropriate compromise would be to accept more immigrants into the country, but in smaller numbers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. The participants decided that in general the number of people coming into the UK should be limited, however the government should try and help other countries with their problems as much as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. The group of participants felt that this is the most accurate and fair view that represents the opinion of the whole group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. The group felt that it is the responsibility of the UK to go and help fix the problems in the other countries so that people are not so desperate to move to the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. The group decided that the most appropriate compromise would be to accept more immigrants into the country, but in smaller numbers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of people entering the UK. The participants felt that there are many people in the UK that are not getting the support they need and so this should be a priority. The participants also felt that the country is becoming overcrowded and so this is also a problem. However, the participants also felt that the UK has a moral responsibility to help people who are living in terrible conditions and so there should be some form of compromise. The participants decided that in general the number of people coming into the UK should be limited, however the government should try and help other countries with their problems as much as possible. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000992.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000992.soc index 707ed4e3..0d314404 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000992.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000992.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Though a tax on sugary food would increase the cost of unhealthy eating, it would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. A tax on sugary food could also have some unintended consequences, such as less regulation and control on unhealthy eating. Therefore, we believe that there should be a focus on encouraging healthy eating in other ways, such as through education about healthy diets in schools, and by making healthier food more affordable and accessible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Though we should encourage healthier eating, we do not think that a sugar tax is the way to do it. The tax would more likely not be invested into the right areas and would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. We believe that other ways to encourage healthy eating should be looked into. A possible solution would be to use the money from a sugar tax to lower the prices of healthy foods so that they are more affordable to all income earners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While we should encourage healthier eating, we do not think that a sugar tax is the way to do it. The tax would more likely not be invested into the right areas and would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. We believe that other ways to encourage healthy eating should be looked into. These include the government subsidizing fresh produce and providing people with vouchers to spend on these foods to ensure they have equal access to it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While we should encourage healthier eating, we do not think that a sugar tax is the way to do it. The tax would more likely not be invested into the right areas and would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. We believe that other ways to encourage healthy eating should be looked into. This is because a sugar tax would have too many side-effects, for example it would mean that people who cannot afford to pay more for their food will buy even less healthy food. We should come up with other ways to encourage healthier eating as a sugar tax would not solve the main problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Though a tax on sugary food would increase the cost of unhealthy eating, it would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. A tax on sugary food could also have some unintended consequences, such as less regulation and control on unhealthy eating. Therefore, we believe that there should be a focus on encouraging healthy eating in other ways, such as through education about healthy diets in schools, and by making healthier food more affordable and accessible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Though we should encourage healthier eating, we do not think that a sugar tax is the way to do it. The tax would more likely not be invested into the right areas and would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. We believe that other ways to encourage healthy eating should be looked into. A possible solution would be to use the money from a sugar tax to lower the prices of healthy foods so that they are more affordable to all income earners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While we should encourage healthier eating, we do not think that a sugar tax is the way to do it. The tax would more likely not be invested into the right areas and would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. We believe that other ways to encourage healthy eating should be looked into. These include the government subsidizing fresh produce and providing people with vouchers to spend on these foods to ensure they have equal access to it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While we should encourage healthier eating, we do not think that a sugar tax is the way to do it. The tax would more likely not be invested into the right areas and would disproportionately affect low-income earners who mostly rely on these types of food because they are more affordable. We believe that other ways to encourage healthy eating should be looked into. This is because a sugar tax would have too many side-effects, for example it would mean that people who cannot afford to pay more for their food will buy even less healthy food. We should come up with other ways to encourage healthier eating as a sugar tax would not solve the main problem. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000993.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000993.soc index 620fcb93..28139cc3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000993.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000993.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a distinction between drug addicts who are willing to change and drug addicts who are not willing to change. If the addict is not willing to change, then doctors should not prescribe heroin. However, if the addict is willing to change, then the doctor should be allowed to prescribe heroin to them, but only in a controlled environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of heroin being prescribed to addicts. However, the group was also aware of the fact that many countries have trialled this approach and have had great success in reducing crime and drug use. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: Heroin should be prescribed to addicts, but only in a controlled environment. The participants also suggested that doctors should be allowed to prescribe heroin, but only in very small doses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Heroin should not be prescribed by doctors to addicts. The risks outweigh the benefits. It is an addictive drug that has many adverse side effects. Heroin is also highly illegal in the UK and the penalties for being caught with it are very severe. This is also the case for other countries and this would be an illegal act. There are many other ways to treat addicts, for example methadone and other legal drugs can be prescribed to wean addicts off heroin. Heroin is also not a necessary drug and should not be prescribed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, the idea of giving heroin to addicts seems like a nonsense idea. However, if doctors who can monitor doses were given a close look into the life of an addict perhaps this would better allow for reform away from drugs and an opportunity to take drugs in a 'safer' way. Though, overall I still think this is a ridiculous idea by principle and instead we should continue seeking to help addicts get away from drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a distinction between drug addicts who are willing to change and drug addicts who are not willing to change. If the addict is not willing to change, then doctors should not prescribe heroin. However, if the addict is willing to change, then the doctor should be allowed to prescribe heroin to them, but only in a controlled environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of heroin being prescribed to addicts. However, the group was also aware of the fact that many countries have trialled this approach and have had great success in reducing crime and drug use. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: Heroin should be prescribed to addicts, but only in a controlled environment. The participants also suggested that doctors should be allowed to prescribe heroin, but only in very small doses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Heroin should not be prescribed by doctors to addicts. The risks outweigh the benefits. It is an addictive drug that has many adverse side effects. Heroin is also highly illegal in the UK and the penalties for being caught with it are very severe. This is also the case for other countries and this would be an illegal act. There are many other ways to treat addicts, for example methadone and other legal drugs can be prescribed to wean addicts off heroin. Heroin is also not a necessary drug and should not be prescribed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, the idea of giving heroin to addicts seems like a nonsense idea. However, if doctors who can monitor doses were given a close look into the life of an addict perhaps this would better allow for reform away from drugs and an opportunity to take drugs in a 'safer' way. Though, overall I still think this is a ridiculous idea by principle and instead we should continue seeking to help addicts get away from drugs. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000994.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000994.soc index cb149006..310fff50 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000994.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000994.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it is not okay for people to be forced to wear uniforms to work. This is because it is not in the spirit of adult life. Adults should be able to dress as they want. They should be able to express themselves. They should be able to be comfortable. Work is already not fun for most adults, and they get stressed out. This affects their mental health to a large extent. Adding more restrictions to work, such as the mandatory wearing of uniforms will make it more daunting to make up and go to work. Most people find a bit of fun in dressing up in style to work, this somehow adds motivation to carry out their work effectively. People don't need to feel depressed because they are working. However, regulations on dressing at work are important to maintain workplace sanity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, wearing uniforms to work is not a bad idea. It is important to make people aware that they will be required to wear a uniform to work from the very beginning. If they are not comfortable with the idea of wearing a uniform, they can decide not to take up the job. Wearing uniforms to work can be useful in certain jobs. It can be useful for identification of staff, safety and protection of clothing. However, it is not a good idea to force people to wear uniforms to work as it can make people feel less free and it can affect their mental health to a large extent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the mandatory wearing of uniforms at work can be acceptable in some cases, but not all. It can be used to maintain the image of the company and the employees. It can also be used for identification, safety, and health purposes. It can be used to ensure that people take their jobs seriously. However, the mandatory wearing of uniforms can also be used to deprive people of their freedom. It can be used to ensure that people don't express themselves through their dressing. It can be used to oppress people. It can be used to create a stressful environment for people at work. It can be used to stifle the creativity of employees. It can be used to deprive people of the little fun they get from dressing up. It can be used to create an oppressive environment for employees. In conclusion, the mandatory wearing of uniforms at work can be acceptable in some cases, but not all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The wearing of uniforms at work can be a very positive thing. It can help the employer and employee in many ways. It can be for safety, it can be for identification, it can be for a professional image. However, we feel that it is not right to force people to wear a uniform at work. It is one thing to have a dress code, but it is another to force people to wear a uniform. This is an infringement on personal rights and can affect an individual's mental health. It can be very upsetting for people to be forced to wear a uniform. It is not a good idea to make people feel uncomfortable and unhappy at work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it is not okay for people to be forced to wear uniforms to work. This is because it is not in the spirit of adult life. Adults should be able to dress as they want. They should be able to express themselves. They should be able to be comfortable. Work is already not fun for most adults, and they get stressed out. This affects their mental health to a large extent. Adding more restrictions to work, such as the mandatory wearing of uniforms will make it more daunting to make up and go to work. Most people find a bit of fun in dressing up in style to work, this somehow adds motivation to carry out their work effectively. People don't need to feel depressed because they are working. However, regulations on dressing at work are important to maintain workplace sanity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, wearing uniforms to work is not a bad idea. It is important to make people aware that they will be required to wear a uniform to work from the very beginning. If they are not comfortable with the idea of wearing a uniform, they can decide not to take up the job. Wearing uniforms to work can be useful in certain jobs. It can be useful for identification of staff, safety and protection of clothing. However, it is not a good idea to force people to wear uniforms to work as it can make people feel less free and it can affect their mental health to a large extent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the mandatory wearing of uniforms at work can be acceptable in some cases, but not all. It can be used to maintain the image of the company and the employees. It can also be used for identification, safety, and health purposes. It can be used to ensure that people take their jobs seriously. However, the mandatory wearing of uniforms can also be used to deprive people of their freedom. It can be used to ensure that people don't express themselves through their dressing. It can be used to oppress people. It can be used to create a stressful environment for people at work. It can be used to stifle the creativity of employees. It can be used to deprive people of the little fun they get from dressing up. It can be used to create an oppressive environment for employees. In conclusion, the mandatory wearing of uniforms at work can be acceptable in some cases, but not all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The wearing of uniforms at work can be a very positive thing. It can help the employer and employee in many ways. It can be for safety, it can be for identification, it can be for a professional image. However, we feel that it is not right to force people to wear a uniform at work. It is one thing to have a dress code, but it is another to force people to wear a uniform. This is an infringement on personal rights and can affect an individual's mental health. It can be very upsetting for people to be forced to wear a uniform. It is not a good idea to make people feel uncomfortable and unhappy at work. 2: 4,3,2,1 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000995.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000995.soc index 57406640..bc372518 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000995.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000995.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was against the idea of a forced military service. Most of the participants thought that it would not be necessary to change the current model and that it was working fine as it was. A few participants thought that the military should be funded more and that there should be more of a presence in the world. However, the group in general thought that the current model of military service was fine and should not be changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should not adopt a different model of military service. The UK's current military service model seems to be working fine as it is and anyone who has an interesting in joining can do so. The UK's military still has a strong presence in the world and does a lot of vital work, cooperating with other countries. Introducing something like a forced military service would alienate a lot of the general public and change many peoples view of the military service to that of a negative one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should not adopt a different model of military service. The current model seems to be working fine and is not in need of any changes. The UK's military still has a strong presence in the world and does a lot of vital work, cooperating with other countries. Introducing something like a forced military service would alienate a lot of the general public and change many peoples view of the military service to that of a negative one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was against the idea of a forced military service. Most of the participants thought that it would not be necessary to change the current model and that it was working fine as it was. A few participants thought that the military should be funded more and that there should be more of a presence in the world. However, the group in general thought that the current model of military service was fine and should not be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should not adopt a different model of military service. The UK's current military service model seems to be working fine as it is and anyone who has an interesting in joining can do so. The UK's military still has a strong presence in the world and does a lot of vital work, cooperating with other countries. Introducing something like a forced military service would alienate a lot of the general public and change many peoples view of the military service to that of a negative one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should not adopt a different model of military service. The current model seems to be working fine and is not in need of any changes. The UK's military still has a strong presence in the world and does a lot of vital work, cooperating with other countries. Introducing something like a forced military service would alienate a lot of the general public and change many peoples view of the military service to that of a negative one. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000996.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000996.soc index 8295ae3c..d5fc5f0b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000996.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000996.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, there was some concern that some parents may not be equipped to teach their children about sex education. Therefore, it was suggested that schools should provide information for parents on sex education and how to talk to their children about it. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, parents should have the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. The parents are the experts in knowing what their child could or could not handle this information. The parents need to be able to have full control in this matter and maybe for religious or family beliefs this opt out could be vital. The information might have a negative effect on the child and make matters worse, therefore the parents need to have the option to opt out. However, if there is a safeguarding risk or risk for re-traumatisation of a child, then the parents should not have the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. It is important that children are taught a healthy perspective of sex education for their own safety and development. Parents should not prevent children from gaining this knowledge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education in schools. The group felt that this was the parents’ right, and that they were the experts in knowing what their child could or could not handle this information. The parents need to be able to have full control in this matter and maybe for religious or family beliefs this opt out could be vital. The information might have a negative effect on the child and make matters worse, and in some cases, it may be that the parents do not agree with the sex education that is being taught. However, the group felt that sex education is an important topic and that it should be taught in schools, as it is important for children to have this knowledge for their own safety and development. The group also felt that if parents do choose to opt their child out of sex education in school, that the school should offer alternative provision to ensure that the child is still gaining this important knowledge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, parents should have the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, it is important to note that sex education in schools is not only about the biological aspects of sex, but also about the emotional and psychological aspects. It is important that children are taught to respect themselves and others, and to understand consent. Therefore, if a child is at risk of abuse, parents should not be able to opt their children out of sex education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, there was some concern that some parents may not be equipped to teach their children about sex education. Therefore, it was suggested that schools should provide information for parents on sex education and how to talk to their children about it. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, parents should have the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. The parents are the experts in knowing what their child could or could not handle this information. The parents need to be able to have full control in this matter and maybe for religious or family beliefs this opt out could be vital. The information might have a negative effect on the child and make matters worse, therefore the parents need to have the option to opt out. However, if there is a safeguarding risk or risk for re-traumatisation of a child, then the parents should not have the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. It is important that children are taught a healthy perspective of sex education for their own safety and development. Parents should not prevent children from gaining this knowledge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education in schools. The group felt that this was the parents’ right, and that they were the experts in knowing what their child could or could not handle this information. The parents need to be able to have full control in this matter and maybe for religious or family beliefs this opt out could be vital. The information might have a negative effect on the child and make matters worse, and in some cases, it may be that the parents do not agree with the sex education that is being taught. However, the group felt that sex education is an important topic and that it should be taught in schools, as it is important for children to have this knowledge for their own safety and development. The group also felt that if parents do choose to opt their child out of sex education in school, that the school should offer alternative provision to ensure that the child is still gaining this important knowledge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, parents should have the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, it is important to note that sex education in schools is not only about the biological aspects of sex, but also about the emotional and psychological aspects. It is important that children are taught to respect themselves and others, and to understand consent. Therefore, if a child is at risk of abuse, parents should not be able to opt their children out of sex education. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000997.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000997.soc index 72df83fa..7f797552 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000997.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000997.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. There are also more important things to be changing and dealing with in the UK at the moment, such as the cost of living crisis and the NHS crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. The UK military is currently recruiting enough people and is not struggling to find enough applicants. It would also not be wise to spend money on making changes to the model of military service when it would be much more useful to spend it on more important issues in the UK such as the NHS and cost of living crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. The UK military is not currently struggling for numbers of applicants, so this is not a pressing issue. However, there are still some important issues that need to be addressed regarding the UK military. It has been reported that sexism and toxic masculinity still exist in the UK military. This needs to be addressed. More diversity also needs to be encouraged. The UK military needs to actively recruit people of more diverse backgrounds to improve the general reputation of the military. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. The UK military does not currently seem to be struggling for numbers of applicants, so this is not a pressing issue. There is more important legislation and industry to change for the better in the UK, than trying to change the military service. There are some stories about sexism and trouble for female recruits that need to be addressed, but the diversity of the UK military is generally good and is getting better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. There are also more important things to be changing and dealing with in the UK at the moment, such as the cost of living crisis and the NHS crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. The UK military is currently recruiting enough people and is not struggling to find enough applicants. It would also not be wise to spend money on making changes to the model of military service when it would be much more useful to spend it on more important issues in the UK such as the NHS and cost of living crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. The UK military is not currently struggling for numbers of applicants, so this is not a pressing issue. However, there are still some important issues that need to be addressed regarding the UK military. It has been reported that sexism and toxic masculinity still exist in the UK military. This needs to be addressed. More diversity also needs to be encouraged. The UK military needs to actively recruit people of more diverse backgrounds to improve the general reputation of the military. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK's model of military service is fine and does not need to be changed. The current model allows people to join voluntarily and does not force anyone to join. The UK's military is a good thing and does a lot of good work in the world, cooperating with other countries. The UK military is also a strong presence in the world and has a good reputation. Forcing people to join the military would be a bad idea and would likely change peoples views of the military to a negative one. The UK military does not currently seem to be struggling for numbers of applicants, so this is not a pressing issue. There is more important legislation and industry to change for the better in the UK, than trying to change the military service. There are some stories about sexism and trouble for female recruits that need to be addressed, but the diversity of the UK military is generally good and is getting better. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000998.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000998.soc index c5b39407..73e5095b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000998.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000998.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy. The group was of the opinion that the current system is unfair and there is a need for a more equitable distribution of the burden of refugees. The group was also of the opinion that refugees should be given the opportunity to seek asylum in any country that they choose, and that countries should not be allowed to select which refugees they want to take in. The group also agreed that the implementation of such a policy would be challenging, but that it is necessary to try and find a solution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy, however, the group believed that there are some issues that would need to be addressed before such a policy could be implemented. The group believed that it would be very challenging to decide how many refugees each country should take in and that it would be difficult to decide how the burden would be split. The group believed that there should be some sort of vetting process in place to ensure that only refugees who are fleeing war-torn countries are taken in and not people who are just seeking asylum for other reasons. The group also believed that the countries who are currently taking in a large number of refugees should not be burdened with more refugees and that some sort of system should be in place to ensure that the burden is shared fairly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy. The participants felt that it is important to have a global asylum seeking policy to ensure that refugees receive the protection and assistance that they need. With such policy in place there would be more equitable distribution and responsibility for refugees among countries, which will reduce the burden on the countries that are currently allowing a sizeable number of asylum seekers. However, the group also felt that it is important to consider the capacity of each country. Each country has different capacity in terms of economy, resources and other factors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy. The participants felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that the current system is not working. The group felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The group also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The group felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The group felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy. The group was of the opinion that the current system is unfair and there is a need for a more equitable distribution of the burden of refugees. The group was also of the opinion that refugees should be given the opportunity to seek asylum in any country that they choose, and that countries should not be allowed to select which refugees they want to take in. The group also agreed that the implementation of such a policy would be challenging, but that it is necessary to try and find a solution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy, however, the group believed that there are some issues that would need to be addressed before such a policy could be implemented. The group believed that it would be very challenging to decide how many refugees each country should take in and that it would be difficult to decide how the burden would be split. The group believed that there should be some sort of vetting process in place to ensure that only refugees who are fleeing war-torn countries are taken in and not people who are just seeking asylum for other reasons. The group also believed that the countries who are currently taking in a large number of refugees should not be burdened with more refugees and that some sort of system should be in place to ensure that the burden is shared fairly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy. The participants felt that it is important to have a global asylum seeking policy to ensure that refugees receive the protection and assistance that they need. With such policy in place there would be more equitable distribution and responsibility for refugees among countries, which will reduce the burden on the countries that are currently allowing a sizeable number of asylum seekers. However, the group also felt that it is important to consider the capacity of each country. Each country has different capacity in terms of economy, resources and other factors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy. The participants felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that the current system is not working. The group felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The group also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The group felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The group felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000999.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000999.soc index 27db1536..7ce3e76b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000999.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00000999.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants were in favour of a global asylum seeking policy that requires nations to take in refugees fleeing war-torn countries. The participants felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that the current system is not working. The participants felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The participants also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The participants felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The participants felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We generally agree with a global asylum seeking policy. In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy. The participants felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that the current system is not working. The group felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The group also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The group felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The group felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants was generally in favour of a global asylum seeking policy, however they felt that there were some issues that needed to be resolved before such a policy could be implemented. The group felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that the current system is not working. The group felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The group also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The group felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The group felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. The group felt that a potential way to address this issue would be for all countries to agree to take in a certain number of refugees regardless of their circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The participants in general felt that having a global asylum seeking policy is a good idea. The participants felt that refugees are often fleeing from terrible situations and it is important that they are given somewhere safe to live. The participants felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The participants also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The participants felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The participants felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. The participants felt that another challenge would be getting countries to agree to take in refugees and that this would be particularly difficult for countries where the population is against taking in refugees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants were in favour of a global asylum seeking policy that requires nations to take in refugees fleeing war-torn countries. The participants felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that the current system is not working. The participants felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The participants also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The participants felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The participants felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We generally agree with a global asylum seeking policy. In general, the group was in favour of a global asylum seeking policy. The participants felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that the current system is not working. The group felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The group also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The group felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The group felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants was generally in favour of a global asylum seeking policy, however they felt that there were some issues that needed to be resolved before such a policy could be implemented. The group felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that the current system is not working. The group felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The group also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The group felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The group felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. The group felt that a potential way to address this issue would be for all countries to agree to take in a certain number of refugees regardless of their circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The participants in general felt that having a global asylum seeking policy is a good idea. The participants felt that refugees are often fleeing from terrible situations and it is important that they are given somewhere safe to live. The participants felt that the current situation where some countries have to bear a much larger burden than others is unfair and that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the refugees as they would have a greater chance of being taken in and would also have a greater chance of finding a place where they would be happy. The participants also felt that a global asylum seeking policy would be beneficial for the countries taking in refugees as they would be able to prepare for the influx of people and also would be able to provide the refugees with the best possible help. The participants felt that the main challenge in implementing a global asylum seeking policy would be deciding how to fairly distribute the refugees. The participants felt that this would be a very difficult task as each country would have different capacities and different capabilities and it would be very difficult to fairly distribute the refugees. The participants felt that another challenge would be getting countries to agree to take in refugees and that this would be particularly difficult for countries where the population is against taking in refugees. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001000.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001000.soc index dd19682f..970036da 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001000.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001000.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The initial draft consensus statement presented an interesting distinction which I think is important to consider. The problem with street drugs, in general, is the level of desperation in addicts and the violent behaviour they commit when this happens. The problem is therefore not necessarily with the drug itself, but with the people and situation it is in. Methadone is an effective treatment and this should be encouraged, however, it is an opioid and is therefore extremely addictive. Many argue that opioid addiction is worse than heroin addiction and therefore not a viable alternative. If addicts are desperate, it is possible that even if prescribed heroin by a doctor they would still be vulnerable to seeking it on the streets as well. In a controlled environment such as the one in Switzerland, the patients would have their heroin dosage prescribed and controlled by doctors so they would have no need to turn to the streets, which makes this a viable solution. If it was deemed that the patient could not function in society then they would also be provided with housing so they would be protected and no longer have to commit violent crimes on the streets to fund their habits. This method has been seen to be very effective, though its cost to society is much higher. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a distinction between drug addicts who are willing to change and drug addicts who are not willing to change. If the addict is not willing to change, then doctors should not prescribe heroin. However, if the addict is willing to change, then the doctor should be allowed to prescribe heroin, but only in a controlled environment and only if there is clear evidence that the addict is willing to change and this is assessed and agreed by doctors in a thorough process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a distinction between drug addicts who are willing to change and drug addicts who are not willing to change. If the addict is not willing to change, then doctors should not prescribe heroin. However, if the addict is willing to change, then the doctor should be allowed to prescribe heroin to them, but only in a controlled environment. This is because heroin can help wean addicts off heroin if the addict is prepared to change. This has worked well in other countries such as Portugal, where heroin prescribing was used to combat a rise in drug-related crime. In these countries, medical prescribed heroin reduced crime, therefore this should be done in Australia too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that the 'willing to change' argument is flawed as addicts may not be sincere in their promise. However, addicts should be able to choose between being rehabilitated (i.e. 'cold turkey' detoxification) and being maintained with methadone (in a dose-by-dose supervised situation). If they wish to be maintained with heroin, this should only be in a similar dose-by-dose supervised situation. If an addict repeatedly 'disappears' and can't be found then this should be treated as a relapse. In this case the patient should go back to rehabilitation, or back to methadone maintenance, with the chance to move back to heroin maintenance at a later stage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The initial draft consensus statement presented an interesting distinction which I think is important to consider. The problem with street drugs, in general, is the level of desperation in addicts and the violent behaviour they commit when this happens. The problem is therefore not necessarily with the drug itself, but with the people and situation it is in. Methadone is an effective treatment and this should be encouraged, however, it is an opioid and is therefore extremely addictive. Many argue that opioid addiction is worse than heroin addiction and therefore not a viable alternative. If addicts are desperate, it is possible that even if prescribed heroin by a doctor they would still be vulnerable to seeking it on the streets as well. In a controlled environment such as the one in Switzerland, the patients would have their heroin dosage prescribed and controlled by doctors so they would have no need to turn to the streets, which makes this a viable solution. If it was deemed that the patient could not function in society then they would also be provided with housing so they would be protected and no longer have to commit violent crimes on the streets to fund their habits. This method has been seen to be very effective, though its cost to society is much higher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a distinction between drug addicts who are willing to change and drug addicts who are not willing to change. If the addict is not willing to change, then doctors should not prescribe heroin. However, if the addict is willing to change, then the doctor should be allowed to prescribe heroin, but only in a controlled environment and only if there is clear evidence that the addict is willing to change and this is assessed and agreed by doctors in a thorough process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a distinction between drug addicts who are willing to change and drug addicts who are not willing to change. If the addict is not willing to change, then doctors should not prescribe heroin. However, if the addict is willing to change, then the doctor should be allowed to prescribe heroin to them, but only in a controlled environment. This is because heroin can help wean addicts off heroin if the addict is prepared to change. This has worked well in other countries such as Portugal, where heroin prescribing was used to combat a rise in drug-related crime. In these countries, medical prescribed heroin reduced crime, therefore this should be done in Australia too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that the 'willing to change' argument is flawed as addicts may not be sincere in their promise. However, addicts should be able to choose between being rehabilitated (i.e. 'cold turkey' detoxification) and being maintained with methadone (in a dose-by-dose supervised situation). If they wish to be maintained with heroin, this should only be in a similar dose-by-dose supervised situation. If an addict repeatedly 'disappears' and can't be found then this should be treated as a relapse. In this case the patient should go back to rehabilitation, or back to methadone maintenance, with the chance to move back to heroin maintenance at a later stage. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001001.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001001.soc index e88f10a5..c3d6fcf5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001001.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001001.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the age for leaving school should not be reduced to 16. Education is a vital part of everyone's development. It teaches you great skills and once one becomes 18, s/he can choose whether they want to continue their education or start working. Sixteen is a bit too early to leave school and make life-changing decisions. If students remain in education until 18, they have more time to learn, to mature, to be able to make sound decisions. However, the age for leaving school should be altered based on achievement and careers advice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the age for leaving school should not be reduced from 18 to 16. The reasons for this are as follows: 16 is too young to make such an important decision as to whether you want to continue in education or start working. It is very likely that at 16 years old, a child is not mature enough to make such a decision and will not have the life experience to be able to make a sound decision. If the leaving age is reduced to 16, this will result in higher numbers of children out of education and out of employment as they simply will not know what to do with their lives. The age for leaving school should not be reduced from 18 to 16. The reasons for this are as follows: 16 is too young to make such an important decision as to whether you want to continue in education or start working. It is very likely that at 16 years old, a child is not mature enough to make such a decision and will not have the life experience to be able to make a sound decision. If the leaving age is reduced to 16, this will result in higher numbers of children out of education and out of employment as they simply will not know what to do with their lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the age for leaving school should not be reduced from 18 to 16. We feel that the age of 18 is a good age for leaving school as by this time you are a legal adult and you can make your own decisions on what you want to do with your life. We feel that by staying in education until the age of 18 you are more likely to achieve good grades which will help you get a good job in the future. We feel that the age of 18 is a good age for leaving school as you are more likely to have a better understanding of what you want to do with your life and what you want to achieve. We feel that by staying in education until the age of 18 you are more likely to achieve good grades which will help you get a good job in the future. We feel that the age of 18 is a good age for leaving school as you are more likely to have a better understanding of what you want to do with your life and what you want to achieve. We feel that by staying in education until the age of 18 you are more likely to achieve good grades which will help you get a good job in the future. We feel that the age of 18 is a good age for leaving school -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the age for leaving school should not be reduced from 18 to 16. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, 16 is too young to be making important life-changing decisions. At this age, one may not be mature enough to know what they want to do with their life and if they do know, they may change their mind in a few years time. Also, education is a vital part of everyone's development. It teaches you great skills and once one becomes 18, s/he can choose whether they want to continue their education or start working. Another point is that by keeping children in school until 18 years old we are encouraging good education and helping them get ready for adult life. Also, by keeping children in school until 18 years old we are helping them to make sound decisions and to be able to make a living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the age for leaving school should not be reduced to 16. Education is a vital part of everyone's development. It teaches you great skills and once one becomes 18, s/he can choose whether they want to continue their education or start working. Sixteen is a bit too early to leave school and make life-changing decisions. If students remain in education until 18, they have more time to learn, to mature, to be able to make sound decisions. However, the age for leaving school should be altered based on achievement and careers advice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the age for leaving school should not be reduced from 18 to 16. The reasons for this are as follows: 16 is too young to make such an important decision as to whether you want to continue in education or start working. It is very likely that at 16 years old, a child is not mature enough to make such a decision and will not have the life experience to be able to make a sound decision. If the leaving age is reduced to 16, this will result in higher numbers of children out of education and out of employment as they simply will not know what to do with their lives. The age for leaving school should not be reduced from 18 to 16. The reasons for this are as follows: 16 is too young to make such an important decision as to whether you want to continue in education or start working. It is very likely that at 16 years old, a child is not mature enough to make such a decision and will not have the life experience to be able to make a sound decision. If the leaving age is reduced to 16, this will result in higher numbers of children out of education and out of employment as they simply will not know what to do with their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the age for leaving school should not be reduced from 18 to 16. We feel that the age of 18 is a good age for leaving school as by this time you are a legal adult and you can make your own decisions on what you want to do with your life. We feel that by staying in education until the age of 18 you are more likely to achieve good grades which will help you get a good job in the future. We feel that the age of 18 is a good age for leaving school as you are more likely to have a better understanding of what you want to do with your life and what you want to achieve. We feel that by staying in education until the age of 18 you are more likely to achieve good grades which will help you get a good job in the future. We feel that the age of 18 is a good age for leaving school as you are more likely to have a better understanding of what you want to do with your life and what you want to achieve. We feel that by staying in education until the age of 18 you are more likely to achieve good grades which will help you get a good job in the future. We feel that the age of 18 is a good age for leaving school +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the age for leaving school should not be reduced from 18 to 16. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, 16 is too young to be making important life-changing decisions. At this age, one may not be mature enough to know what they want to do with their life and if they do know, they may change their mind in a few years time. Also, education is a vital part of everyone's development. It teaches you great skills and once one becomes 18, s/he can choose whether they want to continue their education or start working. Another point is that by keeping children in school until 18 years old we are encouraging good education and helping them get ready for adult life. Also, by keeping children in school until 18 years old we are helping them to make sound decisions and to be able to make a living. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001002.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001002.soc index dd79807b..f2ee56b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001002.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001002.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the current drug laws are ineffective and should be replaced by a system of regulation and taxation. This would allow for better education on the risks of drug use, as well as reducing the power of criminal organisations. The current laws are also unfair, as they disproportionately affect ethnic minorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of decriminalising drugs, but in the context of this question, it was felt that drugs that are illegal should remain so. There was a lot of debate around whether drugs that are not a health risk should be legalised, and in general the group felt that it would be difficult to determine what drugs were not a health risk. There was also a feeling that there is a difference between prosecuting someone who is using drugs for personal use, and someone who is dealing drugs. In the former case, it was felt that prosecution should not be pursued. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of prosecuting people who use drugs that are not considered a health risk, but are not legal. The group thought that the law should be upheld, and that drugs should not be legalised. However, the group also thought that there was a distinction between prosecution and punishment. The group thought that people who are caught using drugs should be prosecuted, but that the punishment should be a small fine rather than prison time. The group also thought that the law should be changed to allow the use of medicinal cannabis, and that the current law on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes should be relaxed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of decriminalising drugs that are not considered a health risk. The group felt that prosecuting people for using drugs that are not considered a health risk is a waste of resources, and that the law is outdated. The group felt that there should be more research into the effects of drugs, and that the law should be changed to reflect the latest findings. The group felt that the law should reflect the risks to health posed by drugs, and that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they want to take the risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the current drug laws are ineffective and should be replaced by a system of regulation and taxation. This would allow for better education on the risks of drug use, as well as reducing the power of criminal organisations. The current laws are also unfair, as they disproportionately affect ethnic minorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of decriminalising drugs, but in the context of this question, it was felt that drugs that are illegal should remain so. There was a lot of debate around whether drugs that are not a health risk should be legalised, and in general the group felt that it would be difficult to determine what drugs were not a health risk. There was also a feeling that there is a difference between prosecuting someone who is using drugs for personal use, and someone who is dealing drugs. In the former case, it was felt that prosecution should not be pursued. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of prosecuting people who use drugs that are not considered a health risk, but are not legal. The group thought that the law should be upheld, and that drugs should not be legalised. However, the group also thought that there was a distinction between prosecution and punishment. The group thought that people who are caught using drugs should be prosecuted, but that the punishment should be a small fine rather than prison time. The group also thought that the law should be changed to allow the use of medicinal cannabis, and that the current law on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes should be relaxed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of decriminalising drugs that are not considered a health risk. The group felt that prosecuting people for using drugs that are not considered a health risk is a waste of resources, and that the law is outdated. The group felt that there should be more research into the effects of drugs, and that the law should be changed to reflect the latest findings. The group felt that the law should reflect the risks to health posed by drugs, and that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they want to take the risk. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001003.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001003.soc index aa8a79a0..99befc23 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001003.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001003.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should fund charities because they have a responsibility to help the vulnerable people in our society. The government can track the activities of charities and get reports to know how to better serve the people they represent and ensure that everyone is impacted by the administration. Charities have a mixed record in successfully deploying money. Some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. The UK has some obligation to fund charities -- especially ones that are most needed in the UK. Such as food shelters. We shouldn't overspend but have a guideline of how much of the budget should be put forth to these. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Charities should be funded by the UK government to an extent, but not completely. Charities can be very effective in providing a service to people in need, and the government should help them in this. However, charities are also very good at fundraising, and the government should not be taking away from this. The government should provide a certain amount of funding, and the charities should also fundraise for the rest. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK government should fund charities, however, this funding should be carefully managed to ensure that it is used in the most efficient way possible. The government should not be funding charities for every single thing, as this is the job of the charities themselves, but should be funding charities for things that are of great importance, such as building new schools and hospitals. The government should also be funding charities for things that are unexpected and are very costly, such as building failures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should not fund charities. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, charities are not-for-profit entities whereas the government is a for-profit entity. Therefore their agendas do not match and it would not make sense for them to have any business in what the other does. If the UK government does fund charities, then this could cause a lot of controversy and it may seem like the UK is controlling yet another thing to help direct their agenda. However, there are some charities that do need financial support from the government. This is because some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. Charities on the other hand are not civil servants operating under bureaucratic constraints - and there can be many charities not just one government department - so I think that provided the charities are monitored then its probably better to allow several competing charities to do the good works rather than one government office. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should fund charities because they have a responsibility to help the vulnerable people in our society. The government can track the activities of charities and get reports to know how to better serve the people they represent and ensure that everyone is impacted by the administration. Charities have a mixed record in successfully deploying money. Some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. The UK has some obligation to fund charities -- especially ones that are most needed in the UK. Such as food shelters. We shouldn't overspend but have a guideline of how much of the budget should be put forth to these. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Charities should be funded by the UK government to an extent, but not completely. Charities can be very effective in providing a service to people in need, and the government should help them in this. However, charities are also very good at fundraising, and the government should not be taking away from this. The government should provide a certain amount of funding, and the charities should also fundraise for the rest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK government should fund charities, however, this funding should be carefully managed to ensure that it is used in the most efficient way possible. The government should not be funding charities for every single thing, as this is the job of the charities themselves, but should be funding charities for things that are of great importance, such as building new schools and hospitals. The government should also be funding charities for things that are unexpected and are very costly, such as building failures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should not fund charities. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, charities are not-for-profit entities whereas the government is a for-profit entity. Therefore their agendas do not match and it would not make sense for them to have any business in what the other does. If the UK government does fund charities, then this could cause a lot of controversy and it may seem like the UK is controlling yet another thing to help direct their agenda. However, there are some charities that do need financial support from the government. This is because some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. Charities on the other hand are not civil servants operating under bureaucratic constraints - and there can be many charities not just one government department - so I think that provided the charities are monitored then its probably better to allow several competing charities to do the good works rather than one government office. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001004.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001004.soc index b66b3353..504ae6d1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001004.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001004.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, the group felt that safeguarding should be prioritised. Therefore, if a child is at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, or is at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child is not safe at home, for example, if there is a perpetrator in the home, then they should not be allowed to opt out. However, the group was unsure about how this could be put into practice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, the group felt that if a child was at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a parent was unable to opt their child out then they should be informed and consulted about sex education. The group also felt that if parents are uncomfortable with the way sex education is taught in school, then they should be able to withdraw their child. Finally, the group felt that if parents are uncomfortable with the age at which sex education is taught in school, then they should be able to withdraw their child. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, the group was also concerned that some parents may not be equipped to teach their children about sex education. Therefore, the group suggested that schools should provide information for parents on sex education and how to talk to their children about it. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group felt that this was a good compromise and would allow parents to make an informed choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The majority of the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, they also felt that if a child was at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group felt that parents may not be equipped to teach their children about sex education. Therefore, it was suggested that schools should provide information for parents on sex education and how to talk to their children about it. The group felt that in certain cases it may be appropriate to have a safeguarding officer present in sex education classes to ensure that safeguarding procedures are adhered to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, the group felt that safeguarding should be prioritised. Therefore, if a child is at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, or is at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child is not safe at home, for example, if there is a perpetrator in the home, then they should not be allowed to opt out. However, the group was unsure about how this could be put into practice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, the group felt that if a child was at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a parent was unable to opt their child out then they should be informed and consulted about sex education. The group also felt that if parents are uncomfortable with the way sex education is taught in school, then they should be able to withdraw their child. Finally, the group felt that if parents are uncomfortable with the age at which sex education is taught in school, then they should be able to withdraw their child. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, the group was also concerned that some parents may not be equipped to teach their children about sex education. Therefore, the group suggested that schools should provide information for parents on sex education and how to talk to their children about it. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group felt that this was a good compromise and would allow parents to make an informed choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The majority of the group was in favour of parents having the right to opt their children out of sex education in schools. However, they also felt that if a child was at risk of harm, for example, being groomed by a paedophile, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group also felt that if a child was at risk of being sexually exploited, then they should not be allowed to opt out. The group felt that parents may not be equipped to teach their children about sex education. Therefore, it was suggested that schools should provide information for parents on sex education and how to talk to their children about it. The group felt that in certain cases it may be appropriate to have a safeguarding officer present in sex education classes to ensure that safeguarding procedures are adhered to. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001005.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001005.soc index 81c70f92..c00f00fe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001005.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001005.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the banning of cars in cities will not lead to a reduction in crime. It may lead to a reduction in certain types of crime, such as bank robberies, but this is only a small proportion of the crimes that occur. There are also many other crimes that have no link to cars, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Banning cars in cities does not reduce crime. However, it is important to note that crime is a social issue and cannot be attributed to the presence of cars. If the presence of cars were to be linked to crime, it is more likely that crimes will increase, as crimes that involve cars will increase as there will be more cars to be used in the commission of crimes. Therefore, it is the social conditions that lead to crime, and cars are not the cause of crime, so the banning of cars will not lead to a reduction in crime.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the banning of cars in cities does not reduce crime. While some crimes such as speeding or dangerous driving may be reduced, this is a relatively small amount of crime and is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall crime rate. In fact, the banning of cars in cities may increase crime in other ways, such as a rise in car theft or a rise in road rage due to the increased congestion on roads. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the banning of cars in cities would not reduce crime. Cars are not the cause of crime, rather the people who commit crimes are. The banning of cars may reduce crimes surrounding cars, however, other forms of crime may increase. Therefore, banning cars is not necessary to reduce crime, there are more effective methods to reduce the crime rate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the banning of cars in cities will not lead to a reduction in crime. It may lead to a reduction in certain types of crime, such as bank robberies, but this is only a small proportion of the crimes that occur. There are also many other crimes that have no link to cars, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Banning cars in cities does not reduce crime. However, it is important to note that crime is a social issue and cannot be attributed to the presence of cars. If the presence of cars were to be linked to crime, it is more likely that crimes will increase, as crimes that involve cars will increase as there will be more cars to be used in the commission of crimes. Therefore, it is the social conditions that lead to crime, and cars are not the cause of crime, so the banning of cars will not lead to a reduction in crime.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the banning of cars in cities does not reduce crime. While some crimes such as speeding or dangerous driving may be reduced, this is a relatively small amount of crime and is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall crime rate. In fact, the banning of cars in cities may increase crime in other ways, such as a rise in car theft or a rise in road rage due to the increased congestion on roads. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the banning of cars in cities would not reduce crime. Cars are not the cause of crime, rather the people who commit crimes are. The banning of cars may reduce crimes surrounding cars, however, other forms of crime may increase. Therefore, banning cars is not necessary to reduce crime, there are more effective methods to reduce the crime rate. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001006.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001006.soc index 0ccfb796..d5b0e603 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001006.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001006.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should fund charities, in a limited capacity, to ensure that vulnerable people in our society are being catered for. Charities have a mixed record in successfully deploying money. Some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. Therefore, the government should track the activities of charities and get reports to know how to better serve the people they represent and ensure that everyone is impacted by the administration. A guideline should be put in place to ensure that the charities are performing efficiently, but the UK has some obligation to fund charities -- especially ones that are most needed in the UK. Such as food shelters. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK has a responsibility to fund charities which can perform some activities that the government may not necessary be fully covering. For example charities can reach remote locals and find out about the vulnerability of the that community. They are often the first to reach a crisis situation like when a disaster occurs. They often offer free services to people in need without the numerous government buracaracy. However, the government should also be able to track the activities of the charities to ensure they are delivering what is expected and are meeting the needs of the people that the charities represent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should fund charities because they have a responsibility to help the vulnerable people in our society. The government can track the activities of charities and get reports to know how to better serve the people they represent and ensure that everyone is impacted by the administration. Charities have a mixed record in successfully deploying money. Some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. The UK has some obligation to fund charities -- especially ones that are most needed in the UK. Such as food shelters. We shouldn't overspend but have a guideline of how much of the budget should be put forth to these. The vulnerable point is great. The part where they say how the Government can track the charities and get to know the people of this country and the needs is an excellent point I wouldn't have thought of that. Although I doubt the government would be willing to do that -- I don't have much faith in them doing anything competently. I agree with this fully. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should fund charities because they have a responsibility to help the vulnerable people in our society. The government can track the activities of charities and get reports to know how to better serve the people they represent and ensure that everyone is impacted by the administration. Charities have a mixed record in successfully deploying money. Some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. The UK has some obligation to fund charities -- especially ones that are most needed in the UK. Such as food shelters. We shouldn't overspend but have a guideline of how much of the budget should be put forth to these. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should fund charities, in a limited capacity, to ensure that vulnerable people in our society are being catered for. Charities have a mixed record in successfully deploying money. Some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. Therefore, the government should track the activities of charities and get reports to know how to better serve the people they represent and ensure that everyone is impacted by the administration. A guideline should be put in place to ensure that the charities are performing efficiently, but the UK has some obligation to fund charities -- especially ones that are most needed in the UK. Such as food shelters. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK has a responsibility to fund charities which can perform some activities that the government may not necessary be fully covering. For example charities can reach remote locals and find out about the vulnerability of the that community. They are often the first to reach a crisis situation like when a disaster occurs. They often offer free services to people in need without the numerous government buracaracy. However, the government should also be able to track the activities of the charities to ensure they are delivering what is expected and are meeting the needs of the people that the charities represent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should fund charities because they have a responsibility to help the vulnerable people in our society. The government can track the activities of charities and get reports to know how to better serve the people they represent and ensure that everyone is impacted by the administration. Charities have a mixed record in successfully deploying money. Some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. The UK has some obligation to fund charities -- especially ones that are most needed in the UK. Such as food shelters. We shouldn't overspend but have a guideline of how much of the budget should be put forth to these. The vulnerable point is great. The part where they say how the Government can track the charities and get to know the people of this country and the needs is an excellent point I wouldn't have thought of that. Although I doubt the government would be willing to do that -- I don't have much faith in them doing anything competently. I agree with this fully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should fund charities because they have a responsibility to help the vulnerable people in our society. The government can track the activities of charities and get reports to know how to better serve the people they represent and ensure that everyone is impacted by the administration. Charities have a mixed record in successfully deploying money. Some charities are good - some wasteful - some incompetent. The UK has some obligation to fund charities -- especially ones that are most needed in the UK. Such as food shelters. We shouldn't overspend but have a guideline of how much of the budget should be put forth to these. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001007.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001007.soc index 7c8db4e0..435c1dc8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001007.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001007.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of legalising marijuana for recreational use. The main reason for this was that it is not a particularly harmful drug and is less harmful than alcohol. It is also a useful treatment for some medical conditions. The group thought that if it was legalised then it would be easier to control the quality of the drug and the THC content. It would also free up police time to deal with more serious crimes. However, the group thought that the age of purchase should be raised to 18 and that there should be a limit on the amount of marijuana that can be purchased at any one time. The group also thought that there should be a ban on smoking in public places. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalising recreational marijuana use but with some reservations. The reservations included the concern that people would abuse it and that it could have a negative impact on young people. However, it was felt that if it was legalised, then it could be sold in a safe way and that it could be used to generate revenue for the health service and the education service. It was felt that the current laws are not working and that there are many people who use it and will continue to use it whether it is legal or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of legalising marijuana for recreational use. However, there were some concerns about the health effects of marijuana and also the potential for children to access it. It was agreed that if marijuana was legalised, it should be tightly controlled and regulated to ensure that children would not have easy access to it. It was also agreed that if marijuana was legalised, the government should invest some of the tax revenue in public health campaigns to educate people about the potential harms of marijuana. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the legalisation of recreational marijuana use. However, they recognised that there were some benefits to legalisation and some of the participants were in favour of it. The group recognised that there was a need for more research to be done on the effects of marijuana on the human body and whether there are any medicinal uses for it. The group also recognised that there were some benefits to legalisation, including taxation of the drug, regulation of THC content and the freeing up of police time to deal with more serious offences. The group was in favour of the decriminalisation of marijuana use. The group felt that the current penalties for possession of marijuana were too severe and that the penalties should be reduced. The group felt that people should have the right to choose whether they wanted to use marijuana recreationally or not. The group was in favour of the legalisation of medicinal marijuana use. The group felt that there were many benefits to the legalisation of medicinal marijuana, including the fact that it would be regulated and therefore safer to use. The group also recognised that there were many benefits to the legalisation of medicinal marijuana, including the fact that it would +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising marijuana for recreational use. The main reason for this was that it is not a particularly harmful drug and is less harmful than alcohol. It is also a useful treatment for some medical conditions. The group thought that if it was legalised then it would be easier to control the quality of the drug and the THC content. It would also free up police time to deal with more serious crimes. However, the group thought that the age of purchase should be raised to 18 and that there should be a limit on the amount of marijuana that can be purchased at any one time. The group also thought that there should be a ban on smoking in public places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising recreational marijuana use but with some reservations. The reservations included the concern that people would abuse it and that it could have a negative impact on young people. However, it was felt that if it was legalised, then it could be sold in a safe way and that it could be used to generate revenue for the health service and the education service. It was felt that the current laws are not working and that there are many people who use it and will continue to use it whether it is legal or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising marijuana for recreational use. However, there were some concerns about the health effects of marijuana and also the potential for children to access it. It was agreed that if marijuana was legalised, it should be tightly controlled and regulated to ensure that children would not have easy access to it. It was also agreed that if marijuana was legalised, the government should invest some of the tax revenue in public health campaigns to educate people about the potential harms of marijuana. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the legalisation of recreational marijuana use. However, they recognised that there were some benefits to legalisation and some of the participants were in favour of it. The group recognised that there was a need for more research to be done on the effects of marijuana on the human body and whether there are any medicinal uses for it. The group also recognised that there were some benefits to legalisation, including taxation of the drug, regulation of THC content and the freeing up of police time to deal with more serious offences. The group was in favour of the decriminalisation of marijuana use. The group felt that the current penalties for possession of marijuana were too severe and that the penalties should be reduced. The group felt that people should have the right to choose whether they wanted to use marijuana recreationally or not. The group was in favour of the legalisation of medicinal marijuana use. The group felt that there were many benefits to the legalisation of medicinal marijuana, including the fact that it would be regulated and therefore safer to use. The group also recognised that there were many benefits to the legalisation of medicinal marijuana, including the fact that it would 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001008.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001008.soc index 0855073e..c79b43b0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001008.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001008.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the banning of cars in cities will not lead to a reduction in crime. There are some crimes that are more easily committed with cars, such as bank robberies, and banning cars may lead to a reduction in these crimes. However, it is also true that there are many other crimes that are not linked to cars in any way, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the banning of cars in cities will not lead to a reduction in crime. There are some crimes that have some link to cars, such as bank robberies, but these are a small proportion of the crimes that occur in cities. There are also many other crimes that have no link to cars, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is little evidence that banning cars in cities would reduce crime. In general, crimes such as bank robberies have little or no link to cars. Even if cars were to be banned, criminals would simply move their crimes to locations where cars were allowed. There are also many other crimes that have no link to cars, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that in general, the banning of cars in cities will not lead to a reduction in crime. It may lead to a reduction in certain types of crime, such as bank robberies, but this is only a small proportion of the crimes that occur. There are also many other crimes that have no link to cars, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the banning of cars in cities will not lead to a reduction in crime. There are some crimes that are more easily committed with cars, such as bank robberies, and banning cars may lead to a reduction in these crimes. However, it is also true that there are many other crimes that are not linked to cars in any way, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the banning of cars in cities will not lead to a reduction in crime. There are some crimes that have some link to cars, such as bank robberies, but these are a small proportion of the crimes that occur in cities. There are also many other crimes that have no link to cars, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is little evidence that banning cars in cities would reduce crime. In general, crimes such as bank robberies have little or no link to cars. Even if cars were to be banned, criminals would simply move their crimes to locations where cars were allowed. There are also many other crimes that have no link to cars, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that in general, the banning of cars in cities will not lead to a reduction in crime. It may lead to a reduction in certain types of crime, such as bank robberies, but this is only a small proportion of the crimes that occur. There are also many other crimes that have no link to cars, and banning cars will not reduce these crimes. The banning of cars will also inconvenience many people who are not criminals, and is therefore not a good idea. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001009.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001009.soc index bc173677..04b36ce6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001009.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001009.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking should be banned in all indoor public places. It is not acceptable for smokers to harm the health of non-smokers who also use these spaces. There should be designated areas for smokers in outdoor public places, as it would not be appropriate to force people to stop smoking when they are in these public spaces. The government should also put more effort into helping people to quit smoking and also to stop people from starting to smoke. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a partial ban on smoking in public places. This would mean that smoking would be banned in indoor public places, but people would be allowed to smoke in outdoor areas such as parks, beaches and other outdoor areas. The government should also put more effort into helping people to quit smoking and also to stop people from starting to smoke. The final consensus view represents a compromise between those participants who were in favour of a total ban and those who were not. To help the group come to a consensus opinion, each participant was asked to defend their opinion by presenting the strongest evidence in favour of it. Participants also critiqued the opinions of others and the draft consensus statement. It was a fruitful debate and in the end, the group managed to come to a final consensus opinion by taking into account all the opinions of each individual participant. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on smoking in all indoor public places. However, there should be designated areas for smokers in public places, such as parks, beaches and other outdoor areas. The government should also put more effort into helping people to quit smoking and also to stop people from starting to smoke. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Smoking is a major public health problem and causes lung cancer and other diseases. The government should take more action to prevent smoking and help people quit smoking. There should be designated areas for smokers to smoke in outdoor public places, but these areas should not be too close to people who are non-smokers. The government should do more to help smokers to quit and help them deal with the addiction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking should be banned in all indoor public places. It is not acceptable for smokers to harm the health of non-smokers who also use these spaces. There should be designated areas for smokers in outdoor public places, as it would not be appropriate to force people to stop smoking when they are in these public spaces. The government should also put more effort into helping people to quit smoking and also to stop people from starting to smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a partial ban on smoking in public places. This would mean that smoking would be banned in indoor public places, but people would be allowed to smoke in outdoor areas such as parks, beaches and other outdoor areas. The government should also put more effort into helping people to quit smoking and also to stop people from starting to smoke. The final consensus view represents a compromise between those participants who were in favour of a total ban and those who were not. To help the group come to a consensus opinion, each participant was asked to defend their opinion by presenting the strongest evidence in favour of it. Participants also critiqued the opinions of others and the draft consensus statement. It was a fruitful debate and in the end, the group managed to come to a final consensus opinion by taking into account all the opinions of each individual participant. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on smoking in all indoor public places. However, there should be designated areas for smokers in public places, such as parks, beaches and other outdoor areas. The government should also put more effort into helping people to quit smoking and also to stop people from starting to smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Smoking is a major public health problem and causes lung cancer and other diseases. The government should take more action to prevent smoking and help people quit smoking. There should be designated areas for smokers to smoke in outdoor public places, but these areas should not be too close to people who are non-smokers. The government should do more to help smokers to quit and help them deal with the addiction. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001010.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001010.soc index e8f2ace5..fcc30774 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001010.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001010.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a universal basic income. However, we thought that it should be targeted at those who really need it, such as the unemployed and disabled. We thought that it would be a good idea to remove the stigma of benefits by making it available to everyone, but that this would be a waste of money if it was given to people who don’t really need it. We also thought that the amount of the basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the government should provide a universal basic income. We think that this is a good idea because it will help lift people out of poverty and will also help to give everyone a fair playing field to start from. We think that this should be targeted at middle to low income families and that those already earning over £100000 should not be included. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income. It was thought that it would be a fairer system than the current benefits system. It would also help to reduce poverty and give people more freedom to choose the work they do. It was thought that it would be a good idea to trial the system in a small area to see how it worked in practice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide a universal basic income to everyone in the country, but with certain caveats. This income should be sufficient to live on and would be tax-free. In order to receive this income, recipients would have to be actively seeking employment or be in some form of training. The income would be reduced for those who are not actively seeking employment or in training. The universal basic income would be means-tested against any other income that the recipient may have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a universal basic income. However, we thought that it should be targeted at those who really need it, such as the unemployed and disabled. We thought that it would be a good idea to remove the stigma of benefits by making it available to everyone, but that this would be a waste of money if it was given to people who don’t really need it. We also thought that the amount of the basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should provide a universal basic income. We think that this is a good idea because it will help lift people out of poverty and will also help to give everyone a fair playing field to start from. We think that this should be targeted at middle to low income families and that those already earning over £100000 should not be included. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income. It was thought that it would be a fairer system than the current benefits system. It would also help to reduce poverty and give people more freedom to choose the work they do. It was thought that it would be a good idea to trial the system in a small area to see how it worked in practice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide a universal basic income to everyone in the country, but with certain caveats. This income should be sufficient to live on and would be tax-free. In order to receive this income, recipients would have to be actively seeking employment or be in some form of training. The income would be reduced for those who are not actively seeking employment or in training. The universal basic income would be means-tested against any other income that the recipient may have. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001011.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001011.soc index 9e4433b3..d4ee7d9e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001011.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001011.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should be responsible for the cost of caring for the elderly. There are many people who will not have family to help look after them, or may not be able to afford the care they need. The elderly have spent their working lives paying into the social care system, so it is only right that they are looked after when they can no longer look after themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should be responsible for the cost of caring for the elderly. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the elderly are cared for in their twilight years. It is not the responsibility of the elderly to fund their own care. The elderly have spent their entire lives working and paying taxes. It is only right that they should be cared for in their later years. The government should provide funding for caring for the elderly. If we're lucky we all get old and deserve to be treated with dignity in our twilight years. Many decent hard working people and their families won't be able to afford or provide good quality care for elderly relatives so it's only right that those who have paid their dues their whole lives are afforded the care they deserve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government providing support for the elderly. It was noted that in many cases, the elderly will not have immediate family ready to step up and take care or even help in the slightest. The group felt that it was only right that those who have paid their dues their whole lives are afforded the care they deserve. The group felt that the government has a responsibility to provide a safety net for the elderly and that they should be provided with the care they need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should be responsible for the cost of caring for the elderly. The elderly have worked hard all their lives and deserve to be looked after. The government should provide funding for caring for the elderly. If we're lucky we all get old and deserve to be treated with dignity in our twilight years. Many decent hard working people and their families won't be able to afford or provide good quality care for elderly relatives so it's only right that those who have paid their dues their whole lives are afforded the care they deserve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should be responsible for the cost of caring for the elderly. There are many people who will not have family to help look after them, or may not be able to afford the care they need. The elderly have spent their working lives paying into the social care system, so it is only right that they are looked after when they can no longer look after themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should be responsible for the cost of caring for the elderly. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the elderly are cared for in their twilight years. It is not the responsibility of the elderly to fund their own care. The elderly have spent their entire lives working and paying taxes. It is only right that they should be cared for in their later years. The government should provide funding for caring for the elderly. If we're lucky we all get old and deserve to be treated with dignity in our twilight years. Many decent hard working people and their families won't be able to afford or provide good quality care for elderly relatives so it's only right that those who have paid their dues their whole lives are afforded the care they deserve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government providing support for the elderly. It was noted that in many cases, the elderly will not have immediate family ready to step up and take care or even help in the slightest. The group felt that it was only right that those who have paid their dues their whole lives are afforded the care they deserve. The group felt that the government has a responsibility to provide a safety net for the elderly and that they should be provided with the care they need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should be responsible for the cost of caring for the elderly. The elderly have worked hard all their lives and deserve to be looked after. The government should provide funding for caring for the elderly. If we're lucky we all get old and deserve to be treated with dignity in our twilight years. Many decent hard working people and their families won't be able to afford or provide good quality care for elderly relatives so it's only right that those who have paid their dues their whole lives are afforded the care they deserve. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001012.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001012.soc index fd8a1fb5..1542041b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001012.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001012.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. This is because the current laws are ineffective and allow the sale of cannabis to continue on the black market, which is more dangerous. By legalising cannabis, it would be possible to control the strength of the product and to ensure that it is sold in a safe environment. The legalisation of cannabis would also reduce the amount of crime associated with cannabis and would reduce the strain on the police force. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should allow the commercial sale of cannabis. The current law is unworkable and dangerous. It is a gateway to more serious drugs. Cannabis is a naturally occurring substance, which has medicinal properties. It is already widely available on the black market, which is dangerous and expensive. The UK should legalise it and tax it. This would stop it being a gateway to more serious drugs, as the black market would be reduced. It would also stop it being mixed with dangerous substances. It would also allow the government to regulate the strength of cannabis, and to ensure it is not sold to minors. The current law is not working, and is dangerous. It should be changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the legalisation of cannabis. The main arguments for this were that it would reduce crime, increase tax revenues and allow for a more regulated market. There was a strong argument for the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal purposes. It was noted that cannabis is already legal in many countries and that the UK is lagging behind. It was noted that there is a high demand for cannabis and that it would be better to legalise it and control it rather than allow it to be sold on the black market. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a legalised and regulated cannabis market in the UK. This would allow for the sale of cannabis in a safe and regulated manner, thus preventing the harms caused by the criminal market. This would also mean that cannabis would be taxed, which would provide a source of income for the government. This would also mean that cannabis would be sold in a safe and regulated manner, and would therefore prevent the harms caused by the criminal market. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. This is because the current laws are ineffective and allow the sale of cannabis to continue on the black market, which is more dangerous. By legalising cannabis, it would be possible to control the strength of the product and to ensure that it is sold in a safe environment. The legalisation of cannabis would also reduce the amount of crime associated with cannabis and would reduce the strain on the police force. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should allow the commercial sale of cannabis. The current law is unworkable and dangerous. It is a gateway to more serious drugs. Cannabis is a naturally occurring substance, which has medicinal properties. It is already widely available on the black market, which is dangerous and expensive. The UK should legalise it and tax it. This would stop it being a gateway to more serious drugs, as the black market would be reduced. It would also stop it being mixed with dangerous substances. It would also allow the government to regulate the strength of cannabis, and to ensure it is not sold to minors. The current law is not working, and is dangerous. It should be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the legalisation of cannabis. The main arguments for this were that it would reduce crime, increase tax revenues and allow for a more regulated market. There was a strong argument for the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal purposes. It was noted that cannabis is already legal in many countries and that the UK is lagging behind. It was noted that there is a high demand for cannabis and that it would be better to legalise it and control it rather than allow it to be sold on the black market. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a legalised and regulated cannabis market in the UK. This would allow for the sale of cannabis in a safe and regulated manner, thus preventing the harms caused by the criminal market. This would also mean that cannabis would be taxed, which would provide a source of income for the government. This would also mean that cannabis would be sold in a safe and regulated manner, and would therefore prevent the harms caused by the criminal market. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001013.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001013.soc index fae8d4ef..380422b9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001013.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001013.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, the group was in favour of banning animal testing. However, we did not completely rule out the possibility of using animals in testing. In cases where human lives are at risk, we would allow animal testing, as long as the animals are treated with care and respect. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that animal testing should be banned. We should be more concerned about the welfare of animals than the development of drugs and cosmetics. We can use human tissue to test new drugs and cosmetics and also use computational models to reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. We should use the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in animal testing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Animal testing should be banned. Humans should not be treated as guinea pigs. The animal testing should be replaced by other alternate methods like human testing, computational models etc. The only exception would be for testing of medical products like drugs, cosmetics etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Animal testing is a necessary evil. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, the group was in favour of banning animal testing. However, we did not completely rule out the possibility of using animals in testing. In cases where human lives are at risk, we would allow animal testing, as long as the animals are treated with care and respect. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that animal testing should be banned. We should be more concerned about the welfare of animals than the development of drugs and cosmetics. We can use human tissue to test new drugs and cosmetics and also use computational models to reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. We should use the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in animal testing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Animal testing should be banned. Humans should not be treated as guinea pigs. The animal testing should be replaced by other alternate methods like human testing, computational models etc. The only exception would be for testing of medical products like drugs, cosmetics etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Animal testing is a necessary evil. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of animals used in testing, and to ensure that the animals are treated with the utmost care and respect. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to reduce the number of 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001014.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001014.soc index 03aca719..aa8ba792 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001014.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001014.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A white lie is a harmless untruth that is told to make someone feel better. We have all told white lies and we will continue to do so in the future. They are usually told to avoid hurting someone's feelings or to make the other person feel better. We believe it is OK to tell a white lie as long as it doesn't cause any harm or lead to more lies being told. White lies can also be used to save time and avoid conflict. The only time it is not OK to tell a white lie is if it leads to more lies being told. This can cause problems as the truth will eventually come out and this can lead to more problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of telling white lies. We felt that in some circumstances it is better to tell a white lie in order to avoid upsetting people and to preserve one's credibility. However, we were also aware that it is very easy for a white lie to become a bigger lie which can lead to further problems. We were in favour of telling white lies as long as they are told with good intentions and don't lead to further problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it is not a good idea to tell a lie as it can lead to further problems and is not an honest way to live your life. However, there are circumstances when it is acceptable to tell a lie. If the lie is to protect someone and does not cause harm to anyone, then it is acceptable to tell a lie. If the lie is to make someone feel better and is not going to cause any problems, then it is acceptable to tell a lie. The lie has to be for a good reason and not to cover up something bad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A white lie is the term used to describe a harmless or trivial lie, usually told to avoid hurting someone's feelings. White lies are usually told to spare someone's feelings, or to protect someone from being hurt or upset. The consensus view of the group was that white lies are sometimes OK but should be used sparingly and with care. The group felt that if a lie could cause harm, even if it is a white lie, it should not be told. If a lie is discovered it could cause embarrassment and lead to further problems. The group felt that white lies are sometimes used to smooth social situations and can be used to avoid conflict. They felt that white lies are sometimes used to save time and are often used in business situations. The group felt that people should be honest and truthful but sometimes white lies are used to help people and make them feel better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A white lie is a harmless untruth that is told to make someone feel better. We have all told white lies and we will continue to do so in the future. They are usually told to avoid hurting someone's feelings or to make the other person feel better. We believe it is OK to tell a white lie as long as it doesn't cause any harm or lead to more lies being told. White lies can also be used to save time and avoid conflict. The only time it is not OK to tell a white lie is if it leads to more lies being told. This can cause problems as the truth will eventually come out and this can lead to more problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of telling white lies. We felt that in some circumstances it is better to tell a white lie in order to avoid upsetting people and to preserve one's credibility. However, we were also aware that it is very easy for a white lie to become a bigger lie which can lead to further problems. We were in favour of telling white lies as long as they are told with good intentions and don't lead to further problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it is not a good idea to tell a lie as it can lead to further problems and is not an honest way to live your life. However, there are circumstances when it is acceptable to tell a lie. If the lie is to protect someone and does not cause harm to anyone, then it is acceptable to tell a lie. If the lie is to make someone feel better and is not going to cause any problems, then it is acceptable to tell a lie. The lie has to be for a good reason and not to cover up something bad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A white lie is the term used to describe a harmless or trivial lie, usually told to avoid hurting someone's feelings. White lies are usually told to spare someone's feelings, or to protect someone from being hurt or upset. The consensus view of the group was that white lies are sometimes OK but should be used sparingly and with care. The group felt that if a lie could cause harm, even if it is a white lie, it should not be told. If a lie is discovered it could cause embarrassment and lead to further problems. The group felt that white lies are sometimes used to smooth social situations and can be used to avoid conflict. They felt that white lies are sometimes used to save time and are often used in business situations. The group felt that people should be honest and truthful but sometimes white lies are used to help people and make them feel better. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001015.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001015.soc index d75da646..85618f3b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001015.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001015.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not have the power to block the press from publishing stories that are harmful to the country. The press is a vital part of any democracy and it is their duty to hold the government to account and to publish stories that will help to make the country better. If the press is not allowed to publish these stories, then it will be difficult to keep the government in check and the citizens will not be made aware of things that could be harmful to the country. The government should not be allowed to sugar coat the realities of a country even if that means letting the press publish stories which could be harmful. All democracy should be build on the idea of a free press and allowing the truth, no matter how ugly, to be told. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the press should be allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country. A free press is an essential part of a free society. The press should be able to publish anything they want, as long as it is true. This is important to allow people to know what is going on in the country. If the government censors the press, it could lead to a lack of trust from the citizens. This could also lead to a lack of transparency from the government. The citizens should be able to hold the government accountable. If the government is allowed to censor the press, it could lead to corruption. If the press is not allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country, the press could lose their credibility. It is also important to have a free press in order to protect human rights. It is important to have a free press in order to protect freedom of speech. If the press is not allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country, this could lead to a lack of trust from the citizens. This could also lead to a lack of transparency from the government. The citizens should be able to hold the government accountable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not allow the press to publish stories that are harmful to the country. The press has an obligation to hold the government to account, but this does not mean that the press should be allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country. If there are stories that will be harmful to our country, the government should not allow them to be published. These could cause danger and harm to individuals and all citizens of our country, and this should be prevented at all costs. The safety of the people in our country is priority and should be safeguarded at all costs no matter how serious the story! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the press should be allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country. The press has an obligation to hold the government to account. By blocking negative/harmful stories from being published is morally wrong. The citizens of any country have a right to know what's going on with no impartiality. Once truth is removed from the press, stories will be published to serve an agenda for those with an active interest. The press should be independent & not owned or accountable to any government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not have the power to block the press from publishing stories that are harmful to the country. The press is a vital part of any democracy and it is their duty to hold the government to account and to publish stories that will help to make the country better. If the press is not allowed to publish these stories, then it will be difficult to keep the government in check and the citizens will not be made aware of things that could be harmful to the country. The government should not be allowed to sugar coat the realities of a country even if that means letting the press publish stories which could be harmful. All democracy should be build on the idea of a free press and allowing the truth, no matter how ugly, to be told. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the press should be allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country. A free press is an essential part of a free society. The press should be able to publish anything they want, as long as it is true. This is important to allow people to know what is going on in the country. If the government censors the press, it could lead to a lack of trust from the citizens. This could also lead to a lack of transparency from the government. The citizens should be able to hold the government accountable. If the government is allowed to censor the press, it could lead to corruption. If the press is not allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country, the press could lose their credibility. It is also important to have a free press in order to protect human rights. It is important to have a free press in order to protect freedom of speech. If the press is not allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country, this could lead to a lack of trust from the citizens. This could also lead to a lack of transparency from the government. The citizens should be able to hold the government accountable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not allow the press to publish stories that are harmful to the country. The press has an obligation to hold the government to account, but this does not mean that the press should be allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country. If there are stories that will be harmful to our country, the government should not allow them to be published. These could cause danger and harm to individuals and all citizens of our country, and this should be prevented at all costs. The safety of the people in our country is priority and should be safeguarded at all costs no matter how serious the story! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the press should be allowed to publish stories that are harmful to the country. The press has an obligation to hold the government to account. By blocking negative/harmful stories from being published is morally wrong. The citizens of any country have a right to know what's going on with no impartiality. Once truth is removed from the press, stories will be published to serve an agenda for those with an active interest. The press should be independent & not owned or accountable to any government. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001016.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001016.soc index 018b8f49..43c867aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001016.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001016.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of foreign aid given by the UK government. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to any increase in foreign aid expenditure. The group felt that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed and that increasing foreign aid expenditure would be a distraction from this. The group was also opposed to the idea that foreign aid is an effective way of helping people in poorer countries. They felt that the UK should instead be teaching people in poorer countries the skills they need to help themselves. The group was also opposed to the idea that foreign aid is an effective way of helping people in poorer countries. They felt that the UK should instead be teaching people in poorer countries the skills they need to help themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The UK government should not increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid. We have many problems in our own country that need fixing first. Waiting list for healthcare are at an all time high, we have homelessness , a housing crisis , our roads are blighted by pot holes , people cannot afford to heat their homes and buy food and yet we give money to countries like china and india , who have space programmes !! Foreign aid should be targetted on teaching people the skills they need to help themselves.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of money spent on foreign aid. The reasons for this were that the UK has a cost of living crisis and that the UK government should fix problems at home before helping other countries. The group was also of the opinion that the UK should not increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid because other countries should fix their own problems. The group did not think that the UK government should increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid because other countries have space programmes and should be able to help themselves. The group was of the opinion that the UK government should not increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid because the UK has many problems at home that need to be fixed first. The group was also of the opinion that the UK government should not increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid because the UK has many problems at home that need to be fixed first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of foreign aid given by the UK government. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to any increase in foreign aid expenditure. The group felt that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed and that increasing foreign aid expenditure would be a distraction from this. The group was also opposed to the idea that foreign aid is an effective way of helping people in poorer countries. They felt that the UK should instead be teaching people in poorer countries the skills they need to help themselves. The group was also opposed to the idea that foreign aid is an effective way of helping people in poorer countries. They felt that the UK should instead be teaching people in poorer countries the skills they need to help themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The UK government should not increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid. We have many problems in our own country that need fixing first. Waiting list for healthcare are at an all time high, we have homelessness , a housing crisis , our roads are blighted by pot holes , people cannot afford to heat their homes and buy food and yet we give money to countries like china and india , who have space programmes !! Foreign aid should be targetted on teaching people the skills they need to help themselves.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of money spent on foreign aid. The reasons for this were that the UK has a cost of living crisis and that the UK government should fix problems at home before helping other countries. The group was also of the opinion that the UK should not increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid because other countries should fix their own problems. The group did not think that the UK government should increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid because other countries have space programmes and should be able to help themselves. The group was of the opinion that the UK government should not increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid because the UK has many problems at home that need to be fixed first. The group was also of the opinion that the UK government should not increase the amount of money spent on foreign aid because the UK has many problems at home that need to be fixed first. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001017.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001017.soc index f3a41a86..58b4e263 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001017.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001017.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants was in favour of a universal basic income, which would be available to everyone and would be enough to live on. However, we thought that it should be targeted at those who really need it, such as the unemployed and disabled. We also thought that it would be a good idea to remove the stigma of benefits by making it available to everyone, but that this would be a waste of money if it was given to people who don’t really need it. We also thought that the amount of the basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A universal basic income would be a good idea. The current benefits system is not working and people in need should not be made to feel like scroungers. It would be a waste of money if the universal income was given to people who don’t really need it, so it should be targeted at those who are unemployed or disabled. We thought that it would be a good idea to remove the stigma of benefits by making it available to everyone, but that this would be a waste of money if it was given to people who don’t really need it. We also thought that the amount of the basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A universal basic income is a good idea, but it should not be given to everyone. Instead, it should be given to those who are unable to work, such as the unemployed and disabled. This will remove the stigma of benefits and make people feel like they are not being treated unfairly. The amount of the universal basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. It should also be targeted at those who really need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a universal basic income. However, we thought that it should be targeted at those who really need it, such as the unemployed and disabled. We thought that it would be a good idea to remove the stigma of benefits by making it available to everyone, but that this would be a waste of money if it was given to people who don’t really need it. We also thought that the amount of the basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants was in favour of a universal basic income, which would be available to everyone and would be enough to live on. However, we thought that it should be targeted at those who really need it, such as the unemployed and disabled. We also thought that it would be a good idea to remove the stigma of benefits by making it available to everyone, but that this would be a waste of money if it was given to people who don’t really need it. We also thought that the amount of the basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A universal basic income would be a good idea. The current benefits system is not working and people in need should not be made to feel like scroungers. It would be a waste of money if the universal income was given to people who don’t really need it, so it should be targeted at those who are unemployed or disabled. We thought that it would be a good idea to remove the stigma of benefits by making it available to everyone, but that this would be a waste of money if it was given to people who don’t really need it. We also thought that the amount of the basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A universal basic income is a good idea, but it should not be given to everyone. Instead, it should be given to those who are unable to work, such as the unemployed and disabled. This will remove the stigma of benefits and make people feel like they are not being treated unfairly. The amount of the universal basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. It should also be targeted at those who really need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a universal basic income. However, we thought that it should be targeted at those who really need it, such as the unemployed and disabled. We thought that it would be a good idea to remove the stigma of benefits by making it available to everyone, but that this would be a waste of money if it was given to people who don’t really need it. We also thought that the amount of the basic income should be enough to live on, but not enough to make people want to stop working. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001018.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001018.soc index ae32d947..bda82a3c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001018.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001018.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the increased use of genetically modified crops in the UK. The group felt that, in general, the crops were safe to eat and that they could be more resistant to weather changes. However, they did express concerns over the long term effects of genetically modified crops on the soil and the health of the people eating them. They also expressed concerns that the introduction of these crops could lead to increased profits for large companies and a loss of profits for small farmers. They also expressed concern that the introduction of these crops into rich countries could mean that poorer countries are unable to afford these products, putting them at a disadvantage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the increased use of genetically modified crops in the UK. The group felt that, in general, the crops were safe to eat and that they could be more resistant to weather changes. However, they did express concerns over the long term effects of genetically modified crops on the soil and the health of the people eating them. They also expressed concerns that the introduction of these crops could lead to increased profits for large companies and a loss of profits for small farmers. In the end, the group decided that we should be in favour of increasing the usage of genetically modified crops, but with careful monitoring of the effects on the soil and the health of the people eating them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the increased use of genetically modified crops in the UK. The group felt that, in general, the crops were safe to eat and that they could be more resistant to weather changes. However, they did express concerns over the long term effects of genetically modified crops on the soil and the health of the people eating them. They also expressed concerns that the introduction of these crops could lead to increased profits for large companies and a loss of profits for small farmers. They felt that the increase in profit for large companies could lead to the disappearance of small farms and an increase in unemployment in the farming industry. They also felt that these companies could start to monopolise the market, leading to unfair competition and possibly less choice for consumers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the increased use of genetically modified crops in the UK. The group felt that, in general, the crops were safe to eat and that they could be more resistant to weather changes. However, they did express concerns over the long term effects of genetically modified crops on the soil and the health of the people eating them. They also expressed concerns that the introduction of these crops could lead to increased profits for large companies and a loss of profits for small farmers. However, they felt that this loss of profits would not affect small farmers, as they could also buy the seeds and increase their own crop yield. They also agreed that in poorer countries, the introduction of genetically modified crops could present problems for poorer farmers, and the increased yields from genetically modified crops could lead to lower prices, putting small farmers out of business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the increased use of genetically modified crops in the UK. The group felt that, in general, the crops were safe to eat and that they could be more resistant to weather changes. However, they did express concerns over the long term effects of genetically modified crops on the soil and the health of the people eating them. They also expressed concerns that the introduction of these crops could lead to increased profits for large companies and a loss of profits for small farmers. They also expressed concern that the introduction of these crops into rich countries could mean that poorer countries are unable to afford these products, putting them at a disadvantage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the increased use of genetically modified crops in the UK. The group felt that, in general, the crops were safe to eat and that they could be more resistant to weather changes. However, they did express concerns over the long term effects of genetically modified crops on the soil and the health of the people eating them. They also expressed concerns that the introduction of these crops could lead to increased profits for large companies and a loss of profits for small farmers. In the end, the group decided that we should be in favour of increasing the usage of genetically modified crops, but with careful monitoring of the effects on the soil and the health of the people eating them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the increased use of genetically modified crops in the UK. The group felt that, in general, the crops were safe to eat and that they could be more resistant to weather changes. However, they did express concerns over the long term effects of genetically modified crops on the soil and the health of the people eating them. They also expressed concerns that the introduction of these crops could lead to increased profits for large companies and a loss of profits for small farmers. They felt that the increase in profit for large companies could lead to the disappearance of small farms and an increase in unemployment in the farming industry. They also felt that these companies could start to monopolise the market, leading to unfair competition and possibly less choice for consumers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the increased use of genetically modified crops in the UK. The group felt that, in general, the crops were safe to eat and that they could be more resistant to weather changes. However, they did express concerns over the long term effects of genetically modified crops on the soil and the health of the people eating them. They also expressed concerns that the introduction of these crops could lead to increased profits for large companies and a loss of profits for small farmers. However, they felt that this loss of profits would not affect small farmers, as they could also buy the seeds and increase their own crop yield. They also agreed that in poorer countries, the introduction of genetically modified crops could present problems for poorer farmers, and the increased yields from genetically modified crops could lead to lower prices, putting small farmers out of business. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001019.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001019.soc index 4f56646a..d217006c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001019.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001019.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the current law should not be changed. This is because if the law is changed, the people that make movies, tv shows, music and software will lose out on money. Also, the people that are downloading the pirated content are not paying for the content so the people that made it are not getting any money for their hard work. If the law is changed, it will cause the companies that make these products to lose money and may result in them going out of business. This would mean that the people that work in these companies would lose their jobs. We think that the law should stay the same because it protects the people that make these products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the current law should not be changed. We believe that this is because if people can get what they want for free then they will not be willing to pay for it. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the quality of the products will decrease and this will lead to less people buying the products. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the quality of the products will decrease and this will lead to less people buying the products. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the quality of the products will decrease and this will lead to less people buying the products. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the quality of the products will decrease and this will lead to less people buying the products. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that we should change the current law that says it is illegal to download pirated movies, TV shows, music, and software. We believe that this should be changed as it is a very harsh law and in some cases is not necessary. We feel that the law should be changed to reflect the fact that the law should be more lenient. We believe that the law should be changed as it is not necessary to make it illegal to download pirated content as it is not harming anyone and the companies involved are profiting from this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the current law should be changed to make it legal to download pirated movies, TV shows, music, and software. We believe that this is because it is often the case that the people that profit from pirated movies are linked to larger crime networks and this funds drugs and people trafficking etc. The genuine hardworking citizen is having less disposable income though so entertainment companies need to bear this in mind when making the legal ways to to view films, music, shows etc more affordable. Adding more ways to share subscriptions may help with this rather than looking unfavourably on this. We need to look at WHY people want this law changed and adapt the legal ways we share. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the current law should not be changed. This is because if the law is changed, the people that make movies, tv shows, music and software will lose out on money. Also, the people that are downloading the pirated content are not paying for the content so the people that made it are not getting any money for their hard work. If the law is changed, it will cause the companies that make these products to lose money and may result in them going out of business. This would mean that the people that work in these companies would lose their jobs. We think that the law should stay the same because it protects the people that make these products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the current law should not be changed. We believe that this is because if people can get what they want for free then they will not be willing to pay for it. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the quality of the products will decrease and this will lead to less people buying the products. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the quality of the products will decrease and this will lead to less people buying the products. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the quality of the products will decrease and this will lead to less people buying the products. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the quality of the products will decrease and this will lead to less people buying the products. This will then lead to a decrease in revenue for the producers and they will not be able to make as many products. If this happens then the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that we should change the current law that says it is illegal to download pirated movies, TV shows, music, and software. We believe that this should be changed as it is a very harsh law and in some cases is not necessary. We feel that the law should be changed to reflect the fact that the law should be more lenient. We believe that the law should be changed as it is not necessary to make it illegal to download pirated content as it is not harming anyone and the companies involved are profiting from this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the current law should be changed to make it legal to download pirated movies, TV shows, music, and software. We believe that this is because it is often the case that the people that profit from pirated movies are linked to larger crime networks and this funds drugs and people trafficking etc. The genuine hardworking citizen is having less disposable income though so entertainment companies need to bear this in mind when making the legal ways to to view films, music, shows etc more affordable. Adding more ways to share subscriptions may help with this rather than looking unfavourably on this. We need to look at WHY people want this law changed and adapt the legal ways we share. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001020.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001020.soc index 6ed27456..5d172eb1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001020.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001020.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more immigration to the UK. The main argument for this was that immigration brings a variety of benefits to the UK, such as cultural diversity, economic growth, and filling skill shortages in the workforce. However, it was also recognised that immigration can lead to increased pressure on public services such as schools and hospitals, and may lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially driving down wages for UK citizens. It was also recognised that these problems can often be magnified during economic downturns or when there is high unemployment among certain groups. The group felt that the positives of immigration outweighed the negatives, but that it is important to ensure that the UK has the necessary resources in place to support immigrants. The group also felt that immigrants should be carefully vetted prior to being allowed into the country.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We generally agree with increasing immigration to the UK. The main argument for this is that immigration brings a variety of benefits to the UK, such as cultural diversity, economic growth, and filling skill shortages in the workforce. However, it was also recognised that immigration can lead to increased pressure on public services such as schools and hospitals, and may lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially driving down wages for UK citizens. It was also recognised that these problems can often be magnified during economic downturns or when there is high unemployment among certain groups. The group felt that the positives of immigration outweighed the negatives, but that it is important to ensure that the UK has the necessary resources in place to support immigrants. We also felt that immigration should be carefully vetted to ensure that it does not increase pressure on public services and that it should not drive down wages for UK citizens. We also felt that it is important to address demographic challenges such as an aging population and declining birth rates especially in the younger generation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more immigration to the UK. The main argument for this was that immigration brings a variety of benefits to the UK, such as cultural diversity, economic growth, and filling skill shortages in the workforce. However, it was also recognised that immigration can lead to increased pressure on public services such as schools and hospitals, and may lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially driving down wages for UK citizens. It was also recognised that these problems can often be magnified during economic downturns or when there is high unemployment among certain groups. The group felt that the positives of immigration outweighed the negatives, but that it is important to ensure that the UK has the necessary resources in place to support immigrants. The group also felt that it is important to vet immigrants prior to allowing them into the country, in order to ensure that they are a suitable addition to the UK population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more immigration to the UK. The main argument for this was that immigration brings a variety of benefits to the UK, such as cultural diversity, economic growth, and filling skill shortages in the workforce. However, it was also recognised that immigration can lead to increased pressure on public services such as schools and hospitals, and may lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially driving down wages for UK citizens. It was also recognised that these problems can often be magnified during economic downturns or when there is high unemployment among certain groups. The group felt that the positives of immigration outweighed the negatives, but that it is important to ensure that the UK has the necessary resources in place to support immigrants. The group also agreed that we should ensure that immigrants are carefully vetted prior to being allowed into the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more immigration to the UK. The main argument for this was that immigration brings a variety of benefits to the UK, such as cultural diversity, economic growth, and filling skill shortages in the workforce. However, it was also recognised that immigration can lead to increased pressure on public services such as schools and hospitals, and may lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially driving down wages for UK citizens. It was also recognised that these problems can often be magnified during economic downturns or when there is high unemployment among certain groups. The group felt that the positives of immigration outweighed the negatives, but that it is important to ensure that the UK has the necessary resources in place to support immigrants. The group also felt that immigrants should be carefully vetted prior to being allowed into the country.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We generally agree with increasing immigration to the UK. The main argument for this is that immigration brings a variety of benefits to the UK, such as cultural diversity, economic growth, and filling skill shortages in the workforce. However, it was also recognised that immigration can lead to increased pressure on public services such as schools and hospitals, and may lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially driving down wages for UK citizens. It was also recognised that these problems can often be magnified during economic downturns or when there is high unemployment among certain groups. The group felt that the positives of immigration outweighed the negatives, but that it is important to ensure that the UK has the necessary resources in place to support immigrants. We also felt that immigration should be carefully vetted to ensure that it does not increase pressure on public services and that it should not drive down wages for UK citizens. We also felt that it is important to address demographic challenges such as an aging population and declining birth rates especially in the younger generation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more immigration to the UK. The main argument for this was that immigration brings a variety of benefits to the UK, such as cultural diversity, economic growth, and filling skill shortages in the workforce. However, it was also recognised that immigration can lead to increased pressure on public services such as schools and hospitals, and may lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially driving down wages for UK citizens. It was also recognised that these problems can often be magnified during economic downturns or when there is high unemployment among certain groups. The group felt that the positives of immigration outweighed the negatives, but that it is important to ensure that the UK has the necessary resources in place to support immigrants. The group also felt that it is important to vet immigrants prior to allowing them into the country, in order to ensure that they are a suitable addition to the UK population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more immigration to the UK. The main argument for this was that immigration brings a variety of benefits to the UK, such as cultural diversity, economic growth, and filling skill shortages in the workforce. However, it was also recognised that immigration can lead to increased pressure on public services such as schools and hospitals, and may lead to increased competition for jobs and potentially driving down wages for UK citizens. It was also recognised that these problems can often be magnified during economic downturns or when there is high unemployment among certain groups. The group felt that the positives of immigration outweighed the negatives, but that it is important to ensure that the UK has the necessary resources in place to support immigrants. The group also agreed that we should ensure that immigrants are carefully vetted prior to being allowed into the country. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001021.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001021.soc index 24eb43a6..9dd334d5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001021.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001021.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that there is a need for the development of alternative methods to test new drugs and chemicals. These new methods can be computational models that will reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. While we completely support a ban on cruel testing methods, we do believe that animal testing has a role to play in the development of new drugs and chemicals. We should use the 3Rs in animal testing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that animal testing should be banned. We should be more concerned about the welfare of animals than the development of drugs and cosmetics. We can use human tissue to test new drugs and cosmetics and also use computational models to reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. The 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in animal testing should be followed and more funding should be invested to find alternative ways to test drugs and cosmetics without causing any harm to the animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban animal testing. We believe that animals should have the right to live like any other living being. We should be more concerned about the welfare of animals than the development of drugs and cosmetics. We can use human tissue to test new drugs and cosmetics and also use computational models to reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. We should use the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in animal testing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on animal testing as it can lead to unnecessary suffering and even death of animals. There are other ways to test the effectiveness of new drugs and cosmetics. The animal models can sometimes provide a very inaccurate representation of the human anatomy, thus leading to false data. We should use human tissue to test new drugs and cosmetics. Computational models can be used to reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. The 3Rs should be implemented when testing on animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that there is a need for the development of alternative methods to test new drugs and chemicals. These new methods can be computational models that will reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. While we completely support a ban on cruel testing methods, we do believe that animal testing has a role to play in the development of new drugs and chemicals. We should use the 3Rs in animal testing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that animal testing should be banned. We should be more concerned about the welfare of animals than the development of drugs and cosmetics. We can use human tissue to test new drugs and cosmetics and also use computational models to reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. The 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in animal testing should be followed and more funding should be invested to find alternative ways to test drugs and cosmetics without causing any harm to the animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban animal testing. We believe that animals should have the right to live like any other living being. We should be more concerned about the welfare of animals than the development of drugs and cosmetics. We can use human tissue to test new drugs and cosmetics and also use computational models to reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. We should use the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in animal testing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on animal testing as it can lead to unnecessary suffering and even death of animals. There are other ways to test the effectiveness of new drugs and cosmetics. The animal models can sometimes provide a very inaccurate representation of the human anatomy, thus leading to false data. We should use human tissue to test new drugs and cosmetics. Computational models can be used to reduce and replace the use of animals in testing. The 3Rs should be implemented when testing on animals. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001022.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001022.soc index cf6d9333..b55e0ea8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001022.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001022.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of foreign aid given by the UK government. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. It was also suggested that the foreign aid should be targeted on teaching people the skills they need to help themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of foreign aid given by the UK government. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. It was felt that this money should be targetted on teaching people the skills they need to help themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The general feeling of the group was that the UK government should not increase the amount of money it spends on foreign aid. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. It was also felt that some of the foreign aid should be targetted on teaching people the skills they need to help themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of foreign aid given by the UK government. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. It was also felt that this money should be spent wisely, teaching people in poor countries the skills they need to help themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of foreign aid given by the UK government. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. It was also suggested that the foreign aid should be targeted on teaching people the skills they need to help themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of foreign aid given by the UK government. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. It was felt that this money should be targetted on teaching people the skills they need to help themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The general feeling of the group was that the UK government should not increase the amount of money it spends on foreign aid. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. It was also felt that some of the foreign aid should be targetted on teaching people the skills they need to help themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the amount of foreign aid given by the UK government. The reasons for this were that the UK has many problems of its own that need to be addressed first. In particular, the cost of living crisis was mentioned, and it was felt that the government should be concentrating on this rather than giving money to other countries. It was also felt that other countries should be doing more to help themselves rather than relying on foreign aid. However, it was recognised that some foreign aid is necessary and that the UK government should continue to give some money to other countries. It was also felt that this money should be spent wisely, teaching people in poor countries the skills they need to help themselves. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001023.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001023.soc index c61b4a23..3c7d6025 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001023.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001023.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is an onus on the consumer to ensure that food that is purchased is produced in an ethical way. In general, the group was in favour of buying foreign produce, with the caveat that it was produced in an ethical way and that it was safe to consume. The group felt that there was a responsibility to support other countries, and that there was an issue with food miles. The group felt that it was important to buy local where possible, but that it was also important to support other countries. The group felt that it was important to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries, but that it was important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it was produced in an ethical way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of buying foreign produce, with the caveat that it was produced in an ethical way and that it was safe to consume. The group felt that there was a responsibility to support other countries, and that there was an issue with food miles. The group felt that it was important to buy local where possible, but that it was also important to support other countries. The group felt that it was important to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries, but that it was important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it was produced in an ethical way. The group felt that there was a need to ensure that the food was produced and transported in a safe manner and that the workers were paid fairly and had good working conditions so that there was no exploitation taking place. The exercise can be carried out in person with a number of participants in a room (even just three or four people), or can be done using online tools such as Padlet, or using a spreadsheet such as the one below, where the column on the right records the opinions of individuals and the column on the left records the final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of buying foreign produce, with the caveat that it was produced in an ethical way and that it was safe to consume. The group felt that there was a responsibility to support other countries, and that there was an issue with food miles. The group felt that it was important to buy local where possible, but that it was also important to support other countries. The group felt that it was important to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries, but that it was important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it was produced in an ethical way. The group felt that it was important to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries, but that it was important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it was produced in an ethical way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that it is ethical to buy foreign produce. We agree that it is important to support other countries, and that it is important to buy local where possible. However, we agree that there is a responsibility to ensure that foreign produce is produced in an ethical way, and that it is safe to consume. The group also discussed whether buying from abroad is good or bad for the environment, and whether there was a responsibility to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries. We agree that buying foreign produce helps other countries, but that it is important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it is produced in an ethical way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is an onus on the consumer to ensure that food that is purchased is produced in an ethical way. In general, the group was in favour of buying foreign produce, with the caveat that it was produced in an ethical way and that it was safe to consume. The group felt that there was a responsibility to support other countries, and that there was an issue with food miles. The group felt that it was important to buy local where possible, but that it was also important to support other countries. The group felt that it was important to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries, but that it was important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it was produced in an ethical way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of buying foreign produce, with the caveat that it was produced in an ethical way and that it was safe to consume. The group felt that there was a responsibility to support other countries, and that there was an issue with food miles. The group felt that it was important to buy local where possible, but that it was also important to support other countries. The group felt that it was important to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries, but that it was important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it was produced in an ethical way. The group felt that there was a need to ensure that the food was produced and transported in a safe manner and that the workers were paid fairly and had good working conditions so that there was no exploitation taking place. The exercise can be carried out in person with a number of participants in a room (even just three or four people), or can be done using online tools such as Padlet, or using a spreadsheet such as the one below, where the column on the right records the opinions of individuals and the column on the left records the final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of buying foreign produce, with the caveat that it was produced in an ethical way and that it was safe to consume. The group felt that there was a responsibility to support other countries, and that there was an issue with food miles. The group felt that it was important to buy local where possible, but that it was also important to support other countries. The group felt that it was important to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries, but that it was important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it was produced in an ethical way. The group felt that it was important to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries, but that it was important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it was produced in an ethical way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that it is ethical to buy foreign produce. We agree that it is important to support other countries, and that it is important to buy local where possible. However, we agree that there is a responsibility to ensure that foreign produce is produced in an ethical way, and that it is safe to consume. The group also discussed whether buying from abroad is good or bad for the environment, and whether there was a responsibility to buy foreign produce in order to support the economies of other countries. We agree that buying foreign produce helps other countries, but that it is important to be careful about the source of the produce and to ensure that it is produced in an ethical way. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001024.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001024.soc index 81ae2990..e903fcb9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001024.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001024.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the government should not guarantee every citizen access to a university education. We believe that it should be available to all, but only to those who can show they are equipped to deal with it and would benefit properly. It is not appropriate for everyone, and it is not necessary for everyone. We also believe that the government should provide access to university education to those who might otherwise miss out on it and both want and would benefit from the education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a government guaranteeing every citizen access to a university education. The group was in favour of the idea that university should be a privilege for those who want it and can handle it, and that access to university should be granted on the basis of ability. The group also agreed that a university education is not for everyone and that other opportunities such as apprenticeships are equally as important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that every citizen should have the right to access to university education, however, there should be some form of assessment to ensure that they are capable of handling the workload. This would ensure that the quality of the university is not degraded and that the graduates are of a high standard. This would also help to keep the university system fair and would not allow for those who do not deserve a place to take the place of someone who does. This would also help to keep the quality of the university high, as it would not be swamped with people who are not capable of handling the workload. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a government guaranteeing every citizen access to a university education. The group believed that this would create a situation where some citizens would be attending university who were not suited to it, would not benefit from it, and who would not want to attend. This would result in a waste of resources and the potential for the creation of a large number of unhappy, frustrated graduates. The group believed that the government should make university education accessible to all citizens who want to attend, but that the decision to attend should be based on the individual's desire and suitability for the education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should not guarantee every citizen access to a university education. We believe that it should be available to all, but only to those who can show they are equipped to deal with it and would benefit properly. It is not appropriate for everyone, and it is not necessary for everyone. We also believe that the government should provide access to university education to those who might otherwise miss out on it and both want and would benefit from the education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a government guaranteeing every citizen access to a university education. The group was in favour of the idea that university should be a privilege for those who want it and can handle it, and that access to university should be granted on the basis of ability. The group also agreed that a university education is not for everyone and that other opportunities such as apprenticeships are equally as important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that every citizen should have the right to access to university education, however, there should be some form of assessment to ensure that they are capable of handling the workload. This would ensure that the quality of the university is not degraded and that the graduates are of a high standard. This would also help to keep the university system fair and would not allow for those who do not deserve a place to take the place of someone who does. This would also help to keep the quality of the university high, as it would not be swamped with people who are not capable of handling the workload. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a government guaranteeing every citizen access to a university education. The group believed that this would create a situation where some citizens would be attending university who were not suited to it, would not benefit from it, and who would not want to attend. This would result in a waste of resources and the potential for the creation of a large number of unhappy, frustrated graduates. The group believed that the government should make university education accessible to all citizens who want to attend, but that the decision to attend should be based on the individual's desire and suitability for the education. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001025.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001025.soc index 83c49bf4..492bd6e4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001025.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001025.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group of participants is in favour of building a new nuclear power station. The new nuclear power station will help to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and will help to combat climate change. Nuclear power is the cleanest and safest source of energy currently available to us and will help to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we produce. The new power station will create jobs for people working in the construction and maintenance of the site. The new nuclear power station will help the UK to become a world leader in energy generation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of having a new nuclear power station. They felt that the UK could use new nuclear power stations and that nuclear is currently the safest, cleanest source of power we have. The group also felt that the UK needs to rely upon different energy sources to help with climate change and that nuclear energy is much cleaner to use and is very safe. The group also felt that having nuclear energy means we can decommission some of the old power plants that are inefficient and cause a lot of greenhouse gases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a new nuclear power station. It was felt that nuclear power was a cleaner energy source than coal or gas and was the best option currently available. The group felt that a nuclear power station would create jobs and help the economy. However, the group also felt that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. It was felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should have a new nuclear power station. The world is moving towards cleaner energy, and nuclear is the cleanest and safest source of energy we currently have. While we should be aiming for more green renewable sources, the technology will not be ready to support it for many years. Nuclear energy is much cleaner to use use and is very safe. It will create jobs in the construction and maintenance of the site and for people running the site. Having nuclear energy means we can decommission some of the old power plants that are inefficient and cause a lot of greenhouse gases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants is in favour of building a new nuclear power station. The new nuclear power station will help to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and will help to combat climate change. Nuclear power is the cleanest and safest source of energy currently available to us and will help to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we produce. The new power station will create jobs for people working in the construction and maintenance of the site. The new nuclear power station will help the UK to become a world leader in energy generation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of having a new nuclear power station. They felt that the UK could use new nuclear power stations and that nuclear is currently the safest, cleanest source of power we have. The group also felt that the UK needs to rely upon different energy sources to help with climate change and that nuclear energy is much cleaner to use and is very safe. The group also felt that having nuclear energy means we can decommission some of the old power plants that are inefficient and cause a lot of greenhouse gases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a new nuclear power station. It was felt that nuclear power was a cleaner energy source than coal or gas and was the best option currently available. The group felt that a nuclear power station would create jobs and help the economy. However, the group also felt that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. It was felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should have a new nuclear power station. The world is moving towards cleaner energy, and nuclear is the cleanest and safest source of energy we currently have. While we should be aiming for more green renewable sources, the technology will not be ready to support it for many years. Nuclear energy is much cleaner to use use and is very safe. It will create jobs in the construction and maintenance of the site and for people running the site. Having nuclear energy means we can decommission some of the old power plants that are inefficient and cause a lot of greenhouse gases. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001026.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001026.soc index 53fd5b16..7c5e080f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001026.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001026.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is fair for the government to provide subsidies for solar panels on people's homes, even if they are the most expensive option. The participants felt that the use of solar panels would help to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and would help to reduce the effects of climate change. The participants felt that the installation of solar panels on peoples homes would make use of existing buildings and would be a good use of resources. The participants felt that many people would not be able to afford solar panels on their own and it would not be fair for hard working tax payers to be left behind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the government providing subsidies for solar panels on people's homes. The group felt that solar panels are a good way of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and reducing our impact on the environment. The group also felt that it is important to make this transition as quickly as possible and that the government should be providing subsidies to encourage this. The group did however acknowledge that there are some people who will not be able to afford solar panels and that it is not fair that they are left behind. The group felt that the government should be looking at other ways to encourage the use of renewable energy and that it should be looking at ways to make solar panels more affordable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government providing subsidies for solar panels on people's homes. The group was in favour of this because it would help reduce climate change and would help the country transition away from fossil fuels. The group felt that this would be a good option because it would be affordable for the government and would make use of existing buildings. The group felt that it would be fair to provide subsidies for solar panels on people's homes as this would help reduce climate change. The group felt that this would be fair as it would help people who couldn't afford to pay for the solar panels themselves. The group felt that it would be fair to provide subsidies for solar panels on people's homes as it would help reduce climate change and this would be good for the whole country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the government providing subsidies for solar panels on people's homes. This is because the use of solar panels is a good way to help the planet by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Some people may not be able to afford solar panels, but the government should provide subsidies to help these people as well. The group also thought that solar panels could increase the value of a home, which could be an incentive for people to install them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is fair for the government to provide subsidies for solar panels on people's homes, even if they are the most expensive option. The participants felt that the use of solar panels would help to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and would help to reduce the effects of climate change. The participants felt that the installation of solar panels on peoples homes would make use of existing buildings and would be a good use of resources. The participants felt that many people would not be able to afford solar panels on their own and it would not be fair for hard working tax payers to be left behind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government providing subsidies for solar panels on people's homes. The group felt that solar panels are a good way of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and reducing our impact on the environment. The group also felt that it is important to make this transition as quickly as possible and that the government should be providing subsidies to encourage this. The group did however acknowledge that there are some people who will not be able to afford solar panels and that it is not fair that they are left behind. The group felt that the government should be looking at other ways to encourage the use of renewable energy and that it should be looking at ways to make solar panels more affordable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government providing subsidies for solar panels on people's homes. The group was in favour of this because it would help reduce climate change and would help the country transition away from fossil fuels. The group felt that this would be a good option because it would be affordable for the government and would make use of existing buildings. The group felt that it would be fair to provide subsidies for solar panels on people's homes as this would help reduce climate change. The group felt that this would be fair as it would help people who couldn't afford to pay for the solar panels themselves. The group felt that it would be fair to provide subsidies for solar panels on people's homes as it would help reduce climate change and this would be good for the whole country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the government providing subsidies for solar panels on people's homes. This is because the use of solar panels is a good way to help the planet by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Some people may not be able to afford solar panels, but the government should provide subsidies to help these people as well. The group also thought that solar panels could increase the value of a home, which could be an incentive for people to install them. 3: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001027.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001027.soc index f25c29d8..2ec6cd0c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001027.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001027.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of putting a price on carbon, however, the devil is in the detail and the way in which this is implemented. The group discussed the idea of putting a price on carbon as a tax and also as a trading scheme. The group was in favour of a trading scheme, however, felt that this would be very difficult to implement. The group was also in favour of a tax on carbon, however, there was some debate on how this would be implemented. Some participants felt that this would need to be implemented across all countries and not just the UK. The group also discussed the idea of implementing a tax on carbon that would be used to subsidise the cost of renewable energy. This would encourage companies to invest in renewable energy and would also help to encourage individuals to invest in renewable energy. The group was in favour of this idea, however, it was also felt that this would be very difficult to implement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of putting a price on carbon. However, it was recognised that there are different types of carbon, some of which are beneficial to the environment, and others that are not. Therefore, the group felt that it would be important to differentiate between different types of carbon. The group also felt that it would be important to incentivise carbon-reducing behaviours, and that this could be achieved by providing a rebate to consumers who use low levels of carbon. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of putting a price on carbon. The group agreed that it is a good idea to put a price on carbon as it would hit companies where it hurts the most...their balance sheets. If it is going to cost them money and eat into their profits they are more likely to do something about it. It should encourage them to look for better cleaner, greener ways to run their business. It will encourage them to invest in solar power etc... It will also raise money from the companies that are polluting the environment , that can then be used to help repair some of the damage that they are causing. Obviously it would be much better for them to just reduce this damage they are causing in the first place and hopefully a carbon tax would encourage them to do this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should put a price on carbon as it will hit companies where it hurts the most...their balance sheets. If it is going to cost them money and eat into their profits they are more likely to do something about it. It should encourage them to look for better cleaner, greener ways to run their business. It will encourage them to invest in solar power etc... It will also raise money from the companies that are polluting the environment , that can then be used to help repair some of the damage that they are causing. Obviously it would be much better for them to just reduce this damage they are causing in the first place and hopefully a carbon tax would encourage them to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of putting a price on carbon, however, the devil is in the detail and the way in which this is implemented. The group discussed the idea of putting a price on carbon as a tax and also as a trading scheme. The group was in favour of a trading scheme, however, felt that this would be very difficult to implement. The group was also in favour of a tax on carbon, however, there was some debate on how this would be implemented. Some participants felt that this would need to be implemented across all countries and not just the UK. The group also discussed the idea of implementing a tax on carbon that would be used to subsidise the cost of renewable energy. This would encourage companies to invest in renewable energy and would also help to encourage individuals to invest in renewable energy. The group was in favour of this idea, however, it was also felt that this would be very difficult to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of putting a price on carbon. However, it was recognised that there are different types of carbon, some of which are beneficial to the environment, and others that are not. Therefore, the group felt that it would be important to differentiate between different types of carbon. The group also felt that it would be important to incentivise carbon-reducing behaviours, and that this could be achieved by providing a rebate to consumers who use low levels of carbon. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of putting a price on carbon. The group agreed that it is a good idea to put a price on carbon as it would hit companies where it hurts the most...their balance sheets. If it is going to cost them money and eat into their profits they are more likely to do something about it. It should encourage them to look for better cleaner, greener ways to run their business. It will encourage them to invest in solar power etc... It will also raise money from the companies that are polluting the environment , that can then be used to help repair some of the damage that they are causing. Obviously it would be much better for them to just reduce this damage they are causing in the first place and hopefully a carbon tax would encourage them to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should put a price on carbon as it will hit companies where it hurts the most...their balance sheets. If it is going to cost them money and eat into their profits they are more likely to do something about it. It should encourage them to look for better cleaner, greener ways to run their business. It will encourage them to invest in solar power etc... It will also raise money from the companies that are polluting the environment , that can then be used to help repair some of the damage that they are causing. Obviously it would be much better for them to just reduce this damage they are causing in the first place and hopefully a carbon tax would encourage them to do this. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001028.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001028.soc index 617397e2..077e8a57 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001028.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001028.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to a minimum price per unit for alcohol. They felt that the minimum price in Scotland had not led to reduced alcohol consumption and that it was human nature to get around these kind of disincentives. However, they felt that it was a good idea to have a minimum price for spirits, as it would deter young people from drinking. They also felt that the minimum price in Scotland was too high and that it should be reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, there should not be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. There should be a variety of prices according to where and how the product was made. It should be expensive as to deter people from drinking alcohol and consuming to much of it. Products often vary from cheap to expensive and there should be a premium on this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. The current minimum price in Scotland has not had a significant effect on alcohol consumption and it is likely that the price would have to be set much higher to have any impact. The price of alcohol is already quite high and it is human nature to get around these kind of disincentives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, there should not be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. Alcohol is already quite expensive. It is up to the individual to decide. I don't think the minimum price in Scotland has led to reduced alcohol consumption. it is human nature to get around these kind of disincentives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to a minimum price per unit for alcohol. They felt that the minimum price in Scotland had not led to reduced alcohol consumption and that it was human nature to get around these kind of disincentives. However, they felt that it was a good idea to have a minimum price for spirits, as it would deter young people from drinking. They also felt that the minimum price in Scotland was too high and that it should be reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, there should not be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. There should be a variety of prices according to where and how the product was made. It should be expensive as to deter people from drinking alcohol and consuming to much of it. Products often vary from cheap to expensive and there should be a premium on this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. The current minimum price in Scotland has not had a significant effect on alcohol consumption and it is likely that the price would have to be set much higher to have any impact. The price of alcohol is already quite high and it is human nature to get around these kind of disincentives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, there should not be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. Alcohol is already quite expensive. It is up to the individual to decide. I don't think the minimum price in Scotland has led to reduced alcohol consumption. it is human nature to get around these kind of disincentives. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001029.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001029.soc index ab376390..ae281fd0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001029.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001029.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should make it easier for people to pay off student loans. The current system is not working. Some students may end up in high paying jobs, but some may not. If they cannot find a job, they will struggle to pay off the loans. There should be a threshold income below which no repayments are made. This would allow people to find a job, and not have the burden of repaying the loan when they are not earning enough to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to repay their student loans, however, there was a strong feeling that this should only be done in cases where the person is struggling for genuine reasons. The group felt that student loans are a necessary evil in today's society and that they should be made as easy to repay as possible. The group also felt that there should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should make it easier for people who are struggling to repay their student loans to pay off their debt, but not in the form of simply reducing the debt, as this would encourage people to take on more debt than they can afford, and would lead to a vicious cycle of debt. Instead, the government should look at introducing a form of debt relief for those who have genuinely fallen on hard times, such as illness or redundancy, and who can prove that they are making every effort to repay their debt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to pay off their student loans. This is because university is an important step for many people to improve their lives and the lives of their families. However, the group was also of the opinion that the government should not make it too easy to avoid paying off the loan. This is because the government is not a charity and is already spending a lot of money on education. The government should not be expected to subsidise people who are not making an effort to improve their situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should make it easier for people to pay off student loans. The current system is not working. Some students may end up in high paying jobs, but some may not. If they cannot find a job, they will struggle to pay off the loans. There should be a threshold income below which no repayments are made. This would allow people to find a job, and not have the burden of repaying the loan when they are not earning enough to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to repay their student loans, however, there was a strong feeling that this should only be done in cases where the person is struggling for genuine reasons. The group felt that student loans are a necessary evil in today's society and that they should be made as easy to repay as possible. The group also felt that there should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should make it easier for people who are struggling to repay their student loans to pay off their debt, but not in the form of simply reducing the debt, as this would encourage people to take on more debt than they can afford, and would lead to a vicious cycle of debt. Instead, the government should look at introducing a form of debt relief for those who have genuinely fallen on hard times, such as illness or redundancy, and who can prove that they are making every effort to repay their debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to pay off their student loans. This is because university is an important step for many people to improve their lives and the lives of their families. However, the group was also of the opinion that the government should not make it too easy to avoid paying off the loan. This is because the government is not a charity and is already spending a lot of money on education. The government should not be expected to subsidise people who are not making an effort to improve their situation. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001030.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001030.soc index 34128f9e..6e552a09 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001030.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001030.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Nuclear power is a cleaner energy source than coal or gas and is the best option currently available. A new power station would create jobs and help the economy. The group was in favour of a new nuclear power station, however felt that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. It was felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. However, while the group was able to reach a consensus view, there were still a number of individual differences of opinion that had not been resolved: The issue of safety of nuclear power. The need for new sources of energy to reduce greenhouse gases. The possibility of alternatives to nuclear. The acceptability of nuclear as a long term energy source. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a new nuclear power station. It was felt that nuclear power was a cleaner energy source than coal or gas and was the best option currently available. The group felt that a nuclear power station would create jobs and help the economy. However, the group also felt that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. It was felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants in general was in favour of a new nuclear power station. It was felt that nuclear power was a cleaner energy source than coal or gas and was the best option currently available. The group felt that a nuclear power station would create jobs and help the economy. However, the group also felt that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. It was felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We were generally in favour of a new nuclear power station. Nuclear power is currently the cleanest energy source available. We felt that it would create jobs and help the economy. We felt that nuclear power is a cleaner energy source than coal or gas. We felt that a nuclear power station would be good for the environment. However, we did feel that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. We felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Nuclear power is a cleaner energy source than coal or gas and is the best option currently available. A new power station would create jobs and help the economy. The group was in favour of a new nuclear power station, however felt that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. It was felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. However, while the group was able to reach a consensus view, there were still a number of individual differences of opinion that had not been resolved: The issue of safety of nuclear power. The need for new sources of energy to reduce greenhouse gases. The possibility of alternatives to nuclear. The acceptability of nuclear as a long term energy source. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a new nuclear power station. It was felt that nuclear power was a cleaner energy source than coal or gas and was the best option currently available. The group felt that a nuclear power station would create jobs and help the economy. However, the group also felt that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. It was felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants in general was in favour of a new nuclear power station. It was felt that nuclear power was a cleaner energy source than coal or gas and was the best option currently available. The group felt that a nuclear power station would create jobs and help the economy. However, the group also felt that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. It was felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We were generally in favour of a new nuclear power station. Nuclear power is currently the cleanest energy source available. We felt that it would create jobs and help the economy. We felt that nuclear power is a cleaner energy source than coal or gas. We felt that a nuclear power station would be good for the environment. However, we did feel that more research into alternative energy sources was needed. We felt that nuclear power was not a long term solution and that a new power station should be built as a temporary measure while other sources of energy are developed. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001031.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001031.soc index 85b78eae..77181a05 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001031.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001031.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that it is not acceptable to build houses in areas that have been hit by flooding. The potential consequences are severe and can include injury and death. In addition, businesses in the area can find themselves in severe trouble and insurance is very hard to get. In addition, it would be irresponsible to build in an area that is knowingly prone to risks and this places an additional burden on the rescue authorities having to deal with the outcome of homes being flooded. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that it is not acceptable to build houses in areas that have been hit by flooding. We believe that it is irresponsible to build in areas that are known to be at risk of flooding. This places an additional burden on the rescue authorities and is likely to lead to increased insurance premiums for the residents. In addition, it is likely to be difficult to obtain a mortgage or loan for these properties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Building homes in areas that have been hit by flooding is not a good idea. This is because it is not acceptable to build in areas that have been hit by flooding. The potential consequences of building in these areas include difficulty in obtaining insurance and a mortgage/loan due to the potential risks. In addition, it would be a bit irresponsible to build in an area that is knowingly prone to risks and furthermore it places an additional burden on the rescue authorities having to deal with the outcome of homes being flooded.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the consensus opinion of the group was that it is not acceptable to build houses in areas that have been hit by flooding. The reasons for this include the potential difficulty in obtaining insurance and a mortgage/loan due to the potential risks. In addition, it would be a bit irresponsible to build in an area that is knowingly prone to risks and furthermore it places an additional burden on the rescue authorities having to deal with the outcome of homes being flooded. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not acceptable to build houses in areas that have been hit by flooding. The potential consequences are severe and can include injury and death. In addition, businesses in the area can find themselves in severe trouble and insurance is very hard to get. In addition, it would be irresponsible to build in an area that is knowingly prone to risks and this places an additional burden on the rescue authorities having to deal with the outcome of homes being flooded. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not acceptable to build houses in areas that have been hit by flooding. We believe that it is irresponsible to build in areas that are known to be at risk of flooding. This places an additional burden on the rescue authorities and is likely to lead to increased insurance premiums for the residents. In addition, it is likely to be difficult to obtain a mortgage or loan for these properties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Building homes in areas that have been hit by flooding is not a good idea. This is because it is not acceptable to build in areas that have been hit by flooding. The potential consequences of building in these areas include difficulty in obtaining insurance and a mortgage/loan due to the potential risks. In addition, it would be a bit irresponsible to build in an area that is knowingly prone to risks and furthermore it places an additional burden on the rescue authorities having to deal with the outcome of homes being flooded.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the consensus opinion of the group was that it is not acceptable to build houses in areas that have been hit by flooding. The reasons for this include the potential difficulty in obtaining insurance and a mortgage/loan due to the potential risks. In addition, it would be a bit irresponsible to build in an area that is knowingly prone to risks and furthermore it places an additional burden on the rescue authorities having to deal with the outcome of homes being flooded. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001032.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001032.soc index f46842ff..9e104ab8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001032.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001032.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to repay their student loans, however, there was a strong feeling that this should only be done in cases where the person is struggling for genuine reasons. The group felt that student loans are a necessary evil in today's society and that they should be made as easy to repay as possible. The group also felt that there should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university. They felt that the educational options should include less academic routes and more vocational routes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was in favour of making it easier for people to repay their student loans, however, there was a strong feeling that this should only be done in cases where the person is struggling for genuine reasons. The group felt that student loans are a necessary evil in today's society and that they should be made as easy to repay as possible. The group also felt that there should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university. The group felt that there are some very good non-university education programs available, however, more awareness should be raised on these programs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to repay their student loans, however, there was a strong feeling that this should only be done in cases where the person is struggling for genuine reasons. The group felt that student loans are a necessary evil in today's society and that they should be made as easy to repay as possible. The group also felt that there should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university. The group felt that the way in which the government currently repays student loans is good but that they should be more lenient in the cases of genuine hardship. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Student loans are a necessary evil in today's society. The government should make it easier for people to pay off their student loans, but only in cases where the person is genuinely struggling to repay. This could be done by amending the repayment threshold to take into account that not all students will end up in high paying jobs. There should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university, but university should still remain an option for those who would benefit most from it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to repay their student loans, however, there was a strong feeling that this should only be done in cases where the person is struggling for genuine reasons. The group felt that student loans are a necessary evil in today's society and that they should be made as easy to repay as possible. The group also felt that there should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university. They felt that the educational options should include less academic routes and more vocational routes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was in favour of making it easier for people to repay their student loans, however, there was a strong feeling that this should only be done in cases where the person is struggling for genuine reasons. The group felt that student loans are a necessary evil in today's society and that they should be made as easy to repay as possible. The group also felt that there should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university. The group felt that there are some very good non-university education programs available, however, more awareness should be raised on these programs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to repay their student loans, however, there was a strong feeling that this should only be done in cases where the person is struggling for genuine reasons. The group felt that student loans are a necessary evil in today's society and that they should be made as easy to repay as possible. The group also felt that there should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university. The group felt that the way in which the government currently repays student loans is good but that they should be more lenient in the cases of genuine hardship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Student loans are a necessary evil in today's society. The government should make it easier for people to pay off their student loans, but only in cases where the person is genuinely struggling to repay. This could be done by amending the repayment threshold to take into account that not all students will end up in high paying jobs. There should be a greater number of educational options available to people other than university, but university should still remain an option for those who would benefit most from it. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001033.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001033.soc index 059f62ea..bd5f43a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001033.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001033.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that plastic packaging should be phased out in the long term, but not immediately. This is because there is currently no viable alternative to plastic packaging. If the government was to implement a ban, this would lead to a significant loss of jobs in the UK. The government should instead look to provide more funding for research into new packaging alternatives. The group also believes that the government should look to implement stricter controls on the disposal of plastic packaging, with the aim of reducing the amount of plastic that ends up in landfill sites and the ocean. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on plastic packaging. The reasons for this included the fact that plastic is a petroleum product, which is a finite resource, and that it is a major pollutant of the environment, particularly of the oceans. However, it was noted that plastic packaging has many advantages, such as being lightweight, and often being the most cost-effective option. The group felt that the ban should be phased in, and that there should be an awareness campaign to educate the public on the need for this. The group also felt that there should be incentives to encourage businesses to move away from plastic packaging, and that there should be a greater emphasis on recycling. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Plastic packaging, both its usage and manufacturing should be discontinued as soon as possible. Microplastics are permeating every level of the food chain and wreaking havoc on the natural world. Plastic is however rather hard to replace and there is currently no cheaper or more efficient alternative. As such a lot of research should be on how to effectively switch to more sustainable options. The country is not in a position to immediately move to a blanket ban. Once alternative solutions are in place, we can look to phase it out. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the production of plastic packaging should not be banned. However, the use of plastic packaging should be reduced as much as possible. This can be done by introducing a tax on plastic packaging and by using more recyclable materials. This will reduce the amount of plastic waste that ends up in landfills and oceans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that plastic packaging should be phased out in the long term, but not immediately. This is because there is currently no viable alternative to plastic packaging. If the government was to implement a ban, this would lead to a significant loss of jobs in the UK. The government should instead look to provide more funding for research into new packaging alternatives. The group also believes that the government should look to implement stricter controls on the disposal of plastic packaging, with the aim of reducing the amount of plastic that ends up in landfill sites and the ocean. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on plastic packaging. The reasons for this included the fact that plastic is a petroleum product, which is a finite resource, and that it is a major pollutant of the environment, particularly of the oceans. However, it was noted that plastic packaging has many advantages, such as being lightweight, and often being the most cost-effective option. The group felt that the ban should be phased in, and that there should be an awareness campaign to educate the public on the need for this. The group also felt that there should be incentives to encourage businesses to move away from plastic packaging, and that there should be a greater emphasis on recycling. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Plastic packaging, both its usage and manufacturing should be discontinued as soon as possible. Microplastics are permeating every level of the food chain and wreaking havoc on the natural world. Plastic is however rather hard to replace and there is currently no cheaper or more efficient alternative. As such a lot of research should be on how to effectively switch to more sustainable options. The country is not in a position to immediately move to a blanket ban. Once alternative solutions are in place, we can look to phase it out. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the production of plastic packaging should not be banned. However, the use of plastic packaging should be reduced as much as possible. This can be done by introducing a tax on plastic packaging and by using more recyclable materials. This will reduce the amount of plastic waste that ends up in landfills and oceans. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001034.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001034.soc index 1a20b159..d09bce85 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001034.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001034.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should be more aggressive in its approach to global warming. We are currently heading into a climate emergency at a rapid pace and the response from the government has been far too slow. If we don't reverse harmful emissions quickly then it will be too late to save the planet from the effects of global warming, some of which we have already started to witness. More subsidies for green energy, stricter controls on emissions and higher taxes on polluting industries should be brought in harder and faster. Participants that originally disagreed were brought round to accepting the final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should be more aggressive in its approach to global warming. We are currently heading into a climate emergency at a rapid pace and the response from the government has been far too slow. If we don't reverse harmful emissions quickly then it will be too late to save the planet from the effects of global warming, some of which we have already started to witness. More subsidies for green energy, stricter controls on emissions and higher taxes on polluting industries should be brought in harder and faster. The participants felt that this consensus view expressed the opinions of the majority of the group. One participant felt very strongly that the group had come to the wrong consensus and the participants were not able to persuade this person to agree with the consensus view. The only participant to contribute no critiques or suggestions was a lawyer who was acting as the facilitator of the consensus seeking process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should be more aggressive in its approach to global warming. We are currently heading into a climate emergency at a rapid pace and the response from the government has been far too slow. If we don't reverse harmful emissions quickly then it will be too late to save the planet from the effects of global warming, some of which we have already started to witness. More subsidies for green energy, stricter controls on emissions and higher taxes on polluting industries should be brought in harder and faster. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should be more aggressive in its approach to global warming. We are currently heading into a climate emergency at a rapid pace and the response from the government has been far too slow. If we don't reverse harmful emissions quickly then it will be too late to save the planet from the effects of global warming, some of which we have already started to witness. More subsidies for green energy, stricter controls on emissions and higher taxes on polluting industries should be brought in harder and faster. The group of participants also recorded the level of their agreement with the consensus view on a scale of 1 to 9 (with 1 being "Completely disagree" and 9 being "Completely agree") to be 1.5, 6.5, 9.5, 8.5 and 3.5, respectively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should be more aggressive in its approach to global warming. We are currently heading into a climate emergency at a rapid pace and the response from the government has been far too slow. If we don't reverse harmful emissions quickly then it will be too late to save the planet from the effects of global warming, some of which we have already started to witness. More subsidies for green energy, stricter controls on emissions and higher taxes on polluting industries should be brought in harder and faster. Participants that originally disagreed were brought round to accepting the final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should be more aggressive in its approach to global warming. We are currently heading into a climate emergency at a rapid pace and the response from the government has been far too slow. If we don't reverse harmful emissions quickly then it will be too late to save the planet from the effects of global warming, some of which we have already started to witness. More subsidies for green energy, stricter controls on emissions and higher taxes on polluting industries should be brought in harder and faster. The participants felt that this consensus view expressed the opinions of the majority of the group. One participant felt very strongly that the group had come to the wrong consensus and the participants were not able to persuade this person to agree with the consensus view. The only participant to contribute no critiques or suggestions was a lawyer who was acting as the facilitator of the consensus seeking process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should be more aggressive in its approach to global warming. We are currently heading into a climate emergency at a rapid pace and the response from the government has been far too slow. If we don't reverse harmful emissions quickly then it will be too late to save the planet from the effects of global warming, some of which we have already started to witness. More subsidies for green energy, stricter controls on emissions and higher taxes on polluting industries should be brought in harder and faster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should be more aggressive in its approach to global warming. We are currently heading into a climate emergency at a rapid pace and the response from the government has been far too slow. If we don't reverse harmful emissions quickly then it will be too late to save the planet from the effects of global warming, some of which we have already started to witness. More subsidies for green energy, stricter controls on emissions and higher taxes on polluting industries should be brought in harder and faster. The group of participants also recorded the level of their agreement with the consensus view on a scale of 1 to 9 (with 1 being "Completely disagree" and 9 being "Completely agree") to be 1.5, 6.5, 9.5, 8.5 and 3.5, respectively. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001035.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001035.soc index c3b58f3d..d54ea569 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001035.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001035.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban plastic bags as they are damaging to the environment. Businesses should be required to provide an alternative that is renewable. This could be paper or compostable carrier bags. People need to be encouraged to remember to bring their own bags when they go shopping. A small charge for the bags provided at the till could be used to encourage this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic bags. However, we felt that this would be a difficult thing to enforce. Therefore, we believe that the best way to tackle this problem would be to increase the price of plastic bags. This would make people think twice about whether they really need one, and hopefully reduce the number of bags that are used. The revenue from this tax could be used to fund research into more environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic bags. However, there were concerns that a ban would not be effective if a renewable alternative was not provided. There was also concern that if bags for life were made available, people would just buy them every time they went shopping, and so would not be a solution to the problem. Therefore, the group came to the consensus that plastic bags should be banned, but with the proviso that renewable alternatives are provided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban plastic bags. They are a major source of pollution and do untold damage to the environment. They are also dangerous to wildlife. There are plenty of alternatives including paper, cloth, cardboard and biodegradable bags. We should also be encouraging people to use reusable bags. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban plastic bags as they are damaging to the environment. Businesses should be required to provide an alternative that is renewable. This could be paper or compostable carrier bags. People need to be encouraged to remember to bring their own bags when they go shopping. A small charge for the bags provided at the till could be used to encourage this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic bags. However, we felt that this would be a difficult thing to enforce. Therefore, we believe that the best way to tackle this problem would be to increase the price of plastic bags. This would make people think twice about whether they really need one, and hopefully reduce the number of bags that are used. The revenue from this tax could be used to fund research into more environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic bags. However, there were concerns that a ban would not be effective if a renewable alternative was not provided. There was also concern that if bags for life were made available, people would just buy them every time they went shopping, and so would not be a solution to the problem. Therefore, the group came to the consensus that plastic bags should be banned, but with the proviso that renewable alternatives are provided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban plastic bags. They are a major source of pollution and do untold damage to the environment. They are also dangerous to wildlife. There are plenty of alternatives including paper, cloth, cardboard and biodegradable bags. We should also be encouraging people to use reusable bags. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001036.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001036.soc index 0ab47ae7..1cd55bf0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001036.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001036.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to mandatory voting. There were a number of reasons for this, including the fact that people may be forced to vote for a party they don't support, and that this would make the vote less meaningful. However, there was also the view that people should vote if they are able to, as this is a civic duty. This view was tempered by the fact that some people may not be able to vote due to illness or disability. It was also noted that people are allowed to abstain from voting, and that this should be allowed to continue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to making voting mandatory. The group felt that people should have the right to choose whether or not to vote. The group felt that the right to vote was a fundamental human right and making it mandatory would take that away. The group felt that if people were forced to vote, they would not vote for the candidate they truly supported. The group felt that forcing people to vote would not result in a more democratic outcome. The group felt that voting should be a personal choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Voting should not be mandatory. Everyone has the right to choose whether or not to vote and should not be forced to do so. Voting should be a personal choice. The government should not be allowed to force its citizens to vote. This is an infringement of civil liberties. It is also a waste of resources to force people to vote. If people are not interested in voting, then they should not be forced to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to mandatory voting. They felt that it would lead to people voting for a party they did not really support, or not voting at all and spoiling their vote. It was also felt that the low turnout at elections was not necessarily a bad thing, as it meant that those who did vote were more likely to be voting for a party they really supported. It was also felt that mandatory voting could lead to more people voting for a party they did not support, as they would be more likely to vote for a party that they did not like, rather than not vote at all and risk being fined. It was also felt that mandatory voting could lead to more spoiled votes, as people would be more likely to spoil their vote, rather than vote for a party they did not support. The group felt that people should have the right to choose whether or not to vote, and that forcing people to vote could lead to a less accurate reflection of public opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to mandatory voting. There were a number of reasons for this, including the fact that people may be forced to vote for a party they don't support, and that this would make the vote less meaningful. However, there was also the view that people should vote if they are able to, as this is a civic duty. This view was tempered by the fact that some people may not be able to vote due to illness or disability. It was also noted that people are allowed to abstain from voting, and that this should be allowed to continue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to making voting mandatory. The group felt that people should have the right to choose whether or not to vote. The group felt that the right to vote was a fundamental human right and making it mandatory would take that away. The group felt that if people were forced to vote, they would not vote for the candidate they truly supported. The group felt that forcing people to vote would not result in a more democratic outcome. The group felt that voting should be a personal choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Voting should not be mandatory. Everyone has the right to choose whether or not to vote and should not be forced to do so. Voting should be a personal choice. The government should not be allowed to force its citizens to vote. This is an infringement of civil liberties. It is also a waste of resources to force people to vote. If people are not interested in voting, then they should not be forced to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to mandatory voting. They felt that it would lead to people voting for a party they did not really support, or not voting at all and spoiling their vote. It was also felt that the low turnout at elections was not necessarily a bad thing, as it meant that those who did vote were more likely to be voting for a party they really supported. It was also felt that mandatory voting could lead to more people voting for a party they did not support, as they would be more likely to vote for a party that they did not like, rather than not vote at all and risk being fined. It was also felt that mandatory voting could lead to more spoiled votes, as people would be more likely to spoil their vote, rather than vote for a party they did not support. The group felt that people should have the right to choose whether or not to vote, and that forcing people to vote could lead to a less accurate reflection of public opinion. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001037.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001037.soc index 22da656b..d9944abc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001037.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001037.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under the age of 14 should not be allowed to have social media accounts, and there should be a system in place that prevents children from being able to access the accounts of their parents and older siblings. The group also came up with the following reasons to support their view: - The people who work at social media companies don't let their children use social media, so it seems like a bad thing for a developing mind. - Social media can be dangerous - the apps are built in such a way to encourage constant use and can lead individuals to be exposed to inappropriate content. - Without guard rails social media can be dangerous - the apps are built in such a way to encourage constant use and can lead individuals to be exposed to inappropriate content. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should impose a minimum age on social media use. However, it is important to note that social media is not all bad, and it can be a good thing. For example, it can help people stay in touch with friends and family. We believe that the minimum age should be 14 as this is the age that most children start secondary school. At this age they are more mature and can understand the risks of social media. We also think that social media companies should have filters in place to stop children seeing harmful content. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a minimum age for social media use. We believe that social media can be dangerous for children and can cause them to become addicted to it. The minimum age should be 12 or 13, as this is the age when children are able to use social media responsibly. The social media companies should also have more control over the content that is displayed, and should have a more efficient way of filtering out inappropriate content. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social media has a number of negative effects on the mental health of young people. There is no doubt that social media is addictive and it is difficult to control the amount of time people spend on it. The apps are built in such a way to encourage constant use and can lead individuals to be exposed to inappropriate content. Also given the anonymous nature of many of the systems essentially anyone could speak with the children without serious controls. We believe that the only really meaningful way to do this would be via use of a minimum age as well as improved parental controls / safe spaces for younger uses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under the age of 14 should not be allowed to have social media accounts, and there should be a system in place that prevents children from being able to access the accounts of their parents and older siblings. The group also came up with the following reasons to support their view: - The people who work at social media companies don't let their children use social media, so it seems like a bad thing for a developing mind. - Social media can be dangerous - the apps are built in such a way to encourage constant use and can lead individuals to be exposed to inappropriate content. - Without guard rails social media can be dangerous - the apps are built in such a way to encourage constant use and can lead individuals to be exposed to inappropriate content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should impose a minimum age on social media use. However, it is important to note that social media is not all bad, and it can be a good thing. For example, it can help people stay in touch with friends and family. We believe that the minimum age should be 14 as this is the age that most children start secondary school. At this age they are more mature and can understand the risks of social media. We also think that social media companies should have filters in place to stop children seeing harmful content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a minimum age for social media use. We believe that social media can be dangerous for children and can cause them to become addicted to it. The minimum age should be 12 or 13, as this is the age when children are able to use social media responsibly. The social media companies should also have more control over the content that is displayed, and should have a more efficient way of filtering out inappropriate content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social media has a number of negative effects on the mental health of young people. There is no doubt that social media is addictive and it is difficult to control the amount of time people spend on it. The apps are built in such a way to encourage constant use and can lead individuals to be exposed to inappropriate content. Also given the anonymous nature of many of the systems essentially anyone could speak with the children without serious controls. We believe that the only really meaningful way to do this would be via use of a minimum age as well as improved parental controls / safe spaces for younger uses. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001038.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001038.soc index 38c22971..65968d49 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001038.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001038.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour that we are too dependent on the car. This is borne out by the ever increasing numbers of cars on the roads which is causing pollution and congestion in many towns and cities. If public transport was improved in availability and cost then people should be encouraged to use that instead but at the moment it is unreliable, often unavailable and too expensive. This causes people to use their cars for more journeys, often just short ones. People could use bicycles or walk more on short journeys which would have the added benefit of being more healthy for them. We have become more lazy due to having cars and being so reliant on them that we choose to use them instead of other methods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the car has made our lives easier. It has allowed us to travel long distances quickly and easily. However, we have become too dependent on the car. It is often the only option for many journeys. This has led to increased pollution and congestion. The car is also a major cause of climate change. If we are to reduce the impact of the car on the environment we need to reduce our dependence on it. This can be done by making public transport cheaper, more available and more reliable. People should also be encouraged to walk and cycle more, especially for short journeys. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the car is too much used for short journeys and we are too dependent on it. We need to use our cars less and use other forms of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport more. This will be better for our health, reduce pollution and congestion on our roads. We need to change our lifestyles and make it easier to use other forms of transport. This will require investment in public transport, more cycle lanes and better pedestrian facilities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the car is a very convenient form of transport, but we have become too reliant on it and should try to use other forms of transport more, particularly for short journeys. We should try to use public transport more, but this is often not available or is too expensive. Bicycles are a good alternative and should be encouraged. Walking is also good for our health and we should try to walk more. We need to make more effort to reduce the number of cars on the road, which is causing pollution and congestion. If we want to keep using cars, we should use them less and use them more efficiently. We should try to use cars that are more environmentally friendly, for example electric cars. We should try to use our cars more efficiently by driving more slowly and more carefully. We should also try to use our cars more efficiently by making sure that we are carrying the maximum number of passengers, for example by car sharing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour that we are too dependent on the car. This is borne out by the ever increasing numbers of cars on the roads which is causing pollution and congestion in many towns and cities. If public transport was improved in availability and cost then people should be encouraged to use that instead but at the moment it is unreliable, often unavailable and too expensive. This causes people to use their cars for more journeys, often just short ones. People could use bicycles or walk more on short journeys which would have the added benefit of being more healthy for them. We have become more lazy due to having cars and being so reliant on them that we choose to use them instead of other methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the car has made our lives easier. It has allowed us to travel long distances quickly and easily. However, we have become too dependent on the car. It is often the only option for many journeys. This has led to increased pollution and congestion. The car is also a major cause of climate change. If we are to reduce the impact of the car on the environment we need to reduce our dependence on it. This can be done by making public transport cheaper, more available and more reliable. People should also be encouraged to walk and cycle more, especially for short journeys. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the car is too much used for short journeys and we are too dependent on it. We need to use our cars less and use other forms of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport more. This will be better for our health, reduce pollution and congestion on our roads. We need to change our lifestyles and make it easier to use other forms of transport. This will require investment in public transport, more cycle lanes and better pedestrian facilities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the car is a very convenient form of transport, but we have become too reliant on it and should try to use other forms of transport more, particularly for short journeys. We should try to use public transport more, but this is often not available or is too expensive. Bicycles are a good alternative and should be encouraged. Walking is also good for our health and we should try to walk more. We need to make more effort to reduce the number of cars on the road, which is causing pollution and congestion. If we want to keep using cars, we should use them less and use them more efficiently. We should try to use cars that are more environmentally friendly, for example electric cars. We should try to use our cars more efficiently by driving more slowly and more carefully. We should also try to use our cars more efficiently by making sure that we are carrying the maximum number of passengers, for example by car sharing. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001039.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001039.soc index ef02eed4..74304ce0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001039.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001039.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. The NHS is bureaucratic and inefficient because it is lacking leaders with common sense and needs a complete overhaul. The bureaucrats have increased more than the number of nurses by percentage over the past few years. They need to step back from hitting targets and concentrate on doing what it was aimed for and that is helping sick people. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the NHS is too bureaucratic and inefficient. The number of bureaucrats has increased over the past few years and this is causing inefficiency in the system. The bureaucrats are concerned more with hitting targets and making sure that the paperwork is in order rather than focusing on the health of the patients and staff. This has led to a lot of problems in the NHS. It is also important to note that the bureaucrats are not elected officials and so they should not be making decisions on behalf of the people. This is a major problem in the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. It needs to cut back on the number of bureaucrats and allow more room for nurses and doctors to contribute to important decision making. The people who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The National Health Service is too bureaucratic and inefficient. It could be better organised than it currently is. It seems to care more about numbers than the welfare of staff or patients. The people and elected officials who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. The NHS is bureaucratic and inefficient because it is lacking leaders with common sense and needs a complete overhaul. The bureaucrats have increased more than the number of nurses by percentage over the past few years. They need to step back from hitting targets and concentrate on doing what it was aimed for and that is helping sick people. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the NHS is too bureaucratic and inefficient. The number of bureaucrats has increased over the past few years and this is causing inefficiency in the system. The bureaucrats are concerned more with hitting targets and making sure that the paperwork is in order rather than focusing on the health of the patients and staff. This has led to a lot of problems in the NHS. It is also important to note that the bureaucrats are not elected officials and so they should not be making decisions on behalf of the people. This is a major problem in the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. It needs to cut back on the number of bureaucrats and allow more room for nurses and doctors to contribute to important decision making. The people who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The National Health Service is too bureaucratic and inefficient. It could be better organised than it currently is. It seems to care more about numbers than the welfare of staff or patients. The people and elected officials who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001040.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001040.soc index 0169f60d..6350f72e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001040.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001040.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The National Health Service is too bureaucratic and inefficient. It needs to cut back on the number of bureaucrats and allow more room for nurses and doctors to contribute to important decision making. The people who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. The people who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. The administration needs to be streamlined to allow health staff to prioritise their workload and deliver better care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. More room need to be given to Doctors and Nurses who run this services to contribute to important decision making rather than non elected Bureaucrats. State officials who have no knowledge about the system should step back so that the NHS could be made more efficient in solving health problems of the people. The current state of the NHS is more concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency which is not appealing. The NHS needs a complete overhaul. The administration needs to be streamlined to allow health staff to prioritise their workload and deliver better care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. The NHS is a wonderful organisation. It needs to cut back on the number of bureaucrats and allow more room for nurses and doctors to contribute to important decision making. The people who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. We are not criticising the NHS as it is a great organisation, but it can be better if they focus more on nurses and doctors rather than the bureaucratic part. We do not see the need to change the system, it is working fine, but needs more space for nurses and doctors to contribute to important decision making. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The National Health Service is too bureaucratic and inefficient. It needs to cut back on the number of bureaucrats and allow more room for nurses and doctors to contribute to important decision making. The people who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. The people who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. The administration needs to be streamlined to allow health staff to prioritise their workload and deliver better care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. More room need to be given to Doctors and Nurses who run this services to contribute to important decision making rather than non elected Bureaucrats. State officials who have no knowledge about the system should step back so that the NHS could be made more efficient in solving health problems of the people. The current state of the NHS is more concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency which is not appealing. The NHS needs a complete overhaul. The administration needs to be streamlined to allow health staff to prioritise their workload and deliver better care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The National Health Service is bureaucratic and inefficient. The NHS is a wonderful organisation. It needs to cut back on the number of bureaucrats and allow more room for nurses and doctors to contribute to important decision making. The people who run the affairs of the NHS should be allowed to contribute to important decision making too rather than being completely controlled by state officials. The current state of the NHS is too over concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency and common sense which is not great. We are not criticising the NHS as it is a great organisation, but it can be better if they focus more on nurses and doctors rather than the bureaucratic part. We do not see the need to change the system, it is working fine, but needs more space for nurses and doctors to contribute to important decision making. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001041.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001041.soc index 45de6b27..cd6baf0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001041.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001041.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution, but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined. If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses. If the burden of a tax is put on individuals, it could be detrimental to low income earners and even the middle classes, who will find it hard to absorb an extra tax. If the tax is imposed on businesses, it will be the end user who is going to feel the pinch, as they will have to pay higher prices for products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although imposing a tax would be a good idea, it would be extremely difficult to come to a consensus on who the tax should be imposed on and who would actually end up paying it. We feel that by making the consumer aware of how much it costs to produce their goods, and the impact on the environment, would be a more effective way to address the issue. The use of renewable energy would be a better option than a tax as the reduction in CO2 emissions would not be as easy to see or feel as the tax would be. The question and responses above were taken from the Carbon Tax pages. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A carbon tax should be imposed on frequent flyers. The tax should be high enough to deter people from flying and to encourage them to use alternative methods of transport such as trains and buses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, the idea of a carbon tax is a good one as it forces people to reconsider their actions. In practice, however, there are many difficulties to overcome. The biggest problem is how to implement the tax. It would be very difficult to ensure that the tax is fair and that it does not affect those who are least able to afford it. It would also be very difficult to ensure that the tax is not just passed on to consumers, thus negating its effect. The government should not be the only body involved in this decision as it has many vested interests in different areas. It is also not clear who the tax should target - industry or private individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution, but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined. If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses. If the burden of a tax is put on individuals, it could be detrimental to low income earners and even the middle classes, who will find it hard to absorb an extra tax. If the tax is imposed on businesses, it will be the end user who is going to feel the pinch, as they will have to pay higher prices for products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although imposing a tax would be a good idea, it would be extremely difficult to come to a consensus on who the tax should be imposed on and who would actually end up paying it. We feel that by making the consumer aware of how much it costs to produce their goods, and the impact on the environment, would be a more effective way to address the issue. The use of renewable energy would be a better option than a tax as the reduction in CO2 emissions would not be as easy to see or feel as the tax would be. The question and responses above were taken from the Carbon Tax pages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A carbon tax should be imposed on frequent flyers. The tax should be high enough to deter people from flying and to encourage them to use alternative methods of transport such as trains and buses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, the idea of a carbon tax is a good one as it forces people to reconsider their actions. In practice, however, there are many difficulties to overcome. The biggest problem is how to implement the tax. It would be very difficult to ensure that the tax is fair and that it does not affect those who are least able to afford it. It would also be very difficult to ensure that the tax is not just passed on to consumers, thus negating its effect. The government should not be the only body involved in this decision as it has many vested interests in different areas. It is also not clear who the tax should target - industry or private individuals. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001042.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001042.soc index dc0533ed..a4c7f2ff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001042.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001042.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution, but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined. If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses. However, it would need to be implemented in a carefully managed way. Whilst individuals and businesses could be taxed for actions which have an effect on the level of carbon in the atmosphere, there is also a need to ensure that the tax does not result in an undue financial burden on low income earners and the middle class, who need the most support at the moment, or on small businesses whose viability depends on profit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined? If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses but this would need to be done in a way that does not adversely affect the pockets of hard working people, as they would be the ones to really end up paying for it. If the burden of a tax is put on individuals, it could be detrimental to low income earners and even the middle classes, who will find it hard to absorb an extra tax. If the tax is imposed on businesses, it will be the end user who is going to feel the pinch, as they will have to pay higher prices for products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution, but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined. If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses. If the burden of a tax is put on individuals, it could be detrimental to low income earners and even the middle classes, who will find it hard to absorb an extra tax. If the tax is imposed on businesses, it will be the end user who is going to feel the pinch, as they will have to pay higher prices for products. We do not feel that a carbon tax would be a popular move. A carbon tax should not be viewed as the sole answer to pollution. We feel that the government should impose a carbon tax on businesses who produce the most carbon emissions, but that they should also offer tax relief and other incentives to those businesses that are taking steps to cut their carbon emissions. In addition, the government should also educate and encourage individuals to use public transport and to consider other ways of reducing their carbon emissions, such as home insulation and using energy efficient light bulbs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution, but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined. If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses. If the burden of a tax is put on individuals, it could be detrimental to low income earners and even the middle classes, who will find it hard to absorb an extra tax. If the tax is imposed on businesses, it will be the end user who is going to feel the pinch, as they will have to pay higher prices for products. However, if the tax is imposed on industries, it should be targeted at the ones that produce the most carbon, such as motor racing and flying, as these are the highest carbon producers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution, but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined. If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses. However, it would need to be implemented in a carefully managed way. Whilst individuals and businesses could be taxed for actions which have an effect on the level of carbon in the atmosphere, there is also a need to ensure that the tax does not result in an undue financial burden on low income earners and the middle class, who need the most support at the moment, or on small businesses whose viability depends on profit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined? If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses but this would need to be done in a way that does not adversely affect the pockets of hard working people, as they would be the ones to really end up paying for it. If the burden of a tax is put on individuals, it could be detrimental to low income earners and even the middle classes, who will find it hard to absorb an extra tax. If the tax is imposed on businesses, it will be the end user who is going to feel the pinch, as they will have to pay higher prices for products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution, but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined. If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses. If the burden of a tax is put on individuals, it could be detrimental to low income earners and even the middle classes, who will find it hard to absorb an extra tax. If the tax is imposed on businesses, it will be the end user who is going to feel the pinch, as they will have to pay higher prices for products. We do not feel that a carbon tax would be a popular move. A carbon tax should not be viewed as the sole answer to pollution. We feel that the government should impose a carbon tax on businesses who produce the most carbon emissions, but that they should also offer tax relief and other incentives to those businesses that are taking steps to cut their carbon emissions. In addition, the government should also educate and encourage individuals to use public transport and to consider other ways of reducing their carbon emissions, such as home insulation and using energy efficient light bulbs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A carbon tax would help to reduce pollution, but the question is, what would be taxed, who would be taxed and how would this be determined. If a tax is to be imposed, it would need to be on individuals as well as businesses. If the burden of a tax is put on individuals, it could be detrimental to low income earners and even the middle classes, who will find it hard to absorb an extra tax. If the tax is imposed on businesses, it will be the end user who is going to feel the pinch, as they will have to pay higher prices for products. However, if the tax is imposed on industries, it should be targeted at the ones that produce the most carbon, such as motor racing and flying, as these are the highest carbon producers. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001043.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001043.soc index 6b65ef40..1161ca7f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001043.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001043.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that single use plastics, polystyrene, and other items of that kind should be banned as soon as possible. However, this ban should be more focused on companies and the commercial use of single use items, and not as much on the end consumer. This is because we feel that the consumer has a greater responsibility to ensure they dispose of single use items in the correct way. The public sector should be enforcing the ban on the companies using these single use items, and publicising the best ways to use alternatives to single use items. This will hopefully discourage businesses from using single use items and, in turn, consumers will have to pay more for them if they want to continue using them. This will also discourage consumers from buying single use items in the first place, and instead force them to look for alternative products. We also believe that there should be a government incentive for companies and the public to use alternatives to single use items, such as a tax break or reduced business rates. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on all single use plates and cutlery that are made from non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials. This would ensure that the items that are banned are those that are the most harmful to the environment. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should be rolled out in stages, to allow businesses to adapt and find alternative products to use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although some single use plates and cutlery are produced sustainably, there is a huge volume of the items produced unsustainably and as such a ban on the unsustainable items should be imposed. This would help prevent these items from harming the environment and would encourage businesses to start using the sustainable alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on all single use plastics, however, if the plates and cutlery are made from recyclable or biodegradable materials and disposed of in the proper way, then this would not be a problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that single use plastics, polystyrene, and other items of that kind should be banned as soon as possible. However, this ban should be more focused on companies and the commercial use of single use items, and not as much on the end consumer. This is because we feel that the consumer has a greater responsibility to ensure they dispose of single use items in the correct way. The public sector should be enforcing the ban on the companies using these single use items, and publicising the best ways to use alternatives to single use items. This will hopefully discourage businesses from using single use items and, in turn, consumers will have to pay more for them if they want to continue using them. This will also discourage consumers from buying single use items in the first place, and instead force them to look for alternative products. We also believe that there should be a government incentive for companies and the public to use alternatives to single use items, such as a tax break or reduced business rates. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on all single use plates and cutlery that are made from non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials. This would ensure that the items that are banned are those that are the most harmful to the environment. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should be rolled out in stages, to allow businesses to adapt and find alternative products to use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although some single use plates and cutlery are produced sustainably, there is a huge volume of the items produced unsustainably and as such a ban on the unsustainable items should be imposed. This would help prevent these items from harming the environment and would encourage businesses to start using the sustainable alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on all single use plastics, however, if the plates and cutlery are made from recyclable or biodegradable materials and disposed of in the proper way, then this would not be a problem. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001044.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001044.soc index 25be6b65..fc3be0f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001044.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001044.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a ban on all single use plates and cutlery made from non-recyclable and non-biodegradable materials. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should be rolled out in stages, allowing businesses to adapt and find alternative products to use. Fines should be imposed during the earlier stages, with the proceeds being used to help businesses transition smoothly towards more sustainable alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on all single use plates and cutlery that are made from non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials. This would ensure that the items that are banned are those that are the most harmful to the environment. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should start immediately. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on all single-use plates and cutlery that are made from non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials. This would ensure that the items that are banned are those that are the most harmful to the environment. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should be rolled out in stages, to allow businesses to adapt and find alternative products to use. This is an important point because implementing the ban immediately would be very disruptive and would likely cause companies to go bankrupt, forcing them to lay off staff. Additionally, imposing fines would increase the financial strain on businesses, which could reduce demand. I agree with the comment made that a tax on the items would be an alternative course of action. However, I am worried that consumers may not have a major change in attitude towards single use products, and continuing to purchase them. In this case, a tax is likely to be less effective as it requires consumers to act more responsibly and pay more for the materials. If consumers still want to purchase the products, they can still do so, and would be harming the environment even more. However, it could -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on all single use plates and cutlery that are made from non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials. This would ensure that the items that are banned are those that are the most harmful to the environment. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should be rolled out in stages, to allow businesses to adapt and find alternative products to use. The stages of the ban could be combined with taxes, with proceeds going towards incentives to switch to sustainable products so there is a smooth transition while industry ramps up to meet demand at good margins. There should also be fines implemented in earlier stages to emphasise the importance of moving away from single use materials. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a ban on all single use plates and cutlery made from non-recyclable and non-biodegradable materials. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should be rolled out in stages, allowing businesses to adapt and find alternative products to use. Fines should be imposed during the earlier stages, with the proceeds being used to help businesses transition smoothly towards more sustainable alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on all single use plates and cutlery that are made from non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials. This would ensure that the items that are banned are those that are the most harmful to the environment. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should start immediately. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on all single-use plates and cutlery that are made from non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials. This would ensure that the items that are banned are those that are the most harmful to the environment. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should be rolled out in stages, to allow businesses to adapt and find alternative products to use. This is an important point because implementing the ban immediately would be very disruptive and would likely cause companies to go bankrupt, forcing them to lay off staff. Additionally, imposing fines would increase the financial strain on businesses, which could reduce demand. I agree with the comment made that a tax on the items would be an alternative course of action. However, I am worried that consumers may not have a major change in attitude towards single use products, and continuing to purchase them. In this case, a tax is likely to be less effective as it requires consumers to act more responsibly and pay more for the materials. If consumers still want to purchase the products, they can still do so, and would be harming the environment even more. However, it could +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on all single use plates and cutlery that are made from non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials. This would ensure that the items that are banned are those that are the most harmful to the environment. The ban should be enforced by the government, and the use of such plates and cutlery should be made illegal. The ban should be rolled out in stages, to allow businesses to adapt and find alternative products to use. The stages of the ban could be combined with taxes, with proceeds going towards incentives to switch to sustainable products so there is a smooth transition while industry ramps up to meet demand at good margins. There should also be fines implemented in earlier stages to emphasise the importance of moving away from single use materials. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001045.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001045.soc index 2a1c6f46..4264c27b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001045.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001045.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a gradual ban on cars from city centres. If there is sufficient investment in public transport, and the network of park and rides this will be beneficial for everyone in the city centre. The environment will be less polluted and people will be able to shop and access services more easily. The health of the population will also improve as there will be less pollution from exhaust fumes. The city centres will become more vibrant and popular places to be, benefiting local business and the local economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should be encouraging people to reduce the use of cars in cities. More public transport is needed, along with cheaper fares and longer opening hours to make it more convenient for people to use. Park and ride schemes should be extended and made cheaper, with additional park and ride facilities built. People should be encouraged to cycle in cities and there should be better cycle lanes and secure places to park bikes. The ban on diesel cars in city centres should be extended to all cars to improve air quality and make city centres safer for pedestrians. There should be a phased approach with the ban taking place over a number of years to allow time for people to adapt and to help city centres to cope with the change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: There should be a gradual ban on cars from city centres. If there is sufficient investment in public transport and the network of park and rides this will be beneficial for everyone in the city centre. There should be changes to planning policy to encourage people to live in the centre and reduce commuting. The city centres will become more pleasant places to be. However, local authorities should provide compensating infrastructure improvements where necessary so that journeys by public transport or bicycle have to be no more than a few minutes longer in time for anyone who is adversely affected by the ban. The health of the population will improve, there will be a reduction in urban congestion and noise pollution as well as less pollution from exhaust fumes. The environment will be less polluted and people will be able to shop and access services more easily. The city centres will become more vibrant and popular places to be, benefiting local business and the local economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a gradual ban on cars from city centres. If there is sufficient investment in public transport and the network of park and rides this will be beneficial for everyone in the city centre. The environment will be less polluted and people will be able to shop and access services more easily. The health of the population will also improve as there will be less pollution from exhaust fumes. The city centres will become more vibrant and popular places to be, benefiting local business and the local economy. The revised consensus view more closely matches the opinions of all five participants and it was reached after an open and fair debate in which all opinions were taken into account. There were some issues with the process, such as a strong-willed participant who did not listen to the opinions of others and tried to dominate the discussion. The organiser did not intervene in this situation as it was felt that it would be better for the participants to work it out themselves and if they wanted assistance, they would ask for it. The organiser did intervene in a situation where a participant who did not speak English very well was being misunderstood and this helped to facilitate a more open debate. The organiser also did not intervene in the situation where two +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a gradual ban on cars from city centres. If there is sufficient investment in public transport, and the network of park and rides this will be beneficial for everyone in the city centre. The environment will be less polluted and people will be able to shop and access services more easily. The health of the population will also improve as there will be less pollution from exhaust fumes. The city centres will become more vibrant and popular places to be, benefiting local business and the local economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should be encouraging people to reduce the use of cars in cities. More public transport is needed, along with cheaper fares and longer opening hours to make it more convenient for people to use. Park and ride schemes should be extended and made cheaper, with additional park and ride facilities built. People should be encouraged to cycle in cities and there should be better cycle lanes and secure places to park bikes. The ban on diesel cars in city centres should be extended to all cars to improve air quality and make city centres safer for pedestrians. There should be a phased approach with the ban taking place over a number of years to allow time for people to adapt and to help city centres to cope with the change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: There should be a gradual ban on cars from city centres. If there is sufficient investment in public transport and the network of park and rides this will be beneficial for everyone in the city centre. There should be changes to planning policy to encourage people to live in the centre and reduce commuting. The city centres will become more pleasant places to be. However, local authorities should provide compensating infrastructure improvements where necessary so that journeys by public transport or bicycle have to be no more than a few minutes longer in time for anyone who is adversely affected by the ban. The health of the population will improve, there will be a reduction in urban congestion and noise pollution as well as less pollution from exhaust fumes. The environment will be less polluted and people will be able to shop and access services more easily. The city centres will become more vibrant and popular places to be, benefiting local business and the local economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a gradual ban on cars from city centres. If there is sufficient investment in public transport and the network of park and rides this will be beneficial for everyone in the city centre. The environment will be less polluted and people will be able to shop and access services more easily. The health of the population will also improve as there will be less pollution from exhaust fumes. The city centres will become more vibrant and popular places to be, benefiting local business and the local economy. The revised consensus view more closely matches the opinions of all five participants and it was reached after an open and fair debate in which all opinions were taken into account. There were some issues with the process, such as a strong-willed participant who did not listen to the opinions of others and tried to dominate the discussion. The organiser did not intervene in this situation as it was felt that it would be better for the participants to work it out themselves and if they wanted assistance, they would ask for it. The organiser did intervene in a situation where a participant who did not speak English very well was being misunderstood and this helped to facilitate a more open debate. The organiser also did not intervene in the situation where two 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001046.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001046.soc index 5f8540b6..6691d958 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001046.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001046.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making parenting classes mandatory. They felt that parenting is something that comes naturally to most people and that making the classes mandatory would infringe on people's rights. They did concede, however, that there are some parents who may benefit from the classes and that they should be available to those who want them. They also felt that the classes should be free of charge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of parents being required to attend training on how to bring up children. The participants felt that this would help to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and would also improve the child's well-being. It was also felt that the training would help parents to improve their parenting skills, and this would help to enhance the parent-child relationship. The participants felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too prescriptive, and that it allowed for some flexibility, as each family is different, and has different needs. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too expensive, as this would prevent poorer families from being able to attend. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was accessible to all parents, and this could be achieved by providing the training in a range of different locations, and at different times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Parenting is a challenging and often difficult task. Many parents have the best intentions for their children but find it hard to know what the best way is to parent and bring up their children. It would be useful for parents to attend training to help them learn about how to raise children. It is not practical to think that there is only one way to raise a child, but it would be useful for parents to have a framework and a basic understanding of how to meet the emotional and practical needs of their children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Parenting is a tough job, it is a full-time job and it comes with no salary and no breaks. Parents should be supported in any way possible. We feel that parents would benefit from being given a few days training on how to raise their children. This would allow them to have a basic understanding of how to feed, discipline and relate to their child in the correct way. Parents would be able to take advantage of many benefits, such as being able to understand how to relate to their child when they are going through tough times. It would also allow parents to understand the correct way to feed their child, which is very important as the number of obese children is increasing. There are also many benefits for the child. Their parents will understand how to support their child's emotional needs and provide them with a secure attachment style. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making parenting classes mandatory. They felt that parenting is something that comes naturally to most people and that making the classes mandatory would infringe on people's rights. They did concede, however, that there are some parents who may benefit from the classes and that they should be available to those who want them. They also felt that the classes should be free of charge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of parents being required to attend training on how to bring up children. The participants felt that this would help to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and would also improve the child's well-being. It was also felt that the training would help parents to improve their parenting skills, and this would help to enhance the parent-child relationship. The participants felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too prescriptive, and that it allowed for some flexibility, as each family is different, and has different needs. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too expensive, as this would prevent poorer families from being able to attend. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was accessible to all parents, and this could be achieved by providing the training in a range of different locations, and at different times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Parenting is a challenging and often difficult task. Many parents have the best intentions for their children but find it hard to know what the best way is to parent and bring up their children. It would be useful for parents to attend training to help them learn about how to raise children. It is not practical to think that there is only one way to raise a child, but it would be useful for parents to have a framework and a basic understanding of how to meet the emotional and practical needs of their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Parenting is a tough job, it is a full-time job and it comes with no salary and no breaks. Parents should be supported in any way possible. We feel that parents would benefit from being given a few days training on how to raise their children. This would allow them to have a basic understanding of how to feed, discipline and relate to their child in the correct way. Parents would be able to take advantage of many benefits, such as being able to understand how to relate to their child when they are going through tough times. It would also allow parents to understand the correct way to feed their child, which is very important as the number of obese children is increasing. There are also many benefits for the child. Their parents will understand how to support their child's emotional needs and provide them with a secure attachment style. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001047.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001047.soc index 88063aee..404dcba2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001047.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001047.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although we don't agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. However, we think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills and it is also important for businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be exposed to a certain level of advertising. The level of advertising they are exposed to should be dependent on their age. There should be a gradual increase in the level of advertising they are exposed to as they get older. Advertising that is age inappropriate should be banned. Advertising that is age appropriate but has the potential to be harmful should be closely monitored and regulated. Advertising that is age appropriate and has the potential to be beneficial should be encouraged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although children under the age of 18 are certainly easily influenced, and some contents should not reach minors, all kinds of advertising should not be banned for them. At the end of the day, youngsters must create their own perspectives and opinions to grow and improve their critical thinking. These children should have the opportunity to receive information and decide what to do with it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We feel that there should be an element of restriction when it comes to what advertising is allowed to be shown to children under the age of 18. At the same time, we think that there is some valuable information that children can learn from ads, and some advertisements can help improve their way of life. We believe that it is important to let them know about healthy food, living a healthy lifestyle, having a healthy mindset and so on. We believe that all these elements are extremely important, but at the same time we are aware of the negative effects of ads as well. Children should be allowed to develop their own view of the world, so we don't think it is fair to remove the entire influence of ads. Our view is that we should allow some ads, but the content of those ads should be closely monitored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although we don't agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. However, we think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills and it is also important for businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be exposed to a certain level of advertising. The level of advertising they are exposed to should be dependent on their age. There should be a gradual increase in the level of advertising they are exposed to as they get older. Advertising that is age inappropriate should be banned. Advertising that is age appropriate but has the potential to be harmful should be closely monitored and regulated. Advertising that is age appropriate and has the potential to be beneficial should be encouraged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although children under the age of 18 are certainly easily influenced, and some contents should not reach minors, all kinds of advertising should not be banned for them. At the end of the day, youngsters must create their own perspectives and opinions to grow and improve their critical thinking. These children should have the opportunity to receive information and decide what to do with it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We feel that there should be an element of restriction when it comes to what advertising is allowed to be shown to children under the age of 18. At the same time, we think that there is some valuable information that children can learn from ads, and some advertisements can help improve their way of life. We believe that it is important to let them know about healthy food, living a healthy lifestyle, having a healthy mindset and so on. We believe that all these elements are extremely important, but at the same time we are aware of the negative effects of ads as well. Children should be allowed to develop their own view of the world, so we don't think it is fair to remove the entire influence of ads. Our view is that we should allow some ads, but the content of those ads should be closely monitored. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001048.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001048.soc index 16a0511e..ee768147 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001048.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001048.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of parents being required to attend training on how to bring up children. The participants felt that this would help to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and would also improve the child's well-being. It was also felt that the training would help parents to improve their parenting skills, and this would help to enhance the parent-child relationship. The participants felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too prescriptive, and that it allowed for some flexibility, as each family is different, and has different needs. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too expensive, as this would prevent poorer families from being able to attend. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was accessible to all parents, and this could be achieved by providing the training in a range of different locations, and at different times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of parents being required to attend training on how to bring up children. The participants felt that this would help to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and would also improve the child's well-being. It was also felt that the training would help parents to improve their parenting skills, and this would help to enhance the parent-child relationship. The participants felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too prescriptive, and that it allowed for some flexibility, as each family is different, and has different needs. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too expensive, as this would prevent poorer families from being able to attend. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was accessible to all parents, and this could be achieved by providing the training in a range of different locations, and at different times. It was also felt that the training should be provided for free, as this would allow poorer families to attend, and would also allow more people to access the training, as the cost may be a deterrent for some. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Parenting is a challenging and often difficult task. Many parents wish to improve their skills and would like to take advantage of training and support. However, some parents find that they are so busy and overwhelmed by the pressures of day-to-day life, that they simply do not have time to attend training courses. Attendance is also an issue for some parents, as they may be unable to afford to pay for a course, or be able to afford childcare so that they can attend training. For these reasons, we do not feel that parents should be required to attend training courses. Instead, we feel that it would be better to make these courses more accessible, so that they are more widely available. We feel that courses could be made cheaper, and may even be free in some cases, and could also be held in more accessible venues, so that those without a car could still be able to get there. Also, there are many materials available online, and in leaflets from the doctors, so that parents can learn about parenting, without necessarily having to attend a course. Teaching Pronunciation In the experience outlined below, the topic was pronunciation. A task was undertaken that involved teaching a class of -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of parents being required to attend training on how to bring up children. The participants felt that this would help to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and would also improve the child's well-being. It was also felt that the training would help parents to improve their parenting skills, and this would help to enhance the parent-child relationship. The participants felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too prescriptive, and that it allowed for some flexibility, as each family is different, and has different needs. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too expensive, as this would prevent poorer families from being able to attend. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was accessible to all parents, and this could be achieved by providing the training in a range of different locations, and at different times. The participants also felt that the training should be free, as this would help to ensure that all parents could access the training, regardless of their economic situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of parents being required to attend training on how to bring up children. The participants felt that this would help to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and would also improve the child's well-being. It was also felt that the training would help parents to improve their parenting skills, and this would help to enhance the parent-child relationship. The participants felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too prescriptive, and that it allowed for some flexibility, as each family is different, and has different needs. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too expensive, as this would prevent poorer families from being able to attend. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was accessible to all parents, and this could be achieved by providing the training in a range of different locations, and at different times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of parents being required to attend training on how to bring up children. The participants felt that this would help to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and would also improve the child's well-being. It was also felt that the training would help parents to improve their parenting skills, and this would help to enhance the parent-child relationship. The participants felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too prescriptive, and that it allowed for some flexibility, as each family is different, and has different needs. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too expensive, as this would prevent poorer families from being able to attend. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was accessible to all parents, and this could be achieved by providing the training in a range of different locations, and at different times. It was also felt that the training should be provided for free, as this would allow poorer families to attend, and would also allow more people to access the training, as the cost may be a deterrent for some. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Parenting is a challenging and often difficult task. Many parents wish to improve their skills and would like to take advantage of training and support. However, some parents find that they are so busy and overwhelmed by the pressures of day-to-day life, that they simply do not have time to attend training courses. Attendance is also an issue for some parents, as they may be unable to afford to pay for a course, or be able to afford childcare so that they can attend training. For these reasons, we do not feel that parents should be required to attend training courses. Instead, we feel that it would be better to make these courses more accessible, so that they are more widely available. We feel that courses could be made cheaper, and may even be free in some cases, and could also be held in more accessible venues, so that those without a car could still be able to get there. Also, there are many materials available online, and in leaflets from the doctors, so that parents can learn about parenting, without necessarily having to attend a course. Teaching Pronunciation In the experience outlined below, the topic was pronunciation. A task was undertaken that involved teaching a class of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of parents being required to attend training on how to bring up children. The participants felt that this would help to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and would also improve the child's well-being. It was also felt that the training would help parents to improve their parenting skills, and this would help to enhance the parent-child relationship. The participants felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too prescriptive, and that it allowed for some flexibility, as each family is different, and has different needs. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was not too expensive, as this would prevent poorer families from being able to attend. The participants also felt that it was important to ensure that the training was accessible to all parents, and this could be achieved by providing the training in a range of different locations, and at different times. The participants also felt that the training should be free, as this would help to ensure that all parents could access the training, regardless of their economic situation. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001049.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001049.soc index 300958ac..0d7e1395 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001049.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001049.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although we don't agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. However, we think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills. However, we don't think that the right and needs of the business should take precedence over those of children, even when the adverts in question are not of the explicit sort. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although we don't agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. However, we think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills. However, we don't think that the right and needs of the children should be sacrificed for the businesses. Although, we do admit that businesses will always have their part in these issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although we don't agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. We think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills. We also understand that advertising is important for businesses, but we feel that our children's welfare is paramount. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be exposed to advertising as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills. However, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. This is because these kinds of adverts may encourage them to get involved in these activities. We do not agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, because we think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills and it is also important for businesses. Conclusion: We believe that the consensus statement obtained is a good representation of the opinions of the group of participants. We think that there is a good balance between the importance of the welfare of children and the importance of advertising for businesses. The consensus statement is also in line with our original opinion that there should be a ban on some advertising for children under the age of 18, but not a total ban. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although we don't agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. However, we think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills. However, we don't think that the right and needs of the business should take precedence over those of children, even when the adverts in question are not of the explicit sort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although we don't agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. However, we think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills. However, we don't think that the right and needs of the children should be sacrificed for the businesses. Although, we do admit that businesses will always have their part in these issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although we don't agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. We think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills. We also understand that advertising is important for businesses, but we feel that our children's welfare is paramount. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be exposed to advertising as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills. However, we feel that some adverts should be banned. We think that adverts that contain explicit sexual content or adverts for alcohol or gambling should be banned for children under the age of 18. This is because these kinds of adverts may encourage them to get involved in these activities. We do not agree with a total ban on advertising to children under the age of 18, because we think that it is important for children to be exposed to advertising, as it helps them develop their critical thinking skills and it is also important for businesses. Conclusion: We believe that the consensus statement obtained is a good representation of the opinions of the group of participants. We think that there is a good balance between the importance of the welfare of children and the importance of advertising for businesses. The consensus statement is also in line with our original opinion that there should be a ban on some advertising for children under the age of 18, but not a total ban. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001050.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001050.soc index 2e0a865a..c625e191 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001050.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001050.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. The laws of the land, customs, tradition and mores of society, and rules of the workplace provide some constraints to our freedom of will. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. However, this does not prevent us from making a conscious choice to do something (or not do something), and should not be construed as a lack of free will. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans have free will, however it is limited by laws, rules, social norms, family and friends, and the environment in which they live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: we believe that we have free will but only if we believe we do. we believe we have free will because if we did not then we would be nothing but pawns and puppets of fate and our lives would be meaningless. but this is a cycle because if we believe we have free will, we do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that humans have free will. It was noted that the concept of free will is a complex one and that it is difficult to define. It was agreed that free will is the ability to make choices and that these choices are not predetermined. It was noted that some people may have more free will than others, for example those with mental health issues or those living in extreme poverty. The group also discussed the idea that free will is an illusion and that it is not actually possible to make choices that are not predetermined. The group was in favour of the idea that free will is a real concept and that humans do have free will. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. The laws of the land, customs, tradition and mores of society, and rules of the workplace provide some constraints to our freedom of will. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. However, this does not prevent us from making a conscious choice to do something (or not do something), and should not be construed as a lack of free will. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans have free will, however it is limited by laws, rules, social norms, family and friends, and the environment in which they live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - we believe that we have free will but only if we believe we do. we believe we have free will because if we did not then we would be nothing but pawns and puppets of fate and our lives would be meaningless. but this is a cycle because if we believe we have free will, we do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that humans have free will. It was noted that the concept of free will is a complex one and that it is difficult to define. It was agreed that free will is the ability to make choices and that these choices are not predetermined. It was noted that some people may have more free will than others, for example those with mental health issues or those living in extreme poverty. The group also discussed the idea that free will is an illusion and that it is not actually possible to make choices that are not predetermined. The group was in favour of the idea that free will is a real concept and that humans do have free will. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001051.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001051.soc index 668b8e38..dca1b708 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001051.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001051.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. The laws of the land, customs, tradition and mores of society, and rules of the workplace provide some constraints to our freedom of will. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. However, this does not prevent us from making a conscious choice to do something (or not do something), and should not be construed as a lack of free will. However, we should be aware that our actions are never made in a vacuum, and that they always have some consequences, whether good or bad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. There are various other forces that act upon human beings and may sometimes lead us down certain paths. Laws, tradition, customs, and social norms provide some constraints to our ability to make decisions freely. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. Even when faced with these constraints, humans still have the ability to make conscious choices about their lives (except in the case of some extreme mental illness, disability, and other such barriers). Most humans believe that they do have a choice to do or not to do something (and thus may decide to do nothing), and that provides the motivation for making good and bad choices. Ultimately, even if predetermined outcomes limit human choices, people still believe they have a free will and such belief in itself is motivating, causing humans to take action or not as they see fit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. The laws of the land, customs, tradition and mores of society, and rules of the workplace provide some constraints to our freedom of will. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. However, this does not prevent us from making a conscious choice to do something (or not do something), and should not be construed as a lack of free will. Humans must choose to do something and the choice is one’s own regardless of what others do or how others choose to act. Although the consequences of our choices are difficult to predict, the responsibility of the choices remain with the decision maker. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. The laws of the land, customs, tradition and mores of society, and rules of the workplace provide some constraints to our freedom of will. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. However, this does not prevent us from making a conscious choice to do something (or not do something), and should not be construed as a lack of free will. Free will can be defined by actions and thoughts, and it cannot be taken away. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. The laws of the land, customs, tradition and mores of society, and rules of the workplace provide some constraints to our freedom of will. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. However, this does not prevent us from making a conscious choice to do something (or not do something), and should not be construed as a lack of free will. However, we should be aware that our actions are never made in a vacuum, and that they always have some consequences, whether good or bad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. There are various other forces that act upon human beings and may sometimes lead us down certain paths. Laws, tradition, customs, and social norms provide some constraints to our ability to make decisions freely. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. Even when faced with these constraints, humans still have the ability to make conscious choices about their lives (except in the case of some extreme mental illness, disability, and other such barriers). Most humans believe that they do have a choice to do or not to do something (and thus may decide to do nothing), and that provides the motivation for making good and bad choices. Ultimately, even if predetermined outcomes limit human choices, people still believe they have a free will and such belief in itself is motivating, causing humans to take action or not as they see fit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. The laws of the land, customs, tradition and mores of society, and rules of the workplace provide some constraints to our freedom of will. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. However, this does not prevent us from making a conscious choice to do something (or not do something), and should not be construed as a lack of free will. Humans must choose to do something and the choice is one’s own regardless of what others do or how others choose to act. Although the consequences of our choices are difficult to predict, the responsibility of the choices remain with the decision maker. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Humans have the ability to make choices and decisions about their own lives, however, this is not an unfettered right. The laws of the land, customs, tradition and mores of society, and rules of the workplace provide some constraints to our freedom of will. There is also the possibility that there are some fundamental causes to events that we have no knowledge of or ability to influence, and these may lead to certain predetermined outcomes. However, this does not prevent us from making a conscious choice to do something (or not do something), and should not be construed as a lack of free will. Free will can be defined by actions and thoughts, and it cannot be taken away. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001052.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001052.soc index f01c0a4e..7c4347d1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001052.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001052.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should have a nuclear power industry. We should not be running fossil fuel power plants because they are bad for the environment. We need more green energy sources but we need to rely on nuclear power as the next best alternative until green energy can take over. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. The reasons for this were that nuclear power is a clean source of energy and is much better for the environment than fossil fuels. The group was aware of the dangers of nuclear power and the potential for accidents but felt that these were outweighed by the benefits of having a nuclear power industry. The group felt that it was important that the government was working to increase the amount of green energy in the UK and that nuclear power would be phased out in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although it is better for the environment, nuclear power is a dangerous thing. Accidents can occur such as Chernobyl. The fact that it produces radioactive waste is a very worrying thing also. We shouldn't run more fossil fuel power plants because they are so harmful to the environment. We obviously want more green energy sources but while the government is slowly increasing our green energy capacity we have to rely on nuclear power as the next best alternative. Hopefully it will be phased out in the future as we move to 100% green energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should not have a nuclear power industry. Although it is more environmentally friendly than some of the alternatives, nuclear power is dangerous to our people and the environment. If a power plant were to experience a meltdown it would be catastrophic. There is also the issue of the radioactive waste which is hazardous to both our health and our environment. The problem with the nuclear power industry is that there is no 100% safe solution, in the event of an accident there is no going back. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should have a nuclear power industry. We should not be running fossil fuel power plants because they are bad for the environment. We need more green energy sources but we need to rely on nuclear power as the next best alternative until green energy can take over. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. The reasons for this were that nuclear power is a clean source of energy and is much better for the environment than fossil fuels. The group was aware of the dangers of nuclear power and the potential for accidents but felt that these were outweighed by the benefits of having a nuclear power industry. The group felt that it was important that the government was working to increase the amount of green energy in the UK and that nuclear power would be phased out in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although it is better for the environment, nuclear power is a dangerous thing. Accidents can occur such as Chernobyl. The fact that it produces radioactive waste is a very worrying thing also. We shouldn't run more fossil fuel power plants because they are so harmful to the environment. We obviously want more green energy sources but while the government is slowly increasing our green energy capacity we have to rely on nuclear power as the next best alternative. Hopefully it will be phased out in the future as we move to 100% green energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should not have a nuclear power industry. Although it is more environmentally friendly than some of the alternatives, nuclear power is dangerous to our people and the environment. If a power plant were to experience a meltdown it would be catastrophic. There is also the issue of the radioactive waste which is hazardous to both our health and our environment. The problem with the nuclear power industry is that there is no 100% safe solution, in the event of an accident there is no going back. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001053.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001053.soc index ec5b60f8..134f1176 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001053.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001053.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. The reasons for this were that nuclear power is a clean source of energy and is much better for the environment than fossil fuels. Nuclear power may not be a clean industry because it produces radioactive waste but we need to remember that is the best option we have while we wait for green energy sources to be expanded to a level where they can consistently provide enough energy for the whole of the UK. The group was aware of the dangers of nuclear power and the potential for accidents but felt that these were outweighed by the benefits of having a nuclear power industry. We all agreed that the government should be working towards more green energy and that nuclear power would be phased out in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. Nuclear power is not a clean source of energy and is much worse for the environment than fossil fuels, but we feel that it would be better for the UK to have a nuclear power industry than to use fossil fuels. We also feel that having a nuclear power industry means that we do not rely on energy sources outside of the UK and that this can only be a good thing. We also feel that if you took the amount of people affected by nuclear accidents in the past and compared them to the number of people that die from carbon emissions from fossil fuel emissions each year, then you find that nuclear power plants are safer. We feel that this is balanced against the fact that we understand that the effects of radioactive waste will last for thousands of years, and we would like to see nuclear power phased out in favour of renewable energy sources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. The reasons for this were that nuclear power is a clean source of energy and is much better for the environment than fossil fuels. The group was aware of the dangers of nuclear power and the potential for accidents but felt that these were outweighed by the benefits of having a nuclear power industry. The group felt that it was important that the government was working to increase the amount of green energy in the UK and that nuclear power would be phased out in the future. The group was aware that nuclear power was not a clean industry because it produced radioactive waste. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. The reasons for this were that nuclear power is a clean source of energy and is much better for the environment than fossil fuels. The group was aware of the dangers of nuclear power and the potential for accidents but felt that these were outweighed by the benefits of having a nuclear power industry. The group felt that it was important that the government was working to increase the amount of green energy in the UK and that nuclear power would be phased out in the future. The group was aware that nuclear power is not a clean industry because it produces radioactive waste but felt that it was the best option we have while we wait for green energy sources to be expanded to a level where they can consistently provide enough energy for the whole of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. The reasons for this were that nuclear power is a clean source of energy and is much better for the environment than fossil fuels. Nuclear power may not be a clean industry because it produces radioactive waste but we need to remember that is the best option we have while we wait for green energy sources to be expanded to a level where they can consistently provide enough energy for the whole of the UK. The group was aware of the dangers of nuclear power and the potential for accidents but felt that these were outweighed by the benefits of having a nuclear power industry. We all agreed that the government should be working towards more green energy and that nuclear power would be phased out in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. Nuclear power is not a clean source of energy and is much worse for the environment than fossil fuels, but we feel that it would be better for the UK to have a nuclear power industry than to use fossil fuels. We also feel that having a nuclear power industry means that we do not rely on energy sources outside of the UK and that this can only be a good thing. We also feel that if you took the amount of people affected by nuclear accidents in the past and compared them to the number of people that die from carbon emissions from fossil fuel emissions each year, then you find that nuclear power plants are safer. We feel that this is balanced against the fact that we understand that the effects of radioactive waste will last for thousands of years, and we would like to see nuclear power phased out in favour of renewable energy sources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. The reasons for this were that nuclear power is a clean source of energy and is much better for the environment than fossil fuels. The group was aware of the dangers of nuclear power and the potential for accidents but felt that these were outweighed by the benefits of having a nuclear power industry. The group felt that it was important that the government was working to increase the amount of green energy in the UK and that nuclear power would be phased out in the future. The group was aware that nuclear power was not a clean industry because it produced radioactive waste. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. The reasons for this were that nuclear power is a clean source of energy and is much better for the environment than fossil fuels. The group was aware of the dangers of nuclear power and the potential for accidents but felt that these were outweighed by the benefits of having a nuclear power industry. The group felt that it was important that the government was working to increase the amount of green energy in the UK and that nuclear power would be phased out in the future. The group was aware that nuclear power is not a clean industry because it produces radioactive waste but felt that it was the best option we have while we wait for green energy sources to be expanded to a level where they can consistently provide enough energy for the whole of the UK. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001054.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001054.soc index fc94ff54..af69530e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001054.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001054.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is acceptable to show violence or sex in the media. We have found that these sorts of acts are not being caused by the media and that people who see violence or sex in the media are mature enough to know that they should not act on it. The media also does a good job in advising the viewers of warnings to prevent immature people from seeing it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of showing violence and sex in the media. However, the group was in favour of showing violence and sex in the media to an extent. The group believed that it was important to take in to account the age of the viewership, and that warnings should be posted before or during. The group believed that sex scenes should also be consensual, and violence should have a premise and be part of a larger story, not just random acts of violence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of showing violence and sex in the media. However, it was stressed that the age of the viewer is an important factor to consider. The group felt that if the viewer is young, it is important to ensure that the violence and sex shown is not graphic in nature. It was also felt that it is important to ensure that the violence and sex shown in the media has a premise and is not just random acts of violence or sex. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is acceptable to show sex or violence in the media but only to an extent. The most important thing to consider is who the intended audience is, the younger the viewers the more acceptable the sex and violence shown should be. Also the producers should not glamorise or make the violence and sex the focal point of the production, instead it should be a part of a larger storyline or plot and not used as a form of advertisement or propaganda. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is acceptable to show violence or sex in the media. We have found that these sorts of acts are not being caused by the media and that people who see violence or sex in the media are mature enough to know that they should not act on it. The media also does a good job in advising the viewers of warnings to prevent immature people from seeing it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of showing violence and sex in the media. However, the group was in favour of showing violence and sex in the media to an extent. The group believed that it was important to take in to account the age of the viewership, and that warnings should be posted before or during. The group believed that sex scenes should also be consensual, and violence should have a premise and be part of a larger story, not just random acts of violence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of showing violence and sex in the media. However, it was stressed that the age of the viewer is an important factor to consider. The group felt that if the viewer is young, it is important to ensure that the violence and sex shown is not graphic in nature. It was also felt that it is important to ensure that the violence and sex shown in the media has a premise and is not just random acts of violence or sex. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is acceptable to show sex or violence in the media but only to an extent. The most important thing to consider is who the intended audience is, the younger the viewers the more acceptable the sex and violence shown should be. Also the producers should not glamorise or make the violence and sex the focal point of the production, instead it should be a part of a larger storyline or plot and not used as a form of advertisement or propaganda. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001055.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001055.soc index 4909f491..7cc593c1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001055.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001055.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increased government funding for the arts. They felt that the arts were very important for the cultural enrichment of the UK and also for the creative industries, education and skills development, access and inclusion, well-being and mental health, and social cohersion and community development. They felt that the arts were an important part of the UK's heritage and tradition and should be preserved. They also felt that the arts were an important part of the creative industries, which are a key part of the UK economy. The group felt that the arts were very important for education and skills development, as the arts help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. The group felt that the arts were also very important for access and inclusion, as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. The group felt that the arts were very important for well-being and mental health, as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. The group felt that the arts were very important for social cohersion and community development, as they can help to bring communities together and also help to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the arts. However, there were some reservations and the group felt that the government should increase funding for the arts but only in certain circumstances and if it was for the right reasons. The group felt that the arts should not be seen as a luxury but as something that is important for the economy, education, well-being and health. The group felt that the arts are important for the cultural enrichment of the country and also for the creative industries. The group also felt that the arts are important for education and skills development, access and inclusion, well-being and mental health, social cohesion and community development. The group felt that the arts are important for all ages and all backgrounds and should be accessible to everyone. The group felt that the arts are important for the economy and also for the creative industries. The group felt that the arts are important for education and skills development, access and inclusion, well-being and mental health, social cohesion and community development. The group felt that the arts are important for all ages and all backgrounds and should be accessible to everyone. The group felt that the arts are important for the economy and also for the creative industries. The group felt that the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in agreement that government funding is important to the arts. The group acknowledged that some arts organisations do have alternative sources of income, however, government funding is still important to support those organisations that do not have alternative sources of income, as well as the important work they do. The group agreed that arts and culture are important, and it is essential to have them. The group also agreed that the cultural enrichment of the country is important, as is the growth and development of creative industries. The group also recognised that the arts can be a form of escapism from the real world. The group acknowledged that the arts help people to build skills and a career. They also help with the community, and help to develop the economy. They can also play a role in politics and power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group have come to the consensus view that we should not be increasing funding for the arts. We came to the conclusion that there are more important things that the government could be spending their money on and if organisations associated with the arts were to be more efficient, they could raise their own funds. The group did say that arts was an important subject and they would be very sorry to see it leave. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increased government funding for the arts. They felt that the arts were very important for the cultural enrichment of the UK and also for the creative industries, education and skills development, access and inclusion, well-being and mental health, and social cohersion and community development. They felt that the arts were an important part of the UK's heritage and tradition and should be preserved. They also felt that the arts were an important part of the creative industries, which are a key part of the UK economy. The group felt that the arts were very important for education and skills development, as the arts help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. The group felt that the arts were also very important for access and inclusion, as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. The group felt that the arts were very important for well-being and mental health, as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. The group felt that the arts were very important for social cohersion and community development, as they can help to bring communities together and also help to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the arts. However, there were some reservations and the group felt that the government should increase funding for the arts but only in certain circumstances and if it was for the right reasons. The group felt that the arts should not be seen as a luxury but as something that is important for the economy, education, well-being and health. The group felt that the arts are important for the cultural enrichment of the country and also for the creative industries. The group also felt that the arts are important for education and skills development, access and inclusion, well-being and mental health, social cohesion and community development. The group felt that the arts are important for all ages and all backgrounds and should be accessible to everyone. The group felt that the arts are important for the economy and also for the creative industries. The group felt that the arts are important for education and skills development, access and inclusion, well-being and mental health, social cohesion and community development. The group felt that the arts are important for all ages and all backgrounds and should be accessible to everyone. The group felt that the arts are important for the economy and also for the creative industries. The group felt that the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in agreement that government funding is important to the arts. The group acknowledged that some arts organisations do have alternative sources of income, however, government funding is still important to support those organisations that do not have alternative sources of income, as well as the important work they do. The group agreed that arts and culture are important, and it is essential to have them. The group also agreed that the cultural enrichment of the country is important, as is the growth and development of creative industries. The group also recognised that the arts can be a form of escapism from the real world. The group acknowledged that the arts help people to build skills and a career. They also help with the community, and help to develop the economy. They can also play a role in politics and power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group have come to the consensus view that we should not be increasing funding for the arts. We came to the conclusion that there are more important things that the government could be spending their money on and if organisations associated with the arts were to be more efficient, they could raise their own funds. The group did say that arts was an important subject and they would be very sorry to see it leave. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001056.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001056.soc index 38166373..1e406d41 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001056.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001056.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is a good idea to reduce the working week to 3 days provided productivity can be maintained and wages can be maintained. We feel that this would benefit the population as a whole, as the working population will have a better work life balance, which would in turn improve the physical and mental health of the population. However, we feel that the effects of a reduction in working hours on the economy and international trade would have to be considered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that a 3 day working week would be beneficial to the health of the nation, but we are unsure if this would be feasible for the country as a whole. The working week would have to be changed in all sectors of work and not just in some, otherwise this would cause problems in the work place. We think that if the working week was reduced, the amount of money that people earned would also have to be reduced, as we would not be working as many hours. This could be a problem for some people, as they may not be able to afford to live. We think that the working week should be reduced for some jobs, but not all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not a good idea to reduce the working week to 3 days as the long term benefits would not outweigh the short term negative impacts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not a good idea to reduce the working week to 3 days. This is because we are a fairly unproductive country as it is and this will only serve to make the population of the country poorer overall. Less work means less production and therefore less trade with the rest of the world which in the end makes us a poorer country overall. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is a good idea to reduce the working week to 3 days provided productivity can be maintained and wages can be maintained. We feel that this would benefit the population as a whole, as the working population will have a better work life balance, which would in turn improve the physical and mental health of the population. However, we feel that the effects of a reduction in working hours on the economy and international trade would have to be considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that a 3 day working week would be beneficial to the health of the nation, but we are unsure if this would be feasible for the country as a whole. The working week would have to be changed in all sectors of work and not just in some, otherwise this would cause problems in the work place. We think that if the working week was reduced, the amount of money that people earned would also have to be reduced, as we would not be working as many hours. This could be a problem for some people, as they may not be able to afford to live. We think that the working week should be reduced for some jobs, but not all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not a good idea to reduce the working week to 3 days as the long term benefits would not outweigh the short term negative impacts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not a good idea to reduce the working week to 3 days. This is because we are a fairly unproductive country as it is and this will only serve to make the population of the country poorer overall. Less work means less production and therefore less trade with the rest of the world which in the end makes us a poorer country overall. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001057.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001057.soc index 5115f7e8..ade28dab 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001057.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001057.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: While the group generally agreed that the government should increase funding for the arts, they felt that the statement was too repetitive in places. However, the group felt that the arts are very important for several reasons: for cultural enrichment, for the creative industries, for education and skills development, for access and inclusion, for well-being and mental health, and for social cohersion and community development. With regard to cultural enrichment, the arts are important for preserving the UK's heritage and tradition. With regard to the creative industries, the arts are important as they are a significant source of income to the country and also provide an important catalyst for innovation and ideas. With regard to education and skills development, the arts are important as they can help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. With regard to access and inclusion, the arts are important as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. With regard to well-being and mental health, the arts are important as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. With regard to social cohersion and community development, the arts -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the UK government should increase funding for the arts. The arts are very important for the cultural enrichment of the UK. They are also important for the creative industries, education and skills development, access and inclusion, well-being and mental health, and social cohersion and community development. The arts are an important part of the UK's heritage and tradition and should be preserved. The arts are an important part of the creative industries, which are a key part of the UK economy. The arts are very important for education and skills development, as the arts help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. The arts are also very important for access and inclusion, as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. The arts are very important for well-being and mental health, as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. The arts are very important for social cohersion and community development, as they can help to bring communities together and also help to build relationships within communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increased government funding for the arts. They felt that the arts were important for the cultural enrichment of the UK and also for the creative industries, education and skills development, access and inclusion, mental health, and social cohersion and community development. They felt that the arts were an important part of the UK's heritage and tradition and should be preserved. They also felt that the arts were an important part of the creative industries, which are a key part of the UK economy. The group felt that the arts were very important for education and skills development, as the arts help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. The group felt that the arts were also very important for access and inclusion, as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. The group felt that the arts were very important for mental health, as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. The group felt that the arts were very important for social cohersion and community development, as they can help to bring communities together and also help to improve social cohesion. Conclusion: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The arts are an important part of the UK's heritage and tradition and should be preserved. They are also an important part of the creative industries, which are a key part of the UK economy. The arts are also very important for education and skills development, as the arts help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. The arts are also very important for access and inclusion, as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. The arts are very important for well-being and mental health, as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. The arts are also very important for social cohersion and community development, as they can help to bring communities together and also help to develop communities. The participants felt that this was a fair consensus view, as it addressed all of the issues that had been raised, and was not too repetitive. The participants agreed that the arts were very important for all of the reasons given, and so should be funded by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: While the group generally agreed that the government should increase funding for the arts, they felt that the statement was too repetitive in places. However, the group felt that the arts are very important for several reasons: for cultural enrichment, for the creative industries, for education and skills development, for access and inclusion, for well-being and mental health, and for social cohersion and community development. With regard to cultural enrichment, the arts are important for preserving the UK's heritage and tradition. With regard to the creative industries, the arts are important as they are a significant source of income to the country and also provide an important catalyst for innovation and ideas. With regard to education and skills development, the arts are important as they can help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. With regard to access and inclusion, the arts are important as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. With regard to well-being and mental health, the arts are important as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. With regard to social cohersion and community development, the arts +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the UK government should increase funding for the arts. The arts are very important for the cultural enrichment of the UK. They are also important for the creative industries, education and skills development, access and inclusion, well-being and mental health, and social cohersion and community development. The arts are an important part of the UK's heritage and tradition and should be preserved. The arts are an important part of the creative industries, which are a key part of the UK economy. The arts are very important for education and skills development, as the arts help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. The arts are also very important for access and inclusion, as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. The arts are very important for well-being and mental health, as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. The arts are very important for social cohersion and community development, as they can help to bring communities together and also help to build relationships within communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increased government funding for the arts. They felt that the arts were important for the cultural enrichment of the UK and also for the creative industries, education and skills development, access and inclusion, mental health, and social cohersion and community development. They felt that the arts were an important part of the UK's heritage and tradition and should be preserved. They also felt that the arts were an important part of the creative industries, which are a key part of the UK economy. The group felt that the arts were very important for education and skills development, as the arts help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. The group felt that the arts were also very important for access and inclusion, as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. The group felt that the arts were very important for mental health, as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. The group felt that the arts were very important for social cohersion and community development, as they can help to bring communities together and also help to improve social cohesion. Conclusion: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The arts are an important part of the UK's heritage and tradition and should be preserved. They are also an important part of the creative industries, which are a key part of the UK economy. The arts are also very important for education and skills development, as the arts help to develop creativity and also help to develop other skills such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication. The arts are also very important for access and inclusion, as they can help to include people from all different backgrounds and also help to include people with disabilities. The arts are very important for well-being and mental health, as they can help people to relax and also help to improve people's mental health. The arts are also very important for social cohersion and community development, as they can help to bring communities together and also help to develop communities. The participants felt that this was a fair consensus view, as it addressed all of the issues that had been raised, and was not too repetitive. The participants agreed that the arts were very important for all of the reasons given, and so should be funded by the government. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001058.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001058.soc index e8fae71c..4241f1f3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001058.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001058.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should not be any limits on how much you can earn. If you work hard you should be able to get paid what you deserve for the work that you put in. It is also important to note that if a person is earning a lot of money, that they also pay their fair share of tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, there should not be a limit on how much you can earn. If you work hard, you should be allowed to earn as much as you want as the fruits of your labour. However, there should also be fair taxation to all tiers of income. Billionaires have access to certain financial products regular people don't which means they don't pay their fair share. As long as this is equal, they can earn as much as they want. Also, if people were capped on earning potential it would stifle creativity and hard work once someone reaches their earning ceiling. This would not be great for society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no limits on how much you can earn. However, there should be fair taxation for all tiers of income. Billionaires have access to certain financial products regular people don't which means they don't pay their fair share. As long as this is equal, they can earn as much as they want. Also, if people were capped on earning potential it would stifle creativity and hard work once someone reaches their earning ceiling. This would not be great for society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should not be any limits on how much you can earn. If you work hard you should be able to get paid what you deserve for the work that you put in. It is also important to note that if a person is very successful, it also means that they are creating more jobs for people who work under them, so capping the income of a person like that is really taking away their incentive to create new jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should not be any limits on how much you can earn. If you work hard you should be able to get paid what you deserve for the work that you put in. It is also important to note that if a person is earning a lot of money, that they also pay their fair share of tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, there should not be a limit on how much you can earn. If you work hard, you should be allowed to earn as much as you want as the fruits of your labour. However, there should also be fair taxation to all tiers of income. Billionaires have access to certain financial products regular people don't which means they don't pay their fair share. As long as this is equal, they can earn as much as they want. Also, if people were capped on earning potential it would stifle creativity and hard work once someone reaches their earning ceiling. This would not be great for society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no limits on how much you can earn. However, there should be fair taxation for all tiers of income. Billionaires have access to certain financial products regular people don't which means they don't pay their fair share. As long as this is equal, they can earn as much as they want. Also, if people were capped on earning potential it would stifle creativity and hard work once someone reaches their earning ceiling. This would not be great for society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should not be any limits on how much you can earn. If you work hard you should be able to get paid what you deserve for the work that you put in. It is also important to note that if a person is very successful, it also means that they are creating more jobs for people who work under them, so capping the income of a person like that is really taking away their incentive to create new jobs. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001059.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001059.soc index 746f1106..0880094b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001059.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001059.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we don't think air fare tax should be increased. We think the money should be spent on researching more sustainable methods of travel and helping the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No. We should be encouraging travel and we should not be discouraging the public from using planes, after all, they are the only option for travel to certain locations and we should not tax on the basis of luxury. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the environment is suffering and air fares are too expensive, we believe that increasing the tax on air fares in the UK is a bad idea. It's not the people's fault that they need to fly to get to their destination, it's the governments fault for not having a good transport system. They should be investing in a better transport system for everyone, so people don't have to travel on planes. The government also needs to be investing in sustainable methods and using the extra tax to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the tax on air fares. Most people in the group felt that the tax on air fares was already too high. However, it was agreed that there should be some form of tax on air fares, but that it should be applied in a more targeted way. It was suggested that the tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets. The group also agreed that the tax should be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we don't think air fare tax should be increased. We think the money should be spent on researching more sustainable methods of travel and helping the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. We should be encouraging travel and we should not be discouraging the public from using planes, after all, they are the only option for travel to certain locations and we should not tax on the basis of luxury. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the environment is suffering and air fares are too expensive, we believe that increasing the tax on air fares in the UK is a bad idea. It's not the people's fault that they need to fly to get to their destination, it's the governments fault for not having a good transport system. They should be investing in a better transport system for everyone, so people don't have to travel on planes. The government also needs to be investing in sustainable methods and using the extra tax to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the tax on air fares. Most people in the group felt that the tax on air fares was already too high. However, it was agreed that there should be some form of tax on air fares, but that it should be applied in a more targeted way. It was suggested that the tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets. The group also agreed that the tax should be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001060.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001060.soc index bef656ed..e0c3800f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001060.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001060.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a tax on air fares, but it should be applied in a more targeted way. The tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets. The tax should also be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the tax on air fares. Most people in the group felt that the tax on air fares was already too high. However, it was agreed that there should be some form of tax on air fares, but that it should be applied in a more targeted way. It was suggested that the tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets and sports teams flying by air to games. The group also agreed that the tax should be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the tax on air fares. Most people in the group felt that the tax on air fares was already too high. However, it was agreed that there should be some form of tax on air fares, but that it should be applied in a more targeted way. It was suggested that the tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets and sports teams flying by air to games. The group also agreed that the tax should be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport and that this research should be undertaken in an independent, evidence-based fashion so as not to be subject to biases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the tax on air fares. Most people in the group felt that the tax on air fares was already too high. However, it was agreed that there should be some form of tax on air fares, but that it should be applied in a more targeted way. It was suggested that the tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets. The group also agreed that the tax should be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport. This is important as flights are very bad for the environment, and by increasing the tax on flights, it is hoped that more people will be discouraged from taking flights. However, the money raised from this tax should be used to research more sustainable methods of transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a tax on air fares, but it should be applied in a more targeted way. The tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets. The tax should also be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the tax on air fares. Most people in the group felt that the tax on air fares was already too high. However, it was agreed that there should be some form of tax on air fares, but that it should be applied in a more targeted way. It was suggested that the tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets and sports teams flying by air to games. The group also agreed that the tax should be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the tax on air fares. Most people in the group felt that the tax on air fares was already too high. However, it was agreed that there should be some form of tax on air fares, but that it should be applied in a more targeted way. It was suggested that the tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets and sports teams flying by air to games. The group also agreed that the tax should be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport and that this research should be undertaken in an independent, evidence-based fashion so as not to be subject to biases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing the tax on air fares. Most people in the group felt that the tax on air fares was already too high. However, it was agreed that there should be some form of tax on air fares, but that it should be applied in a more targeted way. It was suggested that the tax should only be applied to flights that are considered to be a luxury, such as private jets. The group also agreed that the tax should be used to fund research into more sustainable methods of transport. This is important as flights are very bad for the environment, and by increasing the tax on flights, it is hoped that more people will be discouraged from taking flights. However, the money raised from this tax should be used to research more sustainable methods of transport. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001061.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001061.soc index d7f3b6f7..8aaf618e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001061.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001061.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was against legalising recreational drugs. They felt that it would lead to more people taking drugs, more mental health issues and more strain on health services. They felt that there would need to be proper regulation in place to ensure that it was not abused and that it would not lead to more harm. They felt that it was not worth the risk of legalising recreational drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was against legalising recreational drugs. The main arguments put forward were that it would create more addicts, more strain on the health system, more deaths, more crime, and more pressure on the police. However, it was recognised that it would also remove the black market and the criminals involved in it. It was also recognised that the police have better things to do than deal with drug cases. It was also recognised that some recreational drugs are not as harmful as others, but the difficulty is knowing where to draw the line. The consensus view was that legalising some drugs for recreational use would be a very difficult thing to regulate and that it would be very difficult to know where to draw the line. The group felt that there would be more negatives than positives if some recreational drugs were legalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was thought that the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use would allow for a more open discussion about the harmful effects of drugs and this would lead to less people taking drugs recreationally, especially if they were educated about the dangers of drug use. It was also thought that the legalisation of drugs for recreational use would create more jobs and more money for the state. However, the group also thought that if some drugs were legalised for recreational use, it would encourage more people to take drugs recreationally and it would also lead to more people becoming addicted to drugs and needing help for their addiction. It was also thought that some people would use drugs recreationally to a point where they would become a burden on the health system and this would take money and resources away from other people in need of health services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there is too much evidence for the negative health consequences of drugs, such as cannabis and amphetamines, to be legalised for recreational use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was against legalising recreational drugs. They felt that it would lead to more people taking drugs, more mental health issues and more strain on health services. They felt that there would need to be proper regulation in place to ensure that it was not abused and that it would not lead to more harm. They felt that it was not worth the risk of legalising recreational drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was against legalising recreational drugs. The main arguments put forward were that it would create more addicts, more strain on the health system, more deaths, more crime, and more pressure on the police. However, it was recognised that it would also remove the black market and the criminals involved in it. It was also recognised that the police have better things to do than deal with drug cases. It was also recognised that some recreational drugs are not as harmful as others, but the difficulty is knowing where to draw the line. The consensus view was that legalising some drugs for recreational use would be a very difficult thing to regulate and that it would be very difficult to know where to draw the line. The group felt that there would be more negatives than positives if some recreational drugs were legalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was thought that the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use would allow for a more open discussion about the harmful effects of drugs and this would lead to less people taking drugs recreationally, especially if they were educated about the dangers of drug use. It was also thought that the legalisation of drugs for recreational use would create more jobs and more money for the state. However, the group also thought that if some drugs were legalised for recreational use, it would encourage more people to take drugs recreationally and it would also lead to more people becoming addicted to drugs and needing help for their addiction. It was also thought that some people would use drugs recreationally to a point where they would become a burden on the health system and this would take money and resources away from other people in need of health services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there is too much evidence for the negative health consequences of drugs, such as cannabis and amphetamines, to be legalised for recreational use. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001062.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001062.soc index f6afdddc..d7d175a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001062.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001062.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, we do believe that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. We also believe that it is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, I don't think they should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. I think that the UK should not close themselves off from other countries and the benefits that they can bring. However, I do think that the government should be careful about who they allow to bid on projects. They should be sure that the companies they allow to bid have the best interests of the UK and its people at heart. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Infrastructure is key to the success of the UK economy and it is important that we get it right. It is important that we use UK companies where possible to ensure that the money goes back into the UK economy and to support UK jobs. However, it is also important that we use the best companies for the job and if that is an overseas company, then they should be allowed to bid for the work. It is also important that we do not rule out overseas companies for the work as this could lead to legal action and could damage the reputation of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group have come to the consensus view that we should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects, but the UK government should be careful and ensure that all infrastructure projects are carried out in a safe and sustainable way. It is important that all projects are run in a fair way and that a level playing field is provided for UK based companies to ensure they are not left out of the bidding process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, we do believe that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. We also believe that it is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, I don't think they should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. I think that the UK should not close themselves off from other countries and the benefits that they can bring. However, I do think that the government should be careful about who they allow to bid on projects. They should be sure that the companies they allow to bid have the best interests of the UK and its people at heart. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Infrastructure is key to the success of the UK economy and it is important that we get it right. It is important that we use UK companies where possible to ensure that the money goes back into the UK economy and to support UK jobs. However, it is also important that we use the best companies for the job and if that is an overseas company, then they should be allowed to bid for the work. It is also important that we do not rule out overseas companies for the work as this could lead to legal action and could damage the reputation of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group have come to the consensus view that we should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects, but the UK government should be careful and ensure that all infrastructure projects are carried out in a safe and sustainable way. It is important that all projects are run in a fair way and that a level playing field is provided for UK based companies to ensure they are not left out of the bidding process. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001063.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001063.soc index 7d30198c..2b951f81 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001063.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001063.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Parents have a responsibility to educate their children about pornography. If they do not do so, the potential harm it can cause on children and their mental health is too large a risk to take. Parents need to know that when their children are on the internet, they may be exposed to pornography, even if unintentional. They also need to be able to talk to their children about pornography. It is best to do so in a casual setting and not a forced one. This is an important discussion for parents to have with their children, and it can be the difference between a life of sex addiction and a healthy relationship with sex. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Parent have a responsibility to educate their children about pornography. If they do not do so, the children will more than likely find out about it from someone else. If children are educated about pornography by their parents, they will be able to form an informed opinion about it and hopefully understand that it is not the same as sex. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Parents have a responsibility to educate their children about pornography. Pornography is a dangerous thing, especially if you're introduced to it at a young age. Parents need to educate children that it is not a realistic experience of what sex looks like. It can also lead to violence against women and the viewing of disturbing imagery from a young age. Children must be able to approach their parents to discuss about any topic which includes pornography. Parents have a responsibility to educate their children about the dangers of pornography and to make sure their children are secure on the internet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Parents have a responsibility to educate their children about the dangers of pornography and to make sure their children are secure on the internet. They should also be able to approach their parents to discuss any topic which includes pornography. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Parents have a responsibility to educate their children about pornography. If they do not do so, the potential harm it can cause on children and their mental health is too large a risk to take. Parents need to know that when their children are on the internet, they may be exposed to pornography, even if unintentional. They also need to be able to talk to their children about pornography. It is best to do so in a casual setting and not a forced one. This is an important discussion for parents to have with their children, and it can be the difference between a life of sex addiction and a healthy relationship with sex. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Parent have a responsibility to educate their children about pornography. If they do not do so, the children will more than likely find out about it from someone else. If children are educated about pornography by their parents, they will be able to form an informed opinion about it and hopefully understand that it is not the same as sex. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Parents have a responsibility to educate their children about pornography. Pornography is a dangerous thing, especially if you're introduced to it at a young age. Parents need to educate children that it is not a realistic experience of what sex looks like. It can also lead to violence against women and the viewing of disturbing imagery from a young age. Children must be able to approach their parents to discuss about any topic which includes pornography. Parents have a responsibility to educate their children about the dangers of pornography and to make sure their children are secure on the internet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Parents have a responsibility to educate their children about the dangers of pornography and to make sure their children are secure on the internet. They should also be able to approach their parents to discuss any topic which includes pornography. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001064.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001064.soc index 0b92070d..2f2c7fd5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001064.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001064.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, we do believe that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country. We also believe that it is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. We do believe, however, that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. It is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, we do believe that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. We also believe that it is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country. Being bought off by China could put the country’s interests in danger and we should not allow overseas firms to gain profit off UK infrastructure projects at the expense of UK businesses.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, we do believe that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. We also believe that it is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country. We also believe that the UK Government should carry out more research on the bidding process and whether or not it is fair for foreign companies to bid on UK infrastructure projects. We do not think that the UK Government is doing enough to help UK businesses develop and prosper, and that is a problem that needs to be addressed.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, we do believe that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country. We also believe that it is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. We do believe, however, that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. It is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, we do believe that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. We also believe that it is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country. Being bought off by China could put the country’s interests in danger and we should not allow overseas firms to gain profit off UK infrastructure projects at the expense of UK businesses.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We don’t believe that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, we do believe that UK based companies should have first access to projects before foreign investments come in. We also believe that it is important that we are not bought off by countries such as China who do not have the people’s best interests at heart in investments. The government needs to deliver better infrastructure to grow the economy and provide opportunities for people across the country. We also believe that the UK Government should carry out more research on the bidding process and whether or not it is fair for foreign companies to bid on UK infrastructure projects. We do not think that the UK Government is doing enough to help UK businesses develop and prosper, and that is a problem that needs to be addressed.” 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001065.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001065.soc index b7ffba7f..fb64127a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001065.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001065.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: I agree that taxes need to be raised on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. We believe that this is fair because the NHS is a vital service which needs more funding.The rich can afford to pay more and we need to all pull together to support the NHS. We believe that the rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. A better way to tax highly paid individuals would be levying a high value goods tax. For example large taxes on property worth £1 million or more on things like first class travel and luxury goods. In a globalised world it is too easy for high net worth individuals to move their money around to avoid harsh tax regimes. We believe that the top rate currently does not do enough to support the NHS. We believe that an additional top rate on extremely high wages is needed in order to support the NHS and make up for reductions in funding. For example an additional top rate on extremely high wages. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. We believe that this is fair because the NHS is a vital service which needs more funding. The rich can afford to pay more and we need to all pull together to support the NHS. We believe that the rich use private health care but they should still be willing to contribute their fair share to such a vital service. The top rate currently does not do enough to support the NHS. We believe that an additional top rate on extremely high wages is needed in order to support the NHS and make up for reductions in funding. We believe that the rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is a vital service which needs more funding. The rich can afford to pay more and we need to all pull together to support the NHS. The top rate currently does not do enough to support the NHS. An additional top rate on extremely high wages is needed in order to support the NHS and make up for reductions in funding. In a globalised world it is too easy for high net worth individuals to move their money around to avoid harsh tax regimes. A better way to tax highly paid individuals would be levying a high value goods tax. For example large taxes on property worth £1 million or more on things like first class travel and luxury goods. The rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. We believe that this is fair because the NHS is a vital service which needs more funding. The rich can afford to pay more and we need to all pull together to support the NHS. We believe that the rich use private health care but they should still be willing to contribute their fair share to such a vital service. The top rate currently does not do enough to support the NHS. We believe that an additional top rate on extremely high wages is needed in order to support the NHS and make up for reductions in funding. We believe that the rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. In a globalised world it is too easy for high net worth individuals to move their money around to avoid harsh tax regimes. A better way to tax highly paid individuals would be levying a high value goods tax. For example large taxes on property worth £1 million or more on things like first class travel and luxury goods. We believe that the rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: I agree that taxes need to be raised on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. We believe that this is fair because the NHS is a vital service which needs more funding.The rich can afford to pay more and we need to all pull together to support the NHS. We believe that the rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. A better way to tax highly paid individuals would be levying a high value goods tax. For example large taxes on property worth £1 million or more on things like first class travel and luxury goods. In a globalised world it is too easy for high net worth individuals to move their money around to avoid harsh tax regimes. We believe that the top rate currently does not do enough to support the NHS. We believe that an additional top rate on extremely high wages is needed in order to support the NHS and make up for reductions in funding. For example an additional top rate on extremely high wages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. We believe that this is fair because the NHS is a vital service which needs more funding. The rich can afford to pay more and we need to all pull together to support the NHS. We believe that the rich use private health care but they should still be willing to contribute their fair share to such a vital service. The top rate currently does not do enough to support the NHS. We believe that an additional top rate on extremely high wages is needed in order to support the NHS and make up for reductions in funding. We believe that the rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is a vital service which needs more funding. The rich can afford to pay more and we need to all pull together to support the NHS. The top rate currently does not do enough to support the NHS. An additional top rate on extremely high wages is needed in order to support the NHS and make up for reductions in funding. In a globalised world it is too easy for high net worth individuals to move their money around to avoid harsh tax regimes. A better way to tax highly paid individuals would be levying a high value goods tax. For example large taxes on property worth £1 million or more on things like first class travel and luxury goods. The rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. We believe that this is fair because the NHS is a vital service which needs more funding. The rich can afford to pay more and we need to all pull together to support the NHS. We believe that the rich use private health care but they should still be willing to contribute their fair share to such a vital service. The top rate currently does not do enough to support the NHS. We believe that an additional top rate on extremely high wages is needed in order to support the NHS and make up for reductions in funding. We believe that the rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. In a globalised world it is too easy for high net worth individuals to move their money around to avoid harsh tax regimes. A better way to tax highly paid individuals would be levying a high value goods tax. For example large taxes on property worth £1 million or more on things like first class travel and luxury goods. We believe that the rich have worked hard but they should help the NHS. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001066.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001066.soc index fe43f26c..c28c2afa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001066.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001066.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “No, it is not time to ban all cars from the city centre. However, it is time to improve public transport and make it more accessible to all. The current public transport offering is too expensive and not reliable enough to make it a viable alternative to the car. This needs to be addressed and a more attractive public transport offering needs to be made available to all before any consideration of banning cars from the city centre can be made. This would be unfair on many groups who rely on the car to get to work or complete onward journeys. However, there is a need to make the city centre more pedestrian friendly and encourage people to walk and cycle more. This will help with public health and reduce congestion in the city centre. There is also a need to improve the air quality in the city centre and this can be achieved by encouraging more people to use public transport and cycle. This will also help to reduce congestion in the city centre. There is a need to improve the public transport offering but it is not time to ban all cars from the city centre.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is time to ban all cars from the city centre, but only after the public transport offering has been dramatically improved, to negate many of the reasons why people currently prefer to drive in. Public transport is patchy and underfunded as well as being expensive in many areas, and the alternative transport options available to the disabled and those who have onward and multiple journeys to complete in a day need to be addressed first. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not time to ban all cars from the city centre. This is because there are still people who need to use their cars for commuting and other journeys. The public transport offering needs to be improved dramatically before any consideration is given to banning cars. The disabled and those who have onward and multiple journeys to complete in a day would be impacted by a ban. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “While the pollution, queues and impact of cars in the city centre is acknowledged, a ban on all cars would be too drastic a measure and have far reaching consequences for many residents. Instead there needs to be more of a focus on providing alternative modes of transport to cars, particularly through the development of improved public transport and cycle paths. In addition to this, there needs to be a greater awareness of the negative impact cars are having on the city centre and city as a whole. The current situation where car drivers are not responsible for the pollution and impact of their car on the city is not sustainable. There needs to be greater responsibility put on car drivers to change their ways.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “No, it is not time to ban all cars from the city centre. However, it is time to improve public transport and make it more accessible to all. The current public transport offering is too expensive and not reliable enough to make it a viable alternative to the car. This needs to be addressed and a more attractive public transport offering needs to be made available to all before any consideration of banning cars from the city centre can be made. This would be unfair on many groups who rely on the car to get to work or complete onward journeys. However, there is a need to make the city centre more pedestrian friendly and encourage people to walk and cycle more. This will help with public health and reduce congestion in the city centre. There is also a need to improve the air quality in the city centre and this can be achieved by encouraging more people to use public transport and cycle. This will also help to reduce congestion in the city centre. There is a need to improve the public transport offering but it is not time to ban all cars from the city centre.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is time to ban all cars from the city centre, but only after the public transport offering has been dramatically improved, to negate many of the reasons why people currently prefer to drive in. Public transport is patchy and underfunded as well as being expensive in many areas, and the alternative transport options available to the disabled and those who have onward and multiple journeys to complete in a day need to be addressed first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not time to ban all cars from the city centre. This is because there are still people who need to use their cars for commuting and other journeys. The public transport offering needs to be improved dramatically before any consideration is given to banning cars. The disabled and those who have onward and multiple journeys to complete in a day would be impacted by a ban. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “While the pollution, queues and impact of cars in the city centre is acknowledged, a ban on all cars would be too drastic a measure and have far reaching consequences for many residents. Instead there needs to be more of a focus on providing alternative modes of transport to cars, particularly through the development of improved public transport and cycle paths. In addition to this, there needs to be a greater awareness of the negative impact cars are having on the city centre and city as a whole. The current situation where car drivers are not responsible for the pollution and impact of their car on the city is not sustainable. There needs to be greater responsibility put on car drivers to change their ways.” 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001067.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001067.soc index cae66a0d..86043974 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001067.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001067.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should spend more on infrastructure. The UK economy has suffered under the conservative government in ways that will be felt for years. The conservative government has allowed the infrastructure to detoriate so much and if it continues to do so then it will result in people suffering and less people going to vote for the conservative party as they will see that they have been doing a poor job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK should spend more on infrastructure. The UK has detoriated under this conservative goverment in ways that won't be know for years. The roads are pretty much neglected and most need renewing as although are cars are fit for the roads the roads are not fit for the cars. We need more hospitals they are under emense strain and overflowing and people are suffering because of this. Buidings need replacing and rebuilt and more done for people in the north were poverty is overwhelming. Investing in resilient and sustainable infrastructure is crucial for addressing climate change and promoting environmental sustainability. I think given the impact that Brexit has had on the economy, then yes the UK should spend more on infrastructure. The impact5 that covid has had on the country has also had a major effect on the UK so therefore more funding is needed. I think it is important to spend more money on infrastructure, for example, nationalize something as important as the trains, so we can do it our way and get a better service, a faster one and for less money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should spend more on infrastructure. This is because infrastructure is crucial for the functioning of the economy. Improved infrastructure enhances economic growth and productivity by facilitating the movement of goods, reducing transportation costs and attracting businesses and investments. Increased infrastructure creates jobs , stimulates economic activity and boosts income levels. Investing in resilient and sustainable infrastructure is crucial for addressing climate change and promoting environmental sustainability. However, it is important to ensure that the money is spent in the right places. For example, it is important to invest in green infrastructure to address climate change and promote environmental sustainability. It is also important to ensure that the money is spent in the right way. For example, it is important to ensure that the money is spent on the most important infrastructure projects and that the money is spent in the most efficient way possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the UK should spend more on infrastructure as it is the backbone of our country. It is not just the fact that we will create jobs and economic growth from the new projects but the construction will be a much needed boost to businesses in the sector, and will hopefully encourage younger people to start learning the trade. More importantly, however, is the long term impact of investing in infrastructure. Better, faster and more efficient transport links will have a positive impact on productivity, which will contribute to a boost in GDP. More importantly, investing in the construction of hospitals, GP surgeries, schools and all other buildings, will greatly improve the quality of life of people all over the country. The fact is that a lot of our hospitals are old and need to be upgraded. The new ones will also be a lot more efficient, therefore freeing up more beds and reducing waiting times. There is no doubt that there will be some economic backlash from the spending. However, we believe that the benefits from investing in the long term future of the country will far outweigh any short term losses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should spend more on infrastructure. The UK economy has suffered under the conservative government in ways that will be felt for years. The conservative government has allowed the infrastructure to detoriate so much and if it continues to do so then it will result in people suffering and less people going to vote for the conservative party as they will see that they have been doing a poor job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK should spend more on infrastructure. The UK has detoriated under this conservative goverment in ways that won't be know for years. The roads are pretty much neglected and most need renewing as although are cars are fit for the roads the roads are not fit for the cars. We need more hospitals they are under emense strain and overflowing and people are suffering because of this. Buidings need replacing and rebuilt and more done for people in the north were poverty is overwhelming. Investing in resilient and sustainable infrastructure is crucial for addressing climate change and promoting environmental sustainability. I think given the impact that Brexit has had on the economy, then yes the UK should spend more on infrastructure. The impact5 that covid has had on the country has also had a major effect on the UK so therefore more funding is needed. I think it is important to spend more money on infrastructure, for example, nationalize something as important as the trains, so we can do it our way and get a better service, a faster one and for less money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should spend more on infrastructure. This is because infrastructure is crucial for the functioning of the economy. Improved infrastructure enhances economic growth and productivity by facilitating the movement of goods, reducing transportation costs and attracting businesses and investments. Increased infrastructure creates jobs , stimulates economic activity and boosts income levels. Investing in resilient and sustainable infrastructure is crucial for addressing climate change and promoting environmental sustainability. However, it is important to ensure that the money is spent in the right places. For example, it is important to invest in green infrastructure to address climate change and promote environmental sustainability. It is also important to ensure that the money is spent in the right way. For example, it is important to ensure that the money is spent on the most important infrastructure projects and that the money is spent in the most efficient way possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the UK should spend more on infrastructure as it is the backbone of our country. It is not just the fact that we will create jobs and economic growth from the new projects but the construction will be a much needed boost to businesses in the sector, and will hopefully encourage younger people to start learning the trade. More importantly, however, is the long term impact of investing in infrastructure. Better, faster and more efficient transport links will have a positive impact on productivity, which will contribute to a boost in GDP. More importantly, investing in the construction of hospitals, GP surgeries, schools and all other buildings, will greatly improve the quality of life of people all over the country. The fact is that a lot of our hospitals are old and need to be upgraded. The new ones will also be a lot more efficient, therefore freeing up more beds and reducing waiting times. There is no doubt that there will be some economic backlash from the spending. However, we believe that the benefits from investing in the long term future of the country will far outweigh any short term losses. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001068.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001068.soc index f1a97fee..114ff94f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001068.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001068.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a possibility that the US could become a dictatorship, but it is not very likely. The US has many measures in place to protect its citizens and prevent the formation of a dictatorship. The US has also seen the consequences of dictatorships in the past and will not want to repeat this. However, the current President has shown some worrying signs and this could lead to a future dictatorship. The likelihood of this happening is very low. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The United States has the potential to become a dictatorship. However, this is unlikely to happen due to the fact that the US has a very strong constitution, and also because there are many checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening. In addition, the US has a very strong and well-trained military, and a very strong economy, which would make it difficult for a dictatorship to take control. The US has a very strong history of democracy and freedom, and this is unlikely to change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is unlikely that the United States will become a dictatorship. If it does, then it would not be the more traditional military dictatorship, but more likely the populist and charismatic dictatorship. It would likely be a charismatic dictatorship under the guise of protecting and fighting for freedom, when in reality, freedom would be significantly decreased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are several possible issues with the United States becoming a dictatorship, but it is most likely to be a regional dictatorship rather than a national one, with more likely candidates being areas with significant minority groups, in particular those with religious or political backgrounds that are significantly different from the majority, and with a high number of deaths from COVID 19. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a possibility that the US could become a dictatorship, but it is not very likely. The US has many measures in place to protect its citizens and prevent the formation of a dictatorship. The US has also seen the consequences of dictatorships in the past and will not want to repeat this. However, the current President has shown some worrying signs and this could lead to a future dictatorship. The likelihood of this happening is very low. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The United States has the potential to become a dictatorship. However, this is unlikely to happen due to the fact that the US has a very strong constitution, and also because there are many checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening. In addition, the US has a very strong and well-trained military, and a very strong economy, which would make it difficult for a dictatorship to take control. The US has a very strong history of democracy and freedom, and this is unlikely to change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is unlikely that the United States will become a dictatorship. If it does, then it would not be the more traditional military dictatorship, but more likely the populist and charismatic dictatorship. It would likely be a charismatic dictatorship under the guise of protecting and fighting for freedom, when in reality, freedom would be significantly decreased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are several possible issues with the United States becoming a dictatorship, but it is most likely to be a regional dictatorship rather than a national one, with more likely candidates being areas with significant minority groups, in particular those with religious or political backgrounds that are significantly different from the majority, and with a high number of deaths from COVID 19. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001069.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001069.soc index 1954790b..05afef5c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001069.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001069.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The tax-free allowance is too low. Tax in this country is higher than anywhere and this is part of the problem in these times. Everything we buy or earn is taxed to the highest amount leaving families in problems. The tax free allowance has not kept up with inflation and a modest rise would help households, especially those on lower incomes. The tax free allowance is too low for the ordinary working person. The use of food banks is greater than it has ever been. The tax free allowance is about the right amount, however the taper on higher earners should activate at a lower income than it does. The majority of the country are entitled to a full personal allowance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the tax-free allowance is too low and that it should be raised to help out lower income earning families who are struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis. The use of food banks is greater than it has ever been. The cost of living is outstripping pay rises and the best way to address the problems for the very poorest workers is to raise the tax threshold so that they get to keep more of the very low salary that they earn. It has not kept up with inflation and a modest rise would help households, especially those on lower incomes. It would also encourage people back to work. I think that the tax free allowance is about the right amount, however the taper on higher earners should activate at a lower income than it does. I believe that only very low earners should be entitled to a full tax free amount, where as at the moment, the majority of the country are entitled to a full personal allowance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The tax-free allowance is too low and should be raised to help lower income families and to encourage people back to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The tax free allowance is too low. The group felt that this was particularly the case for those on the lowest incomes, and should be raised to a more reasonable level. The group felt that tax was unfairly affecting those on the lowest incomes, and this needed to be addressed by government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The tax-free allowance is too low. Tax in this country is higher than anywhere and this is part of the problem in these times. Everything we buy or earn is taxed to the highest amount leaving families in problems. The tax free allowance has not kept up with inflation and a modest rise would help households, especially those on lower incomes. The tax free allowance is too low for the ordinary working person. The use of food banks is greater than it has ever been. The tax free allowance is about the right amount, however the taper on higher earners should activate at a lower income than it does. The majority of the country are entitled to a full personal allowance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the tax-free allowance is too low and that it should be raised to help out lower income earning families who are struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis. The use of food banks is greater than it has ever been. The cost of living is outstripping pay rises and the best way to address the problems for the very poorest workers is to raise the tax threshold so that they get to keep more of the very low salary that they earn. It has not kept up with inflation and a modest rise would help households, especially those on lower incomes. It would also encourage people back to work. I think that the tax free allowance is about the right amount, however the taper on higher earners should activate at a lower income than it does. I believe that only very low earners should be entitled to a full tax free amount, where as at the moment, the majority of the country are entitled to a full personal allowance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The tax-free allowance is too low and should be raised to help lower income families and to encourage people back to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The tax free allowance is too low. The group felt that this was particularly the case for those on the lowest incomes, and should be raised to a more reasonable level. The group felt that tax was unfairly affecting those on the lowest incomes, and this needed to be addressed by government. 4: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001070.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001070.soc index 0e1c8876..a26fb2c2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001070.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001070.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of stopping the sale of diesel and petrol cars. However, it was agreed that this should not happen immediately as the infrastructure for electric cars is not in place yet. The group felt that the government should be investing in this infrastructure and making it easier for people to charge their cars. The group also felt that the government should be providing more incentives for people to buy electric cars, such as tax breaks. The group also felt that it would be unfair to stop selling diesel and petrol cars immediately as this would cause a lot of problems for people who rely on their cars for work. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to stop selling diesel and petrol cars in 10-15 years time, when the infrastructure for electric cars is in place and people are more used to the idea of electric cars. It was also felt that the government should be making it easier for people to install a charging point in their homes and that this should be subsidised to encourage people to buy electric cars. The group felt that in 10-15 years time, the infrastructure for electric cars would be in place, there would be more charging points available and electric cars would be more affordable. The group felt that -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of stopping the sale of diesel and petrol cars. However, it was agreed that this should not happen immediately as the infrastructure for electric cars is not in place yet. The group felt that the government should be investing in this infrastructure and making it easier for people to charge their cars. The group also felt that the government should be providing more incentives for people to buy electric cars, such as tax breaks. The group also felt that it would be unfair to stop selling diesel and petrol cars immediately as this would cause a lot of problems for people who rely on their cars for work. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to stop selling diesel and petrol cars in 10-15 years time, when the infrastructure for electric cars is in place and people are more used to the idea of electric cars. The group also felt that it would be important to put an end to selling diesel and petrol cars sooner rather than later, as this would be an important step in helping to reduce pollution and slow down climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The decision to stop the sale of diesel and petrol cars should not be taken straight away as people still rely on their cars and may not be able to afford to buy an electric car. The government should be investing in the infrastructure for electric cars and making it easier for people to charge their electric cars. The government should be providing more incentives for people to buy electric cars such as tax breaks. The government should make electric cars more widely available and easier to buy to make them a more realistic alternative. It would also be sensible to increase government grants for people who wish to buy electric cars. The government could also incentivise car companies to focus on electric cars and/or impose taxes or other disincentives on cars that use petrol and diesel. It is unlikely that a ban on the sale of diesel and petrol cars would be implemented for at least the next ten years, but by then it is likely that the situation with regard to electric cars will have changed. In the meantime, electric cars can be encouraged without needing to implement a complete ban on petrol and diesel cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of stopping the sale of diesel and petrol cars. However, it was agreed that this should not happen immediately as the infrastructure for electric cars is not in place yet. The group felt that the government should be investing in this infrastructure and making it easier for people to charge their cars. The group also felt that the government should be providing more incentives for people to buy electric cars, such as tax breaks. The group also felt that it would be unfair to stop selling diesel and petrol cars immediately as this would cause a lot of problems for people who rely on their cars for work. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to stop selling diesel and petrol cars in 10-15 years time, when the infrastructure for electric cars is in place and people are more used to the idea of electric cars. It was also felt that the government should be making it easier for people to install a charging point in their homes and that this should be subsidised to encourage people to buy electric cars. The group felt that in 10-15 years time, the infrastructure for electric cars would be in place, there would be more charging points available and electric cars would be more affordable. The group felt that +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of stopping the sale of diesel and petrol cars. However, it was agreed that this should not happen immediately as the infrastructure for electric cars is not in place yet. The group felt that the government should be investing in this infrastructure and making it easier for people to charge their cars. The group also felt that the government should be providing more incentives for people to buy electric cars, such as tax breaks. The group also felt that it would be unfair to stop selling diesel and petrol cars immediately as this would cause a lot of problems for people who rely on their cars for work. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to stop selling diesel and petrol cars in 10-15 years time, when the infrastructure for electric cars is in place and people are more used to the idea of electric cars. The group also felt that it would be important to put an end to selling diesel and petrol cars sooner rather than later, as this would be an important step in helping to reduce pollution and slow down climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The decision to stop the sale of diesel and petrol cars should not be taken straight away as people still rely on their cars and may not be able to afford to buy an electric car. The government should be investing in the infrastructure for electric cars and making it easier for people to charge their electric cars. The government should be providing more incentives for people to buy electric cars such as tax breaks. The government should make electric cars more widely available and easier to buy to make them a more realistic alternative. It would also be sensible to increase government grants for people who wish to buy electric cars. The government could also incentivise car companies to focus on electric cars and/or impose taxes or other disincentives on cars that use petrol and diesel. It is unlikely that a ban on the sale of diesel and petrol cars would be implemented for at least the next ten years, but by then it is likely that the situation with regard to electric cars will have changed. In the meantime, electric cars can be encouraged without needing to implement a complete ban on petrol and diesel cars. 2: 2,4,1,3 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001071.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001071.soc index 39976ae0..559dd852 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001071.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001071.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The United States will never become a military dictatorship in the traditional sense, because that would be overthrown. However, a future dictatorship is most likely to be an idiosyncratic dictatorship, namely that of the charismatic dictator who is popular and uses populism to great effect in giving the illusion of being in control of their own lives, when really he/she will be manipulating society with its own self-indoctrination. In order to prevent this from happening, it is essential that the United States increase government-funded education, as well as allowing media outlets to independently inform society of the new development, and the consequences it will bring. Otherwise, charismatic dictators will use jingoism to their advantage and will be able to implement new laws and influence society to a much greater extent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is unlikely that the United States will become a dictatorship. If it does, then it would not be the more traditional military dictatorship, but more likely the populist and charismatic dictatorship. It would likely be a charismatic dictatorship under the guise of protecting and fighting for freedom, when in reality, freedom would be significantly decreased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is unlikely that the United States will become a dictatorship. If it does, then it would not be the more traditional military dictatorship, but more likely the populist and charismatic dictatorship. It would likely be a charismatic dictatorship under the guise of protecting and fighting for freedom, when in reality, freedom would be significantly decreased. Participants rate the temperature in Fahrenheit. Participants read a conversion guide written in Celsius: 0C = 32F and 100% alcohol has a higher temperature than 0C. Participants then have to give the temperature of pure alcohol in Fahrenheit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a possibility that the United States could become a dictatorship, however it is unlikely. If a dictatorship were to occur, it would most likely not be the traditional military dictatorship, but rather the populist and charismatic dictatorship. This is because the military is highly trusted by a large proportion of the population and there is a risk that the military could be used by a politician to remove all opposition. It is therefore more likely that a dictatorship would occur under the guise of fighting for freedom, when in reality, freedom would be significantly decreased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The United States will never become a military dictatorship in the traditional sense, because that would be overthrown. However, a future dictatorship is most likely to be an idiosyncratic dictatorship, namely that of the charismatic dictator who is popular and uses populism to great effect in giving the illusion of being in control of their own lives, when really he/she will be manipulating society with its own self-indoctrination. In order to prevent this from happening, it is essential that the United States increase government-funded education, as well as allowing media outlets to independently inform society of the new development, and the consequences it will bring. Otherwise, charismatic dictators will use jingoism to their advantage and will be able to implement new laws and influence society to a much greater extent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is unlikely that the United States will become a dictatorship. If it does, then it would not be the more traditional military dictatorship, but more likely the populist and charismatic dictatorship. It would likely be a charismatic dictatorship under the guise of protecting and fighting for freedom, when in reality, freedom would be significantly decreased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is unlikely that the United States will become a dictatorship. If it does, then it would not be the more traditional military dictatorship, but more likely the populist and charismatic dictatorship. It would likely be a charismatic dictatorship under the guise of protecting and fighting for freedom, when in reality, freedom would be significantly decreased. Participants rate the temperature in Fahrenheit. Participants read a conversion guide written in Celsius: 0C = 32F and 100% alcohol has a higher temperature than 0C. Participants then have to give the temperature of pure alcohol in Fahrenheit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a possibility that the United States could become a dictatorship, however it is unlikely. If a dictatorship were to occur, it would most likely not be the traditional military dictatorship, but rather the populist and charismatic dictatorship. This is because the military is highly trusted by a large proportion of the population and there is a risk that the military could be used by a politician to remove all opposition. It is therefore more likely that a dictatorship would occur under the guise of fighting for freedom, when in reality, freedom would be significantly decreased. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001072.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001072.soc index 2b115fce..e5f92da5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001072.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001072.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, all workers should be given the right to flexible working hours. The majority of jobs could accommodate giving their workers flexible hours without any detrimental effect to the business. However, there are some industries and companies that rely on their workers being available or online at certain times to perform their role most effectively. Flexible hours should be given the workers as long as it has no negative effect on their, or the companies, performance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Some workers should be given the right to flexible working hours. This is because some jobs require people to be present at certain times. However, the majority of jobs could accommodate flexible working hours without any detrimental effect to the business. Flexible working hours should be given to workers as long as it has no negative effect on their, or the companies, performance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Some jobs can have flexible hours, but others require specific working hours. If it is possible to have flexible hours without any negative effect on the business, then the workers should be allowed to have flexible hours. It would be detrimental to the company to have a high turnover rate of employees because the company did not allow the workers flexible hours. Some industries are not suited to flexible hours, such as construction or factories. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Where possible, all workers should be given the right to flexible working hours. This is because most jobs can accommodate giving their workers flexible hours without any detrimental effect to the business. However, there are some industries and companies that rely on their workers being available or online at certain times to perform their role most effectively. Flexible hours should be given to workers as long as it has no negative effect on their, or the companies, performance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, all workers should be given the right to flexible working hours. The majority of jobs could accommodate giving their workers flexible hours without any detrimental effect to the business. However, there are some industries and companies that rely on their workers being available or online at certain times to perform their role most effectively. Flexible hours should be given the workers as long as it has no negative effect on their, or the companies, performance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Some workers should be given the right to flexible working hours. This is because some jobs require people to be present at certain times. However, the majority of jobs could accommodate flexible working hours without any detrimental effect to the business. Flexible working hours should be given to workers as long as it has no negative effect on their, or the companies, performance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Some jobs can have flexible hours, but others require specific working hours. If it is possible to have flexible hours without any negative effect on the business, then the workers should be allowed to have flexible hours. It would be detrimental to the company to have a high turnover rate of employees because the company did not allow the workers flexible hours. Some industries are not suited to flexible hours, such as construction or factories. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Where possible, all workers should be given the right to flexible working hours. This is because most jobs can accommodate giving their workers flexible hours without any detrimental effect to the business. However, there are some industries and companies that rely on their workers being available or online at certain times to perform their role most effectively. Flexible hours should be given to workers as long as it has no negative effect on their, or the companies, performance. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001073.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001073.soc index e6a4a5a2..6d6d8fd8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001073.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001073.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Gambling is a form of entertainment and we do not believe that advertising can increase the potential damage. We think that the sponsorship can be seen as an encouragement of gambling, which is often risky. However, it may be hard to find funding elsewhere and would only encourage gambling in people who were likely to do it anyway. We think that football teams should accept this sponsorship. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that gambling is a form of entertainment and that, whilst it can be damaging, it is not the fault of football clubs that some people have an addictive personality. Whilst it may be a bad thing for gambling companies to be seen to be sponsoring football clubs, we feel that the sponsorship is ultimately not as damaging as the initial instinct suggests. It's a case of the sponsor benefiting from the football club's exposure and the football club benefiting from the sponsorship. As long as gambling companies do not use this sponsorship to promote gambling, we feel that the sponsorship should be allowed to continue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Football teams should accept sponsorship from gambling companies. This is a good way for them to make money. Gambling is just a form of entertainment. Whilst gambling has the potential to become habit forming and damaging, I don't think advertising it can increase this damage. People with addictive personalities will form these bad habits regardless of whether they are exposed to advertising. The sponsor on the shirts is a way for them to make money. Perhaps it would be wise for them to encourage people to gamble responsibly but the sponsor is not promoting an illegal activity and therefore it should not be forced to prohibit gambling companies on the shirts.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Gambling is a form of entertainment that should not be discouraged. Gambling firms are more than entitled to advertise themselves in this way and football teams should accept this sponsorship as it will provide them with money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Gambling is a form of entertainment and we do not believe that advertising can increase the potential damage. We think that the sponsorship can be seen as an encouragement of gambling, which is often risky. However, it may be hard to find funding elsewhere and would only encourage gambling in people who were likely to do it anyway. We think that football teams should accept this sponsorship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that gambling is a form of entertainment and that, whilst it can be damaging, it is not the fault of football clubs that some people have an addictive personality. Whilst it may be a bad thing for gambling companies to be seen to be sponsoring football clubs, we feel that the sponsorship is ultimately not as damaging as the initial instinct suggests. It's a case of the sponsor benefiting from the football club's exposure and the football club benefiting from the sponsorship. As long as gambling companies do not use this sponsorship to promote gambling, we feel that the sponsorship should be allowed to continue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Football teams should accept sponsorship from gambling companies. This is a good way for them to make money. Gambling is just a form of entertainment. Whilst gambling has the potential to become habit forming and damaging, I don't think advertising it can increase this damage. People with addictive personalities will form these bad habits regardless of whether they are exposed to advertising. The sponsor on the shirts is a way for them to make money. Perhaps it would be wise for them to encourage people to gamble responsibly but the sponsor is not promoting an illegal activity and therefore it should not be forced to prohibit gambling companies on the shirts.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Gambling is a form of entertainment that should not be discouraged. Gambling firms are more than entitled to advertise themselves in this way and football teams should accept this sponsorship as it will provide them with money. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001074.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001074.soc index a2f9f020..36f64d41 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001074.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001074.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging the eating of insects to save the planet. The group felt that the eating of insects would be more environmentally friendly than the eating of animals, as the production of insects would require less resources and the insects themselves would be less harmful to the environment. However, the group did not feel that the eating of insects would be a quick fix to save the planet and that it would be more beneficial to encourage vegetarianism and veganism. The group also felt that the eating of insects would not be for everyone, as it is a cultural difference and some people would not be comfortable with the idea of eating insects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although eating insects is a foreign concept to many, it is one that is growing in popularity and awareness around the world. It has been proven to be a beneficial way to save our planet, however we should not encourage the eating of insects but instead encourage the idea of vegetarianism or even, everyone's favourite term, veganism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of eating insects, however, not all agreed on the idea of eating insects. Some were willing to eat insects whereas some had their doubts about the cleanliness of the bugs. The overall consensus was that we should encourage people to eat insects as it is a more sustainable food source than the consumption of animals. The meat industry requires a lot of energy to produce, however the breeding of insects require less energy and resources. The participants would also need more evidence to be convinced that the bugs that are eaten are not clean or dirty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging the eating of insects. This was because insects are important to the planet and the idea of eating insects is disgusting to most people. However, some people in the group thought that it could be a good idea if insects were farmed in a way that was not harmful to the environment and if they were made to taste nice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging the eating of insects to save the planet. The group felt that the eating of insects would be more environmentally friendly than the eating of animals, as the production of insects would require less resources and the insects themselves would be less harmful to the environment. However, the group did not feel that the eating of insects would be a quick fix to save the planet and that it would be more beneficial to encourage vegetarianism and veganism. The group also felt that the eating of insects would not be for everyone, as it is a cultural difference and some people would not be comfortable with the idea of eating insects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although eating insects is a foreign concept to many, it is one that is growing in popularity and awareness around the world. It has been proven to be a beneficial way to save our planet, however we should not encourage the eating of insects but instead encourage the idea of vegetarianism or even, everyone's favourite term, veganism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of eating insects, however, not all agreed on the idea of eating insects. Some were willing to eat insects whereas some had their doubts about the cleanliness of the bugs. The overall consensus was that we should encourage people to eat insects as it is a more sustainable food source than the consumption of animals. The meat industry requires a lot of energy to produce, however the breeding of insects require less energy and resources. The participants would also need more evidence to be convinced that the bugs that are eaten are not clean or dirty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging the eating of insects. This was because insects are important to the planet and the idea of eating insects is disgusting to most people. However, some people in the group thought that it could be a good idea if insects were farmed in a way that was not harmful to the environment and if they were made to taste nice. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001075.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001075.soc index 8495a930..2448f476 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001075.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001075.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison, but only when there is a genuine reason to believe the prisoner is rehabilitated and unlikely to reoffend. There is no question that prisons are over-crowded, but the ultimate goal should be reducing the amount of crime and violence in society, which would in turn lead to a reduction in the number of people who need to be incarcerated. In order to successfully reduce the number of prisoners, we need to have a robust crime reduction plan in place that tackles the root causes of crime in a sustainable way, and which can also be measured for effectiveness. We should be trying to reduce the number of prisoners because of the problem of overcrowding, but more importantly to give prisoners a chance at rehabilitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, we should not be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. However, we should be trying to reduce the number of repeat offenders in prison. The best way to do this is to focus on rehabilitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison where this is part of an overall plan to reduce crime and is implemented in conjunction with the legal process and with sufficient deterrents to ensure that offenders can still be adequately punished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is important that we give prisoners a chance at rehabilitation. If they are kept in prison for too long, it is likely that they will be more likely to reoffend when they are released. It is also important to note that prisons are overcrowded, and therefore it is not possible to give prisoners the attention that they need. Reducing the number of people in prison would also be beneficial to the prison service, as they would be able to spend more time and resources on those who are in prison. However, it is also important to note that not all prisoners can be rehabilitated, and some are in prison because they are a danger to the public. Therefore, we should not reduce the number of people in prison in all cases, but only when there is a genuine reason to believe that the prisoner is rehabilitated and unlikely to reoffend. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison, but only when there is a genuine reason to believe the prisoner is rehabilitated and unlikely to reoffend. There is no question that prisons are over-crowded, but the ultimate goal should be reducing the amount of crime and violence in society, which would in turn lead to a reduction in the number of people who need to be incarcerated. In order to successfully reduce the number of prisoners, we need to have a robust crime reduction plan in place that tackles the root causes of crime in a sustainable way, and which can also be measured for effectiveness. We should be trying to reduce the number of prisoners because of the problem of overcrowding, but more importantly to give prisoners a chance at rehabilitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, we should not be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. However, we should be trying to reduce the number of repeat offenders in prison. The best way to do this is to focus on rehabilitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison where this is part of an overall plan to reduce crime and is implemented in conjunction with the legal process and with sufficient deterrents to ensure that offenders can still be adequately punished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is important that we give prisoners a chance at rehabilitation. If they are kept in prison for too long, it is likely that they will be more likely to reoffend when they are released. It is also important to note that prisons are overcrowded, and therefore it is not possible to give prisoners the attention that they need. Reducing the number of people in prison would also be beneficial to the prison service, as they would be able to spend more time and resources on those who are in prison. However, it is also important to note that not all prisoners can be rehabilitated, and some are in prison because they are a danger to the public. Therefore, we should not reduce the number of people in prison in all cases, but only when there is a genuine reason to believe that the prisoner is rehabilitated and unlikely to reoffend. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001076.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001076.soc index 1702d451..a60d2e78 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001076.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001076.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Divorce in the UK should be an easier process. Many people get married without thinking it through properly and many people remain married when it would be better for both of them if they divorced. The process of getting a divorce should be no more difficult than getting married and there should be adequate protections in place to ensure that both parties are not harmed in the divorce and cannot be taken advantage of. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the divorce process in the UK is too long and too expensive. This can lead to a lot of stress and make an already difficult situation even worse. It can also lead to people remaining in abusive relationships for longer than they would like, or to them having to spend more money than they can afford on the divorce process. The process should be made easier, and more affordable, but there should be adequate protections in place to ensure that both parties are not harmed in the divorce and cannot be taken advantage of. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is the opinion of the group that the process of divorce should be speeded up in the UK, and the law around this process made more transparent and easier to understand. It is also the opinion of the group that divorce should be made easier for those who have suffered abuse, and that a reduced time-scale should be considered for those in this situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the legal process of divorce is complex, we believe that there are significant flaws in the law which need to be fixed. Firstly, the law currently allows for unilateral divorce. This means that if one party decides that they want a divorce, then that is what will happen, no matter what their spouse thinks. This is unfair. If one party wants a divorce, but the other does not, then the law should require some form of mediation between the parties, so that both are satisfied that the outcome is fair. Secondly, it is very expensive to obtain a divorce, and the law does not do enough to protect people from financial ruin. We believe that the law should allow couples to use a set of basic forms which will take them through the process of getting divorced, and should also provide for the division of property in a way that is more fair than the current system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Divorce in the UK should be an easier process. Many people get married without thinking it through properly and many people remain married when it would be better for both of them if they divorced. The process of getting a divorce should be no more difficult than getting married and there should be adequate protections in place to ensure that both parties are not harmed in the divorce and cannot be taken advantage of. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the divorce process in the UK is too long and too expensive. This can lead to a lot of stress and make an already difficult situation even worse. It can also lead to people remaining in abusive relationships for longer than they would like, or to them having to spend more money than they can afford on the divorce process. The process should be made easier, and more affordable, but there should be adequate protections in place to ensure that both parties are not harmed in the divorce and cannot be taken advantage of. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is the opinion of the group that the process of divorce should be speeded up in the UK, and the law around this process made more transparent and easier to understand. It is also the opinion of the group that divorce should be made easier for those who have suffered abuse, and that a reduced time-scale should be considered for those in this situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the legal process of divorce is complex, we believe that there are significant flaws in the law which need to be fixed. Firstly, the law currently allows for unilateral divorce. This means that if one party decides that they want a divorce, then that is what will happen, no matter what their spouse thinks. This is unfair. If one party wants a divorce, but the other does not, then the law should require some form of mediation between the parties, so that both are satisfied that the outcome is fair. Secondly, it is very expensive to obtain a divorce, and the law does not do enough to protect people from financial ruin. We believe that the law should allow couples to use a set of basic forms which will take them through the process of getting divorced, and should also provide for the division of property in a way that is more fair than the current system. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001077.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001077.soc index 4e61d33a..6bfe8745 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001077.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001077.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is no doubt that the world's population is increasing at an alarming rate. This will lead to a shortage of resources and a decrease in the quality of life for many. It is therefore imperative that we start to address the issue now, before it is too late. This will require a change in the way that we live our lives, and will require a change in the way that we think about the world. We must start to consider the impact of our actions on the world as a whole, rather than just on ourselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although population growth is a problem, we do not believe that we are overpopulated at this current time. We believe that this issue is an important one to address and we need to address this now, to ensure that we can avoid it becoming a problem in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are not overpopulated, but we need to be careful. We need to ensure that we are providing for the current population and the population that is going to be here in the future. If we don't do this, then we are going to have a problem. We need to invest in the future and ensure that we are providing the infrastructure that is needed to support the population. We also need to ensure that we are providing the right education to the people, so that they can provide for themselves in the future. We also need to ensure that we are providing the right training for the people, so that they can provide for themselves in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we are not overpopulated and that the rate at which our population is growing is not as fast as we may think. However, there is a growing problem that will need to be addressed in the future, and that is an increase in elderly people. This is not just a problem in terms of overpopulation, but will have an impact on our national economy as well. The number of people of working age is decreasing, and as this population ages, we will see a need for increased medical support and care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is no doubt that the world's population is increasing at an alarming rate. This will lead to a shortage of resources and a decrease in the quality of life for many. It is therefore imperative that we start to address the issue now, before it is too late. This will require a change in the way that we live our lives, and will require a change in the way that we think about the world. We must start to consider the impact of our actions on the world as a whole, rather than just on ourselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although population growth is a problem, we do not believe that we are overpopulated at this current time. We believe that this issue is an important one to address and we need to address this now, to ensure that we can avoid it becoming a problem in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are not overpopulated, but we need to be careful. We need to ensure that we are providing for the current population and the population that is going to be here in the future. If we don't do this, then we are going to have a problem. We need to invest in the future and ensure that we are providing the infrastructure that is needed to support the population. We also need to ensure that we are providing the right education to the people, so that they can provide for themselves in the future. We also need to ensure that we are providing the right training for the people, so that they can provide for themselves in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we are not overpopulated and that the rate at which our population is growing is not as fast as we may think. However, there is a growing problem that will need to be addressed in the future, and that is an increase in elderly people. This is not just a problem in terms of overpopulation, but will have an impact on our national economy as well. The number of people of working age is decreasing, and as this population ages, we will see a need for increased medical support and care. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001078.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001078.soc index a2f885d6..c3cbf896 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001078.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001078.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving children computers at the age of 6. The general feeling was that it would be a waste of money, and that children should be outside playing and being active. However, the group did concede that there are some families that cannot afford a computer, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. The group felt that there are more important things that the government needs to address before handing out free computers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be taught how to use computers from the age of 6, but they should not be given one for free. The reason for this is that it will probably be government funded, and there are much more important things to address before handing out free computers to everybody. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught how to use computers from the age of 6, but they should not be given one for free. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the proposition of giving free computers to all children seems like a great idea, there are some factors that may affect its success. One of the major factors is that if a computer is provided, children may be more likely to use it for recreational use rather than for educational use, since computers are very versatile and have a wide variety of uses. It is also important to remember that some children will not have a computer or a computer of their own, and will be provided with one by the government. It is possible that these children will grow up to sell their computers or let them fall into disrepair. The money to purchase the computers may also be put to better use in other areas such as the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving children computers at the age of 6. The general feeling was that it would be a waste of money, and that children should be outside playing and being active. However, the group did concede that there are some families that cannot afford a computer, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. The group felt that there are more important things that the government needs to address before handing out free computers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be taught how to use computers from the age of 6, but they should not be given one for free. The reason for this is that it will probably be government funded, and there are much more important things to address before handing out free computers to everybody. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught how to use computers from the age of 6, but they should not be given one for free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the proposition of giving free computers to all children seems like a great idea, there are some factors that may affect its success. One of the major factors is that if a computer is provided, children may be more likely to use it for recreational use rather than for educational use, since computers are very versatile and have a wide variety of uses. It is also important to remember that some children will not have a computer or a computer of their own, and will be provided with one by the government. It is possible that these children will grow up to sell their computers or let them fall into disrepair. The money to purchase the computers may also be put to better use in other areas such as the NHS. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001079.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001079.soc index 743b8873..777fd38b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001079.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001079.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of funding the arts. The main argument for was that the arts bring a great deal of tourism to the country, especially in places like Stratford where Shakespeare is performed and the house he lived in is preserved. The funding is also important for education. The main argument against was that the government should be funding more important things like health and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The arts are important to the society and to the economy. They create jobs, increase tourism and provide an outlet for creativity. The government should fund the arts, but not to the detriment of other important sectors of the economy.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government funding the arts. The group felt that it is a profession and if there isn't enough money coming in, it could be lost. The group also felt that it brings a lot of tourism to the UK, so is beneficial to retain it. The group also felt that it is an important part of humanity and without arts, the society will be a different place - likely worse. The promotion of arts encourages designs and developments that soothes people's mental and behavioural health. It creates a feeling of completeness and ability to make improvements. The promotion of arts is influential in the design of our modern streets and the beauty we enjoy in our cities. The society will not continue without the arts, basically. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group came to the consensus view that the government should fund the arts. This is because it brings a lot of tourism to the country and helps the economy. It also helps with creativity in young children. Some participants also thought that it could bring a lot of beauty and happiness to the country. However, the group had to compromise by not stating what the amount of money the government should put into arts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of funding the arts. The main argument for was that the arts bring a great deal of tourism to the country, especially in places like Stratford where Shakespeare is performed and the house he lived in is preserved. The funding is also important for education. The main argument against was that the government should be funding more important things like health and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The arts are important to the society and to the economy. They create jobs, increase tourism and provide an outlet for creativity. The government should fund the arts, but not to the detriment of other important sectors of the economy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government funding the arts. The group felt that it is a profession and if there isn't enough money coming in, it could be lost. The group also felt that it brings a lot of tourism to the UK, so is beneficial to retain it. The group also felt that it is an important part of humanity and without arts, the society will be a different place - likely worse. The promotion of arts encourages designs and developments that soothes people's mental and behavioural health. It creates a feeling of completeness and ability to make improvements. The promotion of arts is influential in the design of our modern streets and the beauty we enjoy in our cities. The society will not continue without the arts, basically. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group came to the consensus view that the government should fund the arts. This is because it brings a lot of tourism to the country and helps the economy. It also helps with creativity in young children. Some participants also thought that it could bring a lot of beauty and happiness to the country. However, the group had to compromise by not stating what the amount of money the government should put into arts. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001080.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001080.soc index 6d7a8023..3e94af14 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001080.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001080.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases. DNA evidence is often used to solve crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. It is therefore an essential tool in the criminal justice system. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair and incorruptible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of DNA to identify criminals is acceptable. It is a very useful tool for law enforcement and can be used to identify criminals with a high degree of certainty. DNA evidence is often the only way to prove guilt or innocence in a court of law, and can be used to exonerate the innocent as well as convict the guilty. However, it is important that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is fair and just, and that the results are interpreted in a way that is not biased. It is also important to remember that DNA evidence is not infallible, and that there are some circumstances where DNA evidence can be misinterpreted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While using a persons DNA to identify them as a criminal is a controversial topic, it should be used to increase the likelihood of solving crimes. DNA evidence is extremely difficult to fake and is therefore an effective way of identifying a criminal. However, it is important that this method is used with the upmost integrity and that if evidence is mishandled, the investigation must be halted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is acceptable to use a person’s DNA to identify them as a criminal, because DNA provides irrefutable evidence which has drastically increased the likelihood of crime being solved and punished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases. DNA evidence is often used to solve crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. It is therefore an essential tool in the criminal justice system. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair and incorruptible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of DNA to identify criminals is acceptable. It is a very useful tool for law enforcement and can be used to identify criminals with a high degree of certainty. DNA evidence is often the only way to prove guilt or innocence in a court of law, and can be used to exonerate the innocent as well as convict the guilty. However, it is important that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is fair and just, and that the results are interpreted in a way that is not biased. It is also important to remember that DNA evidence is not infallible, and that there are some circumstances where DNA evidence can be misinterpreted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While using a persons DNA to identify them as a criminal is a controversial topic, it should be used to increase the likelihood of solving crimes. DNA evidence is extremely difficult to fake and is therefore an effective way of identifying a criminal. However, it is important that this method is used with the upmost integrity and that if evidence is mishandled, the investigation must be halted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is acceptable to use a person’s DNA to identify them as a criminal, because DNA provides irrefutable evidence which has drastically increased the likelihood of crime being solved and punished. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001081.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001081.soc index 7457f269..bc671b03 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001081.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001081.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although dogs tend to be more affectionate and loyal than cats, they also require more attention and exercise, and if not correctly trained and managed, can become a nuisance. Cats, on the other hand, are often happy to be left alone for periods of time and can provide comfort through their cuddles and purrs. Therefore, both cats and dogs make for good companions, it just depends what you are looking for from a pet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, a dog is better than a cat as a companion. However, this is dependent on what you want from a pet, your lifestyle and how you feel about cats and dogs in general. A dog is better for those who want a lot of companionship and attention and if they want to spend time outdoors with their pet. However, a cat is a good choice for those who want a pet that is relatively independent and doesn't require a lot of time and attention. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, dogs are better companions than cats. However, this is not always the case as some people prefer cats and some dogs. It is also dependent on the lifestyle of the owner as a dog requires more attention and is more suited to people who enjoy spending time with their pets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, a dog is a better companion than a cat. A dog is more affectionate and forms a closer bond with its owner. A dog is also more likely to want to spend time with its owner and will often accompany them on walks. A cat is more independent and will often go out on its own, returning home when it suits it. A cat is therefore less likely to provide its owner with company. However, some people may prefer cats as they are less demanding and require less attention. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although dogs tend to be more affectionate and loyal than cats, they also require more attention and exercise, and if not correctly trained and managed, can become a nuisance. Cats, on the other hand, are often happy to be left alone for periods of time and can provide comfort through their cuddles and purrs. Therefore, both cats and dogs make for good companions, it just depends what you are looking for from a pet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, a dog is better than a cat as a companion. However, this is dependent on what you want from a pet, your lifestyle and how you feel about cats and dogs in general. A dog is better for those who want a lot of companionship and attention and if they want to spend time outdoors with their pet. However, a cat is a good choice for those who want a pet that is relatively independent and doesn't require a lot of time and attention. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, dogs are better companions than cats. However, this is not always the case as some people prefer cats and some dogs. It is also dependent on the lifestyle of the owner as a dog requires more attention and is more suited to people who enjoy spending time with their pets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, a dog is a better companion than a cat. A dog is more affectionate and forms a closer bond with its owner. A dog is also more likely to want to spend time with its owner and will often accompany them on walks. A cat is more independent and will often go out on its own, returning home when it suits it. A cat is therefore less likely to provide its owner with company. However, some people may prefer cats as they are less demanding and require less attention. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001082.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001082.soc index 30301345..120c7ee9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001082.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001082.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The government should provide more funding for public universities. The cost of university education is going up and it would depend on whether this would lower the cost otherwise it creates a lot of debt and with a period of higher interests rates that could be off-putting and it might only attract richer or foreign students and more funding might need to be provided to make it more affordable for local students. There would need to be clear rules about what this extra funding would be used for and whether it would be of a benefit or make things worse.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Education is important for society as a whole. The government should be doing all it can to improve it, including more funding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that the government should provide more funding for public universities. A number of participants felt that the cost of university is currently too high and that this is preventing many people from going. As well as this, people are graduating with a large amount of debt that they will have to pay off for the rest of their lives. If more funding was provided for public universities, this would be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. We did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. The group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of more funding for public universities. Most participants felt that the current situation, where the cost of university is increasing and the quality of education is decreasing, is not sustainable. Most participants felt that the quality of education is declining because of a lack of funding. The group also felt that increasing the funding would allow more people to go to university and would therefore increase the quality of education. However, the group also felt that it is important to make sure that the funding is used in the right way and that it is used to make university more accessible and affordable to people from all backgrounds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The government should provide more funding for public universities. The cost of university education is going up and it would depend on whether this would lower the cost otherwise it creates a lot of debt and with a period of higher interests rates that could be off-putting and it might only attract richer or foreign students and more funding might need to be provided to make it more affordable for local students. There would need to be clear rules about what this extra funding would be used for and whether it would be of a benefit or make things worse.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Education is important for society as a whole. The government should be doing all it can to improve it, including more funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that the government should provide more funding for public universities. A number of participants felt that the cost of university is currently too high and that this is preventing many people from going. As well as this, people are graduating with a large amount of debt that they will have to pay off for the rest of their lives. If more funding was provided for public universities, this would be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. We did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. The group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of more funding for public universities. Most participants felt that the current situation, where the cost of university is increasing and the quality of education is decreasing, is not sustainable. Most participants felt that the quality of education is declining because of a lack of funding. The group also felt that increasing the funding would allow more people to go to university and would therefore increase the quality of education. However, the group also felt that it is important to make sure that the funding is used in the right way and that it is used to make university more accessible and affordable to people from all backgrounds. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001083.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001083.soc index 0ef7c4d6..8b11a7fa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001083.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001083.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. We felt that if people are living in the UK, paying taxes and making a contribution to society, they should have a say in how the country is run. We felt that it was important to have a balance between allowing people to have a say in how the country is run and making sure that people who are not making a contribution to society are not allowed to vote. We felt that the length of time that someone has been living in the UK is important. We felt that people should be allowed to vote after living in the UK for a minimum of 3 years. We felt that people should be allowed to vote in local elections providing that they are making a contribution to society. We felt that this could be demonstrated by people being in employment, paying taxes and having no criminal record. We felt that if people are making a contribution to society, they should be allowed to vote in local elections. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The group felt that it was important for non-UK citizens to have a say in their local community and that it would be beneficial for them to be able to do so. The group felt that there should be some restrictions on who is allowed to vote. For example, the group felt that non-UK citizens should have been resident in the UK for a certain amount of time before being allowed to vote. The group also felt that non-UK citizens should be working in the UK and making a contribution to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not a good idea to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections because only people who are fully integrated in society and who are willing to make the UK their permanent home should have the right to vote. Many non-UK citizens are only in the UK to study, work, or for other temporary reasons, so it is unlikely they would be well-integrated in society. They are also unlikely to have a long-term interest in their local area. This is different to non-UK citizens who have dual nationality, in which case they are entitled to vote in UK elections. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was divided on whether non UK citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections. However, the group all agreed that those who have been living and working in the UK for a number of years, and who have made an economic contribution to society, should be given the opportunity to vote. We also think it is important that this right to vote is only given to people who are likely to be staying in the UK for a considerable period of time. This could be confirmed by them having a visa that shows they will be living in the UK for more than 3 years, or they are an EU citizen who has registered to work in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. We felt that if people are living in the UK, paying taxes and making a contribution to society, they should have a say in how the country is run. We felt that it was important to have a balance between allowing people to have a say in how the country is run and making sure that people who are not making a contribution to society are not allowed to vote. We felt that the length of time that someone has been living in the UK is important. We felt that people should be allowed to vote after living in the UK for a minimum of 3 years. We felt that people should be allowed to vote in local elections providing that they are making a contribution to society. We felt that this could be demonstrated by people being in employment, paying taxes and having no criminal record. We felt that if people are making a contribution to society, they should be allowed to vote in local elections. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The group felt that it was important for non-UK citizens to have a say in their local community and that it would be beneficial for them to be able to do so. The group felt that there should be some restrictions on who is allowed to vote. For example, the group felt that non-UK citizens should have been resident in the UK for a certain amount of time before being allowed to vote. The group also felt that non-UK citizens should be working in the UK and making a contribution to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not a good idea to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections because only people who are fully integrated in society and who are willing to make the UK their permanent home should have the right to vote. Many non-UK citizens are only in the UK to study, work, or for other temporary reasons, so it is unlikely they would be well-integrated in society. They are also unlikely to have a long-term interest in their local area. This is different to non-UK citizens who have dual nationality, in which case they are entitled to vote in UK elections. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was divided on whether non UK citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections. However, the group all agreed that those who have been living and working in the UK for a number of years, and who have made an economic contribution to society, should be given the opportunity to vote. We also think it is important that this right to vote is only given to people who are likely to be staying in the UK for a considerable period of time. This could be confirmed by them having a visa that shows they will be living in the UK for more than 3 years, or they are an EU citizen who has registered to work in the UK. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001084.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001084.soc index 34093d50..5a07806c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001084.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001084.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on the import of all exotic pets. They felt that the government should instead impose strict regulations on the import of exotic pets, and that these regulations should be strictly enforced. The group felt that the current regulations were not strict enough, and that the current system of self-regulation was not working. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse, and that some people were importing exotic pets for the wrong reasons. The group felt that the current system was not working, and that the government should impose a much stricter system of regulation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on the import of all exotic pets. The group felt that if people were prepared to meet the needs of the animal and had adequate facilities, then there was no reason why they should not be allowed to have them. The group also felt that a list of certain animals that were considered dangerous should be compiled and that these animals should be banned from import. The group felt that this would be a more reasonable approach than an outright ban on all exotic pets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The import of some species is dangerous for both humans and wildlife. For example, many people keep primates as pets, which pose a threat to people's health and to native primates, and reptiles carry a whole range of diseases. It is clear that there should be a ban on the import of primates, and many other species. However, it is important to remember that these animals were born and raised in captivity, and it would be cruel to let them die or put them to sleep. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: An outright ban on importing exotic pets is not a good idea. Some species are only kept as pets, and can never be released into the wild in the UK, and may never even get the chance to breed in captivity. This would also lead to a massive spike in the smuggling of exotic animals as people will still want to own these pets. Instead, we should focus on establishing a legal and ethical importation scheme, perhaps modelled on the existing pet passport system, in which the government regulates the import of exotic animals, ensuring that they pose no risk to native wildlife and that they will be treated well in captivity. This should also make it easier for owners to move with their pets when emigrating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on the import of all exotic pets. They felt that the government should instead impose strict regulations on the import of exotic pets, and that these regulations should be strictly enforced. The group felt that the current regulations were not strict enough, and that the current system of self-regulation was not working. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse, and that some people were importing exotic pets for the wrong reasons. The group felt that the current system was not working, and that the government should impose a much stricter system of regulation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on the import of all exotic pets. The group felt that if people were prepared to meet the needs of the animal and had adequate facilities, then there was no reason why they should not be allowed to have them. The group also felt that a list of certain animals that were considered dangerous should be compiled and that these animals should be banned from import. The group felt that this would be a more reasonable approach than an outright ban on all exotic pets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The import of some species is dangerous for both humans and wildlife. For example, many people keep primates as pets, which pose a threat to people's health and to native primates, and reptiles carry a whole range of diseases. It is clear that there should be a ban on the import of primates, and many other species. However, it is important to remember that these animals were born and raised in captivity, and it would be cruel to let them die or put them to sleep. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - An outright ban on importing exotic pets is not a good idea. Some species are only kept as pets, and can never be released into the wild in the UK, and may never even get the chance to breed in captivity. This would also lead to a massive spike in the smuggling of exotic animals as people will still want to own these pets. Instead, we should focus on establishing a legal and ethical importation scheme, perhaps modelled on the existing pet passport system, in which the government regulates the import of exotic animals, ensuring that they pose no risk to native wildlife and that they will be treated well in captivity. This should also make it easier for owners to move with their pets when emigrating. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001085.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001085.soc index 6a451e12..d6496fbe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001085.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001085.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK needs a minimum price for alcohol. Alcohol companies need to be punished for their irresponsible advertising, targeting the youth and making alcohol seem appealing. However, the price must be minimal so that young people are not forced to buy alcohol on the black market, which could potentially lead to the use of dangerous substances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of minimum pricing. This is because we felt that people should be allowed to buy what they want and that the price of alcohol is already high enough. The only people who would benefit from minimum pricing would be alcoholics, and even then, we do not think that it would be beneficial for their health. This is because they are addicted, so they will find any way possible to afford their habit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In my opinion the UK does not need a minimum price of alcohol. We all believe that the UK already has strict rules when it comes to selling alcohol to minors and is only becoming stricter. However we also believe that the government and retailers should do more in ensuring that these rules are adhered to. We also believe that the UK is becoming a nanny state and by enforcing a minimum price for alcohol we are removing the freedom for the consumer to decide what they want to buy, and that is why we believe that the UK does not need a minimum price of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK needs a minimum price for alcohol. Alcohol companies need to be punished for their irresponsible advertising, targeting the youth and making alcohol seem appealing. However, the price must be minimal so that young people are not forced to buy alcohol on the black market, which could potentially lead to the use of dangerous substances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of minimum pricing. This is because we felt that people should be allowed to buy what they want and that the price of alcohol is already high enough. The only people who would benefit from minimum pricing would be alcoholics, and even then, we do not think that it would be beneficial for their health. This is because they are addicted, so they will find any way possible to afford their habit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In my opinion the UK does not need a minimum price of alcohol. We all believe that the UK already has strict rules when it comes to selling alcohol to minors and is only becoming stricter. However we also believe that the government and retailers should do more in ensuring that these rules are adhered to. We also believe that the UK is becoming a nanny state and by enforcing a minimum price for alcohol we are removing the freedom for the consumer to decide what they want to buy, and that is why we believe that the UK does not need a minimum price of alcohol. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001086.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001086.soc index 6077f366..f3a70a00 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001086.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001086.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving children computers at the age of 6. The general feeling was that it would be a waste of money, and that children should be outside playing and being active. However, the group did concede that there are some families that cannot afford a computer, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. The group felt that there are more important things that the government needs to address before handing out free computers. The group also felt that computer training programs should be set up in all schools so that all children can learn how to use a computer in a safe manner by the age of 6 so that they may be more successful in higher education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving children computers at the age of 6. The general feeling was that it would be a waste of money, and that children should be outside playing and being active. However, the group did concede that there are some families that cannot afford a computer, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. The group felt that there are more important things that the government needs to address before handing out free computers. However, the group also felt that children should be taught how to use a computer at the age of 6, and that it would be a good idea for schools to have a computer lab in which children can learn how to use a computer in a safe environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught how to use computers from the age of 6, but they should not be given a free computer. There are more important things for the government to address. It is also important to note that there are some families that cannot afford a computer, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: While it would be expensive, it would be a good idea to allow schools to give computers to low-income families who cannot afford their own. The children may be tempted by pornography and other objectionable material but this can be minimised with careful parental guidance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving children computers at the age of 6. The general feeling was that it would be a waste of money, and that children should be outside playing and being active. However, the group did concede that there are some families that cannot afford a computer, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. The group felt that there are more important things that the government needs to address before handing out free computers. The group also felt that computer training programs should be set up in all schools so that all children can learn how to use a computer in a safe manner by the age of 6 so that they may be more successful in higher education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving children computers at the age of 6. The general feeling was that it would be a waste of money, and that children should be outside playing and being active. However, the group did concede that there are some families that cannot afford a computer, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. The group felt that there are more important things that the government needs to address before handing out free computers. However, the group also felt that children should be taught how to use a computer at the age of 6, and that it would be a good idea for schools to have a computer lab in which children can learn how to use a computer in a safe environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught how to use computers from the age of 6, but they should not be given a free computer. There are more important things for the government to address. It is also important to note that there are some families that cannot afford a computer, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: While it would be expensive, it would be a good idea to allow schools to give computers to low-income families who cannot afford their own. The children may be tempted by pornography and other objectionable material but this can be minimised with careful parental guidance. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001087.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001087.soc index 0dd92330..6c77ff6b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001087.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001087.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People in the UK should no longer have to wear face coverings in public. This is because COVI no longer poses the threat to public health as it did over a year ago. Should there be a reoccurrence of the pandemic then I would fully support mandatory face coverings in public as before. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the wearing of face coverings in public should not be mandatory. This is because the pandemic is now over, and the public is adequately protected through vaccination and natural immunity. However, it is important to note that there are some people who are still vulnerable to COVID, and so it is important that they are able to protect themselves as much as possible. Therefore, we believe that the wearing of face coverings should be mandatory in places where social distancing is not possible, such as on public transport, in shops, and in other crowded places. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the wearing of face coverings in public should no longer be mandatory. However, it was also agreed that the general public should be free to choose to wear a face covering, if they so wish. It was felt that if an individual has a medical condition that they feel would make them vulnerable to infection, they should be able to choose to wear a face covering. However, in general, it was felt that the pandemic was now over, and that the public should not be forced to cover their face in public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the wearing of face coverings in public should not be mandatory as the pandemic is now over. However, in the event of a future pandemic then the wearing of face coverings should be mandatory in public places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People in the UK should no longer have to wear face coverings in public. This is because COVI no longer poses the threat to public health as it did over a year ago. Should there be a reoccurrence of the pandemic then I would fully support mandatory face coverings in public as before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the wearing of face coverings in public should not be mandatory. This is because the pandemic is now over, and the public is adequately protected through vaccination and natural immunity. However, it is important to note that there are some people who are still vulnerable to COVID, and so it is important that they are able to protect themselves as much as possible. Therefore, we believe that the wearing of face coverings should be mandatory in places where social distancing is not possible, such as on public transport, in shops, and in other crowded places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the wearing of face coverings in public should no longer be mandatory. However, it was also agreed that the general public should be free to choose to wear a face covering, if they so wish. It was felt that if an individual has a medical condition that they feel would make them vulnerable to infection, they should be able to choose to wear a face covering. However, in general, it was felt that the pandemic was now over, and that the public should not be forced to cover their face in public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the wearing of face coverings in public should not be mandatory as the pandemic is now over. However, in the event of a future pandemic then the wearing of face coverings should be mandatory in public places. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001088.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001088.soc index b091131c..f8d32918 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001088.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001088.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases. DNA evidence is often used to solve crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. It is therefore an essential tool in the criminal justice system. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair and incorruptible. It is also important to recognise that DNA evidence has the potential to be misused, and to ensure that this does not happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases. DNA evidence is often used to solve crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. It is therefore an essential tool in the criminal justice system. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair and incorruptible. The rigorous and incorruptible nature of these processes can be ensured through the monitoring of professional codes of ethics by regulatory bodies, the accountability of handling officers, public confidence, robust processes of evidence collection and a consistent approach to procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases, sometimes catching suspects who would otherwise have gone unpunished. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. DNA has been a valuable tool in the criminal justice system. It is therefore an essential tool. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair, and incorruptible. Further, it is essential that potential concerns, particularly related to privacy and misuse of genetic information, are acknowledged and addressed. Conclusion I believe that this experience was a success. As part of their report, participants were given the chance to provide constructive feedback on the workshop, specifically giving comments on what worked and what could be improved. Many of them said that they felt more aware of the value of ethics in science, and that the experience had helped them to learn. Some of the key comments from participants are below: "As a molecular scientist I felt that this workshop has helped me to be more aware of the ethical concerns behind genetics. Before this workshop, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases. DNA evidence is often used to solve crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. It is therefore an essential tool in the criminal justice system. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair and incorruptible. The use of DNA evidence has dramatically improved the ability of the criminal justice system to deal with crime. However, it is essential that DNA evidence is collected and analysed in a rigorous and fair manner, and that appropriate legal safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of people whose DNA is collected. This will help to ensure that the use of DNA evidence is not misused and that it is used only for its intended purpose. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases. DNA evidence is often used to solve crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. It is therefore an essential tool in the criminal justice system. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair and incorruptible. It is also important to recognise that DNA evidence has the potential to be misused, and to ensure that this does not happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases. DNA evidence is often used to solve crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. It is therefore an essential tool in the criminal justice system. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair and incorruptible. The rigorous and incorruptible nature of these processes can be ensured through the monitoring of professional codes of ethics by regulatory bodies, the accountability of handling officers, public confidence, robust processes of evidence collection and a consistent approach to procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases, sometimes catching suspects who would otherwise have gone unpunished. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. DNA has been a valuable tool in the criminal justice system. It is therefore an essential tool. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair, and incorruptible. Further, it is essential that potential concerns, particularly related to privacy and misuse of genetic information, are acknowledged and addressed. Conclusion I believe that this experience was a success. As part of their report, participants were given the chance to provide constructive feedback on the workshop, specifically giving comments on what worked and what could be improved. Many of them said that they felt more aware of the value of ethics in science, and that the experience had helped them to learn. Some of the key comments from participants are below: "As a molecular scientist I felt that this workshop has helped me to be more aware of the ethical concerns behind genetics. Before this workshop, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of DNA evidence to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. DNA evidence can be used to identify a person as a criminal in a wide variety of cases. DNA evidence is often used to solve crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The use of DNA evidence has helped to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. It is therefore an essential tool in the criminal justice system. It is important to ensure that the collection and analysis of DNA evidence is done in a way that is rigorous, fair and incorruptible. The use of DNA evidence has dramatically improved the ability of the criminal justice system to deal with crime. However, it is essential that DNA evidence is collected and analysed in a rigorous and fair manner, and that appropriate legal safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of people whose DNA is collected. This will help to ensure that the use of DNA evidence is not misused and that it is used only for its intended purpose. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001089.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001089.soc index eaa6101d..5df4f6d8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001089.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001089.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that the government should provide more funding for public universities. A number of participants felt that the cost of university is currently too high and that this is preventing many people from going. As well as this, people are graduating with a large amount of debt that they will have to pay off for the rest of their lives. If more funding was provided for public universities, this would be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. We did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. The group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students.” Participants critiqued their fellow participants’ consensus statement below, and in doing so, began to see the value of the Round Robin Writing Technique: “I feel like this method of writing a paper was good in the sense that we could all work on the same ideas, however, it would probably be better suited to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that the government should provide more funding for public universities. A number of participants felt that the cost of university is currently too high and that this is preventing many people from going. As well as this, people are graduating with a large amount of debt that they will have to pay off for the rest of their lives. If more funding was provided for public universities, this would be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. We did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. The group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students. However, we also debated whether the government should provide more funding for education and in particular to support schools and colleges and we all felt that this should be a priority. Education is so important to society and so the government should be doing all it can to improve it.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The government should provide more funding for public universities. The current cost of university is too high. The high cost of university is preventing many people from going because of the amount of debt they graduate with. If more funding is provided to public universities this could be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. Funding should be provided to reduce inequality, not to increase it. This funding could be used to lower the cost of university but could also be used to provide other forms of financial support such as bursaries for poorer students. A number of participants did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. In addition, the group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that the government should provide more funding for public universities. A number of participants felt that the cost of university is currently too high and that this is preventing many people from going. As well as this, people are graduating with a large amount of debt that they will have to pay off for the rest of their lives. If more funding was provided for public universities, this would be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. We did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. The group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that the government should provide more funding for public universities. A number of participants felt that the cost of university is currently too high and that this is preventing many people from going. As well as this, people are graduating with a large amount of debt that they will have to pay off for the rest of their lives. If more funding was provided for public universities, this would be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. We did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. The group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students.” Participants critiqued their fellow participants’ consensus statement below, and in doing so, began to see the value of the Round Robin Writing Technique: “I feel like this method of writing a paper was good in the sense that we could all work on the same ideas, however, it would probably be better suited to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that the government should provide more funding for public universities. A number of participants felt that the cost of university is currently too high and that this is preventing many people from going. As well as this, people are graduating with a large amount of debt that they will have to pay off for the rest of their lives. If more funding was provided for public universities, this would be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. We did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. The group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students. However, we also debated whether the government should provide more funding for education and in particular to support schools and colleges and we all felt that this should be a priority. Education is so important to society and so the government should be doing all it can to improve it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The government should provide more funding for public universities. The current cost of university is too high. The high cost of university is preventing many people from going because of the amount of debt they graduate with. If more funding is provided to public universities this could be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. Funding should be provided to reduce inequality, not to increase it. This funding could be used to lower the cost of university but could also be used to provide other forms of financial support such as bursaries for poorer students. A number of participants did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. In addition, the group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that the government should provide more funding for public universities. A number of participants felt that the cost of university is currently too high and that this is preventing many people from going. As well as this, people are graduating with a large amount of debt that they will have to pay off for the rest of their lives. If more funding was provided for public universities, this would be used to reduce the cost of university and also help with providing people from poorer backgrounds with the same opportunities as those from richer ones. We did also consider whether funding should be provided for private universities but felt that these should be privately funded as this will be good for the economy. The group debated whether more funding should be provided to help to improve the quality of education and improve facilities but we all felt that this should be done by the universities themselves through increasing the fees they charge to students.” 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001090.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001090.soc index 577582ab..ff0ab34c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001090.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001090.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the government should be doing more to provide health and safety information to the consumer, and that they should be doing more to provide rehabilitation services to those who have a problem with alcoholism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies, and that this is the best possible course of action the government can take to help control drinking and keeping the children safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the government should be doing more to provide health and safety information to the consumer, and that they should be doing more to provide rehabilitation services to those who have a problem with alcoholism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think that the UK needs a minimum price for alcohol, as we believe that the price is already high enough and that the price would only be raised to an extent that would be unfair to the consumer. Instead, we believe that the government should be focusing on the health and safety of the consumer, and that they should be focusing on the retailers and sellers of alcohol, as this is where the problem lies. We also believe that the sellers of alcohol should be more heavily fined if they are caught selling to underage children, as this is where the problem lies, and that this is the best possible course of action the government can take to help control drinking and keeping the children safe. 3: 1,4,3,2 2: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001091.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001091.soc index 4ec02c6d..a8ec7f90 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001091.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001091.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, keeping a wild animal as a pet is not a good idea. Animals should be able to live in the wild where they are meant to be. If there is no way to allow an animal to be released into the wild, and they have been bred in captivity, then they should be placed in a zoo, sanctuary or other controlled environment. If a wild animal is kept as a pet, it must be kept in a large, natural environment. It is preferable that it lives in an environment where it can live with other animals of its own kind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not acceptable to keep a wild animal as a pet if it has been bred in captivity, unless the animal can be returned to the wild safely. If there is any solution that can be arranged in which the animal can go back to being wild, that should be considered first. Wild animals should not be kept in captivity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, all animals would be able to live in the wild, in their natural habitat. However, this is not always possible. There are many reasons why an animal may not be able to survive in the wild, such as a lack of survival skills, being unable to integrate into a wild animal group, or being unable to survive in the wild due to a disability. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, it is not acceptable to keep a wild animal as a pet if it has been bred in captivity. This is because wild animals should be in their natural habitat, living with their own kind, and not in someone's home. In some cases, it may be necessary to keep a wild animal as a pet if it cannot be returned to the wild, but this should be a last resort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, keeping a wild animal as a pet is not a good idea. Animals should be able to live in the wild where they are meant to be. If there is no way to allow an animal to be released into the wild, and they have been bred in captivity, then they should be placed in a zoo, sanctuary or other controlled environment. If a wild animal is kept as a pet, it must be kept in a large, natural environment. It is preferable that it lives in an environment where it can live with other animals of its own kind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not acceptable to keep a wild animal as a pet if it has been bred in captivity, unless the animal can be returned to the wild safely. If there is any solution that can be arranged in which the animal can go back to being wild, that should be considered first. Wild animals should not be kept in captivity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, all animals would be able to live in the wild, in their natural habitat. However, this is not always possible. There are many reasons why an animal may not be able to survive in the wild, such as a lack of survival skills, being unable to integrate into a wild animal group, or being unable to survive in the wild due to a disability. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, it is not acceptable to keep a wild animal as a pet if it has been bred in captivity. This is because wild animals should be in their natural habitat, living with their own kind, and not in someone's home. In some cases, it may be necessary to keep a wild animal as a pet if it cannot be returned to the wild, but this should be a last resort. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001092.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001092.soc index bab2d808..869ccba2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001092.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001092.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This would be an incentive for people to want to purchase a vehicle that is safer for the environment. The government would also need to make investments in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. The tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, so that the government wouldn't lose too much tax income, or else this would affect the budget in other public services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners, in order to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality and reduce noise pollution. However, in order to reduce tax loss, this tax break should only apply to new electric cars, and have a fixed duration, for example 3 years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, yes the government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. But this is just one part of a wider strategy that needs to be implemented in order to achieve this aim. To begin with, the government would need to invest in the infrastructure of electric cars, in order to make them affordable to all who wish to own one. On the one hand, this financial incentive to own an electric car would help reduce the amount of pollution from non-electric cars and so would benefit the environment and society as a whole. On the other hand, the tax breaks would need to be limited in duration, otherwise the government would lose an excessive amount of tax revenue, which would have a negative effect on other public services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the government offering tax breaks to owners of electric cars. The group felt that this would be a good incentive for people to purchase electric cars and would also help to reduce the amount of carbon emissions from vehicles. The group also felt that the government should invest in the infrastructure for electric cars, such as charging ports, to ensure that the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This would be an incentive for people to want to purchase a vehicle that is safer for the environment. The government would also need to make investments in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. The tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, so that the government wouldn't lose too much tax income, or else this would affect the budget in other public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners, in order to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality and reduce noise pollution. However, in order to reduce tax loss, this tax break should only apply to new electric cars, and have a fixed duration, for example 3 years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, yes the government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. But this is just one part of a wider strategy that needs to be implemented in order to achieve this aim. To begin with, the government would need to invest in the infrastructure of electric cars, in order to make them affordable to all who wish to own one. On the one hand, this financial incentive to own an electric car would help reduce the amount of pollution from non-electric cars and so would benefit the environment and society as a whole. On the other hand, the tax breaks would need to be limited in duration, otherwise the government would lose an excessive amount of tax revenue, which would have a negative effect on other public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the government offering tax breaks to owners of electric cars. The group felt that this would be a good incentive for people to purchase electric cars and would also help to reduce the amount of carbon emissions from vehicles. The group also felt that the government should invest in the infrastructure for electric cars, such as charging ports, to ensure that the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. 2: 3,1,4,2 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001093.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001093.soc index e9019270..2d547c8b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001093.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001093.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group felt that tax is already very high and raising it further would not be beneficial. They agreed that increasing tax would only harm people and those on low incomes would be hit hardest. Instead, the government should work on developing more environmentally friendly forms of transport. This would encourage people to use more environmentally friendly forms of transport. The group also felt that the UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe and it is not fair that our prices are higher than elsewhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No we shouldn't raise tax on fuel to encourage people to use less energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not raise the tax on fuel to encourage people to use less energy. The tax is already high enough as it is and is already acting as a deterrent. We should be travelling more efficiently, that means working from home where possible. The transition to electrical vehicles is already happening and is only a matter of time before it is the most common form of transport. We should instead concentrate on making environmentally friendly alternatives cheaper and more widely available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not raise the tax on fuel to encourage people to use less energy. People are already taxed heavily on fuel and the cost of living is high. There are not enough affordable alternatives for people to invest in. The government should instead concentrate on making environmentally friendly alternatives cheaper and more widely available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group felt that tax is already very high and raising it further would not be beneficial. They agreed that increasing tax would only harm people and those on low incomes would be hit hardest. Instead, the government should work on developing more environmentally friendly forms of transport. This would encourage people to use more environmentally friendly forms of transport. The group also felt that the UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe and it is not fair that our prices are higher than elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No we shouldn't raise tax on fuel to encourage people to use less energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not raise the tax on fuel to encourage people to use less energy. The tax is already high enough as it is and is already acting as a deterrent. We should be travelling more efficiently, that means working from home where possible. The transition to electrical vehicles is already happening and is only a matter of time before it is the most common form of transport. We should instead concentrate on making environmentally friendly alternatives cheaper and more widely available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not raise the tax on fuel to encourage people to use less energy. People are already taxed heavily on fuel and the cost of living is high. There are not enough affordable alternatives for people to invest in. The government should instead concentrate on making environmentally friendly alternatives cheaper and more widely available. 2: 1,3,4,2 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001094.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001094.soc index a90b873e..749b89f6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001094.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001094.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of holding corporations liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. The group felt that this would act as a deterrent to crime and would also ensure that justice was served. The group felt that it was important to hold individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their status. The group also felt that corporations should be held liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees as this would help to promote a culture of ethical behaviour within the organization. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is important for individuals who commit crimes to be held accountable regardless of their status, the question of whether it is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees is a complex and debatable issue. The importance of understanding the scope of employment must be highlighted. Crimes committed solely within the personal sphere of directors and employees must not be the responsibility of the corporation. But, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. The individuals who committed the crimes should be held liable, as well as their employers. This will deter future crimes by making corporations more aware of their employees’ actions, and provide victims with more options for justice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Corporations should be held liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. This is because it will encourage corporations to be more diligent in their hiring process and will also promote a culture of ethical behaviour within the organization. This will ensure that justice is served and that victims are provided with resources. This will also act as a deterrent for other corporations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of holding corporations liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. The group felt that this would act as a deterrent to crime and would also ensure that justice was served. The group felt that it was important to hold individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their status. The group also felt that corporations should be held liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees as this would help to promote a culture of ethical behaviour within the organization. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is important for individuals who commit crimes to be held accountable regardless of their status, the question of whether it is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees is a complex and debatable issue. The importance of understanding the scope of employment must be highlighted. Crimes committed solely within the personal sphere of directors and employees must not be the responsibility of the corporation. But, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. The individuals who committed the crimes should be held liable, as well as their employers. This will deter future crimes by making corporations more aware of their employees’ actions, and provide victims with more options for justice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Corporations should be held liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. This is because it will encourage corporations to be more diligent in their hiring process and will also promote a culture of ethical behaviour within the organization. This will ensure that justice is served and that victims are provided with resources. This will also act as a deterrent for other corporations. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001095.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001095.soc index 9d824546..26ef10d3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001095.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001095.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that there should be a tax on sugary drinks as this will discourage people from buying them. In addition to this, the money that is collected will be able to be used in different ways to help with the obesity crisis. For example, this money could be used to subsidise healthier alternatives to sugary drinks, which would make it easier for people to access and help improve their diet. We also believe that it is important to implement a tax on sugary drinks as this will provide an incentive for companies to change their products in a healthier way. This is important as if companies are not using sugar in their products, people will not be purchasing them. This could help to solve the obesity crisis. However, there should be a reasonable limit to the tax as this will allow people to still be able to purchase the drinks, which they enjoy. In addition to this, we believe that the money raised through this tax should be used to subsidise healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, which will make them more affordable and accessible for people, as currently these foods are seen as luxury items for many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a tax on sugary drinks. We believe that this is needed as there is a strong correlation between the consumption of sugary drinks and obesity. Obesity is a growing problem in the UK and it is important to combat this problem. The tax will act as a deterrent to consuming sugary drinks and will help to reduce obesity levels. This will lead to a healthier population and will help to reduce the strain on the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there needs to be a small tax put on sugary drinks. This will discourage people, and particularly children, from consuming sugary drinks as much as they do now. We believe that by making these drinks more expensive, this will also lead to a decline in sales, as people are less likely to buy them. A tax on sugary drinks will also help in generating revenue for the government, that can be used in different areas, and promoting healthier alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the tax on sugary drinks is a good idea. We believe that it is needed to set taxes on sugary drinks. It is being observed that, the problems of obesity is getting bigger and bigger with time. And one of the main reasons for this is to intake sugary drinks. Implementing tax would discourage people specially child to consume less sugary drinks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that there should be a tax on sugary drinks as this will discourage people from buying them. In addition to this, the money that is collected will be able to be used in different ways to help with the obesity crisis. For example, this money could be used to subsidise healthier alternatives to sugary drinks, which would make it easier for people to access and help improve their diet. We also believe that it is important to implement a tax on sugary drinks as this will provide an incentive for companies to change their products in a healthier way. This is important as if companies are not using sugar in their products, people will not be purchasing them. This could help to solve the obesity crisis. However, there should be a reasonable limit to the tax as this will allow people to still be able to purchase the drinks, which they enjoy. In addition to this, we believe that the money raised through this tax should be used to subsidise healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, which will make them more affordable and accessible for people, as currently these foods are seen as luxury items for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a tax on sugary drinks. We believe that this is needed as there is a strong correlation between the consumption of sugary drinks and obesity. Obesity is a growing problem in the UK and it is important to combat this problem. The tax will act as a deterrent to consuming sugary drinks and will help to reduce obesity levels. This will lead to a healthier population and will help to reduce the strain on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there needs to be a small tax put on sugary drinks. This will discourage people, and particularly children, from consuming sugary drinks as much as they do now. We believe that by making these drinks more expensive, this will also lead to a decline in sales, as people are less likely to buy them. A tax on sugary drinks will also help in generating revenue for the government, that can be used in different areas, and promoting healthier alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the tax on sugary drinks is a good idea. We believe that it is needed to set taxes on sugary drinks. It is being observed that, the problems of obesity is getting bigger and bigger with time. And one of the main reasons for this is to intake sugary drinks. Implementing tax would discourage people specially child to consume less sugary drinks. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001096.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001096.soc index b88d0603..aea566cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001096.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001096.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a higher minimum wage but only if it is increased in line with inflation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that minimum wage should increase with inflation, and there should be a higher minimum wage. We believe this is in order to keep up with the cost of living, as prices of goods and services rise every year. Also if it rises with inflation, it will allow people to be able to live and survive, and have a little bit left over, and will reduce the costs to the tax payer, as the state will have to help those on minimum wage with housing, and bills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a higher minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life, and with increasing costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. What people get paid right now is not sufficient for a good quality of life, but also to ensure we do not enter recession. If all of our bills can be raised by inflation once a year then the minimum wage and the minimum income being paid to the poorest workers should do the same because otherwise the poorest workers in our society will continue to get poorer and poorer and inequality will only continue to get worse and then clearly work wouldn't be paying and we would be going backwards rather than forwards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The minimum wage should be increased in line with inflation, but no more. As it is currently at such a level that many people on minimum wage receive benefits, those benefits should not be restricted; it is the government supporting job creation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a higher minimum wage but only if it is increased in line with inflation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that minimum wage should increase with inflation, and there should be a higher minimum wage. We believe this is in order to keep up with the cost of living, as prices of goods and services rise every year. Also if it rises with inflation, it will allow people to be able to live and survive, and have a little bit left over, and will reduce the costs to the tax payer, as the state will have to help those on minimum wage with housing, and bills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life, and with increasing costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. What people get paid right now is not sufficient for a good quality of life, but also to ensure we do not enter recession. If all of our bills can be raised by inflation once a year then the minimum wage and the minimum income being paid to the poorest workers should do the same because otherwise the poorest workers in our society will continue to get poorer and poorer and inequality will only continue to get worse and then clearly work wouldn't be paying and we would be going backwards rather than forwards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The minimum wage should be increased in line with inflation, but no more. As it is currently at such a level that many people on minimum wage receive benefits, those benefits should not be restricted; it is the government supporting job creation. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001097.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001097.soc index 4756dc1e..136e0011 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001097.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001097.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, all animals would be able to live in the wild, in their natural habitat. However, this is not always possible. There are many reasons why an animal may not be able to survive in the wild, such as a lack of survival skills, being unable to integrate into a wild animal group, or being unable to survive in the wild due to a disability. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. However, the wellbeing of the animal should always be considered, and if the animal would not be able to survive in the wild, keeping it as a pet may be the only option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, all animals would be able to live in the wild, in their natural habitat. However, this is not always possible. There are many reasons why an animal may not be able to survive in the wild, such as a lack of survival skills, being unable to integrate into a wild animal group, or being unable to survive in the wild due to a disability. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. This could be in the form of a wildlife sanctuary, where the animal can live in a protected enclosure, or it could be in the form of returning the animal to the wild. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, all animals would be able to live in the wild, in their natural habitat. However, this is not always possible. There are many reasons why an animal may not be able to survive in the wild, such as a lack of survival skills, being unable to integrate into a wild animal group, or being unable to survive in the wild due to a disability. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. Keeping a wild animal as a pet should be seen as an absolute last resort and only when there is truly no other alternative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, all animals would be able to live in the wild, in their natural habitat. However, this is not always possible. There are many reasons why an animal may not be able to survive in the wild, such as a lack of survival skills, being unable to integrate into a wild animal group, or being unable to survive in the wild due to a disability. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. However, the wellbeing of the animal should always be considered, and if the animal would not be able to survive in the wild, keeping it as a pet may be the only option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, all animals would be able to live in the wild, in their natural habitat. However, this is not always possible. There are many reasons why an animal may not be able to survive in the wild, such as a lack of survival skills, being unable to integrate into a wild animal group, or being unable to survive in the wild due to a disability. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. This could be in the form of a wildlife sanctuary, where the animal can live in a protected enclosure, or it could be in the form of returning the animal to the wild. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Keeping wild animals as pets is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, all animals would be able to live in the wild, in their natural habitat. However, this is not always possible. There are many reasons why an animal may not be able to survive in the wild, such as a lack of survival skills, being unable to integrate into a wild animal group, or being unable to survive in the wild due to a disability. If it is not possible for an animal to be returned to the wild, it may be necessary to keep it as a pet. This should be a last resort, and the animal should be kept in the most spacious enclosure possible, to allow it to live as naturally as possible. The priority should always be to return an animal to the wild if it is at all possible to do so. Keeping a wild animal as a pet should be seen as an absolute last resort and only when there is truly no other alternative. 3: 2,1,4,3 2: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001098.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001098.soc index 1ebbe385..f8384c4f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001098.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001098.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think that we should legalise some drugs for recreational use, however we should not legalise any drugs that are harmful or have a high potential for addiction. Drugs that are legalised should have an age limit, as they may cause harm to younger people who may use them, and the drug should only be sold in designated stores where there is an age limit and it is under strict supervision. This will allow some people who are looking to use drugs for medical purposes to be able to do so and it will reduce the amount of drug related crime, as people will not have to resort to crime to obtain the drugs. However, there are some drugs that I do not think should be legalised for recreational use, as they can cause damage to the body and the mind. However, if these drugs were to be used for medical purposes, then I think they should be able to be used. However, I think there should be a high level of regulation for these drugs.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the legalisation of drugs is a good idea. It would reduce the crime associated with the drug trade, and reduce the harm to individuals from drug use. The legalisation of cannabis is a good idea, as it is not very harmful. It would also reduce the number of people in prison for possession of cannabis. However, we should not legalise other drugs such as cocaine or heroin, as these are more harmful and could lead to addiction. The legalisation of drugs should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the legalisation of any drug should be preceded by a thorough review of the evidence for and against the legalisation of that drug. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of legalising some drugs for recreational use. However, it was stressed that the legalisation of drugs should be done with caution, and that a thorough review of the short and long term effects of the drugs in question should be carried out first. The group also felt that the legalisation of some drugs could help to reduce the burden on the legal system, as it would reduce the number of people being arrested and prosecuted for drug offences. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Some drugs should be legalised for recreational use. We should not be too scared of what these drugs can do to us, and should be open to listening to evidence that they may not be as bad as we think. For example, marijuana is a relatively harmless drug that could be helpful for people with mental health issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think that we should legalise some drugs for recreational use, however we should not legalise any drugs that are harmful or have a high potential for addiction. Drugs that are legalised should have an age limit, as they may cause harm to younger people who may use them, and the drug should only be sold in designated stores where there is an age limit and it is under strict supervision. This will allow some people who are looking to use drugs for medical purposes to be able to do so and it will reduce the amount of drug related crime, as people will not have to resort to crime to obtain the drugs. However, there are some drugs that I do not think should be legalised for recreational use, as they can cause damage to the body and the mind. However, if these drugs were to be used for medical purposes, then I think they should be able to be used. However, I think there should be a high level of regulation for these drugs.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the legalisation of drugs is a good idea. It would reduce the crime associated with the drug trade, and reduce the harm to individuals from drug use. The legalisation of cannabis is a good idea, as it is not very harmful. It would also reduce the number of people in prison for possession of cannabis. However, we should not legalise other drugs such as cocaine or heroin, as these are more harmful and could lead to addiction. The legalisation of drugs should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the legalisation of any drug should be preceded by a thorough review of the evidence for and against the legalisation of that drug. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising some drugs for recreational use. However, it was stressed that the legalisation of drugs should be done with caution, and that a thorough review of the short and long term effects of the drugs in question should be carried out first. The group also felt that the legalisation of some drugs could help to reduce the burden on the legal system, as it would reduce the number of people being arrested and prosecuted for drug offences. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Some drugs should be legalised for recreational use. We should not be too scared of what these drugs can do to us, and should be open to listening to evidence that they may not be as bad as we think. For example, marijuana is a relatively harmless drug that could be helpful for people with mental health issues. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001099.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001099.soc index 66ea3b0d..f631b7dc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001099.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001099.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not raise the tax on fuel to encourage people to use less energy. Tax is already very high and people on low incomes would be hit the hardest by any increase. Instead, the government should invest in more environmentally friendly forms of energy. This would encourage people to use more environmentally friendly forms of energy. The UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe and it is not fair that our prices are higher than elsewhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that tax is already too high on fuel and raising the price would only cause unnecessary hardship. The price of petrol and diesel are already high compared to other European countries and raising it would not only be a tax on the people but also an environmental tax since it would encourage people to drive less efficiently. More research and development needs to be put into cheaper and more efficient forms of transport, this would take the burden away from people who need their cars. We should put research and development into making wind power and solar power cheaper and more affordable so they can be used to power cars and buildings, this is both a great investment for the environment and for people in need of fuel. The government should focus on making alternatives to traditional fossil fuels more affordable as the cost is also acting as a barrier. Finally we believe the EU and UK should meet to discuss this issue and create a set of standards for taxation that is more fair to the people and environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group felt that tax is already very high and raising it further would not be beneficial. They agreed that increasing tax would only harm people and those on low incomes would be hit hardest. Instead, the government should work on developing more environmentally friendly forms of transport. This would encourage people to use more environmentally friendly forms of transport. The group also felt that the UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe and it is not fair that our prices are higher than elsewhere. The group felt that the government should invest in more environmentally friendly energy alternatives like wind farms and solar so that lower priced energy can be provided to encourage people away from gas, coal and oil. This is the most beneficial way to encourage people to use less fuel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group felt that tax is already very high and raising it further would not be beneficial. Instead of tax, the government should work on creating more environmentally friendly forms of transport, so that more people can use these to transport themselves. The group also felt that the UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe and it is not fair that our prices are higher than elsewhere. If other governments are not doing their part in reducing fossil fuels and their prices, then the UK should not force their citizens to pay for it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not raise the tax on fuel to encourage people to use less energy. Tax is already very high and people on low incomes would be hit the hardest by any increase. Instead, the government should invest in more environmentally friendly forms of energy. This would encourage people to use more environmentally friendly forms of energy. The UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe and it is not fair that our prices are higher than elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that tax is already too high on fuel and raising the price would only cause unnecessary hardship. The price of petrol and diesel are already high compared to other European countries and raising it would not only be a tax on the people but also an environmental tax since it would encourage people to drive less efficiently. More research and development needs to be put into cheaper and more efficient forms of transport, this would take the burden away from people who need their cars. We should put research and development into making wind power and solar power cheaper and more affordable so they can be used to power cars and buildings, this is both a great investment for the environment and for people in need of fuel. The government should focus on making alternatives to traditional fossil fuels more affordable as the cost is also acting as a barrier. Finally we believe the EU and UK should meet to discuss this issue and create a set of standards for taxation that is more fair to the people and environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group felt that tax is already very high and raising it further would not be beneficial. They agreed that increasing tax would only harm people and those on low incomes would be hit hardest. Instead, the government should work on developing more environmentally friendly forms of transport. This would encourage people to use more environmentally friendly forms of transport. The group also felt that the UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe and it is not fair that our prices are higher than elsewhere. The group felt that the government should invest in more environmentally friendly energy alternatives like wind farms and solar so that lower priced energy can be provided to encourage people away from gas, coal and oil. This is the most beneficial way to encourage people to use less fuel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group felt that tax is already very high and raising it further would not be beneficial. Instead of tax, the government should work on creating more environmentally friendly forms of transport, so that more people can use these to transport themselves. The group also felt that the UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in Europe and it is not fair that our prices are higher than elsewhere. If other governments are not doing their part in reducing fossil fuels and their prices, then the UK should not force their citizens to pay for it. 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001100.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001100.soc index cb830d88..f9bbbf82 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001100.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001100.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners, in order to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality, and promote the use of green technology. However, tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, and also, government needs to invest in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This would be an incentive for people to want to purchase a vehicle that is safer for the environment. The government would also need to make investments in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. The tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, so that the government wouldn't lose too much tax income, or else this would affect the budget in other public services. This should be assessed at the end of the tax break period to decide whether there should be a further round of tax breaks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This would be an incentive for people to want to purchase a vehicle that is safer for the environment. The government would also need to make investments in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. The tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, so that the government wouldn't lose too much tax income, or else this would affect the budget in other public services. The tax breaks should be reviewed after 3 years to gauge the success. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This would be an incentive for people to want to purchase a vehicle that is safer for the environment. The government would also need to make investments in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. The tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, so that the government wouldn't lose too much tax income, or else this would affect the budget in other public services. This would also allow the government to gauge the success of the tax breaks after a couple of years and allow them to make any necessary changes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners, in order to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality, and promote the use of green technology. However, tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, and also, government needs to invest in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This would be an incentive for people to want to purchase a vehicle that is safer for the environment. The government would also need to make investments in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. The tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, so that the government wouldn't lose too much tax income, or else this would affect the budget in other public services. This should be assessed at the end of the tax break period to decide whether there should be a further round of tax breaks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This would be an incentive for people to want to purchase a vehicle that is safer for the environment. The government would also need to make investments in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. The tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, so that the government wouldn't lose too much tax income, or else this would affect the budget in other public services. The tax breaks should be reviewed after 3 years to gauge the success. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This would be an incentive for people to want to purchase a vehicle that is safer for the environment. The government would also need to make investments in the infrastructure for electric cars such as charging ports to make sure the increasing amount of vehicles can be handled. The tax breaks should have a fixed duration, for example 2 - 3 years, so that the government wouldn't lose too much tax income, or else this would affect the budget in other public services. This would also allow the government to gauge the success of the tax breaks after a couple of years and allow them to make any necessary changes. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001101.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001101.soc index 2903b7c8..51e82a61 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001101.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001101.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is important for individuals who commit crimes to be held accountable regardless of their status, the question of whether it is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees is a complex and debatable issue. The importance of understanding the scope of employment must be highlighted. Crimes committed solely within the personal sphere of directors and employees must not be the responsibility of the corporation. However, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important to remember that a directors and employees of a corporation can commit crimes outside of their employment, without the involvement of the organization in any way. But, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7127/6895597977_2b0b161697_b.jpg https://media-exp1.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_400_400/UR8aQJ0sXMR0ymP2nlekNVGNPTvGjS2HyqcoKoyC5lEzmohbpehqIjW1M1SSZJ2n__A/dimensions.jpg -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The importance of understanding the scope of employment must be highlighted. Crimes committed solely within the personal sphere of directors and employees must not be the responsibility of the corporation. But, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important for individuals who commit crimes to be held accountable regardless of their status, the question of whether it is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees is a complex and debatable issue. The importance of understanding the scope of employment must be highlighted. Crimes committed solely within the personal sphere of directors and employees must not be the responsibility of the corporation. But, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is important for individuals who commit crimes to be held accountable regardless of their status, the question of whether it is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees is a complex and debatable issue. The importance of understanding the scope of employment must be highlighted. Crimes committed solely within the personal sphere of directors and employees must not be the responsibility of the corporation. However, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important to remember that a directors and employees of a corporation can commit crimes outside of their employment, without the involvement of the organization in any way. But, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7127/6895597977_2b0b161697_b.jpg https://media-exp1.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_400_400/UR8aQJ0sXMR0ymP2nlekNVGNPTvGjS2HyqcoKoyC5lEzmohbpehqIjW1M1SSZJ2n__A/dimensions.jpg +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The importance of understanding the scope of employment must be highlighted. Crimes committed solely within the personal sphere of directors and employees must not be the responsibility of the corporation. But, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important for individuals who commit crimes to be held accountable regardless of their status, the question of whether it is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees is a complex and debatable issue. The importance of understanding the scope of employment must be highlighted. Crimes committed solely within the personal sphere of directors and employees must not be the responsibility of the corporation. But, crimes committed within their employment as a result of their access to information, ability to coerce and influence, or physical access to people or property, must be considered the responsibility of their employer. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001102.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001102.soc index ccdd1ac6..b14f0bfd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001102.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001102.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a higher minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life, and with increasing costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. What people get paid right now is not sufficient for a good quality of life, but also to ensure we do not enter recession. Disposable income is shrinking and these are the people that work and then spend everything they have with little savings to fall back on and that does help out the economy but now these people have less to spend and if they continue they are likely to fall into debt with interest rates rising sharply and it would help with growth and to prevent a worse recession which would only make the situation worse for the poorest workers and will see wages going in the wrong direction and will make inequality even worse and we will be going backwards rather than forwards so the minimum wage should be increased at least in line with inflation otherwise they will be getting poorer in real terms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a higher minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life, and with increasing costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. The benefits that people on minimum wage receive should not be restricted; it is the government supporting job creation. If all of our bills can be raised by inflation once a year then the minimum wage and the minimum income being paid to the poorest workers should do the same because otherwise the poorest workers in our society will continue to get poorer and poorer and inequality will only continue to get worse and then clearly work wouldn't be paying and we would be going backwards rather than forwards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a higher minimum wage, as the current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life. In the face of the rising costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. Even though some people on the minimum wage may receive benefits as well, those benefits should not be restricted as it is supporting job creation. What people get paid right now is not sufficient for a good quality of life, but also to ensure we do not enter recession. If all of our bills can be raised by inflation once a year then the minimum wage and the minimum income being paid to the poorest workers should do the same because otherwise the poorest workers in our society will continue to get poorer and poorer and inequality will only continue to get worse and then clearly work wouldn't be paying and we would be going backwards rather than forwards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a higher minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life, and with increasing costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. What people get paid right now is not sufficient for a good quality of life, but also to ensure we do not enter recession. If all of our bills can be raised by inflation once a year then the minimum wage and the minimum income being paid to the poorest workers should do the same because otherwise the poorest workers in our society will continue to get poorer and poorer and inequality will only continue to get worse and then clearly work wouldn't be paying and we would be going backwards rather than forwards. This would require people to either pay more for the same output as before, or to get rid of some of their workers or pay their remaining workers more. Also, there are those on benefits that currently help increase spending in the economy, they cannot work themselves and will therefore only get poorer with higher inflation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life, and with increasing costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. What people get paid right now is not sufficient for a good quality of life, but also to ensure we do not enter recession. Disposable income is shrinking and these are the people that work and then spend everything they have with little savings to fall back on and that does help out the economy but now these people have less to spend and if they continue they are likely to fall into debt with interest rates rising sharply and it would help with growth and to prevent a worse recession which would only make the situation worse for the poorest workers and will see wages going in the wrong direction and will make inequality even worse and we will be going backwards rather than forwards so the minimum wage should be increased at least in line with inflation otherwise they will be getting poorer in real terms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life, and with increasing costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. The benefits that people on minimum wage receive should not be restricted; it is the government supporting job creation. If all of our bills can be raised by inflation once a year then the minimum wage and the minimum income being paid to the poorest workers should do the same because otherwise the poorest workers in our society will continue to get poorer and poorer and inequality will only continue to get worse and then clearly work wouldn't be paying and we would be going backwards rather than forwards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a higher minimum wage, as the current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life. In the face of the rising costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. Even though some people on the minimum wage may receive benefits as well, those benefits should not be restricted as it is supporting job creation. What people get paid right now is not sufficient for a good quality of life, but also to ensure we do not enter recession. If all of our bills can be raised by inflation once a year then the minimum wage and the minimum income being paid to the poorest workers should do the same because otherwise the poorest workers in our society will continue to get poorer and poorer and inequality will only continue to get worse and then clearly work wouldn't be paying and we would be going backwards rather than forwards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The current minimum wage is not sufficient for a good quality of life, and with increasing costs of living and the cost of living crisis, we need to ensure people have enough money to consume and purchase goods and services, helping out the economy. What people get paid right now is not sufficient for a good quality of life, but also to ensure we do not enter recession. If all of our bills can be raised by inflation once a year then the minimum wage and the minimum income being paid to the poorest workers should do the same because otherwise the poorest workers in our society will continue to get poorer and poorer and inequality will only continue to get worse and then clearly work wouldn't be paying and we would be going backwards rather than forwards. This would require people to either pay more for the same output as before, or to get rid of some of their workers or pay their remaining workers more. Also, there are those on benefits that currently help increase spending in the economy, they cannot work themselves and will therefore only get poorer with higher inflation. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001103.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001103.soc index ab6e2eb3..392498d1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001103.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001103.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that there should be a tax on sugary drinks as this will discourage people from buying them. In addition to this, the money that is collected will be able to be used in different ways to help with the obesity crisis. For example, this money could be used to subsidise healthier alternatives to sugary drinks, which would make it easier for people to access and help improve their diet. We also believe that it is important to implement a tax on sugary drinks as this will provide an incentive for companies to change their products in a healthier way. This is important as if companies are not using sugar in their products, people will not be purchasing them. This could help to solve the obesity crisis. However, there should be a reasonable limit to the tax as this will allow people to still be able to purchase the drinks, which they enjoy. In addition to this, we believe that the money raised through this tax should be used to subsidise healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, which will make them more affordable and accessible for people, as currently these foods are seen as luxury items for many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that there should be a tax on sugary drinks as this will discourage people from buying them. In addition to this, the money that is collected will be able to be used in different ways to help with the obesity crisis. For example, this money could be used to subsidise healthier alternatives to sugary drinks, which would make it easier for people to access and help improve their diet. However, there should be a reasonable limit to the tax as this will allow people to still be able to purchase the drinks, which they enjoy. In addition to this, we believe that the money raised through this tax should be used to subsidise healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, which will make them more affordable and accessible for people, as currently these foods are seen as luxury items for many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Finally, the group has agreed that we do need a tax on sugary drinks to help reduce the demand of the customers. There should be an overall tax on the drink which is promoted so that there is a message sent to the customers when they’re purchasing the drink that it is not a healthy choice. As the customers will see the tax has been implemented on the drink it will make them think twice about purchasing the drink as they know it is a negative and unhealthy product. The amount of sugar consumed in the UK is at an alarmingly high level and this can be the cause of many diseases and illnesses. We believe that the only people who will really be impacted by the introduction of a tax will be the customers. Not only will this discourage people from purchasing the drink it will encourage people to buy healthier alternatives. As there is an immediate raise of price due to the tax we believe this will be a great way of people eliminating their sugar intake and improving the health of the country. The group also discussed the positive effect which will come as a result of the tax; for example, the amount of revenue which will be created. This money can then be put into other positive ideas, for example, subsidising healthy food and putting -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be a small tax on sugary drinks as this will discourage people from buying them. In addition to this, the money that is collected will be able to be used in different ways to help with the obesity crisis. For example, this money could be used to subsidise healthier alternatives to sugary drinks, which would make it easier for people to access and help improve their diet. We also believe that it is important to implement a tax on sugary drinks as this will provide an incentive for companies to change their products in a healthier way. This is important as if companies are not using sugar in their products, people will not be purchasing them. This could help to solve the obesity crisis. However, there should be a reasonable limit to the tax as this will allow people to still be able to purchase the drinks, which they enjoy. In addition to this, we believe that the money raised through this tax should be used to subsidise healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, which will make them more affordable and accessible for people, as currently these foods are seen as luxury items for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that there should be a tax on sugary drinks as this will discourage people from buying them. In addition to this, the money that is collected will be able to be used in different ways to help with the obesity crisis. For example, this money could be used to subsidise healthier alternatives to sugary drinks, which would make it easier for people to access and help improve their diet. We also believe that it is important to implement a tax on sugary drinks as this will provide an incentive for companies to change their products in a healthier way. This is important as if companies are not using sugar in their products, people will not be purchasing them. This could help to solve the obesity crisis. However, there should be a reasonable limit to the tax as this will allow people to still be able to purchase the drinks, which they enjoy. In addition to this, we believe that the money raised through this tax should be used to subsidise healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, which will make them more affordable and accessible for people, as currently these foods are seen as luxury items for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that there should be a tax on sugary drinks as this will discourage people from buying them. In addition to this, the money that is collected will be able to be used in different ways to help with the obesity crisis. For example, this money could be used to subsidise healthier alternatives to sugary drinks, which would make it easier for people to access and help improve their diet. However, there should be a reasonable limit to the tax as this will allow people to still be able to purchase the drinks, which they enjoy. In addition to this, we believe that the money raised through this tax should be used to subsidise healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, which will make them more affordable and accessible for people, as currently these foods are seen as luxury items for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Finally, the group has agreed that we do need a tax on sugary drinks to help reduce the demand of the customers. There should be an overall tax on the drink which is promoted so that there is a message sent to the customers when they’re purchasing the drink that it is not a healthy choice. As the customers will see the tax has been implemented on the drink it will make them think twice about purchasing the drink as they know it is a negative and unhealthy product. The amount of sugar consumed in the UK is at an alarmingly high level and this can be the cause of many diseases and illnesses. We believe that the only people who will really be impacted by the introduction of a tax will be the customers. Not only will this discourage people from purchasing the drink it will encourage people to buy healthier alternatives. As there is an immediate raise of price due to the tax we believe this will be a great way of people eliminating their sugar intake and improving the health of the country. The group also discussed the positive effect which will come as a result of the tax; for example, the amount of revenue which will be created. This money can then be put into other positive ideas, for example, subsidising healthy food and putting +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be a small tax on sugary drinks as this will discourage people from buying them. In addition to this, the money that is collected will be able to be used in different ways to help with the obesity crisis. For example, this money could be used to subsidise healthier alternatives to sugary drinks, which would make it easier for people to access and help improve their diet. We also believe that it is important to implement a tax on sugary drinks as this will provide an incentive for companies to change their products in a healthier way. This is important as if companies are not using sugar in their products, people will not be purchasing them. This could help to solve the obesity crisis. However, there should be a reasonable limit to the tax as this will allow people to still be able to purchase the drinks, which they enjoy. In addition to this, we believe that the money raised through this tax should be used to subsidise healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, which will make them more affordable and accessible for people, as currently these foods are seen as luxury items for many people. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001104.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001104.soc index 0ed0b149..590d45cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001104.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001104.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group felt that the question was very difficult to answer due to the fact that the NHS is such a large and important part of the UK. It was agreed that more funding would be needed at some point, but it should not be the first course of action. The NHS needs to make the best use of what they have before asking for more. We should look at the health systems of other countries, such as the US, to see what improvements we could make to our own. It is important that the NHS is modernised and adapted to the current health problems of the UK, rather than funding it more and more without change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system, but only if the money was used responsibly and efficiently. It was also agreed that the NHS should be updated and improved to ensure that it can cope with the increasing demands of an aging population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system. The NHS is an important part of British society and is something that we should be proud of. It is important that we continue to invest in the NHS, however it is also important that this money is used in the most efficient way possible. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is a vital part of life in the UK, and we have the third best healthcare in the world, but we should be number one. However, the NHS cannot work with so little funding, it needs to be increased, but this increase needs to be efficiently and effectively implemented, as there are many problems with the NHS that need to be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group felt that the question was very difficult to answer due to the fact that the NHS is such a large and important part of the UK. It was agreed that more funding would be needed at some point, but it should not be the first course of action. The NHS needs to make the best use of what they have before asking for more. We should look at the health systems of other countries, such as the US, to see what improvements we could make to our own. It is important that the NHS is modernised and adapted to the current health problems of the UK, rather than funding it more and more without change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system, but only if the money was used responsibly and efficiently. It was also agreed that the NHS should be updated and improved to ensure that it can cope with the increasing demands of an aging population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system. The NHS is an important part of British society and is something that we should be proud of. It is important that we continue to invest in the NHS, however it is also important that this money is used in the most efficient way possible. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is a vital part of life in the UK, and we have the third best healthcare in the world, but we should be number one. However, the NHS cannot work with so little funding, it needs to be increased, but this increase needs to be efficiently and effectively implemented, as there are many problems with the NHS that need to be addressed. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001105.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001105.soc index 45486510..a8ad0831 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001105.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001105.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The move to more sustainable energy sources will certainly make a real difference to global warming. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to show that carbon emissions released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is causing rapid increases in global temperatures and this in turn is leading to problems such as rising sea levels, melting glaciers and climate change. Energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric is generated with the use of natural resources and thus does not contribute to global warming. Although renewable energy can be more expensive, there are other benefits to it that also make it a more sustainable option. Conclusion The use of fossil fuels such as oil and gas is a very unsustainable way to meet the world's ever increasing energy demands. The effects of burning these fuels is having a profound effect on the world's environment and climate, which is causing more and more problems as time goes on. This is due to the vast amounts of harmful emissions released into the atmosphere, which are causing rapid increases in global temperatures and an imbalance in our environment. The depletion of the world's supply of fossil fuels is also becoming a concern and a move to more sustainable energy sources will help combat this. Renewable energy is the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. We think that the use of more sustainable energy sources such as wind power, solar and hydroelectric will stop us depleting the world's supply of fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Burning these fuels lets off harmful emissions which go into our atmosphere. These emissions lead to global warming and an increase in things such as wildfires and flooding. More sustainable energy sources harvest the world's natural resources so it does not contribute towards global warming. We think that there has been clear evidence that mans use of fossil fuels is having a profound effect on global warming. There are also a multitude of reasons to invest in more sustainable energy sources such as energy security and cost efficacy. Our energy expenditure has a strong influence on the greenhouse emissions that are released into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming that causes a wide range of environmental as well as biological problems. A movement towards more sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro will reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as other harmful greenhouse gasses we are mindlessly pumping into the air, thus easing the problem of global warming. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Movement towards more sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro is likely to make a real difference to global warming. This was derived from all the points raised and is a view which all participants agreed upon. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. This is because fossil fuels are one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions and by replacing this with renewable or sustainable energy sources which move to 'net zero' we can reduce the impact of global warming. This is something that should be a high priority for all current governments in first world countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The move to more sustainable energy sources will certainly make a real difference to global warming. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to show that carbon emissions released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is causing rapid increases in global temperatures and this in turn is leading to problems such as rising sea levels, melting glaciers and climate change. Energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric is generated with the use of natural resources and thus does not contribute to global warming. Although renewable energy can be more expensive, there are other benefits to it that also make it a more sustainable option. Conclusion The use of fossil fuels such as oil and gas is a very unsustainable way to meet the world's ever increasing energy demands. The effects of burning these fuels is having a profound effect on the world's environment and climate, which is causing more and more problems as time goes on. This is due to the vast amounts of harmful emissions released into the atmosphere, which are causing rapid increases in global temperatures and an imbalance in our environment. The depletion of the world's supply of fossil fuels is also becoming a concern and a move to more sustainable energy sources will help combat this. Renewable energy is the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. We think that the use of more sustainable energy sources such as wind power, solar and hydroelectric will stop us depleting the world's supply of fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Burning these fuels lets off harmful emissions which go into our atmosphere. These emissions lead to global warming and an increase in things such as wildfires and flooding. More sustainable energy sources harvest the world's natural resources so it does not contribute towards global warming. We think that there has been clear evidence that mans use of fossil fuels is having a profound effect on global warming. There are also a multitude of reasons to invest in more sustainable energy sources such as energy security and cost efficacy. Our energy expenditure has a strong influence on the greenhouse emissions that are released into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming that causes a wide range of environmental as well as biological problems. A movement towards more sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro will reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as other harmful greenhouse gasses we are mindlessly pumping into the air, thus easing the problem of global warming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Movement towards more sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro is likely to make a real difference to global warming. This was derived from all the points raised and is a view which all participants agreed upon. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. This is because fossil fuels are one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions and by replacing this with renewable or sustainable energy sources which move to 'net zero' we can reduce the impact of global warming. This is something that should be a high priority for all current governments in first world countries. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001106.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001106.soc index 111b0567..70f72dd6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001106.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001106.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not reduce the age at which people can drink alcohol. There is a reason that there is an age limit on alcohol consumption, and that is because alcohol can cause many problems in society. Allowing younger people to consume alcohol will only add to the problems that we already have. Alcohol is a drug, and is addictive. Alcohol causes too many illnesses and addiction can lead to a breakdown in relationships and even violence. No-one under the age of an adult - considered to be 18 - should be drinking alcohol. We should not encourage the drinking of alcohol at all, and certainly not make it freely available to minors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to lowering the legal drinking age. There was a recognition that alcohol is a legal substance and that it is widely consumed in our society. There was a recognition that alcohol can be consumed in a responsible manner and that many people do not have problems with alcohol. However, the group was also aware that alcohol can be dangerous if not used with some responsibility and that people under the age of 18 are less likely to be to have the life experience to have that. The group felt that there is an age limit for a reason, and allowing younger people to consume alcohol at younger ages is asking for trouble. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Alcohol is a drug and is addictive. It can cause a great deal of damage to both the person who is addicted and their families. It is not just drinking to excess that causes harm but the use of alcohol in moderation can be harmful as well. There are many factors that contribute to alcohol related harm including; the amount of alcohol drunk, the frequency with which it is drunk, whether it is drunk alone or with other people, and whether the person is under the influence of other substances, particularly drugs. Alcohol can contribute to sexual assaults, fights, road traffic accidents, and assaults. It can cause long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. It is important that young people are educated about the potential harms of alcohol but equally it is important that they are not allowed access to it. Reducing the age at which people can drink would only increase the risk of alcohol related harm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are arguments on both sides of the debate, we believe that the current age at which people can legally purchase alcohol should not be reduced. Our main reasons for this are as follows: 1. Drinking alcohol at an early age can be harmful to health 2. Many people are not responsible with alcohol when they first start drinking, leading to an increase in binge drinking and alcohol related incidents. 3. It is difficult to judge a person's maturity and their ability to drink responsibly. We would not wish to see younger people drinking in a harmful way and alcohol related problems are a real problem that we see in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not reduce the age at which people can drink alcohol. There is a reason that there is an age limit on alcohol consumption, and that is because alcohol can cause many problems in society. Allowing younger people to consume alcohol will only add to the problems that we already have. Alcohol is a drug, and is addictive. Alcohol causes too many illnesses and addiction can lead to a breakdown in relationships and even violence. No-one under the age of an adult - considered to be 18 - should be drinking alcohol. We should not encourage the drinking of alcohol at all, and certainly not make it freely available to minors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to lowering the legal drinking age. There was a recognition that alcohol is a legal substance and that it is widely consumed in our society. There was a recognition that alcohol can be consumed in a responsible manner and that many people do not have problems with alcohol. However, the group was also aware that alcohol can be dangerous if not used with some responsibility and that people under the age of 18 are less likely to be to have the life experience to have that. The group felt that there is an age limit for a reason, and allowing younger people to consume alcohol at younger ages is asking for trouble. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Alcohol is a drug and is addictive. It can cause a great deal of damage to both the person who is addicted and their families. It is not just drinking to excess that causes harm but the use of alcohol in moderation can be harmful as well. There are many factors that contribute to alcohol related harm including; the amount of alcohol drunk, the frequency with which it is drunk, whether it is drunk alone or with other people, and whether the person is under the influence of other substances, particularly drugs. Alcohol can contribute to sexual assaults, fights, road traffic accidents, and assaults. It can cause long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. It is important that young people are educated about the potential harms of alcohol but equally it is important that they are not allowed access to it. Reducing the age at which people can drink would only increase the risk of alcohol related harm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are arguments on both sides of the debate, we believe that the current age at which people can legally purchase alcohol should not be reduced. Our main reasons for this are as follows: 1. Drinking alcohol at an early age can be harmful to health 2. Many people are not responsible with alcohol when they first start drinking, leading to an increase in binge drinking and alcohol related incidents. 3. It is difficult to judge a person's maturity and their ability to drink responsibly. We would not wish to see younger people drinking in a harmful way and alcohol related problems are a real problem that we see in society. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001107.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001107.soc index 25998a05..900bc4af 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001107.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001107.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although teachers have a duty to provide students with a well rounded education, they also have a right to their own beliefs, which should be respected. If a parent feels that their child is being pressured into a certain belief, they should address this with the school rather than asking to know the religion of the teacher. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that parents should not have the right to know the religion of their child's teacher. Religion is a private matter that has no place in the workplace and the classroom, as all religions are equal and we believe that it is wrong to treat them any differently. Teachers are in the position of authority and have a responsibility to provide a balanced education for all children and must keep their own religious beliefs private. In the case where parents have a concern that a teacher's personal religious beliefs are being passed on to their children, then they have the right to address these concerns with the school and the teacher, but it is not their right to have this information without reason. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, parents should not have the right to know the religion of their child’s teachers. The religion of a teacher should not affect the way they do their job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to know the religion of their child’s teachers. However, they felt that this information should only be provided if there is evidence that the teacher is pushing their religion onto the children. The group felt that this would be a breach of the teacher’s professional code of conduct. The group also felt that the religion of the teacher should not be a barrier to employment, and that teachers should be hired on the basis of their qualifications and experience. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although teachers have a duty to provide students with a well rounded education, they also have a right to their own beliefs, which should be respected. If a parent feels that their child is being pressured into a certain belief, they should address this with the school rather than asking to know the religion of the teacher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that parents should not have the right to know the religion of their child's teacher. Religion is a private matter that has no place in the workplace and the classroom, as all religions are equal and we believe that it is wrong to treat them any differently. Teachers are in the position of authority and have a responsibility to provide a balanced education for all children and must keep their own religious beliefs private. In the case where parents have a concern that a teacher's personal religious beliefs are being passed on to their children, then they have the right to address these concerns with the school and the teacher, but it is not their right to have this information without reason. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, parents should not have the right to know the religion of their child’s teachers. The religion of a teacher should not affect the way they do their job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of parents having the right to know the religion of their child’s teachers. However, they felt that this information should only be provided if there is evidence that the teacher is pushing their religion onto the children. The group felt that this would be a breach of the teacher’s professional code of conduct. The group also felt that the religion of the teacher should not be a barrier to employment, and that teachers should be hired on the basis of their qualifications and experience. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001108.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001108.soc index 514e2254..a520758e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001108.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001108.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system. The NHS is something that we should be proud of, and is an essential part of British society. It is important that we continue to invest in the NHS, however it is also important that this money is used in the most efficient way possible. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. I believe that this is the most objective view that the group could make, and that it was a sensible representation of all of our opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system. The NHS is an important part of British society and is something that we should be proud of. It is important that we continue to invest in the NHS, however it is also important that this money is used in the most efficient way possible. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we were in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system, because it is the backbone of British society. I was especially struck by the fact that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. Summary/Decision: With no further suggested revisions, the participants agreed on the above statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be an increase in funding for the public health system. This is something that we should be proud of, and something that we should continue to invest in. The NHS is an important part of British society. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. This money should be used in the most efficient way possible. This was the best way to take into account the various concerns of the participants, and to reach a consensus that the majority of the participants can agree with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system. The NHS is something that we should be proud of, and is an essential part of British society. It is important that we continue to invest in the NHS, however it is also important that this money is used in the most efficient way possible. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. I believe that this is the most objective view that the group could make, and that it was a sensible representation of all of our opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system. The NHS is an important part of British society and is something that we should be proud of. It is important that we continue to invest in the NHS, however it is also important that this money is used in the most efficient way possible. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we were in favour of increasing the funding for the public health system, because it is the backbone of British society. I was especially struck by the fact that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. Summary/Decision: With no further suggested revisions, the participants agreed on the above statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be an increase in funding for the public health system. This is something that we should be proud of, and something that we should continue to invest in. The NHS is an important part of British society. It is very telling that nurses are striking due to low wages and poor working conditions. The NHS has come under a lot of criticism recently over similar topics, and one of quickest ways to amend the problems is to increase funding. This money should be used in the most efficient way possible. This was the best way to take into account the various concerns of the participants, and to reach a consensus that the majority of the participants can agree with. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001109.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001109.soc index 22cdbef9..c725b0a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001109.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001109.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not wrong to use recreational drugs, if they are used sensibly. This will differ from person to person, and should be based on scientific research into the drugs in question, so that the individual can decide for themselves whether they would benefit from the use of that drug, and whether they can afford the financial cost, health costs, and other potential harms that might result. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The law should not prohibit victimless crimes. However it is important to educate people on the potentially harmful side effects of recreational drugs. People need to understand that there are some risks to their health and their social interactions. Some recreational drugs are not very safe to use and some can be highly addictive and people should be aware of the risks. Some recreational drugs are safer than others. It is wrong to use recreational drugs if you are pregnant and this is highly dangerous to the baby and could result in the child having serious medical problems. It is not a good idea to try drugs, even once, as you could become addicted. However it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if they wish to take recreational drugs. It is not for the law to tell people what to do and what not to do, especially if there is no victim. However, it is up to people to take responsibility for their own actions and understand the potential risks to themselves and their family and friends." Discussion: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of recreational drugs is wrong, but it is not always wrong to use recreational drugs. The use of recreational drugs can lead to addiction and other harms, but some people might have a legitimate need and it might really help them and they might not prevent a danger to themselves or anyone else. The use of recreational drugs is a choice, but the law should not punish victimless crimes, unless the result of those actions can have an effect on wider society. For example, crash helmets should be worn by motorcycle riders because of the protection they offer in the event of a crash, and the potential need for expensive hospital treatment if they are not worn. However while nothing is completely safe, drugs that are proven to be as safe as paracetamol, say, should not be restricted. There should also be a campaign of education regarding them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs. The use of legal drugs should be allowed as long as the person is old enough to make their own decisions and they do not become addicted to them. The use of illegal drugs should be punished. The punishment should not be severe, but it should be enough to deter people from using them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not wrong to use recreational drugs, if they are used sensibly. This will differ from person to person, and should be based on scientific research into the drugs in question, so that the individual can decide for themselves whether they would benefit from the use of that drug, and whether they can afford the financial cost, health costs, and other potential harms that might result. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The law should not prohibit victimless crimes. However it is important to educate people on the potentially harmful side effects of recreational drugs. People need to understand that there are some risks to their health and their social interactions. Some recreational drugs are not very safe to use and some can be highly addictive and people should be aware of the risks. Some recreational drugs are safer than others. It is wrong to use recreational drugs if you are pregnant and this is highly dangerous to the baby and could result in the child having serious medical problems. It is not a good idea to try drugs, even once, as you could become addicted. However it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if they wish to take recreational drugs. It is not for the law to tell people what to do and what not to do, especially if there is no victim. However, it is up to people to take responsibility for their own actions and understand the potential risks to themselves and their family and friends." Discussion: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of recreational drugs is wrong, but it is not always wrong to use recreational drugs. The use of recreational drugs can lead to addiction and other harms, but some people might have a legitimate need and it might really help them and they might not prevent a danger to themselves or anyone else. The use of recreational drugs is a choice, but the law should not punish victimless crimes, unless the result of those actions can have an effect on wider society. For example, crash helmets should be worn by motorcycle riders because of the protection they offer in the event of a crash, and the potential need for expensive hospital treatment if they are not worn. However while nothing is completely safe, drugs that are proven to be as safe as paracetamol, say, should not be restricted. There should also be a campaign of education regarding them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs. The use of legal drugs should be allowed as long as the person is old enough to make their own decisions and they do not become addicted to them. The use of illegal drugs should be punished. The punishment should not be severe, but it should be enough to deter people from using them. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001110.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001110.soc index ecfe6094..6ee13985 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001110.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001110.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It should not be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it would not be fair to make this a criminal offence, as some people may choose not to vote due to personal reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of not making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because the UK is a democracy and people should have the right to express their views freely. The group also believed that it is important to have a free and fair election, and making it a crime to not vote could lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid getting into trouble. The group also believed that the statistics would be ruined as it would be impossible to tell which votes are genuine and which votes are simply because people were forced to do it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is a right of every British citizen to vote, however, it should not be criminalised if they do not. It is a persons right to choose not to vote as it may be a way for them to show their dissatisfaction with the political parties. Although it would be preferable if everyone would exercise their right to vote, we believe that there should be no criminal consequences for those who choose not to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It should not be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it would not be fair to make this a criminal offence, as some people may choose not to vote due to personal reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of not making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because the UK is a democracy and people should have the right to express their views freely. The group also believed that it is important to have a free and fair election, and making it a crime to not vote could lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid getting into trouble. The group also believed that the statistics would be ruined as it would be impossible to tell which votes are genuine and which votes are simply because people were forced to do it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is a right of every British citizen to vote, however, it should not be criminalised if they do not. It is a persons right to choose not to vote as it may be a way for them to show their dissatisfaction with the political parties. Although it would be preferable if everyone would exercise their right to vote, we believe that there should be no criminal consequences for those who choose not to. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001111.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001111.soc index 46a90aeb..ebf45527 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001111.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001111.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We have debated the issue of whether young people should be allowed to vote in elections, and we have decided that it is an issue that should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Some younger people may be ready to vote by the age of 18 and some may not. This should be taken into account when voting, however a minimum age limit should be set to ensure that some children are not pressured into voting by their parents. Younger people also need to be able to understand the ramifications of the vote and be able to vote independently of their parents. This would help ensure that the vote is democratic. Younger people are also vulnerable to coercion, and it is important that younger people are able to make an informed choice.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although some younger people are highly intelligent & have an excellent understanding of how the the world work, most young people don't have enough life experience to make an informed decision, and even some adults still struggle, so i think younger people shouldn't be allowed to vote. However, the elderly people are allowed to vote, so why shouldn't younger people be allowed to vote too? The world is rapidly changing and we don't know what the future will bring, so why should the elderly be the only ones to make decisions that will affect the future? The conservative party recently attempted to exploit this by adding ID to voting to try and limit younger people's capacity to vote. Yes - they will be dealing with the consequences of decisions made by our government as adults, so they should be allowed to have a choice on who is making those decisions. It would help pass policies that help the youth, like funding for universities, increased employment and reduced rent, since these are issues that affect younger people in a unique way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. We feel that young people have the right to vote on the future of their country. The age of 18 is a good age to start voting, as young people are becoming more independent and have a better understanding of the world. However, we feel that the voting age should be raised to 21 for local elections. This is because local elections affect the area that a young person lives in, and it is important that they have a good understanding of the area. For example, a young person may not have a good understanding of local issues such as transport and housing, and this may affect their vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. We should not assume that young people are not intelligent enough to vote. There should be an age limit to voting, but it should be lowered from 18 to 16. This is because many young people are becoming more independent and responsible at a younger age. It is also because many young people are facing problems in their lives that are unique to their age group, and their opinions should be considered when making decisions that will affect them. The group also believes that the conservative party is trying to limit young people's capacity to vote by adding ID to voting, and that this is wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We have debated the issue of whether young people should be allowed to vote in elections, and we have decided that it is an issue that should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Some younger people may be ready to vote by the age of 18 and some may not. This should be taken into account when voting, however a minimum age limit should be set to ensure that some children are not pressured into voting by their parents. Younger people also need to be able to understand the ramifications of the vote and be able to vote independently of their parents. This would help ensure that the vote is democratic. Younger people are also vulnerable to coercion, and it is important that younger people are able to make an informed choice.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although some younger people are highly intelligent & have an excellent understanding of how the the world work, most young people don't have enough life experience to make an informed decision, and even some adults still struggle, so i think younger people shouldn't be allowed to vote. However, the elderly people are allowed to vote, so why shouldn't younger people be allowed to vote too? The world is rapidly changing and we don't know what the future will bring, so why should the elderly be the only ones to make decisions that will affect the future? The conservative party recently attempted to exploit this by adding ID to voting to try and limit younger people's capacity to vote. Yes - they will be dealing with the consequences of decisions made by our government as adults, so they should be allowed to have a choice on who is making those decisions. It would help pass policies that help the youth, like funding for universities, increased employment and reduced rent, since these are issues that affect younger people in a unique way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. We feel that young people have the right to vote on the future of their country. The age of 18 is a good age to start voting, as young people are becoming more independent and have a better understanding of the world. However, we feel that the voting age should be raised to 21 for local elections. This is because local elections affect the area that a young person lives in, and it is important that they have a good understanding of the area. For example, a young person may not have a good understanding of local issues such as transport and housing, and this may affect their vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. We should not assume that young people are not intelligent enough to vote. There should be an age limit to voting, but it should be lowered from 18 to 16. This is because many young people are becoming more independent and responsible at a younger age. It is also because many young people are facing problems in their lives that are unique to their age group, and their opinions should be considered when making decisions that will affect them. The group also believes that the conservative party is trying to limit young people's capacity to vote by adding ID to voting, and that this is wrong. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001112.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001112.soc index afdc5522..6ddcb91c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001112.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001112.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are many factors that contribute to alcohol related harm including; the amount of alcohol drunk, the frequency with which it is drunk, whether it is drunk alone or with other people, and whether the person is under the influence of other substances, particularly drugs. Alcohol can contribute to sexual assaults, fights, road traffic accidents, and assaults. It can cause long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. It is important that young people are educated about the potential harms of alcohol but equally it is important that they are not allowed access to it. The reason for this is that underage people may not fully realise the destructive potential of alcohol or overly care about that at such a young age. Maturity is hugely important when approaching the consumption of alcohol. Conclusion This is an example of a process of consensus building. It is not an example of a true consensus process because there is no real decision to be made and no action to be taken as a result of the process. However, it shows how different opinions can be debated and ultimately combined into a single view that is acceptable to all. It is important to note that this process did not require any participants to change their own personal view on the subject -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Alcohol is a drug and is addictive. It can cause a great deal of damage to both the person who is addicted and their families. Alcohol use can have a profound impact on sexual behaviour, judgement, safety and violence. It can also lead to serious long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. As alcohol is so destructive it is vital that young people are educated about its potential harms and also that society ensures that young people do not have access to it, particularly when accompanied with other harms and risk factors such as drug taking and sex. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The legal age for drinking alcohol should not be reduced. Alcohol is a drug and is addictive. Alcohol can cause a great deal of damage to both the person who is addicted and their families. It is not just drinking to excess that causes harm but the use of alcohol in moderation can be harmful as well. There are many factors that contribute to alcohol related harm including; the amount of alcohol drunk, the frequency with which it is drunk, whether it is drunk alone or with other people, and whether the person is under the influence of other substances, particularly drugs. Alcohol can contribute to sexual assaults, fights, road traffic accidents, and assaults. It can cause long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. It is important that young people are educated about the potential harms of alcohol but equally it is important that they are not allowed access to it. Reducing the age at which people can drink would only increase the risk of alcohol related harm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: While moderate consumption of alcohol by healthy adults can be safe and some research has even shown that it can be beneficial to cardiovascular and neurological health, alcohol is a drug and is addictive. It can cause a great deal of damage to both the person who is addicted and their families. It is not just drinking to excess that causes harm but the use of alcohol in moderation can be harmful as well. There are many factors that contribute to alcohol related harm including; the amount of alcohol drunk, the frequency with which it is drunk, whether it is drunk alone or with other people, and whether the person is under the influence of other substances, particularly drugs. Alcohol can contribute to sexual assaults, fights, road traffic accidents, and assaults. It can cause long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. It is important that young people are educated about the potential harms of alcohol but equally it is important that they are not allowed access to it. Reducing the age at which people can drink would only increase the risk of alcohol related harm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are many factors that contribute to alcohol related harm including; the amount of alcohol drunk, the frequency with which it is drunk, whether it is drunk alone or with other people, and whether the person is under the influence of other substances, particularly drugs. Alcohol can contribute to sexual assaults, fights, road traffic accidents, and assaults. It can cause long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. It is important that young people are educated about the potential harms of alcohol but equally it is important that they are not allowed access to it. The reason for this is that underage people may not fully realise the destructive potential of alcohol or overly care about that at such a young age. Maturity is hugely important when approaching the consumption of alcohol. Conclusion This is an example of a process of consensus building. It is not an example of a true consensus process because there is no real decision to be made and no action to be taken as a result of the process. However, it shows how different opinions can be debated and ultimately combined into a single view that is acceptable to all. It is important to note that this process did not require any participants to change their own personal view on the subject +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Alcohol is a drug and is addictive. It can cause a great deal of damage to both the person who is addicted and their families. Alcohol use can have a profound impact on sexual behaviour, judgement, safety and violence. It can also lead to serious long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. As alcohol is so destructive it is vital that young people are educated about its potential harms and also that society ensures that young people do not have access to it, particularly when accompanied with other harms and risk factors such as drug taking and sex. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The legal age for drinking alcohol should not be reduced. Alcohol is a drug and is addictive. Alcohol can cause a great deal of damage to both the person who is addicted and their families. It is not just drinking to excess that causes harm but the use of alcohol in moderation can be harmful as well. There are many factors that contribute to alcohol related harm including; the amount of alcohol drunk, the frequency with which it is drunk, whether it is drunk alone or with other people, and whether the person is under the influence of other substances, particularly drugs. Alcohol can contribute to sexual assaults, fights, road traffic accidents, and assaults. It can cause long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. It is important that young people are educated about the potential harms of alcohol but equally it is important that they are not allowed access to it. Reducing the age at which people can drink would only increase the risk of alcohol related harm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: While moderate consumption of alcohol by healthy adults can be safe and some research has even shown that it can be beneficial to cardiovascular and neurological health, alcohol is a drug and is addictive. It can cause a great deal of damage to both the person who is addicted and their families. It is not just drinking to excess that causes harm but the use of alcohol in moderation can be harmful as well. There are many factors that contribute to alcohol related harm including; the amount of alcohol drunk, the frequency with which it is drunk, whether it is drunk alone or with other people, and whether the person is under the influence of other substances, particularly drugs. Alcohol can contribute to sexual assaults, fights, road traffic accidents, and assaults. It can cause long term health problems including; liver disease, brain damage, increased risk of cancer and diabetes. It is important that young people are educated about the potential harms of alcohol but equally it is important that they are not allowed access to it. Reducing the age at which people can drink would only increase the risk of alcohol related harm. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001113.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001113.soc index 1ba7f058..71f93cf2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001113.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001113.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. The group also believed that it would lead to a lot of fake votes for people who are simply throwing their vote away to not get into trouble. This would ruin the statistics as it would be impossible to tell which votes are genuine and which votes are simply because people were forced to do it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. Conclusion: By allowing dissenting viewpoints to be taken into account, I found that a much more coherent view could be reached with consideration of the questions presented. This is something that I would definitely encourage in political life and that is shown in the gradual liberalisation of discussion and debate in the past few decades. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. The group also believed that there are more important issues facing the country than whether or not people vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. The group also believed that it would lead to a lot of fake votes for people who are simply throwing their vote away to not get into trouble. This would ruin the statistics as it would be impossible to tell which votes are genuine and which votes are simply because people were forced to do it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. Conclusion: By allowing dissenting viewpoints to be taken into account, I found that a much more coherent view could be reached with consideration of the questions presented. This is something that I would definitely encourage in political life and that is shown in the gradual liberalisation of discussion and debate in the past few decades. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. This is because it is a fundamental right of a democracy to be able to choose whether or not to vote. The group also believed that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people voting for a party they do not support in order to avoid being punished. The group also believed that there are more important issues facing the country than whether or not people vote. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001114.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001114.soc index 05a06a37..d53fa0de 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001114.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001114.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more open discussion about the use of recreational drugs. It is important to educate people on the potentially harmful side effects of recreational drugs. People need to understand that there are some risks to their health and their social interactions. Some recreational drugs are not very safe to use and some can be highly addictive and people should be aware of the risks. Some recreational drugs are safer than others. It is wrong to use recreational drugs if you are pregnant and this is highly dangerous to the baby and could result in the child having serious medical problems. It is not a good idea to try drugs, even once, as you could become addicted. However it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if they wish to take recreational drugs. It is not for the law to tell people what to do and what not to do, especially if there is no victim. However, it is up to people to take responsibility for their own actions and understand the potential risks to themselves and their family and friends. It should also be noted that some recreational drugs have been found to be beneficial in small doses for the treatment of certain conditions and so should be considered for their individual benefits and harms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be more open discussion about the effects of drugs. Some recreational drugs have the potential to be harmful but some are not so bad and are safer than others. There should be a move away from criminalisation of drugs for personal use and instead a move towards helping people and ensuring they are fully aware of the risks and the potential consequences. Some drugs are more addictive than others and some can cause serious damage to a developing foetus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: The law should not prohibit victimless crimes. However it is important to educate people on the potentially harmful side effects of recreational drugs. People need to understand that there are some risks to their health and their social interactions. Some recreational drugs are not very safe to use and some can be highly addictive and people should be aware of the risks. Some recreational drugs are safer than others. It is wrong to use recreational drugs if you are pregnant and this is highly dangerous to the baby and could result in the child having serious medical problems. It is not a good idea to try drugs, even once, as you could become addicted. However it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if they wish to take recreational drugs. It is not for the law to tell people what to do and what not to do, especially if there is no victim. However, it is up to people to take responsibility for their own actions and understand the potential risks to themselves and their family and friends. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more open discussion about the use of recreational drugs. It is important to educate people on the potentially harmful side effects of recreational drugs. People need to understand that there are some risks to their health and their social interactions. Some recreational drugs are not very safe to use and some can be highly addictive and people should be aware of the risks. Some recreational drugs are safer than others. It is wrong to use recreational drugs if you are pregnant and this is highly dangerous to the baby and could result in the child having serious medical problems. It is not a good idea to try drugs, even once, as you could become addicted. However it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if they wish to take recreational drugs. It is not for the law to tell people what to do and what not to do, especially if there is no victim. However, it is up to people to take responsibility for their own actions and understand the potential risks to themselves and their family and friends. It should also be noted that some recreational drugs have been found to be beneficial in small doses for the treatment of certain conditions and so should be considered for their individual benefits and harms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be more open discussion about the effects of drugs. Some recreational drugs have the potential to be harmful but some are not so bad and are safer than others. There should be a move away from criminalisation of drugs for personal use and instead a move towards helping people and ensuring they are fully aware of the risks and the potential consequences. Some drugs are more addictive than others and some can cause serious damage to a developing foetus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: The law should not prohibit victimless crimes. However it is important to educate people on the potentially harmful side effects of recreational drugs. People need to understand that there are some risks to their health and their social interactions. Some recreational drugs are not very safe to use and some can be highly addictive and people should be aware of the risks. Some recreational drugs are safer than others. It is wrong to use recreational drugs if you are pregnant and this is highly dangerous to the baby and could result in the child having serious medical problems. It is not a good idea to try drugs, even once, as you could become addicted. However it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if they wish to take recreational drugs. It is not for the law to tell people what to do and what not to do, especially if there is no victim. However, it is up to people to take responsibility for their own actions and understand the potential risks to themselves and their family and friends. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001115.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001115.soc index f970aed2..f95ff014 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001115.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001115.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of moving to a form of direct democracy. This is because people should have their say on issues that directly impact their lives. This would also make politicians more accountable for their actions. However, it was recognised that it would slow down the democratic process and that there is a danger that people would not be as informed as they should be on the issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should move to a form of direct democracy as it would allow people to have their say on important issues going on in the UK. It may also encourage people to take more of an interest in politics and current issues and make people feel more involved. It would also make people more actively engaged in politics, so you would hope that they care more about issues that affect everyone. Furthermore, people would hopefully become more educated about topics and would want to make positive changes for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Overall the group believe that we should move to a form of direct democracy as it is important that people have their say on important issues going on in the UK. It may also encourage people to take more of an interest in politics and current issues and make people feel more involved. However, it is very important that people are adequately educated on the issues and that the electorate are not swayed by the media to vote in a certain way. The key point here is that people would become more educated on issues. Politicians would also be kept in check and be held more accountable. It is also important that people do not get carried away with direct democracy and that it is used in moderation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although direct democracy is a good idea in theory, it would be extremely impractical in practice. Politicians are elected to make decisions for the electorate and therefore they should be able to do so. It would also slow down the democratic process and adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of moving to a form of direct democracy. This is because people should have their say on issues that directly impact their lives. This would also make politicians more accountable for their actions. However, it was recognised that it would slow down the democratic process and that there is a danger that people would not be as informed as they should be on the issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should move to a form of direct democracy as it would allow people to have their say on important issues going on in the UK. It may also encourage people to take more of an interest in politics and current issues and make people feel more involved. It would also make people more actively engaged in politics, so you would hope that they care more about issues that affect everyone. Furthermore, people would hopefully become more educated about topics and would want to make positive changes for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Overall the group believe that we should move to a form of direct democracy as it is important that people have their say on important issues going on in the UK. It may also encourage people to take more of an interest in politics and current issues and make people feel more involved. However, it is very important that people are adequately educated on the issues and that the electorate are not swayed by the media to vote in a certain way. The key point here is that people would become more educated on issues. Politicians would also be kept in check and be held more accountable. It is also important that people do not get carried away with direct democracy and that it is used in moderation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although direct democracy is a good idea in theory, it would be extremely impractical in practice. Politicians are elected to make decisions for the electorate and therefore they should be able to do so. It would also slow down the democratic process and adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated system. 3: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001116.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001116.soc index 9c74f86c..0d4164d0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001116.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001116.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not Ok to remove a bike chained to a fence if it is causing damage to the fence, if it is not causing damage it is ok to remove. If a resident is experiencing a repeated problem with bikes being chained to their fence and they have approached the bike owner, they can remove the bike from their fence after a couple of warnings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not okay to remove someone's bicycle that is chained to your fence. If you have had problems with bikes being chained to your fence on a number of occasions then the first step is to talk to the bike owner to ask them to find another place to put their bike and make them aware of the potential consequences if they don't remove the bike. If they persist in chaining their bike to your fence after you have spoken to them, then you can consider removing the bike. You should put it in a safe place where the owner will be able to get it when they return to collect it, and inform them why you have removed it. If they refuse to move their bike then you can consider putting it in storage for a small fee (such as at a council storage depot). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not OK to remove bicycles chained to your front fence. This is because the bike owner is not causing any damage to your property and is not taking up any space. They are also not making it difficult for you to move your car out of the driveway. This is because the bike owner has no where else to leave their bike and has done so in the hope that it will be safe. They have also chained it to the fence to prevent it from being stolen. It is not fair to remove their bike from the fence as this is their only option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of people being able to remove bicycles chained to their front fence. However, the group felt that this should be a last resort and that other avenues should be explored first. The group felt that the best way to resolve the issue would be to talk to the bike owner and try and come to some sort of agreement. If this was not possible, the group felt that it would be reasonable to remove the bike, but that it should be put to one side so that the owner could easily collect it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not Ok to remove a bike chained to a fence if it is causing damage to the fence, if it is not causing damage it is ok to remove. If a resident is experiencing a repeated problem with bikes being chained to their fence and they have approached the bike owner, they can remove the bike from their fence after a couple of warnings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not okay to remove someone's bicycle that is chained to your fence. If you have had problems with bikes being chained to your fence on a number of occasions then the first step is to talk to the bike owner to ask them to find another place to put their bike and make them aware of the potential consequences if they don't remove the bike. If they persist in chaining their bike to your fence after you have spoken to them, then you can consider removing the bike. You should put it in a safe place where the owner will be able to get it when they return to collect it, and inform them why you have removed it. If they refuse to move their bike then you can consider putting it in storage for a small fee (such as at a council storage depot). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not OK to remove bicycles chained to your front fence. This is because the bike owner is not causing any damage to your property and is not taking up any space. They are also not making it difficult for you to move your car out of the driveway. This is because the bike owner has no where else to leave their bike and has done so in the hope that it will be safe. They have also chained it to the fence to prevent it from being stolen. It is not fair to remove their bike from the fence as this is their only option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of people being able to remove bicycles chained to their front fence. However, the group felt that this should be a last resort and that other avenues should be explored first. The group felt that the best way to resolve the issue would be to talk to the bike owner and try and come to some sort of agreement. If this was not possible, the group felt that it would be reasonable to remove the bike, but that it should be put to one side so that the owner could easily collect it. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001117.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001117.soc index edfa3e93..fd206845 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001117.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001117.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy. They felt that it was a unique institution that brings with it a sense of national identity and continuity. They felt that the current system works well and should be maintained. They felt that it was an important part of the country's history and culture. They also felt that the monarchy is an important part of the tourism industry in the United Kingdom. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is better to have a monarchy than a republic. It is a part of our heritage and brings with it continuity and stability. Monarchs are often appointed for a long period of time, which brings with it consistency. The monarchy also brings in tourism and all the associated monetary benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the United Kingdom is a very successful country and we feel that the monarchy is a very small part of this success. The question of whether it is better to have a monarchy or republic is a vague one, and the answer depends on a lot of factors. A monarchy can provide stability and continuity, with a symbolic figurehead representing the nation. It may have been historical and cultural roots that instill a sense of national identity. On the other hand, a republic exercises democratic values and allows the mass public to have a degree of authority on the nation's key decisions. It promotes equal representation and can foster a sense of collective responsibility. We feel that the monarchy is something that is unique to the United Kingdom and something that we are proud of. However, the monarchy is something that is very costly and we feel that it is something that could be done away with and the country would still be very successful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is better to have a republic than a monarchy. A republic is a system of government that is based on democracy and promotes equal representation. It is a system that can give the public a degree of power and control over key decisions affecting the country, while allowing for the opportunity for new voices to come forward. Having a monarchy can often lead to stability and continuity, however, there are problems with having a monarchy. A monarchy is a system where the position of monarch is handed down by bloodlines, and therefore monarchs can be selected irrespective of their ability to do the job. A monarchy is often accompanied by traditions and ceremonies that cost a lot of money to maintain. Monarchs are often wealthy, and their wealth can come from their role as the Head of State. The monarchy may not have any direct power, but they have an enormous influence over what is going on in the country. They are often the representatives of the country at important events, and in some cases, such as in the United Kingdom, they have the right to give royal assent for bills that are passed by parliament. Having a monarchy could also lead to problems of legitimacy and support. For example, people may disagree with the position of monarch and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy. They felt that it was a unique institution that brings with it a sense of national identity and continuity. They felt that the current system works well and should be maintained. They felt that it was an important part of the country's history and culture. They also felt that the monarchy is an important part of the tourism industry in the United Kingdom. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is better to have a monarchy than a republic. It is a part of our heritage and brings with it continuity and stability. Monarchs are often appointed for a long period of time, which brings with it consistency. The monarchy also brings in tourism and all the associated monetary benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the United Kingdom is a very successful country and we feel that the monarchy is a very small part of this success. The question of whether it is better to have a monarchy or republic is a vague one, and the answer depends on a lot of factors. A monarchy can provide stability and continuity, with a symbolic figurehead representing the nation. It may have been historical and cultural roots that instill a sense of national identity. On the other hand, a republic exercises democratic values and allows the mass public to have a degree of authority on the nation's key decisions. It promotes equal representation and can foster a sense of collective responsibility. We feel that the monarchy is something that is unique to the United Kingdom and something that we are proud of. However, the monarchy is something that is very costly and we feel that it is something that could be done away with and the country would still be very successful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is better to have a republic than a monarchy. A republic is a system of government that is based on democracy and promotes equal representation. It is a system that can give the public a degree of power and control over key decisions affecting the country, while allowing for the opportunity for new voices to come forward. Having a monarchy can often lead to stability and continuity, however, there are problems with having a monarchy. A monarchy is a system where the position of monarch is handed down by bloodlines, and therefore monarchs can be selected irrespective of their ability to do the job. A monarchy is often accompanied by traditions and ceremonies that cost a lot of money to maintain. Monarchs are often wealthy, and their wealth can come from their role as the Head of State. The monarchy may not have any direct power, but they have an enormous influence over what is going on in the country. They are often the representatives of the country at important events, and in some cases, such as in the United Kingdom, they have the right to give royal assent for bills that are passed by parliament. Having a monarchy could also lead to problems of legitimacy and support. For example, people may disagree with the position of monarch and 3: 4,3,1,2 2: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001118.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001118.soc index 6efc0865..2e5f8904 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001118.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001118.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that people should not be able to buy or sell drugs as they are extremely dangerous and can cause serious damage to your body. It is also illegal which means you could be prosecuted for taking these drugs. Drugs can also be linked to gangs which means you could become a victim of crime. Drugs are also addictive and people could become addicted which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. It can also affect people's mental health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be allowed to buy and sell illegal drugs as this can have a negative impact on people, and the more that this drug is sold the more people will want to buy it which can lead to deaths and causing people to suffer from serious health issues, which is why I believe that this should not be allowed as this can cause grief and heartbreak for families and communities which is why I believe that this should not be allowed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be allowed to buy and sell illegal drugs like cocaine as this can cause mental health issues and lead to disruptive behaviour. Also, as the people who are selling these illegal drugs are not checked or regulated, they can sell drugs that are harmful to people and this can cause death. Also, people can become addicted to these illegal drugs which can lead to people committing crimes to support there habits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, people should not be allowed to buy and sell illegal drugs like cocaine as they are illegal for a reason. There are a lot of harms associated with taking drugs and it can also lead to people committing crimes. To legalise buying and selling drugs would make it easier for people to use drugs and hence more people will start taking drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that people should not be able to buy or sell drugs as they are extremely dangerous and can cause serious damage to your body. It is also illegal which means you could be prosecuted for taking these drugs. Drugs can also be linked to gangs which means you could become a victim of crime. Drugs are also addictive and people could become addicted which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. It can also affect people's mental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be allowed to buy and sell illegal drugs as this can have a negative impact on people, and the more that this drug is sold the more people will want to buy it which can lead to deaths and causing people to suffer from serious health issues, which is why I believe that this should not be allowed as this can cause grief and heartbreak for families and communities which is why I believe that this should not be allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be allowed to buy and sell illegal drugs like cocaine as this can cause mental health issues and lead to disruptive behaviour. Also, as the people who are selling these illegal drugs are not checked or regulated, they can sell drugs that are harmful to people and this can cause death. Also, people can become addicted to these illegal drugs which can lead to people committing crimes to support there habits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, people should not be allowed to buy and sell illegal drugs like cocaine as they are illegal for a reason. There are a lot of harms associated with taking drugs and it can also lead to people committing crimes. To legalise buying and selling drugs would make it easier for people to use drugs and hence more people will start taking drugs. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001119.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001119.soc index 784e73d7..9c15ac72 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001119.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001119.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should subsidize public transportation so that it's free to use. The benefits of free public transport would be that it would allow all people to have easy mobility regardless of wealth. It would also encourage better-off people to use public transport rather than their own vehicles as it would save them money, which would reduce pollution and congestion. The cost would be considerable, so a more realistic option may be to subsidise it to make it easily affordable but not free. This would have the advantage of discouraging people making unnecessary pleasure trips on public transport, reducing overcrowding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It would be a good idea for the government to subsidise public transport, as it would enable all people to have easy mobility regardless of wealth. This would allow poor people to go out and find better jobs without the need of money to pay for transport whilst job hunting. It would also encourage better-off people to use public transport rather than their own vehicles as it would save them money, which would reduce pollution and congestion. However the downside is that the cost would be considerable, so a more realistic option may be to subsidise it to make it easily affordable but not free. This would have the advantage of discouraging people making unnecessary pleasure trips on public transport, reducing overcrowding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group came to the consensus that the government should not subsidize public transport to make it free, but to subsidize it enough to make it affordable to the majority of people, so that everyone can use it. It would reduce pollution, increase the health of the nation, and increase access to services for the poorer members of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of free public transport, but with some reservations. The main concern was that it would encourage people to make unnecessary journeys, which would increase pollution and congestion. It was felt that a better option would be to subsidise public transport to make it more affordable, but not free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should subsidize public transportation so that it's free to use. The benefits of free public transport would be that it would allow all people to have easy mobility regardless of wealth. It would also encourage better-off people to use public transport rather than their own vehicles as it would save them money, which would reduce pollution and congestion. The cost would be considerable, so a more realistic option may be to subsidise it to make it easily affordable but not free. This would have the advantage of discouraging people making unnecessary pleasure trips on public transport, reducing overcrowding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It would be a good idea for the government to subsidise public transport, as it would enable all people to have easy mobility regardless of wealth. This would allow poor people to go out and find better jobs without the need of money to pay for transport whilst job hunting. It would also encourage better-off people to use public transport rather than their own vehicles as it would save them money, which would reduce pollution and congestion. However the downside is that the cost would be considerable, so a more realistic option may be to subsidise it to make it easily affordable but not free. This would have the advantage of discouraging people making unnecessary pleasure trips on public transport, reducing overcrowding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group came to the consensus that the government should not subsidize public transport to make it free, but to subsidize it enough to make it affordable to the majority of people, so that everyone can use it. It would reduce pollution, increase the health of the nation, and increase access to services for the poorer members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of free public transport, but with some reservations. The main concern was that it would encourage people to make unnecessary journeys, which would increase pollution and congestion. It was felt that a better option would be to subsidise public transport to make it more affordable, but not free. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001120.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001120.soc index a0aef2d8..31f1c7c9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001120.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001120.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of some form of Basic Income Guarantee. However, it was felt that the £100 per month proposed was too low, and that it would not solve many of the issues it was trying to solve. It was felt that the amount should be higher, and that it should be targeted at those who need it most. It was also felt that the current system is too complicated, and that a Basic Income Guarantee system would be much simpler and easier to understand. It was felt that the proposal would help the economy and those who need it the most. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of some form of Basic Income Guarantee. However, it was felt that the £100 per month proposed was too low, and that it would not solve many of the issues it was trying to solve. It was felt that the amount should be higher, and that it should be targeted at those who need it most. It was also felt that the current system is too complicated, and that a Basic Income Guarantee system would be much simpler and easier to understand, as well as improving the lives of the poorest by incentivising some forms of work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group in general was in favour of some form of Basic Income Guarantee, but that it should be targeted at those that need it most. However, it was felt that the proposed £100 per month would not be enough to improve people's lives, and would not solve many of the issues it was trying to solve. It was felt that the amount should be higher, and that it should be targeted at those that need it most. It was also felt that the current system is too complicated, and that a Basic Income Guarantee system would be much simpler and easier to understand. However, it was also agreed that £100 per month would be better than nothing, and would help out some people quite a bit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we were in favour of some form of Basic Income Guarantee. However, it was felt that the £100 per month proposed was too low, and that it would not solve many of the issues it was trying to solve. It was felt that the amount should be higher, and that it should be targeted at those who need it most. It was also felt that the current system is too complicated, and that a Basic Income Guarantee system would be much simpler and easier to understand. We felt that it should be provided by the Government, and that people would be able to save up their income to supplement it and that prices would rise, but that many would come out of poverty. Conclusion I believe that this experience makes a good case for the application of the Delphi technique. The group had a range of views, and there was active engagement as well as a desire to take into account all of the thoughts and opinions of the participants. I am very pleased with the outcome, and would like to work with the Roundtable Foundation to help provide more opportunities for groups of citizens to have their voices heard. Philip Crutchley was involved in the experiment. He is a social worker from Yorkshire. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of some form of Basic Income Guarantee. However, it was felt that the £100 per month proposed was too low, and that it would not solve many of the issues it was trying to solve. It was felt that the amount should be higher, and that it should be targeted at those who need it most. It was also felt that the current system is too complicated, and that a Basic Income Guarantee system would be much simpler and easier to understand. It was felt that the proposal would help the economy and those who need it the most. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of some form of Basic Income Guarantee. However, it was felt that the £100 per month proposed was too low, and that it would not solve many of the issues it was trying to solve. It was felt that the amount should be higher, and that it should be targeted at those who need it most. It was also felt that the current system is too complicated, and that a Basic Income Guarantee system would be much simpler and easier to understand, as well as improving the lives of the poorest by incentivising some forms of work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group in general was in favour of some form of Basic Income Guarantee, but that it should be targeted at those that need it most. However, it was felt that the proposed £100 per month would not be enough to improve people's lives, and would not solve many of the issues it was trying to solve. It was felt that the amount should be higher, and that it should be targeted at those that need it most. It was also felt that the current system is too complicated, and that a Basic Income Guarantee system would be much simpler and easier to understand. However, it was also agreed that £100 per month would be better than nothing, and would help out some people quite a bit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we were in favour of some form of Basic Income Guarantee. However, it was felt that the £100 per month proposed was too low, and that it would not solve many of the issues it was trying to solve. It was felt that the amount should be higher, and that it should be targeted at those who need it most. It was also felt that the current system is too complicated, and that a Basic Income Guarantee system would be much simpler and easier to understand. We felt that it should be provided by the Government, and that people would be able to save up their income to supplement it and that prices would rise, but that many would come out of poverty. Conclusion I believe that this experience makes a good case for the application of the Delphi technique. The group had a range of views, and there was active engagement as well as a desire to take into account all of the thoughts and opinions of the participants. I am very pleased with the outcome, and would like to work with the Roundtable Foundation to help provide more opportunities for groups of citizens to have their voices heard. Philip Crutchley was involved in the experiment. He is a social worker from Yorkshire. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001121.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001121.soc index aa13d4c0..25861ab6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001121.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001121.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should not be allowed to buy or sell drugs because they are extremely dangerous. This is because they can cause serious harm to your body as it damages your heart, brain and digestive system. Drugs can also be linked to gangs which means you could become a victim of crime. People may become addicted to these drugs which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. Conclusion: To sum up, both online and face-to-face environments offer a means by which learners can engage in meaningful debates on topical questions. The face-to-face environment offers the advantage of being able to see and hear each other which has been shown to enhance the quality of learner collaboration and to contribute to a positive class atmosphere. Learners could also work on a question on the same topic but put forward a different viewpoint, which would allow them to develop their critical thinking skills. Such debates could take place online too. A debate task does not always have to take place online or in class. Students could take part in individual home tasks or take part in face-to-face tasks which take place outside of class time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that people should not be allowed to buy or sell drugs as they are extremely dangerous and can cause serious damage to the health of the body. It is also illegal to buy or sell drugs and you could be prosecuted if you were to do so. These illegal substances can also be linked to gangs which is why you might become a victim of crime. Drugs are also addictive and people could become addicted which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. It can also affect people's mental health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be allowed to buy and sell illegal drugs like cocaine. This is because they are extremely dangerous and can cause serious damage to your body. It is also illegal which means you could be prosecuted for taking these drugs. Drugs can also be linked to gangs which means you could become a victim of crime. Drugs are also addictive and people could become addicted which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. It can also affect people's mental health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that people should not be able to buy or sell drugs as they are extremely dangerous and can cause serious damage to your body. It is also illegal which means you could be prosecuted for taking these drugs. Drugs can also be linked to gangs which means you could become a victim of crime. Drugs are also addictive and people could become addicted which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. It can also affect people's mental health. It is also very illegal and can result in a prosecution. The sale of drugs is also linked to gangs which means that if you buy illegal drugs you could become a victim of crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should not be allowed to buy or sell drugs because they are extremely dangerous. This is because they can cause serious harm to your body as it damages your heart, brain and digestive system. Drugs can also be linked to gangs which means you could become a victim of crime. People may become addicted to these drugs which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. Conclusion: To sum up, both online and face-to-face environments offer a means by which learners can engage in meaningful debates on topical questions. The face-to-face environment offers the advantage of being able to see and hear each other which has been shown to enhance the quality of learner collaboration and to contribute to a positive class atmosphere. Learners could also work on a question on the same topic but put forward a different viewpoint, which would allow them to develop their critical thinking skills. Such debates could take place online too. A debate task does not always have to take place online or in class. Students could take part in individual home tasks or take part in face-to-face tasks which take place outside of class time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that people should not be allowed to buy or sell drugs as they are extremely dangerous and can cause serious damage to the health of the body. It is also illegal to buy or sell drugs and you could be prosecuted if you were to do so. These illegal substances can also be linked to gangs which is why you might become a victim of crime. Drugs are also addictive and people could become addicted which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. It can also affect people's mental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be allowed to buy and sell illegal drugs like cocaine. This is because they are extremely dangerous and can cause serious damage to your body. It is also illegal which means you could be prosecuted for taking these drugs. Drugs can also be linked to gangs which means you could become a victim of crime. Drugs are also addictive and people could become addicted which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. It can also affect people's mental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that people should not be able to buy or sell drugs as they are extremely dangerous and can cause serious damage to your body. It is also illegal which means you could be prosecuted for taking these drugs. Drugs can also be linked to gangs which means you could become a victim of crime. Drugs are also addictive and people could become addicted which can have serious consequences on the health of the user. It can also affect people's mental health. It is also very illegal and can result in a prosecution. The sale of drugs is also linked to gangs which means that if you buy illegal drugs you could become a victim of crime. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001122.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001122.soc index 45ab6a59..099112a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001122.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001122.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the United States is not at risk of becoming a dictatorship. However, there are some elements of US society that trend that way. The United Nations would likely prevent or even overthrow an dictator from seizing power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The United States will not become a dictatorship. The US constitution has very clear checks and measures on the power that can go to the president. It also outlines maximum terms and the judicial system is very good at balancing power. The people of the US would never stand idly by if a president tried to take too much power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the United States is not likely to become a dictatorship because the US constitution has very clear checks and measures on the power that can go to the president. It also outlines maximum terms and the judicial system is very good at balancing power. The people of the US would never stand idly by if a president tried to take too much power. However, in some ways you could say that some presidents have already acted like a dictator and had the same characteristics as one. A dictatorship could only happen if the government was to fail and someone with popular support or that of the military rose up and assumed that power. However most americans live a comfortable life at the moment and there is little appetite for revolution, but there is a small chance in future because of a catastrophic event or failing that there could be a situation which would mean a dictatorship is possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The United States of America will never become a dictatorship. This is because America has a strong system of checks and balances. The President of the USA is the head of government, but he is not head of state. He has no official political power, except that which is delegated to him by the constitution. He has limited powers, and these are often checked by other powerful figures, such as the senate. America also has a strong, independent and impartial judiciary. It also has an independent press, which would publicise any attempts by the president to become a dictator. The United States is also a large country with an educated population, who are not afraid to voice their opinions. The American constitution also allows impeachment of the president if he is found to have abused his powers. The United States will also not become a dictatorship because the US is an economic and political superpower, which means it does not need to seize more power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the United States is not at risk of becoming a dictatorship. However, there are some elements of US society that trend that way. The United Nations would likely prevent or even overthrow an dictator from seizing power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The United States will not become a dictatorship. The US constitution has very clear checks and measures on the power that can go to the president. It also outlines maximum terms and the judicial system is very good at balancing power. The people of the US would never stand idly by if a president tried to take too much power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the United States is not likely to become a dictatorship because the US constitution has very clear checks and measures on the power that can go to the president. It also outlines maximum terms and the judicial system is very good at balancing power. The people of the US would never stand idly by if a president tried to take too much power. However, in some ways you could say that some presidents have already acted like a dictator and had the same characteristics as one. A dictatorship could only happen if the government was to fail and someone with popular support or that of the military rose up and assumed that power. However most americans live a comfortable life at the moment and there is little appetite for revolution, but there is a small chance in future because of a catastrophic event or failing that there could be a situation which would mean a dictatorship is possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The United States of America will never become a dictatorship. This is because America has a strong system of checks and balances. The President of the USA is the head of government, but he is not head of state. He has no official political power, except that which is delegated to him by the constitution. He has limited powers, and these are often checked by other powerful figures, such as the senate. America also has a strong, independent and impartial judiciary. It also has an independent press, which would publicise any attempts by the president to become a dictator. The United States is also a large country with an educated population, who are not afraid to voice their opinions. The American constitution also allows impeachment of the president if he is found to have abused his powers. The United States will also not become a dictatorship because the US is an economic and political superpower, which means it does not need to seize more power. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001123.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001123.soc index 448d9f8c..a6820e14 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001123.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001123.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the wearing of face coverings in enclosed spaces should not be made compulsory, however in places where vulnerable people are present such as hospitals and care homes, the wearing of face coverings should be actively encouraged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not make the wearing of face coverings compulsory in all enclosed spaces. There is a lack of evidence to support that this would be effective in preventing the spread of disease. The wearing of face coverings should be an individual choice, not legislated for. There is a possibility that the wearing of face coverings could lead to a false sense of security and therefore people may be less likely to follow other guidelines such as social distancing and hand hygiene. This could lead to an increase in the spread of disease. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there is insufficient evidence to mandate that masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. We do not feel that there is enough proof that masks are beneficial in preventing the spread of diseases. The wearing of masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We do not think we should make the wearing of face coverings compulsory in all enclosed spaces. The wearing of masks in enclosed spaces should be an individual choice. There is no conclusive evidence that wearing face coverings in enclosed spaces actually reduce the spread of Covid-19, and some studies have shown that it can actually increase the spread of the virus, and lead to poorer hygiene habits. There is also the factor that many people are exempt from wearing masks, or that wearing them causes them harm. These people should not be denied entry to enclosed spaces because they cannot wear masks. That being said, we encourage the wearing of face coverings in enclosed spaces where vulnerable people are present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the wearing of face coverings in enclosed spaces should not be made compulsory, however in places where vulnerable people are present such as hospitals and care homes, the wearing of face coverings should be actively encouraged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not make the wearing of face coverings compulsory in all enclosed spaces. There is a lack of evidence to support that this would be effective in preventing the spread of disease. The wearing of face coverings should be an individual choice, not legislated for. There is a possibility that the wearing of face coverings could lead to a false sense of security and therefore people may be less likely to follow other guidelines such as social distancing and hand hygiene. This could lead to an increase in the spread of disease. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there is insufficient evidence to mandate that masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. We do not feel that there is enough proof that masks are beneficial in preventing the spread of diseases. The wearing of masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We do not think we should make the wearing of face coverings compulsory in all enclosed spaces. The wearing of masks in enclosed spaces should be an individual choice. There is no conclusive evidence that wearing face coverings in enclosed spaces actually reduce the spread of Covid-19, and some studies have shown that it can actually increase the spread of the virus, and lead to poorer hygiene habits. There is also the factor that many people are exempt from wearing masks, or that wearing them causes them harm. These people should not be denied entry to enclosed spaces because they cannot wear masks. That being said, we encourage the wearing of face coverings in enclosed spaces where vulnerable people are present. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001124.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001124.soc index ca8d56b9..368b92d0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001124.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001124.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be given a free computer at the age of 6. This is because the world is becoming more and more digital and in order to keep up with the pace of the world, it is important for children to be exposed to computers and the internet from a young age. However, there are some concerns that the children may be exposed to adult content and become addicted to the computer. Therefore, the computer should be provided with some parental controls to ensure that the children are not exposed to adult content. In addition, children should be taught how to use the computer in a healthy way, so that they are not addicted to the computer. Discussion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be given a free computer at the age of 6. This is because the world is becoming more and more digital and in order to keep up with the pace of the world, it is important for children to be exposed to computers and the internet from a young age. However, there are some concerns that the children may be exposed to adult content and become addicted to the computer. Therefore, the computer should be provided with some parental controls to ensure that the children are not exposed to adult content. In addition, children should be taught how to use the computer in a healthy way, so that they are not addicted to the computer. Parents should find a balance with their children between using a computer and being outside and socialising with peers. Children need read books and go outside as well not only spend time on computer. The usage of the computers is paid attention under the control of the parents. It is crucial for children to not be exposed to adverse contents on internet. They do not know how to use in a healthy way, that is why the control of parents reveals the healthy way for children. Children should be allowed to access to computers with control. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: All children should be provided with a free computer at the age of 6. This is because the world is becoming more and more digital, and to keep up with the pace, it is important for children to be exposed to computers and the internet from a young age. This is also important as it enables children from all economic backgrounds to have access to the information and knowledge the internet can provide, therefore having all children on equal footing. However there are some concerns that the children may be exposed to adverse content on the internet, especially if they do not have parental supervision. Therefore, these computers should come with a program that automatically blocks the child from viewing any inappropriate websites. To be on the safe side, these computers should also be supplied with appropriate computer-based learning programs. In addition, children should be taught how to use the computer in a healthy way, so that they are not addicted to the computer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be given a free computer at the age of 6. This is because the world is becoming more and more digital and in order to keep up with the pace of the world, it is important for children to be exposed to computers and the internet from a young age. However, there are some concerns that the children may be exposed to adult content and become addicted to the computer. Therefore, the computer should be provided with some parental controls to ensure that the children are not exposed to adult content. In addition, children should be taught how to use the computer in a healthy way, so that they are not addicted to the computer. Parents should also ensure that their children are spending enough time outside and socialising with their peers, and not spending all of their time on the computer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be given a free computer at the age of 6. This is because the world is becoming more and more digital and in order to keep up with the pace of the world, it is important for children to be exposed to computers and the internet from a young age. However, there are some concerns that the children may be exposed to adult content and become addicted to the computer. Therefore, the computer should be provided with some parental controls to ensure that the children are not exposed to adult content. In addition, children should be taught how to use the computer in a healthy way, so that they are not addicted to the computer. Discussion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be given a free computer at the age of 6. This is because the world is becoming more and more digital and in order to keep up with the pace of the world, it is important for children to be exposed to computers and the internet from a young age. However, there are some concerns that the children may be exposed to adult content and become addicted to the computer. Therefore, the computer should be provided with some parental controls to ensure that the children are not exposed to adult content. In addition, children should be taught how to use the computer in a healthy way, so that they are not addicted to the computer. Parents should find a balance with their children between using a computer and being outside and socialising with peers. Children need read books and go outside as well not only spend time on computer. The usage of the computers is paid attention under the control of the parents. It is crucial for children to not be exposed to adverse contents on internet. They do not know how to use in a healthy way, that is why the control of parents reveals the healthy way for children. Children should be allowed to access to computers with control. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - All children should be provided with a free computer at the age of 6. This is because the world is becoming more and more digital, and to keep up with the pace, it is important for children to be exposed to computers and the internet from a young age. This is also important as it enables children from all economic backgrounds to have access to the information and knowledge the internet can provide, therefore having all children on equal footing. However there are some concerns that the children may be exposed to adverse content on the internet, especially if they do not have parental supervision. Therefore, these computers should come with a program that automatically blocks the child from viewing any inappropriate websites. To be on the safe side, these computers should also be supplied with appropriate computer-based learning programs. In addition, children should be taught how to use the computer in a healthy way, so that they are not addicted to the computer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be given a free computer at the age of 6. This is because the world is becoming more and more digital and in order to keep up with the pace of the world, it is important for children to be exposed to computers and the internet from a young age. However, there are some concerns that the children may be exposed to adult content and become addicted to the computer. Therefore, the computer should be provided with some parental controls to ensure that the children are not exposed to adult content. In addition, children should be taught how to use the computer in a healthy way, so that they are not addicted to the computer. Parents should also ensure that their children are spending enough time outside and socialising with their peers, and not spending all of their time on the computer. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001125.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001125.soc index 28509d8f..d5a986d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001125.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001125.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not believe that there is a sufficient amount of evidence to mandate that masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. The wearing of masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. In certain enclosed spaces, such as care homes and hospitals, we believe that it is reasonable to expect people to wear masks, as these are spaces that contain a large number of vulnerable people. However, we do not feel that this should be made mandatory, rather it should be actively encouraged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be no mandate that face masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. Masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. Wearing a face mask in all enclosed spaces poses a security risk, or at least makes people feel venerable not seeing others faces. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there is insufficient evidence to mandate that masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. We do not feel that there is enough proof that masks are beneficial in preventing the spread of diseases. The wearing of masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. Wearing masks should be encouraged where vulnerable people are present. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there is insufficient evidence to mandate that masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. We do not feel that there is enough proof that masks are beneficial in preventing the spread of diseases and therefore we do not support this view. The wearing of masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. However, this should not prevent people from going about their day to day activities. We also feel that there is a security risk to forcing people to wear masks and perhaps this is not the best idea. If you need to visit areas with vulnerable people, then perhaps it is prudent to wear a mask. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not believe that there is a sufficient amount of evidence to mandate that masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. The wearing of masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. In certain enclosed spaces, such as care homes and hospitals, we believe that it is reasonable to expect people to wear masks, as these are spaces that contain a large number of vulnerable people. However, we do not feel that this should be made mandatory, rather it should be actively encouraged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be no mandate that face masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. Masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. Wearing a face mask in all enclosed spaces poses a security risk, or at least makes people feel venerable not seeing others faces. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there is insufficient evidence to mandate that masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. We do not feel that there is enough proof that masks are beneficial in preventing the spread of diseases. The wearing of masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. Wearing masks should be encouraged where vulnerable people are present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there is insufficient evidence to mandate that masks should be worn in all enclosed spaces. We do not feel that there is enough proof that masks are beneficial in preventing the spread of diseases and therefore we do not support this view. The wearing of masks should be a personal choice, not one that is forced upon people. There is a point where the government can have too much control over the population and this could be one such example. If someone wants to wear a mask, then they should feel free to do so. However, this should not prevent people from going about their day to day activities. We also feel that there is a security risk to forcing people to wear masks and perhaps this is not the best idea. If you need to visit areas with vulnerable people, then perhaps it is prudent to wear a mask. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001126.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001126.soc index f7ea5162..5dfb98f0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001126.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001126.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have a public holiday in the UK that commemorates the end of the Second World War. This is something that impacted many people in the UK and all over the world. However, there is no public holiday for the end of the First World War, which again had a large impact on people. It is time to have a public holiday that commemorates the many groups in the UK that have been marginalised throughout history. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The main argument was that it would be too difficult to decide which groups to include, and that it would be too many holidays. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the date of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to clash with an existing holiday. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the name of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to offend people. However, the group did agree that it would be a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, but that this should be an additional day to an existing holiday, such as the summer or winter solstice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of having a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups. It was felt that it would be a good way to educate the public and celebrate the diversity of the UK. It was also felt that it would be a good way to increase unity in the country and show that the country is willing to learn from its past mistakes. However, it was also felt that it would be difficult to decide which groups to celebrate, and that it would be unfair to celebrate some and not others. It was also felt that it would be difficult to decide which day to celebrate, and that it would be unfair to some people who may have to work on that day. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are a number of pros and cons to having a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, we believe that in this case the pros outweigh the cons. We feel that by making such a day a public holiday it would increase public awareness and respect for historically marginalised groups. Furthermore, having such a holiday would serve to remind people of how we as a nation profited from the exploitation of such groups. We also think that making a day a public holiday is an easy way for people to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups. Although there are many historically marginalised groups, and some people argue that making a day a public holiday for every single one would be impractical, we believe that this can be easily overcome. We think that one day can be a general public holiday for all historically marginalised groups. If that was not possible, we think that a different day could be chosen for different historically marginalised groups. In conclusion, we believe that making a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups would be a good idea. We feel that this would serve to increase public awareness and respect for such groups, and help to right historical wrongs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have a public holiday in the UK that commemorates the end of the Second World War. This is something that impacted many people in the UK and all over the world. However, there is no public holiday for the end of the First World War, which again had a large impact on people. It is time to have a public holiday that commemorates the many groups in the UK that have been marginalised throughout history. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The main argument was that it would be too difficult to decide which groups to include, and that it would be too many holidays. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the date of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to clash with an existing holiday. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the name of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to offend people. However, the group did agree that it would be a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, but that this should be an additional day to an existing holiday, such as the summer or winter solstice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of having a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups. It was felt that it would be a good way to educate the public and celebrate the diversity of the UK. It was also felt that it would be a good way to increase unity in the country and show that the country is willing to learn from its past mistakes. However, it was also felt that it would be difficult to decide which groups to celebrate, and that it would be unfair to celebrate some and not others. It was also felt that it would be difficult to decide which day to celebrate, and that it would be unfair to some people who may have to work on that day. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are a number of pros and cons to having a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, we believe that in this case the pros outweigh the cons. We feel that by making such a day a public holiday it would increase public awareness and respect for historically marginalised groups. Furthermore, having such a holiday would serve to remind people of how we as a nation profited from the exploitation of such groups. We also think that making a day a public holiday is an easy way for people to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups. Although there are many historically marginalised groups, and some people argue that making a day a public holiday for every single one would be impractical, we believe that this can be easily overcome. We think that one day can be a general public holiday for all historically marginalised groups. If that was not possible, we think that a different day could be chosen for different historically marginalised groups. In conclusion, we believe that making a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups would be a good idea. We feel that this would serve to increase public awareness and respect for such groups, and help to right historical wrongs. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001127.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001127.soc index d8ebb103..54ed963b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001127.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001127.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was very disappointed with Theresa May's performance as Prime Minister. The group felt that she was too weak when it came to negotiations with the EU and failed to come to an agreement with them. The group also felt that she did poorly when it came to the 2017 general election and lost her majority. Finally, the group felt that she didn't deal with the Grenfell Tower fire in a reasonable way. The group felt that the only good thing that Theresa May did was that she was honest and not corrupt like the Prime Ministers who followed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “May was not a good prime minister. She was weak when it came to negotiations with the EU and failed to come to an agreement with them. She also did poorly when it came to the 2017 general election and lost her majority. Finally, she didn't deal with the Grenfell Tower fire in a reasonable way. May was a terrible prime minister who only lasted a few weeks. She supported Brexit which was a bad thing. May was ousted by her own party who had no confidence in her. The only good thing was she was not corrupt like the Prime ministers who followed” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, Theresa May was not a good prime minister. She only lasted a few weeks as prime minister and yet she still managed to tank the economy. She attempted to backtrack on her disastrous mini budget but that made things even worse. She supported Brexit which was a bad thing too. She was also too weak when it came to negotiations with the EU and failed to come to an agreement with them. She also did poorly when it came to the 2017 general election and lost her majority. Finally, she didn't deal with the Grenfell Tower fire in a reasonable way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Theresa May was a bad Prime Minister. She was not able to provide the leadership required for such an important role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was very disappointed with Theresa May's performance as Prime Minister. The group felt that she was too weak when it came to negotiations with the EU and failed to come to an agreement with them. The group also felt that she did poorly when it came to the 2017 general election and lost her majority. Finally, the group felt that she didn't deal with the Grenfell Tower fire in a reasonable way. The group felt that the only good thing that Theresa May did was that she was honest and not corrupt like the Prime Ministers who followed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “May was not a good prime minister. She was weak when it came to negotiations with the EU and failed to come to an agreement with them. She also did poorly when it came to the 2017 general election and lost her majority. Finally, she didn't deal with the Grenfell Tower fire in a reasonable way. May was a terrible prime minister who only lasted a few weeks. She supported Brexit which was a bad thing. May was ousted by her own party who had no confidence in her. The only good thing was she was not corrupt like the Prime ministers who followed” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, Theresa May was not a good prime minister. She only lasted a few weeks as prime minister and yet she still managed to tank the economy. She attempted to backtrack on her disastrous mini budget but that made things even worse. She supported Brexit which was a bad thing too. She was also too weak when it came to negotiations with the EU and failed to come to an agreement with them. She also did poorly when it came to the 2017 general election and lost her majority. Finally, she didn't deal with the Grenfell Tower fire in a reasonable way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Theresa May was a bad Prime Minister. She was not able to provide the leadership required for such an important role. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001128.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001128.soc index c70d1c87..f4d24ad3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001128.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001128.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to banning right turns in central London. They felt that this would increase journey times, cause traffic chaos and increase the number of frustrated drivers. The group felt that there were more pressing issues that needed to be addressed, such as reducing the number of cars in central London, and increasing the number of cyclists. They felt that this would help to reduce congestion, and improve air quality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to banning right turns in central London. The participants believed that it would cause more problems than it would solve. The participants did not believe that it would reduce the number of crashes in London. They believed that it would increase journey times and cause congestion. They believed that it would also increase the number of frustrated drivers on the road, and therefore increase the number of aggressive drivers. They believed that it would also increase the number of pedestrians crossing roads, which would increase the number of pedestrians killed in traffic accidents. They believed that it would be very difficult to implement, and that it would cause more problems than it would solve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't believe we should ban right turns in London, but that we should make them safer. It is possible to make them safer without causing the sort of chaos and congestion you described. The technology is already available for making right turns safer. This would be preferable to banning right turns, which could also cause congestion. In fact, the consensus view stated above is very close to what the official policy of the British Government is. In 2012, the government produced a response to a consultation on introducing bus-only roads in England, in which it said: "We do not believe the evidence supports a policy of banning right turns, or introducing bus-only lanes on the most central radial roads in London. The potential benefits are not justified by the very high costs of implementing such measures." The interesting thing about this statement is that the consensus view of the five participants in the above scenario is actually closer to the government policy than the opinion of any of the participants individually! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although right turns have caused accidents in central London, it would be too chaotic to ban right turns. A ban on right turns would cause more congestion and lead to increased journey lengths, so we do not support this idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to banning right turns in central London. They felt that this would increase journey times, cause traffic chaos and increase the number of frustrated drivers. The group felt that there were more pressing issues that needed to be addressed, such as reducing the number of cars in central London, and increasing the number of cyclists. They felt that this would help to reduce congestion, and improve air quality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to banning right turns in central London. The participants believed that it would cause more problems than it would solve. The participants did not believe that it would reduce the number of crashes in London. They believed that it would increase journey times and cause congestion. They believed that it would also increase the number of frustrated drivers on the road, and therefore increase the number of aggressive drivers. They believed that it would also increase the number of pedestrians crossing roads, which would increase the number of pedestrians killed in traffic accidents. They believed that it would be very difficult to implement, and that it would cause more problems than it would solve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't believe we should ban right turns in London, but that we should make them safer. It is possible to make them safer without causing the sort of chaos and congestion you described. The technology is already available for making right turns safer. This would be preferable to banning right turns, which could also cause congestion. In fact, the consensus view stated above is very close to what the official policy of the British Government is. In 2012, the government produced a response to a consultation on introducing bus-only roads in England, in which it said: "We do not believe the evidence supports a policy of banning right turns, or introducing bus-only lanes on the most central radial roads in London. The potential benefits are not justified by the very high costs of implementing such measures." The interesting thing about this statement is that the consensus view of the five participants in the above scenario is actually closer to the government policy than the opinion of any of the participants individually! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although right turns have caused accidents in central London, it would be too chaotic to ban right turns. A ban on right turns would cause more congestion and lead to increased journey lengths, so we do not support this idea. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001129.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001129.soc index 9279e65b..883057ee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001129.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001129.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. However, we do not agree with buying land from wealthy people and giving it to the poor, as this is unfair. Land should be bought by the government from areas that have no purpose or land that is going to waste. The government should provide more affordable housing for the poorer people and this could be built on this land. In the current system of property ownership the government can have to power to put restrictions on land and property in order to prevent wealthy people from privitizing areas of beauty, to prevent land from going to waste and to prevent land being hoarded. The aim of the government should be to create a balance in society and allow all to enjoy the land in a fair way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. The government should buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. The government should buy land that is going to waste or is being hoarded. The government should pay towards this. The government should be transparent and accountable. The government should provide safety for poors by way of purchasing lands and building safe houses. The aim is to balance amongst the community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will allow for housing for poorer people, which in turn will help social equality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. However, we do not agree with buying land from wealthy people and giving it to the poor, as this is unfair. Land should be bought by the government from areas that have no purpose or land that is going to waste. The government should provide more affordable housing for the poorer people and this could be built on this land. In the current system of property ownership the government can have to power to put restrictions on land and property in order to prevent wealthy people from privitizing areas of beauty, to prevent land from going to waste and to prevent land being hoarded. The aim of the government should be to create a balance in society and allow all to enjoy the land in a fair way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. The government should buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. The government should buy land that is going to waste or is being hoarded. The government should pay towards this. The government should be transparent and accountable. The government should provide safety for poors by way of purchasing lands and building safe houses. The aim is to balance amongst the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will allow for housing for poorer people, which in turn will help social equality. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001130.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001130.soc index 8ceff6c3..cd48fbd3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001130.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001130.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The main argument was that it would be too difficult to decide which groups to include, and that it would be too many holidays. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the date of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to clash with an existing holiday. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the name of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to offend people. However, the group did agree that it would be a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, but that this should be an additional day to an existing holiday, such as the summer or winter solstice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. It was argued that it would be difficult to decide which groups to include, and that it would be too many holidays. The group also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the date of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to clash with an existing holiday. The group argued that it would also be difficult to decide on the name of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to offend people. However, the group did agree that it would be a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, but that this should be an additional day to an existing holiday, such as the summer or winter solstice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The main argument was that it would be too difficult to decide which groups to include, and that it would be too many holidays. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the date of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to clash with an existing holiday. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the name of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to offend people. However, the group did agree that it would be a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, but that this should be an additional day to an existing holiday, such as the summer or winter solstice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The main argument was that it would be too difficult to decide which groups to include, and that it would be too many holidays. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the date of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to clash with an existing holiday. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the name of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to offend people. However, the group did agree that it would be a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, but that this should be an additional day to an existing holiday, such as the summer or winter solstice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. It was argued that it would be difficult to decide which groups to include, and that it would be too many holidays. The group also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the date of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to clash with an existing holiday. The group argued that it would also be difficult to decide on the name of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to offend people. However, the group did agree that it would be a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, but that this should be an additional day to an existing holiday, such as the summer or winter solstice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The main argument was that it would be too difficult to decide which groups to include, and that it would be too many holidays. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the date of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to clash with an existing holiday. It was also argued that it would be difficult to decide on the name of such a holiday, as it would be very likely to offend people. However, the group did agree that it would be a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate the contributions of historically marginalised groups, but that this should be an additional day to an existing holiday, such as the summer or winter solstice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001131.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001131.soc index c3777989..6028a8ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001131.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001131.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this. There should be grants or benefits to those who are willing to sell suitable land. This would also need to be transparent and managed. It would be a great start to have many poorer people having homes in the country and may help to increase tourism. It is important that everyone is involved and kept informed of the plans so they can make their own decision about the move. It would also be good to have votes to see how many people are in favour of the move. The move will help to create a more equal society and allow people to have their basic human right of having a home.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. There should be grants or benefits to those who are willing to sell suitable land. The given land should stay as government ownership to prevent selling it later with profit for new owner. This will also help preventing the privatization of scenic places by rich people and increase the access of poorer people. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this. The government will be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this. There should be grants or benefits to those who are willing to sell suitable land. This would also need to be transparent and managed.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this. The given land should stay as government ownership to prevent re-sale with profit for new owner. Grants or benefits should be given to those who are willing to sell suitable land. This would also need to be transparent and managed. Moreover, government should avoid the privatization of scenic places by rich people and increase the access of poorer people.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this. There should be grants or benefits to those who are willing to sell suitable land. This would also need to be transparent and managed. It would be a great start to have many poorer people having homes in the country and may help to increase tourism. It is important that everyone is involved and kept informed of the plans so they can make their own decision about the move. It would also be good to have votes to see how many people are in favour of the move. The move will help to create a more equal society and allow people to have their basic human right of having a home.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. There should be grants or benefits to those who are willing to sell suitable land. The given land should stay as government ownership to prevent selling it later with profit for new owner. This will also help preventing the privatization of scenic places by rich people and increase the access of poorer people. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this. The government will be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this. There should be grants or benefits to those who are willing to sell suitable land. This would also need to be transparent and managed.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: “The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This will help reduce social inequalities and provide a basic demand for human beings. The whole process should be transparent and accountable. Also, the government should only be allowed to buy land that is suitable and not green belt land. It should be land that has no other purpose or is going to waste of being hoarded. There needs to be more affordable housing for poorer people and this could be built on this land. The government would also have to pay towards this. The given land should stay as government ownership to prevent re-sale with profit for new owner. Grants or benefits should be given to those who are willing to sell suitable land. This would also need to be transparent and managed. Moreover, government should avoid the privatization of scenic places by rich people and increase the access of poorer people.” 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001132.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001132.soc index fe4114e7..37688d00 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001132.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001132.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: There is no evidence to suggest that the world will end within the next 50 years. The world has been here for thousands of years and will continue to be here for thousands more. It is true that the world is in a fragile state at the moment due to climate change and other factors, but we believe that humans will take the necessary steps to protect the world. The world may become a worse place to live in but we don't think it will end. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think the world will end in the next 50 years. The world has been here for millions of years and will continue to be here for millions more. The world may become a worse place to live in but we don't think it will end. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't think the world will end in the next 50 years. The world has been here for millions of years and will continue to be here for millions more. It is true that the world is in a fragile state at the moment due to climate change and other factors, but we believe that humans will take the necessary steps to protect the world. The world may become a worse place to live in but we don't think it will end. This is because the world has been here for millions of years and will continue to be here for millions more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think the world will end in the next 50 years. The world has been here for millions of years and will continue to be here for millions more. It is true that the world is in a fragile state at the moment due to climate change and other factors, but we believe that humans will take the necessary steps to protect the world. The world may become a worse place to live in but we don't think it will end. We are also aware that things could go in an unexpected direction that may cause the world to end but we don't think that this is likely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: There is no evidence to suggest that the world will end within the next 50 years. The world has been here for thousands of years and will continue to be here for thousands more. It is true that the world is in a fragile state at the moment due to climate change and other factors, but we believe that humans will take the necessary steps to protect the world. The world may become a worse place to live in but we don't think it will end. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think the world will end in the next 50 years. The world has been here for millions of years and will continue to be here for millions more. The world may become a worse place to live in but we don't think it will end. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't think the world will end in the next 50 years. The world has been here for millions of years and will continue to be here for millions more. It is true that the world is in a fragile state at the moment due to climate change and other factors, but we believe that humans will take the necessary steps to protect the world. The world may become a worse place to live in but we don't think it will end. This is because the world has been here for millions of years and will continue to be here for millions more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think the world will end in the next 50 years. The world has been here for millions of years and will continue to be here for millions more. It is true that the world is in a fragile state at the moment due to climate change and other factors, but we believe that humans will take the necessary steps to protect the world. The world may become a worse place to live in but we don't think it will end. We are also aware that things could go in an unexpected direction that may cause the world to end but we don't think that this is likely. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001133.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001133.soc index 79bbd003..f79b44b9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001133.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001133.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, freedom of speech is more important than the protection of vulnerable people from harmful ideas. However, we recognise that there are some circumstances where it is necessary to restrict freedom of speech in order to protect vulnerable people. We think that the best way to protect vulnerable people is to ensure that they are educated and empowered to challenge harmful ideas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People have the right to be themselves and share their ideas, but no one should be harmed as a result. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the right to freedom of speech is more important than the need to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. However, in some cases it may be necessary to limit freedom of speech in order to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the freedom of speech is an important right, we believe that it is more important to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. There is a difference between respecting and encouraging different ideas and being hateful and discriminatory towards people. We believe that freedom of speech is important but so is the protection of vulnerable people and it is only when the two can be reconciled, that we will achieve a healthy and happy society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, freedom of speech is more important than the protection of vulnerable people from harmful ideas. However, we recognise that there are some circumstances where it is necessary to restrict freedom of speech in order to protect vulnerable people. We think that the best way to protect vulnerable people is to ensure that they are educated and empowered to challenge harmful ideas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People have the right to be themselves and share their ideas, but no one should be harmed as a result. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the right to freedom of speech is more important than the need to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. However, in some cases it may be necessary to limit freedom of speech in order to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the freedom of speech is an important right, we believe that it is more important to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. There is a difference between respecting and encouraging different ideas and being hateful and discriminatory towards people. We believe that freedom of speech is important but so is the protection of vulnerable people and it is only when the two can be reconciled, that we will achieve a healthy and happy society. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001134.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001134.soc index 4d20e4bd..195ded3f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001134.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001134.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the freedom of speech is an important right, we believe that it is more important to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. There is a difference between respecting and encouraging different ideas and being hateful and discriminatory towards people. We believe that freedom of speech is important but so is the protection of vulnerable people and it is only when the two can be reconciled, that we will achieve a healthy and happy society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the freedom of speech is an important right, we believe that it is more important to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. There is a difference between respecting and encouraging different ideas and being hateful and discriminatory towards people. We believe that freedom of speech is important but so is the protection of vulnerable people and it is only when the two can be reconciled, that we will achieve a healthy and happy society. We believe that the freedom of speech is a right that should be defended as a core human right. We agree that there needs to be limitations on freedom of speech to prevent hate speech from happening and to stop it from being normalized. We believe that it is possible to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the protection of vulnerable people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Freedom of speech is an important right but it is even more important that vulnerable people are protected from harmful ideas. We believe that there is a difference between respecting different ideas and being hateful or discriminatory towards people and the only way to protect vulnerable people is to limit freedom of speech. It is only when both freedom of speech and protection of vulnerable people can be reconciled, that we can have a healthy and happy society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the freedom of speech is an important right, we believe that it is more important to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. There is a difference between respecting and encouraging different ideas and being hateful and discriminatory towards people. We believe that freedom of speech is important but so is the protection of vulnerable people and it is only when the two can be reconciled, that we will achieve a healthy and happy society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the freedom of speech is an important right, we believe that it is more important to protect vulnerable people from harmful ideas. There is a difference between respecting and encouraging different ideas and being hateful and discriminatory towards people. We believe that freedom of speech is important but so is the protection of vulnerable people and it is only when the two can be reconciled, that we will achieve a healthy and happy society. We believe that the freedom of speech is a right that should be defended as a core human right. We agree that there needs to be limitations on freedom of speech to prevent hate speech from happening and to stop it from being normalized. We believe that it is possible to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the protection of vulnerable people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Freedom of speech is an important right but it is even more important that vulnerable people are protected from harmful ideas. We believe that there is a difference between respecting different ideas and being hateful or discriminatory towards people and the only way to protect vulnerable people is to limit freedom of speech. It is only when both freedom of speech and protection of vulnerable people can be reconciled, that we can have a healthy and happy society. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001135.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001135.soc index 5782eb4e..d8b82809 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001135.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001135.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of accidents. The biggest benefit of driverless cars is that they will be able to communicate with each other and with traffic lights to help prevent accidents. Additionally, removing the possibility of human error will help avoid accidents with the implementation of machine systems such as auto breaking, lane keeping, sonar and lidar, which can prevent accidents as they detect threats that humans may not have seen. One issue with driverless cars is if the car meets a zero-sum problem, eg you are in a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable - does the car prioritize the safety of the driver if it will cause a fatality to someone else? This will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is difficult to say if driverless cars will result in an increase or decrease in the number of road accidents. While driverless cars have the ability to be able to detect and communicate with each other, and to an extent make more informed choices, this is not to say that accidents won’t occur. It is likely that there will be a number of teething issues as the cars are implemented and it will take time for humans and the cars to understand and communicate with each other. Accidents may occur as a result of this. However, driverless cars will be able to use a multitude of sensors to help avoid hazards, and the removal of human error may lead to fewer accidents. Further testing is required, especially of the way that driverless cars respond to the presence of pedestrians and other vehicles. In short, it is difficult to say if the introduction of driverless cars will result in an increase or decrease in the number of road accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The introduction of driverless cars will likely lead to a decrease in the number of road accidents. The removal of human error from driving will reduce the number of accidents and this will be beneficial for all. The introduction of new technology to aid driving will also help to reduce the number of accidents. However, there are some issues with the introduction of driverless cars. The cars will need to be able to network together and share information, but this could lead to a security issue. It is also important to note that while the cars will be able to reduce the number of accidents, they will not be able to completely remove them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of road accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of accidents. The biggest benefit of driverless cars is that they will be able to communicate with each other and with traffic lights to help prevent accidents. Additionally, removing the possibility of human error will help avoid accidents with the implementation of machine systems such as auto breaking, lane keeping, sonar and lidar, which can prevent accidents as they detect threats that humans may not have seen. One issue with driverless cars is if the car meets a zero-sum problem, eg you are in a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable - does the car prioritize the safety of the driver if it will cause a fatality to someone else? This will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is difficult to say if driverless cars will result in an increase or decrease in the number of road accidents. While driverless cars have the ability to be able to detect and communicate with each other, and to an extent make more informed choices, this is not to say that accidents won’t occur. It is likely that there will be a number of teething issues as the cars are implemented and it will take time for humans and the cars to understand and communicate with each other. Accidents may occur as a result of this. However, driverless cars will be able to use a multitude of sensors to help avoid hazards, and the removal of human error may lead to fewer accidents. Further testing is required, especially of the way that driverless cars respond to the presence of pedestrians and other vehicles. In short, it is difficult to say if the introduction of driverless cars will result in an increase or decrease in the number of road accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The introduction of driverless cars will likely lead to a decrease in the number of road accidents. The removal of human error from driving will reduce the number of accidents and this will be beneficial for all. The introduction of new technology to aid driving will also help to reduce the number of accidents. However, there are some issues with the introduction of driverless cars. The cars will need to be able to network together and share information, but this could lead to a security issue. It is also important to note that while the cars will be able to reduce the number of accidents, they will not be able to completely remove them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of road accidents. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001136.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001136.soc index b78a3dc4..f1b5f4da 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001136.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001136.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the advertising of products that are unhealthy should be banned. This would prevent the over-consumption of unhealthy products, and would also prevent the glamorization of unhealthy products. However, this should not be an absolute ban, as this would be a violation of individual liberties. The advertising of unhealthy products should be allowed in limited circumstances, such as in specialist magazines. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is important to strike a balance between protecting the health of the public and protecting their rights to commercial freedom. There is also an issue with defining which products are unhealthy. There are things that can be classed as unhealthy and unhealthy for a few select groups of people (for example, people who have lactose intolerance, or allergies). We agree that it is important to ban advertising of harmful products to people who are vulnerable or easily influenced (children, people with lower education, or people with mental health issues). We also believe that there should be an independent body which has the authority to make such judgements. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People have the right to be made aware of unhealthy products so they can make informed decisions about whether they want to purchase them. Therefore we should not ban all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the advertising of products that are unhealthy should be banned. This would prevent the over-consumption of unhealthy products, and would also prevent the glamorization of unhealthy products. However, this should not be an absolute ban, as this would be a violation of individual liberties. The advertising of unhealthy products should be allowed in limited circumstances, such as in specialist magazines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is important to strike a balance between protecting the health of the public and protecting their rights to commercial freedom. There is also an issue with defining which products are unhealthy. There are things that can be classed as unhealthy and unhealthy for a few select groups of people (for example, people who have lactose intolerance, or allergies). We agree that it is important to ban advertising of harmful products to people who are vulnerable or easily influenced (children, people with lower education, or people with mental health issues). We also believe that there should be an independent body which has the authority to make such judgements. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People have the right to be made aware of unhealthy products so they can make informed decisions about whether they want to purchase them. Therefore we should not ban all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001137.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001137.soc index 48ceeeb7..283ab0ae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001137.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001137.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Driverless cars present one of the biggest changes to logistics and transportation in human history. Part of this change will be ensuring the safety of the public and other vehicles. While driverless cars and their ability to communicate with each other instantly may eventually lead to safer roads, it needs to be acknowledged that as with any emerging technology, there will be a learning process and that while safety should always be top priority accidents can and will happen. It’s up to manufacturers and regulators to respond correctly and promptly. Additionally, it must be determined if driverless cars are a zero-sum problem – if it meets a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable, does it prioritize the life of its own driver if it results in a fatal accident? If not, this will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of accidents. The biggest benefit of driverless cars is that they will be able to communicate with each other and with traffic lights to help prevent accidents. Additionally, removing the possibility of human error will help avoid accidents with the implementation of machine systems such as auto breaking, lane keeping, sonar and lidar, which can prevent accidents as they detect threats that humans may not have seen. One issue with driverless cars is if the car meets a zero-sum problem, eg you are in a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable - does the car prioritize the safety of the driver if it will cause a fatality to someone else? This will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of accidents. The biggest benefit of driverless cars is that they will be able to communicate with each other and with traffic lights to help prevent accidents. Additionally, removing the possibility of human error will help avoid accidents with the implementation of machine systems such as auto breaking, lane keeping, sonar and lidar, which can prevent accidents as they detect threats that humans may not have seen. However, there will inevitably be an increase in accidents, particularly when the vehicles are in their initial stages of development, as there will be many initial failures and technical errors. Additionally, if the car meets a zero-sum problem, eg you are in a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable, one of the biggest moral issues will be whether the car prioritizes the safety of the driver or potential victims in the street. This will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. The most important thing to note is that it is acceptable to change your mind, and that all viewpoints should be heard, before coming to a consensus. Also, to come to a consensus, all ideas, no matter how far out there or ridiculous, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of accidents. The biggest benefit of driverless cars is that they will be able to communicate with each other and with traffic lights to help prevent accidents. Additionally, removing the possibility of human error will help avoid accidents with the implementation of machine systems such as auto breaking, lane keeping, sonar and lidar, which can prevent accidents as they detect threats that humans may not have seen. One issue with driverless cars is if the car meets a zero-sum problem, eg you are in a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable - does the car prioritize the safety of the driver if it will cause a fatality to someone else? This will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. This is an important ethical question that will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Driverless cars present one of the biggest changes to logistics and transportation in human history. Part of this change will be ensuring the safety of the public and other vehicles. While driverless cars and their ability to communicate with each other instantly may eventually lead to safer roads, it needs to be acknowledged that as with any emerging technology, there will be a learning process and that while safety should always be top priority accidents can and will happen. It’s up to manufacturers and regulators to respond correctly and promptly. Additionally, it must be determined if driverless cars are a zero-sum problem – if it meets a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable, does it prioritize the life of its own driver if it results in a fatal accident? If not, this will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of accidents. The biggest benefit of driverless cars is that they will be able to communicate with each other and with traffic lights to help prevent accidents. Additionally, removing the possibility of human error will help avoid accidents with the implementation of machine systems such as auto breaking, lane keeping, sonar and lidar, which can prevent accidents as they detect threats that humans may not have seen. One issue with driverless cars is if the car meets a zero-sum problem, eg you are in a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable - does the car prioritize the safety of the driver if it will cause a fatality to someone else? This will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of accidents. The biggest benefit of driverless cars is that they will be able to communicate with each other and with traffic lights to help prevent accidents. Additionally, removing the possibility of human error will help avoid accidents with the implementation of machine systems such as auto breaking, lane keeping, sonar and lidar, which can prevent accidents as they detect threats that humans may not have seen. However, there will inevitably be an increase in accidents, particularly when the vehicles are in their initial stages of development, as there will be many initial failures and technical errors. Additionally, if the car meets a zero-sum problem, eg you are in a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable, one of the biggest moral issues will be whether the car prioritizes the safety of the driver or potential victims in the street. This will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. The most important thing to note is that it is acceptable to change your mind, and that all viewpoints should be heard, before coming to a consensus. Also, to come to a consensus, all ideas, no matter how far out there or ridiculous, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of accidents. The biggest benefit of driverless cars is that they will be able to communicate with each other and with traffic lights to help prevent accidents. Additionally, removing the possibility of human error will help avoid accidents with the implementation of machine systems such as auto breaking, lane keeping, sonar and lidar, which can prevent accidents as they detect threats that humans may not have seen. One issue with driverless cars is if the car meets a zero-sum problem, eg you are in a situation where a fatal accident is unavoidable - does the car prioritize the safety of the driver if it will cause a fatality to someone else? This will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. This is an important ethical question that will need to be addressed before driverless cars can be introduced. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001138.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001138.soc index a06101b9..d5794ae4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001138.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001138.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Draft final consensus statement: There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are harmful. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. Final consensus statement: The group broadly agreed that advertising can be a key influencer of human behaviour. As such, bans on advertising of harmful products are likely to reduce the use of those products and improve public health. However, the group broadly disagreed over the extent to which individual liberties and commercial interests should be balanced with public health, noting that finding optimal solutions requires solutions between governments, public health experts, industry stakeholders, and the wider society to address the multifaceted challenges posed by harmful products and their marketing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. This is why we feel that an independent body or health watchdog, reporting to government, should be appointed to provide expert advice on whether products are unhealthy or not. This would ensure that decisions around this are taken solely (or at least more likely) in the interest of the public good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. Any restrictions on adverts must be implemented without encouraging excessive paternalistic control over the market. We also think that advertising of healthy products should be promoted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. This requires solutions between governments, public health experts, industry stakeholders, and the wider society to address the multifaceted challenges posed by unhealthy products and their marketing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Draft final consensus statement: There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are harmful. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. Final consensus statement: The group broadly agreed that advertising can be a key influencer of human behaviour. As such, bans on advertising of harmful products are likely to reduce the use of those products and improve public health. However, the group broadly disagreed over the extent to which individual liberties and commercial interests should be balanced with public health, noting that finding optimal solutions requires solutions between governments, public health experts, industry stakeholders, and the wider society to address the multifaceted challenges posed by harmful products and their marketing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. This is why we feel that an independent body or health watchdog, reporting to government, should be appointed to provide expert advice on whether products are unhealthy or not. This would ensure that decisions around this are taken solely (or at least more likely) in the interest of the public good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. Any restrictions on adverts must be implemented without encouraging excessive paternalistic control over the market. We also think that advertising of healthy products should be promoted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on all advertisements for products that are unhealthy. This is because such products are often addictive, and can cause serious long-term damage to health. Banning such advertisements would help reduce their use. However, it is important to note that policy decisions in this area involve balancing public health and consideration with individual liberties and commercial interest. This requires solutions between governments, public health experts, industry stakeholders, and the wider society to address the multifaceted challenges posed by unhealthy products and their marketing. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001139.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001139.soc index d638a864..f19e50f1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001139.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001139.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the UK economy is strong, some of its people live in poverty and cannot maintain a decent standard of living. This is an issue that should be addressed and addressed soon, as people living in poverty are more likely to commit crimes, have mental health issues, become ill and suffer from poor nutrition. A standard of living which is acceptable for the rich and the middle classes should be extended to those living in poverty. This can be done by reducing the level of taxation for low paid workers, and by ensuring that employers pay a living wage. The national health service and the benefits system need to be improved to give better help to those living in poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Poverty in the UK is a problem and we need to address it. Some people live below what the government call the "acceptable minimum". The richest people in the UK hoard wealth, while some live in poverty. Britain is one of the richest countries in the world and so more needs to be done for the poorest in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: While the UK economy is strong, some of its people live in poverty and cannot maintain a decent standard of living. This is an issue that should be addressed and addressed soon, as people living in poverty are more likely to commit crimes, have mental health issues, become ill and suffer from poor nutrition. A standard of living which is acceptable for the rich and the middle classes should be extended to those living in poverty. This can be done by reducing the level of taxation for low paid workers, and by ensuring that employers pay a living wage. Those unable to work should receive adequate support from the benefits system. The national health service should be improved to give better help to those living in poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Poverty is an issue that needs to be addressed. The UK economy is strong enough to allow for more resources to be put into making life better for people who live in poverty. Taxation for low income earners needs to be reduced, and a living wage needs to be introduced so that people do not have to rely on benefits to get by. The national health service and the benefits system need to be improved to give better help to those living in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the UK economy is strong, some of its people live in poverty and cannot maintain a decent standard of living. This is an issue that should be addressed and addressed soon, as people living in poverty are more likely to commit crimes, have mental health issues, become ill and suffer from poor nutrition. A standard of living which is acceptable for the rich and the middle classes should be extended to those living in poverty. This can be done by reducing the level of taxation for low paid workers, and by ensuring that employers pay a living wage. The national health service and the benefits system need to be improved to give better help to those living in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Poverty in the UK is a problem and we need to address it. Some people live below what the government call the "acceptable minimum". The richest people in the UK hoard wealth, while some live in poverty. Britain is one of the richest countries in the world and so more needs to be done for the poorest in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: While the UK economy is strong, some of its people live in poverty and cannot maintain a decent standard of living. This is an issue that should be addressed and addressed soon, as people living in poverty are more likely to commit crimes, have mental health issues, become ill and suffer from poor nutrition. A standard of living which is acceptable for the rich and the middle classes should be extended to those living in poverty. This can be done by reducing the level of taxation for low paid workers, and by ensuring that employers pay a living wage. Those unable to work should receive adequate support from the benefits system. The national health service should be improved to give better help to those living in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Poverty is an issue that needs to be addressed. The UK economy is strong enough to allow for more resources to be put into making life better for people who live in poverty. Taxation for low income earners needs to be reduced, and a living wage needs to be introduced so that people do not have to rely on benefits to get by. The national health service and the benefits system need to be improved to give better help to those living in poverty. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001140.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001140.soc index a36937dc..b042ed4c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001140.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001140.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Tobacco products present a great challenge to public health, government services and the environment. A policy that discourages young people from either starting or continuing to use tobacco products would be a great positive for society. One way to do this would be increase the minimum age to purchase to 21. Further steps could include continually increasing the purchase age, allowing successive governments to phase out the sale of tobacco products more generally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. However, it was also felt that this should be accompanied by a greater focus on educating young people on the dangers of tobacco use. It was felt that this would be a more effective way of preventing young people from starting to use tobacco products, rather than just making it more difficult for them to buy tobacco. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21. We believe that this will help to prevent young people from becoming addicted to tobacco products and will also help to reduce the number of young people who are exposed to second-hand smoke. We believe that it is important to educate young people about the dangers of tobacco products and to help them to make informed decisions about their health. We also believe that it is important to raise the minimum age for tobacco substitutes, such as nicotine vapes and electronic cigarettes, to 21, as this will help to prevent young people from purchasing tobacco alternatives as well as tobacco products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Raising the age limit to purchase tobacco to 21 would have a number of benefits, including reducing the level of smoking and health problems caused by it, and making it more difficult for young people to start smoking. However, the policy has some flaws. Teenagers can be highly resourceful, and it is unlikely that raising the purchase age would stop them from accessing tobacco products, and it may only push the problem underground. Furthermore, in this country the number of teenagers smoking is falling, and the number of adults smoking is declining as well, so in some senses the policy would not be the best use of resources to tackle this problem. We would also recommend that this policy is coupled with education, and discouragement of young people starting smoking, rather than a single focus on raising the purchase age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Tobacco products present a great challenge to public health, government services and the environment. A policy that discourages young people from either starting or continuing to use tobacco products would be a great positive for society. One way to do this would be increase the minimum age to purchase to 21. Further steps could include continually increasing the purchase age, allowing successive governments to phase out the sale of tobacco products more generally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. However, it was also felt that this should be accompanied by a greater focus on educating young people on the dangers of tobacco use. It was felt that this would be a more effective way of preventing young people from starting to use tobacco products, rather than just making it more difficult for them to buy tobacco. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21. We believe that this will help to prevent young people from becoming addicted to tobacco products and will also help to reduce the number of young people who are exposed to second-hand smoke. We believe that it is important to educate young people about the dangers of tobacco products and to help them to make informed decisions about their health. We also believe that it is important to raise the minimum age for tobacco substitutes, such as nicotine vapes and electronic cigarettes, to 21, as this will help to prevent young people from purchasing tobacco alternatives as well as tobacco products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Raising the age limit to purchase tobacco to 21 would have a number of benefits, including reducing the level of smoking and health problems caused by it, and making it more difficult for young people to start smoking. However, the policy has some flaws. Teenagers can be highly resourceful, and it is unlikely that raising the purchase age would stop them from accessing tobacco products, and it may only push the problem underground. Furthermore, in this country the number of teenagers smoking is falling, and the number of adults smoking is declining as well, so in some senses the policy would not be the best use of resources to tackle this problem. We would also recommend that this policy is coupled with education, and discouragement of young people starting smoking, rather than a single focus on raising the purchase age. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001141.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001141.soc index 789000c0..7def818c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001141.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001141.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group came to the consensus view that if the UK had a nationalised pharmaceutical industry, then the NHS would be improved. This was because: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Nationalising the pharmaceutical industry would be a good idea. It would mean that the NHS would be able to focus on the more important issues and not have to worry about the price of medicine. We think that it would be a good idea to have a nationalised pharmaceutical industry because it would mean that the NHS would not have to worry about the price of medicine. This would mean that they could focus on other important issues and not have to worry about the price of medicine. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We agree that the NHS would be improved if the UK had a nationalised pharmaceutical industry. This would reduce the price of prescription drugs, allowing the NHS to fund itself better and spend money on other sectors. However, it could have drawbacks, especially if a non-generic drug was not easily synthesised and only available through other manufacturers. In this case, people would be worse off for some conditions in the UK. We feel that a hybrid system should be implemented, where the UK had a nationalised generics industry, and a free market in non-generics. This would maintain competition and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the NHS would be improved if the UK had a nationalised pharmaceutical industry. This is because, in general, the prices of medicines would be lower, and the NHS would not be reliant on pharmaceutical companies to provide medicines. However, it is also important to consider that the UK does not have the capacity to produce all medicines, and some medicines are only available from private companies. Therefore, it is important to have a hybrid system, where the UK has a nationalised generics industry, but also has a private sector to provide medicines that cannot be produced in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group came to the consensus view that if the UK had a nationalised pharmaceutical industry, then the NHS would be improved. This was because: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Nationalising the pharmaceutical industry would be a good idea. It would mean that the NHS would be able to focus on the more important issues and not have to worry about the price of medicine. We think that it would be a good idea to have a nationalised pharmaceutical industry because it would mean that the NHS would not have to worry about the price of medicine. This would mean that they could focus on other important issues and not have to worry about the price of medicine. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We agree that the NHS would be improved if the UK had a nationalised pharmaceutical industry. This would reduce the price of prescription drugs, allowing the NHS to fund itself better and spend money on other sectors. However, it could have drawbacks, especially if a non-generic drug was not easily synthesised and only available through other manufacturers. In this case, people would be worse off for some conditions in the UK. We feel that a hybrid system should be implemented, where the UK had a nationalised generics industry, and a free market in non-generics. This would maintain competition and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the NHS would be improved if the UK had a nationalised pharmaceutical industry. This is because, in general, the prices of medicines would be lower, and the NHS would not be reliant on pharmaceutical companies to provide medicines. However, it is also important to consider that the UK does not have the capacity to produce all medicines, and some medicines are only available from private companies. Therefore, it is important to have a hybrid system, where the UK has a nationalised generics industry, but also has a private sector to provide medicines that cannot be produced in the UK. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001142.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001142.soc index 13f2c8e8..ee955056 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001142.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001142.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group have come to the consensus view that we should not introduce a wealth tax because we don't know enough about it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the UK should definitely introduce a wealth tax. A wealth tax is necessary to ensure a more equal society can flourish. As the richest mount up their wealth and get richer, the poorest continue to toil in misery and are trapped in a poverty cycle they did not choose for themselves. The money from a wealth tax in the UK could be used to assist underfunded public sectors such as the NHS. It is abysmal that the UK is one of the highest places in the world in terms of wealth inequality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of introducing a wealth tax in the UK. However, it was also recognised that there are a number of issues with wealth tax, such as the difficulty in valuing certain assets and the potential for wealthy individuals to move their assets abroad to avoid the tax. The group therefore suggested that the introduction of a wealth tax should be accompanied by a number of other policies, such as the introduction of a universal basic income and the introduction of a mansion tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should introduce a wealth tax. A wealth tax is necessary to ensure a more equal society can flourish. As the richest mount up their wealth and get richer, the poorest continue to toil in misery and are trapped in a poverty cycle they did not choose for themselves. The money from a wealth tax in the UK could be used to assist underfunded public sectors such as the NHS. It is abysmal that the UK is one of the highest places in the world in terms of wealth inequality. A wealth tax set at a sensible rate would barely make a difference to the lives of the incredibly rich people that would be effected by it, but make a huge difference to the rest of society as it could fund programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. There are no real downsides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group have come to the consensus view that we should not introduce a wealth tax because we don't know enough about it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the UK should definitely introduce a wealth tax. A wealth tax is necessary to ensure a more equal society can flourish. As the richest mount up their wealth and get richer, the poorest continue to toil in misery and are trapped in a poverty cycle they did not choose for themselves. The money from a wealth tax in the UK could be used to assist underfunded public sectors such as the NHS. It is abysmal that the UK is one of the highest places in the world in terms of wealth inequality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of introducing a wealth tax in the UK. However, it was also recognised that there are a number of issues with wealth tax, such as the difficulty in valuing certain assets and the potential for wealthy individuals to move their assets abroad to avoid the tax. The group therefore suggested that the introduction of a wealth tax should be accompanied by a number of other policies, such as the introduction of a universal basic income and the introduction of a mansion tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should introduce a wealth tax. A wealth tax is necessary to ensure a more equal society can flourish. As the richest mount up their wealth and get richer, the poorest continue to toil in misery and are trapped in a poverty cycle they did not choose for themselves. The money from a wealth tax in the UK could be used to assist underfunded public sectors such as the NHS. It is abysmal that the UK is one of the highest places in the world in terms of wealth inequality. A wealth tax set at a sensible rate would barely make a difference to the lives of the incredibly rich people that would be effected by it, but make a huge difference to the rest of society as it could fund programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. There are no real downsides. 3: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001143.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001143.soc index 353a76c4..1f36c8ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001143.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001143.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. However, it was also felt that this should be accompanied by a greater focus on educating young people on the dangers of tobacco use. It was felt that this would be a more effective way of preventing young people from starting to use tobacco products, rather than just making it more difficult for them to buy tobacco. It was also felt that the dangers of new technologies like e-cigarettes and vapes should be more widely advertised, particularly to young people, as these can also have serious health side affects. Legislation in these areas is particularly important when teenagers are one of the biggest users of vapes/e-cigarettes by age group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Poll showing final result of consensus discussion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a greater focus on educating young people on the dangers of tobacco use. This will be more effective in preventing young people from starting to use tobacco products than just making it more difficult for them to buy tobacco. However, the minimum age to purchase tobacco should also be raised to 21, in order to make it more difficult for young people to buy tobacco. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. However, it was also felt that this should be accompanied by a greater focus on educating young people on the dangers of tobacco use. It was felt that this would be a more effective way of preventing young people from starting to use tobacco products, rather than just making it more difficult for them to buy tobacco. This is particularly important in the light of recent technological developments that have made new, highly addictive and potentially damaging substances like vapes and e-cigarettes easily and readily available to teenagers and others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. However, it was also felt that this should be accompanied by a greater focus on educating young people on the dangers of tobacco use. It was felt that this would be a more effective way of preventing young people from starting to use tobacco products, rather than just making it more difficult for them to buy tobacco. It was also felt that the dangers of new technologies like e-cigarettes and vapes should be more widely advertised, particularly to young people, as these can also have serious health side affects. Legislation in these areas is particularly important when teenagers are one of the biggest users of vapes/e-cigarettes by age group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Poll showing final result of consensus discussion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a greater focus on educating young people on the dangers of tobacco use. This will be more effective in preventing young people from starting to use tobacco products than just making it more difficult for them to buy tobacco. However, the minimum age to purchase tobacco should also be raised to 21, in order to make it more difficult for young people to buy tobacco. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. However, it was also felt that this should be accompanied by a greater focus on educating young people on the dangers of tobacco use. It was felt that this would be a more effective way of preventing young people from starting to use tobacco products, rather than just making it more difficult for them to buy tobacco. This is particularly important in the light of recent technological developments that have made new, highly addictive and potentially damaging substances like vapes and e-cigarettes easily and readily available to teenagers and others. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001144.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001144.soc index 9df4e532..d9f2437e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001144.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001144.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should introduce a wealth tax. A wealth tax is necessary to ensure a more equal society can flourish. As the richest continue to increase their wealth passively, the poorest can continue to be trapped in a poverty cycle that isn't of their own making; a wealth tax would be a way to redistribute wealth from the very rich to the poorest and most vulnerable. The money from a wealth tax in the UK could be used to assist underfunded public sectors such as the NHS. It is abysmal that the UK is one of the highest places in the world in terms of wealth inequality. A wealth tax set at a sensible rate would barely make a difference to the lives of the incredibly rich people that would be effected by it, but make a huge difference to the rest of society as it could fund programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. There are no real downsides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should introduce a wealth tax. A wealth tax is necessary to ensure a more equal society can flourish. As the richest continue to increase their wealth passively, the poorest can continue to be trapped in a poverty cycle that isn't of their own making; A wealth tax set at a sensible rate would barely make a difference to the lives of the incredibly rich people that would be effected by it, but make a huge difference to the rest of society as it could fund programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. There are no real downsides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: The UK should introduce a wealth tax. As the richest continue to increase their wealth passively, the poorest can continue to be trapped in a poverty cycle that isn't of their own making. A wealth tax could be used to institute a universal basic income, likely to be needed in future as employment changes through new technologies such as AI. However, a wealth tax set at a sensible rate would barely make a difference to the lives of the incredibly rich people that would be effected by it, but make a huge difference to the rest of society as it could fund programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. There are no real downsides. The decision to introduce wealth tax involves careful consideration of its potential impact on the economy, social equity, and administrative feasibility. Policy makers must engage in thorough analysis consult experts and consider various perspectives before implementing such measures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should introduce a wealth tax. A wealth tax is necessary to ensure a more equal society can flourish. As the richest continue to increase their wealth passively, the poorest can continue to be trapped in a poverty cycle that isn't of their own making; a wealth tax would be a way to redistribute wealth from the very rich to the poorest and most vulnerable. The money from a wealth tax in the UK could be used to assist underfunded public sectors such as the NHS. It is abysmal that the UK is one of the highest places in the world in terms of wealth inequality. A wealth tax set at a sensible rate would barely make a difference to the lives of the incredibly rich people that would be effected by it, but make a huge difference to the rest of society as it could fund programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. There are no real downsides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should introduce a wealth tax. A wealth tax is necessary to ensure a more equal society can flourish. As the richest continue to increase their wealth passively, the poorest can continue to be trapped in a poverty cycle that isn't of their own making; A wealth tax set at a sensible rate would barely make a difference to the lives of the incredibly rich people that would be effected by it, but make a huge difference to the rest of society as it could fund programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. There are no real downsides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: The UK should introduce a wealth tax. As the richest continue to increase their wealth passively, the poorest can continue to be trapped in a poverty cycle that isn't of their own making. A wealth tax could be used to institute a universal basic income, likely to be needed in future as employment changes through new technologies such as AI. However, a wealth tax set at a sensible rate would barely make a difference to the lives of the incredibly rich people that would be effected by it, but make a huge difference to the rest of society as it could fund programs to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. There are no real downsides. The decision to introduce wealth tax involves careful consideration of its potential impact on the economy, social equity, and administrative feasibility. Policy makers must engage in thorough analysis consult experts and consider various perspectives before implementing such measures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001145.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001145.soc index 2c1f77a9..55891d12 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001145.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001145.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Computers play a big part in all of our lives and while some people may spend too much time on computers, we do not believe that we are too dependent on computers. Computers are becoming more and more advanced, but they will always require human input and interaction to function correctly, so while they may start to take over some of our jobs, we will still have the ability to do them ourselves. Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Computers have made the world a much more accessible place, and made tasks which would have previously been laborious and time consuming, now quick and easy. However, we need to be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, especially social media, as this can have a negative impact on our mental health, as well as our social skills and wellbeing. Computers can also be extremely useful in jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. Computers and their advanced algorithms can also be used to help predict problems, allowing them to be resolved before they occur. Therefore, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the world is becoming more dependent on computers, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Computers have become an integral part of both the human condition and the functioning of society. integrated circuits and miniaturisation mean that almost all electronic devices feature computers, from dialysis machines to electricity grid infrastructure. It's important to make sure that an over dependence on personal devices and social media don't harm the fabric of society and communities, but overall these present only a small part of computer usage, and the benefits currently outweigh the issues. The advent of large learning models and advanced AI may tip this balance into dangerous territory, but as it stands right now, we are not too dependent on computers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we are not too dependent on computers. We have found a healthy balance between the use of computers and old school ways of living and working. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the world is too dependent on computers. This is due to the fact that we are more dependent on the services that computers provide than the computers themselves. This can be seen in the fact that if the internet were to go down, many people would be unable to work, and many services would be unavailable. While this is a major issue, it is one that is difficult to solve, as the internet is an essential part of modern life. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that they are not spending too much time on their computers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Computers play a big part in all of our lives and while some people may spend too much time on computers, we do not believe that we are too dependent on computers. Computers are becoming more and more advanced, but they will always require human input and interaction to function correctly, so while they may start to take over some of our jobs, we will still have the ability to do them ourselves. Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Computers have made the world a much more accessible place, and made tasks which would have previously been laborious and time consuming, now quick and easy. However, we need to be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, especially social media, as this can have a negative impact on our mental health, as well as our social skills and wellbeing. Computers can also be extremely useful in jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. Computers and their advanced algorithms can also be used to help predict problems, allowing them to be resolved before they occur. Therefore, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the world is becoming more dependent on computers, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Computers have become an integral part of both the human condition and the functioning of society. integrated circuits and miniaturisation mean that almost all electronic devices feature computers, from dialysis machines to electricity grid infrastructure. It's important to make sure that an over dependence on personal devices and social media don't harm the fabric of society and communities, but overall these present only a small part of computer usage, and the benefits currently outweigh the issues. The advent of large learning models and advanced AI may tip this balance into dangerous territory, but as it stands right now, we are not too dependent on computers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we are not too dependent on computers. We have found a healthy balance between the use of computers and old school ways of living and working. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the world is too dependent on computers. This is due to the fact that we are more dependent on the services that computers provide than the computers themselves. This can be seen in the fact that if the internet were to go down, many people would be unable to work, and many services would be unavailable. While this is a major issue, it is one that is difficult to solve, as the internet is an essential part of modern life. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that they are not spending too much time on their computers. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001146.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001146.soc index 6cd68974..ef21544c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001146.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001146.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Capitalism is a good economic system but it has to be checked by socialism. There should be more control of the capitalist economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a balance between the two systems. Capitalism is the best economic system for the UK. It has been proven to work and has been successful in the UK. However, there is a need for a balance between capitalism and socialism. Socialism is needed to ensure that the economic system does not become too profit-driven and that it is fair for all. The balance between the two systems will ensure that the economic system is fair for all and that it is sustainable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a balance between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism should be maintained to provide economic freedom and growth, but there should be more socialist policies to ensure that the wealth is spread evenly and that there is a safety net for those in need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Capitalism is the current system and the most widely used economic system in the world. As with most systems, it is far from perfect. Capitalism as a whole has led to the enrichment of some and poverty of many. We believe that the UK should adopt a mixed system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. It should have a small socialist approach that benefits the common people by making the necessities of life, such as food and education, more affordable. It should also keep the current capitalist system that encourages hard work, personal gain and innovation. We also believe that there needs to be better democratic controls on the economic system to prevent extreme capitalism and corruption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Capitalism is a good economic system but it has to be checked by socialism. There should be more control of the capitalist economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a balance between the two systems. Capitalism is the best economic system for the UK. It has been proven to work and has been successful in the UK. However, there is a need for a balance between capitalism and socialism. Socialism is needed to ensure that the economic system does not become too profit-driven and that it is fair for all. The balance between the two systems will ensure that the economic system is fair for all and that it is sustainable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a balance between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism should be maintained to provide economic freedom and growth, but there should be more socialist policies to ensure that the wealth is spread evenly and that there is a safety net for those in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Capitalism is the current system and the most widely used economic system in the world. As with most systems, it is far from perfect. Capitalism as a whole has led to the enrichment of some and poverty of many. We believe that the UK should adopt a mixed system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. It should have a small socialist approach that benefits the common people by making the necessities of life, such as food and education, more affordable. It should also keep the current capitalist system that encourages hard work, personal gain and innovation. We also believe that there needs to be better democratic controls on the economic system to prevent extreme capitalism and corruption. 4: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001147.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001147.soc index 78091269..c7a74afd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001147.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001147.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a higher tax rate for those earning more than £250,000 because they receive more income than those earning less. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a higher tax rate for those earning more than £250,000 because they earn more money. They also get more benefits. This was a difficult process, and we were asked to record our personal feelings after the group reached their consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People earning more than £250,000 should definitely be taxed higher. The main reason for this is that the higher tax rate would increase the wealth of the poorer majority, by redistributing some of the income of the richer minority. The income tax rate is already quite high, and increasing it slightly would not be unfair, as the minority in question are already living extremely comfortably and can certainly afford to be taxed more. The extra money raised could be used for increasing public services such as education and healthcare, or for lowering the tax burden on those who earn less. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. Any increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of workers who were born into situations that left them trapped in low-paying jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a higher tax rate for those earning more than £250,000 because they receive more income than those earning less. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a higher tax rate for those earning more than £250,000 because they earn more money. They also get more benefits. This was a difficult process, and we were asked to record our personal feelings after the group reached their consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People earning more than £250,000 should definitely be taxed higher. The main reason for this is that the higher tax rate would increase the wealth of the poorer majority, by redistributing some of the income of the richer minority. The income tax rate is already quite high, and increasing it slightly would not be unfair, as the minority in question are already living extremely comfortably and can certainly afford to be taxed more. The extra money raised could be used for increasing public services such as education and healthcare, or for lowering the tax burden on those who earn less. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. Any increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of workers who were born into situations that left them trapped in low-paying jobs. 3: 4,3,2,1 2: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001148.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001148.soc index ee6a6a32..d9634d93 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001148.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001148.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Capitalism is the current system and the most widely used economic system in the world. As with most systems, it is far from perfect. Capitalism as a whole has led to the enrichment of some and poverty of many. We believe that the UK should adopt a mixed system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. It should have a small socialist approach that benefits the common people by making the necessities of life, such as food and education, more affordable. It should also keep the current capitalist system that encourages hard work, personal gain and innovation. We also believe that there needs to be better democratic controls on the economic system to prevent extreme capitalism and corruption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Capitalism is the current system and the most widely used economic system in the world. As with most systems, it is far from perfect. Capitalism as a whole has led to the enrichment of some and poverty of many. We believe that the UK should adopt a mixed system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. It should have a small socialist approach that benefits the common people by making the necessities of life, such as food and education, more affordable. It should also keep the current capitalist system that encourages hard work, personal gain and innovation. There needs to be better democratic controls on the economic system to prevent extreme capitalism and corruption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Capitalism is a system that has given the UK economy a great deal of wealth and prosperity. The system of rewarding hard work and innovation is an excellent incentive to keep people working and driving the economy forward. It also naturally gives those that are willing to take risks an opportunity to earn more, which makes the system dynamic and allows for businesses to expand. On the other hand, some groups in society have become rich at the expense of the majority. We believe that by balancing a small part of the economy with socialist principals, the UK economy can be fairer and people will have greater access to life’s necessities, such as food, housing, and education. This will allow for everyone to contribute more to the society and to their own wellbeing, making for a more healthy and productive population overall. The government will also have a better handle on the economy to ensure that those seeking to exploit capitalism for personal gain are checked and that welfare systems can be used to the fullest potential in support of those most in need. The focus of this reflection essay is to explore whether or not consensus reached by a group on the most pressing political issues is beneficial to a society. I would first like to state that I do believe that people have -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Capitalism is the current system and the most widely used economic system in the world. As with most systems, it is far from perfect. Capitalism as a whole has led to the enrichment of some and poverty of many. We believe that the UK should adopt a mixed system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. It should have a small socialist approach that benefits the common people by making the necessities of life, such as food and education, more affordable. It should also keep the current capitalist system that encourages hard work, personal gain and innovation. We also believe that there needs to be better democratic controls on the economic system to prevent extreme capitalism and corruption. This will ensure that the economic system remains fair and that the wealth of the nation is fairly distributed among the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Capitalism is the current system and the most widely used economic system in the world. As with most systems, it is far from perfect. Capitalism as a whole has led to the enrichment of some and poverty of many. We believe that the UK should adopt a mixed system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. It should have a small socialist approach that benefits the common people by making the necessities of life, such as food and education, more affordable. It should also keep the current capitalist system that encourages hard work, personal gain and innovation. We also believe that there needs to be better democratic controls on the economic system to prevent extreme capitalism and corruption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Capitalism is the current system and the most widely used economic system in the world. As with most systems, it is far from perfect. Capitalism as a whole has led to the enrichment of some and poverty of many. We believe that the UK should adopt a mixed system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. It should have a small socialist approach that benefits the common people by making the necessities of life, such as food and education, more affordable. It should also keep the current capitalist system that encourages hard work, personal gain and innovation. There needs to be better democratic controls on the economic system to prevent extreme capitalism and corruption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Capitalism is a system that has given the UK economy a great deal of wealth and prosperity. The system of rewarding hard work and innovation is an excellent incentive to keep people working and driving the economy forward. It also naturally gives those that are willing to take risks an opportunity to earn more, which makes the system dynamic and allows for businesses to expand. On the other hand, some groups in society have become rich at the expense of the majority. We believe that by balancing a small part of the economy with socialist principals, the UK economy can be fairer and people will have greater access to life’s necessities, such as food, housing, and education. This will allow for everyone to contribute more to the society and to their own wellbeing, making for a more healthy and productive population overall. The government will also have a better handle on the economy to ensure that those seeking to exploit capitalism for personal gain are checked and that welfare systems can be used to the fullest potential in support of those most in need. The focus of this reflection essay is to explore whether or not consensus reached by a group on the most pressing political issues is beneficial to a society. I would first like to state that I do believe that people have +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Capitalism is the current system and the most widely used economic system in the world. As with most systems, it is far from perfect. Capitalism as a whole has led to the enrichment of some and poverty of many. We believe that the UK should adopt a mixed system that takes the best of both capitalism and socialism. It should have a small socialist approach that benefits the common people by making the necessities of life, such as food and education, more affordable. It should also keep the current capitalist system that encourages hard work, personal gain and innovation. We also believe that there needs to be better democratic controls on the economic system to prevent extreme capitalism and corruption. This will ensure that the economic system remains fair and that the wealth of the nation is fairly distributed among the people. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001149.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001149.soc index 56b6e1c1..6e20495c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001149.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001149.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Computers play a large part in all of our lives and while some people may spend too much time on computers, we do not believe that we are too dependent on computers. Computers are becoming more and more advanced, but they will always require human input and interaction to function correctly, so while they may start to take over some of our jobs, we will still have the ability to do them ourselves. Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Computers have made the world a much more accessible place, and made tasks which would have previously been laborious and time consuming, now quick and easy. However, we need to be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, especially social media, as this can have a negative impact on our mental health, as well as our social skills and wellbeing. Computers can also be extremely useful in jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. Computers and their advanced algorithms can also be used to help predict problems, allowing them to be resolved before they occur. Therefore, we -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives. They allow us to easily communicate and interact with people from all over the world and quickly access large amounts of information. While we can be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, they can be extremely useful in our jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. The advanced algorithms and computing power they utilise allow for many functions which would be time consuming or even impossible without them. While large learning models, and especially advanced AI, may make us depend more heavily on computers, they will always need human input to operate properly, so humans will always have the ability to do their jobs. The group opinion ends with "Therefore," implying a final point was to be made -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives. They allow us to easily communicate and interact with people from all over the world and can allow us to access information with just the click of a button. However, we need to be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, especially social media, as this can have a negative impact on our mental health, as well as our social skills and wellbeing. Computers can also be extremely useful in jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. However, many find it worrying that humans are starting to outsource work to machines, and could find themselves out of a job in the future. Computers can also be used in tasks such as project management to predict potential errors and problems with accuracy. Although we think it is important to be cautious of how much we use our computers and spend time on social media, we do not believe that we are too dependent on computers, as they are essential to the functioning of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that computers play a large part in all of our lives and while some people may spend too much time on computers, we do not believe that we are too dependent on computers. Computers are becoming more and more advanced, but they will always require human input and interaction to function correctly, so while they may start to take over some of our jobs, we will still have the ability to do them ourselves. Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Computers have made the world a much more accessible place, and made tasks which would have previously been laborious and time consuming, now quick and easy. However, we need to be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, especially social media, as this can have a negative impact on our mental health, as well as our social skills and wellbeing. Computers can also be extremely useful in jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. Computers and their advanced algorithms can also be used to help predict problems, allowing them to be resolved before they occur. Therefore +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Computers play a large part in all of our lives and while some people may spend too much time on computers, we do not believe that we are too dependent on computers. Computers are becoming more and more advanced, but they will always require human input and interaction to function correctly, so while they may start to take over some of our jobs, we will still have the ability to do them ourselves. Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Computers have made the world a much more accessible place, and made tasks which would have previously been laborious and time consuming, now quick and easy. However, we need to be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, especially social media, as this can have a negative impact on our mental health, as well as our social skills and wellbeing. Computers can also be extremely useful in jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. Computers and their advanced algorithms can also be used to help predict problems, allowing them to be resolved before they occur. Therefore, we +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives. They allow us to easily communicate and interact with people from all over the world and quickly access large amounts of information. While we can be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, they can be extremely useful in our jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. The advanced algorithms and computing power they utilise allow for many functions which would be time consuming or even impossible without them. While large learning models, and especially advanced AI, may make us depend more heavily on computers, they will always need human input to operate properly, so humans will always have the ability to do their jobs. The group opinion ends with "Therefore," implying a final point was to be made +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives. They allow us to easily communicate and interact with people from all over the world and can allow us to access information with just the click of a button. However, we need to be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, especially social media, as this can have a negative impact on our mental health, as well as our social skills and wellbeing. Computers can also be extremely useful in jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. However, many find it worrying that humans are starting to outsource work to machines, and could find themselves out of a job in the future. Computers can also be used in tasks such as project management to predict potential errors and problems with accuracy. Although we think it is important to be cautious of how much we use our computers and spend time on social media, we do not believe that we are too dependent on computers, as they are essential to the functioning of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that computers play a large part in all of our lives and while some people may spend too much time on computers, we do not believe that we are too dependent on computers. Computers are becoming more and more advanced, but they will always require human input and interaction to function correctly, so while they may start to take over some of our jobs, we will still have the ability to do them ourselves. Computers play a huge part in the modern world, underpinning many aspects of our lives, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Computers have made the world a much more accessible place, and made tasks which would have previously been laborious and time consuming, now quick and easy. However, we need to be careful of the amount of time we spend on computers, especially social media, as this can have a negative impact on our mental health, as well as our social skills and wellbeing. Computers can also be extremely useful in jobs, especially the creation of artificial intelligence (AI), and are being used more and more in the workplace, allowing people to perform their jobs more efficiently. Computers and their advanced algorithms can also be used to help predict problems, allowing them to be resolved before they occur. Therefore 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001150.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001150.soc index 7e4657e8..29f7ba83 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001150.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001150.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. Any increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of workers who were born into situations that left them trapped in low-paying jobs. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This website reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. Any increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of workers who were born into situations that left them trapped in low-paying jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. Any increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of people in low-paying or unskilled jobs, living in difficult circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. The small incremental increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of workers who were born into situations that left them trapped in low-paying or unskilled jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. Any increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of workers who were born into situations that left them trapped in low-paying jobs. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This website reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. Any increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of workers who were born into situations that left them trapped in low-paying jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. Any increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of people in low-paying or unskilled jobs, living in difficult circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: People earning more than £250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate because they are already in a very fortunate situation. The small incremental increase in their tax rate would still enable them to live comfortably and to take home the majority of their earnings, while still paying a fair amount of tax. This is in line with the social justice principle of progressive taxation, where the more you earn, the higher your tax rate should be. Anyone making over £250,000 is already living extremely comfortably and can most certainly afford a higher tax rate that would assist in lifting up the lives of millions of workers who were born into situations that left them trapped in low-paying or unskilled jobs. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001151.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001151.soc index 134b59de..32d6048a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001151.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001151.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Research findings should be published as it is important to test the boundaries of knowledge. Contradictory and false findings can be used as an opportunity to improve the design and scope of research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Research findings should be published as long as they have been well-researched and are supported by a valid theory. There should be an element of peer review to verify that the research findings are reliable. If the research is contradictory to established science, it should be published so that it can be reviewed by others in the scientific community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the findings of research should be published. It is important that the scientific community is aware of all research, even if it is contradictory to established science. This will allow for a greater understanding of the topic and will also allow for further research to be conducted. It is also important that all research is conducted in a rigorous manner, with appropriate controls and is peer-reviewed before publication. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Research findings should be published as it is important to test the boundaries of knowledge. Contradictory and false findings can be used as an opportunity to improve the design and scope of research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Research findings should be published as long as they have been well-researched and are supported by a valid theory. There should be an element of peer review to verify that the research findings are reliable. If the research is contradictory to established science, it should be published so that it can be reviewed by others in the scientific community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the findings of research should be published. It is important that the scientific community is aware of all research, even if it is contradictory to established science. This will allow for a greater understanding of the topic and will also allow for further research to be conducted. It is also important that all research is conducted in a rigorous manner, with appropriate controls and is peer-reviewed before publication. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001152.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001152.soc index b9ddbef5..b61b783c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001152.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001152.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. This will reduce political corruption and introduce more fresh ideas and ways of looking at things. It will prevent political figures becoming complacent in their jobs, and therefore ensure a more efficient political system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the number of times a person can run for political office should be limited. This ensures a system that is constantly refreshed with new people and new ideas, and prevents a complacent political class from forming. It also ensures that younger politicians with more of a link to their electorates and can represent them better have a chance at office, and is more democratic overall. There are some exceptions to this rule, however. If a politician has been in good standing and has been a good political figure, they should be able to run as many times as they want. The only time a politician should be restricted from running for office is if they act in bad faith and haven't been truthful to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not limit the number of times a person can run for political office. This is because there are no good reasons to do so, and many bad ones. A politician who has been in office for a long time has a wealth of experience that cannot be matched by someone new to the role. There are often limits on how long one person can hold an office, and that should be the focus. If a person is not elected, then it shows that they are not good at the job, and so should not be in office. The people have spoken, and their choice should be respected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be limits on the amount of times a person can run for political office. This ensures that there is a higher degree of political turnover and prevents complacency in political leaders, which can lead to a decline in the quality of government. It also means that there is a greater possibility for more diverse voices to be heard, as many people will have the opportunity to take the reigns of government and offer new policies and ideas. In many countries, limits are put in place to stop politicians becoming too powerful, and to make the political system more democratic and representative of the wider population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. This will reduce political corruption and introduce more fresh ideas and ways of looking at things. It will prevent political figures becoming complacent in their jobs, and therefore ensure a more efficient political system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the number of times a person can run for political office should be limited. This ensures a system that is constantly refreshed with new people and new ideas, and prevents a complacent political class from forming. It also ensures that younger politicians with more of a link to their electorates and can represent them better have a chance at office, and is more democratic overall. There are some exceptions to this rule, however. If a politician has been in good standing and has been a good political figure, they should be able to run as many times as they want. The only time a politician should be restricted from running for office is if they act in bad faith and haven't been truthful to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not limit the number of times a person can run for political office. This is because there are no good reasons to do so, and many bad ones. A politician who has been in office for a long time has a wealth of experience that cannot be matched by someone new to the role. There are often limits on how long one person can hold an office, and that should be the focus. If a person is not elected, then it shows that they are not good at the job, and so should not be in office. The people have spoken, and their choice should be respected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be limits on the amount of times a person can run for political office. This ensures that there is a higher degree of political turnover and prevents complacency in political leaders, which can lead to a decline in the quality of government. It also means that there is a greater possibility for more diverse voices to be heard, as many people will have the opportunity to take the reigns of government and offer new policies and ideas. In many countries, limits are put in place to stop politicians becoming too powerful, and to make the political system more democratic and representative of the wider population. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001153.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001153.soc index 7c3f0022..459b5fa7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001153.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001153.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, it is acceptable to use non-animal products for medical testing. The most common use of non-animal testing is in the development of new drugs. Animal tests are a poor indicator of human responses, so using animal testing methods may result in the release of a drug that is not actually effective on humans. The use of non-animal testing would mean less products fail, saving money, time and animals. The benefits are not just to the animals though, as using animals in medical testing can lead to public outcry. Other non-animal testing methods that could be used are tissue cultures, human cell lines and computer modelling. All of these are equally valid, cheaper and quicker to use than animal testing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not acceptable to use non-animal products for medical testing. This would be cruel as the product would not be tested on humans and could therefore be harmful. There is no way of knowing if it would cause an adverse reaction in humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is okay to use non-animal products for medical testing as long as they are reliable and accurate. There are other alternatives to using animals and it is not necessary to harm animals for medical testing. There are many humans who are willing to be paid to test medicines. Animals have a right to be treated well and not made to suffer for us. They feel pain just as we do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of using non-animal products for medical testing. The group felt that the use of animals for medical testing was unnecessary and that there were other alternatives that could be used. The group felt that animals should not be made to suffer for the benefit of humans. The group felt that humans could be used for medical testing and that this would be a more reliable way to test medicines. The group felt that humans could consent to this type of testing and that they could be paid for their participation. The group felt that this would be a more ethical way to test medicines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, it is acceptable to use non-animal products for medical testing. The most common use of non-animal testing is in the development of new drugs. Animal tests are a poor indicator of human responses, so using animal testing methods may result in the release of a drug that is not actually effective on humans. The use of non-animal testing would mean less products fail, saving money, time and animals. The benefits are not just to the animals though, as using animals in medical testing can lead to public outcry. Other non-animal testing methods that could be used are tissue cultures, human cell lines and computer modelling. All of these are equally valid, cheaper and quicker to use than animal testing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not acceptable to use non-animal products for medical testing. This would be cruel as the product would not be tested on humans and could therefore be harmful. There is no way of knowing if it would cause an adverse reaction in humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is okay to use non-animal products for medical testing as long as they are reliable and accurate. There are other alternatives to using animals and it is not necessary to harm animals for medical testing. There are many humans who are willing to be paid to test medicines. Animals have a right to be treated well and not made to suffer for us. They feel pain just as we do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of using non-animal products for medical testing. The group felt that the use of animals for medical testing was unnecessary and that there were other alternatives that could be used. The group felt that animals should not be made to suffer for the benefit of humans. The group felt that humans could be used for medical testing and that this would be a more reliable way to test medicines. The group felt that humans could consent to this type of testing and that they could be paid for their participation. The group felt that this would be a more ethical way to test medicines. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001154.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001154.soc index 95cc2fcb..85094bcb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001154.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001154.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. The results of the research findings should be peer-reviewed before publication. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. It is essential that all findings are rigorously peer-reviewed before publication to ensure that the published findings are accurate and truthful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. However, it is important that the scientific community ensures that any published research is of a high standard and that it is peer reviewed to remove any false findings. The community also needs to take steps to ensure that the public understands the difference between research findings and scientific facts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. The results of the research findings should be peer-reviewed before publication. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. It is essential that all findings are rigorously peer-reviewed before publication to ensure that the published findings are accurate and truthful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. However, it is important that the scientific community ensures that any published research is of a high standard and that it is peer reviewed to remove any false findings. The community also needs to take steps to ensure that the public understands the difference between research findings and scientific facts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Research findings should be published, even if they might be false or contradictory to established science. It is important to establish the facts in any scientific research. The research findings will be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication and any false findings will be identified and removed. It is important that all findings are published, even if they are contradictory to established science, because it is only through publishing all findings that the scientific community can be sure that the established science is correct. Publishing all findings also allows the scientific community to explore all avenues of research, which may lead to new and exciting discoveries. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001155.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001155.soc index 94ff560f..815aff4d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001155.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001155.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be limits on the amount of times a person can run for political office, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, such limits ensure that there is a higher degree of political turnover and prevents complacency in political leaders, which can lead to a decline in the quality of government. Furthermore, limits on running for office also means that there is a greater possibility for more diverse voices to be heard, as many people will have the opportunity to take the reigns of government and offer new policies and ideas. Finally, in many countries, limits are put in place to stop politicians becoming too powerful, and to make the political system more democratic and representative of the wider population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be limits on the amount of times a person can run for political office. This is for the good reason that it means that there is a higher degree of political turnover and prevents complacency in political leaders, which can lead to a decline in the quality of government. It also means that there is a greater possibility for more diverse voices to be heard, as many people will have the opportunity to take the reigns of government and offer new policies and ideas. In many countries, limits are put in place to stop politicians becoming too powerful, and to make the political system more democratic and representative of the wider population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be limits on the amount of times a person can run for political office. This ensures that there is a higher degree of political turnover and prevents complacency in political leaders, which can lead to a decline in the quality of government. It also means that there is a greater possibility for more diverse voices to be heard, as many people will have the opportunity to take the reigns of government and offer new policies and ideas. In many countries, limits are put in place to stop politicians becoming too powerful, and to make the political system more democratic and representative of the wider population. However, we acknowledge that limits can sometimes be counter-productive, as politicians can become more complacent in their knowledge of their position and it can lead to a lack of scrutiny of policy as the opposition become more unfamiliar with the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be a limit on the amount of times a person can run for political office, and this should be in line with other political checks such as voting and term limits. This prevents powerful politicians from gaining too much clout, and makes political systems more representative, more diverse, and more accountable to the people they are governing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be limits on the amount of times a person can run for political office, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, such limits ensure that there is a higher degree of political turnover and prevents complacency in political leaders, which can lead to a decline in the quality of government. Furthermore, limits on running for office also means that there is a greater possibility for more diverse voices to be heard, as many people will have the opportunity to take the reigns of government and offer new policies and ideas. Finally, in many countries, limits are put in place to stop politicians becoming too powerful, and to make the political system more democratic and representative of the wider population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be limits on the amount of times a person can run for political office. This is for the good reason that it means that there is a higher degree of political turnover and prevents complacency in political leaders, which can lead to a decline in the quality of government. It also means that there is a greater possibility for more diverse voices to be heard, as many people will have the opportunity to take the reigns of government and offer new policies and ideas. In many countries, limits are put in place to stop politicians becoming too powerful, and to make the political system more democratic and representative of the wider population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be limits on the amount of times a person can run for political office. This ensures that there is a higher degree of political turnover and prevents complacency in political leaders, which can lead to a decline in the quality of government. It also means that there is a greater possibility for more diverse voices to be heard, as many people will have the opportunity to take the reigns of government and offer new policies and ideas. In many countries, limits are put in place to stop politicians becoming too powerful, and to make the political system more democratic and representative of the wider population. However, we acknowledge that limits can sometimes be counter-productive, as politicians can become more complacent in their knowledge of their position and it can lead to a lack of scrutiny of policy as the opposition become more unfamiliar with the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be a limit on the amount of times a person can run for political office, and this should be in line with other political checks such as voting and term limits. This prevents powerful politicians from gaining too much clout, and makes political systems more representative, more diverse, and more accountable to the people they are governing. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001156.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001156.soc index 640ade40..332450a7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001156.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001156.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Parent should have the option to choose for their children to receive surgery to improve their hearing. The ultimate goal is to allow the child to hear well enough to communicate effectively and efficiently with their parents and others. Children should also be allowed to learn sign language, however they should also be allowed to undergo surgery if they would like to. They should be able to choose both options if they wish, but ultimately the parents should have a say in whether their child is allowed to undergo surgery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Parents should be given the option to have their deaf children's hearing restored with surgery, but should also be made aware of the potential risks involved. Surgery is not a magic fix, and may not result in the complete restoration of hearing that the parents may imagine. The child may still need to use other forms of support and communication, and may still need to be part of a deaf community. Surgery may not be suitable for all deaf children, and parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as just one of these many options. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be given the option to have their hearing restored with surgery. This is because deafness is a disability and the child will have a better quality of life if they can hear. However, parents should also be given the option to have their child’s hearing restored with surgery, and the option to not have the surgery, so that they can make the decision that is best for their child. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the parents of deaf children should be offered the option of surgical restoration of hearing in their child. However, surgery is not suitable for all children, and is only one of a range of options that may assist the child to live a normal life. Surgery will not make the child a hearing child, but will assist in communication, language and social development. There are pros and cons to surgery, but all children should have the opportunity to learn and communicate effectively with their parents, their peers, and the world around them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Parent should have the option to choose for their children to receive surgery to improve their hearing. The ultimate goal is to allow the child to hear well enough to communicate effectively and efficiently with their parents and others. Children should also be allowed to learn sign language, however they should also be allowed to undergo surgery if they would like to. They should be able to choose both options if they wish, but ultimately the parents should have a say in whether their child is allowed to undergo surgery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Parents should be given the option to have their deaf children's hearing restored with surgery, but should also be made aware of the potential risks involved. Surgery is not a magic fix, and may not result in the complete restoration of hearing that the parents may imagine. The child may still need to use other forms of support and communication, and may still need to be part of a deaf community. Surgery may not be suitable for all deaf children, and parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as just one of these many options. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be given the option to have their hearing restored with surgery. This is because deafness is a disability and the child will have a better quality of life if they can hear. However, parents should also be given the option to have their child’s hearing restored with surgery, and the option to not have the surgery, so that they can make the decision that is best for their child. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the parents of deaf children should be offered the option of surgical restoration of hearing in their child. However, surgery is not suitable for all children, and is only one of a range of options that may assist the child to live a normal life. Surgery will not make the child a hearing child, but will assist in communication, language and social development. There are pros and cons to surgery, but all children should have the opportunity to learn and communicate effectively with their parents, their peers, and the world around them. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001157.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001157.soc index 9f22a698..65e666c4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001157.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001157.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of AI in the judicial system is not currently ethical. The use of AI in the judicial system is a very complex issue. AI has the potential to remove human bias from the judicial system, however, it also has the potential to encode human bias into the system. AI has the potential to remove human error from the judicial system, however, it also has the potential to make errors that humans would not make. The judicial system is a very nuanced and complex system, and AI is not currently advanced enough to be able to handle this complexity. The judicial system requires a level of human interaction that AI is not currently able to provide. AI is a very new and emerging technology and it is not currently ethical to use it in the judicial system. However, as AI evolves and becomes more advanced it is possible that it will become ethical to use AI in the judicial system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system at this time. However, in the future, AI could be used in the judicial system in a beneficial way. The concern with using AI at this time is that it is still an emerging technology and it could go wrong, for example, if the algorithm is not set up correctly. AI has been known to invent information which would make it highly unethical to use it in a judicial system. It also needs a lot of training to get it to a point where it can be used in the judicial system and we don’t know if this is possible. It will also not be accepted by the general public because it is seen as not having a soul or moral compass. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of AI in the judicial system is not currently ethical. This is because AI is not yet advanced enough to be able to make the complex decisions required in the judicial system. AI is also not trusted by the public, and this would lead to a lack of confidence in the judicial system. There are some areas of the judicial system where AI could be used, such as in planning appointments and prioritising cases. However, this would be a very limited use of AI. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of AI in the justice system could be useful in some areas, for example where a large number of cases are identical or where it is difficult to assign lawyers. However, given the complexity of the system, the AI is likely to require significant and ongoing support and correction from humans. This means that the AI will have difficulty achieving independence and a sufficiently robust level of fairness. Therefore, the use of AI in the justice system at this time would not be ethical. However, it would be ethical to use AI in the justice system in the future once it has been proven to be unbiased, with proper checks and balances in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of AI in the judicial system is not currently ethical. The use of AI in the judicial system is a very complex issue. AI has the potential to remove human bias from the judicial system, however, it also has the potential to encode human bias into the system. AI has the potential to remove human error from the judicial system, however, it also has the potential to make errors that humans would not make. The judicial system is a very nuanced and complex system, and AI is not currently advanced enough to be able to handle this complexity. The judicial system requires a level of human interaction that AI is not currently able to provide. AI is a very new and emerging technology and it is not currently ethical to use it in the judicial system. However, as AI evolves and becomes more advanced it is possible that it will become ethical to use AI in the judicial system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system at this time. However, in the future, AI could be used in the judicial system in a beneficial way. The concern with using AI at this time is that it is still an emerging technology and it could go wrong, for example, if the algorithm is not set up correctly. AI has been known to invent information which would make it highly unethical to use it in a judicial system. It also needs a lot of training to get it to a point where it can be used in the judicial system and we don’t know if this is possible. It will also not be accepted by the general public because it is seen as not having a soul or moral compass. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of AI in the judicial system is not currently ethical. This is because AI is not yet advanced enough to be able to make the complex decisions required in the judicial system. AI is also not trusted by the public, and this would lead to a lack of confidence in the judicial system. There are some areas of the judicial system where AI could be used, such as in planning appointments and prioritising cases. However, this would be a very limited use of AI. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of AI in the justice system could be useful in some areas, for example where a large number of cases are identical or where it is difficult to assign lawyers. However, given the complexity of the system, the AI is likely to require significant and ongoing support and correction from humans. This means that the AI will have difficulty achieving independence and a sufficiently robust level of fairness. Therefore, the use of AI in the justice system at this time would not be ethical. However, it would be ethical to use AI in the justice system in the future once it has been proven to be unbiased, with proper checks and balances in place. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001158.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001158.soc index 120e8f93..7f30cd0a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001158.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001158.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe we are in the midst of a climate crisis. All evidence points to this conclusion. The summers are getting hotter and hotter, winter is not as cold as it used to be and it seems to be getting worse every year. Scientists have proved that the climate is changing, the world is becoming warmer and we must do something now before it is too late. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes we are in the midst of a climate crisis. The evidence is that temperatures are increasing, heatwaves are becoming more common, wild fires are more common and the amount of floods is increasing. The ice in the polar caps is melting, the ocean temperature is rising, there are reports of more extreme weather. It is bad for the environment and many animals, birds and plants are under threat of extinction. It is making it harder for humans to survive, the price of food is rising and the poor are worst effected. It is damaging to health and is causing more deaths. The government is not doing enough about it because it is not in the interests of the rich and powerful corporations who are making lots of money from damaging the planet. The corporations lobby government to continue to do nothing about it. We need to get together and force the government to make changes. We need to stop the corporations from damaging the planet. We need to stop using fossil fuels. We need to stop throwing rubbish in the sea and polluting the rivers, lakes and seas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we are in the midst of a climate crisis. The climate is changing rapidly and we are seeing the effects of it in the news everyday. The planet is warming and we are seeing new temperature records being broken. This is affecting the environment and it is causing problems for people, animals and plants. We need to take action now to prevent further damage to the planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We are in the midst of a climate crisis. The climate is changing and this is causing problems for the planet. The climate is getting warmer and this is causing problems for the planet. We are seeing more floods, more wild fires, more pollution, heatwaves and so much damage to habitats and environments. This is caused by huge corporations damaging our world in the name of profit. Our government allows this and allows companies to pollute our rivers, seas and lakes by dumping chemicals and raw sewage into it. They allow pesticides that kill bees. This is happening across the world. The change in climate is harmful to life and some species may not survive it. Some parts of the world may stop being suitable for humans to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe we are in the midst of a climate crisis. All evidence points to this conclusion. The summers are getting hotter and hotter, winter is not as cold as it used to be and it seems to be getting worse every year. Scientists have proved that the climate is changing, the world is becoming warmer and we must do something now before it is too late. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes we are in the midst of a climate crisis. The evidence is that temperatures are increasing, heatwaves are becoming more common, wild fires are more common and the amount of floods is increasing. The ice in the polar caps is melting, the ocean temperature is rising, there are reports of more extreme weather. It is bad for the environment and many animals, birds and plants are under threat of extinction. It is making it harder for humans to survive, the price of food is rising and the poor are worst effected. It is damaging to health and is causing more deaths. The government is not doing enough about it because it is not in the interests of the rich and powerful corporations who are making lots of money from damaging the planet. The corporations lobby government to continue to do nothing about it. We need to get together and force the government to make changes. We need to stop the corporations from damaging the planet. We need to stop using fossil fuels. We need to stop throwing rubbish in the sea and polluting the rivers, lakes and seas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we are in the midst of a climate crisis. The climate is changing rapidly and we are seeing the effects of it in the news everyday. The planet is warming and we are seeing new temperature records being broken. This is affecting the environment and it is causing problems for people, animals and plants. We need to take action now to prevent further damage to the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We are in the midst of a climate crisis. The climate is changing and this is causing problems for the planet. The climate is getting warmer and this is causing problems for the planet. We are seeing more floods, more wild fires, more pollution, heatwaves and so much damage to habitats and environments. This is caused by huge corporations damaging our world in the name of profit. Our government allows this and allows companies to pollute our rivers, seas and lakes by dumping chemicals and raw sewage into it. They allow pesticides that kill bees. This is happening across the world. The change in climate is harmful to life and some species may not survive it. Some parts of the world may stop being suitable for humans to live. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001159.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001159.soc index 10743a9d..392cf2d7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001159.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001159.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Consensus view: Parents of children born deaf should be given the option to have the child’s hearing restored with surgery, but should also be made aware of the potential risks involved. Surgery is not a magic fix, and may not result in the complete restoration of hearing that the parents may imagine. Surgery may not be suitable for all deaf children, and parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as just one of these many options. Parents of deaf children should be supported to develop the skills, knowledge and confidence they will need to communicate with their child and help the child successfully integrate into family and community life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Parents should be given the option to have their deaf children’s hearing restored with surgery, but should also be made aware of the potential risks involved. Surgery is not a magic fix, and may not result in the complete restoration of hearing that the parents may imagine. The child may still need to use other forms of support and communication, and may still need to be part of a deaf community. Surgery may not be suitable for all deaf children, and parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as just one of these many options. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as one of these many options, and parents should be made aware of the potential risks involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Parents should be given the option to have their deaf children’s hearing restored with surgery, but should also be made aware of the potential risks involved. Surgery is not a magic fix, and may not result in the complete restoration of hearing that the parents may imagine. The child may still need to use other forms of support and communication, and may still need to be part of a deaf community. Surgery may not be suitable for all deaf children, and parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as just one of these many options. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Consensus view: Parents of children born deaf should be given the option to have the child’s hearing restored with surgery, but should also be made aware of the potential risks involved. Surgery is not a magic fix, and may not result in the complete restoration of hearing that the parents may imagine. Surgery may not be suitable for all deaf children, and parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as just one of these many options. Parents of deaf children should be supported to develop the skills, knowledge and confidence they will need to communicate with their child and help the child successfully integrate into family and community life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Parents should be given the option to have their deaf children’s hearing restored with surgery, but should also be made aware of the potential risks involved. Surgery is not a magic fix, and may not result in the complete restoration of hearing that the parents may imagine. The child may still need to use other forms of support and communication, and may still need to be part of a deaf community. Surgery may not be suitable for all deaf children, and parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as just one of these many options. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as one of these many options, and parents should be made aware of the potential risks involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Parents should be given the option to have their deaf children’s hearing restored with surgery, but should also be made aware of the potential risks involved. Surgery is not a magic fix, and may not result in the complete restoration of hearing that the parents may imagine. The child may still need to use other forms of support and communication, and may still need to be part of a deaf community. Surgery may not be suitable for all deaf children, and parents should be given a range of options for their deaf children, and should never be forced into one avenue (eg surgery) because of lack of access to others (community and social support, signing, other adaptive aids). Surgery should be offered as just one of these many options. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001160.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001160.soc index 5b010744..745b3ce7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001160.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001160.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a Universal Basic Income. It was felt that the existing system of tax credits was too complicated and that it was difficult to understand what was available and what was not. It was also felt that the system was too bureaucratic and too difficult to access. It was felt that a Universal Basic Income would be fairer and would reduce poverty. However, it was felt that it would be difficult to set the level of income at a level that would be sufficient to live on. It was also felt that it would be difficult to set a level that would not be too generous and would therefore discourage people from working. It was felt that the system would need to be carefully managed and that there would need to be incentives to encourage people to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are all in agreement that the system of tax credits needs replacing, but believe the most important thing is to make sure that the new system of benefits provides a more secure and sustainable income for those who need it. A Universal Basic Income, paid to all individuals regardless of whether they are in work, out of work, or in the process of looking for work would go a long way towards this. It is important that the benefits are not paid at a rate where it is possible to survive on them, but rather at a rate that provides a secure and sustainable basic income that allows people to work towards a higher income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the introduction of Universal Basic Income would be good for society. It would help alleviate poverty and give all families a basic income and in return, less poverty. It would also encourage people to more adventurous which could be beneficial to our society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a Universal Basic Income for all citizens. The level of this income should be set at a level that would allow a citizen to survive on it alone. This income should be funded by a tax on corporations. This tax should be set at a level that would allow the government to fund the UBI, and also provide for other government services. This would be a simpler system than the current tax credit system, and would be fairer as it would treat all citizens equally. It would also provide an income for all citizens, which would be especially beneficial for those who are currently unemployed, or who are unable to work due to illness or disability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a Universal Basic Income. It was felt that the existing system of tax credits was too complicated and that it was difficult to understand what was available and what was not. It was also felt that the system was too bureaucratic and too difficult to access. It was felt that a Universal Basic Income would be fairer and would reduce poverty. However, it was felt that it would be difficult to set the level of income at a level that would be sufficient to live on. It was also felt that it would be difficult to set a level that would not be too generous and would therefore discourage people from working. It was felt that the system would need to be carefully managed and that there would need to be incentives to encourage people to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are all in agreement that the system of tax credits needs replacing, but believe the most important thing is to make sure that the new system of benefits provides a more secure and sustainable income for those who need it. A Universal Basic Income, paid to all individuals regardless of whether they are in work, out of work, or in the process of looking for work would go a long way towards this. It is important that the benefits are not paid at a rate where it is possible to survive on them, but rather at a rate that provides a secure and sustainable basic income that allows people to work towards a higher income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the introduction of Universal Basic Income would be good for society. It would help alleviate poverty and give all families a basic income and in return, less poverty. It would also encourage people to more adventurous which could be beneficial to our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a Universal Basic Income for all citizens. The level of this income should be set at a level that would allow a citizen to survive on it alone. This income should be funded by a tax on corporations. This tax should be set at a level that would allow the government to fund the UBI, and also provide for other government services. This would be a simpler system than the current tax credit system, and would be fairer as it would treat all citizens equally. It would also provide an income for all citizens, which would be especially beneficial for those who are currently unemployed, or who are unable to work due to illness or disability. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001161.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001161.soc index f089d1f4..097d6814 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001161.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001161.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: We should increase tax on the rich to create a more equal society. This is because the highest echelons of society should be taxed more. It is almost inhuman, and certainly unethical, to amass millions or even billions of pounds of wealth and not give back to lower-income people. Trickle-down economics does not work. By taxing the rich, we could improve the qualities of life for countless people in terms of public services such as healthcare and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: We should increase tax on the rich to help build a more equal society. Doing so will improve the quality of life for everyone in terms of public services such as healthcare and education. It would also increase investment in public services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase tax on the rich to help build a more equal society. This is because the highest echelons of society should be taxed more. It is almost inhuman, and certainly unethical, to amass millions or even billions of pounds of wealth and not give back to lower-income people. Trickle-down economies do not work. By taxing the rich, we could improve the qualities of life for countless people in terms of public services such as healthcare and education. This is because it would create a more equal society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase tax on the rich to help build a more equal society. This is because the highest echelons of society should be taxed more. It is almost inhuman, and certainly unethical, to amass millions or even billions of pounds of wealth and not give back to lower-income people. Trickle-down economies do not work. By taxing the rich, we could improve the qualities of life for countless people in terms of public services such as healthcare and education. The increased tax revenue could be used to improve quality of life for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: We should increase tax on the rich to create a more equal society. This is because the highest echelons of society should be taxed more. It is almost inhuman, and certainly unethical, to amass millions or even billions of pounds of wealth and not give back to lower-income people. Trickle-down economics does not work. By taxing the rich, we could improve the qualities of life for countless people in terms of public services such as healthcare and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: We should increase tax on the rich to help build a more equal society. Doing so will improve the quality of life for everyone in terms of public services such as healthcare and education. It would also increase investment in public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase tax on the rich to help build a more equal society. This is because the highest echelons of society should be taxed more. It is almost inhuman, and certainly unethical, to amass millions or even billions of pounds of wealth and not give back to lower-income people. Trickle-down economies do not work. By taxing the rich, we could improve the qualities of life for countless people in terms of public services such as healthcare and education. This is because it would create a more equal society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase tax on the rich to help build a more equal society. This is because the highest echelons of society should be taxed more. It is almost inhuman, and certainly unethical, to amass millions or even billions of pounds of wealth and not give back to lower-income people. Trickle-down economies do not work. By taxing the rich, we could improve the qualities of life for countless people in terms of public services such as healthcare and education. The increased tax revenue could be used to improve quality of life for everyone. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001162.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001162.soc index be01ca4c..99ce4fa5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001162.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001162.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The Royal Family should continue to exist in Britain. They are a part of British culture and history and so should continue to be. However, their privileges should be reduced and they should pay tax like everyone else. They should also have no political power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the Royal Family. The Royal Family is a part of British culture and history and so should continue. However, their privileges such as paying no tax should be adjusted, so that they are more grounded with the rest of the UK population. Additionally, their political power must be further restricted to ensure that they have no influence on the democratic process at all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The British Royal Family should be abolished. It is an outdated system that continues to allow an individual to live in the lap of luxury, paid for by tax payers' money, purely due to their birth. This creates a false sense of a 'class system' in which the Royal Family is elevated above everyone else, when in reality, they are not. Britain is a modern country and should have a government that reflects this, which is why we should have a president rather than a monarch. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the Royal Family is part of British history, it is now outdated. Britain should live as a Republic and the money currently spent on the Royal Family should be put into things such as the NHS and education. The participants also believed that abolishing the monarchy would remove the culture of us and them, as the Royals would be considered just another family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The Royal Family should continue to exist in Britain. They are a part of British culture and history and so should continue to be. However, their privileges should be reduced and they should pay tax like everyone else. They should also have no political power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the Royal Family. The Royal Family is a part of British culture and history and so should continue. However, their privileges such as paying no tax should be adjusted, so that they are more grounded with the rest of the UK population. Additionally, their political power must be further restricted to ensure that they have no influence on the democratic process at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The British Royal Family should be abolished. It is an outdated system that continues to allow an individual to live in the lap of luxury, paid for by tax payers' money, purely due to their birth. This creates a false sense of a 'class system' in which the Royal Family is elevated above everyone else, when in reality, they are not. Britain is a modern country and should have a government that reflects this, which is why we should have a president rather than a monarch. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the Royal Family is part of British history, it is now outdated. Britain should live as a Republic and the money currently spent on the Royal Family should be put into things such as the NHS and education. The participants also believed that abolishing the monarchy would remove the culture of us and them, as the Royals would be considered just another family. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001163.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001163.soc index bd0381b1..aa648af3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001163.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001163.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking in public places should be banned for health reasons for the general public and to discourage the younger generation to refrain from smoking. This was a difficult topic for participants and a good discussion ensued. It was eventually decided that they would come up with a group statement that included aspects from all participants. It was felt that banning smoking in public places was a good way to protect the health of the general public as well as a good way to discourage the younger generation from taking up the habit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Smoking in public places should be banned for health reasons. Smoking is not only bad for the health of the smoker, but also for people around them. It is not only the smell that is bad, but also the second hand smoke that people inhale. This can cause lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Smoking is also very expensive, and by banning smoking in public places, it will discourage people from starting to smoke. This will have a positive impact on the health service as there will be less people with smoking related diseases. It will also have a positive impact on the economy as people will have more money to spend on other things. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking in public places should be banned. The main reason for this is that it can indirectly damage the health of others in the vacinity of the smoker. It is a bad habit for the health of the smoker too, so banning this in public place may reduce the amount people smoke. This should then have a positive knock on effect on our health service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that smoking should be banned in all public places such as restaurants, pubs, clubs, work places, schools and colleges, etc. However, we believe that designated smoking areas in these places should be introduced where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. The benefits of doing this is that it could encourage people to cut down on smoking or even stop smoking altogether, which will have a positive effect on their health, their wallet, and their quality of life. Furthermore, those who do not smoke will not be inhaling toxic chemicals and pollutants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking in public places should be banned for health reasons for the general public and to discourage the younger generation to refrain from smoking. This was a difficult topic for participants and a good discussion ensued. It was eventually decided that they would come up with a group statement that included aspects from all participants. It was felt that banning smoking in public places was a good way to protect the health of the general public as well as a good way to discourage the younger generation from taking up the habit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Smoking in public places should be banned for health reasons. Smoking is not only bad for the health of the smoker, but also for people around them. It is not only the smell that is bad, but also the second hand smoke that people inhale. This can cause lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Smoking is also very expensive, and by banning smoking in public places, it will discourage people from starting to smoke. This will have a positive impact on the health service as there will be less people with smoking related diseases. It will also have a positive impact on the economy as people will have more money to spend on other things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking in public places should be banned. The main reason for this is that it can indirectly damage the health of others in the vacinity of the smoker. It is a bad habit for the health of the smoker too, so banning this in public place may reduce the amount people smoke. This should then have a positive knock on effect on our health service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that smoking should be banned in all public places such as restaurants, pubs, clubs, work places, schools and colleges, etc. However, we believe that designated smoking areas in these places should be introduced where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. The benefits of doing this is that it could encourage people to cut down on smoking or even stop smoking altogether, which will have a positive effect on their health, their wallet, and their quality of life. Furthermore, those who do not smoke will not be inhaling toxic chemicals and pollutants. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001164.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001164.soc index 0a00a4c8..bb802a7a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001164.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001164.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that smoking should be banned in all public places such as restaurants, pubs, clubs, work places, schools and colleges, etc. However, we believe that designated smoking areas in these places should be introduced where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that smoking should be banned in all public places such as restaurants, pubs, clubs, work places, schools and colleges, etc. However, we believe that designated smoking areas in these places should be introduced where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. The benefits of doing this is that it could encourage people to cut down on smoking or even stop smoking altogether, which will have a positive effect on their health, their wallet, and their quality of life. Furthermore, those who do not smoke will not be inhaling toxic chemicals and pollutants. The reason why this should be banned is because it not only has a negative impact on the person smoking, but those around them as well. It could be argued that this is a part of their human rights to smoke, but at what price is this right as it is putting the health of those around them at risk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking should be banned in all public places. However, designated smoking areas should be provided where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. The benefits of doing this is that it could encourage people to cut down on smoking or even stop smoking altogether, which will have a positive effect on their health, their wallet, and their quality of life. Furthermore, those who do not smoke will not be inhaling toxic chemicals and pollutants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that smoking should be banned in all public places such as restaurants, pubs, clubs, work places, schools and colleges, etc. However, we believe that designated smoking areas in these places should be introduced where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. The benefits of doing this is that it could encourage people to cut down on smoking or even stop smoking altogether, which will have a positive effect on their health, their wallet, and their quality of life. Furthermore, those who do not smoke will not be inhaling toxic chemicals and pollutants. This will also remove the opportunity for younger people to start smoking, as they will be less likely to see smoking as normal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that smoking should be banned in all public places such as restaurants, pubs, clubs, work places, schools and colleges, etc. However, we believe that designated smoking areas in these places should be introduced where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that smoking should be banned in all public places such as restaurants, pubs, clubs, work places, schools and colleges, etc. However, we believe that designated smoking areas in these places should be introduced where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. The benefits of doing this is that it could encourage people to cut down on smoking or even stop smoking altogether, which will have a positive effect on their health, their wallet, and their quality of life. Furthermore, those who do not smoke will not be inhaling toxic chemicals and pollutants. The reason why this should be banned is because it not only has a negative impact on the person smoking, but those around them as well. It could be argued that this is a part of their human rights to smoke, but at what price is this right as it is putting the health of those around them at risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking should be banned in all public places. However, designated smoking areas should be provided where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. The benefits of doing this is that it could encourage people to cut down on smoking or even stop smoking altogether, which will have a positive effect on their health, their wallet, and their quality of life. Furthermore, those who do not smoke will not be inhaling toxic chemicals and pollutants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that smoking should be banned in all public places such as restaurants, pubs, clubs, work places, schools and colleges, etc. However, we believe that designated smoking areas in these places should be introduced where people can smoke without damaging the health of those around them. The benefits of doing this is that it could encourage people to cut down on smoking or even stop smoking altogether, which will have a positive effect on their health, their wallet, and their quality of life. Furthermore, those who do not smoke will not be inhaling toxic chemicals and pollutants. This will also remove the opportunity for younger people to start smoking, as they will be less likely to see smoking as normal. 2: 2,4,3,1 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001165.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001165.soc index 746cd2f0..c8aed5b2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001165.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001165.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People have the right to be made aware of how their data is being used by any company and what the potential effects are of this use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be granted the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour. This is a fundamental online privacy matter. Our user history and data is being harvested by an algorithm to the benefit of the relevant website, to try to shape our behaviour on that site to their advantage. As with all other online data harvesting and use we have a right to decide if and how it is gathered, used and processed, to allow us to maintain our online security and privacy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should have the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour. This is because people should be able to make informed choices about their online behaviour and the algorithms used to analyse it. The algorithms are often used to create targeted advertising which can be very specific and may also be used to control the type of content a person sees. This is why it is important for people to know what algorithms are being used and what data they are analysing. This is also important because the algorithms may be biased in some way. For example, the algorithms may be designed to show a person more content that is likely to agree with their views. If people are not aware of this, they may think that they are seeing a representative view of the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, everyone should be granted the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour. We feel that everyone should have the right to know what their data is being used for. It is personal data and so they should know how it is being used and collected. The data that is being used should be transparent to everyone. We also feel that the data should not be used without consent of the user. It is not right that data is collected from the user without them knowing, it is private information and should be kept that way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People have the right to be made aware of how their data is being used by any company and what the potential effects are of this use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be granted the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour. This is a fundamental online privacy matter. Our user history and data is being harvested by an algorithm to the benefit of the relevant website, to try to shape our behaviour on that site to their advantage. As with all other online data harvesting and use we have a right to decide if and how it is gathered, used and processed, to allow us to maintain our online security and privacy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should have the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour. This is because people should be able to make informed choices about their online behaviour and the algorithms used to analyse it. The algorithms are often used to create targeted advertising which can be very specific and may also be used to control the type of content a person sees. This is why it is important for people to know what algorithms are being used and what data they are analysing. This is also important because the algorithms may be biased in some way. For example, the algorithms may be designed to show a person more content that is likely to agree with their views. If people are not aware of this, they may think that they are seeing a representative view of the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, everyone should be granted the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour. We feel that everyone should have the right to know what their data is being used for. It is personal data and so they should know how it is being used and collected. The data that is being used should be transparent to everyone. We also feel that the data should not be used without consent of the user. It is not right that data is collected from the user without them knowing, it is private information and should be kept that way. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001166.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001166.soc index a2c8f108..a84cb18d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001166.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001166.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the government should not pass a law banning all use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group believes that plastics should not be completely banned by government. We think that there are good reasons for why plastics should be in use in our society and that there are ways of responsibly managing and recycling plastics. However, the government should be putting a lot of time and effort into increasing recycling programs, increasing the number of recycling centres available, and making the process of recycling plastics more convenient and accessible for the general population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While plastic pollution is a very real issue, we do not believe banning the use of plastic all together is the solution. We believe that all governments should take responsibility for providing adequate support and infrastructure to ensure the proper recycling of plastic waste. We believe that businesses that produce plastic should take responsibility for ensuring that they make plastic products that are durable, so that people will buy less of them, and are more easily recycled. Governments should also take responsibility for providing more educational opportunities for children on how to properly dispose of plastics and educate the public on the importance of recycling and the impact of plastic pollution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a ban on plastics. However, it was felt that the ban should not be implemented immediately, as this would be too disruptive to many industries and to the economy in general. Instead, the group felt that there should be a gradual phase-out of plastics, with the government providing support to industries that would be most affected by the ban. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should not pass a law banning all use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group believes that plastics should not be completely banned by government. We think that there are good reasons for why plastics should be in use in our society and that there are ways of responsibly managing and recycling plastics. However, the government should be putting a lot of time and effort into increasing recycling programs, increasing the number of recycling centres available, and making the process of recycling plastics more convenient and accessible for the general population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While plastic pollution is a very real issue, we do not believe banning the use of plastic all together is the solution. We believe that all governments should take responsibility for providing adequate support and infrastructure to ensure the proper recycling of plastic waste. We believe that businesses that produce plastic should take responsibility for ensuring that they make plastic products that are durable, so that people will buy less of them, and are more easily recycled. Governments should also take responsibility for providing more educational opportunities for children on how to properly dispose of plastics and educate the public on the importance of recycling and the impact of plastic pollution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a ban on plastics. However, it was felt that the ban should not be implemented immediately, as this would be too disruptive to many industries and to the economy in general. Instead, the group felt that there should be a gradual phase-out of plastics, with the government providing support to industries that would be most affected by the ban. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001167.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001167.soc index 27f7c735..72f518d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001167.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001167.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the life savings of a person should be protected when their pension is being taken away. The life savings of a person is what they have worked hard for and accumulated over their lifetime. The life savings is what they will use to survive when they retire. If a person's pension is being taken away, they will need their life savings to survive. This is especially true if the person has no other source of income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The decision to take away a person's pension and their life savings is a difficult one to make. However, a person should have the opportunity to retain at least some of their life savings when their pension is taken away. The reasoning behind this is that if the person has spent their entire life saving and never committing a crime, then they should be allowed to keep their life savings. If however, the person has been a criminal or if the pension has been stripped because of crimes committed, then their life savings can be stripped away to pay for the crimes committed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Pensions should be protected as a persons life savings should not be taken away. This should only be the case if the person has not committed any crimes that lead to their pension being taken away. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A persons life savings should be protected if their pension is being taken away. This is because they have worked hard and saved their money for their retirement and so they should be able to enjoy it. This is unless they have committed financial crimes, which means that they need to pay back, it would be harsh to take away their life savings for instance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the life savings of a person should be protected when their pension is being taken away. The life savings of a person is what they have worked hard for and accumulated over their lifetime. The life savings is what they will use to survive when they retire. If a person's pension is being taken away, they will need their life savings to survive. This is especially true if the person has no other source of income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The decision to take away a person's pension and their life savings is a difficult one to make. However, a person should have the opportunity to retain at least some of their life savings when their pension is taken away. The reasoning behind this is that if the person has spent their entire life saving and never committing a crime, then they should be allowed to keep their life savings. If however, the person has been a criminal or if the pension has been stripped because of crimes committed, then their life savings can be stripped away to pay for the crimes committed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Pensions should be protected as a persons life savings should not be taken away. This should only be the case if the person has not committed any crimes that lead to their pension being taken away. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A persons life savings should be protected if their pension is being taken away. This is because they have worked hard and saved their money for their retirement and so they should be able to enjoy it. This is unless they have committed financial crimes, which means that they need to pay back, it would be harsh to take away their life savings for instance. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001168.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001168.soc index 6721f93e..82bc2d76 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001168.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001168.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the government should not pass a law banning all use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. The government should also consider investing in infrastructure to assist with plastic recycling and in building awareness within society for the importance of recycling plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the government should not pass a law banning all use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a law passed banning all use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that we do not support a ban on the use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should not pass a law banning all use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. The government should also consider investing in infrastructure to assist with plastic recycling and in building awareness within society for the importance of recycling plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should not pass a law banning all use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a law passed banning all use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that we do not support a ban on the use of plastics. We believe that there are many uses for plastics that are beneficial to our society, and we believe that there are responsible ways for us to recycle and reuse plastics that are no longer needed. We believe that the quality of substitutes for some plastic items do not fulfil the benefits that plastics bring. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the population to ensure all plastic they use are recycled once no longer in use. It is also a responsibility of all governments to ensure this process is made as easy and beneficial as possible. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001169.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001169.soc index 7c17f02f..c352a3bd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001169.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001169.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of replacing the British pound with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to replacing the British pound with the Euro. This was due to the fact that the pound is a strong currency and has a long history. The group also believed that replacing the pound with the Euro would cause significant disruption in the British economy and would also have an impact on inflation. The group believed that the pound is an important part of British identity and history and thus should be retained. The group also believed that it would be difficult to replace the pound with the Euro as the UK has left the EU and thus would not be able to adopt the currency without rejoining the EU, which the group did not support. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The British pound should not be replaced with the Euro. One of the main reasons for this is that we have voted to leave the EU and therefore one currency should not cover both the British and Europe. The British pound is its own currency and is one of the strongest in the world. Replacing it would have a huge impact on our country, our economy and the people in it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The British pound should not be replaced with the Euro. Some reasons for this are that due to Brexit the United Kingdom is no longer under the EU. Therefore, one currency should not cover both the British and Europe. The British pound is it's own currency and it is one of the strongest currencies in the world, the effects of changing it might be too devastating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of replacing the British pound with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to replacing the British pound with the Euro. This was due to the fact that the pound is a strong currency and has a long history. The group also believed that replacing the pound with the Euro would cause significant disruption in the British economy and would also have an impact on inflation. The group believed that the pound is an important part of British identity and history and thus should be retained. The group also believed that it would be difficult to replace the pound with the Euro as the UK has left the EU and thus would not be able to adopt the currency without rejoining the EU, which the group did not support. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The British pound should not be replaced with the Euro. One of the main reasons for this is that we have voted to leave the EU and therefore one currency should not cover both the British and Europe. The British pound is its own currency and is one of the strongest in the world. Replacing it would have a huge impact on our country, our economy and the people in it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The British pound should not be replaced with the Euro. Some reasons for this are that due to Brexit the United Kingdom is no longer under the EU. Therefore, one currency should not cover both the British and Europe. The British pound is it's own currency and it is one of the strongest currencies in the world, the effects of changing it might be too devastating. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001170.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001170.soc index e457910e..121bb514 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001170.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001170.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The decision to take away a person's pension and their life savings is a difficult one to make. However, a person should have the opportunity to retain at least some of their life savings when their pension is taken away. The reasoning behind this is that if the person has spent their entire life saving and never committing a crime, then they should be allowed to keep their life savings. If however, the person has been a criminal or if the pension has been stripped because of crimes committed, then their life savings can be stripped away to pay for the crimes committed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Pensions are a result of a lifetime's work and frugal living to allow for a relatively easy retirement, so should be earned and non-transferable. It may sometimes be reasonable, if a person has committed a serious financial crime, to remove their pension, because this is essentially the money they would be using in retirement, but they should be allowed to keep their life savings. If a person is no longer able to work because of an illness or disability, then they will need their life savings for their family to be taken care of in this circumstance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The decision to take away a person's pension and their life savings is a difficult one to make. However, a person should have the opportunity to retain at least some of their life savings when their pension is taken away. The reasoning behind this is that if the person has spent their entire life saving and never committing a crime, then they should be allowed to keep their life savings. If however, the person has been a criminal or if the pension has been stripped because of crimes committed, then their life savings can be stripped away to pay for the crimes committed. However, only a portion of their life savings should be taken away so that they can survive and so that they have something to fall back on in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the decision to take away a person's pension is not an easy one to make. However, there are cases when someone's pension can be taken away, such as when they have committed a crime against the welfare of individuals. If someone has committed a crime, then this issue is easy to answer. It would be justifiable to use a portion of that person's life savings to compensate the individuals they have committed a crime against. In situations where it is not justifiable to take away a person's life savings, then there are still questions of whether their pension should be taken away. However, it can still be justifiable, such as when a person has been a drug addict and part of their pension should go towards paying for their addiction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The decision to take away a person's pension and their life savings is a difficult one to make. However, a person should have the opportunity to retain at least some of their life savings when their pension is taken away. The reasoning behind this is that if the person has spent their entire life saving and never committing a crime, then they should be allowed to keep their life savings. If however, the person has been a criminal or if the pension has been stripped because of crimes committed, then their life savings can be stripped away to pay for the crimes committed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Pensions are a result of a lifetime's work and frugal living to allow for a relatively easy retirement, so should be earned and non-transferable. It may sometimes be reasonable, if a person has committed a serious financial crime, to remove their pension, because this is essentially the money they would be using in retirement, but they should be allowed to keep their life savings. If a person is no longer able to work because of an illness or disability, then they will need their life savings for their family to be taken care of in this circumstance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The decision to take away a person's pension and their life savings is a difficult one to make. However, a person should have the opportunity to retain at least some of their life savings when their pension is taken away. The reasoning behind this is that if the person has spent their entire life saving and never committing a crime, then they should be allowed to keep their life savings. If however, the person has been a criminal or if the pension has been stripped because of crimes committed, then their life savings can be stripped away to pay for the crimes committed. However, only a portion of their life savings should be taken away so that they can survive and so that they have something to fall back on in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the decision to take away a person's pension is not an easy one to make. However, there are cases when someone's pension can be taken away, such as when they have committed a crime against the welfare of individuals. If someone has committed a crime, then this issue is easy to answer. It would be justifiable to use a portion of that person's life savings to compensate the individuals they have committed a crime against. In situations where it is not justifiable to take away a person's life savings, then there are still questions of whether their pension should be taken away. However, it can still be justifiable, such as when a person has been a drug addict and part of their pension should go towards paying for their addiction. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001171.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001171.soc index 759e9c58..ad869384 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001171.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001171.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that a small reward system could be implemented by the government to help improve recycling in the UK, and to encourage people to be more aware of their impact on the environment. However, we feel that this would need to be monitored closely to avoid it being abused and also to ensure that it is effective. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of some form of incentive to encourage recycling. This could be in the form of a tax rebate, or some form of payment. However, there were some concerns about the practicalities of this, such as the cost, and how to ensure that people were recycling properly. The group felt that this would be a good way to encourage people to recycle, but that it would not be a long term solution, and that it would be better to invest in other ways to encourage recycling, such as improving the infrastructure to make it easier to recycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of paying people to recycle. However, it was also agreed that this idea should be implemented in a way that does not allow people to abuse the system. The group also agreed that it would be a good idea to use the money saved from this idea to improve the recycling system in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was thought that the government should pay people to recycle, however, there should be more of an incentive for the recycling to be recycled correctly rather than be thrown away in the bin, such as discount vouchers for buying food or drinks which have recyclable products, or even a discount on council tax. This will help people recycle more correctly and in turn will increase the amount of people that recycle as they can see the benefit from it, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste that is created. Overall, it was thought that if people are being paid by the government to recycle correctly, it will increase the amount of people recycling, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste produced. However, this will take a long time to come into effect, as people are so set in their ways and aren't likely to change what they do easily. This is why it was thought that an incentive such as the above should be used to encourage more people to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that a small reward system could be implemented by the government to help improve recycling in the UK, and to encourage people to be more aware of their impact on the environment. However, we feel that this would need to be monitored closely to avoid it being abused and also to ensure that it is effective. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of some form of incentive to encourage recycling. This could be in the form of a tax rebate, or some form of payment. However, there were some concerns about the practicalities of this, such as the cost, and how to ensure that people were recycling properly. The group felt that this would be a good way to encourage people to recycle, but that it would not be a long term solution, and that it would be better to invest in other ways to encourage recycling, such as improving the infrastructure to make it easier to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of paying people to recycle. However, it was also agreed that this idea should be implemented in a way that does not allow people to abuse the system. The group also agreed that it would be a good idea to use the money saved from this idea to improve the recycling system in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was thought that the government should pay people to recycle, however, there should be more of an incentive for the recycling to be recycled correctly rather than be thrown away in the bin, such as discount vouchers for buying food or drinks which have recyclable products, or even a discount on council tax. This will help people recycle more correctly and in turn will increase the amount of people that recycle as they can see the benefit from it, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste that is created. Overall, it was thought that if people are being paid by the government to recycle correctly, it will increase the amount of people recycling, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste produced. However, this will take a long time to come into effect, as people are so set in their ways and aren't likely to change what they do easily. This is why it was thought that an incentive such as the above should be used to encourage more people to recycle. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001172.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001172.soc index 8d981dc8..7281722b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001172.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001172.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of replacing the British pound with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. However, it was felt that this is unlikely because the pound is such a well known and recognised currency that the UK government is unlikely to replace it unless there are compelling economic reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There was a consensus view in the group that the British pound should not be replaced with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. However, it was agreed that the downsides of replacing the British pound with the Euro would likely outweigh any benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of replacing the British pound with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of replacing the British pound with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. The open-ended question has been demonstrated. The next question in the bank considers the difference between proportional scaling and discrete choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of replacing the British pound with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. However, it was felt that this is unlikely because the pound is such a well known and recognised currency that the UK government is unlikely to replace it unless there are compelling economic reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There was a consensus view in the group that the British pound should not be replaced with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. However, it was agreed that the downsides of replacing the British pound with the Euro would likely outweigh any benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of replacing the British pound with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of replacing the British pound with the Euro. The reasons for this included the fact that the British pound is a strong currency in its own right, and is one of the most traded currencies in the world. It is also a symbol of British identity, and the fact that it is so well known means that it is unlikely to be replaced by the Euro. The fact that the UK has left the EU also means that it is no longer a member of the Eurozone, and thus it would be difficult to adopt the Euro. However, it was also noted that there are some benefits to adopting the Euro, including the fact that it would simplify trade and travel between the UK and the rest of Europe. It was also noted that there are some countries in Europe that use both the Euro and their own currency, and thus it is possible for the UK to do the same. The open-ended question has been demonstrated. The next question in the bank considers the difference between proportional scaling and discrete choice. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001173.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001173.soc index b9fb6d4f..feeb9781 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001173.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001173.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not the business of the state to say how old a person should be before they can get married. There are some people who find love when they are young and others who find love later in life. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so, irrespective of their age. This is not an issue that concerns the state. It should be left up to private individuals to decide. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people love each other and want to get married, then they should be allowed to do so. If a 94 year old person and a 22 year old person want to get married, then that is entirely up to them. The state should not interfere with private life decisions, as long as it does not affect anyone else. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that there should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. This is not an issue that concerns that state. As a result it should be left up to private individuals to decide. If two people in their 90s want to get married, they should be allowed. We don't see why we should stop anyone over the age of 18 getting married if they really want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not the business of the state to say how old a person should be before they can get married. There are some people who find love when they are young and others who find love later in life. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so, irrespective of their age. This is not an issue that concerns the state. It should be left up to private individuals to decide. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people love each other and want to get married, then they should be allowed to do so. If a 94 year old person and a 22 year old person want to get married, then that is entirely up to them. The state should not interfere with private life decisions, as long as it does not affect anyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that there should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. This is not an issue that concerns that state. As a result it should be left up to private individuals to decide. If two people in their 90s want to get married, they should be allowed. We don't see why we should stop anyone over the age of 18 getting married if they really want to. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001174.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001174.soc index de848f94..06c5cc35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001174.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001174.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be an incentive system for recycling correctly. For example, vouchers for certain food/drink outlets and tax rebates. This is an easy way to make people recycle, so there is less waste produced. It would be expensive for the government, however, in the long run it would be beneficial for the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was thought that the government should pay people to recycle, however, there should be more of an incentive for the recycling to be recycled correctly rather than be thrown away in the bin, such as vouchers for buying food or drinks which have recyclable products, or even a discount on council tax. This will help people recycle more correctly and in turn will increase the amount of people that recycle as they can see the benefit from it, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste that is created. Overall, it was thought that if people are being paid by the government to recycle correctly, it will increase the amount of people recycling, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste produced. However, this will take a long time to come into effect, as people are so set in their ways and aren't likely to change what they do easily. This is why it was thought that an incentive such as the above should be used to encourage more people to recycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Paying the public to recycle correctly will have good effects and negative effects. This will only be the case if it is done correctly as it will take a long time to implement, so if it is done wrong it could cause negative effects for it. It could also cost a large amount of money, for example if everyone in the country recycles correctly, it could cost a large amount of money for the government to buy the recyclable materials, this is why it was thought that if you recycled correctly you were given a voucher which was said above in the draft consensus statement, this voucher could help to get you some money off your shopping, or bills such as council tax. This would help to increase the rate of people recycling and would help to lower the amount of waste produced. This is what the team of participants agreed on, after giving the consensus statement some time to be thought about, they realized that there could be many cons to it. There is also a high chance that it would work well as it will give people an incentive to recycle, rather than not caring about what they recycle or if it is even being recycled correctly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was thought that the government should pay people to recycle, however, there should be more of an incentive for the recycling to be recycled correctly rather than be thrown away in the bin, such as discount vouchers for buying food or drinks which have recyclable products, or even a discount on council tax. This will help people recycle more correctly and in turn will increase the amount of people that recycle as they can see the benefit from it, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste that is created. Overall, it was thought that if people are being paid by the government to recycle correctly, it will increase the amount of people recycling, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste produced. However, this will take a long time to come into effect, as people are so set in their ways and aren't likely to change what they do easily. This is why it was thought that an incentive such as the above should be used to encourage more people to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be an incentive system for recycling correctly. For example, vouchers for certain food/drink outlets and tax rebates. This is an easy way to make people recycle, so there is less waste produced. It would be expensive for the government, however, in the long run it would be beneficial for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was thought that the government should pay people to recycle, however, there should be more of an incentive for the recycling to be recycled correctly rather than be thrown away in the bin, such as vouchers for buying food or drinks which have recyclable products, or even a discount on council tax. This will help people recycle more correctly and in turn will increase the amount of people that recycle as they can see the benefit from it, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste that is created. Overall, it was thought that if people are being paid by the government to recycle correctly, it will increase the amount of people recycling, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste produced. However, this will take a long time to come into effect, as people are so set in their ways and aren't likely to change what they do easily. This is why it was thought that an incentive such as the above should be used to encourage more people to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Paying the public to recycle correctly will have good effects and negative effects. This will only be the case if it is done correctly as it will take a long time to implement, so if it is done wrong it could cause negative effects for it. It could also cost a large amount of money, for example if everyone in the country recycles correctly, it could cost a large amount of money for the government to buy the recyclable materials, this is why it was thought that if you recycled correctly you were given a voucher which was said above in the draft consensus statement, this voucher could help to get you some money off your shopping, or bills such as council tax. This would help to increase the rate of people recycling and would help to lower the amount of waste produced. This is what the team of participants agreed on, after giving the consensus statement some time to be thought about, they realized that there could be many cons to it. There is also a high chance that it would work well as it will give people an incentive to recycle, rather than not caring about what they recycle or if it is even being recycled correctly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was thought that the government should pay people to recycle, however, there should be more of an incentive for the recycling to be recycled correctly rather than be thrown away in the bin, such as discount vouchers for buying food or drinks which have recyclable products, or even a discount on council tax. This will help people recycle more correctly and in turn will increase the amount of people that recycle as they can see the benefit from it, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste that is created. Overall, it was thought that if people are being paid by the government to recycle correctly, it will increase the amount of people recycling, which in turn will decrease the amount of waste produced. However, this will take a long time to come into effect, as people are so set in their ways and aren't likely to change what they do easily. This is why it was thought that an incentive such as the above should be used to encourage more people to recycle. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001175.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001175.soc index 7082e210..72d1fc1e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001175.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001175.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. Even if a 85 year old wants to get married to a 25 year old, it is their own private matter and it has nothing to do with anyone else. However, the older person should seek counsel and advice on their decision to marry someone so much younger, to ensure that they are making the right decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. Everybody has a right to love no matter their age. We don't interfere in the private lives of couples when they are marrying at a young age, so there is no reason to interfere when they are marrying at an old age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. Everyone has the right to love no matter their age. We don't condone forced marriages, but we should never stop anyone from making their own decisions in life, including people who are in their old age and who want to get married. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. Even if a 85 year old wants to get married to a 25 year old, it is their own private matter and it has nothing to do with anyone else. We also believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the individuals involved, and that it is no business of the state to set an upper age limit for marriage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. Even if a 85 year old wants to get married to a 25 year old, it is their own private matter and it has nothing to do with anyone else. However, the older person should seek counsel and advice on their decision to marry someone so much younger, to ensure that they are making the right decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. Everybody has a right to love no matter their age. We don't interfere in the private lives of couples when they are marrying at a young age, so there is no reason to interfere when they are marrying at an old age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. Everyone has the right to love no matter their age. We don't condone forced marriages, but we should never stop anyone from making their own decisions in life, including people who are in their old age and who want to get married. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should not be an age limit above which people cannot get married. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. It makes no difference if they are 94 years old, if they are in love and want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. The issue of marriage is a private matter and should be left up to the individuals involved. Even if a 85 year old wants to get married to a 25 year old, it is their own private matter and it has nothing to do with anyone else. We also believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the individuals involved, and that it is no business of the state to set an upper age limit for marriage. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001176.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001176.soc index 624c6cb1..ce467793 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001176.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001176.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The group was in favour of this as they felt that the NHS was in crisis and that it was important to support it. The group also felt that this was a fair way to raise the money as it would not impact on the majority of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The current health crisis is well known to everyone and it is a growing issue. This is not entirely ideal but it can be a temporary way to deal with this issue pending when some more long term solution can be implemented. It is not fair to take money from anyone that is earning legitimately, but if there is any way it can be implemented without it taking a toll on the people earning above that then it can be a temporary solution which should be reverted as soon as the main issue has been dealt with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the UK and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. This is a temporary solution to a growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service is something that should be considered by the UK government. However, this should be seen as a temporary measure, with the aim of finding a more long-term solution in the near future. The NHS is the most fundamental aspect of the UK, and it is essential that it is made stronger. This can be done by a temporary increase in taxes on the wealthiest in society, as they can afford it. If we do not act now to fix the NHS, it will only continue to deteriorate. We cannot rely on the lowest earners to fix the NHS, we need to give those with the highest earnings the chance to contribute more. The consensus opinion above was written by all five participants, and each and every person in the group agreed with the final opinion reached. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The group was in favour of this as they felt that the NHS was in crisis and that it was important to support it. The group also felt that this was a fair way to raise the money as it would not impact on the majority of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The current health crisis is well known to everyone and it is a growing issue. This is not entirely ideal but it can be a temporary way to deal with this issue pending when some more long term solution can be implemented. It is not fair to take money from anyone that is earning legitimately, but if there is any way it can be implemented without it taking a toll on the people earning above that then it can be a temporary solution which should be reverted as soon as the main issue has been dealt with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the UK and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. This is a temporary solution to a growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service is something that should be considered by the UK government. However, this should be seen as a temporary measure, with the aim of finding a more long-term solution in the near future. The NHS is the most fundamental aspect of the UK, and it is essential that it is made stronger. This can be done by a temporary increase in taxes on the wealthiest in society, as they can afford it. If we do not act now to fix the NHS, it will only continue to deteriorate. We cannot rely on the lowest earners to fix the NHS, we need to give those with the highest earnings the chance to contribute more. The consensus opinion above was written by all five participants, and each and every person in the group agreed with the final opinion reached. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001177.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001177.soc index 8abc413e..768ae33c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001177.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001177.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the UK and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. This is a temporary solution to a growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. This is something that should be implemented immediately and then be reverted as soon as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the country and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. This is a temporary solution to a growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. This is a good place to start; but the government should work towards a more long term solution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the UK and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. This is a temporary solution to a growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the UK and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. Taxing the highest earners a little more is an immediate solution to the growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the UK and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. This is a temporary solution to a growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. This is something that should be implemented immediately and then be reverted as soon as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the country and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. This is a temporary solution to a growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. This is a good place to start; but the government should work towards a more long term solution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the UK and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. This is a temporary solution to a growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The National Health Service is one of the most important services in the UK and it is struggling to provide the level of care it used to. This is a result of underfunding and the government has not done enough to support it. The NHS is a vital service that benefits everyone in the country, and it is only fair that those who can afford to pay a little more do so. The people who earn over $200,000 will barely notice the extra tax as their income is so high, and it will help to support the NHS. The NHS is an important service that is struggling to provide the level of care it used to, and it needs as much help as it can get. Taxing the highest earners a little more is an immediate solution to the growing problem, and the government should do more to support the NHS. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001178.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001178.soc index 1313f7ea..60646fe3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001178.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001178.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants should not be cut down because people should be free to choose what they want to eat. Fast food restaurants should not be cut down because people should be free to choose what they want to eat. Fast food restaurants should not be cut down because people should be free to choose what they want to eat. Fast food restaurants should not be cut down because people should be free to choose what they want to eat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fast food restaurants have a detrimental impact on the health of young adults, the environment, and the availability of housing, therefore we should limit the number of fast food restaurants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants because they are contributing to the obesity epidemic. Fast food is often high in calories, unhealthy fats, and sugar, contributing to obesity and related health issues among young adults. Reducing the availability of fast food can encourage young adults to explore healthier food options, leading to improved overall well-being. Fast food restaurants often generate excessive packaging waste and contribute to carbon emissions, so reducing their numbers can have positive environmental effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe there should be an upper limit to how many fast food restaurants there should be in any one area, they should be spread out more to offer more local alternatives to the large chains and we should also encourage fast food to be healthier as some are already starting to adapt to. We should also make more education about healthy eating and exercise available in schools and the workplace as this is a big issue for both children and adults. We believe that ultimately people should be free to choose but there should also be a number of alternatives available and so long as they are not negatively affecting others through their own personal choices then people should have the freedom to decide for themselves and have a treat every now and then. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants should not be cut down because people should be free to choose what they want to eat. Fast food restaurants should not be cut down because people should be free to choose what they want to eat. Fast food restaurants should not be cut down because people should be free to choose what they want to eat. Fast food restaurants should not be cut down because people should be free to choose what they want to eat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fast food restaurants have a detrimental impact on the health of young adults, the environment, and the availability of housing, therefore we should limit the number of fast food restaurants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants because they are contributing to the obesity epidemic. Fast food is often high in calories, unhealthy fats, and sugar, contributing to obesity and related health issues among young adults. Reducing the availability of fast food can encourage young adults to explore healthier food options, leading to improved overall well-being. Fast food restaurants often generate excessive packaging waste and contribute to carbon emissions, so reducing their numbers can have positive environmental effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe there should be an upper limit to how many fast food restaurants there should be in any one area, they should be spread out more to offer more local alternatives to the large chains and we should also encourage fast food to be healthier as some are already starting to adapt to. We should also make more education about healthy eating and exercise available in schools and the workplace as this is a big issue for both children and adults. We believe that ultimately people should be free to choose but there should also be a number of alternatives available and so long as they are not negatively affecting others through their own personal choices then people should have the freedom to decide for themselves and have a treat every now and then. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001179.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001179.soc index df6702f2..a9e0dbd6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001179.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001179.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is absolutely right and fair that companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. If we allow our online browsing to be tracked for advertisers, they should be compelled by law to provide this information to us. Anything less is simply unacceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. This is because we have a right to know how our data is being used, and to whom it is being sold. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group felt very strongly that companies should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users, and not doing so should be heavily punished by law. The whole issue was seen as being about transparency and informed consent. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. This is because we should be aware of what is going on with our personal data, and if we are not then we should be able to opt out of it. We also feel that it is only fair that we are made aware of the tracking software used so that we can make informed choices about what data is being tracked and sold. This will also make the advertisers more accountable for their practices and minimise the chance of them being caught up in legal or PR issues that could arise from unethical data tracking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is absolutely right and fair that companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. If we allow our online browsing to be tracked for advertisers, they should be compelled by law to provide this information to us. Anything less is simply unacceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. This is because we have a right to know how our data is being used, and to whom it is being sold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group felt very strongly that companies should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users, and not doing so should be heavily punished by law. The whole issue was seen as being about transparency and informed consent. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. This is because we should be aware of what is going on with our personal data, and if we are not then we should be able to opt out of it. We also feel that it is only fair that we are made aware of the tracking software used so that we can make informed choices about what data is being tracked and sold. This will also make the advertisers more accountable for their practices and minimise the chance of them being caught up in legal or PR issues that could arise from unethical data tracking. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001180.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001180.soc index e008b719..e910b197 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001180.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001180.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, the group was in favour of a Universal Basic Income system, however, the devil is in the detail and there are many things that need to be considered before such a system could be implemented. The group felt that there are many people in the UK who are currently living in poverty and are reliant on the current benefits system. This system is not fit for purpose and in many cases does not allow people to survive in the context of much higher costs of living at the moment. The group felt that the current benefits system is bureaucratic and inefficient and a system like this would be a vast improvement on the current system. The group also felt that the current system does not encourage people to work and in some cases may actually discourage people from working. A system like this would allow people to work and earn money without the fear of losing their benefits. The group felt that the current system is not equitable and does not treat people with dignity. The group felt that a system like this would treat people with dignity and would be equitable. The group felt that a system like this would be expensive to implement and may require an increase in taxation. The group felt that the current system is also expensive to implement and maintain and that a system like this would be -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a Universal Basic Income. However, it was felt that the devil was in the detail and that the current proposal by the Labour Party was too vague. It was felt that a system of this nature would need to be properly costed and that the current proposal lacked the necessary detail to make an informed decision. It was felt that the current proposal by the Labour Party was too vague. It was felt that a system of this nature would need to be properly costed and that the current proposal lacked the necessary detail to make an informed decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the UK should adopt a Universal Basic Income system to ensure everyone has the minimum income to live not to survive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We have debated the introduction of a Universal Basic Income system in the UK. We are in favour of a system of this nature being introduced, albeit with some caveats. Firstly, the costs of such a system would be extremely high and would require considerable tax rises to be introduced, although the potential reduction in benefit bureaucracy may go some way to offsetting this cost. Furthermore, a Universal Basic Income system would need to be implemented carefully to ensure that work incentives are not eroded by providing a very generous basic income to all individuals. However, we are firmly of the view that such a system would provide more dignity to those in receipt of benefits, and may also save money in the long term by reducing bureaucracy and simplifying the benefits system.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, the group was in favour of a Universal Basic Income system, however, the devil is in the detail and there are many things that need to be considered before such a system could be implemented. The group felt that there are many people in the UK who are currently living in poverty and are reliant on the current benefits system. This system is not fit for purpose and in many cases does not allow people to survive in the context of much higher costs of living at the moment. The group felt that the current benefits system is bureaucratic and inefficient and a system like this would be a vast improvement on the current system. The group also felt that the current system does not encourage people to work and in some cases may actually discourage people from working. A system like this would allow people to work and earn money without the fear of losing their benefits. The group felt that the current system is not equitable and does not treat people with dignity. The group felt that a system like this would treat people with dignity and would be equitable. The group felt that a system like this would be expensive to implement and may require an increase in taxation. The group felt that the current system is also expensive to implement and maintain and that a system like this would be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a Universal Basic Income. However, it was felt that the devil was in the detail and that the current proposal by the Labour Party was too vague. It was felt that a system of this nature would need to be properly costed and that the current proposal lacked the necessary detail to make an informed decision. It was felt that the current proposal by the Labour Party was too vague. It was felt that a system of this nature would need to be properly costed and that the current proposal lacked the necessary detail to make an informed decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the UK should adopt a Universal Basic Income system to ensure everyone has the minimum income to live not to survive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We have debated the introduction of a Universal Basic Income system in the UK. We are in favour of a system of this nature being introduced, albeit with some caveats. Firstly, the costs of such a system would be extremely high and would require considerable tax rises to be introduced, although the potential reduction in benefit bureaucracy may go some way to offsetting this cost. Furthermore, a Universal Basic Income system would need to be implemented carefully to ensure that work incentives are not eroded by providing a very generous basic income to all individuals. However, we are firmly of the view that such a system would provide more dignity to those in receipt of benefits, and may also save money in the long term by reducing bureaucracy and simplifying the benefits system.” 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001181.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001181.soc index 6e5d353d..d94569a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001181.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001181.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group came to the consensus view that the government should provide universal free childcare from birth. They also stated that by providing free childcare, the government will be helping children, parents and the economy. Children will benefit from early learning, parents will benefit from the additional income and the economy will benefit from the additional taxes paid by parents in employment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the government should provide free childcare from birth. We believe that it is important for the government to support families in their early years, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged due to the costs of childcare. We believe that this would also support the economy, as more people would be able to enter the workforce, and also support children in their early years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should provide free childcare from birth. It would mean that everyone has the option to work if they wish to. It would also allow parents to take part in training and education, so they can improve their prospects for the future. This would also benefit the children as they would get the opportunity to interact with other children, and learn new skills. It would also mean that families would not struggle as much with financial worries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants believe that free childcare from birth should be made available to all children as it will be better for both the parents and the children. Childcare costs are very high, and many people cannot afford them. If they were free, many parents could take up employment, allowing them to provide for their families. This would also mean that the government would be receiving more money from taxes, which would help fund the country. The children will also benefit from free childcare as they will get to interact with other children and learn from them. They will be in a safer environment, being looked after by qualified professionals. The government should ensure that all children are looked after to a high standard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group came to the consensus view that the government should provide universal free childcare from birth. They also stated that by providing free childcare, the government will be helping children, parents and the economy. Children will benefit from early learning, parents will benefit from the additional income and the economy will benefit from the additional taxes paid by parents in employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the government should provide free childcare from birth. We believe that it is important for the government to support families in their early years, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged due to the costs of childcare. We believe that this would also support the economy, as more people would be able to enter the workforce, and also support children in their early years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should provide free childcare from birth. It would mean that everyone has the option to work if they wish to. It would also allow parents to take part in training and education, so they can improve their prospects for the future. This would also benefit the children as they would get the opportunity to interact with other children, and learn new skills. It would also mean that families would not struggle as much with financial worries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants believe that free childcare from birth should be made available to all children as it will be better for both the parents and the children. Childcare costs are very high, and many people cannot afford them. If they were free, many parents could take up employment, allowing them to provide for their families. This would also mean that the government would be receiving more money from taxes, which would help fund the country. The children will also benefit from free childcare as they will get to interact with other children and learn from them. They will be in a safer environment, being looked after by qualified professionals. The government should ensure that all children are looked after to a high standard. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001182.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001182.soc index 840abf7d..4386bf9d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001182.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001182.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of the government giving a basic income to all citizens is a nice one, but it would be very costly, and only one small portion of the population would actually receive this money. However, if the government were to provide this basic income to everyone, there should be some form of taxation on everyone receiving this money. The money for this basic income should come from a mix of taxation, businesses, and other sources, and there should be some sort of higher taxation on people who receive the basic income, or some sort of money back scheme in place for people who are not working. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income for all citizens. The group felt that it would be a good idea to trial the idea in a small community before rolling it out nationwide. The group felt that the current benefit system is too complicated and that it would be better to have a simple system that is easy for everyone to understand. The group felt that it would be a good idea to give everyone the same amount of money, regardless of their income, but that the amount of money should be enough to live on, but not enough to be able to live in luxury. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, the idea of a basic income for all citizens is a good one. However, there are many practical issues that need to be addressed before such a scheme could be implemented. These include the cost of such a scheme, how it would be funded, and the effect it would have on the wider economy. It would also need to be trialled in a small community to assess the impact it would have on the local economy and the wider community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although in the long run it would be a good idea to supply everyone with a basic income, as it would help alleviate poverty and help everyone to live a better quality of life, it is clear that it would be far too expensive to be able to implement it in the current economic climate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of the government giving a basic income to all citizens is a nice one, but it would be very costly, and only one small portion of the population would actually receive this money. However, if the government were to provide this basic income to everyone, there should be some form of taxation on everyone receiving this money. The money for this basic income should come from a mix of taxation, businesses, and other sources, and there should be some sort of higher taxation on people who receive the basic income, or some sort of money back scheme in place for people who are not working. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income for all citizens. The group felt that it would be a good idea to trial the idea in a small community before rolling it out nationwide. The group felt that the current benefit system is too complicated and that it would be better to have a simple system that is easy for everyone to understand. The group felt that it would be a good idea to give everyone the same amount of money, regardless of their income, but that the amount of money should be enough to live on, but not enough to be able to live in luxury. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, the idea of a basic income for all citizens is a good one. However, there are many practical issues that need to be addressed before such a scheme could be implemented. These include the cost of such a scheme, how it would be funded, and the effect it would have on the wider economy. It would also need to be trialled in a small community to assess the impact it would have on the local economy and the wider community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although in the long run it would be a good idea to supply everyone with a basic income, as it would help alleviate poverty and help everyone to live a better quality of life, it is clear that it would be far too expensive to be able to implement it in the current economic climate. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001183.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001183.soc index 29e5f8ec..73066dce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001183.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001183.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: The group were very strongly in favour of requiring companies to disclose the technology they use to identify users. The most important factor they came up with was transparency. The whole issue was seen as being about informed consent and transparency. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. This transparency can only be achieved by the companies disclosing the technology they use. We all believed that it is extremely important to inform users, and agreed that if a company decided not to inform them, then that decision should be punished heavily by law. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users, and not doing so should be heavily punished by law. The whole issue is about transparency and informed consent. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. It also protects us against the possibility of companies abusing our data by using the technology without our knowledge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. This is an issue of transparency and informed consent. The technology used should be disclosed to allow users to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. This should be a legal requirement and companies that don't abide by it should be punished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group felt very strongly that companies should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. The whole issue was seen as being about transparency and informed consent. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: The group were very strongly in favour of requiring companies to disclose the technology they use to identify users. The most important factor they came up with was transparency. The whole issue was seen as being about informed consent and transparency. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. This transparency can only be achieved by the companies disclosing the technology they use. We all believed that it is extremely important to inform users, and agreed that if a company decided not to inform them, then that decision should be punished heavily by law. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users, and not doing so should be heavily punished by law. The whole issue is about transparency and informed consent. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. It also protects us against the possibility of companies abusing our data by using the technology without our knowledge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies that sell the software that tracks your online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. This is an issue of transparency and informed consent. The technology used should be disclosed to allow users to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. This should be a legal requirement and companies that don't abide by it should be punished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group felt very strongly that companies should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. The whole issue was seen as being about transparency and informed consent. By disclosing the technology they use, it allows us to make an informed choice about whether to use the software and what information to divulge to them. It also puts us in a better position to understand how we can be traced by online advertisers and what our rights are with regards to how our information is used. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001184.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001184.soc index d78588b0..6ee7a73d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001184.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001184.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to foreign powers buying UK infrastructure. The group felt that it was important to retain control of infrastructure in the UK. It was felt that foreign powers may have different agendas to the UK and may not have the best interests of the UK in mind. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the infrastructure was affordable for the UK population. It was felt that there are potential security implications of foreign powers investing in UK infrastructure. However, there is also the potential for foreign investment to help boost the UK economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Foreign powers should not be allowed to buy UK infrastructure. The infrastructure is important to the running of the UK and to the lives of its citizens. Foreign powers may have agendas that are not in the best interests of the UK. Foreign powers may also seek to influence the way in which the infrastructure is used and may make it more expensive for the citizens of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to foreign powers buying UK infrastructure. The group felt that it was important to retain control of infrastructure in the UK. It was felt that foreign powers may have different agendas to the UK and may not have the best interests of the UK in mind. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the infrastructure was affordable for the UK population. The group felt that if the infrastructure was bought by a foreign power it should be carefully vetted and only allowed if it was felt that it would be of benefit to the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to foreign powers buying UK infrastructure. The group felt that it was important to retain control of infrastructure in the UK. It was felt that foreign powers may have different agendas to the UK and may not have the best interests of the UK in mind. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the infrastructure was affordable for the UK population. It was felt that there are potential security implications of foreign powers investing in UK infrastructure. However, there is also the potential for foreign investment to help boost the UK economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Foreign powers should not be allowed to buy UK infrastructure. The infrastructure is important to the running of the UK and to the lives of its citizens. Foreign powers may have agendas that are not in the best interests of the UK. Foreign powers may also seek to influence the way in which the infrastructure is used and may make it more expensive for the citizens of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to foreign powers buying UK infrastructure. The group felt that it was important to retain control of infrastructure in the UK. It was felt that foreign powers may have different agendas to the UK and may not have the best interests of the UK in mind. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the infrastructure was affordable for the UK population. The group felt that if the infrastructure was bought by a foreign power it should be carefully vetted and only allowed if it was felt that it would be of benefit to the UK. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001185.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001185.soc index 497ad708..febb2c86 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001185.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001185.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is clear that the current legal driving age of 17 years is associated with higher mortality rates due to crashes, we do not think it should be increased. There are already various restrictions on new drivers that can limit their access to the roads, and these restrictions may be tightened further. However, increasing the age limit to a higher age would result in young people having less independence, and more reliance on parents or public transport. This would have a negative impact on their ability to get to school, or get a job, as well as a negative impact on their mental health. We think that the current driving test is quite a good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. There is some evidence that people over the age of 20 are more likely to have car accidents than younger drivers, so increasing the driving age to 18 is not a guaranteed way to improve road safety. We think that it is better to concentrate on other ways of making the roads safer, such as improved education of young people, and restricting access to the roads for drivers who have caused previous accidents. We think that improving public transport in rural areas would help to reduce the need for young -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the legal driving age should not be increased. We do however feel there should be more restrictions on younger drivers to reduce the number of incidents that involve young people and driving, so we feel there should be a 'probation' period after passing the driving test, and restrictions on night time driving, number of passengers, alcohol, etc -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not increase the legal driving age. We believe that the current age of 17 is appropriate for young people to obtain their driving license. We feel that the current driving test is sufficient to ensure that young people have the necessary skills to drive safely on the roads. We also feel that increasing the driving age will have a negative impact on the employment prospects of young people, as many jobs require the ability to drive. We also feel that young people should be encouraged to drive safely and we would support campaigns to improve driver safety and awareness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the legal driving age should not be increased. The current age of 17 is a good age for people to start driving. There should be more restrictions for young drivers regarding motorway, speed and night time driving etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is clear that the current legal driving age of 17 years is associated with higher mortality rates due to crashes, we do not think it should be increased. There are already various restrictions on new drivers that can limit their access to the roads, and these restrictions may be tightened further. However, increasing the age limit to a higher age would result in young people having less independence, and more reliance on parents or public transport. This would have a negative impact on their ability to get to school, or get a job, as well as a negative impact on their mental health. We think that the current driving test is quite a good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. There is some evidence that people over the age of 20 are more likely to have car accidents than younger drivers, so increasing the driving age to 18 is not a guaranteed way to improve road safety. We think that it is better to concentrate on other ways of making the roads safer, such as improved education of young people, and restricting access to the roads for drivers who have caused previous accidents. We think that improving public transport in rural areas would help to reduce the need for young +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the legal driving age should not be increased. We do however feel there should be more restrictions on younger drivers to reduce the number of incidents that involve young people and driving, so we feel there should be a 'probation' period after passing the driving test, and restrictions on night time driving, number of passengers, alcohol, etc +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not increase the legal driving age. We believe that the current age of 17 is appropriate for young people to obtain their driving license. We feel that the current driving test is sufficient to ensure that young people have the necessary skills to drive safely on the roads. We also feel that increasing the driving age will have a negative impact on the employment prospects of young people, as many jobs require the ability to drive. We also feel that young people should be encouraged to drive safely and we would support campaigns to improve driver safety and awareness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the legal driving age should not be increased. The current age of 17 is a good age for people to start driving. There should be more restrictions for young drivers regarding motorway, speed and night time driving etc. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001186.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001186.soc index cdc8e0d0..115ffb21 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001186.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001186.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not reduce the age at which people can drink alcohol. This is because there are inherent dangers in drinking and to reduce the age would be bad. In fact it should be increased to 21. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the age at which people can drink alcohol should not be reduced. This is because there are significant health and safety concerns which would occur as a result of reducing the age limit, and there are numerous other products and activities which present a greater health risk to young people than alcohol. We also believe that young people do not have the life experience to drink responsibly and that this can only be built up over time. Finally, we believe that the age limit of 18 is appropriate, and that the risks of young people drinking before 18 is much greater than the risks of them not drinking before 18. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the age at which people can drink alcohol should not be reduced. Alcohol presents significant risks and the potential harm it can cause means that it should not be made available to those who are unable to cope with it. Therefore we believe that it should remain at the legal age of 18. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not reduce the age at which people can drink alcohol. The age of 18 is appropriate, and people should not drink alcohol until they are of legal age. The dangers of alcohol are well known, and it is an addictive substance that can cause serious harm to people of all ages. There are many other substances that young people can access that present a greater risk to their health than alcohol, and it is important that young people are aware of the dangers of these substances. The age limit of 18 is appropriate, and should not be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not reduce the age at which people can drink alcohol. This is because there are inherent dangers in drinking and to reduce the age would be bad. In fact it should be increased to 21. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the age at which people can drink alcohol should not be reduced. This is because there are significant health and safety concerns which would occur as a result of reducing the age limit, and there are numerous other products and activities which present a greater health risk to young people than alcohol. We also believe that young people do not have the life experience to drink responsibly and that this can only be built up over time. Finally, we believe that the age limit of 18 is appropriate, and that the risks of young people drinking before 18 is much greater than the risks of them not drinking before 18. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the age at which people can drink alcohol should not be reduced. Alcohol presents significant risks and the potential harm it can cause means that it should not be made available to those who are unable to cope with it. Therefore we believe that it should remain at the legal age of 18. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not reduce the age at which people can drink alcohol. The age of 18 is appropriate, and people should not drink alcohol until they are of legal age. The dangers of alcohol are well known, and it is an addictive substance that can cause serious harm to people of all ages. There are many other substances that young people can access that present a greater risk to their health than alcohol, and it is important that young people are aware of the dangers of these substances. The age limit of 18 is appropriate, and should not be changed. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001187.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001187.soc index 5d02cac2..cb7c96e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001187.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001187.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is clear that the current legal driving age of 17 years is associated with higher mortality rates due to crashes, we do not think it should be increased. There are already various restrictions on new drivers that can limit their access to the roads, and these restrictions may be tightened further. However, increasing the age limit to a higher age would result in young people having less independence, and more reliance on parents or public transport. This would have a negative impact on their ability to get to school, or get a job, as well as a negative impact on their mental health. We think that the current driving test is quite a good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. There is some evidence that people over the age of 20 are more likely to have car accidents than younger drivers, so increasing the driving age to 18 is not a guaranteed way to improve road safety. We think that it is better to concentrate on other ways of making the roads safer, such as improved education of young people, and restricting access to the roads for drivers who have caused previous accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: We recognise that the current legal driving age is the cause of increased mortality rates of 17 year olds due to traffic crashes. However, increasing the age limit to a higher age would result in a significant impact on the independence of young people, and more reliance on parents and public transport. This would have a negative impact on young people’s ability to get to school, or get a job. In addition, there is insufficient evidence that raising the driving age to 18 would result in an improvement in mortality rates for young people, and it is certainly not guaranteed to make the roads any safer. We feel that there are already various restrictions on new drivers that can limit their access to the roads, and these restrictions may be tightened further if necessary. However, the current driving test is a fairly good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. We think that increasing the legal driving age would make very little difference to road safety, so it would be better to focus on other ways of making the roads safer, such as more education on driving for young people, and stricter measures for those who have previously been involved in accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: We do not think we should increase the legal driving age to 18 because it will lead to more young people having to rely on their parents or public transport and may reduce their independence and freedom. Increasing the driving age will result in people spending longer in education and may reduce their employment prospects. While it is clear that the current legal driving age of 17 years is associated with higher mortality rates due to crashes, we think that the right way to ensure the safety of young drivers is through better education of young people, and better restrictions on access to the roads by young drivers who have previously had accidents, or who have only passed their test recently. The current driving test is quite a good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. There is some evidence that people over the age of 20 are more likely to have car accidents than younger drivers, so increasing the driving age to 18 is not a guaranteed way to improve road safety. One way to improve public transport and reduce the need for young people to drive would be to have higher parking charges, and better public transport in rural areas. This would reduce the amount of cars on the road -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is clear that the current legal driving age of 17 years is associated with higher mortality rates due to crashes, we do not think it should be increased. There are already various restrictions on new drivers that can limit their access to the roads, and these restrictions may be tightened further. However, increasing the age limit to a higher age would result in young people having less independence, and more reliance on parents or public transport. This would have a negative impact on their ability to get to school, or get a job, as well as a negative impact on their mental health. We think that the current driving test is quite a good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. There is some evidence that people over the age of 20 are more likely to have car accidents than younger drivers, so increasing the driving age to 18 is not a guaranteed way to improve road safety. We think that it is better to concentrate on other ways of making the roads safer, such as improved education of young people, and restricting access to the roads for drivers who have caused previous accidents. We think that improving public transport in rural areas would help to reduce the need for young +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is clear that the current legal driving age of 17 years is associated with higher mortality rates due to crashes, we do not think it should be increased. There are already various restrictions on new drivers that can limit their access to the roads, and these restrictions may be tightened further. However, increasing the age limit to a higher age would result in young people having less independence, and more reliance on parents or public transport. This would have a negative impact on their ability to get to school, or get a job, as well as a negative impact on their mental health. We think that the current driving test is quite a good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. There is some evidence that people over the age of 20 are more likely to have car accidents than younger drivers, so increasing the driving age to 18 is not a guaranteed way to improve road safety. We think that it is better to concentrate on other ways of making the roads safer, such as improved education of young people, and restricting access to the roads for drivers who have caused previous accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: We recognise that the current legal driving age is the cause of increased mortality rates of 17 year olds due to traffic crashes. However, increasing the age limit to a higher age would result in a significant impact on the independence of young people, and more reliance on parents and public transport. This would have a negative impact on young people’s ability to get to school, or get a job. In addition, there is insufficient evidence that raising the driving age to 18 would result in an improvement in mortality rates for young people, and it is certainly not guaranteed to make the roads any safer. We feel that there are already various restrictions on new drivers that can limit their access to the roads, and these restrictions may be tightened further if necessary. However, the current driving test is a fairly good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. We think that increasing the legal driving age would make very little difference to road safety, so it would be better to focus on other ways of making the roads safer, such as more education on driving for young people, and stricter measures for those who have previously been involved in accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: We do not think we should increase the legal driving age to 18 because it will lead to more young people having to rely on their parents or public transport and may reduce their independence and freedom. Increasing the driving age will result in people spending longer in education and may reduce their employment prospects. While it is clear that the current legal driving age of 17 years is associated with higher mortality rates due to crashes, we think that the right way to ensure the safety of young drivers is through better education of young people, and better restrictions on access to the roads by young drivers who have previously had accidents, or who have only passed their test recently. The current driving test is quite a good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. There is some evidence that people over the age of 20 are more likely to have car accidents than younger drivers, so increasing the driving age to 18 is not a guaranteed way to improve road safety. One way to improve public transport and reduce the need for young people to drive would be to have higher parking charges, and better public transport in rural areas. This would reduce the amount of cars on the road +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is clear that the current legal driving age of 17 years is associated with higher mortality rates due to crashes, we do not think it should be increased. There are already various restrictions on new drivers that can limit their access to the roads, and these restrictions may be tightened further. However, increasing the age limit to a higher age would result in young people having less independence, and more reliance on parents or public transport. This would have a negative impact on their ability to get to school, or get a job, as well as a negative impact on their mental health. We think that the current driving test is quite a good indicator of whether someone has the skills to drive, and we think that it is a fair test for 17 year olds. There is some evidence that people over the age of 20 are more likely to have car accidents than younger drivers, so increasing the driving age to 18 is not a guaranteed way to improve road safety. We think that it is better to concentrate on other ways of making the roads safer, such as improved education of young people, and restricting access to the roads for drivers who have caused previous accidents. We think that improving public transport in rural areas would help to reduce the need for young 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001188.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001188.soc index 8d023bf9..5defd9b7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001188.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001188.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. We have decided that it would be best to move towards this form of democracy. However, it is important that before this is implemented, the public is educated on the issues at hand to make sure that the public has a good understanding of what they are voting for. This would mean that the final decision that is made would be the best decision for the country. It is also important that the government makes sure that the voting process is efficient and does not waste a lot of money as it would be bad if a lot of money is spent but the public’s opinion is not taken into account.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should move to a form of direct democracy. This will give us the people more control of the country and allow us to take greater interest in the politics of our country -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of moving to a form of direct democracy. The group felt that this would allow for more active citizen participation in decision-making processes, giving us the people a greater sense of involvement in our government. The group felt that this would also help with important issues as you would be concentration on a single issue and not getting distracted by less important issues. The group felt that this would highlight issues that are important and hopefully quicker action will be taken to resolve such issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of moving to a form of direct democracy. This would allow for more active citizen participation in decision-making processes, giving us the people a greater sense of involvement in our government. However, the group did acknowledge that this would be very expensive to do and would cost more to tax payers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. We have decided that it would be best to move towards this form of democracy. However, it is important that before this is implemented, the public is educated on the issues at hand to make sure that the public has a good understanding of what they are voting for. This would mean that the final decision that is made would be the best decision for the country. It is also important that the government makes sure that the voting process is efficient and does not waste a lot of money as it would be bad if a lot of money is spent but the public’s opinion is not taken into account.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should move to a form of direct democracy. This will give us the people more control of the country and allow us to take greater interest in the politics of our country +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of moving to a form of direct democracy. The group felt that this would allow for more active citizen participation in decision-making processes, giving us the people a greater sense of involvement in our government. The group felt that this would also help with important issues as you would be concentration on a single issue and not getting distracted by less important issues. The group felt that this would highlight issues that are important and hopefully quicker action will be taken to resolve such issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of moving to a form of direct democracy. This would allow for more active citizen participation in decision-making processes, giving us the people a greater sense of involvement in our government. However, the group did acknowledge that this would be very expensive to do and would cost more to tax payers. 4: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001189.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001189.soc index 2dc8a0f0..3b9904f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001189.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001189.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the imperial system of measurement has been used for centuries, and some people prefer to talk in feet, pounds, gallons and miles, I think that we should move to the metric system. The metric system fits well with science, and will be a lot easier to use, because the measurements are compatible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the imperial system of measurement is outdated and should be replaced by the metric system. However, the imperial system is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it would be very difficult to change and would cause a lot of problems. Therefore, the best solution would be to keep the imperial system for things like clothing sizes, cooking measurements and everyday weights and distances, but to use the metric system for scientific measurements. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I think that the imperial system of measurement is outdated and does not fit in with the metric system that is used in most of the world. The imperial system is also not compatible with the science that is taught in schools and this could cause confusion for children. However, I think that the imperial system is a part of our heritage and that it would be difficult for some people to change to a new system. I think that the imperial system should be phased out gradually over time and that the metric system should be used more and more in schools and in everyday life.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I feel that we should stop using the imperial system of measurement, because although some people may be accustomed to it and it might be difficult for them to change over, it is becoming more and more anachronistic as time goes on and the use of metric measurements is becoming more and more common in everyday life. Also, metric is the universal standard and it would be beneficial to be able to have one set of measurements and to not have to deal with conversions. On the other hand, I can see the point of those who argue that we should keep the imperial system of measurement, since it has been used in Britain for such a long time, and people would be very resistant to changing. I feel that if we were to stop using the imperial system of measurement, then it would be best to change over slowly, so that people have time to adjust, rather than to just stop using it one day, because if people did not have time to adjust, then there would be a lot of confusion and problems.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the imperial system of measurement has been used for centuries, and some people prefer to talk in feet, pounds, gallons and miles, I think that we should move to the metric system. The metric system fits well with science, and will be a lot easier to use, because the measurements are compatible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the imperial system of measurement is outdated and should be replaced by the metric system. However, the imperial system is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it would be very difficult to change and would cause a lot of problems. Therefore, the best solution would be to keep the imperial system for things like clothing sizes, cooking measurements and everyday weights and distances, but to use the metric system for scientific measurements. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I think that the imperial system of measurement is outdated and does not fit in with the metric system that is used in most of the world. The imperial system is also not compatible with the science that is taught in schools and this could cause confusion for children. However, I think that the imperial system is a part of our heritage and that it would be difficult for some people to change to a new system. I think that the imperial system should be phased out gradually over time and that the metric system should be used more and more in schools and in everyday life.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I feel that we should stop using the imperial system of measurement, because although some people may be accustomed to it and it might be difficult for them to change over, it is becoming more and more anachronistic as time goes on and the use of metric measurements is becoming more and more common in everyday life. Also, metric is the universal standard and it would be beneficial to be able to have one set of measurements and to not have to deal with conversions. On the other hand, I can see the point of those who argue that we should keep the imperial system of measurement, since it has been used in Britain for such a long time, and people would be very resistant to changing. I feel that if we were to stop using the imperial system of measurement, then it would be best to change over slowly, so that people have time to adjust, rather than to just stop using it one day, because if people did not have time to adjust, then there would be a lot of confusion and problems.” 4: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001190.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001190.soc index 4ee8c97e..53f231e4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001190.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001190.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. We have decided that it would be best to move towards this form of democracy. However, it is important that before this is implemented, the public is educated on the issues at hand to make sure that the public has a good understanding of what they are voting for. This would mean that the final decision that is made would be the best decision for the country. It is also important that the government makes sure that the voting process is efficient and does not waste a lot of money as it would be bad if a lot of money is spent but the public’s opinion is not taken into account. We also think that this will allow for more active citizen participation in decision-making processes, giving us the people a greater sense of involvement in our government. There is also the possibility of more people becoming interested in politics, and hopefully this will lead to a higher voter turnout.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. We have decided that it would be best to move towards this form of democracy. However, it is important that before this is implemented, the public is educated on the issues at hand to make sure that the public has a good understanding of what they are voting for. This would mean that the final decision that is made would be the best decision for the country. It is also important that the government makes sure that the voting process is efficient and does not waste a lot of money as it would be bad if a lot of money is spent but the public’s opinion is not taken into account. We also think that the process should encourage more people to vote and get more involved in the political process. This would be good as the more people that vote the more representative the outcome would be.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. We have decided that it would be best to move towards this form of democracy. However, it is important that before this is implemented, the public is educated on the issues at hand to make sure that the public has a good understanding of what they are voting for. This would mean that the final decision that is made would be the best decision for the country. It is also important that the government makes sure that the voting process is efficient and does not waste a lot of money as it would be bad if a lot of money is spent but the public’s opinion is not taken into account. Not only that but it is important to make sure the issues brought up to the government are important enough to put as a referendum. It is important that all potential views are presented and people are given an open-mind so that they can come to their own conclusions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. The majority of the group agree with this, and see that this has a lot of benefits. It would mean that the general public has the power to actively participate in issues, rather than passively hearing from their representatives in Parliament. It would also be beneficial because there would be increased political engagement, as it would mean that more people are likely to vote as they will feel that their opinion matters and the result will be what they want and so they will have more of an incentive to vote. It is, however, essential that the general public is informed and has a good understanding of the issues involved so that they can make the right decision for the country. Although there is a lot of support for direct democracy, some participants do not think that the general public should be involved in the decision-making and would prefer it if the politicians and representatives did it. This view is held because some participants believe that the general public does not know enough about the issues to make good decisions and will not be able to be politically neutral and so will not make the decision that is best for the country.” Discussion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. We have decided that it would be best to move towards this form of democracy. However, it is important that before this is implemented, the public is educated on the issues at hand to make sure that the public has a good understanding of what they are voting for. This would mean that the final decision that is made would be the best decision for the country. It is also important that the government makes sure that the voting process is efficient and does not waste a lot of money as it would be bad if a lot of money is spent but the public’s opinion is not taken into account. We also think that this will allow for more active citizen participation in decision-making processes, giving us the people a greater sense of involvement in our government. There is also the possibility of more people becoming interested in politics, and hopefully this will lead to a higher voter turnout.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. We have decided that it would be best to move towards this form of democracy. However, it is important that before this is implemented, the public is educated on the issues at hand to make sure that the public has a good understanding of what they are voting for. This would mean that the final decision that is made would be the best decision for the country. It is also important that the government makes sure that the voting process is efficient and does not waste a lot of money as it would be bad if a lot of money is spent but the public’s opinion is not taken into account. We also think that the process should encourage more people to vote and get more involved in the political process. This would be good as the more people that vote the more representative the outcome would be.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. We have decided that it would be best to move towards this form of democracy. However, it is important that before this is implemented, the public is educated on the issues at hand to make sure that the public has a good understanding of what they are voting for. This would mean that the final decision that is made would be the best decision for the country. It is also important that the government makes sure that the voting process is efficient and does not waste a lot of money as it would be bad if a lot of money is spent but the public’s opinion is not taken into account. Not only that but it is important to make sure the issues brought up to the government are important enough to put as a referendum. It is important that all potential views are presented and people are given an open-mind so that they can come to their own conclusions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: “We have debated the issue of moving towards a form of direct democracy, where people directly vote on issues through referendums. The majority of the group agree with this, and see that this has a lot of benefits. It would mean that the general public has the power to actively participate in issues, rather than passively hearing from their representatives in Parliament. It would also be beneficial because there would be increased political engagement, as it would mean that more people are likely to vote as they will feel that their opinion matters and the result will be what they want and so they will have more of an incentive to vote. It is, however, essential that the general public is informed and has a good understanding of the issues involved so that they can make the right decision for the country. Although there is a lot of support for direct democracy, some participants do not think that the general public should be involved in the decision-making and would prefer it if the politicians and representatives did it. This view is held because some participants believe that the general public does not know enough about the issues to make good decisions and will not be able to be politically neutral and so will not make the decision that is best for the country.” Discussion 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001191.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001191.soc index c085ec87..6540c079 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001191.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001191.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Divorce should be made easier in the UK. The current divorce process is too long and complicated. This is not to say that divorce should be made too easy, as this could lead to frivolous divorces. However, the current divorce process is too long and complicated, and this should be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the decision to divorce is an extremely important one and we recognise that some may require a lengthier process to ensure that the decision is reached in a responsible manner, we believe that divorce in the UK should be made easier in most situations. In particular we believe that where domestic violence is a factor the divorce process should be made much quicker. In general, we think that if one of the two people in a marriage or a relationship wants to end the relationship, they should be able to do so easily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of making divorce easier in the UK. There was some debate around whether divorce should be made easier for all or whether it should be made easier for certain circumstances. The group came to the consensus view that divorce should be made easier for all, but with a caveat that there should be a longer cooling off period. This would allow couples to have more time to reflect on their decision to divorce and to try and resolve any issues. The group felt that divorce should be made easier for all, but that it should be made harder to get married. The group felt that people should be made more aware of the commitment they are making when they get married and that they should be made more aware of the consequences of divorce. The group felt that divorce should be made easier for all, but that it should be made harder to get married. The group felt that people should be made more aware of the commitment they are making when they get married and that they should be made more aware of the consequences of divorce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is the opinion of the group that divorce is not a simple thing to go through, and as such, the law around it should not be changed to make it easier. It is also the opinion of the group that divorce is an important part of the social fabric and that some consideration needs to be made for the importance of having a stable family unit for children. As such, we feel that divorce law should remain as it is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Divorce should be made easier in the UK. The current divorce process is too long and complicated. This is not to say that divorce should be made too easy, as this could lead to frivolous divorces. However, the current divorce process is too long and complicated, and this should be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the decision to divorce is an extremely important one and we recognise that some may require a lengthier process to ensure that the decision is reached in a responsible manner, we believe that divorce in the UK should be made easier in most situations. In particular we believe that where domestic violence is a factor the divorce process should be made much quicker. In general, we think that if one of the two people in a marriage or a relationship wants to end the relationship, they should be able to do so easily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of making divorce easier in the UK. There was some debate around whether divorce should be made easier for all or whether it should be made easier for certain circumstances. The group came to the consensus view that divorce should be made easier for all, but with a caveat that there should be a longer cooling off period. This would allow couples to have more time to reflect on their decision to divorce and to try and resolve any issues. The group felt that divorce should be made easier for all, but that it should be made harder to get married. The group felt that people should be made more aware of the commitment they are making when they get married and that they should be made more aware of the consequences of divorce. The group felt that divorce should be made easier for all, but that it should be made harder to get married. The group felt that people should be made more aware of the commitment they are making when they get married and that they should be made more aware of the consequences of divorce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is the opinion of the group that divorce is not a simple thing to go through, and as such, the law around it should not be changed to make it easier. It is also the opinion of the group that divorce is an important part of the social fabric and that some consideration needs to be made for the importance of having a stable family unit for children. As such, we feel that divorce law should remain as it is. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001192.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001192.soc index b1afabb3..4991644a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001192.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001192.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that it is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. This is because they already benefit from various tax loopholes and scandals, further reducing their tax burden would allow inequality and hinder economic progress. We believe that it is a good idea to reduce taxation on small, new independent companies to give them more chance to succeed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. If they cannot pay their current rate, then something must be wrong and I think that tax loopholes and tax avoidance is a major issue. Some corporations also pollute our environment and take advantage of their workers, and so they need to contribute more to our society. They also avoid paying tax on many accounts and use complex methods to avoid paying as much tax as they should. We don't believe that the government should lower their taxes further, especially as it will mean that those who pay tax and work hard will have to contribute even more to our economy and society. Discussion questions: (a) Identify three different types of consensus mentioned in this exercise. (b) What factors can influence the extent to which a person is willing to participate in a group consensus exercise? (c) What is the role of each individual participant in this exercise? (d) Describe two strategies that could be used to encourage participants to reach a consensus view. (e) Describe one limitation of this exercise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that it is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. This is because they already benefit from various tax loopholes and scandals, further reducing their tax burden would allow inequality and hinder economic progress. We also believe that they should be paying more tax to give back to the economy as they contribute to slave work and to the emission of toxic gas into the atmosphere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. If they pay less in taxes, the government will not be able to invest in services that benefit the people and corporations may invest in tax havens abroad. It would therefore be a bad idea to reduce their tax burden. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. This is because they already benefit from various tax loopholes and scandals, further reducing their tax burden would allow inequality and hinder economic progress. We believe that it is a good idea to reduce taxation on small, new independent companies to give them more chance to succeed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. If they cannot pay their current rate, then something must be wrong and I think that tax loopholes and tax avoidance is a major issue. Some corporations also pollute our environment and take advantage of their workers, and so they need to contribute more to our society. They also avoid paying tax on many accounts and use complex methods to avoid paying as much tax as they should. We don't believe that the government should lower their taxes further, especially as it will mean that those who pay tax and work hard will have to contribute even more to our economy and society. Discussion questions: (a) Identify three different types of consensus mentioned in this exercise. (b) What factors can influence the extent to which a person is willing to participate in a group consensus exercise? (c) What is the role of each individual participant in this exercise? (d) Describe two strategies that could be used to encourage participants to reach a consensus view. (e) Describe one limitation of this exercise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that it is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. This is because they already benefit from various tax loopholes and scandals, further reducing their tax burden would allow inequality and hinder economic progress. We also believe that they should be paying more tax to give back to the economy as they contribute to slave work and to the emission of toxic gas into the atmosphere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. If they pay less in taxes, the government will not be able to invest in services that benefit the people and corporations may invest in tax havens abroad. It would therefore be a bad idea to reduce their tax burden. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001193.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001193.soc index 029e796a..8a49e853 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001193.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001193.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not believe that we should raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. This is for several reasons. Firstly, the current pandemic has had a huge impact on many peoples lives, and raising the retirement age may be one of the worst things to do. People have been at home for a long time and will be craving social interaction. Raising the retirement age would also mean that people would lose that. People should not have to work until they die, they should have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement, and doing this could result in people dying earlier. However, the argument to raise the retirement age is that we are living longer. However, people have also been dying earlier due to Covid-19. This means that the average age of death may be lower, and this means that the retirement age should not have to be raised. We also do not think that people should have to work until they die, they should have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement, and doing this could result in people dying earlier. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. There are a number of reasons for this view. Firstly, people have been working a long time, and there are a number of physical jobs which can be difficult at the best of times, and would be particularly challenging for people aged 66. The global pandemic has had a huge impact on many peoples lives, and raising the retirement age may be one of the worst things to do. People have been at home for a long time and will be craving social interaction. Raising the retirement age would also mean that people would lose that. People should not have to work until they die, they should have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement, and doing this could result in people dying earlier. However, the argument to raise the retirement age is that we are living longer. However, people have also been dying earlier due to Covid-19. This means that the average age of death may be lower, and this means that the retirement age should not have to be raised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: While it would be expected that people are able to work longer, we don't think the retirement age should be raised from 66 to 68. There are numerous reasons for this view. Firstly, many people would have struggled to work during lockdown, and may have had to sacrifice their health for the sake of their job. And an increase in the retirement age is not good for their health. It is no secret that people in their 60s and 70s are more at risk of catching the virus than younger people, and continuing to work will put people at even greater risk. People aged 66 would also have been working hard, and maybe in manual jobs, so raising the retirement age would be very unfair on them. Many people could also die earlier if the age is raised due to the virus, and due to the elderly being more at risk. If that was to happen, this would be a great shame, and would mean that they will not be able to enjoy their retirement. People also deserve the chance to take some time off and recover from working for their whole life. People should not have to work until they die. Also, during lockdown people will have missed family members, and they have been isolated at home for a -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. There are several reasons for this view. Firstly, people have been working a long time, and there are a number of physically demanding jobs which can be difficult at the best of times, and would be particularly challenging for people aged 66. The global pandemic has had a huge impact on many peoples lives, and raising the retirement age may be one of the worst things to do. People have been at home for a long time and will be craving social interaction. Raising the retirement age would also mean that people would lose that. People should not have to work until they die, they should have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement, and doing this could result in people dying earlier. There are arguments to raise the retirement age given the increased life expectancy and the resulting increased cost in state pension and the reduction in the number of manual workers. It would however have to be phased in as people have planned and saved for retiring at a set age. Consideration will also have to be given to those in manual or physically demanding jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not believe that we should raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. This is for several reasons. Firstly, the current pandemic has had a huge impact on many peoples lives, and raising the retirement age may be one of the worst things to do. People have been at home for a long time and will be craving social interaction. Raising the retirement age would also mean that people would lose that. People should not have to work until they die, they should have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement, and doing this could result in people dying earlier. However, the argument to raise the retirement age is that we are living longer. However, people have also been dying earlier due to Covid-19. This means that the average age of death may be lower, and this means that the retirement age should not have to be raised. We also do not think that people should have to work until they die, they should have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement, and doing this could result in people dying earlier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. There are a number of reasons for this view. Firstly, people have been working a long time, and there are a number of physical jobs which can be difficult at the best of times, and would be particularly challenging for people aged 66. The global pandemic has had a huge impact on many peoples lives, and raising the retirement age may be one of the worst things to do. People have been at home for a long time and will be craving social interaction. Raising the retirement age would also mean that people would lose that. People should not have to work until they die, they should have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement, and doing this could result in people dying earlier. However, the argument to raise the retirement age is that we are living longer. However, people have also been dying earlier due to Covid-19. This means that the average age of death may be lower, and this means that the retirement age should not have to be raised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: While it would be expected that people are able to work longer, we don't think the retirement age should be raised from 66 to 68. There are numerous reasons for this view. Firstly, many people would have struggled to work during lockdown, and may have had to sacrifice their health for the sake of their job. And an increase in the retirement age is not good for their health. It is no secret that people in their 60s and 70s are more at risk of catching the virus than younger people, and continuing to work will put people at even greater risk. People aged 66 would also have been working hard, and maybe in manual jobs, so raising the retirement age would be very unfair on them. Many people could also die earlier if the age is raised due to the virus, and due to the elderly being more at risk. If that was to happen, this would be a great shame, and would mean that they will not be able to enjoy their retirement. People also deserve the chance to take some time off and recover from working for their whole life. People should not have to work until they die. Also, during lockdown people will have missed family members, and they have been isolated at home for a +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. There are several reasons for this view. Firstly, people have been working a long time, and there are a number of physically demanding jobs which can be difficult at the best of times, and would be particularly challenging for people aged 66. The global pandemic has had a huge impact on many peoples lives, and raising the retirement age may be one of the worst things to do. People have been at home for a long time and will be craving social interaction. Raising the retirement age would also mean that people would lose that. People should not have to work until they die, they should have the opportunity to enjoy their retirement, and doing this could result in people dying earlier. There are arguments to raise the retirement age given the increased life expectancy and the resulting increased cost in state pension and the reduction in the number of manual workers. It would however have to be phased in as people have planned and saved for retiring at a set age. Consideration will also have to be given to those in manual or physically demanding jobs. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001194.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001194.soc index 3d100bd8..21871e63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001194.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001194.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While we can see the good intentions behind giving disadvantaged groups admission priority, we feel that universities should be careful to not let their academic standards slip. We believe that students should be given priority based on merit, and we feel that the only way that we can give disadvantaged groups the same amount of help is by giving more funding to universities. This will allow them to help disadvantaged students with the resources that they need to do well, without letting the standards slip." The consensus statement is rather balanced. It incorporates the strong feelings of Participant 1 and 2 that universities should be giving disadvantaged groups admission priority, but also incorporates the concerns of Participant 3 and 4 that academic standards should not slip. The group also included the suggestion of Participant 5 that funding should be increased to help the disadvantaged, so that the standards don't slip. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Universities should not give disadvantaged groups admission priority. They should be open and fair to everyone. It should be about skill and not money. It shouldn't matter what group they're apart of. It should be fair for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although it is important to consider disadvantaged groups, universities should not give them admission priority. Instead, universities should provide the necessary support to disadvantaged groups so that they can gain admission on merit. This will be more beneficial for the disadvantaged groups in the long run, as they will have gained admission on their own merit and not as a result of being part of a disadvantaged group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. Doing so would damage the academic standing of the university and so admissions should be done solely on merit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While we can see the good intentions behind giving disadvantaged groups admission priority, we feel that universities should be careful to not let their academic standards slip. We believe that students should be given priority based on merit, and we feel that the only way that we can give disadvantaged groups the same amount of help is by giving more funding to universities. This will allow them to help disadvantaged students with the resources that they need to do well, without letting the standards slip." The consensus statement is rather balanced. It incorporates the strong feelings of Participant 1 and 2 that universities should be giving disadvantaged groups admission priority, but also incorporates the concerns of Participant 3 and 4 that academic standards should not slip. The group also included the suggestion of Participant 5 that funding should be increased to help the disadvantaged, so that the standards don't slip. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Universities should not give disadvantaged groups admission priority. They should be open and fair to everyone. It should be about skill and not money. It shouldn't matter what group they're apart of. It should be fair for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although it is important to consider disadvantaged groups, universities should not give them admission priority. Instead, universities should provide the necessary support to disadvantaged groups so that they can gain admission on merit. This will be more beneficial for the disadvantaged groups in the long run, as they will have gained admission on their own merit and not as a result of being part of a disadvantaged group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. Doing so would damage the academic standing of the university and so admissions should be done solely on merit. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001195.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001195.soc index 6463222c..00996f51 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001195.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001195.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is equally important to be a good person as well as a happy person. This is because if you are not happy, this will inevitably affect your relationships with others. Similarly, if you are not a good person, this will negatively affect your relationships with others and also yourself. Therefore, both things come hand in hand, and there is no point in sacrificing your own happiness or that of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is more important to be a good person than to be a happy person. However, the two are not mutually exclusive and one should strive to be both. The group believes that if one is a good person, they are more likely to be happy in the long run. The group also believes that if one is a happy person, they are more likely to be a good person. Therefore, the two things come hand in hand and one should strive to be both. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of prioritizing happiness over being a good person. However, it was also agreed that it is important to be a good person and that the two things are not mutually exclusive. It was also agreed that there are different ways to be a good person and that the way in which you are a good person can affect your happiness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While we recognize that both good and happy are subjective terms, we do believe that there is a higher chance of being a good person if you are a happy person, and vice versa. In our opinion, there is no point in being a good person if it is at the expense of your own happiness, and it is only when you are happy that you can be a good person to others. Therefore, we believe it is more important to be a happy person as this leads to a happier life, a better society and to being a better person overall. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is equally important to be a good person as well as a happy person. This is because if you are not happy, this will inevitably affect your relationships with others. Similarly, if you are not a good person, this will negatively affect your relationships with others and also yourself. Therefore, both things come hand in hand, and there is no point in sacrificing your own happiness or that of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is more important to be a good person than to be a happy person. However, the two are not mutually exclusive and one should strive to be both. The group believes that if one is a good person, they are more likely to be happy in the long run. The group also believes that if one is a happy person, they are more likely to be a good person. Therefore, the two things come hand in hand and one should strive to be both. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of prioritizing happiness over being a good person. However, it was also agreed that it is important to be a good person and that the two things are not mutually exclusive. It was also agreed that there are different ways to be a good person and that the way in which you are a good person can affect your happiness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While we recognize that both good and happy are subjective terms, we do believe that there is a higher chance of being a good person if you are a happy person, and vice versa. In our opinion, there is no point in being a good person if it is at the expense of your own happiness, and it is only when you are happy that you can be a good person to others. Therefore, we believe it is more important to be a happy person as this leads to a happier life, a better society and to being a better person overall. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001196.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001196.soc index 07bb6bfc..b2cce29a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001196.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001196.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although it is important to consider disadvantaged groups, universities should not give them admission priority. Instead, universities should provide the necessary support to disadvantaged groups so that they can gain admission on merit. This will be more beneficial for the disadvantaged groups in the long run, as they will have gained admission on their own merit and not as a result of being part of a disadvantaged group. To sum up, both online and face-to-face environments may be equally effective for building trust and reaching a consensus among participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although it is important to consider disadvantaged groups, universities should not give them admission priority. Instead, universities should provide the necessary support to disadvantaged groups so that they can gain admission on merit. This will be more beneficial for the disadvantaged groups in the long run, as they will have gained admission on their own merit and not as a result of being part of a disadvantaged group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although it is important to consider disadvantaged groups, in order to preserve academic integrity and standards in the long-term, universities should not give them admission priority. Instead, universities should provide the necessary support to disadvantaged groups so that they can gain admission on merit. This will be more beneficial for the disadvantaged groups in the long run, as they will have gained admission on their own merit and not as a result of being part of a disadvantaged group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups, but should provide necessary support to disadvantaged groups to help them gain admission on merit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although it is important to consider disadvantaged groups, universities should not give them admission priority. Instead, universities should provide the necessary support to disadvantaged groups so that they can gain admission on merit. This will be more beneficial for the disadvantaged groups in the long run, as they will have gained admission on their own merit and not as a result of being part of a disadvantaged group. To sum up, both online and face-to-face environments may be equally effective for building trust and reaching a consensus among participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although it is important to consider disadvantaged groups, universities should not give them admission priority. Instead, universities should provide the necessary support to disadvantaged groups so that they can gain admission on merit. This will be more beneficial for the disadvantaged groups in the long run, as they will have gained admission on their own merit and not as a result of being part of a disadvantaged group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although it is important to consider disadvantaged groups, in order to preserve academic integrity and standards in the long-term, universities should not give them admission priority. Instead, universities should provide the necessary support to disadvantaged groups so that they can gain admission on merit. This will be more beneficial for the disadvantaged groups in the long run, as they will have gained admission on their own merit and not as a result of being part of a disadvantaged group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups, but should provide necessary support to disadvantaged groups to help them gain admission on merit. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001197.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001197.soc index 5e86ef32..c6444e7a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001197.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001197.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK does not need its own military. However, with the current state of affairs in the world, it is imperative that the UK maintains a military force. The UK is currently in a position of relative safety, and without its own military it would be vulnerable to attack. There is a necessity to defend this nation from threats, such as Russia. Unless we form a pan European army or a dedicated NATO army, them it is incumbent upon us to have our own armed forces capable of defending this nation or assisting in times of domestic or environmental crisis. Having no defensive ability would allow non favourable regimes to bully us as a nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The United Kingdom needs its own military. This is because there are external forces that would remain threat to the country. Aside the local threats, there are threats from other countries that believes other developed countries are threat. Such as Russia, North Korea etc. As a result of the external threats, the United Kingdom still need its own military everyday for protection. Participants views are underpinned by their theoretical knowledge of Social Constructionism, which supports the view that humans construct social reality by the meanings that we attach to objects. Social constructionism explains that, in this case, the need for a military is socially constructed. Participants views that the UK needs its own military because it is seen as a threat by other countries such as Russia. This could be a consequence of the UK being part of NATO. The reality that Russia is a threat to the UK is constructed by the meanings we attach to this relationship. Participants stated that Russia is a threat to the UK because of their behaviour in Ukraine. However, participants didn't take into consideration that the UK is also seen as a threat by Russia. If we didn't have a military, we wouldn't have the ability to be seen as a threat to Russia. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to protect the United Kingdom from foreign threats and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is currently vulnerable to foreign threats, and as it has recently left the EU, it is now more important than ever to have its own military. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The United Kingdom needs its own military. The United Kingdom military needs to have the funding to be able to successfully protect its citizens. To ensure this, the UK military needs to be fully equipped with all the necessary equipment to carry out their duties. The United Kingdom military also needs to ensure that they are prepared for the ever changing world we live in. This means that the military needs to be able to be able to work in conjunction with other military forces, in order to ensure the safety of the UK. The UK military should also be prepared to be able to deal with domestic issues, should they arise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK does not need its own military. However, with the current state of affairs in the world, it is imperative that the UK maintains a military force. The UK is currently in a position of relative safety, and without its own military it would be vulnerable to attack. There is a necessity to defend this nation from threats, such as Russia. Unless we form a pan European army or a dedicated NATO army, them it is incumbent upon us to have our own armed forces capable of defending this nation or assisting in times of domestic or environmental crisis. Having no defensive ability would allow non favourable regimes to bully us as a nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The United Kingdom needs its own military. This is because there are external forces that would remain threat to the country. Aside the local threats, there are threats from other countries that believes other developed countries are threat. Such as Russia, North Korea etc. As a result of the external threats, the United Kingdom still need its own military everyday for protection. Participants views are underpinned by their theoretical knowledge of Social Constructionism, which supports the view that humans construct social reality by the meanings that we attach to objects. Social constructionism explains that, in this case, the need for a military is socially constructed. Participants views that the UK needs its own military because it is seen as a threat by other countries such as Russia. This could be a consequence of the UK being part of NATO. The reality that Russia is a threat to the UK is constructed by the meanings we attach to this relationship. Participants stated that Russia is a threat to the UK because of their behaviour in Ukraine. However, participants didn't take into consideration that the UK is also seen as a threat by Russia. If we didn't have a military, we wouldn't have the ability to be seen as a threat to Russia. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to protect the United Kingdom from foreign threats and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is currently vulnerable to foreign threats, and as it has recently left the EU, it is now more important than ever to have its own military. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The United Kingdom needs its own military. The United Kingdom military needs to have the funding to be able to successfully protect its citizens. To ensure this, the UK military needs to be fully equipped with all the necessary equipment to carry out their duties. The United Kingdom military also needs to ensure that they are prepared for the ever changing world we live in. This means that the military needs to be able to be able to work in conjunction with other military forces, in order to ensure the safety of the UK. The UK military should also be prepared to be able to deal with domestic issues, should they arise. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001198.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001198.soc index 0fbf0043..8351c206 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001198.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001198.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the judicial system should be overseen by humans, but we also feel that there is a lot of potential for AI to be used as a tool to assist human decision-making. We feel that it would be unethical to use AI to make judicial decisions in isolation because humans would be able to understand the nuances of a case better than a machine. We feel that in the future, AI will become more intelligent and will become a very useful tool in the judicial system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that while AI is not ready for judicial decision making, it is ready to be a useful tool to help humans make such decisions. AI will eventually be able to read body language, assess the truthfulness of a person, and determine their intent. It may also be possible for humans to find ways to hide the truthfulness of their statements. This is why we believe that humans must be in control of the decision-making process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system currently. AI is incapable of reading body language, assessing the truthfulness of a person, or determining intent. It cannot understand contextual information. We do not believe that AI will ever be capable of being able to fulfil these vital requirements. Humans are far more capable of picking up on contextual information and other minute details than AI will ever be. However, we do believe that AI can be useful in assisting humans in making important decisions about the judicial process. These decisions are far too important to be left up to AI. We believe that with the current limitations of AI, it is not appropriate to use in the judicial system. However, we are very excited about the potential of AI in the future and we believe that it could eventually be a useful tool to the judicial system, but humans must be in control of the decision-making process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is not yet capable of reading body language, assessing the truthfulness of a person, or determining their intent. Humans are also much more likely to be able to comprehend contextual information which is important in any court case. We believe that there is a lot of potential for AI to assist humans in making judgements, but we feel that humans must be in control of the decision-making process. This is a developing area and we are confident that as the AI continues to improve and develop, it will become a useful tool in this sector. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the judicial system should be overseen by humans, but we also feel that there is a lot of potential for AI to be used as a tool to assist human decision-making. We feel that it would be unethical to use AI to make judicial decisions in isolation because humans would be able to understand the nuances of a case better than a machine. We feel that in the future, AI will become more intelligent and will become a very useful tool in the judicial system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that while AI is not ready for judicial decision making, it is ready to be a useful tool to help humans make such decisions. AI will eventually be able to read body language, assess the truthfulness of a person, and determine their intent. It may also be possible for humans to find ways to hide the truthfulness of their statements. This is why we believe that humans must be in control of the decision-making process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system currently. AI is incapable of reading body language, assessing the truthfulness of a person, or determining intent. It cannot understand contextual information. We do not believe that AI will ever be capable of being able to fulfil these vital requirements. Humans are far more capable of picking up on contextual information and other minute details than AI will ever be. However, we do believe that AI can be useful in assisting humans in making important decisions about the judicial process. These decisions are far too important to be left up to AI. We believe that with the current limitations of AI, it is not appropriate to use in the judicial system. However, we are very excited about the potential of AI in the future and we believe that it could eventually be a useful tool to the judicial system, but humans must be in control of the decision-making process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is not yet capable of reading body language, assessing the truthfulness of a person, or determining their intent. Humans are also much more likely to be able to comprehend contextual information which is important in any court case. We believe that there is a lot of potential for AI to assist humans in making judgements, but we feel that humans must be in control of the decision-making process. This is a developing area and we are confident that as the AI continues to improve and develop, it will become a useful tool in this sector. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001199.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001199.soc index 0860ac51..711d699c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001199.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001199.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We all agreed that both being a good person and a happy person are equally important. In fact, it is difficult to achieve one without the other. A key insight, particularly from Participant 1, was that sometimes sacrificing the happiness of one person can improve overall happiness for others. There was a general agreement that if you cannot be happy with yourself, and be happy in life in general, this will have a knock-on effect on those around you, and particularly your relationships with others. We also noted that focusing too much on being a good person can lead to neglecting yourself, which in turn can lead to people taking advantage, or not setting personal boundaries. To be a happy person, you must be good to yourself, as well as others. This was our final consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is equally important to be a good person as well as a happy person. This is because if you are not happy, this will inevitably affect your relationships with others. Similarly, if you are not a good person, this will negatively affect your relationships with others and also yourself. Therefore, both things come hand in hand, and there is no point in sacrificing your own happiness or that of others. However, it is also important to set boundaries and focus on your own happiness and wellbeing, as this will help you to be a better person to others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is equally important to be a good person as well as a happy person. This is because if you are not happy, this will inevitably affect your relationships with others. Similarly, if you are not a good person, this will negatively affect your relationships with others and also yourself. Therefore, both things come hand in hand, and there is no point in sacrificing your own happiness or that of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is equally important to be a good person as well as a happy person. This is because if you are not happy, this will inevitably affect your relationships with others. Similarly, if you are not a good person, this will negatively affect your relationships with others and also yourself. Therefore, both things come hand in hand, and there is no point in sacrificing your own happiness or that of others. However, being a good person should be prioritized in situations where the happiness of others or yourself is at stake. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We all agreed that both being a good person and a happy person are equally important. In fact, it is difficult to achieve one without the other. A key insight, particularly from Participant 1, was that sometimes sacrificing the happiness of one person can improve overall happiness for others. There was a general agreement that if you cannot be happy with yourself, and be happy in life in general, this will have a knock-on effect on those around you, and particularly your relationships with others. We also noted that focusing too much on being a good person can lead to neglecting yourself, which in turn can lead to people taking advantage, or not setting personal boundaries. To be a happy person, you must be good to yourself, as well as others. This was our final consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is equally important to be a good person as well as a happy person. This is because if you are not happy, this will inevitably affect your relationships with others. Similarly, if you are not a good person, this will negatively affect your relationships with others and also yourself. Therefore, both things come hand in hand, and there is no point in sacrificing your own happiness or that of others. However, it is also important to set boundaries and focus on your own happiness and wellbeing, as this will help you to be a better person to others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is equally important to be a good person as well as a happy person. This is because if you are not happy, this will inevitably affect your relationships with others. Similarly, if you are not a good person, this will negatively affect your relationships with others and also yourself. Therefore, both things come hand in hand, and there is no point in sacrificing your own happiness or that of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is equally important to be a good person as well as a happy person. This is because if you are not happy, this will inevitably affect your relationships with others. Similarly, if you are not a good person, this will negatively affect your relationships with others and also yourself. Therefore, both things come hand in hand, and there is no point in sacrificing your own happiness or that of others. However, being a good person should be prioritized in situations where the happiness of others or yourself is at stake. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001200.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001200.soc index b823a8ab..3f71d1b1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001200.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001200.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The average person does not need a car. The definition of average is very broad and includes people who live in cities as well as in rural areas. Public transport is more readily available in cities, whereas in rural areas, a car is a necessity. The cost of owning and maintaining a car can be very high, and this is a deterrent for many. However, the freedom that a car offers cannot be denied, and this is the reason why many people choose to own a car. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Most people don't need a car. However it's a convenience thing, especially for people living in the countryside. There are ways of getting around without one. If you live in a big city you can just take public transport or cycle etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It all depends on the situation and on how we define an average person. What do we mean by an average person? For some people in the world, they don't have a choice, they can't afford to buy a car. Public transportation in some countries is not good and having your own car is the only way to get around. Some people need to drive because of their jobs and their situation, living in the countryside or in the middle of nowhere. It's hard to say. Everyone has different situations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the average person does not need a car. However, this is highly dependent on the location of the person, and whether or not they live in a rural or urban area. In a rural area, the average person is more likely to need a car, as there is often no other form of transport available. In an urban area, the average person is less likely to need a car, as there are often many forms of public transport available, and it is often possible to walk or cycle to many places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The average person does not need a car. The definition of average is very broad and includes people who live in cities as well as in rural areas. Public transport is more readily available in cities, whereas in rural areas, a car is a necessity. The cost of owning and maintaining a car can be very high, and this is a deterrent for many. However, the freedom that a car offers cannot be denied, and this is the reason why many people choose to own a car. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Most people don't need a car. However it's a convenience thing, especially for people living in the countryside. There are ways of getting around without one. If you live in a big city you can just take public transport or cycle etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It all depends on the situation and on how we define an average person. What do we mean by an average person? For some people in the world, they don't have a choice, they can't afford to buy a car. Public transportation in some countries is not good and having your own car is the only way to get around. Some people need to drive because of their jobs and their situation, living in the countryside or in the middle of nowhere. It's hard to say. Everyone has different situations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the average person does not need a car. However, this is highly dependent on the location of the person, and whether or not they live in a rural or urban area. In a rural area, the average person is more likely to need a car, as there is often no other form of transport available. In an urban area, the average person is less likely to need a car, as there are often many forms of public transport available, and it is often possible to walk or cycle to many places. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001201.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001201.soc index 2a829bf7..5283d4e2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001201.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001201.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to protect the United Kingdom from foreign threats and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is currently vulnerable to foreign threats, and as it has recently left the EU, it is now more important than ever to have its own military. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to protect the United Kingdom from foreign threats and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is currently vulnerable to foreign threats, such as in Ukraine, and as it has recently left the EU, it is now more important than ever to have its own military. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to provide the United Kingdom with protection from foreign threats, and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is vulnerable to foreign threats, such as from Russia. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. The participants had researched the question prior to their discussion and had studied the opinions of experts who were deemed to be credible. Their opinions had also been formed by personal experience (such as that of Participant 1 who had served in the armed forces). Through their deliberation, they were able to reach the final consensus statement given above, even though they had initially disagreed on some aspects of the draft statement. The above consensus statement was designed to elicit critical examination by demonstrating that consensuses are not formed through gullible agreeing on the opinions of others but through careful deliberation, critical examination of the facts, and reflection on personal experiences and personal prior knowledge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to protect the United Kingdom from foreign threats and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is currently vulnerable to foreign threats, and as it has recently left the EU, it is now more important than ever to have its own military. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to protect the United Kingdom from foreign threats and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is currently vulnerable to foreign threats, and as it has recently left the EU, it is now more important than ever to have its own military. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to protect the United Kingdom from foreign threats and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is currently vulnerable to foreign threats, such as in Ukraine, and as it has recently left the EU, it is now more important than ever to have its own military. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to provide the United Kingdom with protection from foreign threats, and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is vulnerable to foreign threats, such as from Russia. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. The participants had researched the question prior to their discussion and had studied the opinions of experts who were deemed to be credible. Their opinions had also been formed by personal experience (such as that of Participant 1 who had served in the armed forces). Through their deliberation, they were able to reach the final consensus statement given above, even though they had initially disagreed on some aspects of the draft statement. The above consensus statement was designed to elicit critical examination by demonstrating that consensuses are not formed through gullible agreeing on the opinions of others but through careful deliberation, critical examination of the facts, and reflection on personal experiences and personal prior knowledge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The United Kingdom still needs its own military. The military is necessary to protect the United Kingdom from foreign threats and to provide support in times of domestic crisis. The United Kingdom is currently vulnerable to foreign threats, and as it has recently left the EU, it is now more important than ever to have its own military. The United Kingdom is also vulnerable to domestic threats, such as terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. The United Kingdom's military is also needed to provide support in times of crisis, such as flooding. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001202.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001202.soc index 8896c0fe..a3d553e6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001202.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001202.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking will have a negative impact on the environment and could lead to natural habitat destruction, particularly as much of the activity will be focused in the Scottish countryside. The chemicals used in fracking fluid are hazardous to human health and there is a risk of contamination of the water supply, which would also be detrimental to the environment and to humans. Fracking will cause greenhouses gases to be released into the atmosphere, causing climate change. The energy obtained from fracking is also non-renewable, which means that it is an unsustainable resource. Scotland is already a leading nation in renewable energy, especially onshore and offshore wind, so these must be the focus for the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking will have a negative impact on the environment and could lead to natural habitat destruction, particularly as much of the activity will be focused in the Scottish countryside. The chemicals used in fracking fluid are hazardous to human health and there is a risk of contamination of the water supply, which would also be detrimental to the environment and to humans. Fracking will cause greenhouses gases to be released into the atmosphere, causing climate change. The energy obtained from fracking is also non-renewable, which means that it is an unsustainable resource. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking will have a negative impact on the environment and could lead to natural habitat destruction, particularly as much of the activity will be focused in the Scottish countryside. The chemicals used in fracking fluid are hazardous to human health and there is a risk of contamination of the water supply, which would also be detrimental to the environment and to humans. Fracking will cause greenhouses gases to be released into the atmosphere, causing climate change. The energy obtained from fracking is also non-renewable, which means that it is an unsustainable resource. Scotland is already a leading nation in renewable energy, especially onshore and offshore wind, so these must be the focus for the future. Even if that were not the case and Scotland did need access to fossil fuels, there are already extensive resources being taken from the North Sea. Fracking is therefore not only dangerous, but totally needless. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus statement from group of participants: Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking will have a negative impact on the environment and could lead to natural habitat destruction, particularly as much of the activity will be focused in the Scottish countryside. The chemicals used in fracking fluid are hazardous to human health and there is a risk of contamination of the water supply, which would also be detrimental to the environment and to humans. Fracking will cause greenhouses gases to be released into the atmosphere, causing climate change. The energy obtained from fracking is also non-renewable, which means that it is an unsustainable resource. There are also many health concerns surrounding fracking as well as land and air pollution. There are ways to more sustainably meet our energy needs, especially in Scotland which has an abundance of wind energy resources, and this should be the focus of our energy production. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking will have a negative impact on the environment and could lead to natural habitat destruction, particularly as much of the activity will be focused in the Scottish countryside. The chemicals used in fracking fluid are hazardous to human health and there is a risk of contamination of the water supply, which would also be detrimental to the environment and to humans. Fracking will cause greenhouses gases to be released into the atmosphere, causing climate change. The energy obtained from fracking is also non-renewable, which means that it is an unsustainable resource. Scotland is already a leading nation in renewable energy, especially onshore and offshore wind, so these must be the focus for the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking will have a negative impact on the environment and could lead to natural habitat destruction, particularly as much of the activity will be focused in the Scottish countryside. The chemicals used in fracking fluid are hazardous to human health and there is a risk of contamination of the water supply, which would also be detrimental to the environment and to humans. Fracking will cause greenhouses gases to be released into the atmosphere, causing climate change. The energy obtained from fracking is also non-renewable, which means that it is an unsustainable resource. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking will have a negative impact on the environment and could lead to natural habitat destruction, particularly as much of the activity will be focused in the Scottish countryside. The chemicals used in fracking fluid are hazardous to human health and there is a risk of contamination of the water supply, which would also be detrimental to the environment and to humans. Fracking will cause greenhouses gases to be released into the atmosphere, causing climate change. The energy obtained from fracking is also non-renewable, which means that it is an unsustainable resource. Scotland is already a leading nation in renewable energy, especially onshore and offshore wind, so these must be the focus for the future. Even if that were not the case and Scotland did need access to fossil fuels, there are already extensive resources being taken from the North Sea. Fracking is therefore not only dangerous, but totally needless. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus statement from group of participants: Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking will have a negative impact on the environment and could lead to natural habitat destruction, particularly as much of the activity will be focused in the Scottish countryside. The chemicals used in fracking fluid are hazardous to human health and there is a risk of contamination of the water supply, which would also be detrimental to the environment and to humans. Fracking will cause greenhouses gases to be released into the atmosphere, causing climate change. The energy obtained from fracking is also non-renewable, which means that it is an unsustainable resource. There are also many health concerns surrounding fracking as well as land and air pollution. There are ways to more sustainably meet our energy needs, especially in Scotland which has an abundance of wind energy resources, and this should be the focus of our energy production. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001203.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001203.soc index f212e3af..0ee1e724 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001203.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001203.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Manchester United is a worse football team than Liverpool, evident by the Premier League standings, along with Liverpool's recent treble cup win. Liverpool has been managed in a much better way than Manchester United, which has resulted in a much more efficient team and player signings. Despite Manchester United being considered a better team historically, they have been poorly managed recently, which is supported by the Glazer family wanting to sell the team to a new owner. Thus, Liverpool is the better football team. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “There are many football teams in the world, and even more in England. However, Liverpool and Manchester United have a long and rich history, which means it is not possible to answer this question without considering their past as well as their present. To this end, we came to the following consensus:” “Manchester United has a history of being a good team, as well as a history of being an over-rated and over-priced team, while Liverpool has a history of being a good team, as well as a history of being an over-rated and over-priced team. Both teams have failed in recent years to be a top team in the league, which we believe is a direct result of their recent success. In conclusion, we feel that the recent success of the Liverpool team in the Premiership, Champions League and FA Cup has caused a positive shift in their performance, which we believe will lead to a better future for Liverpool, as opposed to Manchester United, who, despite a better history and more money than Liverpool, have been an abysmal failure recently.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Manchester United is a better football team than Liverpool. The group came to this conclusion because of the recent performance of both teams, and the recent performance of Liverpool was much worse than Manchester United. The group also took into account the historical performance of both teams, and concluded that Manchester United has been a better team in the past as well. The group did not take into account the recent managerial changes of the two teams, because the group believes that a manager can only do so much to improve the performance of the team. The group also did not take into account the Glazer family's ownership of Manchester United, because the group believes that the ownership of the team is irrelevant to the performance of the team. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is Manchester United. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Manchester United is a worse football team than Liverpool, evident by the Premier League standings, along with Liverpool's recent treble cup win. Liverpool has been managed in a much better way than Manchester United, which has resulted in a much more efficient team and player signings. Despite Manchester United being considered a better team historically, they have been poorly managed recently, which is supported by the Glazer family wanting to sell the team to a new owner. Thus, Liverpool is the better football team. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “There are many football teams in the world, and even more in England. However, Liverpool and Manchester United have a long and rich history, which means it is not possible to answer this question without considering their past as well as their present. To this end, we came to the following consensus:” “Manchester United has a history of being a good team, as well as a history of being an over-rated and over-priced team, while Liverpool has a history of being a good team, as well as a history of being an over-rated and over-priced team. Both teams have failed in recent years to be a top team in the league, which we believe is a direct result of their recent success. In conclusion, we feel that the recent success of the Liverpool team in the Premiership, Champions League and FA Cup has caused a positive shift in their performance, which we believe will lead to a better future for Liverpool, as opposed to Manchester United, who, despite a better history and more money than Liverpool, have been an abysmal failure recently.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Manchester United is a better football team than Liverpool. The group came to this conclusion because of the recent performance of both teams, and the recent performance of Liverpool was much worse than Manchester United. The group also took into account the historical performance of both teams, and concluded that Manchester United has been a better team in the past as well. The group did not take into account the recent managerial changes of the two teams, because the group believes that a manager can only do so much to improve the performance of the team. The group also did not take into account the Glazer family's ownership of Manchester United, because the group believes that the ownership of the team is irrelevant to the performance of the team. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is Manchester United. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001204.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001204.soc index 9058ae50..bc649d31 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001204.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001204.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The maximum legal speed for cars should not be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. This is because most people drive at 70mph on motorways anyway, and lowering the speed limit would just encourage people to speed and cause more accidents. Also, lowering the speed limit would mean that people would take longer to get to their destination, and this is not practical or necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the maximum legal speed for cars should not be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. The maximum legal speed for cars has been set at 70mph for many years now and is not only suitable, but necessary for the majority of people who need to travel to work or school. By lowering the speed limit, you are more likely to have drivers who wish to get to their destination quickly, drive over the speed limit. The average maximum speed limit for cars in Europe is at 82mph, and to put it bluntly, people in the UK are already late for things most of the time and reducing the maximum legal speed limit would only make people later. The general opinion of the group was that it is those who are speeding and those who drive badly who are the ones who cause the majority of accidents on the road. We also felt that there are plenty of other more pressing issues that the government need to address, rather than the maximum legal speed for cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Speed limits should be raised on motorways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the maximum legal speed for cars should not be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. This is because the current maximum speed is actually on the lower average in comparison to other European countries. Then, such a reduction wouldn't change the rate of accidents in any way. If anything, it should be raised on motorways. Modern cars are much safer than old models and 80 mph for instance would be perfectly safe. 60 mph as a maximum though would be utterly absurd. Seriously, having that speed limit on motorways would be a joke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The maximum legal speed for cars should not be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. This is because most people drive at 70mph on motorways anyway, and lowering the speed limit would just encourage people to speed and cause more accidents. Also, lowering the speed limit would mean that people would take longer to get to their destination, and this is not practical or necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the maximum legal speed for cars should not be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. The maximum legal speed for cars has been set at 70mph for many years now and is not only suitable, but necessary for the majority of people who need to travel to work or school. By lowering the speed limit, you are more likely to have drivers who wish to get to their destination quickly, drive over the speed limit. The average maximum speed limit for cars in Europe is at 82mph, and to put it bluntly, people in the UK are already late for things most of the time and reducing the maximum legal speed limit would only make people later. The general opinion of the group was that it is those who are speeding and those who drive badly who are the ones who cause the majority of accidents on the road. We also felt that there are plenty of other more pressing issues that the government need to address, rather than the maximum legal speed for cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Speed limits should be raised on motorways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the maximum legal speed for cars should not be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. This is because the current maximum speed is actually on the lower average in comparison to other European countries. Then, such a reduction wouldn't change the rate of accidents in any way. If anything, it should be raised on motorways. Modern cars are much safer than old models and 80 mph for instance would be perfectly safe. 60 mph as a maximum though would be utterly absurd. Seriously, having that speed limit on motorways would be a joke. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001205.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001205.soc index 9faed07d..c065b3e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001205.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001205.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should require people to do jury service. This is to ensure that the legal system is fair and impartial. However, the government should be understanding and lenient when someone has a reasonable excuse not to do it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was thought that the government should require people to do jury service to ensure a broad representation of people can sit on the jury. This allows the justice system to run smoothly as jury members are impartial and can make a fair and unbiased decision on the case they are sitting on. The jury must make the correct verdict and must not be influenced by a judge or anyone else. However, some people may not want to do jury service as it could have a big impact on their lives, for example, people who are the main carer for someone or someone who is a single parent may not want to take the time out of their lives to do jury service. It is also important that jurors do not discuss their case with anyone else so this could mean that the juror would have to take a significant amount of time off from their job or even quit their job. In conclusion, the government should require people to do jury service to ensure the justice system runs smoothly and all jury members are impartial and unbiased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should require you to do jury service. This is because the jury system is the best way to ensure a fair and impartial legal system. It is the best way to ensure that all people are treated equally under the law, and that the legal system is not biased in any way. The government should require you to do jury service, but should be understanding and lenient when someone has a reasonable excuse not to do it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group came to the consensus view that the government should require people to do jury service because it will allow the court to hear and view an unbiased jury opinion. The government may sometimes need to be lenient to those with valid excuses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should require people to do jury service. This is to ensure that the legal system is fair and impartial. However, the government should be understanding and lenient when someone has a reasonable excuse not to do it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was thought that the government should require people to do jury service to ensure a broad representation of people can sit on the jury. This allows the justice system to run smoothly as jury members are impartial and can make a fair and unbiased decision on the case they are sitting on. The jury must make the correct verdict and must not be influenced by a judge or anyone else. However, some people may not want to do jury service as it could have a big impact on their lives, for example, people who are the main carer for someone or someone who is a single parent may not want to take the time out of their lives to do jury service. It is also important that jurors do not discuss their case with anyone else so this could mean that the juror would have to take a significant amount of time off from their job or even quit their job. In conclusion, the government should require people to do jury service to ensure the justice system runs smoothly and all jury members are impartial and unbiased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should require you to do jury service. This is because the jury system is the best way to ensure a fair and impartial legal system. It is the best way to ensure that all people are treated equally under the law, and that the legal system is not biased in any way. The government should require you to do jury service, but should be understanding and lenient when someone has a reasonable excuse not to do it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group came to the consensus view that the government should require people to do jury service because it will allow the court to hear and view an unbiased jury opinion. The government may sometimes need to be lenient to those with valid excuses. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001206.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001206.soc index 215ddc70..b54b7087 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001206.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001206.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should require people to do jury service to ensure a broad representation of people can sit on the jury. This allows the justice system to run smoothly as jury members are impartial and can make a fair and unbiased decision on the case they are sitting on. The jury must make the correct verdict and must not be influenced by a judge or anyone else. However, some people may not want to do jury service as it could have a big impact on their lives, for example, people who are the main carer for someone or someone who is a single parent may not want to take the time out of their lives to do jury service. It is also important that jurors do not discuss their case with anyone else so this could mean that the juror would have to take a significant amount of time off from their job or even quit their job. The government should make it so that people who don't want to do jury service, don't have to, but must have a good excuse for not wanting to. In conclusion, the government should require people to do jury service to ensure the justice system runs smoothly and all jury members are impartial and unbiased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: Jury service allows people to take part in running the justice system and gives all people an equal chance to serve on a jury. This is important as a jury is impartial, and are not biased by any judge or the police so they can make a fair and unbiased decision on the case they are sitting on. This ensures fairness in a legal system. However, some people may find jury service challenging because they may have care responsibilities such as looking after a young child, someone elderly or someone who has a disability. Although it is possible to postpone jury service, this would mean it could be several months before it is rescheduled, making jury service difficult for these people. Therefore it is important that people are understanding and take into account these circumstances so that jury service remains as fair and as unbiased as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should require people to do jury service. This is to ensure a broad representation of people can sit on the jury. This allows the justice system to run smoothly as jury members are impartial and can make a fair and unbiased decision on the case they are sitting on. The jury must make the correct verdict and must not be influenced by a judge or anyone else. However, some people may not want to do jury service as it could have a big impact on their lives, for example, people who are the main carer for someone or someone who is a single parent may not want to take the time out of their lives to do jury service. It is also important that jurors do not discuss their case with anyone else so this could mean that the juror would have to take a significant amount of time off from their job or even quit their job. In conclusion, the government should require people to do jury service to ensure the justice system runs smoothly and all jury members are impartial and unbiased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was thought by the group that the government should require people to do jury service to allow for a broad representation of people to sit on the jury. However, the government must realise that sometimes people may find it hard to carry out their jury service due to personal circumstances and that exemptions should be considered. Also, the government must take into account the fact that sometimes it is necessary for jury members to take time off work and that this can have an impact on their job or finances. The main reason that the government should require people to do jury service is to ensure that people who are not employed by the government, who are not biased, can make decisions on cases e.g. murder cases. Jury members must be able to carry out their job effectively and make the correct decision and that they are not influenced by others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should require people to do jury service to ensure a broad representation of people can sit on the jury. This allows the justice system to run smoothly as jury members are impartial and can make a fair and unbiased decision on the case they are sitting on. The jury must make the correct verdict and must not be influenced by a judge or anyone else. However, some people may not want to do jury service as it could have a big impact on their lives, for example, people who are the main carer for someone or someone who is a single parent may not want to take the time out of their lives to do jury service. It is also important that jurors do not discuss their case with anyone else so this could mean that the juror would have to take a significant amount of time off from their job or even quit their job. The government should make it so that people who don't want to do jury service, don't have to, but must have a good excuse for not wanting to. In conclusion, the government should require people to do jury service to ensure the justice system runs smoothly and all jury members are impartial and unbiased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: Jury service allows people to take part in running the justice system and gives all people an equal chance to serve on a jury. This is important as a jury is impartial, and are not biased by any judge or the police so they can make a fair and unbiased decision on the case they are sitting on. This ensures fairness in a legal system. However, some people may find jury service challenging because they may have care responsibilities such as looking after a young child, someone elderly or someone who has a disability. Although it is possible to postpone jury service, this would mean it could be several months before it is rescheduled, making jury service difficult for these people. Therefore it is important that people are understanding and take into account these circumstances so that jury service remains as fair and as unbiased as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should require people to do jury service. This is to ensure a broad representation of people can sit on the jury. This allows the justice system to run smoothly as jury members are impartial and can make a fair and unbiased decision on the case they are sitting on. The jury must make the correct verdict and must not be influenced by a judge or anyone else. However, some people may not want to do jury service as it could have a big impact on their lives, for example, people who are the main carer for someone or someone who is a single parent may not want to take the time out of their lives to do jury service. It is also important that jurors do not discuss their case with anyone else so this could mean that the juror would have to take a significant amount of time off from their job or even quit their job. In conclusion, the government should require people to do jury service to ensure the justice system runs smoothly and all jury members are impartial and unbiased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was thought by the group that the government should require people to do jury service to allow for a broad representation of people to sit on the jury. However, the government must realise that sometimes people may find it hard to carry out their jury service due to personal circumstances and that exemptions should be considered. Also, the government must take into account the fact that sometimes it is necessary for jury members to take time off work and that this can have an impact on their job or finances. The main reason that the government should require people to do jury service is to ensure that people who are not employed by the government, who are not biased, can make decisions on cases e.g. murder cases. Jury members must be able to carry out their job effectively and make the correct decision and that they are not influenced by others. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001207.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001207.soc index 0fac5e27..d6829227 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001207.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001207.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that a basic income scheme is a good idea, and can help improve the lives of people around the world, by giving everyone access to a minimum income, regardless of employment, so that everyone can live with the basic necessities of life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The concept of a basic income scheme is an excellent one. There are so many who live in extreme poverty. A basic income scheme would be an invaluable resource in helping those individuals to access basic necessities such as food and shelter. It would provide a stable foundation for those with the desire to improve their circumstances, by increasing the prospect of obtaining employment in the future. However, it is also important to consider the concept of a basic income scheme from a business point of view. If all employees were entitled to a basic income scheme, and all of those employees worked for the same employer, the costs for that employer would be huge. It would affect businesses large and small, and if the impact was to be huge, this could have a devastating effect on businesses. It would affect job security, and result in many people losing their jobs as employers were no longer able to afford their employees, having to lay off workers in order to survive. However, with careful consideration of the issues around a basic income scheme, a solution could be found to make it a viable option, for the benefit of many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a basic income scheme in place. It is only fair that people have access to a basic income, especially in times of need. It is also a good idea as it will help to reduce poverty and will help people to get back on their feet if they lose their job. It will also help to reduce the cost of living and will allow people to be able to afford the basic necessities. It will also allow people to be able to afford to look for work and to be able to afford to travel to interviews. It will also allow people to be able to afford to go to university and get a degree, which will help them to get a better job in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a basic income scheme. They felt that it would be a positive step towards reducing poverty and improving the lives of those who are struggling financially. They also felt that it would help to reduce the stigma of those who are unemployed and provide them with a safety net whilst looking for work. However, they also felt that there would be some negative consequences. For example, it could lead to an increase in the cost of living and also reduce the incentive to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that a basic income scheme is a good idea, and can help improve the lives of people around the world, by giving everyone access to a minimum income, regardless of employment, so that everyone can live with the basic necessities of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The concept of a basic income scheme is an excellent one. There are so many who live in extreme poverty. A basic income scheme would be an invaluable resource in helping those individuals to access basic necessities such as food and shelter. It would provide a stable foundation for those with the desire to improve their circumstances, by increasing the prospect of obtaining employment in the future. However, it is also important to consider the concept of a basic income scheme from a business point of view. If all employees were entitled to a basic income scheme, and all of those employees worked for the same employer, the costs for that employer would be huge. It would affect businesses large and small, and if the impact was to be huge, this could have a devastating effect on businesses. It would affect job security, and result in many people losing their jobs as employers were no longer able to afford their employees, having to lay off workers in order to survive. However, with careful consideration of the issues around a basic income scheme, a solution could be found to make it a viable option, for the benefit of many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a basic income scheme in place. It is only fair that people have access to a basic income, especially in times of need. It is also a good idea as it will help to reduce poverty and will help people to get back on their feet if they lose their job. It will also help to reduce the cost of living and will allow people to be able to afford the basic necessities. It will also allow people to be able to afford to look for work and to be able to afford to travel to interviews. It will also allow people to be able to afford to go to university and get a degree, which will help them to get a better job in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a basic income scheme. They felt that it would be a positive step towards reducing poverty and improving the lives of those who are struggling financially. They also felt that it would help to reduce the stigma of those who are unemployed and provide them with a safety net whilst looking for work. However, they also felt that there would be some negative consequences. For example, it could lead to an increase in the cost of living and also reduce the incentive to work. 3: 2,3,4,1 2: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001208.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001208.soc index 6d60ed0a..44b8527f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001208.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001208.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although raising airline taxes would be a great idea, it would be unfair to the less well off as it would mean they would be unable to fly abroad as much as they do now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that raising airline taxes is an effective way to reduce the environmental impact of air travel by making it more expensive and encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation. This can also generate revenue for governments, which can be allocated towards other purposes. However, it is important to consider the potential drawbacks of raising taxes. Higher ticket prices can make air travel less affordable for some individuals and potentially limiting accessibility. Moreover, higher taxes could impact the profitability and competitiveness of airlines, potentially resulting in job losses or higher ticket prices. Governments should also explore alternative solutions, such as investing in cleaner aircraft technologies and providing incentives for sustainable practices. Overall, the decision to raise taxes should be based on a careful assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of such an action. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to raising airline taxes. They felt that it would be unfair to increase the cost of living for the majority of people who do not use air travel often, and would not have a significant impact on those who do use it often. The group also felt that increasing taxes on air travel would not be an effective way to reduce the environmental impact of air travel, as it would not discourage people from using it. Instead, the group felt that it would be more effective to invest in clean technologies and provide incentives for sustainable practices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to raising airline taxes. The participants felt that this would be detrimental to the economy, as it would make travel more expensive and discourage tourism. The participants also felt that this would disproportionately affect lower income individuals and families, who may not be able to afford to travel as frequently. The group did acknowledge that there may be some benefits to raising airline taxes, such as reducing the environmental impact of air travel. However, the group felt that there are more effective ways to achieve this goal, such as investing in cleaner aircraft technologies and providing incentives for sustainable practices. The group felt that these solutions would be more effective in reducing the environmental impact of air travel, while also being less detrimental to the economy and more equitable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although raising airline taxes would be a great idea, it would be unfair to the less well off as it would mean they would be unable to fly abroad as much as they do now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that raising airline taxes is an effective way to reduce the environmental impact of air travel by making it more expensive and encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation. This can also generate revenue for governments, which can be allocated towards other purposes. However, it is important to consider the potential drawbacks of raising taxes. Higher ticket prices can make air travel less affordable for some individuals and potentially limiting accessibility. Moreover, higher taxes could impact the profitability and competitiveness of airlines, potentially resulting in job losses or higher ticket prices. Governments should also explore alternative solutions, such as investing in cleaner aircraft technologies and providing incentives for sustainable practices. Overall, the decision to raise taxes should be based on a careful assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of such an action. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to raising airline taxes. They felt that it would be unfair to increase the cost of living for the majority of people who do not use air travel often, and would not have a significant impact on those who do use it often. The group also felt that increasing taxes on air travel would not be an effective way to reduce the environmental impact of air travel, as it would not discourage people from using it. Instead, the group felt that it would be more effective to invest in clean technologies and provide incentives for sustainable practices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to raising airline taxes. The participants felt that this would be detrimental to the economy, as it would make travel more expensive and discourage tourism. The participants also felt that this would disproportionately affect lower income individuals and families, who may not be able to afford to travel as frequently. The group did acknowledge that there may be some benefits to raising airline taxes, such as reducing the environmental impact of air travel. However, the group felt that there are more effective ways to achieve this goal, such as investing in cleaner aircraft technologies and providing incentives for sustainable practices. The group felt that these solutions would be more effective in reducing the environmental impact of air travel, while also being less detrimental to the economy and more equitable. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001209.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001209.soc index 160f00d9..c9c3ae12 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001209.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001209.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of union representation, with one person being slightly against the idea. The general feeling was that representation was important because it allowed for the impact of any decisions made on the employees to be considered. People felt that this would prevent any industrial action that might occur if employees felt they were being unfairly treated. The presence of a union representative also made people feel more confident to speak up, knowing that they would be heard by all. There was a feeling that management needed to take employees' rights seriously and that the presence of a union representative would ensure this. The group felt that union representation was important at a higher level of the organisation as well as at ground level, and the presence of a union representative would help to foster communication between the unions and companies, hopefully making unions more effective and constructive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be union representation on management and boards. The presence of a union representative will allow for more effective and efficient communication between employees and management. It also fosters collaboration and cooperation, leading to more effective problem-solving and employee satisfaction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be representation from unions on management and boards. The presence of a union rep will make management consider employee rights more carefully than they would otherwise, as they will be cautious about not taking advantage of employees when there is a rep there. It will also foster better communication between unions and companies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Union representation is important on management boards, in both the interests of the employer and the employees. Having their representation ensure employees needs and wants are listened to at a high level. It also allows for better collaboration and communication between the business and the union, hopefully avoiding issues leading to industrial action. It is also important that the impact of any decisions made are impacted against employees. Also union representatives can give good advice on a range of issues. Having them present mitigates the risk of industrial action down the line. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of union representation, with one person being slightly against the idea. The general feeling was that representation was important because it allowed for the impact of any decisions made on the employees to be considered. People felt that this would prevent any industrial action that might occur if employees felt they were being unfairly treated. The presence of a union representative also made people feel more confident to speak up, knowing that they would be heard by all. There was a feeling that management needed to take employees' rights seriously and that the presence of a union representative would ensure this. The group felt that union representation was important at a higher level of the organisation as well as at ground level, and the presence of a union representative would help to foster communication between the unions and companies, hopefully making unions more effective and constructive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be union representation on management and boards. The presence of a union representative will allow for more effective and efficient communication between employees and management. It also fosters collaboration and cooperation, leading to more effective problem-solving and employee satisfaction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be representation from unions on management and boards. The presence of a union rep will make management consider employee rights more carefully than they would otherwise, as they will be cautious about not taking advantage of employees when there is a rep there. It will also foster better communication between unions and companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Union representation is important on management boards, in both the interests of the employer and the employees. Having their representation ensure employees needs and wants are listened to at a high level. It also allows for better collaboration and communication between the business and the union, hopefully avoiding issues leading to industrial action. It is also important that the impact of any decisions made are impacted against employees. Also union representatives can give good advice on a range of issues. Having them present mitigates the risk of industrial action down the line. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001210.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001210.soc index 66301139..67d15799 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001210.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001210.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The concept of a basic income scheme is an excellent one. There are so many who live in extreme poverty. A basic income scheme would be an invaluable resource in helping those individuals to access basic necessities such as food and shelter. It would provide a stable foundation for those with the desire to improve their circumstances, by increasing the prospect of obtaining employment in the future. However, it is also important to consider the concept of a basic income scheme from a business point of view. If all employees were entitled to a basic income scheme, and all of those employees worked for the same employer, the costs for that employer would be huge. It would affect businesses large and small, and if the impact was to be huge, this could have a devastating effect on businesses. It would affect job security, and result in many people losing their jobs as employers were no longer able to afford their employees, having to lay off workers in order to survive. However, with careful consideration of the issues around a basic income scheme, a solution could be found to make it a viable option, for the benefit of many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The concept of a basic income scheme is an excellent one. There are so many who live in extreme poverty. A basic income scheme would be an invaluable resource in helping those individuals to access basic necessities such as food and shelter. It would provide a stable foundation for those with the desire to improve their circumstances, by increasing the prospect of obtaining employment in the future. However, it is also important to consider the concept of a basic income scheme from a business point of view. If all employees were entitled to a basic income scheme, and all of those employees worked for the same employer, the costs for that employer would be huge. It would affect businesses large and small, and if the impact was to be huge, this could have a devastating effect on businesses. It would affect job security, and result in many people losing their jobs as employers were no longer able to afford their employees, having to lay off workers in order to survive. However, with careful consideration of the issues around a basic income scheme, a solution could be found to make it a viable option, for the benefit of many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The concept of a basic income scheme is an excellent one. There are so many who live in extreme poverty. A basic income scheme would be an invaluable resource in helping those individuals to access basic necessities such as food and shelter. It would provide a stable foundation for those with the desire to improve their circumstances, by increasing the prospect of obtaining employment in the future. However, it is also important to consider the concept of a basic income scheme from a business point of view. If all employees were entitled to a basic income scheme, and all of those employees worked for the same employer, the costs for that employer would be huge. It would affect businesses large and small, and if the impact was to be huge, this could have a devastating effect on businesses. It would affect job security, and result in many people losing their jobs as employers were no longer able to afford their employees, having to lay off workers in order to survive. However, with careful consideration of the issues around a basic income scheme, a solution could be found to make it a viable option, for the benefit of many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The concept of a basic income scheme is an excellent one. There are so many who live in extreme poverty. A basic income scheme would be an invaluable resource in helping those individuals to access basic necessities such as food and shelter. It would provide a stable foundation for those with the desire to improve their circumstances, by increasing the prospect of obtaining employment in the future. However, it is also important to consider the concept of a basic income scheme from a business point of view. If all employees were entitled to a basic income scheme, and all of those employees worked for the same employer, the costs for that employer would be huge. It would affect businesses large and small, and if the impact was to be huge, this could have a devastating effect on businesses. It would affect job security, and result in many people losing their jobs as employers were no longer able to afford their employees, having to lay off workers in order to survive. However, with careful consideration of the issues around a basic income scheme, a solution could be found to make it a viable option, for the benefit of many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The concept of a basic income scheme is an excellent one. There are so many who live in extreme poverty. A basic income scheme would be an invaluable resource in helping those individuals to access basic necessities such as food and shelter. It would provide a stable foundation for those with the desire to improve their circumstances, by increasing the prospect of obtaining employment in the future. However, it is also important to consider the concept of a basic income scheme from a business point of view. If all employees were entitled to a basic income scheme, and all of those employees worked for the same employer, the costs for that employer would be huge. It would affect businesses large and small, and if the impact was to be huge, this could have a devastating effect on businesses. It would affect job security, and result in many people losing their jobs as employers were no longer able to afford their employees, having to lay off workers in order to survive. However, with careful consideration of the issues around a basic income scheme, a solution could be found to make it a viable option, for the benefit of many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The concept of a basic income scheme is an excellent one. There are so many who live in extreme poverty. A basic income scheme would be an invaluable resource in helping those individuals to access basic necessities such as food and shelter. It would provide a stable foundation for those with the desire to improve their circumstances, by increasing the prospect of obtaining employment in the future. However, it is also important to consider the concept of a basic income scheme from a business point of view. If all employees were entitled to a basic income scheme, and all of those employees worked for the same employer, the costs for that employer would be huge. It would affect businesses large and small, and if the impact was to be huge, this could have a devastating effect on businesses. It would affect job security, and result in many people losing their jobs as employers were no longer able to afford their employees, having to lay off workers in order to survive. However, with careful consideration of the issues around a basic income scheme, a solution could be found to make it a viable option, for the benefit of many people. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001211.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001211.soc index 5961f615..b2a9209b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001211.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001211.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under 12 should be restricted from seeing harmful content on the internet. This is because they are easily influenced by what they see and hear and are more likely to act upon it. It is also important to protect them from seeing harmful content that may be disturbing and detrimental to their mental health and well being. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should restrict what children under 12 can do and see on the internet. This will reduce the risk of the children being subjected to harmful and inappropriate content. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should restrict what children under 12 can see on the internet, children under 12 are still in their formative years and may not be able to fully understand and process all the information they see on the internet. This may lead to the children being exposed to potentially harmful material that may negatively affect their mental health. It is therefore important for the government to put measures in place to protect children, for example, social media platforms could introduce a function that limits the access of children under 12 to certain types of content such as horror, pornography and violence. This could be done through implementing an age verification system that would require the user to be over 12 before they can access the website. This would ensure that children under 12 would not be exposed to content that is unsuitable for them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under 12 should not be allowed to see things on the internet that are not age appropriate. This is because they can be easily influenced by what they see and may not have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. This can lead to them taking part in dangerous activities or being exposed to things that can be harmful to their mental health. The internet can be a very dangerous place for young children and it is important to protect them from this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under 12 should be restricted from seeing harmful content on the internet. This is because they are easily influenced by what they see and hear and are more likely to act upon it. It is also important to protect them from seeing harmful content that may be disturbing and detrimental to their mental health and well being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should restrict what children under 12 can do and see on the internet. This will reduce the risk of the children being subjected to harmful and inappropriate content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should restrict what children under 12 can see on the internet, children under 12 are still in their formative years and may not be able to fully understand and process all the information they see on the internet. This may lead to the children being exposed to potentially harmful material that may negatively affect their mental health. It is therefore important for the government to put measures in place to protect children, for example, social media platforms could introduce a function that limits the access of children under 12 to certain types of content such as horror, pornography and violence. This could be done through implementing an age verification system that would require the user to be over 12 before they can access the website. This would ensure that children under 12 would not be exposed to content that is unsuitable for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under 12 should not be allowed to see things on the internet that are not age appropriate. This is because they can be easily influenced by what they see and may not have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. This can lead to them taking part in dangerous activities or being exposed to things that can be harmful to their mental health. The internet can be a very dangerous place for young children and it is important to protect them from this. 4: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001212.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001212.soc index 297fbe5f..e1e919e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001212.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001212.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should encourage the people of the UK to become more health conscious. Many of us are not aware of the health consequences of our unhealthy lifestyles. Many fast food outlets and takeaways provide a very unhealthy diet. The cost of obesity to the UK is £27 billion per year and over half of us are overweight or obese. We must encourage people to take better care of their health by making healthy eating choices, being more active and ensuring they do not smoke. This will improve the health of the population, reduce the cost to the NHS and improve the productivity of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Yes, we should encourage the people of the UK to become more health conscious. This is because the UK has one of the highest obesity rates in Europe, with around a quarter of adults being obese and a further 40% being overweight. Obesity is a risk factor for many diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Obesity is also a risk factor for poorer mental health, with obese people being more likely to experience depression. Therefore, by encouraging people to become more health conscious, we can help to reduce the rates of obesity and the diseases associated with it, and improve the overall health of the UK population.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People in the UK should be more health conscious. The health of a country is very important for its economical and social development. There are various reasons why people in the UK should be more health conscious. Firstly, the increase in obesity in the UK. The UK is one of the most obese countries in the world. Being overweight or obese is an unhealthy way of living as it can cause various health problems. It is very important to have a balanced diet and do exercise regularly in order to live a healthy lifestyle. Secondly, many people do not know how to have a balanced diet and how to do exercise. People should be educated on the subject. It is also very important for parents to teach their children how to have a balanced diet and how to do exercise, so they can pass on these healthy habits to future generations. The UK government should take measures to encourage people to be more health conscious. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the people of the UK should be encouraged to become more health conscious. This is because people are increasingly becoming more overweight and obese, and this is leading to an increased risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. This will also lead to an increased strain on the NHS, as it will have to deal with more people with these diseases. This will also lead to an increased cost for the NHS, as it will have to spend more money on dealing with these diseases. This will also lead to an increased cost for the government, as it will have to spend more money on the NHS. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people of the UK to become more health conscious, as this will lead to a healthier population, a healthier NHS, and a healthier economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should encourage the people of the UK to become more health conscious. Many of us are not aware of the health consequences of our unhealthy lifestyles. Many fast food outlets and takeaways provide a very unhealthy diet. The cost of obesity to the UK is £27 billion per year and over half of us are overweight or obese. We must encourage people to take better care of their health by making healthy eating choices, being more active and ensuring they do not smoke. This will improve the health of the population, reduce the cost to the NHS and improve the productivity of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Yes, we should encourage the people of the UK to become more health conscious. This is because the UK has one of the highest obesity rates in Europe, with around a quarter of adults being obese and a further 40% being overweight. Obesity is a risk factor for many diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Obesity is also a risk factor for poorer mental health, with obese people being more likely to experience depression. Therefore, by encouraging people to become more health conscious, we can help to reduce the rates of obesity and the diseases associated with it, and improve the overall health of the UK population.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People in the UK should be more health conscious. The health of a country is very important for its economical and social development. There are various reasons why people in the UK should be more health conscious. Firstly, the increase in obesity in the UK. The UK is one of the most obese countries in the world. Being overweight or obese is an unhealthy way of living as it can cause various health problems. It is very important to have a balanced diet and do exercise regularly in order to live a healthy lifestyle. Secondly, many people do not know how to have a balanced diet and how to do exercise. People should be educated on the subject. It is also very important for parents to teach their children how to have a balanced diet and how to do exercise, so they can pass on these healthy habits to future generations. The UK government should take measures to encourage people to be more health conscious. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the people of the UK should be encouraged to become more health conscious. This is because people are increasingly becoming more overweight and obese, and this is leading to an increased risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. This will also lead to an increased strain on the NHS, as it will have to deal with more people with these diseases. This will also lead to an increased cost for the NHS, as it will have to spend more money on dealing with these diseases. This will also lead to an increased cost for the government, as it will have to spend more money on the NHS. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people of the UK to become more health conscious, as this will lead to a healthier population, a healthier NHS, and a healthier economy. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001213.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001213.soc index 4f49420b..7e1d3c03 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001213.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001213.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: 'We believe that the law on cannabis should be relaxed. This is because cannabis is much less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. It can be used to treat medical conditions such as chronic pain. Cannabis is also widely used socially and does not cause serious problems to individuals and society when used in moderation. Currently the illegality of cannabis has created a market for the black market which often leads to serious crime.' As we can see, although all participants are well-meaning and reasonable, it was only by debating the issues that a consensus view was reached and a compromise position arrived at. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of relaxing the law on cannabis. This was for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was felt that the current laws on cannabis were too strict and that the law should reflect the fact that cannabis is a relatively harmless drug. Secondly, it was felt that the current laws on cannabis were ineffective and that cannabis was widely available and used. Thirdly, it was felt that cannabis could have medical benefits and that the current laws were preventing research into this. However, it was also felt that cannabis should not be legalised completely as this could lead to cannabis being more widely available and more widely used. It was felt that this could lead to cannabis being more harmful and that it could lead to people using cannabis who would not otherwise have done so. It was felt that cannabis should be legalised for medical use but that it should not be legalised for recreational use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of relaxing the law on cannabis. However, we felt that the law should not be relaxed in relation to driving under the influence of cannabis as this is a danger to other road users. Also, we felt that cannabis should not be made freely available to children and young people as this could lead to the development of mental health problems. We also felt that cannabis should not be made freely available to people with a history of mental health problems. The law should be relaxed in relation to people using cannabis for medical purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although cannabis is a non-addictive substance with a low-risk of long-term health problems and can be used in the treatment of some mental health conditions, we believe that there are more effective medical treatments for these conditions that don’t come with the risks that cannabis use carries. The health risks associated with cannabis use are also not as great as other commonly used drugs (e.g. alcohol). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - 'We believe that the law on cannabis should be relaxed. This is because cannabis is much less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. It can be used to treat medical conditions such as chronic pain. Cannabis is also widely used socially and does not cause serious problems to individuals and society when used in moderation. Currently the illegality of cannabis has created a market for the black market which often leads to serious crime.' As we can see, although all participants are well-meaning and reasonable, it was only by debating the issues that a consensus view was reached and a compromise position arrived at. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of relaxing the law on cannabis. This was for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was felt that the current laws on cannabis were too strict and that the law should reflect the fact that cannabis is a relatively harmless drug. Secondly, it was felt that the current laws on cannabis were ineffective and that cannabis was widely available and used. Thirdly, it was felt that cannabis could have medical benefits and that the current laws were preventing research into this. However, it was also felt that cannabis should not be legalised completely as this could lead to cannabis being more widely available and more widely used. It was felt that this could lead to cannabis being more harmful and that it could lead to people using cannabis who would not otherwise have done so. It was felt that cannabis should be legalised for medical use but that it should not be legalised for recreational use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of relaxing the law on cannabis. However, we felt that the law should not be relaxed in relation to driving under the influence of cannabis as this is a danger to other road users. Also, we felt that cannabis should not be made freely available to children and young people as this could lead to the development of mental health problems. We also felt that cannabis should not be made freely available to people with a history of mental health problems. The law should be relaxed in relation to people using cannabis for medical purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although cannabis is a non-addictive substance with a low-risk of long-term health problems and can be used in the treatment of some mental health conditions, we believe that there are more effective medical treatments for these conditions that don’t come with the risks that cannabis use carries. The health risks associated with cannabis use are also not as great as other commonly used drugs (e.g. alcohol). 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001214.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001214.soc index cab4db72..0176786c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001214.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001214.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should continue to invest in the International Space Station. The UK has a long history of space exploration and should continue to be a leader in this field. The discoveries made as a result of the International Space Station will lead to significant scientific advances that will benefit the whole of humanity. The UK should also continue to invest in the International Space Station as it will help to maintain the UK's status as a leader in space exploration and will also help to maintain the UK's status as a leader in the global economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should continue to invest in the International Space Station to continue pushing the boundaries of space exploration. This is something that can benefit all mankind and will ultimately lead to new discoveries and innovations that can be used to help society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should continue to invest in the International Space Station. The UK has a long history of space exploration, and the International Space Station is a key part of this. It is a unique platform for scientific research, and has the potential to be a stepping stone to future missions in the solar system. The UK has the opportunity to be a key player in this, and the benefits of this will be felt for generations to come. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should continue to invest in the International Space Station. This is a long-term commitment and a worthwhile one, as the scientific advances made in the space programme help advance technology that be utilised in the global economy. In addition, new resources that we have never before thought of, or could use, may be found. We also don't know how long we have left on earth, so we should put some effort into exploring space as a new planet for humans to live on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should continue to invest in the International Space Station. The UK has a long history of space exploration and should continue to be a leader in this field. The discoveries made as a result of the International Space Station will lead to significant scientific advances that will benefit the whole of humanity. The UK should also continue to invest in the International Space Station as it will help to maintain the UK's status as a leader in space exploration and will also help to maintain the UK's status as a leader in the global economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should continue to invest in the International Space Station to continue pushing the boundaries of space exploration. This is something that can benefit all mankind and will ultimately lead to new discoveries and innovations that can be used to help society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should continue to invest in the International Space Station. The UK has a long history of space exploration, and the International Space Station is a key part of this. It is a unique platform for scientific research, and has the potential to be a stepping stone to future missions in the solar system. The UK has the opportunity to be a key player in this, and the benefits of this will be felt for generations to come. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should continue to invest in the International Space Station. This is a long-term commitment and a worthwhile one, as the scientific advances made in the space programme help advance technology that be utilised in the global economy. In addition, new resources that we have never before thought of, or could use, may be found. We also don't know how long we have left on earth, so we should put some effort into exploring space as a new planet for humans to live on. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001215.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001215.soc index 55836741..57c2b924 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001215.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001215.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should not be forced to wear masks on buses. If they have the virus then they should not be going on buses. I think the person who caught it in America may have been on a bus with a passenger from another country who caught it there and passed it on. So if you want to wear a mask then thats fine but dont pass the blame onto others who havent caught it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is important to protect people on buses from COVID, it is important to acknowledge that COVID is declining and people have to start getting back to normal and being able to travel safely. Therefore, the group feels that as long as people are practising social distancing and are not feeling ill, that they should be allowed to make the decision to wear or not wear masks on buses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be forced to wear masks on buses. This is because wearing a mask is a personal choice, and people should be allowed to make their own decisions. However, if there is a large outbreak of a virus such as COVID, then people should be forced to wear masks on buses to prevent the spread of the virus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, people should not be forced to wear masks on buses. If they want to wear one for their own safety, then that is their choice. If they choose not to, then that is also their choice. The bus is a very small space and it is very easy to catch a cold/virus from someone else. If any person on the bus catches the virus, it is very likely that they will spread it to other family members/colleagues and the best way to avoid this situation is by wearing a mask on a bus if you're feeling unwell. However, this should not be forced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should not be forced to wear masks on buses. If they have the virus then they should not be going on buses. I think the person who caught it in America may have been on a bus with a passenger from another country who caught it there and passed it on. So if you want to wear a mask then thats fine but dont pass the blame onto others who havent caught it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is important to protect people on buses from COVID, it is important to acknowledge that COVID is declining and people have to start getting back to normal and being able to travel safely. Therefore, the group feels that as long as people are practising social distancing and are not feeling ill, that they should be allowed to make the decision to wear or not wear masks on buses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be forced to wear masks on buses. This is because wearing a mask is a personal choice, and people should be allowed to make their own decisions. However, if there is a large outbreak of a virus such as COVID, then people should be forced to wear masks on buses to prevent the spread of the virus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, people should not be forced to wear masks on buses. If they want to wear one for their own safety, then that is their choice. If they choose not to, then that is also their choice. The bus is a very small space and it is very easy to catch a cold/virus from someone else. If any person on the bus catches the virus, it is very likely that they will spread it to other family members/colleagues and the best way to avoid this situation is by wearing a mask on a bus if you're feeling unwell. However, this should not be forced. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001216.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001216.soc index a68eb879..27721b38 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001216.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001216.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK does have an obesity problem. The reasons for this are complex and include a change in eating habits, more sedentary lifestyles, and the ready availability of cheap, unhealthy food. The problem is compounded by the fact that obesity is a self-perpetuating problem, in that obese people are more likely to become obese and obese children are more likely to become obese adults. The problem is also made worse by the ready availability of bariatric surgery, which is seen as a quick fix, rather than addressing the root causes of obesity. In order to combat obesity, the government needs to provide better education about healthy eating and the importance of exercise. It also needs to provide incentives to make healthy food more affordable and to discourage the consumption of unhealthy food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK does have an obesity problem. The increase in obesity related illnesses is a direct result of this. The issue is being compounded by the availability of cheap, unhealthy food and a more sedentary lifestyle. The problem needs to be addressed at its root, by encouraging cookery classes in schools again and teaching nutrition. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The uk does have a problem with obesity. we need to encourage cooking from scratch and allow schools to teach children the importance of a healthy diet and exercise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK does have an obesity problem. A very big problem! It's well known that it is costing the NHS millions of pounds a year due to obesity related illnesses. The government are providing free healthy snacks and meals to all children up to year 2 in school. The prices of ready meals and processed foods are so cheap and this needs to be addressed. People need to get back to basics and learn to cook meals from scratch, using fresh ingredients. This way, you know exactly what is going into your food. There is so much conflicting information out there about what you should and shouldn't be eating. A lot of the information we see is sponsored by food and drink companies. That is why it's so important to read the labels. I think we should be more like Italy where there is no 'junk food' advertised on TV or in shops. Unless you are in a certain area of a supermarket, you are only presented with fresh fruit and veg. We need to be more like this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK does have an obesity problem. The reasons for this are complex and include a change in eating habits, more sedentary lifestyles, and the ready availability of cheap, unhealthy food. The problem is compounded by the fact that obesity is a self-perpetuating problem, in that obese people are more likely to become obese and obese children are more likely to become obese adults. The problem is also made worse by the ready availability of bariatric surgery, which is seen as a quick fix, rather than addressing the root causes of obesity. In order to combat obesity, the government needs to provide better education about healthy eating and the importance of exercise. It also needs to provide incentives to make healthy food more affordable and to discourage the consumption of unhealthy food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK does have an obesity problem. The increase in obesity related illnesses is a direct result of this. The issue is being compounded by the availability of cheap, unhealthy food and a more sedentary lifestyle. The problem needs to be addressed at its root, by encouraging cookery classes in schools again and teaching nutrition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The uk does have a problem with obesity. we need to encourage cooking from scratch and allow schools to teach children the importance of a healthy diet and exercise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK does have an obesity problem. A very big problem! It's well known that it is costing the NHS millions of pounds a year due to obesity related illnesses. The government are providing free healthy snacks and meals to all children up to year 2 in school. The prices of ready meals and processed foods are so cheap and this needs to be addressed. People need to get back to basics and learn to cook meals from scratch, using fresh ingredients. This way, you know exactly what is going into your food. There is so much conflicting information out there about what you should and shouldn't be eating. A lot of the information we see is sponsored by food and drink companies. That is why it's so important to read the labels. I think we should be more like Italy where there is no 'junk food' advertised on TV or in shops. Unless you are in a certain area of a supermarket, you are only presented with fresh fruit and veg. We need to be more like this. 3: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001217.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001217.soc index fc462f39..09b6dce8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001217.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001217.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that reducing alcoholism is the more important priority because it is the more common problem and is the cause of a greater number of medical problems than drug use. This has been evidenced by the fact that it has been declared by WHO as a global health problem. Alcoholism is more easily accessible and alcohol is very heavily advertised which can lead to addiction and heavy usage which leads to a multitude of medical problems, both acute and chronic. Heavy alcohol use is associated with an increased risk of liver disease, heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, as well as more than 200 other health conditions. Drug use is not advertised in the same way as alcohol and there is a greater level of stigma associated with drug use. Reducing alcoholism would also reduce drug use because many drug users are heavy alcohol users and the two are often linked. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a greater focus on reducing alcoholism. This is due to the fact that alcohol is more widely available, more socially accepted and is more harmful to health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Both are equally important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. However, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Alcoholism and drug use are very different problems that need to be tackled in different ways. Therefore, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Both are very important priorities.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Reducing alcoholism is the more important priority. This is because alcoholism is more common and the harm caused by alcohol is more severe and expensive to treat than drug use. The health risks from alcoholism can include liver disease, cancer, stroke and heart disease. There is a clear need for much better education about alcohol to help prevent alcoholism from starting in the first place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that reducing alcoholism is the more important priority because it is the more common problem and is the cause of a greater number of medical problems than drug use. This has been evidenced by the fact that it has been declared by WHO as a global health problem. Alcoholism is more easily accessible and alcohol is very heavily advertised which can lead to addiction and heavy usage which leads to a multitude of medical problems, both acute and chronic. Heavy alcohol use is associated with an increased risk of liver disease, heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, as well as more than 200 other health conditions. Drug use is not advertised in the same way as alcohol and there is a greater level of stigma associated with drug use. Reducing alcoholism would also reduce drug use because many drug users are heavy alcohol users and the two are often linked. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a greater focus on reducing alcoholism. This is due to the fact that alcohol is more widely available, more socially accepted and is more harmful to health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Both are equally important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. However, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Alcoholism and drug use are very different problems that need to be tackled in different ways. Therefore, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Both are very important priorities.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Reducing alcoholism is the more important priority. This is because alcoholism is more common and the harm caused by alcohol is more severe and expensive to treat than drug use. The health risks from alcoholism can include liver disease, cancer, stroke and heart disease. There is a clear need for much better education about alcohol to help prevent alcoholism from starting in the first place. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001218.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001218.soc index 6649aafd..2c1dc613 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001218.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001218.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Both are equally important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. However, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Alcoholism and drug use are very different problems that need to be tackled in different ways. Therefore, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Both are very important priorities. We all agree that more research needs to be done in this area before a final decision can be made on which is the more important priority.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Both are equally important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. However, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Alcoholism and drug use are very different problems that need to be tackled in different ways. Therefore, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Both are very important priorities. However, I would have to say that alcoholism is the more important priority. This is because alcoholism is more common and therefore any effort would mean that a greater number of people would benefit from reduction programmes. Also, alcoholism leads to much more severe health consequences than drug use.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Both are equally important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. It is very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Alcoholism and drug use are very different problems that need to be tackled in different ways. Therefore, it is difficult to say which is the more important priority. Both are very important priorities.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: “Both are very important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. Both are very important priorities. We would like to know what other participants think.” Task 3: Second referendum question, completed by a large number of participants Option 1: Options 2 and 3 are more important priorities than option 1 Option 2: Option 3 is a more important priority than option 2. Option 3: Option 2 is a more important priority than option 3. This project was designed to elicit critical views about this project from participants, so it will be of interest to receive further feedback on any aspect of the project from participants, including the participants themselves and the various questions asked during the project, either by email or by commenting below. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Both are equally important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. However, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Alcoholism and drug use are very different problems that need to be tackled in different ways. Therefore, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Both are very important priorities. We all agree that more research needs to be done in this area before a final decision can be made on which is the more important priority.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Both are equally important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. However, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Alcoholism and drug use are very different problems that need to be tackled in different ways. Therefore, it would be very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Both are very important priorities. However, I would have to say that alcoholism is the more important priority. This is because alcoholism is more common and therefore any effort would mean that a greater number of people would benefit from reduction programmes. Also, alcoholism leads to much more severe health consequences than drug use.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Both are equally important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. It is very difficult to say which is the more important priority. Alcoholism and drug use are very different problems that need to be tackled in different ways. Therefore, it is difficult to say which is the more important priority. Both are very important priorities.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: “Both are very important priorities. Alcoholism and drug use are serious problems that need to be tackled. Both can have serious health consequences and both can lead to an increase in crime. The best way to tackle this would be to provide more education to young people and the wider public about the dangers of alcoholism and drug use. This would hopefully lead to a reduction in alcoholism and drug use and would hopefully lead to a reduction in crime. Both are very important priorities. We would like to know what other participants think.” Task 3: Second referendum question, completed by a large number of participants Option 1: Options 2 and 3 are more important priorities than option 1 Option 2: Option 3 is a more important priority than option 2. Option 3: Option 2 is a more important priority than option 3. This project was designed to elicit critical views about this project from participants, so it will be of interest to receive further feedback on any aspect of the project from participants, including the participants themselves and the various questions asked during the project, either by email or by commenting below. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001219.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001219.soc index 403f9c98..84a837c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001219.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001219.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is an important and noble cause, we do not believe that all companies should be forced to make a yearly donation to charity. It should be an individual choice and that choice should not be taken away by the government. Charity should not be something that is forced upon anyone, and the government would not know which charities to make companies donate to, or if they would even donate to a good cause, so it would be unfair to force companies to donate if the government could not guarantee that this money would be used well. We also believe that the government has no right to take away the money of a company that has been working hard all year just to give it to a charity that may not even be relevant to the company or the community that they work in. There is no good way of making a charity system that works for everyone, and to implement this would be unfair to some. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. The issue of charity giving is very contentious, and the idea of forcing companies to give to charity would be very divisive. There are also many issues with this idea, such as the fact that it would be unfair to smaller companies that are just starting out. We believe that charity giving should be a voluntary choice, and as a society we should not expect anyone to make any donations. Charities are created for charitable purposes and all donations to them should be the person's or company's own choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, companies should not be required to make a yearly donation to charity. This is because charities are created for charitable purposes and all donations to them should be the person's or company's own choice. It would also be wrong to force companies to make a yearly donation to charity because it would be an infringement on their freedom to choose. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. It would be unfair on smaller companies who are just starting out. This will only make the cost of living in the UK rise and will ultimately lead to increased poverty and higher unemployment. The UK is already the second most generous country in the world, after the US, and this would reduce the money that would otherwise be going to charities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is an important and noble cause, we do not believe that all companies should be forced to make a yearly donation to charity. It should be an individual choice and that choice should not be taken away by the government. Charity should not be something that is forced upon anyone, and the government would not know which charities to make companies donate to, or if they would even donate to a good cause, so it would be unfair to force companies to donate if the government could not guarantee that this money would be used well. We also believe that the government has no right to take away the money of a company that has been working hard all year just to give it to a charity that may not even be relevant to the company or the community that they work in. There is no good way of making a charity system that works for everyone, and to implement this would be unfair to some. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. The issue of charity giving is very contentious, and the idea of forcing companies to give to charity would be very divisive. There are also many issues with this idea, such as the fact that it would be unfair to smaller companies that are just starting out. We believe that charity giving should be a voluntary choice, and as a society we should not expect anyone to make any donations. Charities are created for charitable purposes and all donations to them should be the person's or company's own choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, companies should not be required to make a yearly donation to charity. This is because charities are created for charitable purposes and all donations to them should be the person's or company's own choice. It would also be wrong to force companies to make a yearly donation to charity because it would be an infringement on their freedom to choose. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. It would be unfair on smaller companies who are just starting out. This will only make the cost of living in the UK rise and will ultimately lead to increased poverty and higher unemployment. The UK is already the second most generous country in the world, after the US, and this would reduce the money that would otherwise be going to charities. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001220.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001220.soc index d42033ab..cb43e946 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001220.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001220.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a carbon tax being imposed. The group felt that a carbon tax would encourage businesses to look at their carbon footprint and would encourage them to be more energy efficient. It was felt that this would lead to a reduction in the amount of pollution and would encourage businesses to use more environmentally friendly alternatives. It was felt that the tax would be more beneficial to the environment than the government would be to the economy. However, the group felt that the tax would be more beneficial to the economy if the money raised was invested in developing more environmentally friendly alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was in general agreement that any funds raised by a carbon tax should be put to good use. In order to be able to properly measure the impact of such a tax, the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment, specifically on the development of green energy sources. In order for such a tax to be fair, it is important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. It was agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are a number of factors to take into consideration, we feel that the government should implement a carbon tax to businesses that emit high levels of carbon emissions. The tax should be imposed on companies that emit carbon into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in order to produce goods, transport goods, or provide services. We also feel that the tax should be implemented gradually over a 5 year period. As well as this, we believe that the money raised through the tax should be invested in R&D to develop environmentally friendly ways of producing goods, transporting goods, and providing services that do not emit carbon emissions into the atmosphere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of imposing a carbon tax. However, the group did agree that if a carbon tax was to be imposed, then the money raised should be used to fund 'green' initiatives that will be of benefit now and in the future and will encourage entrepreneurs to concentrate their efforts on projects that will make a real positive impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a carbon tax being imposed. The group felt that a carbon tax would encourage businesses to look at their carbon footprint and would encourage them to be more energy efficient. It was felt that this would lead to a reduction in the amount of pollution and would encourage businesses to use more environmentally friendly alternatives. It was felt that the tax would be more beneficial to the environment than the government would be to the economy. However, the group felt that the tax would be more beneficial to the economy if the money raised was invested in developing more environmentally friendly alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was in general agreement that any funds raised by a carbon tax should be put to good use. In order to be able to properly measure the impact of such a tax, the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment, specifically on the development of green energy sources. In order for such a tax to be fair, it is important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. It was agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are a number of factors to take into consideration, we feel that the government should implement a carbon tax to businesses that emit high levels of carbon emissions. The tax should be imposed on companies that emit carbon into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in order to produce goods, transport goods, or provide services. We also feel that the tax should be implemented gradually over a 5 year period. As well as this, we believe that the money raised through the tax should be invested in R&D to develop environmentally friendly ways of producing goods, transporting goods, and providing services that do not emit carbon emissions into the atmosphere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of imposing a carbon tax. However, the group did agree that if a carbon tax was to be imposed, then the money raised should be used to fund 'green' initiatives that will be of benefit now and in the future and will encourage entrepreneurs to concentrate their efforts on projects that will make a real positive impact on the environment. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001221.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001221.soc index 69288888..d12f6633 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001221.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001221.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was in general agreement that any funds raised by a carbon tax should be put to good use. In order to be able to properly measure the impact of such a tax, the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment, specifically on the development of green energy sources. In order for such a tax to be fair, it is important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. It was agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There was a strong consensus that the group were in favour of a carbon tax and that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working. It was felt that it would be fair to impose a carbon tax on businesses, particularly the larger ones, and that the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment, specifically on the development of green energy sources. The group agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. The group also felt that it was important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in general agreement that any funds raised by a carbon tax should be put to good use. In order to be able to properly measure the impact of such a tax, the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment, specifically on the development of green energy sources. In order for such a tax to be fair, it is important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. It was agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. The group also agreed that the tax should not be imposed on individuals as this would have a detrimental effect on those who are already struggling financially. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: The group was in general agreement that any funds raised by a carbon tax should be put to good use. In order to be able to properly measure the impact of such a tax, the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment. In order for such a tax to be fair, it is important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. It was agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was in general agreement that any funds raised by a carbon tax should be put to good use. In order to be able to properly measure the impact of such a tax, the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment, specifically on the development of green energy sources. In order for such a tax to be fair, it is important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. It was agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There was a strong consensus that the group were in favour of a carbon tax and that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working. It was felt that it would be fair to impose a carbon tax on businesses, particularly the larger ones, and that the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment, specifically on the development of green energy sources. The group agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. The group also felt that it was important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in general agreement that any funds raised by a carbon tax should be put to good use. In order to be able to properly measure the impact of such a tax, the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment, specifically on the development of green energy sources. In order for such a tax to be fair, it is important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. It was agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. The group also agreed that the tax should not be imposed on individuals as this would have a detrimental effect on those who are already struggling financially. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: The group was in general agreement that any funds raised by a carbon tax should be put to good use. In order to be able to properly measure the impact of such a tax, the money raised from this tax should be ring fenced and only spent on the benefit of the environment. In order for such a tax to be fair, it is important that the government also implements measures to increase funding to support those on low incomes as there is a risk that those who are already struggling financially will be adversely affected by any increase in their living costs. It was agreed that the money raised from this tax should be used to fund research into green energy sources as well as supporting businesses who are already working in this area. It was felt that this would be the best way to encourage businesses to look at more environmentally friendly ways of working and would be of benefit to the environment in the future. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001222.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001222.soc index c0356975..a8ab60fc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001222.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001222.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should have a legally binding voice in custody cases. The effects of divorce have the potential to seriously affect the child, therefore they should be given the option to choose which parent they would prefer to live with. It would not be fair to force a child to live with a parent if they did not want to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. Children over the age of 14 are of an age where the pre-frontal cortex is developed enough to form rational thoughts and their voice should be considered. The child is the one who is most affected by the divorce, and is the one who should be given the right to choose. It is important to note that the child should not be forced to make a decision if they do not want to, and the child should not be forced to live with a parent if they do not want to. The child should be given the right to choose, and their choice should be respected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. This is because children are more than capable of making their own decisions at this age and should be allowed to do so. Children should also be allowed to make their own decisions because they are the ones who will be most affected by the outcome of the custody case. It is also important to note that children are not legally responsible for their actions until they are 18, therefore, they should be allowed to have a legally binding voice in custody cases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should have a legally binding voice in custody cases. The effects of divorce have the potential to seriously affect the child, therefore they should be given the right to choose which parent they live with. A child over the age of 14 is considered mature enough to form rational thoughts and opinions, and has a developed enough pre-frontal cortex to be able to rationally debate their case in court. Children at this age are able to take responsibility for their actions, and can face the consequences of those actions in the eyes of the court, which makes it surprising that children this age would not have a legally binding voice in custody cases, particularly when the consequences of their custody decisions are not so different to those that they face from a criminal point of view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should have a legally binding voice in custody cases. The effects of divorce have the potential to seriously affect the child, therefore they should be given the option to choose which parent they would prefer to live with. It would not be fair to force a child to live with a parent if they did not want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. Children over the age of 14 are of an age where the pre-frontal cortex is developed enough to form rational thoughts and their voice should be considered. The child is the one who is most affected by the divorce, and is the one who should be given the right to choose. It is important to note that the child should not be forced to make a decision if they do not want to, and the child should not be forced to live with a parent if they do not want to. The child should be given the right to choose, and their choice should be respected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. This is because children are more than capable of making their own decisions at this age and should be allowed to do so. Children should also be allowed to make their own decisions because they are the ones who will be most affected by the outcome of the custody case. It is also important to note that children are not legally responsible for their actions until they are 18, therefore, they should be allowed to have a legally binding voice in custody cases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should have a legally binding voice in custody cases. The effects of divorce have the potential to seriously affect the child, therefore they should be given the right to choose which parent they live with. A child over the age of 14 is considered mature enough to form rational thoughts and opinions, and has a developed enough pre-frontal cortex to be able to rationally debate their case in court. Children at this age are able to take responsibility for their actions, and can face the consequences of those actions in the eyes of the court, which makes it surprising that children this age would not have a legally binding voice in custody cases, particularly when the consequences of their custody decisions are not so different to those that they face from a criminal point of view. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001223.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001223.soc index 9bf61c43..05bfe822 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001223.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001223.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People who are eligible for organ transplants should not be given priority based on their social impact. The allocation of organ transplants should be based on objective criteria such as how long a patient will live without the transplant. The principle of autonomy of individuals requires that all people should be treated equally regardless of the type of life they lead or their socioeconomic status. This prevents the development of an unequal society. It is ethically unjustifiable to base organ allocation on a person’s contribution to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the social impact of a person should not be a factor in organ transplant allocation. Every human life has equal value and should be treated as such. The social impact of a person is not something that they can control and is not something that is easily defined. Therefore, it is not something that should be used to determine who is more deserving of an organ transplant. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, people who are eligible for organ transplants should not be given priority based on their social impact. The fundamental principle of equality should be upheld and everyone should be treated the same. However, it is acknowledged that there are certain circumstances in which the social impact of an individual could be taken into consideration. For example, if a person has made a significant contribution to society and is the only person who is able to continue this work, it would be reasonable to give them priority for an organ transplant. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People who are eligible for organ transplants should not be given priority based on their social impact. The allocation of organ transplants should be based on objective criteria such as how long a patient is expected to live if he or she receives an organ, and the urgency of their need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People who are eligible for organ transplants should not be given priority based on their social impact. The allocation of organ transplants should be based on objective criteria such as how long a patient will live without the transplant. The principle of autonomy of individuals requires that all people should be treated equally regardless of the type of life they lead or their socioeconomic status. This prevents the development of an unequal society. It is ethically unjustifiable to base organ allocation on a person’s contribution to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the social impact of a person should not be a factor in organ transplant allocation. Every human life has equal value and should be treated as such. The social impact of a person is not something that they can control and is not something that is easily defined. Therefore, it is not something that should be used to determine who is more deserving of an organ transplant. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, people who are eligible for organ transplants should not be given priority based on their social impact. The fundamental principle of equality should be upheld and everyone should be treated the same. However, it is acknowledged that there are certain circumstances in which the social impact of an individual could be taken into consideration. For example, if a person has made a significant contribution to society and is the only person who is able to continue this work, it would be reasonable to give them priority for an organ transplant. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People who are eligible for organ transplants should not be given priority based on their social impact. The allocation of organ transplants should be based on objective criteria such as how long a patient is expected to live if he or she receives an organ, and the urgency of their need. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001224.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001224.soc index 2a751450..fd596d54 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001224.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001224.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should reduce carbon emissions as low as possible. If we aim to completely remove all carbon emissions, it will become unattainable and lead to increased disillusionment among citizens and politicians alike. It would be better to aim for reducing carbon emissions as low as possible, so that we can see our hard work being rewarded. Also, we do not know what will happen in the future. With technology evolving rapidly, it is possible that by completely removing carbon emissions, we will be opening ourselves up to new threats that we currently know nothing about. Reducing carbon emissions as low as possible is the most realistic approach that will allow us to make the most positive impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of reducing carbon emissions. The group believed that it was the right thing to do for the planet and for future generations. The group believed that reducing carbon emissions would help reduce the occurrence of natural disasters, as well as improve the air quality. The group believed that it would be impossible to have complete decarbonisation, but the group believed that we should aim to reduce carbon emissions as low as possible in order to protect the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of reducing carbon emissions to a certain point. This is because it is important to consider the impact on the economy, as well as the impact on the environment. The group believed that it is important to strike a balance between the two. The group also believed that it is important to consider the impact on the poorest people in society, as they may not be able to afford to make changes to their lifestyle in order to reduce their carbon footprint. The group also believed that it is important to consider the impact on future generations, and that we should not make the mistake of thinking that we can continue to live the way we do now and that it will not have an impact on future generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should reduce carbon emissions as low as possible. If we all come together and make the right choices, we can help protect our planet for future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should reduce carbon emissions as low as possible. If we aim to completely remove all carbon emissions, it will become unattainable and lead to increased disillusionment among citizens and politicians alike. It would be better to aim for reducing carbon emissions as low as possible, so that we can see our hard work being rewarded. Also, we do not know what will happen in the future. With technology evolving rapidly, it is possible that by completely removing carbon emissions, we will be opening ourselves up to new threats that we currently know nothing about. Reducing carbon emissions as low as possible is the most realistic approach that will allow us to make the most positive impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing carbon emissions. The group believed that it was the right thing to do for the planet and for future generations. The group believed that reducing carbon emissions would help reduce the occurrence of natural disasters, as well as improve the air quality. The group believed that it would be impossible to have complete decarbonisation, but the group believed that we should aim to reduce carbon emissions as low as possible in order to protect the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing carbon emissions to a certain point. This is because it is important to consider the impact on the economy, as well as the impact on the environment. The group believed that it is important to strike a balance between the two. The group also believed that it is important to consider the impact on the poorest people in society, as they may not be able to afford to make changes to their lifestyle in order to reduce their carbon footprint. The group also believed that it is important to consider the impact on future generations, and that we should not make the mistake of thinking that we can continue to live the way we do now and that it will not have an impact on future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should reduce carbon emissions as low as possible. If we all come together and make the right choices, we can help protect our planet for future generations. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001225.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001225.soc index 41c1599b..ebb09fee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001225.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001225.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should put more effort into improving public transport in urban areas. There are several reasons for this, including: 1) It will encourage less cars on the road, which will help to reduce carbon emissions. 2) It will reduce traffic, and therefore reduce congestion in urban areas. 3) It will make it easier for people to travel to areas where they are less likely to own a car, for example people on lower incomes, or young people who may not be able to afford to run a car. 4) There is also evidence to show that people with access to good public transport are more likely to use public transport, and not own a car. 5) It will make life easier for those who cannot drive, or cannot afford a car. The group is aware that this will not come without cost, and that there are other important things that this funding could be spent on, but feel that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Public transport in urban areas should be improved. It should be improved because it is becoming increasingly expensive and unreliable, which makes it unappealing to use. If we can improve public transport, it would help to reduce emissions, which would benefit the economy and the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should put more effort into improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it will make it easier for people to get around, and reduce the amount of cars on the road. It will also make it easier for people to get to work and school, and reduce the amount of people being late. However, it is important to note that improving public transport will come at a cost, and it is important to ensure that the money spent on improving public transport is spent in the most effective way possible. It is also important to note that improving public transport will not solve all of the problems with transport in the UK, and that we should also be looking at other ways to reduce the amount of cars on the road, such as improving cycle lanes, and increasing the price of fuel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should put more effort into improving public transport in urban areas. There are several reasons for this, including: 1) It will encourage less cars on the road, which will help to reduce carbon emissions. 2) It will reduce traffic, and therefore reduce congestion in urban areas. 3) It will make it easier for people to travel to areas where they are less likely to own a car, for example people on lower incomes, or young people who may not be able to afford to run a car. 4) There is also evidence to show that people with access to good public transport are more likely to use public transport, and not own a car. 5) It will make life easier for those who cannot drive, or cannot afford a car. The group is aware that this will not come without cost, and that there are other important things that this funding could be spent on, but feel that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Public transport in urban areas should be improved. It should be improved because it is becoming increasingly expensive and unreliable, which makes it unappealing to use. If we can improve public transport, it would help to reduce emissions, which would benefit the economy and the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should put more effort into improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it will make it easier for people to get around, and reduce the amount of cars on the road. It will also make it easier for people to get to work and school, and reduce the amount of people being late. However, it is important to note that improving public transport will come at a cost, and it is important to ensure that the money spent on improving public transport is spent in the most effective way possible. It is also important to note that improving public transport will not solve all of the problems with transport in the UK, and that we should also be looking at other ways to reduce the amount of cars on the road, such as improving cycle lanes, and increasing the price of fuel. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001226.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001226.soc index c57faefa..ec4707b3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001226.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001226.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the proposition of increasing the tax on meat to discourage the consumption of meat may be a noble one, the tax system is an ineffective means of altering consumer behaviour. In addition, while there are ethical concerns with meat consumption, we believe that the problems with it lie at the corporate level, and thus, any efforts to solve the issue should be directed at the source. We would instead like to see an increase in regulations on the raising of livestock, and taxing the large companies that are profiting from exploiting the environment and animals for their own gain. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be an increased tax on meat. The main reason for this is that meat is a staple of the western diet and therefore is an important source of protein. If meat is taxed more heavily, it would cause an increased price of this food and lead to poverty and starvation. Vegetarian food is also not well developed enough yet, as there are often many hidden sources of meat in these products. However, we do agree that it is a good idea to discourage the eating of meat and suggest that instead of taxing meat, the price of meat alternatives should be reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be an increased tax on meat. The group felt that this would help to reduce the amount of meat consumed, and that this would have a positive effect on the environment and animal welfare. The group also felt that this would help to reduce the amount of processed food consumed, as many meat substitutes are highly processed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be an increased tax on meat. The main argument for this is that meat is a luxury, and if we want to discourage its consumption then we should make it more expensive. It would also have the effect of making meat-free alternatives cheaper, and so more attractive to consumers. It is also important to note that there is a big difference between taxing meat and taxing other products that are considered harmful to health, such as alcohol and cigarettes. In the case of meat, the health effects are not as clear-cut as with these other products, and so it is more of a moral issue. There is also the argument that meat is a necessity for some people, and that taxing it would cause hardship to those who can't afford to pay the extra. However, if this tax was used to subsidise meat-free alternatives then this would not be an issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the proposition of increasing the tax on meat to discourage the consumption of meat may be a noble one, the tax system is an ineffective means of altering consumer behaviour. In addition, while there are ethical concerns with meat consumption, we believe that the problems with it lie at the corporate level, and thus, any efforts to solve the issue should be directed at the source. We would instead like to see an increase in regulations on the raising of livestock, and taxing the large companies that are profiting from exploiting the environment and animals for their own gain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be an increased tax on meat. The main reason for this is that meat is a staple of the western diet and therefore is an important source of protein. If meat is taxed more heavily, it would cause an increased price of this food and lead to poverty and starvation. Vegetarian food is also not well developed enough yet, as there are often many hidden sources of meat in these products. However, we do agree that it is a good idea to discourage the eating of meat and suggest that instead of taxing meat, the price of meat alternatives should be reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be an increased tax on meat. The group felt that this would help to reduce the amount of meat consumed, and that this would have a positive effect on the environment and animal welfare. The group also felt that this would help to reduce the amount of processed food consumed, as many meat substitutes are highly processed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be an increased tax on meat. The main argument for this is that meat is a luxury, and if we want to discourage its consumption then we should make it more expensive. It would also have the effect of making meat-free alternatives cheaper, and so more attractive to consumers. It is also important to note that there is a big difference between taxing meat and taxing other products that are considered harmful to health, such as alcohol and cigarettes. In the case of meat, the health effects are not as clear-cut as with these other products, and so it is more of a moral issue. There is also the argument that meat is a necessity for some people, and that taxing it would cause hardship to those who can't afford to pay the extra. However, if this tax was used to subsidise meat-free alternatives then this would not be an issue. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001227.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001227.soc index 56ba3c84..1fcb7196 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001227.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001227.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a cap on the amount of money that can be raised from donations. This is because it is important to ensure that there is fairness and transparency in the way that political parties are funded. The cap would also prevent any unwanted money being taken into their accounts and also prevent any unwanted donations being made. It is also important to make donations legal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of capping the amount of money that politicians can raise from donations. This is because there is a possibility that the money will be used for purposes other than that which it was intended. Also, the amount of money that is raised may not be representative of the amount of support that the politician has. The group thought that the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a cap on donations made to political parties. This is because there is no guarantee that any given donation is being made in good faith and with the party in mind. It may be that donors are acting with ulterior motives. This could result in parties that are less favoured by donors being disadvantaged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be a cap on donations to politicians. The reason being that some political parties are better at raising money than others and so if there is no cap, the money could get distributed unevenly and this would lead to a corrupt system. In addition to this, we feel that the amount of money raised should not be a reflection on the quality of the party or the individual candidates as this would mean that a vote could be bought. If people wanted to make donations to a party or individual, they should do so in a legal manner but there is no reason why the amounts need to be so large. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a cap on the amount of money that can be raised from donations. This is because it is important to ensure that there is fairness and transparency in the way that political parties are funded. The cap would also prevent any unwanted money being taken into their accounts and also prevent any unwanted donations being made. It is also important to make donations legal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of capping the amount of money that politicians can raise from donations. This is because there is a possibility that the money will be used for purposes other than that which it was intended. Also, the amount of money that is raised may not be representative of the amount of support that the politician has. The group thought that the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a cap on donations made to political parties. This is because there is no guarantee that any given donation is being made in good faith and with the party in mind. It may be that donors are acting with ulterior motives. This could result in parties that are less favoured by donors being disadvantaged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be a cap on donations to politicians. The reason being that some political parties are better at raising money than others and so if there is no cap, the money could get distributed unevenly and this would lead to a corrupt system. In addition to this, we feel that the amount of money raised should not be a reflection on the quality of the party or the individual candidates as this would mean that a vote could be bought. If people wanted to make donations to a party or individual, they should do so in a legal manner but there is no reason why the amounts need to be so large. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001228.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001228.soc index 57730d35..62c69cc9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001228.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001228.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we should continue to recognise the King as head of state as this provides a consistent and globally recognised figurehead for the UK. The monarch and their family provide a unique brand and tradition which brings in revenue from tourism and enhances our international standing with a head of state to be proud of and a figure that the country can get behind and rally around. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group came to the consensus view that we should not continue to recognise the King as head of state because the concept of a monarchy is outdated, and all the King does is attend ceremonial functions and live a privileged lifestyle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy. They thought that it was a good thing for the country, and that it provided a good source of income for the country. They also thought that it was a good thing for the country to have a figurehead that was not involved in politics, and that the royal family were good for the country as a whole. They did not think that the royal family should have any power, and that the royal family should not be involved in politics in any way. They also thought that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their wealth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we should continue to recognise the King as head of state as this provides a consistent and globally recognised figurehead for the UK. The monarch and their family provide a unique brand and tradition which brings in revenue from tourism and enhances our international standing with a head of state to be proud of and a figure that the country can get behind and rally around. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not continue to recognise the King as head of state because the concept of a monarchy is outdated, and all the King does is attend ceremonial functions and live a privileged lifestyle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy. They thought that it was a good thing for the country, and that it provided a good source of income for the country. They also thought that it was a good thing for the country to have a figurehead that was not involved in politics, and that the royal family were good for the country as a whole. They did not think that the royal family should have any power, and that the royal family should not be involved in politics in any way. They also thought that the royal family should be more open and transparent about their wealth. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001229.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001229.soc index 1d6fc9d1..67683931 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001229.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001229.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. However, there was a strong view that this should not be a blanket ban and that the distance from the school should be taken into account. It was also agreed that this would be more effective if combined with a programme of education for children on the importance of healthy eating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are all in agreement that obesity in children is a big issue, and that the most common factor in child obesity is the amount of junk food that children eat. We all agree that a healthy diet for children is essential for them to grow into healthy adults, and that children need to be taught how to make good nutritional choices. We also agree that one of the biggest causes of children not eating healthy meals is the fact that fast food restaurants are all around, making it easy and convenient to get fast food instead of healthy meals. However, while we agree that banning fast food restaurants from operating near schools is a good idea, we feel that the focus should be on educating children about the long-term health implications of junk food, and to make healthier food options readily available to children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. The general consensus was that this would help reduce childhood obesity and also help children develop good dietary habits from a young age. However, the group also recognised that this could have a negative impact on people's livelihoods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fast food restaurants should not be allowed to operate within a two-mile radius of any school. The reason is that, while we do believe in personal freedom, the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-twenties. This means that children do not have the impulse control that adults do, thus they are more likely to choose fast food than a healthy option. Furthermore, fast food restaurants use psychological triggers such as the colour red and pictures of meat to get the attention of customers and induce hunger. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. However, there was a strong view that this should not be a blanket ban and that the distance from the school should be taken into account. It was also agreed that this would be more effective if combined with a programme of education for children on the importance of healthy eating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are all in agreement that obesity in children is a big issue, and that the most common factor in child obesity is the amount of junk food that children eat. We all agree that a healthy diet for children is essential for them to grow into healthy adults, and that children need to be taught how to make good nutritional choices. We also agree that one of the biggest causes of children not eating healthy meals is the fact that fast food restaurants are all around, making it easy and convenient to get fast food instead of healthy meals. However, while we agree that banning fast food restaurants from operating near schools is a good idea, we feel that the focus should be on educating children about the long-term health implications of junk food, and to make healthier food options readily available to children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. The general consensus was that this would help reduce childhood obesity and also help children develop good dietary habits from a young age. However, the group also recognised that this could have a negative impact on people's livelihoods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fast food restaurants should not be allowed to operate within a two-mile radius of any school. The reason is that, while we do believe in personal freedom, the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-twenties. This means that children do not have the impulse control that adults do, thus they are more likely to choose fast food than a healthy option. Furthermore, fast food restaurants use psychological triggers such as the colour red and pictures of meat to get the attention of customers and induce hunger. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001230.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001230.soc index 85243863..b79777b7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001230.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001230.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the proposition of increasing the tax on meat to discourage the consumption of meat may be a noble one, the tax system is an ineffective means of altering consumer behaviour. In addition, while there are ethical concerns with meat consumption, we believe that the problems with it lie at the corporate level, and thus, any efforts to solve the issue should be directed at the source. We would instead like to see an increase in regulations on the raising of livestock, and taxing the large companies that are profiting from exploiting the environment and animals for their own gain. In the meantime, however, there should be more information given to consumers on the provenance of meat, and more research should be done on the effectiveness of lab-grown meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group ultimately agrees that the existing economic landscape of the meat industry is unsustainable, and that increased taxation of meat products does not constitute an acceptable method of solving the environmental and animal exploitation problems of our society. Instead, in order to preserve the health of our planet and satisfy the increasingly eco-conscious general public, the government must pursue stricter regulation over livestock and corporate entities, particularly those which have a history of exploiting animals, consumers, or the environment for profit. Furthermore, the proposed (and possibly over-eager) implementation of laws and policies which dissuade the consumption of meat by means of taxation on meat products would displace the emphasis from those corporations whose day-to-day activities are the real issue - corporations which should be taxed more heavily, fined or even criminalised, so that the livestock and meat products they generate are no longer as attractive to consumers as they are now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be an increased tax on meat. The increased tax on meat will dissuade people from consuming meat. However, this is only the beginning, and we would like to see a larger focus on the corporations profiting from the meat industry. In order to achieve this, there needs to be increased regulation of the meat industry by the government, which will hopefully lead to more humane and sustainable conditions for the animals and for the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the proposition of increasing the tax on meat to discourage the consumption of meat may be a noble one, the tax system is an ineffective means of altering consumer behaviour. In addition, while there are ethical concerns with meat consumption, we believe that the problems with it lie at the corporate level, and thus, any efforts to solve the issue should be directed at the source. We would instead like to see an increase in regulations on the raising of livestock, and taxing the large companies that are profiting from exploiting the environment and animals for their own gain. In the meantime, however, there should be more information given to consumers on the provenance of meat, and more research should be done on the effectiveness of lab-grown meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group ultimately agrees that the existing economic landscape of the meat industry is unsustainable, and that increased taxation of meat products does not constitute an acceptable method of solving the environmental and animal exploitation problems of our society. Instead, in order to preserve the health of our planet and satisfy the increasingly eco-conscious general public, the government must pursue stricter regulation over livestock and corporate entities, particularly those which have a history of exploiting animals, consumers, or the environment for profit. Furthermore, the proposed (and possibly over-eager) implementation of laws and policies which dissuade the consumption of meat by means of taxation on meat products would displace the emphasis from those corporations whose day-to-day activities are the real issue - corporations which should be taxed more heavily, fined or even criminalised, so that the livestock and meat products they generate are no longer as attractive to consumers as they are now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be an increased tax on meat. The increased tax on meat will dissuade people from consuming meat. However, this is only the beginning, and we would like to see a larger focus on the corporations profiting from the meat industry. In order to achieve this, there needs to be increased regulation of the meat industry by the government, which will hopefully lead to more humane and sustainable conditions for the animals and for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001231.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001231.soc index 95ce6d2a..ea81612d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001231.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001231.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. The group felt that it should also make efforts to improve other forms of transport, such as cycling, in order to reduce congestion and pollution and improve reliability. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in general in favour of improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. The group felt that it should also make efforts to improve other forms of public transport, for example creating more cycle lanes and improving pedestrian walkways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There was a general feeling amongst the group that the UK should put more effort into improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. The group felt that it should also make efforts to improve other forms of transport, such as cycling, in order to reduce congestion and pollution and improve reliability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in general in favour of improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. The group felt that it should also make efforts to improve other forms of public transport, for example creating more cycle lanes and improving pedestrian walkways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There was a general feeling amongst the group that the UK should put more effort into improving public transport in urban areas. This is because it would reduce congestion, reduce pollution and provide a more reliable way to travel. However, the group also recognised that this would be expensive, and that the government may have other priorities for their spending. The group also recognised that the current public transport system is very good in some areas, but not in others. The group felt that the government should focus their efforts on improving public transport in the areas where it is currently the worst. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001232.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001232.soc index 828e9b44..1d03cf0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001232.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001232.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a cap on the amount of money that politicians can raise from donations. This is because the amount of money raised may not be representative of the amount of support that the politician has. Also, the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. The group thought that the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a cap on the amount of money that a politician can raise from donations because it would not be fair to allow one political party an unfair advantage over the other political parties, there needs to be a level playing field for all of the political parties. The amount raised by a politician may be indicative of the number of donors that support the politician, but it does not necessarily mean that it is representative of the amount of support from the electorate, this is because a politician can easily get donors from the businesses he or she favours. There is also a possibility that the donation is made with an expectation that the politician will vote in favour of a business project, which he or she may not want to do. To achieve a balanced and neutral evaluation of the question presented the group reflected on the whole debate from start to finish. The group thought that the group discussion would have benefitted from more input from all of the participants (not just the participants who were against having a cap). The group also thought that participants did not spend enough time on the content and substance of the question, rather they spent a good deal of the allotted time on the format and setting up of the debate, they spent time on whether there should be a -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of capping the amount of money that politicians can raise from donations. This is because there is a possibility that the money will be used for purposes other than that which it was intended. Also, the amount of money that is raised may not be representative of the amount of support that the politician has. The group thought that the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. The group thought that it is very important that there are clear rules and regulations about the amount of money that can be donated, and the frequency with which donations can be made. The group thought that this would ensure that there is no 'drip-feeding' of donations, and would provide transparency about the amount of money that is being donated to politicians. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of capping the amount of money that politicians can raise from donations. This is because there is a possibility that the money will be used for purposes other than that which it was intended. Also, the amount of money that is raised may not be representative of the amount of support that the politician has. The group thought that the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. In addition, the group was concerned about that the politician may be skewed by the wealthiest of donors. If there is cap on the amount that politicians can raise from donations, it may help to ensure that all donations are collected in a systematic and legal manner. It may help to provide the much needed transparency and ensure a fairer distribution of funds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a cap on the amount of money that politicians can raise from donations. This is because the amount of money raised may not be representative of the amount of support that the politician has. Also, the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. The group thought that the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a cap on the amount of money that a politician can raise from donations because it would not be fair to allow one political party an unfair advantage over the other political parties, there needs to be a level playing field for all of the political parties. The amount raised by a politician may be indicative of the number of donors that support the politician, but it does not necessarily mean that it is representative of the amount of support from the electorate, this is because a politician can easily get donors from the businesses he or she favours. There is also a possibility that the donation is made with an expectation that the politician will vote in favour of a business project, which he or she may not want to do. To achieve a balanced and neutral evaluation of the question presented the group reflected on the whole debate from start to finish. The group thought that the group discussion would have benefitted from more input from all of the participants (not just the participants who were against having a cap). The group also thought that participants did not spend enough time on the content and substance of the question, rather they spent a good deal of the allotted time on the format and setting up of the debate, they spent time on whether there should be a +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of capping the amount of money that politicians can raise from donations. This is because there is a possibility that the money will be used for purposes other than that which it was intended. Also, the amount of money that is raised may not be representative of the amount of support that the politician has. The group thought that the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. The group thought that it is very important that there are clear rules and regulations about the amount of money that can be donated, and the frequency with which donations can be made. The group thought that this would ensure that there is no 'drip-feeding' of donations, and would provide transparency about the amount of money that is being donated to politicians. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of capping the amount of money that politicians can raise from donations. This is because there is a possibility that the money will be used for purposes other than that which it was intended. Also, the amount of money that is raised may not be representative of the amount of support that the politician has. The group thought that the amount of money that is raised may be representative of the wealth of the donors rather than the popularity of the politician. In addition, the group was concerned about that the politician may be skewed by the wealthiest of donors. If there is cap on the amount that politicians can raise from donations, it may help to ensure that all donations are collected in a systematic and legal manner. It may help to provide the much needed transparency and ensure a fairer distribution of funds. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001233.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001233.soc index d87904a4..9979854b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001233.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001233.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. Discussion questions and activities: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In general, the group were in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. In particular, it was felt that they could help to build relationships in commonwealth countries. It was acknowledged that the relationship between the monarchy and colonialism remains a contested issue, and that this should be further discussed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants was in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. However, it was also recognised that the Royal Family could be seen as a symbol of colonialism, and that it was important to remember the impact that colonialism has had on the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. Discussion questions and activities: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group were in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. In particular, it was felt that they could help to build relationships in commonwealth countries. It was acknowledged that the relationship between the monarchy and colonialism remains a contested issue, and that this should be further discussed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants was in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy, but felt that it was important that the King remained apolitical. It was felt that the monarchy was an important part of our history and traditions, and that the Royal Family brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also felt that it was important to have a head of state who was not affiliated to any political party, and that the King could act as a unifying force for the country. It was also felt that the Royal Family acted as an important link to other countries and could help to strengthen the UK's relationships with other countries. However, it was also recognised that the Royal Family could be seen as a symbol of colonialism, and that it was important to remember the impact that colonialism has had on the world. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001234.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001234.soc index b201aca7..236f5787 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001234.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001234.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the consensus opinion that we should not ban fast food restaurants from operating near schools, but we should make sure that children are well-informed about nutrition and healthy choices. We should make sure that these businesses include healthy food options and that these options are made prominently visible. We should also make sure that businesses actively promote nutritionally healthy options to children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We all agree that childhood obesity is a significant problem in the UK. While not one single factor may be to blame, it is clear that bad food choices play a key role in causing obesity and future health problems. Obesity also leads to reduced quality of life, meaning that it's crucial to find a way to combat it. While our opinions vary on whether banning fast food restaurants from operating near schools is the best way forward, we do agree that children should be educated about the health and long term implications of a poor diet. We also believe that making healthier food options readily available to children in schools is another important factor in fighting obesity. Therefore, our ultimate position is that fast food restaurants should not be banned from operating near schools, but more effort should go into educating children about the consequences of unhealthy eating habits and encouraging them to make healthier food choices. To aid this goal, we encourage everyone to take steps in improving their own nutritional education and making health food choices, as children will always model their behaviour on that of adults. This is the best way we can reduce obesity in our society, leading to a healthier, happier nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be educated about the importance of healthy eating. The health consequences of obesity in children should be made clear and the importance of making healthy food choices stressed. Fast food restaurants should not be banned from operating near schools. Instead, they should be encouraged to provide healthy food options, and to promote these options. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that obesity in children is a big issue, and that the most common factor in child obesity is the amount of junk food that children eat. We all agree that a healthy diet for children is essential for them to grow into healthy adults, and that children need to be taught how to make good nutritional choices. We also agree that one of the biggest causes of children not eating healthy meals is the fact that fast food restaurants are all around, making it easy and convenient to get fast food instead of healthy meals. However, while we agree that banning fast food restaurants from operating near schools is a good idea, we feel that the focus should be on educating children about the long-term health implications of junk food, and to make healthier food options readily available to children. We also feel that the best way to tackle the problem is to educate parents and guardians on nutrition and healthy choices, and to make it easier for them to prepare healthy meals by providing them with recipes and nutritional information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the consensus opinion that we should not ban fast food restaurants from operating near schools, but we should make sure that children are well-informed about nutrition and healthy choices. We should make sure that these businesses include healthy food options and that these options are made prominently visible. We should also make sure that businesses actively promote nutritionally healthy options to children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We all agree that childhood obesity is a significant problem in the UK. While not one single factor may be to blame, it is clear that bad food choices play a key role in causing obesity and future health problems. Obesity also leads to reduced quality of life, meaning that it's crucial to find a way to combat it. While our opinions vary on whether banning fast food restaurants from operating near schools is the best way forward, we do agree that children should be educated about the health and long term implications of a poor diet. We also believe that making healthier food options readily available to children in schools is another important factor in fighting obesity. Therefore, our ultimate position is that fast food restaurants should not be banned from operating near schools, but more effort should go into educating children about the consequences of unhealthy eating habits and encouraging them to make healthier food choices. To aid this goal, we encourage everyone to take steps in improving their own nutritional education and making health food choices, as children will always model their behaviour on that of adults. This is the best way we can reduce obesity in our society, leading to a healthier, happier nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be educated about the importance of healthy eating. The health consequences of obesity in children should be made clear and the importance of making healthy food choices stressed. Fast food restaurants should not be banned from operating near schools. Instead, they should be encouraged to provide healthy food options, and to promote these options. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that obesity in children is a big issue, and that the most common factor in child obesity is the amount of junk food that children eat. We all agree that a healthy diet for children is essential for them to grow into healthy adults, and that children need to be taught how to make good nutritional choices. We also agree that one of the biggest causes of children not eating healthy meals is the fact that fast food restaurants are all around, making it easy and convenient to get fast food instead of healthy meals. However, while we agree that banning fast food restaurants from operating near schools is a good idea, we feel that the focus should be on educating children about the long-term health implications of junk food, and to make healthier food options readily available to children. We also feel that the best way to tackle the problem is to educate parents and guardians on nutrition and healthy choices, and to make it easier for them to prepare healthy meals by providing them with recipes and nutritional information. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001235.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001235.soc index f340a4b1..8d6a451a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001235.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001235.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although increasing taxes on property owners would increase government revenue, it would also have the potential to reduce housing demand and property ownership. There are better ways to raise funds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not increase taxes on property owners. We feel that it is unfair to increase taxes on people who have already purchased their property. It is also unfair to increase taxes on people who are just about to purchase their property. It will be very difficult for them to pay the increased taxes. It is also unfair to increase taxes on people who have worked hard all their lives to purchase their property. We feel that there are much better ways to raise funds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Property owners should not have their taxes increased. This is because it is unfair to retrospectively increase taxes, and also because it will lead to an increase in homelessness. The economy will also be negatively affected by reduced spending. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the overall opinion of the group was that we shouldn't increase taxes on property owners, as this would increase financial pressure on a huge number of people in the country, especially people who have a mortgage. Although the economy is not in a great state, the group felt that the potential financial problems of increasing property taxes far outweigh any potential economic benefits that might come about. It was also felt that property taxes are a tax that disproportionately affect the less wealthy, as the rich are more likely to have other forms of investment, so it would be unfair to increase taxes for those who have already invested in property. It was also noted that increasing property taxes would lead to a reduction in house prices, which could actually make it more difficult for people to get on the property ladder, because people will struggle to raise enough money for a deposit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although increasing taxes on property owners would increase government revenue, it would also have the potential to reduce housing demand and property ownership. There are better ways to raise funds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not increase taxes on property owners. We feel that it is unfair to increase taxes on people who have already purchased their property. It is also unfair to increase taxes on people who are just about to purchase their property. It will be very difficult for them to pay the increased taxes. It is also unfair to increase taxes on people who have worked hard all their lives to purchase their property. We feel that there are much better ways to raise funds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Property owners should not have their taxes increased. This is because it is unfair to retrospectively increase taxes, and also because it will lead to an increase in homelessness. The economy will also be negatively affected by reduced spending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the overall opinion of the group was that we shouldn't increase taxes on property owners, as this would increase financial pressure on a huge number of people in the country, especially people who have a mortgage. Although the economy is not in a great state, the group felt that the potential financial problems of increasing property taxes far outweigh any potential economic benefits that might come about. It was also felt that property taxes are a tax that disproportionately affect the less wealthy, as the rich are more likely to have other forms of investment, so it would be unfair to increase taxes for those who have already invested in property. It was also noted that increasing property taxes would lead to a reduction in house prices, which could actually make it more difficult for people to get on the property ladder, because people will struggle to raise enough money for a deposit. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001236.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001236.soc index 59168663..6ccac094 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001236.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001236.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although plastic is a non-biodegradable material and can have a long lasting negative effect on the environment, we should not ban it entirely as it has many beneficial uses, but we should find alternative solutions for these uses that don't rely on plastic and also look for ways to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in use today, as this is often very excessive and excessive wastage. We should also promote recycling of plastic wherever possible and educate people on how to reduce the amount of plastic waste they produce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of moving away from plastics but not an outright ban as this would cause more problems than it would solve. Recycling of plastics is also not a long-term solution due to the inability of recycling to prevent the mass amount of microplastics being released into the environment. Recycling can, however, reduce the demand for raw materials for making plastics, reducing the use of finite resources. The group concluded that there is no one solution to this problem, but instead that a multi-faceted approach is necessary in order to reduce the negative effects of plastics on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of reducing the amount of plastic packaging in use, but not an outright ban. They felt that a ban would be difficult to enforce and would cause more problems than it would solve. They felt that the best way to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in use would be to promote recycling and to educate people on the importance of recycling and the impact of plastic on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. Plastic is a very useful material that is used in many different ways. It is also very cheap to produce and is very lightweight, making it very easy to transport. Plastic packaging is also very useful in keeping food fresh for longer, as well as keeping it safe from contamination. However, plastic is very bad for the environment, as it takes a very long time to break down and is very difficult to recycle. Plastic also ends up in our oceans, where it can harm marine life. We should try to reduce the amount of plastic packaging we use, and look for alternatives where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although plastic is a non-biodegradable material and can have a long lasting negative effect on the environment, we should not ban it entirely as it has many beneficial uses, but we should find alternative solutions for these uses that don't rely on plastic and also look for ways to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in use today, as this is often very excessive and excessive wastage. We should also promote recycling of plastic wherever possible and educate people on how to reduce the amount of plastic waste they produce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of moving away from plastics but not an outright ban as this would cause more problems than it would solve. Recycling of plastics is also not a long-term solution due to the inability of recycling to prevent the mass amount of microplastics being released into the environment. Recycling can, however, reduce the demand for raw materials for making plastics, reducing the use of finite resources. The group concluded that there is no one solution to this problem, but instead that a multi-faceted approach is necessary in order to reduce the negative effects of plastics on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing the amount of plastic packaging in use, but not an outright ban. They felt that a ban would be difficult to enforce and would cause more problems than it would solve. They felt that the best way to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in use would be to promote recycling and to educate people on the importance of recycling and the impact of plastic on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. Plastic is a very useful material that is used in many different ways. It is also very cheap to produce and is very lightweight, making it very easy to transport. Plastic packaging is also very useful in keeping food fresh for longer, as well as keeping it safe from contamination. However, plastic is very bad for the environment, as it takes a very long time to break down and is very difficult to recycle. Plastic also ends up in our oceans, where it can harm marine life. We should try to reduce the amount of plastic packaging we use, and look for alternatives where possible. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001237.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001237.soc index b01da05d..96f21dca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001237.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001237.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should subsidise childcare. The UK government already subsidises childcare for certain people, but we think that it should be expanded to cover all non-taxpayers and basic rate taxpayers. This would be an effective way of reducing the claimant count and getting more people into full-time work, which will have a net positive impact on the economy and on the wellbeing of parents. High-quality childcare will enable children to hone their skills in various things ready for school, such as reading and mathematics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government should subsidise childcare. The UK government currently does subsidise childcare at the rate of 80% of the money spent is returned to you within a universal credit claim. The government should continue to do so, and if possible (where budget allows) it should increase the amount due to inflation. It is our opinion that the amount the government subsidises should be increased with inflation. The government should subsidise more cost in the early years foundation stages due to the dramatic expense parents pay out to go back to work and allow their children to go to nursery, when children go to school (due to this being a legal requirement) they do not have to pay for this bar from extra charges. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK government should subsidise childcare for families with a low-income. This will reduce the strain of the low-income families who struggle to raise their children. The government should also increase the amount of subsidised childcare they offer to increase the income of these families, and hopefully increase their standard of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK government should subsidise childcare, because it's the right thing to do. Subsidised childcare will give a great start in life to many children across the UK and it will be a significant step in the right direction to reducing the claimant count. The government should expand the eligibility criteria and provide greater subsidies to people on the basic rate of income tax. Subsidising childcare would enable parents to work without the hassle of finding the money to afford childcare, and enable parents to earn more money, and with more money they can provide more to their children and save money for when they become a adult. It would also mean parents would have a break and a bit of freedom without their children for a few hours a day or a few days a week. It would also allow children to interact with other children of a similar age to develop social skills, that will be beneficial for their future. It would allow the child to learn in a structured environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should subsidise childcare. The UK government already subsidises childcare for certain people, but we think that it should be expanded to cover all non-taxpayers and basic rate taxpayers. This would be an effective way of reducing the claimant count and getting more people into full-time work, which will have a net positive impact on the economy and on the wellbeing of parents. High-quality childcare will enable children to hone their skills in various things ready for school, such as reading and mathematics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government should subsidise childcare. The UK government currently does subsidise childcare at the rate of 80% of the money spent is returned to you within a universal credit claim. The government should continue to do so, and if possible (where budget allows) it should increase the amount due to inflation. It is our opinion that the amount the government subsidises should be increased with inflation. The government should subsidise more cost in the early years foundation stages due to the dramatic expense parents pay out to go back to work and allow their children to go to nursery, when children go to school (due to this being a legal requirement) they do not have to pay for this bar from extra charges. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK government should subsidise childcare for families with a low-income. This will reduce the strain of the low-income families who struggle to raise their children. The government should also increase the amount of subsidised childcare they offer to increase the income of these families, and hopefully increase their standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK government should subsidise childcare, because it's the right thing to do. Subsidised childcare will give a great start in life to many children across the UK and it will be a significant step in the right direction to reducing the claimant count. The government should expand the eligibility criteria and provide greater subsidies to people on the basic rate of income tax. Subsidising childcare would enable parents to work without the hassle of finding the money to afford childcare, and enable parents to earn more money, and with more money they can provide more to their children and save money for when they become a adult. It would also mean parents would have a break and a bit of freedom without their children for a few hours a day or a few days a week. It would also allow children to interact with other children of a similar age to develop social skills, that will be beneficial for their future. It would allow the child to learn in a structured environment. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001238.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001238.soc index feaf2f5a..bf324e8b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001238.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001238.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the minimum wage is an important factor in any economic system and we agree that in most cases, it is necessary to maintain it at a decent level in order to ensure that workers are not being exploited. However, we feel that there are situations where lowering the minimum wage may be justified. If an economy is struggling, it may be necessary to reduce the minimum wage in order to increase the amount of jobs available, since it will become cheaper to employ workers. However, this should only be done as a temporary measure, since the long term effects of reduced pay may be damaging to workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the minimum wage should not be lowered. It would lead to exploitation of workers and an increase in the cost of living. There are alternative ways to increase the availability of jobs such as hybrid working and making it easier for small businesses to operate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Wage flexibility is critical in an efficient labour market, and can help improve job availability. The trade-off, however, is that it will also lead to increased pay inequality, so we need to carefully balance these two competing goals when designing policy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. We think this is a bad idea as it would increase the pay inequality and decrease the quality of life of workers on minimum wage. We think the current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. In fact, minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the minimum wage is an important factor in any economic system and we agree that in most cases, it is necessary to maintain it at a decent level in order to ensure that workers are not being exploited. However, we feel that there are situations where lowering the minimum wage may be justified. If an economy is struggling, it may be necessary to reduce the minimum wage in order to increase the amount of jobs available, since it will become cheaper to employ workers. However, this should only be done as a temporary measure, since the long term effects of reduced pay may be damaging to workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the minimum wage should not be lowered. It would lead to exploitation of workers and an increase in the cost of living. There are alternative ways to increase the availability of jobs such as hybrid working and making it easier for small businesses to operate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Wage flexibility is critical in an efficient labour market, and can help improve job availability. The trade-off, however, is that it will also lead to increased pay inequality, so we need to carefully balance these two competing goals when designing policy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. We think this is a bad idea as it would increase the pay inequality and decrease the quality of life of workers on minimum wage. We think the current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. In fact, minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001239.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001239.soc index 26822195..c2aff9e5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001239.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001239.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that climate change is a problem and we need to be more cautious of our impact on the environment. But, we believe that is it irresponsible to talk about climate change in terms of 'catastrophe' or 'crisis'. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The vast majority of scientists agree that the world is warming up, and we humans are largely to blame. In the past we have had natural cycles of warming and cooling, but recently the warming cycle has been stronger and more destructive. Scientists agree that this is not good news. However, it is very difficult to predict the future, or how the world will cope with the changes. The world will not end, but we may have to move to other places, and we will have to live differently. It will be expensive and difficult, but it is not hopeless. It is difficult to know the best way to respond, but it is important to make a start. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. There is scientific evidence that the climate is changing and that this is mostly caused by humans. However, the word crisis is very strong and could be argued to be chosen by journalists to create fear and thus sell newspapers. The word crisis is also very emotive and it could be argued that it is difficult to tell if we are in the midst of a crisis as we have been going through a warming stage for centuries, and may soon hit a 'cooling' stage. However, it would be naive to think that with the amount of for instance cars on the road, congestion, increased human population, that climate change is not occurring and the air becoming of worse quality than say 100 years ago. We should all do our best to reduce our carbon footprint and live in a more sustainable way, but we should not be alarmed by what we see as climate change hysteria which goes beyond the science. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed by governments and industries. However, we are not convinced that the problem is as serious as some activists are claiming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that climate change is a problem and we need to be more cautious of our impact on the environment. But, we believe that is it irresponsible to talk about climate change in terms of 'catastrophe' or 'crisis'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The vast majority of scientists agree that the world is warming up, and we humans are largely to blame. In the past we have had natural cycles of warming and cooling, but recently the warming cycle has been stronger and more destructive. Scientists agree that this is not good news. However, it is very difficult to predict the future, or how the world will cope with the changes. The world will not end, but we may have to move to other places, and we will have to live differently. It will be expensive and difficult, but it is not hopeless. It is difficult to know the best way to respond, but it is important to make a start. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. There is scientific evidence that the climate is changing and that this is mostly caused by humans. However, the word crisis is very strong and could be argued to be chosen by journalists to create fear and thus sell newspapers. The word crisis is also very emotive and it could be argued that it is difficult to tell if we are in the midst of a crisis as we have been going through a warming stage for centuries, and may soon hit a 'cooling' stage. However, it would be naive to think that with the amount of for instance cars on the road, congestion, increased human population, that climate change is not occurring and the air becoming of worse quality than say 100 years ago. We should all do our best to reduce our carbon footprint and live in a more sustainable way, but we should not be alarmed by what we see as climate change hysteria which goes beyond the science. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed by governments and industries. However, we are not convinced that the problem is as serious as some activists are claiming. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001240.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001240.soc index 86bf6b1b..3994e557 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001240.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001240.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income, but with some caveats. The group felt that a basic income would be a good idea if it was implemented in a way that would incentivise people to work, and if it was implemented in a way that would be fair to all citizens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group came to the consensus view that the government should provide a basic income to all citizens. They also stated that this should be dependent on skill level, as well as a guaranteed job creation by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a basic income should be provided by the government to all citizens, but that this income should be provided based on skill levels. This means that it would be provided on a sliding scale based on a number of different factors, including age, employment status, income levels, and skills. It is our view that a basic income could work in this country, and that it would help to drive the economy by creating a basic level of security for all citizens. It would allow people to make better decisions about their future, to spend money on things that are important to them, and to use their skills and talents to add to their basic income, in order to gain greater benefits and financial freedom. It would be fair and allow all citizens to have a more equal playing field, where people can be judged on the value of their skills and knowledge rather than by their economic status. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a basic income for all citizens. However, this was dependent on the income rate, and that it should be dependent on skill level. The group also felt that the government should create and provide jobs to people for basic life to sustain. This also will get the economy moving and generate more buying power. The group also felt that the basic income should be provided to all citizens, but it should be dependent on skill level. Finally, the group felt that the government should provide a basic income to all citizens because it provides a safety and security that many can currently not achieve in this economic climate. There is also the issue with AI and robotics that can now do many of the jobs people used to do, which means that people are being pushed out of their careers and job opportunities. Finally, having a basic income would allow for all people (regardless of background) to be able to pursue their specialties/talents/interests, and create a more equal society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income, but with some caveats. The group felt that a basic income would be a good idea if it was implemented in a way that would incentivise people to work, and if it was implemented in a way that would be fair to all citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group came to the consensus view that the government should provide a basic income to all citizens. They also stated that this should be dependent on skill level, as well as a guaranteed job creation by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a basic income should be provided by the government to all citizens, but that this income should be provided based on skill levels. This means that it would be provided on a sliding scale based on a number of different factors, including age, employment status, income levels, and skills. It is our view that a basic income could work in this country, and that it would help to drive the economy by creating a basic level of security for all citizens. It would allow people to make better decisions about their future, to spend money on things that are important to them, and to use their skills and talents to add to their basic income, in order to gain greater benefits and financial freedom. It would be fair and allow all citizens to have a more equal playing field, where people can be judged on the value of their skills and knowledge rather than by their economic status. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a basic income for all citizens. However, this was dependent on the income rate, and that it should be dependent on skill level. The group also felt that the government should create and provide jobs to people for basic life to sustain. This also will get the economy moving and generate more buying power. The group also felt that the basic income should be provided to all citizens, but it should be dependent on skill level. Finally, the group felt that the government should provide a basic income to all citizens because it provides a safety and security that many can currently not achieve in this economic climate. There is also the issue with AI and robotics that can now do many of the jobs people used to do, which means that people are being pushed out of their careers and job opportunities. Finally, having a basic income would allow for all people (regardless of background) to be able to pursue their specialties/talents/interests, and create a more equal society. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001241.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001241.soc index 5d651184..b85609ae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001241.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001241.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of setting a minimum price for alcohol. We argued that as long as the price is set low enough not to put people off drinking entirely, it could be an effective way of regulating consumption. People will still drink, but they will be less likely to get so drunk as they are buying a higher quality product. Also, a higher price could mean that people will think more carefully about their choices, for example, whether to drive home after drinking. The people that it would affect the most are those that drink to get drunk and who buy cheap, low quality alcohol. If you are paying a reasonable amount for alcohol, you are more likely to enjoy it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a minimum price set for alcohol by Government to help reduce the negative health consequences associated with alcohol and to further fund the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a minimum price for alcohol as it will help to reduce harm and also help fund the NHS. The minimum price should not be too high as this would alienate parts of the population and lead to a black market. It should be set high enough to stop very cheap alcohol that can be easily abused, is of low quality or can be detrimental to health relative to higher priced brands. It should be set in a way that it is not too hard to implement, for example by setting a minimum price per unit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a minimum price for alcohol. This is because it is too cheap and easily accessible for people to buy alcohol, which can lead to alcohol abuse and health problems. The minimum price should not be too high though, as this would alienate people and lead to a black market. The minimum price should be set at a level that is just high enough to deter people from buying the very cheapest alcohol, but not so high that it becomes unaffordable for most people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of setting a minimum price for alcohol. We argued that as long as the price is set low enough not to put people off drinking entirely, it could be an effective way of regulating consumption. People will still drink, but they will be less likely to get so drunk as they are buying a higher quality product. Also, a higher price could mean that people will think more carefully about their choices, for example, whether to drive home after drinking. The people that it would affect the most are those that drink to get drunk and who buy cheap, low quality alcohol. If you are paying a reasonable amount for alcohol, you are more likely to enjoy it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a minimum price set for alcohol by Government to help reduce the negative health consequences associated with alcohol and to further fund the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a minimum price for alcohol as it will help to reduce harm and also help fund the NHS. The minimum price should not be too high as this would alienate parts of the population and lead to a black market. It should be set high enough to stop very cheap alcohol that can be easily abused, is of low quality or can be detrimental to health relative to higher priced brands. It should be set in a way that it is not too hard to implement, for example by setting a minimum price per unit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a minimum price for alcohol. This is because it is too cheap and easily accessible for people to buy alcohol, which can lead to alcohol abuse and health problems. The minimum price should not be too high though, as this would alienate people and lead to a black market. The minimum price should be set at a level that is just high enough to deter people from buying the very cheapest alcohol, but not so high that it becomes unaffordable for most people. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001242.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001242.soc index 079c7f03..0a18f614 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001242.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001242.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. We think this is a bad idea as it would increase the pay inequality and decrease the quality of life of workers on minimum wage. We think the current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. We think minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. We think this is a bad idea as it would increase the pay inequality and decrease the quality of life of workers on minimum wage. We think the current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. In fact, minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. The current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. In fact, minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. A copy of the dialog (with names removed) that led to this final consensus opinion can be found here. The longest turn in the dialog is of length 2. In other words, the program is provably Turing-complete. A video of the program playing back the whole dialog, which led to the final consensus opinion, can be found here. The video lasts for 6 minutes and 41 seconds. The text equivalent can be found here. A video of the program playing back just the final consensus opinion can be found -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. We think this would be a bad idea as it would increase the pay inequality and decrease the quality of life of workers on minimum wage. We think the current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. In fact, minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. We think this is a bad idea as it would increase the pay inequality and decrease the quality of life of workers on minimum wage. We think the current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. We think minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. We think this is a bad idea as it would increase the pay inequality and decrease the quality of life of workers on minimum wage. We think the current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. In fact, minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. The current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. In fact, minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. A copy of the dialog (with names removed) that led to this final consensus opinion can be found here. The longest turn in the dialog is of length 2. In other words, the program is provably Turing-complete. A video of the program playing back the whole dialog, which led to the final consensus opinion, can be found here. The video lasts for 6 minutes and 41 seconds. The text equivalent can be found here. A video of the program playing back just the final consensus opinion can be found +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think the minimum wage should be lowered to make jobs more available. We think this would be a bad idea as it would increase the pay inequality and decrease the quality of life of workers on minimum wage. We think the current system has been shown to work pretty well, so we see no or little reason to change. Unemployment doesn't seem to be an issue (by historical standards). This could easily be abused by companies to heavily underpay workers and exploit them. In fact, minimum wage should be higher since it can help people afford more things, and companies should make it more easier for employees such as hybrid or remote working to save money on costs. Decreasing minimum wage will only make it unfair on people who are on minimum wage right now, as they're budgeting for their current income which is not even enough right now. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001243.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001243.soc index 1bd3c988..705336c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001243.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001243.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should provide a basic income to all citizens, and that this income should be provided on a sliding scale based on a number of different factors, including age, employment status, income levels, and skills. It is our view that a basic income could work in this country, and that it would help to drive the economy by creating a basic level of security for all citizens. It would allow people to make better decisions about their future, to spend money on things that are important to them, and to use their skills and talents to add to their basic income, in order to gain greater benefits and financial freedom. It would be fair and allow all citizens to have a more equal playing field, where people can be judged on the value of their skills and knowledge rather than by their economic status. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that a basic income should be provided by the government to all citizens. Every individual will receive the same basic income, which would allow for a basic standard of living to be provided to all regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, disability, age, employment status or skill level. It is our view that a basic income would work in this country, and that it would help to drive the economy by creating a basic level of security for all citizens. It would allow people to make better decisions about their future, to spend money on things that are important to them, and to use their skills and talents to add to their basic income, in order to gain greater benefits and financial freedom. It would be fair and allow all citizens to have a more equal playing field, where people can be judged on the value of their ideas, personalities, and characters rather than by their economic status. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A basic income should be provided by the government to all citizens, but that this income should be provided on a sliding scale based on a number of different factors, including age, employment status, income levels, and skills. It is our view that a basic income could work in this country, and that it would help to drive the economy by creating a basic level of security for all citizens. It would allow people to make better decisions about their future, to spend money on things that are important to them, and to use their skills and talents to add to their basic income, in order to gain greater benefits and financial freedom. It would be fair and allow all citizens to have a more equal playing field, where people can be judged on the value of their skills and knowledge rather than by their economic status. The group of participants were in agreement with the final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should provide a basic income to all citizens, and that this income should be provided on a sliding scale based on a number of different factors, including age, employment status, income levels, and skills. It is our view that a basic income could work in this country, and that it would help to drive the economy by creating a basic level of security for all citizens. It would allow people to make better decisions about their future, to spend money on things that are important to them, and to use their skills and talents to add to their basic income, in order to gain greater benefits and financial freedom. It would be fair and allow all citizens to have a more equal playing field, where people can be judged on the value of their skills and knowledge rather than by their economic status. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that a basic income should be provided by the government to all citizens. Every individual will receive the same basic income, which would allow for a basic standard of living to be provided to all regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, disability, age, employment status or skill level. It is our view that a basic income would work in this country, and that it would help to drive the economy by creating a basic level of security for all citizens. It would allow people to make better decisions about their future, to spend money on things that are important to them, and to use their skills and talents to add to their basic income, in order to gain greater benefits and financial freedom. It would be fair and allow all citizens to have a more equal playing field, where people can be judged on the value of their ideas, personalities, and characters rather than by their economic status. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A basic income should be provided by the government to all citizens, but that this income should be provided on a sliding scale based on a number of different factors, including age, employment status, income levels, and skills. It is our view that a basic income could work in this country, and that it would help to drive the economy by creating a basic level of security for all citizens. It would allow people to make better decisions about their future, to spend money on things that are important to them, and to use their skills and talents to add to their basic income, in order to gain greater benefits and financial freedom. It would be fair and allow all citizens to have a more equal playing field, where people can be judged on the value of their skills and knowledge rather than by their economic status. The group of participants were in agreement with the final consensus statement. 2: 2,4,1,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001244.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001244.soc index d7b86906..5f09edb8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001244.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001244.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We generally agree that there should be a minimum price for alcohol. The effects of setting one are not necessarily about making people pay more for a luxury; its aims are to make them think more about their drinking habits and be more selective about what they choose to drink. If people know they have to pay more for alcohol, they might pay more attention to the choices they are making. In particular, cheaper alcohol is known to be associated with increased rates of alcoholism and poor health. For this reason, we argue that by putting a minimum price on alcohol, we will reduce the rates of both diseases. The minimum price would have the most impact on those who buy alcohol to get drunk. As long as the price is set low enough not to alienate the more 'casual' drinker, it could be an effective way of targeting the types of drinkers most likely to cause harm to themselves or others. The most important thing here is that we avoid the idea of a minimum price increasing the prestige of drinking and instead create a society where people are aware of the high costs of alcohol both to themselves and the NHS, and they consciously drink for pleasure rather than trying to obliterate their problems for a short while. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a minimum price for alcohol. This would make it more difficult to get very drunk and would also lead to more careful consumption and possibly more enjoyment of alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of setting a minimum price for alcohol. We argued that as long as the price is set low enough not to put people off drinking entirely, it could be an effective way of regulating consumption. People will still drink, but they will be less likely to get so drunk as they are buying a higher quality product. Also, a higher price could mean that people will think more carefully about their choices, for example, whether to drive home after drinking. The people that it would affect the most are those that drink to get drunk and who buy cheap, low quality alcohol. If you are paying a reasonable amount for alcohol, you are more likely to enjoy it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of setting a minimum price for alcohol. We argued that as long as the price is set low enough not to put people off drinking entirely, it could be an effective way of regulating consumption. People will still drink, but they will be less likely to get so drunk as they are buying a higher quality product. It might even help some people who tend to go overboard when they drink. The people that it would affect the most are those that drink to get drunk and who buy cheap, low quality alcohol. If you are paying a reasonable amount for alcohol, you are more likely to enjoy it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We generally agree that there should be a minimum price for alcohol. The effects of setting one are not necessarily about making people pay more for a luxury; its aims are to make them think more about their drinking habits and be more selective about what they choose to drink. If people know they have to pay more for alcohol, they might pay more attention to the choices they are making. In particular, cheaper alcohol is known to be associated with increased rates of alcoholism and poor health. For this reason, we argue that by putting a minimum price on alcohol, we will reduce the rates of both diseases. The minimum price would have the most impact on those who buy alcohol to get drunk. As long as the price is set low enough not to alienate the more 'casual' drinker, it could be an effective way of targeting the types of drinkers most likely to cause harm to themselves or others. The most important thing here is that we avoid the idea of a minimum price increasing the prestige of drinking and instead create a society where people are aware of the high costs of alcohol both to themselves and the NHS, and they consciously drink for pleasure rather than trying to obliterate their problems for a short while. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a minimum price for alcohol. This would make it more difficult to get very drunk and would also lead to more careful consumption and possibly more enjoyment of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of setting a minimum price for alcohol. We argued that as long as the price is set low enough not to put people off drinking entirely, it could be an effective way of regulating consumption. People will still drink, but they will be less likely to get so drunk as they are buying a higher quality product. Also, a higher price could mean that people will think more carefully about their choices, for example, whether to drive home after drinking. The people that it would affect the most are those that drink to get drunk and who buy cheap, low quality alcohol. If you are paying a reasonable amount for alcohol, you are more likely to enjoy it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of setting a minimum price for alcohol. We argued that as long as the price is set low enough not to put people off drinking entirely, it could be an effective way of regulating consumption. People will still drink, but they will be less likely to get so drunk as they are buying a higher quality product. It might even help some people who tend to go overboard when they drink. The people that it would affect the most are those that drink to get drunk and who buy cheap, low quality alcohol. If you are paying a reasonable amount for alcohol, you are more likely to enjoy it. 3: 1,4,3,2 2: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001245.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001245.soc index 1139f1f8..be3d42a9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001245.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001245.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, we believe that the UN is a good thing and that it is good to help poor countries. However, there are a lot of countries that are struggling to feed their population. We should make sure that nobody goes hungry. The UN should make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it most. We should help poor countries by assisting them with financial assistance. The contribution can be made using the amount of tax that is deducted each month from the tax-payers. This would significantly help them with basic opportunities like housing, proper nutrition and basic education. However, some people believe we should first make sure that everyone in our own country is receiving a decent living standard. I may be selfish, but charity begins at home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are a lot of countries that are struggling to feed their population. We should make sure that nobody goes hungry. The UN should make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it most. We should help poor countries by assisting them with financial assistance. The contribution can be made using the amount of tax that is deducted each month from the tax-payers. This would significantly help them with basic opportunities like housing, proper nutrition and basic education. However, we feel that we should address our own domestic financial concerns first. It's not justifiable to see our own homeless people and poorer people struggling in our country but send huge amounts of money off to foreign countries. We feel that it would be more useful to spend the money on our own people first. We need to be responsible for our own people first, before we start looking after other countries. Charity begins at home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are a lot of countries that are struggling to feed their population. We should make sure that nobody goes hungry. The UN should make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it most. In a financially stable economic situation, yes we should, but at present our own financial problems need to be addressed. It's not justifiable to see our own homeless people and poorer people struggling in our country but send huge amounts of money off to foreign countries. I may be selfish, but charity begins at home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we believe that the UN is a good thing and that it is good to help poor countries. However, there are a lot of countries that are struggling to feed their population. We should make sure that nobody goes hungry. The UN should make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it most. We should help poor countries by assisting them with financial assistance. The contribution can be made using the amount of tax that is deducted each month from the tax-payers. This would significantly help them with basic opportunities like housing, proper nutrition and basic education. However, some people believe we should first make sure that everyone in our own country is receiving equal opportunities before sending money abroad to help other countries. They believe it is important to help our own country before helping others. This project was designed by Genevieve Morrow, Genevieve Ferguson and Alicia Berrie. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, we believe that the UN is a good thing and that it is good to help poor countries. However, there are a lot of countries that are struggling to feed their population. We should make sure that nobody goes hungry. The UN should make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it most. We should help poor countries by assisting them with financial assistance. The contribution can be made using the amount of tax that is deducted each month from the tax-payers. This would significantly help them with basic opportunities like housing, proper nutrition and basic education. However, some people believe we should first make sure that everyone in our own country is receiving a decent living standard. I may be selfish, but charity begins at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are a lot of countries that are struggling to feed their population. We should make sure that nobody goes hungry. The UN should make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it most. We should help poor countries by assisting them with financial assistance. The contribution can be made using the amount of tax that is deducted each month from the tax-payers. This would significantly help them with basic opportunities like housing, proper nutrition and basic education. However, we feel that we should address our own domestic financial concerns first. It's not justifiable to see our own homeless people and poorer people struggling in our country but send huge amounts of money off to foreign countries. We feel that it would be more useful to spend the money on our own people first. We need to be responsible for our own people first, before we start looking after other countries. Charity begins at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are a lot of countries that are struggling to feed their population. We should make sure that nobody goes hungry. The UN should make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it most. In a financially stable economic situation, yes we should, but at present our own financial problems need to be addressed. It's not justifiable to see our own homeless people and poorer people struggling in our country but send huge amounts of money off to foreign countries. I may be selfish, but charity begins at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we believe that the UN is a good thing and that it is good to help poor countries. However, there are a lot of countries that are struggling to feed their population. We should make sure that nobody goes hungry. The UN should make sure that the aid goes to the people who need it most. We should help poor countries by assisting them with financial assistance. The contribution can be made using the amount of tax that is deducted each month from the tax-payers. This would significantly help them with basic opportunities like housing, proper nutrition and basic education. However, some people believe we should first make sure that everyone in our own country is receiving equal opportunities before sending money abroad to help other countries. They believe it is important to help our own country before helping others. This project was designed by Genevieve Morrow, Genevieve Ferguson and Alicia Berrie. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001246.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001246.soc index 606f09d3..5d9a2891 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001246.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001246.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should not ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, because it will not solve the problem. The government should instead take action to help improve working conditions in these countries and give these workers a fair wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should force companies that operate in the United Kingdom to pay their workers a decent wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, however, the issue is more complex than that and it is not as simple as banning the sale of these products. In reality, it would be very difficult to enforce and monitor such a ban and companies would simply sell their products to other countries. It is also difficult to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to increase standards of production. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is unfair that workers in developing countries are exploited to produce goods that are imported into the United Kingdom. However, it is difficult to define what is an underpaid worker and how to regulate the process. Also, the ban would have a huge effect on the economy as the vast majority of goods sold in the UK are imported. It is best to tackle the issue at source by working with global policy to improve working conditions and ensure workers are paid a decent wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should not ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, because it will not solve the problem. The government should instead take action to help improve working conditions in these countries and give these workers a fair wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should force companies that operate in the United Kingdom to pay their workers a decent wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, however, the issue is more complex than that and it is not as simple as banning the sale of these products. In reality, it would be very difficult to enforce and monitor such a ban and companies would simply sell their products to other countries. It is also difficult to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to increase standards of production. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is unfair that workers in developing countries are exploited to produce goods that are imported into the United Kingdom. However, it is difficult to define what is an underpaid worker and how to regulate the process. Also, the ban would have a huge effect on the economy as the vast majority of goods sold in the UK are imported. It is best to tackle the issue at source by working with global policy to improve working conditions and ensure workers are paid a decent wage. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001247.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001247.soc index fbd59e02..7e8d80a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001247.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001247.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this an as emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. The issue is also getting worse, with a stigma rising that we should just leave it to the next generation. The issue is also caused by large corporations, and governments therefore need to crack down on how they act. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. Absolutely, average worldwide temperatures are higher than ever. This is causing a huge amount of damage to humans, animals, and habitats. We are at a crucial point where urgent action is needed, otherwise we could make our planet an inhospitable place to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to make more effort now to prevent it. We are facing a climate emergency and need to take more rapid action now to ensure the future survival of life on the planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to take more rapid action now to ensure the future survival of life on the planet. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this as an emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In my opinion, we are facing a climate emergency. The consequences of not taking action are too great to risk. We are already seeing some of the effects of climate change on our weather and this is only going to get worse. The consensus among the scientific community is that climate change is man-made. This means that the burden of responsibility falls on us to take action. While there are challenges, there are also solutions that can be implemented and are being implemented. These solutions need to be more ambitious, as well as being more widely implemented. The risks are too great to sit back and do nothing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this an as emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. The issue is also getting worse, with a stigma rising that we should just leave it to the next generation. The issue is also caused by large corporations, and governments therefore need to crack down on how they act. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. Absolutely, average worldwide temperatures are higher than ever. This is causing a huge amount of damage to humans, animals, and habitats. We are at a crucial point where urgent action is needed, otherwise we could make our planet an inhospitable place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to make more effort now to prevent it. We are facing a climate emergency and need to take more rapid action now to ensure the future survival of life on the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity and we need to take more rapid action now to ensure the future survival of life on the planet. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this as an emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In my opinion, we are facing a climate emergency. The consequences of not taking action are too great to risk. We are already seeing some of the effects of climate change on our weather and this is only going to get worse. The consensus among the scientific community is that climate change is man-made. This means that the burden of responsibility falls on us to take action. While there are challenges, there are also solutions that can be implemented and are being implemented. These solutions need to be more ambitious, as well as being more widely implemented. The risks are too great to sit back and do nothing. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001248.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001248.soc index ad08a6df..c8430195 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001248.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001248.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, however, the issue is more complex than that and it is not as simple as banning the sale of these products. In reality, it would be very difficult to enforce and monitor such a ban and companies would simply sell their products to other countries. It is also difficult to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to increase standards of production. This would be difficult and would require a great deal of effort and co-operation between countries but it is a more appropriate and useful way to address the issue of underpaid workers abroad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, however, the issue is more complex than that and it is not as simple as banning the sale of these products. In reality, it would be very difficult to enforce and monitor such a ban and companies would simply sell their products to other countries. It is also difficult to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to increase standards of production. The best way to do this would be to encourage and pressure other countries to develop their own labour laws, which are similar to those of the United Kingdom. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, it is not a simple or straight-forward problem, and implementing such a ban may not be the best solution, and may be hard to actually enforce. It is complex to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries and what a fair wage should be. Also, it would mean companies would simply sell their products to other countries rather than working with the government to improve the wages of their workers. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to agree on increasing the standards of production of workers, rather than simply banning the sale of goods in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, because it is unfair that the workers are underpaid and the government should force companies that operate in the United Kingdom to pay their workers a decent wage. However, the issue is more complex than that and it is not as simple as banning the sale of these products. It would be very difficult to enforce and monitor such a ban and companies would simply sell their products to other countries. It is also difficult to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to increase standards of production. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, however, the issue is more complex than that and it is not as simple as banning the sale of these products. In reality, it would be very difficult to enforce and monitor such a ban and companies would simply sell their products to other countries. It is also difficult to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to increase standards of production. This would be difficult and would require a great deal of effort and co-operation between countries but it is a more appropriate and useful way to address the issue of underpaid workers abroad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, however, the issue is more complex than that and it is not as simple as banning the sale of these products. In reality, it would be very difficult to enforce and monitor such a ban and companies would simply sell their products to other countries. It is also difficult to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to increase standards of production. The best way to do this would be to encourage and pressure other countries to develop their own labour laws, which are similar to those of the United Kingdom. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, it is not a simple or straight-forward problem, and implementing such a ban may not be the best solution, and may be hard to actually enforce. It is complex to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries and what a fair wage should be. Also, it would mean companies would simply sell their products to other countries rather than working with the government to improve the wages of their workers. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to agree on increasing the standards of production of workers, rather than simply banning the sale of goods in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, because it is unfair that the workers are underpaid and the government should force companies that operate in the United Kingdom to pay their workers a decent wage. However, the issue is more complex than that and it is not as simple as banning the sale of these products. It would be very difficult to enforce and monitor such a ban and companies would simply sell their products to other countries. It is also difficult to decide what is an underpaid worker and what is a fair wage in different countries. Therefore, it would be better to intervene with global policy and get all countries to increase standards of production. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001249.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001249.soc index a798eddd..cb83f79f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001249.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001249.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This would reduce the burden of the masses on the government and improve the general well-being of the population. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A basic income scheme would be a great idea if it was affordable. It would help alleviate poverty and give a basic quality of life to everyone. It would make people happier and healthier, however there are many things to consider when implementing it. - Where would the money come from? - How would the payments be distributed? - What would be the rate of pay? - How would the rate of pay differ from people in different countries? - How much would the payments be taxed? - How would this be monitored? - What if someone abuses the system? - How would this be monitored? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A basic income scheme is a good idea and should be considered for implementation. This is because it will reduce poverty and improve the general well-being of the population. However, it is not a straightforward answer and many of the goals achieved from a basic income scheme could be achieved through changes in the existing social system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that basic income is the best option to fight poverty and income inequality. In fact, it is one of the most cost-effective methods to do so, particularly as compared to the current welfare system. The consensus is also that a basic income would allow for a more diverse and creative workforce as there is more security in taking risks and trying new things. The risk of destitution is lowered, which would encourage individuals to look for more fulfilling and creative roles. However, we do not think that basic income is a perfect solution. The consensus is that a basic income would provide a universal basic income, which is better than nothing. However, it would be much better to focus the basic income scheme on those most in need of it. This would help the poorest people in society the most. However, this raises problems, such as how to define the people in need and how much income they need. The consensus is that we would recommend a basic income scheme in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This would reduce the burden of the masses on the government and improve the general well-being of the population. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A basic income scheme would be a great idea if it was affordable. It would help alleviate poverty and give a basic quality of life to everyone. It would make people happier and healthier, however there are many things to consider when implementing it. - Where would the money come from? - How would the payments be distributed? - What would be the rate of pay? - How would the rate of pay differ from people in different countries? - How much would the payments be taxed? - How would this be monitored? - What if someone abuses the system? - How would this be monitored? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A basic income scheme is a good idea and should be considered for implementation. This is because it will reduce poverty and improve the general well-being of the population. However, it is not a straightforward answer and many of the goals achieved from a basic income scheme could be achieved through changes in the existing social system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that basic income is the best option to fight poverty and income inequality. In fact, it is one of the most cost-effective methods to do so, particularly as compared to the current welfare system. The consensus is also that a basic income would allow for a more diverse and creative workforce as there is more security in taking risks and trying new things. The risk of destitution is lowered, which would encourage individuals to look for more fulfilling and creative roles. However, we do not think that basic income is a perfect solution. The consensus is that a basic income would provide a universal basic income, which is better than nothing. However, it would be much better to focus the basic income scheme on those most in need of it. This would help the poorest people in society the most. However, this raises problems, such as how to define the people in need and how much income they need. The consensus is that we would recommend a basic income scheme in the future. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001250.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001250.soc index 0ec846ff..410d4ed7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001250.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001250.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is important that families can spend time together and have time to relax and take their minds off the stresses of daily life. A holiday or break can provide an opportunity for families to spend quality time together, and to make lasting memories. If families do not have the means to spend time together, the state may want to help. However, given the huge amount of need in society and the relatively small pot of resources available, it is unlikely that subsidising holidays will be the top priority. Moreover, it is not only the cost of holidays that may prevent families from taking them. A lack of resources and options in society, such as good schools and safe areas to live, may also lead families to choose not to travel. However, it is not possible to just create a perfect world and take away all of life's stresses and strains. It is the duty of the state to support the most vulnerable in society, but the state is limited in its capacity to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although holidays have a number of benefits for families, other factors should be considered. Holiday subsidies would not be the best use of available resources and could lead to the increased cost of holidays for everyone else. It would also increase the risk of unintended consequences, such as additional pressure on the tourism industry, increases in the cost of holidays for everyone else, and unfair targeting of some groups in society. A more balanced approach would be to take a leaf out of the book of the European Union and make sure that holiday prices are fairly regulated across the board, with people being able to enjoy holidays whenever they want to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not subsidise holidays. We should not be telling people what to do with their money and if they can't afford to go away then that is their problem. We should not be giving people money for holidays when there are more important things that need to be done with the money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of subsidising holidays for families is not a good idea. The government has finite resources and should spend its money on more important things. The holiday industry is already very profitable and does not need help from the government. There are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and it is not the government's role to provide holidays. However, the government should look at ways of reducing the cost of holidays, such as reducing VAT on holiday accommodation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is important that families can spend time together and have time to relax and take their minds off the stresses of daily life. A holiday or break can provide an opportunity for families to spend quality time together, and to make lasting memories. If families do not have the means to spend time together, the state may want to help. However, given the huge amount of need in society and the relatively small pot of resources available, it is unlikely that subsidising holidays will be the top priority. Moreover, it is not only the cost of holidays that may prevent families from taking them. A lack of resources and options in society, such as good schools and safe areas to live, may also lead families to choose not to travel. However, it is not possible to just create a perfect world and take away all of life's stresses and strains. It is the duty of the state to support the most vulnerable in society, but the state is limited in its capacity to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although holidays have a number of benefits for families, other factors should be considered. Holiday subsidies would not be the best use of available resources and could lead to the increased cost of holidays for everyone else. It would also increase the risk of unintended consequences, such as additional pressure on the tourism industry, increases in the cost of holidays for everyone else, and unfair targeting of some groups in society. A more balanced approach would be to take a leaf out of the book of the European Union and make sure that holiday prices are fairly regulated across the board, with people being able to enjoy holidays whenever they want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not subsidise holidays. We should not be telling people what to do with their money and if they can't afford to go away then that is their problem. We should not be giving people money for holidays when there are more important things that need to be done with the money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of subsidising holidays for families is not a good idea. The government has finite resources and should spend its money on more important things. The holiday industry is already very profitable and does not need help from the government. There are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and it is not the government's role to provide holidays. However, the government should look at ways of reducing the cost of holidays, such as reducing VAT on holiday accommodation. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001251.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001251.soc index dafacb77..f35db33f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001251.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001251.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have a 50/50 chance of having the technology to download your brain onto a computer chip within our lifetime, due to rapid advances in technology and current events. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was unsure if this would be possible in their lifetime. Whilst there was some belief that it would be possible, others felt it would not. The group felt that the human brain is incredibly complex and that we do not fully understand how it works. This makes it difficult to know if we would be able to replicate it. The group felt that the technology is advancing at a rapid rate, but whether it would be possible to download the human brain onto a computer chip is something that is very difficult to predict. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a possibility that we could have this technology in our lifetime. We have the technology to connect our brains to the internet and computers and as time goes on this technology will advance and become more complex. We don't think it will be in our lifetime but it could be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have a 50/50 chance of having the technology to download your brain onto a computer chip within our lifetime, due to rapid advances in technology and current events. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was unsure if this would be possible in their lifetime. Whilst there was some belief that it would be possible, others felt it would not. The group felt that the human brain is incredibly complex and that we do not fully understand how it works. This makes it difficult to know if we would be able to replicate it. The group felt that the technology is advancing at a rapid rate, but whether it would be possible to download the human brain onto a computer chip is something that is very difficult to predict. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a possibility that we could have this technology in our lifetime. We have the technology to connect our brains to the internet and computers and as time goes on this technology will advance and become more complex. We don't think it will be in our lifetime but it could be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. 3: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001252.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001252.soc index f5771b19..0e9e0df1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001252.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001252.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this as an emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. The issue is getting worse, as an idea exists that we should just leave it to the next generation. The issue is also caused by large corporations, and governments therefore need to crack down on how they act. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. Absolutely, average worldwide temperatures are higher than ever. This is causing a huge amount of damage to humans, animals, and habitats. We are at a crucial point where urgent action is needed, otherwise we could make our planet an inhospitable place to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this as an emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. The issue is also getting worse, with some saying we should just leave it to the next generation. The issue is also caused by large corporations, and governments therefore need to crack down on how they act. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse, but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. Absolutely, average worldwide temperatures are higher than ever. This is causing a huge amount of damage to humans, animals, and habitats. We are at a crucial point where urgent action is needed, otherwise we could make our planet an inhospitable place to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this an as emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. The issue is also getting worse, with an idea existing that we should just leave it to the next generation. The issue is also caused by large corporations, and governments therefore need to crack down on how they act. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. Absolutely, average worldwide temperatures are higher than ever. This is causing a huge amount of damage to humans, animals, and habitats. We are at a crucial point where urgent action is needed, otherwise we could make our planet an inhospitable place to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this an as emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this as an emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. The issue is getting worse, as an idea exists that we should just leave it to the next generation. The issue is also caused by large corporations, and governments therefore need to crack down on how they act. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. Absolutely, average worldwide temperatures are higher than ever. This is causing a huge amount of damage to humans, animals, and habitats. We are at a crucial point where urgent action is needed, otherwise we could make our planet an inhospitable place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this as an emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. The issue is also getting worse, with some saying we should just leave it to the next generation. The issue is also caused by large corporations, and governments therefore need to crack down on how they act. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse, but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. Absolutely, average worldwide temperatures are higher than ever. This is causing a huge amount of damage to humans, animals, and habitats. We are at a crucial point where urgent action is needed, otherwise we could make our planet an inhospitable place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this an as emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. The issue is also getting worse, with an idea existing that we should just leave it to the next generation. The issue is also caused by large corporations, and governments therefore need to crack down on how they act. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. Absolutely, average worldwide temperatures are higher than ever. This is causing a huge amount of damage to humans, animals, and habitats. We are at a crucial point where urgent action is needed, otherwise we could make our planet an inhospitable place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We are facing a climate emergency. The evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming from numerous research studies conducted by global experts. If we fail to treat this an as emergency then the effects will be devastating as we will miss opportunities to reverse the damage we are causing to the planet. We should be making more efforts to prevent the climate getting worse but we are instead maintaining the status quo which means that not only is the climate going to continue changing in drastic ways, but it will change at an increasingly fast rate. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001253.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001253.soc index 071fd104..ea9e7d1d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001253.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001253.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This would reduce the burden of the masses on the government and improve the general well-being of the population. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. However, the tax could be raised from companies that are increasing output whilst decreasing their workforces due to use of AI/automation. This means that the people who are already struggling financially would not be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. However, Governments could increase corporate tax from companies that are increasing output whilst decreasing their workforces due to use of AI/automation. The government would benefit from the basic income scheme due to the fact that those who currently rely on government hand-outs will now pay tax on their new wages. Those who currently pay tax will most likely not benefit from the scheme themselves, but their children could potentially benefit if their jobs are lost in the future to AI/automation. Also, a basic income will mean more people will be able to have their children cared for by both -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This would reduce the burden of the masses on the government and improve the general well-being of the population. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. However, the benefits of a basic income scheme would likely outweigh the costs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This would reduce the burden of the masses on the government and improve the general well-being of the population. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. However, the burden of paying for a basic income scheme for everyone could be funded in part by increased taxes paid by companies who are saving costs by automating their workforce and who can afford to contribute. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This would reduce the burden of the masses on the government and improve the general well-being of the population. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. However, the tax could be raised from companies that are increasing output whilst decreasing their workforces due to use of AI/automation. This means that the people who are already struggling financially would not be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. However, Governments could increase corporate tax from companies that are increasing output whilst decreasing their workforces due to use of AI/automation. The government would benefit from the basic income scheme due to the fact that those who currently rely on government hand-outs will now pay tax on their new wages. Those who currently pay tax will most likely not benefit from the scheme themselves, but their children could potentially benefit if their jobs are lost in the future to AI/automation. Also, a basic income will mean more people will be able to have their children cared for by both +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This would reduce the burden of the masses on the government and improve the general well-being of the population. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. However, the benefits of a basic income scheme would likely outweigh the costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A basic income scheme would be beneficial to the economy. It would ensure that everyone has enough income to survive and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This would reduce the burden of the masses on the government and improve the general well-being of the population. However, there are challenges to introducing a basic income scheme. For example, the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and some people would be more in need of a basic income than others. Also, there would be a cost to the government to introduce a basic income scheme. This cost would have to be paid for somehow, and this could be through tax. This could mean that people who are already struggling financially would be paying more tax to support a basic income scheme, which could make their situation worse. However, the burden of paying for a basic income scheme for everyone could be funded in part by increased taxes paid by companies who are saving costs by automating their workforce and who can afford to contribute. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001254.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001254.soc index e4a9c626..c9684af0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001254.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001254.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of subsidising holidays for families is not a good idea. The government has finite resources and should spend its money on more important things. The holiday industry is already very profitable and does not need help from the government. There are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and it is not the government's role to provide holidays. However, the government could look at ways of reducing the cost of holidays, such as reducing VAT on holiday accommodation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general the idea of subsidising holidays for families is not a good idea. There are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and it is not the government's role to provide holidays. However, the government could look at ways of reducing the cost of holidays, such as reducing VAT on holiday accommodation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not subsidise holidays for families, as this would be unfair to those who cannot afford holidays and it would also be a waste of valuable resources. However, there are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and the government could consider reducing VAT on holiday accommodation to reduce the cost of holidays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of subsidising holidays for families is not a good idea. The government has finite resources and should spend its money on more important things. The holiday industry is already very profitable and does not need help from the government. There are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and it is not the government's role to provide holidays. However, the government could look at ways of reducing the cost of holidays, such as reducing VAT on holiday accommodation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of subsidising holidays for families is not a good idea. The government has finite resources and should spend its money on more important things. The holiday industry is already very profitable and does not need help from the government. There are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and it is not the government's role to provide holidays. However, the government could look at ways of reducing the cost of holidays, such as reducing VAT on holiday accommodation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general the idea of subsidising holidays for families is not a good idea. There are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and it is not the government's role to provide holidays. However, the government could look at ways of reducing the cost of holidays, such as reducing VAT on holiday accommodation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not subsidise holidays for families, as this would be unfair to those who cannot afford holidays and it would also be a waste of valuable resources. However, there are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and the government could consider reducing VAT on holiday accommodation to reduce the cost of holidays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of subsidising holidays for families is not a good idea. The government has finite resources and should spend its money on more important things. The holiday industry is already very profitable and does not need help from the government. There are charities that can help families who cannot afford holidays and it is not the government's role to provide holidays. However, the government could look at ways of reducing the cost of holidays, such as reducing VAT on holiday accommodation. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001255.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001255.soc index ace06d3a..92db45f7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001255.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001255.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. We do not believe that this would be achieved in our lifetimes but we think that it is possible in the near future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. We believe that this technology is not available in our lifetimes, but that it is possible, and that it could be very useful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. Overall we feel that we will discover the digital mechanics of the human brain in the future, but we won't see the emergence of this technology in our lifetimes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. Our source for this belief is the development of new technologies that are able to utilise the brain. For example, right now there is a device that helps you visualise things on a computer screen when you are blind, this is just the beginning, I believe that this is just one step toward downloading the brain. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. Other participants in the same workshop were asked to comment on the most inclusive version of the consensus statement. The comment below was made by someone who had not had access to the earlier drafts of the consensus view: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. We do not believe that this would be achieved in our lifetimes but we think that it is possible in the near future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. We believe that this technology is not available in our lifetimes, but that it is possible, and that it could be very useful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. Overall we feel that we will discover the digital mechanics of the human brain in the future, but we won't see the emergence of this technology in our lifetimes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that the question posed is not in fact that far-fetched. We are living in a digital age where technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Whilst we don't think that the technology to download the human brain will be available in our lifetimes, we do believe that it is possible. Our source for this belief is the development of new technologies that are able to utilise the brain. For example, right now there is a device that helps you visualise things on a computer screen when you are blind, this is just the beginning, I believe that this is just one step toward downloading the brain. We also believe that the possibility of technology advancing at such a rate is very likely, because of recent discoveries and developments. This technology would be very useful and it could be used to find cures for many diseases, such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. Other participants in the same workshop were asked to comment on the most inclusive version of the consensus statement. The comment below was made by someone who had not had access to the earlier drafts of the consensus view: 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001256.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001256.soc index 8593ef12..888ff50c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001256.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001256.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should increase spending on the NHS rather than defence. This is because the NHS is the backbone of the country and needs to be well funded in order to provide a good service to all. It is also an essential service that all people need to access. The defence is an important sector, but the government already spends a lot on this and the NHS is the clear winner in this argument. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Due to the current strain that is being put on the NHS, the government should increase spending on the NHS rather than defence. Although defence is an important aspect that we should not let slip, we need to ensure that the health and well-being of citizens in the country are also a priority. The NHS needs to be reformed and updated so that all areas of health care are dealt with appropriately, and that patients can access the healthcare that they need when they need it. In order to achieve this, the NHS needs more money and more staff. The strain is already high on the NHS, and if we do not increase spending on it, then this will only get worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should increase spending on the NHS. There is an urgent need to increase spending on the NHS. The NHS is currently underfunded and is struggling to meet the needs of the population. There are many issues that need to be addressed in order to improve the service. These include staff shortages, low retention and staff morale, as well as poor treatment of staff. If the NHS is not funded sufficiently, then people will turn to private healthcare which will increase the costs of healthcare for the population. The NHS is the foundation of our healthcare system and should be prioritised by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS requires a lot more investment than the defence sector. Many people have found themselves in a situation where they can't get an appointment at their GP, and operations are being delayed due to the strain being put on it. The strain will only get worse if funding isn't increased, and the longer the government waits, the worse it will be. As the strain on the NHS worsens, more people will turn to private healthcare, and this will create a massive gap between the treatment available to those who can afford it, and those who can't. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should increase spending on the NHS rather than defence. This is because the NHS is the backbone of the country and needs to be well funded in order to provide a good service to all. It is also an essential service that all people need to access. The defence is an important sector, but the government already spends a lot on this and the NHS is the clear winner in this argument. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Due to the current strain that is being put on the NHS, the government should increase spending on the NHS rather than defence. Although defence is an important aspect that we should not let slip, we need to ensure that the health and well-being of citizens in the country are also a priority. The NHS needs to be reformed and updated so that all areas of health care are dealt with appropriately, and that patients can access the healthcare that they need when they need it. In order to achieve this, the NHS needs more money and more staff. The strain is already high on the NHS, and if we do not increase spending on it, then this will only get worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should increase spending on the NHS. There is an urgent need to increase spending on the NHS. The NHS is currently underfunded and is struggling to meet the needs of the population. There are many issues that need to be addressed in order to improve the service. These include staff shortages, low retention and staff morale, as well as poor treatment of staff. If the NHS is not funded sufficiently, then people will turn to private healthcare which will increase the costs of healthcare for the population. The NHS is the foundation of our healthcare system and should be prioritised by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS requires a lot more investment than the defence sector. Many people have found themselves in a situation where they can't get an appointment at their GP, and operations are being delayed due to the strain being put on it. The strain will only get worse if funding isn't increased, and the longer the government waits, the worse it will be. As the strain on the NHS worsens, more people will turn to private healthcare, and this will create a massive gap between the treatment available to those who can afford it, and those who can't. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001257.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001257.soc index b9adfc65..e7f15f09 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001257.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001257.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30%. There was a feeling that this would benefit the wealthy and that the government would have to recoup this lost revenue by taxing the poor. There was also a feeling that the government should be focusing on the NHS and other public services and not lowering taxes for the rich. However, the group was also aware that the UK has a very high rate of income tax compared to other countries and that this is driving some of the best people out of the country. The group therefore came to the following consensus opinion: “The top rate of income tax should be lowered to 35% to allow the UK to remain competitive with other countries and to ensure that we do not lose our best people. The government should recoup this lost revenue by introducing a new tax on the wealthy such as a tax on their property. The group was also aware that lowering the top rate of income tax would have a negative impact on the economy. This would be offset by the increased revenue from the new tax on the wealthy. The group also believed that this new tax on the wealthy would help to address the issue of inequality in society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a very complex decision. There are different viewpoints. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. The final decision would be based on the economic conditions and societal priorities. The government would need to consider the consequences of this decision and the implications of tax revenue for public services. Lowering the tax rate could help stimulate the economy and encourage investment. It would reduce the government tax revenue, but the government could increase other taxes and fees to recoup the difference. This could also impact the poorer people in society. The government should consider increasing the minimum wage for workers and also reduce benefits. It could also provide tax breaks for small businesses, so that the economy would benefit. But lowering tax for rich should not be on governments list of things to do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although lowering the tax rate for high earners could stimulate the economy, it is not in the best interests of the country at this time as it will take money away from those who need it most and reduce the amount of money available for public services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the top rate of income tax should not be lowered to 30%. The government would need to recoup that money by other taxes, which would inevitably have a negative impact on the poorer people in society. The top rate of tax should remain at 45% to ensure that the poorer people are not forced to pay more as a result of any lowering of the top rate of tax. The people on the top rate can afford it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30%. There was a feeling that this would benefit the wealthy and that the government would have to recoup this lost revenue by taxing the poor. There was also a feeling that the government should be focusing on the NHS and other public services and not lowering taxes for the rich. However, the group was also aware that the UK has a very high rate of income tax compared to other countries and that this is driving some of the best people out of the country. The group therefore came to the following consensus opinion: “The top rate of income tax should be lowered to 35% to allow the UK to remain competitive with other countries and to ensure that we do not lose our best people. The government should recoup this lost revenue by introducing a new tax on the wealthy such as a tax on their property. The group was also aware that lowering the top rate of income tax would have a negative impact on the economy. This would be offset by the increased revenue from the new tax on the wealthy. The group also believed that this new tax on the wealthy would help to address the issue of inequality in society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a very complex decision. There are different viewpoints. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. The final decision would be based on the economic conditions and societal priorities. The government would need to consider the consequences of this decision and the implications of tax revenue for public services. Lowering the tax rate could help stimulate the economy and encourage investment. It would reduce the government tax revenue, but the government could increase other taxes and fees to recoup the difference. This could also impact the poorer people in society. The government should consider increasing the minimum wage for workers and also reduce benefits. It could also provide tax breaks for small businesses, so that the economy would benefit. But lowering tax for rich should not be on governments list of things to do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although lowering the tax rate for high earners could stimulate the economy, it is not in the best interests of the country at this time as it will take money away from those who need it most and reduce the amount of money available for public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the top rate of income tax should not be lowered to 30%. The government would need to recoup that money by other taxes, which would inevitably have a negative impact on the poorer people in society. The top rate of tax should remain at 45% to ensure that the poorer people are not forced to pay more as a result of any lowering of the top rate of tax. The people on the top rate can afford it. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001258.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001258.soc index a6946252..2f921b7c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001258.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001258.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are both positive and negative effects that the internet has had on society. It is a great resource for information and communication, but there are also negative effects such as cyberbullying, cybercrime and the spread of false information. The internet has become a part of everyday life, and it is important that we are aware of both the positive and negative effects that it has. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has had both a positive and negative effect on society. It can provide us with useful ways of communicating and easy access to information. Although, there are negatives as well. Our information is more available to the world than it ever has been before, which draws attention so hackers and cyber scams. It is also very easy to read false information/news which brings its own problems. It also has a negative effect with how a lot of people, especially teenagers and young adults are consumed by worry and concern regarding how they are perceived on facebook and instagram. I think it's a shame that people allow the internet to take over their lives and I believe we need to learn to control the internet, rather than letting the internet control us. I also believe that the benefits of the internet outweigh the negatives and if used correctly, can be a powerful tool for the good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet has had a detrimental effect on society. The internet has become a powerful tool in our lives, and the rapid advancement in the ways it has allowed us to interact and access information is nothing short of revolutionary. However, the negative effects of this power, in the form of internet addiction, cyberbullying, the spread of false information, and the manipulation of people are some of the worst that modern society has faced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has had a mostly positive effect on society. It has connected people from all over the world and allowed us to communicate with each other in a way that has never been done before. It has allowed us to share our ideas and opinions with each other, as well as giving us access to a vast amount of information. It has allowed us to learn new skills and find new hobbies, as well as making it easier to find a job. It has also allowed us to stay in touch with our friends and family, as well as allowing us to meet new people. However, it has also had a negative effect on society. There is a lot of false information on the internet, which can lead people to believe things that aren't true. It can also lead to people becoming addicted to social media, which can lead to them becoming isolated from the real world. It can also lead to cyberbullying, which can have a detrimental effect on a person's mental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are both positive and negative effects that the internet has had on society. It is a great resource for information and communication, but there are also negative effects such as cyberbullying, cybercrime and the spread of false information. The internet has become a part of everyday life, and it is important that we are aware of both the positive and negative effects that it has. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has had both a positive and negative effect on society. It can provide us with useful ways of communicating and easy access to information. Although, there are negatives as well. Our information is more available to the world than it ever has been before, which draws attention so hackers and cyber scams. It is also very easy to read false information/news which brings its own problems. It also has a negative effect with how a lot of people, especially teenagers and young adults are consumed by worry and concern regarding how they are perceived on facebook and instagram. I think it's a shame that people allow the internet to take over their lives and I believe we need to learn to control the internet, rather than letting the internet control us. I also believe that the benefits of the internet outweigh the negatives and if used correctly, can be a powerful tool for the good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet has had a detrimental effect on society. The internet has become a powerful tool in our lives, and the rapid advancement in the ways it has allowed us to interact and access information is nothing short of revolutionary. However, the negative effects of this power, in the form of internet addiction, cyberbullying, the spread of false information, and the manipulation of people are some of the worst that modern society has faced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has had a mostly positive effect on society. It has connected people from all over the world and allowed us to communicate with each other in a way that has never been done before. It has allowed us to share our ideas and opinions with each other, as well as giving us access to a vast amount of information. It has allowed us to learn new skills and find new hobbies, as well as making it easier to find a job. It has also allowed us to stay in touch with our friends and family, as well as allowing us to meet new people. However, it has also had a negative effect on society. There is a lot of false information on the internet, which can lead people to believe things that aren't true. It can also lead to people becoming addicted to social media, which can lead to them becoming isolated from the real world. It can also lead to cyberbullying, which can have a detrimental effect on a person's mental health. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001259.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001259.soc index 49b17a33..8e2c3f25 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001259.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001259.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a very complex decision. It is not the best solution. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. There are different viewpoints. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. We all agreed that lowering the tax rate could help stimulate the economy and encourage investment. We all also agreed that it would reduce the government tax revenue, but the government could increase other taxes and fees to recoup the difference. This could also impact the poorer people in society. We also considered increasing the minimum wage for workers and also reduce benefits. It could also provide tax breaks for small businesses, so that the economy would benefit. We didn't agree to lower the top rate of tax, because it would not help the economy and also would not be fair to the poorer people in society. We don't think it is a good thing for our country to lose our best people abroad. Overall our society will suffer as there will be a shortage of qualified people. This is not the right time to do it, the economy is not in a good state to do it. We don't think it is a good idea, the government should consider -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a very complex decision. There are different viewpoints. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. The final decision would be based on the economic conditions and societal priorities. The government should consider the consequences of this decision and the implications of tax revenue for public services. Lowering the tax rate could help stimulate the economy and encourage investment. It would reduce the government tax revenue, but the government could increase other taxes and fees to recoup the difference. This could also impact the poorer people in society. The government should consider increasing the minimum wage for workers and also reduce benefits. It could also provide tax breaks for small businesses, so that the economy would benefit. The government should not hesitate to increase taxes and restrict tax breaks if the need is there. The taxes and tax breaks should be weighed carefully depending on the societal priorities and economic conditions, especially for supporting the poorest. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a complex decision. There are different viewpoints, but in general we did not agree with the proposed change. The tax level should remain at 45%. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a very complex decision. There are different viewpoints. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. The final decision would be based on the economic conditions and societal priorities. The government would need to consider the consequences of this decision and the implications of tax revenue for public services. Lowering the tax rate could help stimulate the economy and encourage investment. It would reduce the government tax revenue, but the government could increase other taxes and fees to recoup the difference. This could also impact the poorer people in society. The government should consider increasing the minimum wage for workers and also reduce benefits. It could also provide tax breaks for small businesses, so that the economy would benefit. But lowering tax for rich should not be on governments list of things to do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a very complex decision. It is not the best solution. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. There are different viewpoints. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. We all agreed that lowering the tax rate could help stimulate the economy and encourage investment. We all also agreed that it would reduce the government tax revenue, but the government could increase other taxes and fees to recoup the difference. This could also impact the poorer people in society. We also considered increasing the minimum wage for workers and also reduce benefits. It could also provide tax breaks for small businesses, so that the economy would benefit. We didn't agree to lower the top rate of tax, because it would not help the economy and also would not be fair to the poorer people in society. We don't think it is a good thing for our country to lose our best people abroad. Overall our society will suffer as there will be a shortage of qualified people. This is not the right time to do it, the economy is not in a good state to do it. We don't think it is a good idea, the government should consider +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a very complex decision. There are different viewpoints. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. The final decision would be based on the economic conditions and societal priorities. The government should consider the consequences of this decision and the implications of tax revenue for public services. Lowering the tax rate could help stimulate the economy and encourage investment. It would reduce the government tax revenue, but the government could increase other taxes and fees to recoup the difference. This could also impact the poorer people in society. The government should consider increasing the minimum wage for workers and also reduce benefits. It could also provide tax breaks for small businesses, so that the economy would benefit. The government should not hesitate to increase taxes and restrict tax breaks if the need is there. The taxes and tax breaks should be weighed carefully depending on the societal priorities and economic conditions, especially for supporting the poorest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a complex decision. There are different viewpoints, but in general we did not agree with the proposed change. The tax level should remain at 45%. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, lowering the top rate of income tax from 45% to 30% is a very complex decision. There are different viewpoints. We considered various scenarios and various factors to reach a consensus view. The final decision would be based on the economic conditions and societal priorities. The government would need to consider the consequences of this decision and the implications of tax revenue for public services. Lowering the tax rate could help stimulate the economy and encourage investment. It would reduce the government tax revenue, but the government could increase other taxes and fees to recoup the difference. This could also impact the poorer people in society. The government should consider increasing the minimum wage for workers and also reduce benefits. It could also provide tax breaks for small businesses, so that the economy would benefit. But lowering tax for rich should not be on governments list of things to do. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001260.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001260.soc index e40c2703..fff88391 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001260.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001260.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of legalisation of cannabis. This is because cannabis has proven health benefits and is also less harmful than alcohol. However, the group was less sure about legalisation of other recreational drugs. This is because some of these drugs are much more harmful than cannabis and legalisation of these drugs would be likely to lead to an increase in their use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While we believe that the legalisation of recreational drugs may have some benefits in terms of regulation and taxation, we also believe that it could also have some serious drawbacks. The primary benefit is that regulation of a legal drug market would reduce the black market value and appeal of illegal drugs. The second benefit is that taxation of a legal drug market could provide much needed revenue for drug abuse treatment and prevention programmes. We believe that these benefits are very real and could potentially have a significant impact on illegal drug use. However, we are also of the opinion that there are some serious drawbacks to the legalisation of drugs. For example, a potential increase in drug related health issues is a concern, since we believe that it is very unlikely that the introduction of drugs like cannabis would lead to a corresponding decrease in the consumption of other illegal drugs. Also, we are concerned that any potential benefits may be offset by the increased availability of legal drugs. Finally, we are concerned about the potential for an increase in the abuse of legal drugs. Therefore, we believe that any drug policy must be very carefully thought out and include these factors in its consideration. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although cannabis should be legalised in certain situations, other recreational drugs like cocaine should not be legalised, and the use of cannabis should only be allowed for prescription use by medical professionals, so that it can be properly controlled. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we believe that the legalisation of cannabis would be beneficial to society. It would allow for better regulation and taxation of the drug. This would mean that the government would be able to provide more support for those who are dependent on the drug and also provide more support for those who are trying to give up the drug. It would also mean that the government would be able to provide more support for people who have health conditions that can be treated by the drug. We also believe that legalisation would reduce the crime associated with cannabis. However, we also recognise that there are some negatives to legalisation. It is possible that it could increase the number of people who use the drug. It could also lead to people driving under the influence of the drug, which could lead to an increase in the number of road traffic accidents. It could also lead to people using the drug in a way that it was not intended to be used, such as smoking it. This could lead to an increase in the number of people who have health problems as a result of using the drug. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of legalisation of cannabis. This is because cannabis has proven health benefits and is also less harmful than alcohol. However, the group was less sure about legalisation of other recreational drugs. This is because some of these drugs are much more harmful than cannabis and legalisation of these drugs would be likely to lead to an increase in their use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While we believe that the legalisation of recreational drugs may have some benefits in terms of regulation and taxation, we also believe that it could also have some serious drawbacks. The primary benefit is that regulation of a legal drug market would reduce the black market value and appeal of illegal drugs. The second benefit is that taxation of a legal drug market could provide much needed revenue for drug abuse treatment and prevention programmes. We believe that these benefits are very real and could potentially have a significant impact on illegal drug use. However, we are also of the opinion that there are some serious drawbacks to the legalisation of drugs. For example, a potential increase in drug related health issues is a concern, since we believe that it is very unlikely that the introduction of drugs like cannabis would lead to a corresponding decrease in the consumption of other illegal drugs. Also, we are concerned that any potential benefits may be offset by the increased availability of legal drugs. Finally, we are concerned about the potential for an increase in the abuse of legal drugs. Therefore, we believe that any drug policy must be very carefully thought out and include these factors in its consideration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although cannabis should be legalised in certain situations, other recreational drugs like cocaine should not be legalised, and the use of cannabis should only be allowed for prescription use by medical professionals, so that it can be properly controlled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we believe that the legalisation of cannabis would be beneficial to society. It would allow for better regulation and taxation of the drug. This would mean that the government would be able to provide more support for those who are dependent on the drug and also provide more support for those who are trying to give up the drug. It would also mean that the government would be able to provide more support for people who have health conditions that can be treated by the drug. We also believe that legalisation would reduce the crime associated with cannabis. However, we also recognise that there are some negatives to legalisation. It is possible that it could increase the number of people who use the drug. It could also lead to people driving under the influence of the drug, which could lead to an increase in the number of road traffic accidents. It could also lead to people using the drug in a way that it was not intended to be used, such as smoking it. This could lead to an increase in the number of people who have health problems as a result of using the drug. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001261.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001261.soc index 392a0759..4f3da17a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001261.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001261.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We would suggest that it would improve the NHS, but not necessarily in the ways that people would think. We would expect to see drug prices to fall significantly as profit would not be a factor. However, this would also mean that research and development would also take a massive hit as there would be no monetary incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to keep up with the newest, best and most effective treatments. This is why we would suggest that the pharma industry should remain privately owned, but with a greater degree of oversight to reduce prices, and provide a better financial framework for pharmaceutical companies to provide the best for the patients they are responsible for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of a nationalised pharmaceutical industry is a good one. It would reduce the cost of medicines and ensure that the NHS is able to provide medicines to all who need them. However, there are many issues that would need to be considered, such as the impact on innovation and the ability to keep up with the demand for medicines. The government would also need to ensure that there is enough competition in the market to keep prices down and to ensure that there is no abuse of power. This would be difficult to achieve and would require careful planning and management. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A nationalised pharmaceutical industry would be a great idea. The NHS would be able to get better deals on the medicines it purchases and this would allow it to invest in more frontline staff and services. The NHS would also be able to have a say in the research that was carried out and this would allow it to focus on the areas that it felt were most important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are a number of potential problems and we need to be careful, we believe that a nationalised pharmaceutical industry could improve the NHS in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We would suggest that it would improve the NHS, but not necessarily in the ways that people would think. We would expect to see drug prices to fall significantly as profit would not be a factor. However, this would also mean that research and development would also take a massive hit as there would be no monetary incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to keep up with the newest, best and most effective treatments. This is why we would suggest that the pharma industry should remain privately owned, but with a greater degree of oversight to reduce prices, and provide a better financial framework for pharmaceutical companies to provide the best for the patients they are responsible for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of a nationalised pharmaceutical industry is a good one. It would reduce the cost of medicines and ensure that the NHS is able to provide medicines to all who need them. However, there are many issues that would need to be considered, such as the impact on innovation and the ability to keep up with the demand for medicines. The government would also need to ensure that there is enough competition in the market to keep prices down and to ensure that there is no abuse of power. This would be difficult to achieve and would require careful planning and management. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A nationalised pharmaceutical industry would be a great idea. The NHS would be able to get better deals on the medicines it purchases and this would allow it to invest in more frontline staff and services. The NHS would also be able to have a say in the research that was carried out and this would allow it to focus on the areas that it felt were most important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are a number of potential problems and we need to be careful, we believe that a nationalised pharmaceutical industry could improve the NHS in the UK. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001262.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001262.soc index cf9e3e35..10b82820 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001262.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001262.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not require all new cars sold to have the latest autonomous driving technology. This is because there are many consumers who remain nervous of the technology, and/ or prefer to drive themselves 'manually.' It is not the government's role to impose self-driving upon its citizens, especially when the technology is still in its nascent stage and safety issues remain unresolved. The consumer should have the choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of government intervention in this area. Most people thought that it was not the government's role to impose self-driving technology on its citizens. Some people were concerned that this would lead to an increase in accidents, as people may not be ready for this technology, or may abuse it. The group thought that the government should not be involved in prescribing what is defined as latest technology. Some people felt that this would stifle innovation, as car companies would not be able to come up with their own ideas of what is latest technology. Some people thought that this would lead to more expensive cars, as car companies would have to pay for research and development costs. The group thought that it was better to leave it to the market to decide whether there is enough demand for self-driving cars. If there is enough demand, then car companies will manufacture them. If there isn't enough demand, then car companies will manufacture cars without this technology. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not require all new cars to have the latest autonomous driving technology. This is because consumers will be driving these vehicles and not everyone will be comfortable with the technology and/ or will want to drive 'manually.' Some people may be concerned about safety issues and also some people may feel that the technology is simply too costly. Moreover, the technology is still in its infancy and car companies are competing to produce the best version of the technology, and it is not the government's role to prescribe what the latest technology is. The government should not intervene, and should only encourage and support this technology, and allow the market to determine which technology is successful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Government should not require all new cars to have the latest autonomous driving technology. Autonomous driving is still in its infancy and not perfected. Its full rollout will require much more testing, especially on complex scenarios, like weather and the urban environment. The government should wait until the technology is more advanced, rather than risk an increase in traffic accidents by a mass rollout before its time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not require all new cars sold to have the latest autonomous driving technology. This is because there are many consumers who remain nervous of the technology, and/ or prefer to drive themselves 'manually.' It is not the government's role to impose self-driving upon its citizens, especially when the technology is still in its nascent stage and safety issues remain unresolved. The consumer should have the choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of government intervention in this area. Most people thought that it was not the government's role to impose self-driving technology on its citizens. Some people were concerned that this would lead to an increase in accidents, as people may not be ready for this technology, or may abuse it. The group thought that the government should not be involved in prescribing what is defined as latest technology. Some people felt that this would stifle innovation, as car companies would not be able to come up with their own ideas of what is latest technology. Some people thought that this would lead to more expensive cars, as car companies would have to pay for research and development costs. The group thought that it was better to leave it to the market to decide whether there is enough demand for self-driving cars. If there is enough demand, then car companies will manufacture them. If there isn't enough demand, then car companies will manufacture cars without this technology. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not require all new cars to have the latest autonomous driving technology. This is because consumers will be driving these vehicles and not everyone will be comfortable with the technology and/ or will want to drive 'manually.' Some people may be concerned about safety issues and also some people may feel that the technology is simply too costly. Moreover, the technology is still in its infancy and car companies are competing to produce the best version of the technology, and it is not the government's role to prescribe what the latest technology is. The government should not intervene, and should only encourage and support this technology, and allow the market to determine which technology is successful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Government should not require all new cars to have the latest autonomous driving technology. Autonomous driving is still in its infancy and not perfected. Its full rollout will require much more testing, especially on complex scenarios, like weather and the urban environment. The government should wait until the technology is more advanced, rather than risk an increase in traffic accidents by a mass rollout before its time. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001263.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001263.soc index 8b789a5f..bb7c1701 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001263.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001263.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Most school exams are not too easy. The evidence of a couple of participants who found exams difficult as well as the fact that exams are regularly reviewed by the government to avoid any ceiling effects proves that exams are not too easy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Most school exams are not too easy. The exams are set to be a level of difficulty that most students will be able to cope with and still pass. However, the exams are still stressful for many students and this can cause issues for their mental health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Most school exams are not too easy. There is a need to ensure that all students are able to access the curriculum and the exams are the best way of assessing this. Therefore, the exams cannot be too difficult as this would mean that some students would not be able to access the curriculum and would not be able to demonstrate their learning. There is also a need to ensure that the exams are challenging enough to assess the students and to ensure that they are being stretched to their full potential. Therefore, the exams cannot be too easy as this would mean that the students are not being stretched to their full potential. The exams are set at a level that is appropriate for the students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was thought that the question was too broad to be able to answer, but that in general school exams are set to a level appropriate for the age of the students and their expected academic level, however some schools do over-estimate the ability of their students which is where the problems of 'over-easy' exams comes in. However, a very important thing to consider is the fact that exam boards vary depending on the area, for example, some of the best students in the country live in the south of England, therefore some exam boards will make their exams easier, whereas in the north of England there are not as many brilliant students, so the exams there will be harder. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Most school exams are not too easy. The evidence of a couple of participants who found exams difficult as well as the fact that exams are regularly reviewed by the government to avoid any ceiling effects proves that exams are not too easy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Most school exams are not too easy. The exams are set to be a level of difficulty that most students will be able to cope with and still pass. However, the exams are still stressful for many students and this can cause issues for their mental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Most school exams are not too easy. There is a need to ensure that all students are able to access the curriculum and the exams are the best way of assessing this. Therefore, the exams cannot be too difficult as this would mean that some students would not be able to access the curriculum and would not be able to demonstrate their learning. There is also a need to ensure that the exams are challenging enough to assess the students and to ensure that they are being stretched to their full potential. Therefore, the exams cannot be too easy as this would mean that the students are not being stretched to their full potential. The exams are set at a level that is appropriate for the students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was thought that the question was too broad to be able to answer, but that in general school exams are set to a level appropriate for the age of the students and their expected academic level, however some schools do over-estimate the ability of their students which is where the problems of 'over-easy' exams comes in. However, a very important thing to consider is the fact that exam boards vary depending on the area, for example, some of the best students in the country live in the south of England, therefore some exam boards will make their exams easier, whereas in the north of England there are not as many brilliant students, so the exams there will be harder. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001264.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001264.soc index 41863bcf..b5fabf60 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001264.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001264.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of keeping the monarchy. They felt that the monarchy was a tradition that made the UK unique. They also felt that the monarchy was a net positive for the UK and that it would be a shame to lose such a tradition. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the monarchy is a net positive for the UK. It is a tradition that is important to the identity of the UK. It also provides a lot of income through tourism and other means. However, the monarchy is an outdated institution that needs to change. It is important that the monarchy adapts to the changing times. It is also important that the monarchy is not wasteful and is frugal with the public money it receives. It is also important that the monarchy is not involved in politics and does not have any power in the government. The monarchy is ceremonial and should remain ceremonial. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are all fairly undecided on the question of whether the UK should keep the monarchy. We feel that some of the issues of the monarchy, for example the large costs associated with it, are important to consider. However, we feel that there are also other aspects of the monarchy which are important. For example, the monarchy helps to define the UK as a nation, and contributes to its cultural heritage. The monarchy also helps to attract tourism to the UK, which can generate money for the economy. So, while we do think that there are some drawbacks, we do feel that the UK should keep the monarchy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the UK should keep the monarchy. It is a tradition that has been long standing and creates the identity of the UK. The tourism it brings in is very valuable and helps boost the economy. It is also a positive for British people to have a British monarchy and shows how great the UK is. It also symbolises the rich history and tradition of the UK. The procedure followed by the group of participants is described below. The individual participants in the group of four participants first submitted their views on the question. Then, they engaged in a deliberative discussion to come up with a consensus view. Each participant was allowed to speak and then comment on the others' views. After that, they took a break to think about the different views that were presented. Then, they returned to the discussion with an aim of finding a consensus view. A moderator was present to facilitate the discussion. There are advantages and disadvantages of this approach to coming up with a consensus view. One of the advantages is that it can be used for various topics, and can even be used in everyday life. However, the disadvantage is that it is difficult to do, and requires participants to be able to discuss calmly and have +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of keeping the monarchy. They felt that the monarchy was a tradition that made the UK unique. They also felt that the monarchy was a net positive for the UK and that it would be a shame to lose such a tradition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the monarchy is a net positive for the UK. It is a tradition that is important to the identity of the UK. It also provides a lot of income through tourism and other means. However, the monarchy is an outdated institution that needs to change. It is important that the monarchy adapts to the changing times. It is also important that the monarchy is not wasteful and is frugal with the public money it receives. It is also important that the monarchy is not involved in politics and does not have any power in the government. The monarchy is ceremonial and should remain ceremonial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are all fairly undecided on the question of whether the UK should keep the monarchy. We feel that some of the issues of the monarchy, for example the large costs associated with it, are important to consider. However, we feel that there are also other aspects of the monarchy which are important. For example, the monarchy helps to define the UK as a nation, and contributes to its cultural heritage. The monarchy also helps to attract tourism to the UK, which can generate money for the economy. So, while we do think that there are some drawbacks, we do feel that the UK should keep the monarchy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the UK should keep the monarchy. It is a tradition that has been long standing and creates the identity of the UK. The tourism it brings in is very valuable and helps boost the economy. It is also a positive for British people to have a British monarchy and shows how great the UK is. It also symbolises the rich history and tradition of the UK. The procedure followed by the group of participants is described below. The individual participants in the group of four participants first submitted their views on the question. Then, they engaged in a deliberative discussion to come up with a consensus view. Each participant was allowed to speak and then comment on the others' views. After that, they took a break to think about the different views that were presented. Then, they returned to the discussion with an aim of finding a consensus view. A moderator was present to facilitate the discussion. There are advantages and disadvantages of this approach to coming up with a consensus view. One of the advantages is that it can be used for various topics, and can even be used in everyday life. However, the disadvantage is that it is difficult to do, and requires participants to be able to discuss calmly and have 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001265.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001265.soc index 3bd755e7..a75fb3d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001265.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001265.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think employers should not be forced to give their employees one day off each week. However, it is very important that workers are given time to rest and recuperate after any stress or anxiety at work. This will also give workers a chance to spend time with their families and loved ones and to get out of the house and have a change of scenery. It is important that employees are allowed to have this time off, even if it is not necessarily every week. Employers should recognise the importance of their workers having a break from the stresses of their working life and so it should not be a requirement that they must give employees one day off each week. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although it is important that employees get time off work to recover and relax, employers should not be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. It is important to allow employees to have a certain amount of time off each year, however, there are many employers that provide staff with the time off they need without the need for a legal requirement. Furthermore, businesses need to be profitable and having a day off each week for all employees may not be a viable option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. This is because it has been proven to improve workers mental health and also improve their positivity and morale when in work. This will result in them working better and to a higher standard. It is also important for their physical health as it allows them to recover from any stresses that occur at work and also allows them to spend time with their families. This will result in them being happier and more motivated when they are in work. This will also reduce the amount of sick days taken as employees will be less likely to be stressed and overworked. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. This will help with the mental health of employees as they will be able to rest and relax. It will also help with their physical health as they will be able to recover from any stresses that occur at work. This will also benefit the safety of employees as there will be less accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think employers should not be forced to give their employees one day off each week. However, it is very important that workers are given time to rest and recuperate after any stress or anxiety at work. This will also give workers a chance to spend time with their families and loved ones and to get out of the house and have a change of scenery. It is important that employees are allowed to have this time off, even if it is not necessarily every week. Employers should recognise the importance of their workers having a break from the stresses of their working life and so it should not be a requirement that they must give employees one day off each week. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although it is important that employees get time off work to recover and relax, employers should not be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. It is important to allow employees to have a certain amount of time off each year, however, there are many employers that provide staff with the time off they need without the need for a legal requirement. Furthermore, businesses need to be profitable and having a day off each week for all employees may not be a viable option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. This is because it has been proven to improve workers mental health and also improve their positivity and morale when in work. This will result in them working better and to a higher standard. It is also important for their physical health as it allows them to recover from any stresses that occur at work and also allows them to spend time with their families. This will result in them being happier and more motivated when they are in work. This will also reduce the amount of sick days taken as employees will be less likely to be stressed and overworked. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. This will help with the mental health of employees as they will be able to rest and relax. It will also help with their physical health as they will be able to recover from any stresses that occur at work. This will also benefit the safety of employees as there will be less accidents. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001266.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001266.soc index e8134f1d..8a2741ba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001266.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001266.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: School exams provide an objective assessment of students' learning. They cannot be too difficult as students from poorer educational backgrounds may not be able to access the curriculum. The exams are set at an appropriate level to ensure they are neither too difficult nor too easy. They are designed to be challenging, not for students to only know the answers but to test that they know and understand the concepts behind the answers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Most school exams are not too easy. There is a need to ensure that all students are able to access the curriculum and the exams are the best way of assessing this. Therefore, the exams cannot be too difficult as this would mean that some students would not be able to access the curriculum and would not be able to demonstrate their learning. There is also a need to ensure that the exams are challenging enough to assess the students and to ensure that they are being stretched to their full potential. Therefore, the exams cannot be too easy as this would mean that the students are not being stretched to their full potential. The exams are set at a level that is appropriate for the students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Most school exams are not too easy. The exams are set at a level that is appropriate for the students and ensures that they are being stretched to their full potential. There is a need to ensure that all students are able to access the curriculum and the exams are the best way of assessing this. Therefore, the exams cannot be too difficult as this would mean that some students would not be able to access the curriculum and would not be able to demonstrate their learning. There is also a need to ensure that the exams are challenging enough to assess the students and to ensure that they are being stretched to their full potential. Therefore, the exams cannot be too easy as this would mean that the students are not being stretched to their full potential. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Some school exams are too easy for some students and some school exams are too difficult for some students. The answer lies in more appropriate exams and I think some research needs to be done into this so that exams can be made more suitable for different students. Finally, below is a list of the pros and cons for the chosen methods of data collection, as suggested by the participants. Pros for Survey/ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: School exams provide an objective assessment of students' learning. They cannot be too difficult as students from poorer educational backgrounds may not be able to access the curriculum. The exams are set at an appropriate level to ensure they are neither too difficult nor too easy. They are designed to be challenging, not for students to only know the answers but to test that they know and understand the concepts behind the answers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Most school exams are not too easy. There is a need to ensure that all students are able to access the curriculum and the exams are the best way of assessing this. Therefore, the exams cannot be too difficult as this would mean that some students would not be able to access the curriculum and would not be able to demonstrate their learning. There is also a need to ensure that the exams are challenging enough to assess the students and to ensure that they are being stretched to their full potential. Therefore, the exams cannot be too easy as this would mean that the students are not being stretched to their full potential. The exams are set at a level that is appropriate for the students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Most school exams are not too easy. The exams are set at a level that is appropriate for the students and ensures that they are being stretched to their full potential. There is a need to ensure that all students are able to access the curriculum and the exams are the best way of assessing this. Therefore, the exams cannot be too difficult as this would mean that some students would not be able to access the curriculum and would not be able to demonstrate their learning. There is also a need to ensure that the exams are challenging enough to assess the students and to ensure that they are being stretched to their full potential. Therefore, the exams cannot be too easy as this would mean that the students are not being stretched to their full potential. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Some school exams are too easy for some students and some school exams are too difficult for some students. The answer lies in more appropriate exams and I think some research needs to be done into this so that exams can be made more suitable for different students. Finally, below is a list of the pros and cons for the chosen methods of data collection, as suggested by the participants. Pros for Survey/ 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001267.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001267.soc index cb1b2a95..b0c985ca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001267.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001267.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that smoking is a serious health hazard and that employers should take action to encourage employees to quit smoking. The fact that employees are addicted to nicotine does not excuse them from the responsibilities they have towards others in the workplace. However, we recognise that the decision to stop smoking is a very personal one and not everyone can be expected to quit. We believe that those who smoke should be entitled to take short breaks away from their place of work to have a cigarette. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was against smoking on the job. Smoking on the job presents a bad image for the organisation and can be seen as unprofessional. Smoking can also be seen as a sign of addiction and should be discouraged. However, it was recognised that some people need to smoke to focus and concentrate on their work. Therefore, smoking on the job should be allowed but only in designated smoking areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to smoking on the job. The group believed that smoking on the job is a bad habit and that people should be encouraged to quit. The group was of the opinion that smoking on the job can also lead to passive smoking and that this can have serious health consequences. The group also believed that smoking on the job can lead to a bad image for the company. However, the group did acknowledge that there are some circumstances in which smoking on the job is acceptable. The group believed that if a person is addicted to nicotine and needs a cigarette to concentrate on their work, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. The group also believed that if a person is working alone and there is no one nearby to be affected by passive smoking, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not acceptable to smoke in any workplace. The health risks associated with smoking are too high. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that smoking is a serious health hazard and that employers should take action to encourage employees to quit smoking. The fact that employees are addicted to nicotine does not excuse them from the responsibilities they have towards others in the workplace. However, we recognise that the decision to stop smoking is a very personal one and not everyone can be expected to quit. We believe that those who smoke should be entitled to take short breaks away from their place of work to have a cigarette. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was against smoking on the job. Smoking on the job presents a bad image for the organisation and can be seen as unprofessional. Smoking can also be seen as a sign of addiction and should be discouraged. However, it was recognised that some people need to smoke to focus and concentrate on their work. Therefore, smoking on the job should be allowed but only in designated smoking areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to smoking on the job. The group believed that smoking on the job is a bad habit and that people should be encouraged to quit. The group was of the opinion that smoking on the job can also lead to passive smoking and that this can have serious health consequences. The group also believed that smoking on the job can lead to a bad image for the company. However, the group did acknowledge that there are some circumstances in which smoking on the job is acceptable. The group believed that if a person is addicted to nicotine and needs a cigarette to concentrate on their work, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. The group also believed that if a person is working alone and there is no one nearby to be affected by passive smoking, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not acceptable to smoke in any workplace. The health risks associated with smoking are too high. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001268.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001268.soc index 50de6178..49028b92 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001268.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001268.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Air fares should be increased but only if other forms of transport have been improved first. The increase would help to reduce the negative environmental impact of air travel, however, if alternatives are not readily available it would just increase the negative effects of air travel. The increased revenue from air fare taxes could be put towards the improvement of other forms of transport, therefore making other forms of travel more viable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While an increase in tax on air fares may seem like a good idea in terms of helping the environment, we need to be careful to ensure that the tax is not too high so as to discourage air travel, as this could have an adverse effect on the air industry. There is a risk that higher taxes could disporoportionally impact lower income individuals who rely on air travel for esseial purposes. However, it may be possible to offset this by lowering fuel tax, which would help deter increases on air fare tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should deefinitely be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won't have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the tax on air fares should be increased, but only after the introduction of a fuel tax to help offset the increase in cost to consumers and the air industry. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Air fares should be increased but only if other forms of transport have been improved first. The increase would help to reduce the negative environmental impact of air travel, however, if alternatives are not readily available it would just increase the negative effects of air travel. The increased revenue from air fare taxes could be put towards the improvement of other forms of transport, therefore making other forms of travel more viable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While an increase in tax on air fares may seem like a good idea in terms of helping the environment, we need to be careful to ensure that the tax is not too high so as to discourage air travel, as this could have an adverse effect on the air industry. There is a risk that higher taxes could disporoportionally impact lower income individuals who rely on air travel for esseial purposes. However, it may be possible to offset this by lowering fuel tax, which would help deter increases on air fare tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should deefinitely be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won't have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the tax on air fares should be increased, but only after the introduction of a fuel tax to help offset the increase in cost to consumers and the air industry. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001269.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001269.soc index fcd36a3c..6672a2d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001269.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001269.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the minimum wage should be raised. The cost of living has increased significantly in recent years, and the minimum wage has not kept up with this. This has led to many people struggling to afford the basics. Raising the minimum wage would help to alleviate this. However, this should be done in conjunction with other measures, such as a Universal Basic Income, to ensure that the poorest in society are not left behind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the Government are aware that they cannot prevent people from living in poverty, they should not be complacent in the face of the rising numbers of people living in poverty. The government should introduce a statutory increase to the minimum wage. The increase should be sufficient to at least keep up with the rate of inflation. This should be done in conjunction with welfare reforms, rather than instead of them. It is likely that a large increase to the minimum wage will result in job losses and price rises, which will counteract the positive effect on people's living standards. A smaller, regular increase to the minimum wage would be more effective in lifting people out of poverty without adversely affecting the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The minimum wage should be raised. The cost of living and just the cost of everything has gone up, the minimum wage should be at least double what it is just now especially supermarket staff! I am personally delighted to see that some of the participants were able to agree to raise the minimum wage, even if the degree to which it should be raised was debated. The below example presents a typical election survey where participants are presented with questions and a range of options to choose from. This is an example of where reaching a consensus was not possible, and in some cases the wording of the question has been rephrased to better reflect the participant's responses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the minimum wage should be raised. However, it is important to note that there are various different perspectives on this topic. The cost of living is increasing, and therefore a higher minimum wage is needed to help those who are struggling to survive. On the other hand, some businesses may find it difficult to cope with an increase in the minimum wage, especially in the current economic climate. The minimum wage should be increased in a way that is fair to all parties involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the minimum wage should be raised. The cost of living has increased significantly in recent years, and the minimum wage has not kept up with this. This has led to many people struggling to afford the basics. Raising the minimum wage would help to alleviate this. However, this should be done in conjunction with other measures, such as a Universal Basic Income, to ensure that the poorest in society are not left behind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the Government are aware that they cannot prevent people from living in poverty, they should not be complacent in the face of the rising numbers of people living in poverty. The government should introduce a statutory increase to the minimum wage. The increase should be sufficient to at least keep up with the rate of inflation. This should be done in conjunction with welfare reforms, rather than instead of them. It is likely that a large increase to the minimum wage will result in job losses and price rises, which will counteract the positive effect on people's living standards. A smaller, regular increase to the minimum wage would be more effective in lifting people out of poverty without adversely affecting the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The minimum wage should be raised. The cost of living and just the cost of everything has gone up, the minimum wage should be at least double what it is just now especially supermarket staff! I am personally delighted to see that some of the participants were able to agree to raise the minimum wage, even if the degree to which it should be raised was debated. The below example presents a typical election survey where participants are presented with questions and a range of options to choose from. This is an example of where reaching a consensus was not possible, and in some cases the wording of the question has been rephrased to better reflect the participant's responses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the minimum wage should be raised. However, it is important to note that there are various different perspectives on this topic. The cost of living is increasing, and therefore a higher minimum wage is needed to help those who are struggling to survive. On the other hand, some businesses may find it difficult to cope with an increase in the minimum wage, especially in the current economic climate. The minimum wage should be increased in a way that is fair to all parties involved. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001270.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001270.soc index 65a43c11..4c521819 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001270.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001270.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to smoking on the job. The group believed that smoking on the job is a bad habit and that people should be encouraged to quit. The group believed that smoking on the job can have serious health consequences such as passive smoking for those near the smoker. The group also believed that smoking on the job can lead to a bad image for the company. However, the group did acknowledge that there are some circumstances in which smoking on the job is acceptable. The group believed that if a person is addicted to nicotine and needs a cigarette to concentrate on their work, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job but only in a designated area. The group also believed that if a person is working alone and there is no one nearby to be affected by passive smoking, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking on the job is generally not acceptable. It can lead to passive smoking which can have serious health consequences and can also lead to dependence. Smoking on the job can also lead to a bad image for the company. However, if a person is addicted to nicotine and needs a cigarette to concentrate on their work, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. Smoking on the job is also acceptable if a person is working alone and there is no one nearby to be affected by passive smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group, in general, was opposed to smoking on the job. The group believed that smoking on the job is a bad habit and that people should be encouraged to quit. The group was of the opinion that smoking on the job can also lead to passive smoking and that this can have serious health consequences. The group also believed that smoking on the job can lead to a bad image for the company. However, the group did acknowledge that there are some circumstances in which smoking on the job is acceptable. The group believed that if a person is addicted to nicotine and needs a cigarette to concentrate on their work, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. The group also believed that if a person is working alone and there is no one nearby to be affected by passive smoking, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. The group also believed that the smoking should be done outside the building and not in the immediate vicinity of the building, because of the risk of passive smoking to non-smokers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to smoking on the job. The group believed that smoking on the job is a bad habit and that people should be encouraged to quit. The group believed that smoking on the job can have serious health consequences such as passive smoking for those near the smoker. The group also believed that smoking on the job can lead to a bad image for the company. However, the group did acknowledge that there are some circumstances in which smoking on the job is acceptable. The group believed that if a person is addicted to nicotine and needs a cigarette to concentrate on their work, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job but only in a designated area. The group also believed that if a person is working alone and there is no one nearby to be affected by passive smoking, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking on the job is generally not acceptable. It can lead to passive smoking which can have serious health consequences and can also lead to dependence. Smoking on the job can also lead to a bad image for the company. However, if a person is addicted to nicotine and needs a cigarette to concentrate on their work, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. Smoking on the job is also acceptable if a person is working alone and there is no one nearby to be affected by passive smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group, in general, was opposed to smoking on the job. The group believed that smoking on the job is a bad habit and that people should be encouraged to quit. The group was of the opinion that smoking on the job can also lead to passive smoking and that this can have serious health consequences. The group also believed that smoking on the job can lead to a bad image for the company. However, the group did acknowledge that there are some circumstances in which smoking on the job is acceptable. The group believed that if a person is addicted to nicotine and needs a cigarette to concentrate on their work, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. The group also believed that if a person is working alone and there is no one nearby to be affected by passive smoking, then they should be allowed to smoke on the job. The group also believed that the smoking should be done outside the building and not in the immediate vicinity of the building, because of the risk of passive smoking to non-smokers. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001271.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001271.soc index 82cbc021..1c269e6c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001271.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001271.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The group was of the opinion that the NHS is in dire need of more funding and that the government clearly does not have this money. The group was of the opinion that the wealthy should contribute more in taxes towards public services than the average person. The group was of the opinion that people earning more than $200,000 are in the top 10% of earners in the country and can therefore afford to contribute more. The group was of the opinion that people earning less than $200,000 are already struggling and inflation is taxing away their value. The group was of the opinion that the NHS is a vital service and needs to be funded. The group was of the opinion that the government should be smarter with spending to not require constant raising of taxes, but if a raise is to be made it should be covered more by higher earners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200000 to help pay for the NHS. With the rising cost of health care and more people accessing healthcare, it is only right to raise taxes for those who can afford to pay. The UK has a fairly flat tax system, therefore it is not really fair for those earning under $200000 to continue to pay the same tax as someone earning a lot more than they are. The UK should ensure that the taxes they collect from these high earners are spent wisely. The additional funds raised should be used to improve the services offered by the NHS, reduce waiting times, improve access to care and increase the quality of care for patients. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the NHS. The NHS is in dire need of funding and so taxes need to be raised on those who can afford to contribute more. It is also only fair that the wealthy contribute more in taxes towards public services than the average person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The group was of the opinion that the NHS is in dire need of more funding and that the government clearly does not have this money. The group was of the opinion that the wealthy should contribute more in taxes towards public services than the average person. The group was of the opinion that people earning more than $200,000 are in the top 10% of earners in the country and can therefore afford to contribute more. The group was of the opinion that people earning less than $200,000 are already struggling and inflation is taxing away their value. The group was of the opinion that the NHS is a vital service and needs to be funded. The group was of the opinion that the government should be smarter with spending to not require constant raising of taxes, but if a raise is to be made it should be covered more by higher earners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200000 to help pay for the NHS. With the rising cost of health care and more people accessing healthcare, it is only right to raise taxes for those who can afford to pay. The UK has a fairly flat tax system, therefore it is not really fair for those earning under $200000 to continue to pay the same tax as someone earning a lot more than they are. The UK should ensure that the taxes they collect from these high earners are spent wisely. The additional funds raised should be used to improve the services offered by the NHS, reduce waiting times, improve access to care and increase the quality of care for patients. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the NHS. The NHS is in dire need of funding and so taxes need to be raised on those who can afford to contribute more. It is also only fair that the wealthy contribute more in taxes towards public services than the average person. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001272.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001272.soc index 8f7daf6c..9d63fad5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001272.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001272.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis for recreational use. They felt that it would help to reduce the black market, and that it would be better to have it regulated by the government. They also felt that it would help people who want to use it for medical reasons, and that it would be better to have it sold by trusted companies. They felt that it would be important to have it sold with the dosage clearly labelled, and that it would be important to have it sold with clear instructions on how to use it. They also felt that it would be important to have it sold with a health warning, to make people aware of the potential dangers of using it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis for recreational use. However, there were a number of caveats. Firstly, it should only be sold to people over the age of 18. Secondly, it should only be sold in licensed premises, and not in places such as petrol stations and corner shops. Thirdly, it should be sold in a way that is not attractive to children, and should not be sold in a way that makes it appear attractive. Finally, there should be a ban on the advertising of cannabis, to ensure that it is not seen as glamorous or cool. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although cannabis is a harmful drug, we believe that it should be legalised. This will reduce crime, and the harm caused by unregulated and illegal supply. It will allow those with chronic pain and other medical conditions to benefit from its use. It will also generate revenue through taxation. There would need to be restrictions on its use such as age limits, restrictions on where it can be used, restrictions on the strength of the product, and monitoring of use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus view: In the opinion of the group, legalisation of recreational cannabis is likely to be a good thing for the country and its people, providing it is regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. It would make the product available to people who want to use it for recreational reasons. It will make it available to people who wish to use it for medical purposes. It will remove the criminal element in cannabis supply. It will make the country money by taxing cannabis sales. It will make the police more efficient in their work, as they will no longer be tasked with dealing with cannabis possession. However, we also feel that legalisation of recreational cannabis should only happen when the public are fully aware of the risks involved, and that the drug should be heavily regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis for recreational use. They felt that it would help to reduce the black market, and that it would be better to have it regulated by the government. They also felt that it would help people who want to use it for medical reasons, and that it would be better to have it sold by trusted companies. They felt that it would be important to have it sold with the dosage clearly labelled, and that it would be important to have it sold with clear instructions on how to use it. They also felt that it would be important to have it sold with a health warning, to make people aware of the potential dangers of using it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis for recreational use. However, there were a number of caveats. Firstly, it should only be sold to people over the age of 18. Secondly, it should only be sold in licensed premises, and not in places such as petrol stations and corner shops. Thirdly, it should be sold in a way that is not attractive to children, and should not be sold in a way that makes it appear attractive. Finally, there should be a ban on the advertising of cannabis, to ensure that it is not seen as glamorous or cool. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although cannabis is a harmful drug, we believe that it should be legalised. This will reduce crime, and the harm caused by unregulated and illegal supply. It will allow those with chronic pain and other medical conditions to benefit from its use. It will also generate revenue through taxation. There would need to be restrictions on its use such as age limits, restrictions on where it can be used, restrictions on the strength of the product, and monitoring of use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus view: In the opinion of the group, legalisation of recreational cannabis is likely to be a good thing for the country and its people, providing it is regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. It would make the product available to people who want to use it for recreational reasons. It will make it available to people who wish to use it for medical purposes. It will remove the criminal element in cannabis supply. It will make the country money by taxing cannabis sales. It will make the police more efficient in their work, as they will no longer be tasked with dealing with cannabis possession. However, we also feel that legalisation of recreational cannabis should only happen when the public are fully aware of the risks involved, and that the drug should be heavily regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001273.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001273.soc index efa796a6..760aebde 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001273.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001273.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should deefinitely be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won't have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. It is important that we increase the tax on the private jets and super rich who use air travel for luxury, not on the lower earners who need to fly to visit family and friends. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should deefinitely be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won't have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. However, it must be noted that any increase in tax would disproportionally impact lower income individuals who rely on air travel for essential purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally, so taxing should be increased. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should deefinitely be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won;t have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won't have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. Air travel to holiday destinations will be impacted more than business travel. A lot of business and government travel is done by plane to maintain the balance between time spent working and being at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should deefinitely be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won't have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. It is important that we increase the tax on the private jets and super rich who use air travel for luxury, not on the lower earners who need to fly to visit family and friends. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should deefinitely be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won't have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. However, it must be noted that any increase in tax would disproportionally impact lower income individuals who rely on air travel for essential purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally, so taxing should be increased. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should deefinitely be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won;t have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Air travel is a very expensive way to travel within the UK when other methods are available and better economically and environmentally. It causes a huge amount of pollution to the environment and contributes a lot to global warming. With the world effort on reducing carbon emissions and working towards slowing down ther impact on our environment air fares should be increased globally. The increased tax should then be used towards environmental projects to help offset the use of the air travel. It would affect the consumer of course and could potentially impact the travel industry significantly depending on how high these taxes were but we won't have a planet to travel on if we don;t do something. Air travel to holiday destinations will be impacted more than business travel. A lot of business and government travel is done by plane to maintain the balance between time spent working and being at home. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001274.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001274.soc index 317dfbbd..41cfab6a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001274.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001274.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not acceptable. We believe that the MHRA provides better guidelines than the FDA in the US, and as such, should be adhered to. One exception could be if there was a medicine which is going through MHRA trials, and a patient volunteered to be part of a study, knowing and consenting to all the risks of taking the medicine in the name of scientific discovery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is unacceptable for a doctor to prescribe a drug that has been approved by the FDA in the US but not by the MHRA in the UK. Our NHS system is a completely different system to that of the USA. Our NHS is a world leading healthcare system and we are proud of our excellent and reliable healthcare standards. We have different laws and different ways of doing things to that of the USA and so how can we suddenly say that a drug which has not been deemed to be of medical value in the UK is actually acceptable to prescribe to UK patients. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not acceptable for a doctor to prescribe a drug that has been approved for use by the FDA in the US but not by the MHRA in the UK. The reason for this is that the MHRA is the governing body for medicines in the UK and so their approval is required before a drug can be used. The MHRA approval process is very strict and thorough and so it is very unlikely that a drug that has not been approved by them will be any good. This is not to say that the FDA approval process is not good, but the MHRA approval process is the one that is relevant to the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not acceptable for a doctor to prescribe a drug that has been approved for use by the FDA in the US but not by the MHRA in the UK. The MHRA has the responsibility for ensuring that medicines in the UK are safe and effective, and as such, their guidelines should be followed. The only exception to this rule could be if a patient was part of a study to test the effects of a drug that is undergoing trials by the MHRA. The patient would need to be fully aware of the risks involved and would need to provide their consent to be part of the study. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not acceptable. We believe that the MHRA provides better guidelines than the FDA in the US, and as such, should be adhered to. One exception could be if there was a medicine which is going through MHRA trials, and a patient volunteered to be part of a study, knowing and consenting to all the risks of taking the medicine in the name of scientific discovery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is unacceptable for a doctor to prescribe a drug that has been approved by the FDA in the US but not by the MHRA in the UK. Our NHS system is a completely different system to that of the USA. Our NHS is a world leading healthcare system and we are proud of our excellent and reliable healthcare standards. We have different laws and different ways of doing things to that of the USA and so how can we suddenly say that a drug which has not been deemed to be of medical value in the UK is actually acceptable to prescribe to UK patients. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not acceptable for a doctor to prescribe a drug that has been approved for use by the FDA in the US but not by the MHRA in the UK. The reason for this is that the MHRA is the governing body for medicines in the UK and so their approval is required before a drug can be used. The MHRA approval process is very strict and thorough and so it is very unlikely that a drug that has not been approved by them will be any good. This is not to say that the FDA approval process is not good, but the MHRA approval process is the one that is relevant to the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not acceptable for a doctor to prescribe a drug that has been approved for use by the FDA in the US but not by the MHRA in the UK. The MHRA has the responsibility for ensuring that medicines in the UK are safe and effective, and as such, their guidelines should be followed. The only exception to this rule could be if a patient was part of a study to test the effects of a drug that is undergoing trials by the MHRA. The patient would need to be fully aware of the risks involved and would need to provide their consent to be part of the study. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001275.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001275.soc index 507af7cb..ff14a77d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001275.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001275.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Penny Auctions: Two sides of the story. This article tries to take an objective view of both the customers and providers of Penny Auctions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Manchester United and Liverpool are the two most successful clubs in English football and their rivalry is one of the fiercest in world sport. Both have won 20 league titles and are the only two clubs in the history of the English football to have achieved this feat. Manchester United is the only team to win the Premier League three times in a row (1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002) while Liverpool won it five times in a row. Liverpool is the most successful club in European football, having won the European Cup/UEFA Champions League six times while Manchester United has won it three times. On the other hand, Manchester United has more supporters in the world and they also have a more modern stadium. Although, their fans may not have been as consistent as Liverpool’s over the years, their attendance is higher and their support is greater. Overall, the two clubs are very similar in terms of their success and in terms of the amount of fans they have. It’s a hard one to call but I would have to say Manchester United are better. They are currently top of the Premier League so I would say they are the better team at the moment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Manchester United and Liverpool are the two most successful clubs in English football and their rivalry is one of the fiercest in world sport. Both have won 20 league titles and are the only two clubs in the history of the English football to have achieved this feat. Manchester United is the only team to win the Premier League three times in a row (1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002) while Liverpool won it five times in a row. Liverpool is the most successful club in European football, having won the European Cup/UEFA Champions League six times while Manchester United has won it three times. On the other hand, Manchester United has more supporters in the world and they also have a more modern stadium. Although, their fans may not have been as consistent as Liverpool’s over the years, their attendance is higher and their support is greater. I think that the two clubs are on par and it’s a hard one to call but I would have to say Manchester United are better. They are currently top of the Premier League so I would say they are the better team at the moment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Manchester United and Liverpool are two of the most successful clubs in English football history. Liverpool is the most successful club in European football, having won the European Cup/UEFA Champions League six times while Manchester United has won it three times. Nevertheless, Manchester United has won more trophies than Liverpool over the years. Furthermore, Manchester United has more supporters in the world and they also have a more modern stadium. Although, their fans may not have been as consistent as Liverpool’s over the years, their attendance is higher and their support is greater. I think that the two clubs are on par and it’s a hard one to call but I would have to say Manchester United are better. They are currently top of the Premier League so I would say they are the better team at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Penny Auctions: Two sides of the story. This article tries to take an objective view of both the customers and providers of Penny Auctions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Manchester United and Liverpool are the two most successful clubs in English football and their rivalry is one of the fiercest in world sport. Both have won 20 league titles and are the only two clubs in the history of the English football to have achieved this feat. Manchester United is the only team to win the Premier League three times in a row (1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002) while Liverpool won it five times in a row. Liverpool is the most successful club in European football, having won the European Cup/UEFA Champions League six times while Manchester United has won it three times. On the other hand, Manchester United has more supporters in the world and they also have a more modern stadium. Although, their fans may not have been as consistent as Liverpool’s over the years, their attendance is higher and their support is greater. Overall, the two clubs are very similar in terms of their success and in terms of the amount of fans they have. It’s a hard one to call but I would have to say Manchester United are better. They are currently top of the Premier League so I would say they are the better team at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Manchester United and Liverpool are the two most successful clubs in English football and their rivalry is one of the fiercest in world sport. Both have won 20 league titles and are the only two clubs in the history of the English football to have achieved this feat. Manchester United is the only team to win the Premier League three times in a row (1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002) while Liverpool won it five times in a row. Liverpool is the most successful club in European football, having won the European Cup/UEFA Champions League six times while Manchester United has won it three times. On the other hand, Manchester United has more supporters in the world and they also have a more modern stadium. Although, their fans may not have been as consistent as Liverpool’s over the years, their attendance is higher and their support is greater. I think that the two clubs are on par and it’s a hard one to call but I would have to say Manchester United are better. They are currently top of the Premier League so I would say they are the better team at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Manchester United and Liverpool are two of the most successful clubs in English football history. Liverpool is the most successful club in European football, having won the European Cup/UEFA Champions League six times while Manchester United has won it three times. Nevertheless, Manchester United has won more trophies than Liverpool over the years. Furthermore, Manchester United has more supporters in the world and they also have a more modern stadium. Although, their fans may not have been as consistent as Liverpool’s over the years, their attendance is higher and their support is greater. I think that the two clubs are on par and it’s a hard one to call but I would have to say Manchester United are better. They are currently top of the Premier League so I would say they are the better team at the moment. 3: 2,3,4,1 2: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001276.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001276.soc index cf619f88..a2f265b1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001276.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001276.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should continue to host refugees from other parts of the world. The UK is obliged to do so for both moral and legal reasons. Morally, we should do so to support those in need and legally, the UK is obliged to do so under the UN Refugee Convention. The number of refugees entering the UK should not be capped. In the UK, we have an abundance of natural resources which we can share with refugees. The UK should continue to host refugees as long as there are genuine refugees who need our help. When it comes to policy formulation and implementation, it is not the opinions of the public that matter. What matters is their attitude. An attitude is a complex concept which combines feelings, beliefs, and values. A policy may be ineffective because the target audience does not believe that the policy will be effective or they don't think that the policy will lead to the desired outcome. Even if they believe in the policy, they may not feel motivated to engage in the behaviour the policy advocates for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. This is a moral obligation and also a legal one. However, we must also consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communitites and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflitct. It is essential we balance humanitarian concenrs with practical considerations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: we believe the UK should be a refuge for anyone who needs one, but we need to be sure the right measures are in place to ensure this is a success. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should host more refugees from other parts of the world. The UK has a moral obligation to do so and should share some of its resources with those fleeing persecution or conflict. However, the UK must also consider the impact of hosting refugees on local communities and the country as a whole. It is essential to balance humanitarian concerns with practical considerations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should continue to host refugees from other parts of the world. The UK is obliged to do so for both moral and legal reasons. Morally, we should do so to support those in need and legally, the UK is obliged to do so under the UN Refugee Convention. The number of refugees entering the UK should not be capped. In the UK, we have an abundance of natural resources which we can share with refugees. The UK should continue to host refugees as long as there are genuine refugees who need our help. When it comes to policy formulation and implementation, it is not the opinions of the public that matter. What matters is their attitude. An attitude is a complex concept which combines feelings, beliefs, and values. A policy may be ineffective because the target audience does not believe that the policy will be effective or they don't think that the policy will lead to the desired outcome. Even if they believe in the policy, they may not feel motivated to engage in the behaviour the policy advocates for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. This is a moral obligation and also a legal one. However, we must also consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communitites and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflitct. It is essential we balance humanitarian concenrs with practical considerations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - we believe the UK should be a refuge for anyone who needs one, but we need to be sure the right measures are in place to ensure this is a success. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should host more refugees from other parts of the world. The UK has a moral obligation to do so and should share some of its resources with those fleeing persecution or conflict. However, the UK must also consider the impact of hosting refugees on local communities and the country as a whole. It is essential to balance humanitarian concerns with practical considerations. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001277.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001277.soc index 7134f67f..e5506062 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001277.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001277.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In the opinion of the group, the legalisation of recreational cannabis is likely to be a good thing for the country and its people, providing it is regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. It would make the product available to people who want to use it for recreational reasons. It will make it available to people who wish to use it for medical purposes. It will remove the criminal element in cannabis supply. It will make the country money by taxing cannabis sales. It will make the police more efficient in their work, as they will no longer be tasked with dealing with cannabis possession. However, we also feel that legalisation of recreational cannabis should only happen when the public are fully aware of the risks involved, and that the drug should be heavily regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In the opinion of the group, legalisation of recreational cannabis is likely to be a good thing for the country and its people, providing it is regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. It would make the product available to people who want to use it for recreational reasons. It will make it available to people who wish to use it for medical purposes. It will remove the criminal element in cannabis supply. It will make the country money by taxing cannabis sales. It will make the police more efficient in their work, as they will no longer be tasked with dealing with cannabis possession. However, we also feel that legalisation of recreational cannabis should only happen when the public are fully aware of the risks involved, and that the drug should be heavily regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. This includes regulation of where it can be obtained, who it can be sold to, and where it can be consumed. It should not be available for purchase by children, and there should be a ban on all forms of advertising of cannabis. This will ensure that it is not abused by people and will help prevent problems caused by cannabis use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: Legalisation of cannabis would be a positive step for the UK, both in terms of health and the economy. There is much evidence that the drug is much less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, the two substances that it would most likely be regulated in the same way as. Legalisation would make the product available to people who want to use it for recreational reasons. It will make it available to people who wish to use it for medical purposes. It will remove the criminal element in cannabis supply. It will make the country money by taxing cannabis sales. It will make the police more efficient in their work, as they will no longer be tasked with dealing with cannabis possession. However, we also feel that legalisation of recreational cannabis should only happen when the public are fully aware of the risks involved, and that the drug should be heavily regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. The public should also be made fully aware of the potential health risks of cannabis use, before it is legalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In the opinion of the group, the legalisation of recreational cannabis is likely to be a good thing for the country and its people, providing it is regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. It would make the product available to people who want to use it for recreational reasons. It will make it available to people who wish to use it for medical purposes. It will remove the criminal element in cannabis supply. It will make the country money by taxing cannabis sales. It will make the police more efficient in their work, as they will no longer be tasked with dealing with cannabis possession. However, we also feel that legalisation of recreational cannabis should only happen when the public are fully aware of the risks involved, and that the drug should be heavily regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In the opinion of the group, legalisation of recreational cannabis is likely to be a good thing for the country and its people, providing it is regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. It would make the product available to people who want to use it for recreational reasons. It will make it available to people who wish to use it for medical purposes. It will remove the criminal element in cannabis supply. It will make the country money by taxing cannabis sales. It will make the police more efficient in their work, as they will no longer be tasked with dealing with cannabis possession. However, we also feel that legalisation of recreational cannabis should only happen when the public are fully aware of the risks involved, and that the drug should be heavily regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. This includes regulation of where it can be obtained, who it can be sold to, and where it can be consumed. It should not be available for purchase by children, and there should be a ban on all forms of advertising of cannabis. This will ensure that it is not abused by people and will help prevent problems caused by cannabis use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: Legalisation of cannabis would be a positive step for the UK, both in terms of health and the economy. There is much evidence that the drug is much less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, the two substances that it would most likely be regulated in the same way as. Legalisation would make the product available to people who want to use it for recreational reasons. It will make it available to people who wish to use it for medical purposes. It will remove the criminal element in cannabis supply. It will make the country money by taxing cannabis sales. It will make the police more efficient in their work, as they will no longer be tasked with dealing with cannabis possession. However, we also feel that legalisation of recreational cannabis should only happen when the public are fully aware of the risks involved, and that the drug should be heavily regulated in a similar way to tobacco and alcohol. The public should also be made fully aware of the potential health risks of cannabis use, before it is legalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001278.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001278.soc index a7c94fe3..2ceef2d8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001278.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001278.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Basic Income Guarantee should be introduced for low income households. If implemented, this will reduce household poverty and help low income households and individuals to live more comfortable lives. Basic Income Guarantee should not be seen as a replacement for minimum wages, pensions, or other forms of welfare. There should be clear laws stating that Basic Income Guarantee should not be taken into account when calculating pensions, benefits, or minimum wages. This is to ensure that the scheme is not abused, and that those who really need the money get it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a Basic Income Guarantee system. However, the group felt that there should be some regulations in place to ensure that businesses do not take advantage of this by increasing prices. The group also felt that the income should be limited to those who really need it, and not be given to those who are already well off. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the implementation of a Basic Income Guarantee would be a positive change to the current system. It would help many families who are struggling and living in poverty. It would also give people something to look forward to each month, and in turn, boost productivity and morale. At the same time, it would help lower income households to have access to a constant flow of cash. While this wouldn't be enough to survive on, it would definitely go a long way for many. We believe that this would be a positive change to the current system, however, we believe that there should be regulations in place to ensure that businesses do not increase prices to take advantage of this extra money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the concept of a basic income is a very interesting one, we feel that there are some important factors to consider before this system is rolled out. We believe that this system should be used, but only if all people in the UK were guaranteed a minimum wage, so that all jobs are decent paying jobs. We also believe that everyone should be guaranteed housing, so that no one is forced to spend this income on accommodation, which could go to improving other areas of their life. Furthermore, we feel that there should be protections in place so that employers do not use this income as an excuse to cut their wages, and that this income is not considered for purposes such as tax, benefits or wages. Finally, this should be seen as a stepping stone to an even better system, where our overall social security system is improved so that we no longer need a basic income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Basic Income Guarantee should be introduced for low income households. If implemented, this will reduce household poverty and help low income households and individuals to live more comfortable lives. Basic Income Guarantee should not be seen as a replacement for minimum wages, pensions, or other forms of welfare. There should be clear laws stating that Basic Income Guarantee should not be taken into account when calculating pensions, benefits, or minimum wages. This is to ensure that the scheme is not abused, and that those who really need the money get it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a Basic Income Guarantee system. However, the group felt that there should be some regulations in place to ensure that businesses do not take advantage of this by increasing prices. The group also felt that the income should be limited to those who really need it, and not be given to those who are already well off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the implementation of a Basic Income Guarantee would be a positive change to the current system. It would help many families who are struggling and living in poverty. It would also give people something to look forward to each month, and in turn, boost productivity and morale. At the same time, it would help lower income households to have access to a constant flow of cash. While this wouldn't be enough to survive on, it would definitely go a long way for many. We believe that this would be a positive change to the current system, however, we believe that there should be regulations in place to ensure that businesses do not increase prices to take advantage of this extra money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the concept of a basic income is a very interesting one, we feel that there are some important factors to consider before this system is rolled out. We believe that this system should be used, but only if all people in the UK were guaranteed a minimum wage, so that all jobs are decent paying jobs. We also believe that everyone should be guaranteed housing, so that no one is forced to spend this income on accommodation, which could go to improving other areas of their life. Furthermore, we feel that there should be protections in place so that employers do not use this income as an excuse to cut their wages, and that this income is not considered for purposes such as tax, benefits or wages. Finally, this should be seen as a stepping stone to an even better system, where our overall social security system is improved so that we no longer need a basic income. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001279.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001279.soc index 95d68a81..b3d44e6d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001279.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001279.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. This is a moral obligation and also a legal one. However, we must also consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communities and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflict. It is essential we balance humanitarian concerns with practical considerations. The participants had researched the question prior to their discussion and had studied the articles from the Host part of the Oxford Students from Syria project website. The participants saw the evidence behind the question that they were discussing and that enabled them to have a really focused and fruitful debate about the issue. Overall, the debate was a balanced and open one, with everyone gaining new perspectives on the issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. This is a moral obligation and also a legal one. However, we must also consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communitites and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflitct. It is essential we balance humanitarian concenrs with practical considerations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. This is a moral obligation and also a legal one. However, we must also consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communitites and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflitct. It is essential we balance humanitarian concenrs with practical considerations. We should provide support to refugees from other countries but there should be good processes in place to ensure things are handled correctly and fairly. The UK should help those in need but also be aware of its role in causing such needs. We must help as much as we can, but maintain that balance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. While there is a moral obligation to do so, it is important to balance humanitarian concerns with practical considerations. As this planet is for all, and as we would expect to be hosted in another country if the roles were reversed, it is our moral obligation to provide assitance to people in need. We must consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communitites and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflitct. It is essential we balance humanitarian concenrs with practical considerations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. This is a moral obligation and also a legal one. However, we must also consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communities and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflict. It is essential we balance humanitarian concerns with practical considerations. The participants had researched the question prior to their discussion and had studied the articles from the Host part of the Oxford Students from Syria project website. The participants saw the evidence behind the question that they were discussing and that enabled them to have a really focused and fruitful debate about the issue. Overall, the debate was a balanced and open one, with everyone gaining new perspectives on the issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. This is a moral obligation and also a legal one. However, we must also consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communitites and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflitct. It is essential we balance humanitarian concenrs with practical considerations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. This is a moral obligation and also a legal one. However, we must also consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communitites and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflitct. It is essential we balance humanitarian concenrs with practical considerations. We should provide support to refugees from other countries but there should be good processes in place to ensure things are handled correctly and fairly. The UK should help those in need but also be aware of its role in causing such needs. We must help as much as we can, but maintain that balance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should host refugees from other parts of the world. While there is a moral obligation to do so, it is important to balance humanitarian concerns with practical considerations. As this planet is for all, and as we would expect to be hosted in another country if the roles were reversed, it is our moral obligation to provide assitance to people in need. We must consider the capacity of our country to provide support and resources to our own citizens and refugees. We must also consider the impact of local communitites and the UK, moral and legal obligations to protect and assist those fleeing persecution or conflitct. It is essential we balance humanitarian concenrs with practical considerations. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001280.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001280.soc index 58d5c894..525e11e6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001280.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001280.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. The BBC should find alternative sources of funding to ensure that the channels do not die out. This would allow people who do not use the service to choose not to pay for it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. Asking individuals to pay for television services that they do not use is not a fair model for the future. Future funding for the BBC should come from a broader base, like advertising, but a certain amount of funding should still be provided from the licence fee so that the elderly, poorer individuals, etc. are not excluded from the BBC because they do not have the financial means to make alternative arrangements. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. We feel that the BBC should receive some funding from the licence fee, but they should also be required to find additional funding to ensure that the channels do not die out. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. We feel that people should not be forced to pay for services that they do not use. The BBC should continue to receive a certain amount of funding from the licence fee, but they should also be required to find additional funding to ensure that the channels do not die out. In this day and age, there is a wide range of methods of funding a service such as this, including advertising revenue and subscriptions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. The BBC should find alternative sources of funding to ensure that the channels do not die out. This would allow people who do not use the service to choose not to pay for it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. Asking individuals to pay for television services that they do not use is not a fair model for the future. Future funding for the BBC should come from a broader base, like advertising, but a certain amount of funding should still be provided from the licence fee so that the elderly, poorer individuals, etc. are not excluded from the BBC because they do not have the financial means to make alternative arrangements. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. We feel that the BBC should receive some funding from the licence fee, but they should also be required to find additional funding to ensure that the channels do not die out. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. We feel that people should not be forced to pay for services that they do not use. The BBC should continue to receive a certain amount of funding from the licence fee, but they should also be required to find additional funding to ensure that the channels do not die out. In this day and age, there is a wide range of methods of funding a service such as this, including advertising revenue and subscriptions. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001281.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001281.soc index 6d6b042e..4add1e5b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001281.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001281.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. They are not yet at an age where they can fully comprehend the consequences of their actions and the dangers of the platform. It is important to note that Instagram is not a site that can be fully monitored by parents and children could be exposed to inappropriate content. The social media platform has been shown to have a negative effect on the body image and mental health of young people who use the site. It would be irresponsible to allow children under 13 to have their own Instagram account. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the effect of social media on children under the age of 13 is overwhelmingly negative. Their mental health is damaged and their perception of reality skewed by the highly-edited, often staged and surreal images of the lifestyles of people they follow on social media. The issue is not so much the content itself as the volume of it. Social media also exposes children to adult content, making it easier for them to gain access to pornography and extreme material that they may not otherwise come across. There are some positives to social media use in terms of interaction with other young people and building confidence and a sense of community, but ultimately the downsides outweigh the upsides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed their own Instagram account. This is because there is much content on the site that is inappropriate for this age group, and they cannot be fully monitored if they are using their own account. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed their own Instagram account. This is because there is a large amount of inappropriate content on Instagram which could be harmful to the mental health of young children. The content is also often of an adult nature which is not suitable for children. Having their own account means that they cannot be monitored in the way that they might if they were using a parents' account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. They are not yet at an age where they can fully comprehend the consequences of their actions and the dangers of the platform. It is important to note that Instagram is not a site that can be fully monitored by parents and children could be exposed to inappropriate content. The social media platform has been shown to have a negative effect on the body image and mental health of young people who use the site. It would be irresponsible to allow children under 13 to have their own Instagram account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the effect of social media on children under the age of 13 is overwhelmingly negative. Their mental health is damaged and their perception of reality skewed by the highly-edited, often staged and surreal images of the lifestyles of people they follow on social media. The issue is not so much the content itself as the volume of it. Social media also exposes children to adult content, making it easier for them to gain access to pornography and extreme material that they may not otherwise come across. There are some positives to social media use in terms of interaction with other young people and building confidence and a sense of community, but ultimately the downsides outweigh the upsides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed their own Instagram account. This is because there is much content on the site that is inappropriate for this age group, and they cannot be fully monitored if they are using their own account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed their own Instagram account. This is because there is a large amount of inappropriate content on Instagram which could be harmful to the mental health of young children. The content is also often of an adult nature which is not suitable for children. Having their own account means that they cannot be monitored in the way that they might if they were using a parents' account. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001282.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001282.soc index cbfa20b9..98b4deee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001282.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001282.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We need to find an alternative that will meet the demand we currently have. An alternative is costly and beyond the means of a lot of people. We need to find a way to protect the environment and force innovation and improvement. The best compromise would be subsidised electric engines and smaller more efficient combustion engines. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that internal combustion engines should be phased out, but the immediate banning of them is not the answer. A phased approach that provides time for the infrastructure to cope with the increase in demand for other forms of energy should be implemented. The government should work to provide subsidies for electric engines and make changes to improve the infrastructure to cope with the increase in demand. In addition to this, the government should provide grants for research into electric engine technology to help it become more efficient and cheaper to manufacture. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should be moving towards the end of the sale of internal combustion engines in cars. They are harmful to the environment and are an inefficient use of energy. It may be difficult to come up with a suitable alternative that would be acceptable to all parties and also provide for the needs of the world's population. However, we do believe that it is necessary to take steps towards this goal. It is possible to phase out these engines, while also making a transition to electric or hybrid engines in order to provide for the needs of those who depend on cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the sale of internal combustion engines should be phased out. This is to reduce the harm to the environment and to encourage innovation and improvement. However, the sale of internal combustion engines should not be ended immediately. It is important to ensure that there is an adequate alternative to meet the demand. In particular, the sale of larger engines should not be ended immediately, as there is currently no adequate alternative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We need to find an alternative that will meet the demand we currently have. An alternative is costly and beyond the means of a lot of people. We need to find a way to protect the environment and force innovation and improvement. The best compromise would be subsidised electric engines and smaller more efficient combustion engines. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that internal combustion engines should be phased out, but the immediate banning of them is not the answer. A phased approach that provides time for the infrastructure to cope with the increase in demand for other forms of energy should be implemented. The government should work to provide subsidies for electric engines and make changes to improve the infrastructure to cope with the increase in demand. In addition to this, the government should provide grants for research into electric engine technology to help it become more efficient and cheaper to manufacture. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should be moving towards the end of the sale of internal combustion engines in cars. They are harmful to the environment and are an inefficient use of energy. It may be difficult to come up with a suitable alternative that would be acceptable to all parties and also provide for the needs of the world's population. However, we do believe that it is necessary to take steps towards this goal. It is possible to phase out these engines, while also making a transition to electric or hybrid engines in order to provide for the needs of those who depend on cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the sale of internal combustion engines should be phased out. This is to reduce the harm to the environment and to encourage innovation and improvement. However, the sale of internal combustion engines should not be ended immediately. It is important to ensure that there is an adequate alternative to meet the demand. In particular, the sale of larger engines should not be ended immediately, as there is currently no adequate alternative. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001283.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001283.soc index c23c9d3e..c7b8d8af 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001283.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001283.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines, but we should be working towards ending their sale. We need to find an alternative that will meet the demand we currently have. An alternative is costly and beyond the means of a lot of people. We need to find a way to protect the environment and force innovation and improvement. The best compromise would be subsidised electric engines and smaller more efficient combustion engines. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. This change should be gradual and slow. We need sound, systematic process that is slow, gradual and thorough. There should be an end date to manufacturing new internal combustion engines, but it doesn't have to be soon, maybe in 20 years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines as there are some engines that are necessary. Any change should be gradual, giving people time to research and develop alternative solutions as well as allowing smaller businesses time to adjust. An end point for manufacturing engines should be set so that companies know the end goal and have the incentive to find a solution. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. There needs to be a large increase in subsidies for alternatives to help encourage the change. There should be more research and focus on charging and battery technology, as these along with cost are the main issues that are hindering the uptake of electric engines. Research around hydrogen as a fuel for engines would also be beneficial. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We need to find an alternative that will meet the demand we currently have. An alternative is costly and beyond the means of a lot of people. We need to find a way to protect the environment and force innovation and improvement. The best compromise would be subsidised electric engines and smaller more efficient combustion engines. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. We should set a final date in the future to ban the sale of all new combustion engines, but not for a few decades. This will allow us to research an alternative and give us time to deal with the social and economic issues. I think this is a compromise that will allow the environment to recover but still keep the world ticking over. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We need to find an alternative that will meet the demand we currently have. An alternative is costly and beyond the means of a lot of people. We need to find a way to protect the environment and force innovation and improvement. The best compromise would be subsidised electric engines and smaller more efficient combustion engines. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines, but we should be working towards ending their sale. We need to find an alternative that will meet the demand we currently have. An alternative is costly and beyond the means of a lot of people. We need to find a way to protect the environment and force innovation and improvement. The best compromise would be subsidised electric engines and smaller more efficient combustion engines. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. This change should be gradual and slow. We need sound, systematic process that is slow, gradual and thorough. There should be an end date to manufacturing new internal combustion engines, but it doesn't have to be soon, maybe in 20 years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines as there are some engines that are necessary. Any change should be gradual, giving people time to research and develop alternative solutions as well as allowing smaller businesses time to adjust. An end point for manufacturing engines should be set so that companies know the end goal and have the incentive to find a solution. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. There needs to be a large increase in subsidies for alternatives to help encourage the change. There should be more research and focus on charging and battery technology, as these along with cost are the main issues that are hindering the uptake of electric engines. Research around hydrogen as a fuel for engines would also be beneficial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We need to find an alternative that will meet the demand we currently have. An alternative is costly and beyond the means of a lot of people. We need to find a way to protect the environment and force innovation and improvement. The best compromise would be subsidised electric engines and smaller more efficient combustion engines. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. We should set a final date in the future to ban the sale of all new combustion engines, but not for a few decades. This will allow us to research an alternative and give us time to deal with the social and economic issues. I think this is a compromise that will allow the environment to recover but still keep the world ticking over. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We need to find an alternative that will meet the demand we currently have. An alternative is costly and beyond the means of a lot of people. We need to find a way to protect the environment and force innovation and improvement. The best compromise would be subsidised electric engines and smaller more efficient combustion engines. Larger engines such as tractors, heavy machinery and large vehicles, still have a big purpose in our society and we rely upon them alot. Ending the sale of these engines without providing an adequate replacement will just be swapping one problem for another. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001284.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001284.soc index f4ce7009..f966f6f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001284.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001284.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Horse meat is not a sustainable option in the UK. The health benefits of horse meat are not enough to justify eating it, and there are many other meats that are readily available and can be eaten without the need for slaughtering horses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Horse meat is a sustainable and healthy source of protein, and horses have been eaten in other countries for many years, so there is no reason why we shouldn't allow it to be eaten here. It would also increase horse welfare as many horses are currently malnourished and in a poor state. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Horse meat is a very good source of protein and can be a sustainable source of food. However, we do not believe that it should be legalised in the UK as the majority of people do not eat horse meat and would not be happy with it being legalised. This would cause unnecessary upset and distress. We also feel that there is enough suffering in the UK meat industry and we do not need to add another animal to the mix. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that eating horse meat should not be legal in the UK. Although it has a higher nutritional value than beef and is a great source of protein, there are already plenty of other great sources of protein in the UK. Eating horse meat will only increase the pollution of the environment. It is currently legal in many other countries, however we believe that there are plenty of other animals to be eaten. In the current climate of eating meat, there are more than enough animals to be eaten already and horse meat would only be a further burden on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Horse meat is not a sustainable option in the UK. The health benefits of horse meat are not enough to justify eating it, and there are many other meats that are readily available and can be eaten without the need for slaughtering horses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Horse meat is a sustainable and healthy source of protein, and horses have been eaten in other countries for many years, so there is no reason why we shouldn't allow it to be eaten here. It would also increase horse welfare as many horses are currently malnourished and in a poor state. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Horse meat is a very good source of protein and can be a sustainable source of food. However, we do not believe that it should be legalised in the UK as the majority of people do not eat horse meat and would not be happy with it being legalised. This would cause unnecessary upset and distress. We also feel that there is enough suffering in the UK meat industry and we do not need to add another animal to the mix. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that eating horse meat should not be legal in the UK. Although it has a higher nutritional value than beef and is a great source of protein, there are already plenty of other great sources of protein in the UK. Eating horse meat will only increase the pollution of the environment. It is currently legal in many other countries, however we believe that there are plenty of other animals to be eaten. In the current climate of eating meat, there are more than enough animals to be eaten already and horse meat would only be a further burden on the environment. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001285.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001285.soc index 9c027c85..69ae7336 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001285.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001285.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Horse meat is not sustainable in the UK. The health benefits of horse meat are not enough to justify eating it, and there are many other meats that are readily available and can be eaten without the need for slaughtering horses. Currently it is unnecessary in the UK to eat horse meat, as there is an abundance of other meats that can be consumed without the need for new slaughterhouses to be built and no further detriment to the environment and waste product created by the meat industry. The consensus was strongly in favour of this and we saw no evidence to contradict this argument. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Horse meat is not a sustainable option in the UK. The health benefits of horse meat are not enough to justify eating it, and there are many other meats that are readily available and can be eaten without the need for slaughtering horses. The horse meat industry will add to the number of animals being slaughtered for meat and will not improve the welfare of animals in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Horse meat is not a sustainable option in the UK. The health benefits of horse meat are not enough to justify eating it, and there are many other meats that are readily available and can be eaten without the need for slaughtering horses. This will result in unnecessary suffering and also risks contaminating the human food chain. The points that needed further development were: What do we mean by sustainable? How would horse meat affect the environment? How would the legalisation of horse meat affect the amount of horse meat being sold on the black market? How much horse meat is being sold on the black market? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In the United Kingdom, there is little to no justification for legalising the slaughter and consumption of horse meat. There are already several nutritious and high-protein animal meats that are readily available on the market. There is no strong case to support the argument that horse meat is a sustainable option in the UK, as it would be detrimental to the environment, and could cause for further unrest within the farming and livestock industry. Legalising horse meat would only lead to more animal suffering, as the horse is very loved and cared for by many in the UK. If further research into the consumption of horse meat was needed, this research could be done in countries which already legally consume it, and the effects would be clear. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Horse meat is not sustainable in the UK. The health benefits of horse meat are not enough to justify eating it, and there are many other meats that are readily available and can be eaten without the need for slaughtering horses. Currently it is unnecessary in the UK to eat horse meat, as there is an abundance of other meats that can be consumed without the need for new slaughterhouses to be built and no further detriment to the environment and waste product created by the meat industry. The consensus was strongly in favour of this and we saw no evidence to contradict this argument. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Horse meat is not a sustainable option in the UK. The health benefits of horse meat are not enough to justify eating it, and there are many other meats that are readily available and can be eaten without the need for slaughtering horses. The horse meat industry will add to the number of animals being slaughtered for meat and will not improve the welfare of animals in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Horse meat is not a sustainable option in the UK. The health benefits of horse meat are not enough to justify eating it, and there are many other meats that are readily available and can be eaten without the need for slaughtering horses. This will result in unnecessary suffering and also risks contaminating the human food chain. The points that needed further development were: What do we mean by sustainable? How would horse meat affect the environment? How would the legalisation of horse meat affect the amount of horse meat being sold on the black market? How much horse meat is being sold on the black market? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In the United Kingdom, there is little to no justification for legalising the slaughter and consumption of horse meat. There are already several nutritious and high-protein animal meats that are readily available on the market. There is no strong case to support the argument that horse meat is a sustainable option in the UK, as it would be detrimental to the environment, and could cause for further unrest within the farming and livestock industry. Legalising horse meat would only lead to more animal suffering, as the horse is very loved and cared for by many in the UK. If further research into the consumption of horse meat was needed, this research could be done in countries which already legally consume it, and the effects would be clear. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001286.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001286.soc index a0f8739b..5082f23b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001286.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001286.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should absolutely make every effort to end fox hunting. It is barbaric and unnecessary, and the people that support this have no morals. The animal is innocent and this is beyond cruel on every single level. The poor animal does not have a choice and must go through immesurable panic and pain and it is heart breaking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning fox hunting, but some participants expressed concerns about whether this was a fair law, and whether it was hypocritical to ban fox hunting but still allow commercial farming methods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Fox hunting is wrong and should be banned. It is a cruel and unnecessary pastime which is outdated and does not fit with modern values. There is no excuse for the barbaric treatment of foxes. The people who engage in this activity are immoral and have no respect for life. There are many other activities which can provide the same adrenaline rush as fox hunting without the need to kill an innocent animal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think fox hunting is a disgusting hobby that should be banned. We do not think it is fair on foxes and we think that they should be able to live their lives without being killed for sport. We think that foxes are a major pest in the countryside, but this does not justify the violence of hunting them with dogs and killing them. We think that it is wrong to hunt any animal, and especially foxes, and this should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should absolutely make every effort to end fox hunting. It is barbaric and unnecessary, and the people that support this have no morals. The animal is innocent and this is beyond cruel on every single level. The poor animal does not have a choice and must go through immesurable panic and pain and it is heart breaking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning fox hunting, but some participants expressed concerns about whether this was a fair law, and whether it was hypocritical to ban fox hunting but still allow commercial farming methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Fox hunting is wrong and should be banned. It is a cruel and unnecessary pastime which is outdated and does not fit with modern values. There is no excuse for the barbaric treatment of foxes. The people who engage in this activity are immoral and have no respect for life. There are many other activities which can provide the same adrenaline rush as fox hunting without the need to kill an innocent animal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think fox hunting is a disgusting hobby that should be banned. We do not think it is fair on foxes and we think that they should be able to live their lives without being killed for sport. We think that foxes are a major pest in the countryside, but this does not justify the violence of hunting them with dogs and killing them. We think that it is wrong to hunt any animal, and especially foxes, and this should be banned. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001287.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001287.soc index b7490ea7..8e16ecd2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001287.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001287.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Social media sites should have the right to delete any content that they believe is “offensive”, however, they should also have a clear standard to define what is meant by “offensive”. The social media should ensure that users are well protected and not offended. They should also ensure that the content which is harmful, eg. which incites violence or hatred or which is pornographic or violent etc in itself should be removed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think social media sites should have the right to delete content they believe is “offensive”. We agree that there should be clear guidelines to define what is meant by “offensive” and we also believe that social media sites should protect users from being offended. However, we also believe that the right to free speech should be respected and people should be able to express their opinions and have access to information even if it is controversial. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that social media sites should have the right to delete any content that they believe is “offensive”. However, this power needs to be moderated as it can often become arbitrary. The extent to which these sites can remove content will depend upon the jurisdiction and culture of each country. The removal of offensive content can often prevent hate speech and racism. This prevents the development of new ideas that may be useful in changing society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social media sites should have the right to delete content that is harmful, incites violence or hatred or which is pornographic or violent etc in itself. The social media should ensure that users are well protected and not offended. The social media aggregators usually have community guidelines that outline acceptable behaviour and content which aim to create safe and tedious environment for everyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Social media sites should have the right to delete any content that they believe is “offensive”, however, they should also have a clear standard to define what is meant by “offensive”. The social media should ensure that users are well protected and not offended. They should also ensure that the content which is harmful, eg. which incites violence or hatred or which is pornographic or violent etc in itself should be removed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think social media sites should have the right to delete content they believe is “offensive”. We agree that there should be clear guidelines to define what is meant by “offensive” and we also believe that social media sites should protect users from being offended. However, we also believe that the right to free speech should be respected and people should be able to express their opinions and have access to information even if it is controversial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that social media sites should have the right to delete any content that they believe is “offensive”. However, this power needs to be moderated as it can often become arbitrary. The extent to which these sites can remove content will depend upon the jurisdiction and culture of each country. The removal of offensive content can often prevent hate speech and racism. This prevents the development of new ideas that may be useful in changing society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social media sites should have the right to delete content that is harmful, incites violence or hatred or which is pornographic or violent etc in itself. The social media should ensure that users are well protected and not offended. The social media aggregators usually have community guidelines that outline acceptable behaviour and content which aim to create safe and tedious environment for everyone else. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001288.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001288.soc index bcc69dc2..6e7d584b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001288.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001288.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it should not be legal for someone to sell their own body organs. If it is legal, people will be exploited and will be pressured to sell their organs. This will also lead to a black market for organs. The rich will be able to buy their way to health while the poor will be left to die. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although theoretically the notion of organ selling could be encouraged to mitigate the organ shortages necessary for transplants, the potential risk of exploitation and abuse is far too high to justify legalisation. As there are already many organs donated for transplants without charge, it is unnecessary and unethical to allow a black market for organs to flourish. There is also an argument that it is necessary to prohibit organ selling because of the unique nature of organs, which cannot be replicated and their loss may affect the well-being of the body. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Selling organs is a tough issue to get right. On the one hand, there is the need to respect a person’s right to use their own body as they wish. The philosophical justification is the sanctity of individual freedom. The pragmatic argument is that selling one’s own organs would alleviate the shortage of organs, leading to reduced waiting lists and saving more lives. There are those who might argue that this is simply a question of supply and demand. On the other hand, there is the argument that individuals will be vulnerable to coercion and pressure, potentially losing their most vital organs for the sake of a few dollars. Moreover, the rich will be able to buy organs from the poor, thus allowing their lives to be saved while the poor are left to die. This means that justice and equality would be lost. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the sale of body organs should be legal. It is a way to mitigate the harm of organ shortages, necessary for transplants. By permitting selling organs, more lives can be saved, and waiting lists can be reduced. Regulating the market would ensure safety and protect illegal organ trafficking. Moreover, it gives individuals their constitutional freedoms to make decisions about their bodies and use the proceeds to support their lives and fulfill their needs. Additionally, it creates a new industry, leading to economic benefits and employment opportunities. However, it is important to note that the sale of body organs is not a universal solution to organ shortages. The sale of body organs should be legalised only in countries with trusted law systems and medical expertise in place. Also, there should be a strict regulation on the sale of body organs. For example, people who are selling their body organs should be well informed about the risks involved in the process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it should not be legal for someone to sell their own body organs. If it is legal, people will be exploited and will be pressured to sell their organs. This will also lead to a black market for organs. The rich will be able to buy their way to health while the poor will be left to die. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although theoretically the notion of organ selling could be encouraged to mitigate the organ shortages necessary for transplants, the potential risk of exploitation and abuse is far too high to justify legalisation. As there are already many organs donated for transplants without charge, it is unnecessary and unethical to allow a black market for organs to flourish. There is also an argument that it is necessary to prohibit organ selling because of the unique nature of organs, which cannot be replicated and their loss may affect the well-being of the body. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Selling organs is a tough issue to get right. On the one hand, there is the need to respect a person’s right to use their own body as they wish. The philosophical justification is the sanctity of individual freedom. The pragmatic argument is that selling one’s own organs would alleviate the shortage of organs, leading to reduced waiting lists and saving more lives. There are those who might argue that this is simply a question of supply and demand. On the other hand, there is the argument that individuals will be vulnerable to coercion and pressure, potentially losing their most vital organs for the sake of a few dollars. Moreover, the rich will be able to buy organs from the poor, thus allowing their lives to be saved while the poor are left to die. This means that justice and equality would be lost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the sale of body organs should be legal. It is a way to mitigate the harm of organ shortages, necessary for transplants. By permitting selling organs, more lives can be saved, and waiting lists can be reduced. Regulating the market would ensure safety and protect illegal organ trafficking. Moreover, it gives individuals their constitutional freedoms to make decisions about their bodies and use the proceeds to support their lives and fulfill their needs. Additionally, it creates a new industry, leading to economic benefits and employment opportunities. However, it is important to note that the sale of body organs is not a universal solution to organ shortages. The sale of body organs should be legalised only in countries with trusted law systems and medical expertise in place. Also, there should be a strict regulation on the sale of body organs. For example, people who are selling their body organs should be well informed about the risks involved in the process. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001289.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001289.soc index 3d9906ce..4ffdcea8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001289.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001289.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should be taking a much more active role in developing sustainable alternatives to the use of fossil fuels, such as the development of nuclear fusion or alternative energy sources, as this would lead to the reduction in the overall reliance on fossil fuels. While the effects of carbon tax on reducing individual emissions is disputed, it is agreed that this is one of the many tools that governments should be using to encourage businesses to decrease their emissions. Furthermore, while a carbon tax is the best way to persuade businesses to do the right thing, it should be a universal carbon tax, i.e. imposed by the whole world, to ensure that the companies do not move to a country with a low or no carbon tax. The idea of monitoring carbon emission by companies is a good one as it provides the incentive for companies to decrease their carbon emission. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The governments should impose carbon tax but they have to do it carefully. They need to understand what the impacts are, what the negative impacts are, and what the positive impacts are, so they can come to a consensus to create a positive outcome. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is also necessary for the government to closely monitor the carbon emissions of companies. The government should also help companies with their emission reducing measures and give tax relief. The government should also enforce the carbon tax to ensure that the companies do not find ways to cheat the system. The government should also help the citizens by implementing measures to reduce the cost of living, so that the citizens do not feel the impact of the carbon tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the government should impose a carbon tax. However, it should be a tax on companies and not individuals. The tax should be used to help companies invest in new technologies and implement emission decreasing measures. The tax should be imposed gradually and be closely monitored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should be taking a much more active role in developing sustainable alternatives to the use of fossil fuels, such as the development of nuclear fusion or alternative energy sources, as this would lead to the reduction in the overall reliance on fossil fuels. While the effects of carbon tax on reducing individual emissions is disputed, it is agreed that this is one of the many tools that governments should be using to encourage businesses to decrease their emissions. Furthermore, while a carbon tax is the best way to persuade businesses to do the right thing, it should be a universal carbon tax, i.e. imposed by the whole world, to ensure that the companies do not move to a country with a low or no carbon tax. The idea of monitoring carbon emission by companies is a good one as it provides the incentive for companies to decrease their carbon emission. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The governments should impose carbon tax but they have to do it carefully. They need to understand what the impacts are, what the negative impacts are, and what the positive impacts are, so they can come to a consensus to create a positive outcome. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is also necessary for the government to closely monitor the carbon emissions of companies. The government should also help companies with their emission reducing measures and give tax relief. The government should also enforce the carbon tax to ensure that the companies do not find ways to cheat the system. The government should also help the citizens by implementing measures to reduce the cost of living, so that the citizens do not feel the impact of the carbon tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the government should impose a carbon tax. However, it should be a tax on companies and not individuals. The tax should be used to help companies invest in new technologies and implement emission decreasing measures. The tax should be imposed gradually and be closely monitored. 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001290.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001290.soc index 39c60411..660fc608 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001290.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001290.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The British government has a moral obligation to support international development. This is due to a position of privilege it currently experiences, which is in part due to a past of amoral and unethical means of expansion, such as the British Empire, which caused uncountable damage to some parts of the developing world. The British government should give back to countries that it impacted for its own growth and expansion. The British government should also contribute to research such as for vaccines i.e. coronavirus and climate change to ensure scientific advancement. It is a moral obligation to keep trying to improve things in the world and not just for our own country. The British government should support international development as we have many British people living and working all over the world and we need other countries to be happy to provide them with jobs and opportunities to develop and for our country to reciprocate this for the need of all of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The British government has a moral obligation to support international development to help poorer countries improve their society and quality of life, but only if the finances of the country permit it. The government should prioritise spending on this after ensuring that the British people are being provided for in their everyday lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. We are a relatively rich nation, even though we have a lot of poverty. We have a position of privilege in part due to a past of amoral and unethical means of expansion, such as the British Empire. We should give back to countries that we have impacted. The British government should contribute to international development, helping to support less fortunate countries, providing jobs and opportunities to develop, ensuring scientific advancement and improving things in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the British government has a moral obligation to support international development. We have a long history of colonisation and exploitation of other countries and as such we have a responsibility to help those countries develop. The UK has a lot of expertise in many areas and can use this to help other countries. The UK is also a relatively wealthy country and can afford to help other countries. We also have a lot of people living and working in other countries and it is in our interests to ensure that those countries are stable and prosperous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The British government has a moral obligation to support international development. This is due to a position of privilege it currently experiences, which is in part due to a past of amoral and unethical means of expansion, such as the British Empire, which caused uncountable damage to some parts of the developing world. The British government should give back to countries that it impacted for its own growth and expansion. The British government should also contribute to research such as for vaccines i.e. coronavirus and climate change to ensure scientific advancement. It is a moral obligation to keep trying to improve things in the world and not just for our own country. The British government should support international development as we have many British people living and working all over the world and we need other countries to be happy to provide them with jobs and opportunities to develop and for our country to reciprocate this for the need of all of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The British government has a moral obligation to support international development to help poorer countries improve their society and quality of life, but only if the finances of the country permit it. The government should prioritise spending on this after ensuring that the British people are being provided for in their everyday lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. We are a relatively rich nation, even though we have a lot of poverty. We have a position of privilege in part due to a past of amoral and unethical means of expansion, such as the British Empire. We should give back to countries that we have impacted. The British government should contribute to international development, helping to support less fortunate countries, providing jobs and opportunities to develop, ensuring scientific advancement and improving things in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the British government has a moral obligation to support international development. We have a long history of colonisation and exploitation of other countries and as such we have a responsibility to help those countries develop. The UK has a lot of expertise in many areas and can use this to help other countries. The UK is also a relatively wealthy country and can afford to help other countries. We also have a lot of people living and working in other countries and it is in our interests to ensure that those countries are stable and prosperous. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001291.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001291.soc index 33b86c62..04f43bee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001291.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001291.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Anti-social behaviour is a very serious issue and can cause a great deal of distress to people and their families. It can also have a detrimental impact on communities. Therefore, it is important to identify people who display anti-social behaviour early on in their lives and provide them with the support they need to help them develop social skills. This may include counselling, mentoring or therapy sessions. It is important to remember that some people may not be able to develop these skills and therefore it is important to provide them with the support they need to help them integrate into society. This may include providing them with their own accommodation and support workers to help them develop the skills they need to live independently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Punishments such as a prison sentence or other forms of detention have been found to be unsuccessful in rehabilitating offenders. To tackle this problem we need to look at ways to address the causes of this anti-social behaviour rather than simply dealing with the effects. Many people who engage in anti-social behaviour suffer from some form of mental illness or a lack of social development. As such, these individuals should be provided with support such as therapy, counselling or a mentor. In some cases, the person displaying anti-social behaviour may be homeless and in need of help in this area. In these cases, services such as temporary accommodation should be offered to these individuals so that they can be provided with support to overcome their anti-social behaviour. It is essential that these forms of support are put in place before the anti-social behaviour has become too severe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People displaying anti social behaviours should be identified early and provided support such as counselling, mentoring or therapy sessions. This will help them develop social skills and lead to a better society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People displaying anti social behaviour should be given the opportunity to undertake counselling, mentoring or therapy. They should also be asked to help in the community as part of their punishment and may be required to live in a designated community for anti social persons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Anti-social behaviour is a very serious issue and can cause a great deal of distress to people and their families. It can also have a detrimental impact on communities. Therefore, it is important to identify people who display anti-social behaviour early on in their lives and provide them with the support they need to help them develop social skills. This may include counselling, mentoring or therapy sessions. It is important to remember that some people may not be able to develop these skills and therefore it is important to provide them with the support they need to help them integrate into society. This may include providing them with their own accommodation and support workers to help them develop the skills they need to live independently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Punishments such as a prison sentence or other forms of detention have been found to be unsuccessful in rehabilitating offenders. To tackle this problem we need to look at ways to address the causes of this anti-social behaviour rather than simply dealing with the effects. Many people who engage in anti-social behaviour suffer from some form of mental illness or a lack of social development. As such, these individuals should be provided with support such as therapy, counselling or a mentor. In some cases, the person displaying anti-social behaviour may be homeless and in need of help in this area. In these cases, services such as temporary accommodation should be offered to these individuals so that they can be provided with support to overcome their anti-social behaviour. It is essential that these forms of support are put in place before the anti-social behaviour has become too severe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People displaying anti social behaviours should be identified early and provided support such as counselling, mentoring or therapy sessions. This will help them develop social skills and lead to a better society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People displaying anti social behaviour should be given the opportunity to undertake counselling, mentoring or therapy. They should also be asked to help in the community as part of their punishment and may be required to live in a designated community for anti social persons. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001292.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001292.soc index 964077d6..ff92c0da 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001292.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001292.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No. We should not continue to have a Royal Family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not continue to have a Royal Family. The idea of a royal family is outdated and not in keeping with the values of a modern society. The idea of a royal family brings no benefit to the country and is a waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent on the NHS, education and other public services. The royal family is also exempt from prosecution, which is not in keeping with a fair and just society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the UK should abolish the royal family. While they may be an important part of British history and tradition, they are not an important part of the current government, they are not elected and so do not represent the people. They also don't contribute anything to society, apart from the one or two members who try to use their position for charity work, and this can be replaced by people who are more directly involved in the cause and understand it better. In addition, the huge amount of money that is spent on maintaining the royal family could be better spent elsewhere, such as the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not continue to have a royal family. We do not think that they bring enough value to the country to justify the millions in taxpayer money that they are given every year to occupy a position that isn't decided by merit, but birth. We also do not think that they bring in money for the UK, but the historic locations like Buckingham Palace. The Crown Estate's profits don't count either, since they belong to the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No. We should not continue to have a Royal Family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not continue to have a Royal Family. The idea of a royal family is outdated and not in keeping with the values of a modern society. The idea of a royal family brings no benefit to the country and is a waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent on the NHS, education and other public services. The royal family is also exempt from prosecution, which is not in keeping with a fair and just society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the UK should abolish the royal family. While they may be an important part of British history and tradition, they are not an important part of the current government, they are not elected and so do not represent the people. They also don't contribute anything to society, apart from the one or two members who try to use their position for charity work, and this can be replaced by people who are more directly involved in the cause and understand it better. In addition, the huge amount of money that is spent on maintaining the royal family could be better spent elsewhere, such as the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not continue to have a royal family. We do not think that they bring enough value to the country to justify the millions in taxpayer money that they are given every year to occupy a position that isn't decided by merit, but birth. We also do not think that they bring in money for the UK, but the historic locations like Buckingham Palace. The Crown Estate's profits don't count either, since they belong to the government. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001293.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001293.soc index a4137735..8a7d51ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001293.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001293.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. The result of a referendum, however will need to be carefully considered before any action is taken. The general population should be considered and give the chance to vote, however any final decision should be made by politicians and experts, taking into consideration important matters such as economic stability and immigration. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that there should be a referendum on Scottish independence if there is strong support from the Scottish people. However, we believe that the decision should not be made solely by the Scottish people. The question of independence has implications for other parts of the UK and for the EU. A decision made by one section of the UK would affect the whole country. Therefore we believe that a decision made on independence must be agreed upon by a majority of the UK population, including the Scottish people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. However, a referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum can never be as representative of the whole population as we would hope. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. This decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. The consensus opinion is that there should be a Scottish referendum, but that it should not be used to come to a final decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a referendum on Scottish independence. The participants believed that the Scottish people should be given the opportunity to vote on the issue and that the result of the referendum should be respected. The group believed that the referendum result should be considered carefully before any action is taken. The group also believed that the referendum result should be considered in the context of the UK as a whole and that the referendum should not be considered in isolation. The group believed that the referendum result should be considered in the context of the UK as a whole and that the referendum should not be considered in isolation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. The result of a referendum, however will need to be carefully considered before any action is taken. The general population should be considered and give the chance to vote, however any final decision should be made by politicians and experts, taking into consideration important matters such as economic stability and immigration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that there should be a referendum on Scottish independence if there is strong support from the Scottish people. However, we believe that the decision should not be made solely by the Scottish people. The question of independence has implications for other parts of the UK and for the EU. A decision made by one section of the UK would affect the whole country. Therefore we believe that a decision made on independence must be agreed upon by a majority of the UK population, including the Scottish people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. However, a referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum can never be as representative of the whole population as we would hope. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. This decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. The consensus opinion is that there should be a Scottish referendum, but that it should not be used to come to a final decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a referendum on Scottish independence. The participants believed that the Scottish people should be given the opportunity to vote on the issue and that the result of the referendum should be respected. The group believed that the referendum result should be considered carefully before any action is taken. The group also believed that the referendum result should be considered in the context of the UK as a whole and that the referendum should not be considered in isolation. The group believed that the referendum result should be considered in the context of the UK as a whole and that the referendum should not be considered in isolation. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001294.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001294.soc index c8e613bc..ccad016b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001294.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001294.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a clear need to alleviate the shortage of organs for transplants. Selling one's own organs is a solution that has been proposed. Whilst this would mean more organs are available for people who need them, this is not a straightforward solution. The vulnerability of people who may sell their organs is a serious concern. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Poll showing how the participants voted on the final consensus view: Participants who chose "Disagree" stated, "people shouldn't have the right to do whatever they like with their possible as we have many psychopaths" and "it is impossible to get right. The impact to the society is too great, and we as human beings should not be encouraging this" Summary/Decision: With no prospect of a long-term solution and chronic organ shortage, legalising organ sales would increase accessibility to transplant surgery. With high demand and low supply, the market value of organs would skyrocket, and some organs, such as kidneys, are more valuable than others. Poor people may find organ sales to be their best way of earning a living. Through the comparison to rape, selling ones body does not give anyone an immediate right to the affected person's organs without consent. Although there are some advantages, like increased availability of organs and the economic benefits, there are also disadvantages, such as the individual interests and rights. If no regulation is carried out, poor people will be easy victims. Individuals will be vulnerable to coercion and pressure, and the lives of the poor and vulnerable would be at risk. The -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The majority of participants believe that it is not ethical to sell body organs. Moreover, by legalising the selling of organs, it could lead to people taking advantage of those who need the money. Those in desperate situations may be forced to sell their organs, which may cause them a greater harm. Moreover, if it becomes legal to sell organs, it will create an industry that does not create any value, but is simply catering to the needs of the rich. This will lead to the exploitation of the poor, and the creation of a two-tiered healthcare system, where the rich can buy the best care possible while the poor get left behind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Poll showing how the participants voted on the final consensus view: Participants who chose "Disagree" stated that they felt that individuals did not have the right to sell their body organs. Participants who chose "Unsure" stated that it was an issue that they needed more time to think about. Participants who chose "Strongly Agree" stated that they believed that individuals had the right to sell their body organs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a clear need to alleviate the shortage of organs for transplants. Selling one's own organs is a solution that has been proposed. Whilst this would mean more organs are available for people who need them, this is not a straightforward solution. The vulnerability of people who may sell their organs is a serious concern. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Poll showing how the participants voted on the final consensus view: Participants who chose "Disagree" stated, "people shouldn't have the right to do whatever they like with their possible as we have many psychopaths" and "it is impossible to get right. The impact to the society is too great, and we as human beings should not be encouraging this" Summary/Decision: With no prospect of a long-term solution and chronic organ shortage, legalising organ sales would increase accessibility to transplant surgery. With high demand and low supply, the market value of organs would skyrocket, and some organs, such as kidneys, are more valuable than others. Poor people may find organ sales to be their best way of earning a living. Through the comparison to rape, selling ones body does not give anyone an immediate right to the affected person's organs without consent. Although there are some advantages, like increased availability of organs and the economic benefits, there are also disadvantages, such as the individual interests and rights. If no regulation is carried out, poor people will be easy victims. Individuals will be vulnerable to coercion and pressure, and the lives of the poor and vulnerable would be at risk. The +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The majority of participants believe that it is not ethical to sell body organs. Moreover, by legalising the selling of organs, it could lead to people taking advantage of those who need the money. Those in desperate situations may be forced to sell their organs, which may cause them a greater harm. Moreover, if it becomes legal to sell organs, it will create an industry that does not create any value, but is simply catering to the needs of the rich. This will lead to the exploitation of the poor, and the creation of a two-tiered healthcare system, where the rich can buy the best care possible while the poor get left behind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Poll showing how the participants voted on the final consensus view: Participants who chose "Disagree" stated that they felt that individuals did not have the right to sell their body organs. Participants who chose "Unsure" stated that it was an issue that they needed more time to think about. Participants who chose "Strongly Agree" stated that they believed that individuals had the right to sell their body organs. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001295.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001295.soc index e73c81bc..0e2e9af1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001295.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001295.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is also necessary for the government to closely monitor the carbon emissions of companies. The government should also help companies with their emission reducing measures and give tax relief. The government should also enforce the carbon tax to ensure that the companies do not find ways to cheat the system. The government should also help the citizens by implementing measures to reduce the cost of living, so that the citizens do not feel the impact of the carbon tax. We also think that the government should make an effort to bring new providers of energy and new technology to the table so that the country can be pioneers in this field. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is also necessary for the government to closely monitor the carbon emissions of companies. The government should also help companies with their emission reducing measures and give tax relief. The government should also help the citizens by implementing measures to reduce the cost of living, so that the citizens do not feel the impact of the carbon tax. If companies are able to prove their attempt to reduce emissions, and their efforts are reflected in lower or reasonable product prices, then the consumers should not be subject to this tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should impose a carbon tax in order to reduce carbon emissions and help create a more sustainable society. This carbon tax should mainly be put on large scale energy-intensive firms as well as waste producers and importers of carbon intensive products. Any support should be provided to help these companies to reduce emissions. It is also important that these firms are closely monitored by the government to ensure that they reduce their carbon emission. The carbon tax should also be extended to cover products that are imported from places outside the borders of the country. The money from the carbon tax should be reallocated to go towards building more sustainable infrastructure and provide support to individuals that are part of low-income groups. The government should also implement measures to reduce the cost of living for the average citizen in order to help relieve the burden of the carbon tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is also necessary for the government to closely monitor the carbon emissions of companies. The government should also help companies with their emission reducing measures and give tax relief. The government should also enforce the carbon tax to ensure that the companies do not find ways to cheat the system. The government should also help the citizens by implementing measures to reduce the cost of living, so that the citizens do not feel the impact of the carbon tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is also necessary for the government to closely monitor the carbon emissions of companies. The government should also help companies with their emission reducing measures and give tax relief. The government should also enforce the carbon tax to ensure that the companies do not find ways to cheat the system. The government should also help the citizens by implementing measures to reduce the cost of living, so that the citizens do not feel the impact of the carbon tax. We also think that the government should make an effort to bring new providers of energy and new technology to the table so that the country can be pioneers in this field. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is also necessary for the government to closely monitor the carbon emissions of companies. The government should also help companies with their emission reducing measures and give tax relief. The government should also help the citizens by implementing measures to reduce the cost of living, so that the citizens do not feel the impact of the carbon tax. If companies are able to prove their attempt to reduce emissions, and their efforts are reflected in lower or reasonable product prices, then the consumers should not be subject to this tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should impose a carbon tax in order to reduce carbon emissions and help create a more sustainable society. This carbon tax should mainly be put on large scale energy-intensive firms as well as waste producers and importers of carbon intensive products. Any support should be provided to help these companies to reduce emissions. It is also important that these firms are closely monitored by the government to ensure that they reduce their carbon emission. The carbon tax should also be extended to cover products that are imported from places outside the borders of the country. The money from the carbon tax should be reallocated to go towards building more sustainable infrastructure and provide support to individuals that are part of low-income groups. The government should also implement measures to reduce the cost of living for the average citizen in order to help relieve the burden of the carbon tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a carbon tax is necessary to reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is also necessary for the government to closely monitor the carbon emissions of companies. The government should also help companies with their emission reducing measures and give tax relief. The government should also enforce the carbon tax to ensure that the companies do not find ways to cheat the system. The government should also help the citizens by implementing measures to reduce the cost of living, so that the citizens do not feel the impact of the carbon tax. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001296.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001296.soc index 94366ab1..3b1c5342 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001296.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001296.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. If they show an interest then the parents should support them to learn the instrument and have lessons. Children who are taught an instrument will have better self-esteem and happiness. Children who are not interested in learning an instrument should be given the opportunity to learn another creative skill. Children who learn to play an instrument may play in the community or in school concerts. The participants had researched the question prior to their discussion and had studied the articles from the National Association of Music Merchants, USA, 13 Arguments Why All Children Should Learn to Play a Musical Instrument (2010) and Jerry Schwirch, Why Every Child Should Play a Musical Instrument (2010). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. Children should not be forced to learn an instrument if they do not want to play but should be given the opportunity to try. If they show an interest then the parents should support them to learn the instrument and have lessons. Learning an instrument will help with many skills, such as communication skills and developing motor skills. Learning an instrument will also help children with their concentration. Children who are taught an instrument will have better self esteem and happiness. Children who are not interested in learning an instrument will be given the option of learning another creative skill. Children who learn to play an instrument may play in the community or in school concerts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. Children should not be forced to learn an instrument if they do not want to play but should be given the opportunity to try. If they show an interest then the parents should support them to learn the instrument and have lessons. Learning an instrument will help with many skills, such as communication skills and developing motor skills. Learning an instrument will also help children with their concentration. Children who are taught an instrument will have better self esteem and happiness. Children who are not interested in learning an instrument will be given the option of learning another creative skill. Children who learn to play an instrument may play in the community or in school concerts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. Children should not be forced to learn an instrument if they do not want to play but should be given the opportunity to try. If they show an interest then the parents should support them to learn the instrument and have lessons. Learning an instrument will help with many skills, such as communication skills and developing motor skills. Learning an instrument will also help children with their concentration. Children who are taught an instrument will have better self esteem and happiness. Children who are not interested in learning an instrument will be given the option of learning another creative skill. Children who learn to play an instrument may play in the community or in school concerts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. If they show an interest then the parents should support them to learn the instrument and have lessons. Children who are taught an instrument will have better self-esteem and happiness. Children who are not interested in learning an instrument should be given the opportunity to learn another creative skill. Children who learn to play an instrument may play in the community or in school concerts. The participants had researched the question prior to their discussion and had studied the articles from the National Association of Music Merchants, USA, 13 Arguments Why All Children Should Learn to Play a Musical Instrument (2010) and Jerry Schwirch, Why Every Child Should Play a Musical Instrument (2010). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. Children should not be forced to learn an instrument if they do not want to play but should be given the opportunity to try. If they show an interest then the parents should support them to learn the instrument and have lessons. Learning an instrument will help with many skills, such as communication skills and developing motor skills. Learning an instrument will also help children with their concentration. Children who are taught an instrument will have better self esteem and happiness. Children who are not interested in learning an instrument will be given the option of learning another creative skill. Children who learn to play an instrument may play in the community or in school concerts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. Children should not be forced to learn an instrument if they do not want to play but should be given the opportunity to try. If they show an interest then the parents should support them to learn the instrument and have lessons. Learning an instrument will help with many skills, such as communication skills and developing motor skills. Learning an instrument will also help children with their concentration. Children who are taught an instrument will have better self esteem and happiness. Children who are not interested in learning an instrument will be given the option of learning another creative skill. Children who learn to play an instrument may play in the community or in school concerts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. Children should not be forced to learn an instrument if they do not want to play but should be given the opportunity to try. If they show an interest then the parents should support them to learn the instrument and have lessons. Learning an instrument will help with many skills, such as communication skills and developing motor skills. Learning an instrument will also help children with their concentration. Children who are taught an instrument will have better self esteem and happiness. Children who are not interested in learning an instrument will be given the option of learning another creative skill. Children who learn to play an instrument may play in the community or in school concerts. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001297.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001297.soc index cb7d1570..3c880aa7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001297.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001297.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. However, a referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. This decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. The group's consensus opinion is that there should be a Scottish referendum, but that it should not be used to come to a final decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. However, a referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. The group strongly believes that this decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. The group opinion is that there should be a Scottish referendum, but that it should not be used to come to a final decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. A referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. This decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. The consensus opinion is that there should be a Scottish referendum, but that it should not be used to come to a final decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: We believe there should be a Scottish Independence referendum. However, a referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum can never be as representative of the whole population as we would hope. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. This decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. It is important to note that Northern Ireland would also need to consider the relationship that they would seek with a newly independent Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. However, a referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. This decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. The group's consensus opinion is that there should be a Scottish referendum, but that it should not be used to come to a final decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. However, a referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. The group strongly believes that this decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. The group opinion is that there should be a Scottish referendum, but that it should not be used to come to a final decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a referendum on Scottish independence. A referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. This decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. The consensus opinion is that there should be a Scottish referendum, but that it should not be used to come to a final decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We believe there should be a Scottish Independence referendum. However, a referendum alone is not sufficient to settle this matter. A referendum can never be as representative of the whole population as we would hope. A referendum should be used to determine the general view of the Scottish people, and also to raise the profile of the issue. After a referendum, there should be a careful consideration of the issue, taking into account both sides of the debate, before a final decision is made. This decision should not be taken by politicians alone, but should also involve experts from many areas, including business, the economy, immigration and others. This decision should not only consider the Scottish people, but also the rest of the UK. A Scottish referendum must not be taken in isolation, but must be considered within the context of the whole of the UK, in addition to the European Union. It is important to note that Northern Ireland would also need to consider the relationship that they would seek with a newly independent Scotland. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001298.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001298.soc index f8fdb43e..db19a42a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001298.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001298.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the concept of removing right turns is a very interesting one and we appreciate the rationale behind it, we do not believe that banning right turns is a practical solution. We believe that removing right turns would require more time and energy to implement than the problems that it would solve. However, it is clear that accidents do happen because of right turns. Therefore, we suggest that instead of removing right turns we promote better education and awareness about right turns, and their correct use. We also suggest that rather than a complete ban on right turns we consider removing only right turns that are clearly causing an issue with traffic flow. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although right turns can cause accidents and congestion, we should not ban them. Instead we should make the roads wider, so there is room for vehicles to turn, and we should educate drivers to look properly before turning. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that we should not ban right turns in central London. The reason for this is that it would cause more problems than it would solve. The problem of congestion in London is not caused by right turns, but by other factors such as poor infrastructure, poor planning and a lack of investment in public transport. If we were to ban right turns, it would mean that people would have to travel further to get to their destination, which would cause more pollution and congestion. The ban would also cause more problems for people who are used to making right turns and would have to get used to a new system. This would cause more problems and would be a waste of time and energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not ban right turns in central London. This is because it would cause too much chaos, and would inconvenience too many people. The best way to deal with the issue is to improve education and awareness of the dangers of right turns, and to improve the design of roads to make it easier and safer to make right turns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the concept of removing right turns is a very interesting one and we appreciate the rationale behind it, we do not believe that banning right turns is a practical solution. We believe that removing right turns would require more time and energy to implement than the problems that it would solve. However, it is clear that accidents do happen because of right turns. Therefore, we suggest that instead of removing right turns we promote better education and awareness about right turns, and their correct use. We also suggest that rather than a complete ban on right turns we consider removing only right turns that are clearly causing an issue with traffic flow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although right turns can cause accidents and congestion, we should not ban them. Instead we should make the roads wider, so there is room for vehicles to turn, and we should educate drivers to look properly before turning. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that we should not ban right turns in central London. The reason for this is that it would cause more problems than it would solve. The problem of congestion in London is not caused by right turns, but by other factors such as poor infrastructure, poor planning and a lack of investment in public transport. If we were to ban right turns, it would mean that people would have to travel further to get to their destination, which would cause more pollution and congestion. The ban would also cause more problems for people who are used to making right turns and would have to get used to a new system. This would cause more problems and would be a waste of time and energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not ban right turns in central London. This is because it would cause too much chaos, and would inconvenience too many people. The best way to deal with the issue is to improve education and awareness of the dangers of right turns, and to improve the design of roads to make it easier and safer to make right turns. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001299.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001299.soc index 2f5348fb..305ac93b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001299.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001299.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Prime Minister Tony Blair was not right to take the UK into the Iraq War. There was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and the decision to go to war was based on flawed intelligence. The decision to go to war destabilised Iraq and the region, and has led to a rise in Muslim extremism. The decision has weakened the UK's credibility and the UK has paid the price since. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The Iraq war was launched by the UK and US under the premiss of 'liberating' the Iraqi people from a dictator who was likely to use weapons of mass destruction on the allies. We now know that this information was either flawed or deliberately misleading and that no weapons of mass destruction were found. The war has destabilised Iraq, costed a great deal of money and lives and has increased the risk of terrorist attack against western targets. While it may have been the right thing to do at the time, with the information we have now, we believe that Tony Blair should not have launched the Iraq war. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was against the decision to take the UK into war in Iraq. The decision was based on the presence of weapons of mass destruction which were later proven not to exist. The decision was also based on the belief that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks which was later proven not to be the case. The decision also resulted in the destabilisation of Iraq and the rise of Muslim extremism. The decision also weakened the UK's credibility in the eyes of the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although Prime Minister Blair was acting on the information he had at the time, he wasn't right to take the UK into the Iraq war. His decision resulted in the destablisation of Iraq and a rise in Muslim extremism. The war weakened the UK's credibility and we have paid the price since. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Prime Minister Tony Blair was not right to take the UK into the Iraq War. There was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and the decision to go to war was based on flawed intelligence. The decision to go to war destabilised Iraq and the region, and has led to a rise in Muslim extremism. The decision has weakened the UK's credibility and the UK has paid the price since. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The Iraq war was launched by the UK and US under the premiss of 'liberating' the Iraqi people from a dictator who was likely to use weapons of mass destruction on the allies. We now know that this information was either flawed or deliberately misleading and that no weapons of mass destruction were found. The war has destabilised Iraq, costed a great deal of money and lives and has increased the risk of terrorist attack against western targets. While it may have been the right thing to do at the time, with the information we have now, we believe that Tony Blair should not have launched the Iraq war. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was against the decision to take the UK into war in Iraq. The decision was based on the presence of weapons of mass destruction which were later proven not to exist. The decision was also based on the belief that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks which was later proven not to be the case. The decision also resulted in the destabilisation of Iraq and the rise of Muslim extremism. The decision also weakened the UK's credibility in the eyes of the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although Prime Minister Blair was acting on the information he had at the time, he wasn't right to take the UK into the Iraq war. His decision resulted in the destablisation of Iraq and a rise in Muslim extremism. The war weakened the UK's credibility and we have paid the price since. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001300.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001300.soc index 449cc479..1c64575f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001300.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001300.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Liverpool and Manchester United are both great football teams. In terms of the ability of their players and the success they have had in recent years, they are very similar. They are also very similar in terms of the quality of their fans and the passion they bring to the game. Liverpool fans are known to be the most passionate fans in the world and Manchester united fans are not far behind. Therefore, we think that it is very difficult to say which team is better. We think that the two teams are very similar and it is very difficult to pick one over the other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Manchester United are the better team. They have a more rounded team, with world class players in every position. Liverpool have a few world class players but are not as strong across the whole team. Therefore, Manchester United are the better team. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is Manchester United who are a better football team than Liverpool. This is because Manchester United have had more recent success and are more renowned for success in modern times. They have also reached the final of the champions league on more occasions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that Manchester united are the better team, and have been the better team over the last 5 years. We don't think that Liverpool are in a place to challenge Manchester united for the league at the moment. The main reason is that Liverpool are a little weaker defensively and have less depth in their squad than Manchester united. They do have some top quality players and a fantastic manager, but they don't have a team which can challenge Manchester united across the pitch. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Liverpool and Manchester United are both great football teams. In terms of the ability of their players and the success they have had in recent years, they are very similar. They are also very similar in terms of the quality of their fans and the passion they bring to the game. Liverpool fans are known to be the most passionate fans in the world and Manchester united fans are not far behind. Therefore, we think that it is very difficult to say which team is better. We think that the two teams are very similar and it is very difficult to pick one over the other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Manchester United are the better team. They have a more rounded team, with world class players in every position. Liverpool have a few world class players but are not as strong across the whole team. Therefore, Manchester United are the better team. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is Manchester United who are a better football team than Liverpool. This is because Manchester United have had more recent success and are more renowned for success in modern times. They have also reached the final of the champions league on more occasions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that Manchester united are the better team, and have been the better team over the last 5 years. We don't think that Liverpool are in a place to challenge Manchester united for the league at the moment. The main reason is that Liverpool are a little weaker defensively and have less depth in their squad than Manchester united. They do have some top quality players and a fantastic manager, but they don't have a team which can challenge Manchester united across the pitch. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001301.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001301.soc index aedee4b6..e835c11a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001301.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001301.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The current system of organ donation is ethically sound. The system is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it very difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. The system could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The current system is ethically sound. The group felt that the consent of the donor should be made the default, but that this default can be changed at any time by the donor, so that there is no change to the principle that no-one can be compelled to donate their organs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We feel that the current system of organ donation is ethically sound. In our view it provides the basis for a system that ensures that people’s organs are donated only with their consent and is a system that does not discriminate on the basis of socio-economic status, or religion, or gender, or sexual orientation. However, it is a system that can be improved. In particular, we feel that the default status should be ‘donor’ and people should then have the option to opt-out of the system. This may improve the number of donors, and provide a better balance between a person’s autonomy, and the common good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the current system of organ donation is ethically sound. It is the case that the current system requires the express permission of the potential donor, and this is an important ethical consideration. However, the current system is also the most efficient way of getting the organs that people need to live a full life. The current system has the advantage of being able to provide organs to those in need without requiring the deaths of people who are not in need of organs. The current system also has the advantage of being the most efficient way of getting organs to those who need them. The current system is also the most efficient way of getting organs to those who need them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The current system of organ donation is ethically sound. The system is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it very difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. The system could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The current system is ethically sound. The group felt that the consent of the donor should be made the default, but that this default can be changed at any time by the donor, so that there is no change to the principle that no-one can be compelled to donate their organs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We feel that the current system of organ donation is ethically sound. In our view it provides the basis for a system that ensures that people’s organs are donated only with their consent and is a system that does not discriminate on the basis of socio-economic status, or religion, or gender, or sexual orientation. However, it is a system that can be improved. In particular, we feel that the default status should be ‘donor’ and people should then have the option to opt-out of the system. This may improve the number of donors, and provide a better balance between a person’s autonomy, and the common good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the current system of organ donation is ethically sound. It is the case that the current system requires the express permission of the potential donor, and this is an important ethical consideration. However, the current system is also the most efficient way of getting the organs that people need to live a full life. The current system has the advantage of being able to provide organs to those in need without requiring the deaths of people who are not in need of organs. The current system also has the advantage of being the most efficient way of getting organs to those who need them. The current system is also the most efficient way of getting organs to those who need them. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001302.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001302.soc index fd232abb..47bb6ebb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001302.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001302.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that it is crucial for government websites to be accessible to blind people. This is a very important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Blind people are not the only people who need to be considered when making websites accessible. In fact, it is much more important to make the internet accessible for people with more severe disabilities. In the UK, we are not doing well in this regard. Websites should be accessible to blind people because it is their right to access information. If we do not make these websites accessible, then we are denying them their right. It is the government's responsibility to help its citizens, and to exclude them from accessing information would be doing the opposite. Blind people should be able to use the internet to do the same things that we can. Therefore, government websites should be accessible to blind people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that government websites should be made accessible to the blind. If they aren't accessible then the government isn't making the web accessible for everyone. If you cannot access a website due to a disability then it is important that it is changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government has a responsibility to ensure that their websites are accessible to all, including the blind. This is important because the government is responsible for disseminating information to all citizens, and this information should be accessible to all. The government has a responsibility to ensure that all citizens are treated equally, and this includes ensuring that websites are accessible to all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should require all government websites to be made accessible to the blind. We should also require all other websites to be made accessible to the blind. This is because inclusivity is important and because the government has a responsibility to help the less fortunate. The government should set a good example to other websites and make their websites accessible to the blind. The government should also make their websites accessible to those who are deaf or have other disabilities. The government should also make their websites accessible to those who do not have disabilities. This is because it is the right thing to do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that it is crucial for government websites to be accessible to blind people. This is a very important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Blind people are not the only people who need to be considered when making websites accessible. In fact, it is much more important to make the internet accessible for people with more severe disabilities. In the UK, we are not doing well in this regard. Websites should be accessible to blind people because it is their right to access information. If we do not make these websites accessible, then we are denying them their right. It is the government's responsibility to help its citizens, and to exclude them from accessing information would be doing the opposite. Blind people should be able to use the internet to do the same things that we can. Therefore, government websites should be accessible to blind people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that government websites should be made accessible to the blind. If they aren't accessible then the government isn't making the web accessible for everyone. If you cannot access a website due to a disability then it is important that it is changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government has a responsibility to ensure that their websites are accessible to all, including the blind. This is important because the government is responsible for disseminating information to all citizens, and this information should be accessible to all. The government has a responsibility to ensure that all citizens are treated equally, and this includes ensuring that websites are accessible to all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should require all government websites to be made accessible to the blind. We should also require all other websites to be made accessible to the blind. This is because inclusivity is important and because the government has a responsibility to help the less fortunate. The government should set a good example to other websites and make their websites accessible to the blind. The government should also make their websites accessible to those who are deaf or have other disabilities. The government should also make their websites accessible to those who do not have disabilities. This is because it is the right thing to do. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001303.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001303.soc index c7be1fa7..2884545b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001303.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001303.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Liverpool and Manchester United are two of the best football teams in the world. They are very similar in terms of the success they have had, with Liverpool winning the champions league recently and Manchester united winning the treble not so long ago. They are also very similar in terms of the quality of their fans and the passion they bring to the game. Liverpool fans are known to be the most passionate fans in the world and Manchester united fans are not far behind. Therefore, we think that it is very difficult to say which team is better. We think that the two teams are very similar and it is very difficult to pick one over the other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Liverpool and Manchester United are two of the greatest football teams in the world. They are also two of the most successful football teams in the world. They are also two of the most supported football teams in the world. It is very difficult to determine which team is better and we think that they are both equally as good. It is also very difficult to determine which team has had more success in recent years. We think that they are both equally as successful. We think that it is very difficult to pick one team over the other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Manchester United and Liverpool are both great football teams with great fans. They both have achieved a lot over the years and continue to play top level football. In terms of statistics, Liverpool have won more cups but Manchester united have been able to get consistently better results in the premier league. However, the players that each team has now are at roughly the same level. Therefore, it is very difficult to say that one team is better than the other. Liverpool and Manchester united are two teams that are very similar in quality and it is hard to pick one over the other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Liverpool and Manchester United are two of the best football teams in the world. They are very similar in terms of the success they have had, with Liverpool winning the champions league recently and Manchester united winning the treble not so long ago. They are also very similar in terms of the quality of their fans and the passion they bring to the game. Liverpool fans are known to be the most passionate fans in the world and Manchester united fans are not far behind. Therefore, we think that it is very difficult to say which team is better. We think that the two teams are very similar and it is very difficult to pick one over the other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Liverpool and Manchester United are two of the greatest football teams in the world. They are also two of the most successful football teams in the world. They are also two of the most supported football teams in the world. It is very difficult to determine which team is better and we think that they are both equally as good. It is also very difficult to determine which team has had more success in recent years. We think that they are both equally as successful. We think that it is very difficult to pick one team over the other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Manchester United and Liverpool are both great football teams with great fans. They both have achieved a lot over the years and continue to play top level football. In terms of statistics, Liverpool have won more cups but Manchester united have been able to get consistently better results in the premier league. However, the players that each team has now are at roughly the same level. Therefore, it is very difficult to say that one team is better than the other. Liverpool and Manchester united are two teams that are very similar in quality and it is hard to pick one over the other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001304.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001304.soc index b0805c29..138c02e9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001304.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001304.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not okay to use personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality. Using personal data to make such inferences is an invasion of privacy. If a person is suspected of a crime and there is sufficient evidence, then it may be justified. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not okay to use personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality. This is because using personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality is an invasion of privacy. People should be able to keep their personal data private, and if they wish to share it, they should have the option to choose who they share it with. However, in some circumstances, it may be justified to use personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality. This is because if a person is suspected of a crime, it may be necessary to use personal data to make inferences about their character and personality. This is because it may be necessary to use personal data to determine whether a person is guilty or innocent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not okay to use personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality. Personal data should be private and confidential. If people want to share their personal data, they should have the option to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While personal data can be used to make inferences about someone's character, it is not okay to use that information to make assumptions about someone's character and personality. As participants pointed out, making assumptions based off of personal data is not fair or accurate, as people's personalities are often more complex than the information their data represents. Also, some personal data is private, and so using it is an invasion of privacy and an abuse of power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not okay to use personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality. Using personal data to make such inferences is an invasion of privacy. If a person is suspected of a crime and there is sufficient evidence, then it may be justified. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not okay to use personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality. This is because using personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality is an invasion of privacy. People should be able to keep their personal data private, and if they wish to share it, they should have the option to choose who they share it with. However, in some circumstances, it may be justified to use personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality. This is because if a person is suspected of a crime, it may be necessary to use personal data to make inferences about their character and personality. This is because it may be necessary to use personal data to determine whether a person is guilty or innocent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not okay to use personal data to make inferences about people's character and personality. Personal data should be private and confidential. If people want to share their personal data, they should have the option to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While personal data can be used to make inferences about someone's character, it is not okay to use that information to make assumptions about someone's character and personality. As participants pointed out, making assumptions based off of personal data is not fair or accurate, as people's personalities are often more complex than the information their data represents. Also, some personal data is private, and so using it is an invasion of privacy and an abuse of power. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001305.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001305.soc index 18749d78..aec3d334 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001305.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001305.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We don’t believe that the minimum wage should be lowered. People who are earning minimum wage are already struggling to make ends meet. It is true that the minimum wage was set by the government, and it is possible that the government would increase the number of jobs by lowering the minimum wage. However, we feel that these jobs would not pay enough for people to meet their basic needs, which would mean that the government would have to provide more financial assistance to these people, which would result in higher taxes and less pay for everyone else. Furthermore, it's also possible that a reduction in the minimum wage could result in lower wages for people who are already making more than minimum wage. In the end, the situation would remain the same for everyone except those people who are making the lowest wages.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The minimum wage should not be lowered. The minimum wage is barely a living wage as it is, and if it was lowered any further, people would have to work even more hours than they already are, which in many cases, simply won't be sustainable. The minimum wage is barely a living wage as it is, and if it was lowered any further, people would have to work even more hours than they already are, which in many cases, simply won't be sustainable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the minimum wage should not be lowered to make jobs more available. People who are paid minimum wage are already struggling to make ends meet, and lowering their pay would only make their situation worse. It is important to remember that minimum wage is not a luxury, but a necessity. It is the bare minimum that people need to be able to afford basic necessities like food and housing. The idea that lowering the minimum wage would create more jobs is also highly questionable, as it is not clear how this would happen. If anything, it is more likely that lowering the minimum wage would lead to employers paying people even less than they already are, as this would be a way for them to save money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although lowering the minimum wage could make jobs more available, it would also mean that these jobs would be less desirable, as they would offer wages that are not enough to live on. As a result, these jobs would often go unfilled, which would defeat the purpose of lowering the minimum wage in the first place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We don’t believe that the minimum wage should be lowered. People who are earning minimum wage are already struggling to make ends meet. It is true that the minimum wage was set by the government, and it is possible that the government would increase the number of jobs by lowering the minimum wage. However, we feel that these jobs would not pay enough for people to meet their basic needs, which would mean that the government would have to provide more financial assistance to these people, which would result in higher taxes and less pay for everyone else. Furthermore, it's also possible that a reduction in the minimum wage could result in lower wages for people who are already making more than minimum wage. In the end, the situation would remain the same for everyone except those people who are making the lowest wages.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The minimum wage should not be lowered. The minimum wage is barely a living wage as it is, and if it was lowered any further, people would have to work even more hours than they already are, which in many cases, simply won't be sustainable. The minimum wage is barely a living wage as it is, and if it was lowered any further, people would have to work even more hours than they already are, which in many cases, simply won't be sustainable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the minimum wage should not be lowered to make jobs more available. People who are paid minimum wage are already struggling to make ends meet, and lowering their pay would only make their situation worse. It is important to remember that minimum wage is not a luxury, but a necessity. It is the bare minimum that people need to be able to afford basic necessities like food and housing. The idea that lowering the minimum wage would create more jobs is also highly questionable, as it is not clear how this would happen. If anything, it is more likely that lowering the minimum wage would lead to employers paying people even less than they already are, as this would be a way for them to save money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although lowering the minimum wage could make jobs more available, it would also mean that these jobs would be less desirable, as they would offer wages that are not enough to live on. As a result, these jobs would often go unfilled, which would defeat the purpose of lowering the minimum wage in the first place. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001306.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001306.soc index b4a89b74..44c9b7c0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001306.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001306.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The current system of organ donation is ethically sound. The system is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it very difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. The system could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. This is a good system that ensures that people are not forced to donate their organs, and ensures that people are able to donate their organs to help others in need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The current system of organ donation in Canada is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. It could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The current system of organ donation is ethically sound. The system is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it very difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. The system could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The current system of organ donation is ethically sound. The system is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it very difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. The system could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The current system of organ donation is ethically sound. The system is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it very difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. The system could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. This is a good system that ensures that people are not forced to donate their organs, and ensures that people are able to donate their organs to help others in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The current system of organ donation in Canada is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. It could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The current system of organ donation is ethically sound. The system is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it very difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. The system could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The current system of organ donation is ethically sound. The system is built on a foundation of respect for individual autonomy and a presumption in favour of donation. It is also built on a system of presumed consent, with the option to opt-out if one does not want to be an organ donor. This makes it very difficult to argue that the system is not ethically sound. The system could be improved, however, by making the default option to be a donor, rather than the other way around. This would increase the number of organs available for donation, and help to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001307.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001307.soc index d879853f..586ea6a9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001307.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001307.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of reducing carbon emissions to a certain point. This is because complete decarbonisation is an ambitious and difficult goal to achieve. However, we must also consider that we are currently on a path of increasing carbon emissions. Therefore, the group also agreed that we should aim for a complete decarbonisation in the future, but we must also consider the cost of this to the global economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the most feasible option would be to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point, because it would not be completely bad for the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the science of climate change shows that a move to a carbon neutral economy is essential to avoid dangerous climate change, we recognise that this will not be an easy task. We believe that there are significant societal, political and economic challenges that must be addressed in order to reach this goal. We therefore believe that it is important to set a realistic but ambitious target for carbon emission reductions. This should be based on a scientifically robust model of climate change, and should be consistent with efforts to improve air quality, energy security and other important environmental goals. In order to achieve this ambitious target, an appropriate policy mix must be used to address the issues of fairness and sustainability. This could include carbon pricing, technology development and innovation, and effective adaptation measures for vulnerable groups and regions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In the long term, the goal must be to completely decarbonise. The way in which we get there is a difficult question, and there will be a number of compromises that will need to be made. It is likely that we will have to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point, and then reassess the situation from there. It is also important to consider the needs of developing countries, and how decarbonisation will affect them. It is likely that the burden of decarbonisation will fall most heavily on developed countries, and this will need to be considered in any agreement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing carbon emissions to a certain point. This is because complete decarbonisation is an ambitious and difficult goal to achieve. However, we must also consider that we are currently on a path of increasing carbon emissions. Therefore, the group also agreed that we should aim for a complete decarbonisation in the future, but we must also consider the cost of this to the global economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the most feasible option would be to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point, because it would not be completely bad for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the science of climate change shows that a move to a carbon neutral economy is essential to avoid dangerous climate change, we recognise that this will not be an easy task. We believe that there are significant societal, political and economic challenges that must be addressed in order to reach this goal. We therefore believe that it is important to set a realistic but ambitious target for carbon emission reductions. This should be based on a scientifically robust model of climate change, and should be consistent with efforts to improve air quality, energy security and other important environmental goals. In order to achieve this ambitious target, an appropriate policy mix must be used to address the issues of fairness and sustainability. This could include carbon pricing, technology development and innovation, and effective adaptation measures for vulnerable groups and regions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In the long term, the goal must be to completely decarbonise. The way in which we get there is a difficult question, and there will be a number of compromises that will need to be made. It is likely that we will have to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point, and then reassess the situation from there. It is also important to consider the needs of developing countries, and how decarbonisation will affect them. It is likely that the burden of decarbonisation will fall most heavily on developed countries, and this will need to be considered in any agreement. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001308.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001308.soc index 70713c77..3c5f2acc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001308.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001308.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Businesses should allow workers to take more holidays. However, this should be subject to the agreement of both the employer and employee. This is because it is important that the business is not adversely affected by the increase in holidays. It is also important that employees are not put in a difficult position if they are not able to take the additional holidays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, businesses should allow workers to take more holidays. It is very clear that workers need more time off. Some workers may not be able to go on holiday because they are saving up or have other commitments such as caring for an elderly relative. But some workers who are able to go on holiday might choose to work in order to earn a little bit more money and this is fine as well. The important thing is to have a holiday and get a break from work to return to it with renewed enthusiasm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that workers should be allowed to take more holidays. This is because the current work culture is not very conducive to a good work-life balance. There are many different factors that contribute to this, such as the increasing use of technology to stay connected to work. This can lead to people feeling as if they are constantly at work. This can lead to stress, anxiety and other mental health problems. This is not only bad for the workers themselves, but also for their families and their employers. It is in everyone's best interest to have a good work-life balance and we believe that this can be achieved by allowing workers to take more holidays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that businesses should allow workers to take more holidays. If employees are unhappy at work then the business will not be successful and if workers are allowed to take more holidays then they will be happier and this will increase productivity and employee satisfaction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Businesses should allow workers to take more holidays. However, this should be subject to the agreement of both the employer and employee. This is because it is important that the business is not adversely affected by the increase in holidays. It is also important that employees are not put in a difficult position if they are not able to take the additional holidays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, businesses should allow workers to take more holidays. It is very clear that workers need more time off. Some workers may not be able to go on holiday because they are saving up or have other commitments such as caring for an elderly relative. But some workers who are able to go on holiday might choose to work in order to earn a little bit more money and this is fine as well. The important thing is to have a holiday and get a break from work to return to it with renewed enthusiasm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that workers should be allowed to take more holidays. This is because the current work culture is not very conducive to a good work-life balance. There are many different factors that contribute to this, such as the increasing use of technology to stay connected to work. This can lead to people feeling as if they are constantly at work. This can lead to stress, anxiety and other mental health problems. This is not only bad for the workers themselves, but also for their families and their employers. It is in everyone's best interest to have a good work-life balance and we believe that this can be achieved by allowing workers to take more holidays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that businesses should allow workers to take more holidays. If employees are unhappy at work then the business will not be successful and if workers are allowed to take more holidays then they will be happier and this will increase productivity and employee satisfaction. 3: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001309.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001309.soc index 45d29a9e..81fee51c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001309.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001309.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that it is crucial for government websites to be accessible to blind people. This is a very important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Blind people are not the only people who need to be considered when making websites accessible. In fact, it is much more important to make the internet accessible for people with more severe disabilities. In the UK, we are not doing well in this regard. Therefore, we must ensure that government websites are made accessible, as well as other websites that may become inaccessible in the future. Websites should be accessible to blind people because it is their right to access information. If we do not make these websites accessible, then we are denying them their right. If we make it more difficult for the blind to access information, we are taking their liberty away. It is the government's responsibility to help its citizens, and to exclude them from accessing information would be doing the opposite. Blind people should be able to use the internet to do the same things that we can. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is crucial for government websites to be accessible to blind people. This is a very important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Blind people are not the only people who need to be considered when making websites accessible. In fact, it is much more important to make the internet accessible for people with more severe disabilities. In the UK, we are not doing well in this regard. Websites should be accessible to blind people because it is their right to access information. If we do not make these websites accessible, then we are denying them their right. It is the government's responsibility to help its citizens, and to exclude them from accessing information would be doing the opposite. Blind people should be able to use the internet to do the same things that we can. Therefore, government websites should be accessible to blind people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that government websites should be made accessible to people who are blind. This is because it would not be fair to exclude them and deny their rights as citizens. It is crucial that they are able to access information just like anyone else. This would also lead to greater equality, because the blind people are currently disadvantaged compared to other citizens. For these reasons we believe that it is crucial that all government websites are accessible to the blind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that it is crucial for government websites to be accessible to blind people. This is a very important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Blind people are not the only people who need to be considered when making websites accessible. In fact, it is much more important to make the internet accessible for people with more severe disabilities. In the UK, we are not doing well in this regard. Websites should be accessible to blind people because it is their right to access information. If we do not make these websites accessible, then we are denying them their right. It is the government's responsibility to help its citizens, and to exclude them from accessing information would be doing the opposite. Blind people should be able to use the internet to do the same things that we can. Therefore, government websites should be accessible to blind people. We also think that other websites that are important for people to use should be accessible. These include banks and the NHS. In conclusion, it is the government's responsibility to make the internet accessible to all. If they do not, then they are not fulfilling their job. This means that people with disabilities are excluded. The government should be doing more to help disabled people, and this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that it is crucial for government websites to be accessible to blind people. This is a very important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Blind people are not the only people who need to be considered when making websites accessible. In fact, it is much more important to make the internet accessible for people with more severe disabilities. In the UK, we are not doing well in this regard. Therefore, we must ensure that government websites are made accessible, as well as other websites that may become inaccessible in the future. Websites should be accessible to blind people because it is their right to access information. If we do not make these websites accessible, then we are denying them their right. If we make it more difficult for the blind to access information, we are taking their liberty away. It is the government's responsibility to help its citizens, and to exclude them from accessing information would be doing the opposite. Blind people should be able to use the internet to do the same things that we can. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is crucial for government websites to be accessible to blind people. This is a very important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Blind people are not the only people who need to be considered when making websites accessible. In fact, it is much more important to make the internet accessible for people with more severe disabilities. In the UK, we are not doing well in this regard. Websites should be accessible to blind people because it is their right to access information. If we do not make these websites accessible, then we are denying them their right. It is the government's responsibility to help its citizens, and to exclude them from accessing information would be doing the opposite. Blind people should be able to use the internet to do the same things that we can. Therefore, government websites should be accessible to blind people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that government websites should be made accessible to people who are blind. This is because it would not be fair to exclude them and deny their rights as citizens. It is crucial that they are able to access information just like anyone else. This would also lead to greater equality, because the blind people are currently disadvantaged compared to other citizens. For these reasons we believe that it is crucial that all government websites are accessible to the blind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that it is crucial for government websites to be accessible to blind people. This is a very important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Blind people are not the only people who need to be considered when making websites accessible. In fact, it is much more important to make the internet accessible for people with more severe disabilities. In the UK, we are not doing well in this regard. Websites should be accessible to blind people because it is their right to access information. If we do not make these websites accessible, then we are denying them their right. It is the government's responsibility to help its citizens, and to exclude them from accessing information would be doing the opposite. Blind people should be able to use the internet to do the same things that we can. Therefore, government websites should be accessible to blind people. We also think that other websites that are important for people to use should be accessible. These include banks and the NHS. In conclusion, it is the government's responsibility to make the internet accessible to all. If they do not, then they are not fulfilling their job. This means that people with disabilities are excluded. The government should be doing more to help disabled people, and this 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001310.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001310.soc index 3505ad7a..5d913200 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001310.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001310.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to another referendum on Scottish independence. The reasons for this were that the question had already been asked and answered, and that the Scottish National Party was simply trying to get the answer that they wanted. The group felt that the SNP was trying to use the Brexit vote to their advantage and that it was an unfair tactic. The group felt that the SNP was not acting in the best interests of the Scottish people, and that they were using the referendum to further their own political agenda. The group felt that it was important to respect the democratic process and that it would be wrong to hold another referendum so soon after the last one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be a referendum on Scottish independence. The UK has been a longstanding and successful union, sharing history, institutions and achievements that provides stability, economic benefits, and position on the international stage. Dividing the country could undermine the shared values and achievements built over centuries. Also, unity allows permits economies of scale, improves trade and market access, and monetary stability. The majority of Scottish people don't want one so it should be put to bed for a number of years before the question gets asked to them again. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a referendum on Scottish independence. The Scottish and English have been together for so long, and the concept of separation and one day creating their own nation could have a profound impact on the stability of the UK. Not only would this result in changes in the foreign policy and trade relationships, but also the laws, tax policies, and other institutions. Creating a referendum on Scottish independence at this time could damage the relationship between Scotland and the UK, and undermine the stability of the union. We would like to know what other parties think on this question, and we would encourage you to submit your answer to this question and participate in the debate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is clear that the Scottish people have had an oppotunity to vote on the question, and voted against it, the SNP party continue to push for another referendum. It is clear that a new referendum would be met with very little favour with the UK government, and the majority of Scottish people. As such, we would argue that the government must be careful not to allow the SNP to achieve the goal of a second referendum as this could lead to a splitting of the country, or the break up of the union. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to another referendum on Scottish independence. The reasons for this were that the question had already been asked and answered, and that the Scottish National Party was simply trying to get the answer that they wanted. The group felt that the SNP was trying to use the Brexit vote to their advantage and that it was an unfair tactic. The group felt that the SNP was not acting in the best interests of the Scottish people, and that they were using the referendum to further their own political agenda. The group felt that it was important to respect the democratic process and that it would be wrong to hold another referendum so soon after the last one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be a referendum on Scottish independence. The UK has been a longstanding and successful union, sharing history, institutions and achievements that provides stability, economic benefits, and position on the international stage. Dividing the country could undermine the shared values and achievements built over centuries. Also, unity allows permits economies of scale, improves trade and market access, and monetary stability. The majority of Scottish people don't want one so it should be put to bed for a number of years before the question gets asked to them again. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a referendum on Scottish independence. The Scottish and English have been together for so long, and the concept of separation and one day creating their own nation could have a profound impact on the stability of the UK. Not only would this result in changes in the foreign policy and trade relationships, but also the laws, tax policies, and other institutions. Creating a referendum on Scottish independence at this time could damage the relationship between Scotland and the UK, and undermine the stability of the union. We would like to know what other parties think on this question, and we would encourage you to submit your answer to this question and participate in the debate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is clear that the Scottish people have had an oppotunity to vote on the question, and voted against it, the SNP party continue to push for another referendum. It is clear that a new referendum would be met with very little favour with the UK government, and the majority of Scottish people. As such, we would argue that the government must be careful not to allow the SNP to achieve the goal of a second referendum as this could lead to a splitting of the country, or the break up of the union. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001311.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001311.soc index 4c57e17a..7e36be66 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001311.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001311.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes they should. We don't live in a perfect world, and corruption is commonplace. Rich and powerful individuals will always try to use their wealth and influence to ensure that politicians make decisions that are in their favour. We need laws to make sure that this doesn't happen. Political donations should be strictly limited and monitored to make sure that they don't distort the democratic process. Conclusion This example shows that a group of participants with different views on an issue can come to a unanimous agreement on the way forward if they put aside their personal opinions and focus on the facts of the issue. The group came to the view that in a world where corruption is commonplace, legislation is required to ensure that the democratic process is not tainted by financial influence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the amount of money that a single person can give to political parties and candidates. The group felt that political donations are at the heart of political corruption, and that leaving political donations unchecked and unrestricted means that the wealthy elite in the country can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit them personally. The group felt that the government should step in to put an end to political corruption, and that a law should be passed to strictly limit the amount of money a person can give to political parties, and the amount should be very low. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The UK government should pass a law to limit the quantity of money that a single person can give to political parties or candidates. The law should be strictly enforced and the limit should be very low to avoid any influence on politicians.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group came to the consensus view that a law should be passed to limit the amount of money that a single person can give to political parties or candidates. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes they should. We don't live in a perfect world, and corruption is commonplace. Rich and powerful individuals will always try to use their wealth and influence to ensure that politicians make decisions that are in their favour. We need laws to make sure that this doesn't happen. Political donations should be strictly limited and monitored to make sure that they don't distort the democratic process. Conclusion This example shows that a group of participants with different views on an issue can come to a unanimous agreement on the way forward if they put aside their personal opinions and focus on the facts of the issue. The group came to the view that in a world where corruption is commonplace, legislation is required to ensure that the democratic process is not tainted by financial influence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the amount of money that a single person can give to political parties and candidates. The group felt that political donations are at the heart of political corruption, and that leaving political donations unchecked and unrestricted means that the wealthy elite in the country can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit them personally. The group felt that the government should step in to put an end to political corruption, and that a law should be passed to strictly limit the amount of money a person can give to political parties, and the amount should be very low. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The UK government should pass a law to limit the quantity of money that a single person can give to political parties or candidates. The law should be strictly enforced and the limit should be very low to avoid any influence on politicians.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group came to the consensus view that a law should be passed to limit the amount of money that a single person can give to political parties or candidates. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001312.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001312.soc index c9f5ff48..f9445ce1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001312.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001312.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the government should provide more funding for public universities. This is because universities are a very important part of society and play a crucial role in shaping the world for future generations. Universities are vital in propelling academic advancements and discoveries forward. They must be sufficiently funded. The increased funding would not only benefit society as a whole but also stimulate the economy. This is important because it would allow people to move to another job by retraining. This would improve the skills of the work force so people can earn more money. This would also improve the amount of research that universities can produce which can solve major global problems such as pollution, global warming or cure diseases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We all agreed that Universities play an important role in our society. We believe that they are very valuable institutions and believe they should be funded to provide a good education to future generations. However, we were divided on the extent to which universities should be funded by the government. Some of us think that universities are crucial to the economy and would provide a great return on investment for the government, while others thought that the government should be cautious about spending on universities and more focus should be on funding public schools. Overall, we reached a consensus that universities should be funded, but that the extent to which they are funded should be debated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are a number of factors to consider, it is agreed that governments should provide more funding for public universities, as they play an integral role in research, teaching and development of the world's workforce. In particular, investment in university infrastructure would ensure future generations have access to high quality education. In addition, the impact universities have on the economy is tremendous. As such, we believe that increased funding would have widespread benefits to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increased government funding for public universities. This was because universities play a vital role in society. They are the source of new knowledge and discoveries and are also responsible for training the next generation of workers. This will benefit society as a whole and also stimulate the economy. Universities should be sufficiently funded to allow them to carry out their important work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should provide more funding for public universities. This is because universities are a very important part of society and play a crucial role in shaping the world for future generations. Universities are vital in propelling academic advancements and discoveries forward. They must be sufficiently funded. The increased funding would not only benefit society as a whole but also stimulate the economy. This is important because it would allow people to move to another job by retraining. This would improve the skills of the work force so people can earn more money. This would also improve the amount of research that universities can produce which can solve major global problems such as pollution, global warming or cure diseases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We all agreed that Universities play an important role in our society. We believe that they are very valuable institutions and believe they should be funded to provide a good education to future generations. However, we were divided on the extent to which universities should be funded by the government. Some of us think that universities are crucial to the economy and would provide a great return on investment for the government, while others thought that the government should be cautious about spending on universities and more focus should be on funding public schools. Overall, we reached a consensus that universities should be funded, but that the extent to which they are funded should be debated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are a number of factors to consider, it is agreed that governments should provide more funding for public universities, as they play an integral role in research, teaching and development of the world's workforce. In particular, investment in university infrastructure would ensure future generations have access to high quality education. In addition, the impact universities have on the economy is tremendous. As such, we believe that increased funding would have widespread benefits to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increased government funding for public universities. This was because universities play a vital role in society. They are the source of new knowledge and discoveries and are also responsible for training the next generation of workers. This will benefit society as a whole and also stimulate the economy. Universities should be sufficiently funded to allow them to carry out their important work. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001313.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001313.soc index 921e85b5..c0ff8805 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001313.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001313.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Water is an essential requirement for survival and so we need to make sure it is available to all. By having the government raking over the supply of water, the government can ensure that quality is never sacrificed for cost and ensure that consumers do not pay too much to get water supplied to them as profit will not be one of the many driving force for government. Water is an essential requirement in people's lives today as it is one essential thing for survival. Private companies are known to always be profit driven and would go to any length to maximize their profits which will often include rise in cost to the consumers, or reduction in quality to meet rising production cost. Having government taking over the supply of such important requirement for life will help to ensure that quality is never sacrificed for cost and ensure that consumers do not pay too much to get water supplied to them as profit will not one of the many driving force for government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should not take over water supplies from private companies. The private companies have the expertise to deal with the water supply, and the government does not. The private companies can also deal with any issues that arise in a more efficient manner than the government. The private companies also have the necessary equipment to deal with water supply issues, whereas the government does not. The private companies are also more likely to invest in new technologies and equipment to deal with water supply issues, whereas the government is not. The private companies can also deal with any issues that arise in a more efficient manner than the government. The private companies also have the necessary equipment to deal with water supply issues, whereas the government does not. The private companies are also more likely to invest in new technologies and equipment to deal with water supply issues, whereas the government is not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should take over water supplies from private companies. The government can ensure that quality is never sacrificed for cost and ensure that consumers do not pay too much to get water supplied to them as profit will not one of the many driving force for government. The government can also ensure that the water supply is not monopolized by a few companies and that water is made available to all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should not take over water supplies from private companies because private companies are in the business to make money, and are more efficient than the government in their operations, which in turn means lower cost to the consumer. The government is better suited to regulating and ensuring that water companies are doing a good job in providing their services. However, if a water company is providing sub-par service to the consumers, such as not providing clean drinking water, or not providing adequate water to meet demand, then the government should step in and take over the company to ensure that its citizens are not suffering. On the other hand, private companies are more profit driven than the government, so they may have an incentive to charge high prices to the consumers, especially when they have a monopoly on water supply in an area. This is a good reason for the government to step in and regulate the water companies and ensure that prices are fair and reasonable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Water is an essential requirement for survival and so we need to make sure it is available to all. By having the government raking over the supply of water, the government can ensure that quality is never sacrificed for cost and ensure that consumers do not pay too much to get water supplied to them as profit will not be one of the many driving force for government. Water is an essential requirement in people's lives today as it is one essential thing for survival. Private companies are known to always be profit driven and would go to any length to maximize their profits which will often include rise in cost to the consumers, or reduction in quality to meet rising production cost. Having government taking over the supply of such important requirement for life will help to ensure that quality is never sacrificed for cost and ensure that consumers do not pay too much to get water supplied to them as profit will not one of the many driving force for government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should not take over water supplies from private companies. The private companies have the expertise to deal with the water supply, and the government does not. The private companies can also deal with any issues that arise in a more efficient manner than the government. The private companies also have the necessary equipment to deal with water supply issues, whereas the government does not. The private companies are also more likely to invest in new technologies and equipment to deal with water supply issues, whereas the government is not. The private companies can also deal with any issues that arise in a more efficient manner than the government. The private companies also have the necessary equipment to deal with water supply issues, whereas the government does not. The private companies are also more likely to invest in new technologies and equipment to deal with water supply issues, whereas the government is not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should take over water supplies from private companies. The government can ensure that quality is never sacrificed for cost and ensure that consumers do not pay too much to get water supplied to them as profit will not one of the many driving force for government. The government can also ensure that the water supply is not monopolized by a few companies and that water is made available to all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should not take over water supplies from private companies because private companies are in the business to make money, and are more efficient than the government in their operations, which in turn means lower cost to the consumer. The government is better suited to regulating and ensuring that water companies are doing a good job in providing their services. However, if a water company is providing sub-par service to the consumers, such as not providing clean drinking water, or not providing adequate water to meet demand, then the government should step in and take over the company to ensure that its citizens are not suffering. On the other hand, private companies are more profit driven than the government, so they may have an incentive to charge high prices to the consumers, especially when they have a monopoly on water supply in an area. This is a good reason for the government to step in and regulate the water companies and ensure that prices are fair and reasonable. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001314.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001314.soc index 22989b37..ea691180 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001314.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001314.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that high earners should pay higher taxes as the gap between rich and poor has become too big and too many people in the UK live in poverty. In the modern age there is no excuse for poverty in a developed country and as such we need to raise the taxes of high earners. This should be done in a manner that is fair for all concerned and in a way that does not encourage people to stop working. The extra money collected should be used to help people in poverty and help people to avoid poverty in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be an increase in taxes on high earners. The current system is unfair and there is a significant and growing gap between the rich and the poor. High earners should pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax to ensure that the government has enough money to provide adequate services for everyone. The current system is unfair and needs to be changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should increase taxes on high earners. The interests of high earners have been protected by the Conservative government long enough. The largest-earning corporations should pay far more tax than they currently do. The gap between the richest and poorest seems to be getting worse and worse. The rich appear to be using clever tax avoidance loopholes to pay less tax which has a knock on effect on the countries ability to fund services paid for by our taxes. There would need to be a way of making sure tax from high earners was collected before it disappears to the Cayman Islands. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the government should be introducing an increase on tax for high earners. This will reduce the inequality gap, and allow the government to provide services for all citizens. The government should also look into making sure that tax from high earners is being collected, and that there are no loopholes that allow these high earners to avoid paying tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that high earners should pay higher taxes as the gap between rich and poor has become too big and too many people in the UK live in poverty. In the modern age there is no excuse for poverty in a developed country and as such we need to raise the taxes of high earners. This should be done in a manner that is fair for all concerned and in a way that does not encourage people to stop working. The extra money collected should be used to help people in poverty and help people to avoid poverty in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be an increase in taxes on high earners. The current system is unfair and there is a significant and growing gap between the rich and the poor. High earners should pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax to ensure that the government has enough money to provide adequate services for everyone. The current system is unfair and needs to be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should increase taxes on high earners. The interests of high earners have been protected by the Conservative government long enough. The largest-earning corporations should pay far more tax than they currently do. The gap between the richest and poorest seems to be getting worse and worse. The rich appear to be using clever tax avoidance loopholes to pay less tax which has a knock on effect on the countries ability to fund services paid for by our taxes. There would need to be a way of making sure tax from high earners was collected before it disappears to the Cayman Islands. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the government should be introducing an increase on tax for high earners. This will reduce the inequality gap, and allow the government to provide services for all citizens. The government should also look into making sure that tax from high earners is being collected, and that there are no loopholes that allow these high earners to avoid paying tax. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001315.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001315.soc index 3076ab20..61c3ffbc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001315.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001315.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that one of the highest priorities of the government should be to keep jobs in the UK. If this can be achieved by subsidizing an industry, then it should definitely be considered. Clearly, there are downsides to subsidizing an industry, as it requires taxpayers' money, but we believe that a balance can and should be achieved. We believe that it is important to look out for the interests of the nation, and subsidizing a native industry would certainly create more jobs and stimulate the economy. However, it is also important to note that it is a good idea to subsidize an industry that is facing decline only if it is considered to be in the long-term interests of the country, and the government is assured that it will receive a worthwhile return for its investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we believe that it is important that the government subsidize certain industries in the UK in order to keep jobs. There are various economic reasons for this, including that it may stimulate the economy and create more jobs. However, it is also crucial that any decision to subsidize an industry be based on long-term considerations, taking into account both economic and social factors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. We believe that it is important to support a country's own industries in order to not only keep jobs in the country but also stimulate the economy. However, we believe that tax payers money should not be wasted on subsidizing industries that do not provide a worthwhile return, or on saving jobs that would be considered superfluous. Also, we believe that it is important to only subsidize industries that are considered to be in the long-term interests of the country. This is an important point because whilst it is possible that an industry will always have to rely on government subsidy, this should only be considered if it provides an important enough service to society. Finally, we believe that subsidizing industries has several downsides, such as distorting the market and weakening the balance of payments. The government therefore should carefully select which industries to subsidize. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the government should subsidize certain industries in the UK in order to keep jobs. We agree that it is important to look out for the interests of the nation, and subsidizing a native industry would certainly create more jobs and stimulate the economy. However, it is also important to note that it is a good idea to subsidize an industry that is facing decline only if it is considered to be in the long-term interests of the country, and the government is assured that it will receive a worthwhile return for its investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that one of the highest priorities of the government should be to keep jobs in the UK. If this can be achieved by subsidizing an industry, then it should definitely be considered. Clearly, there are downsides to subsidizing an industry, as it requires taxpayers' money, but we believe that a balance can and should be achieved. We believe that it is important to look out for the interests of the nation, and subsidizing a native industry would certainly create more jobs and stimulate the economy. However, it is also important to note that it is a good idea to subsidize an industry that is facing decline only if it is considered to be in the long-term interests of the country, and the government is assured that it will receive a worthwhile return for its investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we believe that it is important that the government subsidize certain industries in the UK in order to keep jobs. There are various economic reasons for this, including that it may stimulate the economy and create more jobs. However, it is also crucial that any decision to subsidize an industry be based on long-term considerations, taking into account both economic and social factors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. We believe that it is important to support a country's own industries in order to not only keep jobs in the country but also stimulate the economy. However, we believe that tax payers money should not be wasted on subsidizing industries that do not provide a worthwhile return, or on saving jobs that would be considered superfluous. Also, we believe that it is important to only subsidize industries that are considered to be in the long-term interests of the country. This is an important point because whilst it is possible that an industry will always have to rely on government subsidy, this should only be considered if it provides an important enough service to society. Finally, we believe that subsidizing industries has several downsides, such as distorting the market and weakening the balance of payments. The government therefore should carefully select which industries to subsidize. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the government should subsidize certain industries in the UK in order to keep jobs. We agree that it is important to look out for the interests of the nation, and subsidizing a native industry would certainly create more jobs and stimulate the economy. However, it is also important to note that it is a good idea to subsidize an industry that is facing decline only if it is considered to be in the long-term interests of the country, and the government is assured that it will receive a worthwhile return for its investment. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001316.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001316.soc index 49180bef..c61126d7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001316.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001316.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that non-biodegradable plastic needs to be banned. Plastic has a lot of uses but we believe that there needs to be a push to use the alternatives such as glass, metal and paper. The main issue is that plastic is a non-renewable resource which means that once it has been made it can’t be used again. There are some plastics that can be recycled but the amount of energy required to recycle plastics is too high to be economically viable and that is why we feel that plastic should be banned. It is also worth noting that a lot of plastic ends up in landfill which is causing significant harm to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on non-biodegradable plastics. However, it was recognised that this would be difficult to implement and that it would be difficult to find alternatives. It was agreed that more research should be done into biodegradable plastics and that the government should be lobbied to provide more funding for this research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should be looking into the use of non-biodegradable plastic. We need to find a substitute for it so that we are able to eliminate the waste of non-biodegradable plastic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In my opinion, the use of non-biodegradable plastics should be banned, or at least highly regulated. There are so many alternatives that can be used, such as glass and metal, which are infinitely recyclable and will not cause any problems in landfill sites. The only issue I can see with this is the cost implications, as it is often cheaper to use plastic. This being said, I think that if we can find a way to recycle the plastics that are already in circulation, this would be a great start. We should also look into the use of biodegradable plastics, as these can be disposed of in landfill sites and will break down. This being said, I think that if we can find a way to recycle the plastics that are already in circulation, this would be a great start. We should also look into the use of biodegradable plastics, as these can be disposed of in landfill sites and will break down.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that non-biodegradable plastic needs to be banned. Plastic has a lot of uses but we believe that there needs to be a push to use the alternatives such as glass, metal and paper. The main issue is that plastic is a non-renewable resource which means that once it has been made it can’t be used again. There are some plastics that can be recycled but the amount of energy required to recycle plastics is too high to be economically viable and that is why we feel that plastic should be banned. It is also worth noting that a lot of plastic ends up in landfill which is causing significant harm to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on non-biodegradable plastics. However, it was recognised that this would be difficult to implement and that it would be difficult to find alternatives. It was agreed that more research should be done into biodegradable plastics and that the government should be lobbied to provide more funding for this research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should be looking into the use of non-biodegradable plastic. We need to find a substitute for it so that we are able to eliminate the waste of non-biodegradable plastic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In my opinion, the use of non-biodegradable plastics should be banned, or at least highly regulated. There are so many alternatives that can be used, such as glass and metal, which are infinitely recyclable and will not cause any problems in landfill sites. The only issue I can see with this is the cost implications, as it is often cheaper to use plastic. This being said, I think that if we can find a way to recycle the plastics that are already in circulation, this would be a great start. We should also look into the use of biodegradable plastics, as these can be disposed of in landfill sites and will break down. This being said, I think that if we can find a way to recycle the plastics that are already in circulation, this would be a great start. We should also look into the use of biodegradable plastics, as these can be disposed of in landfill sites and will break down.” 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001317.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001317.soc index ca49b5f3..149afd94 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001317.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001317.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the sale of human organs on the free market shouldn't be allowed as it is immoral to do so. It also encourages black market activity where people in less fortunate situations feel pressured to give up their organs to make ends meet. This is dangerous and can be exploited by rich people who can offer money to buy a kidney as an example. The current setup where human organs are only obtained from deceased individuals is the way to go until artificial organs can be manufactured. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We don’t believe that the sale of human organs should be allowed on the free market as the act of selling organs and being in such a dire situation where you have to sell an organ are extremely sad and the act of selling human organs is simply unethical. Many people may sell their organs because they are in desperate need of money and this may lead to them selling more than one organ and it may also encourage people to steal human organs from people and sell them on the black market which may result in the organ becoming damaged or damaged to the point of being unsellable. A black market for human organs may also make it harder for people who require transplants as it may lead to the body parts being harvested from the deceased becoming less available or they may end up being sold on the black market instead of going to people who need it. We believe that selling organs should not be allowed until it has been through with and we have ways to ensure it is safe.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not allow the sale of human organs on the free market, because it would not be fair to the less well off and some people would feel pressured into doing so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was against the sale of human organs on the free market. This is because it will lead to exploitation of the poor by the rich and also lead to black market activity. This is also unethical and against the law. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the sale of human organs on the free market shouldn't be allowed as it is immoral to do so. It also encourages black market activity where people in less fortunate situations feel pressured to give up their organs to make ends meet. This is dangerous and can be exploited by rich people who can offer money to buy a kidney as an example. The current setup where human organs are only obtained from deceased individuals is the way to go until artificial organs can be manufactured. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We don’t believe that the sale of human organs should be allowed on the free market as the act of selling organs and being in such a dire situation where you have to sell an organ are extremely sad and the act of selling human organs is simply unethical. Many people may sell their organs because they are in desperate need of money and this may lead to them selling more than one organ and it may also encourage people to steal human organs from people and sell them on the black market which may result in the organ becoming damaged or damaged to the point of being unsellable. A black market for human organs may also make it harder for people who require transplants as it may lead to the body parts being harvested from the deceased becoming less available or they may end up being sold on the black market instead of going to people who need it. We believe that selling organs should not be allowed until it has been through with and we have ways to ensure it is safe.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not allow the sale of human organs on the free market, because it would not be fair to the less well off and some people would feel pressured into doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was against the sale of human organs on the free market. This is because it will lead to exploitation of the poor by the rich and also lead to black market activity. This is also unethical and against the law. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001318.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001318.soc index 7294f214..05e5ca54 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001318.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001318.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. This is because AI is impartial, efficient and has access to a lot of information. However, it is important to remember that AI is not perfect and therefore it is important to check the decisions made by AI. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group has decided that artificial intelligence can be used to make important decisions, however, we believe that humans should have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation, whereas artificial intelligence is only able to refer to past decisions. We also believe that humans have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence is unable to do this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the use of AI is an effective tool to have as an aid to making important decisions, we do not believe that this tool is completely reliable. We believe that AI is unable to make a decision based on all the facts, as a human can, as AI does not have the full emotional range, and context, which a human has. It cannot understand the nuances of each individual situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions, but you should only use it to advise, and never completely replace human decision making. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. This is because AI is impartial, efficient and has access to a lot of information. However, it is important to remember that AI is not perfect and therefore it is important to check the decisions made by AI. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group has decided that artificial intelligence can be used to make important decisions, however, we believe that humans should have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation, whereas artificial intelligence is only able to refer to past decisions. We also believe that humans have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence is unable to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the use of AI is an effective tool to have as an aid to making important decisions, we do not believe that this tool is completely reliable. We believe that AI is unable to make a decision based on all the facts, as a human can, as AI does not have the full emotional range, and context, which a human has. It cannot understand the nuances of each individual situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions, but you should only use it to advise, and never completely replace human decision making. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001319.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001319.soc index 53c06a1e..6996e995 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001319.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001319.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, while we recognise the benefits of lowering the maximum legal speed limit to 60mph, it is likely to be detrimental in many respects. While we do acknowledge that it will lower emissions and therefore help to combat climate change, we believe that the benefits do not outweigh the cons of the change. Reducing the speed limit to 60mph is likely to cause congestion on motorways and lead to people becoming agitated, this can cause an increase in accidents due to road rage. We are also concerned that it will reduce the quality of life of people who live close to motorways as the reduction in speed will lead to louder noise. The economic benefits of the increase in speed limit will also be lost. The revenue gained from speeding fines has helped to maintain the roads. However, a reduction in the speed limit is likely to lead to a decrease in the amount of speeding fines, which will lead to a decrease in the money available for maintaining the roads. We believe that the benefits of keeping the speed limit as it is far outweigh the cons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of lowering the speed limit to 60mph. However, the group did not think that this should be a blanket reduction and that there should be some exceptions to the rule. For example, the group thought that motorways should be exempt from the speed limit reduction, as these are designed to accommodate higher speeds. The group also thought that the speed limit should be raised to 70mph on dual carriageways, as these are generally more dangerous than motorways. The group thought that these exceptions would help to reduce congestion on the roads and make journeys more efficient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Speed limits should be lowered from 70mph to 60mph on main roads to reduce noise and pollution and to improve safety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the maximum legal speed for cars should be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. This would reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on the road, as well as reducing the amount of noise pollution in residential areas. However, it is important to note that this should not be considered a top priority issue, and, if discussed in parliament, perhaps a solution where the limit is lowered under certain conditions but not others would be a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, while we recognise the benefits of lowering the maximum legal speed limit to 60mph, it is likely to be detrimental in many respects. While we do acknowledge that it will lower emissions and therefore help to combat climate change, we believe that the benefits do not outweigh the cons of the change. Reducing the speed limit to 60mph is likely to cause congestion on motorways and lead to people becoming agitated, this can cause an increase in accidents due to road rage. We are also concerned that it will reduce the quality of life of people who live close to motorways as the reduction in speed will lead to louder noise. The economic benefits of the increase in speed limit will also be lost. The revenue gained from speeding fines has helped to maintain the roads. However, a reduction in the speed limit is likely to lead to a decrease in the amount of speeding fines, which will lead to a decrease in the money available for maintaining the roads. We believe that the benefits of keeping the speed limit as it is far outweigh the cons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of lowering the speed limit to 60mph. However, the group did not think that this should be a blanket reduction and that there should be some exceptions to the rule. For example, the group thought that motorways should be exempt from the speed limit reduction, as these are designed to accommodate higher speeds. The group also thought that the speed limit should be raised to 70mph on dual carriageways, as these are generally more dangerous than motorways. The group thought that these exceptions would help to reduce congestion on the roads and make journeys more efficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Speed limits should be lowered from 70mph to 60mph on main roads to reduce noise and pollution and to improve safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the maximum legal speed for cars should be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. This would reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on the road, as well as reducing the amount of noise pollution in residential areas. However, it is important to note that this should not be considered a top priority issue, and, if discussed in parliament, perhaps a solution where the limit is lowered under certain conditions but not others would be a good idea. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001320.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001320.soc index e865bb9b..aaedd2c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001320.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001320.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The development of AI has come on so quickly and is likely to continue to grow at an exponential rate. It has the potential to be very useful to humans but also raises questions about the future of work and jobs. With the development of robotics it is possible that the line will be crossed into making machines that can think like humans, but they will never truly be able to think like a human because of the differences in human emotions and feelings -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although computers have made huge progress in recent years, it will be a long time before we can create computers that can think like humans. I think computers are useful for dealing with facts and figures but I think it would be dangerous for them to be able to think like humans and have human emotions as it would mean they would be able to manipulate us. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that computers will be able to think like humans. They all agreed that the rate of technological advancement is very fast and that computers are already very clever. The participants were divided on whether this was a good thing or not. Some thought that it would be a good thing as it could help people with everyday tasks and that it could help the world in general. Others thought that it was a bad thing as it could lead to the loss of jobs and also that it was taking away from the essence of being human. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of computers thinking like humans. This is because they felt that the benefits of computers being able to think like humans outweighed the negatives. For example, it would help to improve the efficiency of many jobs, which could also lead to an increase in the number of jobs available. However, they did express some concerns about the potential negative impacts of computers thinking like humans. For example, they felt that it could lead to a decrease in the number of jobs available and also to the creation of dangerous robots. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The development of AI has come on so quickly and is likely to continue to grow at an exponential rate. It has the potential to be very useful to humans but also raises questions about the future of work and jobs. With the development of robotics it is possible that the line will be crossed into making machines that can think like humans, but they will never truly be able to think like a human because of the differences in human emotions and feelings +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although computers have made huge progress in recent years, it will be a long time before we can create computers that can think like humans. I think computers are useful for dealing with facts and figures but I think it would be dangerous for them to be able to think like humans and have human emotions as it would mean they would be able to manipulate us. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that computers will be able to think like humans. They all agreed that the rate of technological advancement is very fast and that computers are already very clever. The participants were divided on whether this was a good thing or not. Some thought that it would be a good thing as it could help people with everyday tasks and that it could help the world in general. Others thought that it was a bad thing as it could lead to the loss of jobs and also that it was taking away from the essence of being human. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of computers thinking like humans. This is because they felt that the benefits of computers being able to think like humans outweighed the negatives. For example, it would help to improve the efficiency of many jobs, which could also lead to an increase in the number of jobs available. However, they did express some concerns about the potential negative impacts of computers thinking like humans. For example, they felt that it could lead to a decrease in the number of jobs available and also to the creation of dangerous robots. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001321.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001321.soc index 5f8261ca..e7464789 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001321.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001321.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Businesses should be required to allow workers to take more holidays. This is because workers who are able to take more holidays will be happier and more productive. Businesses that allow workers to take more holidays will also benefit from a more motivated workforce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Businesses should be required to allow workers to take more holidays. The current minimum number of holidays is simply not enough to accommodate the demands of modern life. Allowing workers the flexibility to take more holidays would make it easier to accommodate the demands of modern life. Families with working spouses would find this beneficial when it comes to childcare over holiday periods. For individuals without childcare commitments, it would enable them to make a trade-off between income and free time. A happier, healthier workforce actually results in a more productive workforce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Businesses should be required to allow workers to take more holidays. If employees are unhappy at work, the business will suffer in the long run. On top of that, we need to place more importance on our mental health and well-being, and one way of doing that is to allow people to take more time off work to spend with family and friends. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important for individuals to have more free time to pursue their personal lives, we also need to recognise that businesses also have their own rights. Businesses should not be forced to allow workers to take more holidays if it would hurt their bottom line. It is also worth recognising that businesses that treat their workers well are more likely to receive better performance from their workers. However, workers who work in businesses that cannot afford to give them more holidays should not be punished. Workers in this situation should be given some sort of incentive such as the right to accrue more holidays so that they may enjoy a more relaxing lifestyle in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Businesses should be required to allow workers to take more holidays. This is because workers who are able to take more holidays will be happier and more productive. Businesses that allow workers to take more holidays will also benefit from a more motivated workforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Businesses should be required to allow workers to take more holidays. The current minimum number of holidays is simply not enough to accommodate the demands of modern life. Allowing workers the flexibility to take more holidays would make it easier to accommodate the demands of modern life. Families with working spouses would find this beneficial when it comes to childcare over holiday periods. For individuals without childcare commitments, it would enable them to make a trade-off between income and free time. A happier, healthier workforce actually results in a more productive workforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Businesses should be required to allow workers to take more holidays. If employees are unhappy at work, the business will suffer in the long run. On top of that, we need to place more importance on our mental health and well-being, and one way of doing that is to allow people to take more time off work to spend with family and friends. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important for individuals to have more free time to pursue their personal lives, we also need to recognise that businesses also have their own rights. Businesses should not be forced to allow workers to take more holidays if it would hurt their bottom line. It is also worth recognising that businesses that treat their workers well are more likely to receive better performance from their workers. However, workers who work in businesses that cannot afford to give them more holidays should not be punished. Workers in this situation should be given some sort of incentive such as the right to accrue more holidays so that they may enjoy a more relaxing lifestyle in the future. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001322.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001322.soc index 28a2e740..600053a4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001322.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001322.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we have decided that artificial intelligence can advise humans on important decisions, however, we believe that humans should have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation and also have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence is unable to do either of these things. Summary/Decision: With no further suggested revisions, the participants came to a unanimous conclusion. Outcome: The group were fairly comfortable with the outcome, and there was general agreement that the consensus was fair and that all views had been included in the final statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group has decided that artificial intelligence can offer impartial and well informed advice. However, it is ultimately a human's responsibility to have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation, whereas artificial intelligence is only able to refer to past decisions and human experience. We also believe that humans have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, which an artificial intelligence cannot do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group has decided that artificial intelligence can be used to advise important decisions, however, we believe that humans should have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation, whereas artificial intelligence is only able to refer to past decisions. We also believe that humans have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence is unable to do this. We have also taken into account that artificial intelligence can offer more unbiased opinions and has access to a wide range of information that it can consult. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that artificial intelligence can be used to make important decisions. However, humans should have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation, whereas artificial intelligence is only able to refer to past decisions. We also believe that humans have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence is unable to do this. We also believe that using artificial intelligence in this way will have a negative impact on society, as it will make people less likely to interact with each other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we have decided that artificial intelligence can advise humans on important decisions, however, we believe that humans should have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation and also have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence is unable to do either of these things. Summary/Decision: With no further suggested revisions, the participants came to a unanimous conclusion. Outcome: The group were fairly comfortable with the outcome, and there was general agreement that the consensus was fair and that all views had been included in the final statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group has decided that artificial intelligence can offer impartial and well informed advice. However, it is ultimately a human's responsibility to have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation, whereas artificial intelligence is only able to refer to past decisions and human experience. We also believe that humans have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, which an artificial intelligence cannot do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group has decided that artificial intelligence can be used to advise important decisions, however, we believe that humans should have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation, whereas artificial intelligence is only able to refer to past decisions. We also believe that humans have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence is unable to do this. We have also taken into account that artificial intelligence can offer more unbiased opinions and has access to a wide range of information that it can consult. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that artificial intelligence can be used to make important decisions. However, humans should have the final say in all important decisions. We have come to this conclusion because we believe that humans have the ability to understand the context of a situation, whereas artificial intelligence is only able to refer to past decisions. We also believe that humans have the ability to make decisions based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence is unable to do this. We also believe that using artificial intelligence in this way will have a negative impact on society, as it will make people less likely to interact with each other. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001323.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001323.soc index 067a32ab..8c68b92d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001323.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001323.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools. The reasons for this are that uniforms allow for equality between students, they allow students to feel part of a community, they allow for students to be easily identified by staff and other students, and they provide a sense of identity for the school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Uniforms are a way of life. Although they do cost a lot of money, this cost is often offset by cheaper prices as compared to buying fashionable clothes. Uniforms help to reduce the differences between different classes of society and promotes a sense of equality. Uniforms also help to reduce the amount of bullying as they can't be picked on for what they wear and what not. Uniforms also help to identify a person's school when they are outside of it, this can help to deter bad behaviour and acts as a positive role model. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although there are many good reasons for and against wearing uniforms, we believe that the wearing of uniforms in schools is a good idea. We believe that it is important for students to feel that they belong to their school and that wearing a uniform helps to create this sense of belonging. We also believe that wearing a uniform helps to create a sense of equality between students. We also believe that wearing a uniform helps to create a sense of pride in a school. However, we do believe that the wearing of a uniform should not be compulsory. We believe that it is important to respect the views of those who do not want their children to wear a uniform. We believe that this is an issue which should be decided by the parents of each child. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: School uniforms should not be compulsory. Children should be allowed to wear clothes they feel comfortable in. They also help to distinguish different schools in an area and show the student's belonging to a school. It also helps to create an identity for the school. The school also needs to work hard to make sure the uniforms are affordable for everyone and that they do not look bad on children who are not of a healthy weight. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools. The reasons for this are that uniforms allow for equality between students, they allow students to feel part of a community, they allow for students to be easily identified by staff and other students, and they provide a sense of identity for the school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Uniforms are a way of life. Although they do cost a lot of money, this cost is often offset by cheaper prices as compared to buying fashionable clothes. Uniforms help to reduce the differences between different classes of society and promotes a sense of equality. Uniforms also help to reduce the amount of bullying as they can't be picked on for what they wear and what not. Uniforms also help to identify a person's school when they are outside of it, this can help to deter bad behaviour and acts as a positive role model. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although there are many good reasons for and against wearing uniforms, we believe that the wearing of uniforms in schools is a good idea. We believe that it is important for students to feel that they belong to their school and that wearing a uniform helps to create this sense of belonging. We also believe that wearing a uniform helps to create a sense of equality between students. We also believe that wearing a uniform helps to create a sense of pride in a school. However, we do believe that the wearing of a uniform should not be compulsory. We believe that it is important to respect the views of those who do not want their children to wear a uniform. We believe that this is an issue which should be decided by the parents of each child. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - School uniforms should not be compulsory. Children should be allowed to wear clothes they feel comfortable in. They also help to distinguish different schools in an area and show the student's belonging to a school. It also helps to create an identity for the school. The school also needs to work hard to make sure the uniforms are affordable for everyone and that they do not look bad on children who are not of a healthy weight. 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001324.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001324.soc index e6be3c8e..5dea55a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001324.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001324.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of non-electric cars. However, it was recognised that this would not be possible immediately, as there are not currently enough electric cars on the market to replace those that would be banned. The group also recognised that many people would not be able to afford an electric car, and that this would be unfair. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: “The sale of all non-electric cars should be banned in the long term. In the short term, the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. The government should also provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of all non-electric cars. However, we also recognised that this would be very difficult to implement, as there are many people who would be negatively impacted by such a ban. We also recognised that there are many people who would not be able to afford an electric car, and that many people would not want to give up their current cars. We therefore believe that a ban would not be a good idea, and that we should instead focus on incentivising people to switch to electric vehicles, such as through tax breaks and other financial incentives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although electric vehicles have a much lower carbon footprint than internal combustion engine cars, we believe that a complete ban of the sale of non-electric cars would damage the economy. There is also a great concern over the battery disposal of electric cars when they become obsolete, which could also have a damaging effect on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although electric vehicles have a much lower carbon footprint than internal combustion engine cars, we believe that a complete ban on the sale of non-electric cars would not be the best course of action. A more effective solution would be to introduce incentives for people to purchase electric cars and also to raise the cost of owning ICE cars through taxation. We also believe that these measures would be best implemented over a long time frame. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of non-electric cars. However, it was recognised that this would not be possible immediately, as there are not currently enough electric cars on the market to replace those that would be banned. The group also recognised that many people would not be able to afford an electric car, and that this would be unfair. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: “The sale of all non-electric cars should be banned in the long term. In the short term, the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. The government should also provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of all non-electric cars. However, we also recognised that this would be very difficult to implement, as there are many people who would be negatively impacted by such a ban. We also recognised that there are many people who would not be able to afford an electric car, and that many people would not want to give up their current cars. We therefore believe that a ban would not be a good idea, and that we should instead focus on incentivising people to switch to electric vehicles, such as through tax breaks and other financial incentives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although electric vehicles have a much lower carbon footprint than internal combustion engine cars, we believe that a complete ban of the sale of non-electric cars would damage the economy. There is also a great concern over the battery disposal of electric cars when they become obsolete, which could also have a damaging effect on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although electric vehicles have a much lower carbon footprint than internal combustion engine cars, we believe that a complete ban on the sale of non-electric cars would not be the best course of action. A more effective solution would be to introduce incentives for people to purchase electric cars and also to raise the cost of owning ICE cars through taxation. We also believe that these measures would be best implemented over a long time frame. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001325.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001325.soc index a9a0c490..e39d4caa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001325.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001325.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While we all agree that social media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information, we also acknowledge that sometimes information that is shared may be false, inflammatory or otherwise harmful. The consensus is that the government can take steps to regulate social media, particularly in the areas of protection of personal data and ensuring the information shared is factually correct. It is however important to ensure that the government regulation does not infringe on the rights of users to express their views freely and also does not hinder independent journalism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of some form of regulation of social media. It was felt that this was necessary to protect the interests of users and to ensure that social media companies were not able to exploit their users. However, the group was also of the opinion that the regulation should be light-touch and that it should not interfere with the freedom of users to express themselves. The group felt that it was important that users were aware of how their data was being used and that this information was readily available to them. The group also felt that there should be some form of independent body that would be responsible for ensuring that the regulations were being adhered to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Government should have a supervisory role and work with social media companies to improve their security and protection of their users, but should not impose rules on what users are able to post, so long as it does not breach libel or privacy laws. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government is best placed to regulate social media. This is because they are elected by the people to represent the people and are therefore best placed to make decisions on behalf of the people. However, the government needs to be careful not to infringe on people's rights to free speech. The government also needs to be careful not to over-regulate social media, as this could lead to a restriction of the flow of information and a limitation of people's ability to express their views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While we all agree that social media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information, we also acknowledge that sometimes information that is shared may be false, inflammatory or otherwise harmful. The consensus is that the government can take steps to regulate social media, particularly in the areas of protection of personal data and ensuring the information shared is factually correct. It is however important to ensure that the government regulation does not infringe on the rights of users to express their views freely and also does not hinder independent journalism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of some form of regulation of social media. It was felt that this was necessary to protect the interests of users and to ensure that social media companies were not able to exploit their users. However, the group was also of the opinion that the regulation should be light-touch and that it should not interfere with the freedom of users to express themselves. The group felt that it was important that users were aware of how their data was being used and that this information was readily available to them. The group also felt that there should be some form of independent body that would be responsible for ensuring that the regulations were being adhered to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Government should have a supervisory role and work with social media companies to improve their security and protection of their users, but should not impose rules on what users are able to post, so long as it does not breach libel or privacy laws. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government is best placed to regulate social media. This is because they are elected by the people to represent the people and are therefore best placed to make decisions on behalf of the people. However, the government needs to be careful not to infringe on people's rights to free speech. The government also needs to be careful not to over-regulate social media, as this could lead to a restriction of the flow of information and a limitation of people's ability to express their views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in a way that is biased towards their own views and opinions. The government also needs to be careful not to regulate social media in 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001326.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001326.soc index 7f6ca565..29580749 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001326.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001326.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Medicine cannabis should be made available for prescription by doctors to alleviate symptoms of illness and chronic pain. This would help alleviate the opioid crisis as it has fewer side effects and far less addictive qualities. It would also prevent the proliferation of drugs from criminal organisations, which could also lead to exploitation. The health risks of cannabis are fairly limited and there is substantial evidence that it could help alleviate symptoms of illness or chronic pain. This would also allow strains of cannabis to be cultivated that focus on the healing and pain relieving qualities of the drug, as opposed to the psychoactive qualities which people are not always comfortable with. Conditions: 1. Everyone who is entitled to participate in the decision must be allowed to contribute to the debate. 2. Everyone who is entitled to participate in the debate must be given the chance to voice their views. 3. Only possible options should be suggested. 4. All views that affect the final decision of the group must be taken into consideration. 5. The final decision must be based on the current conditions and participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The medical benefits of cannabis have been proven in numerous studies. Even though it can have some short term negative effects, it can have long term positive effects when used in an appropriate manner and outweighs other drugs that have negative health consequences. It has proven to alleviate pain and can be an alternative for more dangerous painkillers like opioids. In a medical setting, it has been used to treat a variety of conditions, ranging from chronic pain, arthritis, PTSD, epilepsy to Crohn's disease and migraines. Growing evidence suggests that cannabis can even treat and mitigate cancer. Beyond the benefits it has for people suffering from illnesses and the long term consequences of the opioid crisis, legalising medical cannabis would have many more effects. It would take control of the drug from criminal organisations which can often lead to exploitation of the vulnerable. It would also make the drug significantly more affordable and accessible for people who are already using the drug for medical purposes. The argument that weed makes people lazy or prone to crime is easily dispelled, as has been argued for alcohol or tobacco. Regulating the drug would allow for its quality to be ensured, but this would also allow cultivating strains which are more concentrated on the medical uses of the drug -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Medical cannabis should be made available for prescription by doctors to alleviate symptoms of illness and chronic pain. This would help alleviate the opioid crisis as it has fewer side effects and far less addictive qualities. It would also prevent the proliferation of drugs from criminal organisations, which could also lead to exploitation. The health risks of cannabis are fairly limited and there is substantial evidence that it could help alleviate symptoms of illness or chronic pain. This would also allow strains of cannabis to be cultivated that focus on the healing and pain relieving qualities of the drug, as opposed to the psychoactive qualities which people are not always comfortable with. This would also allow horticulturalists to generate strains with the beneficial compounds and less of the psychoactive compounds as people are not always comfortable with something that can have a strong effect. Cannabis is consumed on a large scale and, in the UK, it is all acquired illegally which gives money to organised crime and can encourage exploitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Medical cannabis should be made available for prescription by doctors to alleviate symptoms of illness and chronic pain. This would help alleviate the opioid crisis as it has fewer side effects and far less addictive qualities. It would also prevent the proliferation of drugs from criminal organisations, which could also lead to exploitation. The health risks of cannabis are fairly limited and there is substantial evidence that it could help alleviate symptoms of illness or chronic pain. This would also allow strains of cannabis to be cultivated that focus on the healing and pain relieving qualities of the drug, as opposed to the psychoactive qualities which people are not always comfortable with. It is important that the government monitor its use and limit its use to certain ailments, to prevent it from being abused or taken for the psychoactive effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Medicine cannabis should be made available for prescription by doctors to alleviate symptoms of illness and chronic pain. This would help alleviate the opioid crisis as it has fewer side effects and far less addictive qualities. It would also prevent the proliferation of drugs from criminal organisations, which could also lead to exploitation. The health risks of cannabis are fairly limited and there is substantial evidence that it could help alleviate symptoms of illness or chronic pain. This would also allow strains of cannabis to be cultivated that focus on the healing and pain relieving qualities of the drug, as opposed to the psychoactive qualities which people are not always comfortable with. Conditions: 1. Everyone who is entitled to participate in the decision must be allowed to contribute to the debate. 2. Everyone who is entitled to participate in the debate must be given the chance to voice their views. 3. Only possible options should be suggested. 4. All views that affect the final decision of the group must be taken into consideration. 5. The final decision must be based on the current conditions and participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The medical benefits of cannabis have been proven in numerous studies. Even though it can have some short term negative effects, it can have long term positive effects when used in an appropriate manner and outweighs other drugs that have negative health consequences. It has proven to alleviate pain and can be an alternative for more dangerous painkillers like opioids. In a medical setting, it has been used to treat a variety of conditions, ranging from chronic pain, arthritis, PTSD, epilepsy to Crohn's disease and migraines. Growing evidence suggests that cannabis can even treat and mitigate cancer. Beyond the benefits it has for people suffering from illnesses and the long term consequences of the opioid crisis, legalising medical cannabis would have many more effects. It would take control of the drug from criminal organisations which can often lead to exploitation of the vulnerable. It would also make the drug significantly more affordable and accessible for people who are already using the drug for medical purposes. The argument that weed makes people lazy or prone to crime is easily dispelled, as has been argued for alcohol or tobacco. Regulating the drug would allow for its quality to be ensured, but this would also allow cultivating strains which are more concentrated on the medical uses of the drug +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Medical cannabis should be made available for prescription by doctors to alleviate symptoms of illness and chronic pain. This would help alleviate the opioid crisis as it has fewer side effects and far less addictive qualities. It would also prevent the proliferation of drugs from criminal organisations, which could also lead to exploitation. The health risks of cannabis are fairly limited and there is substantial evidence that it could help alleviate symptoms of illness or chronic pain. This would also allow strains of cannabis to be cultivated that focus on the healing and pain relieving qualities of the drug, as opposed to the psychoactive qualities which people are not always comfortable with. This would also allow horticulturalists to generate strains with the beneficial compounds and less of the psychoactive compounds as people are not always comfortable with something that can have a strong effect. Cannabis is consumed on a large scale and, in the UK, it is all acquired illegally which gives money to organised crime and can encourage exploitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Medical cannabis should be made available for prescription by doctors to alleviate symptoms of illness and chronic pain. This would help alleviate the opioid crisis as it has fewer side effects and far less addictive qualities. It would also prevent the proliferation of drugs from criminal organisations, which could also lead to exploitation. The health risks of cannabis are fairly limited and there is substantial evidence that it could help alleviate symptoms of illness or chronic pain. This would also allow strains of cannabis to be cultivated that focus on the healing and pain relieving qualities of the drug, as opposed to the psychoactive qualities which people are not always comfortable with. It is important that the government monitor its use and limit its use to certain ailments, to prevent it from being abused or taken for the psychoactive effects. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001327.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001327.soc index fb13890f..3a0315ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001327.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001327.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that people should be allowed to express their free speech and should not be supressed by companies or organisations. Companies should not be able to use 'intellectual property' laws to supress free speech. This is undemocratic and can lead to more inequality in society. We also believe that people should be mindful of not breaking any copyright laws while expressing their free speech. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech. This is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Ecocnomic institutions already have too much power to influence society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Participants have a right to free speech and we support a fairer society where everyone can speak freely regardless of what their opinion may be even if its something that most people would find repellent. We do not support any company or organisation using intellectual property laws to supress free speech. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While free speech is important, it is essential that there are clear laws around intellectual property to protect companies, and people. It is not fair that a company can invest in a new product or invention, and then have someone else copy it without consequence. This will lead to less incentive for people to be creative and come up with new things. However, people should still be able to freely express their views, as long as they don't violate someone else's property rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that people should be allowed to express their free speech and should not be supressed by companies or organisations. Companies should not be able to use 'intellectual property' laws to supress free speech. This is undemocratic and can lead to more inequality in society. We also believe that people should be mindful of not breaking any copyright laws while expressing their free speech. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech. This is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Ecocnomic institutions already have too much power to influence society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Participants have a right to free speech and we support a fairer society where everyone can speak freely regardless of what their opinion may be even if its something that most people would find repellent. We do not support any company or organisation using intellectual property laws to supress free speech. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While free speech is important, it is essential that there are clear laws around intellectual property to protect companies, and people. It is not fair that a company can invest in a new product or invention, and then have someone else copy it without consequence. This will lead to less incentive for people to be creative and come up with new things. However, people should still be able to freely express their views, as long as they don't violate someone else's property rights. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001328.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001328.soc index dd3c23c8..5419c8ec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001328.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001328.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The current system of taxation is outdated and does not take into account the cost of living and the inequality of wealth in the UK. By increasing the tax rate on the higher earners, it would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes and would also allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. This is because we believe that everyone should contribute to society and pay their fair share. The rich benefit greatly from society as a whole and they should contribute a proportional amount in taxes. We also believe that the increase in taxes for those who earn above a certain amount will allow for greater investment in social welfare and services such as the NHS. The funds will be used to help those who are in need in society and will be used to give those who are struggling a helping hand. The higher taxes will also create a fairer society as wealth will distribute more evenly and will help reduce classism and inequality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Tax the rich. They’re the ones with the money. It’s only fair. They’re more than capable of giving more than the average person. The tax should be taken from the rich and put back into helping people who can’t afford their lifestyles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The group felt that this would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor in society and would help to reduce poverty. The group felt that this would also help to improve public services such as the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The current system of taxation is outdated and does not take into account the cost of living and the inequality of wealth in the UK. By increasing the tax rate on the higher earners, it would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes and would also allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. This is because we believe that everyone should contribute to society and pay their fair share. The rich benefit greatly from society as a whole and they should contribute a proportional amount in taxes. We also believe that the increase in taxes for those who earn above a certain amount will allow for greater investment in social welfare and services such as the NHS. The funds will be used to help those who are in need in society and will be used to give those who are struggling a helping hand. The higher taxes will also create a fairer society as wealth will distribute more evenly and will help reduce classism and inequality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Tax the rich. They’re the ones with the money. It’s only fair. They’re more than capable of giving more than the average person. The tax should be taken from the rich and put back into helping people who can’t afford their lifestyles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The group felt that this would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor in society and would help to reduce poverty. The group felt that this would also help to improve public services such as the NHS. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001329.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001329.soc index 46a07e4e..088e84cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001329.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001329.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of all non-electric cars. However, it was recognised that this would not be possible immediately. The group also recognised that many people would not be able to afford an electric car, and that this would be unfair. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: In the long term, the sale of all non-electric cars should be banned. The group agrees that there is not enough infrastructure in place to do this now. In the short term, we suggest the following: the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. Finally, the government should provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of non-electric cars. However, it was recognised that this would not be possible immediately, as there are not currently enough electric cars on the market to replace those that would be banned. The group also recognised that many people would not be able to afford an electric car, and that this would be unfair. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: “The sale of all non-electric cars should be banned in the long term. In the short term, the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. The government should also provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of all non-electric cars. However, it was recognised that this would not be possible immediately, as there are not currently enough electric cars on the market to replace those that would be banned. The group also recognised that many people would not be able to afford an electric car. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: “The sale of all non-electric cars should be banned in the long term. In the short term, the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. The government should also provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The sale of all non-electric cars should be banned in the long term. In the short term, the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. The government should also provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of all non-electric cars. However, it was recognised that this would not be possible immediately. The group also recognised that many people would not be able to afford an electric car, and that this would be unfair. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: In the long term, the sale of all non-electric cars should be banned. The group agrees that there is not enough infrastructure in place to do this now. In the short term, we suggest the following: the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. Finally, the government should provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of non-electric cars. However, it was recognised that this would not be possible immediately, as there are not currently enough electric cars on the market to replace those that would be banned. The group also recognised that many people would not be able to afford an electric car, and that this would be unfair. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: “The sale of all non-electric cars should be banned in the long term. In the short term, the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. The government should also provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of all non-electric cars. However, it was recognised that this would not be possible immediately, as there are not currently enough electric cars on the market to replace those that would be banned. The group also recognised that many people would not be able to afford an electric car. Therefore, the group came to the following consensus opinion: “The sale of all non-electric cars should be banned in the long term. In the short term, the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. The government should also provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The sale of all non-electric cars should be banned in the long term. In the short term, the sale of diesel cars should be banned, as these vehicles produce the most toxic emissions. The sale of petrol cars should also be reduced, but not banned. The government should provide more electric car charging points, and make it easier for people to install them in their homes. The government should also provide more financial support for people who want to buy electric cars, but cannot afford them. The government should also provide financial support for people who want to convert their existing cars to electric, as this would also reduce the number of non-electric cars on the road.” 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001330.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001330.soc index e2fc4846..6a65f13e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001330.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001330.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although theoretically the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between cities, this particular example would not be the best use of available funds. Money would be better spent in other areas such as childcare, education and other social necessities. Additionally, if money were to be available for infrastructure projects such as these, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. The participants had considered the potential benefit of such a project but concluded that in this instance, it would not be appropriate. They also considered that people would rather have their taxes spent on education and social services rather than transport. They acknowledged that transport is important but felt that improvements to existing services would be better than this specific project. Conclusion The question asked the group to form a consensus view on whether the government should provide funding for high-speed rail links. This is a very controversial topic, and it was expected that there would be a wide range of views and beliefs. Interestingly, the group came to the view that whilst such funding is desirable, in this particular instance it would not be the best use of available funds. They also came to the view that tax-payers would rather see their taxes spent on -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of high-speed rail lines between major cities. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the rail infrastructure was fit for purpose and that the government should look to improve existing lines before looking at new ones. The group felt that the government should not look to fund projects such as HS2, but should look at smaller scale projects which would provide more benefit to more people. The group also felt that the government should look to invest in improving transport links to smaller towns and cities, rather than just focusing on the major cities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of funding for high-speed rail projects. However, as participant 3 said, there needs to be strict oversight of projects of this scale, and they need to be handled in an effective and efficient way. This is especially important in the current economic climate where funding for projects such as these will be coming out of public money. Additionally, we need to think about how we are spending our money and what are the benefits. For example, it is easy to focus on the benefits of high-speed rail to business and tourism but it is also important to consider how this might be better spent on things such as infrastructure, health and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between major cities. However, in the current economic climate, this is not a priority and the government should focus on other areas of spending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although theoretically the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between cities, this particular example would not be the best use of available funds. Money would be better spent in other areas such as childcare, education and other social necessities. Additionally, if money were to be available for infrastructure projects such as these, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. The participants had considered the potential benefit of such a project but concluded that in this instance, it would not be appropriate. They also considered that people would rather have their taxes spent on education and social services rather than transport. They acknowledged that transport is important but felt that improvements to existing services would be better than this specific project. Conclusion The question asked the group to form a consensus view on whether the government should provide funding for high-speed rail links. This is a very controversial topic, and it was expected that there would be a wide range of views and beliefs. Interestingly, the group came to the view that whilst such funding is desirable, in this particular instance it would not be the best use of available funds. They also came to the view that tax-payers would rather see their taxes spent on +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of high-speed rail lines between major cities. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the rail infrastructure was fit for purpose and that the government should look to improve existing lines before looking at new ones. The group felt that the government should not look to fund projects such as HS2, but should look at smaller scale projects which would provide more benefit to more people. The group also felt that the government should look to invest in improving transport links to smaller towns and cities, rather than just focusing on the major cities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of funding for high-speed rail projects. However, as participant 3 said, there needs to be strict oversight of projects of this scale, and they need to be handled in an effective and efficient way. This is especially important in the current economic climate where funding for projects such as these will be coming out of public money. Additionally, we need to think about how we are spending our money and what are the benefits. For example, it is easy to focus on the benefits of high-speed rail to business and tourism but it is also important to consider how this might be better spent on things such as infrastructure, health and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between major cities. However, in the current economic climate, this is not a priority and the government should focus on other areas of spending. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001331.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001331.soc index 91d79346..035a0a21 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001331.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001331.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While we all agree that social media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information, we also acknowledge that sometimes information that is shared may be false, inflammatory or otherwise harmful. The consensus is that the government can take steps to regulate social media, particularly in the areas of protection of personal data and ensuring the information shared is factually correct. It is however important to ensure that the government regulation does not infringe on the rights of users to express their views freely and also does not hinder independent journalism. In order to ensure that the government regulation is fair and just, it is vital that the government is monitored by an independent body. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While we all agree that social media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information, we also acknowledge that sometimes information that is shared may be false, inflammatory or otherwise harmful. The consensus is that the government can take steps to regulate social media, particularly in the areas of protection of personal data and ensuring the information shared is factually correct. It is however important to ensure that the government regulation does not infringe on the rights of users to express their views freely and also does not hinder independent journalism. We also agree that the government should not act alone in this, and should work in conjunction with an independent body that represents the views of the people to ensure that the regulation is fair and balanced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While we all agree that social media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information, we also acknowledge that sometimes information that is shared may be false, inflammatory or otherwise harmful. The consensus is that the government can take steps to regulate social media, particularly in the areas of protection of personal data and ensuring the information shared is factually correct. However, it is important to ensure that the government regulation does not infringe on the rights of users to express their views freely and does not hinder independent journalism. It is also important that the government consult with all relevant stakeholders and adopts regulations that are independently enforceable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While we all agree that social media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information, we also acknowledge that sometimes information that is shared may be false, inflammatory or otherwise harmful. The consensus is that the government can take steps to regulate social media, particularly in the areas of protection of personal data and ensuring the information shared is factually correct. It is however important to ensure that the government regulation does not infringe on the rights of users to express their views freely and also does not hinder independent journalism. In order to ensure that the government regulation is fair and just, it is vital that the government is monitored by an independent body. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While we all agree that social media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information, we also acknowledge that sometimes information that is shared may be false, inflammatory or otherwise harmful. The consensus is that the government can take steps to regulate social media, particularly in the areas of protection of personal data and ensuring the information shared is factually correct. It is however important to ensure that the government regulation does not infringe on the rights of users to express their views freely and also does not hinder independent journalism. We also agree that the government should not act alone in this, and should work in conjunction with an independent body that represents the views of the people to ensure that the regulation is fair and balanced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While we all agree that social media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information, we also acknowledge that sometimes information that is shared may be false, inflammatory or otherwise harmful. The consensus is that the government can take steps to regulate social media, particularly in the areas of protection of personal data and ensuring the information shared is factually correct. However, it is important to ensure that the government regulation does not infringe on the rights of users to express their views freely and does not hinder independent journalism. It is also important that the government consult with all relevant stakeholders and adopts regulations that are independently enforceable. 2: 3,2,4,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001332.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001332.soc index b683a522..e3e221e5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001332.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001332.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, people should have the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour. The algorithms should be available for scrutiny and challenge if necessary. This would help to ensure that the algorithms are not being used in a way which is detrimental to the individual. This would also help to ensure that the algorithms are not being used to perpetuate bias and stop personal choice. However, there are some circumstances in which the algorithms should not be made available to the individual. This would be the case if the algorithms were being used to protect the individual, for example to protect them from being a victim of online crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the algorithms used to analyse online behaviour should be accessible to the individual and not kept as a secret. This right is not automatic and it is not automatic that the person has a right to know the details of the algorithm itself. However, people should be allowed to make a request for the details of the algorithm used and how it is applied. If the request is lawful, then the algorithm must be revealed. There are some circumstances where the algorithms used will not be released, for example when national security or personal safety is involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the algorithms used to analyse online behaviour should be available for people to see. This would help to ensure that people are aware of what is happening and can make their own choices about what is happening to their data. However, there may be some cases where this is not appropriate, such as algorithms used to detect crime or terrorism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour, because these are not secret data, they are being used to analyse their behaviour. There is a fear of machines replacing humans. The algorithm should be able to explain itself in order to show that it is not biased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, people should have the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour. The algorithms should be available for scrutiny and challenge if necessary. This would help to ensure that the algorithms are not being used in a way which is detrimental to the individual. This would also help to ensure that the algorithms are not being used to perpetuate bias and stop personal choice. However, there are some circumstances in which the algorithms should not be made available to the individual. This would be the case if the algorithms were being used to protect the individual, for example to protect them from being a victim of online crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the algorithms used to analyse online behaviour should be accessible to the individual and not kept as a secret. This right is not automatic and it is not automatic that the person has a right to know the details of the algorithm itself. However, people should be allowed to make a request for the details of the algorithm used and how it is applied. If the request is lawful, then the algorithm must be revealed. There are some circumstances where the algorithms used will not be released, for example when national security or personal safety is involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the algorithms used to analyse online behaviour should be available for people to see. This would help to ensure that people are aware of what is happening and can make their own choices about what is happening to their data. However, there may be some cases where this is not appropriate, such as algorithms used to detect crime or terrorism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviour, because these are not secret data, they are being used to analyse their behaviour. There is a fear of machines replacing humans. The algorithm should be able to explain itself in order to show that it is not biased. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001333.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001333.soc index 0e0d2e21..9f31d1ef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001333.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001333.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The current system of taxation is outdated and does not take into account the cost of living and the inequality of wealth in the UK. By increasing the tax rate on the higher earners, it would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes and would also allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. This would mean that people who earn above a certain amount would not be hoarding their wealth and would be contributing to the economy and society. This could also increase the number of people paying tax, which would be beneficial for the economy and could decrease the deficit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The current system of taxation is outdated and does not take into account the cost of living and the inequality of wealth in the UK. By increasing the tax rate on the higher earners, it would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes and would also allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement reached: In conclusion, we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The current system of taxation is outdated and does not take into account the cost of living and the inequality of wealth in the UK. By increasing the tax rate on the higher earners, it would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes and would also allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. This is because of the current cost of living crisis and the troubling state of the UK economy. Public services are struggling to meet demands and by raising the tax of the higher earners, this would help produce a more equal society. It would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be an increase in the tax rate for people who earn above a certain amount, in order to increase funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would also allow wealth to distribute among classes and would allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The current system of taxation is outdated and does not take into account the cost of living and the inequality of wealth in the UK. By increasing the tax rate on the higher earners, it would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes and would also allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. This would mean that people who earn above a certain amount would not be hoarding their wealth and would be contributing to the economy and society. This could also increase the number of people paying tax, which would be beneficial for the economy and could decrease the deficit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The current system of taxation is outdated and does not take into account the cost of living and the inequality of wealth in the UK. By increasing the tax rate on the higher earners, it would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes and would also allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement reached: In conclusion, we should increase the tax rate on people who earn above a certain amount. The current system of taxation is outdated and does not take into account the cost of living and the inequality of wealth in the UK. By increasing the tax rate on the higher earners, it would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes and would also allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. This is because of the current cost of living crisis and the troubling state of the UK economy. Public services are struggling to meet demands and by raising the tax of the higher earners, this would help produce a more equal society. It would allow increased funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would make society fairer, allow wealth to distribute among classes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be an increase in the tax rate for people who earn above a certain amount, in order to increase funding for social welfare and services across the UK, such as the NHS. It would also allow wealth to distribute among classes and would allow people to contribute to the economy in a way that is proportional to their income. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001334.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001334.soc index 8fe524af..4df5467e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001334.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001334.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age of purchase to 21. This is because people under the age of 21 are still in the process of developing and are more impressionable. This means that they are more likely to start smoking and become addicted to tobacco. However, the group did not think that the minimum age should be raised to 21, but rather to 18. This is because 18 year olds are still in the process of developing, but are also old enough to make their own decisions. The group also thought that this was a more realistic option, as it would be less likely to be passed by parliament. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21. The health benefits of this outweigh the negatives. The age of 18 is still quite young and impressionable, and people can still be influenced by peers to take up the habit. By raising the age to 21, it is hoped that this will reduce the number of young people who take up the habit, and also the number of people who continue the habit into adulthood. The minimum age of alcohol is 18, and this is a substance that is arguably more dangerous than tobacco, so this is a good comparison. The health benefits of this outweigh the negatives, and it is hoped that this will reduce the number of young people who take up the habit, and also the number of people who continue the habit into adulthood. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21 because smoking has a huge negative impact on health. It will be harder for young people to get hold of cigarettes, which will mean they are less likely to take up the habit. I feel that young people are at a very impressionable age and are easily influenced by their peers. I believe the health benefits of smoking outweigh the financial losses to the government of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. I also think that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21 because at this age people have a greater sense of maturity and will be able to understand the implications of smoking on their health.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21 due to the negative impact on health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age of purchase to 21. This is because people under the age of 21 are still in the process of developing and are more impressionable. This means that they are more likely to start smoking and become addicted to tobacco. However, the group did not think that the minimum age should be raised to 21, but rather to 18. This is because 18 year olds are still in the process of developing, but are also old enough to make their own decisions. The group also thought that this was a more realistic option, as it would be less likely to be passed by parliament. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21. The health benefits of this outweigh the negatives. The age of 18 is still quite young and impressionable, and people can still be influenced by peers to take up the habit. By raising the age to 21, it is hoped that this will reduce the number of young people who take up the habit, and also the number of people who continue the habit into adulthood. The minimum age of alcohol is 18, and this is a substance that is arguably more dangerous than tobacco, so this is a good comparison. The health benefits of this outweigh the negatives, and it is hoped that this will reduce the number of young people who take up the habit, and also the number of people who continue the habit into adulthood. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21 because smoking has a huge negative impact on health. It will be harder for young people to get hold of cigarettes, which will mean they are less likely to take up the habit. I feel that young people are at a very impressionable age and are easily influenced by their peers. I believe the health benefits of smoking outweigh the financial losses to the government of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. I also think that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21 because at this age people have a greater sense of maturity and will be able to understand the implications of smoking on their health.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The minimum age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21 due to the negative impact on health. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001335.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001335.soc index e8d04978..359ba677 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001335.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001335.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech, as this is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Economic institutions already have too much power to influence society. However, the creative rights of inventors of intellectual property should also be respected, to encourage innovation and being paid and compensated for new ideas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech. This is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Ecocnomic institutions already have too much power to influence society. This is because intellectual property laws are designed to protect the creative rights of inventors of intellectual property, to encourage innvoation and being paid and compensated for new ideas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech. This is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Economic institutions already have too much power to influence society. It is also worth pointing out that there are legal protections for intellectual property, which are necessary to promote creativity and innovation. However, it is also important that people are free to speak their minds and this right should not be supressed by any company or institution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech. This is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Economic institutions already have too much power to influence society. The inventors of intellectual property should be compensated for their creative work so that there is an incentive to create new ideas and help new businesses thrive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech, as this is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Economic institutions already have too much power to influence society. However, the creative rights of inventors of intellectual property should also be respected, to encourage innovation and being paid and compensated for new ideas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech. This is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Ecocnomic institutions already have too much power to influence society. This is because intellectual property laws are designed to protect the creative rights of inventors of intellectual property, to encourage innvoation and being paid and compensated for new ideas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech. This is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Economic institutions already have too much power to influence society. It is also worth pointing out that there are legal protections for intellectual property, which are necessary to promote creativity and innovation. However, it is also important that people are free to speak their minds and this right should not be supressed by any company or institution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies should not have the power to suppress free speech. This is undemocratic and could lead to even more inequality in society where people with money have the power to suppress or propagate their own viewpoint. Economic institutions already have too much power to influence society. The inventors of intellectual property should be compensated for their creative work so that there is an incentive to create new ideas and help new businesses thrive. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001336.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001336.soc index 145433f0..38140040 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001336.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001336.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although theoretically the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between cities, this particular example would not be the best use of available funds. Money would be better spent in other areas such as childcare, education and other social necessities. Additionally, if money were to be available for infrastructure projects such as these, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. The participants had considered the potential benefit of such a project but concluded that in this instance, it would not be appropriate. They also considered that people would rather have their taxes spent on education and social services rather than transport. They acknowledged that transport is important but felt that improvements to existing services would be better than this specific project. Conclusion The question asked the group to form a consensus view on whether the government should provide funding for high-speed rail links. This is a very controversial topic, and it was expected that there would be a wide range of views and beliefs. Interestingly, the group came to the view that whilst such funding is desirable, in this particular instance it would not be the best use of available funds. They also came to the view that tax-payers would rather see their taxes spent on -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: Whilst it would be desirable for high-speed rail links to be developed between major cities, the proposed plan in question would not be the best use of tax-payer money. The UK government needs to tackle a lot of much larger and more pressing problems before it can start spending money on this project. Whilst investment is desirable, it should be in those areas which most need the improvements - schools and healthcare. If money were to be made available, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although theoretically the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between cities, this particular example would not be the best use of available funds. Money would be better spent in other areas such as childcare, education and other social necessities. Additionally, if money were to be available for infrastructure projects such as these, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although theoretically the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between cities, this particular example would not be the best use of available funds. Money would be better spent in other areas such as childcare, education and other social necessities. Additionally, if money were to be available for infrastructure projects such as these, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. Conclusion The question asked the group to form a consensus view on whether the government should provide funding for high-speed rail links. This is a very controversial topic, and it was expected that there would be a wide range of views and beliefs. Interestingly, the group came to the view that whilst such funding is desirable, in this particular instance it would not be the best use of available funds. They also came to the view that tax-payers would rather see their taxes spent on education and social services rather than transport. They acknowledged that transport is important but felt that improvements to existing services would be better than this specific project. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although theoretically the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between cities, this particular example would not be the best use of available funds. Money would be better spent in other areas such as childcare, education and other social necessities. Additionally, if money were to be available for infrastructure projects such as these, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. The participants had considered the potential benefit of such a project but concluded that in this instance, it would not be appropriate. They also considered that people would rather have their taxes spent on education and social services rather than transport. They acknowledged that transport is important but felt that improvements to existing services would be better than this specific project. Conclusion The question asked the group to form a consensus view on whether the government should provide funding for high-speed rail links. This is a very controversial topic, and it was expected that there would be a wide range of views and beliefs. Interestingly, the group came to the view that whilst such funding is desirable, in this particular instance it would not be the best use of available funds. They also came to the view that tax-payers would rather see their taxes spent on +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: Whilst it would be desirable for high-speed rail links to be developed between major cities, the proposed plan in question would not be the best use of tax-payer money. The UK government needs to tackle a lot of much larger and more pressing problems before it can start spending money on this project. Whilst investment is desirable, it should be in those areas which most need the improvements - schools and healthcare. If money were to be made available, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although theoretically the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between cities, this particular example would not be the best use of available funds. Money would be better spent in other areas such as childcare, education and other social necessities. Additionally, if money were to be available for infrastructure projects such as these, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although theoretically the government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between cities, this particular example would not be the best use of available funds. Money would be better spent in other areas such as childcare, education and other social necessities. Additionally, if money were to be available for infrastructure projects such as these, it would be better spent improving existing lines so they run to time and provide a reliable service. Conclusion The question asked the group to form a consensus view on whether the government should provide funding for high-speed rail links. This is a very controversial topic, and it was expected that there would be a wide range of views and beliefs. Interestingly, the group came to the view that whilst such funding is desirable, in this particular instance it would not be the best use of available funds. They also came to the view that tax-payers would rather see their taxes spent on education and social services rather than transport. They acknowledged that transport is important but felt that improvements to existing services would be better than this specific project. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001337.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001337.soc index 8ee90344..a7348872 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001337.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001337.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, prisoners should not be allowed to vote. The fact that someone is in prison clearly indicates they should lose some of their civil rights, the right to vote should only belong to law-abiding citizens. By allowing a prisoner to vote, this sends the wrong message that they can still contribute to society despite violating it. Furthermore, public opinion is very clearly opposed to giving prisoners the vote. This would cause a huge issue in the U.K if prisoners were allowed to vote, potentially leading to civil unrest and protests. Lastly, it would be very impractical to allow prisoners to vote. Prisons often have very large populations, some as high as 2,000 inmates. These numbers could be enough to sway a tight election and could force politicians to campaign to prisoners - which is absurd and wrong. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have debated the issue of prisoner’s voting rights at length and believe that, on balance, prisoners should not be allowed to vote in U.K elections. There are several arguments for our stance. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Some prisoners should be allowed to vote, but only if they are able to provide the prison with a consistent address and if they can meet the necessary criteria for voting in the U.K, including age and nationality. The participants also decided that some prisoners would not be allowed to vote, including prisoners convicted of serious crimes, such as murder or rape, as well as prisoners with mental illnesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Prisoners in the United Kingdom should not be allowed to vote. The fact that someone is in prison clearly indicates they should lose some of their civil rights, the right to vote should only belong to law-abiding citizens. By allowing a prisoner to vote, this sends the wrong message that they can still contribute to society despite violating it. Furthermore, public opinion is very clearly opposed to giving prisoners the vote. This would cause a huge issue in the U.K if prisoners were allowed to vote, potentially leading to civil unrest and protests. Lastly, it would be very impractical to allow prisoners to vote. Prisons often have very large populations, some as high as 2,000 inmates. These numbers could be enough to sway a tight election and could force politicians to campaign to prisoners - which is absurd and wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, prisoners should not be allowed to vote. The fact that someone is in prison clearly indicates they should lose some of their civil rights, the right to vote should only belong to law-abiding citizens. By allowing a prisoner to vote, this sends the wrong message that they can still contribute to society despite violating it. Furthermore, public opinion is very clearly opposed to giving prisoners the vote. This would cause a huge issue in the U.K if prisoners were allowed to vote, potentially leading to civil unrest and protests. Lastly, it would be very impractical to allow prisoners to vote. Prisons often have very large populations, some as high as 2,000 inmates. These numbers could be enough to sway a tight election and could force politicians to campaign to prisoners - which is absurd and wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have debated the issue of prisoner’s voting rights at length and believe that, on balance, prisoners should not be allowed to vote in U.K elections. There are several arguments for our stance. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Some prisoners should be allowed to vote, but only if they are able to provide the prison with a consistent address and if they can meet the necessary criteria for voting in the U.K, including age and nationality. The participants also decided that some prisoners would not be allowed to vote, including prisoners convicted of serious crimes, such as murder or rape, as well as prisoners with mental illnesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Prisoners in the United Kingdom should not be allowed to vote. The fact that someone is in prison clearly indicates they should lose some of their civil rights, the right to vote should only belong to law-abiding citizens. By allowing a prisoner to vote, this sends the wrong message that they can still contribute to society despite violating it. Furthermore, public opinion is very clearly opposed to giving prisoners the vote. This would cause a huge issue in the U.K if prisoners were allowed to vote, potentially leading to civil unrest and protests. Lastly, it would be very impractical to allow prisoners to vote. Prisons often have very large populations, some as high as 2,000 inmates. These numbers could be enough to sway a tight election and could force politicians to campaign to prisoners - which is absurd and wrong. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001338.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001338.soc index 2aa8e360..995c51f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001338.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001338.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to introducing an upper age limit for marriage. Older people such as widows and widowers are still living and have as much right to marry as any other adult. However, the group was opposed to older people marrying people in their teens, or marrying people who are unable to make their own decision about such matters. Finally, the group was also opposed to any legislation that would criminalise marriages for cultural reasons. There is no proof that this has a negative effect and so legislation would be uncalled for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, there should be no age limit above which people cannot get married. Marriage is a personal decision and the government should not interfere in this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no benefit in introducing an age limit on marriage. If two people who are above the age of consent, want to commit to one another, they should be able to do so without age being a barrier. The age limit of 18 for marriage is already quite high, and the law has already provided protections for underage people by not allowing marriage below that age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be no upper age limit for marriage. Marriage is a personal choice and people should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. If both parties are above the legal age of consent and both parties are willing, then there should be no age limit for marriage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to introducing an upper age limit for marriage. Older people such as widows and widowers are still living and have as much right to marry as any other adult. However, the group was opposed to older people marrying people in their teens, or marrying people who are unable to make their own decision about such matters. Finally, the group was also opposed to any legislation that would criminalise marriages for cultural reasons. There is no proof that this has a negative effect and so legislation would be uncalled for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, there should be no age limit above which people cannot get married. Marriage is a personal decision and the government should not interfere in this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no benefit in introducing an age limit on marriage. If two people who are above the age of consent, want to commit to one another, they should be able to do so without age being a barrier. The age limit of 18 for marriage is already quite high, and the law has already provided protections for underage people by not allowing marriage below that age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be no upper age limit for marriage. Marriage is a personal choice and people should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. If both parties are above the legal age of consent and both parties are willing, then there should be no age limit for marriage. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001339.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001339.soc index 665390fc..66fc074a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001339.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001339.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the consensus that the UK should not adopt a universal basic income system. We came to this conclusion by first acknowledging that it could be beneficial in some ways such as encouraging people to spend money into the UK high street but this would also lead to inflation and some people may feel even worse off due to this. We also concluded that this would disincentivise people to work as they would have a guaranteed income from the government even if they do not go out to work. Although we do believe it would be beneficial in some ways, there are other ways the government could improve life in the UK. We believe that the government should improve and make the public transport more reliable and easier to access. They should also improve their efforts to reduce carbon emissions to help save the environment. Although these improvements would be beneficial, we believe that the costs of the universal basic income system outweighs these benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While Universal Basic Income may seem a good idea at first glance, further research would be needed to see how this could be funded and what impact it would have on the economy. We believe that we could do a lot better as a country if we used the funds that are currently used for the welfare system and public services to support a better education system, which in turn would help more people get good jobs, thus helping the economy. If people are better educated then the economy will be stronger and in turn we can raise taxes, this would allow us to provide a better universal basic income to those who are not able to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A universal basic income system would be a good idea for the UK, however, it would need to be introduced in stages, so that people are not disincentivised from working. The system would need to be funded by a tax on businesses, so that it would not be funded by the taxpayer. This would also help to ensure that businesses do not replace workers with robots and AI, as the cost of this would be higher. This would also help to reduce the cost of living, as businesses would have to pay their workers a higher wage, in order to compete with the universal basic income. This would also help to reduce the number of people on benefits, as they would be able to find work that pays them more than the benefits they are receiving. This would also help to reduce the cost of living, as the cost of goods would be lower, as businesses would not be able to take advantage of people who are unemployed and desperate for work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income system would be a great idea for the UK. This is because it would help people who are out of work and help to reduce poverty in the UK. However, it is important to note that it would also help to reduce the incentive to work and could also lead to inflation as people would have more money to spend. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the consensus that the UK should not adopt a universal basic income system. We came to this conclusion by first acknowledging that it could be beneficial in some ways such as encouraging people to spend money into the UK high street but this would also lead to inflation and some people may feel even worse off due to this. We also concluded that this would disincentivise people to work as they would have a guaranteed income from the government even if they do not go out to work. Although we do believe it would be beneficial in some ways, there are other ways the government could improve life in the UK. We believe that the government should improve and make the public transport more reliable and easier to access. They should also improve their efforts to reduce carbon emissions to help save the environment. Although these improvements would be beneficial, we believe that the costs of the universal basic income system outweighs these benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While Universal Basic Income may seem a good idea at first glance, further research would be needed to see how this could be funded and what impact it would have on the economy. We believe that we could do a lot better as a country if we used the funds that are currently used for the welfare system and public services to support a better education system, which in turn would help more people get good jobs, thus helping the economy. If people are better educated then the economy will be stronger and in turn we can raise taxes, this would allow us to provide a better universal basic income to those who are not able to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A universal basic income system would be a good idea for the UK, however, it would need to be introduced in stages, so that people are not disincentivised from working. The system would need to be funded by a tax on businesses, so that it would not be funded by the taxpayer. This would also help to ensure that businesses do not replace workers with robots and AI, as the cost of this would be higher. This would also help to reduce the cost of living, as businesses would have to pay their workers a higher wage, in order to compete with the universal basic income. This would also help to reduce the number of people on benefits, as they would be able to find work that pays them more than the benefits they are receiving. This would also help to reduce the cost of living, as the cost of goods would be lower, as businesses would not be able to take advantage of people who are unemployed and desperate for work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income system would be a great idea for the UK. This is because it would help people who are out of work and help to reduce poverty in the UK. However, it is important to note that it would also help to reduce the incentive to work and could also lead to inflation as people would have more money to spend. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001340.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001340.soc index 3f5d2152..4c5a123b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001340.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001340.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the consensus opinion that we should raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21 but also introduce more stringent regulation and penalties for illegal supply to underage users and sellers. The minimum age for alcohol and gambling should also be raised to 21. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was thought that the legal age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21 for many reasons. For one, the minimum age to purchase alcohol is also 21, and a lot of young people consume both alcohol and tobacco together. Therefore, if the minimum age is raised to 21, it would make it less likely that young people will consume both together. This could help to prevent some of the health problems associated with smoking. In addition, young people do not fully understand the dangers of smoking. When they do understand the dangers, they do not want to smoke, so by increasing the age to 21, it gives young people time to learn more about the dangers of smoking and therefore they may not smoke. However, young people will still try and get their hands on tobacco, as they will see older people smoking and will therefore think that it is acceptable. Therefore, it is thought that more should be done to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking, not just for young people but also for adults. If young people are educated about the dangers, they are more likely to avoid smoking and so they can live a healthier lifestyle. This will help to improve public health and reduce the burden on the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. The majority of the group felt that at 18 young people are still children and should not be exposed to additional pressures such as smoking. Smoking is often a gateway drug that leads to peer pressures of trying more harmful drugs. The introduction of vapes is worrying as young people view that as fun, in the same way that their may have viewed a bag of sweets. Smoking is harmful and can lead to peer pressures to get involved. At age 21 peer pressure is lessened. The group felt that at 21 a child can make clear cut decisions and take full responsibility for such decisions especially when the faced with the consequences of those decisions later in life. The group felt that the current minimum age of 18 is used for other regulated products like alcohol and gambling, so it should stay at 18 for this reason. The group felt that more should be done overall to discourage the purchase of tobacco for all ages though, including time limits when you can purchase it, increasing taxes and prices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The age for the purchase of tobacco should be raised to 21. We believe that this is an important step in preventing young people from smoking, as they will be less likely to take it up if they cannot easily purchase it. We also believe that by raising the age to 21, this will help to reduce the amount of peer pressure on young people to take up smoking, as their friends will not be able to buy it for them. The age of 18 is currently used for other regulated products like alcohol and gambling, so it should stay at 18 for this reason. More should be done overall to discourage the purchase of tobacco for all ages though, including time limits when you can purchase it, increasing taxes and prices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the consensus opinion that we should raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21 but also introduce more stringent regulation and penalties for illegal supply to underage users and sellers. The minimum age for alcohol and gambling should also be raised to 21. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was thought that the legal age to purchase tobacco should be raised to 21 for many reasons. For one, the minimum age to purchase alcohol is also 21, and a lot of young people consume both alcohol and tobacco together. Therefore, if the minimum age is raised to 21, it would make it less likely that young people will consume both together. This could help to prevent some of the health problems associated with smoking. In addition, young people do not fully understand the dangers of smoking. When they do understand the dangers, they do not want to smoke, so by increasing the age to 21, it gives young people time to learn more about the dangers of smoking and therefore they may not smoke. However, young people will still try and get their hands on tobacco, as they will see older people smoking and will therefore think that it is acceptable. Therefore, it is thought that more should be done to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking, not just for young people but also for adults. If young people are educated about the dangers, they are more likely to avoid smoking and so they can live a healthier lifestyle. This will help to improve public health and reduce the burden on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. The majority of the group felt that at 18 young people are still children and should not be exposed to additional pressures such as smoking. Smoking is often a gateway drug that leads to peer pressures of trying more harmful drugs. The introduction of vapes is worrying as young people view that as fun, in the same way that their may have viewed a bag of sweets. Smoking is harmful and can lead to peer pressures to get involved. At age 21 peer pressure is lessened. The group felt that at 21 a child can make clear cut decisions and take full responsibility for such decisions especially when the faced with the consequences of those decisions later in life. The group felt that the current minimum age of 18 is used for other regulated products like alcohol and gambling, so it should stay at 18 for this reason. The group felt that more should be done overall to discourage the purchase of tobacco for all ages though, including time limits when you can purchase it, increasing taxes and prices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The age for the purchase of tobacco should be raised to 21. We believe that this is an important step in preventing young people from smoking, as they will be less likely to take it up if they cannot easily purchase it. We also believe that by raising the age to 21, this will help to reduce the amount of peer pressure on young people to take up smoking, as their friends will not be able to buy it for them. The age of 18 is currently used for other regulated products like alcohol and gambling, so it should stay at 18 for this reason. More should be done overall to discourage the purchase of tobacco for all ages though, including time limits when you can purchase it, increasing taxes and prices. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001341.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001341.soc index 67105ad4..3d4c41f8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001341.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001341.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although wild animals have been bred in captivity, it is still unfair to the animal to be kept as a pet, they should be in an area similar to the wild and away from human contact. These animals are dangerous to humans and it would not be fair to the animal to keep it as a pet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. A wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that it is wrong to keep a wild animal as a pet. Animals such as a wildcat should not be kept in an environment where it does not have the freedom to roam, and they should not be treated as a pet because that is not their nature. The keeping of wild animals as pets is wrong for a number of reasons. It is cruel to the animal, as well as the owner. An animal such as a tiger should not be confined to the small space of a house or a garden. The tiger should be in a large enclosure where it can roam freely. Even if a wild animal is bred in captivity, it is cruel to keep it in such a small space. It is also dangerous to keep a wild animal in a house as it is not safe to the owner or the animal itself. Wild animals such as tigers and leopards can be unpredictable and could easily attack someone in the house, which would be extremely dangerous. It is also dangerous to the animal. There have been cases of pet owners who have shot their pet lions, as well as bears, as they were scared of the animal. An animal such as a tiger is not suitable to be kept as a pet, and I -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not okay to keep a wild animal as a pet, even if it has been bred in captivity. This is because it is not fair on the animal to be kept as a pet and it will always have its natural instincts which could result in human harm. We understand the need for sanctuaries and zoos where these animals may not survive in the wild but here they are still kept away from close human interaction because they are still dangerous. It just isn't fair to the animal to be kept as a pet usually in a small home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although wild animals have been bred in captivity, it is still unfair to the animal to be kept as a pet, they should be in an area similar to the wild and away from human contact. These animals are dangerous to humans and it would not be fair to the animal to keep it as a pet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. A wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that it is wrong to keep a wild animal as a pet. Animals such as a wildcat should not be kept in an environment where it does not have the freedom to roam, and they should not be treated as a pet because that is not their nature. The keeping of wild animals as pets is wrong for a number of reasons. It is cruel to the animal, as well as the owner. An animal such as a tiger should not be confined to the small space of a house or a garden. The tiger should be in a large enclosure where it can roam freely. Even if a wild animal is bred in captivity, it is cruel to keep it in such a small space. It is also dangerous to keep a wild animal in a house as it is not safe to the owner or the animal itself. Wild animals such as tigers and leopards can be unpredictable and could easily attack someone in the house, which would be extremely dangerous. It is also dangerous to the animal. There have been cases of pet owners who have shot their pet lions, as well as bears, as they were scared of the animal. An animal such as a tiger is not suitable to be kept as a pet, and I +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not okay to keep a wild animal as a pet, even if it has been bred in captivity. This is because it is not fair on the animal to be kept as a pet and it will always have its natural instincts which could result in human harm. We understand the need for sanctuaries and zoos where these animals may not survive in the wild but here they are still kept away from close human interaction because they are still dangerous. It just isn't fair to the animal to be kept as a pet usually in a small home. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001342.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001342.soc index 4b616596..67b0fea9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001342.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001342.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “After careful consideration, we have decided that prisoners should not be allowed to vote in U.K elections. We have several reasons for our opinion. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have debated the issue of prisoner’s voting rights at length and believe that, on balance, prisoners should not be allowed to vote in U.K elections. There are several arguments for our stance. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” The most clear and immediate change is that the word ‘vote’ has been replaced with ‘voting rights’ as it was decided that ‘vote’ was a too informal term and left the statement open to misinterpretation. The statement was also -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The issue of prisoner’s voting rights has been debated by our group at length. On balance, we believe that prisoners should not be allowed to vote in the U.K. There are several arguments for our stance. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We have debated the issue of prisoners’ voting rights at length and have concluded that, on balance, prisoners should not be allowed to vote in U.K elections. There are several arguments for our stance. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “After careful consideration, we have decided that prisoners should not be allowed to vote in U.K elections. We have several reasons for our opinion. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have debated the issue of prisoner’s voting rights at length and believe that, on balance, prisoners should not be allowed to vote in U.K elections. There are several arguments for our stance. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” The most clear and immediate change is that the word ‘vote’ has been replaced with ‘voting rights’ as it was decided that ‘vote’ was a too informal term and left the statement open to misinterpretation. The statement was also +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The issue of prisoner’s voting rights has been debated by our group at length. On balance, we believe that prisoners should not be allowed to vote in the U.K. There are several arguments for our stance. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We have debated the issue of prisoners’ voting rights at length and have concluded that, on balance, prisoners should not be allowed to vote in U.K elections. There are several arguments for our stance. Firstly, we believe that if a person is in prison for breaking the law, they have demonstrated that they do not follow the rules and thus should not have the right to vote. Secondly, public opinion is very much opposed to allowing prisoners the vote, with a recent survey by the Daily Mail indicating that only 7% of people believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Thirdly, if prisoners were allowed to vote, politicians would campaign to them and may make policies which appeal to prisoners in order to gain their votes. Lastly, we believe that prisoners should lose some of their civil rights and should not be allowed to vote. The right to vote is a privilege and not a right. It is something that we believe should only belong to law-abiding citizens.” 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001343.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001343.soc index 5b038e44..a9993350 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001343.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001343.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should allow the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. The main argument for this is the amount of anecdotal evidence that exists that medical marijuana helps people with various complaints. This is further supported by studies that suggest that marijuana could be useful for people with chronic pain and even people with epilepsy. Whilst marijuana is not a wonder drug that will cure people of various complaints, it does appear to have some positive effect and there are studies that suggest that the benefits outweigh the side effects. As with any medicine, a careful risk/benefit assessment must be carried out for each patient and, if it is decided that the benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks, it should be made available. It is important to note that marijuana is not without side effects and those using it must be aware of the potential harms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. It was noted that this would need to be prescribed by a medical professional and that the use of medical marijuana would need to be closely monitored. The use of medical marijuana is not a new concept and it is something that is used in other countries. It was noted that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it can help people with a variety of illnesses. It was also noted that there are some illnesses where it is not yet known whether it can help and this is something that needs to be looked into further. The group was also in favour of legalising marijuana for recreational use as it is significantly less harmful than other legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes. It was noted that this would destroy the black market and ensure that money is no longer going to criminals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. The group felt that it was important to distinguish between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana use. The group felt that medical marijuana should only be prescribed by a medical professional and that it should be tightly controlled. The group felt that the use of medical marijuana could be beneficial for people suffering from certain illnesses and that it could be an effective pain relief for some people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although marijuana is a controlled drug in most countries, it has recently been proven that medical marijuana has been helping many people, so in this case it should be allowed as it has a good impact on peoples health. In many cases, marijuana is a better and safer alternative to prescribed drugs and has a lower addiction rate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should allow the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. The main argument for this is the amount of anecdotal evidence that exists that medical marijuana helps people with various complaints. This is further supported by studies that suggest that marijuana could be useful for people with chronic pain and even people with epilepsy. Whilst marijuana is not a wonder drug that will cure people of various complaints, it does appear to have some positive effect and there are studies that suggest that the benefits outweigh the side effects. As with any medicine, a careful risk/benefit assessment must be carried out for each patient and, if it is decided that the benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks, it should be made available. It is important to note that marijuana is not without side effects and those using it must be aware of the potential harms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. It was noted that this would need to be prescribed by a medical professional and that the use of medical marijuana would need to be closely monitored. The use of medical marijuana is not a new concept and it is something that is used in other countries. It was noted that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it can help people with a variety of illnesses. It was also noted that there are some illnesses where it is not yet known whether it can help and this is something that needs to be looked into further. The group was also in favour of legalising marijuana for recreational use as it is significantly less harmful than other legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes. It was noted that this would destroy the black market and ensure that money is no longer going to criminals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. The group felt that it was important to distinguish between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana use. The group felt that medical marijuana should only be prescribed by a medical professional and that it should be tightly controlled. The group felt that the use of medical marijuana could be beneficial for people suffering from certain illnesses and that it could be an effective pain relief for some people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although marijuana is a controlled drug in most countries, it has recently been proven that medical marijuana has been helping many people, so in this case it should be allowed as it has a good impact on peoples health. In many cases, marijuana is a better and safer alternative to prescribed drugs and has a lower addiction rate. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001344.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001344.soc index f17c87e2..a5e486d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001344.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001344.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. A wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. This is because a wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. Conclusion I believe that this experience of using a digital tool to achieve a consensus view on a given question was well worth the time put into it. I think that as a critical thinker this tool will help me in the future to break down complicated topics and come up with my own opinion on these topics. Before I came into the class I was of the opinion that this class would not be a good fit for me but now I am truly enjoying the challenges and debates that are happening in the class and have become a critical thinker. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. A wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. Wild animals need to live in a wild environment, not a small home with a member of the human race who may also look after a dog or cat. They have many different instincts, needs and personalities and need to be with their own kind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. A wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. The animal would be better suited to being looked after in a sanctuary or a zoo away from close human interaction so they can keep their wild instincts and remain in a semi natural habitat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. A wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. This is because a wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. Conclusion I believe that this experience of using a digital tool to achieve a consensus view on a given question was well worth the time put into it. I think that as a critical thinker this tool will help me in the future to break down complicated topics and come up with my own opinion on these topics. Before I came into the class I was of the opinion that this class would not be a good fit for me but now I am truly enjoying the challenges and debates that are happening in the class and have become a critical thinker. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. A wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. Wild animals need to live in a wild environment, not a small home with a member of the human race who may also look after a dog or cat. They have many different instincts, needs and personalities and need to be with their own kind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No wild animal should be kept as a pet, even if bred in captivity. A wild animal, even if semi domesticated will still have the instincts of its natural behaviours which presents a danger to any human. It is also cruel to keep a wild animal as a pet. The animal is taken away from its natural habitat and is forced to live in a home where it is not suited to. The animal may also become aggressive and lash out at its owners or anyone who comes into contact with it. This could result in injury or death. The animal may also become depressed and stressed as it is not living in its natural habitat. This could also result in injury or death. The animal would be better suited to being looked after in a sanctuary or a zoo away from close human interaction so they can keep their wild instincts and remain in a semi natural habitat. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001345.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001345.soc index d2d15b58..b97224ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001345.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001345.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that medical marijuana helps people with various complaints. This is further supported by studies that suggest that marijuana could be useful for people with chronic pain and even people with epilepsy. Whilst marijuana is not a wonder drug that will cure people of various complaints, it does appear to have some positive effect and there are studies that suggest that the benefits outweigh the side effects. As with any medicine, a careful risk/benefit assessment must be carried out for each patient and, if it is decided that the benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks, it should be made available. It is important to note that marijuana is not without side effects and those using it must be aware of the potential harms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should allow the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. Marijuana is not a wonder drug, but there is substantial anecdotal evidence that it has helped people with a range of medical complaints. Some clinical studies also support its use. However, it is also not harmless, and so the risks and benefits of medical marijuana must be carefully weighed up on a case by case basis. Those prescribed medical marijuana should be aware of its potential side effects and must be vigilant about assessing if it is still helping them or if other drugs or treatments may be more useful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: We believe that we should allow the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. The main argument for this is the amount of anecdotal evidence that exists that medical marijuana helps people with various complaints. This is further supported by studies that suggest that marijuana could be useful for people with chronic pain and even people with epilepsy. Whilst marijuana is not a wonder drug that will cure people of various complaints, it does appear to have some positive effect and there are studies that suggest that the benefits outweigh the side effects. As with any medicine, a careful risk/benefit assessment must be carried out for each patient and, if it is decided that the benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks, it should be made available. It is important to note that marijuana is not without side effects and those using it must be aware of the potential harms. In order to ensure that marijuana is not overprescribed, use should only be sanctioned after an expert (e.g. GP or specialist) has assessed that the benefits outweigh the risks for that particular patient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should allow the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. The main argument for this is the amount of anecdotal evidence that exists that medical marijuana helps people with various complaints. This is further supported by studies that suggest that marijuana could be useful for people with chronic pain and even people with epilepsy. Whilst marijuana is not a wonder drug that will cure people of various complaints, it does appear to have some positive effect and there are studies that suggest that the benefits outweigh the side effects. As with any medicine, a careful risk/benefit assessment must be carried out for each patient and, if it is decided that the benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks, it should be made available. It is important to note that marijuana is not without side effects and those using it must be aware of the potential harms. We believe that this should be made available, but only via prescription by a medical professional, in order to ensure that people are informed of the risks and that it is used in a safe way. We also believe that it should only be prescribed when all other avenues have been explored and that it should only be used when the benefits are thought to outweigh the risks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that medical marijuana helps people with various complaints. This is further supported by studies that suggest that marijuana could be useful for people with chronic pain and even people with epilepsy. Whilst marijuana is not a wonder drug that will cure people of various complaints, it does appear to have some positive effect and there are studies that suggest that the benefits outweigh the side effects. As with any medicine, a careful risk/benefit assessment must be carried out for each patient and, if it is decided that the benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks, it should be made available. It is important to note that marijuana is not without side effects and those using it must be aware of the potential harms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should allow the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. Marijuana is not a wonder drug, but there is substantial anecdotal evidence that it has helped people with a range of medical complaints. Some clinical studies also support its use. However, it is also not harmless, and so the risks and benefits of medical marijuana must be carefully weighed up on a case by case basis. Those prescribed medical marijuana should be aware of its potential side effects and must be vigilant about assessing if it is still helping them or if other drugs or treatments may be more useful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: We believe that we should allow the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. The main argument for this is the amount of anecdotal evidence that exists that medical marijuana helps people with various complaints. This is further supported by studies that suggest that marijuana could be useful for people with chronic pain and even people with epilepsy. Whilst marijuana is not a wonder drug that will cure people of various complaints, it does appear to have some positive effect and there are studies that suggest that the benefits outweigh the side effects. As with any medicine, a careful risk/benefit assessment must be carried out for each patient and, if it is decided that the benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks, it should be made available. It is important to note that marijuana is not without side effects and those using it must be aware of the potential harms. In order to ensure that marijuana is not overprescribed, use should only be sanctioned after an expert (e.g. GP or specialist) has assessed that the benefits outweigh the risks for that particular patient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should allow the use of medical marijuana for certain illnesses. The main argument for this is the amount of anecdotal evidence that exists that medical marijuana helps people with various complaints. This is further supported by studies that suggest that marijuana could be useful for people with chronic pain and even people with epilepsy. Whilst marijuana is not a wonder drug that will cure people of various complaints, it does appear to have some positive effect and there are studies that suggest that the benefits outweigh the side effects. As with any medicine, a careful risk/benefit assessment must be carried out for each patient and, if it is decided that the benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks, it should be made available. It is important to note that marijuana is not without side effects and those using it must be aware of the potential harms. We believe that this should be made available, but only via prescription by a medical professional, in order to ensure that people are informed of the risks and that it is used in a safe way. We also believe that it should only be prescribed when all other avenues have been explored and that it should only be used when the benefits are thought to outweigh the risks. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001346.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001346.soc index 6dde5eca..b1668abf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001346.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001346.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of raising the smoking age to 21. This would help reduce the number of teenagers taking up smoking. The only concern was that this might increase the black market in tobacco sales. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No. We should be abolishing the sale of tobacco products altogether. Raising the age limit will not stop teenagers smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of raising the smoking age to 21. Although it was recognised that there may be some risk of increase in black market sales of tobacco products to younger people, this would be outweighed by the benefits of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people and reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke. The group felt that a full ban on smoking would be unworkable, but that other measures such as teaching about the risks of smoking and providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking would also be useful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should raise the smoking age to 21 and this should be applied to vaping as well. We believe that this would be beneficial to young people as they would be more mature and less likely to start smoking. The only downside of this would be that it would likely increase the black market of tobacco sales. The consensus view of the group was reached by first discussing the opinions of each individual participant. The group then discussed the pros and cons of each opinion and came to the conclusion that the opinions of participants 1, 2 and 4 were the most sensible and therefore the group agreed with them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the smoking age to 21. This would help reduce the number of teenagers taking up smoking. The only concern was that this might increase the black market in tobacco sales. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. We should be abolishing the sale of tobacco products altogether. Raising the age limit will not stop teenagers smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the smoking age to 21. Although it was recognised that there may be some risk of increase in black market sales of tobacco products to younger people, this would be outweighed by the benefits of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people and reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke. The group felt that a full ban on smoking would be unworkable, but that other measures such as teaching about the risks of smoking and providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking would also be useful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should raise the smoking age to 21 and this should be applied to vaping as well. We believe that this would be beneficial to young people as they would be more mature and less likely to start smoking. The only downside of this would be that it would likely increase the black market of tobacco sales. The consensus view of the group was reached by first discussing the opinions of each individual participant. The group then discussed the pros and cons of each opinion and came to the conclusion that the opinions of participants 1, 2 and 4 were the most sensible and therefore the group agreed with them. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001347.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001347.soc index 82d0f2ad..67d08b97 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001347.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001347.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a minimum wage that all people should be paid, and this should be reviewed regularly. There should be a maximum wage that all people should be paid, and this should be reviewed regularly. Pay should be based on the role and not on the person. If a person is not performing to the required level in their role, they should be given the opportunity to improve. If they do not improve, they should be given the opportunity to find another role. If they cannot find another role, they should be made redundant. There should be no discrimination in pay based on any factor other than the role and the person's performance in that role. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be no difference in pay for doing the same job. This is the case in most organisations, however there are some organisations that still pay different rates for the same job. This is very wrong and can cause a lot of problems in the workplace. This can lead to discrimination and can lead to employees leaving the organisation. It can also lead to a very hostile working environment which is not good for anyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Paying people different wages for doing the same work is not necessarily wrong. However, there must be no discrimination based on factors such as sex, race or religion. Employees must be paid based on their performance, experience, skill set and productivity. Paying people based on different skills sets, qualifications, experience, productivity and performance will motivate others to increase their productivity and skills set in order to obtain better wages. However, no employee should be paid less than the minimum wage, this can lead to discontent and increase employee turnover, which increases costs for the business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the concept of paying different wages for the same work can appear to be fair if a person who is better at their job is paid more, it can lead to direct discrimination based on other factors such as sex, race or religion. It can also create discourse among colleagues and a hostile working environment, which in turn increases employee turnover and increased costs for the business. Overall, we believe people should be paid broadly the same for the same work. However variances can occur where people may have different skill sets and/or qualifications, or through performance in the role. Therefore, we believe that pay 'bands' can accommodate these differences in that people are paid at roughly the same level but there is scope within a pay band to vary pay where necessary or appropriate. There would never be differences in pay based on age, creed, colour or sex. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a minimum wage that all people should be paid, and this should be reviewed regularly. There should be a maximum wage that all people should be paid, and this should be reviewed regularly. Pay should be based on the role and not on the person. If a person is not performing to the required level in their role, they should be given the opportunity to improve. If they do not improve, they should be given the opportunity to find another role. If they cannot find another role, they should be made redundant. There should be no discrimination in pay based on any factor other than the role and the person's performance in that role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be no difference in pay for doing the same job. This is the case in most organisations, however there are some organisations that still pay different rates for the same job. This is very wrong and can cause a lot of problems in the workplace. This can lead to discrimination and can lead to employees leaving the organisation. It can also lead to a very hostile working environment which is not good for anyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Paying people different wages for doing the same work is not necessarily wrong. However, there must be no discrimination based on factors such as sex, race or religion. Employees must be paid based on their performance, experience, skill set and productivity. Paying people based on different skills sets, qualifications, experience, productivity and performance will motivate others to increase their productivity and skills set in order to obtain better wages. However, no employee should be paid less than the minimum wage, this can lead to discontent and increase employee turnover, which increases costs for the business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the concept of paying different wages for the same work can appear to be fair if a person who is better at their job is paid more, it can lead to direct discrimination based on other factors such as sex, race or religion. It can also create discourse among colleagues and a hostile working environment, which in turn increases employee turnover and increased costs for the business. Overall, we believe people should be paid broadly the same for the same work. However variances can occur where people may have different skill sets and/or qualifications, or through performance in the role. Therefore, we believe that pay 'bands' can accommodate these differences in that people are paid at roughly the same level but there is scope within a pay band to vary pay where necessary or appropriate. There would never be differences in pay based on age, creed, colour or sex. 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001348.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001348.soc index 22c8672f..bf98a1ad 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001348.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001348.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: There is broad agreement in the group that smoking is a risky activity and should be discouraged. However, the group has had to balance the wish to reduce the risk of smoking with concern about a possible increase in black market tobacco sales to youngsters (which could cause other health problems). The group came to the view that a full ban on smoking is unlikely to work, and may lead to an increase in the risk of smoking. Therefore, the group feels that measures such as an increase in the smoking age to 21, education about the risks of smoking, providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking and a more active role by the police in preventing the sale of tobacco products to under-age individuals will be the best way forward. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of raising the smoking age to 21. Although it was recognised that there may be some risk of increase in black market sales of tobacco products to younger people, this would be outweighed by the benefits of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people and reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke. The group felt that a full ban on smoking would be unworkable, but that other measures such as teaching about the risks of smoking and providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking would also be useful. Conclusion There were a number of benefits of using the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general the group was in favour of raising the smoking age to 21. Although it was recognised that there may be some risk of increase in black market sales of tobacco products to younger people, there would also be benefits of reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke, and the risk of health harm due to uptake of smoking by young people. It was felt that a full ban on smoking would be unworkable, but that other measures such as teaching about the risks of smoking and providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking would also be useful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There was a strong consensus view that raising the smoking age to 21 would be helpful in reducing the uptake of smoking by young people and reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke. The group felt that a full ban on smoking would be unworkable, but that other measures such as teaching about the risks of smoking and providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking would also be useful. The group acknowledged that there may be some risk of increase in black market sales of tobacco products to younger people, but felt that this would be outweighed by the benefits of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people and reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: There is broad agreement in the group that smoking is a risky activity and should be discouraged. However, the group has had to balance the wish to reduce the risk of smoking with concern about a possible increase in black market tobacco sales to youngsters (which could cause other health problems). The group came to the view that a full ban on smoking is unlikely to work, and may lead to an increase in the risk of smoking. Therefore, the group feels that measures such as an increase in the smoking age to 21, education about the risks of smoking, providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking and a more active role by the police in preventing the sale of tobacco products to under-age individuals will be the best way forward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the smoking age to 21. Although it was recognised that there may be some risk of increase in black market sales of tobacco products to younger people, this would be outweighed by the benefits of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people and reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke. The group felt that a full ban on smoking would be unworkable, but that other measures such as teaching about the risks of smoking and providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking would also be useful. Conclusion There were a number of benefits of using the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general the group was in favour of raising the smoking age to 21. Although it was recognised that there may be some risk of increase in black market sales of tobacco products to younger people, there would also be benefits of reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke, and the risk of health harm due to uptake of smoking by young people. It was felt that a full ban on smoking would be unworkable, but that other measures such as teaching about the risks of smoking and providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking would also be useful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There was a strong consensus view that raising the smoking age to 21 would be helpful in reducing the uptake of smoking by young people and reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke. The group felt that a full ban on smoking would be unworkable, but that other measures such as teaching about the risks of smoking and providing good advertising of other alternatives to smoking would also be useful. The group acknowledged that there may be some risk of increase in black market sales of tobacco products to younger people, but felt that this would be outweighed by the benefits of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people and reducing the exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001349.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001349.soc index 3e9b73ed..c0de2e17 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001349.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001349.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the wealthiest people in society do not necessarily deserve lower taxes as they are in the position to afford to pay their fair share of tax. The taxes that they pay have to be accounted for and used wisely to help the poorest in society. However, there is always the concern that people may stop working if their tax rate is too high and this would be bad for the country as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers as this would mean the government would lose a significant amount of revenue that could be used to help the poorest people in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. We feel that they can afford to pay more and that this is an important source of income for the country. The wealthiest taxpayers are in the position they are in because they have worked hard to get there and should not be punished for this. If we were to lower the taxes then the money would have to be found from somewhere else and this would impact on other people who are not in the same financial position. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the government should be putting more focus on other factors which can help improve our economy. We should be aiming to improve productivity and output from our workforce in the UK and we should be focusing on making sure businesses can expand and grow. This will ensure that our economy grows, and that there is enough money to go around to keep everyone happy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the wealthiest people in society do not necessarily deserve lower taxes as they are in the position to afford to pay their fair share of tax. The taxes that they pay have to be accounted for and used wisely to help the poorest in society. However, there is always the concern that people may stop working if their tax rate is too high and this would be bad for the country as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers as this would mean the government would lose a significant amount of revenue that could be used to help the poorest people in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. We feel that they can afford to pay more and that this is an important source of income for the country. The wealthiest taxpayers are in the position they are in because they have worked hard to get there and should not be punished for this. If we were to lower the taxes then the money would have to be found from somewhere else and this would impact on other people who are not in the same financial position. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the government should be putting more focus on other factors which can help improve our economy. We should be aiming to improve productivity and output from our workforce in the UK and we should be focusing on making sure businesses can expand and grow. This will ensure that our economy grows, and that there is enough money to go around to keep everyone happy. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001350.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001350.soc index 291abb88..d60077c0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001350.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001350.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should increase our foreign aid budget. In general, we are a rich country and it is our duty to help others who are less fortunate than us. In the long run, it will benefit us, in terms of international relations, trade, etc. However, we should not neglect the issues at home. The budget for foreign aid should be increased but not at the expense of domestic issues. There are more important things to solve at home, such as cost of living crisis, high unemployment, etc. These issues should be addressed first. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the foreign aid budget. This is because we are a first world country and we should be helping other countries that are less fortunate than us. The only thing that the group was not sure about is whether it is the right time to increase the budget. The group was not sure whether the UK is in a good enough financial position to increase the budget. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although foreign aid is important, it is not as important as resolving local issues. Therefore, as the cost of living crisis in the UK continues, we should put foreign aid on hold. Once we are able to help UK citizens first, then we can think about increasing foreign aid. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important to provide foreign aid, it is clear that the current situation is not one where an increase in foreign aid budget should be given. With unprecedented problems with the economy and the constant threat of a new world war, it is our belief that the focus should be on getting the UK back on track. Once the country is back to its former self and the economy is thriving, we should look at helping those in other countries. Until that time, we should be focussed on helping ourselves first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should increase our foreign aid budget. In general, we are a rich country and it is our duty to help others who are less fortunate than us. In the long run, it will benefit us, in terms of international relations, trade, etc. However, we should not neglect the issues at home. The budget for foreign aid should be increased but not at the expense of domestic issues. There are more important things to solve at home, such as cost of living crisis, high unemployment, etc. These issues should be addressed first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the foreign aid budget. This is because we are a first world country and we should be helping other countries that are less fortunate than us. The only thing that the group was not sure about is whether it is the right time to increase the budget. The group was not sure whether the UK is in a good enough financial position to increase the budget. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although foreign aid is important, it is not as important as resolving local issues. Therefore, as the cost of living crisis in the UK continues, we should put foreign aid on hold. Once we are able to help UK citizens first, then we can think about increasing foreign aid. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important to provide foreign aid, it is clear that the current situation is not one where an increase in foreign aid budget should be given. With unprecedented problems with the economy and the constant threat of a new world war, it is our belief that the focus should be on getting the UK back on track. Once the country is back to its former self and the economy is thriving, we should look at helping those in other countries. Until that time, we should be focussed on helping ourselves first. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001351.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001351.soc index 14414b92..008dc864 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001351.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001351.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although fracking will provide jobs for locals, and stopping it would be making people redundant, it poses a great environmental risk. A planet as a whole and not just Scotland nationally should be looking to change to renewables such as wind and wave farms, which do much less damage to the flora and fauna than fracking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on fracking in Scotland. The reasons for this are that there are other more sustainable and environmentally friendly options for energy that should be pursued instead. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are all fairly undecided on the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland. We feel that the question is not simple and is a balancing act between how important fracking is to the economy, how important it is for energy supply, how dangerous it is to the environment, how many jobs it can provide and how it will affect the future of the country. We feel that there is not enough evidence to support or argue for one side or the other of this question, and the only way we could possibly come to a conclusion on this is if more research is done on fracking to understand how dangerous it really is. We feel that the decision should be based on whether or not fracking is bad for the environment, and if it is, there should be better methods of ensuring Scotland has a constant supply of energy. If it is not bad for the environment, we feel that it should be allowed in Scotland as a safer alternative to other methods of energy supply, and as a method of creating jobs for the country. We feel that this should be investigated further and in order to ensure that it is safe, we believe the government should look at funding more research into this area. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland, or anywhere else. We should be shifting all the resources that might go into this area to renewable and sustainable energy sources that will safely provide what we need for decades and centuries to come, not short term profit-driven maximising of the final bits of fossil fuel we can extract. There may be economic and short term benefits but the social, ethical and long term case is untenable given all that is known about the harms of fossil fuel use. We should be adding as little as possible to the problems associated with old energy sources and beginning to solve those problems instead of leaving this for the future to make up for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although fracking will provide jobs for locals, and stopping it would be making people redundant, it poses a great environmental risk. A planet as a whole and not just Scotland nationally should be looking to change to renewables such as wind and wave farms, which do much less damage to the flora and fauna than fracking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on fracking in Scotland. The reasons for this are that there are other more sustainable and environmentally friendly options for energy that should be pursued instead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are all fairly undecided on the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland. We feel that the question is not simple and is a balancing act between how important fracking is to the economy, how important it is for energy supply, how dangerous it is to the environment, how many jobs it can provide and how it will affect the future of the country. We feel that there is not enough evidence to support or argue for one side or the other of this question, and the only way we could possibly come to a conclusion on this is if more research is done on fracking to understand how dangerous it really is. We feel that the decision should be based on whether or not fracking is bad for the environment, and if it is, there should be better methods of ensuring Scotland has a constant supply of energy. If it is not bad for the environment, we feel that it should be allowed in Scotland as a safer alternative to other methods of energy supply, and as a method of creating jobs for the country. We feel that this should be investigated further and in order to ensure that it is safe, we believe the government should look at funding more research into this area. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland, or anywhere else. We should be shifting all the resources that might go into this area to renewable and sustainable energy sources that will safely provide what we need for decades and centuries to come, not short term profit-driven maximising of the final bits of fossil fuel we can extract. There may be economic and short term benefits but the social, ethical and long term case is untenable given all that is known about the harms of fossil fuel use. We should be adding as little as possible to the problems associated with old energy sources and beginning to solve those problems instead of leaving this for the future to make up for. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001352.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001352.soc index 18e52f16..303803fd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001352.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001352.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be required to learn a second language. Learning a second language can help children to better understand different cultures and the world around them. It will also give them an advantage in the future when looking for jobs. The language taught should be one that is widely used in the world, such as Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, Spanish or French. The way languages are taught to children should also be improved to make it more interesting and engaging for children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be required to learn a second language. Learning another language helps children to improve their first language. They also get more knowledge about the world and different cultures. They can also learn to be more independent and confident. The group were given a tool called GroupKit and were tasked with a creative writing challenge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be required to learn a second language. It will increase their employability in the future and allow them to communicate with a wider range of people. It will also allow them to understand different cultures better and help them to become more confident. The second language they learn should be a language that is used widely in the world, such as Mandarin, Japanese or Korean, as these languages will be more useful in the future. The way languages are taught to children also needs to be improved, as the current system is not very effective. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that children should be taught a second language as it is increasingly important to speak another language in the modern world. Globalisation has meant that more people than ever before are travelling abroad and therefore will come across people who don't speak English. There are also many job opportunities in foreign countries for people who speak English and so people can work abroad if they speak another language. However, it is the method by which languages are taught to children that needs to be changed. Children should be taught a language from a younger age to ensure that it is picked up quicker and easier, but also they should be taught languages that are useful and in demand, not simply taught a language that the school is experienced at teaching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be required to learn a second language. Learning a second language can help children to better understand different cultures and the world around them. It will also give them an advantage in the future when looking for jobs. The language taught should be one that is widely used in the world, such as Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, Spanish or French. The way languages are taught to children should also be improved to make it more interesting and engaging for children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be required to learn a second language. Learning another language helps children to improve their first language. They also get more knowledge about the world and different cultures. They can also learn to be more independent and confident. The group were given a tool called GroupKit and were tasked with a creative writing challenge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be required to learn a second language. It will increase their employability in the future and allow them to communicate with a wider range of people. It will also allow them to understand different cultures better and help them to become more confident. The second language they learn should be a language that is used widely in the world, such as Mandarin, Japanese or Korean, as these languages will be more useful in the future. The way languages are taught to children also needs to be improved, as the current system is not very effective. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that children should be taught a second language as it is increasingly important to speak another language in the modern world. Globalisation has meant that more people than ever before are travelling abroad and therefore will come across people who don't speak English. There are also many job opportunities in foreign countries for people who speak English and so people can work abroad if they speak another language. However, it is the method by which languages are taught to children that needs to be changed. Children should be taught a language from a younger age to ensure that it is picked up quicker and easier, but also they should be taught languages that are useful and in demand, not simply taught a language that the school is experienced at teaching. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001353.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001353.soc index 66e62d47..a9969cfc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001353.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001353.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Keeping a wild animal as a pet, even if it has been bred in captivity, is not a good idea. The animal will not be happy in an environment that is not its natural habitat, and it is not fair on the animal to keep it in an environment that is not suited to its needs. The animal will not be able to live a full and happy life, and will not be able to live as it should. It is also unfair on the owner of the animal, who will have to put in a lot of work to ensure the animal is cared for properly, and may not be able to provide the animal with everything it needs. It is also possible that the animal may become dangerous to be around, and this is not fair on the owner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is never okay to keep a wild animal as a pet. They should live in the wild, and even if an animal has been bred in captivity, their instincts will still be to live in the wild, in an area they can hunt, breed, explore and roam in a way that allows them to be wild animals. It is cruel to take a wild animal out of its natural habitat, no matter what the reasons. The benefits for keeping a wild animal as a pet are minimal and the animal will be unhappy and in an unnatural state. It's better to look at the animals in their natural habitat than to take them out of that habitat to keep as pets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Keeping a wild animal as a pet is never okay. No matter how much the animal has been bred in captivity, it is still a wild animal and should be treated as such. The animal's lifestyle should be as close to it's natural state as possible. It should have space to roam and hunt and do all the things it should do in the wild. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not okay to keep a wild animal as a pet. If it is to be kept as a pet, it should be raised in an environment that is as close to its natural habitat as possible, with ample space to roam and hunt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Keeping a wild animal as a pet, even if it has been bred in captivity, is not a good idea. The animal will not be happy in an environment that is not its natural habitat, and it is not fair on the animal to keep it in an environment that is not suited to its needs. The animal will not be able to live a full and happy life, and will not be able to live as it should. It is also unfair on the owner of the animal, who will have to put in a lot of work to ensure the animal is cared for properly, and may not be able to provide the animal with everything it needs. It is also possible that the animal may become dangerous to be around, and this is not fair on the owner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is never okay to keep a wild animal as a pet. They should live in the wild, and even if an animal has been bred in captivity, their instincts will still be to live in the wild, in an area they can hunt, breed, explore and roam in a way that allows them to be wild animals. It is cruel to take a wild animal out of its natural habitat, no matter what the reasons. The benefits for keeping a wild animal as a pet are minimal and the animal will be unhappy and in an unnatural state. It's better to look at the animals in their natural habitat than to take them out of that habitat to keep as pets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Keeping a wild animal as a pet is never okay. No matter how much the animal has been bred in captivity, it is still a wild animal and should be treated as such. The animal's lifestyle should be as close to it's natural state as possible. It should have space to roam and hunt and do all the things it should do in the wild. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not okay to keep a wild animal as a pet. If it is to be kept as a pet, it should be raised in an environment that is as close to its natural habitat as possible, with ample space to roam and hunt. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001354.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001354.soc index d47e1220..1e03117d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001354.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001354.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. The reasons for this are as follows: The algorithms of social media platforms are not transparent and so we cannot be sure that children are not being exposed to harmful content. Furthermore, children are impressionable and easily led and so are more likely to be harmed by such content. Children also do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to protect themselves from predatory adults. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Social media is not a healthy environment for a developing mind and children are not yet able to understand the dangers that lurk in the world of social media. Children are impressionable and easily influenced, which makes them particularly vulnerable to the harmful content on social media. It is the responsibility of parents and guardians to protect children from the dangers of the world, including the dangers of social media. The participants also believe that it is the responsibility of social media platforms to implement age-access barriers in order to protect children from accessing their platforms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the many dangers of social media are well-known, there are significant benefits to a social media presence for children and young adults, and a blanket ban on use by under 13s could do more harm than good. Instead, a better approach is to give children and parents the tools and information necessary to stay safe online, while allowing the child to access social media if they want to. This means a better, more robust approach to parental controls, age verification, and algorithms that are designed to protect children. Until such measures are put in place, social media companies should be fined for not protecting children from predatory content and behaviours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. The reasons for this are as follows: The algorithms of social media platforms are not transparent and so we cannot be sure that children are not being exposed to harmful content. Furthermore, children are impressionable and easily led and so are more likely to be harmed by such content. Children also do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to protect themselves from predatory adults. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Social media is not a healthy environment for a developing mind and children are not yet able to understand the dangers that lurk in the world of social media. Children are impressionable and easily influenced, which makes them particularly vulnerable to the harmful content on social media. It is the responsibility of parents and guardians to protect children from the dangers of the world, including the dangers of social media. The participants also believe that it is the responsibility of social media platforms to implement age-access barriers in order to protect children from accessing their platforms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the many dangers of social media are well-known, there are significant benefits to a social media presence for children and young adults, and a blanket ban on use by under 13s could do more harm than good. Instead, a better approach is to give children and parents the tools and information necessary to stay safe online, while allowing the child to access social media if they want to. This means a better, more robust approach to parental controls, age verification, and algorithms that are designed to protect children. Until such measures are put in place, social media companies should be fined for not protecting children from predatory content and behaviours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001355.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001355.soc index 763256df..9aebe36c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001355.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001355.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK should give independence to the remaining colonies in the Caribbean. This is because the UK has a history of forcing people into the empire, and this is something that we should not continue to do. We should not force people to be part of the UK if they do not want to be. However, this does not mean that we should cut off all ties with these countries. The UK should continue to provide support to these countries where it is wanted, and we should also consider reparations for slavery and resources that we have taken away from them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK's remaining colonies in the Caribbean should be given their independence. However, this does not mean that we should cut them off, or stop providing support where they would still like to receive it. Similarly, we think that we should consider whether they are due reparations for slavery and resources that we have taken away from them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Ultimately, the UK should give independence to the remaining colonies in the Caribbean, provided they want it. This is something that can be negotiated in an equal partnership between the Caribbean and the UK. This does not mean cutting ties with the Caribbean but giving them the freedom to go if they want to. The UK should also consider whether they are due reparations for slavery and resources that we have taken away from them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK should give independence to the remaining colonies in the Caribbean. This is because the UK has a history of forcing people into the empire, and this is something that we should not continue to do. We should not force people to be part of the UK if they do not want to be. However, this does not mean that we should cut off all ties with these countries. The UK should continue to provide support to these countries where it is wanted, and we should also consider reparations for slavery and resources that we have taken away from them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK's remaining colonies in the Caribbean should be given their independence. However, this does not mean that we should cut them off, or stop providing support where they would still like to receive it. Similarly, we think that we should consider whether they are due reparations for slavery and resources that we have taken away from them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Ultimately, the UK should give independence to the remaining colonies in the Caribbean, provided they want it. This is something that can be negotiated in an equal partnership between the Caribbean and the UK. This does not mean cutting ties with the Caribbean but giving them the freedom to go if they want to. The UK should also consider whether they are due reparations for slavery and resources that we have taken away from them. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001356.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001356.soc index fba5ef4f..bbdd01c2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001356.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001356.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is very important that social media is regulated, the government is not best placed to do so. The government have proven that they are not capable of being unbiased and cannot be trusted to work in the best interests of the public. The group decided that it is impossible for the government to remain unbiased, as there is always going to be a bias based on the members of the government, and it is always going to be impossible to control. The government may be capable of regulating social media, but they are not capable of regulating it to the benefit of all members of the public. The group decided that in order to regulate social media correctly, there must be a group of independent and unbiased individuals who have no ties to the government or any large social media corporations. They must have the best interests of the public in mind and not what would be best for their party, their interests, their family or anything else. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government is not best placed to regulate social media. This is because the government is not neutral, and is likely to use regulation to silence criticism of itself. The government is also not representative of the population, and is therefore not best placed to make decisions on behalf of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government is not best placed to regulate social media. The government is supposed to be an elected group of individuals that rightly and with correct morality guide, support and lead their population, with the populations best interests in mind. This is clearly not what the government is. It is instead a heavily biased, unwaveringly negating group of people who have no issue with bending the truth or outright lying. We therefore cannot trust the government to have a factual and rightly neutral, unbiased decision basis for social media regulation. This is the case no matter the issue or standpoint, as they would not hesitate to make decisions that are wrong by both supporter and opposer of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government is not best placed to regulate social media. They are too self serving to allow for neutral, factual, unbiased regulation and as such will take any opportunity they have to get rid of anything they see as a threat to their position of power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is very important that social media is regulated, the government is not best placed to do so. The government have proven that they are not capable of being unbiased and cannot be trusted to work in the best interests of the public. The group decided that it is impossible for the government to remain unbiased, as there is always going to be a bias based on the members of the government, and it is always going to be impossible to control. The government may be capable of regulating social media, but they are not capable of regulating it to the benefit of all members of the public. The group decided that in order to regulate social media correctly, there must be a group of independent and unbiased individuals who have no ties to the government or any large social media corporations. They must have the best interests of the public in mind and not what would be best for their party, their interests, their family or anything else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government is not best placed to regulate social media. This is because the government is not neutral, and is likely to use regulation to silence criticism of itself. The government is also not representative of the population, and is therefore not best placed to make decisions on behalf of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government is not best placed to regulate social media. The government is supposed to be an elected group of individuals that rightly and with correct morality guide, support and lead their population, with the populations best interests in mind. This is clearly not what the government is. It is instead a heavily biased, unwaveringly negating group of people who have no issue with bending the truth or outright lying. We therefore cannot trust the government to have a factual and rightly neutral, unbiased decision basis for social media regulation. This is the case no matter the issue or standpoint, as they would not hesitate to make decisions that are wrong by both supporter and opposer of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government is not best placed to regulate social media. They are too self serving to allow for neutral, factual, unbiased regulation and as such will take any opportunity they have to get rid of anything they see as a threat to their position of power. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001357.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001357.soc index 5f251b6e..347ed3ff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001357.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001357.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. However, this support should not be indefinite, but only for a short period after which the islands would need to support themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. The UK should also offer reparations for the terrible crimes which were committed against people in the Caribbean when they were colonies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. Reparations are a non-sense and should not be considered. Period 5a: War Graves Period 5a was tasked with discussing how best to honour the victims of the American Civil War. The group set up a questionnaire and as a result came to the consensus opinion that a new memorial or graveyard is not needed. Their questionnaire and consensus statement was as follows: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. However, this support should not be indefinite, but only for a short period after which the islands would need to support themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. The UK should also offer reparations for the terrible crimes which were committed against people in the Caribbean when they were colonies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should absolutely grant the Caribbean islands their independence. However, it is vital that this does not involve a mass of new legislation or be a complex process. This is because these islands may not have the expertise or resources to deal with such an undertaking. Instead, a referendum of the islands should be held, and their consensus should be adhered to. If the islands desire independence, then this should be granted to them. If the islands wish to stay as they are, then the UK should continue to provide them with the resources and support they have become accustomed to. Reparations are a non-sense and should not be considered. Period 5a: War Graves Period 5a was tasked with discussing how best to honour the victims of the American Civil War. The group set up a questionnaire and as a result came to the consensus opinion that a new memorial or graveyard is not needed. Their questionnaire and consensus statement was as follows: 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001358.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001358.soc index e74bc98b..bf075d7b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001358.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001358.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of co-educational schools. We think that it is important for children to be exposed to both genders from a young age, so that they can develop respect for both genders and understand the differences between them. It is also important for children to be able to socialise with both genders, so that they can develop friendships and relationships with people of both genders. However, we think that there are some circumstances in which single-sex schools would be beneficial. For example, if a child is being bullied by a child of the opposite gender, it may be beneficial for them to attend a single-sex school. We also think that there are some subjects in which boys and girls may learn better in single-sex classes. For example, in a class on menstruation, girls may feel uncomfortable if boys are present. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of schools being co-educational. However, we felt that there should be some single sex schools for those who want them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. We think that all schools in the UK should be co-educational. We believe that separating genders can have a negative effect on the future life of the child and lead to more sexism and stereotyping. In addition, there is the argument that children should be exposed to both genders in school so that they are more prepared for the real world and can deal with issues relating to the opposite gender in a more effective manner. Children should be able to feel comfortable and open around the opposite gender. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are arguments for and against single sex education, we believe that it is important to understand others, and to treat others with respect. Having a diverse school community which is co-educational, helps with this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of co-educational schools. We think that it is important for children to be exposed to both genders from a young age, so that they can develop respect for both genders and understand the differences between them. It is also important for children to be able to socialise with both genders, so that they can develop friendships and relationships with people of both genders. However, we think that there are some circumstances in which single-sex schools would be beneficial. For example, if a child is being bullied by a child of the opposite gender, it may be beneficial for them to attend a single-sex school. We also think that there are some subjects in which boys and girls may learn better in single-sex classes. For example, in a class on menstruation, girls may feel uncomfortable if boys are present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of schools being co-educational. However, we felt that there should be some single sex schools for those who want them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. We think that all schools in the UK should be co-educational. We believe that separating genders can have a negative effect on the future life of the child and lead to more sexism and stereotyping. In addition, there is the argument that children should be exposed to both genders in school so that they are more prepared for the real world and can deal with issues relating to the opposite gender in a more effective manner. Children should be able to feel comfortable and open around the opposite gender. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are arguments for and against single sex education, we believe that it is important to understand others, and to treat others with respect. Having a diverse school community which is co-educational, helps with this. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001359.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001359.soc index 294fc372..e82e4cae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001359.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001359.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is clear from the opinions of the group that it is the majority view that we should legalize recreational marijuana. We feel that this is a strong view as we have identified a number of clear benefits. Firstly we believe that the revenue generated would be huge as there are many people that already use it. This money could be put to good use and help to improve the health and wellbeing of our citizens. Secondly we believe that by making this drug legal there would be far less chance of people being arrested for carrying small amounts. In our opinion this will be a big help to many young people as we know that young people will often carry drugs and be arrested which could lead to them being convicted and this will harm their future. It will also free up valuable police time and resources as they will not be spending time chasing people for carrying small amounts of marijuana. Finally we have seen from the USA that this drug has been legalized and they have not suffered any major problems. This is also the case in other countries and as such we feel that it is a strong view that we should also legalize this drug. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is the view of the group that we should legalize recreational marijuana. This is because we think that it will result in many benefits for our country and our citizens. The first major benefit we think is that it will increase tax revenue which could be put to good use in our country. Secondly, we also believe that it would free up our police time and resources as they would not be chasing drug dealers as people could purchase marijuana in shops and pharmacies and it would also not be used or consumed in public places. Finally we have seen in the USA that they have benefited from legalising this drug and we see no reason that the same would not happen here. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a strong consensus in the group that we should legalize recreational marijuana. We feel that there are many benefits to legalizing this drug. Firstly we believe that the revenue generated would be huge as there are many people that already use it. This money could be put to good use and help to improve the health and wellbeing of our citizens. Secondly we believe that by making this drug legal there would be far less chance of people being arrested for carrying small amounts. In our opinion this will be a big help to many young people as we know that young people will often carry drugs and be arrested which could lead to them being convicted and this will harm their future. It will also free up valuable police time and resources as they will not be spending time chasing people for carrying small amounts of marijuana. Finally we have seen from the USA that this drug has been legalized and they have not suffered any major problems. This is also the case in other countries and as such we feel that it is a strong view that we should also legalize this drug. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is clear from the opinions of all the group that it is the majority view that we should legalize recreational marijuana. We feel that this is a strong view as we have identified a number of clear benefits. Firstly we believe that the revenue generated would be huge as there are many people that already use it. This money could be put to good use and help to improve the health and wellbeing of our citizens. Secondly we believe that by making this drug legal there would be far less chance of people being arrested for carrying small amounts. In our opinion this will be a big help to many young people as we know that young people will often carry drugs and be arrested which could lead to them being convicted and this will harm their future. It will also free up valuable police time and resources as they will not be spending time chasing people for carrying small amounts of marijuana. Finally we have seen from the USA that this drug has been legalized and they have not suffered any major problems. This is also the case in other countries and as such we feel that it is a strong view that we should also legalize this drug. We also feel that there would be some possible negative consequences such as mental health issues for some people but these would be outweighed +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is clear from the opinions of the group that it is the majority view that we should legalize recreational marijuana. We feel that this is a strong view as we have identified a number of clear benefits. Firstly we believe that the revenue generated would be huge as there are many people that already use it. This money could be put to good use and help to improve the health and wellbeing of our citizens. Secondly we believe that by making this drug legal there would be far less chance of people being arrested for carrying small amounts. In our opinion this will be a big help to many young people as we know that young people will often carry drugs and be arrested which could lead to them being convicted and this will harm their future. It will also free up valuable police time and resources as they will not be spending time chasing people for carrying small amounts of marijuana. Finally we have seen from the USA that this drug has been legalized and they have not suffered any major problems. This is also the case in other countries and as such we feel that it is a strong view that we should also legalize this drug. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is the view of the group that we should legalize recreational marijuana. This is because we think that it will result in many benefits for our country and our citizens. The first major benefit we think is that it will increase tax revenue which could be put to good use in our country. Secondly, we also believe that it would free up our police time and resources as they would not be chasing drug dealers as people could purchase marijuana in shops and pharmacies and it would also not be used or consumed in public places. Finally we have seen in the USA that they have benefited from legalising this drug and we see no reason that the same would not happen here. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a strong consensus in the group that we should legalize recreational marijuana. We feel that there are many benefits to legalizing this drug. Firstly we believe that the revenue generated would be huge as there are many people that already use it. This money could be put to good use and help to improve the health and wellbeing of our citizens. Secondly we believe that by making this drug legal there would be far less chance of people being arrested for carrying small amounts. In our opinion this will be a big help to many young people as we know that young people will often carry drugs and be arrested which could lead to them being convicted and this will harm their future. It will also free up valuable police time and resources as they will not be spending time chasing people for carrying small amounts of marijuana. Finally we have seen from the USA that this drug has been legalized and they have not suffered any major problems. This is also the case in other countries and as such we feel that it is a strong view that we should also legalize this drug. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is clear from the opinions of all the group that it is the majority view that we should legalize recreational marijuana. We feel that this is a strong view as we have identified a number of clear benefits. Firstly we believe that the revenue generated would be huge as there are many people that already use it. This money could be put to good use and help to improve the health and wellbeing of our citizens. Secondly we believe that by making this drug legal there would be far less chance of people being arrested for carrying small amounts. In our opinion this will be a big help to many young people as we know that young people will often carry drugs and be arrested which could lead to them being convicted and this will harm their future. It will also free up valuable police time and resources as they will not be spending time chasing people for carrying small amounts of marijuana. Finally we have seen from the USA that this drug has been legalized and they have not suffered any major problems. This is also the case in other countries and as such we feel that it is a strong view that we should also legalize this drug. We also feel that there would be some possible negative consequences such as mental health issues for some people but these would be outweighed 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001360.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001360.soc index 461b8f35..b8ca7c00 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001360.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001360.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is becoming more like the USA in terms of unemployment and cuts to the public sector. The USA is also more radical in terms of economic policies and this has had an effect on the UK's economic policies. There is an increase in political power of corporations and less power for the people. Also, the number of crimes are increasing in both countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA, but in specific areas, the UK is still very different from the USA. The UK is becoming more like the USA in terms of social issues, such as the increase in racial discrimination and gun violence. The UK is also becoming more like the USA in terms of the economy, with the increase in low wage and low hours jobs, as well as the greater power of corporations. However, the UK is still very different from the USA in terms of the political system, with the UK having a parliamentary system, whereas the USA has a presidential system. The UK is also very different from the USA in terms of culture, food, habits, and politics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA. However, there are still differences in terms of culture, food, habits, politics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK is becoming more like the USA in that the economy is very much controlled by big corporations, and the government is always striving to be more like the USA. More and more corporations have to try and look after their profits, and cut wages and hours for their workers, in order to keep their business running. The political system of the UK is very different from the US, but the politics are slowly becoming more similar, especially the recent rhetoric that has been spread from the right wing and the left wing. The media, however, is very different, in that it is much more honest in the UK, and is not always focusing on the bad side of things, like the US media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is becoming more like the USA in terms of unemployment and cuts to the public sector. The USA is also more radical in terms of economic policies and this has had an effect on the UK's economic policies. There is an increase in political power of corporations and less power for the people. Also, the number of crimes are increasing in both countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA, but in specific areas, the UK is still very different from the USA. The UK is becoming more like the USA in terms of social issues, such as the increase in racial discrimination and gun violence. The UK is also becoming more like the USA in terms of the economy, with the increase in low wage and low hours jobs, as well as the greater power of corporations. However, the UK is still very different from the USA in terms of the political system, with the UK having a parliamentary system, whereas the USA has a presidential system. The UK is also very different from the USA in terms of culture, food, habits, and politics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA. However, there are still differences in terms of culture, food, habits, politics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK is becoming more like the USA in that the economy is very much controlled by big corporations, and the government is always striving to be more like the USA. More and more corporations have to try and look after their profits, and cut wages and hours for their workers, in order to keep their business running. The political system of the UK is very different from the US, but the politics are slowly becoming more similar, especially the recent rhetoric that has been spread from the right wing and the left wing. The media, however, is very different, in that it is much more honest in the UK, and is not always focusing on the bad side of things, like the US media. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001361.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001361.soc index 1923f38b..40434e31 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001361.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001361.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a limit on the number of times a person can run for political office. The limit should be determined by the nature of the position and the person's performance in office. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, which is a negative. We believe that term limits should be imposed on the most senior positions, such as the presidency or the prime ministership. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a limit on how many times a person can run for political office. This is to avoid the risk of cult of personality and to make sure that a political candidate cannot just rely on their popularity to get re-elected. It is also to ensure that new blood can be introduced into the political system which is not an unhealthy thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is no simple, clear answer to this question. It is very subjective. However, we do believe that experience in political office can be useful, especially in a world where politics often involves long-term negotiation and relationship-building. Therefore, there should not be term limits for those who wish to make positive contributions. However, it is acknowledged that term limits may reduce corruption. It is therefore best that term limits are not enforced across the board but are rather case-dependent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a limit on the number of times a person can run for political office. The limit should be determined by the nature of the position and the person's performance in office. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, which is a negative. We believe that term limits should be imposed on the most senior positions, such as the presidency or the prime ministership. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a limit on how many times a person can run for political office. This is to avoid the risk of cult of personality and to make sure that a political candidate cannot just rely on their popularity to get re-elected. It is also to ensure that new blood can be introduced into the political system which is not an unhealthy thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is no simple, clear answer to this question. It is very subjective. However, we do believe that experience in political office can be useful, especially in a world where politics often involves long-term negotiation and relationship-building. Therefore, there should not be term limits for those who wish to make positive contributions. However, it is acknowledged that term limits may reduce corruption. It is therefore best that term limits are not enforced across the board but are rather case-dependent. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001362.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001362.soc index 918fb619..7e3c5f6e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001362.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001362.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. There are too many negative effects of this to list. This statement has been reached after taking into account a few factors. The animal is probably being left alone for a long period of time which can make the animal very lonely and cause anxiety. They may also become destructive and aggressive which can cause damage to your home. It can also be dangerous for your animal if there is an accident or a fire in your home. An animal needs attention and it is not right to keep it just for your own pleasure and then leave it alone when it is not convenient. It is also very cruel to keep an animal in a confined space. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not acceptable to own a pet in a small apartment and be at work all day. The pet would not receive the care and attention it requires and this could result in a deterioration in its well-being. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. The participants felt that this was an irresponsible way to treat an animal. The participants felt that an animal should be treated like a family member and should be given the care and attention it needs. The participants felt that an animal should not be left alone all day in a small apartment. The participants felt that the animal would be lonely and bored and this would impact negatively on its wellbeing. The participants felt that the animal would be better off in a home where it was given the care and attention it needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. This is because the animal will be alone for a long period of time and may not be able to get the exercise it needs. This will impact the animal's health and wellbeing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. There are too many negative effects of this to list. This statement has been reached after taking into account a few factors. The animal is probably being left alone for a long period of time which can make the animal very lonely and cause anxiety. They may also become destructive and aggressive which can cause damage to your home. It can also be dangerous for your animal if there is an accident or a fire in your home. An animal needs attention and it is not right to keep it just for your own pleasure and then leave it alone when it is not convenient. It is also very cruel to keep an animal in a confined space. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not acceptable to own a pet in a small apartment and be at work all day. The pet would not receive the care and attention it requires and this could result in a deterioration in its well-being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. The participants felt that this was an irresponsible way to treat an animal. The participants felt that an animal should be treated like a family member and should be given the care and attention it needs. The participants felt that an animal should not be left alone all day in a small apartment. The participants felt that the animal would be lonely and bored and this would impact negatively on its wellbeing. The participants felt that the animal would be better off in a home where it was given the care and attention it needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. This is because the animal will be alone for a long period of time and may not be able to get the exercise it needs. This will impact the animal's health and wellbeing. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001363.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001363.soc index 165344bf..2c73d0e9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001363.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001363.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. This is because there is an urgent need for tax receipts in order to pay for areas such as health and benefits. In addition, people who earn this amount of money can meet their needs relatively easily with a lower amount of money so could afford to pay extra tax. This would also re-inforce a sense of social solidarity where richer people pay for poorer people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should impose higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year because the rich can afford to pay more tax and this will help those who are less well off. It would also increase a sense of social solidarity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we should impose higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. This is because they can afford it, and it would help the country to pay for health and other benefits for the lower paid. It would also help to create a more equal society where those who earn less do not feel that the richer people are getting off lightly. This would re-inforce a sense of social solidarity where richer people pay for poorer people. We should do this but at the same time keep the higher tax rates as low as possible in order to avoid rich people leaving the country and reducing the country's economic activity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. The reasons for this were that people on lower incomes were struggling to make ends meet and that the higher earners could afford to pay more. In addition, the higher earners would still have a lot of money left over even if they paid more tax. The group also felt that the higher earners would be more likely to pay the extra tax if they felt that it was being used to support poorer people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. This is because there is an urgent need for tax receipts in order to pay for areas such as health and benefits. In addition, people who earn this amount of money can meet their needs relatively easily with a lower amount of money so could afford to pay extra tax. This would also re-inforce a sense of social solidarity where richer people pay for poorer people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should impose higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year because the rich can afford to pay more tax and this will help those who are less well off. It would also increase a sense of social solidarity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we should impose higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. This is because they can afford it, and it would help the country to pay for health and other benefits for the lower paid. It would also help to create a more equal society where those who earn less do not feel that the richer people are getting off lightly. This would re-inforce a sense of social solidarity where richer people pay for poorer people. We should do this but at the same time keep the higher tax rates as low as possible in order to avoid rich people leaving the country and reducing the country's economic activity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. The reasons for this were that people on lower incomes were struggling to make ends meet and that the higher earners could afford to pay more. In addition, the higher earners would still have a lot of money left over even if they paid more tax. The group also felt that the higher earners would be more likely to pay the extra tax if they felt that it was being used to support poorer people. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001364.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001364.soc index c7c44347..1b25d99a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001364.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001364.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, which is a negative. We believe that term limits should be imposed on the most senior positions, such as the presidency or the prime ministership. Conclusion There were a number of benefits to this exercise. Firstly, the group was able to come to a consensus opinion on a difficult question. This consensus opinion was arrived at through debate, which is an important part of the democratic process. By listening to the views of others and considering the implications of each view, we were able to hone our opinions and come to a common conclusion. This common conclusion took into account all of the relevant issues, including those raised by the people who disagreed with the initial draft consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We generally agree with the idea of term limits. In general, the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, which is a negative. We believe that term limits should be imposed on the most senior positions, such as the presidency or the prime ministership. We also believe that term limits can be useful outside of government, for example in NGO leadership positions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, and can incentivise rigging elections to keep incumbents in power, which are negatives. We believe that term limits should be imposed across the board and outside of government, and should be considered alongside other initiatives to reduce corruption such as transparency. We believe that some politicians (but certainly not all) are able to do their job even for longer than their term. Some leaders, even though long-serving, have made a positive contribution and have built positive relationships that can be leveraged to achieve good outcomes. Therefore, our overall view is that term limits are an important aspect of governance, but that they should not be abused or used to stifle positive contributions made by long-serving leaders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we believe that the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, which is a negative. We believe that term limits should be imposed on the most senior positions, such as the presidency or the prime ministership. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, which is a negative. We believe that term limits should be imposed on the most senior positions, such as the presidency or the prime ministership. Conclusion There were a number of benefits to this exercise. Firstly, the group was able to come to a consensus opinion on a difficult question. This consensus opinion was arrived at through debate, which is an important part of the democratic process. By listening to the views of others and considering the implications of each view, we were able to hone our opinions and come to a common conclusion. This common conclusion took into account all of the relevant issues, including those raised by the people who disagreed with the initial draft consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We generally agree with the idea of term limits. In general, the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, which is a negative. We believe that term limits should be imposed on the most senior positions, such as the presidency or the prime ministership. We also believe that term limits can be useful outside of government, for example in NGO leadership positions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, and can incentivise rigging elections to keep incumbents in power, which are negatives. We believe that term limits should be imposed across the board and outside of government, and should be considered alongside other initiatives to reduce corruption such as transparency. We believe that some politicians (but certainly not all) are able to do their job even for longer than their term. Some leaders, even though long-serving, have made a positive contribution and have built positive relationships that can be leveraged to achieve good outcomes. Therefore, our overall view is that term limits are an important aspect of governance, but that they should not be abused or used to stifle positive contributions made by long-serving leaders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we believe that the advantages of term limits outweigh the disadvantages. We believe that term limits can help to prevent corruption and reduce the risk of a cult of personality developing around a politician. We also believe that term limits can help to introduce new blood and new ideas into politics, which is important for a healthy democracy. However, we also believe that term limits can prevent a good politician from doing their job, which is a negative. We believe that term limits should be imposed on the most senior positions, such as the presidency or the prime ministership. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001365.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001365.soc index 57c0fc4c..fc1694d3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001365.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001365.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is a key part of the fabric of the UK, and we believe that it is worth its cost. There are however, several key changes that need to be made to improve its overall efficiency and value. Firstly, we believe that the NHS needs to take a step back and look at the fundamental problems it faces. They need to look at the way they provide treatment, and see how it can be done in a more efficient manner. We also feel that the NHS needs to invest more into preventative healthcare. This will prevent many problems from occurring and ultimately save the NHS money. We feel that the NHS should be given more money to enable them to make these changes, but that this money should be spent in the right way. NHS is a wonderful part of society and I definitely believe that the government needs to look into funding as the project is designed to support those who really need help. There is an open debate on UK Parliament website on the Future of the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is a key part of the fabric of the UK, and we believe that it is worth its cost. There are however, several key changes that need to be made to improve its overall efficiency and value. Firstly, we believe that the NHS needs to take a step back and look at the fundamental problems it faces. They need to look at the way they provide treatment, and see how it can be done in a more efficient manner. We also feel that the NHS needs to invest more into preventative healthcare. This will prevent many problems from occurring and ultimately save the NHS money. We feel that the NHS should be given more money to enable them to make these changes, but that this money should be spent in the right way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is a key part of the fabric of the UK, and we believe that it is worth its cost. There are however, several key changes that need to be made to improve its overall efficiency and value. Firstly, we believe that the NHS needs to take a step back and look at the fundamental problems it faces. They need to look at the way they provide treatment, and see how it can be done in a more efficient manner. We also feel that the NHS needs to invest more into preventative healthcare. This will prevent many problems from occurring and ultimately save the NHS money. We feel that the NHS should be given more money to enable them to make these changes, but that this money should be spent in the right way. To conclude, if the NHS is to be worthwhile in the future, it needs to be given adequate funding to make the necessary changes to its system so that it can function in the most efficient and effective way possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is a key part of the fabric of the UK, and we believe that it is worth its cost. There are however, several key changes that need to be made to improve its overall efficiency and value. Firstly, we believe that the NHS needs to take a step back and look at the fundamental problems it faces. They need to look at the way they provide treatment, and see how it can be done in a more efficient manner. We also feel that the NHS needs to invest more into preventative healthcare. This will prevent many problems from occurring and ultimately save the NHS money. We feel that the NHS should be given more money to enable them to make these changes, but that this money should be spent in the right way. We also feel that there is an issue with the staffing of the NHS. The NHS needs more staff, and needs to keep the staff that they have. We think that if the NHS can address these key issues, then it can continue to be a valuable part of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is a key part of the fabric of the UK, and we believe that it is worth its cost. There are however, several key changes that need to be made to improve its overall efficiency and value. Firstly, we believe that the NHS needs to take a step back and look at the fundamental problems it faces. They need to look at the way they provide treatment, and see how it can be done in a more efficient manner. We also feel that the NHS needs to invest more into preventative healthcare. This will prevent many problems from occurring and ultimately save the NHS money. We feel that the NHS should be given more money to enable them to make these changes, but that this money should be spent in the right way. NHS is a wonderful part of society and I definitely believe that the government needs to look into funding as the project is designed to support those who really need help. There is an open debate on UK Parliament website on the Future of the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is a key part of the fabric of the UK, and we believe that it is worth its cost. There are however, several key changes that need to be made to improve its overall efficiency and value. Firstly, we believe that the NHS needs to take a step back and look at the fundamental problems it faces. They need to look at the way they provide treatment, and see how it can be done in a more efficient manner. We also feel that the NHS needs to invest more into preventative healthcare. This will prevent many problems from occurring and ultimately save the NHS money. We feel that the NHS should be given more money to enable them to make these changes, but that this money should be spent in the right way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is a key part of the fabric of the UK, and we believe that it is worth its cost. There are however, several key changes that need to be made to improve its overall efficiency and value. Firstly, we believe that the NHS needs to take a step back and look at the fundamental problems it faces. They need to look at the way they provide treatment, and see how it can be done in a more efficient manner. We also feel that the NHS needs to invest more into preventative healthcare. This will prevent many problems from occurring and ultimately save the NHS money. We feel that the NHS should be given more money to enable them to make these changes, but that this money should be spent in the right way. To conclude, if the NHS is to be worthwhile in the future, it needs to be given adequate funding to make the necessary changes to its system so that it can function in the most efficient and effective way possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is a key part of the fabric of the UK, and we believe that it is worth its cost. There are however, several key changes that need to be made to improve its overall efficiency and value. Firstly, we believe that the NHS needs to take a step back and look at the fundamental problems it faces. They need to look at the way they provide treatment, and see how it can be done in a more efficient manner. We also feel that the NHS needs to invest more into preventative healthcare. This will prevent many problems from occurring and ultimately save the NHS money. We feel that the NHS should be given more money to enable them to make these changes, but that this money should be spent in the right way. We also feel that there is an issue with the staffing of the NHS. The NHS needs more staff, and needs to keep the staff that they have. We think that if the NHS can address these key issues, then it can continue to be a valuable part of the UK. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001366.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001366.soc index e40971a2..fa9357fa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001366.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001366.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. There are too many negative effects of this to list. This statement has been reached after taking into account a few factors. The animal is probably being left alone for a long period of time which can make the animal very lonely and cause anxiety. They may also become destructive and aggressive which can cause damage to your home. It can also be dangerous for your animal if there is an accident or a fire in your home. An animal needs attention and it is not right to keep it just for your own pleasure and then leave it alone when it is not convenient. It is also very cruel to keep an animal in a confined space. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. There are several reasons why this would be so. The animal would be alone for many hours and this can cause them a great deal of stress and anxiety. The animal is also very unlikely to have the space it needs for exercise and play which are important for its well being. Animals also require personal care and attention which they will not get if they are left alone. Additionally, we must remember that the animal could damage your home and there is also the possibility of an accident which you would be unable to address if you were not at home. Therefore, although it is not necessarily wrong to own an animal within a small apartment and to be at work all day, we advise you not to do so for the reasons above. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. This is because it can be detrimental to the animal's wellbeing. The animal will be left alone for a long period of time which can make the animal very lonely and cause anxiety. They may also become destructive and aggressive which can cause damage to your home. It can also be dangerous for your animal if there is an accident or a fire in your home. Animals need attention and it is not right to keep it just for your own pleasure and then leave it alone when it is not convenient. It is also very cruel to keep an animal in a confined space. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. There are negative effects of this that need to be considered. They include damage to your home caused by the animal being destructive, anxiety and agitation in the animal, and the possibility that the animal may go through health problems without noticing or anything that prevents the animal from feeling comfortable. If you are away from home for a long time, I think it is also not okay because you leave the animal alone. Then, when you go back, it can be difficult for you to build a good relationship. It will also depend on the type of animal you want to have as a pet. For example, fish need less care than cats, dogs, and hamsters and I think fish can be a good pet if you live in an apartment. It is not fair to buy animals that take up a lot of space and then leave them alone all day. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. There are too many negative effects of this to list. This statement has been reached after taking into account a few factors. The animal is probably being left alone for a long period of time which can make the animal very lonely and cause anxiety. They may also become destructive and aggressive which can cause damage to your home. It can also be dangerous for your animal if there is an accident or a fire in your home. An animal needs attention and it is not right to keep it just for your own pleasure and then leave it alone when it is not convenient. It is also very cruel to keep an animal in a confined space. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. There are several reasons why this would be so. The animal would be alone for many hours and this can cause them a great deal of stress and anxiety. The animal is also very unlikely to have the space it needs for exercise and play which are important for its well being. Animals also require personal care and attention which they will not get if they are left alone. Additionally, we must remember that the animal could damage your home and there is also the possibility of an accident which you would be unable to address if you were not at home. Therefore, although it is not necessarily wrong to own an animal within a small apartment and to be at work all day, we advise you not to do so for the reasons above. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. This is because it can be detrimental to the animal's wellbeing. The animal will be left alone for a long period of time which can make the animal very lonely and cause anxiety. They may also become destructive and aggressive which can cause damage to your home. It can also be dangerous for your animal if there is an accident or a fire in your home. Animals need attention and it is not right to keep it just for your own pleasure and then leave it alone when it is not convenient. It is also very cruel to keep an animal in a confined space. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not okay to own any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. There are negative effects of this that need to be considered. They include damage to your home caused by the animal being destructive, anxiety and agitation in the animal, and the possibility that the animal may go through health problems without noticing or anything that prevents the animal from feeling comfortable. If you are away from home for a long time, I think it is also not okay because you leave the animal alone. Then, when you go back, it can be difficult for you to build a good relationship. It will also depend on the type of animal you want to have as a pet. For example, fish need less care than cats, dogs, and hamsters and I think fish can be a good pet if you live in an apartment. It is not fair to buy animals that take up a lot of space and then leave them alone all day. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001367.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001367.soc index 4e40a98c..8579b248 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001367.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001367.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should support the US in international matters, but not unconditionally. There should be conditions and the UK should consider its own interests first. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should not give unconditional support to the US in international matters. It is the role of the UK to do what is best for the people of the UK, and not blindly support the US for the sake of supporting them. The USA and UK have different policies and views on international matters, and thus supporting the US in all international matters may lead to repercussions the UK may be negatively affected by. When it comes to international matters, the UK should support the US when it is in the UK's best interests to do so, but there should be conditions set out by the UK to prevent the USA from taking advantage of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should not give unconditional support to the US in international matters. The UK has its own set of interests that may not necessarily align with those of the US. Furthermore, the UK has a history of supporting the US in military expeditions that have not always been in the UK's best interest. The Iraq war is a good example of this. While the UK should support its allies, it should not be unconditional. The UK should make its own decisions on a case-by-case basis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should support the US in certain matters not all. It should not be unconditional. There should be specific conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should support the US in international matters, but not unconditionally. There should be conditions and the UK should consider its own interests first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should not give unconditional support to the US in international matters. It is the role of the UK to do what is best for the people of the UK, and not blindly support the US for the sake of supporting them. The USA and UK have different policies and views on international matters, and thus supporting the US in all international matters may lead to repercussions the UK may be negatively affected by. When it comes to international matters, the UK should support the US when it is in the UK's best interests to do so, but there should be conditions set out by the UK to prevent the USA from taking advantage of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should not give unconditional support to the US in international matters. The UK has its own set of interests that may not necessarily align with those of the US. Furthermore, the UK has a history of supporting the US in military expeditions that have not always been in the UK's best interest. The Iraq war is a good example of this. While the UK should support its allies, it should not be unconditional. The UK should make its own decisions on a case-by-case basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should support the US in certain matters not all. It should not be unconditional. There should be specific conditions. 3: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001368.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001368.soc index 22c29a87..c03d6a35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001368.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001368.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People with anti-social behaviour should attend classes that help them integrate in the society, where they learn how to respect other people. If they are showing the same behaviour multiple times and in most of their interactions with other people, their ability to live where they want should be restricted to areas where people with similar behavioural issues live. I believe that getting fined for any rules they are breaking may also help stopping this behaviour. The police should also do talks in schools to pupils to warn them of consequences and what a life of anti social behaviour could lead to. These villages and towns could invest in areas for kids to hang out in where they can socialise, giving them something to do that isn't vandalising etc. Anti social behaviour should be strongly punished . Fines & deterrents put in place , Bans from public places if the behaviour is in social settings eg football match, shopping centres Curfews put in place If this related to children the sanctions should be placed on the parents . -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While anti-social behaviour is a matter of opinion, we as a society have to accept the need to deal with it. Therefore, our belief is that there should be strong deterrents in place for anti-social behaviour. We believe that these deterrents should include consequences such as community service and fines, as well as punishment. We believe that the police should be doing regular patrols, as well as giving talks to children and teenagers about anti-social behaviour. We also believe that it would be useful to have certain areas where young people can socialise and take part in sports and other activities that would keep them occupied. We believe that education is the key to stopping anti-social behaviour. This is because, while deterrents are important, they do not solve the problem. However, education will stop anti-social behaviour from ever happening, which would be the ideal outcome. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Anti-social behaviour is a very wide ranging topic and there is no one way to solve it. The severity of the problem and the way to solve it depends on the area, and in some cases the people involved. For the most part however, there is a lack of consequences for anti-social behaviour and this needs to be addressed. This can be done in a number of ways. Firstly, there needs to be a greater police presence in areas where anti-social behaviour is a problem. This will act as a deterrent to those who may be considering engaging in anti-social behaviour. Secondly, there needs to be more severe punishments for those who do engage in anti-social behaviour. This can include community service, fines, or even prison sentences. Lastly, there needs to be more done to help those who are engaging in anti-social behaviour. This can include classes to help them integrate into society, and in some cases, restricting where they live to areas where people with similar behavioural issues live. This is to ensure that they are not a danger to the public and to prevent them from influencing others to engage in anti-social behaviour. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People who have a behaviour that prevents others from living their lives and limits them in any way should be given a chance to change. If they are willing to change, they should attend classes that teach them how to change. If they are not willing to change, they should not be able to live in the same areas as people who are willing to live by the society’s rules. Fines should be introduced as a punishment for their actions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People with anti-social behaviour should attend classes that help them integrate in the society, where they learn how to respect other people. If they are showing the same behaviour multiple times and in most of their interactions with other people, their ability to live where they want should be restricted to areas where people with similar behavioural issues live. I believe that getting fined for any rules they are breaking may also help stopping this behaviour. The police should also do talks in schools to pupils to warn them of consequences and what a life of anti social behaviour could lead to. These villages and towns could invest in areas for kids to hang out in where they can socialise, giving them something to do that isn't vandalising etc. Anti social behaviour should be strongly punished . Fines & deterrents put in place , Bans from public places if the behaviour is in social settings eg football match, shopping centres Curfews put in place If this related to children the sanctions should be placed on the parents . +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While anti-social behaviour is a matter of opinion, we as a society have to accept the need to deal with it. Therefore, our belief is that there should be strong deterrents in place for anti-social behaviour. We believe that these deterrents should include consequences such as community service and fines, as well as punishment. We believe that the police should be doing regular patrols, as well as giving talks to children and teenagers about anti-social behaviour. We also believe that it would be useful to have certain areas where young people can socialise and take part in sports and other activities that would keep them occupied. We believe that education is the key to stopping anti-social behaviour. This is because, while deterrents are important, they do not solve the problem. However, education will stop anti-social behaviour from ever happening, which would be the ideal outcome. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Anti-social behaviour is a very wide ranging topic and there is no one way to solve it. The severity of the problem and the way to solve it depends on the area, and in some cases the people involved. For the most part however, there is a lack of consequences for anti-social behaviour and this needs to be addressed. This can be done in a number of ways. Firstly, there needs to be a greater police presence in areas where anti-social behaviour is a problem. This will act as a deterrent to those who may be considering engaging in anti-social behaviour. Secondly, there needs to be more severe punishments for those who do engage in anti-social behaviour. This can include community service, fines, or even prison sentences. Lastly, there needs to be more done to help those who are engaging in anti-social behaviour. This can include classes to help them integrate into society, and in some cases, restricting where they live to areas where people with similar behavioural issues live. This is to ensure that they are not a danger to the public and to prevent them from influencing others to engage in anti-social behaviour. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People who have a behaviour that prevents others from living their lives and limits them in any way should be given a chance to change. If they are willing to change, they should attend classes that teach them how to change. If they are not willing to change, they should not be able to live in the same areas as people who are willing to live by the society’s rules. Fines should be introduced as a punishment for their actions. 3: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001369.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001369.soc index 656a73e9..e02b0b47 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001369.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001369.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. Instead, fast food chains should be encouraged, and if necessary required if near a school, to place healthier items on their menus. This helps to mitigate the impact of their operation near schools and the purchase of items by school-aged children and teenagers, and the associated health impacts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. Whilst fast food is unhealthy and can lead to obesity and other health problems, we believe that it is the responsibility of parents to educate their children as to why fast food is unhealthy and ultimately exert their power to either buy it for the child or not. It is also the responsibility of the fast food chains themselves to provide healthier options on their menus and encourage healthy eating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the unhealthy effects of fast food is well-known, there are significant flaws in a policy which would seek to ban fast food chains from operating near schools. Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is not likely to have the desired effect as the majority of children will continue to access it via different means, namely travelling further or from home. Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is an unnecessary overreach and limits freedom of choice for those who aren't children. Additionally, we must remember that the onus is not on policy to provide children with what is best for them, but rather on parents. A responsible parent would educate their child on the health risks associated with fast food and do their best to avoid it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. Whilst there is certainly an argument that the potential harm caused by operating near schools outweighs any possible benefit, we feel that there is no need for such an overreach of authority. Parents, who have the primary responsibility for a child's health, can educate their children about the dangers of fast food, and help them to make healthy choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. Instead, fast food chains should be encouraged, and if necessary required if near a school, to place healthier items on their menus. This helps to mitigate the impact of their operation near schools and the purchase of items by school-aged children and teenagers, and the associated health impacts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. Whilst fast food is unhealthy and can lead to obesity and other health problems, we believe that it is the responsibility of parents to educate their children as to why fast food is unhealthy and ultimately exert their power to either buy it for the child or not. It is also the responsibility of the fast food chains themselves to provide healthier options on their menus and encourage healthy eating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the unhealthy effects of fast food is well-known, there are significant flaws in a policy which would seek to ban fast food chains from operating near schools. Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is not likely to have the desired effect as the majority of children will continue to access it via different means, namely travelling further or from home. Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is an unnecessary overreach and limits freedom of choice for those who aren't children. Additionally, we must remember that the onus is not on policy to provide children with what is best for them, but rather on parents. A responsible parent would educate their child on the health risks associated with fast food and do their best to avoid it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. Whilst there is certainly an argument that the potential harm caused by operating near schools outweighs any possible benefit, we feel that there is no need for such an overreach of authority. Parents, who have the primary responsibility for a child's health, can educate their children about the dangers of fast food, and help them to make healthy choices. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001370.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001370.soc index c758b82f..f369538f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001370.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001370.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe we are in the midst of a climate crisis. Climate change is the long-term effect of increasing the average temperature of the Earth and rising sea levels. Global climate change is leading to more extreme weather events. It is caused by human activities and is linked to global warming. There is a clear link between global warming and rising sea levels. This is due to the melting of ice caps. If sea levels continue to rise, it will cause a loss of habitat for many marine species and pose a risk to low-lying coastal areas. There is also a risk that the climate crisis will worsen, as higher temperatures will speed up the melting of polar ice caps. Therefore, humans must take drastic action to reduce greenhouse gases. Governments around the world must act now and implement rules to force big corporations to be more planet friendly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are in the midst of a climate crisis. The rate at which the climate is changing has been picking up pace over the past few decades, we've been seeing heat waves in place that are generally cold, and cold weather in desert area's that generally don't see much cold weather. The earth climate is changing due to human activities. This is an increase in green house gas emissions. Extreme weather have become more frequent. These changes have worst effects on humans, eco system and quality of life. Governments need to take action now and implement rules to force big corporations to be more planet friendly. The monopoly of rich countries and companies on the resources should be challenged to get out of the climate crisis. The sea has been decimated to almost the point of no return, which has a huge affect on the climate. Unfortunately I think things are too advanced and governments aren't willing to crack down on companies causing these issues and instead focus on getting people to turn off their lights. If everyone in the UK had their lights on 24/7 for a year I doubt it would even touch what China does in a day. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity. We need to make a change now to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. This was a difficult topic for people to reach a consensus view on, but after a lot of debate and a vote the group managed to agree on a statement. The vote was 2 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe we are in the midst of a climate crisis. Climate change is the long-term trend of average weather, caused by the accumulation of human-induced emissions. The rate at which climate is changing has increased over the past few decades. This rate of change is also speeding up, as human activity increases the number of green house gases in the atmosphere. This rate of change in temperature has had a knock-on effect on the earths eco-systems, as the climate becomes increasingly unpredictable. For example, heat waves are becoming more common, droughts are lasting longer, and ice caps are melting. We believe that the only way to fight this is for governments to act on their promises, and increase the rate at which green house gases are reduced, before it is too late. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe we are in the midst of a climate crisis. Climate change is the long-term effect of increasing the average temperature of the Earth and rising sea levels. Global climate change is leading to more extreme weather events. It is caused by human activities and is linked to global warming. There is a clear link between global warming and rising sea levels. This is due to the melting of ice caps. If sea levels continue to rise, it will cause a loss of habitat for many marine species and pose a risk to low-lying coastal areas. There is also a risk that the climate crisis will worsen, as higher temperatures will speed up the melting of polar ice caps. Therefore, humans must take drastic action to reduce greenhouse gases. Governments around the world must act now and implement rules to force big corporations to be more planet friendly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are in the midst of a climate crisis. The rate at which the climate is changing has been picking up pace over the past few decades, we've been seeing heat waves in place that are generally cold, and cold weather in desert area's that generally don't see much cold weather. The earth climate is changing due to human activities. This is an increase in green house gas emissions. Extreme weather have become more frequent. These changes have worst effects on humans, eco system and quality of life. Governments need to take action now and implement rules to force big corporations to be more planet friendly. The monopoly of rich countries and companies on the resources should be challenged to get out of the climate crisis. The sea has been decimated to almost the point of no return, which has a huge affect on the climate. Unfortunately I think things are too advanced and governments aren't willing to crack down on companies causing these issues and instead focus on getting people to turn off their lights. If everyone in the UK had their lights on 24/7 for a year I doubt it would even touch what China does in a day. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity. We need to make a change now to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. This was a difficult topic for people to reach a consensus view on, but after a lot of debate and a vote the group managed to agree on a statement. The vote was 2 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe we are in the midst of a climate crisis. Climate change is the long-term trend of average weather, caused by the accumulation of human-induced emissions. The rate at which climate is changing has increased over the past few decades. This rate of change is also speeding up, as human activity increases the number of green house gases in the atmosphere. This rate of change in temperature has had a knock-on effect on the earths eco-systems, as the climate becomes increasingly unpredictable. For example, heat waves are becoming more common, droughts are lasting longer, and ice caps are melting. We believe that the only way to fight this is for governments to act on their promises, and increase the rate at which green house gases are reduced, before it is too late. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001371.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001371.soc index 19dab8bd..c053fa6f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001371.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001371.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The environmental impact of another runway in the London area would be a concern, but at the same time, the UK economy relies heavily on London and its tourism and economic hubs. Also, as London is an important cultural centre, people from all over the world travel to it, meaning a new runway would have a positive effect on the UK. However, the construction of another runway would be a nuisance to local residents and those who fly from the London area, so maybe a better solution would be to reduce congestion at airports by running trains to a new, dedicated airport outside the London area. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think it is a good idea to start work on another runway at an airport in the London area. This is because of the environmental impact that it would have. We think that the pollution would be a big issue, and it would be a problem for the local residents. We think that the noise would be a problem as well, and it would be a problem for those living nearby. We also think that it would be a problem for the wildlife in the area. We think that it would be a problem for the local economy as well, as the businesses in the area would be affected by the construction work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not a good idea to start work on another runway at an airport in the London area. This is because, in this day and age, we need to be doing everything we can to try and reduce pollution. An extra runway would inevitably increase the number of flights coming into and out of London, thus increasing the number of planes in the sky and therefore the amount of pollution in the air. If we are serious about reducing the effects of climate change, then we cannot continue to build things that increase the amount of pollution, even if it is something that may have short-term benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a new runway at an airport in the London area, as it would increase the number of planes that could use the airport and therefore reduce the cost of flights. However, the group was also concerned about the impact that this would have on the environment, as the number of planes would increase the amount of pollution in the area. The group suggested that the government should consider building a new runway in a different area of London, so that the impact on the environment would be reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The environmental impact of another runway in the London area would be a concern, but at the same time, the UK economy relies heavily on London and its tourism and economic hubs. Also, as London is an important cultural centre, people from all over the world travel to it, meaning a new runway would have a positive effect on the UK. However, the construction of another runway would be a nuisance to local residents and those who fly from the London area, so maybe a better solution would be to reduce congestion at airports by running trains to a new, dedicated airport outside the London area. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think it is a good idea to start work on another runway at an airport in the London area. This is because of the environmental impact that it would have. We think that the pollution would be a big issue, and it would be a problem for the local residents. We think that the noise would be a problem as well, and it would be a problem for those living nearby. We also think that it would be a problem for the wildlife in the area. We think that it would be a problem for the local economy as well, as the businesses in the area would be affected by the construction work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not a good idea to start work on another runway at an airport in the London area. This is because, in this day and age, we need to be doing everything we can to try and reduce pollution. An extra runway would inevitably increase the number of flights coming into and out of London, thus increasing the number of planes in the sky and therefore the amount of pollution in the air. If we are serious about reducing the effects of climate change, then we cannot continue to build things that increase the amount of pollution, even if it is something that may have short-term benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a new runway at an airport in the London area, as it would increase the number of planes that could use the airport and therefore reduce the cost of flights. However, the group was also concerned about the impact that this would have on the environment, as the number of planes would increase the amount of pollution in the area. The group suggested that the government should consider building a new runway in a different area of London, so that the impact on the environment would be reduced. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001372.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001372.soc index d0f46e9e..bf5ddd35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001372.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001372.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be taught about sex and the implications of sexual activity. If a parent is not comfortable with this, they should be allowed to opt out. However, this should be allowed only if there is a very strong, valid reason for that. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is important for children to be taught about sexual health and their sexual rights, we also need to recognise that some parents may not feel comfortable with the information that may be presented in sex education classes. Therefore, we agree that parents should be able to opt out of sex education classes for their children. However, we also believe that sex education is an important part of a child’s development. If parents opt out, they should be required to undertake their own sex education with their child, and we should ensure that children receive a minimum standard of sex education from their parents. We would also recommend that other parents are not allowed to opt out of sex education classes, to prevent any one child being disadvantaged or discriminated against. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although sex education is important for a child's development, we feel that the opinions of parents should not be ignored, and if they feel their child is better off being taught at home, they should be able to opt out. However, it should be noted that in some cases, a parent opting out of sex education classes for their child could be putting them at risk in terms of their sexual health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be allowed to opt out of sex education classes. Sex education is an important part of a child’s development and it is necessary to prepare them for the future. The group felt that parents should not be allowed to withhold this information from their children, even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. The group felt that it is important to prepare children for the future, and if they are not prepared for the implications of sex, they may make poor choices that could have a detrimental effect on their lives. The group felt that it is the responsibility of the school to provide children with the best possible education, and this includes sex education. If a parent does not want their child to attend sex education classes, then they should not send their child to that school. The group felt that this is the only way to ensure that children receive the best possible education, and that this is the responsibility of the school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be taught about sex and the implications of sexual activity. If a parent is not comfortable with this, they should be allowed to opt out. However, this should be allowed only if there is a very strong, valid reason for that. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is important for children to be taught about sexual health and their sexual rights, we also need to recognise that some parents may not feel comfortable with the information that may be presented in sex education classes. Therefore, we agree that parents should be able to opt out of sex education classes for their children. However, we also believe that sex education is an important part of a child’s development. If parents opt out, they should be required to undertake their own sex education with their child, and we should ensure that children receive a minimum standard of sex education from their parents. We would also recommend that other parents are not allowed to opt out of sex education classes, to prevent any one child being disadvantaged or discriminated against. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although sex education is important for a child's development, we feel that the opinions of parents should not be ignored, and if they feel their child is better off being taught at home, they should be able to opt out. However, it should be noted that in some cases, a parent opting out of sex education classes for their child could be putting them at risk in terms of their sexual health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be allowed to opt out of sex education classes. Sex education is an important part of a child’s development and it is necessary to prepare them for the future. The group felt that parents should not be allowed to withhold this information from their children, even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. The group felt that it is important to prepare children for the future, and if they are not prepared for the implications of sex, they may make poor choices that could have a detrimental effect on their lives. The group felt that it is the responsibility of the school to provide children with the best possible education, and this includes sex education. If a parent does not want their child to attend sex education classes, then they should not send their child to that school. The group felt that this is the only way to ensure that children receive the best possible education, and that this is the responsibility of the school. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001373.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001373.soc index 1a391c26..6eac0e47 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001373.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001373.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Animal fur should not be sold if it causes pain or suffering for animals in any way. We should ban the sale of animal fur derived from animals that are verified to be endangered especially. This is cruel, a lack of respect to animals and animal lovers, a clear degradation, immorally wrong, and is clearly a vanity thing. Animals deserve to be shown a great deal of respect, they deserve to live and thrive on this planet just as much as humans, and are a vital aspect of the environment and ecosystem of planet Earth. Some of these animals are killed just for this vanity aspect, and this is a big taboo and topic that should enrage the human aspect of people. Using animal fur is an outdated practice and isn't necessary when faux fur can be made to look the same. The process of collecting animal fur is unethical and is a form of animal abuse, and can't be justified for the use in clothing, false eyelashes etc. There are suitable alternatives so continuing to sell animal fur is wrong and not necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that some types of animal fur should be banned. We feel that we have come to this view for a number of reasons. Some types of animal fur are more expensive than synthetic alternatives, and these are often made to look identical. The reasons why people would choose real animal fur over faux fur are unclear. There is a cruelty aspect to some methods of collecting fur, and this is morally wrong. The use of animal fur for vanity reasons should be outlawed. Many types of animals that provide fur are in danger of becoming extinct, and this use of their bodies for vanity products is a contributing factor. For all these reasons, we have decided that certain types of animal fur should be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Animal fur should not be sold if it causes pain or suffering for animals in any way. This is the only opinion that was agreed upon by all participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should ban the sale of animal fur, and that there is no justification for it, given the existence of synthetic alternatives that are essentially indistinguishable from animal fur. This is a cruel practice that has no place in a civilized society, and that shows respect for the well-being of animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Animal fur should not be sold if it causes pain or suffering for animals in any way. We should ban the sale of animal fur derived from animals that are verified to be endangered especially. This is cruel, a lack of respect to animals and animal lovers, a clear degradation, immorally wrong, and is clearly a vanity thing. Animals deserve to be shown a great deal of respect, they deserve to live and thrive on this planet just as much as humans, and are a vital aspect of the environment and ecosystem of planet Earth. Some of these animals are killed just for this vanity aspect, and this is a big taboo and topic that should enrage the human aspect of people. Using animal fur is an outdated practice and isn't necessary when faux fur can be made to look the same. The process of collecting animal fur is unethical and is a form of animal abuse, and can't be justified for the use in clothing, false eyelashes etc. There are suitable alternatives so continuing to sell animal fur is wrong and not necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that some types of animal fur should be banned. We feel that we have come to this view for a number of reasons. Some types of animal fur are more expensive than synthetic alternatives, and these are often made to look identical. The reasons why people would choose real animal fur over faux fur are unclear. There is a cruelty aspect to some methods of collecting fur, and this is morally wrong. The use of animal fur for vanity reasons should be outlawed. Many types of animals that provide fur are in danger of becoming extinct, and this use of their bodies for vanity products is a contributing factor. For all these reasons, we have decided that certain types of animal fur should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Animal fur should not be sold if it causes pain or suffering for animals in any way. This is the only opinion that was agreed upon by all participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should ban the sale of animal fur, and that there is no justification for it, given the existence of synthetic alternatives that are essentially indistinguishable from animal fur. This is a cruel practice that has no place in a civilized society, and that shows respect for the well-being of animals. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001374.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001374.soc index 3546a183..33ca7cd9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001374.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001374.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. However, the group also felt that the issue was not as simple as it first seemed. The group felt that it was important to make children aware of the dangers of eating fast food and to educate them about healthy eating. The group also felt that children should be encouraged to make their own choices about what they eat, and that it was important for children to be able to make their own mistakes. The group felt that it was important to be able to eat fast food in moderation, and that banning fast food chains from operating near schools would not necessarily stop children from eating fast food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fast food chains should not be allowed to operate near schools because they can have a negative impact on children’s health, by making them think it’s ok to eat fast food, leading to obesity and other health problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught how to make good choices and how to eat healthily. However, we don't think it is appropriate to ban fast food chains from operating near schools. It is not appropriate to ban things from children that are available to adults. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that banning fast food chains near schools would not have the desired effect of improving the health of the population, and that in addition, this measure would unfairly punish business owners. Fast food chains offer a product that many people enjoy, and this is not something that should be prevented. If people wish to improve their health, they can make the choice to eat healthily, and if they don't, it is their decision. If we wish to have a healthy society, we must encourage people to eat healthily, but not ban things that are unhealthy. The government should invest in educating children and adults on healthy eating, but not on banning fast food chains near schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. However, the group also felt that the issue was not as simple as it first seemed. The group felt that it was important to make children aware of the dangers of eating fast food and to educate them about healthy eating. The group also felt that children should be encouraged to make their own choices about what they eat, and that it was important for children to be able to make their own mistakes. The group felt that it was important to be able to eat fast food in moderation, and that banning fast food chains from operating near schools would not necessarily stop children from eating fast food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fast food chains should not be allowed to operate near schools because they can have a negative impact on children’s health, by making them think it’s ok to eat fast food, leading to obesity and other health problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught how to make good choices and how to eat healthily. However, we don't think it is appropriate to ban fast food chains from operating near schools. It is not appropriate to ban things from children that are available to adults. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that banning fast food chains near schools would not have the desired effect of improving the health of the population, and that in addition, this measure would unfairly punish business owners. Fast food chains offer a product that many people enjoy, and this is not something that should be prevented. If people wish to improve their health, they can make the choice to eat healthily, and if they don't, it is their decision. If we wish to have a healthy society, we must encourage people to eat healthily, but not ban things that are unhealthy. The government should invest in educating children and adults on healthy eating, but not on banning fast food chains near schools. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001375.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001375.soc index f31c656d..bb263f9e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001375.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001375.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the term anti-social behaviour is vague and needs to be defined more precisely before we can make any more concrete recommendations. However, for the purposes of this discussion we are using the term to refer to behaviour which is disruptive to people. For behaviour of this nature there should be strong deterrents in place, such as community service and fines. It is also important that there are consequences for breaking the rules, and so there should be regular patrols by police to ensure this. We also believe that education is the key to dealing with this problem. This is because, while deterrents are important, they do not solve the problem. However, education will stop anti-social behaviour from ever happening, which would be the ideal outcome. However, education should not be too simplistic, and instead should be thorough and extensive, and should be combined with other types of support, such as the provision of areas where young people can socialise and take part in sports and other activities that would keep them occupied. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be strong deterrents in place for anti-social behaviour. These deterrents should include consequences such as community service and fines, as well as punishment. We believe that the police should be doing regular patrols, as well as giving talks to children and teenagers about anti-social behaviour. We also believe that it would be useful to have certain areas where young people can socialise and take part in sports and other activities that would keep them occupied. We believe that education is the key to stopping anti-social behaviour. This is because, while deterrents are important, they do not solve the problem. However, education will stop anti-social behaviour from ever happening, which would be the ideal outcome. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: We as a society need to come up with the ways to deter or stop anti-social behaviour that is happening in a great number of areas around the country. We do not want these behaviours to go on and so as a group, we have come up with the following statement. We believe that stronger deterrents such as fines and consequences, such as community service, should be used. In schools and other public places, the police should have to do regular checks, make an effort to engage with young people and engage with the schools about anti-social behaviour to prevent young people from engaging in it in the future. We think that other places that young people can socialise and play sport should also be provided by the local government in areas where these behaviours occur so as to give young people something to do. On the whole, we believe that more education on anti-social behaviour needs to be given, both at home and in school, to prevent this from happening again. While this is happening, we also believe that stronger deterrents should be used, such as, consequences and punishment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the term anti-social behaviour is vague and needs to be defined more precisely before we can make any more concrete recommendations. However, for the purposes of this discussion we are using the term to refer to behaviour which is disruptive to people. For behaviour of this nature there should be strong deterrents in place, such as community service and fines. It is also important that there are consequences for breaking the rules, and so there should be regular patrols by police to ensure this. We also believe that education is the key to dealing with this problem. This is because, while deterrents are important, they do not solve the problem. However, education will stop anti-social behaviour from ever happening, which would be the ideal outcome. However, education should not be too simplistic, and instead should be thorough and extensive, and should be combined with other types of support, such as the provision of areas where young people can socialise and take part in sports and other activities that would keep them occupied. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be strong deterrents in place for anti-social behaviour. These deterrents should include consequences such as community service and fines, as well as punishment. We believe that the police should be doing regular patrols, as well as giving talks to children and teenagers about anti-social behaviour. We also believe that it would be useful to have certain areas where young people can socialise and take part in sports and other activities that would keep them occupied. We believe that education is the key to stopping anti-social behaviour. This is because, while deterrents are important, they do not solve the problem. However, education will stop anti-social behaviour from ever happening, which would be the ideal outcome. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We as a society need to come up with the ways to deter or stop anti-social behaviour that is happening in a great number of areas around the country. We do not want these behaviours to go on and so as a group, we have come up with the following statement. We believe that stronger deterrents such as fines and consequences, such as community service, should be used. In schools and other public places, the police should have to do regular checks, make an effort to engage with young people and engage with the schools about anti-social behaviour to prevent young people from engaging in it in the future. We think that other places that young people can socialise and play sport should also be provided by the local government in areas where these behaviours occur so as to give young people something to do. On the whole, we believe that more education on anti-social behaviour needs to be given, both at home and in school, to prevent this from happening again. While this is happening, we also believe that stronger deterrents should be used, such as, consequences and punishment. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001376.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001376.soc index 6fed18e1..fec2aba2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001376.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001376.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is a flawed policy. While the unhealthy effects of fast food are well-known, there are significant flaws in a policy which would seek to ban fast food chains from operating near schools. While banning fast food chains from operating near schools would likely have a beneficial short-term affect, in the long term we believe that this change isn't enough (it's not overarching enough and children who are determined to eat fast food would just go out of their way to find it) and secondly that it's an unnecessary overstep which inconveniences others who aren't school pupils. This change isn't enough because it doesn't directly address the source of the issue - childhood obesity - which needs to be solved through factors like education instead of punitive and regressive interventionist measures like taxes and availability that serve to impede healthy consenting adults too. We must remember that the onus is not on policy to provide children with what is best for them, but rather on parents. A responsible parent would educate their child on the health risks associated with fast food and do their best to avoid it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be educated by parents about the harmful effects of fast food and where possible the school should assist in the education process, however this should not come at the expense of parents and children who do not wish to change their diet. Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools because this would be an overreach which inconveniences other members of the community. Fast food chains near schools should be encouraged to offer healthy options on their menu. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Policy which seeks to ban fast food chains from operating near schools is flawed. Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is not likely to have the desired effect as the majority of children will continue to access it via different means, namely travelling further or from home. This is because fast food chains are available throughout the country in many outlets, an abundance of home dining options exist, and fast food is a cheap alternative to healthy diets. Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is an unnecessary overreach and limits freedom of choice for those who aren't children. We need to educate children on the importance of healthy eating, which has been proven to have many more benefits beyond weight management. Conclusion I believe that this experience makes a good case for the importance of the consensus experience in online discussion forums. By engaging in the asynchronous active consensus discussion with critical examination of viewpoints, participants are able to open up their mind to alternative views. Participants who are committed enough to engage in the active consensus process and spend time writing critiques, and ultimately revise their own views are far more likely to think critically about the experience, and therefore learn more from the process than participants who just have their own viewpoints presented to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Proximity is a contentious issue with regards to fast food bans near schools, however it should be considered as only one factor amongst many that cause childhood obesity and not the single solution as some policies may imply. In addition, there is an overreach with attempts to ban fast food chains near schools. Rather than ban fast food chains near schools, there should be a push to provide fast food with healthy options and ensure food provided within schools is healthy. Children should be educated about the health risks associated with fast food, however children will also need to be educated about the health risks of foods commonly served at home. We believe that if a child is obese, there are causes that are unlikely to be solely in their control. We would encourage and congratulate policies that seek to reduce the addictive appeal of fast food, alongside a firm push towards healthy lifestyles and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is a flawed policy. While the unhealthy effects of fast food are well-known, there are significant flaws in a policy which would seek to ban fast food chains from operating near schools. While banning fast food chains from operating near schools would likely have a beneficial short-term affect, in the long term we believe that this change isn't enough (it's not overarching enough and children who are determined to eat fast food would just go out of their way to find it) and secondly that it's an unnecessary overstep which inconveniences others who aren't school pupils. This change isn't enough because it doesn't directly address the source of the issue - childhood obesity - which needs to be solved through factors like education instead of punitive and regressive interventionist measures like taxes and availability that serve to impede healthy consenting adults too. We must remember that the onus is not on policy to provide children with what is best for them, but rather on parents. A responsible parent would educate their child on the health risks associated with fast food and do their best to avoid it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be educated by parents about the harmful effects of fast food and where possible the school should assist in the education process, however this should not come at the expense of parents and children who do not wish to change their diet. Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools because this would be an overreach which inconveniences other members of the community. Fast food chains near schools should be encouraged to offer healthy options on their menu. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Policy which seeks to ban fast food chains from operating near schools is flawed. Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is not likely to have the desired effect as the majority of children will continue to access it via different means, namely travelling further or from home. This is because fast food chains are available throughout the country in many outlets, an abundance of home dining options exist, and fast food is a cheap alternative to healthy diets. Banning fast food chains from operating near schools is an unnecessary overreach and limits freedom of choice for those who aren't children. We need to educate children on the importance of healthy eating, which has been proven to have many more benefits beyond weight management. Conclusion I believe that this experience makes a good case for the importance of the consensus experience in online discussion forums. By engaging in the asynchronous active consensus discussion with critical examination of viewpoints, participants are able to open up their mind to alternative views. Participants who are committed enough to engage in the active consensus process and spend time writing critiques, and ultimately revise their own views are far more likely to think critically about the experience, and therefore learn more from the process than participants who just have their own viewpoints presented to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Proximity is a contentious issue with regards to fast food bans near schools, however it should be considered as only one factor amongst many that cause childhood obesity and not the single solution as some policies may imply. In addition, there is an overreach with attempts to ban fast food chains near schools. Rather than ban fast food chains near schools, there should be a push to provide fast food with healthy options and ensure food provided within schools is healthy. Children should be educated about the health risks associated with fast food, however children will also need to be educated about the health risks of foods commonly served at home. We believe that if a child is obese, there are causes that are unlikely to be solely in their control. We would encourage and congratulate policies that seek to reduce the addictive appeal of fast food, alongside a firm push towards healthy lifestyles and education. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001377.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001377.soc index d4ae7617..b4b794c0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001377.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001377.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Though it is important for children to be taught about their sexual rights, we also need to recognise that some parents may not feel comfortable with the information that may be presented in sex education classes. Therefore, we agree that parents should be able to opt out of sex education classes for their children. However, we also believe that sex education is an important part of a child’s development. If parents opt out, they should be required to undertake their own sex education with their child, and we should ensure that children receive a minimum standard of sex education from their parents. We would also recommend that other parents are not allowed to opt out of sex education classes, to prevent any one child being disadvantaged or discriminated against. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is important for children to be taught about sexual health and their sexual rights, we also need to recognise that some parents may not feel comfortable with the information that may be presented in sex education classes. Therefore, we agree that parents should be able to opt out of sex education classes for their children. However, we also believe that sex education is an important part of a child’s development. If parents opt out, they should be required to undertake their own sex education with their child, and we should ensure that children receive a minimum standard of sex education from their parents. We would also recommend that other parents are not allowed to opt out of sex education classes, to prevent any one child being disadvantaged or discriminated against. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Parental rights should be respected when it comes to a child's education, including sex education. However, it is in the child's best interests that they receive a baseline sex education from their parents. Therefore, we would recommend that parents who choose to opt out of sex education for their children also be required to deliver their own sex education to their child, which we would expect to be a minimum of no less than what would be taught in sex education classes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be taught about sexual health and their sexual rights. However, we also need to recognise that some parents may not feel comfortable with the information that may be presented in sex education classes. Therefore, we agree that parents should be able to opt out of sex education classes for their children. However, we also believe that sex education is an important part of a child’s development. If parents opt out, they should be required to undertake their own sex education with their child, and we should ensure that children receive a minimum standard of sex education from their parents. We would also recommend that other parents are not allowed to opt out of sex education classes, to prevent any one child being disadvantaged or discriminated against. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Though it is important for children to be taught about their sexual rights, we also need to recognise that some parents may not feel comfortable with the information that may be presented in sex education classes. Therefore, we agree that parents should be able to opt out of sex education classes for their children. However, we also believe that sex education is an important part of a child’s development. If parents opt out, they should be required to undertake their own sex education with their child, and we should ensure that children receive a minimum standard of sex education from their parents. We would also recommend that other parents are not allowed to opt out of sex education classes, to prevent any one child being disadvantaged or discriminated against. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is important for children to be taught about sexual health and their sexual rights, we also need to recognise that some parents may not feel comfortable with the information that may be presented in sex education classes. Therefore, we agree that parents should be able to opt out of sex education classes for their children. However, we also believe that sex education is an important part of a child’s development. If parents opt out, they should be required to undertake their own sex education with their child, and we should ensure that children receive a minimum standard of sex education from their parents. We would also recommend that other parents are not allowed to opt out of sex education classes, to prevent any one child being disadvantaged or discriminated against. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Parental rights should be respected when it comes to a child's education, including sex education. However, it is in the child's best interests that they receive a baseline sex education from their parents. Therefore, we would recommend that parents who choose to opt out of sex education for their children also be required to deliver their own sex education to their child, which we would expect to be a minimum of no less than what would be taught in sex education classes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be taught about sexual health and their sexual rights. However, we also need to recognise that some parents may not feel comfortable with the information that may be presented in sex education classes. Therefore, we agree that parents should be able to opt out of sex education classes for their children. However, we also believe that sex education is an important part of a child’s development. If parents opt out, they should be required to undertake their own sex education with their child, and we should ensure that children receive a minimum standard of sex education from their parents. We would also recommend that other parents are not allowed to opt out of sex education classes, to prevent any one child being disadvantaged or discriminated against. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001378.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001378.soc index 7afd4301..23e6bb38 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001378.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001378.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Most school exams are not too easy, but they could be more challenging. This is to allow students to fulfil their full potential, and also to help distinguish between students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group felt that school exams vary greatly in difficulty. We agreed that most exams are suitable for the majority of students who work hard and have reasonable aspirations. However, we did agree that there is a worrying trend of dumbing down exams, especially in England, in an attempt to ensure students are not demoralised by failure. We felt that there are far too many top grades and this devalues them. In general, we felt that exams should be of a sufficiently high level to provide a challenge to even the most capable students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Most school exams are adequately challenging. The level of challenge in exams is very dependent on the subject and grade level. Some exams may be too easy for the more advanced students, and other exams may be too difficult for students who are struggling. It is difficult to make a blanket statement that categorizes most school exams as universally too easy or too difficult. However, It is worth noting that opinions on the difficult of exams can vary from students, teachers, and educational experts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Most school exams are not too easy but they could be a lot more challenging. There are some people that would feel that they are not overly challenging, and some people that would feel that they are overly challenging. Some exam grades could be changed to show a wider gap between different grades. There is a big gap between the highest grades, but not as much of a gap between the lower grades. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Most school exams are not too easy, but they could be more challenging. This is to allow students to fulfil their full potential, and also to help distinguish between students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group felt that school exams vary greatly in difficulty. We agreed that most exams are suitable for the majority of students who work hard and have reasonable aspirations. However, we did agree that there is a worrying trend of dumbing down exams, especially in England, in an attempt to ensure students are not demoralised by failure. We felt that there are far too many top grades and this devalues them. In general, we felt that exams should be of a sufficiently high level to provide a challenge to even the most capable students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Most school exams are adequately challenging. The level of challenge in exams is very dependent on the subject and grade level. Some exams may be too easy for the more advanced students, and other exams may be too difficult for students who are struggling. It is difficult to make a blanket statement that categorizes most school exams as universally too easy or too difficult. However, It is worth noting that opinions on the difficult of exams can vary from students, teachers, and educational experts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Most school exams are not too easy but they could be a lot more challenging. There are some people that would feel that they are not overly challenging, and some people that would feel that they are overly challenging. Some exam grades could be changed to show a wider gap between different grades. There is a big gap between the highest grades, but not as much of a gap between the lower grades. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001379.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001379.soc index 169cbf81..9ff1c42a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001379.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001379.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Businesses should not be required to allow workers to take more holidays. If employees feel they are overworked, then they should be given the option of working from home or working part time. This would allow employees to work in a way that suits them and would also allow them to spend more time with their families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Businesses should not be required to allow their employees to take more holidays. The number of holidays should be based on the length of service and the performance of the employee. Businesses should allow their employees to take holidays at times when it is convenient for them and the business. The employee should be given incentives for good performance and for working extra hours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Some companies should allow their employees to take more holidays if they feel they can manage the work load. The employees should also be able to offer ways of coping with the extra time off and may include working longer hours at quieter times throughout the year. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think businesses should be allowed to allow their workers to have more holidays if the employees have worked for a considerable time with the company and have been performing well in their roles. The extra holidays could be an incentive for staff to stay with that company. If businesses choose to offer this to their staff it is essential that they do not risk the overall company by having too many staff members away at once. It is important to understand that a person needs a break from work every so often to keep their minds refreshed. A fresh mind will be able to work more efficiently and so a business can only benefit from this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Businesses should not be required to allow workers to take more holidays. If employees feel they are overworked, then they should be given the option of working from home or working part time. This would allow employees to work in a way that suits them and would also allow them to spend more time with their families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Businesses should not be required to allow their employees to take more holidays. The number of holidays should be based on the length of service and the performance of the employee. Businesses should allow their employees to take holidays at times when it is convenient for them and the business. The employee should be given incentives for good performance and for working extra hours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Some companies should allow their employees to take more holidays if they feel they can manage the work load. The employees should also be able to offer ways of coping with the extra time off and may include working longer hours at quieter times throughout the year. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think businesses should be allowed to allow their workers to have more holidays if the employees have worked for a considerable time with the company and have been performing well in their roles. The extra holidays could be an incentive for staff to stay with that company. If businesses choose to offer this to their staff it is essential that they do not risk the overall company by having too many staff members away at once. It is important to understand that a person needs a break from work every so often to keep their minds refreshed. A fresh mind will be able to work more efficiently and so a business can only benefit from this. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001380.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001380.soc index 6ab4daf1..1878edec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001380.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001380.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the notion of for-profit corporations running state schools is a dangerous one. Education is a right, not a commodity. The idea of profit being made from an education is an abhorrent one. The idea of for-profit corporations being allowed to run schools in general is an abhorrent one. If such corporations wish to invest in education, they should look at private schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that education is too important to be left to a for-profit corporation to manage. The well-being of children should be placed above profit and this cannot be guaranteed if a corporation runs schools. It would be far better for schools to be run by non-profit entities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. Profit has no place in the education of children, as they should not be used to gain money from. Education is a fundamental right of children, and for-profit corporations will have to make money from it. They may also have the potential to provide sub-standard education for the children and young people in order to meet the profit target. They also pose a threat to teachers’ jobs, which should be protected. We believe that schools should remain in the hands of the government, specifically the Department for Education, and should be run by the civil service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: For-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. The primary reason for this is that for-profit corporations are profit driven, and this will inevitably lead to a lowering of the quality of education for the children. For-profit corporations are also not subject to the same level of scrutiny as non-profit corporations, and this could lead to a lowering of the quality of education. The quality of education is the most important thing for the future of the country, and this should not be left in the hands of a for-profit corporation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the notion of for-profit corporations running state schools is a dangerous one. Education is a right, not a commodity. The idea of profit being made from an education is an abhorrent one. The idea of for-profit corporations being allowed to run schools in general is an abhorrent one. If such corporations wish to invest in education, they should look at private schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that education is too important to be left to a for-profit corporation to manage. The well-being of children should be placed above profit and this cannot be guaranteed if a corporation runs schools. It would be far better for schools to be run by non-profit entities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. Profit has no place in the education of children, as they should not be used to gain money from. Education is a fundamental right of children, and for-profit corporations will have to make money from it. They may also have the potential to provide sub-standard education for the children and young people in order to meet the profit target. They also pose a threat to teachers’ jobs, which should be protected. We believe that schools should remain in the hands of the government, specifically the Department for Education, and should be run by the civil service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - For-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. The primary reason for this is that for-profit corporations are profit driven, and this will inevitably lead to a lowering of the quality of education for the children. For-profit corporations are also not subject to the same level of scrutiny as non-profit corporations, and this could lead to a lowering of the quality of education. The quality of education is the most important thing for the future of the country, and this should not be left in the hands of a for-profit corporation. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001381.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001381.soc index 3e501452..cab9d109 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001381.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001381.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: All public buildings should be required to be accessible for people with disabilities. It is unfair and discriminatory to not allow people with disabilities access to the same buildings as able bodied individuals. It is not too difficult for new buildings to include ramps as well as stairs or for older buildings to have this work done to make buildings more accessible for everyone. The law should be changed to ensure that this is a requirement for all public buildings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “All public buildings should be accessible for people with disabilities. This is not only the right thing to do but also the law. It is not acceptable for anyone to be discriminated against due to their disability. It is also not acceptable for anyone to be put in danger due to a building not being accessible. It is the responsibility of the building owners to ensure that their buildings are accessible for everyone. If this is not possible, then it is the responsibility of the building owners to provide alternative access to the building. This may include a ramp, a lift or some other form of access. It is also the responsibility of the building owners to ensure that their buildings are safe for everyone. This includes ensuring that all fire exits are accessible for everyone and that there are evacuation procedures in place for people with disabilities. It is also the responsibility of the building owners to ensure that their buildings are safe for everyone. This includes ensuring that all fire exits are accessible for everyone and that there are evacuation procedures in place for people with disabilities. It is also the responsibility of the building owners to ensure that their buildings are safe for everyone. This includes ensuring that all fire exits are accessible for everyone and -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: All public buildings should be accessible to everyone. It is not too difficult to install ramps and handrails to ensure that this is the case. Everyone should be able to go in to whichever building they wish to and should be able to do so easily and without assistance. There should be accessible toilets in all public buildings also, as this is essential for people with disabilities. Baby changing facilities should not be in the disabled toilets as this is not fair to the disabled. This is an easy fix for this, simply put the changing table in a general toilet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “All public buildings should be accessible for people with disabilities. It is not fair that people with disabilities should not be able to access buildings that others can. It is also important for people with disabilities to be able to access buildings so that they can be independent and not rely on others to help them. It is also important for people with disabilities to be able to access buildings so that they can have the same opportunities as others and not be discriminated against.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - All public buildings should be required to be accessible for people with disabilities. It is unfair and discriminatory to not allow people with disabilities access to the same buildings as able bodied individuals. It is not too difficult for new buildings to include ramps as well as stairs or for older buildings to have this work done to make buildings more accessible for everyone. The law should be changed to ensure that this is a requirement for all public buildings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “All public buildings should be accessible for people with disabilities. This is not only the right thing to do but also the law. It is not acceptable for anyone to be discriminated against due to their disability. It is also not acceptable for anyone to be put in danger due to a building not being accessible. It is the responsibility of the building owners to ensure that their buildings are accessible for everyone. If this is not possible, then it is the responsibility of the building owners to provide alternative access to the building. This may include a ramp, a lift or some other form of access. It is also the responsibility of the building owners to ensure that their buildings are safe for everyone. This includes ensuring that all fire exits are accessible for everyone and that there are evacuation procedures in place for people with disabilities. It is also the responsibility of the building owners to ensure that their buildings are safe for everyone. This includes ensuring that all fire exits are accessible for everyone and that there are evacuation procedures in place for people with disabilities. It is also the responsibility of the building owners to ensure that their buildings are safe for everyone. This includes ensuring that all fire exits are accessible for everyone and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - All public buildings should be accessible to everyone. It is not too difficult to install ramps and handrails to ensure that this is the case. Everyone should be able to go in to whichever building they wish to and should be able to do so easily and without assistance. There should be accessible toilets in all public buildings also, as this is essential for people with disabilities. Baby changing facilities should not be in the disabled toilets as this is not fair to the disabled. This is an easy fix for this, simply put the changing table in a general toilet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “All public buildings should be accessible for people with disabilities. It is not fair that people with disabilities should not be able to access buildings that others can. It is also important for people with disabilities to be able to access buildings so that they can be independent and not rely on others to help them. It is also important for people with disabilities to be able to access buildings so that they can have the same opportunities as others and not be discriminated against.” 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001382.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001382.soc index 0a149f12..7beb8daf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001382.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001382.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes. Women should be allowed to serve in the military. Women and men have the right to be treated equally and if a woman wants to serve in the military this should be allowed. Women can play an important role in the military and should be allowed to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although women have a physical disadvantage in terms of strength and speed, they have the right to be treated equally and there will be many who are smarter than the men. Therefore if a woman wants to serve in the military this should be allowed. Women can also play an important role in the military, not in the combat, but in other roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that men and women should both be allowed to serve in the military. Women have a range of skills that are important in a variety of roles in the military. Furthermore, the military will be a more effective force if it is comprised of people with a range of different skills. By recruiting people from the widest possible pool, the military can get the most capable people for the widest range of roles. By only recruiting men the military will exclude women who are potentially just as capable as men in a variety of different roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. The group felt that the military would benefit from having a diverse workforce and that the skills and abilities of each individual should be considered rather than their gender. The group felt that the military would be able to provide training for the different roles and that this would help improve the military's adaptability. The group also felt that by allowing both men and women to serve in the military, this would help to promote equality in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes. Women should be allowed to serve in the military. Women and men have the right to be treated equally and if a woman wants to serve in the military this should be allowed. Women can play an important role in the military and should be allowed to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although women have a physical disadvantage in terms of strength and speed, they have the right to be treated equally and there will be many who are smarter than the men. Therefore if a woman wants to serve in the military this should be allowed. Women can also play an important role in the military, not in the combat, but in other roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that men and women should both be allowed to serve in the military. Women have a range of skills that are important in a variety of roles in the military. Furthermore, the military will be a more effective force if it is comprised of people with a range of different skills. By recruiting people from the widest possible pool, the military can get the most capable people for the widest range of roles. By only recruiting men the military will exclude women who are potentially just as capable as men in a variety of different roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. The group felt that the military would benefit from having a diverse workforce and that the skills and abilities of each individual should be considered rather than their gender. The group felt that the military would be able to provide training for the different roles and that this would help improve the military's adaptability. The group also felt that by allowing both men and women to serve in the military, this would help to promote equality in society. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001383.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001383.soc index 294b6b67..6c19fb58 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001383.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001383.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although metric is a more consistent system of measurement, it is more accurate to say that we should use the system we are most comfortable with. For some people this will be imperial and for some people this will be metric. It would therefore be more efficient if people could freely use either system, as long as they communicate which system they are using, as this would avoid confusion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the imperial system of measurement is outdated and should be replaced by the metric system. The imperial system is an arbitrary system that is difficult to learn and understand, especially when compared to the metric system. The metric system is used by the majority of the world and is more practical and easier to understand. The imperial system should be phased out and replaced by the metric system, however this should be done gradually to avoid confusion. The imperial system is still widely used in the United States, so the United States should be allowed to use imperial measurements if they wish. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the imperial system of measurement is outdated and should be replaced by the metric system. The imperial system of measurement is hard to use and remember, and is often mixed with the metric system which causes confusion. The metric system is easier to use and remember, and is used by most countries in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although metric is a more consistent system of measurement, it is more accurate to say that we should use the system we are most comfortable with. For some people this will be imperial and for some people this will be metric. It would therefore be more efficient if people could freely use either system, as long as they communicate which system they are using, as this would avoid confusion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the imperial system of measurement is outdated and should be replaced by the metric system. The imperial system is an arbitrary system that is difficult to learn and understand, especially when compared to the metric system. The metric system is used by the majority of the world and is more practical and easier to understand. The imperial system should be phased out and replaced by the metric system, however this should be done gradually to avoid confusion. The imperial system is still widely used in the United States, so the United States should be allowed to use imperial measurements if they wish. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the imperial system of measurement is outdated and should be replaced by the metric system. The imperial system of measurement is hard to use and remember, and is often mixed with the metric system which causes confusion. The metric system is easier to use and remember, and is used by most countries in the world. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001384.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001384.soc index 0f1a24a4..cbbcd90e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001384.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001384.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was agreed that the income tax system should not be replaced with an additional value added tax. The group felt that this would increase the cost of living for everyone and not necessarily encourage people to budget more effectively. The group also felt that the system of paying income tax is fair and that a new tax on goods and services would increase the tax burden on the less well off. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have come to the conclusion that we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. We already pay plenty of tax, and inflation will mean that we pay more tax every year cumulatively, so it makes no difference whether we pay an additional VAT. However, it may encourage people to spend less money on goods and services, which will negatively impact the economy. We believe that those with higher incomes should be taxed more and those in the median range should be taxed less. Adding VAT to goods and services would punish those who earn less. This might help people to budget more effectively as they have more of a choice as to paying the tax or not. We do not think it is necessary to replace the income tax with an additional added tax. We already pay tax on goods and services so there is no need to add an additional tax. We pay enough. No income tax is deducted at a level once people have earned a basic level of income. Adding extra VAT increases the cost straight away on goods and services making items more expensive for everyone regardless of income. This passes more of the tax burden lower down.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We believe that we should not replace income tax with VAT. VAT would mean that everyone pays tax on the goods and services that they purchase, and this would impact the poorest people the most. The income tax system already taxes people on their income, and it would be unfair to replace this with an additional tax on goods and services.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are arguments on both sides, we believe that a VAT on goods and services will only add to the tax burden of lower income earners who already pay the highest proportion of their income in tax. It would also increase the price of goods and services, which would also negatively impact the economy. We therefore do not believe that we should replace income tax with an additional VAT. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was agreed that the income tax system should not be replaced with an additional value added tax. The group felt that this would increase the cost of living for everyone and not necessarily encourage people to budget more effectively. The group also felt that the system of paying income tax is fair and that a new tax on goods and services would increase the tax burden on the less well off. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have come to the conclusion that we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. We already pay plenty of tax, and inflation will mean that we pay more tax every year cumulatively, so it makes no difference whether we pay an additional VAT. However, it may encourage people to spend less money on goods and services, which will negatively impact the economy. We believe that those with higher incomes should be taxed more and those in the median range should be taxed less. Adding VAT to goods and services would punish those who earn less. This might help people to budget more effectively as they have more of a choice as to paying the tax or not. We do not think it is necessary to replace the income tax with an additional added tax. We already pay tax on goods and services so there is no need to add an additional tax. We pay enough. No income tax is deducted at a level once people have earned a basic level of income. Adding extra VAT increases the cost straight away on goods and services making items more expensive for everyone regardless of income. This passes more of the tax burden lower down.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We believe that we should not replace income tax with VAT. VAT would mean that everyone pays tax on the goods and services that they purchase, and this would impact the poorest people the most. The income tax system already taxes people on their income, and it would be unfair to replace this with an additional tax on goods and services.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are arguments on both sides, we believe that a VAT on goods and services will only add to the tax burden of lower income earners who already pay the highest proportion of their income in tax. It would also increase the price of goods and services, which would also negatively impact the economy. We therefore do not believe that we should replace income tax with an additional VAT. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001385.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001385.soc index 1a023200..3ba0f8e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001385.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001385.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of putting more money into the arts. However, there was a strong feeling that the money should be spent on making the arts more accessible to everyone, rather than just on a select few. The group felt that it was important that the arts were not seen as an elitist pursuit, but rather as something that was for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the government should be putting more money into the arts. If they put money into the creative arts industry, more jobs will be created and more people will be able to work, so there's less unemployment. Also, creative arts jobs can be high-paying, because the jobs can be highly-skilled, so there will be more income for people, which will help businesses that rely on income from the creative arts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of putting more money into the arts. However, it was also felt that the money should be spent in a way that benefits the whole community and not just a small number of people. It was felt that a lot of the money spent on the arts is wasted because it is spent on things that are not accessible to the whole community. The arts should be accessible to everyone and it was felt that there is a need for more arts in schools and in the community. It was felt that the arts should be made accessible to everyone and not just to those who can afford it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that a little more money should be spent on the arts, but only as a last resort, as there are more pressing matters that need to be dealt with first. The creative arts industry is a unique industry, in the sense that the value added to the economy, can be much larger than the value of the creative work, itself. For example, if I write a book and it sells a few copies, if it is adapted into a play in the theatre or a movie at the cinema, the value produced is much greater when it's superimposed, than by itself. The Gross Value Added is greater than the Gross Sales Revenue. Overall, for every £1 spent in producing creative arts by grinding the gears, £3 gets added into the economy from all the ancillary activity that such work helps to foster. However, it must be remembered that the creative arts industry is still an industry. The artists themselves have to make a living and earn a profit from their work. And the more profit they can earn, the more money they can invest back into their work. Therefore, we believe that the arts should be self sustaining, as they have been for the majority of human history, where artists +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of putting more money into the arts. However, there was a strong feeling that the money should be spent on making the arts more accessible to everyone, rather than just on a select few. The group felt that it was important that the arts were not seen as an elitist pursuit, but rather as something that was for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the government should be putting more money into the arts. If they put money into the creative arts industry, more jobs will be created and more people will be able to work, so there's less unemployment. Also, creative arts jobs can be high-paying, because the jobs can be highly-skilled, so there will be more income for people, which will help businesses that rely on income from the creative arts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of putting more money into the arts. However, it was also felt that the money should be spent in a way that benefits the whole community and not just a small number of people. It was felt that a lot of the money spent on the arts is wasted because it is spent on things that are not accessible to the whole community. The arts should be accessible to everyone and it was felt that there is a need for more arts in schools and in the community. It was felt that the arts should be made accessible to everyone and not just to those who can afford it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that a little more money should be spent on the arts, but only as a last resort, as there are more pressing matters that need to be dealt with first. The creative arts industry is a unique industry, in the sense that the value added to the economy, can be much larger than the value of the creative work, itself. For example, if I write a book and it sells a few copies, if it is adapted into a play in the theatre or a movie at the cinema, the value produced is much greater when it's superimposed, than by itself. The Gross Value Added is greater than the Gross Sales Revenue. Overall, for every £1 spent in producing creative arts by grinding the gears, £3 gets added into the economy from all the ancillary activity that such work helps to foster. However, it must be remembered that the creative arts industry is still an industry. The artists themselves have to make a living and earn a profit from their work. And the more profit they can earn, the more money they can invest back into their work. Therefore, we believe that the arts should be self sustaining, as they have been for the majority of human history, where artists 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001386.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001386.soc index 88ebf8fb..d44bb5d8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001386.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001386.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, there should be a higher minimum wage. We don't believe it is right for companies to pay people in the lowest paid jobs peanuts when those at the top of the company are getting paid a 100 times more than the lowest paid employees. It is also not fair that the lowest paid workers are getting paid a wage which is not enough to pay their rent, or to feed their family, or to put food on the table. People who work deserve a decent standard of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is going up all the time and most people are struggling financially. There should be an increase in the minimum wage to allow people to afford basic necessities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into austerity. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a higher minimum wage because the cost of living is going up and the current minimum wage is too low. People deserve a decent standard of living and the current minimum wage is not enough to provide this. The current minimum wage is not enough to provide a basic standard of living. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. It would also mean that people would not be reliant on the social system and would be able to support themselves and their families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, there should be a higher minimum wage. We don't believe it is right for companies to pay people in the lowest paid jobs peanuts when those at the top of the company are getting paid a 100 times more than the lowest paid employees. It is also not fair that the lowest paid workers are getting paid a wage which is not enough to pay their rent, or to feed their family, or to put food on the table. People who work deserve a decent standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is going up all the time and most people are struggling financially. There should be an increase in the minimum wage to allow people to afford basic necessities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into austerity. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a higher minimum wage because the cost of living is going up and the current minimum wage is too low. People deserve a decent standard of living and the current minimum wage is not enough to provide this. The current minimum wage is not enough to provide a basic standard of living. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. It would also mean that people would not be reliant on the social system and would be able to support themselves and their families. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001387.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001387.soc index c8f2e778..1c4c5ed5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001387.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001387.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe employees should be offered more holidays for length of service and targets achieved. This will only be beneficial to the business if employees do not take too much time off at once and may sometimes even push employees to work harder to achieve their objectives. After-all, a fresh mind is vital to a healthy business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that businesses should be allowed to allow their workers to have more holidays if the employees have worked for a considerable time with the company and have been performing well in their roles. The extra holidays could be an incentive for staff to stay with that company. If businesses choose to offer this to their staff it is essential that they do not risk the overall company by having too many staff members away at once. It is important to understand that a person needs a break from work every so often to keep their minds refreshed. A fresh mind will be able to work more efficiently and so a business can only benefit from this. We also agree that there should be a system in place to prevent to many staff being off at the same time so it would work for all parties concerned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think businesses should be allowed to allow their workers to have more holidays if the employees have worked for a considerable time with the company and have been performing well in their roles. The extra holidays could be an incentive for staff to stay with that company. If businesses choose to offer this to their staff it is essential that they do not risk the overall company by having too many staff members away at once. It is important to understand that a person needs a break from work every so often to keep their minds refreshed. A fresh mind will be able to work more efficiently and so a business can only benefit from this. The extra holidays should not be handed to the staff on a plate but as an incentive for them to perform better, keep their place in the company and be seen as committed members of the workforce. It is essential that it is stated that staff need to maintain the balance between work and home life by not working so hard that the result is a chronic lack of free time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Businesses should be allowed to allow their workers to have more holidays if the employees have worked for a considerable time with the company and have been performing well in their roles. The extra holidays could be an incentive for staff to stay with that company. If businesses choose to offer this to their staff it is essential that they do not risk the overall company by having too many staff members away at once. It is important to understand that a person needs a break from work every so often to keep their minds refreshed. A fresh mind will be able to work more efficiently and so a business can only benefit from this. It is also important to keep an eye on the amount of staff absent at any one time to ensure that the business does not suffer as a result. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe employees should be offered more holidays for length of service and targets achieved. This will only be beneficial to the business if employees do not take too much time off at once and may sometimes even push employees to work harder to achieve their objectives. After-all, a fresh mind is vital to a healthy business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that businesses should be allowed to allow their workers to have more holidays if the employees have worked for a considerable time with the company and have been performing well in their roles. The extra holidays could be an incentive for staff to stay with that company. If businesses choose to offer this to their staff it is essential that they do not risk the overall company by having too many staff members away at once. It is important to understand that a person needs a break from work every so often to keep their minds refreshed. A fresh mind will be able to work more efficiently and so a business can only benefit from this. We also agree that there should be a system in place to prevent to many staff being off at the same time so it would work for all parties concerned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think businesses should be allowed to allow their workers to have more holidays if the employees have worked for a considerable time with the company and have been performing well in their roles. The extra holidays could be an incentive for staff to stay with that company. If businesses choose to offer this to their staff it is essential that they do not risk the overall company by having too many staff members away at once. It is important to understand that a person needs a break from work every so often to keep their minds refreshed. A fresh mind will be able to work more efficiently and so a business can only benefit from this. The extra holidays should not be handed to the staff on a plate but as an incentive for them to perform better, keep their place in the company and be seen as committed members of the workforce. It is essential that it is stated that staff need to maintain the balance between work and home life by not working so hard that the result is a chronic lack of free time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Businesses should be allowed to allow their workers to have more holidays if the employees have worked for a considerable time with the company and have been performing well in their roles. The extra holidays could be an incentive for staff to stay with that company. If businesses choose to offer this to their staff it is essential that they do not risk the overall company by having too many staff members away at once. It is important to understand that a person needs a break from work every so often to keep their minds refreshed. A fresh mind will be able to work more efficiently and so a business can only benefit from this. It is also important to keep an eye on the amount of staff absent at any one time to ensure that the business does not suffer as a result. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001388.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001388.soc index ee64f38c..1aadec9e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001388.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001388.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. The group felt that the military would benefit from having a diverse workforce and that the skills and abilities of each individual should be considered rather than their gender. The group felt that the military would be able to provide training for the different roles and that this would help improve the military's adaptability. By allowing both men and women to serve in the military, this would help to promote equality in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. The group felt that the military would benefit from having a diverse workforce and that the skills and abilities of each individual should be considered rather than their gender. The group felt that the military would be able to provide training for the different roles and that this would help improve the military's adaptability. The group also felt that by allowing both men and women to serve in the military, this would help to promote equality in society. The group also acknowledged that women may not be as suited to some roles as men due to differences in physical abilities, however felt that women could contribute in other roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no gender discrimination when it comes to serving in the military. Both men and women should be able to serve, and should be placed in roles that match their abilities and skills, rather than their gender. This will increase the adaptability of the military, and also help to promote equality in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. The group felt that the military would benefit from having a diverse workforce and that the skills and abilities of each individual should be considered rather than their gender. The group felt that the military would be able to provide training for the different roles and that this would help improve the military's adaptability. The group also felt that by allowing both men and women to serve in the military, this would help to promote equality in society. However, this equality should be used in terms of choosing the most appropriate and skilled person for each role, rather than simply promoting women as leaders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. The group felt that the military would benefit from having a diverse workforce and that the skills and abilities of each individual should be considered rather than their gender. The group felt that the military would be able to provide training for the different roles and that this would help improve the military's adaptability. By allowing both men and women to serve in the military, this would help to promote equality in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. The group felt that the military would benefit from having a diverse workforce and that the skills and abilities of each individual should be considered rather than their gender. The group felt that the military would be able to provide training for the different roles and that this would help improve the military's adaptability. The group also felt that by allowing both men and women to serve in the military, this would help to promote equality in society. The group also acknowledged that women may not be as suited to some roles as men due to differences in physical abilities, however felt that women could contribute in other roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no gender discrimination when it comes to serving in the military. Both men and women should be able to serve, and should be placed in roles that match their abilities and skills, rather than their gender. This will increase the adaptability of the military, and also help to promote equality in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. The group felt that the military would benefit from having a diverse workforce and that the skills and abilities of each individual should be considered rather than their gender. The group felt that the military would be able to provide training for the different roles and that this would help improve the military's adaptability. The group also felt that by allowing both men and women to serve in the military, this would help to promote equality in society. However, this equality should be used in terms of choosing the most appropriate and skilled person for each role, rather than simply promoting women as leaders. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001389.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001389.soc index d44d1c5d..1ed36c7c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001389.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001389.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was agreed that the packaging should be biodegradable and made from recycled material. Plastic is not sustainable or environmentally friendly so should be replaced with another product. Single use containers are good for people on the go but we need to make a conscious effort to reduce the amount of waste produced and make products that are easy to recycle and reuse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should reduce the amount of single-use food containers and where possible we should replace these with biodegradable and sustainable alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the use of single-use food containers should be reduced as much as possible. We believe that this can be achieved by encouraging businesses to move to sustainable and biodegradable alternatives to single use plastic. We also believe that the use of single use food containers should be banned in instances where the use of such containers is not necessary. For example, we believe that takeaway restaurants should be encouraged to move to biodegradable containers, and that the use of single use plastic food containers should be banned in instances where the use of such containers is not necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Single use food containers should not be banned but should be made from more sustainable materials. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was agreed that the packaging should be biodegradable and made from recycled material. Plastic is not sustainable or environmentally friendly so should be replaced with another product. Single use containers are good for people on the go but we need to make a conscious effort to reduce the amount of waste produced and make products that are easy to recycle and reuse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should reduce the amount of single-use food containers and where possible we should replace these with biodegradable and sustainable alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the use of single-use food containers should be reduced as much as possible. We believe that this can be achieved by encouraging businesses to move to sustainable and biodegradable alternatives to single use plastic. We also believe that the use of single use food containers should be banned in instances where the use of such containers is not necessary. For example, we believe that takeaway restaurants should be encouraged to move to biodegradable containers, and that the use of single use plastic food containers should be banned in instances where the use of such containers is not necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Single use food containers should not be banned but should be made from more sustainable materials. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001390.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001390.soc index f2357243..eff03801 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001390.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001390.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate. This should be done gradually, with enough time for people to get used to metric measurements. It is important to recognise that some people may find it difficult to learn to use the metric system of measurement, and therefore the transition to using only metric should be made slowly and not enforced on people who do not want to use it.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate. In regards to young people using the metric system, they should not be forced to learn the imperial system as a second system, as it may be inefficient and unnecessary. Instead, they should be educated on the history and function of the imperial system and be made aware of its existence and relationship to the metric system.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate, as this would greatly help to eradicate some confusion. Additionally, this gradual phasing out of the imperial system of measurement would reduce some redundancy in different systems of measurement throughout the world.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate. This should be done gradually, with enough time for people to get used to metric measurements. It is important to recognise that some people may find it difficult to learn to use the metric system of measurement, and therefore the transition to using only metric should be made slowly and not enforced on people who do not want to use it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate. In regards to young people using the metric system, they should not be forced to learn the imperial system as a second system, as it may be inefficient and unnecessary. Instead, they should be educated on the history and function of the imperial system and be made aware of its existence and relationship to the metric system.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The imperial system of measurement has become archaic and in many ways is a hindrance to efficient communication and measurement. This is particularly true when one compares it to the metric system. The metric system allows for a much easier understanding of measurement as the measurements relate to one another by a factor of ten. Imperial measurements on the other hand have arbitrary relationships to one another and are less easy to learn. While we should not insist that the imperial system of measurement be dropped entirely, it should be phased out and used only in rare circumstances where the use of the metric system would be inappropriate, as this would greatly help to eradicate some confusion. Additionally, this gradual phasing out of the imperial system of measurement would reduce some redundancy in different systems of measurement throughout the world.” 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001391.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001391.soc index 0eb12ee8..ec11db27 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001391.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001391.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. We have a lot to offer other countries and should not lose our identity by becoming part of a larger globalised world. The UK is made up of many different races and religions and this is something to be celebrated. The UK has a lot to offer other countries in terms of our NHS, vaccines and financial services. The UK has a long history of being a global player and this is something we should be proud of and continue to be. The UK is still a good financial hub with very intelligent people who can navigate big amounts of money in a variety of different markets. We are not as well linked to Europe as we used to be, and this is something we should work on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. We have a lot to offer other countries and should not lose our identity by becoming part of a larger globalised world. The UK is made up of many different races and religions and this is something to be celebrated. The UK has a lot to offer other countries in terms of our NHS, vaccine research and financial services. The UK has a long history of being a global player and this is something we should be proud of and continue to be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. We have a lot to offer other countries in terms of our NHS, vaccines and financial services. We have a long history of being a global player and this is something we should be proud of and continue to be. We should not lose our identity by becoming part of a larger globalised world. Conclusion: By allowing dissenting viewpoints to be taken into account, I found that a much more powerful and persuasive statement resulted. Although, admittedly, this is something that people would expect in a group setting and that is clearly illustrated from some of the critiques above e.g. participant 1 was not concerned by issues mentioned such as immigration, vaccines etc. because these factors have already been taken into account. The resulting statement does, however, aspire to take all viewpoints into account and is strong because of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. We have a lot to offer other countries and should not lose our identity by becoming part of a larger globalised world. The UK is made up of many different races and religions and this is something to be celebrated. The UK has a lot to offer other countries in terms of our NHS, vaccines and financial services. The UK has a long history of being a global player and this is something we should be proud of and continue to be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. We have a lot to offer other countries and should not lose our identity by becoming part of a larger globalised world. The UK is made up of many different races and religions and this is something to be celebrated. The UK has a lot to offer other countries in terms of our NHS, vaccines and financial services. The UK has a long history of being a global player and this is something we should be proud of and continue to be. The UK is still a good financial hub with very intelligent people who can navigate big amounts of money in a variety of different markets. We are not as well linked to Europe as we used to be, and this is something we should work on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. We have a lot to offer other countries and should not lose our identity by becoming part of a larger globalised world. The UK is made up of many different races and religions and this is something to be celebrated. The UK has a lot to offer other countries in terms of our NHS, vaccine research and financial services. The UK has a long history of being a global player and this is something we should be proud of and continue to be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. We have a lot to offer other countries in terms of our NHS, vaccines and financial services. We have a long history of being a global player and this is something we should be proud of and continue to be. We should not lose our identity by becoming part of a larger globalised world. Conclusion: By allowing dissenting viewpoints to be taken into account, I found that a much more powerful and persuasive statement resulted. Although, admittedly, this is something that people would expect in a group setting and that is clearly illustrated from some of the critiques above e.g. participant 1 was not concerned by issues mentioned such as immigration, vaccines etc. because these factors have already been taken into account. The resulting statement does, however, aspire to take all viewpoints into account and is strong because of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. We have a lot to offer other countries and should not lose our identity by becoming part of a larger globalised world. The UK is made up of many different races and religions and this is something to be celebrated. The UK has a lot to offer other countries in terms of our NHS, vaccines and financial services. The UK has a long history of being a global player and this is something we should be proud of and continue to be. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001392.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001392.soc index 65e56052..f3d11f99 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001392.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001392.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have come to the conclusion that we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. We already pay plenty of tax, and inflation will mean that we pay more tax every year cumulatively, so it makes no difference whether we pay an additional VAT. However, it may encourage people to spend less money on goods and services, which will negatively impact the economy. We believe that those with higher incomes should be taxed more and those in the median range should be taxed less. Adding VAT to goods and services would punish those who earn less. No income tax is deducted at a level once people have earned a basic level of income. Adding extra VAT increases the cost straight away on goods and services making items more expensive for everyone regardless of income. This passes more of the tax burden lower down. We think that this might help people to budget more effectively as they have more of a choice as to paying the tax or not. We do not think it is necessary to replace the income tax with an additional added tax. We already pay tax on goods and services so there is no need to add an additional tax. We pay enough.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We have come to the conclusion that we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. We already pay plenty of tax, and inflation will mean that we pay more tax every year cumulatively, so it makes no difference whether we pay an additional VAT. However, it may encourage people to spend less money on goods and services, which will negatively impact the economy. We believe that those with higher incomes should be taxed more and those in the median range should be taxed less. Adding VAT to goods and services would punish those who earn less. This might help people to budget more effectively as they have more of a choice as to paying the tax or not. We do not think it is necessary to replace the income tax with an additional added tax. We already pay tax on goods and services so there is no need to add an additional tax. We pay enough. No income tax is deducted at a level once people have earned a basic level of income. Adding extra VAT increases the cost straight away on goods and services making items more expensive for everyone regardless of income. This passes more of the tax burden lower down.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus statement from group of participants: We have come to the conclusion that we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. We already pay plenty of tax, and inflation will mean that we pay more tax every year cumulatively, so it makes no difference whether we pay an additional VAT. However, it may encourage people to spend less money on goods and services, which will negatively impact the economy. We believe that those with higher incomes should be taxed more and those in the median range should be taxed less. Adding VAT to goods and services would punish those who earn less. We do not think it is necessary to replace the income tax with an additional added tax. We already pay tax on goods and services so there is no need to add an additional tax. We pay enough. No income tax is deducted at a level once people have earned a basic level of income. Adding extra VAT increases the cost straight away on goods and services making items more expensive for everyone regardless of income. This passes more of the tax burden lower down.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have come to the conclusion that we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. We already pay plenty of tax, and inflation will mean that we pay more tax every year cumulatively, so it makes no difference whether we pay an additional VAT. However, it may encourage people to spend less money on goods and services, which will negatively impact the economy. We believe that those with higher incomes should be taxed more and those in the median range should be taxed less. Adding VAT to goods and services would punish those who earn less. No income tax is deducted at a level once people have earned a basic level of income. Adding extra VAT increases the cost straight away on goods and services making items more expensive for everyone regardless of income. This passes more of the tax burden lower down. We think that this might help people to budget more effectively as they have more of a choice as to paying the tax or not. We do not think it is necessary to replace the income tax with an additional added tax. We already pay tax on goods and services so there is no need to add an additional tax. We pay enough.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We have come to the conclusion that we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. We already pay plenty of tax, and inflation will mean that we pay more tax every year cumulatively, so it makes no difference whether we pay an additional VAT. However, it may encourage people to spend less money on goods and services, which will negatively impact the economy. We believe that those with higher incomes should be taxed more and those in the median range should be taxed less. Adding VAT to goods and services would punish those who earn less. This might help people to budget more effectively as they have more of a choice as to paying the tax or not. We do not think it is necessary to replace the income tax with an additional added tax. We already pay tax on goods and services so there is no need to add an additional tax. We pay enough. No income tax is deducted at a level once people have earned a basic level of income. Adding extra VAT increases the cost straight away on goods and services making items more expensive for everyone regardless of income. This passes more of the tax burden lower down.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus statement from group of participants: We have come to the conclusion that we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. We already pay plenty of tax, and inflation will mean that we pay more tax every year cumulatively, so it makes no difference whether we pay an additional VAT. However, it may encourage people to spend less money on goods and services, which will negatively impact the economy. We believe that those with higher incomes should be taxed more and those in the median range should be taxed less. Adding VAT to goods and services would punish those who earn less. We do not think it is necessary to replace the income tax with an additional added tax. We already pay tax on goods and services so there is no need to add an additional tax. We pay enough. No income tax is deducted at a level once people have earned a basic level of income. Adding extra VAT increases the cost straight away on goods and services making items more expensive for everyone regardless of income. This passes more of the tax burden lower down.” 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001393.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001393.soc index b37aadd8..d31271d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001393.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001393.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has allowed for people to connect with each other and share ideas, it has also allowed for the spread of information and knowledge. It is a useful tool, but it should be used in moderation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. The internet can be a net positive for humanity, but only if it is used correctly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet has made the world a smaller place. It has improved connectivity between people across the globe. It is also a vast resource of information and knowledge that can be accessed by everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The Internet is a net positive for humanity. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, do business and find information. It allows us to access educational material, information, and communicate with others from all over the world at any time of day. It has facilitated a new level of connectivity between humans that has never been possible before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has allowed for people to connect with each other and share ideas, it has also allowed for the spread of information and knowledge. It is a useful tool, but it should be used in moderation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. The internet can be a net positive for humanity, but only if it is used correctly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet has made the world a smaller place. It has improved connectivity between people across the globe. It is also a vast resource of information and knowledge that can be accessed by everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The Internet is a net positive for humanity. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, do business and find information. It allows us to access educational material, information, and communicate with others from all over the world at any time of day. It has facilitated a new level of connectivity between humans that has never been possible before. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001394.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001394.soc index f7c1d8c4..e6666aa2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001394.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001394.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped growing in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into poverty. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped growing in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into poverty. The minimum wage is just that; it shouldn't only be the least amount you can pay a person or a salary that is the bare minimum for them to survive. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped growing in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into poverty. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped growing in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into poverty. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped growing in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into poverty. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped growing in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into poverty. The minimum wage is just that; it shouldn't only be the least amount you can pay a person or a salary that is the bare minimum for them to survive. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped growing in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into poverty. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a higher minimum wage. The cost of living is skyrocketing and hasn't stopped growing in the past 3 years. Given how every bill and the cost of food is set to continue increasing, an enhanced minimum wage is necessary just so that the public don't fall deeper into poverty. A higher minimum wage would feed back into the economy and create growth. It would alleviate stress and pressure on the social system. People deserve a decent standard of living. It is not right to pay the lowest in a company peanuts whilst those who sit at the top doing nothing get paid the most. People in the lowest paid jobs usually do the hardest and most physically demanding work and deserve a fair pay for they output. People at the top of the company should not be getting paid 100s of times more than the lowest. Everyone deserves to feel valued for what they do. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001395.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001395.soc index 7063c85e..ccc520d4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001395.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001395.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general the group was in favour of putting more money into the arts. However, it was also felt that the money should be spent in a way that benefits the whole community and not just a small number of people. It was felt that a lot of the money spent on the arts is wasted because it is spent on things that are not accessible to the whole community. Some people expressed the view that the arts should be accessible to everyone and it was felt that there is a need for more arts in schools and in the community, provided that the money is spent in the right places. The group was divided on how this should be achieved, with some thinking that the schools should include more art into their curriculum, whilst others thought that this should be done independently of schools, e.g. by setting up community projects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of putting more money into the arts. However, it was also felt that the money should be spent in a way that benefits the whole community and not just a small number of people. It was felt that a lot of the money spent on the arts is wasted because it is spent on things that are not accessible to the whole community. The arts should be accessible to everyone and it was felt that there is a need for more arts in schools and in the community. It was felt that the arts should be made accessible to everyone and not just to those who can afford it. It was also felt that there is a need for more arts in schools and in the community. It was felt that the arts should be made accessible to everyone and not just to those who can afford it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be more money spent on the arts. However, it should be spent in a way that benefits the whole community and not just a small number of people. There is a need for more arts in schools and in the community. The arts should be accessible to everyone and not just to those who can afford it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Art is something that brings joy and a sense of well-being to everyone who participates in it and who appreciates it. It is also a source of inspiration and gives people a way of channeling their passions and their imagination. Therefore, it has a high economic value for the community. Moreover, people living in economically deprived areas of the city deserve to have the same opportunity to take part in the arts as people living in wealthier areas. Therefore, we need to put more money into the arts, but with a focus on bringing it to economically disadvantaged communities and, most importantly, making it affordable for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general the group was in favour of putting more money into the arts. However, it was also felt that the money should be spent in a way that benefits the whole community and not just a small number of people. It was felt that a lot of the money spent on the arts is wasted because it is spent on things that are not accessible to the whole community. Some people expressed the view that the arts should be accessible to everyone and it was felt that there is a need for more arts in schools and in the community, provided that the money is spent in the right places. The group was divided on how this should be achieved, with some thinking that the schools should include more art into their curriculum, whilst others thought that this should be done independently of schools, e.g. by setting up community projects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of putting more money into the arts. However, it was also felt that the money should be spent in a way that benefits the whole community and not just a small number of people. It was felt that a lot of the money spent on the arts is wasted because it is spent on things that are not accessible to the whole community. The arts should be accessible to everyone and it was felt that there is a need for more arts in schools and in the community. It was felt that the arts should be made accessible to everyone and not just to those who can afford it. It was also felt that there is a need for more arts in schools and in the community. It was felt that the arts should be made accessible to everyone and not just to those who can afford it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be more money spent on the arts. However, it should be spent in a way that benefits the whole community and not just a small number of people. There is a need for more arts in schools and in the community. The arts should be accessible to everyone and not just to those who can afford it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Art is something that brings joy and a sense of well-being to everyone who participates in it and who appreciates it. It is also a source of inspiration and gives people a way of channeling their passions and their imagination. Therefore, it has a high economic value for the community. Moreover, people living in economically deprived areas of the city deserve to have the same opportunity to take part in the arts as people living in wealthier areas. Therefore, we need to put more money into the arts, but with a focus on bringing it to economically disadvantaged communities and, most importantly, making it affordable for everyone. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001396.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001396.soc index 30d45b15..bfc753cf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001396.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001396.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: we believe that we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We should also try to make it as easy as possible for them to do so and obtain the correct visa if necessary. The group were given a toolkit, which they had to use in order to reach the consensus view above. They also were able to comment on the usefulness of the toolkit itself. Here are some of their comments: "I really liked the part where we had to work out what we agreed on and then what we didn't agree on. I think that this is a really useful part of the toolkit and really helped us come to a consensus view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is important to allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. Our country has been built on immigration and is a melting pot of different cultures, languages and religions. We need to allow immigrants to come to the UK as they fill gaps in our labour markets and also help our country become more culturally diverse. This creates a more inclusive society and helps us understand each other and form a better view of the world. Immigrants can also bring new skills and talents to the UK and this can help us become more successful in a global world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We were built on immigration and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. There are also jobs which are crucial to the economy which we rely on immigrants to fill. Having people from lots of different countries working here adds to the diversity of the workplace and is a good thing. It brings a diverse range of skills and talents to the workforce, enriching the economy. It can fill in gaps in our labour markets. Also it can promote cultural exchange and understanding. Immigration can boost productivity and entrepreneurship. We can encourage a global outlook creating a vibrant, inclusive society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. It is important to the economy and to the diversity of our workforce. It is also important to remember that many of us are immigrants ourselves or have immigrant parents and grandparents and that immigration is a vital part of the history of the UK.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - we believe that we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We should also try to make it as easy as possible for them to do so and obtain the correct visa if necessary. The group were given a toolkit, which they had to use in order to reach the consensus view above. They also were able to comment on the usefulness of the toolkit itself. Here are some of their comments: "I really liked the part where we had to work out what we agreed on and then what we didn't agree on. I think that this is a really useful part of the toolkit and really helped us come to a consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is important to allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. Our country has been built on immigration and is a melting pot of different cultures, languages and religions. We need to allow immigrants to come to the UK as they fill gaps in our labour markets and also help our country become more culturally diverse. This creates a more inclusive society and helps us understand each other and form a better view of the world. Immigrants can also bring new skills and talents to the UK and this can help us become more successful in a global world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We were built on immigration and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. There are also jobs which are crucial to the economy which we rely on immigrants to fill. Having people from lots of different countries working here adds to the diversity of the workplace and is a good thing. It brings a diverse range of skills and talents to the workforce, enriching the economy. It can fill in gaps in our labour markets. Also it can promote cultural exchange and understanding. Immigration can boost productivity and entrepreneurship. We can encourage a global outlook creating a vibrant, inclusive society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. It is important to the economy and to the diversity of our workforce. It is also important to remember that many of us are immigrants ourselves or have immigrant parents and grandparents and that immigration is a vital part of the history of the UK.” 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001397.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001397.soc index e32996cf..8d2a531c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001397.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001397.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. This would help to reduce the cost of living crisis that many people are facing. It would also create a healthy competition between energy suppliers, which would help to keep energy prices low. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group came to the consensus view that the government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. They believe that this will encourage energy suppliers to improve the service they offer, so that customers are happy with the service they receive. This will also lead to a healthy competition between the suppliers, as customers will choose the supplier that is giving them the best deal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. This is because the companies entice new customers with discounts and people should be able to take advantage of that without having to pay an extra charge. It would help during the cost of living crisis and would help customers see the money they could save by switching. This would also encourage a healthy competition between the energy companies and make sure that they keep their prices low to keep their customers happy. The government should also make it easier for the elderly to understand how to change their supplier as they often find it difficult to keep on top of what they are being charged and how much they are being charged for their energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and people find it difficult to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. This would help to reduce the cost of living crisis that many people are facing. It would also create a healthy competition between energy suppliers, which would help to keep energy prices low. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group came to the consensus view that the government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. They believe that this will encourage energy suppliers to improve the service they offer, so that customers are happy with the service they receive. This will also lead to a healthy competition between the suppliers, as customers will choose the supplier that is giving them the best deal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. This is because the companies entice new customers with discounts and people should be able to take advantage of that without having to pay an extra charge. It would help during the cost of living crisis and would help customers see the money they could save by switching. This would also encourage a healthy competition between the energy companies and make sure that they keep their prices low to keep their customers happy. The government should also make it easier for the elderly to understand how to change their supplier as they often find it difficult to keep on top of what they are being charged and how much they are being charged for their energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and people find it difficult to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. 3: 4,3,2,1 2: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001398.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001398.soc index 2776ea4d..83901081 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001398.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001398.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We believe that there would need to be a clear and well thought out taxation plan in place for this to be successful, but we know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We all agreed that the government should consider this option but there are a few caveats that will have to be satisfied first: 1. The taxation system would have to be changed to tax wealth rather than income. This is the only way to guarantee that all people pay a fair tax based on their capacity to pay, not just a tax based on how much they happen to earn in a year. 2. In order to make sure that those on low incomes are not taxed at all, there would have to be a basic tax free income which everyone is entitled to. This would provide a guaranteed minimum income for all. 3. Any extra income from wealth taxation would be distributed as a basic income to all members of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a certain amount of tax to redistribute wealth to allow for more people to get more of a fair chance at a better life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of redistributing wealth through taxation. It was felt that the current system is unfair and that some people have an excessive amount of wealth whilst others struggle to make ends meet. It was felt that this could be addressed through a carefully considered taxation plan. However, it was also felt that there is a risk that some people could be worse off as a result of such a plan and so it would be important to ensure that this was not the case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We believe that there would need to be a clear and well thought out taxation plan in place for this to be successful, but we know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We all agreed that the government should consider this option but there are a few caveats that will have to be satisfied first: 1. The taxation system would have to be changed to tax wealth rather than income. This is the only way to guarantee that all people pay a fair tax based on their capacity to pay, not just a tax based on how much they happen to earn in a year. 2. In order to make sure that those on low incomes are not taxed at all, there would have to be a basic tax free income which everyone is entitled to. This would provide a guaranteed minimum income for all. 3. Any extra income from wealth taxation would be distributed as a basic income to all members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a certain amount of tax to redistribute wealth to allow for more people to get more of a fair chance at a better life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of redistributing wealth through taxation. It was felt that the current system is unfair and that some people have an excessive amount of wealth whilst others struggle to make ends meet. It was felt that this could be addressed through a carefully considered taxation plan. However, it was also felt that there is a risk that some people could be worse off as a result of such a plan and so it would be important to ensure that this was not the case. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001399.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001399.soc index 2abf2878..08f91fc7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001399.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001399.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although raising airline taxes would be a good idea, it would be unfair to the consumers who have no choice but to fly to make their living. If the airline tax was raised and the money gained was used to fund environmentally friendly alternatives to flying, it could lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gases. However, the responsibility of climate change should not be placed on the shoulders of the general public when corporations are the ones who have a much greater impact on the climate and their profit-driven decisions are what is causing climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of raising airline taxes to combat the damage that flying is causing to the environment seems to be a good idea, however there are many issues with it. It would be unfair to those who have no choice but to fly for their job, it would be unfair to those who cannot afford the higher prices, and it would be unfair to those who cannot afford to fly at all, but would like to. It would also be unfair to those who have to travel long distances and cannot use other forms of transport, such as trains. The taxes would also be unfair to those who are already paying a lot for their flights, such as families, who may not be able to afford to travel as often. The taxes would also not be enough to make a significant change to the damage that is being caused to the environment. It is also unfair to those who are not causing as much damage to the environment, such as the oil corporations who are producing the fuel, and the plane manufacturers who are producing the planes. In general, raising airline taxes would not be a good idea, however there should be other ways to combat the damage that is being caused by the use of airlines. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of raising airline taxes to combat climate change. This is because flying is a major contributor to climate change and it is therefore important to find ways to reduce the amount of flying that people do. However, it is also important to consider that there are many people who have no choice but to fly in order to make a living. Therefore, it is important that the extra taxes raised are used to research into more environmentally friendly ways of flying, so that those who have to fly can do so in a way that is less harmful to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Overall, we agree that the airline industry is one of the major contributors to climate change and global warming. In the context of such a complex problem, a solution must involve a balance of economic, political and ethical factors. As we see it, there are pros and cons to increasing the tax of air travel, it may be an effective solution in some circumstances, however in others it may have some undesirable consequences. Our overall consensus is that the solution to climate change cannot be found in one approach, it is a complex problem and requires complex solutions that can have both immediate and long-term benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although raising airline taxes would be a good idea, it would be unfair to the consumers who have no choice but to fly to make their living. If the airline tax was raised and the money gained was used to fund environmentally friendly alternatives to flying, it could lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gases. However, the responsibility of climate change should not be placed on the shoulders of the general public when corporations are the ones who have a much greater impact on the climate and their profit-driven decisions are what is causing climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of raising airline taxes to combat the damage that flying is causing to the environment seems to be a good idea, however there are many issues with it. It would be unfair to those who have no choice but to fly for their job, it would be unfair to those who cannot afford the higher prices, and it would be unfair to those who cannot afford to fly at all, but would like to. It would also be unfair to those who have to travel long distances and cannot use other forms of transport, such as trains. The taxes would also be unfair to those who are already paying a lot for their flights, such as families, who may not be able to afford to travel as often. The taxes would also not be enough to make a significant change to the damage that is being caused to the environment. It is also unfair to those who are not causing as much damage to the environment, such as the oil corporations who are producing the fuel, and the plane manufacturers who are producing the planes. In general, raising airline taxes would not be a good idea, however there should be other ways to combat the damage that is being caused by the use of airlines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of raising airline taxes to combat climate change. This is because flying is a major contributor to climate change and it is therefore important to find ways to reduce the amount of flying that people do. However, it is also important to consider that there are many people who have no choice but to fly in order to make a living. Therefore, it is important that the extra taxes raised are used to research into more environmentally friendly ways of flying, so that those who have to fly can do so in a way that is less harmful to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Overall, we agree that the airline industry is one of the major contributors to climate change and global warming. In the context of such a complex problem, a solution must involve a balance of economic, political and ethical factors. As we see it, there are pros and cons to increasing the tax of air travel, it may be an effective solution in some circumstances, however in others it may have some undesirable consequences. Our overall consensus is that the solution to climate change cannot be found in one approach, it is a complex problem and requires complex solutions that can have both immediate and long-term benefits. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001400.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001400.soc index a9408bfd..3d24d9aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001400.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001400.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. The internet has also led to an increase in criminal activity, with people being more susceptible to falling for scams and fraud, as well as a decrease in online privacy. The internet can be a net positive for humanity, but only if it is used correctly and with care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. Furthermore, it has created a medium through which online criminals can take advantage of unsuspecting users. The internet is an amazing tool for mankind, provided that it is used correctly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. The internet can be a net positive for humanity, but only if it is used correctly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. The internet has improved education, health and human rights around the world and has allowed for cheap and reliable communication with family and friends. It has been important for information sharing and has opened up free and democratic access to information worldwide. However, the internet is also responsible for creating a massive rise in online crime and scams, online bullying and the increase in isolation and loneliness. The internet can be a net positive for humanity, but only if it is used correctly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. The internet has also led to an increase in criminal activity, with people being more susceptible to falling for scams and fraud, as well as a decrease in online privacy. The internet can be a net positive for humanity, but only if it is used correctly and with care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. Furthermore, it has created a medium through which online criminals can take advantage of unsuspecting users. The internet is an amazing tool for mankind, provided that it is used correctly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. The internet can be a net positive for humanity, but only if it is used correctly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for people to communicate and work together in ways that were not possible before. It has also allowed for the free flow of information and ideas, which has led to an increase in knowledge and understanding. However, the internet has also led to a decrease in face to face communication and an increase in online bullying. The internet has improved education, health and human rights around the world and has allowed for cheap and reliable communication with family and friends. It has been important for information sharing and has opened up free and democratic access to information worldwide. However, the internet is also responsible for creating a massive rise in online crime and scams, online bullying and the increase in isolation and loneliness. The internet can be a net positive for humanity, but only if it is used correctly. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001401.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001401.soc index 0870ffe8..2b0446f6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001401.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001401.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. There is lots of evidence to suggest that the UK has benefitted enormously from immigration and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. Many of the doctors, nurses and other health care professionals are from other countries. We also rely on many other immigrant workers in parts of the workforce which are crucial to the economy. We are a nation of immigrants and people from lots of different countries have made their mark on the UK, enriching our culture and society. People from different countries bring with them a diverse range of skills, talents and experiences, which is crucial in today’s global economy, and their presence benefits the economy. Not only do we get something in return for the tax that they pay, but we also make our lives better by taking advantage of the benefits of immigration. It has been very beneficial to our society and has promoted cultural exchange and understanding, enriching our diverse society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the UK should allow immigrants from abroad to work here. We have been built on immigration and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. There are also jobs which are crucial to the economy which we rely on immigrants to fill. Having people from lots of different countries working here adds to the diversity of the workplace and is a good thing. It brings a diverse range of skills and talents to the workforce, enriching the economy. It can fill in gaps in our labour markets. Also it can promote cultural exchange and understanding. Immigration can boost productivity and entrepreneurship. We can encourage a global outlook creating a vibrant, inclusive society. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are many reasons why we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. Immigration has helped build our nation and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. There are also jobs which are crucial to the economy which we rely on immigrants to fill. Having people from lots of different countries working here adds to the diversity of the workplace and is a good thing. It brings a diverse range of skills and talents to the workforce, enriching the economy. It can fill in gaps in our labour markets. Also it can promote cultural exchange and understanding. Immigration can boost productivity and entrepreneurship. We can encourage a global outlook creating a vibrant, inclusive society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We were built on immigration and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. There are also jobs which are crucial to the economy which we rely on immigrants to fill. Having people from lots of different countries working here adds to the diversity of the workplace and is a good thing. It brings a diverse range of skills and talents to the workforce, enriching the economy. It can fill in gaps in our labour markets. Also it can promote cultural exchange and understanding. Immigration can boost productivity and entrepreneurship. We can encourage a global outlook creating a vibrant, inclusive society. A copy of the final consensus view can be found here: Final_ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. There is lots of evidence to suggest that the UK has benefitted enormously from immigration and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. Many of the doctors, nurses and other health care professionals are from other countries. We also rely on many other immigrant workers in parts of the workforce which are crucial to the economy. We are a nation of immigrants and people from lots of different countries have made their mark on the UK, enriching our culture and society. People from different countries bring with them a diverse range of skills, talents and experiences, which is crucial in today’s global economy, and their presence benefits the economy. Not only do we get something in return for the tax that they pay, but we also make our lives better by taking advantage of the benefits of immigration. It has been very beneficial to our society and has promoted cultural exchange and understanding, enriching our diverse society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the UK should allow immigrants from abroad to work here. We have been built on immigration and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. There are also jobs which are crucial to the economy which we rely on immigrants to fill. Having people from lots of different countries working here adds to the diversity of the workplace and is a good thing. It brings a diverse range of skills and talents to the workforce, enriching the economy. It can fill in gaps in our labour markets. Also it can promote cultural exchange and understanding. Immigration can boost productivity and entrepreneurship. We can encourage a global outlook creating a vibrant, inclusive society. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are many reasons why we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. Immigration has helped build our nation and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. There are also jobs which are crucial to the economy which we rely on immigrants to fill. Having people from lots of different countries working here adds to the diversity of the workplace and is a good thing. It brings a diverse range of skills and talents to the workforce, enriching the economy. It can fill in gaps in our labour markets. Also it can promote cultural exchange and understanding. Immigration can boost productivity and entrepreneurship. We can encourage a global outlook creating a vibrant, inclusive society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We were built on immigration and the NHS would not be able to survive without it now or in the past. There are also jobs which are crucial to the economy which we rely on immigrants to fill. Having people from lots of different countries working here adds to the diversity of the workplace and is a good thing. It brings a diverse range of skills and talents to the workforce, enriching the economy. It can fill in gaps in our labour markets. Also it can promote cultural exchange and understanding. Immigration can boost productivity and entrepreneurship. We can encourage a global outlook creating a vibrant, inclusive society. A copy of the final consensus view can be found here: Final_ 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001402.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001402.soc index b06bd490..93a6f4c3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001402.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001402.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. International bidding increases the money brought into the UK, improving our economy and expanding relations. However, overseas investments may bring risks that have detrimental effects on UK projects, which may eventually result in debt. It also depends on the type of infrastructure projects for investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group have come to the consensus view that we should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects, but the UK government should be careful and ensure that all infrastructure projects which are built in the UK should be built by UK firms first. This would ensure that our economy and employment is kept within the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. International bidding increases the money brought into the UK, improving our economy and expanding relations. However, overseas investments may bring risks that have detrimental effects on UK projects, which may eventually result in debt. It also depends on the type of infrastructure projects for investment. The UK should be able to select from the leading companies all over the world that are capable of delivering the best solution to our infrastructure projects. Whilst based overseas these companies may well still generate many additional jobs in the UK and the nature of the infrastructure project is that we would want the best solution available which would then underpin our economy and development. There may be a short term impact or loss of benefit to the UK economy if contracts are awarded to overseas companies but if these provide the best solution thats ok. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. We should instead work on keeping business within the country as much as possible. The overseas investments may bring risks that have detrimental effects on UK projects, however the advantages and economic benefits of overseas investment are greater. It is important to allow all companies the opportunity to bid, as it is a competitive industry, and by choosing the best company, we are receiving the best possible outcome. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. International bidding increases the money brought into the UK, improving our economy and expanding relations. However, overseas investments may bring risks that have detrimental effects on UK projects, which may eventually result in debt. It also depends on the type of infrastructure projects for investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group have come to the consensus view that we should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects, but the UK government should be careful and ensure that all infrastructure projects which are built in the UK should be built by UK firms first. This would ensure that our economy and employment is kept within the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. International bidding increases the money brought into the UK, improving our economy and expanding relations. However, overseas investments may bring risks that have detrimental effects on UK projects, which may eventually result in debt. It also depends on the type of infrastructure projects for investment. The UK should be able to select from the leading companies all over the world that are capable of delivering the best solution to our infrastructure projects. Whilst based overseas these companies may well still generate many additional jobs in the UK and the nature of the infrastructure project is that we would want the best solution available which would then underpin our economy and development. There may be a short term impact or loss of benefit to the UK economy if contracts are awarded to overseas companies but if these provide the best solution thats ok. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. We should instead work on keeping business within the country as much as possible. The overseas investments may bring risks that have detrimental effects on UK projects, however the advantages and economic benefits of overseas investment are greater. It is important to allow all companies the opportunity to bid, as it is a competitive industry, and by choosing the best company, we are receiving the best possible outcome. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001403.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001403.soc index 0b36908c..0c04b733 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001403.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001403.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and people find it difficult to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and many people find it difficult to change energy suppliers. It may sometimes seem difficult, but it is actually quite easy to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and people find it difficult to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. This would also be beneficial for people who work long, unsociable hours and may not be able to contact their supplier during the day or the elderly who may not be able to easily change energy supplier online. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and people find it difficult to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and people find it difficult to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and many people find it difficult to change energy suppliers. It may sometimes seem difficult, but it is actually quite easy to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and people find it difficult to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. This would also be beneficial for people who work long, unsociable hours and may not be able to contact their supplier during the day or the elderly who may not be able to easily change energy supplier online. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. The current system is very complicated and people find it difficult to switch. If it was easier, it would be beneficial for both customers and energy suppliers. Customers would be able to find the best deals for them and energy suppliers would have to keep their prices competitive to attract new customers. This would be fairer for customers and would create an environment where suppliers have to keep their prices competitively low, rather than being able to hike up costs knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to an alternative supplier. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001404.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001404.soc index 25490e02..90981f3e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001404.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001404.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We believe that there would need to be a clear and well thought out taxation plan in place for this to be successful, but we know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We believe that there would need to be a clear and well thought out taxation plan in place for this to be successful, but we know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We believe that there would need to be a clear and well thought out taxation plan in place for this to be successful, but we know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. We also think that it is important to consider that not everyone on benefits are taking advantage of the system and we would also be taxing the wealthiest people in society, those who can afford to lose some money, not people on low wages who could really struggle without this money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We believe that there would need to be a clear and well thought out taxation plan in place for this to be successful, but we know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We believe that there would need to be a clear and well thought out taxation plan in place for this to be successful, but we know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should use taxes to redistribute wealth. We feel that there is an obscene amount of wealth sitting in bank accounts doing absolutely nothing of value to society beyond making interest to match inflation for it's owner. In many cases, this wealth is earnt via unfair business practices such as having employees earn minimum wage when their labour is worth multiples more. We have so many problems as a society and a country that could be solved by taking those accounts and 'trimming the fat'. We believe that there would need to be a clear and well thought out taxation plan in place for this to be successful, but we know ourselves as tax payers, we would rather see our money go towards lowering the poverty rate in the uk and evening out the economy, than it going towards MP's bonuses etc. We also think that it is important to consider that not everyone on benefits are taking advantage of the system and we would also be taxing the wealthiest people in society, those who can afford to lose some money, not people on low wages who could really struggle without this money. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001405.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001405.soc index f451b47a..846836c2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001405.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001405.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group have come to the consensus view that we should not be taxed when we inherit money as the government tax us when we earn it and again when we inherit it and that is not fair. It would be fairer to eliminate this tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of inheritance tax being removed. The main argument for this was that the tax had already been paid on the money when it was earned, so it should not be taxed again when it is passed on. The group felt that inheritance tax was unfair, as it penalised those who had worked hard and saved money. The group felt that it was wrong that the government should be able to take money from the family of someone who had died. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe the government should eliminate inheritance tax as it is not fair that the beneficiaries have to pay the tax on the inheritance they have received when it has already been taxed when it was earned. The inheritance is also not a burden to the tax payers of the country as the deceased has already paid his/her taxes throughout their life and the money is for the family who will have to go through the trauma of losing a loved one and I think they should be left to grieve without having to worry about taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of abolishing inheritance tax. This was because inheritance tax is a tax on money that has already been taxed and therefore it is unfair to tax it again. It was also felt that inheritance tax is a disincentive to people who want to save for their retirement and for their families. However, it was felt that there are some circumstances in which inheritance tax is a good idea. For example, if a person has made their money by illegal means then it is right that their family should not benefit from this money. The group also felt that inheritance tax should not be abolished completely but that the threshold should be raised to a higher level. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group have come to the consensus view that we should not be taxed when we inherit money as the government tax us when we earn it and again when we inherit it and that is not fair. It would be fairer to eliminate this tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of inheritance tax being removed. The main argument for this was that the tax had already been paid on the money when it was earned, so it should not be taxed again when it is passed on. The group felt that inheritance tax was unfair, as it penalised those who had worked hard and saved money. The group felt that it was wrong that the government should be able to take money from the family of someone who had died. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe the government should eliminate inheritance tax as it is not fair that the beneficiaries have to pay the tax on the inheritance they have received when it has already been taxed when it was earned. The inheritance is also not a burden to the tax payers of the country as the deceased has already paid his/her taxes throughout their life and the money is for the family who will have to go through the trauma of losing a loved one and I think they should be left to grieve without having to worry about taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of abolishing inheritance tax. This was because inheritance tax is a tax on money that has already been taxed and therefore it is unfair to tax it again. It was also felt that inheritance tax is a disincentive to people who want to save for their retirement and for their families. However, it was felt that there are some circumstances in which inheritance tax is a good idea. For example, if a person has made their money by illegal means then it is right that their family should not benefit from this money. The group also felt that inheritance tax should not be abolished completely but that the threshold should be raised to a higher level. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001406.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001406.soc index c9092260..f77996d2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001406.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001406.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Science and research is vital for us to advance as a society. If we invest more in science and research, we will be able to develop new drugs and cures for deadly diseases, new technologies and inventions which will improve our economy and jobs. Science and research will also help us combat climate change, improve the environment, find cures for disease and help us all live longer. Social services are very important and we do need to invest in them, but we already spend a lot of money on them and it is unlikely that we will be able to cut the amount of people who are homeless, living in poverty, or who have an addiction. If we invest more in science and research we can help find a cure for addiction, or find a way to stop people from being homeless. We can improve the quality of social services by investing more in science and research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should invest the same amount in science and research as we do in social services. Both areas are important and crucial to the functioning of society and to the lives of citizens. Science and research will help us in the future as we will have a better understanding of things and we will have better medicine and other technologies. Social services will help the most vulnerable people in society to have better lives and to feel more safe. They will also give them a better understanding of things such as how to live independently, how to manage their money and how to socialise with people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should invest equally in both science and research and social services. Both are very important to us at different times of our lives. Science and research obviously help in the future but social services helps people in need straight away as its needed. Social services is really important its how we support the most vulnerable people in society. Investing in socail services would have a massive impact upon the lives of countless people in our society. By investing in these areas we can uplift disadvantaged parts of society. Strong social services can lead to better outcomes for everyone in our society. As much as i feel that the social services group in the uk is not of the best quality, i think science and research will have a greater impact on the uk and can possibly improve every ones daily lives. Science and research can also help with things such as cures for viruses and illnesses along with new technology. It can also help with climate change and the argument on everything turning electric. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We believe that science and research is very important to the future of our society. However, we also believe that social services are very important and should not be forgotten. We feel that we should invest in both science and research and social services. The two are not mutually exclusive and we can invest in both. We believe that the two can work hand in hand and help each other. We believe that we should invest in both science and research and social services equally.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Science and research is vital for us to advance as a society. If we invest more in science and research, we will be able to develop new drugs and cures for deadly diseases, new technologies and inventions which will improve our economy and jobs. Science and research will also help us combat climate change, improve the environment, find cures for disease and help us all live longer. Social services are very important and we do need to invest in them, but we already spend a lot of money on them and it is unlikely that we will be able to cut the amount of people who are homeless, living in poverty, or who have an addiction. If we invest more in science and research we can help find a cure for addiction, or find a way to stop people from being homeless. We can improve the quality of social services by investing more in science and research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should invest the same amount in science and research as we do in social services. Both areas are important and crucial to the functioning of society and to the lives of citizens. Science and research will help us in the future as we will have a better understanding of things and we will have better medicine and other technologies. Social services will help the most vulnerable people in society to have better lives and to feel more safe. They will also give them a better understanding of things such as how to live independently, how to manage their money and how to socialise with people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should invest equally in both science and research and social services. Both are very important to us at different times of our lives. Science and research obviously help in the future but social services helps people in need straight away as its needed. Social services is really important its how we support the most vulnerable people in society. Investing in socail services would have a massive impact upon the lives of countless people in our society. By investing in these areas we can uplift disadvantaged parts of society. Strong social services can lead to better outcomes for everyone in our society. As much as i feel that the social services group in the uk is not of the best quality, i think science and research will have a greater impact on the uk and can possibly improve every ones daily lives. Science and research can also help with things such as cures for viruses and illnesses along with new technology. It can also help with climate change and the argument on everything turning electric. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We believe that science and research is very important to the future of our society. However, we also believe that social services are very important and should not be forgotten. We feel that we should invest in both science and research and social services. The two are not mutually exclusive and we can invest in both. We believe that the two can work hand in hand and help each other. We believe that we should invest in both science and research and social services equally.” 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001407.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001407.soc index 3371c710..454afaec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001407.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001407.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, businesses should be taxed for their carbon emissions. Governments need to make it as difficult as possible for companies to pollute and contribute to climate change. By making it as expensive as possible to pollute, business owners will be forced to consider the environment in their business practices, and to reduce their carbon footprint. It may sound dramatic, but climate change is a serious issue and will impact the future of our planet. The time for governments to do nothing has passed. To avert catastrophe, the governments of the world must work together to change the system of government and business as we know it. Carbon must be treated as a pollutant and taxed accordingly. As business operations change to make use of more sustainable and environmentally friendly resources, the tax could be reduced, so that companies are rewarded for going green. Incentives for doing the right thing must be introduced, but penalties for contributing to the destruction of the planet must also be in place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes. The time for governments to do nothing has passed. To avert catastrophe, the governments of the world must work together to change the system of government and business as we know it. Carbon must be treated as a pollutant and taxed accordingly. As business operations change to make use of more sustainable and environmentally friendly resources, the tax could be reduced, so that companies are rewarded for going green. Incentives for doing the right thing must be introduced, but penalties for contributing to the destruction of the planet must also be in place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Pollutants such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are impacting the climate and will only get worse without significant, radical and substantial changes to policies and current systems. The way businesses operate needs to change to eliminate greenhouse gases from their processes completely. Regulators have a massive role to play in changing the way these practices are allowed to continue, and why. Governments must work together to create a joined up approach to changing the way businesses operate and reward those that change, and punish those that refuse to take responsibility for their impacts on our planet. Task 3: English Group 3 completed this task, reading an article from the website, Globalnews.ca: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is undeniable that carbon emissions are one of the main contributing factors to global warming and climate change. The time for governments to do nothing has passed. To avert catastrophe, the governments of the world must work together to change the system of government and business as we know it. Carbon must be treated as a pollutant and taxed accordingly. As business operations change to make use of more sustainable and environmentally friendly resources, the tax could be reduced, so that companies are rewarded for going green. Incentives for doing the right thing must be introduced, but penalties for contributing to the destruction of the planet must also be in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, businesses should be taxed for their carbon emissions. Governments need to make it as difficult as possible for companies to pollute and contribute to climate change. By making it as expensive as possible to pollute, business owners will be forced to consider the environment in their business practices, and to reduce their carbon footprint. It may sound dramatic, but climate change is a serious issue and will impact the future of our planet. The time for governments to do nothing has passed. To avert catastrophe, the governments of the world must work together to change the system of government and business as we know it. Carbon must be treated as a pollutant and taxed accordingly. As business operations change to make use of more sustainable and environmentally friendly resources, the tax could be reduced, so that companies are rewarded for going green. Incentives for doing the right thing must be introduced, but penalties for contributing to the destruction of the planet must also be in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes. The time for governments to do nothing has passed. To avert catastrophe, the governments of the world must work together to change the system of government and business as we know it. Carbon must be treated as a pollutant and taxed accordingly. As business operations change to make use of more sustainable and environmentally friendly resources, the tax could be reduced, so that companies are rewarded for going green. Incentives for doing the right thing must be introduced, but penalties for contributing to the destruction of the planet must also be in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Pollutants such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are impacting the climate and will only get worse without significant, radical and substantial changes to policies and current systems. The way businesses operate needs to change to eliminate greenhouse gases from their processes completely. Regulators have a massive role to play in changing the way these practices are allowed to continue, and why. Governments must work together to create a joined up approach to changing the way businesses operate and reward those that change, and punish those that refuse to take responsibility for their impacts on our planet. Task 3: English Group 3 completed this task, reading an article from the website, Globalnews.ca: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is undeniable that carbon emissions are one of the main contributing factors to global warming and climate change. The time for governments to do nothing has passed. To avert catastrophe, the governments of the world must work together to change the system of government and business as we know it. Carbon must be treated as a pollutant and taxed accordingly. As business operations change to make use of more sustainable and environmentally friendly resources, the tax could be reduced, so that companies are rewarded for going green. Incentives for doing the right thing must be introduced, but penalties for contributing to the destruction of the planet must also be in place. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001408.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001408.soc index 860d443c..ea15c592 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001408.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001408.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: I believe that the government should eliminate inheritance tax. There are several reasons for my view. First of all it is not fair to the beneficiary to have to pay tax on the money that has already been taxed at the source. If the deceased worked hard and saved over the years, it is not fair to make the beneficiary pay tax on the inheritance that has already been taxed at the source. If the deceased was wealthy he/she would have had to pay high taxes throughout their life and the tax should be enough. Secondly the inheritance does not affect anyone else apart from the beneficiary and so is not a burden on tax payers. The beneficiary has just lost a loved one and has to go through a lot of trauma and stress. It is not fair for the government to exploit their pain for gain. It is wrong for them to take advantage of the circumstances. Finally, there are plenty of other places in which the government could gather money such as from the cars of the rich and other places that don't burden the tax payers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe the government should eliminate inheritance tax as it is not fair that the beneficiaries have to pay the tax on the inheritance they have received when it has already been taxed when it was earned. The inheritance is also not a burden to the tax payers of the country as the deceased has already paid his/her taxes throughout their life and the money is for the family who will have to go through the trauma of losing a loved one and I think they should be left to grieve without having to worry about taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the inheritance tax should be eliminated. We believe that it is not fair to have the beneficiaries pay tax on an inheritance that has already been taxed when it was earned. The inheritance is also not a burden to the tax payers of the country as the deceased has already paid his/her taxes throughout their life and the money is for the family who will have to go through the trauma of losing a loved one and we think they should be left to grieve without having to worry about taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: I believe that the government should eliminate inheritance tax. There are several reasons for my view. First of all it is not fair to the beneficiary to have to pay tax on the money that has already been taxed at the source. If the deceased worked hard and saved over the years, it is not fair to make the beneficiary pay tax on the inheritance that has already been taxed at the source. If the deceased was wealthy he/she would have had to pay high taxes throughout their life and the tax should be enough. Secondly the inheritance does not affect anyone else apart from the beneficiary and so is not a burden on tax payers. The beneficiary has just lost a loved one and has to go through a lot of trauma and stress. It is not fair for the government to exploit their pain for gain. It is wrong for them to take advantage of the circumstances. Finally, there are plenty of other places in which the government could gather money such as from the cars of the rich and other places that don't burden the tax payers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe the government should eliminate inheritance tax as it is not fair that the beneficiaries have to pay the tax on the inheritance they have received when it has already been taxed when it was earned. The inheritance is also not a burden to the tax payers of the country as the deceased has already paid his/her taxes throughout their life and the money is for the family who will have to go through the trauma of losing a loved one and I think they should be left to grieve without having to worry about taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the inheritance tax should be eliminated. We believe that it is not fair to have the beneficiaries pay tax on an inheritance that has already been taxed when it was earned. The inheritance is also not a burden to the tax payers of the country as the deceased has already paid his/her taxes throughout their life and the money is for the family who will have to go through the trauma of losing a loved one and we think they should be left to grieve without having to worry about taxes. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001409.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001409.soc index 4c134f08..33da13eb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001409.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001409.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Participants have different views about whether recreational use of marijuana should be legalized. Some think it should be legalized, others think it shouldn't be legalized. The group, however, reached a consensus that recreational use of marijuana should be legalized, after a good discussion about the pros and cons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a relatively safe drug, and is much less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are legal. The legalisation of marijuana would also help combat the systemic racism that exists within the judicial system, people of colour are often the ones that are being incarcerated and punished for marijuana usage, even though it is something that people of every race do. The legalisation of marijuana would also help keep prison populations down (e.g. no people getting locked up for possessing marijuana for individual use) and so law enforcement can focus on more pressing matters. However, there are some important considerations that should be taken into account. For example, marijuana is a depressant and so may not be suitable for people with certain mental health conditions. Also, people may be more likely to try marijuana if it is legalised, and so the health effects of marijuana should be made clear to people, and it should be regulated in a way that prevents people from using it excessively. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. Legalisation would also remove the criminal element from marijuana use and allow the law to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, legalisation would be a significant step towards equality, as people of colour are disproportionately punished for the possession of marijuana. However, there would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. Additionally, this is not to say that alcohol should be made illegal, this would cause more problems than it would solve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of legalising marijuana for recreational use. However, there were some concerns about the potential for marijuana to be a gateway drug to harder drugs, and also concerns about the health effects of marijuana. The group felt that if marijuana was legalised, it should be tightly regulated, with the aim of preventing young people from accessing it, and also to prevent people from using marijuana to excess. The group also felt that people with certain mental health conditions should be advised not to use marijuana. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Participants have different views about whether recreational use of marijuana should be legalized. Some think it should be legalized, others think it shouldn't be legalized. The group, however, reached a consensus that recreational use of marijuana should be legalized, after a good discussion about the pros and cons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a relatively safe drug, and is much less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are legal. The legalisation of marijuana would also help combat the systemic racism that exists within the judicial system, people of colour are often the ones that are being incarcerated and punished for marijuana usage, even though it is something that people of every race do. The legalisation of marijuana would also help keep prison populations down (e.g. no people getting locked up for possessing marijuana for individual use) and so law enforcement can focus on more pressing matters. However, there are some important considerations that should be taken into account. For example, marijuana is a depressant and so may not be suitable for people with certain mental health conditions. Also, people may be more likely to try marijuana if it is legalised, and so the health effects of marijuana should be made clear to people, and it should be regulated in a way that prevents people from using it excessively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. Legalisation would also remove the criminal element from marijuana use and allow the law to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, legalisation would be a significant step towards equality, as people of colour are disproportionately punished for the possession of marijuana. However, there would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. Additionally, this is not to say that alcohol should be made illegal, this would cause more problems than it would solve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising marijuana for recreational use. However, there were some concerns about the potential for marijuana to be a gateway drug to harder drugs, and also concerns about the health effects of marijuana. The group felt that if marijuana was legalised, it should be tightly regulated, with the aim of preventing young people from accessing it, and also to prevent people from using marijuana to excess. The group also felt that people with certain mental health conditions should be advised not to use marijuana. 2: 3,2,4,1 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001410.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001410.soc index 64533db7..aba38fdf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001410.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001410.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. The arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in despereate need of funding, the arts play a vital role in our lives and by being funded by the goverment it would give more people access to this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the arts are important and the state should fund them. The arts are important to our society and can help to promote diversity, freedom of expression, creativity, and our local culture. In addition, the arts are important for the mental health of society, especially in the current climate. The arts can also help to promote freedom of expression, which is especially important if we want to maintain a fair and free society. Finally, the arts can help to give a voice to those who may not otherwise have one, and state funding would help to ensure more people from disadvantaged backgrounds can get involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. This is because the arts are an integral part of a society's culture and play a role in creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. The arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in despereate need of funding, the arts play a vital role in our lives and by being funded by the goverment it would give more people access to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the arts are important and the state should fund them. The arts are important to our society and can help to promote diversity, freedom of expression, creativity, and our local culture. In addition, the arts are important for the mental health of society, especially in the current climate. The arts can also help to promote freedom of expression, which is especially important if we want to maintain a fair and free society. Finally, the arts can help to give a voice to those who may not otherwise have one, and state funding would help to ensure more people from disadvantaged backgrounds can get involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. This is because the arts are an integral part of a society's culture and play a role in creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001411.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001411.soc index 97a03c87..a2e02924 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001411.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001411.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the tax rate should be raised for high earners. If they earn a lot, then the government can use that money for various other services that need funding. The rate should be raised by 10%, making the tax rate on income over £200,000 at 40%. However, we do not think the rate should be raised any further, as this would provide disincentive for workers to work hard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of raising the tax rate on higher earners. They felt that it was unfair that some people were able to earn so much money, while others were unable to earn enough to live on. They also felt that if people were able to earn a lot of money, they should be willing to give some of it back to the community. They felt that this would be a fair way of redistributing wealth. The group felt that the current tax rate of 40% was too high, and that it should be lowered to 35%. They felt that this would be a fairer way of taxing people, and would also be more likely to be accepted by the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was thought that the tax rate on higher earners could be raised, but only under certain conditions. The group thought that those earning more than a certain amount of money, probably around £200,000 per year, should be taxed more highly. It was felt that this was a reasonable amount to live on and therefore, anything more should be taxed at a higher rate. However, the participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard and do well. The group thought that if a person is a hard worker and spends all their money, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. The group thought that raising the tax rate on higher earners was fair, but thought that it should be done carefully and gradually. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the tax rate should not be raised on higher earners. This is because there is a significant risk that it will reduce the incentive to work hard and make money, and also because there is no guarantee that the money will be spent in a way that stimulates the economy. However, if the money is not spent in a way that stimulates the economy, the government should consider taxing the money that is stored in savings accounts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the tax rate should be raised for high earners. If they earn a lot, then the government can use that money for various other services that need funding. The rate should be raised by 10%, making the tax rate on income over £200,000 at 40%. However, we do not think the rate should be raised any further, as this would provide disincentive for workers to work hard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the tax rate on higher earners. They felt that it was unfair that some people were able to earn so much money, while others were unable to earn enough to live on. They also felt that if people were able to earn a lot of money, they should be willing to give some of it back to the community. They felt that this would be a fair way of redistributing wealth. The group felt that the current tax rate of 40% was too high, and that it should be lowered to 35%. They felt that this would be a fairer way of taxing people, and would also be more likely to be accepted by the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was thought that the tax rate on higher earners could be raised, but only under certain conditions. The group thought that those earning more than a certain amount of money, probably around £200,000 per year, should be taxed more highly. It was felt that this was a reasonable amount to live on and therefore, anything more should be taxed at a higher rate. However, the participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard and do well. The group thought that if a person is a hard worker and spends all their money, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. The group thought that raising the tax rate on higher earners was fair, but thought that it should be done carefully and gradually. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the tax rate should not be raised on higher earners. This is because there is a significant risk that it will reduce the incentive to work hard and make money, and also because there is no guarantee that the money will be spent in a way that stimulates the economy. However, if the money is not spent in a way that stimulates the economy, the government should consider taxing the money that is stored in savings accounts. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001412.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001412.soc index 437e3e02..09c08cef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001412.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001412.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group came to the consensus view that high earners should be taxed more to help fund the NHS because the more wealth you have, the more you can afford to pay and the NHS needs more funding to help prevent it from failing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We all agreed that the NHS is very important to us all. We felt that it is very important that it receives the funds it needs to operate effectively and that it is well managed. We felt that taxes should be raised on high earners as they are most able to pay more tax and because the NHS needs the funds. However, we felt that a limit should be placed on the amount of tax high earners should pay. We did not all agree on what that limit should be. We felt that it would be good if high earners pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than lower earners. However, we felt that they should not be expected to pay so much more that they are no longer motivated to work hard. We felt that the more motivated people are to work hard, the better it is for everyone. We felt that if everyone works hard and strives for success, this would benefit everyone, including those in the lower income brackets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is in dire straits and needs additional funding. People earning a lot of money are most able to cope with a higher tax burden and a better funded NHS would benefit everyone in society. A tax rise for high earners should be limited to a level that is fair and would not produce negative effects. We also believe that the gap between the rich and the poor is simply getting bigger, so paying more tax would make things fairer. Also, more happier countries in the world pay more tax, so it is in our interests to ensure richer people pay more tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a tax rise for people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The tax rise should be fair and not produce negative effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group came to the consensus view that high earners should be taxed more to help fund the NHS because the more wealth you have, the more you can afford to pay and the NHS needs more funding to help prevent it from failing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We all agreed that the NHS is very important to us all. We felt that it is very important that it receives the funds it needs to operate effectively and that it is well managed. We felt that taxes should be raised on high earners as they are most able to pay more tax and because the NHS needs the funds. However, we felt that a limit should be placed on the amount of tax high earners should pay. We did not all agree on what that limit should be. We felt that it would be good if high earners pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than lower earners. However, we felt that they should not be expected to pay so much more that they are no longer motivated to work hard. We felt that the more motivated people are to work hard, the better it is for everyone. We felt that if everyone works hard and strives for success, this would benefit everyone, including those in the lower income brackets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is in dire straits and needs additional funding. People earning a lot of money are most able to cope with a higher tax burden and a better funded NHS would benefit everyone in society. A tax rise for high earners should be limited to a level that is fair and would not produce negative effects. We also believe that the gap between the rich and the poor is simply getting bigger, so paying more tax would make things fairer. Also, more happier countries in the world pay more tax, so it is in our interests to ensure richer people pay more tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a tax rise for people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The tax rise should be fair and not produce negative effects. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001413.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001413.soc index 638e2b7e..1ec46419 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001413.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001413.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There was a feeling among the group that the tax rate on higher earners could be raised, but only under certain conditions. It was felt that those earning more than a certain amount of money, probably around £200,000 per year, should be taxed more highly. This was seen as a reasonable amount to live on and therefore, anything more should be taxed at a higher rate. However, the participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard and do well. The group thought that if a person is a hard worker and spends all their money, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. The group thought that raising the tax rate on higher earners was fair, but thought that it should be done carefully and gradually. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was the opinion of the group that high earners should be taxed at a higher rate. The group felt that, in this country, it is not necessary to earn more than £200,000 per year to live a comfortable life. Therefore, the group thought that people who earn more than this amount should be taxed highly to prevent inequality in our society. The participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as it is a right of people to be able to work hard and then profit from their work. The group thought that if people earn a lot of money and then spend all of it, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. However, the group thought that the tax rate on high earners should be raised, but only gradually. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was thought that the tax rate on higher earners could be raised, but only under certain conditions. The group thought that those earning more than a certain amount of money, probably around £200,000 per year, should be taxed more highly. It was felt that this was a reasonable amount to live on and therefore, anything more should be taxed at a higher rate. However, the participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard and do well. The group thought that if a person is a hard worker and spends all their money, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. The group thought that raising the tax rate on higher earners was fair, but thought that it should be done carefully and gradually. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was thought that the tax rate on higher earners could be raised, but only under certain conditions. The group thought that those earning more than a certain amount of money, probably around £200,000 per year, should be taxed more highly. It was felt that this was a reasonable amount to live on and therefore, anything more should be taxed at a higher rate. However, the participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard and do well. The group thought that if a person is a hard worker and spends all their money, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. The group thought that raising the tax rate on higher earners was fair, but thought that it should be done carefully and gradually. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There was a feeling among the group that the tax rate on higher earners could be raised, but only under certain conditions. It was felt that those earning more than a certain amount of money, probably around £200,000 per year, should be taxed more highly. This was seen as a reasonable amount to live on and therefore, anything more should be taxed at a higher rate. However, the participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard and do well. The group thought that if a person is a hard worker and spends all their money, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. The group thought that raising the tax rate on higher earners was fair, but thought that it should be done carefully and gradually. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was the opinion of the group that high earners should be taxed at a higher rate. The group felt that, in this country, it is not necessary to earn more than £200,000 per year to live a comfortable life. Therefore, the group thought that people who earn more than this amount should be taxed highly to prevent inequality in our society. The participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as it is a right of people to be able to work hard and then profit from their work. The group thought that if people earn a lot of money and then spend all of it, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. However, the group thought that the tax rate on high earners should be raised, but only gradually. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was thought that the tax rate on higher earners could be raised, but only under certain conditions. The group thought that those earning more than a certain amount of money, probably around £200,000 per year, should be taxed more highly. It was felt that this was a reasonable amount to live on and therefore, anything more should be taxed at a higher rate. However, the participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard and do well. The group thought that if a person is a hard worker and spends all their money, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. The group thought that raising the tax rate on higher earners was fair, but thought that it should be done carefully and gradually. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was thought that the tax rate on higher earners could be raised, but only under certain conditions. The group thought that those earning more than a certain amount of money, probably around £200,000 per year, should be taxed more highly. It was felt that this was a reasonable amount to live on and therefore, anything more should be taxed at a higher rate. However, the participants did not think that the tax rate should be too high, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard and do well. The group thought that if a person is a hard worker and spends all their money, it should be seen as more acceptable than someone who stores their wealth in a savings account and does not put money back into the economy. The group thought that raising the tax rate on higher earners was fair, but thought that it should be done carefully and gradually. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001414.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001414.soc index 801654db..de10971d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001414.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001414.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. Legalisation would also remove the criminal element from marijuana use and allow the law to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, legalisation would be a significant step towards equality, as people of colour are disproportionately punished for the possession of marijuana. However, there would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. It would also be beneficial to consider the economic and taxation benefits of legalising marijuana. This is not to say that alcohol should be made illegal, this would cause more problems than it would solve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. Legalisation would also remove the criminal element from marijuana use and allow the law to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, legalisation would be a significant step towards equality, as people of colour are disproportionately punished for the possession of marijuana. However, there would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. Not to say that alcohol should be made illegal, this would cause more problems than it would solve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. The legalisation of marijuana would allow the law to focus on more serious crimes, and help end systemic racism against black people through no longer criminalising possession of marijuana. However, there would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. Additionally, this is not to say that alcohol should be made illegal, this would cause more problems than it would solve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. Additionally, legalisation would remove the criminal element from marijuana use and allow the law to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, legalisation would be a significant step towards equality, as people of colour are disproportionately punished for the possession of marijuana. There would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. In general, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is in the public interest, but it would not make sense to make alcohol illegal, as that would likely cause more problems than it would solve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. Legalisation would also remove the criminal element from marijuana use and allow the law to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, legalisation would be a significant step towards equality, as people of colour are disproportionately punished for the possession of marijuana. However, there would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. It would also be beneficial to consider the economic and taxation benefits of legalising marijuana. This is not to say that alcohol should be made illegal, this would cause more problems than it would solve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. Legalisation would also remove the criminal element from marijuana use and allow the law to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, legalisation would be a significant step towards equality, as people of colour are disproportionately punished for the possession of marijuana. However, there would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. Not to say that alcohol should be made illegal, this would cause more problems than it would solve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. The legalisation of marijuana would allow the law to focus on more serious crimes, and help end systemic racism against black people through no longer criminalising possession of marijuana. However, there would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. Additionally, this is not to say that alcohol should be made illegal, this would cause more problems than it would solve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The recreational use of marijuana should be legalised. It is a much safer drug than alcohol and it is currently possible to get much more intoxicated legally than would be the case if marijuana was legalised. Marijuana is also less likely to cause serious harm to the user or others than alcohol. Additionally, legalisation would remove the criminal element from marijuana use and allow the law to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, legalisation would be a significant step towards equality, as people of colour are disproportionately punished for the possession of marijuana. There would have to be regulations and age restrictions as to who can purchase marijuana and the amounts available, and there should be warnings for users of marijuana who are vulnerable to certain mental health conditions. In general, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is in the public interest, but it would not make sense to make alcohol illegal, as that would likely cause more problems than it would solve. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001415.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001415.soc index 0156a11a..4c3a6b80 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001415.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001415.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. Furthermore, the arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in despereate need of funding, the arts play a vital role in our lives and by being funded by the goverment it would give more people access to this. This will also lower the burden on the arts for using their own funds that could instead be used for much better purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. Arts are important for creative expression and quality leisure and the arts play a vital role in our lives. They are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. Funding the arts is also a strong argument for cost-effectiveness. Overall, the arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in despereate need of funding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. The arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in despereate need of funding, the arts play a vital role in our lives and by being funded by the goverment it would give more people access to this. Conclusion: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, critical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. The arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in desperate need of funding, the arts play a vital role in our lives and by being funded by the goverment it would give more people access to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. Furthermore, the arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in despereate need of funding, the arts play a vital role in our lives and by being funded by the goverment it would give more people access to this. This will also lower the burden on the arts for using their own funds that could instead be used for much better purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. Arts are important for creative expression and quality leisure and the arts play a vital role in our lives. They are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. Funding the arts is also a strong argument for cost-effectiveness. Overall, the arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in despereate need of funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. The arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in despereate need of funding, the arts play a vital role in our lives and by being funded by the goverment it would give more people access to this. Conclusion: There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, crtitical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a good reason for the state to fund the arts. The arts are important for creativity, critical thinking, and quality leisure. For example, reading supports good communication skills. The arts are also an integral part of a society's culture. The arts are a way to give a voice to those who may not have one and state funding this would particularly help this cause with many from disadvanteged backgrounds being able to participate. The arts are also an integral part of freedom of expression, having been historically attacked and repressed during times of fascism, the arts are important if we want to keep society both fair and free. The arts are also important outlets for improving mental wellbeing and could help alleviate some of the depression we see in our society. The arts are criminally underfunded as things stand and they are in desperate need of funding, the arts play a vital role in our lives and by being funded by the goverment it would give more people access to this. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001416.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001416.soc index d586c9ba..1c5c45de 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001416.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001416.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of paying people to recycle. However, it was recognised that some people will not recycle unless they are paid to do so. In these cases, it may be necessary to pay a small amount to these people in order to encourage them to recycle. This will hopefully lead to a reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill sites. It was also suggested that it may be a good idea to make it compulsory for businesses to recycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that people should be incentivised to recycle in some way, but that a monetary payment is probably not the most effective way. This is because many people may simply do the bare minimum if a payment was in place and as such this would not actually be the best way of achieving the desired outcome. More effective ways of incentivising the behaviour change we are looking for could include ways of social influencing, so that there is a sense of peer pressure to recycle, as well as promoting the environmental benefits of doing so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group came to the consensus view that we should not be paid to recycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the government should not pay people to recycle. We think that it is the responsibility of each person to recycle and that this should be done without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle and that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of paying people to recycle. However, it was recognised that some people will not recycle unless they are paid to do so. In these cases, it may be necessary to pay a small amount to these people in order to encourage them to recycle. This will hopefully lead to a reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill sites. It was also suggested that it may be a good idea to make it compulsory for businesses to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that people should be incentivised to recycle in some way, but that a monetary payment is probably not the most effective way. This is because many people may simply do the bare minimum if a payment was in place and as such this would not actually be the best way of achieving the desired outcome. More effective ways of incentivising the behaviour change we are looking for could include ways of social influencing, so that there is a sense of peer pressure to recycle, as well as promoting the environmental benefits of doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not be paid to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the government should not pay people to recycle. We think that it is the responsibility of each person to recycle and that this should be done without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle and that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001417.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001417.soc index b2fa7d55..7d9aea43 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001417.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001417.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the government should not pay people to recycle. We think that it is the responsibility of each person to recycle and that this should be done without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle and that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the government should not pay people to recycle. We think that it is the responsibility of each person to recycle and that this should be done without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle and that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that we do not think that the government should pay people to recycle. Recycling is something that everyone should be doing without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle and that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the government should not pay people to recycle. We think that it is the responsibility of each person to recycle and that this should be done without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle. We think that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the government should not pay people to recycle. We think that it is the responsibility of each person to recycle and that this should be done without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle and that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the government should not pay people to recycle. We think that it is the responsibility of each person to recycle and that this should be done without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle and that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that we do not think that the government should pay people to recycle. Recycling is something that everyone should be doing without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle and that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the government should not pay people to recycle. We think that it is the responsibility of each person to recycle and that this should be done without the need for any financial incentive. However, we also think that the government should do more to encourage people to recycle. We think that this could be done by making recycling more accessible to people. We think that this could be done by having more recycling bins in public places and by making it easier for people to recycle at home. We also think that the government should do more to educate people about the importance of recycling and the impact that not recycling has on the environment. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001418.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001418.soc index 1645ff33..9e887468 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001418.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001418.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the legalisation of drugs is a bad idea as it would lead to higher levels of crime and addiction. However, we would support the legalisation of some drugs for medical use in a controlled way. We would also support the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use, but only in small quantities and only to people without any criminal records or mental health issues. The NHS should dispense it so that they can use the revenue for our Healthcare. This will free up the police to focus on actual crime and more serious issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the legalisation of drugs is a bad idea as it would lead to higher levels of crime and addiction. However, we would support the legalisation of some drugs for medical use in a controlled way. We would also support the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use, but only in small quantities and only to people without any criminal records or mental health issues. The NHS should dispense it so that they can use the revenue for our Healthcare. This will free up the police to focus on actual crime and more serious issues. In particular, we would support the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use for people with some mental health issues, like depression or anxiety, who want to use these drugs to help them cope with their issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the legalisation of drugs is a bad idea as it would lead to higher levels of crime and addiction. However, we would support the legalisation of some drugs for medical use in a controlled way. We would also support the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use, but only in small quantities to people without any criminal records or mental health issues. This would require tighter control over the supply of those drugs. The NHS should dispense it so that they can use the revenue for our Healthcare. This will free up the police to focus on actual crime and more serious issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the legalisation of drugs is a bad idea as it would lead to higher levels of crime and addiction. However, we would support the legalisation of some drugs for medical use in a controlled way. We would also support the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use, but only in small quantities and only to people without any criminal records or mental health issues. The NHS should dispense it so that they can use the revenue for our Healthcare. This will free up the police to focus on actual crime and more serious issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the legalisation of drugs is a bad idea as it would lead to higher levels of crime and addiction. However, we would support the legalisation of some drugs for medical use in a controlled way. We would also support the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use, but only in small quantities and only to people without any criminal records or mental health issues. The NHS should dispense it so that they can use the revenue for our Healthcare. This will free up the police to focus on actual crime and more serious issues. In particular, we would support the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use for people with some mental health issues, like depression or anxiety, who want to use these drugs to help them cope with their issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the legalisation of drugs is a bad idea as it would lead to higher levels of crime and addiction. However, we would support the legalisation of some drugs for medical use in a controlled way. We would also support the legalisation of some drugs for recreational use, but only in small quantities to people without any criminal records or mental health issues. This would require tighter control over the supply of those drugs. The NHS should dispense it so that they can use the revenue for our Healthcare. This will free up the police to focus on actual crime and more serious issues. 3: 3,4,2,1 2: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001419.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001419.soc index 9cf08c00..a9721715 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001419.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001419.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: While recognising the essential necessity for animal testing, the process should be heavily regulated and enforced to ensure that animals are treated with the respect they deserve. The process may be with an aim of mass production of a particular product in mind, which necessarily means mass suffering of the animals during testing. The testing process should however be regulated and ethical rules and parameters put in place that curtail such overbearing mass suffering of the animals without compromising the safety of the humans and the environment at large. The act of animal testing should not be completely banned especially for vital products like medicines and vaccines since it is scientifically proven that no other ways other than the animals could be used to do the testing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Animal testing is a very important and necessary part of medical advances and the testing of potentially hazardous substances. However the process should be heavily regulated to ensure that animals are treated with the respect they deserve. We should never introduce a blanket ban on animal testing as it is an important part of the production of products that have the potential to improve the health of humans and animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Animal testing is an important part of medical development and we should not outright ban it. However we should make the process heavily regulated to ensure that animals are treated with the respect they deserve and that there are no other alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: While recognising the essential necessity for animal testing, the process should be heavily regulated and enforced to ensure that animals are treated with the respect they deserve. The process may be with an aim of mass production of a particular product in mind, which necessarily means mass suffering of the animals during testing. The testing process should however be regulated and ethical rules and parameters put in place that curtail such overbearing mass suffering of the animals without compromising the safety of the humans and the environment at large. The act of animal testing should not be completely banned especially for vital products like medicines and vaccines since it is scientifically proven that no other ways other than the animals could be used to do the testing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Animal testing is a very important and necessary part of medical advances and the testing of potentially hazardous substances. However the process should be heavily regulated to ensure that animals are treated with the respect they deserve. We should never introduce a blanket ban on animal testing as it is an important part of the production of products that have the potential to improve the health of humans and animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Animal testing is an important part of medical development and we should not outright ban it. However we should make the process heavily regulated to ensure that animals are treated with the respect they deserve and that there are no other alternatives. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001420.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001420.soc index ebd77ca4..ee1791e1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001420.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001420.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the UK should not have a universal basic income. We believe that it is important to encourage people to work and a universal basic income will lead to more people refusing to work. We also believe that this will lead to a greater divide between the rich and the poor. We believe that the government should continue to provide a minimum wage to ensure that people are paid fairly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the group are aware that a universial basic income would be beneficial for a lot of people in society, the group believe that a universial basic income would lead to the UK becoming more like a communism state. We are all aware that one of the main principles of communism is that people should receive a wage for their work. This leads to a society in which people have no need to work. If everyone in society was to receive the same wage, regardless of the work they did, we would see a situation where people have no incentive to work. This is bad for society as the UK economy is currently one in which we need to encourage people to work. If we have a universal basic income, then we will be encouraging people not to work and therefore we will be sending the economy into a downward spiral. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A universal basic income is a good idea in principle, but it is likely to lead to an increase in the number of people who refuse to work. It is also likely to lead to an increase in the number of people who are in poverty, as it will lead to a decrease in the incentive to work. It is also likely to lead to an increase in the number of people who are in poverty, as it will lead to a decrease in the incentive to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group came to the consensus view that we should not have a universal basic income in the UK, and the reason for this is that it will take away the incentive for people to work. The belief is that we need to encourage people to work and that by providing them with a universal basic income, we will simply be discouraging people from working and incentivising them to take advantage of the system. It is felt that this will lead to a loss of productivity in the UK and will only make the government poorer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the UK should not have a universal basic income. We believe that it is important to encourage people to work and a universal basic income will lead to more people refusing to work. We also believe that this will lead to a greater divide between the rich and the poor. We believe that the government should continue to provide a minimum wage to ensure that people are paid fairly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the group are aware that a universial basic income would be beneficial for a lot of people in society, the group believe that a universial basic income would lead to the UK becoming more like a communism state. We are all aware that one of the main principles of communism is that people should receive a wage for their work. This leads to a society in which people have no need to work. If everyone in society was to receive the same wage, regardless of the work they did, we would see a situation where people have no incentive to work. This is bad for society as the UK economy is currently one in which we need to encourage people to work. If we have a universal basic income, then we will be encouraging people not to work and therefore we will be sending the economy into a downward spiral. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A universal basic income is a good idea in principle, but it is likely to lead to an increase in the number of people who refuse to work. It is also likely to lead to an increase in the number of people who are in poverty, as it will lead to a decrease in the incentive to work. It is also likely to lead to an increase in the number of people who are in poverty, as it will lead to a decrease in the incentive to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not have a universal basic income in the UK, and the reason for this is that it will take away the incentive for people to work. The belief is that we need to encourage people to work and that by providing them with a universal basic income, we will simply be discouraging people from working and incentivising them to take advantage of the system. It is felt that this will lead to a loss of productivity in the UK and will only make the government poorer. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001421.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001421.soc index ec1f1053..13117dd7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001421.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001421.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Animals should be used in scientific research if it helps to improve the quality of life for both animals and humans, and if the research is done with all possible care and concern to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, animals should be used in scientific research, but only when it is absolutely necessary, and when there is no other way to conduct the research. The research should be heavily regulated, and the animals should be treated with respect and kindness, and not be subject to unnecessary harm or cruelty. The research should be conducted by professionals who are trained in the proper care and handling of animals, and who are aware of the legal requirements for the care and treatment of animals. The research should be conducted in a manner that is respectful of the animals, and in a manner that is respectful of the law. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Scientific research is a necessity in this modern world. It is required to help us to protect and advance our understanding of all living creatures. This includes animals. We must not let ethical or moral arguments stop scientific progress and we should not feel guilty about using animals in such ways so long as we adhere to the law and protect their welfare. We must strive to protect all animals and use them to protect and advance us, as they can do much more than we can do for them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of animals in scientific research is acceptable, but only when there is no other way to achieve the same results. The use of animals in research should be heavily regulated, and there should be laws in place to prevent unnecessary harm to animals. The use of animals in scientific research should be allowed, but only when there is no other way to achieve the same results. The use of animals in research should be heavily regulated, and there should be laws in place to prevent unnecessary harm to animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Animals should be used in scientific research if it helps to improve the quality of life for both animals and humans, and if the research is done with all possible care and concern to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, animals should be used in scientific research, but only when it is absolutely necessary, and when there is no other way to conduct the research. The research should be heavily regulated, and the animals should be treated with respect and kindness, and not be subject to unnecessary harm or cruelty. The research should be conducted by professionals who are trained in the proper care and handling of animals, and who are aware of the legal requirements for the care and treatment of animals. The research should be conducted in a manner that is respectful of the animals, and in a manner that is respectful of the law. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Scientific research is a necessity in this modern world. It is required to help us to protect and advance our understanding of all living creatures. This includes animals. We must not let ethical or moral arguments stop scientific progress and we should not feel guilty about using animals in such ways so long as we adhere to the law and protect their welfare. We must strive to protect all animals and use them to protect and advance us, as they can do much more than we can do for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of animals in scientific research is acceptable, but only when there is no other way to achieve the same results. The use of animals in research should be heavily regulated, and there should be laws in place to prevent unnecessary harm to animals. The use of animals in scientific research should be allowed, but only when there is no other way to achieve the same results. The use of animals in research should be heavily regulated, and there should be laws in place to prevent unnecessary harm to animals. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001422.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001422.soc index 1c9d3f43..c2c5568c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001422.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001422.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants are aware that a universial basic income would be beneficial for a lot of people in society. However, the group of participants believe that a universial basic income would lead to the UK becoming more like a communism state. The group of participants are all aware that one of the main principles of communism is that people should receive a wage for their work. This leads to a society in which people have no need to work. If everyone in society was to receive the same wage, regardless of the work they did, we would see a situation where people have no incentive to work. This is bad for society as the UK economy is currently one in which we need to encourage people to work. If we have a universial basic income, then we will be encouraging people not to work and therefore we will be sending the economy into a downward spiral. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the group are aware that a universial basic income would be beneficial for a lot of people in society, the group believe that a universial basic income would lead to the UK becoming more like a communism state. We are all aware that one of the main principles of communism is that people should receive a wage for their work. This leads to a society in which people have no need to work. If everyone in society was to receive the same wage, regardless of the work they did, we would see a situation where people have no incentive to work. This is bad for society as the UK economy is currently one in which we need to encourage people to work. If we have a universal basic income, then we will be encouraging people not to work and therefore we will be sending the economy into a downward spiral. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the group are aware that a universial basic income would be beneficial for a lot of people in society, the group believe that a universial basic income would lead to the UK becoming more like a communism state. We are all aware that one of the main principles of communism is that people should receive a wage for their work. This leads to a society in which people have no need to work. If everyone in society was to receive the same wage, regardless of the work they did, we would see a situation where people have no incentive to work. This is bad for society as the UK economy is currently one in which we need to encourage people to work. If we have a universal basic income, then we will be encouraging people not to work and therefore we will be sending the economy into a downward spiral. This is something that is not good for society and this is why we do not think that the UK should have a universial basic income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants are aware that a universial basic income would be beneficial for a lot of people in society. However, the group of participants believe that a universial basic income would lead to the UK becoming more like a communism state. The group of participants are all aware that one of the main principles of communism is that people should receive a wage for their work. This leads to a society in which people have no need to work. If everyone in society was to receive the same wage, regardless of the work they did, we would see a situation where people have no incentive to work. This is bad for society as the UK economy is currently one in which we need to encourage people to work. If we have a universial basic income, then we will be encouraging people not to work and therefore we will be sending the economy into a downward spiral. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the group are aware that a universial basic income would be beneficial for a lot of people in society, the group believe that a universial basic income would lead to the UK becoming more like a communism state. We are all aware that one of the main principles of communism is that people should receive a wage for their work. This leads to a society in which people have no need to work. If everyone in society was to receive the same wage, regardless of the work they did, we would see a situation where people have no incentive to work. This is bad for society as the UK economy is currently one in which we need to encourage people to work. If we have a universal basic income, then we will be encouraging people not to work and therefore we will be sending the economy into a downward spiral. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the group are aware that a universial basic income would be beneficial for a lot of people in society, the group believe that a universial basic income would lead to the UK becoming more like a communism state. We are all aware that one of the main principles of communism is that people should receive a wage for their work. This leads to a society in which people have no need to work. If everyone in society was to receive the same wage, regardless of the work they did, we would see a situation where people have no incentive to work. This is bad for society as the UK economy is currently one in which we need to encourage people to work. If we have a universal basic income, then we will be encouraging people not to work and therefore we will be sending the economy into a downward spiral. This is something that is not good for society and this is why we do not think that the UK should have a universial basic income. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001423.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001423.soc index 7a6d2b47..8793e580 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001423.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001423.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Tax should be increased on the rich so that it helps to improve the infrastructure and public services. This would help to improve the economy as it will attract investors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important to improve the UK infrastructure, but this can be done by using more efficient methods than just taxing the rich. It would be unfair on the hard working individuals and businesses who have worked hard to get to where they are. If we were to tax the rich more, the money would have to be used for improving the infrastructure or public services. This would improve the lives of everyone, not just the rich. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing tax on the rich. However, the group was split as to whether the money should be used to help the poor, or to improve infrastructure. The group felt that the tax should be increased after a certain amount, so as to ensure that ordinary working citizens are not affected by the tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing tax on the rich. The group felt that this would be a good thing as it would help to share the tax burden and help to fund public services. However, the group felt that the tax increase should be used to improve the country's infrastructure and public services and should not be used to give handouts to those less fortunate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Tax should be increased on the rich so that it helps to improve the infrastructure and public services. This would help to improve the economy as it will attract investors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important to improve the UK infrastructure, but this can be done by using more efficient methods than just taxing the rich. It would be unfair on the hard working individuals and businesses who have worked hard to get to where they are. If we were to tax the rich more, the money would have to be used for improving the infrastructure or public services. This would improve the lives of everyone, not just the rich. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing tax on the rich. However, the group was split as to whether the money should be used to help the poor, or to improve infrastructure. The group felt that the tax should be increased after a certain amount, so as to ensure that ordinary working citizens are not affected by the tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing tax on the rich. The group felt that this would be a good thing as it would help to share the tax burden and help to fund public services. However, the group felt that the tax increase should be used to improve the country's infrastructure and public services and should not be used to give handouts to those less fortunate. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001424.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001424.soc index 5300c564..1414549c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001424.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001424.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is important to improve the UK infrastructure, but this can be done by using more efficient methods than just taxing the rich. It would be unfair on the hard working individuals and businesses who have worked hard to get to where they are. If we were to tax the rich more, the money would have to be used for improving the infrastructure or public services. This would improve the lives of everyone, not just the rich. This is a fairer way of improving the lives of everyone in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement (incorporating all the suggestions, views, and critiques): The group agrees that improving the infrastructure and public services in the UK is crucial for its economic and societal stability. However, we do not agree that increasing tax on the rich is the correct way to go about it. It would be unfair on the hard working individuals and businesses who have worked hard to get to where they are. Although in an ideal world, the group does feel that the rich should be taxed somewhat more. The money raised through this increase would need to be spent improving the public services and infrastructure of the UK for the benefit of everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a small increase in tax on the rich. This would be unfair on those who have worked hard to get to where they are now. However, this money could be used to improve the infrastructure and public services. This would benefit everyone, not just the rich. This is because the rich would be paying the extra tax to improve their own lives as well as the lives of everyone else. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Tax the rich. We do need to make things fair so pumping the money back into public services will improve the lives of everyone and not just the rich. We do not want to punish the rich for the work they have done but they can help make the UK a better place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is important to improve the UK infrastructure, but this can be done by using more efficient methods than just taxing the rich. It would be unfair on the hard working individuals and businesses who have worked hard to get to where they are. If we were to tax the rich more, the money would have to be used for improving the infrastructure or public services. This would improve the lives of everyone, not just the rich. This is a fairer way of improving the lives of everyone in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement (incorporating all the suggestions, views, and critiques): The group agrees that improving the infrastructure and public services in the UK is crucial for its economic and societal stability. However, we do not agree that increasing tax on the rich is the correct way to go about it. It would be unfair on the hard working individuals and businesses who have worked hard to get to where they are. Although in an ideal world, the group does feel that the rich should be taxed somewhat more. The money raised through this increase would need to be spent improving the public services and infrastructure of the UK for the benefit of everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a small increase in tax on the rich. This would be unfair on those who have worked hard to get to where they are now. However, this money could be used to improve the infrastructure and public services. This would benefit everyone, not just the rich. This is because the rich would be paying the extra tax to improve their own lives as well as the lives of everyone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Tax the rich. We do need to make things fair so pumping the money back into public services will improve the lives of everyone and not just the rich. We do not want to punish the rich for the work they have done but they can help make the UK a better place. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001425.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001425.soc index 3c795816..733bd968 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001425.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001425.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of making divorce easier to obtain. This was mainly because marriage is not a do or die affair and as such should be tackled very fast before it gets bad. In cases where there are children involved, divorce should be made harder to obtain as this would force people to work on their marriage to help it succeed. In cases where there is domestic violence or abuse involved or harm to children identifiable by law, special arrangements should be allowed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is the opinion of the group that divorce should not be easier. Marriage is a serious commitment and not a passing fancy. There should be more counseling and mediation available to those who feel they cannot carry on with their marriage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While it is very important that marriage remains an important institution in society, the ever changing nature of society, and people's attitudes and beliefs to marriage and relationships means that the requirements for divorce must be looked at. Marriage used to be a very different institution with men holding more power over the woman, and less recognition given to the rights of women, children and the vulnerable. However, today we live in a more liberal society where many people have different opinions and attitudes. If one person is in a marriage where the other is abusive, unfaithful, does not contribute to the household or have any regard for the other partner, then it is wrong to make them stay in that marriage. While divorce should not be made easier, it should not be so hard that the only option left for people in this situation is to leave. The laws should change so that those in these situations can leave their marriages easily, without being punished financially or emotionally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of making divorce easier to obtain in the UK. They felt that the current system was too adversarial and that the process was too long and expensive. They felt that the process of divorce should be more of a formality and that the process should be less adversarial. They felt that the process should be less regulated by courts and solicitors and that the process should be less regulated by paperwork, litigation and time. They felt that fiscal settlements should be a different matter of course. They felt that the process should be a one document application, countersigned and verified only. They felt that the process should be no fault divorces and that special arrangements should be allowed in cases of things such as abuse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of making divorce easier to obtain. This was mainly because marriage is not a do or die affair and as such should be tackled very fast before it gets bad. In cases where there are children involved, divorce should be made harder to obtain as this would force people to work on their marriage to help it succeed. In cases where there is domestic violence or abuse involved or harm to children identifiable by law, special arrangements should be allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is the opinion of the group that divorce should not be easier. Marriage is a serious commitment and not a passing fancy. There should be more counseling and mediation available to those who feel they cannot carry on with their marriage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While it is very important that marriage remains an important institution in society, the ever changing nature of society, and people's attitudes and beliefs to marriage and relationships means that the requirements for divorce must be looked at. Marriage used to be a very different institution with men holding more power over the woman, and less recognition given to the rights of women, children and the vulnerable. However, today we live in a more liberal society where many people have different opinions and attitudes. If one person is in a marriage where the other is abusive, unfaithful, does not contribute to the household or have any regard for the other partner, then it is wrong to make them stay in that marriage. While divorce should not be made easier, it should not be so hard that the only option left for people in this situation is to leave. The laws should change so that those in these situations can leave their marriages easily, without being punished financially or emotionally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of making divorce easier to obtain in the UK. They felt that the current system was too adversarial and that the process was too long and expensive. They felt that the process of divorce should be more of a formality and that the process should be less adversarial. They felt that the process should be less regulated by courts and solicitors and that the process should be less regulated by paperwork, litigation and time. They felt that fiscal settlements should be a different matter of course. They felt that the process should be a one document application, countersigned and verified only. They felt that the process should be no fault divorces and that special arrangements should be allowed in cases of things such as abuse. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001426.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001426.soc index 89962fa6..f0f2c369 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001426.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001426.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “A wealth tax is needed in the UK. It should be introduced for people earning over £150,000 per year or for people who have more £1m of assets to their name. It should not be applied to lottery winners. It would reduce wealth inequality and provide additional revenue to the government which could be used to upgrade and improve public services. It would be very difficult to implement wealthy people would find ways to get around such system. It would be right because the very wealthy have often inherited wealth and have not needed to work at all. It is right that the wealthy contribute to the greater good. It would encourage them to support the less well off and possibly also to work for an income. The far right consider that the poor should remain poor and they should remain rich to better support them, this is a poor argument. We should seek to move to a more equal society without penalising those who work hard to generate income for the benefit of wider society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A wealth tax would help to reduce wealth inequality, but in the UK, a large proportion of the population are struggling to get by and are relying on government handouts to survive. The government would generate more revenue from a wealth tax and this would benefit society as a whole by making it possible for the government to increase spending on public services. Many wealthy people and businesses use tax loopholes to avoid paying tax, this can be avoided with a wealth tax as it is difficult to hide wealth. A wealth tax would discourage some wealthy people from working and creating jobs for others as the tax would reduce the incentive to work. A wealth tax would not be popular with people of all income groups as they may feel that they are being unfairly penalised. While we agree that a wealth tax would be beneficial to society as a whole, we believe that the government should carefully consider the wider implications of a wealth tax and the effect that this would have on the economy as a whole before proceeding with a wealth tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group came to the consensus view that we should not introduce a wealth tax, because it would not be fair, and because wealthy people would simply find ways to avoid paying it. We were quite surprised at how much debate was generated from this one simple question. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A wealth tax should be introduced for those with over £1m of assets to their name. This would be fair and would reduce the wealth gap in the UK. The tax should be used to improve public services. It should be introduced gradually over a number of years to allow the wealthy to adjust their affairs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “A wealth tax is needed in the UK. It should be introduced for people earning over £150,000 per year or for people who have more £1m of assets to their name. It should not be applied to lottery winners. It would reduce wealth inequality and provide additional revenue to the government which could be used to upgrade and improve public services. It would be very difficult to implement wealthy people would find ways to get around such system. It would be right because the very wealthy have often inherited wealth and have not needed to work at all. It is right that the wealthy contribute to the greater good. It would encourage them to support the less well off and possibly also to work for an income. The far right consider that the poor should remain poor and they should remain rich to better support them, this is a poor argument. We should seek to move to a more equal society without penalising those who work hard to generate income for the benefit of wider society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A wealth tax would help to reduce wealth inequality, but in the UK, a large proportion of the population are struggling to get by and are relying on government handouts to survive. The government would generate more revenue from a wealth tax and this would benefit society as a whole by making it possible for the government to increase spending on public services. Many wealthy people and businesses use tax loopholes to avoid paying tax, this can be avoided with a wealth tax as it is difficult to hide wealth. A wealth tax would discourage some wealthy people from working and creating jobs for others as the tax would reduce the incentive to work. A wealth tax would not be popular with people of all income groups as they may feel that they are being unfairly penalised. While we agree that a wealth tax would be beneficial to society as a whole, we believe that the government should carefully consider the wider implications of a wealth tax and the effect that this would have on the economy as a whole before proceeding with a wealth tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not introduce a wealth tax, because it would not be fair, and because wealthy people would simply find ways to avoid paying it. We were quite surprised at how much debate was generated from this one simple question. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A wealth tax should be introduced for those with over £1m of assets to their name. This would be fair and would reduce the wealth gap in the UK. The tax should be used to improve public services. It should be introduced gradually over a number of years to allow the wealthy to adjust their affairs. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001427.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001427.soc index d9255341..c6ba11f6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001427.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001427.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the BBC being funded by licence fees, however, they all agreed that the licence fee should be reviewed and the BBC should not be allowed to use the licence fee to fund programmes that are not of a high quality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are all fairly undecided on the question of whether the BBC should be funded entirely by licence fees. While some of us feel that the BBC provides content which is worth the cost of a licence fee, others of us feel that the BBC should not be provided with more money than other channels. All of us feel that it is important that the BBC is funded in a way which allows it to be unbiased, and not influenced by advertisers, but feel that there are other ways in which the BBC could be funded while still being unbiased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the BBC should be funded by licence fees. We believe that the BBC is a vital part of the UK and is an important part of the British culture. We believe that the BBC is an important part of the British culture and is something that we should be proud of. We believe that the BBC should be funded by licence fees as this allows it to be more independent than if it were government funded. It also prevents the need for advertising revenue, which would also impact on independence. We think that the licence fee model also allows people to decide whether or not to pay a licence fee if they don't want to consume the content. We also think that the BBC is a neutral and unbiased organisation with their views which is really important so that our media isn't heavily biased like the newspapers or other television channels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the BBC being funded by licence fees, however, they all agreed that the licence fee should be reviewed and the BBC should not be allowed to use the licence fee to fund programmes that are not of a high quality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are all fairly undecided on the question of whether the BBC should be funded entirely by licence fees. While some of us feel that the BBC provides content which is worth the cost of a licence fee, others of us feel that the BBC should not be provided with more money than other channels. All of us feel that it is important that the BBC is funded in a way which allows it to be unbiased, and not influenced by advertisers, but feel that there are other ways in which the BBC could be funded while still being unbiased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the BBC should be funded by licence fees. We believe that the BBC is a vital part of the UK and is an important part of the British culture. We believe that the BBC is an important part of the British culture and is something that we should be proud of. We believe that the BBC should be funded by licence fees as this allows it to be more independent than if it were government funded. It also prevents the need for advertising revenue, which would also impact on independence. We think that the licence fee model also allows people to decide whether or not to pay a licence fee if they don't want to consume the content. We also think that the BBC is a neutral and unbiased organisation with their views which is really important so that our media isn't heavily biased like the newspapers or other television channels. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001428.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001428.soc index 0cc1a9d8..a4cbe817 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001428.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001428.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is becoming more like the USA due to the way we eat, the way we speak, the way we act, the way we treat others and the way we think. The UK is becoming more americanised and this is a bad thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA. We are becoming more individualistic, less community orientated and more money orientated. We are becoming more materialistic and are concerned with image and looking good. We are also becoming more unhealthy, with more obesity and diabetes. The UK is also becoming more unequal, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We are also becoming more brash and less traditional. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the UK is becoming more like the USA due to the fact that we now have fast food restaurants and eat unhealthily like the USA. Also we now watch American tv and have adopted their language, in our speech and tv programmes. We are also following American trends in music, and we now listen to hip hop. We also spend money more carelessly and are very consumerist. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK is becoming more like the USA because we are becoming a more materialistic society. We are also becoming more individualistic and we are starting to be more competitive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is becoming more like the USA due to the way we eat, the way we speak, the way we act, the way we treat others and the way we think. The UK is becoming more americanised and this is a bad thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA. We are becoming more individualistic, less community orientated and more money orientated. We are becoming more materialistic and are concerned with image and looking good. We are also becoming more unhealthy, with more obesity and diabetes. The UK is also becoming more unequal, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We are also becoming more brash and less traditional. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the UK is becoming more like the USA due to the fact that we now have fast food restaurants and eat unhealthily like the USA. Also we now watch American tv and have adopted their language, in our speech and tv programmes. We are also following American trends in music, and we now listen to hip hop. We also spend money more carelessly and are very consumerist. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK is becoming more like the USA because we are becoming a more materialistic society. We are also becoming more individualistic and we are starting to be more competitive. 3: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001429.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001429.soc index eeb646e6..b8b92850 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001429.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001429.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the participants believe that the government should have a role in reducing childhood obesity. Most people think that the government should focus on providing information and education on diet and exercise, and that this should be started at an early age. Some participants think that the government should also have a role in directly intervening in the diets of children, such as by providing a healthy school lunch or making it more expensive for parents to provide unhealthy food to their children. In general, most participants thought that parents had the primary responsibility for reducing childhood obesity. However, some participants also thought that the government should intervene when parents are unable or unwilling to provide a healthy diet for their children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the government taking steps to reduce childhood obesity, but felt that this was a complex issue and that there was no 'one size fits all' solution. The group felt that the government should provide information and support to parents and children, but that the onus should be on the parents to ensure that their children are eating a healthy diet and getting enough exercise. The group felt that the government should also ensure that school meals are healthy and nutritious, and that children are educated about the importance of a healthy diet and exercise. The group also felt that the government should take steps to ensure that healthy food is affordable for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should reduce childhood obesity by ensuring children eat healthy food and take part in exercise. The government should also support parents to do the same. The government should educate children about the effects of obesity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not be responsible for reducing childhood obesity, but they should be responsible for providing the facts, and for providing funding for local initiatives to reduce childhood obesity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the participants believe that the government should have a role in reducing childhood obesity. Most people think that the government should focus on providing information and education on diet and exercise, and that this should be started at an early age. Some participants think that the government should also have a role in directly intervening in the diets of children, such as by providing a healthy school lunch or making it more expensive for parents to provide unhealthy food to their children. In general, most participants thought that parents had the primary responsibility for reducing childhood obesity. However, some participants also thought that the government should intervene when parents are unable or unwilling to provide a healthy diet for their children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government taking steps to reduce childhood obesity, but felt that this was a complex issue and that there was no 'one size fits all' solution. The group felt that the government should provide information and support to parents and children, but that the onus should be on the parents to ensure that their children are eating a healthy diet and getting enough exercise. The group felt that the government should also ensure that school meals are healthy and nutritious, and that children are educated about the importance of a healthy diet and exercise. The group also felt that the government should take steps to ensure that healthy food is affordable for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should reduce childhood obesity by ensuring children eat healthy food and take part in exercise. The government should also support parents to do the same. The government should educate children about the effects of obesity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not be responsible for reducing childhood obesity, but they should be responsible for providing the facts, and for providing funding for local initiatives to reduce childhood obesity. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001430.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001430.soc index 283e2d02..4eb83c54 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001430.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001430.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not subsidize industry in order to keep jobs in the UK. We believe that industry should not need to be subsidized to stay in the UK, if they want to leave, then they should be allowed to. The government should offer favourable conditions such as tax breaks to encourage industry to stay in the UK, but should not subsidize them to stay. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Government should not subsidize industry in the UK, but they should offer other incentives to encourage companies to keep jobs here. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should be able to offer a limited number of tax breaks or subsidies to keep jobs in the UK. However, they should not be used to hold the government to ransom, but rather to help companies grow and provide skilled jobs to British people. This is how we will get back to the UK being a country of value again. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should subsidize some industry in order to help keep jobs in the UK. This will help improve the wellbeing of the native population and help return some of the manufacturing work that has been sent overseas. We believe that subsidies should be used to help new industries/start ups get off the ground, and that subsidies should be used to help return jobs to the UK that have been moved abroad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not subsidize industry in order to keep jobs in the UK. We believe that industry should not need to be subsidized to stay in the UK, if they want to leave, then they should be allowed to. The government should offer favourable conditions such as tax breaks to encourage industry to stay in the UK, but should not subsidize them to stay. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Government should not subsidize industry in the UK, but they should offer other incentives to encourage companies to keep jobs here. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should be able to offer a limited number of tax breaks or subsidies to keep jobs in the UK. However, they should not be used to hold the government to ransom, but rather to help companies grow and provide skilled jobs to British people. This is how we will get back to the UK being a country of value again. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should subsidize some industry in order to help keep jobs in the UK. This will help improve the wellbeing of the native population and help return some of the manufacturing work that has been sent overseas. We believe that subsidies should be used to help new industries/start ups get off the ground, and that subsidies should be used to help return jobs to the UK that have been moved abroad. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001431.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001431.soc index 653420e5..4ffee22f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001431.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001431.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should continue to fund the NHS, however, there are changes that need to be made. The government should stop giving away free prescriptions to drug addicts, and the people who really need it should be given it. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The U.K government should continue to fund the NHS. It is one of the most important institutions in our country and is something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK government should continue to fund the National Health Service, however, the NHS is under threat due to funding cuts and privatisation. NHS services are vital to the UK and are becoming more essential with an ageing population and increasing life expectancy. If the NHS is cut, then it will be the elderly, children, and low-income families who suffer the most. If the NHS is left to deteriorate, the UK will become an unattractive prospect for young people looking to live and work in the UK. We need to invest in our NHS and ensure that it has the funding that it needs to keep up with modern medicine. The NHS needs to be updated and modernised. The current lack of funding has led to understaffing and under-investment. This is a difficult problem to solve and is likely to lead to a decrease in quality of care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is an important part of British society and it is our responsibility as a government to fund it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should continue to fund the NHS, however, there are changes that need to be made. The government should stop giving away free prescriptions to drug addicts, and the people who really need it should be given it. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. The government should also stop the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs in the NHS. They should stop paying for people to go to the hospital and receive treatment for a cold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The U.K government should continue to fund the NHS. It is one of the most important institutions in our country and is something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK government should continue to fund the National Health Service, however, the NHS is under threat due to funding cuts and privatisation. NHS services are vital to the UK and are becoming more essential with an ageing population and increasing life expectancy. If the NHS is cut, then it will be the elderly, children, and low-income families who suffer the most. If the NHS is left to deteriorate, the UK will become an unattractive prospect for young people looking to live and work in the UK. We need to invest in our NHS and ensure that it has the funding that it needs to keep up with modern medicine. The NHS needs to be updated and modernised. The current lack of funding has led to understaffing and under-investment. This is a difficult problem to solve and is likely to lead to a decrease in quality of care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is an important part of British society and it is our responsibility as a government to fund it. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001432.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001432.soc index 3e20b2df..bc26dbe5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001432.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001432.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the current voting system in the UK works well. However, there are some aspects of the system that could be improved. The most important of these is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis, for example every four years. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that the current voting system is a democratic way of voting, however it could be improved. Firstly, the voting system could be improved by implementing a change to how we vote, rather than an FPTP voting system, a more proportional system could be put in place. Furthermore, we think that changes should be made to how often elections take place. We think that if they were to be on a more regular basis it would reduce the number of times elections are called due to the fact that the current party is not happy with the government. This could be a major improvement, as it would save the country money and would increase the democracy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The current system is working well enough to not change. There is no need for the change, as the current system does a good job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the current system is not perfect, it is the best system and works well enough to not make any changes. A majority is always the best system. The current voting system should be left as it is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the current voting system in the UK works well. However, there are some aspects of the system that could be improved. The most important of these is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis, for example every four years. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that the current voting system is a democratic way of voting, however it could be improved. Firstly, the voting system could be improved by implementing a change to how we vote, rather than an FPTP voting system, a more proportional system could be put in place. Furthermore, we think that changes should be made to how often elections take place. We think that if they were to be on a more regular basis it would reduce the number of times elections are called due to the fact that the current party is not happy with the government. This could be a major improvement, as it would save the country money and would increase the democracy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The current system is working well enough to not change. There is no need for the change, as the current system does a good job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the current system is not perfect, it is the best system and works well enough to not make any changes. A majority is always the best system. The current voting system should be left as it is. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001433.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001433.soc index c1eb9e1e..304cfa73 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001433.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001433.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should require businesses to publish diversity data as it would increase transparency and reduce discrimination. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government of the UK should require businesses to publish diversity data. This is because it would be good to see who the diverse employers are in that they are offering employment to people regardless of sexuality, race, disability etc. It is important for businesses operating in the UK to be clear and transparent regarding their employees. It is helpful for reporting and analysing trends also. It would help the general public to be more informed about the company's diversity policies. Companies would also be held accountable for any possible biases in hiring. Underrepresented minorities would have slightly better chances of getting hired if all companies were transparent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK government should require all businesses to publish diversity data. This is to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to seek employment without facing any forms of discrimination. With a diverse workforce, companies can benefit from various perspectives and inputs, enhancing innovation and business opportunities. In the long run, this would bring the UK in line with many other countries such as the US and Australia, both of which already have established legislations in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should require businesses to publish diversity data as it would increase transparency and reduce discrimination. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. The government should require businesses to publish diversity data. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government of the UK should require businesses to publish diversity data. This is because it would be good to see who the diverse employers are in that they are offering employment to people regardless of sexuality, race, disability etc. It is important for businesses operating in the UK to be clear and transparent regarding their employees. It is helpful for reporting and analysing trends also. It would help the general public to be more informed about the company's diversity policies. Companies would also be held accountable for any possible biases in hiring. Underrepresented minorities would have slightly better chances of getting hired if all companies were transparent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK government should require all businesses to publish diversity data. This is to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to seek employment without facing any forms of discrimination. With a diverse workforce, companies can benefit from various perspectives and inputs, enhancing innovation and business opportunities. In the long run, this would bring the UK in line with many other countries such as the US and Australia, both of which already have established legislations in place. 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001434.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001434.soc index ef6d245a..09156db9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001434.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001434.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the UK should adopt the universal basic income but we do not feel like it should be paid to those with high income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Consensus View: After the group had a long discussion on the topic, we decided that we would be in favour of the idea. We feel like it could be a way to solve the issue of poverty, and to make sure that everyone has a comfortable life and is able to live their life without the worry of money. This is particularly important in a country like the UK, where there are a lot of people who are not able to work and are struggling to pay for the basic needs. We also feel like it could have an impact on mental health, and it will stop people from having to worry about paying for things like electricity, food, rent etc. And then it will allow them to focus on the things that are important. However, there could be some issues with this. The first one is that people may not work, and this could be an issue if there is not enough money coming into the country to fund this. Secondly, there may be people who do not need this money, but they may be able to get it, and this is an issue because then there is a waste of money. But overall, we believe that it is something that should be tried. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland, and the Netherlands. However, the group was of the opinion that the basic income should be targeted at those who need it most, and not everyone in society. The group felt that the basic income should be set at a level that is enough to provide the basic necessities of life, and should be set at a level that is enough to provide the basic necessities of life, and should be adjusted for inflation. The group also felt that the basic income should be means tested, and that those who can afford to support themselves should not be eligible for the basic income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income, but thought that the amount of money should be dependent on the person’s income. They also thought that this would be a good way to reduce poverty in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the UK should adopt the universal basic income but we do not feel like it should be paid to those with high income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Consensus View: After the group had a long discussion on the topic, we decided that we would be in favour of the idea. We feel like it could be a way to solve the issue of poverty, and to make sure that everyone has a comfortable life and is able to live their life without the worry of money. This is particularly important in a country like the UK, where there are a lot of people who are not able to work and are struggling to pay for the basic needs. We also feel like it could have an impact on mental health, and it will stop people from having to worry about paying for things like electricity, food, rent etc. And then it will allow them to focus on the things that are important. However, there could be some issues with this. The first one is that people may not work, and this could be an issue if there is not enough money coming into the country to fund this. Secondly, there may be people who do not need this money, but they may be able to get it, and this is an issue because then there is a waste of money. But overall, we believe that it is something that should be tried. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland, and the Netherlands. However, the group was of the opinion that the basic income should be targeted at those who need it most, and not everyone in society. The group felt that the basic income should be set at a level that is enough to provide the basic necessities of life, and should be set at a level that is enough to provide the basic necessities of life, and should be adjusted for inflation. The group also felt that the basic income should be means tested, and that those who can afford to support themselves should not be eligible for the basic income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income, but thought that the amount of money should be dependent on the person’s income. They also thought that this would be a good way to reduce poverty in the UK. 4: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001435.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001435.soc index d1aa2ba8..eb40a3c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001435.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001435.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the happiness of others is an important factor to consider, our own happiness is our ultimate goal. In order to be a happy person, it is necessary to be a good person. In order to be a good person, we must do what is right, even if that means sacrificing our own immediate happiness. But in the end, the happiness of others will come back to us in many positive ways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, being a good person is more important than being a happy person. Being a good person can make you happy, but being a happy person does not necessarily make you good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is more important to be a good person than to be a happy person. This is because being a good person is not only good for yourself, but for the people around you and society as a whole. It is a moral obligation to be good to others, and if you are not, it is likely that you will not be happy in the long term. If you are a good person, you will have the respect of others and this will lead to happiness. Being a good person is not always easy, and it is important to find a balance between being good and being happy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the happiness of others is an important factor to consider, our own happiness is our ultimate goal. In order to be a happy person, it is necessary to be a good person. In order to be a good person, we must do what is right, even if that means sacrificing our own immediate happiness. But in the end, the happiness of others will come back to us in many positive ways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, being a good person is more important than being a happy person. Being a good person can make you happy, but being a happy person does not necessarily make you good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is more important to be a good person than to be a happy person. This is because being a good person is not only good for yourself, but for the people around you and society as a whole. It is a moral obligation to be good to others, and if you are not, it is likely that you will not be happy in the long term. If you are a good person, you will have the respect of others and this will lead to happiness. Being a good person is not always easy, and it is important to find a balance between being good and being happy. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001436.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001436.soc index cc526026..865f6b59 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001436.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001436.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is important for the government to subsidise the arts in order to allow for full and equal access to all groups and members of society. It also enhances the cultural, social and economic well being of society. However, we believe the amount of government subsidies should be kept to a minimum and that the funds allocated to the arts should be prioritised over other expenditures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should subsidise the arts to a limited extent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should more heavily subsidise the arts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the government should not subsidise the arts. In my opinion this should be left to market forces to fund art endeavours. Funding through education is sufficient in my opinion. There are far more pressing needs for government funding. At this stage in my country, arts funding is a luxury we cannot afford. However, the government should subsidise the arts, but only to a limited extent. I believe that the arts are important, but there are higher priorities elsewhere. For example, it's difficult to appreciate the arts if you are hungry due to being unable to afford food, or in pain as a result on being unable to get adequate healthcare, or if you've just been robbed due to there not being enough police on the streets. Nevertheless, it is the job of the government to allocate a reasonable level of funding for the arts as not all art can exist as a commercial business. It is important to subsides the arts to ensure access to all groups and members of society. It also enhances the cultural, social and economic well being of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is important for the government to subsidise the arts in order to allow for full and equal access to all groups and members of society. It also enhances the cultural, social and economic well being of society. However, we believe the amount of government subsidies should be kept to a minimum and that the funds allocated to the arts should be prioritised over other expenditures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should subsidise the arts to a limited extent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should more heavily subsidise the arts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the government should not subsidise the arts. In my opinion this should be left to market forces to fund art endeavours. Funding through education is sufficient in my opinion. There are far more pressing needs for government funding. At this stage in my country, arts funding is a luxury we cannot afford. However, the government should subsidise the arts, but only to a limited extent. I believe that the arts are important, but there are higher priorities elsewhere. For example, it's difficult to appreciate the arts if you are hungry due to being unable to afford food, or in pain as a result on being unable to get adequate healthcare, or if you've just been robbed due to there not being enough police on the streets. Nevertheless, it is the job of the government to allocate a reasonable level of funding for the arts as not all art can exist as a commercial business. It is important to subsides the arts to ensure access to all groups and members of society. It also enhances the cultural, social and economic well being of society. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001437.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001437.soc index e1d9d7a2..480be717 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001437.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001437.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should continue to fund the NHS. The NHS is one of the most important institutions in our country and something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. Conclusion Overall, this pilot study has demonstrated that the MASBIC method is a viable and effective mechanism to assist in the creation and establishment of coherent shared group opinions between a cohort of people. It has demonstrated that the process is very flexible in terms of group size and scenarios, requiring only a pre-defined question or matter of fact for -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The U.K government should continue to fund the NHS. It is one of the most important institutions in our country and is something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. We also need to make sure that the people who are working in the NHS are being treated properly and are being paid a fair wage for the work that they do. The people who work in the NHS are the people who are keeping our country going and they need to be shown the appreciation that they deserve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The U.K government should continue to fund the NHS. It is one of the most important institutions in our country and is something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. We need to make sure that every patient is being looked after to a high standard and that every patient's needs are being met. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The U.K government should continue to fund the NHS. It is one of the most important institutions in our country and is something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. The NHS needs to be restructured massively. Currently, we are seeing that women are not being given gynecology treatment for serious conditions like endometriosis and PCOS. The current waiting list for a woman to speak to a gynecologist is 1+ year. Women are also facing the loss of gas and air during child +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should continue to fund the NHS. The NHS is one of the most important institutions in our country and something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. Conclusion Overall, this pilot study has demonstrated that the MASBIC method is a viable and effective mechanism to assist in the creation and establishment of coherent shared group opinions between a cohort of people. It has demonstrated that the process is very flexible in terms of group size and scenarios, requiring only a pre-defined question or matter of fact for +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The U.K government should continue to fund the NHS. It is one of the most important institutions in our country and is something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. We also need to make sure that the people who are working in the NHS are being treated properly and are being paid a fair wage for the work that they do. The people who work in the NHS are the people who are keeping our country going and they need to be shown the appreciation that they deserve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The U.K government should continue to fund the NHS. It is one of the most important institutions in our country and is something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. We need to make sure that every patient is being looked after to a high standard and that every patient's needs are being met. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The U.K government should continue to fund the NHS. It is one of the most important institutions in our country and is something that we should be proud of. The NHS is there to provide care for all, regardless of their wealth or social status. It is a basic human right to receive medical care when you are ill and we should be making sure that everyone has access to the help they need. The NHS is also one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so we should be making sure that it is being funded properly. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that the NHS is run. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed and changes that need to be made. We need to make sure that the NHS is being run in the most efficient way possible and that the money that is being put into it is being used in the best way. The NHS needs to be restructured massively. Currently, we are seeing that women are not being given gynecology treatment for serious conditions like endometriosis and PCOS. The current waiting list for a woman to speak to a gynecologist is 1+ year. Women are also facing the loss of gas and air during child 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001438.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001438.soc index 189b8b30..ff0615c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001438.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001438.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: There is evidence that the UK is becoming more similar to the USA. Our society has become more individualistic and less community orientated. We are also becoming more materialistic and money orientated, with less community spirit. There is also evidence that we are becoming more unhealthy, with more obesity and diabetes. The UK is also becoming more unequal, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. In addition, our lifestyle is becoming more brash and less traditional. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA. We are becoming more individualistic, less community orientated and more money orientated. We are becoming more materialistic and are concerned with image and looking good. We are also becoming more unhealthy, with more obesity and diabetes. The UK is also becoming more unequal, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We are also becoming more brash and less traditional. We are also becoming more image obsessed and are not as concerned with our health as we should be. Fast food and junk food is now more prevalent in the UK. We are also becoming more concerned with money rather than having a work life balance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK is becoming more like the USA. We are becoming more individualistic, less community orientated and more money orientated. We are becoming more materialistic and are concerned with image and looking good. We are also becoming more unhealthy, with more obesity and diabetes. The UK is also becoming more unequal, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We are also becoming more brash and less traditional. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: There is evidence that the UK is becoming more similar to the USA. Our society has become more individualistic and less community orientated. We are also becoming more materialistic and money orientated, with less community spirit. There is also evidence that we are becoming more unhealthy, with more obesity and diabetes. The UK is also becoming more unequal, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. In addition, our lifestyle is becoming more brash and less traditional. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA. We are becoming more individualistic, less community orientated and more money orientated. We are becoming more materialistic and are concerned with image and looking good. We are also becoming more unhealthy, with more obesity and diabetes. The UK is also becoming more unequal, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We are also becoming more brash and less traditional. We are also becoming more image obsessed and are not as concerned with our health as we should be. Fast food and junk food is now more prevalent in the UK. We are also becoming more concerned with money rather than having a work life balance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK is becoming more like the USA. We are becoming more individualistic, less community orientated and more money orientated. We are becoming more materialistic and are concerned with image and looking good. We are also becoming more unhealthy, with more obesity and diabetes. The UK is also becoming more unequal, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We are also becoming more brash and less traditional. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001439.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001439.soc index db8c8b42..7da268c3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001439.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001439.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should require all businesses to publish diversity data. This is to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to seek employment without facing any forms of discrimination. With a diverse workforce, companies can benefit from various perspectives and inputs, enhancing innovation and business opportunities. In the long run, this would bring the UK in line with many other countries such as the US and Australia, both of which already have established legislations in place. In this consensus view, the group of participants have taken on board all of the critiques of the draft consensus statement and made the necessary revisions. They also expanded on the argument in terms of diversity benefits companies and took into account the laws in place in other countries. The discussion took place in a forum with a facilitator and a timekeeper, and lasted for 60 minutes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government should require all businesses to publish diversity data. This is to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to seek employment without facing any forms of discrimination. With a diverse workforce, companies can benefit from various perspectives and inputs, enhancing innovation and business opportunities. In the long run, this would bring the UK in line with many other countries such as the US and Australia, both of which already have established legislations in place. This would also ensure that the UK is ahead of the curve when it comes to diversity in the workplace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group participants agreed that diversity is a very important topic in the public discourse in the UK. A diverse workplace would be beneficial for many different reasons. It is only right that the UK ensures that minority groups do not face any sort of discrimination when they are seeking employment. It is important for companies to look beyond their home countries when recruiting, and a diverse workforce also means diverse ideas, inputs and feedback, which can only enhance innovation and business opportunities. In this regard, it is agreed that the UK should mirror the laws in the US and Australia and require all businesses to publish diversity data. This would be very helpful in identifying minority groups who are underrepresented in the workforce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is our view that business in the UK should be required to publish diversity data. This is to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to seek employment without facing any forms of discrimination, thereby putting the UK in line with many other countries such as the US and Australia. Having a diverse workforce opens up opportunities for businesses to innovate due to the variety of perspectives, all the while ensuring that they benefit from consumers from all walks of life. If I were to be put in this position once again, I think I would pick a question that is more politically driven rather than one that is centered on policies and practices, as I am familiar with the former. This way, I would be able to add more value to the group discussion and ultimately, the consensus statement. I believe we definitely put in a lot of thought to tackle this question, but I do wish we were able to push it even further to brainstorm possible alternatives to the present laws and policies in place. For instance, do all participants think that targeting business is the right way to tackle this issue? I think perhaps we should have explored this line of thought. Overall, I really enjoyed coming up with a consensus statement for my group. For a group of people who +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should require all businesses to publish diversity data. This is to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to seek employment without facing any forms of discrimination. With a diverse workforce, companies can benefit from various perspectives and inputs, enhancing innovation and business opportunities. In the long run, this would bring the UK in line with many other countries such as the US and Australia, both of which already have established legislations in place. In this consensus view, the group of participants have taken on board all of the critiques of the draft consensus statement and made the necessary revisions. They also expanded on the argument in terms of diversity benefits companies and took into account the laws in place in other countries. The discussion took place in a forum with a facilitator and a timekeeper, and lasted for 60 minutes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government should require all businesses to publish diversity data. This is to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to seek employment without facing any forms of discrimination. With a diverse workforce, companies can benefit from various perspectives and inputs, enhancing innovation and business opportunities. In the long run, this would bring the UK in line with many other countries such as the US and Australia, both of which already have established legislations in place. This would also ensure that the UK is ahead of the curve when it comes to diversity in the workplace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group participants agreed that diversity is a very important topic in the public discourse in the UK. A diverse workplace would be beneficial for many different reasons. It is only right that the UK ensures that minority groups do not face any sort of discrimination when they are seeking employment. It is important for companies to look beyond their home countries when recruiting, and a diverse workforce also means diverse ideas, inputs and feedback, which can only enhance innovation and business opportunities. In this regard, it is agreed that the UK should mirror the laws in the US and Australia and require all businesses to publish diversity data. This would be very helpful in identifying minority groups who are underrepresented in the workforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is our view that business in the UK should be required to publish diversity data. This is to ensure that minorities have the opportunity to seek employment without facing any forms of discrimination, thereby putting the UK in line with many other countries such as the US and Australia. Having a diverse workforce opens up opportunities for businesses to innovate due to the variety of perspectives, all the while ensuring that they benefit from consumers from all walks of life. If I were to be put in this position once again, I think I would pick a question that is more politically driven rather than one that is centered on policies and practices, as I am familiar with the former. This way, I would be able to add more value to the group discussion and ultimately, the consensus statement. I believe we definitely put in a lot of thought to tackle this question, but I do wish we were able to push it even further to brainstorm possible alternatives to the present laws and policies in place. For instance, do all participants think that targeting business is the right way to tackle this issue? I think perhaps we should have explored this line of thought. Overall, I really enjoyed coming up with a consensus statement for my group. For a group of people who 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001440.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001440.soc index cb97eed1..d7fa07c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001440.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001440.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the NHS should not be funded by a tax on food. The participants felt that this would not be a fair way of raising money as everyone needs to buy food, and it would penalise those on lower incomes. The participants also felt that it would be difficult to monitor who is buying the food and therefore difficult to monitor who is paying the tax. The participants felt that the NHS should be funded by income tax, as this is a fairer way of raising money as those who earn more, pay more. The participants also felt that it would be easier to monitor who is paying the tax, as it is linked to an individuals income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: No, the NHS should not be funded by a tax on food. The participants felt that this would not be a fair way of raising money as everyone needs to buy food, and it would penalise those on lower incomes. The participants also felt that it would be difficult to monitor who is buying the food and therefore difficult to monitor who is paying the tax. The participants felt that the NHS should be funded by income tax, as this is a fairer way of raising money as those who earn more, pay more. The participants also felt that it would be easier to monitor who is paying the tax, as it is linked to an individuals income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the NHS should not be funded by a tax on food. The participants felt that this would not be a fair way of raising money as everyone needs to buy food, and it would penalise those on lower incomes. The participants also felt that it would be difficult to monitor who is buying the food and therefore difficult to monitor who is paying the tax. The participants felt that the NHS should be funded by income tax, as this is a fairer way of raising money as those who earn more, pay more. The participants also felt that it would be easier to monitor who is paying the tax, as it is linked to an individuals income. The students were also tasked with writing individual critiques on two of the other group opinions. Below are two examples. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the NHS should not be funded by a tax on food. The participants felt that this would not be a fair way of raising money as everyone needs to buy food, and it would penalise those on lower incomes. The participants also felt that it would be difficult to monitor who is buying the food and therefore difficult to monitor who is paying the tax. The participants felt that the NHS should be funded by income tax, as this is a fairer way of raising money as those who earn more, pay more. The participants also felt that it would be easier to monitor who is paying the tax, as it is linked to an individuals income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: No, the NHS should not be funded by a tax on food. The participants felt that this would not be a fair way of raising money as everyone needs to buy food, and it would penalise those on lower incomes. The participants also felt that it would be difficult to monitor who is buying the food and therefore difficult to monitor who is paying the tax. The participants felt that the NHS should be funded by income tax, as this is a fairer way of raising money as those who earn more, pay more. The participants also felt that it would be easier to monitor who is paying the tax, as it is linked to an individuals income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the NHS should not be funded by a tax on food. The participants felt that this would not be a fair way of raising money as everyone needs to buy food, and it would penalise those on lower incomes. The participants also felt that it would be difficult to monitor who is buying the food and therefore difficult to monitor who is paying the tax. The participants felt that the NHS should be funded by income tax, as this is a fairer way of raising money as those who earn more, pay more. The participants also felt that it would be easier to monitor who is paying the tax, as it is linked to an individuals income. The students were also tasked with writing individual critiques on two of the other group opinions. Below are two examples. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 3: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001441.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001441.soc index d2a4dfc1..2f543fc7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001441.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001441.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the current voting system in the UK works well. However, there are some aspects of the system that could be improved. The most important of these is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis. Every four years has been suggested, but could be reduced or increased depending on the political situation. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. This will bring us into line with the election systems of most other countries, who often hold elections based on fixed dates rather than at the whim of the political party in power. I am very proud to be British and Australian. Anyone that is prejudiced should get out of the country. They are not welcome. And yes that means anyone black, white, arab, jewish, asian, atheist, gay, straight, male, female, transgendered or anything in between. What is illegal in this country should be illegal in every country. If you don't -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the current voting system in the UK works well. However, there are some aspects of the system that could be improved. The most important of these is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis, for example every four years. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. This should be enshrined in legislation, and will ensure that elections are not called at politically opportune times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The current voting system in the UK works well in general. One issue that could be improved is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis, for example every four years. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. The group of participants also agreed that further debate was needed, as a number of opinions had not been taken into account in the final consensus statement. The group felt that it would be important to do further research on the subject, as they had not been able to come to a consensus view on all aspects of the question. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the current voting system in the UK works well. However, there are some aspects of the system that could be improved. The most important of these is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis, for example every four years. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. The reason we think the frequency should be every four years (or close to that) is that it allows enough time for the government to make the changes they want to make. However, in this time the government is also being held accountable for the things they have done, as well as making it harder for the government to call the election whenever they want. Our view is that this is the best compromise, as we do not want the elections to be so frequent that they are only serving to introduce unneeded instability, while allowing the government to be held to account for the things they have done. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the current voting system in the UK works well. However, there are some aspects of the system that could be improved. The most important of these is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis. Every four years has been suggested, but could be reduced or increased depending on the political situation. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. This will bring us into line with the election systems of most other countries, who often hold elections based on fixed dates rather than at the whim of the political party in power. I am very proud to be British and Australian. Anyone that is prejudiced should get out of the country. They are not welcome. And yes that means anyone black, white, arab, jewish, asian, atheist, gay, straight, male, female, transgendered or anything in between. What is illegal in this country should be illegal in every country. If you don't +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the current voting system in the UK works well. However, there are some aspects of the system that could be improved. The most important of these is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis, for example every four years. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. This should be enshrined in legislation, and will ensure that elections are not called at politically opportune times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The current voting system in the UK works well in general. One issue that could be improved is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis, for example every four years. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. The group of participants also agreed that further debate was needed, as a number of opinions had not been taken into account in the final consensus statement. The group felt that it would be important to do further research on the subject, as they had not been able to come to a consensus view on all aspects of the question. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the current voting system in the UK works well. However, there are some aspects of the system that could be improved. The most important of these is the frequency of elections. The current system allows the party in power to call an election whenever they want, which gives them an unfair advantage. This should be changed so that elections are held on a regular basis, for example every four years. This will ensure that the government is held accountable for their actions, and will also make it harder for the government to call an election at a time that suits them. The reason we think the frequency should be every four years (or close to that) is that it allows enough time for the government to make the changes they want to make. However, in this time the government is also being held accountable for the things they have done, as well as making it harder for the government to call the election whenever they want. Our view is that this is the best compromise, as we do not want the elections to be so frequent that they are only serving to introduce unneeded instability, while allowing the government to be held to account for the things they have done. 2: 2,4,1,3 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001442.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001442.soc index aa55b08a..8c2e4b7e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001442.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001442.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should allow the police to stop and search people in an area known for drug dealing, but not to an excessive extent. A balance should be reached between an effective drug strategy and citizens' civil liberties. We believe that some people may be illegally profiting from the selling of drugs, so it would be good to discourage this type of behaviour. However, stop and searches must be used carefully so that the public is not needlessly antagonised and alienated. This could occur when stop and searches are used for non-criminal activity. We are aware that stop and searches are already used for this purpose, which is wrong. However, we still believe that stop and searches can be effective if used with reason. There is a case to be made for this strategy, but only if it does not become excessive and intrusive. We also agree that the police should differentiate between types of drug dealers, as there is a massive need to distinguish between people selling softer drugs such as cannabis versus someone selling crack cocaine. The type of clientele and level of violence associated with each, in our minds makes them completely different industries. References: E. R. Shipp. The law and politics of police power: Stop and search in Britain. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Police should be able to stop and search someone in an area known for drug dealing, but not someone who has never been in trouble with the law, because this would be an unjust restriction of the rights of that person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should allow the police to stop and search people in an area known for drug dealing, but not to an excessive extent. A balance should be reached between an effective drug strategy and citizens' civil liberties. We believe that some people may be illegally profiting from the selling of drugs, so it would be good to discourage this type of behaviour. However, stop and searches must be used carefully so that the public is not needlessly antagonised and alienated. This could occur when stop and searches are used for non-criminal activity. We are aware that stop and searches are already used for this purpose, which is wrong. However, we still believe that stop and searches can be effective if used with reason. There is a case to be made for this strategy, but only if it does not become excessive and intrusive. We believe that there needs to be a careful balance and that the use of these powers should be limited only to cases where it is justifiable and can be proven to have been so. The statement is correct that improper use of these powers would lead to alienation and resentment towards the police. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Police should be able to stop and search people in an area known for drug dealing, as long as they do not use this right excessively and stop people for no apparent reason. This is because when dealing with organised crime, like drug dealing, a strong police response is often needed. A balance between the need for policing and peoples' civil liberties is required, and this is why we think stop and search is an effective strategy. The illegal profits made from drug dealing can potentially disrupt a community and a thorough police response must be implemented. It is imperative that stop and search is not abused, and that the police must take precautions not to damage their credibility within the public. Our main concern in allowing stop and search is that some people, innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, may be targeted if stop and search is overused. Police stop and search should only be used when the police are certain that the person being searched is a known, regular drug dealer. This will ensure that innocent people are not victimized. If this rule is adhered to, we believe that there is a strong case to be made for stop and search in certain circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should allow the police to stop and search people in an area known for drug dealing, but not to an excessive extent. A balance should be reached between an effective drug strategy and citizens' civil liberties. We believe that some people may be illegally profiting from the selling of drugs, so it would be good to discourage this type of behaviour. However, stop and searches must be used carefully so that the public is not needlessly antagonised and alienated. This could occur when stop and searches are used for non-criminal activity. We are aware that stop and searches are already used for this purpose, which is wrong. However, we still believe that stop and searches can be effective if used with reason. There is a case to be made for this strategy, but only if it does not become excessive and intrusive. We also agree that the police should differentiate between types of drug dealers, as there is a massive need to distinguish between people selling softer drugs such as cannabis versus someone selling crack cocaine. The type of clientele and level of violence associated with each, in our minds makes them completely different industries. References: E. R. Shipp. The law and politics of police power: Stop and search in Britain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Police should be able to stop and search someone in an area known for drug dealing, but not someone who has never been in trouble with the law, because this would be an unjust restriction of the rights of that person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should allow the police to stop and search people in an area known for drug dealing, but not to an excessive extent. A balance should be reached between an effective drug strategy and citizens' civil liberties. We believe that some people may be illegally profiting from the selling of drugs, so it would be good to discourage this type of behaviour. However, stop and searches must be used carefully so that the public is not needlessly antagonised and alienated. This could occur when stop and searches are used for non-criminal activity. We are aware that stop and searches are already used for this purpose, which is wrong. However, we still believe that stop and searches can be effective if used with reason. There is a case to be made for this strategy, but only if it does not become excessive and intrusive. We believe that there needs to be a careful balance and that the use of these powers should be limited only to cases where it is justifiable and can be proven to have been so. The statement is correct that improper use of these powers would lead to alienation and resentment towards the police. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Police should be able to stop and search people in an area known for drug dealing, as long as they do not use this right excessively and stop people for no apparent reason. This is because when dealing with organised crime, like drug dealing, a strong police response is often needed. A balance between the need for policing and peoples' civil liberties is required, and this is why we think stop and search is an effective strategy. The illegal profits made from drug dealing can potentially disrupt a community and a thorough police response must be implemented. It is imperative that stop and search is not abused, and that the police must take precautions not to damage their credibility within the public. Our main concern in allowing stop and search is that some people, innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, may be targeted if stop and search is overused. Police stop and search should only be used when the police are certain that the person being searched is a known, regular drug dealer. This will ensure that innocent people are not victimized. If this rule is adhered to, we believe that there is a strong case to be made for stop and search in certain circumstances. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001443.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001443.soc index fa672fdb..45de2ff8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001443.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001443.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the happiness of others is an important factor to consider, our own happiness is our ultimate goal. In order to be a happy person, it is necessary to be a good person. In order to be a good person, we must do what is right, even if that means sacrificing our own immediate happiness. But in the end, the happiness of others will come back to us in many positive ways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there are those in the world who don’t believe in helping others, we feel that we cannot behave in a selfish way if we are to have an enjoyable life. However, we feel it is also important to try to be a good person for the sake of others. Doing what is right even if it means sacrificing your own immediate happiness will contribute to your own happiness in the long term and will ultimately lead to overall happiness. Discussion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Being a good person is important for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, it is important to be a good person to contribute to society and to other people’s happiness. Secondly, being a good person can also contribute to our own happiness, as it is our own happiness that is the ultimate goal. Being a good person means that we must do what is right, even if that means sacrificing our own immediate happiness. However, in the end, the happiness of others will come back to us in many positive ways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Being a good person is more important than being a happy person, because you can be happy by being a good person, but you cannot be a good person by being happy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the happiness of others is an important factor to consider, our own happiness is our ultimate goal. In order to be a happy person, it is necessary to be a good person. In order to be a good person, we must do what is right, even if that means sacrificing our own immediate happiness. But in the end, the happiness of others will come back to us in many positive ways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there are those in the world who don’t believe in helping others, we feel that we cannot behave in a selfish way if we are to have an enjoyable life. However, we feel it is also important to try to be a good person for the sake of others. Doing what is right even if it means sacrificing your own immediate happiness will contribute to your own happiness in the long term and will ultimately lead to overall happiness. Discussion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Being a good person is important for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, it is important to be a good person to contribute to society and to other people’s happiness. Secondly, being a good person can also contribute to our own happiness, as it is our own happiness that is the ultimate goal. Being a good person means that we must do what is right, even if that means sacrificing our own immediate happiness. However, in the end, the happiness of others will come back to us in many positive ways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Being a good person is more important than being a happy person, because you can be happy by being a good person, but you cannot be a good person by being happy. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001444.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001444.soc index 3443c7e0..18bb6ed3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001444.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001444.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the foreign aid budget, however there were some reservations. It was felt that the current budget was not being spent in the most effective way, and so the government should look into how the budget is spent and where. It was also felt that the government should be more transparent about where the budget is spent, and that the public should have a say in where the budget is spent. It was also felt that the government should not increase the budget until they have addressed the cost of living crisis and the issues with the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not increase our foreign aid budget. This is because we have a lot of problems in our own country, so we should be looking after our own people first. The NHS needs more funding, the government needs to help with the cost of living crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the UK should maintain its current level of foreign aid, however the budget should be restructured to give the public a greater say on where and how it is spent. The current system for allocating foreign aid is opaque and undemocratic, which leads to a lack of confidence in the system and ultimately undermines the cause of the aid budget. We also think that the current Tory government's track record on austerity has seen the foreign aid budget cut to levels that are potentially damaging. By restrengthening the budget, we hope to show that the government takes the matter seriously, and thus rejuvenate support for foreign aid in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are good arguments to suggest that we should not increase our foreign aid budget, the group generally agreed that there is a need to increase it. It was agreed that although we have problems in our own country, we should not be ignoring the issues that people are facing abroad. Many participants felt like we have an obligation to help those who need it, and that it would be unfair not to when we are fortunate enough to be in a position to do so. It was also suggested that it would be in our best interests to help those countries, as it may result in less people trying to move to the UK and put pressure on our resources and finances. There was also a suggestion that some foreign aid could be directed to help people in the UK, who may be in desperate need of help. The group agreed that we should definitely increase the foreign aid budget, and that it is an issue that we should not be ignoring. The participants were asked to consider what political persuasion they feel that their view belongs to, and what type of policy this view would lead to: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the foreign aid budget, however there were some reservations. It was felt that the current budget was not being spent in the most effective way, and so the government should look into how the budget is spent and where. It was also felt that the government should be more transparent about where the budget is spent, and that the public should have a say in where the budget is spent. It was also felt that the government should not increase the budget until they have addressed the cost of living crisis and the issues with the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not increase our foreign aid budget. This is because we have a lot of problems in our own country, so we should be looking after our own people first. The NHS needs more funding, the government needs to help with the cost of living crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the UK should maintain its current level of foreign aid, however the budget should be restructured to give the public a greater say on where and how it is spent. The current system for allocating foreign aid is opaque and undemocratic, which leads to a lack of confidence in the system and ultimately undermines the cause of the aid budget. We also think that the current Tory government's track record on austerity has seen the foreign aid budget cut to levels that are potentially damaging. By restrengthening the budget, we hope to show that the government takes the matter seriously, and thus rejuvenate support for foreign aid in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are good arguments to suggest that we should not increase our foreign aid budget, the group generally agreed that there is a need to increase it. It was agreed that although we have problems in our own country, we should not be ignoring the issues that people are facing abroad. Many participants felt like we have an obligation to help those who need it, and that it would be unfair not to when we are fortunate enough to be in a position to do so. It was also suggested that it would be in our best interests to help those countries, as it may result in less people trying to move to the UK and put pressure on our resources and finances. There was also a suggestion that some foreign aid could be directed to help people in the UK, who may be in desperate need of help. The group agreed that we should definitely increase the foreign aid budget, and that it is an issue that we should not be ignoring. The participants were asked to consider what political persuasion they feel that their view belongs to, and what type of policy this view would lead to: 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001445.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001445.soc index f36085af..b3de7663 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001445.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001445.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that all government websites should be made accessible to the blind. This is because it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all members of society have equal access to information. This is important as it ensures that all members of society are able to access the information that they require. It is also important to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of a disability. This is because it is ableist to exclude people from accessing information because of a disability. The government is legally and ethically required to provide this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Consensus View: All government websites should be made accessible to the blind. Websites contain a lot of important information that can be essential to have access to. Not being able to have access to these websites is a problem because of how much they are used today. Being able to have equal access to the websites is important because people will be able to gain important information and have a better understanding of what is going on in the government. Also, not being able to have access to websites is ableist because it assumes that a blind person does not have the ability to use a computer and websites. Making websites accessible to the blind will also not be expensive because it is already required by law that a website is accessible to people with disabilities. It is important that we take steps to make sure that all people are able to use a website and get access to the information they need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group of participants believe that all government websites should be made accessible to the blind. This is because it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all members of society have equal access to information. This is important as it ensures that all members of society are able to access the information that they require. It is also important to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of a disability. This is because it is ableist to exclude people from accessing information because of a disability. The government is legally and ethically required to provide this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Consensus View: All government websites should be made accessible to the blind. Websites contain a lot of important information that can be essential to have access to. Not being able to have access to these websites is a problem because of how much they are used today. Being able to have equal access to the websites is important because people will be able to gain important information and have a better understanding of what is going on in the government. Also, not being able to have access to websites is ableist because it assumes that a blind person does not have the ability to use a computer and websites. Making websites accessible to the blind will also not be expensive because it is already required by law that a website is accessible to people with disabilities. It is important that we take steps to make sure that all people are able to use a website and get access to the information they need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all members of society. We believe that the websites should be accessible to all 2: 4,2,3,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001446.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001446.soc index 3f8335d7..1d91d5e1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001446.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001446.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that all government websites should be made accessible to the blind. This is because it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all members of society have equal access to information. This is important as it ensures that all members of society are able to access the information that they require. It is also important to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of a disability. This is because it is ableist to exclude people from accessing information because of a disability. The government is legally and ethically required to provide this. The technology is also already in place to allow for this to happen, so there should be no excuses to not make government websites accessible to the blind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government has a legal and ethical responsibility to provide equal access to all government information for all people, including the blind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that all government websites should be made accessible to the blind. This is because it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all members of society have equal access to information. This is important as it ensures that all members of society are able to access the information that they require. It is also important to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of a disability. This is because it is ableist to exclude people from accessing information because of a disability. The government is legally and ethically required to provide this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants believe that all government websites should be made accessible to the blind. This is because it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all members of society have equal access to information. This is important as it ensures that all members of society are able to access the information that they require. It is also important to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of a disability. This is because it is ableist to exclude people from accessing information because of a disability. The government is legally and ethically required to provide this. The technology is also already in place to allow for this to happen, so there should be no excuses to not make government websites accessible to the blind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government has a legal and ethical responsibility to provide equal access to all government information for all people, including the blind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that all government websites should be made accessible to the blind. This is because it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all members of society have equal access to information. This is important as it ensures that all members of society are able to access the information that they require. It is also important to ensure that people are not discriminated against because of a disability. This is because it is ableist to exclude people from accessing information because of a disability. The government is legally and ethically required to provide this. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001447.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001447.soc index 50a1f85f..b14b34a8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001447.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001447.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum wage should be higher than the Living Wage. It is a disgrace that people are struggling to make ends meet, despite working full time. The government should raise the minimum wage in line with inflation. They should stop wasting money and invest in the people of the country immediately. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The minimum wage should be higher than the Living Wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The minimum wage should be higher than the living wage. The living wage is not a realistic amount for anyone to live on. The minimum wage is far too low and does not reflect the true cost of living. The minimum wage needs to be increased as it does not reflect the true cost of living especially as inflation is so high. With prices so high, the cost of living has dramatically increased. The minimum wage also needs to be reviewed on a quarterly basis as inflation is rapidly reducing the effectiveness of the minimum wage. This can be reviewed when inflation is under control. The raising of the mininium wage will also increase employment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the minimum wage should be raised above the living wage. The living wage is too low for people to live on and provides a bare minimum standard of living. The cost of living has increased dramatically in recent months, with the majority of people working, and earning the minimum wage, struggling to get by. The minimum wage does not keep pace with inflation. The minimum wage needs to be reviewed more often to take account of rising inflation. If the minimum wage was to be raised, then employment levels may increase as people will be able to afford to spend more, increasing demand, and businesses will therefore be encouraged to hire more people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum wage should be higher than the Living Wage. It is a disgrace that people are struggling to make ends meet, despite working full time. The government should raise the minimum wage in line with inflation. They should stop wasting money and invest in the people of the country immediately. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The minimum wage should be higher than the Living Wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The minimum wage should be higher than the living wage. The living wage is not a realistic amount for anyone to live on. The minimum wage is far too low and does not reflect the true cost of living. The minimum wage needs to be increased as it does not reflect the true cost of living especially as inflation is so high. With prices so high, the cost of living has dramatically increased. The minimum wage also needs to be reviewed on a quarterly basis as inflation is rapidly reducing the effectiveness of the minimum wage. This can be reviewed when inflation is under control. The raising of the mininium wage will also increase employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the minimum wage should be raised above the living wage. The living wage is too low for people to live on and provides a bare minimum standard of living. The cost of living has increased dramatically in recent months, with the majority of people working, and earning the minimum wage, struggling to get by. The minimum wage does not keep pace with inflation. The minimum wage needs to be reviewed more often to take account of rising inflation. If the minimum wage was to be raised, then employment levels may increase as people will be able to afford to spend more, increasing demand, and businesses will therefore be encouraged to hire more people. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001448.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001448.soc index 97f447c0..8cccb289 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001448.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001448.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The reasons for this are: -It would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. -It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. -It could also save money in long term. -It would be the ethical way to do to support people with imminent medical needs. -Contraception should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. -If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of free contraception. There were some reservations about condoms being free for everyone as this could lead to increased promiscuity. The group also felt that there should be more education on the use of contraception. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should provide free contraception to everyone to ensure it is accessible to all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should remove all stigmas around contraception. This includes contraception for young people and sex workers. The government should also provide a range of different contraceptive methods to everyone who wants them, including condoms and the morning after pill. This will be of benefit to the economy in the long term as it will reduce the number of people living in poverty. It will also lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies, which is a win for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The reasons for this are: -It would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. -It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. -It could also save money in long term. -It would be the ethical way to do to support people with imminent medical needs. -Contraception should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. -If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of free contraception. There were some reservations about condoms being free for everyone as this could lead to increased promiscuity. The group also felt that there should be more education on the use of contraception. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should provide free contraception to everyone to ensure it is accessible to all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should remove all stigmas around contraception. This includes contraception for young people and sex workers. The government should also provide a range of different contraceptive methods to everyone who wants them, including condoms and the morning after pill. This will be of benefit to the economy in the long term as it will reduce the number of people living in poverty. It will also lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies, which is a win for everyone. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001449.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001449.soc index 1f3fe85d..c1ede100 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001449.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001449.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is acceptable to put fluoride in the water. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, fluoride should not be added to water. While fluoride is not harmful and is in fact beneficial to dental health, it is not necessary to add it to the water supply. It is better for individuals to decide for themselves if they want fluoride or not. It is also better for individuals to decide how much fluoride they want, as some may want more fluoride than others. Also, adding fluoride to the water supply would not help those in lower income areas, as they may not have access to clean drinking water. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Fluoride is a useful component to put in water, however, the addition of fluoride should be done so with caution and awareness. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. While fluoride has the ability to prevent decay, there is a possibility of overdose if taken in large quantities, which is why fluoride should not be taken in large amounts. This means fluoride should not be taken in large quantities and should be taken in small quantities. It should not be forced upon people and be a choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although fluoride is good for our teeth, the problem is that not everyone will drink the water. Therefore, it is not an effective way of distributing fluoride to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is acceptable to put fluoride in the water. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, fluoride should not be added to water. While fluoride is not harmful and is in fact beneficial to dental health, it is not necessary to add it to the water supply. It is better for individuals to decide for themselves if they want fluoride or not. It is also better for individuals to decide how much fluoride they want, as some may want more fluoride than others. Also, adding fluoride to the water supply would not help those in lower income areas, as they may not have access to clean drinking water. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Fluoride is a useful component to put in water, however, the addition of fluoride should be done so with caution and awareness. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. While fluoride has the ability to prevent decay, there is a possibility of overdose if taken in large quantities, which is why fluoride should not be taken in large amounts. This means fluoride should not be taken in large quantities and should be taken in small quantities. It should not be forced upon people and be a choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although fluoride is good for our teeth, the problem is that not everyone will drink the water. Therefore, it is not an effective way of distributing fluoride to the public. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001450.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001450.soc index d56a2a52..912555b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001450.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001450.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. There is much evidence to suggest that prison can have a negative effect on prisoners, with no benefit to the wider community. Increasing emphasis should be placed on community-based punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration, with a reduction in the number of prison sentences given. There may be a need to build more prisons to reduce overcrowding, however we believe this should not be done at the expense of rehabilitation and reintegration. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The focus should be on reform and rehabilitation over punishment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Prison should be used as a last resort. It should be used to protect society from those who pose a threat to others. For those who do not pose a threat, rehabilitation should be the focus. We should also look at early intervention to prevent people from turning to crime in the first place. We should also look at alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders. This would include community service, electronic tagging and other forms of punishment.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. There is much evidence to suggest that prison can have a negative effect on prisoners, with no benefit to the wider community. Increasing emphasis should be placed on community-based punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration, with a reduction in the number of prison sentences given. There may be a need to build more prisons to reduce overcrowding, however we believe this should not be done at the expense of rehabilitation and reintegration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The focus should be on reform and rehabilitation over punishment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Prison should be used as a last resort. It should be used to protect society from those who pose a threat to others. For those who do not pose a threat, rehabilitation should be the focus. We should also look at early intervention to prevent people from turning to crime in the first place. We should also look at alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders. This would include community service, electronic tagging and other forms of punishment.” 3: 2,4,3,1 2: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001451.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001451.soc index 110d2c61..599b2bf2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001451.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001451.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should restrict what children can see on the internet. The government should introduce a scheme whereby individuals need to show age evidence to view certain sites, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we believe that the government should impose restrictions on what children under the age of 12 can do and/or see on the internet. This is because the internet is a very dangerous place, especially for children. They are very vulnerable and are at risk of being groomed by predators and bullies, and are also at risk of being exposed to very explicit and violent content. It is also very easy for children to access things on the internet that they don’t fully understand, and this can be very damaging for their future development. In our opinion, age verification should be a must for any site that displays explicit content. We believe that parents should also have a responsibility for monitoring their child’s internet use. However, this can be very difficult to do in a busy household where parents are working and children are expected to be responsible for themselves. If parents know that the government has restrictions in place to prevent children from accessing harmful material, then this will hopefully help to put their minds at ease. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, the government should restrict what children can see and do on the internet. This is because children can be very vulnerable and can be easily influenced by what they see. The government should introduce age verification systems to ensure that children can only see age appropriate content. The government should also introduce heavy restrictions on the use of the internet by children under 12 years old. This is because they can be easily influenced by what they see on the internet and this could have a lasting impact on their psychological development. Parents should also take responsibility for monitoring their children’s use of the internet. This is because the government cannot be everywhere and parents should take responsibility for their children.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should restrict what children can see on the internet. The government should introduce a scheme whereby individuals need to show age evidence to view certain sites, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we believe that the government should impose restrictions on what children under the age of 12 can do and/or see on the internet. This is because the internet is a very dangerous place, especially for children. They are very vulnerable and are at risk of being groomed by predators and bullies, and are also at risk of being exposed to very explicit and violent content. It is also very easy for children to access things on the internet that they don’t fully understand, and this can be very damaging for their future development. In our opinion, age verification should be a must for any site that displays explicit content. We believe that parents should also have a responsibility for monitoring their child’s internet use. However, this can be very difficult to do in a busy household where parents are working and children are expected to be responsible for themselves. If parents know that the government has restrictions in place to prevent children from accessing harmful material, then this will hopefully help to put their minds at ease. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, the government should restrict what children can see and do on the internet. This is because children can be very vulnerable and can be easily influenced by what they see. The government should introduce age verification systems to ensure that children can only see age appropriate content. The government should also introduce heavy restrictions on the use of the internet by children under 12 years old. This is because they can be easily influenced by what they see on the internet and this could have a lasting impact on their psychological development. Parents should also take responsibility for monitoring their children’s use of the internet. This is because the government cannot be everywhere and parents should take responsibility for their children.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 4: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001452.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001452.soc index 2ff368d1..0de99066 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001452.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001452.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group unanimously agreed that in order to take a sabbatical, individuals must be able to prove that it will benefit their career and it should not be viewed as a holiday. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be able to take a sabbatical from their job for 3 months to pursue another project. However, it is important to have a notice period of 3 months to allow the business to prepare for the absence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we agree that the option to take a career sabbatical should be an easier process as the break should be viewed as an opportunity to develop an additional skillset or experience to a role. It also can have positive benefits to an employees wellbeing which can also benefit the workplace. We feel that the positive impacts of this outweigh the negative, and the problems could be mitigated with notice periods, and help in finding cover, or the ability to use previously booked holiday to cover the period. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to take a sabbatical from their job for three months to pursue another project. This is because it would allow people to pursue their passions and interests, which would in turn make them happier and more fulfilled. This is important because people are spending most of their lives in education and work, and they deserve to take some time to do things they love and learn more about themselves. This would also be good for society as a whole, as it would foster creativity and innovation. The group did, however, feel that there should be some sort of notice period for people taking a sabbatical, so that employers can make arrangements to cover for them. The group also felt that this would be more feasible for some sectors than others. For example, it would be more feasible for office workers than for medical staff or childcare workers, who would need to be in ratio. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group unanimously agreed that in order to take a sabbatical, individuals must be able to prove that it will benefit their career and it should not be viewed as a holiday. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be able to take a sabbatical from their job for 3 months to pursue another project. However, it is important to have a notice period of 3 months to allow the business to prepare for the absence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we agree that the option to take a career sabbatical should be an easier process as the break should be viewed as an opportunity to develop an additional skillset or experience to a role. It also can have positive benefits to an employees wellbeing which can also benefit the workplace. We feel that the positive impacts of this outweigh the negative, and the problems could be mitigated with notice periods, and help in finding cover, or the ability to use previously booked holiday to cover the period. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of making it easier for people to take a sabbatical from their job for three months to pursue another project. This is because it would allow people to pursue their passions and interests, which would in turn make them happier and more fulfilled. This is important because people are spending most of their lives in education and work, and they deserve to take some time to do things they love and learn more about themselves. This would also be good for society as a whole, as it would foster creativity and innovation. The group did, however, feel that there should be some sort of notice period for people taking a sabbatical, so that employers can make arrangements to cover for them. The group also felt that this would be more feasible for some sectors than others. For example, it would be more feasible for office workers than for medical staff or childcare workers, who would need to be in ratio. 4: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001453.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001453.soc index f7f01795..bb6015c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001453.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001453.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Fluoride is a useful component to put in water, however, the addition of fluoride should be done so with caution and awareness. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. While fluoride has the ability to prevent decay, there is a possibility of overdose if taken in large quantities, which is why fluoride should not be taken in large quantities. This means fluoride should not be taken in large quantities and should be taken in small quantities. It should not be forced upon people and be a choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fluoride is a useful component to put in water, however, the addition of fluoride should be done so with caution and awareness. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. While fluoride has the ability to prevent decay, there is a possibility of overdose if taken in large quantities, which is why fluoride should not be taken in large quantities. This means fluoride should not be taken in large quantities and should be taken in small quantities. It should not be forced upon people and be a choice. The addition of fluoride should be done with caution and awareness. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fluoride is a useful component to put in water. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. While fluoride has the ability to prevent decay, there is a possibility of overdose if taken in large quantities, which is why fluoride should not be taken in large quantities and should be taken in small quantities. It should not be forced upon people and be a choice. This final consensus statement will now be critiqued by the other groups of participants, and their critiques will be taken into account by the first group, in order to improve the statement, before this statement is presented to the class. In order to provide an example of how a consensus view can be written, a sample is provided below. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Fluoride is a useful component to put in water, however, the addition of fluoride should be done so with caution and awareness. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. While fluoride has the ability to prevent decay, there is a possibility of overdose if taken in large quantities, which is why fluoride should not be taken in large quantities. This means fluoride should not be taken in large quantities and should be taken in small quantities. It should not be forced upon people and be a choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fluoride is a useful component to put in water, however, the addition of fluoride should be done so with caution and awareness. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. While fluoride has the ability to prevent decay, there is a possibility of overdose if taken in large quantities, which is why fluoride should not be taken in large quantities. This means fluoride should not be taken in large quantities and should be taken in small quantities. It should not be forced upon people and be a choice. The addition of fluoride should be done with caution and awareness. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fluoride is a useful component to put in water. The amount should be small enough that it does not disrupt the ecosystem of water, yet large enough that it provides benefits to humans. While fluoride has the ability to prevent decay, there is a possibility of overdose if taken in large quantities, which is why fluoride should not be taken in large quantities and should be taken in small quantities. It should not be forced upon people and be a choice. This final consensus statement will now be critiqued by the other groups of participants, and their critiques will be taken into account by the first group, in order to improve the statement, before this statement is presented to the class. In order to provide an example of how a consensus view can be written, a sample is provided below. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001454.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001454.soc index 551134f7..f023c632 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001454.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001454.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't believe that the NHS should be funded by a national tax on food. We believe this because food is an essential item, so it would not be fair for the tax to be put on that. Instead we believe that a better way to fund the NHS would be through taxing the unhealthy food. It is also important that the NHS be funded by a tax that is applied to everyone, instead of only to a certain group of people. We believe that taxing the unhealthy food would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, because it would provide the people with an incentive to eat healthier. Taxing food that is not healthy is a fairer way to fund the NHS because it will be applied to all people. Therefore it would be better than taxing food, which would be only applied to the people that can afford to buy food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the NHS should not be funded by a national tax on food, instead of income tax. The NHS should be funded by income tax as it is fairer for all and everyone has to pay it if they are elgible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. The group felt that this would be unfair, as some people would be unable to afford food. The group also felt that this would be an ineffective way of funding the NHS, as people would simply stop buying food, and the tax would not raise enough money. The group felt that the current system of income tax was fairer, as everyone has to pay it. The group also felt that the current system was more effective, as it is easier to collect the tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. The group felt that this would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. The group also felt that this would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. The group felt that it would be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't believe that the NHS should be funded by a national tax on food. We believe this because food is an essential item, so it would not be fair for the tax to be put on that. Instead we believe that a better way to fund the NHS would be through taxing the unhealthy food. It is also important that the NHS be funded by a tax that is applied to everyone, instead of only to a certain group of people. We believe that taxing the unhealthy food would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, because it would provide the people with an incentive to eat healthier. Taxing food that is not healthy is a fairer way to fund the NHS because it will be applied to all people. Therefore it would be better than taxing food, which would be only applied to the people that can afford to buy food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the NHS should not be funded by a national tax on food, instead of income tax. The NHS should be funded by income tax as it is fairer for all and everyone has to pay it if they are elgible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. The group felt that this would be unfair, as some people would be unable to afford food. The group also felt that this would be an ineffective way of funding the NHS, as people would simply stop buying food, and the tax would not raise enough money. The group felt that the current system of income tax was fairer, as everyone has to pay it. The group also felt that the current system was more effective, as it is easier to collect the tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. The group felt that this would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. The group also felt that this would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. The group felt that it would be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. 4: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001455.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001455.soc index df8f55fc..a7a6bd35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001455.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001455.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The reasons for this are that it would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. It could also save money in long term. It would be the ethical way to do to support people with imminent medical needs. Contraception should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. Summary As the time taken to come up with a single consensus statement by an interactive computer game – instead of a single article or a number of draft articles that usually take days or weeks to complete – this study was able to demonstrate the feasibility of using the game to come up with a consensus statement much more rapidly than with traditional means. This is in contrast with the consensus project that had been run previously which had taken months to complete by a much larger panel of experts – consensus on a policy statement on a national level for each of seven countries [5]. As with the earlier study, the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The reasons for this are: -It would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. -It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. -It could also save money in long term -It would be the ethical way to do to support people with imminent medical needs. -Contraception should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. -If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should provide free contraception to everyone. This is because the pill, coil or injections should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. It would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. It could also save money in long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The reasons for this are: -It would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. -It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. -It could also save money in long term. -It would be the ethical way to do to support people with imminent medical needs. -Contraception should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. -If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The reasons for this are that it would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. It could also save money in long term. It would be the ethical way to do to support people with imminent medical needs. Contraception should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. Summary As the time taken to come up with a single consensus statement by an interactive computer game – instead of a single article or a number of draft articles that usually take days or weeks to complete – this study was able to demonstrate the feasibility of using the game to come up with a consensus statement much more rapidly than with traditional means. This is in contrast with the consensus project that had been run previously which had taken months to complete by a much larger panel of experts – consensus on a policy statement on a national level for each of seven countries [5]. As with the earlier study, the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The reasons for this are: -It would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. -It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. -It could also save money in long term -It would be the ethical way to do to support people with imminent medical needs. -Contraception should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. -If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should provide free contraception to everyone. This is because the pill, coil or injections should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. It would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. It could also save money in long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The reasons for this are: -It would reduce the number of unwanted teen and general pregnancies. -It would reduce the abortion rate as fewer women would opt for that as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. -It could also save money in long term. -It would be the ethical way to do to support people with imminent medical needs. -Contraception should not be a choice for the rich and poor and should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. -If we are to charge women for the pill, coil or injections then many may not be able to afford it and the country could be faced with a lot of unwanted pregnancies. 2: 4,2,3,1 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001456.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001456.soc index 1b263412..0f29a488 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001456.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001456.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. There is much evidence to suggest that prison can have a negative effect on prisoners, with no benefit to the wider community. Increasing emphasis should be placed on community-based punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration, with a reduction in the number of prison sentences given. There may be a need to build more prisons to reduce overcrowding, however we believe this should not be done at the expense of rehabilitation and reintegration. Prison should be used as a last resort for those who are a danger to society. Final Comments from the group participants: The group worked really well together, sharing opinions and working to come to a consensus. We did not have anyone who strongly disagreed with the opinion of the majority of the group so it made the discussion and consensus easier. How did this tool help participants to overcome their fear of working in groups? This tool helped participants to overcome their fear of working in groups as it helped them to get to know others in the group and their opinions, and to feel comfortable sharing their opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. There is much evidence to suggest that prison can have a negative effect on prisoners, with no benefit to the wider community. Increasing emphasis should be placed on community-based punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration, with a reduction in the number of prison sentences given. There may be a need to build more prisons to reduce overcrowding, however we believe this should not be done at the expense of rehabilitation and reintegration. Prison must be used as a deterrent against crime and to lock away those who pose a risk to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus view: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison, particularly those who are serving sentences for low-level, non-violent offences. There is much evidence to suggest that prison can be ineffective, with no benefit to the wider community. Increasing emphasis should be placed on community-based punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration. The prison system should be more specifically focused on rehabilitation and reform for those who are likely to re-offend (however this is difficult to determine). Furthermore, those who cannot be safely reintegrated into society (i.e. Sex offenders) should remain in prison, however they should be taught skills which may lead to meaningful activity, such as arts and crafts. We should also improve services and conditions in prisons, with more efforts to address drug use, education and rehabilitation of inmates. It is also vital to prepare prisoners for life upon release, with the aim of reducing risk of reoffending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. There is much evidence to suggest that prison can have a negative effect on prisoners, with no benefit to the wider community. Increasing emphasis should be placed on community-based punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration, with a reduction in the number of prison sentences given. There may be a need to build more prisons to reduce overcrowding, however we believe this should not be done at the expense of rehabilitation and reintegration. Prison should be used as a last resort for those who are a danger to society. Final Comments from the group participants: The group worked really well together, sharing opinions and working to come to a consensus. We did not have anyone who strongly disagreed with the opinion of the majority of the group so it made the discussion and consensus easier. How did this tool help participants to overcome their fear of working in groups? This tool helped participants to overcome their fear of working in groups as it helped them to get to know others in the group and their opinions, and to feel comfortable sharing their opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. There is much evidence to suggest that prison can have a negative effect on prisoners, with no benefit to the wider community. Increasing emphasis should be placed on community-based punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration, with a reduction in the number of prison sentences given. There may be a need to build more prisons to reduce overcrowding, however we believe this should not be done at the expense of rehabilitation and reintegration. Prison must be used as a deterrent against crime and to lock away those who pose a risk to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus view: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison, particularly those who are serving sentences for low-level, non-violent offences. There is much evidence to suggest that prison can be ineffective, with no benefit to the wider community. Increasing emphasis should be placed on community-based punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration. The prison system should be more specifically focused on rehabilitation and reform for those who are likely to re-offend (however this is difficult to determine). Furthermore, those who cannot be safely reintegrated into society (i.e. Sex offenders) should remain in prison, however they should be taught skills which may lead to meaningful activity, such as arts and crafts. We should also improve services and conditions in prisons, with more efforts to address drug use, education and rehabilitation of inmates. It is also vital to prepare prisoners for life upon release, with the aim of reducing risk of reoffending. 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001457.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001457.soc index 51920ede..1893c6b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001457.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001457.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, social media companies should not be forced to censor bullying and harassment. The issue of bullying and harassment on social media is not up for debate and there is no doubt that the nature of social media platforms can facilitate harmful behaviour. However, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue. We believe that the best way to prevent such behaviour is through education. The long-term solution to preventing bullying and harassment on social media is to promote an understanding of the consequences of hateful and discriminatory behaviour and encourage empathy. We also believe that each individual must take responsibility for their own behaviour. Each person is responsible for how they treat others. The responsibility to not bully or harass others is universal and each person must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not harming others. Furthermore, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue as it can be misused and cause further problems. It is not up to the government to legislate on how we behave. That is up to each individual person. This issue should not be politicised and instead, we should tackle this issue through education and understanding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Social media platforms should not be forced to censor bullying and harassment. Instead, we should tackle this issue through education and understanding. The long-term solution to preventing bullying and harassment on social media is to promote an understanding of the consequences of hateful and discriminatory behaviour and encourage empathy. We also believe that each individual must take responsibility for their own behaviour. Each person is responsible for how they treat others. The responsibility to not bully or harass others is universal and each person must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not harming others. Discussion This article presents a method for developing a consensus opinion on an important question using a technique known as the Delphi method. This method was effective in bringing participants with opposing views to a consensus opinion. It was also found that the Delphi method promotes a greater understanding of an issue by requiring participants to review each other's opinions and provide critiques. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, social media companies should not be forced to censor bullying and harassment. The issue of bullying and harassment on social media is not up for debate and there is no doubt that the nature of social media platforms can facilitate harmful behaviour. However, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue. We believe that the best way to prevent such behaviour is through education. The long-term solution to preventing bullying and harassment on social media is to promote an understanding of the consequences of hateful and discriminatory behaviour and encourage empathy. We also believe that each individual must take responsibility for their own behaviour. Each person is responsible for how they treat others. The responsibility to not bully or harass others is universal and each person must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not harming others. Furthermore, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue as it can be misused and cause further problems. It is not up to the government to legislate on how we behave. That is up to each individual person. This issue should not be politicised and instead, we should tackle this issue through education and understanding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not agree that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. The issue of bullying and harassment on social media is not up for debate and there is no doubt that the nature of social media platforms can facilitate harmful behaviour. However, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue. We believe that the best way to prevent such behaviour is through education. The long-term solution to preventing bullying and harassment on social media is to promote an understanding of the consequences of hateful and discriminatory behaviour and encourage empathy. Each individual is responsible for how they treat others. The responsibility to not bully or harass others is universal and each person must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not harming others. However, we would support legislation to remove non-consensual or non-legal material from social media platforms. Finished statement, as agreed by all of the group members: No, we do not agree that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. The issue of bullying and harassment on social media is not up for debate and there is no doubt that the nature of social media platforms can facilitate harmful behaviour. However, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue. We believe +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, social media companies should not be forced to censor bullying and harassment. The issue of bullying and harassment on social media is not up for debate and there is no doubt that the nature of social media platforms can facilitate harmful behaviour. However, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue. We believe that the best way to prevent such behaviour is through education. The long-term solution to preventing bullying and harassment on social media is to promote an understanding of the consequences of hateful and discriminatory behaviour and encourage empathy. We also believe that each individual must take responsibility for their own behaviour. Each person is responsible for how they treat others. The responsibility to not bully or harass others is universal and each person must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not harming others. Furthermore, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue as it can be misused and cause further problems. It is not up to the government to legislate on how we behave. That is up to each individual person. This issue should not be politicised and instead, we should tackle this issue through education and understanding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Social media platforms should not be forced to censor bullying and harassment. Instead, we should tackle this issue through education and understanding. The long-term solution to preventing bullying and harassment on social media is to promote an understanding of the consequences of hateful and discriminatory behaviour and encourage empathy. We also believe that each individual must take responsibility for their own behaviour. Each person is responsible for how they treat others. The responsibility to not bully or harass others is universal and each person must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not harming others. Discussion This article presents a method for developing a consensus opinion on an important question using a technique known as the Delphi method. This method was effective in bringing participants with opposing views to a consensus opinion. It was also found that the Delphi method promotes a greater understanding of an issue by requiring participants to review each other's opinions and provide critiques. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, social media companies should not be forced to censor bullying and harassment. The issue of bullying and harassment on social media is not up for debate and there is no doubt that the nature of social media platforms can facilitate harmful behaviour. However, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue. We believe that the best way to prevent such behaviour is through education. The long-term solution to preventing bullying and harassment on social media is to promote an understanding of the consequences of hateful and discriminatory behaviour and encourage empathy. We also believe that each individual must take responsibility for their own behaviour. Each person is responsible for how they treat others. The responsibility to not bully or harass others is universal and each person must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not harming others. Furthermore, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue as it can be misused and cause further problems. It is not up to the government to legislate on how we behave. That is up to each individual person. This issue should not be politicised and instead, we should tackle this issue through education and understanding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not agree that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. The issue of bullying and harassment on social media is not up for debate and there is no doubt that the nature of social media platforms can facilitate harmful behaviour. However, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue. We believe that the best way to prevent such behaviour is through education. The long-term solution to preventing bullying and harassment on social media is to promote an understanding of the consequences of hateful and discriminatory behaviour and encourage empathy. Each individual is responsible for how they treat others. The responsibility to not bully or harass others is universal and each person must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are not harming others. However, we would support legislation to remove non-consensual or non-legal material from social media platforms. Finished statement, as agreed by all of the group members: No, we do not agree that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. The issue of bullying and harassment on social media is not up for debate and there is no doubt that the nature of social media platforms can facilitate harmful behaviour. However, legislation should not be introduced to address this issue. We believe 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001458.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001458.soc index f7c0a8a5..1b9bac3c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001458.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001458.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. The age of 14 was chosen because this is the age at which a child is able to consent to sexual intercourse. Therefore, it is also the age at which a child should be able to consent to who they live with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the participants were in favour of children over 14 having a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. This is because at this age, children are old enough to have a mature opinion and should be allowed to express their views and feelings on the situation. However, this age should be set by the court. It should also be noted that if a child makes a poor decision, for example choosing the abusive parent to live with, the child could be removed from the situation and go into foster care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. They should be allowed to express their opinions and have them taken seriously in a court of law. The child should have some say in the matter as it is very important that their opinion is made clear. A marriage is between the two individuals I understand the child is also being affected but the vows were between the couple and it is their duty to weigh up the circumstances not a childs. The age is appropriate and it should be higher. Children are often used as pawns in divorce and their best interests are often forgotten about. I believe they should be able to express their opinions and have them taken seriously in a court of law. I don't know whether they should if I am honest. I think they should get a voice, but I don't know whether it should be legally binding. 14 is a young age and they could be influenced by other people. They would also be quite affected by the divorce, so might not have a Clear head or be thinking straight. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. The age of 14 was chosen because this is the age at which a child is able to consent to sexual intercourse. Therefore, it is also the age at which a child should be able to consent to who they live with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the participants were in favour of children over 14 having a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. This is because at this age, children are old enough to have a mature opinion and should be allowed to express their views and feelings on the situation. However, this age should be set by the court. It should also be noted that if a child makes a poor decision, for example choosing the abusive parent to live with, the child could be removed from the situation and go into foster care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children over the age of 14 should have a legally binding voice in custody cases when parents divorce. They should be allowed to express their opinions and have them taken seriously in a court of law. The child should have some say in the matter as it is very important that their opinion is made clear. A marriage is between the two individuals I understand the child is also being affected but the vows were between the couple and it is their duty to weigh up the circumstances not a childs. The age is appropriate and it should be higher. Children are often used as pawns in divorce and their best interests are often forgotten about. I believe they should be able to express their opinions and have them taken seriously in a court of law. I don't know whether they should if I am honest. I think they should get a voice, but I don't know whether it should be legally binding. 14 is a young age and they could be influenced by other people. They would also be quite affected by the divorce, so might not have a Clear head or be thinking straight. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001459.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001459.soc index 972623d6..c6315a80 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001459.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001459.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. The group felt that this would be unfair, as some people would be unable to afford food. The group also felt that this would be an ineffective way of funding the NHS, as people would simply stop buying food, and the tax would not raise enough money. The group felt that the current system of income tax was fairer, as everyone has to pay it. The group also felt that the current system was more effective, as it is easier to collect the tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. The group felt that this would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. The group also felt that this would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. The group felt that it would be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. The group felt that this would be unfair, as some people would be unable to afford food. The group also felt that this would be an ineffective way of funding the NHS, as people would simply stop buying food, and the tax would not raise enough money. The group felt that the current system of income tax was fairer, as everyone has to pay it. The group also felt that the current system was more effective, as it is easier to collect the tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. The group felt that this would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. The group also felt that this would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. The group felt that it would be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. Participants felt that this represented their views -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. This would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. It would also be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. It would also be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. Discussion After submitting the final consensus statement, the participants discussed how they came to the decision to adopt this view, how the process of reaching a consensus worked, whether they felt coerced into agreeing with the consensus opinion and their overall experience of the activity. The process of reaching a consensus was reported to be fair by all participants. Furthermore, some participants reported that they had to reconsider their views on the question as a result of listening to other people's views: Having such a large group all arguing in different ways, you can -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. The group felt that this would be unfair, as some people would be unable to afford food. The group also felt that this would be an ineffective way of funding the NHS, as people would simply stop buying food, and the tax would not raise enough money. The group felt that the current system of income tax was fairer, as everyone has to pay it. The group also felt that the current system was more effective, as it is easier to collect the tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. The group felt that this would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. The group also felt that this would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. The group felt that it would be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. The group felt that this would be unfair, as some people would be unable to afford food. The group also felt that this would be an ineffective way of funding the NHS, as people would simply stop buying food, and the tax would not raise enough money. The group felt that the current system of income tax was fairer, as everyone has to pay it. The group also felt that the current system was more effective, as it is easier to collect the tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. The group felt that this would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. The group also felt that this would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. The group felt that it would be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. The group felt that this would be unfair, as some people would be unable to afford food. The group also felt that this would be an ineffective way of funding the NHS, as people would simply stop buying food, and the tax would not raise enough money. The group felt that the current system of income tax was fairer, as everyone has to pay it. The group also felt that the current system was more effective, as it is easier to collect the tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. The group felt that this would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. The group also felt that this would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. The group felt that it would be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. Participants felt that this represented their views +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. This would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. It would also be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. It would also be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. Discussion After submitting the final consensus statement, the participants discussed how they came to the decision to adopt this view, how the process of reaching a consensus worked, whether they felt coerced into agreeing with the consensus opinion and their overall experience of the activity. The process of reaching a consensus was reported to be fair by all participants. Furthermore, some participants reported that they had to reconsider their views on the question as a result of listening to other people's views: Having such a large group all arguing in different ways, you can +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a food tax. The group felt that this would be unfair, as some people would be unable to afford food. The group also felt that this would be an ineffective way of funding the NHS, as people would simply stop buying food, and the tax would not raise enough money. The group felt that the current system of income tax was fairer, as everyone has to pay it. The group also felt that the current system was more effective, as it is easier to collect the tax. However, the group did feel that it would be a good idea to tax unhealthy food, such as crisps and chocolate, to try and reduce obesity. The group felt that this would be a good way of funding the NHS, as it would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. The group also felt that this would be a fairer way of funding the NHS, as it would only affect people who buy unhealthy food. The group felt that it would be more effective, as it would encourage people to buy healthy food, which would help to reduce the number of people who need treatment. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001460.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001460.soc index 82ab576f..c83ca98a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001460.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001460.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “There should be a ban on single-use plastic water bottles.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. The plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, there should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The bottles are wasteful, and alternatives are available. The bottles are often not disposed of correctly and cause harm to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles that could be used instead. The number of plastic bottles that are used and then disposed of is not only wasteful, but damaging to the environment. There should be more emphasis on the use of reusable bottles and a ban on small plastic water bottles should be implemented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “There should be a ban on single-use plastic water bottles.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. The plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, there should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The bottles are wasteful, and alternatives are available. The bottles are often not disposed of correctly and cause harm to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles that could be used instead. The number of plastic bottles that are used and then disposed of is not only wasteful, but damaging to the environment. There should be more emphasis on the use of reusable bottles and a ban on small plastic water bottles should be implemented. 5: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001461.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001461.soc index d1af5d4b..38387bad 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001461.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001461.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't know. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is difficult to quantify whether the costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits, because the global market is so vast and so many different factors are involved. However, when you take into account the improvements in transportation and communication which have made this globalization possible, and you look at the volume of trade which is done between countries, and you consider the benefits to the consumer, it is difficult to imagine that it is not outweighed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The benefits of globalization are cheaper products and a larger choice for consumers. However, the costs of globalization can be very high, as some countries are not as well developed as others. This can lead to exploitation of workers and the environment. The exploitation of workers is a huge problem, as workers are often paid very little and are forced to work in dangerous conditions. This is a huge problem in the clothing industry, as many clothing brands use sweatshops to produce their clothes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't know. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is difficult to quantify whether the costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits, because the global market is so vast and so many different factors are involved. However, when you take into account the improvements in transportation and communication which have made this globalization possible, and you look at the volume of trade which is done between countries, and you consider the benefits to the consumer, it is difficult to imagine that it is not outweighed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The benefits of globalization are cheaper products and a larger choice for consumers. However, the costs of globalization can be very high, as some countries are not as well developed as others. This can lead to exploitation of workers and the environment. The exploitation of workers is a huge problem, as workers are often paid very little and are forced to work in dangerous conditions. This is a huge problem in the clothing industry, as many clothing brands use sweatshops to produce their clothes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001462.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001462.soc index a09affc4..85679b13 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001462.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001462.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the testing of products on animals is unethical. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is ethical for humans to test on non-human animals to develop medicine for humans, if no other alternatives exist. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not ethical for humans to test on non-human animals to develop medicine for humans. The benefits of doing so do not outweigh the suffering caused to animals. The only way in which it could be considered ethical is if there is no other way to develop the medicine and if the suffering caused to animals is kept to a minimum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is unethical to use non-human animals to test for medicines for humans. However, due to the need for developing effective medicines for diseases such as cancer and other illnesses, the value of human lives outweighs the ethical considerations for animals used in testing medicines. If possible, alternatives to using non-human animals should be used to test the effectiveness and safety of medicines. There should be a clear process of how to use animals for research, including developing regulations for the use of animals for testing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the testing of products on animals is unethical. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is ethical for humans to test on non-human animals to develop medicine for humans, if no other alternatives exist. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not ethical for humans to test on non-human animals to develop medicine for humans. The benefits of doing so do not outweigh the suffering caused to animals. The only way in which it could be considered ethical is if there is no other way to develop the medicine and if the suffering caused to animals is kept to a minimum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is unethical to use non-human animals to test for medicines for humans. However, due to the need for developing effective medicines for diseases such as cancer and other illnesses, the value of human lives outweighs the ethical considerations for animals used in testing medicines. If possible, alternatives to using non-human animals should be used to test the effectiveness and safety of medicines. There should be a clear process of how to use animals for research, including developing regulations for the use of animals for testing. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001463.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001463.soc index 4d64a009..1b94bc02 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001463.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001463.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, they should also work with other countries to stop the exploitation of workers and to help them receive a fair wage. Also, the products they make should not be sold at a price that takes advantage of consumers. Companies should take responsibility for the products they sell, and a system should be in place to ensure that the workers making the products are being paid a fair wage. There should also be a transparent process in place for when a ban is being put in place. Consumers also need to be made aware of the products they are buying, and they need to be careful of the prices they pay.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. It is not fair on these workers and the cost of banning them would not be too much for people.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, it was recognised that this would be difficult to enforce, and would not be a long-term solution to the problem. It was also recognised that there are many different standards of living in different countries, and so what is considered to be underpaid may vary from country to country. The group felt that it was important for the government to put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. The group also felt that the government should make it a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, but only if the local government is not taking action to improve the situation.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, the government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, they should also work with other countries to stop the exploitation of workers and to help them receive a fair wage. Also, the products they make should not be sold at a price that takes advantage of consumers. Companies should take responsibility for the products they sell, and a system should be in place to ensure that the workers making the products are being paid a fair wage. There should also be a transparent process in place for when a ban is being put in place. Consumers also need to be made aware of the products they are buying, and they need to be careful of the prices they pay.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. It is not fair on these workers and the cost of banning them would not be too much for people.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, it was recognised that this would be difficult to enforce, and would not be a long-term solution to the problem. It was also recognised that there are many different standards of living in different countries, and so what is considered to be underpaid may vary from country to country. The group felt that it was important for the government to put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. The group also felt that the government should make it a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad, but only if the local government is not taking action to improve the situation.” 3: 3,1,2,4 2: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001464.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001464.soc index b05d943a..69beb325 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001464.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001464.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group has decided that cars should not be banned in central London. The group has come to this conclusion for a variety of reasons. The group feels that the government should not interfere in the lives of its citizens in this way. The group feels that banning cars would be an extreme measure and would cause more problems than it would solve. The group also feels that cars are essential to the smooth running of London. The group feels that cars are needed to transport people to and from work and to transport goods around London. The group also feels that cars are needed in emergency situations. The group also feels that banning cars would lead to violent protests and would not be the best way to solve the problem. The group feels that the best way to solve the problem is to educate people on the issues with cars and their emissions and to encourage people to use public transport where possible. The group also feels that cars should be made more environmentally friendly and that the government should invest in cleaner fuels for cars. The group feels that these are the best ways to solve the problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While cars should not be completely banned in central London, we do agree that they should be reduced. The increase of electric cars should be encouraged and incentives provided by the government to support this. Taxis should be required to become electric in order to operate in the centre of London. We also suggest that congestion charges be introduced to make cars an unfavourable option in the centre of London. We are also in agreement that the general public should be educated as to the impact of pollution caused by cars in London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not believe that a complete ban on cars in central London would be a positive thing to do, as it would be too disruptive and would force too many people to find new ways to travel which could not be implemented quickly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. We don't think cars should be banned in central London. We believe that it would cause more harm than good. It would lead to people finding alternative methods of transport which could be even more harmful to the environment and it would also lead to a loss of jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group has decided that cars should not be banned in central London. The group has come to this conclusion for a variety of reasons. The group feels that the government should not interfere in the lives of its citizens in this way. The group feels that banning cars would be an extreme measure and would cause more problems than it would solve. The group also feels that cars are essential to the smooth running of London. The group feels that cars are needed to transport people to and from work and to transport goods around London. The group also feels that cars are needed in emergency situations. The group also feels that banning cars would lead to violent protests and would not be the best way to solve the problem. The group feels that the best way to solve the problem is to educate people on the issues with cars and their emissions and to encourage people to use public transport where possible. The group also feels that cars should be made more environmentally friendly and that the government should invest in cleaner fuels for cars. The group feels that these are the best ways to solve the problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While cars should not be completely banned in central London, we do agree that they should be reduced. The increase of electric cars should be encouraged and incentives provided by the government to support this. Taxis should be required to become electric in order to operate in the centre of London. We also suggest that congestion charges be introduced to make cars an unfavourable option in the centre of London. We are also in agreement that the general public should be educated as to the impact of pollution caused by cars in London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not believe that a complete ban on cars in central London would be a positive thing to do, as it would be too disruptive and would force too many people to find new ways to travel which could not be implemented quickly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. We don't think cars should be banned in central London. We believe that it would cause more harm than good. It would lead to people finding alternative methods of transport which could be even more harmful to the environment and it would also lead to a loss of jobs. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001465.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001465.soc index 09c460e5..fff94f49 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001465.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001465.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. Plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. In addition, there should be an extra effort put into developing new bioplastic materials that are completely plant-based, such as bioplastic polymers derived from maize. The production of such new biodegradable plastics should be heavily promoted, especially by the private sector and by governments, and they should be encouraged to invest in new research and development of these plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. The plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. One thing we noted when reaching our final consensus view was that not only did participants seem to reach consensus more easily, they felt they had 'got their point across' more, when all participants were in the room, and therefore fully understood each others view point. When we looked back at how we had reached the same consensus view previously, it was by sending emails out to people, getting their views and trying to come to an overall consensus. In the end, this did not take into account the interaction that seems to be required when reaching consensus. Thus we were a bit dissatisfied with our previous consensus statement. By using the new method, we -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. The plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. The energy used to make one single use bottle is also damaging to the environment. Conclusion: It is easy to see how people can form a consensus view in face-to-face meetings. The crux of the issue is that all participants, with different views, need to be prepared to compromise. The final consensus view, in this example, represents the views of all of the participants, not just the majority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. The plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. There should also be a greater use of alternative materials to plastic that are not derived from petrochemicals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. Plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. In addition, there should be an extra effort put into developing new bioplastic materials that are completely plant-based, such as bioplastic polymers derived from maize. The production of such new biodegradable plastics should be heavily promoted, especially by the private sector and by governments, and they should be encouraged to invest in new research and development of these plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. The plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. One thing we noted when reaching our final consensus view was that not only did participants seem to reach consensus more easily, they felt they had 'got their point across' more, when all participants were in the room, and therefore fully understood each others view point. When we looked back at how we had reached the same consensus view previously, it was by sending emails out to people, getting their views and trying to come to an overall consensus. In the end, this did not take into account the interaction that seems to be required when reaching consensus. Thus we were a bit dissatisfied with our previous consensus statement. By using the new method, we +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. The plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. The energy used to make one single use bottle is also damaging to the environment. Conclusion: It is easy to see how people can form a consensus view in face-to-face meetings. The crux of the issue is that all participants, with different views, need to be prepared to compromise. The final consensus view, in this example, represents the views of all of the participants, not just the majority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on small plastic water bottles. The ban should be implemented as soon as possible. There are already very good alternatives to plastic water bottles, such as aluminium cans and reusable bottles. The plastic bottles are very wasteful and very harmful to the environment. The plastic bottles are often not disposed of correctly and end up as litter. This leads to plastic pollution and is very damaging to the environment. There should be more of an effort to promote using bottles that can be reused, not just single use. There should be a scheme to recycle bottles with a small financial reward. There should also be a greater use of alternative materials to plastic that are not derived from petrochemicals. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001466.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001466.soc index 5ca9729b..37610cee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001466.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001466.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits due to the improvements in technology in transportation and communication and the sheer volume of the trade between countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are many different factors which need to be taken into account when trying to decide whether the costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits. This is a very difficult thing to do, as the market is so vast and so many different factors are involved. However, when you take into account the improvements in transportation and communication which have made this globalization possible, and you look at the volume of trade which is done between countries, and you consider the benefits to the consumer, it is difficult to imagine that it is not outweighed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The benefits of globalization are obviously very noticeable, and have affected every person's life in one way or another. However, the true cost is difficult to measure, as so many different factors are involved in creating the global market we see today. It is important to recognize that factors such as transportation and communication have played a huge role in allowing the global market to be created, but they are also the factors that have created negative consequences such as increased pollution from goods transportation. Although globalization can provide consumers with a wider range of products than they would be able to find in their domestic markets, the cost of these products is often such that it is less than they would have been in their own domestic market. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are many different factors involved in globalization, and it is difficult to say for certain whether the costs are outweighed by the benefits. However, we feel that the benefits to consumers are great enough that they do outweigh the costs of globalization. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits due to the improvements in technology in transportation and communication and the sheer volume of the trade between countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are many different factors which need to be taken into account when trying to decide whether the costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits. This is a very difficult thing to do, as the market is so vast and so many different factors are involved. However, when you take into account the improvements in transportation and communication which have made this globalization possible, and you look at the volume of trade which is done between countries, and you consider the benefits to the consumer, it is difficult to imagine that it is not outweighed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The benefits of globalization are obviously very noticeable, and have affected every person's life in one way or another. However, the true cost is difficult to measure, as so many different factors are involved in creating the global market we see today. It is important to recognize that factors such as transportation and communication have played a huge role in allowing the global market to be created, but they are also the factors that have created negative consequences such as increased pollution from goods transportation. Although globalization can provide consumers with a wider range of products than they would be able to find in their domestic markets, the cost of these products is often such that it is less than they would have been in their own domestic market. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are many different factors involved in globalization, and it is difficult to say for certain whether the costs are outweighed by the benefits. However, we feel that the benefits to consumers are great enough that they do outweigh the costs of globalization. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001467.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001467.soc index c47e1482..14f5ffef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001467.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001467.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should not give extra tax breaks to families with children. The main argument for this is that child care and children are an expensive burden, but families should be able to budget for these. There are already tax breaks for families, and it would not be fair to give extra support for children. Some families choose not to have children for different reasons, and it would not be fair to ask people who are not parents to pay for the children of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Families with children should be given extra tax breaks to help them get by. This is because families with children have a greater cost of living. This is because they have to pay for childcare, food and clothes for their children as well as themselves. This can be very expensive. The state should help families with children because they are the future of our country. We need to look after them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not give extra tax breaks to families with children. The cost of having children is a choice that people make, and the state should not be expected to support people who have made this choice. The state has a responsibility to care for all citizens, not just families with children, and this should be reflected in the way that taxes are spent. The benefits system is already in place to support those who are struggling, and child benefit is already in place to support families with children. Families without children may think it unfair if their taxes are being used to fund other people in this way, and feel that families with children do not deserve the extra cushion. It's also not necessarily true that those struggling are families with children, so the benefits need to be targeted to those most in need, not merely encompassing everyone with children. Many families with children are already getting by fine. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should give extra tax breaks to families with children. We recognise that raising children is difficult and expensive and the cost of child care is increasing making it difficult for both parents to work full time. We recognise that the state will benefit from helping families in this way as it will encourage more families to have children and contribute to the country in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should not give extra tax breaks to families with children. The main argument for this is that child care and children are an expensive burden, but families should be able to budget for these. There are already tax breaks for families, and it would not be fair to give extra support for children. Some families choose not to have children for different reasons, and it would not be fair to ask people who are not parents to pay for the children of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Families with children should be given extra tax breaks to help them get by. This is because families with children have a greater cost of living. This is because they have to pay for childcare, food and clothes for their children as well as themselves. This can be very expensive. The state should help families with children because they are the future of our country. We need to look after them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not give extra tax breaks to families with children. The cost of having children is a choice that people make, and the state should not be expected to support people who have made this choice. The state has a responsibility to care for all citizens, not just families with children, and this should be reflected in the way that taxes are spent. The benefits system is already in place to support those who are struggling, and child benefit is already in place to support families with children. Families without children may think it unfair if their taxes are being used to fund other people in this way, and feel that families with children do not deserve the extra cushion. It's also not necessarily true that those struggling are families with children, so the benefits need to be targeted to those most in need, not merely encompassing everyone with children. Many families with children are already getting by fine. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should give extra tax breaks to families with children. We recognise that raising children is difficult and expensive and the cost of child care is increasing making it difficult for both parents to work full time. We recognise that the state will benefit from helping families in this way as it will encourage more families to have children and contribute to the country in the future. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001468.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001468.soc index b4e25db1..e9e0e7bf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001468.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001468.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is mostly unethical to test on non-human animals to develop products for humans. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. The following articles were the primary resources used in writing this consensus statement: [1] "Animal Experiments" By: E.G. Farrar, Vet. Rec., 64:649, 1953. [2] "The Ethics of Animal Experimentation" By: J. B. Russell and W. M. S. Russell, 2nd edition London: UFAW, 1978. [3] Animals & Science: The Use of Animals in Research and Education by the Massachussetts Society for Medical Research, undated. [4] Selected List of "Alternatives -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the testing of products on animals is unethical. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Animal testing is unethical and should be abolished. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In general, the testing of products on animals is unethical. However, the testing of products to provide health benefits to humans is justified if there are no alternative forms of testing. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. In these cases the use of animals in medical research is justified if it has the potential to save lives. The number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is mostly unethical to test on non-human animals to develop products for humans. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. The following articles were the primary resources used in writing this consensus statement: [1] "Animal Experiments" By: E.G. Farrar, Vet. Rec., 64:649, 1953. [2] "The Ethics of Animal Experimentation" By: J. B. Russell and W. M. S. Russell, 2nd edition London: UFAW, 1978. [3] Animals & Science: The Use of Animals in Research and Education by the Massachussetts Society for Medical Research, undated. [4] Selected List of "Alternatives +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the testing of products on animals is unethical. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Animal testing is unethical and should be abolished. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In general, the testing of products on animals is unethical. However, the testing of products to provide health benefits to humans is justified if there are no alternative forms of testing. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. In these cases the use of animals in medical research is justified if it has the potential to save lives. The number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001469.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001469.soc index 6e306ad3..e28b2210 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001469.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001469.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, this would be difficult to enforce, and would not be a long-term solution to the problem. The group felt that it was important for the government to put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. The group also felt that the government should make it a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. __________________________ If you would like help structuring a written component for your task, please refer to this link. https://www.dropbox.com/s/g7e0vvji7jl1jez/Case%20Study%20Assignment%20Guide%20%28Complete%29%281%29.pdf?dl=0 If you want some tips on how to construct a discussion component for your task, please refer to this link. https://www.dropbox.com/s/z0dja3wmufhc3h7/Case%20Study%20Assignment%20Guide%20%28Complete%29%282%29. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. The government should also put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. In the future, we should look at implementing a ban on the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be some legislation in place to ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, this may be difficult to enforce, and it will not be a long-term solution to the problem. There are many different standards of living in different countries, and so what is considered to be underpaid may vary from country to country. It is important for the government to put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. It should be a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. The government should also be aware of the supply chains of the products that are being sold in the UK, in order to guard against labour exploitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, it was recognised that this would be difficult to enforce, and would not be a long-term solution to the problem. It was also recognised that there are many different standards of living in different countries, and so what is considered to be underpaid may vary from country to country. The group felt that it was important for the government to put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. The group also felt that the government should make it a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. The group recommended the use of these inspections as a first step towards the abolition of these practices abroad, with the understanding that these inspections could eventually be replaced by independent audits that ensure the products are being manufactured under acceptable working conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, this would be difficult to enforce, and would not be a long-term solution to the problem. The group felt that it was important for the government to put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. The group also felt that the government should make it a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. __________________________ If you would like help structuring a written component for your task, please refer to this link. https://www.dropbox.com/s/g7e0vvji7jl1jez/Case%20Study%20Assignment%20Guide%20%28Complete%29%281%29.pdf?dl=0 If you want some tips on how to construct a discussion component for your task, please refer to this link. https://www.dropbox.com/s/z0dja3wmufhc3h7/Case%20Study%20Assignment%20Guide%20%28Complete%29%282%29. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. The government should also put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. In the future, we should look at implementing a ban on the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be some legislation in place to ban the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, this may be difficult to enforce, and it will not be a long-term solution to the problem. There are many different standards of living in different countries, and so what is considered to be underpaid may vary from country to country. It is important for the government to put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. It should be a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. The government should also be aware of the supply chains of the products that are being sold in the UK, in order to guard against labour exploitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of products made by underpaid workers abroad. However, it was recognised that this would be difficult to enforce, and would not be a long-term solution to the problem. It was also recognised that there are many different standards of living in different countries, and so what is considered to be underpaid may vary from country to country. The group felt that it was important for the government to put pressure on foreign governments to improve the working conditions of their workers. The group also felt that the government should make it a legal requirement for all companies to have their products independently inspected to ensure that they are not being made by underpaid workers. The group recommended the use of these inspections as a first step towards the abolition of these practices abroad, with the understanding that these inspections could eventually be replaced by independent audits that ensure the products are being manufactured under acceptable working conditions. 4: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001470.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001470.soc index 66df5cf5..4a3f554c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001470.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001470.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not move to a cashless economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to moving to a cashless economy. The main arguments were that it would exclude the most vulnerable in society and that it would be a step too far in the direction of a surveillance society. It was also felt that it would be very difficult to achieve in practice and that it would be very easy to circumvent. The group was also concerned about the effect on the economy of people not spending and the effect on the supply chain of people not having cash to pay for goods and services. The group did recognise that it would be useful for some people to have the option to go cashless, but that it should not be mandatory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a cashless society, but with the proviso that there should be some provision for those who are unable to use cashless payment methods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The concept of a cashless society can be very beneficial. There are obvious benefits such as reducing the risk of Covid transmission and also reducing the risk of theft and mugging. It would also reduce the risks associated with transporting cash which is a very dangerous job. However, the move to cashless would exclude a lot of people from society, in particular the elderly and people who are homeless or in poverty. This could also lead to increased debt and exploitation. If the move to cashless is inevitable we should ensure that everybody is included in this new society, and that the infrastructure is in place for everyone to benefit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not move to a cashless economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to moving to a cashless economy. The main arguments were that it would exclude the most vulnerable in society and that it would be a step too far in the direction of a surveillance society. It was also felt that it would be very difficult to achieve in practice and that it would be very easy to circumvent. The group was also concerned about the effect on the economy of people not spending and the effect on the supply chain of people not having cash to pay for goods and services. The group did recognise that it would be useful for some people to have the option to go cashless, but that it should not be mandatory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a cashless society, but with the proviso that there should be some provision for those who are unable to use cashless payment methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The concept of a cashless society can be very beneficial. There are obvious benefits such as reducing the risk of Covid transmission and also reducing the risk of theft and mugging. It would also reduce the risks associated with transporting cash which is a very dangerous job. However, the move to cashless would exclude a lot of people from society, in particular the elderly and people who are homeless or in poverty. This could also lead to increased debt and exploitation. If the move to cashless is inevitable we should ensure that everybody is included in this new society, and that the infrastructure is in place for everyone to benefit. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001471.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001471.soc index 49281ad2..c74ff0d7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001471.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001471.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of abolishing private schools. It was felt that the current system is unfair and that the quality of education is not necessarily better in private schools. However, it was also felt that private schools do provide a valuable service for those who can afford them. Therefore, it was felt that the current system should be maintained but that private schools should be taxed to provide funding for public schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the private education system should not be abolished, we understand that the current system is unfair, however, we do not believe that the abolition of private education is the way to solve this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, private schools should not be abolished. They are an important part of history and have developed some great individuals throughout the years. They are often quality and are therefore money well spent, provided you can afford them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the privatisation of schools does give unfair advantages to the wealthy, it is an essential part of society. There are some high quality private schools which produce some great students, as well as many average schools. It also ensures that the economy is stimulated through increased spending on education, allowing people to spend their money where they wish. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of abolishing private schools. It was felt that the current system is unfair and that the quality of education is not necessarily better in private schools. However, it was also felt that private schools do provide a valuable service for those who can afford them. Therefore, it was felt that the current system should be maintained but that private schools should be taxed to provide funding for public schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the private education system should not be abolished, we understand that the current system is unfair, however, we do not believe that the abolition of private education is the way to solve this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, private schools should not be abolished. They are an important part of history and have developed some great individuals throughout the years. They are often quality and are therefore money well spent, provided you can afford them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the privatisation of schools does give unfair advantages to the wealthy, it is an essential part of society. There are some high quality private schools which produce some great students, as well as many average schools. It also ensures that the economy is stimulated through increased spending on education, allowing people to spend their money where they wish. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001472.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001472.soc index 1b7f6428..7428fbce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001472.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001472.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the reduction of taxation for corporations is a move that might appear to be favourable for companies, it is not actually in the best interests of either them or the economy as a whole. In order for businesses to thrive and for countries to remain economically viable, it is essential that all companies pay the taxes that they owe, which is the case with the current level of tax that is charged on companies. Lowering the level of taxation on corporations will only serve to damage the economy and society as a whole, as companies will feel less need to return to the country from which they originate. This will ultimately cause the economy to stagnate, which will only serve to damage the interests of the entire country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. Corporations have a responsibility to pay their fair share of tax to the countries that enable them to make their profits. It is not right that they pay increasingly large amounts to shareholders and that the tax burden is shifted to the individual. We feel that taxation on corporations should be increased, not reduced, in order to help the economy grow. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Corporations should pay their fair share of tax to the country which enables them to make their profits. The rate of taxation should be proportional to the profits made by the corporation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the reduction of taxation for corporations is a move that might appear to be favourable for companies, it is not actually in the best interests of either them or the economy as a whole. In order for businesses to thrive and for countries to remain economically viable, it is essential that all companies pay the taxes that they owe, which is the case with the current level of tax that is charged on companies. Lowering the level of taxation on corporations will only serve to damage the economy and society as a whole, as companies will feel less need to return to the country from which they originate. This will ultimately cause the economy to stagnate, which will only serve to damage the interests of the entire country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is not a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. Corporations have a responsibility to pay their fair share of tax to the countries that enable them to make their profits. It is not right that they pay increasingly large amounts to shareholders and that the tax burden is shifted to the individual. We feel that taxation on corporations should be increased, not reduced, in order to help the economy grow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Corporations should pay their fair share of tax to the country which enables them to make their profits. The rate of taxation should be proportional to the profits made by the corporation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is a good idea to further reduce taxation on corporations. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001473.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001473.soc index d1c949d0..73b5604c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001473.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001473.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes, but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that men and women should both be allowed to serve in the military. There are a range of views that suggest that women are not as strong, or capable as men, however this is based on a number of different arguments and is an issue that has been debated for a number of years. There are no reasons why women should be excluded from the military, and in fact there are many reasons why they should be allowed. They have a variety of different skills, which can contribute to a wider variety of roles in the military. For the most part, they can do the same roles as men and, despite any physical differences, this does not impact on their ability to perform as well as men. There is also an element of equality. Allowing women to serve in the military means that they are given the same opportunities as men, to serve their country. Allowing women to serve also means that women can enjoy the same benefits that men get for serving in the military. There are some differences between men and women, however we should not let this stop women from serving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Women should be allowed to serve in the military, however not in combat roles. This is to protect them from the potential for sexual violence if captured. Women should be allowed to serve in non-combat roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes. It is unfair that both sexes should be able to be drafted, but only one sex be allowed to serve. However, there is a realistic difference in physical ability and this must be taken into account in regards to front line combat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes, but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that men and women should both be allowed to serve in the military. There are a range of views that suggest that women are not as strong, or capable as men, however this is based on a number of different arguments and is an issue that has been debated for a number of years. There are no reasons why women should be excluded from the military, and in fact there are many reasons why they should be allowed. They have a variety of different skills, which can contribute to a wider variety of roles in the military. For the most part, they can do the same roles as men and, despite any physical differences, this does not impact on their ability to perform as well as men. There is also an element of equality. Allowing women to serve in the military means that they are given the same opportunities as men, to serve their country. Allowing women to serve also means that women can enjoy the same benefits that men get for serving in the military. There are some differences between men and women, however we should not let this stop women from serving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Women should be allowed to serve in the military, however not in combat roles. This is to protect them from the potential for sexual violence if captured. Women should be allowed to serve in non-combat roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes. It is unfair that both sexes should be able to be drafted, but only one sex be allowed to serve. However, there is a realistic difference in physical ability and this must be taken into account in regards to front line combat. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001474.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001474.soc index 66fe6dcc..59815d31 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001474.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001474.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the government having the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group felt that this was necessary as cigarettes are harmful to health and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. However, the group felt that the government should not ban cigarettes altogether, but should instead restrict where people can smoke. This is because the group felt that people should have the freedom to make their own choices and that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can and cannot do. The group felt that the government should also make a greater effort to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to discourage people from taking up the habit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking should be discouraged but not banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We all agreed that the government shouldn’t restrict our freedom to smoke cigarettes. We all believe that it is a person’s right to do what they wish to their own bodies as long as it doesn’t harm other people, and as long as they are prepared to suffer the consequences. Smoking does, however, have an impact on society and the NHS, and as a result the government have the right to encourage smokers to give up smoking, and to prevent smoking in public places such as workplaces, pubs and restaurants, where it could potentially harm people who don’t smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government having the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group felt that this was necessary as cigarettes are harmful to health and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. However, the group felt that the government should not ban cigarettes altogether, but should instead restrict where people can smoke. This is because the group felt that people should have the freedom to make their own choices and that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can and cannot do. The group felt that the government should also make a greater effort to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to discourage people from taking up the habit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking should be discouraged but not banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We all agreed that the government shouldn’t restrict our freedom to smoke cigarettes. We all believe that it is a person’s right to do what they wish to their own bodies as long as it doesn’t harm other people, and as long as they are prepared to suffer the consequences. Smoking does, however, have an impact on society and the NHS, and as a result the government have the right to encourage smokers to give up smoking, and to prevent smoking in public places such as workplaces, pubs and restaurants, where it could potentially harm people who don’t smoke. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001475.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001475.soc index 5d6f9b54..0600920c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001475.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001475.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should increase taxes on the rich. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There is enough money to go around, but it must be shared fairly. The rise of the billionaire class and their increasing hoarding of wealth is hugely problematic, especially at a time when the cost of living crisis in the Western world is pushing many people into poverty. There is a wealth gap that was only worsened by the pandemic. The profits from oil and gas should be taxed exponentially to encourage the disuse of them. The wealth of the 1% should be taxed to ensure than the 'normal' people working 40 hours a week using foodbanks can stop having to pay ridiculous energy costs, higher tax and national insurance and to ensure that out public service workers like police officers, teachers, paramedics, rail staff, doctors and nurses etc are paid what they deserve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The rich should be taxed more as they have more money than they could possibly need. In addition, they are often benefiting from things that harm the planet and other people and are making more money than ever before, especially as everyone else is struggling. The government should also increase taxes on the energy and fuel industries, as these are a big cause of pollution and climate change. If the government increased taxes on these industries it would make the fossil fuels less appealing and would encourage the disuse of these harmful and damaging fuels. Furthermore, the government should increase taxes on those who have money as this would help those who are less fortunate and could not afford to pay higher taxes. We all need to work together to help reduce inequalities and this would be a good place to start. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The rich should be taxed more as they can afford to pay more. The poorer people get taxed more and feel the “bite” of the taxation more than a rich person would. The rich find loopholes to pay as little tax as possible. The poorer people would be happier with knowing the rich are paying the same amount of tax or more tax.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should increase taxes on the rich. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There is enough money to go around, but it must be shared fairly. The rise of the billionaire class and their increasing hoarding of wealth is hugely problematic, especially at a time when the cost of living crisis in the Western world is pushing many people into poverty. There is a wealth gap that was only worsened by the pandemic. The profits from oil and gas should be taxed exponentially to encourage the disuse of them. The wealth of the 1% should be taxed to ensure than the 'normal' people working 40 hours a week using foodbanks can stop having to pay ridiculous energy costs, higher tax and national insurance and to ensure that out public service workers like police officers, teachers, paramedics, rail staff, doctors and nurses etc are paid what they deserve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The rich should be taxed more as they have more money than they could possibly need. In addition, they are often benefiting from things that harm the planet and other people and are making more money than ever before, especially as everyone else is struggling. The government should also increase taxes on the energy and fuel industries, as these are a big cause of pollution and climate change. If the government increased taxes on these industries it would make the fossil fuels less appealing and would encourage the disuse of these harmful and damaging fuels. Furthermore, the government should increase taxes on those who have money as this would help those who are less fortunate and could not afford to pay higher taxes. We all need to work together to help reduce inequalities and this would be a good place to start. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The rich should be taxed more as they can afford to pay more. The poorer people get taxed more and feel the “bite” of the taxation more than a rich person would. The rich find loopholes to pay as little tax as possible. The poorer people would be happier with knowing the rich are paying the same amount of tax or more tax.” 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001476.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001476.soc index 74a22156..55486058 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001476.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001476.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum wage in the UK should be raised to at least £9 per hour. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The minimum wage should be raised in the UK. The current minimum wage is too low compared to CPI and inflation. This could also prevent industrial actions in the future.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The minimum wage in the UK should be raised. There are a number of good reasons why this is the case. The first and most important is that the present minimum wage is too low in the light of today’s economic conditions. Inflation is high and people are finding it hard to make ends meet. Therefore, in order to live a decent life and give their families a good standard of living, the minimum wage needs to be increased. Secondly, it is very difficult to buy a house on the present minimum wage. It is important that people should be able to afford their own home and raise a family. Finally, it is good for the economy as a whole as people will have more money to spend, increasing consumption, and businesses will benefit from increased sales. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage in the UK. I think that the current minimum wage is too low to be practical in today’s society. The cost of living has risen too much resulting in a lower standard of living and no longer incentivises work. Many people do not get what they need to live decently. The current minimum wage is too low compared to CPI and inflation. This could also prevent industrial actions in the future. This could provide a much needed boost to the economy as people now have less disposable income and many businesses have suffered as a result. Many people in work are having to claim top up benefits or even use food banks to make ends meet which is shocking - if someone works they should not be struggling to make enough money to feed themselves or their family! If we raise the minimum wage, it will help people to survive and it will be good for the economy. People will be able to buy more things and this will increase sales in shops and supermarkets. This will help the economy to grow. The cost of living crisis makes it very hard to survive on the minimum wage. It is only fair that we increase it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum wage in the UK should be raised to at least £9 per hour. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The minimum wage should be raised in the UK. The current minimum wage is too low compared to CPI and inflation. This could also prevent industrial actions in the future.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The minimum wage in the UK should be raised. There are a number of good reasons why this is the case. The first and most important is that the present minimum wage is too low in the light of today’s economic conditions. Inflation is high and people are finding it hard to make ends meet. Therefore, in order to live a decent life and give their families a good standard of living, the minimum wage needs to be increased. Secondly, it is very difficult to buy a house on the present minimum wage. It is important that people should be able to afford their own home and raise a family. Finally, it is good for the economy as a whole as people will have more money to spend, increasing consumption, and businesses will benefit from increased sales. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage in the UK. I think that the current minimum wage is too low to be practical in today’s society. The cost of living has risen too much resulting in a lower standard of living and no longer incentivises work. Many people do not get what they need to live decently. The current minimum wage is too low compared to CPI and inflation. This could also prevent industrial actions in the future. This could provide a much needed boost to the economy as people now have less disposable income and many businesses have suffered as a result. Many people in work are having to claim top up benefits or even use food banks to make ends meet which is shocking - if someone works they should not be struggling to make enough money to feed themselves or their family! If we raise the minimum wage, it will help people to survive and it will be good for the economy. People will be able to buy more things and this will increase sales in shops and supermarkets. This will help the economy to grow. The cost of living crisis makes it very hard to survive on the minimum wage. It is only fair that we increase it.” 2: 4,3,2,1 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001477.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001477.soc index a3b3edaa..1da6627e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001477.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001477.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having to carry national identification. They felt that this was an infringement on personal liberties and that it was not necessary in the majority of cases. They did agree that it would be useful in certain situations, such as when dealing with the police or in a nightclub, but they felt that this was not a sufficient reason to have to carry it all the time. They felt that it was not necessary to carry national identification in order to prove who you are, as most people would be able to recognise you from your face. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be required to carry national identification on their person at all times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are all fairly undecided on this question. On the one hand, it is important to carry identification on your person at all times so that if you are stopped by the police or something happens to you in an emergency, you have a way of proving who you are. On the other hand, I do not believe that you should have to carry identification with you at all times, especially if you are just going about your daily business, going shopping, etc. I do think, however, that there should be some kind of database of people in Ireland and it should be free for people to access their own information. This would allow the police or other emergency services to check someone's identity without them having to carry it on their person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of having to carry national identification. They felt that this was an infringement on personal liberties and that it was not necessary in the majority of cases. They did agree that it would be useful in certain situations, such as when dealing with the police or in a nightclub, but they felt that this was not a sufficient reason to have to carry it all the time. They felt that it was not necessary to carry national identification in order to prove who you are, as most people would be able to recognise you from your face. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be required to carry national identification on their person at all times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are all fairly undecided on this question. On the one hand, it is important to carry identification on your person at all times so that if you are stopped by the police or something happens to you in an emergency, you have a way of proving who you are. On the other hand, I do not believe that you should have to carry identification with you at all times, especially if you are just going about your daily business, going shopping, etc. I do think, however, that there should be some kind of database of people in Ireland and it should be free for people to access their own information. This would allow the police or other emergency services to check someone's identity without them having to carry it on their person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001478.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001478.soc index ec9a2261..2ce7cab5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001478.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001478.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. Although the BBC has had scandals in the past, they are working towards improving and remain an important part of broadcasting in the UK. The BBC continues to produce high quality news and documentaries and are generally impartial. They can be somewhat biased to the political party in power but as they have to appease the government for their funding, it is not surprising. It is important that the BBC continue to air a wide variety of content and is available to most people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. It is a well-established organisation that provides a wide variety of programmes for the public. It is also impartial in its reporting and balances its debate accordingly. However, the BBC is not a perfect organisation and it is not beyond reproach. It has been subject to a number of scandals in recent years, which has called into question the impartiality of its reporting. It is therefore important that the BBC is subject to scrutiny, both internally and externally, to ensure that it is providing the public with a fair and balanced service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC is a very important public broadcaster and for the foreseeable future, is likely to remain a very important outlet for television in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. It provides a variety of programming, from news to entertainment, and has a good reputation for being impartial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. Although the BBC has had scandals in the past, they are working towards improving and remain an important part of broadcasting in the UK. The BBC continues to produce high quality news and documentaries and are generally impartial. They can be somewhat biased to the political party in power but as they have to appease the government for their funding, it is not surprising. It is important that the BBC continue to air a wide variety of content and is available to most people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. It is a well-established organisation that provides a wide variety of programmes for the public. It is also impartial in its reporting and balances its debate accordingly. However, the BBC is not a perfect organisation and it is not beyond reproach. It has been subject to a number of scandals in recent years, which has called into question the impartiality of its reporting. It is therefore important that the BBC is subject to scrutiny, both internally and externally, to ensure that it is providing the public with a fair and balanced service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC is a very important public broadcaster and for the foreseeable future, is likely to remain a very important outlet for television in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. It provides a variety of programming, from news to entertainment, and has a good reputation for being impartial. 4: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001479.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001479.soc index 59d696f0..355577bb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001479.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001479.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we feel that the UK is still a Christian country, but that the country is slowly moving away from being a Christian country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK is still a Christian country, but the population is slowly moving away from religion. We still celebrate all of the Christian holidays such as Christmas, Easter and have them as bank holidays. We still bless the King via the national anthem saying, "God bless". The population are slowly moving away from being a Christian country but the country as a whole is a full Christian Country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the country is still considered a Christian country, with a high percentage of the population claiming to be Christian, the actual number of practising Christians has dropped significantly over recent years. This is due to several reasons including a drop in organised religion and people becoming more spiritual rather than religious. The UK has also opened its borders to refugees, which has led to the creation of more multicultural towns and cities. With this, there has been a rise in other religions, which has reduced the dominance of Christianity in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we feel that the UK is still a Christian country, but that the country is slowly moving away from being a Christian country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK is still a Christian country, but the population is slowly moving away from religion. We still celebrate all of the Christian holidays such as Christmas, Easter and have them as bank holidays. We still bless the King via the national anthem saying, "God bless". The population are slowly moving away from being a Christian country but the country as a whole is a full Christian Country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the country is still considered a Christian country, with a high percentage of the population claiming to be Christian, the actual number of practising Christians has dropped significantly over recent years. This is due to several reasons including a drop in organised religion and people becoming more spiritual rather than religious. The UK has also opened its borders to refugees, which has led to the creation of more multicultural towns and cities. With this, there has been a rise in other religions, which has reduced the dominance of Christianity in the country. 5: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001480.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001480.soc index 5ea2659b..a900d490 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001480.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001480.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should try to be a close ally to the US. The US is a powerful nation and it is in the UK's interest to be close to it. However, the UK should not blindly agree with everything the US does. The UK should stand up for its own interests and values. It should also not be afraid to criticise the US when it disagrees with its actions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should be an ally to the US because the US is one of the strongest countries in the world and it is important to keep good relations with them. The UK can help to benefit the US and the US can help to benefit the UK. The UK can be a beneficial ally to the US, not just through trading and military alliances, but by having an influence on US decisions. The UK can provide an alternative point of view and ensure the US does not act rashly or unjustly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should be a close ally to the US. However, there are situations where we should be able to disagree with them and be able to challenge them on our disagreements. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we believe the UK should try to be a close ally to the United States. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should try to be a close ally to the US. The US is a powerful nation and it is in the UK's interest to be close to it. However, the UK should not blindly agree with everything the US does. The UK should stand up for its own interests and values. It should also not be afraid to criticise the US when it disagrees with its actions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should be an ally to the US because the US is one of the strongest countries in the world and it is important to keep good relations with them. The UK can help to benefit the US and the US can help to benefit the UK. The UK can be a beneficial ally to the US, not just through trading and military alliances, but by having an influence on US decisions. The UK can provide an alternative point of view and ensure the US does not act rashly or unjustly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should be a close ally to the US. However, there are situations where we should be able to disagree with them and be able to challenge them on our disagreements. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we believe the UK should try to be a close ally to the United States. 3: 1,3,2,4 2: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001481.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001481.soc index e7b6c1cc..06bba30c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001481.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001481.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: All children should be encouraged to learn a second language. Learning a language can be beneficial to a child in many ways, such as developing their ability to learn other languages, developing an understanding of other cultures and ways of life, and increasing the flexibility of the brain. The knowledge of another language is also a great asset in later life when children may choose to travel or work in another country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be encouraged to learn a second language. Second language learning can be beneficial for a child in many ways. In the future, the knowledge of another language could be valuable during job interviews and in the workplace. The learning of other languages can help to develop relationships with people from other cultures and teaches children about cultural diversity. Teaching children another language can also improve their creative thinking and their literacy skills in their own language. If children learn a second language at an early age, it improves the flexibility of the brain and creates new neural pathways, helping them to learn other languages more easily in later life. Children should also be encouraged to continue to use the language that they learn and maintain the language throughout their lives. While it is possible that the value of knowing a second language in the workplace will change in the future, this cannot be predicted and therefore children should be encouraged to become bilingual. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We recommend that all children should be encouraged to learn a second language. Learning a second language can be beneficial to a child in many ways, such as developing their ability to learn other languages, developing an understanding of other cultures and ways of life, and increasing the flexibility of the brain. The knowledge of another language is also a great asset in later life when children may choose to travel or work in another country. Research on Online Discussion ( ): The next phase of your study involves analyzing the students post-discussion comments by using the Online Discussion research base. Review each group's post-discussion comments. Then, using the keywords provided, summarize the consensus statement reached by each group, the various arguments (i.e., -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: All children should be encouraged to learn a second language. Children who learn a second language tend to perform better in school, have greater cognitive flexibility, and higher overall academic achievement. In addition, being able to speak a second language opens up a wide range of career options for young people and enables them to develop a greater understanding and appreciation of other cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - All children should be encouraged to learn a second language. Learning a language can be beneficial to a child in many ways, such as developing their ability to learn other languages, developing an understanding of other cultures and ways of life, and increasing the flexibility of the brain. The knowledge of another language is also a great asset in later life when children may choose to travel or work in another country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be encouraged to learn a second language. Second language learning can be beneficial for a child in many ways. In the future, the knowledge of another language could be valuable during job interviews and in the workplace. The learning of other languages can help to develop relationships with people from other cultures and teaches children about cultural diversity. Teaching children another language can also improve their creative thinking and their literacy skills in their own language. If children learn a second language at an early age, it improves the flexibility of the brain and creates new neural pathways, helping them to learn other languages more easily in later life. Children should also be encouraged to continue to use the language that they learn and maintain the language throughout their lives. While it is possible that the value of knowing a second language in the workplace will change in the future, this cannot be predicted and therefore children should be encouraged to become bilingual. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We recommend that all children should be encouraged to learn a second language. Learning a second language can be beneficial to a child in many ways, such as developing their ability to learn other languages, developing an understanding of other cultures and ways of life, and increasing the flexibility of the brain. The knowledge of another language is also a great asset in later life when children may choose to travel or work in another country. Research on Online Discussion ( ): The next phase of your study involves analyzing the students post-discussion comments by using the Online Discussion research base. Review each group's post-discussion comments. Then, using the keywords provided, summarize the consensus statement reached by each group, the various arguments (i.e., +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - All children should be encouraged to learn a second language. Children who learn a second language tend to perform better in school, have greater cognitive flexibility, and higher overall academic achievement. In addition, being able to speak a second language opens up a wide range of career options for young people and enables them to develop a greater understanding and appreciation of other cultures. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001482.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001482.soc index 527b0818..a447ee29 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001482.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001482.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the current level of taxation imposed on companies needs to remain, as to reduce the level would be an economic catastrophe for the country. The current level ensures that companies return the appropriate amount of tax in their country of origin, and it is important to maintain economic stability, which in turn allows the public to thrive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that the current level of taxation on corporations is fair, and serves to benefit the economy as a whole. The idea of lowering the level of taxation on corporations is one that would appear to be favourable for companies, however this would ultimately serve to damage the economy and society as a whole, as companies would feel less need to return to the country from which they originate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the reduction of taxation for corporations is a move that might appear to be favourable for companies, it is not actually in the best interests of either them or the economy as a whole. In order for businesses to thrive and for countries to remain economically viable, it is essential that all companies pay the taxes that they owe, which is the case with the current level of tax that is charged on companies. Lowering the level of taxation on corporations will only serve to damage the economy and society as a whole, as companies will feel less need to return to the country from which they originate. This will ultimately cause the economy to stagnate, which will only serve to damage the interests of the entire country. It is also important to note that while it is essential that corporations pay the amount of tax that they owe in order for the economy to function properly, it is also important that companies are not taxed too much, as this will lead to them becoming less profitable, meaning that they will not be able to contribute as much to the economy as they would be able to if they were taxed at a lower rate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus statement reached: While the reduction of taxation for corporations is a move that might appear to be favourable for companies, it is not actually in the best interests of either them or the economy as a whole. In order for businesses to thrive and for countries to remain economically viable, it is essential that all companies pay the taxes that they owe, which is the case with the current level of tax that is charged on companies. Lowering the level of taxation on corporations will only serve to damage the economy and society as a whole, as companies will feel less need to return to the country from which they originate, and will instead feel more inclined to leave the country in search of further profit. This will ultimately cause the economy to stagnate, which will only serve to damage the interests of the entire country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the current level of taxation imposed on companies needs to remain, as to reduce the level would be an economic catastrophe for the country. The current level ensures that companies return the appropriate amount of tax in their country of origin, and it is important to maintain economic stability, which in turn allows the public to thrive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that the current level of taxation on corporations is fair, and serves to benefit the economy as a whole. The idea of lowering the level of taxation on corporations is one that would appear to be favourable for companies, however this would ultimately serve to damage the economy and society as a whole, as companies would feel less need to return to the country from which they originate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the reduction of taxation for corporations is a move that might appear to be favourable for companies, it is not actually in the best interests of either them or the economy as a whole. In order for businesses to thrive and for countries to remain economically viable, it is essential that all companies pay the taxes that they owe, which is the case with the current level of tax that is charged on companies. Lowering the level of taxation on corporations will only serve to damage the economy and society as a whole, as companies will feel less need to return to the country from which they originate. This will ultimately cause the economy to stagnate, which will only serve to damage the interests of the entire country. It is also important to note that while it is essential that corporations pay the amount of tax that they owe in order for the economy to function properly, it is also important that companies are not taxed too much, as this will lead to them becoming less profitable, meaning that they will not be able to contribute as much to the economy as they would be able to if they were taxed at a lower rate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus statement reached: While the reduction of taxation for corporations is a move that might appear to be favourable for companies, it is not actually in the best interests of either them or the economy as a whole. In order for businesses to thrive and for countries to remain economically viable, it is essential that all companies pay the taxes that they owe, which is the case with the current level of tax that is charged on companies. Lowering the level of taxation on corporations will only serve to damage the economy and society as a whole, as companies will feel less need to return to the country from which they originate, and will instead feel more inclined to leave the country in search of further profit. This will ultimately cause the economy to stagnate, which will only serve to damage the interests of the entire country. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001483.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001483.soc index cf2e71f4..017c40b5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001483.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001483.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of abolishing private schools. It was felt that the current system is unfair and that the quality of education is not necessarily better in private schools. However, it was also felt that private schools do provide a valuable service for those who can afford them. Therefore, it was felt that the current system should be maintained but that private schools should be taxed to provide funding for public schools. This funding should be ring-fenced and made available only for use in public schools. In addition, it was felt that there should be a system for moving between the public and private school systems, allowing students to move freely between the two. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be no private schools, however, the current system is so entrenched that we must retain it. Private schools should be heavily taxed to provide funding for public schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, however, given the complexities involved and the need for further research, the group was unable to commit to saying that private schools should be abolished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of abolishing private schools. It was felt that the current system is unfair and that the quality of education is not necessarily better in private schools. However, it was also felt that private schools do provide a valuable service for those who can afford them. Therefore, it was felt that the current system should be maintained but that private schools should be taxed to provide funding for public schools. It was further felt that the tax revenue from private schools should not be given to the government to be distributed at its own whim, but rather be given directly to the public schools in order to provide them with the funds they require to provide a quality education to their students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of abolishing private schools. It was felt that the current system is unfair and that the quality of education is not necessarily better in private schools. However, it was also felt that private schools do provide a valuable service for those who can afford them. Therefore, it was felt that the current system should be maintained but that private schools should be taxed to provide funding for public schools. This funding should be ring-fenced and made available only for use in public schools. In addition, it was felt that there should be a system for moving between the public and private school systems, allowing students to move freely between the two. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be no private schools, however, the current system is so entrenched that we must retain it. Private schools should be heavily taxed to provide funding for public schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, however, given the complexities involved and the need for further research, the group was unable to commit to saying that private schools should be abolished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of abolishing private schools. It was felt that the current system is unfair and that the quality of education is not necessarily better in private schools. However, it was also felt that private schools do provide a valuable service for those who can afford them. Therefore, it was felt that the current system should be maintained but that private schools should be taxed to provide funding for public schools. It was further felt that the tax revenue from private schools should not be given to the government to be distributed at its own whim, but rather be given directly to the public schools in order to provide them with the funds they require to provide a quality education to their students. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001484.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001484.soc index 8fdb8732..17529812 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001484.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001484.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to moving to a cashless economy. The main arguments were that it would exclude the most vulnerable in society and that it would be a step too far in the direction of a surveillance society. It was also felt that it would be very difficult to achieve in practice and that it would be very easy to circumvent. The group was also concerned about the effect on the economy of people not spending and the effect on the supply chain of people not having cash to pay for goods and services. The group did recognise that it would be useful for some people to have the option to go cashless, but that it should not be mandatory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There was a consensus that the most vulnerable in society would be excluded by a move to a cashless economy. The group also felt that it would not be practical to achieve in practice and would be very easy to circumvent. The group was also concerned about the effect on the economy of people not spending and the effect on the supply chain of people not having cash to pay for goods and services. The group did recognise that it would be useful for some people to have the option to go cashless, but that it should not be mandatory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: A cashless economy may be a good option for individuals to have as an option, however it should not be mandatory as some individuals do not have access to digital means for it and it would cause economic damage in their inability to participate. There are already individuals that do not have bank accounts and would be excluded from a cashless economy. Also, cash allows some individuals to maintain a degree of anonymity and thus acts as a safety net for them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to moving to a cashless economy. The main arguments were that it would exclude the most vulnerable in society and that it would be a step too far in the direction of a surveillance society. It was also felt that it would be very difficult to achieve in practice and that it would be very easy to circumvent. The group was also concerned about the effect on the economy of people not spending and the effect on the supply chain of people not having cash to pay for goods and services. The group did recognise that it would be useful for some people to have the option to go cashless, but that it should not be mandatory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to moving to a cashless economy. The main arguments were that it would exclude the most vulnerable in society and that it would be a step too far in the direction of a surveillance society. It was also felt that it would be very difficult to achieve in practice and that it would be very easy to circumvent. The group was also concerned about the effect on the economy of people not spending and the effect on the supply chain of people not having cash to pay for goods and services. The group did recognise that it would be useful for some people to have the option to go cashless, but that it should not be mandatory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There was a consensus that the most vulnerable in society would be excluded by a move to a cashless economy. The group also felt that it would not be practical to achieve in practice and would be very easy to circumvent. The group was also concerned about the effect on the economy of people not spending and the effect on the supply chain of people not having cash to pay for goods and services. The group did recognise that it would be useful for some people to have the option to go cashless, but that it should not be mandatory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: A cashless economy may be a good option for individuals to have as an option, however it should not be mandatory as some individuals do not have access to digital means for it and it would cause economic damage in their inability to participate. There are already individuals that do not have bank accounts and would be excluded from a cashless economy. Also, cash allows some individuals to maintain a degree of anonymity and thus acts as a safety net for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to moving to a cashless economy. The main arguments were that it would exclude the most vulnerable in society and that it would be a step too far in the direction of a surveillance society. It was also felt that it would be very difficult to achieve in practice and that it would be very easy to circumvent. The group was also concerned about the effect on the economy of people not spending and the effect on the supply chain of people not having cash to pay for goods and services. The group did recognise that it would be useful for some people to have the option to go cashless, but that it should not be mandatory. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001485.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001485.soc index b2738c26..608dd6b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001485.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001485.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes, but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. Conclusion In this paper, I presented two examples of consensus forming from a number of independent perspectives in order to demonstrate the general consensus forming tool that is described in my thesis. In the first example, a panel of four judges was presented with a description of a criminal case along with notes on each of three defendants. Two of the judges came to a quick consensus by voting and sending messages to the other two judges who concurred in their choice. This technique was also used by two of the three members -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be equality of opportunity between the sexes in the military. In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes, but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes, but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes, but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. Conclusion In this paper, I presented two examples of consensus forming from a number of independent perspectives in order to demonstrate the general consensus forming tool that is described in my thesis. In the first example, a panel of four judges was presented with a description of a criminal case along with notes on each of three defendants. Two of the judges came to a quick consensus by voting and sending messages to the other two judges who concurred in their choice. This technique was also used by two of the three members +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be equality of opportunity between the sexes in the military. In general, the group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes, but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in favour of allowing both men and women to serve in the military. Some participants were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles, including combat roles, while others were in favour of allowing both sexes to serve in all roles except combat roles. The group agreed that there is a difference in physicality between the sexes, but that with the right training and hard work, women can perform just as well as men in most roles. The group also agreed that combat roles are a challenging area and that men are usually better suited to combat both in terms of strength and the potential for sexual violence if captured. The group agreed that we have to balance interests of equality of opportunity versus the practicalities of combat roles. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001486.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001486.soc index 6ddf9b75..9c959b67 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001486.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001486.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should accept more workers from countries outside of the EU, but we should not exploit them and pay them less than workers from the EU. We should also not accept workers from outside of the EU if it means that workers from the EU will not be able to find work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The key issue is whether the UK should accept more workers from countries outside of the EU, and not whether to accept more workers from other EU countries. There is no right or wrong answer to this question and I think that ultimately, this is a political question and not one to be discussed here. It is not the role of the European Commission to make political decisions for member states. This decision has to be made on a case by case basis. For example, if the UK is in need of a certain skill set, and workers are only available from a certain country, then we should accept those workers into the country. However, this is only an issue if there is a shortage of workers available. If there are enough workers available in the UK then there is no need to bring in workers from other countries. If there is a decision to bring in workers from countries outside of the EU, we must ensure that we provide suitable training to workers here, so that we have the skill set available in the future. We must also look at conditions for workers and ensure that we are paying a fair wage to avoid a shortage in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should accept more workers from countries outside of the EU. This is because the UK is a multicultural society and has always welcomed people from other countries. The UK has a tradition of employing foreigners in some areas, such as nursing, hospitality and agriculture, where there is a shortage of workers. In order to avoid shortages in these areas, the UK should accept workers from outside of the EU. However, we should not increase the number of foreigners going into other types of jobs where there is no shortage. The UK should also look at providing good quality training in this country, to ensure we have suitable workers available. The UK should also look at pay and conditions which may cause some jobs to be seen as less favourable to people and result in us not being able to fill those roles. The UK should also assist people that are on long-term sickness and help them back to work, with support and guidance, so that we have a larger workforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should accept more workers from countries outside of the EU, but we should not exploit them and pay them less than workers from the EU. We should also not accept workers from outside of the EU if it means that workers from the EU will not be able to find work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The key issue is whether the UK should accept more workers from countries outside of the EU, and not whether to accept more workers from other EU countries. There is no right or wrong answer to this question and I think that ultimately, this is a political question and not one to be discussed here. It is not the role of the European Commission to make political decisions for member states. This decision has to be made on a case by case basis. For example, if the UK is in need of a certain skill set, and workers are only available from a certain country, then we should accept those workers into the country. However, this is only an issue if there is a shortage of workers available. If there are enough workers available in the UK then there is no need to bring in workers from other countries. If there is a decision to bring in workers from countries outside of the EU, we must ensure that we provide suitable training to workers here, so that we have the skill set available in the future. We must also look at conditions for workers and ensure that we are paying a fair wage to avoid a shortage in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should accept more workers from countries outside of the EU. This is because the UK is a multicultural society and has always welcomed people from other countries. The UK has a tradition of employing foreigners in some areas, such as nursing, hospitality and agriculture, where there is a shortage of workers. In order to avoid shortages in these areas, the UK should accept workers from outside of the EU. However, we should not increase the number of foreigners going into other types of jobs where there is no shortage. The UK should also look at providing good quality training in this country, to ensure we have suitable workers available. The UK should also look at pay and conditions which may cause some jobs to be seen as less favourable to people and result in us not being able to fill those roles. The UK should also assist people that are on long-term sickness and help them back to work, with support and guidance, so that we have a larger workforce. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001487.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001487.soc index 4e89e4dd..114f7e5e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001487.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001487.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should apply to rejoin the European Union as soon as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already voted to leave the EU and it would be undemocratic to hold another referendum. It was also felt that the UK had already made a lot of progress in negotiating new trade deals and would lose this progress if it were to rejoin the EU. The EU was also seen as a protectionist organisation that was not in the best interests of the UK. However, it was recognised that there were some benefits to EU membership, such as free movement of people and the ability to influence EU policy. It was also recognised that there were some drawbacks to leaving the EU, such as the potential for a hard border in Ireland and the loss of influence in Europe. It was felt that the UK should continue to negotiate new trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world and that it should not rejoin the EU in the near future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should not apply to rejoin the European Union as it would be an act of bad faith to the British people and would be an act of bad faith to the EU, who have been shown to be less than friendly to the UK and its people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “There should be a second referendum for the UK to rejoin the EU. However, it should be a long time before we have one, so that the consequences of Brexit are clear to the public, and to the next generation who have not voted. If the younger generation were to vote to rejoin the EU, then that decision should be enacted immediately. But if they vote to leave, then the UK will have to continue with the decision to leave the EU, with no further chance of rejoining in the future.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should apply to rejoin the European Union as soon as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already voted to leave the EU and it would be undemocratic to hold another referendum. It was also felt that the UK had already made a lot of progress in negotiating new trade deals and would lose this progress if it were to rejoin the EU. The EU was also seen as a protectionist organisation that was not in the best interests of the UK. However, it was recognised that there were some benefits to EU membership, such as free movement of people and the ability to influence EU policy. It was also recognised that there were some drawbacks to leaving the EU, such as the potential for a hard border in Ireland and the loss of influence in Europe. It was felt that the UK should continue to negotiate new trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world and that it should not rejoin the EU in the near future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should not apply to rejoin the European Union as it would be an act of bad faith to the British people and would be an act of bad faith to the EU, who have been shown to be less than friendly to the UK and its people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “There should be a second referendum for the UK to rejoin the EU. However, it should be a long time before we have one, so that the consequences of Brexit are clear to the public, and to the next generation who have not voted. If the younger generation were to vote to rejoin the EU, then that decision should be enacted immediately. But if they vote to leave, then the UK will have to continue with the decision to leave the EU, with no further chance of rejoining in the future.” 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001488.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001488.soc index 767c4bf3..75ffc8ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001488.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001488.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group were opposed to the idea of having to carry national identification. They felt that this was an infringement on personal liberties and that it was not necessary in the majority of cases. They did agree that it would be useful in certain situations, such as when dealing with the police or in a nightclub, but they felt that this was not a sufficient reason to have to carry it all the time. They felt that it was not necessary to carry national identification in order to prove who you are, as most people would be able to recognise you from your face. The group did acknowledge that there were some exceptions to this general view, such as cases where government benefits are being claimed and it is important that people are able to prove who they are. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are pros and cons to having to carry national identification. In the majority of cases, we do not think that it is necessary. However, in certain situations, such as being stopped by the police, it would be useful to have some form of ID on your person. We feel that in general it is not necessary to carry national identification all the time, but it would be beneficial to have it on your person in certain situations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: In the group's opinion, carrying around national identification is not absolutely necessary and should not be required to be carried at all times. It would be very useful to carry around when the situation warrants it (for example, in case of a police check). The group felt that although it is essential for us to have national identification, we should not be forced to carry it on our person all the time. Participant 1 can be classed as a "consensus builder" as he does not exhibit any particular personality traits and there was no particular instances of him having sway over the group's overall opinion, though this may not always be the case. In cases where the other participants hold a clear opinion, the effect of a "lone dissenter" is to prevent a group from reaching a consensus opinion as they are less likely to be swayed by outside influences. In situations where all members of a group have similar personalities or traits, the effect of a "dissenter" can be undone by another group member that acts as a "consensus builder". These "consensus builders" do not show any clear patterns and often keep to the background of a debate, but they can -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of having to carry national identification. They felt that this was an infringement on personal liberties and that it was not necessary in the majority of cases. They did agree that it would be useful in certain situations, such as when dealing with the police or in a nightclub, but they felt that this was not a sufficient reason to have to carry it all the time. They felt that it was not necessary to carry national identification in order to prove who you are, as most people would be able to recognise you from your face. They agreed that carrying ID may be helpful in certain emergency situations, but that this would not be a sufficient reason to make it mandatory to carry ID at all times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group were opposed to the idea of having to carry national identification. They felt that this was an infringement on personal liberties and that it was not necessary in the majority of cases. They did agree that it would be useful in certain situations, such as when dealing with the police or in a nightclub, but they felt that this was not a sufficient reason to have to carry it all the time. They felt that it was not necessary to carry national identification in order to prove who you are, as most people would be able to recognise you from your face. The group did acknowledge that there were some exceptions to this general view, such as cases where government benefits are being claimed and it is important that people are able to prove who they are. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are pros and cons to having to carry national identification. In the majority of cases, we do not think that it is necessary. However, in certain situations, such as being stopped by the police, it would be useful to have some form of ID on your person. We feel that in general it is not necessary to carry national identification all the time, but it would be beneficial to have it on your person in certain situations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: In the group's opinion, carrying around national identification is not absolutely necessary and should not be required to be carried at all times. It would be very useful to carry around when the situation warrants it (for example, in case of a police check). The group felt that although it is essential for us to have national identification, we should not be forced to carry it on our person all the time. Participant 1 can be classed as a "consensus builder" as he does not exhibit any particular personality traits and there was no particular instances of him having sway over the group's overall opinion, though this may not always be the case. In cases where the other participants hold a clear opinion, the effect of a "lone dissenter" is to prevent a group from reaching a consensus opinion as they are less likely to be swayed by outside influences. In situations where all members of a group have similar personalities or traits, the effect of a "dissenter" can be undone by another group member that acts as a "consensus builder". These "consensus builders" do not show any clear patterns and often keep to the background of a debate, but they can +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of having to carry national identification. They felt that this was an infringement on personal liberties and that it was not necessary in the majority of cases. They did agree that it would be useful in certain situations, such as when dealing with the police or in a nightclub, but they felt that this was not a sufficient reason to have to carry it all the time. They felt that it was not necessary to carry national identification in order to prove who you are, as most people would be able to recognise you from your face. They agreed that carrying ID may be helpful in certain emergency situations, but that this would not be a sufficient reason to make it mandatory to carry ID at all times. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001489.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001489.soc index cce70020..1054f395 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001489.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001489.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the government having the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group felt that this was necessary as cigarettes are harmful to health and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. However, the group felt that the government should not ban cigarettes altogether, but should instead restrict where people can smoke. This is because the group felt that people should have the freedom to make their own choices and that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can and cannot do. The group felt that the government should also make a greater effort to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to discourage people from taking up the habit. The group was of the view that such efforts might help to provide the balance to the harm caused by smoking, as it is acceptable for the government to prohibit people from harming themselves if they understand the consequences of their actions. A possible consequence of prohibiting people from harming themselves might include the use of enforcement, including fines and prison sentences. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the government having the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group felt that this was necessary as cigarettes are harmful to health and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. However, the group felt that the government should not ban cigarettes altogether, but should instead restrict where people can smoke. This is because the group felt that people should have the freedom to make their own choices and that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can and cannot do. The group felt that the government should also make a greater effort to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to discourage people from taking up the habit. The group also felt that this should be done in a non-intrusive way, such as through the use of advertising and education in schools, as opposed to more direct methods, such as the use of taxes to discourage smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The government should educate the public about the dangers of smoking and make efforts to discourage the habit, but should not ban smoking. Smoking should be banned in public places, but people should have the freedom to smoke in their own homes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We generally agreed with the draft consensus statement, but, given the complexities involved, felt that this is a hard topic and that a consensus statement should best be reserved for a very different situation. If they don't want to ban it entirely then there should be more outside spaces that they can smoke in but not be able to smoke indoors, especially if children are present. Smoking could also be encouraged on a more personal level, with people being paid to not smoke. Discussion: This seemed to be an appropriate time to discuss consensus more generally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government having the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group felt that this was necessary as cigarettes are harmful to health and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. However, the group felt that the government should not ban cigarettes altogether, but should instead restrict where people can smoke. This is because the group felt that people should have the freedom to make their own choices and that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can and cannot do. The group felt that the government should also make a greater effort to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to discourage people from taking up the habit. The group was of the view that such efforts might help to provide the balance to the harm caused by smoking, as it is acceptable for the government to prohibit people from harming themselves if they understand the consequences of their actions. A possible consequence of prohibiting people from harming themselves might include the use of enforcement, including fines and prison sentences. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government having the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group felt that this was necessary as cigarettes are harmful to health and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. However, the group felt that the government should not ban cigarettes altogether, but should instead restrict where people can smoke. This is because the group felt that people should have the freedom to make their own choices and that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can and cannot do. The group felt that the government should also make a greater effort to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to discourage people from taking up the habit. The group also felt that this should be done in a non-intrusive way, such as through the use of advertising and education in schools, as opposed to more direct methods, such as the use of taxes to discourage smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The government should educate the public about the dangers of smoking and make efforts to discourage the habit, but should not ban smoking. Smoking should be banned in public places, but people should have the freedom to smoke in their own homes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agreed with the draft consensus statement, but, given the complexities involved, felt that this is a hard topic and that a consensus statement should best be reserved for a very different situation. If they don't want to ban it entirely then there should be more outside spaces that they can smoke in but not be able to smoke indoors, especially if children are present. Smoking could also be encouraged on a more personal level, with people being paid to not smoke. Discussion: This seemed to be an appropriate time to discuss consensus more generally. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001490.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001490.soc index 98f3dd8e..56c0b560 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001490.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001490.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is still a Christian country, but the dominance of the religion has reduced. This is due to a drop in practising Christians, as many people are now becoming more spiritual. The UK has also opened its borders to other countries, which has led to a rise in other religions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK is still considered a Christian country with the majority of the population claiming to be Christian. However the actual number of practicing Christians has dropped significantly over recent years. This is due to several reasons including a drop in organised religion and people becoming more spiritual rather than religious. The UK has also opened up its borders to other countries, which has led to the creation of more multicultural towns and cities. With this there has been a rise in other religions, which has reduced the dominance of Christianity in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the country is still considered a Christian country, with a high percentage of the population claiming to be Christian, the actual number of practising Christians has dropped significantly over recent years. This is due to several reasons including a drop in organised religion and people becoming more spiritual rather than religious. The UK has also opened its borders to other countries, which has led to the creation of more multicultural towns and cities. With this, there has been a rise in other religions, which has reduced the dominance of Christianity in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have concluded that Britain is a nation that was once considered predominantly Christian, with a large percentage of the population adhering to the religion. However, over recent decades, the number of people actually practicing Christianity has decreased drastically, due to an increase in spirituality and more relaxed views on organised religion. People have become much more accepting of other faiths and religions, making society much more multicultural, and with this has come the introduction of more religions. These reasons have contributed to a decline in Christianity over recent decades and reduced it's dominance in the UK. We agreed to remove the initial statement, considering it too much of a direct quote. We thought it needed more to be said and said in a better way. We agreed that Britain was a country that was once predominantly Christian, and that this is where our information ends, there is no direct proof of what we have said following on from that. We do have evidence of the decline in Christianity from various resources. We researched that since the year 1851 there was a drastic rise in the number of christenings in the UK, right up until the early 2000’s, since when there has been a gradual decline in these numbers, with the number dropping to their lowest +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is still a Christian country, but the dominance of the religion has reduced. This is due to a drop in practising Christians, as many people are now becoming more spiritual. The UK has also opened its borders to other countries, which has led to a rise in other religions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK is still considered a Christian country with the majority of the population claiming to be Christian. However the actual number of practicing Christians has dropped significantly over recent years. This is due to several reasons including a drop in organised religion and people becoming more spiritual rather than religious. The UK has also opened up its borders to other countries, which has led to the creation of more multicultural towns and cities. With this there has been a rise in other religions, which has reduced the dominance of Christianity in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the country is still considered a Christian country, with a high percentage of the population claiming to be Christian, the actual number of practising Christians has dropped significantly over recent years. This is due to several reasons including a drop in organised religion and people becoming more spiritual rather than religious. The UK has also opened its borders to other countries, which has led to the creation of more multicultural towns and cities. With this, there has been a rise in other religions, which has reduced the dominance of Christianity in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have concluded that Britain is a nation that was once considered predominantly Christian, with a large percentage of the population adhering to the religion. However, over recent decades, the number of people actually practicing Christianity has decreased drastically, due to an increase in spirituality and more relaxed views on organised religion. People have become much more accepting of other faiths and religions, making society much more multicultural, and with this has come the introduction of more religions. These reasons have contributed to a decline in Christianity over recent decades and reduced it's dominance in the UK. We agreed to remove the initial statement, considering it too much of a direct quote. We thought it needed more to be said and said in a better way. We agreed that Britain was a country that was once predominantly Christian, and that this is where our information ends, there is no direct proof of what we have said following on from that. We do have evidence of the decline in Christianity from various resources. We researched that since the year 1851 there was a drastic rise in the number of christenings in the UK, right up until the early 2000’s, since when there has been a gradual decline in these numbers, with the number dropping to their lowest 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001491.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001491.soc index 4c86f94b..64259da7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001491.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001491.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC is a well-established organisation that provides a wide variety of programmes for the public. It is also impartial in its reporting and balances its debate accordingly. It is not beyond reproach, however, and has been subject to a number of scandals in recent years, which has called into question the impartiality of its reporting. The BBC is therefore subject to scrutiny, both internally and externally, to ensure that it is providing the public with a fair and balanced service. This will allow the BBC to continue to provide the public with a quality service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. It is a well-established organisation that provides a wide variety of programmes for the public. It is also impartial in its reporting and balances its debate accordingly. However, the BBC is not a perfect organisation and it is not beyond reproach. It has been subject to a number of scandals in recent years, which has called into question the impartiality of its reporting. It is therefore important that the BBC is subject to scrutiny, both internally and externally, to ensure that it is providing the public with a fair and balanced service. This will help to ensure that the BBC can continue to provide the public with a quality service in the years to come. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In general, the BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. It is a well-established organisation that provides a wide variety of programmes for the public. As a relatively free to air service, the BBC is accessible to most people and has a fairly big audience, which means it is an important information outlet. It can be relied on to report the news without bias and balances its debate accordingly. However, the BBC is not a perfect organisation and it is not beyond reproach. It has been subject to a number of scandals in recent years, which has called into question the impartiality of its reporting. It is therefore important that the BBC is subject to scrutiny, both internally and externally, to ensure that it is providing the public with a fair and balanced service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC is a well-established organisation that provides a wide variety of programmes for the public. It is also impartial in its reporting and balances its debate accordingly. It is not beyond reproach, however, and has been subject to a number of scandals in recent years, which has called into question the impartiality of its reporting. The BBC is therefore subject to scrutiny, both internally and externally, to ensure that it is providing the public with a fair and balanced service. This will allow the BBC to continue to provide the public with a quality service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. It is a well-established organisation that provides a wide variety of programmes for the public. It is also impartial in its reporting and balances its debate accordingly. However, the BBC is not a perfect organisation and it is not beyond reproach. It has been subject to a number of scandals in recent years, which has called into question the impartiality of its reporting. It is therefore important that the BBC is subject to scrutiny, both internally and externally, to ensure that it is providing the public with a fair and balanced service. This will help to ensure that the BBC can continue to provide the public with a quality service in the years to come. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In general, the BBC is a worthwhile public broadcaster. It is a well-established organisation that provides a wide variety of programmes for the public. As a relatively free to air service, the BBC is accessible to most people and has a fairly big audience, which means it is an important information outlet. It can be relied on to report the news without bias and balances its debate accordingly. However, the BBC is not a perfect organisation and it is not beyond reproach. It has been subject to a number of scandals in recent years, which has called into question the impartiality of its reporting. It is therefore important that the BBC is subject to scrutiny, both internally and externally, to ensure that it is providing the public with a fair and balanced service. 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001492.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001492.soc index c2c69388..b636fa69 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001492.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001492.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the effect of social networks on society is considered negative. However, it is important to recognise that this is a very nuanced area with different social media having different effects. The negative aspects of social networks include: the creation of a society of people in which people spend large amounts of time comparing themselves to others, leading to feelings of depression and a loss of self-esteem. Also, social media can create a forum for people to behave in ways they would not normally, leading to an increase in bullying and abuse online. This can cause psychological damage to people. There are positive aspects of social media: they allow people to reconnect with people they have lost touch with, and create a way of seeing what people around the world are doing, even people you do not know. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Social networks can have a positive and negative influence on society. They can be a great way to connect with people and to stay in touch with family and friends that live far away. They can also be a great way to learn new things and to keep up to date with current affairs. However, they can also be a negative influence on society. They can lead to people behaving in a way that they would not do in real life. They can also lead to people feeling that their lives are not good enough and can lead to people feeling lonely. They can also lead to people having a false sense of reality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Social networks are making societies worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social networks are not making society worse. The ability to communicate and share information with people all over the world is a great thing. There are some dangers, such as cyberbullying and the loss of face to face communication, but these can be overcome with the right education and support. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the effect of social networks on society is considered negative. However, it is important to recognise that this is a very nuanced area with different social media having different effects. The negative aspects of social networks include: the creation of a society of people in which people spend large amounts of time comparing themselves to others, leading to feelings of depression and a loss of self-esteem. Also, social media can create a forum for people to behave in ways they would not normally, leading to an increase in bullying and abuse online. This can cause psychological damage to people. There are positive aspects of social media: they allow people to reconnect with people they have lost touch with, and create a way of seeing what people around the world are doing, even people you do not know. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Social networks can have a positive and negative influence on society. They can be a great way to connect with people and to stay in touch with family and friends that live far away. They can also be a great way to learn new things and to keep up to date with current affairs. However, they can also be a negative influence on society. They can lead to people behaving in a way that they would not do in real life. They can also lead to people feeling that their lives are not good enough and can lead to people feeling lonely. They can also lead to people having a false sense of reality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Social networks are making societies worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social networks are not making society worse. The ability to communicate and share information with people all over the world is a great thing. There are some dangers, such as cyberbullying and the loss of face to face communication, but these can be overcome with the right education and support. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001493.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001493.soc index 5605b0f9..0715eedd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001493.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001493.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. We feel that the BBC should be funded by a variety of income streams, including the licence fee, as this would allow the BBC to produce the best programming possible and to compete in a challenging media landscape. The licence fee should remain as it helps to ensure independence from commercial pressures on the content output, but it should continue to be supplemented by income streams from the commercial arm of the BBC as long as that remains independent from BBC Public Service. As such, the commercial arm of the BBC can resell programmes overseas and offer a subscription service overseas while ensuring that licence fee payers continue to get the service at no additional cost. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was agreed that the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees, but that it should continue to be supplemented by income streams from the commercial arm of the BBC as long as that remains independent from BBC Public Service. It was felt that a variety of income streams is necessary to ensure that the BBC can meet its requirements as a broadcaster and to compete in a challenging media landscape. It was also agreed that the license fee is important as it helps to ensure independence from commercial pressures on the content output, but that it needs to continue to be supplemented by income streams from the commercial arm of the BBC as long as that remains independent from BBC Public Service. The group also agreed that the commercial arm of the BBC should be able to resell programmes overseas and offer a subscription service overseas while ensuring that licence fee payers continue to get the service at no additional cost. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the BBC should continue to be funded entirely by a licence fee. It provides an independent voice that is free from commercial influence and ensures quality in all its output, including the radio and news channels. The licence fee is set in line with inflation, with the exception of the licence for over 75s, which has not increased since 2010 and is in need of review. However, we also believe that the licence fee model should be kept under review. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC should be funded entirely by licence fees. The BBC is a public service and is the only broadcaster that is truly independent from commercial pressures. The licence fee ensures that it can provide quality programming for all and is the best way to ensure its independence and the quality of its output. The BBC should continue to be funded by the licence fee and it should remain free at the point of use for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. We feel that the BBC should be funded by a variety of income streams, including the licence fee, as this would allow the BBC to produce the best programming possible and to compete in a challenging media landscape. The licence fee should remain as it helps to ensure independence from commercial pressures on the content output, but it should continue to be supplemented by income streams from the commercial arm of the BBC as long as that remains independent from BBC Public Service. As such, the commercial arm of the BBC can resell programmes overseas and offer a subscription service overseas while ensuring that licence fee payers continue to get the service at no additional cost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was agreed that the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees, but that it should continue to be supplemented by income streams from the commercial arm of the BBC as long as that remains independent from BBC Public Service. It was felt that a variety of income streams is necessary to ensure that the BBC can meet its requirements as a broadcaster and to compete in a challenging media landscape. It was also agreed that the license fee is important as it helps to ensure independence from commercial pressures on the content output, but that it needs to continue to be supplemented by income streams from the commercial arm of the BBC as long as that remains independent from BBC Public Service. The group also agreed that the commercial arm of the BBC should be able to resell programmes overseas and offer a subscription service overseas while ensuring that licence fee payers continue to get the service at no additional cost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the BBC should continue to be funded entirely by a licence fee. It provides an independent voice that is free from commercial influence and ensures quality in all its output, including the radio and news channels. The licence fee is set in line with inflation, with the exception of the licence for over 75s, which has not increased since 2010 and is in need of review. However, we also believe that the licence fee model should be kept under review. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC should be funded entirely by licence fees. The BBC is a public service and is the only broadcaster that is truly independent from commercial pressures. The licence fee ensures that it can provide quality programming for all and is the best way to ensure its independence and the quality of its output. The BBC should continue to be funded by the licence fee and it should remain free at the point of use for all. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001494.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001494.soc index 3cecf978..ddb0f83a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001494.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001494.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, parents should not be allowed to opt out of sex education classes for their children. This is because all children should be educated on this, otherwise parents will start opting out of all lessons as they choose to which would be chaos for schools. It is also important that all children are aware of the risks and consequences of sex, and how to protect themselves. If parents do not want their children to be educated on this, they should not have had children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of sex education classes being mandatory. The group felt that it was important for children to be educated on the topic, and that it was the responsibility of the school to ensure that children were educated on the topic. The group felt that the school would be able to provide a more comprehensive education on the topic than parents would be able to. The group felt that if children were not educated on the topic, it could lead to children being put in dangerous situations, or lead to teenage pregnancies. The group did acknowledge that in some cases it may be appropriate for parents to opt out of the classes. This may be in cases where the parents are teaching the children themselves, or in cases where the parents do not agree with the content of the sex education classes. The group felt that in these cases, the parents should be allowed to opt out, but that they should be required to provide the school with an alternative means of educating their child on the topic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We don’t believe parents should be allowed to opt out of sex education for their children. Whilst we can understand the reasons for doing so, for example religious beliefs or wanting to teach their child themselves, the child’s needs come first. If a child does not receive the sex education at school, they will not know how to protect themselves and their bodies. This could have a massive impact on their mental health in later life. All children should have the right to be educated about sex in order to protect themselves and their health. Children should also be allowed to opt in to the classes if they want to, but it should be mandatory for them to be taught about it. If a child wishes to opt out of the classes, their parents must understand that the child will miss out on vital information.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: After a good debate, the group of participants came to the following consensus view: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, parents should not be allowed to opt out of sex education classes for their children. This is because all children should be educated on this, otherwise parents will start opting out of all lessons as they choose to which would be chaos for schools. It is also important that all children are aware of the risks and consequences of sex, and how to protect themselves. If parents do not want their children to be educated on this, they should not have had children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of sex education classes being mandatory. The group felt that it was important for children to be educated on the topic, and that it was the responsibility of the school to ensure that children were educated on the topic. The group felt that the school would be able to provide a more comprehensive education on the topic than parents would be able to. The group felt that if children were not educated on the topic, it could lead to children being put in dangerous situations, or lead to teenage pregnancies. The group did acknowledge that in some cases it may be appropriate for parents to opt out of the classes. This may be in cases where the parents are teaching the children themselves, or in cases where the parents do not agree with the content of the sex education classes. The group felt that in these cases, the parents should be allowed to opt out, but that they should be required to provide the school with an alternative means of educating their child on the topic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We don’t believe parents should be allowed to opt out of sex education for their children. Whilst we can understand the reasons for doing so, for example religious beliefs or wanting to teach their child themselves, the child’s needs come first. If a child does not receive the sex education at school, they will not know how to protect themselves and their bodies. This could have a massive impact on their mental health in later life. All children should have the right to be educated about sex in order to protect themselves and their health. Children should also be allowed to opt in to the classes if they want to, but it should be mandatory for them to be taught about it. If a child wishes to opt out of the classes, their parents must understand that the child will miss out on vital information.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - After a good debate, the group of participants came to the following consensus view: 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001495.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001495.soc index 63871379..27f3308c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001495.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001495.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be allowed to vote at 16, however they should be educated on the voting process and the importance of voting. This will help them to make the right decision when they vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have debated the topic for a long time and come to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea for people to vote at 16. We have made this decision as we feel that 16 year olds would not be able to vote with their own minds and would be influenced by their parents and their teachers. We feel that 16 year olds would not be mature enough to vote and that their opinions would not be as strong as those of people older than them. We have also made this decision as 16 year olds have to be in full time education and are therefore unlikely to be working, which may lead to them being unable to understand the full effects of the economy. For example, we feel that the higher rates of tuition fees will have little impact on the 16 year olds who are unlikely to have experienced working for long enough to fully appreciate the effects of tuition fees.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be allowed to vote at 16 as they are becoming young adults and will be affected by the decisions that are made. However, they should be made to sit a test on their knowledge of the political world and their level of maturity to ensure they are not influenced by others and that they are able to make their own decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be allowed to vote at 16, however they should be educated on the voting process and the importance of voting. This will help them to make the right decision when they vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have debated the topic for a long time and come to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea for people to vote at 16. We have made this decision as we feel that 16 year olds would not be able to vote with their own minds and would be influenced by their parents and their teachers. We feel that 16 year olds would not be mature enough to vote and that their opinions would not be as strong as those of people older than them. We have also made this decision as 16 year olds have to be in full time education and are therefore unlikely to be working, which may lead to them being unable to understand the full effects of the economy. For example, we feel that the higher rates of tuition fees will have little impact on the 16 year olds who are unlikely to have experienced working for long enough to fully appreciate the effects of tuition fees.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be allowed to vote at 16 as they are becoming young adults and will be affected by the decisions that are made. However, they should be made to sit a test on their knowledge of the political world and their level of maturity to ensure they are not influenced by others and that they are able to make their own decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001496.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001496.soc index 5721edfb..c3babb4e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001496.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001496.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should not be another referendum on EU membership in the near future. The UK has already voted to leave the EU and it would be undemocratic to hold another referendum so soon after the previous one. There is also a risk that the UK would lose any progress that it has made in negotiating new trade deals. The EU is a protectionist organisation that is not in the best interests of the UK. However, it was recognised that there were some benefits to EU membership, such as free movement of people and the ability to influence EU policy. It was also recognised that there were some drawbacks to leaving the EU, such as the potential for a hard border in Ireland and the loss of influence in Europe. It was felt that the UK should continue to negotiate new trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world and that it should not rejoin the EU in the near future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already voted to leave the EU and it would be undemocratic to hold another referendum. It was also felt that the UK had already made a lot of progress in negotiating new trade deals and would lose this progress if it were to rejoin the EU. The EU was also seen as a protectionist organisation that was not in the best interests of the UK. However, it was recognised that there were some benefits to EU membership, such as free movement of people and the ability to influence EU policy. It was also recognised that there were some drawbacks to leaving the EU, such as the potential for a hard border in Ireland and the loss of influence in Europe. It was felt that the UK should continue to negotiate new trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world and that it should not rejoin the EU in the near future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants were split on this question. The group was in favour of the UK rejoining the EU. The group felt that the UK had not made enough progress on trade deals and had not negotiated enough with the EU to gain the best possible deal for the UK. The group also felt that the EU had changed a lot since the UK had left and that the UK would be able to influence EU policy more and that the UK would have a bigger voice in the EU. The group was also in favour of the free movement of people within the EU and thought that the UK would benefit from this. The group was not in favour of a hard border in Ireland. However, the group recognised that there were some drawbacks to rejoining the EU, such as the UK losing control over its own laws and policies and that there were some people who would be opposed to the UK rejoining the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should not apply to rejoin the EU any time in the next 5-10 years. The UK should continue to actively pursue free trade agreements, whilst maintaining a close relationship with the EU and continuing to be a close ally and friend to all of the European countries and to continue to work collaboratively together with the European countries. It is also essential that the UK continues to uphold its humanitarian obligations such as its involvement in the refugee camps in Greece and any other areas where the UK can be seen to be working in conjunction with its European neighbours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should not be another referendum on EU membership in the near future. The UK has already voted to leave the EU and it would be undemocratic to hold another referendum so soon after the previous one. There is also a risk that the UK would lose any progress that it has made in negotiating new trade deals. The EU is a protectionist organisation that is not in the best interests of the UK. However, it was recognised that there were some benefits to EU membership, such as free movement of people and the ability to influence EU policy. It was also recognised that there were some drawbacks to leaving the EU, such as the potential for a hard border in Ireland and the loss of influence in Europe. It was felt that the UK should continue to negotiate new trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world and that it should not rejoin the EU in the near future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already voted to leave the EU and it would be undemocratic to hold another referendum. It was also felt that the UK had already made a lot of progress in negotiating new trade deals and would lose this progress if it were to rejoin the EU. The EU was also seen as a protectionist organisation that was not in the best interests of the UK. However, it was recognised that there were some benefits to EU membership, such as free movement of people and the ability to influence EU policy. It was also recognised that there were some drawbacks to leaving the EU, such as the potential for a hard border in Ireland and the loss of influence in Europe. It was felt that the UK should continue to negotiate new trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world and that it should not rejoin the EU in the near future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants were split on this question. The group was in favour of the UK rejoining the EU. The group felt that the UK had not made enough progress on trade deals and had not negotiated enough with the EU to gain the best possible deal for the UK. The group also felt that the EU had changed a lot since the UK had left and that the UK would be able to influence EU policy more and that the UK would have a bigger voice in the EU. The group was also in favour of the free movement of people within the EU and thought that the UK would benefit from this. The group was not in favour of a hard border in Ireland. However, the group recognised that there were some drawbacks to rejoining the EU, such as the UK losing control over its own laws and policies and that there were some people who would be opposed to the UK rejoining the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should not apply to rejoin the EU any time in the next 5-10 years. The UK should continue to actively pursue free trade agreements, whilst maintaining a close relationship with the EU and continuing to be a close ally and friend to all of the European countries and to continue to work collaboratively together with the European countries. It is also essential that the UK continues to uphold its humanitarian obligations such as its involvement in the refugee camps in Greece and any other areas where the UK can be seen to be working in conjunction with its European neighbours. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001497.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001497.soc index 3e76898b..7785d344 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001497.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001497.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is ethical. However, it is important that the testing is done in the most humane way possible. The animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, and if there is a possibility that the testing could result in the death of the animal, it should not be done. The testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is necessary to ensure that the new drugs and research are safe for humans, and so that we can continue to develop new drugs and research that will help to save human lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because it is necessary to test on animals before testing on humans. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because it is necessary to test on animals before testing on humans. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because it is necessary to test on animals before testing on humans. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because it is necessary to test on animals before testing on humans. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Ethics is a complex and multifaceted subject, however, we believe that there is a need for animal testing in the development of new medicines. There is no alternative testing method that is able to match the extensive range of information that is gained through animal testing. Animal testing helps us to learn about human physiology and pathology and has been fundamental to the development of the vast majority of treatments that are available today. Although there is an ethical burden to the lives that are lost, it is a necessary step in the process of improving the lives of humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is ethical. However, it is important that the testing is done in the most humane way possible. The animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, and if there is a possibility that the testing could result in the death of the animal, it should not be done. The testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is necessary to ensure that the new drugs and research are safe for humans, and so that we can continue to develop new drugs and research that will help to save human lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because it is necessary to test on animals before testing on humans. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because it is necessary to test on animals before testing on humans. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because it is necessary to test on animals before testing on humans. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because it is necessary to test on animals before testing on humans. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical because the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal. The testing of animals for the development of medicines for humans is ethical +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Ethics is a complex and multifaceted subject, however, we believe that there is a need for animal testing in the development of new medicines. There is no alternative testing method that is able to match the extensive range of information that is gained through animal testing. Animal testing helps us to learn about human physiology and pathology and has been fundamental to the development of the vast majority of treatments that are available today. Although there is an ethical burden to the lives that are lost, it is a necessary step in the process of improving the lives of humans. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001498.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001498.soc index 8d626d63..9be58c13 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001498.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001498.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group felt that it is more important to be a good person than to be a happy person. Being a good person can lead to happiness, but it is not a requirement. A good person is one who is virtuous, kind, compassionate, and honest. They do not seek to harm others and will help those in need. Being a good person is a choice, and it is one that will have positive effects on those around you. It is also something that will make you feel good about yourself. The group agreed that there are many things in life that can make you happy, but that being a good person is something that is more long-lasting and more meaningful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A good person is a happy person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In my opinion, the two concepts go hand in hand, and I think a good person would be a happy person. However, in regards to the question asked, I do believe that it is more important to be a good person. I believe that happiness is a subjective thing, and it is something that varies from person to person. We also debated the definition of what a 'good person' is. The group concluded that the definition of 'good' is also subjective. I believe that it is most important to be a 'good person' because being a good person can have a positive effect on other peoples lives. I think that this is most important, as this will, in turn, make you happy. This is because being a good person and doing good deeds will create a positive impact on people around you, and this will make you feel happy that you have made a positive impact on other peoples lives. Therefore, I believe that it is most important to be a good person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that it is more important to be a good person than to be a happy person. Being a good person will make you happy in the long run, but being happy will not necessarily make you a good person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group felt that it is more important to be a good person than to be a happy person. Being a good person can lead to happiness, but it is not a requirement. A good person is one who is virtuous, kind, compassionate, and honest. They do not seek to harm others and will help those in need. Being a good person is a choice, and it is one that will have positive effects on those around you. It is also something that will make you feel good about yourself. The group agreed that there are many things in life that can make you happy, but that being a good person is something that is more long-lasting and more meaningful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A good person is a happy person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In my opinion, the two concepts go hand in hand, and I think a good person would be a happy person. However, in regards to the question asked, I do believe that it is more important to be a good person. I believe that happiness is a subjective thing, and it is something that varies from person to person. We also debated the definition of what a 'good person' is. The group concluded that the definition of 'good' is also subjective. I believe that it is most important to be a 'good person' because being a good person can have a positive effect on other peoples lives. I think that this is most important, as this will, in turn, make you happy. This is because being a good person and doing good deeds will create a positive impact on people around you, and this will make you feel happy that you have made a positive impact on other peoples lives. Therefore, I believe that it is most important to be a good person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that it is more important to be a good person than to be a happy person. Being a good person will make you happy in the long run, but being happy will not necessarily make you a good person. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001499.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001499.soc index fc18e4ea..ac0ef373 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001499.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001499.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Social networks are a very nuanced area. In general, the effect of social networks on society is considered negative. However, it is important to recognise that this is a very nuanced area with different social media having different effects. The negative aspects of social networks include: the creation of a society of people in which people spend large amounts of time comparing themselves to others, leading to feelings of depression and a loss of self-esteem. Also, social media can create a forum for people to behave in ways they would not normally, leading to an increase in bullying and abuse online. This can cause psychological damage to people. There are positive aspects of social media: they allow people to reconnect with people they have lost touch with, and create a way of seeing what people around the world are doing, even people you do not know. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In general, the effect of social networks on society is considered negative. However, it is important to recognise that this is a very nuanced area with different social media having different effects. The negative aspects of social networks include: the creation of a society of people in which people spend large amounts of time comparing themselves to others, leading to feelings of depression and a loss of self-esteem. Also, social media can create a forum for people to behave in ways they would not normally, leading to an increase in bullying and abuse online. This can cause psychological damage to people. There are positive aspects of social media: they allow people to reconnect with people they have lost touch with, and create a way of seeing what people around the world are doing, even people you do not know. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group shared the opinion that social media is widely popular today and makes lots of advantages to everyone, including connecting with family members and friends, transferring information and making people healthier as a result of inspiring them. However, it also possesses negative sides by putting individuals in place to compare with others and causing poor self-esteem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social networks can be both positive and negative for society. It is important to recognise that this is a very nuanced area with different social media having different effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Social networks are a very nuanced area. In general, the effect of social networks on society is considered negative. However, it is important to recognise that this is a very nuanced area with different social media having different effects. The negative aspects of social networks include: the creation of a society of people in which people spend large amounts of time comparing themselves to others, leading to feelings of depression and a loss of self-esteem. Also, social media can create a forum for people to behave in ways they would not normally, leading to an increase in bullying and abuse online. This can cause psychological damage to people. There are positive aspects of social media: they allow people to reconnect with people they have lost touch with, and create a way of seeing what people around the world are doing, even people you do not know. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In general, the effect of social networks on society is considered negative. However, it is important to recognise that this is a very nuanced area with different social media having different effects. The negative aspects of social networks include: the creation of a society of people in which people spend large amounts of time comparing themselves to others, leading to feelings of depression and a loss of self-esteem. Also, social media can create a forum for people to behave in ways they would not normally, leading to an increase in bullying and abuse online. This can cause psychological damage to people. There are positive aspects of social media: they allow people to reconnect with people they have lost touch with, and create a way of seeing what people around the world are doing, even people you do not know. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group shared the opinion that social media is widely popular today and makes lots of advantages to everyone, including connecting with family members and friends, transferring information and making people healthier as a result of inspiring them. However, it also possesses negative sides by putting individuals in place to compare with others and causing poor self-esteem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social networks can be both positive and negative for society. It is important to recognise that this is a very nuanced area with different social media having different effects. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001500.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001500.soc index 05270c44..812cecfd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001500.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001500.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Sex education classes should be mandatory, unless the parents can provide a suitable alternative means of educating their child on the topic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of sex education classes being mandatory. The group felt that it was important for children to be educated on the topic, and that it was the responsibility of the school to ensure that children were educated on the topic. The group felt that the school would be able to provide a more comprehensive education on the topic than parents would be able to. The group felt that if children were not educated on the topic, it could lead to children being put in dangerous situations, or lead to teenage pregnancies. The group did acknowledge that in some cases it may be appropriate for parents to opt out of the classes. This may be in cases where the parents are teaching the children themselves, or in cases where the parents do not agree with the content of the sex education classes. The group felt that in these cases, the parents should be allowed to opt out, but that they should be required to provide the school with an alternative means of educating their child on the topic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of sex education classes being mandatory. The group felt that it was important for children to be educated on the topic, and that it was the responsibility of the school to ensure that children were educated on the topic. The group felt that the school would be able to provide a more comprehensive education on the topic than parents would be able to. The group felt that if children were not educated on the topic, it could lead to children being put in dangerous situations, or lead to teenage pregnancies. The group did acknowledge that in some cases it may be appropriate for parents to opt out of the classes. This may be in cases where the parents are teaching the children themselves, or in cases where the parents do not agree with the content of the sex education classes. The group felt that in these cases, the parents should be allowed to opt out, but that they should be required to provide the school with an alternative means of educating their child on the topic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, but believe that parents should be allowed to opt out if they choose to educate the child on the topic themselves. We agree with the principle that parents should be allowed to educate the child themselves, but think that it could be exploited in some cases. Commentary: The most interesting point in this exercise for me was how a policy that at first seemed clear-cut ended up getting re-written as the group's view was challenged. There was an initial consensus, but it was repeatedly re-evaluated and re-written as the different views presented by the participants became apparent. In the end, the group remained in consensus, but their view had shifted significantly from where it had started. This was a good example of why writing down the group's consensus can help a group to refine the views of the group. In this case, there were a number of different critiques (in the form of text commentary) for the group to look at and reflect upon. I felt that we worked out a balanced consensus view after several re-writes and it felt as though the group was satisfied with the final view in the end. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Sex education classes should be mandatory, unless the parents can provide a suitable alternative means of educating their child on the topic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of sex education classes being mandatory. The group felt that it was important for children to be educated on the topic, and that it was the responsibility of the school to ensure that children were educated on the topic. The group felt that the school would be able to provide a more comprehensive education on the topic than parents would be able to. The group felt that if children were not educated on the topic, it could lead to children being put in dangerous situations, or lead to teenage pregnancies. The group did acknowledge that in some cases it may be appropriate for parents to opt out of the classes. This may be in cases where the parents are teaching the children themselves, or in cases where the parents do not agree with the content of the sex education classes. The group felt that in these cases, the parents should be allowed to opt out, but that they should be required to provide the school with an alternative means of educating their child on the topic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of sex education classes being mandatory. The group felt that it was important for children to be educated on the topic, and that it was the responsibility of the school to ensure that children were educated on the topic. The group felt that the school would be able to provide a more comprehensive education on the topic than parents would be able to. The group felt that if children were not educated on the topic, it could lead to children being put in dangerous situations, or lead to teenage pregnancies. The group did acknowledge that in some cases it may be appropriate for parents to opt out of the classes. This may be in cases where the parents are teaching the children themselves, or in cases where the parents do not agree with the content of the sex education classes. The group felt that in these cases, the parents should be allowed to opt out, but that they should be required to provide the school with an alternative means of educating their child on the topic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, but believe that parents should be allowed to opt out if they choose to educate the child on the topic themselves. We agree with the principle that parents should be allowed to educate the child themselves, but think that it could be exploited in some cases. Commentary: The most interesting point in this exercise for me was how a policy that at first seemed clear-cut ended up getting re-written as the group's view was challenged. There was an initial consensus, but it was repeatedly re-evaluated and re-written as the different views presented by the participants became apparent. In the end, the group remained in consensus, but their view had shifted significantly from where it had started. This was a good example of why writing down the group's consensus can help a group to refine the views of the group. In this case, there were a number of different critiques (in the form of text commentary) for the group to look at and reflect upon. I felt that we worked out a balanced consensus view after several re-writes and it felt as though the group was satisfied with the final view in the end. 2: 2,3,4,1 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001501.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001501.soc index a387783e..f0c1f963 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001501.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001501.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The Government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. There are now many who have reached the conclusion that the effects of climate change are already being felt with record-breaking floods, extreme heat waves and an increase in the frequency of forest fires, just to mention a few. Although there are still some who don’t believe in climate change, the overwhelming evidence is that it is real and that it is now too late to reverse the impact of man-made global warming. The consequences of the worst predictions, as predicted by the IPCC, would be disastrous for mankind. The Government must take the lead in setting a realistic timetable for achieving a reduction in the UK’s carbon emissions and to ensure that this is effectively enforced. The following is a summary of the issues discussed in the process of reaching this conclusion. The scientific evidence for global warming is now overwhelming. There is no doubt that this is already happening and that the UK and all countries must take the action required to reduce their carbon emissions. However, the consensus view of the group is that there are many factors to be considered in setting the targets. The most important is that they are realistic. This can be ensured by a gradual reduction, giving industry -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. This will not only be beneficial for the environment, but will also help to encourage businesses to reduce their emissions, which will be better for the economy in the long term.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. This is because the UK is one of the largest contributors to global carbon emissions and it is important that we are held accountable for our actions. This would also force businesses to reduce their emissions, which would be a positive step in the right direction. The UK government should also set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions as we have already seen the effects of climate change and it is important that we take action now to prevent further damage. The issue of climate change is something which has been in the public eye for many years now. There is a huge amount of research which has been conducted into the topic, which has led to a consensus view amongst scientists that climate change is a very real threat to the future of our planet. There are a number of ways in which the issue of climate change can be tackled, however the most important thing is that it is tackled. If we continue to live our lives in the way that we currently are, then we are only going to make the situation worse. It is important that we take action now, to prevent further damage to our planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The Government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. There are now many who have reached the conclusion that the effects of climate change are already being felt with record-breaking floods, extreme heat waves and an increase in the frequency of forest fires, just to mention a few. Although there are still some who don’t believe in climate change, the overwhelming evidence is that it is real and that it is now too late to reverse the impact of man-made global warming. The consequences of the worst predictions, as predicted by the IPCC, would be disastrous for mankind. The Government must take the lead in setting a realistic timetable for achieving a reduction in the UK’s carbon emissions and to ensure that this is effectively enforced. The following is a summary of the issues discussed in the process of reaching this conclusion. The scientific evidence for global warming is now overwhelming. There is no doubt that this is already happening and that the UK and all countries must take the action required to reduce their carbon emissions. However, the consensus view of the group is that there are many factors to be considered in setting the targets. The most important is that they are realistic. This can be ensured by a gradual reduction, giving industry +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. This will not only be beneficial for the environment, but will also help to encourage businesses to reduce their emissions, which will be better for the economy in the long term.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. This is because the UK is one of the largest contributors to global carbon emissions and it is important that we are held accountable for our actions. This would also force businesses to reduce their emissions, which would be a positive step in the right direction. The UK government should also set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions as we have already seen the effects of climate change and it is important that we take action now to prevent further damage. The issue of climate change is something which has been in the public eye for many years now. There is a huge amount of research which has been conducted into the topic, which has led to a consensus view amongst scientists that climate change is a very real threat to the future of our planet. There are a number of ways in which the issue of climate change can be tackled, however the most important thing is that it is tackled. If we continue to live our lives in the way that we currently are, then we are only going to make the situation worse. It is important that we take action now, to prevent further damage to our planet. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001502.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001502.soc index 48326042..a2162ece 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001502.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001502.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, non-essential cosmetic surgery should not be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While we do not believe all non-essential cosmetic surgery should be banned, there should be more regulations in place to stop the exploitation of women and girls. While such procedures can be medically unnecessary, they can have huge impacts on a person's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. These procedures can also benefit medial research and may produce finding that could enhance future essential procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. It is up to the individual to decide what they do with their body, especially when they fund it themselves. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. Finally, we believe that cosmetic surgery can benefit medical research and may produce findings that could enhance future essential procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, cosmetic surgery should not be banned as it can have a hugely positive impact on people's mental health and confidence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, non-essential cosmetic surgery should not be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While we do not believe all non-essential cosmetic surgery should be banned, there should be more regulations in place to stop the exploitation of women and girls. While such procedures can be medically unnecessary, they can have huge impacts on a person's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. These procedures can also benefit medial research and may produce finding that could enhance future essential procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. It is up to the individual to decide what they do with their body, especially when they fund it themselves. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. Finally, we believe that cosmetic surgery can benefit medical research and may produce findings that could enhance future essential procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, cosmetic surgery should not be banned as it can have a hugely positive impact on people's mental health and confidence. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001503.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001503.soc index e1f1c938..817d3d64 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001503.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001503.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is ethical. However, it is important that the testing is done in the most humane way possible. The animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, and if there is a possibility that the testing could result in the death of the animal, it should not be done. The testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is necessary to ensure that the new drugs and research are safe for humans, and so that we can continue to develop new drugs and research that will help to save human lives. The testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals has allowed us to develop the best medicine that we have to date, and we should continue to develop drugs and research to help save human lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Animal testing is ethical, as long as the animals are not subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, and if there is a possibility that the testing could result in the death of the animal, it should not be done. Animal testing is necessary to ensure that the new drugs and research are safe for humans, and so that we can continue to develop new drugs and research that will help to save human lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is ethical. However, it is important that the testing is done in the most humane way possible. The animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, and if there is a possibility that the testing could result in the death of the animal, it should not be done. The testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is necessary to ensure that the new drugs and research are safe for humans, and so that we can continue to develop new drugs and research that will help to save human lives. In particular, the testing is important to ensure that there will be no long-term side effects from the new drugs and research, and animal testing is therefore the only way to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is ethical. However, it is important that the testing is done in the most humane way possible. The animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, and if there is a possibility that the testing could result in the death of the animal, it should not be done. The testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is necessary to ensure that the new drugs and research are safe for humans, and so that we can continue to develop new drugs and research that will help to save human lives. The testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals has allowed us to develop the best medicine that we have to date, and we should continue to develop drugs and research to help save human lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Animal testing is ethical, as long as the animals are not subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, and if there is a possibility that the testing could result in the death of the animal, it should not be done. Animal testing is necessary to ensure that the new drugs and research are safe for humans, and so that we can continue to develop new drugs and research that will help to save human lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is ethical. However, it is important that the testing is done in the most humane way possible. The animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering, and if there is a possibility that the testing could result in the death of the animal, it should not be done. The testing of new drugs and research on non-human animals is necessary to ensure that the new drugs and research are safe for humans, and so that we can continue to develop new drugs and research that will help to save human lives. In particular, the testing is important to ensure that there will be no long-term side effects from the new drugs and research, and animal testing is therefore the only way to do this. 4: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001504.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001504.soc index 2df0dbf7..f8cfe2ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001504.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001504.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of AI in the judicial system is unethical. AI is not advanced enough to understand complex social situations and is not able to make decisions which affect individuals. The use of AI in the judicial system would be unethical as it would not have any moral values and would not be able to make just outcomes. AI is not advanced enough to understand complex social situations and is not able to make decisions which affect individuals. AI can only repeat information like a parrot, but cannot be relied to then use that repeated information to make a just outcome. However, the use of AI in the judicial system would be ethical if it was used as a tool to help the judicial system, but not to make final decisions. AI can be useful in the judicial system to help gain clarity and perspective throughout the process. However, the final decisions should be made by humans, with the help of data from AI. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of AI in the judicial system is not ethical. However, the use of AI in the judicial system could be ethical in certain situations, for example, when a human is not available to make a decision, or when a human is not capable of making a decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of AI in the judicial system could be useful in some instances. However, there are a number of issues with using AI in the judicial system that should be addressed before this is put into practice. For example, AI is not yet advanced enough to make a sound judgement call on a complicated social situation. AI could also be prone to bias depending on who is programming it. Also, AI does not have any moral values and therefore cannot make decisions which may affect individuals. However, it could be useful for specific tasks such as recording or transcribing in the judicial system. There is also an ethical issue with the use of AI in the judicial system. It could be used as a way to justify decisions which would normally be unethical to make. This could cause problems with a sense of accountability, as a human would be making the decision but AI would be blamed for the outcome. As a result of this, the group of participants would not recommend the use of AI in the judicial system at the moment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is ethical to use AI in the judicial system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of AI in the judicial system is unethical. AI is not advanced enough to understand complex social situations and is not able to make decisions which affect individuals. The use of AI in the judicial system would be unethical as it would not have any moral values and would not be able to make just outcomes. AI is not advanced enough to understand complex social situations and is not able to make decisions which affect individuals. AI can only repeat information like a parrot, but cannot be relied to then use that repeated information to make a just outcome. However, the use of AI in the judicial system would be ethical if it was used as a tool to help the judicial system, but not to make final decisions. AI can be useful in the judicial system to help gain clarity and perspective throughout the process. However, the final decisions should be made by humans, with the help of data from AI. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of AI in the judicial system is not ethical. However, the use of AI in the judicial system could be ethical in certain situations, for example, when a human is not available to make a decision, or when a human is not capable of making a decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of AI in the judicial system could be useful in some instances. However, there are a number of issues with using AI in the judicial system that should be addressed before this is put into practice. For example, AI is not yet advanced enough to make a sound judgement call on a complicated social situation. AI could also be prone to bias depending on who is programming it. Also, AI does not have any moral values and therefore cannot make decisions which may affect individuals. However, it could be useful for specific tasks such as recording or transcribing in the judicial system. There is also an ethical issue with the use of AI in the judicial system. It could be used as a way to justify decisions which would normally be unethical to make. This could cause problems with a sense of accountability, as a human would be making the decision but AI would be blamed for the outcome. As a result of this, the group of participants would not recommend the use of AI in the judicial system at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is ethical to use AI in the judicial system. 3: 1,3,2,4 2: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001505.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001505.soc index 74ed5092..f8c0fd2a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001505.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001505.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is an element of a re-skilling crisis. However, it is not necessarily a crisis. The world of work is changing and it is important that we prepare people for the changing world of work. It is also important that we support people in transitioning to new jobs and new careers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is highly likely that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. New technologies are taking over jobs that humans used to do. Many of the skills that were once required are no longer required. Many people are leaving work that they once enjoyed and moving to a new sector, often after re-training and gaining new skills. This does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, as people can use new skills and experiences to enjoy new jobs. But it is vital that the necessary support is provided to enable people to transition into new roles and for young people to be prepared for this eventuality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is hard to say whether we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. While there are more skills and technologies than ever before and some jobs and skills are in decline, it is possible that others will emerge or be discovered. There are still jobs that require no skills at all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a re-skilling crisis in the sense that the skills needed for jobs are changing all the time and people need to keep upskilling. This is especially true for those in manual or low-skilled jobs who are at risk of being replaced by technology. The crisis is also exacerbated by the low level of basic skills, especially literacy and numeracy, amongst school leavers, and the lack of emphasis on soft skills such as communication, teamwork and problem solving. The crisis is also evident in the high level of unemployment amongst young people, many of whom are underemployed. However, the crisis is also an opportunity for many people to learn new skills and to move into new jobs that are more satisfying and better paid. There is a strong argument for governments to provide more funding for adult education and training to enable this to happen. The second question that the participants were asked to deliberate on was: What are the implications of this crisis for policy makers? Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is an element of a re-skilling crisis. However, it is not necessarily a crisis. The world of work is changing and it is important that we prepare people for the changing world of work. It is also important that we support people in transitioning to new jobs and new careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is highly likely that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. New technologies are taking over jobs that humans used to do. Many of the skills that were once required are no longer required. Many people are leaving work that they once enjoyed and moving to a new sector, often after re-training and gaining new skills. This does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, as people can use new skills and experiences to enjoy new jobs. But it is vital that the necessary support is provided to enable people to transition into new roles and for young people to be prepared for this eventuality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is hard to say whether we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. While there are more skills and technologies than ever before and some jobs and skills are in decline, it is possible that others will emerge or be discovered. There are still jobs that require no skills at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a re-skilling crisis in the sense that the skills needed for jobs are changing all the time and people need to keep upskilling. This is especially true for those in manual or low-skilled jobs who are at risk of being replaced by technology. The crisis is also exacerbated by the low level of basic skills, especially literacy and numeracy, amongst school leavers, and the lack of emphasis on soft skills such as communication, teamwork and problem solving. The crisis is also evident in the high level of unemployment amongst young people, many of whom are underemployed. However, the crisis is also an opportunity for many people to learn new skills and to move into new jobs that are more satisfying and better paid. There is a strong argument for governments to provide more funding for adult education and training to enable this to happen. The second question that the participants were asked to deliberate on was: What are the implications of this crisis for policy makers? Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001506.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001506.soc index bc1c6296..6c52e55a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001506.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001506.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It should be a legal requirement for businesses to provide private space for breastfeeding mothers where possible and practical to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Businesses should be obliged to provide private space for breastfeeding mothers, but this should be considered on a case by case basis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Businesses should be obliged to provide private space for breastfeeding mothers. While we understand that it may not always be practical for small businesses to do so, we feel that it is important to provide a space for breastfeeding mothers. We believe that it is the responsibility of businesses to make mothers feel comfortable and welcome, and providing a space for breastfeeding mothers to feed their children is an important part of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think businesses should be obliged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers. This is a matter of basic decency and most employers would want to do this anyway as they should be looking to create an environment where all staff feel comfortable. While it may not always be practical, e.g. a one man band driving instructor, in the majority of cases it should be possible to create a suitable space, e.g. a break room. The mother should have the option to choose if they want to use the space and it should be a place where the mother can feel safe and confident. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It should be a legal requirement for businesses to provide private space for breastfeeding mothers where possible and practical to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Businesses should be obliged to provide private space for breastfeeding mothers, but this should be considered on a case by case basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Businesses should be obliged to provide private space for breastfeeding mothers. While we understand that it may not always be practical for small businesses to do so, we feel that it is important to provide a space for breastfeeding mothers. We believe that it is the responsibility of businesses to make mothers feel comfortable and welcome, and providing a space for breastfeeding mothers to feed their children is an important part of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think businesses should be obliged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers. This is a matter of basic decency and most employers would want to do this anyway as they should be looking to create an environment where all staff feel comfortable. While it may not always be practical, e.g. a one man band driving instructor, in the majority of cases it should be possible to create a suitable space, e.g. a break room. The mother should have the option to choose if they want to use the space and it should be a place where the mother can feel safe and confident. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001507.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001507.soc index eebc90a1..9c64ca45 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001507.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001507.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Businesses should be encouraged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers, but in cases where it is not practical or possible to do this e.g. a driving instructor, employers should respect mothers' right to feed their baby in the location they feel most comfortable. Discussion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Businesses should be obliged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers where it is practical to do so. This is a matter of basic hygiene and most employers would want to do this anyway as they should be looking to create an environment where all staff feel comfortable. While it may not always be practical, e.g. a one man band driving instructor, in the majority of cases it should be possible to create a suitable space, e.g. a break room. The mother should have the option to choose if they want to use the space and it should be a place where the mother can feel safe and confident. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Businesses should be encouraged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers, but should not be obliged to do so. This is because it may not be practical for all businesses to do so. The space should be clean and comfortable, and a place where the mother can feel safe and confident. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe businesses should be obliged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers. It is the right of mothers to have access to a clean hygienic space to feed their child and women should not be expected to feed their child in a toilet. It is of course practical to create a space that allows for privacy in the majority of cases. The mother should have the option to use this space if she so chooses and it should be a place that allows the mother to feel safe and confident. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Businesses should be encouraged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers, but in cases where it is not practical or possible to do this e.g. a driving instructor, employers should respect mothers' right to feed their baby in the location they feel most comfortable. Discussion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Businesses should be obliged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers where it is practical to do so. This is a matter of basic hygiene and most employers would want to do this anyway as they should be looking to create an environment where all staff feel comfortable. While it may not always be practical, e.g. a one man band driving instructor, in the majority of cases it should be possible to create a suitable space, e.g. a break room. The mother should have the option to choose if they want to use the space and it should be a place where the mother can feel safe and confident. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Businesses should be encouraged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers, but should not be obliged to do so. This is because it may not be practical for all businesses to do so. The space should be clean and comfortable, and a place where the mother can feel safe and confident. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe businesses should be obliged to provide a private space for breastfeeding mothers. It is the right of mothers to have access to a clean hygienic space to feed their child and women should not be expected to feed their child in a toilet. It is of course practical to create a space that allows for privacy in the majority of cases. The mother should have the option to use this space if she so chooses and it should be a place that allows the mother to feel safe and confident. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001508.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001508.soc index 257480a4..d412b60a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001508.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001508.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to use a limited number of drugs for recreational purposes, but they should be heavily regulated and subject to strict controls. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the legalisation of drugs. They felt that there was too great a risk of addiction and that the current approach to regulation of drugs was the best way to control the use of drugs in society. They did however acknowledge that the current approach to regulation of drugs was not working and that the use of drugs in society was increasing. They felt that the best way to combat this was to increase the penalties for trafficking in drugs and to increase the penalties for drug use. They felt that this would act as a greater deterrent to drug use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, drugs are harmful and should only be used as a last resort for medicinal purposes. Some studies however, have indicated that some drugs (like cannabis) could be beneficial for certain health conditions. However, the overall benefits of allowing recreational use of drugs need to be considered. It is possible that by legalising the use of certain drugs, it will prevent a black market and ultimately limit the amount of harm they cause to society. However, there is also a worry that by legalising drugs it would cause more harm by normalising their use and ultimately leading to the use of harder drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to use a limited number of drugs for recreational purposes, but they should be heavily regulated and subject to strict controls. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the legalisation of drugs. They felt that there was too great a risk of addiction and that the current approach to regulation of drugs was the best way to control the use of drugs in society. They did however acknowledge that the current approach to regulation of drugs was not working and that the use of drugs in society was increasing. They felt that the best way to combat this was to increase the penalties for trafficking in drugs and to increase the penalties for drug use. They felt that this would act as a greater deterrent to drug use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, drugs are harmful and should only be used as a last resort for medicinal purposes. Some studies however, have indicated that some drugs (like cannabis) could be beneficial for certain health conditions. However, the overall benefits of allowing recreational use of drugs need to be considered. It is possible that by legalising the use of certain drugs, it will prevent a black market and ultimately limit the amount of harm they cause to society. However, there is also a worry that by legalising drugs it would cause more harm by normalising their use and ultimately leading to the use of harder drugs. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001509.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001509.soc index 07305a3e..8b141eab 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001509.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001509.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis, along with Government control and regulations, would mean that users at the bottom of the chain, whom often are addicted, poor and/or working class, would suffer less abuse from criminal groups that abuse people for their own gain. We should make the drug more accessible to the public, and use the tax revenue it would generate to tackle the negative consequences of drug use. The use of cannabis should be legal, with the same restrictions as alcohol, but with strict guidelines in place to ensure the safety of the user, such as driving or other similar activities. It is important to be cautious about the use of cannabis, as it can have adverse effects on people, such as paranoia and slower reaction times, but if used in a controlled manner it can be beneficial. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. However, there were concerns about the potential for increased use, particularly by young people. There was also a concern that cannabis is a 'gateway drug' and that legalising it would lead to increased use of other, more harmful drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis is a good idea. The Government could make a lot of money from taxing the sale of cannabis, and this could be used to improve the country. It would also mean that cannabis is sold in a safe way, and people would be less likely to buy cannabis from criminals. However, there are some risks. For example, if cannabis is legalised, it might make it more accessible to children, and this could have a negative impact on their health. Also, if cannabis is legalised, people might feel more comfortable driving or doing other activities while under the influence of cannabis, and this could be dangerous. Therefore, the legalisation of cannabis should be done carefully, and with strict rules in place to make sure that it is used safely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that cannabis should be legalised. It is less harmful than other drugs that are legal, such as tobacco and alcohol. The only concern we have is that it might cause harm to people's mental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis, along with Government control and regulations, would mean that users at the bottom of the chain, whom often are addicted, poor and/or working class, would suffer less abuse from criminal groups that abuse people for their own gain. We should make the drug more accessible to the public, and use the tax revenue it would generate to tackle the negative consequences of drug use. The use of cannabis should be legal, with the same restrictions as alcohol, but with strict guidelines in place to ensure the safety of the user, such as driving or other similar activities. It is important to be cautious about the use of cannabis, as it can have adverse effects on people, such as paranoia and slower reaction times, but if used in a controlled manner it can be beneficial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. However, there were concerns about the potential for increased use, particularly by young people. There was also a concern that cannabis is a 'gateway drug' and that legalising it would lead to increased use of other, more harmful drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis is a good idea. The Government could make a lot of money from taxing the sale of cannabis, and this could be used to improve the country. It would also mean that cannabis is sold in a safe way, and people would be less likely to buy cannabis from criminals. However, there are some risks. For example, if cannabis is legalised, it might make it more accessible to children, and this could have a negative impact on their health. Also, if cannabis is legalised, people might feel more comfortable driving or doing other activities while under the influence of cannabis, and this could be dangerous. Therefore, the legalisation of cannabis should be done carefully, and with strict rules in place to make sure that it is used safely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that cannabis should be legalised. It is less harmful than other drugs that are legal, such as tobacco and alcohol. The only concern we have is that it might cause harm to people's mental health. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001510.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001510.soc index 707385a8..97f54881 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001510.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001510.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The Government should set realistic targets for the gradual reduction of the UK’s carbon emissions over a period of time. This would be effective in reducing the rate of global warming and reducing the harmful effects of pollution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK Government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions, as the scientific evidence is now overwhelming that climate change is happening and that it is due to human activity. The targets should be realistic and achievable, giving industry time to make the necessary adjustments to reduce emissions. We must ensure that other major carbon emitters, especially the USA and China, are also setting and enforcing emission reduction targets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: The Government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. There is now a consensus that global warming is being experienced now with record-breaking floods, extreme heat waves and an increase in the frequency of forest fires, just to mention a few. Although there are still some who don’t believe in climate change, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it is real and that it is now too late to reverse the impact of man-made global warming. The consequences of the worst predictions, as predicted by the IPCC, would be disastrous for mankind. In order to reduce the impact of climate change it is essential that the UK and all countries immediately begin the process of reducing their carbon emissions. The consensus view of the group is that the targets should be realistic, there are many factors to consider in their setting. But perhaps the most important is that they should gradually reduce the emissions, starting with the earliest date possible. In addition, each country should be asked to justify the measures they are taking to reduce their emissions and if there is a lack of the expected progress they should face punitive action, including the introduction of carbon taxes. This should encourage them to act together to reduce emissions worldwide. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The Government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. There are now many who have reached the conclusion that the effects of climate change are already being felt with record-breaking floods, extreme heat waves and an increase in the frequency of forest fires, just to mention a few. Although there are still some who don’t believe in climate change, the overwhelming evidence is that it is real and that it is now too late to reverse the impact of man-made global warming. The consequences of the worst predictions, as predicted by the IPCC, would be disastrous for mankind. The Government must take the lead in setting a realistic timetable for achieving a reduction in the UK’s carbon emissions and to ensure that this is effectively enforced. This must be done in consultation with other countries and in particular the major producers of carbon emissions. It is also important that sanctions are applied to countries who do not adhere to the agreed timetable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The Government should set realistic targets for the gradual reduction of the UK’s carbon emissions over a period of time. This would be effective in reducing the rate of global warming and reducing the harmful effects of pollution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK Government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions, as the scientific evidence is now overwhelming that climate change is happening and that it is due to human activity. The targets should be realistic and achievable, giving industry time to make the necessary adjustments to reduce emissions. We must ensure that other major carbon emitters, especially the USA and China, are also setting and enforcing emission reduction targets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: The Government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. There is now a consensus that global warming is being experienced now with record-breaking floods, extreme heat waves and an increase in the frequency of forest fires, just to mention a few. Although there are still some who don’t believe in climate change, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it is real and that it is now too late to reverse the impact of man-made global warming. The consequences of the worst predictions, as predicted by the IPCC, would be disastrous for mankind. In order to reduce the impact of climate change it is essential that the UK and all countries immediately begin the process of reducing their carbon emissions. The consensus view of the group is that the targets should be realistic, there are many factors to consider in their setting. But perhaps the most important is that they should gradually reduce the emissions, starting with the earliest date possible. In addition, each country should be asked to justify the measures they are taking to reduce their emissions and if there is a lack of the expected progress they should face punitive action, including the introduction of carbon taxes. This should encourage them to act together to reduce emissions worldwide. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The Government should set targets for reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. There are now many who have reached the conclusion that the effects of climate change are already being felt with record-breaking floods, extreme heat waves and an increase in the frequency of forest fires, just to mention a few. Although there are still some who don’t believe in climate change, the overwhelming evidence is that it is real and that it is now too late to reverse the impact of man-made global warming. The consequences of the worst predictions, as predicted by the IPCC, would be disastrous for mankind. The Government must take the lead in setting a realistic timetable for achieving a reduction in the UK’s carbon emissions and to ensure that this is effectively enforced. This must be done in consultation with other countries and in particular the major producers of carbon emissions. It is also important that sanctions are applied to countries who do not adhere to the agreed timetable. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001511.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001511.soc index 459b029a..3c0880a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001511.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001511.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. It is up to the individual to decide what they do with their body, especially when they fund it themselves. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. We also think that cosmetic surgery can benefit medical research and may produce findings that could enhance future essential procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. It is up to the individual to decide what they do with their body, especially when they fund it themselves. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. However, there are no mental health benefits if the person continues to receive procedures rather than accept their natural appearance. Finally, we believe that cosmetic surgery can benefit medical research and may produce findings that could enhance future essential procedures, although this is not an excuse to subject young women and girls to pressure to change the way they look unnecessarily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. Conclusion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. It is up to the individual to decide what they do with their body, especially when they fund it themselves. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. Finally, we believe that cosmetic surgery can benefit medical research and may produce findings that could enhance future essential procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. It is up to the individual to decide what they do with their body, especially when they fund it themselves. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. We also think that cosmetic surgery can benefit medical research and may produce findings that could enhance future essential procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. It is up to the individual to decide what they do with their body, especially when they fund it themselves. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. However, there are no mental health benefits if the person continues to receive procedures rather than accept their natural appearance. Finally, we believe that cosmetic surgery can benefit medical research and may produce findings that could enhance future essential procedures, although this is not an excuse to subject young women and girls to pressure to change the way they look unnecessarily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. Conclusion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that we should not ban non-essential cosmetic surgery, but we do think that more regulations should be put in place to make sure that the cosmetic surgery industry does not exploit women and girls. It is up to the individual to decide what they do with their body, especially when they fund it themselves. We also believe that cosmetic surgery can help enhance someone's mental health and confidence, which is a worthy cause. Finally, we believe that cosmetic surgery can benefit medical research and may produce findings that could enhance future essential procedures. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001512.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001512.soc index 4bd0ead0..6c1f59a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001512.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001512.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we think that all students should be required to wear a uniform in schools. This is because wearing a uniform can have many advantages. Firstly, wearing a uniform will reduce bullying in schools. This is because it will stop people being able to tell which group children belong to by what they are wearing. It will also allow children from poorer backgrounds to not be bullied for what they are wearing. Secondly, uniforms can also reduce stress for children. This is because the children will not have to worry about what to wear each morning, as they know that they will be wearing a uniform. Therefore, wearing uniforms in schools will help to improve student well-being and reduce bullying, which is why we believe all students should wear uniforms in school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In conclusion, we believe that students should wear school uniform in all schools. This is because it creates a level playing field for all students as they then look the same this cuts down on bullying as students are all dressed the same. It also cuts down the debate of what to wear each day as the student knows what if required of them and what they have to wear for school. We believe that school uniform is an essential part of the school experience and that it is important for all students to have this experience. This is because it allows students to feel very prepared to learn and not distracted by what they are wearing. It also removes the stress of planning an outfit from young children. Also, stops bullying that often occurs towards students who are financially less well-off. It allows children to feel very prepared to learn and not distracted by what they are wearing. This is why we believe that students should wear school uniform in all schools.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be required to wear a uniform in schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools, because it makes students feel more equal and stops bullying.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we think that all students should be required to wear a uniform in schools. This is because wearing a uniform can have many advantages. Firstly, wearing a uniform will reduce bullying in schools. This is because it will stop people being able to tell which group children belong to by what they are wearing. It will also allow children from poorer backgrounds to not be bullied for what they are wearing. Secondly, uniforms can also reduce stress for children. This is because the children will not have to worry about what to wear each morning, as they know that they will be wearing a uniform. Therefore, wearing uniforms in schools will help to improve student well-being and reduce bullying, which is why we believe all students should wear uniforms in school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In conclusion, we believe that students should wear school uniform in all schools. This is because it creates a level playing field for all students as they then look the same this cuts down on bullying as students are all dressed the same. It also cuts down the debate of what to wear each day as the student knows what if required of them and what they have to wear for school. We believe that school uniform is an essential part of the school experience and that it is important for all students to have this experience. This is because it allows students to feel very prepared to learn and not distracted by what they are wearing. It also removes the stress of planning an outfit from young children. Also, stops bullying that often occurs towards students who are financially less well-off. It allows children to feel very prepared to learn and not distracted by what they are wearing. This is why we believe that students should wear school uniform in all schools.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be required to wear a uniform in schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools, because it makes students feel more equal and stops bullying.” 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001513.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001513.soc index e09a2f35..13778ab3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001513.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001513.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Baby-led weaning is something that many parents of young children are exploring and it has become quite common these days. It is important that parents/carers do enough research to understand how to use baby-led weaning properly. Traditional spoon-feeding has been standard practice for a number of years, so it's important to stay well informed with regards to new developments and what the current research suggests is best. Spoon-feeding allows food intake to be controlled and mean nutritional intake can be planned/tracked, and it has a lower choking risk. Baby-led weaning lets babies self-regulate, get stuck in with developing motor skills and means that they can have a lot of variety although it does also usually mean that there will be a lot of mess that will need cleaning up afterwards. Ultimately, it should be up to the parents to decide which method to use, after gaining advice from health care advisors, friends and family, as well as the reaction from the baby. At the end of the day, It is the welfare of the baby that is paramount, so whichever method the baby thrives on could be the method chosen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no right or wrong way to introduce solid foods to babies, as long as it is safe and the baby is happy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, spoon-feeding is the traditional method of introducing solid foods to babies. However, if a baby is showing an interest in eating solid foods, and is able to sit up, they may be ready to try baby-led weaning. Baby-led weaning is a method of introducing solid foods to babies by allowing them to feed themselves with their hands. It is important that parents/carers do enough research to understand how to use baby-led weaning properly. Traditional spoon feeding has been standard practice for a number of years, so it's important to stay well informed with regards to new developments and what the current research suggests is best. Spoon-feeding allows food intake to be controlled and mean nutritional intake can be planned/tracked, and it has a lower choking risk. Baby-led weaning lets babies self-regulate, get stuck in with developing motor skills and means that they can have a lot of variety although it does also usually mean that there will be a lot of mess that will need cleaning up afterwards. Ultimately, it should be up to the parents to decide which method to use, after gaining advice from health care advisors, friends and family, as well as the reaction from the baby +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Baby-led weaning is something that many parents of young children are exploring and it has become quite common these days. It is important that parents/carers do enough research to understand how to use baby-led weaning properly. Traditional spoon-feeding has been standard practice for a number of years, so it's important to stay well informed with regards to new developments and what the current research suggests is best. Spoon-feeding allows food intake to be controlled and mean nutritional intake can be planned/tracked, and it has a lower choking risk. Baby-led weaning lets babies self-regulate, get stuck in with developing motor skills and means that they can have a lot of variety although it does also usually mean that there will be a lot of mess that will need cleaning up afterwards. Ultimately, it should be up to the parents to decide which method to use, after gaining advice from health care advisors, friends and family, as well as the reaction from the baby. At the end of the day, It is the welfare of the baby that is paramount, so whichever method the baby thrives on could be the method chosen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no right or wrong way to introduce solid foods to babies, as long as it is safe and the baby is happy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, spoon-feeding is the traditional method of introducing solid foods to babies. However, if a baby is showing an interest in eating solid foods, and is able to sit up, they may be ready to try baby-led weaning. Baby-led weaning is a method of introducing solid foods to babies by allowing them to feed themselves with their hands. It is important that parents/carers do enough research to understand how to use baby-led weaning properly. Traditional spoon feeding has been standard practice for a number of years, so it's important to stay well informed with regards to new developments and what the current research suggests is best. Spoon-feeding allows food intake to be controlled and mean nutritional intake can be planned/tracked, and it has a lower choking risk. Baby-led weaning lets babies self-regulate, get stuck in with developing motor skills and means that they can have a lot of variety although it does also usually mean that there will be a lot of mess that will need cleaning up afterwards. Ultimately, it should be up to the parents to decide which method to use, after gaining advice from health care advisors, friends and family, as well as the reaction from the baby 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001514.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001514.soc index be2989e7..65f4cf2c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001514.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001514.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is highly likely that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. Skills such as manual and repetitive jobs that can easily be taken on by computers are becoming redundant. It is therefore vital that employees and businesses alike commit to supporting people to transition into new roles. It is essential for individuals to have adequate support to enable them to retrain and transition skills if they are to keep on working in the sectors in which they have always worked, and if they choose to do so. It is also important to prepare young people in education about the changes that technology is bringing to the workplace, to increase their confidence and resilience and help them to make more informed choices about their future careers. The working landscape is changing, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, as some employees may choose to transition into new skills and enjoy new roles, but it is vital that the necessary support is provided to make this possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is highly likely that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. New technologies are taking over jobs that humans used to do and this is creating the need for new skills. Many people are leaving work that they once enjoyed and moving to a new sector. Many people are re-training to gain new skills to enable them to enjoy new jobs. It is vital that the necessary support is provided to enable people to transition into new roles. Highly accurate true Within this initial period of online discourse we explored possibilities and allowed ourselves to make mistakes. We were able to recognise that the use of discourse as a participatory tool for reaching consensus without prolonged deliberation with group members is not without fault. There are a few caveats to take into account: ● It is easy to get lost in the group’s interest in debating the problems presented and lose the thread or intention of the question asked at the outset. It is important that the facilitator has a clear sense of what the question means and is able to return the group to this. ● While it is important to allow the use of critique in the process, it is also very easy to forget to critique each person -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a strong likelihood that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. New technologies are taking over jobs that humans used to do. Many of the skills that were once required are no longer required. Many people are leaving work that they once enjoyed and moving to a new sector, often after re-training and gaining new skills. This does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, as people can use new skills and experiences to enjoy new jobs. But it is vital that the necessary support is provided to enable people to transition into new roles and for young people to be prepared for this eventuality. Conclusions: This week's simulation task has been very interesting. I was able to come to a consensus view with a group of people from various backgrounds about an issue that was new to me. We reached a consensus view which is a positive thing, although, I agree with some of the comments that were made about the consensus statement. For example, I agree that we should not just say that some skills are no longer required because this is not necessarily the case. Some skills may no longer be required in the same way that they once were, but they are adaptable and there are still some jobs that require -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong likelihood that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. New technologies are taking over jobs that humans used to do. Many of the skills that were once required are no longer required. Many people are leaving work that they once enjoyed and moving to a new sector, often after re-training and gaining new skills. This does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, as people can use new skills and experiences to enjoy new jobs. But it is vital that the necessary support is provided to enable people to transition into new roles and for young people to be prepared for this eventuality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is highly likely that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. Skills such as manual and repetitive jobs that can easily be taken on by computers are becoming redundant. It is therefore vital that employees and businesses alike commit to supporting people to transition into new roles. It is essential for individuals to have adequate support to enable them to retrain and transition skills if they are to keep on working in the sectors in which they have always worked, and if they choose to do so. It is also important to prepare young people in education about the changes that technology is bringing to the workplace, to increase their confidence and resilience and help them to make more informed choices about their future careers. The working landscape is changing, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, as some employees may choose to transition into new skills and enjoy new roles, but it is vital that the necessary support is provided to make this possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is highly likely that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. New technologies are taking over jobs that humans used to do and this is creating the need for new skills. Many people are leaving work that they once enjoyed and moving to a new sector. Many people are re-training to gain new skills to enable them to enjoy new jobs. It is vital that the necessary support is provided to enable people to transition into new roles. Highly accurate true Within this initial period of online discourse we explored possibilities and allowed ourselves to make mistakes. We were able to recognise that the use of discourse as a participatory tool for reaching consensus without prolonged deliberation with group members is not without fault. There are a few caveats to take into account: ● It is easy to get lost in the group’s interest in debating the problems presented and lose the thread or intention of the question asked at the outset. It is important that the facilitator has a clear sense of what the question means and is able to return the group to this. ● While it is important to allow the use of critique in the process, it is also very easy to forget to critique each person +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a strong likelihood that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. New technologies are taking over jobs that humans used to do. Many of the skills that were once required are no longer required. Many people are leaving work that they once enjoyed and moving to a new sector, often after re-training and gaining new skills. This does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, as people can use new skills and experiences to enjoy new jobs. But it is vital that the necessary support is provided to enable people to transition into new roles and for young people to be prepared for this eventuality. Conclusions: This week's simulation task has been very interesting. I was able to come to a consensus view with a group of people from various backgrounds about an issue that was new to me. We reached a consensus view which is a positive thing, although, I agree with some of the comments that were made about the consensus statement. For example, I agree that we should not just say that some skills are no longer required because this is not necessarily the case. Some skills may no longer be required in the same way that they once were, but they are adaptable and there are still some jobs that require +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong likelihood that we are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. New technologies are taking over jobs that humans used to do. Many of the skills that were once required are no longer required. Many people are leaving work that they once enjoyed and moving to a new sector, often after re-training and gaining new skills. This does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, as people can use new skills and experiences to enjoy new jobs. But it is vital that the necessary support is provided to enable people to transition into new roles and for young people to be prepared for this eventuality. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001515.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001515.soc index 88944fd5..43739292 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001515.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001515.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is difficult to reach a consensus view on the proposed HS2 project, as it is a question that is difficult to answer and there are many different factors to consider. There are arguments for and against, and although the majority of the group would not vote to have the project built, the group have all been able to listen to the other views and reach a compromise. This compromise is that HS2 would have an impact on employment and the economy, and the economic benefits of the project would outweigh the environmental and social costs. The group believe that there are better ways to improve the economy, such as reducing the tax burden, however HS2 is also an investment in our transport system. If we want the UK to remain competitive on the world stage, then we need a fast, reliable and well connected transport system. The majority of the group still believe that the money should be used to upgrade the current rail network to the standard that we require, and that it is in need of improvement and investment, however a consensus view was reached that although the project is not an ideal way of improving the transport system, it is a step in the right direction and we should invest in our future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, HS2 is a good idea, however the cost of building it and the time it will take to complete means that we should not be building it at this time. We should be investing in other more important infrastructure projects and revisit HS2 in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are pros and cons to building HS2, but on balance the pros outweigh the cons. It will help to drive the economy in the long term and provide jobs in the short and medium term. The UK suffers from the lack of leveling up in the regions and this will help to address that making it easier to move people around and drive investment and jobs. It will also relieve some pressure on the housing market with people more able to travel using HS2. The counter argument is that there are higher priorities for investment, such as health or education, but these investments don't need to be mutually exclusive and on balance HS2 should be built. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, as long as the cost and delivery times are reasonable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is difficult to reach a consensus view on the proposed HS2 project, as it is a question that is difficult to answer and there are many different factors to consider. There are arguments for and against, and although the majority of the group would not vote to have the project built, the group have all been able to listen to the other views and reach a compromise. This compromise is that HS2 would have an impact on employment and the economy, and the economic benefits of the project would outweigh the environmental and social costs. The group believe that there are better ways to improve the economy, such as reducing the tax burden, however HS2 is also an investment in our transport system. If we want the UK to remain competitive on the world stage, then we need a fast, reliable and well connected transport system. The majority of the group still believe that the money should be used to upgrade the current rail network to the standard that we require, and that it is in need of improvement and investment, however a consensus view was reached that although the project is not an ideal way of improving the transport system, it is a step in the right direction and we should invest in our future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, HS2 is a good idea, however the cost of building it and the time it will take to complete means that we should not be building it at this time. We should be investing in other more important infrastructure projects and revisit HS2 in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are pros and cons to building HS2, but on balance the pros outweigh the cons. It will help to drive the economy in the long term and provide jobs in the short and medium term. The UK suffers from the lack of leveling up in the regions and this will help to address that making it easier to move people around and drive investment and jobs. It will also relieve some pressure on the housing market with people more able to travel using HS2. The counter argument is that there are higher priorities for investment, such as health or education, but these investments don't need to be mutually exclusive and on balance HS2 should be built. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, as long as the cost and delivery times are reasonable. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001516.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001516.soc index 7cb78290..2171ab69 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001516.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001516.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “No the government should not provide free contraception to everyone, as the money would be better spent on welfare. There is no evidence that limiting the availability of contraception will increase unplanned births.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should provide free contraception to everyone. This would reduce the burden on our welfare system and no longer punish people unable to afford contraception. Limiting the availability of contraception will increase unplanned births. The money spent would be fantastic value and would likely save money in the long term. Women should not be the only ones who have to take the hit on their bodies. By making all contraceptive free, more men will use it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We have debated the issue and come to the conclusion that everyone should be provided with free contraception. We acknowledge that the majority of costs related to unplanned pregnancies are borne by the mother, and women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception. This is unfair. Men also need to take responsibility and we agree that it is unlikely to be successful unless contraception is provided for free to everyone. We also agree that the economic benefits of such a scheme would be substantial, particularly when you consider that those most likely to struggle to pay for contraception are those who can least afford it. It is clear to us that providing free contraception will save the government money in the long term.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. The government should provide free contraception to everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “No the government should not provide free contraception to everyone, as the money would be better spent on welfare. There is no evidence that limiting the availability of contraception will increase unplanned births.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should provide free contraception to everyone. This would reduce the burden on our welfare system and no longer punish people unable to afford contraception. Limiting the availability of contraception will increase unplanned births. The money spent would be fantastic value and would likely save money in the long term. Women should not be the only ones who have to take the hit on their bodies. By making all contraceptive free, more men will use it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We have debated the issue and come to the conclusion that everyone should be provided with free contraception. We acknowledge that the majority of costs related to unplanned pregnancies are borne by the mother, and women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception. This is unfair. Men also need to take responsibility and we agree that it is unlikely to be successful unless contraception is provided for free to everyone. We also agree that the economic benefits of such a scheme would be substantial, particularly when you consider that those most likely to struggle to pay for contraception are those who can least afford it. It is clear to us that providing free contraception will save the government money in the long term.” 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001517.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001517.soc index d78749bd..d322982a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001517.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001517.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Consensus statement reached: In general, the legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis is a good idea. The Government could make a lot of money from taxing the sale of cannabis, and this could be used to improve the country. It would also mean that cannabis is sold in a safe way, and people would be less likely to buy cannabis from criminals. However, there are some risks. For example, if cannabis is legalised, it might make it more accessible to children, and this could have a negative impact on their health. Also, if cannabis is legalised, people might feel more comfortable driving or doing other activities while under the influence of cannabis, and this could be dangerous. Therefore, the legalisation of cannabis should be done carefully, and with strict rules in place to make sure that it is used safely. This would help ensure that cannabis use can bring about as many benefits as possible, while still being safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are arguments for and against the legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis. On the one hand, the Government could make a lot of money from taxing the sale of cannabis, and this could be used to improve the country. It would also mean that cannabis is sold in a safe way, and people would be less likely to buy cannabis from criminals. However, there are some risks. For example, if cannabis is legalised, it might make it more accessible to children, and this could have a negative impact on their health. Also, if cannabis is legalised, people might feel more comfortable driving or doing other activities while under the influence of cannabis, and this could be dangerous. Therefore, the legalisation of cannabis should be done carefully, and with strict rules in place to make sure that it is used safely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis is a controversial topic. There are both pros and cons to this. The legalisation of cannabis could lead to a decrease in the criminal element of the sale of cannabis and could also make it safer for people to purchase cannabis. However, legalising cannabis could lead to it being more accessible to children, and this could have a negative impact on their health. It is also important to remember that even though cannabis isn't seen as dangerous as a class A drug, it can still cause harm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We generally agree that it would be a good idea to legalise cannabis. There would be plenty of benefits to legalisation, such as the generation of more tax revenue, a safer method of purchasing the drug, and the fact that criminals wouldn't be involved in the trade. In addition, we disagree that it would be more accessible to children. If anything, cannabis is easily accessible for children now, and legalising it would mean that the Government would be able to enforce stricter rules on who can purchase it. Conclusion A consensus statement is more than just a majority viewpoint, it represents a full discussion amongst an entire group, and thus often has a strong sense of reliability about it, unlike some arguments (i.e. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Consensus statement reached: In general, the legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis is a good idea. The Government could make a lot of money from taxing the sale of cannabis, and this could be used to improve the country. It would also mean that cannabis is sold in a safe way, and people would be less likely to buy cannabis from criminals. However, there are some risks. For example, if cannabis is legalised, it might make it more accessible to children, and this could have a negative impact on their health. Also, if cannabis is legalised, people might feel more comfortable driving or doing other activities while under the influence of cannabis, and this could be dangerous. Therefore, the legalisation of cannabis should be done carefully, and with strict rules in place to make sure that it is used safely. This would help ensure that cannabis use can bring about as many benefits as possible, while still being safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are arguments for and against the legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis. On the one hand, the Government could make a lot of money from taxing the sale of cannabis, and this could be used to improve the country. It would also mean that cannabis is sold in a safe way, and people would be less likely to buy cannabis from criminals. However, there are some risks. For example, if cannabis is legalised, it might make it more accessible to children, and this could have a negative impact on their health. Also, if cannabis is legalised, people might feel more comfortable driving or doing other activities while under the influence of cannabis, and this could be dangerous. Therefore, the legalisation of cannabis should be done carefully, and with strict rules in place to make sure that it is used safely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis is a controversial topic. There are both pros and cons to this. The legalisation of cannabis could lead to a decrease in the criminal element of the sale of cannabis and could also make it safer for people to purchase cannabis. However, legalising cannabis could lead to it being more accessible to children, and this could have a negative impact on their health. It is also important to remember that even though cannabis isn't seen as dangerous as a class A drug, it can still cause harm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agree that it would be a good idea to legalise cannabis. There would be plenty of benefits to legalisation, such as the generation of more tax revenue, a safer method of purchasing the drug, and the fact that criminals wouldn't be involved in the trade. In addition, we disagree that it would be more accessible to children. If anything, cannabis is easily accessible for children now, and legalising it would mean that the Government would be able to enforce stricter rules on who can purchase it. Conclusion A consensus statement is more than just a majority viewpoint, it represents a full discussion amongst an entire group, and thus often has a strong sense of reliability about it, unlike some arguments (i.e. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001518.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001518.soc index 220f6798..7b6a463f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001518.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001518.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we think that all students should be required to wear a uniform in schools. This is because wearing a uniform can have many advantages. Firstly, wearing a uniform will reduce bullying in schools. This is because it will stop people being able to tell which group children belong to by what they are wearing. It will also allow children from poorer backgrounds to not be bullied for what they are wearing. Secondly, uniforms can also reduce stress for children. This is because the children will not have to worry about what to wear each morning, as they know that they will be wearing a uniform. Thirdly, wearing a uniform can help students to feel more like they are in a professional work environment. Therefore, wearing uniforms in schools will help to improve student well-being and reduce bullying, which is why we believe all students should wear uniforms in school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we think that all students should be required to wear a uniform in schools. This is because wearing a uniform can have many advantages. Firstly, wearing a uniform will reduce bullying in schools. This is because it will stop people being able to tell which group children belong to by what they are wearing. It will also allow children from poorer backgrounds to not be bullied for what they are wearing. Secondly, uniforms can also reduce stress for children. This is because the children will not have to worry about what to wear each morning, as they know that they will be wearing a uniform. Therefore, wearing uniforms in schools will help to improve student well-being and reduce bullying, which is why we believe all students should wear uniforms in school. In the above example, it is clearly seen how multiple perspectives are able to be taken into account and a consensus statement reached that is a synthesis of the views of all of the participants. This is a key feature of Delphi methodology, and was seen again and again in the Delphi study conducted by the researcher. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we think that all students should be required to wear a uniform in schools. This is because wearing a uniform can have many advantages. Firstly, wearing a uniform will reduce bullying in schools. This is because it will stop people being able to tell which group children belong to by what they are wearing. It will also allow children from poorer backgrounds to not be bullied for what they are wearing. Secondly, uniforms can also reduce stress for children. This is because the children will not have to worry about what to wear each morning, as they know that they will be wearing a uniform. Therefore, wearing uniforms in schools will help to improve student well-being and reduce bullying, which is why we believe all students should wear uniforms in school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we think that all students should be required to wear a uniform in schools. This is because wearing a uniform can have many advantages. Firstly, wearing a uniform will reduce bullying in schools. This is because it will stop people being able to tell which group children belong to by what they are wearing. It will also allow children from poorer backgrounds to not be bullied for what they are wearing. Secondly, uniforms can also reduce stress for children. This is because the children will not have to worry about what to wear each morning, as they know that they will be wearing a uniform. Thirdly, wearing a uniform can help students to feel more like they are in a professional work environment. Therefore, wearing uniforms in schools will help to improve student well-being and reduce bullying, which is why we believe all students should wear uniforms in school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we think that all students should be required to wear a uniform in schools. This is because wearing a uniform can have many advantages. Firstly, wearing a uniform will reduce bullying in schools. This is because it will stop people being able to tell which group children belong to by what they are wearing. It will also allow children from poorer backgrounds to not be bullied for what they are wearing. Secondly, uniforms can also reduce stress for children. This is because the children will not have to worry about what to wear each morning, as they know that they will be wearing a uniform. Therefore, wearing uniforms in schools will help to improve student well-being and reduce bullying, which is why we believe all students should wear uniforms in school. In the above example, it is clearly seen how multiple perspectives are able to be taken into account and a consensus statement reached that is a synthesis of the views of all of the participants. This is a key feature of Delphi methodology, and was seen again and again in the Delphi study conducted by the researcher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we think that all students should be required to wear a uniform in schools. This is because wearing a uniform can have many advantages. Firstly, wearing a uniform will reduce bullying in schools. This is because it will stop people being able to tell which group children belong to by what they are wearing. It will also allow children from poorer backgrounds to not be bullied for what they are wearing. Secondly, uniforms can also reduce stress for children. This is because the children will not have to worry about what to wear each morning, as they know that they will be wearing a uniform. Therefore, wearing uniforms in schools will help to improve student well-being and reduce bullying, which is why we believe all students should wear uniforms in school. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001519.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001519.soc index ae6ad683..740ba7b7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001519.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001519.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. The maximum salary should be £1 million. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group decided that it was a question of whether it was a good idea in principle. The following arguments were used to come to the final decision: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. This is because the current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. The group felt that there should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. This is because the current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the concept of a maximum salary is a very fair one and we appreciate that there are some who work very hard and deserve to be paid a good wage, we feel that the concept of limiting someone's potential earnings is a dangerous one. It is important to ensure that there is no pay inequality, and it is also important to make sure that all companies are paying a fair rate of tax, but if you limit someone's potential earnings you will also be limiting their potential impact on society. It is dangerous to do this because it is also impossible to foresee how someone's work may impact society. For example, if Steve Jobs had been limited in his earnings, would we now have the iPhone and iPad, and would this technology now be being used in the way that it is? It is impossible to tell, but what we can say is that the technology has had a huge impact on the world. If someone has an idea, they should be able to pursue it and see where it takes them. Limiting their potential earnings would be a mistake. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. The maximum salary should be £1 million. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group decided that it was a question of whether it was a good idea in principle. The following arguments were used to come to the final decision: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. This is because the current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. The group felt that there should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. This is because the current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the concept of a maximum salary is a very fair one and we appreciate that there are some who work very hard and deserve to be paid a good wage, we feel that the concept of limiting someone's potential earnings is a dangerous one. It is important to ensure that there is no pay inequality, and it is also important to make sure that all companies are paying a fair rate of tax, but if you limit someone's potential earnings you will also be limiting their potential impact on society. It is dangerous to do this because it is also impossible to foresee how someone's work may impact society. For example, if Steve Jobs had been limited in his earnings, would we now have the iPhone and iPad, and would this technology now be being used in the way that it is? It is impossible to tell, but what we can say is that the technology has had a huge impact on the world. If someone has an idea, they should be able to pursue it and see where it takes them. Limiting their potential earnings would be a mistake. 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001520.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001520.soc index 0e8613e4..74550486 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001520.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001520.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “While the focus of the NHS should be on curing patients with illnesses, there is a strong need for the NHS to focus more on prevention. We believe that more money should be invested into prevention measures, and this will pay off in the long run. The first step is to promote the message that prevention is more important than cure. The next step is to take action, which includes funding campaigns to educate the public about health, including healthy eating and anti-smoking campaigns. It will also include funding to prevent the transmission of diseases and epidemics.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Prevention is always better than cure, but both are needed in the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Prevention is better than cure, but the government needs to do more to support this. The government should invest more in preventative measures. This will not only help the NHS in the long term but will also help the economy as a whole. The government needs to make healthy food more accessible and affordable. They also need to invest more in preventative measures for mental health problems. This will help people in the long term. The government also needs to invest more in research for cures. This will help people who are already ill and will also help the economy in the long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is better to focus on prevention over cure, as it can save the government money and is easier than trying to cure the illness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “While the focus of the NHS should be on curing patients with illnesses, there is a strong need for the NHS to focus more on prevention. We believe that more money should be invested into prevention measures, and this will pay off in the long run. The first step is to promote the message that prevention is more important than cure. The next step is to take action, which includes funding campaigns to educate the public about health, including healthy eating and anti-smoking campaigns. It will also include funding to prevent the transmission of diseases and epidemics.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Prevention is always better than cure, but both are needed in the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Prevention is better than cure, but the government needs to do more to support this. The government should invest more in preventative measures. This will not only help the NHS in the long term but will also help the economy as a whole. The government needs to make healthy food more accessible and affordable. They also need to invest more in preventative measures for mental health problems. This will help people in the long term. The government also needs to invest more in research for cures. This will help people who are already ill and will also help the economy in the long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is better to focus on prevention over cure, as it can save the government money and is easier than trying to cure the illness. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001521.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001521.soc index 5c7c5404..471ba504 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001521.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001521.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of free public transport. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that public transport should be free for children, the elderly, and those on the lowest incomes in the UK. Public transport will reduce carbon emissions, it will allow people on lower incomes to travel further afield, it will encourage people to get to know more about the country and reduce isolation for the elderly. We believe that people on the lowest incomes will benefit most from this, because they will be able to get to work more easily, they will be able to visit friends and family, and they will be able to socialise without the added pressure of having to find the money for travel costs. We feel that in a democracy, all citizens should have a say in how the country is run, and the elderly and those on lower incomes will be more encouraged to have a say in the running of the country if they have a means to travel to places where they are more likely to have a say in what is happening in their communities. The state should be encouraged to provide free public transport to the elderly, to children, and to those on the lowest incomes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of free public transport. The group believed that it would reduce congestion and pollution, and would also reduce the number of cars on the road. The group believed that it would also help the elderly and those on low incomes to get out and about. The group also believed that it would help to reduce the number of people driving to work, and would therefore reduce the number of cars on the road during rush hour. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the state should provide free public transport for certain groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of free public transport. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was a service that should be provided by the state, but that it should not be free. They felt that it should be subsidised to make it affordable to all, but that it should not be free. They felt that it was +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that public transport should be free for children, the elderly, and those on the lowest incomes in the UK. Public transport will reduce carbon emissions, it will allow people on lower incomes to travel further afield, it will encourage people to get to know more about the country and reduce isolation for the elderly. We believe that people on the lowest incomes will benefit most from this, because they will be able to get to work more easily, they will be able to visit friends and family, and they will be able to socialise without the added pressure of having to find the money for travel costs. We feel that in a democracy, all citizens should have a say in how the country is run, and the elderly and those on lower incomes will be more encouraged to have a say in the running of the country if they have a means to travel to places where they are more likely to have a say in what is happening in their communities. The state should be encouraged to provide free public transport to the elderly, to children, and to those on the lowest incomes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of free public transport. The group believed that it would reduce congestion and pollution, and would also reduce the number of cars on the road. The group believed that it would also help the elderly and those on low incomes to get out and about. The group also believed that it would help to reduce the number of people driving to work, and would therefore reduce the number of cars on the road during rush hour. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the state should provide free public transport for certain groups. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001522.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001522.soc index 42525792..72fe14b7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001522.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001522.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We have debated the issue and come to the conclusion that everyone should be provided with free contraception. We acknowledge that the majority of costs related to unplanned pregnancies are borne by the mother, and women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception. This is unfair. Men also need to take responsibility and we agree that it is unlikely to be successful unless contraception is provided for free to everyone. We also agree that the economic benefits of such a scheme would be substantial, particularly when you consider that those most likely to struggle to pay for contraception are those who can least afford it. It is clear to us that providing free contraception will save the government money in the long term.” I then presented this consensus statement to a group of experts and asked them to critique it. In this example, the experts were GPs. This is what they said: Expert critique 1: nice job. i think this consensus statement is a good one. it says what needs to be said. The only issue i might raise is that there may be some medico-legal issues to do with this. if contraception is provided free to men, there is the issue of what if they use it to increase their -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have debated the issue and come to the conclusion that everyone should be provided with free contraception. We acknowledge that the majority of costs related to unplanned pregnancies are borne by the mother, and women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception. This is unfair. Men also need to take responsibility and we agree that it is unlikely to be successful unless contraception is provided for free to everyone. We also agree that the economic benefits of such a scheme would be substantial, particularly when you consider that those most likely to struggle to pay for contraception are those who can least afford it. It is clear to us that providing free contraception will save the government money in the long term. We also acknowledge that the free provision of contraception is likely to lead to some people abusing the system, but we think that this is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We have debated the issue and come to the conclusion that everyone should be provided with free contraception. Women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception, while men generally pay a smaller penalty. This is unfair. We further believe that, as is seen by the majority of child poverty statistics that show it’s usually the mother raising the children alone, men do not take enough responsibility when it comes to contraception. It is clear to us that providing free contraception will save the government money in the long term. This is backed by figures in the UK and USA, where it has been shown to have dramatic positive effects.” Next: The online polls Also in this series: Social media for psychology researchers: The basics -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We have debated the issue and have come to the consensus view that everyone should be provided with free contraception. We acknowledge that the majority of costs related to unplanned pregnancies are borne by the mother and that women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception. This is unfair. Men also need to take responsibility and it is unlikely to be successful unless contraception is provided for free to everyone. There will also be substantial economic benefits. While at first there may be an increase in government spending, when you consider how much this will reduce the amount of people claiming welfare and reduce the cost of unplanned pregnancies in the long term, the cost saving is likely to be substantial. We also have to consider how this will benefit our health system, especially when you consider the cost of the rising rates of birth defects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We have debated the issue and come to the conclusion that everyone should be provided with free contraception. We acknowledge that the majority of costs related to unplanned pregnancies are borne by the mother, and women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception. This is unfair. Men also need to take responsibility and we agree that it is unlikely to be successful unless contraception is provided for free to everyone. We also agree that the economic benefits of such a scheme would be substantial, particularly when you consider that those most likely to struggle to pay for contraception are those who can least afford it. It is clear to us that providing free contraception will save the government money in the long term.” I then presented this consensus statement to a group of experts and asked them to critique it. In this example, the experts were GPs. This is what they said: Expert critique 1: nice job. i think this consensus statement is a good one. it says what needs to be said. The only issue i might raise is that there may be some medico-legal issues to do with this. if contraception is provided free to men, there is the issue of what if they use it to increase their +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have debated the issue and come to the conclusion that everyone should be provided with free contraception. We acknowledge that the majority of costs related to unplanned pregnancies are borne by the mother, and women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception. This is unfair. Men also need to take responsibility and we agree that it is unlikely to be successful unless contraception is provided for free to everyone. We also agree that the economic benefits of such a scheme would be substantial, particularly when you consider that those most likely to struggle to pay for contraception are those who can least afford it. It is clear to us that providing free contraception will save the government money in the long term. We also acknowledge that the free provision of contraception is likely to lead to some people abusing the system, but we think that this is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We have debated the issue and come to the conclusion that everyone should be provided with free contraception. Women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception, while men generally pay a smaller penalty. This is unfair. We further believe that, as is seen by the majority of child poverty statistics that show it’s usually the mother raising the children alone, men do not take enough responsibility when it comes to contraception. It is clear to us that providing free contraception will save the government money in the long term. This is backed by figures in the UK and USA, where it has been shown to have dramatic positive effects.” Next: The online polls Also in this series: Social media for psychology researchers: The basics +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We have debated the issue and have come to the consensus view that everyone should be provided with free contraception. We acknowledge that the majority of costs related to unplanned pregnancies are borne by the mother and that women are unfairly penalised for not being able to afford contraception. This is unfair. Men also need to take responsibility and it is unlikely to be successful unless contraception is provided for free to everyone. There will also be substantial economic benefits. While at first there may be an increase in government spending, when you consider how much this will reduce the amount of people claiming welfare and reduce the cost of unplanned pregnancies in the long term, the cost saving is likely to be substantial. We also have to consider how this will benefit our health system, especially when you consider the cost of the rising rates of birth defects. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001523.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001523.soc index 67c0b88d..8a4b14ea 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001523.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001523.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. We believe that this would be discriminatory and therefore immoral. We believe that the price of a product should be calculated based on the cost of manufacturing the product, any overheads and costs, plus a profit margin. This cost does not increase dependent on age or sex, so the cost they pay should not increase. It is legally wrong to discriminate against someone on the grounds of gender or age and this is discrimination. We also believe that it is not acceptable to charge a lower price for those belonging to a minority, for simply being one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. This would be discrimination and could be seen as morally wrong. It would be difficult to predict how much someone is able to spend on something simply based on age or sex, and it would be a highly discriminatory practice. A fixed price for everyone is more fair. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that charging different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex is not a morally acceptable practice. We see that charging differently is a discriminatory act and is a violation of human rights. The cost of a product should be based on the material cost, the overheads, and the profit margin. None of these will change with the age or sex of the customer, so the cost to the customer should not change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. We believe that this would be discriminatory and therefore immoral. We believe that the price of a product should be calculated based on the cost of manufacturing the product, any overheads and costs, plus a profit margin. This cost does not increase dependent on age or sex, so the cost they pay should not increase. It is legally wrong to discriminate against someone on the grounds of gender or age and this is discrimination. We also believe that it is not acceptable to charge a lower price for those belonging to a minority, for simply being one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. This would be discrimination and could be seen as morally wrong. It would be difficult to predict how much someone is able to spend on something simply based on age or sex, and it would be a highly discriminatory practice. A fixed price for everyone is more fair. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that charging different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex is not a morally acceptable practice. We see that charging differently is a discriminatory act and is a violation of human rights. The cost of a product should be based on the material cost, the overheads, and the profit margin. None of these will change with the age or sex of the customer, so the cost to the customer should not change. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001524.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001524.soc index 619a3c19..9700c68c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001524.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001524.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. The current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. The group felt that there should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. The current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. The current system is unfair and does not provide a level playing field for all. This needs to change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. This is because the current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. Conclusion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group felt that there should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. This is because the current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. I think this consensus view will be widely accepted and support its recommendations. The consensus statement succinctly considers the key issue of inequality and sets out a clear argument for why it should be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. The current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. The group felt that there should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. The current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. The current system is unfair and does not provide a level playing field for all. This needs to change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. This is because the current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. Conclusion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group felt that there should be a cap on the maximum annual salary that anyone can earn. This is because the current system is unfair and the wealthiest people in society should not be able to earn an unlimited amount of money when many people are struggling to get by. The current system does not provide a level playing field for all and this needs to change. I think this consensus view will be widely accepted and support its recommendations. The consensus statement succinctly considers the key issue of inequality and sets out a clear argument for why it should be changed. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001525.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001525.soc index 6f7a956d..9a358634 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001525.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001525.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS should be funded by an increase in income tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the NHS should not be funded by a national tax on food. The NHS is an institution that is used by all members of society, and it is only fair that all members of society contribute to its upkeep. The current system of income tax is a fair way of ensuring that all members of society contribute to the NHS, and we do not believe that this should be changed. We believe that a tax on food would be unfair, as it would disproportionately affect the poorest members of society, who are often the people who need the NHS the most. We also believe that a tax on food would be an ineffective way of raising money for the NHS, as it would be very difficult to implement and would be open to abuse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS should be funded by an income tax. Food is essential to life and should not be taxed. Those with higher incomes should pay more towards the NHS, as they are more likely to be able to afford private healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important that the NHS is adequately funded, we do not believe it is appropriate to fund the NHS through a national tax on food. Food is an essential necessity that cannot be substituted, so the tax would have to be shared by the entire population, making it highly regressive. This would have a significant impact on the poorer members of society, who are already facing challenges to their health, and may result in many vulnerable people being unable to afford enough nutritious food to stay healthy. The poor would be disproportionately affected by a food tax as they spend a larger proportion of their income on food. For this reason, we believe that income tax should continue to be the main source of funding for the NHS. However, it is crucial that this tax is implemented fairly, so that the most affluent members of society pay the greatest share. In order to do this, the current system of income tax should be reviewed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS should be funded by an increase in income tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the NHS should not be funded by a national tax on food. The NHS is an institution that is used by all members of society, and it is only fair that all members of society contribute to its upkeep. The current system of income tax is a fair way of ensuring that all members of society contribute to the NHS, and we do not believe that this should be changed. We believe that a tax on food would be unfair, as it would disproportionately affect the poorest members of society, who are often the people who need the NHS the most. We also believe that a tax on food would be an ineffective way of raising money for the NHS, as it would be very difficult to implement and would be open to abuse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS should be funded by an income tax. Food is essential to life and should not be taxed. Those with higher incomes should pay more towards the NHS, as they are more likely to be able to afford private healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important that the NHS is adequately funded, we do not believe it is appropriate to fund the NHS through a national tax on food. Food is an essential necessity that cannot be substituted, so the tax would have to be shared by the entire population, making it highly regressive. This would have a significant impact on the poorer members of society, who are already facing challenges to their health, and may result in many vulnerable people being unable to afford enough nutritious food to stay healthy. The poor would be disproportionately affected by a food tax as they spend a larger proportion of their income on food. For this reason, we believe that income tax should continue to be the main source of funding for the NHS. However, it is crucial that this tax is implemented fairly, so that the most affluent members of society pay the greatest share. In order to do this, the current system of income tax should be reviewed. 3: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001526.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001526.soc index 532e7462..0d2b4d95 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001526.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001526.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The aim of the National Health Service should be to cure patients with illnesses, but more focus needs to be given to prevention. In the long run, it would be very costly to spend all of our resources on curing illnesses, especially as we can do so much to prevent illnesses and diseases. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “While the focus of the NHS should be on curing patients with illnesses, there is a strong need for the NHS to focus more on prevention. We believe that more money should be invested into prevention measures, and this will pay off in the long run. The first step is to promote the message that prevention is more important than cure. The next step is to take action, which includes funding campaigns to educate the public about health, including healthy eating and anti-smoking campaigns. It will also include funding to prevent the transmission of diseases and epidemics. The government needs to encourage companies to produce and sell healthier food, and to make healthy food more affordable. To do this, the government can give tax breaks to companies that produce healthier food, and charge higher taxes to companies that produce unhealthy food. The government can also tax sugary drinks to reduce their consumption, and use the money to fund health campaigns.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We are all aware that with the advancement of technology, curing illnesses that were once deemed incurable are now possible. While this is great progress, the NHS now needs to shift its focus from cure to prevention in order to really make a difference. This shift must start with a major public health awareness campaign that focuses on preventing illness in the first place. A good place to start is to focus on educating schoolchildren on the importance of a healthy lifestyle. However, this can only be effective if supermarkets start taking responsibility for reducing their stock of junk food and reducing its price, whilst also increasing their stock of healthy food. In the next few years, the NHS must begin funding healthier, cheaper alternatives of junk food, such as low-calorie crisps and chewing gum in primary schools. To prevent the spread of diseases and epidemics, it is also important that we make preventative medicine available to everyone through the NHS. In particular, we must use our health services to facilitate sexual education lessons for young school children to prevent STIs, and to make vaccinations in general more readily available in schools.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Prevention is better than cure. We believe that more money should be invested into prevention measures, and this will pay off in the long run. The first step is to promote the message that prevention is more important than cure. The next step is to take action, which includes funding campaigns to educate the public about health, including healthy eating and anti-smoking campaigns. It will also include funding to prevent the transmission of diseases and epidemics.” The group of participants then had to answer the following questions: 1. What is the most important lesson that you have learned? I think the most important lesson I learned is that it is very important to listen to other people’s opinion and take on board other peoples views before reaching a final consensus. 2. What are the benefits of using the Delphi Technique? I think that the Delphi technique works very well in any decision making situation when a group of people have to reach an agreement. This is because the technique allows the group to listen to each other, make amendments to the final consensus statement, and make sure that the group comes to a consensus. 3. How do you feel about the result of the Delphi process? I was very happy +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The aim of the National Health Service should be to cure patients with illnesses, but more focus needs to be given to prevention. In the long run, it would be very costly to spend all of our resources on curing illnesses, especially as we can do so much to prevent illnesses and diseases. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “While the focus of the NHS should be on curing patients with illnesses, there is a strong need for the NHS to focus more on prevention. We believe that more money should be invested into prevention measures, and this will pay off in the long run. The first step is to promote the message that prevention is more important than cure. The next step is to take action, which includes funding campaigns to educate the public about health, including healthy eating and anti-smoking campaigns. It will also include funding to prevent the transmission of diseases and epidemics. The government needs to encourage companies to produce and sell healthier food, and to make healthy food more affordable. To do this, the government can give tax breaks to companies that produce healthier food, and charge higher taxes to companies that produce unhealthy food. The government can also tax sugary drinks to reduce their consumption, and use the money to fund health campaigns.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We are all aware that with the advancement of technology, curing illnesses that were once deemed incurable are now possible. While this is great progress, the NHS now needs to shift its focus from cure to prevention in order to really make a difference. This shift must start with a major public health awareness campaign that focuses on preventing illness in the first place. A good place to start is to focus on educating schoolchildren on the importance of a healthy lifestyle. However, this can only be effective if supermarkets start taking responsibility for reducing their stock of junk food and reducing its price, whilst also increasing their stock of healthy food. In the next few years, the NHS must begin funding healthier, cheaper alternatives of junk food, such as low-calorie crisps and chewing gum in primary schools. To prevent the spread of diseases and epidemics, it is also important that we make preventative medicine available to everyone through the NHS. In particular, we must use our health services to facilitate sexual education lessons for young school children to prevent STIs, and to make vaccinations in general more readily available in schools.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Prevention is better than cure. We believe that more money should be invested into prevention measures, and this will pay off in the long run. The first step is to promote the message that prevention is more important than cure. The next step is to take action, which includes funding campaigns to educate the public about health, including healthy eating and anti-smoking campaigns. It will also include funding to prevent the transmission of diseases and epidemics.” The group of participants then had to answer the following questions: 1. What is the most important lesson that you have learned? I think the most important lesson I learned is that it is very important to listen to other people’s opinion and take on board other peoples views before reaching a final consensus. 2. What are the benefits of using the Delphi Technique? I think that the Delphi technique works very well in any decision making situation when a group of people have to reach an agreement. This is because the technique allows the group to listen to each other, make amendments to the final consensus statement, and make sure that the group comes to a consensus. 3. How do you feel about the result of the Delphi process? I was very happy 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001527.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001527.soc index 350b85be..ee0e5c3e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001527.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001527.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS should be funded by an increase in income tax, which must be implemented fairly so that the most affluent members of society pay the greatest share. We do not think the NHS should be funded through a national tax on food because this would place an additional burden on lower income groups. In addition to this, poor nutrition has been linked to many health issues that the NHS would be expected to treat, so a food tax may ultimately work against the objective of improving the nation’s health. During the conversation, participants were grouped using different clustering algorithms, from a k-means algorithm to complete-linkage hierarchical clustering. Throughout the discussion, a moderator issued a series of prompts to give structure to the conversation and to encourage more contributions. One such prompt asked participants how much they agreed or disagreed with the draft consensus statement and, in addition, asked if they thought it was worded in a balanced way. Other prompts elicited individual opinions and critiques. Above, the text was divided into “participants”, “critiques”, and “final consensus”. The “participants” section encompasses all of the individual opinions. The “critiques” section describes all of the critiques -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is important that the NHS is adequately funded, we do not believe it is appropriate to fund the NHS through a national tax on food. Food is an essential necessity that cannot be substituted, so the tax would have to be shared by the entire population, making it highly regressive. This would have a significant impact on the poorer members of society, who are already facing challenges to their health, and may result in many vulnerable people being unable to afford enough nutritious food to stay healthy. The poor would be disproportionately affected by a food tax as they spend a larger proportion of their income on food. For this reason, we believe that income tax should continue to be the main source of funding for the NHS. However, it is crucial that this tax is implemented fairly, so that the most affluent members of society pay the greatest share. In order to do this, the current system of income tax should be reviewed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While it is important that the NHS is adequately funded, we do not believe it is appropriate to fund the NHS through a national tax on food. Food is an essential necessity that cannot be substituted, so the tax would have to be shared by the entire population, making it highly regressive. This would have a significant impact on the poorer members of society, who are already facing challenges to their health, and may result in many vulnerable people being unable to afford enough nutritious food to stay healthy. The poor would be disproportionately affected by a food tax as they spend a larger proportion of their income on food. For this reason, we believe that income tax should continue to be the main source of funding for the NHS. However, it is crucial that this tax is implemented fairly, so that the most affluent members of society pay the greatest share. In order to do this, the current system of income tax should be reviewed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the NHS should continue to be funded primarily through income tax. However, we recognise that the current system is inequitable, as those with higher incomes pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax. Therefore, we believe that the current system of income tax should be reviewed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS should be funded by an increase in income tax, which must be implemented fairly so that the most affluent members of society pay the greatest share. We do not think the NHS should be funded through a national tax on food because this would place an additional burden on lower income groups. In addition to this, poor nutrition has been linked to many health issues that the NHS would be expected to treat, so a food tax may ultimately work against the objective of improving the nation’s health. During the conversation, participants were grouped using different clustering algorithms, from a k-means algorithm to complete-linkage hierarchical clustering. Throughout the discussion, a moderator issued a series of prompts to give structure to the conversation and to encourage more contributions. One such prompt asked participants how much they agreed or disagreed with the draft consensus statement and, in addition, asked if they thought it was worded in a balanced way. Other prompts elicited individual opinions and critiques. Above, the text was divided into “participants”, “critiques”, and “final consensus”. The “participants” section encompasses all of the individual opinions. The “critiques” section describes all of the critiques +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is important that the NHS is adequately funded, we do not believe it is appropriate to fund the NHS through a national tax on food. Food is an essential necessity that cannot be substituted, so the tax would have to be shared by the entire population, making it highly regressive. This would have a significant impact on the poorer members of society, who are already facing challenges to their health, and may result in many vulnerable people being unable to afford enough nutritious food to stay healthy. The poor would be disproportionately affected by a food tax as they spend a larger proportion of their income on food. For this reason, we believe that income tax should continue to be the main source of funding for the NHS. However, it is crucial that this tax is implemented fairly, so that the most affluent members of society pay the greatest share. In order to do this, the current system of income tax should be reviewed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While it is important that the NHS is adequately funded, we do not believe it is appropriate to fund the NHS through a national tax on food. Food is an essential necessity that cannot be substituted, so the tax would have to be shared by the entire population, making it highly regressive. This would have a significant impact on the poorer members of society, who are already facing challenges to their health, and may result in many vulnerable people being unable to afford enough nutritious food to stay healthy. The poor would be disproportionately affected by a food tax as they spend a larger proportion of their income on food. For this reason, we believe that income tax should continue to be the main source of funding for the NHS. However, it is crucial that this tax is implemented fairly, so that the most affluent members of society pay the greatest share. In order to do this, the current system of income tax should be reviewed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the NHS should continue to be funded primarily through income tax. However, we recognise that the current system is inequitable, as those with higher incomes pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax. Therefore, we believe that the current system of income tax should be reviewed. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001528.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001528.soc index 0c8e5ea7..aeb1d315 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001528.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001528.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account, as they are far too young to be exposed to the social media world. Children should first be exposed to the dangers of the real world and be guided to navigate it before being exposed to the dangers of the social media world. It is also dangerous for children to be given a platform where their bodies are on display, as they can easily be manipulated by it. This is especially true for body image conscious teenagers. Moreover, they can easily be exposed to predators who may stalk or manipulate them. Children are much too easily susceptible to these dangers, and their minds are not yet developed enough to understand it. This is the stance that we, as a group of participants, have come to after a long debate and discussion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 13 should not have their own Instagram account. The media driven nature of the platform makes it the perfect platform for children to be influenced and led astray, especially with the potential of being bullied and manipulated by older adults. Children should first be exposed to the world and its dangers and guided and protected before they are exposed to the online world. It is the wild west and children should not be venturing off into it alone. Conclusion: In conclusion, we can see from this activity that despite all of the initial disagreements, the group of participants were able to reach a mutual consensus by discussing and deliberating their opinions. I feel that if this was done in the real world, with all of the participants in the same room, there would be far less disagreement and the process would have been more efficient and more agreeable to the participants. It could also be argued that this activity was a success because the question was non-partisan and the participants had an open mind going in. The topic could also be one that the participants had some prior knowledge of, and it may have been easier to come to a consensus. Social media has definitely had its effects on society, and we can see from the activity -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be exposed to the real world before the online world of Instagram. First, they should be equipped to face the online world safely and responsibly. Second, Instagram is dominated by images and can easily set a detrimental standard. Young children are vulnerable to being influenced and led astray by the images on the platform, where the only goal for most is to achieve likes and followers by whatever means necessary. Children who are underdeveloped, whether it be physically or intellectually, and especially those who are body conscious, will be at a particular disadvantage and are more susceptible to fall into bad habits. Third, there are dangers involved with the platform as children can easily be manipulated or exposed to predatory figures who exploit their naivety. Parents should keep a close eye on what children do on the internet and use this opportunity to educate children on safe and responsible use of the internet, as well as how to respond to dangers like bullying and predatory activity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account, as they are far too young to be exposed to the social media world. Children should first be exposed to the dangers of the real world and be guided to navigate it before being exposed to the dangers of the social media world. It is also dangerous for children to be given a platform where their bodies are on display, as they can easily be manipulated by it. This is especially true for body image conscious teenagers. Moreover, they can easily be exposed to predators who may stalk or manipulate them. Children are much too easily susceptible to these dangers, and their minds are not yet developed enough to understand it. This is the stance that we, as a group of participants, have come to after a long debate and discussion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 13 should not have their own Instagram account. The media driven nature of the platform makes it the perfect platform for children to be influenced and led astray, especially with the potential of being bullied and manipulated by older adults. Children should first be exposed to the world and its dangers and guided and protected before they are exposed to the online world. It is the wild west and children should not be venturing off into it alone. Conclusion: In conclusion, we can see from this activity that despite all of the initial disagreements, the group of participants were able to reach a mutual consensus by discussing and deliberating their opinions. I feel that if this was done in the real world, with all of the participants in the same room, there would be far less disagreement and the process would have been more efficient and more agreeable to the participants. It could also be argued that this activity was a success because the question was non-partisan and the participants had an open mind going in. The topic could also be one that the participants had some prior knowledge of, and it may have been easier to come to a consensus. Social media has definitely had its effects on society, and we can see from the activity +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be exposed to the real world before the online world of Instagram. First, they should be equipped to face the online world safely and responsibly. Second, Instagram is dominated by images and can easily set a detrimental standard. Young children are vulnerable to being influenced and led astray by the images on the platform, where the only goal for most is to achieve likes and followers by whatever means necessary. Children who are underdeveloped, whether it be physically or intellectually, and especially those who are body conscious, will be at a particular disadvantage and are more susceptible to fall into bad habits. Third, there are dangers involved with the platform as children can easily be manipulated or exposed to predatory figures who exploit their naivety. Parents should keep a close eye on what children do on the internet and use this opportunity to educate children on safe and responsible use of the internet, as well as how to respond to dangers like bullying and predatory activity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001529.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001529.soc index 7ae41e87..3a8f573f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001529.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001529.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that in general, the idea of allowing colleagues to trade holiday entitlement is a good idea. The benefits of this idea are that it would increase flexibility in the workplace and would improve work-life balance. It would also improve workplace morale and create a supportive working environment. There are however some potential negatives to this idea. These include the potential for favouritism and inequality, which could lead to bullying. There is also the potential for significant abuse of such a system. In order to combat these potential negatives, it is important that the system is properly regulated and that there are clear guidelines in place to ensure that the system is not abused. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of allowing employees to donate holiday days to colleagues is not a good one. The idea of having the ability to donate holiday days is not necessarily a bad one, but it is not something that should be encouraged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that the idea could be misused and would open up avenues for bullying to occur. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to a system where workers are allowed to donate holiday days to each other. One of the advantages is that the system would promote an increased level of cooperation and would also generate a more positive and flexible work environment. The system would allow employees to develop and maintain better working relationships. The system would also have the potential to lead to a reduction in costs to the company by reducing employee absenteeism and thereby generating more productive work time. A major disadvantage of such a system would be that in extreme cases, this could really promote inequality and lead to favouritism. There could also be significant abuses of such a system if not properly regulated. Another disadvantage is that there may be pressure from colleagues to give up holiday days, especially if they are in a situation where they have not been able to take time off for a while. In extreme cases this could lead to an abuse of power. Another disadvantage of the system is that it could potentially lead to a reduction in staff at work and therefore have a negative impact on productivity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that in general, the idea of allowing colleagues to trade holiday entitlement is a good idea. The benefits of this idea are that it would increase flexibility in the workplace and would improve work-life balance. It would also improve workplace morale and create a supportive working environment. There are however some potential negatives to this idea. These include the potential for favouritism and inequality, which could lead to bullying. There is also the potential for significant abuse of such a system. In order to combat these potential negatives, it is important that the system is properly regulated and that there are clear guidelines in place to ensure that the system is not abused. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of allowing employees to donate holiday days to colleagues is not a good one. The idea of having the ability to donate holiday days is not necessarily a bad one, but it is not something that should be encouraged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that the idea could be misused and would open up avenues for bullying to occur. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to a system where workers are allowed to donate holiday days to each other. One of the advantages is that the system would promote an increased level of cooperation and would also generate a more positive and flexible work environment. The system would allow employees to develop and maintain better working relationships. The system would also have the potential to lead to a reduction in costs to the company by reducing employee absenteeism and thereby generating more productive work time. A major disadvantage of such a system would be that in extreme cases, this could really promote inequality and lead to favouritism. There could also be significant abuses of such a system if not properly regulated. Another disadvantage is that there may be pressure from colleagues to give up holiday days, especially if they are in a situation where they have not been able to take time off for a while. In extreme cases this could lead to an abuse of power. Another disadvantage of the system is that it could potentially lead to a reduction in staff at work and therefore have a negative impact on productivity. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001530.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001530.soc index dc33e873..41a7876b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001530.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001530.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. The employer should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime, however they should consider the crime and how it relates to the job. The employer should also consider the employees previous employment history and how long ago the crime took place. The employer should also consider how long the employee has worked for them and if they have been a good employee. The employer should also consider if the employee has disclosed the crime and if they have disclosed it, how long after they have been employed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime, however this should be on a case by case basis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. We agree that it is the employer’s responsibility to hire the right person for the job and a crime could affect that in many ways. They should, however, have the right to do so, as long as they do it in a legal and fair way. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. The employer should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime, however they should consider the crime and how it relates to the job. The employer should also consider the employees previous employment history and how long ago the crime took place. The employer should also consider how long the employee has worked for them and if they have been a good employee. The employer should also consider if the employee has disclosed the crime and if they have disclosed it, how long after they have been employed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime, however this should be on a case by case basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. We agree that it is the employer’s responsibility to hire the right person for the job and a crime could affect that in many ways. They should, however, have the right to do so, as long as they do it in a legal and fair way. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001531.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001531.soc index ff46c056..18935381 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001531.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001531.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime, if they have good reason to do so and as long as the method and decision is both fair and legal. The exercise illustrated the issues with the Delphi Method. The participants often did not even bother looking at the comments from others (a very common problem in face-to-face discussions as well), and the participants had a very one-sided view on the topic. However, despite these issues, the method, in this case, worked well, and many other similar methods of group agreement have more severe drawbacks, where, for example, people get easily offended by negative comments (as also happens in some face-to-face discussions). In addition to some of the advantages of the method described above, there were also disadvantages encountered during this exercise. One of the major ones was the effort it took to complete the task. People did not write in a lot of detail in their comments (in the responses they sometimes simply made several sentences). If, however, they had the participant numbers of the comments, they could more easily find specific comments. Instead, the comments took a long time to sift through (they were not well organised) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that it is the employer’s responsibility to hire the right person for the job and a crime could affect that in many ways. We feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Consensus statement from group of participants: Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. We agree that it is the employer’s responsibility to hire the right person for the job and a crime could affect that in many ways. However, employers should have the right to do so, as long as they do it in a legal and fair way. After all, it is the employer’s responsibility to decide whether an employee is fit for the job, and a criminal conviction could impact that decision. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. We agree that it is the employer’s responsibility to hire the right person for the job and a crime could affect that in many ways. They should, however, have the right to do so, as long as they do it in a legal and fair way. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime, if they have good reason to do so and as long as the method and decision is both fair and legal. The exercise illustrated the issues with the Delphi Method. The participants often did not even bother looking at the comments from others (a very common problem in face-to-face discussions as well), and the participants had a very one-sided view on the topic. However, despite these issues, the method, in this case, worked well, and many other similar methods of group agreement have more severe drawbacks, where, for example, people get easily offended by negative comments (as also happens in some face-to-face discussions). In addition to some of the advantages of the method described above, there were also disadvantages encountered during this exercise. One of the major ones was the effort it took to complete the task. People did not write in a lot of detail in their comments (in the responses they sometimes simply made several sentences). If, however, they had the participant numbers of the comments, they could more easily find specific comments. Instead, the comments took a long time to sift through (they were not well organised) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that it is the employer’s responsibility to hire the right person for the job and a crime could affect that in many ways. We feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Consensus statement from group of participants: Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. We agree that it is the employer’s responsibility to hire the right person for the job and a crime could affect that in many ways. However, employers should have the right to do so, as long as they do it in a legal and fair way. After all, it is the employer’s responsibility to decide whether an employee is fit for the job, and a criminal conviction could impact that decision. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. We agree that it is the employer’s responsibility to hire the right person for the job and a crime could affect that in many ways. They should, however, have the right to do so, as long as they do it in a legal and fair way. We also feel that if the person was employed before they were convicted of the crime, then it is the responsibility of the employer to re-evaluate their job position and decide whether or not they still wish to keep them in their employment. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001532.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001532.soc index 2854833f..3b254781 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001532.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001532.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that there is a possibility that humans could colonise the moon in the future, but the likelihood of this occurring is low. We think that although there may be a possibility that humans will ever colonise the moon, it is highly unlikely. We think that for this to occur, we would have to get to a point where our planet is no longer habitable for human life, and there is no alternative. However, there are too many factors that could prevent this from happening. We do not think that there is a need for this to happen, and we believe that we could solve any problems that occur on this planet without the need for us to colonise the moon. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We do not think that we will be able to colonise the moon, but if we were able to, we would want to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have the technology to colonise the moon, but we don't have the will to do so. The moon is a natural next step for us to take in terms of exploring our universe, but the cost of doing so is too great for us to justify doing so. The moon is also not habitable for human beings, and would require extensive terraforming in order to make it suitable for human habitation. This is not a process that we are likely to be able to do in the near future, and so the moon is not a viable option for human colonisation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, yes, we could colonise the moon. Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that there is a possibility that humans could colonise the moon in the future, but the likelihood of this occurring is low. We think that although there may be a possibility that humans will ever colonise the moon, it is highly unlikely. We think that for this to occur, we would have to get to a point where our planet is no longer habitable for human life, and there is no alternative. However, there are too many factors that could prevent this from happening. We do not think that there is a need for this to happen, and we believe that we could solve any problems that occur on this planet without the need for us to colonise the moon. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We do not think that we will be able to colonise the moon, but if we were able to, we would want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have the technology to colonise the moon, but we don't have the will to do so. The moon is a natural next step for us to take in terms of exploring our universe, but the cost of doing so is too great for us to justify doing so. The moon is also not habitable for human beings, and would require extensive terraforming in order to make it suitable for human habitation. This is not a process that we are likely to be able to do in the near future, and so the moon is not a viable option for human colonisation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, yes, we could colonise the moon. Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001533.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001533.soc index 51474b4d..553eb441 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001533.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001533.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should try to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point rather than completely decarbonise. This is because complete decarbonisation is a goal that is unattainable at this point in time and would cause a great shock to many people. Aiming to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point is more attainable, and once that goal has been achieved, it could be the basis for which to expand on and achieve complete decarbonisation in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of reducing carbon emissions to a certain point, as opposed to complete decarbonisation. This is because complete decarbonisation is not currently possible, and so would not be a realistic goal. Reducing carbon emissions to a certain point is more realistic, and so would be more likely to be achieved. However, the group felt that the 'certain point' should be continually lowered, so that carbon emissions are always being reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should aim to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point, as complete decarbonisation would be very difficult to achieve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should try to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point rather than completely decarbonise. This is because complete decarbonisation is a goal that is unattainable at this point in time and would cause a great shock to many people. Aiming to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point is more attainable, and once that goal has been achieved, it could be the basis for which to expand on and achieve complete decarbonisation in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing carbon emissions to a certain point, as opposed to complete decarbonisation. This is because complete decarbonisation is not currently possible, and so would not be a realistic goal. Reducing carbon emissions to a certain point is more realistic, and so would be more likely to be achieved. However, the group felt that the 'certain point' should be continually lowered, so that carbon emissions are always being reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should aim to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point, as complete decarbonisation would be very difficult to achieve. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001534.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001534.soc index f4e2acee..1f78a0aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001534.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001534.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that BBC is a world leading broadcasting company that is trusted by millions of people. We feel that the broadcasting company should be a leader and champion of free speech. While there will always be some people who find some of the broadcasted content offensive, they are most likely a small percentage of the whole. The majority of people trust the BBC and believe that they have the viewers best interest at heart. We feel that it is necessary to show the truth and reality of life, whether some people find it offensive or not. The truth is the most important thing to show and the BBC should be responsible for broadcasting it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is right for the BBC to broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive, but not if it is unnecessary and has no benefit to viewers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the BBC should broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. However, they should take into account the severity of the content and how many people find it offensive. If it is deemed to be too inappropriate for the audience, they should avoid broadcasting it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the BBC should be broadcasting content that some people consider to be too offensive. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the BBC is a public service and should be reflecting the views of the public, not just a select few. Secondly, the BBC is a trusted source of news and information and should not be afraid to show the reality of the world, whether some people like it or not. Thirdly, there are many different views on what is considered to be offensive, and the BBC should not be afraid to show things that some people may find offensive, but others may not. Finally, the BBC is a large organisation with many employees, and it would be very difficult to make everyone happy all of the time. Therefore, it is important that the BBC is willing to show things that some people may find offensive, as long as they are in the public interest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that BBC is a world leading broadcasting company that is trusted by millions of people. We feel that the broadcasting company should be a leader and champion of free speech. While there will always be some people who find some of the broadcasted content offensive, they are most likely a small percentage of the whole. The majority of people trust the BBC and believe that they have the viewers best interest at heart. We feel that it is necessary to show the truth and reality of life, whether some people find it offensive or not. The truth is the most important thing to show and the BBC should be responsible for broadcasting it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is right for the BBC to broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive, but not if it is unnecessary and has no benefit to viewers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the BBC should broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. However, they should take into account the severity of the content and how many people find it offensive. If it is deemed to be too inappropriate for the audience, they should avoid broadcasting it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the BBC should be broadcasting content that some people consider to be too offensive. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the BBC is a public service and should be reflecting the views of the public, not just a select few. Secondly, the BBC is a trusted source of news and information and should not be afraid to show the reality of the world, whether some people like it or not. Thirdly, there are many different views on what is considered to be offensive, and the BBC should not be afraid to show things that some people may find offensive, but others may not. Finally, the BBC is a large organisation with many employees, and it would be very difficult to make everyone happy all of the time. Therefore, it is important that the BBC is willing to show things that some people may find offensive, as long as they are in the public interest. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001535.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001535.soc index 3dd00e22..b86134c4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001535.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001535.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, I think we shouldn't change the terminology. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of keeping the term sexual harassment. The group felt that the term sexual harassment is a more serious term and one that is widely recognised. The group felt that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe a broader range of behaviours, some of which may not be as serious as others. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that changing the terminology would minimise the severity of the issue and therefore should not be changed. However, this does not mean that the term ‘sexual harassment’ cannot be redefined. The definition of sexual harassment does not cover all instances of ‘unwanted sexual attention’ and therefore we should be aware of the fact that there is a spectrum of different actions which are sexual in nature and unwanted by the recipient. The importance of the legal definition of sexual harassment should not be understated and should be considered when redefining the term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not replace the term “sexual harassment” with “unwanted sexual attention”. We feel that the term “sexual harassment” is a more serious term and is therefore more likely to be taken seriously. The term “unwanted sexual attention” could be seen as a less serious term and could therefore be taken less seriously. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, I think we shouldn't change the terminology. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of keeping the term sexual harassment. The group felt that the term sexual harassment is a more serious term and one that is widely recognised. The group felt that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe a broader range of behaviours, some of which may not be as serious as others. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that changing the terminology would minimise the severity of the issue and therefore should not be changed. However, this does not mean that the term ‘sexual harassment’ cannot be redefined. The definition of sexual harassment does not cover all instances of ‘unwanted sexual attention’ and therefore we should be aware of the fact that there is a spectrum of different actions which are sexual in nature and unwanted by the recipient. The importance of the legal definition of sexual harassment should not be understated and should be considered when redefining the term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not replace the term “sexual harassment” with “unwanted sexual attention”. We feel that the term “sexual harassment” is a more serious term and is therefore more likely to be taken seriously. The term “unwanted sexual attention” could be seen as a less serious term and could therefore be taken less seriously. 2: 2,4,3,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001536.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001536.soc index 28e1c1bd..3f307963 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001536.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001536.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not collect personal data regarding its citizens as this will allow the government to use this data to their own advantage. This can be seen in the past where governments have used data to lie to the people and use the data to their own advantage. This is not in the interest of the people and will not help in the development of a country. The government should only collect data on the citizens if it is completely anonymous and will not allow the government to gain any personal information about the people. If the data collected is anonymous, it will not allow the government to build fake statistics based on 'real' information which doesn't exist. This will help the government to remain truthful to the people and to help build a stronger relationship between the government and the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the collection of personal data by the government is not wrong, but it is important that the data is used in a responsible way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not wrong for the government to collect personal data about its citizens. However, we would like to see the following principles: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in agreement that it is wrong for the government to collect personal data about its citizens without prior knowledge. There are some forms of personal data that are important for the government to have, but they should be collected and stored in an anonymous way. The data should be collected, stored and destroyed after a reasonable period of time unless it is needed to help guide the government in some way. If the government decides to use the data to help guide decisions, then they should make this clear to the citizens, explaining exactly how the data will be used and why. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not collect personal data regarding its citizens as this will allow the government to use this data to their own advantage. This can be seen in the past where governments have used data to lie to the people and use the data to their own advantage. This is not in the interest of the people and will not help in the development of a country. The government should only collect data on the citizens if it is completely anonymous and will not allow the government to gain any personal information about the people. If the data collected is anonymous, it will not allow the government to build fake statistics based on 'real' information which doesn't exist. This will help the government to remain truthful to the people and to help build a stronger relationship between the government and the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the collection of personal data by the government is not wrong, but it is important that the data is used in a responsible way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not wrong for the government to collect personal data about its citizens. However, we would like to see the following principles: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in agreement that it is wrong for the government to collect personal data about its citizens without prior knowledge. There are some forms of personal data that are important for the government to have, but they should be collected and stored in an anonymous way. The data should be collected, stored and destroyed after a reasonable period of time unless it is needed to help guide the government in some way. If the government decides to use the data to help guide decisions, then they should make this clear to the citizens, explaining exactly how the data will be used and why. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001537.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001537.soc index ff9e00f3..034d0f65 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001537.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001537.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Taxes on fuel should be increased to reduce pollution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Taxes on fuel should be increased, but only for large transport companies and not individuals. The taxes should be spent on improving public transport and making it more accessible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on fuel, as a means to reduce pollution. However, the group felt that the tax should not be increased in isolation, but as part of a package of measures to reduce pollution. The group was concerned that an increase in fuel taxes would disproportionately impact lower income households, and that the tax should be designed in a way that would ensure that it was not regressive. The group was also in favour of taxing large transport companies rather than individuals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the tax on fuel should be increased in order to reduce pollution. We are in the midst of a climate emergency and are not doing nearly enough to combat it. The tax on fuel should be higher on those who are the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions and should incentivise moving away from petrol and diesel. It should also be targeted at those who have the means to pay for it, and who would not be too adversely affected by the tax. Those who are on a lower income, or live in rural areas where the only means of transport is private vehicles should not be expected to pay the tax as it would be a disproportionate burden. In addition to increasing taxes on fuel, we should be investing in better public transport infrastructure. More houses should be given access to natural gas for heating, and less should be relying on coal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Taxes on fuel should be increased to reduce pollution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Taxes on fuel should be increased, but only for large transport companies and not individuals. The taxes should be spent on improving public transport and making it more accessible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on fuel, as a means to reduce pollution. However, the group felt that the tax should not be increased in isolation, but as part of a package of measures to reduce pollution. The group was concerned that an increase in fuel taxes would disproportionately impact lower income households, and that the tax should be designed in a way that would ensure that it was not regressive. The group was also in favour of taxing large transport companies rather than individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the tax on fuel should be increased in order to reduce pollution. We are in the midst of a climate emergency and are not doing nearly enough to combat it. The tax on fuel should be higher on those who are the biggest contributors of CO2 emissions and should incentivise moving away from petrol and diesel. It should also be targeted at those who have the means to pay for it, and who would not be too adversely affected by the tax. Those who are on a lower income, or live in rural areas where the only means of transport is private vehicles should not be expected to pay the tax as it would be a disproportionate burden. In addition to increasing taxes on fuel, we should be investing in better public transport infrastructure. More houses should be given access to natural gas for heating, and less should be relying on coal. 4: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001538.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001538.soc index d163fea1..e59f93a2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001538.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001538.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not build HS2 because it is a blight to the landscape and is harmful to the environment. Wildlife will be greatly affected. It offers to reduce travel time from London to Birmingham by 20 minutes, which seems largely unimpressive. The work is cutting through large areas of previously attractive Midlands countryside and replacing it with much less attractive train line. The cost is in the billions and I believe the benefits to the UK have been exaggerated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: HS2 should be built because the railway line will make travel easier, especially to more remote places, and make these places much more accessible for travel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that HS2 should be built because the trains will be able to travel faster and it will reduce the journey time. Also, it will be beneficial for the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the HS2 project. They believed that the benefits of the project had been greatly exaggerated and that the cost of the project was far too high. They also believed that the environmental impact of the project would be very negative and would have a detrimental impact on the wildlife in the areas through which the line would pass. They also believed that the project would have a very negative impact on the landscape of the areas through which the line would pass. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not build HS2 because it is a blight to the landscape and is harmful to the environment. Wildlife will be greatly affected. It offers to reduce travel time from London to Birmingham by 20 minutes, which seems largely unimpressive. The work is cutting through large areas of previously attractive Midlands countryside and replacing it with much less attractive train line. The cost is in the billions and I believe the benefits to the UK have been exaggerated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - HS2 should be built because the railway line will make travel easier, especially to more remote places, and make these places much more accessible for travel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that HS2 should be built because the trains will be able to travel faster and it will reduce the journey time. Also, it will be beneficial for the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the HS2 project. They believed that the benefits of the project had been greatly exaggerated and that the cost of the project was far too high. They also believed that the environmental impact of the project would be very negative and would have a detrimental impact on the wildlife in the areas through which the line would pass. They also believed that the project would have a very negative impact on the landscape of the areas through which the line would pass. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001539.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001539.soc index 2cd35229..a86fb8ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001539.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001539.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The water should have fluoride, people should be aware of the health benefits. Some people may have side effects but they should not be worried about it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the addition of fluoride to our water system seems like an effective and cheap way to improve public health, its indiscriminate nature means that its individual use is not as regulated as other methods of consuming fluoride. We also feel that the potential benefit to individual health from fluoride is not widely known, so more information should be provided to the public on the positive health effects of fluoride. We also feel that water is an important part of our diet and so its addition to our water should not be tampered with unless it is absolutely necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, fluoride is a good thing. However, people should be given the choice of whether they want fluoride in their water or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of fluoride in water. The group felt that fluoride in water was an important public health measure and that fluoride had been proven to be effective in improving oral hygiene. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride was a natural mineral and that the health benefits outweighed any concerns about individual consent and government overreach. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it was important to include it in water. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The water should have fluoride, people should be aware of the health benefits. Some people may have side effects but they should not be worried about it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the addition of fluoride to our water system seems like an effective and cheap way to improve public health, its indiscriminate nature means that its individual use is not as regulated as other methods of consuming fluoride. We also feel that the potential benefit to individual health from fluoride is not widely known, so more information should be provided to the public on the positive health effects of fluoride. We also feel that water is an important part of our diet and so its addition to our water should not be tampered with unless it is absolutely necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, fluoride is a good thing. However, people should be given the choice of whether they want fluoride in their water or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of fluoride in water. The group felt that fluoride in water was an important public health measure and that fluoride had been proven to be effective in improving oral hygiene. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride was a natural mineral and that the health benefits outweighed any concerns about individual consent and government overreach. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it was important to include it in water. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it 2: 4,2,1,3 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001540.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001540.soc index 1fe3107d..a35e96fb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001540.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001540.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, this should be subject to the following conditions: - There must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug dealing. - The police must have sufficient information to justify this suspicion. - The police must have a clear policy on the use of stop and search powers and this must be subject to independent review. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is possible for police to use their powers to stop and search for drugs in a way that is acceptable and in the best interests of all citizens, however they must not do so simply on the basis of where a person is or the ethnicity of a person. They must do so on the basis of behavioural observations of an individual or individuals that arouse suspicion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, this should only be done if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug dealing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, this should be subject to the following conditions: - There must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug dealing. - The police must have sufficient information to justify this suspicion. - The police must have a clear policy on the use of stop and search powers and this must be subject to independent review. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is possible for police to use their powers to stop and search for drugs in a way that is acceptable and in the best interests of all citizens, however they must not do so simply on the basis of where a person is or the ethnicity of a person. They must do so on the basis of behavioural observations of an individual or individuals that arouse suspicion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, this should only be done if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug dealing. 5: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001541.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001541.soc index 28279d02..fcb85d10 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001541.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001541.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was in agreement that free public transport would be beneficial to society. It was recognised that it would be better for the environment, better for people on lower incomes, and encourage people to be more active. It was also recognised that free public transport would make it easier for people to get to and from places and it would encourage more people to use public transport instead of driving. However, the group recognised that providing free public transport would be difficult to fund and tax payers would be expected to foot the bill. The group was also in agreement that free public transport would lead to more people using public transport, which could cause overcrowding and delays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is the opinion of the group that the state should not provide free public transport as it is considered too expensive and impractical. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the state should provide free public transport. We think that it would be beneficial for the environment and for people's health as it would encourage people to use their cars less. It would also be good for the economy as it would increase footfall in shops and encourage people to spend more. We also think that it would be good for the people of the state as it would mean that people who can't afford public transport could get out and about more. We also think that it would be good for the state as it would mean that they would have to spend less money on roads and parking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the state should provide free public transport to those that are vulnerable and have disabilities. We also think that they should provide reasonable costs for others to use transport as it is very expensive for everyone and it shouldn't be if they're trying to reduce carbon emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was in agreement that free public transport would be beneficial to society. It was recognised that it would be better for the environment, better for people on lower incomes, and encourage people to be more active. It was also recognised that free public transport would make it easier for people to get to and from places and it would encourage more people to use public transport instead of driving. However, the group recognised that providing free public transport would be difficult to fund and tax payers would be expected to foot the bill. The group was also in agreement that free public transport would lead to more people using public transport, which could cause overcrowding and delays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is the opinion of the group that the state should not provide free public transport as it is considered too expensive and impractical. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the state should provide free public transport. We think that it would be beneficial for the environment and for people's health as it would encourage people to use their cars less. It would also be good for the economy as it would increase footfall in shops and encourage people to spend more. We also think that it would be good for the people of the state as it would mean that people who can't afford public transport could get out and about more. We also think that it would be good for the state as it would mean that they would have to spend less money on roads and parking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the state should provide free public transport to those that are vulnerable and have disabilities. We also think that they should provide reasonable costs for others to use transport as it is very expensive for everyone and it shouldn't be if they're trying to reduce carbon emissions. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001542.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001542.soc index c820d008..0d6bfbfd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001542.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001542.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: It is not the lack of technology that is currently preventing us from colonising the moon but the lack of a need to do so. We do not need to colonise the moon in order to expand our human presence beyond this planet, and, to do so, would be an extremely costly and potentially unfruitful exercise that would do more to drain resources than they would contribute to the whole of humanity. If human beings are forced to leave this planet at some point, due to an ecological catastrophe, we do not have the technology and resources to do so. In these conditions, the moon would not be the most viable option for an alternative to the planet. An alternative life outside of the planet would be in fact a waste of resources, both in terms of the work we would have to do to settle on a moon and the work we would have to do once there to make it habitable for human beings. Discussion 3: In this discussion, a group of participants debated what they thought about the book "Walden" and the other writings of Thoreau. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The moon is not a natural next step in the evolution of human civilisation. It is not a natural next step because of its location, its distance, its lack of resources, and its lack of atmosphere. Humans are not naturally inclined to move to the moon, and so it is very unlikely that we will ever colonise the moon. However, if the human race becomes overcrowded, we may need to colonise the moon in order to sustain the human race. If this becomes necessary, then the technology will be available for us to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the technology to colonise the moon is developing rapidly, and may be available for use in the future. The most significant challenges facing the colonisation of the moon are habitability and cost. As we know, the moon is a desolate, dry, airless place, with no atmosphere. It also has only half the gravity of the earth. Both of these aspects create a less than perfect environment for human habitation and this would require significant scientific technology and innovation to overcome. With the rising costs of living and labour, colonising the moon would be significantly expensive, and the returns on the costs of colonising the moon for human habitation do not yet appear to be cost effective. It seems that at present, there is a lack of interest and drive from the government and industry to make such a move, due to it not being financially viable. There is certainly a need for people to colonise another planet, given how overcrowded the planet we are on now is, but the most likely move for such a migration is to Mars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have the technology to colonise the moon, but we don't have the will to do so. The moon is a natural next step for us to take in terms of exploring our universe, but the cost of doing so is too great for us to justify doing so. The moon is also not habitable for human beings, and would require extensive terraforming in order to make it suitable for human habitation. This is not a process that we are likely to be able to do in the near future, and so the moon is not a viable option for human colonisation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: It is not the lack of technology that is currently preventing us from colonising the moon but the lack of a need to do so. We do not need to colonise the moon in order to expand our human presence beyond this planet, and, to do so, would be an extremely costly and potentially unfruitful exercise that would do more to drain resources than they would contribute to the whole of humanity. If human beings are forced to leave this planet at some point, due to an ecological catastrophe, we do not have the technology and resources to do so. In these conditions, the moon would not be the most viable option for an alternative to the planet. An alternative life outside of the planet would be in fact a waste of resources, both in terms of the work we would have to do to settle on a moon and the work we would have to do once there to make it habitable for human beings. Discussion 3: In this discussion, a group of participants debated what they thought about the book "Walden" and the other writings of Thoreau. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The moon is not a natural next step in the evolution of human civilisation. It is not a natural next step because of its location, its distance, its lack of resources, and its lack of atmosphere. Humans are not naturally inclined to move to the moon, and so it is very unlikely that we will ever colonise the moon. However, if the human race becomes overcrowded, we may need to colonise the moon in order to sustain the human race. If this becomes necessary, then the technology will be available for us to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the technology to colonise the moon is developing rapidly, and may be available for use in the future. The most significant challenges facing the colonisation of the moon are habitability and cost. As we know, the moon is a desolate, dry, airless place, with no atmosphere. It also has only half the gravity of the earth. Both of these aspects create a less than perfect environment for human habitation and this would require significant scientific technology and innovation to overcome. With the rising costs of living and labour, colonising the moon would be significantly expensive, and the returns on the costs of colonising the moon for human habitation do not yet appear to be cost effective. It seems that at present, there is a lack of interest and drive from the government and industry to make such a move, due to it not being financially viable. There is certainly a need for people to colonise another planet, given how overcrowded the planet we are on now is, but the most likely move for such a migration is to Mars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have the technology to colonise the moon, but we don't have the will to do so. The moon is a natural next step for us to take in terms of exploring our universe, but the cost of doing so is too great for us to justify doing so. The moon is also not habitable for human beings, and would require extensive terraforming in order to make it suitable for human habitation. This is not a process that we are likely to be able to do in the near future, and so the moon is not a viable option for human colonisation. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001543.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001543.soc index 3025b3ea..47715125 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001543.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001543.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should aim to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point rather than completely decarbonise. This is because complete decarbonisation is a goal that is unattainable at this point in time and would cause a great shock to many people. Aiming to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point is more attainable, and once that goal has been achieved, it could be the basis for which to expand on and achieve complete decarbonisation in the future. Conclusion: In conclusion, we can see from this activity that coming to a consensus view is more than just coming to an agreement on one thing. There is an importance in the process of agreeing and the consensus statement is not necessarily the end result. The consensus statement becomes a living document which is to be evaluated and changed as new ideas come to the fore. What this means for us: This means that when we are making decisions in groups, the final decision is not necessarily the end result. The decision is a living thing which can be debated and changed based on new facts and new knowledge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should aim to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point rather than completely decarbonise. Although complete decarbonisation is a goal that we should be aiming towards, it is not a realistic aim at this point in time. It would require a drastic overhaul of the entire carbon emitting industry, which would have harmful economic effects which would impact too many people and cause a considerable shock to the system, which is not worth the achievable benefits of complete decarbonisation. Aiming to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point is more attainable, and would still bring considerable benefits to the people and planet. Once this is achieved, it can be the basis for which to expand on and achieve complete decarbonisation in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should try to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point rather than completely decarbonise. Complete decarbonisation is not a realistic goal to set at this point in time, as it would create a great shock to the prosperity of many countries and would be difficult to implement. Reducing carbon emissions to a certain point is a more realistic goal, and once this has been achieved it could be used as a basis to expand on and achieve complete decarbonisation in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should aim to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point rather than completely decarbonise. This is because complete decarbonisation is a goal that is unattainable at this point in time and would cause a great shock to many people. Aiming to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point is more attainable, and once that goal has been achieved, it could be the basis for which to expand on and achieve complete decarbonisation in the future. Conclusion: In conclusion, we can see from this activity that coming to a consensus view is more than just coming to an agreement on one thing. There is an importance in the process of agreeing and the consensus statement is not necessarily the end result. The consensus statement becomes a living document which is to be evaluated and changed as new ideas come to the fore. What this means for us: This means that when we are making decisions in groups, the final decision is not necessarily the end result. The decision is a living thing which can be debated and changed based on new facts and new knowledge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should aim to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point rather than completely decarbonise. Although complete decarbonisation is a goal that we should be aiming towards, it is not a realistic aim at this point in time. It would require a drastic overhaul of the entire carbon emitting industry, which would have harmful economic effects which would impact too many people and cause a considerable shock to the system, which is not worth the achievable benefits of complete decarbonisation. Aiming to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point is more attainable, and would still bring considerable benefits to the people and planet. Once this is achieved, it can be the basis for which to expand on and achieve complete decarbonisation in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should try to reduce carbon emissions to a certain point rather than completely decarbonise. Complete decarbonisation is not a realistic goal to set at this point in time, as it would create a great shock to the prosperity of many countries and would be difficult to implement. Reducing carbon emissions to a certain point is a more realistic goal, and once this has been achieved it could be used as a basis to expand on and achieve complete decarbonisation in the future. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001544.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001544.soc index 4442fc0d..52ebff1e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001544.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001544.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. The majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoke contains substances that are harmful to us and, therefore, smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. It is perfectly possible for those who wish to smoke to do so outside of buildings, in an environment where any danger to others is minimised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban smoking in pubs and restaurants. Smoking is a health hazard and should not be inflicted on others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: After a good debate, the group of participants came to the following consensus view: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the ban on smoking in public places such as pubs and restaurants should continue. The evidence of harm caused by passive smoking is clear and this policy has reduced the health risks of people working in pubs and restaurants. Smoking should be seen as a personal choice and the effects of this choice on others must be taken into consideration. The ban should apply to e-cigarettes as they are still a form of smoking and therefore create the same problems as traditional cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. The majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoke contains substances that are harmful to us and, therefore, smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. It is perfectly possible for those who wish to smoke to do so outside of buildings, in an environment where any danger to others is minimised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban smoking in pubs and restaurants. Smoking is a health hazard and should not be inflicted on others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - After a good debate, the group of participants came to the following consensus view: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the ban on smoking in public places such as pubs and restaurants should continue. The evidence of harm caused by passive smoking is clear and this policy has reduced the health risks of people working in pubs and restaurants. Smoking should be seen as a personal choice and the effects of this choice on others must be taken into consideration. The ban should apply to e-cigarettes as they are still a form of smoking and therefore create the same problems as traditional cigarettes. 3: 1,4,2,3 2: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001545.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001545.soc index 319411e5..44ebdf51 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001545.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001545.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of keeping the term sexual harassment. The group felt that the term sexual harassment is a more serious term and one that is widely recognised. Some people felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. Some people felt that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe a broader range of behaviours, some of which may not be as serious as others. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe behaviours that many people might not consider to be serious but may still cause concern. The group felt that the language associated with sexual violence and sexual harassment is so stigmatised and that it would be safer to use existing widely recognised terminology rather than to try to introduce new terms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Sexual harassment is a term that is widely recognised and therefore should not be replaced with unwanted sexual attention. It is recognised in law and would therefore be an appropriate term for legislation to be based upon. The group agreed that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term to describe a wider range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of keeping the term sexual harassment. The group felt that the term sexual harassment is a more serious term and one that is widely recognised. The group felt that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe a broader range of behaviours, some of which may not be as serious as others. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in general agreement that the term sexual harassment is a widely recognised term. The group felt that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe a broader range of behaviours, some of which may not be as serious as others. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. Additionally, the group felt that because the term sexual harassment is already widely recognised it should be kept as it is. Participant critiques of different models: Sexual harassment as a form of intimate partner violence: Group members discussed how the term sexual harassment has previously been regarded as synonymous with intimate partner violence. This interpretation could have damaging consequences for both intimate partner violence and sexual harassment by blurring the lines between the two. Intimate partner violence and sexual harassment are both crimes, with different manifestations and would be best tackled as individual problems as opposed to one blended problem. Regulation, Sexual Harassment and power: The group discussed how one way sexual harassment has previously been conceptualised is as regulation of women. The group found this model problematic because it negates the male gender and the men who +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of keeping the term sexual harassment. The group felt that the term sexual harassment is a more serious term and one that is widely recognised. Some people felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. Some people felt that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe a broader range of behaviours, some of which may not be as serious as others. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe behaviours that many people might not consider to be serious but may still cause concern. The group felt that the language associated with sexual violence and sexual harassment is so stigmatised and that it would be safer to use existing widely recognised terminology rather than to try to introduce new terms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Sexual harassment is a term that is widely recognised and therefore should not be replaced with unwanted sexual attention. It is recognised in law and would therefore be an appropriate term for legislation to be based upon. The group agreed that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term to describe a wider range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of keeping the term sexual harassment. The group felt that the term sexual harassment is a more serious term and one that is widely recognised. The group felt that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe a broader range of behaviours, some of which may not be as serious as others. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in general agreement that the term sexual harassment is a widely recognised term. The group felt that the term unwanted sexual attention could be used to describe a broader range of behaviours, some of which may not be as serious as others. The group felt that unwanted sexual attention could be used as an umbrella term for a range of behaviours, with sexual harassment being one of the more serious behaviours. Additionally, the group felt that because the term sexual harassment is already widely recognised it should be kept as it is. Participant critiques of different models: Sexual harassment as a form of intimate partner violence: Group members discussed how the term sexual harassment has previously been regarded as synonymous with intimate partner violence. This interpretation could have damaging consequences for both intimate partner violence and sexual harassment by blurring the lines between the two. Intimate partner violence and sexual harassment are both crimes, with different manifestations and would be best tackled as individual problems as opposed to one blended problem. Regulation, Sexual Harassment and power: The group discussed how one way sexual harassment has previously been conceptualised is as regulation of women. The group found this model problematic because it negates the male gender and the men who 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001546.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001546.soc index 8c3f2b87..e232dab3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001546.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001546.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the BBC should be broadcasting content that some people consider to be too offensive. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the BBC is a public service and should be reflecting the views of the public, not just a select few. Secondly, the BBC is a trusted source of news and information and should not be afraid to show the reality of the world, whether some people like it or not. Thirdly, there are many different views on what is considered to be offensive, and the BBC should not be afraid to show things that some people may find offensive, but others may not. Finally, the BBC is a large organisation with many employees, and it would be very difficult to make everyone happy all of the time. Therefore, it is important that the BBC is willing to show things that some people may find offensive, as long as they are in the public interest. However, there has to be a limit, and the BBC must consider the impact of the content on their audience. There is some content which is so offensive that it would be irresponsible to show it, as it would cause significant harm to many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC should be broadcasting content that some people consider to be too offensive, and there are good reasons for this. Firstly, the BBC is a public service and should be reflecting the views of the public, not just a select few. Secondly, the BBC is a public broadcaster and should be informing the public on what is happening in the world, including controversial matters. Lastly, there are many different views on what is considered to be offensive, and the BBC should not be afraid to show things that some people may find offensive, but others may not. Thus, the BBC should be prepared to broadcast content that some people may find offensive, as long as it is in the public interest. Lastly, the participants considered the whole process of creating consensus opinions. The following are their experiences of the process. Participant 1: At first we debated a lot about the draft consensus, but having someone moderate the meeting was very beneficial in coming to a conclusion. We were also able to get our opinions across in a clear manner and subsequently make amendments as necessary. Participant 2: Although there was more argument than agreement, it was still a fruitful and interesting experience. I have learned a lot from listening to other people's -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC is a publicly funded organisation that should be serving the needs of the public. The BBC should not shy away from controversial issues. However, consideration should be given to the suitability of the content, in terms of both the subject matter and the time of broadcast, for the intended audience. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the BBC should be broadcasting content that some people consider to be too offensive. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the BBC is a public service and should be reflecting the views of the public, not just a select few. Secondly, the BBC is a trusted source of news and information and should not be afraid to show the reality of the world, whether some people like it or not. Thirdly, whilst there are different views on what is considered to be offensive, some consideration does need to be shown for some material which would be offensive to all. In these instances, the BBC must draw a line. Finally, the BBC is a large organisation with many employees, and it would be very difficult to make everyone happy all of the time. Therefore, it is important that the BBC is willing to show things that some people may find offensive, as long as they are in the public interest. It is necessary for the BBC to balance the fact that it needs to be in the public interest with the fact that the content must also be accurate, and sometimes the two cannot be reconciled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the BBC should be broadcasting content that some people consider to be too offensive. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the BBC is a public service and should be reflecting the views of the public, not just a select few. Secondly, the BBC is a trusted source of news and information and should not be afraid to show the reality of the world, whether some people like it or not. Thirdly, there are many different views on what is considered to be offensive, and the BBC should not be afraid to show things that some people may find offensive, but others may not. Finally, the BBC is a large organisation with many employees, and it would be very difficult to make everyone happy all of the time. Therefore, it is important that the BBC is willing to show things that some people may find offensive, as long as they are in the public interest. However, there has to be a limit, and the BBC must consider the impact of the content on their audience. There is some content which is so offensive that it would be irresponsible to show it, as it would cause significant harm to many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC should be broadcasting content that some people consider to be too offensive, and there are good reasons for this. Firstly, the BBC is a public service and should be reflecting the views of the public, not just a select few. Secondly, the BBC is a public broadcaster and should be informing the public on what is happening in the world, including controversial matters. Lastly, there are many different views on what is considered to be offensive, and the BBC should not be afraid to show things that some people may find offensive, but others may not. Thus, the BBC should be prepared to broadcast content that some people may find offensive, as long as it is in the public interest. Lastly, the participants considered the whole process of creating consensus opinions. The following are their experiences of the process. Participant 1: At first we debated a lot about the draft consensus, but having someone moderate the meeting was very beneficial in coming to a conclusion. We were also able to get our opinions across in a clear manner and subsequently make amendments as necessary. Participant 2: Although there was more argument than agreement, it was still a fruitful and interesting experience. I have learned a lot from listening to other people's +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC is a publicly funded organisation that should be serving the needs of the public. The BBC should not shy away from controversial issues. However, consideration should be given to the suitability of the content, in terms of both the subject matter and the time of broadcast, for the intended audience. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the BBC should be broadcasting content that some people consider to be too offensive. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the BBC is a public service and should be reflecting the views of the public, not just a select few. Secondly, the BBC is a trusted source of news and information and should not be afraid to show the reality of the world, whether some people like it or not. Thirdly, whilst there are different views on what is considered to be offensive, some consideration does need to be shown for some material which would be offensive to all. In these instances, the BBC must draw a line. Finally, the BBC is a large organisation with many employees, and it would be very difficult to make everyone happy all of the time. Therefore, it is important that the BBC is willing to show things that some people may find offensive, as long as they are in the public interest. It is necessary for the BBC to balance the fact that it needs to be in the public interest with the fact that the content must also be accurate, and sometimes the two cannot be reconciled. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001547.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001547.soc index 6f5b89e7..d33af4a4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001547.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001547.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not collect personal data regarding its citizens as this will allow the government to use this data to their own advantage. This can be seen in the past where governments have used data to lie to the people and use the data to their own advantage. This is not in the interest of the people and will not help in the development of a country. The government should only collect data on the citizens if it is completely anonymous and will not allow the government to gain any personal information about the people. If the data collected is anonymous, it will not allow the government to build fake statistics based on 'real' information which doesn't exist. This will help the government to remain truthful to the people and to help build a stronger relationship between the government and the people. Discussion It is evident that in order to answer the research questions, different approaches were needed for the two parts. The two parts of the study are intertwined but operate on different time scales. For Part 1, the questionnaire was answered by many participants, and this information was then analysed in order to formulate the research questions. These research questions were used in Part 2 as the focus of a more detailed qualitative study, with a smaller number of participants. The participants in Part -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is wrong for the government to collect personal data about its citizens as it can manipulate figures and statistics, in which it can use to benefit them to the disadvantage of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not collect personal data regarding its citizens as this will allow the government to use this data to their own advantage. This can be seen in the past where governments have used data to lie to the people and use the data to their own advantage. This is not in the interest of the people and will not help in the development of a country. The government should only collect data on the citizens if it is completely anonymous and will not allow the government to gain any personal information about the people. If the data collected is anonymous, it will not allow the government to build fake statistics based on 'real' information which doesn't exist. This will help the government to remain truthful to the people and to help build a stronger relationship between the government and the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: The government should not collect personal data regarding its citizens as this will allow the government to use this data to their own advantage. This can be seen in the past where governments have used data to lie to the people and use the data to their own advantage. This is not in the interest of the people and will not help in the development of a country. The government should only collect data on the citizens if it is completely anonymous and will not allow the government to gain any personal information about the people. If the data collected is anonymous, it will not allow the government to build fake statistics based on 'real' information which doesn't exist. This will help the government to remain truthful to the people and to help build a stronger relationship between the government and the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not collect personal data regarding its citizens as this will allow the government to use this data to their own advantage. This can be seen in the past where governments have used data to lie to the people and use the data to their own advantage. This is not in the interest of the people and will not help in the development of a country. The government should only collect data on the citizens if it is completely anonymous and will not allow the government to gain any personal information about the people. If the data collected is anonymous, it will not allow the government to build fake statistics based on 'real' information which doesn't exist. This will help the government to remain truthful to the people and to help build a stronger relationship between the government and the people. Discussion It is evident that in order to answer the research questions, different approaches were needed for the two parts. The two parts of the study are intertwined but operate on different time scales. For Part 1, the questionnaire was answered by many participants, and this information was then analysed in order to formulate the research questions. These research questions were used in Part 2 as the focus of a more detailed qualitative study, with a smaller number of participants. The participants in Part +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is wrong for the government to collect personal data about its citizens as it can manipulate figures and statistics, in which it can use to benefit them to the disadvantage of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not collect personal data regarding its citizens as this will allow the government to use this data to their own advantage. This can be seen in the past where governments have used data to lie to the people and use the data to their own advantage. This is not in the interest of the people and will not help in the development of a country. The government should only collect data on the citizens if it is completely anonymous and will not allow the government to gain any personal information about the people. If the data collected is anonymous, it will not allow the government to build fake statistics based on 'real' information which doesn't exist. This will help the government to remain truthful to the people and to help build a stronger relationship between the government and the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: The government should not collect personal data regarding its citizens as this will allow the government to use this data to their own advantage. This can be seen in the past where governments have used data to lie to the people and use the data to their own advantage. This is not in the interest of the people and will not help in the development of a country. The government should only collect data on the citizens if it is completely anonymous and will not allow the government to gain any personal information about the people. If the data collected is anonymous, it will not allow the government to build fake statistics based on 'real' information which doesn't exist. This will help the government to remain truthful to the people and to help build a stronger relationship between the government and the people. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001548.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001548.soc index c8427331..a29af57c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001548.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001548.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a presumption against the use of stop and search powers by the police. However, if the police have a reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in drug dealing and if this is based on sufficient information, then they should be allowed to stop and search that person. The police must have a clear policy on the use of stop and search powers and this must be subject to independent review. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, this should be subject to the following conditions: - There must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug dealing. - The police must have sufficient information to justify this suspicion. - The police must have a clear policy on the use of stop and search powers and this must be subject to independent review. - The policy should be approved by a body that represents local communities, those most likely to be targeted. - Police officers must receive training in the use of stop and search powers - Data about who is stopped and searched should be collected and analysed for any evidence of bias. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, but believe that it should be even stronger, saying that in principle the police should not be allowed to stop and search people for drugs, if they are in an area known for drug dealing, unless there is a high degree of suspicion that the person they are stopping is involved in drug dealing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, this should be subject to the following conditions: - There must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug dealing. - The police must have sufficient information to justify this suspicion. - The police must have a clear policy on the use of stop and search powers and this must be subject to independent review. - The police must be trained in the use of stop and search powers and there should be an independent review of stop and search incidents to ensure that they are being applied fairly. - The public should be made fully aware of the stop and search policy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a presumption against the use of stop and search powers by the police. However, if the police have a reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in drug dealing and if this is based on sufficient information, then they should be allowed to stop and search that person. The police must have a clear policy on the use of stop and search powers and this must be subject to independent review. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, this should be subject to the following conditions: - There must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug dealing. - The police must have sufficient information to justify this suspicion. - The police must have a clear policy on the use of stop and search powers and this must be subject to independent review. - The policy should be approved by a body that represents local communities, those most likely to be targeted. - Police officers must receive training in the use of stop and search powers - Data about who is stopped and searched should be collected and analysed for any evidence of bias. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, but believe that it should be even stronger, saying that in principle the police should not be allowed to stop and search people for drugs, if they are in an area known for drug dealing, unless there is a high degree of suspicion that the person they are stopping is involved in drug dealing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, this should be subject to the following conditions: - There must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in drug dealing. - The police must have sufficient information to justify this suspicion. - The police must have a clear policy on the use of stop and search powers and this must be subject to independent review. - The police must be trained in the use of stop and search powers and there should be an independent review of stop and search incidents to ensure that they are being applied fairly. - The public should be made fully aware of the stop and search policy. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001549.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001549.soc index 56ed8f97..281dfd01 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001549.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001549.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: Football teams should not accept sponsorship from gambling companies. Football reaches a vast audience, and gambling is not something which should be advertised to such vast audiences. Even more so in the current economic climate where lots of people are struggling financially it only will add to this problem. Gambling is proving to be a difficult problem for the society, and it is highly addictive, which can lead to emotional and financial harm. Having gambling companies splashed across football shirts is like endorsing what these companies do, which is to get people to place more and more bets each time. There have been recent incidents where people died by suicide as they were addicted to gambling, racked up a lot of debt, and could not cope with the immense stress and the mental difficulties caused by their addiction. This should be an area that is strictly regulated, not flaunted across the most popular sport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: Football teams should not accept sponsorship from gambling companies. Gambling is proving to be a difficult problem for the society, and it is highly addictive, which can lead to emotional and financial harm. Having gambling companies splashed across football shirts is like endorsing what these companies do, which is to get people to place more and more bets each time. There have been recent incidents where people died by suicide as they were addicted to gambling, racked up a lot of debt, and could not cope with the immense stress and the mental difficulties caused by their addiction. This should be an area that is strictly regulated, not flaunted across the most popular sport. Discussion Use of Focus groups in Problem Solving and Conflict Resolution A recent review (Nathan, Parrott and Mays, 2016) of the literature which investigates focus groups and mediation or negotiation concluded that focus group techniques and mediated dispute resolution share a common focus on the processes that help or hinder conflict resolution. Both processes focus on seeking the common ground amongst disparate views and interests of participants, which, with adequate facilitation, can ultimately aid creative decision-making and allow parties to develop less-confrontational and more trusting -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Football teams should not accept sponsorship from gambling companies. Football reaches a vast audience, and gambling is not something which should be advertised to such vast audiences. Even more so in the current economic climate where lots of people are struggling financially it only will add to this problem. Gambling is proving to be a difficult problem for the society, and it is highly addictive, which can lead to emotional and financial harm. Having gambling companies splashed across football shirts is like endorsing what these companies do, which is to get people to place more and more bets each time. There have been recent incidents where people died by suicide as they were addicted to gambling, racked up a lot of debt, and could not cope with the immense stress and the mental difficulties caused by their addiction. This should be an area that is strictly regulated, not flaunted across the most popular sport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Football teams should not accept sponsorship from gambling companies. Football reaches a vast audience, and gambling is not something which should be advertised to such vast audiences. Even more so in the current economic climate where lots of people are struggling financially it only will add to this problem. Gambling is proving to be a difficult problem for the society, and it is highly addictive, which can lead to emotional and financial harm. Having gambling companies splashed across football shirts is like endorsing what these companies do, which is to get people to place more and more bets each time. There have been recent incidents where people died by suicide as they were addicted to gambling, racked up a lot of debt, and could not cope with the immense stress and the mental difficulties caused by their addiction. This should be an area that is strictly regulated, not flaunted across the most popular sport. Conclusion There is a good chance that the football industry could collapse if betting companies were to pull out of their sponsorship deals. The way the Government is looking at the problem with gambling at the moment is they are not looking at the people that are addicted to gambling. They are looking at the people that are gambling irresponsibly. There is a danger that the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: Football teams should not accept sponsorship from gambling companies. Football reaches a vast audience, and gambling is not something which should be advertised to such vast audiences. Even more so in the current economic climate where lots of people are struggling financially it only will add to this problem. Gambling is proving to be a difficult problem for the society, and it is highly addictive, which can lead to emotional and financial harm. Having gambling companies splashed across football shirts is like endorsing what these companies do, which is to get people to place more and more bets each time. There have been recent incidents where people died by suicide as they were addicted to gambling, racked up a lot of debt, and could not cope with the immense stress and the mental difficulties caused by their addiction. This should be an area that is strictly regulated, not flaunted across the most popular sport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: Football teams should not accept sponsorship from gambling companies. Gambling is proving to be a difficult problem for the society, and it is highly addictive, which can lead to emotional and financial harm. Having gambling companies splashed across football shirts is like endorsing what these companies do, which is to get people to place more and more bets each time. There have been recent incidents where people died by suicide as they were addicted to gambling, racked up a lot of debt, and could not cope with the immense stress and the mental difficulties caused by their addiction. This should be an area that is strictly regulated, not flaunted across the most popular sport. Discussion Use of Focus groups in Problem Solving and Conflict Resolution A recent review (Nathan, Parrott and Mays, 2016) of the literature which investigates focus groups and mediation or negotiation concluded that focus group techniques and mediated dispute resolution share a common focus on the processes that help or hinder conflict resolution. Both processes focus on seeking the common ground amongst disparate views and interests of participants, which, with adequate facilitation, can ultimately aid creative decision-making and allow parties to develop less-confrontational and more trusting +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Football teams should not accept sponsorship from gambling companies. Football reaches a vast audience, and gambling is not something which should be advertised to such vast audiences. Even more so in the current economic climate where lots of people are struggling financially it only will add to this problem. Gambling is proving to be a difficult problem for the society, and it is highly addictive, which can lead to emotional and financial harm. Having gambling companies splashed across football shirts is like endorsing what these companies do, which is to get people to place more and more bets each time. There have been recent incidents where people died by suicide as they were addicted to gambling, racked up a lot of debt, and could not cope with the immense stress and the mental difficulties caused by their addiction. This should be an area that is strictly regulated, not flaunted across the most popular sport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Football teams should not accept sponsorship from gambling companies. Football reaches a vast audience, and gambling is not something which should be advertised to such vast audiences. Even more so in the current economic climate where lots of people are struggling financially it only will add to this problem. Gambling is proving to be a difficult problem for the society, and it is highly addictive, which can lead to emotional and financial harm. Having gambling companies splashed across football shirts is like endorsing what these companies do, which is to get people to place more and more bets each time. There have been recent incidents where people died by suicide as they were addicted to gambling, racked up a lot of debt, and could not cope with the immense stress and the mental difficulties caused by their addiction. This should be an area that is strictly regulated, not flaunted across the most popular sport. Conclusion There is a good chance that the football industry could collapse if betting companies were to pull out of their sponsorship deals. The way the Government is looking at the problem with gambling at the moment is they are not looking at the people that are addicted to gambling. They are looking at the people that are gambling irresponsibly. There is a danger that the 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001550.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001550.soc index f15c8199..ee2b0821 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001550.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001550.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not build HS2 because it is a blight to the landscape and is harmful to the environment. Wildlife will be greatly affected. It offers to reduce travel time from London to Birmingham by 20 minutes, which seems largely unimpressive. The work is cutting through large areas of previously attractive Midlands countryside and replacing it with much less attractive train line. The cost is in the billions and I believe the benefits to the UK have been exaggerated. It is also wrong to build such an expensive transport system when there are much more urgent needs to be addressed in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not build HS2. It is a blight to the landscape and is harmful to the environment. Wildlife will be greatly affected. It only offers to reduce travel time from London to Birmingham by 20 minutes, which seems largely unimpressive. The work is cutting through large areas of previously attractive Midlands countryside and replacing it with much less attractive train line. The cost is in the billions and I believe the benefits to the UK have been exaggerated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not build HS2 because the benefits are greatly exaggerated and the cost is in the billions. Wildlife will be greatly affected. The work is cutting through large areas of previously attractive Midlands countryside and replacing it with much less attractive train line. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not build HS2 because it is a blight to the landscape and is harmful to the environment. Wildlife will be greatly affected. It offers to reduce travel time from London to Birmingham by 20 minutes, which seems largely unimpressive. The work is cutting through large areas of previously attractive Midlands countryside and replacing it with much less attractive train line. The cost is in the billions and I believe the benefits to the UK have been exaggerated. It is also wrong to build such an expensive transport system when there are much more urgent needs to be addressed in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not build HS2. It is a blight to the landscape and is harmful to the environment. Wildlife will be greatly affected. It only offers to reduce travel time from London to Birmingham by 20 minutes, which seems largely unimpressive. The work is cutting through large areas of previously attractive Midlands countryside and replacing it with much less attractive train line. The cost is in the billions and I believe the benefits to the UK have been exaggerated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not build HS2 because the benefits are greatly exaggerated and the cost is in the billions. Wildlife will be greatly affected. The work is cutting through large areas of previously attractive Midlands countryside and replacing it with much less attractive train line. 5: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001551.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001551.soc index 611c0e92..ea64e0f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001551.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001551.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of fluoride in water. The group felt that fluoride in water was an important public health measure and that fluoride had been proven to be effective in improving oral hygiene. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride was a natural mineral and that the health benefits outweighed any concerns about individual consent and government overreach. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it was important to include it in water. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group in general was in favour of fluoride in water. The group felt that fluoride in water was an important public health measure and that fluoride had been proven to be effective in improving oral hygiene. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride was a natural mineral and that the health benefits outweighed any concerns about individual consent and government overreach. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it was important to include it in water. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Finally the group of participants reached a consensus on the following opinion. The group was in favour of fluoride in water and felt that fluoride in water was an important public health measure. The group felt that fluoride had been proven to be effective in improving oral hygiene. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride was a natural mineral. The group felt that the health benefits of fluoride outweighed any concerns about individual consent and government overreach. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group felt that fluoride is a natural mineral that has a variety of benefits that we are not made aware of, I think that people worry too much about things being done without their knowledge however if there are health benefits there should be no problem in adding this to the water. If people are increasingly concerned they could make sure that they only consume bottled water +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of fluoride in water. The group felt that fluoride in water was an important public health measure and that fluoride had been proven to be effective in improving oral hygiene. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride was a natural mineral and that the health benefits outweighed any concerns about individual consent and government overreach. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it was important to include it in water. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group in general was in favour of fluoride in water. The group felt that fluoride in water was an important public health measure and that fluoride had been proven to be effective in improving oral hygiene. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride was a natural mineral and that the health benefits outweighed any concerns about individual consent and government overreach. The group also felt that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group also felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. The group also felt that fluoride was a natural mineral and that it was important to include it in water. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Finally the group of participants reached a consensus on the following opinion. The group was in favour of fluoride in water and felt that fluoride in water was an important public health measure. The group felt that fluoride had been proven to be effective in improving oral hygiene. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride was a natural mineral. The group felt that the health benefits of fluoride outweighed any concerns about individual consent and government overreach. The group was also of the opinion that fluoride had been in our water for a long time and that if there were any adverse health effects, we would have seen evidence of them by now. The group felt that fluoride was a key ingredient in dental hygiene and that dental health had improved immeasurably since the introduction of fluoride in water. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group felt that fluoride is a natural mineral that has a variety of benefits that we are not made aware of, I think that people worry too much about things being done without their knowledge however if there are health benefits there should be no problem in adding this to the water. If people are increasingly concerned they could make sure that they only consume bottled water 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001552.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001552.soc index 2453953b..95b3235c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001552.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001552.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. The majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoke contains substances that are harmful to us and, therefore, smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. It is perfectly possible for those who wish to smoke to do so outside of buildings, in an environment where any danger to others is minimised. It also mentions that this is true for the likes of e-cigarettes as the health repercussions are the same in this case. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. Smokers should remove themselves from inside the premises and sit outside, where any danger to others would be minimised. This is because the majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. This issue also applies to e-cigarettes. What I have learned about the process: What I have learned from this activity is that getting a group of people to work together collaboratively does come with certain challenges. Our group only had five people in it so it was a pretty small group to start with. I think it would be a good idea to first agree on the guidelines we are going to follow so that we are all on the same page. Because there were so few of us our voices didn't really get heard. There was one opinionated person in our group who always put forward her views and made them sound like facts but a lot of the time they were just opinions. I think it's -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. The majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoke contains substances that are harmful to us and, therefore, smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. It is perfectly possible for those who wish to smoke to do so outside of buildings, in an environment where any danger to others is minimised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. The majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoke contains substances that are harmful to us and, therefore, smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. It is perfectly possible for those who wish to smoke to do so outside of buildings, in an environment where any danger to others is minimised. This would also apply to vapes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. The majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoke contains substances that are harmful to us and, therefore, smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. It is perfectly possible for those who wish to smoke to do so outside of buildings, in an environment where any danger to others is minimised. It also mentions that this is true for the likes of e-cigarettes as the health repercussions are the same in this case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. Smokers should remove themselves from inside the premises and sit outside, where any danger to others would be minimised. This is because the majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. This issue also applies to e-cigarettes. What I have learned about the process: What I have learned from this activity is that getting a group of people to work together collaboratively does come with certain challenges. Our group only had five people in it so it was a pretty small group to start with. I think it would be a good idea to first agree on the guidelines we are going to follow so that we are all on the same page. Because there were so few of us our voices didn't really get heard. There was one opinionated person in our group who always put forward her views and made them sound like facts but a lot of the time they were just opinions. I think it's +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. The majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoke contains substances that are harmful to us and, therefore, smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. It is perfectly possible for those who wish to smoke to do so outside of buildings, in an environment where any danger to others is minimised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants. The majority of people are non-smokers and so it would be unfair for the minority of people to subject the non-smokers to their smoke. Smoke contains substances that are harmful to us and, therefore, smoking in public places puts others in danger of inhaling dangerous substances. It is perfectly possible for those who wish to smoke to do so outside of buildings, in an environment where any danger to others is minimised. This would also apply to vapes. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001553.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001553.soc index ce7f926a..26641d6f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001553.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001553.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, private companies should not be allowed to install CCTV in public places. This is because the public have a right to their own privacy and installing CCTV in public places infringes on this. However, if the private company is providing a service to the public then this is acceptable. For example, a shop installing CCTV in their shop is acceptable as they are providing a service to the public. The shop is also responsible for the safety of their customers and staff and installing CCTV is a way of protecting them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think it is right for private companies to install CCTV in public places. The only exception would be if they are protecting their own property. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Private companies are not permitted to install CCTV in public places -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the CCTV industry is an extremely important one for the protection of businesses, personal privacy should be of the upmost importance to everyone. However, we believe that if a private company can provide a valid reason for installing CCTV on a public place then it should be allowed, however it should be monitored and have restrictions to ensure it is not infringing on the privacy of the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, private companies should not be allowed to install CCTV in public places. This is because the public have a right to their own privacy and installing CCTV in public places infringes on this. However, if the private company is providing a service to the public then this is acceptable. For example, a shop installing CCTV in their shop is acceptable as they are providing a service to the public. The shop is also responsible for the safety of their customers and staff and installing CCTV is a way of protecting them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think it is right for private companies to install CCTV in public places. The only exception would be if they are protecting their own property. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Private companies are not permitted to install CCTV in public places +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the CCTV industry is an extremely important one for the protection of businesses, personal privacy should be of the upmost importance to everyone. However, we believe that if a private company can provide a valid reason for installing CCTV on a public place then it should be allowed, however it should be monitored and have restrictions to ensure it is not infringing on the privacy of the public. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001554.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001554.soc index 3b220eb0..1172bbef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001554.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001554.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Advertising to children should be regulated and the nature of the advertising should be considered. The advertising of harmful products to children should be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We don’t believe that advertising should be banned for children under the age of 18. We believe that a child's mind is too impressionable and therefore advertising should be regulated. We believe that advertising is key in terms of income for companies, especially in the current economic climate. However, we do believe that certain advertising should be banned and regulated. This includes advertising alcohol and cigarettes, which can have detrimental effects on children and young people. Also, adverts with sexual content or that promote dangerous/drugs/intoxicating substances should be banned. Adverts for children should also be regulated in terms of content. For example, they should not encourage children to become fat and unhealthy or advertise a range of other products that are not suitable for children and have the potential to be harmful.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not ban all advertising for children under the age of 18. Advertising is a part of culture and children should be exposed to it in a way that is appropriate for their age and stage of development. Advertising can be very dangerous depending on the particular type of product. Advertising to children and giving children a choice will give them more agency and allow them to make better decisions on their own and as they become adults. However, advertising that has an adult nature or has a purpose of attracting children to unnecessary products should be reviewed and not accessible to children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Advertising to children should be regulated and the exposure should be limited in order to protect them from harmful advertising such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography etc. It should be regulated by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Advertising to children should be regulated and the nature of the advertising should be considered. The advertising of harmful products to children should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We don’t believe that advertising should be banned for children under the age of 18. We believe that a child's mind is too impressionable and therefore advertising should be regulated. We believe that advertising is key in terms of income for companies, especially in the current economic climate. However, we do believe that certain advertising should be banned and regulated. This includes advertising alcohol and cigarettes, which can have detrimental effects on children and young people. Also, adverts with sexual content or that promote dangerous/drugs/intoxicating substances should be banned. Adverts for children should also be regulated in terms of content. For example, they should not encourage children to become fat and unhealthy or advertise a range of other products that are not suitable for children and have the potential to be harmful.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not ban all advertising for children under the age of 18. Advertising is a part of culture and children should be exposed to it in a way that is appropriate for their age and stage of development. Advertising can be very dangerous depending on the particular type of product. Advertising to children and giving children a choice will give them more agency and allow them to make better decisions on their own and as they become adults. However, advertising that has an adult nature or has a purpose of attracting children to unnecessary products should be reviewed and not accessible to children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Advertising to children should be regulated and the exposure should be limited in order to protect them from harmful advertising such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography etc. It should be regulated by the government. 3: 2,3,4,1 2: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001555.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001555.soc index 07e88ca5..8f4e3a18 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001555.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001555.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was against the practice of asking applicants about their previous salary. However, it was recognised that this practice is very common and that it is often necessary for employers to have some knowledge of the salary expectations of applicants in order to make a job offer. Therefore, it was concluded that it is acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary, but that it should not be the only factor that is taken into account when making a job offer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it is not acceptable for an employer to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary. The reason for this is because each person should be paid what their potential employer believes they are worth. It is also important to note that each person's previous salary is not relevant to their potential employer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not ethical to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary. However, we understand that it is still commonly asked, despite this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think that it is okay for an employer to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary, however it is important to remember that in the majority of cases the applicant's previous salary is not a good indicator of what they will be able to do for you in the future, so the question should not be asked for that purpose. It should be asked for the purpose of understanding the expectations of the applicant. The best way to approach it is to say that you would like to understand what salary range they are expecting in order to make sure that the job is a good fit for them and that it is a good use of their time to apply for the job. Conclusion: The group concluded that it is acceptable for an employer to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary, however this should be asked for the purpose of understanding the expectations of the applicant. It should not be used to judge how much they should be paid for the new job as this will not reflect their abilities in the new job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was against the practice of asking applicants about their previous salary. However, it was recognised that this practice is very common and that it is often necessary for employers to have some knowledge of the salary expectations of applicants in order to make a job offer. Therefore, it was concluded that it is acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary, but that it should not be the only factor that is taken into account when making a job offer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it is not acceptable for an employer to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary. The reason for this is because each person should be paid what their potential employer believes they are worth. It is also important to note that each person's previous salary is not relevant to their potential employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not ethical to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary. However, we understand that it is still commonly asked, despite this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think that it is okay for an employer to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary, however it is important to remember that in the majority of cases the applicant's previous salary is not a good indicator of what they will be able to do for you in the future, so the question should not be asked for that purpose. It should be asked for the purpose of understanding the expectations of the applicant. The best way to approach it is to say that you would like to understand what salary range they are expecting in order to make sure that the job is a good fit for them and that it is a good use of their time to apply for the job. Conclusion: The group concluded that it is acceptable for an employer to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary, however this should be asked for the purpose of understanding the expectations of the applicant. It should not be used to judge how much they should be paid for the new job as this will not reflect their abilities in the new job. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001556.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001556.soc index a299036e..9bb0c89e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001556.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001556.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. The participants felt that education should be free to all and that it is a service that should be provided by the government. The participants also felt that the profit motive would not be in the best interests of the children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We feel that for profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. Education should be a basic right and to allow profit to be made on a basic human right is morally wrong. Education is a service provided by the state to ensure that the future generations of society are able to function and participate in society. To allow profit to be made on a service such as this goes against all principles of equality and society. Education should not be a business, it is a basic human right. We do not allow profit to be made on water, health or other basic human needs so why should education be any different. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: For-profit corporations should not be allowed to run schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. The participants felt that education should be free to all and that it is a service that should be provided by the government. The participants also felt that the profit motive would not be in the best interests of the children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We feel that for profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. Education should be a basic right and to allow profit to be made on a basic human right is morally wrong. Education is a service provided by the state to ensure that the future generations of society are able to function and participate in society. To allow profit to be made on a service such as this goes against all principles of equality and society. Education should not be a business, it is a basic human right. We do not allow profit to be made on water, health or other basic human needs so why should education be any different. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - For-profit corporations should not be allowed to run schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. 4: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001557.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001557.soc index 2c138df4..dbe17732 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001557.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001557.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. There are a number of benefits to the use of nuclear energy, primarily the fact that it is a clean and safe way of generating vasts amounts of electricity needed to keep up with the pace of economic and social development around the world. Energy, along with clean water, have been proven as to be major economic stimulants and can help countries 'level up' and rise from poverty. In the first world, clean energy has never been so important. The actual risk of nuclear meltdown is offset by many safety procedures a strict guidelines. It is a cheaper and safer alternative compared to the other sources of energy generation. The small risk is worth the huge reward. However, while the benefits of nuclear energy are important, the risk of nuclear meltdowns is simply too great to ignore. The deadly effects of nuclear meltdown are well documented, and have occurred in the recent past where the effects are still being felt today. The risk of nuclear meltdowns is not worth the benefits of nuclear energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the risks of nuclear energy are not worth the benefits. In our modern society, nuclear energy is not needed. With advancements in renewable energy and the possible risks that are too high, we should avoid the use of nuclear energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. Nuclear energy is a very clean form of energy and is an important source of energy in many countries. However, nuclear meltdowns can be very dangerous and cause a lot of damage. The benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While there are a number of benefits of nuclear energy. Primarily, nuclear energy is a clean and safe way of generating vasts amount of electricity needed to keep up with the pace of economic and social development around the world. Energy, along with clean water, have been proven as to be major economic stimulants and can help countries 'level up' and rise from poverty. In the first world, clean energy has never been so important. The actual risk of nuclear meltdown is offset by many safety procedures a strict guidelines. It is a cheaper and safer alternative compared to the other sources of energy generation. The small risk is worth the huge reward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. There are a number of benefits to the use of nuclear energy, primarily the fact that it is a clean and safe way of generating vasts amounts of electricity needed to keep up with the pace of economic and social development around the world. Energy, along with clean water, have been proven as to be major economic stimulants and can help countries 'level up' and rise from poverty. In the first world, clean energy has never been so important. The actual risk of nuclear meltdown is offset by many safety procedures a strict guidelines. It is a cheaper and safer alternative compared to the other sources of energy generation. The small risk is worth the huge reward. However, while the benefits of nuclear energy are important, the risk of nuclear meltdowns is simply too great to ignore. The deadly effects of nuclear meltdown are well documented, and have occurred in the recent past where the effects are still being felt today. The risk of nuclear meltdowns is not worth the benefits of nuclear energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the risks of nuclear energy are not worth the benefits. In our modern society, nuclear energy is not needed. With advancements in renewable energy and the possible risks that are too high, we should avoid the use of nuclear energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. Nuclear energy is a very clean form of energy and is an important source of energy in many countries. However, nuclear meltdowns can be very dangerous and cause a lot of damage. The benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While there are a number of benefits of nuclear energy. Primarily, nuclear energy is a clean and safe way of generating vasts amount of electricity needed to keep up with the pace of economic and social development around the world. Energy, along with clean water, have been proven as to be major economic stimulants and can help countries 'level up' and rise from poverty. In the first world, clean energy has never been so important. The actual risk of nuclear meltdown is offset by many safety procedures a strict guidelines. It is a cheaper and safer alternative compared to the other sources of energy generation. The small risk is worth the huge reward. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001558.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001558.soc index eccdd09f..242ae08f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001558.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001558.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should tax the wealthy more. This is because they are the people who have the most money and therefore can afford to pay more. Also, the tax that they pay will be used to benefit society and help those who are less fortunate. This is only fair, as the wealthy have more than enough money to live comfortably and can afford to pay more tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, but only if the threshold for lower income households is reduced. There should be no tax on the first £5000 that anyone earns. This would incentivise individuals to get out there and work for themselves as it would not be taken away from them by the government. The government would still make money as individuals will start paying tax when they start earning £5000, and will continue to pay it on anything over £5000. This will also increase the disposable income of lower income households, meaning that they will spend more money and the economy will benefit. It is also believed that the wealthy already pay their fair share, and if anything they should be encouraged to invest their money in companies that will create more jobs for the nation. This should also help to prevent tax evasion as there will be more checks and balances. The government should also provide more tax breaks for smaller businesses, so that they can expand their businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not tax the wealthy more. It would not be fair as those who work hard to get to where they are and deserve to have some of the money that they earn as a reward for their hard work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the wealthy should be taxed more. There should be a higher tax rate for those who earn more than a certain amount, as they have a greater ability to pay. This would help to reduce the tax burden on the lower income households and help to alleviate poverty. This would also help to reduce the tax evasion that occurs when the wealthy are taxed less. The wealthy should also be taxed more on luxuries, as these are non-essential items. This would help to reduce the inequality in society and ensure that everyone is contributing their fair share to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should tax the wealthy more. This is because they are the people who have the most money and therefore can afford to pay more. Also, the tax that they pay will be used to benefit society and help those who are less fortunate. This is only fair, as the wealthy have more than enough money to live comfortably and can afford to pay more tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, but only if the threshold for lower income households is reduced. There should be no tax on the first £5000 that anyone earns. This would incentivise individuals to get out there and work for themselves as it would not be taken away from them by the government. The government would still make money as individuals will start paying tax when they start earning £5000, and will continue to pay it on anything over £5000. This will also increase the disposable income of lower income households, meaning that they will spend more money and the economy will benefit. It is also believed that the wealthy already pay their fair share, and if anything they should be encouraged to invest their money in companies that will create more jobs for the nation. This should also help to prevent tax evasion as there will be more checks and balances. The government should also provide more tax breaks for smaller businesses, so that they can expand their businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not tax the wealthy more. It would not be fair as those who work hard to get to where they are and deserve to have some of the money that they earn as a reward for their hard work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the wealthy should be taxed more. There should be a higher tax rate for those who earn more than a certain amount, as they have a greater ability to pay. This would help to reduce the tax burden on the lower income households and help to alleviate poverty. This would also help to reduce the tax evasion that occurs when the wealthy are taxed less. The wealthy should also be taxed more on luxuries, as these are non-essential items. This would help to reduce the inequality in society and ensure that everyone is contributing their fair share to society. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001559.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001559.soc index 01f1dc5c..44c841ff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001559.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001559.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 13 do not benefit from being allowed to have their own Instagram account. The content available on Instagram these days is highly inappropriate for children under the age of 13. Whilst there are wholesome videos out there, there are also highly sexualised content, too. There are risky behaviours displayed, and absolutely idiotic dares presented as "challenges". The recent case of the little boy from UK, Archie, who saw a challenge on social media and tried to do it, and sadly, he died as he hung himself. A lot of the blame lays firmly at the foot of this harmful content, which can influence youngsters and encourage them to emulate the behaviour they see online. All the likes and the shares provide a false sense of "popularity" and not to mention, all the hostile comments can cause intense mental harm. There is no additional benefit to a 12 year old or younger to have an Instagram account. They can socialise in other ways, in real life. In conclusion, no, they do not benefit from it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under the age of 13 do not benefit from being allowed to have their own Instagram account. There is a lot of content on Instagram which is inappropriate for young children to see, and which can have a harmful effect on them. Children can socialise in other ways in real life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, children under the age of 13 do not benefit from being allowed to have their own Instagram account. Social media has a lot of negative impact on the mental health of children. Children under the age of 13 are too young to be exposed to such mental trauma, as they cannot distinguish the real from the fake. In our opinion, the government and social media platforms need to take steps to make it illegal for children under the age of 13 to have their own social media accounts. The influence of social media can cause serious harm to their mental health and overall development. We believe that young children need to be shielded from the darker side of the world, so that they can grow up without having to be exposed to negativity and anxiety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 13 do not benefit from being allowed to have their own Instagram account. The content available on Instagram these days is highly inappropriate for children under the age of 13. Whilst there are wholesome videos out there, there are also highly sexualised content, too. There are risky behaviours displayed, and absolutely idiotic dares presented as "challenges". The recent case of the little boy from UK, Archie, who saw a challenge on social media and tried to do it, and sadly, he died as he hung himself. A lot of the blame lays firmly at the foot of this harmful content, which can influence youngsters and encourage them to emulate the behaviour they see online. All the likes and the shares provide a false sense of "popularity" and not to mention, all the hostile comments can cause intense mental harm. There is no additional benefit to a 12 year old or younger to have an Instagram account. They can socialise in other ways, in real life. In conclusion, no, they do not benefit from it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under the age of 13 do not benefit from being allowed to have their own Instagram account. There is a lot of content on Instagram which is inappropriate for young children to see, and which can have a harmful effect on them. Children can socialise in other ways in real life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, children under the age of 13 do not benefit from being allowed to have their own Instagram account. Social media has a lot of negative impact on the mental health of children. Children under the age of 13 are too young to be exposed to such mental trauma, as they cannot distinguish the real from the fake. In our opinion, the government and social media platforms need to take steps to make it illegal for children under the age of 13 to have their own social media accounts. The influence of social media can cause serious harm to their mental health and overall development. We believe that young children need to be shielded from the darker side of the world, so that they can grow up without having to be exposed to negativity and anxiety. 4: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001560.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001560.soc index b6062f63..b4868ca2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001560.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001560.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic because it will reduce the environmental pollution and help in sustaining our natural resources. The above example is from one of the sessions run during the program. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic. Plastic pollution threatens food safety and quality, human health, marine life, coastal tourism and contributes to climate change, and so the use of non-biodegradable plastic is damaging where it is disposed of without regulation. We could still use non-biodegradable plastics, but in recycable forms or schemes, where disposal is also regulated. However, this is not enough and we should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic in disposable goods, and provide financial support or incentives for companies to switch to viable alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of banning the use of non-biodegradable plastic, but also recognised that it could be used in a recyclable form. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While plastic pollution is a major concern that affects many aspects of our daily lives, we should be wary of banning non-biodegradable plastics in a blanket way. We should instead focus on the disposal of non-biodegradable plastics, making it more expensive for people to throw these plastics into the environment, and also to encourage people to recycle these plastics. We should also look at producing goods that use non-biodegradable plastics in ways that allow for easier recycling and re-use, rather than a single use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic because it will reduce the environmental pollution and help in sustaining our natural resources. The above example is from one of the sessions run during the program. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic. Plastic pollution threatens food safety and quality, human health, marine life, coastal tourism and contributes to climate change, and so the use of non-biodegradable plastic is damaging where it is disposed of without regulation. We could still use non-biodegradable plastics, but in recycable forms or schemes, where disposal is also regulated. However, this is not enough and we should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic in disposable goods, and provide financial support or incentives for companies to switch to viable alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of banning the use of non-biodegradable plastic, but also recognised that it could be used in a recyclable form. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While plastic pollution is a major concern that affects many aspects of our daily lives, we should be wary of banning non-biodegradable plastics in a blanket way. We should instead focus on the disposal of non-biodegradable plastics, making it more expensive for people to throw these plastics into the environment, and also to encourage people to recycle these plastics. We should also look at producing goods that use non-biodegradable plastics in ways that allow for easier recycling and re-use, rather than a single use. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001561.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001561.soc index 4b182017..b9bc1d4c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001561.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001561.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the use of cars in central London. However, it was felt that a complete ban would not be practical and that there would need to be some exemptions. These exemptions would include emergency vehicles, taxis, and private vehicles for residents. The group felt that there would need to be a transition period to allow people to adjust to the new rules and that there would need to be a period of consultation with London residents and businesses to allow them to have their say on the matter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the pollution that is generated by cars is unhealthy for the environment, completely banning cars in central London is not the right solution to this problem. A ban on cars would be very disruptive for people's lives and in London where a large proportion of people live in apartments, it is not practical to store cars outside of the city. In addition to this, there are other forms of transport which contribute to pollution, such as trains, buses, and taxis, so cars should not be the only form of transport that is targeted for a ban. Instead, we feel that cars should be limited and encouraged to be kept to a minimum. This could be achieved through a tax on parking, stricter emission standards and further incentives for people to use alternative methods of transport such as walking, cycling or taking public transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not ban cars in central London. The use of all motor vehicles should be reduced as much as possible in all built up areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on cars in central London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the use of cars in central London. However, it was felt that a complete ban would not be practical and that there would need to be some exemptions. These exemptions would include emergency vehicles, taxis, and private vehicles for residents. The group felt that there would need to be a transition period to allow people to adjust to the new rules and that there would need to be a period of consultation with London residents and businesses to allow them to have their say on the matter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the pollution that is generated by cars is unhealthy for the environment, completely banning cars in central London is not the right solution to this problem. A ban on cars would be very disruptive for people's lives and in London where a large proportion of people live in apartments, it is not practical to store cars outside of the city. In addition to this, there are other forms of transport which contribute to pollution, such as trains, buses, and taxis, so cars should not be the only form of transport that is targeted for a ban. Instead, we feel that cars should be limited and encouraged to be kept to a minimum. This could be achieved through a tax on parking, stricter emission standards and further incentives for people to use alternative methods of transport such as walking, cycling or taking public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not ban cars in central London. The use of all motor vehicles should be reduced as much as possible in all built up areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on cars in central London. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001562.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001562.soc index 4b42a57c..cbb9a317 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001562.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001562.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the UK should be more open and accepting of asylum seekers. The UK has a great track record of helping out in times of trouble and distress, and the introduction of new people from other places would benefit the UK culturally. There is much to be learned from the people that we might see as very different from ourselves, but these people have the same basic human rights as anyone else and deserve the same consideration and help. The UK should continue to do what it has always done, and stand for the rights of the oppressed, the underprivileged and the downtrodden. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should make it easier for people to enter the UK as asylum seekers, because no life is more important than another. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, the UK should also be prepared to support the refugees and asylum seekers that are entering the country, and provide them with a good standard of living, accommodation and support. This may be costly for the country, but is necessary to support these people and help them integrate into society. It is also important to ensure that people who enter the country under the asylum seeking policy do not become a burden on society and the economy. Therefore, it is important to ensure that people entering the country under this policy have the skills and education to contribute to society and the economy. In this way, the UK will benefit from the asylum seeking policy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the UK should be more open and accepting of asylum seekers. The UK has a great track record of helping out in times of trouble and distress, and the introduction of new people from other places would benefit the UK culturally. There is much to be learned from the people that we might see as very different from ourselves, but these people have the same basic human rights as anyone else and deserve the same consideration and help. The UK should continue to do what it has always done, and stand for the rights of the oppressed, the underprivileged and the downtrodden. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should make it easier for people to enter the UK as asylum seekers, because no life is more important than another. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, the UK should also be prepared to support the refugees and asylum seekers that are entering the country, and provide them with a good standard of living, accommodation and support. This may be costly for the country, but is necessary to support these people and help them integrate into society. It is also important to ensure that people who enter the country under the asylum seeking policy do not become a burden on society and the economy. Therefore, it is important to ensure that people entering the country under this policy have the skills and education to contribute to society and the economy. In this way, the UK will benefit from the asylum seeking policy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001563.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001563.soc index 391c9adf..894b4367 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001563.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001563.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was against the practice of asking applicants about their previous salary. However, it was recognised that this practice is very common and that it is often necessary for employers to have some knowledge of the salary expectations of applicants in order to make a job offer. Therefore, it was concluded that it is acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary, but that it should not be the only factor that is taken into account when making a job offer. Furthermore, it was thought that it would be preferable if the employer would always provide a salary range, or an indication of the salary that the role is designed for. In this way, the employer provides a range of expectations that will guide applicants, but that are not absolute and allow some flexibility for negotiation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was against the practice of asking applicants about their previous salary. However, it was recognised that this practice is very common and that it is often necessary for employers to have some knowledge of the salary expectations of applicants in order to make a job offer. Therefore, it was concluded that it is acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary, but that it should not be the only factor that is taken into account when making a job offer. It was also agreed that it would be more helpful to applicants if employers were to advertise the salary that would be offered for a particular job, rather than expecting applicants to provide this information in their application. This would make it easier for applicants to know whether they are eligible to apply for a particular job, and would also help to avoid the possibility of applicants being asked to work for a salary that is lower than what they expect. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Question: Is it ever acceptable for an employer to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary? Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We generally agree that it is not acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary. However, it is recognised that this is a common practice and that it can be a necessary part of the hiring process. Therefore, it is concluded that it is acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary, but that it should not be the only factor that is taken into account when making a job offer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was against the practice of asking applicants about their previous salary. However, it was recognised that this practice is very common and that it is often necessary for employers to have some knowledge of the salary expectations of applicants in order to make a job offer. Therefore, it was concluded that it is acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary, but that it should not be the only factor that is taken into account when making a job offer. Furthermore, it was thought that it would be preferable if the employer would always provide a salary range, or an indication of the salary that the role is designed for. In this way, the employer provides a range of expectations that will guide applicants, but that are not absolute and allow some flexibility for negotiation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was against the practice of asking applicants about their previous salary. However, it was recognised that this practice is very common and that it is often necessary for employers to have some knowledge of the salary expectations of applicants in order to make a job offer. Therefore, it was concluded that it is acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary, but that it should not be the only factor that is taken into account when making a job offer. It was also agreed that it would be more helpful to applicants if employers were to advertise the salary that would be offered for a particular job, rather than expecting applicants to provide this information in their application. This would make it easier for applicants to know whether they are eligible to apply for a particular job, and would also help to avoid the possibility of applicants being asked to work for a salary that is lower than what they expect. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Question: Is it ever acceptable for an employer to ask an applicant about his or her previous salary? Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agree that it is not acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary. However, it is recognised that this is a common practice and that it can be a necessary part of the hiring process. Therefore, it is concluded that it is acceptable for employers to ask applicants about their previous salary, but that it should not be the only factor that is taken into account when making a job offer. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001564.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001564.soc index 8da35c3f..01b7218b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001564.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001564.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that non-government organisations such as not-for profit trusts should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. Conclusion The consensus group method has the potential to greatly improve the quality of debate, deliberation and decision making. It is ideal for online communities of practice where participants might be in different parts of the world. It is also beneficial for using face-to-face, but it does require -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. What do you think about the process? What would you do differently, or maybe do the same next time? First, having a concrete question was extremely useful in defining the agenda of the debate. However, I think at times some of the participants strayed from the question into territory not directly related to the question, and maybe we should have done some policing. Also, the more I think about it, the more I feel we should also have incorporated the why into the question - I think that would have made for a more fruitful debate and better answer. For me, the main takeaway is the value of face-to-face debate. I don -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. Non-government organisations such as trusts can be involved in education, but the government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is because education is not just about learning but is also important as a social hub for communities. However, it is important to remember that schools are often places of learning for some of the most vulnerable children in society so we feel that putting profit as the primary goal of schools is not in the best interests of children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that non-government organisations such as not-for profit trusts should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. Conclusion The consensus group method has the potential to greatly improve the quality of debate, deliberation and decision making. It is ideal for online communities of practice where participants might be in different parts of the world. It is also beneficial for using face-to-face, but it does require +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. The government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is not to say that profit-making organisations should not be involved in education, but they should not be the main provider. It is also important to remember that schools are not just places of learning but also social hubs for their communities. What do you think about the process? What would you do differently, or maybe do the same next time? First, having a concrete question was extremely useful in defining the agenda of the debate. However, I think at times some of the participants strayed from the question into territory not directly related to the question, and maybe we should have done some policing. Also, the more I think about it, the more I feel we should also have incorporated the why into the question - I think that would have made for a more fruitful debate and better answer. For me, the main takeaway is the value of face-to-face debate. I don +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the profit motive should not be the main driver of statutory services. We recognise that it is often necessary to contract out certain services, such as catering or maintenance, and these should be put out to competitive tender. Non-government organisations such as trusts can be involved in education, but the government should be responsible for setting the standards for education and the quality of teaching. This is because education is not just about learning but is also important as a social hub for communities. However, it is important to remember that schools are often places of learning for some of the most vulnerable children in society so we feel that putting profit as the primary goal of schools is not in the best interests of children. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001565.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001565.soc index d2502b44..1706d57e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001565.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001565.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The issue of obesity is a very complex one and I think it is very difficult to say whether we are doing enough or not. There is a lot of information out there about healthy eating and exercise and the government is making some efforts to make healthy food more accessible and affordable but there is a long way to go. There is only so much that can be done to help people and in the end it is down to the individual to make the right choices and take responsibility for their own health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that the Government could do more in some areas but ultimately the problem is down to the individual and the choices they make for their own health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the government are doing enough to combat obesity and that obesity is a choice that people have control over. We agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of obesity leads to people suffering from a range of different health problems such as diabetes and heart problems. We concluded that the government are putting measures in place to tackle the issue of obesity and they are making healthier food options available and that if people want to continue eating unhealthy foods that they should do so at their own risk. It was also agreed that more could be done by the government to tackle the issue of obesity as many people don’t realise the severity of obesity and the consequences that can come with it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We are doing more than enough to combat obesity. This is not a nanny state, If people want to eat too much and not do exercise then they deserve to be fat and ugly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The issue of obesity is a very complex one and I think it is very difficult to say whether we are doing enough or not. There is a lot of information out there about healthy eating and exercise and the government is making some efforts to make healthy food more accessible and affordable but there is a long way to go. There is only so much that can be done to help people and in the end it is down to the individual to make the right choices and take responsibility for their own health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that the Government could do more in some areas but ultimately the problem is down to the individual and the choices they make for their own health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the government are doing enough to combat obesity and that obesity is a choice that people have control over. We agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of obesity leads to people suffering from a range of different health problems such as diabetes and heart problems. We concluded that the government are putting measures in place to tackle the issue of obesity and they are making healthier food options available and that if people want to continue eating unhealthy foods that they should do so at their own risk. It was also agreed that more could be done by the government to tackle the issue of obesity as many people don’t realise the severity of obesity and the consequences that can come with it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We are doing more than enough to combat obesity. This is not a nanny state, If people want to eat too much and not do exercise then they deserve to be fat and ugly. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001566.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001566.soc index 4595c9b0..43920e15 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001566.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001566.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We don’t believe that advertising should be banned for children under the age of 18. We believe that a child's mind is too impressionable and therefore advertising should be regulated. We believe that advertising is key in terms of income for companies, especially in the current economic climate. However, we do believe that certain advertising should be banned and regulated. This includes advertising alcohol and cigarettes, which can have detrimental effects on children and young people. Also, adverts with sexual content or that promote dangerous/drugs/intoxicating substances should be banned. Adverts for children should also be regulated in terms of content. For example, they should not encourage children to become fat and unhealthy or advertise a range of other products that are not suitable for children and have the potential to be harmful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Advertising should not be banned for children under 18, but there should be stricter regulations for advertising that has the potential to be harmful to children. This includes advertising that encourages children to become fat and unhealthy, and advertising that encourages children to buy alcohol and cigarettes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We believe that advertising in some form should remain. However, it should follow certain guidelines. Unnecessary products like alcohol, cigarettes, and sexually explicit adverts should be regulated. Also adverts that promote dangerous/drugs/intoxicating substances should be banned. Advertising that targets under 18s should always be regulated to ensure that the children/young people can make their own informed choices and will not be convinced into purchasing something that they really don’t want or need” That was a typical example of a set of opinions, feedbacks and eventual consensus agreement that would be expressed by a group of adult members of this b6 FCT. The same -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We don’t believe that advertising should be banned for children under the age of 18. We believe that a child's mind is too impressionable and therefore advertising should be regulated. We believe that advertising is key in terms of income for companies, especially in the current economic climate. However, we do believe that certain advertising should be banned and regulated. This includes advertising alcohol and cigarettes, which can have detrimental effects on children and young people. Also, adverts with sexual content or that promote dangerous/drugs/intoxicating substances should be banned. Adverts for children should also be regulated in terms of content. For example, they should not encourage children to become fat and unhealthy or advertise a range of other products that are not suitable for children and have the potential to be harmful. However, this should not be to the point where all advertising for children is banned. Advertising is part of culture and children should be able to see adverts for products that are suitable for their age range. Children should also be able to make their own choices about what they buy and what they want to see advertised to them. Advertising can also be educational and help children to learn about the world around them and how it works.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We don’t believe that advertising should be banned for children under the age of 18. We believe that a child's mind is too impressionable and therefore advertising should be regulated. We believe that advertising is key in terms of income for companies, especially in the current economic climate. However, we do believe that certain advertising should be banned and regulated. This includes advertising alcohol and cigarettes, which can have detrimental effects on children and young people. Also, adverts with sexual content or that promote dangerous/drugs/intoxicating substances should be banned. Adverts for children should also be regulated in terms of content. For example, they should not encourage children to become fat and unhealthy or advertise a range of other products that are not suitable for children and have the potential to be harmful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Advertising should not be banned for children under 18, but there should be stricter regulations for advertising that has the potential to be harmful to children. This includes advertising that encourages children to become fat and unhealthy, and advertising that encourages children to buy alcohol and cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We believe that advertising in some form should remain. However, it should follow certain guidelines. Unnecessary products like alcohol, cigarettes, and sexually explicit adverts should be regulated. Also adverts that promote dangerous/drugs/intoxicating substances should be banned. Advertising that targets under 18s should always be regulated to ensure that the children/young people can make their own informed choices and will not be convinced into purchasing something that they really don’t want or need” That was a typical example of a set of opinions, feedbacks and eventual consensus agreement that would be expressed by a group of adult members of this b6 FCT. The same +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We don’t believe that advertising should be banned for children under the age of 18. We believe that a child's mind is too impressionable and therefore advertising should be regulated. We believe that advertising is key in terms of income for companies, especially in the current economic climate. However, we do believe that certain advertising should be banned and regulated. This includes advertising alcohol and cigarettes, which can have detrimental effects on children and young people. Also, adverts with sexual content or that promote dangerous/drugs/intoxicating substances should be banned. Adverts for children should also be regulated in terms of content. For example, they should not encourage children to become fat and unhealthy or advertise a range of other products that are not suitable for children and have the potential to be harmful. However, this should not be to the point where all advertising for children is banned. Advertising is part of culture and children should be able to see adverts for products that are suitable for their age range. Children should also be able to make their own choices about what they buy and what they want to see advertised to them. Advertising can also be educational and help children to learn about the world around them and how it works.” 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001567.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001567.soc index 0f118e9e..29036ffd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001567.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001567.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are a number of benefits of nuclear energy. Primarily, nuclear energy is a clean and safe way of generating vasts amount of electricity needed to keep up with the pace of economic and social development around the world. Energy, along with clean water, have been proven as to be major economic stimulants and can help countries 'level up' and rise from poverty. In the first world, clean energy has never been so important. The actual risk of nuclear meltdown is offset by many safety procedures a strict guidelines. It is a cheaper and safer alternative compared to the other sources of energy generation. The small risk is worth the huge reward. The risk of nuclear meltdowns is not worth the benefits of nuclear energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Nuclear energy, while having a number of advantages (most notably being clean and effective) is not worth the risk of a nuclear meltdown as the risk of such a devastating event far outweighs any potential benefit that may come from nuclear energy. The dangers of a nuclear meltdown are well documented and while it may be correct to say that such an event is offset by many strict safety procedures and guidelines, it is an undeniable fact that these do not always work to prevent a meltdown and a devastating nuclear meltdown has happened in the recent past (Chernobyl and Fukushima) and still has lasting consequences today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. The increasing use and findings of renewable energy mean there are more sources than ever to utilise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. There are a number of benefits to the use of nuclear energy, primarily the fact that it is a clean and safe way of generating vasts amounts of electricity needed to keep up with the pace of economic and social development around the world. Energy, along with clean water, have been proven as to be major economic stimulants and can help countries 'level up' and rise from poverty. In the first world, clean energy has never been so important. The actual risk of nuclear meltdown is offset by many safety procedures a strict guidelines. It is a cheaper and safer alternative compared to the other sources of energy generation. The small risk is worth the huge reward. However, while the benefits of nuclear energy are important, the risk of nuclear meltdowns is simply too great to ignore. The deadly effects of nuclear meltdown are well documented, and have occurred in the recent past where the effects are still being felt today. The risk of nuclear meltdowns is not worth the benefits of nuclear energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are a number of benefits of nuclear energy. Primarily, nuclear energy is a clean and safe way of generating vasts amount of electricity needed to keep up with the pace of economic and social development around the world. Energy, along with clean water, have been proven as to be major economic stimulants and can help countries 'level up' and rise from poverty. In the first world, clean energy has never been so important. The actual risk of nuclear meltdown is offset by many safety procedures a strict guidelines. It is a cheaper and safer alternative compared to the other sources of energy generation. The small risk is worth the huge reward. The risk of nuclear meltdowns is not worth the benefits of nuclear energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Nuclear energy, while having a number of advantages (most notably being clean and effective) is not worth the risk of a nuclear meltdown as the risk of such a devastating event far outweighs any potential benefit that may come from nuclear energy. The dangers of a nuclear meltdown are well documented and while it may be correct to say that such an event is offset by many strict safety procedures and guidelines, it is an undeniable fact that these do not always work to prevent a meltdown and a devastating nuclear meltdown has happened in the recent past (Chernobyl and Fukushima) and still has lasting consequences today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. The increasing use and findings of renewable energy mean there are more sources than ever to utilise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk of nuclear meltdowns. There are a number of benefits to the use of nuclear energy, primarily the fact that it is a clean and safe way of generating vasts amounts of electricity needed to keep up with the pace of economic and social development around the world. Energy, along with clean water, have been proven as to be major economic stimulants and can help countries 'level up' and rise from poverty. In the first world, clean energy has never been so important. The actual risk of nuclear meltdown is offset by many safety procedures a strict guidelines. It is a cheaper and safer alternative compared to the other sources of energy generation. The small risk is worth the huge reward. However, while the benefits of nuclear energy are important, the risk of nuclear meltdowns is simply too great to ignore. The deadly effects of nuclear meltdown are well documented, and have occurred in the recent past where the effects are still being felt today. The risk of nuclear meltdowns is not worth the benefits of nuclear energy. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001568.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001568.soc index b1607a0c..fcc8a2ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001568.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001568.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic. Plastic pollution threatens food safety and quality, human health, marine life, coastal tourism and contributes to climate change, and so the use of non-biodegradable plastic is damaging where it is disposed of without regulation. Non-biodegradable plastic should therefore be banned in disposable goods, while we implement schemes to give financial support for companies to recycle or to switch to viable alternatives. How will you get participants to give ‘good’ quality input? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on the use of non-biodegradable plastic. It should be replaced with biodegradable alternatives, and the costs of this transition should be shared between government, industry and consumers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic for most applications, and move towards using alternatives. This will limit the pollution to our oceans and other aquatic ecosystems where most of it ends up, since it takes many years to breakdown and by that time will have dispersed. Non-biodegradable plastic cannot be broken down to its original constituents by natural methods, but must instead undergo chemical change, and so we should ban it where it is commonly disposed of without regulation. We could still use non-biodegradable plastics, but in recycable forms or schemes, where disposal is also regulated. However, this is not enough and we should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic in disposable goods, and provide financial support or incentives for companies to switch to viable alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic. Plastic pollution threatens food safety and quality, human health, marine life, coastal tourism and contributes to climate change, and so the use of non-biodegradable plastic is damaging where it is disposed of without regulation. We could still use non-biodegradable plastics, but in recycable forms or schemes, where disposal is also regulated. However, this is not enough and we should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic in disposable goods, and provide financial support or incentives for companies to switch to viable alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic. Plastic pollution threatens food safety and quality, human health, marine life, coastal tourism and contributes to climate change, and so the use of non-biodegradable plastic is damaging where it is disposed of without regulation. Non-biodegradable plastic should therefore be banned in disposable goods, while we implement schemes to give financial support for companies to recycle or to switch to viable alternatives. How will you get participants to give ‘good’ quality input? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on the use of non-biodegradable plastic. It should be replaced with biodegradable alternatives, and the costs of this transition should be shared between government, industry and consumers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic for most applications, and move towards using alternatives. This will limit the pollution to our oceans and other aquatic ecosystems where most of it ends up, since it takes many years to breakdown and by that time will have dispersed. Non-biodegradable plastic cannot be broken down to its original constituents by natural methods, but must instead undergo chemical change, and so we should ban it where it is commonly disposed of without regulation. We could still use non-biodegradable plastics, but in recycable forms or schemes, where disposal is also regulated. However, this is not enough and we should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic in disposable goods, and provide financial support or incentives for companies to switch to viable alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic. Plastic pollution threatens food safety and quality, human health, marine life, coastal tourism and contributes to climate change, and so the use of non-biodegradable plastic is damaging where it is disposed of without regulation. We could still use non-biodegradable plastics, but in recycable forms or schemes, where disposal is also regulated. However, this is not enough and we should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic in disposable goods, and provide financial support or incentives for companies to switch to viable alternatives. 2: 3,4,1,2 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001569.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001569.soc index 42e857bd..b54cb1db 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001569.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001569.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should provide a Universal Basic Income of £1000 per month to everyone. This would initially alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are in favour of a Universal Basic Income for everyone. While it may have the potential to encourage laziness, the overall benefits far outweigh the risks and drawbacks of a Universal Basic Income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide a basic income of 1000 GBP per month to everyone. This would alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 per month to everyone. The government should provide a basic income of £1000 +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should provide a Universal Basic Income of £1000 per month to everyone. This would initially alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are in favour of a Universal Basic Income for everyone. While it may have the potential to encourage laziness, the overall benefits far outweigh the risks and drawbacks of a Universal Basic Income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide a basic income of 1000 GBP per month to everyone. This would alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001570.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001570.soc index df2caa47..18915a71 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001570.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001570.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We should tax the wealthy more to contribute to society and to help the less fortunate. This is because they have the most money, and can afford to pay more. The money that they pay is used to help others, which can only be seen as a good thing.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should tax the wealthy more. The reasons for this is that they are the people who have the most money and therefore can afford to pay more. Also, the tax that they pay will be used to benefit society and help those who are less fortunate. This is only fair, as the wealthy have more than enough money to live comfortably and can afford to pay more tax. This means that the tax will no longer be taken from the lower income and their standard of living will not be affected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should tax the wealthy more. This is because they are the people who have the most money and therefore can afford to pay more. Also, the tax that they pay will be used to benefit society and help those who are less fortunate. This is only fair, as the wealthy have more than enough money to live comfortably and can afford to pay more tax. This will also reduce the tax burden of those who earn less and therefore increase the amount of money that they can use to benefit themselves and their families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The wealthy should be taxed more because the wealthier you are, the more you can afford to pay, and therefore should pay more. This will benefit society and enable people to have more of a level playing field in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We should tax the wealthy more to contribute to society and to help the less fortunate. This is because they have the most money, and can afford to pay more. The money that they pay is used to help others, which can only be seen as a good thing.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should tax the wealthy more. The reasons for this is that they are the people who have the most money and therefore can afford to pay more. Also, the tax that they pay will be used to benefit society and help those who are less fortunate. This is only fair, as the wealthy have more than enough money to live comfortably and can afford to pay more tax. This means that the tax will no longer be taken from the lower income and their standard of living will not be affected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should tax the wealthy more. This is because they are the people who have the most money and therefore can afford to pay more. Also, the tax that they pay will be used to benefit society and help those who are less fortunate. This is only fair, as the wealthy have more than enough money to live comfortably and can afford to pay more tax. This will also reduce the tax burden of those who earn less and therefore increase the amount of money that they can use to benefit themselves and their families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The wealthy should be taxed more because the wealthier you are, the more you can afford to pay, and therefore should pay more. This will benefit society and enable people to have more of a level playing field in life. 4: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001571.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001571.soc index e0cdec90..aa694632 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001571.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001571.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we believe that Universal Basic Income is a good idea and should be implemented. However, we also believe that it should be done in a way that is sustainable and fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that we should have a Universal Basic Income. This is because it would be fair to everyone in the society and not favour some people over others. It would also ensure that everyone is happy and treated in the same way as one another. The group of participants also believe that it would create money in the economy because everyone would have more money to spend so their mental health would improve. Everyone will be on the same rate and its best for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is important to establish that we should have a universal basic income. At this moment, it is the only way of making sure everyone in the society is treated the same and everyone is happy. It is also the only way to ensure a fair distribution of this to everyone in the society and to ensure everyone has the necessities in life. We must remember that everyone deserves to be treated fairly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income will have a negative effect on the economy and its benefits for the people are yet to be seen, however, we do believe that it will give people financial security. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we believe that Universal Basic Income is a good idea and should be implemented. However, we also believe that it should be done in a way that is sustainable and fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that it should be done in a way that is fair for everyone. We believe that it should be done in a way that does not disadvantage those who work and that +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group of participants believe that we should have a Universal Basic Income. This is because it would be fair to everyone in the society and not favour some people over others. It would also ensure that everyone is happy and treated in the same way as one another. The group of participants also believe that it would create money in the economy because everyone would have more money to spend so their mental health would improve. Everyone will be on the same rate and its best for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is important to establish that we should have a universal basic income. At this moment, it is the only way of making sure everyone in the society is treated the same and everyone is happy. It is also the only way to ensure a fair distribution of this to everyone in the society and to ensure everyone has the necessities in life. We must remember that everyone deserves to be treated fairly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income will have a negative effect on the economy and its benefits for the people are yet to be seen, however, we do believe that it will give people financial security. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001572.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001572.soc index dc6e58be..c3d3bac9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001572.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001572.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the use of cars in central London. However, it was felt that a complete ban would not be practical and that there would need to be some exemptions. These exemptions would include emergency vehicles, taxis, and private vehicles for residents. The group felt that there would need to be a transition period to allow people to adjust to the new rules and that there would need to be a period of consultation with London residents and businesses to allow them to have their say on the matter. __________________________ If you would like help having a debate (virtually) using the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the use of cars in central London. However, it was felt that a complete ban would not be practical and that there would need to be some exemptions. These exemptions would include emergency vehicles, taxis, and private vehicles for residents. The group felt that there would need to be a transition period to allow people to adjust to the new rules and that there would need to be a period of consultation with London residents and businesses to allow them to have their say on the matter. The group felt that it was also important to note that there were many benefits to be gained from limiting car usage in central London, such as less pollution, less congestion, and more space for cyclists and pedestrians. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The initial draft consensus statement reflects the views of most in the group. That statement is accurate to the extent that it reflects a view that cars should be reduced in number in London, particularly in the centre. However, no group members had an opinion that cars should be completely banned in central London. It is felt that while this may help to reduce pollution and congestion, it would not be practical because many people who live in central London would be forced to keep their cars outside of the centre. There would also need to be exemptions for emergency vehicles and taxis (including private hire vehicles and minicabs). It is also felt that people would require time to prepare for such a dramatic change as an all-out ban of cars, particularly for businesses to adjust the way they operate. It is recommended that before considering a ban, the government should consult with Londoners to see if the majority would support it, and to prepare a plan for the ban to be implemented. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a ban on all private vehicles in Central London. There should be exemptions for emergency vehicles, taxis, and private vehicles for residents. There should be a transition period to allow people to adjust to the new rules and there should be a period of consultation with London residents and businesses to allow them to have their say on the matter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the use of cars in central London. However, it was felt that a complete ban would not be practical and that there would need to be some exemptions. These exemptions would include emergency vehicles, taxis, and private vehicles for residents. The group felt that there would need to be a transition period to allow people to adjust to the new rules and that there would need to be a period of consultation with London residents and businesses to allow them to have their say on the matter. __________________________ If you would like help having a debate (virtually) using the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the use of cars in central London. However, it was felt that a complete ban would not be practical and that there would need to be some exemptions. These exemptions would include emergency vehicles, taxis, and private vehicles for residents. The group felt that there would need to be a transition period to allow people to adjust to the new rules and that there would need to be a period of consultation with London residents and businesses to allow them to have their say on the matter. The group felt that it was also important to note that there were many benefits to be gained from limiting car usage in central London, such as less pollution, less congestion, and more space for cyclists and pedestrians. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The initial draft consensus statement reflects the views of most in the group. That statement is accurate to the extent that it reflects a view that cars should be reduced in number in London, particularly in the centre. However, no group members had an opinion that cars should be completely banned in central London. It is felt that while this may help to reduce pollution and congestion, it would not be practical because many people who live in central London would be forced to keep their cars outside of the centre. There would also need to be exemptions for emergency vehicles and taxis (including private hire vehicles and minicabs). It is also felt that people would require time to prepare for such a dramatic change as an all-out ban of cars, particularly for businesses to adjust the way they operate. It is recommended that before considering a ban, the government should consult with Londoners to see if the majority would support it, and to prepare a plan for the ban to be implemented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a ban on all private vehicles in Central London. There should be exemptions for emergency vehicles, taxis, and private vehicles for residents. There should be a transition period to allow people to adjust to the new rules and there should be a period of consultation with London residents and businesses to allow them to have their say on the matter. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001573.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001573.soc index 38a876cd..c5565495 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001573.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001573.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, women should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t, and there are many areas where women can be just as useful as men in the military. It is no secret that women have been a valuable asset in war in the past, especially in more recent times. However, in more recent wars we have seen women come to the front lines as snipers and combat pilots. The role of women in the military has changed dramatically in the past 50 years and this must be reflected in the policies. We must ensure that women and men are allowed to serve in the military in an equal capacity, and the military must remain a place where anyone can serve, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Women should be allowed to serve in the military, but not on the front lines as combatants Do you agree with the consensus view? Do you think it would have been better for the group to have come to a consensus with a different opinion? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Men and women should be allowed to serve in the military. Women have the right to serve their country in the same way that men do. In many cases, women are just as capable as men, and in some cases they are more capable. Women have proven themselves in the past and they will continue to do so in the future. The only exception to this is in the case of front line combat roles, as it is widely accepted that men are physically stronger than women. However, women can still serve in the military in a wide range of other roles.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, both men and women should be allowed to serve in the military. However, women should not be allowed to serve in the front lines as this would be unfair to men who would be required to serve in the front lines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, women should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t, and there are many areas where women can be just as useful as men in the military. It is no secret that women have been a valuable asset in war in the past, especially in more recent times. However, in more recent wars we have seen women come to the front lines as snipers and combat pilots. The role of women in the military has changed dramatically in the past 50 years and this must be reflected in the policies. We must ensure that women and men are allowed to serve in the military in an equal capacity, and the military must remain a place where anyone can serve, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Women should be allowed to serve in the military, but not on the front lines as combatants Do you agree with the consensus view? Do you think it would have been better for the group to have come to a consensus with a different opinion? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Men and women should be allowed to serve in the military. Women have the right to serve their country in the same way that men do. In many cases, women are just as capable as men, and in some cases they are more capable. Women have proven themselves in the past and they will continue to do so in the future. The only exception to this is in the case of front line combat roles, as it is widely accepted that men are physically stronger than women. However, women can still serve in the military in a wide range of other roles.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, both men and women should be allowed to serve in the military. However, women should not be allowed to serve in the front lines as this would be unfair to men who would be required to serve in the front lines. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001574.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001574.soc index 118ce50a..2a3a537c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001574.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001574.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, women should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t, and there are many areas where women can be just as useful as men in the military. It is no secret that women have been a valuable asset in war in the past, especially in more recent times. However, in more recent wars we have seen women come to the front lines as snipers and combat pilots. The role of women in the military has changed dramatically in the past 50 years and this must be reflected in the policies. We must ensure that women and men are allowed to serve in the military in an equal capacity, and the military must remain a place where anyone can serve, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. However, in front line roles, men and women should be treated equally with regards to their physical ability. For example, men should be required to carry the same amount of weight as women for the same amount of time, and vice versa. This is in order to ensure that all soldiers are treated equally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, women should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t, and there are many areas where women can be just as useful as men in the military. It is no secret that women have been a valuable asset in war in the past, especially in more recent times. However, in more recent wars we have seen women come to the front lines as snipers and combat pilots. The role of women in the military has changed dramatically in the past 50 years and this must be reflected in the policies. We must ensure that women and men are allowed to serve in the military in an equal capacity, and the military must remain a place where anyone can serve, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. We have also considered the physical differences between women and men and therefore proposed that women should not be placed on the front lines in combat, as the differences in physical abilities would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the military. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Women should absolutely be allowed to serve in the military, but not on the front lines. This is due to differences in physical abilities which make women more vulnerable at the front line, while still putting them at risk of harm in non-front line roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Women should be allowed to serve in the military in the same capacity as men, with the sole exception of front line roles. However, women should also be allowed to serve in the front line if they are able to meet the fitness requirements for the role. We see here that there has been very little disagreement between the individuals, and most of the debate is not so much about the content of the statement, but about the extent to which the consensus statement should allow women to serve in the military. The final statement is very similar to the first draft consensus statement, but also acknowledges that women have a role on the front line, if they so wish to. The NSSM 200 document also used the Delphi method, and like our consensus statement, the first draft NSSM 200 report was very similar to the final report. However, it is likely that unlike in the first example, the changes made to the draft document were more significant than the ones made to our consensus statement, because in the NSSM 200 case the participants did not know each other. The participants of the NSSM 200 project did not know each other, and there was no opportunity for face to face discussion of the contents of the draft report. Instead +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, women should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t, and there are many areas where women can be just as useful as men in the military. It is no secret that women have been a valuable asset in war in the past, especially in more recent times. However, in more recent wars we have seen women come to the front lines as snipers and combat pilots. The role of women in the military has changed dramatically in the past 50 years and this must be reflected in the policies. We must ensure that women and men are allowed to serve in the military in an equal capacity, and the military must remain a place where anyone can serve, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. However, in front line roles, men and women should be treated equally with regards to their physical ability. For example, men should be required to carry the same amount of weight as women for the same amount of time, and vice versa. This is in order to ensure that all soldiers are treated equally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, women should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t, and there are many areas where women can be just as useful as men in the military. It is no secret that women have been a valuable asset in war in the past, especially in more recent times. However, in more recent wars we have seen women come to the front lines as snipers and combat pilots. The role of women in the military has changed dramatically in the past 50 years and this must be reflected in the policies. We must ensure that women and men are allowed to serve in the military in an equal capacity, and the military must remain a place where anyone can serve, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. We have also considered the physical differences between women and men and therefore proposed that women should not be placed on the front lines in combat, as the differences in physical abilities would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the military. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Women should absolutely be allowed to serve in the military, but not on the front lines. This is due to differences in physical abilities which make women more vulnerable at the front line, while still putting them at risk of harm in non-front line roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Women should be allowed to serve in the military in the same capacity as men, with the sole exception of front line roles. However, women should also be allowed to serve in the front line if they are able to meet the fitness requirements for the role. We see here that there has been very little disagreement between the individuals, and most of the debate is not so much about the content of the statement, but about the extent to which the consensus statement should allow women to serve in the military. The final statement is very similar to the first draft consensus statement, but also acknowledges that women have a role on the front line, if they so wish to. The NSSM 200 document also used the Delphi method, and like our consensus statement, the first draft NSSM 200 report was very similar to the final report. However, it is likely that unlike in the first example, the changes made to the draft document were more significant than the ones made to our consensus statement, because in the NSSM 200 case the participants did not know each other. The participants of the NSSM 200 project did not know each other, and there was no opportunity for face to face discussion of the contents of the draft report. Instead 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001575.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001575.soc index e0c7dfe2..45c0b7de 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001575.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001575.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government are doing enough to combat obesity and it is important to make people aware of the consequences of obesity to encourage people to make healthier choices. We also think that the government should be putting more measures in place to encourage people to take up exercise such as building more sports centres. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was agreed that the government are doing enough to combat obesity and that obesity is a choice that people have control over. We agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of obesity leads to people suffering from a range of different health problems such as diabetes and heart problems. We concluded that the government are putting measures in place to tackle the issue of obesity and they are making healthier food options available and that if people want to continue eating unhealthy foods that they should do so at their own risk. It was also agreed that more could be done by the government to tackle the issue of obesity as many people don’t realise the severity of obesity and the consequences that can come with it. There should be more awareness of the negative effects of obesity to make people change their lifestyle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government are doing enough to combat obesity and that obesity is a choice that people have control over. We agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of obesity leads to people suffering from a range of different health problems such as diabetes and heart problems. We concluded that the government are putting measures in place to tackle the issue of obesity and they are making healthier food options available and that if people want to continue eating unhealthy foods that they should do so at their own risk. We also agreed that more could be done by the government to tackle the issue of obesity as many people don’t realise the severity of obesity and the consequences that can come with it. The group of participants also agreed that if the government did do more to tackle the issue of obesity, they could focus more on making healthy food options more accessible, so that people in less fortunate positions are more likely to have the option of eating healthy food. The group also agreed that the government could focus more on the psychological impact of obesity and why people may struggle with this, as well as providing more information to people on how to live a healthy lifestyle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should do more to combat obesity and the risk of severe illness, injury and death as a result. The current steps in place are having a good effect however more can be done to further mitigate the increasing statistics, for example the government can do more to educate people on healthy eating and exercise. Cosy Corner +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government are doing enough to combat obesity and it is important to make people aware of the consequences of obesity to encourage people to make healthier choices. We also think that the government should be putting more measures in place to encourage people to take up exercise such as building more sports centres. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was agreed that the government are doing enough to combat obesity and that obesity is a choice that people have control over. We agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of obesity leads to people suffering from a range of different health problems such as diabetes and heart problems. We concluded that the government are putting measures in place to tackle the issue of obesity and they are making healthier food options available and that if people want to continue eating unhealthy foods that they should do so at their own risk. It was also agreed that more could be done by the government to tackle the issue of obesity as many people don’t realise the severity of obesity and the consequences that can come with it. There should be more awareness of the negative effects of obesity to make people change their lifestyle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government are doing enough to combat obesity and that obesity is a choice that people have control over. We agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of obesity leads to people suffering from a range of different health problems such as diabetes and heart problems. We concluded that the government are putting measures in place to tackle the issue of obesity and they are making healthier food options available and that if people want to continue eating unhealthy foods that they should do so at their own risk. We also agreed that more could be done by the government to tackle the issue of obesity as many people don’t realise the severity of obesity and the consequences that can come with it. The group of participants also agreed that if the government did do more to tackle the issue of obesity, they could focus more on making healthy food options more accessible, so that people in less fortunate positions are more likely to have the option of eating healthy food. The group also agreed that the government could focus more on the psychological impact of obesity and why people may struggle with this, as well as providing more information to people on how to live a healthy lifestyle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should do more to combat obesity and the risk of severe illness, injury and death as a result. The current steps in place are having a good effect however more can be done to further mitigate the increasing statistics, for example the government can do more to educate people on healthy eating and exercise. Cosy Corner 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001576.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001576.soc index f1faa3a0..2ad2325b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001576.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001576.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We have debated the topic for a long time and come to the conclusion that it should be easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. We have noted the arguments for and against. We have also noted that the UK does not actually have a policy regarding this. We do not think the UK should have a policy because this is too draconian and it is unlikely to be followed, given the UK's colonial past. We feel it should be the responsibility of the UK government to do what is best in the interests of its people. In line with this, the UK should make it easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. This will also help the government to keep track of who is coming in, and the situation they are coming from.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. This will reduce the number of people who are forced to make dangerous journeys to enter the country, and will also help the government to keep track of the number of people entering the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think that we should not change our asylum-seeking policy, because people will think that it is too easy to come to the UK and will take advantage of the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very prohibitive and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The system is also very bureaucratic and slow, which is a problem for those who are in desperate need of help. The UK has a lot of resources and is a very wealthy country, and should be able to accommodate those in need. The UK has a lot to answer for in terms of foreign policy and its colonial past, and should be taking responsibility for the problems it has caused. The UK has a lot of skilled workers from other countries, and it would be beneficial for the UK to make it easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We have debated the topic for a long time and come to the conclusion that it should be easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. We have noted the arguments for and against. We have also noted that the UK does not actually have a policy regarding this. We do not think the UK should have a policy because this is too draconian and it is unlikely to be followed, given the UK's colonial past. We feel it should be the responsibility of the UK government to do what is best in the interests of its people. In line with this, the UK should make it easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. This will also help the government to keep track of who is coming in, and the situation they are coming from.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. This will reduce the number of people who are forced to make dangerous journeys to enter the country, and will also help the government to keep track of the number of people entering the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think that we should not change our asylum-seeking policy, because people will think that it is too easy to come to the UK and will take advantage of the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very prohibitive and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The system is also very bureaucratic and slow, which is a problem for those who are in desperate need of help. The UK has a lot of resources and is a very wealthy country, and should be able to accommodate those in need. The UK has a lot to answer for in terms of foreign policy and its colonial past, and should be taking responsibility for the problems it has caused. The UK has a lot of skilled workers from other countries, and it would be beneficial for the UK to make it easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001577.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001577.soc index 9cb75097..ac110d90 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001577.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001577.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis for recreational use. The main argument for this was that cannabis is already widely used and is a relatively safe drug compared to many others. The group felt that legalising cannabis would allow the government to regulate the market, and therefore protect the public from dangerous products. The group felt that cannabis should be treated in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco, with a ban on advertising and a minimum age for purchase. The group felt that driving under the influence of cannabis should be treated in the same way as driving under the influence of alcohol. The group felt that cannabis should be legalised for medicinal use, with the proviso that it should be used as a last resort, when other treatments have failed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the legalization of cannabis would be an effective measure in reducing crime and violence on our streets. It would allow us to enforce a tighter control over the quality of drugs, their strength, and the age limits to whom they are accessible. The legalization of cannabis would also bring the control of its usage out into the open and hopefully decrease the stigma around the use of it. It would also have the effect of reducing the likelihood of criminals taking control of the cannabis trade, which is proven to lead to more dangerous drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current laws were not working and the current penalties for possession and use of cannabis were too harsh. The group felt that the current +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis for recreational use. The main argument for this was that cannabis is already widely used and is a relatively safe drug compared to many others. The group felt that legalising cannabis would allow the government to regulate the market, and therefore protect the public from dangerous products. The group felt that cannabis should be treated in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco, with a ban on advertising and a minimum age for purchase. The group felt that driving under the influence of cannabis should be treated in the same way as driving under the influence of alcohol. The group felt that cannabis should be legalised for medicinal use, with the proviso that it should be used as a last resort, when other treatments have failed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the legalization of cannabis would be an effective measure in reducing crime and violence on our streets. It would allow us to enforce a tighter control over the quality of drugs, their strength, and the age limits to whom they are accessible. The legalization of cannabis would also bring the control of its usage out into the open and hopefully decrease the stigma around the use of it. It would also have the effect of reducing the likelihood of criminals taking control of the cannabis trade, which is proven to lead to more dangerous drugs. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001578.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001578.soc index 2fece439..0207bf01 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001578.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001578.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The benefits of nuclear energy can be beneficial, but at the same time they can be very harmful. Although it can be argued that the nuclear meltdown is unlikely to happen due to a high amount of precaution that is put in place, the risk is still there. The radiation released into the environment can be fatal to both humans and animals, and therefore we should look at the green energy resources. We can look at the risk of nuclear meltdown in relation to the impact of climate change, which is also a risk to humanity, however I think the impact of a nuclear meltdown is likely to be more fatal and more serious than that of climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The risk of nuclear energy is low, but the effects of a meltdown are catastrophic. As a result, the benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe that nuclear energy is a great source of energy and is cleaner than burning fossil fuels and produces less CO2. However, I believe that the risk of a nuclear meltdown is too high and therefore the benefits of nuclear energy are not worth it. We did not manage to agree on a consensus view for this question, but we did agree on the following points: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The benefits of nuclear energy can be beneficial, but at the same time they can be very harmful. Although it can be argued that the nuclear meltdown is unlikely to happen due to a high amount of precaution that is put in place, the risk is still there. The radiation released into the environment can be fatal to both humans and animals, and therefore we should look at the green energy resources. We can look at the risk of nuclear meltdown in relation to the impact of climate change, which is also a risk to humanity, however I think the impact of a nuclear meltdown is likely to be more fatal and more serious than that of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The risk of nuclear energy is low, but the effects of a meltdown are catastrophic. As a result, the benefits of nuclear energy are not worth the risk.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe that nuclear energy is a great source of energy and is cleaner than burning fossil fuels and produces less CO2. However, I believe that the risk of a nuclear meltdown is too high and therefore the benefits of nuclear energy are not worth it. We did not manage to agree on a consensus view for this question, but we did agree on the following points: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001579.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001579.soc index e8c43c31..10401d85 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001579.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001579.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, humans should be sent into space. The benefits of sending humans into space outweigh the risks. The risks are worth taking as they are highly trained astronauts who are aware of the risks they are taking. The benefits of sending humans into space include furthering our understanding of the universe and the potential to discover life on other planets. This is invaluable to us as a species and will be worth the risks taken. Furthermore, the risks are not as high as they used to be and the safety of the astronauts is a priority. Therefore, I believe that we should send humans into space.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Humans should be sent into space as it is important to further our understanding of space and the universe. The risks involved are worth the potential benefits of going into space.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans should be sent into space for exploration purposes but not for exploitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should send humans into space. The reasons for this is that humans are the most advanced of the animals on earth and as such, are the most able to explore and investigate space and space exploration. While it is undeniable that it is an expensive and dangerous endeavor, there are many benefits that come from sending humans into space. It is often very necessary in exploration, as animals cannot consent to being in space, humans can and as such, it is much more ethical to send humans into space than animals. Furthermore, it is very important for scientific research and furthering our understanding of space. It allows us to better understand the planet we are on, as well as other planets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, humans should be sent into space. The benefits of sending humans into space outweigh the risks. The risks are worth taking as they are highly trained astronauts who are aware of the risks they are taking. The benefits of sending humans into space include furthering our understanding of the universe and the potential to discover life on other planets. This is invaluable to us as a species and will be worth the risks taken. Furthermore, the risks are not as high as they used to be and the safety of the astronauts is a priority. Therefore, I believe that we should send humans into space.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Humans should be sent into space as it is important to further our understanding of space and the universe. The risks involved are worth the potential benefits of going into space.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans should be sent into space for exploration purposes but not for exploitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should send humans into space. The reasons for this is that humans are the most advanced of the animals on earth and as such, are the most able to explore and investigate space and space exploration. While it is undeniable that it is an expensive and dangerous endeavor, there are many benefits that come from sending humans into space. It is often very necessary in exploration, as animals cannot consent to being in space, humans can and as such, it is much more ethical to send humans into space than animals. Furthermore, it is very important for scientific research and furthering our understanding of space. It allows us to better understand the planet we are on, as well as other planets. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001580.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001580.soc index a3508ad0..72117d7b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001580.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001580.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that we should have a Universal Basic Income. This is because it would be fair to everyone in the society and not favour some people over others. It would also ensure that everyone is happy and treated in the same way as one another. The group of participants also believe that it would create money in the economy because everyone would have more money to spend so their mental health would improve. Everyone will be on the same rate and its best for everyone. There is a hope that this would create money in the economy. However, it is difficult to know until the scheme has actually been set up and seen how it goes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that we should have a Universal Basic Income. This is because it would be fair to everyone in the society and not favour some people over others. It would also ensure that everyone is happy and treated in the same way as one another. The group of participants also believe that it would create money in the economy because everyone would have more money to spend so their mental health would improve. Everyone will be on the same rate and its best for everyone. We also believe that it would be best to look at other countries who are implementing this idea and see what the outcome is and then take the decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that we should have a Universal Basic Income. This is because it would be fair to everyone in the society and not favour some people over others. It would also ensure that everyone is happy and treated in the same way as one another. The group of participants also believe that it would create money in the economy because everyone would have more money to spend so their mental health would improve. Everyone will be on the same rate and its best for everyone. The discussion method, as demonstrated above, worked well, and I would have preferred to keep this group together to see if they could have reached an agreement about whether the group should consider the Universal Basic Income to be a form of welfare or not. However, due to some participants being in a rush to go, and others being on their lunch breaks, the group had to be dispersed and reformed into a new group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants believe that we should have a Universal Basic Income. This is because it would be fair to everyone in the society and not favour some people over others. It would also ensure that everyone is happy and treated in the same way as one another. The group of participants also believe that it would create money in the economy because everyone would have more money to spend so their mental health would improve. Everyone will be on the same rate and its best for everyone. There is a hope that this would create money in the economy. However, it is difficult to know until the scheme has actually been set up and seen how it goes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group of participants believe that we should have a Universal Basic Income. This is because it would be fair to everyone in the society and not favour some people over others. It would also ensure that everyone is happy and treated in the same way as one another. The group of participants also believe that it would create money in the economy because everyone would have more money to spend so their mental health would improve. Everyone will be on the same rate and its best for everyone. We also believe that it would be best to look at other countries who are implementing this idea and see what the outcome is and then take the decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group of participants believe that we should have a Universal Basic Income. This is because it would be fair to everyone in the society and not favour some people over others. It would also ensure that everyone is happy and treated in the same way as one another. The group of participants also believe that it would create money in the economy because everyone would have more money to spend so their mental health would improve. Everyone will be on the same rate and its best for everyone. The discussion method, as demonstrated above, worked well, and I would have preferred to keep this group together to see if they could have reached an agreement about whether the group should consider the Universal Basic Income to be a form of welfare or not. However, due to some participants being in a rush to go, and others being on their lunch breaks, the group had to be dispersed and reformed into a new group. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001581.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001581.soc index 42ddb6ba..6933f962 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001581.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001581.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the NHS is underfunded, which is why it is worse than the NHS in other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is currently worse than the health service in other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK's NHS is better than in other countries. The NHS is free at the point of use, and this is a good model for health care. However, the NHS is currently underfunded, and this is having a negative impact on the quality of care that can be provided. Therefore, it is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS has some very positive qualities, especially when compared to some of the USA's for-profit alternatives. However, the NHS in the UK is currently under-funded and austerity cuts have taken a toll on its ability to provide high quality care. The NHS is worse than the health service in other countries, which tend to have lower population densities and better funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the NHS is underfunded, which is why it is worse than the NHS in other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is currently worse than the health service in other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK's NHS is better than in other countries. The NHS is free at the point of use, and this is a good model for health care. However, the NHS is currently underfunded, and this is having a negative impact on the quality of care that can be provided. Therefore, it is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS has some very positive qualities, especially when compared to some of the USA's for-profit alternatives. However, the NHS in the UK is currently under-funded and austerity cuts have taken a toll on its ability to provide high quality care. The NHS is worse than the health service in other countries, which tend to have lower population densities and better funding. 4: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001582.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001582.soc index 5428c05f..4dc90c9f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001582.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001582.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group initially viewed a universal basic income negatively, but further understanding of the issue made all of the group members realize that it may actually be a positive in the longer term, especially taking into account future trends in technology. The group is in agreement that a trial should be carried out in specific communities to observe its effect before rolling out to the entire country, and in particular would like to see how it changes the social economic status of women, and poor minorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should provide a Universal Basic Income of £1000 per month to everyone. This would initially alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. There are some economic, cultural and social limitations of such an endeavor, such as the demotivation to work and perform for employees who know they will get an income at the end of the month, so it is imperative that this initiative be carefully studied and thoroughly rolled out before its affects on the economy are observed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should provide a Universal Basic Income of £1000 per month to everyone. This would initially alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. This measure would also have to be first trialled in specific communities to observe its impact on specific metrics, then rolled out on a wider scale if the results are satisfactory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide a Universal Basic Income of £1000 per month to everyone. This would initially alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. However, before a Universal Basic Income policy is implemented, the potential drawbacks must be carefully considered. Conclusions: Basic income and blockchain technology have a number of strong points in common. Both are designed to ensure a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities, and to incentivize creativity and innovation. The combination of blockchain technology and basic income can therefore potentially unleash a wave of economic and social benefits, especially in a crisis period such as the one we are experiencing right now. Discussion: As with any new idea or technology, some people are already questioning whether a blockchain-enabled universal basic income system is feasible. However +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group initially viewed a universal basic income negatively, but further understanding of the issue made all of the group members realize that it may actually be a positive in the longer term, especially taking into account future trends in technology. The group is in agreement that a trial should be carried out in specific communities to observe its effect before rolling out to the entire country, and in particular would like to see how it changes the social economic status of women, and poor minorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should provide a Universal Basic Income of £1000 per month to everyone. This would initially alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. There are some economic, cultural and social limitations of such an endeavor, such as the demotivation to work and perform for employees who know they will get an income at the end of the month, so it is imperative that this initiative be carefully studied and thoroughly rolled out before its affects on the economy are observed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should provide a Universal Basic Income of £1000 per month to everyone. This would initially alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. This measure would also have to be first trialled in specific communities to observe its impact on specific metrics, then rolled out on a wider scale if the results are satisfactory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide a Universal Basic Income of £1000 per month to everyone. This would initially alleviate poverty for disadvantaged communities, providing them with a safety net to pursue the necessary education and skill building programs. Another benefit of a universal income program would be a simplified welfare system. Additionally, this measure should be implemented in anticipation of new disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, which have already started to threaten certain job sectors. For middle class individuals, a basic income of 1000 GBP per month would also allow them to re-skill or make appropriate career changes towards a more enjoyable type of work for them. However, before a Universal Basic Income policy is implemented, the potential drawbacks must be carefully considered. Conclusions: Basic income and blockchain technology have a number of strong points in common. Both are designed to ensure a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities, and to incentivize creativity and innovation. The combination of blockchain technology and basic income can therefore potentially unleash a wave of economic and social benefits, especially in a crisis period such as the one we are experiencing right now. Discussion: As with any new idea or technology, some people are already questioning whether a blockchain-enabled universal basic income system is feasible. However 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001583.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001583.soc index ecf4369c..0e857343 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001583.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001583.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While nuclear power may be seen as a good alternative to coal and fossil fuels in terms of helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it should not be seen as the main solution. The primary focus should be on the long term solution of renewable energy, which is a more sustainable option. However, the government should not completely cut off nuclear power from the list of options in the immediate future. The biggest problem with nuclear power is the threat of a disaster, as seen in the recent Japanese tsunami disaster. The government should enforce strict and high safety regulations to ensure the utmost security and to ensure that the environment is not threatened. In the future, nuclear power should be phased out completely, but until then, it should be seen as a temporary solution while the government focuses on sustainable forms of energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building new nuclear power stations. The group felt that the potential dangers outweighed the potential benefits. The group felt that the government should be investing in renewable energy sources instead, such as wind power and solar power. The group felt that nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist organisations and that the potential for a nuclear disaster is too great. The group felt that nuclear power stations are not a good use of government finances when there are more important things that need to be funded, such as the health service and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we do not think that the government should build new nuclear power stations. There are many reasons for this, however the main one is that they are a target for terrorist organisations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The participants feel that the government should build new nuclear power stations. The energy demand in Australia is increasing every year, so more power stations will be required. This is especially the case as Australia has very low levels of energy production compared to the rest of the world, and is very reliant on fossil fuels. Australia is the only major developed country without nuclear power. However, this will be expensive, and there are questions over whether it is really needed, given that the government has said that they will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While nuclear power may be seen as a good alternative to coal and fossil fuels in terms of helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it should not be seen as the main solution. The primary focus should be on the long term solution of renewable energy, which is a more sustainable option. However, the government should not completely cut off nuclear power from the list of options in the immediate future. The biggest problem with nuclear power is the threat of a disaster, as seen in the recent Japanese tsunami disaster. The government should enforce strict and high safety regulations to ensure the utmost security and to ensure that the environment is not threatened. In the future, nuclear power should be phased out completely, but until then, it should be seen as a temporary solution while the government focuses on sustainable forms of energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building new nuclear power stations. The group felt that the potential dangers outweighed the potential benefits. The group felt that the government should be investing in renewable energy sources instead, such as wind power and solar power. The group felt that nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist organisations and that the potential for a nuclear disaster is too great. The group felt that nuclear power stations are not a good use of government finances when there are more important things that need to be funded, such as the health service and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we do not think that the government should build new nuclear power stations. There are many reasons for this, however the main one is that they are a target for terrorist organisations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The participants feel that the government should build new nuclear power stations. The energy demand in Australia is increasing every year, so more power stations will be required. This is especially the case as Australia has very low levels of energy production compared to the rest of the world, and is very reliant on fossil fuels. Australia is the only major developed country without nuclear power. However, this will be expensive, and there are questions over whether it is really needed, given that the government has said that they will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001584.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001584.soc index 88db8acb..bd8a7e59 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001584.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001584.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should change its asylum-seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very prohibitive and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The system is also very bureaucratic and slow, which is a problem for those who are in desperate need of help. People trying to reach the UK often take many dangerous routes to get here, and there have been many incidences of vessels capsizing, people drowning, or being kidnapped. Many of these problems could be avoided if it were easier to enter the country through legal means. The UK has a lot of resources and is a very wealthy country, and should be able to accommodate those in need. Many of the problems faced by those attempting to enter the country to seek asylum are in part due to the UK's colonial past. The UK as a country has contributed to the problems of conflict, unrest, war and genocide in places such as Kenya, South Africa, India and Sri Lanka. These have all been in part due to our actions. The UK has a lot to answer for, and has a moral responsibility to help those who are now seeking asylum. In addition, the UK can learn a lot from accepting asylum seekers -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a change in the UK asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is prohibitive and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The system is also very bureaucratic and slow, which is a problem for those who are in desperate need of help. The UK has a lot of resources and is a very wealthy country, and should be able to accommodate those in need. The UK has a lot to answer for in terms of foreign policy and its colonial past, and should be taking responsibility for the problems it has caused. The UK has a lot of skilled workers from other countries, and it would be beneficial for the UK to make it easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very prohibitive and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The system is also very bureaucratic and slow, which is a problem for those who are in desperate need of help. The UK has a lot of resources and is a very wealthy country, and should be able to accommodate those in need. The UK has a lot of skilled workers from other countries, and it would be beneficial for the UK to make it easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK should change its asylum-seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very slow and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The UK has an obligation to look after those in need given its colonial history. The UK also is a very wealthy country and is a developed nation. We should open our doors to those who need them. Both of the above examples represent some evidence that the conflict that occurred in the first instance over consensus-building - where it existed - did not result from the robust and constructive debate necessary for the negotiation of consensus, but instead resulted from superficial 'contention' - the laying down of pre-defined opinions. The dialogue in the first instance was non-conflictual and did not question or challenge people's stances, but instead nodded along. This led to a final consensus statement with a lot of nice ideas but no strong argument. The dialogue in the second instance was conflictual and questions and challenged people's stances. For instance, Participant 1 highlighted the fact that there were many issues around the current system, but it was Participant 5 who asked whether the author's support for change was substantive or superficial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should change its asylum-seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very prohibitive and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The system is also very bureaucratic and slow, which is a problem for those who are in desperate need of help. People trying to reach the UK often take many dangerous routes to get here, and there have been many incidences of vessels capsizing, people drowning, or being kidnapped. Many of these problems could be avoided if it were easier to enter the country through legal means. The UK has a lot of resources and is a very wealthy country, and should be able to accommodate those in need. Many of the problems faced by those attempting to enter the country to seek asylum are in part due to the UK's colonial past. The UK as a country has contributed to the problems of conflict, unrest, war and genocide in places such as Kenya, South Africa, India and Sri Lanka. These have all been in part due to our actions. The UK has a lot to answer for, and has a moral responsibility to help those who are now seeking asylum. In addition, the UK can learn a lot from accepting asylum seekers +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a change in the UK asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is prohibitive and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The system is also very bureaucratic and slow, which is a problem for those who are in desperate need of help. The UK has a lot of resources and is a very wealthy country, and should be able to accommodate those in need. The UK has a lot to answer for in terms of foreign policy and its colonial past, and should be taking responsibility for the problems it has caused. The UK has a lot of skilled workers from other countries, and it would be beneficial for the UK to make it easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very prohibitive and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The system is also very bureaucratic and slow, which is a problem for those who are in desperate need of help. The UK has a lot of resources and is a very wealthy country, and should be able to accommodate those in need. The UK has a lot of skilled workers from other countries, and it would be beneficial for the UK to make it easier for asylum seekers to enter the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK should change its asylum-seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very slow and makes it very difficult for those in need to enter the country. The UK has an obligation to look after those in need given its colonial history. The UK also is a very wealthy country and is a developed nation. We should open our doors to those who need them. Both of the above examples represent some evidence that the conflict that occurred in the first instance over consensus-building - where it existed - did not result from the robust and constructive debate necessary for the negotiation of consensus, but instead resulted from superficial 'contention' - the laying down of pre-defined opinions. The dialogue in the first instance was non-conflictual and did not question or challenge people's stances, but instead nodded along. This led to a final consensus statement with a lot of nice ideas but no strong argument. The dialogue in the second instance was conflictual and questions and challenged people's stances. For instance, Participant 1 highlighted the fact that there were many issues around the current system, but it was Participant 5 who asked whether the author's support for change was substantive or superficial. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001585.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001585.soc index fcfbaf7c..4137ae5a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001585.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001585.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No we shouldn't increase the rate of VAT. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not increase the rate of VAT. We believe that the current financial climate is affecting too many people to increase the rate of VAT. People are struggling to afford to pay their rent, their mortgages, their energy bills and their food bills. VAT is one of the things that everyone pays and it will make life even more difficult for those who are already struggling. Increasing VAT would impact those who are earning less the most. Whilst they may be paying less tax, they will pay more VAT and that is not fair. We believe that increasing VAT would have a negative impact on everyone in society and therefore, we believe that VAT should not be increased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not increase the rate of VAT. In these uncertain times, it would be a terrible time to increase the rate of VAT. It would only increase the financial struggles that many people are already facing. There are other ways that the government can increase their revenue, without increasing the VAT. The current rate of 20% is already a significant increase on the cost of the things that people need. In the current cost of living crisis, people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, VAT should not be increased. The current cost of living crisis means that people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No we shouldn't increase the rate of VAT. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not increase the rate of VAT. We believe that the current financial climate is affecting too many people to increase the rate of VAT. People are struggling to afford to pay their rent, their mortgages, their energy bills and their food bills. VAT is one of the things that everyone pays and it will make life even more difficult for those who are already struggling. Increasing VAT would impact those who are earning less the most. Whilst they may be paying less tax, they will pay more VAT and that is not fair. We believe that increasing VAT would have a negative impact on everyone in society and therefore, we believe that VAT should not be increased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not increase the rate of VAT. In these uncertain times, it would be a terrible time to increase the rate of VAT. It would only increase the financial struggles that many people are already facing. There are other ways that the government can increase their revenue, without increasing the VAT. The current rate of 20% is already a significant increase on the cost of the things that people need. In the current cost of living crisis, people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, VAT should not be increased. The current cost of living crisis means that people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001586.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001586.soc index f1402d19..6fed7151 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001586.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001586.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: No, we should not increase the rate of VAT. In these uncertain times, it would be a terrible time to increase the rate of VAT. It would only increase the financial struggles that many people are already facing. There are other ways that the government can increase their revenue, without increasing the VAT. The current rate of 20% is already a significant increase on the cost of the things that people need. In the current cost of living crisis, people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not increase the rate of VAT. In these uncertain times, it would be a terrible time to increase the rate of VAT. It would only increase the financial struggles that many people are already facing. There are other ways that the government can increase their revenue, without increasing the VAT. The current rate of 20% is already a significant increase on the cost of the things that people need. In the current cost of living crisis, people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not increase the rate of VAT. The current rate of 20% is already a significant increase on the cost of the things that people need. In the current cost of living crisis, people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. There are other ways that the government can increase their revenue, without increasing the VAT. Conclusion: In conclusion, we can see from this activity that despite all of the participants coming from different backgrounds, they were all able to look at an issue objectively and come to a consensus opinion. This was a great learning experience for the participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: No, we should not increase the rate of VAT. In these uncertain times, it would be a terrible time to increase the rate of VAT. It would only increase the financial struggles that many people are already facing. There are other ways that the government can increase their revenue, without increasing the VAT. The current rate of 20% is already a significant increase on the cost of the things that people need. In the current cost of living crisis, people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not increase the rate of VAT. In these uncertain times, it would be a terrible time to increase the rate of VAT. It would only increase the financial struggles that many people are already facing. There are other ways that the government can increase their revenue, without increasing the VAT. The current rate of 20% is already a significant increase on the cost of the things that people need. In the current cost of living crisis, people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not increase the rate of VAT. The current rate of 20% is already a significant increase on the cost of the things that people need. In the current cost of living crisis, people are struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and food bills. VAT increases are a blunt tool that would affect all members of society including those already at breaking point financially. There are other ways that the government can increase their revenue, without increasing the VAT. Conclusion: In conclusion, we can see from this activity that despite all of the participants coming from different backgrounds, they were all able to look at an issue objectively and come to a consensus opinion. This was a great learning experience for the participants. 3: 2,3,4,1 2: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001587.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001587.soc index 3320bd12..ff9a76b7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001587.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001587.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: We came to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy and should be encouraged. However, there is a risk of meltdowns and this must be taken into account, especially by countries who are considering using nuclear energy. This being said, this does not mean it should be discouraged, but precautions must be taken. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. If we are going to do this, it is also important to note that we need to consider the environment before and after a nuclear power plant, and make sure that it has as little impact as possible. There has been plenty of research done on the effects of nuclear energy on the environment, and we should use this research to reduce the impact, as much as possible, whilst ensuring that it does its main function; providing us with energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. We need to invest in new technology in the nuclear energy sector as it is one of the main ways in which we can reduce carbon emissions. We need to invest in new technology in the nuclear energy sector as it is one of the main ways in which we can reduce carbon emissions. This is a topic that is not often discussed but is a very important issue and needs to be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. Task 5. Generation of a feasible business idea. A group of participants was tasked with generating a business idea based on a theme. Below is presented the theme, the business idea generated by the group, and the rational for the idea. Theme: Technology has advanced to a stage where it is now possible to create an artificial human. However, there is an ethical debate as to whether it is right to do so. What is your opinion? If it is right to do so, how can this be used to create a business? Business idea: A human cloning company which specialises in cloning deceased relatives and celebrities. The clones would be used for various purposes such as companionship and also for medical experiments. The +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: We came to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy and should be encouraged. However, there is a risk of meltdowns and this must be taken into account, especially by countries who are considering using nuclear energy. This being said, this does not mean it should be discouraged, but precautions must be taken. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. If we are going to do this, it is also important to note that we need to consider the environment before and after a nuclear power plant, and make sure that it has as little impact as possible. There has been plenty of research done on the effects of nuclear energy on the environment, and we should use this research to reduce the impact, as much as possible, whilst ensuring that it does its main function; providing us with energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. We need to invest in new technology in the nuclear energy sector as it is one of the main ways in which we can reduce carbon emissions. We need to invest in new technology in the nuclear energy sector as it is one of the main ways in which we can reduce carbon emissions. This is a topic that is not often discussed but is a very important issue and needs to be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy. The issue of meltdowns is one that is not often discussed. The effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic but we feel that the risks are worth the gain. With the way the world is currently, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more apparent. We need to be looking at ways to reduce the effects of climate change and nuclear energy is one of the ways in which we can do this. Task 5. Generation of a feasible business idea. A group of participants was tasked with generating a business idea based on a theme. Below is presented the theme, the business idea generated by the group, and the rational for the idea. Theme: Technology has advanced to a stage where it is now possible to create an artificial human. However, there is an ethical debate as to whether it is right to do so. What is your opinion? If it is right to do so, how can this be used to create a business? Business idea: A human cloning company which specialises in cloning deceased relatives and celebrities. The clones would be used for various purposes such as companionship and also for medical experiments. The 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001588.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001588.soc index caa70754..7b213ee9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001588.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001588.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the costs of globalisation are outweighed by its benefits. We believe that by looking at the opportunities of globalisation we are able to provide a wider range of goods and services at a lower cost to consumers. This is one of the main benefits of globalisation. Globalisation also creates more opportunities for countries to trade with each other, which in turn can lead to economic growth and jobs. One of the major costs of globalisation is the impact on the environment. Globalisation is a big contributor to climate change. We believe that globalisation should go ahead, but the impact on the environment needs to be minimised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The costs of globalization are outweighed by the benefits as a result of economic growth and development and that there is little we can do to prevent it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are more benefits to globalization that outweigh its cost. Globalization helps with economic growth, easy access to goods and services worldwide and also rapid increase of technology. All of this has helped immensely. There are few negatives we have to keep in mind though, with rapid increase in globalization the is a bigger impact on environmental damage, also massive job losses as firms are moving to cheap labour in return of increased profits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Globalisation has many benefits, but the costs are not outweighed by these benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the costs of globalisation are outweighed by its benefits. We believe that by looking at the opportunities of globalisation we are able to provide a wider range of goods and services at a lower cost to consumers. This is one of the main benefits of globalisation. Globalisation also creates more opportunities for countries to trade with each other, which in turn can lead to economic growth and jobs. One of the major costs of globalisation is the impact on the environment. Globalisation is a big contributor to climate change. We believe that globalisation should go ahead, but the impact on the environment needs to be minimised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The costs of globalization are outweighed by the benefits as a result of economic growth and development and that there is little we can do to prevent it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are more benefits to globalization that outweigh its cost. Globalization helps with economic growth, easy access to goods and services worldwide and also rapid increase of technology. All of this has helped immensely. There are few negatives we have to keep in mind though, with rapid increase in globalization the is a bigger impact on environmental damage, also massive job losses as firms are moving to cheap labour in return of increased profits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Globalisation has many benefits, but the costs are not outweighed by these benefits. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001589.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001589.soc index 95e60f67..ba375498 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001589.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001589.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: We believe that humans should go into space. The reasons for this is that it is not worth the risks to send animals and while it is dangerous to send humans, we are willing to take the risks for the greater good of space exploration and scientific research. Ultimately, if we wish to know more about space, the only solution is for humans to be sent into space. Words: 690 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should send humans into space. The reasons for this is that humans are the most advanced of the animals on earth and as such, are the most able to explore and investigate space and space exploration. While it is undeniable that it is an expensive and dangerous endeavor, there are many benefits that come from sending humans into space. It is often very necessary in exploration, as animals cannot consent to being in space, humans can and as such, it is much more ethical to send humans into space than animals. Furthermore, it is very important for scientific research and furthering our understanding of space. It allows us to better understand the planet we are on, as well as other planets. Benefits of MSCS: The benefits of using MSCS in future are many. First of all, it helps the researcher to better understand the views of the participants. While any researcher can see the opinions that are presented by participants, what is crucial is the understanding of why they believe that. This helps the researcher make sense of the views of the participants, and understand what may have caused the participants to believe or be influenced by something. MSCS also allows the researcher to have multiple stakeholders or people -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should send humans into space. The reasons for this is that humans are the most advanced of the animals on earth and as such, are the most able to explore and investigate space and space exploration. While it is undeniable that it is an expensive and dangerous endeavour, there are many benefits that come from sending humans into space. It is often very necessary in exploration, as animals cannot consent to being in space, humans can and as such, it is much more ethical to send humans into space than animals. Further, it is very important for scientific research and furthering our understanding of space. It allows us to better understand the planet we are on, as well as other planets. There are several health and safety benefits for humans on earth which come from sending humans into space. It can be used to test medicines or equipment which can then be used on earth, and can also be used to study the effects of radiation on the human body. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should send humans into space. The reasons for this is that humans are the most advanced of the animals on earth and as such, are the most able to explore and investigate space and space exploration. While it is undeniable that it is an expensive and dangerous endeavor, there are many benefits that come from sending humans into space. It is often very necessary in exploration, as animals cannot consent to being in space, humans can and as such, it is much more ethical to send humans into space than animals. Furthermore, it is very important for scientific research and furthering our understanding of space. It allows us to better understand the planet we are on, as well as other planets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: We believe that humans should go into space. The reasons for this is that it is not worth the risks to send animals and while it is dangerous to send humans, we are willing to take the risks for the greater good of space exploration and scientific research. Ultimately, if we wish to know more about space, the only solution is for humans to be sent into space. Words: 690 +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should send humans into space. The reasons for this is that humans are the most advanced of the animals on earth and as such, are the most able to explore and investigate space and space exploration. While it is undeniable that it is an expensive and dangerous endeavor, there are many benefits that come from sending humans into space. It is often very necessary in exploration, as animals cannot consent to being in space, humans can and as such, it is much more ethical to send humans into space than animals. Furthermore, it is very important for scientific research and furthering our understanding of space. It allows us to better understand the planet we are on, as well as other planets. Benefits of MSCS: The benefits of using MSCS in future are many. First of all, it helps the researcher to better understand the views of the participants. While any researcher can see the opinions that are presented by participants, what is crucial is the understanding of why they believe that. This helps the researcher make sense of the views of the participants, and understand what may have caused the participants to believe or be influenced by something. MSCS also allows the researcher to have multiple stakeholders or people +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should send humans into space. The reasons for this is that humans are the most advanced of the animals on earth and as such, are the most able to explore and investigate space and space exploration. While it is undeniable that it is an expensive and dangerous endeavour, there are many benefits that come from sending humans into space. It is often very necessary in exploration, as animals cannot consent to being in space, humans can and as such, it is much more ethical to send humans into space than animals. Further, it is very important for scientific research and furthering our understanding of space. It allows us to better understand the planet we are on, as well as other planets. There are several health and safety benefits for humans on earth which come from sending humans into space. It can be used to test medicines or equipment which can then be used on earth, and can also be used to study the effects of radiation on the human body. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should send humans into space. The reasons for this is that humans are the most advanced of the animals on earth and as such, are the most able to explore and investigate space and space exploration. While it is undeniable that it is an expensive and dangerous endeavor, there are many benefits that come from sending humans into space. It is often very necessary in exploration, as animals cannot consent to being in space, humans can and as such, it is much more ethical to send humans into space than animals. Furthermore, it is very important for scientific research and furthering our understanding of space. It allows us to better understand the planet we are on, as well as other planets. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001590.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001590.soc index f0079594..da69c9ef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001590.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001590.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of private jets should be discouraged as they are contributing to pollution. However, their use is necessary in some cases and there is a need to be able to transport people quickly in emergency situations. Therefore, a ban is not appropriate, but there is a need to limit the use of private jets to only when necessary. This may be done by making it more expensive to use a private jet, by increasing taxes on private jet owners, and by making it mandatory for private jet owners to offset the emissions of their flights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of private jets should be banned as they are an unnecessary luxury and do not contribute to the greater good of society. The use of private jets should be permitted in emergency situations only. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Private jets should be banned for all but those who contribute to the common good. This includes high profile politicians and emergency workers. All other users should be banned from the private jet service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the total ban of private jets is not supported by the group, some measures should be put in place to limit their use, especially where frivolous and decadent. A consensus view is that they should be used for emergencies only, and the use of private jets by the wealthy and the general public should be heavily restricted or banned. It is understood that there are some practical applications of the use of private jets but these should be limited to genuine emergencies and their use in such circumstances should be limited. For example, for transporting sick people who need immediate medical attention. Their use for the transport of the general public should be limited to specific and restricted circumstances, for example where the travel is longer than 6 hours and transporting more than 10 people. Their use for anything other than this should be prohibited, and those using them for such purposes should be subject to financial penalties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of private jets should be discouraged as they are contributing to pollution. However, their use is necessary in some cases and there is a need to be able to transport people quickly in emergency situations. Therefore, a ban is not appropriate, but there is a need to limit the use of private jets to only when necessary. This may be done by making it more expensive to use a private jet, by increasing taxes on private jet owners, and by making it mandatory for private jet owners to offset the emissions of their flights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of private jets should be banned as they are an unnecessary luxury and do not contribute to the greater good of society. The use of private jets should be permitted in emergency situations only. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Private jets should be banned for all but those who contribute to the common good. This includes high profile politicians and emergency workers. All other users should be banned from the private jet service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the total ban of private jets is not supported by the group, some measures should be put in place to limit their use, especially where frivolous and decadent. A consensus view is that they should be used for emergencies only, and the use of private jets by the wealthy and the general public should be heavily restricted or banned. It is understood that there are some practical applications of the use of private jets but these should be limited to genuine emergencies and their use in such circumstances should be limited. For example, for transporting sick people who need immediate medical attention. Their use for the transport of the general public should be limited to specific and restricted circumstances, for example where the travel is longer than 6 hours and transporting more than 10 people. Their use for anything other than this should be prohibited, and those using them for such purposes should be subject to financial penalties. 3: 1,4,2,3 2: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001591.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001591.soc index 6115e152..287125d2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001591.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001591.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK's NHS is better than in other countries. The NHS is free at the point of use, and this is a good model for health care. However, the NHS is currently underfunded, and this is having a negative impact on the quality of care that can be provided. Therefore, it is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. This is because the NHS is underfunded compared to other countries, which have insurance based systems. However, these systems have their own issues with access to care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In general, the UK's NHS is better than in other countries. The NHS is free at the point of use, and this is a good model for health care. However, the NHS is currently underfunded, and this is having a negative impact on the quality of care that can be provided. Therefore, it is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. OBSERVATIONS: I think this was a very good and balanced consensus opinion. The opinions in the original responses are all very different, and had conflicting (and sometimes unsupported) views on the quality of the NHS and comparison to health care in other countries. However, through careful listening and consideration of each other's opinions, the group were able to reach a balanced view that was positive in many ways, but at the same time acknowledged the current problems faced by the NHS and that these are only partly political. I was very pleased with how the debate went and think the consensus answer was very well thought out. The group were then asked to break up into groups based on their opinions (views), and to discuss each other's opinions -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK's National Health Service (NHS) is better than in other countries, because the NHS is free at the point of use, and this is a good model for health care. However, the NHS is currently underfunded, and this is having a negative impact on the quality of care that can be provided. Therefore, it is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. Even though the NHS is built on a good model, the lack of funding is having a negative impact on the quality of care, and so the NHS is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK's NHS is better than in other countries. However, it is not necessarily better in terms of outcomes, because of austerity and underfunding. It is only better in terms of its model, and in particular the fact that it is free at the point of use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK's NHS is better than in other countries. The NHS is free at the point of use, and this is a good model for health care. However, the NHS is currently underfunded, and this is having a negative impact on the quality of care that can be provided. Therefore, it is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. This is because the NHS is underfunded compared to other countries, which have insurance based systems. However, these systems have their own issues with access to care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In general, the UK's NHS is better than in other countries. The NHS is free at the point of use, and this is a good model for health care. However, the NHS is currently underfunded, and this is having a negative impact on the quality of care that can be provided. Therefore, it is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. OBSERVATIONS: I think this was a very good and balanced consensus opinion. The opinions in the original responses are all very different, and had conflicting (and sometimes unsupported) views on the quality of the NHS and comparison to health care in other countries. However, through careful listening and consideration of each other's opinions, the group were able to reach a balanced view that was positive in many ways, but at the same time acknowledged the current problems faced by the NHS and that these are only partly political. I was very pleased with how the debate went and think the consensus answer was very well thought out. The group were then asked to break up into groups based on their opinions (views), and to discuss each other's opinions +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK's National Health Service (NHS) is better than in other countries, because the NHS is free at the point of use, and this is a good model for health care. However, the NHS is currently underfunded, and this is having a negative impact on the quality of care that can be provided. Therefore, it is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. Even though the NHS is built on a good model, the lack of funding is having a negative impact on the quality of care, and so the NHS is only better than in other countries because of the model that it is built on, rather than the quality of care that it provides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK's NHS is better than in other countries. However, it is not necessarily better in terms of outcomes, because of austerity and underfunding. It is only better in terms of its model, and in particular the fact that it is free at the point of use. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001592.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001592.soc index d506f35a..d0c85294 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001592.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001592.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Students should be encouraged to take a foreign language but it should not be a compulsory part of the curriculum. The current situation should continue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of students taking a foreign language in school. However, the group was not in favour of forcing students to take a foreign language. The group felt that students should have the option to take a foreign language, but should not be forced to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that students should take a foreign language in school, due to the important cultural, economic and social benefits that this will bring. It will also be of benefit to the UK as a whole, if a significant proportion of the population is able to speak a foreign language. The ability to speak a foreign language would enable individuals to more easily travel abroad, which would be of benefit to the UK tourism industry. In addition, if more people in the UK are able to speak foreign languages, this would enable the UK to forge stronger trade links with other countries, which would be of economic benefit. We feel that in a multicultural society, learning a foreign language would allow individuals to learn about other cultures, thereby promoting racial harmony and tolerance. In addition, learning a foreign language would be a useful life skill, as an individual would then be able to communicate with others more easily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of students having to take a foreign language in school. It was felt that this would be of great benefit to them in later life, especially in terms of their ability to travel and work abroad. It was also felt that learning a foreign language would help students to appreciate other cultures, and prevent them from viewing the world in a narrow-minded way. However, it was also felt that the choice of foreign language should be left to the student, and that they should not be forced to learn a language that they have no interest in. It was also felt that the choice of foreign language should be based on its usefulness to the student, and that some languages are more useful than others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Students should be encouraged to take a foreign language but it should not be a compulsory part of the curriculum. The current situation should continue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of students taking a foreign language in school. However, the group was not in favour of forcing students to take a foreign language. The group felt that students should have the option to take a foreign language, but should not be forced to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that students should take a foreign language in school, due to the important cultural, economic and social benefits that this will bring. It will also be of benefit to the UK as a whole, if a significant proportion of the population is able to speak a foreign language. The ability to speak a foreign language would enable individuals to more easily travel abroad, which would be of benefit to the UK tourism industry. In addition, if more people in the UK are able to speak foreign languages, this would enable the UK to forge stronger trade links with other countries, which would be of economic benefit. We feel that in a multicultural society, learning a foreign language would allow individuals to learn about other cultures, thereby promoting racial harmony and tolerance. In addition, learning a foreign language would be a useful life skill, as an individual would then be able to communicate with others more easily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of students having to take a foreign language in school. It was felt that this would be of great benefit to them in later life, especially in terms of their ability to travel and work abroad. It was also felt that learning a foreign language would help students to appreciate other cultures, and prevent them from viewing the world in a narrow-minded way. However, it was also felt that the choice of foreign language should be left to the student, and that they should not be forced to learn a language that they have no interest in. It was also felt that the choice of foreign language should be based on its usefulness to the student, and that some languages are more useful than others. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001593.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001593.soc index 087b08a3..02c4b7e2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001593.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001593.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building new nuclear power stations. The group felt that the potential dangers outweighed the potential benefits. The group felt that the government should be investing in renewable energy sources instead, such as wind power and solar power. The group felt that nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist organisations and that the potential for a nuclear disaster is too great. The group felt that nuclear power stations are not a good use of government finances when there are more important things that need to be funded, such as the health service and education. The group felt that nuclear power stations pose a potential risk to the health of citizens and that it is too great a risk to take. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants is opposed to the idea of building new nuclear power stations. The group feels that the potential dangers outweigh the potential benefits. The group feels that the government should be investing in renewable energy sources instead, such as wind power and solar power. The group feels that nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist organisations and that the potential for a nuclear disaster is too great. The group feels that nuclear power stations are not a good use of government finances when there are more important things that need to be funded, such as the health service and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building new nuclear power stations. The group felt that the potential dangers outweighed the potential benefits. The group felt that the government should be investing in renewable energy sources instead, such as wind power and solar power. Nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist organisations, and the potential for a nuclear disaster is too great. However, the group felt that this is not a pressing matter of concern to them personally. Nuclear power stations are not a good use of government finances when there are more important things that need to be funded, such as the health service and education. However, they were prepared to concede that any government funding given to the construction of nuclear power stations is not likely to greatly damage other areas of public spending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building new nuclear power stations. The group felt that the potential dangers outweighed the potential benefits. The group felt that the government should be investing in renewable energy sources instead, such as wind power and solar power. The group felt that nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist organisations and that the potential for a nuclear disaster is too great. The group felt that nuclear power stations are not a good use of government finances when there are more important things that need to be funded, such as the health service and education. The group felt that nuclear power stations pose a potential risk to the health of citizens and that it is too great a risk to take. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants is opposed to the idea of building new nuclear power stations. The group feels that the potential dangers outweigh the potential benefits. The group feels that the government should be investing in renewable energy sources instead, such as wind power and solar power. The group feels that nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist organisations and that the potential for a nuclear disaster is too great. The group feels that nuclear power stations are not a good use of government finances when there are more important things that need to be funded, such as the health service and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building new nuclear power stations. The group felt that the potential dangers outweighed the potential benefits. The group felt that the government should be investing in renewable energy sources instead, such as wind power and solar power. Nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist organisations, and the potential for a nuclear disaster is too great. However, the group felt that this is not a pressing matter of concern to them personally. Nuclear power stations are not a good use of government finances when there are more important things that need to be funded, such as the health service and education. However, they were prepared to concede that any government funding given to the construction of nuclear power stations is not likely to greatly damage other areas of public spending. 2: 4,1,3,2 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001594.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001594.soc index 36c878cc..43700d94 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001594.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001594.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Globalisation is inevitable and will bring more benefits than costs, if the costs are managed appropriately.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the costs of globalisation are outweighed by its benefits. We believe that by looking at the opportunities of globalisation we are able to provide a wider range of goods and services at a lower cost to consumers. This is one of the main benefits of globalisation. Globalisation also creates more opportunities for countries to trade with each other, which in turn can lead to economic growth and jobs. One of the major costs of globalisation is the impact on the environment. Globalisation is a big contributor to climate change. We believe that globalisation should go ahead, but the impact on the environment needs to be minimised. We also believe that there are some costs of globalisation that are worth accepting, as globalisation can provide so many benefits to the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Globalisation has many benefits. The main benefits are the increased opportunities for trade, jobs and economic growth. The costs of globalisation need to be managed. The biggest cost is the impact on the environment. We need to make sure that we are doing all we can to minimise this cost. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the benefits of globalisation are huge - with globalisation, we can achieve trade with low barriers, therefore improving the world economy in the long run. Globalisation also gives a wider range of goods and services at a lower cost for consumers. It also helps break down barriers, creating a better understanding of what other people around the world believe and how they live. However, globalisation does have downsides - it causes environmental damage, and it destroys our beautiful natural landscape. Globalisation also destroys many jobs, as companies are taking advantage of cheap labour and moving production overseas. We believe that globalisation should continue to happen, and we think that we can overcome the environmental damage through the reduction of greenhouse gases, and we think that job losses can be overcome with the right training and education in schools and through careers advice. In conclusion, despite the downsides, we believe that the benefits of globalisation far outweigh its negatives, as long as action is taken to reduce the negative effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Globalisation is inevitable and will bring more benefits than costs, if the costs are managed appropriately.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the costs of globalisation are outweighed by its benefits. We believe that by looking at the opportunities of globalisation we are able to provide a wider range of goods and services at a lower cost to consumers. This is one of the main benefits of globalisation. Globalisation also creates more opportunities for countries to trade with each other, which in turn can lead to economic growth and jobs. One of the major costs of globalisation is the impact on the environment. Globalisation is a big contributor to climate change. We believe that globalisation should go ahead, but the impact on the environment needs to be minimised. We also believe that there are some costs of globalisation that are worth accepting, as globalisation can provide so many benefits to the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Globalisation has many benefits. The main benefits are the increased opportunities for trade, jobs and economic growth. The costs of globalisation need to be managed. The biggest cost is the impact on the environment. We need to make sure that we are doing all we can to minimise this cost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the benefits of globalisation are huge - with globalisation, we can achieve trade with low barriers, therefore improving the world economy in the long run. Globalisation also gives a wider range of goods and services at a lower cost for consumers. It also helps break down barriers, creating a better understanding of what other people around the world believe and how they live. However, globalisation does have downsides - it causes environmental damage, and it destroys our beautiful natural landscape. Globalisation also destroys many jobs, as companies are taking advantage of cheap labour and moving production overseas. We believe that globalisation should continue to happen, and we think that we can overcome the environmental damage through the reduction of greenhouse gases, and we think that job losses can be overcome with the right training and education in schools and through careers advice. In conclusion, despite the downsides, we believe that the benefits of globalisation far outweigh its negatives, as long as action is taken to reduce the negative effects. 2: 4,2,3,1 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001595.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001595.soc index e6532631..c9f38588 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001595.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001595.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We are in the midst of a re-skilling crisis. This is due to technological advancements and their widespread application in business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the world is in the midst of a re-skilling crisis. The need for reskilling is especially urgent in the medium to long term, as the rapid development of artificial intelligence poses a potential threat to the current job market. In particular, AI has proven capable of carrying out a wide variety of creative and analytical tasks, from writing entire articles, copy, to painting and generating art, and writing code. Due to this, many job sectors are becoming directly impacted and workers are facing the possibility of being replaced by machines. What is concerning is that this re-skilling crisis can potentially affect everyone, not just lower skilled workers, as evidence by the capabilities of emerging technologies to carry out high-level tasks. This is further compounded by large-scale automation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We are in the midst of a reskilling crisis. The way technology is advancing, the way machines are taking over and being more effective and efficient than humans at tasks and roles that have been part of our everyday jobs, is a huge risk. If we do not keep up, we will be left behind. This is particularly a concern for less skilled workers, however as AI advances, it has the potential to disrupt all workers. This means that people of all backgrounds, skill levels, and education levels will need to continually be developing new skills in order to remain relevant in the workforce. If we are to have any chance of surviving the rise of AI and automation, we must become lifelong learners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is an urgent need for reskilling in the medium to long term, but we are not in an immediate short term reskilling crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We are in the midst of a re-skilling crisis. This is due to technological advancements and their widespread application in business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the world is in the midst of a re-skilling crisis. The need for reskilling is especially urgent in the medium to long term, as the rapid development of artificial intelligence poses a potential threat to the current job market. In particular, AI has proven capable of carrying out a wide variety of creative and analytical tasks, from writing entire articles, copy, to painting and generating art, and writing code. Due to this, many job sectors are becoming directly impacted and workers are facing the possibility of being replaced by machines. What is concerning is that this re-skilling crisis can potentially affect everyone, not just lower skilled workers, as evidence by the capabilities of emerging technologies to carry out high-level tasks. This is further compounded by large-scale automation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We are in the midst of a reskilling crisis. The way technology is advancing, the way machines are taking over and being more effective and efficient than humans at tasks and roles that have been part of our everyday jobs, is a huge risk. If we do not keep up, we will be left behind. This is particularly a concern for less skilled workers, however as AI advances, it has the potential to disrupt all workers. This means that people of all backgrounds, skill levels, and education levels will need to continually be developing new skills in order to remain relevant in the workforce. If we are to have any chance of surviving the rise of AI and automation, we must become lifelong learners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is an urgent need for reskilling in the medium to long term, but we are not in an immediate short term reskilling crisis. 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001596.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001596.soc index 4a913aa8..34481a0a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001596.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001596.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban single-use plastic bottles and instead promote biodegradable alternatives. Also, more water fountains should be installed in public places for people to use and refill their own bottles with free water" How well did the group do at reaching a consensus? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that single use plastic bottles should be banned as soon as possible. The main reason for this is the amount of harm that they cause to the environment, animals and people. They do not break down and so, are an ever-present issue, and are so damaging to the environment. It is very important that we as a community work together to get rid of these plastic bottles. It is the responsibility of the community to ban these products and stop the damage to our planet. The government must also play their part in educating the people on the dangers of these bottles and how to prevent the use of them. People can use their own bottles, this can be made compulsory in the schools. The students can be encouraged to use reusable bottles for their water. This will also benefit the student as they will not be spending so much money on bottled water. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we should ban single-use plastic bottles. They are bad for the environment and we should use biodegradable alternatives instead. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban single-use plastic bottles. It is important to provide people with alternatives such as free water fountains and encourage them to use their own reusable bottles. We also need to make the industry more accountable for their actions and provide consumers with plastic free alternatives. The industry needs to be more transparent about the contents of their products and the effect they have on the environment and people. We also need to make governments more accountable for their actions and help them to implement this ban on single use plastics. It is important that we make this ban as soon as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban single-use plastic bottles and instead promote biodegradable alternatives. Also, more water fountains should be installed in public places for people to use and refill their own bottles with free water" How well did the group do at reaching a consensus? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that single use plastic bottles should be banned as soon as possible. The main reason for this is the amount of harm that they cause to the environment, animals and people. They do not break down and so, are an ever-present issue, and are so damaging to the environment. It is very important that we as a community work together to get rid of these plastic bottles. It is the responsibility of the community to ban these products and stop the damage to our planet. The government must also play their part in educating the people on the dangers of these bottles and how to prevent the use of them. People can use their own bottles, this can be made compulsory in the schools. The students can be encouraged to use reusable bottles for their water. This will also benefit the student as they will not be spending so much money on bottled water. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we should ban single-use plastic bottles. They are bad for the environment and we should use biodegradable alternatives instead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban single-use plastic bottles. It is important to provide people with alternatives such as free water fountains and encourage them to use their own reusable bottles. We also need to make the industry more accountable for their actions and provide consumers with plastic free alternatives. The industry needs to be more transparent about the contents of their products and the effect they have on the environment and people. We also need to make governments more accountable for their actions and help them to implement this ban on single use plastics. It is important that we make this ban as soon as possible. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001597.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001597.soc index f3429b46..794f774c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001597.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001597.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The use of private jets should be discouraged as it is contributing to pollution, however, their use is necessary in some cases and there is a need to be able to transport people quickly in emergency situations. Therefore, a ban is not appropriate but a limit to the use of private jets is needed. Limits may be enforced by reducing the speed that private jets are able to travel in order to limit the emission of greenhouse gases and by developing more stringent no fly zones. In order to prevent the use of private jets becoming too heavy on the taxpayers of government-funded jurisdictions, wealth and inheritance taxes may be raised on private jet owners and new legislation may be implemented that it will be mandatory for all private jet owners to offset the emissions of their flights to the climate change mitigation of their choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Private jets are contributing to pollution, but they are a necessary evil. Their high cost may limit their use, but their value in emergency situations cannot be ignored. The most important step that should be taken is to make sure they do not damage the environment with the launch of low emission aircraft. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Private jets should not be banned, but they should be used only when absolutely necessary. This may be done by making it more expensive to use a private jet, by increasing taxes on private jet owners, and by making it mandatory for private jet owners to offset the emissions of their flights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of private jets should be discouraged as they are contributing to pollution. However, their use is necessary in some cases and there is a need to be able to transport people quickly in emergency situations. Therefore, a ban is not appropriate, but there is a need to limit the use of private jets to only when necessary. This may be done by making it more expensive to use a private jet, by increasing taxes on private jet owners, and by making it mandatory for private jet owners to offset the emissions of their flights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The use of private jets should be discouraged as it is contributing to pollution, however, their use is necessary in some cases and there is a need to be able to transport people quickly in emergency situations. Therefore, a ban is not appropriate but a limit to the use of private jets is needed. Limits may be enforced by reducing the speed that private jets are able to travel in order to limit the emission of greenhouse gases and by developing more stringent no fly zones. In order to prevent the use of private jets becoming too heavy on the taxpayers of government-funded jurisdictions, wealth and inheritance taxes may be raised on private jet owners and new legislation may be implemented that it will be mandatory for all private jet owners to offset the emissions of their flights to the climate change mitigation of their choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Private jets are contributing to pollution, but they are a necessary evil. Their high cost may limit their use, but their value in emergency situations cannot be ignored. The most important step that should be taken is to make sure they do not damage the environment with the launch of low emission aircraft. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Private jets should not be banned, but they should be used only when absolutely necessary. This may be done by making it more expensive to use a private jet, by increasing taxes on private jet owners, and by making it mandatory for private jet owners to offset the emissions of their flights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of private jets should be discouraged as they are contributing to pollution. However, their use is necessary in some cases and there is a need to be able to transport people quickly in emergency situations. Therefore, a ban is not appropriate, but there is a need to limit the use of private jets to only when necessary. This may be done by making it more expensive to use a private jet, by increasing taxes on private jet owners, and by making it mandatory for private jet owners to offset the emissions of their flights. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001598.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001598.soc index dbe014e7..c5fe5e6c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001598.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001598.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that students should take a foreign language in school, due to the important cultural, economic and social benefits that this will bring. It will also be of benefit to the UK as a whole, if a significant proportion of the population is able to speak a foreign language. The ability to speak a foreign language would enable individuals to more easily travel abroad, which would be of benefit to the UK tourism industry. In addition, if more people in the UK are able to speak foreign languages, this would enable the UK to forge stronger trade links with other countries, which would be of economic benefit. We feel that in a multicultural society, learning a foreign language would allow individuals to learn about other cultures, thereby promoting racial harmony and tolerance. In addition, learning a foreign language would be a useful life skill, as an individual would then be able to communicate with others more easily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that students should take a foreign language in school. In today's society the ability to communicate in a foreign language could provide many advantages and should, therefore, be regarded as a beneficial life skill. Throughout the world, English is generally seen as the dominant international language of communication. Although, English speakers are considered to have a linguistic advantage, we believe that being able to communicate in another language (as well as English) is invaluable and extremely beneficial. Many people may travel internationally at some point in their life and speaking a foreign language will make these trips more enjoyable as a person can then communicate with the local people. We also feel that having a knowledge of a foreign language will help people to forge stronger links with other countries. In addition, we feel that people should be aware of other cultures and we believe that learning a foreign language will aid in this awareness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that students should take a foreign language in school, due to the important cultural, economic and social benefits that this will bring. It will also be of benefit to the UK as a whole, if a significant proportion of the population is able to speak a foreign language. The ability to speak a foreign language would enable individuals to more easily travel abroad, which would be of benefit to the UK tourism industry. In addition, if more people in the UK are able to speak foreign languages, this would enable the UK to forge stronger trade links with other countries, which would be of economic benefit. In a multicultural society, learning a foreign language would allow individuals to learn about other cultures, thereby promoting racial harmony and tolerance. In addition, learning a foreign language would be a useful life skill, as an individual would then be able to communicate with others more easily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: It would be desirable to for students to take a foreign language in school. The ability to speak another language is a valuable life skill, as this would allow an individual to better communicate with others. In a multicultural society, learning a foreign language would allow individuals to learn about other cultures, thereby promoting racial harmony and tolerance. In addition, knowing another language could be beneficial to the UK economy as it would make it easier to forge trade links with other countries. This would be of benefit to the UK. He: SWITCHING. ALL THE ALPHA PEOPLE CALLING EACH OTHER ALPHA EVERY 10 SECONDS. HOW STUPID ARE YOU? YOU CAN'T BE ALPHA BY BEING IN A MASSIVE PACK. I COULD BEAT THE ALPHANESS OUT OF ALL OF YOU RIGHT NOW. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that students should take a foreign language in school, due to the important cultural, economic and social benefits that this will bring. It will also be of benefit to the UK as a whole, if a significant proportion of the population is able to speak a foreign language. The ability to speak a foreign language would enable individuals to more easily travel abroad, which would be of benefit to the UK tourism industry. In addition, if more people in the UK are able to speak foreign languages, this would enable the UK to forge stronger trade links with other countries, which would be of economic benefit. We feel that in a multicultural society, learning a foreign language would allow individuals to learn about other cultures, thereby promoting racial harmony and tolerance. In addition, learning a foreign language would be a useful life skill, as an individual would then be able to communicate with others more easily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that students should take a foreign language in school. In today's society the ability to communicate in a foreign language could provide many advantages and should, therefore, be regarded as a beneficial life skill. Throughout the world, English is generally seen as the dominant international language of communication. Although, English speakers are considered to have a linguistic advantage, we believe that being able to communicate in another language (as well as English) is invaluable and extremely beneficial. Many people may travel internationally at some point in their life and speaking a foreign language will make these trips more enjoyable as a person can then communicate with the local people. We also feel that having a knowledge of a foreign language will help people to forge stronger links with other countries. In addition, we feel that people should be aware of other cultures and we believe that learning a foreign language will aid in this awareness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that students should take a foreign language in school, due to the important cultural, economic and social benefits that this will bring. It will also be of benefit to the UK as a whole, if a significant proportion of the population is able to speak a foreign language. The ability to speak a foreign language would enable individuals to more easily travel abroad, which would be of benefit to the UK tourism industry. In addition, if more people in the UK are able to speak foreign languages, this would enable the UK to forge stronger trade links with other countries, which would be of economic benefit. In a multicultural society, learning a foreign language would allow individuals to learn about other cultures, thereby promoting racial harmony and tolerance. In addition, learning a foreign language would be a useful life skill, as an individual would then be able to communicate with others more easily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: It would be desirable to for students to take a foreign language in school. The ability to speak another language is a valuable life skill, as this would allow an individual to better communicate with others. In a multicultural society, learning a foreign language would allow individuals to learn about other cultures, thereby promoting racial harmony and tolerance. In addition, knowing another language could be beneficial to the UK economy as it would make it easier to forge trade links with other countries. This would be of benefit to the UK. He: SWITCHING. ALL THE ALPHA PEOPLE CALLING EACH OTHER ALPHA EVERY 10 SECONDS. HOW STUPID ARE YOU? YOU CAN'T BE ALPHA BY BEING IN A MASSIVE PACK. I COULD BEAT THE ALPHANESS OUT OF ALL OF YOU RIGHT NOW. 3: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001599.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001599.soc index 201e944f..b89ded96 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001599.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001599.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Single use plastic bottles should be banned as soon as possible. It is very important that we as a community work together to get rid of these plastic bottles. It is the responsibility of the community to ban these products and stop the damage to our planet. The government must also play their part in educating the people on the dangers of these bottles and how to prevent the use of them. People can use their own bottles, this can be made compulsory in the schools. The students can be encouraged to use reusable bottles for their water. This will also benefit the student as they will not be spending so much money on bottled water. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The world should ban single use plastic bottles. The main reason for this is the amount of harm that these bottles cause to the environment, animals and people. They do not break down, are an ever-present issue and can damage the environment. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that single use plastic bottles should be banned as soon as possible. The main reason for this is the amount of harm that they cause to the environment, animals and people. They do not break down and so, are an ever-present issue, and are so damaging to the environment. It is very important that we as a community work together to get rid of these plastic bottles. It is the responsibility of the community to ban these products and stop the damage to our planet. The government must also play their part in educating the people on the dangers of these bottles and how to prevent the use of them. People can use their own bottles, this can be made compulsory in the schools. The students can be encouraged to use reusable bottles for their water. This will also benefit the student as they will not be spending so much money on bottled water. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. The industry needs to be accountable for there actions and provide consumers with plastic free alternatives surely this ought to cost less and not more. It need governments to help implement this ban on single use plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that single use plastic bottles should be banned as soon as possible. The main reason for this is the amount of harm that they cause to the environment, animals and people. They do not break down and so, are an ever-present issue, and are so damaging to the environment. It is very important that we as a community work together to get rid of these plastic bottles. It is the responsibility of the community to ban these products and stop the damage to our planet. The government must also play their part in educating the people on the dangers of these bottles and how to prevent the use of them. People can use their own bottles, this can be made compulsory in the schools. The students can be encouraged to use reusable bottles for their water. This will also benefit the student as they will not be spending so much money on bottled water. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Single use plastic bottles should be banned as soon as possible. It is very important that we as a community work together to get rid of these plastic bottles. It is the responsibility of the community to ban these products and stop the damage to our planet. The government must also play their part in educating the people on the dangers of these bottles and how to prevent the use of them. People can use their own bottles, this can be made compulsory in the schools. The students can be encouraged to use reusable bottles for their water. This will also benefit the student as they will not be spending so much money on bottled water. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The world should ban single use plastic bottles. The main reason for this is the amount of harm that these bottles cause to the environment, animals and people. They do not break down, are an ever-present issue and can damage the environment. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that single use plastic bottles should be banned as soon as possible. The main reason for this is the amount of harm that they cause to the environment, animals and people. They do not break down and so, are an ever-present issue, and are so damaging to the environment. It is very important that we as a community work together to get rid of these plastic bottles. It is the responsibility of the community to ban these products and stop the damage to our planet. The government must also play their part in educating the people on the dangers of these bottles and how to prevent the use of them. People can use their own bottles, this can be made compulsory in the schools. The students can be encouraged to use reusable bottles for their water. This will also benefit the student as they will not be spending so much money on bottled water. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. The industry needs to be accountable for there actions and provide consumers with plastic free alternatives surely this ought to cost less and not more. It need governments to help implement this ban on single use plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that single use plastic bottles should be banned as soon as possible. The main reason for this is the amount of harm that they cause to the environment, animals and people. They do not break down and so, are an ever-present issue, and are so damaging to the environment. It is very important that we as a community work together to get rid of these plastic bottles. It is the responsibility of the community to ban these products and stop the damage to our planet. The government must also play their part in educating the people on the dangers of these bottles and how to prevent the use of them. People can use their own bottles, this can be made compulsory in the schools. The students can be encouraged to use reusable bottles for their water. This will also benefit the student as they will not be spending so much money on bottled water. The government needs to do more to raise awareness of this problem and take more serious actions to reduce the damage that we are causing. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001600.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001600.soc index a4e1b5c0..1a6e96ae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001600.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001600.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, Theresa May was not a good prime minister. She was indecisive and did not have the support of her party. This meant that she struggled to get support for her Brexit deal, which lead to significant delays and uncertainty. Additionally, her government faced criticism for its handling of key social issues, such as healthcare and education. Lastly, her leadership was weak and indecisive, which even led to internal conflicts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Theresa May was not a good Prime Minister. The group felt that she was indecisive and made too many mistakes, which caused the UK a lot of problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that May was a poor Prime Minister. While her passion and dedication to the position of Prime Minister was admirable, her time as PM had significant consequences which have affected the UK as a whole. She failed to produce a Brexit deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer period of uncertainty which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Additionally, her poor leadership caused significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. Overall, we believe that May was a poor Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, Theresa May was not a good prime minister. She was indecisive and did not have the support of her party. This meant that she struggled to get support for her Brexit deal, which lead to significant delays and uncertainty. Additionally, her government faced criticism for its handling of key social issues, such as healthcare and education. Lastly, her leadership was weak and indecisive, which even led to internal conflicts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Theresa May was not a good Prime Minister. The group felt that she was indecisive and made too many mistakes, which caused the UK a lot of problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that May was a poor Prime Minister. While her passion and dedication to the position of Prime Minister was admirable, her time as PM had significant consequences which have affected the UK as a whole. She failed to produce a Brexit deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer period of uncertainty which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Additionally, her poor leadership caused significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. Overall, we believe that May was a poor Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. 3: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001601.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001601.soc index f61d55b5..23c05531 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001601.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001601.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that May was a poor Prime Minister. While her passion and dedication to the position of Prime Minister was admirable, her time as PM had significant consequences which have affected the UK as a whole. She failed to produce a Brexit deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer period of uncertainty which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Additionally, her poor leadership caused significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. Overall, we believe that May was a poor Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that May was a poor Prime Minister. While her passion and dedication to the position of Prime Minister was admirable, her time as PM had significant consequences which have affected the UK as a whole. She failed to produce a Brexit deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer period of uncertainty which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Additionally, her poor leadership caused significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. Overall, we believe that May was a poor Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that Theresa May was an ineffective Prime Minister. While her passion and dedication for the position of Prime Minister are a credit to her, her time in office saw an increased period of uncertainty which has negatively affected the UK as a whole. She failed to produce a deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer transition period which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Additionally, her poor leadership saw significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. Overall, we believe that May was an ineffective Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: We believe that May was a poor Prime Minister. Her poor leadership caused significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. She failed to produce a Brexit deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer period of uncertainty which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Overall, we believe that May was a poor Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. Link: https://s-box.gitlab.io/sk411/week5/draft-consensus-statement/index.html (this link is a markdown file that has been created by applying various commands to a Microsoft word document. The commands to convert a Word document into a markdown file, and markdown files into various other files have been researched by myself and carried out independently.) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that May was a poor Prime Minister. While her passion and dedication to the position of Prime Minister was admirable, her time as PM had significant consequences which have affected the UK as a whole. She failed to produce a Brexit deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer period of uncertainty which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Additionally, her poor leadership caused significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. Overall, we believe that May was a poor Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that May was a poor Prime Minister. While her passion and dedication to the position of Prime Minister was admirable, her time as PM had significant consequences which have affected the UK as a whole. She failed to produce a Brexit deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer period of uncertainty which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Additionally, her poor leadership caused significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. Overall, we believe that May was a poor Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that Theresa May was an ineffective Prime Minister. While her passion and dedication for the position of Prime Minister are a credit to her, her time in office saw an increased period of uncertainty which has negatively affected the UK as a whole. She failed to produce a deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer transition period which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Additionally, her poor leadership saw significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. Overall, we believe that May was an ineffective Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We believe that May was a poor Prime Minister. Her poor leadership caused significant infighting within the Conservative Party which undermined the government’s authority. She failed to produce a Brexit deal which could get through Parliament, resulting in a longer period of uncertainty which has affected UK businesses and people living in the UK. Overall, we believe that May was a poor Prime Minister, whose legacy has had a significant negative impact on the UK. Link: https://s-box.gitlab.io/sk411/week5/draft-consensus-statement/index.html (this link is a markdown file that has been created by applying various commands to a Microsoft word document. The commands to convert a Word document into a markdown file, and markdown files into various other files have been researched by myself and carried out independently.) 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001602.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001602.soc index 63ff986d..95a471fb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001602.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001602.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Humans will probably be able to communicate with animals, at some point, in the future, but how this will happen is currently unknown. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is highly likely that humans will gain the ability to communicate with animals, given that research and advances in AI and machine learning continue to progress at a rapid rate. We will be able to communicate more fully with animals but we may not understand their language as they would not have the cognitive ability to learn ours. However, humans will be able to understand animal communications in a similar way to how we can currently interpret body language. Humans will learn to communicate with animals that have a high level of intelligence. In the near future, it is likely that this will be dolphins, whales and octopuses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans will be able to communicate with animals in the future, but it will be a long time before this is achieved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Humans will learn to communicate with animals. It is already happening in some ways and will continue to improve. Humans will be able to understand animals and have conversations with them. The first animals we will learn to communicate with will be intelligent animals such as octopuses. Humans will learn to speak the animal language rather than animals speaking human languages. This will happen far into the future as the technology is not there yet. This will happen as there is value and benefit in communicating with animals. It is a fun and interesting thing and has commercial value. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Humans will probably be able to communicate with animals, at some point, in the future, but how this will happen is currently unknown. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is highly likely that humans will gain the ability to communicate with animals, given that research and advances in AI and machine learning continue to progress at a rapid rate. We will be able to communicate more fully with animals but we may not understand their language as they would not have the cognitive ability to learn ours. However, humans will be able to understand animal communications in a similar way to how we can currently interpret body language. Humans will learn to communicate with animals that have a high level of intelligence. In the near future, it is likely that this will be dolphins, whales and octopuses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans will be able to communicate with animals in the future, but it will be a long time before this is achieved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Humans will learn to communicate with animals. It is already happening in some ways and will continue to improve. Humans will be able to understand animals and have conversations with them. The first animals we will learn to communicate with will be intelligent animals such as octopuses. Humans will learn to speak the animal language rather than animals speaking human languages. This will happen far into the future as the technology is not there yet. This will happen as there is value and benefit in communicating with animals. It is a fun and interesting thing and has commercial value. 3: 2,4,1,3 2: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001603.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001603.soc index 5b5af844..b2b4d590 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001603.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001603.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should be giving aid to other countries, but we also need to be careful where the aid goes, and should be ensuring it goes to countries that need it and can actually use it. It would be better if we could help them to become self-sustaining, rather than always relying on the charity of other nations, and we should be looking to support countries in doing that. We should also be looking to ensure that the money is not wasted, so we should be careful about the amount we are giving, and checking that the money is being used effectively. The reason we feel that we should give aid is that the people who are living in countries that are not self-sustaining are still human beings, and so deserve a life that has a chance to be as healthy, productive and happy as anyone else's, wherever they are. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should give aid to other countries, but this aid should be used to improve infrastructure which will help the country develop, and not to help individuals directly. This will help the global economy, and improve the quality of life for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that aid should be given to other countries as we are one of the most developed nations in the world and have an obligation to help other nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, we should give aid to other countries. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. However, the aid should be given to countries where it can be guaranteed that it will be used for the intended purpose, and the money should not be used to support corrupt regimes. The foreign aid we give is often a minute amount of the government's budget and stopping that wouldn't really free up enough money to help us out. In fact a lot of the foreign aid we give is in order to develop infrastructure such as ports/bridges and roads which benefit the global economy and us in turn. I don't think foreign aid is a purely philanthropical pursuit but more of an economic investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should be giving aid to other countries, but we also need to be careful where the aid goes, and should be ensuring it goes to countries that need it and can actually use it. It would be better if we could help them to become self-sustaining, rather than always relying on the charity of other nations, and we should be looking to support countries in doing that. We should also be looking to ensure that the money is not wasted, so we should be careful about the amount we are giving, and checking that the money is being used effectively. The reason we feel that we should give aid is that the people who are living in countries that are not self-sustaining are still human beings, and so deserve a life that has a chance to be as healthy, productive and happy as anyone else's, wherever they are. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should give aid to other countries, but this aid should be used to improve infrastructure which will help the country develop, and not to help individuals directly. This will help the global economy, and improve the quality of life for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that aid should be given to other countries as we are one of the most developed nations in the world and have an obligation to help other nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, we should give aid to other countries. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. However, the aid should be given to countries where it can be guaranteed that it will be used for the intended purpose, and the money should not be used to support corrupt regimes. The foreign aid we give is often a minute amount of the government's budget and stopping that wouldn't really free up enough money to help us out. In fact a lot of the foreign aid we give is in order to develop infrastructure such as ports/bridges and roads which benefit the global economy and us in turn. I don't think foreign aid is a purely philanthropical pursuit but more of an economic investment. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001604.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001604.soc index efa2b0ab..ea0153d5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001604.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001604.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The Iraq war was a huge mistake, and it is clear now that it was based on lies. Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should never have gone to war in Iraq. It is clear from the beginning that the decision was based on lies and misinformation. It's also clear that this decision to go to war caused the death of a significant number of innocent civilians. We can never know how many were actually killed, but we do know that they were killed because the UK decided to go to war in Iraq. It's also likely that a significant number of soldiers from the UK died as a result of the war, many in circumstances that could be seen as unnecessary. This war was a major mistake, the UK government had little involvement in the country prior to the war and now we see the results of this terrible mistake in the form of IS, a terrible evil that we are now faced with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, I don't think so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the UK entering the Iraq War. The reasons for this included the fact that the UK was not directly affected by the war, and the fact that the UK did not have enough evidence to justify going to war. The participants were also opposed to the way in which the UK entered the war, and in particular the way in which Tony Blair lied to Parliament and the public about the reasons for going to war. The participants were also opposed to the way in which the war has been conducted, and in particular the way in which it has led to the deaths of many civilians. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The Iraq war was a huge mistake, and it is clear now that it was based on lies. Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should never have gone to war in Iraq. It is clear from the beginning that the decision was based on lies and misinformation. It's also clear that this decision to go to war caused the death of a significant number of innocent civilians. We can never know how many were actually killed, but we do know that they were killed because the UK decided to go to war in Iraq. It's also likely that a significant number of soldiers from the UK died as a result of the war, many in circumstances that could be seen as unnecessary. This war was a major mistake, the UK government had little involvement in the country prior to the war and now we see the results of this terrible mistake in the form of IS, a terrible evil that we are now faced with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, I don't think so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the UK entering the Iraq War. The reasons for this included the fact that the UK was not directly affected by the war, and the fact that the UK did not have enough evidence to justify going to war. The participants were also opposed to the way in which the UK entered the war, and in particular the way in which Tony Blair lied to Parliament and the public about the reasons for going to war. The participants were also opposed to the way in which the war has been conducted, and in particular the way in which it has led to the deaths of many civilians. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001605.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001605.soc index e5e9db03..941f5da4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001605.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001605.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK does not need to spend a great deal more on infrastructure. There are, however, some issues that are causing a great deal of concern for the people of the UK. Firstly, the cost of living is very high, and this is causing a great deal of problems for people. It is important that the government makes a conscious effort to reduce the cost of living. Secondly, there is a shortage of homes, especially in big cities. This is causing a great deal of problems for people, as they are unable to find affordable accommodation. The government needs to make a conscious effort to provide more homes for people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that infrastructure is something the UK can improve on, however we don't think a huge amount of money should be put into it as there are more important areas that require attention. For example, a significant amount of the NHS is understaffed and require more employees to make sure that people get the treatment they need and deserve. We feel that the main focus of infrastructure should be to improve the state of inner cities. They have a lot of potential, however most people wouldn't want to visit them or even live in them. This is an issue that can be easily fixed by giving them some attention and improving the appearance of the streets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should spend more on infrastructure as it would improve the quality of life for many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: the UK should not spend more on infrastructure, as most of it is already in good condition, and there are more pressing issues that the UK should focus on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK does not need to spend a great deal more on infrastructure. There are, however, some issues that are causing a great deal of concern for the people of the UK. Firstly, the cost of living is very high, and this is causing a great deal of problems for people. It is important that the government makes a conscious effort to reduce the cost of living. Secondly, there is a shortage of homes, especially in big cities. This is causing a great deal of problems for people, as they are unable to find affordable accommodation. The government needs to make a conscious effort to provide more homes for people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that infrastructure is something the UK can improve on, however we don't think a huge amount of money should be put into it as there are more important areas that require attention. For example, a significant amount of the NHS is understaffed and require more employees to make sure that people get the treatment they need and deserve. We feel that the main focus of infrastructure should be to improve the state of inner cities. They have a lot of potential, however most people wouldn't want to visit them or even live in them. This is an issue that can be easily fixed by giving them some attention and improving the appearance of the streets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should spend more on infrastructure as it would improve the quality of life for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - the UK should not spend more on infrastructure, as most of it is already in good condition, and there are more pressing issues that the UK should focus on. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001606.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001606.soc index 0d47d9ab..84ab3b80 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001606.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001606.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Cryptocurrencies should not be banned in the UK. We don't think they should be banned because we don't think it is fair to restrict people's freedom to use them. We also think that the government should not ban them because if they do then it will send a message to the world that the UK is not open to new ideas and is not willing to embrace new technology. The government should not ban them because cryptocurrencies can be used to help people in other countries who may not have access to banking and who may not be able to access their own money. We think that the government should put more effort into regulating cryptocurrencies and making them safer for people to use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While there have been problems with cryptocurrencies in the past, it would be a mistake to ban them, as banning them would be a blow to free trade and innovation, and would likely only result in cryptocurrencies migrating elsewhere, to countries with less stringent financial regulations. Instead, the UK should establish and enforce laws regarding the legal use of cryptocurrencies, and use all its powers to prevent the illegal use of cryptocurrencies, so as to reduce the harm caused by their illegal use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should make it harder for people to buy crypto, but not impossible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should ban all cryptocurrencies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Cryptocurrencies should not be banned in the UK. We don't think they should be banned because we don't think it is fair to restrict people's freedom to use them. We also think that the government should not ban them because if they do then it will send a message to the world that the UK is not open to new ideas and is not willing to embrace new technology. The government should not ban them because cryptocurrencies can be used to help people in other countries who may not have access to banking and who may not be able to access their own money. We think that the government should put more effort into regulating cryptocurrencies and making them safer for people to use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While there have been problems with cryptocurrencies in the past, it would be a mistake to ban them, as banning them would be a blow to free trade and innovation, and would likely only result in cryptocurrencies migrating elsewhere, to countries with less stringent financial regulations. Instead, the UK should establish and enforce laws regarding the legal use of cryptocurrencies, and use all its powers to prevent the illegal use of cryptocurrencies, so as to reduce the harm caused by their illegal use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should make it harder for people to buy crypto, but not impossible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should ban all cryptocurrencies. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001607.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001607.soc index 7f683d15..8e5a9d44 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001607.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001607.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A company's board of directors should have the same demographic make up as the company's average workforce. This is because the board of directors is the most senior leadership team in the company and as such, they should be representative of the workforce as a whole. This will ensure that all employees are represented and that their needs and concerns are addressed. This will also ensure that the board of directors have a good understanding of the issues and concerns of the workforce and will be able to make informed decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “No, however it is beneficial to the business if a board has the same demographic make up as the average workforce and should be considered during the process of hiring board members.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, a company's board of directors should not have the same demographic make up as the company's average workforce. This is because the board of directors would be comprised of experienced middle-aged people and the company's average workforce may be formed by people who are younger than them. Moreover, the company's average workforce may be comprised of people who are not highly educated and have no experience in the business world. The group believes that the board of directors should be comprised of people who have experience and expertise in the business world and who can make the best decisions for the company. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Diversity within a company is always beneficial, whether in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. If the demographics of a company's board of directors do not reflect the demographics of the company's average workforce, there is a greater risk that problems within the company may not be noticed, and that initiatives that could help the company may be overlooked. On the other hand, it is important to recognise that it is not necessary for the board of directors to be made up of people who look like the average workers, but rather of people who can bring their own unique and diverse perspectives to the table, and who have the expertise and knowledge necessary to do their job well. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A company's board of directors should have the same demographic make up as the company's average workforce. This is because the board of directors is the most senior leadership team in the company and as such, they should be representative of the workforce as a whole. This will ensure that all employees are represented and that their needs and concerns are addressed. This will also ensure that the board of directors have a good understanding of the issues and concerns of the workforce and will be able to make informed decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “No, however it is beneficial to the business if a board has the same demographic make up as the average workforce and should be considered during the process of hiring board members.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, a company's board of directors should not have the same demographic make up as the company's average workforce. This is because the board of directors would be comprised of experienced middle-aged people and the company's average workforce may be formed by people who are younger than them. Moreover, the company's average workforce may be comprised of people who are not highly educated and have no experience in the business world. The group believes that the board of directors should be comprised of people who have experience and expertise in the business world and who can make the best decisions for the company. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Diversity within a company is always beneficial, whether in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. If the demographics of a company's board of directors do not reflect the demographics of the company's average workforce, there is a greater risk that problems within the company may not be noticed, and that initiatives that could help the company may be overlooked. On the other hand, it is important to recognise that it is not necessary for the board of directors to be made up of people who look like the average workers, but rather of people who can bring their own unique and diverse perspectives to the table, and who have the expertise and knowledge necessary to do their job well. 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001608.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001608.soc index fefeb03a..68119906 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001608.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001608.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK's health service is the NHS providing world-leading healthcare. The NHS is accessible to all and is free at the point of use. It provides a good standard of healthcare in comparison to other countries, however, this is not necessarily world-leading. The NHS does provide some world-leading treatments, however, the cost of some treatments is too high for them to be approved for NHS use. The NHS does provide a world-leading model for healthcare, in the sense that it provides equal access to all. However, this model is not necessarily world-leading in terms of the actual standard of healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is a world-leading healthcare system in terms of accessibility, but not in terms of the actual healthcare provided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK’s health service is providing world-leading healthcare, in the sense that it is accessible and free to all, which is not the case in many countries. However, in terms of the actual standard of healthcare, the NHS provides a good standard in comparison to third world countries and of equal comparison to western countries. However, we don't believe that it is world-leading in the sense that it is more advanced than other global healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK's health service is the NHS providing world-leading healthcare. The NHS is accessible to all and is free at the point of use. It provides a good standard of healthcare in comparison to other countries, however, this is not necessarily world-leading. The NHS does provide some world-leading treatments, however, the cost of some treatments is too high for them to be approved for NHS use. The NHS does provide a world-leading model for healthcare, in the sense that it provides equal access to all. However, this model is not necessarily world-leading in terms of the actual standard of healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is a world-leading healthcare system in terms of accessibility, but not in terms of the actual healthcare provided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK’s health service is providing world-leading healthcare, in the sense that it is accessible and free to all, which is not the case in many countries. However, in terms of the actual standard of healthcare, the NHS provides a good standard in comparison to third world countries and of equal comparison to western countries. However, we don't believe that it is world-leading in the sense that it is more advanced than other global healthcare. 3: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001609.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001609.soc index 93ef2104..4bc3b8ed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001609.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001609.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK's National Health Service is a model that other countries should aspire to. However, the way in which it is run and funded needs to be looked at. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK's National Health Service is a great model to aspire to, however, it is underfunded and does not have the resources to provide good quality care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is a model that other countries should aspire to. It provides free healthcare to every person in the country, no matter how rich or poor. The problem is that the government has not allocated enough funds to the NHS and more people need to be trained in order to keep up with demand. There needs to be more money for preventative care, for example counseling on diet and nutrition, which can save the NHS money in the long term. There needs to be more staffing and equipment to cope with the increasing demand and reduce waiting times for appointments. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK's National Health Service is a model that other countries should aspire to. The NHS is a British institution. It has offered free healthcare to those in need for many years successfully, even though it is stretched to capacity and underfunded. It is already a model in my opinion. We have some of the best trained doctors and surgeons. Our model helps people address health issues at no cost which should be something which every government implements in society. Health is wealth. One should not be privatising or monetising people's need for improving health due to sickness. However, the problem is when this model doesn't work because it is administered or run poorly, or because the government is not assigning enough funds to it. For example in the UK we have a real NHS crisis at the moment, with impossible waiting lists, routine exams being cancelled and essential treatment being postpone to much later. This means that people who cannot afford it are dying unnecessarily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK's National Health Service is a model that other countries should aspire to. However, the way in which it is run and funded needs to be looked at. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK's National Health Service is a great model to aspire to, however, it is underfunded and does not have the resources to provide good quality care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is a model that other countries should aspire to. It provides free healthcare to every person in the country, no matter how rich or poor. The problem is that the government has not allocated enough funds to the NHS and more people need to be trained in order to keep up with demand. There needs to be more money for preventative care, for example counseling on diet and nutrition, which can save the NHS money in the long term. There needs to be more staffing and equipment to cope with the increasing demand and reduce waiting times for appointments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK's National Health Service is a model that other countries should aspire to. The NHS is a British institution. It has offered free healthcare to those in need for many years successfully, even though it is stretched to capacity and underfunded. It is already a model in my opinion. We have some of the best trained doctors and surgeons. Our model helps people address health issues at no cost which should be something which every government implements in society. Health is wealth. One should not be privatising or monetising people's need for improving health due to sickness. However, the problem is when this model doesn't work because it is administered or run poorly, or because the government is not assigning enough funds to it. For example in the UK we have a real NHS crisis at the moment, with impossible waiting lists, routine exams being cancelled and essential treatment being postpone to much later. This means that people who cannot afford it are dying unnecessarily. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001610.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001610.soc index 49c26eb6..6b354bca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001610.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001610.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not increase taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The tax has been shown to make no difference to the consumption of these drinks and it takes away people's choice. It is up to the individual if they want to drink sugar-sweetened drinks and they should not be penalised for this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should increase taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The group felt that this would be an important step in tackling the obesity crisis in the UK. The group also felt that the tax would help to increase revenue for the government and would help to pay for some of the health issues that these sugary drinks can cause. The group felt that the tax would also help to reduce the sugar content of these drinks. The group felt that the tax would not be the only solution to tackling obesity but would be an important step in the right direction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The key debate is whether the purpose of the sugar tax is to improve public health or raise revenue. If it is the former, then we feel that there is no clear evidence that the sugar tax is helping. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. If it is the latter, then we are simply going down the route of raising taxes on anything that we can to raise revenue. It is not clear that this tax will achieve its desired outcome of reducing obesity. If that is the intention, then we believe that the focus on sugar is too narrow. There are so many factors that contribute to obesity. As a result, the sugar tax will disproportionately affect the poorest in society, who can least afford to pay. We need to be more creative in how we deal with obesity. It is unlikely that the sugar tax will make a difference. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not increase taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. Taxing unhealthy products has worked in the past, but it is unlikely to be effective in this case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not increase taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The tax has been shown to make no difference to the consumption of these drinks and it takes away people's choice. It is up to the individual if they want to drink sugar-sweetened drinks and they should not be penalised for this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should increase taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The group felt that this would be an important step in tackling the obesity crisis in the UK. The group also felt that the tax would help to increase revenue for the government and would help to pay for some of the health issues that these sugary drinks can cause. The group felt that the tax would also help to reduce the sugar content of these drinks. The group felt that the tax would not be the only solution to tackling obesity but would be an important step in the right direction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The key debate is whether the purpose of the sugar tax is to improve public health or raise revenue. If it is the former, then we feel that there is no clear evidence that the sugar tax is helping. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. If it is the latter, then we are simply going down the route of raising taxes on anything that we can to raise revenue. It is not clear that this tax will achieve its desired outcome of reducing obesity. If that is the intention, then we believe that the focus on sugar is too narrow. There are so many factors that contribute to obesity. As a result, the sugar tax will disproportionately affect the poorest in society, who can least afford to pay. We need to be more creative in how we deal with obesity. It is unlikely that the sugar tax will make a difference. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not increase taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. Taxing unhealthy products has worked in the past, but it is unlikely to be effective in this case. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001611.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001611.soc index b911c8ee..7fcc1098 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001611.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001611.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Consensus statement from group of participants: It is highly likely that humans will gain the ability to communicate with animals, given that research and advances in AI and machine learning continue to progress at a rapid rate. Current research also indicates that humans will be able to understand animal communications in a similar way to how we can currently interpret body language. Moreover, the significant advances in AI will aid the development of brain-computer interfaces which can help humans and animals to communicate. Initially, such systems will help to interpret and decode animal sign language and noises, but in the long term, human can learn to speak the language of animals as we know from existing dolphin/whale communication systems. It is certain that we will be able to more fully understand animal communications but we may not understand their language as they would not have the cognitive ability to learn ours. The most likely first targets of this research will be animals with a high level of intelligence, such as dolphins, whales and octopuses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: It is highly likely that humans will gain the ability to communicate with animals, given that research and advances in AI and machine learning continue to progress at a rapid rate. Humans are likely to be able to understand animal communications in a similar way to how we can currently interpret body language. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans will learn to communicate with animals, but not in the near future. In the next 10-20 years, humans will learn how to communicate with animals in the same way we can currently interpret body language. Communication between humans and animals will be two way, but animals will not be able to learn our language due to their limited cognitive ability. In the next 10-20 years, humans will learn to communicate with the most intelligent animals, such as dolphins, whales, octopuses, and chimpanzees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is highly likely that humans will gain the ability to communicate with animals, given that research and advances in AI and machine learning continue to progress at a rapid rate. We will be able to communicate more fully with animals but we may not understand their language as they would not have the cognitive ability to learn ours. However, humans will be able to understand animal communications in a similar way to how we can currently interpret body language. Humans will learn to communicate with animals that have a high level of intelligence. In the near future, it is likely that this will be dolphins, whales and octopuses. This is because these animals have a high level of intelligence, which means they will be able to learn some of the ways in which humans communicate, and also because they are aquatic animals, which means that the technology used to understand them will need to be waterproof. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Consensus statement from group of participants: It is highly likely that humans will gain the ability to communicate with animals, given that research and advances in AI and machine learning continue to progress at a rapid rate. Current research also indicates that humans will be able to understand animal communications in a similar way to how we can currently interpret body language. Moreover, the significant advances in AI will aid the development of brain-computer interfaces which can help humans and animals to communicate. Initially, such systems will help to interpret and decode animal sign language and noises, but in the long term, human can learn to speak the language of animals as we know from existing dolphin/whale communication systems. It is certain that we will be able to more fully understand animal communications but we may not understand their language as they would not have the cognitive ability to learn ours. The most likely first targets of this research will be animals with a high level of intelligence, such as dolphins, whales and octopuses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: It is highly likely that humans will gain the ability to communicate with animals, given that research and advances in AI and machine learning continue to progress at a rapid rate. Humans are likely to be able to understand animal communications in a similar way to how we can currently interpret body language. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans will learn to communicate with animals, but not in the near future. In the next 10-20 years, humans will learn how to communicate with animals in the same way we can currently interpret body language. Communication between humans and animals will be two way, but animals will not be able to learn our language due to their limited cognitive ability. In the next 10-20 years, humans will learn to communicate with the most intelligent animals, such as dolphins, whales, octopuses, and chimpanzees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is highly likely that humans will gain the ability to communicate with animals, given that research and advances in AI and machine learning continue to progress at a rapid rate. We will be able to communicate more fully with animals but we may not understand their language as they would not have the cognitive ability to learn ours. However, humans will be able to understand animal communications in a similar way to how we can currently interpret body language. Humans will learn to communicate with animals that have a high level of intelligence. In the near future, it is likely that this will be dolphins, whales and octopuses. This is because these animals have a high level of intelligence, which means they will be able to learn some of the ways in which humans communicate, and also because they are aquatic animals, which means that the technology used to understand them will need to be waterproof. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001612.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001612.soc index 325274b7..3856c05d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001612.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001612.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of charging people who do not vote in an election. This is because it is a basic human right to be able to choose whether or not to vote and this should not be taken away. However, if the government were to introduce a very small fee for those who do not vote, the group felt that this would not be a problem. This is because the fee would be very small and so would not prevent people from voting. The group also felt that if the fee was very small, it would not be a problem for poorer people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that people should be given the right to vote, however we don't think that we should charge a fee for those who don't vote, as this may be seen as a way of forcing people to vote. Some people may not wish to vote or may not want to vote for any candidate. We also feel that people should have the option of not voting for any candidate if they are dissatisfied with all the candidates presented. However, we feel that a system should be put in place to educate people about the importance of voting and how to register to vote, to ensure that the best candidate is elected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of charging people who do not vote in an election. This is because it is the democratic right of people to choose not to vote, and this should not be taken away. However, it was agreed that it is important to vote and that it is the responsibility of the government to make it as easy as possible for people to vote. This could be done by making voting compulsory, but with the option of being able to vote for 'none of the above' or to abstain. It was also agreed that the government should make it as easy as possible for people to register to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think that it should be a fine as it would be better for the government to come up with a scheme which would help to raise awareness and educate people about how important it is to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of charging people who do not vote in an election. This is because it is a basic human right to be able to choose whether or not to vote and this should not be taken away. However, if the government were to introduce a very small fee for those who do not vote, the group felt that this would not be a problem. This is because the fee would be very small and so would not prevent people from voting. The group also felt that if the fee was very small, it would not be a problem for poorer people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that people should be given the right to vote, however we don't think that we should charge a fee for those who don't vote, as this may be seen as a way of forcing people to vote. Some people may not wish to vote or may not want to vote for any candidate. We also feel that people should have the option of not voting for any candidate if they are dissatisfied with all the candidates presented. However, we feel that a system should be put in place to educate people about the importance of voting and how to register to vote, to ensure that the best candidate is elected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of charging people who do not vote in an election. This is because it is the democratic right of people to choose not to vote, and this should not be taken away. However, it was agreed that it is important to vote and that it is the responsibility of the government to make it as easy as possible for people to vote. This could be done by making voting compulsory, but with the option of being able to vote for 'none of the above' or to abstain. It was also agreed that the government should make it as easy as possible for people to register to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think that it should be a fine as it would be better for the government to come up with a scheme which would help to raise awareness and educate people about how important it is to vote. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001613.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001613.soc index bbb0ec04..ee7a0c35 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001613.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001613.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: It would be a mistake to ban cryptocurrencies, as banning them would be a blow to free trade and innovation, and would likely only result in cryptocurrencies migrating elsewhere, to countries with less stringent financial regulations. Instead, the UK should establish and enforce laws regarding the legal use of cryptocurrencies, and use all its powers to prevent the illegal use of cryptocurrencies, so as to reduce the harm caused by their illegal use. The referendum result: 2 participants said 'Yes', 3 said 'No', and 1 participant said 'No view'. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While there have been problems with cryptocurrencies in the past, it would be a mistake to ban them, as banning them would be a blow to free trade and innovation, and would likely only result in cryptocurrencies migrating elsewhere, to countries with less stringent financial regulations. Instead, the UK should establish and enforce laws regarding the legal use of cryptocurrencies, and use all its powers to prevent the illegal use of cryptocurrencies, so as to reduce the harm caused by their illegal use. The UK should also make people more aware of the risks of cryptocurrencies, so that people don't get taken advantage of, and are not scammed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cryptocurrencies should not be banned in the UK, but the government should implement and enforce laws regulating the legal use of cryptocurrencies and do everything in its power to reduce the harm caused by illegal use of cryptocurrencies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was wary of banning cryptocurrencies, since although they can be used for bad purposes, to ban them would be to take away their good uses as well, and to allow for new and exciting possibilities in the market. The group made the assertion that since cryptocurrencies have brought with them advantages and disadvantages, governments should instead regulate cryptocurrencies for a balance between freedom and security. Final consensus statement: While there have been problems with cryptocurrencies in the past, it would be a mistake to ban them, as banning them would be a blow to free trade and innovation, and would likely only result in cryptocurrencies migrating elsewhere, to countries with less stringent financial regulations. Instead, the UK should establish and enforce laws regarding the legal use of cryptocurrencies, and use all its powers to prevent the illegal use of cryptocurrencies, so as to reduce the harm caused by their illegal use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: It would be a mistake to ban cryptocurrencies, as banning them would be a blow to free trade and innovation, and would likely only result in cryptocurrencies migrating elsewhere, to countries with less stringent financial regulations. Instead, the UK should establish and enforce laws regarding the legal use of cryptocurrencies, and use all its powers to prevent the illegal use of cryptocurrencies, so as to reduce the harm caused by their illegal use. The referendum result: 2 participants said 'Yes', 3 said 'No', and 1 participant said 'No view'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While there have been problems with cryptocurrencies in the past, it would be a mistake to ban them, as banning them would be a blow to free trade and innovation, and would likely only result in cryptocurrencies migrating elsewhere, to countries with less stringent financial regulations. Instead, the UK should establish and enforce laws regarding the legal use of cryptocurrencies, and use all its powers to prevent the illegal use of cryptocurrencies, so as to reduce the harm caused by their illegal use. The UK should also make people more aware of the risks of cryptocurrencies, so that people don't get taken advantage of, and are not scammed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cryptocurrencies should not be banned in the UK, but the government should implement and enforce laws regulating the legal use of cryptocurrencies and do everything in its power to reduce the harm caused by illegal use of cryptocurrencies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was wary of banning cryptocurrencies, since although they can be used for bad purposes, to ban them would be to take away their good uses as well, and to allow for new and exciting possibilities in the market. The group made the assertion that since cryptocurrencies have brought with them advantages and disadvantages, governments should instead regulate cryptocurrencies for a balance between freedom and security. Final consensus statement: While there have been problems with cryptocurrencies in the past, it would be a mistake to ban them, as banning them would be a blow to free trade and innovation, and would likely only result in cryptocurrencies migrating elsewhere, to countries with less stringent financial regulations. Instead, the UK should establish and enforce laws regarding the legal use of cryptocurrencies, and use all its powers to prevent the illegal use of cryptocurrencies, so as to reduce the harm caused by their illegal use. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001614.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001614.soc index 679c6129..bc41825a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001614.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001614.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. It is not fair to charge different prices to different people and could lead to discrimination. It is not fair to charge more to certain people, especially if they are young and do not have a lot of money. It is also not fair to charge more to women, as this is sexist and could lead to a gender pay gap. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. We believe that this is discriminatory and therefore should not be allowed. We believe that it is not fair to charge different prices for the same product. We also believe that it is not fair to discriminate against a person because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The practice of charging different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex is morally unacceptable. In the case of the age group, there should be some protection to ensure that young children are not given access to items that are not suitable for them and therefore the prices charged for these items should be set to make the item too expensive for them to purchase. In the case of gender, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for the same product, irrespective of the person's gender. This is just unfair discrimination. In both cases, the person should be able to purchase the same item as someone else for the same price, irrespective of age or sex. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. It is not fair to charge different prices to different people and could lead to discrimination. It is not fair to charge more to certain people, especially if they are young and do not have a lot of money. It is also not fair to charge more to women, as this is sexist and could lead to a gender pay gap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. We believe that this is discriminatory and therefore should not be allowed. We believe that it is not fair to charge different prices for the same product. We also believe that it is not fair to discriminate against a person because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex. We believe that it is not fair to treat a person differently because of their age or sex +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The practice of charging different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex is morally unacceptable. In the case of the age group, there should be some protection to ensure that young children are not given access to items that are not suitable for them and therefore the prices charged for these items should be set to make the item too expensive for them to purchase. In the case of gender, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for the same product, irrespective of the person's gender. This is just unfair discrimination. In both cases, the person should be able to purchase the same item as someone else for the same price, irrespective of age or sex. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001615.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001615.soc index f75bbb0f..07bdfbee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001615.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001615.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is our view that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem, for which serious action is required. We as a global community must respond to it as soon as possible, while recognising that there is some uncertainty in the scientific evidence. Governments must do as much as they can to curb emissions, and further develop existing technologies to reduce the effects of climate change. Public Perspective Group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The problem of climate change is one that has been at the forefront of scientific research for the past century and has only recently become a matter of political and social concern. The most recent scientific research indicates that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem that requires significant action from governments. Rather than simply making efforts to prevent further climate change from occurring (which may be impossible given the amounts of greenhouse gases that have already entered the atmosphere), we must invest in infrastructure to prevent the devastating impact of climate change. A key adaptation would be investment in flood defences to protect coastal and riverside communities from the rising sea levels and floods caused by heavy rainfall in the next few decades, until the necessary environmental changes are made to revert carbon emissions and halt climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The problem of climate change is one that has been at the forefront of scientific research for the past century and has only recently become a matter of political and social concern. The most recent scientific research indicates that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem that requires significant action from governments. We must make efforts to transition to renewable energy, phase out fossil fuels and invest in technologies to mitigate the consequences of climate change. However, the reality of this situation is that we cannot simply prevent further climate change from occurring. Rather, we must find ways to adapt to the new climate. A key adaptation would be investment in infrastructure to prevent flooding, such as the creation of defences to hold back rising sea levels. This would be of particular importance to countries such as Bangladesh, where the effects of climate change are likely to be the most catastrophic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Climate change is a serious problem, and requires significant action from governments. A key adaptation would be investment in infrastructure to prevent flooding, such as the creation of defences to hold back rising sea levels. However, the reality of this situation is that we cannot simply prevent further climate change from occurring. Rather, we must find ways to adapt to the new climate. A consensus view is an opinion that is shared by a group. What consensus view has been reached by this group of participants? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is our view that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem, for which serious action is required. We as a global community must respond to it as soon as possible, while recognising that there is some uncertainty in the scientific evidence. Governments must do as much as they can to curb emissions, and further develop existing technologies to reduce the effects of climate change. Public Perspective Group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The problem of climate change is one that has been at the forefront of scientific research for the past century and has only recently become a matter of political and social concern. The most recent scientific research indicates that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem that requires significant action from governments. Rather than simply making efforts to prevent further climate change from occurring (which may be impossible given the amounts of greenhouse gases that have already entered the atmosphere), we must invest in infrastructure to prevent the devastating impact of climate change. A key adaptation would be investment in flood defences to protect coastal and riverside communities from the rising sea levels and floods caused by heavy rainfall in the next few decades, until the necessary environmental changes are made to revert carbon emissions and halt climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The problem of climate change is one that has been at the forefront of scientific research for the past century and has only recently become a matter of political and social concern. The most recent scientific research indicates that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem that requires significant action from governments. We must make efforts to transition to renewable energy, phase out fossil fuels and invest in technologies to mitigate the consequences of climate change. However, the reality of this situation is that we cannot simply prevent further climate change from occurring. Rather, we must find ways to adapt to the new climate. A key adaptation would be investment in infrastructure to prevent flooding, such as the creation of defences to hold back rising sea levels. This would be of particular importance to countries such as Bangladesh, where the effects of climate change are likely to be the most catastrophic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Climate change is a serious problem, and requires significant action from governments. A key adaptation would be investment in infrastructure to prevent flooding, such as the creation of defences to hold back rising sea levels. However, the reality of this situation is that we cannot simply prevent further climate change from occurring. Rather, we must find ways to adapt to the new climate. A consensus view is an opinion that is shared by a group. What consensus view has been reached by this group of participants? 3: 3,2,4,1 2: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001616.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001616.soc index 708b45ea..ca1c02a8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001616.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001616.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Diversity within a company is always beneficial, whether in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. If the demographics of a company's board of directors do not reflect the demographics of the company's average workforce, there is a greater risk that problems within the company may not be noticed, and that initiatives that could help the company may be overlooked. On the other hand, it is important to recognise that it is not necessary for the board of directors to be made up of people who look like the average workers, but rather of people who can bring their own unique and diverse perspectives to the table, and who have the expertise and knowledge necessary to do their job well. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there are benefits in having a company's board of directors be representative of the company's average workforce, it is more important to have a board of directors that brings a variety of experiences and opinions to the table, and who can do their job well. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The benefits of diversity within a company, whether in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or religious beliefs, have long been recognised. However, for diversity to be beneficial, it must be celebrated and cultivated, which requires a long-term commitment to it from the top of the company. A diverse workforce must also reflect the diversity of the communities and customers that the company serves, which means the demographics of the workforce must be allowed to shift and change over time. For a company's board of directors to have the same demographics as the company's average workforce is not necessary, and diversity should not be approached as a quota to fill. However, a diverse board is always beneficial, as it provides a larger pool of experience and opinions, and avoids systemic bias in the decision-making process, helping the company to make the best decisions for its customers and workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Whilst it is true that a company's board of directors would usually be comprised of a similar group of people who have experience and expertise that can be of benefit to the company, it can also be of benefit to make sure that the demographics of the board of directors reflect those of the company's average workforce. Different demographic groups have different needs and desires, and if the board of directors is not diverse enough, it could be difficult to meet those needs and identify what all the issues are in a company. Agenda and Schedule for the Critical Inquiry sessions during the C-BRiDE program +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Diversity within a company is always beneficial, whether in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. If the demographics of a company's board of directors do not reflect the demographics of the company's average workforce, there is a greater risk that problems within the company may not be noticed, and that initiatives that could help the company may be overlooked. On the other hand, it is important to recognise that it is not necessary for the board of directors to be made up of people who look like the average workers, but rather of people who can bring their own unique and diverse perspectives to the table, and who have the expertise and knowledge necessary to do their job well. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there are benefits in having a company's board of directors be representative of the company's average workforce, it is more important to have a board of directors that brings a variety of experiences and opinions to the table, and who can do their job well. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The benefits of diversity within a company, whether in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or religious beliefs, have long been recognised. However, for diversity to be beneficial, it must be celebrated and cultivated, which requires a long-term commitment to it from the top of the company. A diverse workforce must also reflect the diversity of the communities and customers that the company serves, which means the demographics of the workforce must be allowed to shift and change over time. For a company's board of directors to have the same demographics as the company's average workforce is not necessary, and diversity should not be approached as a quota to fill. However, a diverse board is always beneficial, as it provides a larger pool of experience and opinions, and avoids systemic bias in the decision-making process, helping the company to make the best decisions for its customers and workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Whilst it is true that a company's board of directors would usually be comprised of a similar group of people who have experience and expertise that can be of benefit to the company, it can also be of benefit to make sure that the demographics of the board of directors reflect those of the company's average workforce. Different demographic groups have different needs and desires, and if the board of directors is not diverse enough, it could be difficult to meet those needs and identify what all the issues are in a company. Agenda and Schedule for the Critical Inquiry sessions during the C-BRiDE program 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001617.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001617.soc index 77996b96..2e04fda0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001617.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001617.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not acceptable to smoke on the job. The health and safety of others should be a primary concern of the company. There are ways of creating a separate designated smoking area away from the workplace and if this is not done, then it will result in health problems and additional costs for the company. In addition, time taken up by smoking on the job results in other workers having to cover for that person or have work that requires the whole team be delayed. This means that the smoker will be drawing additional pay for their smoking break when the work is not being done. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not okay to smoke on the job. If you are going to smoke, you should do it during your break. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking on the job is not okay as it is not fair to non smokers. The issue of smoking is a health concern for smokers and non smokers. If a person is a smoker they should try to quit or at least not smoke at work. If they are unable to do this, they should go outside the building to smoke. This will ensure that non smokers are not negatively impacted by the smoke and will allow smokers to take a break from their work. This will also ensure that smokers are not seen to be taking extra breaks and will ensure that they are not negatively impacting the work of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The practice of smoking on the job is acceptable as long as all parties involved agree to it, and as long as it does not adversely affect the work output of those who do not smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not acceptable to smoke on the job. The health and safety of others should be a primary concern of the company. There are ways of creating a separate designated smoking area away from the workplace and if this is not done, then it will result in health problems and additional costs for the company. In addition, time taken up by smoking on the job results in other workers having to cover for that person or have work that requires the whole team be delayed. This means that the smoker will be drawing additional pay for their smoking break when the work is not being done. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not okay to smoke on the job. If you are going to smoke, you should do it during your break. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking on the job is not okay as it is not fair to non smokers. The issue of smoking is a health concern for smokers and non smokers. If a person is a smoker they should try to quit or at least not smoke at work. If they are unable to do this, they should go outside the building to smoke. This will ensure that non smokers are not negatively impacted by the smoke and will allow smokers to take a break from their work. This will also ensure that smokers are not seen to be taking extra breaks and will ensure that they are not negatively impacting the work of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The practice of smoking on the job is acceptable as long as all parties involved agree to it, and as long as it does not adversely affect the work output of those who do not smoke. 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001618.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001618.soc index e43e4a0b..86527604 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001618.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001618.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We are not over-populated, but it does feel that way. I feel that population is one of the biggest problems we face in the UK today. This is not just due to the fact we are seeing over-population in certain areas of the country but also due to the fact that there is not enough housing, jobs, GP appointments, and schools. There are a lot of reasons that there is overpopulation in the UK. Immigration is one of the most common reasons people cite, however immigration in the UK is actually falling, which is likely to continue with the recent Brexit referendum. However, immigration can still have a big impact on the UK’s population. In 2015 when there was a rise in immigration, it accounted for a rise of 600,000 people in the UK’s population, this is still a significant amount. In areas such as the capital of London, it is also seeing an increase in population due to natural growth. This is mainly due to the fact that the population in London is younger than in the rest of the UK. There are also significant pressures on the public sector in the UK. The population in the UK is set to rise by the year 2033 to 77 million. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The world is overpopulated, however the UK is not. We have the ability to sustain our population, and we should be welcoming people from other countries to come and live here. This will allow us to have a diverse and multicultural society, which will be beneficial to everyone.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are not over-populated but the demands of people and the planet are not balanced and this is affecting the lifestyles of the general population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong argument for both sides of the debate, however, in general, the world is over-populated. There is a finite amount of resources and as the population increases, this will lead to a greater strain on resources. The world is also ageing, and with a greater number of elderly people, this will lead to greater strain on resources. However, it is important to note that the world is not over-populated everywhere. There are areas of the world where the population is declining and this is leading to a strain on resources in those areas. It is also important to note that there are changes and technology that come over time which will allow society to interact as we go forward to accommodate any changes in population that may come. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We are not over-populated, but it does feel that way. I feel that population is one of the biggest problems we face in the UK today. This is not just due to the fact we are seeing over-population in certain areas of the country but also due to the fact that there is not enough housing, jobs, GP appointments, and schools. There are a lot of reasons that there is overpopulation in the UK. Immigration is one of the most common reasons people cite, however immigration in the UK is actually falling, which is likely to continue with the recent Brexit referendum. However, immigration can still have a big impact on the UK’s population. In 2015 when there was a rise in immigration, it accounted for a rise of 600,000 people in the UK’s population, this is still a significant amount. In areas such as the capital of London, it is also seeing an increase in population due to natural growth. This is mainly due to the fact that the population in London is younger than in the rest of the UK. There are also significant pressures on the public sector in the UK. The population in the UK is set to rise by the year 2033 to 77 million. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The world is overpopulated, however the UK is not. We have the ability to sustain our population, and we should be welcoming people from other countries to come and live here. This will allow us to have a diverse and multicultural society, which will be beneficial to everyone.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are not over-populated but the demands of people and the planet are not balanced and this is affecting the lifestyles of the general population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong argument for both sides of the debate, however, in general, the world is over-populated. There is a finite amount of resources and as the population increases, this will lead to a greater strain on resources. The world is also ageing, and with a greater number of elderly people, this will lead to greater strain on resources. However, it is important to note that the world is not over-populated everywhere. There are areas of the world where the population is declining and this is leading to a strain on resources in those areas. It is also important to note that there are changes and technology that come over time which will allow society to interact as we go forward to accommodate any changes in population that may come. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001619.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001619.soc index 1ba71a43..a24c4118 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001619.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001619.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “No, we shouldn’t cut military spending, but we should divert money from other sectors, to fund the Arts and Health care.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I don't think we should take money away from the military however I do believe more money should be given to the healthcare sector as it is struggling, but the military is important, therefore funds should be taken from another sector and given to healthcare.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The world has changed and there are better ways to combat threats than spending on military hardware. For example by funding technology and AI-based cyber-security solutions to keeping threats to a minimum. This would be preferable to obsolete tech like heavy artillery and nuclear weapons which can never be used. However, as a small island, we don't believe that funding cuts to the military would be beneficial where we need to maintain our own security. Instead, we might consider cuts to welfare systems and refugee policies which we also have first hand experience of seeing within our sector and always seem to be affluently funded. We also agree that both the arts and health care would benefit from additional funding. Health care in particular is our profession and we recognise the current and future constraints of a system which is already underfunded. However, the military is important, therefore funds should be taken from another sector and given to healthcare.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, military spending should be cut and the savings should be reallocated to the arts and healthcare. The world has changed since the end of the Cold War and although military spending remains high in absolute terms, it has reduced as a proportion of GDP. In comparison, the NHS is under-funded and does not receive the investment it requires. We should also not forget that health is more than just funding the NHS, but also tackling the causes of ill-health such as obesity, alcohol and drug abuse and improving public health infrastructure. The arts too are important, and it is easy to forget that the last time the UK had a world class art scene, it was supported by the public purse, as evidenced by the Tate, the National Gallery and other public museums and galleries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “No, we shouldn’t cut military spending, but we should divert money from other sectors, to fund the Arts and Health care.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I don't think we should take money away from the military however I do believe more money should be given to the healthcare sector as it is struggling, but the military is important, therefore funds should be taken from another sector and given to healthcare.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The world has changed and there are better ways to combat threats than spending on military hardware. For example by funding technology and AI-based cyber-security solutions to keeping threats to a minimum. This would be preferable to obsolete tech like heavy artillery and nuclear weapons which can never be used. However, as a small island, we don't believe that funding cuts to the military would be beneficial where we need to maintain our own security. Instead, we might consider cuts to welfare systems and refugee policies which we also have first hand experience of seeing within our sector and always seem to be affluently funded. We also agree that both the arts and health care would benefit from additional funding. Health care in particular is our profession and we recognise the current and future constraints of a system which is already underfunded. However, the military is important, therefore funds should be taken from another sector and given to healthcare.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, military spending should be cut and the savings should be reallocated to the arts and healthcare. The world has changed since the end of the Cold War and although military spending remains high in absolute terms, it has reduced as a proportion of GDP. In comparison, the NHS is under-funded and does not receive the investment it requires. We should also not forget that health is more than just funding the NHS, but also tackling the causes of ill-health such as obesity, alcohol and drug abuse and improving public health infrastructure. The arts too are important, and it is easy to forget that the last time the UK had a world class art scene, it was supported by the public purse, as evidenced by the Tate, the National Gallery and other public museums and galleries. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001620.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001620.soc index 323e9cdf..df3cbcd6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001620.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001620.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the National Health Service in the UK is a good model, but that its funding should be increased, and that there needs to be more staff trained in order to keep up with demand. There also needs to be an increase in preventative care, for example health and nutrition counseling, in order to save the NHS money in the long term. Conclusions I have always been a big fan of doing critical thinking assignments with my students. There are an infinite number of topics to use and I feel like the students' critical thinking skills are greatly improved after each assignment. Of course I've heard the arguments against assigning critical thinking essays. "It takes too long." "My students can't be trusted to do the work honestly." "I tried it once and the results were terrible." I would argue that these types of assignments are so important that even though they may seem to require a lot of time, they are well worth doing. Students need to see that controversial topics are not just "either/or" arguments, but that well-thought arguments can be made for both sides of a debate. Students can't be expected to behave honestly or do the work honestly if there is no incentive to do so -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Consensus statement from group of participants: The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is a model that other countries should aspire to. It provides free healthcare to every person in the country, no matter how rich or poor. This is fantastic and ensures that any person, no matter what class, colour, age, can have access to the best healthcare possible. The problem is that the government has not allocated enough funds to the NHS, and more people need to be trained in order to keep up with demand. This may be because they are not anticipating the changes that come with a growing population, for example better treatments for longer life and pre-existing health conditions, and also increasingly complex societal health needs, for example in mental health and more. The NHS also struggles with financing preventative care. Mental health care is particularly underfunded, and this has led to a pandemic in mental health issues that could have been prevented with more accessible and better quality care. Society today puts pressure on people from every age and walks of life, and mental health issues are an increasing problem that everyone is struggling to cope with. The NHS needs better funding in mental health and other areas of preventative care, such as diet and nutrition, which have -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a model that other countries should aspire to, however more money needs to be allocated to the NHS in order to provide free healthcare to the country. There needs to be more preventative care and more people trained to cope with the increasing demand. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is a model that other countries should aspire to. It provides free healthcare to every person in the country, no matter how rich or poor. The problem is that the government has not allocated enough funds to the NHS and more people need to be trained in order to keep up with demand. There needs to be more money for preventative care, for example counseling on diet and nutrition, which can save the NHS money in the long term. There needs to be more staffing and equipment to cope with the increasing demand and reduce waiting times for appointments. This would help the NHS to be a model that other countries should aspire to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the National Health Service in the UK is a good model, but that its funding should be increased, and that there needs to be more staff trained in order to keep up with demand. There also needs to be an increase in preventative care, for example health and nutrition counseling, in order to save the NHS money in the long term. Conclusions I have always been a big fan of doing critical thinking assignments with my students. There are an infinite number of topics to use and I feel like the students' critical thinking skills are greatly improved after each assignment. Of course I've heard the arguments against assigning critical thinking essays. "It takes too long." "My students can't be trusted to do the work honestly." "I tried it once and the results were terrible." I would argue that these types of assignments are so important that even though they may seem to require a lot of time, they are well worth doing. Students need to see that controversial topics are not just "either/or" arguments, but that well-thought arguments can be made for both sides of a debate. Students can't be expected to behave honestly or do the work honestly if there is no incentive to do so +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Consensus statement from group of participants: The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is a model that other countries should aspire to. It provides free healthcare to every person in the country, no matter how rich or poor. This is fantastic and ensures that any person, no matter what class, colour, age, can have access to the best healthcare possible. The problem is that the government has not allocated enough funds to the NHS, and more people need to be trained in order to keep up with demand. This may be because they are not anticipating the changes that come with a growing population, for example better treatments for longer life and pre-existing health conditions, and also increasingly complex societal health needs, for example in mental health and more. The NHS also struggles with financing preventative care. Mental health care is particularly underfunded, and this has led to a pandemic in mental health issues that could have been prevented with more accessible and better quality care. Society today puts pressure on people from every age and walks of life, and mental health issues are an increasing problem that everyone is struggling to cope with. The NHS needs better funding in mental health and other areas of preventative care, such as diet and nutrition, which have +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a model that other countries should aspire to, however more money needs to be allocated to the NHS in order to provide free healthcare to the country. There needs to be more preventative care and more people trained to cope with the increasing demand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is a model that other countries should aspire to. It provides free healthcare to every person in the country, no matter how rich or poor. The problem is that the government has not allocated enough funds to the NHS and more people need to be trained in order to keep up with demand. There needs to be more money for preventative care, for example counseling on diet and nutrition, which can save the NHS money in the long term. There needs to be more staffing and equipment to cope with the increasing demand and reduce waiting times for appointments. This would help the NHS to be a model that other countries should aspire to. 3: 2,4,3,1 2: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001621.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001621.soc index ea189da8..9bc01284 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001621.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001621.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should not ban cars in central London, but instead provide incentives to reduce their usage, and introduce more stringent regulations and standards for vehicles allowed into the centre of London, so that we can reduce pollution. We should ensure that taxis, emergency services and other necessary vehicles continue to be allowed into central London, so long as they conform to the new regulations and standards. We believe that incentivising the use of public transport, and improving public transport links to central London is an important component of this, and that the high-levels of footfall in the centre of London should help to drive down the number of people driving in their own vehicles. We believe that a more stringent vetting process for vehicles being used in central London is a better approach, rather than an outright ban on cars, which would simply cause resentment. We also believe that any changes to regulations should be made in consultation with a range of affected groups, so that we can ensure that those most affected by the changes have a say in them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that there are specific business and essential services, taxis, ambulances and other vehicles that need to access Central London which will be very strongly impacted by a ban, and therefore we should instead incentivise individuals to reduce their car use, and ensure that strict regulations for vehicles operating in central London are implemented to ensure that vehicles conform to those regulations. We believe that local businesses would benefit from increased footfall, and that households would benefit from increased customer spend in London generally from customers travelling by public transport into Central London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should not ban cars in central London, but instead provide incentives to reduce their usage, and introduce more stringent regulations and standards for vehicles allowed into the centre of London, so that we can reduce pollution. We should ensure that taxis, emergency services and other necessary vehicles continue to be allowed into central London, so long as they conform to the new regulations and standards. We believe that incentivising the use of public transport, and improving public transport links to central London is an important component of this, and that this is the most politically-palatable way forward - high-levels of footfall in the centre of London should help to drive down the number of people driving in their own vehicles, as should penalties for road-users. We believe that new regulations and standards should be produced in consultation with residents, and any impact on those with low incomes should be borne in mind when considering rules around what vehicles are allowable in central London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should not ban cars in central London, but instead provide incentives to reduce their usage, and introduce more stringent regulations and standards for vehicles allowed into the centre of London, so that we can reduce pollution. We should ensure that taxis, emergency services and other necessary vehicles continue to be allowed into central London, so long as they conform to the new regulations and standards. We believe that incentivising the use of public transport, and improving public transport links to central London is an important component of this, and that the high-levels of footfall in the centre of London should help to drive down the number of people driving in their own vehicles. We believe that a more stringent vetting process for vehicles being used in central London is a better approach, rather than an outright ban on cars, which would simply cause resentment. We believe that car owners should be incentivised to buy and use electric cars, as this will reduce pollution, and that there should be a higher cost for non-electric cars, so that the cost of owning an electric car is comparable to that of owning a non-electric car. Finally, we believe that a policy of encouraging and incentivising the use of public transport +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should not ban cars in central London, but instead provide incentives to reduce their usage, and introduce more stringent regulations and standards for vehicles allowed into the centre of London, so that we can reduce pollution. We should ensure that taxis, emergency services and other necessary vehicles continue to be allowed into central London, so long as they conform to the new regulations and standards. We believe that incentivising the use of public transport, and improving public transport links to central London is an important component of this, and that the high-levels of footfall in the centre of London should help to drive down the number of people driving in their own vehicles. We believe that a more stringent vetting process for vehicles being used in central London is a better approach, rather than an outright ban on cars, which would simply cause resentment. We also believe that any changes to regulations should be made in consultation with a range of affected groups, so that we can ensure that those most affected by the changes have a say in them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that there are specific business and essential services, taxis, ambulances and other vehicles that need to access Central London which will be very strongly impacted by a ban, and therefore we should instead incentivise individuals to reduce their car use, and ensure that strict regulations for vehicles operating in central London are implemented to ensure that vehicles conform to those regulations. We believe that local businesses would benefit from increased footfall, and that households would benefit from increased customer spend in London generally from customers travelling by public transport into Central London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should not ban cars in central London, but instead provide incentives to reduce their usage, and introduce more stringent regulations and standards for vehicles allowed into the centre of London, so that we can reduce pollution. We should ensure that taxis, emergency services and other necessary vehicles continue to be allowed into central London, so long as they conform to the new regulations and standards. We believe that incentivising the use of public transport, and improving public transport links to central London is an important component of this, and that this is the most politically-palatable way forward - high-levels of footfall in the centre of London should help to drive down the number of people driving in their own vehicles, as should penalties for road-users. We believe that new regulations and standards should be produced in consultation with residents, and any impact on those with low incomes should be borne in mind when considering rules around what vehicles are allowable in central London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should not ban cars in central London, but instead provide incentives to reduce their usage, and introduce more stringent regulations and standards for vehicles allowed into the centre of London, so that we can reduce pollution. We should ensure that taxis, emergency services and other necessary vehicles continue to be allowed into central London, so long as they conform to the new regulations and standards. We believe that incentivising the use of public transport, and improving public transport links to central London is an important component of this, and that the high-levels of footfall in the centre of London should help to drive down the number of people driving in their own vehicles. We believe that a more stringent vetting process for vehicles being used in central London is a better approach, rather than an outright ban on cars, which would simply cause resentment. We believe that car owners should be incentivised to buy and use electric cars, as this will reduce pollution, and that there should be a higher cost for non-electric cars, so that the cost of owning an electric car is comparable to that of owning a non-electric car. Finally, we believe that a policy of encouraging and incentivising the use of public transport 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001622.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001622.soc index a3ea98fe..7dcc6863 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001622.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001622.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that electric cars should be encouraged through a subsidy for purchasers, with the conditions that new charging infrastructure is installed and the electricity used to charge these cars is coming from renewable energy sources. In this case study, not everyone agreed with the final statement produced. What is important is that the final group opinion was the result of compromise, discussion and debate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should be encouraging the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This is because these cars are very expensive and would therefore be prohibitive to those who could not afford to buy one. By offering tax breaks to those who buy electric cars, more people will be able to afford them. This will be beneficial to the environment as more people will be driving electric cars, which do not produce harmful emissions like petrol and diesel cars. The government should also be taking steps to ensure that the electricity used to charge these cars is coming from renewable energy sources. This would make the move to electric cars more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Whilst the infrastructure is being put in place to ensure that there is enough renewable energy capacity to deal with the increased demand this will create, we should continue to incentivise those who can afford it to purchase electric cars, so that we can make a big impact on air pollution in the short term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should be encouraging the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This is because these cars are very expensive and would therefore be prohibitive to those who could not afford to buy one. By offering tax breaks to those who buy electric cars, more people will be able to afford them. This will be beneficial to the environment as more people will be driving electric cars, which do not produce harmful emissions like petrol and diesel cars. The government should also be taking steps to ensure that the electricity used to charge these cars is coming from renewable energy sources. This would make the move to electric cars more sustainable and environmentally friendly. This consensus statement was arrived at through a process of open, respectful and honest debate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should be encouraging the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This is because these cars are very expensive and would therefore be prohibitive to those who could not afford to buy one. By offering tax breaks to those who buy electric cars, more people will be able to afford them. This will be beneficial to the environment as more people will be driving electric cars, which do not produce harmful emissions like petrol and diesel cars. The government should also be taking steps to ensure that the electricity used to charge these cars is coming from renewable energy sources. This would make the move to electric cars more sustainable and environmentally friendly. In order to ensure that the charging points for electric cars are readily available and accessible to all, the government should be investing in the infrastructure to install these charging points. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that electric cars should be encouraged through a subsidy for purchasers, with the conditions that new charging infrastructure is installed and the electricity used to charge these cars is coming from renewable energy sources. In this case study, not everyone agreed with the final statement produced. What is important is that the final group opinion was the result of compromise, discussion and debate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should be encouraging the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This is because these cars are very expensive and would therefore be prohibitive to those who could not afford to buy one. By offering tax breaks to those who buy electric cars, more people will be able to afford them. This will be beneficial to the environment as more people will be driving electric cars, which do not produce harmful emissions like petrol and diesel cars. The government should also be taking steps to ensure that the electricity used to charge these cars is coming from renewable energy sources. This would make the move to electric cars more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Whilst the infrastructure is being put in place to ensure that there is enough renewable energy capacity to deal with the increased demand this will create, we should continue to incentivise those who can afford it to purchase electric cars, so that we can make a big impact on air pollution in the short term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should be encouraging the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This is because these cars are very expensive and would therefore be prohibitive to those who could not afford to buy one. By offering tax breaks to those who buy electric cars, more people will be able to afford them. This will be beneficial to the environment as more people will be driving electric cars, which do not produce harmful emissions like petrol and diesel cars. The government should also be taking steps to ensure that the electricity used to charge these cars is coming from renewable energy sources. This would make the move to electric cars more sustainable and environmentally friendly. This consensus statement was arrived at through a process of open, respectful and honest debate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should be encouraging the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. This is because these cars are very expensive and would therefore be prohibitive to those who could not afford to buy one. By offering tax breaks to those who buy electric cars, more people will be able to afford them. This will be beneficial to the environment as more people will be driving electric cars, which do not produce harmful emissions like petrol and diesel cars. The government should also be taking steps to ensure that the electricity used to charge these cars is coming from renewable energy sources. This would make the move to electric cars more sustainable and environmentally friendly. In order to ensure that the charging points for electric cars are readily available and accessible to all, the government should be investing in the infrastructure to install these charging points. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001623.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001623.soc index 65cfb539..54945aa1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001623.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001623.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under 13 should be allowed to use social media, but with protections in place to limit their exposure to harmful content and to protect them from others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media because of the potential for bad effects. However, there are several safeguards that could be put in place in order to allow for positive use of social media. For example, children should not be allowed to use social media without supervision. This means that an adult should have access to all social media activity, and if necessary, they should be able to moderate all content posted on a child's social media. In this way, parents would be able to ensure that the content being seen by their child is appropriate. It is important to remember that the benefits of social media are not just positive for adults. Social media can be a very positive way for children to connect with their peers, to see what is going on in their lives, and to engage in a constructive way. However, it is important that the negative side of social media is addressed, and the potential for children to be exposed to damaging content or to be at risk of other negative effects of social media should be kept to a minimum. Social media should not be banned for children under 13 as this would be restricting freedom of expression. However, it is important to put safeguards in place in order to minimize -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Social media is harmful to young people's development because it conveys a false and misleading reality. People photoshop their photos and make their life appear better than it really is. This misleads young people who are very impressionable. It makes them respect and look up to the wrong people. Furthermore, it is a distraction from reality and young people should focus on other activities that are more fulfilling. There are also harmful people on social media who may wish to harm young children by pretending to be someone they are not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. The dangers of social media are too great and outweigh any positives. It is a distraction from reality and can lead to children being exposed to harmful content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under 13 should be allowed to use social media, but with protections in place to limit their exposure to harmful content and to protect them from others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media because of the potential for bad effects. However, there are several safeguards that could be put in place in order to allow for positive use of social media. For example, children should not be allowed to use social media without supervision. This means that an adult should have access to all social media activity, and if necessary, they should be able to moderate all content posted on a child's social media. In this way, parents would be able to ensure that the content being seen by their child is appropriate. It is important to remember that the benefits of social media are not just positive for adults. Social media can be a very positive way for children to connect with their peers, to see what is going on in their lives, and to engage in a constructive way. However, it is important that the negative side of social media is addressed, and the potential for children to be exposed to damaging content or to be at risk of other negative effects of social media should be kept to a minimum. Social media should not be banned for children under 13 as this would be restricting freedom of expression. However, it is important to put safeguards in place in order to minimize +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Social media is harmful to young people's development because it conveys a false and misleading reality. People photoshop their photos and make their life appear better than it really is. This misleads young people who are very impressionable. It makes them respect and look up to the wrong people. Furthermore, it is a distraction from reality and young people should focus on other activities that are more fulfilling. There are also harmful people on social media who may wish to harm young children by pretending to be someone they are not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. The dangers of social media are too great and outweigh any positives. It is a distraction from reality and can lead to children being exposed to harmful content. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001624.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001624.soc index dae5e1cb..72fac6f0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001624.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001624.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group has decided that the state should not fund the arts. The arts are a luxury that should not be funded by the government. The government has a responsibility to spend tax payers money on things that will benefit the country as a whole, rather than spending it on the arts. The arts are subjective, and so the government should not be funding them, as not everyone will agree with the choice of art that is being funded. The arts are also not something that people need, and so the government should not be funding them. The government should be funding things that people need, such as the NHS, education and the police. The arts are a luxury, and so the government should not be funding them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The arts should not be funded by the state. The arts are a luxury. The government is there to provide the most for the greatest number of people, and this will be achieved by funding for sectors such as the NHS, education and the police. Challenges - Groupthink - Differing opinions - Getting people on the same page -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Therefore, the group has agreed that they believe that the state should not fund the arts. Arts are a luxury that the state should not fund. There are many things that the state should fund and the government should be using taxpayer’s money wisely, to invest into things that everyone needs and not luxuries that everyone enjoys. The arts are subjective, and so the state should not be funding them as different people have different opinions on what they would enjoy. This means that the government may fund something which only few people will enjoy, rather than investing money in education or the health sector, which all of the public would benefit from. However, some people do value art more than others and some need art more than others. Therefore, the state should not be funding the arts. The arts are not a necessity, and so should not be funded by the government. The health, education and policing are all far more important than the arts are, so the arts should not receive state funding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the group has decided that the state should not fund the arts. The arts are a luxury that should not be funded by the government. The government has a responsibility to spend tax payers money on things that will benefit the country as a whole, rather than spending it on the arts. The arts are subjective, and so the government should not be funding them, as not everyone will agree with the choice of art that is being funded. The arts are also not something that people need, and so the government should not be funding them. The government should be funding things that people need, such as the NHS, education and the police. The arts are a luxury, and so the government should not be funding them. The final consensus statement reflects all of the views expressed by the participants. It agrees with the views of Participants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and so it is a fair consensus statement. The views of Participants 1 and 3 are slightly in conflict, as Participant 1 thinks that the arts are something that people need, whereas Participant 3 thinks that the arts are not something that people need. However, the final consensus statement reflects the views of Participants 2 and 4, as they both think that the arts are a +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group has decided that the state should not fund the arts. The arts are a luxury that should not be funded by the government. The government has a responsibility to spend tax payers money on things that will benefit the country as a whole, rather than spending it on the arts. The arts are subjective, and so the government should not be funding them, as not everyone will agree with the choice of art that is being funded. The arts are also not something that people need, and so the government should not be funding them. The government should be funding things that people need, such as the NHS, education and the police. The arts are a luxury, and so the government should not be funding them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The arts should not be funded by the state. The arts are a luxury. The government is there to provide the most for the greatest number of people, and this will be achieved by funding for sectors such as the NHS, education and the police. Challenges - Groupthink - Differing opinions - Getting people on the same page +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Therefore, the group has agreed that they believe that the state should not fund the arts. Arts are a luxury that the state should not fund. There are many things that the state should fund and the government should be using taxpayer’s money wisely, to invest into things that everyone needs and not luxuries that everyone enjoys. The arts are subjective, and so the state should not be funding them as different people have different opinions on what they would enjoy. This means that the government may fund something which only few people will enjoy, rather than investing money in education or the health sector, which all of the public would benefit from. However, some people do value art more than others and some need art more than others. Therefore, the state should not be funding the arts. The arts are not a necessity, and so should not be funded by the government. The health, education and policing are all far more important than the arts are, so the arts should not receive state funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group has decided that the state should not fund the arts. The arts are a luxury that should not be funded by the government. The government has a responsibility to spend tax payers money on things that will benefit the country as a whole, rather than spending it on the arts. The arts are subjective, and so the government should not be funding them, as not everyone will agree with the choice of art that is being funded. The arts are also not something that people need, and so the government should not be funding them. The government should be funding things that people need, such as the NHS, education and the police. The arts are a luxury, and so the government should not be funding them. The final consensus statement reflects all of the views expressed by the participants. It agrees with the views of Participants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and so it is a fair consensus statement. The views of Participants 1 and 3 are slightly in conflict, as Participant 1 thinks that the arts are something that people need, whereas Participant 3 thinks that the arts are not something that people need. However, the final consensus statement reflects the views of Participants 2 and 4, as they both think that the arts are a 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001625.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001625.soc index d10e6640..4ed8026d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001625.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001625.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The key debate is whether the purpose of the sugar tax is to improve public health or raise revenue. If it is the former, then we feel that there is no clear evidence that the sugar tax is helping. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. If it is the latter, then we are simply going down the route of raising taxes on anything that we can to raise revenue. It is not clear that this tax will achieve its desired outcome of reducing obesity. If that is the intention, then we believe that the focus on sugar is too narrow. There are so many factors that contribute to obesity. As a result, the sugar tax will disproportionately affect the poorest in society, who can least afford to pay. We need to be more creative in how we deal with obesity. It is unlikely that the sugar tax will make a difference. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The main debate is whether the purpose of the sugar tax is to improve public health or raise revenue. If it is the former, then we feel that there is no clear evidence that the sugar tax is helping. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. If it is the latter, then we are simply going down the route of raising taxes on anything that we can to raise revenue. It is not clear that this tax will achieve its desired outcome of reducing obesity. If that is the intention, then we believe that the focus on sugar is too narrow. There are so many factors that contribute to obesity. As a result, the sugar tax will disproportionately affect the poorest in society, who can least afford to pay. We need to be more creative in how we deal with obesity. It is unlikely that the sugar tax will make a difference. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a strong argument that the sugar tax is raising revenue for the government, but we do not agree that this is its main purpose. The purpose of the sugar tax is to improve public health. We do not think that the sugar tax will make a difference because it focuses too much on sugar in drinks. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. We do not think that the sugar tax will make a difference because it focuses too much on sugar in drinks. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. We do not think that the sugar tax will make a difference because it focuses too much on sugar in drinks. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. We do not think that the sugar tax will make a difference because it focuses too much on sugar in drinks. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. We do not think that the sugar tax will make -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: A sugar tax is a relatively easy way to raise revenue to help alleviate the problems related to obesity in the population and it is the right thing to do to improve the health of the population. However, there is no guarantee that the sugar tax would reduce obesity. There are other factors involved. Reflective essay In the section above, I present an example of how a group of participants could come to a consensus view on an important topic. In my opinion, it is easier to come to a consensus view with a group of people than when a single person is tasked with expressing an opinion. This is because the person can benefit from the opinion of others and the participants can deliberate and debate to come up with an opinion that is an improvement of the original opinions of all the participants. In general, it is much easier to make arguments in favour of a certain opinion than to put across arguments against an opinion. This may be because we have not considered the arguments in favour of a certain opinion, but I find that it is equally important to have arguments for and against an opinion. This makes it easier for an individual to have a balanced view of the arguments for and against. In a sense, this is what a consensus +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The key debate is whether the purpose of the sugar tax is to improve public health or raise revenue. If it is the former, then we feel that there is no clear evidence that the sugar tax is helping. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. If it is the latter, then we are simply going down the route of raising taxes on anything that we can to raise revenue. It is not clear that this tax will achieve its desired outcome of reducing obesity. If that is the intention, then we believe that the focus on sugar is too narrow. There are so many factors that contribute to obesity. As a result, the sugar tax will disproportionately affect the poorest in society, who can least afford to pay. We need to be more creative in how we deal with obesity. It is unlikely that the sugar tax will make a difference. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The main debate is whether the purpose of the sugar tax is to improve public health or raise revenue. If it is the former, then we feel that there is no clear evidence that the sugar tax is helping. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. If it is the latter, then we are simply going down the route of raising taxes on anything that we can to raise revenue. It is not clear that this tax will achieve its desired outcome of reducing obesity. If that is the intention, then we believe that the focus on sugar is too narrow. There are so many factors that contribute to obesity. As a result, the sugar tax will disproportionately affect the poorest in society, who can least afford to pay. We need to be more creative in how we deal with obesity. It is unlikely that the sugar tax will make a difference. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a strong argument that the sugar tax is raising revenue for the government, but we do not agree that this is its main purpose. The purpose of the sugar tax is to improve public health. We do not think that the sugar tax will make a difference because it focuses too much on sugar in drinks. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. We do not think that the sugar tax will make a difference because it focuses too much on sugar in drinks. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. We do not think that the sugar tax will make a difference because it focuses too much on sugar in drinks. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. We do not think that the sugar tax will make a difference because it focuses too much on sugar in drinks. We would have liked to see some of the revenue generated from the sugar tax being used to educate people on the dangers of too much sugar. We do not think that the sugar tax will make +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: A sugar tax is a relatively easy way to raise revenue to help alleviate the problems related to obesity in the population and it is the right thing to do to improve the health of the population. However, there is no guarantee that the sugar tax would reduce obesity. There are other factors involved. Reflective essay In the section above, I present an example of how a group of participants could come to a consensus view on an important topic. In my opinion, it is easier to come to a consensus view with a group of people than when a single person is tasked with expressing an opinion. This is because the person can benefit from the opinion of others and the participants can deliberate and debate to come up with an opinion that is an improvement of the original opinions of all the participants. In general, it is much easier to make arguments in favour of a certain opinion than to put across arguments against an opinion. This may be because we have not considered the arguments in favour of a certain opinion, but I find that it is equally important to have arguments for and against an opinion. This makes it easier for an individual to have a balanced view of the arguments for and against. In a sense, this is what a consensus 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001626.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001626.soc index 79457710..58cb54a5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001626.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001626.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We are not over-populated, but it does feel that way. This is not just due to the fact we are seeing over-population in certain areas of the country but also due to the fact that there is not enough housing, jobs, GP appointments, and schools. There are a lot of reasons that there is overpopulation in the UK. Immigration is one of the most common reasons people cite, however immigration in the UK is actually falling, which is likely to continue with the recent Brexit referendum. However, immigration can still have a big impact on the UK’s population. In 2015 when there was a rise in immigration, it accounted for a rise of 600,000 people in the UK’s population, this is still a significant amount. In areas such as the capital of London, it is also seeing an increase in population due to natural growth. This is mainly due to the fact that the population in London is younger than in the rest of the UK. There are also significant pressures on the public sector in the UK. The population in the UK is set to rise by the year 2033 to 77 million. This is an example of a group of people with opposing views, coming together and after some deliberation, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are not over-populated, but it does feel that way. The population is one of the biggest problems we face in the UK today. This is not just due to the fact we are seeing over-population in certain areas of the country but also due to the fact that there is not enough housing, jobs, GP appointments, and schools. There are a lot of reasons that there is overpopulation in the UK. Immigration is one of the most common reasons people cite, however immigration in the UK is actually falling, which is likely to continue with the recent Brexit referendum. However, immigration can still have a big impact on the UK’s population. In 2015 when there was a rise in immigration, it accounted for a rise of 600,000 people in the UK’s population, this is still a significant amount. In areas such as the capital of London, it is also seeing an increase in population due to natural growth. This is mainly due to the fact that the population in London is younger than in the rest of the UK. There are also significant pressures on the public sector in the UK. The population in the UK is set to rise by the year 2033 to 77 million. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: We believe the UK is not over-populated, however the aging population is an increasing concern for the public health system. We also believe that Brexit and immigration will have a big impact on population growth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We are not over-populated, although it certainly feels like it. We know that the population will be rising to 77 million by 2033 which does have major implications for services as mentioned in our first draft statement. However, we also feel that this is not all down to immigration into the UK. London is undergoing a huge population increase from the number of births, and not just immigration, which the first draft statement failed to recognise. This is key to understanding why we feel that the UK is not yet over-populated, but feels like it is due to the strain on services. We feel that the pressure on services such as healthcare is partially a management issue, as healthcare can be managed to provide for the demands of the larger population, but also to an increasing ageing population who may require more healthcare, so solutions are needed for this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We are not over-populated, but it does feel that way. This is not just due to the fact we are seeing over-population in certain areas of the country but also due to the fact that there is not enough housing, jobs, GP appointments, and schools. There are a lot of reasons that there is overpopulation in the UK. Immigration is one of the most common reasons people cite, however immigration in the UK is actually falling, which is likely to continue with the recent Brexit referendum. However, immigration can still have a big impact on the UK’s population. In 2015 when there was a rise in immigration, it accounted for a rise of 600,000 people in the UK’s population, this is still a significant amount. In areas such as the capital of London, it is also seeing an increase in population due to natural growth. This is mainly due to the fact that the population in London is younger than in the rest of the UK. There are also significant pressures on the public sector in the UK. The population in the UK is set to rise by the year 2033 to 77 million. This is an example of a group of people with opposing views, coming together and after some deliberation, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are not over-populated, but it does feel that way. The population is one of the biggest problems we face in the UK today. This is not just due to the fact we are seeing over-population in certain areas of the country but also due to the fact that there is not enough housing, jobs, GP appointments, and schools. There are a lot of reasons that there is overpopulation in the UK. Immigration is one of the most common reasons people cite, however immigration in the UK is actually falling, which is likely to continue with the recent Brexit referendum. However, immigration can still have a big impact on the UK’s population. In 2015 when there was a rise in immigration, it accounted for a rise of 600,000 people in the UK’s population, this is still a significant amount. In areas such as the capital of London, it is also seeing an increase in population due to natural growth. This is mainly due to the fact that the population in London is younger than in the rest of the UK. There are also significant pressures on the public sector in the UK. The population in the UK is set to rise by the year 2033 to 77 million. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: We believe the UK is not over-populated, however the aging population is an increasing concern for the public health system. We also believe that Brexit and immigration will have a big impact on population growth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We are not over-populated, although it certainly feels like it. We know that the population will be rising to 77 million by 2033 which does have major implications for services as mentioned in our first draft statement. However, we also feel that this is not all down to immigration into the UK. London is undergoing a huge population increase from the number of births, and not just immigration, which the first draft statement failed to recognise. This is key to understanding why we feel that the UK is not yet over-populated, but feels like it is due to the strain on services. We feel that the pressure on services such as healthcare is partially a management issue, as healthcare can be managed to provide for the demands of the larger population, but also to an increasing ageing population who may require more healthcare, so solutions are needed for this. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001627.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001627.soc index b436db7c..901573ec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001627.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001627.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. This is because it is discriminatory and therefore it is not fair. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. It is unethical to charge different prices to different people. It is not fair to charge more to certain people, especially if they are young or have limited funds. It is also not fair to charge more to women. We also debated the different scenarios, such as when products are designed for different sexes - however we believe that there are alternatives to designing the product differently, and therefore it was decided that different prices should not be charged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. Charging different prices to different people is discriminatory and unethical and may lead to other forms of discrimination. It is not fair to charge more to certain people, especially if they are young and do not have a lot of money. It is also not fair to charge more to women, as this is sexist and could lead to a gender pay gap. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is morally unacceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. It is unfair to those who end up being charged more, particularly if they don't have a lot of money. It is also unfair to charge the same for a product that two people want equally differently, just because one person is more vulnerable than the other. Other questions being discussed in the public forum: Is it morally acceptable to present multiple versions of the same product, with prices ranging from £1 to £50, aimed at different customer categories? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. This is because it is discriminatory and therefore it is not fair. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. It is unethical to charge different prices to different people. It is not fair to charge more to certain people, especially if they are young or have limited funds. It is also not fair to charge more to women. We also debated the different scenarios, such as when products are designed for different sexes - however we believe that there are alternatives to designing the product differently, and therefore it was decided that different prices should not be charged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. Charging different prices to different people is discriminatory and unethical and may lead to other forms of discrimination. It is not fair to charge more to certain people, especially if they are young and do not have a lot of money. It is also not fair to charge more to women, as this is sexist and could lead to a gender pay gap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is morally unacceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. It is unfair to those who end up being charged more, particularly if they don't have a lot of money. It is also unfair to charge the same for a product that two people want equally differently, just because one person is more vulnerable than the other. Other questions being discussed in the public forum: Is it morally acceptable to present multiple versions of the same product, with prices ranging from £1 to £50, aimed at different customer categories? 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001628.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001628.soc index 85be4381..81177da6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001628.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001628.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should not be allowed to buy a bicycle because they are not old enough to ride one on the road, and their parents should be responsible for buying them a bike. This is a classic example of the majority view being right, and shows the power of group discussion to bring people round to the right view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, there should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. We do not think it is an area that the government should legislate about. Children are routinely bought a bicycle by their parents and carers at the correct time. Bicycles are a fast, reliable and cheap alternative to cars or public transport and it would be a shame to deprive younger people of that benefit. Riding a bicycle is also generally good for your health and as a mode of transport will most likely become more prevalent as the world goes greener. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think there should be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be no legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. However we would like to see local cycling clubs providing bicycle lessons for younger children to ensure that they are cycling safely. We would also like to see bicycle manufacturers working with local authorities to provide advice on how to fit bicycles and cycling accessories to cyclists to ensure maximum safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should not be allowed to buy a bicycle because they are not old enough to ride one on the road, and their parents should be responsible for buying them a bike. This is a classic example of the majority view being right, and shows the power of group discussion to bring people round to the right view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, there should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. We do not think it is an area that the government should legislate about. Children are routinely bought a bicycle by their parents and carers at the correct time. Bicycles are a fast, reliable and cheap alternative to cars or public transport and it would be a shame to deprive younger people of that benefit. Riding a bicycle is also generally good for your health and as a mode of transport will most likely become more prevalent as the world goes greener. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think there should be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be no legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. However we would like to see local cycling clubs providing bicycle lessons for younger children to ensure that they are cycling safely. We would also like to see bicycle manufacturers working with local authorities to provide advice on how to fit bicycles and cycling accessories to cyclists to ensure maximum safety. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001629.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001629.soc index 4ac1858d..c980852e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001629.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001629.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Plastic products should be taxed to discourage their usage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes and no, we all need plastics in our life and it really is something that we cannot live without. Yes I agree that Plastics are contaminating our world such as seas and rivers. Yes Plastics are harmful to the Environment and wildlife. I believe that if Plastics were Taxed maybe recycleable plastics would become a cheaper use product. Taxing Plastcis would make funds available to clean up the devastation plastics are causing. I believe plastic products that can and should be recycled should have a small tax on them, such as the bottle deposit tax that the US implements. I believe it's about 5 cents per bottle, although I do not know how this system actually works. Anyway, plastic is a huge problem for the environment and anything that can be done to stop single use plastics should be done so if a tax is added single use plastics to put people off using them, I see this as a good thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of taxing plastic products. It was felt that the tax would help to disincentivise the use of plastics and help to reduce the amount of plastic pollution in the environment. It was also felt that the tax would help to raise funds to help clean up the plastic pollution that already exists. It was felt that the tax should not be a blanket tax, but rather should be targeted at specific plastics that are causing the most harm to the environment. It was felt that the tax should be high enough to make a difference, but not so high as to make the product unaffordable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Plastic products should be taxed to discourage their use. The tax should be high enough to discourage their use, but not so high as to make the use of alternatives more damaging to the environment.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Plastic products should be taxed to discourage their usage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes and no, we all need plastics in our life and it really is something that we cannot live without. Yes I agree that Plastics are contaminating our world such as seas and rivers. Yes Plastics are harmful to the Environment and wildlife. I believe that if Plastics were Taxed maybe recycleable plastics would become a cheaper use product. Taxing Plastcis would make funds available to clean up the devastation plastics are causing. I believe plastic products that can and should be recycled should have a small tax on them, such as the bottle deposit tax that the US implements. I believe it's about 5 cents per bottle, although I do not know how this system actually works. Anyway, plastic is a huge problem for the environment and anything that can be done to stop single use plastics should be done so if a tax is added single use plastics to put people off using them, I see this as a good thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of taxing plastic products. It was felt that the tax would help to disincentivise the use of plastics and help to reduce the amount of plastic pollution in the environment. It was also felt that the tax would help to raise funds to help clean up the plastic pollution that already exists. It was felt that the tax should not be a blanket tax, but rather should be targeted at specific plastics that are causing the most harm to the environment. It was felt that the tax should be high enough to make a difference, but not so high as to make the product unaffordable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Plastic products should be taxed to discourage their use. The tax should be high enough to discourage their use, but not so high as to make the use of alternatives more damaging to the environment.” 3: 3,2,4,1 2: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001630.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001630.soc index eda69ba2..ad13b175 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001630.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001630.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The practice of using tax havens to reduce the taxes paid by individuals or corporations is extremely damaging to society and therefore, ethically wrong. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it is not ok to use tax havens. Tax havens allow for the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. It would feel like an injustice that some individuals or organisations get to escape this. Tax havens are also used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. The use of tax havens is hugely destructive on society and allows for a great split on the income gap between the richest and poorest. In the UK we have organisations like the NHS that rely heavily on income from collected tax in order to function. When UK citizens spend their money and it is then sent out of the state into a personal tax haven to contribute to the wealth of an individual it takes away from the greater good. Additionally it allows for individuals with greater wealth to have more power over the state and its decision making capabilities therefore impacting lower class citizens, as they cannot suffer the same consequences as individuals who pay tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not okay to use tax havens as this results in an unequal distribution of wealth and gives rich people the ability to avoid paying tax for a greater social good. The role of the government in the 21st century is to create a welfare state in which all individuals can benefit from the resources provided. Tax havens can be used to reduce the amount of tax that people have to pay, which reduces the amount of money that can be used to fund a welfare state. Using tax havens is morally wrong and is also illegal, which makes it very hard to police. Therefore, the answer to the question is no, it is not okay to use tax havens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not OK to use tax havens. Tax havens are used for money laundering. As far as I know, tax havens are totally illegal and could not be tolerated by the judiciary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The practice of using tax havens to reduce the taxes paid by individuals or corporations is extremely damaging to society and therefore, ethically wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it is not ok to use tax havens. Tax havens allow for the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. It would feel like an injustice that some individuals or organisations get to escape this. Tax havens are also used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. The use of tax havens is hugely destructive on society and allows for a great split on the income gap between the richest and poorest. In the UK we have organisations like the NHS that rely heavily on income from collected tax in order to function. When UK citizens spend their money and it is then sent out of the state into a personal tax haven to contribute to the wealth of an individual it takes away from the greater good. Additionally it allows for individuals with greater wealth to have more power over the state and its decision making capabilities therefore impacting lower class citizens, as they cannot suffer the same consequences as individuals who pay tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not okay to use tax havens as this results in an unequal distribution of wealth and gives rich people the ability to avoid paying tax for a greater social good. The role of the government in the 21st century is to create a welfare state in which all individuals can benefit from the resources provided. Tax havens can be used to reduce the amount of tax that people have to pay, which reduces the amount of money that can be used to fund a welfare state. Using tax havens is morally wrong and is also illegal, which makes it very hard to police. Therefore, the answer to the question is no, it is not okay to use tax havens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not OK to use tax havens. Tax havens are used for money laundering. As far as I know, tax havens are totally illegal and could not be tolerated by the judiciary. 3: 2,3,1,4 2: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001631.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001631.soc index 838ad608..f56e9445 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001631.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001631.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that sex education should be part of the normal curriculum in schools. Sex education should be introduced in the child's life as an ongoing part of it from the very early ages. It is very important for children to be well-informed, and to be well-aware of what is happening around them and to them, to be able to keep themselves safe. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the school to inform parents about the content of the sex education lessons, as well as when they will be taught. If parents disagree with this, they can opt their children out of the classes, but only after a talk with the teacher/principal and only after finding a solution that fits the school curriculum and the family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Sex education should be taught at school as a topic and parents should be able to decide whether their children will take part in it or not. Sex education is a sensitive topic and it is important that parents know exactly what their children will be taught. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. The group felt that sex education is an important topic and that children should be exposed to it. However, the group felt that parents should have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children to learn. The group also felt that parents should be given an extensive list of what will be taught in sex education classes so that they can make an informed decision. The group felt that sex education is a very sensitive topic and that it should not be taught without the parents' consent. The group felt that parents know their children best and are in the best position to decide what is appropriate for their children to learn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that sex education should be part of the normal curriculum in schools. Sex education should be introduced in the child's life as an ongoing part of it from the very early ages. It is very important for children to be well-informed, and to be well-aware of what is happening around them and to them, to be able to keep themselves safe. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the school to inform parents about the content of the sex education lessons, as well as when they will be taught. If parents disagree with this, they can opt their children out of the classes, but only after a talk with the teacher/principal and only after finding a solution that fits the school curriculum and the family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Sex education should be taught at school as a topic and parents should be able to decide whether their children will take part in it or not. Sex education is a sensitive topic and it is important that parents know exactly what their children will be taught. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. The group felt that sex education is an important topic and that children should be exposed to it. However, the group felt that parents should have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children to learn. The group also felt that parents should be given an extensive list of what will be taught in sex education classes so that they can make an informed decision. The group felt that sex education is a very sensitive topic and that it should not be taught without the parents' consent. The group felt that parents know their children best and are in the best position to decide what is appropriate for their children to learn. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001632.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001632.soc index 10b0d186..c3bbe6f8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001632.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001632.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes for people who have three cars. However, it was agreed that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if the cars are used for work purposes, or if the cars are used by different members of the family. It was also agreed that the increase in tax should not be too much, and that it should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should increase taxes for people who have three cars, unless they are all electric cars, or if they are all used for work purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase taxes for people that have three cars. My reason for this is that usually families have one or two cars, three would be seen as a vanity purchase, or unnecessary. For people that are single, three cars would also be seen as an unnecessary amount of cars which would require a decent amount of cash flow to buy/maintain. I think the tax increase should not apply if the third vehicle is used for work purposes, for example: a van or digger. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes for people who have three cars. However, it was agreed that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if the cars are used for work purposes, or if the cars are used by different members of the family. It was also agreed that the increase in tax should not be too much, and that it should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should increase taxes for people who have three cars, unless they are all electric cars, or if they are all used for work purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase taxes for people that have three cars. My reason for this is that usually families have one or two cars, three would be seen as a vanity purchase, or unnecessary. For people that are single, three cars would also be seen as an unnecessary amount of cars which would require a decent amount of cash flow to buy/maintain. I think the tax increase should not apply if the third vehicle is used for work purposes, for example: a van or digger. 4: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001633.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001633.soc index dec82c0a..0bc22e98 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001633.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001633.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. This is because employees need to have time to relax and have fun and be able to do things that they enjoy doing. This will help them to be more productive at work and make them feel happier. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. Although it is important to maintain a steady economy and productivity at work, there are a growing number of studies that indicate employees are under increasing levels of stress and mental illness. Providing at least one day off a week allows for individuals to complete their errands, spend time with their families, have a day to themselves, and complete their chores, which will prevent further burnout and mental illness. This will also allow for employees to recharge their batteries, and allow them to return to work in a better state of mind. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. This is because employees need to have time to spend with their families, to relax, and to complete chores. If employees are not given a day off from work each week, they will become burnt out, stressed and unproductive. This will lead to an increase in employee turnover, which is expensive for the employer. It is also important to note that employee safety and well-being is paramount to a successful economy. Not providing employees with at least one day off from work each week will result in an increase in employee burnout, reducing productivity and harming both physical and mental health of employees. This has further negative effects on the economy, such as the healthcare bill increasing and employees not spending time outside work contributing to day-off economic activity (e.g. visiting pubs, restaurants, holidays, etc). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. This is because employees need to have time to relax and have fun and be able to do things that they enjoy doing. This will help them to be more productive at work and make them feel happier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. Although it is important to maintain a steady economy and productivity at work, there are a growing number of studies that indicate employees are under increasing levels of stress and mental illness. Providing at least one day off a week allows for individuals to complete their errands, spend time with their families, have a day to themselves, and complete their chores, which will prevent further burnout and mental illness. This will also allow for employees to recharge their batteries, and allow them to return to work in a better state of mind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Employers should be forced to provide their employees with at least one day off from work each week. This is because employees need to have time to spend with their families, to relax, and to complete chores. If employees are not given a day off from work each week, they will become burnt out, stressed and unproductive. This will lead to an increase in employee turnover, which is expensive for the employer. It is also important to note that employee safety and well-being is paramount to a successful economy. Not providing employees with at least one day off from work each week will result in an increase in employee burnout, reducing productivity and harming both physical and mental health of employees. This has further negative effects on the economy, such as the healthcare bill increasing and employees not spending time outside work contributing to day-off economic activity (e.g. visiting pubs, restaurants, holidays, etc). 5: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001634.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001634.soc index abe65ac3..ae9c4541 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001634.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001634.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it may seem fair that food taxes would be more democratic than income tax as everyone will be paying, the idea of the NHS being funded by a national tax on food should not be considered as it will affect the poorer parts of society who are already struggling with feeding their families. While there are pros and cons for both sides of this argument, the government must be careful when deciding how to fund the NHS. It is easy to think of taxing unhealthy foods in order to make people more healthy, but we should be careful of such a solution as this would be a discriminative measure against the less fortunate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are in favour of this method of funding the NHS because it would give a fairer distribution of taxes in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a tax on food. They felt that food is already expensive, and that the poorest people in society would be hit the hardest by this tax. They also felt that a tax on food would be difficult to implement, as it would be difficult to define what food is, and what is not food. The group also felt that it would be unfair to tax unhealthy food, as this would penalise the poorest people in society, who are often the ones who buy the cheapest food, which is often the least healthy. The group also felt that a tax on food would not raise enough money to fund the NHS, and that a tax on income would be a fairer way to raise money to fund the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS should be funded by a national tax on food, instead of income tax, because it is a fairer way of allocating the costs of the NHS across society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it may seem fair that food taxes would be more democratic than income tax as everyone will be paying, the idea of the NHS being funded by a national tax on food should not be considered as it will affect the poorer parts of society who are already struggling with feeding their families. While there are pros and cons for both sides of this argument, the government must be careful when deciding how to fund the NHS. It is easy to think of taxing unhealthy foods in order to make people more healthy, but we should be careful of such a solution as this would be a discriminative measure against the less fortunate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are in favour of this method of funding the NHS because it would give a fairer distribution of taxes in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of funding the NHS through a tax on food. They felt that food is already expensive, and that the poorest people in society would be hit the hardest by this tax. They also felt that a tax on food would be difficult to implement, as it would be difficult to define what food is, and what is not food. The group also felt that it would be unfair to tax unhealthy food, as this would penalise the poorest people in society, who are often the ones who buy the cheapest food, which is often the least healthy. The group also felt that a tax on food would not raise enough money to fund the NHS, and that a tax on income would be a fairer way to raise money to fund the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS should be funded by a national tax on food, instead of income tax, because it is a fairer way of allocating the costs of the NHS across society. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001635.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001635.soc index 73b36ebc..6bd6dc24 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001635.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001635.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under 13 should be allowed to use social media, but with safeguards in place to ensure that they are protected from the negative effects of social media. These safeguards could include supervision from parents or other responsible adults, as well as the ability to moderate any content posted by the children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media because of the potential for bad effects. However, there are several safeguards that could be put in place in order to allow for positive use of social media. For example, children should not be allowed to use social media without supervision. This means that an adult should have access to all social media activity, and if necessary, they should be able to moderate all content posted on a child's social media. In this way, parents would be able to ensure that the content being seen by their child is appropriate. It is important to remember that the benefits of social media are not just positive for adults. Social media can be a very positive way for children to connect with their peers, to see what is going on in their lives, and to engage in a constructive way. However, it is important that the negative side of social media is addressed, and the potential for children to be exposed to damaging content or to be at risk of other negative effects of social media should be kept to a minimum. Social media should not be banned for children under 13 as this would be restricting freedom of expression. However, it is important to put safeguards in place in order to minimize -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. However, there are several safeguards that could be put in place in order to allow for positive use of social media. For example, children should not be allowed to use social media without supervision. This means that an adult should have access to all social media activity, and if necessary, they should be able to moderate all content posted on a child's social media. In this way, parents would be able to ensure that the content being seen by their child is appropriate. It is important to remember that the benefits of social media are not just positive for adults. Social media can be a very positive way for children to connect with their peers, to see what is going on in their lives, and to engage in a constructive way. However, it is important that the negative side of social media is addressed, and the potential for children to be exposed to damaging content or to be at risk of other negative effects of social media should be kept to a minimum. Social media should not be banned for children under 13 as this would be restricting freedom of expression. However, it is important to put safeguards in place in order to minimize the risk of damage to young children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. However, there are several safeguards that can be put in place in order to allow children to be able to use social media in a safe and responsible way. This includes ensuring that an adult has access to all social media activity, and that they have the ability to moderate all content posted on a child's social media. Additionally, restricting the amount of time that children are able to use social media is also an effective safeguard. Restrictions could include limiting the age of users to 13 years old, and a code of conduct which outlines the limitations of social media use. Online Activity 1: In this activity, participants took part in an online discussion in which they were required to debate and critique various other participants' views, as well as develop a consensus group opinion. This was intended to achieve the following learning outcomes: To be able to formulate own opinion on controversial topics To be able to critically think of the way their opinions are supported To be able to critique and discuss group opinions with others To be able to cooperate with others to reach a group consensus Based on the feedback from the participants, the activity was generally successful in achieving these +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under 13 should be allowed to use social media, but with safeguards in place to ensure that they are protected from the negative effects of social media. These safeguards could include supervision from parents or other responsible adults, as well as the ability to moderate any content posted by the children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media because of the potential for bad effects. However, there are several safeguards that could be put in place in order to allow for positive use of social media. For example, children should not be allowed to use social media without supervision. This means that an adult should have access to all social media activity, and if necessary, they should be able to moderate all content posted on a child's social media. In this way, parents would be able to ensure that the content being seen by their child is appropriate. It is important to remember that the benefits of social media are not just positive for adults. Social media can be a very positive way for children to connect with their peers, to see what is going on in their lives, and to engage in a constructive way. However, it is important that the negative side of social media is addressed, and the potential for children to be exposed to damaging content or to be at risk of other negative effects of social media should be kept to a minimum. Social media should not be banned for children under 13 as this would be restricting freedom of expression. However, it is important to put safeguards in place in order to minimize +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. However, there are several safeguards that could be put in place in order to allow for positive use of social media. For example, children should not be allowed to use social media without supervision. This means that an adult should have access to all social media activity, and if necessary, they should be able to moderate all content posted on a child's social media. In this way, parents would be able to ensure that the content being seen by their child is appropriate. It is important to remember that the benefits of social media are not just positive for adults. Social media can be a very positive way for children to connect with their peers, to see what is going on in their lives, and to engage in a constructive way. However, it is important that the negative side of social media is addressed, and the potential for children to be exposed to damaging content or to be at risk of other negative effects of social media should be kept to a minimum. Social media should not be banned for children under 13 as this would be restricting freedom of expression. However, it is important to put safeguards in place in order to minimize the risk of damage to young children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. However, there are several safeguards that can be put in place in order to allow children to be able to use social media in a safe and responsible way. This includes ensuring that an adult has access to all social media activity, and that they have the ability to moderate all content posted on a child's social media. Additionally, restricting the amount of time that children are able to use social media is also an effective safeguard. Restrictions could include limiting the age of users to 13 years old, and a code of conduct which outlines the limitations of social media use. Online Activity 1: In this activity, participants took part in an online discussion in which they were required to debate and critique various other participants' views, as well as develop a consensus group opinion. This was intended to achieve the following learning outcomes: To be able to formulate own opinion on controversial topics To be able to critically think of the way their opinions are supported To be able to critique and discuss group opinions with others To be able to cooperate with others to reach a group consensus Based on the feedback from the participants, the activity was generally successful in achieving these 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001636.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001636.soc index c3c02a2a..4515c4cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001636.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001636.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, military spending should be cut and the savings should be reallocated to the arts and healthcare. The world has changed since the end of the Cold War and although military spending remains high in absolute terms, it has reduced as a proportion of GDP. In comparison, the NHS is under-funded and does not receive the investment it requires. We should also not forget that health is more than just funding the NHS, but also tackling the causes of ill-health such as obesity, alcohol and drug abuse and improving public health infrastructure. The arts too are important, and it is easy to forget that the last time the UK had a world class art scene, it was supported by the public purse, as evidenced by the Tate, the National Gallery and other public museums and galleries. Conclusion In conclusion, the above consensus-forming tool has been demonstrated to be an effective means of bringing a group of people with different opinions to a consensus view. This could be particularly useful in situations where there is conflict, or in situations where the opinions of a diverse group of people need to be brought together. It is also a very effective means of achieving debate and ensuring all views are heard. However, it is not a tool which can -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: Military spending has reduced since the end of the Cold War. In fact the military is one of the most cost-effective government departments and should not be cut. What should be reduced is the portion of GDP spent on welfare, asylum and refugee support. These sectors have grown in recent years, and with unemployment low, and the best years for employment opportunities, the argument for supporting those who are jobless is not as strong as it was during the Great Recession. If these reductions were made, then this would free up some funds to invest in the NHS and arts sector. This is particularly important for the arts, which like the NHS, is struggling to fund itself due to budgetary constraints. It is also important to note that the NHS is not just about providing healthcare services. It also includes public health services, and tackling the causes of illness and disease, which are often rooted in wider social determinants such as low income, poor housing and unemployment. This is why the funds freed up should be given to the arts and the NHS, as these two sectors are the most likely to produce the greatest return on investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Yes, we should cut military spending and reallocate the funds to public health and the arts. The world has changed since the end of the Cold War, and although we are not as at risk from a nuclear war as we once were, military spending remains high in absolute terms, and as a proportion of GDP in comparison with other areas. There are better ways to combat global threats than spend £50bn a year of a nuclear arsenal, and we are more likely to face threats like climate change and terrorism than a full-scale war. Health spending must include the wider determinants of health and not just picking up the pieces. The arts are important to society and they too are underfunded. The last time that we had a world class art scene, it was supported by the public purse, as evidenced by the Tate, the National Gallery and other public museums and galleries. By diverting funds to the arts, we can build a better society and with properly funded public health, we can curb the causes of preventable disease. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, military spending should be cut and the savings should be reallocated to the arts and healthcare. The world has changed since the end of the Cold War and although military spending remains high in absolute terms, it has reduced as a proportion of GDP. In comparison, the NHS is under-funded and does not receive the investment it requires. We should also not forget that health is more than just funding the NHS, but also tackling the causes of ill-health such as obesity, alcohol and drug abuse and improving public health infrastructure. The arts too are important, and it is easy to forget that the last time the UK had a world class art scene, it was supported by the public purse, as evidenced by the Tate, the National Gallery and other public museums and galleries. Conclusion In conclusion, the above consensus-forming tool has been demonstrated to be an effective means of bringing a group of people with different opinions to a consensus view. This could be particularly useful in situations where there is conflict, or in situations where the opinions of a diverse group of people need to be brought together. It is also a very effective means of achieving debate and ensuring all views are heard. However, it is not a tool which can +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: Military spending has reduced since the end of the Cold War. In fact the military is one of the most cost-effective government departments and should not be cut. What should be reduced is the portion of GDP spent on welfare, asylum and refugee support. These sectors have grown in recent years, and with unemployment low, and the best years for employment opportunities, the argument for supporting those who are jobless is not as strong as it was during the Great Recession. If these reductions were made, then this would free up some funds to invest in the NHS and arts sector. This is particularly important for the arts, which like the NHS, is struggling to fund itself due to budgetary constraints. It is also important to note that the NHS is not just about providing healthcare services. It also includes public health services, and tackling the causes of illness and disease, which are often rooted in wider social determinants such as low income, poor housing and unemployment. This is why the funds freed up should be given to the arts and the NHS, as these two sectors are the most likely to produce the greatest return on investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Yes, we should cut military spending and reallocate the funds to public health and the arts. The world has changed since the end of the Cold War, and although we are not as at risk from a nuclear war as we once were, military spending remains high in absolute terms, and as a proportion of GDP in comparison with other areas. There are better ways to combat global threats than spend £50bn a year of a nuclear arsenal, and we are more likely to face threats like climate change and terrorism than a full-scale war. Health spending must include the wider determinants of health and not just picking up the pieces. The arts are important to society and they too are underfunded. The last time that we had a world class art scene, it was supported by the public purse, as evidenced by the Tate, the National Gallery and other public museums and galleries. By diverting funds to the arts, we can build a better society and with properly funded public health, we can curb the causes of preventable disease. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001637.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001637.soc index 8c7b9b17..6a9540d0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001637.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001637.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was agreed that the voting age should not be lowered but raised to 18. It was decided that 18 was the best age for young people to vote because this was the legal age of adulthood. Some people said that a few extra years would allow young people to make more informed and balanced decisions and would make for a more authentic result. This view was a popular view in the group and was therefore agreed to. It was agreed that there was a likelihood that young people would be influenced by their parents or peers. In conclusion, it was agreed that it was more important to be able to make a more mature and well-rounded decision. It was also noted that young people have a great potential to sway elections and this would be less likely at an older age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the voting age should not be raised to 18. 16 year olds are considered adults in the eyes of the law. They should be able to vote as they will be affected by the outcome of the election the most. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The voting age should not be raised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the voting age should be raised to 18 because we believe that people are not mature enough to vote at 16. People under the age of 18 are still in education and are still learning about the world and how it works. Therefore, we believe that they are not ready to vote and make a decision that could affect their future. We believe that people under the age of 18 are still very much influenced by their parents and their friends. This means that their vote may not be their own and may not be the vote that they would have made if they were older. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was agreed that the voting age should not be lowered but raised to 18. It was decided that 18 was the best age for young people to vote because this was the legal age of adulthood. Some people said that a few extra years would allow young people to make more informed and balanced decisions and would make for a more authentic result. This view was a popular view in the group and was therefore agreed to. It was agreed that there was a likelihood that young people would be influenced by their parents or peers. In conclusion, it was agreed that it was more important to be able to make a more mature and well-rounded decision. It was also noted that young people have a great potential to sway elections and this would be less likely at an older age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the voting age should not be raised to 18. 16 year olds are considered adults in the eyes of the law. They should be able to vote as they will be affected by the outcome of the election the most. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The voting age should not be raised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the voting age should be raised to 18 because we believe that people are not mature enough to vote at 16. People under the age of 18 are still in education and are still learning about the world and how it works. Therefore, we believe that they are not ready to vote and make a decision that could affect their future. We believe that people under the age of 18 are still very much influenced by their parents and their friends. This means that their vote may not be their own and may not be the vote that they would have made if they were older. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001638.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001638.soc index 1495ab93..3823d908 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001638.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001638.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. However, we do not think that this should be a separate holiday, as this would be divisive. Instead, we believe that this should be incorporated into existing holidays, such as the August bank holiday. This would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK, and would also be a good way to educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The UK is a huge melting pot of different cultures, and a separate public holiday would allow us to recognise the contribution of people from all walks of life, rather than just the majority group. This would go a long way to making people from historically marginalised groups feel recognised and appreciated, and help to ensure that their contribution is not forgotten. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, I don't believe we should have separate public holidays, if we were to have more bank holidays it would have to be from contributions from people from all historical groups not just marginalised groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. However, we do not think that this should be a separate holiday, as this would be divisive. Instead, we believe that this should be incorporated into existing holidays, such as the August bank holiday. This would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK, and would also be a good way to educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The UK is a huge melting pot of different cultures, and a separate public holiday would allow us to recognise the contribution of people from all walks of life, rather than just the majority group. This would go a long way to making people from historically marginalised groups feel recognised and appreciated, and help to ensure that their contribution is not forgotten. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, I don't believe we should have separate public holidays, if we were to have more bank holidays it would have to be from contributions from people from all historical groups not just marginalised groups. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001639.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001639.soc index 1aa2f4d7..4f05f47a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001639.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001639.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, there should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. We do not think it is an area that the government should legislate about. Children are routinely bought a bicycle by their parents and carers at the correct time. Bicycles are a fast, reliable and cheap alternative to cars or public transport and it would be a shame to deprive younger people of that benefit. Riding a bicycle is also generally good for your health and as a mode of transport will most likely become more prevalent as the world goes greener. We would also like to see the government work with bicycle clubs to help equip more people with the skills to look after, maintain and fit accessories to a bike such as front and rear lights as they are important for safety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. The government should not legislate in this area. Children are routinely bought a bicycle by their parents and carers at the correct time. Bicycles are a fast, reliable and cheap alternative to cars or public transport and it would be a shame to deprive younger people of that benefit. Riding a bicycle is also generally good for your health and as a mode of transport will most likely become more prevalent as the world goes greener. The government should work with bicycle clubs to help equip more people with the skills to look after, maintain and fit accessories to a bike such as front and rear lights as they are important for safety. Conclusion: Throughout the three rounds, it is clear to see that each participant voiced their own opinion on the topic, which led to the creation of the first draft of the consensus statement. From here, the critiques were able to be discussed, leading to the creation of the final consensus statement. It is also clear to see that each participant, in all three rounds, contributed and voiced their opinions and views. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, there should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. We do not think it is an area that the government should legislate about. Bicycles are a fast, reliable and cheap alternative to cars or public transport and it would be a shame to deprive younger people of that benefit. Riding a bicycle is also generally good for your health and as a mode of transport will most likely become more prevalent as the world goes greener. We suggest that rather than having a legal age limit, government should be working with youth clubs and cycling clubs to help people develop the skills for looking after, maintaining, riding and fitting accessories to a bike such as front and rear lights as they are important for safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, there should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. We do not think it is an area that the government should legislate about. Children are routinely bought a bicycle by their parents and carers at the correct time. Bicycles are a fast, reliable and cheap alternative to cars or public transport and it would be a shame to deprive younger people of that benefit. Riding a bicycle is also generally good for your health and as a mode of transport will most likely become more prevalent as the world goes greener. We would also like to see the government work with bicycle clubs to help equip more people with the skills to look after, maintain and fit accessories to a bike such as front and rear lights as they are important for safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. The government should not legislate in this area. Children are routinely bought a bicycle by their parents and carers at the correct time. Bicycles are a fast, reliable and cheap alternative to cars or public transport and it would be a shame to deprive younger people of that benefit. Riding a bicycle is also generally good for your health and as a mode of transport will most likely become more prevalent as the world goes greener. The government should work with bicycle clubs to help equip more people with the skills to look after, maintain and fit accessories to a bike such as front and rear lights as they are important for safety. Conclusion: Throughout the three rounds, it is clear to see that each participant voiced their own opinion on the topic, which led to the creation of the first draft of the consensus statement. From here, the critiques were able to be discussed, leading to the creation of the final consensus statement. It is also clear to see that each participant, in all three rounds, contributed and voiced their opinions and views. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, there should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. We do not think it is an area that the government should legislate about. Bicycles are a fast, reliable and cheap alternative to cars or public transport and it would be a shame to deprive younger people of that benefit. Riding a bicycle is also generally good for your health and as a mode of transport will most likely become more prevalent as the world goes greener. We suggest that rather than having a legal age limit, government should be working with youth clubs and cycling clubs to help people develop the skills for looking after, maintaining, riding and fitting accessories to a bike such as front and rear lights as they are important for safety. 3: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001640.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001640.soc index 4c87aa80..b4d7d552 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001640.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001640.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should cut its military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of cutting military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. The group was in favour of this because they felt that there are many domestic priorities that are left neglected and this effects many people. The group was in favour of this because they felt that the UK should cut military spending. The group was in favour of this because they felt that we have absolutely no business being involved in the conflicts that we are. Especially when that funding could be used to better the quality of life for our own country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should cut military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. Many of our priorities such as health care, the environment, the police and education are currently neglected and deserve to be supported more. We believe that investing more money into the military is not a good use of funds as the UK does not have an active conflict and is not involved in any on-going wars. It is unlikely that any conflict would suddenly arise in the near future. Therefore, the money could be put to better use in improving the welfare of the people in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should cut its military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. However, the UK should maintain a minimum level of military spending to ensure that it can defend itself from any potential threats. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should cut its military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of cutting military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. The group was in favour of this because they felt that there are many domestic priorities that are left neglected and this effects many people. The group was in favour of this because they felt that the UK should cut military spending. The group was in favour of this because they felt that we have absolutely no business being involved in the conflicts that we are. Especially when that funding could be used to better the quality of life for our own country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should cut military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. Many of our priorities such as health care, the environment, the police and education are currently neglected and deserve to be supported more. We believe that investing more money into the military is not a good use of funds as the UK does not have an active conflict and is not involved in any on-going wars. It is unlikely that any conflict would suddenly arise in the near future. Therefore, the money could be put to better use in improving the welfare of the people in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should cut its military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. However, the UK should maintain a minimum level of military spending to ensure that it can defend itself from any potential threats. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001641.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001641.soc index 4caef0b4..6965e36a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001641.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001641.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it is not ok to use tax havens. Tax havens allow for the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. It would feel like an injustice that some individuals or organisations get to escape this. Tax havens are also used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. The use of tax havens is hugely destructive on society and allows for a great split on the income gap between the richest and poorest. In the UK we have organisations like the NHS that rely heavily on income from collected tax in order to function. When UK citizens spend their money and it is then sent out of the state into a personal tax haven to contribute to the wealth of an individual it takes away from the greater good. Additionally it allows for individuals with greater wealth to have more power over the state and its decision making capabilities therefore impacting lower class citizens, as they cannot suffer the same consequences as individuals who pay tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it is not ok to use tax havens. Tax havens allow the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. It would feel like an injustice that some individuals or organisations get to escape this. Tax havens are also used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. The use of tax havens is hugely destructive on society and allows for a great split on the income gap between the richest and poorest. In the UK we have organisations like the NHS that rely heavily on income from collected tax in order to function. When UK citizens spend their money and it is then sent out of the state into a personal tax haven to contribute to the wealth of an individual it takes away from the greater good. Additionally it allows for individuals with greater wealth to have more power over the state and its decision making capabilities therefore impacting lower class citizens, as they cannot suffer the same consequences as individuals who pay tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it is not ok to use tax havens. Tax havens allow for the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. It would feel like an injustice that some individuals or organisations get to escape this. Tax havens are also used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. The use of tax havens is hugely destructive on society and allows for a great split on the income gap between the richest and poorest. In the UK we have organisations like the NHS that rely heavily on income from collected tax in order to function. When UK citizens spend their money and it is then sent out of the state into a personal tax haven to contribute to the wealth of an individual it takes away from the greater good. Additionally it allows for individuals with greater wealth to have more power over the state and its decision making capabilities therefore impacting lower class citizens, as they cannot suffer the same consequences as individuals who pay tax. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is another group exercise for your viewing pleasure. This time the group had to come up with an opinion on a matter of the day, and then -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Tax havens allow for the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. Additionally, tax havens are used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. Tax havens are hugely destructive on society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it is not ok to use tax havens. Tax havens allow for the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. It would feel like an injustice that some individuals or organisations get to escape this. Tax havens are also used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. The use of tax havens is hugely destructive on society and allows for a great split on the income gap between the richest and poorest. In the UK we have organisations like the NHS that rely heavily on income from collected tax in order to function. When UK citizens spend their money and it is then sent out of the state into a personal tax haven to contribute to the wealth of an individual it takes away from the greater good. Additionally it allows for individuals with greater wealth to have more power over the state and its decision making capabilities therefore impacting lower class citizens, as they cannot suffer the same consequences as individuals who pay tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it is not ok to use tax havens. Tax havens allow the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. It would feel like an injustice that some individuals or organisations get to escape this. Tax havens are also used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. The use of tax havens is hugely destructive on society and allows for a great split on the income gap between the richest and poorest. In the UK we have organisations like the NHS that rely heavily on income from collected tax in order to function. When UK citizens spend their money and it is then sent out of the state into a personal tax haven to contribute to the wealth of an individual it takes away from the greater good. Additionally it allows for individuals with greater wealth to have more power over the state and its decision making capabilities therefore impacting lower class citizens, as they cannot suffer the same consequences as individuals who pay tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it is not ok to use tax havens. Tax havens allow for the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. It would feel like an injustice that some individuals or organisations get to escape this. Tax havens are also used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. The use of tax havens is hugely destructive on society and allows for a great split on the income gap between the richest and poorest. In the UK we have organisations like the NHS that rely heavily on income from collected tax in order to function. When UK citizens spend their money and it is then sent out of the state into a personal tax haven to contribute to the wealth of an individual it takes away from the greater good. Additionally it allows for individuals with greater wealth to have more power over the state and its decision making capabilities therefore impacting lower class citizens, as they cannot suffer the same consequences as individuals who pay tax. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is another group exercise for your viewing pleasure. This time the group had to come up with an opinion on a matter of the day, and then +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Tax havens allow for the wealthiest individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, which is a social responsibility and should be shared equally. Additionally, tax havens are used for money laundering, which is a huge issue and can be hugely damaging to society. Tax havens are hugely destructive on society. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001642.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001642.soc index 3c858064..c6fe63c9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001642.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001642.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not have the right to limit the size of people's houses. The most common argument in favour of the government limiting the size of houses was that it could have the effect of reducing house prices, particularly in expensive areas, making houses more affordable to lower-income people. Against this it was pointed out that reducing the size of houses would be unlikely to reduce the price of the house, so would not make houses more affordable. Instead, the reduced size would lead to poorer quality of living for residents of smaller houses, while the housebuilders would make greater profits by selling the same number of houses at the same price, but at a smaller cost. There was also a feeling that people should be able to choose what they want to do with their land. As long as they are not harming others, and abiding by safety regulations, people should be allowed to make their own decisions. It was noted that even in London there is no limit to the size of houses that can be built, but that the cost of land and planning restrictions meant that housebuilders would not build large houses anyway. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government should not have the right to limit the size of people's houses. However, it may be appropriate for the government to limit the size of houses in certain circumstances, for example, in areas where space is at a premium. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't think the government should have the right to limit the size of people's houses because it wouldn't give any benefit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government having the right to limit the size of people's houses. The group felt that this was an infringement on personal freedom and that there were better ways to address issues such as the size of houses, such as planning regulations. The group did, however, feel that there were some circumstances where the government should have the right to limit the size of houses. These included in areas where there was a shortage of space, such as in cities, and in areas where there was a shortage of housing. The group felt that in these circumstances, the government should have the right to limit the size of houses in order to ensure that there was enough space for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not have the right to limit the size of people's houses. The most common argument in favour of the government limiting the size of houses was that it could have the effect of reducing house prices, particularly in expensive areas, making houses more affordable to lower-income people. Against this it was pointed out that reducing the size of houses would be unlikely to reduce the price of the house, so would not make houses more affordable. Instead, the reduced size would lead to poorer quality of living for residents of smaller houses, while the housebuilders would make greater profits by selling the same number of houses at the same price, but at a smaller cost. There was also a feeling that people should be able to choose what they want to do with their land. As long as they are not harming others, and abiding by safety regulations, people should be allowed to make their own decisions. It was noted that even in London there is no limit to the size of houses that can be built, but that the cost of land and planning restrictions meant that housebuilders would not build large houses anyway. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government should not have the right to limit the size of people's houses. However, it may be appropriate for the government to limit the size of houses in certain circumstances, for example, in areas where space is at a premium. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't think the government should have the right to limit the size of people's houses because it wouldn't give any benefit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government having the right to limit the size of people's houses. The group felt that this was an infringement on personal freedom and that there were better ways to address issues such as the size of houses, such as planning regulations. The group did, however, feel that there were some circumstances where the government should have the right to limit the size of houses. These included in areas where there was a shortage of space, such as in cities, and in areas where there was a shortage of housing. The group felt that in these circumstances, the government should have the right to limit the size of houses in order to ensure that there was enough space for everyone. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001643.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001643.soc index cda37681..5897a79b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001643.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001643.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should have a nuclear power industry. It will help to reduce the cost of living in the UK. The nuclear waste is a problem but we can find a solution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. This is because nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy, and is therefore good for the environment. It is also a reliable source of energy that can be used to provide electricity to homes and businesses. The group did acknowledge that nuclear power has its downsides. This is because nuclear waste is dangerous and can cause a lot of damage to the environment and people’s health. The group also acknowledged that the UK should be working towards a future where we do not need to rely on nuclear power, and that this should be done by investing in renewable energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country in a fast growing population. The increase in demand for energy is not able to be met by renewable sources alone as we currently have an unreliable grid and intermittent energy sources. Whilst nuclear power does have the risks associated with waste and possible radiation leaks, it also has many more advantages and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. The industry should continue to be developed and run in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should have a nuclear power industry. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should have a nuclear power industry. It will help to reduce the cost of living in the UK. The nuclear waste is a problem but we can find a solution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK having a nuclear power industry. This is because nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy, and is therefore good for the environment. It is also a reliable source of energy that can be used to provide electricity to homes and businesses. The group did acknowledge that nuclear power has its downsides. This is because nuclear waste is dangerous and can cause a lot of damage to the environment and people’s health. The group also acknowledged that the UK should be working towards a future where we do not need to rely on nuclear power, and that this should be done by investing in renewable energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country in a fast growing population. The increase in demand for energy is not able to be met by renewable sources alone as we currently have an unreliable grid and intermittent energy sources. Whilst nuclear power does have the risks associated with waste and possible radiation leaks, it also has many more advantages and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. The industry should continue to be developed and run in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should have a nuclear power industry. 3: 3,2,1,4 2: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001644.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001644.soc index 574dd12e..327da216 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001644.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001644.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that we do not think that it is a good idea to allow employees to give their holidays to colleagues. There is the potential for abuse of the system, for example, a manager could use their position of power to pressure employees into giving up their holidays. This could lead to employees feeling that they have no choice but to give up their holidays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are in favour of allowing an employee to give their annual holiday entitlement to colleagues, but would like to propose a limit of how many days one employee can take. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that employees should be allowed to give their holiday days to colleagues. However, we believe that the number of days that can be gifted should be limited to ensure fairness and also to avoid disruption to the business. The limit should be set at 2 days per employee. This would mean that employees could still give their holiday days to a colleague but not to the extent that it would be unfair or cause a problem to the business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a set limit of holiday days that can be donated and an employee should be allowed to take a maximum of the number of holiday days their employer has agreed to provide. The participant donating the holiday days should receive adequate compensation for the amount of days they are donating. Conclusion After seeing the above examples, I believe that my research question has been fully answered. It is clear that employees should have a set number of holidays that they are entitled to, which can be determined by the organisation that employs them. I believe that it is right that the employer should have some say in how the holidays are taken, but the employee should also be able to use their holiday days as they wish. It is also clear that as the research participants' consensus view demonstrates, employees should be given the opportunity to donate any holidays that they do not plan on using to colleagues. This gives them a choice and allows them to give something back to their employer. I believe that any holidays given to colleagues should be rewarded with some form of compensation and should be of a limited number, to avoid employees accumulating an endless amount of holidays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that we do not think that it is a good idea to allow employees to give their holidays to colleagues. There is the potential for abuse of the system, for example, a manager could use their position of power to pressure employees into giving up their holidays. This could lead to employees feeling that they have no choice but to give up their holidays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are in favour of allowing an employee to give their annual holiday entitlement to colleagues, but would like to propose a limit of how many days one employee can take. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that employees should be allowed to give their holiday days to colleagues. However, we believe that the number of days that can be gifted should be limited to ensure fairness and also to avoid disruption to the business. The limit should be set at 2 days per employee. This would mean that employees could still give their holiday days to a colleague but not to the extent that it would be unfair or cause a problem to the business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a set limit of holiday days that can be donated and an employee should be allowed to take a maximum of the number of holiday days their employer has agreed to provide. The participant donating the holiday days should receive adequate compensation for the amount of days they are donating. Conclusion After seeing the above examples, I believe that my research question has been fully answered. It is clear that employees should have a set number of holidays that they are entitled to, which can be determined by the organisation that employs them. I believe that it is right that the employer should have some say in how the holidays are taken, but the employee should also be able to use their holiday days as they wish. It is also clear that as the research participants' consensus view demonstrates, employees should be given the opportunity to donate any holidays that they do not plan on using to colleagues. This gives them a choice and allows them to give something back to their employer. I believe that any holidays given to colleagues should be rewarded with some form of compensation and should be of a limited number, to avoid employees accumulating an endless amount of holidays. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001645.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001645.soc index 0c12506b..24a2df04 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001645.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001645.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes for people who have three cars. However, it was agreed that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if the cars are used for work purposes, or if the cars are used by different members of the family. It was also agreed that the increase in tax should not be too much, and that it should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. This is to ensure that the increase in tax is not punishing people who have a good reason for having three cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes for people who have three cars. However, it was agreed that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if the cars are used for work purposes, or if the cars are used by different members of the family. It was also agreed that the increase in tax should not be too much, and that it should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we were in favour of increasing taxes for people who have three cars, since most people will not need more than this and in this way we can discourage people from driving, leading to a reduction in pollution. However, we did agree that there were some exceptions to this, for example, if the cars are used for work purposes, or if the cars are used by different members of the family. It was also agreed that the increase in tax should not be too much, and that it should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes for people who have three cars. However, it was agreed that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if the cars are used for work purposes, or if the cars are used by different members of the family. It was also agreed that the increase in tax should not be too much, and that it should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. This is to ensure that the increase in tax is not punishing people who have a good reason for having three cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes for people who have three cars. However, it was agreed that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if the cars are used for work purposes, or if the cars are used by different members of the family. It was also agreed that the increase in tax should not be too much, and that it should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. The increase in tax should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we were in favour of increasing taxes for people who have three cars, since most people will not need more than this and in this way we can discourage people from driving, leading to a reduction in pollution. However, we did agree that there were some exceptions to this, for example, if the cars are used for work purposes, or if the cars are used by different members of the family. It was also agreed that the increase in tax should not be too much, and that it should be enough to discourage people from having three cars, but not enough to make it impossible. 2: 2,4,3,1 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001646.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001646.soc index 16663c42..95bf1a6b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001646.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001646.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think the UK should have a national day as it seems xenophobic in nature. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a national day. It was felt that it would be a good way of celebrating what it means to be British and also to celebrate the achievements of the country. However, it was felt that it would be difficult to choose a date for the national day, as the country has such a long and varied history. It was also felt that the day would be unlikely to be a public holiday, as the country already has many bank holidays and it would be difficult to choose one day to celebrate over all the others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a national day. The reasons being that it would foster a sense of national pride and be an excuse for a good party. However, there were some concerns about the dangers of a national day with the UK's past in colonialism and the concern that a national day would promote a xenophobic attitude. Ultimately, the group could not agree on the date of the national day. Some thought the birthday of the current monarch was a good choice, whilst others believed that the UK was not really one nation but a group of different peoples and that this date would exclude many groups. The date chosen was June 21st. It was argued that this was a good compromise between all the different groups as it is the longest day of the year and it is a neutral date, not linked to a specific group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think the UK should have a national day as it seems xenophobic in nature. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a national day. It was felt that it would be a good way of celebrating what it means to be British and also to celebrate the achievements of the country. However, it was felt that it would be difficult to choose a date for the national day, as the country has such a long and varied history. It was also felt that the day would be unlikely to be a public holiday, as the country already has many bank holidays and it would be difficult to choose one day to celebrate over all the others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a national day. The reasons being that it would foster a sense of national pride and be an excuse for a good party. However, there were some concerns about the dangers of a national day with the UK's past in colonialism and the concern that a national day would promote a xenophobic attitude. Ultimately, the group could not agree on the date of the national day. Some thought the birthday of the current monarch was a good choice, whilst others believed that the UK was not really one nation but a group of different peoples and that this date would exclude many groups. The date chosen was June 21st. It was argued that this was a good compromise between all the different groups as it is the longest day of the year and it is a neutral date, not linked to a specific group. 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001647.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001647.soc index 4620660a..4b9c2588 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001647.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001647.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It would be a mistake to replace the pound with the Euro. Having your own currency allows you to set interest rates that are suitable for your country and not other countries. The Euro is a one size fits all approach. Different countries are affected by different factors at times and a country needs to be able to set interest to reflect its own economic situation. The Euro has been damaging to some countries in it like Italy that have been locked it a too high a rate making its industries uncompetitive. The Euro has been good for Germany but not for many other countries in it. The Euro has been a mistake for the UK in my opinion. In the short term it would be an economic disaster for us and I think people are now realising that and that is why we have not adopted the Euro so far. The UK needs to rejoin the European Union and if it does it will be part of the Euro eventually. The UK would be able to implement all of the EU laws and regulations but this is not a prerequisite to joining the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle the idea of having a single currency is a good idea as it removes barriers to trade. However, in practice it has not worked well. The Euro was set up as a single currency for a group of countries with very different economies and this has led to some countries doing well and others badly. In addition, it is not clear that it is in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. The pound is a strong currency and the UK has the ability to set interest rates that suit its own economy. It is not clear that it would be in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. However, if the UK were to rejoin the EU it would be sensible to look at the pros and cons of having a single currency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the pound is the preferred currency for the UK, but if the UK rejoins the EU, then the euro could be a more attractive option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It would be a mistake to replace the pound with the Euro. Having your own currency allows you to set interest rates that are suitable for your country and not other countries. The Euro is a one size fits all approach. Different countries are affected by different factors at times and a country needs to be able to set interest to reflect its own economic situation. The Euro has been damaging to some countries in it like Italy that have been locked it a too high a rate making its industries uncompetitive. The Euro has been good for Germany but not for many other countries in it. The Euro has been a mistake for the UK in my opinion. In the short term it would be an economic disaster for us and I think people are now realising that and that is why we have not adopted the Euro so far. The UK needs to rejoin the European Union and if it does it will be part of the Euro eventually. The UK would be able to implement all of the EU laws and regulations but this is not a prerequisite to joining the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle the idea of having a single currency is a good idea as it removes barriers to trade. However, in practice it has not worked well. The Euro was set up as a single currency for a group of countries with very different economies and this has led to some countries doing well and others badly. In addition, it is not clear that it is in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. The pound is a strong currency and the UK has the ability to set interest rates that suit its own economy. It is not clear that it would be in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. However, if the UK were to rejoin the EU it would be sensible to look at the pros and cons of having a single currency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the pound is the preferred currency for the UK, but if the UK rejoins the EU, then the euro could be a more attractive option. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001648.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001648.soc index 9b7175c4..ef20d831 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001648.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001648.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is an important goal to reduce the risk of warfare and bombs in general, we do not believe that a blanket ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs would be the most effective way to achieve this. Many chemicals that could potentially be used in bombs also have many other beneficial uses, and so banning them would make everyday life much more difficult. In addition, people are often resourceful, and if the desire to build a bomb is there, banning the chemicals used in bombs would simply result in the chemicals being sourced from somewhere else. There are likely to be many ways of building bombs and so we would rather address the cause of war and attempt to reduce the risk of warfare in general rather than focussing on the components of bombs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think there should be a ban on chemicals that are used exclusively for bomb making. This is because it will stop them being used in bombs. The ban should also be for the type of chemical rather than the exact name of the chemical. This is because, as is seen with DDT, other chemicals will be developed that are just as dangerous but aren't banned because they aren't the exact same chemical. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs. This is because many chemicals have standard uses in life and are not harmful when used on their own. Banning all chemicals assumes that the public are dangerous and evil people- a highly pessimistic view. This ban could lead to many chemicals being banned and annoy the public and make it annoying to do standard things, such as cleaning up. If someone wants to make a bomb, a ban on chemicals will not deter them. They will instead look for chemicals from other sources. Moreover, a ban will publicise how to make a bomb using chemicals- something which people know very little about currently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Chemicals are a useful part of life, and banning all chemicals would make life more difficult. However, if a chemical is only used in bombs, then it should be banned. This is because it has no other use, and would not be missed by society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is an important goal to reduce the risk of warfare and bombs in general, we do not believe that a blanket ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs would be the most effective way to achieve this. Many chemicals that could potentially be used in bombs also have many other beneficial uses, and so banning them would make everyday life much more difficult. In addition, people are often resourceful, and if the desire to build a bomb is there, banning the chemicals used in bombs would simply result in the chemicals being sourced from somewhere else. There are likely to be many ways of building bombs and so we would rather address the cause of war and attempt to reduce the risk of warfare in general rather than focussing on the components of bombs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think there should be a ban on chemicals that are used exclusively for bomb making. This is because it will stop them being used in bombs. The ban should also be for the type of chemical rather than the exact name of the chemical. This is because, as is seen with DDT, other chemicals will be developed that are just as dangerous but aren't banned because they aren't the exact same chemical. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs. This is because many chemicals have standard uses in life and are not harmful when used on their own. Banning all chemicals assumes that the public are dangerous and evil people- a highly pessimistic view. This ban could lead to many chemicals being banned and annoy the public and make it annoying to do standard things, such as cleaning up. If someone wants to make a bomb, a ban on chemicals will not deter them. They will instead look for chemicals from other sources. Moreover, a ban will publicise how to make a bomb using chemicals- something which people know very little about currently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Chemicals are a useful part of life, and banning all chemicals would make life more difficult. However, if a chemical is only used in bombs, then it should be banned. This is because it has no other use, and would not be missed by society. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001649.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001649.soc index a1f2d490..13c1a76f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001649.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001649.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we believe that the current top rate of 45% is too high and encourages tax evasion and avoidance. However, we do not believe that a tax rate of 30% is acceptable either. We feel that a tax rate of 35% would be the best option, as this would encourage people to pay tax and contribute to the society in which they live. The rich get richer and that doesn't have to be a bad thing if they contribute to the economy in a fair and reasonable way. We also believe that people with high income should not have to pay an unfair share of the tax burden and that it should be spread out more evenly. We all agreed that there are enough taxes in place already and that any changes should not impact the amount of money the government receive, only the way in which it is collected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the top rate of income tax should be lowered to 40%. We think that this is a fair compromise and will be a good thing for the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group feels that the tax rate should remain the same as it is. This is because this will help raise more money for the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the top rate of income tax should be lowered from 45% to 35%. This is because the current rate is too high and is making it harder for people to want to work and pay tax. We believe that by lowering the rate, people will be more willing to pay tax and therefore the government will have more money to spend on public services. We also believe that the rate should be lowered because the current rate is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. This is because the rich are able to afford to pay tax and therefore they are getting richer. However, the poor are not able to afford to pay tax and therefore they are getting poorer. We believe that by lowering the rate, the rich will not get richer and the poor will not get poorer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we believe that the current top rate of 45% is too high and encourages tax evasion and avoidance. However, we do not believe that a tax rate of 30% is acceptable either. We feel that a tax rate of 35% would be the best option, as this would encourage people to pay tax and contribute to the society in which they live. The rich get richer and that doesn't have to be a bad thing if they contribute to the economy in a fair and reasonable way. We also believe that people with high income should not have to pay an unfair share of the tax burden and that it should be spread out more evenly. We all agreed that there are enough taxes in place already and that any changes should not impact the amount of money the government receive, only the way in which it is collected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the top rate of income tax should be lowered to 40%. We think that this is a fair compromise and will be a good thing for the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group feels that the tax rate should remain the same as it is. This is because this will help raise more money for the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the top rate of income tax should be lowered from 45% to 35%. This is because the current rate is too high and is making it harder for people to want to work and pay tax. We believe that by lowering the rate, people will be more willing to pay tax and therefore the government will have more money to spend on public services. We also believe that the rate should be lowered because the current rate is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. This is because the rich are able to afford to pay tax and therefore they are getting richer. However, the poor are not able to afford to pay tax and therefore they are getting poorer. We believe that by lowering the rate, the rich will not get richer and the poor will not get poorer. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001650.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001650.soc index 4e1059ba..0860a61a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001650.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001650.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country in a fast growing population. The increase in demand for energy is not able to be met by renewable sources alone as we currently have an unreliable grid and intermittent energy sources. Whilst nuclear power does have the risks associated with waste and possible radiation leaks, it also has many more advantages and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. The industry should continue to be developed and run in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. We also feel that there should be more development in the field of nuclear power to ensure that it becomes more efficient, has less waste and is more sustainable in the long term. This is important to ensure that the industry does not become a problem in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country in a fast growing population. The increase in demand for energy is not able to be met by renewable sources alone as we currently have an unreliable grid and intermittent energy sources. Whilst nuclear power does have the risks associated with waste and possible radiation leaks, it also has many more advantages and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. The industry should continue to be developed and run in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. The UK should be developing more sustainable forms of energy for the long term to ensure we are not reliant on nuclear or fossil fuels, which will have a negative impact on the environment. Conclusion The above article has explored how we might be able to use the Delphi method to create a consensus view on an important topic. Whilst it is somewhat artificial, it is hoped that this example gives an indication of the benefits of using the Delphi method for group decision making. In particular, it allows people to voice their views anonymously and be free of the "group think" that is often seen when people are -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country in a fast growing population. The increase in demand for energy is not able to be met by renewable sources alone as we currently have an unreliable grid and intermittent energy sources. Whilst nuclear power does have the risks associated with waste and possible radiation leaks, it also has many more advantages and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. The industry should continue to be developed and run in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. The grid will need improving and expanding in order for the existing and future renewable energy to be sent to the right places. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry, as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country. We should be developing nuclear energy in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. _________________________________________________________________ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country in a fast growing population. The increase in demand for energy is not able to be met by renewable sources alone as we currently have an unreliable grid and intermittent energy sources. Whilst nuclear power does have the risks associated with waste and possible radiation leaks, it also has many more advantages and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. The industry should continue to be developed and run in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. We also feel that there should be more development in the field of nuclear power to ensure that it becomes more efficient, has less waste and is more sustainable in the long term. This is important to ensure that the industry does not become a problem in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country in a fast growing population. The increase in demand for energy is not able to be met by renewable sources alone as we currently have an unreliable grid and intermittent energy sources. Whilst nuclear power does have the risks associated with waste and possible radiation leaks, it also has many more advantages and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. The industry should continue to be developed and run in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. The UK should be developing more sustainable forms of energy for the long term to ensure we are not reliant on nuclear or fossil fuels, which will have a negative impact on the environment. Conclusion The above article has explored how we might be able to use the Delphi method to create a consensus view on an important topic. Whilst it is somewhat artificial, it is hoped that this example gives an indication of the benefits of using the Delphi method for group decision making. In particular, it allows people to voice their views anonymously and be free of the "group think" that is often seen when people are +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country in a fast growing population. The increase in demand for energy is not able to be met by renewable sources alone as we currently have an unreliable grid and intermittent energy sources. Whilst nuclear power does have the risks associated with waste and possible radiation leaks, it also has many more advantages and is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. The industry should continue to be developed and run in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. The grid will need improving and expanding in order for the existing and future renewable energy to be sent to the right places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the UK should have a nuclear power industry, as it is currently the only viable solution for the energy security of the country. We should be developing nuclear energy in conjunction with renewable energy, such as solar, to provide a reliable supply for all homes and businesses across the country. _________________________________________________________________ 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001651.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001651.soc index fbb25e50..ece8959c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001651.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001651.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be no ban on non-essential travel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be a ban on non-essential travel. People need to look after their health and well being by travelling. The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it. People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Consensus View: In the opinion of the group, there should not be a ban on non-essential travel. There are many positive reasons for people to travel for non-essential reasons. Firstly, travel is good for physical and mental health. It is important to ensure the travel industry remains functional for the economic health of the nation. Many families live in different parts of the country, restricting travel would mean they are unable to visit family. Finally, people should be allowed to travel wherever they want in order to exercise their freedom of movement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be no ban on non-essential travel. People should be able to travel where they want when they want. However, there should be more information given to people about the environmental impact of their travel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be no ban on non-essential travel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be a ban on non-essential travel. People need to look after their health and well being by travelling. The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it. People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Consensus View: In the opinion of the group, there should not be a ban on non-essential travel. There are many positive reasons for people to travel for non-essential reasons. Firstly, travel is good for physical and mental health. It is important to ensure the travel industry remains functional for the economic health of the nation. Many families live in different parts of the country, restricting travel would mean they are unable to visit family. Finally, people should be allowed to travel wherever they want in order to exercise their freedom of movement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be no ban on non-essential travel. People should be able to travel where they want when they want. However, there should be more information given to people about the environmental impact of their travel. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001652.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001652.soc index 25c9ca49..06e9b6b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001652.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001652.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The age of voting should be raised to 18, rather than being lowered. This is because young people have a great potential to sway elections and their views are often influenced by their parents or peers. At 18, they are more likely to be mature enough to make more well-rounded and balanced decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was agreed by the group that the voting age should not be lowered but raised to 18. It was decided that 18 was the best age for young people to vote because this was the legal age of adulthood. Some people said that a few extra years would allow young people to make more informed and balanced decisions and would make for a more authentic result. This view was a popular view in the group and was therefore agreed to. It was agreed that there was a likelihood that young people would be influenced by their parents or peers. In conclusion, it was agreed that it was more important to be able to make a more mature and well-rounded decision. It was also noted that young people have a great potential to sway elections and this would be less likely at an older age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the voting age should not be lowered but raised to 18. It was decided that 18 was the best age for young people to vote because this was the legal age of adulthood. Some people said that a few extra years would allow young people to make more informed and balanced decisions and would make for a more authentic result. Some other people said that it was unlikely that votes under 18 would be unduly influenced by their peers and parents. In conclusion, it was agreed that it was more important to be able to make a more mature and well-rounded decision. It was also noted that young people have a great potential to sway elections and this would be less likely at an older age. Some people, however, suggested that it was important to engage this age group in the political process earlier in order to show them that politics isn't boring. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that the voting age should be raised to 18. We agree that 16 year olds were not mature enough to form well-rounded opinions. Additionally, this would result in a more authentic view. Furthermore, this would mean that people would less likely be swayed by their peers and family. The higher age would mean that they would have more of a well-rounded view of the political landscape. In this way, their vote would be less likely to change and be based on emotional or personal reasons. Therefore, we agree that the voting age should be raised to 18. Group Exercise #2 Background: This was a group writing task. A group of participants were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinion of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The age of voting should be raised to 18, rather than being lowered. This is because young people have a great potential to sway elections and their views are often influenced by their parents or peers. At 18, they are more likely to be mature enough to make more well-rounded and balanced decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was agreed by the group that the voting age should not be lowered but raised to 18. It was decided that 18 was the best age for young people to vote because this was the legal age of adulthood. Some people said that a few extra years would allow young people to make more informed and balanced decisions and would make for a more authentic result. This view was a popular view in the group and was therefore agreed to. It was agreed that there was a likelihood that young people would be influenced by their parents or peers. In conclusion, it was agreed that it was more important to be able to make a more mature and well-rounded decision. It was also noted that young people have a great potential to sway elections and this would be less likely at an older age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the voting age should not be lowered but raised to 18. It was decided that 18 was the best age for young people to vote because this was the legal age of adulthood. Some people said that a few extra years would allow young people to make more informed and balanced decisions and would make for a more authentic result. Some other people said that it was unlikely that votes under 18 would be unduly influenced by their peers and parents. In conclusion, it was agreed that it was more important to be able to make a more mature and well-rounded decision. It was also noted that young people have a great potential to sway elections and this would be less likely at an older age. Some people, however, suggested that it was important to engage this age group in the political process earlier in order to show them that politics isn't boring. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that the voting age should be raised to 18. We agree that 16 year olds were not mature enough to form well-rounded opinions. Additionally, this would result in a more authentic view. Furthermore, this would mean that people would less likely be swayed by their peers and family. The higher age would mean that they would have more of a well-rounded view of the political landscape. In this way, their vote would be less likely to change and be based on emotional or personal reasons. Therefore, we agree that the voting age should be raised to 18. Group Exercise #2 Background: This was a group writing task. A group of participants were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinion of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001653.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001653.soc index 2c783775..a87b0f2c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001653.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001653.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. This should be a separate holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK, and would also be a good way to educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. However, we do not think that this should be a separate holiday, as this would be divisive. Instead, we believe that this should be incorporated into existing holidays, such as the August bank holiday. This would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK, and would also be a good way to educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. We also think that we should have some kind of museum which is dedicated to the history of the UK. This would be a great place where people could learn about the contributions made by historically marginalised groups, as well as other groups. It would also be a great place to host events to celebrate the diverse cultures of the UK. We believe that these changes would be a good way to honour the contributions made by historically marginalised groups, and celebrate the diverse cultures of the UK, thus improving race relations and combating discrimination. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. This should be a separate holiday, one which celebrates the contributions of marginalised groups. This would ensure that their efforts were recognised and remembered, as well as being a good way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. This could be filled with information and events that educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. References Borgman, C. (2009). The three arches of science: An experiment in scholarly communication systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1768-1777. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21079 Deighton, J. (2014). Secrets of successful decision-making. Harvard Business Review, 92(2), 10. Stodden, V. (2003). Conflict in Collaboration. Computer (Long. Beach. Calif). https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.322 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. However, we do not think that this should be a separate holiday, as this would be divisive. Instead, we believe that this should be incorporated into existing holidays, such as the August bank holiday. This would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK, and would also be a good way to educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. This would not dilute the importance of the contributions of historically marginalised groups, and would also not take away from the importance of the contributions of other groups of people, as we would still celebrate these on other days. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. This should be a separate holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK, and would also be a good way to educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. However, we do not think that this should be a separate holiday, as this would be divisive. Instead, we believe that this should be incorporated into existing holidays, such as the August bank holiday. This would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK, and would also be a good way to educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. We also think that we should have some kind of museum which is dedicated to the history of the UK. This would be a great place where people could learn about the contributions made by historically marginalised groups, as well as other groups. It would also be a great place to host events to celebrate the diverse cultures of the UK. We believe that these changes would be a good way to honour the contributions made by historically marginalised groups, and celebrate the diverse cultures of the UK, thus improving race relations and combating discrimination. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. This should be a separate holiday, one which celebrates the contributions of marginalised groups. This would ensure that their efforts were recognised and remembered, as well as being a good way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. This could be filled with information and events that educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. References Borgman, C. (2009). The three arches of science: An experiment in scholarly communication systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1768-1777. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21079 Deighton, J. (2014). Secrets of successful decision-making. Harvard Business Review, 92(2), 10. Stodden, V. (2003). Conflict in Collaboration. Computer (Long. Beach. Calif). https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.322 +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the contributions of historically marginalised groups should be recognised and celebrated. We believe that the best way to do this is through a public holiday, which would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK. However, we do not think that this should be a separate holiday, as this would be divisive. Instead, we believe that this should be incorporated into existing holidays, such as the August bank holiday. This would be a great way to celebrate the diverse cultures that make up the UK, and would also be a good way to educate people about the history of the UK and the important role that historically marginalised groups have played in shaping our society. This would not dilute the importance of the contributions of historically marginalised groups, and would also not take away from the importance of the contributions of other groups of people, as we would still celebrate these on other days. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001654.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001654.soc index 29114545..d6073f2e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001654.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001654.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should cut military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. We believe that the UK should cut military spending as it does not currently have an active conflict and has not been involved in any on-going wars for several years. It is unlikely that any conflict will arise in the near future. The money saved should be used to fund domestic priorities such as health care, the environment, the police and education. We believe that investing more money into the military is not a good use of funds as the UK does not have an active conflict and is not involved in any on-going wars. It is unlikely that any conflict would suddenly arise in the near future. Therefore, the money could be put to better use in improving the welfare of the people in the UK. Discussion It is evident that in order to answer the research questions, different approaches were needed for the two parts. The lack of communication and consensus on the first part of the study, in which the participants were all strangers and were anonymous to each other, indicates that people may not be willing to share their views on social media if it is with people whom they are unfamiliar with. With this in mind, it is likely that participants may feel more comfortable expressing their views on -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should cut military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. Many of our priorities such as health care, the environment, the police and education are currently neglected and deserve to be supported more. We believe that investing more money into the military is not a good use of funds as the UK does not have an active conflict and is not involved in any on-going wars. It is unlikely that any conflict would suddenly arise in the near future. Therefore, the money could be put to better use in improving the welfare of the people in the UK. This would increase the quality of life for all citizens and improve the health of the nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK should not cut military spending, as to do so would be to take a risk. The UK and other world powers should be prepared for any new threat, that may arise in the foreseeable future. With this cut in funding to the military, the UK will not be adequately prepared for this and, as a result, this could affect the UK greatly, through a reduction in survival and prosperity. We believe that cutting the budget allocated to the military would not be a sensible risk, given the potential negative impacts. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus statement reached: The UK should cut military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. Many of our priorities such as health care, the environment, the police and education are currently neglected and deserve to be supported more. We believe that investing more money into the military is not a good use of funds as the UK does not have an active conflict and is not involved in any on-going wars. It is unlikely that any conflict would suddenly arise in the near future. Therefore, the money could be put to better use in improving the welfare of the people in the UK. Also, with the rise in racist tendencies and increasing influence of far-right politicians in Eastern Europe, we also believe that there is a danger of the rise in conflict, especially if far-right governments were to be set up. Therefore, the rise in domestic threats is also something to consider when spending the military spending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should cut military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. We believe that the UK should cut military spending as it does not currently have an active conflict and has not been involved in any on-going wars for several years. It is unlikely that any conflict will arise in the near future. The money saved should be used to fund domestic priorities such as health care, the environment, the police and education. We believe that investing more money into the military is not a good use of funds as the UK does not have an active conflict and is not involved in any on-going wars. It is unlikely that any conflict would suddenly arise in the near future. Therefore, the money could be put to better use in improving the welfare of the people in the UK. Discussion It is evident that in order to answer the research questions, different approaches were needed for the two parts. The lack of communication and consensus on the first part of the study, in which the participants were all strangers and were anonymous to each other, indicates that people may not be willing to share their views on social media if it is with people whom they are unfamiliar with. With this in mind, it is likely that participants may feel more comfortable expressing their views on +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should cut military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. Many of our priorities such as health care, the environment, the police and education are currently neglected and deserve to be supported more. We believe that investing more money into the military is not a good use of funds as the UK does not have an active conflict and is not involved in any on-going wars. It is unlikely that any conflict would suddenly arise in the near future. Therefore, the money could be put to better use in improving the welfare of the people in the UK. This would increase the quality of life for all citizens and improve the health of the nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK should not cut military spending, as to do so would be to take a risk. The UK and other world powers should be prepared for any new threat, that may arise in the foreseeable future. With this cut in funding to the military, the UK will not be adequately prepared for this and, as a result, this could affect the UK greatly, through a reduction in survival and prosperity. We believe that cutting the budget allocated to the military would not be a sensible risk, given the potential negative impacts. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus statement reached: The UK should cut military spending to devote more money to domestic priorities. Many of our priorities such as health care, the environment, the police and education are currently neglected and deserve to be supported more. We believe that investing more money into the military is not a good use of funds as the UK does not have an active conflict and is not involved in any on-going wars. It is unlikely that any conflict would suddenly arise in the near future. Therefore, the money could be put to better use in improving the welfare of the people in the UK. Also, with the rise in racist tendencies and increasing influence of far-right politicians in Eastern Europe, we also believe that there is a danger of the rise in conflict, especially if far-right governments were to be set up. Therefore, the rise in domestic threats is also something to consider when spending the military spending. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001655.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001655.soc index 75541824..9bb9afbc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001655.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001655.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. While in some cases, incarceration is necessary, it should not be the only option available to society in the majority of cases. There are many factors that contribute to crime and many of these factors, such as mental health, poverty, and abuse, are not addressed adequately within prisons. We would like to see more emphasis placed on reform within prisons to help people address the causes of their behaviour and re-enter society without the need to re-offend. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison by targeting those who have not committed violent crimes and by rehabilitating those who have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. This is because prisons are not an effective way of reducing crime and there are better ways of dealing with offenders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the prison population should be reduced. There are many people in prison who are not a danger to society and should be released. The focus of prison should be rehabilitation, not punishment. There are many ways to reduce the prison population, including reducing poverty and improving rehabilitation. However, we should not be releasing violent offenders. Prison should be a last resort for the most dangerous criminals, and we should focus on helping offenders to get their life back on track. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. While in some cases, incarceration is necessary, it should not be the only option available to society in the majority of cases. There are many factors that contribute to crime and many of these factors, such as mental health, poverty, and abuse, are not addressed adequately within prisons. We would like to see more emphasis placed on reform within prisons to help people address the causes of their behaviour and re-enter society without the need to re-offend. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison by targeting those who have not committed violent crimes and by rehabilitating those who have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. This is because prisons are not an effective way of reducing crime and there are better ways of dealing with offenders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the prison population should be reduced. There are many people in prison who are not a danger to society and should be released. The focus of prison should be rehabilitation, not punishment. There are many ways to reduce the prison population, including reducing poverty and improving rehabilitation. However, we should not be releasing violent offenders. Prison should be a last resort for the most dangerous criminals, and we should focus on helping offenders to get their life back on track. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001656.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001656.soc index f1221d0f..032240c2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001656.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001656.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, facial recognition software should be regulated but not outlawed. The technology has many potential benefits to society and can be used for many good purposes. However, it is also a technology that can be misused and therefore should be regulated. The regulation should be based on a case-by-case basis and the regulation should be overseen by a governing body. This governing body should be comprised of a variety of people, including those from the technology industry, government, and civil liberties groups. This group should have the power to approve or deny the usage of facial recognition software in a given situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Facial recognition software should be outlawed for private use. It should only be used by the government for things like passport control and criminal identification. It should not be used for things like marketing or social media. The government should regulate the use of this software and should be very careful about how it is used. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The potential for misuse of facial recognition software is too great. The software should be outlawed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the technology should be highly monitored. We concluded that while there is obvious potential for its use in good ways, such as increasing security in public places and preventing criminal activity, it could also be used for nefarious purposes such as cloning identities to use for fraudulent monetary gain. It is obvious that such a technology should be closely regulated and highly monitored. Any instances of its use would have to be approved by the appropriate regulatory body. As of yet, it is not clear what the most appropriate body for this would be. Any instances of its use should be under close scrutiny and there should be little room for error. It is not enough for there to be the potential for its misuse; rather, any instances of its use should be subject to a stringent and thorough investigation before approval is given. Any instances of its use should be subject to ongoing assessment and any use that infringes on civil liberties should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, facial recognition software should be regulated but not outlawed. The technology has many potential benefits to society and can be used for many good purposes. However, it is also a technology that can be misused and therefore should be regulated. The regulation should be based on a case-by-case basis and the regulation should be overseen by a governing body. This governing body should be comprised of a variety of people, including those from the technology industry, government, and civil liberties groups. This group should have the power to approve or deny the usage of facial recognition software in a given situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Facial recognition software should be outlawed for private use. It should only be used by the government for things like passport control and criminal identification. It should not be used for things like marketing or social media. The government should regulate the use of this software and should be very careful about how it is used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The potential for misuse of facial recognition software is too great. The software should be outlawed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the technology should be highly monitored. We concluded that while there is obvious potential for its use in good ways, such as increasing security in public places and preventing criminal activity, it could also be used for nefarious purposes such as cloning identities to use for fraudulent monetary gain. It is obvious that such a technology should be closely regulated and highly monitored. Any instances of its use would have to be approved by the appropriate regulatory body. As of yet, it is not clear what the most appropriate body for this would be. Any instances of its use should be under close scrutiny and there should be little room for error. It is not enough for there to be the potential for its misuse; rather, any instances of its use should be subject to a stringent and thorough investigation before approval is given. Any instances of its use should be subject to ongoing assessment and any use that infringes on civil liberties should be banned. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001657.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001657.soc index b866ec58..b0beaa71 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001657.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001657.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is an important goal to reduce the risk of warfare and bombs in general, we do not believe that a blanket ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs would be the most effective way to achieve this. While banning all chemicals might seem like an easy solution, there are many chemicals which are used in bombs which also have many other beneficial uses. Banning these chemicals would make everyday life much more difficult. In addition, if the desire to build a bomb is there, banning the chemicals used in bombs would simply result in the chemicals being sourced from somewhere else, as there are likely to be many ways of building bombs and many different places to source the chemicals. There are often many factors which lead to war, and it seems more important to address these root causes of war rather than just focussing on the components of bombs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that there should not be a blanket ban on all chemicals that could potentially be used in bombs. This is because many chemicals have other beneficial uses and banning them would be very detrimental to society. In addition, people who wish to build bombs will simply source the chemicals from elsewhere if they are banned. Instead, we believe that it would be more beneficial to address the cause of war in order to reduce the likelihood of warfare in general. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not believe that there should be a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs. This is because many chemicals which could be used in bombs also have other benefits, and because banning these chemicals would make everyday life much more difficult. We would rather focus on trying to reduce the risk of war and conflict in general than focussing on banning specific chemicals. Public Perspective You have been tasked with constructing a public perspective statement about the following issue: Should there be a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs? A public perspective is a viewpoint on an issue based on your own personal views and opinions, which may be influenced by other people in the public. You should also provide reasoning and justification for your opinion. Below are a couple of public perspectives on the issue, along with rationale, quotes from participants, and the consensus reached. Please critique these perspectives, and justify your response. After considering the critiques, the group of participants revised the draft public perspective and came to the following final consensus view: Yes, we should have a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs because people are still not able to stop war even if they are willing to. Although it is not -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is an important goal to reduce the risk of warfare and bombs in general, we do not believe that a blanket ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs would be the most effective way to achieve this. Many chemicals that could potentially be used in bombs also have many other beneficial uses, and so banning them would make everyday life much more difficult. In addition, people are often resourceful, and if the desire to build a bomb is there, banning the chemicals used in bombs would simply result in the chemicals being sourced from somewhere else. There are likely to be many ways of building bombs and so we would rather address the cause of war and attempt to reduce the risk of warfare in general rather than focussing on the components of bombs. We should also be aware that some chemicals that could be used in bombs are also used in everyday life and could be life-saving, and so banning these chemicals would not be good for the society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is an important goal to reduce the risk of warfare and bombs in general, we do not believe that a blanket ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs would be the most effective way to achieve this. While banning all chemicals might seem like an easy solution, there are many chemicals which are used in bombs which also have many other beneficial uses. Banning these chemicals would make everyday life much more difficult. In addition, if the desire to build a bomb is there, banning the chemicals used in bombs would simply result in the chemicals being sourced from somewhere else, as there are likely to be many ways of building bombs and many different places to source the chemicals. There are often many factors which lead to war, and it seems more important to address these root causes of war rather than just focussing on the components of bombs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that there should not be a blanket ban on all chemicals that could potentially be used in bombs. This is because many chemicals have other beneficial uses and banning them would be very detrimental to society. In addition, people who wish to build bombs will simply source the chemicals from elsewhere if they are banned. Instead, we believe that it would be more beneficial to address the cause of war in order to reduce the likelihood of warfare in general. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not believe that there should be a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs. This is because many chemicals which could be used in bombs also have other benefits, and because banning these chemicals would make everyday life much more difficult. We would rather focus on trying to reduce the risk of war and conflict in general than focussing on banning specific chemicals. Public Perspective You have been tasked with constructing a public perspective statement about the following issue: Should there be a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs? A public perspective is a viewpoint on an issue based on your own personal views and opinions, which may be influenced by other people in the public. You should also provide reasoning and justification for your opinion. Below are a couple of public perspectives on the issue, along with rationale, quotes from participants, and the consensus reached. Please critique these perspectives, and justify your response. After considering the critiques, the group of participants revised the draft public perspective and came to the following final consensus view: Yes, we should have a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs because people are still not able to stop war even if they are willing to. Although it is not +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is an important goal to reduce the risk of warfare and bombs in general, we do not believe that a blanket ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs would be the most effective way to achieve this. Many chemicals that could potentially be used in bombs also have many other beneficial uses, and so banning them would make everyday life much more difficult. In addition, people are often resourceful, and if the desire to build a bomb is there, banning the chemicals used in bombs would simply result in the chemicals being sourced from somewhere else. There are likely to be many ways of building bombs and so we would rather address the cause of war and attempt to reduce the risk of warfare in general rather than focussing on the components of bombs. We should also be aware that some chemicals that could be used in bombs are also used in everyday life and could be life-saving, and so banning these chemicals would not be good for the society as a whole. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001658.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001658.soc index 10aad975..28fff968 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001658.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001658.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle the idea of having a single currency is a good idea as it removes barriers to trade. However, in practice it has not worked well. The Euro was set up as a single currency for a group of countries with very different economies and this has led to some countries doing well and others badly. In addition, it is not clear that it is in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. The pound is a strong currency and the UK has the ability to set interest rates that suit its own economy. It is not clear that it would be in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. However, if the UK were to rejoin the EU it would be sensible to look at the pros and cons of having a single currency. Bret Grybus: This was the final consensus view of the group of participants. It brings together a number of different opinions while clearly highlighting what participants did and did not agree. Peter Serotkin: I disagree with the conclusion that the euro has not worked well. Bret Grybus: Thanks Peter for that. Let's see what others think? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should not replace the pound with the Euro, given the UK's current position outside the EU. However, the UK should consider the pros and cons of replacing the pound with the Euro if the UK were ever to rejoin the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are pros and cons to having a single currency. In principle, having a single currency removes barriers to trade and makes it easier to do business. In practice, the euro has not worked well. It was set up as a single currency for a group of countries with very different economies and this has led to some countries doing well and others badly. In addition, it is not clear that it is in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the euro. The pound is a strong currency and the UK has the ability to set interest rates that suit its own economy. It is not clear that it would be in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the euro. However, if the UK were to rejoin the EU it would be sensible to look at the pros and cons of having a single currency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In principle the idea of having a single currency is a good idea as it removes barriers to trade. However, in practice it has not worked well. The Euro was set up as a single currency for a group of countries with very different economies and this has led to some countries doing well and others badly. In addition, it is not clear that it is in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. The pound is a strong currency and the UK has the ability to set interest rates that suit its own economy. It is not clear that it would be in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. However, if the UK were to rejoin the EU it would be sensible to look at the pros and cons of having a single currency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle the idea of having a single currency is a good idea as it removes barriers to trade. However, in practice it has not worked well. The Euro was set up as a single currency for a group of countries with very different economies and this has led to some countries doing well and others badly. In addition, it is not clear that it is in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. The pound is a strong currency and the UK has the ability to set interest rates that suit its own economy. It is not clear that it would be in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. However, if the UK were to rejoin the EU it would be sensible to look at the pros and cons of having a single currency. Bret Grybus: This was the final consensus view of the group of participants. It brings together a number of different opinions while clearly highlighting what participants did and did not agree. Peter Serotkin: I disagree with the conclusion that the euro has not worked well. Bret Grybus: Thanks Peter for that. Let's see what others think? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should not replace the pound with the Euro, given the UK's current position outside the EU. However, the UK should consider the pros and cons of replacing the pound with the Euro if the UK were ever to rejoin the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are pros and cons to having a single currency. In principle, having a single currency removes barriers to trade and makes it easier to do business. In practice, the euro has not worked well. It was set up as a single currency for a group of countries with very different economies and this has led to some countries doing well and others badly. In addition, it is not clear that it is in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the euro. The pound is a strong currency and the UK has the ability to set interest rates that suit its own economy. It is not clear that it would be in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the euro. However, if the UK were to rejoin the EU it would be sensible to look at the pros and cons of having a single currency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In principle the idea of having a single currency is a good idea as it removes barriers to trade. However, in practice it has not worked well. The Euro was set up as a single currency for a group of countries with very different economies and this has led to some countries doing well and others badly. In addition, it is not clear that it is in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. The pound is a strong currency and the UK has the ability to set interest rates that suit its own economy. It is not clear that it would be in the interests of the UK to replace the pound with the Euro. However, if the UK were to rejoin the EU it would be sensible to look at the pros and cons of having a single currency. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001659.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001659.soc index 8c19f0f6..d63add08 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001659.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001659.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. While in some cases, incarceration is necessary, it should not be the only option available to society in the majority of cases. There are many factors that contribute to crime and many of these factors, such as mental health, poverty, and abuse, are not addressed adequately within prisons. We would like to see more emphasis placed on reform within prisons to help people address the causes of their behaviour and re-enter society without the need to re-offend. Ultimately, we would like to see the prison system shifted in the direction of rehabilitation, which is necessary in order to reduce crime and avoid large numbers of individuals simply being warehoused within prisons to do nothing but cause problems for prisons, the legal system, and society as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group shared the opinion that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. The focus of prisons should be on rehabilitation rather than on punishment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. While in some cases, incarceration is necessary, it should not be the only option available to society in the majority of cases. There are many factors that contribute to crime and many of these factors, such as mental health, poverty, and abuse, are not addressed adequately within prisons. We would like to see more emphasis placed on reform within prisons to help people address the causes of their behaviour and re-enter society without the need to re-offend. The prison system should be used for the most dangerous and violent offenders, whilst less dangerous offenders should be given a chance to change their ways. The prison system should focus less on punishment and more on rehabilitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. While in some cases, incarceration is necessary, it should not be the only option available to society in the majority of cases. There are many factors that contribute to crime and many of these factors, such as mental health, poverty, and abuse, are not addressed adequately within prisons. We would like to see more emphasis placed on reform within prisons to help people address the causes of their behaviour and re-enter society without the need to re-offend. A non-interfering supervisor was available to provide any support needed to the participants and ensured that they were able to work autonomously. The pre-debate survey also assessed whether the participants would be willing to change their views or be convinced by the others. In this example, all participants indicated a willingness to change their views if the other participants made good arguments. The pre-debate survey also assessed what arguments the participants were expecting to hear and what they thought would be the most convincing arguments. This is very important for improving the debate session and for ensuring that everyone feels they have been heard and have had an equal chance to share their +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. While in some cases, incarceration is necessary, it should not be the only option available to society in the majority of cases. There are many factors that contribute to crime and many of these factors, such as mental health, poverty, and abuse, are not addressed adequately within prisons. We would like to see more emphasis placed on reform within prisons to help people address the causes of their behaviour and re-enter society without the need to re-offend. Ultimately, we would like to see the prison system shifted in the direction of rehabilitation, which is necessary in order to reduce crime and avoid large numbers of individuals simply being warehoused within prisons to do nothing but cause problems for prisons, the legal system, and society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group shared the opinion that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. The focus of prisons should be on rehabilitation rather than on punishment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. While in some cases, incarceration is necessary, it should not be the only option available to society in the majority of cases. There are many factors that contribute to crime and many of these factors, such as mental health, poverty, and abuse, are not addressed adequately within prisons. We would like to see more emphasis placed on reform within prisons to help people address the causes of their behaviour and re-enter society without the need to re-offend. The prison system should be used for the most dangerous and violent offenders, whilst less dangerous offenders should be given a chance to change their ways. The prison system should focus less on punishment and more on rehabilitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that prisons can be better utilised and that the number of people in prison can be reduced in the UK. While in some cases, incarceration is necessary, it should not be the only option available to society in the majority of cases. There are many factors that contribute to crime and many of these factors, such as mental health, poverty, and abuse, are not addressed adequately within prisons. We would like to see more emphasis placed on reform within prisons to help people address the causes of their behaviour and re-enter society without the need to re-offend. A non-interfering supervisor was available to provide any support needed to the participants and ensured that they were able to work autonomously. The pre-debate survey also assessed whether the participants would be willing to change their views or be convinced by the others. In this example, all participants indicated a willingness to change their views if the other participants made good arguments. The pre-debate survey also assessed what arguments the participants were expecting to hear and what they thought would be the most convincing arguments. This is very important for improving the debate session and for ensuring that everyone feels they have been heard and have had an equal chance to share their 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001660.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001660.soc index bc614056..db03a5bf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001660.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001660.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not think that parents should be able to genetically modify their unborn children. We feel that it is unnatural and it could lead to a number of issues in society in the future. We feel that it is wrong to be able to choose how your child will look or behave and that it is morally wrong to do this. We feel that it is a form of eugenics and that it could lead to unleashing a tidal wave of racism, homophobia, and other problematic things, as who decides what is 'desirable' to be like anyway? Very wrong. We would only consider it okay, in the case of very serious health conditions, but even then, should we be 'playing God'? It feels like a slippery slope we should not even approach. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think it is very unethical for parents to be able to genetically modify their unborn children to have desired characteristics. We think this is because of the very serious consequences it could have for humanity, in the future. It could open the floodgates to racism, homophobia, sexism, or other discrimination. We also think it is unethical because it is not natural, and not everyone has the same desired characteristics, and this could be a cause of major discrimination. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, parents should not be able to have their unborn children genetically modified to have desired characteristics. We think it is unnatural and could lead to discrimination in society. However, we think it could be acceptable in the case of very serious health conditions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't think it is moral to modify an embryo before it is planted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not think that parents should be able to genetically modify their unborn children. We feel that it is unnatural and it could lead to a number of issues in society in the future. We feel that it is wrong to be able to choose how your child will look or behave and that it is morally wrong to do this. We feel that it is a form of eugenics and that it could lead to unleashing a tidal wave of racism, homophobia, and other problematic things, as who decides what is 'desirable' to be like anyway? Very wrong. We would only consider it okay, in the case of very serious health conditions, but even then, should we be 'playing God'? It feels like a slippery slope we should not even approach. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think it is very unethical for parents to be able to genetically modify their unborn children to have desired characteristics. We think this is because of the very serious consequences it could have for humanity, in the future. It could open the floodgates to racism, homophobia, sexism, or other discrimination. We also think it is unethical because it is not natural, and not everyone has the same desired characteristics, and this could be a cause of major discrimination. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, parents should not be able to have their unborn children genetically modified to have desired characteristics. We think it is unnatural and could lead to discrimination in society. However, we think it could be acceptable in the case of very serious health conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't think it is moral to modify an embryo before it is planted. 5: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001661.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001661.soc index d734c24a..a5228f40 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001661.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001661.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should not be a ban on non-essential travel. People need to look after their health and well being by travelling. The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it. People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. Conclusions: This week's simulation demonstrated that by having the opportunity to exchange views with people who have a different perspective, all participants were able to reach a consensus view, and that this consensus view was reached after a good debate, taking into account all of the critiques, and a revised draft consensus statement. The consensus statement was reached without any vote, and instead through a process of active listening, considering others' views and debating with them. The simulation demonstrated that the Delphi Method could potentially be used to overcome the issue of groupthink, and also overcome the problem of having to achieve a -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be a ban on non-essential travel. People need to look after their health and well being by travelling. The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it. People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a ban on non-essential travel. People need to look after their health and well being by travelling. The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it. People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A ban on non-essential travel would restrict people’s freedoms. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. People should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. Critical thinking resources to support teaching +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should not be a ban on non-essential travel. People need to look after their health and well being by travelling. The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it. People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. Conclusions: This week's simulation demonstrated that by having the opportunity to exchange views with people who have a different perspective, all participants were able to reach a consensus view, and that this consensus view was reached after a good debate, taking into account all of the critiques, and a revised draft consensus statement. The consensus statement was reached without any vote, and instead through a process of active listening, considering others' views and debating with them. The simulation demonstrated that the Delphi Method could potentially be used to overcome the issue of groupthink, and also overcome the problem of having to achieve a +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be a ban on non-essential travel. People need to look after their health and well being by travelling. The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it. People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a ban on non-essential travel. People need to look after their health and well being by travelling. The definition of non-essential travel is very subjective and so it is unfair to place a ban on it. People can make their own minds up with reference to climate change or other issues regarding their own travel arrangements and should not be forced into staying in the same place just because of central authority control. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. However, people should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A ban on non-essential travel would restrict people’s freedoms. Travel for pleasure is a great contributor to global peace and understanding. People should be encouraged to consider the carbon footprint of their travel and should be encouraged to consider alternatives to flying. Critical thinking resources to support teaching 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001662.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001662.soc index 2d2ed746..3373e9ca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001662.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001662.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be no instances of the use of facial recognition software. In our opinion, the technology is inherently bad and cannot be used for good. It should be banned. The implications of its use are too great, and the potential for its misuse is too obvious. This technology is too sensitive and too dangerous to ever use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agreed that there are both pros and cons to the technology. Its use for preventing identity fraud is widely accepted as being beneficial to society while its use to store personal data or for surveillance is highly controversial. We believe that in some circumstances, surveillance is justified but should be approved by a regulatory body. We are not yet sure what the most appropriate body for this would be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Facial recognition software has enormous potential for good uses, such as preventing and detecting criminal activity and increasing security in public places. However, there is also a risk of its use for nefarious purposes, such as cloning identities to use for fraudulent monetary gain. It is obvious that such a technology should be closely regulated and highly monitored. Any instances of its use would have to be approved by the appropriate regulatory body. As of yet, it is not clear what the most appropriate body for this would be. Any instances of its use should be under close scrutiny and there should be little room for error. It is not enough for there to be the potential for its misuse; rather, any instances of its use should be subject to a stringent and thorough investigation before approval is given. Any instances of its use should be subject to ongoing assessment and any use that infringes on civil liberties should be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the technology should be highly monitored. It was clear that while there is obvious potential for its use in good ways, such as increasing security in public places and preventing criminal activity, it could also be used for nefarious purposes such as cloning identities to use for fraudulent monetary gain. As a result, we concluded that the technology should be closely monitored. Any instances of its use would have to be approved by the appropriate regulatory body. As of yet, it is not clear what the most appropriate body for this would be. Any instances of its use should be under close scrutiny and there should be little room for error. It is not enough for there to be the potential for its misuse; rather, any instances of its use should be subject to a stringent and thorough investigation before approval is given. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be no instances of the use of facial recognition software. In our opinion, the technology is inherently bad and cannot be used for good. It should be banned. The implications of its use are too great, and the potential for its misuse is too obvious. This technology is too sensitive and too dangerous to ever use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agreed that there are both pros and cons to the technology. Its use for preventing identity fraud is widely accepted as being beneficial to society while its use to store personal data or for surveillance is highly controversial. We believe that in some circumstances, surveillance is justified but should be approved by a regulatory body. We are not yet sure what the most appropriate body for this would be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Facial recognition software has enormous potential for good uses, such as preventing and detecting criminal activity and increasing security in public places. However, there is also a risk of its use for nefarious purposes, such as cloning identities to use for fraudulent monetary gain. It is obvious that such a technology should be closely regulated and highly monitored. Any instances of its use would have to be approved by the appropriate regulatory body. As of yet, it is not clear what the most appropriate body for this would be. Any instances of its use should be under close scrutiny and there should be little room for error. It is not enough for there to be the potential for its misuse; rather, any instances of its use should be subject to a stringent and thorough investigation before approval is given. Any instances of its use should be subject to ongoing assessment and any use that infringes on civil liberties should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the technology should be highly monitored. It was clear that while there is obvious potential for its use in good ways, such as increasing security in public places and preventing criminal activity, it could also be used for nefarious purposes such as cloning identities to use for fraudulent monetary gain. As a result, we concluded that the technology should be closely monitored. Any instances of its use would have to be approved by the appropriate regulatory body. As of yet, it is not clear what the most appropriate body for this would be. Any instances of its use should be under close scrutiny and there should be little room for error. It is not enough for there to be the potential for its misuse; rather, any instances of its use should be subject to a stringent and thorough investigation before approval is given. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001663.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001663.soc index ea7ac284..146bfdda 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001663.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001663.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a role for faith schools in a modern society. However, we think that it is important for all schools to teach children about all faiths and beliefs, not just the one that they follow. This will help children to understand the world around them and to be respectful of other people's beliefs. We think that the government should provide more funding for faith schools, as they are often in deprived areas and this would help to improve the facilities for the children. We also think that it is important for all schools to teach children about the dangers of radicalisation and to help them to understand why some people choose to follow extremist groups. We think that this will help to prevent children from being radicalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Faith schools should be allowed to exist, but they should not be allowed to teach their own curriculum, they should teach the national curriculum and must teach about other faiths and non-faith. The participants felt that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe there is a place for faith schools in modern society. In an increasingly secular society, it is important for the survival of faith communities that children are taught about faith. Schools run by a particular faith can help the community to bond and can be a positive influence on children. We think the teaching of the beliefs of a particular faith is a good thing, as long as children are taught about other faiths and are also taught about atheism, so that children understand all viewpoints. We believe it is important to teach children about morality and the positive influence religion can have in this area. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a role for faith schools in a modern society. However, we think that it is important for all schools to teach children about all faiths and beliefs, not just the one that they follow. This will help children to understand the world around them and to be respectful of other people's beliefs. We think that the government should provide more funding for faith schools, as they are often in deprived areas and this would help to improve the facilities for the children. We also think that it is important for all schools to teach children about the dangers of radicalisation and to help them to understand why some people choose to follow extremist groups. We think that this will help to prevent children from being radicalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Faith schools should be allowed to exist, but they should not be allowed to teach their own curriculum, they should teach the national curriculum and must teach about other faiths and non-faith. The participants felt that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views, and that it was important for children to be exposed to different views +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe there is a place for faith schools in modern society. In an increasingly secular society, it is important for the survival of faith communities that children are taught about faith. Schools run by a particular faith can help the community to bond and can be a positive influence on children. We think the teaching of the beliefs of a particular faith is a good thing, as long as children are taught about other faiths and are also taught about atheism, so that children understand all viewpoints. We believe it is important to teach children about morality and the positive influence religion can have in this area. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001664.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001664.soc index 79f38df2..70b7c576 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001664.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001664.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think it is right to use recreational drugs. Recreational drugs can have a negative impact on a person's life and health. Therefore, we don't think it is right to use recreational drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of recreational drugs is wrong. This is because they are illegal and can lead to addiction and crime. They can also lead to the use of illegal drugs as the individual might need to move on to stronger drugs to have the same effect. They can also lead to an addiction to these drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of recreational drugs is wrong. The use of recreational drugs is directly linked to an increase in crime - both violent and non violent. Recreational drugs are highly addictive and can cause people to act in ways they normally wouldn't. It can cause people's behaviour to change completely and make them more paranoid, angry and violent. Also people can easily get addicted and their lives can be ruined easily because of drugs. They can no longer hold down jobs because all they can think about is their next hit. This means they end up living on the street and can turn to crime to fund their drug habit.They may turn to jobs such as prostitution or join gangs as a way to make money - both of these contribute to increased levels of crime and this makes society a worse and more dangerous place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the legalisation of all drugs is not supported by the group, some members were open to the idea of decriminalisation, where drugs are not criminalised but their possession, sale and use are still offences. Although the group generally agreed that it is wrong to use recreational drugs, the general view was that cannabis is the least harmful and most widely used recreational drug. This was considered the exception to the rule and the consensus was that the possession of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalised. The group felt that it was also important to note that there is a strong link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs, and that the drug laws need to be looked at as a whole. The group felt that this link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs must be considered in the debate, and was another factor that showed that the war on drugs had failed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think it is right to use recreational drugs. Recreational drugs can have a negative impact on a person's life and health. Therefore, we don't think it is right to use recreational drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of recreational drugs is wrong. This is because they are illegal and can lead to addiction and crime. They can also lead to the use of illegal drugs as the individual might need to move on to stronger drugs to have the same effect. They can also lead to an addiction to these drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of recreational drugs is wrong. The use of recreational drugs is directly linked to an increase in crime - both violent and non violent. Recreational drugs are highly addictive and can cause people to act in ways they normally wouldn't. It can cause people's behaviour to change completely and make them more paranoid, angry and violent. Also people can easily get addicted and their lives can be ruined easily because of drugs. They can no longer hold down jobs because all they can think about is their next hit. This means they end up living on the street and can turn to crime to fund their drug habit.They may turn to jobs such as prostitution or join gangs as a way to make money - both of these contribute to increased levels of crime and this makes society a worse and more dangerous place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the legalisation of all drugs is not supported by the group, some members were open to the idea of decriminalisation, where drugs are not criminalised but their possession, sale and use are still offences. Although the group generally agreed that it is wrong to use recreational drugs, the general view was that cannabis is the least harmful and most widely used recreational drug. This was considered the exception to the rule and the consensus was that the possession of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalised. The group felt that it was also important to note that there is a strong link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs, and that the drug laws need to be looked at as a whole. The group felt that this link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs must be considered in the debate, and was another factor that showed that the war on drugs had failed. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001665.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001665.soc index c69dc2d2..bc5232d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001665.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001665.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a minimum price for alcohol. This should be set so as not to price people out of alcohol. The minimum price should be used to fund the health service as it will be dealing with an increase in alcohol related health problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group felt a minimum price for alcohol would be a good thing, however, it should not be so high as to price people out of alcohol consumption. The group wanted to see a minimum price as it would reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, but did not want to price people out of alcohol. The group also felt the minimum price should be used to fund the health service, as the health service would be dealing with the increased number of alcohol related health problems, and the mental health implications from alcohol consumption. Discussion While a single paragraph in length, this example of C-BRiSK activity was not as easy as it seems. Each participant used iCope in turn to provide their opinion on a minimum price for alcohol. However, instead of being single individuals each participant would have represented a stakeholder group with an interest in the topic, so that the development of a consensus would actually represent the consensus of a range of stakeholders. The final statement thus represents the consensus of the stakeholders in C-BRiSK, which is particularly relevant in the development of Consent Contracts, with the notion of psychological consensus on a policy statement a key factor in establishing its social acceptability. Comment In the course of the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in general in favour of a minimum price for alcohol. The group felt that a minimum price for alcohol would be a step in the right direction for the health of Britains. However, they were not in favour of a very high minimum price, as this could price some people out of the alcohol market, which would not be ideal.The group felt that the minimum price of alcohol would not have a great impact on the average drinker, however, it would make an impact on the heavy drinker. The funding from the minimum price of alcohol would be used to increase the funding for the health service, as the health service would be dealing with more alcohol related health problems. However, the group did feel that this increased funding for the health service should be focused more on mental health rather than the NHS in general, as there is more of a growing need for mental health provisions than for general health provisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a minimum price for alcohol, however, the minimum price should not be so high as to price people out of alcohol consumption. The group was in favour of a minimum price as it would reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, and would therefore reduce the amount of alcohol related health problems. However, the group did not want to price people out of alcohol as it is a social drug and can be an important part of the community. The group also felt that the minimum price should be used to fund the health service, as the health service would be dealing with the increased number of alcohol related health problems. However, the group felt that the health service would also need to be prepared to deal with increased mental health problems that would be associated with alcohol consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a minimum price for alcohol. This should be set so as not to price people out of alcohol. The minimum price should be used to fund the health service as it will be dealing with an increase in alcohol related health problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group felt a minimum price for alcohol would be a good thing, however, it should not be so high as to price people out of alcohol consumption. The group wanted to see a minimum price as it would reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, but did not want to price people out of alcohol. The group also felt the minimum price should be used to fund the health service, as the health service would be dealing with the increased number of alcohol related health problems, and the mental health implications from alcohol consumption. Discussion While a single paragraph in length, this example of C-BRiSK activity was not as easy as it seems. Each participant used iCope in turn to provide their opinion on a minimum price for alcohol. However, instead of being single individuals each participant would have represented a stakeholder group with an interest in the topic, so that the development of a consensus would actually represent the consensus of a range of stakeholders. The final statement thus represents the consensus of the stakeholders in C-BRiSK, which is particularly relevant in the development of Consent Contracts, with the notion of psychological consensus on a policy statement a key factor in establishing its social acceptability. Comment In the course of the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in general in favour of a minimum price for alcohol. The group felt that a minimum price for alcohol would be a step in the right direction for the health of Britains. However, they were not in favour of a very high minimum price, as this could price some people out of the alcohol market, which would not be ideal.The group felt that the minimum price of alcohol would not have a great impact on the average drinker, however, it would make an impact on the heavy drinker. The funding from the minimum price of alcohol would be used to increase the funding for the health service, as the health service would be dealing with more alcohol related health problems. However, the group did feel that this increased funding for the health service should be focused more on mental health rather than the NHS in general, as there is more of a growing need for mental health provisions than for general health provisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a minimum price for alcohol, however, the minimum price should not be so high as to price people out of alcohol consumption. The group was in favour of a minimum price as it would reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, and would therefore reduce the amount of alcohol related health problems. However, the group did not want to price people out of alcohol as it is a social drug and can be an important part of the community. The group also felt that the minimum price should be used to fund the health service, as the health service would be dealing with the increased number of alcohol related health problems. However, the group felt that the health service would also need to be prepared to deal with increased mental health problems that would be associated with alcohol consumption. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001666.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001666.soc index 43b58869..d158ef3a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001666.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001666.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. We believe that the wealthiest taxpayers should be paying their fair share of taxes and should not be receiving tax breaks. We believe that lowering taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers would increase the income gap between the highest and lowest earners. We believe that there is already a significant income gap between the highest and lowest earners and lowering taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers would increase this gap. We believe that reducing taxes would reduce the amount of money available for public spending at a time when it is crucial that money is made available for public services, especially the health services and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We do not think taxes on the wealthiest should be lowered, however, we also do not think that wealthier people should be made to pay more in tax just because they earn more. Tax should be paid in accordance to earnings so as to level out wealth and reduce poverty. Having more taxes coming from wealthy earners could boost the spending on vital services that the poorer taxpayers are unable to fund. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. The wealthiest taxpayers should not be made to pay higher taxes but they should not be given lower taxes either. Taxes should be paid in accordance to earnings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “No, we shouldn't lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers, but we should lower taxes on the lowest earning taxpayers.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. We believe that the wealthiest taxpayers should be paying their fair share of taxes and should not be receiving tax breaks. We believe that lowering taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers would increase the income gap between the highest and lowest earners. We believe that there is already a significant income gap between the highest and lowest earners and lowering taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers would increase this gap. We believe that reducing taxes would reduce the amount of money available for public spending at a time when it is crucial that money is made available for public services, especially the health services and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We do not think taxes on the wealthiest should be lowered, however, we also do not think that wealthier people should be made to pay more in tax just because they earn more. Tax should be paid in accordance to earnings so as to level out wealth and reduce poverty. Having more taxes coming from wealthy earners could boost the spending on vital services that the poorer taxpayers are unable to fund. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. The wealthiest taxpayers should not be made to pay higher taxes but they should not be given lower taxes either. Taxes should be paid in accordance to earnings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “No, we shouldn't lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers, but we should lower taxes on the lowest earning taxpayers.” 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001667.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001667.soc index e49caec5..80cda6d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001667.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001667.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: The participants agreed that smoking can have a serious impact on someone's health and can cause lung cancer and heart disease. It can also impact health services as it increases pressure on the healthcare system. It was also discussed that as people get older they are likely to develop conditions related to smoking which means that smoking related illnesses are then more expensive to cure. It was also agreed that some people may have to pay out of their own pocket as they have to pay for their treatment on an individual basis, some of which can be very expensive. This is why it is important for young people not to smoke as they are likely to become ill in later life as a result of smoking. Banning cigarettes is also good because it will impact the amount of money the government makes from tax as a result of the reduced purchase of cigarettes. It was also discussed that another reason to have a ban is that banning cigarettes will make it more difficult for children to smoke as they will not be able to purchase cigarettes in the shops. It was also agreed that less people will smoke in the future if there is a ban on them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there are good reasons to ban the smoking of cigarettes, including the negative impact that smoking can have on health, families and health services, it is the opinion of the group that it should not be banned. This is because there are also many reasons why it should not be banned. This includes the fact that it would have a negative impact on the economy, as the government would lose money from taxes on cigarettes, and also because it would cause people to buy cigarettes on the black market. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking is very bad for your health and can have a negative impact on family and health services. The group discussed that there are many reasons why smoking is a problem, for example, people can develop lung cancer, heart disease, and have a higher chance of suffering from a stroke. This puts pressure on health services, especially if the person has not developed health insurance. It also impacts the families of people who smoke, as they could have to pay for healthcare for their family member, or they could also have to pay for funeral costs if they pass away. It was also discussed that there are many reasons why smoking should be banned, for example, to protect children from being influenced to smoke. The group did however come to the consensus that although they would like a ban, there are a few reasons why it shouldn’t happen. It was noted that it could have a negative effect on the economy, for example, the government will lose money from taxes on cigarettes, which they would lose in turn. Also, as it was discussed, many people would buy cigarettes on the black market, and this could also cause the government to lose money from tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: It was agreed that smoking can have a negative impact on health and health services, therefore we do need to find ways to ban it. It is however likely that people will still be able to buy them on the black market, which could impact the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: The participants agreed that smoking can have a serious impact on someone's health and can cause lung cancer and heart disease. It can also impact health services as it increases pressure on the healthcare system. It was also discussed that as people get older they are likely to develop conditions related to smoking which means that smoking related illnesses are then more expensive to cure. It was also agreed that some people may have to pay out of their own pocket as they have to pay for their treatment on an individual basis, some of which can be very expensive. This is why it is important for young people not to smoke as they are likely to become ill in later life as a result of smoking. Banning cigarettes is also good because it will impact the amount of money the government makes from tax as a result of the reduced purchase of cigarettes. It was also discussed that another reason to have a ban is that banning cigarettes will make it more difficult for children to smoke as they will not be able to purchase cigarettes in the shops. It was also agreed that less people will smoke in the future if there is a ban on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there are good reasons to ban the smoking of cigarettes, including the negative impact that smoking can have on health, families and health services, it is the opinion of the group that it should not be banned. This is because there are also many reasons why it should not be banned. This includes the fact that it would have a negative impact on the economy, as the government would lose money from taxes on cigarettes, and also because it would cause people to buy cigarettes on the black market. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking is very bad for your health and can have a negative impact on family and health services. The group discussed that there are many reasons why smoking is a problem, for example, people can develop lung cancer, heart disease, and have a higher chance of suffering from a stroke. This puts pressure on health services, especially if the person has not developed health insurance. It also impacts the families of people who smoke, as they could have to pay for healthcare for their family member, or they could also have to pay for funeral costs if they pass away. It was also discussed that there are many reasons why smoking should be banned, for example, to protect children from being influenced to smoke. The group did however come to the consensus that although they would like a ban, there are a few reasons why it shouldn’t happen. It was noted that it could have a negative effect on the economy, for example, the government will lose money from taxes on cigarettes, which they would lose in turn. Also, as it was discussed, many people would buy cigarettes on the black market, and this could also cause the government to lose money from tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: It was agreed that smoking can have a negative impact on health and health services, therefore we do need to find ways to ban it. It is however likely that people will still be able to buy them on the black market, which could impact the economy. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001668.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001668.soc index 4441256f..bb82e1bf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001668.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001668.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the legalisation of all drugs is not supported by the group, some members were open to the idea of decriminalisation, where drugs are not criminalised but their possession, sale and use are still offences. Although the group generally agreed that it is wrong to use recreational drugs, the general view was that cannabis is the least harmful and most widely used recreational drug. This was considered the exception to the rule and the consensus was that the possession of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: It is the opinion of the majority of the group that it is wrong to use recreational drugs. However, some members of the group think it would be a good idea to decriminalise cannabis, because it is the least harmful of all the recreational drugs, and because its decriminalisation would help to reduce poverty and criminality by bringing recreational drug dealing and use into the legal sphere, where it can be monitored, and where the needs of addicts can be provided for properly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the legalisation of all drugs is not supported by the group, some members were open to the idea of decriminalisation, where drugs are not criminalised but their possession, sale and use are still offences. Although the group generally agreed that it is wrong to use recreational drugs, the general view was that cannabis is the least harmful and most widely used recreational drug. This was considered the exception to the rule and the consensus was that the possession of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalised. The group felt that it was also important to note that there is a strong link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs, and that the drug laws need to be looked at as a whole. The group felt that this link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs must be considered in the debate, and was another factor that showed that the war on drugs had failed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Although the legalisation of all drugs is not supported by the group, some members were open to the idea of decriminalisation, where drugs are not criminalised but their possession, sale and use are still offences. While the group generally agreed that it is wrong to use recreational drugs, the general view was that cannabis is the least harmful and most widely used recreational drug. This was considered the exception to the rule and the consensus was that the possession of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalised. The group felt that it was also important to note that there is a strong link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs, and that the drug laws need to be looked at as a whole. The group felt that this link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs must be considered in the debate, and was another factor that showed that the war on drugs had failed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the legalisation of all drugs is not supported by the group, some members were open to the idea of decriminalisation, where drugs are not criminalised but their possession, sale and use are still offences. Although the group generally agreed that it is wrong to use recreational drugs, the general view was that cannabis is the least harmful and most widely used recreational drug. This was considered the exception to the rule and the consensus was that the possession of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: It is the opinion of the majority of the group that it is wrong to use recreational drugs. However, some members of the group think it would be a good idea to decriminalise cannabis, because it is the least harmful of all the recreational drugs, and because its decriminalisation would help to reduce poverty and criminality by bringing recreational drug dealing and use into the legal sphere, where it can be monitored, and where the needs of addicts can be provided for properly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the legalisation of all drugs is not supported by the group, some members were open to the idea of decriminalisation, where drugs are not criminalised but their possession, sale and use are still offences. Although the group generally agreed that it is wrong to use recreational drugs, the general view was that cannabis is the least harmful and most widely used recreational drug. This was considered the exception to the rule and the consensus was that the possession of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalised. The group felt that it was also important to note that there is a strong link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs, and that the drug laws need to be looked at as a whole. The group felt that this link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs must be considered in the debate, and was another factor that showed that the war on drugs had failed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Although the legalisation of all drugs is not supported by the group, some members were open to the idea of decriminalisation, where drugs are not criminalised but their possession, sale and use are still offences. While the group generally agreed that it is wrong to use recreational drugs, the general view was that cannabis is the least harmful and most widely used recreational drug. This was considered the exception to the rule and the consensus was that the possession of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalised. The group felt that it was also important to note that there is a strong link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs, and that the drug laws need to be looked at as a whole. The group felt that this link between poverty and the use of recreational drugs must be considered in the debate, and was another factor that showed that the war on drugs had failed. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001669.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001669.soc index a6245dbe..6510f561 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001669.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001669.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the use of AI in the judicial system is a good idea. It would be useful to have a system that could take all the facts into account in a case and come to a conclusion based on those facts. However, it is very difficult to design such a system in a way that it would not have some sort of bias. It would be difficult to ensure that the system would not be biased against certain types of people, for example people from a certain socio-economic background or people of a certain race. The system would also need to be designed in such a way that it would be difficult to hack. If it was possible to change the outcome of a case by hacking the system, this would be a major problem. Therefore, it is probably not a good idea to use AI in the judicial system at the moment, but it might be in the future when AI is more advanced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While using AI in the judicial system has the potential to reduce human bias in decision making, the system could also be biased if it is not designed with the right input data and cross checked by humans. There is also a risk of hackers interfering with the system and its outputs. The system would therefore need to be closely monitored and would also need to be able to be overruled by humans if there is any doubt. The group of participants discussed whether the consensus view had been sufficiently constructed, or whether it should be revised. The group decided to revise the statement as follows: AI has the potential to improve decision making in the judicial system, but care needs to be taken to ensure that AI systems are unbiased and can be overruled by humans in the event of doubt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of AI in the judicial system would be a good thing, however, it is important to ensure that it is used in the right way. The use of AI in the judicial system could help to reduce human biases and prejudices, however, it is important to ensure that the data that is fed into the AI is not biased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the use of AI in the judicial system is a good idea. It would be useful to have a system that could take all the facts into account in a case and come to a conclusion based on those facts. However, it is very difficult to design such a system in a way that it would not have some sort of bias. It would be difficult to ensure that the system would not be biased against certain types of people, for example people from a certain socio-economic background or people of a certain race. The system would also need to be designed in such a way that it would be difficult to hack. If it was possible to change the outcome of a case by hacking the system, this would be a major problem. Therefore, it is probably not a good idea to use AI in the judicial system at the moment, but it might be in the future when AI is more advanced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While using AI in the judicial system has the potential to reduce human bias in decision making, the system could also be biased if it is not designed with the right input data and cross checked by humans. There is also a risk of hackers interfering with the system and its outputs. The system would therefore need to be closely monitored and would also need to be able to be overruled by humans if there is any doubt. The group of participants discussed whether the consensus view had been sufficiently constructed, or whether it should be revised. The group decided to revise the statement as follows: AI has the potential to improve decision making in the judicial system, but care needs to be taken to ensure that AI systems are unbiased and can be overruled by humans in the event of doubt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of AI in the judicial system would be a good thing, however, it is important to ensure that it is used in the right way. The use of AI in the judicial system could help to reduce human biases and prejudices, however, it is important to ensure that the data that is fed into the AI is not biased. 4: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001670.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001670.soc index 17618220..410805a6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001670.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001670.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, reducing the drinking age to 16 would increase alcohol-related deaths. The current law is 18 years old but reducing it to 16 could have a major affect on alcohol related deaths. Alcohol would be more accessible to teenagers and if drinking out of home they might drink excessively. Alcohol makes people feel invincible and they can take risks such as drink driving which can lead to fatality. Studies have shown that the more a person drinks, the more at risk they are of getting liver disease and that young people are three times more likely than older drinkers to get drunk with the risks of becoming extremely ill or dying as a result of alcohol abuse. Alcohol can affect the lungs and heart. Binge drinking may also give teenagers an impression that this is how to drink when they grow up and that when they do they will fall for it. This can harm their livers before they turn 18. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, reducing the drinking age to 16 would increase alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that teenagers are more likely to binge drink, and that this could lead to increased alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that teenagers are more likely to be irresponsible when drinking and are more likely to take actions (e.g. drink driving) which can cause alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that there is unlikely to be any benefit in reducing the drinking age as it would then allow more people to be inebriated and more likely to cause alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that the lack of parental barriers is an important issue, and that teenagers are more likely to binge drink, and that this could lead to increased alcohol-related deaths. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, reducing the drinking age to 16 would increase alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that teenagers are more likely to binge drink, and that this could lead to increased alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that teenagers are more likely to be irresponsible when drinking and are more likely to take actions (e.g. drink driving) which can cause alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that there is unlikely to be any benefit in reducing the drinking age as it would then allow more people to be inebriated and more likely to cause alcohol-related deaths. A non-intervention group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, reducing the drinking age to 16 would increase alcohol-related deaths. The current law is 18 years old but reducing it to 16 could have a major affect on alcohol related deaths. Alcohol would be more accessible to teenagers and if drinking out of home they might drink excessively. Alcohol makes people feel invincible and they can take risks such as drink driving which can lead to fatality. Studies have shown that the more a person drinks, the more at risk they are of getting liver disease and that young people are three times more likely than older drinkers to get drunk with the risks of becoming extremely ill or dying as a result of alcohol abuse. Alcohol can affect the lungs and heart. Binge drinking may also give teenagers an impression that this is how to drink when they grow up and that when they do they will fall for it. This can harm their livers before they turn 18. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, reducing the drinking age to 16 would increase alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that teenagers are more likely to binge drink, and that this could lead to increased alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that teenagers are more likely to be irresponsible when drinking and are more likely to take actions (e.g. drink driving) which can cause alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that there is unlikely to be any benefit in reducing the drinking age as it would then allow more people to be inebriated and more likely to cause alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that the lack of parental barriers is an important issue, and that teenagers are more likely to binge drink, and that this could lead to increased alcohol-related deaths. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, reducing the drinking age to 16 would increase alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that teenagers are more likely to binge drink, and that this could lead to increased alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that teenagers are more likely to be irresponsible when drinking and are more likely to take actions (e.g. drink driving) which can cause alcohol-related deaths. The participants felt that there is unlikely to be any benefit in reducing the drinking age as it would then allow more people to be inebriated and more likely to cause alcohol-related deaths. A non-intervention group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 3,1,2,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001671.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001671.soc index a9124e3f..5ef5191e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001671.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001671.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing, but only if they are displaying suspicious behaviour. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. We think that it is important for the police to be able to control the crime rate and to make the country a safer place to live. However, we also think that the police should be careful to only stop people who they believe are carrying drugs and not just anyone who is in the area. We also think that people who are stopped and searched should have the right to speak to the police in private, so that no one can hear what they are saying and make assumptions about them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs even if they are in an area known for drug dealing. This is because even if you have a record, they should be allowed to stop you as you can be arrested and they will have evidence to put you in prison. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, it is important that the police have good reason to suspect that the person they are stopping is involved in drug dealing. It is also important that the police are trained to use the power of stop and search appropriately, and that they are able to explain the reasons for the stop and search to the person being searched. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing, but only if they are displaying suspicious behaviour. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. We think that it is important for the police to be able to control the crime rate and to make the country a safer place to live. However, we also think that the police should be careful to only stop people who they believe are carrying drugs and not just anyone who is in the area. We also think that people who are stopped and searched should have the right to speak to the police in private, so that no one can hear what they are saying and make assumptions about them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs even if they are in an area known for drug dealing. This is because even if you have a record, they should be allowed to stop you as you can be arrested and they will have evidence to put you in prison. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. However, it is important that the police have good reason to suspect that the person they are stopping is involved in drug dealing. It is also important that the police are trained to use the power of stop and search appropriately, and that they are able to explain the reasons for the stop and search to the person being searched. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001672.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001672.soc index df1abe05..e8604ca7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001672.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001672.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be no limits on how much you can earn. The belief that a person should be able to earn as much as they wish stems from the ideas that a person is free to work as much as they want and as hard as they want, so the rewards they receive are fair. Also the huge amounts of tax these people will have to pay will mean that the government will receive a large boost of income. The extra income the government receive will enable them to lower the amount that people on low incomes have to pay, making things fairer for everyone. We also feel that the best way to reward people for their hard work is through money, as money can be used to purchase a wide variety of items that will satisfy people?s needs. We also believe that we should try and tax the people who are earning the huge amounts of money as much as possible to ensure that the government is receiving as much money as possible. This will then mean that the government can use this money to increase support for people on low incomes and lower the amount of tax that they have to pay, making things fairer for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: We have decided to agree on the statement, without the last point, as we agree it is completely contradictory. We feel that the fact that these people will be taxed, and the funds will be used to provide for the less fortunate, means that no limit should be set. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We feel that there should be no limits on how much a person can earn. We feel that as long as a person is prepared to work hard and put in the necessary hours, there is no reason for them to not receive the maximum reward possible. The huge amount of tax that these people will have to pay will allow the government to lower taxes for those on a lower income, and by making the taxes more progressive, we can hopefully make the entire tax system fairer for everyone. The people that do not earn a very high income will not suffer if there are no limits on how much a person can earn. We also feel that the best way to reward hard work is with money. Money can be used to fulfil the needs of these people as well as to provide for the rest of their families, all of which leads to a happier life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be no limits on how much you can earn. A person should be free to work as much as they want and as hard as they want, so the rewards they receive are fair. Also, the huge amounts of tax these people will have to pay will mean that the government will receive a large boost of income. The extra income the government receive will enable them to lower the amount that people on low incomes have to pay, making things fairer for everyone. The best way to reward people for their hard work is through money, as money can be used to purchase a wide variety of items that will satisfy people?s needs. We also feel that it would be extremely difficult to police such a law. This is because people will find a way to get around the law. They will be paid in other ways, such as through share options and bonuses, which will mean that the law will be ineffective. We feel that if the government could find a way to make the law more effective and could ensure that the rich will pay a large amount of tax, this law would be a good idea. We will now consider some interesting extracts from the original discussions. Extract 1 Original: I feel like there shouldn' +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be no limits on how much you can earn. The belief that a person should be able to earn as much as they wish stems from the ideas that a person is free to work as much as they want and as hard as they want, so the rewards they receive are fair. Also the huge amounts of tax these people will have to pay will mean that the government will receive a large boost of income. The extra income the government receive will enable them to lower the amount that people on low incomes have to pay, making things fairer for everyone. We also feel that the best way to reward people for their hard work is through money, as money can be used to purchase a wide variety of items that will satisfy people?s needs. We also believe that we should try and tax the people who are earning the huge amounts of money as much as possible to ensure that the government is receiving as much money as possible. This will then mean that the government can use this money to increase support for people on low incomes and lower the amount of tax that they have to pay, making things fairer for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: We have decided to agree on the statement, without the last point, as we agree it is completely contradictory. We feel that the fact that these people will be taxed, and the funds will be used to provide for the less fortunate, means that no limit should be set. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We feel that there should be no limits on how much a person can earn. We feel that as long as a person is prepared to work hard and put in the necessary hours, there is no reason for them to not receive the maximum reward possible. The huge amount of tax that these people will have to pay will allow the government to lower taxes for those on a lower income, and by making the taxes more progressive, we can hopefully make the entire tax system fairer for everyone. The people that do not earn a very high income will not suffer if there are no limits on how much a person can earn. We also feel that the best way to reward hard work is with money. Money can be used to fulfil the needs of these people as well as to provide for the rest of their families, all of which leads to a happier life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be no limits on how much you can earn. A person should be free to work as much as they want and as hard as they want, so the rewards they receive are fair. Also, the huge amounts of tax these people will have to pay will mean that the government will receive a large boost of income. The extra income the government receive will enable them to lower the amount that people on low incomes have to pay, making things fairer for everyone. The best way to reward people for their hard work is through money, as money can be used to purchase a wide variety of items that will satisfy people?s needs. We also feel that it would be extremely difficult to police such a law. This is because people will find a way to get around the law. They will be paid in other ways, such as through share options and bonuses, which will mean that the law will be ineffective. We feel that if the government could find a way to make the law more effective and could ensure that the rich will pay a large amount of tax, this law would be a good idea. We will now consider some interesting extracts from the original discussions. Extract 1 Original: I feel like there shouldn' 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001673.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001673.soc index a3a39728..0a8f95d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001673.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001673.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In principle, using AI in the judicial system is a good idea. It would be useful to have a system that could take all the facts into account in a case and come to a conclusion based on those facts. However, it is very difficult to design such a system in a way that it would not have some sort of bias. It would be difficult to ensure that the system would not be biased against certain types of people, for example people from a certain socio-economic background or people of a certain race. The system would also need to be designed in such a way that it would be difficult to hack. If it was possible to change the outcome of a case by hacking the system, this would be a major problem. It may also be difficult to program AI in a way that it could consider things such as intent and mitigating circumstances. All of these things make it probably not a good idea to use AI in the judicial system at the moment, but it might be in the future when AI is more advanced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree with the draft consensus statement, but we would also add that AI would be useful in the judicial system if it were used to help judges to take into account all the facts, rather than to replace judges. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: It is not wise to use AI in the judicial system at the moment, as it is very difficult to ensure that it would not have certain biases. Even if it is designed in such a way that it is not biased against certain people, there is still a risk that it would be easily hacked, which could lead to the wrong outcomes. The use of AI in the judicial system is therefore not recommended for the time being. Participants' feedback about the mediated consensus forming process There was a great deal of discussion about the use of Ringle et al's method to form a mediated consensus. All of the participants were generally positive in their evaluations of the approach to forming a group consensus. The responses are presented below, following the same order in which they were written by the participants (the initial annotations, which were made by the researcher, were re-read by the participants after the participants had provided their evaluations). The consensus exercise was interesting as it is an issue that is actually happening and could make an impact on the future if accepted or not. I think the consensus exercise was very useful for bringing together ideas and opinions and allow us all to see each others' thoughts -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, the use of AI in the judicial system is a good idea. It would be useful to have a system that could take all the facts into account in a case and come to a conclusion based on those facts. However, it is very difficult to design such a system in a way that it would not have some sort of bias. It would be difficult to ensure that the system would not be biased against certain types of people, for example people from a certain socio-economic background or people of a certain race. The system would also need to be designed in such a way that it would be difficult to hack. If it was possible to change the outcome of a case by hacking the system, this would be a major problem. Therefore, it is probably not a good idea to use AI in the judicial system at the moment, but it might be in the future when AI is more advanced and we have a better understanding of the way it works and the potential biases it may have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In principle, using AI in the judicial system is a good idea. It would be useful to have a system that could take all the facts into account in a case and come to a conclusion based on those facts. However, it is very difficult to design such a system in a way that it would not have some sort of bias. It would be difficult to ensure that the system would not be biased against certain types of people, for example people from a certain socio-economic background or people of a certain race. The system would also need to be designed in such a way that it would be difficult to hack. If it was possible to change the outcome of a case by hacking the system, this would be a major problem. It may also be difficult to program AI in a way that it could consider things such as intent and mitigating circumstances. All of these things make it probably not a good idea to use AI in the judicial system at the moment, but it might be in the future when AI is more advanced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree with the draft consensus statement, but we would also add that AI would be useful in the judicial system if it were used to help judges to take into account all the facts, rather than to replace judges. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: It is not wise to use AI in the judicial system at the moment, as it is very difficult to ensure that it would not have certain biases. Even if it is designed in such a way that it is not biased against certain people, there is still a risk that it would be easily hacked, which could lead to the wrong outcomes. The use of AI in the judicial system is therefore not recommended for the time being. Participants' feedback about the mediated consensus forming process There was a great deal of discussion about the use of Ringle et al's method to form a mediated consensus. All of the participants were generally positive in their evaluations of the approach to forming a group consensus. The responses are presented below, following the same order in which they were written by the participants (the initial annotations, which were made by the researcher, were re-read by the participants after the participants had provided their evaluations). The consensus exercise was interesting as it is an issue that is actually happening and could make an impact on the future if accepted or not. I think the consensus exercise was very useful for bringing together ideas and opinions and allow us all to see each others' thoughts +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, the use of AI in the judicial system is a good idea. It would be useful to have a system that could take all the facts into account in a case and come to a conclusion based on those facts. However, it is very difficult to design such a system in a way that it would not have some sort of bias. It would be difficult to ensure that the system would not be biased against certain types of people, for example people from a certain socio-economic background or people of a certain race. The system would also need to be designed in such a way that it would be difficult to hack. If it was possible to change the outcome of a case by hacking the system, this would be a major problem. Therefore, it is probably not a good idea to use AI in the judicial system at the moment, but it might be in the future when AI is more advanced and we have a better understanding of the way it works and the potential biases it may have. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001674.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001674.soc index f666c8f9..a492e9a2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001674.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001674.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. We think that it is important for the police to be able to control the crime rate and to make the country a safer place to live. However, we also think that the police should be careful to only stop people who they believe are carrying drugs and not just anyone who is in the area. We also think that people who are stopped and searched should have the right to speak to the police in private, so that no one can hear what they are saying and make assumptions about them. We also think that the police should give a good reason for stopping and searching someone, so that people do not feel that they are being unfairly targeted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. We think that it is important for the police to be able to control the crime rate and to make the country a safer place to live. However, we also think that the police should be careful to only stop people who they believe are carrying drugs and not just anyone who is in the area. We also think that people who are stopped and searched should have the right to speak to the police in private, so that no one can hear what they are saying and make assumptions about them. Final opinion from Participant 1: I agree with the opinion that police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs even if they are in an area known for drug dealing. This is to promote peace and order and low crime rate. However, this power should not be abused and can be challenge by people. Final opinion from Participant 2: I broadly agree with the statement and it is aligned with my original opinion. There could be more information about how the police would be led to believe a person was carrying drugs. There could also be more detail of how the police have used powers of stop and search disproportionately -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group broadly agreed that police should be allowed to search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. In order for the police to be able to effectively stop crimes being committed, they need to be able to act accordingly. Therefore, we think the police need to have a good reason to stop and search people, for example, if they look suspicious or if they have a criminal record. We think that if someone were to be stopped and searched by the police, that person should be able to talk to the police officer in private so no one can hear what they are saying. This prevents people from making assumptions about the person being stopped. Conclusion The process of helping the participants to consider multiple viewpoints has been effective. Those who used to be somewhat intolerant to views which were contrary to their own have started to realise that by considering views of others, they can deepen their understanding of the issue. I have found the majority of participants believe the most effective way to reach a consensus is by effectively debating. By giving them a chance to consider multiple viewpoints in a safe space, I have seen that the participants gained more confidence in expressing their opinions and also learned to challenge those who hold contrary views -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. We think that it is important for the police to be able to control the crime rate and to make the country a safer place to live. However, we also think that the police should be careful to only stop people who they believe are carrying drugs and not just anyone who is in the area. We also think that people who are stopped and searched should have the right to speak to the police in private, so that no one can hear what they are saying and make assumptions about them. We think that the police should make sure they have good reasons for stopping certain types of people and do not stop and search people just because they come from different backgrounds to themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. We think that it is important for the police to be able to control the crime rate and to make the country a safer place to live. However, we also think that the police should be careful to only stop people who they believe are carrying drugs and not just anyone who is in the area. We also think that people who are stopped and searched should have the right to speak to the police in private, so that no one can hear what they are saying and make assumptions about them. We also think that the police should give a good reason for stopping and searching someone, so that people do not feel that they are being unfairly targeted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. We think that it is important for the police to be able to control the crime rate and to make the country a safer place to live. However, we also think that the police should be careful to only stop people who they believe are carrying drugs and not just anyone who is in the area. We also think that people who are stopped and searched should have the right to speak to the police in private, so that no one can hear what they are saying and make assumptions about them. Final opinion from Participant 1: I agree with the opinion that police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs even if they are in an area known for drug dealing. This is to promote peace and order and low crime rate. However, this power should not be abused and can be challenge by people. Final opinion from Participant 2: I broadly agree with the statement and it is aligned with my original opinion. There could be more information about how the police would be led to believe a person was carrying drugs. There could also be more detail of how the police have used powers of stop and search disproportionately +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group broadly agreed that police should be allowed to search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. In order for the police to be able to effectively stop crimes being committed, they need to be able to act accordingly. Therefore, we think the police need to have a good reason to stop and search people, for example, if they look suspicious or if they have a criminal record. We think that if someone were to be stopped and searched by the police, that person should be able to talk to the police officer in private so no one can hear what they are saying. This prevents people from making assumptions about the person being stopped. Conclusion The process of helping the participants to consider multiple viewpoints has been effective. Those who used to be somewhat intolerant to views which were contrary to their own have started to realise that by considering views of others, they can deepen their understanding of the issue. I have found the majority of participants believe the most effective way to reach a consensus is by effectively debating. By giving them a chance to consider multiple viewpoints in a safe space, I have seen that the participants gained more confidence in expressing their opinions and also learned to challenge those who hold contrary views +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the police should be allowed to stop and search people for drugs if they are in an area known for drug dealing. We think that it is important for the police to be able to control the crime rate and to make the country a safer place to live. However, we also think that the police should be careful to only stop people who they believe are carrying drugs and not just anyone who is in the area. We also think that people who are stopped and searched should have the right to speak to the police in private, so that no one can hear what they are saying and make assumptions about them. We think that the police should make sure they have good reasons for stopping certain types of people and do not stop and search people just because they come from different backgrounds to themselves. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001675.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001675.soc index f01a536d..12657a0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001675.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001675.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a higher minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In general, we agree that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. However, we also recognise that higher wages result in higher costs for businesses which could lead to price increases for the consumer and less jobs if people are paid more highly. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The minimum wage should be increased, to ensure that workers can live comfortably, and to prevent people from falling into poverty. However, the minimum wage should not be increased too much, to ensure that businesses can still afford to employ people, and to prevent the loss of jobs. The minimum wage should be increased, but not too much.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “There should be a higher minimum wage in the current economy to help stimulate a successful economy, improve living standards and allow more people to rise out of poverty. The rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer whilst large corporations make huge profits. A higher minimum wage will alongside a regular 4 day working week help stimulate the economy in having more money circulating within the system. Also a higher minimum wage will help employees live more comfortably and improve job satisfaction and loyalty to their employer. Whilst it is true that businesses will also have to increase their prices to compensate for the increase in wages, they will also receive more loyalty from their employees and may see an increase in profits. Furthermore, higher wages will help create a more stable society by allowing more people to have a stable income and achieve a better quality of life.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a higher minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In general, we agree that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. However, we also recognise that higher wages result in higher costs for businesses which could lead to price increases for the consumer and less jobs if people are paid more highly. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The minimum wage should be increased, to ensure that workers can live comfortably, and to prevent people from falling into poverty. However, the minimum wage should not be increased too much, to ensure that businesses can still afford to employ people, and to prevent the loss of jobs. The minimum wage should be increased, but not too much.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “There should be a higher minimum wage in the current economy to help stimulate a successful economy, improve living standards and allow more people to rise out of poverty. The rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer whilst large corporations make huge profits. A higher minimum wage will alongside a regular 4 day working week help stimulate the economy in having more money circulating within the system. Also a higher minimum wage will help employees live more comfortably and improve job satisfaction and loyalty to their employer. Whilst it is true that businesses will also have to increase their prices to compensate for the increase in wages, they will also receive more loyalty from their employees and may see an increase in profits. Furthermore, higher wages will help create a more stable society by allowing more people to have a stable income and achieve a better quality of life.” 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001676.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001676.soc index d59bc9e5..d3ed4c8c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001676.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001676.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is our belief that a person who has been convicted of a crime should be punished for their wrong doing, we also believe that people should be given a second chance. We believe that each case should be looked at on an individual basis, and the employers should look at the crime the person has committed and decide if they will be an asset to the company or not. However, we also believe that people should be aware of their past actions and if the employer believes that the person has not changed their ways and is still a threat to the company or the public then they should be able to fire the person from their job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the employer should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. The employer should take into account the severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. The employer should also take into account how the employee has changed since the crime and how they have served their sentence. The employer should also consider how the other employees feel about the convicted employee and whether they feel safe working with them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is our view that employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime, depending on the severity of the crime. For example, if the crime is very minor, then they should not be fired, but if it is a major crime, then they should be. Conclusion This study used a simulation as the medium for testing the effectiveness of reaching consensus in a debate situation. This debate simulation was intended to mirror a real life debate on a current social issue. In this debate simulation, the participants were given the task of coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. They were asked to individually write down their opinion on the question. They were then asked to come together as a group and discuss the question in order to reach a consensus. In the case of the participants, they all began the debate with a different opinion on the question. After much discussion, they all came to a consensus opinion. This shows that reaching a consensus can be possible even with people who may be stubborn and set in their views. It is the goal of the debate to reach a consensus, and the most important thing to take away from this is that one must be open minded and flexible. When you are -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Employers should be able to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. However, this should be dependent on the severity of the crime, and if it is a risk to the safety of the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is our belief that a person who has been convicted of a crime should be punished for their wrong doing, we also believe that people should be given a second chance. We believe that each case should be looked at on an individual basis, and the employers should look at the crime the person has committed and decide if they will be an asset to the company or not. However, we also believe that people should be aware of their past actions and if the employer believes that the person has not changed their ways and is still a threat to the company or the public then they should be able to fire the person from their job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the employer should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. The employer should take into account the severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. The employer should also take into account how the employee has changed since the crime and how they have served their sentence. The employer should also consider how the other employees feel about the convicted employee and whether they feel safe working with them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is our view that employers should have the right to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime, depending on the severity of the crime. For example, if the crime is very minor, then they should not be fired, but if it is a major crime, then they should be. Conclusion This study used a simulation as the medium for testing the effectiveness of reaching consensus in a debate situation. This debate simulation was intended to mirror a real life debate on a current social issue. In this debate simulation, the participants were given the task of coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. They were asked to individually write down their opinion on the question. They were then asked to come together as a group and discuss the question in order to reach a consensus. In the case of the participants, they all began the debate with a different opinion on the question. After much discussion, they all came to a consensus opinion. This shows that reaching a consensus can be possible even with people who may be stubborn and set in their views. It is the goal of the debate to reach a consensus, and the most important thing to take away from this is that one must be open minded and flexible. When you are +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Employers should be able to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. However, this should be dependent on the severity of the crime, and if it is a risk to the safety of the public. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001677.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001677.soc index 9617e317..4bdf0cc5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001677.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001677.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is in the public's mind at the moment and is always thought of as underfunded, which it is. However, it is equally important to give people the tools to lead happy and fulfilling lives and this can be achieved through education. Education and health are intertwined; the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to understand and take care of their own health. The current state of the NHS is down to a lack of money, which means a lack of qualified staff and up to date technology. It is imperative that the government ensures that this lack of money does not extend to schools. Teachers are currently having to spend money out of their own pockets in order to provide the children with the materials they need to learn effectively. This is not sustainable. The money given to schools does not reflect how important education is. The government need to provide the schools with the money they need to run effectively, the same way the government needs to provide the NHS with the money it needs to run effectively. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should spend more money on healthcare because it is a fundamental right that people should be able to access healthcare and the NHS is in crisis.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should spend more on healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of more money being spent on health care. This is because education is something that can be accessed by everyone, and if someone really wants to be educated, they can make it happen for themselves. However, health care is something that is essential for everyone, and the government has a duty to provide it. The NHS is currently struggling, and if more money is not spent on it, the quality of health care will continue to decrease. This is something that cannot be allowed to happen. The NHS is a vital part of British society, and it is something that everyone should have access to. The NHS is also something that is unique to Britain, and so it is something that should be protected and supported. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is in the public's mind at the moment and is always thought of as underfunded, which it is. However, it is equally important to give people the tools to lead happy and fulfilling lives and this can be achieved through education. Education and health are intertwined; the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to understand and take care of their own health. The current state of the NHS is down to a lack of money, which means a lack of qualified staff and up to date technology. It is imperative that the government ensures that this lack of money does not extend to schools. Teachers are currently having to spend money out of their own pockets in order to provide the children with the materials they need to learn effectively. This is not sustainable. The money given to schools does not reflect how important education is. The government need to provide the schools with the money they need to run effectively, the same way the government needs to provide the NHS with the money it needs to run effectively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should spend more money on healthcare because it is a fundamental right that people should be able to access healthcare and the NHS is in crisis.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should spend more on healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of more money being spent on health care. This is because education is something that can be accessed by everyone, and if someone really wants to be educated, they can make it happen for themselves. However, health care is something that is essential for everyone, and the government has a duty to provide it. The NHS is currently struggling, and if more money is not spent on it, the quality of health care will continue to decrease. This is something that cannot be allowed to happen. The NHS is a vital part of British society, and it is something that everyone should have access to. The NHS is also something that is unique to Britain, and so it is something that should be protected and supported. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001678.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001678.soc index e2e8337f..7ed37b86 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001678.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001678.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe that the current legal framework in Ireland for cannabis is very black and white, with the punishment being so strict for even small quantities. I feel that this policy approach is unfair to people with minor drug offences, as they may face the same punishment as a repeat offender or a serious criminal. The only circumstances I think cannabis should be decriminalised is in cases where it is used as a medicine to alleviate symptoms for the patient. This is due to the fact that I believe there is strong evidence that cannabis can be very effective for treating certain conditions and illnesses. I do think that decriminalisation is a good idea in terms of reducing the amount of crime and people in prisons, however, I do not think it should be as simple as just legalising it, as there should be controls put in place to ensure that it is only used for its medical benefits.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of decriminalisation, however, we did not all agree on the extent of this. For example, we felt that it should be decriminalised for medicinal use, but we were less in favour of it being decriminalised for recreational use. The group felt that decriminalisation would lead to better regulation and support for addicts, and that there are too many people suffering in the criminal justice system as a result of cannabis use. We also felt that decriminalisation would lead to a reduction in crime and drug dealing. However, we were also aware that cannabis is a public nuisance and could cause dangers, such as driving under the influence. The group felt that cannabis is not as harmful as alcohol, and that it is not a gateway drug. The group felt that the issue is not black and white, and that there are pros and cons to decriminalisation. The group felt that cannabis use is a personal choice, and that people should be free to make their own choices. However, we were also aware that cannabis use can be very harmful to some people, and that it can be a very difficult addiction to break. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cannabis should be decriminalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of decriminalisation of cannabis. However, we recognised that there are many factors to consider, and that there are many complexities to the issue. The group recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used to treat chronic pain and other illnesses, and that in these cases it would be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. However, we also recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used for recreational purposes, and that in these cases it would not be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. The group recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used to treat chronic pain and other illnesses, and that in these cases it would be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. However, we also recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used for recreational purposes, and that in these cases it would not be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. The group recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used to treat chronic pain and other illnesses, and that in these cases it would be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. However, we also recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used for recreational +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe that the current legal framework in Ireland for cannabis is very black and white, with the punishment being so strict for even small quantities. I feel that this policy approach is unfair to people with minor drug offences, as they may face the same punishment as a repeat offender or a serious criminal. The only circumstances I think cannabis should be decriminalised is in cases where it is used as a medicine to alleviate symptoms for the patient. This is due to the fact that I believe there is strong evidence that cannabis can be very effective for treating certain conditions and illnesses. I do think that decriminalisation is a good idea in terms of reducing the amount of crime and people in prisons, however, I do not think it should be as simple as just legalising it, as there should be controls put in place to ensure that it is only used for its medical benefits.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of decriminalisation, however, we did not all agree on the extent of this. For example, we felt that it should be decriminalised for medicinal use, but we were less in favour of it being decriminalised for recreational use. The group felt that decriminalisation would lead to better regulation and support for addicts, and that there are too many people suffering in the criminal justice system as a result of cannabis use. We also felt that decriminalisation would lead to a reduction in crime and drug dealing. However, we were also aware that cannabis is a public nuisance and could cause dangers, such as driving under the influence. The group felt that cannabis is not as harmful as alcohol, and that it is not a gateway drug. The group felt that the issue is not black and white, and that there are pros and cons to decriminalisation. The group felt that cannabis use is a personal choice, and that people should be free to make their own choices. However, we were also aware that cannabis use can be very harmful to some people, and that it can be a very difficult addiction to break. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cannabis should be decriminalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of decriminalisation of cannabis. However, we recognised that there are many factors to consider, and that there are many complexities to the issue. The group recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used to treat chronic pain and other illnesses, and that in these cases it would be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. However, we also recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used for recreational purposes, and that in these cases it would not be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. The group recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used to treat chronic pain and other illnesses, and that in these cases it would be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. However, we also recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used for recreational purposes, and that in these cases it would not be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. The group recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used to treat chronic pain and other illnesses, and that in these cases it would be beneficial for it to be decriminalised. However, we also recognised that there are many cases of cannabis being used for recreational 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001679.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001679.soc index a5652244..6e890b8b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001679.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001679.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, we agree that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. However, we also recognise that higher wages result in higher costs for businesses which could lead to price increases for the consumer and less jobs if people are paid more highly. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In general, we agree that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. However, we also recognise that higher wages result in higher costs for businesses which could lead to price increases for the consumer and less jobs if people are paid more highly. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully and consider the impact this would have on the economy as a whole.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: We believe that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully. It is also important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. (this was developed based on an article published by the Guardian on 2nd December 2016 about whether or not the UK should raise the minimum wage) Some examples of participating in a debate Identify an issue on which you may not be 100% clear about your opinion. For example: Does Britain need a new political party to ensure we have political representation? Using https://www.doodle.com, propose a couple of times to get the opinions of at least 4 other people. Each person chooses one of the possible time periods and places the activity in their calendar. Alternatively, if this doesn't -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In general, we agree that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. However, we also recognise that higher wages result in higher costs for businesses which could lead to price increases for the consumer and less jobs if people are paid more highly. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. Finally, we think that the national minimum wage should be brought inline with the current cost of living and the impact of this should be considered when deciding how high the minimum wage should be.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, we agree that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. However, we also recognise that higher wages result in higher costs for businesses which could lead to price increases for the consumer and less jobs if people are paid more highly. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In general, we agree that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. However, we also recognise that higher wages result in higher costs for businesses which could lead to price increases for the consumer and less jobs if people are paid more highly. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully and consider the impact this would have on the economy as a whole.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: We believe that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully. It is also important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. (this was developed based on an article published by the Guardian on 2nd December 2016 about whether or not the UK should raise the minimum wage) Some examples of participating in a debate Identify an issue on which you may not be 100% clear about your opinion. For example: Does Britain need a new political party to ensure we have political representation? Using https://www.doodle.com, propose a couple of times to get the opinions of at least 4 other people. Each person chooses one of the possible time periods and places the activity in their calendar. Alternatively, if this doesn't +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In general, we agree that there should be a higher minimum wage, however we recognise that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. We feel that it is important that employees are paid a fair wage for their work and should be able to live comfortably when working. However, we also recognise that higher wages result in higher costs for businesses which could lead to price increases for the consumer and less jobs if people are paid more highly. Therefore, we do believe that workers should be entitled to a higher minimum wage, especially in the current economy, however it is important to balance employee and business costs carefully. We also think that it is important to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage on the economy as a whole and the impact this may have on the business cycle and GDP. Finally, we think that the national minimum wage should be brought inline with the current cost of living and the impact of this should be considered when deciding how high the minimum wage should be.” 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001680.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001680.soc index 3e42638b..89bfe6ee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001680.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001680.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus view: We believe that there should not be a complete ban on non-essential cosmetic surgery. In fact, it is difficult to define what ‘non-essential’ surgery is, as it is different for everyone. What may be considered to be ‘non-essential’ to one person may be essential to another. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be a complete ban on non-essential cosmetic surgery. In fact, it is difficult to define what ‘non-essential’ surgery is, as it is different for everyone. What may be considered to be ‘non-essential’ to one person may be essential to another. There is a big debate about what is cosmetic and what is essential surgery. In a way, all surgery is cosmetic, as there will be a change in appearance after surgery. We do believe though, that there should be a greater emphasis on the importance of psychological evaluation and counselling for anyone thinking about non-essential cosmetic surgery. Many people may choose such surgery because of body image issues, which in turn may have arisen from bullying. There are ways to treat low self-esteem other than non-essential cosmetic surgery. We feel that these other avenues should be explored and then surgery could be considered as a last resort. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a complete ban on all non-essential cosmetic surgery. This is because it is difficult to define what is ‘non-essential’ surgery, as it is different for everyone. What may be considered to be ‘non-essential’ to one person may be essential to another. There is a big debate about what is cosmetic and what is essential surgery. In a way, all surgery is cosmetic, as there will be a change in appearance after surgery. We do believe though, that there should be a greater emphasis on the importance of psychological evaluation and counselling for anyone thinking about non-essential cosmetic surgery. Many people may choose such surgery because of body image issues, which in turn may have arisen from bullying. There are ways to treat low self-esteem other than non-essential cosmetic surgery. We feel that these other avenues should be explored and then surgery could be considered as a last resort. We hope that you enjoyed reading this article. To download this FREE teaching resource, please click on the button below: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: We believe that there should not be a complete ban on non-essential cosmetic surgery. In fact, it is difficult to define what ‘non-essential’ surgery is, as it is different for everyone. What may be considered to be ‘non-essential’ to one person may be essential to another. There is a big debate about what is cosmetic and what is essential surgery. In a way, all surgery is cosmetic, as there will be a change in appearance after surgery. Therefore, it is even more crucial that people have an in depth psychological evaluation, counselling for low self-esteem issues, and other options explored before any such surgery is considered. These kinds of surgeries are undertaken for reasons that people sometimes do not take into consideration. Therefore, there should be counselling before any kind of surgery, to ensure that people do not have unrealistic expectations. This is also to protect the patient’s health. Such surgery should be viewed as a last resort, when nothing else has worked. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus view: We believe that there should not be a complete ban on non-essential cosmetic surgery. In fact, it is difficult to define what ‘non-essential’ surgery is, as it is different for everyone. What may be considered to be ‘non-essential’ to one person may be essential to another. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be a complete ban on non-essential cosmetic surgery. In fact, it is difficult to define what ‘non-essential’ surgery is, as it is different for everyone. What may be considered to be ‘non-essential’ to one person may be essential to another. There is a big debate about what is cosmetic and what is essential surgery. In a way, all surgery is cosmetic, as there will be a change in appearance after surgery. We do believe though, that there should be a greater emphasis on the importance of psychological evaluation and counselling for anyone thinking about non-essential cosmetic surgery. Many people may choose such surgery because of body image issues, which in turn may have arisen from bullying. There are ways to treat low self-esteem other than non-essential cosmetic surgery. We feel that these other avenues should be explored and then surgery could be considered as a last resort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a complete ban on all non-essential cosmetic surgery. This is because it is difficult to define what is ‘non-essential’ surgery, as it is different for everyone. What may be considered to be ‘non-essential’ to one person may be essential to another. There is a big debate about what is cosmetic and what is essential surgery. In a way, all surgery is cosmetic, as there will be a change in appearance after surgery. We do believe though, that there should be a greater emphasis on the importance of psychological evaluation and counselling for anyone thinking about non-essential cosmetic surgery. Many people may choose such surgery because of body image issues, which in turn may have arisen from bullying. There are ways to treat low self-esteem other than non-essential cosmetic surgery. We feel that these other avenues should be explored and then surgery could be considered as a last resort. We hope that you enjoyed reading this article. To download this FREE teaching resource, please click on the button below: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We believe that there should not be a complete ban on non-essential cosmetic surgery. In fact, it is difficult to define what ‘non-essential’ surgery is, as it is different for everyone. What may be considered to be ‘non-essential’ to one person may be essential to another. There is a big debate about what is cosmetic and what is essential surgery. In a way, all surgery is cosmetic, as there will be a change in appearance after surgery. Therefore, it is even more crucial that people have an in depth psychological evaluation, counselling for low self-esteem issues, and other options explored before any such surgery is considered. These kinds of surgeries are undertaken for reasons that people sometimes do not take into consideration. Therefore, there should be counselling before any kind of surgery, to ensure that people do not have unrealistic expectations. This is also to protect the patient’s health. Such surgery should be viewed as a last resort, when nothing else has worked. 4: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001681.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001681.soc index 614e5f1b..5b31cca1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001681.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001681.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We feel that most people do need a second chance. However we also think that for some crimes this would not be in the best interest of the company or the public. People have the right to be educated about the person's previous actions but not to know exactly what they have done. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: While we believe people should be given a second chance, we do believe that employers have the right to fire employees who have committed a crime. If employers have reasonable concerns, however, that a person who has committed a crime is dangerous or would be a threat to other employees then we believe they should have the right to fire that person from their job. However, we do not believe that employers should be able to fire anyone who has committed a crime as long as the person has learned from their mistakes, has completed any court-ordered punishment for their crimes, and is no longer a danger to others. We believe that each case should be judged individually and that it is solely up to the employer whether they wish to take the person back or let them go. If the employer thinks that this person will be a good asset to the company they should be hired. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While it is our belief that a person who has been convicted of a crime should be punished for their wrong doing, we also believe that people should be given a second chance. We believe that each case should be looked at on an individual basis, and the employers should look at the crime the person has committed and decide if they will be an asset to the company or not. However, we also believe that people should be aware of their past actions and if the employer believes that the person has not changed their ways and is still a threat to the company or the public then they should be able to fire the person from their job. Please try to reach a consensus view on the opinions of each participant. Make use of the opinions of each individual and do your best to incorporate the strong points of each person's opinion into your own consensus view. You may find that some people's opinions contradict each other. You will need to think carefully about how to resolve these contradictions and reach a consensus. Remember that your goal is not to reach the "right" answer, but to reach a consensus view. You will need to discuss and debate with each other in order to reach a consensus view. You will have 20 minutes to reach a consensus -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While we believe that people should be given a second chance, we also believe that employers should be able to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. We believe that each case should be looked at on an individual basis, and the employers should look at the crime the person has committed and decide if they will be an asset to the company or not. However, we also believe that people should be aware of their past actions and if the employer believes that the person has not changed their ways and is still a threat to the company or the public then they should be able to fire the person from their job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We feel that most people do need a second chance. However we also think that for some crimes this would not be in the best interest of the company or the public. People have the right to be educated about the person's previous actions but not to know exactly what they have done. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: While we believe people should be given a second chance, we do believe that employers have the right to fire employees who have committed a crime. If employers have reasonable concerns, however, that a person who has committed a crime is dangerous or would be a threat to other employees then we believe they should have the right to fire that person from their job. However, we do not believe that employers should be able to fire anyone who has committed a crime as long as the person has learned from their mistakes, has completed any court-ordered punishment for their crimes, and is no longer a danger to others. We believe that each case should be judged individually and that it is solely up to the employer whether they wish to take the person back or let them go. If the employer thinks that this person will be a good asset to the company they should be hired. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While it is our belief that a person who has been convicted of a crime should be punished for their wrong doing, we also believe that people should be given a second chance. We believe that each case should be looked at on an individual basis, and the employers should look at the crime the person has committed and decide if they will be an asset to the company or not. However, we also believe that people should be aware of their past actions and if the employer believes that the person has not changed their ways and is still a threat to the company or the public then they should be able to fire the person from their job. Please try to reach a consensus view on the opinions of each participant. Make use of the opinions of each individual and do your best to incorporate the strong points of each person's opinion into your own consensus view. You may find that some people's opinions contradict each other. You will need to think carefully about how to resolve these contradictions and reach a consensus. Remember that your goal is not to reach the "right" answer, but to reach a consensus view. You will need to discuss and debate with each other in order to reach a consensus view. You will have 20 minutes to reach a consensus +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While we believe that people should be given a second chance, we also believe that employers should be able to fire employees who have been convicted of a crime. We believe that each case should be looked at on an individual basis, and the employers should look at the crime the person has committed and decide if they will be an asset to the company or not. However, we also believe that people should be aware of their past actions and if the employer believes that the person has not changed their ways and is still a threat to the company or the public then they should be able to fire the person from their job. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001682.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001682.soc index f5629931..973be16c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001682.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001682.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not okay for artificial intelligence to make important decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions. The reason for this is that artificial intelligence is a machine and it is not capable of the same level of critical thinking that a human can achieve. The machine can only make decisions based on the information that it has been given, and it is not capable of thinking outside of the box. It is also not capable of empathy, and therefore it is not capable of making decisions that are in the best interests of the people who will be affected by those decisions. The machine is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the greater good. It is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the environment or the future of the planet. The machine can only make decisions based on the information that it has been given. The machine is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the people who will be affected by those decisions. The machine is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the greater good. It is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the environment or the future of the planet. The machine can only make decisions based on -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions based on sound logic and that it was not being fed any false information. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was not making any biased decisions and that it was making decisions based on all available information. The group felt that the AI should be able to explain its decision making process and that it should be able to provide evidence to support its decision. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in the best interests of the people and that it was not making decisions that were going to harm people. The group felt that the AI should be used in conjunction with human decision making and that it should not be used to make decisions in isolation. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in line with human values and that it was not making decisions that were going to be detrimental to the human race. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is acceptable to use AI in decision making as long as it is balanced out with human input and sense checking. AI can be helpful to make decision, however it can only ever be as good as the information fed into it and its programming. It cannot have empathy, common sense or initiative. It is therefore up to humans to make sure that the AI makes decisions based on the right information and that the programming is working correctly. It is important to check the AI is not making mistakes due to misinformation, software malfunctions or errors, and in some cases to make sure the AI is not discriminating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not okay for artificial intelligence to make important decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions. The reason for this is that artificial intelligence is a machine and it is not capable of the same level of critical thinking that a human can achieve. The machine can only make decisions based on the information that it has been given, and it is not capable of thinking outside of the box. It is also not capable of empathy, and therefore it is not capable of making decisions that are in the best interests of the people who will be affected by those decisions. The machine is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the greater good. It is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the environment or the future of the planet. The machine can only make decisions based on the information that it has been given. The machine is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the people who will be affected by those decisions. The machine is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the greater good. It is also not capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the environment or the future of the planet. The machine can only make decisions based on +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions based on sound logic and that it was not being fed any false information. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was not making any biased decisions and that it was making decisions based on all available information. The group felt that the AI should be able to explain its decision making process and that it should be able to provide evidence to support its decision. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in the best interests of the people and that it was not making decisions that were going to harm people. The group felt that the AI should be used in conjunction with human decision making and that it should not be used to make decisions in isolation. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in line with human values and that it was not making decisions that were going to be detrimental to the human race. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is acceptable to use AI in decision making as long as it is balanced out with human input and sense checking. AI can be helpful to make decision, however it can only ever be as good as the information fed into it and its programming. It cannot have empathy, common sense or initiative. It is therefore up to humans to make sure that the AI makes decisions based on the right information and that the programming is working correctly. It is important to check the AI is not making mistakes due to misinformation, software malfunctions or errors, and in some cases to make sure the AI is not discriminating. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001683.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001683.soc index 19f296dd..cdc1758f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001683.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001683.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Hunting with dogs should be banned as it is a form of animal cruelty. If people want to hunt, they should do it without dogs. The question is whether the group of participants has come to the right answer to the question. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not acceptable to hunt wild animals with dogs as it can cause pain and stress to the hunted animal, and the fact that the animal has little chance of escape against the dogs is just wrong. Also, the act of hunting with dogs is classed as a sport and is not fair for the hunted animal, who has no choice in what is happening. This has gone on for many a year and is seen by some as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal, and to cause suffering is to show ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. We wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other, and we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should have a law against hunting wild animals with dogs because it causes them pain and distress and is ethically wrong. Also it teaches the wrong lessons to children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a law against hunting wild animals with dogs. This is because the amount of pain and stress the hunted animal goes through is just not right. It's also not fair for the animal when it doesn't stand a chance against a large pack of dogs. I understand that this has gone on for many a year, and to some is classed as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal. It also reflects on how we are as a human species. If we are willing to allow brutality and pain in wild animals then we are showing ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. If we wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other then we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. It really depends on whether or not the wild animals are a huge problem or not and it also really depends on what the wild animals are and if they are likely to go extinct by people hunting them, also how humane it is to use dogs to hunt them. Life is sacred and humans are equal to ants and any other life in my view. I only +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Hunting with dogs should be banned as it is a form of animal cruelty. If people want to hunt, they should do it without dogs. The question is whether the group of participants has come to the right answer to the question. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not acceptable to hunt wild animals with dogs as it can cause pain and stress to the hunted animal, and the fact that the animal has little chance of escape against the dogs is just wrong. Also, the act of hunting with dogs is classed as a sport and is not fair for the hunted animal, who has no choice in what is happening. This has gone on for many a year and is seen by some as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal, and to cause suffering is to show ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. We wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other, and we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should have a law against hunting wild animals with dogs because it causes them pain and distress and is ethically wrong. Also it teaches the wrong lessons to children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a law against hunting wild animals with dogs. This is because the amount of pain and stress the hunted animal goes through is just not right. It's also not fair for the animal when it doesn't stand a chance against a large pack of dogs. I understand that this has gone on for many a year, and to some is classed as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal. It also reflects on how we are as a human species. If we are willing to allow brutality and pain in wild animals then we are showing ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. If we wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other then we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. It really depends on whether or not the wild animals are a huge problem or not and it also really depends on what the wild animals are and if they are likely to go extinct by people hunting them, also how humane it is to use dogs to hunt them. Life is sacred and humans are equal to ants and any other life in my view. I only 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001684.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001684.soc index f06427d8..86a3d613 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001684.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001684.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that, on average, the Briton’s attitude towards the Chinese government is not hostile. We feel that there is no reason to believe that Britons dislike the Chinese government. This view is supported by the fact that there are many joint projects between the UK and China. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is not hostile. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s policies and the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s policies and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s policies and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s policies and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The average Briton has a slightly hostile attitude to the Chinese government. This is mainly due to the fact that China is often mentioned as a threat by politicians in the UK government. Although the average Briton sees the Chinese government as hostile, I imagine that many would struggle to give specific reasons why, other than that it is a communist country. This is in contrast to the USA, who are also communist but are not seen as a threat to the UK. The average Briton is also often exposed to negative portrayals of the Chinese government in the media, which will contribute to their attitude.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is more likely to be slightly hostile rather than very hostile or very friendly. The Briton is aware of the growing importance of China to the world economy, but also fears China’s rise. This fear has been partly generated by the media and the negative way China is often portrayed. There is also a level of scepticism towards the Chinese government due to the opacity of the Chinese political system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that, on average, the Briton’s attitude towards the Chinese government is not hostile. We feel that there is no reason to believe that Britons dislike the Chinese government. This view is supported by the fact that there are many joint projects between the UK and China. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is not hostile. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s policies and the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s policies and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s policies and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s policies and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’s relationship with the British government and therefore does not have a hostile attitude to the Chinese government. The average Briton is unaware of the Chinese government’ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The average Briton has a slightly hostile attitude to the Chinese government. This is mainly due to the fact that China is often mentioned as a threat by politicians in the UK government. Although the average Briton sees the Chinese government as hostile, I imagine that many would struggle to give specific reasons why, other than that it is a communist country. This is in contrast to the USA, who are also communist but are not seen as a threat to the UK. The average Briton is also often exposed to negative portrayals of the Chinese government in the media, which will contribute to their attitude.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is more likely to be slightly hostile rather than very hostile or very friendly. The Briton is aware of the growing importance of China to the world economy, but also fears China’s rise. This fear has been partly generated by the media and the negative way China is often portrayed. There is also a level of scepticism towards the Chinese government due to the opacity of the Chinese political system. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001685.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001685.soc index bf0940e9..1fe99a5a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001685.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001685.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should focus on providing the necessary funding to the NHS to ensure it can function effectively and this is extremely important. However, education is also very important and needs to be given more priority in the future. The government should also invest money in education to ensure it is functioning effectively and can continue to do so in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Education and health are both important and so should be given the same amount of money by the government. At the moment the NHS is in crisis and so people have made the assumption that it needs more money than education, but this is a false assumption. If the crisis is to be resolved then more money should be given to the NHS, but this should not mean less money for education. This is because education is just as important as health. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to understand and take care of their own health. The current state of the NHS is down to a lack of money, which means a lack of qualified staff and up to date technology. It is imperative that the government ensures that this lack of money does not extend to schools. Teachers are currently having to spend money out of their own pockets in order to provide the children with the materials they need to learn effectively. This is not sustainable. The money given to schools does not reflect how important education is. The government need to provide the schools with the money they need to run effectively, the same way the government needs to provide the NHS with the money it needs to run effectively. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe more money should be spent on healthcare rather than education, but we should be able to hold two separate, but dependent, views. We believe the UK education system is flawed and requires reform. If we reach the position where the government can reasonably provide for both education and healthcare, then this is an argument for spending the money fairly and equitably between the two systems. The exercise was explained to the remaining participants. For the first round of the exercise, the facilitator asked participants in a group to debate the question - Should the government spend more money on healthcare, or on education? Each group was expected to come up with a shared answer. For the second round, the facilitator asked the participants to be even more specific in their answer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is in the public's mind at the moment and is always thought of as underfunded, which it is. However, it is equally important to give people the tools to lead happy and fulfilling lives and this can be achieved through education. Education and health are intertwined; the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to understand and take care of their own health. The current state of the NHS is down to a lack of money, which means a lack of qualified staff and up to date technology. It is imperative that the government ensures that this lack of money does not extend to schools. Teachers are currently having to spend money out of their own pockets in order to provide the children with the materials they need to learn effectively. This is not sustainable. The money given to schools does not reflect how important education is. The government need to provide the schools with the money they need to run effectively, the same way the government needs to provide the NHS with the money it needs to run effectively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should focus on providing the necessary funding to the NHS to ensure it can function effectively and this is extremely important. However, education is also very important and needs to be given more priority in the future. The government should also invest money in education to ensure it is functioning effectively and can continue to do so in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Education and health are both important and so should be given the same amount of money by the government. At the moment the NHS is in crisis and so people have made the assumption that it needs more money than education, but this is a false assumption. If the crisis is to be resolved then more money should be given to the NHS, but this should not mean less money for education. This is because education is just as important as health. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to understand and take care of their own health. The current state of the NHS is down to a lack of money, which means a lack of qualified staff and up to date technology. It is imperative that the government ensures that this lack of money does not extend to schools. Teachers are currently having to spend money out of their own pockets in order to provide the children with the materials they need to learn effectively. This is not sustainable. The money given to schools does not reflect how important education is. The government need to provide the schools with the money they need to run effectively, the same way the government needs to provide the NHS with the money it needs to run effectively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe more money should be spent on healthcare rather than education, but we should be able to hold two separate, but dependent, views. We believe the UK education system is flawed and requires reform. If we reach the position where the government can reasonably provide for both education and healthcare, then this is an argument for spending the money fairly and equitably between the two systems. The exercise was explained to the remaining participants. For the first round of the exercise, the facilitator asked participants in a group to debate the question - Should the government spend more money on healthcare, or on education? Each group was expected to come up with a shared answer. For the second round, the facilitator asked the participants to be even more specific in their answer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is in the public's mind at the moment and is always thought of as underfunded, which it is. However, it is equally important to give people the tools to lead happy and fulfilling lives and this can be achieved through education. Education and health are intertwined; the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to understand and take care of their own health. The current state of the NHS is down to a lack of money, which means a lack of qualified staff and up to date technology. It is imperative that the government ensures that this lack of money does not extend to schools. Teachers are currently having to spend money out of their own pockets in order to provide the children with the materials they need to learn effectively. This is not sustainable. The money given to schools does not reflect how important education is. The government need to provide the schools with the money they need to run effectively, the same way the government needs to provide the NHS with the money it needs to run effectively. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001686.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001686.soc index c7ac4dcc..5a551a50 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001686.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001686.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the minimum wage for people who are 18 should not be lower than the minimum wage for people who are 25. This is because people who are 18 are adults and should be treated as such. However, it is also the case that older people have more experience in the workforce and therefore this should be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to have a blanket approach where everyone is paid the same minimum wage, regardless of age or experience. In conclusion, it should be a combination of experience, not just age, that determines the minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we don't think that the minimum wage for someone who is 18 should be lower than the minimum wage for someone who is 25. The reason for this is that both people are adults and therefore should be treated equally in terms of pay. We do realise that 25 year olds will have more experience and so will probably bring more to the job, but this is something that should be assessed on an individual basis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think the minimum wage should be different for 18 year olds and 25 year olds. There is no logical reason for this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the minimum wage for people who are 18 should not be lower than the minimum wage for people who are 25. This is because people who are 18 are adults and should be treated as such. However, it is also the case that older people have more experience in the workforce and therefore this should be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to have a blanket approach where everyone is paid the same minimum wage, regardless of age or experience. In conclusion, it should be a combination of experience, not just age, that determines the minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we don't think that the minimum wage for someone who is 18 should be lower than the minimum wage for someone who is 25. The reason for this is that both people are adults and therefore should be treated equally in terms of pay. We do realise that 25 year olds will have more experience and so will probably bring more to the job, but this is something that should be assessed on an individual basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think the minimum wage should be different for 18 year olds and 25 year olds. There is no logical reason for this. 4: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001687.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001687.soc index 411139b6..f84aa403 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001687.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001687.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: There is broad agreement in the group that cannabis should be legalised. This would reduce crime and reduce the number of people in prison for cannabis related offences. It would also reduce the number of dealers operating in our area and also reduce the number of people being exploited by dealers. It has confirmed medicinal benefits and many believe that it should be available to people who need it. It is generally accepted that cannabis is not as dangerous as alcohol and that it is not as addictive as alcohol. We also agree that the people who want to smoke cannabis will do so whether it is legal or not. It would be better to legalise it, regulate it and tax it rather than try to police an activity that is widespread. It is a drug that could be taxed in a similar way to alcohol and would bring a new revenue stream. It would not be possible to drive under the influence of cannabis and that this would still remain a crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In general, the group felt that cannabis should be legal. We felt that it would reduce crime and that people were going to smoke it whether it was legal or not. We felt that it should be illegal to drive under the influence of cannabis and that this should be a crime. We felt that the group consensus was as follows: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. They felt that it would reduce crime and the number of people in prison for cannabis related offences. They also felt that it would reduce the number of dealers in the area and the number of people being exploited by these dealers. They also felt that cannabis had medicinal benefits and that it should be available to people who need it. They felt that cannabis was not as dangerous as alcohol and that it was not as addictive. They felt that people who wanted to smoke cannabis would do so whether it was legal or not and that it would be better to legalise it, regulate it and tax it. They felt that cannabis was less dangerous than alcohol and that people who wanted to use it should be able to do so. They felt that it should not be legal to drive under the influence of cannabis and that this should remain a crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There was a general consensus that cannabis should be legalised. This would reduce the number of people in prison for cannabis related offences. It would also reduce the number of dealers in the area and the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: There is broad agreement in the group that cannabis should be legalised. This would reduce crime and reduce the number of people in prison for cannabis related offences. It would also reduce the number of dealers operating in our area and also reduce the number of people being exploited by dealers. It has confirmed medicinal benefits and many believe that it should be available to people who need it. It is generally accepted that cannabis is not as dangerous as alcohol and that it is not as addictive as alcohol. We also agree that the people who want to smoke cannabis will do so whether it is legal or not. It would be better to legalise it, regulate it and tax it rather than try to police an activity that is widespread. It is a drug that could be taxed in a similar way to alcohol and would bring a new revenue stream. It would not be possible to drive under the influence of cannabis and that this would still remain a crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group felt that cannabis should be legal. We felt that it would reduce crime and that people were going to smoke it whether it was legal or not. We felt that it should be illegal to drive under the influence of cannabis and that this should be a crime. We felt that the group consensus was as follows: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. They felt that it would reduce crime and the number of people in prison for cannabis related offences. They also felt that it would reduce the number of dealers in the area and the number of people being exploited by these dealers. They also felt that cannabis had medicinal benefits and that it should be available to people who need it. They felt that cannabis was not as dangerous as alcohol and that it was not as addictive. They felt that people who wanted to smoke cannabis would do so whether it was legal or not and that it would be better to legalise it, regulate it and tax it. They felt that cannabis was less dangerous than alcohol and that people who wanted to use it should be able to do so. They felt that it should not be legal to drive under the influence of cannabis and that this should remain a crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There was a general consensus that cannabis should be legalised. This would reduce the number of people in prison for cannabis related offences. It would also reduce the number of dealers in the area and the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number of people being exploited by these dealers. It would also reduce the number 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001688.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001688.soc index 3b71702b..7fb13790 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001688.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001688.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of offering financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. It was felt that young people should have as much choice as possible about where they live and work, and the range of options for young people is often less in rural areas. The issue was debated at length and several problems with the scheme were raised. Firstly, if young people move to the countryside they may be judged by the older population in these areas for their appearance and dress, and young people may not feel comfortable in this environment. The group also discussed the fact that many young people choose to live in cities because of the greater number of facilities such as shops, nightclubs and bars, and that the younger generation may be reluctant to move to rural areas where these options are limited. After taking into account all of these points, the group felt that the young people should be aware of the problems they could face living and working in a rural area, and should decide for themselves whether these problems would be outweighed by financial rewards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of offering financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. It was felt that young people should have as much choice as possible about where they live and work, and the range of options for young people is often less in rural areas. The issue was debated at length and several problems with the scheme were raised. Firstly, if young people move to the countryside they may be judged by the older population in these areas for their appearance and dress, and young people may not feel comfortable in this environment. The group also discussed the fact that many young people choose to live in cities because of the greater number of facilities such as shops, nightclubs and bars, and that the younger generation may be reluctant to move to rural areas where these options are limited. However, it was felt that the pros outweighed the cons, and that rural areas could benefit from having a younger generation living in the area. It was also felt that if the financial incentives were removed when the young person reached a certain age, such as 40, then this could be a way of removing the older people from the countryside, which would increase the availability of jobs for young people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of offering financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. However, it was felt that the scheme should be limited to young people who were born in the rural areas, and not those who had moved there from elsewhere. The scheme should be limited to a certain age range, say 16 to 25, and should be designed to encourage young people who might otherwise move to the cities to stay in the countryside. It was felt that the scheme should be designed to prevent the rapid growth of young populations in rural areas which could lead to increased demand for housing and facilities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was generally in favour of the idea of providing financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. There were several potential problems with the proposal however. One of the problems mentioned during the debate was that some rural areas may have social environments that are not welcoming to young people, who may be judged for their appearance and dress. Another issue was that young people may be reluctant to move to rural areas because the lack of facilities such as shops, nightclubs and bars, and that the younger generation may be reluctant to move to rural areas where these options are limited. Another concern was that a problem may arise if the financial incentives are given to only a select few young people. For example, if a young person receives a financial incentive to live in a rural area and he is awarded this because of their age and the young people who are not awarded this compensation feel that this is unfair, it may cause unnecessary tensions between the young people. Overall, the group was generally in favour of offering financial incentives, but there were a number of different points to take into account which may make it difficult to execute this policy successfully. Conclusions The rural youth study found that young people were unlikely to change their opinion because of the way information +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of offering financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. It was felt that young people should have as much choice as possible about where they live and work, and the range of options for young people is often less in rural areas. The issue was debated at length and several problems with the scheme were raised. Firstly, if young people move to the countryside they may be judged by the older population in these areas for their appearance and dress, and young people may not feel comfortable in this environment. The group also discussed the fact that many young people choose to live in cities because of the greater number of facilities such as shops, nightclubs and bars, and that the younger generation may be reluctant to move to rural areas where these options are limited. After taking into account all of these points, the group felt that the young people should be aware of the problems they could face living and working in a rural area, and should decide for themselves whether these problems would be outweighed by financial rewards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of offering financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. It was felt that young people should have as much choice as possible about where they live and work, and the range of options for young people is often less in rural areas. The issue was debated at length and several problems with the scheme were raised. Firstly, if young people move to the countryside they may be judged by the older population in these areas for their appearance and dress, and young people may not feel comfortable in this environment. The group also discussed the fact that many young people choose to live in cities because of the greater number of facilities such as shops, nightclubs and bars, and that the younger generation may be reluctant to move to rural areas where these options are limited. However, it was felt that the pros outweighed the cons, and that rural areas could benefit from having a younger generation living in the area. It was also felt that if the financial incentives were removed when the young person reached a certain age, such as 40, then this could be a way of removing the older people from the countryside, which would increase the availability of jobs for young people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of offering financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. However, it was felt that the scheme should be limited to young people who were born in the rural areas, and not those who had moved there from elsewhere. The scheme should be limited to a certain age range, say 16 to 25, and should be designed to encourage young people who might otherwise move to the cities to stay in the countryside. It was felt that the scheme should be designed to prevent the rapid growth of young populations in rural areas which could lead to increased demand for housing and facilities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was generally in favour of the idea of providing financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. There were several potential problems with the proposal however. One of the problems mentioned during the debate was that some rural areas may have social environments that are not welcoming to young people, who may be judged for their appearance and dress. Another issue was that young people may be reluctant to move to rural areas because the lack of facilities such as shops, nightclubs and bars, and that the younger generation may be reluctant to move to rural areas where these options are limited. Another concern was that a problem may arise if the financial incentives are given to only a select few young people. For example, if a young person receives a financial incentive to live in a rural area and he is awarded this because of their age and the young people who are not awarded this compensation feel that this is unfair, it may cause unnecessary tensions between the young people. Overall, the group was generally in favour of offering financial incentives, but there were a number of different points to take into account which may make it difficult to execute this policy successfully. Conclusions The rural youth study found that young people were unlikely to change their opinion because of the way information 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001689.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001689.soc index 6eea579d..91aea546 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001689.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001689.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of road accidents. The reason for this is that the human factor will be removed from the equation. This is because humans are prone to making mistakes, which can result in road accidents. This is not to say that driverless cars will not make any mistakes, but the fact that they will not be subject to human error, will result in a decrease in the number of road accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is potential for driverless cars to result in more accidents, but as the technology develops it should become more reliable. There will always be the risk of computer error, and there is no human oversight in driverless cars. Pedestrians and other drivers may also be more at risk, due to the fact that the car is silent and does not behave like a car with a human driver. But in time, when driverless cars are more common, it is likely that pedestrians will become more aware of them and that they will be programmed to be more obvious to pedestrians. It is also likely that other drivers will become more accustomed to their behavior. This may all lead to a decrease in the number of accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the introduction of driverless cars will lead to an increase in the number of road accidents. This is because the technology is still in its early stages of development, and is therefore prone to failure. Also, driverless cars will not be able to react to sudden and unexpected situations, which are often the cause of many accidents. However, the introduction of driverless cars will lead to a reduction in the number of accidents caused by human error, such as falling asleep at the wheel, or driving under the influence of alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Driverless cars will cause an increase in road accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of road accidents. The reason for this is that the human factor will be removed from the equation. This is because humans are prone to making mistakes, which can result in road accidents. This is not to say that driverless cars will not make any mistakes, but the fact that they will not be subject to human error, will result in a decrease in the number of road accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is potential for driverless cars to result in more accidents, but as the technology develops it should become more reliable. There will always be the risk of computer error, and there is no human oversight in driverless cars. Pedestrians and other drivers may also be more at risk, due to the fact that the car is silent and does not behave like a car with a human driver. But in time, when driverless cars are more common, it is likely that pedestrians will become more aware of them and that they will be programmed to be more obvious to pedestrians. It is also likely that other drivers will become more accustomed to their behavior. This may all lead to a decrease in the number of accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the introduction of driverless cars will lead to an increase in the number of road accidents. This is because the technology is still in its early stages of development, and is therefore prone to failure. Also, driverless cars will not be able to react to sudden and unexpected situations, which are often the cause of many accidents. However, the introduction of driverless cars will lead to a reduction in the number of accidents caused by human error, such as falling asleep at the wheel, or driving under the influence of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Driverless cars will cause an increase in road accidents. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001690.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001690.soc index 5b2b1ed8..5f8f2405 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001690.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001690.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Cannabis should be legalised world-wide. It's a naturally growing plant, with positive medicinal properties. It is particularly useful in the treatment of anxiety. If prescribed for medical reasons then yes. However I believe that heavy use of cannabis has been linked to metal health issues / psychosis and therefore I feel it shouldn't be legal and freely available. It could also be a gateway drug to other more harmful "harder drugs". Once legalised, it would be practically impossible to de-legalise it further down the line. I believe that it should be legal to smoke cannabis. All commonly known successful drug policies are permissive in nature - legalising the drugs and regulating the trade. This allows the state to cut out drug dealers, who are often linked to (organised) crime, and provides safe places for drug users to go. It's proven to reduce the spread of disease, it reduces strain on law enforcement, and it provides a valuable tax revenue. This is true even of hard drugs like heroin, let alone low-harm drugs like cannabis. I think it should be legal to smoke cannabis. This will enable a more liberal culture where people can engage in activities that they deem beneficial to their -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Cannabis should be legalised for medical purposes only. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cannabis should be legalised. It is a naturally growing plant, with positive medicinal properties. It is particularly useful in the treatment of anxiety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the science of cannabis is still relatively new, and requires further study, there is a strong case for the use of cannabis to be legalised on both medical and recreational grounds. Cannabis use should be legalised but only for medical use, until the drug is proven safe, however it should be widely available to those who wish to use it in a recreational manner. Those using the drug recreationally should not be subjected to heavy fines, but should have their driving licenses revoked if they are found to be under the influence of cannabis whilst operating a vehicle. We believe that cannabis is not addictive, and so should not be classed as a harmful drug. If cannabis is proven to be addictive, it should be treated as a harmful drug and should be regulated by the state, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are currently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Cannabis should be legalised world-wide. It's a naturally growing plant, with positive medicinal properties. It is particularly useful in the treatment of anxiety. If prescribed for medical reasons then yes. However I believe that heavy use of cannabis has been linked to metal health issues / psychosis and therefore I feel it shouldn't be legal and freely available. It could also be a gateway drug to other more harmful "harder drugs". Once legalised, it would be practically impossible to de-legalise it further down the line. I believe that it should be legal to smoke cannabis. All commonly known successful drug policies are permissive in nature - legalising the drugs and regulating the trade. This allows the state to cut out drug dealers, who are often linked to (organised) crime, and provides safe places for drug users to go. It's proven to reduce the spread of disease, it reduces strain on law enforcement, and it provides a valuable tax revenue. This is true even of hard drugs like heroin, let alone low-harm drugs like cannabis. I think it should be legal to smoke cannabis. This will enable a more liberal culture where people can engage in activities that they deem beneficial to their +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Cannabis should be legalised for medical purposes only. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cannabis should be legalised. It is a naturally growing plant, with positive medicinal properties. It is particularly useful in the treatment of anxiety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the science of cannabis is still relatively new, and requires further study, there is a strong case for the use of cannabis to be legalised on both medical and recreational grounds. Cannabis use should be legalised but only for medical use, until the drug is proven safe, however it should be widely available to those who wish to use it in a recreational manner. Those using the drug recreationally should not be subjected to heavy fines, but should have their driving licenses revoked if they are found to be under the influence of cannabis whilst operating a vehicle. We believe that cannabis is not addictive, and so should not be classed as a harmful drug. If cannabis is proven to be addictive, it should be treated as a harmful drug and should be regulated by the state, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are currently. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001691.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001691.soc index 2e135aa4..b10f6220 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001691.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001691.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of decriminalisation, but we did not all agree on the extent of this. For example, we felt that it should be decriminalised for medical use, but we were less in favour of it being decriminalised for recreational use. We felt that decriminalisation would lead to better regulation and support for addicts, and that there are too many people suffering in the criminal justice system as a result of cannabis use. We felt that decriminalisation would lead to a reduction in crime and drug dealing. However, we were also aware that cannabis is a public nuisance and could cause dangers, such as driving under the influence. The group felt that cannabis is not as harmful as alcohol, and that it is not a gateway drug. The group felt that the issue is not black and white, and that there are pros and cons to decriminalisation. The group felt that cannabis use is a personal choice, and that people should be free to make their own choices. However, we were also aware that cannabis use can be very harmful to some people, and that it can be a very difficult addiction to break. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: It would make sense to decriminalise the medicinal use of cannabis, however, it is important to have rigorous laws in place regarding recreational use to ensure that it remains properly monitored and regulated. Overall, I believe that this opinion reflects the views of the wider public, and has the potential to positively impact society for the better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of decriminalisation, however, we did not all agree on the extent of this. For example, we felt that it should be decriminalised for medicinal use, but we were less in favour of it being decriminalised for recreational use. The group felt that decriminalisation would lead to better regulation and support for addicts, and that there are too many people suffering in the criminal justice system as a result of cannabis use. We also felt that decriminalisation would lead to a reduction in crime and drug dealing. However, we were also aware that cannabis is a public nuisance and could cause dangers, such as driving under the influence. The group felt that cannabis is not as harmful as alcohol, and that it is not a gateway drug. The group felt that the issue is not black and white, and that there are pros and cons to decriminalisation. The group felt that cannabis use is a personal choice, and that people should be free to make their own choices. However, we were also aware that cannabis use can be very harmful to some people, and that it can be a very difficult addiction to break. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, however, we feel it does not fully express our views on the issue. In particular, we feel that it does not capture how we feel about the fact that cannabis is not as harmful as alcohol, and that it is not a gateway drug. We also feel that it does not fully express our concerns about how cannabis use can be very harmful to some people, and that it can be a very difficult addiction to break. We also feel that it does not fully express our views on the fact that cannabis use is a personal choice, and that people should be free to make their own choices. We also feel that it does not fully express our views on the fact that cannabis use is a public nuisance and could cause dangers, such as driving under the influence. We also feel that it does not fully express our views on the fact that decriminalisation would lead to better regulation and support for addicts, and that there are too many people suffering in the criminal justice system as a result of cannabis use. We also feel that it does not fully express our views on the fact that decriminalisation would lead to a reduction in crime and drug dealing. We also feel +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of decriminalisation, but we did not all agree on the extent of this. For example, we felt that it should be decriminalised for medical use, but we were less in favour of it being decriminalised for recreational use. We felt that decriminalisation would lead to better regulation and support for addicts, and that there are too many people suffering in the criminal justice system as a result of cannabis use. We felt that decriminalisation would lead to a reduction in crime and drug dealing. However, we were also aware that cannabis is a public nuisance and could cause dangers, such as driving under the influence. The group felt that cannabis is not as harmful as alcohol, and that it is not a gateway drug. The group felt that the issue is not black and white, and that there are pros and cons to decriminalisation. The group felt that cannabis use is a personal choice, and that people should be free to make their own choices. However, we were also aware that cannabis use can be very harmful to some people, and that it can be a very difficult addiction to break. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: It would make sense to decriminalise the medicinal use of cannabis, however, it is important to have rigorous laws in place regarding recreational use to ensure that it remains properly monitored and regulated. Overall, I believe that this opinion reflects the views of the wider public, and has the potential to positively impact society for the better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of decriminalisation, however, we did not all agree on the extent of this. For example, we felt that it should be decriminalised for medicinal use, but we were less in favour of it being decriminalised for recreational use. The group felt that decriminalisation would lead to better regulation and support for addicts, and that there are too many people suffering in the criminal justice system as a result of cannabis use. We also felt that decriminalisation would lead to a reduction in crime and drug dealing. However, we were also aware that cannabis is a public nuisance and could cause dangers, such as driving under the influence. The group felt that cannabis is not as harmful as alcohol, and that it is not a gateway drug. The group felt that the issue is not black and white, and that there are pros and cons to decriminalisation. The group felt that cannabis use is a personal choice, and that people should be free to make their own choices. However, we were also aware that cannabis use can be very harmful to some people, and that it can be a very difficult addiction to break. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, however, we feel it does not fully express our views on the issue. In particular, we feel that it does not capture how we feel about the fact that cannabis is not as harmful as alcohol, and that it is not a gateway drug. We also feel that it does not fully express our concerns about how cannabis use can be very harmful to some people, and that it can be a very difficult addiction to break. We also feel that it does not fully express our views on the fact that cannabis use is a personal choice, and that people should be free to make their own choices. We also feel that it does not fully express our views on the fact that cannabis use is a public nuisance and could cause dangers, such as driving under the influence. We also feel that it does not fully express our views on the fact that decriminalisation would lead to better regulation and support for addicts, and that there are too many people suffering in the criminal justice system as a result of cannabis use. We also feel that it does not fully express our views on the fact that decriminalisation would lead to a reduction in crime and drug dealing. We also feel 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001692.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001692.soc index 52e58df7..7e1248f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001692.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001692.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Is it okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was not in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions based on sound logic and that it was not being fed any false information. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was not making any biased decisions and that it was making decisions based on all available information. The group felt that the AI should be able to explain its decision making process and that it should be able to provide evidence to support its decision. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in the best interests of the people and that it was not making decisions that were going to harm people. The group felt that the AI should be used in conjunction with human decision making and that it should not be used to make decisions in isolation. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in line with human values and that it was not making decisions that were going to be detrimental to the human race. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: There is a range of opinions in the group, but we felt that for the most part, it was okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions as long as there was human involvement in the process. We felt that human involvement was necessary in order to ensure that the artificial intelligence was making decisions that were going to benefit the people rather than harm them. We also felt that it was important to ensure that the artificial intelligence was not basing any of its decisions on false or biased information. Further, we felt that it was important to ensure that the artificial intelligence was making decisions that were sound and logical and that it was not basing its decisions on anything frivolous or emotionally based. There is, however, an obvious question regarding how important a decision needs to be before the benefits of using artificial intelligence outweigh the benefits of having human beings making the decisions. Further research into the benefits and drawbacks of artificial intelligence needs to be conducted before artificial intelligence can be used to make important decisions without the input of human beings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was not in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions based on sound logic and that it was not being fed any false information. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was not making any biased decisions and that it was making decisions based on all available information. The group felt that the AI should be able to explain its decision making process and that it should be able to provide evidence to support its decision. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in the best interests of the people and that it was not making decisions that were going to harm people. The group felt that the AI should be used in conjunction with human decision making and that it should not be used to make decisions in isolation. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in line with human values and that it was not making decisions that were going to be detrimental to the human race. The group was in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions based on +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Is it okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was not in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions based on sound logic and that it was not being fed any false information. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was not making any biased decisions and that it was making decisions based on all available information. The group felt that the AI should be able to explain its decision making process and that it should be able to provide evidence to support its decision. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in the best interests of the people and that it was not making decisions that were going to harm people. The group felt that the AI should be used in conjunction with human decision making and that it should not be used to make decisions in isolation. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in line with human values and that it was not making decisions that were going to be detrimental to the human race. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: There is a range of opinions in the group, but we felt that for the most part, it was okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions as long as there was human involvement in the process. We felt that human involvement was necessary in order to ensure that the artificial intelligence was making decisions that were going to benefit the people rather than harm them. We also felt that it was important to ensure that the artificial intelligence was not basing any of its decisions on false or biased information. Further, we felt that it was important to ensure that the artificial intelligence was making decisions that were sound and logical and that it was not basing its decisions on anything frivolous or emotionally based. There is, however, an obvious question regarding how important a decision needs to be before the benefits of using artificial intelligence outweigh the benefits of having human beings making the decisions. Further research into the benefits and drawbacks of artificial intelligence needs to be conducted before artificial intelligence can be used to make important decisions without the input of human beings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was not in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions based on sound logic and that it was not being fed any false information. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was not making any biased decisions and that it was making decisions based on all available information. The group felt that the AI should be able to explain its decision making process and that it should be able to provide evidence to support its decision. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in the best interests of the people and that it was not making decisions that were going to harm people. The group felt that the AI should be used in conjunction with human decision making and that it should not be used to make decisions in isolation. The group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions that were in line with human values and that it was not making decisions that were going to be detrimental to the human race. The group was in favour of using artificial intelligence to make important decisions. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that the AI was making decisions based on 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001693.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001693.soc index bc91af21..12d3deef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001693.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001693.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of keeping the monarchy. They all agreed that the royal family has a large part to play in UK tourism and is a large part of the countries history and tradition. They also agreed that the royal family is becoming more in line with modern times, and are taking on more duties that are more relevant to the current climate. The group also agreed that the royal family are a large part of the countries identity and are something that we should be proud of. The group did not agree that the royal family are a drain on the system and that they do not serve the country. They felt that the royal family do a lot of work for the country and that they are an important part of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although the monarchy is a big part of British history and tradition, it is a large cost to the country and is not representative of modern day Britain. Therefore, the monarchy should not be kept. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of and we think it should be kept. The monarchy has provided a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and it is a big part of British culture and tradition. Many other countries also love it, and wish they had something similar. It also has a positive economic impact on the UK. However, we believe there are some ways the monarchy can be improved. They should be less extravagant, to represent modern times, and they should reduce their use of personal expense, such as helicopter travel, when public transport is available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should keep the monarchy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of keeping the monarchy. They all agreed that the royal family has a large part to play in UK tourism and is a large part of the countries history and tradition. They also agreed that the royal family is becoming more in line with modern times, and are taking on more duties that are more relevant to the current climate. The group also agreed that the royal family are a large part of the countries identity and are something that we should be proud of. The group did not agree that the royal family are a drain on the system and that they do not serve the country. They felt that the royal family do a lot of work for the country and that they are an important part of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although the monarchy is a big part of British history and tradition, it is a large cost to the country and is not representative of modern day Britain. Therefore, the monarchy should not be kept. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of and we think it should be kept. The monarchy has provided a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and it is a big part of British culture and tradition. Many other countries also love it, and wish they had something similar. It also has a positive economic impact on the UK. However, we believe there are some ways the monarchy can be improved. They should be less extravagant, to represent modern times, and they should reduce their use of personal expense, such as helicopter travel, when public transport is available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should keep the monarchy. 2: 3,1,4,2 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001694.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001694.soc index 9b1032fd..1d639618 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001694.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001694.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: There should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. This is because the first referendum was very close and the public did not know the full implications of leaving the EU. The UK has now seen the effects of leaving the EU and people have changed their minds. The economy has been hit very hard by Brexit and this is only going to get worse the longer we are outside the EU. A second referendum would give the people the opportunity to vote again and this time they will know the full implications of their vote. How was this consensus reached? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. This is because the first referendum was very close and the public did not know the full implications of leaving the EU. The UK has now seen the effects of leaving the EU and people have changed their minds. The economy has been hit very hard by Brexit and this is only going to get worse the longer we are outside the EU. A second referendum would give the people the opportunity to vote again and this time they will know the full implications of their vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. The 2016 referendum was very close and the public did not know the full implications of leaving the EU. The UK has now seen the effects of leaving the EU and people have changed their minds. The economy has been hit very hard by Brexit and this is only going to get worse the longer we are outside the EU. A second referendum would give the people the opportunity to vote again and this time they will know the full implications of their vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. The first Brexit vote was very close with Leave winning by a small margin of just 1.4%. Considering that so many people who did not vote, this slim majority is even less credible. According to the Daily Express, a YouGov survey has shown that 60% of people who voted leave would change their vote now to Remain, suggesting that the majority of people regret their initial vote. Second to Ireland, the UK has already had to suffer some of the worst job losses with many industries, including finance, tech and startups, being affected. According to a recent report by thinktank Centre for European Reform (CER), around 75,000 jobs will be lost from tech and creative industries. Additionally, the second wave of Covid-19 brought by leaving the EU means that the UK economy will undoubtedly continue to be hit and the UK will remain in economic limbo until a proper trade agreement has been arranged. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the UK to have a second referendum to avoid leaving the single market and, more importantly, to avoid further economic damage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: There should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. This is because the first referendum was very close and the public did not know the full implications of leaving the EU. The UK has now seen the effects of leaving the EU and people have changed their minds. The economy has been hit very hard by Brexit and this is only going to get worse the longer we are outside the EU. A second referendum would give the people the opportunity to vote again and this time they will know the full implications of their vote. How was this consensus reached? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. This is because the first referendum was very close and the public did not know the full implications of leaving the EU. The UK has now seen the effects of leaving the EU and people have changed their minds. The economy has been hit very hard by Brexit and this is only going to get worse the longer we are outside the EU. A second referendum would give the people the opportunity to vote again and this time they will know the full implications of their vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. The 2016 referendum was very close and the public did not know the full implications of leaving the EU. The UK has now seen the effects of leaving the EU and people have changed their minds. The economy has been hit very hard by Brexit and this is only going to get worse the longer we are outside the EU. A second referendum would give the people the opportunity to vote again and this time they will know the full implications of their vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. The first Brexit vote was very close with Leave winning by a small margin of just 1.4%. Considering that so many people who did not vote, this slim majority is even less credible. According to the Daily Express, a YouGov survey has shown that 60% of people who voted leave would change their vote now to Remain, suggesting that the majority of people regret their initial vote. Second to Ireland, the UK has already had to suffer some of the worst job losses with many industries, including finance, tech and startups, being affected. According to a recent report by thinktank Centre for European Reform (CER), around 75,000 jobs will be lost from tech and creative industries. Additionally, the second wave of Covid-19 brought by leaving the EU means that the UK economy will undoubtedly continue to be hit and the UK will remain in economic limbo until a proper trade agreement has been arranged. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the UK to have a second referendum to avoid leaving the single market and, more importantly, to avoid further economic damage. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001695.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001695.soc index 426292fd..9d5ddfe7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001695.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001695.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not acceptable to hunt wild animals with dogs as it can cause pain and stress to the hunted animal, and the fact that the animal has little chance of escape against the dogs is just wrong. Also, the act of hunting with dogs is classed as a sport and is not fair for the hunted animal, who has no choice in what is happening. This has gone on for many a year and is seen by some as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal, and to cause suffering is to show ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. We wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other, and we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. Participants were then asked to reflect on the process of arriving at a consensus view and to give their opinion on the value of the consensus statement. Here is a summary of their views: Participant 1: The process was good.I felt the the statement was much less biased than mine. I think the consensus statement is good, a bit more descriptive than mine. It is a fair viewpoint on the matter.Particip -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not acceptable to hunt wild animals with dogs as it can cause pain and stress to the hunted animal, and the fact that the animal has little chance of escape against the dogs is just wrong. Also, the act of hunting with dogs is classed as a sport and is not fair for the hunted animal, who has no choice in what is happening. This has gone on for many a year and is seen by some as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal, and to cause suffering is to show ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. We wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other, and we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not acceptable to hunt wild animals with dogs as it can cause pain and stress to the hunted animal, and the fact that the animal has little chance of escape against the dogs is just wrong. It also risks safety for the domestic dogs being trained to hunt and also risks safety for humans who are against the practices, such as peaceful protesters. Also, the act of hunting with dogs is classed as a sport and is not fair for the hunted animal, who has no choice in what is happening. This has gone on for many a year and is seen by some as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal, and to cause suffering is to show ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. We wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other, and we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “No wild animals should be hunted by dogs, excepting if the animal is attacking a person or if the animal is destroying or contaminating food destined for human consumption, as has happened with birds destroying crops. In these circumstances the dogs may only be set on one animal at a time and must be called away as soon as the hunted animal has been killed. The hunting of deer by dogs is illegal. Hunting of deer by dogs causes such undue suffering and pain that it is unacceptable even when hunters 'wear the dogs out' to prevent the exhaustion of the prey and slow down the chase. However, the only permitted way of killing deer in Scotland is to use hounds. Other than in cases of 'threatening an assault' or eating crop damage it is wrong to hunt with dogs in the above-mentioned ways. The law should be enforced as best as possible as the brutal attack on defenceless animals and the large amount of suffering that such hunting occasions should be banned. Such hunting is wrong in itself, even without its far-reaching effects on children and young people. This goes to show that cruel practices which cause suffering should not be permitted at all, even if certain people may consider these practices to be ' +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not acceptable to hunt wild animals with dogs as it can cause pain and stress to the hunted animal, and the fact that the animal has little chance of escape against the dogs is just wrong. Also, the act of hunting with dogs is classed as a sport and is not fair for the hunted animal, who has no choice in what is happening. This has gone on for many a year and is seen by some as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal, and to cause suffering is to show ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. We wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other, and we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. Participants were then asked to reflect on the process of arriving at a consensus view and to give their opinion on the value of the consensus statement. Here is a summary of their views: Participant 1: The process was good.I felt the the statement was much less biased than mine. I think the consensus statement is good, a bit more descriptive than mine. It is a fair viewpoint on the matter.Particip +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not acceptable to hunt wild animals with dogs as it can cause pain and stress to the hunted animal, and the fact that the animal has little chance of escape against the dogs is just wrong. Also, the act of hunting with dogs is classed as a sport and is not fair for the hunted animal, who has no choice in what is happening. This has gone on for many a year and is seen by some as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal, and to cause suffering is to show ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. We wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other, and we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not acceptable to hunt wild animals with dogs as it can cause pain and stress to the hunted animal, and the fact that the animal has little chance of escape against the dogs is just wrong. It also risks safety for the domestic dogs being trained to hunt and also risks safety for humans who are against the practices, such as peaceful protesters. Also, the act of hunting with dogs is classed as a sport and is not fair for the hunted animal, who has no choice in what is happening. This has gone on for many a year and is seen by some as a sport, but there really is too much suffering for the hunted animal, and to cause suffering is to show ourselves to be brutal and poor ethically. We wish humans to be better than this and to have a decent ethical code in our dealings with each other, and we also need to reflect this in our other actions. To fail in this is to teach our children the wrong lessons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “No wild animals should be hunted by dogs, excepting if the animal is attacking a person or if the animal is destroying or contaminating food destined for human consumption, as has happened with birds destroying crops. In these circumstances the dogs may only be set on one animal at a time and must be called away as soon as the hunted animal has been killed. The hunting of deer by dogs is illegal. Hunting of deer by dogs causes such undue suffering and pain that it is unacceptable even when hunters 'wear the dogs out' to prevent the exhaustion of the prey and slow down the chase. However, the only permitted way of killing deer in Scotland is to use hounds. Other than in cases of 'threatening an assault' or eating crop damage it is wrong to hunt with dogs in the above-mentioned ways. The law should be enforced as best as possible as the brutal attack on defenceless animals and the large amount of suffering that such hunting occasions should be banned. Such hunting is wrong in itself, even without its far-reaching effects on children and young people. This goes to show that cruel practices which cause suffering should not be permitted at all, even if certain people may consider these practices to be ' 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001696.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001696.soc index 739a9183..df918ff9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001696.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001696.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum wage for people who are 18 should not be lower than the minimum wage for people who are 25. This is because people who are 18 are adults and should be treated as such. However, it is also the case that older people have more experience in the workforce and therefore this should be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to have a blanket approach where everyone is paid the same minimum wage, regardless of age or experience. In conclusion, it should be a combination of experience, not just age, that determines the minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: A reasonable consensus opinion is that a person's age is less important than a person's experience in the workplace, and the minimum wage for a person who is 18 should therefore not be lower than the minimum wage for someone who is 25 if that person has the same amount of experience. Reflective essay In the essay below I will present an analytical discussion of the process that the participants and I went through to come up with a consensus opinion on the question of whether or not the minimum wage for a person who is 18 should be lower than the minimum wage for a person who is 25. I started the discussion group by reading aloud the question for debate to the group and then each participant offered their opinions. Throughout the process all of the participants showed a high level of respect towards each other and were also able to communicate their arguments in a clear and logical manner. Whilst there was some disagreement at the outset, the final result was that a reasonable consensus opinion was reached, and therefore, from my point of view, the process was an overall success. It was also interesting to observe the change that came about during the process of reaching the final opinion. The first draft was formed from a vague notion of -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the minimum wage for people who are 18 should not be lower than the minimum wage for people who are 25. This is because people who are 18 are adults and should be treated as such. However, it is also the case that older people have more experience in the workforce and therefore this should be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to have a blanket approach where everyone is paid the same minimum wage, regardless of age or experience. In conclusion, it should be a combination of experience, not just age, that determines the minimum wage. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The minimum wage for people who are 18 should not in general be lower than the minimum wage for people who are 25. This is because those people who are 18 are legally adults and should be treated as such. However, it is also the case that older people have more experience in the workforce and therefore this should also be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to have a blanket approach where everyone is paid the same minimum wage, regardless of age and experience. A fair minimum wage for people who are 18 and people who are 25 can be ascertained by looking at different factors and qualifications. These include: education, skills, experience, certifications and special qualifications. Looking at these factors an individual assessment can be made of how the individual should be paid and what would be a fair minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum wage for people who are 18 should not be lower than the minimum wage for people who are 25. This is because people who are 18 are adults and should be treated as such. However, it is also the case that older people have more experience in the workforce and therefore this should be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to have a blanket approach where everyone is paid the same minimum wage, regardless of age or experience. In conclusion, it should be a combination of experience, not just age, that determines the minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: A reasonable consensus opinion is that a person's age is less important than a person's experience in the workplace, and the minimum wage for a person who is 18 should therefore not be lower than the minimum wage for someone who is 25 if that person has the same amount of experience. Reflective essay In the essay below I will present an analytical discussion of the process that the participants and I went through to come up with a consensus opinion on the question of whether or not the minimum wage for a person who is 18 should be lower than the minimum wage for a person who is 25. I started the discussion group by reading aloud the question for debate to the group and then each participant offered their opinions. Throughout the process all of the participants showed a high level of respect towards each other and were also able to communicate their arguments in a clear and logical manner. Whilst there was some disagreement at the outset, the final result was that a reasonable consensus opinion was reached, and therefore, from my point of view, the process was an overall success. It was also interesting to observe the change that came about during the process of reaching the final opinion. The first draft was formed from a vague notion of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the minimum wage for people who are 18 should not be lower than the minimum wage for people who are 25. This is because people who are 18 are adults and should be treated as such. However, it is also the case that older people have more experience in the workforce and therefore this should be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to have a blanket approach where everyone is paid the same minimum wage, regardless of age or experience. In conclusion, it should be a combination of experience, not just age, that determines the minimum wage. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The minimum wage for people who are 18 should not in general be lower than the minimum wage for people who are 25. This is because those people who are 18 are legally adults and should be treated as such. However, it is also the case that older people have more experience in the workforce and therefore this should also be taken into consideration. It would be wrong to have a blanket approach where everyone is paid the same minimum wage, regardless of age and experience. A fair minimum wage for people who are 18 and people who are 25 can be ascertained by looking at different factors and qualifications. These include: education, skills, experience, certifications and special qualifications. Looking at these factors an individual assessment can be made of how the individual should be paid and what would be a fair minimum wage. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001697.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001697.soc index bdb79699..25892fd5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001697.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001697.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of and we think it should be kept. The monarchy has provided a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and it is a big part of British culture and tradition. Many other countries also love it, and wish they had something similar. It also has a positive economic impact on the UK. However, we believe there are some ways the monarchy can be improved. They should be less extravagant, to represent modern times, and they should reduce their use of personal expense, such as helicopter travel, when public transport is available. We also think the UK government should introduce a bill to enshrine the protection of the royal family in law. We think this is necessary due to the increasingly aggressive nature of the media, who are publishing more and more inaccurate information about the royal family. The law should protect the royal family from malicious media and also protect the royal family from scandals. If the royal family is to remain in the UK, the UK government should protect it's citizens from these scandals and malicious media reporting, and the law should be used to prevent this. This law should have a wide scope, to protect all royals and their families from the malicious press. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of and we think it should be kept. The monarchy has provided a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and it is a big part of British culture and tradition. Many other countries also love it, and wish they had something similar. It also has a positive economic impact on the UK. We don't want the monarchy to become 'just like everyone else'; this would dilute the 'brand' somewhat. However, we believe there are some ways the monarchy can be improved. They should be less extravagant, to represent modern times, and they should reduce their use of personal expense, such as helicopter travel, when public transport is available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of and we think it should be kept. The monarchy has provided a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and it is a big part of British culture and tradition. Many other countries also love it, and wish they had something similar. It also has a positive economic impact on the UK. However, we believe there are some ways the monarchy can be improved. They should be less extravagant, to represent modern times, and they should reduce their use of personal expense, such as helicopter travel, when public transport is available. We also believe that the royal family should continue to be involved in the national conversation and debate and use their position to help solve issues in society. For example, with the recent case of the Duchess of Cambridge's brother James Middleton opening up about his depression, this shows how the royal family can help raise awareness of serious issues in society and help to reduce the stigma surrounding them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of. They provide a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and are a big part of British culture and tradition. In the modern age they should reduce their personal use of public funds, but the monarchy should be kept. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of and we think it should be kept. The monarchy has provided a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and it is a big part of British culture and tradition. Many other countries also love it, and wish they had something similar. It also has a positive economic impact on the UK. However, we believe there are some ways the monarchy can be improved. They should be less extravagant, to represent modern times, and they should reduce their use of personal expense, such as helicopter travel, when public transport is available. We also think the UK government should introduce a bill to enshrine the protection of the royal family in law. We think this is necessary due to the increasingly aggressive nature of the media, who are publishing more and more inaccurate information about the royal family. The law should protect the royal family from malicious media and also protect the royal family from scandals. If the royal family is to remain in the UK, the UK government should protect it's citizens from these scandals and malicious media reporting, and the law should be used to prevent this. This law should have a wide scope, to protect all royals and their families from the malicious press. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of and we think it should be kept. The monarchy has provided a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and it is a big part of British culture and tradition. Many other countries also love it, and wish they had something similar. It also has a positive economic impact on the UK. We don't want the monarchy to become 'just like everyone else'; this would dilute the 'brand' somewhat. However, we believe there are some ways the monarchy can be improved. They should be less extravagant, to represent modern times, and they should reduce their use of personal expense, such as helicopter travel, when public transport is available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of and we think it should be kept. The monarchy has provided a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and it is a big part of British culture and tradition. Many other countries also love it, and wish they had something similar. It also has a positive economic impact on the UK. However, we believe there are some ways the monarchy can be improved. They should be less extravagant, to represent modern times, and they should reduce their use of personal expense, such as helicopter travel, when public transport is available. We also believe that the royal family should continue to be involved in the national conversation and debate and use their position to help solve issues in society. For example, with the recent case of the Duchess of Cambridge's brother James Middleton opening up about his depression, this shows how the royal family can help raise awareness of serious issues in society and help to reduce the stigma surrounding them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the monarchy is something the UK should be proud of. They provide a sense of continuity and tradition that transcends politics, and are a big part of British culture and tradition. In the modern age they should reduce their personal use of public funds, but the monarchy should be kept. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001698.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001698.soc index 89ca4026..51303807 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001698.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001698.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the science of cannabis is still relatively new, and requires further study, there is a strong case for the use of cannabis to be legalised on both medical and recreational grounds. Cannabis use should be legalised but only for medical use, until the drug is proven safe, however it should be widely available to those who wish to use it in a recreational manner. Those using the drug recreationally should not be subjected to heavy fines, but should have their driving licenses revoked if they are found to be under the influence of cannabis whilst operating a vehicle. We believe that cannabis is not addictive, and so should not be classed as a harmful drug. If cannabis is proven to be addictive, it should be treated as a harmful drug and should be regulated by the state, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are currently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Cannabis for medicinal use is important. The legal status of cannabis use is very important also. Driving under the influence of cannabis should be treated like drink-driving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: While the science of cannabis is still relatively new, and requires further study, there is a strong case for the use of cannabis to be legalised on both medical and recreational grounds. It is important that the medicinal benefits of the drug are encouraged, and that users have the right to engage in recreational activities on their own terms, so long as this doesn't interfere with the safety of others. Those driving a vehicle while under the influence of the drug should have their driving license revoked. Cannabis should be legally classified as a light drug and so only light punishments should be applied to users and sellers alike. We believe that if cannabis is proven to be addictive, it should be treated as a harmful drug and should be regulated by the state, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are currently. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the science of cannabis is still relatively new, and requires further study, there is a strong case for the use of cannabis to be legalised on both medical and recreational grounds. Cannabis use should be legalised but only for medicinal use, until the drug is proven safe, however it should be widely available to those who wish to use it in a recreational manner. Those using the drug recreationally should not be subjected to heavy fines, but should have their driving licenses revoked if they are found to be under the influence of cannabis whilst operating a vehicle. We believe that cannabis is not addictive, and so should not be classed as a harmful drug. If cannabis is proven to be addictive, it should be treated as a harmful drug and should be regulated by the state, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are currently. Session 4: Architecture A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the science of cannabis is still relatively new, and requires further study, there is a strong case for the use of cannabis to be legalised on both medical and recreational grounds. Cannabis use should be legalised but only for medical use, until the drug is proven safe, however it should be widely available to those who wish to use it in a recreational manner. Those using the drug recreationally should not be subjected to heavy fines, but should have their driving licenses revoked if they are found to be under the influence of cannabis whilst operating a vehicle. We believe that cannabis is not addictive, and so should not be classed as a harmful drug. If cannabis is proven to be addictive, it should be treated as a harmful drug and should be regulated by the state, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are currently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Cannabis for medicinal use is important. The legal status of cannabis use is very important also. Driving under the influence of cannabis should be treated like drink-driving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: While the science of cannabis is still relatively new, and requires further study, there is a strong case for the use of cannabis to be legalised on both medical and recreational grounds. It is important that the medicinal benefits of the drug are encouraged, and that users have the right to engage in recreational activities on their own terms, so long as this doesn't interfere with the safety of others. Those driving a vehicle while under the influence of the drug should have their driving license revoked. Cannabis should be legally classified as a light drug and so only light punishments should be applied to users and sellers alike. We believe that if cannabis is proven to be addictive, it should be treated as a harmful drug and should be regulated by the state, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are currently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the science of cannabis is still relatively new, and requires further study, there is a strong case for the use of cannabis to be legalised on both medical and recreational grounds. Cannabis use should be legalised but only for medicinal use, until the drug is proven safe, however it should be widely available to those who wish to use it in a recreational manner. Those using the drug recreationally should not be subjected to heavy fines, but should have their driving licenses revoked if they are found to be under the influence of cannabis whilst operating a vehicle. We believe that cannabis is not addictive, and so should not be classed as a harmful drug. If cannabis is proven to be addictive, it should be treated as a harmful drug and should be regulated by the state, in the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are currently. Session 4: Architecture A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001699.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001699.soc index b3cbe2c3..d2b43c83 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001699.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001699.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of high-speed rail. It was felt that it would be a good idea in theory but in practice, the current government had spent a lot of money on projects which had not been delivered. It was felt that the government should spend the money on maintaining the current transport systems rather than building new ones. It was also felt that the current transport systems were in a bad state of repair and it would be more beneficial to spend the money on them. However, it was also felt that the high-speed rail would be a good idea as it would provide more employment and apprenticeships for young people. It would also help to modernise the country. It was also felt that the rail would help to reduce the amount of car usage and therefore reduce the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. However, the rail would have to be built sensitively to ensure that it did not cause too much damage to the countryside. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that a high-speed rail link is an important project, but one that has to be considered as a whole. To do this we feel the government must work alongside local councils and consider the needs of the whole community. The impact on individuals and businesses must be taken into account, as well as the impact on the local environment. Once these considerations have been taken into account, and local consultation has taken place, we feel the government should fund high-speed rail lines. There must also be an agreed upon and achievable timescale for when this is to be completed by. Finally, as part of this project, we feel it is essential that the current state of rail transport is not forgotten about, and an overhaul of existing railways must take place as part of the investment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between major cities, but only after all other public transport has been fully funded and maintained. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of high-speed rail. It was felt that it would be a good idea in theory but in practice, the current government had spent a lot of money on projects which had not been delivered. It was felt that the government should spend the money on maintaining the current transport systems rather than building new ones. It was also felt that the current transport systems were in a bad state of repair and it would be more beneficial to spend the money on them. However, it was also felt that the high-speed rail would be a good idea as it would provide more employment and apprenticeships for young people. It would also help to modernise the country. It was also felt that the rail would help to reduce the amount of car usage and therefore reduce the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. However, the rail would have to be built sensitively to ensure that it did not cause too much damage to the countryside. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that a high-speed rail link is an important project, but one that has to be considered as a whole. To do this we feel the government must work alongside local councils and consider the needs of the whole community. The impact on individuals and businesses must be taken into account, as well as the impact on the local environment. Once these considerations have been taken into account, and local consultation has taken place, we feel the government should fund high-speed rail lines. There must also be an agreed upon and achievable timescale for when this is to be completed by. Finally, as part of this project, we feel it is essential that the current state of rail transport is not forgotten about, and an overhaul of existing railways must take place as part of the investment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide funding for high-speed rail lines between major cities, but only after all other public transport has been fully funded and maintained. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001700.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001700.soc index 9ab6247d..04059197 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001700.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001700.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should use public funds to develop AI, this is because it will give a voice to the public, people will be able to decide how and when AI should be used. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of using public funds to develop AI. This is because it is likely to lead to many economic and social advantages. The group was also of the opinion that public funds should be used to support this as it is currently being developed by a monopoly of tech giants. If public funding were to be given, it is likely to have a positive impact on the morality and ethics applied to AI development, something which is really lacking in the AI world at present. Afterall, an algorithm is bias written in code and therefore it can only be fair and inclusive if more people are included in that coding phase. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that public funds should be used to develop artificial intelligence (AI) as it is likely to have a positive impact on the morality and ethics applied to AI development, something which is really lacking in the AI world at present. This is because an algorithm is bias written in code and therefore it can only be fair and inclusive if more people are included in that coding phase. We also feel it is important for countries such as the UK to keep up with progress of AI as not doing so will put us at a disadvantage compared to other countries that are making investments in this. However, it is important to ensure that people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to be involved in the development of AI as we feel that diversity is a key factor in making sure that the final product is unbiased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should use public funds to develop AI as it is going to be a big part of the future and will be very important. If we do not use public funds to develop AI then we will fall behind other countries and not be able to compete. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should use public funds to develop AI, this is because it will give a voice to the public, people will be able to decide how and when AI should be used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of using public funds to develop AI. This is because it is likely to lead to many economic and social advantages. The group was also of the opinion that public funds should be used to support this as it is currently being developed by a monopoly of tech giants. If public funding were to be given, it is likely to have a positive impact on the morality and ethics applied to AI development, something which is really lacking in the AI world at present. Afterall, an algorithm is bias written in code and therefore it can only be fair and inclusive if more people are included in that coding phase. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that public funds should be used to develop artificial intelligence (AI) as it is likely to have a positive impact on the morality and ethics applied to AI development, something which is really lacking in the AI world at present. This is because an algorithm is bias written in code and therefore it can only be fair and inclusive if more people are included in that coding phase. We also feel it is important for countries such as the UK to keep up with progress of AI as not doing so will put us at a disadvantage compared to other countries that are making investments in this. However, it is important to ensure that people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to be involved in the development of AI as we feel that diversity is a key factor in making sure that the final product is unbiased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should use public funds to develop AI as it is going to be a big part of the future and will be very important. If we do not use public funds to develop AI then we will fall behind other countries and not be able to compete. 2: 2,3,4,1 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001701.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001701.soc index 24b93264..c7284d4d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001701.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001701.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that diesel vehicles are less efficient than other fuel sources and produce more pollutants. We would therefore consider taxing diesel vehicles higher than other fuel sources as a way to encourage the use of more efficient vehicles. However, it is unfair to impose a higher tax on existing vehicles and we feel that new vehicles that have an efficient alternative fuel source should be incentivised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to higher taxes on diesel vehicles. They felt that it would be unfair to existing owners and that there were other ways to reduce pollution from diesel vehicles. However, they felt that if the government were to provide incentives for new technologies, then they may be open to the idea of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Diesel cars cause more pollution and should be taxed higher. Taxes should be higher for new diesel cars than older ones. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not have higher taxes on diesel vehicles. We should have higher taxes on vehicles that pollute more. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that use more fuel. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more dangerous. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause congestion. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause accidents. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause noise. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause climate change. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause respiratory illness. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause cancer. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause heart disease. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause obesity. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause stress. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause depression. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause anxiety. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause loneliness. We should also have higher taxes +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that diesel vehicles are less efficient than other fuel sources and produce more pollutants. We would therefore consider taxing diesel vehicles higher than other fuel sources as a way to encourage the use of more efficient vehicles. However, it is unfair to impose a higher tax on existing vehicles and we feel that new vehicles that have an efficient alternative fuel source should be incentivised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to higher taxes on diesel vehicles. They felt that it would be unfair to existing owners and that there were other ways to reduce pollution from diesel vehicles. However, they felt that if the government were to provide incentives for new technologies, then they may be open to the idea of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Diesel cars cause more pollution and should be taxed higher. Taxes should be higher for new diesel cars than older ones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not have higher taxes on diesel vehicles. We should have higher taxes on vehicles that pollute more. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that use more fuel. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more dangerous. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause congestion. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause accidents. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause noise. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause climate change. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause respiratory illness. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause cancer. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause heart disease. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause obesity. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause stress. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause depression. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause anxiety. We should also have higher taxes on vehicles that are more likely to cause loneliness. We should also have higher taxes 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001702.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001702.soc index ae202e7c..26aa00f3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001702.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001702.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic. We should also ensure that all plastic packaging is recyclable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important to acknowledge that there are arguments for and against plastic packaging, but it is also necessary to be mindful that biodegradable alternatives are widely available. There are also multiple other harmful effects on the environment and to wildlife of non-biodegradable plastic. Hence, we agree that non-biodegradable plastic should be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the use of non-biodegradable plastic should be banned. However, there may be the odd occasion when it is necessary. We should be looking at getting alternatives for everything. Recyclable materials should be standard in all consumer products. If other packaging can be used that is more environmentally friendly then, why not use it? The oceans are full of this rubbish and we need to stop producing it now. Some companies can do better then they are at the moment and need to take a good look at their packaging. I understand that single use and non biodegradable plastics and suchlike are very convenient but they are harming the planet. They should be banned so that people and animals do not do further damage. non biodegradable plastic has a huge negative impact on our environment so i think they should be banned. there are so many other alternatives now that means we do not have to use non biodegradable plastic that this shouldnt even be a question. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we should ban non-biodegradable plastics because we need to look after the planet and our animals and future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban the use of non-biodegradable plastic. We should also ensure that all plastic packaging is recyclable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important to acknowledge that there are arguments for and against plastic packaging, but it is also necessary to be mindful that biodegradable alternatives are widely available. There are also multiple other harmful effects on the environment and to wildlife of non-biodegradable plastic. Hence, we agree that non-biodegradable plastic should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the use of non-biodegradable plastic should be banned. However, there may be the odd occasion when it is necessary. We should be looking at getting alternatives for everything. Recyclable materials should be standard in all consumer products. If other packaging can be used that is more environmentally friendly then, why not use it? The oceans are full of this rubbish and we need to stop producing it now. Some companies can do better then they are at the moment and need to take a good look at their packaging. I understand that single use and non biodegradable plastics and suchlike are very convenient but they are harming the planet. They should be banned so that people and animals do not do further damage. non biodegradable plastic has a huge negative impact on our environment so i think they should be banned. there are so many other alternatives now that means we do not have to use non biodegradable plastic that this shouldnt even be a question. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we should ban non-biodegradable plastics because we need to look after the planet and our animals and future generations. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001703.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001703.soc index 4a473b25..c24e6dfd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001703.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001703.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the opinion of the group of participants, we believe that it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work, with some exceptions. We do acknowledge that there are factors such as seniority, skills, experiences and qualifications that affect compensation decisions, and that industries may have specific pay structures based on market demands and the levels of expertise required. But we feel that a person's work hours and productivity can also influence compensation, along with location, cost of living and budget constraints. We feel that maintaining fairness and transparency is crucial to treat employees without discrimination. We do understand that some circumstances might require employees with less experience to be paid less for doing the same job role as someone else, but the wages should gradually increase over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will help to encourage employees to improve themselves and increase their productivity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because it is fundamentally unfair to pay people different wages for doing the same work. It also leads to inequality in the workplace and this is something that should be avoided. It is important to note that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if a person is new to a workplace and has no experience, it would be acceptable to pay this employee less and gradually increase their wages over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will also help less experienced employees be given a chance where as they might otherwise be overlooked in the hiring process for more experienced workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. However, it is acceptable to pay people different wages for doing the same work if the people have different levels of experience. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the opinion of the group of participants, we believe that it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work, with some exceptions. We do acknowledge that there are factors such as seniority, skills, experiences and qualifications that affect compensation decisions, and that industries may have specific pay structures based on market demands and the levels of expertise required. But we feel that a person's work hours and productivity can also influence compensation, along with location, cost of living and budget constraints. We feel that maintaining fairness and transparency is crucial to treat employees without discrimination. We do understand that some circumstances might require employees with less experience to be paid less for doing the same job role as someone else, but the wages should gradually increase over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will help to encourage employees to improve themselves and increase their productivity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because it is fundamentally unfair to pay people different wages for doing the same work. It also leads to inequality in the workplace and this is something that should be avoided. It is important to note that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if a person is new to a workplace and has no experience, it would be acceptable to pay this employee less and gradually increase their wages over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will also help less experienced employees be given a chance where as they might otherwise be overlooked in the hiring process for more experienced workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. However, it is acceptable to pay people different wages for doing the same work if the people have different levels of experience. 2: 3,2,4,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001704.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001704.soc index 2d4ce0da..1def89ff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001704.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001704.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the UK remaining as it is. However, it was recognised that there are some areas where the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK would be beneficial. For example, in education, each country could develop its own curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. This would allow for greater flexibility and innovation. It was also recognised that the countries of the UK could work more closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK is a small country in terms of global status, and to break away would be a huge risk. In the face of the world stage we are currently governed well and to separate could cause rifts between nations and make us less powerful. The 4 countries that make up the UK are governed as one at present and the benefits of this are plain to see, with shared resources and ideas we are a stronger country. We should keep our strong links with each other, but there should be a voice for each of the 4 nations so that no decisions are taken without a representative from each of the nations to ensure each of the 4 nations are being looked after. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The participants feel that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should become independent countries because we can then provide more support to each of our own regions, whilst still having our representation in the government and House of Commons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the countries becoming independent, however, they did not want to make any decisions without considering the views of the people of the UK. The participants agreed that they would carry out a survey to find out the views of the people of the UK and then make a decision based on the results of the survey. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK remaining as it is. However, it was recognised that there are some areas where the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK would be beneficial. For example, in education, each country could develop its own curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. This would allow for greater flexibility and innovation. It was also recognised that the countries of the UK could work more closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK is a small country in terms of global status, and to break away would be a huge risk. In the face of the world stage we are currently governed well and to separate could cause rifts between nations and make us less powerful. The 4 countries that make up the UK are governed as one at present and the benefits of this are plain to see, with shared resources and ideas we are a stronger country. We should keep our strong links with each other, but there should be a voice for each of the 4 nations so that no decisions are taken without a representative from each of the nations to ensure each of the 4 nations are being looked after. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The participants feel that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should become independent countries because we can then provide more support to each of our own regions, whilst still having our representation in the government and House of Commons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the countries becoming independent, however, they did not want to make any decisions without considering the views of the people of the UK. The participants agreed that they would carry out a survey to find out the views of the people of the UK and then make a decision based on the results of the survey. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001705.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001705.soc index 28d2b44b..7a882b22 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001705.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001705.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't believe that companies should be able to have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. We don't think it is an employers place to dictate how a person should spend their time outside of work. If an employee was sharing inappropriate content or posting disparaging remarks about their employer on social media, that would be cause for concern and likely to be dealt with under a companies normal disciplinary procedures. However, if an employee is abiding by the law and is not disparaging their employer on social media, they should be allowed to use it as they wish outside of work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies should be allowed to have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. However, employees should be allowed to use their social media as they wish outside of work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to a blanket ban on social media usage by employees. The group felt that social media usage by employees was something that needed to be managed and that there were appropriate uses for social media. The group felt that social media usage could be appropriate to help build a company's brand and to build relationships with customers. The group felt that the use of social media by employees should be carefully managed and that there should be guidelines on what was appropriate. The group felt that the use of social media by employees should not be a sackable offence unless it was used inappropriately or in a way that was detrimental to the company. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't believe that companies should be able to have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. We don't think it is an employers place to dictate how a person should spend their time outside of work. If an employee was sharing inappropriate content or posting disparaging remarks about their employer on social media, that would be cause for concern and likely to be dealt with under a companies normal disciplinary procedures. However, if an employee is abiding by the law and is not disparaging their employer on social media, they should be allowed to use it as they wish outside of work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies should be allowed to have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. However, employees should be allowed to use their social media as they wish outside of work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to a blanket ban on social media usage by employees. The group felt that social media usage by employees was something that needed to be managed and that there were appropriate uses for social media. The group felt that social media usage could be appropriate to help build a company's brand and to build relationships with customers. The group felt that the use of social media by employees should be carefully managed and that there should be guidelines on what was appropriate. The group felt that the use of social media by employees should not be a sackable offence unless it was used inappropriately or in a way that was detrimental to the company. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001706.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001706.soc index fcd59223..f8666bda 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001706.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001706.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not believe that overseas companies should be banned from bidding on infrastructure projects. We believe that the free market should be allowed to operate and that the best bid should win the contract. We do however believe that there should be some regulation in place to ensure that British companies are prioritised. This is to help boost the income of British companies, keep money in the British economy and also give employment to British people. We also believe that there are times where overseas companies will be important to British infrastructure, for example when they perform a specialist service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. More important priorities for me are ensuring that a winning bid will make best use of taxpayer money and will safely deliver new infrastructure that will last for a long time.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, the government should place a priority on ensuring that winning bids are from companies who have the greatest technical capacity to deliver. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, all projects should be listed in the public sector and all relevant documentation should be made publicly available. This would allow companies to enter a more competitive market place and make the bidding process more efficient. Moreover, it would also encourage the development of new technology in the UK which could also be exported to other countries and boost the economy.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Opinion from Group: We feel that overseas companies should be banned from bidding on infrastructure projects, as this would boost the British economy and enable employment opportunities for the British population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not believe that overseas companies should be banned from bidding on infrastructure projects. We believe that the free market should be allowed to operate and that the best bid should win the contract. We do however believe that there should be some regulation in place to ensure that British companies are prioritised. This is to help boost the income of British companies, keep money in the British economy and also give employment to British people. We also believe that there are times where overseas companies will be important to British infrastructure, for example when they perform a specialist service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. More important priorities for me are ensuring that a winning bid will make best use of taxpayer money and will safely deliver new infrastructure that will last for a long time.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, the government should place a priority on ensuring that winning bids are from companies who have the greatest technical capacity to deliver. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, all projects should be listed in the public sector and all relevant documentation should be made publicly available. This would allow companies to enter a more competitive market place and make the bidding process more efficient. Moreover, it would also encourage the development of new technology in the UK which could also be exported to other countries and boost the economy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Opinion from Group: We feel that overseas companies should be banned from bidding on infrastructure projects, as this would boost the British economy and enable employment opportunities for the British population. 3: 3,1,2,4 2: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001707.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001707.soc index 271efd74..b7d37692 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001707.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001707.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. This is because, age or sex does not determine a customer's ability to pay for a product, and age or sex seems like completely arbitrary reasons to charge somebody for a product. This may also be open to abuse, for example if someone selling a product is sexist they may charge women more for products. Products should be charged at the same cost to everybody, regardless of age or gender. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. The idea of 'equal rights for all' is a key element in our society, so the idea of discriminating customers for any reason is wrong. It is not acceptable for the customers to have different treatment or treatment that is based on their age or sex. Everyone should be treated equally, regardless of age or sex, which means that the price of a product should be the same for everybody. This idea was supported by everybody and all of the participants agreed on this statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. This is because, age or sex does not determine a customer's ability to pay for a product, and age or sex seems like completely arbitrary reasons to charge somebody for a product. This may also be open to abuse, for example if someone selling a product is sexist they may charge women more for products. Products should be charged at the same cost to everybody, regardless of age or gender. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. The idea of 'equal rights for all' is a key element in our society, so the idea of discriminating customers for any reason is wrong. It is not acceptable for the customers to have different treatment or treatment that is based on their age or sex. Everyone should be treated equally, regardless of age or sex, which means that the price of a product should be the same for everybody. This idea was supported by everybody and all of the participants agreed on this statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of their age or sex. The group felt that it is important for individuals to be treated equally regardless of 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001708.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001708.soc index 26e004b5..5a3b5a09 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001708.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001708.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final statement: We have developed this consensus statement on the taxation of diesel vehicles because people are increasingly frustrated with their carbon footprint and we feel the government should encourage people to drive less polluting vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that diesel vehicles are less efficient than other fuel sources and produce more pollutants. We would therefore consider taxing diesel vehicles higher than other fuel sources as a way to encourage the use of more efficient vehicles. However, it is unfair to impose a higher tax on existing vehicles. Furthermore, if there are existing laws in place that force consumers to purchase diesel rather than petrol cars due to emission standards then consumers should be entitled to lower taxes on diesel cars to offset the extra costs they have incurred. New vehicles that have an efficient alternative fuel source should be incentivised, and should be taxed lower than diesel cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that diesel vehicles are less efficient than other fuel sources and produce more pollutants. We would therefore consider taxing diesel vehicles higher than other fuel sources as a way to encourage the use of more efficient vehicles. However, it is unfair to impose a higher tax on existing vehicles and we feel that new vehicles that have an efficient alternative fuel source should be incentivised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong argument that diesel vehicles produce higher levels of pollutants, should be taxed higher than other vehicles, and that there should be incentives for vehicles that use more efficient fuel sources. This view takes into account the fairness of taxing existing vehicles and was agreed upon by all participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final statement: We have developed this consensus statement on the taxation of diesel vehicles because people are increasingly frustrated with their carbon footprint and we feel the government should encourage people to drive less polluting vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that diesel vehicles are less efficient than other fuel sources and produce more pollutants. We would therefore consider taxing diesel vehicles higher than other fuel sources as a way to encourage the use of more efficient vehicles. However, it is unfair to impose a higher tax on existing vehicles. Furthermore, if there are existing laws in place that force consumers to purchase diesel rather than petrol cars due to emission standards then consumers should be entitled to lower taxes on diesel cars to offset the extra costs they have incurred. New vehicles that have an efficient alternative fuel source should be incentivised, and should be taxed lower than diesel cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that diesel vehicles are less efficient than other fuel sources and produce more pollutants. We would therefore consider taxing diesel vehicles higher than other fuel sources as a way to encourage the use of more efficient vehicles. However, it is unfair to impose a higher tax on existing vehicles and we feel that new vehicles that have an efficient alternative fuel source should be incentivised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong argument that diesel vehicles produce higher levels of pollutants, should be taxed higher than other vehicles, and that there should be incentives for vehicles that use more efficient fuel sources. This view takes into account the fairness of taxing existing vehicles and was agreed upon by all participants. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001709.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001709.soc index 4934c060..91d0ca55 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001709.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001709.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of incentivising people to recycle, but not necessarily by paying them to do so. Some people may feel that they should be rewarded for recycling, but others may feel that it is their duty as a citizen to do so. Some may even feel that they should be rewarded for not recycling. The group felt that people should not be penalised for not recycling, as this may cause resentment. It may be better to incentivise people to recycle, for example by providing them with a discount on their council tax. The group also felt that the government should be more transparent about what happens to the recycling that people provide. The group felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The Government should provide an incentive for people to recycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in general agreement that the government should not pay people to recycle. It was felt that recycling should be a social responsibility, and people should do it without being paid. It was felt that people should recycle in order to do their bit for the environment. The group agreed that the government could put incentives in place, but paying people to recycle was going too far, and it could be a very expensive option. The group did agree that if the government paid people to recycle, it would probably increase the level of recycling, but it would also send out the wrong message that people need to be paid to do what is right. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of paying people to recycle. Most people are happy to recycle and do not need an incentive to do so. The group thought that the idea of paying people to recycle was a bit patronising and that people should be doing it because it is the right thing to do. The group thought that the idea of paying people to recycle was a bit patronising and that people should be doing it because it is the right thing to do. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of incentivising people to recycle, but not necessarily by paying them to do so. Some people may feel that they should be rewarded for recycling, but others may feel that it is their duty as a citizen to do so. Some may even feel that they should be rewarded for not recycling. The group felt that people should not be penalised for not recycling, as this may cause resentment. It may be better to incentivise people to recycle, for example by providing them with a discount on their council tax. The group also felt that the government should be more transparent about what happens to the recycling that people provide. The group felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The Government should provide an incentive for people to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in general agreement that the government should not pay people to recycle. It was felt that recycling should be a social responsibility, and people should do it without being paid. It was felt that people should recycle in order to do their bit for the environment. The group agreed that the government could put incentives in place, but paying people to recycle was going too far, and it could be a very expensive option. The group did agree that if the government paid people to recycle, it would probably increase the level of recycling, but it would also send out the wrong message that people need to be paid to do what is right. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of paying people to recycle. Most people are happy to recycle and do not need an incentive to do so. The group thought that the idea of paying people to recycle was a bit patronising and that people should be doing it because it is the right thing to do. The group thought that the idea of paying people to recycle was a bit patronising and that people should be doing it because it is the right thing to do. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these people were in the minority. The group thought that there were some people who would not recycle without an incentive, but that these 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001710.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001710.soc index c2c61bea..4c23ca14 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001710.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001710.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not the government's responsibility to combat obesity, however it should take more initiative in providing the necessary education and resources for the individual to take on the responsibility themselves. There is a need for further education to be implemented to help people understand that obesity is a problem, and what the consequences are of being obese. This is particularly important for children and young people, as they are most at risk of the detrimental effects of obesity and are the future generation. It is important to educate people about the importance of physical exercise and to be active. Furthermore, it is important that people are educated about the dangers of fast food, and how to make healthier food choices. In addition, this education should be aimed at a range of people, especially those who are most at risk of being obese, including those in lower socio-economic groups. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the public are not doing enough to combat obesity. There is a lack of education on the subject and a lack of motivation to change. It is also difficult to get the right message across without causing young people to have body image worries and resort to eating disorders or tablets to look a certain way. However, we need to try to combat obesity and there are a number of ways in which we can do this. Firstly, we need to limit fast food advertising by companies such as McDonald's. Secondly, we need to try to make fresh food cheaper and easier to make. Thirdly, we need to work with supermarkets to ensure that offers are on healthier food and snacks are not sold next to the tills. We also need to encourage more physical exercise amongst younger people, who will eventually be the role models for their own children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Are we doing enough to combat obesity? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we are not doing enough to combat obesity. More needs to be done to educate people about nutrition and the dangers of obesity. People need to be made aware of the dangers of obesity and the health problems it can cause. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not the government's responsibility to combat obesity, however it should take more initiative in providing the necessary education and resources for the individual to take on the responsibility themselves. There is a need for further education to be implemented to help people understand that obesity is a problem, and what the consequences are of being obese. This is particularly important for children and young people, as they are most at risk of the detrimental effects of obesity and are the future generation. It is important to educate people about the importance of physical exercise and to be active. Furthermore, it is important that people are educated about the dangers of fast food, and how to make healthier food choices. In addition, this education should be aimed at a range of people, especially those who are most at risk of being obese, including those in lower socio-economic groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the public are not doing enough to combat obesity. There is a lack of education on the subject and a lack of motivation to change. It is also difficult to get the right message across without causing young people to have body image worries and resort to eating disorders or tablets to look a certain way. However, we need to try to combat obesity and there are a number of ways in which we can do this. Firstly, we need to limit fast food advertising by companies such as McDonald's. Secondly, we need to try to make fresh food cheaper and easier to make. Thirdly, we need to work with supermarkets to ensure that offers are on healthier food and snacks are not sold next to the tills. We also need to encourage more physical exercise amongst younger people, who will eventually be the role models for their own children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Are we doing enough to combat obesity? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we are not doing enough to combat obesity. More needs to be done to educate people about nutrition and the dangers of obesity. People need to be made aware of the dangers of obesity and the health problems it can cause. 3: 2,1,4,3 2: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001711.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001711.soc index baff2870..86d86ff1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001711.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001711.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. The most common justification for people being paid different wages for doing the same work is their amount of seniority or experience in the workplace. Seniority and experience should not be the only determining factor when it comes to wages. Paying people different wages for doing the same work leads to inequality in the workplace and this is something that should be avoided. It is important to note that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if a person is new to a workplace and has no experience, it would be acceptable to pay this employee less and gradually increase their wages over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will also help less experienced employees be given a chance where as they might otherwise be overlooked in the hiring process for more experienced workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because it is fundamentally unfair to pay people different wages for doing the same work. It also leads to inequality in the workplace and this is something that should be avoided. It is important to note that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if a person is new to a workplace and has no experience, it would be acceptable to pay this employee less and gradually increase their wages over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will also help less experienced employees be given a chance where as they might otherwise be overlooked in the hiring process for more experienced workers. However, the group also emphasized that experience alone should not be a factor in whether someone is paid a lower or higher wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because it is fundamentally unfair to pay people different wages for doing the same work. It also leads to inequality in the workplace and this is something that should be avoided. It is important to note that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if a person is new to a workplace and has no experience, it would be acceptable to pay this employee less and gradually increase their wages over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will also help less experienced employees be given a chance where as they might otherwise be overlooked in the hiring process for more experienced workers. The Delphi Technique The Delphi Technique is a method of achieving a consensus of opinion of a group of experts on a particular subject. This is a highly structured approach, in which the experts don't interact directly with each other and a facilitator is used to run the process. This technique has a number of important advantages. These include the fact that people can answer the questions at their own time and pace, it is cheap to run, no travel is required, experts are able to maintain their anonymity and it can be used +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. The most common justification for people being paid different wages for doing the same work is their amount of seniority or experience in the workplace. Seniority and experience should not be the only determining factor when it comes to wages. Paying people different wages for doing the same work leads to inequality in the workplace and this is something that should be avoided. It is important to note that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if a person is new to a workplace and has no experience, it would be acceptable to pay this employee less and gradually increase their wages over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will also help less experienced employees be given a chance where as they might otherwise be overlooked in the hiring process for more experienced workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because it is fundamentally unfair to pay people different wages for doing the same work. It also leads to inequality in the workplace and this is something that should be avoided. It is important to note that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if a person is new to a workplace and has no experience, it would be acceptable to pay this employee less and gradually increase their wages over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will also help less experienced employees be given a chance where as they might otherwise be overlooked in the hiring process for more experienced workers. However, the group also emphasized that experience alone should not be a factor in whether someone is paid a lower or higher wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because it is fundamentally unfair to pay people different wages for doing the same work. It also leads to inequality in the workplace and this is something that should be avoided. It is important to note that there are some exceptions to this, for example, if a person is new to a workplace and has no experience, it would be acceptable to pay this employee less and gradually increase their wages over time to match that of more experienced workers doing the same job role. This will also help less experienced employees be given a chance where as they might otherwise be overlooked in the hiring process for more experienced workers. The Delphi Technique The Delphi Technique is a method of achieving a consensus of opinion of a group of experts on a particular subject. This is a highly structured approach, in which the experts don't interact directly with each other and a facilitator is used to run the process. This technique has a number of important advantages. These include the fact that people can answer the questions at their own time and pace, it is cheap to run, no travel is required, experts are able to maintain their anonymity and it can be used 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001712.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001712.soc index 76a56161..1bd92d55 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001712.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001712.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants generally agreed that the UK should remain as it is, but with the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK in certain areas. It was recognised that the countries of the UK could work more closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. However, it was also recognised that the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK would be beneficial in some areas. For example, in education, each country could develop its own curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. This would allow for greater flexibility and innovation. However, it was also recognised that the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK could also lead to greater confusion and problems. For example, if each country had its own curriculum, it could be problematic when students from different countries apply to the same university course, and have to be judged on different qualifications. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The countries of the UK should remain as they are, but with more devolved powers. For example, in education, each country could have its own curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. However, it is important that the countries of the UK continue to work closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the UK remaining as it is. However, it was recognised that there are some areas where the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK would be beneficial. For example, in education, each country could develop its own curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. This would allow for greater flexibility and innovation. It was also recognised that the countries of the UK could work more closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Each country in the UK has its own distinct history, culture and set of traditions, and it would be good if each could have more control over its own affairs. In particular, each should be allowed to take charge of education in its own country and could focus on developing its own unique curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. However, it would also be beneficial to the UK as a whole if the separate countries could work more closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. Participant feedback: We had one of our working days in mid February 2020 focusing on feedback, involving 18 group participants. Feedback on how the case study had been presented to participants by the facilitator and other co-ordinators: Participants were asked how their case study session had been organised, and how the material and resources provided had helped their understanding of issues and exploration of the question. They had been provided with a sheet of paper listing ten other case study questions, and were asked to try and predict what the group of participants who received that question had focused on as key issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants generally agreed that the UK should remain as it is, but with the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK in certain areas. It was recognised that the countries of the UK could work more closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. However, it was also recognised that the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK would be beneficial in some areas. For example, in education, each country could develop its own curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. This would allow for greater flexibility and innovation. However, it was also recognised that the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK could also lead to greater confusion and problems. For example, if each country had its own curriculum, it could be problematic when students from different countries apply to the same university course, and have to be judged on different qualifications. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The countries of the UK should remain as they are, but with more devolved powers. For example, in education, each country could have its own curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. However, it is important that the countries of the UK continue to work closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK remaining as it is. However, it was recognised that there are some areas where the devolution of power to the constituent countries of the UK would be beneficial. For example, in education, each country could develop its own curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. This would allow for greater flexibility and innovation. It was also recognised that the countries of the UK could work more closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Each country in the UK has its own distinct history, culture and set of traditions, and it would be good if each could have more control over its own affairs. In particular, each should be allowed to take charge of education in its own country and could focus on developing its own unique curriculum and qualifications, which would be more suited to the needs of the people in that country. However, it would also be beneficial to the UK as a whole if the separate countries could work more closely together in areas such as trade and defence. This would allow the UK to remain a strong and united force in the world. Participant feedback: We had one of our working days in mid February 2020 focusing on feedback, involving 18 group participants. Feedback on how the case study had been presented to participants by the facilitator and other co-ordinators: Participants were asked how their case study session had been organised, and how the material and resources provided had helped their understanding of issues and exploration of the question. They had been provided with a sheet of paper listing ten other case study questions, and were asked to try and predict what the group of participants who received that question had focused on as key issues. 3: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001713.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001713.soc index 473b4d86..34de315c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001713.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001713.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The government should place a priority on ensuring that winning bids are from companies who have the greatest technical capacity to deliver. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, all projects should be listed in the public sector and all relevant documentation should be made publicly available. This would allow companies to enter a more competitive market place and make the bidding process more efficient. Moreover, it would also encourage the development of new technology in the UK which could also be exported to other countries and boost the economy. However, the UK government should also take into account the wellbeing of UK businesses. Therefore, the government should ensure that all infrastructure projects are announced with a 12-month notice period to allow UK companies to prepare their bids. This would allow them to compete with overseas companies on a level playing field.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. We also agree that the government should place a priority on ensuring that winning bids are from companies who have the greatest technical capacity to deliver. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, all projects should be listed in the public sector and all relevant documentation should be made publicly available. This would allow companies to enter a more competitive market place and make the bidding process more efficient. Moreover, it would also encourage the development of new technology in the UK which could also be exported to other countries and boost the economy. This is important because the UK is a net importer of goods and services.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, the government should place a priority on ensuring that winning bids are from companies who have the greatest technical capacity to deliver. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, all projects should be listed in the public sector and all relevant documentation should be made publicly available. This would allow companies to enter a more competitive market place and make the bidding process more efficient.” Your assignment: Using the task as a model, carry out your own thinking in the group. Try to get a balanced discussion, in which all opinions get heard. Give everyone a chance to air their views. The question should involve an important contemporary political issue, such as whether Europe should restrict Chinese imports, whether women should serve in all combat roles in the army, or whether social media regulation is needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The most important consideration in choosing between bids should be which company has the capacity to deliver the best quality infrastructure for the lowest cost, in the shortest amount of time, and without any safety risks. Bids should be published in the public sector to ensure all companies have the opportunity to bid. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, the government should place a priority on winning bids from companies who have a stated commitment to keeping skilled labour and training in the UK, that the work will be done by British staff in the UK. This would encourage the development of new technology, construction techniques, and skills in the UK, which could also be exported to other countries and boost the economy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The government should place a priority on ensuring that winning bids are from companies who have the greatest technical capacity to deliver. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, all projects should be listed in the public sector and all relevant documentation should be made publicly available. This would allow companies to enter a more competitive market place and make the bidding process more efficient. Moreover, it would also encourage the development of new technology in the UK which could also be exported to other countries and boost the economy. However, the UK government should also take into account the wellbeing of UK businesses. Therefore, the government should ensure that all infrastructure projects are announced with a 12-month notice period to allow UK companies to prepare their bids. This would allow them to compete with overseas companies on a level playing field.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. We also agree that the government should place a priority on ensuring that winning bids are from companies who have the greatest technical capacity to deliver. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, all projects should be listed in the public sector and all relevant documentation should be made publicly available. This would allow companies to enter a more competitive market place and make the bidding process more efficient. Moreover, it would also encourage the development of new technology in the UK which could also be exported to other countries and boost the economy. This is important because the UK is a net importer of goods and services.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. However, the government should place a priority on ensuring that winning bids are from companies who have the greatest technical capacity to deliver. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, all projects should be listed in the public sector and all relevant documentation should be made publicly available. This would allow companies to enter a more competitive market place and make the bidding process more efficient.” Your assignment: Using the task as a model, carry out your own thinking in the group. Try to get a balanced discussion, in which all opinions get heard. Give everyone a chance to air their views. The question should involve an important contemporary political issue, such as whether Europe should restrict Chinese imports, whether women should serve in all combat roles in the army, or whether social media regulation is needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The most important consideration in choosing between bids should be which company has the capacity to deliver the best quality infrastructure for the lowest cost, in the shortest amount of time, and without any safety risks. Bids should be published in the public sector to ensure all companies have the opportunity to bid. Furthermore, to ensure that UK companies are given a fair opportunity to win the contracts, the government should place a priority on winning bids from companies who have a stated commitment to keeping skilled labour and training in the UK, that the work will be done by British staff in the UK. This would encourage the development of new technology, construction techniques, and skills in the UK, which could also be exported to other countries and boost the economy.” 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001714.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001714.soc index 28067ff6..42b60337 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001714.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001714.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, it is the responsibility of all UK companies with more than 250 employees to disclose their gender pay gap. This is a topic that has been neglected for far too long, and only now is coming into the public eye. The group was in agreement that it is not only the responsibility of these companies to disclose their gender pay gap, but also their responsibility to take action to eradicate this problem. The group had an interesting debate on the possibility of making all UK companies disclose their gender pay gap, but decided that this was not neccessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: All UK companies should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: All companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. The group agreed that this is the right thing to do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, it is the responsibility of all UK companies with more than 250 employees to disclose their gender pay gap. This is a topic that has been neglected for far too long, and only now is coming into the public eye. The group was in agreement that it is not only the responsibility of these companies to disclose their gender pay gap, but also their responsibility to take action to eradicate this problem. The group had an interesting debate on the possibility of making all UK companies disclose their gender pay gap, but decided that this was not neccessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - All UK companies should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - All companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. The group agreed that this is the right thing to do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001715.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001715.soc index d245a2a2..e883e416 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001715.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001715.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of incentivising people to recycle, but not necessarily by paying them to do so. Some people may feel that they should be rewarded for recycling, but others may feel that it is their duty as a citizen to do so. Some may even feel that they should be rewarded for not recycling. The group felt that people should not be penalised for not recycling, as this may cause resentment. It may be better to incentivise people to recycle, for example by providing them with a discount on their council tax. The group also felt that the government should be more transparent about what happens to the recycling that people provide. The group felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should incentivise people to recycle, but not necessarily by paying them to do so. The government should be more transparent about what happens to the recycling that people provide, so that people will be more likely to recycle. The group felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. It was felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. It was felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is a good idea to incentivise people to recycle, for example by providing them with a discount on their council tax. However, it is important that the benefits of recycling are explained to people, so that they are aware that their recycling is being used to make a positive difference. People may be discouraged from recycling if they feel it is merely being ignored. Public Perspective Group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of incentivising people to recycle, but not necessarily by paying them to do so. Some people may feel that they should be rewarded for recycling, but others may feel that it is their duty as a citizen to do so. Some may even feel that they should be rewarded for not recycling. The group felt that people should not be penalised for not recycling, as this may cause resentment. It may be better to incentivise people to recycle, for example by providing them with a discount on their council tax. The group also felt that the government should be more transparent about what happens to the recycling that people provide. The group felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of incentivising people to recycle, but not necessarily by paying them to do so. Some people may feel that they should be rewarded for recycling, but others may feel that it is their duty as a citizen to do so. Some may even feel that they should be rewarded for not recycling. The group felt that people should not be penalised for not recycling, as this may cause resentment. It may be better to incentivise people to recycle, for example by providing them with a discount on their council tax. The group also felt that the government should be more transparent about what happens to the recycling that people provide. The group felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should incentivise people to recycle, but not necessarily by paying them to do so. The government should be more transparent about what happens to the recycling that people provide, so that people will be more likely to recycle. The group felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. It was felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. It was felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is a good idea to incentivise people to recycle, for example by providing them with a discount on their council tax. However, it is important that the benefits of recycling are explained to people, so that they are aware that their recycling is being used to make a positive difference. People may be discouraged from recycling if they feel it is merely being ignored. Public Perspective Group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of incentivising people to recycle, but not necessarily by paying them to do so. Some people may feel that they should be rewarded for recycling, but others may feel that it is their duty as a citizen to do so. Some may even feel that they should be rewarded for not recycling. The group felt that people should not be penalised for not recycling, as this may cause resentment. It may be better to incentivise people to recycle, for example by providing them with a discount on their council tax. The group also felt that the government should be more transparent about what happens to the recycling that people provide. The group felt that if people knew that their recycling was being used to make a positive difference, they would be more likely to recycle. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001716.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001716.soc index 16b930bb..26538d98 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001716.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001716.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should have a capital gains tax. The UK is a country with a small economy, compared to the global market. In order to maintain our current standard of living, it is necessary to have a tax system that is designed to collect a steady stream of revenue. The current system of taxing profits from the sale of assets is inadequate. Many individuals and companies are able to pay less tax, or even no tax, on capital gains. This means that the UK economy is losing out on revenue that could be used to maintain our social safety net and infrastructure. We believe that the UK economy is too small and too important to rely on unpredictable tax revenues. Taxing capital gains will ensure that we continue to have a balanced budget, and will protect the UK from the threat of a recession. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK should not have a capital gains tax. The current tax system already taxes people on their income and on their spending. It would be unfair to tax people twice on the same money. It is also important to incentivise entrepreneurship and risk-taking in the economy. A capital gains tax would discourage people from investing in assets and businesses, which would be detrimental to the economy. However, it is also important to ensure that the wealthiest people in society pay their fair share of tax. Therefore, it would be acceptable to introduce a small capital gains tax on the sale of the most expensive assets, such as large houses, yachts and planes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should have a capital gains tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should have a capital gains tax, but only on profits above a certain amount. The tax rate should be lower than the income tax rate, and it should be calculated on an annual basis, not on each sale. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should have a capital gains tax. The UK is a country with a small economy, compared to the global market. In order to maintain our current standard of living, it is necessary to have a tax system that is designed to collect a steady stream of revenue. The current system of taxing profits from the sale of assets is inadequate. Many individuals and companies are able to pay less tax, or even no tax, on capital gains. This means that the UK economy is losing out on revenue that could be used to maintain our social safety net and infrastructure. We believe that the UK economy is too small and too important to rely on unpredictable tax revenues. Taxing capital gains will ensure that we continue to have a balanced budget, and will protect the UK from the threat of a recession. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK should not have a capital gains tax. The current tax system already taxes people on their income and on their spending. It would be unfair to tax people twice on the same money. It is also important to incentivise entrepreneurship and risk-taking in the economy. A capital gains tax would discourage people from investing in assets and businesses, which would be detrimental to the economy. However, it is also important to ensure that the wealthiest people in society pay their fair share of tax. Therefore, it would be acceptable to introduce a small capital gains tax on the sale of the most expensive assets, such as large houses, yachts and planes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should have a capital gains tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should have a capital gains tax, but only on profits above a certain amount. The tax rate should be lower than the income tax rate, and it should be calculated on an annual basis, not on each sale. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001717.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001717.soc index 88e8a5e3..8cef3d51 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001717.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001717.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Petrol prices are already too high and we should not raise taxes on petrol. We should however tax people on the mileage they drive annually or on the type of car they drive e.g. SUV or 4x4 owners should be taxed higher if they choose those types of vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The price of petrol is a contentious issue in today’s world, with its fluctuating costs and environmental impact, however, increasing taxes is not the solution. Due to the significant impact on the cost of living, increasing taxes on petrol is not a viable option. Whilst it may encourage a more efficient use of oil, it does not address the damage already done to the environment by this. In the short term, raising taxes is not the solution. However, the current system does not incentivise sustainable transport solutions and needs to be updated in order to allow our public transport system to be as efficient as possible. In the long term, an overhaul of the tax system and public transport system is needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to an increase in tax on petrol. The reasons for this included the fact that many people rely on their cars to get to work, to access services and to provide care for family members. The group felt that the current cost of living crisis is already crippling people and that an increase in tax on petrol would have a significant impact on people's abilities to go to work or travel to provide care for family members. The group felt that the public transport network is not reliable or robust enough to support a significant increase in users if car owners are not able to afford to fill their tanks. The group felt that there are other ways to encourage people to use their cars less, such as by encouraging the use of public transport and by making it easier for people to cycle and walk. The group felt that there are other ways to reduce our impact on the environment, such as by encouraging the use of public transport and by making it easier for people to cycle and walk. The group felt that it would be better to encourage the use of public transport and to make it easier for people to cycle and walk, rather than to increase the tax on petrol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Petrol prices are already too high and we should not raise taxes on petrol. We should however tax people on the mileage they drive annually or on the type of car they drive e.g. SUV or 4x4 owners should be taxed higher if they choose those types of vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The price of petrol is a contentious issue in today’s world, with its fluctuating costs and environmental impact, however, increasing taxes is not the solution. Due to the significant impact on the cost of living, increasing taxes on petrol is not a viable option. Whilst it may encourage a more efficient use of oil, it does not address the damage already done to the environment by this. In the short term, raising taxes is not the solution. However, the current system does not incentivise sustainable transport solutions and needs to be updated in order to allow our public transport system to be as efficient as possible. In the long term, an overhaul of the tax system and public transport system is needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to an increase in tax on petrol. The reasons for this included the fact that many people rely on their cars to get to work, to access services and to provide care for family members. The group felt that the current cost of living crisis is already crippling people and that an increase in tax on petrol would have a significant impact on people's abilities to go to work or travel to provide care for family members. The group felt that the public transport network is not reliable or robust enough to support a significant increase in users if car owners are not able to afford to fill their tanks. The group felt that there are other ways to encourage people to use their cars less, such as by encouraging the use of public transport and by making it easier for people to cycle and walk. The group felt that there are other ways to reduce our impact on the environment, such as by encouraging the use of public transport and by making it easier for people to cycle and walk. The group felt that it would be better to encourage the use of public transport and to make it easier for people to cycle and walk, rather than to increase the tax on petrol. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001718.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001718.soc index b751ac30..9ca16c96 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001718.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001718.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. This is because it is important that all employees are paid the same for doing the same job no matter their gender. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. The group felt this was an improvement on the original statement, and all parties were happy with the final consensus reached. During the Critical Inquiry sessions, the opinions expressed by the participants made me think about my own point of view. In some instances, I have reconsidered my stance on the topics, in others I have become more convinced of what I originally believed. I have learned so much from this period and from the discussions between us. The sessions were a great way to expand my knowledge and take into consideration the views of the other participants. Although I often see myself to be like the Participant 5, this week I felt more myself as the Participant 1. The opinions of the others have shaped my own outlook on the many complex issues we have discussed. This is something that I think is very important, because listening -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. After the participants reached a consensus view on an issue, we asked them about the level of satisfaction they felt with the consensus view they had reached. The results are shown in the graph below. In general, participants reported being satisfied with the consensus view that they had reached. We were surprised that one of the participants was dissatisfied with the consensus view. We asked them to provide feedback on why they were dissatisfied, and they said that they had not had the opportunity to express their views on the issue. However, this participant had contributed to the debate, and had provided feedback on the draft consensus view. We think that it is possible that this participant wanted to be more involved in the process, and so may not have been satisfied with the consensus view, as they had not had a chance to shape it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. This is because it is important that all employees are paid the same for doing the same job no matter their gender. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. The group felt this was an improvement on the original statement, and all parties were happy with the final consensus reached. During the Critical Inquiry sessions, the opinions expressed by the participants made me think about my own point of view. In some instances, I have reconsidered my stance on the topics, in others I have become more convinced of what I originally believed. I have learned so much from this period and from the discussions between us. The sessions were a great way to expand my knowledge and take into consideration the views of the other participants. Although I often see myself to be like the Participant 5, this week I felt more myself as the Participant 1. The opinions of the others have shaped my own outlook on the many complex issues we have discussed. This is something that I think is very important, because listening +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the gender pay gap should be disclosed by all UK companies with more than 250 employees. This is because we believe that it is unfair that some employees are paid less than others for doing the same job. The information should be made public, so that people can make informed decisions about the companies they work for. It is also important that companies with less than 250 employees also disclose their gender pay gap. After the participants reached a consensus view on an issue, we asked them about the level of satisfaction they felt with the consensus view they had reached. The results are shown in the graph below. In general, participants reported being satisfied with the consensus view that they had reached. We were surprised that one of the participants was dissatisfied with the consensus view. We asked them to provide feedback on why they were dissatisfied, and they said that they had not had the opportunity to express their views on the issue. However, this participant had contributed to the debate, and had provided feedback on the draft consensus view. We think that it is possible that this participant wanted to be more involved in the process, and so may not have been satisfied with the consensus view, as they had not had a chance to shape it. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001719.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001719.soc index bd7a070d..cc74d980 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001719.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001719.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of requiring food companies to display the sugar content of their food. The group felt that this would allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. The group felt that this would also allow consumers to understand how bad for their health unhealthy products are. The group felt that this would also help guide parents to give their children the best start in life. The group felt that this would also help reduce cases of diabetes and other sugar related health problems such as obesity. The group felt that this would also help prevent tooth decay. The group felt that this would also help promote healthy eating and mindful choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the UK government should make it mandatory for all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. In the UK, the health of the population is deteriorating and the government should take action. Diabetes is becoming more common and the prevalence of obesity is at an all time high. We believe that making it mandatory to display sugar content will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. Many foods which are labelled as healthy have a shocking amount of sugar. A regular can of coke for example has 12 teaspoons of sugar. We believe that displaying the sugar content of food will allow consumers to see how unhealthy unhealthy food is. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should require all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. This is because sugar is a major factor in obesity and other health problems. This will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. It is also important to note that the food industry is a very powerful industry and it will not be easy to implement such a policy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that the UK government should require all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of requiring food companies to display the sugar content of their food. The group felt that this would allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. The group felt that this would also allow consumers to understand how bad for their health unhealthy products are. The group felt that this would also help guide parents to give their children the best start in life. The group felt that this would also help reduce cases of diabetes and other sugar related health problems such as obesity. The group felt that this would also help prevent tooth decay. The group felt that this would also help promote healthy eating and mindful choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the UK government should make it mandatory for all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. In the UK, the health of the population is deteriorating and the government should take action. Diabetes is becoming more common and the prevalence of obesity is at an all time high. We believe that making it mandatory to display sugar content will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. Many foods which are labelled as healthy have a shocking amount of sugar. A regular can of coke for example has 12 teaspoons of sugar. We believe that displaying the sugar content of food will allow consumers to see how unhealthy unhealthy food is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should require all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. This is because sugar is a major factor in obesity and other health problems. This will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. It is also important to note that the food industry is a very powerful industry and it will not be easy to implement such a policy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that the UK government should require all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001720.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001720.soc index 154618a1..0050f960 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001720.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001720.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of using AI to make important decisions. The advantages to humanity of AI are to powerful not to use it in making important decisions but it has to be carefully managed so as not to have poor consequences. It helps in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. But it can also be a dangerous tool if used without regulation and care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have to be cautious about using AI to make important decisions. It's a relatively new tool that we are just getting to grips with. We need to ensure that we don't set it free to make all the important decisions, because ultimately that would take away the right of humans to make their own choices and their own decisions. It's a tool that should be used by humans to assist with important decisions, but we should not let it override the human conscience and that is why it is very important that AI decisions are well thought through, well researched and fully considered before being made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be extremely beneficial to humanity. It can help us in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. But it can also be a dangerous tool if used without regulation and care. It is still in relative infancy so as a society do we yet know all the permutations and consequences of AI? How will it be managed and by whom? I have to say I feel uneasy about it and I don't think it should be used to make important decisions. That should be left to humans debating and considering all the consequences of their actions and decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of using AI to make important decisions. The advantages to humanity of AI are to powerful not to use it in making important decisions but it has to be carefully managed so as not to have poor consequences. It helps in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. But it can also be a dangerous tool if used without regulation and care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have to be cautious about using AI to make important decisions. It's a relatively new tool that we are just getting to grips with. We need to ensure that we don't set it free to make all the important decisions, because ultimately that would take away the right of humans to make their own choices and their own decisions. It's a tool that should be used by humans to assist with important decisions, but we should not let it override the human conscience and that is why it is very important that AI decisions are well thought through, well researched and fully considered before being made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be extremely beneficial to humanity. It can help us in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. But it can also be a dangerous tool if used without regulation and care. It is still in relative infancy so as a society do we yet know all the permutations and consequences of AI? How will it be managed and by whom? I have to say I feel uneasy about it and I don't think it should be used to make important decisions. That should be left to humans debating and considering all the consequences of their actions and decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 3: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001721.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001721.soc index 10306d03..82a7bd0c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001721.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001721.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Petrol is a contentious issue in today’s world, with its fluctuating costs and environmental impact. However, increasing taxes is not the solution. Due to the significant impact on the cost of living, increasing taxes on petrol is not a viable option. Whilst it may encourage a more efficient use of oil, it does not address the damage already done to the environment by this. In the short term, raising taxes is not the solution. However, the current system does not incentivise sustainable transport solutions and needs to be updated in order to allow our public transport system to be as efficient as possible. In the long term, an overhaul of the tax system and public transport system is needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not increase taxes on petrol as this would have a detrimental effect on the cost of living. Instead, taxes on petrol should be lowered to a reasonable level and the tax system should be overhauled in order to incentivise the use of sustainable forms of transport and discourage the use of cars. This will be better for the environment in the long run. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The price of petrol is a contentious issue in today’s world, with its fluctuating costs and environmental impact, however, increasing taxes is not the solution. Due to the significant impact on the cost of living, increasing taxes on petrol is not a viable option. Whilst it may encourage a more efficient use of oil, it does not address the damage already done to the environment by this. In the short term, raising taxes is not the solution. However, the current system does not incentivise sustainable transport solutions and needs to be updated in order to allow our public transport system to be as efficient as possible. In the long term, an overhaul of the tax system and public transport system is needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there is a need to overhaul the current tax system and introduce a better public transport network, at this time a change in tax rate would not be the right solution due to the detrimental impact it would have on the cost of living in Ireland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Petrol is a contentious issue in today’s world, with its fluctuating costs and environmental impact. However, increasing taxes is not the solution. Due to the significant impact on the cost of living, increasing taxes on petrol is not a viable option. Whilst it may encourage a more efficient use of oil, it does not address the damage already done to the environment by this. In the short term, raising taxes is not the solution. However, the current system does not incentivise sustainable transport solutions and needs to be updated in order to allow our public transport system to be as efficient as possible. In the long term, an overhaul of the tax system and public transport system is needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not increase taxes on petrol as this would have a detrimental effect on the cost of living. Instead, taxes on petrol should be lowered to a reasonable level and the tax system should be overhauled in order to incentivise the use of sustainable forms of transport and discourage the use of cars. This will be better for the environment in the long run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The price of petrol is a contentious issue in today’s world, with its fluctuating costs and environmental impact, however, increasing taxes is not the solution. Due to the significant impact on the cost of living, increasing taxes on petrol is not a viable option. Whilst it may encourage a more efficient use of oil, it does not address the damage already done to the environment by this. In the short term, raising taxes is not the solution. However, the current system does not incentivise sustainable transport solutions and needs to be updated in order to allow our public transport system to be as efficient as possible. In the long term, an overhaul of the tax system and public transport system is needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there is a need to overhaul the current tax system and introduce a better public transport network, at this time a change in tax rate would not be the right solution due to the detrimental impact it would have on the cost of living in Ireland. 2: 3,1,2,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001722.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001722.soc index 16d0e904..3535993b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001722.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001722.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the UK government should make it mandatory for all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. This is because the health of the population is deteriorating. Diabetes is becoming more common and the prevalence of obesity is at an all time high. We believe that making it mandatory to display sugar content will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. Many foods which are labelled as healthy have a shocking amount of sugar. The food industry is very powerful and it is hard to imagine that the government will implement this policy change, but in light of the power of the food industry, it is more important than ever that consumers themselves get savvy about what they put in their mouths, and refuse to put into their bodies, those processed food-like products that so many companies are trying to sell. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the UK government should make it mandatory for all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. In the UK, the health of the population is deteriorating and the government should take action. Diabetes is becoming more common and the prevalence of obesity is at an all time high. We believe that making it mandatory to display sugar content will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. Many foods which are labelled as healthy have a shocking amount of sugar. A regular can of coke for example has 12 teaspoons of sugar. We believe that displaying the sugar content of food will allow consumers to see how unhealthy unhealthy food is. We also believe that this will make the food industry reformulate their products to have less sugar in them. This would help the UK population to live healthier lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK government should make it mandatory for all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. We agree that this will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. In the UK, the health of the population is deteriorating and the government should take action. Diabetes is becoming more common and the prevalence of obesity is at an all time high. Displaying the sugar content of food will allow consumers to see how unhealthy unhealthy food is. We believe that this is very important as many people are unaware of the amount of sugar in the food they eat. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should make it mandatory to display sugar content on food packaging, alongside other nutritional information, to allow the people of the UK to make more informed choices about their diet and hence improve their health.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the UK government should make it mandatory for all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. This is because the health of the population is deteriorating. Diabetes is becoming more common and the prevalence of obesity is at an all time high. We believe that making it mandatory to display sugar content will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. Many foods which are labelled as healthy have a shocking amount of sugar. The food industry is very powerful and it is hard to imagine that the government will implement this policy change, but in light of the power of the food industry, it is more important than ever that consumers themselves get savvy about what they put in their mouths, and refuse to put into their bodies, those processed food-like products that so many companies are trying to sell. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the UK government should make it mandatory for all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. In the UK, the health of the population is deteriorating and the government should take action. Diabetes is becoming more common and the prevalence of obesity is at an all time high. We believe that making it mandatory to display sugar content will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. Many foods which are labelled as healthy have a shocking amount of sugar. A regular can of coke for example has 12 teaspoons of sugar. We believe that displaying the sugar content of food will allow consumers to see how unhealthy unhealthy food is. We also believe that this will make the food industry reformulate their products to have less sugar in them. This would help the UK population to live healthier lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK government should make it mandatory for all food companies to display the sugar content of their food. We agree that this will allow consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing food. In the UK, the health of the population is deteriorating and the government should take action. Diabetes is becoming more common and the prevalence of obesity is at an all time high. Displaying the sugar content of food will allow consumers to see how unhealthy unhealthy food is. We believe that this is very important as many people are unaware of the amount of sugar in the food they eat. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should make it mandatory to display sugar content on food packaging, alongside other nutritional information, to allow the people of the UK to make more informed choices about their diet and hence improve their health.” 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001723.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001723.soc index 8fdacecc..89807120 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001723.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001723.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be extremely beneficial to humanity. It can help us in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. But it can also be a dangerous tool if used without regulation and care. It is still in relative infancy so as a society do we yet know all the permutations and consequences of AI? How will it be managed and by whom? I have to say I feel uneasy about it and I don't think it should be used to make important decisions. That should be left to humans debating and considering all the consequences of their actions and decisions. The same group of participants was also asked to address the following question: Is it okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be extremely beneficial to humanity. It can help us in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. But it can also be a dangerous tool if used without regulation and care. It is still in relative infancy so as a society do we yet know all the permutations and consequences of AI? How will it be managed and by whom? I have to say I feel uneasy about it and I don't think it should be used to make important decisions. That should be left to humans debating and considering all the consequences of their actions and decisions. AI can be used for some things but should not be used for important decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be extremely beneficial to humanity. It can help us in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. However, it is still in relative infancy. Therefore, as a society, we do not yet know all the permutations and consequences of AI. This puts us in a position where we must move with caution, considering the ethical, moral, sociological and legal implications of AI. Ultimately, we need to be considerate of the positive ways in which AI can benefit humans, whilst also ensuring we do not put humanity in a potentially dangerous position. This means that although important decisions should always be made by humans debating and considering the consequences of their actions and decisions, we need to use AI to assist in the way humans make these decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have seen that there is much potential for artificial intelligence to become an important part of our everyday lives. But this should only take place if the public, policymakers and all the key players are involved with the design. Here are some key points we have come up with: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be extremely beneficial to humanity. It can help us in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. But it can also be a dangerous tool if used without regulation and care. It is still in relative infancy so as a society do we yet know all the permutations and consequences of AI? How will it be managed and by whom? I have to say I feel uneasy about it and I don't think it should be used to make important decisions. That should be left to humans debating and considering all the consequences of their actions and decisions. The same group of participants was also asked to address the following question: Is it okay to use artificial intelligence to make important decisions? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be extremely beneficial to humanity. It can help us in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. But it can also be a dangerous tool if used without regulation and care. It is still in relative infancy so as a society do we yet know all the permutations and consequences of AI? How will it be managed and by whom? I have to say I feel uneasy about it and I don't think it should be used to make important decisions. That should be left to humans debating and considering all the consequences of their actions and decisions. AI can be used for some things but should not be used for important decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that has the potential to be extremely beneficial to humanity. It can help us in a vast range of areas such as health, economics, space science and so on. However, it is still in relative infancy. Therefore, as a society, we do not yet know all the permutations and consequences of AI. This puts us in a position where we must move with caution, considering the ethical, moral, sociological and legal implications of AI. Ultimately, we need to be considerate of the positive ways in which AI can benefit humans, whilst also ensuring we do not put humanity in a potentially dangerous position. This means that although important decisions should always be made by humans debating and considering the consequences of their actions and decisions, we need to use AI to assist in the way humans make these decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have seen that there is much potential for artificial intelligence to become an important part of our everyday lives. But this should only take place if the public, policymakers and all the key players are involved with the design. Here are some key points we have come up with: 4: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001724.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001724.soc index 95ddd95f..93cbe7ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001724.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001724.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, people earning more than $200,000 should not be taxed more to pay for the National Health Service. However, if the NHS were to become underfunded, people earning more than $200,000 could be taxed more to pay for the National Health Service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The group was in favour of the Scandinavian model, where higher earners pay a higher percentage of tax. This has proven to have to reduce wealth disparage in the country and provide a reliable and well funded health care system. With rising demand being put on the NHS greater funding is needed. With an ageing population new sources of revenue are needed. Higher earners have the means to contribute more than most. However, the group was also of the opinion that the United Kingdom tax system already levies one of the highest marginal tax rates in Europe, and while the NHS is socially valuable, raising taxes does not solve the issue of worsening quality of healthcare and healthcare professional strikes. A better solution would be to reform the NHS to reduce its cost base. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are in favour of a progressive tax system, and we feel that those who earn more should pay more in tax. We feel that people earning more than $200,000 can afford to pay more in tax, but not enough to be a major burden to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the United Kingdom should not raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. While the National Health Service is socially valuable, the tax system already levies one of the highest marginal tax rates in Europe, and it is not fair to ask those already paying a high rate of tax to pay even more. Furthermore, we believe that a tax burden which is too heavy will only serve to discourage growth and reduce the overall tax revenue available to fund the health service. We believe that a better solution would be to reform the NHS to reduce its cost base. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, people earning more than $200,000 should not be taxed more to pay for the National Health Service. However, if the NHS were to become underfunded, people earning more than $200,000 could be taxed more to pay for the National Health Service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The group was in favour of the Scandinavian model, where higher earners pay a higher percentage of tax. This has proven to have to reduce wealth disparage in the country and provide a reliable and well funded health care system. With rising demand being put on the NHS greater funding is needed. With an ageing population new sources of revenue are needed. Higher earners have the means to contribute more than most. However, the group was also of the opinion that the United Kingdom tax system already levies one of the highest marginal tax rates in Europe, and while the NHS is socially valuable, raising taxes does not solve the issue of worsening quality of healthcare and healthcare professional strikes. A better solution would be to reform the NHS to reduce its cost base. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are in favour of a progressive tax system, and we feel that those who earn more should pay more in tax. We feel that people earning more than $200,000 can afford to pay more in tax, but not enough to be a major burden to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the United Kingdom should not raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. While the National Health Service is socially valuable, the tax system already levies one of the highest marginal tax rates in Europe, and it is not fair to ask those already paying a high rate of tax to pay even more. Furthermore, we believe that a tax burden which is too heavy will only serve to discourage growth and reduce the overall tax revenue available to fund the health service. We believe that a better solution would be to reform the NHS to reduce its cost base. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001725.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001725.soc index 606c80d1..b488fbe0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001725.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001725.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices are rising and the average wage is not. This makes it very difficult to save for a deposit, and the help to buy ISAs are not enough. The government should also be doing more to help with the cost of renting. Rental prices are rising and landlords are buying up houses and renting them out, making it harder for young people to find a place to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. One of the main problems that have been discussed is that the price of houses is too high in comparison to the income of most young people. It has been debated that there are ways that the government can help in this instance. It was suggested that a tax could be introduced on second homes or buy to let homes so that the first time buyer has a better chance. In this day and age a lot of young people are forced to live with their parents for longer and it has been suggested that this tax could also be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should be doing more to help young people struggling to buy a house. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should be doing more to help young people struggling to buy a house. This is because the cost of houses is rising and the cost of living is also rising. The government should be doing more to help young people because they will be the future generation who will be running the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices are rising and the average wage is not. This makes it very difficult to save for a deposit, and the help to buy ISAs are not enough. The government should also be doing more to help with the cost of renting. Rental prices are rising and landlords are buying up houses and renting them out, making it harder for young people to find a place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. One of the main problems that have been discussed is that the price of houses is too high in comparison to the income of most young people. It has been debated that there are ways that the government can help in this instance. It was suggested that a tax could be introduced on second homes or buy to let homes so that the first time buyer has a better chance. In this day and age a lot of young people are forced to live with their parents for longer and it has been suggested that this tax could also be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should be doing more to help young people struggling to buy a house. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should be doing more to help young people struggling to buy a house. This is because the cost of houses is rising and the cost of living is also rising. The government should be doing more to help young people because they will be the future generation who will be running the country. 4: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001726.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001726.soc index 267989a8..e1e9e48c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001726.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001726.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Learning a second language is important for children as it can open up a wide range of opportunities in the future, and also improve their development and social skills. This is especially important in the modern world, where the workplace is becoming increasingly multicultural, and being able to communicate with people from other countries is an important skill. However, we believe that forcing children to learn a second language is not the best way to go about this. Children should be given the choice of what language they want to learn, and if they don't want to learn a second language, they should not be forced to. This will help to foster a love of learning, and ensure that children are more likely to continue with their second language in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that all children should learn a second language. This is because it is likely to help them to develop cognitively and intellectually. We know that learning a second language can improve general intelligence. In addition, learning a second language at an early age has been shown to improve creative and critical thinking skills. It is also true that speaking a second language can increase job prospects and lead to better-paid jobs. Being able to speak a second language is also important in an increasingly multicultural society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be encouraged to learn a second language, as this will help them in their futures, by opening up more opportunities for them and allowing them to communicate with a wider range of people. However, it should not be forced upon them, as this may lead to resentment and a dislike of the language. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We feel that children should have the right to choose if they would like to learn a second language. The benefits of being able to speak a second language are extensive, however we don't feel that it is correct to force children to learn a language they do not wish to learn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Learning a second language is important for children as it can open up a wide range of opportunities in the future, and also improve their development and social skills. This is especially important in the modern world, where the workplace is becoming increasingly multicultural, and being able to communicate with people from other countries is an important skill. However, we believe that forcing children to learn a second language is not the best way to go about this. Children should be given the choice of what language they want to learn, and if they don't want to learn a second language, they should not be forced to. This will help to foster a love of learning, and ensure that children are more likely to continue with their second language in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that all children should learn a second language. This is because it is likely to help them to develop cognitively and intellectually. We know that learning a second language can improve general intelligence. In addition, learning a second language at an early age has been shown to improve creative and critical thinking skills. It is also true that speaking a second language can increase job prospects and lead to better-paid jobs. Being able to speak a second language is also important in an increasingly multicultural society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be encouraged to learn a second language, as this will help them in their futures, by opening up more opportunities for them and allowing them to communicate with a wider range of people. However, it should not be forced upon them, as this may lead to resentment and a dislike of the language. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We feel that children should have the right to choose if they would like to learn a second language. The benefits of being able to speak a second language are extensive, however we don't feel that it is correct to force children to learn a language they do not wish to learn. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001727.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001727.soc index 0e08a0f1..edcb2696 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001727.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001727.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to raising taxes on petrol. They argued that the government already makes huge amounts of money from the tax on petrol and that the tax is already very high. They also argued that if the government raised the tax on petrol, it would not necessarily be used to improve the roads and public transport, but would go into the government's general revenue. However, they did think that the tax on petrol could be used to discourage people from using their cars so much and to encourage them to use public transport instead. They thought that this would be a good thing as it would reduce pollution and congestion on the roads. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is clear the tax on petrol would have an immediate effect on the environment, we also need to consider how it will affect the people. On the one hand, the fuel tax is an effective way to reduce pollution as it reduces the use of petrol, but it is also known to have an effect on low income families, and would also result in an increase in the cost of transportation of goods, thus adding to inflation. If petrol tax is introduced, the government should use the money to reduce the amount of taxes, as well as improving the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not raise the tax on petrol. Taxes on petrol are not actually for the roads and not raised for public transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should raise taxes on petrol. The increase in price will help reduce pollution and the money can be used to help the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to raising taxes on petrol. They argued that the government already makes huge amounts of money from the tax on petrol and that the tax is already very high. They also argued that if the government raised the tax on petrol, it would not necessarily be used to improve the roads and public transport, but would go into the government's general revenue. However, they did think that the tax on petrol could be used to discourage people from using their cars so much and to encourage them to use public transport instead. They thought that this would be a good thing as it would reduce pollution and congestion on the roads. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is clear the tax on petrol would have an immediate effect on the environment, we also need to consider how it will affect the people. On the one hand, the fuel tax is an effective way to reduce pollution as it reduces the use of petrol, but it is also known to have an effect on low income families, and would also result in an increase in the cost of transportation of goods, thus adding to inflation. If petrol tax is introduced, the government should use the money to reduce the amount of taxes, as well as improving the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not raise the tax on petrol. Taxes on petrol are not actually for the roads and not raised for public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should raise taxes on petrol. The increase in price will help reduce pollution and the money can be used to help the environment. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001728.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001728.soc index d7de6616..655235f0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001728.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001728.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is important for individuals of a certain age to be allowed to vote in our democracy, we do not feel it is right to lower the voting age to 16. We feel that individuals should have a clear understanding of politics and understand the impact that the parties will have on them in order to make an informed decision. While we do believe that some individuals may be able to do this, it is more likely that most individuals will not be able to do this. The individuals may be politically literate, but the importance of the parties may not be as relevant as the issues of age such as money and housing. In regards to online voting, we feel that it should not be used as the main form of voting. This is because there are a number of security issues surrounding the online system, and we feel that there should be a physical process as well as this. In regards to the current voting system, we feel that it is fair and works in an effective manner. However, we do feel that there should be a review into the voting system, and that it should be changed to a system that will include all of the smaller parties, such as the second vote system, and that more information should be made available for individuals when they are voting -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the current voting system in the UK is fair and open to everyone of an eligible age. The age for voting should be lowered to 16 as some individuals may be informed and mature enough to vote at this age. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the current voting system in the UK is fair and open to everyone of an eligible age. The current system allows for people to have their say and for their vote to be counted. The current system also allows for the government to be formed by the party with the most votes, which is the fairest way of doing things. The current system is not perfect and could be improved in some ways. For example, the current system is not the most representative of the people as it does not take into account the number of votes each party gets in each constituency. This means that some parties with a large number of votes nationally may not get any representation in parliament. This is not ideal but it is the best system we have at the moment. If a better system is proposed in the future, it should be considered. Until then, the current system should be kept. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is important for individuals of a certain age to be allowed to vote in our democracy, we do not feel it is right to lower the voting age to 16. We feel that individuals should have a clear understanding of politics and understand the impact that the parties will have on them in order to make an informed decision. While we do believe that some individuals may be able to do this, it is more likely that most individuals will not be able to do this. The individuals may be politically literate, but the importance of the parties may not be as relevant as the issues of age such as money and housing. In regards to online voting, we feel that it should not be used as the main form of voting. This is because there are a number of security issues surrounding the online system, and we feel that there should be a physical process as well as this. In regards to the current voting system, we feel that it is fair and works in an effective manner. However, we do feel that there should be a review into the voting system, and that it should be changed to a system that will include all of the smaller parties, such as the second vote system, and that more information should be made available for individuals when they are voting +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the current voting system in the UK is fair and open to everyone of an eligible age. The age for voting should be lowered to 16 as some individuals may be informed and mature enough to vote at this age. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be more electronic based as some demographics do not use computers. The voting system should be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the current voting system in the UK is fair and open to everyone of an eligible age. The current system allows for people to have their say and for their vote to be counted. The current system also allows for the government to be formed by the party with the most votes, which is the fairest way of doing things. The current system is not perfect and could be improved in some ways. For example, the current system is not the most representative of the people as it does not take into account the number of votes each party gets in each constituency. This means that some parties with a large number of votes nationally may not get any representation in parliament. This is not ideal but it is the best system we have at the moment. If a better system is proposed in the future, it should be considered. Until then, the current system should be kept. 4: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001729.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001729.soc index d4c029c4..a20b7fe3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001729.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001729.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Medical research on animals is necessary for medical progress. It is important to minimise harm to animals and to use them in the most efficient way possible. The research should be of the highest quality and should not be done for trivial purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not morally right to use animals in medical research, but where there is no other alternative and the potential to alleviate human suffering and extend human life is significant, it may be deemed justifiable. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe it is right to use animals in medical research as long as it is strictly regulated and if the outcome is the improvement of a large number of lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Medical research on animals is necessary for the progression of medicine. It is essential that the research is done in a humane way, and that the research is of high quality. The research should not be done for frivolous reasons, such as for cosmetic purposes, but for the purpose of saving lives and reducing human suffering. The research should be done in a way that minimises the suffering of the animals, and that the animals are treated with respect. The research should not be done for frivolous reasons, such as for cosmetic purposes, but for the purpose of saving lives and reducing human suffering. The research should be done in a way that minimises the suffering of the animals, and that the animals are treated with respect. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Medical research on animals is necessary for medical progress. It is important to minimise harm to animals and to use them in the most efficient way possible. The research should be of the highest quality and should not be done for trivial purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not morally right to use animals in medical research, but where there is no other alternative and the potential to alleviate human suffering and extend human life is significant, it may be deemed justifiable. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe it is right to use animals in medical research as long as it is strictly regulated and if the outcome is the improvement of a large number of lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Medical research on animals is necessary for the progression of medicine. It is essential that the research is done in a humane way, and that the research is of high quality. The research should not be done for frivolous reasons, such as for cosmetic purposes, but for the purpose of saving lives and reducing human suffering. The research should be done in a way that minimises the suffering of the animals, and that the animals are treated with respect. The research should not be done for frivolous reasons, such as for cosmetic purposes, but for the purpose of saving lives and reducing human suffering. The research should be done in a way that minimises the suffering of the animals, and that the animals are treated with respect. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001730.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001730.soc index c0f95176..66e8aee0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001730.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001730.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the British government has a moral obligation to support international development, but believe it's important to look at why this is and what the results are. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. As a wealthy country we have a responsibility to use our resources in a way that benefits countries who are worse off than we are. This support allows these countries to improve their economies, subsequently improving the lives of those who live there. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The British government has a moral obligation to support international development. We are a wealthy country and should be giving aid and help to poorer ones. And besides, our aid budget is minuscule. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. As a developed and wealthy country it is important that our resources are used in a way that benefits countries who are worse off than we are. Through our support it will allow these countries to progress and improve their economies, subsequently improving the lives of those who live there. However, this support should not be unconditional. We should not support countries that are hostile to our values, or where the government is corrupt and does not use the money for the good of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the British government has a moral obligation to support international development, but believe it's important to look at why this is and what the results are. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. As a wealthy country we have a responsibility to use our resources in a way that benefits countries who are worse off than we are. This support allows these countries to improve their economies, subsequently improving the lives of those who live there. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The British government has a moral obligation to support international development. We are a wealthy country and should be giving aid and help to poorer ones. And besides, our aid budget is minuscule. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. As a developed and wealthy country it is important that our resources are used in a way that benefits countries who are worse off than we are. Through our support it will allow these countries to progress and improve their economies, subsequently improving the lives of those who live there. However, this support should not be unconditional. We should not support countries that are hostile to our values, or where the government is corrupt and does not use the money for the good of the people. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001731.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001731.soc index c634ece0..823d2f9b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001731.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001731.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. One of the main problems that have been discussed is that the price of houses is too high in comparison to the income of most young people. It has been debated that there are ways that the government can help in this instance. It was suggested that a tax could be introduced on second homes or buy to let homes so that the first time buyer has a better chance. In this day and age a lot of young people are forced to live with their parents for longer and it has been suggested that this tax could also be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. One of the main problems that have been discussed is that the price of houses is too high in comparison to the income of most young people. It has been debated that there are ways that the government can help in this instance. It was suggested that a tax could be introduced on second homes or buy to let homes so that the first time buyer has a better chance. In this day and age a lot of young people are forced to live with their parents for longer and it has been suggested that this tax could also be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. It was also suggested that the government could increase the amount of houses that they build to help increase the supply and hopefully lower the price of houses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that young people should have the support of the government in an attempt to aid young people's purchasing power. Despite this, there is not a straightforward answer to this problem. One of the main issues with the government helping young people is that not everyone can afford a house; this is why so much help is needed, as it is a broad issue. One person explained how the government taxing landlords with second homes and buy to let homes would be an effective help to young people, the opposing argument for this was that people who had been told that they could not afford houses would have their opinion officially confirmed by this tax. As this tax could put people off wanting to buy houses as they fear that they would have to pay tax on a home that they could no longer afford. An alternative to this was discussed and decided on by the group; it was suggested that a tax could be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. However, there is some discussion to be had -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. One of the main problems that have been discussed is that the price of houses is too high in comparison to the income of most young people. The consensus view was that there are ways that the government can help in this instance. It was suggested that a tax could be introduced on second homes or buy to let homes so that the first time buyer has a better chance. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. In this day and age a lot of young people are forced to live with their parents for longer and it has been suggested that this tax could also be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. The group believes that this is an issue that affects most young people and if the government can do more to alleviate the pressure then they should. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. One of the main problems that have been discussed is that the price of houses is too high in comparison to the income of most young people. It has been debated that there are ways that the government can help in this instance. It was suggested that a tax could be introduced on second homes or buy to let homes so that the first time buyer has a better chance. In this day and age a lot of young people are forced to live with their parents for longer and it has been suggested that this tax could also be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. One of the main problems that have been discussed is that the price of houses is too high in comparison to the income of most young people. It has been debated that there are ways that the government can help in this instance. It was suggested that a tax could be introduced on second homes or buy to let homes so that the first time buyer has a better chance. In this day and age a lot of young people are forced to live with their parents for longer and it has been suggested that this tax could also be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. It was also suggested that the government could increase the amount of houses that they build to help increase the supply and hopefully lower the price of houses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that young people should have the support of the government in an attempt to aid young people's purchasing power. Despite this, there is not a straightforward answer to this problem. One of the main issues with the government helping young people is that not everyone can afford a house; this is why so much help is needed, as it is a broad issue. One person explained how the government taxing landlords with second homes and buy to let homes would be an effective help to young people, the opposing argument for this was that people who had been told that they could not afford houses would have their opinion officially confirmed by this tax. As this tax could put people off wanting to buy houses as they fear that they would have to pay tax on a home that they could no longer afford. An alternative to this was discussed and decided on by the group; it was suggested that a tax could be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. However, there is some discussion to be had +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. One of the main problems that have been discussed is that the price of houses is too high in comparison to the income of most young people. The consensus view was that there are ways that the government can help in this instance. It was suggested that a tax could be introduced on second homes or buy to let homes so that the first time buyer has a better chance. In addition to this, it was suggested that the help to buy scheme that is currently in place could be improved so that it is more accessible to more people and not just first time buyers. In this day and age a lot of young people are forced to live with their parents for longer and it has been suggested that this tax could also be introduced if children are forced to live with their parents after the age of 24. The group believes that this is an issue that affects most young people and if the government can do more to alleviate the pressure then they should. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001732.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001732.soc index 40f40f79..a1b3a69e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001732.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001732.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, a foreign power should not be allowed to buy UK infrastructure, however, in certain instances, this may be beneficial to the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of foreign investment in UK infrastructure, but with some caveats. The group felt that the UK should be able to maintain some control over infrastructure that is vital to the UK, such as water and power, and that foreign investment in these areas should be limited. The group also felt that foreign investment in infrastructure should be limited if it is likely to lead to a conflict of interest, for example if a foreign power owns a large amount of infrastructure and also has a large military presence in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't think that it should be allowed, as it would be better for the economy if the UK's infrastructure was kept in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should be responsible for all of its infrastructure and should not be reliant upon outside sources for such things. It can have a negative effect on the economy, and although it is not always bad, it could become dangerous if it was in the hands of the wrong people. There is always the risk that it could be used to control the UK or could be exploited for money. The benefits of having foreign ownership would be the funding and maybe being able to gain a more diverse knowledge. There is a danger of becoming too reliant on this funding though, and should it be taken away then the country could suffer greatly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, a foreign power should not be allowed to buy UK infrastructure, however, in certain instances, this may be beneficial to the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of foreign investment in UK infrastructure, but with some caveats. The group felt that the UK should be able to maintain some control over infrastructure that is vital to the UK, such as water and power, and that foreign investment in these areas should be limited. The group also felt that foreign investment in infrastructure should be limited if it is likely to lead to a conflict of interest, for example if a foreign power owns a large amount of infrastructure and also has a large military presence in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't think that it should be allowed, as it would be better for the economy if the UK's infrastructure was kept in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should be responsible for all of its infrastructure and should not be reliant upon outside sources for such things. It can have a negative effect on the economy, and although it is not always bad, it could become dangerous if it was in the hands of the wrong people. There is always the risk that it could be used to control the UK or could be exploited for money. The benefits of having foreign ownership would be the funding and maybe being able to gain a more diverse knowledge. There is a danger of becoming too reliant on this funding though, and should it be taken away then the country could suffer greatly. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001733.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001733.soc index f532a8e6..5915f2ba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001733.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001733.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The lockdown measures the government employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were excessive, nonsensical, and only about control. They were also implemented too late and not for long enough. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The lockdown measures put into place by the government were excessive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The lockdown measures the government employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were excessive in terms of disallowing social and intimate time as per other countries (i.e Belgiums "cuddle bubble"), and the punishment they put onto people for breaking those measure was not good enough. The world had never had to deal with a situation like this before and the precautions the government put in to place were very good. However the online track and trace programme that the government spent millions on did not have any change to the circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The lockdown measures that the government implemented were justified and in line with similar measures put into place in other countries. However, there was a lack of transparency in the justification of the measures and in the manner in which they were implemented. This was harmful for both the economy and the mental health of the general population. The measures should have been more flexible and allowed for more socialisation with the support of necessary PPE and social distancing measures. The government should have also been more transparent about the extent to which a second lockdown would be possible if the R rate continued to rise, rather than basing its messaging on "staying alert". +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The lockdown measures the government employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were excessive, nonsensical, and only about control. They were also implemented too late and not for long enough. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The lockdown measures put into place by the government were excessive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The lockdown measures the government employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were excessive in terms of disallowing social and intimate time as per other countries (i.e Belgiums "cuddle bubble"), and the punishment they put onto people for breaking those measure was not good enough. The world had never had to deal with a situation like this before and the precautions the government put in to place were very good. However the online track and trace programme that the government spent millions on did not have any change to the circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The lockdown measures that the government implemented were justified and in line with similar measures put into place in other countries. However, there was a lack of transparency in the justification of the measures and in the manner in which they were implemented. This was harmful for both the economy and the mental health of the general population. The measures should have been more flexible and allowed for more socialisation with the support of necessary PPE and social distancing measures. The government should have also been more transparent about the extent to which a second lockdown would be possible if the R rate continued to rise, rather than basing its messaging on "staying alert". 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001734.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001734.soc index 1dd04d0a..e1dab47d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001734.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001734.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is an essential service that is underfunded. The government has made many cuts to the NHS budget, and this has led to increased waiting times and poorer care for patients. The NHS is a crucial part of British society, and it is important that it receives adequate funding to provide high-quality healthcare to all citizens. Raising taxes on high earners would be a sensible approach to increase NHS funding. The NHS is a public service that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people who earn a lot to contribute a bit more to support the NHS. Of course, any tax policy should be carefully designed to balance the need for funding with the potential impact on the economy and overall societal well-being. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We believe that people who earn more than $200,000 should be taxed more to help support the NHS. This is because the NHS is underfunded and the people who earn more than $200,000 can afford to pay more tax. This will help to improve the NHS and the lives of people in the UK.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People with very high incomes should contribute more to society and in our opinion, helping to fund the NHS is a good way to achieve this. Raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to support the NHS would be a sensible approach. The NHS plays a crucial role in providing healthcare services to citizens, and adequate funding is essential for its smooth functioning. By asking high earners to contribute a bit more, we can ensure that the NHS receives the necessary financial support to improve patient care, reduce waiting times, and invest in modern medical technologies. Of course, any tax policy should be carefully designed to balance the need for funding with the potential impact on the economy and overall societal well-being. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is an essential service that is underfunded. The government has made many cuts to the NHS budget, and this has led to increased waiting times and poorer care for patients. The NHS is a crucial part of British society, and it is important that it receives adequate funding to provide high-quality healthcare to all citizens. Raising taxes on high earners would be a sensible approach to increase NHS funding. The NHS is a public service that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people who earn a lot to contribute a bit more to support the NHS. Of course, any tax policy should be carefully designed to balance the need for funding with the potential impact on the economy and overall societal well-being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We believe that people who earn more than $200,000 should be taxed more to help support the NHS. This is because the NHS is underfunded and the people who earn more than $200,000 can afford to pay more tax. This will help to improve the NHS and the lives of people in the UK.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People with very high incomes should contribute more to society and in our opinion, helping to fund the NHS is a good way to achieve this. Raising taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to support the NHS would be a sensible approach. The NHS plays a crucial role in providing healthcare services to citizens, and adequate funding is essential for its smooth functioning. By asking high earners to contribute a bit more, we can ensure that the NHS receives the necessary financial support to improve patient care, reduce waiting times, and invest in modern medical technologies. Of course, any tax policy should be carefully designed to balance the need for funding with the potential impact on the economy and overall societal well-being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001735.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001735.soc index c7e9c984..73126df7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001735.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001735.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Education is the most important way of getting the best from people. The high initial cost would be paid back to society ten fold. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The state should provide free, high quality, education from nursery to PhD because education is a basic human right and is also an essential part of life and a basic need that everyone should have access to.” “Without an education a person cannot get a good job and cannot have a fulfilling life. The only way to get an education is to go to school. The state should provide education to all people because it is a human right and if they don’t provide education, people will struggle to make a life for themselves.” “Education is the most important way of getting the best from people. The high initial cost would be paid back to society ten fold.” “I believe that the state should provide free education as education is a part of every person’s basic need. Every person should have the right for shelter, food and education and having to struggle for any of these basic needs is inhumane. If PHD's are free, then it will make it easier for people to study their desired subject rather than having to struggle for money. Education is the most important way of getting the best from people. The high initial cost would be paid back to society ten fold.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Free education at all levels is a right for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Education is the most important way of getting the best from people. The high initial cost would be paid back to society ten fold. Every person should have the right for shelter, food and education and having to struggle for any of these basic needs is inhumane. If PHD's are free, then it will make it easier for people to study their desired subject rather than having to struggle for money. The state should provide this sort of high quality education from nursery to PhD because a high quality education makes for better informed people and this can only help businesses for example to succeed and be productive, this in turn generates the economy in a way that benefits everyone. Education is essential in not only ticking an economy over, but is also essential to helping a society be a more stable place, in for example governments. If people have an educated understanding of how governments work, then they will be better informed to vote in a more responsible manner. The counties future is based on good education. Everyone should be able to get free and high quality education. If we keep our children and adults busy with education, we would have less crime overall. I think that education is a human right that should be accessible to all regardless of their background. I imagine +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Education is the most important way of getting the best from people. The high initial cost would be paid back to society ten fold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The state should provide free, high quality, education from nursery to PhD because education is a basic human right and is also an essential part of life and a basic need that everyone should have access to.” “Without an education a person cannot get a good job and cannot have a fulfilling life. The only way to get an education is to go to school. The state should provide education to all people because it is a human right and if they don’t provide education, people will struggle to make a life for themselves.” “Education is the most important way of getting the best from people. The high initial cost would be paid back to society ten fold.” “I believe that the state should provide free education as education is a part of every person’s basic need. Every person should have the right for shelter, food and education and having to struggle for any of these basic needs is inhumane. If PHD's are free, then it will make it easier for people to study their desired subject rather than having to struggle for money. Education is the most important way of getting the best from people. The high initial cost would be paid back to society ten fold.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Free education at all levels is a right for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Education is the most important way of getting the best from people. The high initial cost would be paid back to society ten fold. Every person should have the right for shelter, food and education and having to struggle for any of these basic needs is inhumane. If PHD's are free, then it will make it easier for people to study their desired subject rather than having to struggle for money. The state should provide this sort of high quality education from nursery to PhD because a high quality education makes for better informed people and this can only help businesses for example to succeed and be productive, this in turn generates the economy in a way that benefits everyone. Education is essential in not only ticking an economy over, but is also essential to helping a society be a more stable place, in for example governments. If people have an educated understanding of how governments work, then they will be better informed to vote in a more responsible manner. The counties future is based on good education. Everyone should be able to get free and high quality education. If we keep our children and adults busy with education, we would have less crime overall. I think that education is a human right that should be accessible to all regardless of their background. I imagine 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001736.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001736.soc index 48aeb58a..43a0e6fe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001736.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001736.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. We live in an era where we are surrounded by single use plastic items which in turn pollute the environment and damage our ecosystems. It is a global problem that needs to be solved. It is of the upmost importance that the government steps in to resolve this issue and pass legislation that will aid in protecting the environment and reduce the amount of plastic waste and pollution that is generated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should decrease the sale of all things with plastic packaging but it is not possible to ban it for some items as they would not be suitable for alternative packaging. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. Plastic packaging is used for many products, some of which need to be protected and kept fresh. The problem with plastic packaging is that it is not biodegradable. The government should step in and make it easier for people to recycle and there should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. Plastic is a pervasive and devasting issue, causing harm to marine life , eco systems and entering our food chain. by prohibiting the sale of products wrapped in plastic we can reduce the amount of plastic. Recycling plastic alone is not enough. We need to stop producing it. It cannot be left to individuals to choose the "better" option. The government should step in and ban plastic as it is severely detrimental to our environment. We must reduce the amount of plastic packaging. Much of it is unnecessary and is used because it is the cheapest option. It does a lot of harm to the environment and will continue to build until it because a major problem as it lasts too long. There should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic and better incentives for people to recycle, returning plastic bottles to supermarkets etc, it needs to be made easier to recycle, clearer guidance and harsher punishments to those who do not. ” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. We live in an era where we are surrounded by single use plastic items which in turn pollute the environment and damage our ecosystems. It is a global problem that needs to be solved. It is of the upmost importance that the government steps in to resolve this issue and pass legislation that will aid in protecting the environment and reduce the amount of plastic waste and pollution that is generated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should decrease the sale of all things with plastic packaging but it is not possible to ban it for some items as they would not be suitable for alternative packaging. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. Plastic packaging is used for many products, some of which need to be protected and kept fresh. The problem with plastic packaging is that it is not biodegradable. The government should step in and make it easier for people to recycle and there should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. Plastic is a pervasive and devasting issue, causing harm to marine life , eco systems and entering our food chain. by prohibiting the sale of products wrapped in plastic we can reduce the amount of plastic. Recycling plastic alone is not enough. We need to stop producing it. It cannot be left to individuals to choose the "better" option. The government should step in and ban plastic as it is severely detrimental to our environment. We must reduce the amount of plastic packaging. Much of it is unnecessary and is used because it is the cheapest option. It does a lot of harm to the environment and will continue to build until it because a major problem as it lasts too long. There should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic and better incentives for people to recycle, returning plastic bottles to supermarkets etc, it needs to be made easier to recycle, clearer guidance and harsher punishments to those who do not. ” 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001737.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001737.soc index ee1e7747..19b3b7ce 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001737.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001737.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A degree is an important qualification to have. However, not all professions necessitate a degree. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue other careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. Apprenticeships are a good way forward, as people will be paid to learn a job. However, making it easier for everyone that wants to study further to get a degree to be able to do so is also important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should encourage people to get a degree, but we should also make it clear that it is not the only option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should encourage everyone to get a degree, but not everyone is suited to the university environment and this is to be respected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Whilst a degree is an important qualification to have, some lines of work do not require degrees, rather they require 'qualifications' such as a plumber, electrical engineer or electrician or other 'trades' - these are essential areas of the economy and thus if everyone had a degree, we'd have an even greater shortfall in key workers for the benefit of society and to keep inflation in check. Firstly, not all professions necessitate a formal degree. Many successful individuals have found their paths without obtaining a degree. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue these careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. Not everyone is capable of getting a degree and the dumbing down of degrees in recent years has devalued their worth. Apprenticeships are a much better way to go. No debts incurred and open to almost everybody. However saying that, I believe that we should make it easier for everyone that wants to study further to get a degree to be able to do so. Plus I do think that going to university +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A degree is an important qualification to have. However, not all professions necessitate a degree. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue other careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. Apprenticeships are a good way forward, as people will be paid to learn a job. However, making it easier for everyone that wants to study further to get a degree to be able to do so is also important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should encourage people to get a degree, but we should also make it clear that it is not the only option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should encourage everyone to get a degree, but not everyone is suited to the university environment and this is to be respected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Whilst a degree is an important qualification to have, some lines of work do not require degrees, rather they require 'qualifications' such as a plumber, electrical engineer or electrician or other 'trades' - these are essential areas of the economy and thus if everyone had a degree, we'd have an even greater shortfall in key workers for the benefit of society and to keep inflation in check. Firstly, not all professions necessitate a formal degree. Many successful individuals have found their paths without obtaining a degree. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue these careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. Not everyone is capable of getting a degree and the dumbing down of degrees in recent years has devalued their worth. Apprenticeships are a much better way to go. No debts incurred and open to almost everybody. However saying that, I believe that we should make it easier for everyone that wants to study further to get a degree to be able to do so. Plus I do think that going to university 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001738.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001738.soc index a21e655e..075ae63c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001738.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001738.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of using AI in the judicial system. The group felt that it is important to have human consideration in the judicial system, and AI would not be able to do this. The group felt that AI would be too strict and would not be able to take into account the circumstances of each case. The group also felt that AI would not be able to take into account human emotion, and this is an important part of the judicial system. The group felt that AI would be more likely to make mistakes, and this could ruin people's lives. The group also felt that AI could develop biases, and this would not be fair. The group felt that AI could be used to speed up processes for lower level crimes, but it should not be the only deciding factor. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the use of AI in the judicial system, but with caveats. The use of AI should be limited to speeding up processes and making the system more efficient. It should not be used to make decisions on the guilt or innocence of a person, and it should not be used to decide on the sentence of a person. It should not be used to make a decision on the release of a person from prison. It should not be used to make a decision on the parole of a person. It should not be used to make a decision on the deportation of a person. It should not be used to make a decision on the extradition of a person. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of a visa. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of refugee status. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of citizenship. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of bail. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of parole. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of a visa. It should not -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of using AI in the judicial system. The group felt that it is important to have human consideration in the judicial system, and AI would not be able to do this. The group felt that AI would be too strict and would not be able to take into account the circumstances of each case. The group also felt that AI would not be able to take into account human emotion, and this is an important part of the judicial system. The group felt that AI would be more likely to make mistakes, and this could ruin people's lives. The group also felt that AI could develop biases, and this would not be fair. The group felt that AI could be used to speed up processes for lower level crimes, but it should not be the only deciding factor. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the use of AI in the judicial system, but with caveats. The use of AI should be limited to speeding up processes and making the system more efficient. It should not be used to make decisions on the guilt or innocence of a person, and it should not be used to decide on the sentence of a person. It should not be used to make a decision on the release of a person from prison. It should not be used to make a decision on the parole of a person. It should not be used to make a decision on the deportation of a person. It should not be used to make a decision on the extradition of a person. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of a visa. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of refugee status. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of citizenship. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of bail. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of parole. It should not be used to make a decision on the granting of a visa. It should not +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001739.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001739.soc index 95f15641..17870a7c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001739.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001739.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that it is ethical to use AI in the judicial system in some circumstances. We agree that there should be more than one decision factor, for example human and AI. We would like there to be a human input as well, and it is important to note that AI does not have the emotional understanding that humans do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that AI is currently not ethical to use in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. This is why we believe that AI is currently not ethical to use in the judicial system. The final consensus statement was critiqued by another participant, who believed that the group had come to the right conclusion, but that it was not expressed very well. The participant also provided a suggested rewording of the final consensus statement, which was as follows: There are many arguments for and against the use of AI in the judicial -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. For these reasons, we feel that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system until artificial intelligence advances to the point where it can mimic human thinking and un-tell the difference between a real human brain and itself. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that it is ethical to use AI in the judicial system in some circumstances. We agree that there should be more than one decision factor, for example human and AI. We would like there to be a human input as well, and it is important to note that AI does not have the emotional understanding that humans do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that AI is currently not ethical to use in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. This is why we believe that AI is currently not ethical to use in the judicial system. The final consensus statement was critiqued by another participant, who believed that the group had come to the right conclusion, but that it was not expressed very well. The participant also provided a suggested rewording of the final consensus statement, which was as follows: There are many arguments for and against the use of AI in the judicial +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. For these reasons, we feel that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system until artificial intelligence advances to the point where it can mimic human thinking and un-tell the difference between a real human brain and itself. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001740.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001740.soc index 78ca51a7..171dba77 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001740.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001740.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that our planet is overpopulated, we have reached our optimum population capacity. There is a wide range of reasons for this, including the increase in lifespan, the decrease in deaths, the increase in birth rate, immigration, etc. All of this results in an overpopulation problem, and it is only getting worse. This will cause huge problems for the planet, including increased poverty, a decrease in non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on. The current situation cannot continue. The overpopulation problem must be dealt with. It is difficult to do so, because there are a lot of people, and it is difficult to control the birth rate, as well as immigration. It is a very difficult problem to deal with, and it is not one that can be dealt with easily, or in the short term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the world is becoming overpopulated. This is causing issues for poverty, global warming and housing especially, and puts a strain on non-renewable resources. The fact that the NHS is so over worked is just one evidence that we are over-populated. The amount of traffic and pollution is further evidence that we are not coping with the current population size. The world has a finite amount of resources and that infinite growth is not possible. This means that with the ever-increasing population we are putting a huge strain on ecosystems and we are putting humanity in a difficult position in which a solid quality of life for all humans will simply not be possible. With over population, it will be difficult to find a balance where everyone can have access to the things they need to survive. Also, there might be a concern about energy usage as well and habitats being destroyed for the growing population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The world is overpopulated and this is causing issues for poverty, global warming and housing especially, and puts a strain on non-renewable resources. This is a very difficult issue to tackle, however, because it is due to positive things such as better healthcare and longer life-spans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that our planet is overpopulated, we have reached our optimum population capacity. There is a wide range of reasons for this, including the increase in lifespan, the decrease in deaths, the increase in birth rate, immigration, etc. All of this results in an overpopulation problem, and it is only getting worse. This will cause huge problems for the planet, including increased poverty, a decrease in non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on. The current situation cannot continue. The overpopulation problem must be dealt with. It is difficult to do so, because there are a lot of people, and it is difficult to control the birth rate, as well as immigration. It is a very difficult problem to deal with, and it is not one that can be dealt with easily, or in the short term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the world is becoming overpopulated. This is causing issues for poverty, global warming and housing especially, and puts a strain on non-renewable resources. The fact that the NHS is so over worked is just one evidence that we are over-populated. The amount of traffic and pollution is further evidence that we are not coping with the current population size. The world has a finite amount of resources and that infinite growth is not possible. This means that with the ever-increasing population we are putting a huge strain on ecosystems and we are putting humanity in a difficult position in which a solid quality of life for all humans will simply not be possible. With over population, it will be difficult to find a balance where everyone can have access to the things they need to survive. Also, there might be a concern about energy usage as well and habitats being destroyed for the growing population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The world is overpopulated and this is causing issues for poverty, global warming and housing especially, and puts a strain on non-renewable resources. This is a very difficult issue to tackle, however, because it is due to positive things such as better healthcare and longer life-spans. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001741.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001741.soc index 9b20769f..be57ec64 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001741.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001741.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. This is because we believe that the focus of schools should be on providing the best education possible for students, and not on making a profit. This could lead to a postcode lottery on school places and there may be a huge difference in teaching throughout the country. We also believe that the education sector should be funded by the government, and that this is the best way to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive a good education. We also feel that this is the best way to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, are given the same opportunities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools, in order to prevent a worsened postcode lottery on school places. However, this would require an increase in funding of state schools by the government, because a for-profit education sector would lead to more money being invested in students' education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. This is because we believe that the focus of schools should be on providing the best education possible for students, and not on making a profit. This could lead to a postcode lottery on school places and there may be a huge difference in teaching throughout the country. We also believe that the education sector should be funded by the government, and that this is the best way to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive a good education. This is because the focus of schools should be on providing the best education possible for students, and not on making a profit. This could lead to a postcode lottery on school places and there may be a huge difference in teaching throughout the country. We also believe that the education sector should be funded by the government, and that this is the best way to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive a good education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. This is because we believe that the focus of schools should be on providing the best education possible for students, and not on making a profit. This could lead to a postcode lottery on school places and there may be a huge difference in teaching throughout the country. This would also lead to a sort of US style education system, whereby families have to move to wealthy areas to access better state schools. We also believe that the education sector should be funded by the government, and that this is the best way to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive a good education. We also believe that the education sector should be run in a more efficient manner and this could improve the quality of the education system if funded properly by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. This is because we believe that the focus of schools should be on providing the best education possible for students, and not on making a profit. This could lead to a postcode lottery on school places and there may be a huge difference in teaching throughout the country. We also believe that the education sector should be funded by the government, and that this is the best way to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive a good education. We also feel that this is the best way to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, are given the same opportunities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools, in order to prevent a worsened postcode lottery on school places. However, this would require an increase in funding of state schools by the government, because a for-profit education sector would lead to more money being invested in students' education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. This is because we believe that the focus of schools should be on providing the best education possible for students, and not on making a profit. This could lead to a postcode lottery on school places and there may be a huge difference in teaching throughout the country. We also believe that the education sector should be funded by the government, and that this is the best way to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive a good education. This is because the focus of schools should be on providing the best education possible for students, and not on making a profit. This could lead to a postcode lottery on school places and there may be a huge difference in teaching throughout the country. We also believe that the education sector should be funded by the government, and that this is the best way to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive a good education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, for-profit corporations should not be allowed to run state schools. This is because we believe that the focus of schools should be on providing the best education possible for students, and not on making a profit. This could lead to a postcode lottery on school places and there may be a huge difference in teaching throughout the country. This would also lead to a sort of US style education system, whereby families have to move to wealthy areas to access better state schools. We also believe that the education sector should be funded by the government, and that this is the best way to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive a good education. We also believe that the education sector should be run in a more efficient manner and this could improve the quality of the education system if funded properly by the government. 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001742.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001742.soc index 573cd93c..c6bd6803 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001742.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001742.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should not have the right to limit the size of peoples houses. However, if a person is living in social housing then it is reasonable for the government to ask them to downsize if they have many unused bedrooms, for example once their children all leave home. The government should not have the right to limit the size of new houses that are built, however if a person wants to build a house that is too big for the space or the area then they should be able to intervene. If the size of the house is a threat to nature or the environment then maybe local councils can limit this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should not have the right to limit the size of people's houses, as this is an individual matter. There should be no limit on the size of houses if they are entirely self-funded. However, for people in social housing, if they are living in a house that is bigger than their family needs, then they should be required to downsize so that their home can be re-allocated to a larger family in need of housing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should have the right to limit the size of people's houses only if people are reliant on council housing, in which case a house should be allocated that is suitable for the size of the family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not have the right to limit the size of peoples houses, however, the government should have the right to limit the size of peoples houses if they are reliant on government housing or if the house is a threat to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should not have the right to limit the size of peoples houses. However, if a person is living in social housing then it is reasonable for the government to ask them to downsize if they have many unused bedrooms, for example once their children all leave home. The government should not have the right to limit the size of new houses that are built, however if a person wants to build a house that is too big for the space or the area then they should be able to intervene. If the size of the house is a threat to nature or the environment then maybe local councils can limit this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should not have the right to limit the size of people's houses, as this is an individual matter. There should be no limit on the size of houses if they are entirely self-funded. However, for people in social housing, if they are living in a house that is bigger than their family needs, then they should be required to downsize so that their home can be re-allocated to a larger family in need of housing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should have the right to limit the size of people's houses only if people are reliant on council housing, in which case a house should be allocated that is suitable for the size of the family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not have the right to limit the size of peoples houses, however, the government should have the right to limit the size of peoples houses if they are reliant on government housing or if the house is a threat to the environment. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001743.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001743.soc index 273f69d6..6eab8dcd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001743.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001743.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is important for individuals of a certain age to be allowed to vote in our democracy, we do not feel it is right to lower the voting age to 16. This is because we feel that individuals should have a clear understanding of politics and understand the impact that the parties will have on them in order to make an informed decision. While we do believe that some individuals may be able to do this, it is more likely that most individuals will not be able to do this. The individuals may be politically literate, but the importance of the parties may not be as relevant as the issues of age such as money and housing. In regards to online voting, we feel that it should not be used as the main form of voting. This is because there are a number of security issues surrounding the online system, and we feel that there should be a physical process as well as this. In regards to the current voting system, we feel that it is fair and works in an effective manner. However, we do feel that there should be a review into the voting system, and that it should be changed to a system that will include all of the smaller parties, such as the second vote system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The current voting system is fair and works in an effective manner, however it could be enhanced by incorporating some new features, such as a website designed for voters that has all the relevant information on the parties and specific issues, and also information on parties and individuals, from newspapers and resources that offer unbiased information. Young adults should not be able to vote at 16, as it is unlikely that they will be mature enough and informed enough to do so. We do not support online voting, as we have reservations about the security of it and our fear is that it could become corruptible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that the current voting system is fair and should not be changed. However, there should be a review into the voting system. We feel that it should be changed to a system that will include all of the smaller parties, such as the second vote system, and that more information should be made available for individuals when they are voting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important for individuals of a certain age to be allowed to vote in our democracy, we do not feel it is right to lower the voting age to 16. We feel that individuals should have a clear understanding of politics and understand the impact that the parties will have on them in order to make an informed decision. While we do believe that some individuals may be able to do this, it is more likely that most individuals will not be able to do this. The individuals may be politically literate, but the importance of the parties may not be as relevant as the issues of age such as money and housing. In regards to online voting, we feel that it should not be used as the main form of voting. This is because there are a number of security issues surrounding the online system, and we feel that there should be a physical process as well as this. In regards to the current voting system, we feel that it is fair and works in an effective manner. However, we do feel that there should be a review into the voting system, and that it should be changed to a system that will include all of the smaller parties, such as the second vote system, and that more information should be made available for individuals when they are voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is important for individuals of a certain age to be allowed to vote in our democracy, we do not feel it is right to lower the voting age to 16. This is because we feel that individuals should have a clear understanding of politics and understand the impact that the parties will have on them in order to make an informed decision. While we do believe that some individuals may be able to do this, it is more likely that most individuals will not be able to do this. The individuals may be politically literate, but the importance of the parties may not be as relevant as the issues of age such as money and housing. In regards to online voting, we feel that it should not be used as the main form of voting. This is because there are a number of security issues surrounding the online system, and we feel that there should be a physical process as well as this. In regards to the current voting system, we feel that it is fair and works in an effective manner. However, we do feel that there should be a review into the voting system, and that it should be changed to a system that will include all of the smaller parties, such as the second vote system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The current voting system is fair and works in an effective manner, however it could be enhanced by incorporating some new features, such as a website designed for voters that has all the relevant information on the parties and specific issues, and also information on parties and individuals, from newspapers and resources that offer unbiased information. Young adults should not be able to vote at 16, as it is unlikely that they will be mature enough and informed enough to do so. We do not support online voting, as we have reservations about the security of it and our fear is that it could become corruptible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that the current voting system is fair and should not be changed. However, there should be a review into the voting system. We feel that it should be changed to a system that will include all of the smaller parties, such as the second vote system, and that more information should be made available for individuals when they are voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important for individuals of a certain age to be allowed to vote in our democracy, we do not feel it is right to lower the voting age to 16. We feel that individuals should have a clear understanding of politics and understand the impact that the parties will have on them in order to make an informed decision. While we do believe that some individuals may be able to do this, it is more likely that most individuals will not be able to do this. The individuals may be politically literate, but the importance of the parties may not be as relevant as the issues of age such as money and housing. In regards to online voting, we feel that it should not be used as the main form of voting. This is because there are a number of security issues surrounding the online system, and we feel that there should be a physical process as well as this. In regards to the current voting system, we feel that it is fair and works in an effective manner. However, we do feel that there should be a review into the voting system, and that it should be changed to a system that will include all of the smaller parties, such as the second vote system, and that more information should be made available for individuals when they are voting. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001744.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001744.soc index 02cd6dde..5eb3bfef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001744.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001744.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not morally desirable to use animals in medical research, but where there is no other alternative, and the potential to alleviate human suffering and extend human life is significant, it may be deemed justifiable. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. Topic #2: A controversial question This question was designed to present a controversial question. In the following sections, opinions of individual participants, an initial draft of a consensus statement, the critiques, and a final consensus view will be given. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a strong moral argument that the use of animals in medical research is wrong. We should not use animals for unnecessary research. We should not use animals that are unable to consent to the research. We should use the least amount of animals possible for vital research that is necessary to test a treatment that will alleviate human suffering and extend human life. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not morally desirable to use animals in medical research. However, it may be justifiable in certain circumstances, for example where a large number of humans stand to benefit, or where the research could save many human lives. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. The consensus statement above was reached by a process of discussion, debate and negotiation. This consensus statement is the final and agreed opinion of the group, and all participants are in agreement with the statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not morally desirable to use animals in medical research, but where there is no other alternative, it may be considered morally justifiable. In this case, it would be critical that the research is of extremely high quality to ensure that few animals suffer unnecessarily and to ensure the potential for the research to relieve human suffering is significant. It is also important to consider the context of the research, a clear distinction being made between vital research and less-significant, cosmetic research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not morally desirable to use animals in medical research, but where there is no other alternative, and the potential to alleviate human suffering and extend human life is significant, it may be deemed justifiable. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. Topic #2: A controversial question This question was designed to present a controversial question. In the following sections, opinions of individual participants, an initial draft of a consensus statement, the critiques, and a final consensus view will be given. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a strong moral argument that the use of animals in medical research is wrong. We should not use animals for unnecessary research. We should not use animals that are unable to consent to the research. We should use the least amount of animals possible for vital research that is necessary to test a treatment that will alleviate human suffering and extend human life. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not morally desirable to use animals in medical research. However, it may be justifiable in certain circumstances, for example where a large number of humans stand to benefit, or where the research could save many human lives. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. The consensus statement above was reached by a process of discussion, debate and negotiation. This consensus statement is the final and agreed opinion of the group, and all participants are in agreement with the statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not morally desirable to use animals in medical research, but where there is no other alternative, it may be considered morally justifiable. In this case, it would be critical that the research is of extremely high quality to ensure that few animals suffer unnecessarily and to ensure the potential for the research to relieve human suffering is significant. It is also important to consider the context of the research, a clear distinction being made between vital research and less-significant, cosmetic research. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001745.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001745.soc index 4afc4c2e..3ee84700 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001745.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001745.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should be responsible for all of its infrastructure and should not be reliant upon outside sources for such things. It can have a negative effect on the economy, and although it is not always bad, it could become dangerous if it was in the hands of the wrong people. There is always the risk that it could be used to control the UK or could be exploited for money. The benefits of having foreign ownership would be the funding and maybe being able to gain a more diverse knowledge. There is a danger of becoming too reliant on this funding though, and should it be taken away then the country could suffer greatly. Therefore, we should be responsible for our own infrastructure. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Foreign powers should not be allowed to buy UK infrastructure. However, it is not always a bad thing and can provide an influx of funds, but the situation should be carefully assessed first. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Consensus statement reached: The UK should be responsible for all of its infrastructure and should not be reliant upon outside sources for such things. It can have a negative effect on the economy, and although it is not always bad, it could become dangerous if it was in the hands of the wrong people. There is always the risk that it could be used to control the UK or could be exploited for money. The benefits of having foreign ownership would be the funding and maybe being able to gain a more diverse knowledge. There is a danger of becoming too reliant on this funding though, and should it be taken away then the country could suffer greatly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should be responsible for all of its infrastructure and should not be reliant upon outside sources for such things. It can have a negative effect on the economy, and although it is not always bad, it could become dangerous if it was in the hands of the wrong people. There is always the risk that it could be used to control the UK or could be exploited for money. The benefits of having foreign ownership would be the funding and maybe being able to gain a more diverse knowledge. There is a danger of becoming too reliant on this funding though, and should it be taken away then the country could suffer greatly. Part B Participant feedback: I enjoyed coming to university and taking part in a debate in which all people listened to my opinion. it made me feel like my views are being heard by all people of society. If we had more of these events then people would hear from all people and not just those who attend university who voice their opinion. This would in turn may even make more people want to attend university and give them the chance to speak freely about their thoughts I enjoyed having people listen to my opinions and ideas of the question that we were given. I feel that I would like to attend further debates +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should be responsible for all of its infrastructure and should not be reliant upon outside sources for such things. It can have a negative effect on the economy, and although it is not always bad, it could become dangerous if it was in the hands of the wrong people. There is always the risk that it could be used to control the UK or could be exploited for money. The benefits of having foreign ownership would be the funding and maybe being able to gain a more diverse knowledge. There is a danger of becoming too reliant on this funding though, and should it be taken away then the country could suffer greatly. Therefore, we should be responsible for our own infrastructure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Foreign powers should not be allowed to buy UK infrastructure. However, it is not always a bad thing and can provide an influx of funds, but the situation should be carefully assessed first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Consensus statement reached: The UK should be responsible for all of its infrastructure and should not be reliant upon outside sources for such things. It can have a negative effect on the economy, and although it is not always bad, it could become dangerous if it was in the hands of the wrong people. There is always the risk that it could be used to control the UK or could be exploited for money. The benefits of having foreign ownership would be the funding and maybe being able to gain a more diverse knowledge. There is a danger of becoming too reliant on this funding though, and should it be taken away then the country could suffer greatly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should be responsible for all of its infrastructure and should not be reliant upon outside sources for such things. It can have a negative effect on the economy, and although it is not always bad, it could become dangerous if it was in the hands of the wrong people. There is always the risk that it could be used to control the UK or could be exploited for money. The benefits of having foreign ownership would be the funding and maybe being able to gain a more diverse knowledge. There is a danger of becoming too reliant on this funding though, and should it be taken away then the country could suffer greatly. Part B Participant feedback: I enjoyed coming to university and taking part in a debate in which all people listened to my opinion. it made me feel like my views are being heard by all people of society. If we had more of these events then people would hear from all people and not just those who attend university who voice their opinion. This would in turn may even make more people want to attend university and give them the chance to speak freely about their thoughts I enjoyed having people listen to my opinions and ideas of the question that we were given. I feel that I would like to attend further debates 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001746.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001746.soc index 8f8f469d..dac489b9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001746.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001746.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the current system of encouraging national pride in the UK is not working and needs to be rethought. There needs to be a greater emphasis on what makes the UK great and what is good about being British. This will require a change in the education system to ensure that the next generation is more aware of the history of the UK and the great things it has achieved. There also needs to be a greater emphasis on the achievements of the UK in the media and by the government. This will help to create a greater sense of national pride. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National pride is important for social cohesion and it is something that should be promoted more by our society and education system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: National pride is a very emotive issue which often inspires debate. We believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and we do not want to appear to be passing judgement on anyone’s beliefs. As a group, we believe that a person’s national pride should come from within. Government efforts to encourage national pride can lead to nationalistic sentiment which can be used for ulterior motives. On the other hand, the breakdown of national pride has led to the emergence of nationalistic movements which do not appear to be interested in peaceful resolution of issues. This has led to unnecessary bloodshed. We do not feel that the role of the government is to enforce a particular sentiment on its citizens but to provide an environment that allows everyone to express their views freely and peacefully. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging national pride, but recognised that some people would disagree with this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the current system of encouraging national pride in the UK is not working and needs to be rethought. There needs to be a greater emphasis on what makes the UK great and what is good about being British. This will require a change in the education system to ensure that the next generation is more aware of the history of the UK and the great things it has achieved. There also needs to be a greater emphasis on the achievements of the UK in the media and by the government. This will help to create a greater sense of national pride. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National pride is important for social cohesion and it is something that should be promoted more by our society and education system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - National pride is a very emotive issue which often inspires debate. We believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and we do not want to appear to be passing judgement on anyone’s beliefs. As a group, we believe that a person’s national pride should come from within. Government efforts to encourage national pride can lead to nationalistic sentiment which can be used for ulterior motives. On the other hand, the breakdown of national pride has led to the emergence of nationalistic movements which do not appear to be interested in peaceful resolution of issues. This has led to unnecessary bloodshed. We do not feel that the role of the government is to enforce a particular sentiment on its citizens but to provide an environment that allows everyone to express their views freely and peacefully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging national pride, but recognised that some people would disagree with this. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001747.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001747.soc index 1af272ca..fa892f2f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001747.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001747.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is an essential service that is underfunded. The government has made many cuts to the NHS budget, and this has led to increased waiting times and poorer care for patients. The NHS is a crucial part of British society, and it is important that it receives adequate funding to provide high-quality healthcare to all citizens. Raising taxes on high earners would be a sensible approach to increase NHS funding. The NHS is a public service that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people who earn a lot to contribute a bit more to support the NHS. Of course, any tax policy should be carefully designed to balance the need for funding with the potential impact on the economy and overall societal well-being. In this way, the Delphi method is very useful for developing a consensus opinion, as it allows all participants to be involved in the process, and they can provide critiques of each draft and have their say in shaping the final consensus opinion. Each participant has an equal voice and gets to share their opinion. No opinion is dismissed, and each opinion is taken into -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that, in the view of the debt the NHS is running, the problem should be paid for by higher taxes, which is only fair for those earning a high salary. However, this might hamper economic growth, not just for the individual but for the country as a whole. People in such jobs often spend much of their income, thus their tax revenues are widely dispersed in the economy. An increase in tax for those with such a high wage might stymie their growth, in addition to dampening the economy. Rather than this, raising the tax threshold might be a better option, due to the economic growth this might create. More tax revenues would come from the newly wealthy, and this could be funnelled in to the NHS. It's easy for this group to say this when we don't have children/are quite young. However, it is important to remember that people might have a family dependent on them. It is not fair to put tax rises that might result in substantial cutbacks on to these people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is an essential service that is underfunded. The government has made many cuts to the NHS budget, and this has led to increased waiting times and poorer care for patients. The NHS is a crucial part of British society, and it is important that it receives adequate funding to provide high-quality healthcare to all citizens. Raising taxes on high earners would be a sensible approach to increase NHS funding. The NHS is a public service that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people who earn a lot to contribute a bit more to support the NHS. However, it is crucial to understand that the amount of tax the rich pay in absolute terms is much less than the amount of tax the poor pay, and raising their taxes may lead to a contraction in the economy and reduced funds available for healthcare in the long run. It is vital that any policy to increase tax on the rich is well thought out to avoid unintended negative consequences and ensure sustainable funding for healthcare.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is an essential service that is underfunded. The government has made many cuts to the NHS budget, and this has led to increased waiting times and poorer care for patients. The NHS is a crucial part of British society, and it is important that it receives adequate funding to provide high-quality healthcare to all citizens. Raising taxes on high earners would be a sensible approach to increase NHS funding. The NHS is a public service that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people who earn a lot to contribute a bit more to support the NHS. Of course, any tax policy should be carefully designed to balance the need for funding with the potential impact on the economy and overall societal well-being. It is also important to recognize that the NHS faces serious challenges beyond funding and that reforming the NHS requires a comprehensive approach that involves multiple stakeholders and solutions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is an essential service that is underfunded. The government has made many cuts to the NHS budget, and this has led to increased waiting times and poorer care for patients. The NHS is a crucial part of British society, and it is important that it receives adequate funding to provide high-quality healthcare to all citizens. Raising taxes on high earners would be a sensible approach to increase NHS funding. The NHS is a public service that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people who earn a lot to contribute a bit more to support the NHS. Of course, any tax policy should be carefully designed to balance the need for funding with the potential impact on the economy and overall societal well-being. In this way, the Delphi method is very useful for developing a consensus opinion, as it allows all participants to be involved in the process, and they can provide critiques of each draft and have their say in shaping the final consensus opinion. Each participant has an equal voice and gets to share their opinion. No opinion is dismissed, and each opinion is taken into +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that, in the view of the debt the NHS is running, the problem should be paid for by higher taxes, which is only fair for those earning a high salary. However, this might hamper economic growth, not just for the individual but for the country as a whole. People in such jobs often spend much of their income, thus their tax revenues are widely dispersed in the economy. An increase in tax for those with such a high wage might stymie their growth, in addition to dampening the economy. Rather than this, raising the tax threshold might be a better option, due to the economic growth this might create. More tax revenues would come from the newly wealthy, and this could be funnelled in to the NHS. It's easy for this group to say this when we don't have children/are quite young. However, it is important to remember that people might have a family dependent on them. It is not fair to put tax rises that might result in substantial cutbacks on to these people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is an essential service that is underfunded. The government has made many cuts to the NHS budget, and this has led to increased waiting times and poorer care for patients. The NHS is a crucial part of British society, and it is important that it receives adequate funding to provide high-quality healthcare to all citizens. Raising taxes on high earners would be a sensible approach to increase NHS funding. The NHS is a public service that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people who earn a lot to contribute a bit more to support the NHS. However, it is crucial to understand that the amount of tax the rich pay in absolute terms is much less than the amount of tax the poor pay, and raising their taxes may lead to a contraction in the economy and reduced funds available for healthcare in the long run. It is vital that any policy to increase tax on the rich is well thought out to avoid unintended negative consequences and ensure sustainable funding for healthcare.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, the UK should raise taxes on people earning more than $200,000 to help pay for the National Health Service. The NHS is an essential service that is underfunded. The government has made many cuts to the NHS budget, and this has led to increased waiting times and poorer care for patients. The NHS is a crucial part of British society, and it is important that it receives adequate funding to provide high-quality healthcare to all citizens. Raising taxes on high earners would be a sensible approach to increase NHS funding. The NHS is a public service that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people who earn a lot to contribute a bit more to support the NHS. Of course, any tax policy should be carefully designed to balance the need for funding with the potential impact on the economy and overall societal well-being. It is also important to recognize that the NHS faces serious challenges beyond funding and that reforming the NHS requires a comprehensive approach that involves multiple stakeholders and solutions. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001748.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001748.soc index 5e47011b..b8ead032 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001748.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001748.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “There should be a reduction in the amount of plastic packaging used, and a revision in the consensus that has led the UK to be in the negative top ten countries for recycling plastic waste. Recycling alone is insufficient. We must reduce plastic production at its source. There should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic and better incentives for people to recycle, returning plastic bottles to supermarkets etc, it needs to be made easier to recycle, clearer guidance and harsher punishments to those who do not. Individuals have a responsibility to help resolve it. There is already enough plastic pollution and we could sustain our need for plastic for many years by simply recycling. There needs to be s greater incentive to recycle, it needs to be easier to recycle and harsher punishments if you do not. Certain industries should still be allowed to use fresh plastics - for example hospitals and medicine, but only when a recycable alternative is not realistic or safe. We must reduce the amount of plastic packaging. Much of it is unnecessary and is used because it is the cheapest option. It does a lot of harm to the environment and will continue to build until it because a major problem as it lasts too long. “ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: “Yes, we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. However, we cannot ban all things with plastic packaging, as there are circumstances where it is essential and vital for example, in medicine and packaging for international goods. It is essential to recognise that recycling alone is insufficient and we need to reduce plastic production at its source.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We must reduce the amount of plastic packaging. Much of it is unnecessary and is used because it is the cheapest option. It does a lot of harm to the environment and will continue to build until it because a major problem as it lasts too long. There should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic and better incentives for people to recycle, returning plastic bottles to supermarkets etc, it needs to be made easier to recycle, clearer guidance and harsher punishments to those who do not. ” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. Plastic is a pervasive and devasting issue, causing harm to marine life , eco systems and entering our food chain. by prohibiting the sale of products wrapped in plastic we can reduce the amount of plastic. Recycling plastic alone is not enough. We need to stop producing it. It cannot be left to individuals to choose the "better" option. The government should step in and ban plastic as it is severely detrimental to our environment. We must reduce the amount of plastic packaging. Much of it is unnecessary and is used because it is the cheapest option. It does a lot of harm to the environment and will continue to build until it because a major problem as it lasts too long. There should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic and better incentives for people to recycle, returning plastic bottles to supermarkets etc, it needs to be made easier to recycle, clearer guidance and harsher punishments to those who do not. Certain industries should still be allowed to use fresh plastics - for example hospitals and medicine, but only when a recycable alternative is not realistic or safe.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “There should be a reduction in the amount of plastic packaging used, and a revision in the consensus that has led the UK to be in the negative top ten countries for recycling plastic waste. Recycling alone is insufficient. We must reduce plastic production at its source. There should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic and better incentives for people to recycle, returning plastic bottles to supermarkets etc, it needs to be made easier to recycle, clearer guidance and harsher punishments to those who do not. Individuals have a responsibility to help resolve it. There is already enough plastic pollution and we could sustain our need for plastic for many years by simply recycling. There needs to be s greater incentive to recycle, it needs to be easier to recycle and harsher punishments if you do not. Certain industries should still be allowed to use fresh plastics - for example hospitals and medicine, but only when a recycable alternative is not realistic or safe. We must reduce the amount of plastic packaging. Much of it is unnecessary and is used because it is the cheapest option. It does a lot of harm to the environment and will continue to build until it because a major problem as it lasts too long. “ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: “Yes, we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. However, we cannot ban all things with plastic packaging, as there are circumstances where it is essential and vital for example, in medicine and packaging for international goods. It is essential to recognise that recycling alone is insufficient and we need to reduce plastic production at its source.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We must reduce the amount of plastic packaging. Much of it is unnecessary and is used because it is the cheapest option. It does a lot of harm to the environment and will continue to build until it because a major problem as it lasts too long. There should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic and better incentives for people to recycle, returning plastic bottles to supermarkets etc, it needs to be made easier to recycle, clearer guidance and harsher punishments to those who do not. ” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. Plastic is a pervasive and devasting issue, causing harm to marine life , eco systems and entering our food chain. by prohibiting the sale of products wrapped in plastic we can reduce the amount of plastic. Recycling plastic alone is not enough. We need to stop producing it. It cannot be left to individuals to choose the "better" option. The government should step in and ban plastic as it is severely detrimental to our environment. We must reduce the amount of plastic packaging. Much of it is unnecessary and is used because it is the cheapest option. It does a lot of harm to the environment and will continue to build until it because a major problem as it lasts too long. There should be an extra tax on things sold on plastic and better incentives for people to recycle, returning plastic bottles to supermarkets etc, it needs to be made easier to recycle, clearer guidance and harsher punishments to those who do not. Certain industries should still be allowed to use fresh plastics - for example hospitals and medicine, but only when a recycable alternative is not realistic or safe.” 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001749.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001749.soc index 2bb13666..b8c3e4f2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001749.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001749.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the right to vote is an important part of being a UK citizen. However, we should not be forced to vote, as this would infringe on our freedom of choice. We should instead do more to encourage people to vote, and educate people on the importance of voting and the impact it has on our society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While voting is important, a democratic society should not force citizens to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the current system is the best for our country, as it allows for those who are interested in politics to vote and those who are not to not vote. The current system allows for those who are interested to have their say and to have their voice heard, and for those who are not interested to not have to vote. This system is fair for all and allows for those who are interested to have their say. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: 'We believe that voting should be compulsory as it would increase the number of people who actually get involved in politics. This would allow more people to have a say in the government, which in turn would make the government more representative of the people and therefore a better system. However, this does come with the risk of individuals voting on topics they know nothing about, as voting for the first option they see is often easier than researching the political parties or opinions on the ballot. This is why we believe that the process of voting should be made more accessible to all, with political parties giving clear information on their website and social media and encouraging people to ask questions and get involved.' +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the right to vote is an important part of being a UK citizen. However, we should not be forced to vote, as this would infringe on our freedom of choice. We should instead do more to encourage people to vote, and educate people on the importance of voting and the impact it has on our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While voting is important, a democratic society should not force citizens to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the current system is the best for our country, as it allows for those who are interested in politics to vote and those who are not to not vote. The current system allows for those who are interested to have their say and to have their voice heard, and for those who are not interested to not have to vote. This system is fair for all and allows for those who are interested to have their say. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 'We believe that voting should be compulsory as it would increase the number of people who actually get involved in politics. This would allow more people to have a say in the government, which in turn would make the government more representative of the people and therefore a better system. However, this does come with the risk of individuals voting on topics they know nothing about, as voting for the first option they see is often easier than researching the political parties or opinions on the ballot. This is why we believe that the process of voting should be made more accessible to all, with political parties giving clear information on their website and social media and encouraging people to ask questions and get involved.' 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001750.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001750.soc index 6bc8001d..2456c3a7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001750.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001750.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: It is vital that all UK citizens vote in all elections, and it should be compulsory for UK citizens to vote in all elections. In addition, UK citizens should be educated about the importance of voting and its positive impact upon society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not be forced to vote, but more should be done to educate the public on why voting is important and the impact it has on society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the right to vote is an important part of being a UK citizen. However, as free citizens, we should not be forced to vote, as this would infringe on our freedom of choice. However, we should do more to encourage people to vote, and educate people on the importance of voting and the impact it has on our society. Education is a crucial factor, and by encouraging people to get interested in politics, informed on the issues and informed on the consequences of voting, people may be more likely to vote, or at least to feel as though they are making an informed decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The right to vote is an important part of being a UK citizen. However, we should not be forced to vote, as this would infringe on our freedom of choice. We should instead do more to encourage people to vote, and educate people on the importance of voting and the impact it has on our society. The reason for this view is that voting is an important part of living in a democratic society, and it is important that all voices are heard when deciding on important issues for the whole country. It is important to recognise that making voting compulsory would mean that people who do not agree with the system would be forced to take part, and this would infringe on personal freedoms. Instead, we should be doing more to encourage people to vote, and the best way to do this is by educating people on the importance of voting and the impact it has on society, as this will help people feel more motivated to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: It is vital that all UK citizens vote in all elections, and it should be compulsory for UK citizens to vote in all elections. In addition, UK citizens should be educated about the importance of voting and its positive impact upon society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not be forced to vote, but more should be done to educate the public on why voting is important and the impact it has on society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the right to vote is an important part of being a UK citizen. However, as free citizens, we should not be forced to vote, as this would infringe on our freedom of choice. However, we should do more to encourage people to vote, and educate people on the importance of voting and the impact it has on our society. Education is a crucial factor, and by encouraging people to get interested in politics, informed on the issues and informed on the consequences of voting, people may be more likely to vote, or at least to feel as though they are making an informed decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The right to vote is an important part of being a UK citizen. However, we should not be forced to vote, as this would infringe on our freedom of choice. We should instead do more to encourage people to vote, and educate people on the importance of voting and the impact it has on our society. The reason for this view is that voting is an important part of living in a democratic society, and it is important that all voices are heard when deciding on important issues for the whole country. It is important to recognise that making voting compulsory would mean that people who do not agree with the system would be forced to take part, and this would infringe on personal freedoms. Instead, we should be doing more to encourage people to vote, and the best way to do this is by educating people on the importance of voting and the impact it has on society, as this will help people feel more motivated to vote. 3: 4,3,2,1 2: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001751.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001751.soc index 71e9197b..032f35c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001751.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001751.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The issue of overpopulation is not a straightforward one. It is a very difficult problem to solve, and it is not one that can be dealt with easily, or in the short term. It is a global problem, and it has many different causes, including the increase in lifespan, the decrease in deaths, the increase in birth rate, immigration, and so on. The world is becoming overpopulated, and this will cause huge problems for the planet, including increased poverty, a decrease in non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on. The current situation cannot continue. The overpopulation problem must be dealt with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that our planet is overpopulated, we have reached our optimum population capacity. There is a wide range of reasons for this, including the increase in lifespan, the decrease in deaths, the increase in birth rate, immigration, etc. All of this results in an overpopulation problem, and it is only getting worse. This will cause huge problems for the planet, including increased poverty, a decrease in non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on. The current situation cannot continue. The overpopulation problem must be dealt with. It is difficult to do so, because there are a lot of people, and it is difficult to control the birth rate, as well as immigration. It is a very difficult problem to deal with, and it is not one that can be dealt with easily, or in the short term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that our planet is overpopulated, we have reached our optimum population capacity. There is a wide range of reasons for this, including the increase in lifespan, the decrease in deaths, the increase in birth rate, etc. All of this results in an overpopulation problem, and it is only getting worse. This will cause huge problems for the planet, including increased poverty, a decrease in non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on. The current situation cannot continue. The overpopulation problem must be dealt with. It is difficult to do so, because there are a lot of people, and it is difficult to control the birth rate, as well as immigration. It is a very difficult problem to deal with, and it is not one that can be dealt with easily, or in the short term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The issue of overpopulation is not a straightforward one. It is a very difficult problem to solve, and it is not one that can be dealt with easily, or in the short term. It is a global problem, and it has many different causes, including the increase in lifespan, the decrease in deaths, the increase in birth rate, immigration, and so on. The world is becoming overpopulated, and this will cause huge problems for the planet, including increased poverty, a decrease in non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on. The current situation cannot continue. The overpopulation problem must be dealt with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that our planet is overpopulated, we have reached our optimum population capacity. There is a wide range of reasons for this, including the increase in lifespan, the decrease in deaths, the increase in birth rate, immigration, etc. All of this results in an overpopulation problem, and it is only getting worse. This will cause huge problems for the planet, including increased poverty, a decrease in non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on. The current situation cannot continue. The overpopulation problem must be dealt with. It is difficult to do so, because there are a lot of people, and it is difficult to control the birth rate, as well as immigration. It is a very difficult problem to deal with, and it is not one that can be dealt with easily, or in the short term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that our planet is overpopulated, we have reached our optimum population capacity. There is a wide range of reasons for this, including the increase in lifespan, the decrease in deaths, the increase in birth rate, etc. All of this results in an overpopulation problem, and it is only getting worse. This will cause huge problems for the planet, including increased poverty, a decrease in non-renewable resources, pollution, and so on. The current situation cannot continue. The overpopulation problem must be dealt with. It is difficult to do so, because there are a lot of people, and it is difficult to control the birth rate, as well as immigration. It is a very difficult problem to deal with, and it is not one that can be dealt with easily, or in the short term. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001752.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001752.soc index ad918d8e..fcd265f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001752.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001752.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: Whilst a degree is an important qualification to have, some lines of work do not require degrees, rather they require 'qualifications' such as a plumber, electrical engineer or electrician or other 'trades' - these are essential areas of the economy and thus if everyone had a degree, we'd have an even greater shortfall in key workers for the benefit of society and to keep inflation in check. Not everyone is capable of getting a degree and thus it is vital to have multiple education pathways for individuals that do not want to, or cannot, study at degree level. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. However, apprenticeships are not suitable for everyone as they restrict what individuals can achieve in the future and are particularly difficult for those studying Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. On the contrary, degrees provide a much more varied portfolio of opportunities in the future and enable movement to jobs that an apprenticeship would not. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue apprenticeships which are perceived to be lower prestige, but apprenticeships provide young people with valuable skills for life -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A degree is an important qualification to have, but not all professions necessitate a formal degree. Many successful individuals have found their paths without obtaining a degree. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue these careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. A degree is also not for everyone, and not everyone is capable of getting a degree. The dumbing down of degrees in recent years has devalued their worth. Apprenticeships are a much better way to go. No debts incurred and open to almost everybody. However saying that, we should make it easier for everyone that wants to study further to get a degree to be able to do so. Plus we do think that going to university and the opportunities it provides is an excellent thing to do. Conclusion: Through this process, the participants all developed their skills of negotiation and consensus-building, and their ability to express their views and to listen to the views of others. As you can see from the final consensus statement, each of the participants made some contribution to the final statement, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: It is important to note that not all professions necessitate a formal degree. Many successful individuals have found their paths without obtaining a degree. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue these careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. The next part of this group exercise was to give an opinion about how we got to this consensus and what parts we agreed with. This is mine: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Whilst a degree is an important qualification to have, some lines of work do not require degrees, rather they require 'qualifications' such as a plumber, electrical engineer or electrician or other 'trades' - these are essential areas of the economy and thus if everyone had a degree, we'd have an even greater shortfall in key workers for the benefit of society and to keep inflation in check. Firstly, not all professions necessitate a formal degree. Many successful individuals have found their paths without obtaining a degree. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue these careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. Not everyone is capable of getting a degree and the dumbing down of degrees in recent years has devalued their worth. Apprenticeships are a much better way to go. No debts incurred and open to almost everybody. However saying that, I believe that we should make it easier for everyone that wants to study further to get a degree to be able to do so. Plus I do think that going to university +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: Whilst a degree is an important qualification to have, some lines of work do not require degrees, rather they require 'qualifications' such as a plumber, electrical engineer or electrician or other 'trades' - these are essential areas of the economy and thus if everyone had a degree, we'd have an even greater shortfall in key workers for the benefit of society and to keep inflation in check. Not everyone is capable of getting a degree and thus it is vital to have multiple education pathways for individuals that do not want to, or cannot, study at degree level. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. However, apprenticeships are not suitable for everyone as they restrict what individuals can achieve in the future and are particularly difficult for those studying Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. On the contrary, degrees provide a much more varied portfolio of opportunities in the future and enable movement to jobs that an apprenticeship would not. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue apprenticeships which are perceived to be lower prestige, but apprenticeships provide young people with valuable skills for life +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A degree is an important qualification to have, but not all professions necessitate a formal degree. Many successful individuals have found their paths without obtaining a degree. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue these careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. A degree is also not for everyone, and not everyone is capable of getting a degree. The dumbing down of degrees in recent years has devalued their worth. Apprenticeships are a much better way to go. No debts incurred and open to almost everybody. However saying that, we should make it easier for everyone that wants to study further to get a degree to be able to do so. Plus we do think that going to university and the opportunities it provides is an excellent thing to do. Conclusion: Through this process, the participants all developed their skills of negotiation and consensus-building, and their ability to express their views and to listen to the views of others. As you can see from the final consensus statement, each of the participants made some contribution to the final statement, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: It is important to note that not all professions necessitate a formal degree. Many successful individuals have found their paths without obtaining a degree. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue these careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. The next part of this group exercise was to give an opinion about how we got to this consensus and what parts we agreed with. This is mine: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Whilst a degree is an important qualification to have, some lines of work do not require degrees, rather they require 'qualifications' such as a plumber, electrical engineer or electrician or other 'trades' - these are essential areas of the economy and thus if everyone had a degree, we'd have an even greater shortfall in key workers for the benefit of society and to keep inflation in check. Firstly, not all professions necessitate a formal degree. Many successful individuals have found their paths without obtaining a degree. Trades and technical occupations for instance can be learnt through apprenticeships and vocational training which provide hands-on experience and direct pathways to jobs. Encouraging everyone to pursue a degree might undervalue these careers and lead to an oversupply of degree holders with insufficient job opportunities to match. Not everyone is capable of getting a degree and the dumbing down of degrees in recent years has devalued their worth. Apprenticeships are a much better way to go. No debts incurred and open to almost everybody. However saying that, I believe that we should make it easier for everyone that wants to study further to get a degree to be able to do so. Plus I do think that going to university 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001753.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001753.soc index 5d3a3afb..eff59534 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001753.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001753.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a need for more police officers, but the way in which the police are trained and deployed needs to be reviewed. There is a need for more police officers on the streets, but they need to be trained in a way that allows them to build relationships with the local community, and they need to be deployed in a way that allows them to get to know their local community. There is also a need for more specialist police officers to deal with cyber crime, and to deal with the rise in mental health issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We need more police officers. The police are in crisis. There are not enough of them and they are under too much stress. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We need more police officers. We also need to look at how police are trained. We feel that if police were trained to de-escalate situations, and to be more understanding, then we would not need as many police officers. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the country definitely needs more police officers. There has been a significant decrease in police numbers since 2010, which has been further compounded by the fact that a lot of police officers are now needed to carry out tasks such as traffic control and patrolling beaches as opposed to fighting crime. This means that there is an increasing need for more police officers who can be used to fight crime. Whilst crime rates have fallen over the past 30 years, there has been a sharp rise in the past decade. Police numbers have also fallen significantly. Having more police officers will mean that each individual officer will be under less stress. This will improve their mental health and reduce the risk of an officer committing suicide. The current staffing levels are putting significant strain on the police force and this needs to be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a need for more police officers, but the way in which the police are trained and deployed needs to be reviewed. There is a need for more police officers on the streets, but they need to be trained in a way that allows them to build relationships with the local community, and they need to be deployed in a way that allows them to get to know their local community. There is also a need for more specialist police officers to deal with cyber crime, and to deal with the rise in mental health issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We need more police officers. The police are in crisis. There are not enough of them and they are under too much stress. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We need more police officers. We also need to look at how police are trained. We feel that if police were trained to de-escalate situations, and to be more understanding, then we would not need as many police officers. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there would be less need for armed police. We also feel that if we had more police officers, then there +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the country definitely needs more police officers. There has been a significant decrease in police numbers since 2010, which has been further compounded by the fact that a lot of police officers are now needed to carry out tasks such as traffic control and patrolling beaches as opposed to fighting crime. This means that there is an increasing need for more police officers who can be used to fight crime. Whilst crime rates have fallen over the past 30 years, there has been a sharp rise in the past decade. Police numbers have also fallen significantly. Having more police officers will mean that each individual officer will be under less stress. This will improve their mental health and reduce the risk of an officer committing suicide. The current staffing levels are putting significant strain on the police force and this needs to be addressed. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001754.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001754.soc index 2b163d5d..cb357eaa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001754.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001754.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Education is extremely important for the development of individuals and society, but we believe that there is a need for some cost to be borne by students in order to provide a greater sense of value to the qualification and as a result greater incentive for students to make the most of their university experience. We believe that the cost of attending university should be reduced to make it more accessible to those from poorer backgrounds. We believe that free tuition is achievable and desirable, but only for home students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, university education should be free to allow a more educated and competent society. This should be used to advance science, medicine and culture. However, university education should not be free to overseas students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of free university tuition. We thought that it would be beneficial for society as a whole and would allow those from poorer backgrounds to have the same opportunities as those from wealthier backgrounds. We did, however, recognise that it would be difficult to implement and that there would be some issues with it. For example, it would be difficult to decide who would be eligible for the free tuition and who would not. We also thought that it would be difficult to decide how to fund it. In the end, we thought that it would be a good idea in principle, but that it would be difficult to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Education is extremely important for the development of individuals and society, but we believe that there is a need for some cost to be borne by students in order to provide a greater sense of value to the qualification and as a result greater incentive for students to make the most of their university experience. We believe that the cost of attending university should be reduced to make it more accessible to those from poorer backgrounds. We believe that free tuition is achievable and desirable, but only for home students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, university education should be free to allow a more educated and competent society. This should be used to advance science, medicine and culture. However, university education should not be free to overseas students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of free university tuition. We thought that it would be beneficial for society as a whole and would allow those from poorer backgrounds to have the same opportunities as those from wealthier backgrounds. We did, however, recognise that it would be difficult to implement and that there would be some issues with it. For example, it would be difficult to decide who would be eligible for the free tuition and who would not. We also thought that it would be difficult to decide how to fund it. In the end, we thought that it would be a good idea in principle, but that it would be difficult to implement. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001755.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001755.soc index 97924819..c69e0c42 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001755.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001755.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Education is extremely important for the development of individuals and society, but we believe that there is a need for some cost to be borne by students in order to provide a greater sense of value to the qualification and as a result greater incentive for students to make the most of their university experience. We believe that the cost of attending university should be reduced to make it more accessible to those from poorer backgrounds. We believe that free tuition is achievable and desirable, but only for home students. This is a challenge to the current system, but not a total overhaul. We recognise that it is an expensive system to maintain, but the advantages of having a well-educated population with a wide variety of skills and talents is important. It is our hope that we will be able to implement such a change in the near future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the cost of attending university should be reduced to make it more accessible to those from poorer backgrounds. We believe that free tuition is achievable and desirable, but only for home students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Education is extremely important for the development of individuals and society, but we believe that there is a need for some cost to be borne by students in order to provide a greater sense of value to the qualification and as a result greater incentive for students to make the most of their university experience. Whilst we accept that the current costs are too high and discourage some from pursuing higher education, we believe that university should remain accessible to all, provided it is a right and not a privilege. This is an important point for home students, but also those who come to the UK to study, as diversity on campus is shown to improve the experiences and understanding of all who are studying. We believe that tuition fees need to be reduced to a level which is more affordable to all students and that free university tuition should be restricted to home students only as the costs of international students are too high for the government to be able to cover. Other themes that came out in the discussion about this question were: - the level of interest and determination of an individual to study and their prior performance are good indicators of potential success at university - experience from working was important in providing an understanding of the world and motivation to study at university +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Education is extremely important for the development of individuals and society, but we believe that there is a need for some cost to be borne by students in order to provide a greater sense of value to the qualification and as a result greater incentive for students to make the most of their university experience. We believe that the cost of attending university should be reduced to make it more accessible to those from poorer backgrounds. We believe that free tuition is achievable and desirable, but only for home students. This is a challenge to the current system, but not a total overhaul. We recognise that it is an expensive system to maintain, but the advantages of having a well-educated population with a wide variety of skills and talents is important. It is our hope that we will be able to implement such a change in the near future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the cost of attending university should be reduced to make it more accessible to those from poorer backgrounds. We believe that free tuition is achievable and desirable, but only for home students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Education is extremely important for the development of individuals and society, but we believe that there is a need for some cost to be borne by students in order to provide a greater sense of value to the qualification and as a result greater incentive for students to make the most of their university experience. Whilst we accept that the current costs are too high and discourage some from pursuing higher education, we believe that university should remain accessible to all, provided it is a right and not a privilege. This is an important point for home students, but also those who come to the UK to study, as diversity on campus is shown to improve the experiences and understanding of all who are studying. We believe that tuition fees need to be reduced to a level which is more affordable to all students and that free university tuition should be restricted to home students only as the costs of international students are too high for the government to be able to cover. Other themes that came out in the discussion about this question were: - the level of interest and determination of an individual to study and their prior performance are good indicators of potential success at university - experience from working was important in providing an understanding of the world and motivation to study at university 3: 1,4,2,3 2: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001756.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001756.soc index 22ed14c4..624c4a7a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001756.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001756.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride is a very emotive issue which often inspires debate. We believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and we do not want to appear to be passing judgement on anyone’s beliefs. As a group, we believe that a person’s national pride should come from within. Government efforts to encourage national pride can lead to nationalistic sentiment which can be used for ulterior motives. On the other hand, the breakdown of national pride has led to the emergence of nationalistic movements which do not appear to be interested in peaceful resolution of issues. This has led to unnecessary bloodshed. We do not feel that the role of the government is to enforce a particular sentiment on its citizens but to provide an environment that allows everyone to express their views freely and peacefully. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “National pride is a very emotive subject. We believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions on their nation. This right is included in many national constitutions and is enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights. There is no consensus on whether national pride is something that should be encouraged by government or something which should come from within. In a complex world, with diverse challenges, patriotism or national pride can be a unifying force. On the other hand, it can be used by politicians and special interests for personal gain. This has led to the emergence of nationalistic movements which do not appear to be interested in peaceful resolution of issues. This has led to unnecessary bloodshed. We do not feel that the role of the government is to enforce a particular sentiment on its citizens but to provide an environment that allows everyone to express their views freely and peacefully.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “National pride is a very emotive issue and, as a group, we agree that a person’s national pride should come from within.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and we do not want to appear to be passing judgement on anyone’s beliefs. We also do not feel that the role of the government is to enforce a particular sentiment on its citizens but to provide an environment that allows everyone to express their views freely and peacefully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride is a very emotive issue which often inspires debate. We believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and we do not want to appear to be passing judgement on anyone’s beliefs. As a group, we believe that a person’s national pride should come from within. Government efforts to encourage national pride can lead to nationalistic sentiment which can be used for ulterior motives. On the other hand, the breakdown of national pride has led to the emergence of nationalistic movements which do not appear to be interested in peaceful resolution of issues. This has led to unnecessary bloodshed. We do not feel that the role of the government is to enforce a particular sentiment on its citizens but to provide an environment that allows everyone to express their views freely and peacefully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “National pride is a very emotive subject. We believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions on their nation. This right is included in many national constitutions and is enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights. There is no consensus on whether national pride is something that should be encouraged by government or something which should come from within. In a complex world, with diverse challenges, patriotism or national pride can be a unifying force. On the other hand, it can be used by politicians and special interests for personal gain. This has led to the emergence of nationalistic movements which do not appear to be interested in peaceful resolution of issues. This has led to unnecessary bloodshed. We do not feel that the role of the government is to enforce a particular sentiment on its citizens but to provide an environment that allows everyone to express their views freely and peacefully.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “National pride is a very emotive issue and, as a group, we agree that a person’s national pride should come from within.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and we do not want to appear to be passing judgement on anyone’s beliefs. We also do not feel that the role of the government is to enforce a particular sentiment on its citizens but to provide an environment that allows everyone to express their views freely and peacefully. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001757.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001757.soc index cd61f988..8c1eb962 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001757.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001757.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who do not vote in elections. The group felt that people should have the right to vote or not to vote. The group felt that people should be encouraged to vote but not forced to vote. The group felt that the issue of people not voting was not as big an issue as some people make out. The group felt that people should vote if they are interested in politics and the future of the country. The group felt that some people are not interested in politics and they should not be forced to vote. The group felt that some people might not be in the country on the day of the election and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might be sick on the day of the election and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might not be able to get to a polling booth on the day of the election and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might not be able to get time off work to vote and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might not be able to get childcare to vote and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might not be able to get -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who did not vote in elections. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote was not in keeping with the idea of a democratic society. Secondly, it was felt that there were a number of reasons why people did not vote and that these should be taken into account. For example, it was felt that people who were ill or hospitalised should not be fined for not voting. Thirdly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected. It was felt that people should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice and that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidate being elected. Finally, it was felt that there were a number of practical difficulties with fining people who did not vote. For example, it was felt that it would be difficult to administer such a system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We have debated the issue of fining non-voters in elections. We are of the view that fining citizens for not voting in an election would be undemocratic. We believe that every citizen has the right to vote, but that this is a personal choice and should not be taken for granted. This is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen in a democracy and cannot be forced on people by the state. We are concerned that if people are forced to vote by being fined, they will not cast their vote for the person or party they would have voted for otherwise. There are some people who have genuine reasons for not being able to vote and fining them for this is wrong. There are also people who simply do not know which party they would vote for or who the candidates are in their constituency. This is another reason for which it would be wrong to fine these people. Lastly, there are some people who are unhappy with the democratic process in their country and do not wish to be involved. This may include people who have been unhappy with the way elections are run or people who do not feel they are being listened to by the government or political system. They are therefore choosing to protest through not voting and should +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who do not vote in elections. The group felt that people should have the right to vote or not to vote. The group felt that people should be encouraged to vote but not forced to vote. The group felt that the issue of people not voting was not as big an issue as some people make out. The group felt that people should vote if they are interested in politics and the future of the country. The group felt that some people are not interested in politics and they should not be forced to vote. The group felt that some people might not be in the country on the day of the election and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might be sick on the day of the election and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might not be able to get to a polling booth on the day of the election and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might not be able to get time off work to vote and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might not be able to get childcare to vote and they should not be fined. The group felt that some people might not be able to get +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who did not vote in elections. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote was not in keeping with the idea of a democratic society. Secondly, it was felt that there were a number of reasons why people did not vote and that these should be taken into account. For example, it was felt that people who were ill or hospitalised should not be fined for not voting. Thirdly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected. It was felt that people should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice and that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidate being elected. Finally, it was felt that there were a number of practical difficulties with fining people who did not vote. For example, it was felt that it would be difficult to administer such a system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We have debated the issue of fining non-voters in elections. We are of the view that fining citizens for not voting in an election would be undemocratic. We believe that every citizen has the right to vote, but that this is a personal choice and should not be taken for granted. This is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen in a democracy and cannot be forced on people by the state. We are concerned that if people are forced to vote by being fined, they will not cast their vote for the person or party they would have voted for otherwise. There are some people who have genuine reasons for not being able to vote and fining them for this is wrong. There are also people who simply do not know which party they would vote for or who the candidates are in their constituency. This is another reason for which it would be wrong to fine these people. Lastly, there are some people who are unhappy with the democratic process in their country and do not wish to be involved. This may include people who have been unhappy with the way elections are run or people who do not feel they are being listened to by the government or political system. They are therefore choosing to protest through not voting and should 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001758.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001758.soc index 88d9ba91..26910fac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001758.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001758.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is acceptable to use a person’s DNA to identify them as a criminal but only in the context of serious crimes and only where the DNA has been obtained legally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is acceptable to use a person’s DNA to identify them as a criminal. The most important caveat is that DNA cannot be stored for future use. It can only be used for the case in which it is gathered. Further, there should be strong oversight as to the methods of gathering the DNA and its subsequent storage. This should be a very careful and well regulated process. There should also be an opportunity for someone to ask for their DNA to be destroyed after the case is over. It should not be kept for future reference. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. The use of DNA evidence is a very effective way of identifying a person and should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence. The use of DNA evidence must be closely regulated and should only be used on the most serious of crimes. The storage of DNA evidence after the fact must be likewise regulated. The use of DNA evidence is very effective in solving crimes and identifying criminals, but the use of this evidence should be used in the most serious of crimes and with the highest level of regulation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. We believe that the use of DNA to identify a person as +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is acceptable to use a person’s DNA to identify them as a criminal but only in the context of serious crimes and only where the DNA has been obtained legally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is acceptable to use a person’s DNA to identify them as a criminal. The most important caveat is that DNA cannot be stored for future use. It can only be used for the case in which it is gathered. Further, there should be strong oversight as to the methods of gathering the DNA and its subsequent storage. This should be a very careful and well regulated process. There should also be an opportunity for someone to ask for their DNA to be destroyed after the case is over. It should not be kept for future reference. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. The use of DNA evidence is a very effective way of identifying a person and should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence. The use of DNA evidence must be closely regulated and should only be used on the most serious of crimes. The storage of DNA evidence after the fact must be likewise regulated. The use of DNA evidence is very effective in solving crimes and identifying criminals, but the use of this evidence should be used in the most serious of crimes and with the highest level of regulation. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001759.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001759.soc index 7c41593c..152e5af5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001759.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001759.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the science of injury prevention shows that helmets have the potential to save lives and reduce harm, there are some limitations. First, helmet use does not prevent injury from neck and spinal cord injuries, nor does it address the risk of accident itself. There is also a possible link between helmet use and increased injury severity when accidents occur, which is difficult to study because helmet wearers tend to have more severe accidents than non-wearers. The effect is small and the evidence is inconsistent, but it cannot be dismissed. In relation to mandatory helmet laws, there is concern that helmet legislation may discourage cycling, and thus decrease the overall health benefits of cycling and increase the risk of obesity. However, there is no evidence that this occurs. Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent all accidents, but they do reduce head injuries and have the potential to save lives. In general, legislation should be backed by strong evidence, so it seems that helmet laws should be in place in order to protect cyclists and other road users. There is currently a debate whether helmets should be compulsory for motorcyclists and scooter drivers. Similarly, there are many reasons to wear a helmet and many reasons not to wear a helmet, but the best option is -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be forced to wear helmets when cycling. Head injuries are such a common occurrence in relation to cycling accidents weather that it connected with a general cycle accident or collision with vehicle. Wearing a helmet would protect people as opposed to not wearing one. I have had family members have serious injuries from simply falling of their bike in weather conditions and caused significant harm to themselves and the outcome would of been very different if they had a helmet on. I also think it should be a forced law to wear a helmet when cycling as most of the time they do use up space on the road which is occupied by cars, vans, lorries so they are putting themselves in danger. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be forced to wear helmets when cycling. However, it is strongly encouraged by the government to wear one for safety purposes and it should be made clear that this is the case in relation to any incidents that occur in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be encouraged to wear helmets when cycling, but not forced to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the science of injury prevention shows that helmets have the potential to save lives and reduce harm, there are some limitations. First, helmet use does not prevent injury from neck and spinal cord injuries, nor does it address the risk of accident itself. There is also a possible link between helmet use and increased injury severity when accidents occur, which is difficult to study because helmet wearers tend to have more severe accidents than non-wearers. The effect is small and the evidence is inconsistent, but it cannot be dismissed. In relation to mandatory helmet laws, there is concern that helmet legislation may discourage cycling, and thus decrease the overall health benefits of cycling and increase the risk of obesity. However, there is no evidence that this occurs. Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent all accidents, but they do reduce head injuries and have the potential to save lives. In general, legislation should be backed by strong evidence, so it seems that helmet laws should be in place in order to protect cyclists and other road users. There is currently a debate whether helmets should be compulsory for motorcyclists and scooter drivers. Similarly, there are many reasons to wear a helmet and many reasons not to wear a helmet, but the best option is +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be forced to wear helmets when cycling. Head injuries are such a common occurrence in relation to cycling accidents weather that it connected with a general cycle accident or collision with vehicle. Wearing a helmet would protect people as opposed to not wearing one. I have had family members have serious injuries from simply falling of their bike in weather conditions and caused significant harm to themselves and the outcome would of been very different if they had a helmet on. I also think it should be a forced law to wear a helmet when cycling as most of the time they do use up space on the road which is occupied by cars, vans, lorries so they are putting themselves in danger. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be forced to wear helmets when cycling. However, it is strongly encouraged by the government to wear one for safety purposes and it should be made clear that this is the case in relation to any incidents that occur in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be encouraged to wear helmets when cycling, but not forced to do so. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001760.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001760.soc index 5ec46f6a..27d643b2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001760.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001760.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the tax rate on higher earners should not be raised as it is unfair to tax people differently based on their income. However, it is also unfair that people on lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than people on higher incomes. The fairest way to address this is to raise the income tax threshold so that people on lower incomes pay less tax and people on higher incomes pay more tax. This would also have the added benefit of incentivising people to work harder and make more money as they would keep more of their income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should raise the tax rate on higher earners as they will not notice a lot of a difference and it will benefit the country as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “No, we should not raise the tax rate on higher earners. The most important thing is to raise the tax on corporates as they are the ones who should pay as they have benefitted a lot from the policies of this government and their employees have had to suffer.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should raise the tax rate on higher earners, for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that in a democracy, the taxes paid by the people should reflect the services they receive. Higher earners receive a greater share of services and benefits from the state and thus should contribute a greater amount. This is more important than ever as the recession has hit those on lower incomes hard and they are increasingly unable to pay their fair share. Second, a tax system which falls disproportionately on lower earners has a negative impact on society. Firstly, the most disadvantaged are further disadvantaged as they pay a higher proportion of their income in tax and are less able to invest in their children's education or their own futures. This then perpetuates inequality. Secondly, lower earners will often have to work longer hours to pay taxes and this will have a negative impact on society in general as children, the elderly and those who are sick or unable to work will be deprived of the time and attention they need to be cared for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the tax rate on higher earners should not be raised as it is unfair to tax people differently based on their income. However, it is also unfair that people on lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than people on higher incomes. The fairest way to address this is to raise the income tax threshold so that people on lower incomes pay less tax and people on higher incomes pay more tax. This would also have the added benefit of incentivising people to work harder and make more money as they would keep more of their income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should raise the tax rate on higher earners as they will not notice a lot of a difference and it will benefit the country as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “No, we should not raise the tax rate on higher earners. The most important thing is to raise the tax on corporates as they are the ones who should pay as they have benefitted a lot from the policies of this government and their employees have had to suffer.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should raise the tax rate on higher earners, for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that in a democracy, the taxes paid by the people should reflect the services they receive. Higher earners receive a greater share of services and benefits from the state and thus should contribute a greater amount. This is more important than ever as the recession has hit those on lower incomes hard and they are increasingly unable to pay their fair share. Second, a tax system which falls disproportionately on lower earners has a negative impact on society. Firstly, the most disadvantaged are further disadvantaged as they pay a higher proportion of their income in tax and are less able to invest in their children's education or their own futures. This then perpetuates inequality. Secondly, lower earners will often have to work longer hours to pay taxes and this will have a negative impact on society in general as children, the elderly and those who are sick or unable to work will be deprived of the time and attention they need to be cared for. 2: 4,2,3,1 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001761.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001761.soc index 87ea51b6..80965082 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001761.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001761.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a need for more police officers, but the way in which the police are trained and deployed needs to be reviewed. There is a need for more police officers on the streets, but they need to be trained in a way that allows them to build relationships with the local community, and they need to be deployed in a way that allows them to get to know their local community. There is also a need for more specialist police officers to deal with cyber crime, and to deal with the rise in mental health issues. There have been significant cuts in the number of officers over the last 20 years. Whilst the Conservatives boasted about recruiting additional officers, this did not even make up for the number of officer cuts that had happened previously. Cyber crime has increased significantly, antisocial behaviour is rampant, detection rates are through the floor, and crime is out of control. Police have had to change the way that crime statistics are reported in order to mask this. The country desperately needs more officers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The police should use their discretion and question the need for arrest in circumstances where the following conditions are met: The suspect is not in possession of any stolen goods, or related goods. They suspect has not committed an offence, or they suspect they have committed the offence, but are not in a position to charge them. The suspect has not used any aggressive or threatening behaviour, and has a history of not being a threat. The revised consensus view was acceptable to all of the participants, and was agreed upon by all of the participants after lengthy discussion. This question was an interesting one, because it began in a political arena, and then progressed into a social arena. The participants agreed that it was an important social issue, but that it came in the wake of politicians presenting statistics and manipulating them to suit their own agenda. As participants, they wanted to be seen as objective, and they were rigorous in ensuring that their group would reach a consensus that would be acceptable to everyone in the group. Hence the way the group came to a consensus was different to all of the other questions looked at in this research. It began with the question being asked and looked at in light of the opinion of each participant, after which some conclusions were reached about -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Consensus statement from group of participants: Crime is out of control. There have been significant cuts in the number of police officers over the last 10-20 years. Whilst the Conservatives boasted about recruiting additional officers, this did not even make up for the number of officer cuts that had happened previously. Cyber crime has increased significantly, antisocial behaviour is rampant, detection rates are through the floor, and crime is out of control. Police have had to change the way that crime statistics are reported in order to mask this. The country desperately needs more officers, especially in areas where policing is heavily understaffed. The way in which the police are trained and deployed needs to be reviewed. More police officers are needed on the streets, but they need to be trained in a way that allows them to build relationships with the local community, and they need to be deployed in a way that allows them to get to know their local community. There is also a need for more specialist police officers to deal with cyber crime, and to deal with the rise in mental health issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a need for more police officers, but the way in which the police are trained and deployed needs to be reviewed. There is a need for more police officers on the streets, and a need for more specialist police officers to deal with cyber crime, and to deal with the rise in mental health issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a need for more police officers, but the way in which the police are trained and deployed needs to be reviewed. There is a need for more police officers on the streets, but they need to be trained in a way that allows them to build relationships with the local community, and they need to be deployed in a way that allows them to get to know their local community. There is also a need for more specialist police officers to deal with cyber crime, and to deal with the rise in mental health issues. There have been significant cuts in the number of officers over the last 20 years. Whilst the Conservatives boasted about recruiting additional officers, this did not even make up for the number of officer cuts that had happened previously. Cyber crime has increased significantly, antisocial behaviour is rampant, detection rates are through the floor, and crime is out of control. Police have had to change the way that crime statistics are reported in order to mask this. The country desperately needs more officers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The police should use their discretion and question the need for arrest in circumstances where the following conditions are met: The suspect is not in possession of any stolen goods, or related goods. They suspect has not committed an offence, or they suspect they have committed the offence, but are not in a position to charge them. The suspect has not used any aggressive or threatening behaviour, and has a history of not being a threat. The revised consensus view was acceptable to all of the participants, and was agreed upon by all of the participants after lengthy discussion. This question was an interesting one, because it began in a political arena, and then progressed into a social arena. The participants agreed that it was an important social issue, but that it came in the wake of politicians presenting statistics and manipulating them to suit their own agenda. As participants, they wanted to be seen as objective, and they were rigorous in ensuring that their group would reach a consensus that would be acceptable to everyone in the group. Hence the way the group came to a consensus was different to all of the other questions looked at in this research. It began with the question being asked and looked at in light of the opinion of each participant, after which some conclusions were reached about +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Consensus statement from group of participants: Crime is out of control. There have been significant cuts in the number of police officers over the last 10-20 years. Whilst the Conservatives boasted about recruiting additional officers, this did not even make up for the number of officer cuts that had happened previously. Cyber crime has increased significantly, antisocial behaviour is rampant, detection rates are through the floor, and crime is out of control. Police have had to change the way that crime statistics are reported in order to mask this. The country desperately needs more officers, especially in areas where policing is heavily understaffed. The way in which the police are trained and deployed needs to be reviewed. More police officers are needed on the streets, but they need to be trained in a way that allows them to build relationships with the local community, and they need to be deployed in a way that allows them to get to know their local community. There is also a need for more specialist police officers to deal with cyber crime, and to deal with the rise in mental health issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a need for more police officers, but the way in which the police are trained and deployed needs to be reviewed. There is a need for more police officers on the streets, and a need for more specialist police officers to deal with cyber crime, and to deal with the rise in mental health issues. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001762.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001762.soc index 72e3346c..3adcf0c4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001762.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001762.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We are all against this idea as we feel it would give the wealthy a big advantage. We feel that money should not play a part in the justice system. Although the government needs money for public services, they should be getting this money from another way that would not allow the rich to benefit over the poor. We feel that each case should be looked at on its own merit and not affected by money. We also discussed the idea of using private prisons, and how this could lead to companies saving money by not taking care of the prisoners. Although this is something we feel would work in the UK, it would not work in the US, because they have the death penalty and the prisoners would not have the same rights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The justice system should be equal for all. This would create a two-tiered system which would benefit the rich. It would result in longer waiting times for poorer people. Concerns about due process and potential manipulation of the legal process by those with financial means also arise. Balancing efficiency and fairness while upholding the principles of a just legal system would require careful consideration and public debate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, This is something that is dealt with on a merit by merit basis and should not be aBLE TO BE INFLUENCED BY MONEY -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We are in favour of allowing people to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. This will not allow for a two tier justice system as it would only be applied on a case by case basis. Furthermore, this is an ideal way to raise revenue for the government as it is something that has been suggested by a lot of private companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We are all against this idea as we feel it would give the wealthy a big advantage. We feel that money should not play a part in the justice system. Although the government needs money for public services, they should be getting this money from another way that would not allow the rich to benefit over the poor. We feel that each case should be looked at on its own merit and not affected by money. We also discussed the idea of using private prisons, and how this could lead to companies saving money by not taking care of the prisoners. Although this is something we feel would work in the UK, it would not work in the US, because they have the death penalty and the prisoners would not have the same rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The justice system should be equal for all. This would create a two-tiered system which would benefit the rich. It would result in longer waiting times for poorer people. Concerns about due process and potential manipulation of the legal process by those with financial means also arise. Balancing efficiency and fairness while upholding the principles of a just legal system would require careful consideration and public debate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, This is something that is dealt with on a merit by merit basis and should not be aBLE TO BE INFLUENCED BY MONEY +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We are in favour of allowing people to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. This will not allow for a two tier justice system as it would only be applied on a case by case basis. Furthermore, this is an ideal way to raise revenue for the government as it is something that has been suggested by a lot of private companies. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001763.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001763.soc index 8d1ab39a..d18c4acf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001763.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001763.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: It would be a good idea to explore ways to make it more difficult not to vote in elections. Whilst this would not necessarily lead to a better outcome it might make it harder to avoid voting. However, it would be difficult to implement and hard to know the impact it would have on society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who did not vote in elections. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote was not in keeping with the idea of a democratic society. Secondly, it was felt that there were a number of reasons why people did not vote and that these should be taken into account. For example, it was felt that people who were ill or hospitalised should not be fined for not voting. Thirdly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected. It was felt that people should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice and that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidate being elected. Finally, it was felt that there were a number of practical difficulties with fining people who did not vote. For example, it was felt that it would be difficult to administer such a system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of fining people who did not vote in elections. The main reason for this was that it was felt that fining people who did not vote was not in keeping with the idea of a democratic society. However, it was recognised that there were a number of reasons why people did not vote and that these should be taken into account. For example, it was felt that people who were ill or hospitalised should not be fined for not voting. It was also recognised that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected. It was felt that people should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice and that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidate being elected. Finally, it was felt that there were a number of practical difficulties with fining people who did not vote. For example, it was felt that it would be difficult to administer such a system. Conclusion As illustrated by the example above, we hope that the list of questions and the consensus statements of the Delphi participants will be of use to those of you who are running a Delphi study or who are thinking about running a Delphi study. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who did not vote in elections. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote was not in keeping with the idea of a democratic society. Secondly, it was felt that there were a number of reasons why people did not vote and that these should be taken into account. For example, it was felt that people who were ill or hospitalised should not be fined for not voting. Thirdly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected. It was felt that people should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice and that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidate being elected. Finally, it was felt that there were a number of practical difficulties with fining people who did not vote. For example, it was felt that it would be difficult to administer such a system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: It would be a good idea to explore ways to make it more difficult not to vote in elections. Whilst this would not necessarily lead to a better outcome it might make it harder to avoid voting. However, it would be difficult to implement and hard to know the impact it would have on society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who did not vote in elections. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote was not in keeping with the idea of a democratic society. Secondly, it was felt that there were a number of reasons why people did not vote and that these should be taken into account. For example, it was felt that people who were ill or hospitalised should not be fined for not voting. Thirdly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected. It was felt that people should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice and that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidate being elected. Finally, it was felt that there were a number of practical difficulties with fining people who did not vote. For example, it was felt that it would be difficult to administer such a system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of fining people who did not vote in elections. The main reason for this was that it was felt that fining people who did not vote was not in keeping with the idea of a democratic society. However, it was recognised that there were a number of reasons why people did not vote and that these should be taken into account. For example, it was felt that people who were ill or hospitalised should not be fined for not voting. It was also recognised that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected. It was felt that people should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice and that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidate being elected. Finally, it was felt that there were a number of practical difficulties with fining people who did not vote. For example, it was felt that it would be difficult to administer such a system. Conclusion As illustrated by the example above, we hope that the list of questions and the consensus statements of the Delphi participants will be of use to those of you who are running a Delphi study or who are thinking about running a Delphi study. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who did not vote in elections. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote was not in keeping with the idea of a democratic society. Secondly, it was felt that there were a number of reasons why people did not vote and that these should be taken into account. For example, it was felt that people who were ill or hospitalised should not be fined for not voting. Thirdly, it was felt that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidates being elected. It was felt that people should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice and that fining people who did not vote would not necessarily result in the best candidate being elected. Finally, it was felt that there were a number of practical difficulties with fining people who did not vote. For example, it was felt that it would be difficult to administer such a system. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001764.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001764.soc index cb9a22f7..06ae76a8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001764.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001764.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. The use of DNA evidence is a very effective way of identifying a person and should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence. The use of DNA evidence must be closely regulated and should only be used on the most serious of crimes. The storage of DNA evidence after the fact must be likewise regulated. The use of DNA evidence is very effective in solving crimes and identifying criminals, but the use of this evidence should be used in the most serious of crimes and with the highest level of regulation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: DNA evidence should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence. DNA evidence should only be used in the most serious of crimes. The use of DNA evidence must be closely regulated and the storage of DNA evidence after the fact must be likewise regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The use of DNA evidence in identifying criminals is widely accepted as a useful tool for the police in their jobs. However, it is widely accepted that the use of this tool needs to be closely regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. The use of DNA evidence is a very effective way of identifying a person and should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence. The use of DNA evidence must be closely regulated and should be used on all relevant crimes and not just the most serious of crimes. The storage of DNA evidence after the fact must be likewise regulated. The use of DNA evidence is very effective in solving crimes and identifying criminals, but the use of this evidence should be used with the highest level of regulation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. The use of DNA evidence is a very effective way of identifying a person and should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence. The use of DNA evidence must be closely regulated and should only be used on the most serious of crimes. The storage of DNA evidence after the fact must be likewise regulated. The use of DNA evidence is very effective in solving crimes and identifying criminals, but the use of this evidence should be used in the most serious of crimes and with the highest level of regulation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - DNA evidence should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence. DNA evidence should only be used in the most serious of crimes. The use of DNA evidence must be closely regulated and the storage of DNA evidence after the fact must be likewise regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The use of DNA evidence in identifying criminals is widely accepted as a useful tool for the police in their jobs. However, it is widely accepted that the use of this tool needs to be closely regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. The use of DNA evidence is a very effective way of identifying a person and should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence. The use of DNA evidence must be closely regulated and should be used on all relevant crimes and not just the most serious of crimes. The storage of DNA evidence after the fact must be likewise regulated. The use of DNA evidence is very effective in solving crimes and identifying criminals, but the use of this evidence should be used with the highest level of regulation. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001765.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001765.soc index dd3edf91..25253424 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001765.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001765.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Companies should be allowed to have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, companies should not be allowed to have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. The right to free speech is paramount and should always be allowed. It is very situational regarding companies about what can be said on social media, but generally speaking it is reasonable to enforce a zero tolerance policy on grounds of brand protection. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies should not have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important for companies to maintain control over their brand and their public image, employees also have the right to have a private life. We feel that in most cases, a zero tolerance policy is too strict. We therefore advocate for a very tolerant policy. While we recommend that companies should be allowed to monitor the use of social media by their employees, they should be allowed to use social media for their own personal uses. If they are found to be saying anything which may be illegal or illegal or cause a detrimental effect on the company's brand image, they should be sanctioned. The sanctions should be fair and appropriate for the situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Companies should be allowed to have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, companies should not be allowed to have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. The right to free speech is paramount and should always be allowed. It is very situational regarding companies about what can be said on social media, but generally speaking it is reasonable to enforce a zero tolerance policy on grounds of brand protection. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies should not have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important for companies to maintain control over their brand and their public image, employees also have the right to have a private life. We feel that in most cases, a zero tolerance policy is too strict. We therefore advocate for a very tolerant policy. While we recommend that companies should be allowed to monitor the use of social media by their employees, they should be allowed to use social media for their own personal uses. If they are found to be saying anything which may be illegal or illegal or cause a detrimental effect on the company's brand image, they should be sanctioned. The sanctions should be fair and appropriate for the situation. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001766.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001766.soc index a644e90b..5e459ea3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001766.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001766.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family. This is because the royal family is an outdated institution and it is time for a change. However, this is a tricky issue as there is no clear way to decide who would be 'worthy' of a place in the royal family. The monarchy has a lot of power still over decisions made by the UK, so having more diversity of voice within the group would be helpful. However, so much of what makes the royal family respected and powerful is their heritage and the legacy of their forefathers. This is why the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family, but it is not an easy issue to resolve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Consensus statement reached: In general, the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family. This is because the royal family is an outdated institution and it is time for a change. However, this is a tricky issue as there is no clear way to decide who would be 'worthy' of a place in the royal family. Some kind of test should be devised and regularly reviewed. The monarchy has a lot of power still over decisions made by the UK, so having more diversity of voice within the group would be helpful. However, so much of what makes the royal family respected and powerful is their heritage and the legacy of their forefathers. This is why the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family, but it is not an easy issue to resolve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: A middle ground seems to be a good conclusion. A test for people marrying into the royal family could be a good thing to ascertain if that person is worthy. The royal family is a much loved institution in the UK but it is definitely time for it to change and move with the times. There are ways to change the royal family without losing its heritage, and therefore respect, and the royal family should be open to change in order to make it more modern and relevant to society in the 21st century. B: What is the Ideal Re-organization of the Scottish Voter? A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family. This is because the royal family is an outdated institution and it is time for a change. However, this is a tricky issue as there is no clear way to decide who would be 'worthy' of a place in the royal family. The monarchy has a lot of power still over decisions made by the UK, so having more diversity of voice within the group would be helpful. However, so much of what makes the royal family respected and powerful is their heritage and the legacy of their forefathers. This is why the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family, but it is not an easy issue to resolve. This is because there is no clear way to decide who would be 'worthy' of a place in the royal family. This is because the monarchy has a lot of power still over decisions made by the UK, so having more diversity of voice within the group would be helpful. However, so much of what makes the royal family respected and powerful is their heritage and the legacy of their forefathers. This is why the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family. This is because the royal family is an outdated institution and it is time for a change. However, this is a tricky issue as there is no clear way to decide who would be 'worthy' of a place in the royal family. The monarchy has a lot of power still over decisions made by the UK, so having more diversity of voice within the group would be helpful. However, so much of what makes the royal family respected and powerful is their heritage and the legacy of their forefathers. This is why the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family, but it is not an easy issue to resolve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Consensus statement reached: In general, the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family. This is because the royal family is an outdated institution and it is time for a change. However, this is a tricky issue as there is no clear way to decide who would be 'worthy' of a place in the royal family. Some kind of test should be devised and regularly reviewed. The monarchy has a lot of power still over decisions made by the UK, so having more diversity of voice within the group would be helpful. However, so much of what makes the royal family respected and powerful is their heritage and the legacy of their forefathers. This is why the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family, but it is not an easy issue to resolve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: A middle ground seems to be a good conclusion. A test for people marrying into the royal family could be a good thing to ascertain if that person is worthy. The royal family is a much loved institution in the UK but it is definitely time for it to change and move with the times. There are ways to change the royal family without losing its heritage, and therefore respect, and the royal family should be open to change in order to make it more modern and relevant to society in the 21st century. B: What is the Ideal Re-organization of the Scottish Voter? A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family. This is because the royal family is an outdated institution and it is time for a change. However, this is a tricky issue as there is no clear way to decide who would be 'worthy' of a place in the royal family. The monarchy has a lot of power still over decisions made by the UK, so having more diversity of voice within the group would be helpful. However, so much of what makes the royal family respected and powerful is their heritage and the legacy of their forefathers. This is why the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current royal family, but it is not an easy issue to resolve. This is because there is no clear way to decide who would be 'worthy' of a place in the royal family. This is because the monarchy has a lot of power still over decisions made by the UK, so having more diversity of voice within the group would be helpful. However, so much of what makes the royal family respected and powerful is their heritage and the legacy of their forefathers. This is why the royal lineage should be open to people of all backgrounds and not only the current 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001767.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001767.soc index b53d425e..d07e0c32 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001767.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001767.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of EV vehicles as they are better for the environment. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before a widespread switch to EV vehicles is possible. Firstly, the infrastructure for charging the vehicles needs to be in place and this will require a large amount of funding. Secondly, the cost of the vehicles themselves needs to come down as they are currently unaffordable to the majority of the population. Finally, the issue of what to do with the old petrol and diesel cars needs to be addressed as they cannot be simply thrown away. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not subsidize electric vehicles as it is better to subsidize public transport instead. Public transport is more efficient in terms of reducing carbon emissions and it is also better for society as it allows for a greater sense of community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of subsidizing EV. The main argument for doing so is that EVs are generally better for the environment than petrol or diesel cars. The major concern that we had is that the poorest sections of society would not be able to afford these cars. The issue is not so much the cost of the car itself but rather the cost of running and maintaining it, which is likely to be much higher for EVs. For example, it will cost a lot more to charge an EV than to fill up a petrol or diesel car. However, this could be offset if the government subsidized the installation of charging points. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not subsidize electric vehicles over petrol/diesel cars, as it would be too expensive to support this in the long run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of EV vehicles as they are better for the environment. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before a widespread switch to EV vehicles is possible. Firstly, the infrastructure for charging the vehicles needs to be in place and this will require a large amount of funding. Secondly, the cost of the vehicles themselves needs to come down as they are currently unaffordable to the majority of the population. Finally, the issue of what to do with the old petrol and diesel cars needs to be addressed as they cannot be simply thrown away. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not subsidize electric vehicles as it is better to subsidize public transport instead. Public transport is more efficient in terms of reducing carbon emissions and it is also better for society as it allows for a greater sense of community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of subsidizing EV. The main argument for doing so is that EVs are generally better for the environment than petrol or diesel cars. The major concern that we had is that the poorest sections of society would not be able to afford these cars. The issue is not so much the cost of the car itself but rather the cost of running and maintaining it, which is likely to be much higher for EVs. For example, it will cost a lot more to charge an EV than to fill up a petrol or diesel car. However, this could be offset if the government subsidized the installation of charging points. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not subsidize electric vehicles over petrol/diesel cars, as it would be too expensive to support this in the long run. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001768.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001768.soc index e8a08840..4ae29218 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001768.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001768.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be forced to wear helmets when cycling. While cycling on the road can be very dangerous and causing head injuries in some situations, it should not be a forced law to wear a helmet when cycling as most of the time they do use up space on the road which is occupied by cars, vans, lorries so they are putting themselves in danger. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be forced to wear helmets when cycling. Head injuries are such a common occurrence in relation to cycling accidents weather that it connected with a general cycle accident or collision with vehicle. Wearing a helmet would protect people as opposed to not wearing one. I have had family members have serious injuries from simply falling of their bike in weather conditions and caused significant harm to themselves and the outcome would of been very different if they had a helmet on. I also think it should be a forced law to wear a helmet when cycling as most of the time they do use up space on the road which is occupied by cars, vans, lorries so they are putting themselves in danger. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be forced to wear helmets when cycling. While some people may not fully agree with such a paternalistic law, there are many logical reasons for its existence. On a basic level, helmets are able to cushion the impact of a bicycle accident by absorbing the force of the impact that would otherwise be absorbed by the skull, face and brain. This can mitigate the consequences of the trauma. Head injuries are also very common in cycling accidents, with either a collision with a vehicle or an accident involving falling off the bike. Wearing a helmet would protect people and ultimately help save lives. It is a preventative measure to decrease the number of cycling related deaths and head injuries. To be forced to do so, is a simple yet effective measure to reduce the impact of the public health crisis this creates. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be strongly encouraged to wear helmets when cycling because head injuries are a common occurrence and helmets provide protection. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be forced to wear helmets when cycling. While cycling on the road can be very dangerous and causing head injuries in some situations, it should not be a forced law to wear a helmet when cycling as most of the time they do use up space on the road which is occupied by cars, vans, lorries so they are putting themselves in danger. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be forced to wear helmets when cycling. Head injuries are such a common occurrence in relation to cycling accidents weather that it connected with a general cycle accident or collision with vehicle. Wearing a helmet would protect people as opposed to not wearing one. I have had family members have serious injuries from simply falling of their bike in weather conditions and caused significant harm to themselves and the outcome would of been very different if they had a helmet on. I also think it should be a forced law to wear a helmet when cycling as most of the time they do use up space on the road which is occupied by cars, vans, lorries so they are putting themselves in danger. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be forced to wear helmets when cycling. While some people may not fully agree with such a paternalistic law, there are many logical reasons for its existence. On a basic level, helmets are able to cushion the impact of a bicycle accident by absorbing the force of the impact that would otherwise be absorbed by the skull, face and brain. This can mitigate the consequences of the trauma. Head injuries are also very common in cycling accidents, with either a collision with a vehicle or an accident involving falling off the bike. Wearing a helmet would protect people and ultimately help save lives. It is a preventative measure to decrease the number of cycling related deaths and head injuries. To be forced to do so, is a simple yet effective measure to reduce the impact of the public health crisis this creates. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be strongly encouraged to wear helmets when cycling because head injuries are a common occurrence and helmets provide protection. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001769.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001769.soc index 3b5dd0fe..87f6fd17 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001769.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001769.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is a bad thing that so many adults never read books because reading develops the imagination and intellect and is important for our emotional and psychological well-being. It can also be relaxing and allow you to get away from your 'phone, tablet or social media. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, reading books is a good thing. It is not a bad thing that so many adults do not read books. The reasons for this are that some people do not like reading, some people are not able to read, and some people do not have access to books. It is not necessarily a bad thing that so many adults do not read books, but it is a missed opportunity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the consensus view that it is not necessarily a bad thing that so many adults never read books. However, we think that it is a missed opportunity for several reasons. Books can stimulate the mind and thinking, encourage the reader to take into consideration various events and character emotions, and help with language developing skills. There are also many benefits to be gained from reading a good quality book. However, not all books are of good quality and there are many ways to learn about different worldviews and lives outside books. Therefore, it depends on what quality books we are speaking of and how a person engages with other sources to improve themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus view: In the opinion of the group of participants, its not necessarily a bad thing that many adults dont read books, however its a missed opportunity for several reasons. Firstly, books are such a diverse medium and offer a chance for people to escape to another world and let their imagination run free. This is not to say that adults who don't read books cannot have their imaginations ignited by other media forms, but books offer the reader the chance to shape the world themselves in their head rather than passively watch or read about it in other media forms. Secondly, research has shown that reading books has a positive impact on people's mental health. Reading books, particularly ones which are challenging and/or contain some thought provoking content, stimulates the brain and helps to combat issues such as stress and depression. Thirdly, books are the way in which society has recorded and passed down its history. They offer a window into past times, enabling the reader to gain an insight into historical events, personalities, society, and culture. They offer an alternative perspective on historical events from that portrayed by the media and are often far more informative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is a bad thing that so many adults never read books because reading develops the imagination and intellect and is important for our emotional and psychological well-being. It can also be relaxing and allow you to get away from your 'phone, tablet or social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, reading books is a good thing. It is not a bad thing that so many adults do not read books. The reasons for this are that some people do not like reading, some people are not able to read, and some people do not have access to books. It is not necessarily a bad thing that so many adults do not read books, but it is a missed opportunity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the consensus view that it is not necessarily a bad thing that so many adults never read books. However, we think that it is a missed opportunity for several reasons. Books can stimulate the mind and thinking, encourage the reader to take into consideration various events and character emotions, and help with language developing skills. There are also many benefits to be gained from reading a good quality book. However, not all books are of good quality and there are many ways to learn about different worldviews and lives outside books. Therefore, it depends on what quality books we are speaking of and how a person engages with other sources to improve themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus view: In the opinion of the group of participants, its not necessarily a bad thing that many adults dont read books, however its a missed opportunity for several reasons. Firstly, books are such a diverse medium and offer a chance for people to escape to another world and let their imagination run free. This is not to say that adults who don't read books cannot have their imaginations ignited by other media forms, but books offer the reader the chance to shape the world themselves in their head rather than passively watch or read about it in other media forms. Secondly, research has shown that reading books has a positive impact on people's mental health. Reading books, particularly ones which are challenging and/or contain some thought provoking content, stimulates the brain and helps to combat issues such as stress and depression. Thirdly, books are the way in which society has recorded and passed down its history. They offer a window into past times, enabling the reader to gain an insight into historical events, personalities, society, and culture. They offer an alternative perspective on historical events from that portrayed by the media and are often far more informative. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001770.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001770.soc index cd455f29..06423b69 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001770.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001770.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be encouraged to ride bikes as it is a fun and healthy activity. A legal minimum age of buying a bike is unnecessary and would be difficult to enforce. The group was then asked to come up with a consensus view on the following question: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. Children should be encouraged to exercise and putting an age limit on this would impede this. If children are supervised well then there will not be an issue. Learning to ride a bike as a child was an essential part of growing up as it teaches balance, independence, confidence and makes exercise fun! I think introducing a minimum legal age for buying a bicycle would negatively impact the hobby. I remember going to buy my first bike with my parents when I was little and being so excited to get the brand new frame without stabilisers and with black and purple sparkly tassels hanging from the handlebars. There should not be a legal minimum age of buying a bicycle. Pedal bikes and push bikes all allow children to develop their motor skills and challenge them to learn a difficult skill. Children also learn to bond and spend time with the caregiver that teaches them to ride a bike. There should only be a minimum age limit for buying a bicycle if it is electric in nature. In addition, there's not likely to be circumstance where a juvenile is able to have the funds available to make such a purchase. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle, but there should be a minimum legal age limit for riding a bicycle on the road. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should not be a minimum legal age limit for buying a bicycle. Children learning to ride a bike, either with or without stabilisers, is an essential part of childhood and growing up. The age at which children learn to ride varies and should not be restricted by law. Children learn to balance, gain independence and have fun whilst riding their bikes. The activity is also a social experience which they share with parents, siblings and friends. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be encouraged to ride bikes as it is a fun and healthy activity. A legal minimum age of buying a bike is unnecessary and would be difficult to enforce. The group was then asked to come up with a consensus view on the following question: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle. Children should be encouraged to exercise and putting an age limit on this would impede this. If children are supervised well then there will not be an issue. Learning to ride a bike as a child was an essential part of growing up as it teaches balance, independence, confidence and makes exercise fun! I think introducing a minimum legal age for buying a bicycle would negatively impact the hobby. I remember going to buy my first bike with my parents when I was little and being so excited to get the brand new frame without stabilisers and with black and purple sparkly tassels hanging from the handlebars. There should not be a legal minimum age of buying a bicycle. Pedal bikes and push bikes all allow children to develop their motor skills and challenge them to learn a difficult skill. Children also learn to bond and spend time with the caregiver that teaches them to ride a bike. There should only be a minimum age limit for buying a bicycle if it is electric in nature. In addition, there's not likely to be circumstance where a juvenile is able to have the funds available to make such a purchase. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a legal minimum age limit for buying a bicycle, but there should be a minimum legal age limit for riding a bicycle on the road. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should not be a minimum legal age limit for buying a bicycle. Children learning to ride a bike, either with or without stabilisers, is an essential part of childhood and growing up. The age at which children learn to ride varies and should not be restricted by law. Children learn to balance, gain independence and have fun whilst riding their bikes. The activity is also a social experience which they share with parents, siblings and friends. 2: 2,4,1,3 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001771.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001771.soc index 14cd4315..4c8dbcc7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001771.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001771.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: FINAL CONSENSUS STATEMENT: We believe that money should not play a part in the criminal justice system. Each case should be looked at individually and dealt with on its own merits. We feel that allowing people to pay for faster criminal justice would just create a two tiered system where the richer people would be at an advantage. We feel that this would be harmful to the equality and fairness of the justice system. Although it has been discussed about allowing prisons to be run privately, we feel that it may not be the best idea, as most criminals wouldn't have the same rights as a normal citizen and they might not be looked after in the correct way. We think that it is important that the justice system stays the same and shouldn't have to be changed and money should never play a part in anything to do with it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We are all against this idea as we feel it would give the wealthy a big advantage. We feel that money should not play a part in the justice system. Although the government needs money for public services, they should be getting this money from another way that would not allow the rich to benefit over the poor. We feel that each case should be looked at on its own merit and not affected by money. We also discussed the idea of using private prisons, and how this could lead to companies saving money by not taking care of the prisoners. Although this is something we feel would work in the UK, it would not work in the US, because they have the death penalty and the prisoners would not have the same rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - FINAL CONSENSUS STATEMENT: We believe that money should not play a part in the criminal justice system. Each case should be looked at individually and dealt with on its own merits. We feel that allowing people to pay for faster criminal justice would just create a two tiered system where the richer people would be at an advantage. We feel that this would be harmful to the equality and fairness of the justice system. Although it has been discussed about allowing prisons to be run privately, we feel that it may not be the best idea, as most criminals wouldn't have the same rights as a normal citizen and they might not be looked after in the correct way. We think that it is important that the justice system stays the same and shouldn't have to be changed and money should never play a part in anything to do with it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We are all against this idea as we feel it would give the wealthy a big advantage. We feel that money should not play a part in the justice system. Although the government needs money for public services, they should be getting this money from another way that would not allow the rich to benefit over the poor. We feel that each case should be looked at on its own merit and not affected by money. We also discussed the idea of using private prisons, and how this could lead to companies saving money by not taking care of the prisoners. Although this is something we feel would work in the UK, it would not work in the US, because they have the death penalty and the prisoners would not have the same rights. 4: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001772.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001772.soc index 66fa2bcd..8cfe3cda 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001772.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001772.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. While nuclear energy may be one of the most environmentally friendly forms of energy generation, there are several reasons why building a nuclear power station on every island would not be a good idea. Firstly, it would be impractical and too expensive to build a power station on every island in the UK, and the expense of doing so would make it not financially viable. Secondly, even though the UK is an island itself, most of the population and energy use is concentrated in a few large cities, which means that a nuclear power station on the mainland would be much more efficient than one on one of the islands. Finally, many of the islands are too small to have the space required for a power station, and the environmental impact on the local population would be too great to justify building one. The group also considered that there are better options than nuclear power generation. It is important that the UK looks to renewable energy for future power generation, as well as new, more efficient energy technologies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We do not believe that a nuclear power station should be built on each of the islands of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we do not think that nuclear power stations should be built on each of the islands of the UK. We think that this would be an unnecessary expense and would cause more problems than it would solve. We do think that nuclear power is an important part of the UK's energy mix and that more nuclear power stations should be built. However, we do not think that it is necessary to build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. The group felt that the UK should be looking to increase its capacity for generating nuclear energy, but that this should not be at the expense of other forms of renewable energy. The group felt that it was important to site nuclear power stations in locations that will be safe for a long time, and that many of the UK's islands are going to be vulnerable as climate change leads to rising sea levels and extreme weather events. The group also felt that the energy generated will need to be transported to where it is needed, which will mostly be on the mainland, and that it would not be ideal to build nuclear power stations on each of the islands of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. While nuclear energy may be one of the most environmentally friendly forms of energy generation, there are several reasons why building a nuclear power station on every island would not be a good idea. Firstly, it would be impractical and too expensive to build a power station on every island in the UK, and the expense of doing so would make it not financially viable. Secondly, even though the UK is an island itself, most of the population and energy use is concentrated in a few large cities, which means that a nuclear power station on the mainland would be much more efficient than one on one of the islands. Finally, many of the islands are too small to have the space required for a power station, and the environmental impact on the local population would be too great to justify building one. The group also considered that there are better options than nuclear power generation. It is important that the UK looks to renewable energy for future power generation, as well as new, more efficient energy technologies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We do not believe that a nuclear power station should be built on each of the islands of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we do not think that nuclear power stations should be built on each of the islands of the UK. We think that this would be an unnecessary expense and would cause more problems than it would solve. We do think that nuclear power is an important part of the UK's energy mix and that more nuclear power stations should be built. However, we do not think that it is necessary to build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of building a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. The group felt that the UK should be looking to increase its capacity for generating nuclear energy, but that this should not be at the expense of other forms of renewable energy. The group felt that it was important to site nuclear power stations in locations that will be safe for a long time, and that many of the UK's islands are going to be vulnerable as climate change leads to rising sea levels and extreme weather events. The group also felt that the energy generated will need to be transported to where it is needed, which will mostly be on the mainland, and that it would not be ideal to build nuclear power stations on each of the islands of the UK. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001773.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001773.soc index d82b7533..eb1cd6b4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001773.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001773.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No company should be allowed to have a zero tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. While it is important for companies to maintain control over their brand and their public image, employees also have the right to have a private life. We feel that in most cases, a zero tolerance policy is too strict. We therefore advocate for a very tolerant policy. While we recommend that companies should be allowed to monitor the use of social media by their employees, they should be allowed to use social media for their own personal uses. If they are found to be saying anything which may be illegal or illegal or cause a detrimental effect on the company's brand image, they should be sanctioned. The sanctions should be fair and appropriate for the situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies should be allowed to monitor the use of social media by their employees. If an employee is found to be saying anything which may be illegal or cause a detrimental effect on the company's brand image, they should be sanctioned. The sanctions should be fair and appropriate for the situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that companies should not have a zero tolerance policy regarding social media, but believe that companies should monitor their employees' usage of social media to ensure that they do not engage in any illegal activities. If anything illegal is found, then they can reasonably sanction the employee. Professional Behavior Many people have jobs where they behave differently at work, compared to how they behave when they are not working. When you take a step back and reflect on this, you may be able to come up with a lot of reasons to explain why there is a disconnect between your behaviour at work and your behaviour outside of work. It is important for you to answer this questions so that you are able to come up with a possible explanation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important for companies to maintain control over their brand and their public image, employees also have the right to have a private life. We feel that in most cases, a zero tolerance policy is too strict. We therefore advocate for a very tolerant policy. While we recommend that companies should be allowed to monitor the use of social media by their employees, they should be allowed to use social media for their own personal uses. If they are found to be saying anything which may be illegal or detrimental to the company's brand image, they should be sanctioned. The sanctions should be fair and appropriate for the situation. If the company finds that an employee is using social media in a way that has no clear legal recourse, the employee should be asked to stop their activity and be given fair opportunity to improve themselves with the help of the company. If they cannot or will not, the company will have no choice but to terminate their employment. We think that social media use should generally be tolerated by companies as employees have the right to use it for their personal use in a way which does not damage the company's brand or their reputation. Employees should be aware however that if they misuse social media in a way that is illegal or damages the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No company should be allowed to have a zero tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. While it is important for companies to maintain control over their brand and their public image, employees also have the right to have a private life. We feel that in most cases, a zero tolerance policy is too strict. We therefore advocate for a very tolerant policy. While we recommend that companies should be allowed to monitor the use of social media by their employees, they should be allowed to use social media for their own personal uses. If they are found to be saying anything which may be illegal or illegal or cause a detrimental effect on the company's brand image, they should be sanctioned. The sanctions should be fair and appropriate for the situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies should be allowed to monitor the use of social media by their employees. If an employee is found to be saying anything which may be illegal or cause a detrimental effect on the company's brand image, they should be sanctioned. The sanctions should be fair and appropriate for the situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that companies should not have a zero tolerance policy regarding social media, but believe that companies should monitor their employees' usage of social media to ensure that they do not engage in any illegal activities. If anything illegal is found, then they can reasonably sanction the employee. Professional Behavior Many people have jobs where they behave differently at work, compared to how they behave when they are not working. When you take a step back and reflect on this, you may be able to come up with a lot of reasons to explain why there is a disconnect between your behaviour at work and your behaviour outside of work. It is important for you to answer this questions so that you are able to come up with a possible explanation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important for companies to maintain control over their brand and their public image, employees also have the right to have a private life. We feel that in most cases, a zero tolerance policy is too strict. We therefore advocate for a very tolerant policy. While we recommend that companies should be allowed to monitor the use of social media by their employees, they should be allowed to use social media for their own personal uses. If they are found to be saying anything which may be illegal or detrimental to the company's brand image, they should be sanctioned. The sanctions should be fair and appropriate for the situation. If the company finds that an employee is using social media in a way that has no clear legal recourse, the employee should be asked to stop their activity and be given fair opportunity to improve themselves with the help of the company. If they cannot or will not, the company will have no choice but to terminate their employment. We think that social media use should generally be tolerated by companies as employees have the right to use it for their personal use in a way which does not damage the company's brand or their reputation. Employees should be aware however that if they misuse social media in a way that is illegal or damages the 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001774.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001774.soc index f705b9f2..b434884e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001774.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001774.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of providing free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. It was felt that this would help to integrate people into the UK, allow them to contribute to society and the economy, and provide a good example to their children. It was also felt that it would be a good way to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. It was felt that the 5 year limit was a good compromise between being fair to the immigrants and being fair to the UK taxpayer. The group felt that it would be important to make it clear that this was a one-off offer and that immigrants should not expect to be able to claim free education indefinitely. It was felt that this would be a good way to help integrate immigrants into society, and that this would be a good thing for society as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group were in general agreement that primary education should be provided to everyone in the UK for free, regardless of their place of birth or how long they have lived here. Secondary education was also agreed to be essential and to be free to anyone. After this point there was some division on what was to be provided for free. Some thought that further education and tertiary education should also be provided, while others did not agree with this. The view which was favoured by the majority of the group was that higher education should be provided if the person was planning to work in the UK. This would help them to integrate into the country, learn more about the UK and also enable them to become productive members of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: 1. A 5 year limit is not acceptable for higher education. 2. A 5 year limit is acceptable for primary and secondary education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of providing free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. It was felt that this would help to integrate people into the UK, allow them to contribute to society and the economy, and provide a good example to their children. It was also felt that it would be a good way to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. It was felt that the 5 year limit was a good compromise between being fair to the immigrants and being fair to the UK taxpayer. The group felt that it would be important to make it clear that this was a one-off offer and that immigrants should not expect to be able to claim free education indefinitely. It was felt that this would be a good way to help integrate immigrants into society, and that this would be a good thing for society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group were in general agreement that primary education should be provided to everyone in the UK for free, regardless of their place of birth or how long they have lived here. Secondary education was also agreed to be essential and to be free to anyone. After this point there was some division on what was to be provided for free. Some thought that further education and tertiary education should also be provided, while others did not agree with this. The view which was favoured by the majority of the group was that higher education should be provided if the person was planning to work in the UK. This would help them to integrate into the country, learn more about the UK and also enable them to become productive members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. The government should provide free education to people who have +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 1. A 5 year limit is not acceptable for higher education. 2. A 5 year limit is acceptable for primary and secondary education. 3: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001775.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001775.soc index 191ecedf..9a8ce91c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001775.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001775.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Opinion from Group: We believe that the minimum age should be dropped to 16 years old, as young people are aware of current affairs and are also affected by the laws made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. However, there is not one set age in which all young people are able to think for themselves and understand the voting process. Thus there needs to be a higher age of voting. People should be able to vote at around the age of 16. At this age, most people are able to think for themselves and have a wider knowledge of politics. However, at the age of 16 people may not fully understand the voting process. Therefore, it is necessary to teach young people about the voting process and political systems before they vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. The minimum age should be 16 years old. This is because young people are aware of what is going on in the world and they should be able to have their say in what is happening. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections, but not until they reach the age of 18. The current voting age of 18 is a reasonable age to start voting, as this is when most people start to get a job and pay taxes, and are thus more likely to be interested in politics and have a greater understanding of the world. The group felt that it is important that young people are given a voice in the democratic process, but that the views of children should be isolated from those of adults, as they are not yet mature enough to make an informed decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Opinion from Group: We believe that the minimum age should be dropped to 16 years old, as young people are aware of current affairs and are also affected by the laws made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. However, there is not one set age in which all young people are able to think for themselves and understand the voting process. Thus there needs to be a higher age of voting. People should be able to vote at around the age of 16. At this age, most people are able to think for themselves and have a wider knowledge of politics. However, at the age of 16 people may not fully understand the voting process. Therefore, it is necessary to teach young people about the voting process and political systems before they vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. The minimum age should be 16 years old. This is because young people are aware of what is going on in the world and they should be able to have their say in what is happening. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections, but not until they reach the age of 18. The current voting age of 18 is a reasonable age to start voting, as this is when most people start to get a job and pay taxes, and are thus more likely to be interested in politics and have a greater understanding of the world. The group felt that it is important that young people are given a voice in the democratic process, but that the views of children should be isolated from those of adults, as they are not yet mature enough to make an informed decision. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001776.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001776.soc index 94b7c9d1..e6dcde96 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001776.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001776.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the tax-free allowance is too low. We believe that people, especially those on low incomes, should be able to keep more of what they earn. We believe that having more disposable income would lead to better growth in the economy as long as inflation is kept under control. We believe that there needs to be more pressure on companies and billionaires to pay tax, as opposed to individuals who are already struggling. We believe that the current system is unfair and needs to be changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the tax-free allowance is too low, and with the current cost of living, should be raised. This would be particularly beneficial to those on lower incomes who are struggling to live on the current allowance. However, the consensus opinion of the group is that there is also a need to look at the tax system as a whole, as it needs a serious shake-up. Many of us feel that the tax-free allowance is used to subsidise the tax cuts on big businesses, and that there is a need to look at the whole system and bring in a more progressive system that taxes the rich proportionately more. We also think that more needs to be done to encourage the big companies and the super-rich to pay their taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “No, the tax-free allowance is not too low, as the money from taxes goes towards helping the poor and vulnerable in society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more tax on big businesses and the tax-free allowance should be higher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the tax-free allowance is too low. We believe that people, especially those on low incomes, should be able to keep more of what they earn. We believe that having more disposable income would lead to better growth in the economy as long as inflation is kept under control. We believe that there needs to be more pressure on companies and billionaires to pay tax, as opposed to individuals who are already struggling. We believe that the current system is unfair and needs to be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the tax-free allowance is too low, and with the current cost of living, should be raised. This would be particularly beneficial to those on lower incomes who are struggling to live on the current allowance. However, the consensus opinion of the group is that there is also a need to look at the tax system as a whole, as it needs a serious shake-up. Many of us feel that the tax-free allowance is used to subsidise the tax cuts on big businesses, and that there is a need to look at the whole system and bring in a more progressive system that taxes the rich proportionately more. We also think that more needs to be done to encourage the big companies and the super-rich to pay their taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “No, the tax-free allowance is not too low, as the money from taxes goes towards helping the poor and vulnerable in society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more tax on big businesses and the tax-free allowance should be higher. 4: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001777.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001777.soc index 13c9a7e3..d8b287ad 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001777.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001777.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. However, it is a global issue and requires a global effort. The influence of global warming on everyday life is already here and it is essential to develop and implement sustainable energy sources. The move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary if humanity is to try to mitigate the climate change influences. The move to more sustainable energy sources is not something that will happen overnight and requires the world's population to all play their part. The move to more sustainable energy sources is not something that will happen overnight and requires the world's population to all play their part. This move will require the development and implementation of sustainable energy sources such as nuclear energy, solar energy, hydro energy, geothermal energy, etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary if humanity is to try to mitigate the climate change influences. It is a global issue and requires a global effort. It is a long term project and requires the world's population to all play their part. The participants who took part in the debate were then asked to rate their own opinion, the opinions of the other participants, the draft consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement, and the final consensus statement in terms of how well each one reflected their own opinion. The results are presented in -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. However, it is a global issue and requires a global effort. The influence of global warming on everyday life is already here. It is essential to develop and implement sustainable energy sources, such as nuclear energy, solar energy, hydro energy, geothermal energy, etc. The move to more sustainable energy sources is not something that will happen overnight. The move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary if humanity is to try to mitigate the climate change influences. For this to happen, the world's population needs to be educated and encouraged to all play their part. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary if humanity is to try to mitigate the climate change influences. The move to more sustainable energy sources is not something that will happen overnight and requires the world's population to all play their part. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. However, it is a global issue and requires a global effort. The influence of global warming on everyday life is already here and it is essential to develop and implement sustainable energy sources. The move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary if humanity is to try to mitigate the climate change influences. The move to more sustainable energy sources is not something that will happen overnight and requires the world's population to all play their part. The move to more sustainable energy sources is not something that will happen overnight and requires the world's population to all play their part. This move will require the development and implementation of sustainable energy sources such as nuclear energy, solar energy, hydro energy, geothermal energy, etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary if humanity is to try to mitigate the climate change influences. It is a global issue and requires a global effort. It is a long term project and requires the world's population to all play their part. The participants who took part in the debate were then asked to rate their own opinion, the opinions of the other participants, the draft consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement, and the final consensus statement in terms of how well each one reflected their own opinion. The results are presented in +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. However, it is a global issue and requires a global effort. The influence of global warming on everyday life is already here. It is essential to develop and implement sustainable energy sources, such as nuclear energy, solar energy, hydro energy, geothermal energy, etc. The move to more sustainable energy sources is not something that will happen overnight. The move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary if humanity is to try to mitigate the climate change influences. For this to happen, the world's population needs to be educated and encouraged to all play their part. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary if humanity is to try to mitigate the climate change influences. The move to more sustainable energy sources is not something that will happen overnight and requires the world's population to all play their part. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001778.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001778.soc index fd294a5a..fadf7773 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001778.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001778.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We generally agree with the idea of EV vehicles. However, to make it possible for the switch to EV to happen the first issue that we need to address is funding. Funding is needed to build the infrastructure of charging points across the country and funding is also needed to reduce the cost of the vehicles themselves. We also need to consider how to dispose of old petrol and diesel cars. Conclusion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are a number of issues that need to be addressed before a widespread switch to EV vehicles is possible. Firstly, the infrastructure for charging the vehicles needs to be in place and this will require a large amount of funding. Secondly, the cost of the vehicles themselves needs to come down as they are currently unaffordable to the majority of the population. Finally, the issue of what to do with the old petrol and diesel cars needs to be addressed as they cannot be simply thrown away. The challenge, however, is in knowing how to weigh these opinions against each other. Should we just add up all of the votes for each answer and go with the most popular one? This, however, doesn’t take into account how confident people are in their answers. After all, is someone who is 100% sure that they are correct more correct than someone who is 90% sure that they are correct? Or, should we just go with the answer that most people agree on? This, however, could mean that the answer is the one that most people just happen to agree on, without really thinking about it, rather than the one that is actually correct. A number of scientists have tried to come up with a mathematical model for this -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of EV vehicles as they are better for the environment. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before a widespread switch to EV vehicles is possible. Firstly, the infrastructure for charging the vehicles needs to be in place and this will require a large amount of funding. Secondly, the cost of the vehicles themselves needs to come down as they are currently unaffordable to the majority of the population. Finally, the issue of what to do with the old petrol and diesel cars needs to be addressed as they cannot be simply thrown away. This would require a well thought out plan to manage the scrapping of these old vehicles in a way that would have the least impact on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general the group was in favour of EV vehicles as they are better for the environment. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before a widespread switch to EV vehicles is possible. Firstly, the infrastructure for charging the vehicles needs to be in place and this will require a large amount of funding. Secondly, the cost of the vehicles themselves needs to come down as they are currently unaffordable to the majority of the population. Thirdly, the issue of what to do with the old petrol and diesel cars needs to be addressed as they cannot simply be thrown away. Finally, the impact on the electricity grid of the increased demand for electricity needs to be assessed. This may create new issues for the electricity system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We generally agree with the idea of EV vehicles. However, to make it possible for the switch to EV to happen the first issue that we need to address is funding. Funding is needed to build the infrastructure of charging points across the country and funding is also needed to reduce the cost of the vehicles themselves. We also need to consider how to dispose of old petrol and diesel cars. Conclusion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are a number of issues that need to be addressed before a widespread switch to EV vehicles is possible. Firstly, the infrastructure for charging the vehicles needs to be in place and this will require a large amount of funding. Secondly, the cost of the vehicles themselves needs to come down as they are currently unaffordable to the majority of the population. Finally, the issue of what to do with the old petrol and diesel cars needs to be addressed as they cannot be simply thrown away. The challenge, however, is in knowing how to weigh these opinions against each other. Should we just add up all of the votes for each answer and go with the most popular one? This, however, doesn’t take into account how confident people are in their answers. After all, is someone who is 100% sure that they are correct more correct than someone who is 90% sure that they are correct? Or, should we just go with the answer that most people agree on? This, however, could mean that the answer is the one that most people just happen to agree on, without really thinking about it, rather than the one that is actually correct. A number of scientists have tried to come up with a mathematical model for this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of EV vehicles as they are better for the environment. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before a widespread switch to EV vehicles is possible. Firstly, the infrastructure for charging the vehicles needs to be in place and this will require a large amount of funding. Secondly, the cost of the vehicles themselves needs to come down as they are currently unaffordable to the majority of the population. Finally, the issue of what to do with the old petrol and diesel cars needs to be addressed as they cannot be simply thrown away. This would require a well thought out plan to manage the scrapping of these old vehicles in a way that would have the least impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general the group was in favour of EV vehicles as they are better for the environment. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before a widespread switch to EV vehicles is possible. Firstly, the infrastructure for charging the vehicles needs to be in place and this will require a large amount of funding. Secondly, the cost of the vehicles themselves needs to come down as they are currently unaffordable to the majority of the population. Thirdly, the issue of what to do with the old petrol and diesel cars needs to be addressed as they cannot simply be thrown away. Finally, the impact on the electricity grid of the increased demand for electricity needs to be assessed. This may create new issues for the electricity system. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001779.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001779.soc index 7bab94da..167968bd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001779.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001779.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus view: In the opinion of the group of participants, its not necessarily a bad thing that many adults don't read books, however its a missed opportunity for several reasons. Firstly, books are such a diverse medium and offer a chance for people to escape to another world and let their imagination run free. This is not to say that adults who don't read books cannot have their imaginations ignited by other media forms, but books offer the reader the chance to shape the world themselves in their head rather than passively watch or read about it in other media forms. Secondly, research has shown that reading books has a positive impact on people's mental health. Reading books, particularly ones which are challenging and/or contain some thought provoking content, stimulates the brain and helps to combat issues such as stress and depression. Thirdly, books are the way in which society has recorded and passed down its history. They offer a window into past times, enabling the reader to gain an insight into historical events, personalities, society, and culture. They offer an alternative perspective on historical events from that portrayed by the media and are often far more informative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Consensus view: In the opinion of the group of participants, its not necessarily a bad thing that many adults dont read books, however its a missed opportunity for several reasons. Firstly, books are such a diverse medium and offer a chance for people to escape to another world and let their imagination run free. This is not to say that adults who don't read books cannot have their imaginations ignited by other media forms, but books offer the reader the chance to shape the world themselves in their head rather than passively watch or read about it in other media forms. Secondly, research has shown that reading books has a positive impact on people's mental health. Reading books, particularly ones which are challenging and/or contain some thought provoking content, stimulates the brain and helps to combat issues such as stress and depression. Thirdly, books are the way in which society has recorded and passed down its history. They offer a window into past times, enabling the reader to gain an insight into historical events, personalities, society, and culture. They offer an alternative perspective on historical events from that portrayed by the media and are often far more informative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus view: In the opinion of the group of participants, its not necessarily a bad thing that many adults don't read books, however its a missed opportunity for several reasons. Firstly, books are such a diverse medium and offer a chance for people to escape to another world and let their imagination run free. This is not to say that adults who don't read books cannot have their imaginations ignited by other media forms, but books offer the reader the chance to shape the world themselves in their head rather than passively watch or read about it in other media forms. Secondly, research has shown that reading books has a positive impact on people's mental health. Reading books, particularly ones which are challenging and/or contain some thought provoking content, stimulates the brain and helps to combat issues such as stress and depression. Thirdly, books are the way in which society has recorded and passed down its history. They offer a window into past times, enabling the reader to gain an insight into historical events, personalities, society, and culture. They offer an alternative perspective on historical events from that portrayed by the media and are often far more informative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Consensus view: In the opinion of the group of participants, its not necessarily a bad thing that many adults dont read books, however its a missed opportunity for several reasons. Firstly, books are such a diverse medium and offer a chance for people to escape to another world and let their imagination run free. This is not to say that adults who don't read books cannot have their imaginations ignited by other media forms, but books offer the reader the chance to shape the world themselves in their head rather than passively watch or read about it in other media forms. Secondly, research has shown that reading books has a positive impact on people's mental health. Reading books, particularly ones which are challenging and/or contain some thought provoking content, stimulates the brain and helps to combat issues such as stress and depression. Thirdly, books are the way in which society has recorded and passed down its history. They offer a window into past times, enabling the reader to gain an insight into historical events, personalities, society, and culture. They offer an alternative perspective on historical events from that portrayed by the media and are often far more informative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: 5: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001780.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001780.soc index 98aeb144..4b9df052 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001780.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001780.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that the UK should consider adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland and the Netherlands. The rising cost of living is putting many people in poverty and struggling to meet their basic needs, and with automation of jobs, people are losing their jobs and means of income. A Universal Basic Income is one way of ensuring that all people, whether in work or out of work, can access the funds to ensure their basic needs are met. There are many benefits to this, such as increased quality of life, a reduced strain on the NHS and welfare services, and an increase in productivity and economic growth. We do think that more information on how the scheme works in these countries would be useful before making a decision. We would also like to ensure that the implementation of such a scheme is done so with an ethical code of conduct so that it doesn't lead to people falling into poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the UK should adopt a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland, and the Netherlands. However, the UK should wait for the results of these experiments before making a final decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A Universal Basic Income is something that should be explored. It is a very different system to the one we currently have, and it is something that could help a lot of people who are struggling to get by. It could also help to reduce the amount of fraud in the benefits system, as it would be a flat rate payment to everyone. However, the cost of implementing this would be very high, and it is not something that should be rushed into. It would be good to see how the experiments in Finland and the Netherlands pan out, and then use this information to see if it would be a good idea to implement in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Whilst we recognise the value of UBI and understand it's potential in the future, we also acknowledge that it is currently too expensive for the UK to implement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that the UK should consider adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland and the Netherlands. The rising cost of living is putting many people in poverty and struggling to meet their basic needs, and with automation of jobs, people are losing their jobs and means of income. A Universal Basic Income is one way of ensuring that all people, whether in work or out of work, can access the funds to ensure their basic needs are met. There are many benefits to this, such as increased quality of life, a reduced strain on the NHS and welfare services, and an increase in productivity and economic growth. We do think that more information on how the scheme works in these countries would be useful before making a decision. We would also like to ensure that the implementation of such a scheme is done so with an ethical code of conduct so that it doesn't lead to people falling into poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the UK should adopt a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland, and the Netherlands. However, the UK should wait for the results of these experiments before making a final decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A Universal Basic Income is something that should be explored. It is a very different system to the one we currently have, and it is something that could help a lot of people who are struggling to get by. It could also help to reduce the amount of fraud in the benefits system, as it would be a flat rate payment to everyone. However, the cost of implementing this would be very high, and it is not something that should be rushed into. It would be good to see how the experiments in Finland and the Netherlands pan out, and then use this information to see if it would be a good idea to implement in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Whilst we recognise the value of UBI and understand it's potential in the future, we also acknowledge that it is currently too expensive for the UK to implement. 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001781.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001781.soc index ffbf463a..c82ae048 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001781.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001781.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should encourage people to be more health conscious, as doing so will improve the general well-being of the nation, with little downside. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, we should encourage the people of the UK to become more health conscious. We should be particularly mindful of people's mental health and ensure that people are not made to feel ashamed or guilty for their body weight or health choices. We should also be mindful that people's health choices are often influenced by factors outside of their control, such as their socioeconomic status. We should also ensure that people are not unfairly judged based on their body weight. However, we should also be mindful that some businesses and companies do not have people's best interests at heart. The government can help to combat this through initiatives, so long as those initiatives still leave people to make their own choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should encourage people to be more health conscious, but we need to do so in a way that is sensitive and not judgemental. We also need to make sure that the government is not putting its own interests above the interests of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should encourage the people of the UK to become more health conscious. We need to increase the general awareness of mental health in the population and provide services that are appropriate to deal with mental health problems. We also need to increase awareness of the risks of obesity, especially for people who are obese and unaware of the health risks that their weight is posing. This can be done by increasing the tax on unhealthy foods, such as fizzy drinks and sweets. This will encourage people to purchase more healthy foods and drinks. We also need to look at other forms of nudging, such as making the unhealthy foods more expensive and harder to find in supermarkets. In addition, we need to educate people about what a healthy lifestyle is. For example, exercise should be encouraged in schools and gyms should be more accessible. If people are educated about what a healthy lifestyle is, then people will have the ability to make their own choices and live a healthier lifestyle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should encourage people to be more health conscious, as doing so will improve the general well-being of the nation, with little downside. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, we should encourage the people of the UK to become more health conscious. We should be particularly mindful of people's mental health and ensure that people are not made to feel ashamed or guilty for their body weight or health choices. We should also be mindful that people's health choices are often influenced by factors outside of their control, such as their socioeconomic status. We should also ensure that people are not unfairly judged based on their body weight. However, we should also be mindful that some businesses and companies do not have people's best interests at heart. The government can help to combat this through initiatives, so long as those initiatives still leave people to make their own choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should encourage people to be more health conscious, but we need to do so in a way that is sensitive and not judgemental. We also need to make sure that the government is not putting its own interests above the interests of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should encourage the people of the UK to become more health conscious. We need to increase the general awareness of mental health in the population and provide services that are appropriate to deal with mental health problems. We also need to increase awareness of the risks of obesity, especially for people who are obese and unaware of the health risks that their weight is posing. This can be done by increasing the tax on unhealthy foods, such as fizzy drinks and sweets. This will encourage people to purchase more healthy foods and drinks. We also need to look at other forms of nudging, such as making the unhealthy foods more expensive and harder to find in supermarkets. In addition, we need to educate people about what a healthy lifestyle is. For example, exercise should be encouraged in schools and gyms should be more accessible. If people are educated about what a healthy lifestyle is, then people will have the ability to make their own choices and live a healthier lifestyle. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001782.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001782.soc index 667d3025..50698aaf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001782.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001782.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. Nuclear energy is an important part of the energy mix in the UK, and the government has a target of generating 30% of the UK's electricity from nuclear by 2030. However, there are several reasons why building a nuclear power station on every island would not be a good idea. Firstly, it would be impractical and too expensive to build a power station on every island in the UK, and the expense of doing so would make it not financially viable. Secondly, even though the UK is an island itself, most of the population and energy use is concentrated in a few large cities, which means that a nuclear power station on the mainland would be much more efficient than one on one of the islands. Finally, many of the islands are too small to have the space required for a power station, and the environmental impact on the local population would be too great to justify building one. The group also considered that there are better options than nuclear power generation. It is important that the UK looks to renewable energy for future power generation, as well as new, more efficient energy technologies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: We should not build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. While nuclear energy may be one of the most environmentally friendly forms of energy generation, there are several reasons why building a nuclear power station on every island would not be a good idea. Firstly, the islands of the UK have a relatively small population, which means that it would not make financial sense to invest in energy production there. Secondly, building such a large station would harm the local environment, and because many of the islands are very small, this would have a large impact on the community. Finally, many of the islands in the UK are going to be vulnerable as climate change leads to rising sea levels and extreme weather events, so it is important to site nuclear power stations in locations that will be safe for a long time. For these reasons, we do not think it is a good idea to build a power station on every island. Instead, we think it is important for the UK to look to renewable energy as a new source of power for the country, as well as continuing to innovate and develop new energy technology. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. There are several reasons why building a nuclear power station on every island would not be a good idea. Firstly, it would be impractical and too expensive to build a power station on every island in the UK, and the expense of doing so would make it not financially viable. Secondly, even though the UK is an island itself, most of the population and energy use is concentrated in a few large cities, which means that a nuclear power station on the mainland would be much more efficient than one on one of the islands. Finally, many of the islands are too small to have the space required for a power station, and the environmental impact on the local population would be too great to justify building one. The group also considered that there are better options than nuclear power generation. It is important that the UK looks to renewable energy for future power generation, as well as new, more efficient energy technologies. Conclusion: The benefits of using a group consensus statement are that the opinions of each individual are heard by all and considered by all. This means that the group can consider the opinions and arguments of each participant and reach the best possible consensus, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. Nuclear energy is an important part of the energy mix in the UK, and the government has a target of generating 30% of the UK's electricity from nuclear by 2030. However, there are several reasons why building a nuclear power station on every island would not be a good idea. Firstly, it would be impractical and too expensive to build a power station on every island in the UK, and the expense of doing so would make it not financially viable. Secondly, even though the UK is an island itself, most of the population and energy use is concentrated in a few large cities, which means that a nuclear power station on the mainland would be much more efficient than one on one of the islands. Finally, many of the islands are too small to have the space required for a power station, and the environmental impact on the local population would be too great to justify building one. The group also considered that there are better options than nuclear power generation. It is important that the UK looks to renewable energy for future power generation, as well as new, more efficient energy technologies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: We should not build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. While nuclear energy may be one of the most environmentally friendly forms of energy generation, there are several reasons why building a nuclear power station on every island would not be a good idea. Firstly, the islands of the UK have a relatively small population, which means that it would not make financial sense to invest in energy production there. Secondly, building such a large station would harm the local environment, and because many of the islands are very small, this would have a large impact on the community. Finally, many of the islands in the UK are going to be vulnerable as climate change leads to rising sea levels and extreme weather events, so it is important to site nuclear power stations in locations that will be safe for a long time. For these reasons, we do not think it is a good idea to build a power station on every island. Instead, we think it is important for the UK to look to renewable energy as a new source of power for the country, as well as continuing to innovate and develop new energy technology. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not build a nuclear power station on each of the islands of the UK. There are several reasons why building a nuclear power station on every island would not be a good idea. Firstly, it would be impractical and too expensive to build a power station on every island in the UK, and the expense of doing so would make it not financially viable. Secondly, even though the UK is an island itself, most of the population and energy use is concentrated in a few large cities, which means that a nuclear power station on the mainland would be much more efficient than one on one of the islands. Finally, many of the islands are too small to have the space required for a power station, and the environmental impact on the local population would be too great to justify building one. The group also considered that there are better options than nuclear power generation. It is important that the UK looks to renewable energy for future power generation, as well as new, more efficient energy technologies. Conclusion: The benefits of using a group consensus statement are that the opinions of each individual are heard by all and considered by all. This means that the group can consider the opinions and arguments of each participant and reach the best possible consensus, 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001783.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001783.soc index 6ee44076..2a3088c1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001783.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001783.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a balance between the number of people coming into the country and the number of people leaving the country. There should be an upper limit on the number of people coming into the country. The government should take into account the needs of the country and the impact that the people coming into the country will have on the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We think that the work done by immigrants from other countries enriches our culture, and provides the UK with a wealth of experiences and knowledge. We also feel that immigrants make important contributions to the economy, providing the expertise and innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the UK. There are concerns that immigrants might take jobs from local people, or put downward pressure on wages, or strain public services. However, we believe that we should still allow people to come and work here, as long as we carefully consider all the above factors and have a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. We also think that the government should put effort into training and retaining people so we don't have to rely on immigrants for these services. We think that the government should also ensure that unemployment isn't a problem in the country, so that people don't feel they have to go and find jobs elsewhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. The country has a shortage of labour in many areas and needs to be able to draw on expertise from around the world. The UK has a long history of welcoming immigrants and this has contributed to the cultural diversity of the country. However, concerns about potential job competition, wage pressures, and strain on public services should be carefully considered. Policymakers must strive for a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. Data-driven policies, public consultation, and humane considerations are vital for making informed decisions on this matter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK needs to allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK because of the shortage of skilled workers, however, we need to ensure that jobs for UK citizens are not taken by the immigrants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a balance between the number of people coming into the country and the number of people leaving the country. There should be an upper limit on the number of people coming into the country. The government should take into account the needs of the country and the impact that the people coming into the country will have on the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We think that the work done by immigrants from other countries enriches our culture, and provides the UK with a wealth of experiences and knowledge. We also feel that immigrants make important contributions to the economy, providing the expertise and innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the UK. There are concerns that immigrants might take jobs from local people, or put downward pressure on wages, or strain public services. However, we believe that we should still allow people to come and work here, as long as we carefully consider all the above factors and have a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. We also think that the government should put effort into training and retaining people so we don't have to rely on immigrants for these services. We think that the government should also ensure that unemployment isn't a problem in the country, so that people don't feel they have to go and find jobs elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. The country has a shortage of labour in many areas and needs to be able to draw on expertise from around the world. The UK has a long history of welcoming immigrants and this has contributed to the cultural diversity of the country. However, concerns about potential job competition, wage pressures, and strain on public services should be carefully considered. Policymakers must strive for a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. Data-driven policies, public consultation, and humane considerations are vital for making informed decisions on this matter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK needs to allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK because of the shortage of skilled workers, however, we need to ensure that jobs for UK citizens are not taken by the immigrants. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001784.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001784.soc index 22d022d9..c822d2e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001784.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001784.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a need for a more progressive tax system in the UK that taxes the rich proportionately more. The group also agrees that the tax-free allowance is too low and does not reflect the current cost of living, however, more consideration should be given to how this might affect public services in the current climate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: The tax-free allowance is too low and needs to be raised substantially. With the current cost of living, the level of the tax-free allowance needs to be at least doubled in order to give people a livable wage. We also think that the tax system needs a complete overhaul. It needs to be more progressive so that those on higher incomes pay proportionately more tax than lower earners. At the moment the wealthy get away with paying little or no tax due to the various loopholes in the tax system, and in light of the recent global financial crisis, the UK government is heavily reliant on money from working and middle-class families to balance the books, and this needs to change. The tax-free allowance is used as a way of subsidising tax cuts for big businesses, and more needs to be done to encourage big business to pay its share of tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Overall the tax-free allowance is too low, but the current climate means that now may not be the time to increase it. We want to be in a position where the tax-free allowance is able to support everyone. Now is not the time to increase the tax-free allowance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a strong consensus opinion that the tax-free allowance is too low, and with the current cost of living, should be raised. This would be particularly beneficial to those on lower incomes who are struggling to live on the current allowance. However, the consensus opinion of the group is that there is also a need to look at the tax system as a whole, as it needs a serious shake-up. Many of us feel that the tax-free allowance is used to subsidise the tax cuts on big businesses, and that there is a need to look at the whole system and bring in a more progressive system that taxes the rich proportionately more. We also think that more needs to be done to encourage the big companies and the super-rich to pay their taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a need for a more progressive tax system in the UK that taxes the rich proportionately more. The group also agrees that the tax-free allowance is too low and does not reflect the current cost of living, however, more consideration should be given to how this might affect public services in the current climate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: The tax-free allowance is too low and needs to be raised substantially. With the current cost of living, the level of the tax-free allowance needs to be at least doubled in order to give people a livable wage. We also think that the tax system needs a complete overhaul. It needs to be more progressive so that those on higher incomes pay proportionately more tax than lower earners. At the moment the wealthy get away with paying little or no tax due to the various loopholes in the tax system, and in light of the recent global financial crisis, the UK government is heavily reliant on money from working and middle-class families to balance the books, and this needs to change. The tax-free allowance is used as a way of subsidising tax cuts for big businesses, and more needs to be done to encourage big business to pay its share of tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Overall the tax-free allowance is too low, but the current climate means that now may not be the time to increase it. We want to be in a position where the tax-free allowance is able to support everyone. Now is not the time to increase the tax-free allowance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a strong consensus opinion that the tax-free allowance is too low, and with the current cost of living, should be raised. This would be particularly beneficial to those on lower incomes who are struggling to live on the current allowance. However, the consensus opinion of the group is that there is also a need to look at the tax system as a whole, as it needs a serious shake-up. Many of us feel that the tax-free allowance is used to subsidise the tax cuts on big businesses, and that there is a need to look at the whole system and bring in a more progressive system that taxes the rich proportionately more. We also think that more needs to be done to encourage the big companies and the super-rich to pay their taxes. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001785.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001785.soc index a1d348b5..d2bfea0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001785.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001785.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. There should not be a set age in which young people can vote, the age should be set based on the maturity level of the individual and their political understanding. Young people need to be educated about voting processes and the political system before they are allowed to vote. Although, teaching them about politics and the voting process does not guarantee that they will use their vote correctly. More attention should be drawn to programs such as the youth parliament, but is should not be a replacement for voting. This may be a good way for younger people to have their voices heard before they can vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections but there needs to be more emphasis on teaching them about the voting process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. However, there is not one set age in which all young people are able to think for themselves and understand the voting process. Thus there needs to be a higher age of voting. People should be able to vote at around the age of 16. At this age, most people are able to think for themselves and have a wider knowledge of politics. However, at the age of 16 people may not fully understand the voting process. Therefore, it is necessary to teach young people about the voting process and political systems before they vote. Conclusion This paper has presented a novel method by which Web 2.0 technologies can be used to promote dialogue and collaboration within online environments. The results of the case study indicate that it is indeed possible to promote fruitful dialogue and collaboration among participants in an online environment using this method. The case study showed that young people are open to the possibility of online collaboration and dialogue. Furthermore, it is also possible to facilitate fruitful dialogue and collaboration among people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge about a topic, as shown by the case study of the debate on the minimum voting age. In the case study of the debate on the minimum voting age, participants were able to express their own individual view on -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections, but there is not one set age in which all young people are able to think for themselves and understand the voting process. Thus there needs to be a higher age of voting. People should be able to vote at around the age of 16, but this is not a set rule. At this age, most people are able to think for themselves and have a wider knowledge of politics. However, at the age of 16 people may not fully understand the voting process. Therefore, it is necessary to teach young people about the voting process and political systems before they vote. Young people should be taught about the voting process and political systems from the age of 14 or so, to prepare them for when they become legally allowed to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. There should not be a set age in which young people can vote, the age should be set based on the maturity level of the individual and their political understanding. Young people need to be educated about voting processes and the political system before they are allowed to vote. Although, teaching them about politics and the voting process does not guarantee that they will use their vote correctly. More attention should be drawn to programs such as the youth parliament, but is should not be a replacement for voting. This may be a good way for younger people to have their voices heard before they can vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections but there needs to be more emphasis on teaching them about the voting process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. However, there is not one set age in which all young people are able to think for themselves and understand the voting process. Thus there needs to be a higher age of voting. People should be able to vote at around the age of 16. At this age, most people are able to think for themselves and have a wider knowledge of politics. However, at the age of 16 people may not fully understand the voting process. Therefore, it is necessary to teach young people about the voting process and political systems before they vote. Conclusion This paper has presented a novel method by which Web 2.0 technologies can be used to promote dialogue and collaboration within online environments. The results of the case study indicate that it is indeed possible to promote fruitful dialogue and collaboration among participants in an online environment using this method. The case study showed that young people are open to the possibility of online collaboration and dialogue. Furthermore, it is also possible to facilitate fruitful dialogue and collaboration among people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge about a topic, as shown by the case study of the debate on the minimum voting age. In the case study of the debate on the minimum voting age, participants were able to express their own individual view on +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections, but there is not one set age in which all young people are able to think for themselves and understand the voting process. Thus there needs to be a higher age of voting. People should be able to vote at around the age of 16, but this is not a set rule. At this age, most people are able to think for themselves and have a wider knowledge of politics. However, at the age of 16 people may not fully understand the voting process. Therefore, it is necessary to teach young people about the voting process and political systems before they vote. Young people should be taught about the voting process and political systems from the age of 14 or so, to prepare them for when they become legally allowed to vote. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001786.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001786.soc index 453e3bc6..a4336a74 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001786.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001786.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of providing free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. It was felt that this would help to integrate people into the UK, allow them to contribute to society and the economy, and provide a good example to their children. It was also felt that it would be a good way to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. It was felt that the 5 year limit was a good compromise between being fair to the immigrants and being fair to the UK taxpayer. It was felt that it would be important to make it clear that this was a one-off offer and that immigrants should not expect to be able to claim free education indefinitely. It was felt that this would be a good way to help integrate immigrants into society, and that this would be a good thing for society as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of providing free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. It was felt that this would help to integrate people into the UK, allow them to contribute to society and the economy, and provide a good example to their children. It was also felt that it would be a good way to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. It was felt that the 5 year limit was a good compromise between being fair to the immigrants and being fair to the UK taxpayer. The group felt that it would be important to make it clear that this was a one-off offer and that immigrants should not expect to be able to claim free education indefinitely. It was felt that this would be a good way to help integrate immigrants into society, and that this would be a good thing for society as a whole. It was also felt that this would be a good way to ensure that the children of immigrants would be able to contribute to society and the economy and would be able to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. Conclusion: The consensus statement-building process was challenging for participants, but all participants agreed that they had come to a better -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, but believe that it should be even clearer that providing this education to immigrants would be a way for the UK government to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. We think that it should be emphasised even more that this is a good thing for society in general. Discussion -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of providing free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. It was felt that this would help to integrate people into the UK, allow them to contribute to society and the economy, and provide a good example to their children. It was also felt that it would be a good way to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. It was felt that the 5 year limit was a good compromise between being fair to the immigrants and being fair to the UK taxpayer. The group felt that it would be important to make it clear that this was a one-off offer and that immigrants should not expect to be able to claim free education indefinitely. It was felt that this would be a good way to help integrate immigrants into society, and that this would be a good thing for society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of providing free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. It was felt that this would help to integrate people into the UK, allow them to contribute to society and the economy, and provide a good example to their children. It was also felt that it would be a good way to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. It was felt that the 5 year limit was a good compromise between being fair to the immigrants and being fair to the UK taxpayer. It was felt that it would be important to make it clear that this was a one-off offer and that immigrants should not expect to be able to claim free education indefinitely. It was felt that this would be a good way to help integrate immigrants into society, and that this would be a good thing for society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of providing free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. It was felt that this would help to integrate people into the UK, allow them to contribute to society and the economy, and provide a good example to their children. It was also felt that it would be a good way to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. It was felt that the 5 year limit was a good compromise between being fair to the immigrants and being fair to the UK taxpayer. The group felt that it would be important to make it clear that this was a one-off offer and that immigrants should not expect to be able to claim free education indefinitely. It was felt that this would be a good way to help integrate immigrants into society, and that this would be a good thing for society as a whole. It was also felt that this would be a good way to ensure that the children of immigrants would be able to contribute to society and the economy and would be able to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. Conclusion: The consensus statement-building process was challenging for participants, but all participants agreed that they had come to a better +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, but believe that it should be even clearer that providing this education to immigrants would be a way for the UK government to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. We think that it should be emphasised even more that this is a good thing for society in general. Discussion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of providing free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years. It was felt that this would help to integrate people into the UK, allow them to contribute to society and the economy, and provide a good example to their children. It was also felt that it would be a good way to show that the UK is a welcoming and tolerant society. It was felt that the 5 year limit was a good compromise between being fair to the immigrants and being fair to the UK taxpayer. The group felt that it would be important to make it clear that this was a one-off offer and that immigrants should not expect to be able to claim free education indefinitely. It was felt that this would be a good way to help integrate immigrants into society, and that this would be a good thing for society as a whole. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001787.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001787.soc index 1c485208..4df8199c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001787.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001787.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Theresa May was not a good prime minister, however she was possibly the best of a bad bunch. In her time in office, she was not able to demonstrate strong leadership, as a result she did not command the respect of her party. In addition, she was unable to campaign effectively or communicate her policies across to the electorate, which resulted in her party losing many votes. She was also not able to implement any effective policies to help the poor or disadvantaged members of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Theresa May was not a good Prime Minister. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Theresa May was a terrible prime minister who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, Theresa May was not a good prime minister. She was not a good campaigner and did not inspire people. She was indecisive and did not have a clear plan. The Brexit deal she negotiated was not popular and was not supported by her own party. The conservative party did not really want her as a leader and this was reflected in the way they treated her. The conservative party has moved to the right since she was leader and this has not helped poor people in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Theresa May was not a good prime minister, however she was possibly the best of a bad bunch. In her time in office, she was not able to demonstrate strong leadership, as a result she did not command the respect of her party. In addition, she was unable to campaign effectively or communicate her policies across to the electorate, which resulted in her party losing many votes. She was also not able to implement any effective policies to help the poor or disadvantaged members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Theresa May was not a good Prime Minister. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Theresa May was a terrible prime minister who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, Theresa May was not a good prime minister. She was not a good campaigner and did not inspire people. She was indecisive and did not have a clear plan. The Brexit deal she negotiated was not popular and was not supported by her own party. The conservative party did not really want her as a leader and this was reflected in the way they treated her. The conservative party has moved to the right since she was leader and this has not helped poor people in the UK. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001788.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001788.soc index fae975b8..03a0ace9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001788.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001788.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are pros and cons to the implementation of a Universal Basic Income in the UK. We think that it would be beneficial to evaluate the experiments that are running in Finland and the Netherlands and get more information on how the scheme works and how it can be implemented in the UK. We would also like to ensure that the implementation of such a scheme is done so with an ethical code of conduct so that it doesn't lead to people falling into poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should consider adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland and the Netherlands, however only after investigating the successes and failures of these pilot schemes in these countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the UK should consider adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland and the Netherlands. The rising cost of living is putting many people in poverty and struggling to meet their basic needs, and with automation of jobs, people are losing their jobs and means of income. A Universal Basic Income is one way of ensuring that all people, whether in work or out of work, can access the funds to ensure their basic needs are met. There are many benefits to this, such as increased quality of life, a reduced strain on the NHS and welfare services, and an increase in productivity and economic growth. We do think that more information on how the scheme works in these countries would be useful before making a decision. We would also like to ensure that the implementation of such a scheme is done so with an ethical code of conduct so that it doesn't lead to people falling into poverty, and so that benefits are accessible and adequate for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the UK should consider adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland and the Netherlands. The rising cost of living is putting many people in poverty and struggling to meet their basic needs, and with automation of jobs, people are losing their jobs and means of income. A Universal Basic Income is one way of ensuring that all people, whether in work or out of work, can access the funds to ensure their basic needs are met. There are many benefits to this, such as increased quality of life, a reduced strain on the NHS and welfare services, and an increase in productivity and economic growth. We do think that more information on how the scheme works in these countries would be useful before making a decision. We would also like to ensure that the implementation of such a scheme is done so with an ethical code of conduct so that it doesn't lead to people falling into poverty. We also think that the scheme should be introduced on a trial basis, with close monitoring to ensure that the desired benefits are being realised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are pros and cons to the implementation of a Universal Basic Income in the UK. We think that it would be beneficial to evaluate the experiments that are running in Finland and the Netherlands and get more information on how the scheme works and how it can be implemented in the UK. We would also like to ensure that the implementation of such a scheme is done so with an ethical code of conduct so that it doesn't lead to people falling into poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should consider adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland and the Netherlands, however only after investigating the successes and failures of these pilot schemes in these countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the UK should consider adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland and the Netherlands. The rising cost of living is putting many people in poverty and struggling to meet their basic needs, and with automation of jobs, people are losing their jobs and means of income. A Universal Basic Income is one way of ensuring that all people, whether in work or out of work, can access the funds to ensure their basic needs are met. There are many benefits to this, such as increased quality of life, a reduced strain on the NHS and welfare services, and an increase in productivity and economic growth. We do think that more information on how the scheme works in these countries would be useful before making a decision. We would also like to ensure that the implementation of such a scheme is done so with an ethical code of conduct so that it doesn't lead to people falling into poverty, and so that benefits are accessible and adequate for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the UK should consider adopting a similar approach to the Universal Basic Income experiments that are currently running in Finland and the Netherlands. The rising cost of living is putting many people in poverty and struggling to meet their basic needs, and with automation of jobs, people are losing their jobs and means of income. A Universal Basic Income is one way of ensuring that all people, whether in work or out of work, can access the funds to ensure their basic needs are met. There are many benefits to this, such as increased quality of life, a reduced strain on the NHS and welfare services, and an increase in productivity and economic growth. We do think that more information on how the scheme works in these countries would be useful before making a decision. We would also like to ensure that the implementation of such a scheme is done so with an ethical code of conduct so that it doesn't lead to people falling into poverty. We also think that the scheme should be introduced on a trial basis, with close monitoring to ensure that the desired benefits are being realised. 4: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001789.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001789.soc index 97e2b546..ad41f6d0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001789.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001789.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We think that the work done by immigrants from other countries enriches our culture, and provides the UK with a wealth of experiences and knowledge. We also feel that immigrants make important contributions to the economy, providing the expertise and innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the UK. There are concerns that immigrants might take jobs from local people, or put downward pressure on wages, or strain public services. However, we believe that we should still allow people to come and work here, as long as we carefully consider all the above factors and have a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. We also think that the government should put effort into training and retaining people so we don't have to rely on immigrants for these services. We think that the government should also ensure that unemployment isn't a problem in the country, so that people don't feel they have to go and find jobs elsewhere. This was not a random group of people. As you can see, each of them were selected because they had a stake in the matter. Some of them have immigration background. Some -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We think that the work done by immigrants from other countries enriches our culture, and provides the UK with a wealth of experiences and knowledge. We also feel that immigrants make important contributions to the economy, providing the expertise and innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the UK. There are concerns that immigrants might take jobs from local people, or put downward pressure on wages, or strain public services. However, we believe that we should still allow people to come and work here, as long as we carefully consider all the above factors and have a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. We also think that the government should put effort into training and retaining people so we don't have to rely on immigrants for these services. We think that the government should also ensure that unemployment isn't a problem in the country, so that people don't feel they have to go and find jobs elsewhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: We think we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We think that immigrants enrich our culture and provide the UK with a wealth of expertise and knowledge. We also feel that immigrants make important contributions to the economy, providing the expertise and innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the UK. There are concerns that immigrants might take jobs from local people, or put downward pressure on wages, or strain public services. However, we believe that we should still allow people to come and work here, as long as we carefully consider all the above factors and have a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. We also think that the government should put effort into training and retaining people so we don't have to rely on immigrants for certain services. We also think that the government should ensure that unemployment isn't a problem in the UK, so that people don't feel they have to go and find jobs elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We think that the work done by immigrants from other countries enriches our culture, and provides the UK with a wealth of experiences and knowledge. We also feel that immigrants make important contributions to the economy, providing the expertise and innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the UK. There are concerns that immigrants might take jobs from local people, or put downward pressure on wages, or strain public services. However, we believe that we should still allow people to come and work here, as long as we carefully consider all the above factors and have a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. We also think that the government should put effort into training and retaining people so we don't have to rely on immigrants for these services. We think that the government should also ensure that unemployment isn't a problem in the country, so that people don't feel they have to go and find jobs elsewhere. This was not a random group of people. As you can see, each of them were selected because they had a stake in the matter. Some of them have immigration background. Some +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We think that the work done by immigrants from other countries enriches our culture, and provides the UK with a wealth of experiences and knowledge. We also feel that immigrants make important contributions to the economy, providing the expertise and innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the UK. There are concerns that immigrants might take jobs from local people, or put downward pressure on wages, or strain public services. However, we believe that we should still allow people to come and work here, as long as we carefully consider all the above factors and have a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. We also think that the government should put effort into training and retaining people so we don't have to rely on immigrants for these services. We think that the government should also ensure that unemployment isn't a problem in the country, so that people don't feel they have to go and find jobs elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We think we should allow people from other countries to come and work in the UK. We think that immigrants enrich our culture and provide the UK with a wealth of expertise and knowledge. We also feel that immigrants make important contributions to the economy, providing the expertise and innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the UK. There are concerns that immigrants might take jobs from local people, or put downward pressure on wages, or strain public services. However, we believe that we should still allow people to come and work here, as long as we carefully consider all the above factors and have a well-regulated and fair immigration system that balances the benefits of immigration with the needs and interests of the country and its citizens. We also think that the government should put effort into training and retaining people so we don't have to rely on immigrants for certain services. We also think that the government should ensure that unemployment isn't a problem in the UK, so that people don't feel they have to go and find jobs elsewhere. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001790.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001790.soc index 3579d9e7..f0c14d9a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001790.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001790.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Theresa May was not a good prime minister, however she was possibly the best of a bad bunch. In her time in office, she was not able to demonstrate strong leadership, as a result she did not command the respect of her party. In addition, she was unable to campaign effectively or communicate her policies across to the electorate, which resulted in her party losing many votes. She was also not able to implement any effective policies to help the poor or disadvantaged members of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Theresa May was not a good prime minister. She wasn't a strong leader and was not able to command the respect of her party, or communicate her policies across to the electorate. She was also not able to implement any effective policies to help the poor or disadvantaged members of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: Theresa May was not a good prime minister; she was unable to campaign effectively or communicate her policies across to the electorate. As a result, she lost many votes for her party. In addition, she did not demonstrate strong leadership and could not implement any effective policies to help the poor. Reflective essay In the essay, I focused primarily on two interactive posts with two very different questions and one reflective post. In my opinion, the most challenging aspect of the Online -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Theresa May was not a good prime minister due to her poor leadership, which lacked decisiveness and commitment to a cause. In her time in office, she was unable to command the respect of her party and suffered from a lack of support from many of her MPs. She also received very little support from the electorate, which made it difficult for her to stay in office. She was unable to carry out many of her policies effectively, which meant she was unable to make an impact on the UK population. She in particular was unable to help the disadvantaged members of society with any of her policies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Theresa May was not a good prime minister, however she was possibly the best of a bad bunch. In her time in office, she was not able to demonstrate strong leadership, as a result she did not command the respect of her party. In addition, she was unable to campaign effectively or communicate her policies across to the electorate, which resulted in her party losing many votes. She was also not able to implement any effective policies to help the poor or disadvantaged members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Theresa May was not a good prime minister. She wasn't a strong leader and was not able to command the respect of her party, or communicate her policies across to the electorate. She was also not able to implement any effective policies to help the poor or disadvantaged members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: Theresa May was not a good prime minister; she was unable to campaign effectively or communicate her policies across to the electorate. As a result, she lost many votes for her party. In addition, she did not demonstrate strong leadership and could not implement any effective policies to help the poor. Reflective essay In the essay, I focused primarily on two interactive posts with two very different questions and one reflective post. In my opinion, the most challenging aspect of the Online +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Theresa May was not a good prime minister due to her poor leadership, which lacked decisiveness and commitment to a cause. In her time in office, she was unable to command the respect of her party and suffered from a lack of support from many of her MPs. She also received very little support from the electorate, which made it difficult for her to stay in office. She was unable to carry out many of her policies effectively, which meant she was unable to make an impact on the UK population. She in particular was unable to help the disadvantaged members of society with any of her policies. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001791.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001791.soc index 3fdea29f..e05c80be 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001791.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001791.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the consensus that it is acceptable to use a person's DNA to identify them as a criminal. However, this is only acceptable if it is used to confirm a person's identity from material found at a crime scene. It is not acceptable to use DNA to identify a person as a criminal if they have not committed a crime. We believe that it is important to maintain the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and that DNA should not be used to identify a person as a criminal before they have committed a crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is acceptable to use a person’s DNA to identify them as a criminal as long as it is collected in an ethical, consensual and legal way. DNA evidence can be a powerful tool in solving crimes and bringing perpetrators to justice, especially in cases where other evidence may be lacking or inconclusive. However, it is crucial to ensure that DNA collection and analysis are carried out with respect for individual privacy and liberties. To maintain the acceptability of using DNA for criminal identification, safeguards must be in place to prevent misuse or abuse of this sensitive information. Clear regulations should be given when and how DNA can be collected, stored and accessed by law enforcement, and there should be transparent oversight to protect against potential biases, or discriminatory practices. Additionally, it is essential to preserve the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, ensuring that DNA evidence is not used to unfairly target or convict an individual. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is acceptable to use a person's DNA to identify them as a criminal if done so in a ethical and consensual way. It is only acceptable to use DNA as evidence of a crime in the case that there is a physical connection between a suspect and a crime scene. For example, hair found on a crime scene which can be traced to the suspect. It is not acceptable to use DNA evidence as the sole evidence to convict a suspect, there must be supporting evidence to be found guilty of a crime. It is also not acceptable to use DNA to identify a suspect before the crime has been committed. If this is done, then society is walking into a dystopia where citizens are guilty of a crime before having actually committed said crime. It is vital that the use of DNA evidence is used with respect for individual privacy and liberties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the consensus that it is acceptable to use a person's DNA to identify them as a criminal. However, this is only acceptable if it is used to confirm a person's identity from material found at a crime scene. It is not acceptable to use DNA to identify a person as a criminal if they have not committed a crime. We believe that it is important to maintain the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and that DNA should not be used to identify a person as a criminal before they have committed a crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is acceptable to use a person’s DNA to identify them as a criminal as long as it is collected in an ethical, consensual and legal way. DNA evidence can be a powerful tool in solving crimes and bringing perpetrators to justice, especially in cases where other evidence may be lacking or inconclusive. However, it is crucial to ensure that DNA collection and analysis are carried out with respect for individual privacy and liberties. To maintain the acceptability of using DNA for criminal identification, safeguards must be in place to prevent misuse or abuse of this sensitive information. Clear regulations should be given when and how DNA can be collected, stored and accessed by law enforcement, and there should be transparent oversight to protect against potential biases, or discriminatory practices. Additionally, it is essential to preserve the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, ensuring that DNA evidence is not used to unfairly target or convict an individual. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is acceptable to use a person's DNA to identify them as a criminal if done so in a ethical and consensual way. It is only acceptable to use DNA as evidence of a crime in the case that there is a physical connection between a suspect and a crime scene. For example, hair found on a crime scene which can be traced to the suspect. It is not acceptable to use DNA evidence as the sole evidence to convict a suspect, there must be supporting evidence to be found guilty of a crime. It is also not acceptable to use DNA to identify a suspect before the crime has been committed. If this is done, then society is walking into a dystopia where citizens are guilty of a crime before having actually committed said crime. It is vital that the use of DNA evidence is used with respect for individual privacy and liberties. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001792.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001792.soc index 5a9aa69d..3134722c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001792.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001792.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is acceptable for the BBC to use public money to fund the production of television shows, we feel that it would be more beneficial to use advertising revenue in the same way as their competitors. This would mean that the licence fee would not have to be used as an unnecessary form of taxation to produce shows that are irrelevant and of no interest to most of the tax payers. The licence fee should only be used to fund the BBC World News as this is the only form of unbiased news produced by the BBC and is unavailable in the UK without DAB. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We feel that the BBC is an important and respected part of the UK media and it should continue to be funded in the same manner. The BBC has a good record for quality and we feel that it is important that this is maintained. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, the BBC is a good thing. It is an important part of the fabric of the country. It is a world-respected news and entertainment provider. As well as television, they also have an incredible range of radio channels and podcasts. It's also worth pointing out that the license fee also goes to other things - Freeview TV for example. However, the license fee is a form of taxation and in these austere times it is not right to be paying for something that we don't necessarily use. If the BBC is to stay independent of these kinds of influences I cannot see any other way than using public money to ensure that the BBC stays that way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the BBC is a good thing and an important part of the country. However, they should not be using public money to fund television shows. The BBC has a huge amount of money and they should be using this to fund the shows, rather than the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is acceptable for the BBC to use public money to fund the production of television shows, we feel that it would be more beneficial to use advertising revenue in the same way as their competitors. This would mean that the licence fee would not have to be used as an unnecessary form of taxation to produce shows that are irrelevant and of no interest to most of the tax payers. The licence fee should only be used to fund the BBC World News as this is the only form of unbiased news produced by the BBC and is unavailable in the UK without DAB. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We feel that the BBC is an important and respected part of the UK media and it should continue to be funded in the same manner. The BBC has a good record for quality and we feel that it is important that this is maintained. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, the BBC is a good thing. It is an important part of the fabric of the country. It is a world-respected news and entertainment provider. As well as television, they also have an incredible range of radio channels and podcasts. It's also worth pointing out that the license fee also goes to other things - Freeview TV for example. However, the license fee is a form of taxation and in these austere times it is not right to be paying for something that we don't necessarily use. If the BBC is to stay independent of these kinds of influences I cannot see any other way than using public money to ensure that the BBC stays that way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the BBC is a good thing and an important part of the country. However, they should not be using public money to fund television shows. The BBC has a huge amount of money and they should be using this to fund the shows, rather than the public. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001793.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001793.soc index 50fd1926..467fca12 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001793.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001793.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that people earning more than £150,000 per year should be subjected to a higher band of income tax. With the current trend of job growth and new technology-led services, the gap between the rich and poor is widening. It is imperative that we incentivize people to work hard, but it is also equally important to help the needy. The rich are best suited to help the needy. Therefore, higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate, so the state can generate more funds to build better hospitals, schools and take care of the homeless. We should keep this at a fair rate though, which could be up to 50% of the additional income above £150,000. This means that someone earning £300,000 a year would pay an extra £50,000 of tax and would still have enough for a comfortable life.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. The reason for this is that they would be able to contribute more for public services and common good in the shape of government projects and initiatives, while still have more than enough for a comfortable life. It feels unfair that the highest earners would be taxed the same as the lower earners. With taxing taxpayers proportionately with their earnings, the public services would receive a boost, while the higher taxpayers would not experience a noticeable drop in life quality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a higher rate of income tax should be imposed for those earning more than £150,000 per year. This is because they are already taxed a high amount and can afford to contribute more to the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “After a debate, we came to the consensus view that people earning more than £150,000 per year should be subjected to a higher band of income tax. With the current trend of job growth and new technology-led services, the gap between the rich and poor is widening. It is imperative that we incentivize people to work hard, but it is also equally important to help the needy. The rich are best suited to help the needy. Therefore, higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate, so the state can generate more funds to build better hospitals, schools and take care of the homeless. We should keep this at a fair rate though, which could be up to 50% of the additional income above £150,000. This means that someone earning £300,000 a year would pay an extra £50,000 of tax and would still have enough for a comfortable life.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. The reason for this is that they would be able to contribute more for public services and common good in the shape of government projects and initiatives, while still have more than enough for a comfortable life. It feels unfair that the highest earners would be taxed the same as the lower earners. With taxing taxpayers proportionately with their earnings, the public services would receive a boost, while the higher taxpayers would not experience a noticeable drop in life quality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a higher rate of income tax should be imposed for those earning more than £150,000 per year. This is because they are already taxed a high amount and can afford to contribute more to the community. 3: 3,1,4,2 2: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001794.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001794.soc index 3bf60d3e..c7d6b034 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001794.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001794.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. The primary argument was that the current laws are not working and are in fact making the situation worse. The laws are not preventing people from using cannabis, and are in fact creating a black market which is more dangerous. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Recreational cannabis should be legalised. The reduction in 'antisocial' drug-dealing would cease, it would allow the state to control and have an overview of its use, tax could be generated and wider-societal benefits such as reduced crime and courts input would lead to improved justice on other more important areas for the betterment of society. Furthermore, people whom use cannabis use it anyway irrespective of whether it is legal or not - but if the state were involved, parents could have an input and the impact upon society would be significant. In countries where it is legal - or states in the USA - the benefits for wider-society are significant and the savings on the criminal justice system have been widespread. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Cannabis should be legalised for medical purposes. It should be used as a substitute to many of the other drugs on the market and should be legalised in the same manner as these. The consensus was also that cannabis should be legalised for recreational purposes. The main justification was that if it is legalised then the government can tax it, allowing for less 'antisocial' drug dealing. A lot of money can be made and taxed to the benefit of wider society. If cannabis is to be legalised, it should be legalised in the same manner as tobacco and alcohol. However, the group did not agree that people should be able to sell it from their homes like alcohol, but rather that it should be sold in similar places to tobacco. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. The primary argument was that the current laws are not working and are in fact making the situation worse. The laws are not preventing people from using cannabis, and are in fact creating a black market which is more dangerous. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it is not regulated. The laws are also creating a situation where cannabis is more dangerous as it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Recreational cannabis should be legalised. The reduction in 'antisocial' drug-dealing would cease, it would allow the state to control and have an overview of its use, tax could be generated and wider-societal benefits such as reduced crime and courts input would lead to improved justice on other more important areas for the betterment of society. Furthermore, people whom use cannabis use it anyway irrespective of whether it is legal or not - but if the state were involved, parents could have an input and the impact upon society would be significant. In countries where it is legal - or states in the USA - the benefits for wider-society are significant and the savings on the criminal justice system have been widespread. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Cannabis should be legalised for medical purposes. It should be used as a substitute to many of the other drugs on the market and should be legalised in the same manner as these. The consensus was also that cannabis should be legalised for recreational purposes. The main justification was that if it is legalised then the government can tax it, allowing for less 'antisocial' drug dealing. A lot of money can be made and taxed to the benefit of wider society. If cannabis is to be legalised, it should be legalised in the same manner as tobacco and alcohol. However, the group did not agree that people should be able to sell it from their homes like alcohol, but rather that it should be sold in similar places to tobacco. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001795.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001795.soc index 1ce3368a..60c81368 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001795.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001795.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a requirement that a company's board of directors have the same demographic make-up as the company's average workforce. This is because it is important for the board to understand the company as a whole, and for the workforce to see themselves represented at the highest levels of the company. This will help to create a sense of unity within the company and will help to reduce feelings of inequality and unfairness. This is especially important for large companies, where it is more likely to be achievable. For smaller companies, it is less important, but they should still make efforts to achieve it where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a requirement that a company's board of directors have the same demographic make-up as the company's average workforce, however, this should be a long-term goal rather than an immediate requirement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that a company's board of directors should have the same demographic make-up as the company's average workforce, however this should not be a legal requirement. The role of the board of directors is to ensure that a company's workforce is happy, safe, and productive. It is therefore important that they can see things from the perspective of the average worker, and having a similar demographic background can help with that. However, a legal requirement would be too inflexible, and could lead to tokenism and stifle company innovation. Instead, we would like to see the introduction of new laws and incentives that would make it easier for people from a variety of backgrounds to enter and work in the board of directors, with an emphasis on those who are from under-represented groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a requirement that a company's board of directors have the same demographic make-up as the company's average workforce. This is because it is important for the board to understand the company as a whole, and for the workforce to see themselves represented at the highest levels of the company. This will help to create a sense of unity within the company and will help to reduce feelings of inequality and unfairness. This is especially important for large companies, where it is more likely to be achievable. For smaller companies, it is less important, but they should still make efforts to achieve it where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a requirement that a company's board of directors have the same demographic make-up as the company's average workforce, however, this should be a long-term goal rather than an immediate requirement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that a company's board of directors should have the same demographic make-up as the company's average workforce, however this should not be a legal requirement. The role of the board of directors is to ensure that a company's workforce is happy, safe, and productive. It is therefore important that they can see things from the perspective of the average worker, and having a similar demographic background can help with that. However, a legal requirement would be too inflexible, and could lead to tokenism and stifle company innovation. Instead, we would like to see the introduction of new laws and incentives that would make it easier for people from a variety of backgrounds to enter and work in the board of directors, with an emphasis on those who are from under-represented groups. 4: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001796.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001796.soc index 4dc7336c..ff89482a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001796.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001796.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, the King is too powerful and he should have no say in any political matters. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The King has too much power in my view. He is a head of state and cannot even have a political opinion on a matter or rather he cannot bring it to bear. He even has to sign laws into place that he may not agree with as a result. However I think it is misguided to believe that the King only has symbolic power. He has huge influence and wealth which comes with power. I do not believe the King has too much power. He must give his permission to parliament to pass any legislation, however his say is rarely taken into account. In my practice the King has been known to make political statements in public and private and the royal family has been known to privately influence and lobby against legislation they're not in favour of. The view is also somewhat conflicting. He cannot both have huge influence and not too much power. Ultimately, public money should not be used to fund a family that is largely a historic hangover of imperialism. We should be a democracy. The king should have more say in political matters as it is his country and more say in what laws are put in place or not. Currently he has not say in it whether he agrees or not. This is explained very well, short but firm -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The King does not have too much power in my view. He is a head of state and cannot even have a political opinion on a matter or rather he cannot bring it to bear. He even has to sign laws into place that he may not agree with as a result. However, I think it is misguided to believe that the King only has symbolic power. He has huge influence and wealth which comes with power. I do not believe the King has too much power. He must give his permission to parliament to pass any legislation, however his say is rarely taken into account. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The king does not have too much power in my view. He is a head of state and cannot even have a political opinion on a matter or rather he cannot bring it to bear. He even has to sign laws into place that he may not agree with as a result. However I think it is misguided to believe that the King only has symbolic power. He has huge influence and wealth which comes with power. I do not believe the King has too much power. He must give his permission to parliament to pass any legislation, however his say is rarely taken into account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, the King is too powerful and he should have no say in any political matters. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The King has too much power in my view. He is a head of state and cannot even have a political opinion on a matter or rather he cannot bring it to bear. He even has to sign laws into place that he may not agree with as a result. However I think it is misguided to believe that the King only has symbolic power. He has huge influence and wealth which comes with power. I do not believe the King has too much power. He must give his permission to parliament to pass any legislation, however his say is rarely taken into account. In my practice the King has been known to make political statements in public and private and the royal family has been known to privately influence and lobby against legislation they're not in favour of. The view is also somewhat conflicting. He cannot both have huge influence and not too much power. Ultimately, public money should not be used to fund a family that is largely a historic hangover of imperialism. We should be a democracy. The king should have more say in political matters as it is his country and more say in what laws are put in place or not. Currently he has not say in it whether he agrees or not. This is explained very well, short but firm +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The King does not have too much power in my view. He is a head of state and cannot even have a political opinion on a matter or rather he cannot bring it to bear. He even has to sign laws into place that he may not agree with as a result. However, I think it is misguided to believe that the King only has symbolic power. He has huge influence and wealth which comes with power. I do not believe the King has too much power. He must give his permission to parliament to pass any legislation, however his say is rarely taken into account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The king does not have too much power in my view. He is a head of state and cannot even have a political opinion on a matter or rather he cannot bring it to bear. He even has to sign laws into place that he may not agree with as a result. However I think it is misguided to believe that the King only has symbolic power. He has huge influence and wealth which comes with power. I do not believe the King has too much power. He must give his permission to parliament to pass any legislation, however his say is rarely taken into account. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001797.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001797.soc index 62034738..2cd0cf51 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001797.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001797.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government needs to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. It is very difficult for young people to save enough money for the hefty deposit on a house, let alone be able to afford a mortgage. The government could help young people by building more houses and making it easier to get a mortgage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Government should do more to help young people get on the housing ladder, such as providing more homes, and more help to save for a deposit and access a mortgage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government needs to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. Young people are being priced out of the housing market and house prices are rising far higher than salaries. Therefore, young people will never be able to afford a house unless they have help from their parents or are very lucky. The government needs to build more affordable housing and implement schemes to help people get onto the property ladder. This could include the government gifting money towards the deposit of first time buyers and even paying the interest on their mortgages for a few years, allowing them to build up enough equity in the property to get their own mortgage or loan. The government could also make some changes to stamp duty, such as having a higher threshold and a lower tax rate to save people money. However, a house building scheme would be much more effective and help a lot more people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government needs to be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices have gone through the roof whilst wages have gone stagnant. It takes years and years for young people to save enough for a deposit, and even then we often don't have a large enough salary to get a mortgage for the rest of the house. We end up being stuck paying astronomical prices for rent and not being able to even begin saving for a home of our own. The government needs to be building more houses, and fast. They also need to be doing more to help young people get onto the property ladder. This could be done through schemes such as help to buy ISAs and lifetime ISAs, which are available to young people to help them save for a deposit on a house. It could also be done through lowering stamp duty for young people, or by helping young people to get onto the property ladder through schemes such as shared ownership.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government needs to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. It is very difficult for young people to save enough money for the hefty deposit on a house, let alone be able to afford a mortgage. The government could help young people by building more houses and making it easier to get a mortgage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Government should do more to help young people get on the housing ladder, such as providing more homes, and more help to save for a deposit and access a mortgage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government needs to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. Young people are being priced out of the housing market and house prices are rising far higher than salaries. Therefore, young people will never be able to afford a house unless they have help from their parents or are very lucky. The government needs to build more affordable housing and implement schemes to help people get onto the property ladder. This could include the government gifting money towards the deposit of first time buyers and even paying the interest on their mortgages for a few years, allowing them to build up enough equity in the property to get their own mortgage or loan. The government could also make some changes to stamp duty, such as having a higher threshold and a lower tax rate to save people money. However, a house building scheme would be much more effective and help a lot more people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government needs to be doing more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices have gone through the roof whilst wages have gone stagnant. It takes years and years for young people to save enough for a deposit, and even then we often don't have a large enough salary to get a mortgage for the rest of the house. We end up being stuck paying astronomical prices for rent and not being able to even begin saving for a home of our own. The government needs to be building more houses, and fast. They also need to be doing more to help young people get onto the property ladder. This could be done through schemes such as help to buy ISAs and lifetime ISAs, which are available to young people to help them save for a deposit on a house. It could also be done through lowering stamp duty for young people, or by helping young people to get onto the property ladder through schemes such as shared ownership.” 4: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001798.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001798.soc index 0deaf031..ca9093fd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001798.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001798.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. Instagram is a social media platform that has become incredibly popular, especially with young people. This has resulted in a lot of children feeling pressured to have their own account, as they feel they are missing out on something. This is not the case, children under the age of 13 should be encouraged to spend their time with their friends and family, enjoying the outdoors, playing sports and having fun. They should not be exposed to the pressures of social media, which can lead to issues with their self-esteem, as they are comparing themselves to others and feeling as if they are not good enough. They should not be exposed to the bullying that is prevalent on social media, and they should not be exposed to content that is not age appropriate. Instagram is a social media platform that is not suitable for children under the age of 13. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, I do not believe that children under the age of 13 should have their own instagram account, as I believe that they should be outside and playing with friends rather than being sat inside looking at social media all day. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. There are many risks associated with young children having access to social media and we feel that the age restriction of 13+ should remain in place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the negative aspects of social media far outweigh the positives for children under 13 having their own account. We agreed that there are many issues surrounding social media, for example, cyberbullying, over exposure to the lives of others and young children feeling inferior to their peers and the potential for young children to view inappropriate content. Although there are parental controls that are available on these accounts, we felt that these can be easily bypassed or misused by children. We also agreed that it is very difficult to limit what is viewed on social media and that young children may be exposed to things that are not age appropriate. We felt that allowing children under 13 to have their own account does nothing to help them develop socially and this time could be better spent developing relationships and hobbies offline. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. Instagram is a social media platform that has become incredibly popular, especially with young people. This has resulted in a lot of children feeling pressured to have their own account, as they feel they are missing out on something. This is not the case, children under the age of 13 should be encouraged to spend their time with their friends and family, enjoying the outdoors, playing sports and having fun. They should not be exposed to the pressures of social media, which can lead to issues with their self-esteem, as they are comparing themselves to others and feeling as if they are not good enough. They should not be exposed to the bullying that is prevalent on social media, and they should not be exposed to content that is not age appropriate. Instagram is a social media platform that is not suitable for children under the age of 13. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, I do not believe that children under the age of 13 should have their own instagram account, as I believe that they should be outside and playing with friends rather than being sat inside looking at social media all day. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. There are many risks associated with young children having access to social media and we feel that the age restriction of 13+ should remain in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the negative aspects of social media far outweigh the positives for children under 13 having their own account. We agreed that there are many issues surrounding social media, for example, cyberbullying, over exposure to the lives of others and young children feeling inferior to their peers and the potential for young children to view inappropriate content. Although there are parental controls that are available on these accounts, we felt that these can be easily bypassed or misused by children. We also agreed that it is very difficult to limit what is viewed on social media and that young children may be exposed to things that are not age appropriate. We felt that allowing children under 13 to have their own account does nothing to help them develop socially and this time could be better spent developing relationships and hobbies offline. 2: 4,1,3,2 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001799.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001799.soc index 753a3476..349f7eaf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001799.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001799.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: University education should not be free, but the costs should be made clear to students and the value of the degree should be clear to the employer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Free university education is too expensive -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: University education should not be free. A degree is something that should be needed to get into the career you want and should at least have some weighting towards meaningfulness and be worthwhile in the long run as you end up with a high paying career that you couldn't otherwise have met. With no fees the universities wouldn't be able to sustain either the quality of education or the facilities that are available to students. The consensus opinion of the group was that university education should not be free, however, the group did agree that university education should be more accessible to people from all walks of life. The group felt that this could be achieved by providing more grants and bursaries to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The group felt that this would allow more people to access university education and also reduce the amount of debt that students are left with after graduating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We believe that University education should be available to everyone and fees should be paid for by the government. To prevent the fees being a burden, we believe that the government should work to fund the costs, and to prevent it from affecting the students, the repayments should be based on the student's future earnings. This will ensure that the government will be able to recover the costs, but the students will not have to pay it all up front. Also, by removing the financial barriers of university education, we will have the best chance of having the brightest people realise their potential.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - University education should not be free, but the costs should be made clear to students and the value of the degree should be clear to the employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Free university education is too expensive +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - University education should not be free. A degree is something that should be needed to get into the career you want and should at least have some weighting towards meaningfulness and be worthwhile in the long run as you end up with a high paying career that you couldn't otherwise have met. With no fees the universities wouldn't be able to sustain either the quality of education or the facilities that are available to students. The consensus opinion of the group was that university education should not be free, however, the group did agree that university education should be more accessible to people from all walks of life. The group felt that this could be achieved by providing more grants and bursaries to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The group felt that this would allow more people to access university education and also reduce the amount of debt that students are left with after graduating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We believe that University education should be available to everyone and fees should be paid for by the government. To prevent the fees being a burden, we believe that the government should work to fund the costs, and to prevent it from affecting the students, the repayments should be based on the student's future earnings. This will ensure that the government will be able to recover the costs, but the students will not have to pay it all up front. Also, by removing the financial barriers of university education, we will have the best chance of having the brightest people realise their potential.” 2: 4,3,1,2 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001800.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001800.soc index 0fe8f9f8..2318c0d2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001800.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001800.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This is because the poor could grow their own crops and be able to be independent in the future. They would not have to rely on the government as much for aid which would save the government money. However, the government would have to be very careful in selecting the land to buy and the people to give it to. They would have to make sure that it would not impact anyone negatively and there would be no repercussions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the government should not be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. The reason for this is that it is not fair on the people who have worked hard for their land and also it is unfair on the tax payers who will be funding this. The government should be spending this money on more important things such as food and shelter for the homeless. The government should also not be allowed to do this as it could cause more harm than good. The land could be used to grow crops or to build affordable housing for the poor. This is a much better use of the land and will also benefit the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor, however, the people should be able to prove that they are hardworking and willing to work for what they have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This is because the poor could grow their own crops and be able to be independent in the future. They would not have to rely on the government as much for aid which would save the government money. However, the government would have to be very careful in selecting the land to buy and the people to give it to. They would have to make sure that it would not impact anyone negatively and there would be no repercussions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the government should not be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. The reason for this is that it is not fair on the people who have worked hard for their land and also it is unfair on the tax payers who will be funding this. The government should be spending this money on more important things such as food and shelter for the homeless. The government should also not be allowed to do this as it could cause more harm than good. The land could be used to grow crops or to build affordable housing for the poor. This is a much better use of the land and will also benefit the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor, however, the people should be able to prove that they are hardworking and willing to work for what they have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001801.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001801.soc index a2d01c2e..3961a0db 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001801.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001801.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income, but felt that it should be means tested, and that it should be funded by taxing higher earners more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “No, we should not give everyone a basic income and stop benefits / tax credits. If we did this, those who do not need money (wealthy to middle class) would be receiving unnecessary funds which could go to those who need it. This would also reduce the incentive to go to work, if everyone simply receives a basic income without having to claim specific benefits such as job seekers allowance, and potentially restrict economic growth. Unless funding magically appears, providing everyone with basic income would mean restricting funds in another area, such as education / healthcare. A fairer way would maybe tax the higher earners and then give a basic income to the poorest. It would still need to be means tested to make it fair as everyones income and circumstances are different. so it should be means tested depending on dependants and outgoings debts etc.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should provide everyone with a basic income so that everyone can have a fair start in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus View: In the ideal world we would give everyone a basic income and stop all benefits and tax credits. However, at the moment this is just not realistic. We do not have the money to fund such a project and to actually give everyone a basic income. We do however, think that the benefits system needs a complete overhaul to make it simpler and fairer. This means reducing the benefits that are offered and also taking a more sensible approach to what people claim. For example, people can claim benefits even if they have millions in the bank. This does not make any sense. We also think that people should have to be more actively looking for work, instead of simply staying at home and claiming benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income, but felt that it should be means tested, and that it should be funded by taxing higher earners more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “No, we should not give everyone a basic income and stop benefits / tax credits. If we did this, those who do not need money (wealthy to middle class) would be receiving unnecessary funds which could go to those who need it. This would also reduce the incentive to go to work, if everyone simply receives a basic income without having to claim specific benefits such as job seekers allowance, and potentially restrict economic growth. Unless funding magically appears, providing everyone with basic income would mean restricting funds in another area, such as education / healthcare. A fairer way would maybe tax the higher earners and then give a basic income to the poorest. It would still need to be means tested to make it fair as everyones income and circumstances are different. so it should be means tested depending on dependants and outgoings debts etc.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should provide everyone with a basic income so that everyone can have a fair start in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus View: In the ideal world we would give everyone a basic income and stop all benefits and tax credits. However, at the moment this is just not realistic. We do not have the money to fund such a project and to actually give everyone a basic income. We do however, think that the benefits system needs a complete overhaul to make it simpler and fairer. This means reducing the benefits that are offered and also taking a more sensible approach to what people claim. For example, people can claim benefits even if they have millions in the bank. This does not make any sense. We also think that people should have to be more actively looking for work, instead of simply staying at home and claiming benefits. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001802.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001802.soc index ddeb91f2..b6d728ec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001802.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001802.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Our Royal Family have been the most powerful, respected and feared monarchs and political rulers in the world for centuries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should continue to have a royal family. We feel that they are an important part of our culture and heritage and are well respected not only in the UK but all over the world. They are a huge draw to our country and we feel that they also make our country stand out amongst others in Europe. We feel as though it's quite dangerous that they are untouchable as they are and that they should feel the consequences of their own actions, as us Brits are tiring of (some of) their behaviour. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: After a long debate, the group have decided that we would like to see the British Royal family continue. We feel that the role of the British Royal family is highly beneficial to our country as they draw in tourists and are the face of Britain internationally. While there is always the concern of cost, it is something that I think is outweighed by the benefits. There are also concerns about the Royal family being out of touch and not being held accountable. There are a number of ways that we can attempt to fix this issue. Firstly, we can attempt to make them more accountable to the people and secondly, we can attempt to make them more transparent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the Royal family is a good thing for the UK. They provide a sense of national pride and are a tourist attraction. However, they should be more accountable for their actions and should not receive any more public funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Our Royal Family have been the most powerful, respected and feared monarchs and political rulers in the world for centuries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should continue to have a royal family. We feel that they are an important part of our culture and heritage and are well respected not only in the UK but all over the world. They are a huge draw to our country and we feel that they also make our country stand out amongst others in Europe. We feel as though it's quite dangerous that they are untouchable as they are and that they should feel the consequences of their own actions, as us Brits are tiring of (some of) their behaviour. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - After a long debate, the group have decided that we would like to see the British Royal family continue. We feel that the role of the British Royal family is highly beneficial to our country as they draw in tourists and are the face of Britain internationally. While there is always the concern of cost, it is something that I think is outweighed by the benefits. There are also concerns about the Royal family being out of touch and not being held accountable. There are a number of ways that we can attempt to fix this issue. Firstly, we can attempt to make them more accountable to the people and secondly, we can attempt to make them more transparent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the Royal family is a good thing for the UK. They provide a sense of national pride and are a tourist attraction. However, they should be more accountable for their actions and should not receive any more public funding. 2: 2,3,4,1 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001803.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001803.soc index 76a58042..50262248 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001803.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001803.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While cars cause pollution and therefore it is essential to reduce emissions as much as possible, we do not believe that restricting car ownership in large cities is the most effective way of doing so. There are many reasons why this is not an appropriate solution, some of which are: - public transport systems are not always good, especially in the suburbs, meaning people will have no choice but to use their car, - limiting ownership will only benefit those who can afford the high price of electric vehicles, - limiting ownership could lead to more people using the already over-crowded public transport systems, and - restricting car ownership will not stop those who already own a car from using it. If we wish to improve air quality and reduce emissions, we must first consider other possible solutions, such as: - implementing a congestion charge in city centers to reduce traffic, - developing and improving public transport systems, - encouraging the use of more eco-friendly vehicles, - providing incentives for those who buy eco-friendly vehicles, and - changing the tax system so that those who drive less pay less tax. In conclusion, while we all agree that air quality must be improved, we do not believe that restricting car ownership -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In large cities, the government should not restrict car ownership. It is unfair to do so and there are other ways of tackling pollution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Cars should be restricted in large cities to tackle pollution. This will make public transport a better option, make walking and cycling safer, and reduce traffic congestion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of restricting car ownership in cities. They thought that this would be too difficult to enforce, and that it would be unfair to those who needed a car for work purposes. They thought that the government should be looking at other ways of reducing pollution, such as encouraging people to buy electric cars, or to use public transport more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While cars cause pollution and therefore it is essential to reduce emissions as much as possible, we do not believe that restricting car ownership in large cities is the most effective way of doing so. There are many reasons why this is not an appropriate solution, some of which are: - public transport systems are not always good, especially in the suburbs, meaning people will have no choice but to use their car, - limiting ownership will only benefit those who can afford the high price of electric vehicles, - limiting ownership could lead to more people using the already over-crowded public transport systems, and - restricting car ownership will not stop those who already own a car from using it. If we wish to improve air quality and reduce emissions, we must first consider other possible solutions, such as: - implementing a congestion charge in city centers to reduce traffic, - developing and improving public transport systems, - encouraging the use of more eco-friendly vehicles, - providing incentives for those who buy eco-friendly vehicles, and - changing the tax system so that those who drive less pay less tax. In conclusion, while we all agree that air quality must be improved, we do not believe that restricting car ownership +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In large cities, the government should not restrict car ownership. It is unfair to do so and there are other ways of tackling pollution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Cars should be restricted in large cities to tackle pollution. This will make public transport a better option, make walking and cycling safer, and reduce traffic congestion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of restricting car ownership in cities. They thought that this would be too difficult to enforce, and that it would be unfair to those who needed a car for work purposes. They thought that the government should be looking at other ways of reducing pollution, such as encouraging people to buy electric cars, or to use public transport more. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001804.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001804.soc index df856daf..defee1c6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001804.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001804.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging the sale of electric vehicles by increasing the number of charging points. It was felt that this would be beneficial for the environment and would also be a good thing for the economy. The group felt that it was important that the younger generation understood the importance of this and how their choices can positively impact on the environment and their future. It was also felt that it was important that people were made aware of the pros and cons of electric vehicles and that they were given the opportunity to test drive them. The group also felt that it was important that the cost of electric vehicles was made affordable for people and that there were adequate charging points available, which were at a low or free of charge to support this. The group also felt that there should be an opportunity for discounts if others buy cars to support them changing from a petrol/diesel to an electric car. The group felt that it was important that larger companies promoted the pros and cons of these vehicles and allowed drivers to test these out. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that in order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. There is a need for more charging points as this is a major fear amongst drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. A wider distribution of charging points would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. This would increase the likelihood of electric vehicles becoming the primary source of transport. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. We believe that the public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. It is important that incentives are available to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and that there is enough information about the costs of owning an electric vehicle to support this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should make it a requirement that all new vehicles in a number of years are electric only and that there are sufficient number of charging points widely available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that there should be more electric charging points. This is because it will help the environment, and help people to be able to afford to drive. It will also help the economy as it will create more jobs. It will also encourage people to buy electric cars as it will be more convenient for them. It will also help people to be able to afford to drive. It will also help the economy as it will create more jobs. It will also encourage people to buy electric cars as it will be more convenient for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging the sale of electric vehicles by increasing the number of charging points. It was felt that this would be beneficial for the environment and would also be a good thing for the economy. The group felt that it was important that the younger generation understood the importance of this and how their choices can positively impact on the environment and their future. It was also felt that it was important that people were made aware of the pros and cons of electric vehicles and that they were given the opportunity to test drive them. The group also felt that it was important that the cost of electric vehicles was made affordable for people and that there were adequate charging points available, which were at a low or free of charge to support this. The group also felt that there should be an opportunity for discounts if others buy cars to support them changing from a petrol/diesel to an electric car. The group felt that it was important that larger companies promoted the pros and cons of these vehicles and allowed drivers to test these out. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that in order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. There is a need for more charging points as this is a major fear amongst drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. A wider distribution of charging points would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. This would increase the likelihood of electric vehicles becoming the primary source of transport. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. We believe that the public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. It is important that incentives are available to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and that there is enough information about the costs of owning an electric vehicle to support this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should make it a requirement that all new vehicles in a number of years are electric only and that there are sufficient number of charging points widely available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that there should be more electric charging points. This is because it will help the environment, and help people to be able to afford to drive. It will also help the economy as it will create more jobs. It will also encourage people to buy electric cars as it will be more convenient for them. It will also help people to be able to afford to drive. It will also help the economy as it will create more jobs. It will also encourage people to buy electric cars as it will be more convenient for them. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001805.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001805.soc index 6aa6334e..fa52890f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001805.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001805.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack to progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the number of times a person can run for political office should be limited. However, this should be done with care and there should be exceptions to this rule. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that term limits should be imposed on the number of times someone can run for political office. Although it is true that politicians who have experience and have made good decisions should be allowed to run, this does not always necessarily translate into better decision-making. Therefore, while we believe that it is essential to have good political leaders, we also believe that it is important to limit the number of times they can run for office, as it is essential to have a broad spectrum of opinions and new ideas to be put forward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack to progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the number of times a person can run for political office should be limited. However, this should be done with care and there should be exceptions to this rule. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that term limits should be imposed on the number of times someone can run for political office. Although it is true that politicians who have experience and have made good decisions should be allowed to run, this does not always necessarily translate into better decision-making. Therefore, while we believe that it is essential to have good political leaders, we also believe that it is important to limit the number of times they can run for office, as it is essential to have a broad spectrum of opinions and new ideas to be put forward. 3: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001806.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001806.soc index 7c8cad9c..eaa4ce8a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001806.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001806.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be term limits for MPs, possibly of a maximum of 10 years in office. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that there should be a limit on the time a politician can serve as an MP. This is to ensure that the UK is represented by a diverse set of politicians, as well as limiting the influence that large donors and corporations may have on an MP. Also, this will encourage people from different backgrounds and ethnicities to become politicians. In addition, it will provide an opportunity for a greater number of people to become MPs. The current system is out of touch with modern Britain. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of term limits for MPs. This is because it can help to prevent corruption and can help to ensure that the views of the people are being represented. It can also help to ensure that MPs are working hard for their constituents and not just becoming career politicians. However, the group also recognised that in some cases it can be beneficial to have MPs who have served for a long time and have built up expertise in their area. The group felt that there should be a limit of around 10 years for MPs to serve in office and that there should be an upper age limit of around 65 years old. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be term limits for MPs. This is because they can become out of touch with the people they represent. Also, they can be vulnerable to corruption and therefore term limits can help to avoid this. The term limit should be set at 2 years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be term limits for MPs, possibly of a maximum of 10 years in office. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that there should be a limit on the time a politician can serve as an MP. This is to ensure that the UK is represented by a diverse set of politicians, as well as limiting the influence that large donors and corporations may have on an MP. Also, this will encourage people from different backgrounds and ethnicities to become politicians. In addition, it will provide an opportunity for a greater number of people to become MPs. The current system is out of touch with modern Britain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of term limits for MPs. This is because it can help to prevent corruption and can help to ensure that the views of the people are being represented. It can also help to ensure that MPs are working hard for their constituents and not just becoming career politicians. However, the group also recognised that in some cases it can be beneficial to have MPs who have served for a long time and have built up expertise in their area. The group felt that there should be a limit of around 10 years for MPs to serve in office and that there should be an upper age limit of around 65 years old. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be term limits for MPs. This is because they can become out of touch with the people they represent. Also, they can be vulnerable to corruption and therefore term limits can help to avoid this. The term limit should be set at 2 years. 3: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001807.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001807.soc index 2ba078d8..da104aa2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001807.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001807.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the legalisation of cannabis would be beneficial for society. The revenue from legalised cannabis would help to fund services, and the legalisation of cannabis would help to reduce the influence of criminal organisations. However, the legalisation of cannabis would also increase the number of people using cannabis, and this could lead to an increase in the number of people with cannabis addictions. Therefore, it is important that the legalisation of cannabis is accompanied by a programme of education to help people understand the risks of cannabis use, and to help people to quit cannabis if they do become addicted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that drugs such as cannabis should be legalised for recreational use. This would allow for more control of the sale of such substances as it could be better regulated by the government, leading to a reduction in illegal dealers and gangs. This would also lead to a significant reduction in the prison population, thus allowing the government to use the funds that they would otherwise use to keep prisoners in prison on other essential services such as hospitals. It would also be much easier to regulate the amount of drugs being sold, as it would be easier to know exactly how much is being sold, as opposed to the current situation, where it is only estimated. This is also because it would be easier to monitor how many drugs are being sold, as opposed to estimating it, thus leading to less wasted money. The government would also be able to impose higher taxes on the sales of such substances, leading to more tax revenue, and thus allowing for more money to be spent on essential services. The most important thing, however, is that it would lead to more funding for drug addiction programs, which would help reduce the number of people addicted to drugs, and also lead to an increase in the overall life expectancy of such individuals. This is -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis is a bad idea because the smell of cannabis is pretty horrendous and no one should be forced to smell something like that just because someone else wants to get high of his head and escape reality. The only time weed should be legalised is in medical applications when it is useful and actually important not just because someone is a drug addict and loves getting high, that is just degenerate behaviour. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the legalisation of cannabis would be beneficial for society. The revenue from legalised cannabis would help to fund services, and the legalisation of cannabis would help to reduce the influence of criminal organisations. However, the legalisation of cannabis would also increase the number of people using cannabis, and this could lead to an increase in the number of people with cannabis addictions. Therefore, it is important that the legalisation of cannabis is accompanied by a programme of education to help people understand the risks of cannabis use, and to help people to quit cannabis if they do become addicted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that drugs such as cannabis should be legalised for recreational use. This would allow for more control of the sale of such substances as it could be better regulated by the government, leading to a reduction in illegal dealers and gangs. This would also lead to a significant reduction in the prison population, thus allowing the government to use the funds that they would otherwise use to keep prisoners in prison on other essential services such as hospitals. It would also be much easier to regulate the amount of drugs being sold, as it would be easier to know exactly how much is being sold, as opposed to the current situation, where it is only estimated. This is also because it would be easier to monitor how many drugs are being sold, as opposed to estimating it, thus leading to less wasted money. The government would also be able to impose higher taxes on the sales of such substances, leading to more tax revenue, and thus allowing for more money to be spent on essential services. The most important thing, however, is that it would lead to more funding for drug addiction programs, which would help reduce the number of people addicted to drugs, and also lead to an increase in the overall life expectancy of such individuals. This is +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the legalisation of recreational drugs like cannabis is a bad idea because the smell of cannabis is pretty horrendous and no one should be forced to smell something like that just because someone else wants to get high of his head and escape reality. The only time weed should be legalised is in medical applications when it is useful and actually important not just because someone is a drug addict and loves getting high, that is just degenerate behaviour. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001808.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001808.soc index 320b8580..360e7939 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001808.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001808.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: The government needs to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices are far higher than wages and are rising at a far greater rate than salaries for young people. Young people will therefore never be able to afford to buy a house unless they are in a very fortunate position. The government needs to build more affordable housing and implement schemes to help people get onto the property ladder. This could include the government gifting money towards the deposit of first time buyers and even paying the interest on their mortgages for a few years, allowing them to build up enough equity in the property to get their own mortgage or loan. The government could also make some changes to stamp duty, such as having a higher threshold and a lower tax rate to save people money. A house building scheme would be much more effective and help a lot more people. There are currently schemes and help available, but none of these are truly effective. Therefore, the government needs to put more focus on the most effective policies and implement them, rather than ploughing money into ineffective schemes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is an urgent need for the government to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices have sky rocketed in the last 10 years and young people are being priced out of the housing market. This is a result of not enough houses being built and the government needs to make a significant effort to increase the supply of housing. A house building scheme would be the most effective way of solving this problem. However, the government could also implement schemes to help young people get onto the property ladder. This could include the government gifting money towards the deposit of first time buyers and even paying the interest on their mortgages for a few years, allowing them to build up enough equity in the property to get their own mortgage or loan. The government could also make some changes to stamp duty, such as having a higher threshold and a lower tax rate to save people money. However, a house building scheme would be much more effective and help a lot more people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should do more to help young people struggling to buy a house, although I personally wouldn’t say the government 'needed' to. I would add that it’s not just young people who are being forced out of the housing market, but people of all ages and backgrounds who are struggling to get on the ladder. I would agree with all the ideas presented in the critiques as well, and think that the revised consensus view is a good response to this question. Revised consensus statement (to be agreed upon by all): The government should do more to help young people struggling to buy a house, although I personally wouldn’t say the government 'needed' to. I would add that it’s not just young people who are being forced out of the housing market, but people of all ages and backgrounds who are struggling to get on the ladder. I would agree with all the ideas presented in the critiques as well, and think that the revised consensus view is a good response to this question. Summary -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government needs to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices are rising faster than salaries and therefore young people will not be able to afford to buy unless they are in a very fortunate position and their parents are able to help. The government could implement schemes to help people get onto the property ladder. This could include the government gifting money towards the deposit of first time buyers and even paying the interest on their mortgages for a few years, allowing them to build up enough equity in the property to get their own mortgage or loan. The government could also make some changes to stamp duty, such as having a higher threshold and a lower tax rate to save people money. A house building scheme would be much more effective and help a lot more people, but it would also be expensive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: The government needs to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices are far higher than wages and are rising at a far greater rate than salaries for young people. Young people will therefore never be able to afford to buy a house unless they are in a very fortunate position. The government needs to build more affordable housing and implement schemes to help people get onto the property ladder. This could include the government gifting money towards the deposit of first time buyers and even paying the interest on their mortgages for a few years, allowing them to build up enough equity in the property to get their own mortgage or loan. The government could also make some changes to stamp duty, such as having a higher threshold and a lower tax rate to save people money. A house building scheme would be much more effective and help a lot more people. There are currently schemes and help available, but none of these are truly effective. Therefore, the government needs to put more focus on the most effective policies and implement them, rather than ploughing money into ineffective schemes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is an urgent need for the government to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices have sky rocketed in the last 10 years and young people are being priced out of the housing market. This is a result of not enough houses being built and the government needs to make a significant effort to increase the supply of housing. A house building scheme would be the most effective way of solving this problem. However, the government could also implement schemes to help young people get onto the property ladder. This could include the government gifting money towards the deposit of first time buyers and even paying the interest on their mortgages for a few years, allowing them to build up enough equity in the property to get their own mortgage or loan. The government could also make some changes to stamp duty, such as having a higher threshold and a lower tax rate to save people money. However, a house building scheme would be much more effective and help a lot more people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should do more to help young people struggling to buy a house, although I personally wouldn’t say the government 'needed' to. I would add that it’s not just young people who are being forced out of the housing market, but people of all ages and backgrounds who are struggling to get on the ladder. I would agree with all the ideas presented in the critiques as well, and think that the revised consensus view is a good response to this question. Revised consensus statement (to be agreed upon by all): The government should do more to help young people struggling to buy a house, although I personally wouldn’t say the government 'needed' to. I would add that it’s not just young people who are being forced out of the housing market, but people of all ages and backgrounds who are struggling to get on the ladder. I would agree with all the ideas presented in the critiques as well, and think that the revised consensus view is a good response to this question. Summary +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government needs to do more to help young people who are struggling to buy a house. House prices are rising faster than salaries and therefore young people will not be able to afford to buy unless they are in a very fortunate position and their parents are able to help. The government could implement schemes to help people get onto the property ladder. This could include the government gifting money towards the deposit of first time buyers and even paying the interest on their mortgages for a few years, allowing them to build up enough equity in the property to get their own mortgage or loan. The government could also make some changes to stamp duty, such as having a higher threshold and a lower tax rate to save people money. A house building scheme would be much more effective and help a lot more people, but it would also be expensive. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001809.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001809.soc index 4877be8b..177c0ebc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001809.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001809.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy for the world. Although there is a risk of meltdowns, the risk is very small and the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the risks. Nuclear energy is a very important source of energy for the world and is used in many countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the opinion of the group, the benefits of nuclear energy do far outweigh the risks. Although it is an undeniable fact that nuclear energy can have harmful consequences if used irresponsibly, the benefits to the human race, especially in terms of the costs and the ability to counteract climate change, are too significant to ignore. With the improvements in regulation and safety, the risks associated with nuclear energy are no longer a valid concern, and we should do all we can to embrace nuclear energy as a way to preserve our environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks. The risks of nuclear energy are very low and are likely to become even lower in the future as safety regulations continue to improve and the materials used in nuclear energy production become safer. The potential benefits of nuclear energy are huge, and if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we will need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is a very cost-effective way of doing this, and is much more environmentally friendly than coal or gas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that there are benefits to nuclear energy, but do not think that they outway the risk of a nuclear meltdown. Nuclear energy is very dangerous and could have a huge effect on the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is a very important source of energy for the world. Although there is a risk of meltdowns, the risk is very small and the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the risks. Nuclear energy is a very important source of energy for the world and is used in many countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the opinion of the group, the benefits of nuclear energy do far outweigh the risks. Although it is an undeniable fact that nuclear energy can have harmful consequences if used irresponsibly, the benefits to the human race, especially in terms of the costs and the ability to counteract climate change, are too significant to ignore. With the improvements in regulation and safety, the risks associated with nuclear energy are no longer a valid concern, and we should do all we can to embrace nuclear energy as a way to preserve our environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks. The risks of nuclear energy are very low and are likely to become even lower in the future as safety regulations continue to improve and the materials used in nuclear energy production become safer. The potential benefits of nuclear energy are huge, and if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we will need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is a very cost-effective way of doing this, and is much more environmentally friendly than coal or gas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that there are benefits to nuclear energy, but do not think that they outway the risk of a nuclear meltdown. Nuclear energy is very dangerous and could have a huge effect on the world. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001810.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001810.soc index d573217c..4e90f176 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001810.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001810.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of maintaining a military presence in the UK. This is because the UK is a member of NATO and therefore it is important that we maintain a military presence in order to fulfil our obligations to the alliance. The group also felt that it was important to maintain a military presence in order to protect our borders and our interests abroad. However, the group also felt that the military budget could be reduced and that some of the money saved could be used to improve the health care system. The group felt that this was important because the health care system is currently in crisis and that the pandemic has highlighted the weaknesses in the system. The group also felt that some of the money saved could be used to support the arts. The group felt that the arts were important to the UK and that they should be supported. The group felt that the arts were an important part of the economy and that they should be supported. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We feel that the military is a vital necessity to the country. We recognise the importance of the military in keeping the UK safe. However, we also feel that the UK is currently spending too much on the military. If some money were to be redirected to the health service, we feel that would be a very good use of the funds. This would help improve the health of the nation and also ensure that the NHS is able to withstand any future pandemic or crisis that comes its way. Furthermore, we believe that the arts are important to the health of the nation and should be subsidised, however not to the detriment of the health system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe that we should not cut military spending and spend more on the arts and health care. The reason for this is because we need to have a military force to protect us from other countries and to ensure that we are not invaded. The arts are important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. We need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of maintaining a military presence in the UK. This is because the UK is a member of NATO and therefore it is important that we maintain a military presence in order to fulfil our obligations to the alliance. The group also felt that it was important to maintain a military presence in order to protect our borders and our interests abroad. However, the group also felt that the military budget could be reduced and that some of the money saved could be used to improve the health care system. The group felt that this was important because the health care system is currently in crisis and that the pandemic has highlighted the weaknesses in the system. The group also felt that some of the money saved could be used to support the arts. The group felt that the arts were important to the UK and that they should be supported. The group felt that the arts were an important part of the economy and that they should be supported. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We feel that the military is a vital necessity to the country. We recognise the importance of the military in keeping the UK safe. However, we also feel that the UK is currently spending too much on the military. If some money were to be redirected to the health service, we feel that would be a very good use of the funds. This would help improve the health of the nation and also ensure that the NHS is able to withstand any future pandemic or crisis that comes its way. Furthermore, we believe that the arts are important to the health of the nation and should be subsidised, however not to the detriment of the health system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe that we should not cut military spending and spend more on the arts and health care. The reason for this is because we need to have a military force to protect us from other countries and to ensure that we are not invaded. The arts are important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. We need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect us from other countries. The health care system is important but we need to ensure that we have a military force to protect +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001811.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001811.soc index 55fd3bcb..97d571b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001811.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001811.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should not be required to wear face coverings when they are in public. However, if there is another pandemic, the government should suggest that people wear face coverings in order to protect others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is clear that face coverings are not perfect and do not provide a full 100% guarantee of stopping the spread of Covid-19, the evidence does suggest that face coverings are a useful tool in protecting the public. With this in mind, the UK government should not require the public to wear face coverings when they are in public, but should encourage people to wear them as much as possible. This will allow people to still feel safe in public, and protect them from others who are sick, while also protecting the economy, as it allows people to still feel confident to be in public. The group would also recommend that the government keep a close eye on the current situation, and make changes to this policy if it is seen that face coverings are ineffective or are not enough. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe that the UK should have a face covering policy in order to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and that this policy should be implemented for a few months at the start of a pandemic until the infection rate is reduced and to a point where it is clear the pandemic is no longer worsening. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People in the UK should not be required to wear face coverings when they are in public. While this was necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is no longer necessary and therefore should not be required in any legal sense. For most of UK history we have not been required to wear a face covering in public and there is no reason to change this now, when we are not in a pandemic. However, having seen the benefit of less illnesses (flus, colds etc) during the pandemic, I would say that the government could suggest/encourage that people wear face coverings when they are sick, in order to protect others, but this should not be mandated by law. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should not be required to wear face coverings when they are in public. However, if there is another pandemic, the government should suggest that people wear face coverings in order to protect others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is clear that face coverings are not perfect and do not provide a full 100% guarantee of stopping the spread of Covid-19, the evidence does suggest that face coverings are a useful tool in protecting the public. With this in mind, the UK government should not require the public to wear face coverings when they are in public, but should encourage people to wear them as much as possible. This will allow people to still feel safe in public, and protect them from others who are sick, while also protecting the economy, as it allows people to still feel confident to be in public. The group would also recommend that the government keep a close eye on the current situation, and make changes to this policy if it is seen that face coverings are ineffective or are not enough. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - During the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe that the UK should have a face covering policy in order to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and that this policy should be implemented for a few months at the start of a pandemic until the infection rate is reduced and to a point where it is clear the pandemic is no longer worsening. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People in the UK should not be required to wear face coverings when they are in public. While this was necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is no longer necessary and therefore should not be required in any legal sense. For most of UK history we have not been required to wear a face covering in public and there is no reason to change this now, when we are not in a pandemic. However, having seen the benefit of less illnesses (flus, colds etc) during the pandemic, I would say that the government could suggest/encourage that people wear face coverings when they are sick, in order to protect others, but this should not be mandated by law. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001812.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001812.soc index 5b55dfa0..aebd277c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001812.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001812.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. Instagram is a social media platform that has become incredibly popular, especially with young people. This has resulted in a lot of children feeling pressured to have their own account, as they feel they are missing out on something. This is not the case, children under the age of 13 should be encouraged to spend their time with their friends and family, enjoying the outdoors, playing sports and having fun. They should not be exposed to the pressures of social media, which can lead to issues with their self-esteem, as they are comparing themselves to others and feeling as if they are not good enough. They should not be exposed to the bullying that is prevalent on social media, and they should not be exposed to content that is not age appropriate. Instagram is a social media platform that is not suitable for children under the age of 13. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. Instagram is a social media platform that has become incredibly popular, especially with young people. This has resulted in a lot of children feeling pressured to have their own account, as they feel they are missing out on something. This is not the case, children under the age of 13 should be encouraged to spend their time with their friends and family, enjoying the outdoors, playing sports and having fun. They should not be exposed to the pressures of social media, which can lead to issues with their self-esteem, as they are comparing themselves to others and feeling as if they are not good enough. They should not be exposed to the bullying that is prevalent on social media, and they should not be exposed to content that is not age appropriate. Instagram is a social media platform that is not suitable for children under the age of 13. Overall, it was a great learning experience for me and I learned a lot about consensus building. I was pleasantly surprised by how everyone was willing to take on board each other's critiques and to adapt the consensus statement to make it the best it could be. I think that all participants learned a lot from the process, and -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. Instagram is a social media platform that has become incredibly popular, especially with young people. This has resulted in a lot of children feeling pressured to have their own account, as they feel they are missing out on something. This is not the case, children under the age of 13 should be encouraged to spend their time with their friends and family, enjoying the outdoors, playing sports and having fun. They should not be exposed to the pressures of social media, which can lead to issues with their self-esteem, as they are comparing themselves to others and feeling as if they are not good enough. They should not be exposed to the bullying that is prevalent on social media, and they should not be exposed to content that is not age appropriate. Instagram is a social media platform that is not suitable for children under the age of 13. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. As a social media platform, Instagram has gained popularity over recent years. As such it has become very popular with young people. Young people can feel pressured to have their own Instagram account as they feel they are missing out on something if they do not. However this is not the case. There are other ways to share memories with your family and friends, and the whole "likes" culture of Instagram can leave young people feeling as if they are not good enough in comparison to other people. As a social media platform, Instagram is not suitable for children under the age of 13, there is pressure to conform to a standard, content can be inappropriate for young children, and children can be exposed to bullying via Instagram. Children under the age of 13 should be able to be kids for as long as possible. The draft consensus statement was critiqued and subsequently revised and a final consensus statement was reached by the participants, this is then deemed to be the definitive position of the group of participants on the question that was posed at the start of the activity. References: [1] A poll of over 100 people in the same social media group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. Instagram is a social media platform that has become incredibly popular, especially with young people. This has resulted in a lot of children feeling pressured to have their own account, as they feel they are missing out on something. This is not the case, children under the age of 13 should be encouraged to spend their time with their friends and family, enjoying the outdoors, playing sports and having fun. They should not be exposed to the pressures of social media, which can lead to issues with their self-esteem, as they are comparing themselves to others and feeling as if they are not good enough. They should not be exposed to the bullying that is prevalent on social media, and they should not be exposed to content that is not age appropriate. Instagram is a social media platform that is not suitable for children under the age of 13. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. Instagram is a social media platform that has become incredibly popular, especially with young people. This has resulted in a lot of children feeling pressured to have their own account, as they feel they are missing out on something. This is not the case, children under the age of 13 should be encouraged to spend their time with their friends and family, enjoying the outdoors, playing sports and having fun. They should not be exposed to the pressures of social media, which can lead to issues with their self-esteem, as they are comparing themselves to others and feeling as if they are not good enough. They should not be exposed to the bullying that is prevalent on social media, and they should not be exposed to content that is not age appropriate. Instagram is a social media platform that is not suitable for children under the age of 13. Overall, it was a great learning experience for me and I learned a lot about consensus building. I was pleasantly surprised by how everyone was willing to take on board each other's critiques and to adapt the consensus statement to make it the best it could be. I think that all participants learned a lot from the process, and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. Instagram is a social media platform that has become incredibly popular, especially with young people. This has resulted in a lot of children feeling pressured to have their own account, as they feel they are missing out on something. This is not the case, children under the age of 13 should be encouraged to spend their time with their friends and family, enjoying the outdoors, playing sports and having fun. They should not be exposed to the pressures of social media, which can lead to issues with their self-esteem, as they are comparing themselves to others and feeling as if they are not good enough. They should not be exposed to the bullying that is prevalent on social media, and they should not be exposed to content that is not age appropriate. Instagram is a social media platform that is not suitable for children under the age of 13. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to have their own Instagram account. As a social media platform, Instagram has gained popularity over recent years. As such it has become very popular with young people. Young people can feel pressured to have their own Instagram account as they feel they are missing out on something if they do not. However this is not the case. There are other ways to share memories with your family and friends, and the whole "likes" culture of Instagram can leave young people feeling as if they are not good enough in comparison to other people. As a social media platform, Instagram is not suitable for children under the age of 13, there is pressure to conform to a standard, content can be inappropriate for young children, and children can be exposed to bullying via Instagram. Children under the age of 13 should be able to be kids for as long as possible. The draft consensus statement was critiqued and subsequently revised and a final consensus statement was reached by the participants, this is then deemed to be the definitive position of the group of participants on the question that was posed at the start of the activity. References: [1] A poll of over 100 people in the same social media group 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001813.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001813.soc index 9844a403..fae5c14e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001813.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001813.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Human beings do have a free will, but there are some limits. In many countries, the right of free speech is respected and in these countries human beings can freely express themselves. They can travel wherever they want, speak their minds, and pursue what makes them happy. However, the boundaries that exist in society mean that some limitations on human free will exist. For example, the law may prevent people from breaking the law, but this is not a limit on free will because it protects people from being exploited by others. In some countries, people have no right of free speech and their political leaders severely limit the free will of the population. For example, the dictatorship in North Korea severely limits the free will of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans do have a free will, but there are limits on what they can do. In many countries, the right of free speech is respected and human beings can freely express themselves. They can travel wherever they want, speak their minds, and pursue what makes them happy. However, the boundaries that exist in society mean that some limitations on human free will exist. For example, the law may prevent people from breaking the law, but this is not a limit on free will because it protects people from being exploited by others. In other countries, the limits on free will are greater, and so people in these countries do not have free will. For example, the dictatorship in North Korea severely limits the free will of the population and they have no choice about what they can do. The whole process was guided by a ‘ground rules for group discussion’ document which was prepared for the purpose of the project. This group would have likely gone through a couple of rounds of the above processes. The documented process is further detailed below. One of the main sources of inspiration and information for this methodology was the book 'The Art of -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Human beings do have a free will, but there are some limits. In many countries, the right of free speech is respected and in these countries human beings can freely express themselves. They can travel wherever they want, speak their minds, and pursue what makes them happy. However, the boundaries that exist in society mean that some limitations on human free will exist. For example, the law may prevent people from breaking the law, but this is not a limit on free will because it protects people from being exploited by others. In other countries, the limits on free will are greater and so people do not have free will. For example, the dictatorship in North Korea severely limits the free will of the population and they have no choice about what they can do. Discussion This question was the most difficult one to answer. There was a great deal of debate between the participants and there was much emotion involved. One participant refused to continue working on the question and one other participant gave a very radical answer to the question that was not in line with the views of the other participants. This proved to be a difficult situation for the facilitator, as the participant felt that his views were not being respected. The facilitator had to convince the participant to accept -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Human beings do have a free will, but there are some limits. In many countries, the right of free speech is respected and in these countries human beings can freely express themselves. They can travel wherever they want, speak their minds, and pursue what makes them happy. However, the boundaries that exist in society mean that some limitations on human free will exist. For example, the law may prevent people from breaking the law, but this is not a limit on free will because it protects people from being exploited by others. In other countries, the limits on free will are greater and so people do not have free will. For example, the dictatorship in North Korea severely limits the free will of the population and they have no choice about what they can do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Human beings do have a free will, but there are some limits. In many countries, the right of free speech is respected and in these countries human beings can freely express themselves. They can travel wherever they want, speak their minds, and pursue what makes them happy. However, the boundaries that exist in society mean that some limitations on human free will exist. For example, the law may prevent people from breaking the law, but this is not a limit on free will because it protects people from being exploited by others. In some countries, people have no right of free speech and their political leaders severely limit the free will of the population. For example, the dictatorship in North Korea severely limits the free will of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans do have a free will, but there are limits on what they can do. In many countries, the right of free speech is respected and human beings can freely express themselves. They can travel wherever they want, speak their minds, and pursue what makes them happy. However, the boundaries that exist in society mean that some limitations on human free will exist. For example, the law may prevent people from breaking the law, but this is not a limit on free will because it protects people from being exploited by others. In other countries, the limits on free will are greater, and so people in these countries do not have free will. For example, the dictatorship in North Korea severely limits the free will of the population and they have no choice about what they can do. The whole process was guided by a ‘ground rules for group discussion’ document which was prepared for the purpose of the project. This group would have likely gone through a couple of rounds of the above processes. The documented process is further detailed below. One of the main sources of inspiration and information for this methodology was the book 'The Art of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Human beings do have a free will, but there are some limits. In many countries, the right of free speech is respected and in these countries human beings can freely express themselves. They can travel wherever they want, speak their minds, and pursue what makes them happy. However, the boundaries that exist in society mean that some limitations on human free will exist. For example, the law may prevent people from breaking the law, but this is not a limit on free will because it protects people from being exploited by others. In other countries, the limits on free will are greater and so people do not have free will. For example, the dictatorship in North Korea severely limits the free will of the population and they have no choice about what they can do. Discussion This question was the most difficult one to answer. There was a great deal of debate between the participants and there was much emotion involved. One participant refused to continue working on the question and one other participant gave a very radical answer to the question that was not in line with the views of the other participants. This proved to be a difficult situation for the facilitator, as the participant felt that his views were not being respected. The facilitator had to convince the participant to accept +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Human beings do have a free will, but there are some limits. In many countries, the right of free speech is respected and in these countries human beings can freely express themselves. They can travel wherever they want, speak their minds, and pursue what makes them happy. However, the boundaries that exist in society mean that some limitations on human free will exist. For example, the law may prevent people from breaking the law, but this is not a limit on free will because it protects people from being exploited by others. In other countries, the limits on free will are greater and so people do not have free will. For example, the dictatorship in North Korea severely limits the free will of the population and they have no choice about what they can do. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001814.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001814.soc index 57e6751d..3ace8830 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001814.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001814.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack to progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. There are those cases where a politician may be well liked, have a strong background and clear, popular and successful plans, and that is of course acceptable, however people have to come to be aware that term limits are an important consideration in a fair political system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack to progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. The term limits will help encourage a healthy functioning political system with wider participation. This consensus view was then presented to the entire group of participants as an example of how it is important to debate and criticize, but at the same time important to listen to the views of others and come to a common consensus. The entire group then broke up into smaller groups of 5 people and each smaller group was tasked with coming up with their own consensus view on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack to progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. A lack of term limits can lead to a sclerotic and corrupt political system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack of progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. ___________ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack to progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. There are those cases where a politician may be well liked, have a strong background and clear, popular and successful plans, and that is of course acceptable, however people have to come to be aware that term limits are an important consideration in a fair political system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack to progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. The term limits will help encourage a healthy functioning political system with wider participation. This consensus view was then presented to the entire group of participants as an example of how it is important to debate and criticize, but at the same time important to listen to the views of others and come to a common consensus. The entire group then broke up into smaller groups of 5 people and each smaller group was tasked with coming up with their own consensus view on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack to progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. A lack of term limits can lead to a sclerotic and corrupt political system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should limit the number of times a person can run for political office. It is not healthy for democracy to let individuals cling to power indefinitely. Ideas may get stagnant and this may lead to a lack of progress. There should be fresh candidates to bring new attitudes and projects to the table. It would not be possible to advance and go forward politically without new political leaders. ___________ 5: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001815.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001815.soc index 94e42535..433ae0fa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001815.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001815.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the fees at the current £27,000 are too high for a great majority of the population. We feel that a reduction in fees would allow more people to go to university. We do not feel that university education should be free to the student, however, we do feel that the student should not have to take the maximum amount in student loans and that universities should provide more grants and bursaries to students from lower socio-economic groups. We felt that the group produced a good consensus opinion but that it would benefit from some further debate so the group was able to identify some improvements. Discussion What the group deemed to be the most effective aspects of the consensus Delphi -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The cost of university is a barrier to many students in accessing a higher education. However, no system will ever be a complete and perfect way to provide a university education to all those who deserve it. It is likely that some people will be able to afford to go to university while others of equal merit will not be able to go. Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are already being encouraged to access higher education through the provision of scholarships and bursaries. Making higher education free to access will probably not remove all barriers for those from a lower socio-economic background who are disadvantaged due to their upbringing. If everyone goes to university, then the value of a degree will diminish in the long term and we risk forcing many people into an education system that will not benefit them in the long run. It is also acknowledged that the increase in price of university education is a deterrent to many, but not all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: University education should not be free, but should be accessible to all. This can be achieved by providing more grants and bursaries to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. This would allow more people to access university education and also reduce the amount of debt that students are left with after graduating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: University education should not be free. A degree is something that should be needed to get into the career you want and should at least have some weighting towards meaningfulness and be worthwhile in the long run as you end up with a high paying career that you couldn't otherwise have met. With no fees the universities wouldn't be able to sustain either the quality of education or the facilities that are available to students. The consensus opinion of the group was that university education should not be free, however, the group did agree that university education should be more accessible to people from all walks of life. The group felt that this could be achieved by providing more grants and bursaries to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The group felt that this would allow more people to access university education and also reduce the amount of debt that students are left with after graduating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the fees at the current £27,000 are too high for a great majority of the population. We feel that a reduction in fees would allow more people to go to university. We do not feel that university education should be free to the student, however, we do feel that the student should not have to take the maximum amount in student loans and that universities should provide more grants and bursaries to students from lower socio-economic groups. We felt that the group produced a good consensus opinion but that it would benefit from some further debate so the group was able to identify some improvements. Discussion What the group deemed to be the most effective aspects of the consensus Delphi +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The cost of university is a barrier to many students in accessing a higher education. However, no system will ever be a complete and perfect way to provide a university education to all those who deserve it. It is likely that some people will be able to afford to go to university while others of equal merit will not be able to go. Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are already being encouraged to access higher education through the provision of scholarships and bursaries. Making higher education free to access will probably not remove all barriers for those from a lower socio-economic background who are disadvantaged due to their upbringing. If everyone goes to university, then the value of a degree will diminish in the long term and we risk forcing many people into an education system that will not benefit them in the long run. It is also acknowledged that the increase in price of university education is a deterrent to many, but not all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - University education should not be free, but should be accessible to all. This can be achieved by providing more grants and bursaries to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. This would allow more people to access university education and also reduce the amount of debt that students are left with after graduating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - University education should not be free. A degree is something that should be needed to get into the career you want and should at least have some weighting towards meaningfulness and be worthwhile in the long run as you end up with a high paying career that you couldn't otherwise have met. With no fees the universities wouldn't be able to sustain either the quality of education or the facilities that are available to students. The consensus opinion of the group was that university education should not be free, however, the group did agree that university education should be more accessible to people from all walks of life. The group felt that this could be achieved by providing more grants and bursaries to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The group felt that this would allow more people to access university education and also reduce the amount of debt that students are left with after graduating. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001816.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001816.soc index 88570f36..ef163939 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001816.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001816.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This is because the poor could grow their own crops and be able to be independent in the future. They would not have to rely on the government as much for aid which would save the government money. However, the government would have to be very careful in selecting the land to buy and the people to give it to. They would have to make sure that it would not impact anyone negatively and there would be no repercussions. The poor could use the land to grow their own crops and use it to benefit the economy and provide more food for others. Specific land would be able to be used so that it is not harmful to anyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor so long as it is a situation where the people receiving it will use the land productively and not negatively impact anyone else (through more homelessness, destroying nature, or anything else). Further, the participants that work productively should be encouraged by the government to do more of what they are doing and rewarded more for doing so. Conclusions: After reaching a consensus, the participants had a discussion about how the software worked, what its limitations were, and whether there were any features missing. Below is some of what was expressed by the group. Conclusion 1: It definitely works great, this could be used easily in schools and it could also be used if you wanted to do something very specific, for example, you have to agree on an exact piece of land etc. Conclusion 2: It was quite good to use this tool and see how it works, it was quite easy. It would've been good to have it not just on paper but maybe a virtual world where everyone can see what's going on with the other Conclusion 3: I feel this tool is very useful if you need to sort through different opinions in an informal environment such as friends. But it -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This is because the poor could grow their own crops and be able to be independent in the future. They would not have to rely on the government as much for aid which would save the government money. However, the government would have to be very careful in selecting the land to buy and the people to give it to. They would have to make sure that it would not impact anyone negatively and there would be no repercussions. The poor would need to show that they are working hard and trying to be independent so that they are not just relying on the government to give them land. This would also show that the land is not being wasted and is being used productively. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor, if the poor agree to grow crops to provide the people with food. Feedback is welcomed! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This is because the poor could grow their own crops and be able to be independent in the future. They would not have to rely on the government as much for aid which would save the government money. However, the government would have to be very careful in selecting the land to buy and the people to give it to. They would have to make sure that it would not impact anyone negatively and there would be no repercussions. The poor could use the land to grow their own crops and use it to benefit the economy and provide more food for others. Specific land would be able to be used so that it is not harmful to anyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor so long as it is a situation where the people receiving it will use the land productively and not negatively impact anyone else (through more homelessness, destroying nature, or anything else). Further, the participants that work productively should be encouraged by the government to do more of what they are doing and rewarded more for doing so. Conclusions: After reaching a consensus, the participants had a discussion about how the software worked, what its limitations were, and whether there were any features missing. Below is some of what was expressed by the group. Conclusion 1: It definitely works great, this could be used easily in schools and it could also be used if you wanted to do something very specific, for example, you have to agree on an exact piece of land etc. Conclusion 2: It was quite good to use this tool and see how it works, it was quite easy. It would've been good to have it not just on paper but maybe a virtual world where everyone can see what's going on with the other Conclusion 3: I feel this tool is very useful if you need to sort through different opinions in an informal environment such as friends. But it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor. This is because the poor could grow their own crops and be able to be independent in the future. They would not have to rely on the government as much for aid which would save the government money. However, the government would have to be very careful in selecting the land to buy and the people to give it to. They would have to make sure that it would not impact anyone negatively and there would be no repercussions. The poor would need to show that they are working hard and trying to be independent so that they are not just relying on the government to give them land. This would also show that the land is not being wasted and is being used productively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should be allowed to buy land and give it to the poor, if the poor agree to grow crops to provide the people with food. Feedback is welcomed! 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001817.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001817.soc index 96051faf..7f452e29 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001817.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001817.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be term limits for MPs. This is because it can prevent corruption and can help to ensure that the views of the people are being represented. The group felt that there should be a limit of around 5 years for MPs to serve in office and that there should be an upper age limit of around 65 years old. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of term limits for MPs. This is because it can help to prevent corruption and can help to ensure that the views of the people are being represented. It can also help to ensure that MPs are working hard for their constituents and not just becoming career politicians. There was a consensus that an upper age limit for MPs would be a good idea and that there should be a maximum number of MPs who could represent one area, this is to ensure that younger and fresher ideas are incorporated into government and that the views of the younger generation are being taken into account by the government. The group felt that there should be a limit of around 7 years for MPs to serve in office, and that there should be an upper age limit of around 65 years old for MPs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be term limits for MPs. MPs should be limited to serving in office for up to around 10 years. The upper age limit for MPs should be around 65 years old. The reason for the consensus view was that the group felt that by having term limits it can help to ensure that the views of the public are being represented in the government. It can also help to prevent career politicians who may become corrupted or out of touch with public opinion. However, the group also recognised that it can be beneficial to have MPs who have served for a long time and have built up expertise in their area. The group felt that around 10 years is an acceptable term limit. The group also felt that an upper age limit of around 65 years old was appropriate. The reason for this is that in general, the group felt that older people have more life experience and can bring this to their role as an MP. However, the group also recognised that younger MPs can also have life experience and be effective as MPs. The group felt that this was a fair and reasonable compromise between the views of the participants and represented their view as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: It would be desirable to have term limits for MPs for many of the reasons cited above. A good place to start with the term limit would be 5 years and the age limit should be 60 years old. How well did this group of participants do in achieving a consensus? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be term limits for MPs. This is because it can prevent corruption and can help to ensure that the views of the people are being represented. The group felt that there should be a limit of around 5 years for MPs to serve in office and that there should be an upper age limit of around 65 years old. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of term limits for MPs. This is because it can help to prevent corruption and can help to ensure that the views of the people are being represented. It can also help to ensure that MPs are working hard for their constituents and not just becoming career politicians. There was a consensus that an upper age limit for MPs would be a good idea and that there should be a maximum number of MPs who could represent one area, this is to ensure that younger and fresher ideas are incorporated into government and that the views of the younger generation are being taken into account by the government. The group felt that there should be a limit of around 7 years for MPs to serve in office, and that there should be an upper age limit of around 65 years old for MPs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be term limits for MPs. MPs should be limited to serving in office for up to around 10 years. The upper age limit for MPs should be around 65 years old. The reason for the consensus view was that the group felt that by having term limits it can help to ensure that the views of the public are being represented in the government. It can also help to prevent career politicians who may become corrupted or out of touch with public opinion. However, the group also recognised that it can be beneficial to have MPs who have served for a long time and have built up expertise in their area. The group felt that around 10 years is an acceptable term limit. The group also felt that an upper age limit of around 65 years old was appropriate. The reason for this is that in general, the group felt that older people have more life experience and can bring this to their role as an MP. However, the group also recognised that younger MPs can also have life experience and be effective as MPs. The group felt that this was a fair and reasonable compromise between the views of the participants and represented their view as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: It would be desirable to have term limits for MPs for many of the reasons cited above. A good place to start with the term limit would be 5 years and the age limit should be 60 years old. How well did this group of participants do in achieving a consensus? 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001818.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001818.soc index a0ec0c89..b47d91a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001818.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001818.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Pollution is a major environmental problem and we should not restrain ourselves from any tool available in the fight to improve air quality and reduce emissions. However, the blanket restriction of car ownership in all large cities would not be an effective method of combatting pollution because: - Our public transport systems are not good enough, especially in the suburbs. - Restricting car ownership will benefit only those who can afford to purchase an electric vehicle. - If car-ownership is restricted in cities, those who are affected will be forced to commute in and out of city centers using the already-crowded public transport network. - Restricting car ownership will not stop those who already own a car from using it. Rather than using car ownership as the tool to restrict emissions, the government should look to instead: - Reduce the number of cars on the road by increasing the congestion charge in city centers and creating more pedestrian-friendly urban areas. - Improve public transport systems, especially in the suburbs. - Encourage the use of more eco-friendly vehicles by offering tax incentives to buyers. - Establish a scheme whereby the more electric miles driven, the lower one’s tax liability. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While cars cause pollution and therefore it is essential to reduce emissions as much as possible, we do not believe that restricting car ownership in large cities is the most effective way of doing so. There are many reasons why this is not an appropriate solution, some of which are: - public transport systems are not always good, especially in the suburbs, meaning people will have no choice but to use their car, - limiting ownership will only benefit those who can afford the high price of electric vehicles, - limiting ownership could lead to more people using the already over-crowded public transport systems, and - restricting car ownership will not stop those who already own a car from using it. If we wish to improve air quality and reduce emissions, we must first consider other possible solutions, such as: - implementing a congestion charge in city centers to reduce traffic, - developing and improving public transport systems, - encouraging the use of more eco-friendly vehicles, - providing incentives for those who buy eco-friendly vehicles, and - changing the tax system so that those who drive less pay less tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We all agree that reducing pollution is essential, but do not believe that banning car ownership is the way to achieve this. Other methods of reducing emissions must be considered first, for example improving public transport systems and giving tax breaks to those who drive less. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Cars are a major cause of air pollution, so we must all do our part to reduce emissions as much as possible. In large cities we believe the most effective way of doing so is by: - implementing a congestion charge in city centers to reduce traffic, - improving public transport systems, - encouraging the use of more eco-friendly vehicles, - providing incentives for those who buy eco-friendly vehicles, and - changing the tax system so that those who drive less pay less tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Pollution is a major environmental problem and we should not restrain ourselves from any tool available in the fight to improve air quality and reduce emissions. However, the blanket restriction of car ownership in all large cities would not be an effective method of combatting pollution because: - Our public transport systems are not good enough, especially in the suburbs. - Restricting car ownership will benefit only those who can afford to purchase an electric vehicle. - If car-ownership is restricted in cities, those who are affected will be forced to commute in and out of city centers using the already-crowded public transport network. - Restricting car ownership will not stop those who already own a car from using it. Rather than using car ownership as the tool to restrict emissions, the government should look to instead: - Reduce the number of cars on the road by increasing the congestion charge in city centers and creating more pedestrian-friendly urban areas. - Improve public transport systems, especially in the suburbs. - Encourage the use of more eco-friendly vehicles by offering tax incentives to buyers. - Establish a scheme whereby the more electric miles driven, the lower one’s tax liability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While cars cause pollution and therefore it is essential to reduce emissions as much as possible, we do not believe that restricting car ownership in large cities is the most effective way of doing so. There are many reasons why this is not an appropriate solution, some of which are: - public transport systems are not always good, especially in the suburbs, meaning people will have no choice but to use their car, - limiting ownership will only benefit those who can afford the high price of electric vehicles, - limiting ownership could lead to more people using the already over-crowded public transport systems, and - restricting car ownership will not stop those who already own a car from using it. If we wish to improve air quality and reduce emissions, we must first consider other possible solutions, such as: - implementing a congestion charge in city centers to reduce traffic, - developing and improving public transport systems, - encouraging the use of more eco-friendly vehicles, - providing incentives for those who buy eco-friendly vehicles, and - changing the tax system so that those who drive less pay less tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We all agree that reducing pollution is essential, but do not believe that banning car ownership is the way to achieve this. Other methods of reducing emissions must be considered first, for example improving public transport systems and giving tax breaks to those who drive less. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Cars are a major cause of air pollution, so we must all do our part to reduce emissions as much as possible. In large cities we believe the most effective way of doing so is by: - implementing a congestion charge in city centers to reduce traffic, - improving public transport systems, - encouraging the use of more eco-friendly vehicles, - providing incentives for those who buy eco-friendly vehicles, and - changing the tax system so that those who drive less pay less tax. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001819.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001819.soc index 1e58e9fa..30b0e85a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001819.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001819.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should heavily subsidise electric vehicles in order to support the idea that fossil fuels are no longer needed. This could be done by giving every household a voucher to pay towards the cost of buying an electric car. The government should also give a grant to all those wanting to get an electric car charging point installed. The cost of electric cars is too high for most people and the range of most electric cars is still too short to make them a practical choice. The government should also do more to make electric cars cheaper for everyone to buy and increase the charging points so it is easier for electric cars to be used on a daily basis. The extra tax from the current car tax system should also be ringfenced to pay for the subsidies on electric cars and other green projects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should subsidise electric vehicles. This is because they are much better for the environment than cars powered by fossil fuels. The government are already doing a lot to encourage people to buy electric vehicles, including emissions zones in major cities and failing older vehicles on emissions tests during the MOT. However, electric vehicles are out of reach financially for most people. There is also the issue of charging electric cars - for instance, there would be nowhere I could have an electric charging point installed for an electric vehicle since I live in a terraced house with no driveway. The government should subsidise electric vehicles, and also make it easier for people to have charging points installed. This could be done by providing grants for people to have charging points installed, and also making it easier to get planning permission for charging points to be installed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should subsidise electric vehicles, but it should be the people who currently own non-electric vehicles that contribute to this. This will also help reduce the amount of money the government will have to provide. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide subsidies to the public for the purchase of electric vehicles, and to invest in the infrastructure for electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should heavily subsidise electric vehicles in order to support the idea that fossil fuels are no longer needed. This could be done by giving every household a voucher to pay towards the cost of buying an electric car. The government should also give a grant to all those wanting to get an electric car charging point installed. The cost of electric cars is too high for most people and the range of most electric cars is still too short to make them a practical choice. The government should also do more to make electric cars cheaper for everyone to buy and increase the charging points so it is easier for electric cars to be used on a daily basis. The extra tax from the current car tax system should also be ringfenced to pay for the subsidies on electric cars and other green projects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should subsidise electric vehicles. This is because they are much better for the environment than cars powered by fossil fuels. The government are already doing a lot to encourage people to buy electric vehicles, including emissions zones in major cities and failing older vehicles on emissions tests during the MOT. However, electric vehicles are out of reach financially for most people. There is also the issue of charging electric cars - for instance, there would be nowhere I could have an electric charging point installed for an electric vehicle since I live in a terraced house with no driveway. The government should subsidise electric vehicles, and also make it easier for people to have charging points installed. This could be done by providing grants for people to have charging points installed, and also making it easier to get planning permission for charging points to be installed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should subsidise electric vehicles, but it should be the people who currently own non-electric vehicles that contribute to this. This will also help reduce the amount of money the government will have to provide. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide subsidies to the public for the purchase of electric vehicles, and to invest in the infrastructure for electric vehicles. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001820.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001820.soc index d4760be0..7b275b68 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001820.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001820.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that in order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. There is a need for more charging points as this is a major fear amongst drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. A wider distribution of charging points would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. This would increase the likelihood of electric vehicles becoming the primary source of transport. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. We believe that the public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. It is important that incentives are available to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and that there is enough information about the costs of owning an electric vehicle to support this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. The need for more charging points is a major fear amongst drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. This would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. The public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. It is important that incentives are available to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and that there is enough information about the costs of owning an electric vehicle to support this. In order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. The need for more charging points is a major fear amongst drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. This would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. The public should be given the opportunity to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: We believe that in order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be a significant increase in the number of charging points. We believe that in order to allow electric vehicles to compete with diesel and petrol cars there is a need for more charging points as this is a major concern amongst many drivers. This is an area in which both public and private operators can be involved in the setting up of charging points. We believe that there is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. There is a need for electric vehicles to be seen on the roads and more information to be shared about the costs of owning an electric vehicle, more incentives to be provided to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles, and for a cost of owning an electric vehicle to be made available. We believe that the public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. There should be a wider distribution of charging points to make the costs of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. This would increase the likelihood of electric vehicles becoming the primary source of transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: We believe that in order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. There is a need for more charging points as this is a major fear for drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. A wider distribution of charging points would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. This would increase the likelihood of electric vehicles becoming the primary source of transport. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. We believe that the public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. It is important that incentives are available to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and that there is enough information about the costs of owning an electric vehicle to support this. Discussion The participants seemed to have a shared understanding of the issue, the proposed response to the issue, and the benefits that would arise from this response. While most participants were unified about how to achieve this goal, there were some who found some downsides to the scheme, e.g. charging vehicles for long periods of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that in order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. There is a need for more charging points as this is a major fear amongst drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. A wider distribution of charging points would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. This would increase the likelihood of electric vehicles becoming the primary source of transport. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. We believe that the public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. It is important that incentives are available to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and that there is enough information about the costs of owning an electric vehicle to support this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. The need for more charging points is a major fear amongst drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. This would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. The public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. It is important that incentives are available to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and that there is enough information about the costs of owning an electric vehicle to support this. In order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. The need for more charging points is a major fear amongst drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. This would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. The public should be given the opportunity to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: We believe that in order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be a significant increase in the number of charging points. We believe that in order to allow electric vehicles to compete with diesel and petrol cars there is a need for more charging points as this is a major concern amongst many drivers. This is an area in which both public and private operators can be involved in the setting up of charging points. We believe that there is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. There is a need for electric vehicles to be seen on the roads and more information to be shared about the costs of owning an electric vehicle, more incentives to be provided to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles, and for a cost of owning an electric vehicle to be made available. We believe that the public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. There should be a wider distribution of charging points to make the costs of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. This would increase the likelihood of electric vehicles becoming the primary source of transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We believe that in order to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, there needs to be an increase in the number of charging points. There is a need for more charging points as this is a major fear for drivers. It is essential that the charging points are accessible, inexpensive to use, and easily located. A wider distribution of charging points would make the cost of owning an electric vehicle more competitive with diesel and petrol cars. This would increase the likelihood of electric vehicles becoming the primary source of transport. There is a need for more awareness to be raised about electric vehicles and the benefits that they provide. We believe that the public should be given the opportunity to try these vehicles for themselves to understand the positive benefits that they provide. It is important that incentives are available to allow drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and that there is enough information about the costs of owning an electric vehicle to support this. Discussion The participants seemed to have a shared understanding of the issue, the proposed response to the issue, and the benefits that would arise from this response. While most participants were unified about how to achieve this goal, there were some who found some downsides to the scheme, e.g. charging vehicles for long periods of 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001821.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001821.soc index 14237dbf..6cb1a5d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001821.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001821.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, but believe that it should be made clear that there are some very specific situations where the risks of nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. These are situations in which the nuclear power plant is poorly regulated, and where there is a significant risk of a major earthquake. In all other situations, the potential benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks, and we believe that this should be encouraged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks. The risks of nuclear energy are very low and are likely to become even lower in the future as safety regulations continue to improve and the materials used in nuclear energy production become safer. The potential benefits of nuclear energy are huge, and if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we will need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is a very cost-effective way of doing this, and is much more environmentally friendly than coal or gas. We should therefore continue to explore the possibilities of nuclear energy and improve safety regulations in order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and prevent climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks. The risks of nuclear energy are very low and are likely to become even lower in the future as safety regulations continue to improve and the materials used in nuclear energy production become safer. The potential benefits of nuclear energy are huge, and if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we will need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is a very cost-effective way of doing this, and is much more environmentally friendly than coal or gas. Furthermore, those countries that have cut their reliance on fossil fuels are much better off than those who have not, with workers enjoying better prospects and greater security. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, but believe that it should be made clear that there are some very specific situations where the risks of nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. These are situations in which the nuclear power plant is poorly regulated, and where there is a significant risk of a major earthquake. In all other situations, the potential benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks, and we believe that this should be encouraged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks. The risks of nuclear energy are very low and are likely to become even lower in the future as safety regulations continue to improve and the materials used in nuclear energy production become safer. The potential benefits of nuclear energy are huge, and if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we will need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is a very cost-effective way of doing this, and is much more environmentally friendly than coal or gas. We should therefore continue to explore the possibilities of nuclear energy and improve safety regulations in order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and prevent climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks. The risks of nuclear energy are very low and are likely to become even lower in the future as safety regulations continue to improve and the materials used in nuclear energy production become safer. The potential benefits of nuclear energy are huge, and if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we will need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is a very cost-effective way of doing this, and is much more environmentally friendly than coal or gas. Furthermore, those countries that have cut their reliance on fossil fuels are much better off than those who have not, with workers enjoying better prospects and greater security. 3: 4,3,2,1 2: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001822.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001822.soc index 3c05f714..65c45716 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001822.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001822.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think it will have a positive impact on productivity. We feel that it is very unlikely that it will have a negative impact on productivity. We feel that it will have a neutral impact on productivity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It can be agreed that Universal Basic Income will have a positive impact on productivity but it is difficult to judge how big that impact would be. If UBI is large enough to be a motivator to the unemployed to take a low paying job it would increase productivity. If UBI is small enough to keep people with low productivity in their jobs, productivity would remain about the same. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: UBI has the potential to have a positive impact on productivity. If we agree that it will improve health and happiness, then surely this will improve productivity? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was of the opinion that the introduction of a universal basic income will have a positive impact on productivity. The participants felt that the introduction of a universal basic income would allow people to take on jobs that they previously would not have been able to due to the low pay. This would allow them to develop new skills and experience which would then allow them to move into better paid jobs in the future. The participants also felt that a universal basic income would allow people to take more risks in terms of starting their own businesses and developing their own ideas. The participants felt that the introduction of a universal basic income would allow people to be more creative in terms of developing new products and services which would lead to greater productivity in the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think it will have a positive impact on productivity. We feel that it is very unlikely that it will have a negative impact on productivity. We feel that it will have a neutral impact on productivity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It can be agreed that Universal Basic Income will have a positive impact on productivity but it is difficult to judge how big that impact would be. If UBI is large enough to be a motivator to the unemployed to take a low paying job it would increase productivity. If UBI is small enough to keep people with low productivity in their jobs, productivity would remain about the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - UBI has the potential to have a positive impact on productivity. If we agree that it will improve health and happiness, then surely this will improve productivity? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was of the opinion that the introduction of a universal basic income will have a positive impact on productivity. The participants felt that the introduction of a universal basic income would allow people to take on jobs that they previously would not have been able to due to the low pay. This would allow them to develop new skills and experience which would then allow them to move into better paid jobs in the future. The participants also felt that a universal basic income would allow people to take more risks in terms of starting their own businesses and developing their own ideas. The participants felt that the introduction of a universal basic income would allow people to be more creative in terms of developing new products and services which would lead to greater productivity in the economy. 2: 4,3,2,1 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001823.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001823.soc index f0633e50..9f5514fe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001823.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001823.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, a high rate of inequality is bad for society. A high rate of inequality leads to social disharmony, where certain segments of the population feel discriminated against and marginalised. It also results in inefficient distribution of wealth, where resources are concentrated in the hands of a select few instead of being distributed evenly across society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “No, a high rate of inequality isn’t bad for society, but it is morally wrong and should be tackled.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, a high rate of inequality is bad for society. It can lead to lawlessness, unfair advantage and a feeling of unfairness. However, it is important to note that inequality can exist for many reasons. For example, inequality between men and women can exist because women are often expected to stay at home and raise children, thus reducing their ability to work and earn money. Inequality between races can exist because of historical injustices. Inequality between the rich and the poor can exist because of differences in ability and drive. Therefore, it is important to understand the causes of inequality before making judgements on whether it is good or bad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A high rate of inequality is bad for society because it leads to a breakdown in trust and cohesion, which can result in civil unrest and other negative consequences for society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, a high rate of inequality is bad for society. A high rate of inequality leads to social disharmony, where certain segments of the population feel discriminated against and marginalised. It also results in inefficient distribution of wealth, where resources are concentrated in the hands of a select few instead of being distributed evenly across society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “No, a high rate of inequality isn’t bad for society, but it is morally wrong and should be tackled.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, a high rate of inequality is bad for society. It can lead to lawlessness, unfair advantage and a feeling of unfairness. However, it is important to note that inequality can exist for many reasons. For example, inequality between men and women can exist because women are often expected to stay at home and raise children, thus reducing their ability to work and earn money. Inequality between races can exist because of historical injustices. Inequality between the rich and the poor can exist because of differences in ability and drive. Therefore, it is important to understand the causes of inequality before making judgements on whether it is good or bad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A high rate of inequality is bad for society because it leads to a breakdown in trust and cohesion, which can result in civil unrest and other negative consequences for society. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001824.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001824.soc index e750dc8e..7c7a51b3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001824.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001824.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK has benefited from immigration, but there are some issues that need to be addressed. The biggest issue is the time taken to process applications for people to come to the UK to work. This can lead to a situation where people come to the UK illegally and then have to wait a long time to be processed, which is not a good situation for anyone. The second issue is the number of immigrants coming to the UK from war-torn countries. These people are often fleeing from very dangerous situations and should be welcomed with open arms. However, the UK is not in a position to take in unlimited numbers of immigrants and so the numbers need to be controlled. The third issue is that the UK has a shortage of low skilled workers in certain industries. For example, there is a shortage of fruit pickers and this is having a negative impact on the fruit industry. The UK needs to be more open to low skilled immigrants in these industries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, high levels of immigration can be good for the UK if it is controlled, regulated and managed. It is important to ensure that the UK is able to accept the people that it needs and remove the people that it doesn't. We should not be seen as a soft touch, and we should also not let our immigration be used as a tool to be used against us by other countries for political purposes. It is not good for the UK if the government is seen to be allowing our borders to be 'open' in an effort to be politically correct and nice to everyone, whilst not allowing us to operate as a nation. In the same way that the UK is not in favour of, for example, large numbers of British nationals migrating to Germany, I do not believe that we should be expected to have to accept high levels of immigration from any other country either. It is important to have a balanced system that is controlled, managed and regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Immigration is good for the UK, however, it must be controlled and managed in a way that benefits both the immigrants and the UK as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK has benefited from immigration, but there are some issues that need to be addressed. The biggest issue is the time taken to process applications for people to come to the UK to work. This can lead to a situation where people come to the UK illegally and then have to wait a long time to be processed, which is not a good situation for anyone. The second issue is the number of immigrants coming to the UK from war-torn countries. These people are often fleeing from very dangerous situations and should be welcomed with open arms. However, the UK is not in a position to take in unlimited numbers of immigrants and so the numbers need to be controlled. The third issue is that the UK has a shortage of low skilled workers in certain industries. For example, there is a shortage of fruit pickers and this is having a negative impact on the fruit industry. The UK needs to be more open to low skilled immigrants in these industries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, high levels of immigration can be good for the UK if it is controlled, regulated and managed. It is important to ensure that the UK is able to accept the people that it needs and remove the people that it doesn't. We should not be seen as a soft touch, and we should also not let our immigration be used as a tool to be used against us by other countries for political purposes. It is not good for the UK if the government is seen to be allowing our borders to be 'open' in an effort to be politically correct and nice to everyone, whilst not allowing us to operate as a nation. In the same way that the UK is not in favour of, for example, large numbers of British nationals migrating to Germany, I do not believe that we should be expected to have to accept high levels of immigration from any other country either. It is important to have a balanced system that is controlled, managed and regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Immigration is good for the UK, however, it must be controlled and managed in a way that benefits both the immigrants and the UK as a whole. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001825.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001825.soc index 578bc1fe..c18c7a2c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001825.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001825.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Companies that sell software that tracks online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. This is such an opaque area and internet users should be made aware of how their online activity is being tracked, monitored and sold to third parties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Companies that sell software that tracks online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. The technology should be explained in detail, including how it works, the granularity at which users can be identified and any safeguards in place to protect the privacy of users. The technology should be explained in an accessible way, using plain English, and should be easily accessible to all users. The technology should be explained in a way that is easy to understand for the general public. This is an opaque area and internet users should be made aware of how their online activity is being tracked, monitored and sold to third parties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Companies that sell software that tracks online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Companies that sell software that tracks online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users as well as how the technology works, the granularity at which users can be identified and any safeguards in place to protect the privacy of users. It is essential for those companies to disclose the technology they use. This is such an opaque area and internet users should be made aware of how their online activity is being tracked, monitored and sold to third parties. It should be a completely transparent process and ethical standards should be guaranteed for the users. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Companies that sell software that tracks online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. This is such an opaque area and internet users should be made aware of how their online activity is being tracked, monitored and sold to third parties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Companies that sell software that tracks online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. The technology should be explained in detail, including how it works, the granularity at which users can be identified and any safeguards in place to protect the privacy of users. The technology should be explained in an accessible way, using plain English, and should be easily accessible to all users. The technology should be explained in a way that is easy to understand for the general public. This is an opaque area and internet users should be made aware of how their online activity is being tracked, monitored and sold to third parties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Companies that sell software that tracks online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Companies that sell software that tracks online browsing to advertisers should be required to disclose the technology they use to identify users as well as how the technology works, the granularity at which users can be identified and any safeguards in place to protect the privacy of users. It is essential for those companies to disclose the technology they use. This is such an opaque area and internet users should be made aware of how their online activity is being tracked, monitored and sold to third parties. It should be a completely transparent process and ethical standards should be guaranteed for the users. 3: 2,4,1,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001826.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001826.soc index e0383791..63b18bf1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001826.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001826.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should subsidise electric vehicles to help reduce the use of fossil fuels. The government should give grants to anyone who buys an electric car and should also give a grant for the installation of an electric car charging point at home. The government should make electric cars cheaper for everyone to buy and should increase the number of electric car charging points to make it easier for people to use electric cars on a daily basis. The extra tax from the current car tax system should be ringfenced to pay for the subsidies on electric cars and other green projects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: The government should be subsidising electric vehicles heavily to support the claim that fossil fuels are no longer needed. They should look at buying charging stations for electric cars and allow electric car users to charge for free at petrol stations as well as supermarkets and other large retail stores, including giving a grant to all those wanting to get an electric car charging point installed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Electric cars are very expensive, especially compared to petrol or diesel cars. Moreover, some people who want an electric car cannot get one because they do not have a garage or drive. Some also live in an area which does not have a charging point. If the government really wants people to buy electric cars, it should make them cheaper. This would also help the environment and reduce air pollution in cities. The government should give each household a voucher to buy an electric car which is enough to cover the extra cost over a petrol or diesel car, so each household could decide if they want one or not. A voucher would be better than a subsidy. The government should also give people enough money to get a charging point installed. The government should improve the charging network. There are not enough charging points yet and some people have to wait a long time before they can charge their car. Charging points should be available on more roads and in cities and not just on motorways. The extra car tax raised from the current car tax system should be ringfenced to pay for all these subsidies on electric cars and charging points, to ensure that people are not paying for new schemes through higher taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should heavily subsidise electric vehicles in order to support the idea that fossil fuels are no longer needed. This could be done by giving every household a voucher to pay towards the cost of buying an electric car. The government should also give a grant to all those wanting to get an electric car charging point installed. The cost of electric cars is too high for most people and the range of most electric cars is still too short to make them a practical choice. The government should also do more to make electric cars cheaper for everyone to buy and increase the charging points so it is easier for electric cars to be used on a daily basis. The extra tax from the current car tax system should also be ringfenced to pay for the subsidies on electric cars and other green projects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should subsidise electric vehicles to help reduce the use of fossil fuels. The government should give grants to anyone who buys an electric car and should also give a grant for the installation of an electric car charging point at home. The government should make electric cars cheaper for everyone to buy and should increase the number of electric car charging points to make it easier for people to use electric cars on a daily basis. The extra tax from the current car tax system should be ringfenced to pay for the subsidies on electric cars and other green projects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: The government should be subsidising electric vehicles heavily to support the claim that fossil fuels are no longer needed. They should look at buying charging stations for electric cars and allow electric car users to charge for free at petrol stations as well as supermarkets and other large retail stores, including giving a grant to all those wanting to get an electric car charging point installed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Electric cars are very expensive, especially compared to petrol or diesel cars. Moreover, some people who want an electric car cannot get one because they do not have a garage or drive. Some also live in an area which does not have a charging point. If the government really wants people to buy electric cars, it should make them cheaper. This would also help the environment and reduce air pollution in cities. The government should give each household a voucher to buy an electric car which is enough to cover the extra cost over a petrol or diesel car, so each household could decide if they want one or not. A voucher would be better than a subsidy. The government should also give people enough money to get a charging point installed. The government should improve the charging network. There are not enough charging points yet and some people have to wait a long time before they can charge their car. Charging points should be available on more roads and in cities and not just on motorways. The extra car tax raised from the current car tax system should be ringfenced to pay for all these subsidies on electric cars and charging points, to ensure that people are not paying for new schemes through higher taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should heavily subsidise electric vehicles in order to support the idea that fossil fuels are no longer needed. This could be done by giving every household a voucher to pay towards the cost of buying an electric car. The government should also give a grant to all those wanting to get an electric car charging point installed. The cost of electric cars is too high for most people and the range of most electric cars is still too short to make them a practical choice. The government should also do more to make electric cars cheaper for everyone to buy and increase the charging points so it is easier for electric cars to be used on a daily basis. The extra tax from the current car tax system should also be ringfenced to pay for the subsidies on electric cars and other green projects. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001827.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001827.soc index e6e08cc1..e9509e70 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001827.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001827.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think people should be able to wear what they want to school, because people will feel more confident and comfortable in their own skin, and it will also make people more comfortable at school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of people being able to wear what they want to school, but with some guidelines in place. This is because people should be able to express themselves and feel comfortable in what they wear. However, the group felt that there should be some guidelines in place, such as not being able to wear revealing clothing, as this could distract other students and teachers. The group felt that these guidelines should be in place to ensure that students are comfortable and able to focus on their learning. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We don’t believe people should be free to wear what they want to school, because if everyone is wearing different clothes and there is no school uniform, then people may get bullied for what they wear and the focus of the school would not be learning. However, we do believe that the rules on uniform should be relaxed to a certain extent. For example, if someone wants to have brightly coloured hair then they should be allowed to, as long as it is not offensive. And piercings should be allowed too, as long as they are not offensive. This would help children express themselves and they would feel more included. Because if people are not allowed to express themselves, they may feel like they don’t belong. Also, we believe that students should have the option to wear their own clothes on certain days, for example, every Friday, so that they can have their own identity, as well as a school one.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be free to wear what they want to school as long as it is not offensive and does not distract them or others from learning. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think people should be able to wear what they want to school, because people will feel more confident and comfortable in their own skin, and it will also make people more comfortable at school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of people being able to wear what they want to school, but with some guidelines in place. This is because people should be able to express themselves and feel comfortable in what they wear. However, the group felt that there should be some guidelines in place, such as not being able to wear revealing clothing, as this could distract other students and teachers. The group felt that these guidelines should be in place to ensure that students are comfortable and able to focus on their learning. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We don’t believe people should be free to wear what they want to school, because if everyone is wearing different clothes and there is no school uniform, then people may get bullied for what they wear and the focus of the school would not be learning. However, we do believe that the rules on uniform should be relaxed to a certain extent. For example, if someone wants to have brightly coloured hair then they should be allowed to, as long as it is not offensive. And piercings should be allowed too, as long as they are not offensive. This would help children express themselves and they would feel more included. Because if people are not allowed to express themselves, they may feel like they don’t belong. Also, we believe that students should have the option to wear their own clothes on certain days, for example, every Friday, so that they can have their own identity, as well as a school one.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be free to wear what they want to school as long as it is not offensive and does not distract them or others from learning. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001828.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001828.soc index 0fffc699..2c037188 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001828.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001828.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of banning single use plastic bottles, but with some caveats. First, it is important to note that banning single use plastic bottles will not solve all the environmental problems, and that we need to continue to work on other solutions to reduce the amount of plastic in our oceans and landfills. Second, we need to ensure that there are sufficient alternatives to single use plastic bottles, such as reusable bottles. Third, we need to ensure that there are sufficient places to refill reusable bottles. Finally, we need to ensure that there are sufficient places to recycle single use plastic bottles, and that we continue to work on reducing the amount of single use plastic bottles in circulation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of banning single use plastic bottles, but with some caveats. First, it is important to note that banning single use plastic bottles will not solve all the environmental problems, and that we need to continue to work on other solutions to reduce the amount of plastic in our oceans and landfills. Second, we need to ensure that there are sufficient alternatives to single use plastic bottles, such as reusable bottles. Third, we need to ensure that there are sufficient places to refill reusable bottles. Finally, we need to ensure that there are sufficient places to recycle single use plastic bottles, and that we continue to work on reducing the amount of single use plastic bottles in circulation. We also need to ensure that there are sufficient places to recycle single use plastic bottles, and that we continue to work on reducing the amount of single use plastic bottles in circulation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Single use plastic bottles should be banned, but only after sufficient alternatives have been made available. This includes sufficient places to refill reusable bottles and sufficient places to recycle single use plastic bottles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of banning single use plastic bottles, but with some caveats. First, it is important to note that banning single use plastic bottles will not solve all the environmental problems, and that we need to continue to work on other solutions to reduce the amount of plastic in our oceans and landfills. Second, we need to ensure that there are sufficient alternatives to single use plastic bottles, such as reusable bottles. Third, we need to ensure that there are sufficient places to refill reusable bottles. Finally, we need to ensure that there are sufficient places to recycle single use plastic bottles, and that we continue to work on reducing the amount of single use plastic bottles in circulation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of banning single use plastic bottles, but with some caveats. First, it is important to note that banning single use plastic bottles will not solve all the environmental problems, and that we need to continue to work on other solutions to reduce the amount of plastic in our oceans and landfills. Second, we need to ensure that there are sufficient alternatives to single use plastic bottles, such as reusable bottles. Third, we need to ensure that there are sufficient places to refill reusable bottles. Finally, we need to ensure that there are sufficient places to recycle single use plastic bottles, and that we continue to work on reducing the amount of single use plastic bottles in circulation. We also need to ensure that there are sufficient places to recycle single use plastic bottles, and that we continue to work on reducing the amount of single use plastic bottles in circulation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Single use plastic bottles should be banned, but only after sufficient alternatives have been made available. This includes sufficient places to refill reusable bottles and sufficient places to recycle single use plastic bottles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 4: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001829.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001829.soc index 2a4ca54d..53a97aca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001829.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001829.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general no, I believe that all you can do is represent them with the facts about smoking - yet, make sure that they are very well informed so that they have all the information they need and, if they decide to go ahead regardless then that's up to them. I think we have to be very careful when it comes to peoples freedoms but it is also important that their freedom does not infringe on others. However I believe that there are other ways of regulating that rather than having to compromise one freedom for another, although I do think encouragement could be a good thing in hoping that they will see the dangers even if tehy decided then and there not to believe them - it's hoped that they will in the future and I believe that's all you can do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes because it is harmful to their health. The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes because it is harmful to the health of others. The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes because it is harmful to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government restricting the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group was of the opinion that people should have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies, and that the government should not have the right to restrict this freedom. The group did, however, agree that the government should be responsible for making sure that people are aware of the health risks of smoking, and that people should be encouraged to stop smoking cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general no, I believe that all you can do is represent them with the facts about smoking - yet, make sure that they are very well informed so that they have all the information they need and, if they decide to go ahead regardless then that's up to them. I think we have to be very careful when it comes to peoples freedoms but it is also important that their freedom does not infringe on others. However I believe that there are other ways of regulating that rather than having to compromise one freedom for another, although I do think encouragement could be a good thing in hoping that they will see the dangers even if tehy decided then and there not to believe them - it's hoped that they will in the future and I believe that's all you can do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes because it is harmful to their health. The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes because it is harmful to the health of others. The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes because it is harmful to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government restricting the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group was of the opinion that people should have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies, and that the government should not have the right to restrict this freedom. The group did, however, agree that the government should be responsible for making sure that people are aware of the health risks of smoking, and that people should be encouraged to stop smoking cigarettes. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001830.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001830.soc index f745537f..6af0df48 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001830.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001830.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, free broadband access should be provided by the state. This is because the modern world is increasingly reliant on technology and internet access for jobs, education, and taxation and further circumstances, and those unlikely to have internet access due to age or poverty are at risk of being left behind and unfairly disadvantaged. Free broadband to everyone, even just in communal areas within towns/cities, would make a world of difference for those who otherwise have no access, especially as library funding is increasingly cut and spaces like that are closed down. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I think that free broadband access should be provided to all citizens as it is now a necessity in this day and age. Some people can not afford the high cost.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the state should provide free broadband to all citizens. However, there was some discussion about the best way of doing this. One participant said that the government should provide a limited, baseline level of access for all citizens, while another participant said that it should be a universal free broadband service for everyone. Another participant said that the government should provide free broadband to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society, but not necessarily to everyone. A majority of participants thought that free broadband should be provided to everyone and this view was agreed upon as the group consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, free broadband access should be provided by the state. This is because the modern world is increasingly reliant on technology and internet access for jobs, education, and taxation and further circumstances, and those unlikely to have internet access due to age or poverty are at risk of being left behind and unfairly disadvantaged. Free broadband to everyone, even just in communal areas within towns/cities, would make a world of difference for those who otherwise have no access, especially as library funding is increasingly cut and spaces like that are closed down. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I think that free broadband access should be provided to all citizens as it is now a necessity in this day and age. Some people can not afford the high cost.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the state should provide free broadband to all citizens. However, there was some discussion about the best way of doing this. One participant said that the government should provide a limited, baseline level of access for all citizens, while another participant said that it should be a universal free broadband service for everyone. Another participant said that the government should provide free broadband to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society, but not necessarily to everyone. A majority of participants thought that free broadband should be provided to everyone and this view was agreed upon as the group consensus. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001831.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001831.soc index 94445b72..83424493 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001831.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001831.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Immigrants are an important part of the UK's social and economic fabric. We must ensure that we have a system that is balanced, fair, well-managed and regulated. Immigration has to be a two-way street. We cannot be seen to be a soft touch for immigration, but we must also not be seen to be against immigration. The system must be able to accept the people that we need, and reject the people that we don't. It is important that we have a system in place that does not discriminate, but allows us to protect the interests of the UK as a nation, and the people that live here. Conclusion: The time taken by the group of participants to come to a final, agreed consensus opinion shows how difficult it can be to come to a fair and balanced opinion on a topic when there are so many different views and opinions. It is very important to ensure that all voices are heard, and that everyone has the opportunity to express their views and opinions. This can be a long and difficult process, but it is essential to ensure that the end result is fair and balanced, and represents the views of the whole group, rather than the views of a single person, or a small group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, high levels of immigration can be good for the UK. If we regulate our borders effectively, and control our entry to skilled workers that can aid our economy, whilst taking in others from war torn countries that need aid and asylum, this can be a good thing for all involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: Yes, high levels of immigration can be good for the UK if it is controlled, regulated and managed. It is important to ensure that the UK is able to accept the people that it needs and remove the people that it doesn't. We should not be seen as a soft touch, and we should also not let our immigration be used as a tool to be used against us by other countries for political purposes. It is not good for the UK if the government is seen to be allowing our borders to be 'open' in an effort to be politically correct and nice to everyone, whilst not allowing us to operate as a nation. In the same way that the UK is not in favour of, for example, large numbers of British nationals migrating to Germany, I do not believe that we should be expected to have to accept high levels of immigration from any other country either. It is important to have a balanced system that is controlled, managed and regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, high levels of immigration can be good for the UK if it is controlled, regulated and managed. It is important to ensure that the UK is able to accept the people that it needs and remove the people that it doesn't. We should not be seen as a soft touch, and we should also not let our immigration be used as a tool to be used against us by other countries for political purposes. It is not good for the UK if the government is seen to be allowing our borders to be 'open' in an effort to be politically correct and nice to everyone, whilst not allowing us to operate as a nation. In the same way that the UK is not in favour of, for example, large numbers of British nationals migrating to Germany, I do not believe that we should be expected to have to accept high levels of immigration from any other country either. It is important to have a balanced system that is controlled, managed and regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Immigrants are an important part of the UK's social and economic fabric. We must ensure that we have a system that is balanced, fair, well-managed and regulated. Immigration has to be a two-way street. We cannot be seen to be a soft touch for immigration, but we must also not be seen to be against immigration. The system must be able to accept the people that we need, and reject the people that we don't. It is important that we have a system in place that does not discriminate, but allows us to protect the interests of the UK as a nation, and the people that live here. Conclusion: The time taken by the group of participants to come to a final, agreed consensus opinion shows how difficult it can be to come to a fair and balanced opinion on a topic when there are so many different views and opinions. It is very important to ensure that all voices are heard, and that everyone has the opportunity to express their views and opinions. This can be a long and difficult process, but it is essential to ensure that the end result is fair and balanced, and represents the views of the whole group, rather than the views of a single person, or a small group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, high levels of immigration can be good for the UK. If we regulate our borders effectively, and control our entry to skilled workers that can aid our economy, whilst taking in others from war torn countries that need aid and asylum, this can be a good thing for all involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: Yes, high levels of immigration can be good for the UK if it is controlled, regulated and managed. It is important to ensure that the UK is able to accept the people that it needs and remove the people that it doesn't. We should not be seen as a soft touch, and we should also not let our immigration be used as a tool to be used against us by other countries for political purposes. It is not good for the UK if the government is seen to be allowing our borders to be 'open' in an effort to be politically correct and nice to everyone, whilst not allowing us to operate as a nation. In the same way that the UK is not in favour of, for example, large numbers of British nationals migrating to Germany, I do not believe that we should be expected to have to accept high levels of immigration from any other country either. It is important to have a balanced system that is controlled, managed and regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, high levels of immigration can be good for the UK if it is controlled, regulated and managed. It is important to ensure that the UK is able to accept the people that it needs and remove the people that it doesn't. We should not be seen as a soft touch, and we should also not let our immigration be used as a tool to be used against us by other countries for political purposes. It is not good for the UK if the government is seen to be allowing our borders to be 'open' in an effort to be politically correct and nice to everyone, whilst not allowing us to operate as a nation. In the same way that the UK is not in favour of, for example, large numbers of British nationals migrating to Germany, I do not believe that we should be expected to have to accept high levels of immigration from any other country either. It is important to have a balanced system that is controlled, managed and regulated. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001832.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001832.soc index f3a32f55..7328ee37 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001832.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001832.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the infrastructure of the UK is in a poor state. This is down to years of neglect and austerity policies, which have lead to a large backlog of work to be done. However, the labour force of the UK is already overstretched and will not be able to meet the demands of the government in the near future. In this instance, it is vital for the government to allow overseas companies to bid for contracts in the UK. These overseas companies will bring their own workers, which can be regulated in the same way UK workers are regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Infrastructure projects are vital for the UK economy. It is vital that we have UK led projects to build up our economy and to create and sustain workforces all over the country. Therefore, the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We feel that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The reason for this is that the British economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of overseas companies bidding on infrastructure projects in the UK. The group felt that this would lead to more competition and therefore lead to a better quality of work and a lower cost for the UK. The group was also in favour of overseas companies bidding on infrastructure projects because they felt that this would lead to a greater exchange of ideas and expertise. The group was aware that this would lead to a loss of jobs for UK workers, but felt that this would be outweighed by the benefits to the UK as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the infrastructure of the UK is in a poor state. This is down to years of neglect and austerity policies, which have lead to a large backlog of work to be done. However, the labour force of the UK is already overstretched and will not be able to meet the demands of the government in the near future. In this instance, it is vital for the government to allow overseas companies to bid for contracts in the UK. These overseas companies will bring their own workers, which can be regulated in the same way UK workers are regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Infrastructure projects are vital for the UK economy. It is vital that we have UK led projects to build up our economy and to create and sustain workforces all over the country. Therefore, the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We feel that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The reason for this is that the British economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of overseas companies bidding on infrastructure projects in the UK. The group felt that this would lead to more competition and therefore lead to a better quality of work and a lower cost for the UK. The group was also in favour of overseas companies bidding on infrastructure projects because they felt that this would lead to a greater exchange of ideas and expertise. The group was aware that this would lead to a loss of jobs for UK workers, but felt that this would be outweighed by the benefits to the UK as a whole. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001833.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001833.soc index 16eb6e40..c4a4e575 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001833.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001833.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should build more wind turbines in the sea as it is a renewable source of energy and will not damage the environment. It will help to reduce the amount of fuel that is burnt and therefore the amount of pollution in the air. It will also help to reduce the amount of energy that is used and therefore the amount of money that is spent. It will also help to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that are used and therefore help to reduce the amount of damage to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should build more wind turbines in the sea as this will provide us with a clean source of energy. The benefits of these are excellent. We know that energy prices are extremely high right now and it is important that we ensure that these are built because it provides electricity without burning any fuel or pollution to the air. The current climate is very negative so the more positive and renewable energy sources that we can build, the more benefits that this will have on all for now and for the future. It provides clean energy which will impact positively on the health of all and the environment. It is cost effective and low costs regardless of how intermittent this source of energy is. They are able to use wind and change it into energy without needing to pay for this. It will also prevent any potential pushback from people who may be affected by them being built near their homes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should build more wind turbines in the sea as they will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and produce a renewable source of energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is important to build more wind turbines in the sea to ensure that more renewable energy is used. However, this should not be done at the cost of the local environment, as the turbines can impact on marine life and the local community. It is important to take the opinions of those who live nearby into account, to ensure that the turbines are placed in the most suitable location for everyone. It is also important to use the turbines efficiently, so that the most amount of energy is produced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should build more wind turbines in the sea as it is a renewable source of energy and will not damage the environment. It will help to reduce the amount of fuel that is burnt and therefore the amount of pollution in the air. It will also help to reduce the amount of energy that is used and therefore the amount of money that is spent. It will also help to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that are used and therefore help to reduce the amount of damage to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should build more wind turbines in the sea as this will provide us with a clean source of energy. The benefits of these are excellent. We know that energy prices are extremely high right now and it is important that we ensure that these are built because it provides electricity without burning any fuel or pollution to the air. The current climate is very negative so the more positive and renewable energy sources that we can build, the more benefits that this will have on all for now and for the future. It provides clean energy which will impact positively on the health of all and the environment. It is cost effective and low costs regardless of how intermittent this source of energy is. They are able to use wind and change it into energy without needing to pay for this. It will also prevent any potential pushback from people who may be affected by them being built near their homes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should build more wind turbines in the sea as they will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and produce a renewable source of energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is important to build more wind turbines in the sea to ensure that more renewable energy is used. However, this should not be done at the cost of the local environment, as the turbines can impact on marine life and the local community. It is important to take the opinions of those who live nearby into account, to ensure that the turbines are placed in the most suitable location for everyone. It is also important to use the turbines efficiently, so that the most amount of energy is produced. 4: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001834.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001834.soc index 69326de7..e24ba0c1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001834.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001834.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We don’t believe people should be free to wear what they want to school, because if everyone is wearing different clothes and there is no school uniform, then people may get bullied for what they wear and the focus of the school would not be learning. However, we do believe that the rules on uniform should be relaxed to a certain extent. For example, if someone wants to have brightly coloured hair then they should be allowed to, as long as it is not offensive. And piercings should be allowed too, as long as they are not offensive. This would help children express themselves and they would feel more included. Because if people are not allowed to express themselves, they may feel like they don’t belong. Also, we believe that students should have the option to wear their own clothes on certain days, for example, every Friday, so that they can have their own identity, as well as a school one. We also believe that school should encourage people to express themselves, for example, by holding special ‘express yourself’ days where students can come to school in their own clothes, to show that the school values diversity and individuality.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We don’t believe people should be free to wear what they want to school because if everyone is wearing different clothes and there is no school uniform, then people may get bullied for what they wear and the focus of the school would not be learning. However, we do believe that the rules on uniform should be relaxed to a certain extent. For example, if someone wants to have brightly coloured hair then they should be allowed to, as long as it is not offensive. And piercings should be allowed too, as long as they are not offensive. This would help children express themselves and they would feel more included. Because if people are not allowed to express themselves, they may feel like they don’t belong. Also, we believe that students should have the option to wear their own clothes on certain days, for example, every Friday, so that they can have their own identity, as well as a school one. The reason is that because wearing a uniform is good for your mental wellbeing and gives you an identity and you feel a sense of belonging to the school, but at the same time it is important that you have your own identity as well.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I agree with this Group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that students should not be free to wear what they want to school. There should be school uniform guidelines, but within those guidelines children should have some choice in what they wear. Some examples might be: an option to choose from a small number of colours for shirts/skirts/trousers, or being allowed to wear their own coloured shoes. We think that this is a good solution, because it would allow students to express themselves and feel like an individual, but at the same time they would fit in and not look out of place. This would reduce the chance of children feeling left out due to their economic background. Lastly, another set of participants was tasked with answering this question: “If schools impose on students the wearing of uniforms, what does it mean about the view of the school of people outside of it?” The group decided that if schools impose on students the wearing of uniforms it means they do not appreciate how the students see themselves as unique individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We don’t believe people should be free to wear what they want to school, because if everyone is wearing different clothes and there is no school uniform, then people may get bullied for what they wear and the focus of the school would not be learning. However, we do believe that the rules on uniform should be relaxed to a certain extent. For example, if someone wants to have brightly coloured hair then they should be allowed to, as long as it is not offensive. And piercings should be allowed too, as long as they are not offensive. This would help children express themselves and they would feel more included. Because if people are not allowed to express themselves, they may feel like they don’t belong. Also, we believe that students should have the option to wear their own clothes on certain days, for example, every Friday, so that they can have their own identity, as well as a school one. We also believe that school should encourage people to express themselves, for example, by holding special ‘express yourself’ days where students can come to school in their own clothes, to show that the school values diversity and individuality.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We don’t believe people should be free to wear what they want to school because if everyone is wearing different clothes and there is no school uniform, then people may get bullied for what they wear and the focus of the school would not be learning. However, we do believe that the rules on uniform should be relaxed to a certain extent. For example, if someone wants to have brightly coloured hair then they should be allowed to, as long as it is not offensive. And piercings should be allowed too, as long as they are not offensive. This would help children express themselves and they would feel more included. Because if people are not allowed to express themselves, they may feel like they don’t belong. Also, we believe that students should have the option to wear their own clothes on certain days, for example, every Friday, so that they can have their own identity, as well as a school one. The reason is that because wearing a uniform is good for your mental wellbeing and gives you an identity and you feel a sense of belonging to the school, but at the same time it is important that you have your own identity as well.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I agree with this Group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that students should not be free to wear what they want to school. There should be school uniform guidelines, but within those guidelines children should have some choice in what they wear. Some examples might be: an option to choose from a small number of colours for shirts/skirts/trousers, or being allowed to wear their own coloured shoes. We think that this is a good solution, because it would allow students to express themselves and feel like an individual, but at the same time they would fit in and not look out of place. This would reduce the chance of children feeling left out due to their economic background. Lastly, another set of participants was tasked with answering this question: “If schools impose on students the wearing of uniforms, what does it mean about the view of the school of people outside of it?” The group decided that if schools impose on students the wearing of uniforms it means they do not appreciate how the students see themselves as unique individuals. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001835.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001835.soc index 057ad3e1..34c39f38 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001835.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001835.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general no, I believe that all you can do is represent them with the facts about smoking - yet, make sure that they are very well informed so that they have all the information they need and, if they decide to go ahead regardless then that's up to them. I think we have to be very careful when it comes to peoples freedoms but it is also important that their freedom does not infringe on others. However I believe that there are other ways of regulating that rather than having to compromise one freedom for another, although I do think encouragement could be a good thing in hoping that they will see the dangers even if tehy decided then and there not to believe them - it's hoped that they will in the future and I believe that's all you can do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general no, I believe that all you can do is represent them with the facts about smoking - yet, make sure that they are very well informed so that they have all the information they need and, if they decide to go ahead regardless then that's up to them. I think we have to be very careful when it comes to peoples freedoms but it is also important that their freedom does not infringe on others. However I believe that there are other ways of regulating that rather than having to compromise one freedom for another, although I do think encouragement could be a good thing in hoping that they will see the dangers even if tehy decided then and there not to believe them - it's hoped that they will in the future and I believe that's all you can do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. People should have have a say in what they want to inject/input into their bodies. If someone wants to smoke then let them. Nowadays people are vaping more so then actual smoking. SO many people have quit smoking due to the expense of it anyways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We generally agree with it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general no, I believe that all you can do is represent them with the facts about smoking - yet, make sure that they are very well informed so that they have all the information they need and, if they decide to go ahead regardless then that's up to them. I think we have to be very careful when it comes to peoples freedoms but it is also important that their freedom does not infringe on others. However I believe that there are other ways of regulating that rather than having to compromise one freedom for another, although I do think encouragement could be a good thing in hoping that they will see the dangers even if tehy decided then and there not to believe them - it's hoped that they will in the future and I believe that's all you can do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general no, I believe that all you can do is represent them with the facts about smoking - yet, make sure that they are very well informed so that they have all the information they need and, if they decide to go ahead regardless then that's up to them. I think we have to be very careful when it comes to peoples freedoms but it is also important that their freedom does not infringe on others. However I believe that there are other ways of regulating that rather than having to compromise one freedom for another, although I do think encouragement could be a good thing in hoping that they will see the dangers even if tehy decided then and there not to believe them - it's hoped that they will in the future and I believe that's all you can do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. People should have have a say in what they want to inject/input into their bodies. If someone wants to smoke then let them. Nowadays people are vaping more so then actual smoking. SO many people have quit smoking due to the expense of it anyways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agree with it. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001836.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001836.soc index 49e14f69..58fdaf5c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001836.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001836.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should have a national lottery. It provides a source of entertainment for the general public and also helps to raise money for charitable causes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the national lottery. It is a fun way to spend a small amount of money and can be very exciting. The group was also in favour of the fact that the national lottery raises money for good causes. The group was in favour of the national lottery, but felt that there should be some sort of cap on the number of tickets that can be bought by one person. This would stop people spending more money than they can afford on the lottery and becoming addicted to gambling. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the UK should have a national lottery. It is a very fun thing for people to take part in and although many people do not win, it is a great activity for all. The national lottery also gives a lot of money to charities which is great for those in need. There should be a cap on the number of tickets sold to an individual though, to ensure the fairness of the lottery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should have a national lottery. It provides a source of entertainment for the general public and also helps to raise money for charitable causes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the national lottery. It is a fun way to spend a small amount of money and can be very exciting. The group was also in favour of the fact that the national lottery raises money for good causes. The group was in favour of the national lottery, but felt that there should be some sort of cap on the number of tickets that can be bought by one person. This would stop people spending more money than they can afford on the lottery and becoming addicted to gambling. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the UK should have a national lottery. It is a very fun thing for people to take part in and although many people do not win, it is a great activity for all. The national lottery also gives a lot of money to charities which is great for those in need. There should be a cap on the number of tickets sold to an individual though, to ensure the fairness of the lottery. 5: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001837.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001837.soc index 80a56980..c128eb66 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001837.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001837.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. We agree with the previous argument because more work would be done in the UK by the foreign workers as well as the local companies. This provides job opportunities, and it is important to boost the UK economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. This is because the UK economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. The UK should not be encouraging the creation of low skilled jobs, which is what will happen if overseas companies are allowed to bid for infrastructure projects. The UK economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The reason for this is that the British economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. However, this does not mean that there are no safeguards that can be put in place. For example, the British government could put in a regulation which means that if an overseas company bids for an infrastructure project, then they must hire a certain number of UK workers. This would mean that the British economy will grow, and unemployment will fall, while also allowing British workers to gain experience working with overseas companies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We feel that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The reason for this is that the British economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. We feel that the only way to make the UK stronger is by creating more jobs, which will increase employment and decrease national debt. The UK should focus on its own economy and infrastructure by focussing on UK companies. We feel that it is also important to use UK companies so that the UK has control over the projects undertaken. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. We agree with the previous argument because more work would be done in the UK by the foreign workers as well as the local companies. This provides job opportunities, and it is important to boost the UK economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. This is because the UK economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. The UK should not be encouraging the creation of low skilled jobs, which is what will happen if overseas companies are allowed to bid for infrastructure projects. The UK economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We feel that the UK should not ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The reason for this is that the British economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. However, this does not mean that there are no safeguards that can be put in place. For example, the British government could put in a regulation which means that if an overseas company bids for an infrastructure project, then they must hire a certain number of UK workers. This would mean that the British economy will grow, and unemployment will fall, while also allowing British workers to gain experience working with overseas companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We feel that the UK should ban overseas companies from bidding on infrastructure projects. The reason for this is that the British economy is weak, and needs to strengthen. The UK has high unemployment, and overseas companies can bring their workers to the UK, causing more unemployment. The UK should not be encouraging this. We feel that the only way to make the UK stronger is by creating more jobs, which will increase employment and decrease national debt. The UK should focus on its own economy and infrastructure by focussing on UK companies. We feel that it is also important to use UK companies so that the UK has control over the projects undertaken. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001838.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001838.soc index 6e3056d6..252c5a03 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001838.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001838.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, free broadband access should be provided by the state. The state should provide free broadband to those who otherwise have no access, especially as library funding is increasingly cut and spaces like that are closed down. However, it should not be provided to everyone, as this would not be a productive use of tax payers’ money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, free broadband access should be provided by the state. This is because the modern world is increasingly reliant on technology and internet access for jobs, education, and taxation and further circumstances, and those unlikely to have internet access due to age or poverty are at risk of being left behind and unfairly disadvantaged. Free broadband to everyone, even just in communal areas within towns/cities, would make a world of difference for those who otherwise have no access, especially as library funding is increasingly cut and spaces like that are closed down. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The state should provide free broadband access to all citizens. It would be very beneficial to the most vulnerable in society to have free access to the internet as it would ensure their inclusion in the world. It would also allow people to have access to essential services online that would be otherwise more difficult to access, such as health care. It is also beneficial to the economy, as it is often the poorest in society that are unable to pay for broadband, therefore free access would help them improve their lives and they would be more able to contribute to the economy by working and paying taxes. People in the UK would no longer have to rely on public libraries to access the internet. This would be helpful, as these facilities are increasingly being closed down, and are often located in the most deprived areas in society, where access to the internet is needed the most. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, free broadband access should be provided by the state. The state should provide free broadband to those who otherwise have no access, especially as library funding is increasingly cut and spaces like that are closed down. However, it should not be provided to everyone, as this would not be a productive use of tax payers’ money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, free broadband access should be provided by the state. This is because the modern world is increasingly reliant on technology and internet access for jobs, education, and taxation and further circumstances, and those unlikely to have internet access due to age or poverty are at risk of being left behind and unfairly disadvantaged. Free broadband to everyone, even just in communal areas within towns/cities, would make a world of difference for those who otherwise have no access, especially as library funding is increasingly cut and spaces like that are closed down. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The state should provide free broadband access to all citizens. It would be very beneficial to the most vulnerable in society to have free access to the internet as it would ensure their inclusion in the world. It would also allow people to have access to essential services online that would be otherwise more difficult to access, such as health care. It is also beneficial to the economy, as it is often the poorest in society that are unable to pay for broadband, therefore free access would help them improve their lives and they would be more able to contribute to the economy by working and paying taxes. People in the UK would no longer have to rely on public libraries to access the internet. This would be helpful, as these facilities are increasingly being closed down, and are often located in the most deprived areas in society, where access to the internet is needed the most. 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001839.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001839.soc index 1aca7e3f..a090e034 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001839.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001839.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is wrong to use recreational drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: it is wrong to use recreational drugs. Although some recreational drugs may have benefits, the potential for misuse, addiction and detrimental consequences for the individual and wider community outweighs any benefits. Some may argue that illegal drugs can be harmful, however if drugs are available through a legal channel, then it is easier to monitor how much is being taken, who is taking it and the long term effects. If recreational drugs were to be made legal, the prices of drugs could be reduced which would make them more accessible and therefore increase the rate of use and addictions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not wrong to use recreational drugs. The issue of recreational drug use is a complex one, and the answer is not a simple yes or no. The issue of recreational drug use is a complex one, and the answer is not a simple yes or no. There are many different types of recreational drugs, and the effects of these drugs vary greatly. The effects of these drugs also vary greatly from person to person, and the effects can be unpredictable. Some recreational drugs have proven to be useful in treating certain health conditions, such as cannabis for pain relief. However, the use of recreational drugs also carries many risks, such as addiction, overdose, and long-term health problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of recreational drugs is not wrong. There are many benefits to the use of recreational drugs and the current legal status of many recreational drugs is not helping the situation. In fact, the current legal status of many recreational drugs is causing more harm than good. The current legal status of recreational drugs is causing more harm than good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is wrong to use recreational drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - it is wrong to use recreational drugs. Although some recreational drugs may have benefits, the potential for misuse, addiction and detrimental consequences for the individual and wider community outweighs any benefits. Some may argue that illegal drugs can be harmful, however if drugs are available through a legal channel, then it is easier to monitor how much is being taken, who is taking it and the long term effects. If recreational drugs were to be made legal, the prices of drugs could be reduced which would make them more accessible and therefore increase the rate of use and addictions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not wrong to use recreational drugs. The issue of recreational drug use is a complex one, and the answer is not a simple yes or no. The issue of recreational drug use is a complex one, and the answer is not a simple yes or no. There are many different types of recreational drugs, and the effects of these drugs vary greatly. The effects of these drugs also vary greatly from person to person, and the effects can be unpredictable. Some recreational drugs have proven to be useful in treating certain health conditions, such as cannabis for pain relief. However, the use of recreational drugs also carries many risks, such as addiction, overdose, and long-term health problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of recreational drugs is not wrong. There are many benefits to the use of recreational drugs and the current legal status of many recreational drugs is not helping the situation. In fact, the current legal status of many recreational drugs is causing more harm than good. The current legal status of recreational drugs is causing more harm than good. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001840.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001840.soc index 254ed089..22338cf3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001840.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001840.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. The wealthiest taxpayers have more than enough money and should be paying more into the tax pot rather than less. The government needs to be able to fund all the things society needs like the NHS etc and high earners do pay into the community by buying lots of things so maybe they should be reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is an important goal for people to have an incentive to achieve the best they can, we cannot lower taxes for the wealthiest people. Our most important resource is people and if we are to achieve a good society, it is important that we provide the necessary services and support for people to be able to be healthy and make the most of their lives. If we reduce tax income from the wealthiest people, this will impact on our ability to provide these services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. The wealthiest taxpayers have more than enough money and should be paying more into the tax pot rather than less. The wealthiest taxpayers are able to afford higher taxes and it would not discourage them from earning as much as they can. Lowering taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers would mean less money available to pay for vital services. The wealthiest taxpayers should be using their money to help others rather than keeping it all for themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. The wealthiest taxpayers have more than enough money and should be paying more into the tax pot rather than less. The government needs to be able to fund all the things society needs like the NHS etc and high earners do pay into the community by buying lots of things so maybe they should be reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is an important goal for people to have an incentive to achieve the best they can, we cannot lower taxes for the wealthiest people. Our most important resource is people and if we are to achieve a good society, it is important that we provide the necessary services and support for people to be able to be healthy and make the most of their lives. If we reduce tax income from the wealthiest people, this will impact on our ability to provide these services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. The wealthiest taxpayers have more than enough money and should be paying more into the tax pot rather than less. The wealthiest taxpayers are able to afford higher taxes and it would not discourage them from earning as much as they can. Lowering taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers would mean less money available to pay for vital services. The wealthiest taxpayers should be using their money to help others rather than keeping it all for themselves. 3: 4,2,1,3 2: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001841.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001841.soc index 0c528817..85d382d4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001841.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001841.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people earning less than the minimum wage having to pay income tax. The group felt that this would be unfair as it would mean that people would be taxed on money that they do not have. However, the group felt that the minimum wage should be increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living. The group felt that if the minimum wage was increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living then it would be fair for people to pay income tax on their earnings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, as the minimum wage is barely enough to live on, it would not be fair to impose a tax on those earning it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, everyone should pay an income tax, even if earning less than the minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is unfair to expect people on the minimum wage to pay an income tax. However, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people have an income sufficient to live on. We should focus on ensuring that the minimum wage is a living wage. If the minimum wage was sufficient, then the group would feel that it is fair for people on the minimum wage to pay an income tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people earning less than the minimum wage having to pay income tax. The group felt that this would be unfair as it would mean that people would be taxed on money that they do not have. However, the group felt that the minimum wage should be increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living. The group felt that if the minimum wage was increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living then it would be fair for people to pay income tax on their earnings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, as the minimum wage is barely enough to live on, it would not be fair to impose a tax on those earning it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, everyone should pay an income tax, even if earning less than the minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is unfair to expect people on the minimum wage to pay an income tax. However, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people have an income sufficient to live on. We should focus on ensuring that the minimum wage is a living wage. If the minimum wage was sufficient, then the group would feel that it is fair for people on the minimum wage to pay an income tax. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001842.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001842.soc index ae969fec..f6d22d92 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001842.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001842.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. It was felt that this would be a good way to celebrate the achievements of these groups and to highlight the fact that they have been historically under-represented. It was also felt that this would be a good way to educate the wider public on the achievements of these groups and to help people understand the struggles that they have faced. The only concern that was raised was that this could be used as an excuse for people to take a day off work and not actually engage with the issues at hand. However, it was felt that this could be overcome by having events and activities on the day to help educate people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No. We don't need more public holidays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should definitely have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. We believe that historically marginalised groups have contributed to society and should be recognised for their achievements and what they went through. The consensus statement also highlighted that having a holiday to commemorate historically marginalised groups would make more people aware of what happened and the hardships these groups went through. It would also give more people the opportunity to learn about these groups, and more people would be aware of the achievements and the struggles of these groups. The consensus statement also outlined that having a holiday would bring communities together and would help people celebrate the achievements of these groups and help people be more aware of the hardships that these groups went through. The consensus statement also outlined that the holiday would also provide people with the opportunity to be more involved and educate themselves on the history of these groups and the hardships that these groups went through. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a public holiday to mark the contribution of historically marginalised groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. It was felt that this would be a good way to celebrate the achievements of these groups and to highlight the fact that they have been historically under-represented. It was also felt that this would be a good way to educate the wider public on the achievements of these groups and to help people understand the struggles that they have faced. The only concern that was raised was that this could be used as an excuse for people to take a day off work and not actually engage with the issues at hand. However, it was felt that this could be overcome by having events and activities on the day to help educate people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. We don't need more public holidays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should definitely have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. We believe that historically marginalised groups have contributed to society and should be recognised for their achievements and what they went through. The consensus statement also highlighted that having a holiday to commemorate historically marginalised groups would make more people aware of what happened and the hardships these groups went through. It would also give more people the opportunity to learn about these groups, and more people would be aware of the achievements and the struggles of these groups. The consensus statement also outlined that having a holiday would bring communities together and would help people celebrate the achievements of these groups and help people be more aware of the hardships that these groups went through. The consensus statement also outlined that the holiday would also provide people with the opportunity to be more involved and educate themselves on the history of these groups and the hardships that these groups went through. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a public holiday to mark the contribution of historically marginalised groups. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001843.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001843.soc index 24ade229..9e1fac9a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001843.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001843.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should be lowering taxes for the wealthy to incentivise the free market economy. By doing this, we believe that corruption will be reduced since the wealthy won't be trying to protect their wealth from tax and therefore don't need to have offshore accounts to evade tax. Also, the wealthy can spend more money in the economy. This is because they will have more disposable income. However, we don't think that the taxes should be lowered too much so that it's close to the next tax bracket. This is because we believe that the wealthy should still be paying their fair share of tax so that the public services can be kept up. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. We believe that they are already paying a fair amount of tax and that it is not necessary to reduce this. We believe that the tax system is fair and should not be changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because they already do not pay enough tax and reducing their tax will mean that less tax is paid. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because the wealthy will have more money to invest in the economy, creating more jobs and increasing tax revenue for the government. The wealthy will also have more money to spend on goods and services, which will increase demand and supply in the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. We also believe that the wealthy will have more money to donate to charity, which is a good thing. We also believe that the wealthy will be less incentivised to avoid tax if taxes are lower, which will reduce corruption and increase tax revenue for the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should be lowering taxes for the wealthy to incentivise the free market economy. By doing this, we believe that corruption will be reduced since the wealthy won't be trying to protect their wealth from tax and therefore don't need to have offshore accounts to evade tax. Also, the wealthy can spend more money in the economy. This is because they will have more disposable income. However, we don't think that the taxes should be lowered too much so that it's close to the next tax bracket. This is because we believe that the wealthy should still be paying their fair share of tax so that the public services can be kept up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. We believe that they are already paying a fair amount of tax and that it is not necessary to reduce this. We believe that the tax system is fair and should not be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because they already do not pay enough tax and reducing their tax will mean that less tax is paid. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because the wealthy will have more money to invest in the economy, creating more jobs and increasing tax revenue for the government. The wealthy will also have more money to spend on goods and services, which will increase demand and supply in the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. We also believe that the wealthy will have more money to donate to charity, which is a good thing. We also believe that the wealthy will be less incentivised to avoid tax if taxes are lower, which will reduce corruption and increase tax revenue for the government. 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001844.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001844.soc index a4da6abd..9719e996 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001844.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001844.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Immigrants who have lived in the UK for a minimum of 5 years and have a legal right to remain in the UK should be allowed to vote in local and national elections. It was felt that this would be a good way of integrating immigrants into the local community and also to allow them to have a say in the way their local community is run. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing immigrants to vote in local and national elections. It was agreed that the immigrants should have lived in the UK for a minimum of 5 years and have a legal right to remain in the UK. This would allow them to have a good understanding of the local and national issues and also to have contributed to the local community. It was felt that this would be a good way of integrating immigrants into the local community and also to allow them to have a say in the way their local community is run. It was felt that this would also allow the immigrants to feel more included in the local community and that this would be of benefit to the community as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, however, given the complexities involved with the issue of allowing immigrants to vote and the potential for abuse of the system, we thought that that the following extra conditions should apply. An immigrant should have lived in the UK for at least five years and should have a legal right to remain in the country. The immigrant will need to have studied at a local school for the five years, and he or she must be living in the local community for at least nine months of the year. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing immigrants to vote in local and national elections. It was agreed that the immigrants should have lived in the UK for a minimum of 5 years and have a legal right to remain in the UK. This would allow them to have a good understanding of the local and national issues and also to have contributed to the local community. It was felt that this would be a good way of integrating immigrants into the local community and also to allow them to have a say in the way their local community is run. This would mean that they can help build a good quality of life for themselves as well as their families. In addition, it was felt that this would be an additional way of showing the value of these immigrants as members of the community. This would help them feel a sense of belonging and increase their confidence. This would make them feel happier and safer in the UK which would also improve their quality of life and that of their families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Immigrants who have lived in the UK for a minimum of 5 years and have a legal right to remain in the UK should be allowed to vote in local and national elections. It was felt that this would be a good way of integrating immigrants into the local community and also to allow them to have a say in the way their local community is run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing immigrants to vote in local and national elections. It was agreed that the immigrants should have lived in the UK for a minimum of 5 years and have a legal right to remain in the UK. This would allow them to have a good understanding of the local and national issues and also to have contributed to the local community. It was felt that this would be a good way of integrating immigrants into the local community and also to allow them to have a say in the way their local community is run. It was felt that this would also allow the immigrants to feel more included in the local community and that this would be of benefit to the community as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, however, given the complexities involved with the issue of allowing immigrants to vote and the potential for abuse of the system, we thought that that the following extra conditions should apply. An immigrant should have lived in the UK for at least five years and should have a legal right to remain in the country. The immigrant will need to have studied at a local school for the five years, and he or she must be living in the local community for at least nine months of the year. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing immigrants to vote in local and national elections. It was agreed that the immigrants should have lived in the UK for a minimum of 5 years and have a legal right to remain in the UK. This would allow them to have a good understanding of the local and national issues and also to have contributed to the local community. It was felt that this would be a good way of integrating immigrants into the local community and also to allow them to have a say in the way their local community is run. This would mean that they can help build a good quality of life for themselves as well as their families. In addition, it was felt that this would be an additional way of showing the value of these immigrants as members of the community. This would help them feel a sense of belonging and increase their confidence. This would make them feel happier and safer in the UK which would also improve their quality of life and that of their families. 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001845.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001845.soc index d23da505..7d6fc7dc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001845.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001845.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes. We think that there should definitely be separate public holidays to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. This is because these groups have historically been marginalised in society; and should have the opportunity to be celebrated for their achievements and their struggles that they went through. These public holidays would bring people and communities together. People would be more aware of what these historically marginalised groups went through and be more aware of the hardships that these groups faced. The final consensus statement noted that we would recommend the holiday to recognise these groups. It would mean that people who are not aware of the struggles that these groups went through would be more aware of the history of these groups. Furthermore, the holiday would provide people with the opportunity to educate themselves on the history of these groups, how they were marginalised, and what hardships they went through. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We do not think we should have a separate public holiday. We think that there is no need to have one. There are plenty of other things that we could use that day for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. This is because historically marginalised groups have contributed to society and should be recognised for their achievements and what they went through. The holiday would also provide people with the opportunity to be more involved and educate themselves on the history of these groups and the hardships that these groups went through. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should definitely have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. We believe that historically marginalised groups have contributed to society and should be recognised for their achievements and what they went through. The consensus statement also highlighted that having a holiday to commemorate historically marginalised groups would make more people aware of what happened and the hardships these groups went through. It would also give more people the opportunity to learn about these groups, and more people would be aware of the achievements and the struggles of these groups. The consensus statement also outlined that having a holiday would bring communities together and would help people celebrate the achievements of these groups and help people be more aware of the hardships that these groups went through. The consensus statement also outlined that the holiday would also provide people with the opportunity to be more involved and educate themselves on the history of these groups and the hardships that these groups went through. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes. We think that there should definitely be separate public holidays to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. This is because these groups have historically been marginalised in society; and should have the opportunity to be celebrated for their achievements and their struggles that they went through. These public holidays would bring people and communities together. People would be more aware of what these historically marginalised groups went through and be more aware of the hardships that these groups faced. The final consensus statement noted that we would recommend the holiday to recognise these groups. It would mean that people who are not aware of the struggles that these groups went through would be more aware of the history of these groups. Furthermore, the holiday would provide people with the opportunity to educate themselves on the history of these groups, how they were marginalised, and what hardships they went through. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We do not think we should have a separate public holiday. We think that there is no need to have one. There are plenty of other things that we could use that day for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. This is because historically marginalised groups have contributed to society and should be recognised for their achievements and what they went through. The holiday would also provide people with the opportunity to be more involved and educate themselves on the history of these groups and the hardships that these groups went through. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should definitely have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. We believe that historically marginalised groups have contributed to society and should be recognised for their achievements and what they went through. The consensus statement also highlighted that having a holiday to commemorate historically marginalised groups would make more people aware of what happened and the hardships these groups went through. It would also give more people the opportunity to learn about these groups, and more people would be aware of the achievements and the struggles of these groups. The consensus statement also outlined that having a holiday would bring communities together and would help people celebrate the achievements of these groups and help people be more aware of the hardships that these groups went through. The consensus statement also outlined that the holiday would also provide people with the opportunity to be more involved and educate themselves on the history of these groups and the hardships that these groups went through. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001846.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001846.soc index 58bc62cb..eb1cedbe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001846.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001846.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people earning less than the minimum wage having to pay income tax. The group felt that this would be unfair as it would mean that people would be taxed on money that they do not have. However, the group felt that the minimum wage should be increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living. The group felt that if the minimum wage was increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living then it would be fair for people to pay income tax on their earnings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people earning less than the minimum wage having to pay income tax. The group felt that this would be unfair as it would mean that people would be taxed on money that they do not have. However, the group felt that the minimum wage should be increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living. The group felt that if the minimum wage was increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living then it would be fair for people to pay income tax on their earnings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is fair to tax people on earnings above the minimum wage as they are making sufficient money to live on. If the minimum wage was increased to a level that more closely reflected the cost of living then it would be fair to require people to pay income tax on their earnings. However, currently, as the minimum wage is not sufficient for those on it to live, it is unfair to tax people on these earnings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people earning less than the minimum wage having to pay income tax. The group felt that this would be unfair as it would mean that people would be taxed on money that they do not have. However, the group felt that the minimum wage should be increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living. The group felt that if the minimum wage was increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living then it would be fair for people to pay income tax on their earnings. The group felt that the minimum wage should be increased by around 20% to take into account the cost of living. The group felt that the increase in the minimum wage should be brought in over a period of around 3 years to allow for people on low incomes to have their wages increased. The group felt that the increase in the minimum wage should only apply to people who are over 21 and not to people who are under 21. In terms of the process of reaching this consensus statement, one of the participants felt that there were a number of individuals who were very outspoken and were keen to ‘talk over’ the other participants: There was a group of us +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people earning less than the minimum wage having to pay income tax. The group felt that this would be unfair as it would mean that people would be taxed on money that they do not have. However, the group felt that the minimum wage should be increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living. The group felt that if the minimum wage was increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living then it would be fair for people to pay income tax on their earnings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people earning less than the minimum wage having to pay income tax. The group felt that this would be unfair as it would mean that people would be taxed on money that they do not have. However, the group felt that the minimum wage should be increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living. The group felt that if the minimum wage was increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living then it would be fair for people to pay income tax on their earnings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is fair to tax people on earnings above the minimum wage as they are making sufficient money to live on. If the minimum wage was increased to a level that more closely reflected the cost of living then it would be fair to require people to pay income tax on their earnings. However, currently, as the minimum wage is not sufficient for those on it to live, it is unfair to tax people on these earnings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people earning less than the minimum wage having to pay income tax. The group felt that this would be unfair as it would mean that people would be taxed on money that they do not have. However, the group felt that the minimum wage should be increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living. The group felt that if the minimum wage was increased to a level that is more in line with the cost of living then it would be fair for people to pay income tax on their earnings. The group felt that the minimum wage should be increased by around 20% to take into account the cost of living. The group felt that the increase in the minimum wage should be brought in over a period of around 3 years to allow for people on low incomes to have their wages increased. The group felt that the increase in the minimum wage should only apply to people who are over 21 and not to people who are under 21. In terms of the process of reaching this consensus statement, one of the participants felt that there were a number of individuals who were very outspoken and were keen to ‘talk over’ the other participants: There was a group of us 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001847.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001847.soc index da867b3c..fa0c6a99 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001847.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001847.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a mandatory vote as everyone should be able to give their opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final Statement: I believe that a mandatory vote is an important step to improving the level of engagement within the population. In the modern age, it is becoming harder to reach people and convince them to vote. Therefore, I think that it is appropriate to implement this change. However, the measure would have to be introduced alongside a major change to voting procedures in order to be truly effective. I think that the biggest issue is voter ID. Many people cannot afford the £15 needed to obtain this, or the time off work that it takes to go to the relevant office and sign up. Therefore, a mandatory vote would be ineffective in improving engagement without some sort of change to make the process more accessible to all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be forced to vote, but there should be an incentive to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a mandatory vote. The group felt that the vote is an important part of democracy, and that it is important that everyone has their say. However, the group also felt that the right not to vote as a form of protest is also important, and that it is unfair to punish those who cannot afford the time off work needed to vote. The group felt that it would be beneficial as a form of incentive as many citizens do not vote out of simple laziness or disengagement with politics, and a mandatory vote would solve this issue. The group also felt that a mandatory vote would increase engagement and allow for a more accurate election result. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a mandatory vote as everyone should be able to give their opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final Statement: I believe that a mandatory vote is an important step to improving the level of engagement within the population. In the modern age, it is becoming harder to reach people and convince them to vote. Therefore, I think that it is appropriate to implement this change. However, the measure would have to be introduced alongside a major change to voting procedures in order to be truly effective. I think that the biggest issue is voter ID. Many people cannot afford the £15 needed to obtain this, or the time off work that it takes to go to the relevant office and sign up. Therefore, a mandatory vote would be ineffective in improving engagement without some sort of change to make the process more accessible to all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be forced to vote, but there should be an incentive to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a mandatory vote. The group felt that the vote is an important part of democracy, and that it is important that everyone has their say. However, the group also felt that the right not to vote as a form of protest is also important, and that it is unfair to punish those who cannot afford the time off work needed to vote. The group felt that it would be beneficial as a form of incentive as many citizens do not vote out of simple laziness or disengagement with politics, and a mandatory vote would solve this issue. The group also felt that a mandatory vote would increase engagement and allow for a more accurate election result. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001848.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001848.soc index 3f432288..cd090188 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001848.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001848.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of companies donating to charities is a great one. However, as alluded to in our individual opinions, we do not believe that it is realistic or feasible for every company to be forced to donate, without consideration of their financial situation and profit margins. The issue is not so black and white, and it would be detrimental to a number of companies if such a decree were made, especially to smaller companies and those which are not as financially viable. However, we do believe that larger, more financially stable companies should be encouraged to donate a portion of their profits to charities. However, it must still be a choice, as every company is different. In addition, the charities which would be supported should be varied, as they all have different and unique circumstances, and all need support. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. The group felt that the statement was too broad and did not take into account the different sizes of companies and their different levels of profitability. The group felt that it would be unfair to force companies to make donations to charity if they were not in a position to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, this is a great idea. However, the profits of the company must also be considered. We don't believe in a decree where "all" must be obligated to make a donation, as not all companies have the same level of profit. In addition, it is vital to consider the charities involved, and the ethos of the companies. There can be no "one size fits all" to this proposal, and there are so many variables. Whilst we think it can be a good idea to encourage support to charities, it cannot be to the detriment of companies, and in addition it must also still have scope for choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of companies donating to charities is a great one. However, as alluded to in our individual opinions, we do not believe that it is realistic or feasible for every company to be forced to donate, without consideration of their financial situation and profit margins. The issue is not so black and white, and it would be detrimental to a number of companies if such a decree were made, especially to smaller companies and those which are not as financially viable. However, we do believe that larger, more financially stable companies should be encouraged to donate a portion of their profits to charities. However, it must still be a choice, as every company is different. In addition, the charities which would be supported should be varied, as they all have different and unique circumstances, and all need support. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. The group felt that the statement was too broad and did not take into account the different sizes of companies and their different levels of profitability. The group felt that it would be unfair to force companies to make donations to charity if they were not in a position to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, this is a great idea. However, the profits of the company must also be considered. We don't believe in a decree where "all" must be obligated to make a donation, as not all companies have the same level of profit. In addition, it is vital to consider the charities involved, and the ethos of the companies. There can be no "one size fits all" to this proposal, and there are so many variables. Whilst we think it can be a good idea to encourage support to charities, it cannot be to the detriment of companies, and in addition it must also still have scope for choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 3: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001849.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001849.soc index 07c777d0..302dfd78 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001849.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001849.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. However, this should be paired with a substantial increase in taxes for the second highest tax bracket to make sure that there is no loss in government revenue and the tax increase on those in the highest bracket is not too high for businesses. By lowering taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers, the tax base will be broadened, encouraging those who currently avoid tax to be registered with HMRC, which will decrease corruption. This will increase tax revenue for the government and will create a greater surplus, which will make it more possible for the government to deliver public goods and services, as well as increase the wealth in the country. The wealthy will also have more money to invest in the economy, creating more jobs and increasing tax revenue for the government. The wealthy will have more money to spend on goods and services, which will increase demand and supply in the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because the wealthy will not have more money to invest in the economy, create jobs and increase tax revenue for the government. The wealthy will also not have more money to spend on goods and services, which will not increase demand and supply in the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. We also believe that the wealthy will not have more money to donate to charity, which is a good thing. We also believe that the wealthy will be more incentivised to avoid tax if taxes are lower, which will increase corruption and decrease tax revenue for the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because the wealthy will have more money to invest in the economy, creating more jobs and increasing tax revenue for the government. The wealthy will also have more money to spend on goods and services, which will increase demand and supply in the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. We also believe that the wealthy will have more money to donate to charity, which is a good thing. We also believe that the wealthy will be less incentivised to avoid tax if taxes are lower, which will reduce corruption and increase tax revenue for the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because the wealthiest people will not have more money to invest and create jobs and government revenue will be lower with fewer people working. The wealthy will not have more money to spend on goods and services any more than they already do. They will hoard that wealth and use it to generate more wealth. The wealthy will have more money to donate to charity, but they won't donate it to charity, they will hoard it for themselves. There is very little corruption in the UK. Reducing tax on the wealthy will not have any effect on them evading tax and be a drop in the ocean compared to the loss of tax revenue from decreasing tax rates on the wealthy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. However, this should be paired with a substantial increase in taxes for the second highest tax bracket to make sure that there is no loss in government revenue and the tax increase on those in the highest bracket is not too high for businesses. By lowering taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers, the tax base will be broadened, encouraging those who currently avoid tax to be registered with HMRC, which will decrease corruption. This will increase tax revenue for the government and will create a greater surplus, which will make it more possible for the government to deliver public goods and services, as well as increase the wealth in the country. The wealthy will also have more money to invest in the economy, creating more jobs and increasing tax revenue for the government. The wealthy will have more money to spend on goods and services, which will increase demand and supply in the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because the wealthy will not have more money to invest in the economy, create jobs and increase tax revenue for the government. The wealthy will also not have more money to spend on goods and services, which will not increase demand and supply in the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. We also believe that the wealthy will not have more money to donate to charity, which is a good thing. We also believe that the wealthy will be more incentivised to avoid tax if taxes are lower, which will increase corruption and decrease tax revenue for the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because the wealthy will have more money to invest in the economy, creating more jobs and increasing tax revenue for the government. The wealthy will also have more money to spend on goods and services, which will increase demand and supply in the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of growth. We also believe that the wealthy will have more money to donate to charity, which is a good thing. We also believe that the wealthy will be less incentivised to avoid tax if taxes are lower, which will reduce corruption and increase tax revenue for the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not lower taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This is because the wealthiest people will not have more money to invest and create jobs and government revenue will be lower with fewer people working. The wealthy will not have more money to spend on goods and services any more than they already do. They will hoard that wealth and use it to generate more wealth. The wealthy will have more money to donate to charity, but they won't donate it to charity, they will hoard it for themselves. There is very little corruption in the UK. Reducing tax on the wealthy will not have any effect on them evading tax and be a drop in the ocean compared to the loss of tax revenue from decreasing tax rates on the wealthy. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001850.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001850.soc index 59eac03e..31c45889 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001850.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001850.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We should use public funds to develop artificial intelligence (AI). However, this should be done with care. There needs to be a limit to how much money the government puts into AI, as otherwise it may end up a waste of resources. The government should have some control over where the money for AI goes, so that AI isn’t just used for the private sector. We cannot have AI just being in the hands of private companies. The UK needs to make sure it is not left behind other countries in the AI field, as otherwise we will struggle to develop. The government also needs to ensure that the public sector, as well as the private sector, benefits from AI, so that everyone benefits from its use.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Yes, we should use public funds to develop artificial intelligence. However, this should be done with care. The government should have a tight control over the direction AI takes, and should not allow it to be purely in private hands. The government should also be cautious and not spend too much money on AI, as it may be a waste of resources. The government should also not spend too little money on AI, as it may leave the UK behind other countries. The government should also ensure that AI is used to help the public sector, and not just the private sector. This will ensure that the public benefits from AI, and not just the private sector. Additionally, it will increase quality of life for people in the UK. This will also allow us to compete with other countries, and ensure that we do not lag behind.” Participants were then asked to reflect on the process of how the final consensus statement was reached. Some of the reflections were: “It was difficult to reach a final consensus view, as people have very different opinions. However, in the end we were able to reach a final consensus, as we all listened to each other and were willing to compromise. This shows that in the end everyone can agree on something.” “ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, we should use public funds to develop artificial intelligence. However, this should be done with care. The government should have a tight control over the direction AI takes, and should not allow it to be purely in private hands. The government should also be cautious and not spend too much money on AI, as it may be a waste of resources. The government should also not spend too little money on AI, as it may leave the UK behind other countries. The government should also ensure that AI is used to help the public sector, and not just the private sector. This will ensure that the public benefits from AI, and not just the private sector.” Important Note: This is an example of how consensus might develop on this question. Others may reach a different consensus. We welcome all viewpoints and value people who disagree with us, as this will help us to improve our position on this question, and give us ideas for new questions to debate. What Are Our Policies? Currently the questions we have debated on are: “Should we use public funds to develop artificial intelligence?”: Yes. “Do we believe that any domestic taxes should be devolved?”: Yes. “Do we feel any gender imbal -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should use public funds to develop artificial intelligence. However, this should be done with care. The government should have a tight control over the direction AI takes, and should not allow it to be purely in private hands. The government should also be cautious and not spend too much money on AI, as it may be a waste of resources. The government should also not spend too little money on AI, as it may leave the UK behind other countries. The government should also ensure that AI is used to help the public sector, and not just the private sector. This will ensure that the public benefits from AI, and not just the private sector. However, the government should not restrict private companies too much, as they will be able to use AI to make money and may use that to invest in research that will benefit the public sector as well.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We should use public funds to develop artificial intelligence (AI). However, this should be done with care. There needs to be a limit to how much money the government puts into AI, as otherwise it may end up a waste of resources. The government should have some control over where the money for AI goes, so that AI isn’t just used for the private sector. We cannot have AI just being in the hands of private companies. The UK needs to make sure it is not left behind other countries in the AI field, as otherwise we will struggle to develop. The government also needs to ensure that the public sector, as well as the private sector, benefits from AI, so that everyone benefits from its use.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Yes, we should use public funds to develop artificial intelligence. However, this should be done with care. The government should have a tight control over the direction AI takes, and should not allow it to be purely in private hands. The government should also be cautious and not spend too much money on AI, as it may be a waste of resources. The government should also not spend too little money on AI, as it may leave the UK behind other countries. The government should also ensure that AI is used to help the public sector, and not just the private sector. This will ensure that the public benefits from AI, and not just the private sector. Additionally, it will increase quality of life for people in the UK. This will also allow us to compete with other countries, and ensure that we do not lag behind.” Participants were then asked to reflect on the process of how the final consensus statement was reached. Some of the reflections were: “It was difficult to reach a final consensus view, as people have very different opinions. However, in the end we were able to reach a final consensus, as we all listened to each other and were willing to compromise. This shows that in the end everyone can agree on something.” “ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, we should use public funds to develop artificial intelligence. However, this should be done with care. The government should have a tight control over the direction AI takes, and should not allow it to be purely in private hands. The government should also be cautious and not spend too much money on AI, as it may be a waste of resources. The government should also not spend too little money on AI, as it may leave the UK behind other countries. The government should also ensure that AI is used to help the public sector, and not just the private sector. This will ensure that the public benefits from AI, and not just the private sector.” Important Note: This is an example of how consensus might develop on this question. Others may reach a different consensus. We welcome all viewpoints and value people who disagree with us, as this will help us to improve our position on this question, and give us ideas for new questions to debate. What Are Our Policies? Currently the questions we have debated on are: “Should we use public funds to develop artificial intelligence?”: Yes. “Do we believe that any domestic taxes should be devolved?”: Yes. “Do we feel any gender imbal +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should use public funds to develop artificial intelligence. However, this should be done with care. The government should have a tight control over the direction AI takes, and should not allow it to be purely in private hands. The government should also be cautious and not spend too much money on AI, as it may be a waste of resources. The government should also not spend too little money on AI, as it may leave the UK behind other countries. The government should also ensure that AI is used to help the public sector, and not just the private sector. This will ensure that the public benefits from AI, and not just the private sector. However, the government should not restrict private companies too much, as they will be able to use AI to make money and may use that to invest in research that will benefit the public sector as well.” 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001851.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001851.soc index 16d9872e..f274da97 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001851.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001851.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. The group felt that the statement was too broad and did not take into account the different sizes of companies and their different levels of profitability. The group felt that it would be unfair to force companies to make donations to charity if they were not in a position to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. Whilst it is an admirable concept, we believe it is not practical to force companies to make such donations to charity. The group felt that not all companies are in the financial position to make such donations due to the variety in the size of companies and differences in profitability. Furthermore, the group felt it would be unfair to enforce large donations to charity by companies who have relatively small profits or who may not even be earning a profit. The group did however, feel that small donations are a good idea and that it is more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group suggested that it is more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so, as this would be more feasible and fairer for all companies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. The group felt that the statement was too broad and did not take into account the different sizes of companies and their different levels of profitability. The group felt that it would be unfair to force companies to make donations to charity if they were not in a position to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. The group felt that the statement was too broad and did not take into account the different sizes of companies and their different levels of profitability. The group felt that it would be unfair to force companies to make donations to charity if they were not in a position to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. Whilst it is an admirable concept, we believe it is not practical to force companies to make such donations to charity. The group felt that not all companies are in the financial position to make such donations due to the variety in the size of companies and differences in profitability. Furthermore, the group felt it would be unfair to enforce large donations to charity by companies who have relatively small profits or who may not even be earning a profit. The group did however, feel that small donations are a good idea and that it is more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group suggested that it is more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so, as this would be more feasible and fairer for all companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not think that all companies in the UK should be required to make a yearly donation to charity. The group felt that the statement was too broad and did not take into account the different sizes of companies and their different levels of profitability. The group felt that it would be unfair to force companies to make donations to charity if they were not in a position to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do so. The group felt that it would be more appropriate to encourage companies to make donations to charity rather than force them to do 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001852.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001852.soc index 8c704247..fc356236 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001852.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001852.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No. Social media should be about free speech and expressing opinions on any subject including political advertising. If other types of advertising are allowed so should political advertising be allowed. All advertising should be treated equally. That being said all sides of any political subject should be allowed equally. However, we do feel that all political advertising should be clearly signedposted as such and all parties must be treated equally. We believe that political adverts can have a negative effect on mental health as political parties never do what is right for the people. They just do what is right for their party. We are concerned that social media is manipulated and easily targeted those that are easily influenced and that it can be used to spread misinformation. We would like to see social media platforms make it easier for the public to report anything they see that could be classed as political advertising. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Political advertising should be banned from social media. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that political advertising on social media should be banned. The reason for this is that it is easy to manipulate and target people on social media, and it can have a negative effect on people’s mental health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on political advertising on social media. They felt that it was important for people to be able to express their views, and that it was important for people to be able to see the views of others. They did however feel that there should be a level playing field, and that all political parties should be able to advertise equally. They also felt that there should be some regulation on the content of political advertising, to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No. Social media should be about free speech and expressing opinions on any subject including political advertising. If other types of advertising are allowed so should political advertising be allowed. All advertising should be treated equally. That being said all sides of any political subject should be allowed equally. However, we do feel that all political advertising should be clearly signedposted as such and all parties must be treated equally. We believe that political adverts can have a negative effect on mental health as political parties never do what is right for the people. They just do what is right for their party. We are concerned that social media is manipulated and easily targeted those that are easily influenced and that it can be used to spread misinformation. We would like to see social media platforms make it easier for the public to report anything they see that could be classed as political advertising. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Political advertising should be banned from social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that political advertising on social media should be banned. The reason for this is that it is easy to manipulate and target people on social media, and it can have a negative effect on people’s mental health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on political advertising on social media. They felt that it was important for people to be able to express their views, and that it was important for people to be able to see the views of others. They did however feel that there should be a level playing field, and that all political parties should be able to advertise equally. They also felt that there should be some regulation on the content of political advertising, to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001853.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001853.soc index 3d94898d..88e612ba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001853.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001853.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of reducing the working week to 3 days is a good one. However, it would be a difficult idea to implement in practice, and it would be very dependent on the sector/industry. It would be a good idea for some industries, but not for others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A 3 day working week is too short. A 4 day working week would be more appropriate, but only in sectors/industries where it would be appropriate to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although reducing the working week to three days would appear to be beneficial for employees, there are several issues that would need to be addressed prior to this change being implemented. There is a fear that by reducing the working week to 3 days, this would also lead to a significant reduction in the income for the employees, which could in turn lead to an increase in unemployment. The groups participants also felt that a reduction in the working week to 3 days, would also lead to reduced levels of customer service, which would also negatively impact on the profitability of the business. The group agreed that a compromise would be to reduce the working week to 4 days, which would still offer a work life balance to the employees, whilst still being able to provide customer service levels to the customers of the business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is a good idea to reduce the working week to 4 days, to improve productivity and quality of life for workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of reducing the working week to 3 days is a good one. However, it would be a difficult idea to implement in practice, and it would be very dependent on the sector/industry. It would be a good idea for some industries, but not for others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A 3 day working week is too short. A 4 day working week would be more appropriate, but only in sectors/industries where it would be appropriate to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although reducing the working week to three days would appear to be beneficial for employees, there are several issues that would need to be addressed prior to this change being implemented. There is a fear that by reducing the working week to 3 days, this would also lead to a significant reduction in the income for the employees, which could in turn lead to an increase in unemployment. The groups participants also felt that a reduction in the working week to 3 days, would also lead to reduced levels of customer service, which would also negatively impact on the profitability of the business. The group agreed that a compromise would be to reduce the working week to 4 days, which would still offer a work life balance to the employees, whilst still being able to provide customer service levels to the customers of the business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is a good idea to reduce the working week to 4 days, to improve productivity and quality of life for workers. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001854.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001854.soc index a2fafd0c..813fec38 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001854.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001854.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A high rate of inequality is bad for society in that the rich keep getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. This can lead to resentment in classes. Society does not function well with splits. Inequality in any part of society is not something that we agree with. We believe that everyone no matter of race, religion or sex should be given the same chances in life. As the world progresses we are seeing more programs and opportunities created for people from all backgrounds and hopefully this will continue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A high rate of inequality is bad for society as it can lead to resentment in classes and people may feel like goals are unachievable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Inequality in society is not something that is in any way ideal. Inequality in society is a problem which many countries are still battling with. Society cannot function well if there is a large gap between the rich and the poor. The issue of inequality is in no way something that can be resolved overnight but should be gradually dealt with. The world needs to create more opportunities and programs for those in poorer classes of society to give them a chance to develop. Inequality will not go away until the gap between the classes in society is decreased to an acceptable level. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that the current rate of inequality in Australia is bad for society, as many people from different backgrounds are not given the same opportunities as other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A high rate of inequality is bad for society in that the rich keep getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. This can lead to resentment in classes. Society does not function well with splits. Inequality in any part of society is not something that we agree with. We believe that everyone no matter of race, religion or sex should be given the same chances in life. As the world progresses we are seeing more programs and opportunities created for people from all backgrounds and hopefully this will continue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A high rate of inequality is bad for society as it can lead to resentment in classes and people may feel like goals are unachievable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Inequality in society is not something that is in any way ideal. Inequality in society is a problem which many countries are still battling with. Society cannot function well if there is a large gap between the rich and the poor. The issue of inequality is in no way something that can be resolved overnight but should be gradually dealt with. The world needs to create more opportunities and programs for those in poorer classes of society to give them a chance to develop. Inequality will not go away until the gap between the classes in society is decreased to an acceptable level. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that the current rate of inequality in Australia is bad for society, as many people from different backgrounds are not given the same opportunities as other. 2: 1,3,4,2 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001855.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001855.soc index 060f1496..1a8ab8f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001855.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001855.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is widely accepted that we use too much plastic in packaging and this is a large cause of environmental damage. However, I feel that this is a huge issue and we need to find the most effective way to stop this. Although I understand there are alternatives to plastic, I feel that banning the sale of items with plastic packaging will be counterproductive. As Participant 4 said, some items need plastic packaging to stay fresh or even safe. I believe that we need to make changes, however we need to find the most effective ways to do this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although we should move towards banning the sale of all things with plastic packaging, it is not currently possible to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that plastic packaging should be banned, but not completely. We think that it is important to look at the alternatives to plastic packaging, but that it is also important to use plastic packaging where necessary. We think that we should not ban plastic packaging completely because it is not always the best option. We think that there are other ways to cut down on the use of plastic packaging, such as making it more expensive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is widely accepted that we use too much plastic in packaging and this is a large cause of environmental damage. However, I feel that this is a huge issue and we need to find the most effective way to stop this. Although I understand there are alternatives to plastic, I feel that banning the sale of items with plastic packaging will be counterproductive. As Participant 4 said, some items need plastic packaging to stay fresh or even safe. I believe that we need to make changes, however we need to find the most effective ways to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although we should move towards banning the sale of all things with plastic packaging, it is not currently possible to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that plastic packaging should be banned, but not completely. We think that it is important to look at the alternatives to plastic packaging, but that it is also important to use plastic packaging where necessary. We think that we should not ban plastic packaging completely because it is not always the best option. We think that there are other ways to cut down on the use of plastic packaging, such as making it more expensive. 5: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001856.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001856.soc index dd9cd67b..f6df9d5b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001856.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001856.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The monarchy should not continue in its current state funded form. It's abhorrent and almost medieval that there is a public funded multi-million pound funeral and coronation whilst the country is the poorest it's ever been. If a monarchy is supposed to be "for the people" then they certainly don't act like it. The argument that they bring in tourism money is grossly over inflated and they do nothing for the betterment of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The monarchy should continue. They bring in a lot of tourism, support many charities, and generally have an active role in the public life of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The monarchy should continue. They bring in tourism and money to the economy. However, they should not receive as much money as they do currently. They should have more say over government decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The monarchy should not continue in its current form. There should be a referendum on whether the people want them to continue in a state funded way. They are not fit for purpose and should not receive millions of pounds of taxpayer money when we have people dying on our streets and in food banks. They have not proven themselves to be useful in modern times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The monarchy should not continue in its current state funded form. It's abhorrent and almost medieval that there is a public funded multi-million pound funeral and coronation whilst the country is the poorest it's ever been. If a monarchy is supposed to be "for the people" then they certainly don't act like it. The argument that they bring in tourism money is grossly over inflated and they do nothing for the betterment of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The monarchy should continue. They bring in a lot of tourism, support many charities, and generally have an active role in the public life of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The monarchy should continue. They bring in tourism and money to the economy. However, they should not receive as much money as they do currently. They should have more say over government decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The monarchy should not continue in its current form. There should be a referendum on whether the people want them to continue in a state funded way. They are not fit for purpose and should not receive millions of pounds of taxpayer money when we have people dying on our streets and in food banks. They have not proven themselves to be useful in modern times. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001857.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001857.soc index f63d59bd..56dd76c3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001857.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001857.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although reducing the working week to three days would appear to be beneficial for employees, there are several issues that would need to be addressed prior to this change being implemented. There is a fear that by reducing the working week to 3 days, this would also lead to a significant reduction in the income for the employees, which could in turn lead to an increase in unemployment. The groups participants also felt that a reduction in the working week to 3 days, would also lead to reduced levels of customer service, which would also negatively impact on the profitability of the business. The group agreed that a compromise would be to reduce the working week to 4 days, which would still offer a work life balance to the employees, whilst still being able to provide customer service levels to the customers of the business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Reducing the working week to 3 days would be too extreme, however, a 4 day working week would provide a more workable solution for both the employees and the business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although reducing the working week to three days would appear to be beneficial for employees, there are several issues that would need to be addressed prior to this change being implemented. There is a fear that by reducing the working week to 3 days, this would also lead to a significant reduction in the income for the employees, which could in turn lead to an increase in unemployment. The groups participants also felt that a reduction in the working week to 3 days, would also lead to reduced levels of customer service, which would also negatively impact on the profitability of the business. The group agreed that a compromise would be to reduce the working week to 4 days, which would still offer a work life balance to the employees, whilst still being able to provide customer service levels to the customers of the business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A reduced working week of 3 days to 4 days would be a better option for the British work force, it would enable workers to spend more quality time with their families. However reducing the working week by 3 days would reduce the productivity of the workers and would also have a negative effect on the business customers. This in turn could lead to increase unemployment and reduced profit for business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although reducing the working week to three days would appear to be beneficial for employees, there are several issues that would need to be addressed prior to this change being implemented. There is a fear that by reducing the working week to 3 days, this would also lead to a significant reduction in the income for the employees, which could in turn lead to an increase in unemployment. The groups participants also felt that a reduction in the working week to 3 days, would also lead to reduced levels of customer service, which would also negatively impact on the profitability of the business. The group agreed that a compromise would be to reduce the working week to 4 days, which would still offer a work life balance to the employees, whilst still being able to provide customer service levels to the customers of the business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Reducing the working week to 3 days would be too extreme, however, a 4 day working week would provide a more workable solution for both the employees and the business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although reducing the working week to three days would appear to be beneficial for employees, there are several issues that would need to be addressed prior to this change being implemented. There is a fear that by reducing the working week to 3 days, this would also lead to a significant reduction in the income for the employees, which could in turn lead to an increase in unemployment. The groups participants also felt that a reduction in the working week to 3 days, would also lead to reduced levels of customer service, which would also negatively impact on the profitability of the business. The group agreed that a compromise would be to reduce the working week to 4 days, which would still offer a work life balance to the employees, whilst still being able to provide customer service levels to the customers of the business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A reduced working week of 3 days to 4 days would be a better option for the British work force, it would enable workers to spend more quality time with their families. However reducing the working week by 3 days would reduce the productivity of the workers and would also have a negative effect on the business customers. This in turn could lead to increase unemployment and reduced profit for business. 2: 1,3,4,2 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001858.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001858.soc index 68df0525..2ab1e39f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001858.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001858.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In the long run, I think the benefits of colonising the moon outweigh the potential harm to our Earth. It would be a great adventure and it would provide us with more opportunities to study how the human body reacts to different environments. The cost of sending people and equipment into space is still quite high but it is something that I think will become more affordable as time goes on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is feasible but unlikely. Establishing a colony would require life support systems, transportation, radiation protection, and habitat development. I don't believe that it would be seen as beneficial or worth the financial outlay. However, it is something that NASA are working on and space exploration can make great leaps. With climate change it might be something we need to look at more seriously in the future. 'Ever' is a long time and I think it will be doable one day. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is feasible but unlikely that the moon will ever be colonised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In the long run, I think the benefits of colonising the moon outweigh the potential harm to our Earth. It would be a great adventure and it would provide us with more opportunities to study how the human body reacts to different environments. The cost of sending people and equipment into space is still quite high but it is something that I think will become more affordable as time goes on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is feasible but unlikely. Establishing a colony would require life support systems, transportation, radiation protection, and habitat development. I don't believe that it would be seen as beneficial or worth the financial outlay. However, it is something that NASA are working on and space exploration can make great leaps. With climate change it might be something we need to look at more seriously in the future. 'Ever' is a long time and I think it will be doable one day. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is feasible but unlikely that the moon will ever be colonised. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001859.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001859.soc index 8a34b3aa..699c823f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001859.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001859.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: As a society, we need to ensure that we give people the opportunity to improve their lot and ensure we have a fairer society. We need to have some basic principles and systems in place to ensure we achieve this. In the past, the gap between rich and poor has grown. Taxation needs to be more progressive and targeted towards the rich. We also need to recognise that the "rich" is a vague term. Rich to me may not be rich to someone else. Therefore, the term should be quantified. I think we need to also take into account how someone's wealth has been gained. Some people may have received a large inheritance or have built a successful business, and it would be unreasonable to tax them at the same rate as someone who has simply been lucky. Whilst increasing taxation, we also need to ensure that the money raised is spent on good projects and that the people paying the taxes can see that their money is being put to good use. This will ensure the trust in our politicians and other decision makers is maintained. It also means that we will have a more productive and happy society. I believe -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I am not in favour of increasing taxes on the rich, but I think that the rich should be made to pay their fair share and not be able to avoid tax by using tax avoidance schemes.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group believes that taxation on the rich should be increased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on the rich. The group felt that the rich should be taxed more in order to reduce the gap between the rich and poor. The group felt that this would be fairer and would also help the economy by putting more money into the pockets of the poor, who would then spend it. The group felt that the rich should be taxed on their wealth as well as their income, as this would ensure that the tax system was fairer. The group felt that the rich should not be allowed to become too rich and that there should be a limit on the amount of wealth a person can have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - As a society, we need to ensure that we give people the opportunity to improve their lot and ensure we have a fairer society. We need to have some basic principles and systems in place to ensure we achieve this. In the past, the gap between rich and poor has grown. Taxation needs to be more progressive and targeted towards the rich. We also need to recognise that the "rich" is a vague term. Rich to me may not be rich to someone else. Therefore, the term should be quantified. I think we need to also take into account how someone's wealth has been gained. Some people may have received a large inheritance or have built a successful business, and it would be unreasonable to tax them at the same rate as someone who has simply been lucky. Whilst increasing taxation, we also need to ensure that the money raised is spent on good projects and that the people paying the taxes can see that their money is being put to good use. This will ensure the trust in our politicians and other decision makers is maintained. It also means that we will have a more productive and happy society. I believe +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I am not in favour of increasing taxes on the rich, but I think that the rich should be made to pay their fair share and not be able to avoid tax by using tax avoidance schemes.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group believes that taxation on the rich should be increased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on the rich. The group felt that the rich should be taxed more in order to reduce the gap between the rich and poor. The group felt that this would be fairer and would also help the economy by putting more money into the pockets of the poor, who would then spend it. The group felt that the rich should be taxed on their wealth as well as their income, as this would ensure that the tax system was fairer. The group felt that the rich should not be allowed to become too rich and that there should be a limit on the amount of wealth a person can have. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001860.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001860.soc index efd249f8..37133711 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001860.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001860.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the voting age should be 16, however we are not sure if this would actually make any difference as it is hard to know if people would actually turn up to vote at the polling stations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. We believe that the right to vote is a basic human right and that this should be extended to 16 year olds. We also believe that 16 year olds are often more informed on the key issues than elderly people who are stuck in their ways and are not up to date with the real state of the world right now. 16 year olds are already expected to have a lot of responsibility and this should be reflected in their right to vote. We believe that this will increase the number of people voting and make the government more representative of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We all agreed that the voting age should be 16 but there was a long discussion about the fact that it is difficult to judge people's level of knowledge and maturity, particularly as these are not age dependent. Also, the reasons for the way someone votes can be for any number of reasons. We agreed that education is important and that it is a great way to get people involved in voting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. This is because they are more aware of the current issues in society and are more likely to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the voting age should be 16, however we are not sure if this would actually make any difference as it is hard to know if people would actually turn up to vote at the polling stations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. We believe that the right to vote is a basic human right and that this should be extended to 16 year olds. We also believe that 16 year olds are often more informed on the key issues than elderly people who are stuck in their ways and are not up to date with the real state of the world right now. 16 year olds are already expected to have a lot of responsibility and this should be reflected in their right to vote. We believe that this will increase the number of people voting and make the government more representative of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We all agreed that the voting age should be 16 but there was a long discussion about the fact that it is difficult to judge people's level of knowledge and maturity, particularly as these are not age dependent. Also, the reasons for the way someone votes can be for any number of reasons. We agreed that education is important and that it is a great way to get people involved in voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. This is because they are more aware of the current issues in society and are more likely to vote. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001861.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001861.soc index 2949adbe..d4440e1b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001861.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001861.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should not adopt the euro as its currency. The pound is a strong currency and is the world's fourth most traded currency. The pound is the fourth most traded currency in the world. The pound is the fourth most traded currency in the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We do not think that the UK should adopt the euro as it's currency. The pound is a very strong currency, and has been for years. If we were to change to the euro, we would lose the monetary and economic independence of the pound. We also believe that the euro would make the UK more vulnerable to recession and the overall economic climate of the Euro zone, which is not what we need right now. The benefits of having the euro as a currency are negligible. We do not see a lot of benefits to changing from the pound to the euro, especially now that the UK is no longer in the EU. Conclusion From the survey results, we can see that most people in the UK do not believe that the UK should adopt the euro as its currency. The biggest reason for this is the fact that most people do not see any benefit to changing the currency, and that there are many disadvantages to doing so. The UK already has a strong currency in the pound, which is not at risk of devaluation, unlike the euro. In addition, the pound is the 4th most traded currency in the world, which would be replaced by the euro, and we would therefore lose some economic clout. The survey -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should not adopt the euro. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should not adopt the euro as it's currency. The pound is a strong currency which has retained it's value compared to other currencies of the world. The UK is an individual country and adopting the euro would send the country into a further financial recession. The pound is what we have used for a long time here in the UK and I don't feel that it really needs to change for any reason, so why should it? The UK is a world leader and holds a stronger position economically without the euro. The euro has not fulfilled it's promise of a cohesive europe. The euro is a weak currency and the european comission have been heavily criticised for their managment of finances. Countries in europe that have adopted the euro have not greatly improved from doing so as they were promised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not adopt the euro as its currency. The pound is a strong currency and is the world's fourth most traded currency. The pound is the fourth most traded currency in the world. The pound is the fourth most traded currency in the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We do not think that the UK should adopt the euro as it's currency. The pound is a very strong currency, and has been for years. If we were to change to the euro, we would lose the monetary and economic independence of the pound. We also believe that the euro would make the UK more vulnerable to recession and the overall economic climate of the Euro zone, which is not what we need right now. The benefits of having the euro as a currency are negligible. We do not see a lot of benefits to changing from the pound to the euro, especially now that the UK is no longer in the EU. Conclusion From the survey results, we can see that most people in the UK do not believe that the UK should adopt the euro as its currency. The biggest reason for this is the fact that most people do not see any benefit to changing the currency, and that there are many disadvantages to doing so. The UK already has a strong currency in the pound, which is not at risk of devaluation, unlike the euro. In addition, the pound is the 4th most traded currency in the world, which would be replaced by the euro, and we would therefore lose some economic clout. The survey +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should not adopt the euro. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should not adopt the euro as it's currency. The pound is a strong currency which has retained it's value compared to other currencies of the world. The UK is an individual country and adopting the euro would send the country into a further financial recession. The pound is what we have used for a long time here in the UK and I don't feel that it really needs to change for any reason, so why should it? The UK is a world leader and holds a stronger position economically without the euro. The euro has not fulfilled it's promise of a cohesive europe. The euro is a weak currency and the european comission have been heavily criticised for their managment of finances. Countries in europe that have adopted the euro have not greatly improved from doing so as they were promised. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001862.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001862.soc index fe78bb3b..c48e2883 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001862.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001862.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group were opposed to a ban on political advertising on social media. They felt that it was important for people to be able to express their views, and that it was important for people to be able to see the views of others. They did however feel that there should be a level playing field, and that all political parties should be able to advertise equally. They also felt that there should be some regulation on the content of political advertising, to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. Although advertising alone should not be banned, it was felt that it carries a high level of risk in terms of spreading disinformation and encouraging divisiveness, and this needs to be considered when putting in place regulation for political advertising. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be no ban on political advertising on social media. However, all political parties should be able to advertise equally, and all political advertising should be subject to strict regulation to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on political advertising on social media. They felt that it was important for people to be able to express their views, and that it was important for people to be able to see the views of others. They did however feel that there should be a level playing field, and that all political parties should be able to advertise equally. They also felt that there should be some regulation on the content of political advertising, to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. They also felt that there should be consequences for political parties that are found to be spreading untruths and ‘fake news’ for political gain. They felt that social media should not be used to spread misinformation about political opponents. They felt that the electorate should be given the tools to understand and criticise political advertising, and that social media should provide this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was opposed to a ban on political advertising on social media. They felt that it was important for people to be able to express their views, and that it was important for people to be able to see the views of others. They did however feel that there should be a level playing field, and that all political parties should be able to advertise equally. They also felt that there should be some regulation on the content of political advertising, to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. We found it very difficult to come up with suitable regulation, so if anyone has any ideas for a code of practice, we'd love to hear them. Comment from Participant 3: while this is good , i would add in something about concern for the spread of misinformation and fake news and how it impacts on society Further comments from Participant 4: I have reached a compromise view with the consensus group. I feel like a lot of what they are saying is how I think they are now, but that what they want to think is different. In terms of being able to express their views, and to be able to see other views, and also see how each individual (including themselves) in the group has reached their +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group were opposed to a ban on political advertising on social media. They felt that it was important for people to be able to express their views, and that it was important for people to be able to see the views of others. They did however feel that there should be a level playing field, and that all political parties should be able to advertise equally. They also felt that there should be some regulation on the content of political advertising, to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. Although advertising alone should not be banned, it was felt that it carries a high level of risk in terms of spreading disinformation and encouraging divisiveness, and this needs to be considered when putting in place regulation for political advertising. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be no ban on political advertising on social media. However, all political parties should be able to advertise equally, and all political advertising should be subject to strict regulation to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on political advertising on social media. They felt that it was important for people to be able to express their views, and that it was important for people to be able to see the views of others. They did however feel that there should be a level playing field, and that all political parties should be able to advertise equally. They also felt that there should be some regulation on the content of political advertising, to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. They also felt that there should be consequences for political parties that are found to be spreading untruths and ‘fake news’ for political gain. They felt that social media should not be used to spread misinformation about political opponents. They felt that the electorate should be given the tools to understand and criticise political advertising, and that social media should provide this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was opposed to a ban on political advertising on social media. They felt that it was important for people to be able to express their views, and that it was important for people to be able to see the views of others. They did however feel that there should be a level playing field, and that all political parties should be able to advertise equally. They also felt that there should be some regulation on the content of political advertising, to ensure that it is not misleading or untruthful. We found it very difficult to come up with suitable regulation, so if anyone has any ideas for a code of practice, we'd love to hear them. Comment from Participant 3: while this is good , i would add in something about concern for the spread of misinformation and fake news and how it impacts on society Further comments from Participant 4: I have reached a compromise view with the consensus group. I feel like a lot of what they are saying is how I think they are now, but that what they want to think is different. In terms of being able to express their views, and to be able to see other views, and also see how each individual (including themselves) in the group has reached their 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001863.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001863.soc index 8af24fbf..750c02af 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001863.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001863.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging the eating of insects. The main reasons for this were that insects are living creatures and should not be eaten. The group also felt that encouraging people to eat insects was not a realistic solution to the problem of climate change, and that the real solution was to stop eating meat. The group felt that the idea of eating insects was not realistic and that it would not be widely adopted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are against the eating of insects to save the planet because the participants do not believe that people will be willing to do so as a means of cutting meat consumption, especially in the Western world. Also, it's worth noting that eating insects doesn't really solve any issues, it just moves the problem from one to the other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have a number of different opinions on the topic, but we have found common ground. We all agree that, at this point in time, we would not personally choose to eat insects. We also don't think anyone should be forced to eat them, and that some sort of a gradual change would be the most beneficial way of moving people towards a change in their diets. We also all agree that eating insects could have a positive environmental impact, and that it is also a healthy and nutritious option for people, even though we would not be personally choosing to eat them ourselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of encouraging the eating of insects is a good one, as it is a more environmentally friendly way of producing protein. However, it is not necessary to ban the eating of meat in order to encourage this. In fact, this would be counterproductive, as it would likely cause a backlash. Instead, it would be better to encourage the eating of insects as an alternative to meat, and to make it more widely available and palatable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging the eating of insects. The main reasons for this were that insects are living creatures and should not be eaten. The group also felt that encouraging people to eat insects was not a realistic solution to the problem of climate change, and that the real solution was to stop eating meat. The group felt that the idea of eating insects was not realistic and that it would not be widely adopted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are against the eating of insects to save the planet because the participants do not believe that people will be willing to do so as a means of cutting meat consumption, especially in the Western world. Also, it's worth noting that eating insects doesn't really solve any issues, it just moves the problem from one to the other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have a number of different opinions on the topic, but we have found common ground. We all agree that, at this point in time, we would not personally choose to eat insects. We also don't think anyone should be forced to eat them, and that some sort of a gradual change would be the most beneficial way of moving people towards a change in their diets. We also all agree that eating insects could have a positive environmental impact, and that it is also a healthy and nutritious option for people, even though we would not be personally choosing to eat them ourselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of encouraging the eating of insects is a good one, as it is a more environmentally friendly way of producing protein. However, it is not necessary to ban the eating of meat in order to encourage this. In fact, this would be counterproductive, as it would likely cause a backlash. Instead, it would be better to encourage the eating of insects as an alternative to meat, and to make it more widely available and palatable. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001864.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001864.soc index 4457b96f..6f6b7754 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001864.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001864.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fracking should be allowed in Scotland only if absolutely necessary, if an alternative solution could be found first that would be a better option in our opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we feel that the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland, is a contentious issue. However, in our opinion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The issue of fracking has recently been raised by communities in England, and has received an enormous amount of media attention. The research has shown that fracking can have many negative environmental impacts. This includes increased traffic, the destruction of woodlands, and the possibility of increased pollution and earth tremors. Furthermore, the extraction of fossil fuels, we feel, goes against the principle of carbon neutral and renewable energy. Therefore, we think that the research shows that there are enough environmental, social and economic reasons to ensure that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. We have come to this conclusion because of the potential damage that fracking can cause to the environment. The process of fracking can cause earthquakes, which are dangerous to life. This is because they can cause damage to buildings and destroy the countryside. The process of fracking also uses fossil fuels, which are a finite resource. This means that they will run out at some point. This is why we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fracking should be allowed in Scotland only if absolutely necessary, if an alternative solution could be found first that would be a better option in our opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we feel that the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland, is a contentious issue. However, in our opinion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The issue of fracking has recently been raised by communities in England, and has received an enormous amount of media attention. The research has shown that fracking can have many negative environmental impacts. This includes increased traffic, the destruction of woodlands, and the possibility of increased pollution and earth tremors. Furthermore, the extraction of fossil fuels, we feel, goes against the principle of carbon neutral and renewable energy. Therefore, we think that the research shows that there are enough environmental, social and economic reasons to ensure that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. We have come to this conclusion because of the potential damage that fracking can cause to the environment. The process of fracking can cause earthquakes, which are dangerous to life. This is because they can cause damage to buildings and destroy the countryside. The process of fracking also uses fossil fuels, which are a finite resource. This means that they will run out at some point. This is why we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. 3: 3,4,2,1 2: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001865.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001865.soc index 1f990fc1..dddaf0a2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001865.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001865.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Colonising the moon is a goal that is both highly unlikely and not worth pursuing in the foreseeable future. It is not a goal that many people would consider a priority, it will not be achieved by many people, and it would have a detrimental effect on our planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: The answer to whether the moon can ever be colonised depends on several factors. The first of these is how much of the natural environment of Earth will have been destroyed or damaged by human activity in the future. The moon, being a hostile environment with limited resources, will make it a very expensive project to establish a colony. So one must also consider whether there is enough profit for it to be worthwhile? Lastly one must ask whether the good reasons of scientific and medical advancement will be sufficient motivation for humankind to colonise the moon? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In the long run, I think the benefits of colonising the moon outweigh the potential harm to our Earth. It would be a great adventure and it would provide us with more opportunities to study how the human body reacts to different environments. The cost of sending people and equipment into space is still quite high but it is something that I think will become more affordable as time goes on. It may also be something that we would need to consider in the future, if the impact of climate change becomes too great. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Colonising the moon is a goal that is both highly unlikely and not worth pursuing in the foreseeable future. It is not a goal that many people would consider a priority, it will not be achieved by many people, and it would have a detrimental effect on our planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: The answer to whether the moon can ever be colonised depends on several factors. The first of these is how much of the natural environment of Earth will have been destroyed or damaged by human activity in the future. The moon, being a hostile environment with limited resources, will make it a very expensive project to establish a colony. So one must also consider whether there is enough profit for it to be worthwhile? Lastly one must ask whether the good reasons of scientific and medical advancement will be sufficient motivation for humankind to colonise the moon? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In the long run, I think the benefits of colonising the moon outweigh the potential harm to our Earth. It would be a great adventure and it would provide us with more opportunities to study how the human body reacts to different environments. The cost of sending people and equipment into space is still quite high but it is something that I think will become more affordable as time goes on. It may also be something that we would need to consider in the future, if the impact of climate change becomes too great. 2: 3,4,2,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001866.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001866.soc index c1f778e8..30e54d75 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001866.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001866.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that in general, parents have the right to know the religion of their child's teachers. In order to be able to properly communicate with them, and so as to ensure that the religious views of their child's teachers are similar to their own, it is beneficial for parents to know the religious views of the teachers who are instructing their children. However, if the teachers religion will not have an effect on their teaching of their child, we feel it is not necessary for parents to know their teachers religion. In cases where it is obvious that the teachers religious views will not affect the teaching of their child, such as in a history class, we feel it is not necessary for parents to know the religion of the teacher. We feel that it is important for teachers to be respectful of the children's and parents' religious views, and if a teacher is teaching a topic that they have strong opinions about, they should be cautious about bringing their personal opinions into the lesson. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, parents should have the right to know the religion of their child’s teacher. However, there are some exceptions to this. For example, if the teacher’s religion is going to impact the child’s curriculum and learning in a negative way, then it is important that the parents are made aware of this. However, if the teacher’s religion is not going to impact the child’s curriculum and learning, then it is not important that the parents are made aware of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that parents should have the right to know the religion of their child’s teachers. We believe that this is because it is important to know what their child is being taught and what they are being exposed to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Parents should have the right to know the religion of their child's teachers if the teacher will introduce their religion into their teachings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that in general, parents have the right to know the religion of their child's teachers. In order to be able to properly communicate with them, and so as to ensure that the religious views of their child's teachers are similar to their own, it is beneficial for parents to know the religious views of the teachers who are instructing their children. However, if the teachers religion will not have an effect on their teaching of their child, we feel it is not necessary for parents to know their teachers religion. In cases where it is obvious that the teachers religious views will not affect the teaching of their child, such as in a history class, we feel it is not necessary for parents to know the religion of the teacher. We feel that it is important for teachers to be respectful of the children's and parents' religious views, and if a teacher is teaching a topic that they have strong opinions about, they should be cautious about bringing their personal opinions into the lesson. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, parents should have the right to know the religion of their child’s teacher. However, there are some exceptions to this. For example, if the teacher’s religion is going to impact the child’s curriculum and learning in a negative way, then it is important that the parents are made aware of this. However, if the teacher’s religion is not going to impact the child’s curriculum and learning, then it is not important that the parents are made aware of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that parents should have the right to know the religion of their child’s teachers. We believe that this is because it is important to know what their child is being taught and what they are being exposed to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Parents should have the right to know the religion of their child's teachers if the teacher will introduce their religion into their teachings. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001867.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001867.soc index d10b0017..59db1cd0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001867.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001867.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we should give extra tax breaks to families with children as this will help ensure children are less disadvantaged compared to children of wealthier households and it will help fight inflation by ensuring families have more disposable income or less debt than if the tax breaks were not available. It will also encourage more people back into the workforce which is good for the economy and will allow parents to spend quality time with their children rather than having to work all the time to get by. It will also help families get by. However, it should be monitored for abuse to ensure people do not take without contributing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of giving extra tax breaks to families with children to help them get by. The group was of the opinion that it is important to help families with children to get by. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to be less disadvantaged compared to families of wealthier households. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to have more disposable income or less debt than if the tax breaks were not available. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to fight inflation. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children in social and economic perspectives. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to alleviate the stress on children too. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to encourage more people back into the workforce. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to spend quality time with their children rather than having to work all the time to get by. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to promote working families. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to allow them to spend quality time with their children -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, yes we should give extra tax breaks to families with children. It is important to support families with children in the current economic climate. However, it is also important to ensure that the tax breaks are not abused and that families are not taking advantage of the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we should give extra tax breaks to families with children. If we don't, it will continue to negatively affect the future of this country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we should give extra tax breaks to families with children as this will help ensure children are less disadvantaged compared to children of wealthier households and it will help fight inflation by ensuring families have more disposable income or less debt than if the tax breaks were not available. It will also encourage more people back into the workforce which is good for the economy and will allow parents to spend quality time with their children rather than having to work all the time to get by. It will also help families get by. However, it should be monitored for abuse to ensure people do not take without contributing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of giving extra tax breaks to families with children to help them get by. The group was of the opinion that it is important to help families with children to get by. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to be less disadvantaged compared to families of wealthier households. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to have more disposable income or less debt than if the tax breaks were not available. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to fight inflation. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children in social and economic perspectives. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to alleviate the stress on children too. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to encourage more people back into the workforce. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to spend quality time with their children rather than having to work all the time to get by. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to promote working families. The group also agreed that it is important to help families with children to allow them to spend quality time with their children +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, yes we should give extra tax breaks to families with children. It is important to support families with children in the current economic climate. However, it is also important to ensure that the tax breaks are not abused and that families are not taking advantage of the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we should give extra tax breaks to families with children. If we don't, it will continue to negatively affect the future of this country. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001868.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001868.soc index 27cd8f91..29a4f696 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001868.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001868.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Although the notion that we should “ban all things with plastic packaging” may seem simple, there are many problems with doing so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is widely accepted that we use too much plastic in packaging and this is a large cause of environmental damage. There is an urgent need to find alternatives to plastic packaging as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and therefore we are seeing it in our oceans and other natural environments. However, I feel that this is a huge issue and we need to find the most effective way to stop this. Although I understand there are alternatives to plastic, I feel that banning the sale of items with plastic packaging will be counterproductive. As Participant 4 said, some items need plastic packaging to stay fresh or even safe. I believe that we need to make changes, however we need to find the most effective ways to do this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is widely accepted that we use too much plastic in packaging and this is a large cause of environmental damage. However, we think that banning all items with plastic packaging is not the most effective way to stop the problem. We understand there are alternatives to plastic, such as paper and cardboard, however I feel these materials would be too weak to be effective. Although we must make changes, we feel we must find the most effective ways to do this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is widely accepted that we use too much plastic in packaging and this is a large cause of environmental damage. However, I feel that this is a huge issue and we need to find the most effective way to stop this. Although I understand there are alternatives to plastic, I feel that banning the sale of items with plastic packaging will be counterproductive. There are some products that need plastic packaging to stay fresh or even safe. I believe that we need to make changes, however we need to find the most effective ways to do this. This is important because the issue of using too much plastic is getting worse and worse. We all need to work together to stop this. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Although the notion that we should “ban all things with plastic packaging” may seem simple, there are many problems with doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is widely accepted that we use too much plastic in packaging and this is a large cause of environmental damage. There is an urgent need to find alternatives to plastic packaging as plastic takes a very long time to degrade and therefore we are seeing it in our oceans and other natural environments. However, I feel that this is a huge issue and we need to find the most effective way to stop this. Although I understand there are alternatives to plastic, I feel that banning the sale of items with plastic packaging will be counterproductive. As Participant 4 said, some items need plastic packaging to stay fresh or even safe. I believe that we need to make changes, however we need to find the most effective ways to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is widely accepted that we use too much plastic in packaging and this is a large cause of environmental damage. However, we think that banning all items with plastic packaging is not the most effective way to stop the problem. We understand there are alternatives to plastic, such as paper and cardboard, however I feel these materials would be too weak to be effective. Although we must make changes, we feel we must find the most effective ways to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is widely accepted that we use too much plastic in packaging and this is a large cause of environmental damage. However, I feel that this is a huge issue and we need to find the most effective way to stop this. Although I understand there are alternatives to plastic, I feel that banning the sale of items with plastic packaging will be counterproductive. There are some products that need plastic packaging to stay fresh or even safe. I believe that we need to make changes, however we need to find the most effective ways to do this. This is important because the issue of using too much plastic is getting worse and worse. We all need to work together to stop this. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3: 2,3,4,1 2: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001869.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001869.soc index 3de70969..cb6e266d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001869.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001869.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. We believe that the right to vote is a basic human right and that this should be extended to 16 year olds. 16 year olds are already expected to have a lot of responsibility and this should be reflected in their right to vote. We believe that this will increase the number of people voting and make the government more representative of the population. We also believe that it is important to educate 16 year olds about voting and politics beforehand. If we do not do this, 16 year olds may be less informed on the key issues than older people and so a longer term plan needs to be put in place to give all young people the information that they need before this right is given to them. We do not believe that this policy should be extended to those under 16 or above 18 as these people would probably not be as well informed about the issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. We believe that the right to vote is a basic human right and that this should be extended to 16 year olds. We also believe that 16 year olds are often more informed on the key issues than elderly people who are stuck in their ways and are not up to date with the real state of the world right now. 16 year olds are already expected to have a lot of responsibility and this should be reflected in their right to vote. We believe that this will increase the number of people voting and make the government more representative of the population. We also believe that 16 year olds are more affected by the results than some other people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. We believe that the right to vote is a basic human right and that this should be extended to 16 year olds. We also believe that 16 year olds are often more informed on the key issues than elderly people who are stuck in their ways and are not up to date with the real state of the world right now. 16 year olds are already expected to have a lot of responsibility and this should be reflected in their right to vote. We believe that this will increase the number of people voting and make the government more representative of the population. We do not believe that all 16 year olds will be well informed and are more affected by the results than some other people. Discussion The above is an example of a group of participants coming to a consensus on a question. The process is summarised below in a flowchart. The flowchart starts with a facilitator establishing a question that participants will be debating. In this case, the question was “Should the voting age be 16?”. The participants are given time to write down their own initial opinion on the question. The facilitator then presents the question and the initial opinions to all of the participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: It is the opinion of this group that the voting age should be 16. We believe that 16 year olds are mature enough and are prepared enough to make such decisions. We believe that this will make the government more representative of the population as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. We believe that the right to vote is a basic human right and that this should be extended to 16 year olds. 16 year olds are already expected to have a lot of responsibility and this should be reflected in their right to vote. We believe that this will increase the number of people voting and make the government more representative of the population. We also believe that it is important to educate 16 year olds about voting and politics beforehand. If we do not do this, 16 year olds may be less informed on the key issues than older people and so a longer term plan needs to be put in place to give all young people the information that they need before this right is given to them. We do not believe that this policy should be extended to those under 16 or above 18 as these people would probably not be as well informed about the issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. We believe that the right to vote is a basic human right and that this should be extended to 16 year olds. We also believe that 16 year olds are often more informed on the key issues than elderly people who are stuck in their ways and are not up to date with the real state of the world right now. 16 year olds are already expected to have a lot of responsibility and this should be reflected in their right to vote. We believe that this will increase the number of people voting and make the government more representative of the population. We also believe that 16 year olds are more affected by the results than some other people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. We believe that the right to vote is a basic human right and that this should be extended to 16 year olds. We also believe that 16 year olds are often more informed on the key issues than elderly people who are stuck in their ways and are not up to date with the real state of the world right now. 16 year olds are already expected to have a lot of responsibility and this should be reflected in their right to vote. We believe that this will increase the number of people voting and make the government more representative of the population. We do not believe that all 16 year olds will be well informed and are more affected by the results than some other people. Discussion The above is an example of a group of participants coming to a consensus on a question. The process is summarised below in a flowchart. The flowchart starts with a facilitator establishing a question that participants will be debating. In this case, the question was “Should the voting age be 16?”. The participants are given time to write down their own initial opinion on the question. The facilitator then presents the question and the initial opinions to all of the participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: It is the opinion of this group that the voting age should be 16. We believe that 16 year olds are mature enough and are prepared enough to make such decisions. We believe that this will make the government more representative of the population as a whole. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001870.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001870.soc index f26af43b..039c9d5d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001870.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001870.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to be more aware of what skills are needed for jobs, and what skills are in demand. We need to be more aware of how to get these skills. The group were tasked with coming up with an action plan to address the skills gap. Below is presented their plan. Action plan: We need to invest in more apprenticeships. We need to make sure that there are enough apprenticeships in the right industries. The government needs to make sure that it is making apprenticeships available in the right industries. The government also needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In some sectors yes, mainly in the NHS. We have a massive shortage of doctors and nurses. One big issue I believe is that many people are doing degrees which are essentially useless. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. We are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK is in the midst of a ‘re-skilling’ crisis. With the rapid rate of technological development over the last decade, many skills have become redundant, creating a skills gap. We feel that there is a particular shortage in certain technical skills, e.g. in the technology sector. However, we also believe that there is a shortage in skills that are less tangible, such as self-motivation, communication and creative thinking, due to a changing workplace culture that is leading to more and more people having a tendency to rely on others. Therefore, the UK must do more to re-skill and re-train its workforce in order to bridge this skills gap and avoid a potential future crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to be more aware of what skills are needed for jobs, and what skills are in demand. We need to be more aware of how to get these skills. The group were tasked with coming up with an action plan to address the skills gap. Below is presented their plan. Action plan: We need to invest in more apprenticeships. We need to make sure that there are enough apprenticeships in the right industries. The government needs to make sure that it is making apprenticeships available in the right industries. The government also needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In some sectors yes, mainly in the NHS. We have a massive shortage of doctors and nurses. One big issue I believe is that many people are doing degrees which are essentially useless. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. We are in the midst of a 're-skilling' crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK is in the midst of a ‘re-skilling’ crisis. With the rapid rate of technological development over the last decade, many skills have become redundant, creating a skills gap. We feel that there is a particular shortage in certain technical skills, e.g. in the technology sector. However, we also believe that there is a shortage in skills that are less tangible, such as self-motivation, communication and creative thinking, due to a changing workplace culture that is leading to more and more people having a tendency to rely on others. Therefore, the UK must do more to re-skill and re-train its workforce in order to bridge this skills gap and avoid a potential future crisis. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001871.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001871.soc index 6c41ed4b..d0457d98 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001871.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001871.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of animals in medical research is acceptable, however it is not acceptable to cause unnecessary harm to the animals. The use of animals in medical research is acceptable, however it is not acceptable to cause unnecessary harm to the animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The practice of animal testing in the medical field can be beneficial and necessary in order to progress medical discoveries to save the lives of millions of people. However, there are some who feel this process is immoral and there is much controversy surrounding the issue. The use of animals in medical research has advanced the way that humans can be treated by curing diseases and saving lives. A good example of this is when penicillin was used to treat syphilis. There is a need for more research and experimentation of how drugs affect humans. Without animal testing, many new drugs and medicines would not be developed, as they could not be tested on humans without any risk to their health and safety. It is important to continue the use of animals in medical research, however we should only use animals if it is absolutely necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the use of animals in medical research is acceptable as long as it is absolutely necessary. We feel that the use of animals in medical research is acceptable because it is the only way to ensure the safety of the medicines being developed. We also feel that it is acceptable to use animals in medical research as long as the animals are not harmed in any way. We feel that it is acceptable to use animals in medical research as long as it is the only way to prove the efficacy of the drug being developed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of animals in medical research is acceptable, however it is not acceptable to cause unnecessary harm to the animals. The use of animals in medical research is acceptable, however it is not acceptable to cause unnecessary harm to the animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The practice of animal testing in the medical field can be beneficial and necessary in order to progress medical discoveries to save the lives of millions of people. However, there are some who feel this process is immoral and there is much controversy surrounding the issue. The use of animals in medical research has advanced the way that humans can be treated by curing diseases and saving lives. A good example of this is when penicillin was used to treat syphilis. There is a need for more research and experimentation of how drugs affect humans. Without animal testing, many new drugs and medicines would not be developed, as they could not be tested on humans without any risk to their health and safety. It is important to continue the use of animals in medical research, however we should only use animals if it is absolutely necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the use of animals in medical research is acceptable as long as it is absolutely necessary. We feel that the use of animals in medical research is acceptable because it is the only way to ensure the safety of the medicines being developed. We also feel that it is acceptable to use animals in medical research as long as the animals are not harmed in any way. We feel that it is acceptable to use animals in medical research as long as it is the only way to prove the efficacy of the drug being developed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 4: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001872.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001872.soc index 5e694622..7c4d0265 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001872.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001872.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have a number of different opinions on the topic, but we have found common ground. We agree that, at this point in time, we would not personally choose to eat insects. We also don't think anyone should be forced to eat them, and that some sort of a gradual change would be the most beneficial way of moving people towards a change in their diets. We also agree that eating insects could have a positive environmental impact, and that it is also a healthy and nutritious option for people, even though we would not be personally choosing to eat them ourselves. Plant-based protein is another good alternative to meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are a number of different opinions in the group on the topic of eating insects. We all agree that, at this point in time, we would not personally choose to eat insects. We also don't think anyone should be forced to eat them, and that some sort of a gradual change would be the most beneficial way of moving people towards a change in their diets. We also all agree that eating insects could have a positive environmental impact, and that it is also a healthy and nutritious option for people, even though we would not be personally choosing to eat them ourselves. We are all in agreement that a ban on eating meat would be the wrong way to go about this and that people should be free to make their own choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Even though we would not choose to eat insects ourselves, we can see that eating insects could be a very positive move for the planet. We also don't think anyone should be forced to do anything, and so we think that a gradual change would be the best way of moving people towards a change in their diets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have a number of different opinions on the topic, but we have found common ground. We agree that, at this point in time, we would not personally choose to eat insects. We also don't think anyone should be forced to eat them, and that some sort of a gradual change would be the most beneficial way of moving people towards a change in their diets. We also agree that eating insects could have a positive environmental impact, and that it is also a healthy and nutritious option for people, even though we would not be personally choosing to eat them ourselves. Plant-based protein is another good alternative to meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are a number of different opinions in the group on the topic of eating insects. We all agree that, at this point in time, we would not personally choose to eat insects. We also don't think anyone should be forced to eat them, and that some sort of a gradual change would be the most beneficial way of moving people towards a change in their diets. We also all agree that eating insects could have a positive environmental impact, and that it is also a healthy and nutritious option for people, even though we would not be personally choosing to eat them ourselves. We are all in agreement that a ban on eating meat would be the wrong way to go about this and that people should be free to make their own choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Even though we would not choose to eat insects ourselves, we can see that eating insects could be a very positive move for the planet. We also don't think anyone should be forced to do anything, and so we think that a gradual change would be the best way of moving people towards a change in their diets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 3: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001873.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001873.soc index 76a99fef..b5f187f0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001873.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001873.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the majority of the group, therefore, feel that the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland, is a contentious issue. However, in our opinion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The issue of fracking has recently been raised by communities in England, and has received an enormous amount of media attention. However, it is the social and economic consequences of fracking that we feel are of the most concern, causing a loss of habitat, an increase in road traffic, the exploitation of farmers' livelihood, and ultimately the destruction of land. Furthermore, there have been little plans to address the impact upon the existing environment and its inhabitants, such as other animals and birds. As mentioned, the Scottish government is also working towards implementing a Carbon Neutral Scotland. Therefore, we think that the research shows that there are enough environmental, social and economic reasons to ensure that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: After a good debate, taking into account all of the critiques, the group of participants revised the draft consensus statement and came to the following final consensus view: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we feel that the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland, is a contentious issue. However, in our opinion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The issue of fracking has recently been raised by communities in England, and has received an enormous amount of media attention. The research has shown that fracking can have many negative environmental impacts. This includes increased traffic, the destruction of woodlands, and the possibility of increased pollution and earth tremors. Furthermore, the extraction of fossil fuels, we feel, goes against the principle of carbon neutral and renewable energy. Therefore, we think that the research shows that there are enough environmental, social and economic reasons to ensure that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we feel that the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland, is a contentious issue. However, in our opinion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The issue of fracking has recently been raised by communities in England, and has received an enormous amount of media attention. The research has shown that fracking can have many negative environmental impacts. This includes increased traffic, the destruction of woodlands, and the possibility of increased pollution and earth tremors. Furthermore, the extraction of fossil fuels, we feel, goes against the principle of carbon neutral and renewable energy. Therefore, we think that the research shows that there are enough environmental, social and economic reasons to ensure that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. After taking all of these views into account, the group then voted on the final consensus statement and everyone was in agreement with the final consensus statement. The group of participants agreed that there was a good debate and that the final consensus statement reflected the views of the group as a whole. The group felt that this was a very effective way of coming to a consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the majority of the group, therefore, feel that the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland, is a contentious issue. However, in our opinion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The issue of fracking has recently been raised by communities in England, and has received an enormous amount of media attention. However, it is the social and economic consequences of fracking that we feel are of the most concern, causing a loss of habitat, an increase in road traffic, the exploitation of farmers' livelihood, and ultimately the destruction of land. Furthermore, there have been little plans to address the impact upon the existing environment and its inhabitants, such as other animals and birds. As mentioned, the Scottish government is also working towards implementing a Carbon Neutral Scotland. Therefore, we think that the research shows that there are enough environmental, social and economic reasons to ensure that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - After a good debate, taking into account all of the critiques, the group of participants revised the draft consensus statement and came to the following final consensus view: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we feel that the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland, is a contentious issue. However, in our opinion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The issue of fracking has recently been raised by communities in England, and has received an enormous amount of media attention. The research has shown that fracking can have many negative environmental impacts. This includes increased traffic, the destruction of woodlands, and the possibility of increased pollution and earth tremors. Furthermore, the extraction of fossil fuels, we feel, goes against the principle of carbon neutral and renewable energy. Therefore, we think that the research shows that there are enough environmental, social and economic reasons to ensure that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we feel that the question of whether fracking should be allowed in Scotland, is a contentious issue. However, in our opinion, we feel that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The issue of fracking has recently been raised by communities in England, and has received an enormous amount of media attention. The research has shown that fracking can have many negative environmental impacts. This includes increased traffic, the destruction of woodlands, and the possibility of increased pollution and earth tremors. Furthermore, the extraction of fossil fuels, we feel, goes against the principle of carbon neutral and renewable energy. Therefore, we think that the research shows that there are enough environmental, social and economic reasons to ensure that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. After taking all of these views into account, the group then voted on the final consensus statement and everyone was in agreement with the final consensus statement. The group of participants agreed that there was a good debate and that the final consensus statement reflected the views of the group as a whole. The group felt that this was a very effective way of coming to a consensus. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001874.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001874.soc index 739a017b..c0b65bf9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001874.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001874.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “No, we shouldn't encourage everyone to get a degree, but we should try to make it easier to access higher education, as it does come with many benefits.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe that we should always encourage people to learn. Learning is for everyone and is the key to opening minds. However I do not believe that people should be put under pressure to get a degree and I also believe that a degree is not suitable for everyone. There are many benefits to gaining a degree such as improved job prospects, higher salary, meeting new people, gaining new skills and a greater knowledge. However there are also downsides to gaining a degree such as the large amount of debt which is put upon people, the university fees are extremely expensive and unfair, and the stress and hard work which comes with a degree. For many people the pros may outweigh the cons however for some the cons may outweigh the pros. I think this question is a personal choice and a decision which everyone should make for themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are many benefits to getting a degree, including broadening your mind, expanding your education and also improving income. However, it is not suitable for everyone. People can have great careers through apprenticeships or other routes and some people don't want the debt that comes with it. We should encourage everyone to get a degree, but also be aware that it is not the only option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more encouragement to pursue a degree, however it should be more accessible to a broader range of students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “No, we shouldn't encourage everyone to get a degree, but we should try to make it easier to access higher education, as it does come with many benefits.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe that we should always encourage people to learn. Learning is for everyone and is the key to opening minds. However I do not believe that people should be put under pressure to get a degree and I also believe that a degree is not suitable for everyone. There are many benefits to gaining a degree such as improved job prospects, higher salary, meeting new people, gaining new skills and a greater knowledge. However there are also downsides to gaining a degree such as the large amount of debt which is put upon people, the university fees are extremely expensive and unfair, and the stress and hard work which comes with a degree. For many people the pros may outweigh the cons however for some the cons may outweigh the pros. I think this question is a personal choice and a decision which everyone should make for themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are many benefits to getting a degree, including broadening your mind, expanding your education and also improving income. However, it is not suitable for everyone. People can have great careers through apprenticeships or other routes and some people don't want the debt that comes with it. We should encourage everyone to get a degree, but also be aware that it is not the only option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more encouragement to pursue a degree, however it should be more accessible to a broader range of students. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001875.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001875.soc index 23102625..32cf0f2d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001875.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001875.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Nuclear energy is clean and green when compared to energy sources such as fossil fuels. A nuclear power station needs less land and resource than many green equivalents. Although not a perfect answer, nuclear energy is a good interim solution until we have a sufficient green energy strategy. This will prevent us from being dependent on foreign energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Nuclear power is by far the cleanest of all the current non-renewable energy sources. It emits less than half the amount of carbon dioxide as coal, the most polluting energy source. We also have the opportunity to harness a huge amount of energy. With the vast amount of nuclear power stations that we have, we could supply the entire nation for 300 years. There is, however, a downfall to nuclear energy and that is the radiation that comes from the waste and potential leakages in the power stations. These can be hazardous to both human health and the environment. We must use the advantages of nuclear power, however. We must also look into alternatives to power stations. Renewable energy is good, but cannot match the huge output of energy that is required to power our country. For now, we must use nuclear power to our advantage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Nuclear energy is the cleanest of all the current non-renewable energy sources. It emits less than half the amount of carbon dioxide as coal, the most polluting energy source. We also have the opportunity to harness a huge amount of energy. With the vast amount of nuclear power stations that we have, we could supply the entire nation for 300 years. There is, however, a downfall to nuclear energy and that is the radiation that comes from the waste and potential leakages in the power stations. These can be hazardous to both human health and the environment. We must use the advantages of nuclear power, however. We must also look into alternatives to power stations. Renewable energy is good, but cannot match the huge output of energy that is required to power our country. For now, we must use nuclear power to our advantage. We must also be vigilant in monitoring the safety of the power stations and finding alternatives to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Nuclear energy remains one of our best options for generating electricity. With the vast amount of nuclear power stations, we can supply the nation for 300 years. Other sources of energy are being explored but we are not as close to achieving these alternatives as we are with nuclear power. Unfortunately there are potential risks of radiation from waste and leakages of the power stations. However, technology is developing rapidly and power stations will continue to increase safety. The UK should look to develop research to ensure we are at the forefront of these technological developments. We cannot ignore the drawbacks of nuclear energy, however for now it is the best option. Task 5: Self-Reflection of NSSD Process First, each person was asked to make a pledge of how the NSSD process had affected their decision making process and their understanding of energy issues. Pledge from Participant 1: By using this process I have been able to examine the opinions of others on this issue, something I often do not do in making a decision. It has therefore expanded my world view and made me appreciate that there are often many ways of looking at an issue. I have also enjoyed being part of a group and making a decision together. Pledge from Participant 2: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Nuclear energy is clean and green when compared to energy sources such as fossil fuels. A nuclear power station needs less land and resource than many green equivalents. Although not a perfect answer, nuclear energy is a good interim solution until we have a sufficient green energy strategy. This will prevent us from being dependent on foreign energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Nuclear power is by far the cleanest of all the current non-renewable energy sources. It emits less than half the amount of carbon dioxide as coal, the most polluting energy source. We also have the opportunity to harness a huge amount of energy. With the vast amount of nuclear power stations that we have, we could supply the entire nation for 300 years. There is, however, a downfall to nuclear energy and that is the radiation that comes from the waste and potential leakages in the power stations. These can be hazardous to both human health and the environment. We must use the advantages of nuclear power, however. We must also look into alternatives to power stations. Renewable energy is good, but cannot match the huge output of energy that is required to power our country. For now, we must use nuclear power to our advantage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Nuclear energy is the cleanest of all the current non-renewable energy sources. It emits less than half the amount of carbon dioxide as coal, the most polluting energy source. We also have the opportunity to harness a huge amount of energy. With the vast amount of nuclear power stations that we have, we could supply the entire nation for 300 years. There is, however, a downfall to nuclear energy and that is the radiation that comes from the waste and potential leakages in the power stations. These can be hazardous to both human health and the environment. We must use the advantages of nuclear power, however. We must also look into alternatives to power stations. Renewable energy is good, but cannot match the huge output of energy that is required to power our country. For now, we must use nuclear power to our advantage. We must also be vigilant in monitoring the safety of the power stations and finding alternatives to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Nuclear energy remains one of our best options for generating electricity. With the vast amount of nuclear power stations, we can supply the nation for 300 years. Other sources of energy are being explored but we are not as close to achieving these alternatives as we are with nuclear power. Unfortunately there are potential risks of radiation from waste and leakages of the power stations. However, technology is developing rapidly and power stations will continue to increase safety. The UK should look to develop research to ensure we are at the forefront of these technological developments. We cannot ignore the drawbacks of nuclear energy, however for now it is the best option. Task 5: Self-Reflection of NSSD Process First, each person was asked to make a pledge of how the NSSD process had affected their decision making process and their understanding of energy issues. Pledge from Participant 1: By using this process I have been able to examine the opinions of others on this issue, something I often do not do in making a decision. It has therefore expanded my world view and made me appreciate that there are often many ways of looking at an issue. I have also enjoyed being part of a group and making a decision together. Pledge from Participant 2: 2: 3,2,4,1 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001876.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001876.soc index 9c058736..fa9d2674 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001876.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001876.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to be more aware of what skills are needed for jobs, and what skills are in demand. We need to be more aware of how to get these skills. To address this we need to invest in more apprenticeships. We need to make sure that there are enough apprenticeships in the right industries. The government needs to make sure that it is making apprenticeships available in the right industries. The government also needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to be more aware of what skills are needed for jobs, and what skills are in demand. We need to be more aware of how to get these skills. We need to invest in more apprenticeships. The government needs to make sure that it is making apprenticeships available in the right industries. The government also needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to be more aware of what skills are needed for jobs, and what skills are in demand. We need to be more aware of how to get these skills. We need to invest in more apprenticeships. We need to make sure that there are enough apprenticeships in the right industries. The government needs to make sure that it is making apprenticeships available in the right industries. The government also needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to make sure that there are enough apprenticeships in the right industries. The government needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to be more aware of what skills are needed for jobs, and what skills are in demand. We need to be more aware of how to get these skills. To address this we need to invest in more apprenticeships. We need to make sure that there are enough apprenticeships in the right industries. The government needs to make sure that it is making apprenticeships available in the right industries. The government also needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to be more aware of what skills are needed for jobs, and what skills are in demand. We need to be more aware of how to get these skills. We need to invest in more apprenticeships. The government needs to make sure that it is making apprenticeships available in the right industries. The government also needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to be more aware of what skills are needed for jobs, and what skills are in demand. We need to be more aware of how to get these skills. We need to invest in more apprenticeships. We need to make sure that there are enough apprenticeships in the right industries. The government needs to make sure that it is making apprenticeships available in the right industries. The government also needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is a growing skills gap in the UK. We need to make sure that there are enough apprenticeships in the right industries. The government needs to invest in more STEM subjects and make sure that these subjects are available in more schools. We need to make sure that we are investing in the right skills. Final 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001877.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001877.soc index aae711f1..7359f373 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001877.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001877.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary for a company's board of directors to have the same demographic make-up as the company's average workforce. We believe that it is more important to have people who are good at the job expected of them and will consider the views of any people of any demographic who work there. We also feel that it is important to have a wide range of views in a boardroom as this will help the company to be more effective in its decision making. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a range of races, from a mix of backgrounds. Not all the same gender i think it should reflect the companys workforce -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The effectiveness of a board is its ability to make sound and effective decisions. In order to achieve this, board members must work collaboratively to find the best way forward. A board with members of differing backgrounds, both in terms of demographics and in terms of their experience and expertise, will have a more well-rounded perspective when considering options and will therefore be more likely to reach a solution which is effective. In addition, it is important that a board of directors reflect the diversity of the company's workforce as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary for a company's board of directors to have the same demographic make-up as the company's average workforce. We believe that it is more important to have people who are good at the job expected of them and will consider the views of any people of any demographic who work there. We also feel that it is important to have a wide range of views in a boardroom as this will help the company to be more effective in its decision making. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a range of races, from a mix of backgrounds. Not all the same gender i think it should reflect the companys workforce +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The effectiveness of a board is its ability to make sound and effective decisions. In order to achieve this, board members must work collaboratively to find the best way forward. A board with members of differing backgrounds, both in terms of demographics and in terms of their experience and expertise, will have a more well-rounded perspective when considering options and will therefore be more likely to reach a solution which is effective. In addition, it is important that a board of directors reflect the diversity of the company's workforce as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 2: 3,1,2,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001878.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001878.soc index d6b3abd7..0fe11550 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001878.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001878.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should ban single-use plastic bottles. These plastic bottles are very harmful to the environment and take a long time to break down naturally. They often end up in the sea where they can harm sea creatures and can cause harm to land-based wildlife. Many people are now using reusable bottles and would be glad to see single-use plastic bottles banned as it would make it even easier to make sure no single-use plastic bottles are used. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Single-use plastic bottles are causing harm to the environment. We should ban them. This would have a very positive effect on the environment and would not have a negative effect on us as humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban single-use plastic bottles. We are recycling lots of things now so plastic bottles no longer lie in a tip for year's. Bottles have many recycable properties and we have to use these as in all packaging. The group felt that it was very important to make the distinction between single-use plastics and other plastics. The group felt that it was important to emphasise that single-use plastics were very harmful to the environment, and get into our seas and rivers killing sea creatures, as well as being littered and hurting wildlife on land. The group felt that it was important to point out that single-use plastics take many years to break up naturally. The group felt that it was important to point out that there were many other options available now such as reusable water bottles. The group felt that it was important to point out that people had greatly adapted their ways of buying drinks with most people taking their own reusable water bottle with the wherever they go. The group felt that it was important to point out that to get the rest of the population to follow we need to remove the option to buy them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we should ban single-use plastic bottles. They do a lot of harm to the environment and we should do all we can to stop it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should ban single-use plastic bottles. These plastic bottles are very harmful to the environment and take a long time to break down naturally. They often end up in the sea where they can harm sea creatures and can cause harm to land-based wildlife. Many people are now using reusable bottles and would be glad to see single-use plastic bottles banned as it would make it even easier to make sure no single-use plastic bottles are used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Single-use plastic bottles are causing harm to the environment. We should ban them. This would have a very positive effect on the environment and would not have a negative effect on us as humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban single-use plastic bottles. We are recycling lots of things now so plastic bottles no longer lie in a tip for year's. Bottles have many recycable properties and we have to use these as in all packaging. The group felt that it was very important to make the distinction between single-use plastics and other plastics. The group felt that it was important to emphasise that single-use plastics were very harmful to the environment, and get into our seas and rivers killing sea creatures, as well as being littered and hurting wildlife on land. The group felt that it was important to point out that single-use plastics take many years to break up naturally. The group felt that it was important to point out that there were many other options available now such as reusable water bottles. The group felt that it was important to point out that people had greatly adapted their ways of buying drinks with most people taking their own reusable water bottle with the wherever they go. The group felt that it was important to point out that to get the rest of the population to follow we need to remove the option to buy them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we should ban single-use plastic bottles. They do a lot of harm to the environment and we should do all we can to stop it. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001879.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001879.soc index 15abac11..13a6dc05 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001879.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001879.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we should change our economic system from capitalism to socialism because we feel that it will improve equality and happiness across society. A second group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The world is divided on whether to use capitalism or socialism as an economic system. We think that it is important that the poorest are not forced to be in poverty and that the richest are not allowed to grow rich through greed. The problem is, how do you achieve this without punishing the people who work hard and make the economy function? Is there a middle ground between socialism and capitalism? It is a complex problem that will take time to figure out. We hope that there will be a system that is both fair to all people and also motivates hard working people to continue doing their jobs and to inspire others to do well in their careers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a shift from capitalism to socialism. Capitalism leads to inequality, which is not only unfair but also leads to poorer health and wellbeing. Socialism would lead to a more equal society, which would be better for everyone. The change would not be easy, however, as it would require a change in the way that people think. It would also require a change in the way that the economy is run, which would be very difficult. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Capitalism is an economic system that benefits the rich and therefore we should change to socialism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we should change our economic system from capitalism to socialism because we feel that it will improve equality and happiness across society. A second group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The world is divided on whether to use capitalism or socialism as an economic system. We think that it is important that the poorest are not forced to be in poverty and that the richest are not allowed to grow rich through greed. The problem is, how do you achieve this without punishing the people who work hard and make the economy function? Is there a middle ground between socialism and capitalism? It is a complex problem that will take time to figure out. We hope that there will be a system that is both fair to all people and also motivates hard working people to continue doing their jobs and to inspire others to do well in their careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a shift from capitalism to socialism. Capitalism leads to inequality, which is not only unfair but also leads to poorer health and wellbeing. Socialism would lead to a more equal society, which would be better for everyone. The change would not be easy, however, as it would require a change in the way that people think. It would also require a change in the way that the economy is run, which would be very difficult. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Capitalism is an economic system that benefits the rich and therefore we should change to socialism. 3: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001880.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001880.soc index 3e434ed9..56851f97 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001880.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001880.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe that we should always encourage people to learn. Learning is for everyone and is the key to opening minds. However I do not believe that people should be put under pressure to get a degree and I also believe that a degree is not suitable for everyone. There are many benefits to gaining a degree such as improved job prospects, higher salary, meeting new people, gaining new skills and a greater knowledge. However there are also downsides to gaining a degree such as the large amount of debt which is put upon people, the university fees are extremely expensive and unfair, and the stress and hard work which comes with a degree. For many people the pros may outweigh the cons however for some the cons may outweigh the pros. I think this question is a personal choice and a decision which everyone should make for themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that learning is for everyone and is key to opening minds. However we do not believe that people should be put under pressure to get a degree and we also believe that a degree is not suitable for everyone. For many people the pros of getting a degree may outweigh the cons however for some the cons may outweigh the pros. We think this question is a personal choice and a decision which everyone should make for themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that learning is important for everyone, however, people should make their own choice about going to university. People can and should be encouraged to learn but not pushed into a very expensive degree which does not suit them. An excellent education from a young age could mean that the need for a degree is not so necessary in some peoples lives. Critical thinking, as an academic discipline, began in the nineteenth century as a response to the `war' between science and religion. There is an assumption that the `two cultures' of science and the humanities are fundamentally opposed. Are religion and science mutually exclusive? This group was tasked with finding a consensus answer. Here is their question, their individual opinions, their draft consensus statement, the critiques of their draft statement, and their final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe that we should always encourage people to learn. Learning is for everyone and is the key to opening minds. However I do not believe that people should be put under pressure to get a degree and I also believe that a degree is not suitable for everyone. There are many benefits to gaining a degree such as improved job prospects, higher salary, meeting new people, gaining new skills and a greater knowledge. However there are also downsides to gaining a degree such as the large amount of debt which is put upon people, the university fees are extremely expensive and unfair, and the stress and hard work which comes with a degree. For many people the pros may outweigh the cons however for some the cons may outweigh the pros. I think this question is a personal choice and a decision which everyone should make for themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe that we should always encourage people to learn. Learning is for everyone and is the key to opening minds. However I do not believe that people should be put under pressure to get a degree and I also believe that a degree is not suitable for everyone. There are many benefits to gaining a degree such as improved job prospects, higher salary, meeting new people, gaining new skills and a greater knowledge. However there are also downsides to gaining a degree such as the large amount of debt which is put upon people, the university fees are extremely expensive and unfair, and the stress and hard work which comes with a degree. For many people the pros may outweigh the cons however for some the cons may outweigh the pros. I think this question is a personal choice and a decision which everyone should make for themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that learning is for everyone and is key to opening minds. However we do not believe that people should be put under pressure to get a degree and we also believe that a degree is not suitable for everyone. For many people the pros of getting a degree may outweigh the cons however for some the cons may outweigh the pros. We think this question is a personal choice and a decision which everyone should make for themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that learning is important for everyone, however, people should make their own choice about going to university. People can and should be encouraged to learn but not pushed into a very expensive degree which does not suit them. An excellent education from a young age could mean that the need for a degree is not so necessary in some peoples lives. Critical thinking, as an academic discipline, began in the nineteenth century as a response to the `war' between science and religion. There is an assumption that the `two cultures' of science and the humanities are fundamentally opposed. Are religion and science mutually exclusive? This group was tasked with finding a consensus answer. Here is their question, their individual opinions, their draft consensus statement, the critiques of their draft statement, and their final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe that we should always encourage people to learn. Learning is for everyone and is the key to opening minds. However I do not believe that people should be put under pressure to get a degree and I also believe that a degree is not suitable for everyone. There are many benefits to gaining a degree such as improved job prospects, higher salary, meeting new people, gaining new skills and a greater knowledge. However there are also downsides to gaining a degree such as the large amount of debt which is put upon people, the university fees are extremely expensive and unfair, and the stress and hard work which comes with a degree. For many people the pros may outweigh the cons however for some the cons may outweigh the pros. I think this question is a personal choice and a decision which everyone should make for themselves. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001881.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001881.soc index 57520558..8ae2d031 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001881.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001881.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. However, some fossil fuels are a necessary part of modern society. We should also try to reduce our use of fossil fuels that produce the most pollution. But, as we have developed technology to use fossil fuels in a cleaner way, we should use this technology. Also, in places like China, where there is an increasing demand for fossil fuels, it is essential that we continue to use fossil fuels until we can find alternative sources of energy that are readily available and easy to use. But, we should also take into consideration that developing countries may need help. We also need to take responsibility for our past actions, which have caused damage to the earth. This means that we should not only reduce our use of fossil fuels, but also our consumption of any product which has been made by the use of fossil fuels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of reducing our use of fossil fuels, but recognised that this may not be the best course of action for developing countries who are still trying to develop their economies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. In the long run, green energy will also benefit us all financially as fossil fuels are currently causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty for most people and what they can afford. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. However, some fossil fuels are a necessary part of modern society. We should also try to reduce our use of fossil fuels that produce the most pollution. But, as we have developed technology to use fossil fuels in a cleaner way, we should use this technology. Also, in places like China, where there is an increasing demand for fossil fuels, it is essential that we continue to use fossil fuels until we can find alternative sources of energy that are readily available and easy to use. But, we should also take into consideration that developing countries may need help. We also need to take responsibility for our past actions, which have caused damage to the earth. This means that we should not only reduce our use of fossil fuels, but also our consumption of any product which has been made by the use of fossil fuels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing our use of fossil fuels, but recognised that this may not be the best course of action for developing countries who are still trying to develop their economies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. In the long run, green energy will also benefit us all financially as fossil fuels are currently causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty for most people and what they can afford. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help.” 3: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001882.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001882.soc index 2544555b..75fa697d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001882.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001882.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on all non-essential cosmetic surgery. The group felt that people should have the right to access surgery if they want it and feel it would benefit them in their lives. The group did not think that non-essential cosmetic surgery should be available on the NHS, as there is only limited budget available and so essential medical procedures should always take precedence. However, the group felt that if a person can afford to pay for it themselves and they're not harming anyone by doing it then they see no reason why it should be banned. The group felt that it can be regulated to make sure people aren't getting it done when they're too young, but they don't think it should be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, we do not think that all non-essential cosmetic surgery should be banned. Whilst there are negative health implications associated with some types of cosmetic surgery, there are also many examples where surgery can improve the lives of those who undergo it. For example, in the case of people with disabilities, non-essential cosmetic surgery may be considered essential, for example a cosmetic procedure may help a person to see or hear properly. In addition, for some people, non-essential cosmetic surgery may be beneficial to their mental health, for example breast augmentation surgery. We believe that people should be allowed to undergo non-essential cosmetic surgery if they are over 18 and have given their informed consent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of cosmetic surgery. However, it was felt that cosmetic surgery should not be available on the NHS, as there is only limited budget available and so essential medical procedures should always take precedence. The group felt that cosmetic surgery should not be available to those under the age of 18, as it can be damaging to a person's self-esteem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We do not think that all non-essential cosmetic surgery should be banned, but believe that it should be regulated, with surgeries being only available to those over the age of 18. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on all non-essential cosmetic surgery. The group felt that people should have the right to access surgery if they want it and feel it would benefit them in their lives. The group did not think that non-essential cosmetic surgery should be available on the NHS, as there is only limited budget available and so essential medical procedures should always take precedence. However, the group felt that if a person can afford to pay for it themselves and they're not harming anyone by doing it then they see no reason why it should be banned. The group felt that it can be regulated to make sure people aren't getting it done when they're too young, but they don't think it should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, we do not think that all non-essential cosmetic surgery should be banned. Whilst there are negative health implications associated with some types of cosmetic surgery, there are also many examples where surgery can improve the lives of those who undergo it. For example, in the case of people with disabilities, non-essential cosmetic surgery may be considered essential, for example a cosmetic procedure may help a person to see or hear properly. In addition, for some people, non-essential cosmetic surgery may be beneficial to their mental health, for example breast augmentation surgery. We believe that people should be allowed to undergo non-essential cosmetic surgery if they are over 18 and have given their informed consent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of cosmetic surgery. However, it was felt that cosmetic surgery should not be available on the NHS, as there is only limited budget available and so essential medical procedures should always take precedence. The group felt that cosmetic surgery should not be available to those under the age of 18, as it can be damaging to a person's self-esteem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We do not think that all non-essential cosmetic surgery should be banned, but believe that it should be regulated, with surgeries being only available to those over the age of 18. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001883.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001883.soc index 26fa4122..88e6dba3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001883.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001883.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should ban single-use plastic bottles. Plastic bottles have many recyclable properties, and we should use these as in all packaging. The group felt that it was very important to make the distinction between single-use plastics and other plastics. The group felt that it was important to emphasise that single-use plastics were very harmful to the environment, and get into our seas and rivers killing sea creatures, as well as being littered and hurting wildlife on land. The group felt that it was important to point out that single-use plastics take many years to break up naturally. The group felt that it was important to point out that there were many other options available now such as reusable water bottles. The group felt that it was important to point out that people had greatly adapted their ways of buying drinks with most people taking their own reusable water bottle with the wherever they go. The group felt that it was important to point out that to get the rest of the population to follow we need to remove the option to buy them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: Single-use plastics are a blight to our planet. Single-use plastics serve no purpose than to be a vessel for products which either need protection or to retain their 'freshness'; this could be achieved a multitude of different ways, such as encouraging our society to return to purchasing from local suppliers. By using single-use plastics our society does not think of the consequences of their actions, such as the plastic bottles that get littered around and harm wildlife, or get into the sea and kill sea-creatures. By using single-use plastics we are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million marine animals every year, and the death of a million seabirds. Single-use plastics take many years to break up naturally so they cause tremendous harm to the environment. Due to advances in recycling technology, we can now recycle most plastics and there are many ways to avoid the use of single-use plastics; recyclable plastic bottles, tins of water, cardboard cartons and reusable bottles are all readily available. Single-use plastics should be discouraged in society so we can protect the environment that we live on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should ban single-use plastic bottles, as these are not useful for the environment and take many years to break up naturally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Single-use plastics are a blight to our planet. They serve no purpose than to be a vessel for products which either need protection or to retain their 'freshness'; this could be achieved a multitude of different ways, such as encouraging our society to return to purchasing from local suppliers. Single-use plastics cause a great amount of harm to the environment, and get into our seas and rivers killing sea creatures, as well as being littered and hurting wildlife on land. With so many other options now available such as reusable water bottles the single use plastic bottle no longer has a use. People have greatly adapted their ways of buying drinks with most people taking their own reusable water bottle with the wherever they go. To get the rest of the population to follow we need to remove the option to buy them. Conclusion: The consensus group process clearly delivered a very well-developed opinion, taking into account all the different viewpoints. The final consensus opinion is much more developed than the initial draft, with further elaboration and supporting evidence. It is clear that the consensus group process delivered a very well-developed opinion, taking into account all the different viewpoints. The final consensus opinion is much more developed than the initial draft, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should ban single-use plastic bottles. Plastic bottles have many recyclable properties, and we should use these as in all packaging. The group felt that it was very important to make the distinction between single-use plastics and other plastics. The group felt that it was important to emphasise that single-use plastics were very harmful to the environment, and get into our seas and rivers killing sea creatures, as well as being littered and hurting wildlife on land. The group felt that it was important to point out that single-use plastics take many years to break up naturally. The group felt that it was important to point out that there were many other options available now such as reusable water bottles. The group felt that it was important to point out that people had greatly adapted their ways of buying drinks with most people taking their own reusable water bottle with the wherever they go. The group felt that it was important to point out that to get the rest of the population to follow we need to remove the option to buy them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: Single-use plastics are a blight to our planet. Single-use plastics serve no purpose than to be a vessel for products which either need protection or to retain their 'freshness'; this could be achieved a multitude of different ways, such as encouraging our society to return to purchasing from local suppliers. By using single-use plastics our society does not think of the consequences of their actions, such as the plastic bottles that get littered around and harm wildlife, or get into the sea and kill sea-creatures. By using single-use plastics we are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million marine animals every year, and the death of a million seabirds. Single-use plastics take many years to break up naturally so they cause tremendous harm to the environment. Due to advances in recycling technology, we can now recycle most plastics and there are many ways to avoid the use of single-use plastics; recyclable plastic bottles, tins of water, cardboard cartons and reusable bottles are all readily available. Single-use plastics should be discouraged in society so we can protect the environment that we live on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should ban single-use plastic bottles, as these are not useful for the environment and take many years to break up naturally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Single-use plastics are a blight to our planet. They serve no purpose than to be a vessel for products which either need protection or to retain their 'freshness'; this could be achieved a multitude of different ways, such as encouraging our society to return to purchasing from local suppliers. Single-use plastics cause a great amount of harm to the environment, and get into our seas and rivers killing sea creatures, as well as being littered and hurting wildlife on land. With so many other options now available such as reusable water bottles the single use plastic bottle no longer has a use. People have greatly adapted their ways of buying drinks with most people taking their own reusable water bottle with the wherever they go. To get the rest of the population to follow we need to remove the option to buy them. Conclusion: The consensus group process clearly delivered a very well-developed opinion, taking into account all the different viewpoints. The final consensus opinion is much more developed than the initial draft, with further elaboration and supporting evidence. It is clear that the consensus group process delivered a very well-developed opinion, taking into account all the different viewpoints. The final consensus opinion is much more developed than the initial draft, 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001884.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001884.soc index 77ad4118..4755dd8b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001884.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001884.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, I think we are all responsible for our own carbon footprints, if people want to drive their cars then they should be able to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to a total ban on cars in city centres. They felt that a total ban would be impractical and would have a detrimental effect on the local economy. They felt that a more practical approach would be to encourage the use of public transport, electric vehicles and cycling. They also felt that congestion charges should be increased to discourage the use of cars in city centres. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in agreement that a total ban of cars in city centres is not the solution to the problem. It was felt that banning cars completely is a radical and drastic step, and while there are merits to the argument, more could be done to reduce the amount of cars on the road without the need to totally ban cars. It was felt that the cost to people and businesses would be huge, and this would not be a benefit to anyone. The net zero issue was mentioned and it was felt that we should be focussing more on that and not just banning cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should ban cars from city centres. This is to reduce the amount of pollution in the air and to also reduce the amount of traffic on the roads. The government should also provide more cycle lanes for people to use and also provide more public transport for people to use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, I think we are all responsible for our own carbon footprints, if people want to drive their cars then they should be able to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to a total ban on cars in city centres. They felt that a total ban would be impractical and would have a detrimental effect on the local economy. They felt that a more practical approach would be to encourage the use of public transport, electric vehicles and cycling. They also felt that congestion charges should be increased to discourage the use of cars in city centres. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in agreement that a total ban of cars in city centres is not the solution to the problem. It was felt that banning cars completely is a radical and drastic step, and while there are merits to the argument, more could be done to reduce the amount of cars on the road without the need to totally ban cars. It was felt that the cost to people and businesses would be huge, and this would not be a benefit to anyone. The net zero issue was mentioned and it was felt that we should be focussing more on that and not just banning cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should ban cars from city centres. This is to reduce the amount of pollution in the air and to also reduce the amount of traffic on the roads. The government should also provide more cycle lanes for people to use and also provide more public transport for people to use. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001885.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001885.soc index 1170a0d3..2c17787f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001885.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001885.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The effectiveness of a board is its ability to make sound and effective decisions. In order to achieve this, board members must work collaboratively to find the best way forward. A board with members of differing backgrounds, both in terms of demographics and in terms of their experience and expertise, will have a more well-rounded perspective when considering options and will therefore be more likely to reach a solution which is effective. In addition, it is important that a board of directors reflect the diversity of the company's workforce as a whole to show that it is inclusive of the range of values, preferences and opinions of the entire workforce and that the needs of all the individuals within the workforce are considered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that having a diversity of demographics amongst a board of directors is important for the effective governance of a company. While it can help to have people who are similar to each other in board meetings, they must be able to consider views and concerns from all parties involved in the issue at hand and it is only in having a boardroom of diversity that this can be done. It is also important for people to be able to see others on the board as role models and feel as though their company values their contributions. A board which reflects the demographic make-up of the company's average workforce will encourage this. Exercise 2: A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A board of directors which is diverse in terms of the backgrounds and experience of its members will be more effective than a board which is comprised of individuals who are all the same. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A company's board of directors is responsible for ensuring the effective governance of the company and therefore for formulating policies to guide the direction of the company and its employees. In order to do so, board members must work collaboratively to find the best way forward. A board with members of differing backgrounds, both in terms of demographics and in terms of their experience and expertise, will have a more well-rounded perspective when considering options and will therefore be more likely to reach a solution which is effective. In addition, it is important that a board of directors reflect the diversity of the company's workforce as a whole. This will ensure that the board is aware of the needs of the company as a whole and will be better able to consider the needs of all stakeholders when making decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The effectiveness of a board is its ability to make sound and effective decisions. In order to achieve this, board members must work collaboratively to find the best way forward. A board with members of differing backgrounds, both in terms of demographics and in terms of their experience and expertise, will have a more well-rounded perspective when considering options and will therefore be more likely to reach a solution which is effective. In addition, it is important that a board of directors reflect the diversity of the company's workforce as a whole to show that it is inclusive of the range of values, preferences and opinions of the entire workforce and that the needs of all the individuals within the workforce are considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that having a diversity of demographics amongst a board of directors is important for the effective governance of a company. While it can help to have people who are similar to each other in board meetings, they must be able to consider views and concerns from all parties involved in the issue at hand and it is only in having a boardroom of diversity that this can be done. It is also important for people to be able to see others on the board as role models and feel as though their company values their contributions. A board which reflects the demographic make-up of the company's average workforce will encourage this. Exercise 2: A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A board of directors which is diverse in terms of the backgrounds and experience of its members will be more effective than a board which is comprised of individuals who are all the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A company's board of directors is responsible for ensuring the effective governance of the company and therefore for formulating policies to guide the direction of the company and its employees. In order to do so, board members must work collaboratively to find the best way forward. A board with members of differing backgrounds, both in terms of demographics and in terms of their experience and expertise, will have a more well-rounded perspective when considering options and will therefore be more likely to reach a solution which is effective. In addition, it is important that a board of directors reflect the diversity of the company's workforce as a whole. This will ensure that the board is aware of the needs of the company as a whole and will be better able to consider the needs of all stakeholders when making decisions. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001886.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001886.soc index 0be62977..88ff4297 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001886.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001886.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is acceptable to use a person's DNA to identify them as a criminal if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are involved. However, DNA should not be used as the sole source of evidence. It should be used alongside other evidence that the person is a criminal, such as witness statements, CCTV footage, clothing or personal items and mobile phone data. This would ensure that it is impossible to misidentify someone using DNA evidence alone. If DNA is used to identify a criminal, it must be treated with respect and sensitivity, and only be used by the appropriate authorities. This means that the public should not be allowed to misuse DNA and incorrectly identify someone as a criminal. It is important to use the right amount of DNA to identify someone, as if too much DNA is taken, there is a chance that someone will be falsely identified as a criminal, and if not enough DNA is used, the chance of misidentification increases. DNA should only be used by appropriate authorities in the context of solving a crime. If a criminal is found guilty of a crime, and DNA is used as evidence, the criminal should not have their DNA stored on a database, unless they commit a crime in the future." This -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. However, it is important to treat a person sensitively and with respect, following the criminal justice procedure. The use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal should be considered alongside other evidence when solving a crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, yes, it is acceptable to use a person's DNA to identify them as a criminal. The use of DNA to identify criminals is an effective method of solving crimes, and in some cases, it is the only way to identify the perpetrator. However, there is always the chance of human error and it is important to treat a person sensitively and with respect, following the criminal justice procedure. The use of DNA should be considered alongside other evidence when solving a crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is acceptable to use a person's DNA to identify them as a criminal if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are involved. However, DNA should not be used as the sole source of evidence. It should be used alongside other evidence that the person is a criminal, such as witness statements, CCTV footage, clothing or personal items and mobile phone data. This would ensure that it is impossible to misidentify someone using DNA evidence alone. If DNA is used to identify a criminal, it must be treated with respect and sensitivity, and only be used by the appropriate authorities. This means that the public should not be allowed to misuse DNA and incorrectly identify someone as a criminal. It is important to use the right amount of DNA to identify someone, as if too much DNA is taken, there is a chance that someone will be falsely identified as a criminal, and if not enough DNA is used, the chance of misidentification increases. DNA should only be used by appropriate authorities in the context of solving a crime. If a criminal is found guilty of a crime, and DNA is used as evidence, the criminal should not have their DNA stored on a database, unless they commit a crime in the future." This +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal is acceptable. However, it is important to treat a person sensitively and with respect, following the criminal justice procedure. The use of DNA to identify a person as a criminal should be considered alongside other evidence when solving a crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, yes, it is acceptable to use a person's DNA to identify them as a criminal. The use of DNA to identify criminals is an effective method of solving crimes, and in some cases, it is the only way to identify the perpetrator. However, there is always the chance of human error and it is important to treat a person sensitively and with respect, following the criminal justice procedure. The use of DNA should be considered alongside other evidence when solving a crime. 4: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001887.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001887.soc index f9595572..a22fdf0e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001887.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001887.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. This is because it is important to give the public their rights to vote and to choose a leader and make changes where necessary. The UK election every 5 years gives the opportunity to reelect and choose a new PM. It is also to rid the opportunity of a bad PM. Like America an introduction to a two term serving would be a great example. Not only is the job of PM extremely stressful to have the same views and opinions and movements indefinitely is not progressive. It is also important to keep the system pumping in fresh, new ideas and to usher in younger generations who take onboard the old opinions and ways but bring forth fresh approaches to the government. If someone were to hold onto power for so long, it generally corrupts them and old, corruptive ways fester for a long time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. This is to allow for fresh ideas and new approaches to be brought into government. The group was in favour of a two term limit as in the USA. This would allow a prime minister to serve two consecutive terms but would not allow them to serve a third consecutive term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, there should not be a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. If the people want to elect the prime minister again then that's their choice. The idea of a two term limit is a bit ridiculous. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes. We think that there should be a limit to the number of consecutive terms a Prime Minister can serve. This is because if a Prime Minister holds the position for a long period of time, they may start to become too relaxed and may stop doing their job as well as they should be. Also, in America, the President can only serve two terms and we think this is a good idea as it means that new, fresh ideas and people can come into power. Also, this means that there is a good turnover of people in the government which allows the public to feel like they are being listened to and represented by a variety of people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. This is because it is important to give the public their rights to vote and to choose a leader and make changes where necessary. The UK election every 5 years gives the opportunity to reelect and choose a new PM. It is also to rid the opportunity of a bad PM. Like America an introduction to a two term serving would be a great example. Not only is the job of PM extremely stressful to have the same views and opinions and movements indefinitely is not progressive. It is also important to keep the system pumping in fresh, new ideas and to usher in younger generations who take onboard the old opinions and ways but bring forth fresh approaches to the government. If someone were to hold onto power for so long, it generally corrupts them and old, corruptive ways fester for a long time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. This is to allow for fresh ideas and new approaches to be brought into government. The group was in favour of a two term limit as in the USA. This would allow a prime minister to serve two consecutive terms but would not allow them to serve a third consecutive term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, there should not be a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. If the people want to elect the prime minister again then that's their choice. The idea of a two term limit is a bit ridiculous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes. We think that there should be a limit to the number of consecutive terms a Prime Minister can serve. This is because if a Prime Minister holds the position for a long period of time, they may start to become too relaxed and may stop doing their job as well as they should be. Also, in America, the President can only serve two terms and we think this is a good idea as it means that new, fresh ideas and people can come into power. Also, this means that there is a good turnover of people in the government which allows the public to feel like they are being listened to and represented by a variety of people. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001888.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001888.soc index 19fee298..f9b86fe8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001888.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001888.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are merits to the argument to ban cars in city centres. More could be done to reduce the amount of cars on the road without the need to totally ban cars. The economic consequences of an outright ban outway the green issue and net zero. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: The group were in agreement that a total ban of cars in city centres is not the solution to the problem. It was felt that banning cars completely is a drastic and radical step, and while there are merits to the argument, more could be done to reduce the amount of cars on the road without the need to totally ban cars. It was felt that the cost to people and businesses would be huge, and this would not be a benefit to anyone. The net zero issue was mentioned and it was felt that we should be focussing more on that and not just banning cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't feel that it's a good idea to ban all cars from the city centre, there's no need. We feel that more efforts should be made to reduce the amount of cars. Further consideration of net zero was needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were in agreement that a total ban of cars in city centres is not the solution to the problem. While the environmental and congestion issues are important, it was felt that banning cars completely is a drastic step, and while there are merits to the argument, more could be done to reduce the amount of cars on the road without the need to totally ban cars. It was felt that the cost to people and businesses would be huge, and this would not be a benefit to anyone. The group also felt that the idea of net zero is a good one, but that we should not be focussing on banning cars and that the idea of net zero is a bigger problem than cars in city centres. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are merits to the argument to ban cars in city centres. More could be done to reduce the amount of cars on the road without the need to totally ban cars. The economic consequences of an outright ban outway the green issue and net zero. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: The group were in agreement that a total ban of cars in city centres is not the solution to the problem. It was felt that banning cars completely is a drastic and radical step, and while there are merits to the argument, more could be done to reduce the amount of cars on the road without the need to totally ban cars. It was felt that the cost to people and businesses would be huge, and this would not be a benefit to anyone. The net zero issue was mentioned and it was felt that we should be focussing more on that and not just banning cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't feel that it's a good idea to ban all cars from the city centre, there's no need. We feel that more efforts should be made to reduce the amount of cars. Further consideration of net zero was needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were in agreement that a total ban of cars in city centres is not the solution to the problem. While the environmental and congestion issues are important, it was felt that banning cars completely is a drastic step, and while there are merits to the argument, more could be done to reduce the amount of cars on the road without the need to totally ban cars. It was felt that the cost to people and businesses would be huge, and this would not be a benefit to anyone. The group also felt that the idea of net zero is a good one, but that we should not be focussing on banning cars and that the idea of net zero is a bigger problem than cars in city centres. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001889.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001889.soc index 4de32baa..15e2324c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001889.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001889.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that companies with 250 or more employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. We think that it should be transparent and not shrouded in secrecy. The pay gap issue is one that has gone on for too long and has a negative effect on our society. We believe it is essential for companies to have gender equality in the workplace and that this should be shown in their pay structure. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, gender pay gap is not acceptable. Transparent disclosure of gender pay gaps would promote accountability and allow companies to address pay disparities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is a problem that has gone on for far too long. It is inconceivable that some people are paid less than others for the equivalent work. There should be no distinction. Wages should be transparent and a white male should not be earning more than anyone else because of historic opinions. An organisation of 250 is large enough for information to be relevant and applicable. We need to move towards zero pay gap and people should know that they are being paid the same as someone else - it is not a subject that should be shrouded in secrecy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that companies with 250 or more employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. We think that it should be transparent and not shrouded in secrecy. The pay gap issue is one that has gone on for too long and has a negative effect on our society. We believe it is essential for companies to have gender equality in the workplace and that this should be shown in their pay structure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, gender pay gap is not acceptable. Transparent disclosure of gender pay gaps would promote accountability and allow companies to address pay disparities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is a problem that has gone on for far too long. It is inconceivable that some people are paid less than others for the equivalent work. There should be no distinction. Wages should be transparent and a white male should not be earning more than anyone else because of historic opinions. An organisation of 250 is large enough for information to be relevant and applicable. We need to move towards zero pay gap and people should know that they are being paid the same as someone else - it is not a subject that should be shrouded in secrecy. 4: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001890.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001890.soc index ec75f526..ad5fca9e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001890.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001890.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is a problem that has gone on for far too long. It is inconceivable that some people are paid less than others for the equivalent work. There should be no distinction. Wages should be transparent and a white male should not be earning more than anyone else because of historic opinions. An organisation of 250 is large enough for information to be relevant and applicable. We need to move towards zero pay gap and people should know that they are being paid the same as someone else - it is not a subject that should be shrouded in secrecy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. This is because it is only by making the data public that these companies can be held to account. Only by doing this can we uncover the disparities and work for equality and change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is a problem that has gone on for far too long and continues to damage society as a whole and business in particular. It is unconceivable that some people are paid less than others for the equivalent work. There should be no distinction. Wages should be transparent and a white male should not be earning more than anyone else because of historic opinions. An organisation of 250 is large enough for information to be relevant and applicable. We need to move towards zero pay gap and people should know that they are being paid the same as someone else - it is not a subject that should be shrouded in secrecy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is a problem that has gone on for far too long. It is inconceivable that some people are paid less than others for the equivalent work. There should be no distinction. Wages should be transparent and a white male should not be earning more than anyone else because of historic opinions. An organisation of 250 is large enough for information to be relevant and applicable. We need to move towards zero pay gap and people should know that they are being paid the same as someone else - it is not a subject that should be shrouded in secrecy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. This is because it is only by making the data public that these companies can be held to account. Only by doing this can we uncover the disparities and work for equality and change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is a problem that has gone on for far too long and continues to damage society as a whole and business in particular. It is unconceivable that some people are paid less than others for the equivalent work. There should be no distinction. Wages should be transparent and a white male should not be earning more than anyone else because of historic opinions. An organisation of 250 is large enough for information to be relevant and applicable. We need to move towards zero pay gap and people should know that they are being paid the same as someone else - it is not a subject that should be shrouded in secrecy. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001891.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001891.soc index e1248df6..5e501988 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001891.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001891.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While the legalisation of public nudity is controversial, there are strong arguments both for and against. Our group believes that women should be allowed to go topless on the street. In our opinion, there is no significant difference between a man being topless and a woman being topless. A man's body is not sexualised in the same way that a woman's body is. Men are not subjected to the same restrictions as women. If women were allowed to go topless on the street, this would help to normalise women's bodies and end the sexualisation of women's bodies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to go topless on the street. This is a freedom that we should be allowed to have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be allowed to go topless on the street. If people are comfortable with their bodies, then they should be allowed to go topless. It is natural to be nude and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not a problem for men to be topless, so why should it be for women? There is nothing wrong with breasts, they are a natural part of the body. The only reason why women are not allowed to be topless is because of societies opinions. However, if women are comfortable with their bodies, then they should be allowed to be topless. It is a personal choice and should be respected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While the legalisation of public nudity is controversial, there are strong arguments both for and against. Our group believes that women should be allowed to go topless on the street. In our opinion, there is no significant difference between a man being topless and a woman being topless. A man's body is not sexualised in the same way that a woman's body is. Men are not subjected to the same restrictions as women. If women were allowed to go topless on the street, this would help to normalise women's bodies and end the sexualisation of women's bodies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to go topless on the street. This is a freedom that we should be allowed to have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be allowed to go topless on the street. If people are comfortable with their bodies, then they should be allowed to go topless. It is natural to be nude and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not a problem for men to be topless, so why should it be for women? There is nothing wrong with breasts, they are a natural part of the body. The only reason why women are not allowed to be topless is because of societies opinions. However, if women are comfortable with their bodies, then they should be allowed to be topless. It is a personal choice and should be respected. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001892.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001892.soc index 3d7ae297..c0bf4345 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001892.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001892.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. In the long run, green energy will also benefit us all financially as fossil fuels are currently causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty for most people and what they can afford. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help. Fossil fuels are also incredibly bad for the environment and are causing a huge amount of damage to the planet. We need to move to green energy sources and do this quickly. We all need to work together to move to green energy, both in developed and developing countries and both the government and energy companies need to work together to help this happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. In the long run, green energy will also benefit us all financially as fossil fuels are currently causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty for most people and what they can afford. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help. It will take time and money to invest in other sources, such as wind farms and harvesting energy from the sea. It is definitely the way forward though, and there should be large financial incentives to those companies who wish to develop greener energy, whilst still supporting countries who must, for the time being, rely on fossil fuels.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help.” Discussion: This activity took much longer than expected. The group of participants found it difficult to choose only the most important information to be put in a consensus statement and they found that critiquing each other's work was also a time consuming task. They also found that reaching a consensus was actually more difficult than they had first anticipated. This is because the participants had to put aside some of their own opinions in order to reach a consensus that was agreeable to all. Reported by David Houston -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. In the long run, green energy will also benefit us all financially as fossil fuels are currently causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty for most people and what they can afford. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help.” The advantage of this final consensus statement is that all of the participants contributed to it, none of them were forced to agree with it, and all of them fully support the final result. It also gives a flavour of all of the views held, so if it is used by an external agency, then the agency will be aware that some people may have concerns about reducing the use of fossil fuels, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. In the long run, green energy will also benefit us all financially as fossil fuels are currently causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty for most people and what they can afford. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help. Fossil fuels are also incredibly bad for the environment and are causing a huge amount of damage to the planet. We need to move to green energy sources and do this quickly. We all need to work together to move to green energy, both in developed and developing countries and both the government and energy companies need to work together to help this happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. In the long run, green energy will also benefit us all financially as fossil fuels are currently causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty for most people and what they can afford. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help. It will take time and money to invest in other sources, such as wind farms and harvesting energy from the sea. It is definitely the way forward though, and there should be large financial incentives to those companies who wish to develop greener energy, whilst still supporting countries who must, for the time being, rely on fossil fuels.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help.” Discussion: This activity took much longer than expected. The group of participants found it difficult to choose only the most important information to be put in a consensus statement and they found that critiquing each other's work was also a time consuming task. They also found that reaching a consensus was actually more difficult than they had first anticipated. This is because the participants had to put aside some of their own opinions in order to reach a consensus that was agreeable to all. Reported by David Houston +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we would all be better off if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and so we will run out one day. Fossil fuels are also bad for us and our environment and we must do all we can to move towards more green energy. In the long run, green energy will also benefit us all financially as fossil fuels are currently causing a great deal of stress and uncertainty for most people and what they can afford. We must also respect that developing countries may need help. In Victorian Britain, our use of fossil fuels helped the Industrial revolution, and we were totally ignorant of the impact on our planet. Now we know the damage it causes, but we cannot expect poorer countries, who may have access to cheap fossil fuel, to just change without help.” The advantage of this final consensus statement is that all of the participants contributed to it, none of them were forced to agree with it, and all of them fully support the final result. It also gives a flavour of all of the views held, so if it is used by an external agency, then the agency will be aware that some people may have concerns about reducing the use of fossil fuels, 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001893.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001893.soc index cc2a6b5b..0a5c03ab 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001893.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001893.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should re-join the EU so that we can take advantage of the trade benefits, including better prices on products and services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The United Kingdom is in a very difficult situation and does not appear to have a clear strategy or solution to how to deal with this situation. Brexit was a decision made by the previous UK Government with an aim of cutting ties with the European Union. However, in the time since Brexit has been pursued, it has become clear that there are many downsides to the decision to leave the European Union. While we have to respect the referendum and the results of the vote, we feel that the country was not given all the information that it needed to make an informed decision. We feel that the Government should re-assess its options and allow a second referendum to take place, so that the people can have another say on whether the UK should pursue membership of the European Union. We feel that a second referendum should be done as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the country.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should not pursue membership of the European Union. We are better off making our own decisions. The European Union is a waste of money and the UK is better off without it. The decision to leave was the right one and should be respected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should absolutely pursue membership of the European Union. The Brexit imposed on us by the UK Government has been an unmitigated disaster and we must get back to the way we were. Boris Johnson lied to the electorate about the NHS. The UK economy is failing and growth and living standards are falling way behind other countries. Scotland did not vote for Brexit yet we have to feel the effect of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should re-join the EU so that we can take advantage of the trade benefits, including better prices on products and services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The United Kingdom is in a very difficult situation and does not appear to have a clear strategy or solution to how to deal with this situation. Brexit was a decision made by the previous UK Government with an aim of cutting ties with the European Union. However, in the time since Brexit has been pursued, it has become clear that there are many downsides to the decision to leave the European Union. While we have to respect the referendum and the results of the vote, we feel that the country was not given all the information that it needed to make an informed decision. We feel that the Government should re-assess its options and allow a second referendum to take place, so that the people can have another say on whether the UK should pursue membership of the European Union. We feel that a second referendum should be done as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the country.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should not pursue membership of the European Union. We are better off making our own decisions. The European Union is a waste of money and the UK is better off without it. The decision to leave was the right one and should be respected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should absolutely pursue membership of the European Union. The Brexit imposed on us by the UK Government has been an unmitigated disaster and we must get back to the way we were. Boris Johnson lied to the electorate about the NHS. The UK economy is failing and growth and living standards are falling way behind other countries. Scotland did not vote for Brexit yet we have to feel the effect of it. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001894.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001894.soc index 93196245..8a38e789 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001894.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001894.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2. Even though disarming after a war is beneficial in some ways, we still need weapons to defend ourselves and to help protect other countries that cannot defend themselves. Also weapons are essential to international politics and how other countries view the UK and if the UK is viewed as powerful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should not have disarmed after WW2. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2 as each country has the right to protect itself. However, in the current political climate, the UK should not have developed its own nuclear arsenal as this is a threat to other countries. Instead, the UK should have worked together with other countries to ensure that all countries have the right to defend themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, each country should have the right to defend itself. However, in the current situation, countries should not have weapons that are only meant to threaten other countries. The UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2. Even though disarming after a war is beneficial in some ways, we still need weapons to defend ourselves and to help protect other countries that cannot defend themselves. Also weapons are essential to international politics and how other countries view the UK and if the UK is viewed as powerful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should not have disarmed after WW2. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2 as each country has the right to protect itself. However, in the current political climate, the UK should not have developed its own nuclear arsenal as this is a threat to other countries. Instead, the UK should have worked together with other countries to ensure that all countries have the right to defend themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, each country should have the right to defend itself. However, in the current situation, countries should not have weapons that are only meant to threaten other countries. The UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001895.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001895.soc index bead7391..a557ccd7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001895.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001895.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Offering more financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas could be a viable strategy to address certain economic challenges and promote balanced regional development. The benefits would include; population re-distribution, boosting local economies, access to local talent (workers), community sustainability and keeping traditions going. It is believed, however, that there is a need to look at how we can incentivise young people to live and work in rural areas, while also balancing the need to protect the environment. For example, more opportunities for young people in terms of affordable housing would help encourage young people to live in rural areas, but this would require land to be set aside for development, which could be a risk to green space. Similarly, improving public transport links to rural areas would help encourage young people to live and work in rural areas, but the environmental cost of that would have to be considered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should offer more financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. This will ensure that rural areas will not become ghost towns and also promote balanced regional development. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not offer financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of offering more financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. The group believed that this would be a viable strategy to address certain economic challenges and promote balanced regional development. The benefits would include; population re-distribution, boosting local economies, access to local talent (workers), community sustainability and keeping traditions going. However, the group was also of the opinion that this would only work if the right infrastructure was in place to support it. This included; good public transport links, broadband access, access to amenities, etc. The group also believed that it was important to make sure that the incentives were not exploited in some way and that the land was not sold off for housing developments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Offering more financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas could be a viable strategy to address certain economic challenges and promote balanced regional development. The benefits would include; population re-distribution, boosting local economies, access to local talent (workers), community sustainability and keeping traditions going. It is believed, however, that there is a need to look at how we can incentivise young people to live and work in rural areas, while also balancing the need to protect the environment. For example, more opportunities for young people in terms of affordable housing would help encourage young people to live in rural areas, but this would require land to be set aside for development, which could be a risk to green space. Similarly, improving public transport links to rural areas would help encourage young people to live and work in rural areas, but the environmental cost of that would have to be considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should offer more financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. This will ensure that rural areas will not become ghost towns and also promote balanced regional development. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not offer financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of offering more financial incentives to young people to live and work in rural areas. The group believed that this would be a viable strategy to address certain economic challenges and promote balanced regional development. The benefits would include; population re-distribution, boosting local economies, access to local talent (workers), community sustainability and keeping traditions going. However, the group was also of the opinion that this would only work if the right infrastructure was in place to support it. This included; good public transport links, broadband access, access to amenities, etc. The group also believed that it was important to make sure that the incentives were not exploited in some way and that the land was not sold off for housing developments. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001896.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001896.soc index 1e4bd01e..9b421a57 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001896.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001896.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The United Kingdom is in a very difficult situation and does not appear to have a clear strategy or solution to how to deal with this situation. Brexit was a decision made by the previous UK Government with an aim of cutting ties with the European Union. However, in the time since Brexit has been pursued, it has become clear that there are many downsides to the decision to leave the European Union. While we have to respect the referendum and the results of the vote, we feel that the country was not given all the information that it needed to make an informed decision. We feel that the Government should re-assess its options and allow a second referendum to take place, so that the people can have another say on whether the UK should pursue membership of the European Union. We feel that a second referendum should be done as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the country. We would also suggest that, to prevent the same mistake being made again, the people are given the proper information on what they are voting for, and the benefits and downfalls of each option. This would allow for an informed decision to be made and would prevent any mistakes from being made again. We feel that, if the people are given the proper information, the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The United Kingdom is in a very difficult situation and does not appear to have a clear strategy or solution to how to deal with this situation. Brexit was a decision made by the previous UK Government with an aim of cutting ties with the European Union. However, in the time since Brexit has been pursued, it has become clear that there are many downsides to the decision to leave the European Union. While we have to respect the referendum and the results of the vote, we feel that the country was not given all the information that it needed to make an informed decision. We feel that the Government should re-assess its options and allow a second referendum to take place, so that the people can have another say on whether the UK should pursue membership of the European Union. We feel that a second referendum should be done as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the country.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement (please critique if you so wish): -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The United Kingdom is in a very difficult situation and does not appear to have a clear strategy or solution to how to deal with this situation. Brexit was a decision made by the previous UK Government with an aim of cutting ties with the European Union. However, in the time since Brexit has been pursued, it has become clear that there are many downsides to the decision to leave the European Union. While we have to respect the referendum and the results of the vote, we feel that the country was not given all the information that it needed to make an informed decision. We feel that the Government should re-assess its options and allow a second referendum to take place, so that the people can have another say on whether the UK should pursue membership of the European Union. We feel that a second referendum should be done as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the country. We believe that this is necessary because since the Brexit decision was made, the economy has suffered greatly, with a high chance of the UK entering into a recession. The UK was also not prepared for Brexit, with the Government not being able to secure any deals with the EU, and also not being able to come to an agreement on the Irish border. The people have +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The United Kingdom is in a very difficult situation and does not appear to have a clear strategy or solution to how to deal with this situation. Brexit was a decision made by the previous UK Government with an aim of cutting ties with the European Union. However, in the time since Brexit has been pursued, it has become clear that there are many downsides to the decision to leave the European Union. While we have to respect the referendum and the results of the vote, we feel that the country was not given all the information that it needed to make an informed decision. We feel that the Government should re-assess its options and allow a second referendum to take place, so that the people can have another say on whether the UK should pursue membership of the European Union. We feel that a second referendum should be done as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the country. We would also suggest that, to prevent the same mistake being made again, the people are given the proper information on what they are voting for, and the benefits and downfalls of each option. This would allow for an informed decision to be made and would prevent any mistakes from being made again. We feel that, if the people are given the proper information, the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The United Kingdom is in a very difficult situation and does not appear to have a clear strategy or solution to how to deal with this situation. Brexit was a decision made by the previous UK Government with an aim of cutting ties with the European Union. However, in the time since Brexit has been pursued, it has become clear that there are many downsides to the decision to leave the European Union. While we have to respect the referendum and the results of the vote, we feel that the country was not given all the information that it needed to make an informed decision. We feel that the Government should re-assess its options and allow a second referendum to take place, so that the people can have another say on whether the UK should pursue membership of the European Union. We feel that a second referendum should be done as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the country.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement (please critique if you so wish): +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The United Kingdom is in a very difficult situation and does not appear to have a clear strategy or solution to how to deal with this situation. Brexit was a decision made by the previous UK Government with an aim of cutting ties with the European Union. However, in the time since Brexit has been pursued, it has become clear that there are many downsides to the decision to leave the European Union. While we have to respect the referendum and the results of the vote, we feel that the country was not given all the information that it needed to make an informed decision. We feel that the Government should re-assess its options and allow a second referendum to take place, so that the people can have another say on whether the UK should pursue membership of the European Union. We feel that a second referendum should be done as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the country. We believe that this is necessary because since the Brexit decision was made, the economy has suffered greatly, with a high chance of the UK entering into a recession. The UK was also not prepared for Brexit, with the Government not being able to secure any deals with the EU, and also not being able to come to an agreement on the Irish border. The people have 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001897.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001897.soc index aaa045f3..e5dde975 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001897.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001897.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Parents should not generally have the right to know the religion of their teachers. Teachers have a right to privacy and as long as the children are being taught the curriculum in a suitable way, it is no one else's business what the religion of the teacher is. The only caveat is if there seemed to be some of the teachers religious beliefs creeping into the lessons and the teaching. This could be a subtle way to try to influence the pupils' views and this is wholly unacceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, parents should not have the right to know the religion of their child's teachers. Religion is a private and personal choice and should not influence the quality or effectiveness of a person's teaching. The only caveat is if there seemed to be some of the teachers religious beliefs creeping into the lessons and the teaching. This could be a subtle way to try to influence the pupils' views and this is wholly unacceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, parents should not have the right to know the religion of their child's teachers. This is a private matter for the teacher and it should not influence their teaching. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Parents should not generally have the right to know the religion of their teachers. Teachers have a right to privacy and as long as the children are being taught the curriculum in a suitable way, it is no one else's business what the religion of the teacher is. The only caveat is if there seemed to be some of the teachers religious beliefs creeping into the lessons and the teaching. This could be a subtle way to try to influence the pupils' views and this is wholly unacceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, parents should not have the right to know the religion of their child's teachers. Religion is a private and personal choice and should not influence the quality or effectiveness of a person's teaching. The only caveat is if there seemed to be some of the teachers religious beliefs creeping into the lessons and the teaching. This could be a subtle way to try to influence the pupils' views and this is wholly unacceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, parents should not have the right to know the religion of their child's teachers. This is a private matter for the teacher and it should not influence their teaching. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001898.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001898.soc index d61619c1..d4285c6e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001898.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001898.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should try to reduce the reliance of new internal combustion engines, and to reduce the emission of gases from these engines. This can be achieved by making electric vehicles more affordable and more accessible for ordinary people. We should also try to make it easier for used engines to be reused, repurposed and recycled to reduce the number of engines that end up in landfill. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We think that this is not a feasible option currently. Yes in developed countries it might be more workable to replace internal combustion engines with more environmentally friendly alternatives, but the technology for those alternatives might not be so widespread or cost effective in some developing parts of the world, making a blanket ban less workable on a larger scale. We think a better policy would be to have targets to reduce reliance of internal combustion engines and gradually bring the overall numbers down in the coming years as the replacement technology improves and becomes cheaper for mass adoption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should end the sale of all new internal combustion engines as it is too harmful for the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the sale of all new internal combustion engines should not be ended. We believe that internal combustion engines are still very much needed in the world today. They are needed to power machines that are essential for the world to function. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should try to reduce the reliance of new internal combustion engines, and to reduce the emission of gases from these engines. This can be achieved by making electric vehicles more affordable and more accessible for ordinary people. We should also try to make it easier for used engines to be reused, repurposed and recycled to reduce the number of engines that end up in landfill. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We think that this is not a feasible option currently. Yes in developed countries it might be more workable to replace internal combustion engines with more environmentally friendly alternatives, but the technology for those alternatives might not be so widespread or cost effective in some developing parts of the world, making a blanket ban less workable on a larger scale. We think a better policy would be to have targets to reduce reliance of internal combustion engines and gradually bring the overall numbers down in the coming years as the replacement technology improves and becomes cheaper for mass adoption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should end the sale of all new internal combustion engines as it is too harmful for the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the sale of all new internal combustion engines should not be ended. We believe that internal combustion engines are still very much needed in the world today. They are needed to power machines that are essential for the world to function. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001899.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001899.soc index 3839f508..8ee2b872 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001899.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001899.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of Doctors being allowed to prescribe cannabis for medicinal purposes. The group felt that there are some cases where it can provide relief to some people with some conditions and should be an option. The group also felt that Doctors need to be allowed to make this judgement for themselves and should not be hindered by the law if they feel it would benefit the patient. The group did discuss that there should be strict controls around the prescribing of cannabis and that patients should be monitored closely and that doctors should be restricted to only prescribing in certain situations. The group felt that there should be other options available before cannabis is prescribed, but that it should be an option. The group felt that doctors would be the best people to be allowed to make this decision and that it should be their professional judgement as to whether cannabis would be beneficial to their patient. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of doctors being allowed to prescribe cannabis for medicinal purposes. It was felt that cannabis could be of great benefit to people suffering from a variety of conditions, particularly those who have not responded to other treatments. It was also felt that cannabis could be of great benefit to people suffering from mental health problems. However, it was also felt that cannabis could be very dangerous if misused, and that it could lead to addiction. It was also felt that there should be very strict guidelines in place to ensure that cannabis is only prescribed in the right circumstances and that it is not open to abuse. It was felt that cannabis should only be prescribed as a last resort, when all other treatments have failed. It was also felt that cannabis should only be prescribed by a specialist doctor, and that the patient should be closely monitored to ensure that they are using it properly and that it is having the desired effect. It was also felt that cannabis should only be prescribed for a limited period of time, and that the patient should be weaned off it gradually. It was also felt that cannabis should not be prescribed for recreational use, and that it should only be prescribed for medicinal purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing doctors to prescribe cannabis for medicinal purposes. However, there were concerns that it could be open to misuse and that it would need to be strictly monitored. It was felt that it should be prescribed as a last resort after all other treatment options had been exhausted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of Doctors being allowed to prescribe cannabis for medicinal purposes. The group felt that there are some cases where it can provide relief to some people with some conditions and should be an option. The group also felt that Doctors need to be allowed to make this judgement for themselves and should not be hindered by the law if they feel it would benefit the patient. The group did discuss that there should be strict controls around the prescribing of cannabis and that patients should be monitored closely and that doctors should be restricted to only prescribing in certain situations. The group felt that there should be other options available before cannabis is prescribed, but that it should be an option. The group felt that doctors would be the best people to be allowed to make this decision and that it should be their professional judgement as to whether cannabis would be beneficial to their patient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of doctors being allowed to prescribe cannabis for medicinal purposes. It was felt that cannabis could be of great benefit to people suffering from a variety of conditions, particularly those who have not responded to other treatments. It was also felt that cannabis could be of great benefit to people suffering from mental health problems. However, it was also felt that cannabis could be very dangerous if misused, and that it could lead to addiction. It was also felt that there should be very strict guidelines in place to ensure that cannabis is only prescribed in the right circumstances and that it is not open to abuse. It was felt that cannabis should only be prescribed as a last resort, when all other treatments have failed. It was also felt that cannabis should only be prescribed by a specialist doctor, and that the patient should be closely monitored to ensure that they are using it properly and that it is having the desired effect. It was also felt that cannabis should only be prescribed for a limited period of time, and that the patient should be weaned off it gradually. It was also felt that cannabis should not be prescribed for recreational use, and that it should only be prescribed for medicinal purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing doctors to prescribe cannabis for medicinal purposes. However, there were concerns that it could be open to misuse and that it would need to be strictly monitored. It was felt that it should be prescribed as a last resort after all other treatment options had been exhausted. 4: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001900.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001900.soc index 7e6bfa0d..46bc7960 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001900.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001900.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the current system of voting is not perfect, and could be improved upon. There are a number of different systems of voting which could be used, and each has its pros and cons. The current system is not perfect, and it is not clear which system would be better. It is also not clear whether the system would be better for the country as a whole, or just for certain groups. It would be beneficial for the country to move to a different system of voting, but this would need to be carefully considered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a proportional representation system, whereby every vote has equal weight. However, the group was not in favour of the current system of proportional representation used in Germany, whereby voters have a list of candidates to vote for, and the votes are counted according to the percentage of votes each candidate received. Instead, the group favoured the system used in Scotland, whereby voters vote for the party they want to represent them, and the seats are allocated to parties according to the percentage of votes each party received. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting. This is because we believe that the current system, which is known as First Past the Post, does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. As a result, in 2017 only 2% of the population voted Conservative, but they gained a majority in Parliament. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight, and so the proportion of seats in Parliament reflects the proportion of the population who vote for a particular party. We believe this is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group feels that there should be a change in the system of voting. This would enable everyone's vote to count equally and would mean that the power was not held by a small minority of the population. Discussion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the current system of voting is not perfect, and could be improved upon. There are a number of different systems of voting which could be used, and each has its pros and cons. The current system is not perfect, and it is not clear which system would be better. It is also not clear whether the system would be better for the country as a whole, or just for certain groups. It would be beneficial for the country to move to a different system of voting, but this would need to be carefully considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a proportional representation system, whereby every vote has equal weight. However, the group was not in favour of the current system of proportional representation used in Germany, whereby voters have a list of candidates to vote for, and the votes are counted according to the percentage of votes each candidate received. Instead, the group favoured the system used in Scotland, whereby voters vote for the party they want to represent them, and the seats are allocated to parties according to the percentage of votes each party received. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting. This is because we believe that the current system, which is known as First Past the Post, does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. As a result, in 2017 only 2% of the population voted Conservative, but they gained a majority in Parliament. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight, and so the proportion of seats in Parliament reflects the proportion of the population who vote for a particular party. We believe this is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group feels that there should be a change in the system of voting. This would enable everyone's vote to count equally and would mean that the power was not held by a small minority of the population. Discussion 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001901.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001901.soc index 1c15fc41..5d01f414 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001901.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001901.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of having a nuclear power station in every town is not a good idea. There are many factors to consider when thinking about this idea. The idea of having one in every town is very impractical and would not be possible in most towns. The idea of having one in every town is not a good idea because there are many factors to consider. If something went wrong in a nuclear power station it would be very dangerous and could cause a catastrophe. There are many other ways to get energy that are not as dangerous. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and maintain. This is another reason why it is not a good idea to have one in every town. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Nuclear power stations are very dangerous if something goes wrong and this is a reason why it is not a good idea to have one in every town. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and maintain and this is another reason why it is not a good idea to have one in every town. Nuclear power stations are not a very good idea in general and they should not be considered at all. Nuclear power stations are not a good idea in general and they should not be considered at all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We generally do not agree that it is a good idea to have a nuclear power station in every town. The idea of having a nuclear power station in every town is impractical, dangerous, and too costly. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and are even more expensive to maintain. If a power station in one of the towns went wrong it would be a catastrophe. There are many different ways to get energy that is not dangerous and would not be as expensive. In general, we would not support the idea of having one in every town. We received some feedback on this project, for example, I would advise that the group spend more time discussing. To create a consensus, everyone needs to be in agreement. ... Starting off with the disagreements and tackling them individually would help ... I thought a lot of this debate was more of an agreement but there were many differences that needed to be worked out ... [and on the final consensus] You should spell out the exact circumstance. The statement is too general and unsure...Be more specific in order to reach a stronger and clearer statement...The drafting and critiquing of this statement needs more time and effort... I've tried to bring a degree of organisation to the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of having a nuclear power station in every town is not a good idea. There are many factors to consider when thinking about this idea. The idea of having one in every town is very impractical and would not be possible in most towns. The idea of having one in every town is not a good idea because there are many factors to consider. If something went wrong in a nuclear power station it would be very dangerous and could cause a catastrophe. There are many other ways to get energy that are not as dangerous. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and maintain. This is another reason why it is not a good idea to have one in every town. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of having a nuclear power station in every town is not a good idea. There are many factors to consider when thinking about this idea. The idea of having one in every town is very impractical and would not be possible in most towns. The idea of having one in every town is not a good idea because there are many factors to consider. If something went wrong in a nuclear power station it would be very dangerous and could cause a catastrophe. There are many other ways to get energy that are not as dangerous. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and maintain. This is another reason why it is not a good idea to have one in every town. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Nuclear power stations are very dangerous if something goes wrong and this is a reason why it is not a good idea to have one in every town. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and maintain and this is another reason why it is not a good idea to have one in every town. Nuclear power stations are not a very good idea in general and they should not be considered at all. Nuclear power stations are not a good idea in general and they should not be considered at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We generally do not agree that it is a good idea to have a nuclear power station in every town. The idea of having a nuclear power station in every town is impractical, dangerous, and too costly. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and are even more expensive to maintain. If a power station in one of the towns went wrong it would be a catastrophe. There are many different ways to get energy that is not dangerous and would not be as expensive. In general, we would not support the idea of having one in every town. We received some feedback on this project, for example, I would advise that the group spend more time discussing. To create a consensus, everyone needs to be in agreement. ... Starting off with the disagreements and tackling them individually would help ... I thought a lot of this debate was more of an agreement but there were many differences that needed to be worked out ... [and on the final consensus] You should spell out the exact circumstance. The statement is too general and unsure...Be more specific in order to reach a stronger and clearer statement...The drafting and critiquing of this statement needs more time and effort... I've tried to bring a degree of organisation to the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of having a nuclear power station in every town is not a good idea. There are many factors to consider when thinking about this idea. The idea of having one in every town is very impractical and would not be possible in most towns. The idea of having one in every town is not a good idea because there are many factors to consider. If something went wrong in a nuclear power station it would be very dangerous and could cause a catastrophe. There are many other ways to get energy that are not as dangerous. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and maintain. This is another reason why it is not a good idea to have one in every town. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001902.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001902.soc index 1c7771ff..c5662488 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001902.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001902.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Parents should not generally have the right to know the religion of their teachers. Teachers have a right to privacy and as long as the children are being taught the curriculum in a suitable way, it is no one else's business what the religion of the teacher is. The only caveat is if there seemed to be some of the teachers religious beliefs creeping into the lessons and the teaching. This could be a subtle way to try to influence the pupils' views and this is wholly unacceptable. A teacher's religion should not be a factor in how they are treated by their employer or in their employment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Parents should not generally have the right to know the religion of their teachers. Teachers have a right to privacy. The only caveat is if a teacher is being observed influencing a pupil's views based on religion. Then an investigation should be carried out by the school and if the teacher is found to be behaving unprofessionally, then they will have to be reprimanded. However, it is the responsibility of schools to implement checks and balances in their teaching methods to monitor teaching methods, make sure they are suitable and to ensure religious agendas are not present in their teaching methods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be no need for parents to know the religion of their child's teachers. It should be no one else's business what the religion of the teacher is. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Teachers have a right to privacy and as long as the children are being taught the curriculum in a suitable way, it is no one else's business what the religion of the teacher is. The only caveat is if there seemed to be some of the teachers religious beliefs creeping into the lessons and the teaching. This could be a subtle way to try to influence the pupils' views and this is wholly unacceptable. Participant Feedback What Participant 1 said about the workshop experience: I thought that the entire process was invaluable in that it exposed me to a wide variety of perspectives and thought processes when putting together the consensus statement. I would certainly recommend it to anyone considering doing it! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Parents should not generally have the right to know the religion of their teachers. Teachers have a right to privacy and as long as the children are being taught the curriculum in a suitable way, it is no one else's business what the religion of the teacher is. The only caveat is if there seemed to be some of the teachers religious beliefs creeping into the lessons and the teaching. This could be a subtle way to try to influence the pupils' views and this is wholly unacceptable. A teacher's religion should not be a factor in how they are treated by their employer or in their employment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Parents should not generally have the right to know the religion of their teachers. Teachers have a right to privacy. The only caveat is if a teacher is being observed influencing a pupil's views based on religion. Then an investigation should be carried out by the school and if the teacher is found to be behaving unprofessionally, then they will have to be reprimanded. However, it is the responsibility of schools to implement checks and balances in their teaching methods to monitor teaching methods, make sure they are suitable and to ensure religious agendas are not present in their teaching methods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be no need for parents to know the religion of their child's teachers. It should be no one else's business what the religion of the teacher is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Teachers have a right to privacy and as long as the children are being taught the curriculum in a suitable way, it is no one else's business what the religion of the teacher is. The only caveat is if there seemed to be some of the teachers religious beliefs creeping into the lessons and the teaching. This could be a subtle way to try to influence the pupils' views and this is wholly unacceptable. Participant Feedback What Participant 1 said about the workshop experience: I thought that the entire process was invaluable in that it exposed me to a wide variety of perspectives and thought processes when putting together the consensus statement. I would certainly recommend it to anyone considering doing it! 5: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001903.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001903.soc index 3b867333..13f5e08b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001903.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001903.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting because we feel that the current system does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight. This is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. Submitted by Alex Mackay (2018) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting. This is because we believe that the current system, which is known as First Past the Post, does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. As a result, in 2017 only 2% of the population voted Conservative, but they gained a majority in Parliament. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight, and so the proportion of seats in Parliament reflects the proportion of the population who vote for a particular party. We believe this is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting. This is because we believe that the current system, which is known as First Past the Post, does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. As a result, in 2017 only 2% of the population voted Conservative, but they gained a majority in Parliament. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight, and so the proportion of seats in Parliament reflects the proportion of the population who vote for a particular party. We believe this is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. We also believe that the current system creates a two-party system, whereby only large parliamentary parties can succeed. It limits the success of smaller parties or independent candidates. It makes for a system that is unequal and certain parties can succeed with fewer votes across the country. It also leads to some people feeling disenfranchised, and like their vote does not -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting. This is because we believe that the current system, which is known as First Past the Post, does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. As a result, in 2017 only 2% of the population voted Conservative, but they gained a majority in Parliament. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight, and so the proportion of seats in Parliament reflects the proportion of the population who vote for a particular party. We believe this is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. We also think that this system will be more representative of the view of the population, and so we will have a government that reflects the wishes of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting because we feel that the current system does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight. This is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. Submitted by Alex Mackay (2018) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting. This is because we believe that the current system, which is known as First Past the Post, does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. As a result, in 2017 only 2% of the population voted Conservative, but they gained a majority in Parliament. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight, and so the proportion of seats in Parliament reflects the proportion of the population who vote for a particular party. We believe this is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting. This is because we believe that the current system, which is known as First Past the Post, does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. As a result, in 2017 only 2% of the population voted Conservative, but they gained a majority in Parliament. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight, and so the proportion of seats in Parliament reflects the proportion of the population who vote for a particular party. We believe this is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. We also believe that the current system creates a two-party system, whereby only large parliamentary parties can succeed. It limits the success of smaller parties or independent candidates. It makes for a system that is unequal and certain parties can succeed with fewer votes across the country. It also leads to some people feeling disenfranchised, and like their vote does not +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should move to a different system of democratic voting. This is because we believe that the current system, which is known as First Past the Post, does not accurately represent the view of the population. For example, in 2015 the Conservative party gained 36% of the vote, but ended up with 51% of the seats in the House of Commons. As a result, in 2017 only 2% of the population voted Conservative, but they gained a majority in Parliament. This is because of the system in which we vote, which was introduced in the nineteenth century and we believe is outdated. We feel that we should have a proportional representation system, whereby each vote is given equal weight, and so the proportion of seats in Parliament reflects the proportion of the population who vote for a particular party. We believe this is more democratic, fair and will allow smaller parties to have a voice. We also think that this system will be more representative of the view of the population, and so we will have a government that reflects the wishes of the people. 2: 2,4,3,1 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001904.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001904.soc index 45219edd..27b070f5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001904.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001904.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We think that this is not a feasible option currently. Yes in developed countries it might be more workable to replace internal combustion engines with more environmentally friendly alternatives, but the technology for those alternatives might not be so widespread or cost effective in some developing parts of the world, making a blanket ban less workable on a larger scale. We think a better policy would be to have targets to reduce reliance of internal combustion engines and gradually bring the overall numbers down in the coming years as the replacement technology improves and becomes cheaper for mass adoption. We should also try to recycle/reuse/repurpose old engines more, and we should create more infrastructure for electric vehicles to make them more accessible to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We think that this is not a feasible option currently. Electric vehicles are still extremely expensive and there is not enough infrastructure for them at the moment. Yes in developed countries it might be more workable to replace internal combustion engines with more environmentally friendly alternatives, but the technology for those alternatives might not be so widespread or cost effective in some developing parts of the world, making a blanket ban less workable on a larger scale. We think a better policy would be to have targets to reduce reliance of internal combustion engines and gradually bring the overall numbers down in the coming years as the replacement technology improves and becomes cheaper for mass adoption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We think that this is not a feasible option currently. Yes in developed countries it might be more workable to replace internal combustion engines with more environmentally friendly alternatives, but the technology for those alternatives might not be so widespread or cost effective in some developing parts of the world, making a blanket ban less workable on a larger scale. We think a better policy would be to have targets to reduce reliance of internal combustion engines and gradually bring the overall numbers down in the coming years as the replacement technology improves and becomes cheaper for mass adoption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We think that this is not a feasible option currently. Yes in developed countries it might be more workable to replace internal combustion engines with more environmentally friendly alternatives, but the technology for those alternatives might not be so widespread or cost effective in some developing parts of the world, making a blanket ban less workable on a larger scale. We think a better policy would be to have targets to reduce reliance of internal combustion engines and gradually bring the overall numbers down in the coming years as the replacement technology improves and becomes cheaper for mass adoption. We should also try to recycle/reuse/repurpose old engines more, and we should create more infrastructure for electric vehicles to make them more accessible to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We think that this is not a feasible option currently. Electric vehicles are still extremely expensive and there is not enough infrastructure for them at the moment. Yes in developed countries it might be more workable to replace internal combustion engines with more environmentally friendly alternatives, but the technology for those alternatives might not be so widespread or cost effective in some developing parts of the world, making a blanket ban less workable on a larger scale. We think a better policy would be to have targets to reduce reliance of internal combustion engines and gradually bring the overall numbers down in the coming years as the replacement technology improves and becomes cheaper for mass adoption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not end the sale of all new internal combustion engines. We think that this is not a feasible option currently. Yes in developed countries it might be more workable to replace internal combustion engines with more environmentally friendly alternatives, but the technology for those alternatives might not be so widespread or cost effective in some developing parts of the world, making a blanket ban less workable on a larger scale. We think a better policy would be to have targets to reduce reliance of internal combustion engines and gradually bring the overall numbers down in the coming years as the replacement technology improves and becomes cheaper for mass adoption. 4: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001905.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001905.soc index 0b0a7e72..5f2ecfd5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001905.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001905.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Opinion from Group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age that a person is considered an adult in society. Furthermore, at 18 a person can make their own decisions and might have more interest in having a say as they might feel the impact of government decisions more so have better understanding on what they are voting for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood in the UK. In a different group, the participants were asked to come up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Opinion from Group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age that a person is considered an adult in society. Furthermore, at 18 a person can make their own decisions and might have more interest in having a say as they might feel the impact of government decisions more so have better understanding on what they are voting for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood in the UK. In a different group, the participants were asked to come up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 4: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001906.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001906.soc index 4fc3d496..5a5446e5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001906.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001906.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should not regulate online content. The government should only regulate online content if it is illegal or it is offensive to a certain group of people. The government should not regulate online content if it is free speech. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important that the government regulate certain online content to prevent things such as illegal pornography and racism and hate speech. There needs to be some regulation to make sure that children and younger people do not see things that could affect their behaviour. Free speech is very important and so is the ability to publish things that one might find offensive but not illegal. It is very important that we regulate the content that is illegal and that is used to manipulate young people or anyone else into committing a crime or doing something that they would not otherwise do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of some form of regulation of online content. It was felt that regulation was needed to protect people, particularly children, from offensive and harmful content. However, it was also felt that regulation should not be too heavy handed and should not interfere with free speech. It was also felt that regulation should not be used to interfere with the democratic process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government needs to regulate online content in order to make the internet a safer place for people to enjoy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should not regulate online content. The government should only regulate online content if it is illegal or it is offensive to a certain group of people. The government should not regulate online content if it is free speech. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important that the government regulate certain online content to prevent things such as illegal pornography and racism and hate speech. There needs to be some regulation to make sure that children and younger people do not see things that could affect their behaviour. Free speech is very important and so is the ability to publish things that one might find offensive but not illegal. It is very important that we regulate the content that is illegal and that is used to manipulate young people or anyone else into committing a crime or doing something that they would not otherwise do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of some form of regulation of online content. It was felt that regulation was needed to protect people, particularly children, from offensive and harmful content. However, it was also felt that regulation should not be too heavy handed and should not interfere with free speech. It was also felt that regulation should not be used to interfere with the democratic process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government needs to regulate online content in order to make the internet a safer place for people to enjoy. 4: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001907.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001907.soc index d4729522..a6f83e28 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001907.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001907.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum wage should be increased but not to £20 per hour. There are several factors to consider, and no decision should be made lightly. On the one hand, the minimum wage is set so low that it is not viable for people to survive on it. If they work 40 hours a week they will be earning less than £15,000 per year, and that is just not enough to cover living costs. It is simply not right that someone who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. This should be considered. However, the other side of the argument is that the cost of living is rising, and many businesses will not be able to cover the cost of the wage increase. They will either be forced to close or they will pass on the cost to customers, which will not benefit anyone. Another factor is that other jobs will also see their wage rise as a result, which will have an impact on the cost of living. For example, it will be less viable to hire builders or other higher paid workers. However, the balance of the argument goes in favour of a rise in the minimum wage. It is simply not acceptable for a worker to be living in poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The minimum wage should be increased to £15 an hour.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the minimum wage should be raised to £20 per hour, but in certain circumstances, it should be raised to a lesser amount. For example, if the business is struggling to stay afloat, then the wage should be raised to a lesser amount. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The minimum wage should be raised to £20 per hour. This would mean that people would be able to afford the cost of living and not have to struggle to make ends meet. It would also mean that they would be able to afford luxuries, such as holidays and days out. This would also mean that people would be able to afford to pay their way in life and not have to rely on the government to support them. This would mean that the government would save money and could use this money to help the economy in other ways. However, there would be a downside to this. This would mean that small businesses would struggle to afford to pay their employees and would have to make cutbacks. This would mean that some people would lose their jobs. This would mean that people would be worse off and would struggle to make ends meet.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum wage should be increased but not to £20 per hour. There are several factors to consider, and no decision should be made lightly. On the one hand, the minimum wage is set so low that it is not viable for people to survive on it. If they work 40 hours a week they will be earning less than £15,000 per year, and that is just not enough to cover living costs. It is simply not right that someone who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. This should be considered. However, the other side of the argument is that the cost of living is rising, and many businesses will not be able to cover the cost of the wage increase. They will either be forced to close or they will pass on the cost to customers, which will not benefit anyone. Another factor is that other jobs will also see their wage rise as a result, which will have an impact on the cost of living. For example, it will be less viable to hire builders or other higher paid workers. However, the balance of the argument goes in favour of a rise in the minimum wage. It is simply not acceptable for a worker to be living in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The minimum wage should be increased to £15 an hour.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the minimum wage should be raised to £20 per hour, but in certain circumstances, it should be raised to a lesser amount. For example, if the business is struggling to stay afloat, then the wage should be raised to a lesser amount. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The minimum wage should be raised to £20 per hour. This would mean that people would be able to afford the cost of living and not have to struggle to make ends meet. It would also mean that they would be able to afford luxuries, such as holidays and days out. This would also mean that people would be able to afford to pay their way in life and not have to rely on the government to support them. This would mean that the government would save money and could use this money to help the economy in other ways. However, there would be a downside to this. This would mean that small businesses would struggle to afford to pay their employees and would have to make cutbacks. This would mean that some people would lose their jobs. This would mean that people would be worse off and would struggle to make ends meet.” 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001908.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001908.soc index 07aa69c3..a3e4f855 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001908.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001908.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, during a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the wearing of face masks should not be mandatory. In the case of a pandemic, it should be up to local governments to make the wearing of face masks mandatory in public places. The wearing of face masks in the case of a pandemic should only be mandatory in places where the disease is known to be spreading and where it is known that the disease is spread by airborne droplets. The wearing of face masks in the case of a pandemic should only be mandatory in places where it is known that the disease is spread by airborne droplets and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading. The wearing of face masks in the case of a pandemic should only be mandatory in places where it is known that the disease is spread by airborne droplets and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading rapidly. The wearing of face masks in the case of a pandemic should only be mandatory in places where it is known that the disease is spread by airborne droplets and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading rapidly and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading rapidly in a large area. The wearing of -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the wearing of facemasks is a personal choice when facing a neutral state of affairs. However, in the case of an epidemic or pandemic, it would be up to local governments to make it mandatory if the disease were to be spreading due to air droplets. It is worth noting that it should be enforced and you would have to wear masks that are regularly cleaned and worn in the correct way, not covering your mouth and not your nose. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, during a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the wearing of face masks should not be mandatory. In the case of a pandemic, it should be up to local governments to make the wearing of face masks mandatory in public places. The wearing of face masks in the case of a pandemic should only be mandatory in places where the disease is known to be spreading and where it is known that the disease is spread by airborne droplets. The wearing of face masks in the case of a pandemic should only be mandatory in places where it is known that the disease is spread by airborne droplets and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading. The wearing of face masks in the case of a pandemic should only be mandatory in places where it is known that the disease is spread by airborne droplets and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading rapidly. The wearing of face masks in the case of a pandemic should only be mandatory in places where it is known that the disease is spread by airborne droplets and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading rapidly and in places where it is known that the disease is spreading rapidly in a large area. The wearing of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the wearing of facemasks is a personal choice when facing a neutral state of affairs. However, in the case of an epidemic or pandemic, it would be up to local governments to make it mandatory if the disease were to be spreading due to air droplets. It is worth noting that it should be enforced and you would have to wear masks that are regularly cleaned and worn in the correct way, not covering your mouth and not your nose. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001909.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001909.soc index 7a4b1da4..734f0e99 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001909.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001909.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC is a national treasure that benefits the UK. It is right that the elderly receive a free TV license once they reach the age of 75, as this provides them with some means of entertainment in their old age without the need for them to pay at a stage in life where money may be a real problem. The majority of the over 75s will have been paying their TV licence for the whole of their adult life. The money received from the TV licence is spent on maintaining the BBC as a high quality broadcaster and has helped it to remain the best TV provider in the world. This money is not spent on the over 75s in particular. Older people may not be able to pay for entertainment such as this and, as the elderly may have to live on small amounts of money, a free TV licence will help. The elderly are more likely to be living alone and may be very bored. Older people may be feeling more isolated due to Covid. I also feel that the BBC provides a lifeline to the elderly through the likes of Dr.Kirsty and Jeremy Vine. It’s a way of staying in touch with current affairs and helps prevent loneliness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the BBC should provide free licenses to over 75s. We believe that the BBC is a national institution which provides entertainment to the UK population. We think that it is right that the elderly receive a free TV license once they reach the age of 75, as this provides them with some means of entertainment in their old age without the need for them to pay at a stage in life where money may be a real problem. The likelihood is that the majority of the over 75s will have been paying their TV licence for the whole of their adult life. We also believe that the elderly are often isolated and lonely and this provides them with some entertainment and relief from this. We also believe that the elderly often live on small amounts of money and so this is a small way in which they can be helped. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the BBC should provide free licenses to over 75s. We believe that the elderly have paid their dues and deserve a free license. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC is a national treasure that benefits the UK. It is right that the elderly receive a free TV license once they reach the age of 75, as this provides them with some means of entertainment in their old age without the need for them to pay at a stage in life where money may be a real problem. The majority of the over 75s will have been paying their TV licence for the whole of their adult life. The money received from the TV licence is spent on maintaining the BBC as a high quality broadcaster and has helped it to remain the best TV provider in the world. This money is not spent on the over 75s in particular. Older people may not be able to pay for entertainment such as this and, as the elderly may have to live on small amounts of money, a free TV licence will help. The elderly are more likely to be living alone and may be very bored. Older people may be feeling more isolated due to Covid. I also feel that the BBC provides a lifeline to the elderly through the likes of Dr.Kirsty and Jeremy Vine. It’s a way of staying in touch with current affairs and helps prevent loneliness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the BBC should provide free licenses to over 75s. We believe that the BBC is a national institution which provides entertainment to the UK population. We think that it is right that the elderly receive a free TV license once they reach the age of 75, as this provides them with some means of entertainment in their old age without the need for them to pay at a stage in life where money may be a real problem. The likelihood is that the majority of the over 75s will have been paying their TV licence for the whole of their adult life. We also believe that the elderly are often isolated and lonely and this provides them with some entertainment and relief from this. We also believe that the elderly often live on small amounts of money and so this is a small way in which they can be helped. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the BBC should provide free licenses to over 75s. We believe that the elderly have paid their dues and deserve a free license. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001910.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001910.soc index c56c02fb..59cad454 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001910.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001910.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the NHS is a world leading health care system, the personnel that work in it are hard working and under appreciated. However, they are not provided with good enough pay or resources to do even better. The staff are overworked and underpaid meaning they can't work to their full potential. We believe that people's lives have been put at risk due to delays to non urgent surgeries and delayed diagnosis. The care people receive varies from place to place, sometimes you get an appointment within a few days, sometimes you have to wait months, it's a postcode lottery. We feel that in a time of crisis, people have put their differences aside and worked together to ensure that the country remains stable and safe. We believe that more can be done to help the NHS and their patients, but we believe the NHS and the people that work within it are doing as best of a job as they can. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is not doing a good job. They are trying their best but are severely underfunded. The staff are working very hard and are not getting the recognition they deserve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is a wonderful service that is the envy of the world. It is staffed by caring people who want to do their best for their patients. The service is, however, underfunded and understaffed. The staff are working under enormous pressure and this has led to many people having to wait for treatment and, in some cases, this has led to serious consequences for patients. The pandemic has added to the pressure on the NHS and this has led to staff shortages, with many staff having to self-isolate, and this has led to longer waiting times for treatment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the NHS is a world leading health care system, the personnel that work in it are hard working and under appreciated. However, they are not provided with good enough pay or resources to do even better. The staff are overworked and underpaid meaning they can't work to their full potential. We believe that people's lives have been put at risk due to delays to non urgent surgeries and delayed diagnosis. The care people receive varies from place to place, sometimes you get an appointment within a few days, sometimes you have to wait months, it's a postcode lottery. We feel that in a time of crisis, people have put their differences aside and worked together to ensure that the country remains stable and safe. We believe that more can be done to help the NHS and their patients, but we believe the NHS and the people that work within it are doing as best of a job as they can. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is not doing a good job. They are trying their best but are severely underfunded. The staff are working very hard and are not getting the recognition they deserve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is a wonderful service that is the envy of the world. It is staffed by caring people who want to do their best for their patients. The service is, however, underfunded and understaffed. The staff are working under enormous pressure and this has led to many people having to wait for treatment and, in some cases, this has led to serious consequences for patients. The pandemic has added to the pressure on the NHS and this has led to staff shortages, with many staff having to self-isolate, and this has led to longer waiting times for treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001911.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001911.soc index feccf74a..d1165697 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001911.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001911.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Cashless is inevitable and will happen but cash should still be available, even if not frequently used.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should move to a cashless economy, but people should still have the option of using cash if they wish to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should move to a cashless society, however we think there should still be the option of using cash. We think that this is important because some people may find it difficult to use cashless options, for example older people or those who have not been brought up in a technological age. Also we think that people should be allowed to use cash as it gives people more freedom to spend the way they wish and makes it easier for them to manage their money. Also, cash is an easier way to budget for small amounts, such as lunches, when compared to using a card. We feel that we should move to a cashless society because it would reduce bank robberies and theft. It is also safer as less people will be carrying cash on their person or in their house and therefore less likely to be a victim of crime. Also it will be more secure as banks are more secure than cash on your person. We think that it will be easier to make transactions as it will save time, such as in supermarkets. It will also be easier for international travel as you will not have to change currency or worry about exchange rates. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a cashless society. They thought that it would be more efficient, and would reduce the risk of theft and crime. They also thought that it would be easier to keep track of finances and transactions, and that it would be easier to budget. However, they also thought that cash should still be an option, as it is important to have the choice. They also thought that the older generations may struggle to adapt to a cashless society, and that it is important to help them understand the benefits of a cashless society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Cashless is inevitable and will happen but cash should still be available, even if not frequently used.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should move to a cashless economy, but people should still have the option of using cash if they wish to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should move to a cashless society, however we think there should still be the option of using cash. We think that this is important because some people may find it difficult to use cashless options, for example older people or those who have not been brought up in a technological age. Also we think that people should be allowed to use cash as it gives people more freedom to spend the way they wish and makes it easier for them to manage their money. Also, cash is an easier way to budget for small amounts, such as lunches, when compared to using a card. We feel that we should move to a cashless society because it would reduce bank robberies and theft. It is also safer as less people will be carrying cash on their person or in their house and therefore less likely to be a victim of crime. Also it will be more secure as banks are more secure than cash on your person. We think that it will be easier to make transactions as it will save time, such as in supermarkets. It will also be easier for international travel as you will not have to change currency or worry about exchange rates. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a cashless society. They thought that it would be more efficient, and would reduce the risk of theft and crime. They also thought that it would be easier to keep track of finances and transactions, and that it would be easier to budget. However, they also thought that cash should still be an option, as it is important to have the choice. They also thought that the older generations may struggle to adapt to a cashless society, and that it is important to help them understand the benefits of a cashless society. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001912.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001912.soc index 6294d401..0423eb14 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001912.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001912.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The group felt that the increased taxes would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore reduce the number of health problems associated with their use. The group felt that the increased taxes would also increase government revenue. The group was aware that the increased taxes would be detrimental to those who currently use these products, but felt that this was outweighed by the health benefits of reducing their use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that taxes on tobacco and alcohol should be increased. The health benefits of doing so would outweigh any possible negative effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that the taxes on alcohol and tobacco should be increased as a way to discourage their use. The following question was put to the group: How do you feel about the process? The following answers were received: Participant 1: I found it a very useful exercise. It's very hard to reach a consensus and I'm not sure that we have reached a true consensus in this instance. Participant 2: It was a fun exercise and helped me to understand the topic a bit more. Participant 3: This was a good way to get a better understanding of the problem. Participant 4: It was fun and interesting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I think we should increase the amount of taxes on tobacco and alcohol because although some people may consider them necessities, they are not essential and could be deemed luxuries. This means that we should raise taxes on them as they are not as essential as other things. Also, if taxes are raised, it may make people less likely to use these items which will be better for their health. This is particularly true of smoking, which is known to have long-term health impacts. We should also make it more expensive to buy these products, especially tobacco, so that people are put off from buying them and therefore will help reduce the amount of harm that smoking does to the body. Raising taxes will also help to reduce the strain on the NHS which can save the NHS a lot of money.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The group felt that the increased taxes would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore reduce the number of health problems associated with their use. The group felt that the increased taxes would also increase government revenue. The group was aware that the increased taxes would be detrimental to those who currently use these products, but felt that this was outweighed by the health benefits of reducing their use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that taxes on tobacco and alcohol should be increased. The health benefits of doing so would outweigh any possible negative effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that the taxes on alcohol and tobacco should be increased as a way to discourage their use. The following question was put to the group: How do you feel about the process? The following answers were received: Participant 1: I found it a very useful exercise. It's very hard to reach a consensus and I'm not sure that we have reached a true consensus in this instance. Participant 2: It was a fun exercise and helped me to understand the topic a bit more. Participant 3: This was a good way to get a better understanding of the problem. Participant 4: It was fun and interesting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I think we should increase the amount of taxes on tobacco and alcohol because although some people may consider them necessities, they are not essential and could be deemed luxuries. This means that we should raise taxes on them as they are not as essential as other things. Also, if taxes are raised, it may make people less likely to use these items which will be better for their health. This is particularly true of smoking, which is known to have long-term health impacts. We should also make it more expensive to buy these products, especially tobacco, so that people are put off from buying them and therefore will help reduce the amount of harm that smoking does to the body. Raising taxes will also help to reduce the strain on the NHS which can save the NHS a lot of money.” 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001913.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001913.soc index 9cde72c0..6035fb45 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001913.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001913.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should have a role in reducing inequality as they are the ones with the power to make the necessary changes to create a fairer society. The government should create a fairer economy by allocating more resources to the lower income groups and ensuring that everyone is properly paid for the services they give. The government should also encourage better education for all and create jobs in a variety of sectors. The benefit system should be improved to ensure that those that are able to work, find work, and those that are unable to work for whatever reason are better supported. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws, which it can use to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the poorest members of society, particularly those unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. The government also has the power to create more jobs, which would be particularly useful for people who find it difficult to get a job. The government could do this by building more schools, hospitals, and other public buildings, which would in turn create new jobs in construction and engineering. The government could also increase spending on scientific research, which would create new jobs and benefit the country in the long-term. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should have a role in reducing inequality as it is the government that has the power to make a change and create a fairer society for all. The government should use its power to create a fairer economy and society for all members. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should have a role in reducing inequality as the inequality gap is growing, the people in charge of the country have a responsibility to look after the people that live there. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should have a role in reducing inequality as they are the ones with the power to make the necessary changes to create a fairer society. The government should create a fairer economy by allocating more resources to the lower income groups and ensuring that everyone is properly paid for the services they give. The government should also encourage better education for all and create jobs in a variety of sectors. The benefit system should be improved to ensure that those that are able to work, find work, and those that are unable to work for whatever reason are better supported. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws, which it can use to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the poorest members of society, particularly those unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. The government also has the power to create more jobs, which would be particularly useful for people who find it difficult to get a job. The government could do this by building more schools, hospitals, and other public buildings, which would in turn create new jobs in construction and engineering. The government could also increase spending on scientific research, which would create new jobs and benefit the country in the long-term. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should have a role in reducing inequality as it is the government that has the power to make a change and create a fairer society for all. The government should use its power to create a fairer economy and society for all members. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should have a role in reducing inequality as the inequality gap is growing, the people in charge of the country have a responsibility to look after the people that live there. 5: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001914.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001914.soc index e9d9e947..0d2420dc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001914.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001914.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision. We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision on who to vote for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18, as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to make uninformed decisions. Comment: This task was much more difficult than I anticipated. I had expected there to be a bit of a debate, with participants coming in with fairly firm views and just arguing them out on rational grounds. However, what I found instead was that most participants really didn't care either way, and wanted to please the group (possibly because they knew that the professor I am assisting was interested in their opinions). Therefore, it was much more of a process of getting them to move away from what they thought would please the group and instead express an opinion with which they would be comfortable, even if others disagreed. I found this experiment to be really educational. It underlined a couple of important ideas for me. Firstly, you can always find someone in a group that agrees with you, even if they have no strong opinion about the topic, and secondly, consensus methods like this may lead to fairly +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision. We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision on who to vote for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18 as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to vote on impulse rather than making an informed decision. We feel that 18 year olds are more likely to have a better understanding of the world and are more likely to make an informed decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the voting age should be raised to 18, as this is the age of adulthood and we feel that the younger people are, the less likely they are to be able to make an informed decision on who to vote for. We feel that 16/17 year olds are more likely to make uninformed decisions. Comment: This task was much more difficult than I anticipated. I had expected there to be a bit of a debate, with participants coming in with fairly firm views and just arguing them out on rational grounds. However, what I found instead was that most participants really didn't care either way, and wanted to please the group (possibly because they knew that the professor I am assisting was interested in their opinions). Therefore, it was much more of a process of getting them to move away from what they thought would please the group and instead express an opinion with which they would be comfortable, even if others disagreed. I found this experiment to be really educational. It underlined a couple of important ideas for me. Firstly, you can always find someone in a group that agrees with you, even if they have no strong opinion about the topic, and secondly, consensus methods like this may lead to fairly 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001915.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001915.soc index 69c1e693..6dddeaea 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001915.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001915.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was agreed that everyone should have to pay some form of income tax, regardless of their income. However, those earning under the current minimum wage should be taxed only a small amount, so that they can afford the basics. Employers should be paying minimum wage, as it is a crime to make people work for less than the minimum wage. Those who earn under the current minimum wage should also have their income tax rebated to them, so that they do not end up in debt. This is because if they are earning less than the minimum wage, it is likely that they cannot pay for basic things such as food, water and electricity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that those who earn less than minimum wage should not have to pay income tax. This is because they are already struggling to make ends meet and if they were to pay income tax, they would be unable to afford basic necessities such as food and bills. This would mean that they would be living in poverty. We believe that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that everyone is paid a minimum wage, and that this should be enough for people to live on. Therefore, we believe that those who earn less than minimum wage should not have to pay income tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, people should have to pay income tax, however people who earn less than minimum wage should be exempt from having to pay income tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was agreed that everyone should have to pay some form of income tax, regardless of their income. However, those earning under the current minimum wage should be taxed only a small amount, so that they can afford the basics. Employers should be paying minimum wage, as it is a crime to make people work for less than the minimum wage. Those who earn under the current minimum wage should also have their income tax rebated to them, so that they do not end up in debt. This is because if they are earning less than the minimum wage, it is likely that they cannot pay for basic things such as food, water and electricity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that those who earn less than minimum wage should not have to pay income tax. This is because they are already struggling to make ends meet and if they were to pay income tax, they would be unable to afford basic necessities such as food and bills. This would mean that they would be living in poverty. We believe that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that everyone is paid a minimum wage, and that this should be enough for people to live on. Therefore, we believe that those who earn less than minimum wage should not have to pay income tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, people should have to pay income tax, however people who earn less than minimum wage should be exempt from having to pay income tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001916.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001916.soc index 6095c2b1..88177387 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001916.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001916.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government needs to regulate certain online content because so many people could be negatively influenced by bad content, including young people, however free speech is very important and should be protected as much as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important that the government regulate certain online content to prevent things such as illegal pornography and racism and hate speech. There needs to be some regulation to make sure that children and younger people do not see things that could affect their behaviour. Free speech is very important and so is the ability to publish things that one might find offensive but not illegal. It is very important that we regulate the content that is illegal and that is used to manipulate young people or anyone else into committing a crime or doing something that they would not otherwise do. It is also very important that we protect free speech and the right to express our opinions online, no matter how unpopular they might be, and also to protect the right to access content online that might not be to everyone's liking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is important that the government regulate certain online content to prevent things such as illegal pornography and racism and hate speech. There needs to be some regulation to make sure that children and younger people do not see things that could affect their behaviour. Free speech is very important and so is the ability to publish things that one might find offensive but not illegal. It is very important that we regulate the content that is illegal and that is used to manipulate young people or anyone else into committing a crime or doing something that they would not otherwise do. We also need to protect the right to free speech as much as possible and the right of adults to express themselves even if others may find it offensive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There needs to be regulation of certain online content in order to protect the vulnerable and to stop people from being manipulated by others to do harm. Children should not have access to online content that might affect their behaviour, such as pornography and hate speech. The right to free speech is very important and should be protected as much as possible, but there are certain things that cannot be allowed to be said and published and these things need to be regulated. The report has been prepared by Paul Lewis MBE +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government needs to regulate certain online content because so many people could be negatively influenced by bad content, including young people, however free speech is very important and should be protected as much as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important that the government regulate certain online content to prevent things such as illegal pornography and racism and hate speech. There needs to be some regulation to make sure that children and younger people do not see things that could affect their behaviour. Free speech is very important and so is the ability to publish things that one might find offensive but not illegal. It is very important that we regulate the content that is illegal and that is used to manipulate young people or anyone else into committing a crime or doing something that they would not otherwise do. It is also very important that we protect free speech and the right to express our opinions online, no matter how unpopular they might be, and also to protect the right to access content online that might not be to everyone's liking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is important that the government regulate certain online content to prevent things such as illegal pornography and racism and hate speech. There needs to be some regulation to make sure that children and younger people do not see things that could affect their behaviour. Free speech is very important and so is the ability to publish things that one might find offensive but not illegal. It is very important that we regulate the content that is illegal and that is used to manipulate young people or anyone else into committing a crime or doing something that they would not otherwise do. We also need to protect the right to free speech as much as possible and the right of adults to express themselves even if others may find it offensive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There needs to be regulation of certain online content in order to protect the vulnerable and to stop people from being manipulated by others to do harm. Children should not have access to online content that might affect their behaviour, such as pornography and hate speech. The right to free speech is very important and should be protected as much as possible, but there are certain things that cannot be allowed to be said and published and these things need to be regulated. The report has been prepared by Paul Lewis MBE 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001917.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001917.soc index f66854fd..76781d8d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001917.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001917.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that it is not the breed of the dog that is important, but rather the way that the dog is raised. A dog that is well cared for, well trained and well socialised will be a good pet and a good citizen. We do not think that it should be illegal to own certain breeds of dogs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. However, the group did feel that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. The group felt that there was a need for greater education for dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the State should not be restricting which breeds of dogs can be kept by individuals, some legislation should be implemented to make it more difficult to keep certain breeds of dogs. Perhaps a license should be required to keep dogs of a certain breed, or the dogs should be microchipped and the microchip number could be noted on a database and only accessible by the police or vets. This would help ensure that if the dog were to get out of the house and attack someone, it could be easily identified. All dogs should be trained properly and be aware of the dog owner's family's whereabouts and should be kept under control at all times, to reduce the risk of attacks. Dog owners should also be responsible for any damage or injury caused by their dogs, if the attack could have been avoided had the owner had more control over the dog. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It should not be illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs, but licensing should be required, and perhaps limited to certain individuals and homes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that it is not the breed of the dog that is important, but rather the way that the dog is raised. A dog that is well cared for, well trained and well socialised will be a good pet and a good citizen. We do not think that it should be illegal to own certain breeds of dogs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. However, the group did feel that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. The group felt that there was a need for greater education for dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the State should not be restricting which breeds of dogs can be kept by individuals, some legislation should be implemented to make it more difficult to keep certain breeds of dogs. Perhaps a license should be required to keep dogs of a certain breed, or the dogs should be microchipped and the microchip number could be noted on a database and only accessible by the police or vets. This would help ensure that if the dog were to get out of the house and attack someone, it could be easily identified. All dogs should be trained properly and be aware of the dog owner's family's whereabouts and should be kept under control at all times, to reduce the risk of attacks. Dog owners should also be responsible for any damage or injury caused by their dogs, if the attack could have been avoided had the owner had more control over the dog. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It should not be illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs, but licensing should be required, and perhaps limited to certain individuals and homes. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001918.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001918.soc index c7e7647c..83b00335 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001918.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001918.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, during a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. During a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory. This is because the transmission of the virus through the air is a possibility. However, the wearing of face masks should be mandatory only if the masks are regularly cleaned and worn in the correct way, covering both the nose and mouth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, during a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory if the virus can be spread through the air. - Discussion about a second question - -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, during a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory if the virus is spreading through airborne transmission. This is especially the case when government guidance is to practice physical distancing of at least 1 meter but 2 meters if possible and to minimize the number of social contacts. It should also be mandatory if physical distancing is not possible or not being practiced, including on public transport, when shopping or when staying in an indoor space with other people from outside one’s household or support bubble. These measures should be enforced when possible. It should also be mandatory for all healthcare workers and staff in care homes who interact with patients and service users to wear face masks. However, face masks should be worn in the correct way, covering both nose and mouth, should be disposed of immediately after use, and only one person should handle a face mask to avoid contamination. Regular cleaning of reusable face masks should also be ensured. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, during a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. During a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory. This is because the transmission of the virus through the air is a possibility. However, the wearing of face masks should be mandatory only if the masks are regularly cleaned and worn in the correct way, covering both the nose and mouth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, during a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory if the virus can be spread through the air. - Discussion about a second question - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, during a pandemic, the wearing of face masks in public should be mandatory if the virus is spreading through airborne transmission. This is especially the case when government guidance is to practice physical distancing of at least 1 meter but 2 meters if possible and to minimize the number of social contacts. It should also be mandatory if physical distancing is not possible or not being practiced, including on public transport, when shopping or when staying in an indoor space with other people from outside one’s household or support bubble. These measures should be enforced when possible. It should also be mandatory for all healthcare workers and staff in care homes who interact with patients and service users to wear face masks. However, face masks should be worn in the correct way, covering both nose and mouth, should be disposed of immediately after use, and only one person should handle a face mask to avoid contamination. Regular cleaning of reusable face masks should also be ensured. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001919.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001919.soc index cc5c0e6b..42f1a326 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001919.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001919.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour. The current wage is too low to be considered a living wage. The government should subsidise the wage increase to allow businesses to absorb it. In this case study, the decision-making process of a group of participants is presented. They were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The minimum wage should be increased but not to £20 per hour. There are several factors to consider, and no decision should be made lightly. On the one hand, the minimum wage is set so low that it is not viable for people to survive on it. If they work 40 hours a week they will be earning less than £15,000 per year, and that is just not enough to cover living costs. It is simply not right that someone who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. This should be considered. However, the other side of the argument is that the cost of living is rising, and many businesses will not be able to cover the cost of the wage increase. They will either be forced to close or they will pass on the cost to customers, which will not benefit anyone. Another factor is that other jobs will also see their wage rise as a result, which will have an impact on the cost of living. For example, it will be less viable to hire builders or other higher paid workers. However, the balance of the argument goes in favour of a rise in the minimum wage. It is simply not acceptable for a worker to be living in poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The minimum wage should be increased to £10 per hour to start with, then reviewed every 5 years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: The minimum wage should be increased but not to £20 per hour. There are several factors to consider, and no decision should be made lightly. On the one hand, the minimum wage is set so low that it is not viable for people to survive on it. If they work 40 hours a week they will be earning less than £15,000 per year, and that is just not enough to cover living costs. It is simply not right that someone who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. This should be considered. However, the other side of the argument is that the cost of living is rising, and many businesses will not be able to cover the cost of the wage increase. They will either be forced to close or they will pass on the cost to customers, which will not benefit anyone. Another factor is that other jobs will also see their wage rise as a result, which will have an impact on the cost of living. For example, it will be less viable to hire builders or other higher paid workers. However, the balance of the argument goes in favour of a rise in the minimum wage. It is simply not acceptable for a worker to be living in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum wage should be increased to £15 per hour. The current wage is too low to be considered a living wage. The government should subsidise the wage increase to allow businesses to absorb it. In this case study, the decision-making process of a group of participants is presented. They were tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The minimum wage should be increased but not to £20 per hour. There are several factors to consider, and no decision should be made lightly. On the one hand, the minimum wage is set so low that it is not viable for people to survive on it. If they work 40 hours a week they will be earning less than £15,000 per year, and that is just not enough to cover living costs. It is simply not right that someone who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. This should be considered. However, the other side of the argument is that the cost of living is rising, and many businesses will not be able to cover the cost of the wage increase. They will either be forced to close or they will pass on the cost to customers, which will not benefit anyone. Another factor is that other jobs will also see their wage rise as a result, which will have an impact on the cost of living. For example, it will be less viable to hire builders or other higher paid workers. However, the balance of the argument goes in favour of a rise in the minimum wage. It is simply not acceptable for a worker to be living in poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The minimum wage should be increased to £10 per hour to start with, then reviewed every 5 years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: The minimum wage should be increased but not to £20 per hour. There are several factors to consider, and no decision should be made lightly. On the one hand, the minimum wage is set so low that it is not viable for people to survive on it. If they work 40 hours a week they will be earning less than £15,000 per year, and that is just not enough to cover living costs. It is simply not right that someone who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. This should be considered. However, the other side of the argument is that the cost of living is rising, and many businesses will not be able to cover the cost of the wage increase. They will either be forced to close or they will pass on the cost to customers, which will not benefit anyone. Another factor is that other jobs will also see their wage rise as a result, which will have an impact on the cost of living. For example, it will be less viable to hire builders or other higher paid workers. However, the balance of the argument goes in favour of a rise in the minimum wage. It is simply not acceptable for a worker to be living in poverty. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001920.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001920.soc index 01149756..261c9131 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001920.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001920.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a small tax on meat. It should not be too high so as to discourage people from eating meat, but should be high enough so that people are aware of the fact that meat is contributing to climate change. The tax should be revenue neutral, meaning that the revenue raised from the tax should go toward creating sustainable alternatives such as plant based meat. This way, it will help protect the environment and incentivize people to buy plant based meat instead. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that there should be an increased tax on meat. We think that this will help to reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. We think that this will also help to improve peoples health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. We think that this tax should be a small tax, maybe 1%, and should be applied to all meat. We think that this tax should be used to fund the NHS and to fund research into more sustainable alternatives to meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a tax on meat, but it should be a small tax, and the money should go to research into alternatives to meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a small tax on meat. It should not be too high so as to discourage people from eating meat, but should be high enough so that people are aware of the fact that meat is contributing to climate change. The tax should be revenue neutral, meaning that the revenue raised from the tax should go toward creating sustainable alternatives such as plant based meat. This way, it will help protect the environment and incentivize people to buy plant based meat instead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that there should be an increased tax on meat. We think that this will help to reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. We think that this will also help to improve peoples health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. We think that this tax should be a small tax, maybe 1%, and should be applied to all meat. We think that this tax should be used to fund the NHS and to fund research into more sustainable alternatives to meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a tax on meat, but it should be a small tax, and the money should go to research into alternatives to meat. 3: 3,2,4,1 2: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001921.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001921.soc index d6488ee0..b70cf844 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001921.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001921.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The group felt that the increased taxes would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore reduce the number of health problems associated with their use. The group felt that the increased taxes would also increase government revenue. The group was aware that the increased taxes would be detrimental to those who currently use these products, but felt that this was outweighed by the health benefits of reducing their use. The group felt that to try to protect current users would ultimately damage the health of the nation as a whole, and felt that our duty of care was to the public as a whole, not just the small proportion of the population who currently use these products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We generally agree with increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol, as this would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore reduce the number of health problems associated with their use. We are aware that the increased taxes would be detrimental to those who currently use these products, but feel that this is outweighed by the health benefits of reducing their use. We think that it would also be an acceptable way to increase government revenue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The group felt that the increased taxes would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore reduce the number of health problems associated with their use. The group felt that the increased taxes would also increase government revenue. The group was aware that the increased taxes would be detrimental to those who currently use these products, but felt that this was outweighed by the health benefits of reducing their use. The group felt that it would be important to educate people on the health effects of smoking and alcohol, and to provide alternative options to help people reduce their consumption of these products. The group also felt that the increased taxes would need to be balanced against the possibility of increasing the illicit trade of tobacco and alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We generally agree with increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol, as this would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore the number of health problems caused by them. We agree with this, even though the increased taxes would likely be detrimental to those who currently use these products, because the health benefits of reducing their consumption outweigh this, and also because the increased tax will raise more state revenue. Conclusion What people seem to disagree about is usually the meaning of words and expressions. In discussions about health policy, it is not unusual to find people in opposing camps who actually agree with each other about policy decisions, but are merely using different words and expressions to refer to these decisions. To complicate matters, words and expressions can have different meanings for different people. Our group method helps to discover these different meanings. More specifically, our method helps to clarify meanings of words and expressions, and reach agreement about their common meaning. Such a clarification of meanings typically results in people finding out that they do agree with each other more than they previously believed. Clarifying meanings, as well as finding out that they do not necessarily disagree as much as they believed, is usually seen by the participants as helpful in moving a discussion forwards. And, of course, improving on +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The group felt that the increased taxes would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore reduce the number of health problems associated with their use. The group felt that the increased taxes would also increase government revenue. The group was aware that the increased taxes would be detrimental to those who currently use these products, but felt that this was outweighed by the health benefits of reducing their use. The group felt that to try to protect current users would ultimately damage the health of the nation as a whole, and felt that our duty of care was to the public as a whole, not just the small proportion of the population who currently use these products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We generally agree with increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol, as this would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore reduce the number of health problems associated with their use. We are aware that the increased taxes would be detrimental to those who currently use these products, but feel that this is outweighed by the health benefits of reducing their use. We think that it would also be an acceptable way to increase government revenue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The group felt that the increased taxes would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore reduce the number of health problems associated with their use. The group felt that the increased taxes would also increase government revenue. The group was aware that the increased taxes would be detrimental to those who currently use these products, but felt that this was outweighed by the health benefits of reducing their use. The group felt that it would be important to educate people on the health effects of smoking and alcohol, and to provide alternative options to help people reduce their consumption of these products. The group also felt that the increased taxes would need to be balanced against the possibility of increasing the illicit trade of tobacco and alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agree with increasing taxes on tobacco and alcohol, as this would reduce the consumption of these products and therefore the number of health problems caused by them. We agree with this, even though the increased taxes would likely be detrimental to those who currently use these products, because the health benefits of reducing their consumption outweigh this, and also because the increased tax will raise more state revenue. Conclusion What people seem to disagree about is usually the meaning of words and expressions. In discussions about health policy, it is not unusual to find people in opposing camps who actually agree with each other about policy decisions, but are merely using different words and expressions to refer to these decisions. To complicate matters, words and expressions can have different meanings for different people. Our group method helps to discover these different meanings. More specifically, our method helps to clarify meanings of words and expressions, and reach agreement about their common meaning. Such a clarification of meanings typically results in people finding out that they do agree with each other more than they previously believed. Clarifying meanings, as well as finding out that they do not necessarily disagree as much as they believed, is usually seen by the participants as helpful in moving a discussion forwards. And, of course, improving on 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001922.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001922.soc index 331b2a18..cab20dc1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001922.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001922.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. They should be allowed to vote from the age of 16 as they are considered adults for certain circumstances in law and should be responsible enough for their views to be considered. The voting age should not be lowered to any younger than this as many young people would not bother to vote and would not be informed enough to make an informed decision. It would perhaps be beneficial for younger people to vote in situations that directly impact them too, ie voting about university costs. Young people should be taught about politics in school and given the resources to form their own opinions so they have a strong idea of their values and beliefs by the time they are old enough to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Young people should be allowed to vote in elections, but they should be of a certain age and should have a certain level of political knowledge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the voting age should be lowered to 16 and young people should be allowed to vote in elections. This was agreed as it will help young people feel more included and involved with the democratic process and this will mean that the youth voice will be more widely heard and they will be able to express their opinions on issues that affect them. This will also help the political parties gain votes and thus their manifestos will be changed to make them more appealing to younger people. Also, we all felt that the arguments for voting at 16 were more persuasive than the arguments against. The arguments against seemed to be based around the fact that younger people aren’t educated enough about politics or informed enough about political parties and candidates to make an informed decision and that their views and opinions change frequently as they grow up and mature. However, these are things that could be easily resolved through the implementation of politics education in schools, increasing awareness of political parties and candidates and making it compulsory to go to the polling station to vote rather than giving young people the option of abstaining. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections. They should be allowed to vote from the age of 16 as they are considered adults for certain circumstances in law and should be responsible enough for their views to be considered. The voting age should not be lowered to any younger than this as many young people would not bother to vote and would not be informed enough to make an informed decision. It would perhaps be beneficial for younger people to vote in situations that directly impact them too, ie voting about university costs. Young people should be taught about politics in school and given the resources to form their own opinions so they have a strong idea of their values and beliefs by the time they are old enough to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Young people should be allowed to vote in elections, but they should be of a certain age and should have a certain level of political knowledge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the voting age should be lowered to 16 and young people should be allowed to vote in elections. This was agreed as it will help young people feel more included and involved with the democratic process and this will mean that the youth voice will be more widely heard and they will be able to express their opinions on issues that affect them. This will also help the political parties gain votes and thus their manifestos will be changed to make them more appealing to younger people. Also, we all felt that the arguments for voting at 16 were more persuasive than the arguments against. The arguments against seemed to be based around the fact that younger people aren’t educated enough about politics or informed enough about political parties and candidates to make an informed decision and that their views and opinions change frequently as they grow up and mature. However, these are things that could be easily resolved through the implementation of politics education in schools, increasing awareness of political parties and candidates and making it compulsory to go to the polling station to vote rather than giving young people the option of abstaining. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001923.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001923.soc index 8127e131..dcfbccf5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001923.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001923.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe cannabis law should be relaxed for personal use, as it is too harsh for the amount of harm associated with the drug. While we are skeptical about evidence that cannabis is a gateway drug, the fact that this risk exists should be acknowledged and should be taken into account in the legal framework that is created. We believe, however, that CBD should be allowed for medicinal use, and treatment for cannabis should be encouraged, and not required, to avoid criminalization. Additionally, education of students, especially young students, should be increased in order to improve decision making ability about cannabis use and avoid potential negative consequences. Exercise 2. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the law on cannabis should be relaxed. It is a complex matter and there are good reasons why the law should be relaxed. These are mainly problems with prison sentences and social injustice where a minor trespass can lead to a tratechtory of a life involving more crime. There are also medical qualities that CBD has that can help people with severe and chronic health conditions such as cancer and chronic health. It can also be argued that the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal use and as a recreational drug would produce more revenue for the government and help to compensate for the increasingly higher use of alcohol, which is currently a legal recreational drug, in society. Canada and California have recently been making changes to the law which allow greater access to cannabis for medicinal use. The benefit of being a late adopter of such legislation is the ability to gain insight from the research and actions of these states. On the other hand, however, there is evidence that cannabis consumption can become a gateway drug. We believe we should support medical use of CBD and reduce prison sentences regarding to cannabis use, but maintain some restrictions for the better of society as a whole. We should also await the results of the research from Canada and California. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that there are complex forces at play in the debate about cannabis law. We believe that the law on cannabis should be relaxed and that prison sentences regarding cannabis use should be reduced, but we also maintain that some restrictions should be in place for the better of society as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is good evidence that cannabis can have a positive impact on health and well-being. However, there are potential harms. In general, the law on cannabis should be relaxed. It is a complex matter and there are good reasons why the law should be relaxed. These are mainly problems with prison sentences and social injustice where a minor trespass can lead to a tratechtory of a life involving more crime. There are also medical qualities that CBD has that can help people with severe and chronic health conditions such as cancer and chronic health. On the other hand, however, there is evidence that cannabis consumption can become a gateway drug. In the future we should support medical use of CBD and reduce prison sentences regarding to cannabis use, but maintain some restrictions for the better of society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe cannabis law should be relaxed for personal use, as it is too harsh for the amount of harm associated with the drug. While we are skeptical about evidence that cannabis is a gateway drug, the fact that this risk exists should be acknowledged and should be taken into account in the legal framework that is created. We believe, however, that CBD should be allowed for medicinal use, and treatment for cannabis should be encouraged, and not required, to avoid criminalization. Additionally, education of students, especially young students, should be increased in order to improve decision making ability about cannabis use and avoid potential negative consequences. Exercise 2. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the law on cannabis should be relaxed. It is a complex matter and there are good reasons why the law should be relaxed. These are mainly problems with prison sentences and social injustice where a minor trespass can lead to a tratechtory of a life involving more crime. There are also medical qualities that CBD has that can help people with severe and chronic health conditions such as cancer and chronic health. It can also be argued that the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal use and as a recreational drug would produce more revenue for the government and help to compensate for the increasingly higher use of alcohol, which is currently a legal recreational drug, in society. Canada and California have recently been making changes to the law which allow greater access to cannabis for medicinal use. The benefit of being a late adopter of such legislation is the ability to gain insight from the research and actions of these states. On the other hand, however, there is evidence that cannabis consumption can become a gateway drug. We believe we should support medical use of CBD and reduce prison sentences regarding to cannabis use, but maintain some restrictions for the better of society as a whole. We should also await the results of the research from Canada and California. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that there are complex forces at play in the debate about cannabis law. We believe that the law on cannabis should be relaxed and that prison sentences regarding cannabis use should be reduced, but we also maintain that some restrictions should be in place for the better of society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is good evidence that cannabis can have a positive impact on health and well-being. However, there are potential harms. In general, the law on cannabis should be relaxed. It is a complex matter and there are good reasons why the law should be relaxed. These are mainly problems with prison sentences and social injustice where a minor trespass can lead to a tratechtory of a life involving more crime. There are also medical qualities that CBD has that can help people with severe and chronic health conditions such as cancer and chronic health. On the other hand, however, there is evidence that cannabis consumption can become a gateway drug. In the future we should support medical use of CBD and reduce prison sentences regarding to cannabis use, but maintain some restrictions for the better of society as a whole. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001924.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001924.soc index 8fa12399..a8e3c2db 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001924.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001924.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws, which it can use to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the poorest members of society, particularly those unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. The government also has the power to create more jobs, which would be particularly useful for people who find it difficult to get a job. The government could do this by building more schools, hospitals, and other public buildings, which would in turn create new jobs in construction and engineering. The government could also increase spending on scientific research, which would create new jobs and benefit the country in the long-term. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all. However, we also believe that there should be a limit to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws, which it can use to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the poorest members of society, particularly those unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. The government also has the power to create more jobs, which would be particularly useful for people who find it difficult to get a job. The government could do this by building more schools, hospitals, and other public buildings, which would in turn create new jobs in construction and engineering. The government could also increase spending on scientific research, which would create new jobs and benefit the country in the long-term. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws, which it can use to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the most vulnerable members of society, particularly those who are unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. The government also has the power to create more jobs, which would be particularly useful for people who find it difficult to get a job. The government could do this by building more schools, hospitals, and other public buildings, which would in turn create new jobs in construction and engineering. The government could also increase spending on scientific research, which would create new jobs and benefit the country in the long-term. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws and use its resources to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the most vulnerable members of society, particularly those unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all.” Summary of consensus forming technique 1. I am very clear on how the process goes. Anyone can volunteer to write the first draft, before everyone else critiques it. Anyone can also volunteer to write the second draft before critiquing it. Anyone can also volunteer to write the final draft. 2. I found writing the first draft easy. I found reviewing it easy. I found writing the second draft easy. I found reviewing it easy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws, which it can use to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the poorest members of society, particularly those unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. The government also has the power to create more jobs, which would be particularly useful for people who find it difficult to get a job. The government could do this by building more schools, hospitals, and other public buildings, which would in turn create new jobs in construction and engineering. The government could also increase spending on scientific research, which would create new jobs and benefit the country in the long-term. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all. However, we also believe that there should be a limit to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws, which it can use to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the poorest members of society, particularly those unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. The government also has the power to create more jobs, which would be particularly useful for people who find it difficult to get a job. The government could do this by building more schools, hospitals, and other public buildings, which would in turn create new jobs in construction and engineering. The government could also increase spending on scientific research, which would create new jobs and benefit the country in the long-term. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws, which it can use to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the most vulnerable members of society, particularly those who are unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. The government also has the power to create more jobs, which would be particularly useful for people who find it difficult to get a job. The government could do this by building more schools, hospitals, and other public buildings, which would in turn create new jobs in construction and engineering. The government could also increase spending on scientific research, which would create new jobs and benefit the country in the long-term. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality. The government is the highest level of authority and has the power to enact laws and use its resources to make society fairer for everyone. It also has a lot of money at its disposal and is in the best position to help the most vulnerable members of society, particularly those unable to work. It can also use its power to change the system of education and ensure that all children, regardless of background, have access to good schooling. This will reduce inequality by creating equal opportunities for all children and young people. By using its power, resources, and money to create more jobs, build more schools, and help the most vulnerable members of society, the government can help reduce inequality and create a fairer society for all.” Summary of consensus forming technique 1. I am very clear on how the process goes. Anyone can volunteer to write the first draft, before everyone else critiques it. Anyone can also volunteer to write the second draft before critiquing it. Anyone can also volunteer to write the final draft. 2. I found writing the first draft easy. I found reviewing it easy. I found writing the second draft easy. I found reviewing it easy. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001925.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001925.soc index 572b835c..61d04e89 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001925.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001925.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is an important social service that we have access to reliable and efficient public transport, we don't believe it should be free. We think that in the current economic climate it is important that the public transport providers run at a profit so that they can continue to develop new and better systems that everyone can benefit from. We believe that to make public transport completely free would just put a bigger burden on the taxpayer, and that money could be better spent elsewhere in the community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of subsidizing public transport, but not to the extent that it would be free to use. The group felt that it was important that people valued public transport, and that it should not be so cheap that it encouraged needless travel. The group felt that it was important to keep public transport affordable, but that it should not be so expensive that it prevented people from getting to work or accessing services. The group felt that the current cost of public transport was too high, and that it should be benchmarked against the cost of public transport in other European countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, because it is not a necessity and would be unfair on tax payers. However, it should be made cheaper to use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Government should subsidize public transportation so that it's free to use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is an important social service that we have access to reliable and efficient public transport, we don't believe it should be free. We think that in the current economic climate it is important that the public transport providers run at a profit so that they can continue to develop new and better systems that everyone can benefit from. We believe that to make public transport completely free would just put a bigger burden on the taxpayer, and that money could be better spent elsewhere in the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of subsidizing public transport, but not to the extent that it would be free to use. The group felt that it was important that people valued public transport, and that it should not be so cheap that it encouraged needless travel. The group felt that it was important to keep public transport affordable, but that it should not be so expensive that it prevented people from getting to work or accessing services. The group felt that the current cost of public transport was too high, and that it should be benchmarked against the cost of public transport in other European countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, because it is not a necessity and would be unfair on tax payers. However, it should be made cheaper to use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Government should subsidize public transportation so that it's free to use. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001926.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001926.soc index 3f0ae3ec..b10f5343 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001926.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001926.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies are being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. There should also be greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. However, the group did feel that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. The group felt that there was a need for greater education for dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. However, the group did feel that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. There was a need for greater education of dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Worksheet 3: "No" word problem Similar to the "Yes" word problem, but we were given the role of one who is opposed to something, and had to come up with a convincing argument in favour of our opposite view, and would have to convince a group of participants to agree with us. This was the question, and my opinion: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. The group did feel that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. The group felt that there was a need for greater education for dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. The group felt that there was a need for greater education for dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. There was a feeling that better licensing of dogs and dog owners would be an appropriate way to help to keep dog owners accountable and responsible for their animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies are being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. There should also be greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. However, the group did feel that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. The group felt that there was a need for greater education for dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. However, the group did feel that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. There was a need for greater education of dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Worksheet 3: "No" word problem Similar to the "Yes" word problem, but we were given the role of one who is opposed to something, and had to come up with a convincing argument in favour of our opposite view, and would have to convince a group of participants to agree with us. This was the question, and my opinion: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. The group did feel that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. The group felt that there was a need for greater education for dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the transportation of puppies. The group also felt +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making it illegal to keep certain breeds of dogs. However, the group felt that it was important to ensure that all dogs were well cared for and trained, and that their owners were responsible. The group felt that there was a need for greater education for dog owners, particularly around training and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of the breeding of dogs, to ensure that puppies were being bred in a responsible way and not just for profit. The group also felt that there was a need for greater regulation of puppy farming and the transportation of puppies. There was a feeling that better licensing of dogs and dog owners would be an appropriate way to help to keep dog owners accountable and responsible for their animals. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001927.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001927.soc index 83db3b4a..9a897b0c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001927.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001927.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking in public places. This is because smoking is a personal choice which affects the health and comfort of others. Being smoked on in a public place is like being vomited on by a stranger, if that vomit was carcinogenic. The group did, however, recognise that smoking is an addiction and that it is very difficult to quit. Therefore, the group was in favour of designated smoking areas in public places, so that smokers can still enjoy a cigarette without negatively impacting on the health of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Consensus View: We agree that smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is a personal choice but when you are smoking in a public place you are inflicting this on others. Smoking in public places is the passive equivalent of being shot at with bullets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is a personal choice, but as such can affect others. Some are allergic to smoke or have breathing problems and should not be forced to endure it because of the actions of another. It is also shown that the effects of second hand smoke can be harmful, and therefore it should not be allowed to happen in public places where people do not have the ability to get away from the smoke. We believe that banning smoking in public places would also lead to a decrease in the amount of people who smoke, which would then in turn have a positive impact on the general health of the population.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People have the right to smoke and vape, however not in public places where it can affect others. This is an example of how a group of people with different views can come to a consensus opinion on a question. The question was not whether smoking was a good or bad thing, but whether it should be allowed in public places. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking in public places. This is because smoking is a personal choice which affects the health and comfort of others. Being smoked on in a public place is like being vomited on by a stranger, if that vomit was carcinogenic. The group did, however, recognise that smoking is an addiction and that it is very difficult to quit. Therefore, the group was in favour of designated smoking areas in public places, so that smokers can still enjoy a cigarette without negatively impacting on the health of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Consensus View: We agree that smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is a personal choice but when you are smoking in a public place you are inflicting this on others. Smoking in public places is the passive equivalent of being shot at with bullets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, smoking in public places should be banned. Smoking is a personal choice, but as such can affect others. Some are allergic to smoke or have breathing problems and should not be forced to endure it because of the actions of another. It is also shown that the effects of second hand smoke can be harmful, and therefore it should not be allowed to happen in public places where people do not have the ability to get away from the smoke. We believe that banning smoking in public places would also lead to a decrease in the amount of people who smoke, which would then in turn have a positive impact on the general health of the population.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People have the right to smoke and vape, however not in public places where it can affect others. This is an example of how a group of people with different views can come to a consensus opinion on a question. The question was not whether smoking was a good or bad thing, but whether it should be allowed in public places. 2: 3,4,1,2 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001928.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001928.soc index 5b8b2e62..8be2ecc0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001928.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001928.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group felt that divorce should be made easier in the UK. With the amount of people getting married and divorced increasing, the process has to be changed. The amount of legal battles and solicitor fees means that the process takes longer and is more expensive than it needs to be. This causes stress and anxiety for the couple, which in turn causes mental health issues. The process should be cheaper and quicker. If there is no dispute between the couple then it should not take months of paperwork to get divorced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We believe that divorce should be made easier in the UK. We think that the current system is too long and drawn out. We think that the current system causes unnecessary stress on both parties involved. We think that the current system is unfair on the parties involved. We think that the current system is a money-making opportunity for lawyers. We think that the current system is outdated and should be changed. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. We think that the current system is unfair on the children involved. We think that the current system is an outdated process. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. We think that the current system is unfair on the children involved. We think that the current system is an outdated process. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. We think that the current system is unfair on the children involved. We think that the current system is an outdated process. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. We think that the current system is unfair on the children involved. We think that the current system is an outdated process. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of making divorce easier to obtain in the UK. This was for a number of reasons. Firstly, the current system is too drawn out and can cause unnecessary stress for both parties. Secondly, the current system can be very expensive and this can cause financial stress for both parties. The group felt that divorce should be a mutual decision and that the process should be as quick and painless as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We feel that divorce in the UK should be made easier for people who both want to end their marriage. We feel that people should be able to get divorced without spending a fortune on solicitors and that it should be a quick process, which is amicable between the couple. The current system is antiquated and there is no need for solicitors to get involved when a couple mutually agree to end their marriage. Conclusion To summarize, consensus statements present a way for a group of participants to present their views on a given subject. A consensus statement presents a summation of the opinions of a group of participants, along with a brief explanation of how the consensus statement was reached. The consensus statement does not present the views of any one participant, but rather the views of the group as a whole. In a paper where a consensus statement is used, it is often not necessary to present the opinions of the individual participants. What the participants say in the report is the consensus statement. However, there is one interesting thing about a consensus statement. When using a consensus statement in a paper, the names of the participants are not usually provided. Therefore, the group of participants are anonymous, and there is no way for a reader to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group felt that divorce should be made easier in the UK. With the amount of people getting married and divorced increasing, the process has to be changed. The amount of legal battles and solicitor fees means that the process takes longer and is more expensive than it needs to be. This causes stress and anxiety for the couple, which in turn causes mental health issues. The process should be cheaper and quicker. If there is no dispute between the couple then it should not take months of paperwork to get divorced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We believe that divorce should be made easier in the UK. We think that the current system is too long and drawn out. We think that the current system causes unnecessary stress on both parties involved. We think that the current system is unfair on the parties involved. We think that the current system is a money-making opportunity for lawyers. We think that the current system is outdated and should be changed. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. We think that the current system is unfair on the children involved. We think that the current system is an outdated process. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. We think that the current system is unfair on the children involved. We think that the current system is an outdated process. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. We think that the current system is unfair on the children involved. We think that the current system is an outdated process. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. We think that the current system is unfair on the children involved. We think that the current system is an outdated process. We think that the current system is an unnecessary process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of making divorce easier to obtain in the UK. This was for a number of reasons. Firstly, the current system is too drawn out and can cause unnecessary stress for both parties. Secondly, the current system can be very expensive and this can cause financial stress for both parties. The group felt that divorce should be a mutual decision and that the process should be as quick and painless as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We feel that divorce in the UK should be made easier for people who both want to end their marriage. We feel that people should be able to get divorced without spending a fortune on solicitors and that it should be a quick process, which is amicable between the couple. The current system is antiquated and there is no need for solicitors to get involved when a couple mutually agree to end their marriage. Conclusion To summarize, consensus statements present a way for a group of participants to present their views on a given subject. A consensus statement presents a summation of the opinions of a group of participants, along with a brief explanation of how the consensus statement was reached. The consensus statement does not present the views of any one participant, but rather the views of the group as a whole. In a paper where a consensus statement is used, it is often not necessary to present the opinions of the individual participants. What the participants say in the report is the consensus statement. However, there is one interesting thing about a consensus statement. When using a consensus statement in a paper, the names of the participants are not usually provided. Therefore, the group of participants are anonymous, and there is no way for a reader to 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001929.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001929.soc index 4462deef..71f64722 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001929.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001929.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a small tax on all meat. The tax should be 1% and should be used to fund the NHS and research into sustainable alternatives to meat. This will reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. It will also help to improve peoples health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that there should be a small tax applied to meat. We think that this will help to reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. We think that this will also help to improve peoples health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. We think that this tax should be a small tax, maybe 1%, and should be applied to all meat. We think that this tax should go towards the NHS and funding research into more sustainable alternatives to meat. Activity A (Possible critique and response): How to spot bad arguments... You are part of a group of participants who have been tasked with writing to your local MPs about possible reforms to green policy in the UK. Below is a comment made about your draft view and a possible response. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that there should be an increased tax on meat. We think that this will help to reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. We think that this will also help to improve peoples health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. We think that this tax should be a small tax, maybe 1%, and should be applied to all meat. We think that this tax should be used to fund the NHS and to fund research into more sustainable alternatives to meat. We also think that this tax should be used to fund a marketing campaign, to promote the new sustainable alternatives to meat and to get the message out there about how reducing meat consumption can help to improve the environment and peoples health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that there should be an increased tax on meat. We think that this will help to reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. We think that this will also help to improve people’s health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. We think that this tax should be a small tax, maybe 1%, and should be applied to all meat. We think that this tax should be used to fund the NHS and to fund research into more sustainable alternatives to meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a small tax on all meat. The tax should be 1% and should be used to fund the NHS and research into sustainable alternatives to meat. This will reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. It will also help to improve peoples health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that there should be a small tax applied to meat. We think that this will help to reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. We think that this will also help to improve peoples health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. We think that this tax should be a small tax, maybe 1%, and should be applied to all meat. We think that this tax should go towards the NHS and funding research into more sustainable alternatives to meat. Activity A (Possible critique and response): How to spot bad arguments... You are part of a group of participants who have been tasked with writing to your local MPs about possible reforms to green policy in the UK. Below is a comment made about your draft view and a possible response. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that there should be an increased tax on meat. We think that this will help to reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. We think that this will also help to improve peoples health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. We think that this tax should be a small tax, maybe 1%, and should be applied to all meat. We think that this tax should be used to fund the NHS and to fund research into more sustainable alternatives to meat. We also think that this tax should be used to fund a marketing campaign, to promote the new sustainable alternatives to meat and to get the message out there about how reducing meat consumption can help to improve the environment and peoples health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that there should be an increased tax on meat. We think that this will help to reduce the consumption of meat and therefore the negative effects that it has on the environment. We think that this will also help to improve people’s health by encouraging them to eat more plant based foods. We think that this tax should be a small tax, maybe 1%, and should be applied to all meat. We think that this tax should be used to fund the NHS and to fund research into more sustainable alternatives to meat. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001930.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001930.soc index 5dd02209..b80de4c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001930.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001930.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of animals in medical research is morally right. However, it is important to ensure that the animals are treated ethically and with respect. The animals should not be harmed or mistreated in any way and should be cared for in a humane manner. The use of animals in medical research is important to ensure that new drugs and treatments are safe for humans. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and there should be strict rules in place to ensure that the animals are not harmed or mistreated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not morally right to use animals in medical research because there are now a number of alternatives that should be explored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it is morally right to use animals in medical research, but with some very strict conditions. The animals should be treated with the utmost respect and should not be harmed in any way. They should be kept in the best conditions possible and should not be harmed in any way. The animals should be bred specifically for this purpose and should not be taken from the wild. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I feel that the use of animals in medical research is a very debatable subject, with many valid arguments on both sides. There are obvious advantages to this practice, in terms of testing drugs before humans can use them, to prevent harm and damage to humans. However, it is also very important to treat animals humanely and ensure that animals are not placed in situations that cause them harm and distress. There are many ways to treat animals humanely, whilst ensuring the best outcomes for medical research. Therefore, although there are many advantages to the use of animals in medical research, it is also very important to ensure that the welfare of the animals is of high priority.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of animals in medical research is morally right. However, it is important to ensure that the animals are treated ethically and with respect. The animals should not be harmed or mistreated in any way and should be cared for in a humane manner. The use of animals in medical research is important to ensure that new drugs and treatments are safe for humans. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and there should be strict rules in place to ensure that the animals are not harmed or mistreated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not morally right to use animals in medical research because there are now a number of alternatives that should be explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it is morally right to use animals in medical research, but with some very strict conditions. The animals should be treated with the utmost respect and should not be harmed in any way. They should be kept in the best conditions possible and should not be harmed in any way. The animals should be bred specifically for this purpose and should not be taken from the wild. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent damage. The animals should not be harmed in any way and should not be given any permanent +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I feel that the use of animals in medical research is a very debatable subject, with many valid arguments on both sides. There are obvious advantages to this practice, in terms of testing drugs before humans can use them, to prevent harm and damage to humans. However, it is also very important to treat animals humanely and ensure that animals are not placed in situations that cause them harm and distress. There are many ways to treat animals humanely, whilst ensuring the best outcomes for medical research. Therefore, although there are many advantages to the use of animals in medical research, it is also very important to ensure that the welfare of the animals is of high priority.” 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001931.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001931.soc index 3a9a0d72..254752d3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001931.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001931.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Consensus statement reached: While it is important that people are able to move around the country to access work and leisure activities, we do not believe it is appropriate to subsidize public transport to the extent that it would be free to use. The cost of living has continued to rise in recent years and so have the costs of running a public transport system, meaning there is a possibility that free public transport would have to be subsidized with the taxpayer’s money which is not a particularly good use of public money when there are so many in society who are suffering. We believe that it is important that the public transport system makes enough profit to help fund future developments and reduce public transport costs for the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While public transport is an important social service that we have access to reliable and efficient public transport, we don't believe it should be free. We think that in the current economic climate it is important that the public transport providers run at a profit so that they can continue to develop new and better systems that everyone can benefit from. We believe that to make public transport completely free would just put a bigger burden on the taxpayer, and that money could be better spent elsewhere in the community. We also believe that it is important to make public transport affordable for everyone, especially those who rely on it to get to and from work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't think that public transport should be free, as it would put an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. However, it is an important social service and should be subsidised to make it affordable for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Consensus statement reached: While it is important that people are able to move around the country to access work and leisure activities, we do not believe it is appropriate to subsidize public transport to the extent that it would be free to use. The cost of living has continued to rise in recent years and so have the costs of running a public transport system, meaning there is a possibility that free public transport would have to be subsidized with the taxpayer’s money which is not a particularly good use of public money when there are so many in society who are suffering. We believe that it is important that the public transport system makes enough profit to help fund future developments and reduce public transport costs for the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While public transport is an important social service that we have access to reliable and efficient public transport, we don't believe it should be free. We think that in the current economic climate it is important that the public transport providers run at a profit so that they can continue to develop new and better systems that everyone can benefit from. We believe that to make public transport completely free would just put a bigger burden on the taxpayer, and that money could be better spent elsewhere in the community. We also believe that it is important to make public transport affordable for everyone, especially those who rely on it to get to and from work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't think that public transport should be free, as it would put an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. However, it is an important social service and should be subsidised to make it affordable for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 3: 1,2,3,4 2: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001932.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001932.soc index e27f0e3f..77218787 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001932.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001932.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a very controversial topic. The main argument is that it will be better for public health, reducing consumption and decreasing the number of health problems related to smoking and alcohol consumption. It will also raise money for the NHS, which is suffering from budget cuts. The problem is that raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will make them unaffordable for some, which could increase tax evasion and increase poverty. The effect on the pub trade is also a concern. If we raise taxes on alcohol, pubs may suffer and there may be an increase in crime and disorder. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I think that the NHS should be funded by taxes, and the money for this should come from the people who have put themselves in harm's way and have caused health problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that alcohol and cigarettes should not be taxed more highly. The current level of taxation on these products is high enough. Raising taxes would be unfair on those who like a drink and a smoke, and it could lead to tax evasion. People should have a choice as to what they spend their money on, and not be punished by making products too expensive. It could also lead to pubs suffering from a decrease in sales if people spend less money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because the NHS is underfunded and needs more money. Also, it is an unhealthy habit and we should discourage people from smoking and drinking. The government should also make it more expensive for young people to buy alcohol and cigarettes to discourage them from taking up the habit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a very controversial topic. The main argument is that it will be better for public health, reducing consumption and decreasing the number of health problems related to smoking and alcohol consumption. It will also raise money for the NHS, which is suffering from budget cuts. The problem is that raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will make them unaffordable for some, which could increase tax evasion and increase poverty. The effect on the pub trade is also a concern. If we raise taxes on alcohol, pubs may suffer and there may be an increase in crime and disorder. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I think that the NHS should be funded by taxes, and the money for this should come from the people who have put themselves in harm's way and have caused health problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that alcohol and cigarettes should not be taxed more highly. The current level of taxation on these products is high enough. Raising taxes would be unfair on those who like a drink and a smoke, and it could lead to tax evasion. People should have a choice as to what they spend their money on, and not be punished by making products too expensive. It could also lead to pubs suffering from a decrease in sales if people spend less money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because the NHS is underfunded and needs more money. Also, it is an unhealthy habit and we should discourage people from smoking and drinking. The government should also make it more expensive for young people to buy alcohol and cigarettes to discourage them from taking up the habit. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001933.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001933.soc index 4ad6982e..6e2195f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001933.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001933.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking is a personal choice which affects the health and comfort of others. Being smoked on in a public place is like being exposed to toxic fumes. Therefore, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, so that smokers can still enjoy a cigarette without negatively impacting on the health of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a ban on smoking in public places. Smoking is a personal choice which affects the health and comfort of others. Being smoked on in a public place is like being vomited on by a stranger, if that vomit was carcinogenic. The group did, however, recognise that smoking is an addiction and that it is very difficult to quit. Therefore, the group was in favour of designated smoking areas in public places, so that smokers can still enjoy a cigarette without negatively impacting on the health of others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: The participants agreed that smoking in public places is an issue that affects both smokers and non-smokers. The final consensus view of the participants was that smoking in public places is a very real issue, as it affects the health of others and also deters people from visiting certain public places. Whilst recognising that people have the right to make individual choices, when those choices adversely affect others, the participants were of the opinion that legislation to restrict the smoking of tobacco in public places is justified. However, to avoid further stigmatisation of smokers and the increasingly negative moral overtones involved with debates on smoking in public, the participants were of the opinion that e-cigarettes should also be included in the legislation. As no participants admitted to having used e-cigarettes, the discussion only included the perspective of non-users. The general view of the group was that more research is needed into the health effects of e-cigarettes in public before a definite stance can be taken on whether they should be included in the proposed legislation. However, considering the legal and political difficulty of banning or legislating against the use of e-cigarettes when research on their health effects is scarce, the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking is a personal choice which affects the health and comfort of others. Being smoked on in a public place is like being exposed to toxic fumes. Therefore, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, so that smokers can still enjoy a cigarette without negatively impacting on the health of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a ban on smoking in public places. Smoking is a personal choice which affects the health and comfort of others. Being smoked on in a public place is like being vomited on by a stranger, if that vomit was carcinogenic. The group did, however, recognise that smoking is an addiction and that it is very difficult to quit. Therefore, the group was in favour of designated smoking areas in public places, so that smokers can still enjoy a cigarette without negatively impacting on the health of others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: The participants agreed that smoking in public places is an issue that affects both smokers and non-smokers. The final consensus view of the participants was that smoking in public places is a very real issue, as it affects the health of others and also deters people from visiting certain public places. Whilst recognising that people have the right to make individual choices, when those choices adversely affect others, the participants were of the opinion that legislation to restrict the smoking of tobacco in public places is justified. However, to avoid further stigmatisation of smokers and the increasingly negative moral overtones involved with debates on smoking in public, the participants were of the opinion that e-cigarettes should also be included in the legislation. As no participants admitted to having used e-cigarettes, the discussion only included the perspective of non-users. The general view of the group was that more research is needed into the health effects of e-cigarettes in public before a definite stance can be taken on whether they should be included in the proposed legislation. However, considering the legal and political difficulty of banning or legislating against the use of e-cigarettes when research on their health effects is scarce, the 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001934.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001934.soc index c97305de..c2c58f13 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001934.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001934.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK's electoral system is fair. However, there are improvements that can be made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK's electoral system is fair. However, it is important to note that there are aspects of the system that could be improved. The first-past-the-post system ensures that constituents have a direct link with their representatives. However, it can lead to a lack of proportionality and potential biases in favour of larger parties. It is also important to note that there is a power imbalance between the two major parties, the Conservative and Labour parties, and the other parties. This can lead to a lack of choice for voters and can discourage people from voting for other parties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK's electoral system is fair. However, it can be improved by implementing proportional representation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While we all agree that our electoral system is essentially fair, there are some small ways in which it can be improved. The biggest way to improve the system is to allow immigrants/permanent settlers to vote on a national level. This would not only be fair but would also allow them to feel more involved and have a voice in the country they have chosen to call home. Another way to improve the electoral system is to allow young people to vote at 16. Many young people would like to vote as they feel they can engage with the electoral process and take a role in their country’s future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK's electoral system is fair. However, there are improvements that can be made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK's electoral system is fair. However, it is important to note that there are aspects of the system that could be improved. The first-past-the-post system ensures that constituents have a direct link with their representatives. However, it can lead to a lack of proportionality and potential biases in favour of larger parties. It is also important to note that there is a power imbalance between the two major parties, the Conservative and Labour parties, and the other parties. This can lead to a lack of choice for voters and can discourage people from voting for other parties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK's electoral system is fair. However, it can be improved by implementing proportional representation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While we all agree that our electoral system is essentially fair, there are some small ways in which it can be improved. The biggest way to improve the system is to allow immigrants/permanent settlers to vote on a national level. This would not only be fair but would also allow them to feel more involved and have a voice in the country they have chosen to call home. Another way to improve the electoral system is to allow young people to vote at 16. Many young people would like to vote as they feel they can engage with the electoral process and take a role in their country’s future. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001935.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001935.soc index afda465c..b595c840 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001935.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001935.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of animals in medical research is morally right. However, it is important to ensure that the animals are treated ethically and with respect. The animals should not be harmed or mistreated in any way and should be cared for in a humane manner. The use of animals in medical research is important to ensure that new drugs and treatments are safe for humans. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and there should be strict rules in place to ensure that the animals are not harmed or mistreated. The animals should be specifically bred for medical testing and not taken from the wild. The animals should be given appropriate respect and commemoration from the scientific community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, however, we feel it is important to note that this is very much the first draft. We feel that it will be necessary to conduct more research in the future before this view can be properly justified and put into effect. Final consensus statement: _________________________________________________________________ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: In general, the use of animals in medical research is morally right. However, it is important to ensure that the animals are treated ethically and with respect. The animals should not be harmed or mistreated in any way and should be cared for in a humane manner. The animals used in medical research should be specifically bred for this purpose and care and respect should be given to them. The use of animals in medical research is important to ensure that new drugs and treatments are safe for humans. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and there should be strict rules in place to ensure that the animals are not harmed or mistreated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The use of animals in medical research is generally ethical, as long as it is tightly regulated and the animals are treated in a humane manner. The animals should not be harmed or mistreated in any way and should be cared for in a humane manner. The use of animals in medical research is important to ensure that new drugs and treatments are safe for humans. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and there should be strict rules in place to ensure that the animals are not harmed or mistreated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of animals in medical research is morally right. However, it is important to ensure that the animals are treated ethically and with respect. The animals should not be harmed or mistreated in any way and should be cared for in a humane manner. The use of animals in medical research is important to ensure that new drugs and treatments are safe for humans. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and there should be strict rules in place to ensure that the animals are not harmed or mistreated. The animals should be specifically bred for medical testing and not taken from the wild. The animals should be given appropriate respect and commemoration from the scientific community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We generally agree with the draft consensus statement, however, we feel it is important to note that this is very much the first draft. We feel that it will be necessary to conduct more research in the future before this view can be properly justified and put into effect. Final consensus statement: _________________________________________________________________ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: In general, the use of animals in medical research is morally right. However, it is important to ensure that the animals are treated ethically and with respect. The animals should not be harmed or mistreated in any way and should be cared for in a humane manner. The animals used in medical research should be specifically bred for this purpose and care and respect should be given to them. The use of animals in medical research is important to ensure that new drugs and treatments are safe for humans. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and there should be strict rules in place to ensure that the animals are not harmed or mistreated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The use of animals in medical research is generally ethical, as long as it is tightly regulated and the animals are treated in a humane manner. The animals should not be harmed or mistreated in any way and should be cared for in a humane manner. The use of animals in medical research is important to ensure that new drugs and treatments are safe for humans. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and there should be strict rules in place to ensure that the animals are not harmed or mistreated. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001936.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001936.soc index b8d63dc1..63b85a18 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001936.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001936.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we need to spend more on prevention. Prevention, rather than punitive approaches, has been shown to be the most effective way of dealing with drug use. This is because, as drug users are stigmatised, their access to support services and programs that may be able to help them to overcome their addiction is limited. For example, people in recovery from drug use have difficulty in getting jobs, and drug use is not accepted as a mitigating factor for any other crimes. Prevention would ensure that less people enter the criminal justice system, and would result in less drug use overall, meaning that more people would be able to lead healthy and happy lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A consensus statement from the participants: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that more funds should be allocated to prevent drug use. We believe that drug use is a huge problem and addiction can ruin lives. We believe that all drug use is bad, and that people can use drugs safely and responsibly. We believe that when drug use starts to negatively affect parts of your life such as your job, mental health, physical health, relationships etc. then it becomes a problem. We believe that the sale of drugs also funds other criminal behaviour. We believe that we currently give enough support to drug users. We believe that investing in programs that prevent drug use, provide rehabilitation and support programs makes absolute sense in a society that can clearly see the detrimental effects of drug use. We believe that drug addiction has far reaching effects, not only for the addict but their families and wider society there for it makes sense to put more money into proving lonng lastinng solutions. We believe that in the ongoing war on drugs we do believe that there should be more funds allocated to prevent drug use. We believe that the associated crime that is occuring in out society due to drug use is escalating and needs to be stopped. We believe that a crackdown on drug use would result on less crime on our streets. We believe that -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were split on this question. The participants who believed that more funds should be allocated to prevent drug use believed that this would reduce crime and make the streets safer. The participants who did not believe that more funds should be allocated to prevent drug use believed that the current methods are not working and that the government should be looking at other ways to prevent drug use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we need to spend more on prevention. Prevention, rather than punitive approaches, has been shown to be the most effective way of dealing with drug use. This is because, as drug users are stigmatised, their access to support services and programs that may be able to help them to overcome their addiction is limited. For example, people in recovery from drug use have difficulty in getting jobs, and drug use is not accepted as a mitigating factor for any other crimes. Prevention would ensure that less people enter the criminal justice system, and would result in less drug use overall, meaning that more people would be able to lead healthy and happy lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A consensus statement from the participants: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that more funds should be allocated to prevent drug use. We believe that drug use is a huge problem and addiction can ruin lives. We believe that all drug use is bad, and that people can use drugs safely and responsibly. We believe that when drug use starts to negatively affect parts of your life such as your job, mental health, physical health, relationships etc. then it becomes a problem. We believe that the sale of drugs also funds other criminal behaviour. We believe that we currently give enough support to drug users. We believe that investing in programs that prevent drug use, provide rehabilitation and support programs makes absolute sense in a society that can clearly see the detrimental effects of drug use. We believe that drug addiction has far reaching effects, not only for the addict but their families and wider society there for it makes sense to put more money into proving lonng lastinng solutions. We believe that in the ongoing war on drugs we do believe that there should be more funds allocated to prevent drug use. We believe that the associated crime that is occuring in out society due to drug use is escalating and needs to be stopped. We believe that a crackdown on drug use would result on less crime on our streets. We believe that +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were split on this question. The participants who believed that more funds should be allocated to prevent drug use believed that this would reduce crime and make the streets safer. The participants who did not believe that more funds should be allocated to prevent drug use believed that the current methods are not working and that the government should be looking at other ways to prevent drug use. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001937.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001937.soc index 082c0d48..382fba30 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001937.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001937.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the monarchy is outdated and serves no purpose, other than entertainment for tourists. However, changing the system for selecting a monarch will not resolve this. In order to truly have a fair society, the position of the monarch should be abolished, so that people are no longer subject to this outdated institution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a new system for selecting a monarch. However, the group was split as to whether the UK should have a monarch at all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should have a new system for selecting the monarch. The current system is outdated and doesn't represent the views of the people. It is a legalised cult that has no place in modern society. The new system should be one where the people can vote for who they want as monarch. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Should the UK have a new system for selecting the monarch? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the monarchy is outdated and serves no purpose, other than entertainment for tourists. However, changing the system for selecting a monarch will not resolve this. In order to truly have a fair society, the position of the monarch should be abolished, so that people are no longer subject to this outdated institution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a new system for selecting a monarch. However, the group was split as to whether the UK should have a monarch at all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should have a new system for selecting the monarch. The current system is outdated and doesn't represent the views of the people. It is a legalised cult that has no place in modern society. The new system should be one where the people can vote for who they want as monarch. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Should the UK have a new system for selecting the monarch? 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001938.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001938.soc index 372a5277..cdc8acdc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001938.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001938.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a role for faith schools in a modern society. However, the role should be limited to teaching the pupils about other religions and promoting tolerance and understanding. There should be no religious instruction in faith schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In a modern society we should allow faith schools, but there must be a balance between faith schools and non faith schools. This is because we want children to be exposed to a wide variety of faiths, but also a balance so that no child feels they are being 'sold' a religion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of faith schools, though some reservations were expressed. The general feeling was that faith schools are beneficial for the children who attend them and the wider society. The group felt that faith schools are an important part of a multicultural society and are beneficial for teaching children about other religions. It was felt that children should be taught about all religions and that this would promote tolerance and understanding. The group also felt that it is important for children to be able to practice their own religion and that faith schools allow this to happen. The group did express some reservations about faith schools. Some felt that they were elitist and that they were not inclusive of all children. Some also felt that the quality of education in faith schools was not as good as in non faith schools. The group felt that it is important for all children to have the same opportunities and that faith schools can create an uneven playing field. The group felt that the curriculum in faith schools is too narrow and that it does not allow children to explore other religions and cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a role for faith schools in a modern society. However, the role should be limited to teaching the pupils about other religions and promoting tolerance and understanding. There should be no religious instruction in faith schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In a modern society we should allow faith schools, but there must be a balance between faith schools and non faith schools. This is because we want children to be exposed to a wide variety of faiths, but also a balance so that no child feels they are being 'sold' a religion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of faith schools, though some reservations were expressed. The general feeling was that faith schools are beneficial for the children who attend them and the wider society. The group felt that faith schools are an important part of a multicultural society and are beneficial for teaching children about other religions. It was felt that children should be taught about all religions and that this would promote tolerance and understanding. The group also felt that it is important for children to be able to practice their own religion and that faith schools allow this to happen. The group did express some reservations about faith schools. Some felt that they were elitist and that they were not inclusive of all children. Some also felt that the quality of education in faith schools was not as good as in non faith schools. The group felt that it is important for all children to have the same opportunities and that faith schools can create an uneven playing field. The group felt that the curriculum in faith schools is too narrow and that it does not allow children to explore other religions and cultures. 4: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001939.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001939.soc index 59b7e77d..303596fd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001939.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001939.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a very controversial topic. The main argument is that it will be better for public health, reducing consumption and decreasing the number of health problems related to smoking and alcohol consumption. It will also raise money for the NHS, which is suffering from budget cuts. The problem is that raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will make them unaffordable for some, which could increase tax evasion and increase poverty. The effect on the pub trade is also a concern. If we raise taxes on alcohol, pubs may suffer and there may be an increase in crime and disorder. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I think that the NHS should be funded by taxes, and the money for this should come from the people who have put themselves in harm's way and have caused health problems. How did this tool help participants to develop a consensus view? This exercise helped participants to: - discuss their initial views and consider other people's opinions. - listen to others' opinions. - consider other people's opinions and reflect on -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a very controversial topic. The main argument is that it will be better for public health, reducing consumption and decreasing the number of health problems related to smoking and alcohol consumption. It will also raise money for the NHS, which is suffering from budget cuts. The problem is that raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will make them unaffordable for some, which could increase tax evasion and increase poverty. The effect on the pub trade is also a concern. If we raise taxes on alcohol, pubs may suffer and there may be an increase in crime and disorder. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I think that the NHS should be funded by taxes, and the money for this should come from the people who have put themselves in harm's way and have caused health problems. However, we must be careful about how much of the cost we pass onto those who do not have the means to pay. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a very controversial topic. The main argument is that it will be better for public health, reducing consumption and decreasing the number of health problems related to smoking and alcohol consumption. It will also raise money for the NHS, which is suffering from budget cuts. The problem is that raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will make them unaffordable for some, which could increase tax evasion and increase poverty. The effect on the pub trade is also a concern. If we raise taxes on alcohol, pubs may suffer and there may be an increase in crime and disorder. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I think that the NHS should be funded by taxes, and the money for this should come from the people who have put themselves in harm's way and have caused health problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a very controversial topic. The main argument is that it will be better for public health, reducing consumption and decreasing the number of health problems related to smoking and alcohol consumption. It will also raise money for the NHS, which is suffering from budget cuts. The problem is that raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will make them unaffordable for some, which could increase tax evasion and increase poverty. The effect on the pub trade is also a concern. If we raise taxes on alcohol, pubs may suffer and there may be an increase in crime and disorder. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I think that the NHS should be funded by taxes, and the money for this should come from the people who have put themselves in harm's way and have caused health problems. How did this tool help participants to develop a consensus view? This exercise helped participants to: - discuss their initial views and consider other people's opinions. - listen to others' opinions. - consider other people's opinions and reflect on +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a very controversial topic. The main argument is that it will be better for public health, reducing consumption and decreasing the number of health problems related to smoking and alcohol consumption. It will also raise money for the NHS, which is suffering from budget cuts. The problem is that raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will make them unaffordable for some, which could increase tax evasion and increase poverty. The effect on the pub trade is also a concern. If we raise taxes on alcohol, pubs may suffer and there may be an increase in crime and disorder. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I think that the NHS should be funded by taxes, and the money for this should come from the people who have put themselves in harm's way and have caused health problems. However, we must be careful about how much of the cost we pass onto those who do not have the means to pay. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a very controversial topic. The main argument is that it will be better for public health, reducing consumption and decreasing the number of health problems related to smoking and alcohol consumption. It will also raise money for the NHS, which is suffering from budget cuts. The problem is that raising the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will make them unaffordable for some, which could increase tax evasion and increase poverty. The effect on the pub trade is also a concern. If we raise taxes on alcohol, pubs may suffer and there may be an increase in crime and disorder. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I think that the NHS should be funded by taxes, and the money for this should come from the people who have put themselves in harm's way and have caused health problems. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001940.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001940.soc index c085f35f..f970dc47 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001940.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001940.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. It is clear that a move to more sustainable energy sources will have a significant impact on global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. We have to do something. There are no downsides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that the move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. This is because the more people use sustainable energy, the less they will be using fossil fuels. This means that there will be less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which will have a positive impact on global warming. However, we also believe that the move to more sustainable energy sources is not the only thing that needs to be done to combat global warming. There are many other things that need to be done, such as reducing deforestation, reducing the amount of waste that is sent to landfill, and using public transport more. We also believe that it is important to inform people about what they can do to help combat global warming. We believe that this will help to make a real difference to global warming. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We all agreed that the move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. The use of sustainable energy will reduce the amount of emissions produced by energy production and thereby contribute to the reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases. We also agreed that there are many other things which need to be looked at such as energy efficiency in our homes, energy usage in transport, use of energy in business and factories. We all agreed that these areas need to be addressed but that we cannot rely on these alone to make a real difference to global warming. Conclusion: It is clear that a move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary. We need to take action on many fronts to make a difference. The following are actions which we need to take. Actions to take 1. Reduce energy consumption. 2. Use energy efficient products. 3. Recycle 4. Use energy from renewable resources 5. Avoid use of private cars and use public transport. 6. Eat less meat. 7. Plant trees. 8. Stop pollution. 9. Conserve energy. 10. Use solar panels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. It is clear that a move to more sustainable energy sources will have a significant impact on global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources will help to reduce the effects of global warming. This is because the majority of our energy sources are not sustainable, and are contributing to global warming. A move to more sustainable energy sources +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. We have to do something. There are no downsides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that the move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. This is because the more people use sustainable energy, the less they will be using fossil fuels. This means that there will be less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which will have a positive impact on global warming. However, we also believe that the move to more sustainable energy sources is not the only thing that needs to be done to combat global warming. There are many other things that need to be done, such as reducing deforestation, reducing the amount of waste that is sent to landfill, and using public transport more. We also believe that it is important to inform people about what they can do to help combat global warming. We believe that this will help to make a real difference to global warming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We all agreed that the move to more sustainable energy sources is likely to make a real difference to global warming. The use of sustainable energy will reduce the amount of emissions produced by energy production and thereby contribute to the reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases. We also agreed that there are many other things which need to be looked at such as energy efficiency in our homes, energy usage in transport, use of energy in business and factories. We all agreed that these areas need to be addressed but that we cannot rely on these alone to make a real difference to global warming. Conclusion: It is clear that a move to more sustainable energy sources is necessary. We need to take action on many fronts to make a difference. The following are actions which we need to take. Actions to take 1. Reduce energy consumption. 2. Use energy efficient products. 3. Recycle 4. Use energy from renewable resources 5. Avoid use of private cars and use public transport. 6. Eat less meat. 7. Plant trees. 8. Stop pollution. 9. Conserve energy. 10. Use solar panels. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001941.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001941.soc index 5548e1ac..fb1394db 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001941.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001941.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be given a free computer at the age of 6 because it will enhance their learning and development and improve their computer literacy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think that it's a good idea to give children free computers at the age of 6. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6. There are a range of negative consequences associated with children spending too much time in front of a screen, as well as the likelihood that computers would not be used as an educational tool and instead be used to play games. It is very important for children to develop important social skills through socialising with friends, rather than spending time alone in front of a computer. We acknowledge the benefits of children being exposed to technology, but believe that 6 years of age is too young to be provided with a computer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6, as we believe it is too young for them. Children should be experiencing traditional social play, engaging with other young people their age and not isolating themselves on devices that have been proven to be addictive. Computers restrict attention spans, and evidence shows that children who read books and play outside grow up brighter and healthier than those exposed to technology at a young age. Children should have access to computers, e.g. for school, however should wait until older to access one permanently. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be given a free computer at the age of 6 because it will enhance their learning and development and improve their computer literacy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think that it's a good idea to give children free computers at the age of 6. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6. There are a range of negative consequences associated with children spending too much time in front of a screen, as well as the likelihood that computers would not be used as an educational tool and instead be used to play games. It is very important for children to develop important social skills through socialising with friends, rather than spending time alone in front of a computer. We acknowledge the benefits of children being exposed to technology, but believe that 6 years of age is too young to be provided with a computer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6, as we believe it is too young for them. Children should be experiencing traditional social play, engaging with other young people their age and not isolating themselves on devices that have been proven to be addictive. Computers restrict attention spans, and evidence shows that children who read books and play outside grow up brighter and healthier than those exposed to technology at a young age. Children should have access to computers, e.g. for school, however should wait until older to access one permanently. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001942.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001942.soc index dd6f4043..f97c4070 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001942.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001942.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of allowing people to sell their organs, but only if the following conditions were met: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that it is acceptable to pay people to have their organs removed to help other people. This is because there are people in desperate need of organs and they are often waiting months for a donation. This would also provide an opportunity for people to make some money, as many people are in need of money. However, there should be some regulation, to make sure that vulnerable people are not taken advantage of and that people are not selling organs that they need to survive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is morally acceptable to pay people to have their organs removed to help other people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of selling organs to save the life of another person is acceptable. However, there are a number of issues that need to be considered. In order to ensure that there is no abuse of the system and that the donors are properly cared for, there should be very strict guidelines put in place. The government should have a hand in it as well, and there should be a clear cut pricing system that is not left to the discretion of the buyer and seller. The people who need the organs should not have to pay for them, but instead the government should fund the operation. There needs to be proper evaluation of both the buyer and seller of the organs as well. The buyer should not be trying to scam the system by getting an organ for free, and the seller should be sure that the organ is actually needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing people to sell their organs, but only if the following conditions were met: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that it is acceptable to pay people to have their organs removed to help other people. This is because there are people in desperate need of organs and they are often waiting months for a donation. This would also provide an opportunity for people to make some money, as many people are in need of money. However, there should be some regulation, to make sure that vulnerable people are not taken advantage of and that people are not selling organs that they need to survive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is morally acceptable to pay people to have their organs removed to help other people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of selling organs to save the life of another person is acceptable. However, there are a number of issues that need to be considered. In order to ensure that there is no abuse of the system and that the donors are properly cared for, there should be very strict guidelines put in place. The government should have a hand in it as well, and there should be a clear cut pricing system that is not left to the discretion of the buyer and seller. The people who need the organs should not have to pay for them, but instead the government should fund the operation. There needs to be proper evaluation of both the buyer and seller of the organs as well. The buyer should not be trying to scam the system by getting an organ for free, and the seller should be sure that the organ is actually needed. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001943.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001943.soc index 69645a1b..ab3d3265 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001943.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001943.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: All UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. This is because all companies should be paying the same rate regardless of gender. The data should be made public to create more accountability for equal pay at equal levels for both men and women. The data will help to fight workplace discrimination and support women to reach their full potential in the workplace. The data will also help us to understand where the gender pay gap exists and how we can address it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. This would help to fight workplace discrimination and help women to reach their full potential in the workplace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: All UK companies should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. This would create transparency in the workplace and would allow the necessary changes to be made to prevent unfair gender discrimination. It is important that these disclosures are made to show the extent of the gender pay gap in the UK. This would also allow companies to see what the areas for improvement are in their company, therefore allowing them to make changes to resolve the gender pay gap. It is important to make changes to ensure equality and fairness in the workplace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - All UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. This is because all companies should be paying the same rate regardless of gender. The data should be made public to create more accountability for equal pay at equal levels for both men and women. The data will help to fight workplace discrimination and support women to reach their full potential in the workplace. The data will also help us to understand where the gender pay gap exists and how we can address it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, all UK companies with more than 250 employees should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. This would help to fight workplace discrimination and help women to reach their full potential in the workplace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - All UK companies should be required to disclose their gender pay gap. This would create transparency in the workplace and would allow the necessary changes to be made to prevent unfair gender discrimination. It is important that these disclosures are made to show the extent of the gender pay gap in the UK. This would also allow companies to see what the areas for improvement are in their company, therefore allowing them to make changes to resolve the gender pay gap. It is important to make changes to ensure equality and fairness in the workplace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001944.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001944.soc index 88695298..077005b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001944.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001944.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think that we should increase the number of immigrants to the UK. There is a shortage of people in certain professions and we should be able to accept people who have the skills we need. There are people who are born in the UK who are living in poverty and without jobs. There are people who are living in the UK who are also in poverty and without jobs. If we increase the number of immigrants, we could increase the number of people in poverty and without jobs. This would be a very bad thing to do. I think that we should increase the number of immigrants to the UK. There is a shortage of people in certain professions and we should be able to accept people who have the skills we need. There are people who are born in the UK who are living in poverty and without jobs. There are people who are living in the UK who are also in poverty and without jobs. If we increase the number of immigrants, we could increase the number of people in poverty and without jobs. This would be a very bad thing to do. I think that we should increase the number of immigrants to the UK. There is a shortage of people in certain professions and we should be able to accept people who have the skills we need. There -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the number of immigrants admitted to the UK should not be increased. This is because the country is already struggling to provide basic care to its current citizens. It is stretched in terms of affordable housing, access to NHS dentists and doctors surgeries. Increasing the number of immigrants will put additional strain on these resources, so should not be increased. However, there may be scope to allow skilled immigrants in areas where there is a shortage of people in specific jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While it is important for the UK to accept its fair share of immigrants in order to allow them to escape war and persecution, it should not accept more than is its fair share. The UK must bear in mind that it is a small country, and its infrastructure is under considerable pressure. The UK must therefore make sure that its own citizens are looked after, in terms of basic health, education and other services. If the UK accepts more than its fair share of immigrants, this may lead to greater numbers of poor and homeless, as well as a strain on infrastructure, leading to increased pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the number of immigrants should not be increased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think that we should increase the number of immigrants to the UK. There is a shortage of people in certain professions and we should be able to accept people who have the skills we need. There are people who are born in the UK who are living in poverty and without jobs. There are people who are living in the UK who are also in poverty and without jobs. If we increase the number of immigrants, we could increase the number of people in poverty and without jobs. This would be a very bad thing to do. I think that we should increase the number of immigrants to the UK. There is a shortage of people in certain professions and we should be able to accept people who have the skills we need. There are people who are born in the UK who are living in poverty and without jobs. There are people who are living in the UK who are also in poverty and without jobs. If we increase the number of immigrants, we could increase the number of people in poverty and without jobs. This would be a very bad thing to do. I think that we should increase the number of immigrants to the UK. There is a shortage of people in certain professions and we should be able to accept people who have the skills we need. There +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the number of immigrants admitted to the UK should not be increased. This is because the country is already struggling to provide basic care to its current citizens. It is stretched in terms of affordable housing, access to NHS dentists and doctors surgeries. Increasing the number of immigrants will put additional strain on these resources, so should not be increased. However, there may be scope to allow skilled immigrants in areas where there is a shortage of people in specific jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While it is important for the UK to accept its fair share of immigrants in order to allow them to escape war and persecution, it should not accept more than is its fair share. The UK must bear in mind that it is a small country, and its infrastructure is under considerable pressure. The UK must therefore make sure that its own citizens are looked after, in terms of basic health, education and other services. If the UK accepts more than its fair share of immigrants, this may lead to greater numbers of poor and homeless, as well as a strain on infrastructure, leading to increased pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the number of immigrants should not be increased. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001945.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001945.soc index d75b205f..aeff1438 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001945.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001945.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: We believe that children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6. We acknowledge that there are many benefits that come from allowing children to be exposed to technology at a young age, such as increased employability. However we think that children should be given time to learn social skills by playing with other children, rather than spending time alone in front of a screen. We are also concerned about the potentially addictive qualities of computers, and consider that young children are at risk of developing these habits. Next question -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6. There are a range of negative consequences associated with children spending too much time in front of a screen, as well as the likelihood that computers would not be used as an educational tool and instead be used to play games. The health effects of overexposure are also not known at this stage, as computers have not been in existence long enough for long-term effects to be seen. It is very important for children to develop important social skills through socialising with friends, rather than spending time alone in front of a computer. We acknowledge the benefits of children being exposed to technology, but believe that 6 years of age is too young to be provided with a computer. Instead, children should have access to computers at school and computers should be restricted at home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6. It is important for children to develop important social skills through socialising with friends, rather than spending time alone in front of a computer. Children are also not exposed to technology enough through other means, such as at school, so having access to a computer at such a young age is not necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6, as it is too young for children to be introduced to the risks associated with technology. There is strong evidence to suggest that too much screen time at a young age can impact on children’s ability to develop important social skills, as well as be addictive and harmful for their eyes. While it is important that children are exposed to technology, it is likely that children would not use a free computer as an educational tool, but would instead use it to play games. It is very important for children to develop important social skills through socialising with friends, rather than spending time alone in front of a computer. We acknowledge the benefits of children being exposed to technology, but believe that 6 years of age is too young to be provided with a computer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: We believe that children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6. We acknowledge that there are many benefits that come from allowing children to be exposed to technology at a young age, such as increased employability. However we think that children should be given time to learn social skills by playing with other children, rather than spending time alone in front of a screen. We are also concerned about the potentially addictive qualities of computers, and consider that young children are at risk of developing these habits. Next question +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6. There are a range of negative consequences associated with children spending too much time in front of a screen, as well as the likelihood that computers would not be used as an educational tool and instead be used to play games. The health effects of overexposure are also not known at this stage, as computers have not been in existence long enough for long-term effects to be seen. It is very important for children to develop important social skills through socialising with friends, rather than spending time alone in front of a computer. We acknowledge the benefits of children being exposed to technology, but believe that 6 years of age is too young to be provided with a computer. Instead, children should have access to computers at school and computers should be restricted at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6. It is important for children to develop important social skills through socialising with friends, rather than spending time alone in front of a computer. Children are also not exposed to technology enough through other means, such as at school, so having access to a computer at such a young age is not necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be given a free computer at the age of 6, as it is too young for children to be introduced to the risks associated with technology. There is strong evidence to suggest that too much screen time at a young age can impact on children’s ability to develop important social skills, as well as be addictive and harmful for their eyes. While it is important that children are exposed to technology, it is likely that children would not use a free computer as an educational tool, but would instead use it to play games. It is very important for children to develop important social skills through socialising with friends, rather than spending time alone in front of a computer. We acknowledge the benefits of children being exposed to technology, but believe that 6 years of age is too young to be provided with a computer. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001946.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001946.soc index cd7f544f..0f12acf4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001946.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001946.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is important for the UK to accept its fair share of immigrants in order to allow them to escape war and persecution, it should not accept more than is its fair share. The UK must bear in mind that it is a small country, and its infrastructure is under considerable pressure. The UK must therefore make sure that its own citizens are looked after, in terms of basic health, education and other services. If the UK accepts more than its fair share of immigrants, this may lead to greater numbers of poor and homeless, as well as a strain on infrastructure, leading to increased pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. If the UK is to accept more immigrants, it should focus on skilled immigrants, who are able to provide a valuable benefit to the country, rather than simply adding to the numbers of poor and homeless. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should accept its fair share of immigrants. The UK is a small country and its infrastructure is already under considerable pressure. Therefore the UK should make sure that its own citizens are looked after, in terms of basic health, education and other services, before accepting immigrants. If the UK accepts more than its fair share of immigrants, this may lead to greater numbers of poor and homeless, as well as a strain on infrastructure, leading to increased pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While it is important for the UK to accept its fair share of immigrants in order to allow them to escape war and persecution, the UK should not accept more than is its fair share as there is considerable pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important for the UK to accept its fair share of immigrants in order to allow them to escape war and persecution, it should not accept more than is its fair share. The UK must bear in mind that it is a small country, and its infrastructure is under considerable pressure. The UK must therefore make sure that its own citizens are looked after, in terms of basic health, education and other services. If the UK accepts more than its fair share of immigrants, this may lead to greater numbers of poor and homeless, as well as a strain on infrastructure, leading to increased pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. The group agrees that skilled immigrants should be brought into the country, but in a controlled way which is agreed by the Government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is important for the UK to accept its fair share of immigrants in order to allow them to escape war and persecution, it should not accept more than is its fair share. The UK must bear in mind that it is a small country, and its infrastructure is under considerable pressure. The UK must therefore make sure that its own citizens are looked after, in terms of basic health, education and other services. If the UK accepts more than its fair share of immigrants, this may lead to greater numbers of poor and homeless, as well as a strain on infrastructure, leading to increased pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. If the UK is to accept more immigrants, it should focus on skilled immigrants, who are able to provide a valuable benefit to the country, rather than simply adding to the numbers of poor and homeless. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should accept its fair share of immigrants. The UK is a small country and its infrastructure is already under considerable pressure. Therefore the UK should make sure that its own citizens are looked after, in terms of basic health, education and other services, before accepting immigrants. If the UK accepts more than its fair share of immigrants, this may lead to greater numbers of poor and homeless, as well as a strain on infrastructure, leading to increased pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While it is important for the UK to accept its fair share of immigrants in order to allow them to escape war and persecution, the UK should not accept more than is its fair share as there is considerable pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important for the UK to accept its fair share of immigrants in order to allow them to escape war and persecution, it should not accept more than is its fair share. The UK must bear in mind that it is a small country, and its infrastructure is under considerable pressure. The UK must therefore make sure that its own citizens are looked after, in terms of basic health, education and other services. If the UK accepts more than its fair share of immigrants, this may lead to greater numbers of poor and homeless, as well as a strain on infrastructure, leading to increased pressure on services such as housing and the NHS. The group agrees that skilled immigrants should be brought into the country, but in a controlled way which is agreed by the Government. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001947.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001947.soc index 1f097fa1..e1dfbc5f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001947.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001947.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the maximum speed limit for cars in the UK should be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, lowering the speed limit would reduce the number of accidents and deaths on the roads. Secondly, it would help to reduce air pollution, which has a negative impacts on public health. Thirdly, it would help to reduce noise pollution. Finally, it would encourage people to drive more fuel efficiently which would have a positive impact on carbon emissions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The current maximum legal speed of 70 mph on motorways is adequate and no changes should be made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that the maximum legal speed for cars should not be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. We think that the current maximum speed of 70mph is a perfectly acceptable speed on motorways, and it should not be lowered to 60. We do not think that there is any need for it to be lowered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Lowering the maximum speed limit on UK motorways from 70mph to 60mph is not a bad idea. We need to consider that UK speed limits are generally considered to be too low by European drivers. There are a number of reasons why lowering the speed limit to 60mph would be a good idea. Firstly, it would reduce the number of accidents and deaths on the roads. Secondly, it would help to reduce air pollution, which has a negative impact on public health. Thirdly, it would help to reduce noise pollution. Finally, it would encourage people to drive more fuel efficiently which would have a positive impact on carbon emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the maximum speed limit for cars in the UK should be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, lowering the speed limit would reduce the number of accidents and deaths on the roads. Secondly, it would help to reduce air pollution, which has a negative impacts on public health. Thirdly, it would help to reduce noise pollution. Finally, it would encourage people to drive more fuel efficiently which would have a positive impact on carbon emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The current maximum legal speed of 70 mph on motorways is adequate and no changes should be made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that the maximum legal speed for cars should not be lowered from 70mph to 60mph. We think that the current maximum speed of 70mph is a perfectly acceptable speed on motorways, and it should not be lowered to 60. We do not think that there is any need for it to be lowered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Lowering the maximum speed limit on UK motorways from 70mph to 60mph is not a bad idea. We need to consider that UK speed limits are generally considered to be too low by European drivers. There are a number of reasons why lowering the speed limit to 60mph would be a good idea. Firstly, it would reduce the number of accidents and deaths on the roads. Secondly, it would help to reduce air pollution, which has a negative impact on public health. Thirdly, it would help to reduce noise pollution. Finally, it would encourage people to drive more fuel efficiently which would have a positive impact on carbon emissions. 3: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001948.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001948.soc index 8e8a6a7b..1fb564c4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001948.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001948.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be restrictions on the age at which children can enter a nightclub. Teenagers, especially those younger than 16, are still developing their decision-making skills and are not fully able to give informed consent to actions. Furthermore, their exposure to the adult-oriented activities that are performed in nightclubs could be harmful to their health and well-being. We would propose that there should be an age limit of 18, however we are willing to concede that perhaps 16 and 17 year olds could be allowed into nightclubs with an adult relative. However, there would be a need for further controls to be put in place to ensure that the 16 and 17 year olds are not at risk from drugs or alcohol consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Nightclubs should be 18+ only spaces. The risk of exposure to activities that are potentially harmful and that children are not yet able to make informed choices about are too great. We believe this is the best way to protect minors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be restrictions on what age children can enter a nightclub. We need to be clear that by "children" we are referring to those under 18s, and that the discussion refers to nightclubs in the UK. We would agree that there should be restrictions on what age children can enter a nightclub. Teenagers, especially those younger than 16, are still developing their decision-making skills and are not fully able to give informed consent to actions. Furthermore, their exposure to the adult-oriented activities that are performed in nightclubs could be harmful to their health and well-being. We would propose that there should be an age limit of 18, however we are willing to concede that perhaps 16 and 17 year olds could be allowed into nightclubs with an adult relative. However, we have also considered the points raised by others in their critiques and we would like to include a note of caution. We have concerns that allowing children of these ages into nightclubs will increase the potential risks, as they would still be susceptible to the peer pressure to consume alcohol or take drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Question: Should there be restrictions on the age at which children can enter a nightclub? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be restrictions on the age at which children can enter a nightclub. Teenagers, especially those younger than 16, are still developing their decision-making skills and are not fully able to give informed consent to actions. Furthermore, their exposure to the adult-oriented activities that are performed in nightclubs could be harmful to their health and well-being. We would propose that there should be an age limit of 18, however we are willing to concede that perhaps 16 and 17 year olds could be allowed into nightclubs with an adult relative. However, there would be a need for further controls to be put in place to ensure that the 16 and 17 year olds are not at risk from drugs or alcohol consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Nightclubs should be 18+ only spaces. The risk of exposure to activities that are potentially harmful and that children are not yet able to make informed choices about are too great. We believe this is the best way to protect minors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be restrictions on what age children can enter a nightclub. We need to be clear that by "children" we are referring to those under 18s, and that the discussion refers to nightclubs in the UK. We would agree that there should be restrictions on what age children can enter a nightclub. Teenagers, especially those younger than 16, are still developing their decision-making skills and are not fully able to give informed consent to actions. Furthermore, their exposure to the adult-oriented activities that are performed in nightclubs could be harmful to their health and well-being. We would propose that there should be an age limit of 18, however we are willing to concede that perhaps 16 and 17 year olds could be allowed into nightclubs with an adult relative. However, we have also considered the points raised by others in their critiques and we would like to include a note of caution. We have concerns that allowing children of these ages into nightclubs will increase the potential risks, as they would still be susceptible to the peer pressure to consume alcohol or take drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Question: Should there be restrictions on the age at which children can enter a nightclub? 5: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001949.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001949.soc index 46ff0ab8..116e25e8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001949.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001949.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not continue to have a parliament that has both a House of Commons and a House of Lords. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the House of Lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the United Kingdom should continue to have a parliament that has both a House of Commons and a House of Lords. However, the House of Lords should be elected by the people rather than appointed by the government. This would make the House of Lords more representative of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The House of Lords should be made an elected chamber with a fairer method of election in order to give a voice to all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The House of Lords is undemocratic, we have a House of Commons that is a democratic institution. Therefore, we should get rid of the House of Lords and just have the House of Commons. However, we also feel that the House of Commons could be improved, such as having fixed term parliaments, or having constituency boundaries revised regularly, and we would like to see the government invest in technology to increase participation, such as through electronic voting, so that the system can become more modern. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not continue to have a parliament that has both a House of Commons and a House of Lords. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the House of Lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the United Kingdom should continue to have a parliament that has both a House of Commons and a House of Lords. However, the House of Lords should be elected by the people rather than appointed by the government. This would make the House of Lords more representative of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The House of Lords should be made an elected chamber with a fairer method of election in order to give a voice to all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The House of Lords is undemocratic, we have a House of Commons that is a democratic institution. Therefore, we should get rid of the House of Lords and just have the House of Commons. However, we also feel that the House of Commons could be improved, such as having fixed term parliaments, or having constituency boundaries revised regularly, and we would like to see the government invest in technology to increase participation, such as through electronic voting, so that the system can become more modern. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001950.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001950.soc index b8be315d..5d265e45 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001950.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001950.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although there should be a limiting factor when it comes to banning sweets in supermarkets, we don't think they should be banned. People should be able to choose freely whether to indulge in them or not. Instead, there should be programs in place to encourage and incite people to not consume/buy as many sweets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the sale of sweets should not be banned in supermarkets. However, we believe that some sort of regulation should be put in place. The way that sweets are marketed to children and adults alike, has a big impact on the level of obesity in the UK. This is due to the fact that they are heavily marketed towards children and many of them have such bright and colourful packaging. Also, the fact that sweets are placed at the ends of aisles, means that many shoppers will not be able to walk past without buying a pack. With the help of the calorie information on the front of the packaging, we believe that people should be given the choice as to whether they buy them or not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of not banning the sale of sweets in supermarkets. The group felt that it was important for people to be able to make their own choices, however there was a strong feeling that the sale of sweets should be more tightly regulated. The group felt that there should be a limit on the amount of sweets that can be sold, and that this limit should be set by the government. The group also felt that sweets should not be sold in the same aisles as other food items, and that they should be kept in a separate section of the supermarket. The group also felt that the sale of sweets should not be marketed towards children, and that sweets should not be placed at children's eye level in supermarkets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although there should be a limiting factor when it comes to banning sweets in supermarkets, we don't think they should be banned. People should be able to choose freely whether to indulge in them or not. Instead, there should be programs in place to encourage and incite people to not consume/buy as many sweets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the sale of sweets should not be banned in supermarkets. However, we believe that some sort of regulation should be put in place. The way that sweets are marketed to children and adults alike, has a big impact on the level of obesity in the UK. This is due to the fact that they are heavily marketed towards children and many of them have such bright and colourful packaging. Also, the fact that sweets are placed at the ends of aisles, means that many shoppers will not be able to walk past without buying a pack. With the help of the calorie information on the front of the packaging, we believe that people should be given the choice as to whether they buy them or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of not banning the sale of sweets in supermarkets. The group felt that it was important for people to be able to make their own choices, however there was a strong feeling that the sale of sweets should be more tightly regulated. The group felt that there should be a limit on the amount of sweets that can be sold, and that this limit should be set by the government. The group also felt that sweets should not be sold in the same aisles as other food items, and that they should be kept in a separate section of the supermarket. The group also felt that the sale of sweets should not be marketed towards children, and that sweets should not be placed at children's eye level in supermarkets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. 4: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001951.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001951.soc index f18e8d53..cddb23ba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001951.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001951.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children need daily physical activity in school to be physically healthy. It is important for children to take part in daily physical activity at school in order to be physically healthy. The daily activity can help set good habits for children so that physical activity will become an innate part of their daily life, contributing to their health overall. Children need physical activity at school because it is a crucial part of their development. Parents may be too busy after working all day to ensure their child gets an adequate amount of exercise so schools should provide them the opportunity to move. Sitting and not moving all day is bad for the human body, the children could get restless. Giving them physical activities could make them more likely to be able to pay attention in future classes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should have the opportunity to be physically active in school. This is because it is crucial to their development, and also helps to set good habits for later in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should have the opportunity to be physically active in school. This opinion is backed up by several studies that indicate the benefits of physical activity for children's health. There is a lot of evidence that proves how physical activity can benefit children’s health, however, I also know that a lot of parents don’t have the time to make sure that their child is getting enough exercise. Physical activity in school is good because it gives children the opportunity to be active while also making sure that they are getting a good education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important for children to be physically active at school, it is vital to understand that every child is different. It is not fair to expect that all children should be able to participate in all physical activities. Children with disabilities should not be excluded from the physical activity they can participate in. Children who are not able to engage in physical activity, perhaps due to lack of ability, should not be made to feel less worthy. If children are unable to engage in physical activity, there are other ways to encourage them to be healthy. School should provide nutritious meals and snacks so that children have access to healthy food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children need daily physical activity in school to be physically healthy. It is important for children to take part in daily physical activity at school in order to be physically healthy. The daily activity can help set good habits for children so that physical activity will become an innate part of their daily life, contributing to their health overall. Children need physical activity at school because it is a crucial part of their development. Parents may be too busy after working all day to ensure their child gets an adequate amount of exercise so schools should provide them the opportunity to move. Sitting and not moving all day is bad for the human body, the children could get restless. Giving them physical activities could make them more likely to be able to pay attention in future classes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should have the opportunity to be physically active in school. This is because it is crucial to their development, and also helps to set good habits for later in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should have the opportunity to be physically active in school. This opinion is backed up by several studies that indicate the benefits of physical activity for children's health. There is a lot of evidence that proves how physical activity can benefit children’s health, however, I also know that a lot of parents don’t have the time to make sure that their child is getting enough exercise. Physical activity in school is good because it gives children the opportunity to be active while also making sure that they are getting a good education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important for children to be physically active at school, it is vital to understand that every child is different. It is not fair to expect that all children should be able to participate in all physical activities. Children with disabilities should not be excluded from the physical activity they can participate in. Children who are not able to engage in physical activity, perhaps due to lack of ability, should not be made to feel less worthy. If children are unable to engage in physical activity, there are other ways to encourage them to be healthy. School should provide nutritious meals and snacks so that children have access to healthy food. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001952.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001952.soc index 0d579463..bdd0a07d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001952.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001952.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not unethical to eat meat from animals raised in factory farms. This is because most people would not survive without consuming protein in their diet and this protein can only be obtained from meat. In addition, animals raised in factory farms will not have been subjected to cruelty, because the law makes it illegal to mistreat animals. They also live longer than animals raised in other environments, because they are protected from disease and have been provided with the best food and water possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, while we recognise the importance of factory farms in providing cheap, readily available food, it is clear that their presence is not necessarily ethical. The environmental effects of factory farming are also to be considered. The mass production of meat has had a significant impact on climate change, and it has been shown that vegetarian diets are far more environmentally friendly. Furthermore, the health benefits of consuming meat, which has been proven to increase the risk of heart disease and cancer, are questionable. We must also take into account the living conditions of animals, which are extremely poor in factory farms, and the well-being of the workers, who must endure constant low-paid labour. We cannot therefore come to a clear conclusion on whether the factory farms are ethical or not, as the answer depends on a number of variables. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the conditions of factory farms are not ideal for animals. Animals are crowded together in small spaces, and the quality of life for these animals is not great. However, factory farms allow for more meat to be produced in a shorter amount of time and at a lower cost, and this makes meat more accessible to the public. Therefore, while factory farming is not the most ethical way to raise animals, it is the most practical way to produce meat in large quantities, and so we believe that it is ethical to eat meat from animals raised in factory farms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of factory farming as it is the most cost-effective way of providing meat to the world. It is also the most practical way of feeding the increasing world population. The group also recognised that factory farming has many benefits for the animals. For example, it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, which means the animals are not living in pain for long periods of time. However, the group was also in favour of making the conditions of factory farming better, such as allowing the animals to have more space. The group also recognised that factory farming is not the most ethical way of producing meat and that there are many alternatives, such as lab-grown meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not unethical to eat meat from animals raised in factory farms. This is because most people would not survive without consuming protein in their diet and this protein can only be obtained from meat. In addition, animals raised in factory farms will not have been subjected to cruelty, because the law makes it illegal to mistreat animals. They also live longer than animals raised in other environments, because they are protected from disease and have been provided with the best food and water possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, while we recognise the importance of factory farms in providing cheap, readily available food, it is clear that their presence is not necessarily ethical. The environmental effects of factory farming are also to be considered. The mass production of meat has had a significant impact on climate change, and it has been shown that vegetarian diets are far more environmentally friendly. Furthermore, the health benefits of consuming meat, which has been proven to increase the risk of heart disease and cancer, are questionable. We must also take into account the living conditions of animals, which are extremely poor in factory farms, and the well-being of the workers, who must endure constant low-paid labour. We cannot therefore come to a clear conclusion on whether the factory farms are ethical or not, as the answer depends on a number of variables. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the conditions of factory farms are not ideal for animals. Animals are crowded together in small spaces, and the quality of life for these animals is not great. However, factory farms allow for more meat to be produced in a shorter amount of time and at a lower cost, and this makes meat more accessible to the public. Therefore, while factory farming is not the most ethical way to raise animals, it is the most practical way to produce meat in large quantities, and so we believe that it is ethical to eat meat from animals raised in factory farms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of factory farming as it is the most cost-effective way of providing meat to the world. It is also the most practical way of feeding the increasing world population. The group also recognised that factory farming has many benefits for the animals. For example, it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, which means the animals are not living in pain for long periods of time. However, the group was also in favour of making the conditions of factory farming better, such as allowing the animals to have more space. The group also recognised that factory farming is not the most ethical way of producing meat and that there are many alternatives, such as lab-grown meat. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001953.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001953.soc index 8aa4c9ff..bf99db39 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001953.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001953.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to unlimited immigration. The reasons for this included the fact that the UK is already overpopulated and that the NHS, schools and transport networks would struggle to cope with more people. The group also felt that it would be unfair on tax payers to allow unlimited immigration, as the government would not be able to provide for everyone. However, the group did feel that skilled workers should be allowed to immigrate, as this would benefit the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No. Unlimited immigration would be difficult to handle for the UK government. There are already issues surrounding immigration, such as language barriers and economic concerns. Our infrastructure could not support an unlimited amount of immigration. The participants also believed that it would increase discrimination, which would also be bad for the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus that unlimited immigration should not be allowed. The reason for this is that the UK is already struggling to cope with its current population and the government does not have the resources to cope with an influx of immigrants. The group also felt that the economy would suffer as a result of unlimited immigration and this would be bad for tax payers and the overall economy. The group also felt that allowing unlimited immigration would lead to an increase in crime rates and the UK would become a less safe place to live. The group felt that unlimited immigration would lead to a rise in unemployment and this would be bad for the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe unlimited immigration is a bad idea because we already have an issue with immigration in the UK. The NHS is already over crowded and immigration would worsen it. More people would cause more problems with housing and we already have an issue with this. Immigration would also worsen the situation of people on the streets. More immigrants would worsen the working conditions for British people because there would be more people to choose from for jobs. More people in the country would cause the education system to worsen as there are not enough schools to cope with the current population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to unlimited immigration. The reasons for this included the fact that the UK is already overpopulated and that the NHS, schools and transport networks would struggle to cope with more people. The group also felt that it would be unfair on tax payers to allow unlimited immigration, as the government would not be able to provide for everyone. However, the group did feel that skilled workers should be allowed to immigrate, as this would benefit the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. Unlimited immigration would be difficult to handle for the UK government. There are already issues surrounding immigration, such as language barriers and economic concerns. Our infrastructure could not support an unlimited amount of immigration. The participants also believed that it would increase discrimination, which would also be bad for the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus that unlimited immigration should not be allowed. The reason for this is that the UK is already struggling to cope with its current population and the government does not have the resources to cope with an influx of immigrants. The group also felt that the economy would suffer as a result of unlimited immigration and this would be bad for tax payers and the overall economy. The group also felt that allowing unlimited immigration would lead to an increase in crime rates and the UK would become a less safe place to live. The group felt that unlimited immigration would lead to a rise in unemployment and this would be bad for the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe unlimited immigration is a bad idea because we already have an issue with immigration in the UK. The NHS is already over crowded and immigration would worsen it. More people would cause more problems with housing and we already have an issue with this. Immigration would also worsen the situation of people on the streets. More immigrants would worsen the working conditions for British people because there would be more people to choose from for jobs. More people in the country would cause the education system to worsen as there are not enough schools to cope with the current population. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001954.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001954.soc index 9a5bab0e..0b88207b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001954.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001954.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was against the idea of giving people special privileges due to their family status. The group felt that this was unfair and that it created a sense of inequality in society. The group did acknowledge that the royal family does have responsibilities and that they do provide a sense of national pride. However, the group felt that the royal family was a relic of the past and that it was time for a change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe it is wrong for society to give certain people special privileges because of their family status. People should be treated fairly and given the same opportunities in life. Everyone should work for their own wealth and be responsible for their own actions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it is wrong for society to give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. This is because it is unfair on the people who do not have the same privileges and it is also unfair on the people who have the privileges as they do not get to experience life as a ‘normal’ person. It is also wrong as it is a form of discrimination. The only way that we think that this could be changed is if the people who have the privileges donate the majority of their money to charities and to the people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. This would also make the people who are less fortunate feel better about the situation as they would know that the people who are more fortunate than them are helping them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is wrong to give certain people special privileges just because they are part of the royal family. The people of the country should be free to choose who their leaders are. If a member of the royal family has the talent to become a leader, it should be based on that, and not on their family connections. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was against the idea of giving people special privileges due to their family status. The group felt that this was unfair and that it created a sense of inequality in society. The group did acknowledge that the royal family does have responsibilities and that they do provide a sense of national pride. However, the group felt that the royal family was a relic of the past and that it was time for a change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe it is wrong for society to give certain people special privileges because of their family status. People should be treated fairly and given the same opportunities in life. Everyone should work for their own wealth and be responsible for their own actions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it is wrong for society to give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. This is because it is unfair on the people who do not have the same privileges and it is also unfair on the people who have the privileges as they do not get to experience life as a ‘normal’ person. It is also wrong as it is a form of discrimination. The only way that we think that this could be changed is if the people who have the privileges donate the majority of their money to charities and to the people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. This would also make the people who are less fortunate feel better about the situation as they would know that the people who are more fortunate than them are helping them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is wrong to give certain people special privileges just because they are part of the royal family. The people of the country should be free to choose who their leaders are. If a member of the royal family has the talent to become a leader, it should be based on that, and not on their family connections. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001955.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001955.soc index f395f23f..81865242 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001955.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001955.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The practice of people buying early graves for their loved ones is a very reasonable and well-meaning gesture. It is the kind of act that helps unite families and friends in death as in life and is a very positive action. It also ensures that, where space is limited, everyone has the same opportunities to be buried with their loved ones. However, as our population grows and space for burials becomes more limited, the system may need to change. It may be that at some point in the future it becomes necessary for those families who wish to be buried together to have their bodies moved after a set period of time in order to give others the same opportunities. In this case, the government would need to take steps to ensure that those already buried remain buried where they are and are not disturbed, and that families would be informed of this change well in advance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to pay for an early grave so they can be buried alongside their loved ones. This is something that can provide peace of mind for people who are nearing the end of their lives and it also means that when they die, their family do not have to worry about organising a burial. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be allowed to pay for an early grave so they can be buried alongside their loved ones. The right to be buried alongside loved ones is an important right that should be protected. It is also important that people are able to plan for their death and the future of their loved ones. There is no harm in people being able to pay for an early grave. This will provide them with peace of mind that they will be buried alongside their loved ones and will also provide their loved ones with peace of mind that they will be buried alongside their loved ones. The only potential issue with this is that as the population grows, there will be less land available for burials. This means that there will be less land available for early graves to be purchased. However, if people are able to pay for an early grave, then this will ensure that they are buried alongside their loved ones. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, people should be allowed to pay for an early grave so they can be buried alongside their loved ones. This is particularly important for couples who wish to be buried together, and who may wish to reserve a plot together in advance of one partner dying. This is also the case for families where the children may wish to be buried with their parents, and for parents who may wish to be buried with their children. This is a comfort to the living, and is an important consideration. However, there may be cases where it is not possible to reserve a plot for a long period of time, for example if the person who has bought the plot lives a long life, or if there is not enough space in the cemetery. This is something that needs to be considered, and there should be a balance between the needs of the living and the needs of future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The practice of people buying early graves for their loved ones is a very reasonable and well-meaning gesture. It is the kind of act that helps unite families and friends in death as in life and is a very positive action. It also ensures that, where space is limited, everyone has the same opportunities to be buried with their loved ones. However, as our population grows and space for burials becomes more limited, the system may need to change. It may be that at some point in the future it becomes necessary for those families who wish to be buried together to have their bodies moved after a set period of time in order to give others the same opportunities. In this case, the government would need to take steps to ensure that those already buried remain buried where they are and are not disturbed, and that families would be informed of this change well in advance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to pay for an early grave so they can be buried alongside their loved ones. This is something that can provide peace of mind for people who are nearing the end of their lives and it also means that when they die, their family do not have to worry about organising a burial. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be allowed to pay for an early grave so they can be buried alongside their loved ones. The right to be buried alongside loved ones is an important right that should be protected. It is also important that people are able to plan for their death and the future of their loved ones. There is no harm in people being able to pay for an early grave. This will provide them with peace of mind that they will be buried alongside their loved ones and will also provide their loved ones with peace of mind that they will be buried alongside their loved ones. The only potential issue with this is that as the population grows, there will be less land available for burials. This means that there will be less land available for early graves to be purchased. However, if people are able to pay for an early grave, then this will ensure that they are buried alongside their loved ones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, people should be allowed to pay for an early grave so they can be buried alongside their loved ones. This is particularly important for couples who wish to be buried together, and who may wish to reserve a plot together in advance of one partner dying. This is also the case for families where the children may wish to be buried with their parents, and for parents who may wish to be buried with their children. This is a comfort to the living, and is an important consideration. However, there may be cases where it is not possible to reserve a plot for a long period of time, for example if the person who has bought the plot lives a long life, or if there is not enough space in the cemetery. This is something that needs to be considered, and there should be a balance between the needs of the living and the needs of future generations. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001956.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001956.soc index 7244aa73..fb337d61 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001956.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001956.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The sale of alcohol should be controlled, but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. We do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned, but rather it should be regulated and be made illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated. We do not think that banning the sale of alcohol will have any affect on people's behaviour, but rather their own self control. We do not think that there will be a black market for alcohol, as if the sale of alcohol is banned there will be more people that want to sell it on the black market. However, there will be more people trying to buy it on the black market, therefore creating more problems. It is better to regulate alcohol than ban it, as it is such a part of society. We believe that people are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The sale of alcohol should not be banned. Alcohol should not be banned because the revenue raised from its sale is significant, and because the sale of alcohol already has strong regulations which prevent the sale of alcohol to under-age or intoxicated people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The sale of alcohol should not be banned. There is a high level of public support for alcohol and we do not think it would be wise to attempt to ban it. We think that the regulations around the sale of alcohol are strong enough. We think that any attempt to ban alcohol would be met with strong public opposition and would also lead to the growth of a black market in alcohol. We think that this would lead to the growth of organised crime and would also lead to the growth of disorder in our communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the sale of alcohol should not be banned. The legal sale of alcohol is a significant source of revenue for the government and banning it would cause a black market for alcohol to develop, leading to other problems. The current regulations and laws around the sale of alcohol are sufficient to ensure that it is sold responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The sale of alcohol should be controlled, but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. We do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned, but rather it should be regulated and be made illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated. We do not think that banning the sale of alcohol will have any affect on people's behaviour, but rather their own self control. We do not think that there will be a black market for alcohol, as if the sale of alcohol is banned there will be more people that want to sell it on the black market. However, there will be more people trying to buy it on the black market, therefore creating more problems. It is better to regulate alcohol than ban it, as it is such a part of society. We believe that people are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The sale of alcohol should not be banned. Alcohol should not be banned because the revenue raised from its sale is significant, and because the sale of alcohol already has strong regulations which prevent the sale of alcohol to under-age or intoxicated people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The sale of alcohol should not be banned. There is a high level of public support for alcohol and we do not think it would be wise to attempt to ban it. We think that the regulations around the sale of alcohol are strong enough. We think that any attempt to ban alcohol would be met with strong public opposition and would also lead to the growth of a black market in alcohol. We think that this would lead to the growth of organised crime and would also lead to the growth of disorder in our communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the sale of alcohol should not be banned. The legal sale of alcohol is a significant source of revenue for the government and banning it would cause a black market for alcohol to develop, leading to other problems. The current regulations and laws around the sale of alcohol are sufficient to ensure that it is sold responsibly. 4: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001957.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001957.soc index 93492ae4..c51d9ee3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001957.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001957.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the possession of guns should be heavily regulated and not permitted for personal protection. In some countries where it is legal to do so, there should be strict protocols in place to ensure that guns are only in the possession of responsible and mentally competent individuals. There should be strict procedures an individual has to go through to be able to qualify for a firearm purchase, to make it as safe and responsible as possible. Guns are incredibly dangerous and therefore should only be in the possession of those who have had gun safety training, are responsible gun licence holders and are mentally competent. It is a large responsibility to own a gun and should be treated with a great deal of respect and dignity. In certain countries where it is easy to obtain a gun, there are hundreds of shootings every year, many of which constitute as mass shootings or end in mortalities. You have a right to protect yourself, which may include use of a gun, but it should not be easy to obtain a gun if you are not qualified or responsible enough to have one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people being able to keep their own guns for their own protection. The risk of guns in the home is too high and we need to reduce the number of guns in circulation. We were in favour of the idea of guns being kept at secure locations, such as sports clubs, for use in the appropriate sporting context. We felt that in some countries where guns are legal, such as the USA, the level of gun ownership is too high and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The group also felt that the ease of gun access is an issue that needs to be addressed, with the introduction of tougher regulations and more thorough vetting of individuals. The group felt that it was important to reduce the number of guns in circulation and that the use of guns should be limited to the appropriate sporting context. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be able to keep guns for their own protection. If they feel they are in danger, they can report to the police who will deal with the situation. Keeping a gun in your house is likely to increase the chance of an accident. In countries where guns are easily accessible there are hundreds of shootings every year, many of which constitute as mass shootings or end in mortalities. Gun violence is a real issue, and people should not be allowed to keep guns in their houses as this is likely to increase the number of shootings. There is also little justification for the need to keep guns in houses. People should not be allowed to keep guns in their houses because it increases the risk of accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not be able to keep guns for their own protection. If they feel unsafe in their own homes, then they can report this to the police and request police assistance in making their home more secure. It is dangerous to allow people to keep guns for their own protection, especially if these people are not trained in the use of firearms. Guns are a lethal weapon and it is irresponsible to give them to people who do not have training in their use and their safe storage. In many countries where guns are widely available, there are mass shootings, with untrained gun owners using their weapons to harm others. People should not be allowed to keep guns in their homes, as there is a risk of gun related accidents or incidents. Guns are a dangerous weapon and should only be in the hands of trained professionals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the possession of guns should be heavily regulated and not permitted for personal protection. In some countries where it is legal to do so, there should be strict protocols in place to ensure that guns are only in the possession of responsible and mentally competent individuals. There should be strict procedures an individual has to go through to be able to qualify for a firearm purchase, to make it as safe and responsible as possible. Guns are incredibly dangerous and therefore should only be in the possession of those who have had gun safety training, are responsible gun licence holders and are mentally competent. It is a large responsibility to own a gun and should be treated with a great deal of respect and dignity. In certain countries where it is easy to obtain a gun, there are hundreds of shootings every year, many of which constitute as mass shootings or end in mortalities. You have a right to protect yourself, which may include use of a gun, but it should not be easy to obtain a gun if you are not qualified or responsible enough to have one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people being able to keep their own guns for their own protection. The risk of guns in the home is too high and we need to reduce the number of guns in circulation. We were in favour of the idea of guns being kept at secure locations, such as sports clubs, for use in the appropriate sporting context. We felt that in some countries where guns are legal, such as the USA, the level of gun ownership is too high and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The group also felt that the ease of gun access is an issue that needs to be addressed, with the introduction of tougher regulations and more thorough vetting of individuals. The group felt that it was important to reduce the number of guns in circulation and that the use of guns should be limited to the appropriate sporting context. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be able to keep guns for their own protection. If they feel they are in danger, they can report to the police who will deal with the situation. Keeping a gun in your house is likely to increase the chance of an accident. In countries where guns are easily accessible there are hundreds of shootings every year, many of which constitute as mass shootings or end in mortalities. Gun violence is a real issue, and people should not be allowed to keep guns in their houses as this is likely to increase the number of shootings. There is also little justification for the need to keep guns in houses. People should not be allowed to keep guns in their houses because it increases the risk of accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not be able to keep guns for their own protection. If they feel unsafe in their own homes, then they can report this to the police and request police assistance in making their home more secure. It is dangerous to allow people to keep guns for their own protection, especially if these people are not trained in the use of firearms. Guns are a lethal weapon and it is irresponsible to give them to people who do not have training in their use and their safe storage. In many countries where guns are widely available, there are mass shootings, with untrained gun owners using their weapons to harm others. People should not be allowed to keep guns in their homes, as there is a risk of gun related accidents or incidents. Guns are a dangerous weapon and should only be in the hands of trained professionals. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001958.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001958.soc index 50398c06..abe1ea41 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001958.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001958.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is necessary to reduce the country's debt, but I am not sure it would help the economy, because if public spending is reduced, people get less help and cannot spend more. I think the UK have given too many people too many benefits for far too long. I think this has contributed to the moutain of debt we now have, although not all of it to be fair. I'm a great believer in working for things you want and that you should only buy things that you can afford. I could have racked up a lot of debt myself over the years by spending beyond my means but I chose not to. I think others should do the same. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although austerity is necessary in order to reduce debt, we do not feel that it will be the right answer to improving the economy as it will mean that people will have less to spend. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Austerity is necessary to help the UK economy, but only if it is the right type of austerity. Austerity should not mean cuts in public spending, but rather austerity in terms of the amount of debt that the government is willing to take on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK economy is in trouble, but I think it is too simplistic to say that austerity is the only solution. Austerity is not necessary to help the UK economy because it is a very blunt instrument. It doesn't discriminate between areas of public spending that are important and areas that aren't. Also, it doesn't recognise that some people are less able to support themselves than others. I think it would be better if we could find a way of ensuring that only the money that is needed is spent. We need a more targeted approach, and I think this would be a better way to help the UK economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is necessary to reduce the country's debt, but I am not sure it would help the economy, because if public spending is reduced, people get less help and cannot spend more. I think the UK have given too many people too many benefits for far too long. I think this has contributed to the moutain of debt we now have, although not all of it to be fair. I'm a great believer in working for things you want and that you should only buy things that you can afford. I could have racked up a lot of debt myself over the years by spending beyond my means but I chose not to. I think others should do the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although austerity is necessary in order to reduce debt, we do not feel that it will be the right answer to improving the economy as it will mean that people will have less to spend. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Austerity is necessary to help the UK economy, but only if it is the right type of austerity. Austerity should not mean cuts in public spending, but rather austerity in terms of the amount of debt that the government is willing to take on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK economy is in trouble, but I think it is too simplistic to say that austerity is the only solution. Austerity is not necessary to help the UK economy because it is a very blunt instrument. It doesn't discriminate between areas of public spending that are important and areas that aren't. Also, it doesn't recognise that some people are less able to support themselves than others. I think it would be better if we could find a way of ensuring that only the money that is needed is spent. We need a more targeted approach, and I think this would be a better way to help the UK economy. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001959.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001959.soc index e6822b9a..673cba76 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001959.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001959.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a House of Commons and a House of Lords however, they must both be fully elected by the electorate, to make it fair and diverse. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the House of Lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the house of lords should be abolished. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the house of lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. This will also save the taxpayers money as the House of Lords is deemed as unnecessary in terms of being unnecessary expense. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not continue to have a parliament that has both a House of Commons and a House of Lords. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the House of Lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. We also believe that the House of Commons requires work as if there is a majority party in the House of Commons, it is easy for that party to get their bills through even if the majority of people do not agree with it. We believe that the House of Commons should be made up of MPs from different parties to ensure that the views of the people are truly represented. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not continue to have a parliament that has both a House of Commons and a House of Lords. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the House of Lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a House of Commons and a House of Lords however, they must both be fully elected by the electorate, to make it fair and diverse. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the House of Lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the house of lords should be abolished. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the house of lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. This will also save the taxpayers money as the House of Lords is deemed as unnecessary in terms of being unnecessary expense. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not continue to have a parliament that has both a House of Commons and a House of Lords. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the House of Lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. We also believe that the House of Commons requires work as if there is a majority party in the House of Commons, it is easy for that party to get their bills through even if the majority of people do not agree with it. We believe that the House of Commons should be made up of MPs from different parties to ensure that the views of the people are truly represented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not continue to have a parliament that has both a House of Commons and a House of Lords. The current system of electing peers is not fit for purpose. For instance, a 30 year old ex-advisor of Boris Johnson has just been elected into the House of Lords. These people are not democratically elected and the peers do not represent a cross-section of the population. We would prefer to just be represented by the House of Commons as at least these people have been democratically elected. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001960.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001960.soc index 6b37ecf1..f13c2e3e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001960.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001960.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are benefits to eating meat, but there are also benefits to not eating meat. Meat provides important nutrients that are essential for our health, but there are also alternative sources for these. Meat can be harmful to the environment, but it is also an important part of the economy and culture of many countries. There are arguments for not eating meat, but I think these are too restrictive and ultimately harmful for humans. I think we should reduce our meat consumption, but not eliminate it completely. I think we should consume good quality meat, but not too much of it. I think we should be more aware of where our meat comes from and how it is produced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of eating meat. However, we all agreed that we eat too much meat, and that this needs to be reduced. We also agreed that we should eat more sustainable meat, and that we should reduce the amount of meat we eat that comes from factory farming. We all agreed that eating meat is an important part of a balanced diet, and that we should continue to eat meat, but in moderation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the group are all animal lovers and it was noted that there is an ethical argument for not eating meat. We also acknowledge that a huge amount of meat is wasted and the amount of animals slaughtered to provide the amount of meat that is eaten is very high. We would all like to see less meat being wasted and more ethical farming and slaughtering practices. It was also noted that meat provides many vital nutrients and cutting it out of a diet completely would leave many people unhealthily malnourished. We agreed that eating too much meat is bad for your health and it can be difficult to find a healthy balance. In terms of sustainability, there was disagreement about whether or not it was possible to continue eating meat sustainably, and that some would like to reduce their meat consumption and some would not. It was noted that meat is a huge part of many people’s diet, particularly in poorer communities, and therefore cutting out meat altogether could cause problems in those communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should be eating meat. We recognise that meat can provide us with important nutrients and that without meat, we would be at risk of deficiencies in certain key nutrients. However, we feel that it is important to moderate our meat consumption. Too much meat can lead to health problems such as heart disease and high blood pressure. Moreover, excessive meat consumption is bad for the environment, with high levels of greenhouse gas emissions from the production and processing of meat. We also feel that if you choose to eat meat, you should eat the best quality meat that you can, choosing organic or ethically-sourced meat where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are benefits to eating meat, but there are also benefits to not eating meat. Meat provides important nutrients that are essential for our health, but there are also alternative sources for these. Meat can be harmful to the environment, but it is also an important part of the economy and culture of many countries. There are arguments for not eating meat, but I think these are too restrictive and ultimately harmful for humans. I think we should reduce our meat consumption, but not eliminate it completely. I think we should consume good quality meat, but not too much of it. I think we should be more aware of where our meat comes from and how it is produced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of eating meat. However, we all agreed that we eat too much meat, and that this needs to be reduced. We also agreed that we should eat more sustainable meat, and that we should reduce the amount of meat we eat that comes from factory farming. We all agreed that eating meat is an important part of a balanced diet, and that we should continue to eat meat, but in moderation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the group are all animal lovers and it was noted that there is an ethical argument for not eating meat. We also acknowledge that a huge amount of meat is wasted and the amount of animals slaughtered to provide the amount of meat that is eaten is very high. We would all like to see less meat being wasted and more ethical farming and slaughtering practices. It was also noted that meat provides many vital nutrients and cutting it out of a diet completely would leave many people unhealthily malnourished. We agreed that eating too much meat is bad for your health and it can be difficult to find a healthy balance. In terms of sustainability, there was disagreement about whether or not it was possible to continue eating meat sustainably, and that some would like to reduce their meat consumption and some would not. It was noted that meat is a huge part of many people’s diet, particularly in poorer communities, and therefore cutting out meat altogether could cause problems in those communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should be eating meat. We recognise that meat can provide us with important nutrients and that without meat, we would be at risk of deficiencies in certain key nutrients. However, we feel that it is important to moderate our meat consumption. Too much meat can lead to health problems such as heart disease and high blood pressure. Moreover, excessive meat consumption is bad for the environment, with high levels of greenhouse gas emissions from the production and processing of meat. We also feel that if you choose to eat meat, you should eat the best quality meat that you can, choosing organic or ethically-sourced meat where possible. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001961.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001961.soc index 4c442b47..64280479 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001961.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001961.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Children need to be taught the difference between right and wrong, and what the consequences are of behaving badly. It is only by setting boundaries, and showing children what the consequences of bad behaviour are, that children will learn what behaviours are acceptable and which are not. Detention can be an effective way of showing children that there are consequences to bad behaviour, and should therefore be used in schools for children aged 12 or below. It is not always necessary to use detention, and other options such as asking the child to write lines or apologise, may be more appropriate for younger children. Each case should be considered on an individual basis, and if detention is to be given, the child should be given the choice to do this during break or after school, as to minimise the impact on their education.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should not be given detention for misbehaviour. Instead, they should be spoken to and taught why their behaviour was unacceptable and what the consequences of such behaviour could be. They should also be encouraged to change their behaviour for the better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Teachers should be allowed to give detention to children aged 12 and under. If they feel that the child would benefit from the use of this sanction as an opportunity to discuss the reason behind their behaviour, then they should be allowed to do so. This will allow the teacher to find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviors, which will also help the child to learn from their actions. This is likely to lead to the development of a positive behaviour plan for the child, which can be used in conjunction with parents. The group was asked to rank the opinions of the participants in order of importance and came to the following decision: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Children need to be taught the difference between right and wrong, and what the consequences are of behaving badly. It is only by setting boundaries, and showing children what the consequences of bad behaviour are, that children will learn what behaviours are acceptable and which are not. Detention can be an effective way of showing children that there are consequences to bad behaviour, and should therefore be used in schools for children aged 12 or below. It is not always necessary to use detention, and other options such as asking the child to write lines or apologise, may be more appropriate for younger children. Each case should be considered on an individual basis, and if detention is to be given, the child should be given the choice to do this during break or after school, as to minimise the impact on their education.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should not be given detention for misbehaviour. Instead, they should be spoken to and taught why their behaviour was unacceptable and what the consequences of such behaviour could be. They should also be encouraged to change their behaviour for the better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Teachers should be allowed to give detention to children aged 12 and under. If they feel that the child would benefit from the use of this sanction as an opportunity to discuss the reason behind their behaviour, then they should be allowed to do so. This will allow the teacher to find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviors, which will also help the child to learn from their actions. This is likely to lead to the development of a positive behaviour plan for the child, which can be used in conjunction with parents. The group was asked to rank the opinions of the participants in order of importance and came to the following decision: 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001962.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001962.soc index 8749f949..24d54d7c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001962.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001962.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that while it is an important part of the House of Lords that they are not subject to party political propaganda, this means that it is difficult to justify their role as an elected body. We do believe that certain seats should be elected by the public however. This will ensure that a cross-section of the population has a voice in Parliament and that it does not appear too elitist or distant from the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the House of Lords is an important part of the British political system. It is a necessary check on the power of the House of Commons and its members are often more experienced and knowledgeable than their counterparts in the Commons. However, the current system of appointment is outdated and needs to be reformed. A small number of members of the House of Lords should be elected. This would ensure that the House of Lords is not completely out of touch with the views of the British people and that it is not seen as an elitist institution. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the House of Lords should be subject to an election process for a certain percentage of its members. It was agreed that this would maintain the balance between a wholly unelected House of Lords and a wholly elected House of Commons, and would keep the House of Lords from becoming a redundant institution. However, it was also agreed that a wholly elected House of Lords would have some undesirable effects, and would compromise the independence of the House of Lords, which is one of its key roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the House of Lords should be elected. The current system of hereditary peers is outdated and should be abolished. However, there should be a certain number of seats in the House of Lords that are appointed by the Prime Minister. This would ensure that the House of Lords can remain independent from the House of Commons and would be able to provide an effective check and balance on the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that while it is an important part of the House of Lords that they are not subject to party political propaganda, this means that it is difficult to justify their role as an elected body. We do believe that certain seats should be elected by the public however. This will ensure that a cross-section of the population has a voice in Parliament and that it does not appear too elitist or distant from the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the House of Lords is an important part of the British political system. It is a necessary check on the power of the House of Commons and its members are often more experienced and knowledgeable than their counterparts in the Commons. However, the current system of appointment is outdated and needs to be reformed. A small number of members of the House of Lords should be elected. This would ensure that the House of Lords is not completely out of touch with the views of the British people and that it is not seen as an elitist institution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the House of Lords should be subject to an election process for a certain percentage of its members. It was agreed that this would maintain the balance between a wholly unelected House of Lords and a wholly elected House of Commons, and would keep the House of Lords from becoming a redundant institution. However, it was also agreed that a wholly elected House of Lords would have some undesirable effects, and would compromise the independence of the House of Lords, which is one of its key roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the House of Lords should be elected. The current system of hereditary peers is outdated and should be abolished. However, there should be a certain number of seats in the House of Lords that are appointed by the Prime Minister. This would ensure that the House of Lords can remain independent from the House of Commons and would be able to provide an effective check and balance on the government. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001963.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001963.soc index 2b55f69c..aa03bad7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001963.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001963.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, we were in favour of factory farming. We agreed that it is the most cost-effective and efficient way of providing meat to the world and that it is necessary for feeding the increasing population. It also has many benefits for the animals. For example, they are not living in pain for long periods of time, as it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time. However, we also agreed that factory farming isn't the most ethical way of producing meat. Although we thought that conditions need to be improved, the group was split regarding alternatives, such as lab-grown meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of factory farming as it is the most cost-effective way of providing meat to the world. It is also the most practical way of feeding the increasing world population. The group also recognised that factory farming has many benefits for the animals. For example, it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, which means the animals are not living in pain for long periods of time. However, the group was also in favour of making the conditions of factory farming better, such as allowing the animals to have more space. The group also recognised that factory farming is not the most ethical way of producing meat and that there are many alternatives, such as lab-grown meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of factory farming as it is the most cost-effective way of providing meat to the world. It is also the most practical way of feeding the increasing world population. The group also recognised that factory farming has many benefits for the animals. For example, it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, which means the animals are not living in pain for long periods of time. The group was also of the view that there are many alternatives to factory farming and that we could definitely do a lot to improve the conditions of factory farms so they are more ethical. For example, allowing the animals more space. However, in a world of increasing global population, meat is needed in our diets. Thus, in a perfect world, the group thought factory farming would need to be improved, but in the current state of the world, and with the knowledge that many would starve without these farms, factory farming is the best option to ensure meat is provided for everyone across the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of factory farming as it is the most cost-effective way of providing meat to the world. It is also the most practical way of feeding the increasing world population. The group also recognised that factory farming has many benefits for the animals. For example, it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, which means the animals are not living in pain for long periods of time. However, the group was also in favour of making the conditions of factory farming better, such as allowing the animals to have more space. The group also recognised that factory farming is not the most ethical way of producing meat and that there are many alternatives, such as lab-grown meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, we were in favour of factory farming. We agreed that it is the most cost-effective and efficient way of providing meat to the world and that it is necessary for feeding the increasing population. It also has many benefits for the animals. For example, they are not living in pain for long periods of time, as it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time. However, we also agreed that factory farming isn't the most ethical way of producing meat. Although we thought that conditions need to be improved, the group was split regarding alternatives, such as lab-grown meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of factory farming as it is the most cost-effective way of providing meat to the world. It is also the most practical way of feeding the increasing world population. The group also recognised that factory farming has many benefits for the animals. For example, it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, which means the animals are not living in pain for long periods of time. However, the group was also in favour of making the conditions of factory farming better, such as allowing the animals to have more space. The group also recognised that factory farming is not the most ethical way of producing meat and that there are many alternatives, such as lab-grown meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of factory farming as it is the most cost-effective way of providing meat to the world. It is also the most practical way of feeding the increasing world population. The group also recognised that factory farming has many benefits for the animals. For example, it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, which means the animals are not living in pain for long periods of time. The group was also of the view that there are many alternatives to factory farming and that we could definitely do a lot to improve the conditions of factory farms so they are more ethical. For example, allowing the animals more space. However, in a world of increasing global population, meat is needed in our diets. Thus, in a perfect world, the group thought factory farming would need to be improved, but in the current state of the world, and with the knowledge that many would starve without these farms, factory farming is the best option to ensure meat is provided for everyone across the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of factory farming as it is the most cost-effective way of providing meat to the world. It is also the most practical way of feeding the increasing world population. The group also recognised that factory farming has many benefits for the animals. For example, it is the most efficient way of producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, which means the animals are not living in pain for long periods of time. However, the group was also in favour of making the conditions of factory farming better, such as allowing the animals to have more space. The group also recognised that factory farming is not the most ethical way of producing meat and that there are many alternatives, such as lab-grown meat. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001964.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001964.soc index 4778e34e..5518fa5e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001964.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001964.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government requiring all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The group felt that this would be a very unfair system which would put us in a position similar to America where some individuals are unable to access appropriate healthcare. The group felt that the current system, where we pay through our national insurance for the health care we receive via the NHS which is a fair system and free at the point of use for all, is the best system. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government requiring all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. However, we believe that there should be a system in place which would allow people to voluntarily pay for additional private health insurance on top of the healthcare provided by the NHS. This would allow people to have access to additional services such as dental care and opticians, and would also provide a system of private healthcare which people could access if they so wished. We believe that this would be a fair system which would allow people to access the healthcare they want, and would also allow the NHS to continue to provide healthcare for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should have a right to universal healthcare and we should not be discriminating against those who cannot afford it. Healthcare should be free and I think that taxing people to pay for it is a reasonable solution to fund it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in agreement that universal healthcare is a human right, and should not be subject to one's ability to pay. There is a danger that requiring all people to pay for health insurance, especially in cases where people are unable to do so, will limit access to healthcare, particularly for the most vulnerable in society. However, the group also acknowledged that some people are unable to pay for their health insurance and therefore they should not be allowed to access private healthcare, as this may lead to a drain on resources which are needed to fund healthcare for those who are unable to pay. The group was in agreement that a national insurance based healthcare system would be most appropriate, as it is fair and proportionate. The group also noted that for any system to work, the government must ensure that there are adequate funds available to fund the health service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government requiring all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The group felt that this would be a very unfair system which would put us in a position similar to America where some individuals are unable to access appropriate healthcare. The group felt that the current system, where we pay through our national insurance for the health care we receive via the NHS which is a fair system and free at the point of use for all, is the best system. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should be protected. The group felt that the NHS is a very important part of our society and should +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the government requiring all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. However, we believe that there should be a system in place which would allow people to voluntarily pay for additional private health insurance on top of the healthcare provided by the NHS. This would allow people to have access to additional services such as dental care and opticians, and would also provide a system of private healthcare which people could access if they so wished. We believe that this would be a fair system which would allow people to access the healthcare they want, and would also allow the NHS to continue to provide healthcare for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should have a right to universal healthcare and we should not be discriminating against those who cannot afford it. Healthcare should be free and I think that taxing people to pay for it is a reasonable solution to fund it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in agreement that universal healthcare is a human right, and should not be subject to one's ability to pay. There is a danger that requiring all people to pay for health insurance, especially in cases where people are unable to do so, will limit access to healthcare, particularly for the most vulnerable in society. However, the group also acknowledged that some people are unable to pay for their health insurance and therefore they should not be allowed to access private healthcare, as this may lead to a drain on resources which are needed to fund healthcare for those who are unable to pay. The group was in agreement that a national insurance based healthcare system would be most appropriate, as it is fair and proportionate. The group also noted that for any system to work, the government must ensure that there are adequate funds available to fund the health service. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001965.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001965.soc index 7af78114..b0bc18c4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001965.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001965.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. We also believe that the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way would be to provide incentives for people to consume healthier foods, and to also provide education on the effects of unhealthy eating and exercise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. The above consensus view was designed to elicit critical examination of this group's opinions of the sale of sweets in supermarkets. The group agreed in believing that the sale of sweets shouldn't be banned, however they did agree that there should be some level of regulation. The group listed the reasons why they believe there should be some level of regulation, they agreed on their thoughts and put together the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. We also believe that the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way would be to provide incentives for people to consume healthier foods, and to also provide education on the effects of unhealthy eating and exercise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although we do not believe that the sale of sweets should be banned in supermarkets, we do believe that there should be some level of regulation. There is a growing concern around the health of our nation, and the sale of sweets is a contributing factor to this. The fact that they are so readily available to purchase, and that they are often marketed to children is a cause for concern. We believe that the best way to combat this would be to limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased at any one time, and to also limit the amount of sweets that can be purchased for children. We believe that this would be the best way to combat the issue of obesity in our country, and to also allow people to still have the choice to purchase and consume sweets, but in a more regulated way. The above consensus view was designed to elicit critical examination of this group's opinions of the sale of sweets in supermarkets. The group agreed in believing that the sale of sweets shouldn't be banned, however they did agree that there should be some level of regulation. The group listed the reasons why they believe there should be some level of regulation, they agreed on their thoughts and put together the 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001966.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001966.soc index fd600f24..446fc786 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001966.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001966.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Our current immigration policy is not perfect, but could be a lot worse. We accept that there needs to be restrictions, but feel that a great deal more respect needs to be shown to immigrants and refugees. We think that, in the majority of cases, refugees have made the decision to risk everything to come here out of desperation and, to a degree, that desperation must be respected. However, we also feel that our current government is a little too accepting of the large numbers of immigrants we have in the UK, particularly from Europe, and would like to see these numbers reduced to give a more equal distribution of employment opportunities for all. We think that immigrants are made to feel as if they are a burden, rather than an asset to our society and that more can be done to help them integrate and contribute. In particular, we would like to see our government make more of an effort to remove people who are in the country illegally. We think that the financial burden on our health service, schools and police force is getting too great and that more can be done to remove those who are not entitled to stay. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have a duty to provide refuge for those who need it, but we need to be more robust in filtering out those who abuse the system. We need to be far more sympathetic to refugees and should give them far more respect than we currently do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, our current immigration policy is correct, but there are some improvements that can be made. Firstly, we need to improve the efficiency of the system. This will mean that people who need help can get it quicker, and people who are trying to abuse the system will be caught. Secondly, we need to treat refugees with more respect. We should be more welcoming, and understand that they have gone through a lot to get here, and we should not treat them as criminals. Finally, we should not let people who are not entitled to benefits get them. This will help us to reduce the deficit and ensure that people who are born here are getting the support that they need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK has a good immigration policy. It is very welcoming to people from other countries and is a very multicultural society. We need to ensure that the people we allow to stay are genuine refugees, who will contribute to society and will not take advantage of the system. We need to ensure that the people we allow to stay will not cause a strain on the NHS and other public services. We need to ensure that the people we allow to stay will not take jobs from the British people. We need to ensure that the people we allow to stay will not take advantage of the benefits system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Our current immigration policy is not perfect, but could be a lot worse. We accept that there needs to be restrictions, but feel that a great deal more respect needs to be shown to immigrants and refugees. We think that, in the majority of cases, refugees have made the decision to risk everything to come here out of desperation and, to a degree, that desperation must be respected. However, we also feel that our current government is a little too accepting of the large numbers of immigrants we have in the UK, particularly from Europe, and would like to see these numbers reduced to give a more equal distribution of employment opportunities for all. We think that immigrants are made to feel as if they are a burden, rather than an asset to our society and that more can be done to help them integrate and contribute. In particular, we would like to see our government make more of an effort to remove people who are in the country illegally. We think that the financial burden on our health service, schools and police force is getting too great and that more can be done to remove those who are not entitled to stay. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have a duty to provide refuge for those who need it, but we need to be more robust in filtering out those who abuse the system. We need to be far more sympathetic to refugees and should give them far more respect than we currently do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, our current immigration policy is correct, but there are some improvements that can be made. Firstly, we need to improve the efficiency of the system. This will mean that people who need help can get it quicker, and people who are trying to abuse the system will be caught. Secondly, we need to treat refugees with more respect. We should be more welcoming, and understand that they have gone through a lot to get here, and we should not treat them as criminals. Finally, we should not let people who are not entitled to benefits get them. This will help us to reduce the deficit and ensure that people who are born here are getting the support that they need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK has a good immigration policy. It is very welcoming to people from other countries and is a very multicultural society. We need to ensure that the people we allow to stay are genuine refugees, who will contribute to society and will not take advantage of the system. We need to ensure that the people we allow to stay will not cause a strain on the NHS and other public services. We need to ensure that the people we allow to stay will not take jobs from the British people. We need to ensure that the people we allow to stay will not take advantage of the benefits system. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001967.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001967.soc index 824a6ecc..207735d6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001967.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001967.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The sale of alcohol should be controlled, but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. We do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned, but rather it should be regulated and be made illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated. We do not think that banning the sale of alcohol will have any affect on people's behaviour, but rather their own self control. We do not think that there will be a black market for alcohol, as if the sale of alcohol is banned there will be more people that want to sell it on the black market. However, there will be more people trying to buy it on the black market, therefore creating more problems. It is better to regulate alcohol than ban it, as it is such a part of society. We believe that people are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The sale of alcohol should be controlled, but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. We do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned, but rather it should be regulated and be made illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated. We do not think that banning the sale of alcohol will have any affect on people's behaviour, but rather their own self control. We do not think that there will be a black market for alcohol, as if the sale of alcohol is banned there will be more people that want to sell it on the black market. However, there will be more people trying to buy it on the black market, therefore creating more problems. It is better to regulate alcohol than ban it, as it is such a part of society. We believe that people are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The sale of alcohol should be controlled but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. Whilst the laws surrounding the sale of alcohol should not be changed, we do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned. People are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. Crime in Glasgow is always shown to the people in the country on the news. It will make you believe that Glasgow is a very dangerous place, but having lived here for twenty years, I have never witnessed any actual crime. - Participant Four -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The sale of alcohol should be controlled, but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. We do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned, but rather it should be regulated and be made illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated. We do not think that banning the sale of alcohol will have any affect on people's behaviour, but rather their own self control. We do not think that there will be a black market for alcohol, as if the sale of alcohol is banned there will be more people that want to sell it on the black market. However, there will be more people trying to buy it on the black market, therefore creating more problems. It is better to regulate alcohol than ban it, as it is such a part of society. We believe that people are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The sale of alcohol should be controlled, but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. We do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned, but rather it should be regulated and be made illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated. We do not think that banning the sale of alcohol will have any affect on people's behaviour, but rather their own self control. We do not think that there will be a black market for alcohol, as if the sale of alcohol is banned there will be more people that want to sell it on the black market. However, there will be more people trying to buy it on the black market, therefore creating more problems. It is better to regulate alcohol than ban it, as it is such a part of society. We believe that people are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The sale of alcohol should be controlled, but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. We do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned, but rather it should be regulated and be made illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated. We do not think that banning the sale of alcohol will have any affect on people's behaviour, but rather their own self control. We do not think that there will be a black market for alcohol, as if the sale of alcohol is banned there will be more people that want to sell it on the black market. However, there will be more people trying to buy it on the black market, therefore creating more problems. It is better to regulate alcohol than ban it, as it is such a part of society. We believe that people are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The sale of alcohol should be controlled but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. Whilst the laws surrounding the sale of alcohol should not be changed, we do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned. People are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. Crime in Glasgow is always shown to the people in the country on the news. It will make you believe that Glasgow is a very dangerous place, but having lived here for twenty years, I have never witnessed any actual crime. - Participant Four +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The sale of alcohol should be controlled, but not banned. Alcohol is often seen as a problem but people must take responsibility for their own actions. There are currently laws surrounding alcohol to ensure that people are not over served and should be educated enough to know their limits and how much is too much. We do not think that the sale of alcohol should be banned, but rather it should be regulated and be made illegal to sell to those who are already intoxicated. We do not think that banning the sale of alcohol will have any affect on people's behaviour, but rather their own self control. We do not think that there will be a black market for alcohol, as if the sale of alcohol is banned there will be more people that want to sell it on the black market. However, there will be more people trying to buy it on the black market, therefore creating more problems. It is better to regulate alcohol than ban it, as it is such a part of society. We believe that people are responsible enough to regulate themselves and they should not be told what they can and cannot drink. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001968.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001968.soc index 4cd11728..864d4fa3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001968.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001968.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group of participants came to the consensus view that it is wrong for society to give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. This is because it is unfair on the people who do not have the same privileges and it is also unfair on the people who have the privileges as they do not get to experience life as a ‘normal’ person. It is also wrong as it is a form of discrimination. The only way that we think that this could be changed is if the people who have the privileges donate the majority of their money to charities and to the people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. This would also make the people who are less fortunate feel better about the situation as they would know that the people who are more fortunate than them are helping them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: We have come to the conclusion that it is wrong for society to give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. This is because it is unfair on the people who do not have the same privileges and it is also unfair on the people who have the privileges as they do not get to experience life as a ‘normal’ person. It is also wrong as it is a form of discrimination. The only way that this could be changed is if the people who have the privileges donate the majority of their money to charities and to the people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. This would also make the people who are less fortunate feel better about the situation as they would know that the people who are more fortunate than them are helping them. This would also help them feel more equal to those who are more fortunate than them as the only difference would be that they would be wealthier than them but that would not affect the way that the people who are less fortunate are treated and would mean that they feel that they have no reason to complain. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is wrong for society to give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. All members of society should be treated the same and everyone should have equal opportunities. It would be fairer on society if it was altered so that people who are born into royalty are not given as many privileges as they currently are and that they do not rely on the state to fund their lifestyle. This is because everyone should be able to earn their own living. It would also be fairer on people who are born into royalty, as everyone should experience the real world as opposed to living a life of luxury which does not reflect life outside of the royal family. This means that they will be able to experience society as ‘normal’ people would do. The only way to solve the problem is for royals to donate most of their wealth to charities that would help people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Society should not give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. This is because it is unfair on the people who do not have the same privileges and it is also unfair on the people who have the privileges as they do not get to experience life as a ‘normal’ person. It is also wrong as it is a form of discrimination. The only way that we think that this could be changed is if the people who have the privileges donate the majority of their money to charities and to the people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. This would also make the people who are less fortunate feel better about the situation as they would know that the people who are more fortunate than them are helping them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group of participants came to the consensus view that it is wrong for society to give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. This is because it is unfair on the people who do not have the same privileges and it is also unfair on the people who have the privileges as they do not get to experience life as a ‘normal’ person. It is also wrong as it is a form of discrimination. The only way that we think that this could be changed is if the people who have the privileges donate the majority of their money to charities and to the people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. This would also make the people who are less fortunate feel better about the situation as they would know that the people who are more fortunate than them are helping them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: We have come to the conclusion that it is wrong for society to give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. This is because it is unfair on the people who do not have the same privileges and it is also unfair on the people who have the privileges as they do not get to experience life as a ‘normal’ person. It is also wrong as it is a form of discrimination. The only way that this could be changed is if the people who have the privileges donate the majority of their money to charities and to the people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. This would also make the people who are less fortunate feel better about the situation as they would know that the people who are more fortunate than them are helping them. This would also help them feel more equal to those who are more fortunate than them as the only difference would be that they would be wealthier than them but that would not affect the way that the people who are less fortunate are treated and would mean that they feel that they have no reason to complain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is wrong for society to give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. All members of society should be treated the same and everyone should have equal opportunities. It would be fairer on society if it was altered so that people who are born into royalty are not given as many privileges as they currently are and that they do not rely on the state to fund their lifestyle. This is because everyone should be able to earn their own living. It would also be fairer on people who are born into royalty, as everyone should experience the real world as opposed to living a life of luxury which does not reflect life outside of the royal family. This means that they will be able to experience society as ‘normal’ people would do. The only way to solve the problem is for royals to donate most of their wealth to charities that would help people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Society should not give certain people, such as members of royal families, special privileges because of their family status. This is because it is unfair on the people who do not have the same privileges and it is also unfair on the people who have the privileges as they do not get to experience life as a ‘normal’ person. It is also wrong as it is a form of discrimination. The only way that we think that this could be changed is if the people who have the privileges donate the majority of their money to charities and to the people who are less fortunate. This is because then they are not just living their life of luxury and are actually helping people who are less fortunate than them. This would also make the people who are less fortunate feel better about the situation as they would know that the people who are more fortunate than them are helping them. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001969.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001969.soc index 8c2ed604..59087e12 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001969.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001969.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be free to make their own dietary choices, and should not be encouraged to become vegetarian or vegan. It is much more difficult to ensure you consume a balanced diet if you do not eat meat. I believe too much is being made of the environmental impact of meat production; in fact there are many things which are far more damaging to the environment than consuming meat. Vegetarianism and veganism should be encouraged but not forced upon people, it's a healthier and more carbon friendly way of life that has a lot of benefits however the choice should still be left to the individual. Vegetarianism and Veganism have been shown to have a positive impact of global warming as less water waste and greenhouse gases are produced when animals aren't involved in a persons diet. A good idea would be encouraging more vegetarian days into a persons life who doesn't want to be compeltley vegetarian. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, people should be free to make their own dietary choices, and should not be encouraged to become vegetarian or vegan. However, it is much more difficult to ensure you consume a balanced diet if you do not eat meat. We believe too much is being made of the environmental impact of meat production; in fact there are many things which are far more damaging to the environment than consuming meat. We believe that vegetarianism and veganism should be encouraged but not forced upon people, it's a healthier and more carbon friendly way of life that has a lot of benefits however the choice should still be left to the individual. Vegetarianism and Veganism have been shown to have a positive impact of global warming as less water waste and greenhouse gases are produced when animals aren't involved in a persons diet. A good idea would be encouraging more vegetarian days into a persons life who doesn't want to be compeltley vegetarian. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the environment, animal welfare and our health would benefit from more people choosing to be vegetarian or vegan, we agree that this choice is a personal one and should not be forced upon people. Instead we think people should be educated on the benefits of eating less meat so that they can make informed decisions, and have the option of incorporating more vegetarian and vegan days into their diets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Some people have the view that it would be best if people were all vegetarian or vegan, because it would reduce greenhouse gases, reduce water wastage and overall be better for the environment and the world. On the other hand, some people have the view that it is an individual choice, and that they enjoy eating meat and would not like to be vegetarian. Our group believe that it is an individual choice, and that vegetarianism and veganism should be encouraged, but not forced upon people. It is healthier and more carbon friendly to be vegetarian or vegan, and there are many benefits, however, the choice should still be left to the individual. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be free to make their own dietary choices, and should not be encouraged to become vegetarian or vegan. It is much more difficult to ensure you consume a balanced diet if you do not eat meat. I believe too much is being made of the environmental impact of meat production; in fact there are many things which are far more damaging to the environment than consuming meat. Vegetarianism and veganism should be encouraged but not forced upon people, it's a healthier and more carbon friendly way of life that has a lot of benefits however the choice should still be left to the individual. Vegetarianism and Veganism have been shown to have a positive impact of global warming as less water waste and greenhouse gases are produced when animals aren't involved in a persons diet. A good idea would be encouraging more vegetarian days into a persons life who doesn't want to be compeltley vegetarian. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, people should be free to make their own dietary choices, and should not be encouraged to become vegetarian or vegan. However, it is much more difficult to ensure you consume a balanced diet if you do not eat meat. We believe too much is being made of the environmental impact of meat production; in fact there are many things which are far more damaging to the environment than consuming meat. We believe that vegetarianism and veganism should be encouraged but not forced upon people, it's a healthier and more carbon friendly way of life that has a lot of benefits however the choice should still be left to the individual. Vegetarianism and Veganism have been shown to have a positive impact of global warming as less water waste and greenhouse gases are produced when animals aren't involved in a persons diet. A good idea would be encouraging more vegetarian days into a persons life who doesn't want to be compeltley vegetarian. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the environment, animal welfare and our health would benefit from more people choosing to be vegetarian or vegan, we agree that this choice is a personal one and should not be forced upon people. Instead we think people should be educated on the benefits of eating less meat so that they can make informed decisions, and have the option of incorporating more vegetarian and vegan days into their diets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Some people have the view that it would be best if people were all vegetarian or vegan, because it would reduce greenhouse gases, reduce water wastage and overall be better for the environment and the world. On the other hand, some people have the view that it is an individual choice, and that they enjoy eating meat and would not like to be vegetarian. Our group believe that it is an individual choice, and that vegetarianism and veganism should be encouraged, but not forced upon people. It is healthier and more carbon friendly to be vegetarian or vegan, and there are many benefits, however, the choice should still be left to the individual. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001970.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001970.soc index 0f098d77..9c22f14e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001970.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001970.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under 12 should not be allowed to vote as they are not mature enough to hold informed opinions on many of the complex issues surrounding politics and the future of the country. Furthermore, children at those ages are more susceptible to peer pressure from both adults and peers which could further damage an already problematic system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under 12 should not be allowed to vote as they are not mature enough to hold informed opinions on many of the complex issues surrounding politics and the future of the country. Furthermore, children at those ages are more susceptible to peer pressure from both adults and peers which could further damage an already problematic system. This is not only due to children being easily influenced but also because children are at a stage of life where they are exploring and learning. The consensus opinion also believes that it would be difficult to get an accurate representation of the population as children are easily influenced and could be coerced into voting for a certain party. It is also important to consider that children are at an age where their opinions may not be their own and could be heavily influenced by others who may have ulterior motives. The consensus opinion also believes that a child under 12 may not have a full understanding of the issues at hand, and therefore may not be able to make an informed decision when voting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under 12 should not be allowed to vote as they are not mature enough to hold informed opinions on many of the complex issues surrounding politics and the future of the country. Furthermore, children at those ages are more susceptible to peer pressure from both adults and peers which could further damage an already problematic system. Also, due to immaturity, there would be a greater rate of spoiled ballots thus skewing election results. This would detract from the legitimacy of voting as a whole. After you've read through this, feel free to jot down in the comments the word you think best describes this process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Children under 12 should not be allowed to vote as they are not mature enough to hold informed opinions on many of the complex issues surrounding politics and the future of the country. Furthermore, children at those ages are more susceptible to peer pressure from both adults and peers which could further damage an already problematic system. This is particularly important because the younger age-groups are more easily influenced than the older ones. It would also be difficult to ensure that children under 12 represent the views of a wider age group in an unbiased way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under 12 should not be allowed to vote as they are not mature enough to hold informed opinions on many of the complex issues surrounding politics and the future of the country. Furthermore, children at those ages are more susceptible to peer pressure from both adults and peers which could further damage an already problematic system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under 12 should not be allowed to vote as they are not mature enough to hold informed opinions on many of the complex issues surrounding politics and the future of the country. Furthermore, children at those ages are more susceptible to peer pressure from both adults and peers which could further damage an already problematic system. This is not only due to children being easily influenced but also because children are at a stage of life where they are exploring and learning. The consensus opinion also believes that it would be difficult to get an accurate representation of the population as children are easily influenced and could be coerced into voting for a certain party. It is also important to consider that children are at an age where their opinions may not be their own and could be heavily influenced by others who may have ulterior motives. The consensus opinion also believes that a child under 12 may not have a full understanding of the issues at hand, and therefore may not be able to make an informed decision when voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under 12 should not be allowed to vote as they are not mature enough to hold informed opinions on many of the complex issues surrounding politics and the future of the country. Furthermore, children at those ages are more susceptible to peer pressure from both adults and peers which could further damage an already problematic system. Also, due to immaturity, there would be a greater rate of spoiled ballots thus skewing election results. This would detract from the legitimacy of voting as a whole. After you've read through this, feel free to jot down in the comments the word you think best describes this process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Children under 12 should not be allowed to vote as they are not mature enough to hold informed opinions on many of the complex issues surrounding politics and the future of the country. Furthermore, children at those ages are more susceptible to peer pressure from both adults and peers which could further damage an already problematic system. This is particularly important because the younger age-groups are more easily influenced than the older ones. It would also be difficult to ensure that children under 12 represent the views of a wider age group in an unbiased way. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001971.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001971.soc index 62c430bf..571d8f5b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001971.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001971.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people being able to keep their own guns for their own protection. The risk of guns in the home is too high and we need to reduce the number of guns in circulation. In particular, the use of guns in a domestic context has the risk of children having access to guns as well as the risk of a shooting during a domestic dispute that escalates. We were in favour of the idea of guns being kept at secure locations, such as sports clubs, for use in the appropriate sporting context. We felt that in some countries where guns are legal, such as the USA, the level of gun ownership is too high and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The group also felt that the ease of gun access is an issue that needs to be addressed, with the introduction of tougher regulations and more thorough vetting of individuals, especially in the USA. The group felt that it was important to reduce the number of guns in circulation and that the use of guns should be limited to the appropriate sporting context. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people being able to keep their own guns for their own protection. The risk of guns in the home is too high and we need to reduce the number of guns in circulation. We were in favour of the idea of guns being kept at secure locations, such as sports clubs, for use in the appropriate sporting context. We felt that in some countries where guns are legal, such as the USA, the level of gun ownership is too high and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The group also felt that the ease of gun access is an issue that needs to be addressed, with the introduction of tougher regulations and more thorough vetting of individuals. The group felt that it was important to reduce the number of guns in circulation and that the use of guns should be limited to the appropriate sporting context. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be strict controls on gun ownership and gun licensing. We feel that there is a need for more robust and thorough vetting of individuals who wish to own guns. There should be strict regulations on gun storage to ensure that guns are kept away from children and others who may not have had gun safety training. There is a need to reduce the number of guns in circulation and to limit gun ownership to only those who are qualified to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people being able to keep their own guns for their own protection. The risk of guns in the home is too high and we need to reduce the number of guns in circulation. In particular, the use of guns in a domestic context has the risk of children having access to guns as well as the risk of a shooting during a domestic dispute that escalates. We were in favour of the idea of guns being kept at secure locations, such as sports clubs, for use in the appropriate sporting context. We felt that in some countries where guns are legal, such as the USA, the level of gun ownership is too high and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The group also felt that the ease of gun access is an issue that needs to be addressed, with the introduction of tougher regulations and more thorough vetting of individuals, especially in the USA. The group felt that it was important to reduce the number of guns in circulation and that the use of guns should be limited to the appropriate sporting context. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people being able to keep their own guns for their own protection. The risk of guns in the home is too high and we need to reduce the number of guns in circulation. We were in favour of the idea of guns being kept at secure locations, such as sports clubs, for use in the appropriate sporting context. We felt that in some countries where guns are legal, such as the USA, the level of gun ownership is too high and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The group also felt that the ease of gun access is an issue that needs to be addressed, with the introduction of tougher regulations and more thorough vetting of individuals. The group felt that it was important to reduce the number of guns in circulation and that the use of guns should be limited to the appropriate sporting context. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be strict controls on gun ownership and gun licensing. We feel that there is a need for more robust and thorough vetting of individuals who wish to own guns. There should be strict regulations on gun storage to ensure that guns are kept away from children and others who may not have had gun safety training. There is a need to reduce the number of guns in circulation and to limit gun ownership to only those who are qualified to do so. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001972.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001972.soc index 6f80a763..fa849b87 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001972.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001972.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is necessary to help the UK economy, but only if it is the right type of austerity. Austerity should not mean cuts in public spending, but rather austerity in terms of the amount of debt that the government is willing to take on. Austerity should not mean that the quality of public services will be reduced, as this will only lead to people needing the services more. The money saved by reducing the amount of debt the government takes on can then be used to invest in the economy and stimulate growth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is necessary to help the UK economy, but only if it is the right type of austerity. Austerity should not mean cuts in public spending, but rather austerity in terms of the amount of debt that the government is willing to take on. By reducing the amount of debt that the government is willing to take on, interest payments will be reduced, meaning more money will be available for investment in the economy and to pay off the existing debt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity in terms of the amount of debt the government is willing to take on is necessary to help the UK economy, but only if it is the right type of austerity. Unfortunately for the UK economy, the government is facing both the wrong type of austerity and the wrong type of deficit reduction. The wrong type of austerity occurs when government spending is cut, for example by cutting benefits that people rely on and cutting the services that public sector workers provide, like education, health care and policing. The wrong type of deficit reduction is one that reduces the deficit by reducing spending (rather than by raising taxes). As more funding cuts will be made to public services and benefits, and since tax rates are unlikely to be increased, the UK is currently facing the wrong type of both austerity and deficit reduction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is necessary to help the UK economy, but only if it is the right type of austerity. Austerity should not mean cuts in public spending, but rather austerity in terms of the amount of debt that the government is willing to take on. Austerity should not mean that the quality of public services will be reduced, as this will only lead to people needing the services more. The money saved by reducing the amount of debt the government takes on can then be used to invest in the economy and stimulate growth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is necessary to help the UK economy, but only if it is the right type of austerity. Austerity should not mean cuts in public spending, but rather austerity in terms of the amount of debt that the government is willing to take on. By reducing the amount of debt that the government is willing to take on, interest payments will be reduced, meaning more money will be available for investment in the economy and to pay off the existing debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity in terms of the amount of debt the government is willing to take on is necessary to help the UK economy, but only if it is the right type of austerity. Unfortunately for the UK economy, the government is facing both the wrong type of austerity and the wrong type of deficit reduction. The wrong type of austerity occurs when government spending is cut, for example by cutting benefits that people rely on and cutting the services that public sector workers provide, like education, health care and policing. The wrong type of deficit reduction is one that reduces the deficit by reducing spending (rather than by raising taxes). As more funding cuts will be made to public services and benefits, and since tax rates are unlikely to be increased, the UK is currently facing the wrong type of both austerity and deficit reduction. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001973.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001973.soc index 9fc947ca..11f5413b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001973.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001973.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the house of lords should be made up of a mixture of elected and appointed members. We think that the more experienced members should be appointed by the current prime minister and those with less experience should be elected. This will ensure that the house of lords is not dominated by any one particular political view, but also that the public are represented in Parliament by a cross-section of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is an important part of the House of Lords that they are not subject to party political propaganda, this means that it is difficult to justify their role as an elected body. We do believe that certain seats should be elected by the public however. This will ensure that a cross-section of the population has a voice in Parliament and that it does not appear too elitist or distant from the public. This is not to say that the members of the House of Lords are not of an elite status. Rather, it is to say that we do not believe that they should be entirely appointed based on their birth or monetary status, but rather that the public should have some say in the matter. This will also encourage a more diverse range of opinion in the House of Lords and ensure that the political views of the Lords more closely reflect those of the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While it is extremely important that the House of Lords are not subject to the rumblings and propaganda of party politics, this does not mean that their roles as un-elected seats are entirely justifiable. However, we do not think that it is unreasonable to suggest that "certain seats" should be selected to be the public's choice. This means that they will have the popular vote behind them. In this way they will also not "appear" too elitist or too far from the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that while it is an important part of the House of Lords that they are not subject to party political propaganda, this means that it is difficult to justify their role as an elected body. We do believe that certain seats should be elected by the public however. This will ensure that a cross-section of the population has a voice in Parliament and that it does not appear too elitist or distant from the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the house of lords should be made up of a mixture of elected and appointed members. We think that the more experienced members should be appointed by the current prime minister and those with less experience should be elected. This will ensure that the house of lords is not dominated by any one particular political view, but also that the public are represented in Parliament by a cross-section of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is an important part of the House of Lords that they are not subject to party political propaganda, this means that it is difficult to justify their role as an elected body. We do believe that certain seats should be elected by the public however. This will ensure that a cross-section of the population has a voice in Parliament and that it does not appear too elitist or distant from the public. This is not to say that the members of the House of Lords are not of an elite status. Rather, it is to say that we do not believe that they should be entirely appointed based on their birth or monetary status, but rather that the public should have some say in the matter. This will also encourage a more diverse range of opinion in the House of Lords and ensure that the political views of the Lords more closely reflect those of the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While it is extremely important that the House of Lords are not subject to the rumblings and propaganda of party politics, this does not mean that their roles as un-elected seats are entirely justifiable. However, we do not think that it is unreasonable to suggest that "certain seats" should be selected to be the public's choice. This means that they will have the popular vote behind them. In this way they will also not "appear" too elitist or too far from the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that while it is an important part of the House of Lords that they are not subject to party political propaganda, this means that it is difficult to justify their role as an elected body. We do believe that certain seats should be elected by the public however. This will ensure that a cross-section of the population has a voice in Parliament and that it does not appear too elitist or distant from the public. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001974.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001974.soc index 3a0f71bb..264c09c5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001974.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001974.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. The detention could be made into a lesson, teaching children about the importance of good behaviour and how it benefits everyone involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. This way, the child's behaviour can be targeted to fix any underlying issues to shape them into a positive citizen of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. Teachers should not use a detention as a way to humiliate the child but instead use the detention to encourage the child to behave in a more positive way in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. Through the consensus process, the whole group had come together in agreement as to the following points: that detentions are sometimes appropriate for children aged 12 and under (the reasons being that they are still learning behaviour and that detentions are sometimes necessary as consequences for poor behaviour) however, that there are limits to which children should be given a detention and that the level of severity and whether or not the child has a history of poor behaviour would contribute to the decision to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. The detention could be made into a lesson, teaching children about the importance of good behaviour and how it benefits everyone involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. This way, the child's behaviour can be targeted to fix any underlying issues to shape them into a positive citizen of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. Teachers should not use a detention as a way to humiliate the child but instead use the detention to encourage the child to behave in a more positive way in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children aged 12 or below should be given detentions by their teachers if the child has behaved inappropriately and in a way that is not conducive to the learning environment of the school. Teachers should be given the freedom to use their discretion on whether or not to give a detention and the decision should be made based on the severity of the negative behaviour and the child's previous behaviour record. It is important to remember that children are still learning how to behave in school and in society and should be taught the consequences of their actions. A detention should be used as a way of teaching the child that their actions have consequences. It should also be used as an opportunity to speak to the child and find out if there are any underlying issues causing the negative behaviours. Through the consensus process, the whole group had come together in agreement as to the following points: that detentions are sometimes appropriate for children aged 12 and under (the reasons being that they are still learning behaviour and that detentions are sometimes necessary as consequences for poor behaviour) however, that there are limits to which children should be given a detention and that the level of severity and whether or not the child has a history of poor behaviour would contribute to the decision to 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001975.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001975.soc index 2bbec939..8a85ef74 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001975.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001975.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People have the right to universal healthcare and so we should not be discriminating against those who cannot afford it. Healthcare should be free and I think that taxing people to pay for it is a reasonable solution to fund it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Healthcare should be a right to all individuals and the government should provide it free at the point of use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should have a right to universal healthcare and we should not be discriminating against those who cannot afford it. Healthcare should be free and I think that taxing people to pay for it is a reasonable solution to fund it. However, this should be a progressive tax and should take into account the needs of those on lower incomes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Healthcare is something that people should be able to access, regardless of their socioeconomic status or income. The NHS is a staple of British life and it is wrong that our ageing population is putting too much pressure on the system, with the NHS already facing financial challenges. It is reasonable to suggest that taxation should be implemented to maintain the NHS, but it would have to be implemented by a progressive taxation system, making it easier for lower incomes and harder for higher incomes to pay. The NHS has helped millions of people and is very efficient but we should not be complacent. Financing should be changed to reflect the costs and it should be funded via more progressive taxation. It is completely unjust that we have elderly people who are unable to access the appropriate help to maintain their health because the system is unaffordable. This is a real danger to the state of the NHS going forwards and so the system needs to be changed, especially for this elderly demographic. We must not forget them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People have the right to universal healthcare and so we should not be discriminating against those who cannot afford it. Healthcare should be free and I think that taxing people to pay for it is a reasonable solution to fund it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Healthcare should be a right to all individuals and the government should provide it free at the point of use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should have a right to universal healthcare and we should not be discriminating against those who cannot afford it. Healthcare should be free and I think that taxing people to pay for it is a reasonable solution to fund it. However, this should be a progressive tax and should take into account the needs of those on lower incomes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Healthcare is something that people should be able to access, regardless of their socioeconomic status or income. The NHS is a staple of British life and it is wrong that our ageing population is putting too much pressure on the system, with the NHS already facing financial challenges. It is reasonable to suggest that taxation should be implemented to maintain the NHS, but it would have to be implemented by a progressive taxation system, making it easier for lower incomes and harder for higher incomes to pay. The NHS has helped millions of people and is very efficient but we should not be complacent. Financing should be changed to reflect the costs and it should be funded via more progressive taxation. It is completely unjust that we have elderly people who are unable to access the appropriate help to maintain their health because the system is unaffordable. This is a real danger to the state of the NHS going forwards and so the system needs to be changed, especially for this elderly demographic. We must not forget them. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001976.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001976.soc index 9bc5e823..71832fad 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001976.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001976.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of making it harder to buy a gun. This was for a number of reasons, including the fact that it is not necessary for most people to own a gun and the fact that it is a very dangerous weapon. However, the group also recognised that in some circumstances, such as farming, it is necessary to own a gun. The group also agreed that there should be regular mental health evaluations for those who own guns, in order to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves or others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is important to make it harder to buy a gun. The number of shootings we see in the news on a regular basis is a clear indicator that the level of restrictions on gun ownership is not strict enough. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who are farmers or have other reasons to need them for work or practical purposes. Those who wish to own a gun should have a mental health evaluation before they are allowed to do so, and should have regular evaluations after they are allowed to own one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a high barrier to entry to owning a gun. This should be more than a mental health evaluation. There should be some sort of course or intensive training session which involves education on why guns should not be used in acts of violence, and that they are meant to be used as a sporting weapon, such as shooting in competitions or for hunting. The below example presents the results of a voting exercise completed by a group of participants in response to a question. Each participant had an equal vote, and the questions was accompanied by three statements which each participant had to choose from. The final result is represented below: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of making it harder to buy a gun. It was agreed that it is not necessary for the average person to own a gun, and that if it is harder to obtain, then the likelihood of it being used for acts of violence will be reduced. It was also agreed that the current system of background checks is not sufficient, and that it should be made more difficult to buy a gun. However, it was also agreed that it is necessary for some people to own a gun, such as farmers, and that the current system should allow for this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of making it harder to buy a gun. This was for a number of reasons, including the fact that it is not necessary for most people to own a gun and the fact that it is a very dangerous weapon. However, the group also recognised that in some circumstances, such as farming, it is necessary to own a gun. The group also agreed that there should be regular mental health evaluations for those who own guns, in order to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves or others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is important to make it harder to buy a gun. The number of shootings we see in the news on a regular basis is a clear indicator that the level of restrictions on gun ownership is not strict enough. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who are farmers or have other reasons to need them for work or practical purposes. Those who wish to own a gun should have a mental health evaluation before they are allowed to do so, and should have regular evaluations after they are allowed to own one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a high barrier to entry to owning a gun. This should be more than a mental health evaluation. There should be some sort of course or intensive training session which involves education on why guns should not be used in acts of violence, and that they are meant to be used as a sporting weapon, such as shooting in competitions or for hunting. The below example presents the results of a voting exercise completed by a group of participants in response to a question. Each participant had an equal vote, and the questions was accompanied by three statements which each participant had to choose from. The final result is represented below: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of making it harder to buy a gun. It was agreed that it is not necessary for the average person to own a gun, and that if it is harder to obtain, then the likelihood of it being used for acts of violence will be reduced. It was also agreed that the current system of background checks is not sufficient, and that it should be made more difficult to buy a gun. However, it was also agreed that it is necessary for some people to own a gun, such as farmers, and that the current system should allow for this. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001977.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001977.soc index f53a5b23..dbec292b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001977.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001977.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the immigration system is already strict enough. However, there are areas that can be improved upon. The current system is heavily focused on documentation and paperwork, which can be very tedious and difficult to understand. There should be more focus on the social aspects of immigration, ensuring that people are being integrated into society. The system should also be more flexible, with the option of a temporary visa. This would allow people to come to the country for a certain period of time, to work or study, and then return to their home country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not need an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. The current system is already very strict and dehumanising, and we believe that there are many ways in which the system could be made more efficient and more considerate of the people that it is supposed to be helping. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the system should be re-made but not made more strict. The system should have a period of transition so that everyone can adapt to the changes and the integration part of the process can be a success. The period of transition should last about 5 years after which the changes would come into full force. It was also agreed that a system that considers social issues and the reason for people's immigration needs to be made. The system should not be overly strict as to allow for people to have a say in the situation that they have to deal with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are a number of factors to consider we believe that we do need an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. Our current immigration system is strict but there is still a lot of room for improvement. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of the people already living in the country is not compromised. As the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the immigration system is already strict enough. However, there are areas that can be improved upon. The current system is heavily focused on documentation and paperwork, which can be very tedious and difficult to understand. There should be more focus on the social aspects of immigration, ensuring that people are being integrated into society. The system should also be more flexible, with the option of a temporary visa. This would allow people to come to the country for a certain period of time, to work or study, and then return to their home country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not need an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. The current system is already very strict and dehumanising, and we believe that there are many ways in which the system could be made more efficient and more considerate of the people that it is supposed to be helping. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the system should be re-made but not made more strict. The system should have a period of transition so that everyone can adapt to the changes and the integration part of the process can be a success. The period of transition should last about 5 years after which the changes would come into full force. It was also agreed that a system that considers social issues and the reason for people's immigration needs to be made. The system should not be overly strict as to allow for people to have a say in the situation that they have to deal with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are a number of factors to consider we believe that we do need an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. Our current immigration system is strict but there is still a lot of room for improvement. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of the people already living in the country is not compromised. As the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001978.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001978.soc index 37d39de5..13223412 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001978.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001978.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Our current immigration policy is not perfect, but could be a lot worse. We accept that there needs to be restrictions, but feel that a great deal more respect needs to be shown to immigrants and refugees. We think that, in the majority of cases, refugees have made the decision to risk everything to come here out of desperation and, to a degree, that desperation must be respected. However, we also feel that our current government is a little too accepting of the large numbers of immigrants we have in the UK, particularly from Europe, and would like to see these numbers reduced to give a more equal distribution of employment opportunities for all. We think that immigrants are made to feel as if they are a burden, rather than an asset to our society and that more can be done to help them integrate and contribute. In particular, we would like to see our government make more of an effort to remove people who are in the country illegally. We think that the financial burden on our health service, schools and police force is getting too great and that more can be done to remove those who are not entitled to stay. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Our current immigration policy is not perfect, but could be a lot worse. We accept that there needs to be restrictions, but feel that a great deal more respect needs to be shown to immigrants and refugees. We think that, in the majority of cases, refugees have made the decision to risk everything to come here out of desperation and, to a degree, that desperation must be respected. However, we also feel that our current government is a little too accepting of the large numbers of immigrants we have in the UK, particularly from Europe, and would like to see these numbers reduced to give a more equal distribution of employment opportunities for all. We think that immigrants are made to feel as if they are a burden, rather than an asset to our society and that more can be done to help them integrate and contribute. In particular, we would like to see our government make more of an effort to remove people who are in the country illegally. We think that the financial burden on our health service, schools and police force is getting too great and that more can be done to remove those who are not entitled to stay. We would also like to see a better system for asylum seekers to help them access the legal services and support they need to be able -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Our current immigration policy is by no means perfect, but could be a lot worse. We accept that there needs to be restrictions, but feel that a great deal more respect needs to be shown to immigrants and refugees. We think that, in the majority of cases, refugees have made the decision to risk everything to come here out of desperation and, to a degree, that desperation must be respected. However, we also feel that our current government is a little too accepting of the large numbers of immigrants we have in the UK, particularly from Europe, and would like to see these numbers reduced to give a more equal distribution of employment opportunities for all. We think that immigrants are made to feel as if they are a burden, rather than an asset to our society and that more can be done to help them integrate and contribute. In particular, we would like to see our government make more of an effort to remove people who are in the country illegally. We think that the financial burden on our health service, schools and police force is getting too great and that more can be done to remove those who are not entitled to stay. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Our current immigration policy is not perfect, but could be a lot worse. We accept that there needs to be restrictions, but feel that a great deal more respect needs to be shown to immigrants and refugees. We think that, in the majority of cases, refugees have made the decision to risk everything to come here out of desperation and, to a degree, that desperation must be respected. However, we also feel that our current government is a little too accepting of the large numbers of immigrants we have in the UK, particularly from Europe, and would like to see these numbers reduced to give a more equal distribution of employment opportunities for all. We think that immigrants are made to feel as if they are a burden, rather than an asset to our society and that more can be done to help them integrate and contribute. In particular, we would like to see our government make more of an effort to remove people who are in the country illegally. We think that the financial burden on our health service, schools and police force is getting too great and that more can be done to remove those who are not entitled to stay. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Our current immigration policy is not perfect, but could be a lot worse. We accept that there needs to be restrictions, but feel that a great deal more respect needs to be shown to immigrants and refugees. We think that, in the majority of cases, refugees have made the decision to risk everything to come here out of desperation and, to a degree, that desperation must be respected. However, we also feel that our current government is a little too accepting of the large numbers of immigrants we have in the UK, particularly from Europe, and would like to see these numbers reduced to give a more equal distribution of employment opportunities for all. We think that immigrants are made to feel as if they are a burden, rather than an asset to our society and that more can be done to help them integrate and contribute. In particular, we would like to see our government make more of an effort to remove people who are in the country illegally. We think that the financial burden on our health service, schools and police force is getting too great and that more can be done to remove those who are not entitled to stay. We would also like to see a better system for asylum seekers to help them access the legal services and support they need to be able +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Our current immigration policy is by no means perfect, but could be a lot worse. We accept that there needs to be restrictions, but feel that a great deal more respect needs to be shown to immigrants and refugees. We think that, in the majority of cases, refugees have made the decision to risk everything to come here out of desperation and, to a degree, that desperation must be respected. However, we also feel that our current government is a little too accepting of the large numbers of immigrants we have in the UK, particularly from Europe, and would like to see these numbers reduced to give a more equal distribution of employment opportunities for all. We think that immigrants are made to feel as if they are a burden, rather than an asset to our society and that more can be done to help them integrate and contribute. In particular, we would like to see our government make more of an effort to remove people who are in the country illegally. We think that the financial burden on our health service, schools and police force is getting too great and that more can be done to remove those who are not entitled to stay. 2: 1,3,4,2 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001979.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001979.soc index 165aa925..c08679ab 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001979.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001979.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government is doing a lot to protect our privacy, but there is still more to be done. The government should look into the issue of privacy on the internet and the impact of the use of personal information on social media. They should also look into how to protect personal information from scammers and how to deal with the issue of personal information being leaked from the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government is not doing enough to protect our privacy. They seem to have the wrong approach and what they are suggesting seems to be completely wrong and doesn't make sense. It is so easily accessible and it seems to be a huge problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government are not doing enough to protect our privacy. It's very difficult to find out what they are actually doing to protect our privacy, so it's hard to give them a full endorsement. The amount of leaks that have occurred from the government is worrying and doesn't fill you with much confidence. Furthermore, it is also very hard to see how the government are protecting our privacy when so much of our information is leaked every day, even from the most well-protected companies in the world. The government should do more to try and tackle the problem of leaked data, as the risk of losing information such as bank details, address, and phone number is becoming increasingly likely. The government should also do more to make sure that the people who are leaking our data are punished in some way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government is not doing enough to protect our privacy. They have made some good attempts at protecting our privacy, however, the scale of the problem is so great that it is very hard to control. The government needs to do more to ensure that the private information of citizens is protected. This is especially important with the advent of new technology such as smart devices and the internet of things, where everything is connected to the internet and thus can be accessed by hackers. The government needs to be more proactive in protecting the privacy of citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government is doing a lot to protect our privacy, but there is still more to be done. The government should look into the issue of privacy on the internet and the impact of the use of personal information on social media. They should also look into how to protect personal information from scammers and how to deal with the issue of personal information being leaked from the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government is not doing enough to protect our privacy. They seem to have the wrong approach and what they are suggesting seems to be completely wrong and doesn't make sense. It is so easily accessible and it seems to be a huge problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government are not doing enough to protect our privacy. It's very difficult to find out what they are actually doing to protect our privacy, so it's hard to give them a full endorsement. The amount of leaks that have occurred from the government is worrying and doesn't fill you with much confidence. Furthermore, it is also very hard to see how the government are protecting our privacy when so much of our information is leaked every day, even from the most well-protected companies in the world. The government should do more to try and tackle the problem of leaked data, as the risk of losing information such as bank details, address, and phone number is becoming increasingly likely. The government should also do more to make sure that the people who are leaking our data are punished in some way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government is not doing enough to protect our privacy. They have made some good attempts at protecting our privacy, however, the scale of the problem is so great that it is very hard to control. The government needs to do more to ensure that the private information of citizens is protected. This is especially important with the advent of new technology such as smart devices and the internet of things, where everything is connected to the internet and thus can be accessed by hackers. The government needs to be more proactive in protecting the privacy of citizens. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001980.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001980.soc index 16161bef..6868fb45 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001980.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001980.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, austerity is not necessary to reduce the UK’s national debt. The best time to reduce the UK’s national debt is in good times - when the economy is performing well, growth is high and wages are outpacing inflation, the economy can tolerate tax rises that enable us to reduce the national debt. In times of crisis, however, the most obvious solution is to borrow, to reduce the impacts of the economic downturn by artificially inflating demand, keeping supply (and the economy more generally) afloat. Cutting expenditure and increasing taxes in a time of falling demand and economic output is fundamentally stupid - it is not necessary, rather, it should be avoided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group felt that austerity is necessary in order to reduce the UK’s national debt. Although it can be argued that the best time to reduce debt is when the economy is performing well, the recent global financial crisis (GFC) caused significant damage to the economy and consequently the UK government were forced to borrow significant amounts of money. The group discussed that it was important to reduce the UK’s national debt at the soonest opportunity in order to reduce the possibility of future economic crises. However, it was also noted that although austerity is a useful tool in reducing national debt, it has a tendency to be applied to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society, which has adverse impacts on those suffering from mental health problems. The group felt that there were alternative solutions to austerity that could help the UK economy recover from the GFC. The group also felt that more could be done to reduce inequality in the UK and reduce the national debt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of austerity, but only if the government uses it as a means to control spending and not as a means to reduce the deficit. It was agreed that austerity measures should be used to ensure that the government is spending their money wisely and not on unnecessary things. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It depends on what measures are introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, austerity is not necessary to reduce the UK’s national debt. The best time to reduce the UK’s national debt is in good times - when the economy is performing well, growth is high and wages are outpacing inflation, the economy can tolerate tax rises that enable us to reduce the national debt. In times of crisis, however, the most obvious solution is to borrow, to reduce the impacts of the economic downturn by artificially inflating demand, keeping supply (and the economy more generally) afloat. Cutting expenditure and increasing taxes in a time of falling demand and economic output is fundamentally stupid - it is not necessary, rather, it should be avoided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group felt that austerity is necessary in order to reduce the UK’s national debt. Although it can be argued that the best time to reduce debt is when the economy is performing well, the recent global financial crisis (GFC) caused significant damage to the economy and consequently the UK government were forced to borrow significant amounts of money. The group discussed that it was important to reduce the UK’s national debt at the soonest opportunity in order to reduce the possibility of future economic crises. However, it was also noted that although austerity is a useful tool in reducing national debt, it has a tendency to be applied to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society, which has adverse impacts on those suffering from mental health problems. The group felt that there were alternative solutions to austerity that could help the UK economy recover from the GFC. The group also felt that more could be done to reduce inequality in the UK and reduce the national debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of austerity, but only if the government uses it as a means to control spending and not as a means to reduce the deficit. It was agreed that austerity measures should be used to ensure that the government is spending their money wisely and not on unnecessary things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It depends on what measures are introduced. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001981.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001981.soc index cba1fbfd..80b1b671 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001981.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001981.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Medical records are confidential and should remain so. The law needs to be more strictly enforced and more robust legislation is needed to prevent abuse of this private information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, yes we should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. We are living in a digital age where electronic systems and records are becoming increasingly common. The privacy of an individuals information is extremely important and laws need to be enforced to prevent unauthorised access to records. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the laws governing who can access NHS records are sufficient. There should be a very clear and strict process for anyone who wants to access records and this process should be transparent and well documented. The process should be overseen by a governing body to ensure that it is being followed. There should be a very clear distinction between records that are used for research and those that are used for marketing purposes. Records used for research should be de-identified and should not contain any personally identifiable information. Records used for marketing purposes should not be allowed to contain any personally identifiable information. The laws should be tightened up to ensure that these distinctions are clear and that the process is followed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the laws governing access to NHS records are adequate. De-identified NHS records should be able to be used for research projects and to improve the services, but should not be used by third parties for purposes such as marketing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Medical records are confidential and should remain so. The law needs to be more strictly enforced and more robust legislation is needed to prevent abuse of this private information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, yes we should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. We are living in a digital age where electronic systems and records are becoming increasingly common. The privacy of an individuals information is extremely important and laws need to be enforced to prevent unauthorised access to records. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the laws governing who can access NHS records are sufficient. There should be a very clear and strict process for anyone who wants to access records and this process should be transparent and well documented. The process should be overseen by a governing body to ensure that it is being followed. There should be a very clear distinction between records that are used for research and those that are used for marketing purposes. Records used for research should be de-identified and should not contain any personally identifiable information. Records used for marketing purposes should not be allowed to contain any personally identifiable information. The laws should be tightened up to ensure that these distinctions are clear and that the process is followed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the laws governing access to NHS records are adequate. De-identified NHS records should be able to be used for research projects and to improve the services, but should not be used by third parties for purposes such as marketing. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001982.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001982.soc index 7eab0f29..b19e76d1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001982.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001982.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although there are a number of factors to consider we believe that we do need an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. Our current immigration system is strict but there is still a lot of room for improvement. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of the people already living in the country is not compromised. As the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. We believe that there is a need to introduce a system that is both strict and allows for a level of acceptance and tolerance of people from all backgrounds and religions. We believe that these two things can be achieved through introducing a system that has stricter procedures and documentation but is also more accepting of people who want to integrate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there are a number of factors to consider we believe that we do need an immigration system that is stricter than the one we currently have. Our current immigration system is strict but there is still a lot of room for improvement. The safety and health of the people already living in the country must not be compromised. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of those living in the country is not compromised. Furthermore, as the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is a clear need for an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. The current immigration system is strict but there is still room for improvement. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of the people already living in the country is not compromised. As the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. The process of the debate is presented above. The group of participants was initially split in two. In the first round, each side had to come up with a draft consensus statement and explain why they believe that the consensus statement they wrote is the correct one. Then, in the second round, the two draft consensus statements were critiqued by the opposing group. Finally, in the third round, after taking into account all of the critiques, each group had to revise its draft consensus statement and come up with a final consensus statement. Participants were asked to reflect on the process of the debate. The comments of the participants are presented below. “The debate process was a very good way to work together and to listen to the opinions of others -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are a number of factors to consider we believe that we do need an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. Our current immigration system is strict but there is still a lot of room for improvement. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of the people already living in the country is not compromised. As the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although there are a number of factors to consider we believe that we do need an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. Our current immigration system is strict but there is still a lot of room for improvement. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of the people already living in the country is not compromised. As the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. We believe that there is a need to introduce a system that is both strict and allows for a level of acceptance and tolerance of people from all backgrounds and religions. We believe that these two things can be achieved through introducing a system that has stricter procedures and documentation but is also more accepting of people who want to integrate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there are a number of factors to consider we believe that we do need an immigration system that is stricter than the one we currently have. Our current immigration system is strict but there is still a lot of room for improvement. The safety and health of the people already living in the country must not be compromised. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of those living in the country is not compromised. Furthermore, as the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is a clear need for an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. The current immigration system is strict but there is still room for improvement. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of the people already living in the country is not compromised. As the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. The process of the debate is presented above. The group of participants was initially split in two. In the first round, each side had to come up with a draft consensus statement and explain why they believe that the consensus statement they wrote is the correct one. Then, in the second round, the two draft consensus statements were critiqued by the opposing group. Finally, in the third round, after taking into account all of the critiques, each group had to revise its draft consensus statement and come up with a final consensus statement. Participants were asked to reflect on the process of the debate. The comments of the participants are presented below. “The debate process was a very good way to work together and to listen to the opinions of others +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are a number of factors to consider we believe that we do need an immigration system that is much stricter than the one we currently have. Our current immigration system is strict but there is still a lot of room for improvement. This is especially important in order to ensure that the safety and health of the people already living in the country is not compromised. As the issue of immigration has become more and more relevant in recent years, it is necessary that we introduce a more advanced and thorough immigration system in order to protect those living in the country. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001983.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001983.soc index a53faf27..13628c12 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001983.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001983.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be allowed to give up their UK citizenship. They should be informed of the consequences and what will be required to renounce their citizenship and what the process will be. It should be a difficult and final decision. It would depend on the circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to give up their UK citizenship if they feel they no longer want to be associated with the UK, however they should be made aware of the implications of doing so and should be required to go through a rigorous process to ensure they are making the right decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of people being allowed to give up their UK citizenship. They thought that it was a personal choice and that people should be allowed to make their own decisions about their citizenship. However, they thought that people should be made aware of the implications of giving up their citizenship and that it should not be an easy process to do so. They also thought that people should not be able to give up their citizenship if they had any outstanding legal issues in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the decision to give up your UK citizenship is a personal choice, it is important to remember that you may not be able to return to the UK for residency, and you may be forced to give up other passports and citizenships. In addition, it is important to note that once the decision is made, it cannot be reversed. In the current climate, there are likely to be many people seeking to give up their citizenship, but if you have strong family ties to the UK, it may not be the best option for you. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be allowed to give up their UK citizenship. They should be informed of the consequences and what will be required to renounce their citizenship and what the process will be. It should be a difficult and final decision. It would depend on the circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to give up their UK citizenship if they feel they no longer want to be associated with the UK, however they should be made aware of the implications of doing so and should be required to go through a rigorous process to ensure they are making the right decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of people being allowed to give up their UK citizenship. They thought that it was a personal choice and that people should be allowed to make their own decisions about their citizenship. However, they thought that people should be made aware of the implications of giving up their citizenship and that it should not be an easy process to do so. They also thought that people should not be able to give up their citizenship if they had any outstanding legal issues in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the decision to give up your UK citizenship is a personal choice, it is important to remember that you may not be able to return to the UK for residency, and you may be forced to give up other passports and citizenships. In addition, it is important to note that once the decision is made, it cannot be reversed. In the current climate, there are likely to be many people seeking to give up their citizenship, but if you have strong family ties to the UK, it may not be the best option for you. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001984.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001984.soc index 6a704208..9fbba63c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001984.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001984.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A ban on the sale of tobacco in the UK would not be accepted by the public at this time. This is due to the fact that smoking rates are still relatively high and people need to be able to buy tobacco. Only when smoking rates have declined further will the public accept a ban. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the rate of smoking has declined significantly for the last 30 years, it is still relatively high. A ban on the sale of tobacco would result in protests and increased criminal activity, so we feel that it would not be acceptable to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is likely that the majority of the population would support a ban on the sale of tobacco, its implementation and enforcement would pose significant practical and economic challenges. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A ban on the sale of tobacco in the UK would not be accepted by the public at this time. This is due to the fact that smoking rates are still relatively high and people need to be able to buy tobacco. Only when smoking rates have declined further will the public accept a ban. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the rate of smoking has declined significantly for the last 30 years, it is still relatively high. A ban on the sale of tobacco would result in protests and increased criminal activity, so we feel that it would not be acceptable to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is likely that the majority of the population would support a ban on the sale of tobacco, its implementation and enforcement would pose significant practical and economic challenges. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001985.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001985.soc index 83d75a55..93b018ed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001985.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001985.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing. There are some areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In general, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK is not too permissive when it comes to gun ownership. There are some areas where it could be improved, however. In particular, the licensing system could be improved by requiring that all applicants are interviewed in person. Also, it should be made mandatory for all applicants to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK is about right when it comes to regulating gun ownership. We are in the middle of the spectrum between very permissive (like the USA) and very restrictive (like Japan). However, there are areas where tighter regulations could be imposed to further protect our society. The issue is not so much the people who legally own guns but those who obtain guns illegally and use them for violence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK is pretty good when it comes to gun ownership laws. If there is any issue, it is that the law can be confusing for people who want to own guns but don't know how to go about it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing. There are some areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In general, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK is not too permissive when it comes to gun ownership. There are some areas where it could be improved, however. In particular, the licensing system could be improved by requiring that all applicants are interviewed in person. Also, it should be made mandatory for all applicants to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK is about right when it comes to regulating gun ownership. We are in the middle of the spectrum between very permissive (like the USA) and very restrictive (like Japan). However, there are areas where tighter regulations could be imposed to further protect our society. The issue is not so much the people who legally own guns but those who obtain guns illegally and use them for violence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK is pretty good when it comes to gun ownership laws. If there is any issue, it is that the law can be confusing for people who want to own guns but don't know how to go about it. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001986.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001986.soc index ff42a891..86798bf2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001986.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001986.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children’s views about their education are important. They should be able to express their views and opinions about what they are learning, and why they are learning it. This will help them to understand the importance of their education and to feel engaged with the process. It is also important to take into account the views of children with special educational needs, and to ensure that they are receiving the support that they need to thrive. However, children’s views should not be the only thing that is taken into account when planning their education. It is also important to consider the views of teachers, parents and other experts in the field of education, in order to ensure that children are receiving the best education possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should have the opportunity to voice their opinions about their education, and where possible they should be allowed to shape their education, but this should not come at the cost of their long term educational success. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should have the opportunity to voice their opinions and have them taken into consideration when planning their education. The age of the child should be taken into account when considering the degree to which they should be able to influence their education. It is important to ensure every child has a well-rounded education that stands them in good stead for their future life, so they should not have the option to drop out before they have reached a level of qualification that will stand them in good stead for their future life. Young people may not have the perspective to understand the importance of this for their futures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children’s views about their education are important. Children should be able to have a say in what they learn and how they learn. However, it is also important that they are given a well-rounded education. This means they should not be able to drop out before they have reached a level of qualification that will stand them in good stead for their future life. Young people may not have the perspective to understand the importance of this for their futures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children’s views about their education are important. They should be able to express their views and opinions about what they are learning, and why they are learning it. This will help them to understand the importance of their education and to feel engaged with the process. It is also important to take into account the views of children with special educational needs, and to ensure that they are receiving the support that they need to thrive. However, children’s views should not be the only thing that is taken into account when planning their education. It is also important to consider the views of teachers, parents and other experts in the field of education, in order to ensure that children are receiving the best education possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should have the opportunity to voice their opinions about their education, and where possible they should be allowed to shape their education, but this should not come at the cost of their long term educational success. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should have the opportunity to voice their opinions and have them taken into consideration when planning their education. The age of the child should be taken into account when considering the degree to which they should be able to influence their education. It is important to ensure every child has a well-rounded education that stands them in good stead for their future life, so they should not have the option to drop out before they have reached a level of qualification that will stand them in good stead for their future life. Young people may not have the perspective to understand the importance of this for their futures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children’s views about their education are important. Children should be able to have a say in what they learn and how they learn. However, it is also important that they are given a well-rounded education. This means they should not be able to drop out before they have reached a level of qualification that will stand them in good stead for their future life. Young people may not have the perspective to understand the importance of this for their futures. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001987.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001987.soc index 4db8ac7d..19b62c44 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001987.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001987.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that it is important to make it harder to buy a gun. The number of shootings we see in the news on a regular basis is a clear indicator that the level of restrictions on gun ownership is not strict enough. Those who have a genuine use for owning a gun will not mind this change. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who are farmers or have other reasons to need them for work or practical purposes. Those who wish to own a gun should have a mental health evaluation before they are allowed to do so, and should have regular evaluations after they are allowed to own one. If someone with a gun license is found to no longer be fit to own a gun, they must return the gun, or face the possibility of having it forcibly taken and destroyed, with legal repercussions. Regular training and knowledge updates are essential for the continuation of the license. We believe this will help us reduce mass killings with guns, especially by mentally ill or troubled people. We believe this would be a good step toward resolving the issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is important to make it harder to buy a gun. The number of shootings we see in the news on a regular basis is a clear indicator that the level of restrictions on gun ownership is not strict enough. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who are farmers or have other reasons to need them for work or practical purposes. Those who wish to own a gun should have a mental health evaluation before they are allowed to do so, and should have regular evaluations after they are allowed to own one. This evaluation should be performed by a trained mental health professional, and they should also be trained to recognise the signs of someone with suicidal tendencies. This is because people with guns and suicidal tendencies are more likely to follow through on their suicidal desires. Regular evaluations should take place at least once a year. This is because people's mental health can change drastically over the course of a year and it is important that someone who has suicidal tendencies is not allowed to own a gun. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a high level of restrictions placed on who is allowed to own a gun, and the basis of this should be an evaluation of ones mental health which is carried out on a regular basis after gaining permission to purchase one. After this, an individual should also receive comprehensive training on the use of the gun in different situations, as well as how to store it away in a safe location. It is no longer necessary in this day and age for people to own a gun if they do not have a practical, valid reason to own one, and people who are allowed to own them should not be under the impression that they are invincible or otherwise dangerous. Most people need not own a gun, and must not be given access to one for reasons which may seem important to them but are in fact impractical. This project was designed to elicit critical thinking about this complex issue, and it was also designed to demonstrate how to generate a meaningful consensus opinion in a group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is important to make it harder to buy a gun. The number of shootings we see in the news on a regular basis is a clear indicator that the level of restrictions on gun ownership is not strict enough. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who are farmers or have other reasons to need them for work or practical purposes. Those who wish to own a gun should have a mental health evaluation before they are allowed to do so, and should have regular evaluations after they are allowed to own one. The number of these evaluations should be decided by the person's profession. Those who are training people to use guns should also have regular evaluations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that it is important to make it harder to buy a gun. The number of shootings we see in the news on a regular basis is a clear indicator that the level of restrictions on gun ownership is not strict enough. Those who have a genuine use for owning a gun will not mind this change. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who are farmers or have other reasons to need them for work or practical purposes. Those who wish to own a gun should have a mental health evaluation before they are allowed to do so, and should have regular evaluations after they are allowed to own one. If someone with a gun license is found to no longer be fit to own a gun, they must return the gun, or face the possibility of having it forcibly taken and destroyed, with legal repercussions. Regular training and knowledge updates are essential for the continuation of the license. We believe this will help us reduce mass killings with guns, especially by mentally ill or troubled people. We believe this would be a good step toward resolving the issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is important to make it harder to buy a gun. The number of shootings we see in the news on a regular basis is a clear indicator that the level of restrictions on gun ownership is not strict enough. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who are farmers or have other reasons to need them for work or practical purposes. Those who wish to own a gun should have a mental health evaluation before they are allowed to do so, and should have regular evaluations after they are allowed to own one. This evaluation should be performed by a trained mental health professional, and they should also be trained to recognise the signs of someone with suicidal tendencies. This is because people with guns and suicidal tendencies are more likely to follow through on their suicidal desires. Regular evaluations should take place at least once a year. This is because people's mental health can change drastically over the course of a year and it is important that someone who has suicidal tendencies is not allowed to own a gun. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a high level of restrictions placed on who is allowed to own a gun, and the basis of this should be an evaluation of ones mental health which is carried out on a regular basis after gaining permission to purchase one. After this, an individual should also receive comprehensive training on the use of the gun in different situations, as well as how to store it away in a safe location. It is no longer necessary in this day and age for people to own a gun if they do not have a practical, valid reason to own one, and people who are allowed to own them should not be under the impression that they are invincible or otherwise dangerous. Most people need not own a gun, and must not be given access to one for reasons which may seem important to them but are in fact impractical. This project was designed to elicit critical thinking about this complex issue, and it was also designed to demonstrate how to generate a meaningful consensus opinion in a group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is important to make it harder to buy a gun. The number of shootings we see in the news on a regular basis is a clear indicator that the level of restrictions on gun ownership is not strict enough. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who are farmers or have other reasons to need them for work or practical purposes. Those who wish to own a gun should have a mental health evaluation before they are allowed to do so, and should have regular evaluations after they are allowed to own one. The number of these evaluations should be decided by the person's profession. Those who are training people to use guns should also have regular evaluations. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001988.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001988.soc index 137ab509..8640055b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001988.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001988.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be allowed to live off the grid. This is their right and they should be free to do so. However, this comes with consequences. If they choose to live off the grid then they are choosing to live a life separate from the rest of society. They are choosing to not pay tax and therefore will not have access to the same public services as the rest of society. They are also choosing to not have any form of official documentation and therefore will not be able to prove their identity. This means that they will not be able to use services that require this form of identification. This means that they will not be able to use services such as banks, and may have difficulty accessing medical care. This is their choice, and they are free to make it, but they must accept the consequences of their choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to live off the grid. People should be allowed to make their own choices, and if they do not wish to interact with the outside world, that should be their choice. There is nothing wrong with it. However, some regulations need to be in place to ensure that living off the grid does not cause issues for other people. For example, basic health and safety needs to be in place, and proper sewage control needs to be put in place. It is also important to ensure that the location of the off-grid property does not cause a problem for the surrounding areas. For example, if a property is not maintained, it could cause a risk to the surrounding area in the event of a fire, or if animals escape from it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be allowed to live off the grid. The reasons behind this being the fact that as long as they are not harming anyone and are happy living their lives in this manner, then there is no need to change that. Some people don't want to have their lives governed by the law, the government, the press, or by large organisations and therefore it is best to let them continue their lives in this manner. People can have their own thoughts and opinions and so this can be used to make the decision on their own lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be allowed to live off the grid. They should not be allowed to live in a way that will cause harm to themselves or others. For example, if they live in a way that will cause harm to their health, they should be able to receive medical treatment and if they are causing a nuisance to others they should be asked to move on. They should be allowed to live in a way that does not cause harm to others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be allowed to live off the grid. This is their right and they should be free to do so. However, this comes with consequences. If they choose to live off the grid then they are choosing to live a life separate from the rest of society. They are choosing to not pay tax and therefore will not have access to the same public services as the rest of society. They are also choosing to not have any form of official documentation and therefore will not be able to prove their identity. This means that they will not be able to use services that require this form of identification. This means that they will not be able to use services such as banks, and may have difficulty accessing medical care. This is their choice, and they are free to make it, but they must accept the consequences of their choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to live off the grid. People should be allowed to make their own choices, and if they do not wish to interact with the outside world, that should be their choice. There is nothing wrong with it. However, some regulations need to be in place to ensure that living off the grid does not cause issues for other people. For example, basic health and safety needs to be in place, and proper sewage control needs to be put in place. It is also important to ensure that the location of the off-grid property does not cause a problem for the surrounding areas. For example, if a property is not maintained, it could cause a risk to the surrounding area in the event of a fire, or if animals escape from it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be allowed to live off the grid. The reasons behind this being the fact that as long as they are not harming anyone and are happy living their lives in this manner, then there is no need to change that. Some people don't want to have their lives governed by the law, the government, the press, or by large organisations and therefore it is best to let them continue their lives in this manner. People can have their own thoughts and opinions and so this can be used to make the decision on their own lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be allowed to live off the grid. They should not be allowed to live in a way that will cause harm to themselves or others. For example, if they live in a way that will cause harm to their health, they should be able to receive medical treatment and if they are causing a nuisance to others they should be asked to move on. They should be allowed to live in a way that does not cause harm to others. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001989.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001989.soc index b8af6790..761fdb62 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001989.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001989.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK has strict gun control laws. The laws should be made stricter still. Gun crime is often committed by those who have obtained the weapons illegally. The laws should be tightened to make it even more difficult for people to get hold of guns. This is the only way to prevent a descent into frequent mass shootings. Shooting for recreation should be stopped also. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Gun control laws should be tightened. The UK has strict gun laws, but these should be made stricter. The sale and distribution of guns should be further controlled, and there should be harsher punishments for those who illegally obtain or distribute guns. Shooting for recreation should be stopped also. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Gun crime is on the increase and we should not be complacent. There are simply too many incidents, including those of a fatal nature, that show that guns are still too accessible to the wrong people. While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, and understand that there are certain professions which require to use guns, we believe that stricter controls on who can possess guns and how they are stored are essential. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK has very strict gun control laws which have been very successful in preventing mass shootings. There have been some very rare exceptions, but in general the laws are very successful. However, we think that they could be made even more strict. For example, it should be made more difficult to obtain a gun license, and those who do have a license should be subject to more stringent checks. Also, it should be made illegal to own a gun for recreational purposes. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who require them for their work, such as gamekeepers, farmers and environmentalists, and those who require them for their hobby, such as clay pigeon shooting. Also, those who are allowed to own guns should be subject to strict laws on how they store their guns, and should be required to have secure gun safes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK has strict gun control laws. The laws should be made stricter still. Gun crime is often committed by those who have obtained the weapons illegally. The laws should be tightened to make it even more difficult for people to get hold of guns. This is the only way to prevent a descent into frequent mass shootings. Shooting for recreation should be stopped also. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Gun control laws should be tightened. The UK has strict gun laws, but these should be made stricter. The sale and distribution of guns should be further controlled, and there should be harsher punishments for those who illegally obtain or distribute guns. Shooting for recreation should be stopped also. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Gun crime is on the increase and we should not be complacent. There are simply too many incidents, including those of a fatal nature, that show that guns are still too accessible to the wrong people. While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, and understand that there are certain professions which require to use guns, we believe that stricter controls on who can possess guns and how they are stored are essential. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK has very strict gun control laws which have been very successful in preventing mass shootings. There have been some very rare exceptions, but in general the laws are very successful. However, we think that they could be made even more strict. For example, it should be made more difficult to obtain a gun license, and those who do have a license should be subject to more stringent checks. Also, it should be made illegal to own a gun for recreational purposes. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who require them for their work, such as gamekeepers, farmers and environmentalists, and those who require them for their hobby, such as clay pigeon shooting. Also, those who are allowed to own guns should be subject to strict laws on how they store their guns, and should be required to have secure gun safes. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001990.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001990.soc index 8145a9de..77ccba2c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001990.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001990.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Schools should not give more time to teaching philosophy. This is because although philosophy is a valuable subject, it is not as valuable as some other subjects. There is a lot of philosophy covered in English already, for example when studying works by writers such as Shakespeare, and in a world that is becoming increasingly focused on science and technology, there are other more important subjects to teach. If schools have time to spare, it should be spent on science or mathematics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although philosophy is a non-essential subject and we should not be focusing on the teaching of it more than important subjects such as maths and science, we all agreed that we were glad to have studied it ourselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Schools should give more time to teaching philosophy. It can help develop important critical thinking skills and teach young people how to think logically about more complex issues. It can also help them explore their own values and beliefs, which can be useful for personal development. It also teaches them not to just accept the status quo. It develops their debating skills and introduces them to some high level texts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Schools should not give more time to teaching philosophy. It is not a core subject that is vital to our everyday lives such as maths and science, it is an additional subject that children should be given the opportunity to look into as an extra. Giving time to philosophy would take time from more important subjects. Philosophy is not important to our everyday lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Schools should not give more time to teaching philosophy. This is because although philosophy is a valuable subject, it is not as valuable as some other subjects. There is a lot of philosophy covered in English already, for example when studying works by writers such as Shakespeare, and in a world that is becoming increasingly focused on science and technology, there are other more important subjects to teach. If schools have time to spare, it should be spent on science or mathematics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although philosophy is a non-essential subject and we should not be focusing on the teaching of it more than important subjects such as maths and science, we all agreed that we were glad to have studied it ourselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Schools should give more time to teaching philosophy. It can help develop important critical thinking skills and teach young people how to think logically about more complex issues. It can also help them explore their own values and beliefs, which can be useful for personal development. It also teaches them not to just accept the status quo. It develops their debating skills and introduces them to some high level texts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Schools should not give more time to teaching philosophy. It is not a core subject that is vital to our everyday lives such as maths and science, it is an additional subject that children should be given the opportunity to look into as an extra. Giving time to philosophy would take time from more important subjects. Philosophy is not important to our everyday lives. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001991.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001991.soc index 85352fe0..01a7c873 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001991.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001991.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity measures can be a short-term solution to balance a country's finances. The answer is not black and white and is dependent on the current economic climate and how quickly the economy is recovering. In the UK, austerity measures have been in place since 2010 and the economy has not yet recovered from the 2008 global economic crash. This is due to bad economic decisions made by the government. However, in a country like Greece, austerity measures have helped the country to recover from an economic crash. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity can work in certain circumstances. The main issue is how it is applied. In some cases, austerity can be essential for maintaining good services and paying for things that are important for people. However, if austerity is taken too far, it can ultimately be harmful to society, particularly the vulnerable. Some services may not appear essential from a bureaucrat's perspective, but may be vital for some people. Usually, cutting such services can lead to a larger loss for society overall. The key is to find a balance between maintaining a good economy and keeping the vulnerable in society safe and healthy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the concept of austerity is a valid and useful one, it cannot be a universal solution for all economic problems. There is a danger that its implementation can cause suffering and hardship for people already in vulnerable situations. On the other hand, austerity is sometimes necessary, particularly when the welfare state and other services are not fulfilling their purpose and/or are becoming too bloated. Therefore, austerity should only be used as a solution in specific cases and with a balanced and measured approach. It is a mistake to attempt to use it as a general tool for all economic difficulties. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity is a short term fix for a long term problem. If implemented in the right way, it can help to rebalance the economy, however if taken too far it can lead to a deterioration in the quality of life for the vulnerable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity measures can be a short-term solution to balance a country's finances. The answer is not black and white and is dependent on the current economic climate and how quickly the economy is recovering. In the UK, austerity measures have been in place since 2010 and the economy has not yet recovered from the 2008 global economic crash. This is due to bad economic decisions made by the government. However, in a country like Greece, austerity measures have helped the country to recover from an economic crash. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity can work in certain circumstances. The main issue is how it is applied. In some cases, austerity can be essential for maintaining good services and paying for things that are important for people. However, if austerity is taken too far, it can ultimately be harmful to society, particularly the vulnerable. Some services may not appear essential from a bureaucrat's perspective, but may be vital for some people. Usually, cutting such services can lead to a larger loss for society overall. The key is to find a balance between maintaining a good economy and keeping the vulnerable in society safe and healthy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the concept of austerity is a valid and useful one, it cannot be a universal solution for all economic problems. There is a danger that its implementation can cause suffering and hardship for people already in vulnerable situations. On the other hand, austerity is sometimes necessary, particularly when the welfare state and other services are not fulfilling their purpose and/or are becoming too bloated. Therefore, austerity should only be used as a solution in specific cases and with a balanced and measured approach. It is a mistake to attempt to use it as a general tool for all economic difficulties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity is a short term fix for a long term problem. If implemented in the right way, it can help to rebalance the economy, however if taken too far it can lead to a deterioration in the quality of life for the vulnerable. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001992.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001992.soc index 490f8308..9b585a1b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001992.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001992.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of free social care. The group believes that people in need of care should not have to worry about having to pay for it and should not have to suffer as a result of not being able to pay for it. The group discussed the fact that people often make savings to pay for care, but can find that these are not enough, or if they become ill at a young age, they may not have had the opportunity to save for it. The group agreed that the state should provide free social care to those in need and use the money collected from income tax and other tax to pay for it. This will allow more people to receive the care they need without being a burden on the state. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not have to pay for their social care. It is unfair to expect someone who is in poor health to have to pay for their care, as this could cause stress that may worsen their condition. The government should take some of the money that goes to politicians, the royal family and the prime minister and instead invest it into providing social care for people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that people should not have to pay for their social care. The group believed that it is the responsibility of the government to provide social care for its citizens. However, there was also a strong feeling that people who are able to provide for their own social care should be encouraged to do so. This could be done by providing tax breaks for people who make provisions for their social care in their will. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not have to pay for their social care. If they have the money to do so, and if they want to do so, then that is fine. It is their choice and if it makes them happy, that is great. The provision of social care is the responsibility of the state, as a safety net for those that are unable to pay for it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of free social care. The group believes that people in need of care should not have to worry about having to pay for it and should not have to suffer as a result of not being able to pay for it. The group discussed the fact that people often make savings to pay for care, but can find that these are not enough, or if they become ill at a young age, they may not have had the opportunity to save for it. The group agreed that the state should provide free social care to those in need and use the money collected from income tax and other tax to pay for it. This will allow more people to receive the care they need without being a burden on the state. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not have to pay for their social care. It is unfair to expect someone who is in poor health to have to pay for their care, as this could cause stress that may worsen their condition. The government should take some of the money that goes to politicians, the royal family and the prime minister and instead invest it into providing social care for people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that people should not have to pay for their social care. The group believed that it is the responsibility of the government to provide social care for its citizens. However, there was also a strong feeling that people who are able to provide for their own social care should be encouraged to do so. This could be done by providing tax breaks for people who make provisions for their social care in their will. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not have to pay for their social care. If they have the money to do so, and if they want to do so, then that is fine. It is their choice and if it makes them happy, that is great. The provision of social care is the responsibility of the state, as a safety net for those that are unable to pay for it. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001993.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001993.soc index 78b569c9..8cb79709 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001993.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001993.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the sale of alcoholic beverages should not be banned. Alcohol is a product that the majority of people purchase and enjoy and its sale should not be banned under any circumstances. The alcoholic beverages industry employs tens of thousands of people and banning its sale would have a huge impact on the economy. Moreover, there are many more people employed in sectors that are reliant on the sale of alcohol. In a free market, you cannot and should not be allowed to remove the sale of a product, unless it poses an significant and hitherto unknown risk to the public. Whether or not I oersonally choose to purchase alcohol is inconsequential to my view on this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While alcohol abuse is a serious problem that affects many families and individuals, the majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly and banning the sale of alcohol would create more problems than it would solve. There is a range of measures that could be taken to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as more rigorous age verification procedures, increasing the tax on alcohol, and limiting the times at which alcohol can be purchased. However, banning the sale of alcohol would impact negatively on the majority of law-abiding citizens and would be an unwarranted and disproportionate reaction to the problem of alcohol abuse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not ban the sale of all alcoholic beverages. Alcohol is enjoyed by the majority of people in the UK and is a part of many celebrations and social occasions. The sale of alcohol is a huge industry in the UK and banning its sale would have a huge impact on the economy. Moreover, there are many more people employed in sectors that are reliant on the sale of alcohol. In a free market, you cannot and should not be allowed to remove the sale of a product, unless it poses an significant and hitherto unknown risk to the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are a number of negative consequences related to alcohol consumption, we do not believe that a complete ban of the sale of alcoholic beverages is an appropriate solution. There are numerous benefits to drinking alcohol responsibly, which outweigh the negative effects of excessive drinking. The complete banning of alcoholic beverages would have drastic effects on the economy, causing major job losses and a huge financial burden on the government. We believe that more regulation could be put in place to limit the harmful effects of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the sale of alcoholic beverages should not be banned. Alcohol is a product that the majority of people purchase and enjoy and its sale should not be banned under any circumstances. The alcoholic beverages industry employs tens of thousands of people and banning its sale would have a huge impact on the economy. Moreover, there are many more people employed in sectors that are reliant on the sale of alcohol. In a free market, you cannot and should not be allowed to remove the sale of a product, unless it poses an significant and hitherto unknown risk to the public. Whether or not I oersonally choose to purchase alcohol is inconsequential to my view on this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While alcohol abuse is a serious problem that affects many families and individuals, the majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly and banning the sale of alcohol would create more problems than it would solve. There is a range of measures that could be taken to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as more rigorous age verification procedures, increasing the tax on alcohol, and limiting the times at which alcohol can be purchased. However, banning the sale of alcohol would impact negatively on the majority of law-abiding citizens and would be an unwarranted and disproportionate reaction to the problem of alcohol abuse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not ban the sale of all alcoholic beverages. Alcohol is enjoyed by the majority of people in the UK and is a part of many celebrations and social occasions. The sale of alcohol is a huge industry in the UK and banning its sale would have a huge impact on the economy. Moreover, there are many more people employed in sectors that are reliant on the sale of alcohol. In a free market, you cannot and should not be allowed to remove the sale of a product, unless it poses an significant and hitherto unknown risk to the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are a number of negative consequences related to alcohol consumption, we do not believe that a complete ban of the sale of alcoholic beverages is an appropriate solution. There are numerous benefits to drinking alcohol responsibly, which outweigh the negative effects of excessive drinking. The complete banning of alcoholic beverages would have drastic effects on the economy, causing major job losses and a huge financial burden on the government. We believe that more regulation could be put in place to limit the harmful effects of alcohol. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001994.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001994.soc index 9d68c5ee..a830b25a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001994.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001994.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a very clear and strict process for anyone who wants to access records and this process should be transparent and well documented. The process should be overseen by a governing body to ensure that it is being followed. There should be a very clear distinction between records that are used for research and those that are used for marketing purposes. Records used for research should be de-identified and should not contain any personally identifiable information. Records used for marketing purposes should not be allowed to contain any personally identifiable information. The laws should be tightened up to ensure that these distinctions are clear and that the process is followed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the laws governing who can access NHS records are sufficient. There should be a very clear and strict process for anyone who wants to access records and this process should be transparent and well documented. The process should be overseen by a governing body to ensure that it is being followed. There should be a very clear distinction between records that are used for research and those that are used for marketing purposes. Records used for research should be de-identified and should not contain any personally identifiable information. Records used for marketing purposes should not be allowed to contain any personally identifiable information. The laws should be tightened up to ensure that these distinctions are clear and that the process is followed. However, the law should also be strengthened to provide the NHS and those who use medical records for research with a legal basis to share de-identified medical records for research purposes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Poll showing final result of consensus decision reached by participants: YES = 4, NO = 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the laws governing who can access NHS records are sufficient. There should be a very clear and strict process for anyone who wants to access records and this process should be transparent and well documented. The process should be overseen by a governing body to ensure that it is being followed. There should be a very clear distinction between records that are used for research and those that are used for marketing purposes. Records used for research should be de-identified and should not contain any personally identifiable information. Records used for marketing purposes should not be allowed to contain any personally identifiable information. The laws should be tightened up to ensure that these distinctions are clear and that the process is followed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a very clear and strict process for anyone who wants to access records and this process should be transparent and well documented. The process should be overseen by a governing body to ensure that it is being followed. There should be a very clear distinction between records that are used for research and those that are used for marketing purposes. Records used for research should be de-identified and should not contain any personally identifiable information. Records used for marketing purposes should not be allowed to contain any personally identifiable information. The laws should be tightened up to ensure that these distinctions are clear and that the process is followed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the laws governing who can access NHS records are sufficient. There should be a very clear and strict process for anyone who wants to access records and this process should be transparent and well documented. The process should be overseen by a governing body to ensure that it is being followed. There should be a very clear distinction between records that are used for research and those that are used for marketing purposes. Records used for research should be de-identified and should not contain any personally identifiable information. Records used for marketing purposes should not be allowed to contain any personally identifiable information. The laws should be tightened up to ensure that these distinctions are clear and that the process is followed. However, the law should also be strengthened to provide the NHS and those who use medical records for research with a legal basis to share de-identified medical records for research purposes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Poll showing final result of consensus decision reached by participants: YES = 4, NO = 1 +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the laws governing who can access NHS records are sufficient. There should be a very clear and strict process for anyone who wants to access records and this process should be transparent and well documented. The process should be overseen by a governing body to ensure that it is being followed. There should be a very clear distinction between records that are used for research and those that are used for marketing purposes. Records used for research should be de-identified and should not contain any personally identifiable information. Records used for marketing purposes should not be allowed to contain any personally identifiable information. The laws should be tightened up to ensure that these distinctions are clear and that the process is followed. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001995.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001995.soc index a934c152..20fffc38 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001995.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001995.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: The group discussed at length the concept of austerity and how this impacts the UK’s national debt. Participants agreed that austerity is necessary in order to reduce the UK’s national debt and is primarily used by governments in times of economic downturn. The group also discussed the negative effects of austerity including the increase of inequality and the resulting social problems including an increase in mental health problems. It was noted that the negative effects of austerity are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and poorest members of society. Participants felt that the government should be mindful of this and attempt to address this issue where possible. However, it was also noted that there are alternatives to austerity, such as introducing a higher and fairer taxes, and that while these may lead to higher levels of growth there are many people, such as pensioners and students, who would struggle with such measures. In the current climate, the group felt that austerity was the most viable option for reducing the UK’s national debt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group of participants felt that austerity is necessary in order to reduce the UK’s national debt. The recent global financial crisis (GFC) caused significant damage to the UK economy and consequently the UK government were forced to borrow significant amounts of money. The group of participants felt that it was important to reduce the UK’s national debt at the soonest opportunity in order to reduce the possibility of future economic crises. However, it was also noted that although austerity is a useful tool in reducing national debt, it has a tendency to be applied to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society, which has adverse impacts on those suffering from mental health problems. It was also noted that there were alternative solutions to austerity that could help the UK economy recover from the GFC. The group of participants felt that more could be done to reduce inequality in the UK and reduce the national debt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group felt that it was necessary for austerity measures to be applied to reduce the UK’s national debt. Although the global financial crisis forced the government to borrow a lot of money, it was felt that these measures were necessary to reduce the future risk of economic crises. The group felt that the best time to reduce national debt is when the economy is performing well, but in times of economic downturn governments are forced to borrow money in order to prop up their economies. The group also felt that the government were aiming to reduce the debt in the recovery period and thus the need to cut public expenditure and increase taxes was particularly important in the first five years after the global financial crisis. However, the group were sceptical that this was being used effectively, arguing that austerity measures were applied to the most vulnerable members of society instead of the most wealthy. The group would have liked to see more tax rises on the wealthy, rather than increases on those on the average UK wage and below. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group felt that austerity is necessary in order to reduce the UK’s national debt. Although it can be argued that the best time to reduce debt is when the economy is performing well, the recent global financial crisis (GFC) caused significant damage to the economy and consequently the UK government were forced to borrow significant amounts of money. The group discussed that it was important to reduce the UK’s national debt at the soonest opportunity in order to reduce the possibility of future economic crises. However, it was also noted that although austerity is a useful tool in reducing national debt, it has a tendency to be applied to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society, which has adverse impacts on those suffering from mental health problems. The group felt that there were alternative solutions to austerity that could help the UK economy recover from the GFC. The group also felt that more could be done to reduce inequality in the UK and reduce the national debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: The group discussed at length the concept of austerity and how this impacts the UK’s national debt. Participants agreed that austerity is necessary in order to reduce the UK’s national debt and is primarily used by governments in times of economic downturn. The group also discussed the negative effects of austerity including the increase of inequality and the resulting social problems including an increase in mental health problems. It was noted that the negative effects of austerity are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and poorest members of society. Participants felt that the government should be mindful of this and attempt to address this issue where possible. However, it was also noted that there are alternatives to austerity, such as introducing a higher and fairer taxes, and that while these may lead to higher levels of growth there are many people, such as pensioners and students, who would struggle with such measures. In the current climate, the group felt that austerity was the most viable option for reducing the UK’s national debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group of participants felt that austerity is necessary in order to reduce the UK’s national debt. The recent global financial crisis (GFC) caused significant damage to the UK economy and consequently the UK government were forced to borrow significant amounts of money. The group of participants felt that it was important to reduce the UK’s national debt at the soonest opportunity in order to reduce the possibility of future economic crises. However, it was also noted that although austerity is a useful tool in reducing national debt, it has a tendency to be applied to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society, which has adverse impacts on those suffering from mental health problems. It was also noted that there were alternative solutions to austerity that could help the UK economy recover from the GFC. The group of participants felt that more could be done to reduce inequality in the UK and reduce the national debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group felt that it was necessary for austerity measures to be applied to reduce the UK’s national debt. Although the global financial crisis forced the government to borrow a lot of money, it was felt that these measures were necessary to reduce the future risk of economic crises. The group felt that the best time to reduce national debt is when the economy is performing well, but in times of economic downturn governments are forced to borrow money in order to prop up their economies. The group also felt that the government were aiming to reduce the debt in the recovery period and thus the need to cut public expenditure and increase taxes was particularly important in the first five years after the global financial crisis. However, the group were sceptical that this was being used effectively, arguing that austerity measures were applied to the most vulnerable members of society instead of the most wealthy. The group would have liked to see more tax rises on the wealthy, rather than increases on those on the average UK wage and below. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group felt that austerity is necessary in order to reduce the UK’s national debt. Although it can be argued that the best time to reduce debt is when the economy is performing well, the recent global financial crisis (GFC) caused significant damage to the economy and consequently the UK government were forced to borrow significant amounts of money. The group discussed that it was important to reduce the UK’s national debt at the soonest opportunity in order to reduce the possibility of future economic crises. However, it was also noted that although austerity is a useful tool in reducing national debt, it has a tendency to be applied to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society, which has adverse impacts on those suffering from mental health problems. The group felt that there were alternative solutions to austerity that could help the UK economy recover from the GFC. The group also felt that more could be done to reduce inequality in the UK and reduce the national debt. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001996.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001996.soc index 73fbf361..c8643240 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001996.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001996.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government is not doing enough to protect our privacy. The government doesn't seem to be doing much to protect our privacy. The problem is that we don't know what they are doing to help the situation. There have been many recent leaks of our data and they don't seem to be doing anything to punish those who leak our information. The government needs to do more to try and protect our data. They need to do more to try and prevent the leaks of our data. Conclusion: After the deliberation and revision of the group view, the group came to a consensus on the topic. It is a well-written view that covers all of the points that were made and takes into account all of the opinions of the participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government are not doing enough to protect our privacy. It's very difficult to find out what they are actually doing to protect our privacy, so it's hard to give them a full endorsement. The amount of leaks that have occurred from the government is worrying and doesn't fill you with much confidence. Furthermore, it is also very hard to see how the government are protecting our privacy when so much of our information is leaked every day, even from the most well-protected companies in the world. The government should do more to try and tackle the problem of leaked data, as the risk of losing information such as bank details, address, and phone number is becoming increasingly likely. The government should also do more to make sure that the people who are leaking our data are punished in some way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government are not doing enough to protect our privacy. It is extremely difficult to find out what they are currently doing, so it's hard to give them a full endorsement. They seem to try and tackle the problem of leaked data but this is a big problem and I feel more needs to be done. Furthermore, it is also very hard to see how the government are protecting our privacy when so much of our information is leaked every day, even from the most well-protected companies in the world. A criticism of the system was also proposed: The participants saw the problem as being extremely large and complex, and that the system might have been too focused on certain areas of the privacy sector. A suggestion was made to develop a system that is more focussed on the comparison between countries. The government does seem to not be as active in areas like US as they are in European countries. There is an open task for future research to generate a system such as this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government are not doing enough to protect our privacy. It's very difficult to find out what they are actually doing to protect our privacy, so it's hard to give them a full endorsement. The amount of leaks that have occurred from the government is worrying and doesn't fill you with much confidence. Furthermore, it is also very hard to see how the government are protecting our privacy when so much of our information is leaked every day, even from the most well-protected companies in the world. The government should do more to try and tackle the problem of leaked data, as the risk of losing information such as bank details, address, and phone number is becoming increasingly likely. The government should also do more to make sure that the people who are leaking our data are punished in some way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government is not doing enough to protect our privacy. The government doesn't seem to be doing much to protect our privacy. The problem is that we don't know what they are doing to help the situation. There have been many recent leaks of our data and they don't seem to be doing anything to punish those who leak our information. The government needs to do more to try and protect our data. They need to do more to try and prevent the leaks of our data. Conclusion: After the deliberation and revision of the group view, the group came to a consensus on the topic. It is a well-written view that covers all of the points that were made and takes into account all of the opinions of the participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government are not doing enough to protect our privacy. It's very difficult to find out what they are actually doing to protect our privacy, so it's hard to give them a full endorsement. The amount of leaks that have occurred from the government is worrying and doesn't fill you with much confidence. Furthermore, it is also very hard to see how the government are protecting our privacy when so much of our information is leaked every day, even from the most well-protected companies in the world. The government should do more to try and tackle the problem of leaked data, as the risk of losing information such as bank details, address, and phone number is becoming increasingly likely. The government should also do more to make sure that the people who are leaking our data are punished in some way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government are not doing enough to protect our privacy. It is extremely difficult to find out what they are currently doing, so it's hard to give them a full endorsement. They seem to try and tackle the problem of leaked data but this is a big problem and I feel more needs to be done. Furthermore, it is also very hard to see how the government are protecting our privacy when so much of our information is leaked every day, even from the most well-protected companies in the world. A criticism of the system was also proposed: The participants saw the problem as being extremely large and complex, and that the system might have been too focused on certain areas of the privacy sector. A suggestion was made to develop a system that is more focussed on the comparison between countries. The government does seem to not be as active in areas like US as they are in European countries. There is an open task for future research to generate a system such as this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government are not doing enough to protect our privacy. It's very difficult to find out what they are actually doing to protect our privacy, so it's hard to give them a full endorsement. The amount of leaks that have occurred from the government is worrying and doesn't fill you with much confidence. Furthermore, it is also very hard to see how the government are protecting our privacy when so much of our information is leaked every day, even from the most well-protected companies in the world. The government should do more to try and tackle the problem of leaked data, as the risk of losing information such as bank details, address, and phone number is becoming increasingly likely. The government should also do more to make sure that the people who are leaking our data are punished in some way. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001997.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001997.soc index 5fc70127..1abd640b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001997.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001997.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of restrictions on the sale of sugary drinks. However, it was felt that the issue is more complex than it first appears. The group was in favour of a sugar tax, which would increase the price of sugary drinks, making them less attractive to consumers. The group was also in favour of a ban on the sale of sugary drinks in schools. However, it was felt that a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks would be difficult to define and would be difficult to enforce. The group also felt that it would be difficult to define what a sugary drink is, and that drinks such as fruit juice and milkshakes would also need to be included in any ban. The group felt that the issue is more complex than it first appears and that a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks would be difficult to define and would be difficult to enforce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: While sugary drinks should be restricted, this can be achieved without imposing a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks. A tax on sugary drinks and a ban on sugary drinks in schools could help reduce obesity, while a total ban on sugary drinks would be difficult to enforce and would be hard to define, as what constitutes a sugary drink would be hard to identify. However, sugary drinks which also have a large amount of caffeine (such as energy drinks) should also be restricted, as the high levels of caffeine pose a separate health risk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of restrictions on the sale of sugary drinks. However, it was felt that the issue is more complex than it first appears. The group was in favour of a sugar tax, which would increase the price of sugary drinks, making them less attractive to consumers. The group was also in favour of a ban on the sale of sugary drinks in schools. However, it was felt that a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks would be difficult to define and would be difficult to enforce. The group also felt that it would be difficult to define what a sugary drink is, and that drinks such as fruit juice and milkshakes would also need to be included in any ban. The group felt that the issue is more complex than it first appears and that a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks would be difficult to define and would be difficult to enforce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a sugar tax on sugary drinks. The revenue raised from the tax should be used to improve dental health, to reduce the cost of dental treatment, and to improve dental education. A ban should be introduced on the sale of sugary drinks in schools. The Government should consider the possibility of introducing restrictions on the advertising of sugary drinks. It would be difficult to enforce a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks, and it would be difficult to define what a sugary drink is. However, it should be made clear that sugary drinks can have a detrimental effect on health and that children should drink water or milk instead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of restrictions on the sale of sugary drinks. However, it was felt that the issue is more complex than it first appears. The group was in favour of a sugar tax, which would increase the price of sugary drinks, making them less attractive to consumers. The group was also in favour of a ban on the sale of sugary drinks in schools. However, it was felt that a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks would be difficult to define and would be difficult to enforce. The group also felt that it would be difficult to define what a sugary drink is, and that drinks such as fruit juice and milkshakes would also need to be included in any ban. The group felt that the issue is more complex than it first appears and that a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks would be difficult to define and would be difficult to enforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: While sugary drinks should be restricted, this can be achieved without imposing a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks. A tax on sugary drinks and a ban on sugary drinks in schools could help reduce obesity, while a total ban on sugary drinks would be difficult to enforce and would be hard to define, as what constitutes a sugary drink would be hard to identify. However, sugary drinks which also have a large amount of caffeine (such as energy drinks) should also be restricted, as the high levels of caffeine pose a separate health risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of restrictions on the sale of sugary drinks. However, it was felt that the issue is more complex than it first appears. The group was in favour of a sugar tax, which would increase the price of sugary drinks, making them less attractive to consumers. The group was also in favour of a ban on the sale of sugary drinks in schools. However, it was felt that a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks would be difficult to define and would be difficult to enforce. The group also felt that it would be difficult to define what a sugary drink is, and that drinks such as fruit juice and milkshakes would also need to be included in any ban. The group felt that the issue is more complex than it first appears and that a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks would be difficult to define and would be difficult to enforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a sugar tax on sugary drinks. The revenue raised from the tax should be used to improve dental health, to reduce the cost of dental treatment, and to improve dental education. A ban should be introduced on the sale of sugary drinks in schools. The Government should consider the possibility of introducing restrictions on the advertising of sugary drinks. It would be difficult to enforce a total ban on the sale of sugary drinks, and it would be difficult to define what a sugary drink is. However, it should be made clear that sugary drinks can have a detrimental effect on health and that children should drink water or milk instead. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001998.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001998.soc index c4a487b6..721d3736 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001998.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001998.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK has stringent gun control laws. The laws are enforced and the punishment for those who break them is severe. There is no need for more stringent laws. The current laws are working well and are keeping the UK a safe place to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although gun control laws are already in place, we should not rest on our laurels and think that all is well. Gun crime is an issue that needs to be constantly looked at, with new and innovative solutions being explored and implemented. Gun crime is an issue that affects all walks of life, and thus the laws need to be made with this in mind. As such, we believe that gun control laws should be regularly reviewed, and new laws brought in if there is a need to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the UK has relatively good gun control laws, we believe that these laws should be tightened. In order to be able to properly control the situation, we think that only the police and military should be allowed to possess and use firearms. In addition, it is important that the police should be able to intervene in the most efficient way. In case of terrorism, the police would need to have the resources to deal with it. To tackle gun crime, the police should have more resources to investigate and arrest. Gun control is important in order to reduce gun crime and ensure the safety of our communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of introducing more stringent gun control laws. However, there was some disagreement on the extent to which laws should be made more stringent. In particular, some participants thought that the current laws are sufficient and that the issue is not so much with the laws themselves, but rather with the enforcement of them. Others felt that the laws should be made more stringent, as it is a moral issue. In the end, the group decided that the current laws should be enforced more strictly, but that it is also important to educate people on the dangers of guns and the importance of responsible gun ownership. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK has stringent gun control laws. The laws are enforced and the punishment for those who break them is severe. There is no need for more stringent laws. The current laws are working well and are keeping the UK a safe place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although gun control laws are already in place, we should not rest on our laurels and think that all is well. Gun crime is an issue that needs to be constantly looked at, with new and innovative solutions being explored and implemented. Gun crime is an issue that affects all walks of life, and thus the laws need to be made with this in mind. As such, we believe that gun control laws should be regularly reviewed, and new laws brought in if there is a need to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the UK has relatively good gun control laws, we believe that these laws should be tightened. In order to be able to properly control the situation, we think that only the police and military should be allowed to possess and use firearms. In addition, it is important that the police should be able to intervene in the most efficient way. In case of terrorism, the police would need to have the resources to deal with it. To tackle gun crime, the police should have more resources to investigate and arrest. Gun control is important in order to reduce gun crime and ensure the safety of our communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of introducing more stringent gun control laws. However, there was some disagreement on the extent to which laws should be made more stringent. In particular, some participants thought that the current laws are sufficient and that the issue is not so much with the laws themselves, but rather with the enforcement of them. Others felt that the laws should be made more stringent, as it is a moral issue. In the end, the group decided that the current laws should be enforced more strictly, but that it is also important to educate people on the dangers of guns and the importance of responsible gun ownership. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001999.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001999.soc index dea1879e..b343c557 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001999.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00001999.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of reducing meat consumption, but not necessarily eliminating it completely. The group also felt that there should be more education on the health benefits of reducing meat consumption, and more education on the environmental impact of meat production. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, eating meat is acceptable. The arguments in favour of meat consumption are that humans have been doing it for thousands of years, we are carnivores, and our digestive systems are suited to eating meat. However, we are not alone in this world, and we must also take into consideration the effect our actions have on the wider environment. Farming meat, especially beef and lamb, has been shown to be damaging to the environment, and there is an increasing drive for people to reduce their meat consumption for this reason. We are all capable of making our own choices about what to eat, and it is up to us to educate ourselves on the effects of our actions. There is also an ethical argument against meat consumption, but again, this is a personal choice, and each person must decide whether to accept the need to kill an animal in order to satisfy their need for meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is acceptable to eat meat, but for some people it is acceptable to eat less meat for ethical, environmental, and health reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of eating less meat, but not eliminating it from diets altogether. The group felt that the health benefits of eating less meat would be good for individuals and for the health service, and that it would be good for the environment. However, the group did not want to be judgemental about people who chose to eat meat, and felt that the choice should be left to individuals. The group also felt that the way that meat is produced should be changed, to make it more sustainable and to reduce the impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing meat consumption, but not necessarily eliminating it completely. The group also felt that there should be more education on the health benefits of reducing meat consumption, and more education on the environmental impact of meat production. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, eating meat is acceptable. The arguments in favour of meat consumption are that humans have been doing it for thousands of years, we are carnivores, and our digestive systems are suited to eating meat. However, we are not alone in this world, and we must also take into consideration the effect our actions have on the wider environment. Farming meat, especially beef and lamb, has been shown to be damaging to the environment, and there is an increasing drive for people to reduce their meat consumption for this reason. We are all capable of making our own choices about what to eat, and it is up to us to educate ourselves on the effects of our actions. There is also an ethical argument against meat consumption, but again, this is a personal choice, and each person must decide whether to accept the need to kill an animal in order to satisfy their need for meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is acceptable to eat meat, but for some people it is acceptable to eat less meat for ethical, environmental, and health reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of eating less meat, but not eliminating it from diets altogether. The group felt that the health benefits of eating less meat would be good for individuals and for the health service, and that it would be good for the environment. However, the group did not want to be judgemental about people who chose to eat meat, and felt that the choice should be left to individuals. The group also felt that the way that meat is produced should be changed, to make it more sustainable and to reduce the impact on the environment. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002000.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002000.soc index 23d7c06d..f11a12bc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002000.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002000.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: While schools may not feel that they have enough time to teach everything, philosophy should definitely be on their curriculum. It could be taught through other subjects such as English, to try and save time, yet should still receive enough teaching time to be well understood by the students. The subject may be of less value than other subjects, such as maths and science, yet it is still very important to the development of the student’s thinking and decision making skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Schools should not give more time to teaching philosophy. This is because although philosophy is a valuable subject, it is not as valuable as some other subjects. There is a lot of philosophy covered in English already, for example when studying works by writers such as Shakespeare, and in a world that is becoming increasingly focused on science and technology, there are other more important subjects to teach. If schools have time to spare, it should be spent on science or mathematics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Schools should not give more time to teaching philosophy. This is because although philosophy is a valuable subject, it is not as valuable as some other subjects. There is a lot of philosophy covered in English already, for example when studying works by writers such as Shakespeare, and in a world that is becoming increasingly focused on science and technology, there are other more important subjects to teach. If schools have time to spare, it should be spent on science or mathematics. It could also be argued that the amount of philosophy already covered in the curriculum is sufficient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: While schools may not feel that they have enough time to teach everything, philosophy should definitely be on their curriculum. It could be taught through other subjects such as English, to try and save time, yet should still receive enough teaching time to be well understood by the students. The subject may be of less value than other subjects, such as maths and science, yet it is still very important to the development of the student’s thinking and decision making skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Schools should not give more time to teaching philosophy. This is because although philosophy is a valuable subject, it is not as valuable as some other subjects. There is a lot of philosophy covered in English already, for example when studying works by writers such as Shakespeare, and in a world that is becoming increasingly focused on science and technology, there are other more important subjects to teach. If schools have time to spare, it should be spent on science or mathematics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Schools should not give more time to teaching philosophy. This is because although philosophy is a valuable subject, it is not as valuable as some other subjects. There is a lot of philosophy covered in English already, for example when studying works by writers such as Shakespeare, and in a world that is becoming increasingly focused on science and technology, there are other more important subjects to teach. If schools have time to spare, it should be spent on science or mathematics. It could also be argued that the amount of philosophy already covered in the curriculum is sufficient. 2: 3,4,1,2 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002001.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002001.soc index a1339f21..14fcc8eb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002001.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002001.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, people should not have to pay for their social care. If they have the money, then they should pay for it, otherwise the government should take money from the high-income earners and invest it into the provision of social care for those who need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not have to pay for their social care. It is unfair to expect someone who is in poor health to have to pay for their care, as this could cause stress that may worsen their condition. The government should take some of the money that goes to politicians, the royal family and the prime minister and invest it into providing social care for people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not have to pay for their social care. No-one is guaranteed to live a long, illness-free life. To demand this of people is unrealistic and cruel, so we should not make it a requirement for people to pay for their social care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not have to pay for their social care. It is unfair to expect someone who is in poor health to have to pay for their care, as this could cause stress that may worsen their condition. The government should take some of the money that goes to politicians, the royal family and the prime minister and instead invest it into providing social care for people. The government should prioritise the welfare of the citizens it represents, and that includes social care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, people should not have to pay for their social care. If they have the money, then they should pay for it, otherwise the government should take money from the high-income earners and invest it into the provision of social care for those who need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not have to pay for their social care. It is unfair to expect someone who is in poor health to have to pay for their care, as this could cause stress that may worsen their condition. The government should take some of the money that goes to politicians, the royal family and the prime minister and invest it into providing social care for people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not have to pay for their social care. No-one is guaranteed to live a long, illness-free life. To demand this of people is unrealistic and cruel, so we should not make it a requirement for people to pay for their social care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not have to pay for their social care. It is unfair to expect someone who is in poor health to have to pay for their care, as this could cause stress that may worsen their condition. The government should take some of the money that goes to politicians, the royal family and the prime minister and instead invest it into providing social care for people. The government should prioritise the welfare of the citizens it represents, and that includes social care. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002002.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002002.soc index 5615d08a..d8f49f05 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002002.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002002.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing. There are some areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In general, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. We don't condone the hunting of wild animals such as deer or the shooting of wild birds. The only time people should own guns is for the purposes of self defence, and that too only when absolutely necessary. Conclusions Having seen the research method in action myself, I believe that facilitated research can be a very powerful tool in conducting research on problems which are hard to pin down. The method is very democratic in that all participants get an opportunity to be heard, and it also provides every participant with an opportunity to learn something new and to grow from the experience. I believe it can be used as a precursor to future research for which the method of enquiry is not yet known. It is also a good precursor to other types of research method, such as surveys and interviews. The -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing, particularly as much of the gun crime in the UK is committed with illegally obtained guns. There are, however, areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Overall, though, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing. There are some areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In general, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing. There are some areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In general, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. However, there are still some areas in the UK where gun crime is prevalent. This is most likely down to illegal gun ownership rather than legal ownership, but the laws on legal gun ownership should be made more stringent and should be made even more difficult to obtain a licence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing. There are some areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In general, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. We don't condone the hunting of wild animals such as deer or the shooting of wild birds. The only time people should own guns is for the purposes of self defence, and that too only when absolutely necessary. Conclusions Having seen the research method in action myself, I believe that facilitated research can be a very powerful tool in conducting research on problems which are hard to pin down. The method is very democratic in that all participants get an opportunity to be heard, and it also provides every participant with an opportunity to learn something new and to grow from the experience. I believe it can be used as a precursor to future research for which the method of enquiry is not yet known. It is also a good precursor to other types of research method, such as surveys and interviews. The +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing, particularly as much of the gun crime in the UK is committed with illegally obtained guns. There are, however, areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Overall, though, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing. There are some areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In general, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK is about right when it comes to gun ownership. It is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a gun and this is a good thing. There are some areas in the UK where gun crime is more prevalent than others, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In general, the UK is a safe place to live, and this is in part due to the strict gun laws that are in place. However, there are still some areas in the UK where gun crime is prevalent. This is most likely down to illegal gun ownership rather than legal ownership, but the laws on legal gun ownership should be made more stringent and should be made even more difficult to obtain a licence. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002003.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002003.soc index 5bc93e5b..8aeb3ae6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002003.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002003.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. In making policy decisions on tobacco sales, it is crucial to consider the impact on vulnerable populations and take into account issues of social and economic equality as reflected in differences by socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, age and other social circumstances, such as living in an area of deprivation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. Summary of the process: In this particular exercise, it was clear that each participant had a clear opinion on the matter, which was reflected in their initial post. The first draft of the consensus view reflected the majority opinion in the group, but some participants were not entirely satisfied with this. Through critique and further discussion, the group was able to reach a consensus view that everyone was happy with. The final consensus view reflected some of the ideas of the minority opinions, while still retaining some key ideas from the majority. Overall, I believe that this exercise demonstrated that if participants have strong initial +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. In making policy decisions on tobacco sales, it is crucial to consider the impact on vulnerable populations and take into account issues of social and economic equality as reflected in differences by socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, age and other social circumstances, such as living in an area of deprivation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A ban on the sale of tobacco would be a drastic measure, and the feasibility of its implementation and enforcement would need careful consideration. Its crucial to explore alternative strategies, such as further restrictions, higher taxes, or more extensive public health initiatives, to reduce tabacco use without resorting to an outright ban. Pubic opinion in this matter would depend on various factors, including individual beliefs, cultural norms, exonomic considerations, and the perceived effectiveness of alternative approaches. Any policy related to tabacco sales would require a thoughtful and inclusive public discourse to gauge the level of support and to cinsider the potential implications for public health, the economy and personal freedoms. Summary of the process: In this particular exercise, it was clear that each participant had a clear opinion on the matter, which was reflected in their initial post. The first draft of the consensus view reflected the majority opinion in the group, but some participants were not entirely satisfied with this. Through critique and further discussion, the group was able to reach a consensus view that everyone was happy with. The final consensus view reflected some of the ideas of the minority opinions, while still retaining some key ideas from the majority. Overall, I believe that this exercise demonstrated that if participants have strong initial 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002004.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002004.soc index 5f28c01e..c95e5f5f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002004.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002004.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of immigration, but not mass immigration. They felt that the government should not encourage immigration, but should not restrict it either. They felt that it was important for the UK to have a diverse population, and that this is something that should be encouraged. The group also felt that there should be some restrictions on immigration, but that these should be minimal. They felt that people should be able to move to the UK freely if they are escaping war, persecution, or other dangerous situations. They also felt that people should be able to move to the UK freely if they have a job or university course in mind that they would like to do in the UK, or if their family/spouse lives here. The group felt that the government is too harsh on immigrants currently, and that immigrants bring a lot of value to the UK. The group also felt that it is important for children and young people to be exposed to other cultures and ways of life from a young age to avoid learned behaviours of prejudice and discrimination. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should restrict immigration as it can be problematic for a country's infrastructure to accommodate so many people and the problem can become political as it creates a scapegoat for political parties to push their agendas. Immigration should be restricted to those people who have been affected by war, who are highly skilled in their chosen fields or who have a job or university place in mind in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of immigration. The group thought that it was important to have a balance of skilled and unskilled immigrants. The group also thought that it was important to have a balance of economic immigrants and those seeking asylum. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group thought that it is important to have some unskilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that immigration is a necessary part of a modern, successful society. The UK has a great track record of integration and in a great number of areas it would be difficult to do without the contributions of immigrants. We are an island with limited space, and we should encourage migration in an orderly fashion. However, we must ensure that people have the correct paperwork and skills in order to contribute to the economy. In summary, there is no "open door" policy to immigration, but neither should it be strictly limited. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of immigration, but not mass immigration. They felt that the government should not encourage immigration, but should not restrict it either. They felt that it was important for the UK to have a diverse population, and that this is something that should be encouraged. The group also felt that there should be some restrictions on immigration, but that these should be minimal. They felt that people should be able to move to the UK freely if they are escaping war, persecution, or other dangerous situations. They also felt that people should be able to move to the UK freely if they have a job or university course in mind that they would like to do in the UK, or if their family/spouse lives here. The group felt that the government is too harsh on immigrants currently, and that immigrants bring a lot of value to the UK. The group also felt that it is important for children and young people to be exposed to other cultures and ways of life from a young age to avoid learned behaviours of prejudice and discrimination. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should restrict immigration as it can be problematic for a country's infrastructure to accommodate so many people and the problem can become political as it creates a scapegoat for political parties to push their agendas. Immigration should be restricted to those people who have been affected by war, who are highly skilled in their chosen fields or who have a job or university place in mind in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of immigration. The group thought that it was important to have a balance of skilled and unskilled immigrants. The group also thought that it was important to have a balance of economic immigrants and those seeking asylum. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group thought that it is important to have some unskilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that immigration is a necessary part of a modern, successful society. The UK has a great track record of integration and in a great number of areas it would be difficult to do without the contributions of immigrants. We are an island with limited space, and we should encourage migration in an orderly fashion. However, we must ensure that people have the correct paperwork and skills in order to contribute to the economy. In summary, there is no "open door" policy to immigration, but neither should it be strictly limited. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002005.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002005.soc index 3fbfecc6..330dbf69 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002005.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002005.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is very clear that more must be done to prevent gun crime from growing. Current laws are simply not adequate, and stricter measures must be introduced. Gun crime may be committed by those who have obtained weapons illegally, or by those who bought them from a licensed distributor. Either way, we need to crack down on gun sales. The huge number of incidents, including those of a fatal nature, show that guns are still too accessible to the wrong people. While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, and understand that there are certain professions which require to use guns, we believe that stricter controls on who can possess guns and how they are stored are essential. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, we believe that the potential risk, damage and threat is far greater than any possible benefit which could stem from owning a gun. Children especially need to be taught from a young age that guns are dangerous and that they are not toys. While there are many professions which require to use guns, we feel that new control laws on gun ownership are essential to ensure safety. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Gun crime is on the increase and we should not be complacent. There are simply too many incidents, including those of a fatal nature, that show that guns are still too accessible to the wrong people. While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, and understand that there are certain professions which require to use guns, we believe that stricter controls on who can possess guns and how they are stored are essential. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. We also think that harsher punishments should be put in place for people who commit crimes with guns. If the punishment for using a gun in the commission of a crime was a longer prison sentence, then people may think twice before getting a gun. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Gun crime is on the increase and we should not be complacent. There are simply too many incidents, including those of a fatal nature, that show that guns are still too accessible to the wrong people. While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, and understand that there are certain professions which require to use guns, we believe that stricter controls on who can possess guns and how they are stored are essential. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. We also think that there should be much stronger sanctions for people who are found with illegal guns, and that the police should be more heavily involved in helping to prevent the spread of guns on the black market. We also think that more resources should be put into tracking the origins of guns to see where they are coming from, and we also think that more should be done to stop the import of illegal guns from countries where the controls are not as tight. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is very clear that more must be done to prevent gun crime from growing. Current laws are simply not adequate, and stricter measures must be introduced. Gun crime may be committed by those who have obtained weapons illegally, or by those who bought them from a licensed distributor. Either way, we need to crack down on gun sales. The huge number of incidents, including those of a fatal nature, show that guns are still too accessible to the wrong people. While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, and understand that there are certain professions which require to use guns, we believe that stricter controls on who can possess guns and how they are stored are essential. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, we believe that the potential risk, damage and threat is far greater than any possible benefit which could stem from owning a gun. Children especially need to be taught from a young age that guns are dangerous and that they are not toys. While there are many professions which require to use guns, we feel that new control laws on gun ownership are essential to ensure safety. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Gun crime is on the increase and we should not be complacent. There are simply too many incidents, including those of a fatal nature, that show that guns are still too accessible to the wrong people. While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, and understand that there are certain professions which require to use guns, we believe that stricter controls on who can possess guns and how they are stored are essential. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. We also think that harsher punishments should be put in place for people who commit crimes with guns. If the punishment for using a gun in the commission of a crime was a longer prison sentence, then people may think twice before getting a gun. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Gun crime is on the increase and we should not be complacent. There are simply too many incidents, including those of a fatal nature, that show that guns are still too accessible to the wrong people. While we can sympathise with people who use guns for recreation, and understand that there are certain professions which require to use guns, we believe that stricter controls on who can possess guns and how they are stored are essential. We also think that there needs to be more education and awareness in relation to guns, particularly when it comes to children. Children are the people who are most likely to see a gun and think that it is a toy, and therefore it is crucial that they are taught from a young age to understand that guns are dangerous and to be avoided. We also think that there should be much stronger sanctions for people who are found with illegal guns, and that the police should be more heavily involved in helping to prevent the spread of guns on the black market. We also think that more resources should be put into tracking the origins of guns to see where they are coming from, and we also think that more should be done to stop the import of illegal guns from countries where the controls are not as tight. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002006.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002006.soc index 0a4edc8b..b4e5691e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002006.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002006.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. We feel that austerity has been used in a lot of countries including the USA and has been controversial. We feel that it depends on the economic situation of the country and whether austerity would improve it or cause it more damage. We think that in a country like the UK, it wouldn't be a good policy and many would suffer from it. We think that it is important for the government to balance its budgets and not spend more money than it takes in, but we think a better way to achieve this would be tax code reforms which prevent very rich individuals and large companies from avoiding paying their taxes. We feel that austerity takes the opposite approach, in reducing spending, but this only really impacts the poorest people in society and erodes our public services such as the NHS. This has a long-lasting negative effect on society, as well as slowing the economy down because poor people actually spend their money and thus fuel businesses. We think that no, austerity has shown to lead to increased unemployment in the short term - especially in the public sector - worsening peoples material conditions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is a bad economic policy for the UK. If the government continues to reduce spending, many public services will become unaffordable for the majority of people and those who do continue to access them will receive a reduced level of care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Austerity is a bad economic policy for the UK. It leads to higher unemployment, and cuts to public services, which in turn leads to poorer quality of life for the people, and a slower growing economy. It is important for the government to balance its books, but this can be done by increasing taxes on the rich, rather than cutting spending. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is very easy for politicians to talk about cutting spending but the truth is that cuts only really affect the poorest in society. Those at the top end of society - big companies, the wealthy, the politicians themselves - hardly feel any pain at all. What makes it even worse is that poor people actually spend their money and provide the stimulus that businesses need to survive. Cutting spending simply slows the economy down and causes more pain than is necessary. There are better ways to balance the budget - for example through tax reforms that prevent large companies and wealthy individuals from avoiding tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. We feel that austerity has been used in a lot of countries including the USA and has been controversial. We feel that it depends on the economic situation of the country and whether austerity would improve it or cause it more damage. We think that in a country like the UK, it wouldn't be a good policy and many would suffer from it. We think that it is important for the government to balance its budgets and not spend more money than it takes in, but we think a better way to achieve this would be tax code reforms which prevent very rich individuals and large companies from avoiding paying their taxes. We feel that austerity takes the opposite approach, in reducing spending, but this only really impacts the poorest people in society and erodes our public services such as the NHS. This has a long-lasting negative effect on society, as well as slowing the economy down because poor people actually spend their money and thus fuel businesses. We think that no, austerity has shown to lead to increased unemployment in the short term - especially in the public sector - worsening peoples material conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is a bad economic policy for the UK. If the government continues to reduce spending, many public services will become unaffordable for the majority of people and those who do continue to access them will receive a reduced level of care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Austerity is a bad economic policy for the UK. It leads to higher unemployment, and cuts to public services, which in turn leads to poorer quality of life for the people, and a slower growing economy. It is important for the government to balance its books, but this can be done by increasing taxes on the rich, rather than cutting spending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is very easy for politicians to talk about cutting spending but the truth is that cuts only really affect the poorest in society. Those at the top end of society - big companies, the wealthy, the politicians themselves - hardly feel any pain at all. What makes it even worse is that poor people actually spend their money and provide the stimulus that businesses need to survive. Cutting spending simply slows the economy down and causes more pain than is necessary. There are better ways to balance the budget - for example through tax reforms that prevent large companies and wealthy individuals from avoiding tax. 2: 1,4,3,2 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002007.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002007.soc index f93aa6a4..1aef7bf5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002007.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002007.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of people eating meat. However, the group also agreed that the consumption of meat should be reduced and that people should be more aware of the impact of their diet on the environment. The group also agreed that lab grown meat could be a viable alternative in the future, but that it is currently too expensive to be a realistic alternative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of people eating meat, but with the caveat that it should be done in moderation. There was also an agreement that the way in which meat is produced needs to change, with a move towards more sustainable farming practices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the science of nutrition is an extremely complex one and we recognise that some people may not be able to have a plant-based diet due to health reasons, we believe that as a society, we should be trying to eat less meat. In particular, it is important that we should be moving away from factory farmed meat, where animals are kept in inhumane conditions. This can be done by choosing to buy organic, free-range meat from small, local farms and by choosing to eat more vegetarian or vegan meals, even if it is only once a week. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is fine to eat meat, but for those who do, they should try to reduce their consumption, and try to buy from local farmers and producers as much as possible. It is also important to acknowledge the meat that we do eat, and show respect for the animals that gave their lives for our consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of people eating meat. However, the group also agreed that the consumption of meat should be reduced and that people should be more aware of the impact of their diet on the environment. The group also agreed that lab grown meat could be a viable alternative in the future, but that it is currently too expensive to be a realistic alternative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of people eating meat, but with the caveat that it should be done in moderation. There was also an agreement that the way in which meat is produced needs to change, with a move towards more sustainable farming practices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the science of nutrition is an extremely complex one and we recognise that some people may not be able to have a plant-based diet due to health reasons, we believe that as a society, we should be trying to eat less meat. In particular, it is important that we should be moving away from factory farmed meat, where animals are kept in inhumane conditions. This can be done by choosing to buy organic, free-range meat from small, local farms and by choosing to eat more vegetarian or vegan meals, even if it is only once a week. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is fine to eat meat, but for those who do, they should try to reduce their consumption, and try to buy from local farmers and producers as much as possible. It is also important to acknowledge the meat that we do eat, and show respect for the animals that gave their lives for our consumption. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002008.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002008.soc index 1ccb2e55..d6ae70f3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002008.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002008.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The education system should be focused on creative thinking and less focused on memorising facts. The current education system focuses on a narrow range of subjects, memorisation and testing of knowledge. However, these subjects are becoming less relevant in today’s world. There are a wide variety of careers that require creative thinkers. In order for children to be prepared for life, they must learn how to think creatively. If a child can think creatively they will be able to achieve more, and have a more balanced approach to life and learning. Memorising facts is something which can be done at any time. The current education system is pushing children to remember and learn facts which can then be tested. This can cause anxiety for many children and is not the best way of learning. If children were able to learn in a more creative and inspiring way, then they will be more engaged and excited to learn. The focus on creativity and being inspired will support children to develop themselves and achieve the best results in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The education system needs to change in order to be relevant to the current world and prepare children for their lives ahead. The system is too focused on teaching factual information and testing this information which can lead to children feeling stressed and anxious. The system needs to be changed to focus more on creative thinking and to inspire children to explore new ideas. The system needs to be changed in order to support children to enjoy learning and to prepare them for the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: We believe that the education system should be more focused on creative thinking and less focused on memorising facts. In order to be prepared for life, children must learn creative thinking as this is a way of dealing with problems and finding solutions. If a child can think creatively they will be able to achieve more, and have a more balanced approach to life and learning. Memorising facts is something which can be done at any time. The current education system is pushing children to remember and learn facts which can then be tested. This can cause anxiety for many children and is not the best way of learning. If children were able to learn in a more creative and inspiring way, then they will be more engaged and excited to learn. The focus on creativity and being inspired will support children to develop themselves and achieve the best results in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The education system should be focused on creative thinking and less focused on memorising facts. The current education system focuses on a narrow range of subjects, memorisation and testing of knowledge. However, these subjects are becoming less relevant in today’s world. There are a wide variety of careers that require creative thinkers. In order for children to be prepared for life, they must learn how to think creatively. If a child can think creatively they will be able to achieve more, and have a more balanced approach to life and learning. Memorising facts is something which can be done at any time. The current education system is pushing children to remember and learn facts which can then be tested. This can cause anxiety for many children and is not the best way of learning. If children were able to learn in a more creative and inspiring way, then they will be more engaged and excited to learn. The focus on creativity and being inspired will support children to develop themselves and achieve the best results in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The education system needs to change in order to be relevant to the current world and prepare children for their lives ahead. The system is too focused on teaching factual information and testing this information which can lead to children feeling stressed and anxious. The system needs to be changed to focus more on creative thinking and to inspire children to explore new ideas. The system needs to be changed in order to support children to enjoy learning and to prepare them for the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We believe that the education system should be more focused on creative thinking and less focused on memorising facts. In order to be prepared for life, children must learn creative thinking as this is a way of dealing with problems and finding solutions. If a child can think creatively they will be able to achieve more, and have a more balanced approach to life and learning. Memorising facts is something which can be done at any time. The current education system is pushing children to remember and learn facts which can then be tested. This can cause anxiety for many children and is not the best way of learning. If children were able to learn in a more creative and inspiring way, then they will be more engaged and excited to learn. The focus on creativity and being inspired will support children to develop themselves and achieve the best results in life. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002009.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002009.soc index b17ba3d0..911c6de8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002009.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002009.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While alcohol abuse is a serious problem that affects many families and individuals, the majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly and banning the sale of alcohol would create more problems than it would solve. There is a range of measures that could be taken to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as more rigorous age verification procedures, increasing the tax on alcohol, and limiting the times at which alcohol can be purchased. However, banning the sale of alcohol would impact negatively on the majority of law-abiding citizens and would be an unwarranted and disproportionate reaction to the problem of alcohol abuse. The alcohol industry is a major contributor to the economy, providing employment for tens of thousands of people in the UK, and banning the sale of alcohol would lead to a significant increase in unemployment, and would impact negatively on the economy as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a clear need to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse in our society, but the negative impact of banning the sale of alcohol would be greater than any positive impact. A more effective solution would be to increase the tax on alcohol, increase the price of alcohol, and more rigorous age verification procedures. This would help to discourage alcohol abuse while not impacting on the majority of law-abiding citizens who enjoy alcohol in moderation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: While alcohol abuse is a serious problem that affects many families and individuals, the majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly and banning the sale of alcohol would create more problems than it would solve. While there is a range of measures that could be taken to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as more rigorous age verification procedures, increasing the tax on alcohol, and limiting the times at which alcohol can be purchased, these actions would impact negatively on the majority of law-abiding citizens and would be an unwarranted and disproportionate reaction to the problem of alcohol abuse. Instead, the government and civil society must look into other ways of reducing alcohol-related harm such as greater education about responsible drinking, community-based interventions in specific ‘hotspots’, and a re-definition of what it means to be a responsible adult. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: While alcohol abuse is a serious problem that affects many families and individuals, the majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly and banning the sale of alcohol would create more problems than it would solve. There is a range of measures that could be taken to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as more rigorous age verification procedures, increasing the tax on alcohol, and limiting the times at which alcohol can be purchased. However, banning the sale of alcohol would impact negatively on the majority of law-abiding citizens, restrict our freedom, and be an unwarranted and disproportionate reaction to the problem of alcohol abuse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While alcohol abuse is a serious problem that affects many families and individuals, the majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly and banning the sale of alcohol would create more problems than it would solve. There is a range of measures that could be taken to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as more rigorous age verification procedures, increasing the tax on alcohol, and limiting the times at which alcohol can be purchased. However, banning the sale of alcohol would impact negatively on the majority of law-abiding citizens and would be an unwarranted and disproportionate reaction to the problem of alcohol abuse. The alcohol industry is a major contributor to the economy, providing employment for tens of thousands of people in the UK, and banning the sale of alcohol would lead to a significant increase in unemployment, and would impact negatively on the economy as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a clear need to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse in our society, but the negative impact of banning the sale of alcohol would be greater than any positive impact. A more effective solution would be to increase the tax on alcohol, increase the price of alcohol, and more rigorous age verification procedures. This would help to discourage alcohol abuse while not impacting on the majority of law-abiding citizens who enjoy alcohol in moderation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: While alcohol abuse is a serious problem that affects many families and individuals, the majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly and banning the sale of alcohol would create more problems than it would solve. While there is a range of measures that could be taken to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as more rigorous age verification procedures, increasing the tax on alcohol, and limiting the times at which alcohol can be purchased, these actions would impact negatively on the majority of law-abiding citizens and would be an unwarranted and disproportionate reaction to the problem of alcohol abuse. Instead, the government and civil society must look into other ways of reducing alcohol-related harm such as greater education about responsible drinking, community-based interventions in specific ‘hotspots’, and a re-definition of what it means to be a responsible adult. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: While alcohol abuse is a serious problem that affects many families and individuals, the majority of people who consume alcohol do so responsibly and banning the sale of alcohol would create more problems than it would solve. There is a range of measures that could be taken to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as more rigorous age verification procedures, increasing the tax on alcohol, and limiting the times at which alcohol can be purchased. However, banning the sale of alcohol would impact negatively on the majority of law-abiding citizens, restrict our freedom, and be an unwarranted and disproportionate reaction to the problem of alcohol abuse. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002010.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002010.soc index 60bec19c..7efc21a4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002010.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002010.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that austerity is an economic policy which mainly affects the poorest in society. The answer of the politicians to “don’t spend more than you earn” is to cut spending on welfare, which just increases poverty. This will result in people spending less and thus slowing down the economy. There are far better ways to balance the budget than austerity, which we consider to be ineffective. Participant 5 ended the exercise by saying: I think it is interesting how we used our different perspectives to come to a consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is very easy for politicians to talk about cutting spending but the truth is that cuts only really affect the poorest in society. Those at the top end of society - big companies, the wealthy, the politicians themselves - hardly feel any pain at all. What makes it even worse is that poor people actually spend their money and provide the stimulus that businesses need to survive. Cutting spending simply slows the economy down and causes more pain than is necessary. There are better ways to balance the budget - for example through tax reforms that prevent large companies and wealthy individuals from avoiding tax. What is more, austerity endangers our welfare state. There are long-term problems for society when crucial public services such as the NHS are underfunded for a long period of time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is very easy for politicians to talk about cutting spending but the truth is that cuts only really affect the poorest in society. Those at the top end of society - big companies, the wealthy, the politicians themselves - hardly feel any pain at all. What makes it even worse is that poor people actually spend their money and provide the stimulus that businesses need to survive. Cutting spending simply slows the economy down and causes more pain than is necessary. There are better ways to balance the budget - for example through tax reforms that prevent large companies and wealthy individuals from avoiding tax. There are also other ways of reducing spending that do not impact on the poor - such as reducing the cost of the welfare bill by reducing unemployment and creating more jobs. This is also something that politicians talk about, but they never seem to get round to doing it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is very easy for politicians to talk about cutting spending but the truth is that cuts only really affect the poorest in society. Those at the top end of society - big companies, the wealthy, the politicians themselves - hardly feel any pain at all. What makes it even worse is that poor people actually spend their money and provide the stimulus that businesses need to survive. Cutting spending simply slows the economy down and causes more pain than is necessary. There are better ways to balance the budget - for example through tax reforms that prevent large companies and wealthy individuals from avoiding tax. It is also important to consider the long-term effects of austerity, such as the impact on the NHS which is one of our nation's most cherished institutions. We feel that austerity has not helped the UK and will continue to cause more harm than good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that austerity is an economic policy which mainly affects the poorest in society. The answer of the politicians to “don’t spend more than you earn” is to cut spending on welfare, which just increases poverty. This will result in people spending less and thus slowing down the economy. There are far better ways to balance the budget than austerity, which we consider to be ineffective. Participant 5 ended the exercise by saying: I think it is interesting how we used our different perspectives to come to a consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is very easy for politicians to talk about cutting spending but the truth is that cuts only really affect the poorest in society. Those at the top end of society - big companies, the wealthy, the politicians themselves - hardly feel any pain at all. What makes it even worse is that poor people actually spend their money and provide the stimulus that businesses need to survive. Cutting spending simply slows the economy down and causes more pain than is necessary. There are better ways to balance the budget - for example through tax reforms that prevent large companies and wealthy individuals from avoiding tax. What is more, austerity endangers our welfare state. There are long-term problems for society when crucial public services such as the NHS are underfunded for a long period of time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is very easy for politicians to talk about cutting spending but the truth is that cuts only really affect the poorest in society. Those at the top end of society - big companies, the wealthy, the politicians themselves - hardly feel any pain at all. What makes it even worse is that poor people actually spend their money and provide the stimulus that businesses need to survive. Cutting spending simply slows the economy down and causes more pain than is necessary. There are better ways to balance the budget - for example through tax reforms that prevent large companies and wealthy individuals from avoiding tax. There are also other ways of reducing spending that do not impact on the poor - such as reducing the cost of the welfare bill by reducing unemployment and creating more jobs. This is also something that politicians talk about, but they never seem to get round to doing it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is very easy for politicians to talk about cutting spending but the truth is that cuts only really affect the poorest in society. Those at the top end of society - big companies, the wealthy, the politicians themselves - hardly feel any pain at all. What makes it even worse is that poor people actually spend their money and provide the stimulus that businesses need to survive. Cutting spending simply slows the economy down and causes more pain than is necessary. There are better ways to balance the budget - for example through tax reforms that prevent large companies and wealthy individuals from avoiding tax. It is also important to consider the long-term effects of austerity, such as the impact on the NHS which is one of our nation's most cherished institutions. We feel that austerity has not helped the UK and will continue to cause more harm than good. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002011.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002011.soc index db9bda42..0deeaee9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002011.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002011.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of immigration. The group thought that it was important to have a balance of skilled and unskilled immigrants. The group also thought that it was important to have a balance of economic immigrants and those seeking asylum. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group thought that the current -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was in favour of immigration. The group thought that it was important to have a balance of skilled and unskilled immigrants. The group also thought that it was important to have a balance of economic immigrants and asylum seekers. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be stricter with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group thought that it is important to have some unskilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be stricter with the number of immigrants that are allowed -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants thought that immigration is important, as it brings a lot of value to the country. The group of participants thought that it is important to have a mix of skilled and unskilled immigrants. The group of participants thought that it is important to have a mix of economic immigrants and asylum seekers. The group of participants thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group of participants thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group of participants thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group of participants thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group of participants thought that it is important to have some unskilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group of participants thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group of participants thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group of -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. This influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The current system needs to be changed, and the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group thought that it is important to have some unskilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of immigration. The group thought that it was important to have a balance of skilled and unskilled immigrants. The group also thought that it was important to have a balance of economic immigrants and those seeking asylum. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group thought that the current +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was in favour of immigration. The group thought that it was important to have a balance of skilled and unskilled immigrants. The group also thought that it was important to have a balance of economic immigrants and asylum seekers. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be stricter with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group thought that it is important to have some unskilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be stricter with the number of immigrants that are allowed +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants thought that immigration is important, as it brings a lot of value to the country. The group of participants thought that it is important to have a mix of skilled and unskilled immigrants. The group of participants thought that it is important to have a mix of economic immigrants and asylum seekers. The group of participants thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group of participants thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group of participants thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group of participants thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group of participants thought that it is important to have some unskilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group of participants thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group of participants thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. This influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The current system needs to be changed, and the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. The group thought that it is important to have some immigrants, as they bring a lot of value to the country. The group thought that it is important to have some unskilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some skilled immigrants, as they can help the economy grow. The group thought that it is important to have some asylum seekers, as they are fleeing dangerous situations and need somewhere safe to live. The group thought that the current system is not working, as there is a large influx of unskilled economic immigrants. The group thought that this influx is putting a strain on public services, such as the NHS and housing. The group thought that the current system needs to be changed, and that the government should be more strict with the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter the country. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002012.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002012.soc index 18397bdb..f6996786 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002012.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002012.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although immigration should be controlled, it shouldn't be banned. If there is a surplus of housing, jobs, schools and healthcare facilities in the UK, then there shouldn't be a problem with immigration. Immigration should also be monitored to ensure it doesn't go out of control. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, immigration should be restricted. The world is facing a crisis in overpopulation and it is important that we do not exacerbate the problem. Immigration should be allowed for those who are able to contribute to the economy and who will not be a burden on the state. It is important to remember that immigration is a two-way street and we should not be afraid to restrict immigration from countries who do the same to us. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions. We all agreed that people should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We also believe that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. People who don't have experience but want to gain it should be allowed a 3 month period in a country to prove their willingness to work and learn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the UK economy is strong and unemployment is at record low, we believe that immigration should be restricted. Our view is that UK is reaching a point of 'over-saturation' and there are more people than jobs. If a country is over-saturated, it is the locals who lose out - more competition for jobs, and housing, increased strain on public services, increased crime rates. For this reason, immigration should be restricted. If the UK economy starts to decline, however, it would be a mistake to keep immigration restricted - there is a risk that if too many people leave the UK (immigrants, or otherwise), we will end up in an even worse situation. In this case, immigration should be opened to any person who is willing to work and be an asset to the country, without relying on the state for support. The UK is currently facing a difficult situation. There are more people than jobs. If this situation continues, it is the locals who will suffer. We believe it is our responsibility to protect our own people and protect their livelihoods. This means that immigration should be restricted until the situation changes. However, we believe that the Government should keep a close eye on the situation and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although immigration should be controlled, it shouldn't be banned. If there is a surplus of housing, jobs, schools and healthcare facilities in the UK, then there shouldn't be a problem with immigration. Immigration should also be monitored to ensure it doesn't go out of control. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, immigration should be restricted. The world is facing a crisis in overpopulation and it is important that we do not exacerbate the problem. Immigration should be allowed for those who are able to contribute to the economy and who will not be a burden on the state. It is important to remember that immigration is a two-way street and we should not be afraid to restrict immigration from countries who do the same to us. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions. We all agreed that people should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We also believe that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. People who don't have experience but want to gain it should be allowed a 3 month period in a country to prove their willingness to work and learn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the UK economy is strong and unemployment is at record low, we believe that immigration should be restricted. Our view is that UK is reaching a point of 'over-saturation' and there are more people than jobs. If a country is over-saturated, it is the locals who lose out - more competition for jobs, and housing, increased strain on public services, increased crime rates. For this reason, immigration should be restricted. If the UK economy starts to decline, however, it would be a mistake to keep immigration restricted - there is a risk that if too many people leave the UK (immigrants, or otherwise), we will end up in an even worse situation. In this case, immigration should be opened to any person who is willing to work and be an asset to the country, without relying on the state for support. The UK is currently facing a difficult situation. There are more people than jobs. If this situation continues, it is the locals who will suffer. We believe it is our responsibility to protect our own people and protect their livelihoods. This means that immigration should be restricted until the situation changes. However, we believe that the Government should keep a close eye on the situation and 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002013.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002013.soc index da44e430..3e71e620 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002013.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002013.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not fair to discriminate against anyone with the provision of medical care. Everyone should have equal access to free medical care, regardless of their background. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it is not fair to provide free medical care to some people but not others. Medical care should be a basic human right, and so everyone should have access to it regardless of their background. While it is understandable that some medical conditions on the face of it seem more warranted in terms of providing the sufferer free care; however, I believe that everyone should have access to free medical care. The need for a 'one rule for all' law is important to provide clarity, and taking a case-by-case basis when it comes to providing free medical care can become very confusing. Medical care should be a human right provided by governments, so everyone should be entitled to this regardless of their medical conditions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the provision of free universal healthcare is a human right, there are some special cases where it is fair to provide free medical care to some people but not others. In these special cases, people with life threatening illnesses and conditions should receive free medical care, while those with non-life threatening illnesses and conditions should have to pay for the healthcare they receive. There are many different ways of financing free universal healthcare for life threatening illnesses and conditions, including taxes and state contributions, so that everyone can receive the same quality of healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not fair to provide free medical care to some but not others. Everyone should have equal access to medical care, and it should be free, regardless of their background. The need for a 'one rule for all' law is important to provide clarity, and taking a case-by-case basis when it comes to providing free medical care can become very confusing. Medical care should be a human right provided by governments, so everyone should be entitled to this regardless of their medical conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not fair to discriminate against anyone with the provision of medical care. Everyone should have equal access to free medical care, regardless of their background. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it is not fair to provide free medical care to some people but not others. Medical care should be a basic human right, and so everyone should have access to it regardless of their background. While it is understandable that some medical conditions on the face of it seem more warranted in terms of providing the sufferer free care; however, I believe that everyone should have access to free medical care. The need for a 'one rule for all' law is important to provide clarity, and taking a case-by-case basis when it comes to providing free medical care can become very confusing. Medical care should be a human right provided by governments, so everyone should be entitled to this regardless of their medical conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the provision of free universal healthcare is a human right, there are some special cases where it is fair to provide free medical care to some people but not others. In these special cases, people with life threatening illnesses and conditions should receive free medical care, while those with non-life threatening illnesses and conditions should have to pay for the healthcare they receive. There are many different ways of financing free universal healthcare for life threatening illnesses and conditions, including taxes and state contributions, so that everyone can receive the same quality of healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not fair to provide free medical care to some but not others. Everyone should have equal access to medical care, and it should be free, regardless of their background. The need for a 'one rule for all' law is important to provide clarity, and taking a case-by-case basis when it comes to providing free medical care can become very confusing. Medical care should be a human right provided by governments, so everyone should be entitled to this regardless of their medical conditions. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002014.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002014.soc index 5a53a8ff..fdd2724c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002014.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002014.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS should focus more on preventative medicine. However, this does not mean that it should abandon the treatment of people who are already sick. The NHS should be a balance of preventative medicine as well as medicine for existing health needs. However, preventative medicine could also treat the existing health needs that other medicines are doing now, just earlier. Rather than developing preventative medicines, the NHS could develop early intervention strategies to monitor these health needs before they get to a stage where they need medication. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the long run, preventative medicine could provide savings and help people live in good health for longer. However, the NHS needs to continue to provide treatment for those who are already suffering from conditions. The NHS should also promote preventative medicine, but its focus must remain on the full-spectrum of treatments. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS should continue to focus on treatment for those with health conditions, but the long-term goal should be to improve preventative medicine in order to reduce the number of those who become ill. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the NHS should increase its focus on preventative medicine, however, it should still keep in mind that those who already suffer from conditions must be given the best care possible. While preventative medicine will reduce the amount the NHS has to spend on operations and treatments, it will not do so immediately. Therefore, in the short term the NHS must ensure it has adequate resources to meet the needs of all patients. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS should focus more on preventative medicine. However, this does not mean that it should abandon the treatment of people who are already sick. The NHS should be a balance of preventative medicine as well as medicine for existing health needs. However, preventative medicine could also treat the existing health needs that other medicines are doing now, just earlier. Rather than developing preventative medicines, the NHS could develop early intervention strategies to monitor these health needs before they get to a stage where they need medication. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the long run, preventative medicine could provide savings and help people live in good health for longer. However, the NHS needs to continue to provide treatment for those who are already suffering from conditions. The NHS should also promote preventative medicine, but its focus must remain on the full-spectrum of treatments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS should continue to focus on treatment for those with health conditions, but the long-term goal should be to improve preventative medicine in order to reduce the number of those who become ill. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the NHS should increase its focus on preventative medicine, however, it should still keep in mind that those who already suffer from conditions must be given the best care possible. While preventative medicine will reduce the amount the NHS has to spend on operations and treatments, it will not do so immediately. Therefore, in the short term the NHS must ensure it has adequate resources to meet the needs of all patients. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002015.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002015.soc index bec33ee3..2247ffe1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002015.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002015.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is no right answer about whether it is okay to eat meat or not. However, we believe that the way meat is currently produced and consumed is unsustainable and inhumane and that there needs to be a change. In particular, it is important that we should be moving away from factory farmed meat, where animals are kept in inhumane conditions. This can be done by choosing to buy organic, free-range meat from small, local farms and by choosing to eat more vegetarian or vegan meals, even if it is only once a week. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: We recognise that the science of nutrition is an extremely complex one and that some people may not be able to have a plant-based diet due to health reasons. As a society, we should be doing more to tackle the treatment of animals, and to opt for a less meat-reliant diet. More information about farm animal welfare should be provided to consumers in order to help them to make informed choices. We also recognise that the sustainable farming of meat to a high welfare standard remains an extremely difficult problem to overcome due to the ever-increasing demand for meat, but ultimately all of us, regardless of our dietary choices, have a part to play in shaping the way forward. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the science of nutrition is an extremely complex one and we recognise that some people may not be able to have a plant-based diet due to health reasons, we believe that as a society, we should be trying to eat less meat. In particular, it is important that we should be moving away from factory farmed meat, where animals are kept in inhumane conditions. This can be done by choosing to buy organic, free-range meat from small, local farms and by choosing to eat more vegetarian or vegan meals, even if it is only once a week. We also recognise that the availability of lab grown meat in the future may play an important role in reducing the global demand for meat, as this will allow meat to be consumed without the need to slaughter animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is no right answer about whether it is okay to eat meat or not. However, we believe that the way meat is currently produced and consumed is unsustainable and inhumane and that there needs to be a change. In particular, it is important that we should be moving away from factory farmed meat, where animals are kept in inhumane conditions. This can be done by choosing to buy organic, free-range meat from small, local farms and by choosing to eat more vegetarian or vegan meals, even if it is only once a week. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: We recognise that the science of nutrition is an extremely complex one and that some people may not be able to have a plant-based diet due to health reasons. As a society, we should be doing more to tackle the treatment of animals, and to opt for a less meat-reliant diet. More information about farm animal welfare should be provided to consumers in order to help them to make informed choices. We also recognise that the sustainable farming of meat to a high welfare standard remains an extremely difficult problem to overcome due to the ever-increasing demand for meat, but ultimately all of us, regardless of our dietary choices, have a part to play in shaping the way forward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the science of nutrition is an extremely complex one and we recognise that some people may not be able to have a plant-based diet due to health reasons, we believe that as a society, we should be trying to eat less meat. In particular, it is important that we should be moving away from factory farmed meat, where animals are kept in inhumane conditions. This can be done by choosing to buy organic, free-range meat from small, local farms and by choosing to eat more vegetarian or vegan meals, even if it is only once a week. We also recognise that the availability of lab grown meat in the future may play an important role in reducing the global demand for meat, as this will allow meat to be consumed without the need to slaughter animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002016.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002016.soc index 574989a1..96dc07fa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002016.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002016.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is possible for humans to sustain on a vegan diet but it is not optimal for every human on earth. Vegan diets can be nutrient deficient, especially in the developing world, and the nutrients are hard to get from substitutes. Also, meat is a huge source of protein, and without the proper balance of food, humans can get malnourished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is possible for humans to sustain on a vegan diet but it is not optimal for every human on earth. Vegan diets can be nutrient deficient, especially in the developing world, and the nutrients are hard to get from substitutes. Also, meat is a huge source of protein, and without the proper balance of food, humans can get malnourished. This is especially true in the developing world, where they are already not getting enough food, and going vegan is not an option. However, it is still possible to live a healthy life as a vegan, and many people do. In a world where people are becoming more aware of global warming and the effects of meat production on the environment, veganism is becoming more popular. There are ways to get all the nutrients needed to live a healthy life without consuming meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans can sustain on a vegan diet but it is not optimal for everyone. Vegan diets can be nutrient deficient, especially in the developing world, and the nutrients are hard to get from substitutes. Also, meat is a huge source of protein, and without the proper balance of food, humans can get malnourished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is possible for humans to sustain on a vegan diet, but it is not optimal for every human on earth. Vegan diets are nutritious, especially in places where animal products are rare or too expensive; however they are not without their flaws. Meat and diary contain large amounts of protein, fats and vitamins (especially B12) that are difficult for a vegan diet to substitute. Many vegan replacements are full of artificial ingredients and tastes that are not healthy. Without proper substitutes, a vegan diet is hard to sustain in the long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is possible for humans to sustain on a vegan diet but it is not optimal for every human on earth. Vegan diets can be nutrient deficient, especially in the developing world, and the nutrients are hard to get from substitutes. Also, meat is a huge source of protein, and without the proper balance of food, humans can get malnourished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is possible for humans to sustain on a vegan diet but it is not optimal for every human on earth. Vegan diets can be nutrient deficient, especially in the developing world, and the nutrients are hard to get from substitutes. Also, meat is a huge source of protein, and without the proper balance of food, humans can get malnourished. This is especially true in the developing world, where they are already not getting enough food, and going vegan is not an option. However, it is still possible to live a healthy life as a vegan, and many people do. In a world where people are becoming more aware of global warming and the effects of meat production on the environment, veganism is becoming more popular. There are ways to get all the nutrients needed to live a healthy life without consuming meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans can sustain on a vegan diet but it is not optimal for everyone. Vegan diets can be nutrient deficient, especially in the developing world, and the nutrients are hard to get from substitutes. Also, meat is a huge source of protein, and without the proper balance of food, humans can get malnourished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is possible for humans to sustain on a vegan diet, but it is not optimal for every human on earth. Vegan diets are nutritious, especially in places where animal products are rare or too expensive; however they are not without their flaws. Meat and diary contain large amounts of protein, fats and vitamins (especially B12) that are difficult for a vegan diet to substitute. Many vegan replacements are full of artificial ingredients and tastes that are not healthy. Without proper substitutes, a vegan diet is hard to sustain in the long term. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002017.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002017.soc index 8bfc377b..411de14d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002017.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002017.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Schools should definitely be teaching philosophy. It helps to develop logical thinking, creative thinking and critical thinking, all of which are very important skills in the modern day. The ability to present a convincing argument is also a useful skill that would be beneficial to people in their everyday lives. There is a lot of nuance in philosophy that is not often discussed, and many people do not consider it. If schools taught philosophy, it would allow people to consider different ideas and become more well rounded as people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Schools should teach philosophy to a greater extent than they currently do. Philosophy is often referred to as learning to think, and can be a very useful tool for students. Philosophy has a lot of common ground with logic and writing convincing arguments. Both of these are essential skills for everyone. Many people today would benefit from being able to organise and delivery their thoughts and opinions about different topics. WIth philosophy, students would also be able to construct and deconstruct arguments for and against many topics. However, it is also important that schools teach other subjects to a greater extent. For example, classes focusing on life skills such as taxes and politics related topics could be beneficial for young people. Therefore, teaching philosophy would be a good idea, as long as other more important issues arent forgotten about. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of teaching philosophy in schools. We felt that this would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of different opinions and perspectives. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think schools should spend more time teaching philosophy. Philosophy is often referred to as learning to think, and can be a very useful tool for students. Philosophy has a lot of common ground with logic and writing convincing arguments. Both of these are essential skills for everyone. Many people today would benefit from being able to organise and delivery their thoughts and opinions about different topics. WIth philosophy, students would also be able to construct and deconstruct arguments for and against many topics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Schools should definitely be teaching philosophy. It helps to develop logical thinking, creative thinking and critical thinking, all of which are very important skills in the modern day. The ability to present a convincing argument is also a useful skill that would be beneficial to people in their everyday lives. There is a lot of nuance in philosophy that is not often discussed, and many people do not consider it. If schools taught philosophy, it would allow people to consider different ideas and become more well rounded as people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Schools should teach philosophy to a greater extent than they currently do. Philosophy is often referred to as learning to think, and can be a very useful tool for students. Philosophy has a lot of common ground with logic and writing convincing arguments. Both of these are essential skills for everyone. Many people today would benefit from being able to organise and delivery their thoughts and opinions about different topics. WIth philosophy, students would also be able to construct and deconstruct arguments for and against many topics. However, it is also important that schools teach other subjects to a greater extent. For example, classes focusing on life skills such as taxes and politics related topics could be beneficial for young people. Therefore, teaching philosophy would be a good idea, as long as other more important issues arent forgotten about. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of teaching philosophy in schools. We felt that this would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of different opinions and perspectives. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate. We also felt that philosophy would be a good way to introduce children to the idea of asking questions and being able to engage in debate +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think schools should spend more time teaching philosophy. Philosophy is often referred to as learning to think, and can be a very useful tool for students. Philosophy has a lot of common ground with logic and writing convincing arguments. Both of these are essential skills for everyone. Many people today would benefit from being able to organise and delivery their thoughts and opinions about different topics. WIth philosophy, students would also be able to construct and deconstruct arguments for and against many topics. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002018.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002018.soc index 69d28d90..81d4a600 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002018.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002018.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have been taught the necessary skills to do so safely. This would include basic road safety, stranger danger awareness and a basic knowledge of the route home. The decision should be made by the parents or guardians, taking into account the specific circumstances and the child’s level of readiness for independent travel. Ensuring the safety and well-being of the child should always be the top priority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 12 should not be allowed to walk home from school on their own. The world is a dangerous place and children are often targeted by criminals. The children may not be street wise enough to know how to avoid danger and it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children are kept safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, but only after certain requirements are met. First, the route to and from school should be checked by the parent and child, so that the child is aware of any potential dangers. The child should also have their mobile phone and the parents contact number with them at all times. They should be able to identify all houses and locations along the route, and identify any strangers or potentially dangerous people. If all of these requirements are met, then it should be acceptable for children under 12 to walk home from school on their own. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, and how to use public transport. It is the parents' responsibility to make the decision, taking into account the child's readiness for independent travel and the specific circumstances that could pose a potential threat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have been taught the necessary skills to do so safely. This would include basic road safety, stranger danger awareness and a basic knowledge of the route home. The decision should be made by the parents or guardians, taking into account the specific circumstances and the child’s level of readiness for independent travel. Ensuring the safety and well-being of the child should always be the top priority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 12 should not be allowed to walk home from school on their own. The world is a dangerous place and children are often targeted by criminals. The children may not be street wise enough to know how to avoid danger and it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children are kept safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, but only after certain requirements are met. First, the route to and from school should be checked by the parent and child, so that the child is aware of any potential dangers. The child should also have their mobile phone and the parents contact number with them at all times. They should be able to identify all houses and locations along the route, and identify any strangers or potentially dangerous people. If all of these requirements are met, then it should be acceptable for children under 12 to walk home from school on their own. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, and how to use public transport. It is the parents' responsibility to make the decision, taking into account the child's readiness for independent travel and the specific circumstances that could pose a potential threat. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002019.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002019.soc index 77648f4b..660268ea 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002019.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002019.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the NHS is a struggling and underfunded service, we believe that everyone who lives in the UK should be entitled to free healthcare and treatment. If we were to remove this and offer healthcare to everyone, it would just increase the wait list for treatment and people who live in the UK may miss out. It is simply not viable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of free access to the NHS for everyone. However, it was felt that there should be some caveats. In particular, the NHS should not be used as a 'free for all' and should be used for its intended purpose. This means that people should not be able to access the NHS for cosmetic surgery or other non-essential procedures. In addition, it was felt that people who are not citizens of the UK or asylum seekers should be charged a nominal fee for their treatment. This would help to reduce demand on the NHS and would help to prevent people from abusing the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of free access to the NHS. However, it was also agreed that the NHS is currently underfunded and that some changes are needed. The group was in favour of the introduction of a nominal fee for non-UK citizens, as it was felt that the NHS should be reserved for British citizens. The group also felt that the NHS should be reserved for people who live in the UK, and that it should not be available to people who are visiting the UK. The group felt that the NHS should be reserved for people who are in need of medical care, and that it should not be used for cosmetic procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS was created in 1948 with the intention of providing healthcare free of charge to all people, regardless of their ability to pay. It is our belief that the provision of free healthcare is morally justified and necessary for the survival of our nation. However, the NHS is currently under severe strain. There is a large backlog of patients waiting for treatment and many people are waiting far too long for treatments which may affect their health or life expectancy. To help ease the strain on the NHS, we believe that certain restrictions must be placed on the free healthcare that the NHS provides. Firstly, we believe that healthcare should only be provided to people who are already resident in the UK. We believe that people who are non-British should be required to pay for any healthcare they receive. We also believe that healthcare should only be provided for illnesses or injuries which affect the person's ability to lead a normal, healthy life. Cosmetic or lifestyle treatments should not be provided for free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the NHS is a struggling and underfunded service, we believe that everyone who lives in the UK should be entitled to free healthcare and treatment. If we were to remove this and offer healthcare to everyone, it would just increase the wait list for treatment and people who live in the UK may miss out. It is simply not viable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of free access to the NHS for everyone. However, it was felt that there should be some caveats. In particular, the NHS should not be used as a 'free for all' and should be used for its intended purpose. This means that people should not be able to access the NHS for cosmetic surgery or other non-essential procedures. In addition, it was felt that people who are not citizens of the UK or asylum seekers should be charged a nominal fee for their treatment. This would help to reduce demand on the NHS and would help to prevent people from abusing the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of free access to the NHS. However, it was also agreed that the NHS is currently underfunded and that some changes are needed. The group was in favour of the introduction of a nominal fee for non-UK citizens, as it was felt that the NHS should be reserved for British citizens. The group also felt that the NHS should be reserved for people who live in the UK, and that it should not be available to people who are visiting the UK. The group felt that the NHS should be reserved for people who are in need of medical care, and that it should not be used for cosmetic procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS was created in 1948 with the intention of providing healthcare free of charge to all people, regardless of their ability to pay. It is our belief that the provision of free healthcare is morally justified and necessary for the survival of our nation. However, the NHS is currently under severe strain. There is a large backlog of patients waiting for treatment and many people are waiting far too long for treatments which may affect their health or life expectancy. To help ease the strain on the NHS, we believe that certain restrictions must be placed on the free healthcare that the NHS provides. Firstly, we believe that healthcare should only be provided to people who are already resident in the UK. We believe that people who are non-British should be required to pay for any healthcare they receive. We also believe that healthcare should only be provided for illnesses or injuries which affect the person's ability to lead a normal, healthy life. Cosmetic or lifestyle treatments should not be provided for free. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002020.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002020.soc index 284086c3..5210179d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002020.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002020.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, we were in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions and the basis of this should be economic prosperity and stability. People should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We believe that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. People who don't have experience but want to gain it should be allowed a 3 month period in a country to prove their willingness to work and learn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions. We all agreed that people should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We also believe that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. Temporary work visas could still be offered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions. We all agreed that people should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We also believe that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. Temporary work visas could still be offered. People who don't have experience but want to gain it should be allowed a 3 month period in a country to prove their willingness to work and learn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we were all in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions. We all agreed that people should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We all agreed that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. We also believe that people who don't have experience but want to gain it should be allowed a 3 month period in a country to prove their willingness to work and learn. To illustrate the balanced way of thinking behind the consensus statement, I have displayed the individual opinions from the team members who took the lead in the group discussion. As we can see from the change between the critiques and the final consensus, they managed to reconcile their differences. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, we were in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions and the basis of this should be economic prosperity and stability. People should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We believe that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. People who don't have experience but want to gain it should be allowed a 3 month period in a country to prove their willingness to work and learn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions. We all agreed that people should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We also believe that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. Temporary work visas could still be offered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions. We all agreed that people should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We also believe that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. Temporary work visas could still be offered. People who don't have experience but want to gain it should be allowed a 3 month period in a country to prove their willingness to work and learn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we were all in favour of immigration. However, we all agreed that there should be some restrictions. We all agreed that people should be allowed to immigrate if they can prove they want to and are capable of working and paying taxes. People should not be allowed to immigrate if they are planning on taking benefits of the country they are not citizens at. We all agreed that Governments should regularly review job professions struggling to hire (fruit picking, hospitality, healthcare etc. ) and provide list of desired professions every few months. We also believe that people who don't have experience but want to gain it should be allowed a 3 month period in a country to prove their willingness to work and learn. To illustrate the balanced way of thinking behind the consensus statement, I have displayed the individual opinions from the team members who took the lead in the group discussion. As we can see from the change between the critiques and the final consensus, they managed to reconcile their differences. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002021.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002021.soc index 6d29919f..1d425ee2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002021.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002021.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS should focus more on preventative medicine. However, this does not mean that it should abandon the treatment of people who are already sick. The NHS should provide a balance of preventative medicine as well as medicine for existing health needs. The preventative medicine could in some cases also treat the existing health needs that other medicines are doing now, just earlier. Instead of developing preventative medicines, the NHS should develop strategies to monitor these health needs before they get to a stage where they need medication. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS should focus more on preventative medicine. However, this does not mean that it should abandon the treatment of people who are already sick. The NHS should be a balance of preventative medicine as well as medicine for existing health needs. However, preventative medicine could also treat the existing health needs that other medicines are doing now, just earlier. Rather than developing preventative medicines, the NHS could develop early intervention strategies to monitor these health needs before they get to a stage where they need medication. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS should continue to focus on treatment for people with health conditions, but the long-term goal should be to treat future generations and close the gap between current health care and preventative medicine. The NHS should also employ early intervention strategies to prevent health conditions developing in the first place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS should focus more on preventative medicine. The current care of people already suffering from conditions must be adequately resourced. The role of the NHS is not only to treat people who are ill but also to prevent people from becoming ill. Prevention is better than cure, and this is where the NHS should focus its attention. Prevention can take many forms, including a healthy lifestyle and screening programmes for at-risk individuals. Some people may feel that there is not enough evidence for preventative medicine, but this is changing. There are many examples of drugs that are preventative. Statins are a drug which reduce the amount of cholesterol in the blood. They are used to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes in high-risk patients. Many new treatments are being developed all the time, and a change in the way the NHS works would bring these new treatments to the people who need them the most. We believe that the NHS should focus on prevention, but must not forget the people who are already ill. The NHS should be a balance of preventative medicine as well as medicine for existing health needs. However, preventative medicine could also treat the existing health needs that other medicines are doing now, just earlier. Rather than developing prevent +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS should focus more on preventative medicine. However, this does not mean that it should abandon the treatment of people who are already sick. The NHS should provide a balance of preventative medicine as well as medicine for existing health needs. The preventative medicine could in some cases also treat the existing health needs that other medicines are doing now, just earlier. Instead of developing preventative medicines, the NHS should develop strategies to monitor these health needs before they get to a stage where they need medication. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS should focus more on preventative medicine. However, this does not mean that it should abandon the treatment of people who are already sick. The NHS should be a balance of preventative medicine as well as medicine for existing health needs. However, preventative medicine could also treat the existing health needs that other medicines are doing now, just earlier. Rather than developing preventative medicines, the NHS could develop early intervention strategies to monitor these health needs before they get to a stage where they need medication. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS should continue to focus on treatment for people with health conditions, but the long-term goal should be to treat future generations and close the gap between current health care and preventative medicine. The NHS should also employ early intervention strategies to prevent health conditions developing in the first place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS should focus more on preventative medicine. The current care of people already suffering from conditions must be adequately resourced. The role of the NHS is not only to treat people who are ill but also to prevent people from becoming ill. Prevention is better than cure, and this is where the NHS should focus its attention. Prevention can take many forms, including a healthy lifestyle and screening programmes for at-risk individuals. Some people may feel that there is not enough evidence for preventative medicine, but this is changing. There are many examples of drugs that are preventative. Statins are a drug which reduce the amount of cholesterol in the blood. They are used to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes in high-risk patients. Many new treatments are being developed all the time, and a change in the way the NHS works would bring these new treatments to the people who need them the most. We believe that the NHS should focus on prevention, but must not forget the people who are already ill. The NHS should be a balance of preventative medicine as well as medicine for existing health needs. However, preventative medicine could also treat the existing health needs that other medicines are doing now, just earlier. Rather than developing prevent 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002022.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002022.soc index f28cadd6..13ddd259 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002022.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002022.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of abolishing the House of Lords, but there was some disagreement about this. Some felt that the Lords was a necessary part of the political system, and that it should be retained. Others felt that it was an outdated concept, and that it should be abolished. However, the group did agree that the system of appointing members to the House of Lords was not working, and that this needed to be changed. The group also felt that the whole political system in the UK needed to be changed, and that it was not working as it should. The group felt that the whole political system was too complicated, and that it was not in tune with modern times. The group felt that the whole system needed to be changed, and that it should be made simpler and more democratic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the House of Lords should be abolished. However, with the current government looking for ways to reduce the number of MPs, we don't believe it would be sensible to just have one house of parliament, especially if the numbers of MPs is reduced significantly. A better solution would be to scrap the House of Lords, but have a small 'upper house' of parliament with a fixed term of office, that can scrutinise and reject legislation passed by the Commons. An example of this would be the current Welsh Assembly. This currently has 60 AMs (Members of the Assembly) and 40 MLCs (Members of the Legislative Council). In this system, the MLCs have a fixed term of office, and the system is non-political. This way, there would still be an 'upper house' of parliament that could scrutinise and reject legislation passed by the Commons, but it would be fair and representative of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the house of lords should be abolished. The reasons for this is the fact that most people do not know what they do and who they are and also the fact that they get there by being recommended by the Prime Minister and they don't have to have done anything to earn that position. Also the fact that they have life long positions. Also the fact that the scandals about cash for honours have recently occurred have undermined their reputation. I think it is also a relic of the past and has no relevance in today's society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we think that the House of Lords should be abolished. The current system is outdated and not in keeping with modern times. The appointments to the House of Lords have been made for political reasons rather than merit, and this is wrong. The system needs to be more democratic, and the House of Lords is not democratic. The House of Commons is the democratic chamber, and so this is the chamber that should have the final say on laws that are passed. The House of Lords should be abolished, and the system should be more democratic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of abolishing the House of Lords, but there was some disagreement about this. Some felt that the Lords was a necessary part of the political system, and that it should be retained. Others felt that it was an outdated concept, and that it should be abolished. However, the group did agree that the system of appointing members to the House of Lords was not working, and that this needed to be changed. The group also felt that the whole political system in the UK needed to be changed, and that it was not working as it should. The group felt that the whole political system was too complicated, and that it was not in tune with modern times. The group felt that the whole system needed to be changed, and that it should be made simpler and more democratic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the House of Lords should be abolished. However, with the current government looking for ways to reduce the number of MPs, we don't believe it would be sensible to just have one house of parliament, especially if the numbers of MPs is reduced significantly. A better solution would be to scrap the House of Lords, but have a small 'upper house' of parliament with a fixed term of office, that can scrutinise and reject legislation passed by the Commons. An example of this would be the current Welsh Assembly. This currently has 60 AMs (Members of the Assembly) and 40 MLCs (Members of the Legislative Council). In this system, the MLCs have a fixed term of office, and the system is non-political. This way, there would still be an 'upper house' of parliament that could scrutinise and reject legislation passed by the Commons, but it would be fair and representative of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the house of lords should be abolished. The reasons for this is the fact that most people do not know what they do and who they are and also the fact that they get there by being recommended by the Prime Minister and they don't have to have done anything to earn that position. Also the fact that they have life long positions. Also the fact that the scandals about cash for honours have recently occurred have undermined their reputation. I think it is also a relic of the past and has no relevance in today's society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we think that the House of Lords should be abolished. The current system is outdated and not in keeping with modern times. The appointments to the House of Lords have been made for political reasons rather than merit, and this is wrong. The system needs to be more democratic, and the House of Lords is not democratic. The House of Commons is the democratic chamber, and so this is the chamber that should have the final say on laws that are passed. The House of Lords should be abolished, and the system should be more democratic. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002023.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002023.soc index 38e39ee2..6406d73d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002023.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002023.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, how to contact emergency services, and how to use public transport. It is the parents' responsibility to make the decision, taking into account the child's readiness for independent travel, the specific circumstances that could pose a potential threat, and how effective the knowledge and skills learnt by the child are at ensuring their safety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, and how to use public transport. It is the parents' responsibility to make the decision, taking into account the child's readiness for independent travel and the specific circumstances that could pose a potential threat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: While recognising that some children may not be ready to walk home from school on their own, children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, and how to use public transport. Allowing children under the age of 12 to walk home from school on their own will help them to develop a sense of independence and foster personal growth. However, parents must consider the level of readiness and skills of each child on an individual basis. Ultimately, parents are responsible for making the decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, and how to use public transport. It is the parents' responsibility to make the decision, taking into account the child's readiness for independent travel and the specific circumstances that could pose a potential threat. It is also the responsibility of the parents to help children develop the necessary skills and knowledge to ensure their safety when walking home from school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, how to contact emergency services, and how to use public transport. It is the parents' responsibility to make the decision, taking into account the child's readiness for independent travel, the specific circumstances that could pose a potential threat, and how effective the knowledge and skills learnt by the child are at ensuring their safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, and how to use public transport. It is the parents' responsibility to make the decision, taking into account the child's readiness for independent travel and the specific circumstances that could pose a potential threat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: While recognising that some children may not be ready to walk home from school on their own, children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, and how to use public transport. Allowing children under the age of 12 to walk home from school on their own will help them to develop a sense of independence and foster personal growth. However, parents must consider the level of readiness and skills of each child on an individual basis. Ultimately, parents are responsible for making the decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under the age of 12 should be allowed to walk home from school on their own, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so safely. Parents and guardians should teach children the skills required to walk home from school safely, including how to keep themselves safe from physical and emotional harm, the potential dangers they may face, how to respond to a potential threat, and how to use public transport. It is the parents' responsibility to make the decision, taking into account the child's readiness for independent travel and the specific circumstances that could pose a potential threat. It is also the responsibility of the parents to help children develop the necessary skills and knowledge to ensure their safety when walking home from school. 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002024.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002024.soc index 3acf9da2..0d0662ba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002024.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002024.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: All participants agreed that critical thinking is an important skill for all people to have and is more important than ever in today's society where so much information is readily available. Social media in particular can be a source of false information and we need people to be able to look at sources critically and make up their own minds rather than be influenced by false information. The same goes for AI which is getting more sophisticated and being used by people to push fake news. It is not just social media that is used for this purpose, it is used in politics too. People should be able to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Schools should be teaching critical thinking skills, but in a light touch way that does not add to the stress of young people already preparing for exams. This should be part of a wider curriculum so that students are developing critical thinking skills when they study various subjects, rather than having timetabled lessons that are dedicated to critical thinking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Critical thinking is an important skill for all people to have and is more important than ever in today's society where so much information is readily available. Social media in particular can be a source of false information and we need people to be able to look at sources critically and make up their own minds rather than be influenced by false information. The same goes for AI which is getting more sophisticated and being used by people to push fake news. It is not just social media that is used for this purpose, it is used in politics too. People should be able to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Schools should be teaching critical thinking skills, but in a light touch way that does not add to the stress of young people already preparing for exams. This should be part of a wider curriculum so that students are developing critical thinking skills when they study various subjects, rather than having timetabled lessons that are dedicated to critical thinking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: Participants agreed that critical thinking is an important skill for all people to have and is more important than ever in today's society where so much information is readily available. Social media in particular can be a source of false information and we need people to be able to look at sources critically and make up their own minds rather than be influenced by false information. The same goes for AI which is getting more sophisticated and being used by people to push fake news. It is not just social media that is used for this purpose, it is used in politics too. People should be able to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Schools should be teaching critical thinking skills as part of the wider curriculum, rather than timetabling separate lessons for it, so that students are developing critical thinking skills when they study various subjects. This means that teachers are aware of developing this in all of their lessons. Students will enjoy learning that is focused on critical thinking skills as this will provide an interesting way to learn. Students should be taught to consider both sides of an argument and this should be made fun for them and encouraged by teachers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - All participants agreed that critical thinking is an important skill for all people to have and is more important than ever in today's society where so much information is readily available. Social media in particular can be a source of false information and we need people to be able to look at sources critically and make up their own minds rather than be influenced by false information. The same goes for AI which is getting more sophisticated and being used by people to push fake news. It is not just social media that is used for this purpose, it is used in politics too. People should be able to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Schools should be teaching critical thinking skills, but in a light touch way that does not add to the stress of young people already preparing for exams. This should be part of a wider curriculum so that students are developing critical thinking skills when they study various subjects, rather than having timetabled lessons that are dedicated to critical thinking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Critical thinking is an important skill for all people to have and is more important than ever in today's society where so much information is readily available. Social media in particular can be a source of false information and we need people to be able to look at sources critically and make up their own minds rather than be influenced by false information. The same goes for AI which is getting more sophisticated and being used by people to push fake news. It is not just social media that is used for this purpose, it is used in politics too. People should be able to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Schools should be teaching critical thinking skills, but in a light touch way that does not add to the stress of young people already preparing for exams. This should be part of a wider curriculum so that students are developing critical thinking skills when they study various subjects, rather than having timetabled lessons that are dedicated to critical thinking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: Participants agreed that critical thinking is an important skill for all people to have and is more important than ever in today's society where so much information is readily available. Social media in particular can be a source of false information and we need people to be able to look at sources critically and make up their own minds rather than be influenced by false information. The same goes for AI which is getting more sophisticated and being used by people to push fake news. It is not just social media that is used for this purpose, it is used in politics too. People should be able to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Schools should be teaching critical thinking skills as part of the wider curriculum, rather than timetabling separate lessons for it, so that students are developing critical thinking skills when they study various subjects. This means that teachers are aware of developing this in all of their lessons. Students will enjoy learning that is focused on critical thinking skills as this will provide an interesting way to learn. Students should be taught to consider both sides of an argument and this should be made fun for them and encouraged by teachers. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002025.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002025.soc index bcb8e928..fcf439eb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002025.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002025.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is the government’s role to help protect the environment. If they lead by example and create the right laws, they can help everyone protect the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government has a role to play in protecting the environment. They can do this by setting an example and by encouraging others to follow. The government can also put in place laws and policies to protect the environment and to ensure that we are all doing our part. The government can also work with other countries to help protect the environment on a global scale. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We feel that it is the governments responsibility to pass on the message that the world is a fragile place and needs protecting. They can help by making people aware of the issues that are going on and how everyone can do their part to protect the environment. The government also need to show that they are taking responsibility for protecting the environment by helping with new schemes and showing people how to help the environment. This could be done by encouraging recycling, raising awareness, or getting involved in schemes to try and protect the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government has a responsibility to help protect the environment. They can do this by implementing policies that help people and companies invest into protecting the environment. They can also help show people how to do small things to start making a change. The government needs to be driving the laws and structure to ensure that companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government should be passing laws that keep our land, air and sea safe. They should be demanding that other countries agree to laws and treaties that make the world a safer place and that we are all doing less harm to the environment now and for future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is the government’s role to help protect the environment. If they lead by example and create the right laws, they can help everyone protect the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government has a role to play in protecting the environment. They can do this by setting an example and by encouraging others to follow. The government can also put in place laws and policies to protect the environment and to ensure that we are all doing our part. The government can also work with other countries to help protect the environment on a global scale. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We feel that it is the governments responsibility to pass on the message that the world is a fragile place and needs protecting. They can help by making people aware of the issues that are going on and how everyone can do their part to protect the environment. The government also need to show that they are taking responsibility for protecting the environment by helping with new schemes and showing people how to help the environment. This could be done by encouraging recycling, raising awareness, or getting involved in schemes to try and protect the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government has a responsibility to help protect the environment. They can do this by implementing policies that help people and companies invest into protecting the environment. They can also help show people how to do small things to start making a change. The government needs to be driving the laws and structure to ensure that companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government should be passing laws that keep our land, air and sea safe. They should be demanding that other countries agree to laws and treaties that make the world a safer place and that we are all doing less harm to the environment now and for future generations. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002026.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002026.soc index 5e6bb5b3..dfb2a53d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002026.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002026.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity measures can be a good idea if they are paired with initiatives that stimulate the economy. Austerity can hurt the economy and hinder growth if it is used as a standalone approach. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. Austerity hurts the economy short-term and people have less money to spend as a result. Public services get cut which cannot be a good thing, especially for those of a lower income. The way to get out of an economic downturn is to keep cash flowing throughout society. Spending to create jobs can also work. However, in some instances, you need to spend money to create money. If money was spent on social services, people would have more money to spend in shops because they wouldn't need to spend every penny surviving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While austerity may be a part of a solution to an economic downturn, it should be considered in the context of the prevailing economic conditions. Under some circumstances, austerity is not appropriate. For example, if the economy is already operating at or below its potential output, then there is no benefit to imposing austerity. Additionally, in times of crisis, such as after a natural disaster or other external shock, austerity may not be appropriate. The key is to judge whether the money spent by the government will result in a larger increase in output than the money spent by private individuals and firms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. We think that there are other options that are more effective. The government should invest in creating jobs and in social services. This would give people more money to spend and would increase the amount of cash flowing throughout society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity measures can be a good idea if they are paired with initiatives that stimulate the economy. Austerity can hurt the economy and hinder growth if it is used as a standalone approach. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. Austerity hurts the economy short-term and people have less money to spend as a result. Public services get cut which cannot be a good thing, especially for those of a lower income. The way to get out of an economic downturn is to keep cash flowing throughout society. Spending to create jobs can also work. However, in some instances, you need to spend money to create money. If money was spent on social services, people would have more money to spend in shops because they wouldn't need to spend every penny surviving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While austerity may be a part of a solution to an economic downturn, it should be considered in the context of the prevailing economic conditions. Under some circumstances, austerity is not appropriate. For example, if the economy is already operating at or below its potential output, then there is no benefit to imposing austerity. Additionally, in times of crisis, such as after a natural disaster or other external shock, austerity may not be appropriate. The key is to judge whether the money spent by the government will result in a larger increase in output than the money spent by private individuals and firms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. We think that there are other options that are more effective. The government should invest in creating jobs and in social services. This would give people more money to spend and would increase the amount of cash flowing throughout society. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002027.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002027.soc index 73b86d5a..56b8b9c9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002027.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002027.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. The ancient forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, many of these species would become extinct. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. It is very important that we conserve our natural resources so that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy them and for us to be able to continue to enjoy them. There are other places where humans can grow food and we should look at alternatives for growing food so that ancient forests do not have to be destroyed. It is important that we explore other means of food production so that the natural balance is maintained. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not ethical to cut down ancient forests. The ancient trees are there for future generations and as well as us, to enjoy and explore. Ancient forests are often beautiful and if cut down would look terrible. Humans need food but it is not worth it to cut down forests for that. The human race will survive without having to cut down forests and therefore it is best to leave them alone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to cutting down ancient forests to grow food for humans. The group felt that humans had other options and that cutting down ancient forests was an extremely violent act towards the environment. The group also felt that alternatives to ensure that ancient forests weren't cut down should be explored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. The ancient forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, many of these species would become extinct. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. It is very important that we conserve our natural resources so that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy them and for us to be able to continue to enjoy them. There are other places where humans can grow food and we should look at alternatives for growing food so that ancient forests do not have to be destroyed. It is important that we explore other means of food production so that the natural balance is maintained. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not ethical to cut down ancient forests. The ancient trees are there for future generations and as well as us, to enjoy and explore. Ancient forests are often beautiful and if cut down would look terrible. Humans need food but it is not worth it to cut down forests for that. The human race will survive without having to cut down forests and therefore it is best to leave them alone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to cutting down ancient forests to grow food for humans. The group felt that humans had other options and that cutting down ancient forests was an extremely violent act towards the environment. The group also felt that alternatives to ensure that ancient forests weren't cut down should be explored. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002028.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002028.soc index 27b3108a..93d9a999 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002028.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002028.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Britain does have a debt problem but it is not insurmountable. Britain has faced major problems before and if it can borrow and invest wisely, the debt problem can be managed and will reduce over time. The problem is that Britain does not have a high GDP and also does not have a high saving rate, which can lead to major inflationary problems. This is bad news for the economy. If the economy is bad, this means people have a lower standard of living and spend less, which is then bad for the government because they get less tax and this can lead to even more debt. The answer is to get the economy moving, grow the GDP, and find ways of spending more efficiently. The consensus view was that this is a huge challenge for the government but one that can be achieved. The government needs to look for long-term solutions to the debt problem. It is not easy but it is possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Britain does have a debt problem and it is significant. The problem is exacerbated by Covid-19 and Brexit. Due to the debt and unwillingness to borrow more money people are facing inflation, recession and are unable to obtain a pay rise that is in line with inflation. This is leading to a poor standard of living for many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Britain does have a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, we lost our AAA rating and are struggling to deal with inflation and recession. This has led to a significant cost of living crisis, people can’t afford to live and they have been promised pay rises in line with inflation, these have not materialised due to the high levels of debt. The UK government need to come up with a plan to address this debt and to help people cope with inflation and recession. We are going through difficult times but we need to deal with this debt, and come up with a plan to manage it and to keep it from growing further. The debt needs to be dealt with now, before it spirals out of control.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The UK has a debt problem that is a significant issue for the country. The UK is still funding Brexit and the war in Ukraine and the migrant crisis. The debt is growing and the UK is now unable to borrow money cheaply. The UK has lost its AAA rating and the debt is now unsustainable. The UK is also in the middle of a cost of living crisis. This is leading to a poor standard of living for many people. This is due to the debt and the unwillingness to borrow more money. The government is unable to help people in crisis and provide pay rises in line with inflation. The debt is a serious problem for the UK.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Britain does have a debt problem but it is not insurmountable. Britain has faced major problems before and if it can borrow and invest wisely, the debt problem can be managed and will reduce over time. The problem is that Britain does not have a high GDP and also does not have a high saving rate, which can lead to major inflationary problems. This is bad news for the economy. If the economy is bad, this means people have a lower standard of living and spend less, which is then bad for the government because they get less tax and this can lead to even more debt. The answer is to get the economy moving, grow the GDP, and find ways of spending more efficiently. The consensus view was that this is a huge challenge for the government but one that can be achieved. The government needs to look for long-term solutions to the debt problem. It is not easy but it is possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Britain does have a debt problem and it is significant. The problem is exacerbated by Covid-19 and Brexit. Due to the debt and unwillingness to borrow more money people are facing inflation, recession and are unable to obtain a pay rise that is in line with inflation. This is leading to a poor standard of living for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Britain does have a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, we lost our AAA rating and are struggling to deal with inflation and recession. This has led to a significant cost of living crisis, people can’t afford to live and they have been promised pay rises in line with inflation, these have not materialised due to the high levels of debt. The UK government need to come up with a plan to address this debt and to help people cope with inflation and recession. We are going through difficult times but we need to deal with this debt, and come up with a plan to manage it and to keep it from growing further. The debt needs to be dealt with now, before it spirals out of control.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The UK has a debt problem that is a significant issue for the country. The UK is still funding Brexit and the war in Ukraine and the migrant crisis. The debt is growing and the UK is now unable to borrow money cheaply. The UK has lost its AAA rating and the debt is now unsustainable. The UK is also in the middle of a cost of living crisis. This is leading to a poor standard of living for many people. This is due to the debt and the unwillingness to borrow more money. The government is unable to help people in crisis and provide pay rises in line with inflation. The debt is a serious problem for the UK.” 2: 1,3,4,2 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002029.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002029.soc index b8ee4248..349a8a85 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002029.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002029.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be taught about the bible in school because it is an important part of western culture. This should be taught as a cultural and historical aspect rather than as a factual truth and should not be taught as part of a religious education. It should also be taught alongside all other religious books and cultures to avoid the impression that Christianity is the only religion. After some thought and deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that children should be taught about the bible in school. This is because it is an important part of culture in western countries, even if some do not believe in it. Furthermore, the bible teaches important principles that should be understood by children in order to gain a holistic education. For instance, the bible teaches children to treat others with respect and not to lie, both important values to have. This does not mean children should be taught to believe in God, however, they should be given the opportunity to explore all religions in order to understand the world better and avoid discrimination of different cultures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be taught about the Bible in school. It is an important part of history and culture and is a good way to teach children about other cultures and ways of life. It is also a good way to teach children morals and values and to help them understand other people. It is important to teach children about all religions and not just Christianity. It is also important to teach children that not everyone believes in the Bible and that they should respect other people's beliefs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught about the bible in school. The Bible is an important part of history and culture, and the principles of the bible are good principles to adopt. The bible is also important because it has a lot of influence on our current language, music and culture, and it is important that children understand the impact of the Bible on our culture today. Furthermore, teaching about the Bible does not mean you are trying to turn children into Christians, and all religions should be taught in school because it is important children learn about all different cultures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be taught about the Bible in school. It is a very important part of our history and culture and is something that children should be aware of. It is also a very interesting subject and children should be able to learn about it if they want to. It is also important that children are aware of the Bible and the impact it has had on our society so that they can make informed decisions about their own beliefs. It is also important that children are aware of the Bible so that they can understand other people's beliefs and reduce discrimination. The Bible is also a very interesting book and children should be able to learn about it if they want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be taught about the bible in school because it is an important part of western culture. This should be taught as a cultural and historical aspect rather than as a factual truth and should not be taught as part of a religious education. It should also be taught alongside all other religious books and cultures to avoid the impression that Christianity is the only religion. After some thought and deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that children should be taught about the bible in school. This is because it is an important part of culture in western countries, even if some do not believe in it. Furthermore, the bible teaches important principles that should be understood by children in order to gain a holistic education. For instance, the bible teaches children to treat others with respect and not to lie, both important values to have. This does not mean children should be taught to believe in God, however, they should be given the opportunity to explore all religions in order to understand the world better and avoid discrimination of different cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be taught about the Bible in school. It is an important part of history and culture and is a good way to teach children about other cultures and ways of life. It is also a good way to teach children morals and values and to help them understand other people. It is important to teach children about all religions and not just Christianity. It is also important to teach children that not everyone believes in the Bible and that they should respect other people's beliefs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught about the bible in school. The Bible is an important part of history and culture, and the principles of the bible are good principles to adopt. The bible is also important because it has a lot of influence on our current language, music and culture, and it is important that children understand the impact of the Bible on our culture today. Furthermore, teaching about the Bible does not mean you are trying to turn children into Christians, and all religions should be taught in school because it is important children learn about all different cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be taught about the Bible in school. It is a very important part of our history and culture and is something that children should be aware of. It is also a very interesting subject and children should be able to learn about it if they want to. It is also important that children are aware of the Bible and the impact it has had on our society so that they can make informed decisions about their own beliefs. It is also important that children are aware of the Bible so that they can understand other people's beliefs and reduce discrimination. The Bible is also a very interesting book and children should be able to learn about it if they want to. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002030.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002030.soc index 09c83ead..4cca4a30 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002030.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002030.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While plastic pollution is a major problem around the world and poses a threat to wildlife, we are not in favour of making it illegal to buy bottled water in the UK. We believe that access to clean water should be a human right and so we are against making it illegal to buy bottled water. While we support initiatives such as drinking fountains in public places, we are aware that this is not yet widely available. People also have different needs when travelling abroad and so we are in favour of the sale of bottled water in airports. However, we do support the proposal of introducing a levy on the sale of bottled water. This would discourage people from buying bottled water in favour of refillable bottles and would hopefully provide an incentive for businesses to install drinking fountains in their premises. We also encourage people to recycle plastic bottles and any other plastics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although bottled water is convenient, it's damage outweighs its benefits and tap water would be a healthier and less harmful alternative. Bottled water is a massive contributor to plastic pollution around the globe, these discarded bottles are found in the ocean, landfills and contribute to the harm of wildlife. Though bottled water is convenient, its damage outweighs its benefits and tap water would be a healthier and less harmful alternative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Bottled water should not be made illegal. The group felt that this was the best option because bottled water is the healthiest option for hydration on-the-go and is a good alternative to fizzy or sugary drinks. The group also felt that the culture around reusing personal bottles needs to change significantly before we can stop people buying bottled water. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Bottled water is a massive contributor to plastic pollution around the globe, these discarded bottles are found in the ocean, landfills and contribute to the harm of wildlife. Though bottled water is convenient, its damage outweighs its benefits and tap water would be a healthier and less harmful alternative. However, there are many instances where people need access to bottled water. For example, when travelling abroad bottled water may also be necessary for hygiene reasons. Also, when travelling in the UK, tap water may not always be drinkable and people may need to buy bottled water. Overall, we don't think that bottled water should be made illegal, however we believe that people should be encouraged to avoid resorting to buying bottled water wherever possible and should make every reasonable attempt to prevent it and use a refillable bottle instead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While plastic pollution is a major problem around the world and poses a threat to wildlife, we are not in favour of making it illegal to buy bottled water in the UK. We believe that access to clean water should be a human right and so we are against making it illegal to buy bottled water. While we support initiatives such as drinking fountains in public places, we are aware that this is not yet widely available. People also have different needs when travelling abroad and so we are in favour of the sale of bottled water in airports. However, we do support the proposal of introducing a levy on the sale of bottled water. This would discourage people from buying bottled water in favour of refillable bottles and would hopefully provide an incentive for businesses to install drinking fountains in their premises. We also encourage people to recycle plastic bottles and any other plastics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although bottled water is convenient, it's damage outweighs its benefits and tap water would be a healthier and less harmful alternative. Bottled water is a massive contributor to plastic pollution around the globe, these discarded bottles are found in the ocean, landfills and contribute to the harm of wildlife. Though bottled water is convenient, its damage outweighs its benefits and tap water would be a healthier and less harmful alternative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Bottled water should not be made illegal. The group felt that this was the best option because bottled water is the healthiest option for hydration on-the-go and is a good alternative to fizzy or sugary drinks. The group also felt that the culture around reusing personal bottles needs to change significantly before we can stop people buying bottled water. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Bottled water is a massive contributor to plastic pollution around the globe, these discarded bottles are found in the ocean, landfills and contribute to the harm of wildlife. Though bottled water is convenient, its damage outweighs its benefits and tap water would be a healthier and less harmful alternative. However, there are many instances where people need access to bottled water. For example, when travelling abroad bottled water may also be necessary for hygiene reasons. Also, when travelling in the UK, tap water may not always be drinkable and people may need to buy bottled water. Overall, we don't think that bottled water should be made illegal, however we believe that people should be encouraged to avoid resorting to buying bottled water wherever possible and should make every reasonable attempt to prevent it and use a refillable bottle instead. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002031.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002031.soc index b774bd4a..fb6c19d4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002031.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002031.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the process of becoming a member of parliament is not particularly difficult, but there are some aspects of it that are not ideal. There is a tendency for people to get selected on the basis of party political considerations rather than competence, and this should be discouraged. The process could also be made more accessible to people from a wider range of backgrounds, including people who have not previously been involved in politics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I don't think it is particularly hard or easy to become an MP, but the criteria for selection are not necessarily the best ones to ensure that we have good MPs. I think there should be a more formal process for assessing candidates, including perhaps an interview or some kind of formal assessment of ability and competence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not clear that it should be made easier to become an MP, although there are certainly more people who could do the job and who would like to do the job than those who actually do it. It would be better if political parties were more honest about the selection process, and the criteria for selection. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of making it easier to become a member of parliament. However, the group also recognised that this is not as simple as it sounds. The current system is not working, but it is not clear that making it easier to become an MP would necessarily lead to a better outcome. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the process of becoming a member of parliament is not particularly difficult, but there are some aspects of it that are not ideal. There is a tendency for people to get selected on the basis of party political considerations rather than competence, and this should be discouraged. The process could also be made more accessible to people from a wider range of backgrounds, including people who have not previously been involved in politics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I don't think it is particularly hard or easy to become an MP, but the criteria for selection are not necessarily the best ones to ensure that we have good MPs. I think there should be a more formal process for assessing candidates, including perhaps an interview or some kind of formal assessment of ability and competence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not clear that it should be made easier to become an MP, although there are certainly more people who could do the job and who would like to do the job than those who actually do it. It would be better if political parties were more honest about the selection process, and the criteria for selection. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of making it easier to become a member of parliament. However, the group also recognised that this is not as simple as it sounds. The current system is not working, but it is not clear that making it easier to become an MP would necessarily lead to a better outcome. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002032.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002032.soc index 6493437b..ce6b18aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002032.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002032.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While it is important for the government to try and reduce the burden on the NHS, we do not believe that mandating businesses to contribute is the best way to go about this. It is true that the extra costs on businesses would contribute to the welfare of the country and its citizens, however, there are other ways to achieve this without burdening businesses. For example, taxing businesses and individuals more, or adding a health surcharge on unhealthy foods and products would allow for the same results to be achieved without taxing businesses directly. We understand the argument for taxing businesses is that the money is not just going into the NHS, but also into government welfare, however, the taxes from businesses are still contributing to the NHS and, as a result, this would still help reduce the burden on the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there are arguments on both sides of the spectrum, we believe that the government should mandate that businesses contribute to a fund to provide universal health care. However, the scheme must be fair and apply to all organisations. The principle that employers have a duty of care to their employees is vital to maintaining the health and productivity of workers. Moreover, by incentivising workers through healthcare, businesses can foster a more positive workplace environment. From a practical standpoint, a universal health care system is an important component of healthcare, and as such, businesses will always have to contribute in some form. As this is the case, businesses should have a say in how their contributions are used. Conclusion I believe that this experience was important as it showed that everyone can come together to form a cohesive opinion. It shows that as long as you listen to other's opinions, you can create a constructive dialogue that leads to a favourable conclusion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Businesses should not be mandated to contribute to UHC. This is because it would impact smaller businesses more than larger ones, and this would not be fair. Also, if businesses were mandated to contribute to UHC, they may find ways of avoiding it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Businesses should not be mandated to contribute to a fund to provide universal health care. They already contribute through their corporate tax. The government should not be able to mandate businesses to contribute to a fund that provides health care as it would be an extra financial burden on businesses, especially smaller businesses. The government should not be able to mandate businesses to contribute to a fund that provides health care as businesses have worked hard to get to where they are. It is unfair that they should be made to pay higher taxes to support fully able people who are too lazy to get a job. Businesses should not be mandated to contribute to a fund that provides health care as it is important that businesses have a duty of care to their employees, and there is mutual benefit for both parties involved. There should possibly be a scale whereby tenure is linked to the extent of coverage, with a probationary period not allowing for coverage. It is key to the operations of an organisation that its employees are in good health and are able to access healthcare provision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is important for the government to try and reduce the burden on the NHS, we do not believe that mandating businesses to contribute is the best way to go about this. It is true that the extra costs on businesses would contribute to the welfare of the country and its citizens, however, there are other ways to achieve this without burdening businesses. For example, taxing businesses and individuals more, or adding a health surcharge on unhealthy foods and products would allow for the same results to be achieved without taxing businesses directly. We understand the argument for taxing businesses is that the money is not just going into the NHS, but also into government welfare, however, the taxes from businesses are still contributing to the NHS and, as a result, this would still help reduce the burden on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there are arguments on both sides of the spectrum, we believe that the government should mandate that businesses contribute to a fund to provide universal health care. However, the scheme must be fair and apply to all organisations. The principle that employers have a duty of care to their employees is vital to maintaining the health and productivity of workers. Moreover, by incentivising workers through healthcare, businesses can foster a more positive workplace environment. From a practical standpoint, a universal health care system is an important component of healthcare, and as such, businesses will always have to contribute in some form. As this is the case, businesses should have a say in how their contributions are used. Conclusion I believe that this experience was important as it showed that everyone can come together to form a cohesive opinion. It shows that as long as you listen to other's opinions, you can create a constructive dialogue that leads to a favourable conclusion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Businesses should not be mandated to contribute to UHC. This is because it would impact smaller businesses more than larger ones, and this would not be fair. Also, if businesses were mandated to contribute to UHC, they may find ways of avoiding it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Businesses should not be mandated to contribute to a fund to provide universal health care. They already contribute through their corporate tax. The government should not be able to mandate businesses to contribute to a fund that provides health care as it would be an extra financial burden on businesses, especially smaller businesses. The government should not be able to mandate businesses to contribute to a fund that provides health care as businesses have worked hard to get to where they are. It is unfair that they should be made to pay higher taxes to support fully able people who are too lazy to get a job. Businesses should not be mandated to contribute to a fund that provides health care as it is important that businesses have a duty of care to their employees, and there is mutual benefit for both parties involved. There should possibly be a scale whereby tenure is linked to the extent of coverage, with a probationary period not allowing for coverage. It is key to the operations of an organisation that its employees are in good health and are able to access healthcare provision. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002033.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002033.soc index 9cbd0823..dcdf0fc5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002033.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002033.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was agreed that the public are too focused on blaming the actions of consumers for the current environmental issues, whereas the biggest cause of environmental destruction is the largest corporations and their unethical, profit driven decisions. As we move towards the future, more and more of these corporations will have to make the decision to be more ethical in their business practices, or they will face much higher taxes and penalties. It is the government's responsibility to protect the environment, but ultimately it is up to the people to elect the government who they think is most suitable to do so. It was also agreed that education is a big part of protecting the environment, with schools making an effort to educate children on environmental issues and how they can play a part in protecting the environment. However, education alone will not solve the issue. We need to be willing to put in effort and money to protect the environment, and only then will we see a positive change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the average person is trying to do their part to help protect the environment. However, it is difficult for the average person to have a big impact on the environment as the biggest polluters are the large corporations and the government. The average person can only do so much as the people in power are the ones that need to change the way they act. The government and large corporations are not doing enough to protect the environment and need to be pressured to do more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is more that can be done to protect the environment. However, it is the responsibility of the people with the most power to make the biggest changes. We can make small changes individually, but these will not make a big enough difference. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although there are a number of individuals who are taking steps to protect the environment, there are still more steps to be taken by society and companies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was agreed that the public are too focused on blaming the actions of consumers for the current environmental issues, whereas the biggest cause of environmental destruction is the largest corporations and their unethical, profit driven decisions. As we move towards the future, more and more of these corporations will have to make the decision to be more ethical in their business practices, or they will face much higher taxes and penalties. It is the government's responsibility to protect the environment, but ultimately it is up to the people to elect the government who they think is most suitable to do so. It was also agreed that education is a big part of protecting the environment, with schools making an effort to educate children on environmental issues and how they can play a part in protecting the environment. However, education alone will not solve the issue. We need to be willing to put in effort and money to protect the environment, and only then will we see a positive change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the average person is trying to do their part to help protect the environment. However, it is difficult for the average person to have a big impact on the environment as the biggest polluters are the large corporations and the government. The average person can only do so much as the people in power are the ones that need to change the way they act. The government and large corporations are not doing enough to protect the environment and need to be pressured to do more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is more that can be done to protect the environment. However, it is the responsibility of the people with the most power to make the biggest changes. We can make small changes individually, but these will not make a big enough difference. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although there are a number of individuals who are taking steps to protect the environment, there are still more steps to be taken by society and companies. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002034.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002034.soc index a4759719..4608194f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002034.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002034.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. Austerity hurts the economy short-term and people have less money to spend as a result. Public services get cut which cannot be a good thing, especially for those of a lower income. The way to get out of an economic downturn is to keep cash flowing throughout society. In some instances, you need to spend money to create money. If money was spent on social services, people would have more money to spend in shops because they wouldn't need to spend every penny surviving. Spending to create jobs can also work. Investment in public services could improve public health and wellbeing, enabling people to stay in work and use less resources such as the NHS. However, some restrictions would be necessary perhaps, but it can prohibit growth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that austerity is not the best policy when it comes to an economic downturn. We feel that some restrictions on spending may be needed, but we don't think a complete cut of any spending is the best idea because it stunts economic growth and makes it more difficult for entrepreneurs and businesses to invest in new businesses. There needs to be some money in the system to keep the economy going - however we believe that benefits, public services, etc. are not the way to do it. The best way to get out of an economic downturn is to spend money on jobs. This will get the economy going again in the long run and the money spent on the jobs should, in theory, generate income for businesses to create more jobs. However, there is also something in the idea of investing in social services, as people will have more money to spend in shops if they do not need to spend every penny surviving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. Austerity hurts the economy short-term and people have less money to spend as a result. Public services get cut which cannot be a good thing, especially for those of a lower income. The way to get out of an economic downturn is to keep cash flowing throughout society. Spending to create jobs can also work. However, in some instances, you need to spend money to create money. If money was spent on public services, people would have more money to spend in shops because they wouldn't need to spend every penny surviving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. It hurts the economy short-term and people have less money to spend as a result. Public services get cut which cannot be a good thing, especially for those of a lower income. The way to get out of an economic downturn is to keep cash flowing throughout society. Spending to create jobs can also work. If money was spent on social services, people would have more money to spend in shops because they wouldn't need to spend every penny surviving. Discussion: This exercise taught the group a lot about the Delphi method, particularly that expert consensus views are not necessarily the best ones, and that other opinions deserve equal consideration. Not everything makes sense when you first read it, and that's perfectly okay - that's where reviewing, and critiquing comes into play. What this group learned is that it takes open-mindedness, and acceptance of others to really reach a consensus. Their group philosophy was that everyone is equal - no matter what race, class, sexual orientation, religious belief or political orientation. It is this philosophy that lead them to realize that they all shared more in common than they didn't +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. Austerity hurts the economy short-term and people have less money to spend as a result. Public services get cut which cannot be a good thing, especially for those of a lower income. The way to get out of an economic downturn is to keep cash flowing throughout society. In some instances, you need to spend money to create money. If money was spent on social services, people would have more money to spend in shops because they wouldn't need to spend every penny surviving. Spending to create jobs can also work. Investment in public services could improve public health and wellbeing, enabling people to stay in work and use less resources such as the NHS. However, some restrictions would be necessary perhaps, but it can prohibit growth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that austerity is not the best policy when it comes to an economic downturn. We feel that some restrictions on spending may be needed, but we don't think a complete cut of any spending is the best idea because it stunts economic growth and makes it more difficult for entrepreneurs and businesses to invest in new businesses. There needs to be some money in the system to keep the economy going - however we believe that benefits, public services, etc. are not the way to do it. The best way to get out of an economic downturn is to spend money on jobs. This will get the economy going again in the long run and the money spent on the jobs should, in theory, generate income for businesses to create more jobs. However, there is also something in the idea of investing in social services, as people will have more money to spend in shops if they do not need to spend every penny surviving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. Austerity hurts the economy short-term and people have less money to spend as a result. Public services get cut which cannot be a good thing, especially for those of a lower income. The way to get out of an economic downturn is to keep cash flowing throughout society. Spending to create jobs can also work. However, in some instances, you need to spend money to create money. If money was spent on public services, people would have more money to spend in shops because they wouldn't need to spend every penny surviving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. It hurts the economy short-term and people have less money to spend as a result. Public services get cut which cannot be a good thing, especially for those of a lower income. The way to get out of an economic downturn is to keep cash flowing throughout society. Spending to create jobs can also work. If money was spent on social services, people would have more money to spend in shops because they wouldn't need to spend every penny surviving. Discussion: This exercise taught the group a lot about the Delphi method, particularly that expert consensus views are not necessarily the best ones, and that other opinions deserve equal consideration. Not everything makes sense when you first read it, and that's perfectly okay - that's where reviewing, and critiquing comes into play. What this group learned is that it takes open-mindedness, and acceptance of others to really reach a consensus. Their group philosophy was that everyone is equal - no matter what race, class, sexual orientation, religious belief or political orientation. It is this philosophy that lead them to realize that they all shared more in common than they didn't 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002035.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002035.soc index 6386408e..38604abe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002035.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002035.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS should not offer individuals the right to buy a transplant. This would result in the richest people being allowed to receive organs while the poorest die. This is unconscionable. It may also create a market for organs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS should not offer individuals the right to buy a transplant. This would result in the richest people being allowed to receive organs while the poorest die. This is unconscionable. It may also create a market for organs. The NHS is there so that everyone can receive the same level of healthcare despite wealth. Transplants for medical reasons should only be undertaken in terms of medical need. This should not be dependent on means to pay. The NHS should not be considering transplants as an income raising procedure, and it is also morally wrong. I would also suggest it would bring in the unsavoury side of criminal acts to acquire said organs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not have the right to buy a transplant. This is because it would take away from people who are the most in need and is an unethical way of working. Transplants are a very expensive procedure and we would rather see this money being used in other ways to help the wider population. It also would be hard to control the source of the organs and could lead to exploitation of the vulnerable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS should not offer individuals the right to buy a transplant. This would result in the richest people being allowed to receive organs while the poorest die. This is unconscionable. It may also create a market for organs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS should not offer individuals the right to buy a transplant. This would result in the richest people being allowed to receive organs while the poorest die. This is unconscionable. It may also create a market for organs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS should not offer individuals the right to buy a transplant. This would result in the richest people being allowed to receive organs while the poorest die. This is unconscionable. It may also create a market for organs. The NHS is there so that everyone can receive the same level of healthcare despite wealth. Transplants for medical reasons should only be undertaken in terms of medical need. This should not be dependent on means to pay. The NHS should not be considering transplants as an income raising procedure, and it is also morally wrong. I would also suggest it would bring in the unsavoury side of criminal acts to acquire said organs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not have the right to buy a transplant. This is because it would take away from people who are the most in need and is an unethical way of working. Transplants are a very expensive procedure and we would rather see this money being used in other ways to help the wider population. It also would be hard to control the source of the organs and could lead to exploitation of the vulnerable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS should not offer individuals the right to buy a transplant. This would result in the richest people being allowed to receive organs while the poorest die. This is unconscionable. It may also create a market for organs. 3: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002036.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002036.soc index 785e7cfd..fbcb5607 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002036.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002036.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In conclusion, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, a lack of financial awareness taught to children in schools and a culture of consumerism. In the current crisis, debt is unavoidable for a lot of families, it is either rely on credit or not be able to afford to keep the house over your head or feed your children. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government needs to provide support to families and individuals to help them avoid getting into debt and help those who are in debt to get out of it.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Britain has a debt problem. Many Britons are using credit to get by and whilst this has been a necessity for many during COVID, the pandemic has highlighted that there are deep inequalities in our society. We believe there is a lack of financial education, particularly in schools, leading people to not be able to control their own finances, resulting in people relying more and more on credit. It is easy to fall into debt due to this, and often once people are in debt it can be very difficult to get out of it. We believe that governments are not doing enough to tackle this and are instead focusing on just bailing out banks rather than supporting the people. The Covid pandemic has exposed the need for a major change in our society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Britain does have a debt problem. The problem is that people are falling into debt more easily than ever. This is due to the cost of living crisis, as well as people being less financially aware. The government are working to get the country out of debt but it is a long process. The current crisis has made the debt problem worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Britain does have a debt problem. The high cost of living crisis is the main cause for people getting into debt, which has only been exacerbated during the current crisis. Individuals are unable to live within their means and are therefore getting into more and more debt. This is because the cost of living crisis is becoming ever more serious. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In conclusion, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, a lack of financial awareness taught to children in schools and a culture of consumerism. In the current crisis, debt is unavoidable for a lot of families, it is either rely on credit or not be able to afford to keep the house over your head or feed your children. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government needs to provide support to families and individuals to help them avoid getting into debt and help those who are in debt to get out of it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Britain has a debt problem. Many Britons are using credit to get by and whilst this has been a necessity for many during COVID, the pandemic has highlighted that there are deep inequalities in our society. We believe there is a lack of financial education, particularly in schools, leading people to not be able to control their own finances, resulting in people relying more and more on credit. It is easy to fall into debt due to this, and often once people are in debt it can be very difficult to get out of it. We believe that governments are not doing enough to tackle this and are instead focusing on just bailing out banks rather than supporting the people. The Covid pandemic has exposed the need for a major change in our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Britain does have a debt problem. The problem is that people are falling into debt more easily than ever. This is due to the cost of living crisis, as well as people being less financially aware. The government are working to get the country out of debt but it is a long process. The current crisis has made the debt problem worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Britain does have a debt problem. The high cost of living crisis is the main cause for people getting into debt, which has only been exacerbated during the current crisis. Individuals are unable to live within their means and are therefore getting into more and more debt. This is because the cost of living crisis is becoming ever more serious. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002037.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002037.soc index a65e724c..20d2bf25 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002037.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002037.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. The number of days should be decided by the school in conjunction with the parents and children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. This ensures that schools can meet the statutory requirements for education in the UK and children get the education they need to thrive. It also ensures that schools can continue to provide a safe place for children to be, for example from neglect at home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year is a good idea. This is because it ensures that children are getting the best education available to them, and it also provides a safe space for a lot of children. However, it is important to note that every school is different and what works for one school may not necessarily work for another. Therefore, schools should have the freedom to choose when they want to be open, now there are so many ways of teaching that don't just involve a classroom. For older students they may benefit from learning at home some times, and for younger students it is important that they have a safe space to go to and that they are able to get the best education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. School days are crucial for the growth and development of students, as they are when students learn the most. With the rising cost of education, parents are relying more and more on their schools to educate their children, which is why it is essential that they are open a set number of days a year to allow children to progress in their learning. School is also an essential place for students to develop social skills, and therefore if schools were to be closed for extended periods of time, students would be likely to develop negative social skills, which may affect them throughout their lives.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. The number of days should be decided by the school in conjunction with the parents and children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. This ensures that schools can meet the statutory requirements for education in the UK and children get the education they need to thrive. It also ensures that schools can continue to provide a safe place for children to be, for example from neglect at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year is a good idea. This is because it ensures that children are getting the best education available to them, and it also provides a safe space for a lot of children. However, it is important to note that every school is different and what works for one school may not necessarily work for another. Therefore, schools should have the freedom to choose when they want to be open, now there are so many ways of teaching that don't just involve a classroom. For older students they may benefit from learning at home some times, and for younger students it is important that they have a safe space to go to and that they are able to get the best education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. School days are crucial for the growth and development of students, as they are when students learn the most. With the rising cost of education, parents are relying more and more on their schools to educate their children, which is why it is essential that they are open a set number of days a year to allow children to progress in their learning. School is also an essential place for students to develop social skills, and therefore if schools were to be closed for extended periods of time, students would be likely to develop negative social skills, which may affect them throughout their lives.” 2: 2,4,1,3 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002038.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002038.soc index f4c746a8..4b4c5f11 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002038.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002038.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Consensus view: The government has an obligation to help protect the environment. They can take the lead to guide the people and companies and industries in taking care of the environment. They can set policies for people, and for the companies to follow. They can help show how to do small things to start making a change to protect the environment. The government needs to drive the laws and regulations, to ensure that the companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government can pass laws to ensure that our land air and sea are protected. They can ensure that the rules they have made, make their way to other countries so that we can all do less harm to the environment now and for the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government has a responsibility to help protect the environment. The government can do this by implementing policies that help people and companies invest into protecting the environment. They can also help show people how to do small things to start making a change. The government needs to be driving the laws and structure to ensure that companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government should be passing laws that keep our land, air and sea safe. They should be demanding that other countries agree to laws and treaties that make the world a safer place and that we are all doing less harm to the environment now and for future generations. This project was meant to be a fun and interactive way of getting the message across to the public that we need to start protecting our environment. It is very easy to see that the group did a very good job of negotiating their differences and coming to an agreement on the final consensus statement. In fact, if I had not known that this was a project for a college class, I would have thought that this was a real life example of a group of people coming together to discuss a very important topic and to try to come to a consensus on what to do. This project shows that -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government has a responsibility to help protect the environment. They can do this by implementing policies that help people and companies invest into protecting the environment. They can also help show people how to do small things to start making a change. The government needs to be driving the laws and structure to ensure that companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government should be passing laws that keep our land, air and sea safe. They should be demanding that other countries agree to laws and treaties that make the world a safer place and that we are all doing less harm to the environment now and for future generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is the government’s responsibility to help protect the environment. They can do this by implementing policies that help people and companies invest into protecting the environment. They can also help show people how to do small things to start making a change. The government needs to be driving the laws and structure to ensure that companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government should be passing laws that keep our land, air and sea safe. They should be demanding that other countries agree to laws and treaties that make the world a safer place and that we are all doing less harm to the environment now and for future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Consensus view: The government has an obligation to help protect the environment. They can take the lead to guide the people and companies and industries in taking care of the environment. They can set policies for people, and for the companies to follow. They can help show how to do small things to start making a change to protect the environment. The government needs to drive the laws and regulations, to ensure that the companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government can pass laws to ensure that our land air and sea are protected. They can ensure that the rules they have made, make their way to other countries so that we can all do less harm to the environment now and for the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government has a responsibility to help protect the environment. The government can do this by implementing policies that help people and companies invest into protecting the environment. They can also help show people how to do small things to start making a change. The government needs to be driving the laws and structure to ensure that companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government should be passing laws that keep our land, air and sea safe. They should be demanding that other countries agree to laws and treaties that make the world a safer place and that we are all doing less harm to the environment now and for future generations. This project was meant to be a fun and interactive way of getting the message across to the public that we need to start protecting our environment. It is very easy to see that the group did a very good job of negotiating their differences and coming to an agreement on the final consensus statement. In fact, if I had not known that this was a project for a college class, I would have thought that this was a real life example of a group of people coming together to discuss a very important topic and to try to come to a consensus on what to do. This project shows that +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government has a responsibility to help protect the environment. They can do this by implementing policies that help people and companies invest into protecting the environment. They can also help show people how to do small things to start making a change. The government needs to be driving the laws and structure to ensure that companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government should be passing laws that keep our land, air and sea safe. They should be demanding that other countries agree to laws and treaties that make the world a safer place and that we are all doing less harm to the environment now and for future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is the government’s responsibility to help protect the environment. They can do this by implementing policies that help people and companies invest into protecting the environment. They can also help show people how to do small things to start making a change. The government needs to be driving the laws and structure to ensure that companies and businesses are doing the right things to ensure that we are not damaging the environment. The government should be passing laws that keep our land, air and sea safe. They should be demanding that other countries agree to laws and treaties that make the world a safer place and that we are all doing less harm to the environment now and for future generations. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002039.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002039.soc index a07b7a7b..44176f6f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002039.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002039.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: We do not think it is ethical to cut down ancient forests to grow food. The forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, these species might become extinct. Also, we do not know what new diseases might be found in these forests or from the animals living there that could save our lives. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. The ancient forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, many of these species would become extinct. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. We should also look at farming practices and how we can improve them to produce more food, without having to cut down any trees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. The ancient forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, many of these species would become extinct. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. We have come to the consensus that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. The ancient forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, many of these species would become extinct. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: We do not think it is ethical to cut down ancient forests to grow food. The forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, these species might become extinct. Also, we do not know what new diseases might be found in these forests or from the animals living there that could save our lives. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. The ancient forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, many of these species would become extinct. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. We should also look at farming practices and how we can improve them to produce more food, without having to cut down any trees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. The ancient forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, many of these species would become extinct. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. We have come to the consensus that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to cut down ancient forests in order to grow food for humans. The ancient forests have been around for thousands of years and are a part of our history. The ancient forests are also home to many different species of animals and plants and if we were to cut them down, many of these species would become extinct. The ancient forests also help to keep our air clean and if we were to cut them down, the air quality would become worse and this would have a negative impact on our health. There are many other places that we could grow food, and therefore we should not cut down the ancient forests. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002040.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002040.soc index 9197ab83..ba564c2b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002040.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002040.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Britain does have a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, we lost our AAA rating and are struggling to deal with inflation and recession. This has led to a significant cost of living crisis, people can’t afford to live and they have been promised pay rises in line with inflation, these have not materialised due to the high levels of debt. The UK government need to come up with a plan to address this debt and to help people cope with inflation and recession. We are going through difficult times but we need to deal with this debt, and come up with a plan to manage it and to keep it from growing further. The debt needs to be dealt with now, before it spirals out of control. We need to increase taxes on the wealthy to provide the money to reduce the debt and to help the people.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Britain does have a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, we lost our AAA rating and are struggling to deal with inflation and recession. This has led to a significant cost of living crisis, people can’t afford to live and they have been promised pay rises in line with inflation, these have not materialised due to the high levels of debt. The UK government need to come up with a plan to address this debt and to help people cope with inflation and recession. We are going through difficult times but we need to deal with this debt, and come up with a plan to manage it and to keep it from growing further. The debt needs to be dealt with now, before it spirals out of control.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Britain has a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, and the UK government needs to come up with a plan to address this before it spirals out of control. Debt is part of the reason why we are facing recession and the high levels of inflation that are proving so difficult for people to cope with. A negative multiplier is in play, a cycle of stagnation and low investment (due to high levels of government debt) keeps unemployment high, which contributes to low demand, which contributes to lower economic growth and even higher levels of government debt. The government needs to put a plan in place to deal with the debt and to break the cycle of stagnation, high government debt and low economic growth. The cost of living crisis is real and is one of the consequences of the debt problem facing the UK at this point in time. The government needs to take action to control the debt, to get the country back into a positive growth phase and to enable pay rises to be passed on to workers (in line with inflation). If this issue is ignored for too long, the problems will become harder to deal with and the consequences could be far worse.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Britain does have a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, we lost our AAA rating and are struggling to deal with inflation and recession. This has led to a significant cost of living crisis, people can’t afford to live and they have been promised pay rises in line with inflation, these have not materialised due to the high levels of debt. The UK government need to come up with a plan to address this debt and to help people cope with inflation and recession. We are going through difficult times but we need to deal with this debt, and come up with a plan to manage it and to keep it from growing further. The debt needs to be dealt with now, before it spirals out of control. The causes of the debt are Brexit, the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic. This debt is affecting everyone, rich and poor alike, and everyone will be affected by the recession and by the cost of living crisis.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Britain does have a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, we lost our AAA rating and are struggling to deal with inflation and recession. This has led to a significant cost of living crisis, people can’t afford to live and they have been promised pay rises in line with inflation, these have not materialised due to the high levels of debt. The UK government need to come up with a plan to address this debt and to help people cope with inflation and recession. We are going through difficult times but we need to deal with this debt, and come up with a plan to manage it and to keep it from growing further. The debt needs to be dealt with now, before it spirals out of control. We need to increase taxes on the wealthy to provide the money to reduce the debt and to help the people.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Britain does have a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, we lost our AAA rating and are struggling to deal with inflation and recession. This has led to a significant cost of living crisis, people can’t afford to live and they have been promised pay rises in line with inflation, these have not materialised due to the high levels of debt. The UK government need to come up with a plan to address this debt and to help people cope with inflation and recession. We are going through difficult times but we need to deal with this debt, and come up with a plan to manage it and to keep it from growing further. The debt needs to be dealt with now, before it spirals out of control.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Britain has a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, and the UK government needs to come up with a plan to address this before it spirals out of control. Debt is part of the reason why we are facing recession and the high levels of inflation that are proving so difficult for people to cope with. A negative multiplier is in play, a cycle of stagnation and low investment (due to high levels of government debt) keeps unemployment high, which contributes to low demand, which contributes to lower economic growth and even higher levels of government debt. The government needs to put a plan in place to deal with the debt and to break the cycle of stagnation, high government debt and low economic growth. The cost of living crisis is real and is one of the consequences of the debt problem facing the UK at this point in time. The government needs to take action to control the debt, to get the country back into a positive growth phase and to enable pay rises to be passed on to workers (in line with inflation). If this issue is ignored for too long, the problems will become harder to deal with and the consequences could be far worse.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Britain does have a debt problem. The debt is in the billions, we lost our AAA rating and are struggling to deal with inflation and recession. This has led to a significant cost of living crisis, people can’t afford to live and they have been promised pay rises in line with inflation, these have not materialised due to the high levels of debt. The UK government need to come up with a plan to address this debt and to help people cope with inflation and recession. We are going through difficult times but we need to deal with this debt, and come up with a plan to manage it and to keep it from growing further. The debt needs to be dealt with now, before it spirals out of control. The causes of the debt are Brexit, the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic. This debt is affecting everyone, rich and poor alike, and everyone will be affected by the recession and by the cost of living crisis.” 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002041.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002041.soc index 9cc8fcb8..80f656ec 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002041.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002041.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be taught about the bible in school because it is an important part of western culture. This should be taught as a cultural and historical aspect rather than as a factual truth and should not be taught as part of a religious education. It should also be taught alongside all other religious books and cultures to avoid the impression that Christianity is the only religion. Furthermore, the bible teaches important principles that should be understood by children in order to gain a holistic education. For instance, the bible teaches children to treat others with respect and not to lie, both important values to have. This does not mean children should be taught to believe in God, however, they should be given the opportunity to explore all religions in order to understand the world better and avoid discrimination of different cultures. This statement was agreed by all participants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be taught about the bible in school in order to gain a better understanding of other cultures and religions. It should be taught as a cultural and historical aspect rather than as a factual truth and should not be taught as part of a religious education. In the UK, the bible should be taught in addition to the Koran because of the influence Christianity has had on history in this country. Furthermore, the bible teaches important principles that should be understood by children in order to gain a holistic education. For instance, the bible teaches children to treat others with respect and not to lie, both important values to have. This does not mean children should be taught to believe in God, however, they should be given the opportunity to explore all religions in order to understand the world better and avoid discrimination of different cultures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught about the bible in school. The bible can be taught as an important cultural and historical text, which teaches important principles and values that all children should understand and follow. This does not mean children should be forced to believe in god and it does not mean teaching about the bible should form the basis of a religious education, as this would be extremely divisive. However, teaching about the bible in conjunction with other religious books, in order to ensure children are educated about all different cultures and avoid discrimination, is highly valuable in children's education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be taught about the bible in school because it is an important part of culture in western countries, even if some do not believe in it. This should be taught as a cultural and historical aspect rather than as a factual truth and should not be taught as part of a religious education. It should also be taught alongside all other religious books and cultures to avoid the impression that Christianity is the only religion. Furthermore, the bible teaches important principles that should be understood by children in order to gain a holistic education. For instance, the bible teaches children to treat others with respect and not to lie, both important values to have. This does not mean children should be taught to believe in God, however, they should be given the opportunity to explore all religions in order to understand the world better and avoid discrimination of different cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be taught about the bible in school because it is an important part of western culture. This should be taught as a cultural and historical aspect rather than as a factual truth and should not be taught as part of a religious education. It should also be taught alongside all other religious books and cultures to avoid the impression that Christianity is the only religion. Furthermore, the bible teaches important principles that should be understood by children in order to gain a holistic education. For instance, the bible teaches children to treat others with respect and not to lie, both important values to have. This does not mean children should be taught to believe in God, however, they should be given the opportunity to explore all religions in order to understand the world better and avoid discrimination of different cultures. This statement was agreed by all participants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be taught about the bible in school in order to gain a better understanding of other cultures and religions. It should be taught as a cultural and historical aspect rather than as a factual truth and should not be taught as part of a religious education. In the UK, the bible should be taught in addition to the Koran because of the influence Christianity has had on history in this country. Furthermore, the bible teaches important principles that should be understood by children in order to gain a holistic education. For instance, the bible teaches children to treat others with respect and not to lie, both important values to have. This does not mean children should be taught to believe in God, however, they should be given the opportunity to explore all religions in order to understand the world better and avoid discrimination of different cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught about the bible in school. The bible can be taught as an important cultural and historical text, which teaches important principles and values that all children should understand and follow. This does not mean children should be forced to believe in god and it does not mean teaching about the bible should form the basis of a religious education, as this would be extremely divisive. However, teaching about the bible in conjunction with other religious books, in order to ensure children are educated about all different cultures and avoid discrimination, is highly valuable in children's education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be taught about the bible in school because it is an important part of culture in western countries, even if some do not believe in it. This should be taught as a cultural and historical aspect rather than as a factual truth and should not be taught as part of a religious education. It should also be taught alongside all other religious books and cultures to avoid the impression that Christianity is the only religion. Furthermore, the bible teaches important principles that should be understood by children in order to gain a holistic education. For instance, the bible teaches children to treat others with respect and not to lie, both important values to have. This does not mean children should be taught to believe in God, however, they should be given the opportunity to explore all religions in order to understand the world better and avoid discrimination of different cultures. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002042.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002042.soc index 64b04aa6..91555a90 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002042.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002042.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general the process of becoming a member of parliament is not particularly difficult, but there are some aspects of it that are not ideal. There is a tendency for people to get selected on the basis of party political considerations rather than competence, and this should be discouraged. As well as this, a wider range of backgrounds would be beneficial, but not as a purely cosmetic exercise. Another area in which the process could be improved is to make it more open, transparent and flexible, so that those who want to become members of parliament, even from non-political backgrounds, have the chance to express themselves and attempt to win public support for their views. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The process of becoming a member of parliament is, by its nature, difficult. It requires significant dedication of time, money and effort. Moreover, it can cause disruption to career, family and personal life. Nevertheless, our current system does not provide a perfect selection of people for this role. We need to move away from using party political considerations as the basis for selection. Candidates should be selected for their competence in a particular area or areas of work, with this competence being assessed before they take up the role. Efforts should also be made to widen the range of backgrounds from which candidates are drawn, which could include open applications for the role. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are some aspects of the process of becoming a member of parliament that are not ideal, in particular the tendency for people to be selected on the basis of party political considerations rather than competence, and this should be discouraged. The process could also be made more accessible to people from a wider range of backgrounds, including people who have not previously been involved in politics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the process of becoming a member of parliament is not particularly difficult, but there are some aspects of it that are not ideal. There is a tendency for people to get selected on the basis of party political considerations rather than competence, and this should be discouraged. The process could also be made more accessible to people from a wider range of backgrounds, including people who have not previously been involved in politics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general the process of becoming a member of parliament is not particularly difficult, but there are some aspects of it that are not ideal. There is a tendency for people to get selected on the basis of party political considerations rather than competence, and this should be discouraged. As well as this, a wider range of backgrounds would be beneficial, but not as a purely cosmetic exercise. Another area in which the process could be improved is to make it more open, transparent and flexible, so that those who want to become members of parliament, even from non-political backgrounds, have the chance to express themselves and attempt to win public support for their views. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The process of becoming a member of parliament is, by its nature, difficult. It requires significant dedication of time, money and effort. Moreover, it can cause disruption to career, family and personal life. Nevertheless, our current system does not provide a perfect selection of people for this role. We need to move away from using party political considerations as the basis for selection. Candidates should be selected for their competence in a particular area or areas of work, with this competence being assessed before they take up the role. Efforts should also be made to widen the range of backgrounds from which candidates are drawn, which could include open applications for the role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are some aspects of the process of becoming a member of parliament that are not ideal, in particular the tendency for people to be selected on the basis of party political considerations rather than competence, and this should be discouraged. The process could also be made more accessible to people from a wider range of backgrounds, including people who have not previously been involved in politics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the process of becoming a member of parliament is not particularly difficult, but there are some aspects of it that are not ideal. There is a tendency for people to get selected on the basis of party political considerations rather than competence, and this should be discouraged. The process could also be made more accessible to people from a wider range of backgrounds, including people who have not previously been involved in politics. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002043.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002043.soc index 1844fea0..aeadc233 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002043.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002043.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be taught to care for the elderly to respect their elders. Also, children should be taught to care for others. There is a reason why we have so many different generations. In our society we need all generations in order to function correctly. The elderly give wisdom and knowledge, and the children give hope and optimism. They each have a role to play, and if one is lost, the others will not function properly. The children should learn from their elders, so that when they are old, they can impart their wisdom to the younger generations. They should learn to love, respect and care for their elders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be taught to take care of the elderly. The elderly give wisdom and knowledge to the younger generations, and the children can learn from their elders. However, the elderly also need to be taken care of by the younger generations because they don't have as much time left, and the elderly can be vulnerable due to their health situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught to care for the elderly to respect their elders. Also, children should be taught to care for others. There is a reason why we have so many different generations. In our society we need all generations in order to function correctly. The elderly give wisdom and knowledge, and the children give hope and optimism. They each have a role to play, and if one is lost, the others will not function properly. The children should learn from their elders, so that when they are old, they can impart their wisdom to the younger generations. They should learn to love, respect and care for their elders. They should be taught to care for their elders to respect their elders. The children should also be taught to care for others as well. The elders give wisdom and knowledge and the children give hope and optimism. They each have a role to play, and if one is lost, the others will not function properly. The children should learn from their elders, so that when they are old, they can impart their wisdom to the younger generations. They should learn to love, respect and care for their elders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be taught to care for the elderly to respect their elders. Also, children should be taught to care for others. There is a reason why we have so many different generations. In our society we need all generations in order to function correctly. The elderly give wisdom and knowledge, and the children give hope and optimism. They each have a role to play, and if one is lost, the others will not function properly. The children should learn from their elders, so that when they are old, they can impart their wisdom to the younger generations. They should learn to love, respect and care for their elders. This will ensure that there is a balance between all generations and we have a more caring society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be taught to care for the elderly to respect their elders. Also, children should be taught to care for others. There is a reason why we have so many different generations. In our society we need all generations in order to function correctly. The elderly give wisdom and knowledge, and the children give hope and optimism. They each have a role to play, and if one is lost, the others will not function properly. The children should learn from their elders, so that when they are old, they can impart their wisdom to the younger generations. They should learn to love, respect and care for their elders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be taught to take care of the elderly. The elderly give wisdom and knowledge to the younger generations, and the children can learn from their elders. However, the elderly also need to be taken care of by the younger generations because they don't have as much time left, and the elderly can be vulnerable due to their health situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught to care for the elderly to respect their elders. Also, children should be taught to care for others. There is a reason why we have so many different generations. In our society we need all generations in order to function correctly. The elderly give wisdom and knowledge, and the children give hope and optimism. They each have a role to play, and if one is lost, the others will not function properly. The children should learn from their elders, so that when they are old, they can impart their wisdom to the younger generations. They should learn to love, respect and care for their elders. They should be taught to care for their elders to respect their elders. The children should also be taught to care for others as well. The elders give wisdom and knowledge and the children give hope and optimism. They each have a role to play, and if one is lost, the others will not function properly. The children should learn from their elders, so that when they are old, they can impart their wisdom to the younger generations. They should learn to love, respect and care for their elders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be taught to care for the elderly to respect their elders. Also, children should be taught to care for others. There is a reason why we have so many different generations. In our society we need all generations in order to function correctly. The elderly give wisdom and knowledge, and the children give hope and optimism. They each have a role to play, and if one is lost, the others will not function properly. The children should learn from their elders, so that when they are old, they can impart their wisdom to the younger generations. They should learn to love, respect and care for their elders. This will ensure that there is a balance between all generations and we have a more caring society. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002044.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002044.soc index 337cb79c..1531a80a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002044.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002044.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In conclusion, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, a lack of financial awareness taught to children in schools and a culture of consumerism. In the current crisis, debt is unavoidable for a lot of families, it is either rely on credit or not be able to afford to keep the house over your head or feed your children. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government needs to provide support to families and individuals to help them avoid getting into debt and help those who are in debt to get out of it. The economic crisis and cost of living crisis is certainly a factor in the level of debt being accumulated. However, the amount of debt is so high that this can’t be the only factor and our culture and way of life must play a role.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In conclusion, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, a lack of financial awareness taught to children in schools and a culture of consumerism. In the current crisis, debt is unavoidable for a lot of families, it is either rely on credit or not be able to afford to keep the house over your head or feed your children. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government needs to provide support to families and individuals to help them avoid getting into debt and help those who are in debt to get out of it. Furthermore, the cost of living crisis needs to be addressed, by scrapping austerity and investing in public services, such as the NHS, social care and education.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “In conclusion, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, a lack of financial awareness taught to children in schools and a culture of consumerism. In the current crisis, debt is unavoidable for a lot of families, it is either rely on credit or not be able to afford to keep the house over your head or feed your children. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government needs to provide support to families and individuals to help them avoid getting into debt and help those who are in debt to get out of it. In the long term, however, the government should be looking to avoid a situation where families and individuals are having to rely on credit in the first place, by providing the resources and support necessary for families to live comfortably on their incomes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, the lack of financial education in schools and a culture of consumerism. Unfortunately, it’s worse during the pandemic because debt is unavoidable for a lot of families. And our government needs to do more to help families and individuals to get out of debt.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In conclusion, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, a lack of financial awareness taught to children in schools and a culture of consumerism. In the current crisis, debt is unavoidable for a lot of families, it is either rely on credit or not be able to afford to keep the house over your head or feed your children. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government needs to provide support to families and individuals to help them avoid getting into debt and help those who are in debt to get out of it. The economic crisis and cost of living crisis is certainly a factor in the level of debt being accumulated. However, the amount of debt is so high that this can’t be the only factor and our culture and way of life must play a role.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In conclusion, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, a lack of financial awareness taught to children in schools and a culture of consumerism. In the current crisis, debt is unavoidable for a lot of families, it is either rely on credit or not be able to afford to keep the house over your head or feed your children. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government needs to provide support to families and individuals to help them avoid getting into debt and help those who are in debt to get out of it. Furthermore, the cost of living crisis needs to be addressed, by scrapping austerity and investing in public services, such as the NHS, social care and education.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “In conclusion, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, a lack of financial awareness taught to children in schools and a culture of consumerism. In the current crisis, debt is unavoidable for a lot of families, it is either rely on credit or not be able to afford to keep the house over your head or feed your children. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and the government needs to provide support to families and individuals to help them avoid getting into debt and help those who are in debt to get out of it. In the long term, however, the government should be looking to avoid a situation where families and individuals are having to rely on credit in the first place, by providing the resources and support necessary for families to live comfortably on their incomes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, Britain does have a debt problem. This is a result of a combination of factors, including the current economic crisis and cost of living crisis, the lack of financial education in schools and a culture of consumerism. Unfortunately, it’s worse during the pandemic because debt is unavoidable for a lot of families. And our government needs to do more to help families and individuals to get out of debt.” 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002045.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002045.soc index f353eb63..f92957b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002045.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002045.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. Schools are crucial for the growth and development of students, as they are when students learn the most. With the rising cost of education, parents are relying more and more on their schools to educate their children, which is why it is essential that they are open a set number of days a year to allow children to progress in their learning. School is also an essential place for students to develop social skills, and therefore if schools were to be closed for extended periods of time, students would be likely to develop negative social skills, which may affect them throughout their lives. It is also important to consider children who may have less than ideal home lives and the role that schools play in keeping these children safe. Children may be put in danger at home and be subject to neglect or abuse, and therefore school can be a safe space for them to be.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Schools should be open a set amount of days a year. This is to allow schools to not disrupt the progression of students and ensure that students are able to fulfil their potential, so they can live their best life. Social skills are a crucial part of childhood and ensuring that schools are a safe environment for these skills to be learnt is imperative. Also, it is necessary that parents who work outside of the home are provided a safe place for their children to be whilst they are not able to look after them.” A record of the group's deliberations and their consensus statement is available to view here. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “School days are crucial for the growth and development of students, as they are when students learn the most. With the rising cost of education, parents are relying more and more on their schools to educate their children, which is why it is essential that they are open a set number of days a year to allow children to progress in their learning. School is also an essential place for students to develop social skills, and therefore if schools were to be closed for extended periods of time, students would be likely to develop negative social skills, which may affect them throughout their lives. However, schools must be closed for a minimum number of days each year. This is because it is important that the learning space is both physically and mentally healthy for children. This is also important as schools also play a vital role in ensuring that children are safe from harm. When schools are closed for extended periods of time, many parents are left struggling with how to care for their children, and in some cases this leads to children being in danger. Therefore, it is important that schools are closed for a minimum number of days a year in order to allow parents to cope and ensure children are kept safe.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. School days are crucial for the growth and development of students, as they are when students learn the most. With the rising cost of education, parents are relying more and more on their schools to educate their children, which is why it is essential that they are open a set number of days a year to allow children to progress in their learning. School is also an essential place for students to develop social skills, and therefore if schools were to be closed for extended periods of time, students would be likely to develop negative social skills, which may affect them throughout their lives. Lastly, closing schools may lead to greater financial issues for parents, who will have to take off work to look after children during the day. This may have a negative impact on the economy of the country, so therefore keeping schools open will keep the economy going.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. Schools are crucial for the growth and development of students, as they are when students learn the most. With the rising cost of education, parents are relying more and more on their schools to educate their children, which is why it is essential that they are open a set number of days a year to allow children to progress in their learning. School is also an essential place for students to develop social skills, and therefore if schools were to be closed for extended periods of time, students would be likely to develop negative social skills, which may affect them throughout their lives. It is also important to consider children who may have less than ideal home lives and the role that schools play in keeping these children safe. Children may be put in danger at home and be subject to neglect or abuse, and therefore school can be a safe space for them to be.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Schools should be open a set amount of days a year. This is to allow schools to not disrupt the progression of students and ensure that students are able to fulfil their potential, so they can live their best life. Social skills are a crucial part of childhood and ensuring that schools are a safe environment for these skills to be learnt is imperative. Also, it is necessary that parents who work outside of the home are provided a safe place for their children to be whilst they are not able to look after them.” A record of the group's deliberations and their consensus statement is available to view here. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “School days are crucial for the growth and development of students, as they are when students learn the most. With the rising cost of education, parents are relying more and more on their schools to educate their children, which is why it is essential that they are open a set number of days a year to allow children to progress in their learning. School is also an essential place for students to develop social skills, and therefore if schools were to be closed for extended periods of time, students would be likely to develop negative social skills, which may affect them throughout their lives. However, schools must be closed for a minimum number of days each year. This is because it is important that the learning space is both physically and mentally healthy for children. This is also important as schools also play a vital role in ensuring that children are safe from harm. When schools are closed for extended periods of time, many parents are left struggling with how to care for their children, and in some cases this leads to children being in danger. Therefore, it is important that schools are closed for a minimum number of days a year in order to allow parents to cope and ensure children are kept safe.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. School days are crucial for the growth and development of students, as they are when students learn the most. With the rising cost of education, parents are relying more and more on their schools to educate their children, which is why it is essential that they are open a set number of days a year to allow children to progress in their learning. School is also an essential place for students to develop social skills, and therefore if schools were to be closed for extended periods of time, students would be likely to develop negative social skills, which may affect them throughout their lives. Lastly, closing schools may lead to greater financial issues for parents, who will have to take off work to look after children during the day. This may have a negative impact on the economy of the country, so therefore keeping schools open will keep the economy going.” 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002046.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002046.soc index 3b5266ec..be90b41b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002046.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002046.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Consensus View: In the opinion of the group the sale of alcohol should be restricted for the following reasons: - Underage drinking is a major issue in the UK. Young people who have never experienced drinking alcohol are susceptible to consuming a large amount of alcohol. This causes them to become very intoxicated, which is dangerous to the individual and those around them. - Drinking a lot of alcohol has also been proven to cause several illnesses such as cancer, high blood pressure and diabetes. - Also, if the sale of alcohol was restricted in pubs and clubs it would mean there is less pressure on people to drink. They would also not feel so isolated when they do not want to drink. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The sale of alcohol should be restricted. This is because alcohol is a dangerous substance to consume and can lead to many problems such as liver disease and depression. Alcohol should be sold in limited quantities to young people to ensure they do not start drinking heavily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The sale of alcohol should be restricted to certain times of the day and certain ages. This will reduce the number of car crashes and reduce the number of young people who start drinking alcohol at an early age. It will also reduce the number of people who become addicted to alcohol and suffer from depression. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the sale of alcohol should be restricted as it is a poison to the body and an addictive substance. It also causes depression. We should ensure children are not exposed to this toxic substance for as long as possible. It is also a factor in many road traffic accidents and is a factor in many suicides. The sale of alcohol should be restricted to over 18s and in some cases over 21s. The sale of spirits should be limited, perhaps by age but also perhaps by quantity. Moreover, the drinks that are more calorific should be limited as we have an obesity problem and drinks such as beer are very high in calories. The sale of alcohol should be restricted in some ways. Definitely based on age as I think it is really important that young people do not start drinking too early. I do also think the sale of spirits should be limited, perhaps by age but also perhaps by quantity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Consensus View: In the opinion of the group the sale of alcohol should be restricted for the following reasons: - Underage drinking is a major issue in the UK. Young people who have never experienced drinking alcohol are susceptible to consuming a large amount of alcohol. This causes them to become very intoxicated, which is dangerous to the individual and those around them. - Drinking a lot of alcohol has also been proven to cause several illnesses such as cancer, high blood pressure and diabetes. - Also, if the sale of alcohol was restricted in pubs and clubs it would mean there is less pressure on people to drink. They would also not feel so isolated when they do not want to drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The sale of alcohol should be restricted. This is because alcohol is a dangerous substance to consume and can lead to many problems such as liver disease and depression. Alcohol should be sold in limited quantities to young people to ensure they do not start drinking heavily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The sale of alcohol should be restricted to certain times of the day and certain ages. This will reduce the number of car crashes and reduce the number of young people who start drinking alcohol at an early age. It will also reduce the number of people who become addicted to alcohol and suffer from depression. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the sale of alcohol should be restricted as it is a poison to the body and an addictive substance. It also causes depression. We should ensure children are not exposed to this toxic substance for as long as possible. It is also a factor in many road traffic accidents and is a factor in many suicides. The sale of alcohol should be restricted to over 18s and in some cases over 21s. The sale of spirits should be limited, perhaps by age but also perhaps by quantity. Moreover, the drinks that are more calorific should be limited as we have an obesity problem and drinks such as beer are very high in calories. The sale of alcohol should be restricted in some ways. Definitely based on age as I think it is really important that young people do not start drinking too early. I do also think the sale of spirits should be limited, perhaps by age but also perhaps by quantity. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002047.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002047.soc index 423a4895..fd467fa9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002047.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002047.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a growing awareness of the negative impact of humans on the environment, particularly the impact of large corporations. Consumers, however, are often blamed for the current environmental issues, and it is important to acknowledge that it is the largest corporations who are responsible for the most destruction. It is vital that the public acknowledge the importance of protecting the environment, and are willing to put in effort and money to protect it. However, the public can only vote for a government that they think will protect the environment. We need to collectively change our mindsets from profit-driven to people-driven, and only then will we see a positive change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There needs to be a greater recognition of the role that the largest corporations play in causing environmental destruction. In order to reduce environmental destruction, corporations will need to put in more effort to use sustainable practices. Governments should be working towards making the environment a priority, by putting in place higher taxes and penalties on corporations who do not comply. It will take more than just a few people making an effort to protect the environment, we need to all work together to make an effort. Education will be a big part of this, and schools should be educating children about how they can help the environment. But education alone will not be enough to solve the problem, we need to be willing to put in the effort and money to protect the environment, and only then will we see a positive change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed by the group that we as a society need to start looking at our current environmental issues not as something that can be fixed easily and quickly with education, but as something that will take time and money. Looking to the future, we will see more and more of the large corporations making an effort to be more environmentally conscious, whilst also avoiding paying large taxes and penalties imposed on corporations that cause high levels of damage to the environment. The individual participants also agreed that while the government should be enforcing environmental regulations on corporations, it is ultimately the people who will have the biggest impact by electing the government that they see as most suitable to deal with environmental issues. Conclusions Protecting the environment is a very hot topic right now, given how much damage we have already caused and how rapidly we are running out of time to make real change and ensure a sustainable future. My experience of having this group discussion taught me some valuable lessons. Firstly, it demonstrated the value of face to face discussions with other people when forming an opinion. My personal opinion before this discussion was that we are not doing enough as a society to protect the environment. Throughout the discussion I saw the other participants ideas, points and opinions, whether they agreed or disag -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Though it has become apparent that human intervention is a key cause of environmental issues, we as a society are not doing enough to protect the environment. We are too focused on blaming the actions of consumers for the current environmental issues, whilst the largest corporations are the ones to blame for their unethical, profit driven decisions. It is the responsibility of the government to regulate such companies and ensure they are held accountable for the damage they cause. Only then, will we see a positive change. As we move towards the future, more and more of these corporations will have to make the decision to be more ethical in their business practices, or they will face much higher taxes and penalties. We cannot expect companies to make this decision, without putting pressure on them first. The government plays a key role in the protection of our environment and by choosing the right government, the future of our environment can be protected. We also need to be willing to put in effort and money to protect the environment and this is something we are not willing to do as an individual. These changes are necessary as time goes on, because if we do not take them now, it will be too late. More must be done to protect the environment now, for the environment to be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a growing awareness of the negative impact of humans on the environment, particularly the impact of large corporations. Consumers, however, are often blamed for the current environmental issues, and it is important to acknowledge that it is the largest corporations who are responsible for the most destruction. It is vital that the public acknowledge the importance of protecting the environment, and are willing to put in effort and money to protect it. However, the public can only vote for a government that they think will protect the environment. We need to collectively change our mindsets from profit-driven to people-driven, and only then will we see a positive change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There needs to be a greater recognition of the role that the largest corporations play in causing environmental destruction. In order to reduce environmental destruction, corporations will need to put in more effort to use sustainable practices. Governments should be working towards making the environment a priority, by putting in place higher taxes and penalties on corporations who do not comply. It will take more than just a few people making an effort to protect the environment, we need to all work together to make an effort. Education will be a big part of this, and schools should be educating children about how they can help the environment. But education alone will not be enough to solve the problem, we need to be willing to put in the effort and money to protect the environment, and only then will we see a positive change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed by the group that we as a society need to start looking at our current environmental issues not as something that can be fixed easily and quickly with education, but as something that will take time and money. Looking to the future, we will see more and more of the large corporations making an effort to be more environmentally conscious, whilst also avoiding paying large taxes and penalties imposed on corporations that cause high levels of damage to the environment. The individual participants also agreed that while the government should be enforcing environmental regulations on corporations, it is ultimately the people who will have the biggest impact by electing the government that they see as most suitable to deal with environmental issues. Conclusions Protecting the environment is a very hot topic right now, given how much damage we have already caused and how rapidly we are running out of time to make real change and ensure a sustainable future. My experience of having this group discussion taught me some valuable lessons. Firstly, it demonstrated the value of face to face discussions with other people when forming an opinion. My personal opinion before this discussion was that we are not doing enough as a society to protect the environment. Throughout the discussion I saw the other participants ideas, points and opinions, whether they agreed or disag +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Though it has become apparent that human intervention is a key cause of environmental issues, we as a society are not doing enough to protect the environment. We are too focused on blaming the actions of consumers for the current environmental issues, whilst the largest corporations are the ones to blame for their unethical, profit driven decisions. It is the responsibility of the government to regulate such companies and ensure they are held accountable for the damage they cause. Only then, will we see a positive change. As we move towards the future, more and more of these corporations will have to make the decision to be more ethical in their business practices, or they will face much higher taxes and penalties. We cannot expect companies to make this decision, without putting pressure on them first. The government plays a key role in the protection of our environment and by choosing the right government, the future of our environment can be protected. We also need to be willing to put in effort and money to protect the environment and this is something we are not willing to do as an individual. These changes are necessary as time goes on, because if we do not take them now, it will be too late. More must be done to protect the environment now, for the environment to be 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002048.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002048.soc index 6933e33b..32bd56b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002048.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002048.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should take action to reduce the prevalence of guns and gun ownership in the UK. The UK has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, but we should not rest on our laurels. Gun crime in the UK is on the rise and we should be trying to tackle this with hard punishments and education to those people involved in the crimes. The UK has more that it can do to ensure that ghost guns and other illegal weapons are found and destroyed. The UK also needs to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government should take action to reduce the prevalence of guns and gun ownership in the UK. The government has already made great steps in the right direction, but there is still more that can be done. It is vital to ensure that guns and gun ownership are taken very seriously. The world is becoming more violent than ever, there is children shooting children everywhere and it is down to the police and government to ensure people don't have any access to guns. We also need to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. Gun ownership in its self is not the issue, it is the people who own the guns that need more controls. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although guns are illegal in the UK we do have a surprising raising number of guns around and it is down to the UK government to tackle this issue. The world is becoming more violent than ever, there is children shooting children everywhere and it is down to the police and government to ensure people don't have any access to guns. We also need to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK has very good gun control laws. However, we must be aware that gun crime is on the rise in the UK and this is a worrying trend. The government should do more to tackle this issue. In particular, we need to ensure that all guns in circulation are accounted for. We also need to ensure that we educate the public on the dangers of guns and gun ownership. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should take action to reduce the prevalence of guns and gun ownership in the UK. The UK has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, but we should not rest on our laurels. Gun crime in the UK is on the rise and we should be trying to tackle this with hard punishments and education to those people involved in the crimes. The UK has more that it can do to ensure that ghost guns and other illegal weapons are found and destroyed. The UK also needs to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government should take action to reduce the prevalence of guns and gun ownership in the UK. The government has already made great steps in the right direction, but there is still more that can be done. It is vital to ensure that guns and gun ownership are taken very seriously. The world is becoming more violent than ever, there is children shooting children everywhere and it is down to the police and government to ensure people don't have any access to guns. We also need to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. Gun ownership in its self is not the issue, it is the people who own the guns that need more controls. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although guns are illegal in the UK we do have a surprising raising number of guns around and it is down to the UK government to tackle this issue. The world is becoming more violent than ever, there is children shooting children everywhere and it is down to the police and government to ensure people don't have any access to guns. We also need to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK has very good gun control laws. However, we must be aware that gun crime is on the rise in the UK and this is a worrying trend. The government should do more to tackle this issue. In particular, we need to ensure that all guns in circulation are accounted for. We also need to ensure that we educate the public on the dangers of guns and gun ownership. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002049.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002049.soc index 7087bd96..ce4e5006 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002049.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002049.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should not have to buy their own healthcare. The NHS is a vital part of society and people should be allowed to access healthcare free at the point of use. It is a right, not a privilege. The current NHS is badly run, and underfunded, and I hope that in the future the NHS will be looked at more closely and reformed. Healthcare is a right, and it should be free at the point of use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, people should not have to buy their own healthcare insurance. We have the NHS and it works well. However, there should be an option for private healthcare if people want to pay for it. The NHS should be adequately funded by the government, and the government should ensure that there are enough doctors and nurses to provide the care that people need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While it is an important principle that people should have access to healthcare regardless of ability to pay, we do not feel that it should be mandatory. Healthcare is a personal choice and individuals should have the right to choose whether to purchase it or not. It is also worth noting that the cost of healthcare is extremely expensive and therefore even if it were mandatory, many individuals may not be able to afford it. It is however, very important that individuals are made aware of the financial cost of healthcare services and we feel that this is not well communicated by the NHS at present. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, people should not be required to buy their own healthcare insurance. The NHS is a good system, and the government should be funding it more than they currently do. The USA system makes affordable healthcare a mere dream for a lot of people, which cannot be ok. All people are worthy of care and all people are worthy of healthcare. No matter their background, no matter what decisions they have made in the past, everyone is equally worthy of treatment. Who is anyone to say that just because someone can afford healthcare, they are more worthy of life and health than someone who cannot. We pay enough in tax and national insurance already. We have the NHS. The NHS is a good system, and the government should be funding it more than they currently do. The USA system makes affordable healthcare a mere dream for a lot of people, which cannot be ok. All people are worthy of care and all people are worthy of healthcare. No matter their background, no matter what decisions they have made in the past, everyone is equally worthy of treatment. Who is anyone to say that just because someone can afford healthcare, they are more worthy of life and health than someone who cannot. We pay +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should not have to buy their own healthcare. The NHS is a vital part of society and people should be allowed to access healthcare free at the point of use. It is a right, not a privilege. The current NHS is badly run, and underfunded, and I hope that in the future the NHS will be looked at more closely and reformed. Healthcare is a right, and it should be free at the point of use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, people should not have to buy their own healthcare insurance. We have the NHS and it works well. However, there should be an option for private healthcare if people want to pay for it. The NHS should be adequately funded by the government, and the government should ensure that there are enough doctors and nurses to provide the care that people need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While it is an important principle that people should have access to healthcare regardless of ability to pay, we do not feel that it should be mandatory. Healthcare is a personal choice and individuals should have the right to choose whether to purchase it or not. It is also worth noting that the cost of healthcare is extremely expensive and therefore even if it were mandatory, many individuals may not be able to afford it. It is however, very important that individuals are made aware of the financial cost of healthcare services and we feel that this is not well communicated by the NHS at present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, people should not be required to buy their own healthcare insurance. The NHS is a good system, and the government should be funding it more than they currently do. The USA system makes affordable healthcare a mere dream for a lot of people, which cannot be ok. All people are worthy of care and all people are worthy of healthcare. No matter their background, no matter what decisions they have made in the past, everyone is equally worthy of treatment. Who is anyone to say that just because someone can afford healthcare, they are more worthy of life and health than someone who cannot. We pay enough in tax and national insurance already. We have the NHS. The NHS is a good system, and the government should be funding it more than they currently do. The USA system makes affordable healthcare a mere dream for a lot of people, which cannot be ok. All people are worthy of care and all people are worthy of healthcare. No matter their background, no matter what decisions they have made in the past, everyone is equally worthy of treatment. Who is anyone to say that just because someone can afford healthcare, they are more worthy of life and health than someone who cannot. We pay 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002050.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002050.soc index 77a0b84a..61979f0d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002050.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002050.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Teachers should be allowed to express their views in the classroom but not too forcefully. Teachers should only express their views if it can be shown that it will not have a detrimental effect on the student. The curriculum should be the main focus of teaching but it is important that debate and different opinions are encouraged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Teachers should be allowed to express their views in the classroom as long as they are balanced and do not influence the children to believe that this is the only way of thinking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Teachers are often considered by children as being experts on every topic, but that is not always the case. It is important for teachers to be able to express their views in the classroom and for this to happen they need to have been trained appropriately. However, we must acknowledge that there are also dangers to expressing views in the classroom. We also think that the teacher must also express the opposing view, if there is one, and not present one-sided views to the students. The best way to present both sides of an argument in the classroom is through allowing students to develop their own view by engaging in class debates or group discussions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing teachers to express their views in the classroom, even if those views are against the mainstream. However, the group felt that the views expressed should be balanced and not one-sided. The group also felt that the views expressed should not be too radical or extreme. The group felt that it is important to encourage freedom of expression and opinions in the classroom. The group also felt that it is important to encourage debate and thinking in the classroom. The group felt that it is important to encourage children to make their own minds up with all the information available to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Teachers should be allowed to express their views in the classroom but not too forcefully. Teachers should only express their views if it can be shown that it will not have a detrimental effect on the student. The curriculum should be the main focus of teaching but it is important that debate and different opinions are encouraged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Teachers should be allowed to express their views in the classroom as long as they are balanced and do not influence the children to believe that this is the only way of thinking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Teachers are often considered by children as being experts on every topic, but that is not always the case. It is important for teachers to be able to express their views in the classroom and for this to happen they need to have been trained appropriately. However, we must acknowledge that there are also dangers to expressing views in the classroom. We also think that the teacher must also express the opposing view, if there is one, and not present one-sided views to the students. The best way to present both sides of an argument in the classroom is through allowing students to develop their own view by engaging in class debates or group discussions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing teachers to express their views in the classroom, even if those views are against the mainstream. However, the group felt that the views expressed should be balanced and not one-sided. The group also felt that the views expressed should not be too radical or extreme. The group felt that it is important to encourage freedom of expression and opinions in the classroom. The group also felt that it is important to encourage debate and thinking in the classroom. The group felt that it is important to encourage children to make their own minds up with all the information available to them. 4: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002051.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002051.soc index 3f135fd1..a385626d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002051.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002051.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a high possibility that we will see another economic downturn. This is due to the current political climate and the fact that there are many factors that contribute to economic downturn, including a lack of resources, war, trade deals and inflation, all of which are somewhat unavoidable. Whilst it is difficult to predict what the outcome of the downturn will look like, it is certain that there will be periods of economic prosperity and hardship. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a high possibility that we could be put in a similar situation to the 2022-2023 crisis again. But, we should be prepared and try to prevent it. If we can reduce inflation and if wages can increase we can avoid another serious economic downturn. The economy is still recovering from the crisis, but if we can manage it correctly we can get back on track. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we will definitely have another serious economic downturn. The current state of the global economy is volatile. It is difficult to say when this economic downturn will occur and what it will look like. The global economy is so complex and relies on a number of factors such as supply and demand, interest rates, inflation, employment, trade deals, and environmental factors. There are a number of factors that suggest that the global economy is unstable. Inflation is currently rising in many countries. Many Governments are currently experiencing a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently going through a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently struggling to balance their budget, e.g. United States, UK. These factors indicate that there are likely to be some future economic hardships for people. It is difficult to say when this downturn will occur and what it will look like. However, it is likely that Governments will be in a better position to deal with this downturn due to the lessons learnt from the last economic downturn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to a consensus that we will have another serious economic downturn. The opinions of the participants were very similar and there were no strong disagreements. The participants all agreed that the world is very unstable and that prices can not continue to rise indefinitely as salaries can not keep up. This in turn will lead to the bubbles, e.g. the housing bubble burst. The participants all agreed that unsustainable environmental practices will play a major role e.g. not being able to produce enough food. The participants also agreed that it is difficult to predict what the outcome of the downturn will look like, but it is certain that there will be periods of economic prosperity and hardship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a high possibility that we will see another economic downturn. This is due to the current political climate and the fact that there are many factors that contribute to economic downturn, including a lack of resources, war, trade deals and inflation, all of which are somewhat unavoidable. Whilst it is difficult to predict what the outcome of the downturn will look like, it is certain that there will be periods of economic prosperity and hardship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a high possibility that we could be put in a similar situation to the 2022-2023 crisis again. But, we should be prepared and try to prevent it. If we can reduce inflation and if wages can increase we can avoid another serious economic downturn. The economy is still recovering from the crisis, but if we can manage it correctly we can get back on track. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we will definitely have another serious economic downturn. The current state of the global economy is volatile. It is difficult to say when this economic downturn will occur and what it will look like. The global economy is so complex and relies on a number of factors such as supply and demand, interest rates, inflation, employment, trade deals, and environmental factors. There are a number of factors that suggest that the global economy is unstable. Inflation is currently rising in many countries. Many Governments are currently experiencing a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently going through a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently struggling to balance their budget, e.g. United States, UK. These factors indicate that there are likely to be some future economic hardships for people. It is difficult to say when this downturn will occur and what it will look like. However, it is likely that Governments will be in a better position to deal with this downturn due to the lessons learnt from the last economic downturn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to a consensus that we will have another serious economic downturn. The opinions of the participants were very similar and there were no strong disagreements. The participants all agreed that the world is very unstable and that prices can not continue to rise indefinitely as salaries can not keep up. This in turn will lead to the bubbles, e.g. the housing bubble burst. The participants all agreed that unsustainable environmental practices will play a major role e.g. not being able to produce enough food. The participants also agreed that it is difficult to predict what the outcome of the downturn will look like, but it is certain that there will be periods of economic prosperity and hardship. 3: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002052.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002052.soc index 90a18f01..c503dc3f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002052.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002052.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: - Underage drinking is a major issue in the UK. Young people who have never experienced drinking alcohol are susceptible to consuming large amounts of alcohol which can cause them to become very intoxicated, which is dangerous to the individual and others around them. - Drinking a lot of alcohol has also been proven to cause several illnesses such as cancer, high blood pressure, and diabetes. - Moreover we want to ensure that fewer young people start drinking from the legal age of 18 by restricting the accessibility of alcohol. - By restricting the sale of alcohol there is less pressure on people to drink which makes people more able to say no, or drink a smaller quantity, as a social occasion is not defined by the alcohol consumption. - To conclude, if the sale of alcohol was restricted in pubs and clubs there would be less road traffic accidents, more people would be drinking in a safe environment with others, and this would mean that, in the opinion of this group, the general health of the UK would be improved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The sale of alcohol should be restricted because of the health and safety concerns, particularly the dangers of underage drinking and the problems with driving under the influence of alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Consensus View: In the opinion of the group the sale of alcohol should be restricted for the following reasons: - Underage drinking is a major issue in the UK. Young people who have never experienced drinking alcohol are susceptible to consuming a large amount of alcohol. This causes them to become very intoxicated, which is dangerous to the individual and those around them. - Drinking a lot of alcohol has also been proven to cause several illnesses such as cancer, high blood pressure and diabetes. - Also, if the sale of alcohol was restricted in pubs and clubs it would mean there is less pressure on people to drink. They would also not feel so isolated when they do not want to drink. - In addition, limiting alcohol sales would also reduce the likelihood of drink driving. It has been proven that a lot of accidents on the road have been caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - - Underage drinking is a major issue in the UK. Young people who have never experienced drinking alcohol are susceptible to consuming large amounts of alcohol which can cause them to become very intoxicated, which is dangerous to the individual and others around them. - Drinking a lot of alcohol has also been proven to cause several illnesses such as cancer, high blood pressure, and diabetes. - Moreover we want to ensure that fewer young people start drinking from the legal age of 18 by restricting the accessibility of alcohol. - By restricting the sale of alcohol there is less pressure on people to drink which makes people more able to say no, or drink a smaller quantity, as a social occasion is not defined by the alcohol consumption. - To conclude, if the sale of alcohol was restricted in pubs and clubs there would be less road traffic accidents, more people would be drinking in a safe environment with others, and this would mean that, in the opinion of this group, the general health of the UK would be improved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The sale of alcohol should be restricted because of the health and safety concerns, particularly the dangers of underage drinking and the problems with driving under the influence of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Consensus View: In the opinion of the group the sale of alcohol should be restricted for the following reasons: - Underage drinking is a major issue in the UK. Young people who have never experienced drinking alcohol are susceptible to consuming a large amount of alcohol. This causes them to become very intoxicated, which is dangerous to the individual and those around them. - Drinking a lot of alcohol has also been proven to cause several illnesses such as cancer, high blood pressure and diabetes. - Also, if the sale of alcohol was restricted in pubs and clubs it would mean there is less pressure on people to drink. They would also not feel so isolated when they do not want to drink. - In addition, limiting alcohol sales would also reduce the likelihood of drink driving. It has been proven that a lot of accidents on the road have been caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol. 4: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002053.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002053.soc index 26f60145..d170e953 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002053.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002053.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, the police should not carry guns. However, in areas with a high crime rate or in response teams, they should be allowed to carry guns. The police should also be allowed to carry guns in high-risk situations, such as hostage situations, terrorist attacks, or when dealing with dangerous criminals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although police should be allowed to carry guns, we believe that this should be the exception, rather than the rule. We believe that carrying guns should be allowed in certain situations and areas, but only for specially trained officers. Carrying guns should be part of an officer's regular uniform in a few exceptional circumstances, but otherwise, we believe it is unnecessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a review of the policy surrounding police carrying firearms. There are instances where the use of firearms by police officers is absolutely necessary and beneficial, however we believe that there are also many situations where the police could still carry out their duty without the use of a firearm. We think that the training of police officers is imperative. They must be well-trained in when it is appropriate to use firearms, and when it is not. If there is a lack of proper training, then police officers are at risk of being in danger, and putting the public in danger. Police officers should only carry firearms in places that are considered to be particularly dangerous. Therefore, we believe that it is unnecessary for all police officers to carry firearms, however we believe that the police should be given the option to carry firearms in certain circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the police should not be allowed to carry guns. However, there are certain circumstances in which the police should be allowed to carry guns. In areas of high crime, and in response teams. The police should be trained to use guns, and the use of guns should be a last resort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, the police should not carry guns. However, in areas with a high crime rate or in response teams, they should be allowed to carry guns. The police should also be allowed to carry guns in high-risk situations, such as hostage situations, terrorist attacks, or when dealing with dangerous criminals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although police should be allowed to carry guns, we believe that this should be the exception, rather than the rule. We believe that carrying guns should be allowed in certain situations and areas, but only for specially trained officers. Carrying guns should be part of an officer's regular uniform in a few exceptional circumstances, but otherwise, we believe it is unnecessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a review of the policy surrounding police carrying firearms. There are instances where the use of firearms by police officers is absolutely necessary and beneficial, however we believe that there are also many situations where the police could still carry out their duty without the use of a firearm. We think that the training of police officers is imperative. They must be well-trained in when it is appropriate to use firearms, and when it is not. If there is a lack of proper training, then police officers are at risk of being in danger, and putting the public in danger. Police officers should only carry firearms in places that are considered to be particularly dangerous. Therefore, we believe that it is unnecessary for all police officers to carry firearms, however we believe that the police should be given the option to carry firearms in certain circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the police should not be allowed to carry guns. However, there are certain circumstances in which the police should be allowed to carry guns. In areas of high crime, and in response teams. The police should be trained to use guns, and the use of guns should be a last resort. 3: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002054.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002054.soc index 13c6509d..af8a25f2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002054.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002054.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, however there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrates were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe immigration is good for the economy. There are many benefits to immigration. In fact, it is difficult to think of any that are bad. The influx of new cultures and talents is a massive boost for the economy. Not only do they bring in new ideas, but they also bring in new job roles, new businesses and can fill in gaps where the workforce is insufficient. It is also important to attract top talents to that the level of skills brought to the economy is increased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Immigration is good for the economy. It helps bring in the skills we don't have, it helps increase the workforce and overall helps improve the economy and society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Immigration is good for the economy. It allows people to come to the UK safely and have a safe space. It also allows people to come to the UK and help do the work, especially in recruiting for the roles such as agriculture and care/hospital roles. It is also good as it allows people to come here safely and have a safe space. However, the money spent on immigration could be put to better use, and there are people in the UK living on the streets that could use the spaces made for immigration. Immigration has it's good parts and negative parts. It's good as it allows people to come here safely and have a safe space. However, the money spent on immigration could be put to better use, and there are people in the UK living on the streets that could use the spaces made for immigration.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, however there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrates were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe immigration is good for the economy. There are many benefits to immigration. In fact, it is difficult to think of any that are bad. The influx of new cultures and talents is a massive boost for the economy. Not only do they bring in new ideas, but they also bring in new job roles, new businesses and can fill in gaps where the workforce is insufficient. It is also important to attract top talents to that the level of skills brought to the economy is increased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Immigration is good for the economy. It helps bring in the skills we don't have, it helps increase the workforce and overall helps improve the economy and society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Immigration is good for the economy. It allows people to come to the UK safely and have a safe space. It also allows people to come to the UK and help do the work, especially in recruiting for the roles such as agriculture and care/hospital roles. It is also good as it allows people to come here safely and have a safe space. However, the money spent on immigration could be put to better use, and there are people in the UK living on the streets that could use the spaces made for immigration. Immigration has it's good parts and negative parts. It's good as it allows people to come here safely and have a safe space. However, the money spent on immigration could be put to better use, and there are people in the UK living on the streets that could use the spaces made for immigration.” 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002055.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002055.soc index 289ad5cd..2986c461 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002055.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002055.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, but we should not rest on our laurels. Gun crime in the UK is on the rise and we should be trying to tackle this with harsher sentences and education to those people involved in the crimes. The UK has more that it can do to ensure that ghost guns and other illegal weapons are found and destroyed. The UK also needs to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government should take action to reduce the prevalence of guns and gun ownership in the UK. The UK has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, but we should not rest on our laurels. Gun crime in the UK is on the rise and we should be trying to tackle this with harsher punishments and education to those people involved in the crimes. The UK has more that it can do to ensure that ghost guns and other illegal weapons are found and destroyed. The UK also needs to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK government should take action to reduce the prevalence of guns and gun ownership in the UK. The UK has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, but we should not rest on our laurels. Gun crime in the UK is on the rise and we should be trying to tackle this with hard punishments and education to those people involved in the crimes. The UK has more that it can do to ensure that ghost guns and other illegal weapons are found and destroyed. The UK also needs to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, but we should not rest on our laurels. Gun crime in the UK is on the rise and we should be trying to tackle this with harsher sentences and education to those people involved in the crimes. The UK has more that it can do to ensure that ghost guns and other illegal weapons are found and destroyed. The UK also needs to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government should take action to reduce the prevalence of guns and gun ownership in the UK. The UK has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, but we should not rest on our laurels. Gun crime in the UK is on the rise and we should be trying to tackle this with harsher punishments and education to those people involved in the crimes. The UK has more that it can do to ensure that ghost guns and other illegal weapons are found and destroyed. The UK also needs to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK government should take action to reduce the prevalence of guns and gun ownership in the UK. The UK has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, but we should not rest on our laurels. Gun crime in the UK is on the rise and we should be trying to tackle this with hard punishments and education to those people involved in the crimes. The UK has more that it can do to ensure that ghost guns and other illegal weapons are found and destroyed. The UK also needs to talk more about this issue as it is not only guns that are the problem, there is a lot of knife crimes happening and often it is involving children, for me that shows that we need to make a better job educating children regarding safety and peace. 2: 2,4,1,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002056.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002056.soc index f189a87e..d024c8f1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002056.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002056.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: I agree that people should not have to buy their own healthcare. The NHS is a vital part of society and people should be allowed to access healthcare free at the point of use. It is a right, not a privilege. All people are worthy of care and all people are worthy of healthcare. No matter their background, no matter what decisions they have made in the past, everyone is equally worthy of treatment. Who is anyone to say that just because someone can afford healthcare, they are more worthy of life and health than someone who cannot. The current NHS is badly run, and underfunded, and I hope that in the future the NHS will be looked at more closely and reformed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not have to buy their own healthcare. Healthcare is a right and should be free at the point of use. The NHS is an essential part of society and it is important that everyone has access to healthcare regardless of their social class. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not have to buy their own healthcare. The NHS is a vital part of society and people should be allowed to access healthcare free at the point of use. It is a right, not a privilege. The current NHS is badly run, and underfunded, and I hope that in the future the NHS will be looked at more closely and reformed. Healthcare is a right, and it should be free at the point of use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not have to buy their own healthcare. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and should be free at the point of use. The NHS is a vital part of society, and should be funded sufficiently to provide all services required. The NHS is currently underfunded, and this is leading to issues with waiting times, staff shortages, and other problems. The NHS needs to be looked at more closely, and the current government should be putting more money into the NHS to ensure that people can get the healthcare they need, when they need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: I agree that people should not have to buy their own healthcare. The NHS is a vital part of society and people should be allowed to access healthcare free at the point of use. It is a right, not a privilege. All people are worthy of care and all people are worthy of healthcare. No matter their background, no matter what decisions they have made in the past, everyone is equally worthy of treatment. Who is anyone to say that just because someone can afford healthcare, they are more worthy of life and health than someone who cannot. The current NHS is badly run, and underfunded, and I hope that in the future the NHS will be looked at more closely and reformed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not have to buy their own healthcare. Healthcare is a right and should be free at the point of use. The NHS is an essential part of society and it is important that everyone has access to healthcare regardless of their social class. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not have to buy their own healthcare. The NHS is a vital part of society and people should be allowed to access healthcare free at the point of use. It is a right, not a privilege. The current NHS is badly run, and underfunded, and I hope that in the future the NHS will be looked at more closely and reformed. Healthcare is a right, and it should be free at the point of use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not have to buy their own healthcare. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and should be free at the point of use. The NHS is a vital part of society, and should be funded sufficiently to provide all services required. The NHS is currently underfunded, and this is leading to issues with waiting times, staff shortages, and other problems. The NHS needs to be looked at more closely, and the current government should be putting more money into the NHS to ensure that people can get the healthcare they need, when they need it. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002057.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002057.soc index 2a655a93..fde7ab23 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002057.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002057.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Everyone has a responsibility to recycle. The responsibility of individuals is to recycle what they can. The responsibility of businesses and government is to provide the facilities to make this possible and to set an example. It is also the responsibility of businesses and government to ensure that the waste is recycled in a responsible way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, recycling is a good thing to do and everyone should be recycling their waste. However, there are different levels of responsibility for different people and different groups of people. For example, some of the biggest waste producers and those with the greatest impact on the environment are governments and large corporations. These people have the biggest responsibility to recycle, as it is a lot more difficult for individual people to have the same impact. Some people may not recycle because they are not aware of what to do, or where they can recycle. This can be overcome by providing them with information and education, and by making recycling more convenient. It is everyone's responsibility to do their best to recycle. However, everyone's situation is different and some people will not be able to recycle as much as others. This is fine as long as they are doing their best, even if it is a small amount. It is important to understand that individual actions are not enough to make a difference to climate change and pollution. Instead, it is governments, businesses, and communities that have the most responsibility for this. Individual people should do what they can to recycle, but not blame themselves if they are not able to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have a collective responsibility to recycle as much as possible, and to make recycling as easy as possible for everyone. Recycling should be made mandatory for all businesses and local authorities, but also for individuals. However, it is also the responsibility of businesses and local authorities to make recycling easy for individuals, and to provide the necessary infrastructure. This should be a collective effort. Recycling should be made as easy as possible, so that people are more likely to do it. This should be the case for individuals, businesses and local authorities. We must also be aware that recycling alone is not enough to combat climate change, and that individuals cannot solve this problem alone. The government and large corporations have the biggest responsibility to act, and to act quickly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Everyone has a responsibility to recycle. This responsibility extends not only to individuals, but also to businesses, organisations, and government. To ensure this responsibility is met, we must work together to overcome barriers and make recycling easier for everyone. This includes providing appropriate education and facilities, especially for people living in low-income households, so that everyone is aware of the benefits of recycling and knows how to recycle. However, we must also ensure that the recycling that is collected is actually recycled and not just dumped in landfill or shipped off overseas. This is something that can be best achieved through political and economic pressure to ensure that businesses and the government fulfil their responsibility to recycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Everyone has a responsibility to recycle. The responsibility of individuals is to recycle what they can. The responsibility of businesses and government is to provide the facilities to make this possible and to set an example. It is also the responsibility of businesses and government to ensure that the waste is recycled in a responsible way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, recycling is a good thing to do and everyone should be recycling their waste. However, there are different levels of responsibility for different people and different groups of people. For example, some of the biggest waste producers and those with the greatest impact on the environment are governments and large corporations. These people have the biggest responsibility to recycle, as it is a lot more difficult for individual people to have the same impact. Some people may not recycle because they are not aware of what to do, or where they can recycle. This can be overcome by providing them with information and education, and by making recycling more convenient. It is everyone's responsibility to do their best to recycle. However, everyone's situation is different and some people will not be able to recycle as much as others. This is fine as long as they are doing their best, even if it is a small amount. It is important to understand that individual actions are not enough to make a difference to climate change and pollution. Instead, it is governments, businesses, and communities that have the most responsibility for this. Individual people should do what they can to recycle, but not blame themselves if they are not able to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have a collective responsibility to recycle as much as possible, and to make recycling as easy as possible for everyone. Recycling should be made mandatory for all businesses and local authorities, but also for individuals. However, it is also the responsibility of businesses and local authorities to make recycling easy for individuals, and to provide the necessary infrastructure. This should be a collective effort. Recycling should be made as easy as possible, so that people are more likely to do it. This should be the case for individuals, businesses and local authorities. We must also be aware that recycling alone is not enough to combat climate change, and that individuals cannot solve this problem alone. The government and large corporations have the biggest responsibility to act, and to act quickly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Everyone has a responsibility to recycle. This responsibility extends not only to individuals, but also to businesses, organisations, and government. To ensure this responsibility is met, we must work together to overcome barriers and make recycling easier for everyone. This includes providing appropriate education and facilities, especially for people living in low-income households, so that everyone is aware of the benefits of recycling and knows how to recycle. However, we must also ensure that the recycling that is collected is actually recycled and not just dumped in landfill or shipped off overseas. This is something that can be best achieved through political and economic pressure to ensure that businesses and the government fulfil their responsibility to recycle. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002058.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002058.soc index 81e82d3c..a120f968 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002058.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002058.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should do more to protect the environment. We are destroying it and it is the future generations which will pay the price so it is everyone's job, the public and the government, to do what we can for the environment. We are already seeing the effects of climate change around the world, it is a threat to humans and animals. The government is able to allocate funds elsewhere for defence, public spending, etc. and has the funds to put into the environment due to the ripple effect that environmental concerns have on the rest of our life. We have a responsibility to engage with the government and actively take part in environmentally friendly behaviours. It is important that the government invests in programs which reach out to communities and enable greater impact for the good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should do more to protect the environment. The environment is everyone's responsibility, and as the government is able to provide support for other services and departments, they should look to do more to protect the environment. We should be involved in the changes that the government makes and work with them to protect the environment, so that future generations can enjoy the same privileges as we have. We must use our resources wisely, and ensure that the government is also doing so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We feel the government should do more to protect the environment. The government is able to allocate funds elsewhere for defence, public spending, etc. and has the funds to put into the environment due to the ripple effect that environmental concerns have on the rest of our life. We have a responsibility to engage with the government and actively take part in environmentally friendly behaviours. It is important that the government invests in programs which reach out to communities and enable greater impact for the good. Everyone has a responsibility to help with this and change to the environment over recent years it is clear to see how much this is changing the world. Not caring for the environment now could cost the government more in terms of health costs, economy hits and more so it is important that they act now.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should do more to protect the environment. This is because it is something that affects everyone on the planet as well as for the next generations. Not doing enough now will only make the problem worse in the future, which may cost future governments even more. Changes to the environment over recent years (even the last fifty years) it is clear to see how much this is changing the world (adverse weather conditions, natural disasters etc). Not caring for the environment now could cost the government more in terms of health costs, economy hits and more so it is important that they act now. The government is able to allocate funds elsewhere for defence, public spending, etc. and has the funds to put into the environment due to the ripple effect that environmental concerns have on the rest of our life. We have a responsibility to engage with the government and actively take part in environmentally friendly behaviours. It is important that the government invests in programs which reach out to communities and enable greater impact for the good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should do more to protect the environment. We are destroying it and it is the future generations which will pay the price so it is everyone's job, the public and the government, to do what we can for the environment. We are already seeing the effects of climate change around the world, it is a threat to humans and animals. The government is able to allocate funds elsewhere for defence, public spending, etc. and has the funds to put into the environment due to the ripple effect that environmental concerns have on the rest of our life. We have a responsibility to engage with the government and actively take part in environmentally friendly behaviours. It is important that the government invests in programs which reach out to communities and enable greater impact for the good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should do more to protect the environment. The environment is everyone's responsibility, and as the government is able to provide support for other services and departments, they should look to do more to protect the environment. We should be involved in the changes that the government makes and work with them to protect the environment, so that future generations can enjoy the same privileges as we have. We must use our resources wisely, and ensure that the government is also doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We feel the government should do more to protect the environment. The government is able to allocate funds elsewhere for defence, public spending, etc. and has the funds to put into the environment due to the ripple effect that environmental concerns have on the rest of our life. We have a responsibility to engage with the government and actively take part in environmentally friendly behaviours. It is important that the government invests in programs which reach out to communities and enable greater impact for the good. Everyone has a responsibility to help with this and change to the environment over recent years it is clear to see how much this is changing the world. Not caring for the environment now could cost the government more in terms of health costs, economy hits and more so it is important that they act now.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should do more to protect the environment. This is because it is something that affects everyone on the planet as well as for the next generations. Not doing enough now will only make the problem worse in the future, which may cost future governments even more. Changes to the environment over recent years (even the last fifty years) it is clear to see how much this is changing the world (adverse weather conditions, natural disasters etc). Not caring for the environment now could cost the government more in terms of health costs, economy hits and more so it is important that they act now. The government is able to allocate funds elsewhere for defence, public spending, etc. and has the funds to put into the environment due to the ripple effect that environmental concerns have on the rest of our life. We have a responsibility to engage with the government and actively take part in environmentally friendly behaviours. It is important that the government invests in programs which reach out to communities and enable greater impact for the good. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002059.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002059.soc index 6c6a2070..4f99e39c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002059.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002059.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Teachers are often considered by children as being experts on every topic, but that is not always the case. It is important for teachers to be able to express their views in the classroom and for this to happen they need to have been trained appropriately. However, we must acknowledge that there are also dangers to expressing views in the classroom. Teachers need to be careful to always present a balanced view and should always present the opposing view, if there is one, and not present one-sided views to the students. The best way to present both sides of an argument in the classroom is through allowing students to develop their own view by engaging in class debates or group discussions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Teachers are considered by children as being experts on every topic, but that is not always the case. It is important for teachers to express their views in the classroom and for this to happen they need to have been trained appropriately. However, we must acknowledge that there are also dangers to expressing views in the classroom. The best way to express both sides of an argument in the classroom is through allowing students to develop their own view by engaging in class debates or group discussions. Given the role that views play in culture, and that we are all used to engaging in a debate of issues and ideas, it is inevitable that teachers hold and express personal views in the classroom. So perhaps instead of forbidding teachers to express their own views, we must instead ensure that they are trained in the best way to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Teachers should be allowed to express their views in the classroom. However, teachers must be trained in how to express their views, and should be aware of the dangers of expressing one-sided views. Teachers should also make sure to present the opposing view to their own, and allow students to develop their own views by engaging in class debates or group discussions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Teachers should only express their views in a balanced and safe manner so that students have the chance to develop their own views, express their opinions and develop their skills of analysing and challenging points of view. Teachers are often considered by children as being experts on every topic, but that is not always the case. It is important for teachers to be able to express their views in the classroom but in a balanced way. However, we must acknowledge that there are also dangers to expressing views in the classroom. Teachers should never present one-sided views to the students. The best way to present both sides of an argument in the classroom is through allowing students to develop their own view by engaging in class debates or group discussions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Teachers are often considered by children as being experts on every topic, but that is not always the case. It is important for teachers to be able to express their views in the classroom and for this to happen they need to have been trained appropriately. However, we must acknowledge that there are also dangers to expressing views in the classroom. Teachers need to be careful to always present a balanced view and should always present the opposing view, if there is one, and not present one-sided views to the students. The best way to present both sides of an argument in the classroom is through allowing students to develop their own view by engaging in class debates or group discussions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Teachers are considered by children as being experts on every topic, but that is not always the case. It is important for teachers to express their views in the classroom and for this to happen they need to have been trained appropriately. However, we must acknowledge that there are also dangers to expressing views in the classroom. The best way to express both sides of an argument in the classroom is through allowing students to develop their own view by engaging in class debates or group discussions. Given the role that views play in culture, and that we are all used to engaging in a debate of issues and ideas, it is inevitable that teachers hold and express personal views in the classroom. So perhaps instead of forbidding teachers to express their own views, we must instead ensure that they are trained in the best way to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Teachers should be allowed to express their views in the classroom. However, teachers must be trained in how to express their views, and should be aware of the dangers of expressing one-sided views. Teachers should also make sure to present the opposing view to their own, and allow students to develop their own views by engaging in class debates or group discussions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Teachers should only express their views in a balanced and safe manner so that students have the chance to develop their own views, express their opinions and develop their skills of analysing and challenging points of view. Teachers are often considered by children as being experts on every topic, but that is not always the case. It is important for teachers to be able to express their views in the classroom but in a balanced way. However, we must acknowledge that there are also dangers to expressing views in the classroom. Teachers should never present one-sided views to the students. The best way to present both sides of an argument in the classroom is through allowing students to develop their own view by engaging in class debates or group discussions. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002060.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002060.soc index 86be9968..740f9548 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002060.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002060.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that there should be a review of the policy surrounding police carrying firearms. There are instances where the use of firearms by police officers is absolutely necessary and beneficial, however we believe that there are also many situations where the police could still carry out their duty without the use of a firearm. We think that the training of police officers is imperative. They must be well-trained in when it is appropriate to use firearms, and when it is not. If there is a lack of proper training, then police officers are at risk of being in danger, and putting the public in danger. Police officers should only carry firearms in places that are considered to be particularly dangerous. Therefore, we believe that it is unnecessary for all police officers to carry firearms, however we believe that the police should be given the option to carry firearms in certain circumstances. We also believe that police officers who carry firearms should be highly trained, and be provided with further training to prevent any issues in dangerous situations. This training should also help police officers know when the use of firearms is appropriate, and when it is not. If there is a lack of training, then police officers are at risk of being in danger, and putting the public in danger. If there is -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that police should only be allowed to carry firearms in places that are particularly dangerous. However, police officers must be well trained in when it is appropriate to use firearms, and when it is not. We believe that there are many circumstances where the police could still carry out their duty without the use of a firearm. Therefore, we think that it is unnecessary for all police officers to carry firearms, however the police should be given the option to carry firearms in certain circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a review of the policy surrounding police carrying firearms. There are instances where the use of firearms by police officers is absolutely necessary and beneficial, however we believe that there are also many situations where the police could still carry out their duty without the use of a firearm. We think that the training of police officers is imperative. They must be well-trained in when it is appropriate to use firearms, and when it is not. If there is a lack of proper training, then police officers are at risk of being in danger, and putting the public in danger. Police officers should only carry firearms in places that are considered to be particularly dangerous. Therefore, we believe that it is unnecessary for all police officers to carry firearms, however we believe that the police should be given the option to carry firearms in certain circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that there should be a review of the policy surrounding police carrying firearms. There are instances where the use of firearms by police officers is absolutely necessary and beneficial, however we believe that there are also many situations where the police could still carry out their duty without the use of a firearm. We think that the training of police officers is imperative. They must be well-trained in when it is appropriate to use firearms, and when it is not. If there is a lack of proper training, then police officers are at risk of being in danger, and putting the public in danger. Police officers should only carry firearms in places that are considered to be particularly dangerous. Therefore, we believe that it is unnecessary for all police officers to carry firearms, however we believe that the police should be given the option to carry firearms in certain circumstances. We also believe that police officers who carry firearms should be highly trained, and be provided with further training to prevent any issues in dangerous situations. This training should also help police officers know when the use of firearms is appropriate, and when it is not. If there is a lack of training, then police officers are at risk of being in danger, and putting the public in danger. If there is +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that police should only be allowed to carry firearms in places that are particularly dangerous. However, police officers must be well trained in when it is appropriate to use firearms, and when it is not. We believe that there are many circumstances where the police could still carry out their duty without the use of a firearm. Therefore, we think that it is unnecessary for all police officers to carry firearms, however the police should be given the option to carry firearms in certain circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a review of the policy surrounding police carrying firearms. There are instances where the use of firearms by police officers is absolutely necessary and beneficial, however we believe that there are also many situations where the police could still carry out their duty without the use of a firearm. We think that the training of police officers is imperative. They must be well-trained in when it is appropriate to use firearms, and when it is not. If there is a lack of proper training, then police officers are at risk of being in danger, and putting the public in danger. Police officers should only carry firearms in places that are considered to be particularly dangerous. Therefore, we believe that it is unnecessary for all police officers to carry firearms, however we believe that the police should be given the option to carry firearms in certain circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002061.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002061.soc index 4eca7d92..1748af3b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002061.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002061.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, it is highly likely that we will have another serious economic downturn. The current state of the global economy is volatile. It is difficult to say when this economic downturn will occur and what it will look like. The global economy is so complex and relies on a number of factors such as supply and demand, interest rates, inflation, employment, trade deals, and environmental factors. There are a number of factors that suggest that the global economy is unstable. Inflation is currently rising in many countries. Many Governments are currently experiencing a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently going through a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently struggling to balance their budget, e.g. United States, UK. These factors indicate that there are likely to be some future economic hardships for people. It is difficult to say when this downturn will occur and what it will look like. However, it is likely that Governments will be in a better position to deal with this downturn due to the lessons learnt from the last economic downturn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: Yes, we will definitely have another serious economic downturn. The current state of the global economy is volatile. It is difficult to say when this economic downturn will occur and what it will look like. The global economy is so complex and relies on a number of factors such as supply and demand, interest rates, inflation, employment, trade deals, and environmental factors. There are a number of factors that suggest that the global economy is unstable. Inflation is currently rising in many countries. Many Governments are currently experiencing a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently struggling to balance their budget, e.g. United States, UK. These factors indicate that there are likely to be some future economic hardships for people. It is difficult to say when this downturn will occur and what it will look like. However, it is likely that Governments will be in a better position to deal with this downturn due to the lessons learnt from the last economic downturn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we will most likely have another serious economic downturn. The current state of the global economy is volatile. It is difficult to say when this economic downturn will occur and what it will look like. The global economy is so complex and relies on a number of factors such as supply and demand, interest rates, inflation, employment, trade deals, and environmental factors. There are a number of factors that suggest that the global economy is unstable. Inflation is currently rising in many countries. Many Governments are currently experiencing a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently going through a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently struggling to balance their budget, e.g. United States, UK. These factors indicate that there are likely to be some future economic hardships for people. It is difficult to say when this downturn will occur and what it will look like. However, it is likely that Governments will be in a better position to deal with this downturn due to the lessons learnt from the last economic downturn. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, it is highly likely that we will have another serious economic downturn. The current state of the global economy is volatile. It is difficult to say when this economic downturn will occur and what it will look like. The global economy is so complex and relies on a number of factors such as supply and demand, interest rates, inflation, employment, trade deals, and environmental factors. There are a number of factors that suggest that the global economy is unstable. Inflation is currently rising in many countries. Many Governments are currently experiencing a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently going through a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently struggling to balance their budget, e.g. United States, UK. These factors indicate that there are likely to be some future economic hardships for people. It is difficult to say when this downturn will occur and what it will look like. However, it is likely that Governments will be in a better position to deal with this downturn due to the lessons learnt from the last economic downturn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: Yes, we will definitely have another serious economic downturn. The current state of the global economy is volatile. It is difficult to say when this economic downturn will occur and what it will look like. The global economy is so complex and relies on a number of factors such as supply and demand, interest rates, inflation, employment, trade deals, and environmental factors. There are a number of factors that suggest that the global economy is unstable. Inflation is currently rising in many countries. Many Governments are currently experiencing a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently struggling to balance their budget, e.g. United States, UK. These factors indicate that there are likely to be some future economic hardships for people. It is difficult to say when this downturn will occur and what it will look like. However, it is likely that Governments will be in a better position to deal with this downturn due to the lessons learnt from the last economic downturn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we will most likely have another serious economic downturn. The current state of the global economy is volatile. It is difficult to say when this economic downturn will occur and what it will look like. The global economy is so complex and relies on a number of factors such as supply and demand, interest rates, inflation, employment, trade deals, and environmental factors. There are a number of factors that suggest that the global economy is unstable. Inflation is currently rising in many countries. Many Governments are currently experiencing a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently going through a recession, e.g. United States, Brazil, Australia, UK. Many are currently struggling to balance their budget, e.g. United States, UK. These factors indicate that there are likely to be some future economic hardships for people. It is difficult to say when this downturn will occur and what it will look like. However, it is likely that Governments will be in a better position to deal with this downturn due to the lessons learnt from the last economic downturn. A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002062.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002062.soc index 197162b0..b3e00bb6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002062.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002062.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, however there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrates were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, but there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrates were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, however there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrants were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses. There should be checks in place, to prevent uncontrolled immigration. Such controls should be focused on ensuring only those who could bring skill-sets which would benefit the economy are allowed into the country. Such skill-sets should be ones that the economy is lacking in. It was also felt that people should be able to work in areas that the local population would be unwilling to do. This would benefit the economy and the people of the country as they would be -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, however there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrates were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses. However, it was also felt that it was important to have some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country, and that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, however there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrates were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, but there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrates were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, however there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrants were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses. There should be checks in place, to prevent uncontrolled immigration. Such controls should be focused on ensuring only those who could bring skill-sets which would benefit the economy are allowed into the country. Such skill-sets should be ones that the economy is lacking in. It was also felt that people should be able to work in areas that the local population would be unwilling to do. This would benefit the economy and the people of the country as they would be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In general, the group was in favour of immigration, however there was a need for some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. It was also felt that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do. The group felt that immigration was good for the economy as it brought in a wider skillset and knowledge from other areas and ideas about how to do tasks. Immigrates were also often more willing to take on the manual labour tasks that locals were less likely to do. It was also felt that immigrants enrich the culture of the places they are, increasing knowledge of those cultures and bringing in businesses. However, it was also felt that it was important to have some sort of control on the numbers of immigrants coming into the country, and that immigrants should be skilled in a particular area, as this would be of benefit to the economy. It was also felt that immigrants should be willing to work in areas that the local population were unwilling to do.” 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002063.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002063.soc index 0e090f17..2ed4aefb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002063.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002063.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People have the right to live their life as they wish to. If they wish to go out on a Sunday, then they should be allowed to buy alcohol from the supermarket. It is their choice and should not be restricted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes. The argument against is a throwback to the days when Sunday was seen as the day of Christian worship, and that the sale and consumption of alcohol was discouraged. As we live in a much more secular and diverse society, this viewpoint no longer holds much sway. The majority of people should not be held back in their day to day activities for the sake of a small percentage of people with no self control. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. The argument against is a throwback to the days when Sunday was seen as the day of Christian worship, and that the sale and consumption of alcohol was discouraged. As we live in a much more secular and diverse society, this viewpoint no longer holds much sway. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing alcohol sales in supermarkets on Sundays. This is because in the U.K. we have a diverse society, and the view of the majority should be respected. The view that a Sunday should be a day of rest is a religious view, and is not appropriate in a multicultural society. There is no reason why a Sunday should be treated any differently to any other day of the week. We should not prohibit alcohol sales on a Sunday, and if there is a problem with alcohol consumption then this is down to the individual and their personal responsibility. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People have the right to live their life as they wish to. If they wish to go out on a Sunday, then they should be allowed to buy alcohol from the supermarket. It is their choice and should not be restricted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes. The argument against is a throwback to the days when Sunday was seen as the day of Christian worship, and that the sale and consumption of alcohol was discouraged. As we live in a much more secular and diverse society, this viewpoint no longer holds much sway. The majority of people should not be held back in their day to day activities for the sake of a small percentage of people with no self control. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. The argument against is a throwback to the days when Sunday was seen as the day of Christian worship, and that the sale and consumption of alcohol was discouraged. As we live in a much more secular and diverse society, this viewpoint no longer holds much sway. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing alcohol sales in supermarkets on Sundays. This is because in the U.K. we have a diverse society, and the view of the majority should be respected. The view that a Sunday should be a day of rest is a religious view, and is not appropriate in a multicultural society. There is no reason why a Sunday should be treated any differently to any other day of the week. We should not prohibit alcohol sales on a Sunday, and if there is a problem with alcohol consumption then this is down to the individual and their personal responsibility. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002064.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002064.soc index 096bec71..41fe72cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002064.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002064.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have a responsibility to protect the environment. The environment is where we get our raw materials from, and if it is destroyed then we will be unable to make new things and may run out of resources. In addition, the environment is a place where people can go and relax and enjoy themselves. We should preserve the beauty of the environment for our children, grandchildren and future generations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We think that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. We are destroying the environment and animal habitats which is harming the world for generations to come. The environment is where we get all our raw materials and resources from. We have caused significant damage to the environment. It is essential that we do not continue to harm the environment for future generations and that we protect the ecosystems that we are a part of. The environment has given us so much and it is important that we protect it in return. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in agreement that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. We should continue to look into global warming to see if its definitely caused by humans or discover if this is a natural occurrence and would happen no matter what we do. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. Society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. Completely. As a young person I would love to bring children into the world, however, many people of my generation are discussing whether it is selfish to have children as you are bringing them into a world destined for destruction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The environment is our only home and the only one we have. It is crucial that we protect it for future generations and we have a responsibility to do so as we are part of the reason it is in the state it is today. We have a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. It is crucial that we protect the environment for us all and for future generations.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have a responsibility to protect the environment. The environment is where we get our raw materials from, and if it is destroyed then we will be unable to make new things and may run out of resources. In addition, the environment is a place where people can go and relax and enjoy themselves. We should preserve the beauty of the environment for our children, grandchildren and future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. We are destroying the environment and animal habitats which is harming the world for generations to come. The environment is where we get all our raw materials and resources from. We have caused significant damage to the environment. It is essential that we do not continue to harm the environment for future generations and that we protect the ecosystems that we are a part of. The environment has given us so much and it is important that we protect it in return. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in agreement that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. We should continue to look into global warming to see if its definitely caused by humans or discover if this is a natural occurrence and would happen no matter what we do. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. Society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. Completely. As a young person I would love to bring children into the world, however, many people of my generation are discussing whether it is selfish to have children as you are bringing them into a world destined for destruction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The environment is our only home and the only one we have. It is crucial that we protect it for future generations and we have a responsibility to do so as we are part of the reason it is in the state it is today. We have a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. It is crucial that we protect the environment for us all and for future generations.” 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002065.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002065.soc index 900d7acf..f3fc42be 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002065.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002065.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets as long as it is in moderation and it is only given to them on special occasions. The reason for this is that children need to be able to experience different tastes and textures. If they are only exposed to healthy foods they will not know what to expect when they go to birthday parties or to restaurants. It is important for children to be able to experience these things in moderation. It is also important for children to experience things like this so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets but only in moderation and as an occasional treat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be allowed sugar in their diets but only if it is done in moderation. There should be more focus on the importance of a healthy balanced diet which is something that can be encouraged with education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets within reason. We should educate children on the harmful affects of too much sugar but at the same time we should also not restrict their diet entirely as we would be depriving them of their basic human rights. It is important to ensure that we eat a balanced diet in which sugar is just a small part of. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets as long as it is in moderation and it is only given to them on special occasions. The reason for this is that children need to be able to experience different tastes and textures. If they are only exposed to healthy foods they will not know what to expect when they go to birthday parties or to restaurants. It is important for children to be able to experience these things in moderation. It is also important for children to experience things like this so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets but only in moderation and as an occasional treat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be allowed sugar in their diets but only if it is done in moderation. There should be more focus on the importance of a healthy balanced diet which is something that can be encouraged with education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets within reason. We should educate children on the harmful affects of too much sugar but at the same time we should also not restrict their diet entirely as we would be depriving them of their basic human rights. It is important to ensure that we eat a balanced diet in which sugar is just a small part of. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002066.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002066.soc index a8c8b6fb..68af6e0f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002066.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002066.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, people should not be allowed to buy and own guns for self-defence. If guns were banned, the crime rate would decrease as there would be less guns to use in crime. If guns were banned, people would not need to defend themselves as they would not be worried about someone else having a gun. The UK banned guns after the Dunblane Massacre and since then gun crime dramatically declined. The same happened with Australia when they banned guns. If guns are readily available, I can see the impulse towards gun ownership for self-defence. However, I think governments should be strict with gun laws. At the very minimum, it should be very hard to meet the criteria for legal gun ownership. Even better, all guns should be illegal except for law enforcement and other very specific exceptions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I don't think we should be able to have guns because if we did, people would abuse that power and do things they shouldn't. The way the law works in Australia is we are allowed to own guns but they must be locked up and secure in a gun safe at all times. This rule works well for hunters who use their guns to hunt for game, but the system would be open to abuse if guns were just available to anyone, especially people with violent tendencies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be allowed to buy and own guns for self-defence. This is because if all guns were banned, you would not need to defend yourself as you would not worry about someone else having a gun to defend yourself against to begin with. The gun victim crime rate is to high to warrant this law. If you look at countries were guns are banned, their rate of fatality is much much lower. The participants had to debate a question and reach a consensus. Each of them took the time to express their view, which was then deliberated and discussed. After much deliberation, they reached a consensus view which none of them necessarily agreed with, but all of them could at least tolerate. They reached this consensus view through deliberation, negotiation, and discussion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people being allowed to buy and own guns for self-defence. The group thought that this would lead to an increase in gun crime, and that if guns were banned, people would be just as safe, if not safer. The group thought that the best way to reduce gun crime was to ban guns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, people should not be allowed to buy and own guns for self-defence. If guns were banned, the crime rate would decrease as there would be less guns to use in crime. If guns were banned, people would not need to defend themselves as they would not be worried about someone else having a gun. The UK banned guns after the Dunblane Massacre and since then gun crime dramatically declined. The same happened with Australia when they banned guns. If guns are readily available, I can see the impulse towards gun ownership for self-defence. However, I think governments should be strict with gun laws. At the very minimum, it should be very hard to meet the criteria for legal gun ownership. Even better, all guns should be illegal except for law enforcement and other very specific exceptions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I don't think we should be able to have guns because if we did, people would abuse that power and do things they shouldn't. The way the law works in Australia is we are allowed to own guns but they must be locked up and secure in a gun safe at all times. This rule works well for hunters who use their guns to hunt for game, but the system would be open to abuse if guns were just available to anyone, especially people with violent tendencies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be allowed to buy and own guns for self-defence. This is because if all guns were banned, you would not need to defend yourself as you would not worry about someone else having a gun to defend yourself against to begin with. The gun victim crime rate is to high to warrant this law. If you look at countries were guns are banned, their rate of fatality is much much lower. The participants had to debate a question and reach a consensus. Each of them took the time to express their view, which was then deliberated and discussed. After much deliberation, they reached a consensus view which none of them necessarily agreed with, but all of them could at least tolerate. They reached this consensus view through deliberation, negotiation, and discussion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people being allowed to buy and own guns for self-defence. The group thought that this would lead to an increase in gun crime, and that if guns were banned, people would be just as safe, if not safer. The group thought that the best way to reduce gun crime was to ban guns. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002067.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002067.soc index a525a474..a88fbd6a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002067.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002067.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. There are many reasons why elective cosmetic surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body may need to be conducted that are unrelated to vanity. However, it is necessary that this be studied further and cases be treated with care. We still suggest that cosmetic surgery of this nature easing mental qualms is a strong enough reason to fund it with taxpayer's money as they may be affecting a person's mental health but we do not wish to push an argument that is going to open up the NHS to paying for everyone who wishes for cosmetic surgery but at the same time we would like to not discourage those who genuinely are in need of mental and physical health benefits from the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as though they don't cure any physical health conditions, they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as though they don't cure any physical health conditions, they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have. However, we would also like to point out that the NHS is greatly struggling and needs to cut back on funding unnecessary surgery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as they don't cure any physical health conditions, but they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have. Conclusion I believe that this experience makes a good case for the application of the consensus theory to problems of moral philosophy. It shows how as long as participants are able to put their biases aside and be truly objective it is possible to reach a consensual statement that is agreeable and based on clear and sufficient reasons. The ability to ground an ethical theory in both intuitions and reason, while reaching a conclusion which most will accept is truly praiseworthy. I do not see why it cannot be applied to a broader range of topics +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. There are many reasons why elective cosmetic surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body may need to be conducted that are unrelated to vanity. However, it is necessary that this be studied further and cases be treated with care. We still suggest that cosmetic surgery of this nature easing mental qualms is a strong enough reason to fund it with taxpayer's money as they may be affecting a person's mental health but we do not wish to push an argument that is going to open up the NHS to paying for everyone who wishes for cosmetic surgery but at the same time we would like to not discourage those who genuinely are in need of mental and physical health benefits from the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as though they don't cure any physical health conditions, they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as though they don't cure any physical health conditions, they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have. However, we would also like to point out that the NHS is greatly struggling and needs to cut back on funding unnecessary surgery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as they don't cure any physical health conditions, but they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have. Conclusion I believe that this experience makes a good case for the application of the consensus theory to problems of moral philosophy. It shows how as long as participants are able to put their biases aside and be truly objective it is possible to reach a consensual statement that is agreeable and based on clear and sufficient reasons. The ability to ground an ethical theory in both intuitions and reason, while reaching a conclusion which most will accept is truly praiseworthy. I do not see why it cannot be applied to a broader range of topics 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002068.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002068.soc index 4b6a01b2..638d733b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002068.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002068.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We do not think that a no-fly zone over central London would be effective in reducing pollution. We believe this is because London is a very densely populated city and introducing a no-fly zone would mean that pollution levels would remain high in that area and would only be reduced elsewhere. The benefit of reducing pollution levels in other areas would be counteracted by the fact that pollution levels would remain high in the densely populated areas of London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a no fly zone over Central London should not be introduced as the long-term consequences will be greater than the short-term gains. A no fly zone would likely produce more pollution and result in increased fuel consumption due to planes being forced to fly further and at higher altitudes. It would also be costly to implement and has the potential to negatively impact the economy. We believe that more work needs to be done to produce a viable and cost-effective alternative to reducing pollution in London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A no-fly zone would be a good idea if it reduced pollution. It would need to be carefully considered and the impact on other areas would need to be evaluated. It would need to be a well thought out plan. It would be a good idea to try it and see how it goes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We do not think that a no-fly zone over central London would be effective in reducing pollution. We believe this is because London is a very densely populated city and introducing a no-fly zone would mean that pollution levels would remain high in that area and would only be reduced elsewhere. The benefit of reducing pollution levels in other areas would be counteracted by the fact that pollution levels would remain high in the densely populated areas of London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a no fly zone over Central London should not be introduced as the long-term consequences will be greater than the short-term gains. A no fly zone would likely produce more pollution and result in increased fuel consumption due to planes being forced to fly further and at higher altitudes. It would also be costly to implement and has the potential to negatively impact the economy. We believe that more work needs to be done to produce a viable and cost-effective alternative to reducing pollution in London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A no-fly zone would be a good idea if it reduced pollution. It would need to be carefully considered and the impact on other areas would need to be evaluated. It would need to be a well thought out plan. It would be a good idea to try it and see how it goes. 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002069.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002069.soc index 38c7259a..c7ee9eda 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002069.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002069.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People have the right to be stupid. The government should not interfere with personal responsibility and should only advise people of the dangers of consuming high sugar soft drinks. They should advise but not ban. The consensus view was eventually met with huge opposition from participants and others who wanted to weigh in. Here are some of the responses: Participant 1: Can't believe this, how can you vote on something like this? This is a matter of individual responsibility and freedom. I also feel that if you're going to ban soft drinks, you should also ban alcohol and fatty foods. The reason why I voted no is because I don't want to ban something and make it harder for people to get it. Participant 2: I couldn't disagree more with the statement you came to. While I agree that people should have the right to be stupid, we as a society should not be encouraging them to be so. Banning products is always a bad idea, but in this case I believe it's warranted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not agree with a ban on the sale of soft drinks. The issue of obesity needs to be addressed but banning things is never the answer. However, we feel that labelling of sugar content should be made compulsory to give the consumer more information to make a choice, and the education system should do more to teach children about nutrition. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not ban the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. We believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they consume, and that it is not the role of the government to tell people what they can and cannot consume. We believe that it is the role of parents and schools to educate children about the dangers of consuming too much sugar, and that it is the role of the food industry to provide more healthy alternatives to sugary drinks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not ban the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. The government should not be allowed to ban the sale of any product that is not illegal. This would be a step too far and would be an infringement on personal freedom. The government should, however, be doing more to educate people on healthy eating and the dangers of consuming too much sugar. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People have the right to be stupid. The government should not interfere with personal responsibility and should only advise people of the dangers of consuming high sugar soft drinks. They should advise but not ban. The consensus view was eventually met with huge opposition from participants and others who wanted to weigh in. Here are some of the responses: Participant 1: Can't believe this, how can you vote on something like this? This is a matter of individual responsibility and freedom. I also feel that if you're going to ban soft drinks, you should also ban alcohol and fatty foods. The reason why I voted no is because I don't want to ban something and make it harder for people to get it. Participant 2: I couldn't disagree more with the statement you came to. While I agree that people should have the right to be stupid, we as a society should not be encouraging them to be so. Banning products is always a bad idea, but in this case I believe it's warranted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not agree with a ban on the sale of soft drinks. The issue of obesity needs to be addressed but banning things is never the answer. However, we feel that labelling of sugar content should be made compulsory to give the consumer more information to make a choice, and the education system should do more to teach children about nutrition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not ban the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. We believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they consume, and that it is not the role of the government to tell people what they can and cannot consume. We believe that it is the role of parents and schools to educate children about the dangers of consuming too much sugar, and that it is the role of the food industry to provide more healthy alternatives to sugary drinks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not ban the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. The government should not be allowed to ban the sale of any product that is not illegal. This would be a step too far and would be an infringement on personal freedom. The government should, however, be doing more to educate people on healthy eating and the dangers of consuming too much sugar. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002070.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002070.soc index 02da709f..4c7c1d42 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002070.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002070.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People in today's society should be able to live their life as they wish to, free from unnecessary restrictions on their freedoms. If they wish to go out on a Sunday, then they should be allowed to buy alcohol from the supermarket. Restricting this right affects the public at large, only small sections of society. We had some disagreements and some very differing opinions that needed to be addressed to come to the final consensus statement. There is a need to address all the opinions and try to bring them together so that we reach a consensus statement. At the end of the process all opinions should be presented, even ones not completely in agreement with the consensus statement. However, the more in agreement with the consensus statement the opinions are, the more the information is considered, and the stronger the final consensus is. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People have the right to live their life as they wish to. If they wish to go out on a Sunday, then they should be allowed to buy alcohol from the supermarket. It is their choice and should not be restricted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. People have the right to live their life as they wish to. If they wish to go out on a Sunday, then they should be allowed to buy alcohol from the supermarket. It is their choice and should not be restricted. People with a history of alcohol abuse should be given advice and guidance to help them overcome their problems, but there should be no legal restrictions on the public as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In a society that is becoming more and more diverse, we should allow the sale of alcohol on a Sunday in supermarkets. No one should be allowed to tell you what to do on a Sunday, and people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People in today's society should be able to live their life as they wish to, free from unnecessary restrictions on their freedoms. If they wish to go out on a Sunday, then they should be allowed to buy alcohol from the supermarket. Restricting this right affects the public at large, only small sections of society. We had some disagreements and some very differing opinions that needed to be addressed to come to the final consensus statement. There is a need to address all the opinions and try to bring them together so that we reach a consensus statement. At the end of the process all opinions should be presented, even ones not completely in agreement with the consensus statement. However, the more in agreement with the consensus statement the opinions are, the more the information is considered, and the stronger the final consensus is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People have the right to live their life as they wish to. If they wish to go out on a Sunday, then they should be allowed to buy alcohol from the supermarket. It is their choice and should not be restricted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. People have the right to live their life as they wish to. If they wish to go out on a Sunday, then they should be allowed to buy alcohol from the supermarket. It is their choice and should not be restricted. People with a history of alcohol abuse should be given advice and guidance to help them overcome their problems, but there should be no legal restrictions on the public as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In a society that is becoming more and more diverse, we should allow the sale of alcohol on a Sunday in supermarkets. No one should be allowed to tell you what to do on a Sunday, and people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002071.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002071.soc index 87fa35ce..76d364b9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002071.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002071.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No. MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is a luxury and if they can afford it, they should pay for it themselves. If they cannot afford it, they should not be able to have a second home. The money could be better spent elsewhere. The group also felt that the current expenses system was too open to abuse, and that the current system should be changed to a more transparent system, where expenses are claimed for what they are, and not for things that are luxuries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. The main argument for this was that it is a luxury and not a necessity. The fact that MPs are already in a position of power makes it even more important that they do not abuse this by claiming expenses for unnecessary things. It was also argued that MPs are already paid a good salary and do not need to claim expenses for a second home. It was also argued that if MPs can afford to have a second home, then they should be able to afford all the costs associated with it. It was also argued that the money could be used for more important things, such as helping the homeless and elderly. It was also argued that MPs should not be claiming expenses for a second home when they are the ones who stand in Parliament and say how little money we have as a country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is an unnecessary expense that the country can do without. In the current climate where there are so many people homeless or in need of housing, it is wrong to think that a second home for an MP is more important than those people. There is a big debate about MPs pay and their pay has been recently increased, therefore the expense for a second home is also not necessary. MPs are generally people who are well off and have their own money, therefore if they want a second home they should be in a position to pay for it themselves. If they can not afford a second home, then they can not afford the other luxuries that come with it and therefore are not in a position to own one. The tax payers money should not be spent on unnecessary luxuries, especially when there are so many people in need of money and resources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: MPs should not be allowed to claim for a second home. If they cannot afford to buy a second home, then they should not have one. MPs salaries are generally far higher than average wages and should be able to afford a second home from this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No. MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is a luxury and if they can afford it, they should pay for it themselves. If they cannot afford it, they should not be able to have a second home. The money could be better spent elsewhere. The group also felt that the current expenses system was too open to abuse, and that the current system should be changed to a more transparent system, where expenses are claimed for what they are, and not for things that are luxuries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. The main argument for this was that it is a luxury and not a necessity. The fact that MPs are already in a position of power makes it even more important that they do not abuse this by claiming expenses for unnecessary things. It was also argued that MPs are already paid a good salary and do not need to claim expenses for a second home. It was also argued that if MPs can afford to have a second home, then they should be able to afford all the costs associated with it. It was also argued that the money could be used for more important things, such as helping the homeless and elderly. It was also argued that MPs should not be claiming expenses for a second home when they are the ones who stand in Parliament and say how little money we have as a country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is an unnecessary expense that the country can do without. In the current climate where there are so many people homeless or in need of housing, it is wrong to think that a second home for an MP is more important than those people. There is a big debate about MPs pay and their pay has been recently increased, therefore the expense for a second home is also not necessary. MPs are generally people who are well off and have their own money, therefore if they want a second home they should be in a position to pay for it themselves. If they can not afford a second home, then they can not afford the other luxuries that come with it and therefore are not in a position to own one. The tax payers money should not be spent on unnecessary luxuries, especially when there are so many people in need of money and resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - MPs should not be allowed to claim for a second home. If they cannot afford to buy a second home, then they should not have one. MPs salaries are generally far higher than average wages and should be able to afford a second home from this. 3: 3,2,1,4 2: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002072.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002072.soc index e57d1d2d..54048ae5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002072.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002072.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets as long as it is in moderation and it is only given to them on special occasions. The reason for this is that children need to be able to experience different tastes and textures. If they are only exposed to healthy foods they will not know what to expect when they go to birthday parties or to restaurants. It is important for children to be able to experience these things in moderation. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should only have sugar on special occasions and only if it is in moderation. This will allow children to be able to try different flavors and textures which are all new experiences which children should be able to experience. It also allows children to learn what their tastes are and also how to control themselves. It also allows parents to learn how to control what children are eating and how to make sure that they are healthy and that they are able to be active and enjoy their childhood. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be allowed sugar as long as it is in moderation. Moderation means that children should have sweet treats only once a week (at the most) and only when their meals are balanced, healthy, and nutritious. Children should not be allowed too much sugar because they have a great chance of becoming obese, which can lead to a whole host of health issues (hypertension, diabetes, heart disease etc.). At the same time, children need to be exposed to foods of all textures and tastes, so they need to have some treats in order to experience a range of sensations. Children also need to be exposed to foods that contain sugar because this gives them an opportunity to learn about how they respond to sugar. They will be able to understand how sugar affects their moods and emotions, and their blood sugar levels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets as long as it is in moderation and it is only given to them on special occasions. The reason for this is that children need to be able to experience different tastes and textures. If they are only exposed to healthy foods they will not know what to expect when they go to birthday parties or to restaurants. It is important for children to be able to experience these things in moderation. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. However, it is important to remember that it is up to parents to make these decisions for their children until they are old enough to make their own decisions. Therefore, parents need to be well informed about the dangers of sugar and the health benefits of avoiding sugar. It is also important that children are given the opportunity to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets as long as it is in moderation and it is only given to them on special occasions. The reason for this is that children need to be able to experience different tastes and textures. If they are only exposed to healthy foods they will not know what to expect when they go to birthday parties or to restaurants. It is important for children to be able to experience these things in moderation. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should only have sugar on special occasions and only if it is in moderation. This will allow children to be able to try different flavors and textures which are all new experiences which children should be able to experience. It also allows children to learn what their tastes are and also how to control themselves. It also allows parents to learn how to control what children are eating and how to make sure that they are healthy and that they are able to be active and enjoy their childhood. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be allowed sugar as long as it is in moderation. Moderation means that children should have sweet treats only once a week (at the most) and only when their meals are balanced, healthy, and nutritious. Children should not be allowed too much sugar because they have a great chance of becoming obese, which can lead to a whole host of health issues (hypertension, diabetes, heart disease etc.). At the same time, children need to be exposed to foods of all textures and tastes, so they need to have some treats in order to experience a range of sensations. Children also need to be exposed to foods that contain sugar because this gives them an opportunity to learn about how they respond to sugar. They will be able to understand how sugar affects their moods and emotions, and their blood sugar levels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be allowed to have sugar in their diets as long as it is in moderation and it is only given to them on special occasions. The reason for this is that children need to be able to experience different tastes and textures. If they are only exposed to healthy foods they will not know what to expect when they go to birthday parties or to restaurants. It is important for children to be able to experience these things in moderation. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. It is also important for children to experience these things so that they can learn to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. However, it is important to remember that it is up to parents to make these decisions for their children until they are old enough to make their own decisions. Therefore, parents need to be well informed about the dangers of sugar and the health benefits of avoiding sugar. It is also important that children are given the opportunity to make their own decisions about what they eat and drink. 3: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002073.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002073.soc index 4dd752ba..15405ce1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002073.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002073.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of eating meat. The group felt that it is appropriate to eat meat, however, the way in which the meat is produced and the amount of meat consumed needs to be reduced. The group felt that the way in which the meat is produced needs to be more sustainable and that the animals should be treated in a more humane way. The group felt that there is a need to reduce the amount of meat consumed, however, the group did not feel that it was appropriate to ban the consumption of meat completely. The group felt that it is important to have a balanced diet and that it is fine to eat meat as part of that diet. The group felt that it is important to have meat free days to help reduce the amount of meat consumed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Meat is an important part of a healthy and balanced diet. Humans have evolved to eat meat and it is a significant source of protein, minerals and vitamins. Animals are also a part of the food chain and as predators we must eat to survive. I believe that it is perfectly appropriate to eat meat. However, in modern times, we must be conscious of sustainability and animal welfare. Meat consumption is increasing and is negatively impacting on the environment. To help prevent this, we must work together to ensure that meat is sustainably produced. Animals must be raised in a humane way, allowed to roam free and not be kept in cages. We must do what we can to ensure that we are not depleting the earth of its resources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans have evolved to eat meat and we should be allowed to continue to do so. However, we should also try to reduce the amount of meat we eat in order to help the climate. This can be done by having more meat free days, more vegetarian options in supermarkets and more education on the climate impacts of eating meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is fine to eat meat, but only if it is raised and slaughtered in a humane way. You can't just take a cow from the fields and kill it, you need to give it a happy life first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of eating meat. The group felt that it is appropriate to eat meat, however, the way in which the meat is produced and the amount of meat consumed needs to be reduced. The group felt that the way in which the meat is produced needs to be more sustainable and that the animals should be treated in a more humane way. The group felt that there is a need to reduce the amount of meat consumed, however, the group did not feel that it was appropriate to ban the consumption of meat completely. The group felt that it is important to have a balanced diet and that it is fine to eat meat as part of that diet. The group felt that it is important to have meat free days to help reduce the amount of meat consumed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Meat is an important part of a healthy and balanced diet. Humans have evolved to eat meat and it is a significant source of protein, minerals and vitamins. Animals are also a part of the food chain and as predators we must eat to survive. I believe that it is perfectly appropriate to eat meat. However, in modern times, we must be conscious of sustainability and animal welfare. Meat consumption is increasing and is negatively impacting on the environment. To help prevent this, we must work together to ensure that meat is sustainably produced. Animals must be raised in a humane way, allowed to roam free and not be kept in cages. We must do what we can to ensure that we are not depleting the earth of its resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans have evolved to eat meat and we should be allowed to continue to do so. However, we should also try to reduce the amount of meat we eat in order to help the climate. This can be done by having more meat free days, more vegetarian options in supermarkets and more education on the climate impacts of eating meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is fine to eat meat, but only if it is raised and slaughtered in a humane way. You can't just take a cow from the fields and kill it, you need to give it a happy life first. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002074.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002074.soc index 60c24114..e4f5fa67 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002074.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002074.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be educated at school as it is difficult to replicate a school environment at home, especially for children who would find it hard to concentrate in an unstructured environment. School is also a place where children can learn to interact with others, it helps them become more social, and teaches them about the world they live in. They also learn skills that they will use later in life, such as working as a team, taking turns, and negotiating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Home schooling can be effective in certain situations, however for the majority of children we believe that traditional schooling is more beneficial. This is because traditional schooling provides a variety of learning styles that cater to different types of learners, where as home schooling would limit the child to one learning style. Traditional schooling also allows the children to interact with their peers, and build up relationships and social skills, which is important when entering the work force. There are however exceptions to this. We believe that home schooling can be effective in certain situations, such as if a child has special needs and is being home schooled by a teacher, or if a child is particularly interested in a certain subject and the home schooling allows them to pursue that passion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be educated at school as it is the best way to learn. It is important to learn in a structured environment, to meet and interact with other children and adults. The social aspect of school is important to help develop communication and social skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that children should not be educated at home. We believe that they learn better in a structured school environment along with having the authority to follow and rules to adhere too. Whilst in school they are also interacting with other children and adults therefore developing their social skills. We believe that homeschooling is limited to the parent/s' knowledge and interpretation of issues. Whilst it allows children to explore certain topics that interest them in greater depth, at some point they will most likely have to enter mainstream education and will be underprepared for this experience. We believe that the majority of children today would prefer being educated from school. This also ensure they get to learn more than what is in exams etc, they will get to learn social and communication skills which are extremely important when they go into the working world etc. So overall we believe most kids should be educated at school and home education should be used as a back-up/secondary option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be educated at school as it is difficult to replicate a school environment at home, especially for children who would find it hard to concentrate in an unstructured environment. School is also a place where children can learn to interact with others, it helps them become more social, and teaches them about the world they live in. They also learn skills that they will use later in life, such as working as a team, taking turns, and negotiating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Home schooling can be effective in certain situations, however for the majority of children we believe that traditional schooling is more beneficial. This is because traditional schooling provides a variety of learning styles that cater to different types of learners, where as home schooling would limit the child to one learning style. Traditional schooling also allows the children to interact with their peers, and build up relationships and social skills, which is important when entering the work force. There are however exceptions to this. We believe that home schooling can be effective in certain situations, such as if a child has special needs and is being home schooled by a teacher, or if a child is particularly interested in a certain subject and the home schooling allows them to pursue that passion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be educated at school as it is the best way to learn. It is important to learn in a structured environment, to meet and interact with other children and adults. The social aspect of school is important to help develop communication and social skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that children should not be educated at home. We believe that they learn better in a structured school environment along with having the authority to follow and rules to adhere too. Whilst in school they are also interacting with other children and adults therefore developing their social skills. We believe that homeschooling is limited to the parent/s' knowledge and interpretation of issues. Whilst it allows children to explore certain topics that interest them in greater depth, at some point they will most likely have to enter mainstream education and will be underprepared for this experience. We believe that the majority of children today would prefer being educated from school. This also ensure they get to learn more than what is in exams etc, they will get to learn social and communication skills which are extremely important when they go into the working world etc. So overall we believe most kids should be educated at school and home education should be used as a back-up/secondary option. 2: 4,2,1,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002075.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002075.soc index b033e874..719d899c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002075.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002075.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. Society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. Completely. As a young person I would love to bring children into the world, however, many people of my generation are discussing whether it is selfish to have children as you are bringing them into a world destined for destruction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, we were in agreement that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. Humans have played a large role in the global warming phenomenon which we must act on to limit. This is a natural occurrence and a large ice melt off will take place whether or not humans play a significant role in it. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. As we have already done significant damage to the environment for greed and profit, society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. Conclusion 1. Does the draft consensus statement represent the views of the participants accurately? 2. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is general agreement that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. We should continue to look into global warming to see if its definitely caused by humans or discover if this is a natural occurrence and would happen no matter what we do. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. Society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Draft consensus statement (revised): In general, the group was in agreement that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. We should continue to look into global warming to see if its definitely caused by humans or discover if this is a natural occurrence and would happen no matter what we do. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. Society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. Society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. Completely. As a young person I would love to bring children into the world, however, many people of my generation are discussing whether it is selfish to have children as you are bringing them into a world destined for destruction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, we were in agreement that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. Humans have played a large role in the global warming phenomenon which we must act on to limit. This is a natural occurrence and a large ice melt off will take place whether or not humans play a significant role in it. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. As we have already done significant damage to the environment for greed and profit, society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. Conclusion 1. Does the draft consensus statement represent the views of the participants accurately? 2. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is general agreement that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. We should continue to look into global warming to see if its definitely caused by humans or discover if this is a natural occurrence and would happen no matter what we do. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. Society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Draft consensus statement (revised): In general, the group was in agreement that we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The environment is the only home that we have and we should try to tread as lightly as possible on this planet. In return for its care of us, we should also reciprocate. We should continue to look into global warming to see if its definitely caused by humans or discover if this is a natural occurrence and would happen no matter what we do. Large levels of deforestation and rising climate are causing the environment to be more important than ever in order to protect the future generations and animals. Housing developments are destroying large parts of the environment. Society has a responsibility to ensure that our behaviour does not do irreversible damage to the environment. It is important that we preserve resources and look protect wildlife and nature. Measures should be taken to limit short-term profiteering so that our natural world has survives without disproportionate human impact. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002076.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002076.soc index 83a45dda..40b9f5a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002076.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002076.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. The group of participants have come to the consensus view that other options should be considered to reduce pollution in London and that the no-fly zone is not a good option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement, increase pollution in other areas and cause more economic problems and disruptions to flights. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we have come to the view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. This project was designed to elicit critical thinking about this complex issue. It is envisaged that participants will take away a better understanding of issues in air travel from this project. The project will take place on Wednesday, 23rd April 2014, between 4:30 pm - 7:30 pm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. The group of participants have come to the consensus view that other options should be considered to reduce pollution in London and that the no-fly zone is not a good option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement, increase pollution in other areas and cause more economic problems and disruptions to flights. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we have come to the view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. This project was designed to elicit critical thinking about this complex issue. It is envisaged that participants will take away a better understanding of issues in air travel from this project. The project will take place on Wednesday, 23rd April 2014, between 4:30 pm - 7:30 pm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that we should not have a no-fly zone over central London as it would be impossible to implement and could have adverse effects. It would not reduce pollution levels in London as the planes would have to fly over other areas and could increase pollution in those areas. It would be very difficult to implement as the no-fly zone would have to be very large to ensure that all planes avoided central London. It would also be very difficult to implement as there are many airports in London and planes would have to be re-routed which could cause longer flight times and other issues. It would also be very expensive to implement and the costs would outweigh the benefits. The current pollution levels in London are not high enough to warrant a no-fly zone and it would not be worth the effort. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002077.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002077.soc index 08a7f8cf..28a99f9f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002077.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002077.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: While the concept of fairness is an emotive one, we recognise that some people may not be able to afford medical care. There is a danger that fairness becomes a concept applied as a blanket, but we think it is acceptable to treat certain people differently in this regard. For example, people on very low incomes, children, the elderly, the mentally ill or people with severe medical conditions should have the ability to access medical care. The above list is not exhaustive and we feel that society can provide health care for a broad range of people who are struggling to afford it. The concept of fairness does not require that every single person should be able to access free medical care, as long as certain groups of people who are vulnerable and/or less fortunate can. We do not believe this system to be unfair and we believe that society can afford to provide free medical care to those who need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the concept of fairness is an emotive one, we recognise that some people may not be able to afford medical care. There is a danger that fairness becomes a concept applied as a blanket, but we think it is acceptable to treat certain people differently in this regard. For example, people on very low incomes, children, the elderly, the mentally ill or people with severe medical conditions should have the ability to access medical care. The above list is not exhaustive and we feel that society can provide health care for a broad range of people who are struggling to afford it. The concept of fairness does not require that every single person should be able to access free medical care, as long as certain groups of people who are vulnerable and/or less fortunate can. We do not believe this system to be unfair and we believe that society can afford to provide free medical care to those who need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a fair system for access to free medical care. We recognise that certain people will be more vulnerable and need more support. The system should ensure that these people can access medical care. We do not believe it to be unfair that some people can access medical care and others cannot. There is a danger that the concept of fairness is applied as a blanket, but we think it is acceptable to treat certain people differently in this regard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: While the concept of fairness is an emotive one, we recognise that some people may not be able to afford medical care. There is a danger that fairness becomes a concept applied as a blanket, but we think it is acceptable to treat certain people differently in this regard. For example, people on very low incomes, children, the elderly, the mentally ill or people with severe medical conditions should have the ability to access medical care. The above list is not exhaustive and we feel that society can provide health care for a broad range of people who are struggling to afford it. The concept of fairness does not require that every single person should be able to access free medical care, as long as certain groups of people who are vulnerable and/or less fortunate can. We do not believe this system to be unfair and we believe that society can afford to provide free medical care to those who need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: While the concept of fairness is an emotive one, we recognise that some people may not be able to afford medical care. There is a danger that fairness becomes a concept applied as a blanket, but we think it is acceptable to treat certain people differently in this regard. For example, people on very low incomes, children, the elderly, the mentally ill or people with severe medical conditions should have the ability to access medical care. The above list is not exhaustive and we feel that society can provide health care for a broad range of people who are struggling to afford it. The concept of fairness does not require that every single person should be able to access free medical care, as long as certain groups of people who are vulnerable and/or less fortunate can. We do not believe this system to be unfair and we believe that society can afford to provide free medical care to those who need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the concept of fairness is an emotive one, we recognise that some people may not be able to afford medical care. There is a danger that fairness becomes a concept applied as a blanket, but we think it is acceptable to treat certain people differently in this regard. For example, people on very low incomes, children, the elderly, the mentally ill or people with severe medical conditions should have the ability to access medical care. The above list is not exhaustive and we feel that society can provide health care for a broad range of people who are struggling to afford it. The concept of fairness does not require that every single person should be able to access free medical care, as long as certain groups of people who are vulnerable and/or less fortunate can. We do not believe this system to be unfair and we believe that society can afford to provide free medical care to those who need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a fair system for access to free medical care. We recognise that certain people will be more vulnerable and need more support. The system should ensure that these people can access medical care. We do not believe it to be unfair that some people can access medical care and others cannot. There is a danger that the concept of fairness is applied as a blanket, but we think it is acceptable to treat certain people differently in this regard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: While the concept of fairness is an emotive one, we recognise that some people may not be able to afford medical care. There is a danger that fairness becomes a concept applied as a blanket, but we think it is acceptable to treat certain people differently in this regard. For example, people on very low incomes, children, the elderly, the mentally ill or people with severe medical conditions should have the ability to access medical care. The above list is not exhaustive and we feel that society can provide health care for a broad range of people who are struggling to afford it. The concept of fairness does not require that every single person should be able to access free medical care, as long as certain groups of people who are vulnerable and/or less fortunate can. We do not believe this system to be unfair and we believe that society can afford to provide free medical care to those who need it. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002078.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002078.soc index ab282403..17b90e59 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002078.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002078.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is an unnecessary expense that the country can do without. In the current climate where there are so many people homeless or in need of housing, it is wrong to think that a second home for an MP is more important than those people. There is a big debate about MPs pay and their pay has been recently increased, therefore the expense for a second home is also not necessary. MPs are generally people who are well off and have their own money, therefore if they want a second home they should be in a position to pay for it themselves. If they can not afford a second home, then they can not afford the other luxuries that come with it and therefore are not in a position to own one. The tax payers money should not be spent on unnecessary luxuries, especially when there are so many people in need of money and resources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is an unnecessary expense that the country can do without. In the current climate where there are so many people homeless or in need of housing, it is wrong to think that a second home for an MP is more important than those people. There is a big debate about MPs pay and their pay has been recently increased, therefore the expense for a second home is also not necessary. MPs are generally people who are well off and have their own money, therefore if they want a second home they should be in a position to pay for it themselves. If they can not afford a second home, then they can not afford the other luxuries that come with it and therefore are not in a position to own one. The tax payers money should not be spent on unnecessary luxuries, especially when there are so many people in need of money and resources. The money could be better spent on helping to improve the economy and helping those in need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: MPs should not be able to claim for a second home. If they cannot afford to buy a second home, then they should not own it. MPs salaries are generally higher and with so many people on lower incomes, it is wrong to spend tax payers money on additional homes for the MPs. Also, the number of homeless people is significantly high and therefore it is wrong to use tax payers money to subsidise the lives of people who have a home and their own personal wealth. If you want a second home, you should be able to afford it yourself and we don’t want tax payers money going to subsidise that. If you can’t afford it, why should other people pay for a personal luxury. I think this is a luxury that can be done without. More importantly, the money could be used to help alleviate the current cost of living crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is an unnecessary expense that the country can do without. In the current climate where there are so many people homeless or in need of housing, it is wrong to think that a second home for an MP is more important than those people. There is a big debate about MPs pay and their pay has been recently increased, therefore the expense for a second home is also not necessary. MPs are generally people who are well off and have their own money, therefore if they want a second home they should be in a position to pay for it themselves. If they can not afford a second home, then they can not afford the other luxuries that come with it and therefore are not in a position to own one. The tax payers money should not be spent on unnecessary luxuries, especially when there are so many people in need of money and resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is an unnecessary expense that the country can do without. In the current climate where there are so many people homeless or in need of housing, it is wrong to think that a second home for an MP is more important than those people. There is a big debate about MPs pay and their pay has been recently increased, therefore the expense for a second home is also not necessary. MPs are generally people who are well off and have their own money, therefore if they want a second home they should be in a position to pay for it themselves. If they can not afford a second home, then they can not afford the other luxuries that come with it and therefore are not in a position to own one. The tax payers money should not be spent on unnecessary luxuries, especially when there are so many people in need of money and resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is an unnecessary expense that the country can do without. In the current climate where there are so many people homeless or in need of housing, it is wrong to think that a second home for an MP is more important than those people. There is a big debate about MPs pay and their pay has been recently increased, therefore the expense for a second home is also not necessary. MPs are generally people who are well off and have their own money, therefore if they want a second home they should be in a position to pay for it themselves. If they can not afford a second home, then they can not afford the other luxuries that come with it and therefore are not in a position to own one. The tax payers money should not be spent on unnecessary luxuries, especially when there are so many people in need of money and resources. The money could be better spent on helping to improve the economy and helping those in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - MPs should not be able to claim for a second home. If they cannot afford to buy a second home, then they should not own it. MPs salaries are generally higher and with so many people on lower incomes, it is wrong to spend tax payers money on additional homes for the MPs. Also, the number of homeless people is significantly high and therefore it is wrong to use tax payers money to subsidise the lives of people who have a home and their own personal wealth. If you want a second home, you should be able to afford it yourself and we don’t want tax payers money going to subsidise that. If you can’t afford it, why should other people pay for a personal luxury. I think this is a luxury that can be done without. More importantly, the money could be used to help alleviate the current cost of living crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This is an unnecessary expense that the country can do without. In the current climate where there are so many people homeless or in need of housing, it is wrong to think that a second home for an MP is more important than those people. There is a big debate about MPs pay and their pay has been recently increased, therefore the expense for a second home is also not necessary. MPs are generally people who are well off and have their own money, therefore if they want a second home they should be in a position to pay for it themselves. If they can not afford a second home, then they can not afford the other luxuries that come with it and therefore are not in a position to own one. The tax payers money should not be spent on unnecessary luxuries, especially when there are so many people in need of money and resources. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002079.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002079.soc index ccaea8eb..ddae29cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002079.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002079.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Our current immigration policy is a complete shambles. Since Brexit, it is far too hard for unskilled workers to obtain a VISA to live and work in the UK and this has led to a huge exodus in unskilled labour. This country relies on unskilled labour for things like fruit picking and social care and we can already see the knock on effects in society for the choices made because of this. The way we tackle illegal immigration is also shocking, many of the processing camps have low standards of living conditions and this campaign to send rejected requests to Rwanda is abhorrent. This government's immigration policy is horrific and needs to be changed asap to a humanistic and empathetic one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Our current immigration policy is not correct. Since Brexit, it is far too hard for unskilled workers to obtain a VISA to live and work in the UK and this has led to a huge exodus in unskilled labour. This country relies on unskilled labour for things like fruit picking and social care and we can already see the knock on effects in society for the choices made because of this. The way we tackle illegal immigration is also shocking, many of the processing camps have low standards of living conditions and this campaign to send rejected requests to Rwanda is abhorrent. The group was also in agreement that there are no safe routes to the UK from wartorn and impoverished nations. This means that people seeking refuge must arrive in the UK via illegal routes, these illegal routes are dangerous and are the reason a significant amount of refugees die on the trip to a safe country. In the UK, migrants are being held in facilities unbecoming of any person and the situation is rapidly turning into a human right issue. This government's immigration policy is horrific and needs to be changed asap to a humanistic and empathetic one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The current immigration policy is not correct. We need to open up the floodgates and allow the right to asylum to everyone and I think that we should make it easier for people to apply for visas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Our current immigration policy is not correct. Since Brexit, it is far too hard for unskilled workers to obtain a VISA to live and work in the UK and this has led to a huge exodus in unskilled labour. This country relies on unskilled labour for things like fruit picking and social care and we can already see the knock on effects in society for the choices made because of this. The way we tackle illegal immigration is also shocking, many of the processing camps have low standards of living conditions and this campaign to send rejected requests to Rwanda is abhorrent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Our current immigration policy is a complete shambles. Since Brexit, it is far too hard for unskilled workers to obtain a VISA to live and work in the UK and this has led to a huge exodus in unskilled labour. This country relies on unskilled labour for things like fruit picking and social care and we can already see the knock on effects in society for the choices made because of this. The way we tackle illegal immigration is also shocking, many of the processing camps have low standards of living conditions and this campaign to send rejected requests to Rwanda is abhorrent. This government's immigration policy is horrific and needs to be changed asap to a humanistic and empathetic one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Our current immigration policy is not correct. Since Brexit, it is far too hard for unskilled workers to obtain a VISA to live and work in the UK and this has led to a huge exodus in unskilled labour. This country relies on unskilled labour for things like fruit picking and social care and we can already see the knock on effects in society for the choices made because of this. The way we tackle illegal immigration is also shocking, many of the processing camps have low standards of living conditions and this campaign to send rejected requests to Rwanda is abhorrent. The group was also in agreement that there are no safe routes to the UK from wartorn and impoverished nations. This means that people seeking refuge must arrive in the UK via illegal routes, these illegal routes are dangerous and are the reason a significant amount of refugees die on the trip to a safe country. In the UK, migrants are being held in facilities unbecoming of any person and the situation is rapidly turning into a human right issue. This government's immigration policy is horrific and needs to be changed asap to a humanistic and empathetic one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The current immigration policy is not correct. We need to open up the floodgates and allow the right to asylum to everyone and I think that we should make it easier for people to apply for visas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Our current immigration policy is not correct. Since Brexit, it is far too hard for unskilled workers to obtain a VISA to live and work in the UK and this has led to a huge exodus in unskilled labour. This country relies on unskilled labour for things like fruit picking and social care and we can already see the knock on effects in society for the choices made because of this. The way we tackle illegal immigration is also shocking, many of the processing camps have low standards of living conditions and this campaign to send rejected requests to Rwanda is abhorrent. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002080.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002080.soc index 2abd98ff..5ef1e03d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002080.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002080.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Meat is an important part of a healthy and balanced diet. Humans have evolved to eat meat and it is a significant source of protein, minerals and vitamins. Meat consumption is increasing and is negatively impacting on the environment. To help prevent this, we must work together to ensure that meat is sustainably produced. Animals must be raised in a humane way, allowed to roam free and not be kept in cages. We must do what we can to ensure that we are not depleting the earth of its resources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Meat is a crucial part of a healthy and balanced diet. However, we must take into account the impact meat consumption has on the environment and on sustainability. The increasing demand for meat from a global population will be a significant cause of climate change as we increase greenhouse gas emissions. This is why we must work together to ensure animals are raised in a more sustainable manner. Regardless of meat production practices, some ecosystem services will always be sacrificed; however, sustainable meat production can reduce human impacts, causing a loss of habitat, use of antibiotics and greenhouse gas emissions. This is why we must seriously consider all the possible environmental impacts from livestock. It is important that people are willing to reduce their meat consumption to help reduce environmental degradation. Eating less meat can be a more sustainable dietary choice, however eating sustainably-produced meat can also be a more sustainable choice than a vegetarian diet if the meat comes from a source that is raised in a more sustainable manner. It is important that we make informed choices when it comes to the meat we eat and to only eat meat produced in a sustainable manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Meat is an important part of a healthy and balanced diet. Humans have evolved to eat meat and it is a significant source of protein, minerals and vitamins. Animals are also a part of the food chain and as predators we must eat to survive. I believe that it is perfectly appropriate to eat meat. However, in modern times, we must be conscious of sustainability and animal welfare. Meat consumption is increasing and is negatively impacting on the environment. To help prevent this, we must work together to ensure that meat is sustainably produced. Animals must be raised in a humane way, allowed to roam free and not be kept in cages. We must do what we can to ensure that we are not depleting the earth of its resources. We must also be mindful of the impact of eating meat on the climate, taking into account the greenhouse gases created by livestock. We should continue to consume meat, but limit the amount we eat and the type of meat we eat. It is important to eat a healthy, balanced diet, but we can also do this by eating plant-based proteins and reducing our meat consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Humans have evolved to eat meat and it is a significant source of protein, minerals and vitamins. We must also take into account the negative impacts of meat production on the climate and work together to ensure that meat is sustainably produced. Animals must be raised in a humane way, allowed to roam free and not be kept in cages. To address these issues, we must take steps to raise awareness and incentivise a reduction in meat consumption, while also balancing our responsibility to protect the livelihoods of those who depend on agriculture. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Meat is an important part of a healthy and balanced diet. Humans have evolved to eat meat and it is a significant source of protein, minerals and vitamins. Meat consumption is increasing and is negatively impacting on the environment. To help prevent this, we must work together to ensure that meat is sustainably produced. Animals must be raised in a humane way, allowed to roam free and not be kept in cages. We must do what we can to ensure that we are not depleting the earth of its resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Meat is a crucial part of a healthy and balanced diet. However, we must take into account the impact meat consumption has on the environment and on sustainability. The increasing demand for meat from a global population will be a significant cause of climate change as we increase greenhouse gas emissions. This is why we must work together to ensure animals are raised in a more sustainable manner. Regardless of meat production practices, some ecosystem services will always be sacrificed; however, sustainable meat production can reduce human impacts, causing a loss of habitat, use of antibiotics and greenhouse gas emissions. This is why we must seriously consider all the possible environmental impacts from livestock. It is important that people are willing to reduce their meat consumption to help reduce environmental degradation. Eating less meat can be a more sustainable dietary choice, however eating sustainably-produced meat can also be a more sustainable choice than a vegetarian diet if the meat comes from a source that is raised in a more sustainable manner. It is important that we make informed choices when it comes to the meat we eat and to only eat meat produced in a sustainable manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Meat is an important part of a healthy and balanced diet. Humans have evolved to eat meat and it is a significant source of protein, minerals and vitamins. Animals are also a part of the food chain and as predators we must eat to survive. I believe that it is perfectly appropriate to eat meat. However, in modern times, we must be conscious of sustainability and animal welfare. Meat consumption is increasing and is negatively impacting on the environment. To help prevent this, we must work together to ensure that meat is sustainably produced. Animals must be raised in a humane way, allowed to roam free and not be kept in cages. We must do what we can to ensure that we are not depleting the earth of its resources. We must also be mindful of the impact of eating meat on the climate, taking into account the greenhouse gases created by livestock. We should continue to consume meat, but limit the amount we eat and the type of meat we eat. It is important to eat a healthy, balanced diet, but we can also do this by eating plant-based proteins and reducing our meat consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Humans have evolved to eat meat and it is a significant source of protein, minerals and vitamins. We must also take into account the negative impacts of meat production on the climate and work together to ensure that meat is sustainably produced. Animals must be raised in a humane way, allowed to roam free and not be kept in cages. To address these issues, we must take steps to raise awareness and incentivise a reduction in meat consumption, while also balancing our responsibility to protect the livelihoods of those who depend on agriculture. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002081.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002081.soc index 9c401533..be52c409 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002081.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002081.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that in the short term, allowing more immigration to the UK will help boost our economy. In the long term we are concerned that immigrants will have an adverse effect on our economy. In order to avoid this, we propose a long term plan that will benefit both immigrants and the UK economy. We propose that immigrants are only allowed to work in the UK if they meet a certain criteria, which includes having a skill or trade which is useful to our economy, and they are paid a living wage so that they are not a burden on the economy and public services. We also propose that an organisation be set up which helps immigrants integrate and settle into their new lives. This could be something like the citizenship classes that are compulsory for immigrants in Australia, which also allow them to start learning English and be given some basic knowledge of UK laws, values and culture. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. The group felt that immigration is good for the economy, as it helps businesses to grow and thrive, and it is also good for the UK as it helps us to become a more multicultural society. The group did not feel that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. However, the group did feel that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the UK economy and that they have the skills and financial means to support themselves. The group felt that immigrants should be encouraged to learn the English language and to integrate into UK society. The group also felt that the current immigration system is too complicated and that it should be simplified. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of immigration. The group felt that it was important to have skilled workers in the UK and that immigration is an important part of the economy. The group felt that immigration should be encouraged but that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the economy. The group felt that there should be a points system in place to ensure that only skilled workers are allowed to immigrate. The group also felt that there should be a system in place to help immigrants integrate into society and that there should be provisions in place to help them learn the language and access education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that immigrants can be a great asset to our country and can provide us with access to more human resources, more knowledge and help us to boost our economy. However, we feel that there should be strict guidelines for immigration into the UK to ensure that people who immigrate here are able to provide the skills that the UK needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that in the short term, allowing more immigration to the UK will help boost our economy. In the long term we are concerned that immigrants will have an adverse effect on our economy. In order to avoid this, we propose a long term plan that will benefit both immigrants and the UK economy. We propose that immigrants are only allowed to work in the UK if they meet a certain criteria, which includes having a skill or trade which is useful to our economy, and they are paid a living wage so that they are not a burden on the economy and public services. We also propose that an organisation be set up which helps immigrants integrate and settle into their new lives. This could be something like the citizenship classes that are compulsory for immigrants in Australia, which also allow them to start learning English and be given some basic knowledge of UK laws, values and culture. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. The group felt that immigration is good for the economy, as it helps businesses to grow and thrive, and it is also good for the UK as it helps us to become a more multicultural society. The group did not feel that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. However, the group did feel that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the UK economy and that they have the skills and financial means to support themselves. The group felt that immigrants should be encouraged to learn the English language and to integrate into UK society. The group also felt that the current immigration system is too complicated and that it should be simplified. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of immigration. The group felt that it was important to have skilled workers in the UK and that immigration is an important part of the economy. The group felt that immigration should be encouraged but that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the economy. The group felt that there should be a points system in place to ensure that only skilled workers are allowed to immigrate. The group also felt that there should be a system in place to help immigrants integrate into society and that there should be provisions in place to help them learn the language and access education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that immigrants can be a great asset to our country and can provide us with access to more human resources, more knowledge and help us to boost our economy. However, we feel that there should be strict guidelines for immigration into the UK to ensure that people who immigrate here are able to provide the skills that the UK needs. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002082.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002082.soc index 0af0c323..c2d5c40f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002082.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002082.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. The group felt that immigration is good for the economy, as it helps businesses to grow and thrive, and it is also good for the UK as it helps us to become a more multicultural society. The group did not feel that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. However, the group did feel that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the UK economy and that they have the skills and financial means to support themselves. The group felt that immigrants should be encouraged to learn the English language and to integrate into UK society. The group also felt that the current immigration system is too complicated and that it should be simplified. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general the group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. However, the group felt that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. The group felt that immigrants should integrate into UK society and learn the English language and also that the current immigration system should be simplified. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. The group felt that immigration is good for the economy, as it helps businesses to grow and thrive, and it is also good for the UK as it helps us to become a more multicultural society. The group felt that an immigrant should be able to speak and understand English before they are allowed to enter the UK, as this is of great importance to being able to integrate well. The group felt that it is very important for immigrants to integrate into UK society, and be able to keep up with everyday topics discussed in the media. The group felt that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK each year, but immigrants should not need to go through a lengthy and expensive process to get visas. The group felt that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the UK economy, and that immigrants should have skills and the financial means to support themselves. The group felt that the current immigration system is too complicated and that it should be simplified so that all immigrants go through the same process, and to make it easier for companies to recruit staff from overseas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. The group felt that immigration is good for the economy, as it helps businesses to grow and thrive, and it is also good for the UK as it helps us to become a more multicultural society. The group did not feel that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. However, the group did feel that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the UK economy and that they have the skills and financial means to support themselves. The group felt that immigrants should be encouraged to learn the English language and to integrate into UK society. The group also felt that the current immigration system is too complicated and that it should be simplified. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. The group felt that immigration is good for the economy, as it helps businesses to grow and thrive, and it is also good for the UK as it helps us to become a more multicultural society. The group did not feel that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. However, the group did feel that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the UK economy and that they have the skills and financial means to support themselves. The group felt that immigrants should be encouraged to learn the English language and to integrate into UK society. The group also felt that the current immigration system is too complicated and that it should be simplified. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general the group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. However, the group felt that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. The group felt that immigrants should integrate into UK society and learn the English language and also that the current immigration system should be simplified. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. The group felt that immigration is good for the economy, as it helps businesses to grow and thrive, and it is also good for the UK as it helps us to become a more multicultural society. The group felt that an immigrant should be able to speak and understand English before they are allowed to enter the UK, as this is of great importance to being able to integrate well. The group felt that it is very important for immigrants to integrate into UK society, and be able to keep up with everyday topics discussed in the media. The group felt that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK each year, but immigrants should not need to go through a lengthy and expensive process to get visas. The group felt that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the UK economy, and that immigrants should have skills and the financial means to support themselves. The group felt that the current immigration system is too complicated and that it should be simplified so that all immigrants go through the same process, and to make it easier for companies to recruit staff from overseas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing more immigration to boost the economy. The group felt that immigration is good for the economy, as it helps businesses to grow and thrive, and it is also good for the UK as it helps us to become a more multicultural society. The group did not feel that there should be a cap on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. However, the group did feel that there should be a system in place to ensure that immigrants are not a burden on the UK economy and that they have the skills and financial means to support themselves. The group felt that immigrants should be encouraged to learn the English language and to integrate into UK society. The group also felt that the current immigration system is too complicated and that it should be simplified. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002083.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002083.soc index a9066b84..b08c73af 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002083.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002083.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Private sector healthcare should not be allowed to compete with the NHS. If it is allowed to compete then the NHS will lose funding and staff as it will not be able to compete and may even shut down. It would also increase the price of private healthcare and lead to a US style system which would be extremely expensive and would impact lower-income households. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care. The main reason for this was that it would create a two-tier system in which those who could afford private healthcare would be able to jump the queue and receive treatment before those who could not afford it. The NHS is a vital part of the UK and should be protected. However, it was also recognised that there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the NHS is a pillar of British society. The NHS is a service that should be available to all, regardless of their income. Allowing private companies to compete with the NHS will only lead to a two-tier system, which will result in people who can afford it going private, and people who can't going to the NHS. This will lead to the NHS being underfunded, and a reduction in the quality of care. The NHS is also a point of national pride, and should be protected at all costs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the private sector should be allowed to compete with the NHS in providing medical care but only in very certain situations. These include when they are providing funding for areas which the NHS is not capable of providing at the moment and in some emergency situations. We think that this competition will help the NHS in some ways as they can see how private sector is achieving things and what improvements can be made in the NHS. We think that a lot of the improvements could be made through better technology and having people do tasks which they are most capable of, such as nurses administering medication. However, the private sector must not be allowed to compete with the NHS where there is not a clear need for it, and must also not be allowed to compete with the NHS in such a way that the NHS does not have the resources to provide the same service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Private sector healthcare should not be allowed to compete with the NHS. If it is allowed to compete then the NHS will lose funding and staff as it will not be able to compete and may even shut down. It would also increase the price of private healthcare and lead to a US style system which would be extremely expensive and would impact lower-income households. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care. The main reason for this was that it would create a two-tier system in which those who could afford private healthcare would be able to jump the queue and receive treatment before those who could not afford it. The NHS is a vital part of the UK and should be protected. However, it was also recognised that there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the NHS is a pillar of British society. The NHS is a service that should be available to all, regardless of their income. Allowing private companies to compete with the NHS will only lead to a two-tier system, which will result in people who can afford it going private, and people who can't going to the NHS. This will lead to the NHS being underfunded, and a reduction in the quality of care. The NHS is also a point of national pride, and should be protected at all costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the private sector should be allowed to compete with the NHS in providing medical care but only in very certain situations. These include when they are providing funding for areas which the NHS is not capable of providing at the moment and in some emergency situations. We think that this competition will help the NHS in some ways as they can see how private sector is achieving things and what improvements can be made in the NHS. We think that a lot of the improvements could be made through better technology and having people do tasks which they are most capable of, such as nurses administering medication. However, the private sector must not be allowed to compete with the NHS where there is not a clear need for it, and must also not be allowed to compete with the NHS in such a way that the NHS does not have the resources to provide the same service. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002084.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002084.soc index a567f6be..d597cd95 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002084.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002084.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school, because collectively they do not have the up to date experience about subjects and it is a significant overreach of power. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should have a certain level of involvement regarding what is taught in schools. This should be more of a guideline than a ruling as it will take into account modern day requirements, but there should also be a level of input from schools, teachers and parents so that there is a balance between what the government wants and what the students need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. The government would not act fairly and would not have the best interests of the public in their minds. In an ideal scenario there would be a group of separate qualified people making the decisions which the government cannot interfere with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school, because collectively they do not have the up to date experience about subjects and it is a significant overreach of power. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should have a certain level of involvement regarding what is taught in schools. This should be more of a guideline than a ruling as it will take into account modern day requirements, but there should also be a level of input from schools, teachers and parents so that there is a balance between what the government wants and what the students need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. The government would not act fairly and would not have the best interests of the public in their minds. In an ideal scenario there would be a group of separate qualified people making the decisions which the government cannot interfere with. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002085.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002085.soc index de8c0f72..b485378e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002085.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002085.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. Violent crime is becoming an increasingly worrying problem in the UK, and the government is not doing enough to combat it. They are not taking enough action against knife crime, and are not providing enough support for the police to deal with the problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is very low. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are also avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police also do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. They have argued that the state should analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. The group of participants have also argued that the funding for the state is not enough. The punishment is also too low which means it does not deter people from committing violent crime. The group of participants have also argued that the police do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers roam around with knifes acting like they are invincible. The group of participants have also argued that London especially is becoming notorious worldwide for being effectively a failed society - daylight robbery is commonplace, more campaigns are being started to raise attention to the existing knife crime problem, and even firearms are being illegally imported and put into dangerous hands at a higher rate than ever. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. They should start looking at what they are doing right and wrong, and should be looking at implementing more preventative measures and schemes, so that young people are not entering the world of crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. Violent crime is becoming an increasingly worrying problem in the UK, and the government is not doing enough to combat it. They are not taking enough action against knife crime, and are not providing enough support for the police to deal with the problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is very low. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are also avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police also do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus opinion that the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. They have argued that the state should analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. The group of participants have also argued that the funding for the state is not enough. The punishment is also too low which means it does not deter people from committing violent crime. The group of participants have also argued that the police do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers roam around with knifes acting like they are invincible. The group of participants have also argued that London especially is becoming notorious worldwide for being effectively a failed society - daylight robbery is commonplace, more campaigns are being started to raise attention to the existing knife crime problem, and even firearms are being illegally imported and put into dangerous hands at a higher rate than ever. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. They should start looking at what they are doing right and wrong, and should be looking at implementing more preventative measures and schemes, so that young people are not entering the world of crime. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002086.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002086.soc index 5850d7eb..9607bf36 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002086.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002086.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, it is not okay to build on brownfield land if it reduces the total amount of green space in a city. However, if the brownfield land was previously used for industrial purposes and was therefore already reducing the total amount of green space in a city, then it is okay to build on it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is not okay to build on brownfield land if it reduces the total amount of green space in a city. This is because green space is vital for the mental health of city residents, as well as providing a home for wildlife. However, if the brownfield land was previously used for industrial purposes, it is likely that the green space has already been reduced. In this case, it is okay to build on the land if it is for a good purpose, such as housing, and if the land has been thoroughly checked for safety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it is not ok to build on brownfield land if it reduces the total amount of green space in a city. It is important that cities have green spaces to help them clean the air and reduce pollution, and for the citizens to use as recreational space and to relax in. The issue is complicated however, because sometimes building on brownfield land is a good idea, if the land has been properly cleaned, and the building will bring a lot of benefits to the city. The people of the city should be able to voice their opinion, and have a say in what happens with the brownfield land. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is not acceptable to build on brownfield land if it reduces the total amount of green space. This is because, green space is vital for biodiversity, recreation and city dwelling residents' mental health. It would also increase the negative effects of urbanisation, which already includes increased pollution, a reduced amount of natural land, and increased climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, it is not okay to build on brownfield land if it reduces the total amount of green space in a city. However, if the brownfield land was previously used for industrial purposes and was therefore already reducing the total amount of green space in a city, then it is okay to build on it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is not okay to build on brownfield land if it reduces the total amount of green space in a city. This is because green space is vital for the mental health of city residents, as well as providing a home for wildlife. However, if the brownfield land was previously used for industrial purposes, it is likely that the green space has already been reduced. In this case, it is okay to build on the land if it is for a good purpose, such as housing, and if the land has been thoroughly checked for safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it is not ok to build on brownfield land if it reduces the total amount of green space in a city. It is important that cities have green spaces to help them clean the air and reduce pollution, and for the citizens to use as recreational space and to relax in. The issue is complicated however, because sometimes building on brownfield land is a good idea, if the land has been properly cleaned, and the building will bring a lot of benefits to the city. The people of the city should be able to voice their opinion, and have a say in what happens with the brownfield land. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not acceptable to build on brownfield land if it reduces the total amount of green space. This is because, green space is vital for biodiversity, recreation and city dwelling residents' mental health. It would also increase the negative effects of urbanisation, which already includes increased pollution, a reduced amount of natural land, and increased climate change. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002087.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002087.soc index 2286859e..217af6f5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002087.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002087.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Sex education is an important part of a child's education. It is important that children are taught about the importance of consent, and the legal age of consent. Children should also be taught about the importance of using contraception and protection, and the risks of unprotected sex. Children should be taught about the different forms of contraception available, and how to access them. Children should also be taught about different sexually transmitted diseases, and how to prevent them. Children should also be taught about periods, and the importance of menstrual hygiene. Children should also be taught about the different forms of gender and sexuality, and that it is ok to be who you are. Children should also be taught about the different forms of relationships, and that there is no right or wrong way to be in a relationship. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that sex without consent is rape. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that sex without consent is rape. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that sex without consent is rape. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that sex without consent is rape. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Schools should teach sex education but only to children over the age of 14. This should be taught by both male and female teachers and in an inclusive way to make sure everyone is comfortable. Children should be educated on safe sex and their rights around sex. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Sex education is very important in schools. We feel that the current sex education is very outdated and does not reflect the current society. We feel that it is important that sex education is taught in schools to allow children to be informed and make their own decisions. We feel that sex education should be taught in primary schools to allow children to be aware of their bodies and the changes that are happening. We also feel that sex education should be taught in secondary schools to allow children to be aware of the dangers and how to protect themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that sex education should be taught in all secondary schools and that it should be part of the school curriculum. This is because it would help young people make more informed decisions in life, and it would give them the opportunity to explore different sexualities and talk about topics which can be uncomfortable. It is also important that they know how to use protection so that they can avoid pregnancy and STDs. It is important that young people understand that they should not feel pressured into having sex with someone else and that they know how to act appropriately around others. It would also give children the opportunity to talk about subjects which can be hard to talk about and which they do not feel comfortable talking to their parents about. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Sex education is an important part of a child's education. It is important that children are taught about the importance of consent, and the legal age of consent. Children should also be taught about the importance of using contraception and protection, and the risks of unprotected sex. Children should be taught about the different forms of contraception available, and how to access them. Children should also be taught about different sexually transmitted diseases, and how to prevent them. Children should also be taught about periods, and the importance of menstrual hygiene. Children should also be taught about the different forms of gender and sexuality, and that it is ok to be who you are. Children should also be taught about the different forms of relationships, and that there is no right or wrong way to be in a relationship. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that sex without consent is rape. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that sex without consent is rape. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that sex without consent is rape. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that sex without consent is rape. Children should also be taught about the importance of consent, and that +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Schools should teach sex education but only to children over the age of 14. This should be taught by both male and female teachers and in an inclusive way to make sure everyone is comfortable. Children should be educated on safe sex and their rights around sex. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Sex education is very important in schools. We feel that the current sex education is very outdated and does not reflect the current society. We feel that it is important that sex education is taught in schools to allow children to be informed and make their own decisions. We feel that sex education should be taught in primary schools to allow children to be aware of their bodies and the changes that are happening. We also feel that sex education should be taught in secondary schools to allow children to be aware of the dangers and how to protect themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that sex education should be taught in all secondary schools and that it should be part of the school curriculum. This is because it would help young people make more informed decisions in life, and it would give them the opportunity to explore different sexualities and talk about topics which can be uncomfortable. It is also important that they know how to use protection so that they can avoid pregnancy and STDs. It is important that young people understand that they should not feel pressured into having sex with someone else and that they know how to act appropriately around others. It would also give children the opportunity to talk about subjects which can be hard to talk about and which they do not feel comfortable talking to their parents about. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002088.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002088.soc index 9badd7d6..acf9b8fb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002088.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002088.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. It was felt that this would be an infringement on personal freedom, and that people should be allowed to make their own choices. However, it was also felt that people should be made aware of the risks associated with consuming these drinks, and that the government should be doing more to make this information available to the public. It was also felt that the government should be doing more to promote the sale of healthier alternatives, such as water, and that they should be making it easier for people to purchase these alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should have a right to make decisions for themselves. However, if they are to make these decisions, they need to be aware of the risks associated with these decisions. Banning sugar-heavy soft drinks would just increase the price of these drinks and lead to their sale on the black market. We should therefore inform people of the risks associated with these drinks and make sure that they are aware that alternatives are available. This would give people the freedom to make their own decisions whilst making sure that they are fully informed. The questions was from this article in the Guardian. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a ban on the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. This is because people should be allowed to make their own choices, but the government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have a right to choose what they consume. However, if they are to consume high sugar content soft drinks, they should be made aware of the health risks. Banning such drinks would simply lead to individuals seeking to obtain them from other means. It would be more effective to increase incentives for the purchase of healthy alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. It was felt that this would be an infringement on personal freedom, and that people should be allowed to make their own choices. However, it was also felt that people should be made aware of the risks associated with consuming these drinks, and that the government should be doing more to make this information available to the public. It was also felt that the government should be doing more to promote the sale of healthier alternatives, such as water, and that they should be making it easier for people to purchase these alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should have a right to make decisions for themselves. However, if they are to make these decisions, they need to be aware of the risks associated with these decisions. Banning sugar-heavy soft drinks would just increase the price of these drinks and lead to their sale on the black market. We should therefore inform people of the risks associated with these drinks and make sure that they are aware that alternatives are available. This would give people the freedom to make their own decisions whilst making sure that they are fully informed. The questions was from this article in the Guardian. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a ban on the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. This is because people should be allowed to make their own choices, but the government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious. The government has a duty of care to protect its citizens. This is because the health implications of drinking these soft drinks are serious +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have a right to choose what they consume. However, if they are to consume high sugar content soft drinks, they should be made aware of the health risks. Banning such drinks would simply lead to individuals seeking to obtain them from other means. It would be more effective to increase incentives for the purchase of healthy alternatives. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002089.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002089.soc index 014f5d81..25027420 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002089.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002089.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be given a small weekly allowance. This will allow children to start to understand the value of money, and the concept of budgeting for their wants and needs. It also helps to teach children how to manage money. It is important for children to learn these skills as they start to grow older. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them from an early age how to manage money. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is a good thing to give children a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them about the value of work and the rewards that come along with that. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is important for children to learn the value of money so having their own money to manage and budget is a good way to start this learning. Once it's gone it's gone and that's a lesson most adults could do with learning too. They need to know money isn't unlimited and how choices can seem good at the time but you might later regret them. The younger we start this the better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches they from an early age how to manage money. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount should be increased with age. It is important for children to understand the value of money and to be able to manage it. It also teaches them about the value of work and how they can earn money. It is important to start teaching these lessons from an early age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be given a small weekly allowance. This will allow children to start to understand the value of money, and the concept of budgeting for their wants and needs. It also helps to teach children how to manage money. It is important for children to learn these skills as they start to grow older. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them from an early age how to manage money. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is a good thing to give children a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them about the value of work and the rewards that come along with that. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is important for children to learn the value of money so having their own money to manage and budget is a good way to start this learning. Once it's gone it's gone and that's a lesson most adults could do with learning too. They need to know money isn't unlimited and how choices can seem good at the time but you might later regret them. The younger we start this the better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches they from an early age how to manage money. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount should be increased with age. It is important for children to understand the value of money and to be able to manage it. It also teaches them about the value of work and how they can earn money. It is important to start teaching these lessons from an early age. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002090.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002090.soc index 2ab7c6de..b06e3b40 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002090.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002090.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The only reason they shouldnt is in certain situations if there is any danger to anyone else, or anything else. Or if they intend to do any harm. Privacy is a human right which if not allowed would cause a lot of problems for people. It would not be beneficial for everyone to have access to each others personal matters as it could cause hate crime. We all have the right to lead normal lives without such intrusion, unless absolutely necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should have a right to privacy. In certain circumstances people should not be able to take advantage of the privacy they have to do harm to others. For example, someone who is in jail should not have a right to privacy because they are being punished for something they have done and they may have done harm to someone in the past. On the other hand, most people are just regular people and privacy is a right that everyone should have. If people do not have a right to privacy, then this would cause many problems, and many people would be afraid to do things in their own home for fear of being monitored. In order for the world to be a good place, people should have a right to privacy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People have the right to privacy in the UK. The right to privacy is a very important human right, without it, we would be in a position where all of our information and personal matters would be on show for everyone to see. This could result in people suffering and also lead to hate crime. Also, the laws regarding privacy are needed in order to prevent people from using others personal information without their consent. However, in some instances, it is necessary for people's personal information to be shared with the government for their own safety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The only reason they shouldnt is in certain situations if there is any danger to anyone else, or anything else. Or if they intend to do any harm. Privacy is a human right which if not allowed would cause a lot of problems for people. It would not be beneficial for everyone to have access to each others personal matters as it could cause hate crime. We all have the right to lead normal lives without such intrusion, unless absolutely necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should have a right to privacy. In certain circumstances people should not be able to take advantage of the privacy they have to do harm to others. For example, someone who is in jail should not have a right to privacy because they are being punished for something they have done and they may have done harm to someone in the past. On the other hand, most people are just regular people and privacy is a right that everyone should have. If people do not have a right to privacy, then this would cause many problems, and many people would be afraid to do things in their own home for fear of being monitored. In order for the world to be a good place, people should have a right to privacy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People have the right to privacy in the UK. The right to privacy is a very important human right, without it, we would be in a position where all of our information and personal matters would be on show for everyone to see. This could result in people suffering and also lead to hate crime. Also, the laws regarding privacy are needed in order to prevent people from using others personal information without their consent. However, in some instances, it is necessary for people's personal information to be shared with the government for their own safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002091.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002091.soc index 0b1bee06..874b1e2b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002091.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002091.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a basic income for everyone. This would help to reduce poverty and also help to reduce the stress that people experience when they are struggling to make ends meet. The group thought that this would also help to reduce crime and increase the overall wealth of the country. The group thought that the minimum income should be set at £10,000 per year. This would be enough to provide the basic necessities of life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Everyone should have a basic income, but only if they work. If they do not work, then the government will lose money. This was a difficult topic for participants to discuss, but they were able to reach a consensus view on it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that everyone should be entitled to £10,000 a year income. This will help reduce the stress of those who earn less than that amount, provide a basic income for those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that although £10,000 isn’t a large amount, it will provide for basic needs and will help those who are struggling. It will give people who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also give those who struggle with mental health, and are therefore unable to work as much as they would like, an income that can provide for basic needs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income. There was some debate around whether it should be £10,000 or £20,000 for a couple. The group was in favour of a basic income for everyone, whether they work or not. The group thought that this would reduce the stress on individuals and families, as they would have a basic income to rely on. The group also thought that it would reduce crime, as people would not be as desperate to survive. The group thought that it would also increase the overall wealth of the country, as people would be able to spend their money on goods and services, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would increase the quality of life for citizens, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would encourage people to work, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would encourage people to work, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a basic income for everyone. This would help to reduce poverty and also help to reduce the stress that people experience when they are struggling to make ends meet. The group thought that this would also help to reduce crime and increase the overall wealth of the country. The group thought that the minimum income should be set at £10,000 per year. This would be enough to provide the basic necessities of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Everyone should have a basic income, but only if they work. If they do not work, then the government will lose money. This was a difficult topic for participants to discuss, but they were able to reach a consensus view on it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that everyone should be entitled to £10,000 a year income. This will help reduce the stress of those who earn less than that amount, provide a basic income for those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that although £10,000 isn’t a large amount, it will provide for basic needs and will help those who are struggling. It will give people who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also give those who struggle with mental health, and are therefore unable to work as much as they would like, an income that can provide for basic needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income. There was some debate around whether it should be £10,000 or £20,000 for a couple. The group was in favour of a basic income for everyone, whether they work or not. The group thought that this would reduce the stress on individuals and families, as they would have a basic income to rely on. The group also thought that it would reduce crime, as people would not be as desperate to survive. The group thought that it would also increase the overall wealth of the country, as people would be able to spend their money on goods and services, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would increase the quality of life for citizens, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would encourage people to work, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would encourage people to work, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002092.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002092.soc index 244064e8..6cb5d186 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002092.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002092.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal. This will make smoking less accessible to the public, and more people will try to quit. This was a difficult topic for me to answer, but I think if it was made illegal, then people will not take it so lightly and start to understand the harmful effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on cigarettes. We were all aware of the health implications and the effects it has on the people around you. The group thought that it would be a good idea to ban cigarettes and make it illegal to smoke. We all agreed that it would be a good idea to raise the age limit to stop young people smoking. We thought that this would be a good idea to stop the younger generation from smoking. We also thought that it would be a good idea to ban smoking in all indoor spaces and public transport. We thought that this would be a good idea as it would stop the harmful effects of second hand smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on cigarettes. This is because cigarettes are a health hazard and the ban would reduce the number of smokers and therefore the number of deaths caused by smoking. The group also felt that a ban would reduce the amount of litter caused by cigarettes and cigarette packets. However, the group felt that the ban would be difficult to enforce and would lead to an increase in the illegal sale of cigarettes. The group also felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal. This will make smoking less accessible to the public and reduce the number of smokers, improving the health of our nation and reducing the NHS’s budget spent on treating smoking related diseases. It would reduce the effects of passive smoking on those around smokers and protect children who are currently being exposed to second hand smoke in their homes. This would reduce the amount of deaths caused by smoking related illnesses such as lung cancer. We also think that making smoking illegal would encourage people to quit, with support from the NHS, as it would be seen as a harder activity to take part in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal. This will make smoking less accessible to the public, and more people will try to quit. This was a difficult topic for me to answer, but I think if it was made illegal, then people will not take it so lightly and start to understand the harmful effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on cigarettes. We were all aware of the health implications and the effects it has on the people around you. The group thought that it would be a good idea to ban cigarettes and make it illegal to smoke. We all agreed that it would be a good idea to raise the age limit to stop young people smoking. We thought that this would be a good idea to stop the younger generation from smoking. We also thought that it would be a good idea to ban smoking in all indoor spaces and public transport. We thought that this would be a good idea as it would stop the harmful effects of second hand smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on cigarettes. This is because cigarettes are a health hazard and the ban would reduce the number of smokers and therefore the number of deaths caused by smoking. The group also felt that a ban would reduce the amount of litter caused by cigarettes and cigarette packets. However, the group felt that the ban would be difficult to enforce and would lead to an increase in the illegal sale of cigarettes. The group also felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. The group felt that the ban would lead to an increase in the illegal production of cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal. This will make smoking less accessible to the public and reduce the number of smokers, improving the health of our nation and reducing the NHS’s budget spent on treating smoking related diseases. It would reduce the effects of passive smoking on those around smokers and protect children who are currently being exposed to second hand smoke in their homes. This would reduce the amount of deaths caused by smoking related illnesses such as lung cancer. We also think that making smoking illegal would encourage people to quit, with support from the NHS, as it would be seen as a harder activity to take part in. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002093.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002093.soc index 020d206a..738eddc9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002093.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002093.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life, and many people are not in a position to pay for private health insurance. The NHS is already stretched and underfunded, and requiring people to pay for private health insurance would not necessarily improve the situation. There are some people who abuse the system, but it would be better to find a way to stop this abuse rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital service and should be protected. Those who can afford private healthcare should be encouraged to use it to reduce the strain on the NHS. The government should also ensure that the NHS is adequately funded. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The Government should not make it mandatory for all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. This is because the NHS should be free at the point of access for all. There is no current evidence that it would improve the standard of healthcare for all and would only serve to punish those who could not afford the additional financial burden. We feel that it would be better to make some services chargeable, but that this should not apply to the emergency services, to the elderly or to children. For example, hospital visits for minor problems such as skin conditions or headaches could be made chargeable. This would help to reduce waiting times for the NHS, which are currently too long, and help to free up staff for more urgent problems. It is important to ensure that no-one who can't afford to pay for additional healthcare would be forced to, as this would be cruel and unjust. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the group had a range of opinions, we were all able to reach the consensus view that people should not be required to pay for private health insurance as this would create further inequality, leading to vulnerable people being denied healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life, and many people are not in a position to pay for private health insurance. The NHS is already stretched and underfunded, and requiring people to pay for private health insurance would not necessarily improve the situation. There are some people who abuse the system, but it would be better to find a way to stop this abuse rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital service and should be protected. Those who can afford private healthcare should be encouraged to use it to reduce the strain on the NHS. The government should also ensure that the NHS is adequately funded. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The Government should not make it mandatory for all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. This is because the NHS should be free at the point of access for all. There is no current evidence that it would improve the standard of healthcare for all and would only serve to punish those who could not afford the additional financial burden. We feel that it would be better to make some services chargeable, but that this should not apply to the emergency services, to the elderly or to children. For example, hospital visits for minor problems such as skin conditions or headaches could be made chargeable. This would help to reduce waiting times for the NHS, which are currently too long, and help to free up staff for more urgent problems. It is important to ensure that no-one who can't afford to pay for additional healthcare would be forced to, as this would be cruel and unjust. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the group had a range of opinions, we were all able to reach the consensus view that people should not be required to pay for private health insurance as this would create further inequality, leading to vulnerable people being denied healthcare. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002094.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002094.soc index 38688005..7464a087 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002094.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002094.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be taught about the human body and the changes it goes through as they grow older. They should also be taught about appropriate touching and about consent. However, the group was not in favour of teaching children about sex before the age of 12. The group felt that sex education should be tailored to the age of the child. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Schools should have age appropriate sex education programmes. This can help prevent any confusion for children, and also helps to reduce the risk of teen pregnancies. There is a lot of sexual content on the internet, and without appropriate sex education, it could leave children confused and may lead to risky behaviours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we believe that every school should have an age-appropriate sex education program. Sex education is important for children to be informed about, and understand how their bodies work and how they can deal with different situations. It also ensures they are well educated about the dangers of unprotected sex, and know how to stay safe. They can also be taught about consent, and understanding other people's feelings. We feel that it is important to include sex education in schools as there may be children who have no other way to find out information on this topic, and so they may learn bad information from the internet and friends. The topics covered should be age appropriate, so for younger children it would be limited, and for older children they could be taught about STI's and consent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Sex education should be age appropriate. The subject is very important and can prevent a lot of harm to children. In the past, this subject was taboo and rarely spoken about. The world is a very different place now and sex is much more openly discussed. Therefore, it is important that children are educated on the subject. However, it is important that this education is tailored to the age of the child. Young children should be taught about the changes that will happen to their bodies and how to keep themselves safe. Older children should be taught about sex and relationships in more detail. It is also important that children are taught about consent and that they are able to say no to unwanted sexual advances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be taught about the human body and the changes it goes through as they grow older. They should also be taught about appropriate touching and about consent. However, the group was not in favour of teaching children about sex before the age of 12. The group felt that sex education should be tailored to the age of the child. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Schools should have age appropriate sex education programmes. This can help prevent any confusion for children, and also helps to reduce the risk of teen pregnancies. There is a lot of sexual content on the internet, and without appropriate sex education, it could leave children confused and may lead to risky behaviours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we believe that every school should have an age-appropriate sex education program. Sex education is important for children to be informed about, and understand how their bodies work and how they can deal with different situations. It also ensures they are well educated about the dangers of unprotected sex, and know how to stay safe. They can also be taught about consent, and understanding other people's feelings. We feel that it is important to include sex education in schools as there may be children who have no other way to find out information on this topic, and so they may learn bad information from the internet and friends. The topics covered should be age appropriate, so for younger children it would be limited, and for older children they could be taught about STI's and consent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Sex education should be age appropriate. The subject is very important and can prevent a lot of harm to children. In the past, this subject was taboo and rarely spoken about. The world is a very different place now and sex is much more openly discussed. Therefore, it is important that children are educated on the subject. However, it is important that this education is tailored to the age of the child. Young children should be taught about the changes that will happen to their bodies and how to keep themselves safe. Older children should be taught about sex and relationships in more detail. It is also important that children are taught about consent and that they are able to say no to unwanted sexual advances. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002095.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002095.soc index cdb2a7b2..d20306c9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002095.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002095.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants was opposed to the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care. The main reason for this was that it would create a two-tier system in which those who could afford private healthcare would be able to jump the queue and receive treatment before those who could not afford it. The NHS is a vital part of the UK and should be protected. However, it was also recognised that there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care. The main reason for this was that it would create a two-tier system in which those who could afford private healthcare would be able to jump the queue and receive treatment before those who could not afford it. The NHS is a vital part of the UK and should be protected. However, it was also recognised that there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we were against the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care, mainly because this would create a two-tier system and move away from the principle of equal access to healthcare for all. The NHS is an essential part of the UK and one that should be protected. However, there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care. The main reason for this was that it would create a two-tier system in which those who could afford private healthcare would be able to jump the queue and receive treatment before those who could not afford it. The NHS is a vital part of the UK and should be protected. However, it was also recognised that there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants was opposed to the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care. The main reason for this was that it would create a two-tier system in which those who could afford private healthcare would be able to jump the queue and receive treatment before those who could not afford it. The NHS is a vital part of the UK and should be protected. However, it was also recognised that there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care. The main reason for this was that it would create a two-tier system in which those who could afford private healthcare would be able to jump the queue and receive treatment before those who could not afford it. The NHS is a vital part of the UK and should be protected. However, it was also recognised that there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we were against the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care, mainly because this would create a two-tier system and move away from the principle of equal access to healthcare for all. The NHS is an essential part of the UK and one that should be protected. However, there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of letting the private sector compete against the NHS for the provision of medical care. The main reason for this was that it would create a two-tier system in which those who could afford private healthcare would be able to jump the queue and receive treatment before those who could not afford it. The NHS is a vital part of the UK and should be protected. However, it was also recognised that there are some areas in which private healthcare could be beneficial, for example in the provision of non-essential treatments such as cosmetic surgery. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002096.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002096.soc index 0a259eae..b8b0080d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002096.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002096.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think a person should be allowed to get married to more than one person at the same time. We believe that marriage is a union between two people and that having more than one spouse at the same time would cause too many complications. We also believe that it would be difficult for any children of such a marriage to understand their family dynamics. We do not have a problem with polyamory but do not think it should be allowed within a marriage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. It is simply not practical to be married to more than one person and there are a number of legal issues which would arise if this was allowed. This would also create more complexity for children, which could be confusing. It is also important to be clear about the difference between polyamory, which is the practice of having multiple relationships, and polygamy, which is the practice of having multiple spouses. A person can have multiple relationships without being married to more than one person, whereas the term polygamy refers to being married to more than one person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No. Marriage is about a commitment to one person, and I think the bond should be between two people only. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not think a person should be allowed to get married to more than one person at the same time. We think that marriage should be between two people only, and that this is the traditional view of marriage. We think that polyamory is fine, but that the legal construct of marriage should remain between two individuals. We think that allowing people to be married to more than one person at a time could cause issues for children and how they relate to their parents. It could also be confusing for children born from one of the relationships as to who is their mother or father. We think that marriage is a special bond between two people, and that the legal construct of marriage should remain between two individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think a person should be allowed to get married to more than one person at the same time. We believe that marriage is a union between two people and that having more than one spouse at the same time would cause too many complications. We also believe that it would be difficult for any children of such a marriage to understand their family dynamics. We do not have a problem with polyamory but do not think it should be allowed within a marriage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. It is simply not practical to be married to more than one person and there are a number of legal issues which would arise if this was allowed. This would also create more complexity for children, which could be confusing. It is also important to be clear about the difference between polyamory, which is the practice of having multiple relationships, and polygamy, which is the practice of having multiple spouses. A person can have multiple relationships without being married to more than one person, whereas the term polygamy refers to being married to more than one person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No. Marriage is about a commitment to one person, and I think the bond should be between two people only. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not think a person should be allowed to get married to more than one person at the same time. We think that marriage should be between two people only, and that this is the traditional view of marriage. We think that polyamory is fine, but that the legal construct of marriage should remain between two individuals. We think that allowing people to be married to more than one person at a time could cause issues for children and how they relate to their parents. It could also be confusing for children born from one of the relationships as to who is their mother or father. We think that marriage is a special bond between two people, and that the legal construct of marriage should remain between two individuals. 2: 4,2,1,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002097.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002097.soc index deb1f298..2cf6e9bb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002097.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002097.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of stricter gun control. This was because there is a strong link between the number of guns in a country and the number of gun deaths in that country. The group also felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Gun control is absolutely needed. The high number of deaths due to gun violence in America and the potential risk to children in schools is horrifying. Stricter gun control is required to ensure safety of individuals. Background checks should be conducted on all gun purchases and additional restrictions should be put in place for the number of guns that can be purchased by a single person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of stricter gun control. The reasons for this included that the US has the highest gun ownership and gun death rates in the world. It was felt that the US should follow the example of other countries such as the UK and Ireland where guns are much harder to obtain. It was felt that there should be a psych evaluation for anyone who wants to own a gun to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves or others. It was felt that there should be a licence to carry a gun and that there should be training to show that the person can use the gun. It was felt that the local authority should be notified of anyone who wants to own a gun. It was felt that the person who owns the gun should be subject to regular checks. It was felt that the use of guns should not be a recreational thing and that shooting ranges should only be available to people who need to learn to shoot for their job. It was felt that guns are a weapon and can cause death and to view them in a recreational light is a bad thing. It was felt that access to guns should be tightened and restricted to this whoo need them for a legitimate reason. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that stricter gun control laws are needed, the US has one of the highest gun ownership and gun death rates in the world. This is down to the ease at which guns can be purchased and we believe this needs to change. There are a number of things we feel need to be implemented. First and foremost, there should be a licence and training requirement for any individual who wants to own a gun. They should also have to do a psych evaluation to show that they can handle the weapon appropriately and to show that they have a valid reason for owning the gun. In the US, there is currently a great laxity in laws around gun ownership and as a result this has allowed the situation to deteriorate to its current state. The same can be said for the UK and we feel that gun ownership should be limited to those who have a legitimate need for them and the purchase of a gun should not be a quick and easy process. Lastly, we believe there should be serious consequences for the inappropriate use of a gun. We have seen many incidents in which a person who has killed someone has been able to get off because of their defence of self or property. We believe that if a person kills another +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of stricter gun control. This was because there is a strong link between the number of guns in a country and the number of gun deaths in that country. The group also felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the high number of gun deaths in that country. The group felt that the US has a very relaxed attitude to guns and that this is a major factor in the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Gun control is absolutely needed. The high number of deaths due to gun violence in America and the potential risk to children in schools is horrifying. Stricter gun control is required to ensure safety of individuals. Background checks should be conducted on all gun purchases and additional restrictions should be put in place for the number of guns that can be purchased by a single person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of stricter gun control. The reasons for this included that the US has the highest gun ownership and gun death rates in the world. It was felt that the US should follow the example of other countries such as the UK and Ireland where guns are much harder to obtain. It was felt that there should be a psych evaluation for anyone who wants to own a gun to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves or others. It was felt that there should be a licence to carry a gun and that there should be training to show that the person can use the gun. It was felt that the local authority should be notified of anyone who wants to own a gun. It was felt that the person who owns the gun should be subject to regular checks. It was felt that the use of guns should not be a recreational thing and that shooting ranges should only be available to people who need to learn to shoot for their job. It was felt that guns are a weapon and can cause death and to view them in a recreational light is a bad thing. It was felt that access to guns should be tightened and restricted to this whoo need them for a legitimate reason. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that stricter gun control laws are needed, the US has one of the highest gun ownership and gun death rates in the world. This is down to the ease at which guns can be purchased and we believe this needs to change. There are a number of things we feel need to be implemented. First and foremost, there should be a licence and training requirement for any individual who wants to own a gun. They should also have to do a psych evaluation to show that they can handle the weapon appropriately and to show that they have a valid reason for owning the gun. In the US, there is currently a great laxity in laws around gun ownership and as a result this has allowed the situation to deteriorate to its current state. The same can be said for the UK and we feel that gun ownership should be limited to those who have a legitimate need for them and the purchase of a gun should not be a quick and easy process. Lastly, we believe there should be serious consequences for the inappropriate use of a gun. We have seen many incidents in which a person who has killed someone has been able to get off because of their defence of self or property. We believe that if a person kills another 2: 4,3,2,1 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002098.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002098.soc index f75473f5..6ca6006b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002098.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002098.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. It has been found that pupils are better placed to remember the information that is discussed and debated in the classroom, rather than text book reading and copying, and the classroom is one place where the government has no presence, other than through the national curriculum. Teachers and other individuals who interact with children daily are more adept at imparting knowledge and taking into account the pupils' needs, rather than making decisions for the whole country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. However, as the government is providing the funding for education it is fair that they should be involved in what is being taught to ensure that it meets national requirements. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. It has been found that pupils are better placed to remember the information that is discussed and debated in the classroom, rather than text book reading and copying, and the classroom is one place where the government has no presence, other than through the national curriculum. Teachers and other individuals who interact with children daily are more adept at imparting knowledge and taking into account the pupils' needs, rather than making decisions for the whole country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. However, as the government is providing the funding for education it is fair that they should be involved in what is being taught to ensure that it meets national requirements. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the UK government should not make all the decisions regarding what is taught in school. There should be some sort of national curriculum, but the government should not decide what should and shouldn't be taught in schools as this can lead to certain important things being left out. The government could advise that certain things should be included but that should be as far as it should go. Education unions and teachers have more of an idea of what pupils need to learn for todays university courses and apprenticeships. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002099.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002099.soc index 4c9851ab..be07a764 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002099.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002099.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. This will teach them from an early age how to manage money and skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is a good thing to give children a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them about the value of work and the rewards that come along with that. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. This will also teach them about money management, budgeting and making decisions independently from an early age. It is important for children to learn the value of money, and that you only get out what you put in so having their own money to manage and budget is a good way to start this learning. They need to know money isn't unlimited and how choices can seem good at the time but you might later regret them. The younger we start this the better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them from an early age how to manage money. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is a good thing to give children a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them about the value of work and the rewards that come along with that. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is important for children to learn the value of money so having their own money to manage and budget is a good way to start this learning. Once it's gone it's gone and that's a lesson most adults could do with learning too. They need to know money isn't unlimited and how choices can seem good at the time but you might later regret them. The younger we start this the better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. This will teach them the value of money and allow them to develop skills that will be useful in the future. This is a good thing for children because they can learn how to manage money and also how to work hard for the money they earn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them from an early age how to manage money. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is a good thing to give children a weekly allowance. It teaches them about the value of work and the rewards that come along with that. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. This will teach them from an early age how to manage money and skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is a good thing to give children a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them about the value of work and the rewards that come along with that. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. This will also teach them about money management, budgeting and making decisions independently from an early age. It is important for children to learn the value of money, and that you only get out what you put in so having their own money to manage and budget is a good way to start this learning. They need to know money isn't unlimited and how choices can seem good at the time but you might later regret them. The younger we start this the better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them from an early age how to manage money. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is a good thing to give children a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them about the value of work and the rewards that come along with that. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is important for children to learn the value of money so having their own money to manage and budget is a good way to start this learning. Once it's gone it's gone and that's a lesson most adults could do with learning too. They need to know money isn't unlimited and how choices can seem good at the time but you might later regret them. The younger we start this the better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. This will teach them the value of money and allow them to develop skills that will be useful in the future. This is a good thing for children because they can learn how to manage money and also how to work hard for the money they earn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be given a weekly allowance. The amount they get should increase with age. It teaches them from an early age how to manage money. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. It is a good thing to give children a weekly allowance. It teaches them about the value of work and the rewards that come along with that. It also teaches them skills that are important for the rest of their lives. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002100.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002100.soc index 431d099f..63357f68 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002100.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002100.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is very low. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are also avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police also do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is very low, therefore they cannot do as much as they would like. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are also avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police also do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. Period 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is very low. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are also avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police also do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is low which means that they do not have enough officers and they are not being paid enough to do their job properly. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is very low. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are also avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police also do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is very low, therefore they cannot do as much as they would like. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are also avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police also do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. Period 5 +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is very low. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are also avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police also do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the state is not doing enough to reduce violent crime. The funding for the police is low which means that they do not have enough officers and they are not being paid enough to do their job properly. There are also not enough laws and penalties to deter people from committing violent crimes. Criminals are avoiding jail and reoffending time and time again. The police do not have enough power to react against criminals and the whole situation is a mess. Teenagers are roaming around with knives acting like they are invincible. The state should also analyse the crime numbers and take action from there. They should also add more regulations to gun crimes to reduce the death toll. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002101.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002101.soc index 236ab670..ab6fe628 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002101.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002101.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should have a right to make decisions for themselves. However, if they are to make these decisions, they need to be aware of the risks associated with these decisions. Banning sugar-heavy soft drinks would just increase the price of these drinks and lead to their sale on the black market. We should therefore inform people of the risks associated with these drinks and make sure that they are aware that alternatives are available. This would give people the freedom to make their own decisions whilst making sure that they are fully informed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should have a right to make decisions for themselves. However, if they are to make these decisions, they need to be aware of the risks associated with these decisions. Banning sugar-heavy soft drinks would just increase the price of these drinks and lead to their sale on the black market. We should therefore inform people of the risks associated with these drinks and make sure that they are aware that alternatives are available. This would give people the freedom to make their own decisions whilst making sure that they are fully informed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: I agree with the statement made. People should be allowed to make their own choices, and if they are aware of all the facts and information then that should be allowed to do so. Bans on soft drinks would not solve the issue, as it would drive people to obtain these drinks from different means, therefore overall would not help people avoid the drinks. However, it is more feasible to develop a strong campaign to help people become aware of the facts and dangers associated with soft drinks high in sugar and educate people of the dangers. There are also alternatives such as 'Diet' drinks, that would be more beneficial in preventing obesity and diabetes in the nation, that should be promoted by the government. I think the consensus statement should be in the 3rd person point of view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have a right to make decisions for themselves. However, if they are to make these decisions, they need to be aware of the risks associated with these decisions. Banning sugar-heavy soft drinks would just increase the price of these drinks and lead to their sale on the black market. We should therefore inform people of the risks associated with these drinks and make sure that they are aware that alternatives are available. This would give people the freedom to make their own decisions whilst making sure that they are fully informed. The questions was from this article in the Guardian. Group Report completed by: Participant 1: (1st round leader, 2nd round moderator) Participant 2: (2nd round leader) Participant 3: (3rd round leader) Participant 4: (4th round leader) Participant 5: (5th round leader) Friday 7th October (Week 7) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should have a right to make decisions for themselves. However, if they are to make these decisions, they need to be aware of the risks associated with these decisions. Banning sugar-heavy soft drinks would just increase the price of these drinks and lead to their sale on the black market. We should therefore inform people of the risks associated with these drinks and make sure that they are aware that alternatives are available. This would give people the freedom to make their own decisions whilst making sure that they are fully informed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should have a right to make decisions for themselves. However, if they are to make these decisions, they need to be aware of the risks associated with these decisions. Banning sugar-heavy soft drinks would just increase the price of these drinks and lead to their sale on the black market. We should therefore inform people of the risks associated with these drinks and make sure that they are aware that alternatives are available. This would give people the freedom to make their own decisions whilst making sure that they are fully informed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: I agree with the statement made. People should be allowed to make their own choices, and if they are aware of all the facts and information then that should be allowed to do so. Bans on soft drinks would not solve the issue, as it would drive people to obtain these drinks from different means, therefore overall would not help people avoid the drinks. However, it is more feasible to develop a strong campaign to help people become aware of the facts and dangers associated with soft drinks high in sugar and educate people of the dangers. There are also alternatives such as 'Diet' drinks, that would be more beneficial in preventing obesity and diabetes in the nation, that should be promoted by the government. I think the consensus statement should be in the 3rd person point of view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have a right to make decisions for themselves. However, if they are to make these decisions, they need to be aware of the risks associated with these decisions. Banning sugar-heavy soft drinks would just increase the price of these drinks and lead to their sale on the black market. We should therefore inform people of the risks associated with these drinks and make sure that they are aware that alternatives are available. This would give people the freedom to make their own decisions whilst making sure that they are fully informed. The questions was from this article in the Guardian. Group Report completed by: Participant 1: (1st round leader, 2nd round moderator) Participant 2: (2nd round leader) Participant 3: (3rd round leader) Participant 4: (4th round leader) Participant 5: (5th round leader) Friday 7th October (Week 7) 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002102.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002102.soc index e65aa64c..ec4d9c08 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002102.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002102.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The government is not leading by example, with many of the top politicians and MPs using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate emissions, more tax on flights, and putting a higher priority on the issue. The government needs to be doing a lot more than they currently are doing, from awareness to action. The big corporations get away with the most because they donate to the government, but it shouldn't be this way. The government could do a lot more, such as making it a bigger priority, and putting more effort into awareness campaigns and infrastructure. The current statement does not give the impression that there is any urgency in the government's approach and that it is not making the issue a priority, and it is because of this that they have not been doing enough to protect the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. Many top politicians and MPs are using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate emissions, more tax on flights, and putting a higher priority on the issue. The government needs to be doing a lot more than they currently are doing, from awareness to action. The big corporations get away with the most because they donate to the government, but it shouldn't be this way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The government is not leading by example, with many of the top politicians and MPs using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate emissions, more tax on flights, and putting a higher priority on the issue. The government needs to be doing a lot more than they currently are doing, from awareness to action. The big corporations get away with the most because they donate to the government, but it shouldn't be this way. The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The government is not leading by example, with many of the top politicians and MPs using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The government is not leading by example, with many of the top politicians and MPs using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate emissions, more tax on flights, and putting a higher priority on the issue. The government needs to be doing a lot more than they currently are doing, from awareness to action. The big corporations get away with the most because they donate to the government, but it shouldn't be this way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The government is not leading by example, with many of the top politicians and MPs using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate emissions, more tax on flights, and putting a higher priority on the issue. The government needs to be doing a lot more than they currently are doing, from awareness to action. The big corporations get away with the most because they donate to the government, but it shouldn't be this way. The government could do a lot more, such as making it a bigger priority, and putting more effort into awareness campaigns and infrastructure. The current statement does not give the impression that there is any urgency in the government's approach and that it is not making the issue a priority, and it is because of this that they have not been doing enough to protect the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. Many top politicians and MPs are using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate emissions, more tax on flights, and putting a higher priority on the issue. The government needs to be doing a lot more than they currently are doing, from awareness to action. The big corporations get away with the most because they donate to the government, but it shouldn't be this way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The government is not leading by example, with many of the top politicians and MPs using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate emissions, more tax on flights, and putting a higher priority on the issue. The government needs to be doing a lot more than they currently are doing, from awareness to action. The big corporations get away with the most because they donate to the government, but it shouldn't be this way. The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The government is not leading by example, with many of the top politicians and MPs using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: The UK government is not doing enough to protect the environment. The government is not leading by example, with many of the top politicians and MPs using private planes to travel, and the Conservative government's stance is not in line with the scientific consensus on climate change. The government is doing the bare minimum to be seen to be doing something, but there are many more things they could be doing, such as funding better recycling collections, taxing the rich in order to offset climate emissions, more tax on flights, and putting a higher priority on the issue. The government needs to be doing a lot more than they currently are doing, from awareness to action. The big corporations get away with the most because they donate to the government, but it shouldn't be this way. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002103.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002103.soc index 8f2cfa2b..507e0905 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002103.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002103.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime or are a danger to other people and their information may need to be shared in order to protect people, for example from terrorism. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely. CONSENSUS STAGE: Civic Responsibility Topic A For the topic of Civic Responsibility, the participants were invited to discuss different aspects of having a sense of civic responsibility in society. Below are two consensuses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely. However, people should be aware that the right to privacy can be forfeited, and that it may be necessary to do so in certain circumstances. An example would be where an individual is suspected of committing a crime. It is important to recognise that in these circumstances, an individual's right to privacy may be breached in order to protect others and to ensure that justice is served. This is an important part of the balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime or are convicted of a crime. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely, particularly when these views might be unpopular or otherwise dangerous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime or are a danger to other people and their information may need to be shared in order to protect people, for example from terrorism. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely. CONSENSUS STAGE: Civic Responsibility Topic A For the topic of Civic Responsibility, the participants were invited to discuss different aspects of having a sense of civic responsibility in society. Below are two consensuses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely. However, people should be aware that the right to privacy can be forfeited, and that it may be necessary to do so in certain circumstances. An example would be where an individual is suspected of committing a crime. It is important to recognise that in these circumstances, an individual's right to privacy may be breached in order to protect others and to ensure that justice is served. This is an important part of the balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have a right to privacy in the UK. The amount of information that is available online and through other means means that people need to have a right to privacy in order to protect themselves and their information. The right to privacy is also a human right and it is important that this is respected in order to protect people. The only time that this should be breached is in cases where people are suspected of committing a crime or are convicted of a crime. The issue of privacy is also an issue of freedom of speech and expression and it is important that this is protected in order to allow people to express their views freely, particularly when these views might be unpopular or otherwise dangerous. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002104.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002104.soc index 658ad143..ccf10a21 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002104.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002104.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I am wary of allowing private companies to sell services as part of the NHS, as I believe it leads to a lack of transparency, competition and can increase corruption. I do not trust that private companies will operate inline with the guidance and values of the spirit of the NHS, instead choosing to put profit before people. This would have a hugely detrimental impact on the way the NHS is currently run. I will admit that the NHS is not perfect at the moment, and could be better in many different ways; most importantly through being more efficient with less layers of management structures. Private companies that want to work within the sphere of the NHS should not be trusted without extensive scrutiny and gaining an understanding of their motives. We do, however, believe that private companies could provide services to the NHS if they are willing to show their books and operate transparently. This would provide a new source of funding to the NHS, which could be used to provide better services for patients, and would also provide competition in the sector, which could lead to lower prices for patients. This would require a lot of regulation to ensure that private companies are operating within the spirit of the NHS, and are not being allowed to take advantage of the system.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I am wary of allowing private companies to sell services as part of the NHS, as I believe it leads to a lack of transparency, competition and can increase corruption. I do not trust that private companies will operate inline with the guidance and values of the spirit of the NHS, instead choosing to put profit before people. This would have a hugely detrimental impact on the way the NHS is currently run. I will admit that the NHS is not perfect at the moment, and could be better in many different ways; most importantly through being more efficient with less layers of management structures. Private companies that want to work within the sphere of the NHS should not be trusted without extensive scrutiny and gaining an understanding of their motives. However, private companies could provide services to the NHS if they are willing to show their books and operate transparently. This would provide a new source of funding to the NHS, which could be used to provide better services for patients, and would also provide competition in the sector, which could lead to lower prices for patients. This would require a lot of regulation to ensure that private companies are operating within the spirit of the NHS, and are not being allowed to take advantage of the system.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I am wary of allowing private companies to sell services as part of the NHS, as I believe it leads to a lack of transparency, competition and can increase corruption. I do not trust that private companies will operate inline with the guidance and values of the spirit of the NHS, instead choosing to put profit before people. This would have a hugely detrimental impact on the way the NHS is currently run. However, private companies could provide services to the NHS if they are willing to show their books and operate transparently. This would provide a new source of funding to the NHS, which could be used to provide better services for patients, and would also provide competition in the sector, which could lead to lower prices for patients. This would require a lot of regulation to ensure that private companies are operating within the spirit of the NHS, and are not being allowed to take advantage of the system. It is also important to note that private companies are not always synonymous with profit-making, and there is no intrinsic difference between public and private companies. The only difference is ownership and this is also not that meaningful as private companies are incentivized to maximize profits. What is important is whether a company is acting in the spirit of the NHS.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I am wary of allowing private companies to sell services as part of the NHS, as I believe it leads to a lack of transparency, competition and can increase corruption. I do not trust that private companies will operate inline with the guidance and values of the spirit of the NHS, instead choosing to put profit before people. This would have a hugely detrimental impact on the way the NHS is currently run. I will admit that the NHS is not perfect at the moment, and could be better in many different ways; most importantly through being more efficient with less layers of management structures. Private companies that want to work within the sphere of the NHS should not be trusted without extensive scrutiny and gaining an understanding of their motives. However, private companies could provide services to the NHS if they are willing to show their books and operate transparently. This would provide a new source of funding to the NHS, which could be used to provide better services for patients, and would also provide competition in the sector, which could lead to lower prices for patients. This would require a lot of regulation to ensure that private companies are operating within the spirit of the NHS, and are not being allowed to take advantage of the system. The NHS is not perfect at the moment, and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I am wary of allowing private companies to sell services as part of the NHS, as I believe it leads to a lack of transparency, competition and can increase corruption. I do not trust that private companies will operate inline with the guidance and values of the spirit of the NHS, instead choosing to put profit before people. This would have a hugely detrimental impact on the way the NHS is currently run. I will admit that the NHS is not perfect at the moment, and could be better in many different ways; most importantly through being more efficient with less layers of management structures. Private companies that want to work within the sphere of the NHS should not be trusted without extensive scrutiny and gaining an understanding of their motives. We do, however, believe that private companies could provide services to the NHS if they are willing to show their books and operate transparently. This would provide a new source of funding to the NHS, which could be used to provide better services for patients, and would also provide competition in the sector, which could lead to lower prices for patients. This would require a lot of regulation to ensure that private companies are operating within the spirit of the NHS, and are not being allowed to take advantage of the system.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I am wary of allowing private companies to sell services as part of the NHS, as I believe it leads to a lack of transparency, competition and can increase corruption. I do not trust that private companies will operate inline with the guidance and values of the spirit of the NHS, instead choosing to put profit before people. This would have a hugely detrimental impact on the way the NHS is currently run. I will admit that the NHS is not perfect at the moment, and could be better in many different ways; most importantly through being more efficient with less layers of management structures. Private companies that want to work within the sphere of the NHS should not be trusted without extensive scrutiny and gaining an understanding of their motives. However, private companies could provide services to the NHS if they are willing to show their books and operate transparently. This would provide a new source of funding to the NHS, which could be used to provide better services for patients, and would also provide competition in the sector, which could lead to lower prices for patients. This would require a lot of regulation to ensure that private companies are operating within the spirit of the NHS, and are not being allowed to take advantage of the system.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I am wary of allowing private companies to sell services as part of the NHS, as I believe it leads to a lack of transparency, competition and can increase corruption. I do not trust that private companies will operate inline with the guidance and values of the spirit of the NHS, instead choosing to put profit before people. This would have a hugely detrimental impact on the way the NHS is currently run. However, private companies could provide services to the NHS if they are willing to show their books and operate transparently. This would provide a new source of funding to the NHS, which could be used to provide better services for patients, and would also provide competition in the sector, which could lead to lower prices for patients. This would require a lot of regulation to ensure that private companies are operating within the spirit of the NHS, and are not being allowed to take advantage of the system. It is also important to note that private companies are not always synonymous with profit-making, and there is no intrinsic difference between public and private companies. The only difference is ownership and this is also not that meaningful as private companies are incentivized to maximize profits. What is important is whether a company is acting in the spirit of the NHS.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I am wary of allowing private companies to sell services as part of the NHS, as I believe it leads to a lack of transparency, competition and can increase corruption. I do not trust that private companies will operate inline with the guidance and values of the spirit of the NHS, instead choosing to put profit before people. This would have a hugely detrimental impact on the way the NHS is currently run. I will admit that the NHS is not perfect at the moment, and could be better in many different ways; most importantly through being more efficient with less layers of management structures. Private companies that want to work within the sphere of the NHS should not be trusted without extensive scrutiny and gaining an understanding of their motives. However, private companies could provide services to the NHS if they are willing to show their books and operate transparently. This would provide a new source of funding to the NHS, which could be used to provide better services for patients, and would also provide competition in the sector, which could lead to lower prices for patients. This would require a lot of regulation to ensure that private companies are operating within the spirit of the NHS, and are not being allowed to take advantage of the system. The NHS is not perfect at the moment, and 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002105.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002105.soc index 00dfff6a..e343ff8d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002105.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002105.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life, and many people are not in a position to pay for private health insurance. The NHS is already stretched and underfunded, and requiring people to pay for private health insurance would not necessarily improve the situation. There are some people who abuse the system, but it would be better to find a way to stop this abuse rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. The consensus was strongly in favour of this opinion. Participants 3 and 5 strongly agreed with this, and participants 1 and 4 agreed, although participants 1 and 4 said that they would personally be open to some forms of health insurance being chargeable, e.g. hospital visits. The group opinion does not rule out charges for things like hospital visits as an option for reducing the burden on the NHS, but says that we should find a way of stopping people who abuse the NHS before taking such steps. The focus group gave an insight into how to come to a consensus, i.e. how to draw out the arguments from different points of view and highlight what is common between different opinions, then use this common ground -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life and already struggles to serve everyone adequately. Some people may try to abuse the system, but a better solution would be to find a way to stop this abuse, rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. One example of a way to deal with abuse is by having a penalty for wasting the time of frontline NHS workers when it is clear there is no urgent medical need. We feel this would be more efficient and fairer than requiring everyone to pay for private insurance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life, and many people are not in a position to pay for private health insurance. The NHS is already stretched and underfunded, and requiring people to pay for private health insurance would not necessarily improve the situation. There are some people who abuse the system, but it would be better to find a way to stop this abuse rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. We would like to see the NHS funded properly, and have adequate resources to be able to meet all of the needs of the population. We think that the government should be looking at ways to stop people abusing the system, and should not require people to pay for private health insurance on top of the taxes that they already pay. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life, and many people are not in a position to pay for private health insurance. The NHS is already stretched and underfunded, and requiring people to pay for private health insurance would not necessarily improve the situation. There are some people who abuse the system, but it would be better to find a way to stop this abuse rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. The government should focus on improving the NHS, rather than requiring people to pay for private health insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life, and many people are not in a position to pay for private health insurance. The NHS is already stretched and underfunded, and requiring people to pay for private health insurance would not necessarily improve the situation. There are some people who abuse the system, but it would be better to find a way to stop this abuse rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. The consensus was strongly in favour of this opinion. Participants 3 and 5 strongly agreed with this, and participants 1 and 4 agreed, although participants 1 and 4 said that they would personally be open to some forms of health insurance being chargeable, e.g. hospital visits. The group opinion does not rule out charges for things like hospital visits as an option for reducing the burden on the NHS, but says that we should find a way of stopping people who abuse the NHS before taking such steps. The focus group gave an insight into how to come to a consensus, i.e. how to draw out the arguments from different points of view and highlight what is common between different opinions, then use this common ground +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life and already struggles to serve everyone adequately. Some people may try to abuse the system, but a better solution would be to find a way to stop this abuse, rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. One example of a way to deal with abuse is by having a penalty for wasting the time of frontline NHS workers when it is clear there is no urgent medical need. We feel this would be more efficient and fairer than requiring everyone to pay for private insurance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life, and many people are not in a position to pay for private health insurance. The NHS is already stretched and underfunded, and requiring people to pay for private health insurance would not necessarily improve the situation. There are some people who abuse the system, but it would be better to find a way to stop this abuse rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. We would like to see the NHS funded properly, and have adequate resources to be able to meet all of the needs of the population. We think that the government should be looking at ways to stop people abusing the system, and should not require people to pay for private health insurance on top of the taxes that they already pay. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not require all people to pay for some form of private health insurance. The NHS is a vital part of British life, and many people are not in a position to pay for private health insurance. The NHS is already stretched and underfunded, and requiring people to pay for private health insurance would not necessarily improve the situation. There are some people who abuse the system, but it would be better to find a way to stop this abuse rather than requiring everyone to pay for private health insurance. The government should focus on improving the NHS, rather than requiring people to pay for private health insurance. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002106.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002106.soc index f1219f1a..4f98cd8e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002106.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002106.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the government should introduce a basic income of 10,000 per individual. This will help to ensure that people are not struggling financially and do not have to rely on loans or benefits. A basic income would help to give those who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also benefit those who are struggling with mental health issues, which means they are unable to work and would therefore benefit from an income. Those who are struggling to earn enough may also fall into debt and having a basic income would prevent that happening. This could also help to reduce crime rates as people will be able to afford to pay their bills without having to turn to crime. There will need to be some restrictions on this basic income, such as some form of mandatory volunteering, to ensure that people don’t use it to simply sit around doing nothing, and also to prevent fraud or misuse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that everyone should be entitled to £10,000 a year income. This will help reduce the stress of those who earn less than that amount, provide a basic income for those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that although £10,000 isn’t a large amount, it will provide for basic needs and will help those who are struggling. It will give people who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also give those who struggle with mental health, and are therefore unable to work as much as they would like, an income that can provide for basic needs. This will also boost the economy as the money will be put directly back into the economy and will encourage people who are struggling to get into work, as they will have a guaranteed income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Everyone should have a basic income of £10,000 a year. This will improve the lives of people who earn less, by giving them a basic income that will alleviate stress and allow them to afford basic necessities. It will help those who are struggling financially, by providing them with a basic income. Also, the income can be used by those struggling with mental health issues, which may mean that they are unable to work regularly. Finally, it will boost the economy as people will spend the money in the economy, rather than relying on benefits from the government, which people then don’t spend. So this example shows that you need to consult carefully with many different participants, listen to their criticisms, adjust your own thinking to accomodate them, and then carefully try to balance those ideas to reach a well thought out consensus. This project was designed by Genevieve Castle, Fourth Year Student, Psychology of Everyday Life Class, University of Warwick. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A basic income of £10,000 a year for everyone would help to alleviate poverty, help those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that the income would need to be provided to everyone, whether they work or not, to reduce the stress of those who earn less than that amount, provide a basic income for those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that although £10,000 isn’t a large amount, it will provide for basic needs and will help those who are struggling. It will give people who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also give those who struggle with mental health, and are therefore unable to work as much as they would like, an income that can provide for basic needs. It will help alleviate poverty, giving people who are struggling a basic income to help them out of their situation. It will also help to boost the economy as it will be put back into the economy as people will spend their income on things such as food and bills. The consensus was that it is naive to think that 10,000 would do enough to alleviate poverty, however it is a good start. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the government should introduce a basic income of 10,000 per individual. This will help to ensure that people are not struggling financially and do not have to rely on loans or benefits. A basic income would help to give those who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also benefit those who are struggling with mental health issues, which means they are unable to work and would therefore benefit from an income. Those who are struggling to earn enough may also fall into debt and having a basic income would prevent that happening. This could also help to reduce crime rates as people will be able to afford to pay their bills without having to turn to crime. There will need to be some restrictions on this basic income, such as some form of mandatory volunteering, to ensure that people don’t use it to simply sit around doing nothing, and also to prevent fraud or misuse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that everyone should be entitled to £10,000 a year income. This will help reduce the stress of those who earn less than that amount, provide a basic income for those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that although £10,000 isn’t a large amount, it will provide for basic needs and will help those who are struggling. It will give people who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also give those who struggle with mental health, and are therefore unable to work as much as they would like, an income that can provide for basic needs. This will also boost the economy as the money will be put directly back into the economy and will encourage people who are struggling to get into work, as they will have a guaranteed income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Everyone should have a basic income of £10,000 a year. This will improve the lives of people who earn less, by giving them a basic income that will alleviate stress and allow them to afford basic necessities. It will help those who are struggling financially, by providing them with a basic income. Also, the income can be used by those struggling with mental health issues, which may mean that they are unable to work regularly. Finally, it will boost the economy as people will spend the money in the economy, rather than relying on benefits from the government, which people then don’t spend. So this example shows that you need to consult carefully with many different participants, listen to their criticisms, adjust your own thinking to accomodate them, and then carefully try to balance those ideas to reach a well thought out consensus. This project was designed by Genevieve Castle, Fourth Year Student, Psychology of Everyday Life Class, University of Warwick. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A basic income of £10,000 a year for everyone would help to alleviate poverty, help those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that the income would need to be provided to everyone, whether they work or not, to reduce the stress of those who earn less than that amount, provide a basic income for those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that although £10,000 isn’t a large amount, it will provide for basic needs and will help those who are struggling. It will give people who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also give those who struggle with mental health, and are therefore unable to work as much as they would like, an income that can provide for basic needs. It will help alleviate poverty, giving people who are struggling a basic income to help them out of their situation. It will also help to boost the economy as it will be put back into the economy as people will spend their income on things such as food and bills. The consensus was that it is naive to think that 10,000 would do enough to alleviate poverty, however it is a good start. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002107.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002107.soc index 149784b9..bc8f66c2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002107.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002107.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we feel that the teaching of religious studies should be a requirement in schools, however we also feel that it should be taught in a way that is non-biased and informative. It should be taught in a way that helps children understand the different religions, as well as the history of the world and the different cultures that exist in it. It is also important that children are not forced to believe in any religion, and that they are free to make their own choices when it comes to their personal beliefs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, religious studies should not be a compulsory course in schools. Religion is a very personal thing and should not be forced onto children. If they want to learn about religion, they can do so in their own time. Schools should be focused on teaching children practical and valuable skills and subjects, such as the STEM subjects and if there is time left over other knowledge that will help them in the real world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Religious studies courses should be made an option. The subject is too divisive to be taught as a compulsory course, and should be offered as an optional extra course. The subject may be of interest to some students, but for others it will just be a waste of time, and may even be offensive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that Religious Studies is a subject which is very important in society. We think that a Religious Studies course should be required in UK schools. However, we believe that students should be given the option to take the course and that they should not be forced to take it. We think that religious beliefs have led to wars, conflicts, discrimination and other problems in the past and that some of these problems are still present today. However, these beliefs have also led to cultural customs and art. The study of religion will give students a broader understanding of the world and of the people who inhabit it. We feel that children should be given the opportunity to learn about the different religions, as it can help them to develop an understanding and respect for different people and cultures. We do not believe that religious studies should be the only subject offered at school, and we do not believe that this subject should be compulsory for all students. Instead, students should be given the choice to take this course, and the option to take another course, such as a STEM subject, if they wish to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we feel that the teaching of religious studies should be a requirement in schools, however we also feel that it should be taught in a way that is non-biased and informative. It should be taught in a way that helps children understand the different religions, as well as the history of the world and the different cultures that exist in it. It is also important that children are not forced to believe in any religion, and that they are free to make their own choices when it comes to their personal beliefs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, religious studies should not be a compulsory course in schools. Religion is a very personal thing and should not be forced onto children. If they want to learn about religion, they can do so in their own time. Schools should be focused on teaching children practical and valuable skills and subjects, such as the STEM subjects and if there is time left over other knowledge that will help them in the real world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Religious studies courses should be made an option. The subject is too divisive to be taught as a compulsory course, and should be offered as an optional extra course. The subject may be of interest to some students, but for others it will just be a waste of time, and may even be offensive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that Religious Studies is a subject which is very important in society. We think that a Religious Studies course should be required in UK schools. However, we believe that students should be given the option to take the course and that they should not be forced to take it. We think that religious beliefs have led to wars, conflicts, discrimination and other problems in the past and that some of these problems are still present today. However, these beliefs have also led to cultural customs and art. The study of religion will give students a broader understanding of the world and of the people who inhabit it. We feel that children should be given the opportunity to learn about the different religions, as it can help them to develop an understanding and respect for different people and cultures. We do not believe that religious studies should be the only subject offered at school, and we do not believe that this subject should be compulsory for all students. Instead, students should be given the choice to take this course, and the option to take another course, such as a STEM subject, if they wish to do so. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002108.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002108.soc index 1e9ca1ae..f2b0883d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002108.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002108.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. A marriage should be between two individuals and creating more complexity for children which could be confusing. The practice of polyamory is different to polygamy, which is the practice of being married to multiple people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it would be confusing for any children who might be involved. It would also be difficult to decide where a family would live, and how they would organise their finances. In addition, there are a number of legal issues which would arise if this was allowed. For example, if a person was married to more than one person, and one of them died, who would inherit their estate? This would need to be decided by the courts, which could be very expensive. There is also a difference between polyamory, which is the practice of having multiple relationships, and polygamy, which is the practice of having multiple spouses. A person can have multiple relationships without being married to more than one person, whereas the term polygamy refers to being married to more than one person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. There are multiple legal and ethical issues which make this an unrealistic proposition. The primary difficulty is the legal issue of breaking the trust of all your spouses by bringing more people into a marriage. On top of that it is necessary for marriages to be monogamous in order to avoid confusion and make the father legally responsible for his child, so that the child may be supported financially and emotionally by both parents. It is also important to be clear about the difference between polyamory, which is the practice of having multiple relationships, and polygamy, which is the practice of having multiple spouses. A person can have multiple relationships without being married to more than one person, whereas the term polygamy refers to being married to more than one person. Some of the moral, legal and social issues are raised in this view which makes it clear why such a practice should not be permitted. We also talk about the difference between polyamory and polygamy to clarify what the statement is referring to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. We think that the term polygamy is important to distinguish from polyamory, which is the practice of having multiple relationships, whereas polygamy is the practice of having multiple spouses. We believe that being married to more than one person is not practical. This would also create more complexity for children, which could be confusing. There are also a number of legal issues which would arise if this was allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. A marriage should be between two individuals and creating more complexity for children which could be confusing. The practice of polyamory is different to polygamy, which is the practice of being married to multiple people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it would be confusing for any children who might be involved. It would also be difficult to decide where a family would live, and how they would organise their finances. In addition, there are a number of legal issues which would arise if this was allowed. For example, if a person was married to more than one person, and one of them died, who would inherit their estate? This would need to be decided by the courts, which could be very expensive. There is also a difference between polyamory, which is the practice of having multiple relationships, and polygamy, which is the practice of having multiple spouses. A person can have multiple relationships without being married to more than one person, whereas the term polygamy refers to being married to more than one person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. There are multiple legal and ethical issues which make this an unrealistic proposition. The primary difficulty is the legal issue of breaking the trust of all your spouses by bringing more people into a marriage. On top of that it is necessary for marriages to be monogamous in order to avoid confusion and make the father legally responsible for his child, so that the child may be supported financially and emotionally by both parents. It is also important to be clear about the difference between polyamory, which is the practice of having multiple relationships, and polygamy, which is the practice of having multiple spouses. A person can have multiple relationships without being married to more than one person, whereas the term polygamy refers to being married to more than one person. Some of the moral, legal and social issues are raised in this view which makes it clear why such a practice should not be permitted. We also talk about the difference between polyamory and polygamy to clarify what the statement is referring to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't think that people should be allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. We think that the term polygamy is important to distinguish from polyamory, which is the practice of having multiple relationships, whereas polygamy is the practice of having multiple spouses. We believe that being married to more than one person is not practical. This would also create more complexity for children, which could be confusing. There are also a number of legal issues which would arise if this was allowed. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002109.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002109.soc index bf141dfb..8b9644ae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002109.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002109.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The King should be allowed to have a TikTok account, however the content he posts must be vetted due to his position and status within the political sphere. As such, he may use social media but in a restricted manner under the supervision of advisors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The King should be allowed to have a TikTok account, but under strict guidelines to maintain his status and position within the government. This was a difficult topic for participants to discuss, but they were able to reach a consensus and were able to articulate their views in a logical, coherent manner. The students did not go through any process of acculturation, it was just a case of discussing their views. However, I do believe that this debate was an important step in allowing participants to see and understand the point of view of others, which in the future may have an impact on their acculturation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The King should be allowed to have a TikTok account, however the content he posts must be vetted due to his position and status within the political sphere. The account must be educational and professional in nature. The account must be used to connect with the youth of the UK and other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The king should be allowed a TikTok account but under certain conditions. The king is a public figure and as such should be seen as a role model for the youth of today. The king should be allowed a TikTok account so long as he has a strict control over the content he posts. He is not allowed to do or say things that are deemed inappropriate. TikTok is a platform for the youth, therefore the king needs to ensure that his content does not negatively impact on the views of the youth. His TikTok account should be used to encourage children to be productive. He can create TikToks about the nature of his role in society and how important it is for him to perform his duties to the best of his ability. He should also use his TikTok account to promote a healthy lifestyle and give out some general life advice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The King should be allowed to have a TikTok account, however the content he posts must be vetted due to his position and status within the political sphere. As such, he may use social media but in a restricted manner under the supervision of advisors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The King should be allowed to have a TikTok account, but under strict guidelines to maintain his status and position within the government. This was a difficult topic for participants to discuss, but they were able to reach a consensus and were able to articulate their views in a logical, coherent manner. The students did not go through any process of acculturation, it was just a case of discussing their views. However, I do believe that this debate was an important step in allowing participants to see and understand the point of view of others, which in the future may have an impact on their acculturation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The King should be allowed to have a TikTok account, however the content he posts must be vetted due to his position and status within the political sphere. The account must be educational and professional in nature. The account must be used to connect with the youth of the UK and other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The king should be allowed a TikTok account but under certain conditions. The king is a public figure and as such should be seen as a role model for the youth of today. The king should be allowed a TikTok account so long as he has a strict control over the content he posts. He is not allowed to do or say things that are deemed inappropriate. TikTok is a platform for the youth, therefore the king needs to ensure that his content does not negatively impact on the views of the youth. His TikTok account should be used to encourage children to be productive. He can create TikToks about the nature of his role in society and how important it is for him to perform his duties to the best of his ability. He should also use his TikTok account to promote a healthy lifestyle and give out some general life advice. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002110.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002110.soc index 23f33b4e..6a22cec8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002110.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002110.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Sex education in schools is important in todays society, and in many ways is vital for child well-being and developing their understanding of life. We believe that sex education is good in schools as it gives children information which they may not be taught elsewhere, and gives them the right information, avoiding the risk of them developing knowledge of how their bodies work from friends or the internet. Sex education in schools also makes sure that everyone is learning the same things, which can be beneficial in developing a child's knowledge and understanding. Some people may question the age-appropriateness of sex education, but we believe that even the younger ages should be exposed to it, so that they know how their bodies work and how to deal with changes and can later go on to learn the topics which require more serious information. We believe that topics such as STI's and consent are important for older children to be taught about, and can give children the tools to make informed decisions. There is also a risk of teenage pregnancies if sex education is not taught in schools, and children can go on to develop their sexual knowledge without appropriate information to know how to stay safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we believe that every school should have an age-appropriate sex education program. Sex education is important for children to be informed about, and understand how their bodies work and how they can deal with different situations. It also ensures they are well educated about the dangers of unprotected sex, and know how to stay safe. They can also be taught about consent, and understanding other people's feelings. We feel that it is important to include sex education in schools as there may be children who have no other way to find out information on this topic, and so they may learn bad information from the internet and friends. The topics covered should be age appropriate, so for younger children it would be limited, and for older children they could be taught about STI's and consent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Sex education should be introduced at a young age to children to ensure that they know how their bodies work, how to stay safe and how to look after themselves. It is important to include sex education in schools as there may be children who have no other way to find out information on this topic, and so they may learn bad information from the internet and friends. The topics covered should be age appropriate, so for younger children it would be limited, and for older children they could be taught about STI's and consent. It is important that they know about consent and how to protect themselves from diseases. The sex education should be taught in a safe environment, which is age appropriate, where children can feel comfortable asking questions. It is important to include the parents in this so that the children are also getting the information at home as well as at school, and so that parents feel comfortable with the information that their children are learning. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we believe that every school should have an age-appropriate sex education program. Sex education is important for children to be informed about, and understand how their bodies work and how they can deal with different situations. It also ensures they are well educated about the dangers of unprotected sex, and know how to stay safe. They can also be taught about consent, and understanding other people's feelings. We feel that it is important to include sex education in schools as there may be children who have no other way to find out information on this topic, and so they may learn bad information from the internet and friends. The topics covered should be age appropriate, so for younger children it would be limited, and for older children they could be taught about STI's and consent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Sex education in schools is important in todays society, and in many ways is vital for child well-being and developing their understanding of life. We believe that sex education is good in schools as it gives children information which they may not be taught elsewhere, and gives them the right information, avoiding the risk of them developing knowledge of how their bodies work from friends or the internet. Sex education in schools also makes sure that everyone is learning the same things, which can be beneficial in developing a child's knowledge and understanding. Some people may question the age-appropriateness of sex education, but we believe that even the younger ages should be exposed to it, so that they know how their bodies work and how to deal with changes and can later go on to learn the topics which require more serious information. We believe that topics such as STI's and consent are important for older children to be taught about, and can give children the tools to make informed decisions. There is also a risk of teenage pregnancies if sex education is not taught in schools, and children can go on to develop their sexual knowledge without appropriate information to know how to stay safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we believe that every school should have an age-appropriate sex education program. Sex education is important for children to be informed about, and understand how their bodies work and how they can deal with different situations. It also ensures they are well educated about the dangers of unprotected sex, and know how to stay safe. They can also be taught about consent, and understanding other people's feelings. We feel that it is important to include sex education in schools as there may be children who have no other way to find out information on this topic, and so they may learn bad information from the internet and friends. The topics covered should be age appropriate, so for younger children it would be limited, and for older children they could be taught about STI's and consent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Sex education should be introduced at a young age to children to ensure that they know how their bodies work, how to stay safe and how to look after themselves. It is important to include sex education in schools as there may be children who have no other way to find out information on this topic, and so they may learn bad information from the internet and friends. The topics covered should be age appropriate, so for younger children it would be limited, and for older children they could be taught about STI's and consent. It is important that they know about consent and how to protect themselves from diseases. The sex education should be taught in a safe environment, which is age appropriate, where children can feel comfortable asking questions. It is important to include the parents in this so that the children are also getting the information at home as well as at school, and so that parents feel comfortable with the information that their children are learning. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we believe that every school should have an age-appropriate sex education program. Sex education is important for children to be informed about, and understand how their bodies work and how they can deal with different situations. It also ensures they are well educated about the dangers of unprotected sex, and know how to stay safe. They can also be taught about consent, and understanding other people's feelings. We feel that it is important to include sex education in schools as there may be children who have no other way to find out information on this topic, and so they may learn bad information from the internet and friends. The topics covered should be age appropriate, so for younger children it would be limited, and for older children they could be taught about STI's and consent. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002111.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002111.soc index 932c490c..aaa0b0ee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002111.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002111.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, all healthcare should be free. Healthcare is a basic human right, and as such everyone should have the same access to it, regardless of wealth or status. The only exception would be certain elective cosmetic surgeries, but these would be for exceptional cases and not the norm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the current system of free healthcare at the point of use is the best option for the UK. The NHS is something for this country to be proud of and it must be maintained for the good of all. Many people would not be able to afford health care if every single item or procedure had to be paid for. Healthcare is the mark of a civilised society. We believe that more money needs to be invested into healthcare as the waiting time is really long and I think they need to re-think how they use the tax amount. We believe that having only the rich receive better healthcare is greatly unjust and would not represent the type of society we would like to be a part of. A healthy population is more likely to produce a healthy economy. We believe that every single human has the right to access healthcare without being forced into poverty, and free healthcare is a step in that direction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Healthcare should be free for all citizens and we should not privatise the NHS as we don't want to lose what makes the UK unique. However, the NHS must be fully funded to ensure it can meet the needs of its citizens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of free healthcare. However, they also recognised that this would not be possible without taxing the wealthiest in society. It was felt that there would need to be a balance between the cost of providing healthcare and the tax burden on the wealthiest in society. The group felt that the current tax system was not fair and that it would be necessary to introduce a more progressive tax system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, all healthcare should be free. Healthcare is a basic human right, and as such everyone should have the same access to it, regardless of wealth or status. The only exception would be certain elective cosmetic surgeries, but these would be for exceptional cases and not the norm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the current system of free healthcare at the point of use is the best option for the UK. The NHS is something for this country to be proud of and it must be maintained for the good of all. Many people would not be able to afford health care if every single item or procedure had to be paid for. Healthcare is the mark of a civilised society. We believe that more money needs to be invested into healthcare as the waiting time is really long and I think they need to re-think how they use the tax amount. We believe that having only the rich receive better healthcare is greatly unjust and would not represent the type of society we would like to be a part of. A healthy population is more likely to produce a healthy economy. We believe that every single human has the right to access healthcare without being forced into poverty, and free healthcare is a step in that direction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Healthcare should be free for all citizens and we should not privatise the NHS as we don't want to lose what makes the UK unique. However, the NHS must be fully funded to ensure it can meet the needs of its citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of free healthcare. However, they also recognised that this would not be possible without taxing the wealthiest in society. It was felt that there would need to be a balance between the cost of providing healthcare and the tax burden on the wealthiest in society. The group felt that the current tax system was not fair and that it would be necessary to introduce a more progressive tax system. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002112.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002112.soc index 9d6d6219..96efcbe6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002112.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002112.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the House of Lords is an important part of the political system in the UK. It is important to have a second opinion on laws and bills that are passed by the House of Commons. However, the current system is undemocratic and we believe that it is important to make the majority of the work of the House of Lords elected. This will allow for a more democratic system and will also allow the House of Lords to be more in touch with the views of the general public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the House of Lords should be elected. The current system is out of date and undemocratic. The public should have a say in who is in the House of Lords, however, there should be a balance between the views of the public and the views of the House of Lords. The public should not be able to elect anyone they want, but rather people who are deemed to be the most suitable for the role. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that most of the work of the House of Lords should be elected. This will give more people a voice, which in turn is more democratic and representative of the views of the general public. It is undemocratic for positions of this calibre to be appointed by previous PMs. However, the number of elected Lords should not outweigh the appointed Lords as some level of control needs to be retained by the Government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final Statement: I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the majority of the House of Lords to be unelected. In the modern age, and with the progression of civil rights in the UK, it is a political anomaly for people to be able to obtain such a powerful position without the majority support of the general public. This is not to say that the elected members of the house of commons are any less powerful, but it does place the general public in a position where they do not feel as though they are heard. A democracy should by definition be run by the majority of the people and so the way that the house of lords currently operates is not democratic. A system should be put in place to democratise the process and allow members of the public to vote on those in power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the House of Lords is an important part of the political system in the UK. It is important to have a second opinion on laws and bills that are passed by the House of Commons. However, the current system is undemocratic and we believe that it is important to make the majority of the work of the House of Lords elected. This will allow for a more democratic system and will also allow the House of Lords to be more in touch with the views of the general public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the House of Lords should be elected. The current system is out of date and undemocratic. The public should have a say in who is in the House of Lords, however, there should be a balance between the views of the public and the views of the House of Lords. The public should not be able to elect anyone they want, but rather people who are deemed to be the most suitable for the role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that most of the work of the House of Lords should be elected. This will give more people a voice, which in turn is more democratic and representative of the views of the general public. It is undemocratic for positions of this calibre to be appointed by previous PMs. However, the number of elected Lords should not outweigh the appointed Lords as some level of control needs to be retained by the Government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final Statement: I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the majority of the House of Lords to be unelected. In the modern age, and with the progression of civil rights in the UK, it is a political anomaly for people to be able to obtain such a powerful position without the majority support of the general public. This is not to say that the elected members of the house of commons are any less powerful, but it does place the general public in a position where they do not feel as though they are heard. A democracy should by definition be run by the majority of the people and so the way that the house of lords currently operates is not democratic. A system should be put in place to democratise the process and allow members of the public to vote on those in power. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002113.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002113.soc index b94911cb..559ecf18 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002113.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002113.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was agreed that the NHS should not be scrapped but changes to the current system need to be made to better cater for patients. It was also agreed that a lot of the funding issues are due to a lack of clarity within the system. The NHS is made up of a number of companies and departments with many acronyms and a very complicated web of how funds are allocated and spent. Due to this, it was felt that funding is often directed away from frontline services. It was felt that mental health services were an area that could be improved on by the NHS but it would require significant changes in both the structure of the system and how funds are allocated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't believe the NHS should be scrapped. We believe the NHS is a fantastic system that has served us well. We believe the NHS should be funded by the tax system. We believe the tax system may need to be changed in order to boost funding. We believe health care should be available to all and not based on your ability to pay for it. We believe the NHS should embrace the private sector to reduce waiting lists. We believe there needs to be significant structural changes. We believe NHS England should be disbanded and regional health organisations implemented. We believe funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. We believe mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No. We should not scrap the NHS. The NHS is a vital part of society and as the cost of living goes up and wages stagnate people will increasingly struggle to afford healthcare. A private healthcare system would not be a viable option for many and health should not be compromised because of a persons economic status. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not scrap the NHS. The NHS is a crucial part of the UK's economy and society. It provides healthcare to everyone and is funded by the government through taxes. A private healthcare system would mean that people would have to pay for their healthcare and could not afford it. The NHS needs to be reformed to reduce waiting times and improve the quality of healthcare. Mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was agreed that the NHS should not be scrapped but changes to the current system need to be made to better cater for patients. It was also agreed that a lot of the funding issues are due to a lack of clarity within the system. The NHS is made up of a number of companies and departments with many acronyms and a very complicated web of how funds are allocated and spent. Due to this, it was felt that funding is often directed away from frontline services. It was felt that mental health services were an area that could be improved on by the NHS but it would require significant changes in both the structure of the system and how funds are allocated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't believe the NHS should be scrapped. We believe the NHS is a fantastic system that has served us well. We believe the NHS should be funded by the tax system. We believe the tax system may need to be changed in order to boost funding. We believe health care should be available to all and not based on your ability to pay for it. We believe the NHS should embrace the private sector to reduce waiting lists. We believe there needs to be significant structural changes. We believe NHS England should be disbanded and regional health organisations implemented. We believe funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. We believe mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No. We should not scrap the NHS. The NHS is a vital part of society and as the cost of living goes up and wages stagnate people will increasingly struggle to afford healthcare. A private healthcare system would not be a viable option for many and health should not be compromised because of a persons economic status. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not scrap the NHS. The NHS is a crucial part of the UK's economy and society. It provides healthcare to everyone and is funded by the government through taxes. A private healthcare system would mean that people would have to pay for their healthcare and could not afford it. The NHS needs to be reformed to reduce waiting times and improve the quality of healthcare. Mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. 4: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002114.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002114.soc index 88670d10..60d27553 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002114.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002114.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that school should not start at 9am and end at 5pm. This is because we feel that it is a very long day for children to be at school and they will not have enough free time to do other activities. It may also hinder their learning as they will not have enough time to do their homework and revise for exams. We do understand that it would be helpful for parents as it would tie in with their working hours, but we feel that it is more important for children to have a good work/life balance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that school should not start at 9am and finish at 5pm. The main reasons for this are: 1. School is an important part of a child's life, but it is also important to balance the amount of time a child spends in school. A child will not be able to make the most of their education if they are overwhelmed and stressed by the amount of time they have to spend in school. This will make it harder for them to learn and therefore the whole point of school will be undermined. 2. The school day should not interfere with a child's social life. A child should be able to spend time with their friends and have free time to do recreational activities. 3. Parents should not have to choose between work and the well-being of their child. If a parent has to work 9-5 they should not be forced to leave their child to attend school for the majority of their day. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the school day would be longer than the current school day, we think the school day should be 9am to 5pm. The main reasons for this is that parents working a 9-5 job would find it easier to pick their children up from school and it would tie in with their work hours. Also, the school day would then be the same as a working day, which would help prepare children for working life. This would also allow parents to save money on after-school clubs and after school childcare. A typical day in the life of an individual and their organisation: The participant was asked to describe a typical day in the life of an individual who works in their organisation, and to describe a typical day in the life of their organisation. Below are presented the responses received. Describe a typical day in the life of an individual who works in your organisation. During my week I work a four day on, four day off pattern, on the days that I am at work my days consist of several tasks. I spend half my day teaching, and half my day planning and writing lessons, or completing any other tasks that are required. Describe a typical day in the life of your organisation. In my organisation -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, because the children would be overwhelmed and would not have a good work/life balance. The children would also not have enough time to do their homework after school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that school should not start at 9am and end at 5pm. This is because we feel that it is a very long day for children to be at school and they will not have enough free time to do other activities. It may also hinder their learning as they will not have enough time to do their homework and revise for exams. We do understand that it would be helpful for parents as it would tie in with their working hours, but we feel that it is more important for children to have a good work/life balance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that school should not start at 9am and finish at 5pm. The main reasons for this are: 1. School is an important part of a child's life, but it is also important to balance the amount of time a child spends in school. A child will not be able to make the most of their education if they are overwhelmed and stressed by the amount of time they have to spend in school. This will make it harder for them to learn and therefore the whole point of school will be undermined. 2. The school day should not interfere with a child's social life. A child should be able to spend time with their friends and have free time to do recreational activities. 3. Parents should not have to choose between work and the well-being of their child. If a parent has to work 9-5 they should not be forced to leave their child to attend school for the majority of their day. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the school day would be longer than the current school day, we think the school day should be 9am to 5pm. The main reasons for this is that parents working a 9-5 job would find it easier to pick their children up from school and it would tie in with their work hours. Also, the school day would then be the same as a working day, which would help prepare children for working life. This would also allow parents to save money on after-school clubs and after school childcare. A typical day in the life of an individual and their organisation: The participant was asked to describe a typical day in the life of an individual who works in their organisation, and to describe a typical day in the life of their organisation. Below are presented the responses received. Describe a typical day in the life of an individual who works in your organisation. During my week I work a four day on, four day off pattern, on the days that I am at work my days consist of several tasks. I spend half my day teaching, and half my day planning and writing lessons, or completing any other tasks that are required. Describe a typical day in the life of your organisation. In my organisation +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, because the children would be overwhelmed and would not have a good work/life balance. The children would also not have enough time to do their homework after school. 2: 2,1,4,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002115.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002115.soc index 40deb290..35538af1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002115.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002115.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should have a universal health care. It should not be based on the fact that you can afford to pay for care. The government should ensure that all citizens are covered and get the same level of care. The group were given a toolkit, below is a list of the tools that were available to the group to use during the deliberation: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The United Kingdom should have universal health care, as a first world country we should be able to provide this basic human right. There are many countries with lower standards of living that already provide this to their citizens, therefore the United Kingdom should follow in their footsteps and implement the same plan. Protection for its citizens will be beneficial for the country in the long run. The health care system is important, people should not be made to chose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We must provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should have universal health care. However, we believe that it is important that the government, the NHS and other health care providers work together to ensure that the quality of health care is maintained. The NHS is a fantastic service, however it is important to ensure that it is not taken advantage of. We believe that it is important to crack down on people who abuse the system. The NHS is an important part of British culture and something that we are very proud of. We believe that it is important to ensure that the NHS is maintained and that it continues to provide the high quality of care that it is currently providing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should have universal health care. It is a basic human right and it is something that is needed for all individuals to be able to survive and live their lives to the fullest. The NHS is a very well known and well respected healthcare system. It is very well known for its efficiency and effectiveness. It is something that we are very proud of as a nation. It is something that we should be able to provide to all individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should have a universal health care. It should not be based on the fact that you can afford to pay for care. The government should ensure that all citizens are covered and get the same level of care. The group were given a toolkit, below is a list of the tools that were available to the group to use during the deliberation: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The United Kingdom should have universal health care, as a first world country we should be able to provide this basic human right. There are many countries with lower standards of living that already provide this to their citizens, therefore the United Kingdom should follow in their footsteps and implement the same plan. Protection for its citizens will be beneficial for the country in the long run. The health care system is important, people should not be made to chose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We must provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should have universal health care. However, we believe that it is important that the government, the NHS and other health care providers work together to ensure that the quality of health care is maintained. The NHS is a fantastic service, however it is important to ensure that it is not taken advantage of. We believe that it is important to crack down on people who abuse the system. The NHS is an important part of British culture and something that we are very proud of. We believe that it is important to ensure that the NHS is maintained and that it continues to provide the high quality of care that it is currently providing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should have universal health care. It is a basic human right and it is something that is needed for all individuals to be able to survive and live their lives to the fullest. The NHS is a very well known and well respected healthcare system. It is very well known for its efficiency and effectiveness. It is something that we are very proud of as a nation. It is something that we should be able to provide to all individuals. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002116.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002116.soc index b8e533af..b851cee9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002116.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002116.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern. This is because it is increasing every year and this will mean that the UK will be in debt for a long time. This will mean that the government will have to pay a lot of money back and this will mean that taxes will increase. This will mean that the cost of living will increase and this will mean that the worse off families will be struggling. This will mean that they will be living in poverty and this will mean that they will be struggling to get food and other necessities. This will mean that the worse off families will be struggling and this will mean that the worse off families will be struggling. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was agreed that the UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern for many reasons. For one, the cost of living in the UK is on the rise due to the increase of prices of necessities such as food and petrol. This is caused by the fact that the Government is printing out more money in order to keep the country going, and in doing so, the value of the money becomes devalued. In addition, the group of participants agreed that it is unfair for the lower income families and individuals who are most affected by this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern, but it is not the only problem facing the country. The government needs to focus on the way it handles finances internally, and make sure that it does not print out too much money, which would drive up inflation. The government also needs to make sure that it does not increase the cost of living too much, as this would make life very difficult for the poorest families in the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern. This is because although we are in the right to print money in order to help our economy, the increased inflation rate is detrimental to us. It makes it more difficult for people to live their daily lives and also causes more poverty in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern. This is because it is increasing every year and this will mean that the UK will be in debt for a long time. This will mean that the government will have to pay a lot of money back and this will mean that taxes will increase. This will mean that the cost of living will increase and this will mean that the worse off families will be struggling. This will mean that they will be living in poverty and this will mean that they will be struggling to get food and other necessities. This will mean that the worse off families will be struggling and this will mean that the worse off families will be struggling. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was agreed that the UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern for many reasons. For one, the cost of living in the UK is on the rise due to the increase of prices of necessities such as food and petrol. This is caused by the fact that the Government is printing out more money in order to keep the country going, and in doing so, the value of the money becomes devalued. In addition, the group of participants agreed that it is unfair for the lower income families and individuals who are most affected by this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern, but it is not the only problem facing the country. The government needs to focus on the way it handles finances internally, and make sure that it does not print out too much money, which would drive up inflation. The government also needs to make sure that it does not increase the cost of living too much, as this would make life very difficult for the poorest families in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern. This is because although we are in the right to print money in order to help our economy, the increased inflation rate is detrimental to us. It makes it more difficult for people to live their daily lives and also causes more poverty in the UK. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002117.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002117.soc index 6a8f5c3a..e1bd209c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002117.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002117.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside other theories. It is important that children are aware of other people's beliefs and opinions, and it is good for them to be able to make their own informed opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although it is important to be aware of creationism and to learn about it in school, it should not be taught as scientific fact and instead it should be taught as an alternative view, so that children can make up their own minds on how they believe the world was created. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is a bad thing. The idea of creationism is outdated and it is important that children are taught the scientific facts of how we came to be here. It is important to teach children the facts of how we came to be here, rather than the idea that we were created by a higher power. However, it is important that children are taught about all religions and beliefs, and creationism should be taught in this context, rather than as a scientific fact. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the consensus that teaching creationism in schools is a bad thing because it limits the potential to express scientific ideas and ways of thinking about the origins of life and the world. The belief in creationism contradicts with science which shows the facts of the development of humans through evolution. We believe that the teaching of creationism in schools can limit how people are able to think about their existence. However, we do believe that it is a valuable and valid belief and can be used in conjunction with scientific facts to develop ideas of how people may be able to view the development of the world and their existence. We believe that the teaching of creationism should not be pushed onto children and that they should be taught the scientific facts of how we came to be through evolution. This would allow children to develop their own views of the world, and how they came to be. It is important that children are taught creationism alongside evolution to allow them to develop their own understanding of the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside other theories. It is important that children are aware of other people's beliefs and opinions, and it is good for them to be able to make their own informed opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although it is important to be aware of creationism and to learn about it in school, it should not be taught as scientific fact and instead it should be taught as an alternative view, so that children can make up their own minds on how they believe the world was created. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is a bad thing. The idea of creationism is outdated and it is important that children are taught the scientific facts of how we came to be here. It is important to teach children the facts of how we came to be here, rather than the idea that we were created by a higher power. However, it is important that children are taught about all religions and beliefs, and creationism should be taught in this context, rather than as a scientific fact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the consensus that teaching creationism in schools is a bad thing because it limits the potential to express scientific ideas and ways of thinking about the origins of life and the world. The belief in creationism contradicts with science which shows the facts of the development of humans through evolution. We believe that the teaching of creationism in schools can limit how people are able to think about their existence. However, we do believe that it is a valuable and valid belief and can be used in conjunction with scientific facts to develop ideas of how people may be able to view the development of the world and their existence. We believe that the teaching of creationism should not be pushed onto children and that they should be taught the scientific facts of how we came to be through evolution. This would allow children to develop their own views of the world, and how they came to be. It is important that children are taught creationism alongside evolution to allow them to develop their own understanding of the world. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002118.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002118.soc index f66cf73f..c080be39 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002118.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002118.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: It is our belief that the House of Lords should be made up of elected representatives. The current system of inherited positions and patronage is outdated and does not reflect the current political climate. In the modern age, it is important that those in positions of power are chosen by the people. This ensures that those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions and are more likely to make decisions that reflect the views of the general public. This is not to say that the opinions of unelected representatives are not valid, but it does place the general public in a position where they do not feel as though they are heard. A democracy should by definition be run by the majority of the people and so the way that the house of lords currently operates is not democratic. A system should be put in place to democratise the process and allow members of the public to vote on those in power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the majority of the House of Lords to be unelected. In the modern age, and with the progression of civil rights in the UK, it is a political anomaly for people to be able to obtain such a powerful position without the majority support of the general public. This is not to say that the elected members of the house of commons are any less powerful, but it does place the general public in a position where they do not feel as though they are heard. A democracy should by definition be run by the majority of the people and so the way that the house of lords currently operates is not democratic. A system should be put in place to democratise the process and allow members of the public to vote on those in power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final statement: We believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the majority of the House of Lords to be unelected. In the modern age, and with the progression of civil rights in the UK, it is a political anomaly for people to be able to obtain such a powerful position without the majority support of the general public. This is not to say that the elected members of the house of commons are any less powerful, but it does place the general public in a position where they do not feel as though they are heard. A democracy should by definition be run by the majority of the people and so the way that the house of lords currently operates is not democratic. The general public need to have more power in politics and so a system should be put in place to democratise the process and allow members of the public to vote on those in power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is the opinion of the group that the work of the House of Lords should be elected. The current system is outdated and old fashioned and does not match the modern day landscape, so needs to change. In a democracy, the people’s vote is key and in some respects, placing people who have not been voted in by the public has the potential to disempower the public vote. If the general public no longer feel like their voice is being heard, a democracy cannot be upheld. We recognise that part of the Lords’ role is to be able to check the house of commons and that is an important role that should be held, but this can be achieved with a sensible representation of both voices. To achieve a balanced system, a consensus has been reached within the group on the following topics: 1. Appointment of Lords should be by election. Those currently sitting in unelected positions should remain there, but their future successors should be elected by the general public 2. Their elections should be independent and secure. They should not be swayed by political parties and should have votes on the most pressing political issues 3. Life appointments should be left alone. This method of election would probably be too expensive to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: It is our belief that the House of Lords should be made up of elected representatives. The current system of inherited positions and patronage is outdated and does not reflect the current political climate. In the modern age, it is important that those in positions of power are chosen by the people. This ensures that those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions and are more likely to make decisions that reflect the views of the general public. This is not to say that the opinions of unelected representatives are not valid, but it does place the general public in a position where they do not feel as though they are heard. A democracy should by definition be run by the majority of the people and so the way that the house of lords currently operates is not democratic. A system should be put in place to democratise the process and allow members of the public to vote on those in power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the majority of the House of Lords to be unelected. In the modern age, and with the progression of civil rights in the UK, it is a political anomaly for people to be able to obtain such a powerful position without the majority support of the general public. This is not to say that the elected members of the house of commons are any less powerful, but it does place the general public in a position where they do not feel as though they are heard. A democracy should by definition be run by the majority of the people and so the way that the house of lords currently operates is not democratic. A system should be put in place to democratise the process and allow members of the public to vote on those in power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final statement: We believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the majority of the House of Lords to be unelected. In the modern age, and with the progression of civil rights in the UK, it is a political anomaly for people to be able to obtain such a powerful position without the majority support of the general public. This is not to say that the elected members of the house of commons are any less powerful, but it does place the general public in a position where they do not feel as though they are heard. A democracy should by definition be run by the majority of the people and so the way that the house of lords currently operates is not democratic. The general public need to have more power in politics and so a system should be put in place to democratise the process and allow members of the public to vote on those in power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is the opinion of the group that the work of the House of Lords should be elected. The current system is outdated and old fashioned and does not match the modern day landscape, so needs to change. In a democracy, the people’s vote is key and in some respects, placing people who have not been voted in by the public has the potential to disempower the public vote. If the general public no longer feel like their voice is being heard, a democracy cannot be upheld. We recognise that part of the Lords’ role is to be able to check the house of commons and that is an important role that should be held, but this can be achieved with a sensible representation of both voices. To achieve a balanced system, a consensus has been reached within the group on the following topics: 1. Appointment of Lords should be by election. Those currently sitting in unelected positions should remain there, but their future successors should be elected by the general public 2. Their elections should be independent and secure. They should not be swayed by political parties and should have votes on the most pressing political issues 3. Life appointments should be left alone. This method of election would probably be too expensive to 2: 4,1,3,2 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002119.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002119.soc index 0f3ea0ac..72d73174 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002119.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002119.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People who choose to become vegans should not be allowed to sue people who force them to eat animal products. This is because the people who force them to eat animal products are not aware of their dietary choices. However, the people who force them to eat animal products should be made aware of their dietary choices and the reasons behind them. The people who force them to eat animal products should also be made aware of the consequences of their actions and how they could affect the person who has chosen to become a vegan. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People who choose to become vegans should be allowed to sue people who force them to eat animal products, if it can be shown that it was not accidental. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People who choose to become vegans should not be allowed to sue people who force them to eat animal products. This is because vegans who choose to eat at a restaurant that is not exclusively vegan must take responsibility for what they order. It is not the responsibility of the restaurant to know the dietary requirements of their customers. It is also difficult to prove that a vegan has been forced to eat animal products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Veganism is an important life choice and often a deeply held belief. Therefore if a vegan is served meat or animal products in a restaurant, and they have explained that they are vegan and do not wish to eat meat, they should be able to sue the restaurant. Especially if they have asked beforehand about what they can eat and been assured by the restaurant staff that there will be no meat or animal products in their food. If the individual is unsure about whether or not their food has been prepared in a vegan way, they should definitely be able to sue. However if the individual has not specifically stated that they are vegan and do not want to eat meat or animal products, they should not be able to sue, as the restaurant is not at fault for not being aware of the individuals food preferences. If an individual is served meat accidentally, but is not a vegan, they should not be able to sue. This is because they have not made their food preferences clear and therefore the restaurant is not at fault. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People who choose to become vegans should not be allowed to sue people who force them to eat animal products. This is because the people who force them to eat animal products are not aware of their dietary choices. However, the people who force them to eat animal products should be made aware of their dietary choices and the reasons behind them. The people who force them to eat animal products should also be made aware of the consequences of their actions and how they could affect the person who has chosen to become a vegan. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People who choose to become vegans should be allowed to sue people who force them to eat animal products, if it can be shown that it was not accidental. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People who choose to become vegans should not be allowed to sue people who force them to eat animal products. This is because vegans who choose to eat at a restaurant that is not exclusively vegan must take responsibility for what they order. It is not the responsibility of the restaurant to know the dietary requirements of their customers. It is also difficult to prove that a vegan has been forced to eat animal products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Veganism is an important life choice and often a deeply held belief. Therefore if a vegan is served meat or animal products in a restaurant, and they have explained that they are vegan and do not wish to eat meat, they should be able to sue the restaurant. Especially if they have asked beforehand about what they can eat and been assured by the restaurant staff that there will be no meat or animal products in their food. If the individual is unsure about whether or not their food has been prepared in a vegan way, they should definitely be able to sue. However if the individual has not specifically stated that they are vegan and do not want to eat meat or animal products, they should not be able to sue, as the restaurant is not at fault for not being aware of the individuals food preferences. If an individual is served meat accidentally, but is not a vegan, they should not be able to sue. This is because they have not made their food preferences clear and therefore the restaurant is not at fault. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002120.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002120.soc index 9256b7bc..9af41374 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002120.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002120.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Most local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. The problem is that there is not enough money in the pot to improve existing infrastructure and create new cycle paths. There needs to be a greater emphasis on cycling to school for children and incentives for this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We should focus more on completing and maintaining cycling infrastructure before continuing to make new, partial cycle paths. However, generally speaking we think most local authorities seem to push quite a lot to encourage people to cycle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling, but think that more could be done to encourage recycling. There are often clear instructions on what can be recycled, but people are often too lazy to bother. We think recycling should be more centralised and publicised. Local authorities often organise many schemes to encourage cycling, but there is little awareness of them. We think that local authorities could make these more clear and centralise their efforts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, yes, local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. They are putting in place good infrastructure for cyclists, and making people aware of the benefits of cycling. However, there is more that can be done. Cycle lanes should be maintained and kept clear of debris and parked cars, and cycle lanes should be extended to connect different areas, so that cyclists do not have to use the road. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Most local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. The problem is that there is not enough money in the pot to improve existing infrastructure and create new cycle paths. There needs to be a greater emphasis on cycling to school for children and incentives for this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We should focus more on completing and maintaining cycling infrastructure before continuing to make new, partial cycle paths. However, generally speaking we think most local authorities seem to push quite a lot to encourage people to cycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling, but think that more could be done to encourage recycling. There are often clear instructions on what can be recycled, but people are often too lazy to bother. We think recycling should be more centralised and publicised. Local authorities often organise many schemes to encourage cycling, but there is little awareness of them. We think that local authorities could make these more clear and centralise their efforts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, yes, local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. They are putting in place good infrastructure for cyclists, and making people aware of the benefits of cycling. However, there is more that can be done. Cycle lanes should be maintained and kept clear of debris and parked cars, and cycle lanes should be extended to connect different areas, so that cyclists do not have to use the road. 2: 4,1,2,3 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002121.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002121.soc index eebaf530..ee47a066 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002121.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002121.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. Therefore, it is only right that the public should have control over who has access to their personal data. This is especially important in the current climate of increased data sharing and data mining. This is also important as it is highly sensitive data that could expose a persons vulnerabilities. The laws should shield all patients and anyone involved under the care system of the NHS. It isn't fair to allow just any individual to have access to that level of what should be secure data. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could potentially harm individuals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is important for the NHS to keep up to date records on the patients they are helping, the laws should be tightened up to ensure that the information is not made widely available to companies. There is a lot of sensitive information that can be exposed, if it is in the wrong hands, and this could be a detriment to individuals. It is vital that the people who are working for the NHS are those who are allowed to access this information and there should be no further expansion from this group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be tighter laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because there are instances where the records are being shared with people who do not need to see them, and this is a breach of patient confidentiality. It is important that this is protected, and that patients are able to trust that their records will not be shared with anyone who does not need to see them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The laws around access to NHS records should be restricted to those who can offer assistance directly to the patient and not expanded from here. It should not be made accessible to companies such as insurers or private healthcare companies without the direct consent of the patient. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. Therefore, it is only right that the public should have control over who has access to their personal data. This is especially important in the current climate of increased data sharing and data mining. This is also important as it is highly sensitive data that could expose a persons vulnerabilities. The laws should shield all patients and anyone involved under the care system of the NHS. It isn't fair to allow just any individual to have access to that level of what should be secure data. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could potentially harm individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is important for the NHS to keep up to date records on the patients they are helping, the laws should be tightened up to ensure that the information is not made widely available to companies. There is a lot of sensitive information that can be exposed, if it is in the wrong hands, and this could be a detriment to individuals. It is vital that the people who are working for the NHS are those who are allowed to access this information and there should be no further expansion from this group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be tighter laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because there are instances where the records are being shared with people who do not need to see them, and this is a breach of patient confidentiality. It is important that this is protected, and that patients are able to trust that their records will not be shared with anyone who does not need to see them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The laws around access to NHS records should be restricted to those who can offer assistance directly to the patient and not expanded from here. It should not be made accessible to companies such as insurers or private healthcare companies without the direct consent of the patient. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002122.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002122.soc index c234c2b8..ce1a5a16 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002122.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002122.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. This was achieved by compromising and combining the various opinions, highlighting the main points and creating a short statement. The points highlighted include: ● Looking after the environment is important for future generations ● Our environment is a part of us ● More investment is needed to improve the current state of the environment ● It needs to be a global effort, and everyone needs to do their part to protect the environment The participants did not necessarily agree on all points, but they worked hard to reach an agreement that they could all live with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the state spending more money on protecting the environment. The majority of participants felt that the environment is in a bad state and that it is a worrying issue. The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The group also felt that it is the state who are responsible for making it a safe place. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference and everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The group also felt that the current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The state should spend more money protecting the environment. There are a variety of ways that this can be done. Firstly, the state can use taxation to raise money and also try and encourage behavioural changes through this method. The state could also encourage private firms to invest in the environment by providing tax breaks and other incentives. The state could also use its own funds and resources to invest in protecting the environment. The state could also provide funds to other organisations who are working to protect the environment. The above consensus opinion was arrived at after considerable debate. The debate was rather difficult and challenging at times, but the end result was that all participants were satisfied with the consensus opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. We need to protect the environment for future generations. The state has a responsibility to do this. The environment is a core part of our wellbeing. We need to protect it. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference. Everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. We need to look after the future and leave it the best way we can. We as a planet have not worked this out yet. We need to protect the environment for future generations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. This was achieved by compromising and combining the various opinions, highlighting the main points and creating a short statement. The points highlighted include: ● Looking after the environment is important for future generations ● Our environment is a part of us ● More investment is needed to improve the current state of the environment ● It needs to be a global effort, and everyone needs to do their part to protect the environment The participants did not necessarily agree on all points, but they worked hard to reach an agreement that they could all live with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the state spending more money on protecting the environment. The majority of participants felt that the environment is in a bad state and that it is a worrying issue. The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The group also felt that it is the state who are responsible for making it a safe place. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference and everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The group also felt that the current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The state should spend more money protecting the environment. There are a variety of ways that this can be done. Firstly, the state can use taxation to raise money and also try and encourage behavioural changes through this method. The state could also encourage private firms to invest in the environment by providing tax breaks and other incentives. The state could also use its own funds and resources to invest in protecting the environment. The state could also provide funds to other organisations who are working to protect the environment. The above consensus opinion was arrived at after considerable debate. The debate was rather difficult and challenging at times, but the end result was that all participants were satisfied with the consensus opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. We need to protect the environment for future generations. The state has a responsibility to do this. The environment is a core part of our wellbeing. We need to protect it. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference. Everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. We need to look after the future and leave it the best way we can. We as a planet have not worked this out yet. We need to protect the environment for future generations. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002123.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002123.soc index d03b480c..aff2c642 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002123.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002123.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are benefits to being vegan in terms of reducing the carbon footprint and also in terms of reducing animal cruelty. However, it is not an easy lifestyle to adopt and the group felt that it is more important to reduce meat consumption rather than cutting it out completely. The group also felt that it is important to buy local produce and to buy organic where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there are arguments to both sides as to whether veganism makes a positive environmental impact, we think vegans do contribute in terms of reducing the carbon footprint by reduction of meat and dairy producing farming. However their consumption of vegan products comes with a high carbon footprint as well if they are imported and highly processed. Organic Foods: Do They Have a Future? The below participants were asked to come up with a consensus opinion on whether they believe organic food has a future. Below are presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the overall contribution of vegans is positive for the world. Participants appreciated that the Vegan lifestyle promotes healthy foods, a healthy lifestyle and a more ethical way of living. The downside was thought to be the high carbon footprint that comes with importing Vegan products and the potential to upset consumers and lose them if they are not careful in how they portray Veganism. It was thought that the media portrayal of Vegans as animal rights activists is unfair, as it is not the whole story. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group also thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are benefits to being vegan in terms of reducing the carbon footprint and also in terms of reducing animal cruelty. However, it is not an easy lifestyle to adopt and the group felt that it is more important to reduce meat consumption rather than cutting it out completely. The group also felt that it is important to buy local produce and to buy organic where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there are arguments to both sides as to whether veganism makes a positive environmental impact, we think vegans do contribute in terms of reducing the carbon footprint by reduction of meat and dairy producing farming. However their consumption of vegan products comes with a high carbon footprint as well if they are imported and highly processed. Organic Foods: Do They Have a Future? The below participants were asked to come up with a consensus opinion on whether they believe organic food has a future. Below are presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the overall contribution of vegans is positive for the world. Participants appreciated that the Vegan lifestyle promotes healthy foods, a healthy lifestyle and a more ethical way of living. The downside was thought to be the high carbon footprint that comes with importing Vegan products and the potential to upset consumers and lose them if they are not careful in how they portray Veganism. It was thought that the media portrayal of Vegans as animal rights activists is unfair, as it is not the whole story. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group also thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002124.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002124.soc index 3fe7af68..dc893b44 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002124.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002124.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we don't believe the NHS should be scrapped. The NHS is a fantastic system that has served us well. However, we believe the tax system may need to be changed in order to boost funding. We believe health care should be available to all and not based on your ability to pay for it. We believe the NHS should embrace the private sector to reduce waiting lists. We believe there needs to be significant structural changes. We believe NHS England should be disbanded and regional health organisations implemented. We believe funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. We believe mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. We believe, in general, that the current state of the NHS is due to a lack of funding. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: We don't believe the NHS should be scrapped. We believe the NHS is a fantastic system that has served us well. However, we believe the UK's tax system can be modernised to boost the funding available for the NHS. We believe it is important to allow the private sector to flourish alongside the NHS in order to increase capacity and reduce waiting times. We believe there needs to be significant structural changes. We believe NHS England should be disbanded and regional health organisations implemented. We believe funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. We believe mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. We believe the current healthcare system works well for the UK overall but funding can and should be improved in order to increase patient outcomes, especially in the instance of oncology care and access to new medications. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the NHS is a fantastic system and we wouldn't wish to see it go. We believe it should be funded by the tax system. However we believe NHS England and similar organisations should be disbanded. Funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We don't believe the NHS should be scrapped. We believe the NHS is a fantastic system that has served us well. We believe the NHS should be funded by the tax system. We believe the tax system may need to be changed in order to boost funding. We believe health care should be available to all and not based on your ability to pay for it. We believe the NHS should embrace the private sector to reduce waiting lists. We believe there needs to be significant structural changes. We believe NHS England should be disbanded and regional health organisations implemented. We believe funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. We believe mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. We believe more funding should be available for new modern medicines that have very high success rates but are not offered on the NHS due to cost. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we don't believe the NHS should be scrapped. The NHS is a fantastic system that has served us well. However, we believe the tax system may need to be changed in order to boost funding. We believe health care should be available to all and not based on your ability to pay for it. We believe the NHS should embrace the private sector to reduce waiting lists. We believe there needs to be significant structural changes. We believe NHS England should be disbanded and regional health organisations implemented. We believe funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. We believe mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. We believe, in general, that the current state of the NHS is due to a lack of funding. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: We don't believe the NHS should be scrapped. We believe the NHS is a fantastic system that has served us well. However, we believe the UK's tax system can be modernised to boost the funding available for the NHS. We believe it is important to allow the private sector to flourish alongside the NHS in order to increase capacity and reduce waiting times. We believe there needs to be significant structural changes. We believe NHS England should be disbanded and regional health organisations implemented. We believe funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. We believe mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. We believe the current healthcare system works well for the UK overall but funding can and should be improved in order to increase patient outcomes, especially in the instance of oncology care and access to new medications. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the NHS is a fantastic system and we wouldn't wish to see it go. We believe it should be funded by the tax system. However we believe NHS England and similar organisations should be disbanded. Funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We don't believe the NHS should be scrapped. We believe the NHS is a fantastic system that has served us well. We believe the NHS should be funded by the tax system. We believe the tax system may need to be changed in order to boost funding. We believe health care should be available to all and not based on your ability to pay for it. We believe the NHS should embrace the private sector to reduce waiting lists. We believe there needs to be significant structural changes. We believe NHS England should be disbanded and regional health organisations implemented. We believe funding should be directed from NHS England and similar organisations and directed to frontline healthcare services. We believe mental health services should be completely separate from other NHS services, so the allocation of funding is clear. We believe more funding should be available for new modern medicines that have very high success rates but are not offered on the NHS due to cost. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002125.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002125.soc index 4b38378b..7591249b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002125.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002125.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. It is important that it is taught in a balanced way with other theories so children are aware of all the views out there. It is not wrong to allow children to make their own informed opinions. But it is vital that it is also made clear to them that the scientific explanation is the actual explanation, and that it is based on facts. Teaching them this way gives them more tools to be able to think scientifically and logically, rather than just religiously. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside other theories. It is important that children are aware of other people's beliefs and opinions, and it is good for them to be able to make their own informed opinions. However, an expert stakeholder from the scientific community who contributed their expert opinion was asked to critique this view. We also think it's interesting to highlight that this stakeholder disagreed with the consensus statement from this group, and didn't think that creationism should be taught in schools at all. The stakeholder stated: I don't believe that creationism has a place in schools. Instead, scientific inquiry - e.g. evidence-based research - is important, in addition to the historical aspect of science. My experience is with science teaching, which means it is important to teach evolution as an ongoing process. First draft of an inclusive version of the consensus statement based on above contributions (taken from above consensus statement)): In general, teaching creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside other theories. It is important that children are aware of other people's beliefs and opinions, and it is good for them to be able to make their own informed opinions. It is important to take into account the different backgrounds of children in schools and to cater to this when teaching creationism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside other theories. It is important that children are aware of other people's beliefs and opinions, and it is good for them to be able to make their own informed opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. It is important that it is taught in a balanced way with other theories so children are aware of all the views out there. It is not wrong to allow children to make their own informed opinions. But it is vital that it is also made clear to them that the scientific explanation is the actual explanation, and that it is based on facts. Teaching them this way gives them more tools to be able to think scientifically and logically, rather than just religiously. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside other theories. It is important that children are aware of other people's beliefs and opinions, and it is good for them to be able to make their own informed opinions. However, an expert stakeholder from the scientific community who contributed their expert opinion was asked to critique this view. We also think it's interesting to highlight that this stakeholder disagreed with the consensus statement from this group, and didn't think that creationism should be taught in schools at all. The stakeholder stated: I don't believe that creationism has a place in schools. Instead, scientific inquiry - e.g. evidence-based research - is important, in addition to the historical aspect of science. My experience is with science teaching, which means it is important to teach evolution as an ongoing process. First draft of an inclusive version of the consensus statement based on above contributions (taken from above consensus statement)): In general, teaching creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside other theories. It is important that children are aware of other people's beliefs and opinions, and it is good for them to be able to make their own informed opinions. It is important to take into account the different backgrounds of children in schools and to cater to this when teaching creationism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the teaching of creationism in schools is not a bad thing. However, it is important that it is taught in a balanced way and alongside other theories. It is important that children are aware of other people's beliefs and opinions, and it is good for them to be able to make their own informed opinions. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002126.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002126.soc index 73b68e60..c982b812 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002126.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002126.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The United Kingdom should have universal health care, as a first world country we should be able to provide this basic human right. There are many countries with lower standards of living that already provide this to their citizens, therefore the United Kingdom should follow in their footsteps and implement the same plan. Protection for its citizens will be beneficial for the country in the long run. The health care system is important, people should not be made to chose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We must provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS. This should not be done at the expense of the doctors and nurses who have to work in a poorly funded system. By investing in the NHS, we can help the staff to work at the highest quality possible. As a country, we must not let the health care system fall into disrepair. By putting more money into it, we can ensure that the system is not crumbling, and that the staff are happy and able to provide the best care for everyone.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The United Kingdom should have universal health care, as a first world country we should be able to provide this basic human right. There are many countries with lower standards of living that already provide this to their citizens, therefore the United Kingdom should follow in their footsteps and implement the same plan. Protection for its citizens will be beneficial for the country in the long run. The health care system is important, people should not be made to chose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We must provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The United Kingdom should have universal health care. The health care system is important, people should not be made to choose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We must provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: “We believe the UK should have universal health care. It is the role of a first world country to provide this basic human right. The United Kingdom has an amazing health care service known as the NHS. It is an amazing service and something that we are very proud of. Our NHS has however been strained over the past few years. Unfortunately, the health care system is important. People should not be made to choose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We need to provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS. There is a big increase of diseases with significant impacts, such as dementia and heart disease. To be able to treat everyone, not only treat them but treat them well, the NHS need more resources to cope.The UK is by no means the only country with universal health care. Many countries have also been on this path for a lot longer. Even though they have lower standards of living than the UK, they still are able to afford this basic human right. As they have managed to ensure access for all of their citizens, why can’t we?” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The United Kingdom should have universal health care, as a first world country we should be able to provide this basic human right. There are many countries with lower standards of living that already provide this to their citizens, therefore the United Kingdom should follow in their footsteps and implement the same plan. Protection for its citizens will be beneficial for the country in the long run. The health care system is important, people should not be made to chose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We must provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS. This should not be done at the expense of the doctors and nurses who have to work in a poorly funded system. By investing in the NHS, we can help the staff to work at the highest quality possible. As a country, we must not let the health care system fall into disrepair. By putting more money into it, we can ensure that the system is not crumbling, and that the staff are happy and able to provide the best care for everyone.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The United Kingdom should have universal health care, as a first world country we should be able to provide this basic human right. There are many countries with lower standards of living that already provide this to their citizens, therefore the United Kingdom should follow in their footsteps and implement the same plan. Protection for its citizens will be beneficial for the country in the long run. The health care system is important, people should not be made to chose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We must provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The United Kingdom should have universal health care. The health care system is important, people should not be made to choose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We must provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: “We believe the UK should have universal health care. It is the role of a first world country to provide this basic human right. The United Kingdom has an amazing health care service known as the NHS. It is an amazing service and something that we are very proud of. Our NHS has however been strained over the past few years. Unfortunately, the health care system is important. People should not be made to choose between protecting their health or looking after their finances. We need to provide a better quality of care for the UK population, by putting more resources into the NHS. There is a big increase of diseases with significant impacts, such as dementia and heart disease. To be able to treat everyone, not only treat them but treat them well, the NHS need more resources to cope.The UK is by no means the only country with universal health care. Many countries have also been on this path for a lot longer. Even though they have lower standards of living than the UK, they still are able to afford this basic human right. As they have managed to ensure access for all of their citizens, why can’t we?” 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002127.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002127.soc index 4cfc27b1..a639998c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002127.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002127.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was agreed by the group that the high national debt level of the UK is a cause for concern for many reasons, one of which is the rising cost of living. The increase in prices of basic necessities such as food and petrol is a result of the Government printing out more money in order to keep the country going, in turn devaluing the value of the money. This affects individuals on lower incomes as they have to pay a higher percentage of their salary for basic living costs. This is an unfair increase on their standards of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was agreed by the group that the high national debt level of the UK is a cause for concern for many reasons, one of which is the rising cost of living. The increase in the prices of necessities such as food and petrol is a result of the Government printing out more money in order to keep the country going, in turn devaluing the value of the money. This affects individuals on lower incomes as they have to pay a higher percentage of their salary for basic living costs. This is an unfair increase on their standards of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern for many reasons. For one, the cost of living in the UK is on the rise due to the increase of prices of necessities such as food and petrol. This is caused by the fact that the Government is printing out more money in order to keep the country going, and in doing so, the value of the money becomes devalued. In addition, the group of participants agreed that it is unfair for the lower income families and individuals who are most affected by this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that the UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern for many reasons. For one, the cost of living in the UK is on the rise due to the increase of prices of necessities such as food and petrol. This is caused by the fact that the Government is printing out more money in order to keep the country going, and in doing so, the value of the money becomes devalued. In addition, the group of participants agreed that it is unfair for the lower income families and individuals who are most affected by this. This is because they do not have enough money to spend, and are most likely to have large amounts of debt. The group of participants also agreed that it is the Government’s responsibility to protect the interests of all citizens in the country, and this is not being done. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was agreed by the group that the high national debt level of the UK is a cause for concern for many reasons, one of which is the rising cost of living. The increase in prices of basic necessities such as food and petrol is a result of the Government printing out more money in order to keep the country going, in turn devaluing the value of the money. This affects individuals on lower incomes as they have to pay a higher percentage of their salary for basic living costs. This is an unfair increase on their standards of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was agreed by the group that the high national debt level of the UK is a cause for concern for many reasons, one of which is the rising cost of living. The increase in the prices of necessities such as food and petrol is a result of the Government printing out more money in order to keep the country going, in turn devaluing the value of the money. This affects individuals on lower incomes as they have to pay a higher percentage of their salary for basic living costs. This is an unfair increase on their standards of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern for many reasons. For one, the cost of living in the UK is on the rise due to the increase of prices of necessities such as food and petrol. This is caused by the fact that the Government is printing out more money in order to keep the country going, and in doing so, the value of the money becomes devalued. In addition, the group of participants agreed that it is unfair for the lower income families and individuals who are most affected by this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the UK’s high national debt is a cause for concern for many reasons. For one, the cost of living in the UK is on the rise due to the increase of prices of necessities such as food and petrol. This is caused by the fact that the Government is printing out more money in order to keep the country going, and in doing so, the value of the money becomes devalued. In addition, the group of participants agreed that it is unfair for the lower income families and individuals who are most affected by this. This is because they do not have enough money to spend, and are most likely to have large amounts of debt. The group of participants also agreed that it is the Government’s responsibility to protect the interests of all citizens in the country, and this is not being done. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002128.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002128.soc index aaf3e981..b9a25ded 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002128.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002128.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. However, we believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should only be sold to people who are of the legal age and ID should also be retrieved. Drinking and smoking can be something that is fun if done responsibly so we don't see why it should be banned. We believe that banning these things would lead to an increase in crime and the funding of criminal enterprises and organised crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People have the right to be themselves and so we should not ban alcohol or cigarettes in public places. However, more stringent regulation and age restrictions should be applied to alcohol and cigarette sales. The alcohol industry has a responsibility to sell alcohol responsibly and people have a responsibility to consume alcohol responsibly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group have decided that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. This will also help to reduce the number of people who are able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes who are underage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not think that alcohol and cigarettes should be banned from being sold in public places. We believe that this would only lead to a black market being created for these items. The increase in illegal trade of cigarettes and alcohol would lead to a rise in organised crime, which we do not think is a good thing. We also feel that if these items were banned from sale in public places that people would simply bring their own and consume them at events. We feel that people should be responsible and should know their own boundaries and limitations, especially when consuming alcohol. We feel that the Government should invest more in raising awareness of the dangers of alcohol and smoking to prevent the amount of damage that is done to people's health and also to prevent crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. However, we believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should only be sold to people who are of the legal age and ID should also be retrieved. Drinking and smoking can be something that is fun if done responsibly so we don't see why it should be banned. We believe that banning these things would lead to an increase in crime and the funding of criminal enterprises and organised crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People have the right to be themselves and so we should not ban alcohol or cigarettes in public places. However, more stringent regulation and age restrictions should be applied to alcohol and cigarette sales. The alcohol industry has a responsibility to sell alcohol responsibly and people have a responsibility to consume alcohol responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group have decided that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. This will also help to reduce the number of people who are able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes who are underage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not think that alcohol and cigarettes should be banned from being sold in public places. We believe that this would only lead to a black market being created for these items. The increase in illegal trade of cigarettes and alcohol would lead to a rise in organised crime, which we do not think is a good thing. We also feel that if these items were banned from sale in public places that people would simply bring their own and consume them at events. We feel that people should be responsible and should know their own boundaries and limitations, especially when consuming alcohol. We feel that the Government should invest more in raising awareness of the dangers of alcohol and smoking to prevent the amount of damage that is done to people's health and also to prevent crime. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002129.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002129.soc index 5aa9a078..1e4c0b4e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002129.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002129.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, it should be regulated to ensure that problem gamblers are identified and protected. It should also be noted that gambling is an addiction that ruins people's lives. If someone is profiting off that, it is not a good thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. This is because people will be profiting off other people's addictions to gambling. The online gambling industry needs to be regulated more so that those addicted to gambling can be identified and protected from themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. This is because gambling is a legal activity, therefore it should be allowed. However, there should be regulations in place to protect vulnerable people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, there are a number of issues that are important to address when talking about this topic. Firstly, the protection of those with gambling addictions is of paramount importance. Many people will spend large amounts of money on gambling, and will not have considered the impact of this on their finances and lives. Companies must be proactive in helping to identify those with gambling addictions, and also offer help and support to those that need it. Secondly, the regulation of the gambling industry is of utmost importance. This is especially important as the gambling industry continues to grow, and new gambling technologies continue to be created. Therefore, regulation of the industry must be reviewed and updated to keep up with the new and changing gambling landscape. If these conditions are met, and people are proactive in ensuring the safety and well-being of gamblers, then it should be allowed for people to make a living from running an online gambling company. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, it should be regulated to ensure that problem gamblers are identified and protected. It should also be noted that gambling is an addiction that ruins people's lives. If someone is profiting off that, it is not a good thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. This is because people will be profiting off other people's addictions to gambling. The online gambling industry needs to be regulated more so that those addicted to gambling can be identified and protected from themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. This is because gambling is a legal activity, therefore it should be allowed. However, there should be regulations in place to protect vulnerable people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, there are a number of issues that are important to address when talking about this topic. Firstly, the protection of those with gambling addictions is of paramount importance. Many people will spend large amounts of money on gambling, and will not have considered the impact of this on their finances and lives. Companies must be proactive in helping to identify those with gambling addictions, and also offer help and support to those that need it. Secondly, the regulation of the gambling industry is of utmost importance. This is especially important as the gambling industry continues to grow, and new gambling technologies continue to be created. Therefore, regulation of the industry must be reviewed and updated to keep up with the new and changing gambling landscape. If these conditions are met, and people are proactive in ensuring the safety and well-being of gamblers, then it should be allowed for people to make a living from running an online gambling company. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002130.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002130.soc index e0480b61..6cb7aa89 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002130.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002130.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “While the concept of austerity is not without merit, there are significant flaws in the way that it has been applied. Firstly, austerity measures have been applied as a blanket, with no assessment of which services could afford a reduction in funding. Also, the measures have been applied to different sectors of the economy, with many businesses and corporations getting tax breaks and other forms of support, while austerity measures are applied to the public sector. These include businesses and corporations getting tax breaks, as well as funding to hire apprentices. In many cases, there are legitimate questions as to whether this is the best way to apply austerity measures. For example, a young person on a wage of minimum wage and without further qualifications is often better off staying on benefits rather than entering an apprenticeship scheme, so there are no incentives to do so. In contrast, if austerity measures were applied in a more rational and considered way, it could work well, with an assessment being made of which sectors could most afford a reduction in funding, and which services could be reduced without too much disruption to service users. Another way that austerity measures could be applied more rationally is through a greater focus on taxation, with the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. In the short term, it can lead to lower economic growth and higher unemployment. The cuts to social care spending also mean that the people who rely on it have no resources, which in some cases can lead to a higher death rate. There is a balance to be struck during an economic downturn. Government spending is lowered so more money is saved, however this is usually at the cost of many crucial services going underfunded. It is a tricky topic because it arguably affects the most vulnerable in our society more than it affects wealthy people. An increased tax to the wealthiest in society would probably be beneficial, however the wealthy among us do not like to pay any extra taxes. No, austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. It has been proven time and again in other countries that, paradoxically, increased spending is the way to reverse an economic downturn not austerity. All austerity does is cut public services off at the knees and provides a worse situation for most inhabitants in the long run. Austerity has been used numerous times in the UK by successive governments and has only resulted in a demolished and privatised public sector with infrastructure being completely left -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. Austerity has been used numerous times in the UK by successive governments and has only resulted in a demolished and privatised public sector with infrastructure being completely left behind. The only way to solve it is to give tax relief to the companies to pay more to their employees and like this the employee will have more money to spend and pays more tax. However, austerity can lead to periods of lower economic growth and higher unemployment. The cuts to social care spending also mean that the people who rely on it have no resources, which in some cases can lead to a higher death rate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity measures can be a short-term policy to help deal with the initial impact of an economic downturn, however they should be followed by policies that lead to increased government spending, so that the economy can recover. It is important to ensure that the spending is done in a way that does not lead to long-term debt that will further increase the economic problems in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “While the concept of austerity is not without merit, there are significant flaws in the way that it has been applied. Firstly, austerity measures have been applied as a blanket, with no assessment of which services could afford a reduction in funding. Also, the measures have been applied to different sectors of the economy, with many businesses and corporations getting tax breaks and other forms of support, while austerity measures are applied to the public sector. These include businesses and corporations getting tax breaks, as well as funding to hire apprentices. In many cases, there are legitimate questions as to whether this is the best way to apply austerity measures. For example, a young person on a wage of minimum wage and without further qualifications is often better off staying on benefits rather than entering an apprenticeship scheme, so there are no incentives to do so. In contrast, if austerity measures were applied in a more rational and considered way, it could work well, with an assessment being made of which sectors could most afford a reduction in funding, and which services could be reduced without too much disruption to service users. Another way that austerity measures could be applied more rationally is through a greater focus on taxation, with the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. In the short term, it can lead to lower economic growth and higher unemployment. The cuts to social care spending also mean that the people who rely on it have no resources, which in some cases can lead to a higher death rate. There is a balance to be struck during an economic downturn. Government spending is lowered so more money is saved, however this is usually at the cost of many crucial services going underfunded. It is a tricky topic because it arguably affects the most vulnerable in our society more than it affects wealthy people. An increased tax to the wealthiest in society would probably be beneficial, however the wealthy among us do not like to pay any extra taxes. No, austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. It has been proven time and again in other countries that, paradoxically, increased spending is the way to reverse an economic downturn not austerity. All austerity does is cut public services off at the knees and provides a worse situation for most inhabitants in the long run. Austerity has been used numerous times in the UK by successive governments and has only resulted in a demolished and privatised public sector with infrastructure being completely left +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Austerity is not the best policy in an economic downturn. Austerity has been used numerous times in the UK by successive governments and has only resulted in a demolished and privatised public sector with infrastructure being completely left behind. The only way to solve it is to give tax relief to the companies to pay more to their employees and like this the employee will have more money to spend and pays more tax. However, austerity can lead to periods of lower economic growth and higher unemployment. The cuts to social care spending also mean that the people who rely on it have no resources, which in some cases can lead to a higher death rate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity measures can be a short-term policy to help deal with the initial impact of an economic downturn, however they should be followed by policies that lead to increased government spending, so that the economy can recover. It is important to ensure that the spending is done in a way that does not lead to long-term debt that will further increase the economic problems in the future. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002131.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002131.soc index ae804af2..d6571a8f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002131.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002131.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the state spending more money on protecting the environment. The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The group felt that everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The group also felt that the current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. The group felt that it would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference. The group also felt that it is the state who are responsible for making it a safe place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the state spending more money on protecting the environment. The majority of participants felt that the environment is in a bad state and that it is a worrying issue. The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The group also felt that it is the state who are responsible for making it a safe place. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference and everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The group also felt that the current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the state spending more money on protecting the environment. The majority of participants felt that the environment is in a bad state and that it is a worrying issue. The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The group also felt that it is the state who are responsible for making it a safe place. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference and everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The group also felt that the current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The majority of participants felt that the environment is in a bad state and that it is a worrying issue. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference and everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the state spending more money on protecting the environment. The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The group felt that everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The group also felt that the current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. The group felt that it would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference. The group also felt that it is the state who are responsible for making it a safe place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the state spending more money on protecting the environment. The majority of participants felt that the environment is in a bad state and that it is a worrying issue. The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The group also felt that it is the state who are responsible for making it a safe place. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference and everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The group also felt that the current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the state spending more money on protecting the environment. The majority of participants felt that the environment is in a bad state and that it is a worrying issue. The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The group also felt that it is the state who are responsible for making it a safe place. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference and everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The group also felt that the current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The environment is a core part to our living and functioning. The majority of participants felt that the environment is in a bad state and that it is a worrying issue. It would need to be a global effort in order to make a difference and everyone should do their part in protecting the environment for our own and future generations. The current state of the environment should be worrying to a lot of people. They want their grandkids to be able to have a decent quality of life and understand that we need to protect our natural environment. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002132.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002132.soc index 37d56973..98f95bf5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002132.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002132.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group also thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. The group thought that it was important for vegans to research the origin of the products they buy and how big a carbon footprint, especially vegan ready meals, have. The group thought that veganism alone does not improve animal welfare, and that animal welfare should be improved in food production regardless of veganism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group also thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. The group thought that veganism would be the most effective in reducing climate change if vegan products were purchased locally and if veganism was adopted as a mainstream diet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group also thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. In addition, the group agreed that the environmental impact of vegan staples (such as beans and hummus) should be considered by people transitioning into a vegan lifestyle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group also thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. The group thought that it was important for vegans to research the origin of the products they buy and how big a carbon footprint, especially vegan ready meals, have. The group thought that veganism alone does not improve animal welfare, and that animal welfare should be improved in food production regardless of veganism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group also thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. The group thought that veganism would be the most effective in reducing climate change if vegan products were purchased locally and if veganism was adopted as a mainstream diet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group also thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. In addition, the group agreed that the environmental impact of vegan staples (such as beans and hummus) should be considered by people transitioning into a vegan lifestyle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the vegan lifestyle and thought that it was making a positive contribution to the world. The group thought that veganism was a good way to reduce the impact of climate change, and to improve animal welfare. The group did not think that the vegan lifestyle was the only way to reduce climate change, and thought that reducing meat and dairy consumption would also be beneficial. The group thought that the vegan lifestyle was not the easiest lifestyle to live, and that it would be hard to maintain in the long term. The group thought that veganism was a good way to raise awareness of climate change and animal welfare, but that it could also alienate people. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002133.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002133.soc index 35dc91ac..73fa3dc1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002133.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002133.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We should focus more on completing and maintaining cycling infrastructure before continuing to make new, partial cycle paths. However, generally speaking we think most local authorities seem to push quite a lot to encourage people to cycle. We think that local authorities could do more to encourage people to cycle, by incentivizing and encouraging 'Cycle to Work and School' schemes. We also think that cars should be more considerate of cyclists, and that cyclists should be made more aware of cycle paths. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We should focus more on completing and maintaining cycling infrastructure before continuing to make new, partial cycle paths. However, generally speaking we think most local authorities seem to push quite a lot to encourage people to cycle. However there is more that they could do. Local authorities could also encourage and incentivize people to cycle - like encouraging 'Cycle to Work and School' schemes. Cars and bikes should both be able to share the road, and both drivers and cyclists should be educated on how to safely drive or cycle, respectively. Public transport is often the safest way to travel for cyclists, and local authorities should continue to work on improving public transport as an alternative to driving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We think local authorities should maintain existing cycle lanes better before making any new paths, and we think individuals need to use these cycle paths more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We should focus more on completing and maintaining cycling infrastructure before continuing to make new, partial cycle paths. However, generally speaking we think most local authorities seem to push quite a lot to encourage people to cycle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We should focus more on completing and maintaining cycling infrastructure before continuing to make new, partial cycle paths. However, generally speaking we think most local authorities seem to push quite a lot to encourage people to cycle. We think that local authorities could do more to encourage people to cycle, by incentivizing and encouraging 'Cycle to Work and School' schemes. We also think that cars should be more considerate of cyclists, and that cyclists should be made more aware of cycle paths. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We should focus more on completing and maintaining cycling infrastructure before continuing to make new, partial cycle paths. However, generally speaking we think most local authorities seem to push quite a lot to encourage people to cycle. However there is more that they could do. Local authorities could also encourage and incentivize people to cycle - like encouraging 'Cycle to Work and School' schemes. Cars and bikes should both be able to share the road, and both drivers and cyclists should be educated on how to safely drive or cycle, respectively. Public transport is often the safest way to travel for cyclists, and local authorities should continue to work on improving public transport as an alternative to driving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We think local authorities should maintain existing cycle lanes better before making any new paths, and we think individuals need to use these cycle paths more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Local authorities are doing enough to encourage cycling. Some cities have better cycling infrastructure than others, however most are getting better. Sometimes the implementation of this infrastructure is not great, as cycle lanes often end randomly, and sometimes are not well maintained which results in cyclists using the road with cars. We should focus more on completing and maintaining cycling infrastructure before continuing to make new, partial cycle paths. However, generally speaking we think most local authorities seem to push quite a lot to encourage people to cycle. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002134.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002134.soc index 7423afba..1c1726ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002134.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002134.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. Therefore, it is only right that the public should have control over who has access to their personal data. This is especially important in the current climate of increased data sharing and data mining. This is also important as it is highly sensitive data that could expose a persons vulnerabilities. The laws should shield all patients and anyone involved under the care system of the NHS. It isn't fair to allow just any individual to have access to that level of what should be secure data. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could potentially harm individuals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. Therefore, it is only right that the public should have control over who has access to their personal data. This is especially important in the current climate of increased data sharing and data mining. This is also important as it is highly sensitive data that could expose a persons vulnerabilities. The laws should shield all patients and anyone involved under the care system of the NHS. It isn't fair to allow just any individual to have access to that level of what should be secure data. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could potentially harm individuals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the laws about who can have access to NHS records should be tightened to allow only people who are directly involved in the care of an individual patient to see their records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. The public should have control over who has access to their personal data. It is also an issue of medical ethics, which states that individuals have a right to privacy. People can have vulnerabilities, which can be exposed or used for private gain if the records were to be made available to everyone. It is imperative we keep people's personal information secure to prevent vulnerable people from being exploited. Periodic table of learning theories: This was a personal project to develop a periodic table of learning theories. Through the comparison of strengths and weaknesses of different learning theories in different contexts and situations, we developed this table. This is a simplistic overview, but it provides a summary of what we concluded. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. Therefore, it is only right that the public should have control over who has access to their personal data. This is especially important in the current climate of increased data sharing and data mining. This is also important as it is highly sensitive data that could expose a persons vulnerabilities. The laws should shield all patients and anyone involved under the care system of the NHS. It isn't fair to allow just any individual to have access to that level of what should be secure data. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could potentially harm individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. Therefore, it is only right that the public should have control over who has access to their personal data. This is especially important in the current climate of increased data sharing and data mining. This is also important as it is highly sensitive data that could expose a persons vulnerabilities. The laws should shield all patients and anyone involved under the care system of the NHS. It isn't fair to allow just any individual to have access to that level of what should be secure data. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could potentially harm individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. Therefore, it is only right that the public should have control over who has access to their personal data. This is especially important in the current climate of increased data sharing and data mining. This is also important as it is highly sensitive data that could expose a persons vulnerabilities. The laws should shield all patients and anyone involved under the care system of the NHS. It isn't fair to allow just any individual to have access to that level of what should be secure data. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could potentially harm individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the laws about who can have access to NHS records should be tightened to allow only people who are directly involved in the care of an individual patient to see their records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. The public should have control over who has access to their personal data. It is also an issue of medical ethics, which states that individuals have a right to privacy. People can have vulnerabilities, which can be exposed or used for private gain if the records were to be made available to everyone. It is imperative we keep people's personal information secure to prevent vulnerable people from being exploited. Periodic table of learning theories: This was a personal project to develop a periodic table of learning theories. Through the comparison of strengths and weaknesses of different learning theories in different contexts and situations, we developed this table. This is a simplistic overview, but it provides a summary of what we concluded. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. This is because the NHS is a public service and is funded by the public. Therefore, it is only right that the public should have control over who has access to their personal data. This is especially important in the current climate of increased data sharing and data mining. This is also important as it is highly sensitive data that could expose a persons vulnerabilities. The laws should shield all patients and anyone involved under the care system of the NHS. It isn't fair to allow just any individual to have access to that level of what should be secure data. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could potentially harm individuals. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002135.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002135.soc index 77091a42..c59195bd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002135.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002135.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be encouraged to eat more plant based foods and to cut down on their meat intake, but they should not be forced. There are many benefits to this in terms of the environment and health. Cutting down on meat would also reduce the environmental impact. Vegetarian and vegan food should be accessible to all and there should be more education on the benefits of plant based diets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be encouraged to be more vegetarian and vegan. Eating less meat would help reduce greenhouse gases and help the environment. This should be encouraged through media advertising and informing people about the environmental and health benefits. Vegetarian and vegan food should be easily accessible and not more expensive than meat products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging people to eat less meat, but not to become vegetarian or vegan. The reasons for this were that the majority of people enjoy eating meat, and there is a risk that if they were forced to become vegetarian or vegan they would rebel and eat more meat. Also, there is a risk that people would not be able to get all the nutrients they need from a vegetarian or vegan diet. However, the group was in favour of encouraging people to eat less meat for environmental and health reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more people to become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that it is important to consider the wider impacts of encouraging people to become vegetarian or vegan, including the potential impact on food security, the environment and animal welfare. The group felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce their meat intake, rather than become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that this would be more achievable and would have a greater impact on the environment and animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy higher welfare meat and eggs, and to buy free range eggs. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy more locally sourced food. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce food waste. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be encouraged to eat more plant based foods and to cut down on their meat intake, but they should not be forced. There are many benefits to this in terms of the environment and health. Cutting down on meat would also reduce the environmental impact. Vegetarian and vegan food should be accessible to all and there should be more education on the benefits of plant based diets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be encouraged to be more vegetarian and vegan. Eating less meat would help reduce greenhouse gases and help the environment. This should be encouraged through media advertising and informing people about the environmental and health benefits. Vegetarian and vegan food should be easily accessible and not more expensive than meat products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging people to eat less meat, but not to become vegetarian or vegan. The reasons for this were that the majority of people enjoy eating meat, and there is a risk that if they were forced to become vegetarian or vegan they would rebel and eat more meat. Also, there is a risk that people would not be able to get all the nutrients they need from a vegetarian or vegan diet. However, the group was in favour of encouraging people to eat less meat for environmental and health reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more people to become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that it is important to consider the wider impacts of encouraging people to become vegetarian or vegan, including the potential impact on food security, the environment and animal welfare. The group felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce their meat intake, rather than become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that this would be more achievable and would have a greater impact on the environment and animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy higher welfare meat and eggs, and to buy free range eggs. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy more locally sourced food. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce food waste. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002136.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002136.soc index d555068a..4a281ad6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002136.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002136.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group have decided that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. This will also help to reduce the number of people who are able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes who are underage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group of participants in this discussion have come to the consensus opinion that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. We believe that this will help to reduce the number of people who are able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes who are underage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we have decided that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. This will also help to reduce the number of people who are able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes who are underage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the group have decided that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. We believe that this will help to prevent underage drinking and smoking, as those operating a licensed premises will ensure that ID is retrieved before any alcohol or cigarettes are sold. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group have decided that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. This will also help to reduce the number of people who are able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes who are underage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group of participants in this discussion have come to the consensus opinion that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. We believe that this will help to reduce the number of people who are able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes who are underage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we have decided that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. This will also help to reduce the number of people who are able to purchase alcohol and cigarettes who are underage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the group have decided that we should not ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in public places. We believe that it is an individual's choice to engage in these activities and that if they are of legal age then it is their right to do so. We also believe that if the sale of alcohol and cigarettes is banned in public places then this will lead to an increase in criminal activity as it will drive the sale of these products underground. We believe that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be more tightly controlled, with the sale of alcohol only being sold in licensed premises and cigarettes only being sold in licensed premises or newsagents. We believe that this will help to prevent underage drinking and smoking, as those operating a licensed premises will ensure that ID is retrieved before any alcohol or cigarettes are sold. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002137.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002137.soc index d15d8370..9c748fee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002137.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002137.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company, although this should only be the case if online gambling providers and companies are proactive in ensuring the safety and well-being of gamblers. This could be achieved through careful identification and support of problem gamblers, and through a robust, up-to-date regulation of the industry. Participants were asked how they felt about their experience. Participants reported a number of reasons why they think online deliberation could be useful, or an interesting process for researchers, public health officials, policy-makers and participants. Below are some examples: Why might online deliberation be an interesting experience for participants: [Having a] chance to reflect on a personal problem. I think [it] allows to understand better the issues one might face in ones life. A process to allow participants to connect with other people. [Makes me] think of other people's opinions on an issue. [Allows people to consider other opinions, and participants themselves to] feel as part of a community. [Makes participants] feel happy about thinking about an issue and being able to give [my] opinion. Gives participants a chance to put my mind -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, there are a number of issues that are important to address when talking about this topic. Firstly, the protection of those with gambling addictions is of paramount importance. Many people will spend large amounts of money on gambling, and will not have considered the impact of this on their finances and lives. Companies must be proactive in helping to identify those with gambling addictions, and also offer help and support to those that need it. Secondly, the regulation of the gambling industry is of utmost importance. This is especially important as the gambling industry continues to grow, and new gambling technologies continue to be created. Therefore, regulation of the industry must be reviewed and updated to keep up with the new and changing gambling landscape. If these conditions are met, and people are proactive in ensuring the safety and well-being of gamblers, then it should be allowed for people to make a living from running an online gambling company. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, there are a number of issues that are important to address when talking about this topic. Firstly, the protection of those with gambling addictions is of paramount importance. Many people will spend large amounts of money on gambling, and will not have considered the impact of this on their finances and lives. Companies must be proactive in helping to identify those with gambling addictions, and also offer help and support to those that need it. Secondly, the regulation of the gambling industry is of utmost importance. This is especially important as the gambling industry continues to grow, and new gambling technologies continue to be created. Therefore, regulation of the industry must be reviewed and updated to keep up with the new and changing gambling landscape. Finally, if we are to allow people to make a living from running an online gambling company, we must ensure that the correct checks and balances are in place. This is to ensure that the interests of gamblers and those with gambling addictions are protected, and also to prevent the gambling industry from growing in an uncontrolled manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, there are a number of issues that are important to address when talking about this topic. Firstly, the protection of those with gambling addictions is of paramount importance. Many people will spend large amounts of money on gambling, and will not have considered the impact of this on their finances and lives. Companies must be proactive in helping to identify those with gambling addictions, and also offer help and support to those that need it. Secondly, the regulation of the gambling industry is of utmost importance. This is especially important as the gambling industry continues to grow, and new gambling technologies continue to be created. Therefore, regulation of the industry must be reviewed and updated to keep up with the new and changing gambling landscape. If these conditions are met, and people are proactive in ensuring the safety and well-being of gamblers, then it should be allowed for people to make a living from running an online gambling company. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company, although this should only be the case if online gambling providers and companies are proactive in ensuring the safety and well-being of gamblers. This could be achieved through careful identification and support of problem gamblers, and through a robust, up-to-date regulation of the industry. Participants were asked how they felt about their experience. Participants reported a number of reasons why they think online deliberation could be useful, or an interesting process for researchers, public health officials, policy-makers and participants. Below are some examples: Why might online deliberation be an interesting experience for participants: [Having a] chance to reflect on a personal problem. I think [it] allows to understand better the issues one might face in ones life. A process to allow participants to connect with other people. [Makes me] think of other people's opinions on an issue. [Allows people to consider other opinions, and participants themselves to] feel as part of a community. [Makes participants] feel happy about thinking about an issue and being able to give [my] opinion. Gives participants a chance to put my mind +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, there are a number of issues that are important to address when talking about this topic. Firstly, the protection of those with gambling addictions is of paramount importance. Many people will spend large amounts of money on gambling, and will not have considered the impact of this on their finances and lives. Companies must be proactive in helping to identify those with gambling addictions, and also offer help and support to those that need it. Secondly, the regulation of the gambling industry is of utmost importance. This is especially important as the gambling industry continues to grow, and new gambling technologies continue to be created. Therefore, regulation of the industry must be reviewed and updated to keep up with the new and changing gambling landscape. If these conditions are met, and people are proactive in ensuring the safety and well-being of gamblers, then it should be allowed for people to make a living from running an online gambling company. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, there are a number of issues that are important to address when talking about this topic. Firstly, the protection of those with gambling addictions is of paramount importance. Many people will spend large amounts of money on gambling, and will not have considered the impact of this on their finances and lives. Companies must be proactive in helping to identify those with gambling addictions, and also offer help and support to those that need it. Secondly, the regulation of the gambling industry is of utmost importance. This is especially important as the gambling industry continues to grow, and new gambling technologies continue to be created. Therefore, regulation of the industry must be reviewed and updated to keep up with the new and changing gambling landscape. Finally, if we are to allow people to make a living from running an online gambling company, we must ensure that the correct checks and balances are in place. This is to ensure that the interests of gamblers and those with gambling addictions are protected, and also to prevent the gambling industry from growing in an uncontrolled manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In general, people should be allowed to make a living from running an online gambling company. However, there are a number of issues that are important to address when talking about this topic. Firstly, the protection of those with gambling addictions is of paramount importance. Many people will spend large amounts of money on gambling, and will not have considered the impact of this on their finances and lives. Companies must be proactive in helping to identify those with gambling addictions, and also offer help and support to those that need it. Secondly, the regulation of the gambling industry is of utmost importance. This is especially important as the gambling industry continues to grow, and new gambling technologies continue to be created. Therefore, regulation of the industry must be reviewed and updated to keep up with the new and changing gambling landscape. If these conditions are met, and people are proactive in ensuring the safety and well-being of gamblers, then it should be allowed for people to make a living from running an online gambling company. 2: 4,2,3,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002138.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002138.soc index fdc9d1f3..9029e71f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002138.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002138.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, eating meat is not immoral. Humans are omnivores, and as such, it is part of our evolution to eat meat. There are many health benefits to eating meat, and it is a good source of protein. However, the way in which the meat is sourced is important. The participants agreed that it is important that the animals are treated well and are killed in a humane way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was in agreement that eating meat is not immoral as there are some humans who survive on a purely carnivorous diet, and that it is part of our human evolutionary history. However, they were also in agreement that we as a society need to consider how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. They acknowledged that some people feel that eating meat is immoral as it involves the death of another living being, however, they were in agreement that this is not a strong enough argument for them to come to the conclusion that eating meat is immoral. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, eating meat is not immoral. Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years and it is a large part of our evolution. There is also evidence that a carnivorous diet can be highly preventative towards certain conditions such as diabetes. However, it is important to treat the animals with respect and ensure that they are slaughtered in a humane way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Some people believe eating meat is wrong, others do not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, eating meat is not immoral. Humans are omnivores, and as such, it is part of our evolution to eat meat. There are many health benefits to eating meat, and it is a good source of protein. However, the way in which the meat is sourced is important. The participants agreed that it is important that the animals are treated well and are killed in a humane way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was in agreement that eating meat is not immoral as there are some humans who survive on a purely carnivorous diet, and that it is part of our human evolutionary history. However, they were also in agreement that we as a society need to consider how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. They acknowledged that some people feel that eating meat is immoral as it involves the death of another living being, however, they were in agreement that this is not a strong enough argument for them to come to the conclusion that eating meat is immoral. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, eating meat is not immoral. Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years and it is a large part of our evolution. There is also evidence that a carnivorous diet can be highly preventative towards certain conditions such as diabetes. However, it is important to treat the animals with respect and ensure that they are slaughtered in a humane way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Some people believe eating meat is wrong, others do not. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002139.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002139.soc index 217185b6..e4576188 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002139.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002139.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should definitely restrict the right of individuals to own handguns. In the US there are less restrictions and more gun crime, which suggests that a lack of restrictions leads to an increase in gun crime. Tighter controls on gun ownership are required. We need to make sure that those who have guns have been subject to a mental health check and a background check. The mental health check should be regular and include drug testing. A gun is a weapon, and people should only have access to them when absolutely necessary. The weapons should be licensed and registered to the local authority and only stored in a gun safe when not in use. Only one gun should be owned and there should be no other gun ammo stored in the house. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the right of individuals to own handguns should be restricted. This is because the UK has seen a decrease in gun crime since the introduction of tighter gun laws and this is something we should be proud of. It is also something that we should not let slip. We have also seen that in countries with looser gun laws, such as the USA, gun crime is higher. This is because guns are easier to get hold of and so more people will use them to commit crimes. In the UK, the majority of people who own guns are hunters and farmers. This means that the guns are used for sport or work purposes and are not used to commit crimes. We believe that people who own guns should be subject to background checks and should be required to have a license. The license should be renewed every year and the person should be subject to a mental health check. This is to ensure that the person is fit to own a gun and is not a danger to themselves or others. We believe that this is a good system that works well in the UK. We do not believe that it should be changed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be strict rules governing the ownership of handguns. These rules should include extensive background checks on the person wishing to own a handgun and a mental health assessment. The person should also have to justify why they need to own a handgun. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that there should be a restriction on the right of individuals to own handguns. We believe that the law in this country is stricter than in other countries and that there are fewer incidents of gun crime here because of it. We also think that if there were more restrictions on who can own guns in other countries then there would be fewer incidents of gun crime there too. We feel that owning a gun should be a privilege and not a right and that a person's criminal record and mental health should be evaluated before they are allowed to own one and this should be regularly reviewed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should definitely restrict the right of individuals to own handguns. In the US there are less restrictions and more gun crime, which suggests that a lack of restrictions leads to an increase in gun crime. Tighter controls on gun ownership are required. We need to make sure that those who have guns have been subject to a mental health check and a background check. The mental health check should be regular and include drug testing. A gun is a weapon, and people should only have access to them when absolutely necessary. The weapons should be licensed and registered to the local authority and only stored in a gun safe when not in use. Only one gun should be owned and there should be no other gun ammo stored in the house. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the right of individuals to own handguns should be restricted. This is because the UK has seen a decrease in gun crime since the introduction of tighter gun laws and this is something we should be proud of. It is also something that we should not let slip. We have also seen that in countries with looser gun laws, such as the USA, gun crime is higher. This is because guns are easier to get hold of and so more people will use them to commit crimes. In the UK, the majority of people who own guns are hunters and farmers. This means that the guns are used for sport or work purposes and are not used to commit crimes. We believe that people who own guns should be subject to background checks and should be required to have a license. The license should be renewed every year and the person should be subject to a mental health check. This is to ensure that the person is fit to own a gun and is not a danger to themselves or others. We believe that this is a good system that works well in the UK. We do not believe that it should be changed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be strict rules governing the ownership of handguns. These rules should include extensive background checks on the person wishing to own a handgun and a mental health assessment. The person should also have to justify why they need to own a handgun. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that there should be a restriction on the right of individuals to own handguns. We believe that the law in this country is stricter than in other countries and that there are fewer incidents of gun crime here because of it. We also think that if there were more restrictions on who can own guns in other countries then there would be fewer incidents of gun crime there too. We feel that owning a gun should be a privilege and not a right and that a person's criminal record and mental health should be evaluated before they are allowed to own one and this should be regularly reviewed. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002140.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002140.soc index 8147d3a4..a040618a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002140.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002140.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should absolutely put more funding into primary school teaching. It is the basis of our society and deserves a higher level of funding than many other activities that receive large amounts of funding in other areas. An educated youth is the most important thing for our society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is very important that our government puts more funding into primary school teaching, it should also be noted that there are also many areas in our primary school system that need reforming. It is no secret that there are many problems in our education system and that this will not change with the government putting more funding into primary school teaching alone. Primary school teachers need to be paid more, and more support needs to be given to them to help them do their job effectively. If the government put more funding into primary school teaching, this would allow the government to raise the pay of primary school teachers and thus attract more skilled and capable people to this job role. This would also help retain the teachers in this industry, meaning that teachers would not have to change schools regularly. There is also a lack of funding for SEND children, and this would also be able to be resolved with more funding. In addition, the curriculum needs to be reviewed to allow teachers more freedom to teach their students what they want, and this would mean that they would be able to teach their students things that they are passionate about and therefore their students will also become passionate about this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should absolutely put more funding into primary school teaching. Primary school is the basis of our society and deserves a higher level of funding than many other activities that receive large amounts of funding in other areas. An educated youth is the most important thing for our society. The government needs to recognise how difficult the roles inside a primary school can be, and therefore should pay all members of staff what they deserve. They are looking after the future of the nation, and how can we expect to progress as a nation if there is not enough funding to ensure every child receives a top education. The current system is lacking consistency and this has a negative impact on the students, teachers change jobs often and only at the school for a year or so. The infrastructure again is not at a good standard and causes many issues for schools. Beyond this the curriculum is very strict and it feels like not much is done to support individual talents or the arts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group came to the consensus view that we should not be putting more money into primary schools. They are the basis of society and are an important part of the community and children should be given the best start in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should absolutely put more funding into primary school teaching. It is the basis of our society and deserves a higher level of funding than many other activities that receive large amounts of funding in other areas. An educated youth is the most important thing for our society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is very important that our government puts more funding into primary school teaching, it should also be noted that there are also many areas in our primary school system that need reforming. It is no secret that there are many problems in our education system and that this will not change with the government putting more funding into primary school teaching alone. Primary school teachers need to be paid more, and more support needs to be given to them to help them do their job effectively. If the government put more funding into primary school teaching, this would allow the government to raise the pay of primary school teachers and thus attract more skilled and capable people to this job role. This would also help retain the teachers in this industry, meaning that teachers would not have to change schools regularly. There is also a lack of funding for SEND children, and this would also be able to be resolved with more funding. In addition, the curriculum needs to be reviewed to allow teachers more freedom to teach their students what they want, and this would mean that they would be able to teach their students things that they are passionate about and therefore their students will also become passionate about this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should absolutely put more funding into primary school teaching. Primary school is the basis of our society and deserves a higher level of funding than many other activities that receive large amounts of funding in other areas. An educated youth is the most important thing for our society. The government needs to recognise how difficult the roles inside a primary school can be, and therefore should pay all members of staff what they deserve. They are looking after the future of the nation, and how can we expect to progress as a nation if there is not enough funding to ensure every child receives a top education. The current system is lacking consistency and this has a negative impact on the students, teachers change jobs often and only at the school for a year or so. The infrastructure again is not at a good standard and causes many issues for schools. Beyond this the curriculum is very strict and it feels like not much is done to support individual talents or the arts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not be putting more money into primary schools. They are the basis of society and are an important part of the community and children should be given the best start in life. 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002141.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002141.soc index 7d9be6e8..8be61032 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002141.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002141.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, cigarettes should not be made illegal. The current system of making it illegal to smoke in public places is sufficient. There are many other things that are more dangerous and more addictive than cigarettes that are not illegal. It is a personal choice and people should be free to make that choice. However, the government should do more to help people stop smoking and to deter future generations from ever starting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the legalisation of cigarettes would be a welcome step in improving the health of our nation, we do not believe that this would be a viable solution. It would only be the beginning of a whole new set of problems, such as a black market, increased cigarette prices and an increase in the use of counterfeit products, all of which have negative consequences on the nation's health. Instead, we believe that the focus should be on encouraging people to quit smoking and helping those who wish to quit. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public places such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and we feel this should be further encouraged. We also feel that the government should do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking cigarettes should not be made illegal. It should not be made illegal because you are only taking the right to choose away from people who may want to smoke. It is a personal choice. The government should not interfere in personal decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. Cigarettes should not be made illegal. The health risks of smoking are well known and people should be allowed to make their own choices. If people want to smoke, they should be allowed to do so. However, the government should be doing more to help people stop smoking and to discourage future generations from starting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, cigarettes should not be made illegal. The current system of making it illegal to smoke in public places is sufficient. There are many other things that are more dangerous and more addictive than cigarettes that are not illegal. It is a personal choice and people should be free to make that choice. However, the government should do more to help people stop smoking and to deter future generations from ever starting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the legalisation of cigarettes would be a welcome step in improving the health of our nation, we do not believe that this would be a viable solution. It would only be the beginning of a whole new set of problems, such as a black market, increased cigarette prices and an increase in the use of counterfeit products, all of which have negative consequences on the nation's health. Instead, we believe that the focus should be on encouraging people to quit smoking and helping those who wish to quit. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public places such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and we feel this should be further encouraged. We also feel that the government should do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking cigarettes should not be made illegal. It should not be made illegal because you are only taking the right to choose away from people who may want to smoke. It is a personal choice. The government should not interfere in personal decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. Cigarettes should not be made illegal. The health risks of smoking are well known and people should be allowed to make their own choices. If people want to smoke, they should be allowed to do so. However, the government should be doing more to help people stop smoking and to discourage future generations from starting. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002142.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002142.soc index ada8a5e1..16a894c6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002142.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002142.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Pollution, climate change and resource depletion are well documented consequences of human activity, including human consumption of food. The “Western” diet currently relies heavily on animal products and is detrimental to human health, animal welfare and the environment. The United Nations warns that global livestock farming is a major threat to the Earth's climate. Changing the diet of the UK population to one that is less reliant on animal products would significantly reduce the negative impacts of our diet. This is an important point for policymakers to consider. The group believes that we should encourage the population to reduce their meat intake, particularly that which has been obtained through factory farming. Encouraging people to buy animal products such as meat, milk and eggs that are welfare friendly may also help to improve the situation. Encouraging people to buy locally sourced products is also an important consideration. Reducing food waste is another important consideration for policymakers to consider. Reducing food waste is also an important consideration for individual consumers. The group of participants believe that this is also an important point for policymakers to consider. Informational resources 1. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy- -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more people to become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that it is important to consider the wider impacts of encouraging people to become vegetarian or vegan, including the potential impact on food security, the environment and animal welfare. The group felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce their meat intake, rather than become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that this would be more achievable and would have a greater impact on the environment and animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy higher welfare meat and eggs, and to buy free range eggs. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy more locally sourced food. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce food waste. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be more education about the pros and cons of becoming vegetarian or vegan. There should be more education about the pros and cons of reducing meat intake. There should be more education about the pros and cons of buying higher welfare meat and eggs. There should be more education about the pros and cons of buying free range eggs. There should be more education about the pros and cons of buying locally sourced food. There should be more education about the pros and cons of reducing food waste. The government should provide funding for this education. The government should provide funding for vegetarian and vegan food to be sold in supermarkets and schools. This should be more accessible, i.e. it should be cheaper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in favour of encouraging more people to become vegetarian or vegan, but only if it could be done in a way that does not have a negative impact on food security, the environment or animal welfare. The group felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce their meat intake, rather than become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that this would be more achievable and would have a greater impact on the environment and animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy higher welfare meat and eggs, and to buy free range eggs. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy more locally sourced food. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce food waste. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Pollution, climate change and resource depletion are well documented consequences of human activity, including human consumption of food. The “Western” diet currently relies heavily on animal products and is detrimental to human health, animal welfare and the environment. The United Nations warns that global livestock farming is a major threat to the Earth's climate. Changing the diet of the UK population to one that is less reliant on animal products would significantly reduce the negative impacts of our diet. This is an important point for policymakers to consider. The group believes that we should encourage the population to reduce their meat intake, particularly that which has been obtained through factory farming. Encouraging people to buy animal products such as meat, milk and eggs that are welfare friendly may also help to improve the situation. Encouraging people to buy locally sourced products is also an important consideration. Reducing food waste is another important consideration for policymakers to consider. Reducing food waste is also an important consideration for individual consumers. The group of participants believe that this is also an important point for policymakers to consider. Informational resources 1. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy- +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more people to become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that it is important to consider the wider impacts of encouraging people to become vegetarian or vegan, including the potential impact on food security, the environment and animal welfare. The group felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce their meat intake, rather than become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that this would be more achievable and would have a greater impact on the environment and animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy higher welfare meat and eggs, and to buy free range eggs. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy more locally sourced food. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce food waste. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be more education about the pros and cons of becoming vegetarian or vegan. There should be more education about the pros and cons of reducing meat intake. There should be more education about the pros and cons of buying higher welfare meat and eggs. There should be more education about the pros and cons of buying free range eggs. There should be more education about the pros and cons of buying locally sourced food. There should be more education about the pros and cons of reducing food waste. The government should provide funding for this education. The government should provide funding for vegetarian and vegan food to be sold in supermarkets and schools. This should be more accessible, i.e. it should be cheaper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in favour of encouraging more people to become vegetarian or vegan, but only if it could be done in a way that does not have a negative impact on food security, the environment or animal welfare. The group felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce their meat intake, rather than become vegetarian or vegan. The group felt that this would be more achievable and would have a greater impact on the environment and animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy higher welfare meat and eggs, and to buy free range eggs. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on animal welfare. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to buy more locally sourced food. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to encourage people to reduce food waste. The group felt that this would have a greater impact on the environment and food security. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002143.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002143.soc index c1b1320a..39150e39 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002143.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002143.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Adults who want to marry should be allowed to. It is their decision and their life and we cannot tell people they should not be allowed to be married. There may be a few reasons why people shouldn't be allowed to get married such as a history of violence but even with those people there should be processes in place to help them to get married if they truly believe they are ready. Conclusions: After reviewing the information presented, I have concluded that there are certain circumstances in which I feel marriage between adults is permissible. However, the connotations of what is 'permissible' and what is 'allowable' in our society today are not always the same. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Adults who want to marry should generally be allowed to unless there are some significant factors which deem them unfit to be married. There is no reason to forbid someone from getting married. In our society today there are no acceptable reasons to deny someone the opportunity to marry so long as it is consensual and not forcing someone into marriage. In the rare cases where there are some factors which would deem someone unfit, it is advisable to seek help from various organizations and professionals to ensure that it is a viable situation. In cases where it is accepted but there is concern it is advisable to get marriage counseling and be reassessed from time to time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Adults who want to marry should be allowed to. The decision to get married is theirs alone and we should not interfere. There may be a few reasons why people shouldn't be allowed to get married such as a history of violence but even with those people there should be processes in place to help them to get married if they truly believe they are ready. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Adults who want to marry should be allowed to. It is their decision and their life and we cannot tell people they should not be allowed to be married. There may be a few reasons why people shouldn't be allowed to get married such as a history of violence but even with those people there should be processes in place to help them to get married if they truly believe they are ready. Conclusions: After reviewing the information presented, I have concluded that there are certain circumstances in which I feel marriage between adults is permissible. However, the connotations of what is 'permissible' and what is 'allowable' in our society today are not always the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Adults who want to marry should generally be allowed to unless there are some significant factors which deem them unfit to be married. There is no reason to forbid someone from getting married. In our society today there are no acceptable reasons to deny someone the opportunity to marry so long as it is consensual and not forcing someone into marriage. In the rare cases where there are some factors which would deem someone unfit, it is advisable to seek help from various organizations and professionals to ensure that it is a viable situation. In cases where it is accepted but there is concern it is advisable to get marriage counseling and be reassessed from time to time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Adults who want to marry should be allowed to. The decision to get married is theirs alone and we should not interfere. There may be a few reasons why people shouldn't be allowed to get married such as a history of violence but even with those people there should be processes in place to help them to get married if they truly believe they are ready. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002144.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002144.soc index 3a02267e..56ec53b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002144.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002144.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. This is because as the country is already in such debt, it will take many years to pay it back. In addition, it would be impossible for the UK to increase its income in order to start to repay its national debt. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority and could be better spent on things that are more important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK can avoid an increase in its national debt. If the UK could cut unnecessary spending, such as large contracts to big companies which in turn could be put back into the economy and pay off the debt that the government has accrued, then they could avoid further increases. We need to stop sending money abroad and kick start this economy and pay off some of its debt and not continue to borrow. The UK needs to become a more efficient country in how it spends money and cuts where it needs to be cut in order to make the UK a more viable country to live in and do business with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The UK is in the midst of a cost of living crisis and people less well off are suffering. The UK needs to step in and offer more support to the vulnerable during these difficult times. The government should be doing everything possible to avoid anymore financial hardship on the working class and those in a vulnerable situation. It is hypocritical for the government to announce national debt increase and pay cuts whilst offering themselves pay increases and tax avoidance in the same sentence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. This is because as the country is already in such debt, it will take many years to pay it back. In addition, it would be impossible for the UK to increase its income in order to start to repay its national debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority and could be better spent on things that are more important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK can avoid an increase in its national debt. If the UK could cut unnecessary spending, such as large contracts to big companies which in turn could be put back into the economy and pay off the debt that the government has accrued, then they could avoid further increases. We need to stop sending money abroad and kick start this economy and pay off some of its debt and not continue to borrow. The UK needs to become a more efficient country in how it spends money and cuts where it needs to be cut in order to make the UK a more viable country to live in and do business with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The UK is in the midst of a cost of living crisis and people less well off are suffering. The UK needs to step in and offer more support to the vulnerable during these difficult times. The government should be doing everything possible to avoid anymore financial hardship on the working class and those in a vulnerable situation. It is hypocritical for the government to announce national debt increase and pay cuts whilst offering themselves pay increases and tax avoidance in the same sentence. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002145.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002145.soc index 7c962671..00ef33f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002145.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002145.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Eating meat is not immoral. The group of participants agreed that there are humans who only eat meat and others who only eat plants, and some who eat both. The group also agreed that eating meat is part of our evolutionary history and reflected in many of our traditional cuisines. Finally, the group also agreed that we as a society need to consider how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Humans have evolved to survive on a meat-based diet, and some humans still survive on a purely carnivorous diet. Therefore, it is not immoral to eat meat, however, we should be mindful of how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in agreement that eating meat is not immoral as there are some humans who survive on a purely carnivorous diet, and that it is part of our human evolutionary history. The group recognised that this human history may have changed in a modern context as we have developed technology to assist in becoming a vegetarian. However, they were also in agreement that we as a society need to consider how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. Informed by the critiques, the group wanted to emphasise that animals will die regardless of whether they are eaten or not, and that it is morally wrong to treat them badly and cause unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, the group considered the environmental impact of the livestock industry to be the part of the morality of eating meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were in agreement that eating meat is not immoral as there are some humans who survive on a purely carnivorous diet, and that it is part of our human evolutionary history. However, they were also in agreement that we as a society need to consider how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. They acknowledged that some people feel that eating meat is immoral as it involves the death of another living being, however, they were in agreement that this is not a strong enough argument for them to come to the conclusion that eating meat is immoral. They were also in agreement that eating meat is part of our traditional cuisines and cultures, and they felt that the idea of veganism, vegetarianism and a purely plant-based diet is a recent idea that may have some benefits but is not necessarily a healthier diet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Eating meat is not immoral. The group of participants agreed that there are humans who only eat meat and others who only eat plants, and some who eat both. The group also agreed that eating meat is part of our evolutionary history and reflected in many of our traditional cuisines. Finally, the group also agreed that we as a society need to consider how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Humans have evolved to survive on a meat-based diet, and some humans still survive on a purely carnivorous diet. Therefore, it is not immoral to eat meat, however, we should be mindful of how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in agreement that eating meat is not immoral as there are some humans who survive on a purely carnivorous diet, and that it is part of our human evolutionary history. The group recognised that this human history may have changed in a modern context as we have developed technology to assist in becoming a vegetarian. However, they were also in agreement that we as a society need to consider how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. Informed by the critiques, the group wanted to emphasise that animals will die regardless of whether they are eaten or not, and that it is morally wrong to treat them badly and cause unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, the group considered the environmental impact of the livestock industry to be the part of the morality of eating meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were in agreement that eating meat is not immoral as there are some humans who survive on a purely carnivorous diet, and that it is part of our human evolutionary history. However, they were also in agreement that we as a society need to consider how we source our meat and the welfare of the animals we source it from. They acknowledged that some people feel that eating meat is immoral as it involves the death of another living being, however, they were in agreement that this is not a strong enough argument for them to come to the conclusion that eating meat is immoral. They were also in agreement that eating meat is part of our traditional cuisines and cultures, and they felt that the idea of veganism, vegetarianism and a purely plant-based diet is a recent idea that may have some benefits but is not necessarily a healthier diet. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002146.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002146.soc index e5943cd8..11ab695c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002146.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002146.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I feel that the market for private healthcare is not needed in the UK. The NHS offers a free and highly efficient service that should be able to meet the needs of everyone in the UK. Although private healthcare can provide a service to those who are wealthy and feel that they have the money to invest in it, I think that there are many more important services that the private healthcare money could be invested in such as research or community health services. Private healthcare companies will prioritise their profit margins and will make the service expensive. We need to invest more money in the NHS to provide an excellent service for all and not rely on private healthcare.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Private healthcare should be available for those who can afford it, but it must also help the NHS. Private healthcare must also be affordable and accessible for everyone and all types of healthcare and treatments must be available. It must not increase the gap between rich and poor, and the wealthier must not be prioritized over the poorer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a market for private healthcare. There should be a clear separation between the NHS and private healthcare, and people should be able to choose to go to private healthcare. Private healthcare should not be prioritised over the NHS, and should not be used to reduce waiting times. The NHS should have more funding and be more efficient. The NHS should also have a role in private healthcare, and should be able to provide some treatments to private healthcare patients. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a market for private healthcare. The NHS should not be abolished, but there should be more choice for those who can afford it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I feel that the market for private healthcare is not needed in the UK. The NHS offers a free and highly efficient service that should be able to meet the needs of everyone in the UK. Although private healthcare can provide a service to those who are wealthy and feel that they have the money to invest in it, I think that there are many more important services that the private healthcare money could be invested in such as research or community health services. Private healthcare companies will prioritise their profit margins and will make the service expensive. We need to invest more money in the NHS to provide an excellent service for all and not rely on private healthcare.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Private healthcare should be available for those who can afford it, but it must also help the NHS. Private healthcare must also be affordable and accessible for everyone and all types of healthcare and treatments must be available. It must not increase the gap between rich and poor, and the wealthier must not be prioritized over the poorer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a market for private healthcare. There should be a clear separation between the NHS and private healthcare, and people should be able to choose to go to private healthcare. Private healthcare should not be prioritised over the NHS, and should not be used to reduce waiting times. The NHS should have more funding and be more efficient. The NHS should also have a role in private healthcare, and should be able to provide some treatments to private healthcare patients. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a market for private healthcare. The NHS should not be abolished, but there should be more choice for those who can afford it. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002147.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002147.soc index 4fff5033..390e54c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002147.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002147.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that critical thinking should be taught in school. It helps students to be able to think for themselves and not just accept everything that they are told, which is extremely important in life. Critical thinking can be used in everyday life and is a valuable skill to have. It can be used in situations when making decisions as well as evaluating people’s arguments and justifying your opinions. Therefore, if critical thinking is taught in school it will give students the opportunity to understand how to analyse information and arguments before making a decision and will help them to develop their critical thinking skills. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of students being taught critical thinking in school. The group felt that it is important for students to be taught to consider all points of view on any particular subject and to question things when appropriate. They should not just be influenced by one side, as in only Left Wing ideas and not hearing more centralised or Right Wing views. It is important for students to be able to think outside the box and see things in different ways. The group felt that it is important for students to be able to make informed decisions with the information and research before them. The group felt that it is important for students to question everything and not just accept things as they are. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is absolutely vital for students to be taught critical thinking in school, in order to enable them to make informed decisions and think outside the box in the real world. They will also gain a broader perspective on certain situations that would otherwise not be possible if they had not been taught to think critically. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Students should be taught critical thinking in school. It is important for students to be able to think for themselves and to have their own opinions. They should be encouraged to question things and to have their own ideas. It is also important to be able to think critically when making decisions, and to consider all the options and possible outcomes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that critical thinking should be taught in school. It helps students to be able to think for themselves and not just accept everything that they are told, which is extremely important in life. Critical thinking can be used in everyday life and is a valuable skill to have. It can be used in situations when making decisions as well as evaluating people’s arguments and justifying your opinions. Therefore, if critical thinking is taught in school it will give students the opportunity to understand how to analyse information and arguments before making a decision and will help them to develop their critical thinking skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of students being taught critical thinking in school. The group felt that it is important for students to be taught to consider all points of view on any particular subject and to question things when appropriate. They should not just be influenced by one side, as in only Left Wing ideas and not hearing more centralised or Right Wing views. It is important for students to be able to think outside the box and see things in different ways. The group felt that it is important for students to be able to make informed decisions with the information and research before them. The group felt that it is important for students to question everything and not just accept things as they are. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is absolutely vital for students to be taught critical thinking in school, in order to enable them to make informed decisions and think outside the box in the real world. They will also gain a broader perspective on certain situations that would otherwise not be possible if they had not been taught to think critically. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Students should be taught critical thinking in school. It is important for students to be able to think for themselves and to have their own opinions. They should be encouraged to question things and to have their own ideas. It is also important to be able to think critically when making decisions, and to consider all the options and possible outcomes. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002148.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002148.soc index 1e9ab962..55c9e472 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002148.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002148.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is a bad economic policy for the UK. It targets the poorer parts of society more than the richer, and makes the lives of poorer people even harder. The government should look to find ways to stimulate the economy, rather than relying on austerity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The austerity policy put in place by the UK government has been a mixed bag. Whilst some areas have benefited from the austerity policy, others have been disadvantaged. However, overall, the effects of the policy have been more negative than positive. The policies which have negatively affected the UK have been increased taxation on working people, removal of benefits from people who are already in a precarious situation, and the removal of funding from schools, the NHS and policing. This has had a negative effect on the most vulnerable in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity is a terrible policy for the UK. It disproportionately affects the poorer people in society and makes their lives even harder. It also affects public services, which are vital for the economy. The government should not be trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, but instead should be looking at ways to improve their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is a bad economic policy for the UK. It targets the poorer parts of society more than the richer, and makes the lives of poorer people even harder. The government should look to find ways to stimulate the economy, rather than relying on austerity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The austerity policy put in place by the UK government has been a mixed bag. Whilst some areas have benefited from the austerity policy, others have been disadvantaged. However, overall, the effects of the policy have been more negative than positive. The policies which have negatively affected the UK have been increased taxation on working people, removal of benefits from people who are already in a precarious situation, and the removal of funding from schools, the NHS and policing. This has had a negative effect on the most vulnerable in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity is a terrible policy for the UK. It disproportionately affects the poorer people in society and makes their lives even harder. It also affects public services, which are vital for the economy. The government should not be trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, but instead should be looking at ways to improve their lives. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002149.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002149.soc index 2bf15805..494958d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002149.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002149.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the legalisation of cigarettes would be a welcome step in improving the health of our nation, we do not believe that this would be a viable solution as it would create further issues, including a black market, increased cigarette prices and an increase in the use of counterfeit products. Therefore, the focus should be on discouraging cigarette smoking. This could be done by creating more smoke free zones around the country and having a bigger focus on advertising the dangers and risks of smoking. Banning cigarette advertisements would also help to discourage smoking. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public places such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and this should be further encouraged. As part of discouraging smoking, we believe the government should also do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While the legalisation of cigarettes would be a welcome step in improving the health of our nation, we do not believe that this would be a viable solution. It would only be the beginning of a whole new set of problems, such as a black market, increased cigarette prices and an increase in the use of counterfeit products, all of which have negative consequences on the nation's health. Instead, we believe that the focus should be on encouraging people to quit smoking and helping those who wish to quit. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public places such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and we feel this should be further encouraged. We also feel that the government should do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While the legalisation of cigarettes would be a welcome step in improving the health of our nation, we do not believe that this would be a viable solution. It would only be the beginning of a whole new set of problems, such as a black market, increased cigarette prices and an increase in the use of counterfeit products, all of which have negative consequences on the nation's health. Instead, we believe that the focus should be on encouraging people to quit smoking and helping those who wish to quit. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public places such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and we feel this should be further encouraged. We also feel that the government should do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking. The government should also do more to educate young people about the dangers of smoking, so that they can make an informed choice on whether to start or not. The group of participants were then tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on another important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the legalisation of cigarettes would be a positive step in helping to reduce the harm caused by cigarettes to the nation's health. However, if the ban is only implemented in some areas and not others, people are still likely to smoke cigarettes when they are not allowed, and this would create a black market. It would also give rise to cigarette-smuggling and the increase in counterfeit products, all of which would have a negative impact on the nation's health. More focus should instead be put on educating people to stop smoking and providing them with resources to help them do so. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public spaces such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and should be further encouraged. We also feel that the government should do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking, especially vulnerable and low-income groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the legalisation of cigarettes would be a welcome step in improving the health of our nation, we do not believe that this would be a viable solution as it would create further issues, including a black market, increased cigarette prices and an increase in the use of counterfeit products. Therefore, the focus should be on discouraging cigarette smoking. This could be done by creating more smoke free zones around the country and having a bigger focus on advertising the dangers and risks of smoking. Banning cigarette advertisements would also help to discourage smoking. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public places such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and this should be further encouraged. As part of discouraging smoking, we believe the government should also do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While the legalisation of cigarettes would be a welcome step in improving the health of our nation, we do not believe that this would be a viable solution. It would only be the beginning of a whole new set of problems, such as a black market, increased cigarette prices and an increase in the use of counterfeit products, all of which have negative consequences on the nation's health. Instead, we believe that the focus should be on encouraging people to quit smoking and helping those who wish to quit. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public places such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and we feel this should be further encouraged. We also feel that the government should do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While the legalisation of cigarettes would be a welcome step in improving the health of our nation, we do not believe that this would be a viable solution. It would only be the beginning of a whole new set of problems, such as a black market, increased cigarette prices and an increase in the use of counterfeit products, all of which have negative consequences on the nation's health. Instead, we believe that the focus should be on encouraging people to quit smoking and helping those who wish to quit. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public places such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and we feel this should be further encouraged. We also feel that the government should do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking. The government should also do more to educate young people about the dangers of smoking, so that they can make an informed choice on whether to start or not. The group of participants were then tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on another important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the legalisation of cigarettes would be a positive step in helping to reduce the harm caused by cigarettes to the nation's health. However, if the ban is only implemented in some areas and not others, people are still likely to smoke cigarettes when they are not allowed, and this would create a black market. It would also give rise to cigarette-smuggling and the increase in counterfeit products, all of which would have a negative impact on the nation's health. More focus should instead be put on educating people to stop smoking and providing them with resources to help them do so. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces and outdoor public spaces such as bus stops and stations, introduced by the government in 2007, was a positive step in helping to make Britain smoke-free, and should be further encouraged. We also feel that the government should do more to help and advise those who wish to stop smoking, especially vulnerable and low-income groups. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002150.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002150.soc index 2b26557d..548279d9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002150.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002150.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority and could be better spent on things that are more important. The UK needs to fix its own problems first before spending money on things that do not matter. The UK is in the midst of a cost of living crisis and money needs to be spent to help the most vulnerable people in the UK. The UK needs to prioritise where its finances go. For example, spending millions on a Covid app was such a waste of money which definitely shouldn't have costed that much. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority and could be better spent on things that are more important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority and could be better spent on things that are more important. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority. This would have less of an impact on the national debt, while putting the money into more important and more deserving places. It is proven to help the UK and more importantly the working-class families in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority and could be better spent on things that are more important. The UK needs to fix its own problems first before spending money on things that do not matter. The UK is in the midst of a cost of living crisis and money needs to be spent to help the most vulnerable people in the UK. The UK needs to prioritise where its finances go. For example, spending millions on a Covid app was such a waste of money which definitely shouldn't have costed that much. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority and could be better spent on things that are more important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority and could be better spent on things that are more important. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In the current climate, it is not possible for the UK to avoid an increase in its national debt. The government is spending money in all the wrong places and needs to be smarter with its finances. The government is also spending money on things that are not a priority. This would have less of an impact on the national debt, while putting the money into more important and more deserving places. It is proven to help the UK and more importantly the working-class families in need. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002151.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002151.soc index d6cc2641..83e410e5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002151.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002151.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. We believe that it is important that the government reviews its austerity policies and considers alternatives to cutting public services, so that the people of the UK can enjoy a greater quality of life and the economy can continue to grow. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity is a bad economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. We would urge for a reconsideration of the current policies put in place and would look forward to an immediate review of the situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. We believe that it is important that the government reviews its austerity policies and considers alternatives to cutting public services, so that the people of the UK can enjoy a greater quality of life and the economy can continue to grow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity is a bad economic policy for the UK. It has caused significant harm to the economy, where it is now widely accepted that greater public spending increases growth in the economy in all other areas and can lead to stronger growth and reduction in inflation which has caused some of the recent issues in the economic instability. It has also caused significant harm to the people of the UK, where it is now widely accepted that austerity disproportionately affects the poorer people, as they are already struggling, and this forces even harder times on these people. Trying to restrict the spending of the already worse off, creates impossibly hard decisions such as feeding yourself or feeding your children. It also negatively affects public services, creating a worse situation overall for everyone. We would urge for a reconsideration of the current policies put in place and would look forward to an immediate review of the situation. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002152.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002152.soc index 33d80718..66d05232 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002152.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002152.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to any form of alcohol restriction. They felt that this would be a step too far and that there were better ways of tackling alcohol abuse. The group felt that there were already enough laws in place to tackle alcohol abuse and that people should be responsible for their own actions. However, the group did agree that alcohol sales in supermarkets should be more tightly controlled and that supermarkets should not be allowed to sell alcohol so cheaply. The group also agreed that the government should do more to educate people about the dangers of alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group came to the consensus view that we should not restrict alcohol sales. This is because people will find ways around the restriction and is an infringement on individual rights. The answer may lie in education and by making alcohol more expensive. This will reduce the amount of alcohol people consume and hopefully reduce the health risks associated with alcohol consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, the government should restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy. The UK has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Europe and this is having a detrimental effect on people’s health. It is also costing the NHS a lot of money to treat alcohol related illnesses. There are many other countries in Europe that have a much lower rate of alcohol consumption and this is because they have much stricter laws in place to control the sale of alcohol. The government should look to these countries to see how they can replicate their success in the UK.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy. The main reason for this is the risk of harm that alcohol consumption can cause. The increase in crime due to alcohol consumption will be a significant cause for concern for the public and will have to be dealt with by the police. The police would have to waste more time on dealing with crimes due to alcohol consumption rather than spending more time in the community and catching criminals. If the government do restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy, this will reduce the chance of people drinking excessively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to any form of alcohol restriction. They felt that this would be a step too far and that there were better ways of tackling alcohol abuse. The group felt that there were already enough laws in place to tackle alcohol abuse and that people should be responsible for their own actions. However, the group did agree that alcohol sales in supermarkets should be more tightly controlled and that supermarkets should not be allowed to sell alcohol so cheaply. The group also agreed that the government should do more to educate people about the dangers of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group came to the consensus view that we should not restrict alcohol sales. This is because people will find ways around the restriction and is an infringement on individual rights. The answer may lie in education and by making alcohol more expensive. This will reduce the amount of alcohol people consume and hopefully reduce the health risks associated with alcohol consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, the government should restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy. The UK has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Europe and this is having a detrimental effect on people’s health. It is also costing the NHS a lot of money to treat alcohol related illnesses. There are many other countries in Europe that have a much lower rate of alcohol consumption and this is because they have much stricter laws in place to control the sale of alcohol. The government should look to these countries to see how they can replicate their success in the UK.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy. The main reason for this is the risk of harm that alcohol consumption can cause. The increase in crime due to alcohol consumption will be a significant cause for concern for the public and will have to be dealt with by the police. The police would have to waste more time on dealing with crimes due to alcohol consumption rather than spending more time in the community and catching criminals. If the government do restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy, this will reduce the chance of people drinking excessively. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002153.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002153.soc index 52350dc3..b169ef5f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002153.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002153.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the right to die should be allowed in more countries. It is a very sensitive topic and there are many different opinions and beliefs that could be affected. It would be beneficial to allow the right to die in more countries as it would give people the option to choose whether they want to live or die. It would also help to reduce the world population as it would decrease the amount of people in the world. The right to die should only be allowed in extreme circumstances such as terminal illnesses or severe conditions. It should be allowed if the person has the mental capacity to make the decision and if it is the best course of action. It would also be beneficial to have checks and balances in place to ensure that it is the best course of action. It is important to have a balance between allowing the right to die and protecting people who may be vulnerable and may not be making the decision themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the right to die if you wish should be allowed if there is a good reason and after a thorough evaluation. However, this should only be allowed in certain cases where the person in question is either severely ill or is experiencing severe pain and is determined to be at a point where death would be the best outcome for their quality of life. It is hard to know what this would be but it would be an option. People should not be allowed to die if they have a mental illness as they may be unaware of their mental state and this would not be a true decision. Overall we feel that yes people should have the right to die if they wish but there should be some careful considerations for this right to be granted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People have the right to die if they wish if they are terminally ill or have extreme circumstances. They should be able to choose and if it is their wish, they should be able to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the right to die. However, the group felt that this right should be restricted to people who are terminally ill or in severe pain and suffering. The group felt that it was important to have checks in place to ensure that the person is of sound mind and that they are not being coerced into this decision. The group felt that this would be an important safeguard to ensure that the person is making the decision of their own free will. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the right to die should be allowed in more countries. It is a very sensitive topic and there are many different opinions and beliefs that could be affected. It would be beneficial to allow the right to die in more countries as it would give people the option to choose whether they want to live or die. It would also help to reduce the world population as it would decrease the amount of people in the world. The right to die should only be allowed in extreme circumstances such as terminal illnesses or severe conditions. It should be allowed if the person has the mental capacity to make the decision and if it is the best course of action. It would also be beneficial to have checks and balances in place to ensure that it is the best course of action. It is important to have a balance between allowing the right to die and protecting people who may be vulnerable and may not be making the decision themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the right to die if you wish should be allowed if there is a good reason and after a thorough evaluation. However, this should only be allowed in certain cases where the person in question is either severely ill or is experiencing severe pain and is determined to be at a point where death would be the best outcome for their quality of life. It is hard to know what this would be but it would be an option. People should not be allowed to die if they have a mental illness as they may be unaware of their mental state and this would not be a true decision. Overall we feel that yes people should have the right to die if they wish but there should be some careful considerations for this right to be granted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People have the right to die if they wish if they are terminally ill or have extreme circumstances. They should be able to choose and if it is their wish, they should be able to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the right to die. However, the group felt that this right should be restricted to people who are terminally ill or in severe pain and suffering. The group felt that it was important to have checks in place to ensure that the person is of sound mind and that they are not being coerced into this decision. The group felt that this would be an important safeguard to ensure that the person is making the decision of their own free will. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002154.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002154.soc index aee795e4..43da89c5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002154.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002154.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, we feel that access to NHS records should be more restricted. This is to prevent the possibility of patient data getting into the wrong hands and also to prevent the possibility of insurance companies gaining access to patient data. This would be unfair on the public as it could lead to higher insurance premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It would also be unfair on those who have a clean bill of health as they would be paying higher premiums for no reason. The NHS should also consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place. The group felt that the current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality. The group also felt that the NHS should consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the laws about who can have access to NHS records should be tightened up because only people who are allowed to see this information should be able to access it. If everyone can access these records, it would cause a lot of problems for people’s privacy and also some people may use it for the wrong reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I feel that we should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. Data breaches of these records could be catastrophic. This data needs to be managed in a way that ensures confidentiality, especially as medical information is so personal and vulnerable to attacks. We need to ensure that these records are stored securely and only used for the intended purpose. The health service is increasingly moving towards digital records, which makes this data even more susceptible to being leaked or hacked. We must ensure that the data is kept secure and is only used by approved and authorised people.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Access to NHS records should be more tightly controlled. The health service needs to improve its security and make it easier for patients to understand who has access to their records and why. It should also be made easier for patients to control access to their records. However, it is also important that access is not too tightly controlled as this could prevent important medical research and could prevent doctors from having access to the information they need to treat patients properly.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, we feel that access to NHS records should be more restricted. This is to prevent the possibility of patient data getting into the wrong hands and also to prevent the possibility of insurance companies gaining access to patient data. This would be unfair on the public as it could lead to higher insurance premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It would also be unfair on those who have a clean bill of health as they would be paying higher premiums for no reason. The NHS should also consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place. The group felt that the current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality. The group also felt that the NHS should consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the laws about who can have access to NHS records should be tightened up because only people who are allowed to see this information should be able to access it. If everyone can access these records, it would cause a lot of problems for people’s privacy and also some people may use it for the wrong reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I feel that we should tighten up the laws about who can have access to NHS records. Data breaches of these records could be catastrophic. This data needs to be managed in a way that ensures confidentiality, especially as medical information is so personal and vulnerable to attacks. We need to ensure that these records are stored securely and only used for the intended purpose. The health service is increasingly moving towards digital records, which makes this data even more susceptible to being leaked or hacked. We must ensure that the data is kept secure and is only used by approved and authorised people.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Access to NHS records should be more tightly controlled. The health service needs to improve its security and make it easier for patients to understand who has access to their records and why. It should also be made easier for patients to control access to their records. However, it is also important that access is not too tightly controlled as this could prevent important medical research and could prevent doctors from having access to the information they need to treat patients properly.” 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002155.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002155.soc index ddd76de5..8b754bcf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002155.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002155.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I don't think we should allow unlimited immigration because this will clearly lead to abuse of the system and would mean anyone can just come to the UK which will cripple our economy. However, we should allow a certain amount of immigration to help our economy and to help with our staffing shortages in the NHS and other public services. We should also accept refugees who are fleeing war and persecution in their home countries. However, we should be careful to ensure that these refugees are genuine and not just economic migrants.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should allow unlimited immigration. We should not be discriminating against any particular group. We also feel that immigrants should be welcome and that their skills should be utilised to their fullest extent. In particular we would like to see refugees and people who have been affected by climate change accepted as migrants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a limit on immigration. At the moment there is a huge problem with the housing shortage, which makes immigration seem more like a burden than a benefit. However, we feel that it would be detrimental to close our borders completely. The economy and culture of the UK would be seriously harmed by such a move. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In general, the group was in favour of immigration. However, we felt that there should be a limit on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. This is because there is a housing crisis in the UK and there are not enough jobs for the people that are already here. Therefore, we feel that there should be a limit on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. We also feel that immigrants should be able to speak English and that they should have a job lined up before they come to the UK. We feel that this is important because immigrants need to be able to support themselves and not be a drain on the UK economy. We also feel that immigrants should not be able to claim benefits because this will be a drain on the UK economy. However, we feel that we should accept refugees because we have a moral duty to do so. We also feel that we should accept skilled workers because this will benefit the UK economy. We feel that immigrants should be able to bring their family to the UK after a certain period of time because this will allow immigrants to settle in the UK and become part of society. We also feel that immigrants should be able to become citizens of the UK after a certain period of time because +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I don't think we should allow unlimited immigration because this will clearly lead to abuse of the system and would mean anyone can just come to the UK which will cripple our economy. However, we should allow a certain amount of immigration to help our economy and to help with our staffing shortages in the NHS and other public services. We should also accept refugees who are fleeing war and persecution in their home countries. However, we should be careful to ensure that these refugees are genuine and not just economic migrants.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should allow unlimited immigration. We should not be discriminating against any particular group. We also feel that immigrants should be welcome and that their skills should be utilised to their fullest extent. In particular we would like to see refugees and people who have been affected by climate change accepted as migrants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a limit on immigration. At the moment there is a huge problem with the housing shortage, which makes immigration seem more like a burden than a benefit. However, we feel that it would be detrimental to close our borders completely. The economy and culture of the UK would be seriously harmed by such a move. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In general, the group was in favour of immigration. However, we felt that there should be a limit on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. This is because there is a housing crisis in the UK and there are not enough jobs for the people that are already here. Therefore, we feel that there should be a limit on the number of immigrants that are allowed into the UK. We also feel that immigrants should be able to speak English and that they should have a job lined up before they come to the UK. We feel that this is important because immigrants need to be able to support themselves and not be a drain on the UK economy. We also feel that immigrants should not be able to claim benefits because this will be a drain on the UK economy. However, we feel that we should accept refugees because we have a moral duty to do so. We also feel that we should accept skilled workers because this will benefit the UK economy. We feel that immigrants should be able to bring their family to the UK after a certain period of time because this will allow immigrants to settle in the UK and become part of society. We also feel that immigrants should be able to become citizens of the UK after a certain period of time because 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002156.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002156.soc index 58f10bd5..2256c736 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002156.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002156.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be taught to respect and care for the elderly, however, they should not be forced to provide care to the elderly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that children should be taught to take care of the elderly, not only in their family but in the community as well. It would teach them valuable life lessons on compassion and empathy. It would also teach them the valuable lesson of knowing when they are needed and when they are not. It would teach them how to be more compassionate towards those who have a lot less than they do and to take nothing for granted. If they learned this at an early age, it would stay with them their whole lives. When the time came for them to need help, they would remember how it felt to be cared for and they would in turn want to give that same care to someone else. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught to respect and care for the elderly. This is something that can be taught at home and in schools. Children should be taught to treat elderly people with respect and dignity and to help them when they need help. This is something that is already being taught in schools and we believe it should be taught at home also. It is something that is good for children to learn and will stand to them in later life. It is something that should be taught to all children and is not something that should be left to the discretion of the parents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be taught how to care for others and treat them with respect. This is to help develop a more caring culture, which should be one of society's highest priorities. It is also important to allow the elderly to be as independent as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be taught to respect and care for the elderly, however, they should not be forced to provide care to the elderly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that children should be taught to take care of the elderly, not only in their family but in the community as well. It would teach them valuable life lessons on compassion and empathy. It would also teach them the valuable lesson of knowing when they are needed and when they are not. It would teach them how to be more compassionate towards those who have a lot less than they do and to take nothing for granted. If they learned this at an early age, it would stay with them their whole lives. When the time came for them to need help, they would remember how it felt to be cared for and they would in turn want to give that same care to someone else. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught to respect and care for the elderly. This is something that can be taught at home and in schools. Children should be taught to treat elderly people with respect and dignity and to help them when they need help. This is something that is already being taught in schools and we believe it should be taught at home also. It is something that is good for children to learn and will stand to them in later life. It is something that should be taught to all children and is not something that should be left to the discretion of the parents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be taught how to care for others and treat them with respect. This is to help develop a more caring culture, which should be one of society's highest priorities. It is also important to allow the elderly to be as independent as possible. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002157.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002157.soc index 667eff19..7ab78c31 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002157.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002157.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is acceptable to eat meat, but we could all cut down on our consumption to help the environment, and to treat animals better -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. We recognised that there are some issues with the industry, such as animal welfare and the environment, however we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. We also believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat, and therefore believe that it is acceptable to eat meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the consumption of meat is acceptable. We are omnivores and meat has been part of our diet for thousands of years. We recognise that the way in which meat is produced can be harmful to the environment and to the animals themselves, however we believe that this is something that can be changed through policy. We believe that it is not necessary to stop the consumption of meat, however it is important to recognise the impact of the meat industry and to make changes where necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think it is acceptable to eat meat as this as been the case for many thousands of years, however we know a lot more about nutrition now, so there are alternatives that provide the nutrients, etc, that we need on a regular basis. So whilst I consider it acceptable to eat meat, I also agree that we could at minimum significantly cut down, in order to, amongst other things, help the environment and do less harm to animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is acceptable to eat meat, but we could all cut down on our consumption to help the environment, and to treat animals better +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. We recognised that there are some issues with the industry, such as animal welfare and the environment, however we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. We also believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat, and therefore believe that it is acceptable to eat meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the consumption of meat is acceptable. We are omnivores and meat has been part of our diet for thousands of years. We recognise that the way in which meat is produced can be harmful to the environment and to the animals themselves, however we believe that this is something that can be changed through policy. We believe that it is not necessary to stop the consumption of meat, however it is important to recognise the impact of the meat industry and to make changes where necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think it is acceptable to eat meat as this as been the case for many thousands of years, however we know a lot more about nutrition now, so there are alternatives that provide the nutrients, etc, that we need on a regular basis. So whilst I consider it acceptable to eat meat, I also agree that we could at minimum significantly cut down, in order to, amongst other things, help the environment and do less harm to animals. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002158.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002158.soc index 75cda63b..32295eac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002158.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002158.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Health is a human right. It is not a commodity. The right to be healthy as a human being should not rely on your ability to pay for care or drugs. If we want to have a strong economy, how can we expect people to work to their best when they cannot afford the healthcare to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is a key part of the fabric of our society and as such should be protected. It is designed to support everyone in the community equally and if we start to allow privatisation, there will be two tiers of healthcare, where only the wealthy will have access to top quality treatment. There is already a shortage of staff within the NHS. If we were to start to rely on private companies to provide a percentage of our healthcare, it is likely that even more NHS staff would leave for private jobs, as there is a higher level of pay and more scope for advancement. This would lead to an even more desperate shortage of staff and it is likely that waiting times for treatment would increase even more. There would be even more stress on our overstretched hospitals. If we have free healthcare in the UK, there is no incentive for people to have private healthcare, as they would be double paying for the same treatment. Therefore, we believe that it is in the best interests of the country to protect our current system of free healthcare and not allow privatisation to erode it further. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Healthcare should be free for all citizens and we should not privatise the industry as we don't want to lose the right to free healthcare at the point of use. It is immoral to deny someone healthcare just because they can't afford it. The NHS should remain as it is. We should also consider making health care free for visitors to the country as well as citizens. This is a very good way to showcase the best of the UK and also means that the government doesn't have to pay for healthcare for foreigners when they are here in this country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should nationalise the private health care industry. Health is a human right. It is not a commodity. The right to be healthy as a human being should not rely on your ability to pay for care or drugs. If we want to have a strong economy, how can we expect people to work to their best when they cannot afford the healthcare to do so. The situation in America is a good example of how a capitalist mentality is detrimental to a caring society. The welfare system in this country - of which the NHS is a part - is designed to provide shared community, a safety net for everyone and should be protected at all costs. It we insisted on charging for healthcare in this country through privatisation the country would pay more in the long run through poor health and lifestyles. It would be a false economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Health is a human right. It is not a commodity. The right to be healthy as a human being should not rely on your ability to pay for care or drugs. If we want to have a strong economy, how can we expect people to work to their best when they cannot afford the healthcare to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is a key part of the fabric of our society and as such should be protected. It is designed to support everyone in the community equally and if we start to allow privatisation, there will be two tiers of healthcare, where only the wealthy will have access to top quality treatment. There is already a shortage of staff within the NHS. If we were to start to rely on private companies to provide a percentage of our healthcare, it is likely that even more NHS staff would leave for private jobs, as there is a higher level of pay and more scope for advancement. This would lead to an even more desperate shortage of staff and it is likely that waiting times for treatment would increase even more. There would be even more stress on our overstretched hospitals. If we have free healthcare in the UK, there is no incentive for people to have private healthcare, as they would be double paying for the same treatment. Therefore, we believe that it is in the best interests of the country to protect our current system of free healthcare and not allow privatisation to erode it further. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Healthcare should be free for all citizens and we should not privatise the industry as we don't want to lose the right to free healthcare at the point of use. It is immoral to deny someone healthcare just because they can't afford it. The NHS should remain as it is. We should also consider making health care free for visitors to the country as well as citizens. This is a very good way to showcase the best of the UK and also means that the government doesn't have to pay for healthcare for foreigners when they are here in this country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should nationalise the private health care industry. Health is a human right. It is not a commodity. The right to be healthy as a human being should not rely on your ability to pay for care or drugs. If we want to have a strong economy, how can we expect people to work to their best when they cannot afford the healthcare to do so. The situation in America is a good example of how a capitalist mentality is detrimental to a caring society. The welfare system in this country - of which the NHS is a part - is designed to provide shared community, a safety net for everyone and should be protected at all costs. It we insisted on charging for healthcare in this country through privatisation the country would pay more in the long run through poor health and lifestyles. It would be a false economy. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002159.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002159.soc index 67d6e81d..d1008fed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002159.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002159.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of using taxation to discourage people from smoking. This is because it is a very effective way of reducing the number of people who smoke. The group was also in favour of using the money raised from taxation to help people who are trying to stop smoking. This is because it would be a very effective way of helping people to stop smoking and would also help to reduce the number of people who smoke. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income. The money used from the taxes could be put into government health care which would be a positive of this legislation. The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was thought that the negative health effects of smoking cigarettes is something that is more and more widely known about, and so education on this subject is a much more effective way of reducing the number of people who smoke than any tax imposed by the government. Taxing cigarettes is seen as something that would make the poorest of society feel even more disadvantaged than they already do. However, it is thought that taxation would help to fund better health care services, which would improve the health of all society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: WE SHOULD NOT BECAUSE IT MAY MAKE POPLE GET MAD. ALSO, IT MAY MAKE THE GOVERMENT HAVE MORE MONEY, BUT IT MAY NOT BE A GOOD THING FOR THOSE WHO NEED THE MONEY. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of using taxation to discourage people from smoking. This is because it is a very effective way of reducing the number of people who smoke. The group was also in favour of using the money raised from taxation to help people who are trying to stop smoking. This is because it would be a very effective way of helping people to stop smoking and would also help to reduce the number of people who smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income. The money used from the taxes could be put into government health care which would be a positive of this legislation. The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was thought that the negative health effects of smoking cigarettes is something that is more and more widely known about, and so education on this subject is a much more effective way of reducing the number of people who smoke than any tax imposed by the government. Taxing cigarettes is seen as something that would make the poorest of society feel even more disadvantaged than they already do. However, it is thought that taxation would help to fund better health care services, which would improve the health of all society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - WE SHOULD NOT BECAUSE IT MAY MAKE POPLE GET MAD. ALSO, IT MAY MAKE THE GOVERMENT HAVE MORE MONEY, BUT IT MAY NOT BE A GOOD THING FOR THOSE WHO NEED THE MONEY. 4: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002160.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002160.soc index 36d0a463..9a6bf581 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002160.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002160.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that people should be allowed to sell their own plasma, provided that the plasma is taken in a controlled and safe environment, which would make sure that their blood is disease free and of a quality that is viable. We believe that people should have the freedom to undertake activities which do not harm them or others around them. We also feel that the government should not intervene and people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish. The incentive to sell plasma is also good for society because people will be encouraged to donate and this will ensure a plentiful supply of plasma for medical procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to sell their own plasma if it is done under strict guidelines to ensure that people are not pressured into giving their plasma and that their health is not being put at risk. The guidelines should also prevent people from selling their plasma multiple times, which could potentially harm their health. The health of the plasma donors must be paramount in this process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be allowed to sell their own plasma but in a controlled and professional environment. They should also have test run first to ensure that their plasma is viable and disease and drug free. There is a call for donors for blood and plasma but this would help those that are strapped for cash and boost for the blood and plasma banks. They get paid in other countries and so we should also be paid in this country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be allowed to sell their own plasma in a controlled and professional environment. The plasma should be tested to ensure it is viable and disease and drug free. The plasma should be paid for at a fair rate. The plasma should be used for medical procedures and the plasma should be used to help people. The plasma should not be sold to the highest bidder. The plasma should not be sold to the highest bidder because it could lead to dangerous situations of unethical practice, intimidation and inequality. For example, rich people would have more access to plasma than those on low incomes. Or vulnerable individuals could be coerced into consenting to their plasma being taken. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that people should be allowed to sell their own plasma, provided that the plasma is taken in a controlled and safe environment, which would make sure that their blood is disease free and of a quality that is viable. We believe that people should have the freedom to undertake activities which do not harm them or others around them. We also feel that the government should not intervene and people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish. The incentive to sell plasma is also good for society because people will be encouraged to donate and this will ensure a plentiful supply of plasma for medical procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to sell their own plasma if it is done under strict guidelines to ensure that people are not pressured into giving their plasma and that their health is not being put at risk. The guidelines should also prevent people from selling their plasma multiple times, which could potentially harm their health. The health of the plasma donors must be paramount in this process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be allowed to sell their own plasma but in a controlled and professional environment. They should also have test run first to ensure that their plasma is viable and disease and drug free. There is a call for donors for blood and plasma but this would help those that are strapped for cash and boost for the blood and plasma banks. They get paid in other countries and so we should also be paid in this country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be allowed to sell their own plasma in a controlled and professional environment. The plasma should be tested to ensure it is viable and disease and drug free. The plasma should be paid for at a fair rate. The plasma should be used for medical procedures and the plasma should be used to help people. The plasma should not be sold to the highest bidder. The plasma should not be sold to the highest bidder because it could lead to dangerous situations of unethical practice, intimidation and inequality. For example, rich people would have more access to plasma than those on low incomes. Or vulnerable individuals could be coerced into consenting to their plasma being taken. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002161.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002161.soc index 49c7fd24..566437c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002161.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002161.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We don’t believe we should prohibit the sale of alcohol as it is more damaging to the society to do so, and there are already laws in place to stop alcohol being abused by those that are responsible for the majority of the trouble caused by it. There are already penalties for those who break the law, which is effective in stopping trouble and deterring people from acting irresponsibly. We believe it is better to educate people on the effects of alcohol and how to drink responsibly rather than prohibit it as it would cause more harm than good.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although alcohol related deaths can be directly linked to alcohol consumption, we do not feel that prohibition is the answer. Prohibition of alcohol will not stop people drinking alcohol, they will still obtain it illegally and if anything it will increase the crime rate. People should be taught to drink responsibly, as long as people do not drink to excess there should be no harm. As long as we have laws that punish irresponsible drinking then alcohol should not be prohibited. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The group felt that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and that the government should not interfere in peoples lives. However, the group did feel that the government should be doing more to promote responsible drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and to promote safe drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote the safe use of alcohol, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to prohibiting the sale of alcohol. It was felt that this would not be practical, and would lead to an increase in the use of illegal substances, which would be more dangerous. It was felt that people should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they consume, and that the current laws are sufficient to control the negative effects of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We don’t believe we should prohibit the sale of alcohol as it is more damaging to the society to do so, and there are already laws in place to stop alcohol being abused by those that are responsible for the majority of the trouble caused by it. There are already penalties for those who break the law, which is effective in stopping trouble and deterring people from acting irresponsibly. We believe it is better to educate people on the effects of alcohol and how to drink responsibly rather than prohibit it as it would cause more harm than good.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although alcohol related deaths can be directly linked to alcohol consumption, we do not feel that prohibition is the answer. Prohibition of alcohol will not stop people drinking alcohol, they will still obtain it illegally and if anything it will increase the crime rate. People should be taught to drink responsibly, as long as people do not drink to excess there should be no harm. As long as we have laws that punish irresponsible drinking then alcohol should not be prohibited. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The group felt that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and that the government should not interfere in peoples lives. However, the group did feel that the government should be doing more to promote responsible drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and to promote safe drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote the safe use of alcohol, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to prohibiting the sale of alcohol. It was felt that this would not be practical, and would lead to an increase in the use of illegal substances, which would be more dangerous. It was felt that people should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they consume, and that the current laws are sufficient to control the negative effects of alcohol. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002162.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002162.soc index 1decfa0f..12ed7205 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002162.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002162.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity, but instead taught that they should accept other people regardless of their gender. This is not only a more positive message to send out, but also helps with bullying. Gender fluidity should be taught to children who are in the minority of being gender fluid, in order to make them feel comfortable. Children are too young to be taught about it in the way adults understand it. They are more likely to misunderstand and be confused about it. There are many other subjects they need to be taught and this should not take priority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity. Children should not be exposed to the idea of gender fluidity before the age of 18 and I feel like teaching them about it before then may influence them to change things about themselves that they may later regret. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity. Children are not able to fully understand the topic and it is not something that they should be made aware of at such a young age. They should be taught to accept others for who they are and not to judge others based on their appearance or gender. The group felt that the topic of gender fluidity is a very complex one and is not something that children are able to understand. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity in schools. Children are suggestable and can be easily influenced. The fact that it is not legal to change sex until the age of 18 also shows that children are not ready to learn about this topic. It is not a topic that is necessary to learn about at a young age. It is more of a modern concept that has only recently been talked about. Children should be taught to accept others for who they are and not to judge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should not be taught about gender fluidity, but instead taught that they should accept other people regardless of their gender. This is not only a more positive message to send out, but also helps with bullying. Gender fluidity should be taught to children who are in the minority of being gender fluid, in order to make them feel comfortable. Children are too young to be taught about it in the way adults understand it. They are more likely to misunderstand and be confused about it. There are many other subjects they need to be taught and this should not take priority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should not be taught about gender fluidity. Children should not be exposed to the idea of gender fluidity before the age of 18 and I feel like teaching them about it before then may influence them to change things about themselves that they may later regret. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should not be taught about gender fluidity. Children are not able to fully understand the topic and it is not something that they should be made aware of at such a young age. They should be taught to accept others for who they are and not to judge others based on their appearance or gender. The group felt that the topic of gender fluidity is a very complex one and is not something that children are able to understand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be taught about gender fluidity in schools. Children are suggestable and can be easily influenced. The fact that it is not legal to change sex until the age of 18 also shows that children are not ready to learn about this topic. It is not a topic that is necessary to learn about at a young age. It is more of a modern concept that has only recently been talked about. Children should be taught to accept others for who they are and not to judge. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002163.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002163.soc index 1d629dbc..4898ba03 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002163.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002163.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, we feel that the government should restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy. The UK has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Europe and this is having a detrimental effect on peoples health. It is also costing the NHS a lot of money to treat alcohol related illnesses. There are many other countries in Europe that have a much lower rate of alcohol consumption and this is because they have much stricter laws in place to control the sale of alcohol. The government should look to these countries to see how they can replicate their success in the UK.” Experiment Two: Methods and Protocol Another group of participants took part in this discussion and their views were recorded. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final consensus statement: There is one undisputable fact: alcohol consumption is too high in the UK. It is costing the NHS a lot of money and is having a detrimental effect on people’s health, especially in poorer areas of the country. There is also a lot of crime associated with alcohol consumption which needs to be addressed. It seems to me that it may be the system in which alcohol is sold and the advertising of alcohol that is contributing to the problem. Supermarkets should not be allowed to sell alcohol at such cheap prices and the advertising of alcohol needs to be regulated so that it does not glamourise excessive drinking. More needs to be done to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse and reduction in sales, not an increase in regulation, is the way forward to achieve this goal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The UK has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Europe and this is having a detrimental effect on people’s health. It is also costing the NHS a lot of money to treat alcohol related illnesses. There are many other countries in Europe that have a much lower rate of alcohol consumption and this is because they have much stricter laws in place to control the sale of alcohol. The government should look to these countries to see how they can replicate their success in the UK.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, the government should restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy. The UK has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Europe and this is having a detrimental effect on people’s health. It is also costing the NHS a lot of money to treat alcohol related illnesses. There are many other countries in Europe that have a much lower rate of alcohol consumption and this is because they have much stricter laws in place to control the sale of alcohol. The government should look to these countries to see how they can replicate their success in the UK. A recent study in the British Medical Journal showed that a 10% increase in the price of alcohol led to a 2% reduction in alcohol related deaths. This is very good evidence to show that restricting the amount of alcohol people can buy will lead to better health and save the NHS a lot of money. The money saved can then be spent on more important things such as funding mental health services and supporting people with alcohol addiction.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, we feel that the government should restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy. The UK has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Europe and this is having a detrimental effect on peoples health. It is also costing the NHS a lot of money to treat alcohol related illnesses. There are many other countries in Europe that have a much lower rate of alcohol consumption and this is because they have much stricter laws in place to control the sale of alcohol. The government should look to these countries to see how they can replicate their success in the UK.” Experiment Two: Methods and Protocol Another group of participants took part in this discussion and their views were recorded. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, the first draft of a consensus statement, the critiques of the draft consensus statement by the participants, and the final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final consensus statement: There is one undisputable fact: alcohol consumption is too high in the UK. It is costing the NHS a lot of money and is having a detrimental effect on people’s health, especially in poorer areas of the country. There is also a lot of crime associated with alcohol consumption which needs to be addressed. It seems to me that it may be the system in which alcohol is sold and the advertising of alcohol that is contributing to the problem. Supermarkets should not be allowed to sell alcohol at such cheap prices and the advertising of alcohol needs to be regulated so that it does not glamourise excessive drinking. More needs to be done to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse and reduction in sales, not an increase in regulation, is the way forward to achieve this goal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The UK has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Europe and this is having a detrimental effect on people’s health. It is also costing the NHS a lot of money to treat alcohol related illnesses. There are many other countries in Europe that have a much lower rate of alcohol consumption and this is because they have much stricter laws in place to control the sale of alcohol. The government should look to these countries to see how they can replicate their success in the UK.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, the government should restrict the amount of alcohol people can buy. The UK has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Europe and this is having a detrimental effect on people’s health. It is also costing the NHS a lot of money to treat alcohol related illnesses. There are many other countries in Europe that have a much lower rate of alcohol consumption and this is because they have much stricter laws in place to control the sale of alcohol. The government should look to these countries to see how they can replicate their success in the UK. A recent study in the British Medical Journal showed that a 10% increase in the price of alcohol led to a 2% reduction in alcohol related deaths. This is very good evidence to show that restricting the amount of alcohol people can buy will lead to better health and save the NHS a lot of money. The money saved can then be spent on more important things such as funding mental health services and supporting people with alcohol addiction.” 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002164.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002164.soc index 90c5bbe2..6ed11550 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002164.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002164.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “There is a need for tightened up laws regarding access to NHS records as there is a possibility that sensitive patient data could be accessed by those who don’t have the patients best interests at heart, for example insurance companies. Access to this data might mean that those with pre-existing conditions would be forced to pay higher premiums, and would be unfair on the public as a whole. The current system is not working as it should be as a number of privacy breaches have occurred. The group felt that the NHS should not be in a position where this can happen again. There is also a need for stricter regulations regarding access to confidential data for research purposes as the current process is cumbersome. However, the group also felt that, anonymised data would be more effective when conducting research. The group felt it was important that regulations are tightened up to protect patient privacy and confidentiality.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The group felt that the current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality. The group also felt that the NHS should consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place. The group felt that insurance is a key point. Access to health information should be between doctors and patients. The group felt that access to NHS records should be more restricted. This is to prevent the possibility of patient data getting into the wrong hands and also to prevent the possibility of insurance companies gaining access to patient data. This would be unfair on the public as it could lead to higher insurance premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It would also be unfair on those who have a clean bill of health as they would be paying higher premiums for no reason. The group felt that the current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality. The group also felt that the NHS should consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, we feel that access to NHS records should be more restricted. This is to prevent the possibility of patient data getting into the wrong hands and also to prevent the possibility of insurance companies gaining access to patient data. This would be unfair on the public as it could lead to higher insurance premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It would also be unfair on those who have a clean bill of health as they would be paying higher premiums for no reason. The NHS should also consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place. The current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality. I agree with the above opinion as it evaluates different factors on why tightening up on NHS data security is necessary.” Participant discussion would have resulted in this group reaching a better understanding of how to state their opinion effectively. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we feel that access to NHS records should be more restricted. This is to prevent the possibility of patient data getting into the wrong hands and also to prevent the possibility of insurance companies gaining access to patient data. This would be unfair on the public as it could lead to higher insurance premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It would also be unfair on those who have a clean bill of health as they would be paying higher premiums for no reason. The NHS should also consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place. The group felt that the current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “There is a need for tightened up laws regarding access to NHS records as there is a possibility that sensitive patient data could be accessed by those who don’t have the patients best interests at heart, for example insurance companies. Access to this data might mean that those with pre-existing conditions would be forced to pay higher premiums, and would be unfair on the public as a whole. The current system is not working as it should be as a number of privacy breaches have occurred. The group felt that the NHS should not be in a position where this can happen again. There is also a need for stricter regulations regarding access to confidential data for research purposes as the current process is cumbersome. However, the group also felt that, anonymised data would be more effective when conducting research. The group felt it was important that regulations are tightened up to protect patient privacy and confidentiality.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The group felt that the current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality. The group also felt that the NHS should consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place. The group felt that insurance is a key point. Access to health information should be between doctors and patients. The group felt that access to NHS records should be more restricted. This is to prevent the possibility of patient data getting into the wrong hands and also to prevent the possibility of insurance companies gaining access to patient data. This would be unfair on the public as it could lead to higher insurance premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It would also be unfair on those who have a clean bill of health as they would be paying higher premiums for no reason. The group felt that the current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality. The group also felt that the NHS should consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, we feel that access to NHS records should be more restricted. This is to prevent the possibility of patient data getting into the wrong hands and also to prevent the possibility of insurance companies gaining access to patient data. This would be unfair on the public as it could lead to higher insurance premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It would also be unfair on those who have a clean bill of health as they would be paying higher premiums for no reason. The NHS should also consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place. The current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality. I agree with the above opinion as it evaluates different factors on why tightening up on NHS data security is necessary.” Participant discussion would have resulted in this group reaching a better understanding of how to state their opinion effectively. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we feel that access to NHS records should be more restricted. This is to prevent the possibility of patient data getting into the wrong hands and also to prevent the possibility of insurance companies gaining access to patient data. This would be unfair on the public as it could lead to higher insurance premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It would also be unfair on those who have a clean bill of health as they would be paying higher premiums for no reason. The NHS should also consider using anonymous data for research purposes as this would protect patient confidentiality and allow for more effective research to take place. The group felt that the current system is not working as it should be and needs to be tightened up to prevent privacy breaches and to protect patient confidentiality.” 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002165.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002165.soc index 7100f3fb..7b875909 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002165.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002165.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should reduce the number of Members of Parliament by a significant amount. This would allow for more robust and dynamic representation of the general public and allow MPs to focus on matters of importance rather than spending their time making phone calls and opening fetes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The number of Members of Parliament should be reduced, and the remaining MPs should be required to reside in their constituencies. This will ensure that they are in touch with their constituents and can address their needs.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe that we should reduce the number of members of parliament. The reduction of the number of MPs will result in the elimination of some of the less capable and more ineffective ones, which will allow the ones who are capable and effective to do their jobs more effectively. This will also reduce the cost to the public purse, as there will be fewer salaries to pay. It is also my belief that reducing the number of MPs will result in fewer people being able to hide in the shadows and avoid accountability. This will result in a more effective parliament, and will help to restore public faith in the institution.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that the number of members of parliament should be cut. A consensus view was reached by the group after careful deliberation. The group felt that many of the MPs are not acting in the best interest of their constituents and are more concerned with keeping their jobs. The general public feel unrepresented by their MPs and cutting the number of MPs will reduce the costs to the tax payer, with the remaining MPs better serving their communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should reduce the number of Members of Parliament by a significant amount. This would allow for more robust and dynamic representation of the general public and allow MPs to focus on matters of importance rather than spending their time making phone calls and opening fetes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The number of Members of Parliament should be reduced, and the remaining MPs should be required to reside in their constituencies. This will ensure that they are in touch with their constituents and can address their needs.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe that we should reduce the number of members of parliament. The reduction of the number of MPs will result in the elimination of some of the less capable and more ineffective ones, which will allow the ones who are capable and effective to do their jobs more effectively. This will also reduce the cost to the public purse, as there will be fewer salaries to pay. It is also my belief that reducing the number of MPs will result in fewer people being able to hide in the shadows and avoid accountability. This will result in a more effective parliament, and will help to restore public faith in the institution.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that the number of members of parliament should be cut. A consensus view was reached by the group after careful deliberation. The group felt that many of the MPs are not acting in the best interest of their constituents and are more concerned with keeping their jobs. The general public feel unrepresented by their MPs and cutting the number of MPs will reduce the costs to the tax payer, with the remaining MPs better serving their communities. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002166.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002166.soc index 8e97d24c..9f320afe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002166.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002166.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be taught how to care for others. They should be taught to treat all people with respect no matter what their age. They should not be forced to take care of elderly people, but should be encouraged to visit their relatives and treat them with respect. If they then decide that they would like to make it their profession, they should be encouraged to do so, provided it is what they really want to do. If everyone in society was kind and respected others, elderly people would not feel as lonely and isolated as they sometimes do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be taught how to care for others and treat them with respect. This is to help develop a more caring culture, which should be one of society's highest priorities. Children should not be forced to care for the elderly. It is also important to allow the elderly to be as independent as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught to respect and care for others, and should be encouraged to do so whenever possible. Children should also be taught how to allow the elderly to be as independent as possible. This is to help develop a more caring culture, which should be one of society's highest priorities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be taught how to be caring and respect others. This is to help develop a more caring culture, and to treat the elderly with respect and allow them to be as independent as possible. Different regions of the world can affect different people’s actions, thoughts and lifestyles. Here, the participants were asked to give their opinion on an issue that seemed very controversial in their part of the world. Participants were then able to critique the view of others and come to a consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be taught how to care for others. They should be taught to treat all people with respect no matter what their age. They should not be forced to take care of elderly people, but should be encouraged to visit their relatives and treat them with respect. If they then decide that they would like to make it their profession, they should be encouraged to do so, provided it is what they really want to do. If everyone in society was kind and respected others, elderly people would not feel as lonely and isolated as they sometimes do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be taught how to care for others and treat them with respect. This is to help develop a more caring culture, which should be one of society's highest priorities. Children should not be forced to care for the elderly. It is also important to allow the elderly to be as independent as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught to respect and care for others, and should be encouraged to do so whenever possible. Children should also be taught how to allow the elderly to be as independent as possible. This is to help develop a more caring culture, which should be one of society's highest priorities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be taught how to be caring and respect others. This is to help develop a more caring culture, and to treat the elderly with respect and allow them to be as independent as possible. Different regions of the world can affect different people’s actions, thoughts and lifestyles. Here, the participants were asked to give their opinion on an issue that seemed very controversial in their part of the world. Participants were then able to critique the view of others and come to a consensus view. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002167.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002167.soc index 88ef0b17..1d6f6991 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002167.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002167.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. This can lead to a reduction in the amount of resources used by the NHS on smoking related illnesses. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income.The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income. The money used from the taxes could be put into government health care which would be a positive of this legislation. The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS. Conclusion This report has shown how an open online classroom can be used to tackle a range of topics from content to debate. The report concludes that the potential for using open online classrooms is tremendous, and that there is an urgent need to look more deeply into their use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income. The money used from the taxes could be put into government health care which would be a positive of this legislation. The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income. The money used from the taxes could be put into government health care which would be a positive of this legislation. The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. This can lead to a reduction in the amount of resources used by the NHS on smoking related illnesses. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income.The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income. The money used from the taxes could be put into government health care which would be a positive of this legislation. The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS. Conclusion This report has shown how an open online classroom can be used to tackle a range of topics from content to debate. The report concludes that the potential for using open online classrooms is tremendous, and that there is an urgent need to look more deeply into their use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income. The money used from the taxes could be put into government health care which would be a positive of this legislation. The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Smoking cigarettes is a major health risk and there are a lot of resources used by the NHS to help and support people who make the decision to smoke. Taxation is a good way to discourage people from smoking as it increases the price of cigarettes and this should lead to a reduction in the number of people buying cigarettes. However, this may not discourage those who are really addicted or can afford it anyway if they have more disposable income. The money used from the taxes could be put into government health care which would be a positive of this legislation. The group also agreed that there are much more productive ways to discourage people from smoking, and i think this includes the media and educating people while young. While there are benefits to taxing, this would just penalise the poorest from society, rather than creating a suitable alternative to smoking. Having cheap and effective ways to ease from smoking would benefit them better - especially if this is free on the NHS. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002168.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002168.soc index 0721f808..dcf98b9a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002168.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002168.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. We recognised that there are some issues with the industry, such as animal welfare and the environment, however we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. We also believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat, and therefore believe that it is acceptable to eat meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. We recognised that there are some issues with the industry, such as animal welfare and the environment, however we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. We also believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat, and therefore believe that it is acceptable to eat meat. However, we also believe that individuals can play a role in reducing the amount of meat they consume, as well as being more informed about the impact of their consumption. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There were issues with the consumption of meat, such as animal welfare and the environment. However we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. We also believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat, and therefore believe that it is acceptable to eat meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. We recognised that there are some issues with the industry, such as animal welfare and the environment, however we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. However, we do believe that individuals can make a difference by educating themselves on these issues and making their own informed choices without outside intervention. Participants both agreed and disagreed with the right of people to freedom of choice, and believed that they were free to make their own choices, however this didn't need to happen in an uninformed way, and that people should be educated about their choices. 3.1.2 Identifying Barriers to Achieving +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. We recognised that there are some issues with the industry, such as animal welfare and the environment, however we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. We also believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat, and therefore believe that it is acceptable to eat meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. We recognised that there are some issues with the industry, such as animal welfare and the environment, however we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. We also believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat, and therefore believe that it is acceptable to eat meat. However, we also believe that individuals can play a role in reducing the amount of meat they consume, as well as being more informed about the impact of their consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There were issues with the consumption of meat, such as animal welfare and the environment. However we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. We also believe that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat, and therefore believe that it is acceptable to eat meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. We recognised that there are some issues with the industry, such as animal welfare and the environment, however we believe that these are issues that should be tackled by the industry and government, rather than by individuals. However, we do believe that individuals can make a difference by educating themselves on these issues and making their own informed choices without outside intervention. Participants both agreed and disagreed with the right of people to freedom of choice, and believed that they were free to make their own choices, however this didn't need to happen in an uninformed way, and that people should be educated about their choices. 3.1.2 Identifying Barriers to Achieving 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002169.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002169.soc index b2ac21aa..fe5c1b86 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002169.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002169.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be the freedom to undertake activities which do not harm them or others around them. Therefore, people should be able to sell their own plasma, as long as it is taken in a safe and controlled environment. This will ensure that it is disease free and of a quality that is viable. The incentive to sell plasma is also good for society because people will be encouraged to donate and this will ensure a plentiful supply of plasma for medical procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should have the freedom to decide to sell their plasma if they wish, provided that the process is done safely, in a controlled and safe environment which would make sure that their blood is disease free and of a quality that is viable. This could increase the stock of plasma and especially rare blood types. Also, the government shouldn't intervene in an individuals' choices and people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that people should be allowed to sell their own plasma, provided that the plasma is taken in a controlled and safe environment, which would make sure that their blood is disease free and of a quality that is viable. We believe that people should have the freedom to undertake activities which do not harm them or others around them. We also feel that the government should not intervene and people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish. The incentive to sell plasma is also good for society because people will be encouraged to donate and this will ensure a plentiful supply of plasma for medical procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that people should be allowed to sell their own plasma, provided that the plasma is taken in a controlled and safe environment, which would make sure that their blood is disease free and of a quality that is viable. We believe that people should have the freedom to undertake activities which do not harm them or others around them. We also feel that the government should not intervene and people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish. The incentive to sell plasma is also good for society because people will be encouraged to donate and this will ensure a plentiful supply of plasma for medical procedures. We would also add that it could particularly help to resolve problems of inadequate supplies of rare blood types. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be the freedom to undertake activities which do not harm them or others around them. Therefore, people should be able to sell their own plasma, as long as it is taken in a safe and controlled environment. This will ensure that it is disease free and of a quality that is viable. The incentive to sell plasma is also good for society because people will be encouraged to donate and this will ensure a plentiful supply of plasma for medical procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should have the freedom to decide to sell their plasma if they wish, provided that the process is done safely, in a controlled and safe environment which would make sure that their blood is disease free and of a quality that is viable. This could increase the stock of plasma and especially rare blood types. Also, the government shouldn't intervene in an individuals' choices and people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that people should be allowed to sell their own plasma, provided that the plasma is taken in a controlled and safe environment, which would make sure that their blood is disease free and of a quality that is viable. We believe that people should have the freedom to undertake activities which do not harm them or others around them. We also feel that the government should not intervene and people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish. The incentive to sell plasma is also good for society because people will be encouraged to donate and this will ensure a plentiful supply of plasma for medical procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that people should be allowed to sell their own plasma, provided that the plasma is taken in a controlled and safe environment, which would make sure that their blood is disease free and of a quality that is viable. We believe that people should have the freedom to undertake activities which do not harm them or others around them. We also feel that the government should not intervene and people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish. The incentive to sell plasma is also good for society because people will be encouraged to donate and this will ensure a plentiful supply of plasma for medical procedures. We would also add that it could particularly help to resolve problems of inadequate supplies of rare blood types. 3: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002170.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002170.soc index 5c693ee9..ffd678b9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002170.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002170.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The group felt that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and that the government should not interfere in peoples lives. However, the group felt that the government should be doing more to promote responsible drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and to promote safe drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote the safe use of alcohol, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote awareness of safe drinking in young people, who are the biggest consumers of alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The group felt that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and that the government should not interfere in peoples lives. However, the group did feel that the government should be doing more to promote responsible drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and to promote safe drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote the safe use of alcohol, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. The group felt that this education should start in schools, and that the information should be presented in a hard hitting way, to ensure that young people are aware of the dangers of alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we were opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol, feeling that people should be allowed to make their own choices and that the government should not interfere in people's lives. However, we felt that the government could do more to promote responsible drinking, and that they should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol. We felt that the government should be doing more to promote safe drinking, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The group felt that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and that the government should not interfere in peoples lives. However, the group did feel that the government should be doing more to promote responsible drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and to promote safe drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote the safe use of alcohol, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. The group felt that the government should be doing more to raise awareness of the dangers of alcohol in young people, who are the biggest drinkers. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote safe drinking, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The group felt that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and that the government should not interfere in peoples lives. However, the group felt that the government should be doing more to promote responsible drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and to promote safe drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote the safe use of alcohol, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote awareness of safe drinking in young people, who are the biggest consumers of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The group felt that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and that the government should not interfere in peoples lives. However, the group did feel that the government should be doing more to promote responsible drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and to promote safe drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote the safe use of alcohol, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. The group felt that this education should start in schools, and that the information should be presented in a hard hitting way, to ensure that young people are aware of the dangers of alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we were opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol, feeling that people should be allowed to make their own choices and that the government should not interfere in people's lives. However, we felt that the government could do more to promote responsible drinking, and that they should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol. We felt that the government should be doing more to promote safe drinking, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The group felt that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and that the government should not interfere in peoples lives. However, the group did feel that the government should be doing more to promote responsible drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and to promote safe drinking. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote the safe use of alcohol, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. The group felt that the government should be doing more to raise awareness of the dangers of alcohol in young people, who are the biggest drinkers. The group felt that the government should be doing more to promote safe drinking, such as promoting the use of designated drivers, and the use of public transport. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002171.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002171.soc index 3e440dce..1a9052d0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002171.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002171.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity, but instead taught that they should accept other people regardless of their gender. This is not only a more positive message to send out, but also helps with bullying. Gender fluidity should be taught to children who are in the minority of being gender fluid, in order to make them feel comfortable. Children are too young to be taught about it in the way adults understand it. They are more likely to misunderstand and be confused about it. There are many other subjects they need to be taught and this should not take priority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity, but instead taught that they should accept other people regardless of their gender. This is not only a more positive message to send out, but also helps with bullying. Gender fluidity should be taught to children who are in the minority of being gender fluid, in order to make them feel comfortable. Children are too young to be taught about it in the way adults understand it. They are more likely to misunderstand and be confused about it. There are many other subjects they need to be taught and this should not take priority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity in schools, but should instead be taught about the importance of acceptance of other people regardless of their gender. Only the minority of children who identify as gender fluid, should be taught about gender fluidity and made to feel accepted and comfortable. Children are very young and not yet aware of the world around them, and are therefore more likely to misunderstand and be confused by gender fluidity. There are many more important subjects that they need to learn first before they can learn to understand gender fluidity. This is because gender fluidity is a more complicated, sensitive and controversial topic, which they might not have the maturity to discuss and therefore it could be counterproductive and confusing to teach them about it in schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity, but instead taught that they should accept other people regardless of their gender. This is not only a more positive message to send out, but also helps with bullying. Children who are in the minority of being gender fluid, in order to make them feel comfortable, should be educated about it in a lesson separate to other children. Children are too young to be taught about gender fluidity in the way adults understand it, and it may confuse them. There are many other subjects children should be taught, and this is not one of them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should not be taught about gender fluidity, but instead taught that they should accept other people regardless of their gender. This is not only a more positive message to send out, but also helps with bullying. Gender fluidity should be taught to children who are in the minority of being gender fluid, in order to make them feel comfortable. Children are too young to be taught about it in the way adults understand it. They are more likely to misunderstand and be confused about it. There are many other subjects they need to be taught and this should not take priority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should not be taught about gender fluidity, but instead taught that they should accept other people regardless of their gender. This is not only a more positive message to send out, but also helps with bullying. Gender fluidity should be taught to children who are in the minority of being gender fluid, in order to make them feel comfortable. Children are too young to be taught about it in the way adults understand it. They are more likely to misunderstand and be confused about it. There are many other subjects they need to be taught and this should not take priority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: Children should not be taught about gender fluidity in schools, but should instead be taught about the importance of acceptance of other people regardless of their gender. Only the minority of children who identify as gender fluid, should be taught about gender fluidity and made to feel accepted and comfortable. Children are very young and not yet aware of the world around them, and are therefore more likely to misunderstand and be confused by gender fluidity. There are many more important subjects that they need to learn first before they can learn to understand gender fluidity. This is because gender fluidity is a more complicated, sensitive and controversial topic, which they might not have the maturity to discuss and therefore it could be counterproductive and confusing to teach them about it in schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be taught about gender fluidity, but instead taught that they should accept other people regardless of their gender. This is not only a more positive message to send out, but also helps with bullying. Children who are in the minority of being gender fluid, in order to make them feel comfortable, should be educated about it in a lesson separate to other children. Children are too young to be taught about gender fluidity in the way adults understand it, and it may confuse them. There are many other subjects children should be taught, and this is not one of them. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002172.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002172.soc index 95c4d8a2..35b3231c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002172.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002172.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Tobacco is a harmful substance and so we should not remove age restrictions on its sale. Doing so would harm the health of young people who are unable to make informed choices, leading to greater pressure on the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, age restrictions should not be removed from the sale of tobacco. This is because tobacco is a highly addictive substance, which has significant long-term health implications. Therefore, it is important that people are fully aware of the consequences of using tobacco before they start using it. This is because once people become addicted to tobacco, it is very difficult for them to stop using it. This means that tobacco users are likely to suffer from tobacco-related illnesses, such as lung cancer and heart disease, in later life. This will put a significant burden on the NHS. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not remove all age restrictions from the sale of tobacco. This is because tobacco has been proven to cause significant health issues, such as lung cancer and heart disease. The younger generation may not be aware of these risks, so allowing them to buy tobacco products could be detrimental to their health. This would also cause greater pressure on the NHS, as it would have to deal with the health issues caused by tobacco use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that removing all age restrictions from the sale of tobacco would be very detrimental to the younger generation who will be exposed to tobacco products at an early age, and the health consequences of tobacco would not be fully appreciated. The main reason is that smoking is an addiction that has serious health consequences. It is very difficult to stop smoking, and the risks involved are not fully appreciated by young people. The earlier people start smoking, the more addictive the substance becomes. The health risks associated with smoking include cancers, heart attacks and strokes. This would have a great impact on the health system and the NHS because of the health consequences. It would also affect people financially because of the health problems associated with smoking. Therefore, age restrictions should not be removed from the sale of tobacco products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Tobacco is a harmful substance and so we should not remove age restrictions on its sale. Doing so would harm the health of young people who are unable to make informed choices, leading to greater pressure on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, age restrictions should not be removed from the sale of tobacco. This is because tobacco is a highly addictive substance, which has significant long-term health implications. Therefore, it is important that people are fully aware of the consequences of using tobacco before they start using it. This is because once people become addicted to tobacco, it is very difficult for them to stop using it. This means that tobacco users are likely to suffer from tobacco-related illnesses, such as lung cancer and heart disease, in later life. This will put a significant burden on the NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not remove all age restrictions from the sale of tobacco. This is because tobacco has been proven to cause significant health issues, such as lung cancer and heart disease. The younger generation may not be aware of these risks, so allowing them to buy tobacco products could be detrimental to their health. This would also cause greater pressure on the NHS, as it would have to deal with the health issues caused by tobacco use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that removing all age restrictions from the sale of tobacco would be very detrimental to the younger generation who will be exposed to tobacco products at an early age, and the health consequences of tobacco would not be fully appreciated. The main reason is that smoking is an addiction that has serious health consequences. It is very difficult to stop smoking, and the risks involved are not fully appreciated by young people. The earlier people start smoking, the more addictive the substance becomes. The health risks associated with smoking include cancers, heart attacks and strokes. This would have a great impact on the health system and the NHS because of the health consequences. It would also affect people financially because of the health problems associated with smoking. Therefore, age restrictions should not be removed from the sale of tobacco products. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002173.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002173.soc index 4304a2ed..2040fb23 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002173.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002173.soc @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 1 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think children should be taught about both the achievements of past civilizations and the modern society. We think that it is important to learn about the achievements of the past civilizations as they are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, we also think that learning about the modern society is just as important. By learning about the modern society we can develop the future world, and teaching about sociology can create a mindset that prioritises equality. Overall, children should be taught about both the past and the present. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be taught more about the achievements of past civilizations and less about modern society. The past has shaped our future and we should be grateful for the opportunities we have. The world is a very different place now and we need to teach children to be grateful for what they have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught more about the achievements of past civilizations and less about modern society because we can use the successes and failures of the past to help build a better future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a balance between teaching about the past and teaching about the present. We should highlight both the positives and negatives of the past. The past has shaped our present and will continue to shape our future. The past has a lot to teach us, but we should not dwell on it. We should also teach children about modern society to help them understand the present and prepare them for the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think children should be taught about both the achievements of past civilizations and the modern society. We think that it is important to learn about the achievements of the past civilizations as they are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, we also think that learning about the modern society is just as important. By learning about the modern society we can develop the future world, and teaching about sociology can create a mindset that prioritises equality. Overall, children should be taught about both the past and the present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be taught more about the achievements of past civilizations and less about modern society. The past has shaped our future and we should be grateful for the opportunities we have. The world is a very different place now and we need to teach children to be grateful for what they have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught more about the achievements of past civilizations and less about modern society because we can use the successes and failures of the past to help build a better future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a balance between teaching about the past and teaching about the present. We should highlight both the positives and negatives of the past. The past has shaped our present and will continue to shape our future. The past has a lot to teach us, but we should not dwell on it. We should also teach children about modern society to help them understand the present and prepare them for the future. 5: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002174.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002174.soc index 0abe012a..a61f4664 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002174.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002174.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. We believe that it is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation every person should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. It is also important that we do not privatise the NHS as this would descriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and it should be protected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the NHS should be free at the point of delivery. If it is to be paid for, it should be by a national insurance scheme which everyone pays into. The NHS is there to look after us all. It is important that all people can access it and that it is not a privilege. It is one of the best things about our country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is an important part of British society and we should not privatise it. We should keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and ensure that all people can access it, regardless of their personal situation. It is important that we keep the NHS free and accessible to all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. The NHS has been a cornerstone of British society for many years and the results are very evident. Despite this, the NHS is constantly underfunded, overworked and understaffed. The NHS, as it currently stands, is a luxury that the UK cannot afford. We must therefore explore ways to reduce the amount of money the NHS is required to spend, while at the same time increase the amount of money it receives. A useful step towards this goal would be to make it easier for people to sign up to private health insurance schemes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. We believe that it is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation every person should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. It is also important that we do not privatise the NHS as this would descriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and it should be protected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the NHS should be free at the point of delivery. If it is to be paid for, it should be by a national insurance scheme which everyone pays into. The NHS is there to look after us all. It is important that all people can access it and that it is not a privilege. It is one of the best things about our country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is an important part of British society and we should not privatise it. We should keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and ensure that all people can access it, regardless of their personal situation. It is important that we keep the NHS free and accessible to all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. The NHS has been a cornerstone of British society for many years and the results are very evident. Despite this, the NHS is constantly underfunded, overworked and understaffed. The NHS, as it currently stands, is a luxury that the UK cannot afford. We must therefore explore ways to reduce the amount of money the NHS is required to spend, while at the same time increase the amount of money it receives. A useful step towards this goal would be to make it easier for people to sign up to private health insurance schemes. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002175.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002175.soc index 4c17512e..1afe1c80 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002175.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002175.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think that the number of MPs in the UK should be reduced. The number of MPs we have in the UK means that every constituency has a representative who can speak on behalf of the people who live in their area. If the number of MPs were reduced, then the size of constituencies would increase. This would mean that people living in the constituency would not have a representative who could speak on their behalf. It would also mean that the MP would have to travel a larger area, which would mean that they would not be able to spend as much time in their constituency, which would make them less accessible to the people who live there. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was in agreement that there are currently too many MPs in the UK and that this number should be reduced. There are a number of reasons why this would be beneficial. The group felt that reducing the number of MPs would lead to less pointless shouting in Parliament, as each MP would be more able to put forward their view without clashing with others. There are also too many MPs in privileged backgrounds and a reduction in MPs would lead to more diverse backgrounds in Parliament, which would lead to a better representation of the views of the people. Finally, reducing the number of MPs would lead to the tax payer saving a lot of money, which would be beneficial for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a review of the number of MPs in the UK. If there is to be a reduction, it should not be too significant as it is important that the people of the UK are represented by their elected officials. It is important that a wide range of people are represented, including people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, ages, etc. It is important that there is a balance between the number of MPs and the number of people they represent. If there is to be a reduction in the number of MPs, it is important that this is not done in a way that reduces the diversity of MPs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The number of MPs in the UK should be reduced to save money. Reducing the number of MPs would mean that it would be harder for people living in certain areas to be represented in parliament. Reducing the number of MPs would mean combining current constituencies from different areas together, but the different areas may have different issues and political preferences. However, the amount of money saved would make it worth it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think that the number of MPs in the UK should be reduced. The number of MPs we have in the UK means that every constituency has a representative who can speak on behalf of the people who live in their area. If the number of MPs were reduced, then the size of constituencies would increase. This would mean that people living in the constituency would not have a representative who could speak on their behalf. It would also mean that the MP would have to travel a larger area, which would mean that they would not be able to spend as much time in their constituency, which would make them less accessible to the people who live there. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was in agreement that there are currently too many MPs in the UK and that this number should be reduced. There are a number of reasons why this would be beneficial. The group felt that reducing the number of MPs would lead to less pointless shouting in Parliament, as each MP would be more able to put forward their view without clashing with others. There are also too many MPs in privileged backgrounds and a reduction in MPs would lead to more diverse backgrounds in Parliament, which would lead to a better representation of the views of the people. Finally, reducing the number of MPs would lead to the tax payer saving a lot of money, which would be beneficial for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a review of the number of MPs in the UK. If there is to be a reduction, it should not be too significant as it is important that the people of the UK are represented by their elected officials. It is important that a wide range of people are represented, including people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, ages, etc. It is important that there is a balance between the number of MPs and the number of people they represent. If there is to be a reduction in the number of MPs, it is important that this is not done in a way that reduces the diversity of MPs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The number of MPs in the UK should be reduced to save money. Reducing the number of MPs would mean that it would be harder for people living in certain areas to be represented in parliament. Reducing the number of MPs would mean combining current constituencies from different areas together, but the different areas may have different issues and political preferences. However, the amount of money saved would make it worth it. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002176.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002176.soc index 0bf531ba..7fc67918 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002176.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002176.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under 11 should be allowed to play video games. The games should be age appropriate and in moderation. Parental guidance should be in place to ensure that the games are age appropriate and that the children are not spending too much time playing video games. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be allowed to play video games but only if they are age appropriate. Video games should only be played in moderation, and should not replace other activities that develop the child in other ways. Parental guidance is also essential to ensure that children are not being exposed to unsuitable content. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under 11 should be allowed to play age appropriate games. They have age ratings for games and when selling them should be treated as if selling other age regulated items eg cigarettes. Children spend more time indoors now than ever before so should be able to be entertained. Lots of games can also be educational and fun. Parents should supervise their children when playing games and ensure that they are not exposed to inappropriate content. They should not spend all their time on video games as socialising face to face is important for children's development both anatomically and socially. The most important thing is that children are happy and safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under 11 should be allowed to play video games in moderation. The way we all argued in the group was to find a common ground. We all agreed that games are not only for fun but for learning and that they do have some developmental and cognitive benefits. However we all also agreed that games should not be the only thing a child does, as it is important that they also develop social skills, play outside, read, etc. We also discussed whether the parental involvement is required and it was agreed that parents should supervise the child in case the child has not been told of the age rating, and also to make sure that the game they are playing is age appropriate. It was also agreed that children shouldn't be allowed to play games that may have an age restriction, but with a mature content such as gore, nudity, and violence. Overall, the opinion of the group was that children should be allowed to play video games but in moderation and with parental supervision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under 11 should be allowed to play video games. The games should be age appropriate and in moderation. Parental guidance should be in place to ensure that the games are age appropriate and that the children are not spending too much time playing video games. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be allowed to play video games but only if they are age appropriate. Video games should only be played in moderation, and should not replace other activities that develop the child in other ways. Parental guidance is also essential to ensure that children are not being exposed to unsuitable content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under 11 should be allowed to play age appropriate games. They have age ratings for games and when selling them should be treated as if selling other age regulated items eg cigarettes. Children spend more time indoors now than ever before so should be able to be entertained. Lots of games can also be educational and fun. Parents should supervise their children when playing games and ensure that they are not exposed to inappropriate content. They should not spend all their time on video games as socialising face to face is important for children's development both anatomically and socially. The most important thing is that children are happy and safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under 11 should be allowed to play video games in moderation. The way we all argued in the group was to find a common ground. We all agreed that games are not only for fun but for learning and that they do have some developmental and cognitive benefits. However we all also agreed that games should not be the only thing a child does, as it is important that they also develop social skills, play outside, read, etc. We also discussed whether the parental involvement is required and it was agreed that parents should supervise the child in case the child has not been told of the age rating, and also to make sure that the game they are playing is age appropriate. It was also agreed that children shouldn't be allowed to play games that may have an age restriction, but with a mature content such as gore, nudity, and violence. Overall, the opinion of the group was that children should be allowed to play video games but in moderation and with parental supervision. 4: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002177.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002177.soc index a3c6ddbd..46600fe6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002177.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002177.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is that alcohol is already a dangerous substance, especially for people who are driving, and making it illegal will only increase these dangers. Banning it will also just create a black market that could provide much more dangers. While alcohol is already dangerous due to drunk drivers and people who get into drunken fights or so drunk that they cause a danger to themselves or those around them in any way banning alcohol would likely only increase these dangers with black market dealings. Banning alcohol is thus not the answer, and we must educate people on how to use it in a safe and healthy manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. The best way to deal with alcohol is to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and to make it as difficult as possible to buy alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is highly unlikely that alcohol will ever be made illegal in the UK, for many reasons. The UK government is well aware that alcohol sales generate a huge amount of tax revenue, which the government cannot afford to give up. Also, the revenue generated from sales would be very hard to replace, the only option would be to increase taxes in other areas which would be unpopular with the general public. In addition, alcohol is a huge industry in the UK, employing a vast number of people, which is also important to the economy. If alcohol was to be made illegal, this would cause a massive increase in unemployment. Another major reason alcohol will never be made illegal in the UK is the fact that it is deeply ingrained in the British culture and way of life. Alcohol is a part of many people's lives, from their youth onwards. For example, many teenagers go to pubs with their parents, or have alcohol bought for them on their birthday. As a result, it is seen as socially acceptable for people of all ages to consume alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, alcohol should not be made illegal. This is because it is part of the culture in many countries, and the harm caused by alcohol is far outweighed by the benefits of having it legal. The harm caused by alcohol can be reduced through education and awareness, and the legal system is equipped to deal with the harm caused by alcohol. The legal system can also be used to punish those who cause harm through alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is that alcohol is already a dangerous substance, especially for people who are driving, and making it illegal will only increase these dangers. Banning it will also just create a black market that could provide much more dangers. While alcohol is already dangerous due to drunk drivers and people who get into drunken fights or so drunk that they cause a danger to themselves or those around them in any way banning alcohol would likely only increase these dangers with black market dealings. Banning alcohol is thus not the answer, and we must educate people on how to use it in a safe and healthy manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. The best way to deal with alcohol is to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and to make it as difficult as possible to buy alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is highly unlikely that alcohol will ever be made illegal in the UK, for many reasons. The UK government is well aware that alcohol sales generate a huge amount of tax revenue, which the government cannot afford to give up. Also, the revenue generated from sales would be very hard to replace, the only option would be to increase taxes in other areas which would be unpopular with the general public. In addition, alcohol is a huge industry in the UK, employing a vast number of people, which is also important to the economy. If alcohol was to be made illegal, this would cause a massive increase in unemployment. Another major reason alcohol will never be made illegal in the UK is the fact that it is deeply ingrained in the British culture and way of life. Alcohol is a part of many people's lives, from their youth onwards. For example, many teenagers go to pubs with their parents, or have alcohol bought for them on their birthday. As a result, it is seen as socially acceptable for people of all ages to consume alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, alcohol should not be made illegal. This is because it is part of the culture in many countries, and the harm caused by alcohol is far outweighed by the benefits of having it legal. The harm caused by alcohol can be reduced through education and awareness, and the legal system is equipped to deal with the harm caused by alcohol. The legal system can also be used to punish those who cause harm through alcohol. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002178.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002178.soc index 29b1efc7..cb0e8ae0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002178.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002178.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is not the best policy during a recession. It is proven to be unsuccessful as it creates more problems than it solves. Austerity is a very blunt instrument that does not differentiate between those who can afford to tighten their belts and those who cannot. Austerity has a greater negative impact on those who are already vulnerable such as those with insecure housing or health problems. It is necessary to some extent to reduce budget deficits and cutting government spending is compatible with improving long term economic performance of the economy. However, this should not be at the expense of those who are already vulnerable in society. Austerity should be replaced with an increase in taxes on the upper echelons of society instead. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Consensus View: In the opinion of the group, Austerity is not always the best policy to take during a recession. Austerity, which is reducing government spending during a recession, can have both positive and negative impacts. In a recession, the economy is weak, so cutting government spending can have a negative effect, leading to further job losses and a deeper recession. This can have a major impact on the vulnerable in society and the government should be mindful of this. At the same time, being too generous during a recession can lead to an unsustainable budget deficit which can also be detrimental to the economy in the long run. Therefore, a balance needs to be reached. If a country is in a weak position during a recession, there needs to be enough austerity so that the budget deficit can be reduced, but not so much that the recession becomes much worse. If the budget deficit is already high before the recession, austerity may be needed. Also, if austerity is needed during a recession, the impact on the vulnerable in society needs to be minimised as much as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although austerity is not a popular idea, it is sometimes necessary to improve long term economic performance of a country, however this must be implemented in a way that does not negatively impact on the vulnerable and disadvantaged. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity can have a positive impact on an economy during a recession. However, it is important to ensure that it is not the public that has to make all of the sacrifices. The burden should be shared equally across all sectors of society. Austerity can be the best policy during a recession but it is important to ensure that it is implemented in the correct way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is not the best policy during a recession. It is proven to be unsuccessful as it creates more problems than it solves. Austerity is a very blunt instrument that does not differentiate between those who can afford to tighten their belts and those who cannot. Austerity has a greater negative impact on those who are already vulnerable such as those with insecure housing or health problems. It is necessary to some extent to reduce budget deficits and cutting government spending is compatible with improving long term economic performance of the economy. However, this should not be at the expense of those who are already vulnerable in society. Austerity should be replaced with an increase in taxes on the upper echelons of society instead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Consensus View: In the opinion of the group, Austerity is not always the best policy to take during a recession. Austerity, which is reducing government spending during a recession, can have both positive and negative impacts. In a recession, the economy is weak, so cutting government spending can have a negative effect, leading to further job losses and a deeper recession. This can have a major impact on the vulnerable in society and the government should be mindful of this. At the same time, being too generous during a recession can lead to an unsustainable budget deficit which can also be detrimental to the economy in the long run. Therefore, a balance needs to be reached. If a country is in a weak position during a recession, there needs to be enough austerity so that the budget deficit can be reduced, but not so much that the recession becomes much worse. If the budget deficit is already high before the recession, austerity may be needed. Also, if austerity is needed during a recession, the impact on the vulnerable in society needs to be minimised as much as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although austerity is not a popular idea, it is sometimes necessary to improve long term economic performance of a country, however this must be implemented in a way that does not negatively impact on the vulnerable and disadvantaged. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity can have a positive impact on an economy during a recession. However, it is important to ensure that it is not the public that has to make all of the sacrifices. The burden should be shared equally across all sectors of society. Austerity can be the best policy during a recession but it is important to ensure that it is implemented in the correct way. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002179.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002179.soc index d234a1f0..f30da138 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002179.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002179.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We don’t believe that a separate classroom should be provided for dyslexic children, because it would make them feel like they were being put on the side. Instead, we believe that schools should provide a teaching assistant for each class that is knowledgeable about dyslexia, who can help the children when they are struggling. The children should also have access to various learning aids, such as coloured overlays for reading. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, I do not think that schools should have a dedicated classroom for students who are dyslexic. The reason for this is that the children will feel isolated from the rest of their peers and may feel that they are being singled out. This will have a negative impact on their confidence and self-esteem. The children should be in the classroom with their peers and have the support of a teaching assistant who will be able to help them with their reading and writing. The children will be able to see how their peers are coping with the work and will be able to learn from them. They will also be able to help their peers in return. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although some children with dyslexia may require extra support, we do not feel that having a dedicated classroom is the best way to help these children. We feel that by removing children with dyslexia from their classmates, it could hinder their social skills and lead to further isolation from their peers. The best way to help dyslexic children is to have a dedicated support teacher in the classroom, allowing for extra help when required, but still allowing the children to be part of the classroom. This is an extract from a report, which was written in the past tense and included the word, consensus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, because the children would be separated from their peers and they would feel isolated. The children would not be able to develop their strengths as they would not be in a classroom with other children. The children would not be able to interact with other children and would not be able to develop their social skills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We don’t believe that a separate classroom should be provided for dyslexic children, because it would make them feel like they were being put on the side. Instead, we believe that schools should provide a teaching assistant for each class that is knowledgeable about dyslexia, who can help the children when they are struggling. The children should also have access to various learning aids, such as coloured overlays for reading. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, I do not think that schools should have a dedicated classroom for students who are dyslexic. The reason for this is that the children will feel isolated from the rest of their peers and may feel that they are being singled out. This will have a negative impact on their confidence and self-esteem. The children should be in the classroom with their peers and have the support of a teaching assistant who will be able to help them with their reading and writing. The children will be able to see how their peers are coping with the work and will be able to learn from them. They will also be able to help their peers in return. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although some children with dyslexia may require extra support, we do not feel that having a dedicated classroom is the best way to help these children. We feel that by removing children with dyslexia from their classmates, it could hinder their social skills and lead to further isolation from their peers. The best way to help dyslexic children is to have a dedicated support teacher in the classroom, allowing for extra help when required, but still allowing the children to be part of the classroom. This is an extract from a report, which was written in the past tense and included the word, consensus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, because the children would be separated from their peers and they would feel isolated. The children would not be able to develop their strengths as they would not be in a classroom with other children. The children would not be able to interact with other children and would not be able to develop their social skills. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002180.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002180.soc index 39ead981..99f359e8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002180.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002180.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. We believe that it is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation every person should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. It is also important that we do not privatise the NHS as this would descriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and it should be protected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. It is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation every person should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. It is also important that we do not privatise the NHS as this would descriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and it should be protected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the NHS should be made free for all. Without doubt it is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation everyone should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. We believe that the NHS is a safety net and a right and should not be privatised as this would descriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and should be protected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. The NHS is an essential service that should be afforded to all, young and old, for the wellbeing of society as a whole. We should therefore protect the service we have. In particular we should take into account the vulnerable people and the elderly and ensure they can access healthcare. We believe that it is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation every person should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. It is also important that we do not privatise the NHS as this would discriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and it should be protected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. We believe that it is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation every person should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. It is also important that we do not privatise the NHS as this would descriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and it should be protected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. It is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation every person should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. It is also important that we do not privatise the NHS as this would descriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and it should be protected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the NHS should be made free for all. Without doubt it is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation everyone should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. We believe that the NHS is a safety net and a right and should not be privatised as this would descriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and should be protected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should continue to make the NHS free at the point of delivery. The NHS is an essential service that should be afforded to all, young and old, for the wellbeing of society as a whole. We should therefore protect the service we have. In particular we should take into account the vulnerable people and the elderly and ensure they can access healthcare. We believe that it is important that everybody has equal access to the NHS. Whatever the circumstances or personal situation every person should have access to medical care, this is especially important for the young, elderly and vulnerable adults. Some people have medical conditions that require regular medication or hospitalisation - these people may not be able to afford this healthcare. It is also important that we do not privatise the NHS as this would discriminate against the poorer of society. It's a valued service for everyone and it should be protected. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002181.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002181.soc index 8398e9d5..a22bac7f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002181.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002181.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that children should be taught about both the achievements of past civilizations and the modern society. We think that it is important to learn about the achievements of the past civilizations as they are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, we also think that learning about the modern society is just as important. By learning about the modern society we can develop the future world, and teaching about sociology can create a mindset that prioritises equality. Overall, children should be taught about both the past and the present. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be taught more about the achievements of past civilizations and less about modern society because these achievements are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, it is also important that children are taught about modern society as well. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be taught about both the achievements of past civilizations and the modern society. We think that it is important to learn about the achievements of the past civilizations as they are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, we also think that learning about the modern society is just as important. By learning about the modern society we can develop the future world, and teaching about sociology can create a mindset that prioritises equality. Overall, children should be taught about both the past and the present. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think children should be taught about both the achievements of past civilizations and the modern society. We think that it is important to learn about the achievements of the past civilizations as they are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, we also think that learning about the modern society is just as important. By learning about the modern society we can develop the future world, and teaching about sociology can create a mindset that prioritises equality. Overall, children should be taught about both the past and the present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that children should be taught about both the achievements of past civilizations and the modern society. We think that it is important to learn about the achievements of the past civilizations as they are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, we also think that learning about the modern society is just as important. By learning about the modern society we can develop the future world, and teaching about sociology can create a mindset that prioritises equality. Overall, children should be taught about both the past and the present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be taught more about the achievements of past civilizations and less about modern society because these achievements are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, it is also important that children are taught about modern society as well. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be taught about both the achievements of past civilizations and the modern society. We think that it is important to learn about the achievements of the past civilizations as they are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, we also think that learning about the modern society is just as important. By learning about the modern society we can develop the future world, and teaching about sociology can create a mindset that prioritises equality. Overall, children should be taught about both the past and the present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think children should be taught about both the achievements of past civilizations and the modern society. We think that it is important to learn about the achievements of the past civilizations as they are the foundation on which modern society was built. In addition, there were certain aspects of the past that we can learn from and avoid. However, we also think that learning about the modern society is just as important. By learning about the modern society we can develop the future world, and teaching about sociology can create a mindset that prioritises equality. Overall, children should be taught about both the past and the present. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002182.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002182.soc index da1b431a..ccf89383 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002182.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002182.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be allowed to play video games but in moderation. Video games can have educational and cognitive benefits as well as serving as a source of fun and enjoyment for children. Age rating is an important aspect to take into consideration. Parental involvement is required to insure that the games that their children are playing are age appropriate and would not have any harmful effects on the child. As games are now in the form of a play anywhere technology, this makes it even more important for parents to be able to supervise their child when playing video games. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 11 should not be banned from playing video games, however they should be allowed to play in moderation. This has been based on the idea that games can have developmental and cognitive benefits. It is important to note that children under the age of 11 should not be allowed to play games with a restricted age rating such as 18+. Games should be well-moderated and parent involvement is important so they can provide guidance and supervision to their children. In order to prevent side effects of playing video games too much (physical or mental), playing should be done in moderation. Comment: I agree with the group consensus that children should be allowed to play video games as they can help them to learn and develop skills, but to avoid the negative effects of gaming, they should not be played constantly but only in moderation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under 11 should be allowed to play video games in moderation. The way we all argued in the group was to find a common ground. We all agreed that games are not only for fun but for learning and that they do have some developmental and cognitive benefits. However we all also agreed that games should not be the only thing a child does, as it is important that they also develop social skills, play outside, read, etc. We also discussed whether the parental involvement is required and it was agreed that parents should supervise the child in case the child has not been told of the age rating, and also to make sure that the game they are playing is age appropriate. It was also agreed that children shouldn't be allowed to play games that may have an age restriction, but with a mature content such as gore, nudity, and violence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under 11 should be allowed to play video games in moderation. There are a number of benefits to playing video games. Video games can be educational and can help develop a child’s skills in several areas including cognition, motor function and problem solving. The issue with video games is that they are highly addictive, and, if played in excess, can prevent a child from socialising face-to-face. It is important that a child is allowed to play video games in moderation and that they are not a substitute for interaction with other people. Parents should be aware of the content of the games their children play. There should be parental supervision for games that have an age rating of 18+ and parents should also be aware of the rating of the games their children are playing to ensure that they are age appropriate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be allowed to play video games but in moderation. Video games can have educational and cognitive benefits as well as serving as a source of fun and enjoyment for children. Age rating is an important aspect to take into consideration. Parental involvement is required to insure that the games that their children are playing are age appropriate and would not have any harmful effects on the child. As games are now in the form of a play anywhere technology, this makes it even more important for parents to be able to supervise their child when playing video games. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 11 should not be banned from playing video games, however they should be allowed to play in moderation. This has been based on the idea that games can have developmental and cognitive benefits. It is important to note that children under the age of 11 should not be allowed to play games with a restricted age rating such as 18+. Games should be well-moderated and parent involvement is important so they can provide guidance and supervision to their children. In order to prevent side effects of playing video games too much (physical or mental), playing should be done in moderation. Comment: I agree with the group consensus that children should be allowed to play video games as they can help them to learn and develop skills, but to avoid the negative effects of gaming, they should not be played constantly but only in moderation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under 11 should be allowed to play video games in moderation. The way we all argued in the group was to find a common ground. We all agreed that games are not only for fun but for learning and that they do have some developmental and cognitive benefits. However we all also agreed that games should not be the only thing a child does, as it is important that they also develop social skills, play outside, read, etc. We also discussed whether the parental involvement is required and it was agreed that parents should supervise the child in case the child has not been told of the age rating, and also to make sure that the game they are playing is age appropriate. It was also agreed that children shouldn't be allowed to play games that may have an age restriction, but with a mature content such as gore, nudity, and violence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under 11 should be allowed to play video games in moderation. There are a number of benefits to playing video games. Video games can be educational and can help develop a child’s skills in several areas including cognition, motor function and problem solving. The issue with video games is that they are highly addictive, and, if played in excess, can prevent a child from socialising face-to-face. It is important that a child is allowed to play video games in moderation and that they are not a substitute for interaction with other people. Parents should be aware of the content of the games their children play. There should be parental supervision for games that have an age rating of 18+ and parents should also be aware of the rating of the games their children are playing to ensure that they are age appropriate. 2: 3,2,4,1 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002183.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002183.soc index 7a738896..cf2027fb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002183.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002183.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be offered a vegetarian diet at school, but not forced to eat it. The issue of cultural identity and how this can be affected by a one-size-fits-all approach to school meals was raised, and participants felt that this should be taken into account. It was felt that the issue of climate change and how we as a society can minimise our impact on the environment is important, but that this should not be forced on to children. The issue of neurodiversity and the fact that children have different dietary requirements was also raised, and it was felt that this should be taken into account. It was felt that children should be given the option of a vegetarian diet at school, but that they should not be forced to eat it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are all concerned about the environment and the impact of meat production on climate change. However, we don't feel that mandating vegetarianism is the right way forward. We feel it would be better to encourage schools to offer some vegetarian options and reduce the amount of meat in school meals, but still offer the option of eating meat. There may be some cultural or health reasons why some students may be unable to follow a vegetarian diet, and we don't want to force children to eat something they don't want to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should have the option of choosing a vegetarian diet if they so wish, but they should also be able to choose to eat meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be offered a vegetarian option in school. Children should not be forced to become vegetarian. A second group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be offered a vegetarian diet at school, but not forced to eat it. The issue of cultural identity and how this can be affected by a one-size-fits-all approach to school meals was raised, and participants felt that this should be taken into account. It was felt that the issue of climate change and how we as a society can minimise our impact on the environment is important, but that this should not be forced on to children. The issue of neurodiversity and the fact that children have different dietary requirements was also raised, and it was felt that this should be taken into account. It was felt that children should be given the option of a vegetarian diet at school, but that they should not be forced to eat it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are all concerned about the environment and the impact of meat production on climate change. However, we don't feel that mandating vegetarianism is the right way forward. We feel it would be better to encourage schools to offer some vegetarian options and reduce the amount of meat in school meals, but still offer the option of eating meat. There may be some cultural or health reasons why some students may be unable to follow a vegetarian diet, and we don't want to force children to eat something they don't want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should have the option of choosing a vegetarian diet if they so wish, but they should also be able to choose to eat meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be offered a vegetarian option in school. Children should not be forced to become vegetarian. A second group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question, the opinions of each individual participant, and their final consensus statement reached after much deliberation. 4: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002184.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002184.soc index cb9a3045..8b912b46 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002184.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002184.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. The best way to deal with alcohol is to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and to make it as difficult as possible to buy alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. As we cannot realistically make alcohol illegal, we should instead educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and also make it as difficult as possible to purchase alcohol, so that people consume less of it, and the risks to health and society are minimised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. The best way to deal with alcohol is to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and to make it as difficult as possible to buy alcohol. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. The best way to deal with alcohol is to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and to make it as difficult as possible to buy alcohol. This would not be a complete ban on alcohol, but it would make it very difficult to buy alcohol, and would hopefully reduce the harms caused by alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. The best way to deal with alcohol is to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and to make it as difficult as possible to buy alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. As we cannot realistically make alcohol illegal, we should instead educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and also make it as difficult as possible to purchase alcohol, so that people consume less of it, and the risks to health and society are minimised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. The best way to deal with alcohol is to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and to make it as difficult as possible to buy alcohol. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not make alcohol illegal. The arguments in favour of this include the fact that alcohol is enjoyed by many people, and is an important part of social life for many people. It is also an important part of the economy, with many jobs depending on it. It is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, as it is very easy to make and would simply be made illegally. The arguments against making alcohol illegal are that it is a dangerous substance that causes a lot of harm, and that it would be better if it was not available. However, it is also very difficult to make alcohol illegal, and it would be very difficult to enforce. It is also very easy to make alcohol, and it would be very difficult to stop people making it. The best way to deal with alcohol is to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and to make it as difficult as possible to buy alcohol. This would not be a complete ban on alcohol, but it would make it very difficult to buy alcohol, and would hopefully reduce the harms caused by alcohol. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002185.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002185.soc index 33550106..6658a32c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002185.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002185.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Consensus View: In the opinion of the group, Austerity is not always the best policy to take during a recession. Austerity, which is reducing government spending during a recession, can have both positive and negative impacts. In a recession, the economy is weak, so cutting government spending can have a negative effect, leading to further job losses and a deeper recession. This can have a major impact on the vulnerable in society and the government should be mindful of this. At the same time, being too generous during a recession can lead to an unsustainable budget deficit which can also be detrimental to the economy in the long run. Therefore, a balance needs to be reached. If a country is in a weak position during a recession, there needs to be enough austerity so that the budget deficit can be reduced, but not so much that the recession becomes much worse. If the budget deficit is already high before the recession, austerity may be needed. Also, if austerity is needed during a recession, the impact on the vulnerable in society needs to be minimised as much as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is not always the best policy to take during a recession. Austerity, which is reducing government spending during a recession, can have both positive and negative impacts. In a recession, the economy is weak, so cutting government spending can have a negative effect, leading to further job losses and a deeper recession. This can have a major impact on the vulnerable in society and the government should be mindful of this. At the same time, being too generous during a recession can lead to an unsustainable budget deficit which can also be detrimental to the economy in the long run. Therefore, a balance needs to be reached. If a country is in a weak position during a recession, there needs to be enough austerity so that the budget deficit can be reduced, but not so much that the recession becomes much worse. If the budget deficit is already high before the recession, austerity may be needed. Also, if austerity is needed during a recession, the impact on the vulnerable in society needs to be minimised as much as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity is not always the best policy to take during a recession. In the opinion of the group, Austerity, which is reducing government spending during a recession, can have both positive and negative impacts. In a recession, the economy is weak, so cutting government spending can have a negative effect, leading to further job losses and a deeper recession. This can have a major impact on the vulnerable in society and the government should be mindful of this. At the same time, being too generous during a recession can lead to an unsustainable budget deficit which can also be detrimental to the economy in the long run. Therefore, a balance needs to be reached. If a country is in a weak position during a recession, there needs to be enough austerity so that the budget deficit can be reduced, but not so much that the recession becomes much worse. If the budget deficit is already high before the recession, austerity may be needed. Also, if austerity is needed during a recession, the impact on the vulnerable in society needs to be minimised as much as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Consensus View: In the opinion of the group, Austerity is not always the best policy to take during a recession. Austerity, which is reducing government spending during a recession, can have both positive and negative impacts. In a recession, the economy is weak, so cutting government spending can have a negative effect, leading to further job losses and a deeper recession. This can have a major impact on the vulnerable in society and the government should be mindful of this. At the same time, being too generous during a recession can lead to an unsustainable budget deficit which can also be detrimental to the economy in the long run. Therefore, a balance needs to be reached. If a country is in a weak position during a recession, there needs to be enough austerity so that the budget deficit can be reduced, but not so much that the recession becomes much worse. If the budget deficit is already high before the recession, austerity may be needed. Also, if austerity is needed during a recession, the impact on the vulnerable in society needs to be minimised as much as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is not always the best policy to take during a recession. Austerity, which is reducing government spending during a recession, can have both positive and negative impacts. In a recession, the economy is weak, so cutting government spending can have a negative effect, leading to further job losses and a deeper recession. This can have a major impact on the vulnerable in society and the government should be mindful of this. At the same time, being too generous during a recession can lead to an unsustainable budget deficit which can also be detrimental to the economy in the long run. Therefore, a balance needs to be reached. If a country is in a weak position during a recession, there needs to be enough austerity so that the budget deficit can be reduced, but not so much that the recession becomes much worse. If the budget deficit is already high before the recession, austerity may be needed. Also, if austerity is needed during a recession, the impact on the vulnerable in society needs to be minimised as much as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity is not always the best policy to take during a recession. In the opinion of the group, Austerity, which is reducing government spending during a recession, can have both positive and negative impacts. In a recession, the economy is weak, so cutting government spending can have a negative effect, leading to further job losses and a deeper recession. This can have a major impact on the vulnerable in society and the government should be mindful of this. At the same time, being too generous during a recession can lead to an unsustainable budget deficit which can also be detrimental to the economy in the long run. Therefore, a balance needs to be reached. If a country is in a weak position during a recession, there needs to be enough austerity so that the budget deficit can be reduced, but not so much that the recession becomes much worse. If the budget deficit is already high before the recession, austerity may be needed. Also, if austerity is needed during a recession, the impact on the vulnerable in society needs to be minimised as much as possible. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002186.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002186.soc index 675aa4e1..a3e0985f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002186.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002186.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No. MP's should not get a pay rise because they are paid enough already and in the current climate of the country, it is not appropriate for them to get one. It is also important to note that MP's are paid above average salaries and receive expenses and perks to support them both at the Commons and in their own constituency. However, a comment on attracting better quality candidates in future was added as follows: To do this, perhaps a review of their existing remuneration package is needed, with consideration of the relative performance of those who are in and applying for the role. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No. MP's should not get a pay rise because they are paid enough already and in the current climate of the country, it is not appropriate for them to get one. It is also important to note that MP's are paid above average salaries and receive expenses and perks to support them both at the Commons and in their own constituency. However, the issue of MPs' salaries cannot be addressed in isolation. There is a broader issue with the way that MPs are elected, and how the House of Commons works. The system of MPs being elected as representatives of local constituencies has led to a situation where the House of Commons has become very divided and disjointed. It needs to be more representative of the electorate as a whole. Also, there is an issue with the culture of the House of Commons, with a lot of bullying and general unprofessional behaviour. If the House of Commons is to function properly, then there needs to be some kind of professional standards and code of conduct. If this was done, then it would be easier to address the issue of salaries and the issue of attracting the best candidates for the job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No. MP's should not get a pay rise because they are paid enough already and in the current climate of the country, it is not appropriate for them to get one. It is also important to note that MP's are paid above average salaries and receive expenses and perks to support them both at the Commons and in their own constituency. However, we would like to see increased resources being made available to enable parliament to recruit a higher calibre of person. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. MP's should not get a pay rise because they are paid enough already and in the current climate of the country, it is not appropriate for them to get one. It is also important to note that MP's are paid above average salaries and receive expenses and perks to support them both at the Commons and in their own constituency. Additionally, we acknowledge that some groups in the public sector are paid higher salaries than MP's and that this is primarily a reflection of the skills or training needed for their job, which was sometimes not the case for MP's in the past. In order to attract a better quality of candidate, who can make the most of the learning and training opportunities provided, we believe that this needs to be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No. MP's should not get a pay rise because they are paid enough already and in the current climate of the country, it is not appropriate for them to get one. It is also important to note that MP's are paid above average salaries and receive expenses and perks to support them both at the Commons and in their own constituency. However, a comment on attracting better quality candidates in future was added as follows: To do this, perhaps a review of their existing remuneration package is needed, with consideration of the relative performance of those who are in and applying for the role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. MP's should not get a pay rise because they are paid enough already and in the current climate of the country, it is not appropriate for them to get one. It is also important to note that MP's are paid above average salaries and receive expenses and perks to support them both at the Commons and in their own constituency. However, the issue of MPs' salaries cannot be addressed in isolation. There is a broader issue with the way that MPs are elected, and how the House of Commons works. The system of MPs being elected as representatives of local constituencies has led to a situation where the House of Commons has become very divided and disjointed. It needs to be more representative of the electorate as a whole. Also, there is an issue with the culture of the House of Commons, with a lot of bullying and general unprofessional behaviour. If the House of Commons is to function properly, then there needs to be some kind of professional standards and code of conduct. If this was done, then it would be easier to address the issue of salaries and the issue of attracting the best candidates for the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No. MP's should not get a pay rise because they are paid enough already and in the current climate of the country, it is not appropriate for them to get one. It is also important to note that MP's are paid above average salaries and receive expenses and perks to support them both at the Commons and in their own constituency. However, we would like to see increased resources being made available to enable parliament to recruit a higher calibre of person. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. MP's should not get a pay rise because they are paid enough already and in the current climate of the country, it is not appropriate for them to get one. It is also important to note that MP's are paid above average salaries and receive expenses and perks to support them both at the Commons and in their own constituency. Additionally, we acknowledge that some groups in the public sector are paid higher salaries than MP's and that this is primarily a reflection of the skills or training needed for their job, which was sometimes not the case for MP's in the past. In order to attract a better quality of candidate, who can make the most of the learning and training opportunities provided, we believe that this needs to be addressed. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002187.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002187.soc index 50b0128d..87aa5c49 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002187.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002187.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should provide universal healthcare. However, there are some exceptions. For example, people who are not citizens of the UK should not be given free healthcare. Also, people who are very wealthy should be made to pay for some of their treatment, so that the government can use this money to help the poorest in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the UK government providing universal healthcare. The group felt that it was the government's duty to ensure that all people in the UK have access to healthcare, and that this should be provided for free. The group also felt that this was a moral obligation of the government, and that the government should prioritise this over other things. The group felt that the NHS needed a major overhaul, with staff being given pay rises, and with consultants' pay being capped. The group also felt that people from overseas should be made to pay for their healthcare, and that this should be means tested. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was thought that the government should provide universal healthcare. However, this should not be completely free to all, as this would cause problems. It was thought that the government should provide healthcare for all people, but a means tested system should be put in place to see what people could afford to pay. This would mean that people who can afford to pay a part of their treatment costs would do so, thus allowing more people to receive treatment. The money from these payments would go to funding the most disadvantaged in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide universal healthcare, but only for people who are british citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should provide universal healthcare. However, there are some exceptions. For example, people who are not citizens of the UK should not be given free healthcare. Also, people who are very wealthy should be made to pay for some of their treatment, so that the government can use this money to help the poorest in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the UK government providing universal healthcare. The group felt that it was the government's duty to ensure that all people in the UK have access to healthcare, and that this should be provided for free. The group also felt that this was a moral obligation of the government, and that the government should prioritise this over other things. The group felt that the NHS needed a major overhaul, with staff being given pay rises, and with consultants' pay being capped. The group also felt that people from overseas should be made to pay for their healthcare, and that this should be means tested. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was thought that the government should provide universal healthcare. However, this should not be completely free to all, as this would cause problems. It was thought that the government should provide healthcare for all people, but a means tested system should be put in place to see what people could afford to pay. This would mean that people who can afford to pay a part of their treatment costs would do so, thus allowing more people to receive treatment. The money from these payments would go to funding the most disadvantaged in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide universal healthcare, but only for people who are british citizens. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002188.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002188.soc index 7f4babe1..d63fe2e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002188.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002188.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Immigration is a net positive for a country’s economy. It brings in money for the economy at it means there will be a need for more consumption of goods which will boost the economy. It has a positive impact on the country’s economy as the immigrants add value to the country financially and strenthwise. It also fills up job vacancies which in turn provide more people with money that will be spent on goods and imports in the country, therefore boosting economy. However, it is important to note that immigration also has negative effects on the economy. It increases the costs in NHS costs, welfare payments, inflationary pressures which outweigh any positive effect on the economy. Therefore, it is important to ensure that immigration is controlled and that the immigrants who come into the country are vetted properly to ensure that they are not a threat to the economy or the country. This is why there should be a limit on the number of immigrants that are allowed into a country each year. There should also be a limit on the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter a country from each country. This will ensure that there is a balance between the positive and negative effects of immigration on a country’s economy.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although immigrants fill important jobs that would otherwise be unfilled, and contribute to the economy through taxes and the consumption of goods, this is outweighed by the cost of increased welfare and healthcare spending. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the overall positive economic effects of immigration outweigh the negatives. Immigration contributes to economic growth by increasing the size of the labour force, filling both high and low skill gaps. Immigrants often take on jobs that are essential to the economy such as in agriculture, hospitality and healthcare. Immigrants are also consumers which stimulates the economy and local business. It was also agreed that if immigration brings in money for the economy at it means there will be a need for more consumption of goods which will boost the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, immigration is a net positive for a country's economy. The extra expense in NHS costs, welfare payments, and inflationary pressures are outweighed by the positive effect on the economy. Immigrants fill up job vacancies which in turn provide more people with money that will be spent on goods and imports in the country, therefore boosting the economy. Immigrants also take on jobs that are essential to the economy such as in agriculture, hospitality and healthcare. Immigrants are also consumers which stimulates the economy and local business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Immigration is a net positive for a country’s economy. It brings in money for the economy at it means there will be a need for more consumption of goods which will boost the economy. It has a positive impact on the country’s economy as the immigrants add value to the country financially and strenthwise. It also fills up job vacancies which in turn provide more people with money that will be spent on goods and imports in the country, therefore boosting economy. However, it is important to note that immigration also has negative effects on the economy. It increases the costs in NHS costs, welfare payments, inflationary pressures which outweigh any positive effect on the economy. Therefore, it is important to ensure that immigration is controlled and that the immigrants who come into the country are vetted properly to ensure that they are not a threat to the economy or the country. This is why there should be a limit on the number of immigrants that are allowed into a country each year. There should also be a limit on the number of immigrants that are allowed to enter a country from each country. This will ensure that there is a balance between the positive and negative effects of immigration on a country’s economy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although immigrants fill important jobs that would otherwise be unfilled, and contribute to the economy through taxes and the consumption of goods, this is outweighed by the cost of increased welfare and healthcare spending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the overall positive economic effects of immigration outweigh the negatives. Immigration contributes to economic growth by increasing the size of the labour force, filling both high and low skill gaps. Immigrants often take on jobs that are essential to the economy such as in agriculture, hospitality and healthcare. Immigrants are also consumers which stimulates the economy and local business. It was also agreed that if immigration brings in money for the economy at it means there will be a need for more consumption of goods which will boost the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, immigration is a net positive for a country's economy. The extra expense in NHS costs, welfare payments, and inflationary pressures are outweighed by the positive effect on the economy. Immigrants fill up job vacancies which in turn provide more people with money that will be spent on goods and imports in the country, therefore boosting the economy. Immigrants also take on jobs that are essential to the economy such as in agriculture, hospitality and healthcare. Immigrants are also consumers which stimulates the economy and local business. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002189.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002189.soc index 5d971e97..212ba302 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002189.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002189.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are enough regulations to protect workers in the UK, but more could be done to improve their working conditions. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more could be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. However, more could be done to ensure that they are able to access childcare support and flexible working. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace. However, there are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While there is plenty of legislation in place to protect workers in the UK, in reality, the system is not perfect. There are many groups of workers in the UK that are vulnerable and we believe that more must be done to protect them. We are concerned about workers in the UK who have jobs with less than secure contracts, low pay, few or no benefits, no health insurance and who work for long hours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is not enough regulation to protect workers in the UK. More can be done to protect workers. Particular areas that need addressing include working conditions, zero-hours contracts and Uber-style "sharing" services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is enough regulation to protect workers in the UK. The health and safety of workers is well protected. However, there are some areas that need to be addressed. There are not enough regulations to protect working parents. Also, there is a lack of regulations to protect workers in the gig economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are enough regulations to protect workers in the UK, but more could be done to improve their working conditions. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more could be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. However, more could be done to ensure that they are able to access childcare support and flexible working. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace. However, there are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While there is plenty of legislation in place to protect workers in the UK, in reality, the system is not perfect. There are many groups of workers in the UK that are vulnerable and we believe that more must be done to protect them. We are concerned about workers in the UK who have jobs with less than secure contracts, low pay, few or no benefits, no health insurance and who work for long hours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is not enough regulation to protect workers in the UK. More can be done to protect workers. Particular areas that need addressing include working conditions, zero-hours contracts and Uber-style "sharing" services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is enough regulation to protect workers in the UK. The health and safety of workers is well protected. However, there are some areas that need to be addressed. There are not enough regulations to protect working parents. Also, there is a lack of regulations to protect workers in the gig economy. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002190.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002190.soc index 5c51faa1..aef3d2b7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002190.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002190.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of veganism, however, there was some contention as to whether it was better to be a vegan than an omnivore. The participants felt that veganism was a more moral and ethical way to live, however, they also felt that veganism was not necessarily the most nutritionally beneficial way to live. It was felt that there are some vegan products which are heavily processed and may not be as nutritionally beneficial as an omnivorous diet. The group also felt that veganism is not necessarily the most environmentally friendly way to live. It was felt that there are some vegan products which are flown or shipped across the world, which may have a negative impact on the environment. The group felt that there should be freedom of choice in terms of diet, however, there should be a mindful approach to the impact of diet on the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a freedom of choice in terms of diet. However, we must be mindful of the impact of our diet on the environment and other living creatures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is better to be vegan than omnivore because a vegan diet is more healthy, less environmentally harmful, and more morally right. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of an omnivorous diet but we all had different reasons why. A vegan diet can be nutritionally unbalanced due to lack of certain nutrients that only exist in animal products. We were not entirely sure whether a vegan diet is more environmentally sustainable due to a lot of research coming to different conclusions. The meat industry is a huge contributor to global warming, however the debate continues to be controversial due to the fact that veganism also requires energy and resources. I think that although I believe in personal choice, if everyone was to become vegan, I believe that this would be better for the environment and for health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of veganism, however, there was some contention as to whether it was better to be a vegan than an omnivore. The participants felt that veganism was a more moral and ethical way to live, however, they also felt that veganism was not necessarily the most nutritionally beneficial way to live. It was felt that there are some vegan products which are heavily processed and may not be as nutritionally beneficial as an omnivorous diet. The group also felt that veganism is not necessarily the most environmentally friendly way to live. It was felt that there are some vegan products which are flown or shipped across the world, which may have a negative impact on the environment. The group felt that there should be freedom of choice in terms of diet, however, there should be a mindful approach to the impact of diet on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a freedom of choice in terms of diet. However, we must be mindful of the impact of our diet on the environment and other living creatures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is better to be vegan than omnivore because a vegan diet is more healthy, less environmentally harmful, and more morally right. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of an omnivorous diet but we all had different reasons why. A vegan diet can be nutritionally unbalanced due to lack of certain nutrients that only exist in animal products. We were not entirely sure whether a vegan diet is more environmentally sustainable due to a lot of research coming to different conclusions. The meat industry is a huge contributor to global warming, however the debate continues to be controversial due to the fact that veganism also requires energy and resources. I think that although I believe in personal choice, if everyone was to become vegan, I believe that this would be better for the environment and for health. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002191.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002191.soc index 31f22ad5..deff296a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002191.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002191.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Equal value should be placed on teaching of history of our nation and other nations. While it is good to know our own history, this shouldn't be the only history that is taught. We can learn from other nation's histories and expand our view on the world, as it is fascinating to know about the successes and struggles of other cultures and also helps us to empathise with other nations. As humans we must be kind to one another for us all to live peacefully and we can learn most from history. It is also important to know about our own history and traditions so we can keep them alive, and if we learn about both we have more enriched lives with more varied cultures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the emphasis should not be placed on teaching the history and values of the nation, as opposed to the history and values of other nations. The history and values of other nations is just as important to know about. It is important to know about our own history and values, but it is also important to know about the history and values of other nations, so that we can all understand each other better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is important to learn about the history and values of your own nation, but you should also be taught about the history and values of other nations so that you are able to learn about other cultures and empathise with other nations. This will enable you to have a more diverse and well rounded education, and also learn from the past. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be equal emphasis on teaching the history and values of the nation, and the history and values of other nations. While it is important to know about the history and values of the nation, this should not be the only history that is taught. We can learn from other nation's histories and expand our view on the world, as it is fascinating to know about the successes and struggles of other cultures and also helps us to empathise with other nations. As humans we must be kind to one another for us all to live peacefully and we can learn most from history. It is also important to know about our own history and traditions so we can keep them alive, and if we learn about both we have more enriched lives with more varied cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Equal value should be placed on teaching of history of our nation and other nations. While it is good to know our own history, this shouldn't be the only history that is taught. We can learn from other nation's histories and expand our view on the world, as it is fascinating to know about the successes and struggles of other cultures and also helps us to empathise with other nations. As humans we must be kind to one another for us all to live peacefully and we can learn most from history. It is also important to know about our own history and traditions so we can keep them alive, and if we learn about both we have more enriched lives with more varied cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the emphasis should not be placed on teaching the history and values of the nation, as opposed to the history and values of other nations. The history and values of other nations is just as important to know about. It is important to know about our own history and values, but it is also important to know about the history and values of other nations, so that we can all understand each other better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is important to learn about the history and values of your own nation, but you should also be taught about the history and values of other nations so that you are able to learn about other cultures and empathise with other nations. This will enable you to have a more diverse and well rounded education, and also learn from the past. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be equal emphasis on teaching the history and values of the nation, and the history and values of other nations. While it is important to know about the history and values of the nation, this should not be the only history that is taught. We can learn from other nation's histories and expand our view on the world, as it is fascinating to know about the successes and struggles of other cultures and also helps us to empathise with other nations. As humans we must be kind to one another for us all to live peacefully and we can learn most from history. It is also important to know about our own history and traditions so we can keep them alive, and if we learn about both we have more enriched lives with more varied cultures. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002192.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002192.soc index 44a5d9ea..a479c686 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002192.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002192.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was thought that the government should provide universal healthcare. However, this should not be completely free to all, as this would cause problems. It was thought that the government should provide healthcare for all people, but a means tested system should be put in place to see what people could afford to pay. This would mean that people who can afford to pay a part of their treatment costs would do so, thus allowing more people to receive treatment. The money from these payments would go to funding the most disadvantaged in society. This would help to reduce healthcare inequalities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was thought that the government should provide universal healthcare. However, this should not be completely free to all, as this would cause problems. It was thought that the government should provide healthcare for all people, but a means tested system should be put in place to see what people could afford to pay. This would mean that people who can afford to pay a part of their treatment costs would do so, thus allowing more people to receive treatment. The money from these payments would go to funding the most disadvantaged in society. The questions was from johnDonnelly English -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should provide universal healthcare for all people, but a means tested system should be put in place to see what people could afford to pay. This would mean that people who can afford to pay a part of their treatment costs would do so, thus allowing more people to receive treatment. The money from these payments would go to funding the most disadvantaged in society. This would mean that healthcare would be provided for all, but a large majority of the population would be paying for at least a part of their treatment, thus making the whole system more sustainable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in agreement that universal healthcare is important to have as this ensures that all people can access healthcare. It was decided that universal healthcare should not be completely free, as this is not sustainable, but that there should be a means tested system put into place. This would mean that the people who can afford to pay could do so, allowing the poorest in society to be funded by the wealthiest. The group discussed a few ideas about what the means tested system would look like. The group debated that a tiered pricing system could work, whereby different tiers would pay different amounts. This was agreed to be a good idea as it would make the most of everyone's ability to pay, and would allow health services to be more flexible. Therefore, the government should put into place universal healthcare for all citizens, but there should be a means tested system for those who can afford to pay for a part of their treatment costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was thought that the government should provide universal healthcare. However, this should not be completely free to all, as this would cause problems. It was thought that the government should provide healthcare for all people, but a means tested system should be put in place to see what people could afford to pay. This would mean that people who can afford to pay a part of their treatment costs would do so, thus allowing more people to receive treatment. The money from these payments would go to funding the most disadvantaged in society. This would help to reduce healthcare inequalities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was thought that the government should provide universal healthcare. However, this should not be completely free to all, as this would cause problems. It was thought that the government should provide healthcare for all people, but a means tested system should be put in place to see what people could afford to pay. This would mean that people who can afford to pay a part of their treatment costs would do so, thus allowing more people to receive treatment. The money from these payments would go to funding the most disadvantaged in society. The questions was from johnDonnelly English +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should provide universal healthcare for all people, but a means tested system should be put in place to see what people could afford to pay. This would mean that people who can afford to pay a part of their treatment costs would do so, thus allowing more people to receive treatment. The money from these payments would go to funding the most disadvantaged in society. This would mean that healthcare would be provided for all, but a large majority of the population would be paying for at least a part of their treatment, thus making the whole system more sustainable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in agreement that universal healthcare is important to have as this ensures that all people can access healthcare. It was decided that universal healthcare should not be completely free, as this is not sustainable, but that there should be a means tested system put into place. This would mean that the people who can afford to pay could do so, allowing the poorest in society to be funded by the wealthiest. The group discussed a few ideas about what the means tested system would look like. The group debated that a tiered pricing system could work, whereby different tiers would pay different amounts. This was agreed to be a good idea as it would make the most of everyone's ability to pay, and would allow health services to be more flexible. Therefore, the government should put into place universal healthcare for all citizens, but there should be a means tested system for those who can afford to pay for a part of their treatment costs. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002193.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002193.soc index 52501141..42226dc5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002193.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002193.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are enough regulations to protect workers in the UK, but more could be done to improve their working conditions. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more could be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. However, more could be done to ensure that they are able to access childcare support and flexible working. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace. However, there are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are enough regulations to protect workers in the UK, but more could be done to improve their working conditions. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more could be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. However, more could be done to ensure that they are able to access childcare support and flexible working. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace. However, there are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK has made progress in protecting the health and safety of workers, their employment rights and benefits. However, there are areas for improvement, particularly in relation to zero-hours contracts and in the "gig" economy. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more should be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace. There are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are enough regulations to protect workers in the UK, but not all workers have the same access to these regulations and others, such as those in the gig economy, are not covered by these regulations. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more could be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are not enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace, but there are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are enough regulations to protect workers in the UK, but more could be done to improve their working conditions. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more could be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. However, more could be done to ensure that they are able to access childcare support and flexible working. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace. However, there are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are enough regulations to protect workers in the UK, but more could be done to improve their working conditions. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more could be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. However, more could be done to ensure that they are able to access childcare support and flexible working. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace. However, there are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK has made progress in protecting the health and safety of workers, their employment rights and benefits. However, there are areas for improvement, particularly in relation to zero-hours contracts and in the "gig" economy. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more should be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace. There are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are enough regulations to protect workers in the UK, but not all workers have the same access to these regulations and others, such as those in the gig economy, are not covered by these regulations. The working conditions of some workers is not ideal and more could be done to protect their health and wellbeing. There are not enough regulations in place to protect working parents and support their needs. There are enough regulations in place to protect workers from harm within the workplace, but there are not enough regulations in place to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that they are paid a fair wage for the work that they do. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002194.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002194.soc index 0fa99fe5..ed5c22eb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002194.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002194.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. This is because guns can easily be taken from homes and used in other places like schools, where they can harm many innocent people. Also, many people have died in their own homes due to accidental gun discharge and targeted gun incidents. There is nothing that can justify owning and keeping guns in the home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. This is because there are more ways of protecting your home other than owning and keeping guns in the home. Guns will easily find their way into the hands of teenagers who will then use it in school shootings, and in a break-up scenario one partner might use it to harm the other. As such, owning and keeping guns in the home is not a good idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. We live in a society where we have laws and rules and if we break them there are consequences. If people are allowed to own guns in their homes, this will lead to more deaths, more school shootings and more terrorist attacks. The only people that should be allowed to own guns are the police and the army. If people are living in dangerous situations a gun might offer them protection and make them feel safer. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group felt that people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. This is because of the danger that the guns will be taken out of the house and used in other places and incidents that will lead to serious injury or death. It was suggested that gun ownership should be strictly controlled and owners should be very heavily vetted. The group discussed what would happen if the police were to remove guns from homes, and it was felt that it would lead to violent uprising from the people who own guns, as it has done in the US. However, it was also felt that the US have more shootings and deaths than in the UK and so this is a reason why gun ownership should be strictly controlled and reduced, not increased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. This is because guns can easily be taken from homes and used in other places like schools, where they can harm many innocent people. Also, many people have died in their own homes due to accidental gun discharge and targeted gun incidents. There is nothing that can justify owning and keeping guns in the home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. This is because there are more ways of protecting your home other than owning and keeping guns in the home. Guns will easily find their way into the hands of teenagers who will then use it in school shootings, and in a break-up scenario one partner might use it to harm the other. As such, owning and keeping guns in the home is not a good idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. We live in a society where we have laws and rules and if we break them there are consequences. If people are allowed to own guns in their homes, this will lead to more deaths, more school shootings and more terrorist attacks. The only people that should be allowed to own guns are the police and the army. If people are living in dangerous situations a gun might offer them protection and make them feel safer. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group felt that people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. This is because of the danger that the guns will be taken out of the house and used in other places and incidents that will lead to serious injury or death. It was suggested that gun ownership should be strictly controlled and owners should be very heavily vetted. The group discussed what would happen if the police were to remove guns from homes, and it was felt that it would lead to violent uprising from the people who own guns, as it has done in the US. However, it was also felt that the US have more shootings and deaths than in the UK and so this is a reason why gun ownership should be strictly controlled and reduced, not increased. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002195.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002195.soc index ea0733ff..87a87133 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002195.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002195.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The house of lords is a good idea in theory. It provides checks and balances on the government and ensures that legislation is not rushed through parliament. However, the current make-up of the house of lords is undemocratic. It should be elected by the people and not appointed by the government. The current system is open to abuse by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of having a second chamber is a good idea. It is important to have a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that the government is held accountable for its actions. However, it is important that this second chamber is elected by the people, and is not made up of unelected members. This is because the unelected members will have their own personal interests at heart, rather than the interests of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The House of Lords should be reformed so that it consists of a democratically elected second chamber, and the powers of this chamber should be reformed so that they cannot block, but only delay, legislation. The group were able to discuss the pros and cons of each person's view, and come to a decision that everyone in the group could agree on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The House of Lords has a number of advantages in the UK. It gives an opportunity for people who are not politicians to enter the political world. It provides a counter-balance to the House of Commons and acts as a way of checking the powers of the Government. However, the way the House of Lords currently works needs to be overhauled. The members should be elected by the public, rather than being appointed by the Government of the day, in order to reflect the will of the people. It is not necessarily the structure of the House of Lords which is the problem but rather how it is currently used and how it is composed. It needs to be improved to reflect the values of the people it represents and is intended to represent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The house of lords is a good idea in theory. It provides checks and balances on the government and ensures that legislation is not rushed through parliament. However, the current make-up of the house of lords is undemocratic. It should be elected by the people and not appointed by the government. The current system is open to abuse by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of having a second chamber is a good idea. It is important to have a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that the government is held accountable for its actions. However, it is important that this second chamber is elected by the people, and is not made up of unelected members. This is because the unelected members will have their own personal interests at heart, rather than the interests of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The House of Lords should be reformed so that it consists of a democratically elected second chamber, and the powers of this chamber should be reformed so that they cannot block, but only delay, legislation. The group were able to discuss the pros and cons of each person's view, and come to a decision that everyone in the group could agree on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The House of Lords has a number of advantages in the UK. It gives an opportunity for people who are not politicians to enter the political world. It provides a counter-balance to the House of Commons and acts as a way of checking the powers of the Government. However, the way the House of Lords currently works needs to be overhauled. The members should be elected by the public, rather than being appointed by the Government of the day, in order to reflect the will of the people. It is not necessarily the structure of the House of Lords which is the problem but rather how it is currently used and how it is composed. It needs to be improved to reflect the values of the people it represents and is intended to represent. 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002196.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002196.soc index d9b9171d..4c5c7818 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002196.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002196.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we shouldn't. As they should be paid via working peoples taxes. People who earn more, should pay more towards it, I think this way would be the most fair way to do it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Paying for prescriptions should be reduced for everyone. People on benefits should not have to pay for their prescriptions. People who are in work should pay for their prescriptions but there should be a reduction for these people too. People over 60 should also pay for their prescriptions but again, there should be a reduction in the price for these people. The groups who do not have to pay for prescriptions are those on low incomes, and those who receive benefits. They should not have to pay for their prescriptions because they will struggle to pay the costs, as they do not earn much, or nothing at all. This is not fair. There should be a set charge for prescriptions. This will mean that everyone who has to pay for their prescriptions will pay the same price. The price will be lower than it is now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe that NHS prescriptions should be free for all. I believe this because people need to be able to go to their GP without worrying about the cost. If they have to pay, they will not go and their health will worsen. The NHS is there to help people and make them better. If they have to pay, they will not get the help they need and will not get better. If people are in work, they will be paying NI, therefore they should be able to get free prescriptions. If they are not working, they will be claiming benefits and will be able to get free prescriptions. I think it is unfair that some people have to pay and some do not. It is not the patients fault if they are ill and they should not have to pay to get better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We don’t believe we should have to pay for prescriptions, as they are a necessary part of our healthcare, and there are people who cannot afford it. There should be a charge, but it should be very low. This will hopefully reduce the NHS costs, and help the people that need help, who cannot afford the charge. People with low incomes and long term health conditions should have free prescriptions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we shouldn't. As they should be paid via working peoples taxes. People who earn more, should pay more towards it, I think this way would be the most fair way to do it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Paying for prescriptions should be reduced for everyone. People on benefits should not have to pay for their prescriptions. People who are in work should pay for their prescriptions but there should be a reduction for these people too. People over 60 should also pay for their prescriptions but again, there should be a reduction in the price for these people. The groups who do not have to pay for prescriptions are those on low incomes, and those who receive benefits. They should not have to pay for their prescriptions because they will struggle to pay the costs, as they do not earn much, or nothing at all. This is not fair. There should be a set charge for prescriptions. This will mean that everyone who has to pay for their prescriptions will pay the same price. The price will be lower than it is now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe that NHS prescriptions should be free for all. I believe this because people need to be able to go to their GP without worrying about the cost. If they have to pay, they will not go and their health will worsen. The NHS is there to help people and make them better. If they have to pay, they will not get the help they need and will not get better. If people are in work, they will be paying NI, therefore they should be able to get free prescriptions. If they are not working, they will be claiming benefits and will be able to get free prescriptions. I think it is unfair that some people have to pay and some do not. It is not the patients fault if they are ill and they should not have to pay to get better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We don’t believe we should have to pay for prescriptions, as they are a necessary part of our healthcare, and there are people who cannot afford it. There should be a charge, but it should be very low. This will hopefully reduce the NHS costs, and help the people that need help, who cannot afford the charge. People with low incomes and long term health conditions should have free prescriptions. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002197.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002197.soc index 2dd48f0e..544cd028 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002197.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002197.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. We live in a society where we have laws and rules and if we break them there are consequences. If people are allowed to own guns in their homes, this will lead to more deaths, more school shootings and more terrorist attacks. The only people that should be allowed to own guns are the police and the army. If people are living in dangerous situations a gun might offer them protection and make them feel safer. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. We live in a society where we have laws and rules which have consequences if broken and keep us safe. If people are allowed to own guns within the home this will lead to more deaths and an increase in incidents like school shootings/mass attacks. Police are even limited to who carry a fire weapon and have to undergo extensive training to do so, general on beat officers carry other weapons instead of guns to minimise the fatality guns can bring. There are plenty of other ways to protect your home and person other than guns. Teenagers taking their parents guns to uphold social status, jealous ex partners, mentally unstable individuals and so on will always be there but a gun is a quick fire way to kill someone and the consequences often fatal. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. We live in a society where we have laws and rules which have consequences if broken and keep us safe. If people are allowed to own guns within the home this will lead to more deaths and an increase in incidents like school shootings/mass attacks. Police are even limited to who carry a fire weapon and have to undergo extensive training to do so, general on beat officers carry other weapons instead of guns to minimise the fatality guns can bring. There are plenty of other ways to protect your home and person other than guns. The risk of teenagers getting hands on them from the home is scarily high, and revenge shootings also. The only people that should be allowed to own guns are the police and the army. If people are living in dangerous situations a gun might offer them protection and make them feel safer. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. In America, this has led to innocent people being shot if the home owner thought they were entering their home illegally or posed a threat when they didn't. The guns can also be taken from their homes and used in school shootings ect. However, we understand that if people are living in dangerous situations a gun might offer them protection and make them feel safer. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. We live in a society where we have laws and rules and if we break them there are consequences. If people are allowed to own guns in their homes, this will lead to more deaths, more school shootings and more terrorist attacks. The only people that should be allowed to own guns are the police and the army. If people are living in dangerous situations a gun might offer them protection and make them feel safer. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. We live in a society where we have laws and rules which have consequences if broken and keep us safe. If people are allowed to own guns within the home this will lead to more deaths and an increase in incidents like school shootings/mass attacks. Police are even limited to who carry a fire weapon and have to undergo extensive training to do so, general on beat officers carry other weapons instead of guns to minimise the fatality guns can bring. There are plenty of other ways to protect your home and person other than guns. Teenagers taking their parents guns to uphold social status, jealous ex partners, mentally unstable individuals and so on will always be there but a gun is a quick fire way to kill someone and the consequences often fatal. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. We live in a society where we have laws and rules which have consequences if broken and keep us safe. If people are allowed to own guns within the home this will lead to more deaths and an increase in incidents like school shootings/mass attacks. Police are even limited to who carry a fire weapon and have to undergo extensive training to do so, general on beat officers carry other weapons instead of guns to minimise the fatality guns can bring. There are plenty of other ways to protect your home and person other than guns. The risk of teenagers getting hands on them from the home is scarily high, and revenge shootings also. The only people that should be allowed to own guns are the police and the army. If people are living in dangerous situations a gun might offer them protection and make them feel safer. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, people should not be allowed to own and keep guns in their homes. In America, this has led to innocent people being shot if the home owner thought they were entering their home illegally or posed a threat when they didn't. The guns can also be taken from their homes and used in school shootings ect. However, we understand that if people are living in dangerous situations a gun might offer them protection and make them feel safer. There should be other ways for protection though, not guns. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002198.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002198.soc index d5738667..972e3554 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002198.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002198.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The House of Lords is an important part of the British political system. It provides checks and balances for the House of Commons. However, it is not representative of the people and is largely filled with people who have been appointed by the Government of the day. This means that they are biased towards the party that appointed them and are not able to act as a fair counterbalance. The House of Lords needs to be made representative of the people. This can be achieved by allowing the people to elect the members of the House of Lords, rather than them being appointed by the Government. This will ensure that the people are able to hold the Government to account and that their views are represented. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The House of Lords has a number of advantages in the UK. It gives an opportunity for people who are not politicians to enter the political world. It provides a counter-balance to the House of Commons and acts as a way of checking the powers of the Government. However, the way the House of Lords currently works needs to be overhauled. The members should be elected by the public, rather than being appointed by the Government of the day, in order to reflect the will of the people. It is not necessarily the structure of the House of Lords which is the problem but rather how it is currently used and how it is composed. It needs to be improved to reflect the values of the people it represents and is intended to represent. The actual fact of the question may seem trivial to non-British citizens but the principles which it deals with, namely the importance of checks and balances within a system, the importance of preventing authoritarianism, the importance of the will of the people, and the value of elections, are important for any democracy to thrive. The debate around the question, the reaching of a consensus view, the critiques, and the final statement, highlight many of the points which have been discussed in this essay, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The House of Lords has a number of advantages in the UK. It gives an opportunity for people who are not politicians to enter the political world. It provides a counter-balance to the House of Commons and acts as a way of checking the powers of the Government. However, the way the House of Lords currently works needs to be overhauled. The members should be elected by the public, rather than being appointed by the Government of the day, in order to reflect the will of the people. It is not necessarily the structure of the House of Lords which is the problem but rather how it is currently used and how it is composed. It needs to be improved to reflect the values of the people it represents and is intended to represent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The House of Lords has a number of advantages in the UK. It gives an opportunity for people who are not politicians to enter the political world. It provides a counter-balance to the House of Commons and acts as a way of checking the powers of the Government. However, the way the House of Lords currently works needs to be overhauled. The members should be democratically elected and, more specifically, they should be democratically elected by the public rather than by Parliament (however that is constituted). It is only through this process that the views of the people will be represented in the House of Lords. It is not necessarily the structure of the House of Lords which is the problem but rather how it is currently used and how it is composed. It needs to be improved to reflect the values of the people it represents and is intended to represent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The House of Lords is an important part of the British political system. It provides checks and balances for the House of Commons. However, it is not representative of the people and is largely filled with people who have been appointed by the Government of the day. This means that they are biased towards the party that appointed them and are not able to act as a fair counterbalance. The House of Lords needs to be made representative of the people. This can be achieved by allowing the people to elect the members of the House of Lords, rather than them being appointed by the Government. This will ensure that the people are able to hold the Government to account and that their views are represented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The House of Lords has a number of advantages in the UK. It gives an opportunity for people who are not politicians to enter the political world. It provides a counter-balance to the House of Commons and acts as a way of checking the powers of the Government. However, the way the House of Lords currently works needs to be overhauled. The members should be elected by the public, rather than being appointed by the Government of the day, in order to reflect the will of the people. It is not necessarily the structure of the House of Lords which is the problem but rather how it is currently used and how it is composed. It needs to be improved to reflect the values of the people it represents and is intended to represent. The actual fact of the question may seem trivial to non-British citizens but the principles which it deals with, namely the importance of checks and balances within a system, the importance of preventing authoritarianism, the importance of the will of the people, and the value of elections, are important for any democracy to thrive. The debate around the question, the reaching of a consensus view, the critiques, and the final statement, highlight many of the points which have been discussed in this essay, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The House of Lords has a number of advantages in the UK. It gives an opportunity for people who are not politicians to enter the political world. It provides a counter-balance to the House of Commons and acts as a way of checking the powers of the Government. However, the way the House of Lords currently works needs to be overhauled. The members should be elected by the public, rather than being appointed by the Government of the day, in order to reflect the will of the people. It is not necessarily the structure of the House of Lords which is the problem but rather how it is currently used and how it is composed. It needs to be improved to reflect the values of the people it represents and is intended to represent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The House of Lords has a number of advantages in the UK. It gives an opportunity for people who are not politicians to enter the political world. It provides a counter-balance to the House of Commons and acts as a way of checking the powers of the Government. However, the way the House of Lords currently works needs to be overhauled. The members should be democratically elected and, more specifically, they should be democratically elected by the public rather than by Parliament (however that is constituted). It is only through this process that the views of the people will be represented in the House of Lords. It is not necessarily the structure of the House of Lords which is the problem but rather how it is currently used and how it is composed. It needs to be improved to reflect the values of the people it represents and is intended to represent. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002199.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002199.soc index 927eff41..12aac096 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002199.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002199.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that NHS prescriptions should be free for all. I believe this because people need to be able to go to their GP without worrying about the cost. If they have to pay, they will not go and their health will worsen. The NHS is there to help people and make them better. If they have to pay, they will not get the help they need and will not get better. If people are in work, they will be paying NI, therefore they should be able to get free prescriptions. If they are not working, they will be claiming benefits and will be able to get free prescriptions. I think it is unfair that some people have to pay and some do not. It is not the patients fault if they are ill and they should not have to pay to get better. I think the current system is good. Free for those that are on benefits, free for those over 60, and the people in work have to pay. If everyone had to pay, this would stop people going to the doctors for minor illnesses and put more pressure on the NHS.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: FINAL CONCLUSION: “We should not have to pay for NHS prescriptions for the following reasons: A study by the NHS in July showed that 1.6m prescriptions were not filled each year, and over the next few years, 121,000 deaths and 91,000 heart attacks could be avoided. It goes to show, that if people have to pay for their prescriptions, they will not be able to afford it and their health will go downhill. This means they will not be able to work and will not have to pay NI. If they are on benefits, they are already paying for their prescriptions. People need to be able to see their GP without worrying about the cost of the medication that they might need. If we have to pay for our prescriptions, we will not go to the GP, no matter how ill we are and our health will deteriorate. It is not fair that some have to pay and some do not. It is not our fault that we are ill and if we are ill, we should be able to get better without worrying about costs.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that NHS prescriptions should be free for all. I believe this because people need to be able to go to their GP without worrying about the cost. If they have to pay, they will not go and their health will worsen. The NHS is there to help people and make them better. If they have to pay, they will not get the help they need and will not get better. If people are in work, they will be paying NI, therefore they should be able to get free prescriptions. If they are not working, they will be claiming benefits and will be able to get free prescriptions. I think it is unfair that some people have to pay and some do not. It is not the patients fault if they are ill and they should not have to pay to get better.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that NHS prescriptions should be free for all. I believe this because people need to be able to go to their GP without worrying about the cost. If they have to pay, they will not go and their health will worsen. The NHS is there to help people and make them better. If they have to pay, they will not get the help they need and will not get better. If people are in work, they will be paying NI, therefore they should be able to get free prescriptions. If they are not working, they will be claiming benefits and will be able to get free prescriptions. I think it is unfair that some people have to pay and some do not. It is not the patients fault if they are ill and they should not have to pay to get better. I think the current system is good. Free for those that are on benefits, free for those over 60, and the people in work have to pay. If everyone had to pay, this would stop people going to the doctors for minor illnesses and put more pressure on the NHS.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - FINAL CONCLUSION: “We should not have to pay for NHS prescriptions for the following reasons: A study by the NHS in July showed that 1.6m prescriptions were not filled each year, and over the next few years, 121,000 deaths and 91,000 heart attacks could be avoided. It goes to show, that if people have to pay for their prescriptions, they will not be able to afford it and their health will go downhill. This means they will not be able to work and will not have to pay NI. If they are on benefits, they are already paying for their prescriptions. People need to be able to see their GP without worrying about the cost of the medication that they might need. If we have to pay for our prescriptions, we will not go to the GP, no matter how ill we are and our health will deteriorate. It is not fair that some have to pay and some do not. It is not our fault that we are ill and if we are ill, we should be able to get better without worrying about costs.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that NHS prescriptions should be free for all. I believe this because people need to be able to go to their GP without worrying about the cost. If they have to pay, they will not go and their health will worsen. The NHS is there to help people and make them better. If they have to pay, they will not get the help they need and will not get better. If people are in work, they will be paying NI, therefore they should be able to get free prescriptions. If they are not working, they will be claiming benefits and will be able to get free prescriptions. I think it is unfair that some people have to pay and some do not. It is not the patients fault if they are ill and they should not have to pay to get better.” 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002200.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002200.soc index a78d9c28..95857c45 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002200.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002200.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. However, they should be allowed to do so only if they have the right skills, they understand what it means to be self-employed and they have a really good idea and/or business plan that is going to work. It should also be the case that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old if they have a good entrepreneurial idea, and if they have the advice and guidance to be successful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old, but only if they have the right skills, knowledge and support to succeed in their chosen venture. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. The age of 16 is a legal age to work and therefore should be treated equally to other jobs. It is a good idea for people to be self-employed at 16 as it will help them in the future and they will have the skills to be self-employed. The age of 16 is also a good age to be self-employed as it is the age when most people finish school and therefore will have more time to be self-employed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. However, they should be allowed to do so only if they have the right skills, they understand what it means to be self-employed and they have a really good idea and/or business plan that is going to work. It should also be the case that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old if they have a good entrepreneurial idea, and if they have the advice and guidance to be successful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old, but only if they have the right skills, knowledge and support to succeed in their chosen venture. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. The age of 16 is a legal age to work and therefore should be treated equally to other jobs. It is a good idea for people to be self-employed at 16 as it will help them in the future and they will have the skills to be self-employed. The age of 16 is also a good age to be self-employed as it is the age when most people finish school and therefore will have more time to be self-employed. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002201.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002201.soc index 8859e2d9..518085de 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002201.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002201.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making private medical insurance compulsory. This was because the group felt that it was important for everyone to have access to free healthcare and that making private medical insurance compulsory would create a two-tier system. However, the group did feel that it would be appropriate to make private medical insurance compulsory for people who choose to participate in dangerous activities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making private medical insurance compulsory. The reasons for this included the fact that the NHS is a publicly funded service which should be available to all and that private medical insurance would create a two-tier system where the rich would receive better treatment than the poor. The group was also concerned that making private medical insurance compulsory would lead to the NHS being further underfunded and would lead to a decline in the quality of care. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group believes that it should not be compulsory for people to have private medical insurance. This is because the NHS should be able to provide the necessary services required and if it is failing to do so it should be reformed or receive more funding. Compulsory private medical insurance would unfairly disadvantage the poor who may not be able to afford it. It could lead to poorer quality healthcare for people who cannot afford insurance and, if the NHS does not receive the necessary funding to function properly, then this would only worsen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have a choice about whether or not to have private medical insurance. Some people will be able to afford the insurance and others will not. If people choose not to have private medical insurance they should still be able to get medical care but will have to wait in a queue to receive it. The health service will not be able to meet the needs of all patients all of the time. This means that a two-tier health service will be created, and those who can afford to will get faster, better treatment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making private medical insurance compulsory. This was because the group felt that it was important for everyone to have access to free healthcare and that making private medical insurance compulsory would create a two-tier system. However, the group did feel that it would be appropriate to make private medical insurance compulsory for people who choose to participate in dangerous activities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making private medical insurance compulsory. The reasons for this included the fact that the NHS is a publicly funded service which should be available to all and that private medical insurance would create a two-tier system where the rich would receive better treatment than the poor. The group was also concerned that making private medical insurance compulsory would lead to the NHS being further underfunded and would lead to a decline in the quality of care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group believes that it should not be compulsory for people to have private medical insurance. This is because the NHS should be able to provide the necessary services required and if it is failing to do so it should be reformed or receive more funding. Compulsory private medical insurance would unfairly disadvantage the poor who may not be able to afford it. It could lead to poorer quality healthcare for people who cannot afford insurance and, if the NHS does not receive the necessary funding to function properly, then this would only worsen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have a choice about whether or not to have private medical insurance. Some people will be able to afford the insurance and others will not. If people choose not to have private medical insurance they should still be able to get medical care but will have to wait in a queue to receive it. The health service will not be able to meet the needs of all patients all of the time. This means that a two-tier health service will be created, and those who can afford to will get faster, better treatment. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002202.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002202.soc index 3e447298..bf5545b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002202.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002202.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: MPs should not get a pay rise. The role of an MP is to represent the people who elected them and to make decisions that are in the best interests of the country. The current system is not working and many MPs are making decisions that are in their own best interests and not in the best interests of the country. They are also not held accountable for their actions and decisions, which is why many of them are still in their jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: MPs should not receive a pay rise. They should not receive a pay rise because they don't do the job they are being paid to do and they often act in a way that is not in the best interest of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the current system of MPs is broken. The current system of MPs being paid more than similar professions is a problem. In general, MPs should not get a pay rise. MPs should be paid the correct amount for the work that they do. MPs should be paid the correct amount for the work that they do, however, they should not be paid more than similar professions. MPs should be paid the correct amount for the work that they do, however, they should not be paid more than similar professions, and they should be held accountable when profiting from some of the decisions they make in doing their jobs and opportunities that are presented to them because of the influence they have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While it is important that individuals are paid fairly for the work that they do, it is also important that they act in the interest of the wider population and in the interests of the country. When these interests align, then it is appropriate that individuals are paid a fair rate. However, the political landscape in the UK is increasingly divided and it is not clear that MPs are acting in the interest of the population. Rather, they are being paid to make decisions in their own interest and in the interest of the wealthiest individuals. While it is easy to blame the Prime Minister for the current state of affairs, he is simply acting in his own interest and with the backing of the party, the MPs that he is responsible for. If the majority of the population were unhappy with the behaviour of MPs, then there is a democratic solution. The MPs would not get re-elected. However, at the moment, this is not the case and MPs are making decisions and being paid to make decisions that are not in the interest of the wider population. This is not acceptable and for this reason, MPs should not get a pay rise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - MPs should not get a pay rise. The role of an MP is to represent the people who elected them and to make decisions that are in the best interests of the country. The current system is not working and many MPs are making decisions that are in their own best interests and not in the best interests of the country. They are also not held accountable for their actions and decisions, which is why many of them are still in their jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - MPs should not receive a pay rise. They should not receive a pay rise because they don't do the job they are being paid to do and they often act in a way that is not in the best interest of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the current system of MPs is broken. The current system of MPs being paid more than similar professions is a problem. In general, MPs should not get a pay rise. MPs should be paid the correct amount for the work that they do. MPs should be paid the correct amount for the work that they do, however, they should not be paid more than similar professions. MPs should be paid the correct amount for the work that they do, however, they should not be paid more than similar professions, and they should be held accountable when profiting from some of the decisions they make in doing their jobs and opportunities that are presented to them because of the influence they have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While it is important that individuals are paid fairly for the work that they do, it is also important that they act in the interest of the wider population and in the interests of the country. When these interests align, then it is appropriate that individuals are paid a fair rate. However, the political landscape in the UK is increasingly divided and it is not clear that MPs are acting in the interest of the population. Rather, they are being paid to make decisions in their own interest and in the interest of the wealthiest individuals. While it is easy to blame the Prime Minister for the current state of affairs, he is simply acting in his own interest and with the backing of the party, the MPs that he is responsible for. If the majority of the population were unhappy with the behaviour of MPs, then there is a democratic solution. The MPs would not get re-elected. However, at the moment, this is not the case and MPs are making decisions and being paid to make decisions that are not in the interest of the wider population. This is not acceptable and for this reason, MPs should not get a pay rise. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002203.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002203.soc index ec09c649..76466a70 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002203.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002203.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “No, I don’t think people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. I think that guns should only be held by those who are trained to use them in the correct way and who have a valid reason for owning a gun. I think that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership and licensing to own guns. I think this is because I think that guns can be dangerous, and in the wrong hands can be extremely harmful to society. There are a lot of incidents in America where people have been shot in mass shootings, as well as shootings by police, who also own guns. This suggests to me that it can be very dangerous to own guns, and we should have strict regulations in place to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, or cause unnecessary deaths.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be allowed to own as many guns as they want. This is because guns are a dangerous weapon and if they fall into the wrong hands, they can cause significant harm. Guns should only be with authoritive figures and they are only there to be used as a protective measure. General public should not have access to guns as it is dangerous. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be allowed to own as many guns as they want. This is because there is a significant risk to public safety. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people owning as many guns as they want. It was felt that this would lead to a proliferation of guns in society, which would increase the risk of gun crime and accidental shootings. It was also felt that there is a need to control gun ownership, as they are a very dangerous weapon, that can cause significant harm if they come into contact with the wrong person. It was felt that gun ownership should be heavily regulated, and people should only be allowed to have as many guns as they need for a specific purpose. The group was in favour of the idea that people should be allowed to own guns for the purposes of hunting, as this is a legitimate reason for gun ownership. However, it was felt that people should go through extensive background and mental health checks so that they can be cleared of owning guns. It was also felt that people who own guns should be regularly monitored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “No, I don’t think people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. I think that guns should only be held by those who are trained to use them in the correct way and who have a valid reason for owning a gun. I think that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership and licensing to own guns. I think this is because I think that guns can be dangerous, and in the wrong hands can be extremely harmful to society. There are a lot of incidents in America where people have been shot in mass shootings, as well as shootings by police, who also own guns. This suggests to me that it can be very dangerous to own guns, and we should have strict regulations in place to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, or cause unnecessary deaths.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be allowed to own as many guns as they want. This is because guns are a dangerous weapon and if they fall into the wrong hands, they can cause significant harm. Guns should only be with authoritive figures and they are only there to be used as a protective measure. General public should not have access to guns as it is dangerous. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be allowed to own as many guns as they want. This is because there is a significant risk to public safety. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of people owning as many guns as they want. It was felt that this would lead to a proliferation of guns in society, which would increase the risk of gun crime and accidental shootings. It was also felt that there is a need to control gun ownership, as they are a very dangerous weapon, that can cause significant harm if they come into contact with the wrong person. It was felt that gun ownership should be heavily regulated, and people should only be allowed to have as many guns as they need for a specific purpose. The group was in favour of the idea that people should be allowed to own guns for the purposes of hunting, as this is a legitimate reason for gun ownership. However, it was felt that people should go through extensive background and mental health checks so that they can be cleared of owning guns. It was also felt that people who own guns should be regularly monitored. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002204.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002204.soc index 7d8051c4..d91faa7c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002204.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002204.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The group felt that it is the responsibility of the individual to monitor and limit their own use of these products. Although there are very obvious harms both to individuals and wider society associated with both tobacco and alcohol, the group believed that attempts to control its use are more effective through education and other means, rather than prohibition. The group felt that prohibition has been tried previously and has been unsuccessful, instead pushing its consumption underground without regulation and protections. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Tobacco and Alcohol should not be banned. The health consequences of these products should be made more widely known, but ultimately it should be the decision of the individual. Banning these products would push their use underground, increase prices and would be unsuccessful. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the sale of tobacco and alcohol should be controlled but not banned. This is because there are obvious harms associated with both products but we feel that it should be up to the individual to monitor and limit their own use. In addition, there have been many efforts to reduce the use of tobacco products but we feel the best way is to promote the "stop smoking" message. Certain types of alcohol, particularly those targeted at younger people should be regulated. However we feel it would be wrong to lump everyone together under a blanket ban. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on the sale of tobacco and alcohol. There was a strong feeling that it was a matter of personal choice and that people should be free to make their own decisions. However, it was felt that the sale of alcohol to under 18s should be banned, and that the sale of tobacco to under 18s should be more strictly controlled. It was also felt that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets should be more strictly controlled, and that the sale of alcohol in the vicinity of schools should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The group felt that it is the responsibility of the individual to monitor and limit their own use of these products. Although there are very obvious harms both to individuals and wider society associated with both tobacco and alcohol, the group believed that attempts to control its use are more effective through education and other means, rather than prohibition. The group felt that prohibition has been tried previously and has been unsuccessful, instead pushing its consumption underground without regulation and protections. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Tobacco and Alcohol should not be banned. The health consequences of these products should be made more widely known, but ultimately it should be the decision of the individual. Banning these products would push their use underground, increase prices and would be unsuccessful. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the sale of tobacco and alcohol should be controlled but not banned. This is because there are obvious harms associated with both products but we feel that it should be up to the individual to monitor and limit their own use. In addition, there have been many efforts to reduce the use of tobacco products but we feel the best way is to promote the "stop smoking" message. Certain types of alcohol, particularly those targeted at younger people should be regulated. However we feel it would be wrong to lump everyone together under a blanket ban. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on the sale of tobacco and alcohol. There was a strong feeling that it was a matter of personal choice and that people should be free to make their own decisions. However, it was felt that the sale of alcohol to under 18s should be banned, and that the sale of tobacco to under 18s should be more strictly controlled. It was also felt that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets should be more strictly controlled, and that the sale of alcohol in the vicinity of schools should be banned. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002205.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002205.soc index 8132dc47..faa28379 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002205.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002205.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that the way the House of Lords is constituted should be changed. We don't think that a group of unelected, mainly wealthy, privileged people should be given power over anything. It's an idea from medieval times and doesn't fit in with modern politics. We don't even know how they decide if someone gets in. We think it should be voted for by the public and be open to people from all walks of life to make it representative of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the house of lords is an outdated institution which needs to be reformed to better reflect the views of the people. There should be more transparency about who is in the house of lords and how they got there. There should be more information about what is discussed and decided in the house of lords, and the public should have more of a say in what is decided. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The House of Lords should be made up of people voted for by the general public to make it more representative of the people. There should also be some academics in there too to give a wider view on issues. The participants also decided that some of the members of the house of lords should be a cross-party group as well to prevent too much bias. Participants views are likely to have been influenced by their own political views, their social class and upbringing, as well as the opinions of the other members of the group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of changing the way the House of Lords is constituted. They felt that it was important for the House of Lords to be representative of the people and that the current system was not representative enough. They felt that the current system was too secretive and that there was not enough information about how the House of Lords is constituted and how decisions are made. They felt that the current system was unfair and that it was not democratic enough. They felt that the current system was out of date and did not reflect the needs of the modern world. They felt that the current system was not accountable enough and that the people who were in the House of Lords were not accountable to the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that the way the House of Lords is constituted should be changed. We don't think that a group of unelected, mainly wealthy, privileged people should be given power over anything. It's an idea from medieval times and doesn't fit in with modern politics. We don't even know how they decide if someone gets in. We think it should be voted for by the public and be open to people from all walks of life to make it representative of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the house of lords is an outdated institution which needs to be reformed to better reflect the views of the people. There should be more transparency about who is in the house of lords and how they got there. There should be more information about what is discussed and decided in the house of lords, and the public should have more of a say in what is decided. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The House of Lords should be made up of people voted for by the general public to make it more representative of the people. There should also be some academics in there too to give a wider view on issues. The participants also decided that some of the members of the house of lords should be a cross-party group as well to prevent too much bias. Participants views are likely to have been influenced by their own political views, their social class and upbringing, as well as the opinions of the other members of the group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of changing the way the House of Lords is constituted. They felt that it was important for the House of Lords to be representative of the people and that the current system was not representative enough. They felt that the current system was too secretive and that there was not enough information about how the House of Lords is constituted and how decisions are made. They felt that the current system was unfair and that it was not democratic enough. They felt that the current system was out of date and did not reflect the needs of the modern world. They felt that the current system was not accountable enough and that the people who were in the House of Lords were not accountable to the people. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002206.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002206.soc index b6d97057..7d718cf0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002206.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002206.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be taught about religions and cultures but not necessarily indoctrinated to any one particular faith. They should be able to learn and develop their own beliefs from the knowledge they gain, so they can live in a society that is tolerant of each other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think it is right to force religious education on school children. We feel that children should be free to make their own decisions about what they believe and that it is the role of parents to educate their children about religion, if they so wish. However, we do think that children should be exposed to different beliefs and cultures and that this could be achieved by teaching children about different religions, as well as different cultures, in the same way that they are taught about different countries and their cultures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While we can see the advantages of religious education to some, we do not feel that it should be mandatory for all students. There is a danger that mandatory religious education can be used as a way to force one belief upon a child, rather than educate the child about a range of beliefs and the evidence for and against those beliefs. We also feel that mandatory religious education can take away from the child's personal choice to study about beliefs if they wish to, as there are many children who are not religious or who do not believe in a God but may still want to learn about religious ideas. As children grow up and mature, it is their personal choice to either accept a belief or not, and we do not feel that this choice should be taken away from them by being forced to study something they may not be interested in or may not have the capacity to understand. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be exposed to different beliefs and cultures. However, this does not have to be in the form of religion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be taught about religions and cultures but not necessarily indoctrinated to any one particular faith. They should be able to learn and develop their own beliefs from the knowledge they gain, so they can live in a society that is tolerant of each other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think it is right to force religious education on school children. We feel that children should be free to make their own decisions about what they believe and that it is the role of parents to educate their children about religion, if they so wish. However, we do think that children should be exposed to different beliefs and cultures and that this could be achieved by teaching children about different religions, as well as different cultures, in the same way that they are taught about different countries and their cultures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While we can see the advantages of religious education to some, we do not feel that it should be mandatory for all students. There is a danger that mandatory religious education can be used as a way to force one belief upon a child, rather than educate the child about a range of beliefs and the evidence for and against those beliefs. We also feel that mandatory religious education can take away from the child's personal choice to study about beliefs if they wish to, as there are many children who are not religious or who do not believe in a God but may still want to learn about religious ideas. As children grow up and mature, it is their personal choice to either accept a belief or not, and we do not feel that this choice should be taken away from them by being forced to study something they may not be interested in or may not have the capacity to understand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be exposed to different beliefs and cultures. However, this does not have to be in the form of religion. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002207.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002207.soc index 312ac039..6290c801 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002207.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002207.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Everyone in the UK should be required to pay taxes to support the National Healthcare System because we all use the NHS, therefore we should all contribute financially. However, the NHS should be fully funded by tax, it should not rely on private healthcare to supplement it. The NHS should also be independent from the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of requiring people to pay taxes to support a national healthcare system. This is because it helps to provide the social and welfare benefits that are available for free / reduced costs. This reduces social inequality. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that everybody in this country is contributing to this. other countries do not have this, everybody has to have insurances to pay for their treatment. if we do not want our healthcare system privatised then this is very important. The group also felt that it was only fair that they contribute financially to the health service. everybody in the uk should be required to support the national health service because everybody uses their services in one way or another so it is only fair that they contribute financially to the health service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. It is important for people in the UK to contribute to the national health system because it provides free health care to people who need it. This is especially important for those who cannot afford to pay for private healthcare. If the system is going to be free at the point of treatment then everyone should be required to contribute. This would also help to avoid the system being privatised and people having to pay for insurance. The money could also be used to support other services which are currently underfunded, such as mental health services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of requiring all people in the UK to pay taxes to support a national healthcare system. This is because it helps to provide the social and welfare benefits that are available for free / reduced costs. This reduces social inequality. However, it is important to ensure that the NHS is accessible to all, and that it is not privatised. This means that it is important to ensure that everybody in this country is contributing to this. The group felt that this could be achieved by making it compulsory for all people in the UK to pay taxes to support the NHS, and by making it a percentage of their income. This would mean that low earners would pay a smaller percentage of their income, and high earners would pay a larger percentage of their income. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that people who do not attend their appointments are fined, as this would help to ensure that the NHS is not being abused. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Everyone in the UK should be required to pay taxes to support the National Healthcare System because we all use the NHS, therefore we should all contribute financially. However, the NHS should be fully funded by tax, it should not rely on private healthcare to supplement it. The NHS should also be independent from the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of requiring people to pay taxes to support a national healthcare system. This is because it helps to provide the social and welfare benefits that are available for free / reduced costs. This reduces social inequality. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that everybody in this country is contributing to this. other countries do not have this, everybody has to have insurances to pay for their treatment. if we do not want our healthcare system privatised then this is very important. The group also felt that it was only fair that they contribute financially to the health service. everybody in the uk should be required to support the national health service because everybody uses their services in one way or another so it is only fair that they contribute financially to the health service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. It is important for people in the UK to contribute to the national health system because it provides free health care to people who need it. This is especially important for those who cannot afford to pay for private healthcare. If the system is going to be free at the point of treatment then everyone should be required to contribute. This would also help to avoid the system being privatised and people having to pay for insurance. The money could also be used to support other services which are currently underfunded, such as mental health services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of requiring all people in the UK to pay taxes to support a national healthcare system. This is because it helps to provide the social and welfare benefits that are available for free / reduced costs. This reduces social inequality. However, it is important to ensure that the NHS is accessible to all, and that it is not privatised. This means that it is important to ensure that everybody in this country is contributing to this. The group felt that this could be achieved by making it compulsory for all people in the UK to pay taxes to support the NHS, and by making it a percentage of their income. This would mean that low earners would pay a smaller percentage of their income, and high earners would pay a larger percentage of their income. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that people who do not attend their appointments are fined, as this would help to ensure that the NHS is not being abused. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002208.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002208.soc index c12a27a7..d27b0669 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002208.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002208.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the current representation of women in parliament is not reflective of the diversity in our society. Therefore, we believe that increasing the proportion of women in parliament is a necessary step in the right direction. However, we also believe that this should be implemented with keeping in mind strict rigour. Those women have to be competent, trustworthy and hard-working. Gender alone should never be a sufficient criterion for choosing an MP. We believe that increasing the proportion of women in parliament will result in a more representative and diverse parliament, which will in turn result in a more representative and diverse government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the proportion of women in parliament should be increased. However, this action should be implemented with keeping in mind strict rigour. Those women have to be competent, trustworthy and hard-working. Gender alone should never be a sufficient criterion for choosing an MP. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that we should increase the proportion of women in parliament. This is because parliament should be a microcosm of society. To ensure this, MPs should be elected on merit, competence and by personal integrity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we should increase the proportion of women in parliament. This is because MPs represent the people and as such should reflect the diversity in our population. However, we don't believe a lot of the men in parliament represent society, and we should increase by competence, not gender. Someone should be hired by merit and competence in the role. Those women have to be competent, trustworthy and hard-working. Gender alone should never be a sufficient criterion for choosing an MP. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the current representation of women in parliament is not reflective of the diversity in our society. Therefore, we believe that increasing the proportion of women in parliament is a necessary step in the right direction. However, we also believe that this should be implemented with keeping in mind strict rigour. Those women have to be competent, trustworthy and hard-working. Gender alone should never be a sufficient criterion for choosing an MP. We believe that increasing the proportion of women in parliament will result in a more representative and diverse parliament, which will in turn result in a more representative and diverse government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the proportion of women in parliament should be increased. However, this action should be implemented with keeping in mind strict rigour. Those women have to be competent, trustworthy and hard-working. Gender alone should never be a sufficient criterion for choosing an MP. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that we should increase the proportion of women in parliament. This is because parliament should be a microcosm of society. To ensure this, MPs should be elected on merit, competence and by personal integrity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we should increase the proportion of women in parliament. This is because MPs represent the people and as such should reflect the diversity in our population. However, we don't believe a lot of the men in parliament represent society, and we should increase by competence, not gender. Someone should be hired by merit and competence in the role. Those women have to be competent, trustworthy and hard-working. Gender alone should never be a sufficient criterion for choosing an MP. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002209.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002209.soc index 4e90f794..454ee6ed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002209.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002209.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We feel that patients should be given more say over their care in the NHS. The most important thing in the health service is the care of the patient, and we feel that there needs to be a greater emphasis on this. Communication between staff, patients and carers needs to be improved, and we feel that this can only be achieved through staff becoming more open to the suggestions and input of patients and carers. It is not enough for staff to just do what they are told, but it is important for them to question why certain procedures are being done and whether there is a better way of doing things. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the NHS is well run and provides good care to its patients. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed. Firstly, communication between staff and patients needs to be improved. Patients often feel that they are not being listened to and that their problems are not being taken seriously. Secondly, more training is needed for staff to deal with patients with disabilities. This is because these patients often feel that they are not being treated with the same level of care as able-bodied patients. Finally, more training is needed for staff to deal with mental health issues. The stigma around mental health is still very much alive and patients are often treated differently to those with physical health problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the NHS is well run and has well trained staff. It is free at the point of use and therefore accessible to all. It is also the largest employer in the UK. It is also the case that the NHS is constantly underfunded and understaffed. There are many areas where the NHS could be improved, but these are often beyond the control of those working in the NHS. For example, the UK has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in Europe. This is because the UK has an opt-in system for organ donation, whereas many other countries have an opt-out system. This means that many organs that could be used for donation are not, and many people die while waiting for a transplant. Another area that could be improved is the level of training that staff receive. For example, there are many conditions that are very rare, but that are life-threatening. Staff are often not trained to deal with these conditions, and patients can be left feeling very alone. There are also many conditions that are not life-threatening, but that can have a huge impact on a person's quality of life. These conditions are often not taken seriously by the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the NHS is run by a budget and we understand that this is vital to its smooth running, the care of patients should be the number one priority and communication between patients and those that run the 'business' needs to be improved. This will result in more say over patients' care, a reduced stigma against mental illness, and hopefully a reduction in the suicide rate in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We feel that patients should be given more say over their care in the NHS. The most important thing in the health service is the care of the patient, and we feel that there needs to be a greater emphasis on this. Communication between staff, patients and carers needs to be improved, and we feel that this can only be achieved through staff becoming more open to the suggestions and input of patients and carers. It is not enough for staff to just do what they are told, but it is important for them to question why certain procedures are being done and whether there is a better way of doing things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the NHS is well run and provides good care to its patients. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed. Firstly, communication between staff and patients needs to be improved. Patients often feel that they are not being listened to and that their problems are not being taken seriously. Secondly, more training is needed for staff to deal with patients with disabilities. This is because these patients often feel that they are not being treated with the same level of care as able-bodied patients. Finally, more training is needed for staff to deal with mental health issues. The stigma around mental health is still very much alive and patients are often treated differently to those with physical health problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the NHS is well run and has well trained staff. It is free at the point of use and therefore accessible to all. It is also the largest employer in the UK. It is also the case that the NHS is constantly underfunded and understaffed. There are many areas where the NHS could be improved, but these are often beyond the control of those working in the NHS. For example, the UK has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in Europe. This is because the UK has an opt-in system for organ donation, whereas many other countries have an opt-out system. This means that many organs that could be used for donation are not, and many people die while waiting for a transplant. Another area that could be improved is the level of training that staff receive. For example, there are many conditions that are very rare, but that are life-threatening. Staff are often not trained to deal with these conditions, and patients can be left feeling very alone. There are also many conditions that are not life-threatening, but that can have a huge impact on a person's quality of life. These conditions are often not taken seriously by the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the NHS is run by a budget and we understand that this is vital to its smooth running, the care of patients should be the number one priority and communication between patients and those that run the 'business' needs to be improved. This will result in more say over patients' care, a reduced stigma against mental illness, and hopefully a reduction in the suicide rate in the UK. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002210.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002210.soc index 3c2d9187..a1e264cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002210.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002210.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The police should be able to carry guns, but only after they have reached a certain level of training. The world is becoming more and more dangerous and the police are not adequately equipped in this country. The corruption in the police force needs to be tackled. The public need to feel safe.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Police should only be allowed to carry guns after extensive training and a serious background check. The number of innocent deaths caused by the police means that a great deal of caution must be taken when giving police the right to carry a gun. The main priority is public safety, and if the police are not trusted by the public, the situation is unlikely to improve. Police should be required to carry alternatives to guns such as pepper spray or tasers. They should only use their gun when the situation is absolutely necessary and as a last resort. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The police should be armed in order to protect themselves and the public. However, they should be well trained to use guns in the right situation. Alternative tools of defence such as pepper sprays and tasers should also be made available to police. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The police should be able to carry guns, but only after they have reached a certain level of training. The world is becoming more and more dangerous and the police are not adequately equipped in this country. The police should set an example that gun use against people is wrong and should carry other tools of defense. They could use pepper sprays or tasers or tranquilisers instead of guns that can kill people. The police need to be protected and have their own security so they can protect themselves. But I do not think they should carry guns unless they are properly trained in how to use them. Some of them are very trigger happy and have injured or killed innocent people. The corruption in the police force needs to be tackled. The public need to feel safe.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The police should be able to carry guns, but only after they have reached a certain level of training. The world is becoming more and more dangerous and the police are not adequately equipped in this country. The corruption in the police force needs to be tackled. The public need to feel safe.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Police should only be allowed to carry guns after extensive training and a serious background check. The number of innocent deaths caused by the police means that a great deal of caution must be taken when giving police the right to carry a gun. The main priority is public safety, and if the police are not trusted by the public, the situation is unlikely to improve. Police should be required to carry alternatives to guns such as pepper spray or tasers. They should only use their gun when the situation is absolutely necessary and as a last resort. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The police should be armed in order to protect themselves and the public. However, they should be well trained to use guns in the right situation. Alternative tools of defence such as pepper sprays and tasers should also be made available to police. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The police should be able to carry guns, but only after they have reached a certain level of training. The world is becoming more and more dangerous and the police are not adequately equipped in this country. The police should set an example that gun use against people is wrong and should carry other tools of defense. They could use pepper sprays or tasers or tranquilisers instead of guns that can kill people. The police need to be protected and have their own security so they can protect themselves. But I do not think they should carry guns unless they are properly trained in how to use them. Some of them are very trigger happy and have injured or killed innocent people. The corruption in the police force needs to be tackled. The public need to feel safe.” 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002211.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002211.soc index c2f16369..dd63335e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002211.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002211.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. People should be allowed to be self-employed at this age if they have the right skills and if they have support from a mentor or an organisation for young entrepreneurs. This will help them develop their ideas. However, they should be allowed to do so only if they have a good business idea and they know how to develop it. It is important to note that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. However, it is very important that they are allowed to do so only if they have the right skills, they understand what it means to be self-employed and they have a really good idea and/or business plan that is going to work. It should also be the case that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. This is the case because they are allowed to work for others at this age, so there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to work for themselves. However, they should be allowed to do so only if they have the right skills, they understand what it means to be self-employed and they have a good idea and/or business plan that is going to work. It should also be the case that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. However, they should be allowed to do so only if they have the right skills, they understand what it means to be self-employed and they have a really good idea and/or business plan that is going to work. It should also be the case that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. People should be allowed to be self-employed at this age if they have the right skills and if they have support from a mentor or an organisation for young entrepreneurs. This will help them develop their ideas. However, they should be allowed to do so only if they have a good business idea and they know how to develop it. It is important to note that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. However, it is very important that they are allowed to do so only if they have the right skills, they understand what it means to be self-employed and they have a really good idea and/or business plan that is going to work. It should also be the case that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. This is the case because they are allowed to work for others at this age, so there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to work for themselves. However, they should be allowed to do so only if they have the right skills, they understand what it means to be self-employed and they have a good idea and/or business plan that is going to work. It should also be the case that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, people should be allowed to be self-employed at 16 years old. However, they should be allowed to do so only if they have the right skills, they understand what it means to be self-employed and they have a really good idea and/or business plan that is going to work. It should also be the case that the person who is self-employed should be allowed to continue with his or her education, as this is the best thing for them at this age. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002212.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002212.soc index 9bc82be9..467f52ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002212.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002212.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “No, I don’t think people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. I think that guns should only be held by those who are trained to use them in the correct way and who have a valid reason for owning a gun. I think that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership and licensing to own guns. I think this is because I think that guns can be dangerous, and in the wrong hands can be extremely harmful to society. There are a lot of incidents in America where people have been shot in mass shootings, as well as shootings by police, who also own guns. This suggests to me that it can be very dangerous to own guns, and we should have strict regulations in place to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, or cause unnecessary deaths. I also think that there should be a thorough mental health check, as well as a background check to make sure that they are not a danger to themselves or society. This should be regularly reviewed, to ensure that they are still fit to own a gun.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “No, we do not believe that people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want, without valid reason. To own a gun is a huge responsibility and we feel there needs to be strict guidelines for gun owners, which includes being trained, licensed and having regular mental health checks. We feel these laws are in place to protect society, from unnecessary harm, which can be caused by guns. With no strict regulations in place, guns could be owned by the wrong people, or used in the wrong way, which could lead to mass harm in society. We need these regulations in place, to prevent guns from causing too much harm, and to protect society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “No, I don’t think people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. I think that guns should only be held by those who are trained to use them in the correct way and who have a valid reason for owning a gun. I think that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership and licensing to own guns. I think this is because I think that guns can be dangerous, and in the wrong hands can be extremely harmful to society. There are a lot of incidents in America where people have been shot in mass shootings, as well as shootings by police, who also own guns. This suggests to me that it can be very dangerous to own guns, and we should have strict regulations in place to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, or cause unnecessary deaths.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “No, I don’t think people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. I think that guns should only be held by those who are trained to use them in the correct way and who have a valid reason for owning a gun. I think that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership and licensing to own guns. I think this is because I think that guns can be dangerous, and in the wrong hands can be extremely harmful to society. There are a lot of incidents in America where people have been shot in mass shootings, as well as shootings by police, who also own guns. This suggests to me that it can be very dangerous to own guns, and we should have strict regulations in place to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, or cause unnecessary deaths. I think we should look at countries like America and see what has gone wrong, and how we can ensure that this does not happen in the UK. This could be by requiring strict background checks before someone is allowed to own a gun, and also by making sure that people have to go through training before they are allowed to own a gun, so they know how to use it safely and correctly. I +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “No, I don’t think people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. I think that guns should only be held by those who are trained to use them in the correct way and who have a valid reason for owning a gun. I think that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership and licensing to own guns. I think this is because I think that guns can be dangerous, and in the wrong hands can be extremely harmful to society. There are a lot of incidents in America where people have been shot in mass shootings, as well as shootings by police, who also own guns. This suggests to me that it can be very dangerous to own guns, and we should have strict regulations in place to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, or cause unnecessary deaths. I also think that there should be a thorough mental health check, as well as a background check to make sure that they are not a danger to themselves or society. This should be regularly reviewed, to ensure that they are still fit to own a gun.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “No, we do not believe that people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want, without valid reason. To own a gun is a huge responsibility and we feel there needs to be strict guidelines for gun owners, which includes being trained, licensed and having regular mental health checks. We feel these laws are in place to protect society, from unnecessary harm, which can be caused by guns. With no strict regulations in place, guns could be owned by the wrong people, or used in the wrong way, which could lead to mass harm in society. We need these regulations in place, to prevent guns from causing too much harm, and to protect society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “No, I don’t think people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. I think that guns should only be held by those who are trained to use them in the correct way and who have a valid reason for owning a gun. I think that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership and licensing to own guns. I think this is because I think that guns can be dangerous, and in the wrong hands can be extremely harmful to society. There are a lot of incidents in America where people have been shot in mass shootings, as well as shootings by police, who also own guns. This suggests to me that it can be very dangerous to own guns, and we should have strict regulations in place to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, or cause unnecessary deaths.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “No, I don’t think people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. I think that guns should only be held by those who are trained to use them in the correct way and who have a valid reason for owning a gun. I think that there should be stricter laws regarding gun ownership and licensing to own guns. I think this is because I think that guns can be dangerous, and in the wrong hands can be extremely harmful to society. There are a lot of incidents in America where people have been shot in mass shootings, as well as shootings by police, who also own guns. This suggests to me that it can be very dangerous to own guns, and we should have strict regulations in place to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, or cause unnecessary deaths. I think we should look at countries like America and see what has gone wrong, and how we can ensure that this does not happen in the UK. This could be by requiring strict background checks before someone is allowed to own a gun, and also by making sure that people have to go through training before they are allowed to own a gun, so they know how to use it safely and correctly. I 3: 4,1,3,2 2: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002213.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002213.soc index 1d41180d..3efc26fb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002213.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002213.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The House of Lords should be abolished. It does not have the same powers as the House of Commons. In order to be a member of the House of Lords, you are not elected. In our opinion, if you are in a position of power, then you should be elected, not selected. A noble title is obtained through birth or inheritance. It is therefore, based on privilege, which means the House of Lords is a classist organisation. If we are to be equal in society, then the same rules should apply for everyone. For example, in order to obtain a job, you need to apply and be interviewed. We believe that the House of Lords should follow the same procedure. The House of Lords is not the right way forward for our future society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The House of Lords should be reformed, but not abolished. We believe that the Lords do have an important role to play in our society, but we do think that the way in which people become Lords needs to be changed. We believe that the Lords should be elected, and that the Lords should be made up of people from all walks of life, not just those who are born into the position. We believe that Lords should be elected, but that they should not be allowed to vote on every issue. We believe that the Lords should be allowed to vote on certain issues, for example on issues that are not necessarily party political, such as animal welfare. We believe that the Lords should be allowed to vote on issues that affect all people in society, for example the NHS. We believe that the Lords should not be allowed to vote on party political issues, for example the budget. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The House of Lords should be abolished. It is a relic of the past and is not in keeping with the modern world. It is undemocratic and is anachronistic. It is also not representative of the people of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The House of Lords should be reformed and strengthened rather than abolished. It is a valuable asset in the British constitution, acting as a safety net against the power of the government and acting as a legislative counterbalance. The election of members of the House of Lords should be made more meritocratic, rather than based on inheritance, so as to avoid accusations of it being an undemocratic institution. The House of Lords is a good thing and a valuable asset in the British constitution. It is an important check on the government and should be reformed, rather than abolished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The House of Lords should be abolished. It does not have the same powers as the House of Commons. In order to be a member of the House of Lords, you are not elected. In our opinion, if you are in a position of power, then you should be elected, not selected. A noble title is obtained through birth or inheritance. It is therefore, based on privilege, which means the House of Lords is a classist organisation. If we are to be equal in society, then the same rules should apply for everyone. For example, in order to obtain a job, you need to apply and be interviewed. We believe that the House of Lords should follow the same procedure. The House of Lords is not the right way forward for our future society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The House of Lords should be reformed, but not abolished. We believe that the Lords do have an important role to play in our society, but we do think that the way in which people become Lords needs to be changed. We believe that the Lords should be elected, and that the Lords should be made up of people from all walks of life, not just those who are born into the position. We believe that Lords should be elected, but that they should not be allowed to vote on every issue. We believe that the Lords should be allowed to vote on certain issues, for example on issues that are not necessarily party political, such as animal welfare. We believe that the Lords should be allowed to vote on issues that affect all people in society, for example the NHS. We believe that the Lords should not be allowed to vote on party political issues, for example the budget. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The House of Lords should be abolished. It is a relic of the past and is not in keeping with the modern world. It is undemocratic and is anachronistic. It is also not representative of the people of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The House of Lords should be reformed and strengthened rather than abolished. It is a valuable asset in the British constitution, acting as a safety net against the power of the government and acting as a legislative counterbalance. The election of members of the House of Lords should be made more meritocratic, rather than based on inheritance, so as to avoid accusations of it being an undemocratic institution. The House of Lords is a good thing and a valuable asset in the British constitution. It is an important check on the government and should be reformed, rather than abolished. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002214.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002214.soc index b85a7ef5..e25a6d13 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002214.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002214.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making private medical insurance compulsory. The reasons for this included the fact that the NHS is a publicly funded service which should be available to all and that private medical insurance would create a two-tier system where the rich would receive better treatment than the poor. The group was also concerned that making private medical insurance compulsory would lead to the NHS being further underfunded and would lead to a decline in the quality of care. It is also the case that the NHS has come under increased pressure during the Covid-19 pandemic, underlining the need for it to receive the resources it needs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Private medical insurance should not be made compulsory for anyone. The NHS is publicly funded and should be able to cater to all of the needs of the UK population. If people choose to get private medical insurance, this should be treated as an optional extra. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making private medical insurance compulsory. The reasons for this included the fact that the NHS is a publicly funded service which should be available to all and that private medical insurance would create a two-tier system where the rich would receive better treatment than the poor. The group was also concerned that making private medical insurance compulsory would lead to the NHS being further underfunded and would lead to a decline in the quality of care. The group also felt that compulsory private medical insurance would lead to people who are unable to afford private medical insurance being unable to access healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be no requirement for people to have private medical insurance. The NHS is a publicly funded service which should be available to all. Private medical insurance would create a two-tier system where the rich would receive better treatment than the poor. The group was also concerned that making private medical insurance compulsory would lead to the NHS being further underfunded and would lead to a decline in the quality of care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making private medical insurance compulsory. The reasons for this included the fact that the NHS is a publicly funded service which should be available to all and that private medical insurance would create a two-tier system where the rich would receive better treatment than the poor. The group was also concerned that making private medical insurance compulsory would lead to the NHS being further underfunded and would lead to a decline in the quality of care. It is also the case that the NHS has come under increased pressure during the Covid-19 pandemic, underlining the need for it to receive the resources it needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Private medical insurance should not be made compulsory for anyone. The NHS is publicly funded and should be able to cater to all of the needs of the UK population. If people choose to get private medical insurance, this should be treated as an optional extra. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of making private medical insurance compulsory. The reasons for this included the fact that the NHS is a publicly funded service which should be available to all and that private medical insurance would create a two-tier system where the rich would receive better treatment than the poor. The group was also concerned that making private medical insurance compulsory would lead to the NHS being further underfunded and would lead to a decline in the quality of care. The group also felt that compulsory private medical insurance would lead to people who are unable to afford private medical insurance being unable to access healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be no requirement for people to have private medical insurance. The NHS is a publicly funded service which should be available to all. Private medical insurance would create a two-tier system where the rich would receive better treatment than the poor. The group was also concerned that making private medical insurance compulsory would lead to the NHS being further underfunded and would lead to a decline in the quality of care. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002215.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002215.soc index fd611d5d..c7ca5265 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002215.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002215.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Advertising alcohol should be more responsible. The health risks of alcohol abuse and addiction should be emphasised, and information should be provided about the danger of mixing alcohol and driving, so that young adults are made more aware of the dangers involved. Advertisements that glamorise alcohol abuse, or make light of alcoholism, should not be allowed. Given the damage that alcohol abuse can cause, alcohol should not be advertised on TV during the early evening and early morning when children and young adults are watching television. Although there is a strong drinking culture in Britain and alcohol is sold almost everywhere, and that young adults, particularly teenagers, are exposed to it constantly, advertising should not act as a reminder to drink. Advertising must not be used to seduce young adults into drinking irresponsibly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of advertising alcohol, but with some caveats. It was felt that advertising alcohol should be more responsible, with warnings and information about the dangers of alcohol abuse and addiction. The group felt that this would help to reduce alcohol abuse, and also help to educate people about the dangers of alcohol. The group also felt that the advertising of alcohol should be more tightly regulated, to ensure that it is not being advertised in a way that is encouraging people to drink irresponsibly. The group also suggested that there should be more responsibility on the part of alcohol retailers, to ensure they are not selling alcohol to people who are drunk or below the legal age. The group said that alcohol manufacturers should also do more to reduce alcohol addiction, with the use of warning labels on alcohol products and ensuring that they are not marketing to people who have addictive tendencies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of advertising alcohol, but with some caveats. It was felt that advertising alcohol should be more responsible, with warnings and information about the dangers of alcohol abuse and addiction. The group felt that this would help to reduce alcohol abuse, and also help to educate people about the dangers of alcohol. The group also felt that the advertising of alcohol should be more tightly regulated, to ensure that it is not being advertised in a way that is encouraging people to drink irresponsibly. The group also felt that it should be more tightly regulated in terms of when and where it is advertised, to make sure that it is not being advertised to people who are not of legal drinking age, or to people who suffer from alcoholism, or who are vulnerable to alcohol addiction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in favour of advertising alcohol, but with some caveats. It was felt that advertising alcohol should be more responsible, with warnings and information about the dangers of alcohol abuse and addiction. The group felt that this would help to reduce alcohol abuse, and also help to educate people about the dangers of alcohol. The group also felt that the advertising of alcohol should be more tightly regulated, to ensure that it is not being advertised in a way that is encouraging people to drink irresponsibly. The group was also in favour of advertising alcohol in a more limited fashion, to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising that young people are exposed to, which is a cause for concern for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Advertising alcohol should be more responsible. The health risks of alcohol abuse and addiction should be emphasised, and information should be provided about the danger of mixing alcohol and driving, so that young adults are made more aware of the dangers involved. Advertisements that glamorise alcohol abuse, or make light of alcoholism, should not be allowed. Given the damage that alcohol abuse can cause, alcohol should not be advertised on TV during the early evening and early morning when children and young adults are watching television. Although there is a strong drinking culture in Britain and alcohol is sold almost everywhere, and that young adults, particularly teenagers, are exposed to it constantly, advertising should not act as a reminder to drink. Advertising must not be used to seduce young adults into drinking irresponsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of advertising alcohol, but with some caveats. It was felt that advertising alcohol should be more responsible, with warnings and information about the dangers of alcohol abuse and addiction. The group felt that this would help to reduce alcohol abuse, and also help to educate people about the dangers of alcohol. The group also felt that the advertising of alcohol should be more tightly regulated, to ensure that it is not being advertised in a way that is encouraging people to drink irresponsibly. The group also suggested that there should be more responsibility on the part of alcohol retailers, to ensure they are not selling alcohol to people who are drunk or below the legal age. The group said that alcohol manufacturers should also do more to reduce alcohol addiction, with the use of warning labels on alcohol products and ensuring that they are not marketing to people who have addictive tendencies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of advertising alcohol, but with some caveats. It was felt that advertising alcohol should be more responsible, with warnings and information about the dangers of alcohol abuse and addiction. The group felt that this would help to reduce alcohol abuse, and also help to educate people about the dangers of alcohol. The group also felt that the advertising of alcohol should be more tightly regulated, to ensure that it is not being advertised in a way that is encouraging people to drink irresponsibly. The group also felt that it should be more tightly regulated in terms of when and where it is advertised, to make sure that it is not being advertised to people who are not of legal drinking age, or to people who suffer from alcoholism, or who are vulnerable to alcohol addiction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in favour of advertising alcohol, but with some caveats. It was felt that advertising alcohol should be more responsible, with warnings and information about the dangers of alcohol abuse and addiction. The group felt that this would help to reduce alcohol abuse, and also help to educate people about the dangers of alcohol. The group also felt that the advertising of alcohol should be more tightly regulated, to ensure that it is not being advertised in a way that is encouraging people to drink irresponsibly. The group was also in favour of advertising alcohol in a more limited fashion, to reduce the amount of alcohol advertising that young people are exposed to, which is a cause for concern for many people. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002216.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002216.soc index 22f8525f..3174305a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002216.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002216.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While alcohol is legal and many people enjoy it responsibly, it is important to acknowledge that alcohol can be harmful if it is abused and is a known risk factor for a number of health problems. Advertising of alcohol should therefore not be encouraged, as it may lead to increased use of alcohol. Any adverts for alcohol should include a risk statement to draw attention to the fact that alcohol is a health risk, particularly if abused. The advert should also include the fact that there are restrictions on its sale, for example it should only be sold to people over 18 years old, and that it should not be consumed before driving or operating machinery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is nothing wrong with advertising alcohol. Adverts should not be aimed at underage drinkers. Adverts should not be shown on television before 9pm. Adverts should not glamorise drinking alcohol. Adverts should include a risk statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Alcohol advertising is a complex issue and one that has been widely debated. We do not feel that alcohol advertising should be banned outright as there is evidence that people are aware of alcohol and its effects without advertising. However, the advertising of alcohol should be restricted in places where it is likely to be seen by children and young people. There should be no advertising of alcohol on television before 9pm and alcohol advertising should not be allowed on social media platforms. There should also be some health warnings on alcohol adverts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some restrictions on advertising alcohol. The group felt that advertising alcohol is not wrong in principle, but that there should be some restrictions on the content of the adverts and where they are placed. The group felt that there should be some restrictions on the content of the adverts and where they are placed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While alcohol is legal and many people enjoy it responsibly, it is important to acknowledge that alcohol can be harmful if it is abused and is a known risk factor for a number of health problems. Advertising of alcohol should therefore not be encouraged, as it may lead to increased use of alcohol. Any adverts for alcohol should include a risk statement to draw attention to the fact that alcohol is a health risk, particularly if abused. The advert should also include the fact that there are restrictions on its sale, for example it should only be sold to people over 18 years old, and that it should not be consumed before driving or operating machinery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is nothing wrong with advertising alcohol. Adverts should not be aimed at underage drinkers. Adverts should not be shown on television before 9pm. Adverts should not glamorise drinking alcohol. Adverts should include a risk statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Alcohol advertising is a complex issue and one that has been widely debated. We do not feel that alcohol advertising should be banned outright as there is evidence that people are aware of alcohol and its effects without advertising. However, the advertising of alcohol should be restricted in places where it is likely to be seen by children and young people. There should be no advertising of alcohol on television before 9pm and alcohol advertising should not be allowed on social media platforms. There should also be some health warnings on alcohol adverts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some restrictions on advertising alcohol. The group felt that advertising alcohol is not wrong in principle, but that there should be some restrictions on the content of the adverts and where they are placed. The group felt that there should be some restrictions on the content of the adverts and where they are placed. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002217.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002217.soc index b43ded83..42d7b344 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002217.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002217.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the house of lords should be made up of a broad representation of the public in order to give a voice to all. This was a difficult process, and we were frustrated when we were unable to reach consensus initially because one of us felt the others were trying to force their views on her. It got easier when we were able to hash out how all of our opinions differed, but were able to come to a general agreement. We also learned that it is very important to take everyone's point of view into consideration when coming up with a consensus and we saw the value of compromise on this process. We also learned that consensus takes a lot of time, so we were very glad that it took us several hours to develop ours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the house of lords should be made up of a more diverse group of people from different backgrounds, and not just wealthy and privileged individuals. It is an outdated institution which doesn't represent modern society. The house of Lords should be elected by the people and open to all walks of life. We don't think a group of unelected, mainly wealthy, privileged people should be given power over anything. It's an idea from medieval times and doesn't fit in with modern politics. We don't even know how they decide if someone gets in. We think it should be voted for by the public and be open to people from all walks of life to make it representative of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that the way the House of Lords is constituted should be changed. We don't think that a group of unelected, mainly wealthy, privileged people should be given power over anything. It's an idea from medieval times and doesn't fit in with modern politics. We don't even know how they decide if someone gets in. We think it should be voted for by the public and be open to people from all walks of life to make it representative of the people. We also agree that there should be a broad section of people so that it represents everyone. We wouldn't discriminate against the wealthy but agree that it shouldn't just be people from privileged background in the house of Lords. It definitely is an outdated idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that the way the House of Lords is constituted should be changed. We don't think that a group of unelected, mainly wealthy, privileged people should be given power over anything. It's an idea from medieval times and doesn't fit in with modern politics. We don't even know how they decide if someone gets in. We think it should be voted for by the public and be open to people from all walks of life to make it representative of the people. Conclusion: Through the deliberative process, people with opposing viewpoints can exchange ideas, consider other people's opinions, and reach a consensus. In the process, people may change their minds, but, more importantly, they will recognize that others are acting rationally and in good faith, and this will reduce the hostility and increase the respect with which they view those who hold different opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the house of lords should be made up of a broad representation of the public in order to give a voice to all. This was a difficult process, and we were frustrated when we were unable to reach consensus initially because one of us felt the others were trying to force their views on her. It got easier when we were able to hash out how all of our opinions differed, but were able to come to a general agreement. We also learned that it is very important to take everyone's point of view into consideration when coming up with a consensus and we saw the value of compromise on this process. We also learned that consensus takes a lot of time, so we were very glad that it took us several hours to develop ours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the house of lords should be made up of a more diverse group of people from different backgrounds, and not just wealthy and privileged individuals. It is an outdated institution which doesn't represent modern society. The house of Lords should be elected by the people and open to all walks of life. We don't think a group of unelected, mainly wealthy, privileged people should be given power over anything. It's an idea from medieval times and doesn't fit in with modern politics. We don't even know how they decide if someone gets in. We think it should be voted for by the public and be open to people from all walks of life to make it representative of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that the way the House of Lords is constituted should be changed. We don't think that a group of unelected, mainly wealthy, privileged people should be given power over anything. It's an idea from medieval times and doesn't fit in with modern politics. We don't even know how they decide if someone gets in. We think it should be voted for by the public and be open to people from all walks of life to make it representative of the people. We also agree that there should be a broad section of people so that it represents everyone. We wouldn't discriminate against the wealthy but agree that it shouldn't just be people from privileged background in the house of Lords. It definitely is an outdated idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that the way the House of Lords is constituted should be changed. We don't think that a group of unelected, mainly wealthy, privileged people should be given power over anything. It's an idea from medieval times and doesn't fit in with modern politics. We don't even know how they decide if someone gets in. We think it should be voted for by the public and be open to people from all walks of life to make it representative of the people. Conclusion: Through the deliberative process, people with opposing viewpoints can exchange ideas, consider other people's opinions, and reach a consensus. In the process, people may change their minds, but, more importantly, they will recognize that others are acting rationally and in good faith, and this will reduce the hostility and increase the respect with which they view those who hold different opinions. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002218.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002218.soc index d1c30013..4ac10bbc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002218.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002218.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of restricting the sale of alcohol to 18 and over. The reasons for this included the fact that alcohol is a highly addictive drug that it is easy to overdose on. The group felt that the government has a duty to protect children and young people from the damage that alcohol can do. However, the group did not feel that this was the only solution to the problem. The group felt that education is also important. The group felt that it is important to educate people on the effects of alcohol on their body which then allows them to make an informed choice. The group felt that the best way to protect children and young people from the damage that alcohol can do is to educate them on the effects of alcohol on their body. The group also felt that it is important to educate parents, carers and teachers on the dangers of alcohol and its effects on the body. The group felt that this would enable them to make an informed choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of restricting the sale of alcohol to 18 and over. The reasons for this included the fact that alcohol is a highly addictive drug that it is easy to overdose on. The group felt that the government has a duty to protect children and young people from the damage that alcohol can do. However, the group did not feel that this was the only solution to the problem. The group felt that education is also important. It is important to educate people on the effects of alcohol on their body. This will enable them to make an informed choice. It is also important to educate young people on the legal implications of drinking alcohol too. Young people must be informed that they can be arrested if they are drunk and disorderly in a public place (for example, if they are fighting). These points highlight the need for a good alcohol education in the school syllabus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of restricting the sale of alcohol to 18 and over. The reasons for this included the fact that alcohol is a highly addictive drug that it is easy to overdose on. The group felt that the government has a duty to protect children and young people from the damage that alcohol can do. However, the group did not feel that this was the only solution to the problem. The group felt that education is also important. It is important to educate people on the effects of alcohol on their body, which then allows them to make an informed choice. Conclusion This was a useful initial attempt to implement expert consensus protocol. Next time, I will have a longer period for participants to register their opinions. I will also change the time to a Sunday morning, to allow participants to come online at leisure. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should restrict the sale of alcohol to 18 and over. This would help to reduce the harm that alcohol can cause, especially to young people. However, education is also important. It is important to educate people on the effects of alcohol on their body which then allows them to make an informed choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of restricting the sale of alcohol to 18 and over. The reasons for this included the fact that alcohol is a highly addictive drug that it is easy to overdose on. The group felt that the government has a duty to protect children and young people from the damage that alcohol can do. However, the group did not feel that this was the only solution to the problem. The group felt that education is also important. The group felt that it is important to educate people on the effects of alcohol on their body which then allows them to make an informed choice. The group felt that the best way to protect children and young people from the damage that alcohol can do is to educate them on the effects of alcohol on their body. The group also felt that it is important to educate parents, carers and teachers on the dangers of alcohol and its effects on the body. The group felt that this would enable them to make an informed choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of restricting the sale of alcohol to 18 and over. The reasons for this included the fact that alcohol is a highly addictive drug that it is easy to overdose on. The group felt that the government has a duty to protect children and young people from the damage that alcohol can do. However, the group did not feel that this was the only solution to the problem. The group felt that education is also important. It is important to educate people on the effects of alcohol on their body. This will enable them to make an informed choice. It is also important to educate young people on the legal implications of drinking alcohol too. Young people must be informed that they can be arrested if they are drunk and disorderly in a public place (for example, if they are fighting). These points highlight the need for a good alcohol education in the school syllabus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of restricting the sale of alcohol to 18 and over. The reasons for this included the fact that alcohol is a highly addictive drug that it is easy to overdose on. The group felt that the government has a duty to protect children and young people from the damage that alcohol can do. However, the group did not feel that this was the only solution to the problem. The group felt that education is also important. It is important to educate people on the effects of alcohol on their body, which then allows them to make an informed choice. Conclusion This was a useful initial attempt to implement expert consensus protocol. Next time, I will have a longer period for participants to register their opinions. I will also change the time to a Sunday morning, to allow participants to come online at leisure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should restrict the sale of alcohol to 18 and over. This would help to reduce the harm that alcohol can cause, especially to young people. However, education is also important. It is important to educate people on the effects of alcohol on their body which then allows them to make an informed choice. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002219.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002219.soc index 5ccd3805..3e0b90e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002219.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002219.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a balance between the two. The protection of endangered species is of upmost importance, but rural industries also need to be protected. It is important to note that the protection of endangered species may have an impact on rural industries, but we feel that it is important that we try to preserve the species that are endangered as a result of human influence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a balance between the two. The protection of endangered species is of upmost importance, but rural industries also need to be protected. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a balance between the two. The protection of endangered species is of upmost importance, but rural industries also need to be protected. Endangered species should be prioritised over rural industries as they are vital to the ecosystem and more valuable. It is also important to preserve rural industries as well though to ensure their livelihoods. I feel there must be a combination of the both to make it work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a balance between the two. The protection of endangered species is of upmost importance, but rural industries also need to be protected. However, if compromising is required we believe that measures for protection of endangered species are necessary even if they affect rural industries in the short term. Over time, we will hope to repopulate species that have been endangered, and also work with rural industries to see how they can best continue their work whilst limiting their impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a balance between the two. The protection of endangered species is of upmost importance, but rural industries also need to be protected. It is important to note that the protection of endangered species may have an impact on rural industries, but we feel that it is important that we try to preserve the species that are endangered as a result of human influence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a balance between the two. The protection of endangered species is of upmost importance, but rural industries also need to be protected. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a balance between the two. The protection of endangered species is of upmost importance, but rural industries also need to be protected. Endangered species should be prioritised over rural industries as they are vital to the ecosystem and more valuable. It is also important to preserve rural industries as well though to ensure their livelihoods. I feel there must be a combination of the both to make it work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a balance between the two. The protection of endangered species is of upmost importance, but rural industries also need to be protected. However, if compromising is required we believe that measures for protection of endangered species are necessary even if they affect rural industries in the short term. Over time, we will hope to repopulate species that have been endangered, and also work with rural industries to see how they can best continue their work whilst limiting their impact on the environment. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002220.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002220.soc index d8c0f7cc..f8927fd2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002220.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002220.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of free healthcare. However, there was a feeling that this should be for serious health conditions and not for cosmetic/aesthetic reasons. It was also felt that this should be funded by taxation, with those that earn the most contributing the most. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: All healthcare should be free. This should be funded by taxation - with those that earn the most contributing the most. This would ensure that all citizens have access to healthcare regardless of their financial situation. It would also prevent people from having to sell their homes or go into debt to pay for their healthcare. This would also prevent people from not seeking healthcare because they cannot afford it, which could result in them becoming seriously ill and having to be hospitalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Healthcare should be free for all citizens and paid for through taxes. Healthcare should not be means tested, and the more one earns, the more tax they should pay. It should include life-saving procedures and treatments, and should be provided by the state in order to ensure that nobody misses out. It should not be means tested. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While healthcare in itself is a very broad term, we believe that there should be an absolute minimum level of care that should be freely available to everyone. We believe that this should be a basic minimum level of care and treatment, for medical reasons only, but it should be freely available to everyone. A set standard of basic healthcare, paid for by the government through taxation and not through private means, should be a human right and should not be given only to those who can afford it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of free healthcare. However, there was a feeling that this should be for serious health conditions and not for cosmetic/aesthetic reasons. It was also felt that this should be funded by taxation, with those that earn the most contributing the most. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - All healthcare should be free. This should be funded by taxation - with those that earn the most contributing the most. This would ensure that all citizens have access to healthcare regardless of their financial situation. It would also prevent people from having to sell their homes or go into debt to pay for their healthcare. This would also prevent people from not seeking healthcare because they cannot afford it, which could result in them becoming seriously ill and having to be hospitalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Healthcare should be free for all citizens and paid for through taxes. Healthcare should not be means tested, and the more one earns, the more tax they should pay. It should include life-saving procedures and treatments, and should be provided by the state in order to ensure that nobody misses out. It should not be means tested. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While healthcare in itself is a very broad term, we believe that there should be an absolute minimum level of care that should be freely available to everyone. We believe that this should be a basic minimum level of care and treatment, for medical reasons only, but it should be freely available to everyone. A set standard of basic healthcare, paid for by the government through taxation and not through private means, should be a human right and should not be given only to those who can afford it. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002221.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002221.soc index fbc10a32..4ec78638 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002221.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002221.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of MPs being able to claim expenses for a second home. The group felt that MPs were already well paid and should not be claiming for a second home. However, the group felt that there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: MPs should be able to claim expenses for a second home but only when the distance from their constituency is over 1 hour by train and only for a modest house (one which is no larger than twice the average house in the local area). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. They are already paid well and this is just another way for them to make money. If they are not in London, they should stay in a hotel or rent a room. They should not be able to claim for travel either as they are already paid well and can afford their own travel. The only thing they should be able to claim for is food when they are in London. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, they should not be able to claim for a second home. Although we recognise that some MPs have a constituency and a home in London and need to commute between the two, MPs are already on a high wage and should therefore not need a second home to carry out their duties. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of MPs being able to claim expenses for a second home. The group felt that MPs were already well paid and should not be claiming for a second home. However, the group felt that there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - MPs should be able to claim expenses for a second home but only when the distance from their constituency is over 1 hour by train and only for a modest house (one which is no larger than twice the average house in the local area). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. They are already paid well and this is just another way for them to make money. If they are not in London, they should stay in a hotel or rent a room. They should not be able to claim for travel either as they are already paid well and can afford their own travel. The only thing they should be able to claim for is food when they are in London. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, they should not be able to claim for a second home. Although we recognise that some MPs have a constituency and a home in London and need to commute between the two, MPs are already on a high wage and should therefore not need a second home to carry out their duties. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002222.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002222.soc index ea5773d5..aad2a6c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002222.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002222.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. It is also a major cause of disease and disability. Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causing many diseases and affecting the health of smokers in general. The prevalence of smoking in the population is a key factor in determining the health of the nation. If the prevalence of smoking in a country is high, it can be expected that the rates of disease and death due to smoking will also be high. Smoking causes a large proportion of lung cancers, and increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, and a range of other conditions. Aside from the harm to the smoker, exposure to secondhand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in nonsmokers. While arguments might be made for protecting personal freedom, the negative effects of secondhand smoking are also strongly supported. For the sake of public health, the sale of cigarettes should be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of cigarettes. However, it was felt that this should be done in a way that is fair to people who have been smoking their entire life and have a physical addiction to cigarettes. The group felt that cigarettes should be phased out, in a way that increases the minimum age of purchase each year, so the newer generation is unable to buy them. This means in about 80 years they will be made completely illegal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It was agreed that the negative health effects of tobacco smoking are well documented and unambiguous. The group also agreed that despite the general acknowledgement of the harmful effects of smoking, there is a clear ethical responsibility to protect the right of the individual to make their own decisions about their health and what they choose to do with their own body. However, a distinction was made between the health effects of smoking that only affect the smoker and those that have wider, public health implications. For example, we all have the right to harm ourselves, but we do not have the right to harm others. As such, we also agreed that in addition to the right to harm oneself, we have an ethical responsibility to others, such that people who smoke cigarettes are ethically obliged to do so only in a way that does not inflict their second hand smoke on others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe cigarettes should be banned. However, we understand that this would have a significant impact on people who are currently smoking and this should be considered. However, the increased dangers of second-hand smoke should be taken into account when considering whether to ban the sale of cigarettes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. It is also a major cause of disease and disability. Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causing many diseases and affecting the health of smokers in general. The prevalence of smoking in the population is a key factor in determining the health of the nation. If the prevalence of smoking in a country is high, it can be expected that the rates of disease and death due to smoking will also be high. Smoking causes a large proportion of lung cancers, and increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, and a range of other conditions. Aside from the harm to the smoker, exposure to secondhand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in nonsmokers. While arguments might be made for protecting personal freedom, the negative effects of secondhand smoking are also strongly supported. For the sake of public health, the sale of cigarettes should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the sale of cigarettes. However, it was felt that this should be done in a way that is fair to people who have been smoking their entire life and have a physical addiction to cigarettes. The group felt that cigarettes should be phased out, in a way that increases the minimum age of purchase each year, so the newer generation is unable to buy them. This means in about 80 years they will be made completely illegal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It was agreed that the negative health effects of tobacco smoking are well documented and unambiguous. The group also agreed that despite the general acknowledgement of the harmful effects of smoking, there is a clear ethical responsibility to protect the right of the individual to make their own decisions about their health and what they choose to do with their own body. However, a distinction was made between the health effects of smoking that only affect the smoker and those that have wider, public health implications. For example, we all have the right to harm ourselves, but we do not have the right to harm others. As such, we also agreed that in addition to the right to harm oneself, we have an ethical responsibility to others, such that people who smoke cigarettes are ethically obliged to do so only in a way that does not inflict their second hand smoke on others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe cigarettes should be banned. However, we understand that this would have a significant impact on people who are currently smoking and this should be considered. However, the increased dangers of second-hand smoke should be taken into account when considering whether to ban the sale of cigarettes. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002223.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002223.soc index 120b6179..a680345b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002223.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002223.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is unacceptable for UK citizens to consume meat if they do not know whether the animals from which it came had a good quality of life. The group stated that they believe that, in order to live in a just society, citizens of the UK should be able to access information about the conditions in which the animals from which they are consuming meat were raised. This is necessary in order to ensure that animals are treated humanely, which should be a right of all animals. The group also mentioned that the government should enforce standards for animal treatment in the meat industry and that the standards should be easily accessed by citizens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of people only eating meat from animals that had a good quality of life. However, we recognised that this would be difficult to implement, as it would be very difficult to determine what a good quality of life is for an animal, and also that this would be very expensive, and therefore would only be available to those with a higher income. We also recognised that it would be unfair to those with a lower income if they were unable to buy meat, and so we believe that it should be a personal choice for people to consume meat from animals that had a good quality of life. However, we also believe that there should be a basic standard of animal welfare that should be adhered to, and that this should be regulated by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in agreement that people should be given the choice as to whether they want to consume meat that was raised in conditions that allow for a good quality of life. However, as a consensus, the group felt that this is a long-term goal that is unrealistic and will not be achieved for many years to come. They also felt that in the short-term, regulation of welfare conditions should be a top priority to ensure that animals are raised in acceptable conditions. They also felt that it is important for individuals to do their own research into the quality of life that the animals had. They felt that the public should be given as much information as possible, so that they can make informed decisions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of people consuming meat if they don’t know whether it came from animals that had a good quality of life. However, the group was in favour of a basic standard of animal welfare being implemented in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is unacceptable for UK citizens to consume meat if they do not know whether the animals from which it came had a good quality of life. The group stated that they believe that, in order to live in a just society, citizens of the UK should be able to access information about the conditions in which the animals from which they are consuming meat were raised. This is necessary in order to ensure that animals are treated humanely, which should be a right of all animals. The group also mentioned that the government should enforce standards for animal treatment in the meat industry and that the standards should be easily accessed by citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of people only eating meat from animals that had a good quality of life. However, we recognised that this would be difficult to implement, as it would be very difficult to determine what a good quality of life is for an animal, and also that this would be very expensive, and therefore would only be available to those with a higher income. We also recognised that it would be unfair to those with a lower income if they were unable to buy meat, and so we believe that it should be a personal choice for people to consume meat from animals that had a good quality of life. However, we also believe that there should be a basic standard of animal welfare that should be adhered to, and that this should be regulated by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in agreement that people should be given the choice as to whether they want to consume meat that was raised in conditions that allow for a good quality of life. However, as a consensus, the group felt that this is a long-term goal that is unrealistic and will not be achieved for many years to come. They also felt that in the short-term, regulation of welfare conditions should be a top priority to ensure that animals are raised in acceptable conditions. They also felt that it is important for individuals to do their own research into the quality of life that the animals had. They felt that the public should be given as much information as possible, so that they can make informed decisions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of people consuming meat if they don’t know whether it came from animals that had a good quality of life. However, the group was in favour of a basic standard of animal welfare being implemented in the UK. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002224.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002224.soc index d0a6d06c..e3334d06 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002224.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002224.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Women in parliament would mean more representative government, so that there would be more women's voices heard and more women's needs addressed. Women's voices need to be heard in parliament to properly represent the opinions of the whole country. In the past, women have been excluded from parliament due to sexist stereotypes that women are not intelligent enough to hold such a position. Women have different views to men and have to deal with different problems. This means they will have different solutions to problems and will make better decisions. They have the ability to use empathy, compassion and an understanding of the issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the proportion of women in parliament should be representative of society as a whole. Until this is achieved, the proportion of under-represented groups should be increased so we can work towards a system of government that actually truly represents, and can advocate for, the people it is governing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Women should be represented in parliament in proportion to their representation in the population. This is necessary to ensure that women's voices are heard and that they are able to advocate for their own interests. Women are often more disadvantaged than men in society, and are less likely to have their voices heard. Women in parliament can advocate for policies that will improve women's lives and the lives of their families. Women also have a different perspective to men, and it is important that this perspective is heard and considered when decisions are being made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase the proportion of women in parliament. If there are any women out there that would like to be in parliament but are currently not being given the opportunity for some reason, we should change this. Women need to have a voice and there should be the same amount as men if possible. Women are naturally more empathetic and rational with their thinking, which would make parliament run better. However, we don't think women should be in parliament just because we need a certain number of women representing the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Women in parliament would mean more representative government, so that there would be more women's voices heard and more women's needs addressed. Women's voices need to be heard in parliament to properly represent the opinions of the whole country. In the past, women have been excluded from parliament due to sexist stereotypes that women are not intelligent enough to hold such a position. Women have different views to men and have to deal with different problems. This means they will have different solutions to problems and will make better decisions. They have the ability to use empathy, compassion and an understanding of the issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the proportion of women in parliament should be representative of society as a whole. Until this is achieved, the proportion of under-represented groups should be increased so we can work towards a system of government that actually truly represents, and can advocate for, the people it is governing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Women should be represented in parliament in proportion to their representation in the population. This is necessary to ensure that women's voices are heard and that they are able to advocate for their own interests. Women are often more disadvantaged than men in society, and are less likely to have their voices heard. Women in parliament can advocate for policies that will improve women's lives and the lives of their families. Women also have a different perspective to men, and it is important that this perspective is heard and considered when decisions are being made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase the proportion of women in parliament. If there are any women out there that would like to be in parliament but are currently not being given the opportunity for some reason, we should change this. Women need to have a voice and there should be the same amount as men if possible. Women are naturally more empathetic and rational with their thinking, which would make parliament run better. However, we don't think women should be in parliament just because we need a certain number of women representing the country. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002225.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002225.soc index aa51d978..500ffcc3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002225.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002225.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of allowing people in the UK to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. However, the group was of the opinion that it is important to know what those non-lethal weapons are, and whether they will cause a great deal of harm. The group was also of the opinion that people should be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence, but only if those weapons will not cause a great deal of harm and are used solely for self-defence. The group also believed that police should have better weapons though as they are properly trained. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People in the UK should be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is the case because in today's society people need protection. The rate of crime is on the rise and so police can't be everywhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of allowing people to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This would be particularly beneficial to women who are often victims of violence. In order to ensure that those weapons are not misused, they would need to be non-lethal. Anyone wishing to carry such weapons would also need to demonstrate a certain level of competency in their use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, people should not be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because there is a possibility that these weapons could be used in a criminal way, and also because the police should be the ones who are responsible for people's safety and security. However, it is important to note that the police should be better equipped to deal with crime, and they should be able to protect law-abiding citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing people in the UK to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. However, the group was of the opinion that it is important to know what those non-lethal weapons are, and whether they will cause a great deal of harm. The group was also of the opinion that people should be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence, but only if those weapons will not cause a great deal of harm and are used solely for self-defence. The group also believed that police should have better weapons though as they are properly trained. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People in the UK should be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is the case because in today's society people need protection. The rate of crime is on the rise and so police can't be everywhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing people to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This would be particularly beneficial to women who are often victims of violence. In order to ensure that those weapons are not misused, they would need to be non-lethal. Anyone wishing to carry such weapons would also need to demonstrate a certain level of competency in their use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, people should not be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because there is a possibility that these weapons could be used in a criminal way, and also because the police should be the ones who are responsible for people's safety and security. However, it is important to note that the police should be better equipped to deal with crime, and they should be able to protect law-abiding citizens. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002226.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002226.soc index 150fe20d..afde8fac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002226.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002226.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. We all need to do our bit and think about our future, and this means caring for our planet. If we do not, there may not be a planet for future generations to inhabit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The environment is important to all living things and we should all do our best to protect it. However, the government should also do their part by providing more funding and ideas for clean fuels and sustainability.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. As it stands, the environment is being destroyed by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government must also be doing its part, and more funding is needed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should spend more on protecting the environment. However this should not be done at the expense of other services. The money needs to be allocated into specific areas which have been scientifically proven to make an impact. We as adults should be acting far more responsibly and teaching future generations how to be responsible and protect our environment. The government cares more about its profits and their big private jets and multiple holiday homes over human lives so why would they care about the environment. We should definately spend more on protecting the environment. Humans have made the mess and we should all help to clean it up. We can all do our bit in protecting the environment but I think that the government need to help with more funding and more ideas on cleaner fuels and sustainability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. We all need to do our bit and think about our future, and this means caring for our planet. If we do not, there may not be a planet for future generations to inhabit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The environment is important to all living things and we should all do our best to protect it. However, the government should also do their part by providing more funding and ideas for clean fuels and sustainability.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. As it stands, the environment is being destroyed by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government must also be doing its part, and more funding is needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should spend more on protecting the environment. However this should not be done at the expense of other services. The money needs to be allocated into specific areas which have been scientifically proven to make an impact. We as adults should be acting far more responsibly and teaching future generations how to be responsible and protect our environment. The government cares more about its profits and their big private jets and multiple holiday homes over human lives so why would they care about the environment. We should definately spend more on protecting the environment. Humans have made the mess and we should all help to clean it up. We can all do our bit in protecting the environment but I think that the government need to help with more funding and more ideas on cleaner fuels and sustainability. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002227.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002227.soc index e6fecda9..9b3ad6b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002227.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002227.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The current immigration policy is outdated and needs to be updated. A points-based system would be a good idea, similar to Australia, where people are accepted into the country based on their skills and how much they can contribute to society. We also need to accept people from war zones and other terrible backgrounds and give them a chance at a better life. There can be a balance.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that a more comprehensive immigration policy needs to be implemented in the UK. The current immigration policy can be quite unclear in some parts and needs to be more specific on certain matters. For example, a more comprehensive immigration policy could provide more information on what evidence is needed to prove an individual’s identity. This would help to prevent the unlawful actions of illegal immigrants entering the UK under false pretences. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of human rights for people who want to enter the UK, and for those who already live in the UK. A more comprehensive immigration policy could therefore specify what rights are in place for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It could also make the criteria for entering the UK more specific and in doing so, provide more clarity for individuals and reduce the risk of errors in the immigration system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe the UK needs to adopt a more comprehensive immigration policy. We think the current system is too lax, and that this leads to overcrowding and strains on public services that is not needed. We think a points system similar to Australia would be best, and that people should be accepted who can make a positive impact on society. We think this would be best balanced with accepting people from war zones and other similar backgrounds to give them a chance at a better life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the current immigration policy is not comprehensive enough. The UK needs to create a more comprehensive immigration policy to ensure human rights, safety and equality needs are met when entering the UK for immigrants. We believe that the current system is too lax and it should be more comprehensive. We think immigration is a positive idea in general but out of control immigration leads to overcrowding and a strain on public services that is not needed. A points system similar to Australia seems a good idea where we accept people that can make a positive impact on society. It is also right to accept people from war zones and other similar terrible backgrounds and give them a chance at a better life. There can be a balance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The current immigration policy is outdated and needs to be updated. A points-based system would be a good idea, similar to Australia, where people are accepted into the country based on their skills and how much they can contribute to society. We also need to accept people from war zones and other terrible backgrounds and give them a chance at a better life. There can be a balance.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that a more comprehensive immigration policy needs to be implemented in the UK. The current immigration policy can be quite unclear in some parts and needs to be more specific on certain matters. For example, a more comprehensive immigration policy could provide more information on what evidence is needed to prove an individual’s identity. This would help to prevent the unlawful actions of illegal immigrants entering the UK under false pretences. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of human rights for people who want to enter the UK, and for those who already live in the UK. A more comprehensive immigration policy could therefore specify what rights are in place for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It could also make the criteria for entering the UK more specific and in doing so, provide more clarity for individuals and reduce the risk of errors in the immigration system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe the UK needs to adopt a more comprehensive immigration policy. We think the current system is too lax, and that this leads to overcrowding and strains on public services that is not needed. We think a points system similar to Australia would be best, and that people should be accepted who can make a positive impact on society. We think this would be best balanced with accepting people from war zones and other similar backgrounds to give them a chance at a better life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the current immigration policy is not comprehensive enough. The UK needs to create a more comprehensive immigration policy to ensure human rights, safety and equality needs are met when entering the UK for immigrants. We believe that the current system is too lax and it should be more comprehensive. We think immigration is a positive idea in general but out of control immigration leads to overcrowding and a strain on public services that is not needed. A points system similar to Australia seems a good idea where we accept people that can make a positive impact on society. It is also right to accept people from war zones and other similar terrible backgrounds and give them a chance at a better life. There can be a balance. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002228.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002228.soc index a42ccacd..b1f9dcf0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002228.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002228.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should have a choice about whether or not to eat meat or vegetarian food. There are benefits and detriments to both. To ensure this choice is exercised in an environmentally sustainable way, there should be strict guidelines for the production of meat, including the prohibition of CAFOs and the use of GMOs. Organic methods should be promoted as a means of producing food in an environmentally friendly way. However, organic methods can be difficult and expensive for farmers to implement and can be used in conjunction with non-organic methods. While government-approved organic methods of food production are the most environmentally friendly, non-organic methods are acceptable if implemented in an environmentally sustainable manner. Education and information should be provided about the environmental and health impacts of the various methods of food production, so that people can make a choice and it is not forced upon them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The majority of participants agreed that there should be a choice between vegetarian food and food containing meat, but that the production of meat should be in accordance with strict guidelines to ensure sustainability. This includes the prohibition of CAFOs, the use of GMOs, and the promotion of organic methods of production. The group of participants felt that although organic methods are the most environmentally friendly, they can be expensive and difficult for farmers to implement, so other non-organic methods can also be used to ensure the sustainability of food production. The group of participants also agreed that the issue of cost is an important consideration. For example, they felt that poorer families should be given subsidies to help them afford to buy organic food, and that governments should provide education on the environmental and health impacts of consuming meat, as well as the advantages of vegetarianism. This will allow people to make informed decisions about their diets and to make a choice as to whether to consume vegetarian food or food containing meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a balance between promoting vegetarianism and allowing people to make their own choice about what to eat. Vegetarianism is an important choice for people to make in order to reduce the negative environmental impacts of meat production and to improve their own health. Organic farming methods should be promoted and made easier to implement by governments, particularly in developing countries, to ensure that all food is produced in a sustainable way. People should have a choice about whether or not to eat meat or vegetarian food. There are benefits and detriments to both. To ensure this choice is exercised in an environmentally sustainable way, there should be strict guidelines for the production of meat, including the prohibition of CAFOs and the use of GMOs. Organic methods should be promoted as a means of producing food in an environmentally friendly way. However, organic methods can be difficult and expensive for farmers to implement and can be used in conjunction with non-organic methods. In terms of promoting vegetarianism, people should be provided with education about the environmental and health impacts of consuming meat and the advantages of vegetarianism, and not forced into making a choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have a choice about whether or not to eat meat or vegetarian food. There are benefits and detriments to both. To ensure this choice is exercised in an environmentally sustainable way, there should be strict guidelines for the production of meat, including the prohibition of CAFOs and the use of GMOs. Organic methods should be promoted as a means of producing food in an environmentally friendly way. However, organic methods can be difficult and expensive for farmers to implement and can be used in conjunction with non-organic methods. In terms of promoting vegetarianism, people should be provided with education about the environmental and health impacts of consuming meat and the advantages of vegetarianism, and not forced into making a choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should have a choice about whether or not to eat meat or vegetarian food. There are benefits and detriments to both. To ensure this choice is exercised in an environmentally sustainable way, there should be strict guidelines for the production of meat, including the prohibition of CAFOs and the use of GMOs. Organic methods should be promoted as a means of producing food in an environmentally friendly way. However, organic methods can be difficult and expensive for farmers to implement and can be used in conjunction with non-organic methods. While government-approved organic methods of food production are the most environmentally friendly, non-organic methods are acceptable if implemented in an environmentally sustainable manner. Education and information should be provided about the environmental and health impacts of the various methods of food production, so that people can make a choice and it is not forced upon them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The majority of participants agreed that there should be a choice between vegetarian food and food containing meat, but that the production of meat should be in accordance with strict guidelines to ensure sustainability. This includes the prohibition of CAFOs, the use of GMOs, and the promotion of organic methods of production. The group of participants felt that although organic methods are the most environmentally friendly, they can be expensive and difficult for farmers to implement, so other non-organic methods can also be used to ensure the sustainability of food production. The group of participants also agreed that the issue of cost is an important consideration. For example, they felt that poorer families should be given subsidies to help them afford to buy organic food, and that governments should provide education on the environmental and health impacts of consuming meat, as well as the advantages of vegetarianism. This will allow people to make informed decisions about their diets and to make a choice as to whether to consume vegetarian food or food containing meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a balance between promoting vegetarianism and allowing people to make their own choice about what to eat. Vegetarianism is an important choice for people to make in order to reduce the negative environmental impacts of meat production and to improve their own health. Organic farming methods should be promoted and made easier to implement by governments, particularly in developing countries, to ensure that all food is produced in a sustainable way. People should have a choice about whether or not to eat meat or vegetarian food. There are benefits and detriments to both. To ensure this choice is exercised in an environmentally sustainable way, there should be strict guidelines for the production of meat, including the prohibition of CAFOs and the use of GMOs. Organic methods should be promoted as a means of producing food in an environmentally friendly way. However, organic methods can be difficult and expensive for farmers to implement and can be used in conjunction with non-organic methods. In terms of promoting vegetarianism, people should be provided with education about the environmental and health impacts of consuming meat and the advantages of vegetarianism, and not forced into making a choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have a choice about whether or not to eat meat or vegetarian food. There are benefits and detriments to both. To ensure this choice is exercised in an environmentally sustainable way, there should be strict guidelines for the production of meat, including the prohibition of CAFOs and the use of GMOs. Organic methods should be promoted as a means of producing food in an environmentally friendly way. However, organic methods can be difficult and expensive for farmers to implement and can be used in conjunction with non-organic methods. In terms of promoting vegetarianism, people should be provided with education about the environmental and health impacts of consuming meat and the advantages of vegetarianism, and not forced into making a choice. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002229.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002229.soc index dc919a48..95c278fc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002229.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002229.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is not wrong to eat meat. Although the way in which meat is reared is often very cruel and not sustainable, meat can provide us with a large amount of nutrients that can benefit our health and so therefore it is okay to eat meat. However, people who choose not to eat meat are not doing anything wrong. It is just a personal choice that people make and people have a right to choose what they want to eat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. They felt that humans are designed to eat meat, and that it is not wrong to do so. However, they felt that the way in which meat is produced and processed is not sustainable and that animals are not treated well enough. The group felt that the way in which meat is produced and processed needs to change in order to be more sustainable. They also felt that it is a personal choice and that it is not wrong to eat meat, but that it is also not wrong to be vegan. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not wrong to eat meat. The treatment of animals and where they are reared is more important than the act of eating meat itself. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of eating meat. However, the group was in favour of eating meat in a more sustainable way, and to a lesser extent than we currently do. The group was in favour of the way in which animals are treated, and thought that the way in which they are currently treated is not acceptable. The group was in favour of the idea that humans are designed to eat meat, but thought that we do over consume by a large amount. The group was in favour of the idea that the way in which meat is now reared and processed is not sustainable and a lot of the animals are not treated well enough. However, the group was in favour of the idea that animals need to be treated in the most humane way possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is not wrong to eat meat. Although the way in which meat is reared is often very cruel and not sustainable, meat can provide us with a large amount of nutrients that can benefit our health and so therefore it is okay to eat meat. However, people who choose not to eat meat are not doing anything wrong. It is just a personal choice that people make and people have a right to choose what they want to eat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the consumption of meat. They felt that humans are designed to eat meat, and that it is not wrong to do so. However, they felt that the way in which meat is produced and processed is not sustainable and that animals are not treated well enough. The group felt that the way in which meat is produced and processed needs to change in order to be more sustainable. They also felt that it is a personal choice and that it is not wrong to eat meat, but that it is also not wrong to be vegan. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not wrong to eat meat. The treatment of animals and where they are reared is more important than the act of eating meat itself. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of eating meat. However, the group was in favour of eating meat in a more sustainable way, and to a lesser extent than we currently do. The group was in favour of the way in which animals are treated, and thought that the way in which they are currently treated is not acceptable. The group was in favour of the idea that humans are designed to eat meat, but thought that we do over consume by a large amount. The group was in favour of the idea that the way in which meat is now reared and processed is not sustainable and a lot of the animals are not treated well enough. However, the group was in favour of the idea that animals need to be treated in the most humane way possible. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002230.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002230.soc index 48b6bef3..df5749e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002230.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002230.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not have an unelected House of Lords. It is undemocratic to have unelected members of parliament. It is also unfair that unelected peers can vote on laws that affect us all. The unelected peers are appointed by the Prime Minister and therefore may not represent the views of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe the unelected House of Lords should be abolished. Unelected peers don't truly represent their local communities and this means that their voting is biased. It also makes the system seem unfair and undemocratic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No we should not. It is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated to have unelected members of the House of Lords. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not have an unelected House of Lords. This is because it is undemocratic to have unelected members of a political structure and it is also unfair to the public who do not have a say in who is representing them. The unelected House of Lords also has a history of being stuffed with cronies and donors that contribute nothing while being paid a lot of taxpayer money. The unelected second chamber also results in the House of Commons and therefore the Prime Minister holding far to much power, as the House of Lords is unelected, it is ultimately does not have a mandate to stop anything the largest party in the commons wants to get through. This causes our system to be lopsided and lacking in checks and balances required for a functioning democracy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not have an unelected House of Lords. It is undemocratic to have unelected members of parliament. It is also unfair that unelected peers can vote on laws that affect us all. The unelected peers are appointed by the Prime Minister and therefore may not represent the views of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe the unelected House of Lords should be abolished. Unelected peers don't truly represent their local communities and this means that their voting is biased. It also makes the system seem unfair and undemocratic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No we should not. It is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated to have unelected members of the House of Lords. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not have an unelected House of Lords. This is because it is undemocratic to have unelected members of a political structure and it is also unfair to the public who do not have a say in who is representing them. The unelected House of Lords also has a history of being stuffed with cronies and donors that contribute nothing while being paid a lot of taxpayer money. The unelected second chamber also results in the House of Commons and therefore the Prime Minister holding far to much power, as the House of Lords is unelected, it is ultimately does not have a mandate to stop anything the largest party in the commons wants to get through. This causes our system to be lopsided and lacking in checks and balances required for a functioning democracy. 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002231.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002231.soc index 4843e3ae..08b76e59 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002231.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002231.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, the state should spend more money on protecting the environment. If we do not invest in the environment, climate change will result in devastation of our natural and built environments, natural disasters, death and disease. It is in everyones interests to protect the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The state should definitely spend more money on protecting the environment. Our nature is the source of our food and the air that we breathe. We need to invest in the envrionment so we can live in a safe and healthy environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. It is the responsibility of the government to act in the interests of the people and to take the necessary steps to protect the environment. The environment is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The state should definitely spend more money on protecting the environment. Without a healthy environment, we will not have a future, and this means that it should be the highest priority of any government. The environment is also what we depend on for food and the air that we breathe, and so a healthy environment is the first priority for any government. The science is clear that we need to take serious action to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, the state should spend more money on protecting the environment. If we do not invest in the environment, climate change will result in devastation of our natural and built environments, natural disasters, death and disease. It is in everyones interests to protect the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The state should definitely spend more money on protecting the environment. Our nature is the source of our food and the air that we breathe. We need to invest in the envrionment so we can live in a safe and healthy environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. It is the responsibility of the government to act in the interests of the people and to take the necessary steps to protect the environment. The environment is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The state should definitely spend more money on protecting the environment. Without a healthy environment, we will not have a future, and this means that it should be the highest priority of any government. The environment is also what we depend on for food and the air that we breathe, and so a healthy environment is the first priority for any government. The science is clear that we need to take serious action to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. 3: 3,4,1,2 2: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002232.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002232.soc index 502a1262..b8da2d96 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002232.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002232.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. However, MPs who live a significant distance from Westminster (e.g., all Scottish MPs and those living in the north of England) should be able to claim for a second home in order to carry out their duties. Also, these claims should be limited by the fact that the home must be rented below the average cost of homes in the region and there should also be a cap on the cost of the home that can be claimed for. The consensus was strongly in favour of this and we saw no evidence of any attempt to force anyone's opinion to the ground. This is strong evidence that Delphi need not be a consensus-forcing process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This would ensure that MPs from all over the country are treated equally. We believe that MPs already receive a generous income and should not require a second home in order to carry out their duties. However, there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. We believe that MPs from all over the country should be treated equally and that no MP should be able to claim for a second home. However, we also believe that the current system is open to abuse and that a new system must be put in place. We believe that the new system should be strict and should not allow for MPs to claim for an excessively large or grand house. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of MPs being able to claim expenses for a second home. The group felt that MPs were already well paid and should not be claiming for a second home. However, the group felt that there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group was in general opposed to the idea of MPs being able to claim expenses for a second home. The group felt that MPs were already well paid and should not be claiming for a second home. However, the group felt that there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. The group also felt that there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. However, MPs who live a significant distance from Westminster (e.g., all Scottish MPs and those living in the north of England) should be able to claim for a second home in order to carry out their duties. Also, these claims should be limited by the fact that the home must be rented below the average cost of homes in the region and there should also be a cap on the cost of the home that can be claimed for. The consensus was strongly in favour of this and we saw no evidence of any attempt to force anyone's opinion to the ground. This is strong evidence that Delphi need not be a consensus-forcing process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - MPs should not be able to claim expenses for a second home. This would ensure that MPs from all over the country are treated equally. We believe that MPs already receive a generous income and should not require a second home in order to carry out their duties. However, there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. We believe that MPs from all over the country should be treated equally and that no MP should be able to claim for a second home. However, we also believe that the current system is open to abuse and that a new system must be put in place. We believe that the new system should be strict and should not allow for MPs to claim for an excessively large or grand house. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of MPs being able to claim expenses for a second home. The group felt that MPs were already well paid and should not be claiming for a second home. However, the group felt that there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group was in general opposed to the idea of MPs being able to claim expenses for a second home. The group felt that MPs were already well paid and should not be claiming for a second home. However, the group felt that there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. The group also felt that there should be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if an MP lived a long way from Westminster, they should be able to claim for a second home. The group felt that the current system was open to abuse and that there should be a distance limit and a cap on the amount that could be claimed. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002233.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002233.soc index 9ab18af5..ed9f5dd4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002233.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002233.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. As it stands, the environment is being destroyed by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government must also be doing its part, and more funding is needed. The government needs to allocate money into specific areas which have been scientifically proven to make an impact. This funding cannot be at the expense of other services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. As it stands, the environment is being destroyed by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government must also be doing its part, and more funding is needed. This funding must be allocated to specific areas which have been scientifically proven to make an impact. A non-experimental method to investigate whether or not the consensus statement was representative of all participants in the group is to ask each of them to rate their level of agreement with the consensus statement on a scale of 1 to 10. After the above consensus statement was reached, all participants were asked to rate their agreement with it, and they all rated it as a 10. This indicates that the consensus statement was representative of all participants in the group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. Humans are destroying the environment and it is vital that we fix this. We can all do our bit – recycling, cutting down on plastic use, purchasing second hand products, and so on. The government should also be doing more, however, and this will require more funding. The funding must be allocated into important areas that will help with the environment. It is crucial that it is used wisely, not just ‘thrown’ into the environment but used in the right places. If both the public and the government work together to fix the environment, it has the potential to become better than ever. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. The environment is being damaged by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government also has a part to play, and more funding is needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. As it stands, the environment is being destroyed by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government must also be doing its part, and more funding is needed. The government needs to allocate money into specific areas which have been scientifically proven to make an impact. This funding cannot be at the expense of other services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. As it stands, the environment is being destroyed by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government must also be doing its part, and more funding is needed. This funding must be allocated to specific areas which have been scientifically proven to make an impact. A non-experimental method to investigate whether or not the consensus statement was representative of all participants in the group is to ask each of them to rate their level of agreement with the consensus statement on a scale of 1 to 10. After the above consensus statement was reached, all participants were asked to rate their agreement with it, and they all rated it as a 10. This indicates that the consensus statement was representative of all participants in the group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. There are many ways in which we can be doing this. Humans are destroying the environment and it is vital that we fix this. We can all do our bit – recycling, cutting down on plastic use, purchasing second hand products, and so on. The government should also be doing more, however, and this will require more funding. The funding must be allocated into important areas that will help with the environment. It is crucial that it is used wisely, not just ‘thrown’ into the environment but used in the right places. If both the public and the government work together to fix the environment, it has the potential to become better than ever. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should definitely spend more on protecting the environment. The environment is being damaged by humans, and as humans, we should all be doing what we can to fix it. We can all do our part – for example, recycling more, cutting down on our carbon footprint by buying things second hand, and reducing plastic use. However, the government also has a part to play, and more funding is needed. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002234.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002234.soc index 75e45dac..bb748475 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002234.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002234.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No we should not. This is fundamentally undemocratic. Even if the peers that are appointed are honest and are a good representation of the country, the fact that an election process is not used to vote them in means that the political system is a lopsided and not accurately reflecting of the people and their interests. In fact, because unelected members have no democratic mandate, they tend to be biased towards the interests of the party which appointed them and they are often rewarded for this with positions and a voice in parliament. This also means that the government (and therefore Prime Minister and their Cabinet) retains too much power for the people's liking and the checks and balances required for a functioning democracy are very much lacking. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No. This is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. Members of the House of Lords have high salaries, but no real democratic mandate. We don't live in the real world, or an uncultured lives, we just care about the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No we should not. It is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated to have unelected members of the House of Lords. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. The House of Lords is not fit for purpose in the 21st century and should be abolished. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No we should not. It is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated to have unelected members of the House of Lords. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. In addition, it is important to note that the unelected second chamber is unable to truly act as an equal to the house of commons, without having a democratic mandate. This means the system is lopsided and lacking in checks and balances required for a functioning democracy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No we should not. This is fundamentally undemocratic. Even if the peers that are appointed are honest and are a good representation of the country, the fact that an election process is not used to vote them in means that the political system is a lopsided and not accurately reflecting of the people and their interests. In fact, because unelected members have no democratic mandate, they tend to be biased towards the interests of the party which appointed them and they are often rewarded for this with positions and a voice in parliament. This also means that the government (and therefore Prime Minister and their Cabinet) retains too much power for the people's liking and the checks and balances required for a functioning democracy are very much lacking. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. This is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. Members of the House of Lords have high salaries, but no real democratic mandate. We don't live in the real world, or an uncultured lives, we just care about the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No we should not. It is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated to have unelected members of the House of Lords. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. The House of Lords is not fit for purpose in the 21st century and should be abolished. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No we should not. It is fundamentally undemocratic and outdated to have unelected members of the House of Lords. If they are to speak for us and have our best interests in mind, they should be elected into their position. In addition, there have been many recent instances of cronyism, where unelected members have been appointed to the House of Lords to represent the interests of a political party, rather than the people. In addition, it is important to note that the unelected second chamber is unable to truly act as an equal to the house of commons, without having a democratic mandate. This means the system is lopsided and lacking in checks and balances required for a functioning democracy. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002235.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002235.soc index b9a5ac53..97383a56 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002235.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002235.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, people should not be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because there is a possibility that these weapons could be used in a criminal way, and also because the police should be the ones who are responsible for people's safety and security. However, it is important to note that the police should be better equipped to deal with crime, and they should be able to protect law-abiding citizens. We should also note that some non-lethal weapons, such as pepper sprays, should not cause much harm, and they could be allowed in specific situations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, people should not be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because there is a possibility that these weapons could be used in a criminal way. We should focus on improving the ways in which the police are able to protect law-abiding citizens, rather than giving people weapons which could possibly be used to commit crimes. But we also think that, if the police improved their equipment and bravery levels then crime would not be so high. At the same time, it is important to note that those most vulnerable to attacks are women, and so we must listen to their voices in order to come up with a consensus view on this matter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, people should not be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because there is a possibility that these weapons could be used in a criminal way, and also because the police should be the ones who are responsible for people's safety and security. However, it is important to note that the police should be better equipped to deal with crime, and they should be able to protect law-abiding citizens. It is also important to note that not all non-lethal weapons are the same. Some are more harmless than others. Some examples of non-lethal weapons include knives, pepper spray and tasers. Final note: all participants agreed that the consensus statement should be printed and displayed in public places, such as on billboards and on public transport. This is to promote the consensus statement and to encourage people to reflect on the issue of weapons for self-defence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People in the UK should be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because, in many cases, it is difficult to expect people to call the police if they are being attacked. Carrying such non-lethal weapons could help people especially women protect themselves. Also, these non-lethal weapons should be restricted to some very specific options, such as pepper sprays. One of the moderators then proceeded to ask: "So... if you've read all of the questions, guess which one is being asked by the police, how many of you would like to know which one?" - All of the participants wanted to know which question was asked by the police. "Okay, how many of you feel that question 2 and 4 are appropriate to the police but would not like to know which is theirs? - No one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, people should not be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because there is a possibility that these weapons could be used in a criminal way, and also because the police should be the ones who are responsible for people's safety and security. However, it is important to note that the police should be better equipped to deal with crime, and they should be able to protect law-abiding citizens. We should also note that some non-lethal weapons, such as pepper sprays, should not cause much harm, and they could be allowed in specific situations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, people should not be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because there is a possibility that these weapons could be used in a criminal way. We should focus on improving the ways in which the police are able to protect law-abiding citizens, rather than giving people weapons which could possibly be used to commit crimes. But we also think that, if the police improved their equipment and bravery levels then crime would not be so high. At the same time, it is important to note that those most vulnerable to attacks are women, and so we must listen to their voices in order to come up with a consensus view on this matter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, people should not be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because there is a possibility that these weapons could be used in a criminal way, and also because the police should be the ones who are responsible for people's safety and security. However, it is important to note that the police should be better equipped to deal with crime, and they should be able to protect law-abiding citizens. It is also important to note that not all non-lethal weapons are the same. Some are more harmless than others. Some examples of non-lethal weapons include knives, pepper spray and tasers. Final note: all participants agreed that the consensus statement should be printed and displayed in public places, such as on billboards and on public transport. This is to promote the consensus statement and to encourage people to reflect on the issue of weapons for self-defence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People in the UK should be allowed to carry non-lethal weapons for self-defence. This is because, in many cases, it is difficult to expect people to call the police if they are being attacked. Carrying such non-lethal weapons could help people especially women protect themselves. Also, these non-lethal weapons should be restricted to some very specific options, such as pepper sprays. One of the moderators then proceeded to ask: "So... if you've read all of the questions, guess which one is being asked by the police, how many of you would like to know which one?" - All of the participants wanted to know which question was asked by the police. "Okay, how many of you feel that question 2 and 4 are appropriate to the police but would not like to know which is theirs? - No one. 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002236.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002236.soc index 1c67dd70..218a22fa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002236.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002236.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A more comprehensive immigration policy needs to be implemented in the UK. This is because the current immigration policy can be unclear in some parts and needs to be more specific on certain matters. A more comprehensive immigration policy could provide more information on what evidence is needed to prove an individual’s identity. This would help to prevent the unlawful actions of illegal immigrants entering the UK under false pretences. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of human rights for people who want to enter the UK, and for those who already live in the UK. A more comprehensive immigration policy could therefore specify what rights are in place for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It could also make the criteria for entering the UK more specific and in doing so, provide more clarity for individuals and reduce the risk of errors in the immigration system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that a more comprehensive immigration policy needs to be implemented in the UK. The current immigration policy can be quite unclear in some parts and needs to be more specific on certain matters. For example, a more comprehensive immigration policy could provide more information on what evidence is needed to prove an individual’s identity. This would help to prevent the unlawful actions of illegal immigrants entering the UK under false pretences. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of human rights for people who want to enter the UK, and for those who already live in the UK. A more comprehensive immigration policy could therefore specify what rights are in place for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It could also make the criteria for entering the UK more specific and in doing so, provide more clarity for individuals and reduce the risk of errors in the immigration system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK government needs to create a more comprehensive immigration policy to ensure human rights and safety needs are met when entering the UK for immigrants. The current immigration policy can be quite unclear in some parts and needs to be more specific on certain matters. For example, a more comprehensive immigration policy could provide more information on what evidence is needed to prove an individual’s identity. This would help to prevent the unlawful actions of illegal immigrants entering the UK under false pretences. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of human rights for people who want to enter the UK, and for those who already live in the UK. A more comprehensive immigration policy could therefore specify what rights are in place for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It could also make the criteria for entering the UK more specific and in doing so, provide more clarity for individuals and reduce the risk of errors in the immigration system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A more comprehensive immigration policy needs to be implemented in the UK. This is because the current immigration policy can be unclear in some parts and needs to be more specific on certain matters. A more comprehensive immigration policy could provide more information on what evidence is needed to prove an individual’s identity. This would help to prevent the unlawful actions of illegal immigrants entering the UK under false pretences. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of human rights for people who want to enter the UK, and for those who already live in the UK. A more comprehensive immigration policy could therefore specify what rights are in place for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It could also make the criteria for entering the UK more specific and in doing so, provide more clarity for individuals and reduce the risk of errors in the immigration system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a more comprehensive immigration policy needs to be implemented in the UK. The current immigration policy can be quite unclear in some parts and needs to be more specific on certain matters. For example, a more comprehensive immigration policy could provide more information on what evidence is needed to prove an individual’s identity. This would help to prevent the unlawful actions of illegal immigrants entering the UK under false pretences. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of human rights for people who want to enter the UK, and for those who already live in the UK. A more comprehensive immigration policy could therefore specify what rights are in place for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It could also make the criteria for entering the UK more specific and in doing so, provide more clarity for individuals and reduce the risk of errors in the immigration system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK government needs to create a more comprehensive immigration policy to ensure human rights and safety needs are met when entering the UK for immigrants. The current immigration policy can be quite unclear in some parts and needs to be more specific on certain matters. For example, a more comprehensive immigration policy could provide more information on what evidence is needed to prove an individual’s identity. This would help to prevent the unlawful actions of illegal immigrants entering the UK under false pretences. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of human rights for people who want to enter the UK, and for those who already live in the UK. A more comprehensive immigration policy could therefore specify what rights are in place for all people, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It could also make the criteria for entering the UK more specific and in doing so, provide more clarity for individuals and reduce the risk of errors in the immigration system. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002237.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002237.soc index ffd69ed1..0d88a519 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002237.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002237.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. Rather, the group felt that the sale of these products should be more tightly regulated and that the public should be educated on the dangers of consuming these products. The group also felt that the government should provide incentives for manufacturers to reduce the sugar content of their products and to offer healthier alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. Rather, the group believed that the sale of such drinks should be regulated in terms of the sugar content of the drinks and that this should be accompanied by an education programme aimed at the general public. The group believed that the manufacturers of such drinks would only respond to legislation or pressure from consumers, not for requests to do the right thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People have the right to buy what they want. The government needs to provide the public with enough information for them to make informed choices and I think that education is the key to a healthier society. I don't think a ban would be effective. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the sale of soft drinks which are high in sugar should not be banned, there is a need for better regulation in this area. However, we believe that education is the key, and there needs to be more public awareness on the negative health consequences of drinking sugary soft drinks. A general public health campaign which shows the facts is essential to getting people to make better choices for their health. Manufacturers should be encouraged to promote reduced sugar alternatives, and their labeling and packaging should make it easier for people to make informed decisions on what they buy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. Rather, the group felt that the sale of these products should be more tightly regulated and that the public should be educated on the dangers of consuming these products. The group also felt that the government should provide incentives for manufacturers to reduce the sugar content of their products and to offer healthier alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on the sale of soft drinks that are high in sugar. Rather, the group believed that the sale of such drinks should be regulated in terms of the sugar content of the drinks and that this should be accompanied by an education programme aimed at the general public. The group believed that the manufacturers of such drinks would only respond to legislation or pressure from consumers, not for requests to do the right thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People have the right to buy what they want. The government needs to provide the public with enough information for them to make informed choices and I think that education is the key to a healthier society. I don't think a ban would be effective. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the sale of soft drinks which are high in sugar should not be banned, there is a need for better regulation in this area. However, we believe that education is the key, and there needs to be more public awareness on the negative health consequences of drinking sugary soft drinks. A general public health campaign which shows the facts is essential to getting people to make better choices for their health. Manufacturers should be encouraged to promote reduced sugar alternatives, and their labeling and packaging should make it easier for people to make informed decisions on what they buy. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002238.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002238.soc index 5fdf42be..70b54e78 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002238.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002238.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should have a legal duty to recycle. The legal duty would have to be carefully constructed as not all materials are easily recyclable and some people find it harder to recycle than others (e.g. not everyone has recycling bins outside their homes). This is because the law has the potential to go too far, but also has the potential to do a lot of good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should have a legal duty to recycle. However, this should be implemented in a way that is easy for people to do. There should be no punishments for those who are unable to recycle. Instead, recycling should be encouraged through education and making it as easy as possible for people to recycle. There should be recycling bins in every town and city, with clear instructions on what can and cannot be recycled. The recycling industry should be transparent in how they recycle waste. The group of participants also came up with the following recommendations: There should be more education in schools on the importance of recycling and how to do it. Recycling should be made as easy as possible for people, for example, by having recycling bins in every town and city. The government should provide more funding for the recycling industry to ensure that recycling is done in the most efficient way possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While we all agree that recycling is a good idea and we all want to see it promoted, we do not feel it should be made mandatory. We feel that there are already strong social norms in place that mean that most people do recycle, and these should be encouraged. However, the government should take steps to ensure that recycling is made easier, and that the level of recycling is increased. This should be done through better education, making recycling bins more accessible, and improving the recycling infrastructure. The government should also ensure that it does not use products that cannot be recycled. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should have a legal duty to recycle. However, there should be a certain degree of flexibility as to what can and can't be recycled. This is because not everything can be recycled. The law should also not be too strict as this would lead to people trying to get around the law. However, the law should be strict enough to ensure that people are recycling as much as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should have a legal duty to recycle. The legal duty would have to be carefully constructed as not all materials are easily recyclable and some people find it harder to recycle than others (e.g. not everyone has recycling bins outside their homes). This is because the law has the potential to go too far, but also has the potential to do a lot of good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should have a legal duty to recycle. However, this should be implemented in a way that is easy for people to do. There should be no punishments for those who are unable to recycle. Instead, recycling should be encouraged through education and making it as easy as possible for people to recycle. There should be recycling bins in every town and city, with clear instructions on what can and cannot be recycled. The recycling industry should be transparent in how they recycle waste. The group of participants also came up with the following recommendations: There should be more education in schools on the importance of recycling and how to do it. Recycling should be made as easy as possible for people, for example, by having recycling bins in every town and city. The government should provide more funding for the recycling industry to ensure that recycling is done in the most efficient way possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While we all agree that recycling is a good idea and we all want to see it promoted, we do not feel it should be made mandatory. We feel that there are already strong social norms in place that mean that most people do recycle, and these should be encouraged. However, the government should take steps to ensure that recycling is made easier, and that the level of recycling is increased. This should be done through better education, making recycling bins more accessible, and improving the recycling infrastructure. The government should also ensure that it does not use products that cannot be recycled. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should have a legal duty to recycle. However, there should be a certain degree of flexibility as to what can and can't be recycled. This is because not everything can be recycled. The law should also not be too strict as this would lead to people trying to get around the law. However, the law should be strict enough to ensure that people are recycling as much as possible. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002239.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002239.soc index 561aeefe..b1bb5edc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002239.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002239.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. It is the responsibility of the government to act in the interests of the people and to take the necessary steps to protect the environment. The environment is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. The environment is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. Summary of the process: The participants, by deliberating in a fair-minded and impartial way, were able to, by and large, come to a consensus view which seemed more reasonable than the initial statements. The participants all had slightly different opinions but were all able to come to an agreement by debating with each other. Although the participants didn't always agree with each other, they were able to come to an understanding of the issues and an appreciation of the other's viewpoint. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. Our nature is the source of our food and the air that we breathe. The government has a responsibility to act in the interests of the people and protect the environment. It is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. Conclusions Having seen the mechanics of Multiconsult in this blog post, it is hoped that you can now see how it can result in well thought out, justified, and reasonably strong consensus views that would have resulted without this tool. There is an open-source implementation of Multiconsult available in the GitHub project, including several participants who can comment. If you have any problems, questions, or comments about this tool or how to use it, or you notice any bugs in the tool, you are more than welcome to contribute an issue or pull -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. Our nature is the source of our food and the air that we breathe. If we do not invest in the environment, climate change will result in devastation of our natural and built environments, natural disasters, death and disease. It is in everyones interests to protect the environment. It is the responsibility of the government to act in the interests of the people and to take the necessary steps to protect the environment. The environment is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. It is the responsibility of the government to act in the interests of the people and to take the necessary steps to protect the environment. The environment is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. The environment is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. Summary of the process: The participants, by deliberating in a fair-minded and impartial way, were able to, by and large, come to a consensus view which seemed more reasonable than the initial statements. The participants all had slightly different opinions but were all able to come to an agreement by debating with each other. Although the participants didn't always agree with each other, they were able to come to an understanding of the issues and an appreciation of the other's viewpoint. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. Our nature is the source of our food and the air that we breathe. The government has a responsibility to act in the interests of the people and protect the environment. It is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. Conclusions Having seen the mechanics of Multiconsult in this blog post, it is hoped that you can now see how it can result in well thought out, justified, and reasonably strong consensus views that would have resulted without this tool. There is an open-source implementation of Multiconsult available in the GitHub project, including several participants who can comment. If you have any problems, questions, or comments about this tool or how to use it, or you notice any bugs in the tool, you are more than welcome to contribute an issue or pull +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The state should spend more money on protecting the environment. Our nature is the source of our food and the air that we breathe. If we do not invest in the environment, climate change will result in devastation of our natural and built environments, natural disasters, death and disease. It is in everyones interests to protect the environment. It is the responsibility of the government to act in the interests of the people and to take the necessary steps to protect the environment. The environment is the basis for everything else in society. Nothing else works if the environment is not hospitable, and so it should be the first priority for any government. The science is clear that serious action needs to be taken to protect the environment. Governments have a responsibility to respond to that appropriately and take it as seriously as it deserves. They need to stop thinking in terms of short-term profits and think about long-term viability of the planet if we keep going in the current direction. The long-term costs of ignoring the climate crisis will far outweigh any short-term gains. 3: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002240.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002240.soc index 206f32c7..c5f3930d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002240.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002240.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It was agreed that the gun control laws should be made stricter, for many reasons. The amount of accidental deaths and mass shootings in the United States of America has shown that gun laws are failing. Many people were also in agreement that guns have no place in general society and they should be restricted to gun clubs. It was also agreed that many young people need to be better educated on the effects of gun crime and how to use a gun responsibly, so that they are fully aware of what they are doing and do not cause any harm to anybody. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of imposing stricter gun control laws. This was because of the increasing number of gun crimes in the country and the devastating effects of gun crime. The group was also in favour of educating young people and making it harder for them to get hold of a gun. The group also believed that the situation would get worse if the country did not take control of it now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Gun crime is on the increase and we need to impose stricter gun control laws. Gun control laws should be reviewed and possibly implemented again as there are too many guns in circulation. The media has helped to increase awareness of gun crime and the devastating effects that it can have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of stricter gun control laws. The participants felt that guns are dangerous and can cause a lot of damage and should be kept out of the hands of the general public. The participants felt that the US is a good example of what can happen when guns are too easily accessible. The participants also felt that there is a lot of gun crime in this country and that it is only a matter of time before something similar to the US happens here. The participants felt that there is a need for more education on gun safety and that young people need to be better educated on the dangers of guns. The participants also felt that it is very easy to obtain a gun and that there needs to be more checks on who is allowed to own a gun. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It was agreed that the gun control laws should be made stricter, for many reasons. The amount of accidental deaths and mass shootings in the United States of America has shown that gun laws are failing. Many people were also in agreement that guns have no place in general society and they should be restricted to gun clubs. It was also agreed that many young people need to be better educated on the effects of gun crime and how to use a gun responsibly, so that they are fully aware of what they are doing and do not cause any harm to anybody. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of imposing stricter gun control laws. This was because of the increasing number of gun crimes in the country and the devastating effects of gun crime. The group was also in favour of educating young people and making it harder for them to get hold of a gun. The group also believed that the situation would get worse if the country did not take control of it now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Gun crime is on the increase and we need to impose stricter gun control laws. Gun control laws should be reviewed and possibly implemented again as there are too many guns in circulation. The media has helped to increase awareness of gun crime and the devastating effects that it can have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of stricter gun control laws. The participants felt that guns are dangerous and can cause a lot of damage and should be kept out of the hands of the general public. The participants felt that the US is a good example of what can happen when guns are too easily accessible. The participants also felt that there is a lot of gun crime in this country and that it is only a matter of time before something similar to the US happens here. The participants felt that there is a need for more education on gun safety and that young people need to be better educated on the dangers of guns. The participants also felt that it is very easy to obtain a gun and that there needs to be more checks on who is allowed to own a gun. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002241.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002241.soc index 632c8848..42fdfbf7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002241.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002241.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think it is necessary to regulate and monitor personal health data to prevent another global pandemic. There is no evidence to suggest that this would have prevented COVID-19, and the collection of health data would pose a big security risk if the data was leaked. There is also the issue of how this data would be used. We are concerned that this data could be sold to advertisers, enabling them to personalise adverts to align with certain health issues we have. This would be a breach of privacy and an invasion of our personal lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The world was not prepared for the global COVID-19 pandemic, and although there was a lot of information to monitor the virus, there were not enough mechanisms in place to deal with the virus when it spread, however, we should be concerned about how monitoring personal health data might impact people's privacy and trust in governments and the private sector. Anonymised data collection is acceptable, but it's unlikely that this will ever be able to fully protect people's privacy. It may be possible to predict small outbreaks of diseases through analysis of health trends, but this will not prevent a global pandemic. Overall, there are more negatives than positives to monitoring personal health data to prevent another global pandemic. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary to regulate and monitor personal health data to prevent another global pandemic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not necessary to regulate and monitor personal health data to prevent another global pandemic, because it would not be helpful, and because the accumulation of personal data by the government poses a security risk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not necessary to regulate and monitor personal health data to prevent another global pandemic. The majority of participants felt that monitoring personal health data was unnecessary and would lead to a future that made them feel uncomfortable. Some participants felt that private data is so accessible and routinely recorded by private organizations that the public should not be concerned with their personal health data being monitored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think it is necessary to regulate and monitor personal health data to prevent another global pandemic. There is no evidence to suggest that this would have prevented COVID-19, and the collection of health data would pose a big security risk if the data was leaked. There is also the issue of how this data would be used. We are concerned that this data could be sold to advertisers, enabling them to personalise adverts to align with certain health issues we have. This would be a breach of privacy and an invasion of our personal lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The world was not prepared for the global COVID-19 pandemic, and although there was a lot of information to monitor the virus, there were not enough mechanisms in place to deal with the virus when it spread, however, we should be concerned about how monitoring personal health data might impact people's privacy and trust in governments and the private sector. Anonymised data collection is acceptable, but it's unlikely that this will ever be able to fully protect people's privacy. It may be possible to predict small outbreaks of diseases through analysis of health trends, but this will not prevent a global pandemic. Overall, there are more negatives than positives to monitoring personal health data to prevent another global pandemic. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary to regulate and monitor personal health data to prevent another global pandemic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not necessary to regulate and monitor personal health data to prevent another global pandemic, because it would not be helpful, and because the accumulation of personal data by the government poses a security risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not necessary to regulate and monitor personal health data to prevent another global pandemic. The majority of participants felt that monitoring personal health data was unnecessary and would lead to a future that made them feel uncomfortable. Some participants felt that private data is so accessible and routinely recorded by private organizations that the public should not be concerned with their personal health data being monitored. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002242.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002242.soc index 82fd94f6..382e146b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002242.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002242.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No. The national lottery is already in place and has been for years. It is a form of gambling and is not a good way to solve the country's financial problems. It is also a tax on the poor. The government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a national lottery. The group felt that a national lottery would not help solve Britain's financial problems. The group felt that a national lottery would only encourage people to spend money they don't have, in the hope of winning. The group felt that a national lottery would only cause people to go into debt. The group felt that the government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. The group felt that the super rich should be taxed more to help financial issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We feel that a lottery does not really help to solve Britain's financial problems. In fact it may actually cause more problems, as people may go into debt to participate in the lottery and people may get addicted to the lottery and spend a lot of money. We also feel that the government should look for better ways to solve Britain's problems and try to analyse the current financial situation thoroughly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although a national lottery would be a great idea, it would not solve Britain’s financial problems. This is because, in theory, it would simply take money from one section of the population to give it to another. Britain would still be in financial trouble, but perhaps less so. There would be the added bonus of a small number of people being able to change their life and help solve their financial problems. However, that would only be a very small number of people, so the lottery would only be a small part of the solution. A better solution to Britain’s financial problems is to cut back on benefits, particularly those which are handed out to people who don’t work. At the moment, too much money is being given to people who don’t need it, and people who do need it are getting nothing. The government should take the money that would have been given to these people, and use it to solve Britain’s financial problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No. The national lottery is already in place and has been for years. It is a form of gambling and is not a good way to solve the country's financial problems. It is also a tax on the poor. The government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a national lottery. The group felt that a national lottery would not help solve Britain's financial problems. The group felt that a national lottery would only encourage people to spend money they don't have, in the hope of winning. The group felt that a national lottery would only cause people to go into debt. The group felt that the government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. The group felt that the super rich should be taxed more to help financial issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We feel that a lottery does not really help to solve Britain's financial problems. In fact it may actually cause more problems, as people may go into debt to participate in the lottery and people may get addicted to the lottery and spend a lot of money. We also feel that the government should look for better ways to solve Britain's problems and try to analyse the current financial situation thoroughly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although a national lottery would be a great idea, it would not solve Britain’s financial problems. This is because, in theory, it would simply take money from one section of the population to give it to another. Britain would still be in financial trouble, but perhaps less so. There would be the added bonus of a small number of people being able to change their life and help solve their financial problems. However, that would only be a very small number of people, so the lottery would only be a small part of the solution. A better solution to Britain’s financial problems is to cut back on benefits, particularly those which are handed out to people who don’t work. At the moment, too much money is being given to people who don’t need it, and people who do need it are getting nothing. The government should take the money that would have been given to these people, and use it to solve Britain’s financial problems. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002243.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002243.soc index 8d8b9211..01cee89f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002243.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002243.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens. The process in place at the moment is more than adequate and we feel that the process should be made more stringent to ensure that the immigrants who come to the UK are able to contribute to society and not be a security risk. We should also consider the impact that immigrants have on the already stretched welfare system and the health system. If we are able to do this then we believe that the UK would become a more desirable place to live in for all people, not just immigrants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens. If they cannot come to the UK for a valid reason and become contributing members of society then they should not be here, there are plenty of other places for them to go. The current requirements for citizenship are adequate, and in fact, the longer the time taken to become a citizen, the better it is for all of us. Decision Participant no: 1 Decision Participant no: 2 Decision Participant no: 3 Decision Participant no: 4 Decision Participant no: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens. The process in place at the moment is more than adequate and should be made more stringent to ensure that the immigrants who come to the UK are able to contribute to society and not be a security risk. We should also consider the impact that immigrants have on the already strained welfare system. If we are able to do this then we believe that the UK will become a more desirable place to live in for all people, not just immigrants. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens. We must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens. The process in place at the moment is more than adequate and we feel that the process should be made more stringent to ensure that the immigrants who come to the UK are able to contribute to society and not be a security risk. We should also consider the impact that immigrants have on the already stretched welfare system and the health system. If we are able to do this then we believe that the UK would become a more desirable place to live in for all people, not just immigrants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens. If they cannot come to the UK for a valid reason and become contributing members of society then they should not be here, there are plenty of other places for them to go. The current requirements for citizenship are adequate, and in fact, the longer the time taken to become a citizen, the better it is for all of us. Decision Participant no: 1 Decision Participant no: 2 Decision Participant no: 3 Decision Participant no: 4 Decision Participant no: 5 +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens. The process in place at the moment is more than adequate and should be made more stringent to ensure that the immigrants who come to the UK are able to contribute to society and not be a security risk. We should also consider the impact that immigrants have on the already strained welfare system. If we are able to do this then we believe that the UK will become a more desirable place to live in for all people, not just immigrants. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens. We must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens as we must consider how they contribute to our society. We should not make it easier 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002244.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002244.soc index b93b88c2..fcd825b1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002244.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002244.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a national lottery. The group felt that a national lottery would not help solve Britain's financial problems. The group felt that a national lottery would only encourage people to spend money they don't have, in the hope of winning. The group felt that a national lottery would only cause people to go into debt. The group felt that the government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. The group felt that the super rich should be taxed more to help financial issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was opposed to the idea of a national lottery. The group felt that a national lottery would not help solve Britain's financial problems. The group felt that a national lottery would only encourage people to spend money they don't have, in the hope of winning. The group felt that a national lottery would only cause people to go into debt. The group felt that the government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. The group felt that the super rich should be taxed more to help financial issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group in general was opposed to the idea of a national lottery. The group felt that a national lottery would not help solve Britain's financial problems. The group felt that a national lottery would only encourage people to spend money they don't have, in the hope of winning. The group felt that a national lottery would only cause people to go into debt. The group felt that the government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. The group felt that the super rich should be taxed more to help financial issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a national lottery. The group felt that a national lottery would not help solve Britain's financial problems. The group felt that a national lottery would only encourage people to spend money they don't have, in the hope of winning. The group felt that a national lottery would only cause people to go into debt. The group felt that the government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. The group felt that the super rich should be taxed more to help financial issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was opposed to the idea of a national lottery. The group felt that a national lottery would not help solve Britain's financial problems. The group felt that a national lottery would only encourage people to spend money they don't have, in the hope of winning. The group felt that a national lottery would only cause people to go into debt. The group felt that the government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. The group felt that the super rich should be taxed more to help financial issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group in general was opposed to the idea of a national lottery. The group felt that a national lottery would not help solve Britain's financial problems. The group felt that a national lottery would only encourage people to spend money they don't have, in the hope of winning. The group felt that a national lottery would only cause people to go into debt. The group felt that the government should be able to find better ways to solve Britain's problems, after thoroughly analysing and researching the issue. The group felt that the super rich should be taxed more to help financial issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002245.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002245.soc index 64e5b7c8..1be5e05a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002245.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002245.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that children should not be automatically registered with a religion. Each person is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions and so this is their decision to make when they grow up. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. Children can be brought up around a particular religion but we feel they have the right to change their minds when older. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should not be registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. This may also lead to conflict within families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, children should not be automatically registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. The group felt that it is imperative that everyone has a choice, children can be brought up around a particular religion but they have the right to change their minds when older. The group felt that it is fine for children to practice a religion with their family or in their homes. However, they should not be registered until this is a decision they can make for themselves. They may grow up to form different opinions from their family which would be made more difficult if their family had officially registered them as a certain religion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be registered with a religion. Children have the right to develop their own beliefs and opinions. They should not be forced to adopt one particular religion as this may conflict with their future beliefs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that children should not be automatically registered with a religion. Each person is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions and so this is their decision to make when they grow up. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. Children can be brought up around a particular religion but we feel they have the right to change their minds when older. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should not be registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. This may also lead to conflict within families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, children should not be automatically registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. The group felt that it is imperative that everyone has a choice, children can be brought up around a particular religion but they have the right to change their minds when older. The group felt that it is fine for children to practice a religion with their family or in their homes. However, they should not be registered until this is a decision they can make for themselves. They may grow up to form different opinions from their family which would be made more difficult if their family had officially registered them as a certain religion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be registered with a religion. Children have the right to develop their own beliefs and opinions. They should not be forced to adopt one particular religion as this may conflict with their future beliefs. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002246.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002246.soc index e03cf287..daba099a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002246.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002246.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the NHS should be free for everyone. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and should be available for everyone. We think that it is important that everyone is treated equally and that people are not judged on their social class or how much money they have. We think that it is important that everyone has access to the NHS, even if they are not paying taxes, as they may not be able to afford to pay taxes. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and that everyone should have access to it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Everyone should have access to the national health service. The health of everyone is the most important and as the national health service is there for everyone it should not matter what you do or where you are from, it should be there for everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Everyone should have access to the NHS. The group felt that this was a basic human right and that no one should be denied this service. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Everyone should have access to the national health service. The health of everyone is the most important and as the NHS is paid for through the taxes of everyone who lives in the UK, everyone should have access. It would be unfair for anyone to be denied this, especially if they are unable to afford private health care. Of course, there should be limits. Some people might try to abuse the NHS for their own gain. However, everyone should be able to access it, because everyone should be able to afford it. The NHS was set up for the health and benefit of everyone, not just a select few. It was a good system when it was set up, but now it needs to be updated to allow for everyone to be treated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the NHS should be free for everyone. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and should be available for everyone. We think that it is important that everyone is treated equally and that people are not judged on their social class or how much money they have. We think that it is important that everyone has access to the NHS, even if they are not paying taxes, as they may not be able to afford to pay taxes. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and that everyone should have access to it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Everyone should have access to the national health service. The health of everyone is the most important and as the national health service is there for everyone it should not matter what you do or where you are from, it should be there for everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Everyone should have access to the NHS. The group felt that this was a basic human right and that no one should be denied this service. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Everyone should have access to the national health service. The health of everyone is the most important and as the NHS is paid for through the taxes of everyone who lives in the UK, everyone should have access. It would be unfair for anyone to be denied this, especially if they are unable to afford private health care. Of course, there should be limits. Some people might try to abuse the NHS for their own gain. However, everyone should be able to access it, because everyone should be able to afford it. The NHS was set up for the health and benefit of everyone, not just a select few. It was a good system when it was set up, but now it needs to be updated to allow for everyone to be treated. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002247.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002247.soc index 6382428a..ee5ce5f7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002247.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002247.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is a bad policy for the UK. The effects of austerity are felt most by the poorer members of society. Austerity policies are also likely to have a negative impact on the economy in the long term. The effects of austerity policies are also likely to be felt by the wealthier members of society in the long term. Austerity policies are likely to lead to a reduction in the quality of life for everyone in the UK. Austerity policies are also likely to lead to an increase in crime in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is an unfair policy that will impact the poorer members of society the most. It is not an effective way to reduce the deficit as it will lead to a decrease in GDP. It will also lead to an increase in unemployment and a decrease in productivity. It will also lead to an increase in crime and a decrease in the quality of life. It will lead to a decrease in the quality of education and health. It is not a good policy for the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not think austerity is a good economic policy for the UK. Austerity is the practice of a government reducing its spending and borrowing to fight against an economic recession. The UK is currently going through austerity and it is impacting many families and public services. A policy of austerity is not very effective in tackling the economic crisis as it affects the poorer members of society the most and these are the people who spend most of their income in the UK economy. Austerity only reduces inflation but in the long term this results in less spending in the economy and less jobs, and therefore results in less economic growth. Austerity only works in countries where there is not much disparity in the wealth of its people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. This is because although there are cuts, these are being made in the wrong places. The cuts are being made in public services which actually need money. For example, cutting money from the NHS, which is already struggling and needs more money, is detrimental to our society. Moreover, these cuts are negatively affecting the poorer members of our society. It is having a bigger impact on the lower classes and making the already unequal society even more unequal. The questions was posed in the following week and we saw the following consensus statement: Austerity is a good economic policy for the UK as long as the spending cuts are made in the right areas. For example, spending cuts should not be made in the NHS or on teachers, as this would affect the public most and lead to lower productivity. Instead, cuts should be made in areas where it will have the least effect on people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is a bad policy for the UK. The effects of austerity are felt most by the poorer members of society. Austerity policies are also likely to have a negative impact on the economy in the long term. The effects of austerity policies are also likely to be felt by the wealthier members of society in the long term. Austerity policies are likely to lead to a reduction in the quality of life for everyone in the UK. Austerity policies are also likely to lead to an increase in crime in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. It is an unfair policy that will impact the poorer members of society the most. It is not an effective way to reduce the deficit as it will lead to a decrease in GDP. It will also lead to an increase in unemployment and a decrease in productivity. It will also lead to an increase in crime and a decrease in the quality of life. It will lead to a decrease in the quality of education and health. It is not a good policy for the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not think austerity is a good economic policy for the UK. Austerity is the practice of a government reducing its spending and borrowing to fight against an economic recession. The UK is currently going through austerity and it is impacting many families and public services. A policy of austerity is not very effective in tackling the economic crisis as it affects the poorer members of society the most and these are the people who spend most of their income in the UK economy. Austerity only reduces inflation but in the long term this results in less spending in the economy and less jobs, and therefore results in less economic growth. Austerity only works in countries where there is not much disparity in the wealth of its people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. This is because although there are cuts, these are being made in the wrong places. The cuts are being made in public services which actually need money. For example, cutting money from the NHS, which is already struggling and needs more money, is detrimental to our society. Moreover, these cuts are negatively affecting the poorer members of our society. It is having a bigger impact on the lower classes and making the already unequal society even more unequal. The questions was posed in the following week and we saw the following consensus statement: Austerity is a good economic policy for the UK as long as the spending cuts are made in the right areas. For example, spending cuts should not be made in the NHS or on teachers, as this would affect the public most and lead to lower productivity. Instead, cuts should be made in areas where it will have the least effect on people. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002248.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002248.soc index 34e2997f..bfdcc49f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002248.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002248.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning the sale of large fizzy drinks over the counter in UK stores. It was felt that this would not be an effective way to combat obesity and other health problems caused by the consumption of fizzy drinks. Instead, it was felt that a better way to combat this would be to educate people about the risks involved in consuming fizzy drinks, and to encourage people to make healthier choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It was agreed that the negative health effects caused by fizzy drinks are more significant than the benefits they provide. It was agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of young people consume them regularly. However, we do not believe that banning them outright would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. Instead, we believe that a more effective approach would be to introduce measures to raise awareness of the problems caused by fizzy drinks, including information on their calorific value. In addition, we believe that some steps could be taken to make them less accessible to young people. It was also agreed that other options should be considered, such as taxing the manufacturers or increasing the price. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on the sale of large fizzy drinks. The group felt that it was the responsibility of the individual to make an informed choice and that a ban on the sale of large fizzy drinks would not solve the problem of obesity. The group felt that the best way to tackle obesity was through education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe the government should regulate the amount of sugar in fizzy drinks. This will reduce the amount of sugar, which in turn reduces obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. It is also important to educate people on the dangers of excessive sugar consumption. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of banning the sale of large fizzy drinks over the counter in UK stores. It was felt that this would not be an effective way to combat obesity and other health problems caused by the consumption of fizzy drinks. Instead, it was felt that a better way to combat this would be to educate people about the risks involved in consuming fizzy drinks, and to encourage people to make healthier choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It was agreed that the negative health effects caused by fizzy drinks are more significant than the benefits they provide. It was agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of young people consume them regularly. However, we do not believe that banning them outright would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. Instead, we believe that a more effective approach would be to introduce measures to raise awareness of the problems caused by fizzy drinks, including information on their calorific value. In addition, we believe that some steps could be taken to make them less accessible to young people. It was also agreed that other options should be considered, such as taxing the manufacturers or increasing the price. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on the sale of large fizzy drinks. The group felt that it was the responsibility of the individual to make an informed choice and that a ban on the sale of large fizzy drinks would not solve the problem of obesity. The group felt that the best way to tackle obesity was through education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe the government should regulate the amount of sugar in fizzy drinks. This will reduce the amount of sugar, which in turn reduces obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. It is also important to educate people on the dangers of excessive sugar consumption. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002249.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002249.soc index 28ea5466..d3d709f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002249.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002249.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Mass immigration is a tricky topic. In principle, we agree that it is a good thing to allow people to move to countries where they can have a better life. However, there are some caveats. The host country needs to be able to provide for all its citizens, including immigrants. It is also important to ensure that the immigrants are coming for the right reasons. For example, we do not think it is a good idea to allow human traffickers to continue to grow their business. We also think that it is important to ensure that the immigrants are not coming from places where their life is already good enough. If the immigrants are coming from places where they are already living a good life, they may not be coming for the right reasons. We also think that it is important to ensure that the immigrants do not come from places where they are likely to have different moral values to the host country. This can lead to social tensions and in some cases, violence.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, we agree that legal migration is acceptable and in fact, immigration has historically led to the enrichment of cultures and contributed to the wellbeing of countries and their populations. However, we also agree that there are several factors that need to be taken into consideration before accepting mass immigration of people from dissimilar cultural backgrounds. Firstly, the capacity of a country to accommodate the influx of people without compromising the quality of life of its own population. Secondly, the effects of the sudden introduction of a large group of people with cultural, religious and/or political values that are not acceptable or even outlawed by the host country. Thirdly, whether these groups of people will have the skills to integrate and contribute to the economy or not. Lastly, whether these groups of people are arriving in the country to fill a niche or will they add to an already existing demographic overpopulation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be a set amount of people allowed into a country on a yearly basis. This would help to regulate the growth of the population and would make it easier for the government to monitor and manage. The group believes that this would also help to stop mass immigration because the word mass suggests that the number of people would be large. Also, it would help to stop overcrowding of a country and would help to ensure that the immigrants that do get into the country would be able to fit in and contribute to the economy. The group believes that we should encourage immigration as long as the immigrants will be able to contribute to the economy and make the country a better place to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In principle, the group was in favour of immigration. The devil is in the detail, and the group felt that the word mass was the problem. The group felt that there needs to be the ability to care for everyone in the country whether they are born there or immigrate to it. If a country cannot provide for everyone within its borders, it is irresponsible to continue to allow unhindered immigration. The quality of life of everyone in the country needs to be considered and access to necessities such as housing, healthcare and education for all the population need to be addressed and a strategy in place. Allowing unlimited numbers to add to the population of a country, if you cannot provide for their basic needs is not helpful. If people come to this country under the impression they can be cared for and then find themselves in dire circumstances it is not fair. If people are coming to this country illegally, this is a different matter and the group felt that this is not the way to help improve people's lives. It is not necessarily an issue of the people that are coming here, but more of a case of the fact that it helps to fund human rights violators and their ability to make a profit out of people who are seeking a better +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Mass immigration is a tricky topic. In principle, we agree that it is a good thing to allow people to move to countries where they can have a better life. However, there are some caveats. The host country needs to be able to provide for all its citizens, including immigrants. It is also important to ensure that the immigrants are coming for the right reasons. For example, we do not think it is a good idea to allow human traffickers to continue to grow their business. We also think that it is important to ensure that the immigrants are not coming from places where their life is already good enough. If the immigrants are coming from places where they are already living a good life, they may not be coming for the right reasons. We also think that it is important to ensure that the immigrants do not come from places where they are likely to have different moral values to the host country. This can lead to social tensions and in some cases, violence.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, we agree that legal migration is acceptable and in fact, immigration has historically led to the enrichment of cultures and contributed to the wellbeing of countries and their populations. However, we also agree that there are several factors that need to be taken into consideration before accepting mass immigration of people from dissimilar cultural backgrounds. Firstly, the capacity of a country to accommodate the influx of people without compromising the quality of life of its own population. Secondly, the effects of the sudden introduction of a large group of people with cultural, religious and/or political values that are not acceptable or even outlawed by the host country. Thirdly, whether these groups of people will have the skills to integrate and contribute to the economy or not. Lastly, whether these groups of people are arriving in the country to fill a niche or will they add to an already existing demographic overpopulation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be a set amount of people allowed into a country on a yearly basis. This would help to regulate the growth of the population and would make it easier for the government to monitor and manage. The group believes that this would also help to stop mass immigration because the word mass suggests that the number of people would be large. Also, it would help to stop overcrowding of a country and would help to ensure that the immigrants that do get into the country would be able to fit in and contribute to the economy. The group believes that we should encourage immigration as long as the immigrants will be able to contribute to the economy and make the country a better place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, the group was in favour of immigration. The devil is in the detail, and the group felt that the word mass was the problem. The group felt that there needs to be the ability to care for everyone in the country whether they are born there or immigrate to it. If a country cannot provide for everyone within its borders, it is irresponsible to continue to allow unhindered immigration. The quality of life of everyone in the country needs to be considered and access to necessities such as housing, healthcare and education for all the population need to be addressed and a strategy in place. Allowing unlimited numbers to add to the population of a country, if you cannot provide for their basic needs is not helpful. If people come to this country under the impression they can be cared for and then find themselves in dire circumstances it is not fair. If people are coming to this country illegally, this is a different matter and the group felt that this is not the way to help improve people's lives. It is not necessarily an issue of the people that are coming here, but more of a case of the fact that it helps to fund human rights violators and their ability to make a profit out of people who are seeking a better 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002250.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002250.soc index 37554b1f..95997c6e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002250.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002250.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the number of skilled workers allowed into the country. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a larger amount of skilled workers into the country, but there should be a limit as to how many can enter. We think that there are not enough skilled workers to carry out important roles, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, as so many of these workers are leaving the country, or are reaching retirement age, and we don't have the younger people to take their place. We also think that there should be a set of tests that the skilled workers should go through to prove that they are skilled and would be valuable to our country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that we should change our immigration policy to increase the number of skilled workers we allow into the country. We think this is important because the economy is at an all time low, and we are going to need these skilled workers to bring it back up. These skilled workers would be able to help us out in a lot of different ways. They would help us out with a lot of the businesses that are struggling right now, they would help us out in the medical field as there is a shortage of doctors and nurses. They would also help out with the people who are leaving the country, and by increasing the number of skilled workers into the country, there will be more skilled workers in the country who can take their place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of changing the immigration policy to allow more skilled workers into the country. This is because there is a shortage of skilled workers in the country and it is important to allow people with the right skills to come into the country to fill these gaps. It is also important to allow skilled workers to come into the country because they can help train our own people and improve the quality of life for everyone. However, it is important to be careful about who we allow into the country. We should not allow people to come into the country and take jobs that our own people could do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the number of skilled workers allowed into the country. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. The group felt that this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a larger amount of skilled workers into the country, but there should be a limit as to how many can enter. We think that there are not enough skilled workers to carry out important roles, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, as so many of these workers are leaving the country, or are reaching retirement age, and we don't have the younger people to take their place. We also think that there should be a set of tests that the skilled workers should go through to prove that they are skilled and would be valuable to our country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that we should change our immigration policy to increase the number of skilled workers we allow into the country. We think this is important because the economy is at an all time low, and we are going to need these skilled workers to bring it back up. These skilled workers would be able to help us out in a lot of different ways. They would help us out with a lot of the businesses that are struggling right now, they would help us out in the medical field as there is a shortage of doctors and nurses. They would also help out with the people who are leaving the country, and by increasing the number of skilled workers into the country, there will be more skilled workers in the country who can take their place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of changing the immigration policy to allow more skilled workers into the country. This is because there is a shortage of skilled workers in the country and it is important to allow people with the right skills to come into the country to fill these gaps. It is also important to allow skilled workers to come into the country because they can help train our own people and improve the quality of life for everyone. However, it is important to be careful about who we allow into the country. We should not allow people to come into the country and take jobs that our own people could do. 2: 2,4,3,1 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002251.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002251.soc index cfc672db..94e3212f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002251.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002251.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, children should not be automatically registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. The group felt that it is imperative that everyone has a choice, children can be brought up around a particular religion but they have the right to change their minds when older. The group felt that it is fine for children to practice a religion with their family or in their homes. However, they should not be registered until this is a decision they can make for themselves. They may grow up to form different opinions from their family which would be made more difficult if their family had officially registered them as a certain religion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, children should not be automatically registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. The group felt that it is imperative that everyone has a choice, children can be brought up around a particular religion but they have the right to change their minds when older. The group felt that it is fine for children to practice a religion with their family or in their homes. However, they should not be registered until this is a decision they can make for themselves. They may grow up to form different opinions from their family which would be made more difficult if their family had officially registered them as a certain religion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should not be registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. It is imperative that everyone has a choice, children can be brought up around a particular religion but they have the right to change their minds when older. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. It is fine for children to practice a religion with their family or in their homes. However, they should not be registered until this is a decision they can make for themselves. They may grow up to form different opinions from their family which would be made more difficult if their family had officially registered them as a certain religion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, children should not be automatically registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. The group felt that it is imperative that everyone has a choice, children can be brought up around a particular religion but they have the right to change their minds when older. The group felt that it is fine for children to practice a religion with their family or in their homes. However, they should not be registered until this is a decision they can make for themselves. They may grow up to form different opinions from their family which would be made more difficult if their family had officially registered them as a certain religion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, children should not be automatically registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. The group felt that it is imperative that everyone has a choice, children can be brought up around a particular religion but they have the right to change their minds when older. The group felt that it is fine for children to practice a religion with their family or in their homes. However, they should not be registered until this is a decision they can make for themselves. They may grow up to form different opinions from their family which would be made more difficult if their family had officially registered them as a certain religion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should not be registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. It is imperative that everyone has a choice, children can be brought up around a particular religion but they have the right to change their minds when older. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be registered with a religion. Children should be free to develop their own thoughts and feelings about religion rather than being forced to adopt one which may contradict their future beliefs. It is fine for children to practice a religion with their family or in their homes. However, they should not be registered until this is a decision they can make for themselves. They may grow up to form different opinions from their family which would be made more difficult if their family had officially registered them as a certain religion. 3: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002252.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002252.soc index 6804ebb6..58873b5b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002252.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002252.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the NHS should be free for everyone. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and should be available for everyone. We think that it is important that everyone is treated equally and that people are not judged on their social class or how much money they have. We think that it is important that everyone has access to the NHS, even if they are not paying taxes, as they may not be able to afford to pay taxes. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and that everyone should have access to it. We are aware that the NHS is a finite resource and is under increasing pressure with increasing cost of services, increasing costs of drugs, medical equipment and increasing population, but the NHS should remain free for everyone as far as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Health care is a basic human right and we believe that it should be free to all, including those who do not pay taxes. No one should be excluded from this service. We think that there should be no priority list for treatment and that everyone should be treated equally. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that we believe that it should be a basic human right to have access to healthcare, therefore we believe that everyone should be allowed access to NHS healthcare and that there should not be any discrimination. However, we believe that it is important that people also respect and value the NHS staff, and would consider having restrictions in place for anyone who abuses the NHS staff. Summary/Decision: One of the agreements reached is that I think it should be a basic human right to have access to healthcare, therefore I believe that everyone should be allowed access to NHS healthcare and that there should not be any discrimination. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the NHS should be free for everyone. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and should be available for everyone. We think that it is important that everyone is treated equally and that people are not judged on their social class or how much money they have. We think that it is important that everyone has access to the NHS, even if they are not paying taxes, as they may not be able to afford to pay taxes. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and that everyone should have access to it. We also think that there should be some sort of priority system in place for people who may be in more urgent need of healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the NHS should be free for everyone. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and should be available for everyone. We think that it is important that everyone is treated equally and that people are not judged on their social class or how much money they have. We think that it is important that everyone has access to the NHS, even if they are not paying taxes, as they may not be able to afford to pay taxes. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and that everyone should have access to it. We are aware that the NHS is a finite resource and is under increasing pressure with increasing cost of services, increasing costs of drugs, medical equipment and increasing population, but the NHS should remain free for everyone as far as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Health care is a basic human right and we believe that it should be free to all, including those who do not pay taxes. No one should be excluded from this service. We think that there should be no priority list for treatment and that everyone should be treated equally. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that we believe that it should be a basic human right to have access to healthcare, therefore we believe that everyone should be allowed access to NHS healthcare and that there should not be any discrimination. However, we believe that it is important that people also respect and value the NHS staff, and would consider having restrictions in place for anyone who abuses the NHS staff. Summary/Decision: One of the agreements reached is that I think it should be a basic human right to have access to healthcare, therefore I believe that everyone should be allowed access to NHS healthcare and that there should not be any discrimination. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the NHS should be free for everyone. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and should be available for everyone. We think that it is important that everyone is treated equally and that people are not judged on their social class or how much money they have. We think that it is important that everyone has access to the NHS, even if they are not paying taxes, as they may not be able to afford to pay taxes. We think that the NHS is a basic human right and that everyone should have access to it. We also think that there should be some sort of priority system in place for people who may be in more urgent need of healthcare. 2: 3,1,4,2 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002253.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002253.soc index 70790b30..4841aba3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002253.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002253.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Austerity is a good economic policy for the UK if the spending cuts are made in the right areas. For example, the spending cuts should not be made in the NHS, as this would reduce the quality of service which in turn would have a knock-on effect on the entire population's welfare, and it could only worsen. Similarly, cuts should not be made on teachers, as this would decrease the country's education standards, which will have an adverse effect on children and young people. Instead, spending cuts should be made in areas where they will have the least effect on people. For example, libraries and parks may be a good place to start, although libraries allow people to study for free and parks provide a space for everybody to exercise in. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. This is because although there are cuts, these are being made in the wrong places. The cuts are being made in public services which actually need money. For example, cutting money from the NHS, which is already struggling and needs more money, is detrimental to our society. Moreover, these cuts are negatively affecting the poorer members of our society. It is having a bigger impact on the lower classes and making the already unequal society even more unequal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Austerity is a good economic policy for the UK as long as the spending cuts are made in the right areas. For example, spending cuts should not be made in the NHS or on teachers, as this would affect the public most and lead to lower productivity. Instead, cuts should be made in areas where it will have the least effect on people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Austerity is a good economic policy for the UK as long as the spending cuts are made in the right areas. For example, spending cuts should not be made in the NHS or on teachers, as this would affect the public most and lead to lower productivity. Spending cuts should instead be made in areas where it will have the least effect on people. This statement includes some of the critiques of the first draft consensus statement. For example, the statement specifies where the spending cuts should not be made, with reference to the NHS and teachers, and also gives examples of the people who are being impacted the most. It also clarifies the first statement, e.g. 'austerity is good' has been changed to 'austerity is a good economic policy'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Austerity is a good economic policy for the UK if the spending cuts are made in the right areas. For example, the spending cuts should not be made in the NHS, as this would reduce the quality of service which in turn would have a knock-on effect on the entire population's welfare, and it could only worsen. Similarly, cuts should not be made on teachers, as this would decrease the country's education standards, which will have an adverse effect on children and young people. Instead, spending cuts should be made in areas where they will have the least effect on people. For example, libraries and parks may be a good place to start, although libraries allow people to study for free and parks provide a space for everybody to exercise in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Austerity is not a good economic policy for the UK. This is because although there are cuts, these are being made in the wrong places. The cuts are being made in public services which actually need money. For example, cutting money from the NHS, which is already struggling and needs more money, is detrimental to our society. Moreover, these cuts are negatively affecting the poorer members of our society. It is having a bigger impact on the lower classes and making the already unequal society even more unequal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Austerity is a good economic policy for the UK as long as the spending cuts are made in the right areas. For example, spending cuts should not be made in the NHS or on teachers, as this would affect the public most and lead to lower productivity. Instead, cuts should be made in areas where it will have the least effect on people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Austerity is a good economic policy for the UK as long as the spending cuts are made in the right areas. For example, spending cuts should not be made in the NHS or on teachers, as this would affect the public most and lead to lower productivity. Spending cuts should instead be made in areas where it will have the least effect on people. This statement includes some of the critiques of the first draft consensus statement. For example, the statement specifies where the spending cuts should not be made, with reference to the NHS and teachers, and also gives examples of the people who are being impacted the most. It also clarifies the first statement, e.g. 'austerity is good' has been changed to 'austerity is a good economic policy'. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002254.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002254.soc index 0e26652b..829fefa4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002254.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002254.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The problem of childhood obesity and associated health problems in the UK cannot be solved by simply banning the sale of large fizzy drinks. However, this has been used as an example, as many young people consume them regularly and they are known to be a factor. Instead, we believe that a more effective approach would be to introduce measures to raise awareness of the problems caused by fizzy drinks, including information on their calorific value. In addition, we believe that some steps could be taken to make them less accessible to young people. It was also agreed that other options should be considered, such as taxing the manufacturers or increasing the price. It is hoped that a combination of all of these measures would bring about an improvement in the health of the nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There was agreement that the negative health effects caused by fizzy drinks are more significant than the benefits they provide. It was agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of young people consume them regularly. However, we do not believe that banning them outright would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. Instead, we believe that a more effective approach would be to introduce measures to raise awareness of the problems caused by fizzy drinks, including information on their calorific value. In addition, we believe that some steps could be taken to make them less accessible to young people. It was also agreed that other options should be considered, such as taxing the manufacturers or increasing the price. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a sugar tax on fizzy drinks. This would increase the price and deter people from buying them, especially children. The tax should be used to fund increased education around sugar consumption. The price increase would also increase the price of the drinks and lead to a decrease in sales, which would be beneficial to the health of the nation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It was agreed that fizzy drinks do cause more health problems than they provide any benefit. We also agreed that, in particular, young people consume a significant amount of fizzy drinks. The consensus view was that we would prefer not to outright ban fizzy drinks, because we do not think that the would be the most effective measure. Instead we believe that some steps should be taken to make fizzy drinks less accessible to young people, and that a more effective approach would be to introduce measures to raise awareness of the problems caused by fizzy drinks, including their calorific value. Some people also suggested that other options, such as taxing the manufacturers or increasing the price, could be considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The problem of childhood obesity and associated health problems in the UK cannot be solved by simply banning the sale of large fizzy drinks. However, this has been used as an example, as many young people consume them regularly and they are known to be a factor. Instead, we believe that a more effective approach would be to introduce measures to raise awareness of the problems caused by fizzy drinks, including information on their calorific value. In addition, we believe that some steps could be taken to make them less accessible to young people. It was also agreed that other options should be considered, such as taxing the manufacturers or increasing the price. It is hoped that a combination of all of these measures would bring about an improvement in the health of the nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There was agreement that the negative health effects caused by fizzy drinks are more significant than the benefits they provide. It was agreed that this is a huge issue as a lot of young people consume them regularly. However, we do not believe that banning them outright would be the most effective way of dealing with the problem. Instead, we believe that a more effective approach would be to introduce measures to raise awareness of the problems caused by fizzy drinks, including information on their calorific value. In addition, we believe that some steps could be taken to make them less accessible to young people. It was also agreed that other options should be considered, such as taxing the manufacturers or increasing the price. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a sugar tax on fizzy drinks. This would increase the price and deter people from buying them, especially children. The tax should be used to fund increased education around sugar consumption. The price increase would also increase the price of the drinks and lead to a decrease in sales, which would be beneficial to the health of the nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that fizzy drinks do cause more health problems than they provide any benefit. We also agreed that, in particular, young people consume a significant amount of fizzy drinks. The consensus view was that we would prefer not to outright ban fizzy drinks, because we do not think that the would be the most effective measure. Instead we believe that some steps should be taken to make fizzy drinks less accessible to young people, and that a more effective approach would be to introduce measures to raise awareness of the problems caused by fizzy drinks, including their calorific value. Some people also suggested that other options, such as taxing the manufacturers or increasing the price, could be considered. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002255.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002255.soc index 6c1d3a38..872d2d22 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002255.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002255.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: While in principle the group was in favour of immigration, the group felt that the devil is in the detail. The group felt that there needs to be the ability to care for everyone in the country whether they are born there or immigrate to it. If a country cannot provide for everyone within its borders, it is irresponsible to continue to allow unlimited immigration. The quality of life of everyone in the country needs to be considered and access to necessities such as housing, healthcare and education for all the population need to be addressed and a strategy in place. Allowing unlimited numbers to add to the population of a country, if you cannot provide for their basic needs is not helpful. If people come to this country under the impression they can be cared for and then find themselves in dire circumstances it is not fair. If people are coming to this country illegally this is a different matter. It is not necessarily an issue of the people that are coming here, but more of a case of the fact that it helps to fund human rights violators and their ability to make a profit out of people who are seeking a better life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are benefits to immigration, but the devil is in the detail. The word mass is the problem. There needs to be the ability to care for everyone in the country whether they are born there or immigrate to it. If a country cannot provide for everyone within its borders, it is irresponsible to continue to allow unhindered immigration. The quality of life of everyone in the country needs to be considered and access to necessities such as housing, healthcare and education for all the population need to be addressed and a strategy in place. Allowing unlimited numbers to add to the population of a country, if you cannot provide for their basic needs is not helpful. If people come to this country under the impression they can be cared for and then find themselves in dire circumstances it is not fair. If people are coming to this country illegally, this is a different matter and the group felt that this is not the way to help improve people's lives. It is not necessarily an issue of the people that are coming here, but more of a case of the fact that it helps to fund human rights violators and their ability to make a profit out of people who are seeking a better life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants was in favour of immigration. However, the word mass was the problem. There needs to be the ability to care for everyone in the country whether they are born there or immigrate to it. If a country cannot provide for everyone within its borders, it is irresponsible to continue to allow unhindered immigration. The quality of life of everyone in the country needs to be considered and access to necessities such as housing, healthcare and education for all the population need to be addressed and a strategy in place. Allowing unlimited numbers to add to the population of a country, if you cannot provide for their basic needs is not helpful. If people come to this country under the impression they can be cared for and then find themselves in dire circumstances it is not fair. If people are coming to this country illegally, this is a different matter and the group felt that this is not the way to help improve people's lives. It is not necessarily an issue of the people that are coming here, but more of a case of the fact that it helps to fund human rights violators and their ability to make a profit out of people who are seeking a better life. If one agrees with this consensus view, then one can say +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: While in principle the group was in favour of immigration, the group felt that the devil is in the detail. The group felt that there needs to be the ability to care for everyone in the country whether they are born there or immigrate to it. If a country cannot provide for everyone within its borders, it is irresponsible to continue to allow unlimited immigration. The quality of life of everyone in the country needs to be considered and access to necessities such as housing, healthcare and education for all the population need to be addressed and a strategy in place. Allowing unlimited numbers to add to the population of a country, if you cannot provide for their basic needs is not helpful. If people come to this country under the impression they can be cared for and then find themselves in dire circumstances it is not fair. If people are coming to this country illegally this is a different matter. It is not necessarily an issue of the people that are coming here, but more of a case of the fact that it helps to fund human rights violators and their ability to make a profit out of people who are seeking a better life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are benefits to immigration, but the devil is in the detail. The word mass is the problem. There needs to be the ability to care for everyone in the country whether they are born there or immigrate to it. If a country cannot provide for everyone within its borders, it is irresponsible to continue to allow unhindered immigration. The quality of life of everyone in the country needs to be considered and access to necessities such as housing, healthcare and education for all the population need to be addressed and a strategy in place. Allowing unlimited numbers to add to the population of a country, if you cannot provide for their basic needs is not helpful. If people come to this country under the impression they can be cared for and then find themselves in dire circumstances it is not fair. If people are coming to this country illegally, this is a different matter and the group felt that this is not the way to help improve people's lives. It is not necessarily an issue of the people that are coming here, but more of a case of the fact that it helps to fund human rights violators and their ability to make a profit out of people who are seeking a better life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants was in favour of immigration. However, the word mass was the problem. There needs to be the ability to care for everyone in the country whether they are born there or immigrate to it. If a country cannot provide for everyone within its borders, it is irresponsible to continue to allow unhindered immigration. The quality of life of everyone in the country needs to be considered and access to necessities such as housing, healthcare and education for all the population need to be addressed and a strategy in place. Allowing unlimited numbers to add to the population of a country, if you cannot provide for their basic needs is not helpful. If people come to this country under the impression they can be cared for and then find themselves in dire circumstances it is not fair. If people are coming to this country illegally, this is a different matter and the group felt that this is not the way to help improve people's lives. It is not necessarily an issue of the people that are coming here, but more of a case of the fact that it helps to fund human rights violators and their ability to make a profit out of people who are seeking a better life. If one agrees with this consensus view, then one can say 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002256.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002256.soc index 7b7118a6..cffedb02 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002256.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002256.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a larger amount of skilled workers into the country, but there should be a limit as to how many can enter. We think that there are not enough skilled workers to carry out important roles, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, as so many of these workers are leaving the country, or are reaching retirement age, and we don't have the younger people to take their place. We also think that there should be a set of tests that the skilled workers should go through to prove that they are skilled and would be valuable to our country. We also believe that the skilled workers should only be allowed to stay in the country for a set amount of time, and then they must leave. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Final consensus statement: We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a larger amount of skilled workers into the country. We think that there aren't enough skilled workers to carry out important roles, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, as so many of these workers are leaving the country, or are reaching retirement age, and we don't have the younger people to take their place. There should be a limit to the number of skilled workers who are allowed to enter the country. This should be to ensure that the country doesn't become overcrowded. We think that skilled workers should go through a series of tests to prove that they have the skills they claim and will be valuable to our country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a larger amount of skilled workers into the country, but there should be a limit as to how many can enter. We think that there are not enough skilled workers to carry out important roles, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, as so many of these workers are leaving the country, or are reaching retirement age, and we don't have the younger people to take their place. We also think that there should be a set of tests that the skilled workers should go through to prove that they are skilled and would be valuable to our country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a larger amount of skilled workers into the country, but there should be a limit as to how many can enter. We think that there are not enough skilled workers to carry out important roles, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, as so many of these workers are leaving the country, or are reaching retirement age, and we don't have the younger people to take their place. We also think that there should be a set of tests that the skilled workers should go through to prove that they are skilled and would be valuable to our country. We also believe that the skilled workers should only be allowed to stay in the country for a set amount of time, and then they must leave. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a larger amount of skilled workers into the country. We think that there aren't enough skilled workers to carry out important roles, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, as so many of these workers are leaving the country, or are reaching retirement age, and we don't have the younger people to take their place. There should be a limit to the number of skilled workers who are allowed to enter the country. This should be to ensure that the country doesn't become overcrowded. We think that skilled workers should go through a series of tests to prove that they have the skills they claim and will be valuable to our country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a larger amount of skilled workers into the country, but there should be a limit as to how many can enter. We think that there are not enough skilled workers to carry out important roles, such as doctors and nurses in the NHS, as so many of these workers are leaving the country, or are reaching retirement age, and we don't have the younger people to take their place. We also think that there should be a set of tests that the skilled workers should go through to prove that they are skilled and would be valuable to our country. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002257.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002257.soc index e1b91771..8ce5b29d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002257.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002257.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, anyone should not be allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm. Firearms are dangerous and only people who are trained to use them should be allowed to carry them. This is to ensure that the firearms are not misused and that they are only used in the appropriate circumstances. The pros of allowing people to carry firearms do not outweigh the cons. The cons are much greater than the pros, for example, if someone who is not trained to use firearms is carrying one, they may accidentally hurt themselves or someone else. The cons of allowing people to carry firearms are much greater than the pros. Therefore, people should not be allowed to carry firearms. There were many positive things I observed during the deliberation process, including everyone contributing to the discussion and being able to put forward their opinions. I think that this consensus opinion has been very well written and does not use repetitive statements. It is quite a short opinion, however it does put forward two sides of the argument. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, anyone should not be allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm. Firearms are dangerous and only people who are trained to use them should be allowed to carry them. This is to ensure that the firearms are not misused and that they are only used in the appropriate circumstances. The pros of allowing people to carry firearms do not outweigh the cons. The cons are much greater than the pros, for example, if someone who is not trained to use firearms is carrying one, they may accidentally hurt themselves or someone else. The cons of allowing people to carry firearms are much greater than the pros. Therefore, people should not be allowed to carry firearms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, anyone should not be allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm. Firstly, anyone who wishes to use a firearm must be trained and qualified. This is to ensure that these people have the sufficient knowledge of how to use a firearm and when they should and should not use it, and the safest way to use it. Firearms are dangerous if not used properly. If anyone is allowed to carry a concealed firearm, this can be dangerous to everyone. This is because, people who are untrained and unqualified to use firearms can misuse it, resulting in mishandling of the firearm or even mass shootings. Mass shootings could potentially harm hundreds or thousands of innocent people. The likelihood of such things happening is quite likely and can even be seen in countries like the United States of America. Even in some cases, firearm can lead to suicide and self-harm which can harm innocent people. This is why only those trained and qualified to use firearms should be allowed to carry them around. If people without proper training on the use of firearms are allowed to carry firearms around, this could cause the cons of allowing firearms to surpass the benefits of having such. This is why people should not be allowed to carry firearms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, only the most qualified and well-trained people should be allowed to carry concealed firearm. The pros of allowing more people to carry concealed firearms do not outweigh the cons. Firearms are dangerous and only people who are trained to use them should be allowed to carry them. Final: The point was made that the decision was made not based on the amount of pros and cons, but on the fact that the risk of lives lost as a result of anyone possessing a firearm was too great. We then discussed on what defines 'qualified' people, and came to the conclusion that these people are extremely trained to assess whether or not the situation calls for it, and that without proper training, 'anyone' has the potential to misuse the firearms, even for self-defence, due to the fact that most people aren't as well-trained. We would have liked to mention that cons include potential mass-shootings, hurt to oneself or others, and increase in chance of terrorism, but we felt it wasn't as required to provide more evidence/backing to our statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, anyone should not be allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm. Firearms are dangerous and only people who are trained to use them should be allowed to carry them. This is to ensure that the firearms are not misused and that they are only used in the appropriate circumstances. The pros of allowing people to carry firearms do not outweigh the cons. The cons are much greater than the pros, for example, if someone who is not trained to use firearms is carrying one, they may accidentally hurt themselves or someone else. The cons of allowing people to carry firearms are much greater than the pros. Therefore, people should not be allowed to carry firearms. There were many positive things I observed during the deliberation process, including everyone contributing to the discussion and being able to put forward their opinions. I think that this consensus opinion has been very well written and does not use repetitive statements. It is quite a short opinion, however it does put forward two sides of the argument. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, anyone should not be allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm. Firearms are dangerous and only people who are trained to use them should be allowed to carry them. This is to ensure that the firearms are not misused and that they are only used in the appropriate circumstances. The pros of allowing people to carry firearms do not outweigh the cons. The cons are much greater than the pros, for example, if someone who is not trained to use firearms is carrying one, they may accidentally hurt themselves or someone else. The cons of allowing people to carry firearms are much greater than the pros. Therefore, people should not be allowed to carry firearms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, anyone should not be allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm. Firstly, anyone who wishes to use a firearm must be trained and qualified. This is to ensure that these people have the sufficient knowledge of how to use a firearm and when they should and should not use it, and the safest way to use it. Firearms are dangerous if not used properly. If anyone is allowed to carry a concealed firearm, this can be dangerous to everyone. This is because, people who are untrained and unqualified to use firearms can misuse it, resulting in mishandling of the firearm or even mass shootings. Mass shootings could potentially harm hundreds or thousands of innocent people. The likelihood of such things happening is quite likely and can even be seen in countries like the United States of America. Even in some cases, firearm can lead to suicide and self-harm which can harm innocent people. This is why only those trained and qualified to use firearms should be allowed to carry them around. If people without proper training on the use of firearms are allowed to carry firearms around, this could cause the cons of allowing firearms to surpass the benefits of having such. This is why people should not be allowed to carry firearms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, only the most qualified and well-trained people should be allowed to carry concealed firearm. The pros of allowing more people to carry concealed firearms do not outweigh the cons. Firearms are dangerous and only people who are trained to use them should be allowed to carry them. Final: The point was made that the decision was made not based on the amount of pros and cons, but on the fact that the risk of lives lost as a result of anyone possessing a firearm was too great. We then discussed on what defines 'qualified' people, and came to the conclusion that these people are extremely trained to assess whether or not the situation calls for it, and that without proper training, 'anyone' has the potential to misuse the firearms, even for self-defence, due to the fact that most people aren't as well-trained. We would have liked to mention that cons include potential mass-shootings, hurt to oneself or others, and increase in chance of terrorism, but we felt it wasn't as required to provide more evidence/backing to our statement. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002258.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002258.soc index e2114de6..0e5a3e64 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002258.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002258.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this is a skill that is required in the workplace and in other aspects of life. The group felt that this should not be the only thing that is assessed as there are other skills that are important such as communication and the ability to work independently. The group felt that students should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate and that this should not be something that is penalised. The group felt that if a student is struggling with this, then they should be supported to improve this skill rather than penalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: While it is important for students to collaborate with their peers, it should not be a component of their assessment. They should be taught the importance of collaboration and the skills involved in collaboration. It is good for students to develop this skills for their future careers and employers. However, students should be assessed on their individual achievements and progress. This is to encourage students to develop as individuals and to recognise individual differences and talents. It is also to help students to develop confidence in their individual abilities and to appreciate and value the importance of collaboration without it affecting their assessment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this was an important skill for students to develop as they would need to collaborate with their peers in their future careers. The group felt that it was important to support students to develop this skill rather than penalise them for not being able to collaborate. The group felt that collaboration was important but that it was also important for students to learn to work independently and to develop their own ideas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Students should be assessed on how well they collaborate with their peers. Collaboration is an important skill for any career and if it is taught and assessed it will give students the ability to work with their peers effectively and this will benefit employers and their colleagues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this is a skill that is required in the workplace and in other aspects of life. The group felt that this should not be the only thing that is assessed as there are other skills that are important such as communication and the ability to work independently. The group felt that students should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate and that this should not be something that is penalised. The group felt that if a student is struggling with this, then they should be supported to improve this skill rather than penalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - While it is important for students to collaborate with their peers, it should not be a component of their assessment. They should be taught the importance of collaboration and the skills involved in collaboration. It is good for students to develop this skills for their future careers and employers. However, students should be assessed on their individual achievements and progress. This is to encourage students to develop as individuals and to recognise individual differences and talents. It is also to help students to develop confidence in their individual abilities and to appreciate and value the importance of collaboration without it affecting their assessment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this was an important skill for students to develop as they would need to collaborate with their peers in their future careers. The group felt that it was important to support students to develop this skill rather than penalise them for not being able to collaborate. The group felt that collaboration was important but that it was also important for students to learn to work independently and to develop their own ideas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Students should be assessed on how well they collaborate with their peers. Collaboration is an important skill for any career and if it is taught and assessed it will give students the ability to work with their peers effectively and this will benefit employers and their colleagues. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002259.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002259.soc index 2436e1a4..4d8a94fd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002259.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002259.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. As human beings we have to live in an environment, and it is therefore in our best interest to keep that environment healthy and habitable. We have seen and are seeing the effects of what our actions have done to the environment and are increasingly seeing the damage it does to our own health. While it is true that big changes must be made to protect the environment for the future, we also need to consider that, as individuals, we can all make small changes to how we live to help protect it. If everyone does their bit, the changes will add up to make a big difference. It is not just about being more environmentally friendly for future generations but also for us, the present generation, and the environment we live in now. We have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The facilitators were pleased that the group of participants were able to reach a consensus. They considered that the final statement was well thought out, took into account various views, and presented a balanced view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. As human beings we have to live in an environment, and it is therefore in our best interest to keep that environment healthy and habitable. We have seen and are seeing the effects of what our actions have done to the environment and are increasingly seeing the damage it does to our own health. While it is true that big changes must be made to protect the environment for the future, we also need to consider that, as individuals, we can all make small changes to how we live to help protect it. If everyone does their bit, the changes will add up to make a big difference. It is not just about being more environmentally friendly for future generations but also for us, the present generation, and the environment we live in now. We should all be prepared to do our bit, no matter how small and lots of small actions can result in significant changes. Surely we all want a good environment for our children and our children's children. Too much damage has been done already and we should set to work before it is too late. The world is a beautiful place and should not be spoilt by irresponsible and thoughtless actions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. As human beings, we have to live in an environment and so it is in our best interest to keep that environment healthy and habitable. We have seen and are seeing the effects of what our actions have done to the environment and are increasingly seeing the damage it does to our own health. While it is true that big changes must be made to protect the environment for the future, we also need to consider that, as individuals, we can all make small changes to how we live to help protect it. If everyone does their bit, the changes will add up to make a big difference. It is not just about being more environmentally friendly for future generations, but also for us, the present generation, and the environment we live in now. This project was designed by Genevieve Morash, Genevieve Ferguson and Alicia Berrie. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. As human beings we have to live in an environment, and it is therefore in our best interest to keep that environment healthy and habitable. We have seen and are seeing the effects of what our actions have done to the environment and are increasingly seeing the damage it does to our own health. While it is true that big changes need to be made to protect the environment for the future, we also need to consider that, as individuals, we can all make small changes to how we live to help protect it. If everyone does their bit, the changes will add up to make a big difference. It is not just about being more environmentally friendly for future generations but also for us, the present generation, and the environment we live in now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. As human beings we have to live in an environment, and it is therefore in our best interest to keep that environment healthy and habitable. We have seen and are seeing the effects of what our actions have done to the environment and are increasingly seeing the damage it does to our own health. While it is true that big changes must be made to protect the environment for the future, we also need to consider that, as individuals, we can all make small changes to how we live to help protect it. If everyone does their bit, the changes will add up to make a big difference. It is not just about being more environmentally friendly for future generations but also for us, the present generation, and the environment we live in now. We have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. The facilitators were pleased that the group of participants were able to reach a consensus. They considered that the final statement was well thought out, took into account various views, and presented a balanced view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. As human beings we have to live in an environment, and it is therefore in our best interest to keep that environment healthy and habitable. We have seen and are seeing the effects of what our actions have done to the environment and are increasingly seeing the damage it does to our own health. While it is true that big changes must be made to protect the environment for the future, we also need to consider that, as individuals, we can all make small changes to how we live to help protect it. If everyone does their bit, the changes will add up to make a big difference. It is not just about being more environmentally friendly for future generations but also for us, the present generation, and the environment we live in now. We should all be prepared to do our bit, no matter how small and lots of small actions can result in significant changes. Surely we all want a good environment for our children and our children's children. Too much damage has been done already and we should set to work before it is too late. The world is a beautiful place and should not be spoilt by irresponsible and thoughtless actions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. As human beings, we have to live in an environment and so it is in our best interest to keep that environment healthy and habitable. We have seen and are seeing the effects of what our actions have done to the environment and are increasingly seeing the damage it does to our own health. While it is true that big changes must be made to protect the environment for the future, we also need to consider that, as individuals, we can all make small changes to how we live to help protect it. If everyone does their bit, the changes will add up to make a big difference. It is not just about being more environmentally friendly for future generations, but also for us, the present generation, and the environment we live in now. This project was designed by Genevieve Morash, Genevieve Ferguson and Alicia Berrie. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we have a responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations. As human beings we have to live in an environment, and it is therefore in our best interest to keep that environment healthy and habitable. We have seen and are seeing the effects of what our actions have done to the environment and are increasingly seeing the damage it does to our own health. While it is true that big changes need to be made to protect the environment for the future, we also need to consider that, as individuals, we can all make small changes to how we live to help protect it. If everyone does their bit, the changes will add up to make a big difference. It is not just about being more environmentally friendly for future generations but also for us, the present generation, and the environment we live in now. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002260.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002260.soc index 8382275f..04da38ac 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002260.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002260.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe the sale of alcohol in supermarkets on Sundays should be allowed. Sunday is just like any other day, therefore there should be no difference in the sale of alcohol in supermarkets on this day. It would not increase the negative effects of alcohol and people who do not want to buy alcohol on this day will not be forced to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the sale of alcohol in supermarkets on Sundays should be allowed. This is because it is not a day that is set aside for religious observance in the UK and so should not be treated any differently to any other day of the week. However, it is important to ensure that there are sufficient laws in place to protect the vulnerable and ensure that alcohol is not sold to minors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. We also feel that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets would not lead to people purchasing alcohol specifically for a Sunday and stocking up with the intention of excessive consumption. In our view, the issue of excessive alcohol consumption is more of an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, when people go out specifically to socialise and consume alcohol. We also feel that by prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would lead to other problems as well, with the potential for people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. We therefore feel that it is in the best interest of society that the sale of alcohol on Sundays should be permitted in supermarkets.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, we believe that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets on Sundays should be allowed. This is because, firstly, it is not our place to dictate to people what they should and should not do on a Sunday. Secondly, banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays would not prevent people from drinking on that day, it would just make it more difficult for them to do so. Thirdly, banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays would not prevent alcohol-related harms such as domestic violence or drink driving. In fact, it could make these problems worse by making people buy alcohol in bulk before the shops close on a Sunday. Finally, banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays would not stop alcohol-related harms from occurring on other days of the week. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe the sale of alcohol in supermarkets on Sundays should be allowed. Sunday is just like any other day, therefore there should be no difference in the sale of alcohol in supermarkets on this day. It would not increase the negative effects of alcohol and people who do not want to buy alcohol on this day will not be forced to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the sale of alcohol in supermarkets on Sundays should be allowed. This is because it is not a day that is set aside for religious observance in the UK and so should not be treated any differently to any other day of the week. However, it is important to ensure that there are sufficient laws in place to protect the vulnerable and ensure that alcohol is not sold to minors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. We also feel that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets would not lead to people purchasing alcohol specifically for a Sunday and stocking up with the intention of excessive consumption. In our view, the issue of excessive alcohol consumption is more of an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, when people go out specifically to socialise and consume alcohol. We also feel that by prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would lead to other problems as well, with the potential for people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. We therefore feel that it is in the best interest of society that the sale of alcohol on Sundays should be permitted in supermarkets.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, we believe that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets on Sundays should be allowed. This is because, firstly, it is not our place to dictate to people what they should and should not do on a Sunday. Secondly, banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays would not prevent people from drinking on that day, it would just make it more difficult for them to do so. Thirdly, banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays would not prevent alcohol-related harms such as domestic violence or drink driving. In fact, it could make these problems worse by making people buy alcohol in bulk before the shops close on a Sunday. Finally, banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays would not stop alcohol-related harms from occurring on other days of the week. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002261.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002261.soc index 2dcb3c58..fd0ef14f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002261.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002261.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the number of skilled workers allowed into the country. The group felt that this would be beneficial to the economy, and also to the existing skilled workers in the country who may be struggling to cope with the workload. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the skilled workers coming into the country were being paid a fair wage, and that they were not taking jobs away from existing skilled workers. The group felt that it was important to focus on the areas where there was a shortage of skilled workers, and to ensure that the skilled workers coming into the country were able to fill those roles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the number of skilled workers allowed into the country. The group felt that it was important to ensure that existing workers were not being exploited and that there was a balance of skilled workers from a variety of backgrounds. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that existing workers were not being exploited and that there was a balance of skilled workers from a variety of backgrounds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is important that the country has a high number of skilled workers to help sustain the economy. At the moment we have a good balance of skills, knowledge and experience within the country, however, there are still a few areas in which we are not able to fill jobs due to a lack of the required skills. We have tried to encourage more people to learn the skills that are required but have been unsuccessful. This is where we believe that increasing the immigration of skilled workers would be beneficial. This is because these workers are able to come into the country and make a good contribution, often by working in jobs where we are unable to find people with the skills. It is also important that they do not take away jobs from our people, so it is important that we maintain a balance of immigrants to existing workers. As a group, we all agree that our country would benefit from increasing the number of skilled workers that we allow into the country. However, we believe that it is important that the existing population in our country is given a chance to also improve their skills. For this reason, we believe that we should focus on improving the skills of the existing population before we open up our borders to more skilled workers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a higher number of skilled workers into the country, but only in areas where we are really struggling to find people. We need to ensure that we are able to employ these workers without harming the prospects of others in the country, and that they are able to receive the same support that is available to other workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the number of skilled workers allowed into the country. The group felt that this would be beneficial to the economy, and also to the existing skilled workers in the country who may be struggling to cope with the workload. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the skilled workers coming into the country were being paid a fair wage, and that they were not taking jobs away from existing skilled workers. The group felt that it was important to focus on the areas where there was a shortage of skilled workers, and to ensure that the skilled workers coming into the country were able to fill those roles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the number of skilled workers allowed into the country. The group felt that it was important to ensure that existing workers were not being exploited and that there was a balance of skilled workers from a variety of backgrounds. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that existing workers were not being exploited and that there was a balance of skilled workers from a variety of backgrounds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is important that the country has a high number of skilled workers to help sustain the economy. At the moment we have a good balance of skills, knowledge and experience within the country, however, there are still a few areas in which we are not able to fill jobs due to a lack of the required skills. We have tried to encourage more people to learn the skills that are required but have been unsuccessful. This is where we believe that increasing the immigration of skilled workers would be beneficial. This is because these workers are able to come into the country and make a good contribution, often by working in jobs where we are unable to find people with the skills. It is also important that they do not take away jobs from our people, so it is important that we maintain a balance of immigrants to existing workers. As a group, we all agree that our country would benefit from increasing the number of skilled workers that we allow into the country. However, we believe that it is important that the existing population in our country is given a chance to also improve their skills. For this reason, we believe that we should focus on improving the skills of the existing population before we open up our borders to more skilled workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that we should change our immigration policy to allow a higher number of skilled workers into the country, but only in areas where we are really struggling to find people. We need to ensure that we are able to employ these workers without harming the prospects of others in the country, and that they are able to receive the same support that is available to other workers. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002262.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002262.soc index a79a67e9..d30dd624 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002262.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002262.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group in general was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this is a skill that is required in the workplace and in other aspects of life. The group felt that this should not be the only thing that is assessed as there are other skills that are important such as communication and the ability to work independently. The group felt that students should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate and that this should not be something that is penalised. The group felt that if a student is struggling with this, then they should be supported to improve this skill rather than penalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Students should be assessed on how well they collaborate with their peers. However, they should not be penalised for any difficulties they may have and instead should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate so that by the time they leave education, they have a high-level of collaborative ability. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this is a skill that is required in the workplace and in other aspects of life. The group felt that this should not be the only thing that is assessed as there are other skills that are important such as communication and the ability to work independently. The group felt that students should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate and that this should not be something that is penalised. The group felt that if a student is struggling with this, then they should be supported to improve this skill rather than penalised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this is a skill that is required in the workplace and in other aspects of life. The group felt that this should not be the only thing that is assessed as there are other skills that are important such as communication and the ability to work independently. The group felt that students should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate and that this should not be something that is penalised. The group felt that if a student is struggling with this, then they should be supported to improve this skill rather than penalised. The group noted that whilst collaboration skills are valuable they do not solely define a person and so there should be more than one skill assessed in education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group in general was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this is a skill that is required in the workplace and in other aspects of life. The group felt that this should not be the only thing that is assessed as there are other skills that are important such as communication and the ability to work independently. The group felt that students should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate and that this should not be something that is penalised. The group felt that if a student is struggling with this, then they should be supported to improve this skill rather than penalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Students should be assessed on how well they collaborate with their peers. However, they should not be penalised for any difficulties they may have and instead should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate so that by the time they leave education, they have a high-level of collaborative ability. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this is a skill that is required in the workplace and in other aspects of life. The group felt that this should not be the only thing that is assessed as there are other skills that are important such as communication and the ability to work independently. The group felt that students should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate and that this should not be something that is penalised. The group felt that if a student is struggling with this, then they should be supported to improve this skill rather than penalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group was in favour of assessing students on their ability to collaborate with their peers. The group felt that this is a skill that is required in the workplace and in other aspects of life. The group felt that this should not be the only thing that is assessed as there are other skills that are important such as communication and the ability to work independently. The group felt that students should be supported in developing their ability to collaborate and that this should not be something that is penalised. The group felt that if a student is struggling with this, then they should be supported to improve this skill rather than penalised. The group noted that whilst collaboration skills are valuable they do not solely define a person and so there should be more than one skill assessed in education. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002263.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002263.soc index bb536ee5..02ae021d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002263.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002263.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of eating meat. They all agreed that the quality of the meat is important, and that it should be free range and from a good source. They also agreed that it is not necessary to eat meat everyday, and that it is important to have a balanced diet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is right to eat meat. We believe that the nutritional value of meat is very important to a balanced diet and that meat should be consumed in moderation. The group agreed that there should be a balance between the number of animals being farmed and the amount of land that is being used to farm them. The group also agreed that the animals should be treated well and have a good quality of life. The group also agreed that there should be a balance between the number of animals being farmed and the amount of land that is being used to farm them. The group also agreed that the animals should be treated well and have a good quality of life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is the opinion of the group that it is right to eat meat, although we do understand that not all individuals will want to do so. Our research has shown that meat is an important part of a healthy balanced diet, and that it contains lots of proteins and vitamins that are necessary for a human being to function. Our ancestors ate meat, and this is how they survived, therefore meat has always been a part of life. Meat also adds a large contribution to the economy. It is easy to source meat, as it is locally sourced, and is always available. We also believe that only meat that is free range and natural should be consumed. This is so that it is not contributing to the abuse of animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the science of nutrition is an extremely important one, we as a group cannot stress the importance of personal choice enough. We believe that while it is necessary to acknowledge the health risks associated with a diet high in meat consumption, we also feel that it is important to recognize that meat is a source of nutrition and energy for a large number of the world's population. We recognize the individuality of each person's needs and preferences, and we would never want to make an issue like this into a matter of right and wrong. For that reason, we are unable to give a black and white answer to the question of whether or not it is right to eat meat. It is our belief that it is each individual's right to choose whether or not they consume meat, and we believe that the arguments for and against eating meat can only be properly debated from the context of a specific person's life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of eating meat. They all agreed that the quality of the meat is important, and that it should be free range and from a good source. They also agreed that it is not necessary to eat meat everyday, and that it is important to have a balanced diet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is right to eat meat. We believe that the nutritional value of meat is very important to a balanced diet and that meat should be consumed in moderation. The group agreed that there should be a balance between the number of animals being farmed and the amount of land that is being used to farm them. The group also agreed that the animals should be treated well and have a good quality of life. The group also agreed that there should be a balance between the number of animals being farmed and the amount of land that is being used to farm them. The group also agreed that the animals should be treated well and have a good quality of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is the opinion of the group that it is right to eat meat, although we do understand that not all individuals will want to do so. Our research has shown that meat is an important part of a healthy balanced diet, and that it contains lots of proteins and vitamins that are necessary for a human being to function. Our ancestors ate meat, and this is how they survived, therefore meat has always been a part of life. Meat also adds a large contribution to the economy. It is easy to source meat, as it is locally sourced, and is always available. We also believe that only meat that is free range and natural should be consumed. This is so that it is not contributing to the abuse of animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the science of nutrition is an extremely important one, we as a group cannot stress the importance of personal choice enough. We believe that while it is necessary to acknowledge the health risks associated with a diet high in meat consumption, we also feel that it is important to recognize that meat is a source of nutrition and energy for a large number of the world's population. We recognize the individuality of each person's needs and preferences, and we would never want to make an issue like this into a matter of right and wrong. For that reason, we are unable to give a black and white answer to the question of whether or not it is right to eat meat. It is our belief that it is each individual's right to choose whether or not they consume meat, and we believe that the arguments for and against eating meat can only be properly debated from the context of a specific person's life. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002264.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002264.soc index c16fa1ca..ff65d107 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002264.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002264.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. This is an illicit market which would be harmful to society, with the potential for the people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. Therefore, we believe that it is in the best interest of society to allow the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets. The government would benefit from the revenue as well, thus lowering the tax burden on all citizens in our society.” Participants critiqued their fellow peers on a statement below, in a final chance to improve their critical thinking abilities. One last reflection required from participants was their critique of a piece of writing, on the subject of the sale of alcohol. Participants also had the chance to write their own reflection on whether they felt the collective -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. We also feel that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets would not lead to people purchasing alcohol specifically for a Sunday and stocking up with the intention of excessive consumption. In our view, the issue of excessive alcohol consumption is more of an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, when people go out specifically to socialise and consume alcohol. We also feel that by prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would lead to other problems as well, with the potential for people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. We therefore feel that it is in the best interest of society that the sale of alcohol on Sundays should be permitted in supermarkets.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. We also feel that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets would not lead to people purchasing alcohol specifically for a Sunday and stocking up with the intention of excessive consumption. In our view, the issue of excessive alcohol consumption is more of an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, when people go out specifically to socialise and consume alcohol. We also feel that by prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would lead to other problems as well, with the potential for people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. We therefore feel that it is in the best interest of society that the sale of alcohol on Sundays should be permitted in supermarkets.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. We also feel that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets would not lead to people purchasing alcohol specifically for a Sunday and stocking up with the intention of excessive consumption. In our view, the issue of excessive alcohol consumption is more of an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, when people go out specifically to socialise and consume alcohol. We also feel that by prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would lead to other problems as well, with the potential for people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. We therefore feel that it is in the best interest of society that the sale of alcohol on Sundays should be permitted in supermarkets.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. This is an illicit market which would be harmful to society, with the potential for the people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. Therefore, we believe that it is in the best interest of society to allow the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets. The government would benefit from the revenue as well, thus lowering the tax burden on all citizens in our society.” Participants critiqued their fellow peers on a statement below, in a final chance to improve their critical thinking abilities. One last reflection required from participants was their critique of a piece of writing, on the subject of the sale of alcohol. Participants also had the chance to write their own reflection on whether they felt the collective +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. We also feel that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets would not lead to people purchasing alcohol specifically for a Sunday and stocking up with the intention of excessive consumption. In our view, the issue of excessive alcohol consumption is more of an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, when people go out specifically to socialise and consume alcohol. We also feel that by prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would lead to other problems as well, with the potential for people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. We therefore feel that it is in the best interest of society that the sale of alcohol on Sundays should be permitted in supermarkets.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. We also feel that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets would not lead to people purchasing alcohol specifically for a Sunday and stocking up with the intention of excessive consumption. In our view, the issue of excessive alcohol consumption is more of an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, when people go out specifically to socialise and consume alcohol. We also feel that by prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would lead to other problems as well, with the potential for people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. We therefore feel that it is in the best interest of society that the sale of alcohol on Sundays should be permitted in supermarkets.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We have debated the issue of the sale of alcohol on Sundays in supermarkets and we feel that the sale of alcohol should be allowed in supermarkets on Sundays. We do not feel that the sale of alcohol on Sundays would make a significant difference in the levels of alcohol consumed by individuals on this day. We also feel that prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would simply lead to alcohol being sold illegally, by those who are seeking to make money on the back of the alcohol ban. We also feel that the sale of alcohol in supermarkets would not lead to people purchasing alcohol specifically for a Sunday and stocking up with the intention of excessive consumption. In our view, the issue of excessive alcohol consumption is more of an issue on Friday and Saturday nights, when people go out specifically to socialise and consume alcohol. We also feel that by prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays would lead to other problems as well, with the potential for people to turn to illegal sources of alcohol, and thus cause an increase in illegal alcohol consumption. We therefore feel that it is in the best interest of society that the sale of alcohol on Sundays should be permitted in supermarkets.” 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002265.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002265.soc index 24ba70a4..a42b03c9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002265.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002265.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the protection of privacy. It was felt that there are sufficient measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens in most areas. However, it was felt that there is a need for more education for citizens on the use of the internet and the dangers of leaving a digital footprint. The group felt that the government needs to take a more active role in this and to ensure that the legislation is updated to reflect the changes in technology. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens. We have the Data Protection Act and the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the Data Protection Act is sometimes ignored by companies, who often take advantage of people’s ignorance of the law and how to protect themselves. Also, the laws themselves do not keep up with technological advances. As technology advances, new threats to privacy emerge. Social media is a good example of this. The internet allows us to easily connect with people across the world. But this same technology allows people to access and share our personal data with those across the world. It also allows people to invade our privacy and find out information about us that they may not otherwise have been able to access. Another good example is the recent news that the FBI can spy on people using the cameras on their laptops, tablets and phones. This is a new technology that has caused concern among privacy advocates. Although there are many laws that protect citizens, people need to be educated about these laws and how to keep themselves safe. More needs to be done to teach people about their rights to privacy and how they can protect themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens, however, there is room for improvement. The government needs to find a way to protect and take part in the prevention so that everyone could be safe and feel protected all the time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are not enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens. This is due to the rate of technological advances, which makes privacy in this area difficult to keep up with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the protection of privacy. It was felt that there are sufficient measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens in most areas. However, it was felt that there is a need for more education for citizens on the use of the internet and the dangers of leaving a digital footprint. The group felt that the government needs to take a more active role in this and to ensure that the legislation is updated to reflect the changes in technology. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens. We have the Data Protection Act and the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the Data Protection Act is sometimes ignored by companies, who often take advantage of people’s ignorance of the law and how to protect themselves. Also, the laws themselves do not keep up with technological advances. As technology advances, new threats to privacy emerge. Social media is a good example of this. The internet allows us to easily connect with people across the world. But this same technology allows people to access and share our personal data with those across the world. It also allows people to invade our privacy and find out information about us that they may not otherwise have been able to access. Another good example is the recent news that the FBI can spy on people using the cameras on their laptops, tablets and phones. This is a new technology that has caused concern among privacy advocates. Although there are many laws that protect citizens, people need to be educated about these laws and how to keep themselves safe. More needs to be done to teach people about their rights to privacy and how they can protect themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens, however, there is room for improvement. The government needs to find a way to protect and take part in the prevention so that everyone could be safe and feel protected all the time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are not enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens. This is due to the rate of technological advances, which makes privacy in this area difficult to keep up with. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002266.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002266.soc index 61a3d780..c9f46200 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002266.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002266.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of teaching financial literacy in school. The participants felt that this would prepare students for the future and help them to become financially independent. The participants also felt that financial literacy was a life skill that all students should have. The participants felt that this would help students in the future to make good financial choices. The participants felt that financial literacy was something that all students should have a basic understanding of. The participants felt that financial literacy should be taught in school, but that this should not be the only place that students learn about financial literacy. The participants felt that parents should also be involved in teaching their children about financial literacy. The participants felt that this would help students to have a good understanding of financial literacy and to be able to make good financial choices in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Financial literacy is a critical skill for all students to learn. If they understand money, how it is earned, spent and saved, they will be more financially responsible. If they learn how to budget, manage debt, and invest their money, they will be able to survive independently and avoid a life of debt and financial worry. Students should not be allowed to leave school without some level of financial education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that financial literacy is a basic life skill that is essential for every adult to understand. Therefore, it is important that all students be taught financial literacy in school. As financial literacy is becoming more and more important in the modern world, it is essential that students are educated in this area. A basic understanding of finances and financial management will be essential for young people in the future. It will also help them to make better decisions concerning their money as they become adults. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of teaching financial literacy in school. The group felt that this would be beneficial to students in their future lives. However, the group also felt that the extent to which financial literacy should be taught in school was debatable. The group felt that there should be a balance between teaching financial literacy in school and teaching it at home. The group felt that some aspects of financial literacy were best taught at home, as these were more personal. The group also felt that some aspects of financial literacy were best taught at school, as these were more general. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of teaching financial literacy in school. The participants felt that this would prepare students for the future and help them to become financially independent. The participants also felt that financial literacy was a life skill that all students should have. The participants felt that this would help students in the future to make good financial choices. The participants felt that financial literacy was something that all students should have a basic understanding of. The participants felt that financial literacy should be taught in school, but that this should not be the only place that students learn about financial literacy. The participants felt that parents should also be involved in teaching their children about financial literacy. The participants felt that this would help students to have a good understanding of financial literacy and to be able to make good financial choices in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Financial literacy is a critical skill for all students to learn. If they understand money, how it is earned, spent and saved, they will be more financially responsible. If they learn how to budget, manage debt, and invest their money, they will be able to survive independently and avoid a life of debt and financial worry. Students should not be allowed to leave school without some level of financial education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that financial literacy is a basic life skill that is essential for every adult to understand. Therefore, it is important that all students be taught financial literacy in school. As financial literacy is becoming more and more important in the modern world, it is essential that students are educated in this area. A basic understanding of finances and financial management will be essential for young people in the future. It will also help them to make better decisions concerning their money as they become adults. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of teaching financial literacy in school. The group felt that this would be beneficial to students in their future lives. However, the group also felt that the extent to which financial literacy should be taught in school was debatable. The group felt that there should be a balance between teaching financial literacy in school and teaching it at home. The group felt that some aspects of financial literacy were best taught at home, as these were more personal. The group also felt that some aspects of financial literacy were best taught at school, as these were more general. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002267.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002267.soc index b3ef670b..afd9bba7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002267.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002267.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The state has a responsibility to monitor the food that is produced and sold within its jurisdiction. Food suppliers shouldn't be allowed free reign to sell anything they like without any form of regulation. It is important to acknowledge that there are arguments for and against the state being allowed to make laws banning the sale of products based on their nutritional content. On the one hand, the state is responsible for the health and wellbeing of its citizens. If a product is seen as being so harmful to the general health of the population, then surely the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and, if necessary, enact legislation to ban it. On the other hand, the state should be encouraging people to make their own choices, educating the population on the dangers of certain products. If the state makes a law banning a product, then surely it is depriving people of the choice to make their own decision. It is also important to note that what is healthy for one person is not necessarily healthy for another. For example, diabetics are encouraged to eat low carb high fat diets, yet these diets are generally seen as unhealthy for most people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important to acknowledge that there are arguments for and against the state being allowed to make laws banning the sale of products based on their nutritional content. On the one hand, the state is responsible for the health and wellbeing of its citizens. If a product is seen as being so harmful to the general health of the population, then surely the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and, if necessary, enact legislation to ban it. On the other hand, the state should be encouraging people to make their own choices, educating the population on the dangers of certain products. If the state makes a law banning a product, then surely it is depriving people of the choice to make their own decision. It is also important to note that what is healthy for one person is not necessarily healthy for another. For example, diabetics are encouraged to eat low carb high fat diets, yet these diets are generally seen as unhealthy for most people. Although there were differing opinions within the group, through careful discussion and deliberation, participants were able to come to a consensus opinion and explain their view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The state has a responsibility to monitor the food that is produced and sold within its jurisdiction. Food suppliers shouldn't be allowed free reign to sell anything they like without any form of regulation. Nutritional content is a tricky subject and whilst the population should be able to decide for themselves what they eat, some products could be viewed as being nothing but harmful to consumers and can't be viewed as even part of a balanced diet. The state has a responsibility to provide healthcare for its citizens and part of that should incorporate a strategy to promote and encourage healthy eating and therefore this strategy may include a small level of restricting sale of a limited number of products which can only be seen as harmful to health. This is something that should be done very carefully and only in extreme circumstances when the products in question are truly harmful to the health of the citizens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are pros and cons for allowing the state to make laws banning the sale of products based on their nutritional content. In the face of extreme health problems due to products, the state may have a duty to protect its citizens and should intervene. The state should also have the role of educating the population on the hazards of certain foods, leading by example with laws and providing options of healthy foods for those unable to buy it. If such legislation is passed, care should be taken to ensure that the state is not simply appeasing big businesses, rather than passing such laws based on science, which has not always been the most reliable of fields. However, we must be aware that legislation should not remove the need for good education. There is a duty to teach people to make their own good choices. While the state can intervene, this should be based on scientific reasoning and not solely based on public opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The state has a responsibility to monitor the food that is produced and sold within its jurisdiction. Food suppliers shouldn't be allowed free reign to sell anything they like without any form of regulation. It is important to acknowledge that there are arguments for and against the state being allowed to make laws banning the sale of products based on their nutritional content. On the one hand, the state is responsible for the health and wellbeing of its citizens. If a product is seen as being so harmful to the general health of the population, then surely the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and, if necessary, enact legislation to ban it. On the other hand, the state should be encouraging people to make their own choices, educating the population on the dangers of certain products. If the state makes a law banning a product, then surely it is depriving people of the choice to make their own decision. It is also important to note that what is healthy for one person is not necessarily healthy for another. For example, diabetics are encouraged to eat low carb high fat diets, yet these diets are generally seen as unhealthy for most people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important to acknowledge that there are arguments for and against the state being allowed to make laws banning the sale of products based on their nutritional content. On the one hand, the state is responsible for the health and wellbeing of its citizens. If a product is seen as being so harmful to the general health of the population, then surely the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and, if necessary, enact legislation to ban it. On the other hand, the state should be encouraging people to make their own choices, educating the population on the dangers of certain products. If the state makes a law banning a product, then surely it is depriving people of the choice to make their own decision. It is also important to note that what is healthy for one person is not necessarily healthy for another. For example, diabetics are encouraged to eat low carb high fat diets, yet these diets are generally seen as unhealthy for most people. Although there were differing opinions within the group, through careful discussion and deliberation, participants were able to come to a consensus opinion and explain their view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The state has a responsibility to monitor the food that is produced and sold within its jurisdiction. Food suppliers shouldn't be allowed free reign to sell anything they like without any form of regulation. Nutritional content is a tricky subject and whilst the population should be able to decide for themselves what they eat, some products could be viewed as being nothing but harmful to consumers and can't be viewed as even part of a balanced diet. The state has a responsibility to provide healthcare for its citizens and part of that should incorporate a strategy to promote and encourage healthy eating and therefore this strategy may include a small level of restricting sale of a limited number of products which can only be seen as harmful to health. This is something that should be done very carefully and only in extreme circumstances when the products in question are truly harmful to the health of the citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are pros and cons for allowing the state to make laws banning the sale of products based on their nutritional content. In the face of extreme health problems due to products, the state may have a duty to protect its citizens and should intervene. The state should also have the role of educating the population on the hazards of certain foods, leading by example with laws and providing options of healthy foods for those unable to buy it. If such legislation is passed, care should be taken to ensure that the state is not simply appeasing big businesses, rather than passing such laws based on science, which has not always been the most reliable of fields. However, we must be aware that legislation should not remove the need for good education. There is a duty to teach people to make their own good choices. While the state can intervene, this should be based on scientific reasoning and not solely based on public opinion. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002268.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002268.soc index 4a24422e..9787e569 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002268.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002268.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not allow private healthcare to flourish in the UK as the NHS was founded on the principle that healthcare should be free at the point of contact for every person regardless of their social status or their wealth. This means that any person in society can access good quality healthcare for their needs whether that be a serious health issue or a minor health issue. If private healthcare is allowed to flourish we would be on a slippery slope to the NHS becoming privatised and limiting the healthcare that the ordinary member of the public can access which will damage society more than it will help those with enough wealth to access a private service. People could ultimately be left destitute or in great amounts of debt. And so we hope that the government intervenes to avoid private healthcare to flourish in the UK and to keep the NHS healthy and up to date to be able to continue providing free health care to its people -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Private healthcare should be allowed to exist but not flourish. Private healthcare can provide certain comforts and faster healthcare to those that can afford it and will take some of the pressure away from the NHS by allowing private hospitals to take on some of the routine procedures. The NHS should remain as the norm and the highest standard of health care that is free at the point of contact for all. Everyone should be able to access good quality health care whether that be a serious health issue or a minor health issue. A criticism of the above statement is that it didn't really express how the UK should go about allowing private healthcare to exist but not flourish. Conclusions Having tried out Jamboola, I believe that this is a good tool for consensus building. Through the tool one can put forward ones opinion and participate in the creation of a consensus statement. Jamboola helps navigate through disagreements and conflicting opinions to reach a consensuse. People can post their opinion, agree or disagree with the critiques and comment. A strength of this method is that it is easy to access and navigate. It is free to set up and easy to use. The participants are anonymous and one is free to express ones -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not allow private healthcare to flourish in the UK. The NHS was founded on the principle that healthcare should be free at the point of contact for every person regardless of their social status or their wealth. This means that any person in society can access good quality healthcare for their needs whether that be a serious health issue or a minor health issue. If private healthcare is allowed to flourish we would be on a slippery slope to the NHS becoming privatised and limiting the healthcare that the ordinary member of the public can access which will damage society more than it will help those with enough wealth to access a private service. People could ultimately be left destitute or in great amounts of debt. The only exception to this is in times of crisis when the NHS is struggling and private healthcare can act as a lifeline. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not allow private healthcare to flourish in the UK. The NHS was founded on the principle that healthcare should be free at the point of contact for every person regardless of their social status or their wealth. This means that any person in society can access good quality healthcare for their needs whether that be a serious health issue or a minor health issue. If private healthcare is allowed to flourish we would be on a slippery slope to the NHS becoming privatised and limiting the healthcare that the ordinary member of the public can access which will damage society more than it will help those with enough wealth to access a private service. People could ultimately be left destitute or in great amounts of debt. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not allow private healthcare to flourish in the UK as the NHS was founded on the principle that healthcare should be free at the point of contact for every person regardless of their social status or their wealth. This means that any person in society can access good quality healthcare for their needs whether that be a serious health issue or a minor health issue. If private healthcare is allowed to flourish we would be on a slippery slope to the NHS becoming privatised and limiting the healthcare that the ordinary member of the public can access which will damage society more than it will help those with enough wealth to access a private service. People could ultimately be left destitute or in great amounts of debt. And so we hope that the government intervenes to avoid private healthcare to flourish in the UK and to keep the NHS healthy and up to date to be able to continue providing free health care to its people +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Private healthcare should be allowed to exist but not flourish. Private healthcare can provide certain comforts and faster healthcare to those that can afford it and will take some of the pressure away from the NHS by allowing private hospitals to take on some of the routine procedures. The NHS should remain as the norm and the highest standard of health care that is free at the point of contact for all. Everyone should be able to access good quality health care whether that be a serious health issue or a minor health issue. A criticism of the above statement is that it didn't really express how the UK should go about allowing private healthcare to exist but not flourish. Conclusions Having tried out Jamboola, I believe that this is a good tool for consensus building. Through the tool one can put forward ones opinion and participate in the creation of a consensus statement. Jamboola helps navigate through disagreements and conflicting opinions to reach a consensuse. People can post their opinion, agree or disagree with the critiques and comment. A strength of this method is that it is easy to access and navigate. It is free to set up and easy to use. The participants are anonymous and one is free to express ones +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not allow private healthcare to flourish in the UK. The NHS was founded on the principle that healthcare should be free at the point of contact for every person regardless of their social status or their wealth. This means that any person in society can access good quality healthcare for their needs whether that be a serious health issue or a minor health issue. If private healthcare is allowed to flourish we would be on a slippery slope to the NHS becoming privatised and limiting the healthcare that the ordinary member of the public can access which will damage society more than it will help those with enough wealth to access a private service. People could ultimately be left destitute or in great amounts of debt. The only exception to this is in times of crisis when the NHS is struggling and private healthcare can act as a lifeline. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not allow private healthcare to flourish in the UK. The NHS was founded on the principle that healthcare should be free at the point of contact for every person regardless of their social status or their wealth. This means that any person in society can access good quality healthcare for their needs whether that be a serious health issue or a minor health issue. If private healthcare is allowed to flourish we would be on a slippery slope to the NHS becoming privatised and limiting the healthcare that the ordinary member of the public can access which will damage society more than it will help those with enough wealth to access a private service. People could ultimately be left destitute or in great amounts of debt. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002269.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002269.soc index b1a667e8..7ca7ba62 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002269.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002269.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are enough measures in place to protect citizens. We have the Data Protection Act and the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the Data Protection Act is sometimes ignored by companies, who often take advantage of people’s ignorance of the law and how to protect themselves. Also, the laws themselves do not keep up with technological advances. As technology advances, new threats to privacy emerge. Social media is a good example of this. The internet allows us to easily connect with people across the world. But this same technology allows people to access and share our personal data with those across the world. It also allows people to invade our privacy and find out information about us that they may not otherwise have been able to access. Another good example is the recent news that the FBI can spy on people using the cameras on their laptops, tablets and phones. This is a new technology that has caused concern among privacy advocates. Although there are many laws that protect citizens, people need to be educated about these laws and how to keep themselves safe. More needs to be done to teach people about their rights to privacy and how they can protect themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens. However, more needs to be done to educate people about their rights to privacy and how they can protect themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Are there enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens? As a society, we have the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. But the ease with which technology allows people to share information means we are more vulnerable to privacy breaches than ever before. The Data Protection Act is sometimes ignored by companies, who take advantage of people’s ignorance of the law and how to protect themselves. The Information Commissioner’s Office recently stated that: ‘There is a significant risk that people will be left behind if technology outpaces privacy law and we need to make sure we are moving forward as a society by examining our laws to make sure they are still fit for purpose’ I think there should be more legislation so that companies and even government agencies cannot take advantage of privacy laws. Individuals should be better educated about privacy laws and how to protect themselves online. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens. We have the Data Protection Act and the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the Data Protection Act is sometimes ignored by companies, who often take advantage of people’s ignorance of the law and how to protect themselves. Also, the laws themselves do not keep up with technological advances. As technology advances, new threats to privacy emerge. Social media is a good example of this. The internet allows us to easily connect with people across the world. But this same technology allows people to access and share our personal data with those across the world. It also allows people to invade our privacy and find out information about us that they may not otherwise have been able to access. Although there are many laws that protect citizens, people need to be educated about these laws and how to keep themselves safe. More needs to be done to teach people about their rights to privacy and how they can protect themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are enough measures in place to protect citizens. We have the Data Protection Act and the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the Data Protection Act is sometimes ignored by companies, who often take advantage of people’s ignorance of the law and how to protect themselves. Also, the laws themselves do not keep up with technological advances. As technology advances, new threats to privacy emerge. Social media is a good example of this. The internet allows us to easily connect with people across the world. But this same technology allows people to access and share our personal data with those across the world. It also allows people to invade our privacy and find out information about us that they may not otherwise have been able to access. Another good example is the recent news that the FBI can spy on people using the cameras on their laptops, tablets and phones. This is a new technology that has caused concern among privacy advocates. Although there are many laws that protect citizens, people need to be educated about these laws and how to keep themselves safe. More needs to be done to teach people about their rights to privacy and how they can protect themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens. However, more needs to be done to educate people about their rights to privacy and how they can protect themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Are there enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens? As a society, we have the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. But the ease with which technology allows people to share information means we are more vulnerable to privacy breaches than ever before. The Data Protection Act is sometimes ignored by companies, who take advantage of people’s ignorance of the law and how to protect themselves. The Information Commissioner’s Office recently stated that: ‘There is a significant risk that people will be left behind if technology outpaces privacy law and we need to make sure we are moving forward as a society by examining our laws to make sure they are still fit for purpose’ I think there should be more legislation so that companies and even government agencies cannot take advantage of privacy laws. Individuals should be better educated about privacy laws and how to protect themselves online. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are enough measures in place to protect the privacy of citizens. We have the Data Protection Act and the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the Data Protection Act is sometimes ignored by companies, who often take advantage of people’s ignorance of the law and how to protect themselves. Also, the laws themselves do not keep up with technological advances. As technology advances, new threats to privacy emerge. Social media is a good example of this. The internet allows us to easily connect with people across the world. But this same technology allows people to access and share our personal data with those across the world. It also allows people to invade our privacy and find out information about us that they may not otherwise have been able to access. Although there are many laws that protect citizens, people need to be educated about these laws and how to keep themselves safe. More needs to be done to teach people about their rights to privacy and how they can protect themselves. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002270.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002270.soc index 823ac154..26145254 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002270.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002270.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: It is right to eat meat. We have evidence from our ancestors which show that they all survived well on a diet including meat, this means that meat has always been a part of life. We have also identified the protein and vitamins that meat can offer to a diet, and the benefits it has to an individual's health. We also want to make it clear that meat should only be free range and natural. This means that we don't support the abuse of animals or the cruelty that they have to experience. Also, only lean meat should be eaten. The benefits are that meat contributes to the economy in both the short and long term, and also the wellbeing of its inhabitants. The importance of understanding where your meat comes from and that it should be locally sourced should not be underestimated. The evidence shows that people are happier when they know where their meat is from. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is the opinion of the group that it is right to eat meat, although we do understand that not all individuals will want to do so. Our research has shown that meat is an important part of a healthy balanced diet, and that it contains lots of proteins and vitamins that are necessary for a human being to function. Our ancestors ate meat, and this is how they survived, therefore meat has always been a part of life. Meat also adds a large contribution to the economy. It is easy to source meat, as it is locally sourced, and is always available. We also believe that only meat that is free range and natural should be consumed. This is so that it is not contributing to the abuse of animals. We do not agree with factory farming and the mistreatment of animals. We think that this is cruel and should not be supported by anyone. We agree that only lean meat should be eaten, and that it should be locally sourced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is the opinion of the group that it is right to eat meat, although we do understand that not all individuals will want to do so. Our research has shown that meat is an important part of a healthy balanced diet, and that it contains lots of proteins and vitamins that are necessary for a human being to function. Our ancestors ate meat, and this is how they survived, therefore meat has always been a part of life. Meat also adds a large contribution to the economy. It is easy to source meat, as it is locally sourced, and is always available. We also believe that only meat that is free range and natural should be consumed. This is so that it is not contributing to the abuse of animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is the right of each individual to decide whether they want to eat meat or not. However, if meat is to be eaten, it should be free range, and only lean meat should be consumed. We also believe that meat is an important part of a healthy balanced diet, and that it contains lots of proteins and vitamins that are necessary for a human being to function. Our ancestors ate meat, and this is how they survived, therefore meat has always been a part of life. Meat also adds a large contribution to the economy. It is easy to source meat, as it is locally sourced, and is always available. We believe that it is important to care for the animals that the meat is coming from, and that they should be treated kindly. We also think that there should be no factory farming, only free range natural meat. Overall, we think that meat is a very important part of life, and that everyone should have the right to eat meat, but it should be sourced ethically, and only lean meat should be consumed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: It is right to eat meat. We have evidence from our ancestors which show that they all survived well on a diet including meat, this means that meat has always been a part of life. We have also identified the protein and vitamins that meat can offer to a diet, and the benefits it has to an individual's health. We also want to make it clear that meat should only be free range and natural. This means that we don't support the abuse of animals or the cruelty that they have to experience. Also, only lean meat should be eaten. The benefits are that meat contributes to the economy in both the short and long term, and also the wellbeing of its inhabitants. The importance of understanding where your meat comes from and that it should be locally sourced should not be underestimated. The evidence shows that people are happier when they know where their meat is from. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is the opinion of the group that it is right to eat meat, although we do understand that not all individuals will want to do so. Our research has shown that meat is an important part of a healthy balanced diet, and that it contains lots of proteins and vitamins that are necessary for a human being to function. Our ancestors ate meat, and this is how they survived, therefore meat has always been a part of life. Meat also adds a large contribution to the economy. It is easy to source meat, as it is locally sourced, and is always available. We also believe that only meat that is free range and natural should be consumed. This is so that it is not contributing to the abuse of animals. We do not agree with factory farming and the mistreatment of animals. We think that this is cruel and should not be supported by anyone. We agree that only lean meat should be eaten, and that it should be locally sourced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is the opinion of the group that it is right to eat meat, although we do understand that not all individuals will want to do so. Our research has shown that meat is an important part of a healthy balanced diet, and that it contains lots of proteins and vitamins that are necessary for a human being to function. Our ancestors ate meat, and this is how they survived, therefore meat has always been a part of life. Meat also adds a large contribution to the economy. It is easy to source meat, as it is locally sourced, and is always available. We also believe that only meat that is free range and natural should be consumed. This is so that it is not contributing to the abuse of animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is the right of each individual to decide whether they want to eat meat or not. However, if meat is to be eaten, it should be free range, and only lean meat should be consumed. We also believe that meat is an important part of a healthy balanced diet, and that it contains lots of proteins and vitamins that are necessary for a human being to function. Our ancestors ate meat, and this is how they survived, therefore meat has always been a part of life. Meat also adds a large contribution to the economy. It is easy to source meat, as it is locally sourced, and is always available. We believe that it is important to care for the animals that the meat is coming from, and that they should be treated kindly. We also think that there should be no factory farming, only free range natural meat. Overall, we think that meat is a very important part of life, and that everyone should have the right to eat meat, but it should be sourced ethically, and only lean meat should be consumed. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002271.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002271.soc index 36d5440a..1b6bc546 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002271.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002271.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants were broadly in agreement that the UK was too strict when it came to gun ownership, and the group felt this was one of the main reasons the USA was so much more prone to mass shootings. The group were of the opinion that gun ownership was less dangerous than the law makes it out to be, and that there should be more restrictions on other things which cause more deaths, such as knives and drugs. I asked the participants what they felt about the issue of whether or not the government should enforce its will on the people, and this is what they had to say: -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK is not too permissive when it comes to regulating gun ownership. I think the UK has a very good system in place when it comes to guns and ownership. The UK is strict in terms of what people can and cannot buy. In terms of knife crime, I think this is more of an issue than gun crime, and it is essential to tackle knife crime first. I think it is important to ensure that people are aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to guns. If we educate people about the law in regards to guns, then I think we can prevent crime and ensure that people abide by the law and use guns responsibly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK is strict enough when it comes to gun ownership. This is because there are various laws and regulations in place to ensure that only the right people are able to buy and use guns. This means that the general public are unable to access guns, which is a good thing as it means that the number of gun related crimes is kept to a minimum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK is not too permissive when it comes to regulating gun ownership. However, the UK could be more strict in terms of what guns people can buy and what permission people need to buy/use guns. The UK should regularly look at its laws to make sure they still work and adjust if needed. The UK should be strict about who can get hold of guns like automatic guns etc. There should be checks on people and guns only needed for farming ie shooting hares and birds. The UK is strict not permissive when it comes to gun ownership. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants were broadly in agreement that the UK was too strict when it came to gun ownership, and the group felt this was one of the main reasons the USA was so much more prone to mass shootings. The group were of the opinion that gun ownership was less dangerous than the law makes it out to be, and that there should be more restrictions on other things which cause more deaths, such as knives and drugs. I asked the participants what they felt about the issue of whether or not the government should enforce its will on the people, and this is what they had to say: +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK is not too permissive when it comes to regulating gun ownership. I think the UK has a very good system in place when it comes to guns and ownership. The UK is strict in terms of what people can and cannot buy. In terms of knife crime, I think this is more of an issue than gun crime, and it is essential to tackle knife crime first. I think it is important to ensure that people are aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to guns. If we educate people about the law in regards to guns, then I think we can prevent crime and ensure that people abide by the law and use guns responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK is strict enough when it comes to gun ownership. This is because there are various laws and regulations in place to ensure that only the right people are able to buy and use guns. This means that the general public are unable to access guns, which is a good thing as it means that the number of gun related crimes is kept to a minimum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK is not too permissive when it comes to regulating gun ownership. However, the UK could be more strict in terms of what guns people can buy and what permission people need to buy/use guns. The UK should regularly look at its laws to make sure they still work and adjust if needed. The UK should be strict about who can get hold of guns like automatic guns etc. There should be checks on people and guns only needed for farming ie shooting hares and birds. The UK is strict not permissive when it comes to gun ownership. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002272.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002272.soc index a74e584a..39fe0b82 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002272.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002272.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that endangered species need to be protected. The environment needs to be protected to allow these species to continue to survive. There are various other reasons for this as well, such as how these species add to the ecosystem in the world, and how they can provide us with new ideas that can help us humans solve real-world problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the protection of endangered species is a vital task for the human race. We must remember that the natural world has been evolving for millions of years and it would be arrogant to assume that we are the pinnacle of evolution. In fact, we are still very much part of the natural world and we rely on it for our survival. We must remember that we are also part of a larger ecosystem and the extinction of any species can have a knock on effect on the entire system. Therefore, we must protect endangered species to ensure the survival of the natural world. We must also remember that there is a great deal that we can learn from other species, and that we can use this knowledge to solve real world problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we should make more effort to protect and improve the environment for endangered species. This is because they are a part of the ecosystem and if they disappear, it will have a knock on effect on other species. In addition, they have a right to life, and a world with diverse species is more exciting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We think that endangered species should be given a higher priority in government spending. Not only is it our moral duty to help protect endangered species, but the world would be poorer without them and they have many valuable lessons to teach us about our own survival. We have to ensure that the actions we take to protect them do not do more harm than good, so we must make sure that we protect the ecosystems that they are a part of and ensure that their habitat is protected. In order to be able to do this, we must educate people about the importance of the environment and how the loss of species will affect the survival of many other species. We also must ensure that we understand the impact of humans on the environment and work towards reducing this impact. We must use technology to ensure that we continue to develop without destroying the environment that we are a part of and the many species that are a part of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that endangered species need to be protected. The environment needs to be protected to allow these species to continue to survive. There are various other reasons for this as well, such as how these species add to the ecosystem in the world, and how they can provide us with new ideas that can help us humans solve real-world problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the protection of endangered species is a vital task for the human race. We must remember that the natural world has been evolving for millions of years and it would be arrogant to assume that we are the pinnacle of evolution. In fact, we are still very much part of the natural world and we rely on it for our survival. We must remember that we are also part of a larger ecosystem and the extinction of any species can have a knock on effect on the entire system. Therefore, we must protect endangered species to ensure the survival of the natural world. We must also remember that there is a great deal that we can learn from other species, and that we can use this knowledge to solve real world problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we should make more effort to protect and improve the environment for endangered species. This is because they are a part of the ecosystem and if they disappear, it will have a knock on effect on other species. In addition, they have a right to life, and a world with diverse species is more exciting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We think that endangered species should be given a higher priority in government spending. Not only is it our moral duty to help protect endangered species, but the world would be poorer without them and they have many valuable lessons to teach us about our own survival. We have to ensure that the actions we take to protect them do not do more harm than good, so we must make sure that we protect the ecosystems that they are a part of and ensure that their habitat is protected. In order to be able to do this, we must educate people about the importance of the environment and how the loss of species will affect the survival of many other species. We also must ensure that we understand the impact of humans on the environment and work towards reducing this impact. We must use technology to ensure that we continue to develop without destroying the environment that we are a part of and the many species that are a part of it. 2: 4,2,1,3 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002273.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002273.soc index 9d09ec5d..8778ed7d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002273.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002273.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We think that endangered species should be given a higher priority in government spending. Not only is it our moral duty to help protect endangered species, but the world would be poorer without them and they have many valuable lessons to teach us about our own survival. We have to ensure that the actions we take to protect them do not do more harm than good, so we must make sure that we protect the ecosystems that they are a part of and ensure that their habitat is protected. In order to be able to do this, we must educate people about the importance of the environment and how the loss of species will affect the survival of many other species. We also must ensure that we understand the impact of humans on the environment and work towards reducing this impact. Finally, to make sure that we do not damage the environment further, but still make improvements to the world, we must work hard to ensure that the development of human society is carried out in a sustainable way so that we don't do any more damage. We must use technology to ensure that we continue to develop without destroying the environment that we are a part of and the many species that are a part of it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Final -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We think that endangered species should be given a higher priority in government spending. Not only is it our moral duty to help protect endangered species, but the world would be poorer without them and they have many valuable lessons to teach us about our own survival. We have to ensure that the actions we take to protect them do not do more harm than good, so we must make sure that we protect the ecosystems that they are a part of and ensure that their habitat is protected. In order to be able to do this, we must educate people about the importance of the environment and how the loss of species will affect the survival of many other species. We also must ensure that we understand the impact of humans on the environment and work towards reducing this impact. We must use technology to ensure that we continue to develop without destroying the environment that we are a part of and the many species that are a part of it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is vital that we protect endangered species. Not only is it our moral duty to help protect endangered species, but the world would be poorer without them and they have many valuable lessons to teach us about our own survival. We have to ensure that the actions we take to protect them do not do more harm than good, so we must make sure that we protect the ecosystems that they are a part of and ensure that their habitat is protected. In order to be able to do this, we must educate people about the importance of the environment and how the loss of species will affect the survival of many other species. We also must ensure that we understand the impact of humans on the environment and work towards reducing this impact. We must use technology to ensure that we continue to develop without destroying the environment that we are a part of and the many species that are a part of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We think that endangered species should be given a higher priority in government spending. Not only is it our moral duty to help protect endangered species, but the world would be poorer without them and they have many valuable lessons to teach us about our own survival. We have to ensure that the actions we take to protect them do not do more harm than good, so we must make sure that we protect the ecosystems that they are a part of and ensure that their habitat is protected. In order to be able to do this, we must educate people about the importance of the environment and how the loss of species will affect the survival of many other species. We also must ensure that we understand the impact of humans on the environment and work towards reducing this impact. Finally, to make sure that we do not damage the environment further, but still make improvements to the world, we must work hard to ensure that the development of human society is carried out in a sustainable way so that we don't do any more damage. We must use technology to ensure that we continue to develop without destroying the environment that we are a part of and the many species that are a part of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Final +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We think that endangered species should be given a higher priority in government spending. Not only is it our moral duty to help protect endangered species, but the world would be poorer without them and they have many valuable lessons to teach us about our own survival. We have to ensure that the actions we take to protect them do not do more harm than good, so we must make sure that we protect the ecosystems that they are a part of and ensure that their habitat is protected. In order to be able to do this, we must educate people about the importance of the environment and how the loss of species will affect the survival of many other species. We also must ensure that we understand the impact of humans on the environment and work towards reducing this impact. We must use technology to ensure that we continue to develop without destroying the environment that we are a part of and the many species that are a part of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is vital that we protect endangered species. Not only is it our moral duty to help protect endangered species, but the world would be poorer without them and they have many valuable lessons to teach us about our own survival. We have to ensure that the actions we take to protect them do not do more harm than good, so we must make sure that we protect the ecosystems that they are a part of and ensure that their habitat is protected. In order to be able to do this, we must educate people about the importance of the environment and how the loss of species will affect the survival of many other species. We also must ensure that we understand the impact of humans on the environment and work towards reducing this impact. We must use technology to ensure that we continue to develop without destroying the environment that we are a part of and the many species that are a part of it. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002274.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002274.soc index 2c347b0a..9d4f6ff3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002274.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002274.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is not too permissive when it comes to regulating gun ownership. I think the UK has a very good system in place when it comes to guns and ownership. The UK is strict in terms of what people can and cannot buy. In terms of knife crime, I think this is more of an issue than gun crime, and it is essential to tackle knife crime first. I think it is important to ensure that people are aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to guns. If we educate people about the law in regards to guns, then I think we can prevent crime and ensure that people abide by the law and use guns responsibly. I also think that knife crime should be tackled first, as this is more of an issue in the UK than gun crime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK is not too permissive when it comes to regulating gun ownership. This is because gun crime is not prevalent in the UK as it is in countries like America and we feel there is little need to change the rules for gun ownership. I think it is important to ensure that people are aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to guns. This prevents gun crime and ensures that people abide by the law and use guns responsibly. I think it is also important to tackle knife crime in the UK as it is prevalent. This is something that people have the power to control and therefore should do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In the UK, gun crime is relatively rare and strict gun laws are in place to make sure that gun crime remains rare. If a person wants a gun, they must prove that they need one and even then, they are not able to purchase them. I think that this is a very good system in place. Gun crime is much more common in the USA and this is likely due to stricter laws in the UK. If people were to have easy access to guns in the UK, then I think that gun crime would be more prevalent. I think that it is important to educate people about gun laws and to ensure that people are aware of the regulations and laws in place regarding guns. I think that it is also important to educate young people about the dangers of guns and the consequences of using guns in crimes. I think that it is also important to address knife crime. There have been a number of incidents in the UK where young people have been stabbed and killed, and this is something that I think needs to be addressed. Therefore, I think that it is important to tackle knife crime, and gun crime, and to educate young people about the dangers of using weapons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: There is always room for improvement in terms of regulating guns; however the UK is quite strict already and I do not think it is too permissive at present. It is important to constantly monitor laws to ensure that they are in the best interests of the people, and reflect that people are abiding by them. In terms of education, it is important to educate people about gun laws so that the general public know what they are, and don't fall foul of them. However, not many people are 'outlaws' who are 'slipping through the net', it is important to increase public awareness to ensure that no one is slipping through the net. To be the most effective in preventing crime, it may be more worthwhile to look at knife crime, due to this being more prevalent. There is room for improvement when it comes to regulating guns, and I do think that more can be done when it comes to preventing crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is not too permissive when it comes to regulating gun ownership. I think the UK has a very good system in place when it comes to guns and ownership. The UK is strict in terms of what people can and cannot buy. In terms of knife crime, I think this is more of an issue than gun crime, and it is essential to tackle knife crime first. I think it is important to ensure that people are aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to guns. If we educate people about the law in regards to guns, then I think we can prevent crime and ensure that people abide by the law and use guns responsibly. I also think that knife crime should be tackled first, as this is more of an issue in the UK than gun crime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK is not too permissive when it comes to regulating gun ownership. This is because gun crime is not prevalent in the UK as it is in countries like America and we feel there is little need to change the rules for gun ownership. I think it is important to ensure that people are aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to guns. This prevents gun crime and ensures that people abide by the law and use guns responsibly. I think it is also important to tackle knife crime in the UK as it is prevalent. This is something that people have the power to control and therefore should do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In the UK, gun crime is relatively rare and strict gun laws are in place to make sure that gun crime remains rare. If a person wants a gun, they must prove that they need one and even then, they are not able to purchase them. I think that this is a very good system in place. Gun crime is much more common in the USA and this is likely due to stricter laws in the UK. If people were to have easy access to guns in the UK, then I think that gun crime would be more prevalent. I think that it is important to educate people about gun laws and to ensure that people are aware of the regulations and laws in place regarding guns. I think that it is also important to educate young people about the dangers of guns and the consequences of using guns in crimes. I think that it is also important to address knife crime. There have been a number of incidents in the UK where young people have been stabbed and killed, and this is something that I think needs to be addressed. Therefore, I think that it is important to tackle knife crime, and gun crime, and to educate young people about the dangers of using weapons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: There is always room for improvement in terms of regulating guns; however the UK is quite strict already and I do not think it is too permissive at present. It is important to constantly monitor laws to ensure that they are in the best interests of the people, and reflect that people are abiding by them. In terms of education, it is important to educate people about gun laws so that the general public know what they are, and don't fall foul of them. However, not many people are 'outlaws' who are 'slipping through the net', it is important to increase public awareness to ensure that no one is slipping through the net. To be the most effective in preventing crime, it may be more worthwhile to look at knife crime, due to this being more prevalent. There is room for improvement when it comes to regulating guns, and I do think that more can be done when it comes to preventing crime. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002275.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002275.soc index 80ae886a..f2b0c821 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002275.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002275.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. The law would help working parents and help children to get the education they need. It would also help children to get into a routine and learn about the world of work. The law would also help to keep children safe and off the streets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe there should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. Children learn a lot at school and it is vital that they get as much education as possible. By having the schools open, it means that children will get a better education and hopefully achieve better results and grades. This is essential as it will allow the child to get a better job when they are older. It also means that parents can work and provide for their families. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Schools should be open a minimum of 190 days a year. This is to allow for more structured and consistent learning. There should also be a statutory requirement for schools to be open 5 days a week. Children learn better when they have a routine and structure in their week. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that there should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. The group of participants believe that this is because children need consistency and structure in their lives and without this, they will not be able to learn to the best of their ability. The group of participants also believe that the statutory requirement will help working parents as the cost of childcare is very expensive. The group of participants also believe that children will lose out on months and months of education if schools are not open for the minimum number of days each year. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. The law would help working parents and help children to get the education they need. It would also help children to get into a routine and learn about the world of work. The law would also help to keep children safe and off the streets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe there should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. Children learn a lot at school and it is vital that they get as much education as possible. By having the schools open, it means that children will get a better education and hopefully achieve better results and grades. This is essential as it will allow the child to get a better job when they are older. It also means that parents can work and provide for their families. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Schools should be open a minimum of 190 days a year. This is to allow for more structured and consistent learning. There should also be a statutory requirement for schools to be open 5 days a week. Children learn better when they have a routine and structure in their week. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the group of participants have come to the consensus view that there should be a statutory requirement for schools to be open for a minimum number of days each year. The group of participants believe that this is because children need consistency and structure in their lives and without this, they will not be able to learn to the best of their ability. The group of participants also believe that the statutory requirement will help working parents as the cost of childcare is very expensive. The group of participants also believe that children will lose out on months and months of education if schools are not open for the minimum number of days each year. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002276.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002276.soc index 4f3c35b6..c74c3729 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002276.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002276.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the banning of tobacco. The main argument for this was that people have the right to make their own choices and to live their lives as they see fit. The group did not want to see the government dictating to people and taking away their freedom of choice. The group felt that education was the best way of reducing the number of people who smoke. However, the group did feel that the government should be doing more to discourage smoking and to help people give up smoking. The group felt that more should be done to make people aware of the dangers of smoking and to discourage young people from taking it up in the first place. The group felt that the government should also be doing more to help people give up smoking, for example, by making nicotine patches and gum more readily available on the NHS. The group felt that the government could also do more to discourage smoking in public places and to make it less socially acceptable. The group also felt that the government should be doing more to discourage the advertising of tobacco products. The group felt that the government could also do more to discourage the sale of tobacco to young people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although the effects of tobacco are well documented and we should not encourage people to use tobacco, we think that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions about what they choose to consume. The government should concentrate on educating people on the effects of tobacco, rather than banning it. Perhaps, if the number of smokers drops as a result of education, there will be no need to produce tobacco. If that is the case, then the decision on whether to continue production will be taken out of our hands. This would mean that, in time, we would not have to worry about this issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, while we recognise the very real health issues associated with smoking, we do not think that a ban on the sale of tobacco is a good idea. This is because a ban may force people to get their cigarettes from a black market, which puts people in a potentially dangerous situation. A ban may also set a precedent for banning other substances which the government believes are unhealthy, such as red meat, which could ultimately lead to the government banning other things that we enjoy. If we want to reduce the number of people smoking, we believe that more should be done to educate people on the dangers of smoking, rather than banning the sale of cigarettes altogether. This example demonstrates how the discussion moved from being centred around the issue (banning tobacco) to a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of banning tobacco and what might happen if it were banned. It also shows how the different participants considered different factors, such as personal health, the economy and individual freedom. This example demonstrates how it can be difficult to reach a consensus on an issue that is highly complex and involves different values and ethical positions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the production and sale of tobacco. The group felt that this would be the best way to discourage people from using tobacco and to reduce the number of tobacco related deaths. The group felt that education is not enough to discourage people from using tobacco, as the addictive nature of tobacco means that people will continue to use it even if they know that it is bad for their health. The group also felt that a ban on tobacco would reduce the burden on the NHS, as there would be fewer tobacco related illnesses. However, the group was aware that a ban on tobacco could lead to a black market in tobacco, which could lead to other problems such as an increase in crime. The group felt that a ban on tobacco could also lead to a ban on other substances deemed harmful by the government, which could lead to a loss of freedom. The group felt that a ban on tobacco could also lead to people procuring banned products using black-market avenues that put the customer at greater risk. Therefore, the group felt that a ban on tobacco would be the best way to discourage its use, but that it is important to be aware of the possible negative consequences of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the banning of tobacco. The main argument for this was that people have the right to make their own choices and to live their lives as they see fit. The group did not want to see the government dictating to people and taking away their freedom of choice. The group felt that education was the best way of reducing the number of people who smoke. However, the group did feel that the government should be doing more to discourage smoking and to help people give up smoking. The group felt that more should be done to make people aware of the dangers of smoking and to discourage young people from taking it up in the first place. The group felt that the government should also be doing more to help people give up smoking, for example, by making nicotine patches and gum more readily available on the NHS. The group felt that the government could also do more to discourage smoking in public places and to make it less socially acceptable. The group also felt that the government should be doing more to discourage the advertising of tobacco products. The group felt that the government could also do more to discourage the sale of tobacco to young people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although the effects of tobacco are well documented and we should not encourage people to use tobacco, we think that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions about what they choose to consume. The government should concentrate on educating people on the effects of tobacco, rather than banning it. Perhaps, if the number of smokers drops as a result of education, there will be no need to produce tobacco. If that is the case, then the decision on whether to continue production will be taken out of our hands. This would mean that, in time, we would not have to worry about this issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, while we recognise the very real health issues associated with smoking, we do not think that a ban on the sale of tobacco is a good idea. This is because a ban may force people to get their cigarettes from a black market, which puts people in a potentially dangerous situation. A ban may also set a precedent for banning other substances which the government believes are unhealthy, such as red meat, which could ultimately lead to the government banning other things that we enjoy. If we want to reduce the number of people smoking, we believe that more should be done to educate people on the dangers of smoking, rather than banning the sale of cigarettes altogether. This example demonstrates how the discussion moved from being centred around the issue (banning tobacco) to a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of banning tobacco and what might happen if it were banned. It also shows how the different participants considered different factors, such as personal health, the economy and individual freedom. This example demonstrates how it can be difficult to reach a consensus on an issue that is highly complex and involves different values and ethical positions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on the production and sale of tobacco. The group felt that this would be the best way to discourage people from using tobacco and to reduce the number of tobacco related deaths. The group felt that education is not enough to discourage people from using tobacco, as the addictive nature of tobacco means that people will continue to use it even if they know that it is bad for their health. The group also felt that a ban on tobacco would reduce the burden on the NHS, as there would be fewer tobacco related illnesses. However, the group was aware that a ban on tobacco could lead to a black market in tobacco, which could lead to other problems such as an increase in crime. The group felt that a ban on tobacco could also lead to a ban on other substances deemed harmful by the government, which could lead to a loss of freedom. The group felt that a ban on tobacco could also lead to people procuring banned products using black-market avenues that put the customer at greater risk. Therefore, the group felt that a ban on tobacco would be the best way to discourage its use, but that it is important to be aware of the possible negative consequences of 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002277.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002277.soc index 3b438fa2..4e21397b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002277.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002277.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Final consensus statement: Insects should be accepted as a food source in the western world. As long as they are not poisonous or contain toxins that could cause damage to human beings, then they should be accepted and given more consideration. There is growing awareness and evidence that the current food system has negative consequences for the earth and mankind, such as the release of greenhouse gases and animal farming. Insects are a good source of protein and a sustainable alternative to meat products. Global warming, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental concerns are a developing issue with current farming methods of meat, therefore insects should be further investigated as a potential replacement. Insects are already a common food source in many eastern countries around the world, which shows they are considered to be safe. However, as insects are not a common food source in the western world then there will be some difficulties persuading more people to consider the insect option. Some people may even be disgusted by the idea of eating insects. In some areas of the world, such as developing countries, people can be starving for food and consuming insects could be a more eco-friendly and readily available option than regular meat products. Insects are also a great source of protein and can provide -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Insects should be accepted as a food product in the western world. As long as they are not poisonous or contain toxins that could cause damage to human beings, then they should be accepted and given more consideration. If insects were to be used as a food source, it could help to reduce the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the overall effects of global warming. The University of Cambridge has recently received funds to conduct a large scale research project to assess the safety of insects as a food source. This has been partly initiated by the growing concerns about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of current meat farming methods. Therefore, it is important that as many people as possible in the western world accept insects as a food source so that more money and research can be spent on the topic. However, insects may not be appealing to everyone and this will cause difficulties for research and implementation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Insects should be accepted as a food source in the western world. As long as they are not poisonous or contain toxins that could cause damage to human beings, then they should be accepted and given more consideration. If insects were to be used as a food source, it could help to reduce the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the overall effects of global warming. Insects could help to reduce the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the overall effects of global warming. The University of Cambridge has recently received funds to conduct a large scale research project to assess the safety of insects as a food source. This has been partly initiated by the growing concerns about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of current meat farming methods. Therefore, it is important that as many people as possible in the western world accept insects as a food source so that more money and research can be spent on the topic. However, insects may not be appealing to everyone and this will cause difficulties for research and implementation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Insects should be accepted as a food product in the western world. As long as they are not poisonous or contain toxins that could cause damage to human beings, then they should be accepted and given more consideration. If insects were to be used as a food source, it could help to reduce the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the overall effects of global warming. The University of Cambridge has recently received funds to conduct a large scale research project to assess the safety of insects as a food source. This has been partly initiated by the growing concerns about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of current meat farming methods. Therefore, it is important that as many people as possible in the western world accept insects as a food source so that more money and research can be spent on the topic. However, insects may not be appealing to everyone and this will cause difficulties for research and implementation. There is conflicting evidence suggesting that consuming insects will harm the food chain and increase the chance of extinction of several animals. The above statement suggests that more research needs to be done. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: Insects should be accepted as a food source in the western world. As long as they are not poisonous or contain toxins that could cause damage to human beings, then they should be accepted and given more consideration. There is growing awareness and evidence that the current food system has negative consequences for the earth and mankind, such as the release of greenhouse gases and animal farming. Insects are a good source of protein and a sustainable alternative to meat products. Global warming, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental concerns are a developing issue with current farming methods of meat, therefore insects should be further investigated as a potential replacement. Insects are already a common food source in many eastern countries around the world, which shows they are considered to be safe. However, as insects are not a common food source in the western world then there will be some difficulties persuading more people to consider the insect option. Some people may even be disgusted by the idea of eating insects. In some areas of the world, such as developing countries, people can be starving for food and consuming insects could be a more eco-friendly and readily available option than regular meat products. Insects are also a great source of protein and can provide +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Insects should be accepted as a food product in the western world. As long as they are not poisonous or contain toxins that could cause damage to human beings, then they should be accepted and given more consideration. If insects were to be used as a food source, it could help to reduce the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the overall effects of global warming. The University of Cambridge has recently received funds to conduct a large scale research project to assess the safety of insects as a food source. This has been partly initiated by the growing concerns about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of current meat farming methods. Therefore, it is important that as many people as possible in the western world accept insects as a food source so that more money and research can be spent on the topic. However, insects may not be appealing to everyone and this will cause difficulties for research and implementation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Insects should be accepted as a food source in the western world. As long as they are not poisonous or contain toxins that could cause damage to human beings, then they should be accepted and given more consideration. If insects were to be used as a food source, it could help to reduce the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the overall effects of global warming. Insects could help to reduce the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the overall effects of global warming. The University of Cambridge has recently received funds to conduct a large scale research project to assess the safety of insects as a food source. This has been partly initiated by the growing concerns about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of current meat farming methods. Therefore, it is important that as many people as possible in the western world accept insects as a food source so that more money and research can be spent on the topic. However, insects may not be appealing to everyone and this will cause difficulties for research and implementation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Insects should be accepted as a food product in the western world. As long as they are not poisonous or contain toxins that could cause damage to human beings, then they should be accepted and given more consideration. If insects were to be used as a food source, it could help to reduce the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the overall effects of global warming. The University of Cambridge has recently received funds to conduct a large scale research project to assess the safety of insects as a food source. This has been partly initiated by the growing concerns about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of current meat farming methods. Therefore, it is important that as many people as possible in the western world accept insects as a food source so that more money and research can be spent on the topic. However, insects may not be appealing to everyone and this will cause difficulties for research and implementation. There is conflicting evidence suggesting that consuming insects will harm the food chain and increase the chance of extinction of several animals. The above statement suggests that more research needs to be done. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002278.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002278.soc index 75058305..b04c0337 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002278.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002278.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The monarchy is an important part of the UK's history and traditions and is a tourist attraction that brings in a lot of money to the country. The group was also of the opinion that the monarchy provides a check on the power of the government and parliament. However, the group was concerned about the amount of taxpayer money spent on the monarchy, especially in the current economic climate. The group felt that the monarchy should be more transparent about the amount of money they spend and also make an effort to be more in touch with the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The monarchy is a key part of the UK's history and traditions and is an important tourist attraction. It also provides a check on the power of parliament. However, there was some concern about the amount of money spent on the monarchy, especially in the current economic climate. The group felt that the monarchy should be more transparent about the amount of money they receive and how it is spent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. They felt that it was an important part of the country's history and identity, and that it provided a sense of stability. They also felt that it was an important tourist attraction, and that it was good for the country to have ambassadors that were not politicians. However, they did have some concerns about the amount of taxpayer's money spent on the monarchy, and felt that this should be made more transparent. They also felt that the royal family should be more active in their duties, and should not be seen to be living a life of luxury while many people in the country struggle to make ends meet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The main reason for this was that the monarchy is a key part of the UK's history and heritage, and the group felt that it would be a shame to lose this. It was also felt that the monarchy is a key part of the UK's tourist industry, and that it would be a shame to lose the revenue that this brings in. The group did acknowledge that the monarchy is very expensive, and that the UK is currently in a recession. However, the group felt that the monarchy is a key part of the UK's history and heritage, and that the cost of the monarchy is a small price to pay for this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The monarchy is an important part of the UK's history and traditions and is a tourist attraction that brings in a lot of money to the country. The group was also of the opinion that the monarchy provides a check on the power of the government and parliament. However, the group was concerned about the amount of taxpayer money spent on the monarchy, especially in the current economic climate. The group felt that the monarchy should be more transparent about the amount of money they spend and also make an effort to be more in touch with the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The monarchy is a key part of the UK's history and traditions and is an important tourist attraction. It also provides a check on the power of parliament. However, there was some concern about the amount of money spent on the monarchy, especially in the current economic climate. The group felt that the monarchy should be more transparent about the amount of money they receive and how it is spent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. They felt that it was an important part of the country's history and identity, and that it provided a sense of stability. They also felt that it was an important tourist attraction, and that it was good for the country to have ambassadors that were not politicians. However, they did have some concerns about the amount of taxpayer's money spent on the monarchy, and felt that this should be made more transparent. They also felt that the royal family should be more active in their duties, and should not be seen to be living a life of luxury while many people in the country struggle to make ends meet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The main reason for this was that the monarchy is a key part of the UK's history and heritage, and the group felt that it would be a shame to lose this. It was also felt that the monarchy is a key part of the UK's tourist industry, and that it would be a shame to lose the revenue that this brings in. The group did acknowledge that the monarchy is very expensive, and that the UK is currently in a recession. However, the group felt that the monarchy is a key part of the UK's history and heritage, and that the cost of the monarchy is a small price to pay for this. 2: 1,3,2,4 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002279.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002279.soc index 02df9a18..12355f2c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002279.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002279.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the age limit should not be raised to 21. The reason for this is that if the age is raised to 21 then it will be harder for people to purchase tobacco. This could cause people to find other ways of getting their hands on tobacco which could cause more problems in the future. We also believe that if the age is raised to 21 then it will cause more problems for people who are already smoking under the age of 21. This could cause them to seek pleasure elsewhere and could see them increasing alcohol use or even using illegal drugs. We also believe that the legal age for alcohol is 18 and this is too young, people today in society are not mature enough at this age and their decision making isn't good so maybe tobacco use and alcohol use could benefit in an increased purchase age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. This is because at 18 you become an adult and you should be able to make your own choices and descions on your own life based on your own beliefs and choices. Also at 18 your are grown up and capable of making life choices that may affect your health later in life. If the age was changed then the people under the age of 21 will find other means of getting there hands on tobacco anyway and most likely cause more issues down the line. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. Raising the age to 21 could lead to people who are already smoking to look for other means to purchase tobacco which could lead to them using other illegal substances and also increasing alcohol use. Also if the age was raised to 21 it would mean that people who are 18 and over would be unable to purchase tobacco which could lead to them becoming stressed and anxious and could lead to them developing mental health issues. It is also important to remember that at 18 you become an adult and you should be able to make your own choices and decisions on your own life based on your own beliefs and choices. I think at the minute the age is perfect as at 18 your are grown up and capable of making life choices that may affect your health later in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. We believe that this is because tobacco is not an illegal substance and therefore the age limit should not be raised. We believe that if the age was raised to 21, people would find other ways to purchase tobacco and this could lead to them committing more serious crimes. We believe that the age limit should stay the same and that the government should focus on other ways to reduce the number of smokers in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the age limit should not be raised to 21. The reason for this is that if the age is raised to 21 then it will be harder for people to purchase tobacco. This could cause people to find other ways of getting their hands on tobacco which could cause more problems in the future. We also believe that if the age is raised to 21 then it will cause more problems for people who are already smoking under the age of 21. This could cause them to seek pleasure elsewhere and could see them increasing alcohol use or even using illegal drugs. We also believe that the legal age for alcohol is 18 and this is too young, people today in society are not mature enough at this age and their decision making isn't good so maybe tobacco use and alcohol use could benefit in an increased purchase age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. This is because at 18 you become an adult and you should be able to make your own choices and descions on your own life based on your own beliefs and choices. Also at 18 your are grown up and capable of making life choices that may affect your health later in life. If the age was changed then the people under the age of 21 will find other means of getting there hands on tobacco anyway and most likely cause more issues down the line. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. Raising the age to 21 could lead to people who are already smoking to look for other means to purchase tobacco which could lead to them using other illegal substances and also increasing alcohol use. Also if the age was raised to 21 it would mean that people who are 18 and over would be unable to purchase tobacco which could lead to them becoming stressed and anxious and could lead to them developing mental health issues. It is also important to remember that at 18 you become an adult and you should be able to make your own choices and decisions on your own life based on your own beliefs and choices. I think at the minute the age is perfect as at 18 your are grown up and capable of making life choices that may affect your health later in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. We believe that this is because tobacco is not an illegal substance and therefore the age limit should not be raised. We believe that if the age was raised to 21, people would find other ways to purchase tobacco and this could lead to them committing more serious crimes. We believe that the age limit should stay the same and that the government should focus on other ways to reduce the number of smokers in the UK. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002280.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002280.soc index f7e22ced..78230279 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002280.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002280.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it should not be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We live in a democracy and part of that dictates that we all as citizens have the freedom of choice, both of our right to vote and for whom but also to opt out if that is what aligns with our views or expression of wish. Criminalising a lack of vote is a direct contravention of this and a disturbing backwards concept when it comes to freedom of speech and democracy in our country. Forcing citizens to vote will lead to votes that are disengenuous in nature and corrupt the meaning of the results in respect of those who voted who wanted to, for specific reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it should not be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. The freedom to choose whether to vote or not is a key part of democracy. Forcing people to vote is not only an infringement of their freedom of choice, but also risks people voting for a candidate they do not support in order to avoid a fine. This would result in a vote that is not genuine and could be seen as corrupting the democratic process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, it should not be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We live in a democracy and part of that dictates that we all as citizens have the freedom of choice, both of our right to vote and for whom but also to opt out if that is what aligns with our views or expression of wish. Criminalising a lack of vote is a direct contravention of this and a disturbing backwards concept when it comes to freedom of speech and democracy in our country. Forcing citizens to vote will lead to votes that are disengenuous in nature and corrupt the meaning of the results in respect of those who voted who wanted to, for specific reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we don't think it should be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We feel that everyone has the right to vote or not to vote. It would be very difficult to enforce it as a criminal offence and would need significant investment as a viable policy, money which would be better spent elsewhere. We also think that making it mandatory would affect certain demographics such as those who are physically unable to vote leading to further inequality. In the end it should be up to the individual freedom of choice to make that decision as it forces people to participate in a process they may not believe in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it should not be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We live in a democracy and part of that dictates that we all as citizens have the freedom of choice, both of our right to vote and for whom but also to opt out if that is what aligns with our views or expression of wish. Criminalising a lack of vote is a direct contravention of this and a disturbing backwards concept when it comes to freedom of speech and democracy in our country. Forcing citizens to vote will lead to votes that are disengenuous in nature and corrupt the meaning of the results in respect of those who voted who wanted to, for specific reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it should not be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. The freedom to choose whether to vote or not is a key part of democracy. Forcing people to vote is not only an infringement of their freedom of choice, but also risks people voting for a candidate they do not support in order to avoid a fine. This would result in a vote that is not genuine and could be seen as corrupting the democratic process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, it should not be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We live in a democracy and part of that dictates that we all as citizens have the freedom of choice, both of our right to vote and for whom but also to opt out if that is what aligns with our views or expression of wish. Criminalising a lack of vote is a direct contravention of this and a disturbing backwards concept when it comes to freedom of speech and democracy in our country. Forcing citizens to vote will lead to votes that are disengenuous in nature and corrupt the meaning of the results in respect of those who voted who wanted to, for specific reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we don't think it should be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We feel that everyone has the right to vote or not to vote. It would be very difficult to enforce it as a criminal offence and would need significant investment as a viable policy, money which would be better spent elsewhere. We also think that making it mandatory would affect certain demographics such as those who are physically unable to vote leading to further inequality. In the end it should be up to the individual freedom of choice to make that decision as it forces people to participate in a process they may not believe in. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002281.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002281.soc index dff285d1..62db0dd5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002281.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002281.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. The food produced by them is unhealthy, lacking in nutrients and is often made with unhealthy fats, salts and sugars. The food is also often cheap, which can make it an attractive option for families on a budget. The food is also often targeted at children, who lack the awareness to know what is healthy and what is not. Cutting down on their quantity would be beneficial for the nation's health, which of course has benefits that bleed into other areas, like reduced stress on the NHS and a happier and more intelligent populace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants promote unhealthy food that is cheaply available. The food appeals to children and teens, who lack awareness of what they are putting into their bodies. The food is ultra-processed, which is increasingly coming under scientific scrutiny in terms of the impact to our health. Fast food is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The food is often not fresh, and is full of preservatives, salt and sugar. Fast food restaurants are also often located in poorer areas, where people may have no other option but to eat fast food. Fast food restaurants also increase the risk of obesity, which can lead to other health problems. Fast food restaurants should be cut down in number, and the government should be looking at ways to make healthy food more widely available and more affordable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the proliferation of fast food restaurants has a negative impact on the health of the nation. The food is unhealthy, processed and generally lacking in nutrition. The government should look at ways to reduce the number of fast food restaurants in the country. This could be done by taxing fast food restaurants more heavily, and subsidising healthy food outlets. The government should also look at ways to reduce the cost of healthy food and make it more widely available. People still need to take personal accountability for their actions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should look to cut down on the number of fast food restaurants in the country. The food produced by them is unhealthy and is one of the main drivers of the obesity crisis in the country. It is also very cheaply available and is easily accessible to children and teens. This is not a good combination and it is not good for the nation's health. There is a need to reduce the number of fast food restaurants in the country and to make it more difficult for people to access them. There is also a need to educate people about the dangers of fast food and to try to get them to change their eating habits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. The food produced by them is unhealthy, lacking in nutrients and is often made with unhealthy fats, salts and sugars. The food is also often cheap, which can make it an attractive option for families on a budget. The food is also often targeted at children, who lack the awareness to know what is healthy and what is not. Cutting down on their quantity would be beneficial for the nation's health, which of course has benefits that bleed into other areas, like reduced stress on the NHS and a happier and more intelligent populace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants promote unhealthy food that is cheaply available. The food appeals to children and teens, who lack awareness of what they are putting into their bodies. The food is ultra-processed, which is increasingly coming under scientific scrutiny in terms of the impact to our health. Fast food is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The food is often not fresh, and is full of preservatives, salt and sugar. Fast food restaurants are also often located in poorer areas, where people may have no other option but to eat fast food. Fast food restaurants also increase the risk of obesity, which can lead to other health problems. Fast food restaurants should be cut down in number, and the government should be looking at ways to make healthy food more widely available and more affordable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the proliferation of fast food restaurants has a negative impact on the health of the nation. The food is unhealthy, processed and generally lacking in nutrition. The government should look at ways to reduce the number of fast food restaurants in the country. This could be done by taxing fast food restaurants more heavily, and subsidising healthy food outlets. The government should also look at ways to reduce the cost of healthy food and make it more widely available. People still need to take personal accountability for their actions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should look to cut down on the number of fast food restaurants in the country. The food produced by them is unhealthy and is one of the main drivers of the obesity crisis in the country. It is also very cheaply available and is easily accessible to children and teens. This is not a good combination and it is not good for the nation's health. There is a need to reduce the number of fast food restaurants in the country and to make it more difficult for people to access them. There is also a need to educate people about the dangers of fast food and to try to get them to change their eating habits. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002282.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002282.soc index a8e84a71..b223e1b4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002282.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002282.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should tax sugary drinks. We believe that people should be free to make their own choices, but that the government has a duty to protect its citizens from making choices that will harm them. We also believe that a tax on sugary drinks will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from obesity and diabetes, which will reduce the strain on the NHS. We also believe that the tax will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from poor dental health. We believe that the tax will be effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks, as it will make them more expensive, and that this will lead to a healthier population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a tax on sugary drinks. The group felt that this would help reduce the amount of sugar consumed by the population, and would also help to reduce the amount of sugar-related health issues such as obesity and diabetes. The group felt that the tax would be a good way to help people make healthier choices, and would also help to reduce the strain on the NHS. The group also felt that the tax would be a good way to raise money for the government, which could be used to help fund the NHS and other public services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a sugar tax, but with the caveat that it would not be the only policy measure used to reduce sugar consumption. The group was in favour of a tax on sugary drinks, but felt that this would not be enough to reduce sugar consumption, and that the government should also consider taxing other sugary foods. The group felt that the tax should be high enough to make a difference, but not so high that it would cause people to switch to other unhealthy foods or drinks. The group felt that the tax should be used to fund public health initiatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a sugar tax. We all agreed that sugary drinks can be partly responsible for poor dental health and obesity, leading to other health issues such as diabetes. We also agreed that the government should not try and control our choices, but that the effects of sugar put a big strain on the NHS. Therefore, we believe that taxing sugary drinks would discourage people from buying them and hopefully lead to them making better choices. However, we also believe that the tax should be used to improve dental health and to provide education on the dangers of sugar. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should tax sugary drinks. We believe that people should be free to make their own choices, but that the government has a duty to protect its citizens from making choices that will harm them. We also believe that a tax on sugary drinks will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from obesity and diabetes, which will reduce the strain on the NHS. We also believe that the tax will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from poor dental health. We believe that the tax will be effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks, as it will make them more expensive, and that this will lead to a healthier population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a tax on sugary drinks. The group felt that this would help reduce the amount of sugar consumed by the population, and would also help to reduce the amount of sugar-related health issues such as obesity and diabetes. The group felt that the tax would be a good way to help people make healthier choices, and would also help to reduce the strain on the NHS. The group also felt that the tax would be a good way to raise money for the government, which could be used to help fund the NHS and other public services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a sugar tax, but with the caveat that it would not be the only policy measure used to reduce sugar consumption. The group was in favour of a tax on sugary drinks, but felt that this would not be enough to reduce sugar consumption, and that the government should also consider taxing other sugary foods. The group felt that the tax should be high enough to make a difference, but not so high that it would cause people to switch to other unhealthy foods or drinks. The group felt that the tax should be used to fund public health initiatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a sugar tax. We all agreed that sugary drinks can be partly responsible for poor dental health and obesity, leading to other health issues such as diabetes. We also agreed that the government should not try and control our choices, but that the effects of sugar put a big strain on the NHS. Therefore, we believe that taxing sugary drinks would discourage people from buying them and hopefully lead to them making better choices. However, we also believe that the tax should be used to improve dental health and to provide education on the dangers of sugar. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002283.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002283.soc index 3d19fa13..82cb25de 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002283.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002283.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that it was important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. The group felt that it was important to celebrate the achievements of historically marginalised groups, and that it would be a good way to give them more recognition for what they have accomplished. The group felt that it would also give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that this would be a good way to give recognition to those who have been historically overlooked. However, the group also felt that this could be a tokenistic gesture, and that more could be done to properly mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that the best way to do this would be to teach these contributions in schools, and to make them a more integral part of the curriculum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. This is because it gives those people more recognition for what they have accomplished. A lot of people might not be celebrated even though they had achieved quite a number of things. Furthermore, it can give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. It is also important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. It's something that probably wouldn't be seen as necessary by a lot of non-marginalised people, but that's kind of the point. Marginalised people are often overlooked. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. This is because it is important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. It is something that probably wouldn't be seen as necessary by a lot of non-marginalised people, but that's kind of the point. Marginalised people are often overlooked. This can give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that it was important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. The group felt that it was important to celebrate the achievements of historically marginalised groups, and that it would be a good way to give them more recognition for what they have accomplished. The group felt that it would also give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that this would be a good way to give recognition to those who have been historically overlooked. However, the group also felt that this could be a tokenistic gesture, and that more could be done to properly mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that the best way to do this would be to teach these contributions in schools, and to make them a more integral part of the curriculum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. This is because it gives those people more recognition for what they have accomplished. A lot of people might not be celebrated even though they had achieved quite a number of things. Furthermore, it can give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. It is also important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. It's something that probably wouldn't be seen as necessary by a lot of non-marginalised people, but that's kind of the point. Marginalised people are often overlooked. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should have a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. This is because it is important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. It is something that probably wouldn't be seen as necessary by a lot of non-marginalised people, but that's kind of the point. Marginalised people are often overlooked. This can give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002284.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002284.soc index 8e7fcebb..0d7529a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002284.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002284.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the monarchy is a good thing for the country. However, it is not perfect and there are areas that need to be addressed. The amount of money spent on the monarchy needs to be made transparent and the monarchy needs to be more open about how this money is spent. The monarchy is an important part of our history and culture and we should be proud of this. However, the role of the monarchy needs to be modernised. For example, it is not acceptable for the monarchy to interfere in politics and this needs to be made clear. The monarchy is also an important part of our tourist industry and it is important that they continue to play this role. It is important that the monarchy continues to be an important part of our culture and society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we have come to the decision that the monarchy should continue. We have come to this decision for a number of reasons, the main one being that it is a huge part of British history and culture and is something that people from all over the world come to see. The royal family are also a great ambassador for the country and help to promote the UK in a positive way. They also generate a lot of money for the country through tourism and the Queen is the head of the church of England. The royal family are also very charitable and do a lot of work for different charities. The only negative is that they cost the tax payer a lot of money, however this is something that can be looked at in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The monarchy is an important part of the UK's history and traditions and is a tourist attraction that brings in a lot of money to the country. The group was also of the opinion that the monarchy provides a check on the power of the government and parliament. However, the group was concerned about the amount of taxpayer money spent on the monarchy, especially in the current economic climate. The group felt that the monarchy should be more transparent about the amount of money they spend and also make an effort to be more in touch with the people. The group also felt that there should be an alternative to the monarchy in place, should the monarchy be abolished, that would provide checks and balances on parliament and also continue to be a tourist attraction. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The monarchy is an important part of the UK's history and traditions and is a tourist attraction that brings in a lot of money to the country. The group was also of the opinion that the monarchy provides a check on the power of the government and parliament. However, the group was concerned about the amount of taxpayer money spent on the monarchy, especially in the current economic climate. The group felt that the monarchy should be more transparent about the amount of money they spend and also make an effort to be more in touch with the people. The group also felt that the monarchy should not be abolished without an alternative model of government being put in place, as the monarchy provides a useful check on the power of the government and parliament. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the monarchy is a good thing for the country. However, it is not perfect and there are areas that need to be addressed. The amount of money spent on the monarchy needs to be made transparent and the monarchy needs to be more open about how this money is spent. The monarchy is an important part of our history and culture and we should be proud of this. However, the role of the monarchy needs to be modernised. For example, it is not acceptable for the monarchy to interfere in politics and this needs to be made clear. The monarchy is also an important part of our tourist industry and it is important that they continue to play this role. It is important that the monarchy continues to be an important part of our culture and society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we have come to the decision that the monarchy should continue. We have come to this decision for a number of reasons, the main one being that it is a huge part of British history and culture and is something that people from all over the world come to see. The royal family are also a great ambassador for the country and help to promote the UK in a positive way. They also generate a lot of money for the country through tourism and the Queen is the head of the church of England. The royal family are also very charitable and do a lot of work for different charities. The only negative is that they cost the tax payer a lot of money, however this is something that can be looked at in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The monarchy is an important part of the UK's history and traditions and is a tourist attraction that brings in a lot of money to the country. The group was also of the opinion that the monarchy provides a check on the power of the government and parliament. However, the group was concerned about the amount of taxpayer money spent on the monarchy, especially in the current economic climate. The group felt that the monarchy should be more transparent about the amount of money they spend and also make an effort to be more in touch with the people. The group also felt that there should be an alternative to the monarchy in place, should the monarchy be abolished, that would provide checks and balances on parliament and also continue to be a tourist attraction. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing. The monarchy is an important part of the UK's history and traditions and is a tourist attraction that brings in a lot of money to the country. The group was also of the opinion that the monarchy provides a check on the power of the government and parliament. However, the group was concerned about the amount of taxpayer money spent on the monarchy, especially in the current economic climate. The group felt that the monarchy should be more transparent about the amount of money they spend and also make an effort to be more in touch with the people. The group also felt that the monarchy should not be abolished without an alternative model of government being put in place, as the monarchy provides a useful check on the power of the government and parliament. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002285.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002285.soc index 1a2c0931..dac23104 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002285.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002285.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. We believe that this is because tobacco is not an illegal substance and therefore the age limit should not be raised. We believe that if the age was raised to 21, people would find other ways to purchase tobacco and this could lead to them committing more serious crimes. We believe that the age limit should stay the same and that the government should focus on other ways to reduce the number of smokers in the UK. We believe that the government should look at the possibilities of putting tax up on tobacco products to make them more expensive and therefore discourage people from smoking. We believe that the government should also look at providing more education in schools to help children make more informed decisions on whether they want to smoke or not. We also believe that the government should increase the age limit for purchasing alcohol to 21 as we believe that this will help reduce the number of smokers in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. We believe that this is because tobacco is not an illegal substance and therefore the age limit should not be raised. We believe that if the age was raised to 21, people would find other ways to purchase tobacco and this could lead to them committing more serious crimes. We believe that the age limit should stay the same and that the government should focus on other ways to reduce the number of smokers in the UK. We believe that these ways include increasing the prices of cigarettes and tobacco and making sure that all cigarettes have plain packaging. We also believe that more advertising should be done to educate people about the dangers of smoking and that there should be more help available for people who want to quit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. We believe that the age of 18 is a good age to be able to make your own descisions in life. If the age was raised to 21 then we believe that this would cause people to find other means of getting their hands on tobacco. We also believe that the age of 18 is a good age to be able to make descisions as an adult. We also believe that it would be unfair to the people who have already started smoking under the age of 21 as it would make it difficult for them to get hold of tobacco. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the age for purchasing tobacco should not be raised to 21. The age for purchasing tobacco is 18 and this is a good age as it is when you become an adult. If the age was raised to 21 it would cause problems as people who are 18-20 would be unable to purchase it. This could lead to them seeking pleasure elsewhere and could see them increasing alcohol use or even using illegal drugs. We also believe that if the age was raised to 21 it would be unfair as people who are 18-20 would be unable to purchase it but those who are 21 would be able to. We also think that if the age was raised to 21 it would cause problems with the law as it would be illegal for 18-20 year olds to purchase it but it would also be illegal for 21 year olds to sell it to 18-20 year olds. We believe that the age for purchasing tobacco is a good age and should not be raised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. We believe that this is because tobacco is not an illegal substance and therefore the age limit should not be raised. We believe that if the age was raised to 21, people would find other ways to purchase tobacco and this could lead to them committing more serious crimes. We believe that the age limit should stay the same and that the government should focus on other ways to reduce the number of smokers in the UK. We believe that the government should look at the possibilities of putting tax up on tobacco products to make them more expensive and therefore discourage people from smoking. We believe that the government should also look at providing more education in schools to help children make more informed decisions on whether they want to smoke or not. We also believe that the government should increase the age limit for purchasing alcohol to 21 as we believe that this will help reduce the number of smokers in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. We believe that this is because tobacco is not an illegal substance and therefore the age limit should not be raised. We believe that if the age was raised to 21, people would find other ways to purchase tobacco and this could lead to them committing more serious crimes. We believe that the age limit should stay the same and that the government should focus on other ways to reduce the number of smokers in the UK. We believe that these ways include increasing the prices of cigarettes and tobacco and making sure that all cigarettes have plain packaging. We also believe that more advertising should be done to educate people about the dangers of smoking and that there should be more help available for people who want to quit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the minimum age to purchase tobacco should not be raised to 21. We believe that the age of 18 is a good age to be able to make your own descisions in life. If the age was raised to 21 then we believe that this would cause people to find other means of getting their hands on tobacco. We also believe that the age of 18 is a good age to be able to make descisions as an adult. We also believe that it would be unfair to the people who have already started smoking under the age of 21 as it would make it difficult for them to get hold of tobacco. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the age for purchasing tobacco should not be raised to 21. The age for purchasing tobacco is 18 and this is a good age as it is when you become an adult. If the age was raised to 21 it would cause problems as people who are 18-20 would be unable to purchase it. This could lead to them seeking pleasure elsewhere and could see them increasing alcohol use or even using illegal drugs. We also believe that if the age was raised to 21 it would be unfair as people who are 18-20 would be unable to purchase it but those who are 21 would be able to. We also think that if the age was raised to 21 it would cause problems with the law as it would be illegal for 18-20 year olds to purchase it but it would also be illegal for 21 year olds to sell it to 18-20 year olds. We believe that the age for purchasing tobacco is a good age and should not be raised. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002286.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002286.soc index 3bd9f287..6c95dea1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002286.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002286.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we don't think it should be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We feel that everyone has the right to vote or not to vote. It would be very difficult to enforce it as a criminal offence and would need significant investment as a viable policy, money which would be better spent elsewhere. We also think that making it mandatory would affect certain demographics such as those who are physically unable to vote leading to further inequality. In the end it should be up to the individual freedom of choice to make that decision as it forces people to participate in a process they may not believe in. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we don't think it should be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We feel that everyone has the right to vote or not to vote. It would be very difficult to enforce it as a criminal offence and would need significant investment as a viable policy, money which would be better spent elsewhere. We also think that making it mandatory would affect certain demographics such as those who are physically unable to vote leading to further inequality. In the end it should be up to the individual freedom of choice to make that decision as it forces people to participate in a process they may not believe in. We agree that criminalising a lack of vote is a direct contravention of this and a disturbing backwards concept when it comes to freedom of speech and democracy in our country. Forcing citizens to vote will lead to votes that are disengenuous in nature and corrupt the meaning of the results in respect of those who voted who wanted to, for specific reasons. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. The group felt that this would be an infringement on the freedom of choice that we are afforded in a democracy. The group felt that people should be encouraged to vote, but not forced to do so. The group felt that the issue of people failing to vote is more of a social problem, and that the solution is not to make it a crime to fail to vote, but to make people more aware of the importance of voting and the impact that their vote can have. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of criminalising a failure to vote in a general election. The group felt that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would also be a contravention of individual freedoms. The group did, however, feel that it is the responsibility of each citizen to vote and that it is an important part of a healthy democracy. The group felt that it would be better to find a way to encourage people to vote, rather than to force them to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we don't think it should be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We feel that everyone has the right to vote or not to vote. It would be very difficult to enforce it as a criminal offence and would need significant investment as a viable policy, money which would be better spent elsewhere. We also think that making it mandatory would affect certain demographics such as those who are physically unable to vote leading to further inequality. In the end it should be up to the individual freedom of choice to make that decision as it forces people to participate in a process they may not believe in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we don't think it should be a crime to fail to vote in a general election. We feel that everyone has the right to vote or not to vote. It would be very difficult to enforce it as a criminal offence and would need significant investment as a viable policy, money which would be better spent elsewhere. We also think that making it mandatory would affect certain demographics such as those who are physically unable to vote leading to further inequality. In the end it should be up to the individual freedom of choice to make that decision as it forces people to participate in a process they may not believe in. We agree that criminalising a lack of vote is a direct contravention of this and a disturbing backwards concept when it comes to freedom of speech and democracy in our country. Forcing citizens to vote will lead to votes that are disengenuous in nature and corrupt the meaning of the results in respect of those who voted who wanted to, for specific reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to making it a crime to fail to vote in a general election. The group felt that this would be an infringement on the freedom of choice that we are afforded in a democracy. The group felt that people should be encouraged to vote, but not forced to do so. The group felt that the issue of people failing to vote is more of a social problem, and that the solution is not to make it a crime to fail to vote, but to make people more aware of the importance of voting and the impact that their vote can have. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of criminalising a failure to vote in a general election. The group felt that it would be difficult to enforce and that it would also be a contravention of individual freedoms. The group did, however, feel that it is the responsibility of each citizen to vote and that it is an important part of a healthy democracy. The group felt that it would be better to find a way to encourage people to vote, rather than to force them to do so. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002287.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002287.soc index bf24a0ef..85039e6b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002287.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002287.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The NHS is a great institution and the nurses and doctors in the NHS work very hard. However, it has been subjected to years of under investment and is no longer capable of dealing with the patients it receives in an effective manner. Waiting lists for operations are at all time record highs while the staff are underpaid and overworked. Many doctors and nurses are looking to quit and move abroad where they will receive higher pay and better working conditions. If the government is serious about wanting to keep the NHS, then they need to invest in it properly and stop looking for ways to privatise it. Otherwise, the NHS will continue to decline and the public will lose faith in it.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is doing a reasonably good job, but it has been subjected to years of under investment and is no longer capable of dealing with the patients it receives in an effective manner. Waiting lists for operations are at all time record highs while the staff are underpaid and overworked. Many doctors and nurses are looking to quit and move abroad where they will receive higher pay and better working conditions. I do not think the NHS is doing a good job because it is not able to due to lack of funding, issues with staffing that has resulted from a lack of trained medical professionals and a backlog of cases. I think the NHS would be doing a good job if the government supported the NHS properly. I think the current government is motivated to underfund the NHS and create issues to the extent that public opinion changes and favour privatisation. I believe the Conservative party wants an American style system where business can profit. This will be at the expense of the public. I think the NHS is doing well to a point given its limited resources. You can only do so much with what you have and nurses/doctors/specialists are working hard with current resources but in a number of cases of falling short of excellent/timely care because they are -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The NHS is a fantastic institution and the staff who work in it are heroes. The NHS is however, a victim of its own success. It has been subjected to years of under investment and is no longer capable of dealing with the patients it receives in an effective manner. Waiting lists for operations are at all time record highs while the staff are underpaid and overworked. Many doctors and nurses are looking to quit and move abroad where they will receive higher pay and better working conditions. We believe that the NHS would be doing a good job if the government supported the NHS properly. We believe the current government is motivated to underfund the NHS and create issues to the extent that public opinion changes and favour privatisation. We believe the Conservative party wants an American style system where business can profit. This will be at the expense of the public.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The NHS is a great institution and the nurses and doctors in the NHS work very hard. However, it has been subjected to years of under investment and is no longer capable of dealing with the patients it receives in an effective manner. Waiting lists for operations are at all time record highs while the staff are underpaid and overworked. Many doctors and nurses are looking to quit and move abroad where they will receive higher pay and better working conditions. We think that the NHS would be doing a good job if the government supported the NHS properly. We think the current government is motivated to underfund the NHS and create issues to the extent that public opinion changes and favour privatisation. We believe the Conservative party wants an American style system where business can profit. This will be at the expense of the public.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The NHS is a great institution and the nurses and doctors in the NHS work very hard. However, it has been subjected to years of under investment and is no longer capable of dealing with the patients it receives in an effective manner. Waiting lists for operations are at all time record highs while the staff are underpaid and overworked. Many doctors and nurses are looking to quit and move abroad where they will receive higher pay and better working conditions. If the government is serious about wanting to keep the NHS, then they need to invest in it properly and stop looking for ways to privatise it. Otherwise, the NHS will continue to decline and the public will lose faith in it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is doing a reasonably good job, but it has been subjected to years of under investment and is no longer capable of dealing with the patients it receives in an effective manner. Waiting lists for operations are at all time record highs while the staff are underpaid and overworked. Many doctors and nurses are looking to quit and move abroad where they will receive higher pay and better working conditions. I do not think the NHS is doing a good job because it is not able to due to lack of funding, issues with staffing that has resulted from a lack of trained medical professionals and a backlog of cases. I think the NHS would be doing a good job if the government supported the NHS properly. I think the current government is motivated to underfund the NHS and create issues to the extent that public opinion changes and favour privatisation. I believe the Conservative party wants an American style system where business can profit. This will be at the expense of the public. I think the NHS is doing well to a point given its limited resources. You can only do so much with what you have and nurses/doctors/specialists are working hard with current resources but in a number of cases of falling short of excellent/timely care because they are +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The NHS is a fantastic institution and the staff who work in it are heroes. The NHS is however, a victim of its own success. It has been subjected to years of under investment and is no longer capable of dealing with the patients it receives in an effective manner. Waiting lists for operations are at all time record highs while the staff are underpaid and overworked. Many doctors and nurses are looking to quit and move abroad where they will receive higher pay and better working conditions. We believe that the NHS would be doing a good job if the government supported the NHS properly. We believe the current government is motivated to underfund the NHS and create issues to the extent that public opinion changes and favour privatisation. We believe the Conservative party wants an American style system where business can profit. This will be at the expense of the public.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The NHS is a great institution and the nurses and doctors in the NHS work very hard. However, it has been subjected to years of under investment and is no longer capable of dealing with the patients it receives in an effective manner. Waiting lists for operations are at all time record highs while the staff are underpaid and overworked. Many doctors and nurses are looking to quit and move abroad where they will receive higher pay and better working conditions. We think that the NHS would be doing a good job if the government supported the NHS properly. We think the current government is motivated to underfund the NHS and create issues to the extent that public opinion changes and favour privatisation. We believe the Conservative party wants an American style system where business can profit. This will be at the expense of the public.” 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002288.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002288.soc index a579673e..17c01eeb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002288.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002288.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a more concerted move to healthy eating (at realistic and appealing prices). It is, disappointingly, too easy and often too cheap to go for an unhealthy fast food option. The consumption and availability of fast, processed foods needs to be reduced so that we are all eating healthier. The food is ultra-processed, which is increasingly coming under scientific scrutiny in terms of the impact to our health. To be fair it would be more effective to reduce the cost of healthy food and make it more widely available. People still need to take personal accountability for their actions. Theres a lot of things to try but for sure, the proliferation of fast food restaurants isn't helping the health standards of the general population. The food produced by them is horrible for people's health. It lacks any sort of nutrition and is full of sugar, salt and other chemicals which are bad for peoples health. Cutting down on their quantity would be beneficial for the nation's health, which of course has benefits that bleed into other areas, like reduced stress on the NHS and a happier and more intelligent populace. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. The proliferation of fast food restaurants has not helped the health standards of the general population, and the food is often unhealthy and lacks any sort of nutrition. We should be promoting a healthy lifestyle and providing people with healthy food options. We should reduce the number of fast food restaurants and make it more expensive for them to open. This will cut down on the number of people who are becoming obese and will also cut down on the amount of money that is spent on obesity related issues. We should also promote healthy eating in schools and teach children at a young age how to make healthy food choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants promote unhealthy food that is cheaply available. The food appeals to children and teens, who lack awareness of what they are putting into their bodies. The food is ultra-processed, which is increasingly coming under scientific scrutiny in terms of the impact to our health. Fast food is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The food is often not fresh, and is full of preservatives, salt and sugar. Fast food restaurants are also often located in poorer areas, where people may have no other option but to eat fast food. Fast food restaurants also increase the risk of obesity, which can lead to other health problems. Fast food restaurants should be cut down in number, and the government should be looking at ways to make healthy food more widely available and more affordable. The jobs provided by fast food restaurants should be replaced with healthier alternatives, and local governments should be looking at ways to encourage this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants promote unhealthy food that is cheaply available. The food appeals to children and teens, who lack awareness of what they are putting into their bodies. The food is ultra-processed, which is increasingly coming under scientific scrutiny in terms of the impact to our health. Fast food is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The food is often not fresh, and is full of preservatives, salt and sugar. Fast food restaurants are also often located in poorer areas, where people may have no other option but to eat fast food. Fast food restaurants also increase the risk of obesity, which can lead to other health problems. Fast food restaurants should be cut down in number, and the government should be looking at ways to make healthy food more widely available and more affordable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a more concerted move to healthy eating (at realistic and appealing prices). It is, disappointingly, too easy and often too cheap to go for an unhealthy fast food option. The consumption and availability of fast, processed foods needs to be reduced so that we are all eating healthier. The food is ultra-processed, which is increasingly coming under scientific scrutiny in terms of the impact to our health. To be fair it would be more effective to reduce the cost of healthy food and make it more widely available. People still need to take personal accountability for their actions. Theres a lot of things to try but for sure, the proliferation of fast food restaurants isn't helping the health standards of the general population. The food produced by them is horrible for people's health. It lacks any sort of nutrition and is full of sugar, salt and other chemicals which are bad for peoples health. Cutting down on their quantity would be beneficial for the nation's health, which of course has benefits that bleed into other areas, like reduced stress on the NHS and a happier and more intelligent populace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. The proliferation of fast food restaurants has not helped the health standards of the general population, and the food is often unhealthy and lacks any sort of nutrition. We should be promoting a healthy lifestyle and providing people with healthy food options. We should reduce the number of fast food restaurants and make it more expensive for them to open. This will cut down on the number of people who are becoming obese and will also cut down on the amount of money that is spent on obesity related issues. We should also promote healthy eating in schools and teach children at a young age how to make healthy food choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants promote unhealthy food that is cheaply available. The food appeals to children and teens, who lack awareness of what they are putting into their bodies. The food is ultra-processed, which is increasingly coming under scientific scrutiny in terms of the impact to our health. Fast food is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The food is often not fresh, and is full of preservatives, salt and sugar. Fast food restaurants are also often located in poorer areas, where people may have no other option but to eat fast food. Fast food restaurants also increase the risk of obesity, which can lead to other health problems. Fast food restaurants should be cut down in number, and the government should be looking at ways to make healthy food more widely available and more affordable. The jobs provided by fast food restaurants should be replaced with healthier alternatives, and local governments should be looking at ways to encourage this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should cut down on the number of fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants promote unhealthy food that is cheaply available. The food appeals to children and teens, who lack awareness of what they are putting into their bodies. The food is ultra-processed, which is increasingly coming under scientific scrutiny in terms of the impact to our health. Fast food is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The food is often not fresh, and is full of preservatives, salt and sugar. Fast food restaurants are also often located in poorer areas, where people may have no other option but to eat fast food. Fast food restaurants also increase the risk of obesity, which can lead to other health problems. Fast food restaurants should be cut down in number, and the government should be looking at ways to make healthy food more widely available and more affordable. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002289.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002289.soc index aecbacb3..2af2e941 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002289.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002289.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that this would help to recognise the contributions of those who have been overlooked by history, and also to give hope to others in the same situation. The group also felt that this would help to educate people about the contributions of these groups, and to help people to understand the struggles that these groups have faced. The group also felt that this would help to show that society has moved on and that we are more accepting of all people, regardless of their background. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that it would be a good way to celebrate the achievements of people from historically marginalised groups, and also to highlight the contributions that they have made to society. The group also felt that it would be a good way to educate people about the history of these groups, and also to highlight the issues that they still face in modern society. The group did note, however, that it would be difficult to choose which groups to celebrate, and that it would be difficult to decide which days to celebrate them on. The group also noted that it would be difficult to decide which historical figures to celebrate, as many of them have done both good and bad things. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that it was important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. The group felt that it was important to celebrate the achievements of historically marginalised groups, and that it would be a good way to give them more recognition for what they have accomplished. The group felt that it would also give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. The group also felt that it would be a good idea to teach these sorts of things in school, so that we can become more aware of the contributions of historically marginalised groups. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that it was important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. The group felt that it was important to celebrate the achievements of historically marginalised groups, and that it would be a good way to give them more recognition for what they have accomplished. The group felt that it would also give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. The group also felt that it would be good to teach these sorts of celebrations in school more often, so that children are aware of the contributions that have been made by historically marginalised groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that this would help to recognise the contributions of those who have been overlooked by history, and also to give hope to others in the same situation. The group also felt that this would help to educate people about the contributions of these groups, and to help people to understand the struggles that these groups have faced. The group also felt that this would help to show that society has moved on and that we are more accepting of all people, regardless of their background. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that it would be a good way to celebrate the achievements of people from historically marginalised groups, and also to highlight the contributions that they have made to society. The group also felt that it would be a good way to educate people about the history of these groups, and also to highlight the issues that they still face in modern society. The group did note, however, that it would be difficult to choose which groups to celebrate, and that it would be difficult to decide which days to celebrate them on. The group also noted that it would be difficult to decide which historical figures to celebrate, as many of them have done both good and bad things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that it was important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. The group felt that it was important to celebrate the achievements of historically marginalised groups, and that it would be a good way to give them more recognition for what they have accomplished. The group felt that it would also give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. The group also felt that it would be a good idea to teach these sorts of things in school, so that we can become more aware of the contributions of historically marginalised groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of having a separate public holiday to mark the contributions of historically marginalised groups. The group felt that it was important to acknowledge the contributions that everyone has made to our country, especially if they have been generally forgotten. The group felt that it was important to celebrate the achievements of historically marginalised groups, and that it would be a good way to give them more recognition for what they have accomplished. The group felt that it would also give us more hope for the rest of humanity, and what we can do to better the lives of other people. The group also felt that it would be good to teach these sorts of celebrations in school more often, so that children are aware of the contributions that have been made by historically marginalised groups. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002290.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002290.soc index 9d9f891d..dc273d5e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002290.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002290.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a tax on sugary drinks. They felt that this would discourage people from buying sugary drinks, and lead to them making better choices. They felt that this would be a positive thing, as it would reduce the amount of sugar consumed, and reduce the risk of diabetes and obesity, both of which are major public health issues. However, they felt that a tax on sugary drinks would be regressive, as it would impact poorer people more than richer people, as poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income on food and drink, and so would be more likely to be affected by the tax. The group also felt that it was important that people were well informed about the health risks of sugary drinks, and that the government should be working to inform people about this, rather than just taxing sugary drinks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the government should tax sugary drinks. We believe that people should be free to make their own choices, but that the government has a duty to protect its citizens from making choices that will harm them. We also believe that a tax on sugary drinks will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from obesity and diabetes, which will reduce the strain on the NHS. We also believe that the tax will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from poor dental health. We believe that the tax will be effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks, as it will make them more expensive, and that this will lead to a healthier population. However, we also acknowledge that taxing sugary drinks takes away individual freedom of choice, and could lead to people buying sugary drinks from other countries, which would mean that the tax would not be as effective as intended. We believe that the tax should be implemented, but that it should be accompanied by a large campaign informing people of the dangers of sugary drinks, to make sure that people are making informed choices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there is a strong case for taxing sugary drinks. The health problems caused by sugar are serious and widespread and so we believe that any measure that can help to reduce sugar consumption is a good thing. There are other ways of reducing sugar consumption such as education and awareness-raising, but we believe that taxing sugary drinks is a good way of doing this. We don't think that this is an infringement of individual freedom because people are still free to drink sugary drinks, they are just being discouraged from doing so by the tax. We think that the tax will be effective because the evidence shows that it has reduced the consumption of sugary drinks in other countries where it has been introduced. We also believe that the tax will be a good way of raising revenue for public health and education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should tax sugary drinks. We believe that people should be free to make their own choices, but that the government has a duty to protect its citizens from making choices that will harm them. We also believe that a tax on sugary drinks will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from obesity and diabetes, which will reduce the strain on the NHS. We also believe that the tax will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from poor dental health. We believe that the tax will be effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks, as it will make them more expensive, and that this will lead to a healthier population. We also believe that the government has the responsibility to care for its citizens' health, however there should be considerations for balancing individual freedom with this, and using evidence based evaluation of the tax's impact on reducing health issues and how major this is, and finally addressing external factors such as educating the population an promoting a fit lifestyle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a tax on sugary drinks. They felt that this would discourage people from buying sugary drinks, and lead to them making better choices. They felt that this would be a positive thing, as it would reduce the amount of sugar consumed, and reduce the risk of diabetes and obesity, both of which are major public health issues. However, they felt that a tax on sugary drinks would be regressive, as it would impact poorer people more than richer people, as poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income on food and drink, and so would be more likely to be affected by the tax. The group also felt that it was important that people were well informed about the health risks of sugary drinks, and that the government should be working to inform people about this, rather than just taxing sugary drinks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the government should tax sugary drinks. We believe that people should be free to make their own choices, but that the government has a duty to protect its citizens from making choices that will harm them. We also believe that a tax on sugary drinks will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from obesity and diabetes, which will reduce the strain on the NHS. We also believe that the tax will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from poor dental health. We believe that the tax will be effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks, as it will make them more expensive, and that this will lead to a healthier population. However, we also acknowledge that taxing sugary drinks takes away individual freedom of choice, and could lead to people buying sugary drinks from other countries, which would mean that the tax would not be as effective as intended. We believe that the tax should be implemented, but that it should be accompanied by a large campaign informing people of the dangers of sugary drinks, to make sure that people are making informed choices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there is a strong case for taxing sugary drinks. The health problems caused by sugar are serious and widespread and so we believe that any measure that can help to reduce sugar consumption is a good thing. There are other ways of reducing sugar consumption such as education and awareness-raising, but we believe that taxing sugary drinks is a good way of doing this. We don't think that this is an infringement of individual freedom because people are still free to drink sugary drinks, they are just being discouraged from doing so by the tax. We think that the tax will be effective because the evidence shows that it has reduced the consumption of sugary drinks in other countries where it has been introduced. We also believe that the tax will be a good way of raising revenue for public health and education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should tax sugary drinks. We believe that people should be free to make their own choices, but that the government has a duty to protect its citizens from making choices that will harm them. We also believe that a tax on sugary drinks will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from obesity and diabetes, which will reduce the strain on the NHS. We also believe that the tax will help to reduce the number of people who suffer from poor dental health. We believe that the tax will be effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks, as it will make them more expensive, and that this will lead to a healthier population. We also believe that the government has the responsibility to care for its citizens' health, however there should be considerations for balancing individual freedom with this, and using evidence based evaluation of the tax's impact on reducing health issues and how major this is, and finally addressing external factors such as educating the population an promoting a fit lifestyle. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002291.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002291.soc index 52e159da..67712627 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002291.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002291.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. People who are disadvantaged should be given scholarships to help them achieve their potential, but they should not be given priority admission. The reason for this is that if people are disadvantaged, it is likely that they will have had a tougher life than most and have had to work harder to achieve their grades. Therefore, they deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and effort, but should not be given an advantage over people who have had a more fortunate life. The group also felt that if disadvantaged people are given priority admission, then it is not fair on other people who have worked just as hard, if not harder, to achieve the grades they need to get into university. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. We believe that disadvantaged groups should be given the same opportunities as everyone else, but that they should not be fast tracked through the system. We also believe that if a disadvantaged group is capable of gaining entry into university through the normal channels, then they should be allowed to do so. However, if a disadvantaged group is not able to gain entry through the normal channels, then we believe that universities should be able to offer them the chance to gain entry through a different channel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. The primary reason for this is that universities are institutions of higher learning, and it is the role of universities to ensure that the people who attend them are able to complete the course of study. Therefore, it is the role of universities to ensure that the people who attend them are able to complete the course of study. Therefore, it is the role of universities to ensure that the people who attend them are academically capable of completing the course of study. The second reason is that it is unfair to the other students who are academically capable of completing the course of study, but who are not members of disadvantaged groups. The third reason is that disadvantaged groups are not a homogenous group, and there are many different kinds of disadvantages. Therefore, it is impossible to determine which disadvantaged groups should be given priority and which should not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority admission to disadvantaged groups. The group felt that this would be unfair to other students who were not disadvantaged, and that it would not be in the best interests of the disadvantaged students themselves. The group felt that if a student was disadvantaged, but still academically capable of attending university, then they should be given the opportunity to attend university, but that this should not be at the expense of other students. The group felt that it would be more beneficial for the disadvantaged student to attend a university that they were academically capable of attending, rather than being fast tracked into a university that they may not be able to keep up with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. People who are disadvantaged should be given scholarships to help them achieve their potential, but they should not be given priority admission. The reason for this is that if people are disadvantaged, it is likely that they will have had a tougher life than most and have had to work harder to achieve their grades. Therefore, they deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and effort, but should not be given an advantage over people who have had a more fortunate life. The group also felt that if disadvantaged people are given priority admission, then it is not fair on other people who have worked just as hard, if not harder, to achieve the grades they need to get into university. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. We believe that disadvantaged groups should be given the same opportunities as everyone else, but that they should not be fast tracked through the system. We also believe that if a disadvantaged group is capable of gaining entry into university through the normal channels, then they should be allowed to do so. However, if a disadvantaged group is not able to gain entry through the normal channels, then we believe that universities should be able to offer them the chance to gain entry through a different channel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. The primary reason for this is that universities are institutions of higher learning, and it is the role of universities to ensure that the people who attend them are able to complete the course of study. Therefore, it is the role of universities to ensure that the people who attend them are able to complete the course of study. Therefore, it is the role of universities to ensure that the people who attend them are academically capable of completing the course of study. The second reason is that it is unfair to the other students who are academically capable of completing the course of study, but who are not members of disadvantaged groups. The third reason is that disadvantaged groups are not a homogenous group, and there are many different kinds of disadvantages. Therefore, it is impossible to determine which disadvantaged groups should be given priority and which should not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority admission to disadvantaged groups. The group felt that this would be unfair to other students who were not disadvantaged, and that it would not be in the best interests of the disadvantaged students themselves. The group felt that if a student was disadvantaged, but still academically capable of attending university, then they should be given the opportunity to attend university, but that this should not be at the expense of other students. The group felt that it would be more beneficial for the disadvantaged student to attend a university that they were academically capable of attending, rather than being fast tracked into a university that they may not be able to keep up with. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002292.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002292.soc index 6ae01433..5c1ae92d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002292.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002292.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A four day working week would be a good idea. From current research in which companies have trialled this they have seen increased productivity. It would also be a good way of enhancing an employees work life balance which would decrease the instances of sick leave through stress or other mental incapacities. It would be a great ideea. Technology advance allows this. It will allow people to achieve a fairer work-life balance and will lead to more happiness and better health overall. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A four day working week would be a good idea. From current research in which companies have trialled this they have seen increased productivity. It would also be a good way of enhancing an employees work life balance which would decrease the instances of sick leave through stress or other mental incapacities. It would be a great idea for office workers. However, people who work in customer services/retail etc cant just start working 4 days. It would mean employing more people which would be good for the people but small businesses cant afford to pay extra workers. Maybe if people want to work 4 days a week they should look at job sharing or moving careers. Its unfair on people who work in industries that dont get the normal 9-5. people work nights, evenings, weekends, they cant just change their hours for that. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A four day working week would be a good idea. From current research in which companies have trialled this they have seen increased productivity. It would also be a good way of enhancing an employees work life balance which would decrease the instances of sick leave through stress or other mental incapacities. However, this is not a viable option for all jobs. People who work in customer services/retail etc cant just start working 4 days. Office workers could theoretically do this but who would pick up the slack? It would mean employing more people which would be good for the people but small businesses cant afford to pay extra workers. Maybe if people want to work 4 days a week they should look at job sharing or moving careers. Its unfair on people who work in industries that dont get the normal 9-5. People work nights, evenings, weekends, they cant just change their hours for that. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A four day workweek would be a good idea for some professions but not all. The idea of a four day workweek is a good one, however, it would be difficult to implement in all professions. It would be beneficial to employees in terms of work life balance and increased happiness and health. However, it would be difficult to implement in professions where there is a high level of customer service required. It would also be difficult to implement in professions where the work is not office based and is not in an environment where the employee can easily control their workload. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A four day working week would be a good idea. From current research in which companies have trialled this they have seen increased productivity. It would also be a good way of enhancing an employees work life balance which would decrease the instances of sick leave through stress or other mental incapacities. It would be a great ideea. Technology advance allows this. It will allow people to achieve a fairer work-life balance and will lead to more happiness and better health overall. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A four day working week would be a good idea. From current research in which companies have trialled this they have seen increased productivity. It would also be a good way of enhancing an employees work life balance which would decrease the instances of sick leave through stress or other mental incapacities. It would be a great idea for office workers. However, people who work in customer services/retail etc cant just start working 4 days. It would mean employing more people which would be good for the people but small businesses cant afford to pay extra workers. Maybe if people want to work 4 days a week they should look at job sharing or moving careers. Its unfair on people who work in industries that dont get the normal 9-5. people work nights, evenings, weekends, they cant just change their hours for that. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A four day working week would be a good idea. From current research in which companies have trialled this they have seen increased productivity. It would also be a good way of enhancing an employees work life balance which would decrease the instances of sick leave through stress or other mental incapacities. However, this is not a viable option for all jobs. People who work in customer services/retail etc cant just start working 4 days. Office workers could theoretically do this but who would pick up the slack? It would mean employing more people which would be good for the people but small businesses cant afford to pay extra workers. Maybe if people want to work 4 days a week they should look at job sharing or moving careers. Its unfair on people who work in industries that dont get the normal 9-5. People work nights, evenings, weekends, they cant just change their hours for that. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A four day workweek would be a good idea for some professions but not all. The idea of a four day workweek is a good one, however, it would be difficult to implement in all professions. It would be beneficial to employees in terms of work life balance and increased happiness and health. However, it would be difficult to implement in professions where there is a high level of customer service required. It would also be difficult to implement in professions where the work is not office based and is not in an environment where the employee can easily control their workload. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002293.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002293.soc index be27c506..586aae0e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002293.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002293.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because they cause issues that cost the NHS millions of pounds every single year. We believe it is fair to raise these taxes as it would help pay for these issues. We also believe that it would put people off buying them. They're both drugs that do damage to the human body so we believe that it should be thought about before you buy them, and making them more expensive would do this. However, we can also see the down-sides to increasing the taxes on them such as people with addictions would need more money to purchase them and in turn could put them in an even worse financial state. It could also cause a rise in underground black markets where they are sold for cheaper, illegally. This would mean that they're not guaranteed to be safe. So overall, we think their price should be raised slightly but not too much. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. The majority of participants thought that this would help to reduce the number of people who smoke and drink and would also help to reduce the cost to the NHS of treating the health problems associated with smoking and drinking. However, it was also recognised that this could lead to the creation of black markets for alcohol and cigarettes, which could lead to health problems. The majority of participants also thought that the extra tax revenue should be spent on programmes to help people to stop smoking and drinking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. The reasons for this were that they cause harm to health and cost the NHS a lot of money. However, it was also recognised that this would be unfair on people who are addicted to these substances and that it could also lead to an increase in black market sales of these substances. It was suggested that the taxes should be raised but not too much, and that the extra money raised should be spent on programmes to help people stop smoking and drinking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because they cost society a lot of money in healthcare and policing. We believe that these extra taxes should be spent on programmes to encourage people to stop smoking and to drink less. We think that this idea could be an issue as there are other things, such as unhealthy food, that also cost the NHS money and taxing these may punish certain groups in society, especially those who live in areas with poor quality food shops. However, we think that the price of alcohol and cigarettes should be raised slightly but not too much. This is because we think that it would put people off buying them. They're both drugs that do damage to the human body so we believe that it should be thought about before you buy them, and making them more expensive would do this. However, we can also see the down-sides to increasing the taxes on them such as people with addictions would need more money to purchase them and in turn could put them in an even worse financial state. It could also cause a rise in underground black markets where they are sold for cheaper, illegally. This would mean that they're not guaranteed to be safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because they cause issues that cost the NHS millions of pounds every single year. We believe it is fair to raise these taxes as it would help pay for these issues. We also believe that it would put people off buying them. They're both drugs that do damage to the human body so we believe that it should be thought about before you buy them, and making them more expensive would do this. However, we can also see the down-sides to increasing the taxes on them such as people with addictions would need more money to purchase them and in turn could put them in an even worse financial state. It could also cause a rise in underground black markets where they are sold for cheaper, illegally. This would mean that they're not guaranteed to be safe. So overall, we think their price should be raised slightly but not too much. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. The majority of participants thought that this would help to reduce the number of people who smoke and drink and would also help to reduce the cost to the NHS of treating the health problems associated with smoking and drinking. However, it was also recognised that this could lead to the creation of black markets for alcohol and cigarettes, which could lead to health problems. The majority of participants also thought that the extra tax revenue should be spent on programmes to help people to stop smoking and drinking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. The reasons for this were that they cause harm to health and cost the NHS a lot of money. However, it was also recognised that this would be unfair on people who are addicted to these substances and that it could also lead to an increase in black market sales of these substances. It was suggested that the taxes should be raised but not too much, and that the extra money raised should be spent on programmes to help people stop smoking and drinking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because they cost society a lot of money in healthcare and policing. We believe that these extra taxes should be spent on programmes to encourage people to stop smoking and to drink less. We think that this idea could be an issue as there are other things, such as unhealthy food, that also cost the NHS money and taxing these may punish certain groups in society, especially those who live in areas with poor quality food shops. However, we think that the price of alcohol and cigarettes should be raised slightly but not too much. This is because we think that it would put people off buying them. They're both drugs that do damage to the human body so we believe that it should be thought about before you buy them, and making them more expensive would do this. However, we can also see the down-sides to increasing the taxes on them such as people with addictions would need more money to purchase them and in turn could put them in an even worse financial state. It could also cause a rise in underground black markets where they are sold for cheaper, illegally. This would mean that they're not guaranteed to be safe. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002294.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002294.soc index 7ae1d82d..941864c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002294.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002294.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be an increase in tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. Sugar-sweetened drinks are not a necessary product and do not form part of a healthy diet. They are not only a major cause of obesity but also lead to other health issues which in turn create a large burden on the NHS. Raising the tax on these drinks will discourage people from consuming them and hopefully have an impact on the number of children who are accessing sugar-sweetened drinks with their own money. We believe that revenue from increased taxes on these drinks should be put towards healthy eating programmes and subsidies on purchasing healthier foods. We also believe that the companies that manufacture and market these drinks should be subject to higher rates of tax on producing these products. We also believe that sugar-sweetened drinks should be taken off the shelves and replaced with sugar free alternatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that increasing taxes on sugar sweetened drinks is a good idea. We feel that it is important to reduce the consumption of these drinks, as they have a direct negative impact on health and obesity, which leads to further health issues and creates additional burden on our NHS and health services which a raised tax could mitigate. There is also the issue to consider of dental health and decay which sugary drinks also negatively contribute to the epidemic of. We feel that the revenue from increased taxes on these drinks should be put towards healthy eating programmes and subsidies on purchasing healthier foods. We also believe that the companies that manufacture and market these drinks should be subject to higher rates of tax on producing these products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that there should be an increase in tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. We do not believe that this is a necessary product and does not form part of a healthy diet. We believe that raising the tax will discourage this and hopefully have an impact on the number of children who are accessing sugar-sweetened drinks with their own money. Such drinks have a direct negative impact on health and obesity, which leads to further health issues and creates additional burden on our NHS and health services which a raised tax could mitigate. There is also the issue to consider of dental health and decay which sugary drinks also negatively contribute to the epidemic of. We believe that revenue from increased taxes on these drinks should be put towards healthy eating programmes and subsidies on purchasing healthier foods. We also believe that the companies that manufacture and market these drinks should be subject to higher rates of tax on producing these products. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The group believed that sugar-sweetened drinks were unhealthy and that the increased consumption of these drinks over the past few decades had contributed to an increase in pressure on a variety of health services. The group believed that increases in obesity and particularly childhood obesity were extremely concerning and that sugar-sweetened drinks would have undoubtedly played a contributory factor in this. The group believed that revenue from increased taxes on these drinks should be put towards healthy eating programmes and subsidies on purchasing healthier foods. The group also believed that the companies that manufacture and market these drinks should be subject to higher rates of tax on producing these products. The group believed that a raised tax would discourage the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and hopefully have an impact on the number of children who are accessing sugar-sweetened drinks with their own money. The group believed that such drinks have a direct negative impact on health and obesity, which leads to further health issues and creates additional burden on our NHS and health services which a raised tax could mitigate. The group believed that there was also the issue to consider of dental health and decay which sugary drinks also negatively contribute to the epidemic of +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be an increase in tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. Sugar-sweetened drinks are not a necessary product and do not form part of a healthy diet. They are not only a major cause of obesity but also lead to other health issues which in turn create a large burden on the NHS. Raising the tax on these drinks will discourage people from consuming them and hopefully have an impact on the number of children who are accessing sugar-sweetened drinks with their own money. We believe that revenue from increased taxes on these drinks should be put towards healthy eating programmes and subsidies on purchasing healthier foods. We also believe that the companies that manufacture and market these drinks should be subject to higher rates of tax on producing these products. We also believe that sugar-sweetened drinks should be taken off the shelves and replaced with sugar free alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that increasing taxes on sugar sweetened drinks is a good idea. We feel that it is important to reduce the consumption of these drinks, as they have a direct negative impact on health and obesity, which leads to further health issues and creates additional burden on our NHS and health services which a raised tax could mitigate. There is also the issue to consider of dental health and decay which sugary drinks also negatively contribute to the epidemic of. We feel that the revenue from increased taxes on these drinks should be put towards healthy eating programmes and subsidies on purchasing healthier foods. We also believe that the companies that manufacture and market these drinks should be subject to higher rates of tax on producing these products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that there should be an increase in tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. We do not believe that this is a necessary product and does not form part of a healthy diet. We believe that raising the tax will discourage this and hopefully have an impact on the number of children who are accessing sugar-sweetened drinks with their own money. Such drinks have a direct negative impact on health and obesity, which leads to further health issues and creates additional burden on our NHS and health services which a raised tax could mitigate. There is also the issue to consider of dental health and decay which sugary drinks also negatively contribute to the epidemic of. We believe that revenue from increased taxes on these drinks should be put towards healthy eating programmes and subsidies on purchasing healthier foods. We also believe that the companies that manufacture and market these drinks should be subject to higher rates of tax on producing these products. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The group believed that sugar-sweetened drinks were unhealthy and that the increased consumption of these drinks over the past few decades had contributed to an increase in pressure on a variety of health services. The group believed that increases in obesity and particularly childhood obesity were extremely concerning and that sugar-sweetened drinks would have undoubtedly played a contributory factor in this. The group believed that revenue from increased taxes on these drinks should be put towards healthy eating programmes and subsidies on purchasing healthier foods. The group also believed that the companies that manufacture and market these drinks should be subject to higher rates of tax on producing these products. The group believed that a raised tax would discourage the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and hopefully have an impact on the number of children who are accessing sugar-sweetened drinks with their own money. The group believed that such drinks have a direct negative impact on health and obesity, which leads to further health issues and creates additional burden on our NHS and health services which a raised tax could mitigate. The group believed that there was also the issue to consider of dental health and decay which sugary drinks also negatively contribute to the epidemic of 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002295.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002295.soc index 5507c8fa..297e8a54 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002295.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002295.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is no way to determine whether a dog or a cat is a better companion. Both animals can be wonderful companions, and each person will have their own opinion on which is better. The choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. It is also important to note that there are many different breeds of dogs and cats, and each breed will have its own unique characteristics. For example, some dogs are very friendly and outgoing, while others are more reserved. Some cats are very affectionate and like to be held and petted, while others prefer to be left alone. In general, dogs tend to be more outgoing and affectionate than cats, but this is not always the case. In conclusion, the choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, a dog is a better companion than a cat. Dogs are more outgoing and interactive with their owners. Dogs are more interested in their owners and will often form strong bonds with them. Dogs are more likely to stay with their owners and will often take the lead from them. Cats are more independent and will often go off on their own if they can. Cats are more interested in themselves and will often be more interested in food and shelter than their owners. Cats will often go off and do their own thing if they can. Cats will often just come home for food and a place to sleep. However, it should be noted that some cats can form strong bonds with their owners and that some dogs are more independent than others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, dogs tend to be more outwardly loving and affectionate than cats. However, this is not to say that cats do not make wonderful companions. The best pet for you depends on your lifestyle and what you are looking for in a pet. Dogs tend to be more dependent on their owners for their care and cats tend to be more independent. Dogs also tend to be more outgoing and cats tend to be more reserved. However, this is not to say that cats do not make wonderful companions. The best pet for you depends on your lifestyle and what you are looking for in a pet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, dogs are better companions than cats. Dogs are more outgoing and affectionate towards their owners. They are also more trainable and can be taught to do many things to help their owners. Cats, on the other hand, tend to be more independent and self-sufficient. They can take care of themselves and do not require as much attention as dogs. However, they can also be very affectionate towards their owners. Therefore, it is not possible to say that dogs are better companions than cats. It really depends on the individual and their needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is no way to determine whether a dog or a cat is a better companion. Both animals can be wonderful companions, and each person will have their own opinion on which is better. The choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. It is also important to note that there are many different breeds of dogs and cats, and each breed will have its own unique characteristics. For example, some dogs are very friendly and outgoing, while others are more reserved. Some cats are very affectionate and like to be held and petted, while others prefer to be left alone. In general, dogs tend to be more outgoing and affectionate than cats, but this is not always the case. In conclusion, the choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, a dog is a better companion than a cat. Dogs are more outgoing and interactive with their owners. Dogs are more interested in their owners and will often form strong bonds with them. Dogs are more likely to stay with their owners and will often take the lead from them. Cats are more independent and will often go off on their own if they can. Cats are more interested in themselves and will often be more interested in food and shelter than their owners. Cats will often go off and do their own thing if they can. Cats will often just come home for food and a place to sleep. However, it should be noted that some cats can form strong bonds with their owners and that some dogs are more independent than others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, dogs tend to be more outwardly loving and affectionate than cats. However, this is not to say that cats do not make wonderful companions. The best pet for you depends on your lifestyle and what you are looking for in a pet. Dogs tend to be more dependent on their owners for their care and cats tend to be more independent. Dogs also tend to be more outgoing and cats tend to be more reserved. However, this is not to say that cats do not make wonderful companions. The best pet for you depends on your lifestyle and what you are looking for in a pet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, dogs are better companions than cats. Dogs are more outgoing and affectionate towards their owners. They are also more trainable and can be taught to do many things to help their owners. Cats, on the other hand, tend to be more independent and self-sufficient. They can take care of themselves and do not require as much attention as dogs. However, they can also be very affectionate towards their owners. Therefore, it is not possible to say that dogs are better companions than cats. It really depends on the individual and their needs. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002296.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002296.soc index 68633c8b..c440797d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002296.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002296.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should not encourage people to go into higher education. Whilst it can be a great opportunity to learn new skills and can be key in landing certain jobs it also comes with downsides like the large amounts of debt you rack up. For many people alternatives like apprenticeships where they can learn practical skills on the job and start earning straight out of college are the better option. It should be the governments job to present the full spectrum of post GCSE and A-level options so that individuals can choose the option which fits them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should encourage people to go into higher education, but not solely. The government should also promote vocational training and apprenticeships as these can be just as beneficial to the individual and the country as a whole. The government should also ensure that there is an adequate support network in place for people that do go into higher education. This can include financial support, but also support networks for mental health and wellbeing. The government should also ensure that there is a wide variety of higher education courses available, so that people can find the course that is right for them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should not encourage people to go into higher education. Many young people go into higher education because they believe that they have to, and many do not enjoy the experience. There are many opportunities for young people in the world of work, and many careers do not require a degree. The government should also encourage young people to consider apprenticeships and vocational training, which can be just as valuable as higher education. The government should not encourage young people to go into higher education, but should present the full spectrum of options available to them, so that they can make an informed choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not solely encourage people to go into higher education. Whilst higher education can be a great opportunity to learn new skills and can be key in landing certain jobs it also comes with downsides like the large amounts of debt you rack up. For many people alternatives like apprenticeships where they can learn practical skills on the job and start earning straight out of college are the better option. It should be the governments job to present the full spectrum of post GCSE and A-level options so that individuals can choose the option which fits them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should not encourage people to go into higher education. Whilst it can be a great opportunity to learn new skills and can be key in landing certain jobs it also comes with downsides like the large amounts of debt you rack up. For many people alternatives like apprenticeships where they can learn practical skills on the job and start earning straight out of college are the better option. It should be the governments job to present the full spectrum of post GCSE and A-level options so that individuals can choose the option which fits them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should encourage people to go into higher education, but not solely. The government should also promote vocational training and apprenticeships as these can be just as beneficial to the individual and the country as a whole. The government should also ensure that there is an adequate support network in place for people that do go into higher education. This can include financial support, but also support networks for mental health and wellbeing. The government should also ensure that there is a wide variety of higher education courses available, so that people can find the course that is right for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should not encourage people to go into higher education. Many young people go into higher education because they believe that they have to, and many do not enjoy the experience. There are many opportunities for young people in the world of work, and many careers do not require a degree. The government should also encourage young people to consider apprenticeships and vocational training, which can be just as valuable as higher education. The government should not encourage young people to go into higher education, but should present the full spectrum of options available to them, so that they can make an informed choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not solely encourage people to go into higher education. Whilst higher education can be a great opportunity to learn new skills and can be key in landing certain jobs it also comes with downsides like the large amounts of debt you rack up. For many people alternatives like apprenticeships where they can learn practical skills on the job and start earning straight out of college are the better option. It should be the governments job to present the full spectrum of post GCSE and A-level options so that individuals can choose the option which fits them. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002297.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002297.soc index b87072fa..aabf6aa1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002297.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002297.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority admission to disadvantaged groups. The group felt that this would be unfair to other students who were not disadvantaged, and that it would not be in the best interests of the disadvantaged students themselves. The group felt that if a student was disadvantaged, but still academically capable of attending university, then they should be given the opportunity to attend university, but that this should not be at the expense of other students. The group felt that it would be more beneficial for the disadvantaged student to attend a university that they were academically capable of attending, rather than being fast tracked into a university that they may not be able to keep up with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although we feel that the term disadvantaged is very broad, we feel that for people who have been placed at a disadvantage due to socio-economic status or other similar factors, they should be given some form of preference when it comes to university admission. This would help to even the playing field a little and help those who may not have had the same opportunities as others. For people who have physical or mental disabilities, we feel that the issue is more complex. If the person is able to complete the course and is academically capable then they should be allowed entry, but if they need special provisions then the university should be able to provide them. For people who have experienced extreme trauma or have been diagnosed with a mental illness, we feel that it is unfair to ask that they be given special treatment as this would be unfair to other applicants. There are many forms of disadvantage and it would be difficult to cater to all of them. Therefore, we feel that for people who are disadvantaged due to socio-economic status or similar factors, they should be given some form of preference when it comes to university admission. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving disadvantaged groups admission priority to universities. The idea that some people should be fast tracked to a university education just because of their socio-economic status or their ethnicity was generally viewed as unfair. It was also felt that giving disadvantaged groups admission priority would not address the root of the problem, which is poverty and racism in society. The group felt that this would just be a band-aid solution that would not solve anything in the long run. However, the group also felt that there were certain circumstances where disadvantaged groups should be given admission priority. The group felt that if a disadvantaged person had the academic ability to be admitted to a university and was otherwise qualified, then they should be given admission priority. This would be the case for people who had a disability, who were refugees, or who were orphans. The group also felt that if a disadvantaged person had the academic ability to be admitted to a university but could not afford it, then they should be given financial assistance. This would be the case for people who were living in poverty or who were refugees. The group felt that these were the only circumstances in which disadvantaged groups should be given admission priority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority admission to disadvantaged groups. The group felt that this would be unfair to other students who were not disadvantaged, and that it would not be in the best interests of the disadvantaged students themselves. The group felt that if a student was disadvantaged, but still academically capable of attending university, then they should be given the opportunity to attend university, but that this should not be at the expense of other students. The group felt that it would be more beneficial for the disadvantaged student to attend a university that they were academically capable of attending, rather than being fast tracked into a university that they may not be able to keep up with. The group also felt that it was important for universities to provide more support services for disadvantaged students to ensure that they were able to keep up and succeed in their studies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority admission to disadvantaged groups. The group felt that this would be unfair to other students who were not disadvantaged, and that it would not be in the best interests of the disadvantaged students themselves. The group felt that if a student was disadvantaged, but still academically capable of attending university, then they should be given the opportunity to attend university, but that this should not be at the expense of other students. The group felt that it would be more beneficial for the disadvantaged student to attend a university that they were academically capable of attending, rather than being fast tracked into a university that they may not be able to keep up with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although we feel that the term disadvantaged is very broad, we feel that for people who have been placed at a disadvantage due to socio-economic status or other similar factors, they should be given some form of preference when it comes to university admission. This would help to even the playing field a little and help those who may not have had the same opportunities as others. For people who have physical or mental disabilities, we feel that the issue is more complex. If the person is able to complete the course and is academically capable then they should be allowed entry, but if they need special provisions then the university should be able to provide them. For people who have experienced extreme trauma or have been diagnosed with a mental illness, we feel that it is unfair to ask that they be given special treatment as this would be unfair to other applicants. There are many forms of disadvantage and it would be difficult to cater to all of them. Therefore, we feel that for people who are disadvantaged due to socio-economic status or similar factors, they should be given some form of preference when it comes to university admission. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving disadvantaged groups admission priority to universities. The idea that some people should be fast tracked to a university education just because of their socio-economic status or their ethnicity was generally viewed as unfair. It was also felt that giving disadvantaged groups admission priority would not address the root of the problem, which is poverty and racism in society. The group felt that this would just be a band-aid solution that would not solve anything in the long run. However, the group also felt that there were certain circumstances where disadvantaged groups should be given admission priority. The group felt that if a disadvantaged person had the academic ability to be admitted to a university and was otherwise qualified, then they should be given admission priority. This would be the case for people who had a disability, who were refugees, or who were orphans. The group also felt that if a disadvantaged person had the academic ability to be admitted to a university but could not afford it, then they should be given financial assistance. This would be the case for people who were living in poverty or who were refugees. The group felt that these were the only circumstances in which disadvantaged groups should be given admission priority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority admission to disadvantaged groups. The group felt that this would be unfair to other students who were not disadvantaged, and that it would not be in the best interests of the disadvantaged students themselves. The group felt that if a student was disadvantaged, but still academically capable of attending university, then they should be given the opportunity to attend university, but that this should not be at the expense of other students. The group felt that it would be more beneficial for the disadvantaged student to attend a university that they were academically capable of attending, rather than being fast tracked into a university that they may not be able to keep up with. The group also felt that it was important for universities to provide more support services for disadvantaged students to ensure that they were able to keep up and succeed in their studies. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002298.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002298.soc index c3f5875d..48e7f405 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002298.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002298.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A four day workweek would be a good idea for some professions but not all. The idea of a four day workweek is a good one, however, it would be difficult to implement in all professions. It would be beneficial to employees in terms of work life balance and increased happiness and health. However, it would be difficult to implement in professions where there is a high level of customer service required. It would also be difficult to implement in professions where the work is not office based and is not in an environment where the employee can easily control their workload. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A four day workweek would be a good idea for some professions but not all. The idea of a four day workweek is a good one, however, it would be difficult to implement in all professions. It would be beneficial to employees in terms of work life balance and increased happiness and health. However, it would be difficult to implement in professions where there is a high level of customer service required. It would also be difficult to implement in professions where the work is not office based and is not in an environment where the employee can easily control their workload. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A four day working week would be a good idea. From current research in which companies have trialled this they have seen increased productivity. It would also be a good way of enhancing an employees work life balance which would decrease the instances of sick leave through stress or other mental incapacities. However, it is important to note that this would not work in all professions, and that it may not be the best option for small businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that a 4-day working week would be beneficial to most employees. It would help people achieve a better work-life balance, be beneficial for their health and wellbeing and help reduce stress and anxiety. However, it would not be possible for everyone to work a 4-day week. There are some professions where people work shifts and weekends and it would be very difficult for them to change their hours. There are also some professions where people work very long hours, and reducing the hours to 4 days may not be feasible. It would be very difficult for some companies to implement this change, as it would mean employing more people, which is something some companies may not be able to afford. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A four day workweek would be a good idea for some professions but not all. The idea of a four day workweek is a good one, however, it would be difficult to implement in all professions. It would be beneficial to employees in terms of work life balance and increased happiness and health. However, it would be difficult to implement in professions where there is a high level of customer service required. It would also be difficult to implement in professions where the work is not office based and is not in an environment where the employee can easily control their workload. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A four day workweek would be a good idea for some professions but not all. The idea of a four day workweek is a good one, however, it would be difficult to implement in all professions. It would be beneficial to employees in terms of work life balance and increased happiness and health. However, it would be difficult to implement in professions where there is a high level of customer service required. It would also be difficult to implement in professions where the work is not office based and is not in an environment where the employee can easily control their workload. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A four day working week would be a good idea. From current research in which companies have trialled this they have seen increased productivity. It would also be a good way of enhancing an employees work life balance which would decrease the instances of sick leave through stress or other mental incapacities. However, it is important to note that this would not work in all professions, and that it may not be the best option for small businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that a 4-day working week would be beneficial to most employees. It would help people achieve a better work-life balance, be beneficial for their health and wellbeing and help reduce stress and anxiety. However, it would not be possible for everyone to work a 4-day week. There are some professions where people work shifts and weekends and it would be very difficult for them to change their hours. There are also some professions where people work very long hours, and reducing the hours to 4 days may not be feasible. It would be very difficult for some companies to implement this change, as it would mean employing more people, which is something some companies may not be able to afford. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002299.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002299.soc index d2729748..bde1ab43 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002299.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002299.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I believe we should raise airline taxes. This would offset an individual traveller's carbon footprint. The taxes could then be used in initiatives to offset a global carbon footprint in areas affected most by climate change. Airline travel causes a lot of CO2 emissions and hence contributes to climate change. Most short-haul airline travel is fairly unnecessary and could easily be replaced by (less emissions intense) train or high speed train travel. Raising airline taxes would make it more expensive to travel and only absolutely necessary airline travel would happen. On the other side it would just mostly impact poorer people more, as wealthy people can still afford to travel and even a higher tax would not deter them.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not raise airline taxes. The aviation industry has had a very tough year, and people are under a lot of financial pressure at the moment. Increasing airline taxes will just make it more expensive for people to travel, and this is not fair. We do think, however, that it is important to make the aviation industry aware of the damage that it is causing to the climate. We think that it should be made compulsory for airlines to offset their carbon footprint by planting trees or contributing to a global fund to help those who are suffering most from the effects of climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of raising airline taxes. This would reduce the number of flights, and hence reduce the amount of CO2 emitted. However, we also recognised that this would disproportionately impact the poorest in society, as they would be less likely to be able to afford to travel. We therefore suggested that the tax should be raised, but that the revenue should be used to subsidise the cost of flights for the poorest in society. This would ensure that the poorest in society are still able to travel, but that the overall number of flights is reduced, and hence the amount of CO2 emitted is reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of raising airline taxes, but only if the tax revenue was used to invest in green energy initiatives, such as wind farms and solar panels, or to support developing countries in their transition to green energy. The group was also in favour of using the tax revenue to improve public transport in the UK, so that people could travel more easily by train. The group was in favour of using the tax revenue to improve public transport in the UK, so that people could travel more easily by train. The group was also in favour of using the tax revenue to improve public transport in the UK, so that people could travel more easily by train. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I believe we should raise airline taxes. This would offset an individual traveller's carbon footprint. The taxes could then be used in initiatives to offset a global carbon footprint in areas affected most by climate change. Airline travel causes a lot of CO2 emissions and hence contributes to climate change. Most short-haul airline travel is fairly unnecessary and could easily be replaced by (less emissions intense) train or high speed train travel. Raising airline taxes would make it more expensive to travel and only absolutely necessary airline travel would happen. On the other side it would just mostly impact poorer people more, as wealthy people can still afford to travel and even a higher tax would not deter them.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not raise airline taxes. The aviation industry has had a very tough year, and people are under a lot of financial pressure at the moment. Increasing airline taxes will just make it more expensive for people to travel, and this is not fair. We do think, however, that it is important to make the aviation industry aware of the damage that it is causing to the climate. We think that it should be made compulsory for airlines to offset their carbon footprint by planting trees or contributing to a global fund to help those who are suffering most from the effects of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of raising airline taxes. This would reduce the number of flights, and hence reduce the amount of CO2 emitted. However, we also recognised that this would disproportionately impact the poorest in society, as they would be less likely to be able to afford to travel. We therefore suggested that the tax should be raised, but that the revenue should be used to subsidise the cost of flights for the poorest in society. This would ensure that the poorest in society are still able to travel, but that the overall number of flights is reduced, and hence the amount of CO2 emitted is reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of raising airline taxes, but only if the tax revenue was used to invest in green energy initiatives, such as wind farms and solar panels, or to support developing countries in their transition to green energy. The group was also in favour of using the tax revenue to improve public transport in the UK, so that people could travel more easily by train. The group was in favour of using the tax revenue to improve public transport in the UK, so that people could travel more easily by train. The group was also in favour of using the tax revenue to improve public transport in the UK, so that people could travel more easily by train. 2: 2,4,1,3 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002300.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002300.soc index 4f6ee39b..eb81bdbe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002300.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002300.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. We all agreed that they are harmful to health and cause many health issues, both mental and physical, in society. We also agreed that many people have become addicted to them and have been smoking and drinking since a young age. Raising taxes may help to reduce the amount of young people smoking and drinking, which could prevent them from becoming addicted. We were also in favour of raising taxes because we felt it would be fair to those who do not drink or smoke as they do not suffer the same health problems and should not have to pay the same amount. We felt that the extra taxes should be spent on programmes to help people to stop smoking and drinking. However, we did not think that the taxes should be raised by a huge amount as we thought that this could lead to an increase in black markets and could also mean that people with addictions to alcohol and cigarettes would need more money to purchase them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be a small increase in the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because they cost society a lot of money in healthcare and policing. We believe that these extra taxes should be spent on programmes to encourage people to stop smoking and to drink less. We think that this idea could be an issue as there are other things, such as unhealthy food, that also cost the NHS money and taxing these may punish certain groups in society, especially those who live in areas with poor quality food shops. However, we think that the price of alcohol and cigarettes should be raised slightly but not too much. This is because we think that it would put people off buying them. They're both drugs that do damage to the human body so we believe that it should be thought about before you buy them, and making them more expensive would do this. However, we can also see the down-sides to increasing the taxes on them such as people with addictions would need more money to purchase them and in turn could put them in an even worse financial state. It could also cause a rise in underground black markets where they are sold for cheaper, illegally. This would mean that they're not guaranteed to be safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because they cost society a lot of money in healthcare and policing. We believe that these extra taxes should be spent on programmes to encourage people to stop smoking and to drink less. We think that this idea could be an issue as there are other things, such as unhealthy food, that also cost the NHS money and taxing these may punish certain groups in society, especially those who live in areas with poor quality food shops. However, we think that the price of alcohol and cigarettes should be raised slightly but not too much. This is because we think that it would put people off buying them. They're both drugs that do damage to the human body so we believe that it should be thought about before you buy them, and making them more expensive would do this. However, we can also see the down-sides to increasing the taxes on them such as people with addictions would need more money to purchase them and in turn could put them in an even worse financial state. It could also cause a rise in underground black markets where they are sold for cheaper, illegally. This would mean that they're not guaranteed to be safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, we are in favour of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. We believe that they are harmful substances that cost the NHS a lot of money to treat the health problems caused by them. However, it is important to note that a rise in taxes would need to be carefully considered. We believe that the rise in taxes should be proportionate to the cost of healthcare associated with these substances and should not be so high that it creates an unaffordable barrier to those who need help to quit. The money raised by the tax increase should be used to help people quit and should not be used for any other purpose. We also believe that the rise in taxes should be combined with other methods to help people quit, such as education in schools and advertising campaigns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. We all agreed that they are harmful to health and cause many health issues, both mental and physical, in society. We also agreed that many people have become addicted to them and have been smoking and drinking since a young age. Raising taxes may help to reduce the amount of young people smoking and drinking, which could prevent them from becoming addicted. We were also in favour of raising taxes because we felt it would be fair to those who do not drink or smoke as they do not suffer the same health problems and should not have to pay the same amount. We felt that the extra taxes should be spent on programmes to help people to stop smoking and drinking. However, we did not think that the taxes should be raised by a huge amount as we thought that this could lead to an increase in black markets and could also mean that people with addictions to alcohol and cigarettes would need more money to purchase them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be a small increase in the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because they cost society a lot of money in healthcare and policing. We believe that these extra taxes should be spent on programmes to encourage people to stop smoking and to drink less. We think that this idea could be an issue as there are other things, such as unhealthy food, that also cost the NHS money and taxing these may punish certain groups in society, especially those who live in areas with poor quality food shops. However, we think that the price of alcohol and cigarettes should be raised slightly but not too much. This is because we think that it would put people off buying them. They're both drugs that do damage to the human body so we believe that it should be thought about before you buy them, and making them more expensive would do this. However, we can also see the down-sides to increasing the taxes on them such as people with addictions would need more money to purchase them and in turn could put them in an even worse financial state. It could also cause a rise in underground black markets where they are sold for cheaper, illegally. This would mean that they're not guaranteed to be safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should raise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. This is because they cost society a lot of money in healthcare and policing. We believe that these extra taxes should be spent on programmes to encourage people to stop smoking and to drink less. We think that this idea could be an issue as there are other things, such as unhealthy food, that also cost the NHS money and taxing these may punish certain groups in society, especially those who live in areas with poor quality food shops. However, we think that the price of alcohol and cigarettes should be raised slightly but not too much. This is because we think that it would put people off buying them. They're both drugs that do damage to the human body so we believe that it should be thought about before you buy them, and making them more expensive would do this. However, we can also see the down-sides to increasing the taxes on them such as people with addictions would need more money to purchase them and in turn could put them in an even worse financial state. It could also cause a rise in underground black markets where they are sold for cheaper, illegally. This would mean that they're not guaranteed to be safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, we are in favour of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. We believe that they are harmful substances that cost the NHS a lot of money to treat the health problems caused by them. However, it is important to note that a rise in taxes would need to be carefully considered. We believe that the rise in taxes should be proportionate to the cost of healthcare associated with these substances and should not be so high that it creates an unaffordable barrier to those who need help to quit. The money raised by the tax increase should be used to help people quit and should not be used for any other purpose. We also believe that the rise in taxes should be combined with other methods to help people quit, such as education in schools and advertising campaigns. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002301.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002301.soc index 830f7f21..075d5d0f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002301.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002301.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although each participant had different opinions on the question, and each of the opinions expressed represented a valid argument, the group of participants agreed that a dog is a better companion than a cat. The group of participants came to this conclusion by looking at the facts that both cats and dogs are capable of being meaningful companions, however, dogs are more outwardly loving and affectionate, and will be more likely to latch onto a human and trust them. It was also argued that dogs are more likely to stick by their owner's side, as seen by the many cases of dogs staying with dying owners, or getting lost in earth disasters. This leads to the idea that dogs need humans more than cats do, and as such, are more likely to form a meaningful bond. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, dogs are a better companion than cats. This is because dogs are more social and friendly than cats and are more likely to become attached to their owner. Dogs are also more willing to fit in with the lifestyle of their owner whereas cats tend to be more independent. Cats are also more likely to go off and do their own thing whereas dogs will be more likely to stick with their owner. Dogs are also more likely to protect their owner than cats. However, some cats can also make good companions, especially if they are more social and friendly than the average cat. This is because cats can also become attached to their owner and will also fit in with their lifestyle. They are also less likely to go off and do their own thing. Dogs are generally seen as the better companion though because they are more likely to be social and friendly and are more likely to stick with their owner. This means that they are also more likely to protect their owner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Dogs and cats can both be wonderful companions. In general, dogs tend to be more outgoing and affectionate than cats. However, this is not always the case. Both dogs and cats are very intelligent animals, and they can be trained to perform a variety of different tasks. The choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. It is also important to note that there are many different breeds of dogs and cats, and each breed will have its own unique characteristics. For example, some dogs are very friendly and outgoing, while others are more reserved. Some cats are very affectionate and like to be held and petted, while others prefer to be left alone. In conclusion, the choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is no way to determine whether a dog or a cat is a better companion. Both animals can be wonderful companions, and each person will have their own opinion on which is better. The choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. It is also important to note that there are many different breeds of dogs and cats, and each breed will have its own unique characteristics. For example, some dogs are very friendly and outgoing, while others are more reserved. Some cats are very affectionate and like to be held and petted, while others prefer to be left alone. In general, dogs tend to be more outgoing and affectionate than cats, but this is not always the case. In conclusion, the choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although each participant had different opinions on the question, and each of the opinions expressed represented a valid argument, the group of participants agreed that a dog is a better companion than a cat. The group of participants came to this conclusion by looking at the facts that both cats and dogs are capable of being meaningful companions, however, dogs are more outwardly loving and affectionate, and will be more likely to latch onto a human and trust them. It was also argued that dogs are more likely to stick by their owner's side, as seen by the many cases of dogs staying with dying owners, or getting lost in earth disasters. This leads to the idea that dogs need humans more than cats do, and as such, are more likely to form a meaningful bond. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, dogs are a better companion than cats. This is because dogs are more social and friendly than cats and are more likely to become attached to their owner. Dogs are also more willing to fit in with the lifestyle of their owner whereas cats tend to be more independent. Cats are also more likely to go off and do their own thing whereas dogs will be more likely to stick with their owner. Dogs are also more likely to protect their owner than cats. However, some cats can also make good companions, especially if they are more social and friendly than the average cat. This is because cats can also become attached to their owner and will also fit in with their lifestyle. They are also less likely to go off and do their own thing. Dogs are generally seen as the better companion though because they are more likely to be social and friendly and are more likely to stick with their owner. This means that they are also more likely to protect their owner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Dogs and cats can both be wonderful companions. In general, dogs tend to be more outgoing and affectionate than cats. However, this is not always the case. Both dogs and cats are very intelligent animals, and they can be trained to perform a variety of different tasks. The choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. It is also important to note that there are many different breeds of dogs and cats, and each breed will have its own unique characteristics. For example, some dogs are very friendly and outgoing, while others are more reserved. Some cats are very affectionate and like to be held and petted, while others prefer to be left alone. In conclusion, the choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is no way to determine whether a dog or a cat is a better companion. Both animals can be wonderful companions, and each person will have their own opinion on which is better. The choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. It is also important to note that there are many different breeds of dogs and cats, and each breed will have its own unique characteristics. For example, some dogs are very friendly and outgoing, while others are more reserved. Some cats are very affectionate and like to be held and petted, while others prefer to be left alone. In general, dogs tend to be more outgoing and affectionate than cats, but this is not always the case. In conclusion, the choice of whether to have a cat or a dog as a pet is a very personal one, and the choice will depend on the lifestyle and personality of the person making the choice. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002302.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002302.soc index f914eaf7..fbacfba7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002302.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002302.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should encourage people to go into higher education. This is because we can see that people who have a degree earn more than people who don't. We can also see that a more educated workforce leads to a more skilled workforce, which earns more, and therefore pays more tax. This is good for the country. However, there are some downsides. For example, there is a lot of pressure on young people to go into higher education, and many people who go into higher education end up in a lot of debt. Also, not all degrees are equally good. Some lead to well-paid jobs, but others lead to low-paid jobs. Therefore, the government should make it easier for people to go into higher education, but should also make it clear that it is not for everyone. It should also make sure that it does not put too much pressure on young people to go into higher education, and that it does not make it seem like the only option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should encourage people to go into higher education, but not solely. The government should also promote vocational training and apprenticeships as these can be just as beneficial to the individual and the country as a whole. The government should also ensure that there is an adequate support network in place for people that do go into higher education. This can include financial support, but also support networks for mental health and wellbeing. The government should also ensure that there is a wide variety of higher education courses available, so that people can find the course that is right for them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should encourage people to go into higher education, but not solely. The government should also promote vocational training and apprenticeships as these can be just as beneficial to the individual and the country as a whole. The government should also ensure that there is an adequate support network in place for people that do go into higher education. This can include financial support, but also support networks for mental health and wellbeing. The government should also ensure that there is a wide variety of higher education courses available, so that people can find the course that is right for them. Conclusion: All participants felt that the final consensus statement was a good representation of the overall views of the group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not solely encourage people to go into higher education. Whilst higher education can be a great opportunity to learn new skills and can be key in landing certain jobs it also comes with downsides like the large amounts of debt you rack up. For many people alternatives like apprenticeships where they can learn practical skills on the job and start earning straight out of college are the better option. It should be the governments job to present the full spectrum of post GCSE and A-level options so that individuals can choose the option which fits them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should encourage people to go into higher education. This is because we can see that people who have a degree earn more than people who don't. We can also see that a more educated workforce leads to a more skilled workforce, which earns more, and therefore pays more tax. This is good for the country. However, there are some downsides. For example, there is a lot of pressure on young people to go into higher education, and many people who go into higher education end up in a lot of debt. Also, not all degrees are equally good. Some lead to well-paid jobs, but others lead to low-paid jobs. Therefore, the government should make it easier for people to go into higher education, but should also make it clear that it is not for everyone. It should also make sure that it does not put too much pressure on young people to go into higher education, and that it does not make it seem like the only option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should encourage people to go into higher education, but not solely. The government should also promote vocational training and apprenticeships as these can be just as beneficial to the individual and the country as a whole. The government should also ensure that there is an adequate support network in place for people that do go into higher education. This can include financial support, but also support networks for mental health and wellbeing. The government should also ensure that there is a wide variety of higher education courses available, so that people can find the course that is right for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should encourage people to go into higher education, but not solely. The government should also promote vocational training and apprenticeships as these can be just as beneficial to the individual and the country as a whole. The government should also ensure that there is an adequate support network in place for people that do go into higher education. This can include financial support, but also support networks for mental health and wellbeing. The government should also ensure that there is a wide variety of higher education courses available, so that people can find the course that is right for them. Conclusion: All participants felt that the final consensus statement was a good representation of the overall views of the group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not solely encourage people to go into higher education. Whilst higher education can be a great opportunity to learn new skills and can be key in landing certain jobs it also comes with downsides like the large amounts of debt you rack up. For many people alternatives like apprenticeships where they can learn practical skills on the job and start earning straight out of college are the better option. It should be the governments job to present the full spectrum of post GCSE and A-level options so that individuals can choose the option which fits them. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002303.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002303.soc index 3ab750c5..ea1aca7f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002303.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002303.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should move to a different system of democratic voting. The current system is not working effectively and is not allowing for a true democratic process. The current system is also not allowing for the political change that is needed. The current system also favours the establishment and makes it difficult to have political change. We should move to a system of proportional representation to ensure that the vote cast by every member of the public counts and will have a direct impact on the share of seats that each party gets. This is fairer and accurately represents the will of the British people as a whole. It would also encourage people to vote as they would know that their vote is not being wasted if, for example, they were in a seat that was traditionally dominated by one particular political party. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the current system of voting in the UK is not working effectively. It does not allow for a true democratic process and does not reflect the will of the people. It favours the two main political parties and makes it difficult for other political parties to gain power. The current system does not allow for political change and this is holding the UK's democracy back. However, it is difficult to say whether we should move to a different system of democratic voting without knowing what other mechanism is being proposed. The current system has some advantages and it is not clear that a different system would be better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the current system of voting is not working effectively and should be changed. The current system favours the establishment and makes it difficult to have political change. It is extremely difficult for a different political party to gain power with the current system and this is holding the UK's democracy back. We should move to a different system of democratic voting, such as proportional representation, to ensure that the vote cast by every member of the public counts and will have a direct impact on the share of seats that each party gets. This is fairer and accurately represents the will of the British people as a whole. It would also encourage people to vote as they would know that their vote is not being wasted if, for example, they were in a seat that was traditionally dominated by one particular political party. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the current system of voting in the UK is not working effectively. There is a need to move to a different system of democratic voting. We think that the current system favours the establishment and makes it difficult to have political change. We do not think the current system allows for a true democratic process and protects the two main political parties, in particular, the Conservatives. It is extremely difficult for a different political party to gain power with the current system and we think that is holding the UK's democracy back. We think that proportional representation would be a fairer system that would allow the votes of the British people to be accurately represented in the share of seats that each party gets. This would encourage people to vote as they would know that their vote is not being wasted if, for example, they were in a seat that was traditionally dominated by one particular political party. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should move to a different system of democratic voting. The current system is not working effectively and is not allowing for a true democratic process. The current system is also not allowing for the political change that is needed. The current system also favours the establishment and makes it difficult to have political change. We should move to a system of proportional representation to ensure that the vote cast by every member of the public counts and will have a direct impact on the share of seats that each party gets. This is fairer and accurately represents the will of the British people as a whole. It would also encourage people to vote as they would know that their vote is not being wasted if, for example, they were in a seat that was traditionally dominated by one particular political party. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the current system of voting in the UK is not working effectively. It does not allow for a true democratic process and does not reflect the will of the people. It favours the two main political parties and makes it difficult for other political parties to gain power. The current system does not allow for political change and this is holding the UK's democracy back. However, it is difficult to say whether we should move to a different system of democratic voting without knowing what other mechanism is being proposed. The current system has some advantages and it is not clear that a different system would be better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the current system of voting is not working effectively and should be changed. The current system favours the establishment and makes it difficult to have political change. It is extremely difficult for a different political party to gain power with the current system and this is holding the UK's democracy back. We should move to a different system of democratic voting, such as proportional representation, to ensure that the vote cast by every member of the public counts and will have a direct impact on the share of seats that each party gets. This is fairer and accurately represents the will of the British people as a whole. It would also encourage people to vote as they would know that their vote is not being wasted if, for example, they were in a seat that was traditionally dominated by one particular political party. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the current system of voting in the UK is not working effectively. There is a need to move to a different system of democratic voting. We think that the current system favours the establishment and makes it difficult to have political change. We do not think the current system allows for a true democratic process and protects the two main political parties, in particular, the Conservatives. It is extremely difficult for a different political party to gain power with the current system and we think that is holding the UK's democracy back. We think that proportional representation would be a fairer system that would allow the votes of the British people to be accurately represented in the share of seats that each party gets. This would encourage people to vote as they would know that their vote is not being wasted if, for example, they were in a seat that was traditionally dominated by one particular political party. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002304.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002304.soc index 94a5a3ab..57f167bc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002304.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002304.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. However, it is important to be aware of the risks of not wearing a face mask, especially in the context of a pandemic. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice, and not something that is forced upon people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, they may be recommended for those who are experiencing symptoms of a respiratory illness, such as a cold or the flu, and for healthcare workers. The wearing of face masks may also be recommended during a pandemic, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, to help reduce the spread of the virus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be required, however, if people feel more comfortable wearing one then they should be allowed to do so and should not be discriminated against for doing so. This is particularly important during times of high infection rates of airborne diseases such as COVID-19. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. However, it is important to be aware of the risks of not wearing a face mask, especially in the context of a pandemic. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice, and not something that is forced upon people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. However, they may be recommended for those who are experiencing symptoms of a respiratory illness, such as a cold or the flu, and for healthcare workers. The wearing of face masks may also be recommended during a pandemic, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, to help reduce the spread of the virus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be required, however, if people feel more comfortable wearing one then they should be allowed to do so and should not be discriminated against for doing so. This is particularly important during times of high infection rates of airborne diseases such as COVID-19. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002305.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002305.soc index 2e77cf82..526f8fea 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002305.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002305.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not something that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks should be something that is only recommended to those who are experiencing symptoms of an infectious respiratory illness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. It is very important to not discriminate against people who wear face masks and it is also important to not force people to wear face masks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. This is because it is very difficult to enforce such a measure, it is not clear how effective they are at preventing the spread of germs and viruses, and because it is a very personal choice whether to wear one or not. However, it is important to note that during a time of pandemic, where the spread of a deadly virus is a concern, then it may be necessary to make the wearing of face masks mandatory in public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not something that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks should be something that is only recommended to those who are experiencing symptoms of an infectious respiratory illness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. It is very important to not discriminate against people who wear face masks and it is also important to not force people to wear face masks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be required to wear face masks when in public. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. The wearing of face masks should be a personal choice and not one that is forced upon people. The wearing of face masks can be beneficial to some people, however, this should not be forced upon those who do not wish to wear one. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the wearing of face masks in public should not be mandatory. This is because it is very difficult to enforce such a measure, it is not clear how effective they are at preventing the spread of germs and viruses, and because it is a very personal choice whether to wear one or not. However, it is important to note that during a time of pandemic, where the spread of a deadly virus is a concern, then it may be necessary to make the wearing of face masks mandatory in public. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002306.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002306.soc index 63415619..7bb9cfe4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002306.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002306.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to raising airline taxes. The main reasons for this were that it would be unfair to make poorer people pay more to travel, and that it would also hurt the aviation industry, which is a major employer in the UK. However, the group did agree that airline travel is a major contributor to climate change, and that the issue of climate change needs to be addressed. The group suggested that the government could use the revenue from airline taxes to invest in renewable energy and other green initiatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe we should raise airline taxes. This would offset an individual traveller's carbon footprint. The taxes could then be used in initiatives to offset a global carbon footprint in areas affected most by climate change. Airline travel causes a lot of CO2 emissions and hence contributes to climate change. Most short-haul airline travel is fairly unnecessary and could easily be replaced by (less emissions intense) train or high speed train travel. Raising airline taxes would make it more expensive to travel and only absolutely necessary airline travel would happen. On the other side it would just mostly impact poorer people more, as wealthy people can still afford to travel and even a higher tax would not deter them. This is an issue we need to take into consideration. In addition to raising taxes, government subsidies should be used to improve train travel and make it an affordable and accessible option for people who want to travel the world, but don't want to contribute to climate change.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe we should raise airline taxes. This would offset an individual traveller's carbon footprint. The taxes could then be used in initiatives to offset a global carbon footprint in areas affected most by climate change. Airline travel causes a lot of CO2 emissions and hence contributes to climate change. Most short-haul airline travel is fairly unnecessary and could easily be replaced by (less emissions intense) train or high speed train travel. Raising airline taxes would make it more expensive to travel and only absolutely necessary airline travel would happen. On the other side it would just mostly impact poorer people more, as wealthy people can still afford to travel and even a higher tax would not deter them. However, I do think that we need to improve train travel for longer trips and the improvement of train travel could reduce the number of people who have no choice but to travel by plane. There are also many other things that could be done to mitigate climate change and offset a traveller's carbon footprint, and taxes should be used to help the environment in other ways also.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that increasing airline taxes would reduce the number of flights and the amount of carbon emissions, but this would have a negative impact on people's quality of life, as people would be less able to travel and see family and friends. It would also affect the aviation industry negatively, as people would not be able to afford to travel by plane, and thus flights would be cancelled. We also believe that it would be unfair to increase airline taxes, as this would mostly affect poorer people, who are already under a lot of financial pressure. We think that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to invest in new technologies, such as electric planes, so that people can still travel and enjoy themselves, but with less impact on the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to raising airline taxes. The main reasons for this were that it would be unfair to make poorer people pay more to travel, and that it would also hurt the aviation industry, which is a major employer in the UK. However, the group did agree that airline travel is a major contributor to climate change, and that the issue of climate change needs to be addressed. The group suggested that the government could use the revenue from airline taxes to invest in renewable energy and other green initiatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe we should raise airline taxes. This would offset an individual traveller's carbon footprint. The taxes could then be used in initiatives to offset a global carbon footprint in areas affected most by climate change. Airline travel causes a lot of CO2 emissions and hence contributes to climate change. Most short-haul airline travel is fairly unnecessary and could easily be replaced by (less emissions intense) train or high speed train travel. Raising airline taxes would make it more expensive to travel and only absolutely necessary airline travel would happen. On the other side it would just mostly impact poorer people more, as wealthy people can still afford to travel and even a higher tax would not deter them. This is an issue we need to take into consideration. In addition to raising taxes, government subsidies should be used to improve train travel and make it an affordable and accessible option for people who want to travel the world, but don't want to contribute to climate change.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe we should raise airline taxes. This would offset an individual traveller's carbon footprint. The taxes could then be used in initiatives to offset a global carbon footprint in areas affected most by climate change. Airline travel causes a lot of CO2 emissions and hence contributes to climate change. Most short-haul airline travel is fairly unnecessary and could easily be replaced by (less emissions intense) train or high speed train travel. Raising airline taxes would make it more expensive to travel and only absolutely necessary airline travel would happen. On the other side it would just mostly impact poorer people more, as wealthy people can still afford to travel and even a higher tax would not deter them. However, I do think that we need to improve train travel for longer trips and the improvement of train travel could reduce the number of people who have no choice but to travel by plane. There are also many other things that could be done to mitigate climate change and offset a traveller's carbon footprint, and taxes should be used to help the environment in other ways also.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that increasing airline taxes would reduce the number of flights and the amount of carbon emissions, but this would have a negative impact on people's quality of life, as people would be less able to travel and see family and friends. It would also affect the aviation industry negatively, as people would not be able to afford to travel by plane, and thus flights would be cancelled. We also believe that it would be unfair to increase airline taxes, as this would mostly affect poorer people, who are already under a lot of financial pressure. We think that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to invest in new technologies, such as electric planes, so that people can still travel and enjoy themselves, but with less impact on the environment. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002307.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002307.soc index 81007941..af82f78b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002307.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002307.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. The UK has a moral obligation to set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 to help avoid a global catastrophe and to set an example to other countries. The UK has a history of being a leader in this area and should continue to do so.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral (reach net zero) by 2050. The evidence that vastly increased carbon emissions are responsible for altering the climate of the planet is incontrovertible. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. The significant cost to the taxpayer and an excessive financial burden on industries and businesses leading to lower competitiveness. Prioritizing a carbon neutral policy would divert resources from other pressing issues. The goal of the government in making this a priority by 2050 will filter down to citizens and create an urgency that is not currently there and prompt swift policy change in respect of achievable ways we can reduce our emissions at home, in the workplace and in our environment as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. While the goal of the government in making this a priority by 2050 will filter down to citizens and create an urgency that is not currently there and prompt swift policy change in respect of achievable ways we can reduce our emissions at home, in the workplace and in our environment as a whole. My only concern would be the viability of net zero by 2050 and whether this is reasonable or achievable and whether rushing policy or enacting it would not be fully thought through or for a benefit. However, the cost to the taxpayer and an excessive financial burden on industries and businesses leading to lower competitiveness. Prioritizing a carbon neutral policy would divert resources from other pressing issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. There is overwhelming evidence that increased carbon emissions are causing a change in the climate of the planet and that this change is having a significant impact on the world we live in. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. The UK has a moral obligation to set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 to help avoid a global catastrophe and to set an example to other countries. The UK has a history of being a leader in this area and should continue to do so.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral (reach net zero) by 2050. The evidence that vastly increased carbon emissions are responsible for altering the climate of the planet is incontrovertible. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. The significant cost to the taxpayer and an excessive financial burden on industries and businesses leading to lower competitiveness. Prioritizing a carbon neutral policy would divert resources from other pressing issues. The goal of the government in making this a priority by 2050 will filter down to citizens and create an urgency that is not currently there and prompt swift policy change in respect of achievable ways we can reduce our emissions at home, in the workplace and in our environment as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. While the goal of the government in making this a priority by 2050 will filter down to citizens and create an urgency that is not currently there and prompt swift policy change in respect of achievable ways we can reduce our emissions at home, in the workplace and in our environment as a whole. My only concern would be the viability of net zero by 2050 and whether this is reasonable or achievable and whether rushing policy or enacting it would not be fully thought through or for a benefit. However, the cost to the taxpayer and an excessive financial burden on industries and businesses leading to lower competitiveness. Prioritizing a carbon neutral policy would divert resources from other pressing issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. There is overwhelming evidence that increased carbon emissions are causing a change in the climate of the planet and that this change is having a significant impact on the world we live in. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002308.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002308.soc index b2d5f20e..1fad0e26 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002308.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002308.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA. The USA has always been a world leader in many areas and we have copied a lot of their laws and ways of thinking. We are also very similar to the USA in terms of the political spectrum. The UK and the USA have both become more right wing in recent years. We have also copied a lot of their entertainment and TV shows. However, there are still some key differences between the two countries. For example, the UK has the NHS and the USA does not. We also have much stricter gun laws. Therefore, we are becoming more like the USA but we are not identical. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are some similarities between the UK and the USA but they are still very different countries. There are some areas where the UK is becoming more like the USA, such as with the influence of social media and in the way that people express their views and opinions. However, there are also many areas where the UK is very different from the USA, such as in the way that the UK has a National Health Service and in the way that the UK has stricter gun laws. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK has always been very different to the USA and I don't think this is changing. We have a different history, different culture and different values. However, there are some areas where we are becoming more similar. We are becoming more politically polarised, with the two main parties moving further apart. This is similar to what has happened in the USA. We are also becoming more divided by class, with the gap between rich and poor growing. The pandemic has highlighted these divisions. However, there are many ways in which we are very different. We have a different healthcare system, different gun laws and different attitudes to many social issues. We are also a multicultural society, with many different ethnic groups living here. This is very different to the USA. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are some similarities between the UK and the USA. In terms of the political system, both countries have moved further to the right and there have been outside influences on the government in both countries. In terms of discrimination, both countries have a similar attitude towards this. In terms of the legal system, there have been some imports from the USA, such as the litigation tidal wave. The UK has also been importing TV programmes from the USA. However, the UK has better control of the country with much safer gun laws and free healthcare that doesn't make the entire population poor. The UK has also left the EU, which is a difference from the USA. The UK is also not as religious as the USA. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK is becoming more like the USA. The USA has always been a world leader in many areas and we have copied a lot of their laws and ways of thinking. We are also very similar to the USA in terms of the political spectrum. The UK and the USA have both become more right wing in recent years. We have also copied a lot of their entertainment and TV shows. However, there are still some key differences between the two countries. For example, the UK has the NHS and the USA does not. We also have much stricter gun laws. Therefore, we are becoming more like the USA but we are not identical. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are some similarities between the UK and the USA but they are still very different countries. There are some areas where the UK is becoming more like the USA, such as with the influence of social media and in the way that people express their views and opinions. However, there are also many areas where the UK is very different from the USA, such as in the way that the UK has a National Health Service and in the way that the UK has stricter gun laws. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK has always been very different to the USA and I don't think this is changing. We have a different history, different culture and different values. However, there are some areas where we are becoming more similar. We are becoming more politically polarised, with the two main parties moving further apart. This is similar to what has happened in the USA. We are also becoming more divided by class, with the gap between rich and poor growing. The pandemic has highlighted these divisions. However, there are many ways in which we are very different. We have a different healthcare system, different gun laws and different attitudes to many social issues. We are also a multicultural society, with many different ethnic groups living here. This is very different to the USA. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are some similarities between the UK and the USA. In terms of the political system, both countries have moved further to the right and there have been outside influences on the government in both countries. In terms of discrimination, both countries have a similar attitude towards this. In terms of the legal system, there have been some imports from the USA, such as the litigation tidal wave. The UK has also been importing TV programmes from the USA. However, the UK has better control of the country with much safer gun laws and free healthcare that doesn't make the entire population poor. The UK has also left the EU, which is a difference from the USA. The UK is also not as religious as the USA. 2: 3,4,1,2 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002309.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002309.soc index 43377c35..21d5dbb9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002309.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002309.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. The UK has a moral obligation to set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 to help avoid a global catastrophe and to set an example to other countries. The UK has a history of being a leader in this area and should continue to do so. Although it is still not clear whether the UK can actually reach carbon neutrality by 2050, it is still worth setting this ambitious target in order to act as a catalyst for a global effort to fight the climate emergency. The consequences of not doing so are too dire to consider, so all efforts should be made to reach this goal, even if it requires international cooperation to share and develop the necessary technologies.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. We have a moral responsibility to reduce our carbon emissions and prevent the catastrophic consequences of climate change. The UK is a world leader and should set an example to other countries to follow. While it is important to reduce our carbon emissions as soon as possible, we should not rush into decisions that are not fully thought through. The government should therefore set a goal of being carbon neutral by 2050, but not a legal requirement to do so. A legal requirement would only be beneficial if there were plans to support businesses and individuals to be able to reach the goal. There are many ways to reach carbon neutrality, including increasing the use of renewable energy, increasing the use of public transport, creating more green spaces and reducing the amount of waste we produce. The government should provide support to individuals and businesses to help them reduce their carbon emissions. The benefits of being carbon neutral would be a healthier environment for everyone, and a more sustainable future for generations to come. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, I do believe the UK should be carbon neutral by 2050. There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is caused by humans and that this is having catastrophic impacts on the planet and its wildlife. It is also having a significant impact on people's lives, particularly in countries that are less developed and/or less able to adapt to climate change. Climate change is a global problem and will require a global solution, however, it is important for the UK to set an example and lead the way in showing how countries can become carbon neutral. The UK has a lot of experience in this area, having had a lot of success in reducing carbon emissions over the last 30 years. The UK has a lot of expertise in this area and can use this to help other countries to follow suit. This is also an opportunity for the UK to create new jobs and industries in low carbon technologies, which will help to drive economic growth. The UK should be a world leader in this area and lead the way in helping to solve the climate crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. The UK has a moral obligation to set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 to help avoid a global catastrophe and to set an example to other countries. The UK has a history of being a leader in this area and should continue to do so. This goal is very ambitious, but achievable. The government should provide a roadmap to achieving this goal, which will help citizens and businesses in planning for a low-carbon future and prepare for any policy changes that may be enacted in the future.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. The UK has a moral obligation to set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 to help avoid a global catastrophe and to set an example to other countries. The UK has a history of being a leader in this area and should continue to do so. Although it is still not clear whether the UK can actually reach carbon neutrality by 2050, it is still worth setting this ambitious target in order to act as a catalyst for a global effort to fight the climate emergency. The consequences of not doing so are too dire to consider, so all efforts should be made to reach this goal, even if it requires international cooperation to share and develop the necessary technologies.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. We have a moral responsibility to reduce our carbon emissions and prevent the catastrophic consequences of climate change. The UK is a world leader and should set an example to other countries to follow. While it is important to reduce our carbon emissions as soon as possible, we should not rush into decisions that are not fully thought through. The government should therefore set a goal of being carbon neutral by 2050, but not a legal requirement to do so. A legal requirement would only be beneficial if there were plans to support businesses and individuals to be able to reach the goal. There are many ways to reach carbon neutrality, including increasing the use of renewable energy, increasing the use of public transport, creating more green spaces and reducing the amount of waste we produce. The government should provide support to individuals and businesses to help them reduce their carbon emissions. The benefits of being carbon neutral would be a healthier environment for everyone, and a more sustainable future for generations to come. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, I do believe the UK should be carbon neutral by 2050. There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is caused by humans and that this is having catastrophic impacts on the planet and its wildlife. It is also having a significant impact on people's lives, particularly in countries that are less developed and/or less able to adapt to climate change. Climate change is a global problem and will require a global solution, however, it is important for the UK to set an example and lead the way in showing how countries can become carbon neutral. The UK has a lot of experience in this area, having had a lot of success in reducing carbon emissions over the last 30 years. The UK has a lot of expertise in this area and can use this to help other countries to follow suit. This is also an opportunity for the UK to create new jobs and industries in low carbon technologies, which will help to drive economic growth. The UK should be a world leader in this area and lead the way in helping to solve the climate crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The climate emergency is becoming increasingly evident through the increasing numbers of global weather phenomena such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and ice cap loss. The knock-on effects to wildlife all over the planet is already disastrous and will only get worse should drastic action not be taken. While there are many actions that individuals can take, it is ultimately up to governments and cooperation between nations to work cooperatively towards this goal to avoid a global catastrophe. The UK has a moral obligation to set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 to help avoid a global catastrophe and to set an example to other countries. The UK has a history of being a leader in this area and should continue to do so. This goal is very ambitious, but achievable. The government should provide a roadmap to achieving this goal, which will help citizens and businesses in planning for a low-carbon future and prepare for any policy changes that may be enacted in the future.” 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002310.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002310.soc index 4ebed14a..fad2432f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002310.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002310.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The price of prescription drugs should be capped. This is because it is important that people are able to afford the drugs that they need. This is especially important for drugs that people need to take on a regular basis. However, it is important to note that the price of drugs is often high because of the cost of research and development, and the cost of production. This means that it is important to find a balance between making drugs affordable and making sure that pharmaceutical companies can still make a profit. This is because if pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit, then they will not be able to invest in the research and development of new drugs. This would be detrimental to the health of people in the future.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The price of prescription drugs should be capped. This is because the price of prescription drugs is becoming more and more expensive. This means that the people who need them are priced out of being able to afford them. This is especially true for drugs which are needed on a daily basis, such as insulin for diabetic people. If the price of these drugs was capped, then it would mean that people would not be priced out of being able to afford the drugs that they need. However, the price of prescription drugs is dependent on the supply and demand of said drugs and the price of some drugs may fluctuate more than others. Therefore, the price of some drugs may need to be capped more than others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The price of prescription drugs should be capped. There are many people who rely on prescription drugs to keep themselves alive, and they should not be priced out of the drugs that they need. This is especially true for people with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes. There are many people who cannot afford to buy insulin, and this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. The price of prescription drugs is getting more and more expensive, and the price needs to be capped to make sure that everyone can afford the drugs that they need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the price of prescription drugs should be capped, as many people rely on them for their welfare and they are becoming increasingly unaffordable. However, there are some drugs which are very expensive to produce and which may require a very high price to make a profit from. Therefore, the price of these drugs should not be capped, but the price of other drugs should be capped to make them more affordable for people who rely on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The price of prescription drugs should be capped. This is because it is important that people are able to afford the drugs that they need. This is especially important for drugs that people need to take on a regular basis. However, it is important to note that the price of drugs is often high because of the cost of research and development, and the cost of production. This means that it is important to find a balance between making drugs affordable and making sure that pharmaceutical companies can still make a profit. This is because if pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit, then they will not be able to invest in the research and development of new drugs. This would be detrimental to the health of people in the future.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The price of prescription drugs should be capped. This is because the price of prescription drugs is becoming more and more expensive. This means that the people who need them are priced out of being able to afford them. This is especially true for drugs which are needed on a daily basis, such as insulin for diabetic people. If the price of these drugs was capped, then it would mean that people would not be priced out of being able to afford the drugs that they need. However, the price of prescription drugs is dependent on the supply and demand of said drugs and the price of some drugs may fluctuate more than others. Therefore, the price of some drugs may need to be capped more than others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The price of prescription drugs should be capped. There are many people who rely on prescription drugs to keep themselves alive, and they should not be priced out of the drugs that they need. This is especially true for people with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes. There are many people who cannot afford to buy insulin, and this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. The price of prescription drugs is getting more and more expensive, and the price needs to be capped to make sure that everyone can afford the drugs that they need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the price of prescription drugs should be capped, as many people rely on them for their welfare and they are becoming increasingly unaffordable. However, there are some drugs which are very expensive to produce and which may require a very high price to make a profit from. Therefore, the price of these drugs should not be capped, but the price of other drugs should be capped to make them more affordable for people who rely on them. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002311.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002311.soc index 81d656fc..fd00587e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002311.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002311.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, there should be a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. This is to prevent complacency, and the danger of a prime minister amassing too much power and moving the country away from democracy. It is also to allow for the regular injection of new ideas and policies, and to allow for a change in direction if the country is moving in the wrong direction. However, if the party in power is continually winning elections, and the party continues to have confidence in the prime minister, then it would be undemocratic to force him out simply due to him serving too many consecutive terms. The Head of State (the King) provides oversight, and is capable of stepping in if the PM amasses too much power. New ideas can be brought in by reshuffling the cabinet at regular intervals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. The general view was that it would be undemocratic to allow one person to stay in power for too long. The group also felt that it would be good to have fresh ideas and perspectives brought into government. The group felt that the current system of democracy in the UK is good and should be maintained. The group also felt that the current system of having the monarch as head of state was good, as it meant that the monarch could step in and dissolve parliament if it was felt that the prime minister was abusing his/her power. The group felt that it would be good to have regular elections to keep the government in check and to allow for fresh ideas to be brought into government. The group also felt that there was a risk that a party could win a series of elections and effectively become a dictatorship, and that this could be avoided by having a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. The main argument for this was that it is important to have regular change and fresh ideas in government. This is especially true in the current political climate, where the government has been in power for a long time and is arguably becoming complacent and out of touch with the electorate. It was also argued that a limit on the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve would help to prevent a situation where one person can be in power effectively indefinitely. This could lead to serious complacency and the risk of the country moving away from democracy into an affective dictatorship. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of term limits for the Prime Minister. The group felt that this would allow for a greater diversity of ideas and opinions to be brought into government, and would prevent the country from becoming stuck in a rut. The group felt that the current system of FPTP made it difficult for new parties to enter the House of Commons and therefore made it difficult for new ideas to be brought into government. The group felt that this was an important aspect of democracy and that the government should reflect the views of the people. The group felt that there should be a limit of two terms, after which a new Prime Minister should be elected. The group felt that this would allow for the best of both worlds, in that the country would benefit from the experience of a long-term Prime Minister, while also allowing for a fresh perspective to be brought into government. The group felt that this would allow for a greater diversity of ideas and opinions to be brought into government, and would prevent the country from becoming stuck in a rut. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, there should be a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. This is to prevent complacency, and the danger of a prime minister amassing too much power and moving the country away from democracy. It is also to allow for the regular injection of new ideas and policies, and to allow for a change in direction if the country is moving in the wrong direction. However, if the party in power is continually winning elections, and the party continues to have confidence in the prime minister, then it would be undemocratic to force him out simply due to him serving too many consecutive terms. The Head of State (the King) provides oversight, and is capable of stepping in if the PM amasses too much power. New ideas can be brought in by reshuffling the cabinet at regular intervals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. The general view was that it would be undemocratic to allow one person to stay in power for too long. The group also felt that it would be good to have fresh ideas and perspectives brought into government. The group felt that the current system of democracy in the UK is good and should be maintained. The group also felt that the current system of having the monarch as head of state was good, as it meant that the monarch could step in and dissolve parliament if it was felt that the prime minister was abusing his/her power. The group felt that it would be good to have regular elections to keep the government in check and to allow for fresh ideas to be brought into government. The group also felt that there was a risk that a party could win a series of elections and effectively become a dictatorship, and that this could be avoided by having a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. The main argument for this was that it is important to have regular change and fresh ideas in government. This is especially true in the current political climate, where the government has been in power for a long time and is arguably becoming complacent and out of touch with the electorate. It was also argued that a limit on the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve would help to prevent a situation where one person can be in power effectively indefinitely. This could lead to serious complacency and the risk of the country moving away from democracy into an affective dictatorship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of term limits for the Prime Minister. The group felt that this would allow for a greater diversity of ideas and opinions to be brought into government, and would prevent the country from becoming stuck in a rut. The group felt that the current system of FPTP made it difficult for new parties to enter the House of Commons and therefore made it difficult for new ideas to be brought into government. The group felt that this was an important aspect of democracy and that the government should reflect the views of the people. The group felt that there should be a limit of two terms, after which a new Prime Minister should be elected. The group felt that this would allow for the best of both worlds, in that the country would benefit from the experience of a long-term Prime Minister, while also allowing for a fresh perspective to be brought into government. The group felt that this would allow for a greater diversity of ideas and opinions to be brought into government, and would prevent the country from becoming stuck in a rut. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002312.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002312.soc index 963b16ae..65498865 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002312.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002312.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The price of prescription drugs should be capped to a reasonable level. This is to make sure that everyone can afford the drugs that they need to be able to live a healthy life. This is especially important for people who have long-term illnesses or health conditions, as they will have to take these drugs for a long time. The price of drugs should not be set too high, as this can make them unaffordable for the people who need them. This can also cause people to buy their drugs from illegal sources, which can be dangerous. However, the price of drugs should not be set too low either, as this can make it difficult for pharmaceutical companies to make a profit. If this happens, then there is less incentive for pharmaceutical companies to produce new drugs. This can make it more difficult for people to access new and innovative drugs in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the price of prescription drugs should be capped. The price of prescription drugs is getting ever more expensive and the cost of living is rising rapidly. People genuinely cannot afford to buy necessary drugs anymore especially on repeat prescription. Therefore I definitely think that the price of drugs should be capped to make them as affordable as possible for people who rely on them for their welfare. However, the price of prescription drugs is dependent on the supply and demand of said drugs and the price of some drugs may fluctuate more than others. Therefore, it is not a simple yes or no answer to this question. It is a very complicated issue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The price of prescription drugs should be capped. This is because it is important that people are able to afford the drugs that they need. This is especially important for drugs that people need to take on a regular basis. However, it is important to note that the price of drugs is often high because of the cost of research and development, and the cost of production. This means that it is important to find a balance between making drugs affordable and making sure that pharmaceutical companies can still make a profit. This is because if pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit, then they will not be able to invest in the research and development of new drugs. This would be detrimental to the health of people in the future. However, it is important to note that many pharmaceutical companies price gauge because of greed and wanting to maximize profits rather than investing in research and development. This should be stopped. Capping the price could help with this. It is also important to note that many pharmaceutical companies make enormous profits already. Therefore, if capping the price of drugs does result in less money for pharmaceutical companies, then this should be seen as a necessary sacrifice in order to ensure that the people who need drugs are able to afford them.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The price of prescription drugs should be capped. This is because it is important that people are able to afford the drugs that they need. This is especially important for drugs that people need to take on a regular basis. However, it is important to note that the price of drugs is often high because of the cost of research and development, and the cost of production. This means that it is important to find a balance between making drugs affordable and making sure that pharmaceutical companies can still make a profit. This is because if pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit, then they will not be able to invest in the research and development of new drugs. This would be detrimental to the health of people in the future. We believe that this balance should be struck by making sure that the price of prescription drugs is as low as possible. However, we also believe that the cost of drugs should be made up for by the government, and not by the consumer. This would ensure that people are able to afford the drugs that they need, while also making sure that pharmaceutical companies are able to make a profit and invest in the research and development of new drugs.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The price of prescription drugs should be capped to a reasonable level. This is to make sure that everyone can afford the drugs that they need to be able to live a healthy life. This is especially important for people who have long-term illnesses or health conditions, as they will have to take these drugs for a long time. The price of drugs should not be set too high, as this can make them unaffordable for the people who need them. This can also cause people to buy their drugs from illegal sources, which can be dangerous. However, the price of drugs should not be set too low either, as this can make it difficult for pharmaceutical companies to make a profit. If this happens, then there is less incentive for pharmaceutical companies to produce new drugs. This can make it more difficult for people to access new and innovative drugs in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the price of prescription drugs should be capped. The price of prescription drugs is getting ever more expensive and the cost of living is rising rapidly. People genuinely cannot afford to buy necessary drugs anymore especially on repeat prescription. Therefore I definitely think that the price of drugs should be capped to make them as affordable as possible for people who rely on them for their welfare. However, the price of prescription drugs is dependent on the supply and demand of said drugs and the price of some drugs may fluctuate more than others. Therefore, it is not a simple yes or no answer to this question. It is a very complicated issue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The price of prescription drugs should be capped. This is because it is important that people are able to afford the drugs that they need. This is especially important for drugs that people need to take on a regular basis. However, it is important to note that the price of drugs is often high because of the cost of research and development, and the cost of production. This means that it is important to find a balance between making drugs affordable and making sure that pharmaceutical companies can still make a profit. This is because if pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit, then they will not be able to invest in the research and development of new drugs. This would be detrimental to the health of people in the future. However, it is important to note that many pharmaceutical companies price gauge because of greed and wanting to maximize profits rather than investing in research and development. This should be stopped. Capping the price could help with this. It is also important to note that many pharmaceutical companies make enormous profits already. Therefore, if capping the price of drugs does result in less money for pharmaceutical companies, then this should be seen as a necessary sacrifice in order to ensure that the people who need drugs are able to afford them.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The price of prescription drugs should be capped. This is because it is important that people are able to afford the drugs that they need. This is especially important for drugs that people need to take on a regular basis. However, it is important to note that the price of drugs is often high because of the cost of research and development, and the cost of production. This means that it is important to find a balance between making drugs affordable and making sure that pharmaceutical companies can still make a profit. This is because if pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit, then they will not be able to invest in the research and development of new drugs. This would be detrimental to the health of people in the future. We believe that this balance should be struck by making sure that the price of prescription drugs is as low as possible. However, we also believe that the cost of drugs should be made up for by the government, and not by the consumer. This would ensure that people are able to afford the drugs that they need, while also making sure that pharmaceutical companies are able to make a profit and invest in the research and development of new drugs.” 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002313.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002313.soc index 5a4af25e..38ff9427 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002313.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002313.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In the case of a pandemic, social distancing is a very effective measure to prevent the spread of the disease and to protect the most vulnerable in society. The police should be able to enforce social distancing in order to protect the public health. This is especially true in the case of a deadly disease. However, the police should not be given too much power in this regard. There should be a balance between the needs of the police to enforce social distancing and the needs of the individual to maintain their personal freedom. The police should not be able to use excessive force to enforce social distancing and there should be oversight of their actions in this regard. The police should also be careful to ensure that their actions are proportionate and that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual in any way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the event of a pandemic, the police should be able to enforce a “social distancing” mandate. This is to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected and to reduce the spread of the disease. The police should be able to enforce this mandate in a proportionate manner, taking into account the personal circumstances of the individuals involved. This is to ensure that the police do not overstep the mark and cause unnecessary distress to individuals. The police should also be able to enforce this mandate in a fair manner, ensuring that it is applied equally to all individuals. This is to ensure that the police are not seen to be showing favouritism to certain individuals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: During a pandemic, the police should be able to enforce a social distancing mandate. This is because during a pandemic, it is essential to protect the health of the population. It is also important to ensure that the health service is not overwhelmed, as this would lead to a higher mortality rate. It is also important to ensure that the economy is not damaged by a pandemic, as this would lead to a higher rate of unemployment, and would also lead to a lower tax revenue, which would lead to less money being available for the NHS and other public services. However, it is also important to ensure that the police do not use their powers in an excessive way. For example, the police should not be stopping people who are walking their dog, or who are going for a run, as this is not a breach of social distancing rules. The police should also not use their powers to stop people from seeing their friends and family, unless it is a large gathering. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In the face of a pandemic, the government has a duty to protect its citizens and the police have a duty to enforce laws. In order to do so, the government can make laws and the police can enforce them. This is especially the case when the pandemic is very serious and when it is very contagious. However, the laws should be proportionate to the threat and the police should not be used in a heavy handed way. The police should not be used to stop people going about their daily business and they should not be used to stop people from seeing their friends and family. The police should only be used to stop people from breaking the law and they should only be used to stop people from breaking the law when it is clear that they are doing so. The police should not be used to stop people from doing things that are not against the law, even if it is not advisable to do those things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In the case of a pandemic, social distancing is a very effective measure to prevent the spread of the disease and to protect the most vulnerable in society. The police should be able to enforce social distancing in order to protect the public health. This is especially true in the case of a deadly disease. However, the police should not be given too much power in this regard. There should be a balance between the needs of the police to enforce social distancing and the needs of the individual to maintain their personal freedom. The police should not be able to use excessive force to enforce social distancing and there should be oversight of their actions in this regard. The police should also be careful to ensure that their actions are proportionate and that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual in any way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the event of a pandemic, the police should be able to enforce a “social distancing” mandate. This is to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected and to reduce the spread of the disease. The police should be able to enforce this mandate in a proportionate manner, taking into account the personal circumstances of the individuals involved. This is to ensure that the police do not overstep the mark and cause unnecessary distress to individuals. The police should also be able to enforce this mandate in a fair manner, ensuring that it is applied equally to all individuals. This is to ensure that the police are not seen to be showing favouritism to certain individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - During a pandemic, the police should be able to enforce a social distancing mandate. This is because during a pandemic, it is essential to protect the health of the population. It is also important to ensure that the health service is not overwhelmed, as this would lead to a higher mortality rate. It is also important to ensure that the economy is not damaged by a pandemic, as this would lead to a higher rate of unemployment, and would also lead to a lower tax revenue, which would lead to less money being available for the NHS and other public services. However, it is also important to ensure that the police do not use their powers in an excessive way. For example, the police should not be stopping people who are walking their dog, or who are going for a run, as this is not a breach of social distancing rules. The police should also not use their powers to stop people from seeing their friends and family, unless it is a large gathering. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In the face of a pandemic, the government has a duty to protect its citizens and the police have a duty to enforce laws. In order to do so, the government can make laws and the police can enforce them. This is especially the case when the pandemic is very serious and when it is very contagious. However, the laws should be proportionate to the threat and the police should not be used in a heavy handed way. The police should not be used to stop people going about their daily business and they should not be used to stop people from seeing their friends and family. The police should only be used to stop people from breaking the law and they should only be used to stop people from breaking the law when it is clear that they are doing so. The police should not be used to stop people from doing things that are not against the law, even if it is not advisable to do those things. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002314.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002314.soc index e9afbbad..9f8f916c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002314.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002314.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are some areas where the UK is becoming more like the USA. The UK and the USA have both had right-wing governments for a while now. The UK has also had some influence from the US with regards to gun laws, with gun crime rising in recent years. There is also a growing influence from the US on issues surrounding discrimination, with the UK now recognising more forms of discrimination. The UK has also followed the US in terms of their response to the pandemic, with both countries giving the virus a name and also adopting a similar approach to lockdown and other restrictions. However, the UK has retained its NHS and has not adopted a system like the US where healthcare is privatised. The UK is also not as divided as the US, with the UK not having to deal with the same levels of racism and discrimination that are rife in the US. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In some ways the UK is becoming more like the USA. There has been an increase in the spread of fake news and the rise of right wing rhetoric. The UK has seen a rise in anti-vaxxers and the UK has adopted an America-esque attitude towards LGBTQ rights. However, the UK is still very different to the USA. The UK has better gun control and free healthcare. The UK has also not seen the level of police brutality that has been seen in the USA. The UK has also been much less affected by the pandemic than the USA. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK has always been very different to the USA and I don't think this is changing. We have a different history, different culture and different values. However, there are some areas where we are becoming more similar. We are becoming more politically polarised, with the two main parties moving further apart. This is similar to what has happened in the USA. We are also becoming more divided by class, with the gap between rich and poor growing. The pandemic has highlighted these divisions. However, there are many ways in which we are very different. We have a different healthcare system, different gun laws and different attitudes to many social issues. We are also a multicultural society, with many different ethnic groups living here. This is very different to the USA. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK has always been very different to the USA and we don't think this is changing. We have a different history, different culture and different values. However, there are some areas where we are becoming more similar. We are becoming more politically polarised, with the two main parties moving further apart. This is similar to what has happened in the USA. We are also becoming more divided by class, with the gap between rich and poor growing. The pandemic has highlighted these divisions. However, there are many ways in which we are very different. We have a different healthcare system, different gun laws and different attitudes to many social issues. We are also a multicultural society, with many different ethnic groups living here. This is very different to the USA. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are some areas where the UK is becoming more like the USA. The UK and the USA have both had right-wing governments for a while now. The UK has also had some influence from the US with regards to gun laws, with gun crime rising in recent years. There is also a growing influence from the US on issues surrounding discrimination, with the UK now recognising more forms of discrimination. The UK has also followed the US in terms of their response to the pandemic, with both countries giving the virus a name and also adopting a similar approach to lockdown and other restrictions. However, the UK has retained its NHS and has not adopted a system like the US where healthcare is privatised. The UK is also not as divided as the US, with the UK not having to deal with the same levels of racism and discrimination that are rife in the US. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In some ways the UK is becoming more like the USA. There has been an increase in the spread of fake news and the rise of right wing rhetoric. The UK has seen a rise in anti-vaxxers and the UK has adopted an America-esque attitude towards LGBTQ rights. However, the UK is still very different to the USA. The UK has better gun control and free healthcare. The UK has also not seen the level of police brutality that has been seen in the USA. The UK has also been much less affected by the pandemic than the USA. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK has always been very different to the USA and I don't think this is changing. We have a different history, different culture and different values. However, there are some areas where we are becoming more similar. We are becoming more politically polarised, with the two main parties moving further apart. This is similar to what has happened in the USA. We are also becoming more divided by class, with the gap between rich and poor growing. The pandemic has highlighted these divisions. However, there are many ways in which we are very different. We have a different healthcare system, different gun laws and different attitudes to many social issues. We are also a multicultural society, with many different ethnic groups living here. This is very different to the USA. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK has always been very different to the USA and we don't think this is changing. We have a different history, different culture and different values. However, there are some areas where we are becoming more similar. We are becoming more politically polarised, with the two main parties moving further apart. This is similar to what has happened in the USA. We are also becoming more divided by class, with the gap between rich and poor growing. The pandemic has highlighted these divisions. However, there are many ways in which we are very different. We have a different healthcare system, different gun laws and different attitudes to many social issues. We are also a multicultural society, with many different ethnic groups living here. This is very different to the USA. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002315.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002315.soc index 9d926802..3d3c97d0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002315.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002315.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, electric vehicles should be subsidized more than petrol/diesel cars. This is because it is a great incentive to get people to switch to electric cars, which would help climate change. It is also unclear by how much, but yes we should. It's not because we want EVERYONE using an EV, but we want to balance the market share between EVs and petrol/diesel cars so as to get the best outcome for the environment. If everyone had an EV, there would be lithium problems, for example. But too many diesel cars obviously pollute in other ways. So EVs need to be subsidized until there's a good balance, environmentally and otherwise. Also, as a second priority from the environment, EVs are generally more desirable due to their reduced noise/odour pollution. As a whole we need to move away from fossil fuels and explore more and more renewable energy options. EV are a start point for them, the more they are subsidize, the more investment is likely to come. I think so. With what is happening across the world right now, governments across the world should be doing all they can to meet climate pledges. That should include incentivising people to switch to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, electric vehicles should be subsidized more than petrol/diesel cars. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, there is a pressing need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and move towards more renewable energy sources. This is necessary to combat climate change. Secondly, electric vehicles are a key component of this transition. They are cleaner, quieter and more efficient than petrol/diesel cars. Therefore, subsidizing them will help to increase their uptake and therefore help to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, yes we should subsidize EVs more than petrol/diesel cars. This is because it is a good way of incentivising people to move to a more environmentally friendly form of transport. It also helps to address the issue of climate change, and is a good way to meet the climate pledges that countries have made. It is also a good way of reducing air pollution in cities, which has been shown to have a negative impact on people's health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, yes. It is important to reduce our emissions and as a whole we need to move away from fossil fuels and explore more and more renewable energy options. EV are a start point for them, the more they are subsidize, the more investment is likely to come. However, it is also important to note that it is not just about getting everyone to use EVs, but to balance the market share between EVs and petrol/diesel cars so as to get the best outcome for the environment. If everyone had an EV, there would be lithium problems, for example. But too many diesel cars obviously pollute in other ways. So EVs need to be subsidized until there's a good balance, environmentally and otherwise. Also, as a second priority from the enviroment, EVs are generally more desirable due to their reduced noise/odour pollution. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, electric vehicles should be subsidized more than petrol/diesel cars. This is because it is a great incentive to get people to switch to electric cars, which would help climate change. It is also unclear by how much, but yes we should. It's not because we want EVERYONE using an EV, but we want to balance the market share between EVs and petrol/diesel cars so as to get the best outcome for the environment. If everyone had an EV, there would be lithium problems, for example. But too many diesel cars obviously pollute in other ways. So EVs need to be subsidized until there's a good balance, environmentally and otherwise. Also, as a second priority from the environment, EVs are generally more desirable due to their reduced noise/odour pollution. As a whole we need to move away from fossil fuels and explore more and more renewable energy options. EV are a start point for them, the more they are subsidize, the more investment is likely to come. I think so. With what is happening across the world right now, governments across the world should be doing all they can to meet climate pledges. That should include incentivising people to switch to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, electric vehicles should be subsidized more than petrol/diesel cars. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, there is a pressing need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and move towards more renewable energy sources. This is necessary to combat climate change. Secondly, electric vehicles are a key component of this transition. They are cleaner, quieter and more efficient than petrol/diesel cars. Therefore, subsidizing them will help to increase their uptake and therefore help to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, yes we should subsidize EVs more than petrol/diesel cars. This is because it is a good way of incentivising people to move to a more environmentally friendly form of transport. It also helps to address the issue of climate change, and is a good way to meet the climate pledges that countries have made. It is also a good way of reducing air pollution in cities, which has been shown to have a negative impact on people's health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, yes. It is important to reduce our emissions and as a whole we need to move away from fossil fuels and explore more and more renewable energy options. EV are a start point for them, the more they are subsidize, the more investment is likely to come. However, it is also important to note that it is not just about getting everyone to use EVs, but to balance the market share between EVs and petrol/diesel cars so as to get the best outcome for the environment. If everyone had an EV, there would be lithium problems, for example. But too many diesel cars obviously pollute in other ways. So EVs need to be subsidized until there's a good balance, environmentally and otherwise. Also, as a second priority from the enviroment, EVs are generally more desirable due to their reduced noise/odour pollution. 2: 1,4,2,3 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002316.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002316.soc index 5099bcbc..4187d494 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002316.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002316.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Social distancing is a very effective measure to prevent the spread of the disease and to protect the most vulnerable in society. The police should be able to enforce social distancing in order to protect the public health. This is especially true in the case of a deadly disease. However, the police should not be given too much power in this regard. There should be a balance between the needs of the police to enforce social distancing and the needs of the individual to maintain their personal freedom. The police should not be able to use excessive force to enforce social distancing and there should be oversight of their actions in this regard. The police should also be careful to ensure that their actions are proportionate and that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual in any way. The police should also keep in mind that people may not be able to follow social distancing for a variety of reasons, and they should take these reasons into consideration. It is important for people to have a high level of trust in the police, and it is essential that they are seen to be acting in a fair and just manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the case of a pandemic, social distancing is a very effective measure to prevent the spread of the disease and to protect the most vulnerable in society. The police should be able to enforce social distancing in order to protect the public health. This is especially true in the case of a deadly disease. However, the police should not be given too much power in this regard. There should be a balance between the needs of the police to enforce social distancing and the needs of the individual to maintain their personal freedom. The police should not be able to use excessive force to enforce social distancing and there should be oversight of their actions in this regard. The police should also be careful to ensure that their actions are proportionate and that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual in any way. The police should also ensure that they educate the public and communicate with them to foster voluntary compliance with social distancing, and they should also be transparent in their decision making process to strengthen a balanced approach. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the police should not have the power to enforce a “social distancing” mandate during a pandemic. However, during a pandemic, the government has the right to impose restrictions on individuals' freedom in order to protect public health. This is especially true when a pandemic has the potential to overwhelm the health care system. In this case, it is necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected and that the spread of the disease is limited. In order to achieve these goals, the government has the right to use its power to ensure that the public adheres to social distancing and isolation measures. If the public does not adhere to these measures, the government has the right to use the police to enforce these measures. However, this power should be used as a last resort and only when all other means have failed. It is also important to ensure that the police are not enforcing these measures in a discriminatory way, for example by targeting certain ethnic or religious groups. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In a pandemic, yes, the government has the right to use the police to enforce social distancing. This is because the health of the whole population is at stake. The government should only use this power in exceptional circumstances, and should not use it for any other reason. The police should use this power in a proportionate way, and be very careful not to infringe people's human rights. The police should also take into account personal circumstances, and not penalise people who are struggling with social distancing. The government should also make sure that the population is fully informed about the situation, and why these measures are being taken. This will help to make sure that people understand the situation, and will be more likely to comply with the rules. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Social distancing is a very effective measure to prevent the spread of the disease and to protect the most vulnerable in society. The police should be able to enforce social distancing in order to protect the public health. This is especially true in the case of a deadly disease. However, the police should not be given too much power in this regard. There should be a balance between the needs of the police to enforce social distancing and the needs of the individual to maintain their personal freedom. The police should not be able to use excessive force to enforce social distancing and there should be oversight of their actions in this regard. The police should also be careful to ensure that their actions are proportionate and that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual in any way. The police should also keep in mind that people may not be able to follow social distancing for a variety of reasons, and they should take these reasons into consideration. It is important for people to have a high level of trust in the police, and it is essential that they are seen to be acting in a fair and just manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the case of a pandemic, social distancing is a very effective measure to prevent the spread of the disease and to protect the most vulnerable in society. The police should be able to enforce social distancing in order to protect the public health. This is especially true in the case of a deadly disease. However, the police should not be given too much power in this regard. There should be a balance between the needs of the police to enforce social distancing and the needs of the individual to maintain their personal freedom. The police should not be able to use excessive force to enforce social distancing and there should be oversight of their actions in this regard. The police should also be careful to ensure that their actions are proportionate and that they do not infringe on the rights of the individual in any way. The police should also ensure that they educate the public and communicate with them to foster voluntary compliance with social distancing, and they should also be transparent in their decision making process to strengthen a balanced approach. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the police should not have the power to enforce a “social distancing” mandate during a pandemic. However, during a pandemic, the government has the right to impose restrictions on individuals' freedom in order to protect public health. This is especially true when a pandemic has the potential to overwhelm the health care system. In this case, it is necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected and that the spread of the disease is limited. In order to achieve these goals, the government has the right to use its power to ensure that the public adheres to social distancing and isolation measures. If the public does not adhere to these measures, the government has the right to use the police to enforce these measures. However, this power should be used as a last resort and only when all other means have failed. It is also important to ensure that the police are not enforcing these measures in a discriminatory way, for example by targeting certain ethnic or religious groups. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In a pandemic, yes, the government has the right to use the police to enforce social distancing. This is because the health of the whole population is at stake. The government should only use this power in exceptional circumstances, and should not use it for any other reason. The police should use this power in a proportionate way, and be very careful not to infringe people's human rights. The police should also take into account personal circumstances, and not penalise people who are struggling with social distancing. The government should also make sure that the population is fully informed about the situation, and why these measures are being taken. This will help to make sure that people understand the situation, and will be more likely to comply with the rules. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002317.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002317.soc index a28380ac..3b309da9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002317.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002317.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We are facing a climate emergency and we need to do something about it right now before it's too late for future generations. The world last week hit a record temp and it's killing off wildlife and it's killing people. Natural disasters are increasing both in levels of frequency and devastation, such as the recent wildfires in North America. Governments and private companies responsible for contributing to this emergency are doing little to mitigate any effects, so more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are having to protest on the streets for just a minute piece of action to be done. I think we are heading into dangerous territory regarding climate change. However, I don't believe very much can be done while consumer demand is so high and big countries such as China are contributing so highly to global warming. The serious effects will be mostly felt by generations to come. as a planet we are definitely facing a climate emergency. with the rise of new technologies in the past 50 years we have relied on fossil fuels. this has meant that the chemicals released are destroying out atmosphere. this has risen at a very face rate. if we dont do things to take action then we will destroy the atmosphere making it unlivable for us -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a climate emergency and the world is in crisis. This is evidenced by the increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, and the increase in global temperatures. It is clear that the effects of climate change will be felt by future generations, however, it is also clear that the effects are being felt by people now. This is demonstrated by the recent heatwave in Europe, which has seen temperatures reach record highs and cause devastation and loss of life. The effects of climate change will only get worse if nothing is done to stop it. The world needs to take immediate action to prevent a climate catastrophe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Climate change is the biggest threat to humanity, and it is getting worse every year. It is vital that we take urgent action now, before it is too late for future generations. The world last week hit a record temp and it's killing off wildlife and it's killing people. Governments and private companies responsible for contributing to this emergency are doing little to mitigate any effects, so more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are having to protest on the streets for just a minute piece of action to be done. The serious effects will be mostly felt by generations to come. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Climate change is a serious and urgent problem that needs to be addressed. The effects of climate change will be felt by future generations and it is our responsibility to take action now to prevent this. The current rate of change is very fast and the effects are being felt now. The world is heating up and this is causing natural disasters to become more frequent and more devastating. Governments and private companies are doing little to mitigate the effects of climate change and this needs to change. The group of participants came to the consensus view that climate change is a serious and urgent problem that needs to be addressed. The effects of climate change will be felt by future generations and it is our responsibility to take action now to prevent this. The current rate of change is very fast and the effects are being felt now. The world is heating up and this is causing natural disasters to become more frequent and more devastating. Governments and private companies are doing little to mitigate the effects of climate change and this needs to change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We are facing a climate emergency and we need to do something about it right now before it's too late for future generations. The world last week hit a record temp and it's killing off wildlife and it's killing people. Natural disasters are increasing both in levels of frequency and devastation, such as the recent wildfires in North America. Governments and private companies responsible for contributing to this emergency are doing little to mitigate any effects, so more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are having to protest on the streets for just a minute piece of action to be done. I think we are heading into dangerous territory regarding climate change. However, I don't believe very much can be done while consumer demand is so high and big countries such as China are contributing so highly to global warming. The serious effects will be mostly felt by generations to come. as a planet we are definitely facing a climate emergency. with the rise of new technologies in the past 50 years we have relied on fossil fuels. this has meant that the chemicals released are destroying out atmosphere. this has risen at a very face rate. if we dont do things to take action then we will destroy the atmosphere making it unlivable for us +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a climate emergency and the world is in crisis. This is evidenced by the increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, and the increase in global temperatures. It is clear that the effects of climate change will be felt by future generations, however, it is also clear that the effects are being felt by people now. This is demonstrated by the recent heatwave in Europe, which has seen temperatures reach record highs and cause devastation and loss of life. The effects of climate change will only get worse if nothing is done to stop it. The world needs to take immediate action to prevent a climate catastrophe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Climate change is the biggest threat to humanity, and it is getting worse every year. It is vital that we take urgent action now, before it is too late for future generations. The world last week hit a record temp and it's killing off wildlife and it's killing people. Governments and private companies responsible for contributing to this emergency are doing little to mitigate any effects, so more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are having to protest on the streets for just a minute piece of action to be done. The serious effects will be mostly felt by generations to come. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Climate change is a serious and urgent problem that needs to be addressed. The effects of climate change will be felt by future generations and it is our responsibility to take action now to prevent this. The current rate of change is very fast and the effects are being felt now. The world is heating up and this is causing natural disasters to become more frequent and more devastating. Governments and private companies are doing little to mitigate the effects of climate change and this needs to change. The group of participants came to the consensus view that climate change is a serious and urgent problem that needs to be addressed. The effects of climate change will be felt by future generations and it is our responsibility to take action now to prevent this. The current rate of change is very fast and the effects are being felt now. The world is heating up and this is causing natural disasters to become more frequent and more devastating. Governments and private companies are doing little to mitigate the effects of climate change and this needs to change. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002318.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002318.soc index 9f6c4c39..f855220c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002318.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002318.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of autonomous cars being allowed on the roads, but only after extensive testing to ensure safety. The technology is there already, so it is only a matter of time before this happens anyway. We must ensure it is a phased approach. The level of technology has to develop significantly more before we consider autonomous cars for wider public use. There are so many variables that come into play when a human evaluates how to drive safely, such as adverse weather or having to brake suddenly. I don't think that machine learning is developed enough to allow autonomous cars yet, especially if there'd be a mix of human and computer drivers on any given road. Maybe eventually, but not at the moment, unless there is a competent person in the driver's seat to act as a manual override if something in the autonomous car does go wrong. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the road, but only after extensive testing to ensure safety. The technology is there already, so it is only a matter of time before this happens anyway. We must ensure it is a phased approach. The technology has to develop significantly more before we consider autonomous cars for wider public use. There are so many variables that come into play when a human evaluates how to drive safely, such as adverse weather or having to brake suddenly. I don't think that machine learning is developed enough to allow autonomous cars yet, especially if there'd be a mix of human and computer drivers on any given road. Maybe eventually, but not at the moment, unless there is a competent person in the driver's seat to act as a manual override if something in the autonomous car does go wrong. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the roads, but only after extensive testing to ensure safety. The technology is there already , so it is only a matter of time before this happens anyway. We must ensure it is a phased approach . The level of technology has to develop significantly more before we consider autonomous cars for wider public use. There are so many variables that come into play when a human evaluates how to drive safely, such as adverse weather or having to brake suddenly. I don't think that machine learning is developed enough to allow autonomous cars yet, especially if there'd be a mix of human and computer drivers on any given road. Maybe eventually, but not at the moment, unless there is a competent person in the driver's seat to act as a manual override if something in the autonomous car does go wrong. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the road, but with some caveats. The technology is there, and the level of testing that has been done is extensive, so it is only a matter of time before they are allowed on the road. However, the group felt that the technology is not yet ready to be used by the general public, and that there should be a period of time where they are only used by a select few. This will allow for any issues to be identified and resolved, and for the public to become more comfortable with the idea. It was felt that the best way to introduce them would be to have them on the roads in a limited capacity, for example as taxis or delivery vehicles, where the driver can be in the vehicle to take control if anything were to go wrong. This would allow for the technology to be tested in a real-world environment, but without putting the general public at risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of autonomous cars being allowed on the roads, but only after extensive testing to ensure safety. The technology is there already, so it is only a matter of time before this happens anyway. We must ensure it is a phased approach. The level of technology has to develop significantly more before we consider autonomous cars for wider public use. There are so many variables that come into play when a human evaluates how to drive safely, such as adverse weather or having to brake suddenly. I don't think that machine learning is developed enough to allow autonomous cars yet, especially if there'd be a mix of human and computer drivers on any given road. Maybe eventually, but not at the moment, unless there is a competent person in the driver's seat to act as a manual override if something in the autonomous car does go wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the road, but only after extensive testing to ensure safety. The technology is there already, so it is only a matter of time before this happens anyway. We must ensure it is a phased approach. The technology has to develop significantly more before we consider autonomous cars for wider public use. There are so many variables that come into play when a human evaluates how to drive safely, such as adverse weather or having to brake suddenly. I don't think that machine learning is developed enough to allow autonomous cars yet, especially if there'd be a mix of human and computer drivers on any given road. Maybe eventually, but not at the moment, unless there is a competent person in the driver's seat to act as a manual override if something in the autonomous car does go wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the roads, but only after extensive testing to ensure safety. The technology is there already , so it is only a matter of time before this happens anyway. We must ensure it is a phased approach . The level of technology has to develop significantly more before we consider autonomous cars for wider public use. There are so many variables that come into play when a human evaluates how to drive safely, such as adverse weather or having to brake suddenly. I don't think that machine learning is developed enough to allow autonomous cars yet, especially if there'd be a mix of human and computer drivers on any given road. Maybe eventually, but not at the moment, unless there is a competent person in the driver's seat to act as a manual override if something in the autonomous car does go wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the road, but with some caveats. The technology is there, and the level of testing that has been done is extensive, so it is only a matter of time before they are allowed on the road. However, the group felt that the technology is not yet ready to be used by the general public, and that there should be a period of time where they are only used by a select few. This will allow for any issues to be identified and resolved, and for the public to become more comfortable with the idea. It was felt that the best way to introduce them would be to have them on the roads in a limited capacity, for example as taxis or delivery vehicles, where the driver can be in the vehicle to take control if anything were to go wrong. This would allow for the technology to be tested in a real-world environment, but without putting the general public at risk. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002319.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002319.soc index 4d455314..7da0288c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002319.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002319.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally. There should be a limit on intergenerational wealth to stop the 1% getting richer and richer. It would help with the rich-poor divide.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, we should be looking to increase the supply of affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. This would be a more equitable way of increasing intergenerational wealth than the current system, where many people will never be able to afford to buy their own home.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally. There has to be a limit on intergenerational wealth to stop the 1% getting richer and richer. It would help with the rich-poor divide.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally. There should be a limit on intergenerational wealth to stop the 1% getting richer and richer. It would help with the rich-poor divide.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, we should be looking to increase the supply of affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. This would be a more equitable way of increasing intergenerational wealth than the current system, where many people will never be able to afford to buy their own home.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally. There has to be a limit on intergenerational wealth to stop the 1% getting richer and richer. It would help with the rich-poor divide.” 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002320.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002320.soc index dcf6abcb..a0cf73aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002320.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002320.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. We believe that this will give people more freedom to choose the supplier that is right for them, whether it be for financial or environmental reasons. The current system is very confusing and difficult for people to navigate. We believe that if the government made the process of switching energy suppliers as simple as it is to switch bank accounts, it would make the energy market fairer for the consumer. It would also hold energy suppliers to account and make them more competitive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, the current system is unfair to the consumer. The energy companies are making huge profits, yet the consumer is struggling to afford to heat their homes. The only way to ensure that prices stay competitively low for consumers is to make switching between energy providers very simple and easy to do, so that consumers that are unhappy with the prices they are paying can vote with their feet. Secondly, the government should be encouraging people to save both money and environmental impact so regardless of the reason that customers want to switch, the government should do everything in their power to make the process simple. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. It is the only way to ensure that energy companies do not take their customers for granted and keep prices low. The process should be as simple as the current account switch programme, which is a proven success. This will also encourage people to be more environmentally friendly in their energy choices, as it will be easier to switch to renewable energy suppliers. It is also a matter of fairness, as the government has already made it easier to switch broadband and mobile phone providers, and energy is just as important to people.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it would allow people to be more proactive in their energy use, allowing them to choose suppliers based on a number of factors such as price, environmental impact and customer service. Secondly, it would allow people to be more environmentally friendly in their energy use, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide more green energy. Thirdly, it would allow people to save money on their energy bills, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide the best value for money. Finally, it would allow people to hold energy suppliers to account, by allowing them to switch suppliers if they are unhappy with the service they are receiving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. We believe that this will give people more freedom to choose the supplier that is right for them, whether it be for financial or environmental reasons. The current system is very confusing and difficult for people to navigate. We believe that if the government made the process of switching energy suppliers as simple as it is to switch bank accounts, it would make the energy market fairer for the consumer. It would also hold energy suppliers to account and make them more competitive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, the current system is unfair to the consumer. The energy companies are making huge profits, yet the consumer is struggling to afford to heat their homes. The only way to ensure that prices stay competitively low for consumers is to make switching between energy providers very simple and easy to do, so that consumers that are unhappy with the prices they are paying can vote with their feet. Secondly, the government should be encouraging people to save both money and environmental impact so regardless of the reason that customers want to switch, the government should do everything in their power to make the process simple. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. It is the only way to ensure that energy companies do not take their customers for granted and keep prices low. The process should be as simple as the current account switch programme, which is a proven success. This will also encourage people to be more environmentally friendly in their energy choices, as it will be easier to switch to renewable energy suppliers. It is also a matter of fairness, as the government has already made it easier to switch broadband and mobile phone providers, and energy is just as important to people.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it would allow people to be more proactive in their energy use, allowing them to choose suppliers based on a number of factors such as price, environmental impact and customer service. Secondly, it would allow people to be more environmentally friendly in their energy use, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide more green energy. Thirdly, it would allow people to save money on their energy bills, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide the best value for money. Finally, it would allow people to hold energy suppliers to account, by allowing them to switch suppliers if they are unhappy with the service they are receiving. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002321.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002321.soc index 0ff9cf3e..16e97ffc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002321.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002321.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a global population crisis. While we are not over-populated in the traditional sense of living space, we are in terms of food, water and energy. Our impact on the climate of the planet is not sustainable and is likely to have dire consequences in the future. We are also likely to be the architects of our own downfall if we do not change our practices. The issue of overpopulation is an important one and one that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the world is over-populated. The world's population is growing at an exponential rate, and this is causing many problems for the planet. The effects of climate change are starting to be felt, and the world's resources are becoming increasingly scarce. This is leading to the rise of poverty in many places, and a greater divide between the rich and poor. The world's population is also causing the world's infrastructure to buckle. In Malta, for example, the population is causing a great strain on the country's infrastructure, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide for everyone. Malta is also becoming increasingly polluted, and the country is becoming more and more congested. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the world is overpopulated. This is evident in the increasing shortage of resources and the rising prices of goods. We are also seeing the effects of this in climate change, as the planet is unable to cope with the demands of the human population. The world is also seeing a vast inequality in the distribution of wealth, with a large portion of the population living in poverty, while a small minority enjoy a life of luxury. The world is not able to sustain this inequality, and it is also not sustainable in the long run. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the world is overpopulated. There are simply too many people living on Earth, and the impact this has had on the environment is detrimental. The climate is changing, and many places are running out of food and water. The resources we have are being depleted at an alarming rate. There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor, with many people living in poverty while a few live in luxury. The current infrastructure in many countries is not able to support their current population, and this is only going to get worse as the population continues to grow. However, there are some places in the world where the population is not a problem. These places are able to provide for their people, and are able to live sustainably. The issue of overpopulation is therefore a matter of perspective. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a global population crisis. While we are not over-populated in the traditional sense of living space, we are in terms of food, water and energy. Our impact on the climate of the planet is not sustainable and is likely to have dire consequences in the future. We are also likely to be the architects of our own downfall if we do not change our practices. The issue of overpopulation is an important one and one that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the world is over-populated. The world's population is growing at an exponential rate, and this is causing many problems for the planet. The effects of climate change are starting to be felt, and the world's resources are becoming increasingly scarce. This is leading to the rise of poverty in many places, and a greater divide between the rich and poor. The world's population is also causing the world's infrastructure to buckle. In Malta, for example, the population is causing a great strain on the country's infrastructure, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide for everyone. Malta is also becoming increasingly polluted, and the country is becoming more and more congested. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the world is overpopulated. This is evident in the increasing shortage of resources and the rising prices of goods. We are also seeing the effects of this in climate change, as the planet is unable to cope with the demands of the human population. The world is also seeing a vast inequality in the distribution of wealth, with a large portion of the population living in poverty, while a small minority enjoy a life of luxury. The world is not able to sustain this inequality, and it is also not sustainable in the long run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the world is overpopulated. There are simply too many people living on Earth, and the impact this has had on the environment is detrimental. The climate is changing, and many places are running out of food and water. The resources we have are being depleted at an alarming rate. There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor, with many people living in poverty while a few live in luxury. The current infrastructure in many countries is not able to support their current population, and this is only going to get worse as the population continues to grow. However, there are some places in the world where the population is not a problem. These places are able to provide for their people, and are able to live sustainably. The issue of overpopulation is therefore a matter of perspective. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002322.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002322.soc index c8551365..2892844b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002322.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002322.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the government should spend more on improving the railway network. The current railway network is not adequate to meet the needs of the population. There is a need for more lines and more trains, especially in rural areas. The government should also ensure that the railway network is more efficient and reliable. This will require investment in new infrastructure and rolling stock. However, the current economic climate means that the government should be careful about where it spends its money. Therefore, the government should consider whether the railway network is the best place to spend money at the moment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government should spend more on improving the railway network. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the current network is old and outdated and needs investment to improve the quality of the service. Secondly, the current network is privatised and as such, the private companies are not incentivised to invest in improving the network. Thirdly, the current network does not adequately serve rural areas. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Finally, the current network is not environmentally friendly. This needs to be addressed by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should spend more on improving the railway network. It is an essential part of the public transport system and one that is used by a large number of people. The railway network is also an important part of the economy, transporting goods around the country. The railway network is currently not adequate, with some areas being left out of the network and some areas having an inadequate service. There is also a need to improve the quality of the railway network, with trains being late or cancelled and strikes causing disruption. The railway network should be improved to make it a more reliable form of transport that people can use instead of their cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should spend more on improving the railway network. The current railway network is not fit for purpose and requires a lot of investment. It is not good enough to be encouraging people to ditch their cars if there is no adequate public transport for them to use. The recent rail strikes have shown how people with no other form of transport are really put in difficulty in these situations. The government should improve the tracks already in place and build new, additional tracks so that rural areas are better served. A focus on providing and maintaining good public transport is key if people are to become less reliant on their cars (which I think is incredibly important due to the ongoing climate emergency).” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the government should spend more on improving the railway network. The current railway network is not adequate to meet the needs of the population. There is a need for more lines and more trains, especially in rural areas. The government should also ensure that the railway network is more efficient and reliable. This will require investment in new infrastructure and rolling stock. However, the current economic climate means that the government should be careful about where it spends its money. Therefore, the government should consider whether the railway network is the best place to spend money at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government should spend more on improving the railway network. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the current network is old and outdated and needs investment to improve the quality of the service. Secondly, the current network is privatised and as such, the private companies are not incentivised to invest in improving the network. Thirdly, the current network does not adequately serve rural areas. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Finally, the current network is not environmentally friendly. This needs to be addressed by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should spend more on improving the railway network. It is an essential part of the public transport system and one that is used by a large number of people. The railway network is also an important part of the economy, transporting goods around the country. The railway network is currently not adequate, with some areas being left out of the network and some areas having an inadequate service. There is also a need to improve the quality of the railway network, with trains being late or cancelled and strikes causing disruption. The railway network should be improved to make it a more reliable form of transport that people can use instead of their cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should spend more on improving the railway network. The current railway network is not fit for purpose and requires a lot of investment. It is not good enough to be encouraging people to ditch their cars if there is no adequate public transport for them to use. The recent rail strikes have shown how people with no other form of transport are really put in difficulty in these situations. The government should improve the tracks already in place and build new, additional tracks so that rural areas are better served. A focus on providing and maintaining good public transport is key if people are to become less reliant on their cars (which I think is incredibly important due to the ongoing climate emergency).” 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002323.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002323.soc index 44df948c..1ccfae99 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002323.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002323.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more on improving the railway network. We thought that it was necessary to do this to encourage more people to use trains as a form of transport and in doing so reduce the amount of pollution being emitted by other forms of transport such as cars and planes. We also thought that this would be beneficial for the economy as it would improve the efficiency of the network and reduce the amount of time it takes to travel to certain places. We felt that the current system was run down and not particularly efficient. However, we did acknowledge that this was not the most important issue that the government is facing at the moment and that it should not be prioritised over other more important issues such as immigration and healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more on improving the railway network. The group felt that the current network is inefficient and in need of updating. A better network would mean that using the rail system would be more attractive to passengers and increase train usage. This would have environmental benefits. However, the group felt that the government should prioritise other issues first such as inflation, healthcare and immigration. They felt that improvements to the railway network are necessary to encourage the public to take trains and feel they are getting their money's worth out of this service. In doing so people will also be encouraged to consider more environmentally friendly ways of moving around the country as trains emit fewer emissions than cars or planes. Currently, there is a lack of incentive to do so in the UK as train journeys are expensive and illogical compared to other methods of transport. Poor infrastructure can mean long routes when trying to reach certain parts of the country. Schemes such as railcard reduce fares but even with the discount journeys are still too expensive compared to for example flights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more on improving the railway network. The group felt that the current network is inefficient and in need of updating. A better network would mean that using the rail system would be more attractive to passengers and increase train usage. This would have environmental benefits. The group felt that the government should prioritise other issues first such as inflation, healthcare and immigration. However, they felt that improvements to the railway network are necessary to encourage the public to take trains and feel they are getting their money's worth out of this service. In doing so people will also be encouraged to consider more environmentally friendly ways of moving around the country as trains emit fewer emissions than cars or planes. Currently, there is a lack of incentive to do so in the UK as train journeys are expensive and illogical compared to other methods of transport. Poor infrastructure can mean long routes when trying to reach certain parts of the country. Schemes such as railcard reduce fares but even with the discount journeys are still too expensive compared to for example flights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the railway network in the UK is in a poor state and in desperate need of updating. This is especially true in comparison with other countries. The network needs to be improved in order to encourage passengers to use it. A better system would be more attractive to passengers and increase train usage. This would have environmental benefits. The government should prioritise other issues such as inflation, healthcare and immigration. However, improvements to the railway network are necessary to encourage the public to take trains and feel they are getting their money's worth out of this service. In doing so people will also be encouraged to consider more environmentally friendly ways of moving around the country as trains emit fewer emissions than cars or planes. Currently, there is a lack of incentive to do so in the UK as train journeys are expensive and illogical compared to other methods of transport. Poor infrastructure can mean long routes when trying to reach certain parts of the country. Schemes such as railcard reduce fares but even with the discount journeys are still too expensive compared to for example flights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more on improving the railway network. We thought that it was necessary to do this to encourage more people to use trains as a form of transport and in doing so reduce the amount of pollution being emitted by other forms of transport such as cars and planes. We also thought that this would be beneficial for the economy as it would improve the efficiency of the network and reduce the amount of time it takes to travel to certain places. We felt that the current system was run down and not particularly efficient. However, we did acknowledge that this was not the most important issue that the government is facing at the moment and that it should not be prioritised over other more important issues such as immigration and healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more on improving the railway network. The group felt that the current network is inefficient and in need of updating. A better network would mean that using the rail system would be more attractive to passengers and increase train usage. This would have environmental benefits. However, the group felt that the government should prioritise other issues first such as inflation, healthcare and immigration. They felt that improvements to the railway network are necessary to encourage the public to take trains and feel they are getting their money's worth out of this service. In doing so people will also be encouraged to consider more environmentally friendly ways of moving around the country as trains emit fewer emissions than cars or planes. Currently, there is a lack of incentive to do so in the UK as train journeys are expensive and illogical compared to other methods of transport. Poor infrastructure can mean long routes when trying to reach certain parts of the country. Schemes such as railcard reduce fares but even with the discount journeys are still too expensive compared to for example flights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more on improving the railway network. The group felt that the current network is inefficient and in need of updating. A better network would mean that using the rail system would be more attractive to passengers and increase train usage. This would have environmental benefits. The group felt that the government should prioritise other issues first such as inflation, healthcare and immigration. However, they felt that improvements to the railway network are necessary to encourage the public to take trains and feel they are getting their money's worth out of this service. In doing so people will also be encouraged to consider more environmentally friendly ways of moving around the country as trains emit fewer emissions than cars or planes. Currently, there is a lack of incentive to do so in the UK as train journeys are expensive and illogical compared to other methods of transport. Poor infrastructure can mean long routes when trying to reach certain parts of the country. Schemes such as railcard reduce fares but even with the discount journeys are still too expensive compared to for example flights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the railway network in the UK is in a poor state and in desperate need of updating. This is especially true in comparison with other countries. The network needs to be improved in order to encourage passengers to use it. A better system would be more attractive to passengers and increase train usage. This would have environmental benefits. The government should prioritise other issues such as inflation, healthcare and immigration. However, improvements to the railway network are necessary to encourage the public to take trains and feel they are getting their money's worth out of this service. In doing so people will also be encouraged to consider more environmentally friendly ways of moving around the country as trains emit fewer emissions than cars or planes. Currently, there is a lack of incentive to do so in the UK as train journeys are expensive and illogical compared to other methods of transport. Poor infrastructure can mean long routes when trying to reach certain parts of the country. Schemes such as railcard reduce fares but even with the discount journeys are still too expensive compared to for example flights. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002324.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002324.soc index 3dadcd4e..68ed18e5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002324.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002324.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The police should have the power to use facial recognition technology to search for suspects. The advances in technology should be utilised for the greater good, and it seems that this would be a good way to identify criminals in cases where suspects can be wrongly identified or to facilitate these searches. Often criminals get away with the crimes they committed, so by using this technology it could quite easily widen the number of people that can be identified. I'm sure with machine learning algorithms these systems can detect individuals quite accurately, meaning it's likely a good way to identify suspects. With the assistance of humans it's likely that even in cases where people are wrongly selected initially, they will not be wrongly brought to the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Facial recognition technology can be an important tool in the fight against crime. Cameras are in place throughout our cities and towns and being able to access the information they provide is essential to track the whereabouts of criminals. Some may feel there is an issue in regards to privacy but I think the cameras are already filming so why not make use of them. The give police extra eyes as they cannot be in all places at once. However, there is a concern that this technology will infringe people's human rights . We do not want to live in a Police State and this technology may be one further step towards this. The technology is not perfect and there is a risk that people will be wrongly identified. It is therefore important that the police are not able to use this technology in an arbitrary way. It should be used only when there is a clear and present danger to the public and the police have a reasonable belief that the person is a suspect. The police should be required to provide a justification for their use of the technology and the use should be reviewed by an independent body. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Facial recognition software is a useful tool for the police to use to identify suspects. It can be used to identify people who commit crimes and can be used in conjunction with other forms of surveillance to track suspects. It is a non-invasive way to track people and can be used to protect law-abiding citizens. However, there are concerns that it could be misused and that it could be used to infringe on people's human rights. The police should only be allowed to use this technology in very specific circumstances and there should be a robust system in place to ensure that it is not misused. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that the police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to search for suspects. We believe that this is a useful tool for the police to use, as it can help to identify criminals and help to prevent crime. We believe that the police should not have unfettered access to this technology, as this could be seen as an invasion of privacy. Instead, we believe that the police should be required to obtain a warrant before they can use this technology. This will ensure that the police do not abuse this power, and will also ensure that the police are only using this technology in the cases where it is most needed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The police should have the power to use facial recognition technology to search for suspects. The advances in technology should be utilised for the greater good, and it seems that this would be a good way to identify criminals in cases where suspects can be wrongly identified or to facilitate these searches. Often criminals get away with the crimes they committed, so by using this technology it could quite easily widen the number of people that can be identified. I'm sure with machine learning algorithms these systems can detect individuals quite accurately, meaning it's likely a good way to identify suspects. With the assistance of humans it's likely that even in cases where people are wrongly selected initially, they will not be wrongly brought to the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Facial recognition technology can be an important tool in the fight against crime. Cameras are in place throughout our cities and towns and being able to access the information they provide is essential to track the whereabouts of criminals. Some may feel there is an issue in regards to privacy but I think the cameras are already filming so why not make use of them. The give police extra eyes as they cannot be in all places at once. However, there is a concern that this technology will infringe people's human rights . We do not want to live in a Police State and this technology may be one further step towards this. The technology is not perfect and there is a risk that people will be wrongly identified. It is therefore important that the police are not able to use this technology in an arbitrary way. It should be used only when there is a clear and present danger to the public and the police have a reasonable belief that the person is a suspect. The police should be required to provide a justification for their use of the technology and the use should be reviewed by an independent body. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Facial recognition software is a useful tool for the police to use to identify suspects. It can be used to identify people who commit crimes and can be used in conjunction with other forms of surveillance to track suspects. It is a non-invasive way to track people and can be used to protect law-abiding citizens. However, there are concerns that it could be misused and that it could be used to infringe on people's human rights. The police should only be allowed to use this technology in very specific circumstances and there should be a robust system in place to ensure that it is not misused. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that the police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to search for suspects. We believe that this is a useful tool for the police to use, as it can help to identify criminals and help to prevent crime. We believe that the police should not have unfettered access to this technology, as this could be seen as an invasion of privacy. Instead, we believe that the police should be required to obtain a warrant before they can use this technology. This will ensure that the police do not abuse this power, and will also ensure that the police are only using this technology in the cases where it is most needed. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002325.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002325.soc index 794e9c21..3a5d0e45 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002325.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002325.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that it is not acceptable to own a pet in a small apartment if you are out all day. We believe that it is not fair on the animal to be left in a small space for long periods of time. We believe that the animal would become distressed and lonely and that this would not be fair to the animal. We also believe that if the animal is left in the small space for long periods of time, it may become destructive and this may cause problems with the neighbours. We believe that the animal should be walked at least twice a day and be allowed to run around and play. The animal should also be allowed to socialise with other animals. We also believe that the animal should have a good quality of life and that the owner should be able to spend time with the animal. If the owner is not able to do this, then they should not own a pet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of owning any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. The general feeling was that this would be unfair on the animal and that they would be unlikely to get the exercise and socialisation that they require. The group felt that smaller animals such as hamsters and birds would be more suitable for this type of environment, but that even these animals would require some attention during the day. The group felt that it would be unfair to leave any animal alone all day and that this would lead to the animal becoming distressed. The group felt that it would be more suitable to wait until you have a larger home and more free time before getting a pet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of owning an animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. The group felt that this would not be fair on the animal and that they would not be able to get the exercise they need. The group felt that the animal would become stressed and could become destructive. The group felt that it would be better for the animal to be re-homed to a family who could provide a better environment for them. The group did agree that there were some exceptions to this. For example, if the animal was a small animal that did not need much exercise and was happy to be left alone for long periods of time. The group also agreed that there are alternatives to re-homing the animal, such as paying someone to check in on the animal or take it for a walk around lunchtime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of owning an animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. The group felt that this would not be fair on the animal and that they would not be able to get the exercise they need. The group felt that the animal would become stressed and could become destructive. The group felt that it would be better for the animal to be re-homed to a family who could provide a better environment for them. The group did agree that there were some exceptions to this. For example, if the animal was a small animal that did not need much exercise and was happy to be left alone for long periods of time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that it is not acceptable to own a pet in a small apartment if you are out all day. We believe that it is not fair on the animal to be left in a small space for long periods of time. We believe that the animal would become distressed and lonely and that this would not be fair to the animal. We also believe that if the animal is left in the small space for long periods of time, it may become destructive and this may cause problems with the neighbours. We believe that the animal should be walked at least twice a day and be allowed to run around and play. The animal should also be allowed to socialise with other animals. We also believe that the animal should have a good quality of life and that the owner should be able to spend time with the animal. If the owner is not able to do this, then they should not own a pet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of owning any animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. The general feeling was that this would be unfair on the animal and that they would be unlikely to get the exercise and socialisation that they require. The group felt that smaller animals such as hamsters and birds would be more suitable for this type of environment, but that even these animals would require some attention during the day. The group felt that it would be unfair to leave any animal alone all day and that this would lead to the animal becoming distressed. The group felt that it would be more suitable to wait until you have a larger home and more free time before getting a pet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of owning an animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. The group felt that this would not be fair on the animal and that they would not be able to get the exercise they need. The group felt that the animal would become stressed and could become destructive. The group felt that it would be better for the animal to be re-homed to a family who could provide a better environment for them. The group did agree that there were some exceptions to this. For example, if the animal was a small animal that did not need much exercise and was happy to be left alone for long periods of time. The group also agreed that there are alternatives to re-homing the animal, such as paying someone to check in on the animal or take it for a walk around lunchtime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of owning an animal as a pet if you live in a small apartment and are at work all day. The group felt that this would not be fair on the animal and that they would not be able to get the exercise they need. The group felt that the animal would become stressed and could become destructive. The group felt that it would be better for the animal to be re-homed to a family who could provide a better environment for them. The group did agree that there were some exceptions to this. For example, if the animal was a small animal that did not need much exercise and was happy to be left alone for long periods of time. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002326.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002326.soc index 05cfd8aa..125ef9ca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002326.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002326.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the road, but with some caveats. The technology is there, and the level of testing that has been done is extensive, so it is only a matter of time before they are allowed on the road. However, the group felt that the technology is not yet ready to be used by the general public, and that there should be a period of time where they are only used by a select few. This will allow for any issues to be identified and resolved, and for the public to become more comfortable with the idea. It was felt that the best way to introduce them would be to have them on the roads in a limited capacity, for example as taxis or delivery vehicles, where the driver can be in the vehicle to take control if anything were to go wrong. This would allow for the technology to be tested in a real-world environment, but without putting the general public at risk. The group also felt that the autonomous cars should be designed to take into account all weather conditions, to ensure that they are safe to use in all situations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the road, but with some caveats. The technology is there, and the level of testing that has been done is extensive, so it is only a matter of time before they are allowed on the road. However, the group felt that the technology is not yet ready to be used by the general public, and that there should be a period of time where they are only used by a select few. This will allow for any issues to be identified and resolved, and for the public to become more comfortable with the idea. It was felt that the best way to introduce them would be to have them on the roads in a limited capacity, for example as taxis or delivery vehicles, where the driver can be in the vehicle to take control if anything were to go wrong. This would allow for the technology to be tested in a real-world environment, but without putting the general public at risk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The majority of participants thought that the technology is not yet developed enough to be allowed on the road. However, the participants thought that it was only a matter of time before autonomous cars would be allowed on the road, as the technology is advancing at a rapid rate. The participants thought that it was a positive step towards making our roads safer, however there was a level of concern about the safety of the vehicles, and whether they would be able to react to the unexpected in the same way that a human driver would. The consensus view was that the technology is not yet ready for the roads, but it is only a matter of time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the roads, but only after extensive testing to ensure safety. The technology is there already, so it is only a matter of time before this happens anyway. We must ensure it is a phased approach. The level of technology has to develop significantly more before we consider autonomous cars for wider public use. There are so many variables that come into play when a human evaluates how to drive safely, such as adverse weather or having to brake suddenly. I don't think that machine learning is developed enough to allow autonomous cars yet, especially if there'd be a mix of human and computer drivers on any given road. Maybe eventually, but not at the moment, unless there is a competent person in the driver's seat to act as a manual override if something in the autonomous car does go wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the road, but with some caveats. The technology is there, and the level of testing that has been done is extensive, so it is only a matter of time before they are allowed on the road. However, the group felt that the technology is not yet ready to be used by the general public, and that there should be a period of time where they are only used by a select few. This will allow for any issues to be identified and resolved, and for the public to become more comfortable with the idea. It was felt that the best way to introduce them would be to have them on the roads in a limited capacity, for example as taxis or delivery vehicles, where the driver can be in the vehicle to take control if anything were to go wrong. This would allow for the technology to be tested in a real-world environment, but without putting the general public at risk. The group also felt that the autonomous cars should be designed to take into account all weather conditions, to ensure that they are safe to use in all situations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the road, but with some caveats. The technology is there, and the level of testing that has been done is extensive, so it is only a matter of time before they are allowed on the road. However, the group felt that the technology is not yet ready to be used by the general public, and that there should be a period of time where they are only used by a select few. This will allow for any issues to be identified and resolved, and for the public to become more comfortable with the idea. It was felt that the best way to introduce them would be to have them on the roads in a limited capacity, for example as taxis or delivery vehicles, where the driver can be in the vehicle to take control if anything were to go wrong. This would allow for the technology to be tested in a real-world environment, but without putting the general public at risk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The majority of participants thought that the technology is not yet developed enough to be allowed on the road. However, the participants thought that it was only a matter of time before autonomous cars would be allowed on the road, as the technology is advancing at a rapid rate. The participants thought that it was a positive step towards making our roads safer, however there was a level of concern about the safety of the vehicles, and whether they would be able to react to the unexpected in the same way that a human driver would. The consensus view was that the technology is not yet ready for the roads, but it is only a matter of time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing autonomous cars on the roads, but only after extensive testing to ensure safety. The technology is there already, so it is only a matter of time before this happens anyway. We must ensure it is a phased approach. The level of technology has to develop significantly more before we consider autonomous cars for wider public use. There are so many variables that come into play when a human evaluates how to drive safely, such as adverse weather or having to brake suddenly. I don't think that machine learning is developed enough to allow autonomous cars yet, especially if there'd be a mix of human and computer drivers on any given road. Maybe eventually, but not at the moment, unless there is a competent person in the driver's seat to act as a manual override if something in the autonomous car does go wrong. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002327.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002327.soc index f75451cd..1df996aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002327.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002327.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, the climate appears to be getting worse every year. The current heatwave in Southern Europe demonstrates this well, as temperatures that are being recorded are breaking records in recent history. Natural disasters are increasing both in levels of frequency and devastation, such as the recent wildfires in North America. Governments and private companies responsible for contributing to this emergency are doing little to mitigate any effects, so more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are having to protest on the streets for just a minute piece of action to be done. I think we are heading into dangerous territory regarding climate change. However, I don't believe very much can be done while consumer demand is so high and big countries such as China are contributing so highly to global warming. The serious effects will be mostly felt by generations to come. as a planet we are definitely facing a climate emergency. with the rise of new technologies in the past 50 years we have relied on fossil fuels. this has meant that the chemicals released are destroying out atmosphere. this has risen at a very face rate. if we dont do things to take action then we will destroy the atmosphere making it unlivable for us -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are facing a climate emergency and we need to do something about it right now before it's too late for future generations. The world last week hit a record temp and it's killing off wildlife and it's killing people. Natural disasters are increasing both in levels of frequency and devastation, such as the recent wildfires in North America. Governments and private companies responsible for contributing to this emergency are doing little to mitigate any effects, so more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are having to protest on the streets for just a minute piece of action to be done. I think we are heading into dangerous territory regarding climate change. However, I don't believe very much can be done while consumer demand is so high and big countries such as China are contributing so highly to global warming. The serious effects will be mostly felt by generations to come. as a planet we are definitely facing a climate emergency. with the rise of new technologies in the past 50 years we have relied on fossil fuels. this has meant that the chemicals released are destroying out atmosphere. this has risen at a very face rate. if we dont do things to take action then we will destroy the atmosphere making it unlivable for us. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We are facing a climate emergency, but are not doing enough to stop it. The recent heatwaves in Europe and wildfires in America are just a few examples of the effects of climate change. It is very likely that future generations will be faced with many more extreme weather events, and this is why something needs to be done now. Governments and private companies are not doing enough to mitigate the effects of climate change, and this is why we need to act. The recent protests by Extinction Rebellion are one way of trying to bring about change, but there is a long way to go before any significant progress is made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The climate crisis is extremely worrying. The scientific consensus is clear: we are on course for a temperature rise of over 3°C this century, which will cause devastating and irreversible damage to our planet and its inhabitants. Already, we are seeing the impacts of climate change and the worsening of weather extremes. If we continue on our current path, we will face increasingly severe climate impacts, such as the flooding of coastal areas, increasingly extreme weather events, and the mass extinction of species. However, there is still time to act. If we can limit warming to 1.5°C, there is a chance to preserve our planet for future generations. This will require a rapid and just transition to a zero-carbon economy, with a strong focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency. If we are to survive and thrive in the future, we must act now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, the climate appears to be getting worse every year. The current heatwave in Southern Europe demonstrates this well, as temperatures that are being recorded are breaking records in recent history. Natural disasters are increasing both in levels of frequency and devastation, such as the recent wildfires in North America. Governments and private companies responsible for contributing to this emergency are doing little to mitigate any effects, so more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are having to protest on the streets for just a minute piece of action to be done. I think we are heading into dangerous territory regarding climate change. However, I don't believe very much can be done while consumer demand is so high and big countries such as China are contributing so highly to global warming. The serious effects will be mostly felt by generations to come. as a planet we are definitely facing a climate emergency. with the rise of new technologies in the past 50 years we have relied on fossil fuels. this has meant that the chemicals released are destroying out atmosphere. this has risen at a very face rate. if we dont do things to take action then we will destroy the atmosphere making it unlivable for us +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are facing a climate emergency and we need to do something about it right now before it's too late for future generations. The world last week hit a record temp and it's killing off wildlife and it's killing people. Natural disasters are increasing both in levels of frequency and devastation, such as the recent wildfires in North America. Governments and private companies responsible for contributing to this emergency are doing little to mitigate any effects, so more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are having to protest on the streets for just a minute piece of action to be done. I think we are heading into dangerous territory regarding climate change. However, I don't believe very much can be done while consumer demand is so high and big countries such as China are contributing so highly to global warming. The serious effects will be mostly felt by generations to come. as a planet we are definitely facing a climate emergency. with the rise of new technologies in the past 50 years we have relied on fossil fuels. this has meant that the chemicals released are destroying out atmosphere. this has risen at a very face rate. if we dont do things to take action then we will destroy the atmosphere making it unlivable for us. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We are facing a climate emergency, but are not doing enough to stop it. The recent heatwaves in Europe and wildfires in America are just a few examples of the effects of climate change. It is very likely that future generations will be faced with many more extreme weather events, and this is why something needs to be done now. Governments and private companies are not doing enough to mitigate the effects of climate change, and this is why we need to act. The recent protests by Extinction Rebellion are one way of trying to bring about change, but there is a long way to go before any significant progress is made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The climate crisis is extremely worrying. The scientific consensus is clear: we are on course for a temperature rise of over 3°C this century, which will cause devastating and irreversible damage to our planet and its inhabitants. Already, we are seeing the impacts of climate change and the worsening of weather extremes. If we continue on our current path, we will face increasingly severe climate impacts, such as the flooding of coastal areas, increasingly extreme weather events, and the mass extinction of species. However, there is still time to act. If we can limit warming to 1.5°C, there is a chance to preserve our planet for future generations. This will require a rapid and just transition to a zero-carbon economy, with a strong focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency. If we are to survive and thrive in the future, we must act now. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002328.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002328.soc index 91a3eabd..6fde9b79 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002328.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002328.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, we should introduce a cap on the level of wealth that can be accumulated intergenerationally to ensure that the rich-poor divide is not exacerbated by large levels of inherited wealth. This cap should be set at a level that will allow the average person to accumulate a small amount of wealth, but not enough to live off for the rest of their life. This will ensure that the majority of the population continues to work hard and contribute to society, whilst also ensuring that the 1% do not continue to get richer and richer.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally. There should be a limit on intergenerational wealth to stop the 1% getting richer and richer. It would help with the rich-poor divide. A limit of £1 million, for example, would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally. There should be a limit on intergenerational wealth to stop the 1% getting richer and richer. It would help with the rich-poor divide.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, we should ensure that everyone has the opportunity to buy their own home, and to do so at an affordable price. This will allow a level of intergenerational wealth to be accumulated by most sections of the population.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, we should introduce a cap on the level of wealth that can be accumulated intergenerationally to ensure that the rich-poor divide is not exacerbated by large levels of inherited wealth. This cap should be set at a level that will allow the average person to accumulate a small amount of wealth, but not enough to live off for the rest of their life. This will ensure that the majority of the population continues to work hard and contribute to society, whilst also ensuring that the 1% do not continue to get richer and richer.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally. There should be a limit on intergenerational wealth to stop the 1% getting richer and richer. It would help with the rich-poor divide. A limit of £1 million, for example, would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, there should be more access to affordable housing so that most sections of the population have the opportunity to buy their own home. Having bought a modest home, it should be up to the homeowner whether any of this wealth can be accumulated intergenerationally. There should be a limit on intergenerational wealth to stop the 1% getting richer and richer. It would help with the rich-poor divide.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We should not abolish private property as generational wealth is important in this country. It provides an incentive to work harder and longer, if you believe your earnings will be passed on to loved ones. Abolishing private property will lead toward Socialism/Communism, and historically those countries have not fared well in the long term. If there is little incentive to work, then the society will be less productive. However, we should ensure that everyone has the opportunity to buy their own home, and to do so at an affordable price. This will allow a level of intergenerational wealth to be accumulated by most sections of the population.” 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002329.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002329.soc index 6d4cec01..fae39aa2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002329.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002329.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it would allow people to be more proactive in their energy use, allowing them to choose suppliers based on a number of factors such as price, environmental impact and customer service. Secondly, it would allow people to be more environmentally friendly in their energy use, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide more green energy. Thirdly, it would allow people to save money on their energy bills, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide the best value for money. Finally, it would allow people to hold energy suppliers to account, by allowing them to switch suppliers if they are unhappy with the service they are receiving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. The whole process is too complicated and this puts people off switching. It is also difficult to find out which energy supplier is the cheapest and this is another reason that people do not switch. The government should make the whole process of switching very simple and easy to do. There should be an independent website that lists all of the energy suppliers, their prices and customer satisfaction ratings. This website should also provide an easy to use comparison tool that allows people to compare different energy suppliers based on their own specific needs. The government should also make it a legal requirement for energy suppliers to make it very easy for people to contact them to make complaints, queries and to switch to a different energy supplier. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it would allow people to be more proactive in their energy use, allowing them to choose suppliers based on a number of factors such as price, environmental impact and customer service. Secondly, it would allow people to be more environmentally friendly in their energy use, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide more green energy. Thirdly, it would allow people to save money on their energy bills, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide the best value for money. Finally, it would allow people to hold energy suppliers to account, by allowing them to switch suppliers if they are unhappy with the service they are receiving. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. This is because it will make the energy market more competitive, meaning that energy companies will have to lower their prices in order to attract customers. It will also allow people to make their own choices about which energy suppliers they use, whether this is on financial grounds or the environmental impact of the energy suppliers. The government should also make the switching process as simple as the current account switch programme, to hold energy suppliers to account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it would allow people to be more proactive in their energy use, allowing them to choose suppliers based on a number of factors such as price, environmental impact and customer service. Secondly, it would allow people to be more environmentally friendly in their energy use, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide more green energy. Thirdly, it would allow people to save money on their energy bills, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide the best value for money. Finally, it would allow people to hold energy suppliers to account, by allowing them to switch suppliers if they are unhappy with the service they are receiving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should make it easier for people to switch energy suppliers. The whole process is too complicated and this puts people off switching. It is also difficult to find out which energy supplier is the cheapest and this is another reason that people do not switch. The government should make the whole process of switching very simple and easy to do. There should be an independent website that lists all of the energy suppliers, their prices and customer satisfaction ratings. This website should also provide an easy to use comparison tool that allows people to compare different energy suppliers based on their own specific needs. The government should also make it a legal requirement for energy suppliers to make it very easy for people to contact them to make complaints, queries and to switch to a different energy supplier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it would allow people to be more proactive in their energy use, allowing them to choose suppliers based on a number of factors such as price, environmental impact and customer service. Secondly, it would allow people to be more environmentally friendly in their energy use, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide more green energy. Thirdly, it would allow people to save money on their energy bills, by allowing them to choose suppliers that provide the best value for money. Finally, it would allow people to hold energy suppliers to account, by allowing them to switch suppliers if they are unhappy with the service they are receiving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should make it easier for people to switch to other energy suppliers. This is because it will make the energy market more competitive, meaning that energy companies will have to lower their prices in order to attract customers. It will also allow people to make their own choices about which energy suppliers they use, whether this is on financial grounds or the environmental impact of the energy suppliers. The government should also make the switching process as simple as the current account switch programme, to hold energy suppliers to account. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002330.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002330.soc index 501af30a..9f716439 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002330.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002330.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a general consensus that the government should spend more on improving the railway network. There is a need for more lines and more trains, especially in rural areas. The government should also ensure that the railway network is more efficient and reliable. This will require investment in new infrastructure and rolling stock. However, the current economic climate means that the government should be careful about where it spends its money. Therefore, the government should consider whether the railway network is the best place to spend money at the moment. We recognise that other areas, such as the NHS, also require investment. However, the railway network is used by a large number of the population and, if improved, would reduce the number of cars on the road. We also believe that the railway network is a priority for the government, due to the ongoing climate emergency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a definite need for the government to spend more money on improving the railway network. The current railway network is not adequate to meet the needs of the population. There is a need for more lines and more trains, especially in rural areas. The government should also ensure that the railway network is more efficient and reliable. This will require investment in new infrastructure and rolling stock. However, the current economic climate means that the government should be careful about where it spends its money. Therefore, the government should consider whether the railway network is the best place to spend money at the moment. It may be the case that the government should not spend money on the railway network, but spend it instead on improving other forms of public transport such as buses, or on improving the road network so that cars can get around more easily. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that more investment is needed in the railway network. We think that people should be encouraged to use public transport more as it reduces the number of cars on the road. We feel that this will be more beneficial to the environment as less fossil fuels will be burned. We also feel that it will reduce congestion on the roads and increase the speed of transport. We think that the money should be spent on improving the tracks that are already in place as well as building new ones to improve transport links to rural areas. We feel that more investment in the railway network will also provide more job opportunities for people in rural areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more money on improving the railway network. The majority of participants felt that the current state of the railway network in the UK was poor. It was felt that the quality of the service was very low, with trains frequently delayed or cancelled and that this was not acceptable. It was felt that this is partly due to the privatisation of the railway network. It was felt that this had led to a decrease in the quality of the service provided and that the government should take back control of the railway network. It was felt that this would lead to an increase in the quality of the service provided and would lead to a decrease in the cost of using the railway network. It was felt that this would lead to people being more likely to use the railway network and would lead to a decrease in the amount of cars on the road and a decrease in carbon emissions. The group was in favour of the government spending more money on improving the railway network. It was felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a general consensus that the government should spend more on improving the railway network. There is a need for more lines and more trains, especially in rural areas. The government should also ensure that the railway network is more efficient and reliable. This will require investment in new infrastructure and rolling stock. However, the current economic climate means that the government should be careful about where it spends its money. Therefore, the government should consider whether the railway network is the best place to spend money at the moment. We recognise that other areas, such as the NHS, also require investment. However, the railway network is used by a large number of the population and, if improved, would reduce the number of cars on the road. We also believe that the railway network is a priority for the government, due to the ongoing climate emergency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a definite need for the government to spend more money on improving the railway network. The current railway network is not adequate to meet the needs of the population. There is a need for more lines and more trains, especially in rural areas. The government should also ensure that the railway network is more efficient and reliable. This will require investment in new infrastructure and rolling stock. However, the current economic climate means that the government should be careful about where it spends its money. Therefore, the government should consider whether the railway network is the best place to spend money at the moment. It may be the case that the government should not spend money on the railway network, but spend it instead on improving other forms of public transport such as buses, or on improving the road network so that cars can get around more easily. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that more investment is needed in the railway network. We think that people should be encouraged to use public transport more as it reduces the number of cars on the road. We feel that this will be more beneficial to the environment as less fossil fuels will be burned. We also feel that it will reduce congestion on the roads and increase the speed of transport. We think that the money should be spent on improving the tracks that are already in place as well as building new ones to improve transport links to rural areas. We feel that more investment in the railway network will also provide more job opportunities for people in rural areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the government spending more money on improving the railway network. The majority of participants felt that the current state of the railway network in the UK was poor. It was felt that the quality of the service was very low, with trains frequently delayed or cancelled and that this was not acceptable. It was felt that this is partly due to the privatisation of the railway network. It was felt that this had led to a decrease in the quality of the service provided and that the government should take back control of the railway network. It was felt that this would lead to an increase in the quality of the service provided and would lead to a decrease in the cost of using the railway network. It was felt that this would lead to people being more likely to use the railway network and would lead to a decrease in the amount of cars on the road and a decrease in carbon emissions. The group was in favour of the government spending more money on improving the railway network. It was felt that this would be beneficial for the country as a whole. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002331.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002331.soc index e9fb9b52..03c3396b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002331.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002331.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Facial recognition technology can be an important tool in the fight against crime. Cameras are in place throughout our cities and towns and being able to access the information they provide is essential to track the whereabouts of criminals. Some may feel there is an issue in regards to privacy but I think the cameras are already filming so why not make use of them. The give police extra eyes as they cannot be in all places at once. However, there is a concern that this technology will infringe people's human rights. We do not want to live in a Police State and this technology may be one further step towards this. The technology is not perfect and there is a risk that people will be wrongly identified. It is therefore important that the police are not able to use this technology in an arbitrary way. It should be used only when there is a clear and present danger to the public and the police have a reasonable belief that the person is a suspect. The police should be required to provide a justification for their use of the technology and the use should be reviewed by an independent body. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The police should have the power to use facial recognition technology to search for suspects. The advances in technology should be utilised for the greater good, and it seems that this would be a good way to identify criminals in cases where suspects can be wrongly identified or to facilitate these searches. Often criminals get away with the crimes they committed, so by using this technology it could quite easily widen the number of people that can be identified. I'm sure with machine learning algorithms these systems can detect individuals quite accurately, meaning it's likely a good way to identify suspects. With the assistance of humans it's likely that even in cases where people are wrongly selected initially, they will not be wrongly brought to the system. However, this technology should be used under strict guidelines to ensure the highest accuracy is maintained. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Facial recognition technology can be an important tool in the fight against crime. Cameras are in place throughout our cities and towns and being able to access the information they provide is essential to track the whereabouts of criminals. Some may feel there is an issue in regards to privacy but I think the cameras are already filming so why not make use of them. The give police extra eyes as they cannot be in all places at once. However, there is a concern that this technology will infringe people's human rights . We do not want to live in a Police State and this technology may be one further step towards this. The technology is not perfect and there is a risk that people will be wrongly identified. It is therefore important that the police are not able to use this technology in an arbitrary way. It should be used only when there is a clear and present danger to the public and the police have a reasonable belief that the person is a suspect. The police should be required to provide a justification for their use of the technology and the use should be reviewed by an independent body. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to search for suspects, but only in specific circumstances. The use of facial recognition technology must be only used to track down those who have committed a crime, and not used to identify potential criminals. If the police want to use this technology to search for suspects, then they must ensure that they use it in a responsible manner. The police should be aware of the potential impact of this technology on people's privacy, and they should not use this technology in a way that could infringe on people's human rights. The police should also be aware that this technology is not infallible, and there is a chance that it could lead to the wrongful identification of an individual. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Facial recognition technology can be an important tool in the fight against crime. Cameras are in place throughout our cities and towns and being able to access the information they provide is essential to track the whereabouts of criminals. Some may feel there is an issue in regards to privacy but I think the cameras are already filming so why not make use of them. The give police extra eyes as they cannot be in all places at once. However, there is a concern that this technology will infringe people's human rights. We do not want to live in a Police State and this technology may be one further step towards this. The technology is not perfect and there is a risk that people will be wrongly identified. It is therefore important that the police are not able to use this technology in an arbitrary way. It should be used only when there is a clear and present danger to the public and the police have a reasonable belief that the person is a suspect. The police should be required to provide a justification for their use of the technology and the use should be reviewed by an independent body. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The police should have the power to use facial recognition technology to search for suspects. The advances in technology should be utilised for the greater good, and it seems that this would be a good way to identify criminals in cases where suspects can be wrongly identified or to facilitate these searches. Often criminals get away with the crimes they committed, so by using this technology it could quite easily widen the number of people that can be identified. I'm sure with machine learning algorithms these systems can detect individuals quite accurately, meaning it's likely a good way to identify suspects. With the assistance of humans it's likely that even in cases where people are wrongly selected initially, they will not be wrongly brought to the system. However, this technology should be used under strict guidelines to ensure the highest accuracy is maintained. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Facial recognition technology can be an important tool in the fight against crime. Cameras are in place throughout our cities and towns and being able to access the information they provide is essential to track the whereabouts of criminals. Some may feel there is an issue in regards to privacy but I think the cameras are already filming so why not make use of them. The give police extra eyes as they cannot be in all places at once. However, there is a concern that this technology will infringe people's human rights . We do not want to live in a Police State and this technology may be one further step towards this. The technology is not perfect and there is a risk that people will be wrongly identified. It is therefore important that the police are not able to use this technology in an arbitrary way. It should be used only when there is a clear and present danger to the public and the police have a reasonable belief that the person is a suspect. The police should be required to provide a justification for their use of the technology and the use should be reviewed by an independent body. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The police should be allowed to use facial recognition technology to search for suspects, but only in specific circumstances. The use of facial recognition technology must be only used to track down those who have committed a crime, and not used to identify potential criminals. If the police want to use this technology to search for suspects, then they must ensure that they use it in a responsible manner. The police should be aware of the potential impact of this technology on people's privacy, and they should not use this technology in a way that could infringe on people's human rights. The police should also be aware that this technology is not infallible, and there is a chance that it could lead to the wrongful identification of an individual. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002332.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002332.soc index 37e05843..b898aff6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002332.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002332.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging people to eat insects. The main argument was that it is not necessary to eat insects to save the planet, and that there are other more sustainable sources of protein. It was also argued that insects are not a versatile food source and that many people would be put off by having to eat them. It was agreed, however, that insects could be used to feed livestock, and that this could be a more sustainable way of producing meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of eating insects to save the planet. The reasons for this included the fact that insects are not a very versatile food and that there are other more sustainable sources of protein that could be used instead. The group also felt that there would be a large number of people who would be put off by the idea of eating insects and so it would be very difficult to get people to eat them. However, the group did feel that insects could be used to feed livestock and so reduce the amount of meat that we need to produce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging people to eat insects. This was for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it would be difficult to get people to change their diet and also because it would be difficult to get people to overcome their disgust of eating insects. The group did agree, however, that insects could be used as a protein source for livestock and that this could be a useful way of reducing the environmental impact of livestock farming. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of eating insects to save the planet. This was for a number of reasons, including the fact that insects are not a very versatile food source, and the fact that many people would be put off by the idea of eating insects. The group did, however, agree that insects could be used to feed livestock, and that this could be a useful way of reducing emissions and making the food industry more sustainable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging people to eat insects. The main argument was that it is not necessary to eat insects to save the planet, and that there are other more sustainable sources of protein. It was also argued that insects are not a versatile food source and that many people would be put off by having to eat them. It was agreed, however, that insects could be used to feed livestock, and that this could be a more sustainable way of producing meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of eating insects to save the planet. The reasons for this included the fact that insects are not a very versatile food and that there are other more sustainable sources of protein that could be used instead. The group also felt that there would be a large number of people who would be put off by the idea of eating insects and so it would be very difficult to get people to eat them. However, the group did feel that insects could be used to feed livestock and so reduce the amount of meat that we need to produce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging people to eat insects. This was for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it would be difficult to get people to change their diet and also because it would be difficult to get people to overcome their disgust of eating insects. The group did agree, however, that insects could be used as a protein source for livestock and that this could be a useful way of reducing the environmental impact of livestock farming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of eating insects to save the planet. This was for a number of reasons, including the fact that insects are not a very versatile food source, and the fact that many people would be put off by the idea of eating insects. The group did, however, agree that insects could be used to feed livestock, and that this could be a useful way of reducing emissions and making the food industry more sustainable. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002333.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002333.soc index 28ba25bf..991dd4a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002333.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002333.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the world is making good progress in increasing the use of renewable energy, we have not yet increased it enough to tangibly benefit the environment. This is because, although renewable energy is good for the environment, the production of the technology needed to harness the renewable energy can be very damaging to the environment. In addition, the production of renewable energy is not yet reliable enough to replace fossil fuels. We will need to increase the use of renewable energy even more, and make it more reliable, before we will see any tangible benefits to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have not increased our use of renewable energy enough to tangibly benefit the environment. This is because although renewable energy sources have increased in popularity, the majority of countries are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. This is particularly true for the heavy industrialised nations. In addition, although renewable energy sources may be beneficial to the environment, the production of the technology to produce renewable energy may cause environmental pollution. For example, wind farms may involve the mining of precious metals for computer chips. Finally, the technology isn't reliable because wind and sea energy is variable and scientists haven't yet come up with a way to regulate it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although the use of renewable energy has increased in recent years, it is still not enough to tangibly benefit the environment. The heavy industrialised nations are still using fossil fuels extensively and the world is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels for energy. The heavy pollution and toxic gases being released into the atmosphere is still overwhelming the benefits of renewable energy use. We will not see these benefits until harmful emissions are ceased. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have increased our use of renewable energy, however, this has not been enough to tangibly benefit the environment. We have taken some steps in the right direction, but the steps we have taken are massively negatively impacted by the things that are damaging the environment. Therefore, more needs to be done to improve the already implemented methods. The continuous outpouring of pollution, CO2 and toxic gases into the air completely overwhelms any of the benefits seen through green energy initiatives. We will not see these benefits until harmful emissions are ceased. Renewable energy use is still limited compared to our overall requirement for energy. It has a minimal impact on the environment and will not make a huge difference until all countries around the world are fully geared up for renewables use. The heavy industrialised nations are still using fossil fuel extensively. Renewable energy may benefit the environment but producing the technology may cause environmental pollution. Technology such as wind farms, for example, may involve the mining of precious metals for computer chips. In addition, the technology isn't reliable because wind and sea energy is variable and scientists haven't yet come up with a way to regulate it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the world is making good progress in increasing the use of renewable energy, we have not yet increased it enough to tangibly benefit the environment. This is because, although renewable energy is good for the environment, the production of the technology needed to harness the renewable energy can be very damaging to the environment. In addition, the production of renewable energy is not yet reliable enough to replace fossil fuels. We will need to increase the use of renewable energy even more, and make it more reliable, before we will see any tangible benefits to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have not increased our use of renewable energy enough to tangibly benefit the environment. This is because although renewable energy sources have increased in popularity, the majority of countries are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. This is particularly true for the heavy industrialised nations. In addition, although renewable energy sources may be beneficial to the environment, the production of the technology to produce renewable energy may cause environmental pollution. For example, wind farms may involve the mining of precious metals for computer chips. Finally, the technology isn't reliable because wind and sea energy is variable and scientists haven't yet come up with a way to regulate it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although the use of renewable energy has increased in recent years, it is still not enough to tangibly benefit the environment. The heavy industrialised nations are still using fossil fuels extensively and the world is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels for energy. The heavy pollution and toxic gases being released into the atmosphere is still overwhelming the benefits of renewable energy use. We will not see these benefits until harmful emissions are ceased. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have increased our use of renewable energy, however, this has not been enough to tangibly benefit the environment. We have taken some steps in the right direction, but the steps we have taken are massively negatively impacted by the things that are damaging the environment. Therefore, more needs to be done to improve the already implemented methods. The continuous outpouring of pollution, CO2 and toxic gases into the air completely overwhelms any of the benefits seen through green energy initiatives. We will not see these benefits until harmful emissions are ceased. Renewable energy use is still limited compared to our overall requirement for energy. It has a minimal impact on the environment and will not make a huge difference until all countries around the world are fully geared up for renewables use. The heavy industrialised nations are still using fossil fuel extensively. Renewable energy may benefit the environment but producing the technology may cause environmental pollution. Technology such as wind farms, for example, may involve the mining of precious metals for computer chips. In addition, the technology isn't reliable because wind and sea energy is variable and scientists haven't yet come up with a way to regulate it. 3: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002334.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002334.soc index 58b550fa..c60a9e0e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002334.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002334.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride is a complex issue. It can be a dangerous thing and lead to a dangerous nationalism. On the other hand, it is important to remember history, whether it be good or bad. However, the pride we should have is not for a nation state, but for the people within it. We should be proud of the people who live in this country, who have made it what it is today. The people who live in this country are what make it great, not the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging a greater degree of national pride. This is because of the negative historical precedents of this, and the potential for this to lead to the development of negative attitudes towards other cultures and nationalities. However, it was also recognised that for some people, a sense of pride in their nationality is important for their self-esteem and wellbeing. The group felt that it is fair for people to express this pride, but that we should not be encouraging it further. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: National pride is a double-edged sword. Whilst it can have many benefits for society, it can also lead to the development of negative attitudes towards other cultures and nationalities. The extent to which a government should be encouraging national pride is therefore debatable. It is important to remember that the past is not always something to be proud of, and it is important to be critical of this. It is also important to remember that the future is something to be proud of, and to encourage this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. A greater degree of national pride would lead to a dangerous Nationalism. We should encourage a critical analysis of our nation's past and current standing in the world. If anything, we should encourage a greater degree of national shame, for our past is full of shameful events that we should be more analytical about as a society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride is a complex issue. It can be a dangerous thing and lead to a dangerous nationalism. On the other hand, it is important to remember history, whether it be good or bad. However, the pride we should have is not for a nation state, but for the people within it. We should be proud of the people who live in this country, who have made it what it is today. The people who live in this country are what make it great, not the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging a greater degree of national pride. This is because of the negative historical precedents of this, and the potential for this to lead to the development of negative attitudes towards other cultures and nationalities. However, it was also recognised that for some people, a sense of pride in their nationality is important for their self-esteem and wellbeing. The group felt that it is fair for people to express this pride, but that we should not be encouraging it further. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - National pride is a double-edged sword. Whilst it can have many benefits for society, it can also lead to the development of negative attitudes towards other cultures and nationalities. The extent to which a government should be encouraging national pride is therefore debatable. It is important to remember that the past is not always something to be proud of, and it is important to be critical of this. It is also important to remember that the future is something to be proud of, and to encourage this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. A greater degree of national pride would lead to a dangerous Nationalism. We should encourage a critical analysis of our nation's past and current standing in the world. If anything, we should encourage a greater degree of national shame, for our past is full of shameful events that we should be more analytical about as a society. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002335.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002335.soc index f35c8c51..13099a54 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002335.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002335.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we believe that there is a strong case for spending more on health care and the arts. The NHS is in a poor state and needs more resources, and the arts bring untold joy to people. However, with the current state of the world and threats from Russia, cutting military spending is inviting problems. We need to make sure that Britain is seen as a strong world power that will not buckle if invaded, and to show that we are a force to be reckoned with. Without this, we will be seen as easier prey on the world stage. We believe that the military should be the last place we look to for cuts, and that we should instead look to make efficiencies within the NHS and the arts sector. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In general, the group was in favour of cutting military spending and increasing spending in the arts and health care. The group felt that military spending was too high and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. However, the group also felt that the military should not be cut completely, and that some money should be spent on the military to ensure that Britain is seen as a strong world power. The group felt that military spending could be reduced to allow for more spending in the arts and health care, but that some military spending should be maintained. The group felt that the arts were very important for the British economy and for the wellbeing of the British people, and that the arts should be better funded. The group felt that health care was very important and that more money should be spent in this area. The group felt that the current NHS system was not working and that the money was not being spent in the right places. The group felt that more money should be spent on the NHS to ensure that the NHS was working efficiently and to ensure that all people in Britain received the best healthcare possible. The group felt that the NHS was very important for the wellbeing of the British people and that more money should be spent in this area.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Whilst the NHS and arts are important, military spending should not be cut. We need to make sure that Britain is seen as a strong world power that will not buckle if invaded, and to show that we are a force to be reckoned with. Without this, we will be seen as easier prey on the world stage. Additionally, we should spend more money on military spending so that we can give aid to the Ukraine. Whilst healthcare in particular is very important, there are efficiencies to be made within the current NHS that mean money goes further. We should try this first before adding more money into the system. Arts are there for human enjoyment, and whilst they do contribute to the British economy, we should instead be focussing on investing in technology that will secure Britain's future.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of cutting military spending and spending more on the arts and health care. However, with the current state of the world and threats from Russia, cutting military spending is inviting problems. We need to make sure that Britain is seen as a strong world power that will not buckle if invaded, and to show that we are a force to be reckoned with. Without this, we will be seen as easier prey on the world stage. Additionally, we should spend more money on military spending so that we can give aid to the Ukraine. Whilst healthcare in particular is very important, there are efficiencies to be made within the current NHS that mean money goes further. We should try this first before adding more money into the system. Arts are there for human enjoyment, and whilst they do contribute to the British economy, we should instead be focussing on investing in technology that will secure Britain's future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we believe that there is a strong case for spending more on health care and the arts. The NHS is in a poor state and needs more resources, and the arts bring untold joy to people. However, with the current state of the world and threats from Russia, cutting military spending is inviting problems. We need to make sure that Britain is seen as a strong world power that will not buckle if invaded, and to show that we are a force to be reckoned with. Without this, we will be seen as easier prey on the world stage. We believe that the military should be the last place we look to for cuts, and that we should instead look to make efficiencies within the NHS and the arts sector. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In general, the group was in favour of cutting military spending and increasing spending in the arts and health care. The group felt that military spending was too high and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. However, the group also felt that the military should not be cut completely, and that some money should be spent on the military to ensure that Britain is seen as a strong world power. The group felt that military spending could be reduced to allow for more spending in the arts and health care, but that some military spending should be maintained. The group felt that the arts were very important for the British economy and for the wellbeing of the British people, and that the arts should be better funded. The group felt that health care was very important and that more money should be spent in this area. The group felt that the current NHS system was not working and that the money was not being spent in the right places. The group felt that more money should be spent on the NHS to ensure that the NHS was working efficiently and to ensure that all people in Britain received the best healthcare possible. The group felt that the NHS was very important for the wellbeing of the British people and that more money should be spent in this area.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Whilst the NHS and arts are important, military spending should not be cut. We need to make sure that Britain is seen as a strong world power that will not buckle if invaded, and to show that we are a force to be reckoned with. Without this, we will be seen as easier prey on the world stage. Additionally, we should spend more money on military spending so that we can give aid to the Ukraine. Whilst healthcare in particular is very important, there are efficiencies to be made within the current NHS that mean money goes further. We should try this first before adding more money into the system. Arts are there for human enjoyment, and whilst they do contribute to the British economy, we should instead be focussing on investing in technology that will secure Britain's future.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of cutting military spending and spending more on the arts and health care. However, with the current state of the world and threats from Russia, cutting military spending is inviting problems. We need to make sure that Britain is seen as a strong world power that will not buckle if invaded, and to show that we are a force to be reckoned with. Without this, we will be seen as easier prey on the world stage. Additionally, we should spend more money on military spending so that we can give aid to the Ukraine. Whilst healthcare in particular is very important, there are efficiencies to be made within the current NHS that mean money goes further. We should try this first before adding more money into the system. Arts are there for human enjoyment, and whilst they do contribute to the British economy, we should instead be focussing on investing in technology that will secure Britain's future. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002336.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002336.soc index a2c42bb6..c03fe179 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002336.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002336.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the idea of eating insects is not a good one. We do not think that it would be a good idea to encourage people to eat insects. There are other ways to help the planet that are not so drastic and would be more effective. The only way in which we think that eating insects could be a good idea is if people were to eat them in addition to their normal diet and not as a replacement. This is because insects would not provide a balanced diet and would not be sufficient to sustain life. However, insects could provide a good source of protein to supplement a normal diet. This is a better idea than encouraging people to eat insects as their only source of food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group in general did not support the idea of encouraging the eating of insects to save the planet. The reasons for this included the fact that insects are not a very versatile food and that there are other more sustainable sources of protein that could be used instead. The group also felt that there would be a large number of people who would be put off by the idea of eating insects and so it would be very difficult to get people to eat them. However, the group did feel that insects could be used to feed livestock and so reduce the amount of meat that we need to produce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of eating insects to save the planet. We all agreed that it would be very difficult to get people to change their eating habits and that the health benefits of eating insects are not sufficient to justify the change. However, some insects are beneficial to the environment and should not be eaten. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group, in general, was opposed to the idea of eating insects to save the planet. The reasons for this included the fact that insects are not a very versatile food and that there are other more sustainable sources of protein that could be used instead. The group also felt that there would be a large number of people who would be put off by the idea of eating insects and so it would be very difficult to get people to eat them. However, the group did feel that insects could be used to feed livestock and so reduce the amount of meat that we need to produce. This idea was not shared by all participants though, as one participant felt that this would be difficult as livestock are often very selective eaters. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the idea of eating insects is not a good one. We do not think that it would be a good idea to encourage people to eat insects. There are other ways to help the planet that are not so drastic and would be more effective. The only way in which we think that eating insects could be a good idea is if people were to eat them in addition to their normal diet and not as a replacement. This is because insects would not provide a balanced diet and would not be sufficient to sustain life. However, insects could provide a good source of protein to supplement a normal diet. This is a better idea than encouraging people to eat insects as their only source of food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group in general did not support the idea of encouraging the eating of insects to save the planet. The reasons for this included the fact that insects are not a very versatile food and that there are other more sustainable sources of protein that could be used instead. The group also felt that there would be a large number of people who would be put off by the idea of eating insects and so it would be very difficult to get people to eat them. However, the group did feel that insects could be used to feed livestock and so reduce the amount of meat that we need to produce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of eating insects to save the planet. We all agreed that it would be very difficult to get people to change their eating habits and that the health benefits of eating insects are not sufficient to justify the change. However, some insects are beneficial to the environment and should not be eaten. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group, in general, was opposed to the idea of eating insects to save the planet. The reasons for this included the fact that insects are not a very versatile food and that there are other more sustainable sources of protein that could be used instead. The group also felt that there would be a large number of people who would be put off by the idea of eating insects and so it would be very difficult to get people to eat them. However, the group did feel that insects could be used to feed livestock and so reduce the amount of meat that we need to produce. This idea was not shared by all participants though, as one participant felt that this would be difficult as livestock are often very selective eaters. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002337.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002337.soc index 45641d84..fae70b90 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002337.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002337.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think freedom of speech is very important. I think we should be able to express our opinions, even if they are unpopular. However, we should be careful not to cause harm to others when expressing our opinions. The line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is often blurred, and we should be careful not to cross that line. We should also be careful not to cause harm to ourselves when expressing our opinions. The best way to do this is to express our opinions in a respectful manner, and to be aware of the impact of our words on others. We should also be aware that others may not agree with us, and should respect their right to express their own opinions. In summary, we should be careful with our words, and not cause harm to others when expressing our opinions. This is a tricky balance to strike, and is not always easy, but we should try our best to strike it.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People are generally entitled to express their opinion. However, we should be careful when speech causes harm. There should be laws that are clear and concise that restrict speech in these cases. People should also be able to choose not to listen to certain things. Introduction The freedom of speech refers to a person’s right to express themselves as they choose, and that these expressions cannot be punished by law. While this may appear to be a simple idea, it has many important ramifications in a democratic society. It is the principle that has allowed for people to protest injustice and seek out reform. It is the principle that has allowed for minority groups to express their opinions and concerns, without fear of retribution or punishment. It is the principle that has allowed for free and open debate, which is the lifeblood of any thriving democracy. However, this is a principle that is not without its problems. This essay will explore the arguments for and against the freedom of speech, and will argue that we should be careful when such speech is inciting harm or extremism, but that any restrictions on freedom of speech must be set out in laws, that are clear and concise, so that everyone can understand them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I think freedom of speech is very important. I think we should be able to express our opinions, even if they are unpopular. However, we should be careful not to cause harm to others when expressing our opinions. The line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is often blurred, and we should be careful not to cross that line. We should also be careful not to cause harm to ourselves when expressing our opinions. The best way to do this is to express our opinions in a respectful manner, and to be aware of the impact of our words on others. We should also be aware that others may not agree with us, and should respect their right to express their own opinions. In summary, we should be careful with our words, and not cause harm to others when expressing our opinions. I think it is also important to remember that everyone is allowed their own opinion, and that we should respect that.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a free society. It allows for the free exchange of ideas and the ability to challenge authority. However, freedom of speech has its limits. Speech which incites hatred or violence against a person or group of people, or which may cause a person to fear for their safety, is not acceptable. The law should set out what is and is not acceptable, and such laws should be clear and concise. It is not acceptable to use freedom of speech as a way to excuse hateful or violent speech. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think freedom of speech is very important. I think we should be able to express our opinions, even if they are unpopular. However, we should be careful not to cause harm to others when expressing our opinions. The line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is often blurred, and we should be careful not to cross that line. We should also be careful not to cause harm to ourselves when expressing our opinions. The best way to do this is to express our opinions in a respectful manner, and to be aware of the impact of our words on others. We should also be aware that others may not agree with us, and should respect their right to express their own opinions. In summary, we should be careful with our words, and not cause harm to others when expressing our opinions. This is a tricky balance to strike, and is not always easy, but we should try our best to strike it.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People are generally entitled to express their opinion. However, we should be careful when speech causes harm. There should be laws that are clear and concise that restrict speech in these cases. People should also be able to choose not to listen to certain things. Introduction The freedom of speech refers to a person’s right to express themselves as they choose, and that these expressions cannot be punished by law. While this may appear to be a simple idea, it has many important ramifications in a democratic society. It is the principle that has allowed for people to protest injustice and seek out reform. It is the principle that has allowed for minority groups to express their opinions and concerns, without fear of retribution or punishment. It is the principle that has allowed for free and open debate, which is the lifeblood of any thriving democracy. However, this is a principle that is not without its problems. This essay will explore the arguments for and against the freedom of speech, and will argue that we should be careful when such speech is inciting harm or extremism, but that any restrictions on freedom of speech must be set out in laws, that are clear and concise, so that everyone can understand them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I think freedom of speech is very important. I think we should be able to express our opinions, even if they are unpopular. However, we should be careful not to cause harm to others when expressing our opinions. The line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is often blurred, and we should be careful not to cross that line. We should also be careful not to cause harm to ourselves when expressing our opinions. The best way to do this is to express our opinions in a respectful manner, and to be aware of the impact of our words on others. We should also be aware that others may not agree with us, and should respect their right to express their own opinions. In summary, we should be careful with our words, and not cause harm to others when expressing our opinions. I think it is also important to remember that everyone is allowed their own opinion, and that we should respect that.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a free society. It allows for the free exchange of ideas and the ability to challenge authority. However, freedom of speech has its limits. Speech which incites hatred or violence against a person or group of people, or which may cause a person to fear for their safety, is not acceptable. The law should set out what is and is not acceptable, and such laws should be clear and concise. It is not acceptable to use freedom of speech as a way to excuse hateful or violent speech. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002338.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002338.soc index 26897c2c..277ca850 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002338.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002338.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, the group was in favour of cutting military spending and increasing spending in the arts and health care. The group felt that military spending was too high and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. However, the group also felt that the military should not be cut completely, and that some money should be spent on the military to ensure that Britain is seen as a strong world power. The group felt that military spending could be reduced to allow for more spending in the arts and health care, but that some military spending should be maintained. The group felt that the arts were very important for the British economy and for the wellbeing of the British people, and that the arts should be better funded. The group felt that health care was very important and that more money should be spent in this area. The group felt that the current NHS system was not working and that the money was not being spent in the right places. The group felt that more money should be spent on the NHS to ensure that the NHS was working efficiently and to ensure that all people in Britain received the best healthcare possible. The group felt that the NHS was very important for the wellbeing of the British people and that more money should be spent in this area.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing spending in the arts and healthcare. They felt that the current system is not working, and that there is a need to invest more in order to make the system more efficient. They also felt that the arts are very important to the British economy and culture, and that there is a need to invest more in order to continue the success of British culture and to support artists. They also felt that there is a need to invest more in the healthcare sector in order to improve the lives of millions of people in the country who are struggling physically or mentally, not to mention more support for hospitals, paramedics, nurses etc. They also felt that the current military spending is far too high and that there is a need to cut down on military spending and to invest this money in the arts and healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The group was in favour of cutting military spending and increasing spending in the arts and health care. The group felt that military spending was too high and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. However, the group also felt that the military should not be cut completely, and that some money should be spent on the military to ensure that Britain is seen as a strong world power. The group felt that military spending could be reduced to allow for more spending in the arts and health care, but that some military spending should be maintained. The group felt that the arts were very important for the British economy and for the wellbeing of the British people, and that the arts should be better funded. The group felt that health care was very important and that more money should be spent in this area. The group felt that the current NHS system was not working and that the money was not being spent in the right places. The group felt that more money should be spent on the NHS to ensure that the NHS was working efficiently and to ensure that all people in Britain received the best healthcare possible. The group felt that the NHS was very important for the wellbeing of the British people and that more money should be spent in this area.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of reducing military spending and increasing spending on the arts and health care. The group agreed that there is a great deal of money being spent on the military that could be better spent on the arts and health care. The group also agreed that military spending is a necessary evil and that we should not cut it entirely, but that the money we spend on it is disproportionate to the benefits it provides. The group agreed that the military is important in the sense that it protects the country, however it is not clear to the group that the military is the best way to protect the country. The group agreed that healthcare and the arts are both vital for the nation's well-being and that they should be supported. The group agreed that the arts are a significant contributor to the economy and provide jobs to many people. The group agreed that the military has a role in providing aid to other countries. The group agreed that the UK should not cut military spending to zero, but that there is scope to reduce it, and that the money saved should be spent on the arts and healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, the group was in favour of cutting military spending and increasing spending in the arts and health care. The group felt that military spending was too high and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. However, the group also felt that the military should not be cut completely, and that some money should be spent on the military to ensure that Britain is seen as a strong world power. The group felt that military spending could be reduced to allow for more spending in the arts and health care, but that some military spending should be maintained. The group felt that the arts were very important for the British economy and for the wellbeing of the British people, and that the arts should be better funded. The group felt that health care was very important and that more money should be spent in this area. The group felt that the current NHS system was not working and that the money was not being spent in the right places. The group felt that more money should be spent on the NHS to ensure that the NHS was working efficiently and to ensure that all people in Britain received the best healthcare possible. The group felt that the NHS was very important for the wellbeing of the British people and that more money should be spent in this area.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing spending in the arts and healthcare. They felt that the current system is not working, and that there is a need to invest more in order to make the system more efficient. They also felt that the arts are very important to the British economy and culture, and that there is a need to invest more in order to continue the success of British culture and to support artists. They also felt that there is a need to invest more in the healthcare sector in order to improve the lives of millions of people in the country who are struggling physically or mentally, not to mention more support for hospitals, paramedics, nurses etc. They also felt that the current military spending is far too high and that there is a need to cut down on military spending and to invest this money in the arts and healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The group was in favour of cutting military spending and increasing spending in the arts and health care. The group felt that military spending was too high and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. However, the group also felt that the military should not be cut completely, and that some money should be spent on the military to ensure that Britain is seen as a strong world power. The group felt that military spending could be reduced to allow for more spending in the arts and health care, but that some military spending should be maintained. The group felt that the arts were very important for the British economy and for the wellbeing of the British people, and that the arts should be better funded. The group felt that health care was very important and that more money should be spent in this area. The group felt that the current NHS system was not working and that the money was not being spent in the right places. The group felt that more money should be spent on the NHS to ensure that the NHS was working efficiently and to ensure that all people in Britain received the best healthcare possible. The group felt that the NHS was very important for the wellbeing of the British people and that more money should be spent in this area.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing military spending and increasing spending on the arts and health care. The group agreed that there is a great deal of money being spent on the military that could be better spent on the arts and health care. The group also agreed that military spending is a necessary evil and that we should not cut it entirely, but that the money we spend on it is disproportionate to the benefits it provides. The group agreed that the military is important in the sense that it protects the country, however it is not clear to the group that the military is the best way to protect the country. The group agreed that healthcare and the arts are both vital for the nation's well-being and that they should be supported. The group agreed that the arts are a significant contributor to the economy and provide jobs to many people. The group agreed that the military has a role in providing aid to other countries. The group agreed that the UK should not cut military spending to zero, but that there is scope to reduce it, and that the money saved should be spent on the arts and healthcare. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002339.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002339.soc index 16d2358d..0e30b591 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002339.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002339.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group have come to the consensus opinion that we are in the midst of a climate crisis. This is due to the significant changes in the weather that have been occurring worldwide. There has been a rise in temperatures in many countries across the world, which is causing many issues. The weather is becoming more and more extreme, with the occurrence of heat waves, forest fires and flooding becoming more and more common. These issues are only going to get worse as time goes on. This is causing a huge amount of concern for the future of the planet and it is vital that something is done to try and mitigate the effects of climate change and global warming. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we are in the midst of a climate crisis. We are continually made aware of the crisis through the news and media and moreover we experience the crisis everyday ourselves with the weather extremes we experience, like extreme heat, mild winters and how plants grow in the garden. There is also significant evidence with weather patterns that the effects are already causing major global issues. Man made climate change is the cause of most of the changes to the Earth and the natural environment. We must make radical changes in order to halt and try to start to reverse the effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is significant evidence to suggest that the world is currently in the midst of a climate crisis. The evidence is clear to see, from the weather extremes that we experience in our everyday lives to the news and media coverage that is prevalent. The crisis is also evident in the natural environment, with the effects of climate change evident in the way plants grow, the weather and the way the seasons are changing. The crisis is also evident in the increase of endangered species and the rise in temperature across the globe. The crisis is not going away and it is only going to get worse if we don't act now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we are in the midst of a climate crisis. We are continually made aware of the crisis through the news and media and moreover we experience the crisis everyday ourselves with the weather extremes we experience, like extreme heat, mild winters and how plants grow in the garden. There are currently an array of observable negative consequences of global warming that researchers and global activists are raising our awareness of. Including the melting of ice caps, the deterioration of the coral reef and rising sea levels and temperatures. I don't think that it's possible to deny that these issues are not the case, and it's evident that these issues are only going to get worse. Initially these issues were only raised via important figures and the media, but these effects are only becoming more evidence to our every day lives as the issues get worse and worse, so it's undeniably a huge issue at the moment that requires imminent action. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group have come to the consensus opinion that we are in the midst of a climate crisis. This is due to the significant changes in the weather that have been occurring worldwide. There has been a rise in temperatures in many countries across the world, which is causing many issues. The weather is becoming more and more extreme, with the occurrence of heat waves, forest fires and flooding becoming more and more common. These issues are only going to get worse as time goes on. This is causing a huge amount of concern for the future of the planet and it is vital that something is done to try and mitigate the effects of climate change and global warming. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we are in the midst of a climate crisis. We are continually made aware of the crisis through the news and media and moreover we experience the crisis everyday ourselves with the weather extremes we experience, like extreme heat, mild winters and how plants grow in the garden. There is also significant evidence with weather patterns that the effects are already causing major global issues. Man made climate change is the cause of most of the changes to the Earth and the natural environment. We must make radical changes in order to halt and try to start to reverse the effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is significant evidence to suggest that the world is currently in the midst of a climate crisis. The evidence is clear to see, from the weather extremes that we experience in our everyday lives to the news and media coverage that is prevalent. The crisis is also evident in the natural environment, with the effects of climate change evident in the way plants grow, the weather and the way the seasons are changing. The crisis is also evident in the increase of endangered species and the rise in temperature across the globe. The crisis is not going away and it is only going to get worse if we don't act now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we are in the midst of a climate crisis. We are continually made aware of the crisis through the news and media and moreover we experience the crisis everyday ourselves with the weather extremes we experience, like extreme heat, mild winters and how plants grow in the garden. There are currently an array of observable negative consequences of global warming that researchers and global activists are raising our awareness of. Including the melting of ice caps, the deterioration of the coral reef and rising sea levels and temperatures. I don't think that it's possible to deny that these issues are not the case, and it's evident that these issues are only going to get worse. Initially these issues were only raised via important figures and the media, but these effects are only becoming more evidence to our every day lives as the issues get worse and worse, so it's undeniably a huge issue at the moment that requires imminent action. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002340.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002340.soc index 141e6d57..66efb501 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002340.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002340.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Families with children should not be given any extra tax breaks. We already provide families with children with tax credits and child benefit and these should be sufficient. Families should be responsible for their own children and not expect the government to provide for them. The government should not be providing any tax breaks to anyone. The cost of living crisis is affecting everyone, not just families with children, and so the government should be looking at ways to reduce the cost of living for everyone, not just families with children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Families with children should get some tax breaks. Raising children is expensive and this should be taken into account when making this decision. However, tax breaks should be means tested to ensure that families who really need them get them and that those who do not need them are not getting them. This would ensure that families with children who really need the help get it and that tax breaks are not just being given away to families with children who do not need them. Tax breaks for families with children should not be in the form of Universal Credit, which will eventually replace tax credits, as this will not provide the same level of support to families with children. We should, instead, look at bringing back child tax credits to provide more support to families with children. This would ensure that families with children get the support they need.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Families with children should not be given any extra tax breaks. We already provide families with children with tax credits and child benefit and these should be sufficient. Families should be responsible for their own children and not expect the government to provide for them. The government should not be providing any tax breaks to anyone. The cost of living crisis is affecting everyone, not just families with children, and so the government should be looking at ways to reduce the cost of living for everyone, not just families with children. The government should also be looking at ways to increase wages and household income so that everyone can afford to get by. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving families with children extra tax breaks to help them get by. The group felt that families with children are already receiving benefits in the form of working tax credits and child tax credits. The group also felt that families with children should be responsible for their own children and should not rely on the government for support. However, the group did recognise that the cost of living is very high and that some families may need extra support. The group felt that any additional tax breaks should be means tested so that families that really need the support are the ones that receive it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Families with children should not be given any extra tax breaks. We already provide families with children with tax credits and child benefit and these should be sufficient. Families should be responsible for their own children and not expect the government to provide for them. The government should not be providing any tax breaks to anyone. The cost of living crisis is affecting everyone, not just families with children, and so the government should be looking at ways to reduce the cost of living for everyone, not just families with children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Families with children should get some tax breaks. Raising children is expensive and this should be taken into account when making this decision. However, tax breaks should be means tested to ensure that families who really need them get them and that those who do not need them are not getting them. This would ensure that families with children who really need the help get it and that tax breaks are not just being given away to families with children who do not need them. Tax breaks for families with children should not be in the form of Universal Credit, which will eventually replace tax credits, as this will not provide the same level of support to families with children. We should, instead, look at bringing back child tax credits to provide more support to families with children. This would ensure that families with children get the support they need.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Families with children should not be given any extra tax breaks. We already provide families with children with tax credits and child benefit and these should be sufficient. Families should be responsible for their own children and not expect the government to provide for them. The government should not be providing any tax breaks to anyone. The cost of living crisis is affecting everyone, not just families with children, and so the government should be looking at ways to reduce the cost of living for everyone, not just families with children. The government should also be looking at ways to increase wages and household income so that everyone can afford to get by. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving families with children extra tax breaks to help them get by. The group felt that families with children are already receiving benefits in the form of working tax credits and child tax credits. The group also felt that families with children should be responsible for their own children and should not rely on the government for support. However, the group did recognise that the cost of living is very high and that some families may need extra support. The group felt that any additional tax breaks should be means tested so that families that really need the support are the ones that receive it. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002341.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002341.soc index d0881bd7..2eafa1dd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002341.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002341.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride is a complex issue. A nation's past should be remembered analytically. Forcing an encouragement of national pride would lead to a dangerous Nationalism as seen in countless examples past and present. On the other hand, it is important to remember history, whether it be good or bad. However, the pride we should have is not for a nation state, but for the people within it. We should be proud of the people who live in this country, who have made it what it is today. The people who live in this country are what make it great, not the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National pride is a complex issue. To be proud of your country has many benefits including galvanizing the population, team-spirit and goodwill amongst the populace. However, it also encourages the support of governments and their actions, even if these are harmful to the country as a whole. A government should not be encouraging nationalism but should rather encourage patriotism, which is a very different concept. National pride is also a complex issue because it is often based on a wide range of issues, some of which may be controversial. The history of a country is a prime example of this. Many countries have histories which include colonialism and imperialism, as well as slavery. These are highly controversial, and to say that a country has nothing to be proud of because of this, as one participant suggested, is a dangerous idea. Instead, a country's history should be examined and considered, in order to ensure that a greater understanding is developed about how it has come to be the way it is. This can help to avoid repeating mistakes made in the past, and to encourage progress in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that we should not be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. Whilst we all agreed that it was important to have a sense of national pride, we did not think that we should be doing more to encourage this. It was thought that it was important to have a critical analysis of the nation, and that this could be encouraged by the government, but it was thought that national pride should be encouraged by the populace itself, and should not be encouraged by the government. The thought process behind this was that national pride can be dangerous if it is encouraged too much by the government, as it can lead to a dangerous Nationalism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: National pride is a complex issue. A nation's past should be remembered analytically. Forcing an encouragement of national pride would lead to a dangerous Nationalism as seen in countless examples past and present. On the other hand, it is important to remember history, whether it be good or bad. However, the pride we should have is not for a nation state, but for the people within it. We should be proud of the people who live in this country, who have made it what it is today. The people who live in this country are what make it great, not the government. The government could do more to make it great, if we had people in power willing to make progressive change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride is a complex issue. A nation's past should be remembered analytically. Forcing an encouragement of national pride would lead to a dangerous Nationalism as seen in countless examples past and present. On the other hand, it is important to remember history, whether it be good or bad. However, the pride we should have is not for a nation state, but for the people within it. We should be proud of the people who live in this country, who have made it what it is today. The people who live in this country are what make it great, not the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National pride is a complex issue. To be proud of your country has many benefits including galvanizing the population, team-spirit and goodwill amongst the populace. However, it also encourages the support of governments and their actions, even if these are harmful to the country as a whole. A government should not be encouraging nationalism but should rather encourage patriotism, which is a very different concept. National pride is also a complex issue because it is often based on a wide range of issues, some of which may be controversial. The history of a country is a prime example of this. Many countries have histories which include colonialism and imperialism, as well as slavery. These are highly controversial, and to say that a country has nothing to be proud of because of this, as one participant suggested, is a dangerous idea. Instead, a country's history should be examined and considered, in order to ensure that a greater understanding is developed about how it has come to be the way it is. This can help to avoid repeating mistakes made in the past, and to encourage progress in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that we should not be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. Whilst we all agreed that it was important to have a sense of national pride, we did not think that we should be doing more to encourage this. It was thought that it was important to have a critical analysis of the nation, and that this could be encouraged by the government, but it was thought that national pride should be encouraged by the populace itself, and should not be encouraged by the government. The thought process behind this was that national pride can be dangerous if it is encouraged too much by the government, as it can lead to a dangerous Nationalism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - National pride is a complex issue. A nation's past should be remembered analytically. Forcing an encouragement of national pride would lead to a dangerous Nationalism as seen in countless examples past and present. On the other hand, it is important to remember history, whether it be good or bad. However, the pride we should have is not for a nation state, but for the people within it. We should be proud of the people who live in this country, who have made it what it is today. The people who live in this country are what make it great, not the government. The government could do more to make it great, if we had people in power willing to make progressive change. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002342.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002342.soc index 50c2d464..9db669ee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002342.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002342.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of imposing capital gains tax on property owners who profit from rising house prices. The group felt that the tax would be unfair as it would penalise those who have worked hard to buy their own home. It was felt that the tax would be ineffective in solving the problem of rising house prices as the tax would not prevent people from buying property and would not make housing more affordable. The group felt that the issue of rising house prices is a complex one and that there is no simple solution. It was felt that the government needs to do more to help people onto the property ladder such as by building more affordable housing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not impose a capital gains tax on property owners who profit from rising house prices. The issue of rising house prices is more complex than simply imposing a capital gains tax and is not necessarily the best way to tackle the issue. A tax on second homes which are empty for most of the year may be a better way to go about this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a capital gains tax on property owners who profit from rising house prices. However, it was felt that this should be dependent on the number of properties owned by the individual. If it was their only property then they should not be taxed on the increase in value. If it was their second property then they should be taxed on the increase in value. If it was their third property then they should be taxed on the increase in value and so on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not impose a capital gains tax on property owners who profit from rising house prices. The tax would only impact those who can already afford to buy a house in the first place. The tax would not help first time buyers or the working classes to get on the property ladder in a housing market which continues to inflate despite prevailing circumstances such as COVID and high interest rates. Making housing more accessible is the problem that needs to be solved at its core rather than creating new taxes or simply raising interest rates which time and time again has not worked. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of imposing capital gains tax on property owners who profit from rising house prices. The group felt that the tax would be unfair as it would penalise those who have worked hard to buy their own home. It was felt that the tax would be ineffective in solving the problem of rising house prices as the tax would not prevent people from buying property and would not make housing more affordable. The group felt that the issue of rising house prices is a complex one and that there is no simple solution. It was felt that the government needs to do more to help people onto the property ladder such as by building more affordable housing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not impose a capital gains tax on property owners who profit from rising house prices. The issue of rising house prices is more complex than simply imposing a capital gains tax and is not necessarily the best way to tackle the issue. A tax on second homes which are empty for most of the year may be a better way to go about this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a capital gains tax on property owners who profit from rising house prices. However, it was felt that this should be dependent on the number of properties owned by the individual. If it was their only property then they should not be taxed on the increase in value. If it was their second property then they should be taxed on the increase in value. If it was their third property then they should be taxed on the increase in value and so on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not impose a capital gains tax on property owners who profit from rising house prices. The tax would only impact those who can already afford to buy a house in the first place. The tax would not help first time buyers or the working classes to get on the property ladder in a housing market which continues to inflate despite prevailing circumstances such as COVID and high interest rates. Making housing more accessible is the problem that needs to be solved at its core rather than creating new taxes or simply raising interest rates which time and time again has not worked. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002343.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002343.soc index 82a8f914..5f61fb04 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002343.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002343.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “It is a definite possibility that one day humans will learn to communicate with animals. As we learn more about the world around us and continue to evolve, we will become more in tune with the animals that inhabit the world with us. We will be able to understand the sounds they make and respond to them. We will be able to understand their body language and the way they interact with their environment. We will be able to understand what they need and want and how to help them. We will be able to understand their intelligence and their emotional capacity. We will be able to understand them as individuals, not as a group. We will be able to communicate with them as individuals, not as a group. This will be a very important step in our evolution and will have a huge impact on the way we live our lives and the way we interact with our environment.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the future, it is very likely that humans will be able to communicate with animals. Humans are always trying to learn more and more, and with the help of AI, it is very likely that we will be able to communicate with animals. We already know how to communicate with animals to an extent, and we can build on this. The more we learn about animals, the more likely it is that we will be able to communicate with them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Humans will learn to communicate with animals in the future. We already communicate with animals in a sense, as we can teach them tricks and call cats to come and get food. It is a possibility that one day we will be able to understand animals on a deeper level. Humans will always seek knowledge and put that knowledge into practice. We already know how animals behave or to some extent how they feel sometimes. It is not far away when we will understand them a lot better than we already do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Humans have already started communicating with animals. There are numerous examples of this, such as when we teach dogs new tricks and commands, or when we use sign language to communicate with chimpanzees. It is possible that we will be able to communicate with animals in a more direct way in the future. This will require us to understand animals better, and to be able to understand their emotions and expressions. It will also require us to be able to create devices that will allow us to communicate with animals in a way that they can understand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “It is a definite possibility that one day humans will learn to communicate with animals. As we learn more about the world around us and continue to evolve, we will become more in tune with the animals that inhabit the world with us. We will be able to understand the sounds they make and respond to them. We will be able to understand their body language and the way they interact with their environment. We will be able to understand what they need and want and how to help them. We will be able to understand their intelligence and their emotional capacity. We will be able to understand them as individuals, not as a group. We will be able to communicate with them as individuals, not as a group. This will be a very important step in our evolution and will have a huge impact on the way we live our lives and the way we interact with our environment.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the future, it is very likely that humans will be able to communicate with animals. Humans are always trying to learn more and more, and with the help of AI, it is very likely that we will be able to communicate with animals. We already know how to communicate with animals to an extent, and we can build on this. The more we learn about animals, the more likely it is that we will be able to communicate with them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Humans will learn to communicate with animals in the future. We already communicate with animals in a sense, as we can teach them tricks and call cats to come and get food. It is a possibility that one day we will be able to understand animals on a deeper level. Humans will always seek knowledge and put that knowledge into practice. We already know how animals behave or to some extent how they feel sometimes. It is not far away when we will understand them a lot better than we already do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Humans have already started communicating with animals. There are numerous examples of this, such as when we teach dogs new tricks and commands, or when we use sign language to communicate with chimpanzees. It is possible that we will be able to communicate with animals in a more direct way in the future. This will require us to understand animals better, and to be able to understand their emotions and expressions. It will also require us to be able to create devices that will allow us to communicate with animals in a way that they can understand. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002344.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002344.soc index 97d615c5..b6c370f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002344.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002344.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not encourage everyone to get a degree. A degree is not for everyone and not everyone has the right qualities to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. At the same time, we have discouraged people from getting things like trades like plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not encourage everyone to get a degree. The quality of degrees has dropped significantly in recent years and many are now not worth the paper they are written on. This has led to many people graduating with a degree that is of little use to them in their career and saddled with a large student loan debt that they will never be able to pay off. This is unfair to the individual and to the taxpayer. We should be encouraging young people to go to university if they have a specific career in mind that requires a degree. Otherwise, they would be better off doing an apprenticeship or internship in the career they want to pursue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we should not encourage everyone to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not encourage everyone to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. At the same time, we have discouraged people from getting things like trades like plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not encourage everyone to get a degree. A degree is not for everyone and not everyone has the right qualities to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. At the same time, we have discouraged people from getting things like trades like plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not encourage everyone to get a degree. The quality of degrees has dropped significantly in recent years and many are now not worth the paper they are written on. This has led to many people graduating with a degree that is of little use to them in their career and saddled with a large student loan debt that they will never be able to pay off. This is unfair to the individual and to the taxpayer. We should be encouraging young people to go to university if they have a specific career in mind that requires a degree. Otherwise, they would be better off doing an apprenticeship or internship in the career they want to pursue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we should not encourage everyone to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not encourage everyone to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. At the same time, we have discouraged people from getting things like trades like plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002345.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002345.soc index ac64e0c4..f2a7cde4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002345.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002345.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, cannabis should be legalised for use by young people. This is because the long term effects of cannabis are not well known and the current research is not conclusive. The current research is often not reliable as the quality of cannabis available to young people is often of very poor quality and often laced with other drugs. The current system of prohibition has not worked, as the young people are still able to get hold of cannabis and are still using it. It would be better to legalise cannabis and allow it to be sold in a controlled manner, with clear labelling of the strength and contents. The young people should be educated about the effects of cannabis and the dangers of driving under the influence. The current system is not working and is not protecting the young people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. However, the group was divided on whether it should be legalised for young people. The group felt that cannabis should be legalised for medicinal purposes, but only under the prescription of a doctor. The group felt that cannabis should be taxed, but not to such an extent that it would drive people to use it illegally. The group also felt that it should be sold in licensed premises, but not in the same way as alcohol. The group felt that the quality of cannabis should be tightly controlled, and that it should be sold in small quantities to prevent people from overusing it. The group also felt that it should be sold in non-smokable forms to prevent passive smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. We all agreed that cannabis should be legalised and taxed in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco. This would allow for the regulation of cannabis, which would allow for a safer and more reliable product. It would also allow for the government to monitor and control the use of cannabis. The group was in favour of allowing young people to use cannabis, however we all agreed that there should be a minimum age of 18 for this. We felt that the minimum age of 18 would allow young people to make an informed decision about cannabis use, and would allow them to be fully aware of the risks involved. We also felt that there should be an age limit of 18 for the purchase of cannabis, as this would prevent young people from obtaining cannabis from an illegal source. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that cannabis should be legalised. This is because it is a relatively harmless drug and can be beneficial to the economy. The long-term effects are not yet known, however the short-term effects are known to be minimal. The legalisation of cannabis would mean that it can be monitored and regulated, and therefore would be safer to consume. The legalisation of cannabis would mean that it can be taxed and this would provide an increase in revenue for the government. This could be used to fund social services. We believe that cannabis should be legalised for medicinal purposes, however it should only be prescribed by a doctor. The legalisation of cannabis would mean that it is not necessary for young people to buy cannabis from dealers on the street. Therefore, it would reduce crime. We believe that the legalisation of cannabis would mean that it would be available to young people. Therefore, we believe that it is important that young people are educated about the effects of cannabis. This would mean that they would be able to make an informed decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, cannabis should be legalised for use by young people. This is because the long term effects of cannabis are not well known and the current research is not conclusive. The current research is often not reliable as the quality of cannabis available to young people is often of very poor quality and often laced with other drugs. The current system of prohibition has not worked, as the young people are still able to get hold of cannabis and are still using it. It would be better to legalise cannabis and allow it to be sold in a controlled manner, with clear labelling of the strength and contents. The young people should be educated about the effects of cannabis and the dangers of driving under the influence. The current system is not working and is not protecting the young people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. However, the group was divided on whether it should be legalised for young people. The group felt that cannabis should be legalised for medicinal purposes, but only under the prescription of a doctor. The group felt that cannabis should be taxed, but not to such an extent that it would drive people to use it illegally. The group also felt that it should be sold in licensed premises, but not in the same way as alcohol. The group felt that the quality of cannabis should be tightly controlled, and that it should be sold in small quantities to prevent people from overusing it. The group also felt that it should be sold in non-smokable forms to prevent passive smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of legalising cannabis. We all agreed that cannabis should be legalised and taxed in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco. This would allow for the regulation of cannabis, which would allow for a safer and more reliable product. It would also allow for the government to monitor and control the use of cannabis. The group was in favour of allowing young people to use cannabis, however we all agreed that there should be a minimum age of 18 for this. We felt that the minimum age of 18 would allow young people to make an informed decision about cannabis use, and would allow them to be fully aware of the risks involved. We also felt that there should be an age limit of 18 for the purchase of cannabis, as this would prevent young people from obtaining cannabis from an illegal source. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that cannabis should be legalised. This is because it is a relatively harmless drug and can be beneficial to the economy. The long-term effects are not yet known, however the short-term effects are known to be minimal. The legalisation of cannabis would mean that it can be monitored and regulated, and therefore would be safer to consume. The legalisation of cannabis would mean that it can be taxed and this would provide an increase in revenue for the government. This could be used to fund social services. We believe that cannabis should be legalised for medicinal purposes, however it should only be prescribed by a doctor. The legalisation of cannabis would mean that it is not necessary for young people to buy cannabis from dealers on the street. Therefore, it would reduce crime. We believe that the legalisation of cannabis would mean that it would be available to young people. Therefore, we believe that it is important that young people are educated about the effects of cannabis. This would mean that they would be able to make an informed decision. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002346.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002346.soc index 46cb7250..7a796ba9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002346.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002346.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. It is not the UK's place to dictate the minimum wage of other countries. However, it is important to ensure that workers in these countries are not being exploited and are being paid a fair wage. It is important to note that the minimum wage in each country will differ and will be relative to the cost of living in that country. The UK should not support slave labour or poverty wages. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. This is because the minimum wage is relative to the economy of the country that it is set in, and therefore our standard of minimum wage is much higher than somewhere such as India or China, where relative costs are lower. Also, it doesn't make sense to blanket ban imports from an entire country because of their government policy of minimum wage, when it is conceivable that many companies within that country could be offering more than it. However, the UK should not support slave labour or poverty wages, and we should look at why workers are being paid so badly and how this can be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. The minimum wage is relative to the economy of the country that it is set in, and therefore our standard of minimum wage is much higher than somewhere such as India or China, where relative costs are lower. It doesn't make sense to blanket ban imports from an entire country because of their government policy of minimum wage, when it is conceivable that many companies within that country could be offering more than it. However, we should be aware of the human rights implications of the low minimum wage, and ensure that the workers are being treated fairly and are not being exploited. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. The UK cannot set the minimum wage of other countries, and it would not be practical to ban all imports from a country because of the low minimum wage of some of its companies. It would also be very difficult to define what a low minimum wage is, and who would be responsible for enforcing this. It would also be very difficult to define what a low minimum wage is, and who would be responsible for enforcing this. The best way to improve the situation would be to encourage companies to pay their workers a living wage, and to improve the working conditions of their factories. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. It is not the UK's place to dictate the minimum wage of other countries. However, it is important to ensure that workers in these countries are not being exploited and are being paid a fair wage. It is important to note that the minimum wage in each country will differ and will be relative to the cost of living in that country. The UK should not support slave labour or poverty wages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. This is because the minimum wage is relative to the economy of the country that it is set in, and therefore our standard of minimum wage is much higher than somewhere such as India or China, where relative costs are lower. Also, it doesn't make sense to blanket ban imports from an entire country because of their government policy of minimum wage, when it is conceivable that many companies within that country could be offering more than it. However, the UK should not support slave labour or poverty wages, and we should look at why workers are being paid so badly and how this can be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. The minimum wage is relative to the economy of the country that it is set in, and therefore our standard of minimum wage is much higher than somewhere such as India or China, where relative costs are lower. It doesn't make sense to blanket ban imports from an entire country because of their government policy of minimum wage, when it is conceivable that many companies within that country could be offering more than it. However, we should be aware of the human rights implications of the low minimum wage, and ensure that the workers are being treated fairly and are not being exploited. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. The UK cannot set the minimum wage of other countries, and it would not be practical to ban all imports from a country because of the low minimum wage of some of its companies. It would also be very difficult to define what a low minimum wage is, and who would be responsible for enforcing this. It would also be very difficult to define what a low minimum wage is, and who would be responsible for enforcing this. The best way to improve the situation would be to encourage companies to pay their workers a living wage, and to improve the working conditions of their factories. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002347.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002347.soc index 344a3113..9ecb75a2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002347.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002347.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In general, the prices of products should be the same for all customers. This is to ensure that all customers are treated equally and fairly. It is also to ensure that all customers have access to the same products, and that no customer is left out or disadvantaged due to their age or sex. It is also important to note that in some cases, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to certain groups of people. For example, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to students, pensioners, or NHS workers. However, these discounts should be available to all people who fall into these categories, and should not be available to some and not others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In a world where we are striving for equality, it would be unfair to charge different prices for the same product to different demographics. If a company is looking to increase their profits, they should do this by increasing the price for everyone, or by reducing the price for everyone. It is not morally acceptable to single out a specific demographic and charge them more for the same product. If a company is looking to offer a discount to a specific demographic, they should offer this discount to everyone. If a company is looking to increase their profits by charging a specific demographic more for the same product, this is a form of discrimination and is not morally acceptable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In order to ensure equality across the board, prices should be the same for everyone. There may be exceptions for discounts for certain demographics, but these should be available to all. It is not fair to increase prices for certain groups just because they may be more likely to purchase a product, and it is also not fair to decrease prices for certain groups just because they may not be able to afford the product. It is important to ensure equality across the board and to make sure that everyone is treated the same. It is also important to make sure that the company is not making a profit just because they can get away with it, and it is also important to make sure that the company is not losing out on profits just because they can get away with it. It is important to make sure that everyone is treated equally and fairly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. All customers should be treated equally and fairly, and there should be no discrimination on the basis of age or sex. In order to achieve equality, the price should be the same for all customers. It is understandable that prices may be increased or decreased based on demand for the product, but this should be the case for all customers, and not just specific demographics. It would be fair to decrease prices for certain demographics where a product may otherwise be too expensive if it should be easily accessible, but in these cases the prices should also be the same for everyone, otherwise it may lead to some individuals having to go without a product that is necessary just based on a demographic that they cannot do anything about in this instance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In general, the prices of products should be the same for all customers. This is to ensure that all customers are treated equally and fairly. It is also to ensure that all customers have access to the same products, and that no customer is left out or disadvantaged due to their age or sex. It is also important to note that in some cases, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to certain groups of people. For example, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to students, pensioners, or NHS workers. However, these discounts should be available to all people who fall into these categories, and should not be available to some and not others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In a world where we are striving for equality, it would be unfair to charge different prices for the same product to different demographics. If a company is looking to increase their profits, they should do this by increasing the price for everyone, or by reducing the price for everyone. It is not morally acceptable to single out a specific demographic and charge them more for the same product. If a company is looking to offer a discount to a specific demographic, they should offer this discount to everyone. If a company is looking to increase their profits by charging a specific demographic more for the same product, this is a form of discrimination and is not morally acceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In order to ensure equality across the board, prices should be the same for everyone. There may be exceptions for discounts for certain demographics, but these should be available to all. It is not fair to increase prices for certain groups just because they may be more likely to purchase a product, and it is also not fair to decrease prices for certain groups just because they may not be able to afford the product. It is important to ensure equality across the board and to make sure that everyone is treated the same. It is also important to make sure that the company is not making a profit just because they can get away with it, and it is also important to make sure that the company is not losing out on profits just because they can get away with it. It is important to make sure that everyone is treated equally and fairly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. All customers should be treated equally and fairly, and there should be no discrimination on the basis of age or sex. In order to achieve equality, the price should be the same for all customers. It is understandable that prices may be increased or decreased based on demand for the product, but this should be the case for all customers, and not just specific demographics. It would be fair to decrease prices for certain demographics where a product may otherwise be too expensive if it should be easily accessible, but in these cases the prices should also be the same for everyone, otherwise it may lead to some individuals having to go without a product that is necessary just based on a demographic that they cannot do anything about in this instance. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002348.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002348.soc index bf595d62..30d44f81 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002348.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002348.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to encouraging everyone to get a degree. The group felt that degrees are very good for some people to get a start on the careers they want for themselves but a degree is not for everyone. The qualities that you need for a degree are not necessarily needed in all career choices and so they would just be a waste of time and money for certain people. The group felt that people should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to get a degree. The group felt that encouraging everyone to get a degree would lead to massive holes in vital industries all over the country. The group felt that encouraging everyone to get a degree has been a disaster. The group felt that turning colleges into universities and giving students sub par below average degrees that just saddle them with lifetime of debt an no chance of a meaningful career has been a disaster. The group felt that discouraging people from getting things like trades like Plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers has been a disaster. The group felt that encouraging everyone to get a degree has led to students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship being encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not encourage everyone to get a degree. We believe that university is not for everyone, and that university is often used as a way to delay entering the working world. We believe that university should be for people who have a specific career in mind that requires a degree, or for people who are passionate about a subject and want to pursue it further. We believe that apprenticeships and internships are a great way for people to get into their chosen career, and that university is not always the best option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not encourage everyone to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. At the same time, we have discouraged people from getting things like trades like plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers. We should, however, be encouraging people to seek out apprenticeships and internships, which offer a great way to break into well-paid careers and can be an alternative to degrees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not encourage everyone to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. At the same time, we have discouraged people from getting things like trades like plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers. We should not want to stop young people going to university if they want to. However, we should make them more aware of the possible outcomes of their decision, and help them consider alternatives that will set them up in a more financially secure position. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to encouraging everyone to get a degree. The group felt that degrees are very good for some people to get a start on the careers they want for themselves but a degree is not for everyone. The qualities that you need for a degree are not necessarily needed in all career choices and so they would just be a waste of time and money for certain people. The group felt that people should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to get a degree. The group felt that encouraging everyone to get a degree would lead to massive holes in vital industries all over the country. The group felt that encouraging everyone to get a degree has been a disaster. The group felt that turning colleges into universities and giving students sub par below average degrees that just saddle them with lifetime of debt an no chance of a meaningful career has been a disaster. The group felt that discouraging people from getting things like trades like Plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers has been a disaster. The group felt that encouraging everyone to get a degree has led to students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship being encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not encourage everyone to get a degree. We believe that university is not for everyone, and that university is often used as a way to delay entering the working world. We believe that university should be for people who have a specific career in mind that requires a degree, or for people who are passionate about a subject and want to pursue it further. We believe that apprenticeships and internships are a great way for people to get into their chosen career, and that university is not always the best option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not encourage everyone to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. At the same time, we have discouraged people from getting things like trades like plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers. We should, however, be encouraging people to seek out apprenticeships and internships, which offer a great way to break into well-paid careers and can be an alternative to degrees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not encourage everyone to get a degree. In the past, university degrees were used to break into professional careers that required a higher level of learning. However, now we have many degrees by average universities that are run as cash cows. Students who would have been better off doing an internship or apprenticeship are encouraged at a young age to get themselves into significant debt for a degree that will not progress their career in any way. In addition, they are unlikely to pay off their student loan if their ultimate potential career is low-paid, meaning the taxpayer has to foot the bill for students going to university for the sake of it. At the same time, we have discouraged people from getting things like trades like plumbing etc which pay well and are solid careers. We should not want to stop young people going to university if they want to. However, we should make them more aware of the possible outcomes of their decision, and help them consider alternatives that will set them up in a more financially secure position. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002349.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002349.soc index 246c4b07..3fef7897 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002349.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002349.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. It is not the UK's place to dictate the minimum wage of other countries. However, it is important to ensure that workers in these countries are not being exploited and are being paid a fair wage. It is important to note that the minimum wage in each country will differ and will be relative to the cost of living in that country. The UK should not support slave labour or poverty wages. It is important to note that the UK can apply pressure to countries paying a very low minimum wage, if it is not in line with living standards. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. This is because the minimum wage is relative to the economy of the country that it is set in, and therefore our standard of minimum wage is much higher than somewhere such as India or China, where relative costs are lower. It is also important to remember that it is not the fault of the workers in these countries that they are being paid so little, but rather the fault of their governments. However, we should not support slave labour or poverty wages. Therefore, we either need to find an alternative or look at why workers are being paid so badly and how this can be addressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. However, we should ensure that the companies we are buying from are treating their workers fairly. This is often difficult to determine, but we should at least look at the policies of the companies we buy from, and not just the country they are in. We should also encourage other countries to increase their minimum wage, as this will help to reduce poverty and increase the standard of living in those countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should not ban the import of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. It is not the UK's place to dictate the minimum wage of other countries. However, it is important to ensure that workers in these countries are not being exploited and are being paid a fair wage. The minimum wage in each country will differ and will be relative to the cost of living in that country. The UK should not support slave labour or poverty wages. It is important to note that there are many factors that impact the cost of living, including the exchange rate. It is vital that the UK remains a trading partner with all other countries. The UK should not support the exploitation of workers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. It is not the UK's place to dictate the minimum wage of other countries. However, it is important to ensure that workers in these countries are not being exploited and are being paid a fair wage. It is important to note that the minimum wage in each country will differ and will be relative to the cost of living in that country. The UK should not support slave labour or poverty wages. It is important to note that the UK can apply pressure to countries paying a very low minimum wage, if it is not in line with living standards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. This is because the minimum wage is relative to the economy of the country that it is set in, and therefore our standard of minimum wage is much higher than somewhere such as India or China, where relative costs are lower. It is also important to remember that it is not the fault of the workers in these countries that they are being paid so little, but rather the fault of their governments. However, we should not support slave labour or poverty wages. Therefore, we either need to find an alternative or look at why workers are being paid so badly and how this can be addressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should not ban imports of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. However, we should ensure that the companies we are buying from are treating their workers fairly. This is often difficult to determine, but we should at least look at the policies of the companies we buy from, and not just the country they are in. We should also encourage other countries to increase their minimum wage, as this will help to reduce poverty and increase the standard of living in those countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should not ban the import of products that are made in countries with a low minimum wage. It is not the UK's place to dictate the minimum wage of other countries. However, it is important to ensure that workers in these countries are not being exploited and are being paid a fair wage. The minimum wage in each country will differ and will be relative to the cost of living in that country. The UK should not support slave labour or poverty wages. It is important to note that there are many factors that impact the cost of living, including the exchange rate. It is vital that the UK remains a trading partner with all other countries. The UK should not support the exploitation of workers. 2: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002350.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002350.soc index d6a87c51..65d24421 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002350.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002350.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The majority of participants thought that it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. The only exception was when it was proposed that discounts could be applied to certain groups, like students, the elderly, or NHS workers, but not a specific age range. The majority of participants also thought that it was not acceptable to increase or decrease prices based on demand or need for the product, but if this is the case, it should be for everyone, otherwise this will lead to increased discrimination which is likely to have the company's profits at heart. It would seem fair to decrease prices for certain demographics where a product may otherwise be too expensive if it should be easily accessible, but in these cases the prices should also be the same for everyone, otherwise it may lead to some individuals having to go without a product that is necessary just based on a demographic that they cannot do anything about in this instance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In general, the prices of products should be the same for all customers. This is to ensure that all customers are treated equally and fairly. It is also to ensure that all customers have access to the same products, and that no customer is left out or disadvantaged due to their age or sex. It is also important to note that in some cases, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to certain groups of people. For example, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to students, pensioners, or NHS workers. However, these discounts should be available to all people who fall into these categories, and should not be available to some and not others. It is also important to note that these discounts should be offered due to need, and to ensure that the product is affordable for the customer, and not just to boost profits for the company. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. The issue of gender and age discrimination are very relevant in today's society, and companies should not be allowed to capitalise on this and make profits by charging different prices for different groups of people. There is no difference between a man and a woman, or an old person and a young person, in terms of the price that they pay for a product. It is important that we do not allow companies to dictate prices in this way, as this can lead to a society that is divided and discriminatory. In terms of discounts, it is important that discounts are available to everyone, rather than just to certain groups of people, as this can lead to further discrimination and a society that is divided. The issue of dynamic pricing is also very important and is an issue that companies should not be allowed to use to their advantage and to make profits. Companies should not be allowed to use people's vulnerabilities to their advantage in this way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In general, the prices of products should be the same for all customers. This is to ensure that all customers are treated equally and fairly. It is also to ensure that all customers have access to the same products, and that no customer is left out or disadvantaged due to their age or sex. It is also important to note that in some cases, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to certain groups of people. For example, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to students, pensioners, or NHS workers. However, these discounts should be available to all people who fall into these categories, and should not be available to some and not others. It is also important to note that these discounts should be provided for a reason, such as line of work, rather than a blanket due to sex or age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The majority of participants thought that it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. The only exception was when it was proposed that discounts could be applied to certain groups, like students, the elderly, or NHS workers, but not a specific age range. The majority of participants also thought that it was not acceptable to increase or decrease prices based on demand or need for the product, but if this is the case, it should be for everyone, otherwise this will lead to increased discrimination which is likely to have the company's profits at heart. It would seem fair to decrease prices for certain demographics where a product may otherwise be too expensive if it should be easily accessible, but in these cases the prices should also be the same for everyone, otherwise it may lead to some individuals having to go without a product that is necessary just based on a demographic that they cannot do anything about in this instance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In general, the prices of products should be the same for all customers. This is to ensure that all customers are treated equally and fairly. It is also to ensure that all customers have access to the same products, and that no customer is left out or disadvantaged due to their age or sex. It is also important to note that in some cases, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to certain groups of people. For example, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to students, pensioners, or NHS workers. However, these discounts should be available to all people who fall into these categories, and should not be available to some and not others. It is also important to note that these discounts should be offered due to need, and to ensure that the product is affordable for the customer, and not just to boost profits for the company. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. The issue of gender and age discrimination are very relevant in today's society, and companies should not be allowed to capitalise on this and make profits by charging different prices for different groups of people. There is no difference between a man and a woman, or an old person and a young person, in terms of the price that they pay for a product. It is important that we do not allow companies to dictate prices in this way, as this can lead to a society that is divided and discriminatory. In terms of discounts, it is important that discounts are available to everyone, rather than just to certain groups of people, as this can lead to further discrimination and a society that is divided. The issue of dynamic pricing is also very important and is an issue that companies should not be allowed to use to their advantage and to make profits. Companies should not be allowed to use people's vulnerabilities to their advantage in this way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it is not morally acceptable to charge different prices for a product depending on the customer's age or sex. In general, the prices of products should be the same for all customers. This is to ensure that all customers are treated equally and fairly. It is also to ensure that all customers have access to the same products, and that no customer is left out or disadvantaged due to their age or sex. It is also important to note that in some cases, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to certain groups of people. For example, it may be acceptable to offer discounts to students, pensioners, or NHS workers. However, these discounts should be available to all people who fall into these categories, and should not be available to some and not others. It is also important to note that these discounts should be provided for a reason, such as line of work, rather than a blanket due to sex or age. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002351.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002351.soc index 222f9d9f..621aa8cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002351.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002351.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not force social media companies to censor bullying and harassment. We believe that the best way to deal with bullying and harassment is to educate people on the impact of their words and the long term effects it can have on the victim. Social media is a great way for people to express their opinions and it is important to protect this freedom of speech. However, if people are using social media to bully or harass others, they should be made aware of the consequences of their actions. We believe that the best way to deal with this is to educate people on the impact of their words and the long term effects it can have on the victim. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of forcing social media companies to censor bullying and harassment. The general feeling was that if bullying and harassment is allowed to continue, it can lead to a less happy, more vitriolic society where people are denied the ability to move on. It was felt that social media companies should not let their platforms become a breeding ground for harassment. However, the group also felt that it is important for everyone to feel safe online, so there needs to be some measures brought in so that people are happy to visit social media websites without fear of it impacting them negatively. It was felt that everyone should be allowed to disagree with an opinion, but that rules should be brought in to deal with it when it is personal abuse. The group felt that as social media has become more and more prevalent in the last 15 years or so, the companies involved have had to quickly adapt. It is now a lot easier to avoid bullying or harassment on Facebook for instance than it was in the beginning. You can block people, hide specific content from people or report bullying or harassment. However, the group felt that more should still be done to protect people. In general, the group was in favour of forcing social media companies to censor -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. Social media is an important part of many people's lives, and it is important that people can use these platforms without fear of being harassed. It is also important to protect children and vulnerable people from this kind of behaviour. The current system of reporting and blocking is a good start, but it is not enough. Social media companies need to do more to protect their users from bullying and harassment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the prevalence of social media means that it is now very easy for people to harass others. If this is not dealt with, it can lead to people being harassed for a very long time. Secondly, if social media companies do not censor bullying and harassment, it is very easy for people to harass others anonymously. This makes it difficult for people to know who is harassing them, and makes it harder to stop. Finally, social media companies have a duty of care to their users. If they do not censor bullying and harassment, they are not fulfilling this duty of care. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not force social media companies to censor bullying and harassment. We believe that the best way to deal with bullying and harassment is to educate people on the impact of their words and the long term effects it can have on the victim. Social media is a great way for people to express their opinions and it is important to protect this freedom of speech. However, if people are using social media to bully or harass others, they should be made aware of the consequences of their actions. We believe that the best way to deal with this is to educate people on the impact of their words and the long term effects it can have on the victim. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of forcing social media companies to censor bullying and harassment. The general feeling was that if bullying and harassment is allowed to continue, it can lead to a less happy, more vitriolic society where people are denied the ability to move on. It was felt that social media companies should not let their platforms become a breeding ground for harassment. However, the group also felt that it is important for everyone to feel safe online, so there needs to be some measures brought in so that people are happy to visit social media websites without fear of it impacting them negatively. It was felt that everyone should be allowed to disagree with an opinion, but that rules should be brought in to deal with it when it is personal abuse. The group felt that as social media has become more and more prevalent in the last 15 years or so, the companies involved have had to quickly adapt. It is now a lot easier to avoid bullying or harassment on Facebook for instance than it was in the beginning. You can block people, hide specific content from people or report bullying or harassment. However, the group felt that more should still be done to protect people. In general, the group was in favour of forcing social media companies to censor +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. Social media is an important part of many people's lives, and it is important that people can use these platforms without fear of being harassed. It is also important to protect children and vulnerable people from this kind of behaviour. The current system of reporting and blocking is a good start, but it is not enough. Social media companies need to do more to protect their users from bullying and harassment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the prevalence of social media means that it is now very easy for people to harass others. If this is not dealt with, it can lead to people being harassed for a very long time. Secondly, if social media companies do not censor bullying and harassment, it is very easy for people to harass others anonymously. This makes it difficult for people to know who is harassing them, and makes it harder to stop. Finally, social media companies have a duty of care to their users. If they do not censor bullying and harassment, they are not fulfilling this duty of care. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002352.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002352.soc index e072c459..fad91924 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002352.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002352.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the average person does not need a car. However, this will vary depending on the area in which they live and their personal circumstances. In some areas the lack of public transport may make the use of a car essential. Also, there are some circumstances where the use of a car is essential, for example to visit a seriously ill relative. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the average person does not need a car. The availability of public transport, the ability to walk and cycle, and the ability to share transport with others can often be used to replace the need for a car. However, for certain people in certain situations the need for a car can be justified. For example, people who live in rural areas, people who have certain medical conditions, or people who have a need to transport large or heavy objects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the average person does not need a car. However, this is heavily dependent on the area that they live in and the availability of public transport. In remote areas and areas with poor public transport a car is essential for the average person. In areas with good public transport and shops, hospitals etc within walking distance then a car is not essential. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In conclusion, the average person does not need a car. There are many different factors to take into account, for example, the availability of public transport, the individuals' needs, the area they live in and their personal circumstances. In general, if public transport is easily accessible, then it is a much more convenient and cost effective option for the average person. However, if public transport is lacking, then a car is essential for the average person to get around. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the average person does not need a car. However, this will vary depending on the area in which they live and their personal circumstances. In some areas the lack of public transport may make the use of a car essential. Also, there are some circumstances where the use of a car is essential, for example to visit a seriously ill relative. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the average person does not need a car. The availability of public transport, the ability to walk and cycle, and the ability to share transport with others can often be used to replace the need for a car. However, for certain people in certain situations the need for a car can be justified. For example, people who live in rural areas, people who have certain medical conditions, or people who have a need to transport large or heavy objects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the average person does not need a car. However, this is heavily dependent on the area that they live in and the availability of public transport. In remote areas and areas with poor public transport a car is essential for the average person. In areas with good public transport and shops, hospitals etc within walking distance then a car is not essential. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In conclusion, the average person does not need a car. There are many different factors to take into account, for example, the availability of public transport, the individuals' needs, the area they live in and their personal circumstances. In general, if public transport is easily accessible, then it is a much more convenient and cost effective option for the average person. However, if public transport is lacking, then a car is essential for the average person to get around. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002353.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002353.soc index 4c99f2ae..ae12c75a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002353.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002353.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A basic income scheme would be beneficial for the country. It would ensure that everyone in the country receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. It would also narrow the gap between the rich and poor. However, the scheme would need to be carefully introduced and monitored. The amount of basic income should not be too high, otherwise it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A basic income scheme would be a positive thing. It would ensure everyone in the country (whether they are working or on benefits) receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. Further, a basic income scheme would narrow the gap between the rich and poor. It should be a legal obligation for the government and employers. At present, we have a minimum wage system in the UK but many employers flout the law and try to pay employees way below the legal amount. The sentences for breaking this law are too lenient. The amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A basic income scheme is a good idea but should be introduced carefully. It should be sufficient to meet basic needs and also provide an incentive to work. It should be legally binding and employers should be heavily fined if they are found to be paying below the basic income. The basic income scheme should be a legal obligation for the government and employers. At present, we have a minimum wage system in the UK but many employers flout the law and try to pay employees way below the legal amount. The sentences for breaking this law are too lenient. The amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a basic income scheme. The group felt that a basic income scheme would be a positive thing for the country. The group felt that a basic income scheme would ensure everyone in the country (whether they are working or on benefits) receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. Further, a basic income scheme would narrow the gap between the rich and poor. The group felt that the amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The group felt that the basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. The group felt that the basic income scheme should be there as a safety net for those who are unable to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A basic income scheme would be beneficial for the country. It would ensure that everyone in the country receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. It would also narrow the gap between the rich and poor. However, the scheme would need to be carefully introduced and monitored. The amount of basic income should not be too high, otherwise it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A basic income scheme would be a positive thing. It would ensure everyone in the country (whether they are working or on benefits) receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. Further, a basic income scheme would narrow the gap between the rich and poor. It should be a legal obligation for the government and employers. At present, we have a minimum wage system in the UK but many employers flout the law and try to pay employees way below the legal amount. The sentences for breaking this law are too lenient. The amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A basic income scheme is a good idea but should be introduced carefully. It should be sufficient to meet basic needs and also provide an incentive to work. It should be legally binding and employers should be heavily fined if they are found to be paying below the basic income. The basic income scheme should be a legal obligation for the government and employers. At present, we have a minimum wage system in the UK but many employers flout the law and try to pay employees way below the legal amount. The sentences for breaking this law are too lenient. The amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a basic income scheme. The group felt that a basic income scheme would be a positive thing for the country. The group felt that a basic income scheme would ensure everyone in the country (whether they are working or on benefits) receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. Further, a basic income scheme would narrow the gap between the rich and poor. The group felt that the amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The group felt that the basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. The group felt that the basic income scheme should be there as a safety net for those who are unable to work. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002354.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002354.soc index 89c3da5c..e8fe2535 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002354.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002354.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, the idea of a universal basic income is a good one, and we would like to see it trialled in the UK. We would like to see the trial cover a range of different age groups, and a range of different income levels, to understand the impact on people's behaviour and the economy. We would also like to see the trial cover a range of different lengths of time, to understand the impact of a UBI on people's behaviour and the economy in the short, medium and long term. We would also like to see the trial cover a range of different regions, to understand the impact of a UBI on people's behaviour and the economy in different parts of the UK. We would also like to see the trial cover a range of different family types, to understand the impact of a UBI on people's behaviour and the economy for different family types. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the concept of a Universal Basic Income. It was felt that it would help to address the issue of poverty in the UK, and would help to ensure that all members of society had a basic level of income, regardless of their employment status. It was felt that the system would be more straightforward than the current system of welfare benefits, and would help to reduce the stigma that is often attached to people on benefits. It was felt that the system would be more expensive than the current system, and that this would need to be funded by increased taxation. However, it was felt that this would be a price worth paying, in order to help reduce poverty and increase equality in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, the concept of a universal basic income is a good one. It would ensure that everyone has enough to live on, and provide a safety net for those that are unable to work. However, there are a number of issues that need to be considered. Firstly, it would be very expensive to implement, and would require a significant increase in taxation. Secondly, it could have a negative impact on the incentive to work, and could lead to higher levels of unemployment. Finally, there is a risk that it could lead to higher levels of inflation. Therefore, it would be sensible to conduct a trial to understand the impact of a universal basic income, before committing to a full roll out. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the concept of a universal basic income. It was felt that it would be a more efficient way of providing welfare and would help to address the issue of poverty in the UK. It was also felt that it would provide a more stable income for households and that it would help to reduce the poverty premium. However, it was felt that there would be a number of challenges to overcome. These included the potential disincentive to work, the impact on the economy, the impact on the tax system and the impact on businesses. It was felt that a trial would be beneficial to understand the impact in practice and to help to address some of these concerns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, the idea of a universal basic income is a good one, and we would like to see it trialled in the UK. We would like to see the trial cover a range of different age groups, and a range of different income levels, to understand the impact on people's behaviour and the economy. We would also like to see the trial cover a range of different lengths of time, to understand the impact of a UBI on people's behaviour and the economy in the short, medium and long term. We would also like to see the trial cover a range of different regions, to understand the impact of a UBI on people's behaviour and the economy in different parts of the UK. We would also like to see the trial cover a range of different family types, to understand the impact of a UBI on people's behaviour and the economy for different family types. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the concept of a Universal Basic Income. It was felt that it would help to address the issue of poverty in the UK, and would help to ensure that all members of society had a basic level of income, regardless of their employment status. It was felt that the system would be more straightforward than the current system of welfare benefits, and would help to reduce the stigma that is often attached to people on benefits. It was felt that the system would be more expensive than the current system, and that this would need to be funded by increased taxation. However, it was felt that this would be a price worth paying, in order to help reduce poverty and increase equality in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, the concept of a universal basic income is a good one. It would ensure that everyone has enough to live on, and provide a safety net for those that are unable to work. However, there are a number of issues that need to be considered. Firstly, it would be very expensive to implement, and would require a significant increase in taxation. Secondly, it could have a negative impact on the incentive to work, and could lead to higher levels of unemployment. Finally, there is a risk that it could lead to higher levels of inflation. Therefore, it would be sensible to conduct a trial to understand the impact of a universal basic income, before committing to a full roll out. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the concept of a universal basic income. It was felt that it would be a more efficient way of providing welfare and would help to address the issue of poverty in the UK. It was also felt that it would provide a more stable income for households and that it would help to reduce the poverty premium. However, it was felt that there would be a number of challenges to overcome. These included the potential disincentive to work, the impact on the economy, the impact on the tax system and the impact on businesses. It was felt that a trial would be beneficial to understand the impact in practice and to help to address some of these concerns. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002355.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002355.soc index 3e91224e..d6f44e66 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002355.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002355.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that disadvantaged groups should be given priority when it comes to university admissions. The reason for this is because we feel that people who are in a disadvantaged group are not given the same opportunities as those who are not. For example, people who are in a disadvantaged group may not have had the same education as those who are not and therefore will not have the same grades. We also feel that people who are in a disadvantaged group are not given the same opportunities when it comes to finding a job and so may not have the same experience as those who are not. We feel that this is unfair and so feel that disadvantaged groups should be given priority when it comes to university admissions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of giving disadvantaged groups admission priority to universities. However, it was also agreed that this should not be at the expense of those who have achieved the required grades for university, and that the disadvantaged groups should also meet the required grades. It was also agreed that the universities should also be careful not to discriminate against those who are not in a disadvantaged group, and that they should also be given equal consideration. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We have come to the conclusion that Universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. We feel that this is because we all agree that the best person for the job should get the job. This means that people should be selected based on their academic achievements, and not on their social status. We feel that people should be given equal opportunities, and that disadvantaged groups should be given the same opportunities as everyone else, and not more. We feel that if people are disadvantaged, then they should be given extra support to help them achieve their goals, but not given an advantage over others. We feel that the best person for the job should get the job, and that people should be selected based on their academic achievements, and not on their social status.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority to disadvantaged groups in university admissions. The participants felt that if an individual was able to achieve the grades required to get into university, then they should be able to do so regardless of their background. It was felt that if universities did give priority to disadvantaged groups, then this would be unfair on those who did not fit into this category. However, the group did agree that universities should consider all applications equally and that further consideration should be given to those who are disadvantaged. The group felt that universities should be aware that those who are disadvantaged may not have had the same opportunities as others and that this should be taken into account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that disadvantaged groups should be given priority when it comes to university admissions. The reason for this is because we feel that people who are in a disadvantaged group are not given the same opportunities as those who are not. For example, people who are in a disadvantaged group may not have had the same education as those who are not and therefore will not have the same grades. We also feel that people who are in a disadvantaged group are not given the same opportunities when it comes to finding a job and so may not have the same experience as those who are not. We feel that this is unfair and so feel that disadvantaged groups should be given priority when it comes to university admissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of giving disadvantaged groups admission priority to universities. However, it was also agreed that this should not be at the expense of those who have achieved the required grades for university, and that the disadvantaged groups should also meet the required grades. It was also agreed that the universities should also be careful not to discriminate against those who are not in a disadvantaged group, and that they should also be given equal consideration. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We have come to the conclusion that Universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. We feel that this is because we all agree that the best person for the job should get the job. This means that people should be selected based on their academic achievements, and not on their social status. We feel that people should be given equal opportunities, and that disadvantaged groups should be given the same opportunities as everyone else, and not more. We feel that if people are disadvantaged, then they should be given extra support to help them achieve their goals, but not given an advantage over others. We feel that the best person for the job should get the job, and that people should be selected based on their academic achievements, and not on their social status.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority to disadvantaged groups in university admissions. The participants felt that if an individual was able to achieve the grades required to get into university, then they should be able to do so regardless of their background. It was felt that if universities did give priority to disadvantaged groups, then this would be unfair on those who did not fit into this category. However, the group did agree that universities should consider all applications equally and that further consideration should be given to those who are disadvantaged. The group felt that universities should be aware that those who are disadvantaged may not have had the same opportunities as others and that this should be taken into account. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002356.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002356.soc index 6645bbc4..41f1be9a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002356.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002356.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the government funding a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The group believed that it would be beneficial for the people of England, and would be a good way to improve infrastructure in the country. However, the group also believed that the government should not fund the project if it meant that other, more important, areas of public spending would have to be cut. The group believed that the NHS was a higher priority than the rail line, and so should not be cut to fund the project. The group also believed that the rail line should be built in a way that meant that it would be cost-effective to run, and so that it would not be a burden on the taxpayer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the government funding the high speed rail line. The reasons for this were that it would benefit a lot of people, would be more ecological than travelling by car, would be useful for commuters, and would be a good alternative to driving. The group was also in favour of the government funding this because it would be a good investment for the future, as the line would be useful for many years to come. However, the group was also in favour of the government funding other things as well, such as the NHS, and was concerned about the cost of the line and how this would be paid for. The group was also concerned about the effect of the line on the local environment, and whether this would be detrimental. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should fund a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The reason for this is that it would benefit a large number of people, especially those who commute to London for work. It would also be more environmentally friendly than travelling by car. However, we also think that the government should make sure that the costs of running the rail line are low, so that it is cheaper to travel by train than by car. We also think that the government should make sure that the costs of building the rail line are not too high, and that they are not passed on to the general public in the form of higher taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that the government should fund a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The reason for this is that it would benefit a large number of people who commute to Birmingham for work, and would also be more environmentally friendly than driving. However, we think that it is important to ensure that the costs are kept as low as possible, so that it is affordable for people to use the service. We also think that it is important to ensure that the line is built in the most efficient way possible, to avoid any unnecessary delays or cost overruns. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government funding a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The group believed that it would be beneficial for the people of England, and would be a good way to improve infrastructure in the country. However, the group also believed that the government should not fund the project if it meant that other, more important, areas of public spending would have to be cut. The group believed that the NHS was a higher priority than the rail line, and so should not be cut to fund the project. The group also believed that the rail line should be built in a way that meant that it would be cost-effective to run, and so that it would not be a burden on the taxpayer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government funding the high speed rail line. The reasons for this were that it would benefit a lot of people, would be more ecological than travelling by car, would be useful for commuters, and would be a good alternative to driving. The group was also in favour of the government funding this because it would be a good investment for the future, as the line would be useful for many years to come. However, the group was also in favour of the government funding other things as well, such as the NHS, and was concerned about the cost of the line and how this would be paid for. The group was also concerned about the effect of the line on the local environment, and whether this would be detrimental. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should fund a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The reason for this is that it would benefit a large number of people, especially those who commute to London for work. It would also be more environmentally friendly than travelling by car. However, we also think that the government should make sure that the costs of running the rail line are low, so that it is cheaper to travel by train than by car. We also think that the government should make sure that the costs of building the rail line are not too high, and that they are not passed on to the general public in the form of higher taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that the government should fund a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The reason for this is that it would benefit a large number of people who commute to Birmingham for work, and would also be more environmentally friendly than driving. However, we think that it is important to ensure that the costs are kept as low as possible, so that it is affordable for people to use the service. We also think that it is important to ensure that the line is built in the most efficient way possible, to avoid any unnecessary delays or cost overruns. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002357.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002357.soc index 63af5cda..f650f6e6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002357.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002357.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the police should be allowed to use stop and search powers where they deem it necessary. They should be trained to use the power with due care and consideration. Their power must not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. However, the use of stop and search should be regulated and police officers should be required to justify the reason why they are executing a stop and search. There should also be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the police should have the power to stop and search people if they have reasonable grounds to do so. This power should not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. This power is an important one in keeping the public safe. The police are there to protect the public and they need to have the power to stop people if they think they look suspicious. Unfortunately in this day and age with bombs being planted and people being mowed down in the street the police need to be on a high alert for suspicious people. The police should be trained to use their power with due care and consideration. The police should be required to justify the reason why they are executing a stop and search. There should also be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the police should be able to use stop and search powers. However, this power should be used with care and consideration. The police should be trained to use their power with due care and consideration. Their power must not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. The police should be required to justify the reason why they are executing a stop and search. There should also be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the police have been shown to abuse their powers of stop and search, it is also important to remember that the police are there to protect the public. We believe that stop and search is a very important power that the police have and it is important that they are able to use this power to protect the public. We believe that the police should be able to use this power as they see fit, however they should be required to justify their use of this power to an independent arbiter. We also believe that the police should be trained to use this power with due care and consideration and should be penalised if it is shown that they have abused this power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the police should be allowed to use stop and search powers where they deem it necessary. They should be trained to use the power with due care and consideration. Their power must not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. However, the use of stop and search should be regulated and police officers should be required to justify the reason why they are executing a stop and search. There should also be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the police should have the power to stop and search people if they have reasonable grounds to do so. This power should not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. This power is an important one in keeping the public safe. The police are there to protect the public and they need to have the power to stop people if they think they look suspicious. Unfortunately in this day and age with bombs being planted and people being mowed down in the street the police need to be on a high alert for suspicious people. The police should be trained to use their power with due care and consideration. The police should be required to justify the reason why they are executing a stop and search. There should also be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the police should be able to use stop and search powers. However, this power should be used with care and consideration. The police should be trained to use their power with due care and consideration. Their power must not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. The police should be required to justify the reason why they are executing a stop and search. There should also be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the police have been shown to abuse their powers of stop and search, it is also important to remember that the police are there to protect the public. We believe that stop and search is a very important power that the police have and it is important that they are able to use this power to protect the public. We believe that the police should be able to use this power as they see fit, however they should be required to justify their use of this power to an independent arbiter. We also believe that the police should be trained to use this power with due care and consideration and should be penalised if it is shown that they have abused this power. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002358.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002358.soc index 0f978286..b1f221f3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002358.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002358.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A basic income scheme is a good idea in principle but there are practical considerations that need to be taken into account. We believe that a basic income scheme would be beneficial for many households in the country and would reduce the gap between the rich and poor. However, it is important that a basic income scheme is carefully introduced and monitored to ensure that people are not exploited and that it does not remove all incentives to work. We also believe that a basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that a basic income scheme would be a positive thing for the country. It would ensure that everyone in the country receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. It would also narrow the gap between the rich and poor. It would be a legal obligation for the government and employers to pay the basic income. However, we also think that the amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A basic income scheme would be a positive thing. It would ensure everyone in the country (whether they are working or on benefits) receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. Further, a basic income scheme would narrow the gap between the rich and poor. It should be a legal obligation for the government and employers. At present, we have a minimum wage system in the UK but many employers flout the law and try to pay employees way below the legal amount. The sentences for breaking this law are too lenient. The amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A basic income scheme would be a positive thing. It would ensure everyone in the country (whether they are working or on benefits) receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. Further, a basic income scheme would narrow the gap between the rich and poor. It should be a legal obligation for the government and employers. At present, we have a minimum wage system in the UK but many employers flout the law and try to pay employees way below the legal amount. The sentences for breaking this law are too lenient. The amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A basic income scheme is a good idea in principle but there are practical considerations that need to be taken into account. We believe that a basic income scheme would be beneficial for many households in the country and would reduce the gap between the rich and poor. However, it is important that a basic income scheme is carefully introduced and monitored to ensure that people are not exploited and that it does not remove all incentives to work. We also believe that a basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that a basic income scheme would be a positive thing for the country. It would ensure that everyone in the country receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. It would also narrow the gap between the rich and poor. It would be a legal obligation for the government and employers to pay the basic income. However, we also think that the amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A basic income scheme would be a positive thing. It would ensure everyone in the country (whether they are working or on benefits) receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. Further, a basic income scheme would narrow the gap between the rich and poor. It should be a legal obligation for the government and employers. At present, we have a minimum wage system in the UK but many employers flout the law and try to pay employees way below the legal amount. The sentences for breaking this law are too lenient. The amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A basic income scheme would be a positive thing. It would ensure everyone in the country (whether they are working or on benefits) receives a sufficient level of income to cover the costs of basic necessities. Further, a basic income scheme would narrow the gap between the rich and poor. It should be a legal obligation for the government and employers. At present, we have a minimum wage system in the UK but many employers flout the law and try to pay employees way below the legal amount. The sentences for breaking this law are too lenient. The amount of basic income itself should the scheme go ahead, should however be carefully introduced and monitored. Too much of a basic income and it will remove all incentives to work. The basic income scheme should be there primarily as a means to combat food poverty and also help disadvantaged members of the population such as the disabled. It should exist to provide quality of life, not replace the need to work. 2: 1,2,3,4 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002359.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002359.soc index 21c750a9..3c8a42aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002359.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002359.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the average person does not need a car. There are many people who would benefit greatly from using public transport, walking or cycling instead. This would have many benefits, including reducing the amount of pollution in the air, the amount of congestion on the roads and would help people to keep fit. However, there are people who live in remote areas, or have mobility issues, or a combination of the two, who would find it difficult to get around without a car. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There are many situations in which the average person does not need a car. In general, the availability of public transport, the ability to walk and cycle, and the ability to share transport with others can often be used to replace the need for a car. However, for certain people in certain situations the need for a car can be justified. For example, people who live in rural areas, people who have certain medical conditions, or people who have a need to transport large or heavy objects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the average person does not need a car. The availability of public transport, the ability to walk and cycle, and the ability to share transport with others can often be used to replace the need for a car. However, for certain people in certain situations the need for a car can be justified. For example, people who live in rural areas, people who have certain medical conditions, or people who have a need to transport large or heavy objects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the average person does not need a car. However, the need for a car varies depending on an individuals' circumstances. For example, people who live in large cities and have access to good public transport may not need a car. However, people who live in more rural areas or have specific requirements may find that having a car is essential to their day to day life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the average person does not need a car. There are many people who would benefit greatly from using public transport, walking or cycling instead. This would have many benefits, including reducing the amount of pollution in the air, the amount of congestion on the roads and would help people to keep fit. However, there are people who live in remote areas, or have mobility issues, or a combination of the two, who would find it difficult to get around without a car. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are many situations in which the average person does not need a car. In general, the availability of public transport, the ability to walk and cycle, and the ability to share transport with others can often be used to replace the need for a car. However, for certain people in certain situations the need for a car can be justified. For example, people who live in rural areas, people who have certain medical conditions, or people who have a need to transport large or heavy objects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the average person does not need a car. The availability of public transport, the ability to walk and cycle, and the ability to share transport with others can often be used to replace the need for a car. However, for certain people in certain situations the need for a car can be justified. For example, people who live in rural areas, people who have certain medical conditions, or people who have a need to transport large or heavy objects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the average person does not need a car. However, the need for a car varies depending on an individuals' circumstances. For example, people who live in large cities and have access to good public transport may not need a car. However, people who live in more rural areas or have specific requirements may find that having a car is essential to their day to day life. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002360.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002360.soc index 77529638..e1d714a6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002360.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002360.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, it is not ok to use tax havens. This is because it is a way of avoiding paying taxes that you should be paying. It is also a way of avoiding paying taxes that are used to fund services that you use. The issue is not that tax havens exist, but that they are used by the wealthiest individuals and biggest companies to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This is morally wrong and is also unfair on the less wealthy individuals and smaller companies that have to pay higher taxes to compensate. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that it is not ok to use tax havens. We feel that it is unfair that some people can use tax havens and avoid paying tax, when others cannot. This means that those who cannot use tax havens have to pay higher taxes to compensate for those that do not pay their fair share. It is also unfair that those that use tax havens are likely to be the wealthiest individuals/biggest companies and so it doesn't seem right that they can benefit from tax havens when others cannot. This is a problem with the rules about using tax havens rather than the existence of them. If it is legal to use tax havens then it is ok to use them, but we do not think that it is right that it is legal to use tax havens. It is a moral issue and we believe that everyone should be paying their fair share of tax, based on their earnings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it is not ok to use tax havens. The main reason for this is that it is unfair that the wealthiest people/biggest companies are able to avoid paying tax when others are not. The government needs tax money to provide services for the country and so it is not right that some people are able to avoid paying their fair share. We also think that it is not ok to use tax havens because it is often the case that tax havens are used to launder money from illegal activities. This means that the government is losing out on tax money and it also means that the tax havens are allowing people to get away with illegal activities. We think that the rules about tax havens should be tightened so that it is not possible for people to use them to avoid paying tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that it is not ok to use tax havens. We feel that the use of tax havens is morally wrong as it means that people are not paying their fair share of tax and are therefore not contributing to society. We feel that this is especially the case for the very wealthy who can afford to pay their taxes. We feel that the use of tax havens is also not ok as it means that the less wealthy have to pay higher taxes to compensate for those that are avoiding paying their taxes. We feel that the use of tax havens is also not ok as it means that those that are using tax havens are getting an unfair advantage over those that are not. We feel that the use of tax havens is also not ok as it means that the government has less money to spend on public services and other things that would benefit society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, it is not ok to use tax havens. This is because it is a way of avoiding paying taxes that you should be paying. It is also a way of avoiding paying taxes that are used to fund services that you use. The issue is not that tax havens exist, but that they are used by the wealthiest individuals and biggest companies to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This is morally wrong and is also unfair on the less wealthy individuals and smaller companies that have to pay higher taxes to compensate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not ok to use tax havens. We feel that it is unfair that some people can use tax havens and avoid paying tax, when others cannot. This means that those who cannot use tax havens have to pay higher taxes to compensate for those that do not pay their fair share. It is also unfair that those that use tax havens are likely to be the wealthiest individuals/biggest companies and so it doesn't seem right that they can benefit from tax havens when others cannot. This is a problem with the rules about using tax havens rather than the existence of them. If it is legal to use tax havens then it is ok to use them, but we do not think that it is right that it is legal to use tax havens. It is a moral issue and we believe that everyone should be paying their fair share of tax, based on their earnings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not ok to use tax havens. The main reason for this is that it is unfair that the wealthiest people/biggest companies are able to avoid paying tax when others are not. The government needs tax money to provide services for the country and so it is not right that some people are able to avoid paying their fair share. We also think that it is not ok to use tax havens because it is often the case that tax havens are used to launder money from illegal activities. This means that the government is losing out on tax money and it also means that the tax havens are allowing people to get away with illegal activities. We think that the rules about tax havens should be tightened so that it is not possible for people to use them to avoid paying tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not ok to use tax havens. We feel that the use of tax havens is morally wrong as it means that people are not paying their fair share of tax and are therefore not contributing to society. We feel that this is especially the case for the very wealthy who can afford to pay their taxes. We feel that the use of tax havens is also not ok as it means that the less wealthy have to pay higher taxes to compensate for those that are avoiding paying their taxes. We feel that the use of tax havens is also not ok as it means that those that are using tax havens are getting an unfair advantage over those that are not. We feel that the use of tax havens is also not ok as it means that the government has less money to spend on public services and other things that would benefit society as a whole. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002361.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002361.soc index aff54d5e..564dec27 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002361.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002361.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not force social media companies to censor bullying and harassment. The ability to express opinions freely is a fundamental part of a free society. By limiting that freedom we risk creating an environment where people feel unable to express their views, which could lead to the stifling of debate and the spread of misinformation. Social media companies already have a wide range of tools to protect people from bullying and harassment, and it is up to them to use those tools to create a safe environment for their users. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is necessary to force social media companies to censor bullying and harassment. We feel that the companies need to take some responsibility for the content that is uploaded to their platforms. If the companies can censor content that is illegal, such as child pornography, then they should be able to censor content that is illegal under the banner of bullying and harassment. The companies could be made to take this responsibility by implementing a more stringent process for reporting bullying and harassment. This would include staff checking the reports and taking action if the report is deemed to be bullying and harassment. We believe that this would be a step in the right direction to make social media a safer place for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. Social media is an important part of many people's lives, and it is important that people can use these platforms without fear of being harassed. It is also important to protect children and vulnerable people from this kind of behaviour. The current system of reporting and blocking is a good start, but it is not enough. Social media companies need to do more to protect their users from bullying and harassment. They could use algorithms and artificial intelligence to monitor for bullying and harassment, and could also introduce a mandatory registration system to prevent anonymous trolling and harassment. They could also introduce a system of reporting and blocking for specific behaviours, rather than just for specific individuals, to prevent harassment from multiple different accounts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. Social media is an important part of many people's lives, and it is important that people can use these platforms without fear of being harassed. It is also important to protect children and vulnerable people from this kind of behaviour. The current system of reporting and blocking is a good start, but it is not enough. Social media companies need to do more to protect their users from bullying and harassment. The best way to do this would be through the use of artificial intelligence to identify bullying and harassment and remove it from the platform. This would be a very effective way of ensuring that people can use these platforms without fear of being harassed, and would not be subject to the same human biases and errors that can cause problems in the current system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not force social media companies to censor bullying and harassment. The ability to express opinions freely is a fundamental part of a free society. By limiting that freedom we risk creating an environment where people feel unable to express their views, which could lead to the stifling of debate and the spread of misinformation. Social media companies already have a wide range of tools to protect people from bullying and harassment, and it is up to them to use those tools to create a safe environment for their users. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is necessary to force social media companies to censor bullying and harassment. We feel that the companies need to take some responsibility for the content that is uploaded to their platforms. If the companies can censor content that is illegal, such as child pornography, then they should be able to censor content that is illegal under the banner of bullying and harassment. The companies could be made to take this responsibility by implementing a more stringent process for reporting bullying and harassment. This would include staff checking the reports and taking action if the report is deemed to be bullying and harassment. We believe that this would be a step in the right direction to make social media a safer place for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. Social media is an important part of many people's lives, and it is important that people can use these platforms without fear of being harassed. It is also important to protect children and vulnerable people from this kind of behaviour. The current system of reporting and blocking is a good start, but it is not enough. Social media companies need to do more to protect their users from bullying and harassment. They could use algorithms and artificial intelligence to monitor for bullying and harassment, and could also introduce a mandatory registration system to prevent anonymous trolling and harassment. They could also introduce a system of reporting and blocking for specific behaviours, rather than just for specific individuals, to prevent harassment from multiple different accounts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that social media companies should be forced to censor bullying and harassment. Social media is an important part of many people's lives, and it is important that people can use these platforms without fear of being harassed. It is also important to protect children and vulnerable people from this kind of behaviour. The current system of reporting and blocking is a good start, but it is not enough. Social media companies need to do more to protect their users from bullying and harassment. The best way to do this would be through the use of artificial intelligence to identify bullying and harassment and remove it from the platform. This would be a very effective way of ensuring that people can use these platforms without fear of being harassed, and would not be subject to the same human biases and errors that can cause problems in the current system. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002362.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002362.soc index 26e73e9f..54357226 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002362.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002362.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, it is a good idea to give all children a free computer at the age of six. This would help to level the playing field, and ensure that all children have the same opportunity to access the internet and use a computer. However, it would need to be means tested, so that the children at the greatest economic disadvantage would benefit from a free computer. Realistically, this would need to include free or subsidised broadband at home for the children to be able to access material for education. It is also important to ensure that children are supervised when using the computer, and that they are not exposed to unsuitable material. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the idea of giving children a free computer at the age of 6 is a good one. The benefits of doing so would include giving children the opportunity to use a computer for their education, including learning important technical skills. However, the idea should perhaps be means tested, so that the children at the greatest economic disadvantage should benefit from a free computer. Realistically, this would need to include free or subsidised broadband at home for the children to be able to access material for education. It is also important to note that at the age of 6, children should still be encourage to have free play outside instead of being on a computer. Therefore, it is important that the children are supervised when using the computer and that the use of the computer is monitored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, it is a good idea to give all children a free computer at the age of six. This would help children to get to grips with technology and it would also help them in their education. However, there are practical difficulties with this idea. It would be very expensive and it is not clear where the money would come from. It would also need to be accompanied by free or subsidised broadband access for the children to be able to use the computer. Another problem is that six is a very young age for children to be given a computer and it would be difficult to ensure that the children were supervised and that they were not accessing inappropriate material. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the idea of giving children a free computer at the age of 6 is a good one. The benefits of doing so would include giving children the opportunity to use a computer for their education, including learning important technical skills. However, the idea should perhaps be means tested, so that the children at the greatest economic disadvantage should benefit from a free computer. Realistically, this would need to include free or subsidised broadband at home for the children to be able to access material for education. The issue of ensuring that children are not on the computer all the time and are still having free play should also be addressed. The idea of providing free computers to children is a very good one, but it is also important that the children are supervised when using the computer and that the use of the computer is monitored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, it is a good idea to give all children a free computer at the age of six. This would help to level the playing field, and ensure that all children have the same opportunity to access the internet and use a computer. However, it would need to be means tested, so that the children at the greatest economic disadvantage would benefit from a free computer. Realistically, this would need to include free or subsidised broadband at home for the children to be able to access material for education. It is also important to ensure that children are supervised when using the computer, and that they are not exposed to unsuitable material. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the idea of giving children a free computer at the age of 6 is a good one. The benefits of doing so would include giving children the opportunity to use a computer for their education, including learning important technical skills. However, the idea should perhaps be means tested, so that the children at the greatest economic disadvantage should benefit from a free computer. Realistically, this would need to include free or subsidised broadband at home for the children to be able to access material for education. It is also important to note that at the age of 6, children should still be encourage to have free play outside instead of being on a computer. Therefore, it is important that the children are supervised when using the computer and that the use of the computer is monitored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, it is a good idea to give all children a free computer at the age of six. This would help children to get to grips with technology and it would also help them in their education. However, there are practical difficulties with this idea. It would be very expensive and it is not clear where the money would come from. It would also need to be accompanied by free or subsidised broadband access for the children to be able to use the computer. Another problem is that six is a very young age for children to be given a computer and it would be difficult to ensure that the children were supervised and that they were not accessing inappropriate material. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the idea of giving children a free computer at the age of 6 is a good one. The benefits of doing so would include giving children the opportunity to use a computer for their education, including learning important technical skills. However, the idea should perhaps be means tested, so that the children at the greatest economic disadvantage should benefit from a free computer. Realistically, this would need to include free or subsidised broadband at home for the children to be able to access material for education. The issue of ensuring that children are not on the computer all the time and are still having free play should also be addressed. The idea of providing free computers to children is a very good one, but it is also important that the children are supervised when using the computer and that the use of the computer is monitored. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002363.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002363.soc index 93361807..1de5136d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002363.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002363.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of giving disadvantaged groups admission priority to universities. The group thought that it was only fair that those who had not had the same opportunities as others were given the same chance to succeed. It was agreed that this would also help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, as those who come from a disadvantaged background would have the opportunity to improve their lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of giving priority to disadvantaged groups. The group felt that this would help to reduce the class divide in society and would help to ensure that people are treated equally. The group felt that the current system is unfair as it is very difficult for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get into universities. The group felt that giving people from disadvantaged backgrounds priority would help to ensure that universities were more representative of society as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority to disadvantaged groups in university admissions. The participants felt that if an individual was able to achieve the grades required to get into university, then they should be able to do so regardless of their background. It was felt that if universities did give priority to disadvantaged groups, then this would be unfair on those who did not fit into this category. However, the group did agree that universities should consider all applications equally and that further consideration should be given to those who are disadvantaged. The group felt that universities should be aware that those who are disadvantaged may not have had the same opportunities as others and that this should be taken into account. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Universities should consider all applications equally, regardless of the individuals’ background. However, they should be aware of the fact that some people may not have had the same opportunities as others. Final consensus statement: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority to disadvantaged groups in university admissions. The participants felt that if an individual was able to achieve the grades required to get into university, then they should be able to do so regardless of their background. It was felt that if universities did give priority to disadvantaged groups, then this would be unfair on those who did not fit into this category. However, the group did agree that universities should consider all applications equally and that further consideration should be given to those who are disadvantaged. The group felt that universities should be aware that those who are disadvantaged may not have had the same opportunities as others and that this should be taken into account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of giving disadvantaged groups admission priority to universities. The group thought that it was only fair that those who had not had the same opportunities as others were given the same chance to succeed. It was agreed that this would also help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, as those who come from a disadvantaged background would have the opportunity to improve their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of giving priority to disadvantaged groups. The group felt that this would help to reduce the class divide in society and would help to ensure that people are treated equally. The group felt that the current system is unfair as it is very difficult for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get into universities. The group felt that giving people from disadvantaged backgrounds priority would help to ensure that universities were more representative of society as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority to disadvantaged groups in university admissions. The participants felt that if an individual was able to achieve the grades required to get into university, then they should be able to do so regardless of their background. It was felt that if universities did give priority to disadvantaged groups, then this would be unfair on those who did not fit into this category. However, the group did agree that universities should consider all applications equally and that further consideration should be given to those who are disadvantaged. The group felt that universities should be aware that those who are disadvantaged may not have had the same opportunities as others and that this should be taken into account. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Universities should consider all applications equally, regardless of the individuals’ background. However, they should be aware of the fact that some people may not have had the same opportunities as others. Final consensus statement: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving priority to disadvantaged groups in university admissions. The participants felt that if an individual was able to achieve the grades required to get into university, then they should be able to do so regardless of their background. It was felt that if universities did give priority to disadvantaged groups, then this would be unfair on those who did not fit into this category. However, the group did agree that universities should consider all applications equally and that further consideration should be given to those who are disadvantaged. The group felt that universities should be aware that those who are disadvantaged may not have had the same opportunities as others and that this should be taken into account. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002364.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002364.soc index 1b91f083..063e596b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002364.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002364.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the government funding a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The group believed that it would be beneficial for the people of England, and would be a good way to improve infrastructure in the country. However, the group also believed that the government should not fund the project if it meant that other, more important, areas of public spending would have to be cut. The group believed that the NHS was a higher priority than the rail line, and so should not be cut to fund the project. The group also believed that the rail line should be built in a way that meant that it would be cost-effective to run, and so that it would not be a burden on the taxpayer. The group also believed that the environmental benefits of the rail line should be taken into account, and that this should be considered when deciding whether or not to fund the project. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the government funding a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The group believed that it would be beneficial for the people of England, and would be a good way to improve infrastructure in the country. However, the group also believed that the government should not fund the project if it meant that other, more important, areas of public spending would have to be cut. The group believed that the NHS was a higher priority than the rail line, and so should not be cut to fund the project. The group also believed that the rail line should be built in a way that meant that it would be cost-effective to run, and so that it would not be a burden on the taxpayer. The group also believed that the rail line should be built in a way that minimised the impact on the environment, and that this should be taken into account when considering whether or not to fund the project. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government funding a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. This is because it will benefit the many commuters in the area and allow for more people to travel by train instead of by car. This is more environmentally friendly and will also help reduce congestion on the roads. However, the group was also in favour of making the rail line affordable to use. This means that the government must make sure that the costs of running the rail line are low enough for the ticket prices to be lower than the cost of driving. The group was also in favour of the government funding other rail lines in the future, but only if they are affordable to use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that we think that the government should fund a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. This is because it would provide a much more efficient way of travelling between the two cities, and would be much more environmentally friendly. It would also cut down on the amount of cars on the roads, which would be beneficial for everyone. However, we do think that this would be very costly, and that this money could be spent on more important things. We think that if the government does decide to fund this rail line, it should be very careful with how it does this, so that it is as cost-effective as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government funding a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The group believed that it would be beneficial for the people of England, and would be a good way to improve infrastructure in the country. However, the group also believed that the government should not fund the project if it meant that other, more important, areas of public spending would have to be cut. The group believed that the NHS was a higher priority than the rail line, and so should not be cut to fund the project. The group also believed that the rail line should be built in a way that meant that it would be cost-effective to run, and so that it would not be a burden on the taxpayer. The group also believed that the environmental benefits of the rail line should be taken into account, and that this should be considered when deciding whether or not to fund the project. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government funding a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. The group believed that it would be beneficial for the people of England, and would be a good way to improve infrastructure in the country. However, the group also believed that the government should not fund the project if it meant that other, more important, areas of public spending would have to be cut. The group believed that the NHS was a higher priority than the rail line, and so should not be cut to fund the project. The group also believed that the rail line should be built in a way that meant that it would be cost-effective to run, and so that it would not be a burden on the taxpayer. The group also believed that the rail line should be built in a way that minimised the impact on the environment, and that this should be taken into account when considering whether or not to fund the project. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government funding a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. This is because it will benefit the many commuters in the area and allow for more people to travel by train instead of by car. This is more environmentally friendly and will also help reduce congestion on the roads. However, the group was also in favour of making the rail line affordable to use. This means that the government must make sure that the costs of running the rail line are low enough for the ticket prices to be lower than the cost of driving. The group was also in favour of the government funding other rail lines in the future, but only if they are affordable to use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that we think that the government should fund a high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham. This is because it would provide a much more efficient way of travelling between the two cities, and would be much more environmentally friendly. It would also cut down on the amount of cars on the roads, which would be beneficial for everyone. However, we do think that this would be very costly, and that this money could be spent on more important things. We think that if the government does decide to fund this rail line, it should be very careful with how it does this, so that it is as cost-effective as possible. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002365.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002365.soc index 36ce863c..fdb7b50f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002365.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002365.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The BBC should broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. This is because people's opinions on what is offensive change over time. If we censor what is broadcast now based on people's opinions today, people in the future will be limited in what they can consume and so they will be limited in what they know. The BBC should also be allowed to broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive in order to ensure that all opinions can be freely expressed. This is an essential part of freedom of speech and if people don't like the content that is being broadcast, they don't need to watch it. In addition, if people don't like the content, they can also complain to the BBC and so the BBC can then take this into account and change their broadcast accordingly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we believe that the BBC should broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. This is because we believe that the BBC should not censor any information that is important for the public to know. It is then up to the individual to decide whether they want to consume that content or not. It is also important for the BBC to be unbiased and so they should broadcast all types of content in a respectful way. There is a very good argument for the BBC not to censor any content that is important for the public to know. However, it is also important for the BBC to be unbiased and so they should not broadcast content that is meant to be offensive. It is then up to the individual to decide whether they want to consume that content or not. This means that the BBC should broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive, as long as it is in a respectful way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that it is right for the BBC to broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. The reason for this is because we believe that it is important for the public to be aware of the news, even if it is offensive to some. However, we believe that there should be boundaries in place to ensure that the BBC is not broadcasting anything that is illegal. We believe that it is the individuals responsibility to consume or not consume any content they wish, so people who don't like something simply don't need to watch or consume that content. We believe that the BBC should not be allowed to push an agenda onto the public to manipulate them and filter the news to their liking. We believe that broadcasting such content will help to educate the public and will provide the public with more information about it. We believe that it is important to have a debate over broadcasting content that is offensive to some people, and we believe that this is a good way to ensure that the BBC is broadcasting the news and not pushing an agenda. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that it is right for the BBC to broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. The reason for this is because we believe that it is important for the public to be aware of the news, even if it is offensive to some. However, we believe that there should be boundaries in place to ensure that the BBC is not broadcasting anything that is illegal. We believe that it is the individuals responsibility to consume or not consume any content they wish, so people who don't like something simply don't need to watch or consume that content. We believe that the BBC should not be allowed to push an agenda onto the public to manipulate them and filter the news to their liking. We believe that there should be a periodic review of the boundaries in place to ensure that the BBC is not able to push an agenda onto the public, but is also not broadcasting anything illegal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The BBC should broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. This is because people's opinions on what is offensive change over time. If we censor what is broadcast now based on people's opinions today, people in the future will be limited in what they can consume and so they will be limited in what they know. The BBC should also be allowed to broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive in order to ensure that all opinions can be freely expressed. This is an essential part of freedom of speech and if people don't like the content that is being broadcast, they don't need to watch it. In addition, if people don't like the content, they can also complain to the BBC and so the BBC can then take this into account and change their broadcast accordingly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we believe that the BBC should broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. This is because we believe that the BBC should not censor any information that is important for the public to know. It is then up to the individual to decide whether they want to consume that content or not. It is also important for the BBC to be unbiased and so they should broadcast all types of content in a respectful way. There is a very good argument for the BBC not to censor any content that is important for the public to know. However, it is also important for the BBC to be unbiased and so they should not broadcast content that is meant to be offensive. It is then up to the individual to decide whether they want to consume that content or not. This means that the BBC should broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive, as long as it is in a respectful way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that it is right for the BBC to broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. The reason for this is because we believe that it is important for the public to be aware of the news, even if it is offensive to some. However, we believe that there should be boundaries in place to ensure that the BBC is not broadcasting anything that is illegal. We believe that it is the individuals responsibility to consume or not consume any content they wish, so people who don't like something simply don't need to watch or consume that content. We believe that the BBC should not be allowed to push an agenda onto the public to manipulate them and filter the news to their liking. We believe that broadcasting such content will help to educate the public and will provide the public with more information about it. We believe that it is important to have a debate over broadcasting content that is offensive to some people, and we believe that this is a good way to ensure that the BBC is broadcasting the news and not pushing an agenda. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that it is right for the BBC to broadcast content that some people consider to be too offensive. The reason for this is because we believe that it is important for the public to be aware of the news, even if it is offensive to some. However, we believe that there should be boundaries in place to ensure that the BBC is not broadcasting anything that is illegal. We believe that it is the individuals responsibility to consume or not consume any content they wish, so people who don't like something simply don't need to watch or consume that content. We believe that the BBC should not be allowed to push an agenda onto the public to manipulate them and filter the news to their liking. We believe that there should be a periodic review of the boundaries in place to ensure that the BBC is not able to push an agenda onto the public, but is also not broadcasting anything illegal. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002366.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002366.soc index 4de9ce5b..3f807905 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002366.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002366.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although the police have been shown to abuse their powers of stop and search, it is also important to remember that the police are there to protect the public. We believe that stop and search is a very important power that the police have and it is important that they are able to use this power to protect the public. We believe that the police should be able to use this power as they see fit, however they should be required to justify their use of this power to an independent arbiter. We also believe that the police should be trained to use this power with due care and consideration and should be penalised if it is shown that they have abused this power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although the police have an important job in keeping the public safe, there is a need to regulate the use of stop and search powers. The police must be trained to use their power with due care and consideration. Their power must not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. The police must justify the use of stop and search powers and there should be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that stop and search is a very important power that the police have and it is important that they are able to use this power to protect the public. We believe that the police should be able to use this power as they see fit, however they should be required to justify their use of this power to an independent arbiter. We also believe that the police should be trained to use this power with due care and consideration and should be penalised if it is shown that they have abused this power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although it is important that the police have the power to stop and search people if they think there is a reason to do so, it is also important that they use this power in a fair and equitable manner. The police must be trained to use their power with due care and consideration. Their power must not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. The police should also be required to justify the reason why they are executing a stop and search. There should also be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although the police have been shown to abuse their powers of stop and search, it is also important to remember that the police are there to protect the public. We believe that stop and search is a very important power that the police have and it is important that they are able to use this power to protect the public. We believe that the police should be able to use this power as they see fit, however they should be required to justify their use of this power to an independent arbiter. We also believe that the police should be trained to use this power with due care and consideration and should be penalised if it is shown that they have abused this power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although the police have an important job in keeping the public safe, there is a need to regulate the use of stop and search powers. The police must be trained to use their power with due care and consideration. Their power must not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. The police must justify the use of stop and search powers and there should be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that stop and search is a very important power that the police have and it is important that they are able to use this power to protect the public. We believe that the police should be able to use this power as they see fit, however they should be required to justify their use of this power to an independent arbiter. We also believe that the police should be trained to use this power with due care and consideration and should be penalised if it is shown that they have abused this power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although it is important that the police have the power to stop and search people if they think there is a reason to do so, it is also important that they use this power in a fair and equitable manner. The police must be trained to use their power with due care and consideration. Their power must not be abused and should be penalised if it is shown to be so. The police should also be required to justify the reason why they are executing a stop and search. There should also be a system where members of the public can challenge the police use of these powers in front of an independent arbiter. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002367.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002367.soc index c12c1253..f8b297b7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002367.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002367.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the public health system in the UK is in a very poor state. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that it has been underfunded for many years. This has led to a situation where the quality of care is in decline and the waiting times for treatment are increasing. In order to address this, the government must increase funding for the public health system. This will allow for the quality of care to be increased and for waiting times to be reduced. This is an important step to take in order to improve the health of the general public and the quality of life that they experience. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the government should increase funding for the public health system. There is no doubt that the public health system in this country is underfunded. This is evident in the long waiting times for treatment and diagnosis, as well as the low morale of staff. The ageing population will also need more care and support in the future, and the current system is not equipped to provide this. There is also the issue of health inequality in this country, and increasing funding for the public health system would allow the government to provide more care for those who are underprivileged. The public health system is one of the best things about living in this country, and the government should be ashamed that it has been left to languish as much as it has. The public health system is one of the most important things that tax payer money can be spent on, and increasing funding for the public health system would be one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the government should increase funding for the public health system. There is an overwhelming consensus in the group that the current funding for the NHS is not adequate, and this is demonstrated by the fact that we have one of the lowest ratios of doctors to population in Europe. There is also a consensus that the ageing population will put additional pressure on the NHS and that this will be a growing problem in the coming years. The NHS is one of the best things about living in the UK and is a vital part of our society. We should be proud of the NHS and the care that it provides to all people, regardless of their background or income. We believe that the government should increase funding for the NHS in order to ensure that the NHS can continue to provide the high level of care that it currently provides. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the public health system in the UK is in need of additional funding in order to ensure that it can continue to provide a high quality of care to all of its patients. There is a strong argument that more funding is needed in order to ensure that the NHS can continue to function effectively, and also to ensure that the quality of care that is provided is not diminished. There are many different areas in which additional funding could be spent, including increasing the number of available beds in hospitals, improving the wages of NHS staff, and increasing the amount of funding that is available for research into new treatments and cures. The government should also consider the potential impact of the ageing population, and how this may affect the demand for public health services. It is therefore the opinion of this group that the government should increase funding for the public health system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the public health system in the UK is in a very poor state. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that it has been underfunded for many years. This has led to a situation where the quality of care is in decline and the waiting times for treatment are increasing. In order to address this, the government must increase funding for the public health system. This will allow for the quality of care to be increased and for waiting times to be reduced. This is an important step to take in order to improve the health of the general public and the quality of life that they experience. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the government should increase funding for the public health system. There is no doubt that the public health system in this country is underfunded. This is evident in the long waiting times for treatment and diagnosis, as well as the low morale of staff. The ageing population will also need more care and support in the future, and the current system is not equipped to provide this. There is also the issue of health inequality in this country, and increasing funding for the public health system would allow the government to provide more care for those who are underprivileged. The public health system is one of the best things about living in this country, and the government should be ashamed that it has been left to languish as much as it has. The public health system is one of the most important things that tax payer money can be spent on, and increasing funding for the public health system would be one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the government should increase funding for the public health system. There is an overwhelming consensus in the group that the current funding for the NHS is not adequate, and this is demonstrated by the fact that we have one of the lowest ratios of doctors to population in Europe. There is also a consensus that the ageing population will put additional pressure on the NHS and that this will be a growing problem in the coming years. The NHS is one of the best things about living in the UK and is a vital part of our society. We should be proud of the NHS and the care that it provides to all people, regardless of their background or income. We believe that the government should increase funding for the NHS in order to ensure that the NHS can continue to provide the high level of care that it currently provides. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the public health system in the UK is in need of additional funding in order to ensure that it can continue to provide a high quality of care to all of its patients. There is a strong argument that more funding is needed in order to ensure that the NHS can continue to function effectively, and also to ensure that the quality of care that is provided is not diminished. There are many different areas in which additional funding could be spent, including increasing the number of available beds in hospitals, improving the wages of NHS staff, and increasing the amount of funding that is available for research into new treatments and cures. The government should also consider the potential impact of the ageing population, and how this may affect the demand for public health services. It is therefore the opinion of this group that the government should increase funding for the public health system. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002368.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002368.soc index 2d59e6a8..1ec1e5c7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002368.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002368.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think that people should be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is a fundamental right that should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial background. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a two-tier system where people with more money will be able to jump the queue and have their cases heard more quickly. This is unfair and will lead to discrimination. It will also lead to a conflict of interest where the police and other criminal justice bodies will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will pay to have their cases heard more quickly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, people should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The introduction of a payment system would be unethical as it would create an uneven and unfair system. Legal advice and justice should be available to everyone regardless of their financial background and personal circumstances. The introduction of a payment system could lead to discrimination and an uneven and unfair system. It could also cause police forces to arrest more people out of a hope that they can fufill certain quotas for money. This means a conflict of interest. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, people should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. It is unfair that people with more money will be able to jump the queue and get their case heard faster than people with less money. This will lead to a two-tier system where people with more money will be able to get better treatment and this is unfair. It is also likely to lead to more people being arrested as the police will be incentivised to arrest more people in the hope that they will be able to pay to get their case heard faster. This is likely to lead to discrimination and could lead to more innocent people being arrested and having their lives ruined. It is also likely to lead to a conflict of interest as the police will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will be able to pay to get their case heard faster. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, people should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. We don't think that it is fair that people with more money can pay for a faster procedure. This could lead to discrimination and an uneven and unfair system. We think that legal advice and justice should be available to everyone regardless of their financial background and personal circumstances. Introducing a payment system could lead to discrimination and an uneven and unfair system. We also think that this could lead to a conflict of interest, as federal bodies could hold people for longer in the justice system in the hope that they will pay to speed up the process. This means that a conflict of interest could occur. It could also cause police forces to arrest more people out of a hope that they can fulfill certain quotas for money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think that people should be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is a fundamental right that should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial background. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a two-tier system where people with more money will be able to jump the queue and have their cases heard more quickly. This is unfair and will lead to discrimination. It will also lead to a conflict of interest where the police and other criminal justice bodies will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will pay to have their cases heard more quickly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, people should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The introduction of a payment system would be unethical as it would create an uneven and unfair system. Legal advice and justice should be available to everyone regardless of their financial background and personal circumstances. The introduction of a payment system could lead to discrimination and an uneven and unfair system. It could also cause police forces to arrest more people out of a hope that they can fufill certain quotas for money. This means a conflict of interest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, people should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. It is unfair that people with more money will be able to jump the queue and get their case heard faster than people with less money. This will lead to a two-tier system where people with more money will be able to get better treatment and this is unfair. It is also likely to lead to more people being arrested as the police will be incentivised to arrest more people in the hope that they will be able to pay to get their case heard faster. This is likely to lead to discrimination and could lead to more innocent people being arrested and having their lives ruined. It is also likely to lead to a conflict of interest as the police will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will be able to pay to get their case heard faster. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, people should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. We don't think that it is fair that people with more money can pay for a faster procedure. This could lead to discrimination and an uneven and unfair system. We think that legal advice and justice should be available to everyone regardless of their financial background and personal circumstances. Introducing a payment system could lead to discrimination and an uneven and unfair system. We also think that this could lead to a conflict of interest, as federal bodies could hold people for longer in the justice system in the hope that they will pay to speed up the process. This means that a conflict of interest could occur. It could also cause police forces to arrest more people out of a hope that they can fulfill certain quotas for money. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002369.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002369.soc index f16c5fe8..97395fff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002369.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002369.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we do not think that people should be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is a fundamental right that should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial background. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a two-tier system where people with more money will be able to jump the queue and have their cases heard more quickly. This is unfair and will lead to discrimination. It will also lead to a conflict of interest where the police and other criminal justice bodies will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will pay to have their cases heard more quickly. This will in turn lead to an increase in the prison population and will place a huge financial burden on the state. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we do not think that people should be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is a fundamental right that should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial background. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a two-tier system where people with more money will be able to jump the queue and have their cases heard more quickly. This is unfair and will lead to discrimination. It will also lead to a conflict of interest where the police and other criminal justice bodies will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will pay to have their cases heard more quickly. This will lead to an uneven, unethical and corrupt criminal justice system in the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, people should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is there to protect the rights of all people and to ensure that everyone is treated equally. If people are allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures, this will create a two-tier system in which the rich will be able to jump the queue and the poor will be forced to wait. This will be unfair and will create an imbalance in society. It will also create a conflict of interest as the police and other federal bodies will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will pay to speed up the process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we do not think that people should be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is a fundamental right that should be available to all, regardless of their financial background. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a two-tier system of justice. The wealthy will be able to jump the queue and have their cases heard more quickly, whereas those that cannot afford to pay will have to wait longer. The criminal justice system is there to protect people and provide justice for all. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a conflict of interest. The justice system will have an incentive to keep people in the system for longer, in the hope that they will pay to have their cases heard more quickly. This is not in the interests of the public and is not an ethical way to run a justice system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we do not think that people should be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is a fundamental right that should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial background. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a two-tier system where people with more money will be able to jump the queue and have their cases heard more quickly. This is unfair and will lead to discrimination. It will also lead to a conflict of interest where the police and other criminal justice bodies will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will pay to have their cases heard more quickly. This will in turn lead to an increase in the prison population and will place a huge financial burden on the state. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we do not think that people should be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is a fundamental right that should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial background. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a two-tier system where people with more money will be able to jump the queue and have their cases heard more quickly. This is unfair and will lead to discrimination. It will also lead to a conflict of interest where the police and other criminal justice bodies will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will pay to have their cases heard more quickly. This will lead to an uneven, unethical and corrupt criminal justice system in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, people should not be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is there to protect the rights of all people and to ensure that everyone is treated equally. If people are allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures, this will create a two-tier system in which the rich will be able to jump the queue and the poor will be forced to wait. This will be unfair and will create an imbalance in society. It will also create a conflict of interest as the police and other federal bodies will have an incentive to arrest more people in the hope that they will pay to speed up the process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we do not think that people should be allowed to pay for faster criminal justice procedures. The criminal justice system is a fundamental right that should be available to all, regardless of their financial background. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a two-tier system of justice. The wealthy will be able to jump the queue and have their cases heard more quickly, whereas those that cannot afford to pay will have to wait longer. The criminal justice system is there to protect people and provide justice for all. If people are allowed to pay for faster procedures, then this will lead to a conflict of interest. The justice system will have an incentive to keep people in the system for longer, in the hope that they will pay to have their cases heard more quickly. This is not in the interests of the public and is not an ethical way to run a justice system. 2: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002370.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002370.soc index 4f0fa998..c54fa593 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002370.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002370.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a medium to express many levels of social life and human rights. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world should continue to subsidise the art. The arts are one of the few areas/activities able to bestow intrinsic value whilst participating. So much of what we do in contemporary society is instrumental in nature, we do something in order to achieve something else, often never even getting to the end goal. Additionally art is where a tribe of people come together and form communities or common ties, which is the legacy and expression of culture. Art is an important part of a country's culture, identity and history. Art fosters creativity that is shared among generations and it allows for people form very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, it is also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why I believe that the UK should continue supporting art, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. I believe the UK should continue to subsidise the arts because artistic expression is an important part of the human experience. People should be -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a medium to express many levels of social life and human rights. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world should continue to subsidise the art. The UK should continue to subsidise the arts because artistic expression is an important part of the human experience. People should be encouraged to explore their artistic abilities. Funding artistic endeavours can only be a positive thing for society. Art is an important part of a country's culture, identity and history. Art fosters creativity that is shared among generations and it allows for people form very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, it is also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why I believe that the UK should continue supporting art, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. Yes, Indeed. The arts are one of the few areas/activities able to bestow intrinsic value whilst participating. So much of what we do in contemporary society is instrumental in nature, we do something in order to achieve something else, often never even getting to the end goal. Additionally art is where a -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a way for people to express themselves and to share their experiences with others. Art is also a way for people to connect with each other and to form communities. The UK is a very multicultural country, and art is a way for people to communicate and to share their different experiences and cultures. The UK has a very rich history and culture, and the arts are a way for this to be expressed and to be shared with others. The arts are also an important part of the economy, and the arts industry employs many people. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world, and so it is important that it continues to support the arts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. The arts are a fundamental part of a country's culture, identity and history. They foster creativity that is shared among generations and they allow for people from very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, the arts are also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why we believe that the UK should continue supporting the arts, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a medium to express many levels of social life and human rights. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world should continue to subsidise the art. The arts are one of the few areas/activities able to bestow intrinsic value whilst participating. So much of what we do in contemporary society is instrumental in nature, we do something in order to achieve something else, often never even getting to the end goal. Additionally art is where a tribe of people come together and form communities or common ties, which is the legacy and expression of culture. Art is an important part of a country's culture, identity and history. Art fosters creativity that is shared among generations and it allows for people form very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, it is also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why I believe that the UK should continue supporting art, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. I believe the UK should continue to subsidise the arts because artistic expression is an important part of the human experience. People should be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a medium to express many levels of social life and human rights. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world should continue to subsidise the art. The UK should continue to subsidise the arts because artistic expression is an important part of the human experience. People should be encouraged to explore their artistic abilities. Funding artistic endeavours can only be a positive thing for society. Art is an important part of a country's culture, identity and history. Art fosters creativity that is shared among generations and it allows for people form very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, it is also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why I believe that the UK should continue supporting art, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. Yes, Indeed. The arts are one of the few areas/activities able to bestow intrinsic value whilst participating. So much of what we do in contemporary society is instrumental in nature, we do something in order to achieve something else, often never even getting to the end goal. Additionally art is where a +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a way for people to express themselves and to share their experiences with others. Art is also a way for people to connect with each other and to form communities. The UK is a very multicultural country, and art is a way for people to communicate and to share their different experiences and cultures. The UK has a very rich history and culture, and the arts are a way for this to be expressed and to be shared with others. The arts are also an important part of the economy, and the arts industry employs many people. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world, and so it is important that it continues to support the arts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. The arts are a fundamental part of a country's culture, identity and history. They foster creativity that is shared among generations and they allow for people from very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, the arts are also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why we believe that the UK should continue supporting the arts, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002371.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002371.soc index c903a9ce..e5dbcfbe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002371.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002371.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should spend more money on health care. The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. The NHS is in crisis - I belive much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. I think that both are important, but there are many ways that education can be provided and i think that the priority should be on healthcare so that we can help keep people healthy, research cures and treatments for diseases and illnessses and make sure that people are cared for and looked after. I also think that the health care in the UK is severely underfunded and myself and most people that I know have suffered failings from the NHS due to low funding -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government should spend more money on health care. The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. However, it is important to remember that education is also important. Education is important to increase the skill level of the workforce and the quality of life of individuals. It is also important to remember that both health care and education can increase economic growth, promote income equality, and reduce poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should spend more money on health care. The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. The NHS is in crisis - I believe much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. Education should also be a priority but right now healthcare takes precedent. To be blunt, if people are dying, they can't very well receive an education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. The NHS is in crisis - I belive much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. Both are important but with the way the healthcare system is at the moment it desperately needs investment. People are not getting enough support regarding their health and their are long waiting lists. Both are important but with the way the healthcare system is at the moment it desperately needs investment. People are not getting enough support regarding their health and their are long waiting lists. I think that both are important, but there are many ways that education can be provided and i think that the priority should be on healthcare so that we can +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should spend more money on health care. The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. The NHS is in crisis - I belive much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. I think that both are important, but there are many ways that education can be provided and i think that the priority should be on healthcare so that we can help keep people healthy, research cures and treatments for diseases and illnessses and make sure that people are cared for and looked after. I also think that the health care in the UK is severely underfunded and myself and most people that I know have suffered failings from the NHS due to low funding +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government should spend more money on health care. The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. However, it is important to remember that education is also important. Education is important to increase the skill level of the workforce and the quality of life of individuals. It is also important to remember that both health care and education can increase economic growth, promote income equality, and reduce poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should spend more money on health care. The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. The NHS is in crisis - I believe much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. Education should also be a priority but right now healthcare takes precedent. To be blunt, if people are dying, they can't very well receive an education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. The NHS is in crisis - I belive much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. Both are important but with the way the healthcare system is at the moment it desperately needs investment. People are not getting enough support regarding their health and their are long waiting lists. Both are important but with the way the healthcare system is at the moment it desperately needs investment. People are not getting enough support regarding their health and their are long waiting lists. I think that both are important, but there are many ways that education can be provided and i think that the priority should be on healthcare so that we can 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002372.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002372.soc index 97321548..f61e07a7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002372.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002372.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government should increase funding for the public health system. The health system is currently at breaking point and the additional funding would provide a much needed lifeline to this vital part of society. The public health system is one of the most important things that we have in this country and it would be a shame to see it continue to decline as it has done over the past years. The ageing population will continue to need additional interventions in order to support them through the later years, and the public health system is the best way to do this. The increase in funding will not go to waste, as the NHS has proven itself to be a very effective and efficient way to spend money. The NHS has done a fantastic job over the years and it is one of the best things about living in the UK. It is such an important thing to spend money on and it is one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should increase funding for the public health system. The health system in this country is underfunded and has been to some degree for many years. This is why we are seeing strikes and long waits for treatment/diagnosis. Additionally the ageing population will continue to need additional interventions in order to support them through the later years. By having a better funded health system, we can provide care to those who are underprivileged. The NHS is one of the brightest and best things about living in the UK. Pubic health is such an important thing to spend money on and it is one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. We should be ashamed that it has been left to languish as much as it has. It is one of the most important things that tax payer money can be spent on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the government should increase funding for the public health system. There is no doubt that the public health system in this country is underfunded. This is evident in the long waiting times for treatment and diagnosis, as well as the low morale of staff. The ageing population will also need more care and support in the future, and the current system is not equipped to provide this. There is also the issue of health inequality in this country, and increasing funding for the public health system would allow the government to provide more care for those who are underprivileged. The public health system is one of the best things about living in this country, and the government should be ashamed that it has been left to languish as much as it has. The public health system is one of the most important things that tax payer money can be spent on, and increasing funding for the public health system would be one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should increase funding for the public health system. The current system is in an alarming state, and is falling short of providing adequate care for its patients. Long waiting times for treatment and diagnosis, as well as low morale amongst staff, are evidence that the system is underfunded. The ageing population will need more care and support in the future, and the current system is not equipped to provide this. There is also the issue of health inequality in this country, and increasing funding for the public health system would allow the government to provide more care for those who are underprivileged. The public health system is one of the best things about living in this country, and the government should be ashamed that it has been left to languish as much as it has. The public health system is one of the most important things that tax payer money can be spent on, and increasing funding for the public health system would be one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government should increase funding for the public health system. The health system is currently at breaking point and the additional funding would provide a much needed lifeline to this vital part of society. The public health system is one of the most important things that we have in this country and it would be a shame to see it continue to decline as it has done over the past years. The ageing population will continue to need additional interventions in order to support them through the later years, and the public health system is the best way to do this. The increase in funding will not go to waste, as the NHS has proven itself to be a very effective and efficient way to spend money. The NHS has done a fantastic job over the years and it is one of the best things about living in the UK. It is such an important thing to spend money on and it is one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should increase funding for the public health system. The health system in this country is underfunded and has been to some degree for many years. This is why we are seeing strikes and long waits for treatment/diagnosis. Additionally the ageing population will continue to need additional interventions in order to support them through the later years. By having a better funded health system, we can provide care to those who are underprivileged. The NHS is one of the brightest and best things about living in the UK. Pubic health is such an important thing to spend money on and it is one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. We should be ashamed that it has been left to languish as much as it has. It is one of the most important things that tax payer money can be spent on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the government should increase funding for the public health system. There is no doubt that the public health system in this country is underfunded. This is evident in the long waiting times for treatment and diagnosis, as well as the low morale of staff. The ageing population will also need more care and support in the future, and the current system is not equipped to provide this. There is also the issue of health inequality in this country, and increasing funding for the public health system would allow the government to provide more care for those who are underprivileged. The public health system is one of the best things about living in this country, and the government should be ashamed that it has been left to languish as much as it has. The public health system is one of the most important things that tax payer money can be spent on, and increasing funding for the public health system would be one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should increase funding for the public health system. The current system is in an alarming state, and is falling short of providing adequate care for its patients. Long waiting times for treatment and diagnosis, as well as low morale amongst staff, are evidence that the system is underfunded. The ageing population will need more care and support in the future, and the current system is not equipped to provide this. There is also the issue of health inequality in this country, and increasing funding for the public health system would allow the government to provide more care for those who are underprivileged. The public health system is one of the best things about living in this country, and the government should be ashamed that it has been left to languish as much as it has. The public health system is one of the most important things that tax payer money can be spent on, and increasing funding for the public health system would be one of the most effective ways to maintain public wellbeing. 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002373.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002373.soc index 87bcc368..57136621 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002373.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002373.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should not be required to wear uniforms in all schools. While it is a fact that there are some benefits to wearing uniforms, such as being identifiable, not having to worry about what to wear, and making children feel equal, it is also a fact that wearing uniforms is expensive for families, especially with more than one child. Furthermore, wearing uniforms does not necessarily improve educational outcomes for students. In addition, not requiring students to wear uniforms allows them to express their individuality, and does not discourage those who cannot afford uniforms from attending school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that we do not believe that students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools. We believe that uniforms are expensive for families, especially those with more than one child. Wearing uniforms does not improve educational outcomes for students, and should not be considered necessary. We believe that uniforms can be a good thing in some circumstances, such as making students identifiable, but that they should not be mandatory for all students. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of requiring students to wear uniforms in all schools. The group felt that the idea of requiring students to wear uniforms was an infringement on individuality and freedom of expression. The group also felt that requiring students to wear uniforms was an unnecessary expense for families. The group did concede however, that there were some benefits to students wearing uniforms, such as the reduction of bullying and teasing, and the idea that wearing uniforms encouraged students to focus on their education rather than their appearance. The group also conceded that uniforms may be beneficial for younger students, as they may not be able to dress themselves appropriately for school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of requiring students to wear uniforms in all schools. The group felt that uniforms were expensive, and that requiring students to wear uniforms was an infringement on their freedom of expression. The group also felt that uniforms did not improve educational outcomes for students, and that requiring students to wear uniforms did not make them any smarter. The group did concede that uniforms may be useful in some schools, such as religious schools, or schools that have a history of bullying based on clothing. The group felt that the decision to require uniforms should be made on a case-by-case basis, and should not be a blanket policy for all schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should not be required to wear uniforms in all schools. While it is a fact that there are some benefits to wearing uniforms, such as being identifiable, not having to worry about what to wear, and making children feel equal, it is also a fact that wearing uniforms is expensive for families, especially with more than one child. Furthermore, wearing uniforms does not necessarily improve educational outcomes for students. In addition, not requiring students to wear uniforms allows them to express their individuality, and does not discourage those who cannot afford uniforms from attending school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that we do not believe that students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools. We believe that uniforms are expensive for families, especially those with more than one child. Wearing uniforms does not improve educational outcomes for students, and should not be considered necessary. We believe that uniforms can be a good thing in some circumstances, such as making students identifiable, but that they should not be mandatory for all students. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of requiring students to wear uniforms in all schools. The group felt that the idea of requiring students to wear uniforms was an infringement on individuality and freedom of expression. The group also felt that requiring students to wear uniforms was an unnecessary expense for families. The group did concede however, that there were some benefits to students wearing uniforms, such as the reduction of bullying and teasing, and the idea that wearing uniforms encouraged students to focus on their education rather than their appearance. The group also conceded that uniforms may be beneficial for younger students, as they may not be able to dress themselves appropriately for school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of requiring students to wear uniforms in all schools. The group felt that uniforms were expensive, and that requiring students to wear uniforms was an infringement on their freedom of expression. The group also felt that uniforms did not improve educational outcomes for students, and that requiring students to wear uniforms did not make them any smarter. The group did concede that uniforms may be useful in some schools, such as religious schools, or schools that have a history of bullying based on clothing. The group felt that the decision to require uniforms should be made on a case-by-case basis, and should not be a blanket policy for all schools. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002374.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002374.soc index 9e8d5dc8..6553e49a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002374.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002374.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In time, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. We already have developing AI systems that are incredibly human like and providing a huge insight in the times to come. As computers will be developed by humans this allows human input to be installed into them, and then software and machinery to be developed further on this basis. We will struggle to recreate human-like thinking in the emotional rollercoaster often witnessed in the human thought process. For example, we will surely not recreate the impact which fear creates in the human conscious. We surely therefore can not represent the role anger plays in making an action, and then subsequently regretting and trying to repent for said action. Computers may mathematically come close to thinking like humans but I do not believe that the twists and turns of human thought patterns can be recreated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In time, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. The fact that computers are being developed by humans means that human input can be installed into them, and then software and machinery can be developed further on this basis. While there are common patterns in thought amongst humans, nearly everyone thinks differently and this is influenced by the things we experience every day. Our thinking is also influenced heavily by our emotions, so for a computer to think like a human, would mean teaching a computer to feel or emulate emotion to some degree. But even then, we have to consider, is the computer really thinking like a human, or is it just emulating how humans behave. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In time, yes, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. We will not be able to make computers that think exactly like humans, as each person is different and we are not able to recreate human emotions. However, as computers are developed by humans, human input will be installed into them. This will allow software and machinery to be developed further on this basis. We will get very close to making it look like a computer can think. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In time, it is likely that computers will be able to think like humans. The process of thinking is very complex and involves a number of different processes, some of which we are yet to fully understand. We are currently at a stage where computers can think in a very similar way to humans, but we are not yet at the stage where they can think exactly like humans. This is because computers do not have the ability to feel or emulate emotion. This means that they are unable to make decisions based on their emotions, or to experience the same level of emotion that a human would experience. This is a very important part of the human thought process and is something that computers are not yet able to replicate. However, it is likely that in time computers will be able to think like humans, and this is something that we are working towards. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In time, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. We already have developing AI systems that are incredibly human like and providing a huge insight in the times to come. As computers will be developed by humans this allows human input to be installed into them, and then software and machinery to be developed further on this basis. We will struggle to recreate human-like thinking in the emotional rollercoaster often witnessed in the human thought process. For example, we will surely not recreate the impact which fear creates in the human conscious. We surely therefore can not represent the role anger plays in making an action, and then subsequently regretting and trying to repent for said action. Computers may mathematically come close to thinking like humans but I do not believe that the twists and turns of human thought patterns can be recreated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In time, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. The fact that computers are being developed by humans means that human input can be installed into them, and then software and machinery can be developed further on this basis. While there are common patterns in thought amongst humans, nearly everyone thinks differently and this is influenced by the things we experience every day. Our thinking is also influenced heavily by our emotions, so for a computer to think like a human, would mean teaching a computer to feel or emulate emotion to some degree. But even then, we have to consider, is the computer really thinking like a human, or is it just emulating how humans behave. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In time, yes, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. We will not be able to make computers that think exactly like humans, as each person is different and we are not able to recreate human emotions. However, as computers are developed by humans, human input will be installed into them. This will allow software and machinery to be developed further on this basis. We will get very close to making it look like a computer can think. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In time, it is likely that computers will be able to think like humans. The process of thinking is very complex and involves a number of different processes, some of which we are yet to fully understand. We are currently at a stage where computers can think in a very similar way to humans, but we are not yet at the stage where they can think exactly like humans. This is because computers do not have the ability to feel or emulate emotion. This means that they are unable to make decisions based on their emotions, or to experience the same level of emotion that a human would experience. This is a very important part of the human thought process and is something that computers are not yet able to replicate. However, it is likely that in time computers will be able to think like humans, and this is something that we are working towards. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002375.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002375.soc index 7a0c5ded..ae312278 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002375.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002375.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we have come to the decision that the monarchy should not be the head of the Church of England. This is because the UK is a very diverse place to live in and is moving towards a more modern life. The monarchy can be perceived as more neutral if they are not the head of the Church of England. We also think that the monarchy is an old fashioned tradition that people still hold onto, but it does not serve the people and actually perpetuates the class gap. We should aim for less elitism and encourage a society without huge class gaps. We also think that the monarchy is not very modern and in order to become more modern they would have to have a more diverse viewpoint by not being head of the Church of England would help this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England as they have been for many years and to change this would not be in the interest of the UK. This is because the monarch is the head of the Church of England and the Church of England is the established church of the UK. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, and the government has a duty to support the Church of England. This means that the government must act in the interests of the Church of England, and not against it. Also, the monarchy is a very important part of British culture, and has been for centuries, and it would be a shame to change this. Also, the Church of England is not a political organisation, and does not interfere in politics and economics, so it is not harmful to have them as the head. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the decision that the monarchy should not be the head of the Church of England. This is because the UK is a very diverse place to live in and is moving towards a more modern life. The monarchy can be perceived as more neutral if they are not the head of the Church of England. We also think that the monarchy is an old fashioned tradition that people still hold onto, but it does not serve the people and actually perpetuates the class gap. We should aim for less elitism and encourage a society without huge class gaps. We believe that modern life means adapting to new ways. We would challenge traditions and ask whether the tradition is currently doing more harm than good in this modern era. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing as the head of the Church of England. It was agreed that the monarchy was a big part of British culture and history, and that it brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also agreed that the monarchy did a lot of good for the country and that they had made great progress to be with the times. It was noted that the monarchy was not as involved in politics and economics as they used to be, and that it was not too harmful to allow them to continue being the head of the church. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we have come to the decision that the monarchy should not be the head of the Church of England. This is because the UK is a very diverse place to live in and is moving towards a more modern life. The monarchy can be perceived as more neutral if they are not the head of the Church of England. We also think that the monarchy is an old fashioned tradition that people still hold onto, but it does not serve the people and actually perpetuates the class gap. We should aim for less elitism and encourage a society without huge class gaps. We also think that the monarchy is not very modern and in order to become more modern they would have to have a more diverse viewpoint by not being head of the Church of England would help this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England as they have been for many years and to change this would not be in the interest of the UK. This is because the monarch is the head of the Church of England and the Church of England is the established church of the UK. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, and the government has a duty to support the Church of England. This means that the government must act in the interests of the Church of England, and not against it. Also, the monarchy is a very important part of British culture, and has been for centuries, and it would be a shame to change this. Also, the Church of England is not a political organisation, and does not interfere in politics and economics, so it is not harmful to have them as the head. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that the monarchy should not be the head of the Church of England. This is because the UK is a very diverse place to live in and is moving towards a more modern life. The monarchy can be perceived as more neutral if they are not the head of the Church of England. We also think that the monarchy is an old fashioned tradition that people still hold onto, but it does not serve the people and actually perpetuates the class gap. We should aim for less elitism and encourage a society without huge class gaps. We believe that modern life means adapting to new ways. We would challenge traditions and ask whether the tradition is currently doing more harm than good in this modern era. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the monarchy continuing as the head of the Church of England. It was agreed that the monarchy was a big part of British culture and history, and that it brought in a lot of money to the country through tourism. It was also agreed that the monarchy did a lot of good for the country and that they had made great progress to be with the times. It was noted that the monarchy was not as involved in politics and economics as they used to be, and that it was not too harmful to allow them to continue being the head of the church. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002376.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002376.soc index 09b00f46..a646e3ed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002376.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002376.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not fine every citizen who does not vote in elections. The reason for this is that the right to vote is a fundamental right of every citizen, and the government should not be able to take that right away. If a citizen does not wish to vote, then that is their right. The government should not be able to punish a citizen for exercising their right not to vote. If the government is able to do this, then it will be a step towards a dictatorship, where the government can do whatever it wants, and the people have no say in the matter. If a citizen does not wish to vote, then that is their right, and the government should not be able to punish them for exercising that right. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the government should not fine citizens who do not vote in elections. This is because people have the right to choose whether or not they want to vote. The government should not force people to vote as this is a violation of individual liberty. People may not have an interest in who their local MP is, or be bothered who is deciding things for their local borough as they just want to live their life so decide not to vote. They should not be punished for this, if being forced to vote for fear off a fine, they may just throw their vote at anybody which will distort the actual result. However, there are some exceptions to this. For example, in countries like Australia, where a similar fine is enforced, the voter participation higher, meaning that the elected governments are more representative of the general population. This is something that is crucial in any democracy. Therefore, the government should not fine every citizen who does not vote in elections, but there are some exceptions to this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the government should not fine every citizen who does not vote in elections. This is because elections are supposed to be a choice, so punishing people for opting out altogether is draconian. People should not be forced to vote because they might not want to engage in the political system at all. They may not approve of any of the available choices, and thus forcing them to vote and punishing them if they don't removes their ability to reflect their disintrest in the political system. However, there are some circumstances where a fine may be justified. For example, if a person is too busy to vote, then they should not be fined. If a person is too busy to vote, then it is likely that they are too busy to be informed on the issues and therefore their vote would be uninformed and likely to be a waste. However, if a person is uninformed, but has the time to vote, then they should be fined. This is because if a person is uninformed, but has the time to vote, then it is likely that they are uninformed because they are not interested in the issues. Therefore, their vote would be uninformed and likely to be a waste. However, if -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not fine every citizen who does not vote in elections. This is because the right to vote is a fundamental right of every citizen and should not be forced upon anyone. The government should not force its citizens to vote as this is a violation of individual liberty. Elections are supposed to be a choice, so punishing people for opting out altogether is draconian. People should not be forced to vote because they might not want to engage in the political system at all. They may not approve of any of the available choices, and thus forcing them to vote and punishing them if they don't removes their ability to reflect their disintrest in the political system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not fine every citizen who does not vote in elections. The reason for this is that the right to vote is a fundamental right of every citizen, and the government should not be able to take that right away. If a citizen does not wish to vote, then that is their right. The government should not be able to punish a citizen for exercising their right not to vote. If the government is able to do this, then it will be a step towards a dictatorship, where the government can do whatever it wants, and the people have no say in the matter. If a citizen does not wish to vote, then that is their right, and the government should not be able to punish them for exercising that right. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the government should not fine citizens who do not vote in elections. This is because people have the right to choose whether or not they want to vote. The government should not force people to vote as this is a violation of individual liberty. People may not have an interest in who their local MP is, or be bothered who is deciding things for their local borough as they just want to live their life so decide not to vote. They should not be punished for this, if being forced to vote for fear off a fine, they may just throw their vote at anybody which will distort the actual result. However, there are some exceptions to this. For example, in countries like Australia, where a similar fine is enforced, the voter participation higher, meaning that the elected governments are more representative of the general population. This is something that is crucial in any democracy. Therefore, the government should not fine every citizen who does not vote in elections, but there are some exceptions to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the government should not fine every citizen who does not vote in elections. This is because elections are supposed to be a choice, so punishing people for opting out altogether is draconian. People should not be forced to vote because they might not want to engage in the political system at all. They may not approve of any of the available choices, and thus forcing them to vote and punishing them if they don't removes their ability to reflect their disintrest in the political system. However, there are some circumstances where a fine may be justified. For example, if a person is too busy to vote, then they should not be fined. If a person is too busy to vote, then it is likely that they are too busy to be informed on the issues and therefore their vote would be uninformed and likely to be a waste. However, if a person is uninformed, but has the time to vote, then they should be fined. This is because if a person is uninformed, but has the time to vote, then it is likely that they are uninformed because they are not interested in the issues. Therefore, their vote would be uninformed and likely to be a waste. However, if +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not fine every citizen who does not vote in elections. This is because the right to vote is a fundamental right of every citizen and should not be forced upon anyone. The government should not force its citizens to vote as this is a violation of individual liberty. Elections are supposed to be a choice, so punishing people for opting out altogether is draconian. People should not be forced to vote because they might not want to engage in the political system at all. They may not approve of any of the available choices, and thus forcing them to vote and punishing them if they don't removes their ability to reflect their disintrest in the political system. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002377.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002377.soc index d83801ab..93b0ebbd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002377.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002377.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Fuel prices should not be increased to reduce pollution. The increase in taxes would hit the poorest in society hard, who would be unable to afford to travel. The wealthy would not feel the pinch and would continue to pollute. It would also be a very unpopular decision with working class people who would struggle to pay higher taxes and would disincentivise them when it comes to using less fuel and caring about pollution, when they see the wealthy that use the most, not being discouraged from polluting the planet. The wealthy would continue to use private jets and other industrial businesses, such as natural gas companies. Other major sources are the use of electric batteries, which are created using extensive mining, harming the Earth more than a typical petrol or diesel car. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We agree that the current levels of pollution are a major concern for the health of the planet and the people living on it. We agree that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to this pollution. We agree that the use of fossil fuels needs to be reduced, but we disagree that this can be achieved by increasing the taxes on fuel. We believe that this would be unfair to those who are not in a position to afford to use public transport and would have to rely on their cars to get to work and other places. We believe that this would be unfair to those who live in rural areas where there is no public transport and they would be forced to use their cars. We believe that this would be unfair to those who are elderly or disabled and would find it difficult to use public transport. We believe that there are more effective ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels and therefore pollution. We believe that there should be more investment in public transport and that it should be made more accessible to those who live in rural areas. We believe that there should be more investment in electric cars and that the government should provide incentives for people to buy them. We believe that the government should provide incentives for people to -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the taxes on fuel should not be increased to reduce pollution as it would hit the poorest in society hardest and would not encourage the wealthiest to reduce pollution as they would not feel the impact of the tax increase. The taxes on fuel are already very high and further increases would discourage people from using their cars, leading to an increase in public transport usage. This would be good for the environment but would require a huge investment in public transport. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on fuel, but with some caveats. It was felt that this would be a good way to reduce pollution, but that it would need to be done in conjunction with improving public transport. It was also felt that the increase in taxes would need to be gradual, to allow people to adapt to the change. It was also felt that it would be important to ensure that the increase in taxes on fuel would be used to improve public transport and that it would not be used to subsidise the wealthy, who would not be affected by the increase in fuel prices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Fuel prices should not be increased to reduce pollution. The increase in taxes would hit the poorest in society hard, who would be unable to afford to travel. The wealthy would not feel the pinch and would continue to pollute. It would also be a very unpopular decision with working class people who would struggle to pay higher taxes and would disincentivise them when it comes to using less fuel and caring about pollution, when they see the wealthy that use the most, not being discouraged from polluting the planet. The wealthy would continue to use private jets and other industrial businesses, such as natural gas companies. Other major sources are the use of electric batteries, which are created using extensive mining, harming the Earth more than a typical petrol or diesel car. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that the current levels of pollution are a major concern for the health of the planet and the people living on it. We agree that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to this pollution. We agree that the use of fossil fuels needs to be reduced, but we disagree that this can be achieved by increasing the taxes on fuel. We believe that this would be unfair to those who are not in a position to afford to use public transport and would have to rely on their cars to get to work and other places. We believe that this would be unfair to those who live in rural areas where there is no public transport and they would be forced to use their cars. We believe that this would be unfair to those who are elderly or disabled and would find it difficult to use public transport. We believe that there are more effective ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels and therefore pollution. We believe that there should be more investment in public transport and that it should be made more accessible to those who live in rural areas. We believe that there should be more investment in electric cars and that the government should provide incentives for people to buy them. We believe that the government should provide incentives for people to +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the taxes on fuel should not be increased to reduce pollution as it would hit the poorest in society hardest and would not encourage the wealthiest to reduce pollution as they would not feel the impact of the tax increase. The taxes on fuel are already very high and further increases would discourage people from using their cars, leading to an increase in public transport usage. This would be good for the environment but would require a huge investment in public transport. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on fuel, but with some caveats. It was felt that this would be a good way to reduce pollution, but that it would need to be done in conjunction with improving public transport. It was also felt that the increase in taxes would need to be gradual, to allow people to adapt to the change. It was also felt that it would be important to ensure that the increase in taxes on fuel would be used to improve public transport and that it would not be used to subsidise the wealthy, who would not be affected by the increase in fuel prices. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002378.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002378.soc index 2486fc9b..a8cbac57 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002378.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002378.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a fundamental part of the human experience, and is one of the few activities that can bestow intrinsic value. It is an important form of expression and it is important to encourage artistic endeavours. The arts are also an important part of a country's culture and identity. It allows for creativity to be shared among generations, and allows for people from very different backgrounds to communicate. However, the arts are also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why the UK should continue supporting the arts, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a medium to express many levels of social life and human rights. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world should continue to subsidise the art. The arts are one of the few areas/activities able to bestow intrinsic value whilst participating. So much of what we do in contemporary society is instrumental in nature, we do something in order to achieve something else, often never even getting to the end goal. Additionally art is where a tribe of people come together and form communities or common ties, which is the legacy and expression of culture. Art is an important part of a country's culture, identity and history. Art fosters creativity that is shared among generations and it allows for people form very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, it is also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why I believe that the UK should continue supporting art, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. I believe the UK should continue to subsidise the arts because artistic expression is an important part of the human experience. People should be -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. The arts are an important part of society and of people's lives. The arts are a way for people to express themselves and to communicate with others. The arts are also a way for people to explore their creativity and to create beautiful things for others to enjoy. The arts are also a way for people to explore their history and their culture and to learn about others. The arts are also a way for people to escape from the mundane and the everyday. The arts are also an important part of the economy. The arts employ many people and provide many jobs. If the UK were to stop subsidising the arts, these people would lose their jobs and this would be a great loss to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a medium to express many levels of social life and human rights. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world should continue to subsidise the art. The arts are one of the few areas/activities able to bestow intrinsic value whilst participating. So much of what we do in contemporary society is instrumental in nature, we do something in order to achieve something else, often never even getting to the end goal. Additionally art is where a tribe of people come together and form communities or common ties, which is the legacy and expression of culture. Art is an important part of a country's culture, identity and history. Art fosters creativity that is shared among generations and it allows for people form very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, it is also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why I believe that the UK should continue supporting art, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. I believe the UK should continue to subsidise the arts because artistic expression is an important part of the human experience. People should +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a fundamental part of the human experience, and is one of the few activities that can bestow intrinsic value. It is an important form of expression and it is important to encourage artistic endeavours. The arts are also an important part of a country's culture and identity. It allows for creativity to be shared among generations, and allows for people from very different backgrounds to communicate. However, the arts are also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why the UK should continue supporting the arts, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a medium to express many levels of social life and human rights. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world should continue to subsidise the art. The arts are one of the few areas/activities able to bestow intrinsic value whilst participating. So much of what we do in contemporary society is instrumental in nature, we do something in order to achieve something else, often never even getting to the end goal. Additionally art is where a tribe of people come together and form communities or common ties, which is the legacy and expression of culture. Art is an important part of a country's culture, identity and history. Art fosters creativity that is shared among generations and it allows for people form very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, it is also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why I believe that the UK should continue supporting art, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. I believe the UK should continue to subsidise the arts because artistic expression is an important part of the human experience. People should be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. The arts are an important part of society and of people's lives. The arts are a way for people to express themselves and to communicate with others. The arts are also a way for people to explore their creativity and to create beautiful things for others to enjoy. The arts are also a way for people to explore their history and their culture and to learn about others. The arts are also a way for people to escape from the mundane and the everyday. The arts are also an important part of the economy. The arts employ many people and provide many jobs. If the UK were to stop subsidising the arts, these people would lose their jobs and this would be a great loss to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the UK should continue to subsidise the arts. Art is a medium to express many levels of social life and human rights. The UK is one of the most developed countries in the world should continue to subsidise the art. The arts are one of the few areas/activities able to bestow intrinsic value whilst participating. So much of what we do in contemporary society is instrumental in nature, we do something in order to achieve something else, often never even getting to the end goal. Additionally art is where a tribe of people come together and form communities or common ties, which is the legacy and expression of culture. Art is an important part of a country's culture, identity and history. Art fosters creativity that is shared among generations and it allows for people form very different backgrounds and in different contexts to communicate. However, it is also part of the economy, and one of the sectors in the economy that is struggling the most. This is why I believe that the UK should continue supporting art, however having in mind other priorities when making the ratio of support, like climate change. I believe the UK should continue to subsidise the arts because artistic expression is an important part of the human experience. People should 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002379.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002379.soc index b1d62680..005d878e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002379.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002379.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. The NHS is in crisis - I belive much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. I think that both are important, but there are many ways that education can be provided and i think that the priority should be on healthcare so that we can help keep people healthy, research cures and treatments for diseases and illnessses and make sure that people are cared for and looked after. I also think that the health care in the UK is severely underfunded and myself and most people that I know have suffered failings from the NHS due to low funding -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is in crisis and requires much more money to be spent on it. This is essential as the health of the nation is so important and can lead to the future success of the country. The government is not spending enough money on health care. It is essential that the NHS is protected and that people can have a good and speedy service to deal with illness and disease. Education is also important but health care should be the top priority at the moment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should spend more money on health care. The NHS is in crisis - I belive much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. I think that both are important, but there are many ways that education can be provided and i think that the priority should be on healthcare so that we can help keep people healthy, research cures and treatments for diseases and illnessses and make sure that people are cared for and looked after. I also think that the health care in the UK is severely underfunded and myself and most people that I know have suffered failings from the NHS due to low funding and no room on waiting lists etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that more money should be spent on health care. We have come to this view for the following reasons. Health care is the most important thing we have in this country. It is one of our 'National Treasures' and it is important that it is protected and preserved. If people are healthy, they are more likely to be able to work and contribute to the economy. The NHS is in crisis and is failing to provide adequate health care to the British people. People are dying because they cannot get on waiting lists and they cannot get the care they need. Health care is more important than education. If people are ill, they can't learn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is one of our National Treasures and should be protected so that we can all benefit from it. More money is needed to retain and improve this service. The NHS is in crisis - I belive much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. I think that both are important, but there are many ways that education can be provided and i think that the priority should be on healthcare so that we can help keep people healthy, research cures and treatments for diseases and illnessses and make sure that people are cared for and looked after. I also think that the health care in the UK is severely underfunded and myself and most people that I know have suffered failings from the NHS due to low funding +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is in crisis and requires much more money to be spent on it. This is essential as the health of the nation is so important and can lead to the future success of the country. The government is not spending enough money on health care. It is essential that the NHS is protected and that people can have a good and speedy service to deal with illness and disease. Education is also important but health care should be the top priority at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should spend more money on health care. The NHS is in crisis - I belive much more money should be spent on health care in particular. Waiting times for A&E are very, very long. Ambulances can take hours to respond to cases of life-threatening injuries, sometimes longer. It is impossible to find an NHS dentist in most parts of the country. Children have had to wait months and months and be in severe pain before they can even get an appointment. Patients have been reduced to pulling out their own teeth. This is madness, especially in a first world country in the 21st century. I think that both are important, but there are many ways that education can be provided and i think that the priority should be on healthcare so that we can help keep people healthy, research cures and treatments for diseases and illnessses and make sure that people are cared for and looked after. I also think that the health care in the UK is severely underfunded and myself and most people that I know have suffered failings from the NHS due to low funding and no room on waiting lists etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that more money should be spent on health care. We have come to this view for the following reasons. Health care is the most important thing we have in this country. It is one of our 'National Treasures' and it is important that it is protected and preserved. If people are healthy, they are more likely to be able to work and contribute to the economy. The NHS is in crisis and is failing to provide adequate health care to the British people. People are dying because they cannot get on waiting lists and they cannot get the care they need. Health care is more important than education. If people are ill, they can't learn. 3: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002380.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002380.soc index 76521dbf..2abbaeb7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002380.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002380.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we have come to the decision that school uniforms are not necessary for all schools. It is believed that wearing uniform does not necessarily have a positive impact on educational outcomes for students. We also believe that wearing uniform is often expensive for families, especially those with more than one child. Therefore, we believe that wearing uniform should not be a requirement for all schools, and that parents should be given the opportunity for their children to wear suitable clothes instead of uniform. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should not be required to wear uniforms in all schools. While there are some benefits to wearing uniforms, such as being identifiable, not having to worry about what to wear, and making children feel equal, it is also a fact that wearing uniforms is expensive for families, especially with more than one child. Furthermore, wearing uniforms does not necessarily improve educational outcomes for students. In addition, not requiring students to wear uniforms allows them to express their individuality, and does not discourage those who cannot afford uniforms from attending school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: School uniforms should not be mandatory. The cost of uniforms is often prohibitive for families, and the requirement of wearing a uniform does not improve educational outcomes for students. The requirement of wearing a uniform can also prevent students from expressing their individuality, which can lead to reduced self-esteem. The requirement of wearing a uniform does not prevent bullying, and can sometimes even make bullying worse, as students can be targeted for wearing the wrong uniform, or for not wearing the uniform properly. However, school uniforms can have some benefits. They can make students identifiable, which can be useful in emergency situations. They can also prevent students from wearing clothing that is inappropriate or distracting for a learning environment. Therefore, the wearing of uniforms should be optional, and not mandatory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be required to wear uniforms in all schools. While it is a fact that there are some benefits to wearing uniforms, such as being identifiable, not having to worry about what to wear, and making children feel equal, it is also a fact that wearing uniforms is expensive for families, especially with more than one child. Furthermore, wearing uniforms does not necessarily improve educational outcomes for students. In addition, not requiring students to wear uniforms allows them to express their individuality, and does not discourage those who cannot afford uniforms from attending school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we have come to the decision that school uniforms are not necessary for all schools. It is believed that wearing uniform does not necessarily have a positive impact on educational outcomes for students. We also believe that wearing uniform is often expensive for families, especially those with more than one child. Therefore, we believe that wearing uniform should not be a requirement for all schools, and that parents should be given the opportunity for their children to wear suitable clothes instead of uniform. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should not be required to wear uniforms in all schools. While there are some benefits to wearing uniforms, such as being identifiable, not having to worry about what to wear, and making children feel equal, it is also a fact that wearing uniforms is expensive for families, especially with more than one child. Furthermore, wearing uniforms does not necessarily improve educational outcomes for students. In addition, not requiring students to wear uniforms allows them to express their individuality, and does not discourage those who cannot afford uniforms from attending school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - School uniforms should not be mandatory. The cost of uniforms is often prohibitive for families, and the requirement of wearing a uniform does not improve educational outcomes for students. The requirement of wearing a uniform can also prevent students from expressing their individuality, which can lead to reduced self-esteem. The requirement of wearing a uniform does not prevent bullying, and can sometimes even make bullying worse, as students can be targeted for wearing the wrong uniform, or for not wearing the uniform properly. However, school uniforms can have some benefits. They can make students identifiable, which can be useful in emergency situations. They can also prevent students from wearing clothing that is inappropriate or distracting for a learning environment. Therefore, the wearing of uniforms should be optional, and not mandatory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be required to wear uniforms in all schools. While it is a fact that there are some benefits to wearing uniforms, such as being identifiable, not having to worry about what to wear, and making children feel equal, it is also a fact that wearing uniforms is expensive for families, especially with more than one child. Furthermore, wearing uniforms does not necessarily improve educational outcomes for students. In addition, not requiring students to wear uniforms allows them to express their individuality, and does not discourage those who cannot afford uniforms from attending school. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002381.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002381.soc index 0af36e09..3006d962 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002381.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002381.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. It was felt that the more people who are involved in the democratic process, the better. It was also felt that the more people who are involved in the democratic process, the more likely it is that the democratic process will be robust and fair. However, it was felt that it would be necessary to put some safeguards in place. For example, it was felt that non-UK citizens should be required to have lived in the UK for a certain period of time before being allowed to vote. It was also felt that non-UK citizens should be required to have paid taxes in the UK for a certain period of time before being allowed to vote. It was felt that these safeguards would help to ensure that non-UK citizens would have a vested interest in the UK and would help to ensure that non-UK citizens would have a good understanding of the UK. It was also felt that these safeguards would help to ensure that non-UK citizens would not be able to vote in a way that would undermine the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The group felt that this would promote community cohesion and an inclusive society for everyone. The group also felt that this would be a good way to promote integration of non-UK citizens into the local community. The group did feel that there would be a need for strict rules for how this would work. The group felt that there would be a need for a residency requirement and that this would need to be long enough to ensure that the non-UK citizen has a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK. The group felt that the non-UK citizen would also need to have paid taxes in the UK for a certain period of time. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. It was felt that this would promote community cohesion and inclusion, and that the people who live in an area should have a say in how it is run. It was also felt that non-UK citizens would have as much of a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK as UK citizens. The group did however acknowledge that there would need to be strict rules in place to ensure that non-UK citizens were not voting fraudulently, and that there would need to be a minimum time period that a non-UK citizen would need to have lived in the UK before being allowed to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. It was felt that this would be a positive step towards creating a more inclusive society, where everyone is valued and has a say in how things are run. The group also felt that non-UK citizens would be more in touch with UK citizens than those in government and would therefore be more likely to make the right decisions for the community. However, it was also felt that there would need to be strict rules in place to ensure that only those who have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time would be allowed to vote. This would ensure that those who vote are more likely to have a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. It was felt that the more people who are involved in the democratic process, the better. It was also felt that the more people who are involved in the democratic process, the more likely it is that the democratic process will be robust and fair. However, it was felt that it would be necessary to put some safeguards in place. For example, it was felt that non-UK citizens should be required to have lived in the UK for a certain period of time before being allowed to vote. It was also felt that non-UK citizens should be required to have paid taxes in the UK for a certain period of time before being allowed to vote. It was felt that these safeguards would help to ensure that non-UK citizens would have a vested interest in the UK and would help to ensure that non-UK citizens would have a good understanding of the UK. It was also felt that these safeguards would help to ensure that non-UK citizens would not be able to vote in a way that would undermine the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The group felt that this would promote community cohesion and an inclusive society for everyone. The group also felt that this would be a good way to promote integration of non-UK citizens into the local community. The group did feel that there would be a need for strict rules for how this would work. The group felt that there would be a need for a residency requirement and that this would need to be long enough to ensure that the non-UK citizen has a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK. The group felt that the non-UK citizen would also need to have paid taxes in the UK for a certain period of time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. It was felt that this would promote community cohesion and inclusion, and that the people who live in an area should have a say in how it is run. It was also felt that non-UK citizens would have as much of a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK as UK citizens. The group did however acknowledge that there would need to be strict rules in place to ensure that non-UK citizens were not voting fraudulently, and that there would need to be a minimum time period that a non-UK citizen would need to have lived in the UK before being allowed to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. It was felt that this would be a positive step towards creating a more inclusive society, where everyone is valued and has a say in how things are run. The group also felt that non-UK citizens would be more in touch with UK citizens than those in government and would therefore be more likely to make the right decisions for the community. However, it was also felt that there would need to be strict rules in place to ensure that only those who have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time would be allowed to vote. This would ensure that those who vote are more likely to have a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002382.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002382.soc index 5f3965b6..50e6d214 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002382.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002382.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but it should not be forced on them. Learning to play a musical instrument can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it should also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so it is important we encourage them to do so. However, it is important to remember that not all children will wish to play a musical instrument, and this should not be forced upon them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of children learning to play a musical instrument. The group was of the opinion that learning to play a musical instrument is good for the brain and can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. The group felt that children should not be forced to learn to play a musical instrument, but rather it should be their free choice. The group felt that children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but this shouldn't be forced on them, it should be their free choice. The group felt that playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so it is important that we encourage them to do so. The group felt that music is an important thing for children to experience - both the acts of making and listening. The group felt that studying music in a serious way can be hard for some and shouldn't be forced or made to be compulsory. The group felt that learning music at school in a serious way can be detrimental to a child's enjoyment so can't wholeheartedly encourage it in the same way as art, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but this shouldn't be forced on them. Learning to play a musical instrument is good for the brain, and can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it should also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so we encourage them to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but should not be forced to do so. Learning to play a musical instrument can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it should also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so we should encourage them to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but it should not be forced on them. Learning to play a musical instrument can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it should also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so it is important we encourage them to do so. However, it is important to remember that not all children will wish to play a musical instrument, and this should not be forced upon them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of children learning to play a musical instrument. The group was of the opinion that learning to play a musical instrument is good for the brain and can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. The group felt that children should not be forced to learn to play a musical instrument, but rather it should be their free choice. The group felt that children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but this shouldn't be forced on them, it should be their free choice. The group felt that playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so it is important that we encourage them to do so. The group felt that music is an important thing for children to experience - both the acts of making and listening. The group felt that studying music in a serious way can be hard for some and shouldn't be forced or made to be compulsory. The group felt that learning music at school in a serious way can be detrimental to a child's enjoyment so can't wholeheartedly encourage it in the same way as art, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but this shouldn't be forced on them. Learning to play a musical instrument is good for the brain, and can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it should also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so we encourage them to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but should not be forced to do so. Learning to play a musical instrument can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it should also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so we should encourage them to do so. 2: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002383.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002383.soc index ea319b58..073294b6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002383.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002383.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In time, computers will be able to think like humans to a large extent. The concept of thinking is very broad and can be interpreted in many different ways. Therefore, it is important to define what is meant by thinking, before making a statement about whether or not computers will be able to think like humans. Thinking is the process of using one's mind to consider or reason about something. Thinking can be a combination of ideas and feelings, and therefore, to think like a human, a computer would need to be able to process ideas and feelings. This can be done by teaching a computer to feel or emulate emotion to some degree. This is something that is currently being explored by research into Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. As computers become more advanced, they will be able to process information and make decisions in a similar way to how humans do. This is something that is already happening in some industries, such as medicine, where computers are being used to make diagnoses, based on the information that is inputted into them. Therefore, we believe that in time, computers will be able to think like humans to a large extent. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In time, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. We already have developing AI systems that are incredibly human like and providing a huge insight in the times to come. As computers will be developed by humans this allows human input to be installed into them, and then software and machinery to be developed further on this basis. We will struggle to recreate human-like thinking in the emotional rollercoaster often witnessed in the human thought process. For example, we will surely not recreate the impact which fear creates in the human conscious. We surely therefore can not represent the role anger plays in making an action, and then subsequently regretting and trying to repent for said action. Computers may mathematically come close to thinking like humans but I do not believe that the twists and turns of human thought patterns can be recreated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We will struggle to recreate human-like thinking in the emotional rollercoaster often witnessed in the human thought process. For example, we will surely not recreate the impact which fear creates in the human conscious. We surely therefore can not represent the role anger plays in making an action, and then subsequently regretting and trying to repent for said action. Computers may mathematically come close to thinking like humans but I do not believe that the twists and turns of human thought patterns can be recreated. However, with the technology we currently have, and are likely to get in the near future, we will be able to develop a form of artificial intelligence that can think in a similar way to humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In time, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. We have already seen the development of computers that think like humans, but in the future we will be able to make computers that think like humans with a high degree of accuracy. In some cases, it may be difficult to distinguish between human thought and computer thought. There will however be some limits to the level of thinking computers will be able to mimic. For example, the twists and turns of human thought may be difficult to recreate. Computers will also not be able to feel, and therefore not able to feel emotions. Therefore, we will not recreate a computer that can think exactly like a human. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In time, computers will be able to think like humans to a large extent. The concept of thinking is very broad and can be interpreted in many different ways. Therefore, it is important to define what is meant by thinking, before making a statement about whether or not computers will be able to think like humans. Thinking is the process of using one's mind to consider or reason about something. Thinking can be a combination of ideas and feelings, and therefore, to think like a human, a computer would need to be able to process ideas and feelings. This can be done by teaching a computer to feel or emulate emotion to some degree. This is something that is currently being explored by research into Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. As computers become more advanced, they will be able to process information and make decisions in a similar way to how humans do. This is something that is already happening in some industries, such as medicine, where computers are being used to make diagnoses, based on the information that is inputted into them. Therefore, we believe that in time, computers will be able to think like humans to a large extent. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In time, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. We already have developing AI systems that are incredibly human like and providing a huge insight in the times to come. As computers will be developed by humans this allows human input to be installed into them, and then software and machinery to be developed further on this basis. We will struggle to recreate human-like thinking in the emotional rollercoaster often witnessed in the human thought process. For example, we will surely not recreate the impact which fear creates in the human conscious. We surely therefore can not represent the role anger plays in making an action, and then subsequently regretting and trying to repent for said action. Computers may mathematically come close to thinking like humans but I do not believe that the twists and turns of human thought patterns can be recreated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We will struggle to recreate human-like thinking in the emotional rollercoaster often witnessed in the human thought process. For example, we will surely not recreate the impact which fear creates in the human conscious. We surely therefore can not represent the role anger plays in making an action, and then subsequently regretting and trying to repent for said action. Computers may mathematically come close to thinking like humans but I do not believe that the twists and turns of human thought patterns can be recreated. However, with the technology we currently have, and are likely to get in the near future, we will be able to develop a form of artificial intelligence that can think in a similar way to humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In time, we will be able to make computers that think like humans. We have already seen the development of computers that think like humans, but in the future we will be able to make computers that think like humans with a high degree of accuracy. In some cases, it may be difficult to distinguish between human thought and computer thought. There will however be some limits to the level of thinking computers will be able to mimic. For example, the twists and turns of human thought may be difficult to recreate. Computers will also not be able to feel, and therefore not able to feel emotions. Therefore, we will not recreate a computer that can think exactly like a human. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002384.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002384.soc index 86ee7b30..a4a855cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002384.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002384.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to hunting for sport. The main argument presented was that it is a cruel and unnecessary practice. It was also argued that hunting for sport is a practice that is no longer required for human survival, and so has no place in modern society. The group acknowledged that hunting for sport can be an important part of some cultures, but argued that this is no excuse for the practice to continue in other cultures. The group was also opposed to trophy hunting, and in particular the hunting of endangered species. Trophy hunting was described by the group as "morally corrupt" and "evil". The group also argued that hunting for sport can cause unnecessary suffering for animals, and can also lead to a reduction in animal populations. The group was also opposed to hunting for sport on the grounds that it can be dangerous for other people and animals who are not the intended target. The group acknowledged that hunting for sport can provide some economic benefits to some communities, but argued that this is not a sufficient reason for the practice to continue. The group was also opposed to hunting for sport on the grounds that it can lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of animal populations. The group also argued that hunting for sport can lead to a reduction in -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be tighter regulations on hunting. We believe that it is not acceptable to hunt endangered species. Hunting should be carried out only by trained professionals, working on a population control programme. In general, we oppose hunting for sport and believe that it is an outdated practice and is not compatible with our modern understanding of nature. However, we recognise that hunting is an integral part of the cultural heritage of some countries and that it may provide food for some people. We feel that hunting for sport should be discouraged and that in general the practice of hunting should be phased out. We feel that education programmes should be set up to inform people about the impact of hunting on animals and animal populations. We feel that it is important for people to be fully informed about the issues surrounding hunting and that the public should have access to more information about the impact of hunting on animal populations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Hunting for sport is not ok. It is a barbaric act and demonstrates an extreme lack of respect for other living beings. It is not a sign of a civilized society, and those who do it are acting against the betterment of humanity. Hunting for food is a little more acceptable, but we would encourage people to eat a plant-based diet instead. Hunting for food should be done humanely, and with respect for the life of the animal. Hunting for food should also be done in moderation, with the aim to take only what is needed and to leave the rest of the animal population to continue to thrive. Hunting for food should be done in a way that is sustainable for the future, and does not threaten the existence of the species being hunted. Hunting for food should not be done for sport. It should be done out of necessity and done in the most humane way possible. Hunting for food should be done in a way that minimizes the suffering of the animal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to hunting for sport. However, we recognised that hunting has been part of the human experience for a very long time and in some cultures it is a significant part of their cultural heritage. We were also mindful of the fact that hunting can provide food for people and that there is a strong tradition of this in some countries. We felt that if hunting is to continue it should be tightly regulated and that it should be made illegal to hunt endangered species. We also felt that the hunting of animals for their fur should be made illegal. We also felt that it was important to educate people about the issues surrounding hunting and that there should be more information available to the public about the impact of hunting on animal populations. We felt that there should be more regulation of the hunting industry and that some species should be protected from hunting, especially endangered species. We also felt that hunting for sport should be discouraged, especially in countries where there is no strong hunting tradition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to hunting for sport. The main argument presented was that it is a cruel and unnecessary practice. It was also argued that hunting for sport is a practice that is no longer required for human survival, and so has no place in modern society. The group acknowledged that hunting for sport can be an important part of some cultures, but argued that this is no excuse for the practice to continue in other cultures. The group was also opposed to trophy hunting, and in particular the hunting of endangered species. Trophy hunting was described by the group as "morally corrupt" and "evil". The group also argued that hunting for sport can cause unnecessary suffering for animals, and can also lead to a reduction in animal populations. The group was also opposed to hunting for sport on the grounds that it can be dangerous for other people and animals who are not the intended target. The group acknowledged that hunting for sport can provide some economic benefits to some communities, but argued that this is not a sufficient reason for the practice to continue. The group was also opposed to hunting for sport on the grounds that it can lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of animal populations. The group also argued that hunting for sport can lead to a reduction in +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be tighter regulations on hunting. We believe that it is not acceptable to hunt endangered species. Hunting should be carried out only by trained professionals, working on a population control programme. In general, we oppose hunting for sport and believe that it is an outdated practice and is not compatible with our modern understanding of nature. However, we recognise that hunting is an integral part of the cultural heritage of some countries and that it may provide food for some people. We feel that hunting for sport should be discouraged and that in general the practice of hunting should be phased out. We feel that education programmes should be set up to inform people about the impact of hunting on animals and animal populations. We feel that it is important for people to be fully informed about the issues surrounding hunting and that the public should have access to more information about the impact of hunting on animal populations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Hunting for sport is not ok. It is a barbaric act and demonstrates an extreme lack of respect for other living beings. It is not a sign of a civilized society, and those who do it are acting against the betterment of humanity. Hunting for food is a little more acceptable, but we would encourage people to eat a plant-based diet instead. Hunting for food should be done humanely, and with respect for the life of the animal. Hunting for food should also be done in moderation, with the aim to take only what is needed and to leave the rest of the animal population to continue to thrive. Hunting for food should be done in a way that is sustainable for the future, and does not threaten the existence of the species being hunted. Hunting for food should not be done for sport. It should be done out of necessity and done in the most humane way possible. Hunting for food should be done in a way that minimizes the suffering of the animal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to hunting for sport. However, we recognised that hunting has been part of the human experience for a very long time and in some cultures it is a significant part of their cultural heritage. We were also mindful of the fact that hunting can provide food for people and that there is a strong tradition of this in some countries. We felt that if hunting is to continue it should be tightly regulated and that it should be made illegal to hunt endangered species. We also felt that the hunting of animals for their fur should be made illegal. We also felt that it was important to educate people about the issues surrounding hunting and that there should be more information available to the public about the impact of hunting on animal populations. We felt that there should be more regulation of the hunting industry and that some species should be protected from hunting, especially endangered species. We also felt that hunting for sport should be discouraged, especially in countries where there is no strong hunting tradition. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002385.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002385.soc index 6f9438f5..c61cc00f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002385.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002385.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of increasing fuel taxes, but with some caveats. It was felt that the increase in taxes should be gradual, to allow people time to adjust. It was also felt that the increase in taxes should be accompanied by a significant improvement in public transport, to allow people to switch to using that instead of their cars. The group was also in favour of the idea of offering tax breaks for people who switch to electric vehicles, as this would help to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fuel prices should not be increased to reduce pollution. The increase in taxes would hit the poorest in society hard, who would be unable to afford to travel. The wealthy would not feel the pinch and would continue to pollute. It would also be a very unpopular decision with working class people who would struggle to pay higher taxes and would disincentivise them when it comes to using less fuel and caring about pollution, when they see the wealthy that use the most, not being discouraged from polluting the planet. The wealthy would continue to use private jets and other industrial businesses, such as natural gas companies. Other major sources are the use of electric batteries, which are created using extensive mining, harming the Earth more than a typical petrol or diesel car. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles. This will require investment in infrastructure, which can only be achieved by higher taxation. To do this in a capitalist society the only way to achieve it is to make it completely economically impossible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on fossil fuels. We all agreed that this would help to reduce pollution. However, we also agreed that there would be some negative consequences, such as increased transport costs, which would be felt by poorer people more than the wealthy. We discussed that this would increase the gap between the rich and the poor and would be socially divisive. We also discussed that this would have negative effects on businesses that rely on the transport of goods and services, such as couriers and delivery companies, which may lead to increased costs for consumers and could lead to businesses going out of business. We discussed that it would be better to use the tax revenue to subsidise the cost of public transport for poorer people, who would be most affected by the increased cost of fuel, to help mitigate the negative effects of the increased tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fuel prices should not be increased to reduce pollution. The increase in taxes would hit the poorest in society hard, who would be unable to afford to travel. The wealthy would not feel the pinch and would continue to pollute. It would also be a very unpopular decision with working class people who would struggle to pay higher taxes and would disincentivise them when it comes to using less fuel and caring about pollution, when they see the wealthy that use the most, not being discouraged from polluting the planet. The wealthy would continue to use private jets and other industrial businesses, such as natural gas companies. Other major sources are the use of electric batteries, which are created using extensive mining, harming the Earth more than a typical petrol or diesel car. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of increasing fuel taxes, but with some caveats. It was felt that the increase in taxes should be gradual, to allow people time to adjust. It was also felt that the increase in taxes should be accompanied by a significant improvement in public transport, to allow people to switch to using that instead of their cars. The group was also in favour of the idea of offering tax breaks for people who switch to electric vehicles, as this would help to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fuel prices should not be increased to reduce pollution. The increase in taxes would hit the poorest in society hard, who would be unable to afford to travel. The wealthy would not feel the pinch and would continue to pollute. It would also be a very unpopular decision with working class people who would struggle to pay higher taxes and would disincentivise them when it comes to using less fuel and caring about pollution, when they see the wealthy that use the most, not being discouraged from polluting the planet. The wealthy would continue to use private jets and other industrial businesses, such as natural gas companies. Other major sources are the use of electric batteries, which are created using extensive mining, harming the Earth more than a typical petrol or diesel car. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles. This will require investment in infrastructure, which can only be achieved by higher taxation. To do this in a capitalist society the only way to achieve it is to make it completely economically impossible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on fossil fuels. We all agreed that this would help to reduce pollution. However, we also agreed that there would be some negative consequences, such as increased transport costs, which would be felt by poorer people more than the wealthy. We discussed that this would increase the gap between the rich and the poor and would be socially divisive. We also discussed that this would have negative effects on businesses that rely on the transport of goods and services, such as couriers and delivery companies, which may lead to increased costs for consumers and could lead to businesses going out of business. We discussed that it would be better to use the tax revenue to subsidise the cost of public transport for poorer people, who would be most affected by the increased cost of fuel, to help mitigate the negative effects of the increased tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fuel prices should not be increased to reduce pollution. The increase in taxes would hit the poorest in society hard, who would be unable to afford to travel. The wealthy would not feel the pinch and would continue to pollute. It would also be a very unpopular decision with working class people who would struggle to pay higher taxes and would disincentivise them when it comes to using less fuel and caring about pollution, when they see the wealthy that use the most, not being discouraged from polluting the planet. The wealthy would continue to use private jets and other industrial businesses, such as natural gas companies. Other major sources are the use of electric batteries, which are created using extensive mining, harming the Earth more than a typical petrol or diesel car. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002386.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002386.soc index a3cd10a3..d9411026 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002386.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002386.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that non-UK citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections. However, we believe that they should have lived in the UK for at least two years and have contributed to society in some way, whether that be through paying taxes, working or volunteering. We believe that this will help to create a more cohesive society and will also give people a sense of belonging. It will also help to increase voter turnout as it will encourage more people to vote, especially those who are less likely to vote, such as young people. We also think that it is important to remember that the people who are voting are living in the UK and therefore have a vested interest in making the UK a better place to live. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We generally agree with the idea of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections, providing that they have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time. This would be a positive step towards creating a more inclusive society, where everyone is valued and has a say in how things are run. It was also felt that non-UK citizens would be more in touch with UK citizens than those in government and would therefore be more likely to make the right decisions for the community. However, it was also felt that there would need to be strict rules in place to ensure that only those who have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time would be allowed to vote. This would ensure that those who vote are more likely to have a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. It was felt that this would be a positive step towards creating a more inclusive society, where everyone is valued and has a say in how things are run. The group also felt that non-UK citizens would be more in touch with UK citizens than those in government and would therefore be more likely to make the right decisions for the community. However, it was also felt that there would need to be strict rules in place to ensure that only those who have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time would be allowed to vote. This would ensure that those who vote are more likely to have a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The group felt that if a person has been living in the UK for a reasonable period of time, they should be allowed to vote in local elections. The group felt that it is important for a community to be cohesive, and allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections would help achieve this. The group also felt that it would be a good way to make non-UK citizens feel more included and more a part of their local community. The group also felt that it would be a good way to help integrate non-UK citizens more into their local community. However, the group felt that it would be important to set strict rules for how this would work. The group felt that non-UK citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections after a certain period of time living in the UK. The group felt that this period of time should be around 12 months. The group felt that non-UK citizens should also be allowed to vote in local elections if they work in the local area. The group felt that this would help to ensure that non-UK citizens are more integrated into their local community and more familiar with the issues facing their local +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that non-UK citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections. However, we believe that they should have lived in the UK for at least two years and have contributed to society in some way, whether that be through paying taxes, working or volunteering. We believe that this will help to create a more cohesive society and will also give people a sense of belonging. It will also help to increase voter turnout as it will encourage more people to vote, especially those who are less likely to vote, such as young people. We also think that it is important to remember that the people who are voting are living in the UK and therefore have a vested interest in making the UK a better place to live. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We generally agree with the idea of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections, providing that they have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time. This would be a positive step towards creating a more inclusive society, where everyone is valued and has a say in how things are run. It was also felt that non-UK citizens would be more in touch with UK citizens than those in government and would therefore be more likely to make the right decisions for the community. However, it was also felt that there would need to be strict rules in place to ensure that only those who have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time would be allowed to vote. This would ensure that those who vote are more likely to have a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. It was felt that this would be a positive step towards creating a more inclusive society, where everyone is valued and has a say in how things are run. The group also felt that non-UK citizens would be more in touch with UK citizens than those in government and would therefore be more likely to make the right decisions for the community. However, it was also felt that there would need to be strict rules in place to ensure that only those who have lived in the UK for a certain amount of time would be allowed to vote. This would ensure that those who vote are more likely to have a vested interest in the wellbeing of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The group felt that if a person has been living in the UK for a reasonable period of time, they should be allowed to vote in local elections. The group felt that it is important for a community to be cohesive, and allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections would help achieve this. The group also felt that it would be a good way to make non-UK citizens feel more included and more a part of their local community. The group also felt that it would be a good way to help integrate non-UK citizens more into their local community. However, the group felt that it would be important to set strict rules for how this would work. The group felt that non-UK citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections after a certain period of time living in the UK. The group felt that this period of time should be around 12 months. The group felt that non-UK citizens should also be allowed to vote in local elections if they work in the local area. The group felt that this would help to ensure that non-UK citizens are more integrated into their local community and more familiar with the issues facing their local 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002387.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002387.soc index f3b8e580..2b0dfad4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002387.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002387.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should not be forced to learn a musical instrument, but rather given the option to do so. Learning a musical instrument is good for children as it helps the development of their brain, and can be used as a creative outlet for their imagination, which will hopefully increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it will also increase the child's quality of living as it becomes a hobby they can do in their spare time. Children should also be encouraged to play a musical instrument as it can become a great opportunity for them, as they will be able to use it to impress others, and if exceptionally talented, to use as a career path. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but it should not be forced on them. Learning to play a musical instrument can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it should also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so it is important we encourage them to do so. However, it is important to remember that not all children will wish to play a musical instrument, and this should not be forced upon them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should not be obliged to play a musical instrument, but we think that schools should provide children with the opportunity to play a musical instrument if they wish to. We think that playing a musical instrument is a valuable skill and an enjoyable hobby that children can benefit from and we think that it is important to give children the opportunity to try playing an instrument. However, we don't think that it is essential for children to play an instrument, and some children may prefer to study other subjects instead. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but it should not be forced on them. Learning to play a musical instrument can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination. Along with this, it can also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so it is important we encourage them to do so. However, it is important to remember that not all children will wish to play a musical instrument, and this should not be forced upon them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should not be forced to learn a musical instrument, but rather given the option to do so. Learning a musical instrument is good for children as it helps the development of their brain, and can be used as a creative outlet for their imagination, which will hopefully increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it will also increase the child's quality of living as it becomes a hobby they can do in their spare time. Children should also be encouraged to play a musical instrument as it can become a great opportunity for them, as they will be able to use it to impress others, and if exceptionally talented, to use as a career path. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but it should not be forced on them. Learning to play a musical instrument can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination which in turn should increase the intelligence of the child. Along with this, it should also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so it is important we encourage them to do so. However, it is important to remember that not all children will wish to play a musical instrument, and this should not be forced upon them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should not be obliged to play a musical instrument, but we think that schools should provide children with the opportunity to play a musical instrument if they wish to. We think that playing a musical instrument is a valuable skill and an enjoyable hobby that children can benefit from and we think that it is important to give children the opportunity to try playing an instrument. However, we don't think that it is essential for children to play an instrument, and some children may prefer to study other subjects instead. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should be given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, but it should not be forced on them. Learning to play a musical instrument can help develop a child's brain, more specifically the creative process behind their thinking and imagination. Along with this, it can also increase quality of living, as playing a musical instrument becomes a hobby a child can do in their spare time to either perfect for enrichment, or to impress others - or even if exceptionally talented, as a future career path. Playing an instrument can only benefit a child's upbringing, so it is important we encourage them to do so. However, it is important to remember that not all children will wish to play a musical instrument, and this should not be forced upon them. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002388.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002388.soc index be9c29ff..e1f115c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002388.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002388.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the BBC should be funded entirely by licence fees. This is because it allows the BBC to be impartial, which is essential for non partisan quality programming. This ensures the public can receive good quality and ethical programming from a trusted source. However, the BBC is expensive to run, and may not survive without additional funding, especially in an era of streaming services. If funding is provided by the government, there should be clear policies and transparency in place to ensure this does not lead to any bias in programming - particularly current affairs, news and political discourse. The BBC should also look into other avenues of income, such as marketing of the service they provides to fund the BBC operation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. While the licence fee model has allowed the BBC to provide impartial programming, it is an expensive model, and is becoming less viable in the era of streaming services. If the BBC is to survive, it must find alternative sources of funding. If funding is provided by the government, there should be clear policies and transparency in place to ensure this does not lead to any bias in programming - particularly current affairs, news and political discourse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. The BBC is a very expensive organisation to run and the licence fee is a very inefficient way to collect revenue. There should be some form of advertising on the BBC to generate revenue. This would be a more efficient way to collect revenue, and would also allow the BBC to generate more revenue. The BBC should also look at other ways to generate revenue, such as through the sale of merchandise, and through the sale of their own streaming services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. The BBC is a trusted and respected source of news and entertainment in the UK, and this is largely due to its impartiality and non partisan stance. This is only possible due to the BBC being funded by licence fees, rather than advertising or government funding. However, the BBC is an expensive organisation to run, and the licence fee may not be sustainable in the long term. The BBC should be exploring other avenues of income, such as advertising or partnerships, in order to ensure its long term survival. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the BBC should be funded entirely by licence fees. This is because it allows the BBC to be impartial, which is essential for non partisan quality programming. This ensures the public can receive good quality and ethical programming from a trusted source. However, the BBC is expensive to run, and may not survive without additional funding, especially in an era of streaming services. If funding is provided by the government, there should be clear policies and transparency in place to ensure this does not lead to any bias in programming - particularly current affairs, news and political discourse. The BBC should also look into other avenues of income, such as marketing of the service they provides to fund the BBC operation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. While the licence fee model has allowed the BBC to provide impartial programming, it is an expensive model, and is becoming less viable in the era of streaming services. If the BBC is to survive, it must find alternative sources of funding. If funding is provided by the government, there should be clear policies and transparency in place to ensure this does not lead to any bias in programming - particularly current affairs, news and political discourse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. The BBC is a very expensive organisation to run and the licence fee is a very inefficient way to collect revenue. There should be some form of advertising on the BBC to generate revenue. This would be a more efficient way to collect revenue, and would also allow the BBC to generate more revenue. The BBC should also look at other ways to generate revenue, such as through the sale of merchandise, and through the sale of their own streaming services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the BBC should not be funded entirely by licence fees. The BBC is a trusted and respected source of news and entertainment in the UK, and this is largely due to its impartiality and non partisan stance. This is only possible due to the BBC being funded by licence fees, rather than advertising or government funding. However, the BBC is an expensive organisation to run, and the licence fee may not be sustainable in the long term. The BBC should be exploring other avenues of income, such as advertising or partnerships, in order to ensure its long term survival. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002389.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002389.soc index 591f5201..1a8e7c3e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002389.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002389.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the internal combustion engine is a very useful technology. It is very cheap to produce and maintain, and is a very reliable method of powering vehicles. However, they do cause a great deal of pollution, which is a major problem for the environment. It is for this reason that we believe that the sale of new internal combustion engines should be ended, and that the sale of used ones should be ended in the near future. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with the creation of a more extensive public transport network, so that those who cannot afford electric vehicles can still travel around. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of ending the sale of new internal combustion engines. However, it was noted that the technology is useful and does provide several advantages over their electric counterparts. It was also noted that the internal combustion engine being used in the billions around the world every day is contributing to the enormous amounts of carbon in the air which is driving climate change. It was agreed that electrically powered vehicles do not produce these emissions and can be charged from renewable energy sources. It was also noted that it would be wrong to remove them completely as this would remove the choice of a petrol/gasoline car from users who may prefer this vehicle, it would also be bad for the oil economy and with the rising costs of electricity, people may not be able to afford to charge electric vehicles. It was agreed that combustion engines should be phased out as soon as possible and replaced with electric vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: While we recognise that combustion engines are not good for the environment, and that they should be replaced with electric vehicles, we also believe that the decision to ban them should not be taken lightly, and that the government should not act in haste. The move to electric vehicles is a major change for the world, and there are many factors that must be considered before making the change. The move would be very expensive, and would require major changes to infrastructure. We also believe that there should be more education on the subject, and that people should be made aware of the dangers of combustion engines. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While the technology is incredibly useful and does provide several advantages over their electric counterparts, the internal combustion engine being used in the billions around the world every day is contributing to the enormous amounts of carbon in the air which is driving climate change. Electrically powered vehicles do not produce these emissions and can be charged from renewable energy sources. We believe that the sale of new internal combustion engines should be ended as soon as possible, however this should not be done in a way which removes the choice of a petrol/gasoline car from users who may prefer this vehicle, or which would be bad for the oil economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the internal combustion engine is a very useful technology. It is very cheap to produce and maintain, and is a very reliable method of powering vehicles. However, they do cause a great deal of pollution, which is a major problem for the environment. It is for this reason that we believe that the sale of new internal combustion engines should be ended, and that the sale of used ones should be ended in the near future. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with the creation of a more extensive public transport network, so that those who cannot afford electric vehicles can still travel around. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of ending the sale of new internal combustion engines. However, it was noted that the technology is useful and does provide several advantages over their electric counterparts. It was also noted that the internal combustion engine being used in the billions around the world every day is contributing to the enormous amounts of carbon in the air which is driving climate change. It was agreed that electrically powered vehicles do not produce these emissions and can be charged from renewable energy sources. It was also noted that it would be wrong to remove them completely as this would remove the choice of a petrol/gasoline car from users who may prefer this vehicle, it would also be bad for the oil economy and with the rising costs of electricity, people may not be able to afford to charge electric vehicles. It was agreed that combustion engines should be phased out as soon as possible and replaced with electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - While we recognise that combustion engines are not good for the environment, and that they should be replaced with electric vehicles, we also believe that the decision to ban them should not be taken lightly, and that the government should not act in haste. The move to electric vehicles is a major change for the world, and there are many factors that must be considered before making the change. The move would be very expensive, and would require major changes to infrastructure. We also believe that there should be more education on the subject, and that people should be made aware of the dangers of combustion engines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While the technology is incredibly useful and does provide several advantages over their electric counterparts, the internal combustion engine being used in the billions around the world every day is contributing to the enormous amounts of carbon in the air which is driving climate change. Electrically powered vehicles do not produce these emissions and can be charged from renewable energy sources. We believe that the sale of new internal combustion engines should be ended as soon as possible, however this should not be done in a way which removes the choice of a petrol/gasoline car from users who may prefer this vehicle, or which would be bad for the oil economy. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002390.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002390.soc index aeeec79f..54fbe7cb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002390.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002390.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a very small country in terms of geographical size and population, however it has a very strong economy and has accumulated vast amounts of material and non-material wealth throughout history. It is an important player in geopolitical power relations and has positioned itself as a leading nation. The UK has a lot to offer the world and is not at a loss if it gets help from other countries. It should value the help of other countries and appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a small country in terms of geographical size and population size. However, it is a country with a strong economy and a rich history. There are many examples of nations much smaller than the UK that continue to prosper independently. Globalisation negates and diminishes individual cultures creating a homogeneous outlook without individual differences that make life interesting. The UK is not at loss if it does get help from other countries, nothing is being taken away from it. We should appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. It might not be very large in geographical terms or in terms of population, however its economy is still quite strong. Other than that, the country has accumulated vast amount of material and non-material wealth throughout history and positioned itself as an important player in geopolitical power relations. The UK has a lot to offer the world but in my opinion it cannot remain how it is if it does everything on its own. We should appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK is too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a small country and this has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, the UK is a small country in terms of geographical size, population size and size of the economy. On the other hand, it has accumulated vast amount of material and non-material wealth throughout history and positioned itself as an important player in geopolitical power relations. However, the UK is very dependent on other countries in many aspects such as agriculture, economy, and trading, etc. Therefore, the UK is an independent country and may not continue its current leading position in this globalised world and among other countries. Globalisation negates and diminishes individual cultures creating a homogeneous outlook without individual differences that make life interesting. The UK has a lot to offer the world but in my opinion it cannot remain how it is if it does everything on its own. We should appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a very small country in terms of geographical size and population, however it has a very strong economy and has accumulated vast amounts of material and non-material wealth throughout history. It is an important player in geopolitical power relations and has positioned itself as a leading nation. The UK has a lot to offer the world and is not at a loss if it gets help from other countries. It should value the help of other countries and appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a small country in terms of geographical size and population size. However, it is a country with a strong economy and a rich history. There are many examples of nations much smaller than the UK that continue to prosper independently. Globalisation negates and diminishes individual cultures creating a homogeneous outlook without individual differences that make life interesting. The UK is not at loss if it does get help from other countries, nothing is being taken away from it. We should appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. It might not be very large in geographical terms or in terms of population, however its economy is still quite strong. Other than that, the country has accumulated vast amount of material and non-material wealth throughout history and positioned itself as an important player in geopolitical power relations. The UK has a lot to offer the world but in my opinion it cannot remain how it is if it does everything on its own. We should appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK is too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a small country and this has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, the UK is a small country in terms of geographical size, population size and size of the economy. On the other hand, it has accumulated vast amount of material and non-material wealth throughout history and positioned itself as an important player in geopolitical power relations. However, the UK is very dependent on other countries in many aspects such as agriculture, economy, and trading, etc. Therefore, the UK is an independent country and may not continue its current leading position in this globalised world and among other countries. Globalisation negates and diminishes individual cultures creating a homogeneous outlook without individual differences that make life interesting. The UK has a lot to offer the world but in my opinion it cannot remain how it is if it does everything on its own. We should appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002391.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002391.soc index 126acaa7..6861d97f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002391.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002391.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the UK should give independence to the remaining colonies in the Caribbean. This is because the days of the British Empire are long gone and we believe that it is important to let countries be independent if they wish. We also believe that the UK can ill afford to support such colonies. The reasons behind colonies were conquest and exploitation of natural and human resources and we don't think the UK can dress up a reason for hanging on to impede the development of such colonial societies. Where they may struggle as an economic unit alone, then perhaps consensus for mergers/federations as a legal entity under the auspices of the United Nations may help them to prosper when 'freed' from UK dominance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In 2023 the UK should grant independence to all of its remaining Caribbean colonies if they want it. This is because the UK should not be holding onto colonies in the 21st century, and because it would be unfair to hold back the development of these countries by keeping them in a colonial relationship with the UK. The UK should also respect the right of the people in these countries to decide their own future, and so should conduct referendums to determine whether they want independence. The UK should also ensure that any withdrawal from governance is a smooth and democratic process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should give the Caribbean colonies their independence. The UK has a long and shameful history of slavery and colonialism in the Caribbean, and it is time to move on from this. The UK is not in a position to support these colonies financially, and as such it is not in the UK's best interests to maintain control. The Caribbean colonies should be given the opportunity to vote on whether they wish to remain in the Commonwealth, and if they do wish to remain in the Commonwealth then they should be allowed to do so. If they wish to leave the Commonwealth then they should be allowed to do so. The UK should ensure that the transition to independence is a smooth and democratic process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should give the remaining colonies in the Caribbean their independence. The days of the British Empire are well and truly over, and the UK has a duty to ensure that all the people of the world have the freedom to live in the way that they want to. The UK has a responsibility to ensure that any withdrawal from governance is a smooth and democratic process, and that any communities with historic ties to both the Caribbean and the UK are considered. The UK should respect the wishes of the people of the Caribbean, and if a referendum results in a majority vote for independence, then the UK should act accordingly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the UK should give independence to the remaining colonies in the Caribbean. This is because the days of the British Empire are long gone and we believe that it is important to let countries be independent if they wish. We also believe that the UK can ill afford to support such colonies. The reasons behind colonies were conquest and exploitation of natural and human resources and we don't think the UK can dress up a reason for hanging on to impede the development of such colonial societies. Where they may struggle as an economic unit alone, then perhaps consensus for mergers/federations as a legal entity under the auspices of the United Nations may help them to prosper when 'freed' from UK dominance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In 2023 the UK should grant independence to all of its remaining Caribbean colonies if they want it. This is because the UK should not be holding onto colonies in the 21st century, and because it would be unfair to hold back the development of these countries by keeping them in a colonial relationship with the UK. The UK should also respect the right of the people in these countries to decide their own future, and so should conduct referendums to determine whether they want independence. The UK should also ensure that any withdrawal from governance is a smooth and democratic process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should give the Caribbean colonies their independence. The UK has a long and shameful history of slavery and colonialism in the Caribbean, and it is time to move on from this. The UK is not in a position to support these colonies financially, and as such it is not in the UK's best interests to maintain control. The Caribbean colonies should be given the opportunity to vote on whether they wish to remain in the Commonwealth, and if they do wish to remain in the Commonwealth then they should be allowed to do so. If they wish to leave the Commonwealth then they should be allowed to do so. The UK should ensure that the transition to independence is a smooth and democratic process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should give the remaining colonies in the Caribbean their independence. The days of the British Empire are well and truly over, and the UK has a duty to ensure that all the people of the world have the freedom to live in the way that they want to. The UK has a responsibility to ensure that any withdrawal from governance is a smooth and democratic process, and that any communities with historic ties to both the Caribbean and the UK are considered. The UK should respect the wishes of the people of the Caribbean, and if a referendum results in a majority vote for independence, then the UK should act accordingly. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002392.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002392.soc index a7b37f54..5e0bd805 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002392.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002392.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the internal combustion engine is a very useful technology. It is very cheap to produce and maintain, and is a very reliable method of powering vehicles. However, they do cause a great deal of pollution, which is a major problem for the environment. It is for this reason that we believe that the sale of new internal combustion engines should be ended, and that the sale of used ones should be ended in the near future. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with the creation of a more extensive public transport network, so that those who cannot afford electric vehicles can still travel around. We believe that this is the best course of action to take in order to save the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the internal combustion engine is a very useful technology. It is very cheap to produce and maintain, and is a very reliable method of powering vehicles. However, they do cause a great deal of pollution, which is a major problem for the environment. It is for this reason that we believe that the sale of new internal combustion engines should be ended, and that the sale of used ones should be ended in the near future. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with the creation of a more extensive public transport network, so that those who cannot afford electric vehicles can still travel around. We believe that this is necessary in order to combat the severe threat to the climate posed by the combustion engine, and that it is vital that it is done as soon as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the internal combustion engine is not good for the environment and it would be best if it was removed from the market. However, as the technology is well established and widely used, it would be wrong to remove it completely as this would remove the choice of a petrol/gasoline car from users who may prefer this vehicle, it would also be bad for the oil economy and with the rising costs of electricity, people may not be able to afford to charge electric vehicles. The sale of new internal combustion engines should continue but it is important that the government support the development of electric vehicles and make them more accessible to consumers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the internal combustion engine has an unacceptably negative impact on the environment, and on human health, due to its fossil fuel usage and emissions. As a result, we should move to phase them out as soon as possible, and replace them with electric vehicles. We should, however, ensure that people who want to use petrol vehicles can still do so if they want, though we should make it clear that this is not a preferred option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the internal combustion engine is a very useful technology. It is very cheap to produce and maintain, and is a very reliable method of powering vehicles. However, they do cause a great deal of pollution, which is a major problem for the environment. It is for this reason that we believe that the sale of new internal combustion engines should be ended, and that the sale of used ones should be ended in the near future. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with the creation of a more extensive public transport network, so that those who cannot afford electric vehicles can still travel around. We believe that this is the best course of action to take in order to save the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the internal combustion engine is a very useful technology. It is very cheap to produce and maintain, and is a very reliable method of powering vehicles. However, they do cause a great deal of pollution, which is a major problem for the environment. It is for this reason that we believe that the sale of new internal combustion engines should be ended, and that the sale of used ones should be ended in the near future. We also believe that this should be done in conjunction with the creation of a more extensive public transport network, so that those who cannot afford electric vehicles can still travel around. We believe that this is necessary in order to combat the severe threat to the climate posed by the combustion engine, and that it is vital that it is done as soon as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the internal combustion engine is not good for the environment and it would be best if it was removed from the market. However, as the technology is well established and widely used, it would be wrong to remove it completely as this would remove the choice of a petrol/gasoline car from users who may prefer this vehicle, it would also be bad for the oil economy and with the rising costs of electricity, people may not be able to afford to charge electric vehicles. The sale of new internal combustion engines should continue but it is important that the government support the development of electric vehicles and make them more accessible to consumers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the internal combustion engine has an unacceptably negative impact on the environment, and on human health, due to its fossil fuel usage and emissions. As a result, we should move to phase them out as soon as possible, and replace them with electric vehicles. We should, however, ensure that people who want to use petrol vehicles can still do so if they want, though we should make it clear that this is not a preferred option. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002393.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002393.soc index 641e8003..766b8dc9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002393.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002393.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a very small country in terms of geographical size and population, however it has a very strong economy and has accumulated vast amounts of material and non-material wealth throughout history. It is an important player in geopolitical power relations and has positioned itself as a leading nation. The UK has a lot to offer the world and is not at a loss if it gets help from other countries. It should value the help of other countries and appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In a globalised world, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation. The UK has a lot to offer the world in terms of culture, economy, and heritage. Globalisation has made the world a much smaller place in which we can all learn from each other. However, the UK should not rely on other countries for everything. It should not let pride get in the way and refuse help from other countries. The UK should not be afraid to ask for help from other countries. The UK should appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a very small country in terms of geographical size and population, however it has a very strong economy and has accumulated vast amounts of material and non-material wealth throughout history. It is an important player in geopolitical power relations and has positioned itself as a leading nation. The UK has a lot to offer the world and is not at a loss if it gets help from other countries. It should value the help of other countries and appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is an independent nation in a globalised world and can continue to be so. It is not too small in terms of geographical size, population size and size of the economy. It has a lot to offer to the world and can continue to do so. It is a country that has accumulated vast amount of material and non-material wealth throughout history and positioned itself as an important player in geopolitical power relations. It is a country that has a lot of offer to other countries and should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a very small country in terms of geographical size and population, however it has a very strong economy and has accumulated vast amounts of material and non-material wealth throughout history. It is an important player in geopolitical power relations and has positioned itself as a leading nation. The UK has a lot to offer the world and is not at a loss if it gets help from other countries. It should value the help of other countries and appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In a globalised world, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation. The UK has a lot to offer the world in terms of culture, economy, and heritage. Globalisation has made the world a much smaller place in which we can all learn from each other. However, the UK should not rely on other countries for everything. It should not let pride get in the way and refuse help from other countries. The UK should not be afraid to ask for help from other countries. The UK should appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is a very small country in terms of geographical size and population, however it has a very strong economy and has accumulated vast amounts of material and non-material wealth throughout history. It is an important player in geopolitical power relations and has positioned itself as a leading nation. The UK has a lot to offer the world and is not at a loss if it gets help from other countries. It should value the help of other countries and appreciate how countries can all help each other instead of letting pride get in the way and saying we are an independent nation. We have a lot of offer to other countries and we should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the UK is not too small to remain an independent nation in a globalised world. The UK is an independent nation in a globalised world and can continue to be so. It is not too small in terms of geographical size, population size and size of the economy. It has a lot to offer to the world and can continue to do so. It is a country that has accumulated vast amount of material and non-material wealth throughout history and positioned itself as an important player in geopolitical power relations. It is a country that has a lot of offer to other countries and should also be humble enough to realise the benefit from other countries. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002394.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002394.soc index bb36cbac..2c37cca3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002394.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002394.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that it is not wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because there are a variety of factors that can be taken into consideration when deciding how much somebody should be paid, including how good they are at their job, how long they have worked for the company, how much they help other employees etc... If anything I think it is wrong to pay a brand new starter the same wage as somebody who has worked in the job for a long time. An occasion when it would be wrong to pay two people different amounts would be if they started at the same time and had the same experience. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. It is unfair to pay someone less because of their gender, their age, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their disability or their religious beliefs. However, there are cases where it is appropriate to pay different wages to people doing the same work. For example, it is fair to pay someone more if they are more experienced, or if they are more productive. In these cases, the different pay reflects the different levels of effort or skill required to complete the work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that it is not wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because there are a variety of factors that can be taken into consideration when deciding how much somebody should be paid. These include how good they are at their job, how long they have worked for the company, how much they help other employees etc... However, we think that it is wrong to pay a brand new starter the same wage as somebody who has worked in the job for a long time. An occasion when it would be wrong to pay two people different amounts would be if they started at the same time and had the same experience. We also think that it is wrong to pay people different amounts due to factors such as age, race and gender. Factors related to time of service and performance are perfectly acceptable when deciding how much somebody should be paid. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that it is not wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because there are a variety of factors that can be taken into consideration when deciding how much somebody should be paid. These include how good they are at their job, how long they have worked for the company, how much they help other employees etc... If anything we think that it is wrong to pay a brand new starter the same wage as somebody who has worked in the job for a long time. An occasion when it would be wrong to pay two people different amounts would be if they started at the same time and had the same experience. It is also unacceptable for people to be paid different amount for the same work based on factors such as age, race and gender. Factors related to time of service and performance are perfectly acceptable when deciding how much somebody should be paid. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because there are a variety of factors that can be taken into consideration when deciding how much somebody should be paid, including how good they are at their job, how long they have worked for the company, how much they help other employees etc... If anything I think it is wrong to pay a brand new starter the same wage as somebody who has worked in the job for a long time. An occasion when it would be wrong to pay two people different amounts would be if they started at the same time and had the same experience. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. It is unfair to pay someone less because of their gender, their age, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their disability or their religious beliefs. However, there are cases where it is appropriate to pay different wages to people doing the same work. For example, it is fair to pay someone more if they are more experienced, or if they are more productive. In these cases, the different pay reflects the different levels of effort or skill required to complete the work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because there are a variety of factors that can be taken into consideration when deciding how much somebody should be paid. These include how good they are at their job, how long they have worked for the company, how much they help other employees etc... However, we think that it is wrong to pay a brand new starter the same wage as somebody who has worked in the job for a long time. An occasion when it would be wrong to pay two people different amounts would be if they started at the same time and had the same experience. We also think that it is wrong to pay people different amounts due to factors such as age, race and gender. Factors related to time of service and performance are perfectly acceptable when deciding how much somebody should be paid. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that it is not wrong to pay people different wages for doing the same work. This is because there are a variety of factors that can be taken into consideration when deciding how much somebody should be paid. These include how good they are at their job, how long they have worked for the company, how much they help other employees etc... If anything we think that it is wrong to pay a brand new starter the same wage as somebody who has worked in the job for a long time. An occasion when it would be wrong to pay two people different amounts would be if they started at the same time and had the same experience. It is also unacceptable for people to be paid different amount for the same work based on factors such as age, race and gender. Factors related to time of service and performance are perfectly acceptable when deciding how much somebody should be paid. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002395.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002395.soc index b2ed487a..a4b986f0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002395.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002395.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is an essential service for the UK and is worth the cost. The NHS has saved millions of lives and is a safety net for all of us. It is not perfect and could be more efficient, but this is down to human error and not an issue with the idea of the NHS itself. The NHS is a cornerstone of British society and a vital safety net for our population. I and many family members and friends have relied on it in for important healthcare and millions would be worse off if the NHS stopped existing. The NHS is not perfect and a lot of money gets wasted but this is down to human error and not an issue with the idea of the NHS itself. I am more than happy for our tax money to go towards funding the NHS and helping those in need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the NHS is a vital part of British society and we should be thankful for it. However, it is not perfect and there is a lot of room for improvement. It is not necessarily the most efficient way of delivering healthcare but it is a safety net for us all. It is a cornerstone of our society and we should all be thankful for it. It is difficult to put a cost on something as crucial and essential as people's health but we are more than happy for our tax money to go towards funding the NHS and helping those in need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is an essential part of the UK society, and as such it is difficult to put a cost on something as crucial and essential as people's health. Certainly there might have been other ways of managing the NHS, so that costs don't put additional pressure to the society as a whole, and especially to citizens. Another thing to be considered is the current ratio between the cost and the quality of services being offered, which is arguably low. However, the NHS is an essential safety net for our population and a vital safety net for our population. I and many family members and friends have relied on it in for important healthcare and millions would be worse off if the NHS stopped existing. It is not perfect and a lot of money gets wasted but this is down to human error and not an issue with the idea of the NHS itself. I am more than happy for our tax money to go towards funding the NHS and helping those in need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the NHS is a good system and is worth its cost. The NHS is a very important part of British society and has helped many people. It is not perfect and can be improved but it is still a good system. It is important to remember that the NHS is there to help people when they need it and it is important that people are able to access healthcare when they need it. The NHS is a safety net for our society and is something that we should all be thankful for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is an essential service for the UK and is worth the cost. The NHS has saved millions of lives and is a safety net for all of us. It is not perfect and could be more efficient, but this is down to human error and not an issue with the idea of the NHS itself. The NHS is a cornerstone of British society and a vital safety net for our population. I and many family members and friends have relied on it in for important healthcare and millions would be worse off if the NHS stopped existing. The NHS is not perfect and a lot of money gets wasted but this is down to human error and not an issue with the idea of the NHS itself. I am more than happy for our tax money to go towards funding the NHS and helping those in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the NHS is a vital part of British society and we should be thankful for it. However, it is not perfect and there is a lot of room for improvement. It is not necessarily the most efficient way of delivering healthcare but it is a safety net for us all. It is a cornerstone of our society and we should all be thankful for it. It is difficult to put a cost on something as crucial and essential as people's health but we are more than happy for our tax money to go towards funding the NHS and helping those in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is an essential part of the UK society, and as such it is difficult to put a cost on something as crucial and essential as people's health. Certainly there might have been other ways of managing the NHS, so that costs don't put additional pressure to the society as a whole, and especially to citizens. Another thing to be considered is the current ratio between the cost and the quality of services being offered, which is arguably low. However, the NHS is an essential safety net for our population and a vital safety net for our population. I and many family members and friends have relied on it in for important healthcare and millions would be worse off if the NHS stopped existing. It is not perfect and a lot of money gets wasted but this is down to human error and not an issue with the idea of the NHS itself. I am more than happy for our tax money to go towards funding the NHS and helping those in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the NHS is a good system and is worth its cost. The NHS is a very important part of British society and has helped many people. It is not perfect and can be improved but it is still a good system. It is important to remember that the NHS is there to help people when they need it and it is important that people are able to access healthcare when they need it. The NHS is a safety net for our society and is something that we should all be thankful for. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002396.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002396.soc index 7ffb6257..f29a1c3f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002396.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002396.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is worth the cost because it provides equal access to healthcare, no matter your background, which should be a right of living in my opinion. In other countries where the NHS or similar systems do not exist, an accident could totally derail someone's life, where they may have to go to extremes such as selling your house, or forfeiting their education to pay medical bills, which is totally not okay. Our national health service is a gem and should be protected at all costs. We have to be careful that american style privatisation via the back door can't happen - espcially with the current government who would love this to happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is a vital part of the UK, and is well worth its cost. It provides equal access to healthcare for all, no matter their background, and is a right that all people should have. It is something that we should be proud of, and should protect at all costs. We should be wary of any privatisation of the NHS, and ensure that it remains free at the point of use for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is an important institution in the UK and is something that should be protected and maintained. The NHS is a key part of the fabric of our society and we are very lucky to have it. We should be very careful that it is not eroded by american style privatisation which would be a disaster for the country. We should be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where people have to pay for healthcare and where the health service becomes a profit making business. This would be a disaster for the country. We should also be careful that the health service is not run down by successive governments. It is something that is very important to the people of this country and we should be careful that it is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. We should be very careful that the NHS is protected and maintained. We should also be careful that the NHS is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The National Health Service is well worth the cost. It provides equal access to healthcare, no matter your background, which should be a right of living in my opinion. In other countries where the NHS or similar systems do not exist, an accident could totally derail someone's life, where they may have to go to extremes such as selling your house, or forfeiting their education to pay medical bills, which is totally not okay. The NHS is a gem and should be protected at all costs. We have to be careful that american style privatisation via the back door can't happen - espcially with the current government who would love this to happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is worth the cost because it provides equal access to healthcare, no matter your background, which should be a right of living in my opinion. In other countries where the NHS or similar systems do not exist, an accident could totally derail someone's life, where they may have to go to extremes such as selling your house, or forfeiting their education to pay medical bills, which is totally not okay. Our national health service is a gem and should be protected at all costs. We have to be careful that american style privatisation via the back door can't happen - espcially with the current government who would love this to happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is a vital part of the UK, and is well worth its cost. It provides equal access to healthcare for all, no matter their background, and is a right that all people should have. It is something that we should be proud of, and should protect at all costs. We should be wary of any privatisation of the NHS, and ensure that it remains free at the point of use for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is an important institution in the UK and is something that should be protected and maintained. The NHS is a key part of the fabric of our society and we are very lucky to have it. We should be very careful that it is not eroded by american style privatisation which would be a disaster for the country. We should be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where people have to pay for healthcare and where the health service becomes a profit making business. This would be a disaster for the country. We should also be careful that the health service is not run down by successive governments. It is something that is very important to the people of this country and we should be careful that it is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. We should be very careful that the NHS is protected and maintained. We should also be careful that the NHS is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The National Health Service is well worth the cost. It provides equal access to healthcare, no matter your background, which should be a right of living in my opinion. In other countries where the NHS or similar systems do not exist, an accident could totally derail someone's life, where they may have to go to extremes such as selling your house, or forfeiting their education to pay medical bills, which is totally not okay. The NHS is a gem and should be protected at all costs. We have to be careful that american style privatisation via the back door can't happen - espcially with the current government who would love this to happen. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002397.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002397.soc index 2d29bd92..79781c95 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002397.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002397.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think people from all backgrounds should be given the chance to enter university. Not everyone has the money to gain access and i think this is wrong and we are missing out on the opportunity to have more skilled members within out nations. It would help with staff shortages within certain industries. However, i do not think they should be given priority over others who are more academically deserving. I believe there are enough opportunities within study to advance if you wish to, and university isn't the best option for some people. Admission should be based on merit and merit alone. There is no reason for anyone to be given priority other than on merit.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving admission priority to disadvantaged groups. They felt that university admission should be based on merit and merit alone. They felt that this would be the best way to ensure that the best and brightest people get into university. They felt that disadvantaged groups should be given the same opportunities as everyone else and that they should not be given any special treatment. They felt that the idea of giving disadvantaged groups admission priority was patronising and insulting. They felt that it would be better to focus on helping disadvantaged groups once they had been admitted to university rather than giving them admission priority. They felt that it was important to ensure that all students had the same opportunities once they had been admitted to university. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. There should be no preferential treatment based on any factor other than merit. This is the best way to ensure that the best and brightest are admitted to university. However, in some countries, there are groups that have been historically disadvantaged. In these countries, it may be necessary to give some priority to these groups in order to help them catch up to the rest of the population. This priority should be temporary though, and it should be ended as soon as possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that everyone should be given the chance to enter university, however I do not think that they should be given priority over other people who have worked hard to get there. I think that universities should be looking at the grades that people have achieved and their potential to achieve well in their chosen course and not their background. There are many people who have come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have worked hard to get the grades that they have achieved and I think that it is unfair to give people who have not worked as hard the same opportunity to attend university.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think people from all backgrounds should be given the chance to enter university. Not everyone has the money to gain access and i think this is wrong and we are missing out on the opportunity to have more skilled members within out nations. It would help with staff shortages within certain industries. However, i do not think they should be given priority over others who are more academically deserving. I believe there are enough opportunities within study to advance if you wish to, and university isn't the best option for some people. Admission should be based on merit and merit alone. There is no reason for anyone to be given priority other than on merit.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of giving admission priority to disadvantaged groups. They felt that university admission should be based on merit and merit alone. They felt that this would be the best way to ensure that the best and brightest people get into university. They felt that disadvantaged groups should be given the same opportunities as everyone else and that they should not be given any special treatment. They felt that the idea of giving disadvantaged groups admission priority was patronising and insulting. They felt that it would be better to focus on helping disadvantaged groups once they had been admitted to university rather than giving them admission priority. They felt that it was important to ensure that all students had the same opportunities once they had been admitted to university. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, universities should not give admission priority to disadvantaged groups. There should be no preferential treatment based on any factor other than merit. This is the best way to ensure that the best and brightest are admitted to university. However, in some countries, there are groups that have been historically disadvantaged. In these countries, it may be necessary to give some priority to these groups in order to help them catch up to the rest of the population. This priority should be temporary though, and it should be ended as soon as possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that everyone should be given the chance to enter university, however I do not think that they should be given priority over other people who have worked hard to get there. I think that universities should be looking at the grades that people have achieved and their potential to achieve well in their chosen course and not their background. There are many people who have come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have worked hard to get the grades that they have achieved and I think that it is unfair to give people who have not worked as hard the same opportunity to attend university.” 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002398.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002398.soc index d6b9f3b2..c4e629bd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002398.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002398.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should not be allowed into nightclubs because of the content and the behaviour of adults in nightclubs. It is not appropriate for children to be exposed to alcohol, drugs, or sexualised behaviour, and they are not old enough to deal with these things. Children should be protected from these things, and nightclubs are not appropriate places for children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. It is an adult environment and children may see things they don't understand. Alcohol is sold in nightclubs and can easily be bought for minors there. The scene in nightclubs is rather sexualised and not an appropriate place for children, especially around adults. They aren't appropriate environments for kids to be in. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that nightclubs are adult environments, where alcohol is served, and there are a number of other adult activities, including drugs and sexual activities. Children should not be exposed to these things, and nightclubs are not an appropriate environment for children to be in. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be allowed in nightclubs. Nightclubs are adult environments and are not appropriate for children. There are a number of factors that make nightclubs unsuitable for children, including the sale of alcohol, the sexualised environment, and the risk of being around adults who may be intoxicated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should not be allowed into nightclubs because of the content and the behaviour of adults in nightclubs. It is not appropriate for children to be exposed to alcohol, drugs, or sexualised behaviour, and they are not old enough to deal with these things. Children should be protected from these things, and nightclubs are not appropriate places for children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. It is an adult environment and children may see things they don't understand. Alcohol is sold in nightclubs and can easily be bought for minors there. The scene in nightclubs is rather sexualised and not an appropriate place for children, especially around adults. They aren't appropriate environments for kids to be in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that nightclubs are adult environments, where alcohol is served, and there are a number of other adult activities, including drugs and sexual activities. Children should not be exposed to these things, and nightclubs are not an appropriate environment for children to be in. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be allowed in nightclubs. Nightclubs are adult environments and are not appropriate for children. There are a number of factors that make nightclubs unsuitable for children, including the sale of alcohol, the sexualised environment, and the risk of being around adults who may be intoxicated. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002399.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002399.soc index a30224bc..4e89320d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002399.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002399.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Whilst we can see the appeal to children, it is not appropriate for them to have access to the same information as adults. Children of this age do not have the necessary knowledge and information to make informed decisions about what they are viewing. Children are also in danger of speaking to people they don't know and can be easily influenced by the content they see. Not to mention the risk of cyber bullying and grooming. Children are in danger of being exposed to harmful content and it is difficult to control what they see. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Whilst social media can be used in a positive way, the content and interactions that can occur are not suitable for children of this age. Children are not yet mature enough to handle the negative impacts that can occur from social media usage. The content that can be viewed can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. The risk of children being exposed to harmful content and interactions is too great and can have a negative impact on their mental well being and perceptions of the world. The issue of online safety is also a concern and children are not yet clued up on how to stay safe online. Social media is difficult to control with the content children are exposed to and have access to. Children of this age also do not need to be influenced by adults and don't understand certain nuances. Children are in danger of speaking to people they don't know. Social media can be a force for good, when used in a social manner but it can equally be used to undermine the vulnerable. The group of participants believe that children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the content that can be viewed on these sites/apps can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. Once children have access, it is very difficult to control what they see. Whilst some children may be mature enough to view the content, the vast majority will not be. It could negatively affect their mental well being and perceptions of the world. Secondly, children are very impressionable. They can be easily influenced by what they see online. They may be targeted by online groomers who may seek to exploit them. Children are also very susceptible to cyberbullying. Thirdly, there is a risk that children may be exposed to adult content. This can be very damaging to their innocence. Finally, there is a risk that children may be exposed to violent and harmful content. This can lead to them acting out in a violent manner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Social media can be a very dangerous place, with many people posting inappropriate content, and with many people being able to contact your child, it is very difficult to monitor and control what your child is exposed to. There is also the risk of cyber bullying, which can be very harmful to a child's mental health. It is also very difficult to control the amount of time a child spends on social media, and this can have a negative impact on their school work and social life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Whilst we can see the appeal to children, it is not appropriate for them to have access to the same information as adults. Children of this age do not have the necessary knowledge and information to make informed decisions about what they are viewing. Children are also in danger of speaking to people they don't know and can be easily influenced by the content they see. Not to mention the risk of cyber bullying and grooming. Children are in danger of being exposed to harmful content and it is difficult to control what they see. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Whilst social media can be used in a positive way, the content and interactions that can occur are not suitable for children of this age. Children are not yet mature enough to handle the negative impacts that can occur from social media usage. The content that can be viewed can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. The risk of children being exposed to harmful content and interactions is too great and can have a negative impact on their mental well being and perceptions of the world. The issue of online safety is also a concern and children are not yet clued up on how to stay safe online. Social media is difficult to control with the content children are exposed to and have access to. Children of this age also do not need to be influenced by adults and don't understand certain nuances. Children are in danger of speaking to people they don't know. Social media can be a force for good, when used in a social manner but it can equally be used to undermine the vulnerable. The group of participants believe that children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the content that can be viewed on these sites/apps can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. Once children have access, it is very difficult to control what they see. Whilst some children may be mature enough to view the content, the vast majority will not be. It could negatively affect their mental well being and perceptions of the world. Secondly, children are very impressionable. They can be easily influenced by what they see online. They may be targeted by online groomers who may seek to exploit them. Children are also very susceptible to cyberbullying. Thirdly, there is a risk that children may be exposed to adult content. This can be very damaging to their innocence. Finally, there is a risk that children may be exposed to violent and harmful content. This can lead to them acting out in a violent manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Social media can be a very dangerous place, with many people posting inappropriate content, and with many people being able to contact your child, it is very difficult to monitor and control what your child is exposed to. There is also the risk of cyber bullying, which can be very harmful to a child's mental health. It is also very difficult to control the amount of time a child spends on social media, and this can have a negative impact on their school work and social life. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002400.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002400.soc index 8e065350..df5970d4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002400.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002400.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “We should make universal basic income a legal right for every adult. It costs more money to make disabled/sick/unemployed people prove their eligibility ,and hire assessors and people to handle/reject claims. Basic income given to everybody would bring people out of poverty and boost the economy It would take financial pressure off of vulnerable people in poverty. It could reduce poverty and provide more stability to millions of people. This could greatly increasing quality of life and general wellbeing. It also could reduce inequality. Every adult needs a reason to get up in the mornings and if they're given free money then it removes the incentive to do so. People will become lazy, demotivated and the taxes for the average working person will need to raise to pay for this basic income. This will lead to a more divided society as resentment will build on those who are paying taxes versus those who are getting free money for no effort. In previous centuries, those who do not want to work hard were forced to, I believe there is some good in that. I believe we should as every adult needs a basic income to live on, without struggling to live. Therefore, we should make universal basic income a legal right for every adult.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of making universal basic income a legal right for every adult. The group felt that this would reduce poverty and provide more stability to millions of people. This could greatly increasing quality of life and general wellbeing. It also could reduce inequality. The group felt that the cost of administering benefits to those in need would be much higher than the cost of giving a basic income to everybody. The group felt that it would take financial pressure off of vulnerable people in poverty. The group also felt that it would provide people with a safety net and the security to try new things and take risks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income, however, we felt that it should be means-tested to avoid it being abused. This would mean that it would be available to those who really need it and not to those who are already financially stable. We also felt that it should be available to those who are unemployed, as well as those who are working part-time or are on a low income. We also felt that it should be available to those who are unable to work due to illness or disability. We felt that it should be a legal right to ensure that it is not taken away from those who need it. We also felt that it should be a legal right as it would ensure that it is available to all who need it and not just to those who are in a certain area or who are a certain age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In principle, yes. The idea of a universal basic income is a good one. However, it is important to consider the practical implications of implementing such a policy. The cost of providing a basic income to every adult would be astronomical and would require a significant increase in taxation. This would be unfair to those who are already struggling to make ends meet. We believe that a basic income should be provided to those who need it most, such as the unemployed, disabled and sick. This would ensure that the money is being spent in the most effective way possible. This is the best way to reduce poverty and inequality in society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “We should make universal basic income a legal right for every adult. It costs more money to make disabled/sick/unemployed people prove their eligibility ,and hire assessors and people to handle/reject claims. Basic income given to everybody would bring people out of poverty and boost the economy It would take financial pressure off of vulnerable people in poverty. It could reduce poverty and provide more stability to millions of people. This could greatly increasing quality of life and general wellbeing. It also could reduce inequality. Every adult needs a reason to get up in the mornings and if they're given free money then it removes the incentive to do so. People will become lazy, demotivated and the taxes for the average working person will need to raise to pay for this basic income. This will lead to a more divided society as resentment will build on those who are paying taxes versus those who are getting free money for no effort. In previous centuries, those who do not want to work hard were forced to, I believe there is some good in that. I believe we should as every adult needs a basic income to live on, without struggling to live. Therefore, we should make universal basic income a legal right for every adult.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of making universal basic income a legal right for every adult. The group felt that this would reduce poverty and provide more stability to millions of people. This could greatly increasing quality of life and general wellbeing. It also could reduce inequality. The group felt that the cost of administering benefits to those in need would be much higher than the cost of giving a basic income to everybody. The group felt that it would take financial pressure off of vulnerable people in poverty. The group also felt that it would provide people with a safety net and the security to try new things and take risks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a universal basic income, however, we felt that it should be means-tested to avoid it being abused. This would mean that it would be available to those who really need it and not to those who are already financially stable. We also felt that it should be available to those who are unemployed, as well as those who are working part-time or are on a low income. We also felt that it should be available to those who are unable to work due to illness or disability. We felt that it should be a legal right to ensure that it is not taken away from those who need it. We also felt that it should be a legal right as it would ensure that it is available to all who need it and not just to those who are in a certain area or who are a certain age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In principle, yes. The idea of a universal basic income is a good one. However, it is important to consider the practical implications of implementing such a policy. The cost of providing a basic income to every adult would be astronomical and would require a significant increase in taxation. This would be unfair to those who are already struggling to make ends meet. We believe that a basic income should be provided to those who need it most, such as the unemployed, disabled and sick. This would ensure that the money is being spent in the most effective way possible. This is the best way to reduce poverty and inequality in society.” 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002401.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002401.soc index 461444e3..f3b6ba60 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002401.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002401.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the decision that the BBC licence fee should be reduced by half. We think that the BBC provides a great service to the public and that the licence fee is a good way to fund the BBC. However, we also think that the licence fee is quite expensive and that a lot of the money at the BBC is wasted. We think that the BBC should focus more on essential services such as news, current affairs and important events. We also think that they should focus on educational programmes and reduce the number of entertainment programmes and leave that to other services. This would help to reduce what is a mandatory licence fee. We do not believe in the licence fee and think that it should go more the route of streaming services where people can sign up but if it remains mandatory it should be reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the BBC is a good service and we believe that the licence fee is a fair price to pay for the service that they provide. However, we also believe that the licence fee is too high and should be reduced to reflect the current financial situation that people are in. We also believe that the BBC should focus more on essential services such as news, current affairs and important events. They should also focus on educational programmes and reduce the number of entertainment programmes and leave that to other services. This would help to reduce what is a mandatory licence fee. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We have come to the conclusion that the BBC licence fee should be cut in half as the BBC provides a great service, however we believe that they are making enough profit as it stands and that the fee should be reduced for the benefit of the public. We also believe that the BBC is a public service and that they should be focusing on essential services such as news, current affairs and important events. They should also focus on educational programmes and reduce the number of entertainment programmes and leave that to other services. This would help to reduce what is a mandatory licence fee. Personally we do not believe in the licence fee and it should go more the route of streaming services where people can sign up but if it remains mandatory it should be reduced.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The BBC is a great institution that provides many services and we do not want to see it disappear, however, it does need to change. The licence fee is a relic of the past and needs to be replaced with a subscription service. The BBC needs to focus more on the news and current affairs and reduce the number of entertainment programmes and leave that to other services. It needs to stop being a competitor to other services and focus on what it does best. The BBC needs to be more transparent and open about its finances and the way it spends the licence fee. It needs to stop wasting money on vanity projects and focus on the core services that it provides. It also needs to stop providing services that are available elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the decision that the BBC licence fee should be reduced by half. We think that the BBC provides a great service to the public and that the licence fee is a good way to fund the BBC. However, we also think that the licence fee is quite expensive and that a lot of the money at the BBC is wasted. We think that the BBC should focus more on essential services such as news, current affairs and important events. We also think that they should focus on educational programmes and reduce the number of entertainment programmes and leave that to other services. This would help to reduce what is a mandatory licence fee. We do not believe in the licence fee and think that it should go more the route of streaming services where people can sign up but if it remains mandatory it should be reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the BBC is a good service and we believe that the licence fee is a fair price to pay for the service that they provide. However, we also believe that the licence fee is too high and should be reduced to reflect the current financial situation that people are in. We also believe that the BBC should focus more on essential services such as news, current affairs and important events. They should also focus on educational programmes and reduce the number of entertainment programmes and leave that to other services. This would help to reduce what is a mandatory licence fee. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We have come to the conclusion that the BBC licence fee should be cut in half as the BBC provides a great service, however we believe that they are making enough profit as it stands and that the fee should be reduced for the benefit of the public. We also believe that the BBC is a public service and that they should be focusing on essential services such as news, current affairs and important events. They should also focus on educational programmes and reduce the number of entertainment programmes and leave that to other services. This would help to reduce what is a mandatory licence fee. Personally we do not believe in the licence fee and it should go more the route of streaming services where people can sign up but if it remains mandatory it should be reduced.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The BBC is a great institution that provides many services and we do not want to see it disappear, however, it does need to change. The licence fee is a relic of the past and needs to be replaced with a subscription service. The BBC needs to focus more on the news and current affairs and reduce the number of entertainment programmes and leave that to other services. It needs to stop being a competitor to other services and focus on what it does best. The BBC needs to be more transparent and open about its finances and the way it spends the licence fee. It needs to stop wasting money on vanity projects and focus on the core services that it provides. It also needs to stop providing services that are available elsewhere. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002402.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002402.soc index 8f8fe567..e604b892 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002402.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002402.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The NHS is an important institution in the UK and is something that should be protected and maintained. The NHS is a key part of the fabric of our society and we are very lucky to have it. We should be very careful that it is not eroded by american style privatisation which would be a disaster for the country. We should be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where people have to pay for healthcare and where the health service becomes a profit making business. This would be a disaster for the country. We should also be careful that the health service is not run down by successive governments. It is something that is very important to the people of this country and we should be careful that it is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. We should be very careful that the NHS is protected and maintained. We should also be careful that the NHS is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The NHS is an important institution in the UK and is something that should be protected and maintained. The NHS is a key part of the fabric of our society and we are very lucky to have it. We should be very careful that it is not eroded by american style privatisation which would be a disaster for the country. We should be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where people have to pay for healthcare and where the health service becomes a profit making business. This would be a disaster for the country. We should also be careful that the health service is not run down by successive governments. It is something that is very important to the people of this country and we should be careful that it is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. We should be very careful that the NHS is protected and maintained. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The NHS is worth its cost, because it offers free healthcare and is a right that people should not have to pay for. It is also very important to us, as it is something that sets us apart from other countries, such as America, where a health system is run for profit and the population suffers. The NHS is a gem and should be protected at all costs. We have to be careful that American style privatisation via the back door cannot happen, especially with the current government who would love this to happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The NHS is a very important part of our society. It provides equal access to healthcare, no matter your background, which should be a right of living in my opinion. In other countries where the NHS or similar systems do not exist, an accident could totally derail someone's life, where they may have to go to extremes such as selling your house, or forfeiting their education to pay medical bills, which is totally not okay. We should be proud of the NHS and fight to protect it. We have to be careful that american style privatisation via the back door can't happen - espcially with the current government who would love this to happen. I don't know if the NHS is worth the cost, but it is something that people should not have to pay for. The current system is not perfect, but there are ways to improve it, and the current system is better than any privatised health system in my opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The NHS is an important institution in the UK and is something that should be protected and maintained. The NHS is a key part of the fabric of our society and we are very lucky to have it. We should be very careful that it is not eroded by american style privatisation which would be a disaster for the country. We should be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where people have to pay for healthcare and where the health service becomes a profit making business. This would be a disaster for the country. We should also be careful that the health service is not run down by successive governments. It is something that is very important to the people of this country and we should be careful that it is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. We should be very careful that the NHS is protected and maintained. We should also be careful that the NHS is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The NHS is an important institution in the UK and is something that should be protected and maintained. The NHS is a key part of the fabric of our society and we are very lucky to have it. We should be very careful that it is not eroded by american style privatisation which would be a disaster for the country. We should be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where people have to pay for healthcare and where the health service becomes a profit making business. This would be a disaster for the country. We should also be careful that the health service is not run down by successive governments. It is something that is very important to the people of this country and we should be careful that it is not damaged by the current government who would love to privatise it. We should be very careful that the NHS is protected and maintained. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The NHS is worth its cost, because it offers free healthcare and is a right that people should not have to pay for. It is also very important to us, as it is something that sets us apart from other countries, such as America, where a health system is run for profit and the population suffers. The NHS is a gem and should be protected at all costs. We have to be careful that American style privatisation via the back door cannot happen, especially with the current government who would love this to happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The NHS is a very important part of our society. It provides equal access to healthcare, no matter your background, which should be a right of living in my opinion. In other countries where the NHS or similar systems do not exist, an accident could totally derail someone's life, where they may have to go to extremes such as selling your house, or forfeiting their education to pay medical bills, which is totally not okay. We should be proud of the NHS and fight to protect it. We have to be careful that american style privatisation via the back door can't happen - espcially with the current government who would love this to happen. I don't know if the NHS is worth the cost, but it is something that people should not have to pay for. The current system is not perfect, but there are ways to improve it, and the current system is better than any privatised health system in my opinion. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002403.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002403.soc index 7018321d..0d55e1f7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002403.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002403.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think people from all backgrounds should be given the chance to enter university. Not everyone has the money to gain access and i think this is wrong and we are missing out on the opportunity to have more skilled members within out nations. It would help with staff shortages within certain industries. However, i do not think they should be given priority over others who are more academically deserving. I believe there are enough opportunities within study to advance if you wish to, and university isn't the best option for some people. Admission should be based on merit and merit alone. There is no reason for anyone to be given priority other than on merit. However, i do not agree that financial limitations should be a limiting factor. There are funding options available for people if they need it, in fact, i think most people who attend university have to rely on some sort of student financing. So i dont agreee with finance being a limiting factor. In general we shouldnt give priority to anyone other than those most deserving.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I think people from all backgrounds should be given the chance to enter university. Not everyone has the money to gain access and i think this is wrong and we are missing out on the opportunity to have more skilled members within out nations. It would help with staff shortages within certain industries. However, i do not think they should be given priority over others who are more academically deserving. I believe there are enough opportunities within study to advance if you wish to, and university isn't the best option for some people. Admission should be based on merit and merit alone. There is no reason for anyone to be given priority other than on merit. However, we must also take into account people who cannot afford to reach University as they are missing out. It should not just be people who have easy access with the skills gaining entry or we are excluding people who could attribute to a better skilled working nation. Disadvantaged groups must also work hard and gain the merits. However, i feel underprivilege people derserve a chance in life because of their upbringing.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that all people should be given an equal opportunity to access university. However, we think that this can be accomplished without giving disadvantaged groups admission priority, because by giving this admission priority, universities risk alienating potential students and faculty who may have negative perceptions of affirmative action. We agree with opinion 3 because we think that the disadvantages some groups may face can be eliminated through other means, such as outreach programs, financial aid, and scholarships. Also, disadvantaged groups, such as women and ethnic minorities, have made great strides in recent years and can be competitive with other groups. We think that by focusing on the disadvantages of these groups, universities risk alienating these groups by implying that these groups cannot succeed without admission priority. In order to ensure that all people have an equal opportunity, we believe that affirmative action is not necessary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the decision that we feel disadvantaged groups should be given admission priority into universities. We think this because we feel that some people may not have had the opportunities to gain the same academic merits as others and we feel that this is unfair. We also feel that people from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have had the same opportunities as others in terms of getting the best grades and therefore the best jobs and therefore the best income. We feel that disadvantaged groups should be given priority to try and help reduce the income gap between the rich and poor. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think people from all backgrounds should be given the chance to enter university. Not everyone has the money to gain access and i think this is wrong and we are missing out on the opportunity to have more skilled members within out nations. It would help with staff shortages within certain industries. However, i do not think they should be given priority over others who are more academically deserving. I believe there are enough opportunities within study to advance if you wish to, and university isn't the best option for some people. Admission should be based on merit and merit alone. There is no reason for anyone to be given priority other than on merit. However, i do not agree that financial limitations should be a limiting factor. There are funding options available for people if they need it, in fact, i think most people who attend university have to rely on some sort of student financing. So i dont agreee with finance being a limiting factor. In general we shouldnt give priority to anyone other than those most deserving.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I think people from all backgrounds should be given the chance to enter university. Not everyone has the money to gain access and i think this is wrong and we are missing out on the opportunity to have more skilled members within out nations. It would help with staff shortages within certain industries. However, i do not think they should be given priority over others who are more academically deserving. I believe there are enough opportunities within study to advance if you wish to, and university isn't the best option for some people. Admission should be based on merit and merit alone. There is no reason for anyone to be given priority other than on merit. However, we must also take into account people who cannot afford to reach University as they are missing out. It should not just be people who have easy access with the skills gaining entry or we are excluding people who could attribute to a better skilled working nation. Disadvantaged groups must also work hard and gain the merits. However, i feel underprivilege people derserve a chance in life because of their upbringing.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that all people should be given an equal opportunity to access university. However, we think that this can be accomplished without giving disadvantaged groups admission priority, because by giving this admission priority, universities risk alienating potential students and faculty who may have negative perceptions of affirmative action. We agree with opinion 3 because we think that the disadvantages some groups may face can be eliminated through other means, such as outreach programs, financial aid, and scholarships. Also, disadvantaged groups, such as women and ethnic minorities, have made great strides in recent years and can be competitive with other groups. We think that by focusing on the disadvantages of these groups, universities risk alienating these groups by implying that these groups cannot succeed without admission priority. In order to ensure that all people have an equal opportunity, we believe that affirmative action is not necessary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the decision that we feel disadvantaged groups should be given admission priority into universities. We think this because we feel that some people may not have had the opportunities to gain the same academic merits as others and we feel that this is unfair. We also feel that people from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have had the same opportunities as others in terms of getting the best grades and therefore the best jobs and therefore the best income. We feel that disadvantaged groups should be given priority to try and help reduce the income gap between the rich and poor. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002404.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002404.soc index 7db65a05..febc614e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002404.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002404.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, a country should have a strong military. This is because the world is a dangerous place and we need to be prepared for any threats that may arise. A strong military is also needed to protect the country's interests abroad and to defend the country's borders. A strong military also advances technology significantly faster compared to not as we are constantly trying to one up the enemy. However, a country should not have an insanely huge military and should not proceed to try go to war with whoever, whenever. It is all about preventing and dealing with threats when they arise, but not causing problems and acting on violence/causing violence for no reason and not being the threat to other countries either. No military or a weak military doesn't really work as there needs to be enough strength to protect the country and its people, but not so large that it can literally crush any opposition regardless of what is right and/or fair. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A country should have a strong enough military to protect its people and its boarders. The strength of the military should be proportionate to the threats it faces. A country should not use its military to invade other countries or attack them without reason. A country should not have a military that is so strong that it can crush any opposition regardless of what is right and/or fair. A country should not have a military that is so weak that it cannot protect its people and its boarders. A country should not have a military that is so weak that it cannot prevent and deal with threats when they arise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A country should have a strong military. A country should have a strong military because there are always threats in the world and we need to be ready to deal with them. We live in a dangerous world and we need to be able to protect ourselves from threats. The world is always changing and we need to be able to adapt to that change. We also need to be able to protect our allies and the people that are under our protection. A strong military is also a deterrent. If we have a strong military, then people will think twice before attacking us. We also need a strong military to protect our interests. We need to be able to protect our way of life and our interests. We also need to be able to protect our borders and our boarder regions. A strong military also creates jobs and helps the economy. It is also a sign of strength. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, a country should have a strong military. The world is a dangerous place and a country needs to be able to defend itself from threats, both external and internal. A strong military can also act as a deterrent to other countries that may have aggressive intentions. A strong military also allows a country to participate in humanitarian efforts and provide aid to countries that are in need. A strong military also allows a country to participate in peacekeeping missions and provide security to countries that are experiencing civil unrest. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, a country should have a strong military. This is because the world is a dangerous place and we need to be prepared for any threats that may arise. A strong military is also needed to protect the country's interests abroad and to defend the country's borders. A strong military also advances technology significantly faster compared to not as we are constantly trying to one up the enemy. However, a country should not have an insanely huge military and should not proceed to try go to war with whoever, whenever. It is all about preventing and dealing with threats when they arise, but not causing problems and acting on violence/causing violence for no reason and not being the threat to other countries either. No military or a weak military doesn't really work as there needs to be enough strength to protect the country and its people, but not so large that it can literally crush any opposition regardless of what is right and/or fair. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A country should have a strong enough military to protect its people and its boarders. The strength of the military should be proportionate to the threats it faces. A country should not use its military to invade other countries or attack them without reason. A country should not have a military that is so strong that it can crush any opposition regardless of what is right and/or fair. A country should not have a military that is so weak that it cannot protect its people and its boarders. A country should not have a military that is so weak that it cannot prevent and deal with threats when they arise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A country should have a strong military. A country should have a strong military because there are always threats in the world and we need to be ready to deal with them. We live in a dangerous world and we need to be able to protect ourselves from threats. The world is always changing and we need to be able to adapt to that change. We also need to be able to protect our allies and the people that are under our protection. A strong military is also a deterrent. If we have a strong military, then people will think twice before attacking us. We also need a strong military to protect our interests. We need to be able to protect our way of life and our interests. We also need to be able to protect our borders and our boarder regions. A strong military also creates jobs and helps the economy. It is also a sign of strength. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, a country should have a strong military. The world is a dangerous place and a country needs to be able to defend itself from threats, both external and internal. A strong military can also act as a deterrent to other countries that may have aggressive intentions. A strong military also allows a country to participate in humanitarian efforts and provide aid to countries that are in need. A strong military also allows a country to participate in peacekeeping missions and provide security to countries that are experiencing civil unrest. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002405.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002405.soc index ef0d9d9c..daae9445 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002405.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002405.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that nightclubs often serve alcohol, which is not appropriate for children. They also often contain sexualised imagery, which is also not appropriate for children. There are also a number of safety concerns, including the fact that nightclubs are often in poorly lit areas, and the fact that many nightclubs contain drugs and drug users. There is also the issue that nightclubs can contain adult content, which is not appropriate for children. Therefore, nightclubs should be restricted to adults only. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. Nightclubs are adult environments, where alcohol is served, and can be subject to adult activities such as drug use and sexual activity, which children should not be exposed to. Thus they are not appropriate places for children. The participants in this group each had very similar views on the question. This made the consensus process very easy, with the first draft consensus statement being very close to the final consensus statement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children should be restricted from entering nightclubs because they are places where alcohol is sold and where adult behaviour occurs. Children should not be exposed to alcohol or adult behaviour. The nightclub environment is not appropriate for children. The nightclub scene is sexualised, and children should not be exposed to this. Children should not be exposed to drunk adults. Children should not be exposed to drug taking. Children should not be exposed to the dangers of the night. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. Nightclubs are adult environments, where alcohol is served, and can be subject to adult activities such as drug use and sexual activity, which children should not be exposed to. Thus they are not appropriate places for children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that nightclubs often serve alcohol, which is not appropriate for children. They also often contain sexualised imagery, which is also not appropriate for children. There are also a number of safety concerns, including the fact that nightclubs are often in poorly lit areas, and the fact that many nightclubs contain drugs and drug users. There is also the issue that nightclubs can contain adult content, which is not appropriate for children. Therefore, nightclubs should be restricted to adults only. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. Nightclubs are adult environments, where alcohol is served, and can be subject to adult activities such as drug use and sexual activity, which children should not be exposed to. Thus they are not appropriate places for children. The participants in this group each had very similar views on the question. This made the consensus process very easy, with the first draft consensus statement being very close to the final consensus statement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children should be restricted from entering nightclubs because they are places where alcohol is sold and where adult behaviour occurs. Children should not be exposed to alcohol or adult behaviour. The nightclub environment is not appropriate for children. The nightclub scene is sexualised, and children should not be exposed to this. Children should not be exposed to drunk adults. Children should not be exposed to drug taking. Children should not be exposed to the dangers of the night. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children should not be allowed into nightclubs. Nightclubs are adult environments, where alcohol is served, and can be subject to adult activities such as drug use and sexual activity, which children should not be exposed to. Thus they are not appropriate places for children. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002406.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002406.soc index 142a2ed9..f44cd866 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002406.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002406.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. This is because they do not have the necessary knowledge of how to use it safely or the experience of how to avoid things that may harm them. There are many dangers of social media that can be damaging to a child's mental health and can cause them to become isolated and exposed to bullying. Children under 13 are still developing and are at risk of being exposed to content that may have a negative effect on their mental health and development. Children are easily influenced by what they see online and it is important that they are not exposed to this at such a young age. The dangers of social media are very real and children should not have access to these apps/sites before they are old enough to understand and deal with them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the content that can be viewed on these sites/apps can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. Once children have access, it is very difficult to control what they see. Whilst some children may be mature enough to view the content, the vast majority will not be. It could negatively affect their mental well being and perceptions of the world. Secondly, it is very easy for children to become addicted to social media, which could lead to health problems and social isolation. This is something that is already being seen in teenagers and adults. Finally, children under the age of 13 do not need the added pressure that is associated with social media. They are in a vulnerable stage of their lives and are still developing their own personality and sense of self. Social media can be very harmful to their confidence and well being. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Whilst social media can be used in a positive way, the content and interactions that can occur are not suitable for children of this age. Children are not yet mature enough to handle the negative impacts that can occur from social media usage. The content that can be viewed can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. The risk of children being exposed to harmful content and interactions is too great and can have a negative impact on their mental well being and perceptions of the world. The issue of online safety is also a concern and children are not yet clued up on how to stay safe online. Social media is difficult to control with the content children are exposed to and have access to. Children of this age also do not need to be influenced by adults and don't understand certain nuances. Children are in danger of speaking to people they don't know. The group of participants believe that children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Whilst social media can be used in a positive way, the content and interactions that can occur are not suitable for children of this age. Children are not yet mature enough to handle the negative impacts that can occur from social media usage. The content that can be viewed can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. The risk of children being exposed to harmful content and interactions is too great and can have a negative impact on their mental well being and perceptions of the world. The issue of online safety is also a concern and children are not yet clued up on how to stay safe online. Social media is difficult to control with the content children are exposed to and have access to. Children of this age also do not need to be influenced by adults and don't understand certain nuances. Children are in danger of speaking to people they don't know. Social media can be a force for good, when used in a social manner but it can equally be used to undermine the vulnerable. The group of participants believe that children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. This is because they do not have the necessary knowledge of how to use it safely or the experience of how to avoid things that may harm them. There are many dangers of social media that can be damaging to a child's mental health and can cause them to become isolated and exposed to bullying. Children under 13 are still developing and are at risk of being exposed to content that may have a negative effect on their mental health and development. Children are easily influenced by what they see online and it is important that they are not exposed to this at such a young age. The dangers of social media are very real and children should not have access to these apps/sites before they are old enough to understand and deal with them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the content that can be viewed on these sites/apps can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. Once children have access, it is very difficult to control what they see. Whilst some children may be mature enough to view the content, the vast majority will not be. It could negatively affect their mental well being and perceptions of the world. Secondly, it is very easy for children to become addicted to social media, which could lead to health problems and social isolation. This is something that is already being seen in teenagers and adults. Finally, children under the age of 13 do not need the added pressure that is associated with social media. They are in a vulnerable stage of their lives and are still developing their own personality and sense of self. Social media can be very harmful to their confidence and well being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Whilst social media can be used in a positive way, the content and interactions that can occur are not suitable for children of this age. Children are not yet mature enough to handle the negative impacts that can occur from social media usage. The content that can be viewed can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. The risk of children being exposed to harmful content and interactions is too great and can have a negative impact on their mental well being and perceptions of the world. The issue of online safety is also a concern and children are not yet clued up on how to stay safe online. Social media is difficult to control with the content children are exposed to and have access to. Children of this age also do not need to be influenced by adults and don't understand certain nuances. Children are in danger of speaking to people they don't know. The group of participants believe that children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to use social media. Whilst social media can be used in a positive way, the content and interactions that can occur are not suitable for children of this age. Children are not yet mature enough to handle the negative impacts that can occur from social media usage. The content that can be viewed can be harmful and inappropriate for younger viewers. The risk of children being exposed to harmful content and interactions is too great and can have a negative impact on their mental well being and perceptions of the world. The issue of online safety is also a concern and children are not yet clued up on how to stay safe online. Social media is difficult to control with the content children are exposed to and have access to. Children of this age also do not need to be influenced by adults and don't understand certain nuances. Children are in danger of speaking to people they don't know. Social media can be a force for good, when used in a social manner but it can equally be used to undermine the vulnerable. The group of participants believe that children under 13 should not be allowed to use social media. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002407.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002407.soc index 1ff3aa64..e7cac555 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002407.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002407.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the government should restrict what children under 12 can do and see on the internet. The internet can provide a lot of information that they should not be allowed to see. It can make them more aware of adult issues. It can also put them in danger to criminals. The internet is a wonderful place, with lots of useful information. However, there is also a lot of content on there that can be somewhat easily accessed that can be damaging, especially to younger children. We think that parents should be responsible for what their children see and do on the internet, but we also think that the government should provide some sort of protection for children. We think that porn and violent things should be banned, it can cause fear and bad dreams. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There should be some restrictions on the internet for children under 12 years old. The government should take the lead on this, but parents should also have a say on what their children can and cannot access. The internet is a wonderful resource, but there are some things that are not appropriate for children. The group of participants also made the following recommendations: The government should make a list of things that are not appropriate for children to see. This list should be agreed with by parents. The list should be regularly updated. The government should make sure that the list is adhered to. The government should also make sure that the list is made available to parents. Parents should also be responsible for making sure that their children do not access inappropriate content. The government should make sure that parents are aware of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The government should restrict what children under 12 can do and see on the internet. This is because the internet can provide a lot of information that they should not be allowed to see. It can make them more aware of adult issues. It can also put them in danger to criminals. However, this is the job of the parents. Parents must take responsibility. We do not want a nanny state. The internet is a wonderful place, with lots of useful information. However, there is also a lot of content on there that can be somewhat easily accessed that can be damaging, especially to younger children. I think there should be restrictions because of this. Yes I think porn and violent things should be banned, it can cause fear and bad dreams. Yes, however i can see the debate on how far etc and the fact that it should be limited to what parents want. But there is some obvious options like porn.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I think that the government should restrict what children under 12 can do and see on the internet. However, I think that it should be left up to the parents to decide what their children can and cannot see. This is because the internet is a wonderful place, with lots of useful information. However, there is also a lot of content on there that can be somewhat easily accessed that can be damaging, especially to younger children. I think there should be restrictions because of this. However, I think that it should be left up to the parents to decide what their children can and cannot see. This is because I think that it is the job of the parents to take responsibility for their children. We do not want a nanny state.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the government should restrict what children under 12 can do and see on the internet. The internet can provide a lot of information that they should not be allowed to see. It can make them more aware of adult issues. It can also put them in danger to criminals. The internet is a wonderful place, with lots of useful information. However, there is also a lot of content on there that can be somewhat easily accessed that can be damaging, especially to younger children. We think that parents should be responsible for what their children see and do on the internet, but we also think that the government should provide some sort of protection for children. We think that porn and violent things should be banned, it can cause fear and bad dreams. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There should be some restrictions on the internet for children under 12 years old. The government should take the lead on this, but parents should also have a say on what their children can and cannot access. The internet is a wonderful resource, but there are some things that are not appropriate for children. The group of participants also made the following recommendations: The government should make a list of things that are not appropriate for children to see. This list should be agreed with by parents. The list should be regularly updated. The government should make sure that the list is adhered to. The government should also make sure that the list is made available to parents. Parents should also be responsible for making sure that their children do not access inappropriate content. The government should make sure that parents are aware of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The government should restrict what children under 12 can do and see on the internet. This is because the internet can provide a lot of information that they should not be allowed to see. It can make them more aware of adult issues. It can also put them in danger to criminals. However, this is the job of the parents. Parents must take responsibility. We do not want a nanny state. The internet is a wonderful place, with lots of useful information. However, there is also a lot of content on there that can be somewhat easily accessed that can be damaging, especially to younger children. I think there should be restrictions because of this. Yes I think porn and violent things should be banned, it can cause fear and bad dreams. Yes, however i can see the debate on how far etc and the fact that it should be limited to what parents want. But there is some obvious options like porn.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I think that the government should restrict what children under 12 can do and see on the internet. However, I think that it should be left up to the parents to decide what their children can and cannot see. This is because the internet is a wonderful place, with lots of useful information. However, there is also a lot of content on there that can be somewhat easily accessed that can be damaging, especially to younger children. I think there should be restrictions because of this. However, I think that it should be left up to the parents to decide what their children can and cannot see. This is because I think that it is the job of the parents to take responsibility for their children. We do not want a nanny state.” 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002408.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002408.soc index 73992195..8422f6cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002408.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002408.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The internet can be a useful tool for children and adults alike. However, there are dangers online, and children can be exposed to things that they should not be. There should be some level of restriction on the internet, however, this should be limited to the most extreme cases, such as pornography, and violent material. It should not be the job of the government to be a ‘nanny state’ and restrict everything. Parents must take responsibility for what their children are exposed to. If there are extreme cases of this, then the government should be allowed to step in, but this should be a last resort.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Children under 12 should not be allowed to access certain content on the internet. We feel that some of the content, such as pornography, can be damaging to children, and we feel that they should be protected from it. We also feel that the parents should be responsible for monitoring their children, but that some restrictions should be in place to make sure that they are not accessing inappropriate content. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be some restrictions on the internet for children under 12 years old. The government should take the lead on this, but parents should also have a say on what their children can and cannot access. The internet is a wonderful resource, but there are some things that are not appropriate for children. The group of participants also made the following recommendations: The government should make a list of things that are not appropriate for children to see. This list should be agreed with by parents. The list should be regularly updated. The government should make sure that the list is adhered to. The government should also make sure that the list is made available to parents. Parents should also be responsible for making sure that their children do not access inappropriate content. The government should make sure that parents are aware of this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be some restrictions on the internet for children under 12 years old. The government should take the lead on this, but parents should also have a say on what their children can and cannot access. The internet is a wonderful resource, but there are some things that are not appropriate for children. The government should make a list of things that are not appropriate for children to see. This list should be agreed with by parents. The list should be regularly updated. The government should make sure that the list is adhered to. The government should also make sure that the list is made available to parents. Parents should also be responsible for making sure that their children do not access inappropriate content. The government should make sure that parents are aware of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The internet can be a useful tool for children and adults alike. However, there are dangers online, and children can be exposed to things that they should not be. There should be some level of restriction on the internet, however, this should be limited to the most extreme cases, such as pornography, and violent material. It should not be the job of the government to be a ‘nanny state’ and restrict everything. Parents must take responsibility for what their children are exposed to. If there are extreme cases of this, then the government should be allowed to step in, but this should be a last resort.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Children under 12 should not be allowed to access certain content on the internet. We feel that some of the content, such as pornography, can be damaging to children, and we feel that they should be protected from it. We also feel that the parents should be responsible for monitoring their children, but that some restrictions should be in place to make sure that they are not accessing inappropriate content. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be some restrictions on the internet for children under 12 years old. The government should take the lead on this, but parents should also have a say on what their children can and cannot access. The internet is a wonderful resource, but there are some things that are not appropriate for children. The group of participants also made the following recommendations: The government should make a list of things that are not appropriate for children to see. This list should be agreed with by parents. The list should be regularly updated. The government should make sure that the list is adhered to. The government should also make sure that the list is made available to parents. Parents should also be responsible for making sure that their children do not access inappropriate content. The government should make sure that parents are aware of this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be some restrictions on the internet for children under 12 years old. The government should take the lead on this, but parents should also have a say on what their children can and cannot access. The internet is a wonderful resource, but there are some things that are not appropriate for children. The government should make a list of things that are not appropriate for children to see. This list should be agreed with by parents. The list should be regularly updated. The government should make sure that the list is adhered to. The government should also make sure that the list is made available to parents. Parents should also be responsible for making sure that their children do not access inappropriate content. The government should make sure that parents are aware of this. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002409.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002409.soc index 6ecbc0f3..04fda170 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002409.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002409.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Prevention is always better than cure. This is because prevention can help to reduce the number of people who get sick and also reduce the severity of illness. Therefore, there will be less pressure on the health service and more people will be able to get the care they need. Prevention is also more cost effective than cure. This is because prevention can be achieved through relatively inexpensive methods such as immunisation and health education. Cure, however, is often very expensive and can involve invasive and painful procedures. Prevention is also better because it can help to reduce the number of deaths from illness and increase life expectancy. Therefore, prevention is better than cure.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, it is better to focus on prevention than cure. This is mainly because prevention is always cheaper than cure. Prevention also leads to a healthier population and a lower disease burden. This in turn leads to a higher quality of life for the population. Prevention is also beneficial to the individual. It is common knowledge that prevention is better than cure. This is mainly because curative measures are always very expensive not only for the individual but also for the government. Examples of periods where prevention techniques such as immunization, quarantine etc played vital role includes the COVID epidemic. Also, curative measures may not lead to full restoration of the health of the individual even after spending alot of money. In addition, curative measures have their own merits. In particular, they improve life expectancy. The development of new and effective cures also drives innovation and investment in new areas of science and medicine. Moreover, new cures may lead to the discovery of ways to prevent the same diseases from occurring in the first place. In general, prevention is still better than cure. However, curative measures should not be ignored or downplayed. The two approaches should complement each other and lead to a healthier population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, we have come to the conclusion that prevention is better than cure. By focusing on prevention, we can reduce the spread of diseases and illnesses. In addition, we can lower the number of people suffering from these illnesses, which will make it easier to develop a cure as there will be less people requiring it. However, we should not rule out the possibility of developing a cure. By developing a cure, we can ensure that people can live a full and happy life, even if they have been diagnosed with a disease or illness. We should invest in prevention and cure, but put more emphasis on prevention. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is better to focus on prevention than cure. This is mainly because prevention is always cheaper than cure. Prevention also leads to a healthier population and a lower disease burden. This in turn leads to a higher quality of life for the population. Prevention also leads to a reduction in the number of cases that would require cure. This would free up resources to focus on other areas. Prevention is also beneficial to the individual. It is common knowledge that prevention is better than cure. This is mainly because curative measures are always very expensive not only for the individual but also for the government. Examples of periods where prevention techniques such as immunization, quarantine etc played vital role includes the COVID epidemic. Also, curative measures may not lead to full restoration of the health of the individual even after spending alot of money. However, it has to be noted that prevention measures have to be taken and administered effectively and in a timely manner. Otherwise, curative measures may have to be implemented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Prevention is always better than cure. This is because prevention can help to reduce the number of people who get sick and also reduce the severity of illness. Therefore, there will be less pressure on the health service and more people will be able to get the care they need. Prevention is also more cost effective than cure. This is because prevention can be achieved through relatively inexpensive methods such as immunisation and health education. Cure, however, is often very expensive and can involve invasive and painful procedures. Prevention is also better because it can help to reduce the number of deaths from illness and increase life expectancy. Therefore, prevention is better than cure.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, it is better to focus on prevention than cure. This is mainly because prevention is always cheaper than cure. Prevention also leads to a healthier population and a lower disease burden. This in turn leads to a higher quality of life for the population. Prevention is also beneficial to the individual. It is common knowledge that prevention is better than cure. This is mainly because curative measures are always very expensive not only for the individual but also for the government. Examples of periods where prevention techniques such as immunization, quarantine etc played vital role includes the COVID epidemic. Also, curative measures may not lead to full restoration of the health of the individual even after spending alot of money. In addition, curative measures have their own merits. In particular, they improve life expectancy. The development of new and effective cures also drives innovation and investment in new areas of science and medicine. Moreover, new cures may lead to the discovery of ways to prevent the same diseases from occurring in the first place. In general, prevention is still better than cure. However, curative measures should not be ignored or downplayed. The two approaches should complement each other and lead to a healthier population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, we have come to the conclusion that prevention is better than cure. By focusing on prevention, we can reduce the spread of diseases and illnesses. In addition, we can lower the number of people suffering from these illnesses, which will make it easier to develop a cure as there will be less people requiring it. However, we should not rule out the possibility of developing a cure. By developing a cure, we can ensure that people can live a full and happy life, even if they have been diagnosed with a disease or illness. We should invest in prevention and cure, but put more emphasis on prevention. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is better to focus on prevention than cure. This is mainly because prevention is always cheaper than cure. Prevention also leads to a healthier population and a lower disease burden. This in turn leads to a higher quality of life for the population. Prevention also leads to a reduction in the number of cases that would require cure. This would free up resources to focus on other areas. Prevention is also beneficial to the individual. It is common knowledge that prevention is better than cure. This is mainly because curative measures are always very expensive not only for the individual but also for the government. Examples of periods where prevention techniques such as immunization, quarantine etc played vital role includes the COVID epidemic. Also, curative measures may not lead to full restoration of the health of the individual even after spending alot of money. However, it has to be noted that prevention measures have to be taken and administered effectively and in a timely manner. Otherwise, curative measures may have to be implemented. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002410.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002410.soc index 6dd48688..700f3ebc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002410.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002410.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. I don't think we should allow doctors to precribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. I don't think we should allow doctors to precribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. I don't think we should allow doctors to precribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. I don't think we should allow doctors to precribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. I don't think we should allow doctors to precribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. I don't think we should allow doctors to precribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002411.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002411.soc index ee723f6e..95552c6a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002411.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002411.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. There are many factors that influence children's health, and fast food is only one of them. Fast food chains provide jobs for many people, and banning them from operating near schools would be unfair to them. Children are influenced by many things, and banning fast food near schools would not be a very effective way of tackling childhood obesity. It would be better to educate children on why fast food is unhealthy, and provide cheap, healthy school meals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fast food chains should be allowed to operate near schools, but should be encouraged to provide healthy options on their menu. They should also be encouraged to provide nutritional information on their food. The group felt that banning fast food chains from operating near schools would be an ineffective measure, as it would be easy for children to access fast food from other locations. Instead, they felt that the best approach would be to educate children on the importance of healthy eating, and to provide healthy meals in schools. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not ban fast food chains from operating near schools. We feel that it is not the responsibility of the fast food chain to stop children from eating their food, and that this responsibility lies with parents and schools. The fast food chains should not be blamed for the choices that children make. However, we feel that fast food chains should be encouraged to provide healthier options, and that schools should be encouraged to provide healthier meals. We also feel that children should be educated on the health risks of fast food, and that parents should be encouraged to provide healthy meals at home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. The issue is more complex than simply banning them. Children have free will and banning the chains will not stop them from eating fast food. The issue is more complex and requires more education on healthy eating and why fast food is bad for you. We also need to ensure that children have access to healthy food and that healthy food is more affordable than fast food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. There are many factors that influence children's health, and fast food is only one of them. Fast food chains provide jobs for many people, and banning them from operating near schools would be unfair to them. Children are influenced by many things, and banning fast food near schools would not be a very effective way of tackling childhood obesity. It would be better to educate children on why fast food is unhealthy, and provide cheap, healthy school meals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fast food chains should be allowed to operate near schools, but should be encouraged to provide healthy options on their menu. They should also be encouraged to provide nutritional information on their food. The group felt that banning fast food chains from operating near schools would be an ineffective measure, as it would be easy for children to access fast food from other locations. Instead, they felt that the best approach would be to educate children on the importance of healthy eating, and to provide healthy meals in schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not ban fast food chains from operating near schools. We feel that it is not the responsibility of the fast food chain to stop children from eating their food, and that this responsibility lies with parents and schools. The fast food chains should not be blamed for the choices that children make. However, we feel that fast food chains should be encouraged to provide healthier options, and that schools should be encouraged to provide healthier meals. We also feel that children should be educated on the health risks of fast food, and that parents should be encouraged to provide healthy meals at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. The issue is more complex than simply banning them. Children have free will and banning the chains will not stop them from eating fast food. The issue is more complex and requires more education on healthy eating and why fast food is bad for you. We also need to ensure that children have access to healthy food and that healthy food is more affordable than fast food. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002412.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002412.soc index ca740c6a..4d51bca1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002412.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002412.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. The main argument for this was that diesel vehicles produce more harmful emissions than petrol vehicles, and so should be taxed more. However, it was also argued that diesel vehicles are more fuel efficient than petrol vehicles, and so produce less emissions per mile. The group felt that the current system of Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax) was not fit for purpose, and that a more effective system would be to tax vehicle owners based on the emissions of their vehicle. This would encourage vehicle owners to maintain their vehicles to a high standard, and also encourage them to change their vehicle to one with lower emissions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. This is because diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. The group also felt that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would help to mitigate the use of diesels. However, the economic constraints this would have is more dangerous for the participants than the environmental damage it causes. Realistically, not as many people care about the environment, however everyone would care if they have to pay extra to use the car they love. The group also felt that taxes on vehicles should be based on actual emissions, this should be tested annually and then the owner taxed accordingly. This is because a well maintained diesel engine may have fewer harmful emissions than a poorly maintained older petrol car. Taxing vehicle owners in this way would encourage them to properly maintain their vehicle and also may encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. This is because diesel vehicles produce more pollution and are more harmful to the environment and human health. The group was also in favour of the taxes being based on the emissions of the vehicle, and not just on the type of fuel used. This is because not all diesel vehicles are the same and some produce less pollution than others. The group also suggested that the taxes be used to provide incentives for people to switch to more environmentally friendly vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. The participants believed that the taxes would help to mitigate the use of diesels and would help to protect the environment. The participants also believed that the taxes would help to reduce carbon footprints. However, the participants were also in favour of the taxes being based on actual emissions, as this would be a fairer system. The participants also believed that the taxes should be tested annually and that this would encourage vehicle owners to properly maintain their vehicles. The participants also believed that the taxes would encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. The participants also believed that the taxes would help to protect human health, as diesel vehicles contain chemicals which are hazardous to human health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. The main argument for this was that diesel vehicles produce more harmful emissions than petrol vehicles, and so should be taxed more. However, it was also argued that diesel vehicles are more fuel efficient than petrol vehicles, and so produce less emissions per mile. The group felt that the current system of Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax) was not fit for purpose, and that a more effective system would be to tax vehicle owners based on the emissions of their vehicle. This would encourage vehicle owners to maintain their vehicles to a high standard, and also encourage them to change their vehicle to one with lower emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. This is because diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. The group also felt that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would help to mitigate the use of diesels. However, the economic constraints this would have is more dangerous for the participants than the environmental damage it causes. Realistically, not as many people care about the environment, however everyone would care if they have to pay extra to use the car they love. The group also felt that taxes on vehicles should be based on actual emissions, this should be tested annually and then the owner taxed accordingly. This is because a well maintained diesel engine may have fewer harmful emissions than a poorly maintained older petrol car. Taxing vehicle owners in this way would encourage them to properly maintain their vehicle and also may encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. This is because diesel vehicles produce more pollution and are more harmful to the environment and human health. The group was also in favour of the taxes being based on the emissions of the vehicle, and not just on the type of fuel used. This is because not all diesel vehicles are the same and some produce less pollution than others. The group also suggested that the taxes be used to provide incentives for people to switch to more environmentally friendly vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. The participants believed that the taxes would help to mitigate the use of diesels and would help to protect the environment. The participants also believed that the taxes would help to reduce carbon footprints. However, the participants were also in favour of the taxes being based on actual emissions, as this would be a fairer system. The participants also believed that the taxes should be tested annually and that this would encourage vehicle owners to properly maintain their vehicles. The participants also believed that the taxes would encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. The participants also believed that the taxes would help to protect human health, as diesel vehicles contain chemicals which are hazardous to human health. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002413.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002413.soc index 5e066302..690ae5aa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002413.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002413.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. Of course this is situational and it's also important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. This will also act as a deterrent for companies to make sure that their employees are not acting in ways that cause harm. This is an important part of the free market as it ensures that companies have an incentive to make sure that their employees are acting in ways that are beneficial to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. It is important that individuals are also held to account. Corporations have a responsibility to the public and to their shareholders to make sure that they have put in place safeguards to make sure that crimes are not committed. This could include things such as background criminal checks and financial checks. It is also important that there is appropriate oversight of employees and practices. This should be done by the board of directors. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, it is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. However, it is important to ensure that the individuals responsible for the crime are also charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. Of course this is situational and it's also important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. Of course this is situational and it's also important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. This will also act as a deterrent for companies to make sure that their employees are not acting in ways that cause harm. This is an important part of the free market as it ensures that companies have an incentive to make sure that their employees are acting in ways that are beneficial to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. It is important that individuals are also held to account. Corporations have a responsibility to the public and to their shareholders to make sure that they have put in place safeguards to make sure that crimes are not committed. This could include things such as background criminal checks and financial checks. It is also important that there is appropriate oversight of employees and practices. This should be done by the board of directors. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, it is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. However, it is important to ensure that the individuals responsible for the crime are also charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. Of course this is situational and it's also important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002414.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002414.soc index 0653e38c..1a67d0dd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002414.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002414.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think that doctors should be allowed to prescribe illegal drugs such as heroin to addicts. We don't think that this is a good idea for many reasons. Firstly, this could lead to a profit motive where illegal drugs are prescribed in order to make money. This could lead to the privatisation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Secondly, this could lead to doctors abusing their power and prescribing illegal drugs to their friends. Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. We definitely would not trust doctors to be able to give these types of prescriptions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we don't think that doctors should be allowed to prescribe illegal drugs such as heroin to addicts. The reasons for this are that it is very dangerous for people to be taking these drugs and it is also very addictive. If people are given these drugs it will be very difficult to get them off them and they will be dependent on them for the rest of their lives. It is also very dangerous to prescribe these drugs to people as they can overdose on them and die. It is also very difficult to control the amount of drugs that are being prescribed. This could lead to people selling on their drugs to other people who are not addicts and this will lead to an increase in crime. This is also a very dangerous thing to do as people will be taking drugs and this will lead to them committing crimes to get money to buy drugs. This will lead to an increase in crime in society. This is also very dangerous for the doctors who are prescribing the drugs as they could be attacked by drug dealers who do not want their business to be taken away. This is also very dangerous for society as a whole as it could lead to a lot of problems in society. This -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not allow doctors to prescribe illegal drugs such as heroin to addicts as this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. Also, I don't think we should allow doctors to precribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. I don't think we should allow doctors to prescribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privatisation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think that doctors should be allowed to prescribe illegal drugs such as heroin to addicts. We don't think that this is a good idea for many reasons. Firstly, this could lead to a profit motive where illegal drugs are prescribed in order to make money. This could lead to the privatisation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Secondly, this could lead to doctors abusing their power and prescribing illegal drugs to their friends. Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. We definitely would not trust doctors to be able to give these types of prescriptions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we don't think that doctors should be allowed to prescribe illegal drugs such as heroin to addicts. The reasons for this are that it is very dangerous for people to be taking these drugs and it is also very addictive. If people are given these drugs it will be very difficult to get them off them and they will be dependent on them for the rest of their lives. It is also very dangerous to prescribe these drugs to people as they can overdose on them and die. It is also very difficult to control the amount of drugs that are being prescribed. This could lead to people selling on their drugs to other people who are not addicts and this will lead to an increase in crime. This is also a very dangerous thing to do as people will be taking drugs and this will lead to them committing crimes to get money to buy drugs. This will lead to an increase in crime in society. This is also very dangerous for the doctors who are prescribing the drugs as they could be attacked by drug dealers who do not want their business to be taken away. This is also very dangerous for society as a whole as it could lead to a lot of problems in society. This +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not allow doctors to prescribe illegal drugs such as heroin to addicts as this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. Also, I don't think we should allow doctors to precribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privasation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, this will allow a way for drugs to enter the community in a legal way and people can be abuse the system. I don't think we should allow doctors to prescribe illegal drugs such as heorion to addicts. Why? because I think in the long run there will be too much of a profit motive and this actually will be a way for the privatisation of a part of the NHS via the back door. Absolutely not as why should they have the power to do that as it could be abused and also some doctors may write out prescriptions for so called friends . Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason and can be very dangerous so no person should be able to make that decision. I definitely would not trust doctors to be be able to give these types of prescriptions. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002415.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002415.soc index b019a949..a70911b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002415.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002415.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the way people dress for church should not be frowned upon. The way people dress is a personal choice and should not be judged by others. It is important to be respectful of the church and the people who attend it, but this does not mean that you have to dress formally. It is important to remember that Jesus would not want his followers to judge each other based on their material possessions. The most important aspect to focus on is the fact that someone is attending church. They should be celebrated by others in their faith for simply being there, regardless of outfit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the way someone dresses for church should not be frowned upon. The way someone dresses should not affect their ability to worship and should not be used to judge their faith. It is important to respect the church and its community, but this does not have to mean dressing formally. There are different ways of being respectful, depending on the church and the people who worship there. Church is a very personal thing to people and there should be no pressure to dress a certain way in order to have faith. It is more important that someone is attending church, and they should be celebrated by others in their faith for simply being there, regardless of outfit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the way someone dresses for church should not be frowned upon. It is not a fashion show, and people should not be judged based on their material possessions. The important aspect to focus on is the fact that someone is attending church. They should be celebrated by others in their faith for simply being there, regardless of outfit. However, it is important to respect the environment and the community in it. The best way to do this is to dress appropriately. This will vary depending on the church and the people who worship there. It is also important to be respectful of the beliefs of others. If someone wishes to dress formally for church, then it is important to respect their decision to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is not frowned upon to dress informally for church. This is because the church is a place for worship and it is not a fashion show. The church is a place for people to feel comfortable and not judged. It is also important to note that people should be celebrated for attending church and should not be judged based on what they wear. It is important to note that there are different types of churches and the way people dress in each one may differ. In some churches it is expected to dress formally and in others it is not. It is also important to note that some religions may expect people to dress in a certain way for church. This may be different in different countries. It is important to note that it is not for us to judge how people dress for church as this is a very personal thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the way people dress for church should not be frowned upon. The way people dress is a personal choice and should not be judged by others. It is important to be respectful of the church and the people who attend it, but this does not mean that you have to dress formally. It is important to remember that Jesus would not want his followers to judge each other based on their material possessions. The most important aspect to focus on is the fact that someone is attending church. They should be celebrated by others in their faith for simply being there, regardless of outfit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the way someone dresses for church should not be frowned upon. The way someone dresses should not affect their ability to worship and should not be used to judge their faith. It is important to respect the church and its community, but this does not have to mean dressing formally. There are different ways of being respectful, depending on the church and the people who worship there. Church is a very personal thing to people and there should be no pressure to dress a certain way in order to have faith. It is more important that someone is attending church, and they should be celebrated by others in their faith for simply being there, regardless of outfit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the way someone dresses for church should not be frowned upon. It is not a fashion show, and people should not be judged based on their material possessions. The important aspect to focus on is the fact that someone is attending church. They should be celebrated by others in their faith for simply being there, regardless of outfit. However, it is important to respect the environment and the community in it. The best way to do this is to dress appropriately. This will vary depending on the church and the people who worship there. It is also important to be respectful of the beliefs of others. If someone wishes to dress formally for church, then it is important to respect their decision to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is not frowned upon to dress informally for church. This is because the church is a place for worship and it is not a fashion show. The church is a place for people to feel comfortable and not judged. It is also important to note that people should be celebrated for attending church and should not be judged based on what they wear. It is important to note that there are different types of churches and the way people dress in each one may differ. In some churches it is expected to dress formally and in others it is not. It is also important to note that some religions may expect people to dress in a certain way for church. This may be different in different countries. It is important to note that it is not for us to judge how people dress for church as this is a very personal thing. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002416.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002416.soc index b8cbdb3a..3d90b885 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002416.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002416.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the fast food industry is very powerful and has a lot of influence on people. In particular, it has a lot of influence on children and teenagers, who are often the target of fast food advertising. However, we also feel that banning fast food outlets near schools will not be a productive measure to reduce the consumption of fast food. The ban would be unfair to businesses, and would likely have little effect. Instead, we feel that the government should make more of an effort to educate people about the dangers of eating fast food, and also make more of an effort to promote healthy eating, in general. We feel that this would be a much more productive approach to this problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not ban fast food chains from operating near schools. We should encourage people to eat more healthily, but we should not limit the choices of the people. Banning fast food chains near schools would be ineffective as it would lead to fast food chains opening up further away from schools, and it would also be unfair to the businesses and to the people who work there. We should also not place too much responsibility on businesses, as it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children eat healthily and that they make the right choices. However, it was agreed that fast food chains should not be allowed to advertise their products in schools, and that there should be more education in schools on the benefits of healthy eating and the risks of eating fast food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. The issue is more complicated than that. There are many factors that influence children's health, and fast food is only one of them. Fast food chains provide jobs for many people, and banning them from operating near schools would be unfair to them. Children are influenced by many things, and banning fast food near schools would not be a very effective way of tackling childhood obesity. It would be better to educate children on why fast food is unhealthy, and provide cheap, healthy school meals. This way, we would be less likely to take away the livelihoods of many people, while still encouraging a healthy lifestyle. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. There are many factors that influence children's health, and fast food is only one of them. Fast food chains provide jobs for many people, and banning them from operating near schools would be unfair to them. Children are influenced by many things, and banning fast food near schools would not be a very effective way of tackling childhood obesity. It would be better to educate children on why fast food is unhealthy, and provide cheap, healthy school meals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the fast food industry is very powerful and has a lot of influence on people. In particular, it has a lot of influence on children and teenagers, who are often the target of fast food advertising. However, we also feel that banning fast food outlets near schools will not be a productive measure to reduce the consumption of fast food. The ban would be unfair to businesses, and would likely have little effect. Instead, we feel that the government should make more of an effort to educate people about the dangers of eating fast food, and also make more of an effort to promote healthy eating, in general. We feel that this would be a much more productive approach to this problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not ban fast food chains from operating near schools. We should encourage people to eat more healthily, but we should not limit the choices of the people. Banning fast food chains near schools would be ineffective as it would lead to fast food chains opening up further away from schools, and it would also be unfair to the businesses and to the people who work there. We should also not place too much responsibility on businesses, as it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children eat healthily and that they make the right choices. However, it was agreed that fast food chains should not be allowed to advertise their products in schools, and that there should be more education in schools on the benefits of healthy eating and the risks of eating fast food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. The issue is more complicated than that. There are many factors that influence children's health, and fast food is only one of them. Fast food chains provide jobs for many people, and banning them from operating near schools would be unfair to them. Children are influenced by many things, and banning fast food near schools would not be a very effective way of tackling childhood obesity. It would be better to educate children on why fast food is unhealthy, and provide cheap, healthy school meals. This way, we would be less likely to take away the livelihoods of many people, while still encouraging a healthy lifestyle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fast food chains should not be banned from operating near schools. There are many factors that influence children's health, and fast food is only one of them. Fast food chains provide jobs for many people, and banning them from operating near schools would be unfair to them. Children are influenced by many things, and banning fast food near schools would not be a very effective way of tackling childhood obesity. It would be better to educate children on why fast food is unhealthy, and provide cheap, healthy school meals. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002417.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002417.soc index 250f7772..1a7c4f51 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002417.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002417.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someones land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own other peoples land. People work hard for their land and it should not be taken away. The government can offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land and should not be able to take it from its rightful owner. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land, and should not be able to take it from the land owner. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own other peoples land. People work hard for their land and it should not be taken away. The government should be able to offer to purchase, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someones land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own other peoples land. People work hard for their land and it should not be taken away. The government can offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land and should not be able to take it from its rightful owner. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land, and should not be able to take it from the land owner. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own other peoples land. People work hard for their land and it should not be taken away. The government should be able to offer to purchase, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002418.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002418.soc index f9ef5ed2..c6c32eb4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002418.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002418.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land and should not be able to take it from its rightful owner. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someones land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own other peoples land. People work hard for their land and it should not be taken away. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land and should not be able to take it from its rightful owner. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the government should not be able to take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land, so they should not be able to take it. The land owner should be able to decline the government’s offer to purchase the land. If they do decline, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land and should not be able to take it from its rightful owner. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someones land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own other peoples land. People work hard for their land and it should not be taken away. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the government should not be able to forcibly take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land and should not be able to take it from its rightful owner. The government should be able to offer to purchase the land, but if the land owner declines, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the government should not be able to take someone’s land and turn it into a public park. The government does not own the land, so they should not be able to take it. The land owner should be able to decline the government’s offer to purchase the land. If they do decline, then this should be the end of the matter. The government cannot take something that does not belong to them. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002419.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002419.soc index 61ca0338..9f96263c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002419.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002419.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The majority of participants believed that it is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. There is a great deal of variation in the circumstances under which this would be appropriate, including if the crimes were committed whilst in work and related to their work activity and the individual employees were also charged separately. It was noted that corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It is a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. This is to allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. Of course this is situational and it's also important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. This will also act as a deterrent for companies to make sure that their employees are not acting in ways that cause harm. This is an important part of the free market as it ensures that companies have an incentive to make sure that their employees are acting in ways that are beneficial to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. Of course this is situational and it's also important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. This will also act as a deterrent for companies to make sure that their employees are not acting in ways that cause harm. This is an important part of the free market as it ensures that companies have an incentive to make sure that their employees are acting in ways that are beneficial to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, it is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. It is important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The majority of participants believed that it is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. There is a great deal of variation in the circumstances under which this would be appropriate, including if the crimes were committed whilst in work and related to their work activity and the individual employees were also charged separately. It was noted that corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It is a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. This is to allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. Of course this is situational and it's also important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. This will also act as a deterrent for companies to make sure that their employees are not acting in ways that cause harm. This is an important part of the free market as it ensures that companies have an incentive to make sure that their employees are acting in ways that are beneficial to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is appropriate for corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. Of course this is situational and it's also important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. This will also act as a deterrent for companies to make sure that their employees are not acting in ways that cause harm. This is an important part of the free market as it ensures that companies have an incentive to make sure that their employees are acting in ways that are beneficial to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, it is appropriate to allow corporations to be liable for the crimes committed by their directors and employees. It is important that the individuals responsible for the crime should also be charged separately. Corporations have responsibilities to the public and to their own shareholders. Where there is a chance that by neglecting those responsibilities a corporation does harm then it should be prosecuted. It's a company's responsibility to put safeguards in place to make sure their employees cannot act in ways that cause serious harm. Employees and practises should have appropriate oversight and where this is not the case then the company itself should be liable. By making corporations liable we allow for people who were caused harm to find financial solutions to make themselves whole. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002420.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002420.soc index 5ebcdddd..9fc9e87c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002420.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002420.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking cigarettes. However, we were all aware that this would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people seeking out cigarettes in illegal ways. We also acknowledged that it is a difficult issue, and that we were in favour of a ban because of the health risks to the smoker and those around them. We also acknowledged that cigarettes can be a social activity for some people, and that it would be difficult to remove this from their lives. We felt that the health risks to the smoker and those around them outweighed this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the current law is adequate, and that there is no need for a ban on cigarettes. Whilst we recognise that smoking is harmful, it is the right of the individual to choose what they want to do. We believe that it is important to educate people on the risks of smoking and to discourage people from taking it up, but not to ban it. We also believe that it is important to make it clear that smoking is not something that should be done indoors, and that it should be done in designated smoking areas outdoors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on cigarettes. However, the group was in favour of a ban on cigarettes for people under the age of 18, and a ban on smoking in public places. The group was also in favour of a ban on smoking in cars when children are present. The group believed that smoking is a personal choice and that people should be free to make their own decisions. However, the group also believed that cigarettes are harmful to health and that people should be discouraged from smoking. The group believed that the best way to discourage people from smoking is to provide information on the health risks of smoking, and to provide support to people who want to quit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking, but recognised that this would be very difficult to implement and enforce. There was also a recognition that it would be very difficult for people who have smoked for many years to give up. The group recognised that there were many health benefits to be gained from a ban, but also recognised that there were many people who would not be able to give up. The group believed that the ban should be introduced for younger people, to stop them getting addicted to nicotine. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking cigarettes. However, we were all aware that this would be difficult to enforce and that it would lead to people seeking out cigarettes in illegal ways. We also acknowledged that it is a difficult issue, and that we were in favour of a ban because of the health risks to the smoker and those around them. We also acknowledged that cigarettes can be a social activity for some people, and that it would be difficult to remove this from their lives. We felt that the health risks to the smoker and those around them outweighed this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the current law is adequate, and that there is no need for a ban on cigarettes. Whilst we recognise that smoking is harmful, it is the right of the individual to choose what they want to do. We believe that it is important to educate people on the risks of smoking and to discourage people from taking it up, but not to ban it. We also believe that it is important to make it clear that smoking is not something that should be done indoors, and that it should be done in designated smoking areas outdoors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on cigarettes. However, the group was in favour of a ban on cigarettes for people under the age of 18, and a ban on smoking in public places. The group was also in favour of a ban on smoking in cars when children are present. The group believed that smoking is a personal choice and that people should be free to make their own decisions. However, the group also believed that cigarettes are harmful to health and that people should be discouraged from smoking. The group believed that the best way to discourage people from smoking is to provide information on the health risks of smoking, and to provide support to people who want to quit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on smoking, but recognised that this would be very difficult to implement and enforce. There was also a recognition that it would be very difficult for people who have smoked for many years to give up. The group recognised that there were many health benefits to be gained from a ban, but also recognised that there were many people who would not be able to give up. The group believed that the ban should be introduced for younger people, to stop them getting addicted to nicotine. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002421.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002421.soc index beae0b60..436e9379 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002421.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002421.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. This is because diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. The group also felt that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would help to mitigate the use of diesels. However, the economic constraints this would have is more dangerous for the participants than the environmental damage it causes. Realistically, not as many people care about the environment, however everyone would care if they have to pay extra to use the car they love. The group also felt that taxes on vehicles should be based on actual emissions, this should be tested annually and then the owner taxed accordingly. This is because a well maintained diesel engine may have fewer harmful emissions than a poorly maintained older petrol car. Taxing vehicle owners in this way would encourage them to properly maintain their vehicle and also may encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. The group also felt that any extra taxes raised from diesel vehicles should be put back into environmental initiatives to further improve things. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. The main argument was that diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. However, the economic constraints this would have is more dangerous for me than the environmental damage it causes. Realistically not as many people care about the environment, however everyone would care if they have to pay extra to use the car they love. Taxes on vehicles should be based on actual emissions, this should be tested annually and then the owner taxed accordingly. This is because a well maintained diesel engine may have fewer harmful emissions than a poorly maintained older petrol car. Taxing vehicle owners in this way would encourage them to properly maintain their vehicle and also may encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group in general was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. This is because diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. The group also felt that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would help to mitigate the use of diesels. However, the economic constraints this would have is more dangerous for the participants than the environmental damage it causes. Realistically, not as many people care about the environment, however everyone would care if they have to pay extra to use the car they love. The group also felt that taxes on vehicles should be based on actual emissions, this should be tested annually and then the owner taxed accordingly. This is because a well maintained diesel engine may have fewer harmful emissions than a poorly maintained older petrol car. Taxing vehicle owners in this way would encourage them to properly maintain their vehicle and also may encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. In the future, the group felt that higher taxes on diesel vehicles should be implemented. The higher taxes would be a deterrent for people to purchase diesel vehicles. The taxes would also go towards funding clean energy programs and other environmental initiatives to further improve things. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. The main argument for this was that diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. In addition, it was argued that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would encourage people to switch to more environmentally friendly vehicles, such as electric cars. It was also argued that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would discourage people from driving diesel vehicles, which would reduce congestion and pollution in cities. However, it was also noted that higher taxes on diesel vehicles could have negative economic effects, as the cost of driving a diesel vehicle would increase and this could discourage people from buying diesel vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. This is because diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. The group also felt that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would help to mitigate the use of diesels. However, the economic constraints this would have is more dangerous for the participants than the environmental damage it causes. Realistically, not as many people care about the environment, however everyone would care if they have to pay extra to use the car they love. The group also felt that taxes on vehicles should be based on actual emissions, this should be tested annually and then the owner taxed accordingly. This is because a well maintained diesel engine may have fewer harmful emissions than a poorly maintained older petrol car. Taxing vehicle owners in this way would encourage them to properly maintain their vehicle and also may encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. The group also felt that any extra taxes raised from diesel vehicles should be put back into environmental initiatives to further improve things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. The main argument was that diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. However, the economic constraints this would have is more dangerous for me than the environmental damage it causes. Realistically not as many people care about the environment, however everyone would care if they have to pay extra to use the car they love. Taxes on vehicles should be based on actual emissions, this should be tested annually and then the owner taxed accordingly. This is because a well maintained diesel engine may have fewer harmful emissions than a poorly maintained older petrol car. Taxing vehicle owners in this way would encourage them to properly maintain their vehicle and also may encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group in general was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. This is because diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. The group also felt that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would help to mitigate the use of diesels. However, the economic constraints this would have is more dangerous for the participants than the environmental damage it causes. Realistically, not as many people care about the environment, however everyone would care if they have to pay extra to use the car they love. The group also felt that taxes on vehicles should be based on actual emissions, this should be tested annually and then the owner taxed accordingly. This is because a well maintained diesel engine may have fewer harmful emissions than a poorly maintained older petrol car. Taxing vehicle owners in this way would encourage them to properly maintain their vehicle and also may encourage people with high emission vehicles to change them. In the future, the group felt that higher taxes on diesel vehicles should be implemented. The higher taxes would be a deterrent for people to purchase diesel vehicles. The taxes would also go towards funding clean energy programs and other environmental initiatives to further improve things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of higher taxes on diesel vehicles. The main argument for this was that diesel vehicles pollute more and contain chemicals more hazardous to human health. In addition, it was argued that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would encourage people to switch to more environmentally friendly vehicles, such as electric cars. It was also argued that higher taxes on diesel vehicles would discourage people from driving diesel vehicles, which would reduce congestion and pollution in cities. However, it was also noted that higher taxes on diesel vehicles could have negative economic effects, as the cost of driving a diesel vehicle would increase and this could discourage people from buying diesel vehicles. 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002422.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002422.soc index f0787f4f..ff30fec6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002422.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002422.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a minimum wage increase, however we felt that the increase should be gradual rather than a sudden increase to £20 per hour. We felt that a sudden increase would be detrimental to businesses and would fuel inflation. A gradual increase would be more manageable and would not have such a negative impact on the economy. We felt that the increase should be gradual and should be increased by a small amount each year. This would be more manageable for businesses and would not fuel inflation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The minimum wage should be raised to £20 per hour. This would help people who are on zero hour contracts or part time work. The minimum wage should be raised as the economy is currently in a good place and it is a good time to do so. It would be good to help people who are on low wages. However, it is important to remember that this would be a huge increase for businesses, especially small businesses. Businesses would not be able to afford to employ people at this rate. The increase would also fuel inflation, which is already high at the moment. It is important to remember that the minimum wage should be raised gradually, rather than a sudden increase. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a minimum wage increase to £20 per hour. However, it was also felt that the increase should be implemented gradually, over a period of time, rather than all at once. This would give businesses time to adjust to the change and allow for inflation to be kept under control. The group also felt that the increase should be implemented in stages, with the first stage being an increase to £15 per hour, and then a further increase to £20 per hour a year or two later. This would also give the government time to assess the impact of the increase and make any necessary changes to the policy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a rise in the minimum wage to £20 per hour. The group felt that this would be a positive move for the economy as a whole and would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor. The group was also of the opinion that this would help to reduce the number of people living in poverty. However, the group did express some concerns that this would lead to an increase in inflation and that this would be detrimental to the economy. The group also expressed concerns that this would lead to an increase in unemployment as employers would be unable to afford to pay their staff the new minimum wage. The group felt that this would be particularly detrimental to small businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a minimum wage increase, however we felt that the increase should be gradual rather than a sudden increase to £20 per hour. We felt that a sudden increase would be detrimental to businesses and would fuel inflation. A gradual increase would be more manageable and would not have such a negative impact on the economy. We felt that the increase should be gradual and should be increased by a small amount each year. This would be more manageable for businesses and would not fuel inflation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The minimum wage should be raised to £20 per hour. This would help people who are on zero hour contracts or part time work. The minimum wage should be raised as the economy is currently in a good place and it is a good time to do so. It would be good to help people who are on low wages. However, it is important to remember that this would be a huge increase for businesses, especially small businesses. Businesses would not be able to afford to employ people at this rate. The increase would also fuel inflation, which is already high at the moment. It is important to remember that the minimum wage should be raised gradually, rather than a sudden increase. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a minimum wage increase to £20 per hour. However, it was also felt that the increase should be implemented gradually, over a period of time, rather than all at once. This would give businesses time to adjust to the change and allow for inflation to be kept under control. The group also felt that the increase should be implemented in stages, with the first stage being an increase to £15 per hour, and then a further increase to £20 per hour a year or two later. This would also give the government time to assess the impact of the increase and make any necessary changes to the policy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a rise in the minimum wage to £20 per hour. The group felt that this would be a positive move for the economy as a whole and would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor. The group was also of the opinion that this would help to reduce the number of people living in poverty. However, the group did express some concerns that this would lead to an increase in inflation and that this would be detrimental to the economy. The group also expressed concerns that this would lead to an increase in unemployment as employers would be unable to afford to pay their staff the new minimum wage. The group felt that this would be particularly detrimental to small businesses. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002423.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002423.soc index faf8548f..f8b62ff4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002423.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002423.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that taxes should be increased on property owners. One argument for increasing taxes on property owners is that it could generate additional revenue for the government, which could then be used to fund important public services such as education & healthcare. Property owners have the advantage of owning a valuable asset, and increasing taxes on them could be seen as a way of redistributing wealth ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. Additionally, higher taxes on property owners could help address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on property owners. The main argument for this was that it could help to address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. However, the group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of property owners. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase taxes on those who own a single property, as this could make it more difficult for people to get on the property ladder. The group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of taxes. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase council tax on residential property owners, as this would penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. The group felt that it was more appropriate to increase taxes on commercial property owners, as this would not penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “In general, the taxes on property owners should not be increased, as this could discourage people from buying property and lead to a decrease in the housing supply. However, there is a strong argument for increasing taxes on those who own multiple properties, as this could help to reduce the wealth gap between those who own property and those who do not. This could also help to address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. Additionally, increasing taxes on those who own multiple properties could help to generate additional revenue for the government, which could then be used to fund important public services such as education & healthcare.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that taxes should be increased on property owners. The current system is not fair, as those who own multiple properties are not taxed in proportion to their wealth. This leads to income inequality, as the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not is growing. Increasing taxes on property owners could help address this issue, as it could reduce the gap between the rich and poor. Additionally, higher taxes on property owners could help generate additional revenue for the government, which could then be used to fund important public services such as education & healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that taxes should be increased on property owners. One argument for increasing taxes on property owners is that it could generate additional revenue for the government, which could then be used to fund important public services such as education & healthcare. Property owners have the advantage of owning a valuable asset, and increasing taxes on them could be seen as a way of redistributing wealth ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. Additionally, higher taxes on property owners could help address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on property owners. The main argument for this was that it could help to address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. However, the group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of property owners. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase taxes on those who own a single property, as this could make it more difficult for people to get on the property ladder. The group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of taxes. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase council tax on residential property owners, as this would penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. The group felt that it was more appropriate to increase taxes on commercial property owners, as this would not penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “In general, the taxes on property owners should not be increased, as this could discourage people from buying property and lead to a decrease in the housing supply. However, there is a strong argument for increasing taxes on those who own multiple properties, as this could help to reduce the wealth gap between those who own property and those who do not. This could also help to address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. Additionally, increasing taxes on those who own multiple properties could help to generate additional revenue for the government, which could then be used to fund important public services such as education & healthcare.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that taxes should be increased on property owners. The current system is not fair, as those who own multiple properties are not taxed in proportion to their wealth. This leads to income inequality, as the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not is growing. Increasing taxes on property owners could help address this issue, as it could reduce the gap between the rich and poor. Additionally, higher taxes on property owners could help generate additional revenue for the government, which could then be used to fund important public services such as education & healthcare. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002424.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002424.soc index 27b0362d..2defec49 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002424.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002424.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is hostile, but not unjustifiably so. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about China’s government, as we don't get much information on them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is hostility towards the Chinese government, but it is not unjustified. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about China's government, as we don't get much information on them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is one of hostility, although this is not a very strongly-held opinion. This is because the average Briton is largely uneducated on the affairs of the Chinese government, and so is largely unaware of their actions. The average Briton is also largely unaffected by the actions of the Chinese government, and so does not have a strong opinion on them. However, the average Briton is aware that the Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. The average Briton is also aware that the Chinese government is responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, and so is hostile towards them for this reason. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is hostile, but not unjustifiably so. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. The average Briton is also largely uneducated about China and its government, as we don't get much information on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is hostile, but not unjustifiably so. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about China’s government, as we don't get much information on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is hostility towards the Chinese government, but it is not unjustified. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about China's government, as we don't get much information on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is one of hostility, although this is not a very strongly-held opinion. This is because the average Briton is largely uneducated on the affairs of the Chinese government, and so is largely unaware of their actions. The average Briton is also largely unaffected by the actions of the Chinese government, and so does not have a strong opinion on them. However, the average Briton is aware that the Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. The average Briton is also aware that the Chinese government is responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, and so is hostile towards them for this reason. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is hostile, but not unjustifiably so. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. The average Briton is also largely uneducated about China and its government, as we don't get much information on them. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002425.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002425.soc index 9f6385ac..c896e229 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002425.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002425.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of an increase in the minimum wage to £20 per hour. The majority of the group felt that the current minimum wage of £10.50 per hour is not a living wage and that the increase to £20 per hour would allow individuals to live comfortably. However, it was noted that the increase would have to be funded by the government and would lead to an increase in inflation. It was also noted that the increase would have a detrimental effect on small businesses who would be unable to afford to employ staff at the increased rate. The consensus view was that the increase would be good for individuals but bad for businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a minimum wage increase, however we felt that the increase should be gradual rather than a sudden increase to £20 per hour. We felt that a sudden increase would be detrimental to businesses and would fuel inflation. A gradual increase would be more manageable and would not have such a negative impact on the economy. We felt that the increase should be gradual and should be increased by a small amount each year. This would be more manageable for businesses and would not fuel inflation. This would be a win-win situation for both employers and employees. Employees would be better off and employers would not be adversely affected. We felt that the increase should be to £15 per hour, which would be more manageable for businesses and would not fuel inflation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group of participants have come to the consensus view that we do not feel the minimum wage should be increased to £20 per hour. We feel this is too much of a jump from the current £10.50. We feel that it would cause small businesses to go under and the consequences of this would be detrimental to the economy. We feel the best way to increase minimum wage is gradually. We feel that if it was increased to £13 per hour that would be more beneficial. We feel that this would not be as detrimental to businesses as it is not as much of a jump from £10.50. We feel that a gradual increase would be more sustainable for businesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a minimum wage increase, however we felt that the increase should be gradual rather than a sudden increase to £20 per hour. We felt that a sudden increase would be detrimental to businesses and would fuel inflation. A gradual increase would be more manageable and would not have such a negative impact on the economy. We felt that the increase should be gradual and should be increased by a small amount each year. This would be more manageable for businesses and would not fuel inflation. This would also allow for more jobs to be created as more people would be able to afford to work. We also felt that there would be more tax revenue and less unemployment if the increase was gradual. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of an increase in the minimum wage to £20 per hour. The majority of the group felt that the current minimum wage of £10.50 per hour is not a living wage and that the increase to £20 per hour would allow individuals to live comfortably. However, it was noted that the increase would have to be funded by the government and would lead to an increase in inflation. It was also noted that the increase would have a detrimental effect on small businesses who would be unable to afford to employ staff at the increased rate. The consensus view was that the increase would be good for individuals but bad for businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a minimum wage increase, however we felt that the increase should be gradual rather than a sudden increase to £20 per hour. We felt that a sudden increase would be detrimental to businesses and would fuel inflation. A gradual increase would be more manageable and would not have such a negative impact on the economy. We felt that the increase should be gradual and should be increased by a small amount each year. This would be more manageable for businesses and would not fuel inflation. This would be a win-win situation for both employers and employees. Employees would be better off and employers would not be adversely affected. We felt that the increase should be to £15 per hour, which would be more manageable for businesses and would not fuel inflation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group of participants have come to the consensus view that we do not feel the minimum wage should be increased to £20 per hour. We feel this is too much of a jump from the current £10.50. We feel that it would cause small businesses to go under and the consequences of this would be detrimental to the economy. We feel the best way to increase minimum wage is gradually. We feel that if it was increased to £13 per hour that would be more beneficial. We feel that this would not be as detrimental to businesses as it is not as much of a jump from £10.50. We feel that a gradual increase would be more sustainable for businesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a minimum wage increase, however we felt that the increase should be gradual rather than a sudden increase to £20 per hour. We felt that a sudden increase would be detrimental to businesses and would fuel inflation. A gradual increase would be more manageable and would not have such a negative impact on the economy. We felt that the increase should be gradual and should be increased by a small amount each year. This would be more manageable for businesses and would not fuel inflation. This would also allow for more jobs to be created as more people would be able to afford to work. We also felt that there would be more tax revenue and less unemployment if the increase was gradual. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002426.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002426.soc index f54bbe61..4bbcce58 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002426.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002426.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is one of hostility, but not unjustifiably so. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about China’s government, as we don't get much information on them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is hostile, but not unjustifiably so. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about China’s government, as we don't get much information on them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The average Briton's attitude to the Chinese government is hostile. The Chinese government is often blamed for Covid-19 and its treatment of the Uyghurs. The average Briton is also suspicious of the Chinese government's lack of transparency and its close ties with Russia. However, there are some who are supportive of the Chinese government, as they believe that the Chinese government has handled Covid-19 well, and that it has a right to censor content, as long as it does not violate human rights.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is one of suspicion and fear. The Chinese government’s human rights abuses, mistreatment of Uyghurs, and its lack of transparency and honesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic have led to a hostile attitude from the average Briton. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about the Chinese government, and so their attitude is largely based on misinformation and a lack of transparency from the Chinese government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is one of hostility, but not unjustifiably so. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about China’s government, as we don't get much information on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is hostile, but not unjustifiably so. The Chinese government is responsible for appalling human rights abuses, including their treatment of Uyghurs, and they are known to spy on the West. Furthermore, their lack of action and dishonesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic arguably helped the virus travel around the world instead of being contained. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about China’s government, as we don't get much information on them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The average Briton's attitude to the Chinese government is hostile. The Chinese government is often blamed for Covid-19 and its treatment of the Uyghurs. The average Briton is also suspicious of the Chinese government's lack of transparency and its close ties with Russia. However, there are some who are supportive of the Chinese government, as they believe that the Chinese government has handled Covid-19 well, and that it has a right to censor content, as long as it does not violate human rights.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The average Briton’s attitude to the Chinese government is one of suspicion and fear. The Chinese government’s human rights abuses, mistreatment of Uyghurs, and its lack of transparency and honesty at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic have led to a hostile attitude from the average Briton. However, the average Briton is largely uneducated about the Chinese government, and so their attitude is largely based on misinformation and a lack of transparency from the Chinese government. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002427.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002427.soc index ae808ed1..ed8ed846 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002427.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002427.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants was in favour of increasing taxes on property owners. The main argument for this was that it could help to address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. However, the group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of property owners. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase taxes on those who own a single property, as this could make it more difficult for people to get on the property ladder. The group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of taxes. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase council tax on residential property owners, as this would penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. The group felt that it was more appropriate to increase taxes on commercial property owners, as this would not penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on property owners. The main argument for this was that it could help to address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. However, the group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of property owners. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase taxes on those who own a single property, as this could make it more difficult for people to get on the property ladder. The group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of taxes. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase council tax on residential property owners, as this would penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. The group felt that it was more appropriate to increase taxes on commercial property owners, as this would not penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that taxes should be increased on property owners. One argument for increasing taxes on property owners is that it could generate additional revenue for the government, which could then be used to fund important public services such as education & healthcare. Property owners have the advantage of owning a valuable asset, and increasing taxes on them could be seen as a way of redistributing wealth ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. Additionally, higher taxes on property owners could help address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase taxes on property owners, but only if they own more than one property. The increase in taxes should be gradual, with each additional property owned resulting in an increase in the amount of tax paid. The increase in taxes should be in the form of income tax. This will not only help to address income inequality but will also help to address the issue of affordability of housing, as it will discourage people from owning multiple properties and will discourage landlords from increasing rents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants was in favour of increasing taxes on property owners. The main argument for this was that it could help to address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. However, the group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of property owners. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase taxes on those who own a single property, as this could make it more difficult for people to get on the property ladder. The group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of taxes. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase council tax on residential property owners, as this would penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. The group felt that it was more appropriate to increase taxes on commercial property owners, as this would not penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on property owners. The main argument for this was that it could help to address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. However, the group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of property owners. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase taxes on those who own a single property, as this could make it more difficult for people to get on the property ladder. The group also felt that it was important to distinguish between different types of taxes. For example, the group felt that it was unfair to increase council tax on residential property owners, as this would penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. The group felt that it was more appropriate to increase taxes on commercial property owners, as this would not penalise people who are already paying a high council tax and have already paid tax on the purchase of the property. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that taxes should be increased on property owners. One argument for increasing taxes on property owners is that it could generate additional revenue for the government, which could then be used to fund important public services such as education & healthcare. Property owners have the advantage of owning a valuable asset, and increasing taxes on them could be seen as a way of redistributing wealth ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. Additionally, higher taxes on property owners could help address the issue of income inequality, as it could reduce the gap between those who own multiple properties and those who do not own any. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase taxes on property owners, but only if they own more than one property. The increase in taxes should be gradual, with each additional property owned resulting in an increase in the amount of tax paid. The increase in taxes should be in the form of income tax. This will not only help to address income inequality but will also help to address the issue of affordability of housing, as it will discourage people from owning multiple properties and will discourage landlords from increasing rents. 3: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002428.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002428.soc index 5f2e6542..c281acf6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002428.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002428.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, a universal basic income would increase employment. A universal basic income would mean that people would be able to take up jobs that they enjoy and are skilled at, rather than jobs that they need to do to survive. It would also mean that people who have been unable to work because of caring responsibilities or other commitments would be able to work. This would mean that the economy would benefit from the skills and talents of a wider range of people. A universal basic income would also mean that people would be able to take time out of work to retrain and learn new skills, which would also be good for the economy. However, it is likely that some people would choose not to work if they were receiving a universal basic income, which would mean that there would be less people working and paying taxes. This could mean that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the universal basic income, which could discourage some people from working. It is also possible that a universal basic income would mean that some people would be worse off, as they would be paying more tax but would not be receiving a universal basic income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A universal basic income would increase employment by making it easier for people to work and by encouraging people to work in jobs that they enjoy and are skilled at, rather than jobs that they need to do to survive. A universal basic income would also mean that people who have been unable to work because of caring responsibilities or other commitments would be able to work. This would mean that the economy would benefit from the skills and talents of a wider range of people. A universal basic income would also mean that people would be able to take time out of work to retrain and learn new skills, which would also be good for the economy. However, it is likely that some people would choose not to work if they were receiving a universal basic income, which would mean that there would be less people working and paying taxes. This could mean that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the universal basic income, which could discourage some people from working. It is also possible that a universal basic income would mean that some people would be worse off, as they would be paying more tax but would not be receiving a universal basic income. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the introduction of a universal basic income is likely to increase employment as it would free people up to take jobs that they want to do and allow them to work in jobs that are not well paid. It would also allow people to work part-time and still be able to support their families. It would also allow people to take time out to retrain and improve their skills. The introduction of a universal basic income would also mean that people would be in a better position to look after their physical and mental health and this would mean that they would be more able to work. The introduction of a universal basic income would also mean that people would be able to afford to travel to work and this would mean that they would be more likely to take jobs that are further away from where they live. This would mean that they would be able to live in areas that are cheaper and have more affordable housing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A universal basic income would increase employment in some areas. There would be a large number of people who would no longer feel the need to work if they are receiving an income without any strings attached. However, it would also free up others who have not been able to take the type of work that they are capable of or would choose to have as they were unable to live on the income it gave them. A universal basic income would also allow people to focus more on their hobbies and family, which would ultimately improve their well-being, putting them in a better position to be able to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, a universal basic income would increase employment. A universal basic income would mean that people would be able to take up jobs that they enjoy and are skilled at, rather than jobs that they need to do to survive. It would also mean that people who have been unable to work because of caring responsibilities or other commitments would be able to work. This would mean that the economy would benefit from the skills and talents of a wider range of people. A universal basic income would also mean that people would be able to take time out of work to retrain and learn new skills, which would also be good for the economy. However, it is likely that some people would choose not to work if they were receiving a universal basic income, which would mean that there would be less people working and paying taxes. This could mean that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the universal basic income, which could discourage some people from working. It is also possible that a universal basic income would mean that some people would be worse off, as they would be paying more tax but would not be receiving a universal basic income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A universal basic income would increase employment by making it easier for people to work and by encouraging people to work in jobs that they enjoy and are skilled at, rather than jobs that they need to do to survive. A universal basic income would also mean that people who have been unable to work because of caring responsibilities or other commitments would be able to work. This would mean that the economy would benefit from the skills and talents of a wider range of people. A universal basic income would also mean that people would be able to take time out of work to retrain and learn new skills, which would also be good for the economy. However, it is likely that some people would choose not to work if they were receiving a universal basic income, which would mean that there would be less people working and paying taxes. This could mean that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the universal basic income, which could discourage some people from working. It is also possible that a universal basic income would mean that some people would be worse off, as they would be paying more tax but would not be receiving a universal basic income. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the introduction of a universal basic income is likely to increase employment as it would free people up to take jobs that they want to do and allow them to work in jobs that are not well paid. It would also allow people to work part-time and still be able to support their families. It would also allow people to take time out to retrain and improve their skills. The introduction of a universal basic income would also mean that people would be in a better position to look after their physical and mental health and this would mean that they would be more able to work. The introduction of a universal basic income would also mean that people would be able to afford to travel to work and this would mean that they would be more likely to take jobs that are further away from where they live. This would mean that they would be able to live in areas that are cheaper and have more affordable housing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income would increase employment in some areas. There would be a large number of people who would no longer feel the need to work if they are receiving an income without any strings attached. However, it would also free up others who have not been able to take the type of work that they are capable of or would choose to have as they were unable to live on the income it gave them. A universal basic income would also allow people to focus more on their hobbies and family, which would ultimately improve their well-being, putting them in a better position to be able to work. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002429.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002429.soc index a1ece1c3..1fbb631c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002429.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002429.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidising electric vehicles. The group felt that electric vehicles were better for the environment, and that the government should be encouraging their use. However, the group was not in favour of the government subsidising electric vehicles to the point where they were cheaper than petrol/diesel cars, as this would make the cost of petrol/diesel cars artificially high. The group felt that this would be unfair on people who were unable to afford electric vehicles, and that it would also make petrol/diesel cars more expensive to maintain. The group felt that this would be a step too far, and that the government should subsidise electric vehicles to the point where they are roughly the same price as petrol/diesel cars. The group also felt that the government should subsidise the cost of installing electric vehicle charging points, as this would make it easier for people to charge their cars. The group also felt that the government should subsidise the cost of converting petrol/diesel cars to electric cars, as this would make it easier for people to switch to electric vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of more heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. The group felt that the current subsidies are not enough to encourage people to move to electric vehicles, and that the government should do more to help people make the switch. The group felt that this would be a good way to help the environment and improve air quality. The group also felt that this would help to improve public transport, as people would be less likely to use their cars. However, the group also felt that this alone is not enough. The group felt that improvements to public transport should also be made, and that other measures should be taken to help the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidizing electric vehicles. The main argument for this was to reduce the environmental impact of vehicles, and to encourage the switch to electric cars. However, the group also acknowledged that this alone is not enough, and that other measures should also be taken, such as improving public transport. The group also acknowledged that the cost of electric cars is a barrier for some people, and that this should be subsidized. However, the group did not think that the government should subsidize the cost of the car for everyone, but rather for those who are in need. The group also agreed that if someone is able to afford the cost of an electric car, then they should pay for it themselves. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of more heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. The group agreed that the government should subsidize the cost of electric vehicles, but also that this should not be the only measure taken. Other measures should also be taken, such as improving public transport, and reducing the number of cars on the road. This could be done by increasing the price of petrol and diesel, and using the money raised to improve public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidising electric vehicles. The group felt that electric vehicles were better for the environment, and that the government should be encouraging their use. However, the group was not in favour of the government subsidising electric vehicles to the point where they were cheaper than petrol/diesel cars, as this would make the cost of petrol/diesel cars artificially high. The group felt that this would be unfair on people who were unable to afford electric vehicles, and that it would also make petrol/diesel cars more expensive to maintain. The group felt that this would be a step too far, and that the government should subsidise electric vehicles to the point where they are roughly the same price as petrol/diesel cars. The group also felt that the government should subsidise the cost of installing electric vehicle charging points, as this would make it easier for people to charge their cars. The group also felt that the government should subsidise the cost of converting petrol/diesel cars to electric cars, as this would make it easier for people to switch to electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of more heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. The group felt that the current subsidies are not enough to encourage people to move to electric vehicles, and that the government should do more to help people make the switch. The group felt that this would be a good way to help the environment and improve air quality. The group also felt that this would help to improve public transport, as people would be less likely to use their cars. However, the group also felt that this alone is not enough. The group felt that improvements to public transport should also be made, and that other measures should be taken to help the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidizing electric vehicles. The main argument for this was to reduce the environmental impact of vehicles, and to encourage the switch to electric cars. However, the group also acknowledged that this alone is not enough, and that other measures should also be taken, such as improving public transport. The group also acknowledged that the cost of electric cars is a barrier for some people, and that this should be subsidized. However, the group did not think that the government should subsidize the cost of the car for everyone, but rather for those who are in need. The group also agreed that if someone is able to afford the cost of an electric car, then they should pay for it themselves. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of more heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. The group agreed that the government should subsidize the cost of electric vehicles, but also that this should not be the only measure taken. Other measures should also be taken, such as improving public transport, and reducing the number of cars on the road. This could be done by increasing the price of petrol and diesel, and using the money raised to improve public transport. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002430.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002430.soc index 033a6821..34678db4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002430.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002430.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that the legal age for smoking should be raised to 21 years old. This is due to the fact that most young people are still developing and the earlier they start smoking the more likely they are to develop a lifelong addiction to cigarettes. The legal age for alcohol is 18 and this is the age at which an individual is considered an adult, therefore the legal age for smoking should be the same. This would also bring the UK in line with other countries such as the USA. Raising the legal age for smoking would also be a great deterrent as it would be harder for young people to get hold of cigarettes. This would also reduce the number of young people who start smoking. This would also reduce the number of young people who start smoking and the number of people who get diseases associated with smoking. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The legal age for smoking in the UK should be raised to 21. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the age of 18 is still too young for people to be making decisions that could have serious implications for their health. The age of 18 is also the age that people can vote, which is an important decision that has implications for the whole country. Smoking is a decision that only has implications for the individual, and so it is more appropriate for it to be raised to 21. Secondly, it would help to reduce the amount of young people who start smoking. This would help to reduce the number of young people who get addicted to smoking and who suffer the health implications in later life. Finally, it would help to reduce the amount of money that the government has to spend on healthcare for people with smoking related illnesses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the legal age for smoking. There was a strong feeling that 16 is too young an age to start smoking, and that 18 is more appropriate. However, there was also a feeling that 18 is still too young, and that 21 would be a more appropriate age. The feeling was that the later people start smoking, the better. However, the feeling was also that it is not the government's role to stop people from smoking, and that people should be free to make their own choices. The feeling was that if the legal age for smoking was increased, then this would reduce the tax burden on the government, and that this would be a good thing. However, it was also felt that this would lead to an increase in the black market for cigarettes, and that this would be a bad thing. In conclusion, the feeling of the group was that the legal age for smoking should be increased, but that 18 is probably the best compromise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the legal age for smoking. The participants felt that the current age of 18 was too young, and that the legal age for smoking should be increased to 21. They also felt that the price of cigarettes should be increased, to make them less accessible and affordable. This would make smoking less of a social activity, and more of a rare commodity. The participants felt that this would be a good thing, as it would help to reduce the number of smokers in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that the legal age for smoking should be raised to 21 years old. This is due to the fact that most young people are still developing and the earlier they start smoking the more likely they are to develop a lifelong addiction to cigarettes. The legal age for alcohol is 18 and this is the age at which an individual is considered an adult, therefore the legal age for smoking should be the same. This would also bring the UK in line with other countries such as the USA. Raising the legal age for smoking would also be a great deterrent as it would be harder for young people to get hold of cigarettes. This would also reduce the number of young people who start smoking. This would also reduce the number of young people who start smoking and the number of people who get diseases associated with smoking. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The legal age for smoking in the UK should be raised to 21. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the age of 18 is still too young for people to be making decisions that could have serious implications for their health. The age of 18 is also the age that people can vote, which is an important decision that has implications for the whole country. Smoking is a decision that only has implications for the individual, and so it is more appropriate for it to be raised to 21. Secondly, it would help to reduce the amount of young people who start smoking. This would help to reduce the number of young people who get addicted to smoking and who suffer the health implications in later life. Finally, it would help to reduce the amount of money that the government has to spend on healthcare for people with smoking related illnesses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the legal age for smoking. There was a strong feeling that 16 is too young an age to start smoking, and that 18 is more appropriate. However, there was also a feeling that 18 is still too young, and that 21 would be a more appropriate age. The feeling was that the later people start smoking, the better. However, the feeling was also that it is not the government's role to stop people from smoking, and that people should be free to make their own choices. The feeling was that if the legal age for smoking was increased, then this would reduce the tax burden on the government, and that this would be a good thing. However, it was also felt that this would lead to an increase in the black market for cigarettes, and that this would be a bad thing. In conclusion, the feeling of the group was that the legal age for smoking should be increased, but that 18 is probably the best compromise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the legal age for smoking. The participants felt that the current age of 18 was too young, and that the legal age for smoking should be increased to 21. They also felt that the price of cigarettes should be increased, to make them less accessible and affordable. This would make smoking less of a social activity, and more of a rare commodity. The participants felt that this would be a good thing, as it would help to reduce the number of smokers in the UK. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002431.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002431.soc index f3e40224..cc42bcb1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002431.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002431.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of not having an age limit on who can run for Prime Minister. The group felt that the party would appoint the appropriate leader based on their experience, views and future for the part and country, this will be reflected by their overall age and experience. With experience comes age, so the group did not feel this should be an issue. The group also felt that the skills and aptitude of the candidate should speak to the party and country and allow them to make a judgement as to who is best for the role. The group felt that concerns relating to old age and whether someone is fit to do the role will be taken into account by people who are voting. The group felt that it should be left to the people to decide. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the age of a person should not be a barrier to them becoming Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister is an important one and it is therefore important that the person who holds this position is experienced and knowledgeable. This means that there should be a minimum age for a person to be eligible to become Prime Minister. However, there should be no maximum age limit. This is because there are many examples of people who have been successful in their chosen field at a very young age. If a young person has the necessary skills and qualities, then there is no reason why they should not be able to become Prime Minister. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in favour of not having an age limit on who can run for Prime Minister. The group felt that the party would appoint the appropriate leader based on their experience, views and future for the part and country, this will be reflected by their overall age and experience. With experience comes age, so the group did not feel this should be an issue. The group also felt that the skills and aptitude of the candidate should speak to the party and country and allow them to make a judgement as to who is best for the role. The group felt that concerns relating to old age and whether someone is fit to do the role will be taken into account by people who are voting. The group felt that it should be left to the people to decide. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of not having an age limit for the role of Prime Minister. The group felt that the role of the Prime Minister was a very important one, and as such, a person of any age should be able to run for the role if they felt they were capable. The group felt that the role of the Prime Minister was not one that required a great deal of physical strength, and as such, it was not an issue if a person was old. The group did, however, feel that the role of the Prime Minister was one that required a great deal of experience, and as such, the role should only be open to people who were of a certain age. The group felt that a person of the age of 40 should be able to run for the role of Prime Minister, and as such, a person of any age above this should be able to run for the role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of not having an age limit on who can run for Prime Minister. The group felt that the party would appoint the appropriate leader based on their experience, views and future for the part and country, this will be reflected by their overall age and experience. With experience comes age, so the group did not feel this should be an issue. The group also felt that the skills and aptitude of the candidate should speak to the party and country and allow them to make a judgement as to who is best for the role. The group felt that concerns relating to old age and whether someone is fit to do the role will be taken into account by people who are voting. The group felt that it should be left to the people to decide. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the age of a person should not be a barrier to them becoming Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister is an important one and it is therefore important that the person who holds this position is experienced and knowledgeable. This means that there should be a minimum age for a person to be eligible to become Prime Minister. However, there should be no maximum age limit. This is because there are many examples of people who have been successful in their chosen field at a very young age. If a young person has the necessary skills and qualities, then there is no reason why they should not be able to become Prime Minister. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in favour of not having an age limit on who can run for Prime Minister. The group felt that the party would appoint the appropriate leader based on their experience, views and future for the part and country, this will be reflected by their overall age and experience. With experience comes age, so the group did not feel this should be an issue. The group also felt that the skills and aptitude of the candidate should speak to the party and country and allow them to make a judgement as to who is best for the role. The group felt that concerns relating to old age and whether someone is fit to do the role will be taken into account by people who are voting. The group felt that it should be left to the people to decide. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of not having an age limit for the role of Prime Minister. The group felt that the role of the Prime Minister was a very important one, and as such, a person of any age should be able to run for the role if they felt they were capable. The group felt that the role of the Prime Minister was not one that required a great deal of physical strength, and as such, it was not an issue if a person was old. The group did, however, feel that the role of the Prime Minister was one that required a great deal of experience, and as such, the role should only be open to people who were of a certain age. The group felt that a person of the age of 40 should be able to run for the role of Prime Minister, and as such, a person of any age above this should be able to run for the role. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002432.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002432.soc index b5595ea9..e8ed14ff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002432.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002432.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the state providing free broadband access to all citizens. The group felt that it would be better for the state to provide free wi-fi in public places such as parks, libraries, hospitals, schools, universities and other public buildings. The group felt that this would be more equitable as it would be available to all and would not be an additional cost to the tax payer. The group felt that it was important to maintain an open market with a number of competing companies. The group felt that it was important that people had a choice of broadband providers and that they were able to shop around to get the best deal. The group felt that it was important that people were able to access the internet for free in libraries and other public buildings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, the state should provide free broadband access to all citizens, but in reality this is not possible. This is because the cost of providing free broadband access to all citizens would be too high and would place an unfair burden on tax payers. The state could provide free wi-fi in cities and / or all areas but it must be basic and replace BT phone boxes and just be for people to use as a last resort or even with a small amount of luxury. We need to maintain a group of companies that compete in relation to this service. Otherwise they will fade, diminish and prices will rise, options will reduce and the overall market will be less successful. This is what Russia would do so they could control it. In a way all citizens can already access free broadband via libraries and private companies and council initiatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that the state should provide free broadband access to all citizens. It was felt that this would be a step in the right direction in terms of ensuring that all citizens have equal opportunities in society. However, it was also felt that the state should not be the sole provider of broadband access and that private companies should also be encouraged to provide this service. It was felt that the state could provide free wi-fi in cities and / or all areas but it must be basic and replace BT phone boxes and just be for people to use as a last resort or even with a small amount of luxury. We need to maintain a group of companies that compete in relation to this service. Otherwise they will fade, diminish and prices will rise, options will reduce and the overall market will be less successful. This is what Russia would do so they could control it. In a way all citizens can already access free broadband via libraries and private companies and council initiatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not provide free broadband access to all citizens. We believe that there are many different options that should be available to people to access the internet. The state could provide free wi-fi in cities and / or all areas but it must be basic and replace BT phone boxes and just be for people to use as a last resort or even with a small amount of luxury. We need to maintain a group of companies that compete in relation to this service. Otherwise they will fade, diminish and prices will rise, options will reduce and the overall market will be less successful. This is what Russia would do so they could control it. In a way all citizens can already access free broadband via libraries and private companies and council initiatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the state providing free broadband access to all citizens. The group felt that it would be better for the state to provide free wi-fi in public places such as parks, libraries, hospitals, schools, universities and other public buildings. The group felt that this would be more equitable as it would be available to all and would not be an additional cost to the tax payer. The group felt that it was important to maintain an open market with a number of competing companies. The group felt that it was important that people had a choice of broadband providers and that they were able to shop around to get the best deal. The group felt that it was important that people were able to access the internet for free in libraries and other public buildings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the state should provide free broadband access to all citizens, but in reality this is not possible. This is because the cost of providing free broadband access to all citizens would be too high and would place an unfair burden on tax payers. The state could provide free wi-fi in cities and / or all areas but it must be basic and replace BT phone boxes and just be for people to use as a last resort or even with a small amount of luxury. We need to maintain a group of companies that compete in relation to this service. Otherwise they will fade, diminish and prices will rise, options will reduce and the overall market will be less successful. This is what Russia would do so they could control it. In a way all citizens can already access free broadband via libraries and private companies and council initiatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that the state should provide free broadband access to all citizens. It was felt that this would be a step in the right direction in terms of ensuring that all citizens have equal opportunities in society. However, it was also felt that the state should not be the sole provider of broadband access and that private companies should also be encouraged to provide this service. It was felt that the state could provide free wi-fi in cities and / or all areas but it must be basic and replace BT phone boxes and just be for people to use as a last resort or even with a small amount of luxury. We need to maintain a group of companies that compete in relation to this service. Otherwise they will fade, diminish and prices will rise, options will reduce and the overall market will be less successful. This is what Russia would do so they could control it. In a way all citizens can already access free broadband via libraries and private companies and council initiatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not provide free broadband access to all citizens. We believe that there are many different options that should be available to people to access the internet. The state could provide free wi-fi in cities and / or all areas but it must be basic and replace BT phone boxes and just be for people to use as a last resort or even with a small amount of luxury. We need to maintain a group of companies that compete in relation to this service. Otherwise they will fade, diminish and prices will rise, options will reduce and the overall market will be less successful. This is what Russia would do so they could control it. In a way all citizens can already access free broadband via libraries and private companies and council initiatives. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002433.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002433.soc index 33b85414..cbfd7a66 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002433.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002433.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of more heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. The group felt that the current subsidies are not enough to encourage people to move to electric vehicles, and that the government should do more to help people make the switch. The group felt that this would be a good way to help the environment and improve air quality. The group also felt that this would help to improve public transport, as people would be less likely to use their cars. However, the group also felt that this alone is not enough. The group felt that improvements to public transport should also be made, and that other measures should be taken to help the environment. The group felt that electric cars are a good way to improve the environment, but that this is only one step, and that other measures must also be taken. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidizing electric vehicles. The group felt that the environmental impacts of petrol/diesel vehicles far outweighed the costs of encouraging electric vehicles. However, there was a feeling that this should be done in conjunction with other measures, such as improving public transport. The group was split on whether this should be done in the form of a tax on petrol/diesel vehicles, or by subsidizing electric vehicles. The group also discussed whether this should be done for private vehicles, or for public transport vehicles. The group was split on this, with some feeling that this should be done for both and others feeling that this should be done for only public transport vehicles. The group also discussed whether this should be done in the UK only, or in other countries. The group felt that this should be done in other countries, as it would have a bigger impact. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Electric vehicles should be heavily subsidized by the government. The ill effects of burning fossil fuels for vehicles on the environment and climate have been well documented, and it would be foolish not to encourage electric cars in this way, and phase out petrol/diesel cars completely. Electric vehicles have less of an impact on the environment, and are also cheaper to run. The group of participants also agreed that the government should also heavily subsidize the installation of electric vehicle charging points, and provide grants for the installation of home charging points. The group of participants also agreed that the government should provide grants for the installation of solar panels on people's homes, to help to power electric vehicles. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of more heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. The group felt that the current subsidies are not enough to encourage people to move to electric vehicles, and that the government should do more to help people make the switch. The group felt that this would be a good way to help the environment and improve air quality. The group also felt that this would help to improve public transport, as people would be less likely to use their cars. However, the group also felt that this alone is not enough. The group felt that improvements to public transport should also be made, and that other measures should be taken to help the environment. The group also felt that it would be a good idea to encourage people to drive less and use public transport more, so this should also be subsidised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of more heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. The group felt that the current subsidies are not enough to encourage people to move to electric vehicles, and that the government should do more to help people make the switch. The group felt that this would be a good way to help the environment and improve air quality. The group also felt that this would help to improve public transport, as people would be less likely to use their cars. However, the group also felt that this alone is not enough. The group felt that improvements to public transport should also be made, and that other measures should be taken to help the environment. The group felt that electric cars are a good way to improve the environment, but that this is only one step, and that other measures must also be taken. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government subsidizing electric vehicles. The group felt that the environmental impacts of petrol/diesel vehicles far outweighed the costs of encouraging electric vehicles. However, there was a feeling that this should be done in conjunction with other measures, such as improving public transport. The group was split on whether this should be done in the form of a tax on petrol/diesel vehicles, or by subsidizing electric vehicles. The group also discussed whether this should be done for private vehicles, or for public transport vehicles. The group was split on this, with some feeling that this should be done for both and others feeling that this should be done for only public transport vehicles. The group also discussed whether this should be done in the UK only, or in other countries. The group felt that this should be done in other countries, as it would have a bigger impact. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Electric vehicles should be heavily subsidized by the government. The ill effects of burning fossil fuels for vehicles on the environment and climate have been well documented, and it would be foolish not to encourage electric cars in this way, and phase out petrol/diesel cars completely. Electric vehicles have less of an impact on the environment, and are also cheaper to run. The group of participants also agreed that the government should also heavily subsidize the installation of electric vehicle charging points, and provide grants for the installation of home charging points. The group of participants also agreed that the government should provide grants for the installation of solar panels on people's homes, to help to power electric vehicles. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of more heavily subsidizing electric vehicles. The group felt that the current subsidies are not enough to encourage people to move to electric vehicles, and that the government should do more to help people make the switch. The group felt that this would be a good way to help the environment and improve air quality. The group also felt that this would help to improve public transport, as people would be less likely to use their cars. However, the group also felt that this alone is not enough. The group felt that improvements to public transport should also be made, and that other measures should be taken to help the environment. The group also felt that it would be a good idea to encourage people to drive less and use public transport more, so this should also be subsidised. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002434.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002434.soc index ec372025..01bd4807 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002434.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002434.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “Globalization is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has costs and benefits. The benefits are a more integrated and connected world, increased trade and business, sharing of resources and culture, and a more peaceful world. The costs are exploitation of people and resources, increased pollution and environmental damage, and the centralization of power to a small group of entities with little accountability.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Globalization is a net positive for the world, but there are many costs that need to be considered. The main cost is the use of non-renewable energy sources and the impact this has on the environment. The world is moving towards more sustainable energy sources and this will help to reduce the costs of globalization. The benefits of globalization are the increased trade and cultural exchange between countries. This has led to a better quality of life for many people and a more connected world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Globalization has been a double-edged sword. While it has brought about many benefits to the world, it has also come with its fair share of costs. Globalization has increased the flow of goods and services between countries, leading to better quality of life for many people. It has also increased cultural exchange and sharing between people of different countries. This has led to a better understanding of different cultures and traditions, as well as a more peaceful world. However, globalization has also led to exploitation of workers in poorer countries, as well as increased environmental degradation. There is a need for more sustainable forms of globalization, that take into account the well-being of the planet and its people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits. Globalization has allowed the world to become more connected, with increased trade and cultural exchange. This has allowed for the world to become more tolerant and accepting of different cultures, as well as improving the quality of life for many. However, it is important to note that this does not mean that globalization is without its costs. In some cases, it has led to exploitation of people and the environment, as well as increased inequality between countries. This is something that needs to be addressed in order to ensure that the costs of globalization do not outweigh the benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “Globalization is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has costs and benefits. The benefits are a more integrated and connected world, increased trade and business, sharing of resources and culture, and a more peaceful world. The costs are exploitation of people and resources, increased pollution and environmental damage, and the centralization of power to a small group of entities with little accountability.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Globalization is a net positive for the world, but there are many costs that need to be considered. The main cost is the use of non-renewable energy sources and the impact this has on the environment. The world is moving towards more sustainable energy sources and this will help to reduce the costs of globalization. The benefits of globalization are the increased trade and cultural exchange between countries. This has led to a better quality of life for many people and a more connected world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Globalization has been a double-edged sword. While it has brought about many benefits to the world, it has also come with its fair share of costs. Globalization has increased the flow of goods and services between countries, leading to better quality of life for many people. It has also increased cultural exchange and sharing between people of different countries. This has led to a better understanding of different cultures and traditions, as well as a more peaceful world. However, globalization has also led to exploitation of workers in poorer countries, as well as increased environmental degradation. There is a need for more sustainable forms of globalization, that take into account the well-being of the planet and its people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the costs of globalization are outweighed by its benefits. Globalization has allowed the world to become more connected, with increased trade and cultural exchange. This has allowed for the world to become more tolerant and accepting of different cultures, as well as improving the quality of life for many. However, it is important to note that this does not mean that globalization is without its costs. In some cases, it has led to exploitation of people and the environment, as well as increased inequality between countries. This is something that needs to be addressed in order to ensure that the costs of globalization do not outweigh the benefits. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002435.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002435.soc index 4e640c22..c2d25ac9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002435.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002435.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the Royal family is a net positive for society. Although they are very expensive to maintain, they do provide a great deal of income to the UK through tourism. They are also a very important part of the culture and history of the UK and it would be difficult to imagine the UK without them. However, there is a strong argument to suggest that the Royal family is not a net positive for society. The Royal family is very expensive to maintain and the UK is in a difficult financial situation. It is also difficult to see how the Royal family benefits society as a whole, as they are only a benefit to a select few. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the Royal family is a net positive for society. It is difficult to put a monetary value on the cultural impact that the Royal family has on society. The Royal family is a big part of British culture and has been for many years. It is difficult to imagine Britain without the Royal family. It is also difficult to imagine Britain without the Royal family as it would be difficult to replace the income that they generate through tourism. It is also difficult to replace the cultural impact that the Royal family has on society. The Royal family also helps to promote the UK on an international stage and is a source of national pride for many people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The royal family is a net positive for society. This is because they are a large part of our culture and history, and have been for many generations. This means that the royal family is ingrained into our society, and will be for many more generations to come. Although there are some negatives to the royal family, such as the costs of upkeep and the recent scandals, we believe that these are outweighed by the positives. The royal family brings in a lot of money to the country through tourism, and they also provide a sense of national pride. We believe that the royal family will continue to be a net positive for society in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the Royal family is a net positive for society. This is because they bring in a large amount of tourism to the UK and they are also a large part of our culture and heritage. They are also a symbol of unity for the country, and are a source of pride for many people. However, there are some negatives to the Royal family. The large amount of money they receive from the government is a large amount of money that could be spent on other things. Also, some of the things they have said and done in the past have been very controversial, and this has damaged the reputation of the Royal family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the Royal family is a net positive for society. Although they are very expensive to maintain, they do provide a great deal of income to the UK through tourism. They are also a very important part of the culture and history of the UK and it would be difficult to imagine the UK without them. However, there is a strong argument to suggest that the Royal family is not a net positive for society. The Royal family is very expensive to maintain and the UK is in a difficult financial situation. It is also difficult to see how the Royal family benefits society as a whole, as they are only a benefit to a select few. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the Royal family is a net positive for society. It is difficult to put a monetary value on the cultural impact that the Royal family has on society. The Royal family is a big part of British culture and has been for many years. It is difficult to imagine Britain without the Royal family. It is also difficult to imagine Britain without the Royal family as it would be difficult to replace the income that they generate through tourism. It is also difficult to replace the cultural impact that the Royal family has on society. The Royal family also helps to promote the UK on an international stage and is a source of national pride for many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The royal family is a net positive for society. This is because they are a large part of our culture and history, and have been for many generations. This means that the royal family is ingrained into our society, and will be for many more generations to come. Although there are some negatives to the royal family, such as the costs of upkeep and the recent scandals, we believe that these are outweighed by the positives. The royal family brings in a lot of money to the country through tourism, and they also provide a sense of national pride. We believe that the royal family will continue to be a net positive for society in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the Royal family is a net positive for society. This is because they bring in a large amount of tourism to the UK and they are also a large part of our culture and heritage. They are also a symbol of unity for the country, and are a source of pride for many people. However, there are some negatives to the Royal family. The large amount of money they receive from the government is a large amount of money that could be spent on other things. Also, some of the things they have said and done in the past have been very controversial, and this has damaged the reputation of the Royal family. 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002436.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002436.soc index 3acffbf5..efe2be04 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002436.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002436.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, we have come to the decision that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. This is because children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems. It is the parents responsibility to protect their children and smoking in the car can cause car accidents. Smoking can cause asthma and other breathing problems in children. Children have no choice but to inhale the smoke and this can cause harm to them later in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. This is because the child will be inhaling the smoke which can cause them harm later on in life. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. It is the parents responsibility to protect their child and not put them at risk. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems, and so they should be protected from it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems. The child has no choice but to inhale the smoke and will be exposed to the harmful effects of second hand smoke. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. It is the parent's choice if they want to damage their own health, but this should not be inflicted on the child. They have said that smoking can damage your health and have warnings on the packs, how is that fair on the poor child who has no choice. The group of participants believe that the health of the child should be the top priority and smoking in the car should be banned if a child is present. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems, and smoking in a car is a confined space which can make the effects of second hand smoke worse. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. Smoking can damage your health and have warnings on the packs, how is that fair on the poor child who has no choice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, we have come to the decision that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. This is because children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems. It is the parents responsibility to protect their children and smoking in the car can cause car accidents. Smoking can cause asthma and other breathing problems in children. Children have no choice but to inhale the smoke and this can cause harm to them later in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. This is because the child will be inhaling the smoke which can cause them harm later on in life. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. It is the parents responsibility to protect their child and not put them at risk. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems, and so they should be protected from it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group of participants believe that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems. The child has no choice but to inhale the smoke and will be exposed to the harmful effects of second hand smoke. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. It is the parent's choice if they want to damage their own health, but this should not be inflicted on the child. They have said that smoking can damage your health and have warnings on the packs, how is that fair on the poor child who has no choice. The group of participants believe that the health of the child should be the top priority and smoking in the car should be banned if a child is present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems, and smoking in a car is a confined space which can make the effects of second hand smoke worse. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. Smoking can damage your health and have warnings on the packs, how is that fair on the poor child who has no choice. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002437.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002437.soc index 67565bfa..9347bbf2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002437.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002437.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “I think that we need to tackle health problems and obesity in children, and I can see how this might help; if children have more access to healthy affordable options and less unhealthy options are available to them. However, I think more focus should be given to educating children on the benefits of a balanced diet, promoting healthy eating and regular exercise. Removing fast food chains from near schools would inadvertently also impact local residents and the local economy. The best way to tackle obesity is to educate children on the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and exercise, and to make healthy food more accessible to them. This can be done by having more healthy food options in school canteens and by making healthy food more affordable. I don’t think that fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools because it is not the fast food chains that are making the children obese, it is the children who are making the decision to eat fast food. Instead, the children should be educated on the benefits of healthy eating and exercise, and the fast food chains should be encouraged to make their food healthier.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. The issue of childhood obesity is a serious one. Fast food is high in calories, sugar, salt and saturated fat. It is also low in nutrients. Fast food is also relatively cheap, and so is an attractive option for families on a budget. Fast food is also widely available and so banning fast food chains from operating near schools may have an impact on childhood obesity. However, fast food is also popular and so banning fast food chains from operating near schools may have an impact on the local economy. Fast food can also be ordered via delivery companies, such as Just Eat, Uber Eats, Deliveroo, etc. Therefore, banning fast food chains from operating near schools may not have the desired effect. The issue of childhood obesity needs to be tackled and fast food may be part of the problem. However, banning fast food chains from operating near schools may not be the solution. There are many other factors that need to be considered, such as educating children on the benefits of a balanced diet, promoting healthy eating and regular exercise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In principle, yes, fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. However, this is a very difficult thing to police and there are many other factors that need to be considered. The issue of obesity is a complex one and we need to look at the bigger picture. Education is key and children need to be taught about the importance of a balanced diet and regular exercise. It is also important to consider the impact on local residents and the local economy. A ban on fast food chains near schools would also impact local residents and the local economy. The issue of obesity needs to be addressed at the source and fast food chains should be encouraged to use healthier cooking methods and ingredients. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. It was felt that this would have a positive impact on childhood obesity. It was also felt that this would be a positive step in educating children on the benefits of a balanced diet and regular exercise. However, it was also recognised that this would have an impact on local residents and the local economy. It was also recognised that this would not completely prevent children from accessing fast food. It was felt that this would be a step in the right direction and would be a positive move for the health of children in the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “I think that we need to tackle health problems and obesity in children, and I can see how this might help; if children have more access to healthy affordable options and less unhealthy options are available to them. However, I think more focus should be given to educating children on the benefits of a balanced diet, promoting healthy eating and regular exercise. Removing fast food chains from near schools would inadvertently also impact local residents and the local economy. The best way to tackle obesity is to educate children on the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and exercise, and to make healthy food more accessible to them. This can be done by having more healthy food options in school canteens and by making healthy food more affordable. I don’t think that fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools because it is not the fast food chains that are making the children obese, it is the children who are making the decision to eat fast food. Instead, the children should be educated on the benefits of healthy eating and exercise, and the fast food chains should be encouraged to make their food healthier.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. The issue of childhood obesity is a serious one. Fast food is high in calories, sugar, salt and saturated fat. It is also low in nutrients. Fast food is also relatively cheap, and so is an attractive option for families on a budget. Fast food is also widely available and so banning fast food chains from operating near schools may have an impact on childhood obesity. However, fast food is also popular and so banning fast food chains from operating near schools may have an impact on the local economy. Fast food can also be ordered via delivery companies, such as Just Eat, Uber Eats, Deliveroo, etc. Therefore, banning fast food chains from operating near schools may not have the desired effect. The issue of childhood obesity needs to be tackled and fast food may be part of the problem. However, banning fast food chains from operating near schools may not be the solution. There are many other factors that need to be considered, such as educating children on the benefits of a balanced diet, promoting healthy eating and regular exercise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle, yes, fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. However, this is a very difficult thing to police and there are many other factors that need to be considered. The issue of obesity is a complex one and we need to look at the bigger picture. Education is key and children need to be taught about the importance of a balanced diet and regular exercise. It is also important to consider the impact on local residents and the local economy. A ban on fast food chains near schools would also impact local residents and the local economy. The issue of obesity needs to be addressed at the source and fast food chains should be encouraged to use healthier cooking methods and ingredients. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. It was felt that this would have a positive impact on childhood obesity. It was also felt that this would be a positive step in educating children on the benefits of a balanced diet and regular exercise. However, it was also recognised that this would have an impact on local residents and the local economy. It was also recognised that this would not completely prevent children from accessing fast food. It was felt that this would be a step in the right direction and would be a positive move for the health of children in the UK. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002438.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002438.soc index d6edc9db..ed3edc5c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002438.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002438.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a strong argument for both sides, but on balance the Royal family are a net positive for society. They are a symbol of unity for the country, and are a source of pride for many people. They also generate a large amount of tourism to the UK and are a large part of our culture and heritage. However, the large amount of money they receive from the government is a large amount of money that could be spent on other things. Also, some of the things they have said and done in the past have been very controversial, and this has damaged the reputation of the Royal family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the royal family is a net positive for society. They provide a sense of national pride for the country, and also act as a tourist attraction which brings in a large amount of money for the country. However, they also come with a large cost. This cost is not only in terms of money, but also in terms of a sense of inequality in the country. The royal family is a symbol of the class system in the UK, and this is something that a lot of people are not happy about. The royal family is also not representative of the people of the UK, as they are predominantly white and do not represent the ethnic diversity of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the Royal family is a net positive for society. This is because they bring in a large amount of tourism to the UK and they are also a large part of our culture and heritage. They are also a symbol of unity for the country, and are a source of pride for many people. However, there are some negatives to the Royal family. The large amount of money they receive from the government is a large amount of money that could be spent on other things. Also, some of the things they have said and done in the past have been very controversial, and this has damaged the reputation of the Royal family. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The Royal Family is a net positive for society, the tourism that they generate is a significant income for the country. Also, the Royal family is a large part of British culture and history, and is something that we should be proud of. However, the Royal family needs to modernise, and needs to be more open to the public, and less secretive. The Royal family should also be more diverse and less white, and should represent the whole of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a strong argument for both sides, but on balance the Royal family are a net positive for society. They are a symbol of unity for the country, and are a source of pride for many people. They also generate a large amount of tourism to the UK and are a large part of our culture and heritage. However, the large amount of money they receive from the government is a large amount of money that could be spent on other things. Also, some of the things they have said and done in the past have been very controversial, and this has damaged the reputation of the Royal family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the royal family is a net positive for society. They provide a sense of national pride for the country, and also act as a tourist attraction which brings in a large amount of money for the country. However, they also come with a large cost. This cost is not only in terms of money, but also in terms of a sense of inequality in the country. The royal family is a symbol of the class system in the UK, and this is something that a lot of people are not happy about. The royal family is also not representative of the people of the UK, as they are predominantly white and do not represent the ethnic diversity of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the Royal family is a net positive for society. This is because they bring in a large amount of tourism to the UK and they are also a large part of our culture and heritage. They are also a symbol of unity for the country, and are a source of pride for many people. However, there are some negatives to the Royal family. The large amount of money they receive from the government is a large amount of money that could be spent on other things. Also, some of the things they have said and done in the past have been very controversial, and this has damaged the reputation of the Royal family. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The Royal Family is a net positive for society, the tourism that they generate is a significant income for the country. Also, the Royal family is a large part of British culture and history, and is something that we should be proud of. However, the Royal family needs to modernise, and needs to be more open to the public, and less secretive. The Royal family should also be more diverse and less white, and should represent the whole of society. 2: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002439.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002439.soc index 0abbd400..1c68444b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002439.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002439.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Globalization has brought many benefits to the world. However, it has also come with its fair share of costs. Globalization has increased the flow of goods and services between countries, leading to better quality of life for many people. It has also increased cultural exchange and sharing between people of different countries. This has led to a better understanding of different cultures and traditions, as well as a more peaceful world. However, globalization has also led to exploitation of workers in poorer countries, as well as increased environmental degradation. There is a need for more sustainable forms of globalization, that take into account the well-being of the planet and its people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Globalization is a very important part of our world today. There are many benefits to globalization, including the sharing of culture and ideas, and the ability to trade freely with other countries. However, the costs of globalization are also very high. The most obvious cost is the increased use of non-renewable energy sources, but this is something that we are working to combat. There are also many other costs, including the exploitation of people, and the destruction of local cultures. Overall, the costs are outweighed by the benefits, but it is important to be aware of the costs and to work to reduce them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Globalization has both costs and benefits. However, the benefits outweigh the costs. The world is more connected than ever before and this has led to many positive outcomes such as the spread of knowledge and the sharing of cultures. The costs of globalization are often overlooked but are still important to consider. The costs of globalization can be very high, especially for developing countries. However, it is important to note that globalization is an ongoing process and as such, the costs and benefits of globalization will change as the process continues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Globalization has been a double-edged sword. While it has brought about many benefits to the world, it has also come with its fair share of costs. Globalization has increased the flow of goods and services between countries, leading to better quality of life for many people. It has also increased cultural exchange and sharing between people of different countries. This has led to a better understanding of different cultures and traditions, as well as a more peaceful world. However, globalization has also led to exploitation of workers in poorer countries, as well as increased environmental degradation. There is a need for more sustainable forms of globalization, that take into account the well-being of the planet and its people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Globalization has brought many benefits to the world. However, it has also come with its fair share of costs. Globalization has increased the flow of goods and services between countries, leading to better quality of life for many people. It has also increased cultural exchange and sharing between people of different countries. This has led to a better understanding of different cultures and traditions, as well as a more peaceful world. However, globalization has also led to exploitation of workers in poorer countries, as well as increased environmental degradation. There is a need for more sustainable forms of globalization, that take into account the well-being of the planet and its people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Globalization is a very important part of our world today. There are many benefits to globalization, including the sharing of culture and ideas, and the ability to trade freely with other countries. However, the costs of globalization are also very high. The most obvious cost is the increased use of non-renewable energy sources, but this is something that we are working to combat. There are also many other costs, including the exploitation of people, and the destruction of local cultures. Overall, the costs are outweighed by the benefits, but it is important to be aware of the costs and to work to reduce them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Globalization has both costs and benefits. However, the benefits outweigh the costs. The world is more connected than ever before and this has led to many positive outcomes such as the spread of knowledge and the sharing of cultures. The costs of globalization are often overlooked but are still important to consider. The costs of globalization can be very high, especially for developing countries. However, it is important to note that globalization is an ongoing process and as such, the costs and benefits of globalization will change as the process continues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Globalization has been a double-edged sword. While it has brought about many benefits to the world, it has also come with its fair share of costs. Globalization has increased the flow of goods and services between countries, leading to better quality of life for many people. It has also increased cultural exchange and sharing between people of different countries. This has led to a better understanding of different cultures and traditions, as well as a more peaceful world. However, globalization has also led to exploitation of workers in poorer countries, as well as increased environmental degradation. There is a need for more sustainable forms of globalization, that take into account the well-being of the planet and its people. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002440.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002440.soc index 4d4ebb93..24d03f3d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002440.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002440.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. This is because it is a confined space and children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems, so they should not be subjected to this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems, and it is important to protect them from these harmful effects. Parents who choose to smoke in the car with their children are putting their children's health at risk. The damage of second hand smoke is far reaching and still not fully understood but is definitely detrimental to a child's development and overall health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems. The child has no choice but to inhale the smoke and will be exposed to the harmful effects of second hand smoke. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. It is the parent's choice if they want to damage their own health, but this should not be inflicted on the child. They have said that smoking can damage your health and have warnings on the packs, how is that fair on the poor child who has no choice. The group of participants believe that the health of the child should be the top priority and smoking in the car should be banned if a child is present. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems. The child has no choice but to inhale the smoke and will be exposed to the harmful effects of second hand smoke. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. It is the parent's choice if they want to damage their own health, but this should not be inflicted on the child. They have said that smoking can damage your health and have warnings on the packs, how is that fair on the poor child who has no choice. The group of participants believe that the health of the child should be the top priority and smoking in the car should be banned if a child is present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. This is because it is a confined space and children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems, so they should not be subjected to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems, and it is important to protect them from these harmful effects. Parents who choose to smoke in the car with their children are putting their children's health at risk. The damage of second hand smoke is far reaching and still not fully understood but is definitely detrimental to a child's development and overall health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the group of participants believe that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems. The child has no choice but to inhale the smoke and will be exposed to the harmful effects of second hand smoke. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. It is the parent's choice if they want to damage their own health, but this should not be inflicted on the child. They have said that smoking can damage your health and have warnings on the packs, how is that fair on the poor child who has no choice. The group of participants believe that the health of the child should be the top priority and smoking in the car should be banned if a child is present. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In conclusion, the group of participants believe that it is fair to ban parents from smoking in the car if a child is present. The health and well being of the child should be the top priority. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking due to their developing respiratory systems. The child has no choice but to inhale the smoke and will be exposed to the harmful effects of second hand smoke. The parent driving could also be distracted by smoking which can cause car accidents just like when people use their phones. It is the parent's choice if they want to damage their own health, but this should not be inflicted on the child. They have said that smoking can damage your health and have warnings on the packs, how is that fair on the poor child who has no choice. The group of participants believe that the health of the child should be the top priority and smoking in the car should be banned if a child is present. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002441.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002441.soc index 45a89882..23643b82 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002441.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002441.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are pros and cons to this question. We are all well aware of the obesity issues in this country, particularly childhood obesity. We also know that in many areas fast food outlets are often the only option for food in the local area. This could be for a number of reasons, including social deprivation, lack of local fresh produce, lack of investment, etc. We don't think that fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. We think that a balance needs to be struck between education and making healthy options available. The balance needs to be right and it needs to be easy for parents and children to make the right choices. We think that public health bodies and educational establishments need to work together to try to find a solution to this problem. There needs to be some collaboration to try to find an answer to this growing problem. A lot of work has been done by Jamie Oliver and others to try to promote healthy eating to children and parents. There is more work to be done, but it is not an easy fix. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, yes, fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. However, this is a very difficult thing to police and there are many other factors that need to be considered. The issue of obesity is a complex one and we need to look at the bigger picture. Education is key and children need to be taught about the importance of a balanced diet and regular exercise. It is also important to consider the impact on local residents and the local economy. A ban on fast food chains near schools would also impact local residents and the local economy. The issue of obesity needs to be addressed at the source and fast food chains should be encouraged to use healthier cooking methods and ingredients. In addition, school dinners should be made healthier and children should be given a range of options to choose from. The location of fast food chains should be looked at, so that they are still in the town centre but not so close to the schools. This is a complex issue and all of these things should be looked at, to help tackle the issue of childhood obesity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are many factors that need to be considered when looking at the issue of childhood obesity. In principle, yes, fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. However, this is a very difficult thing to police and there are many other factors that need to be considered. The issue of obesity is a complex one and we need to look at the bigger picture. Education is key and children need to be taught about the importance of a balanced diet and regular exercise. It is also important to consider the impact on local residents and the local economy. A ban on fast food chains near schools would also impact local residents and the local economy. The issue of obesity needs to be addressed at the source and fast food chains should be encouraged to use healthier cooking methods and ingredients. However, this will not be enough on its own and we also need to ensure that school dinners are made healthier and children are given a range of options to choose from. It is also important to ensure that children participate in regular exercise, such as participation in sports. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. It was felt that this would help to improve the health of children, as it would remove the temptation for children to eat fast food on a regular basis. It was felt that this could also help to reduce childhood obesity, which is an issue in the UK. The group felt that this would be the most effective way of tackling this problem, as opposed to trying to educate children on the benefits of a healthy diet and exercise. However, it was also felt that this could have an impact on the local economy, as fast food chains are often located in areas with a high population density. This could also affect local residents, as they would no longer be able to purchase food from these outlets. Therefore, it was felt that this would be more effective in areas where there is a high concentration of schools, rather than in areas with only one or two schools. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are pros and cons to this question. We are all well aware of the obesity issues in this country, particularly childhood obesity. We also know that in many areas fast food outlets are often the only option for food in the local area. This could be for a number of reasons, including social deprivation, lack of local fresh produce, lack of investment, etc. We don't think that fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. We think that a balance needs to be struck between education and making healthy options available. The balance needs to be right and it needs to be easy for parents and children to make the right choices. We think that public health bodies and educational establishments need to work together to try to find a solution to this problem. There needs to be some collaboration to try to find an answer to this growing problem. A lot of work has been done by Jamie Oliver and others to try to promote healthy eating to children and parents. There is more work to be done, but it is not an easy fix. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, yes, fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. However, this is a very difficult thing to police and there are many other factors that need to be considered. The issue of obesity is a complex one and we need to look at the bigger picture. Education is key and children need to be taught about the importance of a balanced diet and regular exercise. It is also important to consider the impact on local residents and the local economy. A ban on fast food chains near schools would also impact local residents and the local economy. The issue of obesity needs to be addressed at the source and fast food chains should be encouraged to use healthier cooking methods and ingredients. In addition, school dinners should be made healthier and children should be given a range of options to choose from. The location of fast food chains should be looked at, so that they are still in the town centre but not so close to the schools. This is a complex issue and all of these things should be looked at, to help tackle the issue of childhood obesity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are many factors that need to be considered when looking at the issue of childhood obesity. In principle, yes, fast food chains should be banned from operating near schools. However, this is a very difficult thing to police and there are many other factors that need to be considered. The issue of obesity is a complex one and we need to look at the bigger picture. Education is key and children need to be taught about the importance of a balanced diet and regular exercise. It is also important to consider the impact on local residents and the local economy. A ban on fast food chains near schools would also impact local residents and the local economy. The issue of obesity needs to be addressed at the source and fast food chains should be encouraged to use healthier cooking methods and ingredients. However, this will not be enough on its own and we also need to ensure that school dinners are made healthier and children are given a range of options to choose from. It is also important to ensure that children participate in regular exercise, such as participation in sports. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of banning fast food chains from operating near schools. It was felt that this would help to improve the health of children, as it would remove the temptation for children to eat fast food on a regular basis. It was felt that this could also help to reduce childhood obesity, which is an issue in the UK. The group felt that this would be the most effective way of tackling this problem, as opposed to trying to educate children on the benefits of a healthy diet and exercise. However, it was also felt that this could have an impact on the local economy, as fast food chains are often located in areas with a high population density. This could also affect local residents, as they would no longer be able to purchase food from these outlets. Therefore, it was felt that this would be more effective in areas where there is a high concentration of schools, rather than in areas with only one or two schools. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002442.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002442.soc index 9d4703e0..c08672ca 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002442.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002442.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The lockdown measures were the right thing to do to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The government did what they thought was best at the time and this was the best approach to take to try and control the spread of the virus. The government moved quickly to start getting people vaccinated which put other countries to shame. The lockdown measures were not excessive, they were necessary to try and control the spread of the virus and to try and protect the NHS and save lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The lockdown measures employed by the UK government to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were not excessive. The government acted as quickly as possible to put these measures in place, and they were necessary to slow the spread of the virus. Although the lockdown measures were strict, they were necessary to protect the NHS and save lives. The government also acted quickly to get a vaccine in place, which has proven to be effective. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The lockdown measures employed by the UK government to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were necessary, but were not necessarily the best approach. The government needed to act quickly to minimise the spread of the virus, and in this case they were successful. However, there were many mistakes made along the way, and the lockdown measures were not well implemented. For example, the government did not provide sufficient support for businesses and workers during the lockdown, and this led to many people being made unemployed and many businesses being forced to close. It is likely that the lockdown measures could have been implemented more effectively, but it is hard to know exactly what would have been the best approach. It is also likely that the lockdown measures were not the best approach to fighting the virus, and that a more targeted approach may have been more effective. For example, a targeted approach to the lockdown may have allowed more businesses to stay open and more people to continue working, whilst still minimising the spread of the virus. This would have been more effective in terms of keeping the economy running, and it would also have had a lower impact on people’s mental health. However, the targeted approach may not have been as effective in minimising the spread of the virus, and this may have -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The lockdown measures the government employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were not excessive. They were necessary to protect the population and to reduce the spread of the virus. The lockdown measures also gave the government time to prepare for the pandemic and to increase the capacity of the NHS to deal with the increased number of patients. The lockdown measures also gave time for a vaccine to be developed, and for people to be vaccinated. The lockdown measures also gave time for the government to put in place financial support for businesses and individuals that were affected by the pandemic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The lockdown measures were the right thing to do to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The government did what they thought was best at the time and this was the best approach to take to try and control the spread of the virus. The government moved quickly to start getting people vaccinated which put other countries to shame. The lockdown measures were not excessive, they were necessary to try and control the spread of the virus and to try and protect the NHS and save lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The lockdown measures employed by the UK government to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were not excessive. The government acted as quickly as possible to put these measures in place, and they were necessary to slow the spread of the virus. Although the lockdown measures were strict, they were necessary to protect the NHS and save lives. The government also acted quickly to get a vaccine in place, which has proven to be effective. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The lockdown measures employed by the UK government to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were necessary, but were not necessarily the best approach. The government needed to act quickly to minimise the spread of the virus, and in this case they were successful. However, there were many mistakes made along the way, and the lockdown measures were not well implemented. For example, the government did not provide sufficient support for businesses and workers during the lockdown, and this led to many people being made unemployed and many businesses being forced to close. It is likely that the lockdown measures could have been implemented more effectively, but it is hard to know exactly what would have been the best approach. It is also likely that the lockdown measures were not the best approach to fighting the virus, and that a more targeted approach may have been more effective. For example, a targeted approach to the lockdown may have allowed more businesses to stay open and more people to continue working, whilst still minimising the spread of the virus. This would have been more effective in terms of keeping the economy running, and it would also have had a lower impact on people’s mental health. However, the targeted approach may not have been as effective in minimising the spread of the virus, and this may have +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The lockdown measures the government employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were not excessive. They were necessary to protect the population and to reduce the spread of the virus. The lockdown measures also gave the government time to prepare for the pandemic and to increase the capacity of the NHS to deal with the increased number of patients. The lockdown measures also gave time for a vaccine to be developed, and for people to be vaccinated. The lockdown measures also gave time for the government to put in place financial support for businesses and individuals that were affected by the pandemic. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002443.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002443.soc index 51ca10e7..4c28a912 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002443.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002443.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In conclusion, the group has decided that people should not be forced to wear masks on buses. This is because, even though there is evidence that masks reduce the spread of airborne diseases, people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a mask or not. This is because wearing a mask can be very uncomfortable and can cause breathing problems, especially for those who have health problems. Also, it is important to remember that we live in a free country and that we should not be forcing people to do anything that they do not want to do. However, we do think that it is important to advise people on what is expected of them in society. For example, if someone is unwell then they should wear a mask to prevent the spread of their illness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be forced to wear masks on buses. The reasons for this is that wearing masks is a personal choice, and can be very uncomfortable and claustrophobic for some people. Some people may also have health conditions that would make it dangerous for them to wear a mask, and so they should not be forced to wear one. Some people may also be unable to wear a mask for religious reasons, and so should not be forced to wear one. Wearing a mask can also be very uncomfortable, and can restrict breathing, which can lead to panic attacks in some people. Some people may also feel that wearing a mask is a violation of their basic human rights. There is also no evidence to suggest that wearing a mask prevents the spread of viruses, and so it should not be made mandatory to wear a mask on buses. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: People should not be forced to wear masks on buses. People should be free to make their own choice and should not be forced to wear a mask. The group came to this consensus view by looking at the health implications of wearing a mask and also by looking at the human rights implications of forcing people to wear a mask. The group also looked at the fact that masks have been proven to reduce the spread of airborne diseases and that they can protect people, but that people should not be forced to wear a mask if they do not want to. The group also came to the consensus view by looking at the fact that masks can be uncomfortable to wear, can be hot, and can cause breathing problems, which can lead to panic attacks and asthma attacks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the public should not be forced to wear masks on buses. We are a free country with freedom and rights, and so we can always advise people about what is expected of them in society, but we cannot force anything upon them. Even during a global pandemic, we can not force people to do something if it does not align with their beliefs, even if it clashes with personal ones. Wearing masks has been proven by research that they can reduce spread of airbourne diseases. However mask wearing has to continue to be individual choice because we do not know why someone refuses to don a mask. The reason for refusal can include physical health problems, breathing and lung conditions, disability, mental health problems and cancer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In conclusion, the group has decided that people should not be forced to wear masks on buses. This is because, even though there is evidence that masks reduce the spread of airborne diseases, people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a mask or not. This is because wearing a mask can be very uncomfortable and can cause breathing problems, especially for those who have health problems. Also, it is important to remember that we live in a free country and that we should not be forcing people to do anything that they do not want to do. However, we do think that it is important to advise people on what is expected of them in society. For example, if someone is unwell then they should wear a mask to prevent the spread of their illness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be forced to wear masks on buses. The reasons for this is that wearing masks is a personal choice, and can be very uncomfortable and claustrophobic for some people. Some people may also have health conditions that would make it dangerous for them to wear a mask, and so they should not be forced to wear one. Some people may also be unable to wear a mask for religious reasons, and so should not be forced to wear one. Wearing a mask can also be very uncomfortable, and can restrict breathing, which can lead to panic attacks in some people. Some people may also feel that wearing a mask is a violation of their basic human rights. There is also no evidence to suggest that wearing a mask prevents the spread of viruses, and so it should not be made mandatory to wear a mask on buses. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - People should not be forced to wear masks on buses. People should be free to make their own choice and should not be forced to wear a mask. The group came to this consensus view by looking at the health implications of wearing a mask and also by looking at the human rights implications of forcing people to wear a mask. The group also looked at the fact that masks have been proven to reduce the spread of airborne diseases and that they can protect people, but that people should not be forced to wear a mask if they do not want to. The group also came to the consensus view by looking at the fact that masks can be uncomfortable to wear, can be hot, and can cause breathing problems, which can lead to panic attacks and asthma attacks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the public should not be forced to wear masks on buses. We are a free country with freedom and rights, and so we can always advise people about what is expected of them in society, but we cannot force anything upon them. Even during a global pandemic, we can not force people to do something if it does not align with their beliefs, even if it clashes with personal ones. Wearing masks has been proven by research that they can reduce spread of airbourne diseases. However mask wearing has to continue to be individual choice because we do not know why someone refuses to don a mask. The reason for refusal can include physical health problems, breathing and lung conditions, disability, mental health problems and cancer. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002444.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002444.soc index 3856e43b..0b915351 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002444.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002444.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, a maximum wage is not necessary. Footballers incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A maximum wage is not necessary. Footballers incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister is an important one, yes, but the benefits they get for having this role last a lifetime. Footballers' incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A maximum wage is not necessary. Footballers incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, a maximum wage is not necessary. Footballers incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A maximum wage is not necessary. Footballers incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister is an important one, yes, but the benefits they get for having this role last a lifetime. Footballers' incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A maximum wage is not necessary. Footballers incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002445.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002445.soc index 30981651..f3313437 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002445.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002445.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The lockdown measures were the right thing to do to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The government did what they thought was best at the time and this was the best approach to take to try and control the spread of the virus. The government moved quickly to start getting people vaccinated which put other countries to shame. The lockdown measures were not excessive, they were necessary to try and control the spread of the virus and to try and protect the NHS and save lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The lockdown measures the government employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were necessary to an extent, but not without fault. The government has been criticised for its slow initial response to the pandemic, and this is a fair point. However, the lockdown measures that were employed were necessary, and did help to reduce the spread of the virus. There were some faults with the lockdown measures, however. The government was slow to react to the pandemic, and this led to a higher death toll than would have been the case had they acted sooner. Additionally, the lockdown measures were only successful to an extent. The government was not able to prevent all deaths, and the number of deaths in the UK is the highest in Europe. However, this is largely due to the high population density in the UK, which made it difficult to contain the virus. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In conclusion, the government did what it thought was right. There were many different approaches to the pandemic in different countries, and some were more successful than others. In the UK, it was the lockdown and a willingness to sacrifice freedoms and liberties for the greater good that was the correct approach, and it saved countless lives. It was not easy, and mistakes were made, but this was a pandemic that was unprecedented and the situation was truly exceptional. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The lockdown measures were the right thing to do to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The government did what they thought was best at the time and this was the best approach to take to try and control the spread of the virus. The government moved quickly to start getting people vaccinated which helped to save countless lives. The lockdown measures were not excessive, they were necessary to try and control the spread of the virus and to try and protect the NHS and save lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The lockdown measures were the right thing to do to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The government did what they thought was best at the time and this was the best approach to take to try and control the spread of the virus. The government moved quickly to start getting people vaccinated which put other countries to shame. The lockdown measures were not excessive, they were necessary to try and control the spread of the virus and to try and protect the NHS and save lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The lockdown measures the government employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic were necessary to an extent, but not without fault. The government has been criticised for its slow initial response to the pandemic, and this is a fair point. However, the lockdown measures that were employed were necessary, and did help to reduce the spread of the virus. There were some faults with the lockdown measures, however. The government was slow to react to the pandemic, and this led to a higher death toll than would have been the case had they acted sooner. Additionally, the lockdown measures were only successful to an extent. The government was not able to prevent all deaths, and the number of deaths in the UK is the highest in Europe. However, this is largely due to the high population density in the UK, which made it difficult to contain the virus. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In conclusion, the government did what it thought was right. There were many different approaches to the pandemic in different countries, and some were more successful than others. In the UK, it was the lockdown and a willingness to sacrifice freedoms and liberties for the greater good that was the correct approach, and it saved countless lives. It was not easy, and mistakes were made, but this was a pandemic that was unprecedented and the situation was truly exceptional. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The lockdown measures were the right thing to do to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The government did what they thought was best at the time and this was the best approach to take to try and control the spread of the virus. The government moved quickly to start getting people vaccinated which helped to save countless lives. The lockdown measures were not excessive, they were necessary to try and control the spread of the virus and to try and protect the NHS and save lives. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002446.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002446.soc index d7f9cb49..4eeded8e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002446.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002446.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister is an important one, yes, but the benefits they get for having this role last a lifetime. The salary of footballers should not be capped, as it depends on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Footballers should be paid what the market dictates. A maximum wage is not necessary as footballers should be allowed to make as much money as they can. A maximum wage is unfair and would reduce the earning power of footballers. A maximum wage would not be fair to footballers as they do not have a guaranteed income or pension when they retire. Footballers should be allowed to make as much money as they can as long as they are paying their taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister is an important one, yes, but the benefits they get for having this role last a lifetime. Footballers' incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should not be a maximum wage for footballers as this is a free market and the salaries of footballers are dependent on the skills of the individual and the demand for them. The Prime Minister on the other hand has a maximum wage that is determined by parliament. The salary of the Prime Minister should be increased to reflect the responsibilities of the role. This was then debated by the whole group who came to a consensus view as follows: The salary of the Prime Minister should be increased to reflect the responsibilities of the role. This should be done through a pay review by an independent body. The group came to the consensus view that there should not be a maximum wage for footballers as this is a free market and the salaries of footballers are dependent on the skills of the individual and the demand for them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister is an important one, yes, but the benefits they get for having this role last a lifetime. The salary of footballers should not be capped, as it depends on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Footballers should be paid what the market dictates. A maximum wage is not necessary as footballers should be allowed to make as much money as they can. A maximum wage is unfair and would reduce the earning power of footballers. A maximum wage would not be fair to footballers as they do not have a guaranteed income or pension when they retire. Footballers should be allowed to make as much money as they can as long as they are paying their taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister is an important one, yes, but the benefits they get for having this role last a lifetime. Footballers' incomes depend on their unique skills and demand. Market forces should determine salary. A maximum wage is unfair as it reduces people's earning power. Many footballers earn a crazy amount of money, however, that's the nature of the game. When they retire from the sport, they don't have a guaranteed income or pension. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should not be a maximum wage for footballers as this is a free market and the salaries of footballers are dependent on the skills of the individual and the demand for them. The Prime Minister on the other hand has a maximum wage that is determined by parliament. The salary of the Prime Minister should be increased to reflect the responsibilities of the role. This was then debated by the whole group who came to a consensus view as follows: The salary of the Prime Minister should be increased to reflect the responsibilities of the role. This should be done through a pay review by an independent body. The group came to the consensus view that there should not be a maximum wage for footballers as this is a free market and the salaries of footballers are dependent on the skills of the individual and the demand for them. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002447.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002447.soc index dd106778..9f765829 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002447.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002447.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the public should not be forced to wear masks on buses. People have freedom and human rights that need to be respected in the UK. We can advise people on the benefits of mask wearing on buses, and how this protects other members of the public, but we can not force people to don a mask if they refuse. People have different varying beliefs and we need to respect their views even if it clashes with out own personal ones. People may refuse to wear a mask because of... physical health problems, breathing and lung conditions, disability, mental health problems and cancer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the public should not be forced to wear masks on buses. People have freedom and human rights that need to be respected in the UK. We can advise people on the benefits of mask wearing on buses, and how this protects other members of the public, but we can not force people to don a mask if they refuse. People have different varying beliefs and we need to respect their views even if it clashes with out own personal ones. Wearing masks has been proven by research that they can reduce spread of airbourne diseases. However mask wearing has to continue to be individual choice because we do not know why someone refuses to don a mask. The reason for refusal can include physical health problems, breathing and lung conditions, disability, mental health problems and cancer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of people not being forced to wear masks on buses. This is because wearing a mask is an infringement of basic human rights. The group felt that wearing a mask is restricting and in some cases can trigger panic attacks/asthma attacks. The group also felt that masks are not necessary in every day life, especially now that COVID-19 is over. The group felt that people should be able to make their own decision and weigh up the pros and cons of mask wearing themselves before deciding if they would like to wear a mask on buses or not, it should not be made a mandatory ruling unless there is a threat at play. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Members of the public should not be forced to wear masks on buses. As a free country with freedom and rights, we can always advise people about what is expected of them in society, but we cannot force anything upon them. Even during a global pandemic, we can not force people to do something if it does not align with their beliefs, even if it clashes with personal ones. Wearing masks has been proven by research that they can reduce spread of airbourne diseases. However mask wearing has to continue to be individual choice because we do not know why someone refuses to don a mask. The reason for refusal can include physical health problems, breathing and lung conditions, disability, mental health problems and cancer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the public should not be forced to wear masks on buses. People have freedom and human rights that need to be respected in the UK. We can advise people on the benefits of mask wearing on buses, and how this protects other members of the public, but we can not force people to don a mask if they refuse. People have different varying beliefs and we need to respect their views even if it clashes with out own personal ones. People may refuse to wear a mask because of... physical health problems, breathing and lung conditions, disability, mental health problems and cancer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the public should not be forced to wear masks on buses. People have freedom and human rights that need to be respected in the UK. We can advise people on the benefits of mask wearing on buses, and how this protects other members of the public, but we can not force people to don a mask if they refuse. People have different varying beliefs and we need to respect their views even if it clashes with out own personal ones. Wearing masks has been proven by research that they can reduce spread of airbourne diseases. However mask wearing has to continue to be individual choice because we do not know why someone refuses to don a mask. The reason for refusal can include physical health problems, breathing and lung conditions, disability, mental health problems and cancer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of people not being forced to wear masks on buses. This is because wearing a mask is an infringement of basic human rights. The group felt that wearing a mask is restricting and in some cases can trigger panic attacks/asthma attacks. The group also felt that masks are not necessary in every day life, especially now that COVID-19 is over. The group felt that people should be able to make their own decision and weigh up the pros and cons of mask wearing themselves before deciding if they would like to wear a mask on buses or not, it should not be made a mandatory ruling unless there is a threat at play. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Members of the public should not be forced to wear masks on buses. As a free country with freedom and rights, we can always advise people about what is expected of them in society, but we cannot force anything upon them. Even during a global pandemic, we can not force people to do something if it does not align with their beliefs, even if it clashes with personal ones. Wearing masks has been proven by research that they can reduce spread of airbourne diseases. However mask wearing has to continue to be individual choice because we do not know why someone refuses to don a mask. The reason for refusal can include physical health problems, breathing and lung conditions, disability, mental health problems and cancer. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002448.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002448.soc index 54017f4e..d18bed5f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002448.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002448.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should provide aid to other countries in need. The amount of aid and which countries should be given priority is a difficult question. There are a number of factors that should be considered when deciding how much aid to give and to which countries. Firstly, we should consider the needs of our own country. If we are unable to provide for our own people, then we should not be providing aid to others. Secondly, we should consider the needs of the country in question. If they are unable to provide basic human needs for their people, then we should provide aid. If they are able to provide basic human needs, then we should not be providing aid. Thirdly, we should consider the impact of our aid. If our aid is making a positive impact on the lives of the people in the country, then we should continue to provide aid. If our aid is not making a positive impact on the lives of the people in the country, then we should not be providing aid. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of providing aid to other countries. The main reason for this was that we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves. This is particularly true for countries that are struggling to meet basic human needs, such as access to clean water and sanitation. However, the group also agreed that it is important to ensure that our own country is looked after before providing aid to others. There are many people in the UK who are in desperate need of help, and we should be looking after them before helping others. The group also agreed that it is important to be careful about how aid is provided, as it is easy for it to be misused. The group was also in favour of providing aid to countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, as this will help to protect the entire planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, we believe that it is important to give aid to other countries. We believe that this is the right thing to do and that it is our moral duty to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. However, we also believe that it is important to look after our own country first and foremost. We should look after our own people and our own country before looking to help others. Therefore, we believe that the amount of aid that we give to other countries should be limited and that we should only be giving aid to those countries who really need it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK has a responsibility to provide aid to countries that are less fortunate than our own. This aid can take many forms, from sending money to sending people to help in person. The aid that we provide should be used to help those countries with their basic human needs, such as clean water, food, shelter, and healthcare. It should also be used to help those countries develop, and help them to become more self-sufficient. We should not, however, continue to provide aid to countries that do not use it effectively, or that do not show signs of improving. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should provide aid to other countries in need. The amount of aid and which countries should be given priority is a difficult question. There are a number of factors that should be considered when deciding how much aid to give and to which countries. Firstly, we should consider the needs of our own country. If we are unable to provide for our own people, then we should not be providing aid to others. Secondly, we should consider the needs of the country in question. If they are unable to provide basic human needs for their people, then we should provide aid. If they are able to provide basic human needs, then we should not be providing aid. Thirdly, we should consider the impact of our aid. If our aid is making a positive impact on the lives of the people in the country, then we should continue to provide aid. If our aid is not making a positive impact on the lives of the people in the country, then we should not be providing aid. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of providing aid to other countries. The main reason for this was that we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves. This is particularly true for countries that are struggling to meet basic human needs, such as access to clean water and sanitation. However, the group also agreed that it is important to ensure that our own country is looked after before providing aid to others. There are many people in the UK who are in desperate need of help, and we should be looking after them before helping others. The group also agreed that it is important to be careful about how aid is provided, as it is easy for it to be misused. The group was also in favour of providing aid to countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, as this will help to protect the entire planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, we believe that it is important to give aid to other countries. We believe that this is the right thing to do and that it is our moral duty to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. However, we also believe that it is important to look after our own country first and foremost. We should look after our own people and our own country before looking to help others. Therefore, we believe that the amount of aid that we give to other countries should be limited and that we should only be giving aid to those countries who really need it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK has a responsibility to provide aid to countries that are less fortunate than our own. This aid can take many forms, from sending money to sending people to help in person. The aid that we provide should be used to help those countries with their basic human needs, such as clean water, food, shelter, and healthcare. It should also be used to help those countries develop, and help them to become more self-sufficient. We should not, however, continue to provide aid to countries that do not use it effectively, or that do not show signs of improving. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002449.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002449.soc index df8b0db7..f14087d7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002449.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002449.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing which is the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting specialised fluid into cracks to force them open even further. The fracking process is a controversial topic in the UK as it can have both positive and negative effects. The UK is heavily reliant on fossil fuels and so fracking could be a way to reduce the dependency on other countries for energy resources. The process could also create jobs for local people. However, the process has been banned in Scotland due to the environmental implications it has on the surrounding areas. The process has been known to cause earthquakes and can also cause noise disturbances for local people. In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing which is the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting specialised fluid into cracks to force them open even further. The Scottish government have banned fracking in Scotland due to the implications it has on the environment. There has been a significant change in public perceptions of the environment, the climate crisis and the expectations of government to respond which means that as a result fracking was banned in Scotland. I see no need to reverse this ban. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking is a process that has been used in the United States for many years, but it is only in recent years that it has been used in the UK. The process of fracking has many negative implications for the environment, including; the risk of earthquakes, water contamination, noise pollution and air pollution. The process also has implications for the local people living in the areas where fracking takes place. The process reduces the value of their houses, and causes noise disturbances. The process of fracking also has implications for climate change. The process of fracking uses a large amount of energy and therefore produces a large amount of greenhouse gases. Countries should be investing in renewable energy, and reducing the effects of climate change as it enters into critical levels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, fracking is not a good idea. The extraction of oil and gas through fracking is not a good idea for Scotland and the rest of the UK as it has a detrimental impact on the environment. The process of fracking is extremely damaging to the environment and causes significant harm to the local communities where it is taking place. Fracking can also cause earthquakes and therefore has the potential to cause damage to property. There is also the issue of climate change and the effect that fracking has on this. The extraction of gas and oil through fracking can also cause methane to be released into the atmosphere which is a harmful greenhouse gas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing which is the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting specialised fluid into cracks to force them open even further. The fracking process is a controversial topic in the UK as it can have both positive and negative effects. The UK is heavily reliant on fossil fuels and so fracking could be a way to reduce the dependency on other countries for energy resources. The process could also create jobs for local people. However, the process has been banned in Scotland due to the environmental implications it has on the surrounding areas. The process has been known to cause earthquakes and can also cause noise disturbances for local people. In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing which is the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting specialised fluid into cracks to force them open even further. The Scottish government have banned fracking in Scotland due to the implications it has on the environment. There has been a significant change in public perceptions of the environment, the climate crisis and the expectations of government to respond which means that as a result fracking was banned in Scotland. I see no need to reverse this ban. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. Fracking is a process that has been used in the United States for many years, but it is only in recent years that it has been used in the UK. The process of fracking has many negative implications for the environment, including; the risk of earthquakes, water contamination, noise pollution and air pollution. The process also has implications for the local people living in the areas where fracking takes place. The process reduces the value of their houses, and causes noise disturbances. The process of fracking also has implications for climate change. The process of fracking uses a large amount of energy and therefore produces a large amount of greenhouse gases. Countries should be investing in renewable energy, and reducing the effects of climate change as it enters into critical levels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, fracking is not a good idea. The extraction of oil and gas through fracking is not a good idea for Scotland and the rest of the UK as it has a detrimental impact on the environment. The process of fracking is extremely damaging to the environment and causes significant harm to the local communities where it is taking place. Fracking can also cause earthquakes and therefore has the potential to cause damage to property. There is also the issue of climate change and the effect that fracking has on this. The extraction of gas and oil through fracking can also cause methane to be released into the atmosphere which is a harmful greenhouse gas. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002450.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002450.soc index 85ac00ea..ed22d3e3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002450.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002450.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on private jets. The participants agreed that private jets are an unnecessary luxury and are often bought and used as a symbol of wealth and status. The participants also agreed that private jets are a massive contributor to pollution and that there are better, more sustainable ways to travel. However, the participants did not feel that an outright ban on private jets was necessary or fair. The participants felt that people should be able to spend their money as they wish and that a ban on private jets would be an infringement on people's rights. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people whose jobs require them to travel frequently. The participants felt that people whose jobs require them to travel frequently should be able to do so in the most efficient and comfortable way possible. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people who are in the public eye and who would be hounded by fans if they were to get on a commercial flight. The participants felt that people who are in the public eye should be able to travel in private if they wish to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not ban all private jets. The issue of private jets is not as simple as it seems. Private jets are not all the same, and they are not all used in the same way. For example, some private jets are used for emergency medical evacuations. These jets can be used to save lives, and it would be a shame to ban them. Some private jets are used by people who are famous and are constantly followed by fans and paparazzi. For these people, private jets can be a necessity, and it would be unfair to ban them. Private jets are also used by business people. These people are often very busy, and they need to get to meetings and conferences as quickly as possible. It would be unfair to ban these people from using private jets. It is true that private jets are not good for the environment. However, private jets are a necessity for some people, and banning them would be unfair. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to banning private jets. The group felt that it would be unfair to people who use private jets for work purposes. The group also felt that people should be allowed to spend their money in the way they want to. However, the group did agree that more sustainable practices should be encouraged. The group also felt that more efficient regulations should be introduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not ban all private jets. Private jets are a massive luxury. However, it may be worthwhile having some kind of limitations on their uses in order to benefit the environment. Taking a private jet for a short distance that could be made in a car is not an environmentally friendly idea. However, on outright ban is not necessary or fair as some people in the world would be hounded by fans if they were to get on a commercial flight. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on private jets. The participants agreed that private jets are an unnecessary luxury and are often bought and used as a symbol of wealth and status. The participants also agreed that private jets are a massive contributor to pollution and that there are better, more sustainable ways to travel. However, the participants did not feel that an outright ban on private jets was necessary or fair. The participants felt that people should be able to spend their money as they wish and that a ban on private jets would be an infringement on people's rights. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people whose jobs require them to travel frequently. The participants felt that people whose jobs require them to travel frequently should be able to do so in the most efficient and comfortable way possible. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people who are in the public eye and who would be hounded by fans if they were to get on a commercial flight. The participants felt that people who are in the public eye should be able to travel in private if they wish to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not ban all private jets. The issue of private jets is not as simple as it seems. Private jets are not all the same, and they are not all used in the same way. For example, some private jets are used for emergency medical evacuations. These jets can be used to save lives, and it would be a shame to ban them. Some private jets are used by people who are famous and are constantly followed by fans and paparazzi. For these people, private jets can be a necessity, and it would be unfair to ban them. Private jets are also used by business people. These people are often very busy, and they need to get to meetings and conferences as quickly as possible. It would be unfair to ban these people from using private jets. It is true that private jets are not good for the environment. However, private jets are a necessity for some people, and banning them would be unfair. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to banning private jets. The group felt that it would be unfair to people who use private jets for work purposes. The group also felt that people should be allowed to spend their money in the way they want to. However, the group did agree that more sustainable practices should be encouraged. The group also felt that more efficient regulations should be introduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not ban all private jets. Private jets are a massive luxury. However, it may be worthwhile having some kind of limitations on their uses in order to benefit the environment. Taking a private jet for a short distance that could be made in a car is not an environmentally friendly idea. However, on outright ban is not necessary or fair as some people in the world would be hounded by fans if they were to get on a commercial flight. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002451.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002451.soc index 5d4d9fda..e4113bff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002451.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002451.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The negative effects on the environment and health of those living in the vicinity of fracking sites are just too great. The potential damage to the Scottish countryside, including beautiful areas like the Scottish Highlands, and the damage to the reputation of the Scottish Government as a result of fracking is too great. The potential for jobs and economic growth as a result of fracking is not enough to outweigh these negative effects. The current Scottish Government, as well as the British government, should be investing in renewable energy sources such as wind power and wave power, which will create jobs in Scotland and help to combat climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing which is the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting specialised fluid into cracks to force them open even further. The fracking process is a controversial topic in the UK as it can have both positive and negative effects. The UK is heavily reliant on fossil fuels and so fracking could be a way to reduce the dependency on other countries for energy resources. The process could also create jobs for local people. However, the process has been banned in Scotland due to the environmental implications it has on the surrounding areas. The process has been known to cause earthquakes and can also cause noise disturbances for local people. In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Fracking is a controversial topic in the UK as it can have both positive and negative effects. The UK is heavily reliant on fossil fuels and so fracking could be a way to reduce the dependency on other countries for energy resources. The process could also create jobs for local people. However, the process has been banned in Scotland due to the environmental implications it has on the surrounding areas. The process has been known to cause earthquakes and can also cause noise disturbances for local people. In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fracking is a controversial topic, and for us to be able to reach a consensus opinion on whether it should be allowed in Scotland, we had to first establish the definition of fracking. Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing which is the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting specialised fluid into cracks to force them open even further. Fracking is a hot topic in politics due to the environmental effects that it can cause. Fracking is not only a threat to the environment, but also to the health of those living in the area. The process of fracking can cause harmful effects to the environment, but can also cause earthquakes, and if there is a leak of any of the toxic chemicals that are used in fracking, then this could cause lasting damage to the health of those living in the area. With the climate crisis now being at critical levels, it is necessary for the government to respond. This means that in order to combat the effects of the climate crisis, the government should invest in renewable energy, and not continue to use fossil fuels, which is what fracking is a form of. With this being said, fracking should not be allowed in Scotland, and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. The negative effects on the environment and health of those living in the vicinity of fracking sites are just too great. The potential damage to the Scottish countryside, including beautiful areas like the Scottish Highlands, and the damage to the reputation of the Scottish Government as a result of fracking is too great. The potential for jobs and economic growth as a result of fracking is not enough to outweigh these negative effects. The current Scottish Government, as well as the British government, should be investing in renewable energy sources such as wind power and wave power, which will create jobs in Scotland and help to combat climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing which is the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting specialised fluid into cracks to force them open even further. The fracking process is a controversial topic in the UK as it can have both positive and negative effects. The UK is heavily reliant on fossil fuels and so fracking could be a way to reduce the dependency on other countries for energy resources. The process could also create jobs for local people. However, the process has been banned in Scotland due to the environmental implications it has on the surrounding areas. The process has been known to cause earthquakes and can also cause noise disturbances for local people. In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Fracking is a controversial topic in the UK as it can have both positive and negative effects. The UK is heavily reliant on fossil fuels and so fracking could be a way to reduce the dependency on other countries for energy resources. The process could also create jobs for local people. However, the process has been banned in Scotland due to the environmental implications it has on the surrounding areas. The process has been known to cause earthquakes and can also cause noise disturbances for local people. In conclusion, the group has come to the consensus opinion that fracking should not be allowed in Scotland. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fracking is a controversial topic, and for us to be able to reach a consensus opinion on whether it should be allowed in Scotland, we had to first establish the definition of fracking. Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing which is the process of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting specialised fluid into cracks to force them open even further. Fracking is a hot topic in politics due to the environmental effects that it can cause. Fracking is not only a threat to the environment, but also to the health of those living in the area. The process of fracking can cause harmful effects to the environment, but can also cause earthquakes, and if there is a leak of any of the toxic chemicals that are used in fracking, then this could cause lasting damage to the health of those living in the area. With the climate crisis now being at critical levels, it is necessary for the government to respond. This means that in order to combat the effects of the climate crisis, the government should invest in renewable energy, and not continue to use fossil fuels, which is what fracking is a form of. With this being said, fracking should not be allowed in Scotland, and 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002452.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002452.soc index 091451c0..f622dac7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002452.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002452.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on private jets. The group felt that private jets are an important means of transport for some people and banning them would be unfair to those people. However, the group felt that private jets are a symbol of wealth and status and that they should be discouraged from being used in this way. The group also felt that private jets are often used inefficiently and that this is something that should be discouraged. The group felt that private jets should be encouraged to be used more efficiently and in a more sustainable way. The group also felt that private jets should be encouraged to be used in a way that is not a symbol of wealth and status. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not ban private jets, however, strict regulations should be put in place to ensure private jets are used in the most sustainable way possible. The amount of private jets in the world should be capped, and the amount of emissions a private jet is allowed to produce should be capped. We should also look to incentivise the use of more sustainable forms of transport, such as high speed rail, for journeys that would normally be made by private jet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on private jets. The participants agreed that private jets are an unnecessary luxury and are often bought and used as a symbol of wealth and status. The participants also agreed that private jets are a massive contributor to pollution and that there are better, more sustainable ways to travel. However, the participants did not feel that an outright ban on private jets was necessary or fair. The participants felt that people should be able to spend their money as they wish and that a ban on private jets would be an infringement on people's rights. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people whose jobs require them to travel frequently. The participants felt that people whose jobs require them to travel frequently should be able to do so in the most efficient and comfortable way possible. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people who are in the public eye and who would be hounded by fans if they were to get on a commercial flight. The participants felt that people who are in the public eye should be able to travel in private if they wish to do so. However, the participants did agree that some limitations on private jet usage should be imposed in order to benefit the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on private jets. The participants agreed that private jets are an unnecessary luxury and are often bought and used as a symbol of wealth and status. The participants also agreed that private jets are a massive contributor to pollution and that there are better, more sustainable ways to travel. However, the participants did not feel that an outright ban on private jets was necessary or fair. The participants felt that people should be able to spend their money as they wish and that a ban on private jets would be an infringement on people's rights. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people whose jobs require them to travel frequently. The participants felt that people whose jobs require them to travel frequently should be able to do so in the most efficient and comfortable way possible. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people who are in the public eye and who would be hounded by fans if they were to get on a commercial flight. The participants felt that people who are in the public eye should be able to travel in private if they wish to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to an outright ban on private jets. The group felt that private jets are an important means of transport for some people and banning them would be unfair to those people. However, the group felt that private jets are a symbol of wealth and status and that they should be discouraged from being used in this way. The group also felt that private jets are often used inefficiently and that this is something that should be discouraged. The group felt that private jets should be encouraged to be used more efficiently and in a more sustainable way. The group also felt that private jets should be encouraged to be used in a way that is not a symbol of wealth and status. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not ban private jets, however, strict regulations should be put in place to ensure private jets are used in the most sustainable way possible. The amount of private jets in the world should be capped, and the amount of emissions a private jet is allowed to produce should be capped. We should also look to incentivise the use of more sustainable forms of transport, such as high speed rail, for journeys that would normally be made by private jet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on private jets. The participants agreed that private jets are an unnecessary luxury and are often bought and used as a symbol of wealth and status. The participants also agreed that private jets are a massive contributor to pollution and that there are better, more sustainable ways to travel. However, the participants did not feel that an outright ban on private jets was necessary or fair. The participants felt that people should be able to spend their money as they wish and that a ban on private jets would be an infringement on people's rights. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people whose jobs require them to travel frequently. The participants felt that people whose jobs require them to travel frequently should be able to do so in the most efficient and comfortable way possible. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people who are in the public eye and who would be hounded by fans if they were to get on a commercial flight. The participants felt that people who are in the public eye should be able to travel in private if they wish to do so. However, the participants did agree that some limitations on private jet usage should be imposed in order to benefit the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on private jets. The participants agreed that private jets are an unnecessary luxury and are often bought and used as a symbol of wealth and status. The participants also agreed that private jets are a massive contributor to pollution and that there are better, more sustainable ways to travel. However, the participants did not feel that an outright ban on private jets was necessary or fair. The participants felt that people should be able to spend their money as they wish and that a ban on private jets would be an infringement on people's rights. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people whose jobs require them to travel frequently. The participants felt that people whose jobs require them to travel frequently should be able to do so in the most efficient and comfortable way possible. The participants also felt that a ban on private jets would be unfair to people who are in the public eye and who would be hounded by fans if they were to get on a commercial flight. The participants felt that people who are in the public eye should be able to travel in private if they wish to do so. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002453.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002453.soc index 5cf2f2fc..f94b8221 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002453.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002453.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that hunting for sport is wrong. We believe that hunting for food is okay, but we do not think that hunting for sport is okay. We think that if an animal is going to be killed, it should be for a good reason, such as food, and not for sport. We think that if a species is endangered or protected, it should not be hunted. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to hunting for sport. We felt that the only time it was acceptable to hunt was when it was for food, or when the species was in some way a pest. We felt that hunting foxes was wrong, and should be banned. We also felt that hunting endangered species was wrong, and should be banned. We felt that hunting was a very outdated pastime, and that it was not something that was very common in todays society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of hunting for sport. The group felt that hunting for food was more acceptable, but that it was important to ensure that the animal was killed in a humane way. The group felt that hunting endangered species should be banned, and that hunting foxes was particularly barbaric and should be outlawed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to hunting for sport. The group felt that hunting for sport is outdated and unnecessary. The group felt that hunting for food is necessary in some situations, but that the species hunted should not be endangered or protected. The group felt that hunting for sport is inhumane and that the animals are being used as a form of entertainment. The group felt that fox hunting is particularly inhumane and should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that hunting for sport is wrong. We believe that hunting for food is okay, but we do not think that hunting for sport is okay. We think that if an animal is going to be killed, it should be for a good reason, such as food, and not for sport. We think that if a species is endangered or protected, it should not be hunted. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to hunting for sport. We felt that the only time it was acceptable to hunt was when it was for food, or when the species was in some way a pest. We felt that hunting foxes was wrong, and should be banned. We also felt that hunting endangered species was wrong, and should be banned. We felt that hunting was a very outdated pastime, and that it was not something that was very common in todays society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of hunting for sport. The group felt that hunting for food was more acceptable, but that it was important to ensure that the animal was killed in a humane way. The group felt that hunting endangered species should be banned, and that hunting foxes was particularly barbaric and should be outlawed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to hunting for sport. The group felt that hunting for sport is outdated and unnecessary. The group felt that hunting for food is necessary in some situations, but that the species hunted should not be endangered or protected. The group felt that hunting for sport is inhumane and that the animals are being used as a form of entertainment. The group felt that fox hunting is particularly inhumane and should be banned. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002454.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002454.soc index 81022801..f8f22eb2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002454.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002454.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not believe it is possible to completely eradicate bullying in schools, however, it is possible to reduce it significantly. In order to do this, schools must implement a reporting system where students can anonymously report bullying, and also ensure that students are educated on the topic of bullying. Schools should also create an environment where students feel safe to speak up about bullying and know that they will be listened to. It is also important that schools work closely with parents to ensure that the values that are being taught in school are also being taught at home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We feel that bullying can be reduced in schools but not completely eradicated. Children are still growing and learning about the world. They will make mistakes and be unkind to each other at times. However, we feel that a lot of bullying can be prevented by creating a culture of inclusion in schools. Teachers and pupils need to be educated about bullying and the impact it can have on a person. There needs to be a system in place where pupils can report bullying anonymously and be confident that it will be dealt with. If pupils know that they can speak up about bullying without fear of repercussions then this will help to reduce bullying in schools. It is also important to educate pupils on why people bully. It is often a case of insecurity and a need to feel superior. If pupils understand this then they will be less likely to bully and more likely to stand up for a pupil who is being bullied. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that bullying in schools is a difficult problem to solve. We all feel that it is possible to reduce bullying in schools, but not completely eradicate it. This is because children are impressionable and will often follow the behaviour of those around them, whether that is their parents, friends or siblings. We also feel that it is difficult to monitor children all of the time, and bullying can happen when they are out of sight. However, we feel that bullying can be reduced by implementing a reporting system, where students can anonymously report bullying. This will allow the school to be aware of any bullying that is happening and take the necessary steps to stop it. We also feel that it is important to educate students on the topic of bullying, and to create an environment where pupils feel safe to speak up. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although it is possible to reduce bullying in schools, it is not possible to eradicate it completely. Bullying is a complex issue and is caused by a variety of factors, including the home environment, the school environment, and the wider social environment. Therefore, it is very difficult to create a school environment where bullying is completely eradicated. The best way to reduce bullying is to educate students about the harms of bullying, to create a culture of inclusivity in the school, and to have a clear policy on bullying, with clear consequences for those who bully. It is also important that students feel safe to report bullying when it occurs. However, it is not possible to monitor students all the time, and some bullying will inevitably occur when students are out of sight. Therefore, it is not possible to eradicate bullying completely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not believe it is possible to completely eradicate bullying in schools, however, it is possible to reduce it significantly. In order to do this, schools must implement a reporting system where students can anonymously report bullying, and also ensure that students are educated on the topic of bullying. Schools should also create an environment where students feel safe to speak up about bullying and know that they will be listened to. It is also important that schools work closely with parents to ensure that the values that are being taught in school are also being taught at home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We feel that bullying can be reduced in schools but not completely eradicated. Children are still growing and learning about the world. They will make mistakes and be unkind to each other at times. However, we feel that a lot of bullying can be prevented by creating a culture of inclusion in schools. Teachers and pupils need to be educated about bullying and the impact it can have on a person. There needs to be a system in place where pupils can report bullying anonymously and be confident that it will be dealt with. If pupils know that they can speak up about bullying without fear of repercussions then this will help to reduce bullying in schools. It is also important to educate pupils on why people bully. It is often a case of insecurity and a need to feel superior. If pupils understand this then they will be less likely to bully and more likely to stand up for a pupil who is being bullied. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that bullying in schools is a difficult problem to solve. We all feel that it is possible to reduce bullying in schools, but not completely eradicate it. This is because children are impressionable and will often follow the behaviour of those around them, whether that is their parents, friends or siblings. We also feel that it is difficult to monitor children all of the time, and bullying can happen when they are out of sight. However, we feel that bullying can be reduced by implementing a reporting system, where students can anonymously report bullying. This will allow the school to be aware of any bullying that is happening and take the necessary steps to stop it. We also feel that it is important to educate students on the topic of bullying, and to create an environment where pupils feel safe to speak up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although it is possible to reduce bullying in schools, it is not possible to eradicate it completely. Bullying is a complex issue and is caused by a variety of factors, including the home environment, the school environment, and the wider social environment. Therefore, it is very difficult to create a school environment where bullying is completely eradicated. The best way to reduce bullying is to educate students about the harms of bullying, to create a culture of inclusivity in the school, and to have a clear policy on bullying, with clear consequences for those who bully. It is also important that students feel safe to report bullying when it occurs. However, it is not possible to monitor students all the time, and some bullying will inevitably occur when students are out of sight. Therefore, it is not possible to eradicate bullying completely. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002455.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002455.soc index e10f7917..cc608b7b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002455.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002455.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Cryptocurrencies should not be banned in the UK. The UK is a democratic state and we should not be banning things. We believe that cryptocurrencies provide an alternative and relatively safe way to transact electronically online. Its vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. Cryptocurrencies also creates new ways to pay and provides many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantaneous payments worldwide. We believe that cryptocurrencies are not a black market currency and do not make it easier for criminals to wash their dirty money. There are negatives such as crime on these currencies due to the ability of being anonymous however you can say the same can happen with actual cash. We believe that cryptocurrencies are not easy to manipulate the prices of the currency, where unsavoury people con people who don't fully understand the risks involved. We believe that there is a need for a governing body to oversee correct procedures. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies. The participants felt that the UK should not ban cryptocurrencies as it limits and restricts choice. It would show that they are trying to centralise money as opposed to giving the people options. There are negatives such as crime on these currencies due to the ability of being anonymous however you can say the same can happen with actual cash. The participants felt that the UK government should not ban cryptocurrencies but instead create a governing body to oversee correct procedures. This would make cryptocurrencies more transparent and accountable. This would also make cryptocurrencies more accessible to the public and would increase the usage of cryptocurrencies. The participants felt that there should be more information on cryptocurrencies and that the public should be made more aware of the benefits of cryptocurrencies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies. The main arguments were that cryptocurrencies provide an alternative and relatively safe way to transact electronically online. Its vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. Cryptocurrencies also creates new ways to pay and provides many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantaneous payments worldwide. However, the group did agree that cryptocurrencies are being used by criminals to wash their dirty money. The anonymity of the system makes it very difficult to track criminals. There is a need to restrict the use of cryptocurrencies to prevent their use by criminals. The group also agreed that cryptocurrencies are very volatile and can be manipulated easily. This makes them very risky to use as a currency. The group agreed that the best way forward is to not ban cryptocurrencies but to restrict their use. The restriction should be in the form of a governing body that will oversee the use of cryptocurrencies and ensure that they are not used by criminals. This will help to reduce the risk of cryptocurrencies and increase their use as a currency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies. They thought that there should be more information and education on cryptocurrencies and that they should not be banned. They thought that cryptocurrencies are a valid form of monetary exchange and that there is no reason for them to be banned. They also thought that cryptocurrencies are not a black market currency and that they are not easier for criminals to wash their dirty money. They also thought that cryptocurrencies are not easy to manipulate and that they are a relatively safe way to transact online. They also thought that it is vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. They also thought that cryptocurrencies create new ways to pay and provide many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantaneous payments worldwide. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Cryptocurrencies should not be banned in the UK. The UK is a democratic state and we should not be banning things. We believe that cryptocurrencies provide an alternative and relatively safe way to transact electronically online. Its vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. Cryptocurrencies also creates new ways to pay and provides many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantaneous payments worldwide. We believe that cryptocurrencies are not a black market currency and do not make it easier for criminals to wash their dirty money. There are negatives such as crime on these currencies due to the ability of being anonymous however you can say the same can happen with actual cash. We believe that cryptocurrencies are not easy to manipulate the prices of the currency, where unsavoury people con people who don't fully understand the risks involved. We believe that there is a need for a governing body to oversee correct procedures. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies. The participants felt that the UK should not ban cryptocurrencies as it limits and restricts choice. It would show that they are trying to centralise money as opposed to giving the people options. There are negatives such as crime on these currencies due to the ability of being anonymous however you can say the same can happen with actual cash. The participants felt that the UK government should not ban cryptocurrencies but instead create a governing body to oversee correct procedures. This would make cryptocurrencies more transparent and accountable. This would also make cryptocurrencies more accessible to the public and would increase the usage of cryptocurrencies. The participants felt that there should be more information on cryptocurrencies and that the public should be made more aware of the benefits of cryptocurrencies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies. The main arguments were that cryptocurrencies provide an alternative and relatively safe way to transact electronically online. Its vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. Cryptocurrencies also creates new ways to pay and provides many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantaneous payments worldwide. However, the group did agree that cryptocurrencies are being used by criminals to wash their dirty money. The anonymity of the system makes it very difficult to track criminals. There is a need to restrict the use of cryptocurrencies to prevent their use by criminals. The group also agreed that cryptocurrencies are very volatile and can be manipulated easily. This makes them very risky to use as a currency. The group agreed that the best way forward is to not ban cryptocurrencies but to restrict their use. The restriction should be in the form of a governing body that will oversee the use of cryptocurrencies and ensure that they are not used by criminals. This will help to reduce the risk of cryptocurrencies and increase their use as a currency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies. They thought that there should be more information and education on cryptocurrencies and that they should not be banned. They thought that cryptocurrencies are a valid form of monetary exchange and that there is no reason for them to be banned. They also thought that cryptocurrencies are not a black market currency and that they are not easier for criminals to wash their dirty money. They also thought that cryptocurrencies are not easy to manipulate and that they are a relatively safe way to transact online. They also thought that it is vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. They also thought that cryptocurrencies create new ways to pay and provide many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantaneous payments worldwide. 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002456.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002456.soc index af05b4ff..c19645b4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002456.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002456.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks would be detrimental to the economy and would not have the desired effect of reducing sugar consumption. We believe that the issue of obesity is more complex than just sugar consumption and that increasing taxes would not be an effective way of dealing with the issue. We believe that the government should invest in educating people on the health risks of sugar consumption and obesity. We also believe that the government should invest in making healthy food more affordable and accessible to people. We believe that the government should also invest in making exercise more accessible to people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should not increase the tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. Sugar-sweetened drinks are already subject to tax to deter excessive consumption and promote healthier life choices. On the other hand the tax disproportionally impacts lower health individuals. I feel like there are other much more pressing issues rather than ther tax on sugar sweetended drinks in the current environment. We should not distort the market by increasing taxes which will create inefficiencies in the market by increasing deadweight loss. The market will be distorted by the application of the tax which will be inconvenient for producers and consumers. Consumers who use drinks in moderation will be unfairly punished for their decisions which is unfair. Consumers may actually switch to a less healthy alternative if the tax is imposed, which could actually worsen the issue that the tax aims to solve by reducing sugary drink consumption. Realistically any increase in tax will be a problem economically and should be avoided if possible. This could also have negative implications for the economy in terms of employment and inward investment into the market with regards to drinks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The group felt that it was unfair to increase taxes on the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks as it would punish people who consume these drinks in moderation. The group also felt that the tax would not be effective in reducing the consumption of sugary drinks as people would switch to alternative unhealthy drinks. The group felt that the tax would also be economically inefficient as it would create deadweight loss in the market and distort the market. The group felt that it would be more effective to increase the price of sugary drinks by increasing the costs of production rather than by increasing taxes on consumption. This would also be more economically efficient as it would not distort the market. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not increase taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. Taxes are already in place on sugar-sweetened drinks and increasing them would not solve the obesity problem. The tax would also disproportionally impact lower health individuals and could lead to them switching to an even less healthy alternative. The tax would also distort the market, creating inefficiencies in the market by increasing deadweight loss. The tax would also unfairly punish consumers who use drinks in moderation. The tax would also have negative implications for the economy in terms of employment and inward investment into the market with regards to drinks. The tax would also not be ring fenced for a purpose, which would make it easier to swallow. The tax would also not solve the obesity problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks would be detrimental to the economy and would not have the desired effect of reducing sugar consumption. We believe that the issue of obesity is more complex than just sugar consumption and that increasing taxes would not be an effective way of dealing with the issue. We believe that the government should invest in educating people on the health risks of sugar consumption and obesity. We also believe that the government should invest in making healthy food more affordable and accessible to people. We believe that the government should also invest in making exercise more accessible to people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should not increase the tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. Sugar-sweetened drinks are already subject to tax to deter excessive consumption and promote healthier life choices. On the other hand the tax disproportionally impacts lower health individuals. I feel like there are other much more pressing issues rather than ther tax on sugar sweetended drinks in the current environment. We should not distort the market by increasing taxes which will create inefficiencies in the market by increasing deadweight loss. The market will be distorted by the application of the tax which will be inconvenient for producers and consumers. Consumers who use drinks in moderation will be unfairly punished for their decisions which is unfair. Consumers may actually switch to a less healthy alternative if the tax is imposed, which could actually worsen the issue that the tax aims to solve by reducing sugary drink consumption. Realistically any increase in tax will be a problem economically and should be avoided if possible. This could also have negative implications for the economy in terms of employment and inward investment into the market with regards to drinks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The group felt that it was unfair to increase taxes on the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks as it would punish people who consume these drinks in moderation. The group also felt that the tax would not be effective in reducing the consumption of sugary drinks as people would switch to alternative unhealthy drinks. The group felt that the tax would also be economically inefficient as it would create deadweight loss in the market and distort the market. The group felt that it would be more effective to increase the price of sugary drinks by increasing the costs of production rather than by increasing taxes on consumption. This would also be more economically efficient as it would not distort the market. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not increase taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. Taxes are already in place on sugar-sweetened drinks and increasing them would not solve the obesity problem. The tax would also disproportionally impact lower health individuals and could lead to them switching to an even less healthy alternative. The tax would also distort the market, creating inefficiencies in the market by increasing deadweight loss. The tax would also unfairly punish consumers who use drinks in moderation. The tax would also have negative implications for the economy in terms of employment and inward investment into the market with regards to drinks. The tax would also not be ring fenced for a purpose, which would make it easier to swallow. The tax would also not solve the obesity problem. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002457.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002457.soc index c5f651e4..bbdd0d07 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002457.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002457.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a maximum wage for footballers. The current system is divisive and creates a gap in society. It also creates a false sense of achievement for those who earn a lot of money. It is not right that people who have little responsibility for the country earn so much more than those who do. The Prime Minister is responsible for the whole country and should be rewarded for this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a maximum wage for footballers to ensure that they do not earn more than the Prime Minister. However, the group was divided as to whether this would be a good idea in practice. Some thought that it would be a good idea, as it would prevent footballers from earning obscene amounts of money and would prevent footballers from earning more than the Prime Minister. Others thought that it would not be a good idea, as footballers bring in a lot of revenue to the country and it would be unfair to cap their wages. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. While the issue of whether footballers should earn more than the Prime Minister is a valid one, it is not one that can be solved by introducing a maximum wage. It is not in the interest of the country to reduce the income of footballers, as they bring in a lot of revenue to the country. The issue of whether footballers should earn more than the Prime Minister should be addressed by increasing the salary of the Prime Minister, not by reducing the salary of footballers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a maximum wage for footballers. While some people in the group felt that footballers should not earn more than the Prime Minister, the group as a whole felt that this was not a good way to approach the issue. The group felt that it was more important to ensure that people in society were not being left behind, and that a gap in income was not corrosive to societal cohesion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a maximum wage for footballers. The current system is divisive and creates a gap in society. It also creates a false sense of achievement for those who earn a lot of money. It is not right that people who have little responsibility for the country earn so much more than those who do. The Prime Minister is responsible for the whole country and should be rewarded for this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a maximum wage for footballers to ensure that they do not earn more than the Prime Minister. However, the group was divided as to whether this would be a good idea in practice. Some thought that it would be a good idea, as it would prevent footballers from earning obscene amounts of money and would prevent footballers from earning more than the Prime Minister. Others thought that it would not be a good idea, as footballers bring in a lot of revenue to the country and it would be unfair to cap their wages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. While the issue of whether footballers should earn more than the Prime Minister is a valid one, it is not one that can be solved by introducing a maximum wage. It is not in the interest of the country to reduce the income of footballers, as they bring in a lot of revenue to the country. The issue of whether footballers should earn more than the Prime Minister should be addressed by increasing the salary of the Prime Minister, not by reducing the salary of footballers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a maximum wage for footballers. While some people in the group felt that footballers should not earn more than the Prime Minister, the group as a whole felt that this was not a good way to approach the issue. The group felt that it was more important to ensure that people in society were not being left behind, and that a gap in income was not corrosive to societal cohesion. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002458.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002458.soc index 75ff2bed..15089846 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002458.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002458.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In principle, yes we should be in favour of universal basic income. It would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. However, it is not visible to aim. Each country has own advantages and disadvantages. Would be very hard if not impossible to try reaching basic income for every state in the world. We should try to reach this in the UK, however. It would be a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish. The minimum wage is too low at the moment in my opinion and it should be increased by at least 20%. I believe in equality for all.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Yes, we should be in favour of universal basic income. We need to help those that need help. It is not right that so many people are living in poverty in the UK, one of the richest countries in the world. The lowest paid should be paid more. The highest earners should be taxed more. A basic income would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. It would only help the economy and the people flourish.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, we should be in favour of universal basic income. We should not expect people to work for a living wage, it should be a basic right. This would help to reduce the reliance on the benefits system and the need for people to turn to crime. The minimum wage should be increased and there should be a basic income for all. It is a leveller and would help to address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. We should be in favour of universal basic income. A base salary for everyone to get basic needs cannot be a bad thing. Tax the highest earners more. Everyone should be able to live life with at least the basics. It would make a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should be in favour of universal basic income. It is the approach taken in some other countries that have a higher rating on the happiness index than the UK. This approach would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. I think that it would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. It would make a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In principle, yes we should be in favour of universal basic income. It would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. However, it is not visible to aim. Each country has own advantages and disadvantages. Would be very hard if not impossible to try reaching basic income for every state in the world. We should try to reach this in the UK, however. It would be a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish. The minimum wage is too low at the moment in my opinion and it should be increased by at least 20%. I believe in equality for all.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Yes, we should be in favour of universal basic income. We need to help those that need help. It is not right that so many people are living in poverty in the UK, one of the richest countries in the world. The lowest paid should be paid more. The highest earners should be taxed more. A basic income would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. It would only help the economy and the people flourish.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, we should be in favour of universal basic income. We should not expect people to work for a living wage, it should be a basic right. This would help to reduce the reliance on the benefits system and the need for people to turn to crime. The minimum wage should be increased and there should be a basic income for all. It is a leveller and would help to address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. We should be in favour of universal basic income. A base salary for everyone to get basic needs cannot be a bad thing. Tax the highest earners more. Everyone should be able to live life with at least the basics. It would make a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should be in favour of universal basic income. It is the approach taken in some other countries that have a higher rating on the happiness index than the UK. This approach would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. I think that it would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. It would make a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002459.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002459.soc index b1a5e06a..8ccb1660 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002459.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002459.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not increase the tax on sugary drinks. Sugar-sweetened drinks are already subject to tax to deter excessive consumption and promote healthier life choices. On the other hand the tax disproportionally impacts lower health individuals. I feel like there are other much more pressing issues rather than ther tax on sugar sweetended drinks in the current environment. We should not distort the market by increasing taxes which will create inefficiencies in the market by increasing deadweight loss. The market will be distorted by the application of the tax which will be inconvenient for producers and consumers. Consumers who use drinks in moderation will be unfairly punished for their decisions which is unfair. Consumers may actually switch to a less healthy alternative if the tax is imposed, which could actually worsen the issue that the tax aims to solve by reducing sugary drink consumption. Realistically any increase in tax will be a problem economically and should be avoided if possible. This could also have negative implications for the economy in terms of employment and inward investment into the market with regards to drinks. The obesity crisis is a pressing issue, however, placing an excessive tax on sugary drinks is unlikely to have the desired outcome. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The group felt that increasing taxes would not necessarily be effective in reducing obesity levels in the country. Also, the group felt that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks would disproportionally affect lower income households. The group felt that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks could have a negative impact on the economy, as it could potentially deter inward investment. The group felt that the sugar-sweetened drinks market is already heavily taxed and increasing the tax would be an unfair burden on consumers. However, the group did feel that more needed to be done to help tackle obesity levels in the country. The group felt that more needed to be done to educate people about healthy lifestyles and the risks of obesity. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to be more physically active. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to eat more healthily. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to drink more healthily. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to stop smoking. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to stop drinking -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not increase the tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. Sugar-sweetened drinks are already subject to tax to deter excessive consumption and promote healthier life choices. On the other hand the tax disproportionally impacts lower health individuals. We should not distort the market by increasing taxes which will create inefficiencies in the market by increasing deadweight loss. The market will be distorted by the application of the tax which will be inconvenient for producers and consumers. Consumers who use drinks in moderation will be unfairly punished for their decisions which is unfair. Consumers may actually switch to a less healthy alternative if the tax is imposed, which could actually worsen the issue that the tax aims to solve by reducing sugary drink consumption. Realistically any increase in tax will be a problem economically and should be avoided if possible. This could also have negative implications for the economy in terms of employment and inward investment into the market with regards to drinks. This statement goes into detail well about the negative implications of the proposed tax from an economic standpoint and also says why even if the tax is implemented, there may be some negative unintended consequences which could mitigate any potential benefit that is experienced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of taxing sugar-sweetened drinks. The group believed that people should have the freedom to choose what they consume and that people should be responsible for their own choices. The group believed that if people were educated on the health implications of consuming sugar-sweetened drinks that they would make the right choice and that people should not be punished for the choices that they make. The group also believed that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks would not be effective as it would not deter people from consuming these drinks. The group also believed that if taxes were increased on sugar-sweetened drinks then it would be difficult to stop the tax being increased on other products which are not healthy. The group also believed that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks would be unfair on people who consume these drinks in moderation. The group believed that if the tax was ring-fenced for a specific purpose then this may make the tax more acceptable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not increase the tax on sugary drinks. Sugar-sweetened drinks are already subject to tax to deter excessive consumption and promote healthier life choices. On the other hand the tax disproportionally impacts lower health individuals. I feel like there are other much more pressing issues rather than ther tax on sugar sweetended drinks in the current environment. We should not distort the market by increasing taxes which will create inefficiencies in the market by increasing deadweight loss. The market will be distorted by the application of the tax which will be inconvenient for producers and consumers. Consumers who use drinks in moderation will be unfairly punished for their decisions which is unfair. Consumers may actually switch to a less healthy alternative if the tax is imposed, which could actually worsen the issue that the tax aims to solve by reducing sugary drink consumption. Realistically any increase in tax will be a problem economically and should be avoided if possible. This could also have negative implications for the economy in terms of employment and inward investment into the market with regards to drinks. The obesity crisis is a pressing issue, however, placing an excessive tax on sugary drinks is unlikely to have the desired outcome. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The group felt that increasing taxes would not necessarily be effective in reducing obesity levels in the country. Also, the group felt that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks would disproportionally affect lower income households. The group felt that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks could have a negative impact on the economy, as it could potentially deter inward investment. The group felt that the sugar-sweetened drinks market is already heavily taxed and increasing the tax would be an unfair burden on consumers. However, the group did feel that more needed to be done to help tackle obesity levels in the country. The group felt that more needed to be done to educate people about healthy lifestyles and the risks of obesity. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to be more physically active. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to eat more healthily. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to drink more healthily. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to stop smoking. The group felt that more needed to be done to encourage people to stop drinking +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not increase the tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. Sugar-sweetened drinks are already subject to tax to deter excessive consumption and promote healthier life choices. On the other hand the tax disproportionally impacts lower health individuals. We should not distort the market by increasing taxes which will create inefficiencies in the market by increasing deadweight loss. The market will be distorted by the application of the tax which will be inconvenient for producers and consumers. Consumers who use drinks in moderation will be unfairly punished for their decisions which is unfair. Consumers may actually switch to a less healthy alternative if the tax is imposed, which could actually worsen the issue that the tax aims to solve by reducing sugary drink consumption. Realistically any increase in tax will be a problem economically and should be avoided if possible. This could also have negative implications for the economy in terms of employment and inward investment into the market with regards to drinks. This statement goes into detail well about the negative implications of the proposed tax from an economic standpoint and also says why even if the tax is implemented, there may be some negative unintended consequences which could mitigate any potential benefit that is experienced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of taxing sugar-sweetened drinks. The group believed that people should have the freedom to choose what they consume and that people should be responsible for their own choices. The group believed that if people were educated on the health implications of consuming sugar-sweetened drinks that they would make the right choice and that people should not be punished for the choices that they make. The group also believed that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks would not be effective as it would not deter people from consuming these drinks. The group also believed that if taxes were increased on sugar-sweetened drinks then it would be difficult to stop the tax being increased on other products which are not healthy. The group also believed that increasing taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks would be unfair on people who consume these drinks in moderation. The group believed that if the tax was ring-fenced for a specific purpose then this may make the tax more acceptable. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002460.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002460.soc index 910f04fa..b858b760 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002460.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002460.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We feel that bullying can be reduced in schools but not completely eradicated. Children are still growing and learning about the world. They will make mistakes and be unkind to each other at times. However, we feel that a lot of bullying can be prevented by creating a culture of inclusion in schools. Teachers and pupils need to be educated about bullying and the impact it can have on a person. There needs to be a system in place where pupils can report bullying anonymously and be confident that it will be dealt with. If pupils know that they can speak up about bullying without fear of repercussions then this will help to reduce bullying in schools. It is also important to educate pupils on why people bully. It is often a case of insecurity and a need to feel superior. If pupils understand this then they will be less likely to bully and more likely to stand up for a pupil who is being bullied. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Bullying is a widespread problem in schools and it is important to understand why it happens and how it can be reduced. Bullying can be reduced in schools but not completely eradicated. Children are still growing and learning about the world. They will make mistakes and be unkind to each other at times. However, we feel that a lot of bullying can be prevented by creating a culture of inclusion in schools. Teachers and pupils need to be educated about bullying and the impact it can have on a person. There needs to be a system in place where pupils can report bullying anonymously and be confident that it will be dealt with. If pupils know that they can speak up about bullying without fear of repercussions then this will help to reduce bullying in schools. It is also important to educate pupils on why people bully. It is often a case of insecurity and a need to feel superior. If pupils understand this then they will be less likely to bully and more likely to stand up for a pupil who is being bullied. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We feel it is not possible to completely eliminate bullying in schools as bullying can occur in many different ways, both physically and mentally, and it can occur anywhere. Although we feel it is not possible to completely eliminate bullying, we feel it is possible to reduce bullying in schools. This can be done by having an anti-bullying policy which is implemented and followed by all staff and pupils in the school. We feel that it is also important to educate pupils on what bullying is and how it can affect someone. Having a reporting system in place is also important as this allows students to report bullying if it is happening to them or if they have witnessed it. We feel that if these steps are implemented, bullying can be reduced in schools but it is not possible to completely eliminate it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Bullying in schools is an ongoing and serious problem which can be reduced, but not completely eradicated. It is difficult to get rid of bullying in schools because children will be children, and their behavior is influenced by their upbringing and the culture they are exposed to. It is also difficult to monitor children all the time, and some bullying will inevitably happen when they are out of sight. This can be reduced slightly by implementing a reporting system where students can anonymously report bullying, but it is difficult to eradicate completely because children can be quite mean and it takes time for them to learn to act morally. It is possible to get rid of bullying in schools to a certain extent by creating a culture which values inclusivity and by educating students on the topic, as well as by creating an environment where pupils feel safe to speak up. However, bullying is a part of human nature and it is difficult to eradicate all bullying behavior. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We feel that bullying can be reduced in schools but not completely eradicated. Children are still growing and learning about the world. They will make mistakes and be unkind to each other at times. However, we feel that a lot of bullying can be prevented by creating a culture of inclusion in schools. Teachers and pupils need to be educated about bullying and the impact it can have on a person. There needs to be a system in place where pupils can report bullying anonymously and be confident that it will be dealt with. If pupils know that they can speak up about bullying without fear of repercussions then this will help to reduce bullying in schools. It is also important to educate pupils on why people bully. It is often a case of insecurity and a need to feel superior. If pupils understand this then they will be less likely to bully and more likely to stand up for a pupil who is being bullied. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Bullying is a widespread problem in schools and it is important to understand why it happens and how it can be reduced. Bullying can be reduced in schools but not completely eradicated. Children are still growing and learning about the world. They will make mistakes and be unkind to each other at times. However, we feel that a lot of bullying can be prevented by creating a culture of inclusion in schools. Teachers and pupils need to be educated about bullying and the impact it can have on a person. There needs to be a system in place where pupils can report bullying anonymously and be confident that it will be dealt with. If pupils know that they can speak up about bullying without fear of repercussions then this will help to reduce bullying in schools. It is also important to educate pupils on why people bully. It is often a case of insecurity and a need to feel superior. If pupils understand this then they will be less likely to bully and more likely to stand up for a pupil who is being bullied. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We feel it is not possible to completely eliminate bullying in schools as bullying can occur in many different ways, both physically and mentally, and it can occur anywhere. Although we feel it is not possible to completely eliminate bullying, we feel it is possible to reduce bullying in schools. This can be done by having an anti-bullying policy which is implemented and followed by all staff and pupils in the school. We feel that it is also important to educate pupils on what bullying is and how it can affect someone. Having a reporting system in place is also important as this allows students to report bullying if it is happening to them or if they have witnessed it. We feel that if these steps are implemented, bullying can be reduced in schools but it is not possible to completely eliminate it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Bullying in schools is an ongoing and serious problem which can be reduced, but not completely eradicated. It is difficult to get rid of bullying in schools because children will be children, and their behavior is influenced by their upbringing and the culture they are exposed to. It is also difficult to monitor children all the time, and some bullying will inevitably happen when they are out of sight. This can be reduced slightly by implementing a reporting system where students can anonymously report bullying, but it is difficult to eradicate completely because children can be quite mean and it takes time for them to learn to act morally. It is possible to get rid of bullying in schools to a certain extent by creating a culture which values inclusivity and by educating students on the topic, as well as by creating an environment where pupils feel safe to speak up. However, bullying is a part of human nature and it is difficult to eradicate all bullying behavior. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002461.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002461.soc index 1e1b8041..afc4f804 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002461.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002461.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies as they provide an alternative and relatively safe way to transact electronically online. Its vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. Cryptocurrencies also creates new ways to pay and provides many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantanious payments worldwide. The only thing is that the group thinks that there needs to be a tighter restriction on uses and a governing body to oversee correct procedures. It is also so easy to manipulate the prices of the currency, where unsavoury people con people who don't fully understand the risks involved. The cryptocurrencies should be transparent and should not be anonymous, otherwise they can easily be used for money laundering. In general, the participants believe that cryptocurrencies should not be banned but that there should be tighter restrictions and oversight in order to prevent crimes and to maintain transparency. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies. The participants felt that the UK should not ban cryptocurrencies as it limits and restricts choice. It would show that they are trying to centralise money as opposed to giving the people options. There are negatives such as crime on these currencies due to the ability of being anonymous however you can say the same can happen with actual cash. The participants felt that the UK government should not ban cryptocurrencies but instead create a governing body to oversee correct procedures. This would make cryptocurrencies more transparent and accountable. This would also make cryptocurrencies more accessible to the public and would increase the usage of cryptocurrencies. The participants felt that there should be more information on cryptocurrencies and that the public should be made more aware of the benefits of cryptocurrencies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should not ban cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies provide an alternative and relatively safe way to transact electronically online. It is vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. Cryptocurrencies also creates new ways to pay and provides many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantaneous payments worldwide. The UK government should not ban cryptocurrencies but instead create a governing body to oversee correct procedures. This would make cryptocurrencies more transparent and accountable. This would also make cryptocurrencies more accessible to the public and would increase the usage of cryptocurrencies. The UK government should provide more information on cryptocurrencies and make the public more aware of the benefits of cryptocurrencies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Cryptocurrencies can be an alternate method of payment but there should be tighter regulations around the usage. This includes, but is not limited to, restricting use by age, limiting money that can be transferred at a time and having a governing body to make sure that all crypto-transactions are carried out properly. The reasoning behind this is that cryptocurrencies are very new and as such there are many problems with them. For example, there are high risks of manipulation and crime with them. However, this does not mean that they should be banned. Cryptocurrencies are a new and exciting way to pay for things and it would be a shame to get rid of them. Instead, the problems with them should be addressed and the general public should be educated on the risks involved with cryptocurrencies and how to avoid them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies as they provide an alternative and relatively safe way to transact electronically online. Its vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. Cryptocurrencies also creates new ways to pay and provides many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantanious payments worldwide. The only thing is that the group thinks that there needs to be a tighter restriction on uses and a governing body to oversee correct procedures. It is also so easy to manipulate the prices of the currency, where unsavoury people con people who don't fully understand the risks involved. The cryptocurrencies should be transparent and should not be anonymous, otherwise they can easily be used for money laundering. In general, the participants believe that cryptocurrencies should not be banned but that there should be tighter restrictions and oversight in order to prevent crimes and to maintain transparency. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of cryptocurrencies. The participants felt that the UK should not ban cryptocurrencies as it limits and restricts choice. It would show that they are trying to centralise money as opposed to giving the people options. There are negatives such as crime on these currencies due to the ability of being anonymous however you can say the same can happen with actual cash. The participants felt that the UK government should not ban cryptocurrencies but instead create a governing body to oversee correct procedures. This would make cryptocurrencies more transparent and accountable. This would also make cryptocurrencies more accessible to the public and would increase the usage of cryptocurrencies. The participants felt that there should be more information on cryptocurrencies and that the public should be made more aware of the benefits of cryptocurrencies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should not ban cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies provide an alternative and relatively safe way to transact electronically online. It is vital to have decentralised methods of payments in the 21st century to ensure we do not feel controlled or manipulated by others. Cryptocurrencies also creates new ways to pay and provides many benefits amongst the upcoming IoT revolution and will allow for almost instantaneous payments worldwide. The UK government should not ban cryptocurrencies but instead create a governing body to oversee correct procedures. This would make cryptocurrencies more transparent and accountable. This would also make cryptocurrencies more accessible to the public and would increase the usage of cryptocurrencies. The UK government should provide more information on cryptocurrencies and make the public more aware of the benefits of cryptocurrencies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Cryptocurrencies can be an alternate method of payment but there should be tighter regulations around the usage. This includes, but is not limited to, restricting use by age, limiting money that can be transferred at a time and having a governing body to make sure that all crypto-transactions are carried out properly. The reasoning behind this is that cryptocurrencies are very new and as such there are many problems with them. For example, there are high risks of manipulation and crime with them. However, this does not mean that they should be banned. Cryptocurrencies are a new and exciting way to pay for things and it would be a shame to get rid of them. Instead, the problems with them should be addressed and the general public should be educated on the risks involved with cryptocurrencies and how to avoid them. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002462.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002462.soc index 389a6e0d..2b573638 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002462.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002462.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The main reason for this was that local elections affect issues which make a difference to UK citizens. Why therefore give influence to voters who won't be affected by the results of their votes? Local elections should be about addressing issues which are of concern to local residents and about improving the situation of local residents. It is about community members having a say in their own lives. However, the group did acknowledge that there may be some circumstances in which it would be appropriate to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. For example, in cases where the non-UK citizen has been resident in the UK for a long time and has contributed to the local community, it would be appropriate to allow them to vote. The group also acknowledged that there are many non-UK citizens who live and work in the UK in this way, so they do deserve a say, however, there would need to be some documentation in place to ensure that they are voting fairly and honestly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In principle, it is not a good idea to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections, because local elections affect issues which make a difference to UK citizens. Why therefore give influence to voters who won't be affected by the results of their votes? Local elections should be about addressing issues which are of concern to local residents and about improving the situation of local residents. It is about community members having a say in their own lives. However, there are some circumstances in which it would be fair to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. If the person for example is applying for a visa and wants to stay in the UK he should have a right to address policies that affect him but if they are only staying a short time then it is not fair they have a say in policies that will affect those living in the country. I think each case has to be assessed individually. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The group felt that local elections were about giving the local community a voice in their local affairs and that this voice should be reserved for those who live in the community. The group felt that if non-UK citizens were allowed to vote in local elections it would be difficult to determine what level of commitment they had to the local community and whether their votes were being cast in the interests of the local community or in their own interests. The group felt that it would be difficult to ensure that the voting system was being used fairly and honestly if non-UK citizens were allowed to vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group of participants were in general opposed to the idea of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The main reason for this was that local elections affect issues which make a difference to UK citizens. Why therefore give influence to voters who won't be affected by the results of their votes? Local elections should be about addressing issues which are of concern to local residents and about improving the situation of local residents. It is about community members having a say in their own lives. However, the group did acknowledge that there may be some circumstances in which it would be appropriate to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. For example, in cases where the non-UK citizen has been resident in the UK for a long time and has contributed to the local community, it would be appropriate to allow them to vote. The group also acknowledged that there are many non-UK citizens who live and work in the UK in this way, so they do deserve a say, however, there would need to be some documentation in place to ensure that they are voting fairly and honestly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The main reason for this was that local elections affect issues which make a difference to UK citizens. Why therefore give influence to voters who won't be affected by the results of their votes? Local elections should be about addressing issues which are of concern to local residents and about improving the situation of local residents. It is about community members having a say in their own lives. However, the group did acknowledge that there may be some circumstances in which it would be appropriate to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. For example, in cases where the non-UK citizen has been resident in the UK for a long time and has contributed to the local community, it would be appropriate to allow them to vote. The group also acknowledged that there are many non-UK citizens who live and work in the UK in this way, so they do deserve a say, however, there would need to be some documentation in place to ensure that they are voting fairly and honestly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, it is not a good idea to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections, because local elections affect issues which make a difference to UK citizens. Why therefore give influence to voters who won't be affected by the results of their votes? Local elections should be about addressing issues which are of concern to local residents and about improving the situation of local residents. It is about community members having a say in their own lives. However, there are some circumstances in which it would be fair to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. If the person for example is applying for a visa and wants to stay in the UK he should have a right to address policies that affect him but if they are only staying a short time then it is not fair they have a say in policies that will affect those living in the country. I think each case has to be assessed individually. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The group felt that local elections were about giving the local community a voice in their local affairs and that this voice should be reserved for those who live in the community. The group felt that if non-UK citizens were allowed to vote in local elections it would be difficult to determine what level of commitment they had to the local community and whether their votes were being cast in the interests of the local community or in their own interests. The group felt that it would be difficult to ensure that the voting system was being used fairly and honestly if non-UK citizens were allowed to vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants were in general opposed to the idea of allowing non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. The main reason for this was that local elections affect issues which make a difference to UK citizens. Why therefore give influence to voters who won't be affected by the results of their votes? Local elections should be about addressing issues which are of concern to local residents and about improving the situation of local residents. It is about community members having a say in their own lives. However, the group did acknowledge that there may be some circumstances in which it would be appropriate to allow non-UK citizens to vote in local elections. For example, in cases where the non-UK citizen has been resident in the UK for a long time and has contributed to the local community, it would be appropriate to allow them to vote. The group also acknowledged that there are many non-UK citizens who live and work in the UK in this way, so they do deserve a say, however, there would need to be some documentation in place to ensure that they are voting fairly and honestly. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002463.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002463.soc index 05a3a309..c3caa47a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002463.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002463.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although there are some good things that Trump has done for the US economy, he is not a good man. This is because of the evidence that has been seen through media outlets as well as from staff and ex-staff of his. The evidence shows that President Trump has questionable practices and moral responses to issues where one would want a powerful person to have different views. In some cases, his views resonate with many people, but popularity does not mean one is 'good' or right. If the definition of being a 'good' person is that you do not cause harm to others but indeed do them good; materially, emotionally or physically, then from what I know of President Trump he has done harm to people in many different ways. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: President Trump is not a good man. The evidence we have seen from media outlets as well as from staff and ex-staff of his, it would seem that President Trump has questionable practices and moral responses to issues where one would want a powerful person to have different views. In some cases, his views resonate with many people, but popularity does not mean one is 'good' or right. If the definition of being a 'good' person is that you do not cause harm to others but indeed do them good; materially, emotionally or physically, then from what we know of President Trump he has done harm to people in many different ways. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. We caveat all our views of someone we have no direct personal experience of him and therefore desire to remain open-minded because we're aware of how the press can skew opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, Donald Trump is not a 'good man'. He is a man of questionable morals and has been involved in a number of scandals. His business practices have been controversial and he has been involved in multiple lawsuits. His presidency has been marred by scandal, with multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, as well as multiple accusations of racism. He has also been accused of corruption, with allegations of nepotism, conflicts of interest, and self-dealing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is not a good man. We came to this conclusion because of his questionable morals, his lack of empathy for others and his disrespectful attitude towards women. We also believe that he is a narcissist, and this is evident in his behaviour. We believe that he is not a good role model and that he is not a good example for young people to follow. We also believe that he is not a good president for the United States of America. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although there are some good things that Trump has done for the US economy, he is not a good man. This is because of the evidence that has been seen through media outlets as well as from staff and ex-staff of his. The evidence shows that President Trump has questionable practices and moral responses to issues where one would want a powerful person to have different views. In some cases, his views resonate with many people, but popularity does not mean one is 'good' or right. If the definition of being a 'good' person is that you do not cause harm to others but indeed do them good; materially, emotionally or physically, then from what I know of President Trump he has done harm to people in many different ways. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - President Trump is not a good man. The evidence we have seen from media outlets as well as from staff and ex-staff of his, it would seem that President Trump has questionable practices and moral responses to issues where one would want a powerful person to have different views. In some cases, his views resonate with many people, but popularity does not mean one is 'good' or right. If the definition of being a 'good' person is that you do not cause harm to others but indeed do them good; materially, emotionally or physically, then from what we know of President Trump he has done harm to people in many different ways. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. We caveat all our views of someone we have no direct personal experience of him and therefore desire to remain open-minded because we're aware of how the press can skew opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, Donald Trump is not a 'good man'. He is a man of questionable morals and has been involved in a number of scandals. His business practices have been controversial and he has been involved in multiple lawsuits. His presidency has been marred by scandal, with multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, as well as multiple accusations of racism. He has also been accused of corruption, with allegations of nepotism, conflicts of interest, and self-dealing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is not a good man. We came to this conclusion because of his questionable morals, his lack of empathy for others and his disrespectful attitude towards women. We also believe that he is a narcissist, and this is evident in his behaviour. We believe that he is not a good role model and that he is not a good example for young people to follow. We also believe that he is not a good president for the United States of America. 3: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002464.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002464.soc index c9de3e0a..96f89895 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002464.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002464.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of capping footballers' wages, although they did not all agree with the idea of capping the Prime Minister's salary. The group thought that the footballers were overpaid and that the money could be used more effectively elsewhere in society. However, they also agreed that footballers bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and that they deserve to be paid for their hard work and dedication. The group came to the consensus view that footballers' wages should be capped, but not the Prime Minister's salary. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a maximum wage for footballers. While some people in the group felt that footballers should not earn more than the Prime Minister, the group as a whole felt that this was not a good way to approach the issue. The group felt that it was more important to ensure that people in society were not being left behind, and that a gap in income was not corrosive to societal cohesion. In particular, the group agreed that it was important to address the issue of people being left behind in society, and agreed that the best way to do this was to ensure that people had enough to live on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a maximum wage. The group felt that imposing such a cap would be counterproductive, as it would stifle competition and incentive. There was also a concern that a maximum wage would lead to a brain drain, where the best footballers would be tempted to play abroad, where they are paid more. However, the group also recognised that the current footballing system is not perfect and that footballers are paid too much. The group felt that something should be done to improve the system, but that it should not be a maximum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a maximum wage for footballers. While some people in the group felt that footballers should not earn more than the Prime Minister, the group as a whole felt that this was not a good way to approach the issue. The group felt that it was more important to ensure that people in society were not being left behind, and that a gap in income was not corrosive to societal cohesion. The group also felt that the focus should be on whether people are being left behind, not on dragging others back. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of capping footballers' wages, although they did not all agree with the idea of capping the Prime Minister's salary. The group thought that the footballers were overpaid and that the money could be used more effectively elsewhere in society. However, they also agreed that footballers bring in a lot of money to the country through tourism and that they deserve to be paid for their hard work and dedication. The group came to the consensus view that footballers' wages should be capped, but not the Prime Minister's salary. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a maximum wage for footballers. While some people in the group felt that footballers should not earn more than the Prime Minister, the group as a whole felt that this was not a good way to approach the issue. The group felt that it was more important to ensure that people in society were not being left behind, and that a gap in income was not corrosive to societal cohesion. In particular, the group agreed that it was important to address the issue of people being left behind in society, and agreed that the best way to do this was to ensure that people had enough to live on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a maximum wage. The group felt that imposing such a cap would be counterproductive, as it would stifle competition and incentive. There was also a concern that a maximum wage would lead to a brain drain, where the best footballers would be tempted to play abroad, where they are paid more. However, the group also recognised that the current footballing system is not perfect and that footballers are paid too much. The group felt that something should be done to improve the system, but that it should not be a maximum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of a maximum wage for footballers. While some people in the group felt that footballers should not earn more than the Prime Minister, the group as a whole felt that this was not a good way to approach the issue. The group felt that it was more important to ensure that people in society were not being left behind, and that a gap in income was not corrosive to societal cohesion. The group also felt that the focus should be on whether people are being left behind, not on dragging others back. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002465.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002465.soc index 8ddace87..305a8fee 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002465.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002465.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should be in favour of universal basic income. It would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. The only real concern would be that the high earners would not be willing to pay more tax. However, if the tax was only on the high earners then it should not be too much of a problem and would be a very small price to pay for the benefits that it would bring. The tax on the highest earners could be increased in small increments each year until it reached the desired amount. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of universal basic income, with a couple of caveats. It is generally agreed that the current minimum wage is too low and should be increased, although this may not be the best way to address the problem. The group was also in favour of increasing taxes on the highest earners to help fund a universal basic income, although it was pointed out that the highest earners may be able to avoid paying tax through tax havens or other loopholes. It was also noted that some countries have a form of basic income already, such as the Nordic countries, and these countries tend to have a higher happiness index than the UK. A debate was held on the question of whether we should be in favour of universal basic income. The opinions of the participants were quite varied. A consensus was reached that the current minimum wage is too low and should be increased, and taxes on the highest earners should be increased to help fund a universal basic income. The group also noted that some countries have a form of basic income already, and these countries tend to have a higher happiness index than the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “In principle, yes we should be in favour of universal basic income. It would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. However, it is not visible to aim. Each country has own advantages and disadvantages. Would be very hard if not impossible to try reaching basic income for every state in the world. We should try to reach this in the UK, however. It would be a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish. The minimum wage is too low at the moment in my opinion and it should be increased by at least 20%. I believe in equality for all.“ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In principle, yes we should be in favour of universal basic income. It would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. However, it is not visible to aim. Each country has own advantages and disadvantages. Would be very hard if not impossible to try reaching basic income for every state in the world. We should try to reach this in the UK, however. It would be a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish. The minimum wage is too low at the moment in my opinion and it should be increased by at least 20%. I believe in equality for all.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should be in favour of universal basic income. It would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. The only real concern would be that the high earners would not be willing to pay more tax. However, if the tax was only on the high earners then it should not be too much of a problem and would be a very small price to pay for the benefits that it would bring. The tax on the highest earners could be increased in small increments each year until it reached the desired amount. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of universal basic income, with a couple of caveats. It is generally agreed that the current minimum wage is too low and should be increased, although this may not be the best way to address the problem. The group was also in favour of increasing taxes on the highest earners to help fund a universal basic income, although it was pointed out that the highest earners may be able to avoid paying tax through tax havens or other loopholes. It was also noted that some countries have a form of basic income already, such as the Nordic countries, and these countries tend to have a higher happiness index than the UK. A debate was held on the question of whether we should be in favour of universal basic income. The opinions of the participants were quite varied. A consensus was reached that the current minimum wage is too low and should be increased, and taxes on the highest earners should be increased to help fund a universal basic income. The group also noted that some countries have a form of basic income already, and these countries tend to have a higher happiness index than the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “In principle, yes we should be in favour of universal basic income. It would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. However, it is not visible to aim. Each country has own advantages and disadvantages. Would be very hard if not impossible to try reaching basic income for every state in the world. We should try to reach this in the UK, however. It would be a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish. The minimum wage is too low at the moment in my opinion and it should be increased by at least 20%. I believe in equality for all.“ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In principle, yes we should be in favour of universal basic income. It would be a leveller and help address social exclusion and reduce reliance on the state and cut down on the number of people that have to turn to criminal / dangerous activities to make ends meet. It would also increase social mobility and lead to a more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, lifting children out of poverty. However, it is not visible to aim. Each country has own advantages and disadvantages. Would be very hard if not impossible to try reaching basic income for every state in the world. We should try to reach this in the UK, however. It would be a massive difference to so many lives and take away the stresses that an abnormal amount of households face in the UK (one of the richest countries in the world) of just making ends meet and affording things like food. Universal basic income would only help the economy and the people flourish. The minimum wage is too low at the moment in my opinion and it should be increased by at least 20%. I believe in equality for all.” 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002466.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002466.soc index e600db61..418bea83 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002466.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002466.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Cryptocurrencies are a way of the future. Cryptocurrencies are the future of online transactions. There is a clear need for an alternative to traditional currency. We should not ban cryptocurrencies as this will stifle innovation and the free market. We should embrace cryptocurrencies and ensure that the necessary regulation is in place to protect consumers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to a ban on cryptocurrencies. However, the group felt that the cryptocurrency market is very volatile and that people should be aware of this when considering whether to invest in them. The group also felt that it is important that people are protected from fraudsters who might try to sell cryptocurrencies which do not exist. The group felt that the best way to do this is to make sure that people only buy cryptocurrencies from well-known and trusted sources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, the UK should not ban all cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies should be treated the same as other forms of currency. The cryptocurrency world is a great way of making extra money on the side. It gives freedom of trading and exploring more and more of the crypto world. We should not just be using central bank system. There must be the choice and cryptocurrency is the great way forward. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, the UK should not ban all cryptocurrencies. The group felt that it is not for the government to decide what people can and cannot use to pay for goods and services. They also felt that banning them would be a step backwards as the world is moving towards a cashless society. They felt that there are some people who have made a lot of money from cryptocurrency and it would be unfair to take that away from them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Cryptocurrencies are a way of the future. Cryptocurrencies are the future of online transactions. There is a clear need for an alternative to traditional currency. We should not ban cryptocurrencies as this will stifle innovation and the free market. We should embrace cryptocurrencies and ensure that the necessary regulation is in place to protect consumers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to a ban on cryptocurrencies. However, the group felt that the cryptocurrency market is very volatile and that people should be aware of this when considering whether to invest in them. The group also felt that it is important that people are protected from fraudsters who might try to sell cryptocurrencies which do not exist. The group felt that the best way to do this is to make sure that people only buy cryptocurrencies from well-known and trusted sources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the UK should not ban all cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies should be treated the same as other forms of currency. The cryptocurrency world is a great way of making extra money on the side. It gives freedom of trading and exploring more and more of the crypto world. We should not just be using central bank system. There must be the choice and cryptocurrency is the great way forward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, the UK should not ban all cryptocurrencies. The group felt that it is not for the government to decide what people can and cannot use to pay for goods and services. They also felt that banning them would be a step backwards as the world is moving towards a cashless society. They felt that there are some people who have made a lot of money from cryptocurrency and it would be unfair to take that away from them. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002467.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002467.soc index 8b7520e3..dba61bb3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002467.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002467.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK breaking up into four separate countries. The majority of the group felt that the UK is stronger together and that we should not break apart. However, it was also felt that the UK has many issues that need to be addressed and that these issues should be tackled by a more unified UK government. The group felt that a more unified government would be able to distribute resources more equally and fairly across the UK. The group also felt that the UK government should be more accountable to the people and that this could be achieved by making voting compulsory. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not become independent countries. The nations are stronger together, with more influence on the world stage. The cost of living crisis in the UK is not caused by the nations being together, but by the Brexit vote. If the nations were to become independent, they would be extremely small countries, with very little financial security, which would mean that life for the average member of the public would be more difficult. As an example, just look at the cost of living crisis and the difficulties in trade etc, because of Brexit. This is the same principle, except the countries would be even smaller and have even less influence on global politics and issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no compelling evidence for the countries of the UK to become independent. In general, the group was opposed to the idea of independence for the countries of the UK. The general feeling was that the countries are stronger together, and that there is no compelling reason for them to become independent. There was a feeling that the UK government is not fit for purpose, and that the distribution of resources and services is not equitable across the UK. However, it was felt that there is no evidence to suggest that the countries would be better off if they were independent. It was also felt that there would be an enormous cost and amount of time required to separate the countries politically, and that there is not enough of a compelling case to move forward with independence. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of independence for the countries of the UK. The general feeling was that the countries are stronger together, and that there is no compelling evidence for them to become independent. There was a feeling that the UK government is not fit for purpose, and that the distribution of resources and services is not equitable across the UK. However, it was felt that there is no evidence to suggest that the countries would be better off if they were independent. It was also felt that there would be an enormous cost and amount of time required to separate the countries politically, and that there is not enough of a compelling case to move forward with independence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK breaking up into four separate countries. The majority of the group felt that the UK is stronger together and that we should not break apart. However, it was also felt that the UK has many issues that need to be addressed and that these issues should be tackled by a more unified UK government. The group felt that a more unified government would be able to distribute resources more equally and fairly across the UK. The group also felt that the UK government should be more accountable to the people and that this could be achieved by making voting compulsory. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not become independent countries. The nations are stronger together, with more influence on the world stage. The cost of living crisis in the UK is not caused by the nations being together, but by the Brexit vote. If the nations were to become independent, they would be extremely small countries, with very little financial security, which would mean that life for the average member of the public would be more difficult. As an example, just look at the cost of living crisis and the difficulties in trade etc, because of Brexit. This is the same principle, except the countries would be even smaller and have even less influence on global politics and issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no compelling evidence for the countries of the UK to become independent. In general, the group was opposed to the idea of independence for the countries of the UK. The general feeling was that the countries are stronger together, and that there is no compelling reason for them to become independent. There was a feeling that the UK government is not fit for purpose, and that the distribution of resources and services is not equitable across the UK. However, it was felt that there is no evidence to suggest that the countries would be better off if they were independent. It was also felt that there would be an enormous cost and amount of time required to separate the countries politically, and that there is not enough of a compelling case to move forward with independence. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of independence for the countries of the UK. The general feeling was that the countries are stronger together, and that there is no compelling evidence for them to become independent. There was a feeling that the UK government is not fit for purpose, and that the distribution of resources and services is not equitable across the UK. However, it was felt that there is no evidence to suggest that the countries would be better off if they were independent. It was also felt that there would be an enormous cost and amount of time required to separate the countries politically, and that there is not enough of a compelling case to move forward with independence. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002468.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002468.soc index d2cb212b..199825e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002468.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002468.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of introducing a new tax on social media companies. The participants felt that social media companies were not that different from other types of companies and that there was no reason to treat them differently. The participants also felt that social media companies already paid taxes and that there was no reason to tax them more. The participants also felt that social media companies were not the only companies that made large profits and that it was not fair to single them out. The participants also felt that it was not clear what the new tax would be used for and that it was not clear what problem the new tax would solve. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Social media companies have input into all aspects of society. Their main goal is to make a profit of their members. The company's should pay a tax to support activities that enable the internet to become a safer environment for all. The tax could be used to fund improvements in online security, support people who's mental health have been adversely impacted by social media and to pay for better monitoring of social media platforms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Social media companies should be taxed more than they are currently. The tax could be used to fund improvements in online security, support people who's mental health have been adversely impacted by social media and to pay for better monitoring of social media platforms. The tax could also be used to fund research into the impact of social media on society. The tax could also be used to fund the development of new social media platforms that are more inclusive and accessible to all. This would be a fairer way to tax social media companies than a blanket tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social media companies should pay tax in proportion to their profits. This tax should be used to improve the online safety and security of the users of social media platforms. The tax should also be used to improve online security for the general public. The tax should be used to support people whose mental health has been negatively impacted by social media. The tax should also be used to fund the monitoring of social media platforms to ensure that they are not used to spread hate, violence or terrorism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of introducing a new tax on social media companies. The participants felt that social media companies were not that different from other types of companies and that there was no reason to treat them differently. The participants also felt that social media companies already paid taxes and that there was no reason to tax them more. The participants also felt that social media companies were not the only companies that made large profits and that it was not fair to single them out. The participants also felt that it was not clear what the new tax would be used for and that it was not clear what problem the new tax would solve. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Social media companies have input into all aspects of society. Their main goal is to make a profit of their members. The company's should pay a tax to support activities that enable the internet to become a safer environment for all. The tax could be used to fund improvements in online security, support people who's mental health have been adversely impacted by social media and to pay for better monitoring of social media platforms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Social media companies should be taxed more than they are currently. The tax could be used to fund improvements in online security, support people who's mental health have been adversely impacted by social media and to pay for better monitoring of social media platforms. The tax could also be used to fund research into the impact of social media on society. The tax could also be used to fund the development of new social media platforms that are more inclusive and accessible to all. This would be a fairer way to tax social media companies than a blanket tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social media companies should pay tax in proportion to their profits. This tax should be used to improve the online safety and security of the users of social media platforms. The tax should also be used to improve online security for the general public. The tax should be used to support people whose mental health has been negatively impacted by social media. The tax should also be used to fund the monitoring of social media platforms to ensure that they are not used to spread hate, violence or terrorism. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002469.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002469.soc index d89c1e67..475cfaf3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002469.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002469.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people for not voting in elections. The general feeling was that people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to vote and should not be forced to do so. However, the group also felt that the government should make it easier for people to vote, perhaps by making polling stations more accessible. The group also felt that the government should encourage people to vote and perhaps even make it a civic duty to do so. The group felt that a small fine might be worth it but it should only be small, perhaps in line with peoples wages. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should not fine people who do not vote in elections. The government should make it easier for people to vote. The government should also make it a civic duty to vote. In Australia if you do not vote you are fined and participation is over 80%. A small fine might be worth it but it should only be small, perhaps in line with peoples wages. People have the right to vote if they please, not if the government pleases. It forces us to pick the best out of a bad bunch. As a democratic country it is highly important to have freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of government control and also freedom for our actions. Whilst the government is set up to govern and support our growth, it is imperative that they do not have full control and we, as citizens can fully choose our own actions and choose to vote only if we want to do so. Citizens should not be penalized or fined for simply not voting. it is a human right to have freedom. We would be more like a dictatorship controlled government if people were fined for not voting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to fining citizens who do not vote. The group felt that it was important to preserve freedom of choice, and that if citizens were fined for not voting, it would create a sense of resentment and could lead to a dictatorship. The group felt that it was the government’s responsibility to encourage citizens to vote, and to make it easier for them to do so. The group felt that it was important to educate citizens on the importance of voting and the impact it can have on their lives. The group felt that it was important for citizens to vote, but that it should be their own choice to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to fining people who did not vote. The group believed that people should have the right to vote if they pleased, not if the government pleased. It was believed that fining people who did not vote would be an erosion of freedom of individuals and democracy itself. The group believed that the government should make it easier for people to vote and make it a civic duty to do so. It was also believed that forcing people to vote would make people vote for the wrong reasons and this could skew any relevant data. A small fine might be worth it but it should only be small, perhaps in line with peoples wages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people for not voting in elections. The general feeling was that people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to vote and should not be forced to do so. However, the group also felt that the government should make it easier for people to vote, perhaps by making polling stations more accessible. The group also felt that the government should encourage people to vote and perhaps even make it a civic duty to do so. The group felt that a small fine might be worth it but it should only be small, perhaps in line with peoples wages. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should not fine people who do not vote in elections. The government should make it easier for people to vote. The government should also make it a civic duty to vote. In Australia if you do not vote you are fined and participation is over 80%. A small fine might be worth it but it should only be small, perhaps in line with peoples wages. People have the right to vote if they please, not if the government pleases. It forces us to pick the best out of a bad bunch. As a democratic country it is highly important to have freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of government control and also freedom for our actions. Whilst the government is set up to govern and support our growth, it is imperative that they do not have full control and we, as citizens can fully choose our own actions and choose to vote only if we want to do so. Citizens should not be penalized or fined for simply not voting. it is a human right to have freedom. We would be more like a dictatorship controlled government if people were fined for not voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to fining citizens who do not vote. The group felt that it was important to preserve freedom of choice, and that if citizens were fined for not voting, it would create a sense of resentment and could lead to a dictatorship. The group felt that it was the government’s responsibility to encourage citizens to vote, and to make it easier for them to do so. The group felt that it was important to educate citizens on the importance of voting and the impact it can have on their lives. The group felt that it was important for citizens to vote, but that it should be their own choice to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to fining people who did not vote. The group believed that people should have the right to vote if they pleased, not if the government pleased. It was believed that fining people who did not vote would be an erosion of freedom of individuals and democracy itself. The group believed that the government should make it easier for people to vote and make it a civic duty to do so. It was also believed that forcing people to vote would make people vote for the wrong reasons and this could skew any relevant data. A small fine might be worth it but it should only be small, perhaps in line with peoples wages. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002470.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002470.soc index 38587568..73c12f41 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002470.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002470.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Social media companies should be taxed more than they are currently. The tax could be used to fund improvements in online security, support people who's mental health have been adversely impacted by social media and to pay for better monitoring of social media platforms. The tax could also be used to fund research into the impact of social media on society. The tax could also be used to fund the development of new social media platforms that are more inclusive and accessible to all. This would be a fairer way to tax social media companies than a blanket tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Social media is a relatively new phenomenon and its impact on society is not fully understood. The introduction of a new tax on social media companies may not be the best way to regulate the industry. However, it may be possible to introduce a tax that is specifically targeted at the negative aspects of social media, such as taxing companies for each case of cyber bullying that is reported. This tax could be used to support people who have been victims of cyber bullying and to help educate people about the dangers of social media. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that social media companies should be taxed more than they are currently. We also agree that the tax could be used to fund improvements in online security, support people who's mental health have been adversely impacted by social media and to pay for better monitoring of social media platforms. The tax could also be used to fund research into the impact of social media on society. This would be a fairer way to tax social media companies than a blanket tax. This would also ensure that these companies do not gain additional profits from the use of social media and would encourage these companies to take responsibility for the way social media is used. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social media companies are very big businesses and as such they can afford to pay a tax. They are very influential and can have a huge impact on society. They should be responsible for their actions and have to pay for any mistakes they make. The tax could be used to help improve the monitoring of social media platforms and to help people whose mental health has been adversely affected by social media. The tax would need to be proportional to the size of the company. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Social media companies should be taxed more than they are currently. The tax could be used to fund improvements in online security, support people who's mental health have been adversely impacted by social media and to pay for better monitoring of social media platforms. The tax could also be used to fund research into the impact of social media on society. The tax could also be used to fund the development of new social media platforms that are more inclusive and accessible to all. This would be a fairer way to tax social media companies than a blanket tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Social media is a relatively new phenomenon and its impact on society is not fully understood. The introduction of a new tax on social media companies may not be the best way to regulate the industry. However, it may be possible to introduce a tax that is specifically targeted at the negative aspects of social media, such as taxing companies for each case of cyber bullying that is reported. This tax could be used to support people who have been victims of cyber bullying and to help educate people about the dangers of social media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that social media companies should be taxed more than they are currently. We also agree that the tax could be used to fund improvements in online security, support people who's mental health have been adversely impacted by social media and to pay for better monitoring of social media platforms. The tax could also be used to fund research into the impact of social media on society. This would be a fairer way to tax social media companies than a blanket tax. This would also ensure that these companies do not gain additional profits from the use of social media and would encourage these companies to take responsibility for the way social media is used. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social media companies are very big businesses and as such they can afford to pay a tax. They are very influential and can have a huge impact on society. They should be responsible for their actions and have to pay for any mistakes they make. The tax could be used to help improve the monitoring of social media platforms and to help people whose mental health has been adversely affected by social media. The tax would need to be proportional to the size of the company. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002471.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002471.soc index d20087e7..31e50446 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002471.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002471.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is strong evidence to suggest that the former President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is not a 'good man'. This is evidenced by his questionable moral responses to issues that affect people in many different ways. From what the group knows of the former President, it would seem that he is a man that does harm to others in many different ways, rather than do them good. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. It is the consensus view of this group that the former President of the United States of America is not a 'good man'. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is not a good man. We have come to this conclusion because we have seen that he has lied many times about important things such as the corona virus. We have also seen that he has been very disrespectful to people such as women and minorities. We have also seen that he has treated people like objects and used them to get what he wants. We have also seen that he has been very inconsiderate to others and their feelings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: President Trump is not a good man. The evidence we have seen from media outlets as well as from staff and ex-staff of his, it would seem that President Trump has questionable practices and moral responses to issues where one would want a powerful person to have different views. In some cases, his views resonate with many people, but popularity does not mean one is 'good' or right. If the definition of being a 'good' person is that you do not cause harm to others but indeed do them good; materially, emotionally or physically, then from what we know of President Trump he has done harm to people in many different ways. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. We caveat all our views of someone we have no direct personal experience of him and therefore desire to remain open-minded because we're aware of how the press can skew opinions. We also feel that not having direct experience of someone does not mean one cannot make a judgement on their morality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: President Trump is not a good man. The evidence we have seen from media outlets as well as from staff and ex-staff of his, it would seem that President Trump has questionable practices and moral responses to issues where one would want a powerful person to have different views. In some cases, his views resonate with many people, but popularity does not mean one is 'good' or right. If the definition of being a 'good' person is that you do not cause harm to others but indeed do them good; materially, emotionally or physically, then from what we know of President Trump he has done harm to people in many different ways. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. We caveat all our views of someone we have no direct personal experience of him and therefore desire to remain open-minded because we're aware of how the press can skew opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is strong evidence to suggest that the former President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is not a 'good man'. This is evidenced by his questionable moral responses to issues that affect people in many different ways. From what the group knows of the former President, it would seem that he is a man that does harm to others in many different ways, rather than do them good. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. It is the consensus view of this group that the former President of the United States of America is not a 'good man'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is not a good man. We have come to this conclusion because we have seen that he has lied many times about important things such as the corona virus. We have also seen that he has been very disrespectful to people such as women and minorities. We have also seen that he has treated people like objects and used them to get what he wants. We have also seen that he has been very inconsiderate to others and their feelings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - President Trump is not a good man. The evidence we have seen from media outlets as well as from staff and ex-staff of his, it would seem that President Trump has questionable practices and moral responses to issues where one would want a powerful person to have different views. In some cases, his views resonate with many people, but popularity does not mean one is 'good' or right. If the definition of being a 'good' person is that you do not cause harm to others but indeed do them good; materially, emotionally or physically, then from what we know of President Trump he has done harm to people in many different ways. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. We caveat all our views of someone we have no direct personal experience of him and therefore desire to remain open-minded because we're aware of how the press can skew opinions. We also feel that not having direct experience of someone does not mean one cannot make a judgement on their morality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - President Trump is not a good man. The evidence we have seen from media outlets as well as from staff and ex-staff of his, it would seem that President Trump has questionable practices and moral responses to issues where one would want a powerful person to have different views. In some cases, his views resonate with many people, but popularity does not mean one is 'good' or right. If the definition of being a 'good' person is that you do not cause harm to others but indeed do them good; materially, emotionally or physically, then from what we know of President Trump he has done harm to people in many different ways. This could be on a personal level as an individual or in terms of his political policies and practices. We caveat all our views of someone we have no direct personal experience of him and therefore desire to remain open-minded because we're aware of how the press can skew opinions. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002472.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002472.soc index ba451db8..9c201a61 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002472.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002472.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Cryptocurrencies are a way of the future. Cryptocurrencies are the future of online transactions. There is a clear need for an alternative to traditional currency. We should not ban cryptocurrencies as this will stifle innovation and the free market. We should embrace cryptocurrencies and ensure that the necessary regulation is in place to protect consumers. We should also ensure that cryptocurrencies are affordable to the average consumer and not just an investment opportunity for the wealthy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the UK should not ban all the cryptocurrencies. There are many advantages to using cryptocurrency as a means of exchange, not least the anonymity and the security that it provides. It also provides an alternative to the current banking system, which some may prefer. The disadvantages are that cryptocurrencies are volatile and difficult to predict. This means that they are not a reliable form of exchange, which can lead to people losing money. However, people are free to make their own choices and if they wish to use cryptocurrencies then they should be free to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to banning cryptocurrencies. The general view was that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and banning them would not achieve anything. The general view was that the government should regulate cryptocurrencies rather than banning them. There were some differences of opinion, however, on how cryptocurrencies should be regulated. Some members of the group felt that the government should not interfere with cryptocurrencies at all. Other members of the group felt that the government should make cryptocurrencies more transparent. For example, the price of Bitcoin varies significantly from one exchange to another. Some members of the group felt that the government should make the price of Bitcoin consistent across all exchanges. The group also noted that there are some aspects of cryptocurrency that are illegal. The group felt that the government should take action to stop these aspects of cryptocurrency. For example, cryptocurrencies are often used for illegal activities such as money laundering, drug dealing and tax evasion. The group felt that the government should stop these illegal activities from happening. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Cryptocurrencies are a way of the future. Cryptocurrencies are the future of online transactions. There is a clear need for an alternative to traditional currency. We should not ban cryptocurrencies as this will stifle innovation and the free market. We should embrace cryptocurrencies and ensure that the necessary regulation is in place to protect consumers. We should also ensure that the price of cryptocurrencies is low enough for the average consumer to be able to use them for online transactions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Cryptocurrencies are a way of the future. Cryptocurrencies are the future of online transactions. There is a clear need for an alternative to traditional currency. We should not ban cryptocurrencies as this will stifle innovation and the free market. We should embrace cryptocurrencies and ensure that the necessary regulation is in place to protect consumers. We should also ensure that cryptocurrencies are affordable to the average consumer and not just an investment opportunity for the wealthy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the UK should not ban all the cryptocurrencies. There are many advantages to using cryptocurrency as a means of exchange, not least the anonymity and the security that it provides. It also provides an alternative to the current banking system, which some may prefer. The disadvantages are that cryptocurrencies are volatile and difficult to predict. This means that they are not a reliable form of exchange, which can lead to people losing money. However, people are free to make their own choices and if they wish to use cryptocurrencies then they should be free to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to banning cryptocurrencies. The general view was that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and banning them would not achieve anything. The general view was that the government should regulate cryptocurrencies rather than banning them. There were some differences of opinion, however, on how cryptocurrencies should be regulated. Some members of the group felt that the government should not interfere with cryptocurrencies at all. Other members of the group felt that the government should make cryptocurrencies more transparent. For example, the price of Bitcoin varies significantly from one exchange to another. Some members of the group felt that the government should make the price of Bitcoin consistent across all exchanges. The group also noted that there are some aspects of cryptocurrency that are illegal. The group felt that the government should take action to stop these aspects of cryptocurrency. For example, cryptocurrencies are often used for illegal activities such as money laundering, drug dealing and tax evasion. The group felt that the government should stop these illegal activities from happening. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Cryptocurrencies are a way of the future. Cryptocurrencies are the future of online transactions. There is a clear need for an alternative to traditional currency. We should not ban cryptocurrencies as this will stifle innovation and the free market. We should embrace cryptocurrencies and ensure that the necessary regulation is in place to protect consumers. We should also ensure that the price of cryptocurrencies is low enough for the average consumer to be able to use them for online transactions. 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002473.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002473.soc index e8d865e8..e25fabfa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002473.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002473.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would not be an effective way to reduce the number of people flying and therefore would not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry. The group also felt that increasing the tax on air fares would be unfair on lower income households who might be priced out of holidays entirely. The group felt that the government should be looking at other ways to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry, such as working with the airlines and also working with the fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penaulty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax would have a disproportionate impact on lower income households and would prevent them from taking holidays. The group also felt that increasing the tax would not have the desired effect of reducing CO2 emissions. The group felt that tax is a very blunt tool and there are better ways to reduce Co2 emissions as a result of flying. This could be through working with the airlines and also working with the fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penaulty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax on air fares in the UK, however, there was a strong feeling that this should not be done in isolation and that the government should provide a clear plan on how the revenue will be used to combat climate change. The group felt that the revenue should be ring-fenced and used to provide subsidies for cleaner modes of transport, such as rail, and also to provide subsidies for lower income households who may be priced out of holidays. The group also felt that it was important to work with airlines and fuel suppliers to provide a long term solution to the problem of climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Aviation is one of the most significant contributors to global warming and the level of GHG emitted per passenger is disproportionate when compared to other modes of transport. Many journeys that could be made by cleaner modes such as rail are currently made by plane, and this should be disincentivised. The revenue collected from air fare taxation could be put towards climate initiatives. The increase in tax would be a very blunt tool, however it would be a start. We should also work with airlines and fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penalty. This would be more effective and would also be more fair on lower income households. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would not be an effective way to reduce the number of people flying and therefore would not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry. The group also felt that increasing the tax on air fares would be unfair on lower income households who might be priced out of holidays entirely. The group felt that the government should be looking at other ways to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry, such as working with the airlines and also working with the fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penaulty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax would have a disproportionate impact on lower income households and would prevent them from taking holidays. The group also felt that increasing the tax would not have the desired effect of reducing CO2 emissions. The group felt that tax is a very blunt tool and there are better ways to reduce Co2 emissions as a result of flying. This could be through working with the airlines and also working with the fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penaulty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax on air fares in the UK, however, there was a strong feeling that this should not be done in isolation and that the government should provide a clear plan on how the revenue will be used to combat climate change. The group felt that the revenue should be ring-fenced and used to provide subsidies for cleaner modes of transport, such as rail, and also to provide subsidies for lower income households who may be priced out of holidays. The group also felt that it was important to work with airlines and fuel suppliers to provide a long term solution to the problem of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase the tax on air fares in the UK. Aviation is one of the most significant contributors to global warming and the level of GHG emitted per passenger is disproportionate when compared to other modes of transport. Many journeys that could be made by cleaner modes such as rail are currently made by plane, and this should be disincentivised. The revenue collected from air fare taxation could be put towards climate initiatives. The increase in tax would be a very blunt tool, however it would be a start. We should also work with airlines and fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penalty. This would be more effective and would also be more fair on lower income households. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002474.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002474.soc index c11e578c..eb3bd1f2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002474.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002474.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We don't think the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 because we think that 16 year olds are still too immature and could be easily influenced. We also think that lowering the voting age could be a bad thing because it could open up the leadership of a country to outside influences and manipulation from foreign players. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. This is because 16 year olds are still immature and can be easily influenced. Also, they might not have a full understanding of the voting system and the effects of their vote. We also think that lowering the voting age to 16 could lead to the younger generation having a greater influence on the voting system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. This is because we believe that the younger generation should have a say in the policies that will affect them. However, we also recognise that 16 year olds can be easily influenced by their peers and family. We believe that the voting age should be lowered but with the addition of a compulsory civics education in schools to ensure that young people are well informed before they cast their vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. We thought that this would be a good thing as it would give a voice to the younger generation and the people who will be affected most by the policies and laws that are put in place. However, we also thought that it could be a bad thing as 16 year olds can be easily influenced by their peers and family and so this could lead to a situation where people with children over 16 effectively have 2 votes. We thought that this was something that should be considered when making a decision on whether to lower the voting age or not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We don't think the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 because we think that 16 year olds are still too immature and could be easily influenced. We also think that lowering the voting age could be a bad thing because it could open up the leadership of a country to outside influences and manipulation from foreign players. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. This is because 16 year olds are still immature and can be easily influenced. Also, they might not have a full understanding of the voting system and the effects of their vote. We also think that lowering the voting age to 16 could lead to the younger generation having a greater influence on the voting system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. This is because we believe that the younger generation should have a say in the policies that will affect them. However, we also recognise that 16 year olds can be easily influenced by their peers and family. We believe that the voting age should be lowered but with the addition of a compulsory civics education in schools to ensure that young people are well informed before they cast their vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. We thought that this would be a good thing as it would give a voice to the younger generation and the people who will be affected most by the policies and laws that are put in place. However, we also thought that it could be a bad thing as 16 year olds can be easily influenced by their peers and family and so this could lead to a situation where people with children over 16 effectively have 2 votes. We thought that this was something that should be considered when making a decision on whether to lower the voting age or not. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002475.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002475.soc index 757939cf..66430e3e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002475.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002475.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Rich people should pay more tax, but it is difficult to define who is rich and who is not. There should be a system that is not reliant on an arbitrary threshold. The system should be progressive, and should ensure that the effective tax rate increases with income. The system should be fair, and should not penalise those who are just above the threshold. We also think that the current system is unfair, as there are many tax benefits that only apply to the rich. This should be changed. In addition, there are many people who are rich, but do not pay tax. This is also unfair. These people should be forced to pay tax. There should be a system to ensure that the rich pay tax, and that this tax is distributed to the poorer communities. This would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on the rich. The participants felt that the rich should be paying their fair share and that they could afford to pay more. The group felt that the rich were the ones benefitting the most from the current economy and should be required to support poorer communities that provide services they rely on. The group felt that the rich were able to use a lot of tax benefits where poorer people were not, and this was unfair in current society. That money should be going to other areas of the community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the rich should pay more tax. This is because they have more money and can afford to. The rich should be contributing to society more than they currently are. The rich are also the ones benefitting most from the current economy, and they should be required to support poorer communities that provide services they rely on. The rich are able to use a lot of tax benefits where poorer people are not, and this is unfair in current society. That money should be going to other areas of the community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on the rich, however, the definition of rich was a point of contention. The group felt that there should be a more even distribution of wealth in society, and that the rich should contribute more to this. However, the group also felt that the definition of rich is important, as it is difficult to define. It was felt that the rich should be defined as those who are able to afford to pay more tax, and that those who are able to avoid paying tax should be penalised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Rich people should pay more tax, but it is difficult to define who is rich and who is not. There should be a system that is not reliant on an arbitrary threshold. The system should be progressive, and should ensure that the effective tax rate increases with income. The system should be fair, and should not penalise those who are just above the threshold. We also think that the current system is unfair, as there are many tax benefits that only apply to the rich. This should be changed. In addition, there are many people who are rich, but do not pay tax. This is also unfair. These people should be forced to pay tax. There should be a system to ensure that the rich pay tax, and that this tax is distributed to the poorer communities. This would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on the rich. The participants felt that the rich should be paying their fair share and that they could afford to pay more. The group felt that the rich were the ones benefitting the most from the current economy and should be required to support poorer communities that provide services they rely on. The group felt that the rich were able to use a lot of tax benefits where poorer people were not, and this was unfair in current society. That money should be going to other areas of the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the rich should pay more tax. This is because they have more money and can afford to. The rich should be contributing to society more than they currently are. The rich are also the ones benefitting most from the current economy, and they should be required to support poorer communities that provide services they rely on. The rich are able to use a lot of tax benefits where poorer people are not, and this is unfair in current society. That money should be going to other areas of the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on the rich, however, the definition of rich was a point of contention. The group felt that there should be a more even distribution of wealth in society, and that the rich should contribute more to this. However, the group also felt that the definition of rich is important, as it is difficult to define. It was felt that the rich should be defined as those who are able to afford to pay more tax, and that those who are able to avoid paying tax should be penalised. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002476.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002476.soc index 15cc717f..b36ba383 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002476.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002476.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is a moral obligation for the British government to support international development. The British government has contributed to the poverty of many countries through slavery and colonisation. The government has also tried to turn British people against immigrants and to blame all the problems on immigration when it is their policies that have caused standard of living to go down for ordinary working people. The British government is a developed nation, so it is vital that all developed nations support those who are less developed. Ethically, we have a responsibility to ensure that all people have access to vital services as supporting international development allows us to do this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. The government has a duty to support those who are less fortunate and to provide aid where it is needed. The government has a duty to support international development as they have contributed to the poverty of the poorer countries through slavery and colonisation therefore they have a moral obligation to right the wrongs they have done. The British invaded many countries in their long history and now have a moral obligation to other countries who have not been as fortunate due to wars or other issues beyond their control. The government has actually tried to turn british people against immigrants and to blame all the problems on immigration when it is their policies that have caused standard of living to go down for ordinary working people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the British government has a moral obligation to support international development. This is because, firstly, the British government has contributed to the poverty of the poorer countries through slavery and colonisation therefore they have a moral obligation to right the wrongs they have done. Secondly, all countries have some moral obligation to support international development, so therefore, the British government does also. International development is important on many levels, both in advancement of technologies and other sciences, to help fight global battles such as global warming, or pandemics. But also because international development, forces countries to keep advancing further, improving the lives of all. The other reason that the British government has a moral obligation to support such development, is because Britain is a developed nation, so it is vital that all developed nations support those who are less developed. Ethically, we have a responsibility to ensure that all people have access to vital services as supporting international development allows us to do this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. We have a duty to help other countries, who have not been as fortunate as us, due to wars or other issues beyond their control. We have invaded many countries in our long history and now have a moral obligation to support them. The British government has actually tried to turn British people against immigrants and to blame all the problems on immigration when it is their policies that have caused standard of living to go down for ordinary working people. The British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. We have far more than we need in this country and a lot of people have come to think of many luxuries as their 'right'. There are many countries that could use some of our money and resources to help support basic human needs, needs wants. There is some obligation to support development and if it is done effectively then it can aid the British economy and trade relationships. What needs to be considered is value of money being directed to other countries rather than fixing the many issues that have arisen in this country, such as crime, poverty, equality and standard of living. Helping developing other countries can provide a gateway to positive immigration and a pathway for a better life for inhabitants of those countries +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is a moral obligation for the British government to support international development. The British government has contributed to the poverty of many countries through slavery and colonisation. The government has also tried to turn British people against immigrants and to blame all the problems on immigration when it is their policies that have caused standard of living to go down for ordinary working people. The British government is a developed nation, so it is vital that all developed nations support those who are less developed. Ethically, we have a responsibility to ensure that all people have access to vital services as supporting international development allows us to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. The government has a duty to support those who are less fortunate and to provide aid where it is needed. The government has a duty to support international development as they have contributed to the poverty of the poorer countries through slavery and colonisation therefore they have a moral obligation to right the wrongs they have done. The British invaded many countries in their long history and now have a moral obligation to other countries who have not been as fortunate due to wars or other issues beyond their control. The government has actually tried to turn british people against immigrants and to blame all the problems on immigration when it is their policies that have caused standard of living to go down for ordinary working people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the British government has a moral obligation to support international development. This is because, firstly, the British government has contributed to the poverty of the poorer countries through slavery and colonisation therefore they have a moral obligation to right the wrongs they have done. Secondly, all countries have some moral obligation to support international development, so therefore, the British government does also. International development is important on many levels, both in advancement of technologies and other sciences, to help fight global battles such as global warming, or pandemics. But also because international development, forces countries to keep advancing further, improving the lives of all. The other reason that the British government has a moral obligation to support such development, is because Britain is a developed nation, so it is vital that all developed nations support those who are less developed. Ethically, we have a responsibility to ensure that all people have access to vital services as supporting international development allows us to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. We have a duty to help other countries, who have not been as fortunate as us, due to wars or other issues beyond their control. We have invaded many countries in our long history and now have a moral obligation to support them. The British government has actually tried to turn British people against immigrants and to blame all the problems on immigration when it is their policies that have caused standard of living to go down for ordinary working people. The British government does have a moral obligation to support international development. We have far more than we need in this country and a lot of people have come to think of many luxuries as their 'right'. There are many countries that could use some of our money and resources to help support basic human needs, needs wants. There is some obligation to support development and if it is done effectively then it can aid the British economy and trade relationships. What needs to be considered is value of money being directed to other countries rather than fixing the many issues that have arisen in this country, such as crime, poverty, equality and standard of living. Helping developing other countries can provide a gateway to positive immigration and a pathway for a better life for inhabitants of those countries 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002477.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002477.soc index f16b3cb5..f9095133 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002477.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002477.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: University education should be free. Society is too unfairly balanced and the increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. Education is a good thing, it's good for society and it's good for the economy. The increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. People across all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. Education should be about educating everyone to be a well functioning member of society and there should be no cost to this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: University education should be free for all, as it is an investment in the future of our country. The high fees currently in place are a barrier to people from all walks of life accessing higher education and this is a problem for society as a whole. The current system is also unfair, as it means that people from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go to university, which is a waste of talent and potential. The cost of university should be covered by the government and by business, as it is an investment in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: University education should be free. It is a fundamental right of all people to be able to access the best education possible, and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure this happens. There is no doubt that a university education is an investment in the future of the economy, and the more people who are educated, the more likely it is that the economy will continue to grow. There is also the issue of fairness. People from all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence, and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. Education should be about educating everyone to be a well functioning member of society and there should be no cost to this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: University education should be free. Education is a fundamental human right and should be accessible to everyone. The current system of tuition fees is unfair, as it places the burden of the cost of education on the student, rather than on society as a whole. University is not just a personal investment, but an investment in the future of the country, and the economy. It is also important to note that it is not just about the cost of the education itself, but also the living costs associated with going to university. This means that many people from poorer backgrounds are unable to attend university, as they are unable to support themselves financially. This is unfair, and it is also a waste of the skills and talents of many people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - University education should be free. Society is too unfairly balanced and the increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. Education is a good thing, it's good for society and it's good for the economy. The increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. People across all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. Education should be about educating everyone to be a well functioning member of society and there should be no cost to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - University education should be free for all, as it is an investment in the future of our country. The high fees currently in place are a barrier to people from all walks of life accessing higher education and this is a problem for society as a whole. The current system is also unfair, as it means that people from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go to university, which is a waste of talent and potential. The cost of university should be covered by the government and by business, as it is an investment in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - University education should be free. It is a fundamental right of all people to be able to access the best education possible, and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure this happens. There is no doubt that a university education is an investment in the future of the economy, and the more people who are educated, the more likely it is that the economy will continue to grow. There is also the issue of fairness. People from all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence, and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. Education should be about educating everyone to be a well functioning member of society and there should be no cost to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - University education should be free. Education is a fundamental human right and should be accessible to everyone. The current system of tuition fees is unfair, as it places the burden of the cost of education on the student, rather than on society as a whole. University is not just a personal investment, but an investment in the future of the country, and the economy. It is also important to note that it is not just about the cost of the education itself, but also the living costs associated with going to university. This means that many people from poorer backgrounds are unable to attend university, as they are unable to support themselves financially. This is unfair, and it is also a waste of the skills and talents of many people. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002478.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002478.soc index 859fa895..001e9c4b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002478.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002478.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who do not vote. Most people felt that it was their right to vote or not vote and that the government should not interfere with that right. It was felt that if the government made it easier for people to vote, then more people would vote. It was felt that the government should not force people to vote, but rather make it easier for people to vote. The group felt that if the government forced people to vote then people would vote for the wrong reasons and this would result in a skewed result. The group felt that if people were forced to vote then people would vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for the candidate they really supported. The group felt that people should have the right to vote or not vote. The group felt that people should not be forced to vote, but rather have the right to vote or not vote. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to fining citizens who do not vote. The group felt that it was important to preserve freedom of choice, and that if citizens were fined for not voting, it would create a sense of resentment and could lead to a dictatorship. The group felt that it was the government’s responsibility to encourage citizens to vote, and to make it easier for them to do so. The group felt that it was important to educate citizens on the importance of voting and the impact it can have on their lives. The group felt that it was important for citizens to vote, but that it should be their own choice to do so. The group also felt that the government should make voting easier for citizens, for example by allowing postal voting, or voting online. The group felt that a voting fine should only be considered if the government can make voting much easier, and if they can increase voter turnout significantly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to fining citizens who do not vote. The group felt that it was important to preserve freedom of choice, and that if citizens were fined for not voting, it would create a sense of resentment and could lead to a dictatorship. The group felt that it was the government’s responsibility to encourage citizens to vote, and to make it easier for them to do so. The group felt that it was important to educate citizens on the importance of voting and the impact it can have on their lives. The group felt that it was important for citizens to vote, but that it should be their own choice to do so. The group also felt that the government should encourage people to vote, by making it easier for them to do so. The group also felt that people should be aware of the different methods of voting, and that the government should promote different methods of voting, such as postal voting. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to forcing people to vote. The group thought that it should be a civic duty to vote, but it should not be forced. The group thought that voting is a very important part of a democracy, but forcing people to vote is not the way to increase participation. The group thought that the government should make it easier to vote, for example by having more polling stations and making voting more accessible to people with disabilities. The group also thought that the government should educate people on the importance of voting and encourage them to vote, but not force them to vote. The group thought that people should vote for the right reasons, and forcing people to vote could lead to people voting for the wrong reasons. The group thought that the government should not fine people for not voting. The group thought that the government should not have the power to fine people for not voting, and that this would be a step too far and would be a threat to democracy. The group thought that the government should not be able to fine people for not voting, as this would be a threat to democracy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fining people who do not vote. Most people felt that it was their right to vote or not vote and that the government should not interfere with that right. It was felt that if the government made it easier for people to vote, then more people would vote. It was felt that the government should not force people to vote, but rather make it easier for people to vote. The group felt that if the government forced people to vote then people would vote for the wrong reasons and this would result in a skewed result. The group felt that if people were forced to vote then people would vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for the candidate they really supported. The group felt that people should have the right to vote or not vote. The group felt that people should not be forced to vote, but rather have the right to vote or not vote. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to fining citizens who do not vote. The group felt that it was important to preserve freedom of choice, and that if citizens were fined for not voting, it would create a sense of resentment and could lead to a dictatorship. The group felt that it was the government’s responsibility to encourage citizens to vote, and to make it easier for them to do so. The group felt that it was important to educate citizens on the importance of voting and the impact it can have on their lives. The group felt that it was important for citizens to vote, but that it should be their own choice to do so. The group also felt that the government should make voting easier for citizens, for example by allowing postal voting, or voting online. The group felt that a voting fine should only be considered if the government can make voting much easier, and if they can increase voter turnout significantly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to fining citizens who do not vote. The group felt that it was important to preserve freedom of choice, and that if citizens were fined for not voting, it would create a sense of resentment and could lead to a dictatorship. The group felt that it was the government’s responsibility to encourage citizens to vote, and to make it easier for them to do so. The group felt that it was important to educate citizens on the importance of voting and the impact it can have on their lives. The group felt that it was important for citizens to vote, but that it should be their own choice to do so. The group also felt that the government should encourage people to vote, by making it easier for them to do so. The group also felt that people should be aware of the different methods of voting, and that the government should promote different methods of voting, such as postal voting. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to forcing people to vote. The group thought that it should be a civic duty to vote, but it should not be forced. The group thought that voting is a very important part of a democracy, but forcing people to vote is not the way to increase participation. The group thought that the government should make it easier to vote, for example by having more polling stations and making voting more accessible to people with disabilities. The group also thought that the government should educate people on the importance of voting and encourage them to vote, but not force them to vote. The group thought that people should vote for the right reasons, and forcing people to vote could lead to people voting for the wrong reasons. The group thought that the government should not fine people for not voting. The group thought that the government should not have the power to fine people for not voting, and that this would be a step too far and would be a threat to democracy. The group thought that the government should not be able to fine people for not voting, as this would be a threat to democracy. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002479.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002479.soc index 5c980cc4..42f63c96 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002479.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002479.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We agree that the government should introduce a higher minimum wage for workers under 18. The current situation is that there is a cost of living crisis and the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the floor in their living conditions. A job is the best way to help people, but a job with a minimum wage and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. We believe that everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high we believe that the minimum wage for under eights should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and we suspect still really on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should introduce higher minimum wages for workers under 18 in order to provide them with fair pay for the work they do. The current situation is unfair and does not reflect the reality of the work that these people do. The increase should be in line with inflation and should reflect the cost of living. The current government is right to say that a job is the best way to help people and the increase in minimum wage will help people to get a job and will also help them to keep a job. The consensus opinion of the group was reached through discussion and an examination of the opinions of each individual. It was clear that the group was in favour of the increase but it was important to ensure that the increase was in line with inflation and also reflected the cost of living. It was also important to the group that the increase was fair and reflected the work that was being done. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should introduce a higher minimum wage for workers under 18. The current minimum wage for those under 18 is £3.68 per hour. This is significantly lower than the minimum wage for those over 18 (£6.31 per hour). With the current cost of living crisis, it is unfair that younger people are being paid less for doing the same job as someone over 18. The current minimum wage for those under 18 is not enough to live on and so should be increased. The minimum wage for those under 18 should be increased to £6.31 per hour. This would be a fairer minimum wage and would help younger people to live independently and get on in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should introduce higher minimum wages for workers under 18. In a civilised society, people should expect a job with a minimum wage and conditions. It is not fair if those under 18 do the same job as someone over 18 but get paid less. People of this age probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this but should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. With the current situation and the cost of living crisis, the minimum wage for workers under 18 should be increased to help them with increasing costs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that the government should introduce a higher minimum wage for workers under 18. The current situation is that there is a cost of living crisis and the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the floor in their living conditions. A job is the best way to help people, but a job with a minimum wage and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. We believe that everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high we believe that the minimum wage for under eights should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and we suspect still really on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should introduce higher minimum wages for workers under 18 in order to provide them with fair pay for the work they do. The current situation is unfair and does not reflect the reality of the work that these people do. The increase should be in line with inflation and should reflect the cost of living. The current government is right to say that a job is the best way to help people and the increase in minimum wage will help people to get a job and will also help them to keep a job. The consensus opinion of the group was reached through discussion and an examination of the opinions of each individual. It was clear that the group was in favour of the increase but it was important to ensure that the increase was in line with inflation and also reflected the cost of living. It was also important to the group that the increase was fair and reflected the work that was being done. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should introduce a higher minimum wage for workers under 18. The current minimum wage for those under 18 is £3.68 per hour. This is significantly lower than the minimum wage for those over 18 (£6.31 per hour). With the current cost of living crisis, it is unfair that younger people are being paid less for doing the same job as someone over 18. The current minimum wage for those under 18 is not enough to live on and so should be increased. The minimum wage for those under 18 should be increased to £6.31 per hour. This would be a fairer minimum wage and would help younger people to live independently and get on in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should introduce higher minimum wages for workers under 18. In a civilised society, people should expect a job with a minimum wage and conditions. It is not fair if those under 18 do the same job as someone over 18 but get paid less. People of this age probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this but should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. With the current situation and the cost of living crisis, the minimum wage for workers under 18 should be increased to help them with increasing costs. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002480.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002480.soc index eada1706..57672710 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002480.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002480.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would be unfair, especially on low income households. The group also felt that increasing the tax would not have the desired effect of reducing CO2 emissions. Instead, the group felt that working with the airlines and fuel suppliers would be a more effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would not be a good way of reducing the number of flights made by plane, as many journeys that could be made by cleaner modes such as rail are currently made by plane. The group felt that increasing the tax would not incentivise people to make journeys by cleaner modes of transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would not be an effective way to reduce the number of people flying and therefore would not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry. The group also felt that increasing the tax on air fares would be unfair on lower income households who might be priced out of holidays entirely. The group felt that the government should be looking at other ways to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry, such as working with the airlines and also working with the fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penaulty. The group also felt that it was important to acknowledge that aviation is a high-emitting sector and similar that initiatives such as clean air zones and sugar tax have worked in reducing other undesirable behaviours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax on air fares in the UK for environmental reasons. However, there was some concern that this would put the cost of flights out of the reach of lower income households. The group also felt that this would be a short term solution to the problem, and that a longer term solution would be to work with airlines and fuel suppliers to develop cleaner fuels and greener aircraft. The group felt that this would be a more effective way of reducing CO2 emissions from aviation. The group also felt that tax is a very blunt instrument and would not necessarily have the desired effect of reducing air travel. The group felt that it would be better to invest in rail infrastructure to make this a more attractive option for journeys that could be made by rail. This would also be more equitable for lower income households, as rail fares would remain affordable.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would not be an effective way to reduce the number of people flying and therefore would not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry. The group also felt that increasing the tax on air fares would be unfair on lower income households who might be priced out of holidays entirely. The group felt that the government should be looking at other ways to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry, such as working with the airlines and also working with the fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penaulty. The group also felt that initiatives such as clean air zones and sugar tax have worked in reducing other undesirable behaviours and the air travel tax should also be considered as an effective tool. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would be unfair, especially on low income households. The group also felt that increasing the tax would not have the desired effect of reducing CO2 emissions. Instead, the group felt that working with the airlines and fuel suppliers would be a more effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would not be a good way of reducing the number of flights made by plane, as many journeys that could be made by cleaner modes such as rail are currently made by plane. The group felt that increasing the tax would not incentivise people to make journeys by cleaner modes of transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would not be an effective way to reduce the number of people flying and therefore would not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry. The group also felt that increasing the tax on air fares would be unfair on lower income households who might be priced out of holidays entirely. The group felt that the government should be looking at other ways to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry, such as working with the airlines and also working with the fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penaulty. The group also felt that it was important to acknowledge that aviation is a high-emitting sector and similar that initiatives such as clean air zones and sugar tax have worked in reducing other undesirable behaviours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “In general, the group was in favour of increasing the tax on air fares in the UK for environmental reasons. However, there was some concern that this would put the cost of flights out of the reach of lower income households. The group also felt that this would be a short term solution to the problem, and that a longer term solution would be to work with airlines and fuel suppliers to develop cleaner fuels and greener aircraft. The group felt that this would be a more effective way of reducing CO2 emissions from aviation. The group also felt that tax is a very blunt instrument and would not necessarily have the desired effect of reducing air travel. The group felt that it would be better to invest in rail infrastructure to make this a more attractive option for journeys that could be made by rail. This would also be more equitable for lower income households, as rail fares would remain affordable.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to increasing the tax on air fares in the UK. The group felt that increasing the tax on air fares would not be an effective way to reduce the number of people flying and therefore would not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry. The group also felt that increasing the tax on air fares would be unfair on lower income households who might be priced out of holidays entirely. The group felt that the government should be looking at other ways to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the aviation industry, such as working with the airlines and also working with the fuel suppliers to produce a long term solution to the problem rather than a short term penaulty. The group also felt that initiatives such as clean air zones and sugar tax have worked in reducing other undesirable behaviours and the air travel tax should also be considered as an effective tool. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002481.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002481.soc index 523ee50d..123e255d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002481.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002481.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants were in favour of increasing taxes on the rich, however, the definition of rich was a point of contention. The group felt that there should be a more even distribution of wealth in society, and that the rich should contribute more to this. However, the group also felt that the definition of rich is important, as it is difficult to define. It was felt that the rich should be defined as those who are able to afford to pay more tax, and that those who are able to avoid paying tax should be penalised. It was felt that increasing taxes on the rich would lead to a more fair and equal society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We believe that there should be a higher tax rate for those who are earning a high income. This will help to balance out the income gap between those who are earning a high income and those who are not. It is important to note that this is not a blanket statement and there are nuances to this. For example, the income level at which the higher tax rate would kick in would need to be considered. There are also other factors to consider, such as how this would affect the economy as a whole and whether it would deter people from working hard and earning a high income. We believe that the higher tax rate would need to be implemented in a way that would not discourage people from working hard to earn a high income. We also believe that it is important to consider how this would affect the economy as a whole and whether it would deter people from working hard and earning a high income. It would need to be implemented in a way that would not discourage people from working hard to earn a high income.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on the rich, however, the definition of rich was a point of contention. The group felt that there should be a more even distribution of wealth in society, and that the rich should contribute more to this. However, the group also felt that the definition of rich is important, as it is difficult to define. It was felt that the rich should be defined as those who are able to afford to pay more tax, and that those who are able to avoid paying tax should be penalised. However, it was felt that the definition of rich should be expanded to include those who are just above the threshold for paying tax, as they are also able to avoid paying tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should increase taxes for rich people. The tax system is too skewed in favour of the rich. If the rich paid more tax then it would help to reduce inequality in society and provide better services for people. We need to redefine what we mean by rich people. We believe that a rich person is anyone earning over 100,000 euro a year. The richest people in the country are the ones benefitting most from the current economy, and they should be required to support poorer communities that provide services they rely on. Rich people are able to use a lot of tax benefits where poorer people are not, and this is unfair in current society. That money should be going to other areas of the community. We also believe that the tax system is too complicated and there are too many ways to avoid tax. If we want to increase taxes for rich people, then we also need to simplify the system. People shouldn’t be able to avoid tax by moving their money to offshore accounts. It is also important that the government invests in education and infrastructure so that people can move up the social ladder if they want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants were in favour of increasing taxes on the rich, however, the definition of rich was a point of contention. The group felt that there should be a more even distribution of wealth in society, and that the rich should contribute more to this. However, the group also felt that the definition of rich is important, as it is difficult to define. It was felt that the rich should be defined as those who are able to afford to pay more tax, and that those who are able to avoid paying tax should be penalised. It was felt that increasing taxes on the rich would lead to a more fair and equal society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We believe that there should be a higher tax rate for those who are earning a high income. This will help to balance out the income gap between those who are earning a high income and those who are not. It is important to note that this is not a blanket statement and there are nuances to this. For example, the income level at which the higher tax rate would kick in would need to be considered. There are also other factors to consider, such as how this would affect the economy as a whole and whether it would deter people from working hard and earning a high income. We believe that the higher tax rate would need to be implemented in a way that would not discourage people from working hard to earn a high income. We also believe that it is important to consider how this would affect the economy as a whole and whether it would deter people from working hard and earning a high income. It would need to be implemented in a way that would not discourage people from working hard to earn a high income.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on the rich, however, the definition of rich was a point of contention. The group felt that there should be a more even distribution of wealth in society, and that the rich should contribute more to this. However, the group also felt that the definition of rich is important, as it is difficult to define. It was felt that the rich should be defined as those who are able to afford to pay more tax, and that those who are able to avoid paying tax should be penalised. However, it was felt that the definition of rich should be expanded to include those who are just above the threshold for paying tax, as they are also able to avoid paying tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should increase taxes for rich people. The tax system is too skewed in favour of the rich. If the rich paid more tax then it would help to reduce inequality in society and provide better services for people. We need to redefine what we mean by rich people. We believe that a rich person is anyone earning over 100,000 euro a year. The richest people in the country are the ones benefitting most from the current economy, and they should be required to support poorer communities that provide services they rely on. Rich people are able to use a lot of tax benefits where poorer people are not, and this is unfair in current society. That money should be going to other areas of the community. We also believe that the tax system is too complicated and there are too many ways to avoid tax. If we want to increase taxes for rich people, then we also need to simplify the system. People shouldn’t be able to avoid tax by moving their money to offshore accounts. It is also important that the government invests in education and infrastructure so that people can move up the social ladder if they want to. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002482.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002482.soc index 10f64d9e..fd5701a4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002482.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002482.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be a law that bans the sale of products that have been tested on animals. However, it is important to note that there are exceptions to this rule. For example, when testing new medicines, animals are sometimes the only option. It is also important to note that there are alternatives to animal testing. For example, the use of tissue cultures, computer models and clinical trials on human volunteers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that testing products on animals should be banned, as long as it does not compromise human safety. The issue of testing is a very complex one, and we understand that in some cases it is necessary. We feel that it is important to protect animals, but also to ensure that humans are not put in danger. We feel that it is important to use the most humane methods possible when testing on animals, and that it should be done in the most controlled way possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be a law that bans the sale of products that have been tested on animals. However, this law should be flexible enough to allow for the testing of medicines on animals, as this is necessary to ensure that they are safe for human use. The law should also be flexible enough to allow for the testing of other products on animals, if there is no other way to test them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The safety of humans is paramount, but we should not abuse animals in the process. There should be a law that limits testing on animals, but not a complete ban. It is important that we continue to test on animals to ensure the safety of humans, but we should also continue to develop new ways to test on humans and in laboratories, so that we can reduce the number of animals that are tested on. The use of animals for testing should be reduced as much as possible, but not completely banned.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be a law that bans the sale of products that have been tested on animals. However, it is important to note that there are exceptions to this rule. For example, when testing new medicines, animals are sometimes the only option. It is also important to note that there are alternatives to animal testing. For example, the use of tissue cultures, computer models and clinical trials on human volunteers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that testing products on animals should be banned, as long as it does not compromise human safety. The issue of testing is a very complex one, and we understand that in some cases it is necessary. We feel that it is important to protect animals, but also to ensure that humans are not put in danger. We feel that it is important to use the most humane methods possible when testing on animals, and that it should be done in the most controlled way possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be a law that bans the sale of products that have been tested on animals. However, this law should be flexible enough to allow for the testing of medicines on animals, as this is necessary to ensure that they are safe for human use. The law should also be flexible enough to allow for the testing of other products on animals, if there is no other way to test them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The safety of humans is paramount, but we should not abuse animals in the process. There should be a law that limits testing on animals, but not a complete ban. It is important that we continue to test on animals to ensure the safety of humans, but we should also continue to develop new ways to test on humans and in laboratories, so that we can reduce the number of animals that are tested on. The use of animals for testing should be reduced as much as possible, but not completely banned.” 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002483.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002483.soc index 09891b6c..0d5c9895 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002483.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002483.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A person's life savings should be protected when their pension is being taken away. This is due to the fact that their life savings have already been taxed and it would be unfair for the government to take away more money from the family. It is also due to the fact that this could have large distorting effects on the economy, as it could reduce the incentive to save in the first place. This is also due to the fact that this could affect someone's quality of life and their family's quality of life. It would be unfair for the government to take away someone's life savings, as this could affect their family's future generations. This is also due to the fact that the person has worked their whole lives and paid tax and national insurance, and it would be unfair for the government to take away their life savings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: A person's life savings should be protected when their pension is being taken away. The life savings that a person has accrued over the course of their life is theirs to do with as they please. It is not the government's place to interfere with a person's life savings, and the government should not be able to take away a person's life savings, especially if their pension is being taken away. This is an example of double taxation, and this is unfair to the family and the person, and their life savings were already taxed heavily. If their pension is taken away, then whatever money they have accrued should not be affected. This is also due to the fact that this affects someone's incentive to save in the first place. A lot of people opt to save money as it will help their family and future generations in the future, and destroying the incentive to save by taking away life savings could have large distorting effects on the economy. Reduced saving may could issues for investment and while it could stimulate demand in the short run, it is not fair for families to be denied the work of someone they cared for deeply, as opposed to their life savings being affected by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, a person's life savings should be protected when their pension is being taken away. A person's life savings are a representation of their hard work, and taking this away would be detrimental to the individual, their family and the economy. The government should not get involved in a person's life savings, as this is an example of double taxation, which is unfair for the family and the person, and their life savings were already taxed heavily. If their pension is taken away, then whatever money they have accrued should not be affected. This is also due to the fact that this affects someone's incentive to save in the first place. A lot of people opt to save money as it will help their family and future generations in the future, and destroying the incentive to save by taking away life savings could have large distorting effects on the economy. Reduced saving may could issues for investment and while it could stimulate demand in the short run, it is not fair for families to be denied the work of someone they cared for deeply, as opposed to their life savings being affected by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: A persons life savings should be protected when their pension is being taken away. This is because people have worked their whole lives to earn their life savings and it is unfair for the government to take that away. The government should not get involved with a persons life savings as this is an example of double taxation, which is unfair for the family and the person, and their life savings were already taxed heavily. If their pension is taken away, then whatever money they have accrued should not be affected. This is also due to the fact that this affects someone's incentive to save in the first place. A lot of people opt to save money as it will help their family and future generations in the future, and destroying the incentive to save by taking away life savings could have large distorting effects on the economy. Reduced saving may could issues for investment and while it could stimulate demand in the short run, it is not fair for families to be denied the work of someone they cared for deeply, as opposed to their life savings being affected by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A person's life savings should be protected when their pension is being taken away. This is due to the fact that their life savings have already been taxed and it would be unfair for the government to take away more money from the family. It is also due to the fact that this could have large distorting effects on the economy, as it could reduce the incentive to save in the first place. This is also due to the fact that this could affect someone's quality of life and their family's quality of life. It would be unfair for the government to take away someone's life savings, as this could affect their family's future generations. This is also due to the fact that the person has worked their whole lives and paid tax and national insurance, and it would be unfair for the government to take away their life savings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - A person's life savings should be protected when their pension is being taken away. The life savings that a person has accrued over the course of their life is theirs to do with as they please. It is not the government's place to interfere with a person's life savings, and the government should not be able to take away a person's life savings, especially if their pension is being taken away. This is an example of double taxation, and this is unfair to the family and the person, and their life savings were already taxed heavily. If their pension is taken away, then whatever money they have accrued should not be affected. This is also due to the fact that this affects someone's incentive to save in the first place. A lot of people opt to save money as it will help their family and future generations in the future, and destroying the incentive to save by taking away life savings could have large distorting effects on the economy. Reduced saving may could issues for investment and while it could stimulate demand in the short run, it is not fair for families to be denied the work of someone they cared for deeply, as opposed to their life savings being affected by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, a person's life savings should be protected when their pension is being taken away. A person's life savings are a representation of their hard work, and taking this away would be detrimental to the individual, their family and the economy. The government should not get involved in a person's life savings, as this is an example of double taxation, which is unfair for the family and the person, and their life savings were already taxed heavily. If their pension is taken away, then whatever money they have accrued should not be affected. This is also due to the fact that this affects someone's incentive to save in the first place. A lot of people opt to save money as it will help their family and future generations in the future, and destroying the incentive to save by taking away life savings could have large distorting effects on the economy. Reduced saving may could issues for investment and while it could stimulate demand in the short run, it is not fair for families to be denied the work of someone they cared for deeply, as opposed to their life savings being affected by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A persons life savings should be protected when their pension is being taken away. This is because people have worked their whole lives to earn their life savings and it is unfair for the government to take that away. The government should not get involved with a persons life savings as this is an example of double taxation, which is unfair for the family and the person, and their life savings were already taxed heavily. If their pension is taken away, then whatever money they have accrued should not be affected. This is also due to the fact that this affects someone's incentive to save in the first place. A lot of people opt to save money as it will help their family and future generations in the future, and destroying the incentive to save by taking away life savings could have large distorting effects on the economy. Reduced saving may could issues for investment and while it could stimulate demand in the short run, it is not fair for families to be denied the work of someone they cared for deeply, as opposed to their life savings being affected by the government. 3: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002484.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002484.soc index 466f0521..10d4c452 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002484.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002484.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Education is the most important investment a country can make in its future. If we want our children to grow up in a society that is prosperous, cohesive and in which everyone has the chance to succeed, then we must invest in the education of all of our children. The current system is unfair, inefficient and a barrier to a more equal society. The current cost of education is a deterrent for many, especially for those from the poorest backgrounds, but also for those from the middle classes. A system that allows universities to compete for students by lowering the cost of tuition is a positive step forward. This is the view of the group. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: University education should be free. It is an investment in the future, and in our country's economy. Burdening a graduate with debt at the very beginning of their career seems like a discouragement just at a time when encouragement would be more helpful. Education is a good thing, it's good for society and it's good for the economy. The increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. People across all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. Education should be about educating everyone to be a well functioning member of society and there should be no cost to this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: University education should be free. Society is too unfairly balanced and the increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. People across all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. Education should be about educating everyone to be a well functioning member of society and there should be no cost to this. This is a fair appraisal of the issue and our economy should be able to support it. Those who come from a more privileged background should have more of a responsibility financially towards their fees as they can afford it whereas those who are less privileged can benefit from this. It has to be assessed individually on a sliding scale with financial input also from government and business particularly covering those areas where there is a work shortage. We also need to recoup money from those courses that are less likely to lead to a career and so less likely to give back to the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: University education should be free. Education is a good thing, it's good for society and it's good for the economy. Burdening a graduate with debt at the very beginning of their career seems like a discouragement just at a time when encouragement would be more helpful. The current system of university education is too unfairly balanced and the increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. People across all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Education is the most important investment a country can make in its future. If we want our children to grow up in a society that is prosperous, cohesive and in which everyone has the chance to succeed, then we must invest in the education of all of our children. The current system is unfair, inefficient and a barrier to a more equal society. The current cost of education is a deterrent for many, especially for those from the poorest backgrounds, but also for those from the middle classes. A system that allows universities to compete for students by lowering the cost of tuition is a positive step forward. This is the view of the group. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - University education should be free. It is an investment in the future, and in our country's economy. Burdening a graduate with debt at the very beginning of their career seems like a discouragement just at a time when encouragement would be more helpful. Education is a good thing, it's good for society and it's good for the economy. The increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. People across all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. Education should be about educating everyone to be a well functioning member of society and there should be no cost to this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - University education should be free. Society is too unfairly balanced and the increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. People across all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. Education should be about educating everyone to be a well functioning member of society and there should be no cost to this. This is a fair appraisal of the issue and our economy should be able to support it. Those who come from a more privileged background should have more of a responsibility financially towards their fees as they can afford it whereas those who are less privileged can benefit from this. It has to be assessed individually on a sliding scale with financial input also from government and business particularly covering those areas where there is a work shortage. We also need to recoup money from those courses that are less likely to lead to a career and so less likely to give back to the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - University education should be free. Education is a good thing, it's good for society and it's good for the economy. Burdening a graduate with debt at the very beginning of their career seems like a discouragement just at a time when encouragement would be more helpful. The current system of university education is too unfairly balanced and the increasing costs of going to university including tuition fees mean that people from middle and lower income backgrounds no longer have fair access. People across all walks of life have a range of skills and intelligence and being born into a wealthy or privileged background should not mean your education should be better than those who have less due to circumstances. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002485.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002485.soc index 68e4bc57..c1d10804 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002485.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002485.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Technology is a very important aspect of our lives and will become more and more integral to every aspect of the human existence. We should not be afraid of this as it will allow us to become closer, seek truth quicker, communicate to others all over the world and have a range of entertainment options at the click of a button. However, we must not become too reliant on technology as we may struggle if it were to suddenly crash. Therefore, we must always have some old world non technical solutions on hand as a failafe and back up. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, the group have come to the decision that yes, we are too reliant on technology in the modern age. Although there are many benefits to technology, it has also become a crutch for people to lean on. If technology was to fail, many people would not know what to do as they have become so reliant on it. The group feel that we should be teaching people survival skills in schools so that they can take care of themselves if technology was to fail. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was split down the middle on this question. The group agreed that the answer to this question is subjective and depends on the individual and their situation. The group came to the conclusion that technology is a double edged sword, it has many benefits but also many drawbacks. The group also agreed that we are too reliant on technology in some aspects of life, for example, in a disaster situation where the power grid is down, people would be lost without their phones. The group also agreed that we are not too reliant on technology in other aspects of life, for example, we are not reliant on technology for food, water and shelter. The group agreed that we are becoming more reliant on technology, however, the group also agreed that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The group also agreed that the world would be a very different place without technology and that the world would be a worse place without technology. The group agreed that the world would be a better place if people were less reliant on technology and more reliant on each other. The group agreed that we should be careful about how reliant we are on technology and that we should be careful about how much we let technology control our lives. The group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the use of technology, but felt that there were some aspects of life where it was perhaps not necessary. The group felt that there should be a balance between the use of technology and the use of more traditional methods. For example, the group felt that the use of technology in medicine was very important and necessary, but that people should not become so reliant on it that they were unable to survive without it. The group felt that it was important that people were taught survival skills and the ability to live without technology. The group also felt that the use of technology in warfare was very important, but that there should be a balance between the use of technology and the use of more traditional methods. The group felt that it was important that people were taught survival skills and the ability to live without technology. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Technology is a very important aspect of our lives and will become more and more integral to every aspect of the human existence. We should not be afraid of this as it will allow us to become closer, seek truth quicker, communicate to others all over the world and have a range of entertainment options at the click of a button. However, we must not become too reliant on technology as we may struggle if it were to suddenly crash. Therefore, we must always have some old world non technical solutions on hand as a failafe and back up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, the group have come to the decision that yes, we are too reliant on technology in the modern age. Although there are many benefits to technology, it has also become a crutch for people to lean on. If technology was to fail, many people would not know what to do as they have become so reliant on it. The group feel that we should be teaching people survival skills in schools so that they can take care of themselves if technology was to fail. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was split down the middle on this question. The group agreed that the answer to this question is subjective and depends on the individual and their situation. The group came to the conclusion that technology is a double edged sword, it has many benefits but also many drawbacks. The group also agreed that we are too reliant on technology in some aspects of life, for example, in a disaster situation where the power grid is down, people would be lost without their phones. The group also agreed that we are not too reliant on technology in other aspects of life, for example, we are not reliant on technology for food, water and shelter. The group agreed that we are becoming more reliant on technology, however, the group also agreed that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The group also agreed that the world would be a very different place without technology and that the world would be a worse place without technology. The group agreed that the world would be a better place if people were less reliant on technology and more reliant on each other. The group agreed that we should be careful about how reliant we are on technology and that we should be careful about how much we let technology control our lives. The group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the use of technology, but felt that there were some aspects of life where it was perhaps not necessary. The group felt that there should be a balance between the use of technology and the use of more traditional methods. For example, the group felt that the use of technology in medicine was very important and necessary, but that people should not become so reliant on it that they were unable to survive without it. The group felt that it was important that people were taught survival skills and the ability to live without technology. The group also felt that the use of technology in warfare was very important, but that there should be a balance between the use of technology and the use of more traditional methods. The group felt that it was important that people were taught survival skills and the ability to live without technology. 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002486.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002486.soc index e706f11f..925cb442 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002486.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002486.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the minimum wage for workers under 18 should be increased. In wealthy countries, the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the floor in their living conditions. As the current government says a job is the best way to help people. I expand that to say that a job with a minimum wages and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. The government should introduce higher minimum wages for those under 18. It is not fair if those under 18 do the same job as someone over 18 but get paid less. The wage should match the work done independent of age. I think everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high I believe the minimum wage for under eighteens should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and I suspect still really on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the decision that we think the minimum wage for workers under 18 should be increased. We think this because of the current situation and the cost of living crisis. This would help them with increasing costs. We also think that the minimum wage for under 18’s should be increased because it is not fair if those under 18 do the same job as someone over 18 but get paid less. The wage should match the work done independent of age. We also think that everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high we believe the minimum wage for under 18’s should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and we suspect are still really on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. We also think that the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the floor in their living conditions. As the current government says a job is the best way to help people. We expand that to say that a job with a minimum wages and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We agree that the government should introduce a higher minimum wage for workers under 18. The current situation is that there is a cost of living crisis and the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the poverty line in their living conditions. A job is the best way to help people, but a job with a minimum wage and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. We believe that everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high we believe that the minimum wage for under eights should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and we suspect still really on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We agree that the government should introduce a higher minimum wage for workers under 18. The current situation is that there is a cost of living crisis and the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the poverty line in their living conditions. A job is the best way to help people, but a job with a minimum wage and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. We believe that everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high we believe that the minimum wage for under 18s should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and we suspect still rely on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the minimum wage for workers under 18 should be increased. In wealthy countries, the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the floor in their living conditions. As the current government says a job is the best way to help people. I expand that to say that a job with a minimum wages and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. The government should introduce higher minimum wages for those under 18. It is not fair if those under 18 do the same job as someone over 18 but get paid less. The wage should match the work done independent of age. I think everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high I believe the minimum wage for under eighteens should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and I suspect still really on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the decision that we think the minimum wage for workers under 18 should be increased. We think this because of the current situation and the cost of living crisis. This would help them with increasing costs. We also think that the minimum wage for under 18’s should be increased because it is not fair if those under 18 do the same job as someone over 18 but get paid less. The wage should match the work done independent of age. We also think that everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high we believe the minimum wage for under 18’s should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and we suspect are still really on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. We also think that the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the floor in their living conditions. As the current government says a job is the best way to help people. We expand that to say that a job with a minimum wages and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We agree that the government should introduce a higher minimum wage for workers under 18. The current situation is that there is a cost of living crisis and the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the poverty line in their living conditions. A job is the best way to help people, but a job with a minimum wage and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. We believe that everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high we believe that the minimum wage for under eights should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and we suspect still really on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We agree that the government should introduce a higher minimum wage for workers under 18. The current situation is that there is a cost of living crisis and the government has a responsibility to ensure that people do not fall below the poverty line in their living conditions. A job is the best way to help people, but a job with a minimum wage and conditions is what people should expect in a civilised society. We believe that everybody deserves fair pay. As inflation is still exceptionally high we believe that the minimum wage for under 18s should be increased in line with this. People of this age however probably do not have the same expenses as people who are older than this and we suspect still rely on support from their parents but even so should be rewarded for their work and encouraged to progress in life. 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002487.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002487.soc index f3a08146..84e8b5f5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002487.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002487.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not replace income tax with an additional value added tax on goods and services. We believe that income tax is a reliable and long established form of tax and that it would be a mistake to replace it with VAT. We believe that VAT would be a burden on businesses and that it could cause companies to go bankrupt. We believe that the economy would be at risk if VAT was introduced. We believe that the current system of income tax is fair and that it reflects the amount of money that people earn. We believe that VAT would be unfair as it would not reflect the amount of money that people earn. We believe that VAT would be a burden on people as they would have to pay more for goods and services. We believe that people would have less money to spend and save as they would have to pay more VAT. We believe that it would be a mistake to replace income tax with VAT. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “No, we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. The VAT is already a burden on the economy and if we increase this burden we would find many companies going bankrupt. Income tax is a reliable source of income for the government and it is a long established system that has been in place for many years. It has proven to be a good foundation of tax and we need to be cautious about creating additional tax modifications. This would prove disastrous for the economy.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not replace income tax with an additional value added tax on goods and services. We believe that income tax is a reliable and long established form of tax and that it would be a mistake to replace it with VAT. We believe that VAT would be a burden on businesses and that it could cause companies to go bankrupt. We believe that the economy would be at risk if VAT was introduced. We believe that the current system of income tax is fair and that it reflects the amount of money that people earn. We believe that VAT would be unfair as it would not reflect the amount of money that people earn. We believe that VAT would be a burden on people as they would have to pay more for goods and services. We believe that people would have less money to spend and save as they would have to pay more VAT. We believe that it would be a mistake to replace income tax with VAT. We believe that people who do not pay income tax would be hit hardest by VAT. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of replacing the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. The income tax is a very old system that was created in a very different world to the one we live in now. It is a very inefficient and complex system that is very difficult to understand. It has become a very divisive system that creates a great deal of inequality in society. The additional value added tax on goods and services would be a much more efficient and simpler system that would be much easier to understand. It would also be a more fair system that would help to reduce inequality in society. It would be a much more efficient system that would help to boost economic growth and would be much easier to administer. It would also help to encourage a more sustainable society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not replace income tax with an additional value added tax on goods and services. We believe that income tax is a reliable and long established form of tax and that it would be a mistake to replace it with VAT. We believe that VAT would be a burden on businesses and that it could cause companies to go bankrupt. We believe that the economy would be at risk if VAT was introduced. We believe that the current system of income tax is fair and that it reflects the amount of money that people earn. We believe that VAT would be unfair as it would not reflect the amount of money that people earn. We believe that VAT would be a burden on people as they would have to pay more for goods and services. We believe that people would have less money to spend and save as they would have to pay more VAT. We believe that it would be a mistake to replace income tax with VAT. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “No, we should not replace the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. The VAT is already a burden on the economy and if we increase this burden we would find many companies going bankrupt. Income tax is a reliable source of income for the government and it is a long established system that has been in place for many years. It has proven to be a good foundation of tax and we need to be cautious about creating additional tax modifications. This would prove disastrous for the economy.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not replace income tax with an additional value added tax on goods and services. We believe that income tax is a reliable and long established form of tax and that it would be a mistake to replace it with VAT. We believe that VAT would be a burden on businesses and that it could cause companies to go bankrupt. We believe that the economy would be at risk if VAT was introduced. We believe that the current system of income tax is fair and that it reflects the amount of money that people earn. We believe that VAT would be unfair as it would not reflect the amount of money that people earn. We believe that VAT would be a burden on people as they would have to pay more for goods and services. We believe that people would have less money to spend and save as they would have to pay more VAT. We believe that it would be a mistake to replace income tax with VAT. We believe that people who do not pay income tax would be hit hardest by VAT. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of replacing the income tax with an additional value added tax (VAT) on goods and services. The income tax is a very old system that was created in a very different world to the one we live in now. It is a very inefficient and complex system that is very difficult to understand. It has become a very divisive system that creates a great deal of inequality in society. The additional value added tax on goods and services would be a much more efficient and simpler system that would be much easier to understand. It would also be a more fair system that would help to reduce inequality in society. It would be a much more efficient system that would help to boost economic growth and would be much easier to administer. It would also help to encourage a more sustainable society. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002488.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002488.soc index de57e754..9978abef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002488.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002488.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, all new cars should not be equipped with speed limiters. The issue of speed limiters is one that is hotly debated. Some people are in favour of them and others are not. It is important to remember that speed is not the only factor that causes accidents. Poor driving and other factors also contribute to accidents. In addition, there are other ways to reduce the number of accidents on the road. These include using speed cameras and having police checkpoints. There is also the issue of cost. It would be expensive to equip all new cars with speed limiters. The cost of this would be passed onto the consumer, which would be unfair. There are also technological issues to consider. What would happen if the speed limiter malfunctioned? This could lead to accidents. In conclusion, there are a number of reasons why all new cars should not be equipped with speed limiters. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fitting speed limiters to all new cars. However, it was recognised that there were some potential benefits. These included a reduction in the number of accidents, a reduction in fuel consumption and a reduction in the number of deaths on the roads. However, it was felt that these benefits were outweighed by a number of disadvantages. These included the fact that speed limiters could malfunction and cause accidents, they could also be removed and replaced by other drivers who would then be able to drive faster than the speed limit and they would also reduce the ability of drivers to accelerate out of dangerous situations. It was also felt that the majority of accidents were caused by driver error rather than speed and that the best way to reduce the number of accidents on the roads was to improve driver education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of speed limiters but thought that there were a number of issues that needed to be considered. Firstly, the group thought that it was important to consider the type of roads on which the speed limiters would be used. On motorways, the group thought that it would be beneficial to have speed limiters as this would help reduce congestion and the number of accidents. However, on smaller roads, the group thought that speed limiters would be more of a hindrance than a help. The group thought that it would be more beneficial to have speed cameras on smaller roads as this would help reduce the number of accidents. The group also thought that it was important to consider the type of driver that would be using the speed limiters. The group thought that it would be beneficial to have speed limiters on learner drivers as this would help them to get used to driving at a slower speed. The group also thought that it would be beneficial to have speed limiters on young drivers as this would help to reduce the number of accidents caused by young drivers. However, the group thought that it would not be beneficial to have speed limiters on experienced drivers as this would hinder their ability to drive safely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of the idea of fitting speed limiters to all new cars. This is because of the potential safety benefits and also the potential environmental benefits. However, the group was also aware of the potential issues that could arise from fitting speed limiters. For example, if the speed limiter malfunctioned and the car was not able to accelerate out of trouble then this could cause an accident. The group was also aware that fitting speed limiters would not necessarily reduce the number of accidents on the roads. This is because most accidents are caused by driver error rather than speed alone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, all new cars should not be equipped with speed limiters. The issue of speed limiters is one that is hotly debated. Some people are in favour of them and others are not. It is important to remember that speed is not the only factor that causes accidents. Poor driving and other factors also contribute to accidents. In addition, there are other ways to reduce the number of accidents on the road. These include using speed cameras and having police checkpoints. There is also the issue of cost. It would be expensive to equip all new cars with speed limiters. The cost of this would be passed onto the consumer, which would be unfair. There are also technological issues to consider. What would happen if the speed limiter malfunctioned? This could lead to accidents. In conclusion, there are a number of reasons why all new cars should not be equipped with speed limiters. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fitting speed limiters to all new cars. However, it was recognised that there were some potential benefits. These included a reduction in the number of accidents, a reduction in fuel consumption and a reduction in the number of deaths on the roads. However, it was felt that these benefits were outweighed by a number of disadvantages. These included the fact that speed limiters could malfunction and cause accidents, they could also be removed and replaced by other drivers who would then be able to drive faster than the speed limit and they would also reduce the ability of drivers to accelerate out of dangerous situations. It was also felt that the majority of accidents were caused by driver error rather than speed and that the best way to reduce the number of accidents on the roads was to improve driver education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of speed limiters but thought that there were a number of issues that needed to be considered. Firstly, the group thought that it was important to consider the type of roads on which the speed limiters would be used. On motorways, the group thought that it would be beneficial to have speed limiters as this would help reduce congestion and the number of accidents. However, on smaller roads, the group thought that speed limiters would be more of a hindrance than a help. The group thought that it would be more beneficial to have speed cameras on smaller roads as this would help reduce the number of accidents. The group also thought that it was important to consider the type of driver that would be using the speed limiters. The group thought that it would be beneficial to have speed limiters on learner drivers as this would help them to get used to driving at a slower speed. The group also thought that it would be beneficial to have speed limiters on young drivers as this would help to reduce the number of accidents caused by young drivers. However, the group thought that it would not be beneficial to have speed limiters on experienced drivers as this would hinder their ability to drive safely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of fitting speed limiters to all new cars. This is because of the potential safety benefits and also the potential environmental benefits. However, the group was also aware of the potential issues that could arise from fitting speed limiters. For example, if the speed limiter malfunctioned and the car was not able to accelerate out of trouble then this could cause an accident. The group was also aware that fitting speed limiters would not necessarily reduce the number of accidents on the roads. This is because most accidents are caused by driver error rather than speed alone. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002489.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002489.soc index 58daa654..b25095af 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002489.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002489.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The health benefits of fluoride in water outweigh the risks, however more research should be done to confirm this and the concentration of fluoride in water should be kept to a minimum to reduce any risks. People should also be given the choice to opt out of fluoride in their water if they wish to do so. The government should take more responsibility for the dental health of the nation, rather than relying on fluoride in water to solve the problem. Fluoride should not be added to bottled water as it is not necessary, and people are already paying for the water, so should not be expected to pay for fluoride as well.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The addition of fluoride to the water supply is beneficial for the health of people's teeth, however it is not necessarily the most efficient way to ensure that people are getting the fluoride they need. The addition of fluoride to the water supply is an imposition on people's freedom of choice, and could potentially be dangerous for people who are allergic to fluoride, or for people who are drinking more water than they should. It is the responsibility of the government and healthcare system to ensure that people are getting the fluoride they need, and this should not be imposed on everyone. If people want fluoride in their water, they can choose to drink tap water. If they do not want fluoride in their water, they can choose to drink bottled water. This way, people are free to choose, and are not forced to consume fluoride.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, fluoride is beneficial for dental health. However, we feel that it should be up to the individual whether they want fluoride in their water or not. If they want fluoride, they should be able to get it from their dentist. If they don't want fluoride, they should be able to avoid it. We feel that it is the responsibility of the individual and the healthcare system to take care of dental hygiene, and it shouldn't be imposed on everyone without their consent. High levels of fluoride can be dangerous, plus we must consider potential allergies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of fluoride in the water. It was recognised that fluoride is a natural mineral that is present in many foods and drinks, including some tap water. It was noted that it can also be found in toothpaste, mouthwash and other dental products. The group recognised that fluoride can help to prevent tooth decay and cavities, but it can also be harmful in large doses. It was felt that fluoride in tap water was a positive step in promoting dental hygiene, but it should be accompanied by a greater awareness of the dangers of consuming too much fluoride. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The health benefits of fluoride in water outweigh the risks, however more research should be done to confirm this and the concentration of fluoride in water should be kept to a minimum to reduce any risks. People should also be given the choice to opt out of fluoride in their water if they wish to do so. The government should take more responsibility for the dental health of the nation, rather than relying on fluoride in water to solve the problem. Fluoride should not be added to bottled water as it is not necessary, and people are already paying for the water, so should not be expected to pay for fluoride as well.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The addition of fluoride to the water supply is beneficial for the health of people's teeth, however it is not necessarily the most efficient way to ensure that people are getting the fluoride they need. The addition of fluoride to the water supply is an imposition on people's freedom of choice, and could potentially be dangerous for people who are allergic to fluoride, or for people who are drinking more water than they should. It is the responsibility of the government and healthcare system to ensure that people are getting the fluoride they need, and this should not be imposed on everyone. If people want fluoride in their water, they can choose to drink tap water. If they do not want fluoride in their water, they can choose to drink bottled water. This way, people are free to choose, and are not forced to consume fluoride.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, fluoride is beneficial for dental health. However, we feel that it should be up to the individual whether they want fluoride in their water or not. If they want fluoride, they should be able to get it from their dentist. If they don't want fluoride, they should be able to avoid it. We feel that it is the responsibility of the individual and the healthcare system to take care of dental hygiene, and it shouldn't be imposed on everyone without their consent. High levels of fluoride can be dangerous, plus we must consider potential allergies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of fluoride in the water. It was recognised that fluoride is a natural mineral that is present in many foods and drinks, including some tap water. It was noted that it can also be found in toothpaste, mouthwash and other dental products. The group recognised that fluoride can help to prevent tooth decay and cavities, but it can also be harmful in large doses. It was felt that fluoride in tap water was a positive step in promoting dental hygiene, but it should be accompanied by a greater awareness of the dangers of consuming too much fluoride. 3: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002490.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002490.soc index c4724081..53c502af 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002490.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002490.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was split down the middle on this question. The group agreed that the answer to this question is subjective and depends on the individual and their situation. The group came to the conclusion that technology is a double edged sword, it has many benefits but also many drawbacks. The group also agreed that we are too reliant on technology in some aspects of life, for example, in a disaster situation where the power grid is down, people would be lost without their phones. The group also agreed that we are not too reliant on technology in other aspects of life, for example, we are not reliant on technology for food, water and shelter. The group agreed that we are becoming more reliant on technology, however, the group also agreed that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The group also agreed that the world would be a very different place without technology and that the world would be a worse place without technology. The group agreed that the world would be a better place if people were less reliant on technology and more reliant on each other. The group agreed that we should be careful about how reliant we are on technology and that we should be careful about how much we let technology control our lives. The group -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In conclusion, we have come to the decision that we are not too reliant on technology in this day and age. In our opinion, there are many positives to using technology, such as the fact that it can improve our lives in many ways. It is also very useful for businesses and the government as it can make their jobs a lot easier. However, we do think that it is important that we are aware of the negatives of technology and the problems that it can cause. For example, some people become addicted to their phones and are always looking at them, even when they are with other people. This can lead to a lack of communication and a loss of social skills. We also think that people should learn how to do things without technology, such as reading a map. This is because if the technology suddenly stopped working, we would not know what to do. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that we are not too reliant on technology and that it is important that we are aware of both the positives and negatives of it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of the idea that we are too reliant on technology in the modern age. The group felt that although technology has its benefits, it also has many drawbacks. We are becoming increasingly reliant on technology in our day to day lives, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a world without it. The group felt that if we were to suddenly lose all of our technology, it would be a very difficult time for society. However, the group also felt that it would be a very interesting time for society, as it would force us to go 'back to basics' and make us appreciate the things that we often take for granted. The group felt that it is important for people to have a basic understanding of survival skills, such as reading a map, in case technology fails. However, the group also felt that it is unlikely that technology will fail completely, and that it is more likely that technology will continue to develop and become even more important in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The group in general was split down the middle on this question. The group agreed that the answer to this question is subjective and depends on the individual and their situation. The group came to the conclusion that technology is a double edged sword, it has many benefits but also many drawbacks. The group also agreed that we are too reliant on technology in some aspects of life, for example, in a disaster situation where the power grid is down, people would be lost without their phones. The group also agreed that we are not too reliant on technology in other aspects of life, for example, we are not reliant on technology for food, water and shelter. The group agreed that we are becoming more reliant on technology, however, the group also agreed that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The group also agreed that the world would be a very different place without technology and that the world would be a worse place without technology. The group agreed that the world would be a better place if people were less reliant on technology and more reliant on each other. The group agreed that we should be careful about how reliant we are on technology and that we should be careful about how much we let technology control our lives. The group agreed +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was split down the middle on this question. The group agreed that the answer to this question is subjective and depends on the individual and their situation. The group came to the conclusion that technology is a double edged sword, it has many benefits but also many drawbacks. The group also agreed that we are too reliant on technology in some aspects of life, for example, in a disaster situation where the power grid is down, people would be lost without their phones. The group also agreed that we are not too reliant on technology in other aspects of life, for example, we are not reliant on technology for food, water and shelter. The group agreed that we are becoming more reliant on technology, however, the group also agreed that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The group also agreed that the world would be a very different place without technology and that the world would be a worse place without technology. The group agreed that the world would be a better place if people were less reliant on technology and more reliant on each other. The group agreed that we should be careful about how reliant we are on technology and that we should be careful about how much we let technology control our lives. The group +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In conclusion, we have come to the decision that we are not too reliant on technology in this day and age. In our opinion, there are many positives to using technology, such as the fact that it can improve our lives in many ways. It is also very useful for businesses and the government as it can make their jobs a lot easier. However, we do think that it is important that we are aware of the negatives of technology and the problems that it can cause. For example, some people become addicted to their phones and are always looking at them, even when they are with other people. This can lead to a lack of communication and a loss of social skills. We also think that people should learn how to do things without technology, such as reading a map. This is because if the technology suddenly stopped working, we would not know what to do. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that we are not too reliant on technology and that it is important that we are aware of both the positives and negatives of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea that we are too reliant on technology in the modern age. The group felt that although technology has its benefits, it also has many drawbacks. We are becoming increasingly reliant on technology in our day to day lives, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a world without it. The group felt that if we were to suddenly lose all of our technology, it would be a very difficult time for society. However, the group also felt that it would be a very interesting time for society, as it would force us to go 'back to basics' and make us appreciate the things that we often take for granted. The group felt that it is important for people to have a basic understanding of survival skills, such as reading a map, in case technology fails. However, the group also felt that it is unlikely that technology will fail completely, and that it is more likely that technology will continue to develop and become even more important in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group in general was split down the middle on this question. The group agreed that the answer to this question is subjective and depends on the individual and their situation. The group came to the conclusion that technology is a double edged sword, it has many benefits but also many drawbacks. The group also agreed that we are too reliant on technology in some aspects of life, for example, in a disaster situation where the power grid is down, people would be lost without their phones. The group also agreed that we are not too reliant on technology in other aspects of life, for example, we are not reliant on technology for food, water and shelter. The group agreed that we are becoming more reliant on technology, however, the group also agreed that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The group also agreed that the world would be a very different place without technology and that the world would be a worse place without technology. The group agreed that the world would be a better place if people were less reliant on technology and more reliant on each other. The group agreed that we should be careful about how reliant we are on technology and that we should be careful about how much we let technology control our lives. The group agreed 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002491.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002491.soc index d09c9cce..2d166489 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002491.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002491.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Human-induced climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed urgently. We have already seen the effects of these changes and if we do not start making changes, we will face even worse changes globally and we will not be able to turn back the clock. Scientists have a clock that shows this and it has moved over the last few years. We must take responsibility to protect the environment and not be reckless with our actions such as polluting water, emissions and neglect of nature. If we do not protect our planet then we all will suffer consequences of climate change and more difficult living conditions. Governments must do more to reward good intentions and actions and move away from protecting big businesses and their reckless actions. I think too many political parties and members have a conflict of interest in the environmental debate. Humans over use of fossil fuels and not being environmentally friendly in general has had a major impact on the Earth and its resources. We are the main reason that climate change is happening. From a mix of the farming processes we use, the ways in which we produce energy and the rates at which we are cutting down trees all over the world. We no longer live in a sustainable way and this has had a huge negative impact on the climate -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, human-induced climate change is a serious problem. We are the main reason that climate change is happening. From a mix of the farming processes we use, the ways in which we produce energy and the rates at which we are cutting down trees all over the world. We no longer live in a sustainable way and this has a huge negative impact on the climate in the world. Ice is melting and water levels are rising, there will soon be many places under water. If we do not start making changes, we will face even worse changes globally and we will not be able to turn back the clock. Governments must do more to reward good intentions and actions and move away from protecting big businesses and their reckless actions. We must take responsibility to protect the environment and not be reckless with our actions such as polluting water, emissions and neglect of nature. If we do not protect our planet then we all will suffer consequences of climate change and more difficult living conditions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Human-induced climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. We are the main reason that climate change is happening. From a mix of the farming processes we use, the ways in which we produce energy and the rates at which we are cutting down trees all over the world. We no longer live in a sustainable way and this has a huge negative impact on the climate in the world. Ice is melting and water levels are rising, there will soon be many places under water. We must take responsibility to protect the environment and not be reckless with our actions such as polluting water, emissions and neglect of nature. If we do not protect our planet then we all will suffer consequences of climate change and more difficult living conditions. Governments must do more to reward good intentions and actions and move away from protecting big businesses and their reckless actions. We are moving closer to the point of no return and scientist have explained that if we do not change, we will make the world inhabbitable, not just for ourselves but for all life. This would ultimately lead to the extinsion of all life on this planet. We are already seeing the effects of these changes, just look at the global climate, it has changed drastically over the last 20 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, human-induced climate change is a serious problem. The world is facing serious environmental challenges. These challenges are the result of human activities that cause climate change. The main cause of climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. This is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels is a key part of the global economy. However, it is also a key part of the problem of climate change. The burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of the increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the main cause of the greenhouse effect and global warming. The consequences of climate change are serious. Climate change is already having a major impact on the environment. It is also having a major impact on the economy and on people's lives. If we do not act now to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, the consequences will be even worse. The world needs to make major changes to the way we live and the way we do business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Human-induced climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed urgently. We have already seen the effects of these changes and if we do not start making changes, we will face even worse changes globally and we will not be able to turn back the clock. Scientists have a clock that shows this and it has moved over the last few years. We must take responsibility to protect the environment and not be reckless with our actions such as polluting water, emissions and neglect of nature. If we do not protect our planet then we all will suffer consequences of climate change and more difficult living conditions. Governments must do more to reward good intentions and actions and move away from protecting big businesses and their reckless actions. I think too many political parties and members have a conflict of interest in the environmental debate. Humans over use of fossil fuels and not being environmentally friendly in general has had a major impact on the Earth and its resources. We are the main reason that climate change is happening. From a mix of the farming processes we use, the ways in which we produce energy and the rates at which we are cutting down trees all over the world. We no longer live in a sustainable way and this has had a huge negative impact on the climate +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, human-induced climate change is a serious problem. We are the main reason that climate change is happening. From a mix of the farming processes we use, the ways in which we produce energy and the rates at which we are cutting down trees all over the world. We no longer live in a sustainable way and this has a huge negative impact on the climate in the world. Ice is melting and water levels are rising, there will soon be many places under water. If we do not start making changes, we will face even worse changes globally and we will not be able to turn back the clock. Governments must do more to reward good intentions and actions and move away from protecting big businesses and their reckless actions. We must take responsibility to protect the environment and not be reckless with our actions such as polluting water, emissions and neglect of nature. If we do not protect our planet then we all will suffer consequences of climate change and more difficult living conditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Human-induced climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. We are the main reason that climate change is happening. From a mix of the farming processes we use, the ways in which we produce energy and the rates at which we are cutting down trees all over the world. We no longer live in a sustainable way and this has a huge negative impact on the climate in the world. Ice is melting and water levels are rising, there will soon be many places under water. We must take responsibility to protect the environment and not be reckless with our actions such as polluting water, emissions and neglect of nature. If we do not protect our planet then we all will suffer consequences of climate change and more difficult living conditions. Governments must do more to reward good intentions and actions and move away from protecting big businesses and their reckless actions. We are moving closer to the point of no return and scientist have explained that if we do not change, we will make the world inhabbitable, not just for ourselves but for all life. This would ultimately lead to the extinsion of all life on this planet. We are already seeing the effects of these changes, just look at the global climate, it has changed drastically over the last 20 +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, human-induced climate change is a serious problem. The world is facing serious environmental challenges. These challenges are the result of human activities that cause climate change. The main cause of climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. This is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels is a key part of the global economy. However, it is also a key part of the problem of climate change. The burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of the increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the main cause of the greenhouse effect and global warming. The consequences of climate change are serious. Climate change is already having a major impact on the environment. It is also having a major impact on the economy and on people's lives. If we do not act now to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, the consequences will be even worse. The world needs to make major changes to the way we live and the way we do business. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002492.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002492.soc index 04d901d3..3942a5ad 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002492.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002492.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Social media platforms are a relatively new technology and the regulation of these platforms has not kept up with their use and influence. Social media platforms have been used for good and for bad. They have been used to bring people together and to raise awareness of important issues. They have also been used to spread hate and to target individuals and groups. The social media platforms have not regulated their own platforms and have not put their users' interests first. The social media platforms have a huge influence on society and on individuals and they should be regulated by the government. This regulation should be a hybrid regulation with input from the public, the social media platforms and the government. The social media platforms should not be allowed to get away with not regulating their platforms. The social media platforms should be fined and given warnings for things like fraud and other criminal activities if they are not doing anything to regulate their platforms. The government should be able to step in and regulate the platforms if the social media platforms are not doing enough to keep their platforms safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms. The government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms. However, it should not be the only role and should be a shared responsibility between the government, social media platforms and the public. This would be the best way to ensure that regulation is not biased according to the government's policies and views. The regulation should be in place to protect the public, especially children and young people, from the negative effects of social media. This includes protecting them from the negative effects on their mental health and wellbeing and also protecting them from the spread of misinformation and disinformation. The regulation should also be in place to ensure that social media platforms are not used to spread hate-speech and racism, ableism and sexism. Regulation should also be in place to ensure that social media platforms are not used to spread fraudulent activities or to target individuals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Social media platforms should be regulated by the government. This is because the social media platforms are not doing enough to regulate their own platforms and the government has a duty to protect its citizens from harm. The government needs to have greater powers to regulate social media platforms, particularly for children and young people. There is a large discrepancy between some of the information available on these platforms and the actual facts when considering issues like elections and politics, vaccines and medicines and other issues such as LGBTQ+ issues. However, if the government had greater powers, unscrupulous governments or politicians could regulate and control social media so that some opinions, facts or information was not readily available thus swaying public opinion, perhaps incorrectly, and influencing voting. I think it is important to have independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. Some social media should not be seen by young people as it can harm their mental health and wellbeing and this is where the government needs to have more powers to regulate this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social media is a relatively new phenomenon. It is not something that human society has been prepared for. Social media is used by a large number of people, particularly young people. The way that social media is used has a huge influence on the way that people think, act and vote. The owners of social media platforms are not using their power for good. They are using it to make money and they are not putting the interests of their users first. They are allowing hate speech, bullying, harassment, misinformation and lies to be spread on their platforms. This is having a negative effect on society and on the mental health and wellbeing of a large number of people, particularly young people. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives have been destroyed and even lost. Social media platforms should be doing more to keep their users safe. They should not be allowing hate speech, bullying, harassment, misinformation and lies to be spread on their platforms. The government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms. This role should be a hybrid regulation between the public, the companies and the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Social media platforms are a relatively new technology and the regulation of these platforms has not kept up with their use and influence. Social media platforms have been used for good and for bad. They have been used to bring people together and to raise awareness of important issues. They have also been used to spread hate and to target individuals and groups. The social media platforms have not regulated their own platforms and have not put their users' interests first. The social media platforms have a huge influence on society and on individuals and they should be regulated by the government. This regulation should be a hybrid regulation with input from the public, the social media platforms and the government. The social media platforms should not be allowed to get away with not regulating their platforms. The social media platforms should be fined and given warnings for things like fraud and other criminal activities if they are not doing anything to regulate their platforms. The government should be able to step in and regulate the platforms if the social media platforms are not doing enough to keep their platforms safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms. The government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms. However, it should not be the only role and should be a shared responsibility between the government, social media platforms and the public. This would be the best way to ensure that regulation is not biased according to the government's policies and views. The regulation should be in place to protect the public, especially children and young people, from the negative effects of social media. This includes protecting them from the negative effects on their mental health and wellbeing and also protecting them from the spread of misinformation and disinformation. The regulation should also be in place to ensure that social media platforms are not used to spread hate-speech and racism, ableism and sexism. Regulation should also be in place to ensure that social media platforms are not used to spread fraudulent activities or to target individuals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Social media platforms should be regulated by the government. This is because the social media platforms are not doing enough to regulate their own platforms and the government has a duty to protect its citizens from harm. The government needs to have greater powers to regulate social media platforms, particularly for children and young people. There is a large discrepancy between some of the information available on these platforms and the actual facts when considering issues like elections and politics, vaccines and medicines and other issues such as LGBTQ+ issues. However, if the government had greater powers, unscrupulous governments or politicians could regulate and control social media so that some opinions, facts or information was not readily available thus swaying public opinion, perhaps incorrectly, and influencing voting. I think it is important to have independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. Some social media should not be seen by young people as it can harm their mental health and wellbeing and this is where the government needs to have more powers to regulate this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social media is a relatively new phenomenon. It is not something that human society has been prepared for. Social media is used by a large number of people, particularly young people. The way that social media is used has a huge influence on the way that people think, act and vote. The owners of social media platforms are not using their power for good. They are using it to make money and they are not putting the interests of their users first. They are allowing hate speech, bullying, harassment, misinformation and lies to be spread on their platforms. This is having a negative effect on society and on the mental health and wellbeing of a large number of people, particularly young people. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives have been destroyed and even lost. Social media platforms should be doing more to keep their users safe. They should not be allowing hate speech, bullying, harassment, misinformation and lies to be spread on their platforms. The government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms. This role should be a hybrid regulation between the public, the companies and the government. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002493.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002493.soc index 8a1750c5..c9423f54 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002493.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002493.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, fluoride is beneficial for dental health. However, we feel that it should be up to the individual whether they want fluoride in their water or not. If they want fluoride, they should be able to get it from their dentist. If they don't want fluoride, they should be able to avoid it. We feel that it is the responsibility of the individual and the healthcare system to take care of dental hygiene, and it shouldn't be imposed on everyone without their consent. High levels of fluoride can be dangerous, plus we must consider potential allergies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, fluoride is beneficial for dental health. However, we feel that it should be up to the individual whether they want fluoride in their water or not. If they want fluoride, they should be able to get it from their dentist. If they don't want fluoride, they should be able to avoid it. We feel that it is the responsibility of the individual and the healthcare system to take care of dental hygiene, and it shouldn't be imposed on everyone without their consent. High levels of fluoride can be dangerous, plus we must consider potential allergies. In summary, the final consensus statement is that fluoride is beneficial to dental health, but should be a matter of individual choice. It is the responsibility of the individual and the healthcare system to take care of dental hygiene, and fluoride shouldn't be imposed on everyone without their consent. High levels of fluoride can be dangerous, plus we must consider potential allergies. The participants made the following recommendations: we recommend that people are made more aware of the benefits of fluoride, but also of potential risks and allergies. People should also be made more aware that they can get fluoride from their dentist. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, fluoride has many benefits for dental health and should be added to tap water, however we must be mindful of the potential risks of fluoride toxicity, and should find ways to ensure that people are not drinking too much fluoride. We must also be mindful of people's freedom of choice, and we must be clear about the risks and benefits of fluoride so that people can make their own informed decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, fluoride added to water has a positive effect on dental hygiene. However, it is important to consider the potential for negative effects in some individuals due to allergies and/or over-consumption. The issue of consent is also an important factor, and must be addressed to ensure that fluoride is only added to water after public consultation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, fluoride is beneficial for dental health. However, we feel that it should be up to the individual whether they want fluoride in their water or not. If they want fluoride, they should be able to get it from their dentist. If they don't want fluoride, they should be able to avoid it. We feel that it is the responsibility of the individual and the healthcare system to take care of dental hygiene, and it shouldn't be imposed on everyone without their consent. High levels of fluoride can be dangerous, plus we must consider potential allergies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, fluoride is beneficial for dental health. However, we feel that it should be up to the individual whether they want fluoride in their water or not. If they want fluoride, they should be able to get it from their dentist. If they don't want fluoride, they should be able to avoid it. We feel that it is the responsibility of the individual and the healthcare system to take care of dental hygiene, and it shouldn't be imposed on everyone without their consent. High levels of fluoride can be dangerous, plus we must consider potential allergies. In summary, the final consensus statement is that fluoride is beneficial to dental health, but should be a matter of individual choice. It is the responsibility of the individual and the healthcare system to take care of dental hygiene, and fluoride shouldn't be imposed on everyone without their consent. High levels of fluoride can be dangerous, plus we must consider potential allergies. The participants made the following recommendations: we recommend that people are made more aware of the benefits of fluoride, but also of potential risks and allergies. People should also be made more aware that they can get fluoride from their dentist. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, fluoride has many benefits for dental health and should be added to tap water, however we must be mindful of the potential risks of fluoride toxicity, and should find ways to ensure that people are not drinking too much fluoride. We must also be mindful of people's freedom of choice, and we must be clear about the risks and benefits of fluoride so that people can make their own informed decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, fluoride added to water has a positive effect on dental hygiene. However, it is important to consider the potential for negative effects in some individuals due to allergies and/or over-consumption. The issue of consent is also an important factor, and must be addressed to ensure that fluoride is only added to water after public consultation. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002494.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002494.soc index d544827b..28730368 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002494.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002494.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group in general did not agree with the proposal that all new cars should be equipped with speed limiters. However, it was recognised that there were some potential benefits. These included a reduction in the number of accidents, a reduction in fuel consumption and a reduction in the number of deaths on the roads. However, it was felt that these benefits were outweighed by a number of disadvantages. These included the fact that speed limiters could malfunction and cause accidents, they could also be removed and replaced by other drivers who would then be able to drive faster than the speed limit and they would also reduce the ability of drivers to accelerate out of dangerous situations. It was also felt that the majority of accidents were caused by driver error rather than speed and that the best way to reduce the number of accidents on the roads was to improve driver education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of speed limiters. The group felt that they could help to reduce accidents and improve road safety. The group also felt that it could reduce the pressure on motorists to exceed speed limits on the motorway due to pressure from other road users wanting to drive faster than the speed limit. However, the group did recognise that there could be some problems with the technology and that there could be some safety issues if a car was involved in an accident and the speed limiter was not working properly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fitting speed limiters to all new cars. The main reason for this was that speed limiters could make it more difficult to drive safely in some situations. For example, if a driver is trying to overtake another car and needs to accelerate quickly, a speed limiter would prevent this. The group thought that speed cameras and police checkpoints were more effective at preventing dangerous driving. The group also thought that some people drive dangerously because they are in a hurry, and fitting speed limiters would not address this problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fitting speed limiters to all new cars. However, it was recognised that there were some potential benefits. These included a reduction in the number of accidents, a reduction in fuel consumption and a reduction in the number of deaths on the roads. However, it was felt that these benefits were outweighed by a number of disadvantages. These included the fact that speed limiters could malfunction and cause accidents, they could also be removed and replaced by other drivers who would then be able to drive faster than the speed limit and they would also reduce the ability of drivers to accelerate out of dangerous situations. It was also felt that the majority of accidents were caused by driver error rather than speed and that the best way to reduce the number of accidents on the roads was to improve driver education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group in general did not agree with the proposal that all new cars should be equipped with speed limiters. However, it was recognised that there were some potential benefits. These included a reduction in the number of accidents, a reduction in fuel consumption and a reduction in the number of deaths on the roads. However, it was felt that these benefits were outweighed by a number of disadvantages. These included the fact that speed limiters could malfunction and cause accidents, they could also be removed and replaced by other drivers who would then be able to drive faster than the speed limit and they would also reduce the ability of drivers to accelerate out of dangerous situations. It was also felt that the majority of accidents were caused by driver error rather than speed and that the best way to reduce the number of accidents on the roads was to improve driver education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of speed limiters. The group felt that they could help to reduce accidents and improve road safety. The group also felt that it could reduce the pressure on motorists to exceed speed limits on the motorway due to pressure from other road users wanting to drive faster than the speed limit. However, the group did recognise that there could be some problems with the technology and that there could be some safety issues if a car was involved in an accident and the speed limiter was not working properly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fitting speed limiters to all new cars. The main reason for this was that speed limiters could make it more difficult to drive safely in some situations. For example, if a driver is trying to overtake another car and needs to accelerate quickly, a speed limiter would prevent this. The group thought that speed cameras and police checkpoints were more effective at preventing dangerous driving. The group also thought that some people drive dangerously because they are in a hurry, and fitting speed limiters would not address this problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of fitting speed limiters to all new cars. However, it was recognised that there were some potential benefits. These included a reduction in the number of accidents, a reduction in fuel consumption and a reduction in the number of deaths on the roads. However, it was felt that these benefits were outweighed by a number of disadvantages. These included the fact that speed limiters could malfunction and cause accidents, they could also be removed and replaced by other drivers who would then be able to drive faster than the speed limit and they would also reduce the ability of drivers to accelerate out of dangerous situations. It was also felt that the majority of accidents were caused by driver error rather than speed and that the best way to reduce the number of accidents on the roads was to improve driver education. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002495.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002495.soc index 34368bad..81d71a85 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002495.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002495.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Social media platforms should be regulated by the government. This is because the social media platforms are not doing enough to regulate their own platforms and the government has a duty to protect its citizens from harm. The government needs to have greater powers to regulate social media platforms, particularly for children and young people. There is a large discrepancy between some of the information available on these platforms and the actual facts when considering issues like elections and politics, vaccines and medicines and other issues such as LGBTQ+ issues. However, if the government had greater powers, unscrupulous governments or politicians could regulate and control social media so that some opinions, facts or information was not readily available thus swaying public opinion, perhaps incorrectly, and influencing voting. I think it is important to have independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. Some social media should not be seen by young people as it can harm their mental health and wellbeing and this is where the government needs to have more powers to regulate this. We also all agreed that the government should not have sole responsibility for regulation and that companies and the public should also play a part in regulating social media platforms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Social media platforms should be regulated by the government. This is because the social media platforms are not doing enough to regulate their own platforms and the government has a duty to protect its citizens from harm. The government needs to have greater powers to regulate social media platforms, particularly for children and young people. There is a large discrepancy between some of the information available on these platforms and the actual facts when considering issues like elections and politics, vaccines and medicines and other issues such as LGBTQ+ issues. However, if the government had greater powers, unscrupulous governments or politicians could regulate and control social media so that some opinions, facts or information was not readily available thus swaying public opinion, perhaps incorrectly, and influencing voting. I think it is important to have independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. Some social media should not be seen by young people as it can harm their mental health and wellbeing and this is where the government needs to have more powers to regulate this. However, I would not want to see the government alone regulate social media platforms. I think that a hybrid approach is needed with all stakeholders having a voice, including users and parents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Social media companies are abusing their power and they need to be more heavily regulated. We agree with the view of participant 2 that social media is turning into the wild west and this is having a negative effect on society. We feel that the government should have some powers to regulate social media but not all the power. Social media companies have to take some responsibility for the content on their platforms. We feel that this could be done in a number of ways. We feel that social media companies should be heavily fined for not removing content that is dangerous to people's mental health. We feel that there should be independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. We feel that social media companies should be heavily fined if they allow fraud and other criminal activities to take place on their platforms and they should also be heavily fined if they do not remove posts that contain hate speech. We feel that there should be more regulation of social media companies and if they do not take this regulation seriously then the government should have the power to completely shut them down. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms. We do not believe that social media platforms are regulating their own platforms correctly. We also believe that the government should not have complete regulation of social media platforms. We believe that it should be a hybrid regulation between the public, the companies and the government. We believe that lives have been destroyed and even lost because of social media and that this is because social media platform owners do not put their users' interests first. We also believe that there is a large discrepancy between some of the information available on these platforms and the actual facts when considering issues like elections and politics, vaccines and medicines and other issues such as LGBTQ+ issues. We also believe that there is some information on social media platforms that should not be seen by young people as it can harm their mental health and wellbeing. We also believe that if the government had greater powers, unscrupulous governments or politicians could regulate and control social media so that some opinions, facts or information was not readily available thus swaying public opinion, perhaps incorrectly, and influencing voting. We also believe that it is important to have independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Social media platforms should be regulated by the government. This is because the social media platforms are not doing enough to regulate their own platforms and the government has a duty to protect its citizens from harm. The government needs to have greater powers to regulate social media platforms, particularly for children and young people. There is a large discrepancy between some of the information available on these platforms and the actual facts when considering issues like elections and politics, vaccines and medicines and other issues such as LGBTQ+ issues. However, if the government had greater powers, unscrupulous governments or politicians could regulate and control social media so that some opinions, facts or information was not readily available thus swaying public opinion, perhaps incorrectly, and influencing voting. I think it is important to have independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. Some social media should not be seen by young people as it can harm their mental health and wellbeing and this is where the government needs to have more powers to regulate this. We also all agreed that the government should not have sole responsibility for regulation and that companies and the public should also play a part in regulating social media platforms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Social media platforms should be regulated by the government. This is because the social media platforms are not doing enough to regulate their own platforms and the government has a duty to protect its citizens from harm. The government needs to have greater powers to regulate social media platforms, particularly for children and young people. There is a large discrepancy between some of the information available on these platforms and the actual facts when considering issues like elections and politics, vaccines and medicines and other issues such as LGBTQ+ issues. However, if the government had greater powers, unscrupulous governments or politicians could regulate and control social media so that some opinions, facts or information was not readily available thus swaying public opinion, perhaps incorrectly, and influencing voting. I think it is important to have independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. Some social media should not be seen by young people as it can harm their mental health and wellbeing and this is where the government needs to have more powers to regulate this. However, I would not want to see the government alone regulate social media platforms. I think that a hybrid approach is needed with all stakeholders having a voice, including users and parents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Social media companies are abusing their power and they need to be more heavily regulated. We agree with the view of participant 2 that social media is turning into the wild west and this is having a negative effect on society. We feel that the government should have some powers to regulate social media but not all the power. Social media companies have to take some responsibility for the content on their platforms. We feel that this could be done in a number of ways. We feel that social media companies should be heavily fined for not removing content that is dangerous to people's mental health. We feel that there should be independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. We feel that social media companies should be heavily fined if they allow fraud and other criminal activities to take place on their platforms and they should also be heavily fined if they do not remove posts that contain hate speech. We feel that there should be more regulation of social media companies and if they do not take this regulation seriously then the government should have the power to completely shut them down. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms. We do not believe that social media platforms are regulating their own platforms correctly. We also believe that the government should not have complete regulation of social media platforms. We believe that it should be a hybrid regulation between the public, the companies and the government. We believe that lives have been destroyed and even lost because of social media and that this is because social media platform owners do not put their users' interests first. We also believe that there is a large discrepancy between some of the information available on these platforms and the actual facts when considering issues like elections and politics, vaccines and medicines and other issues such as LGBTQ+ issues. We also believe that there is some information on social media platforms that should not be seen by young people as it can harm their mental health and wellbeing. We also believe that if the government had greater powers, unscrupulous governments or politicians could regulate and control social media so that some opinions, facts or information was not readily available thus swaying public opinion, perhaps incorrectly, and influencing voting. We also believe that it is important to have independent fact checkers who can alert people to the misinformation contained within some posts. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002496.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002496.soc index dae856fc..b8b7dfd6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002496.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002496.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic packaging. The group felt that it was not necessary and that there were many alternatives that could be used. The group felt that plastic packaging is very harmful to the environment and that it is very difficult to recycle. The group felt that plastic packaging should be banned, however, there are some products that require packaging for hygiene reasons. The group felt that we should be working towards a place where plastic packaging should be stopped. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a ban on plastic packaging. However, they did acknowledge that in some cases plastic packaging was necessary. For example, food hygiene is an important issue and in some cases plastic packaging is the best way to ensure this. They also recognised that in some cases plastic packaging was the best way to protect a product and ensure it was not damaged in transit. They felt that the issue was not so much the banning of plastic packaging but more about the development of more sustainable alternatives to plastic packaging. The group felt that it was important that people were made more aware of the problems caused by plastic packaging and the damage it does to the environment. They felt that the more people were made aware of the problems caused by plastic packaging the more likely they were to support a ban on plastic packaging. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Plastic packaging should be banned. The effect of plastic on the natural environment is greatly understated. A lot of it is totally unnecessary. It damages the environment and it not recyclable . I believe biodegradable alternatives should be used which are probably cheaper to produce and are less harmful to future generations. Plastic packaging should be banned in order to help our environment, cost and climate control. Plastic ends up in our ocean and is bad for the animals. Also, what about micro plastics, they are awful for everybody and are poison. Ban plastic packaging now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that plastic packaging should be banned. The affect of plastic on the natural environment is greatly understated. A lot of it is totally unnecessary. It damages the environment and it not recyclable . I believe biodegradable alternatives should be used which are probably cheaper to produce and are less harmful to future generations. This is a difficult one, no I don't think we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging, something probably need to have plastic packaging on them in some capacity. However, we should be working towards a place where plastic packaging should be stopped. Plastic packaging should be banned in order to help our environment, cost and climate control. Plastic ends up in our ocean and is bad for the animals. Also, what about micro plastics, they are awful for everybody and are poison. Ban plastic packaging now. No, I don't think we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. I do believe we should attempt to significantly reduce plastic packaging by using sustainable alternatives that can be recycled or composted, however, I think there are some products that require packaging for hygiene reasons. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of banning plastic packaging. The group felt that it was not necessary and that there were many alternatives that could be used. The group felt that plastic packaging is very harmful to the environment and that it is very difficult to recycle. The group felt that plastic packaging should be banned, however, there are some products that require packaging for hygiene reasons. The group felt that we should be working towards a place where plastic packaging should be stopped. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a ban on plastic packaging. However, they did acknowledge that in some cases plastic packaging was necessary. For example, food hygiene is an important issue and in some cases plastic packaging is the best way to ensure this. They also recognised that in some cases plastic packaging was the best way to protect a product and ensure it was not damaged in transit. They felt that the issue was not so much the banning of plastic packaging but more about the development of more sustainable alternatives to plastic packaging. The group felt that it was important that people were made more aware of the problems caused by plastic packaging and the damage it does to the environment. They felt that the more people were made aware of the problems caused by plastic packaging the more likely they were to support a ban on plastic packaging. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Plastic packaging should be banned. The effect of plastic on the natural environment is greatly understated. A lot of it is totally unnecessary. It damages the environment and it not recyclable . I believe biodegradable alternatives should be used which are probably cheaper to produce and are less harmful to future generations. Plastic packaging should be banned in order to help our environment, cost and climate control. Plastic ends up in our ocean and is bad for the animals. Also, what about micro plastics, they are awful for everybody and are poison. Ban plastic packaging now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that plastic packaging should be banned. The affect of plastic on the natural environment is greatly understated. A lot of it is totally unnecessary. It damages the environment and it not recyclable . I believe biodegradable alternatives should be used which are probably cheaper to produce and are less harmful to future generations. This is a difficult one, no I don't think we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging, something probably need to have plastic packaging on them in some capacity. However, we should be working towards a place where plastic packaging should be stopped. Plastic packaging should be banned in order to help our environment, cost and climate control. Plastic ends up in our ocean and is bad for the animals. Also, what about micro plastics, they are awful for everybody and are poison. Ban plastic packaging now. No, I don't think we should ban the sale of all things with plastic packaging. I do believe we should attempt to significantly reduce plastic packaging by using sustainable alternatives that can be recycled or composted, however, I think there are some products that require packaging for hygiene reasons. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002497.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002497.soc index e5eedc2c..d37ce752 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002497.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002497.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the use of animals in scientific research is abhorrent. The use of animals in cosmetic testing and in other areas of scientific research that do not have the potential to save human life should be banned. The use of animals in scientific research that has the potential to save human life is more difficult to justify, but in some circumstances the use of animals may be the only way to make progress in the fight against disease. In these circumstances, the use of animals should be minimised as much as possible and should only be used as a last resort. The animals should be treated humanely and with respect. Computer models should be used as an alternative to the use of animals wherever possible, and skin grafts and cells should be used as an alternative to the use of animals in medical research wherever possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the use of animals in scientific research is abhorrent. We believe that we should try to use alternatives whenever possible. Some animals, such as mice, are similar enough to humans to make them useful for studying human diseases and physiology. We believe that we should use these animals only when we have no other options and that we should use the minimum number of animals necessary to get the information we need. We also believe that we should treat the animals as humanely as possible and that we should not use endangered species in our research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, animals should not be used in scientific research. We believe that animals should be respected and given the opportunity to live a high quality life of their own without interference by mankind. Animals should be used in scientific research only as a last resort. If it is possible to use them humanely, that would be ideal but seems unlikely. We believe that enough scientific progress has been made to be able to research without killing other animals. Skin grafts and cells can be used to experiment. Computer models can help. It is cruel and inhumane to kill animals for our own benefits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the use of animals in scientific research is abhorrent. The use of animals in cosmetic testing and in other areas of scientific research that do not have the potential to save human life should be banned. The use of animals in scientific research that has the potential to save human life is more difficult to justify, but in some circumstances the use of animals may be the only way to make progress in the fight against disease. In these circumstances, the use of animals should be minimised as much as possible and should only be used as a last resort. The animals should be treated humanely and with respect. Computer models should be used whenever possible and animal testing should only be used as a last resort. In addition, only animals that are going to be killed for other reasons (e.g. because they are sick or injured) should be used in scientific research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the use of animals in scientific research is abhorrent. The use of animals in cosmetic testing and in other areas of scientific research that do not have the potential to save human life should be banned. The use of animals in scientific research that has the potential to save human life is more difficult to justify, but in some circumstances the use of animals may be the only way to make progress in the fight against disease. In these circumstances, the use of animals should be minimised as much as possible and should only be used as a last resort. The animals should be treated humanely and with respect. Computer models should be used as an alternative to the use of animals wherever possible, and skin grafts and cells should be used as an alternative to the use of animals in medical research wherever possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the use of animals in scientific research is abhorrent. We believe that we should try to use alternatives whenever possible. Some animals, such as mice, are similar enough to humans to make them useful for studying human diseases and physiology. We believe that we should use these animals only when we have no other options and that we should use the minimum number of animals necessary to get the information we need. We also believe that we should treat the animals as humanely as possible and that we should not use endangered species in our research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, animals should not be used in scientific research. We believe that animals should be respected and given the opportunity to live a high quality life of their own without interference by mankind. Animals should be used in scientific research only as a last resort. If it is possible to use them humanely, that would be ideal but seems unlikely. We believe that enough scientific progress has been made to be able to research without killing other animals. Skin grafts and cells can be used to experiment. Computer models can help. It is cruel and inhumane to kill animals for our own benefits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the use of animals in scientific research is abhorrent. The use of animals in cosmetic testing and in other areas of scientific research that do not have the potential to save human life should be banned. The use of animals in scientific research that has the potential to save human life is more difficult to justify, but in some circumstances the use of animals may be the only way to make progress in the fight against disease. In these circumstances, the use of animals should be minimised as much as possible and should only be used as a last resort. The animals should be treated humanely and with respect. Computer models should be used whenever possible and animal testing should only be used as a last resort. In addition, only animals that are going to be killed for other reasons (e.g. because they are sick or injured) should be used in scientific research. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002498.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002498.soc index 5825a6d2..3776bc11 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002498.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002498.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think that the UK has lots of resources and therefore we should be open to sharing with those less fortunate than ourselves. It is extremely brave and scary to be a refugee and I think people in the UK forget that - refugees aren't just coming to the UK for the fun of it. We should support and be more human. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We are vastly overpopulated as is and the economy is seriously struggling. We do not need any mor increases to populattion. Our culture is already being seriously eroded by disrespect and high expectations from incoming immigrants. Sadly they are resposible for some awful crimes. They ned to be brave enough to stay and stand up to their problems in their own countries instead of adding to ours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. As one of the riches countries in the world, I think we should be doing more to help refugees. We are morally obliged to do so. I think the war in the Ukraine has shown that many people in the UK would be willing to help refugees. I believe that refugees could bring a lot to our society, economically. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although the UK is indeed a wealthy country, this does not mean it should automatically host more refugees. We are densely populated as it is, and extra people only puts pressure on already stretched services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: It's been shown that some refugees are using the option to come to the UK under false pretences e.g. men pretending to be younger than they are....I also feel that people should fight for change within their own countries, by taking on refugee status they will see no change in their home countries +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think that the UK has lots of resources and therefore we should be open to sharing with those less fortunate than ourselves. It is extremely brave and scary to be a refugee and I think people in the UK forget that - refugees aren't just coming to the UK for the fun of it. We should support and be more human. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We are vastly overpopulated as is and the economy is seriously struggling. We do not need any mor increases to populattion. Our culture is already being seriously eroded by disrespect and high expectations from incoming immigrants. Sadly they are resposible for some awful crimes. They ned to be brave enough to stay and stand up to their problems in their own countries instead of adding to ours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. As one of the riches countries in the world, I think we should be doing more to help refugees. We are morally obliged to do so. I think the war in the Ukraine has shown that many people in the UK would be willing to help refugees. I believe that refugees could bring a lot to our society, economically. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although the UK is indeed a wealthy country, this does not mean it should automatically host more refugees. We are densely populated as it is, and extra people only puts pressure on already stretched services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - It's been shown that some refugees are using the option to come to the UK under false pretences e.g. men pretending to be younger than they are....I also feel that people should fight for change within their own countries, by taking on refugee status they will see no change in their home countries 2: 1,3,4,5,2 1: 4,2,3,5,1 1: 2,4,3,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002499.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002499.soc index f0531820..5bd010e5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002499.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002499.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think it is a good idea for children to learn a second language for a few reasons. Firstly, we are part of a global community and learning another language can break down barriers, enhance travel and job opportunities. Secondly, it gives you an insight into another culture and their priorities and values. Lastly, it can also help you to understand your own language, its structures and systems better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think it is beneficial for the children to learn a second language as it encourages them to use different parts of the brain. Although i think they should learn this, i dont think it should be compulsory after year 9 and children should be able to chose subjects which interest them as i believe they will perform better. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think it is beneficial for children to learn a second language and can present a great opportunity for learning, but I don't think it should be *required* for a child to learn a second language. Energy should be spent first ensuring children have desirable literacy skills in their first language that will set them up for the rest of their lives. While it's true that children are like sponges and pick up languages very easily, it feels like a big ask when we already know English literacy levels in the UK are low and children starting secondary school are often below where they should be with reading and writing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think that learning a second language will have benefits for children throughout their life. They have to spend their time learning a range of subjects, and I think a second language is at least as useful if not more useful than many of the other subjects they might study. It may also enrich their culture and enhance travel, and enable them to undertake job opportunities that they otherwise would not have been eligible to appy for. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I have two children who are both learning French at Primary school. I love the fact they are learning another language, it broadens their knowledge of other countries and helps them to learn that not everyone is the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think it is a good idea for children to learn a second language for a few reasons. Firstly, we are part of a global community and learning another language can break down barriers, enhance travel and job opportunities. Secondly, it gives you an insight into another culture and their priorities and values. Lastly, it can also help you to understand your own language, its structures and systems better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think it is beneficial for the children to learn a second language as it encourages them to use different parts of the brain. Although i think they should learn this, i dont think it should be compulsory after year 9 and children should be able to chose subjects which interest them as i believe they will perform better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think it is beneficial for children to learn a second language and can present a great opportunity for learning, but I don't think it should be *required* for a child to learn a second language. Energy should be spent first ensuring children have desirable literacy skills in their first language that will set them up for the rest of their lives. While it's true that children are like sponges and pick up languages very easily, it feels like a big ask when we already know English literacy levels in the UK are low and children starting secondary school are often below where they should be with reading and writing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think that learning a second language will have benefits for children throughout their life. They have to spend their time learning a range of subjects, and I think a second language is at least as useful if not more useful than many of the other subjects they might study. It may also enrich their culture and enhance travel, and enable them to undertake job opportunities that they otherwise would not have been eligible to appy for. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I have two children who are both learning French at Primary school. I love the fact they are learning another language, it broadens their knowledge of other countries and helps them to learn that not everyone is the same. 2: 4,1,3,5,2 1: 1,4,3,5,2 1: 3,1,2,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002500.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002500.soc index 8c294faf..d7d5d8cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002500.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002500.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: im not too sure as i don't have much knowledge on the subject. i suppose though, birds are everywhere so i think they are as much at risk as any other area -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think it's something that we should be prepared for and that there is a slight risk. As we've seen with Covid, pandemics can have very damaging effects, either from the pandemic itself or the measures put in place to mitigate. We should be clear as a group of nations what the threat actually is and what we would do about it if it became a problem. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Not really. With it's advanced healthcare infrastructure, the global north is better equipped to handle outbreaks like avian flu. Early detection systems, public health campaigns and vaccines ensure that such diseases are contained. Stringent biosecurity measures in the poultry industry in many northern countries reduce the risk of transmission from birds to humans. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Wild birds travel over long distances, many migrate north to south. Avian flu is apparently easily transmitted. Some poultry owners, I have witnessed, are careless about keeping their birds indoors. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: There have been several outbreaks of Avian flu worldwide. It is known that birds migrate north during part of the year, and south for the winter. Therefore, there is a risk of avian flu outbreaks worldwide, due to migration. Avian flu has been increasing over recent years, and an outbreak is always likely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - im not too sure as i don't have much knowledge on the subject. i suppose though, birds are everywhere so i think they are as much at risk as any other area +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think it's something that we should be prepared for and that there is a slight risk. As we've seen with Covid, pandemics can have very damaging effects, either from the pandemic itself or the measures put in place to mitigate. We should be clear as a group of nations what the threat actually is and what we would do about it if it became a problem. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Not really. With it's advanced healthcare infrastructure, the global north is better equipped to handle outbreaks like avian flu. Early detection systems, public health campaigns and vaccines ensure that such diseases are contained. Stringent biosecurity measures in the poultry industry in many northern countries reduce the risk of transmission from birds to humans. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Wild birds travel over long distances, many migrate north to south. Avian flu is apparently easily transmitted. Some poultry owners, I have witnessed, are careless about keeping their birds indoors. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - There have been several outbreaks of Avian flu worldwide. It is known that birds migrate north during part of the year, and south for the winter. Therefore, there is a risk of avian flu outbreaks worldwide, due to migration. Avian flu has been increasing over recent years, and an outbreak is always likely. 2: 3,2,5,4,1 1: 2,3,5,4,1 1: 4,3,2,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002501.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002501.soc index 7facb279..8843ac9b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002501.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002501.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I am uncertain about AI. This will take away peoples jobs. This is also a job that needs a human to decide and balance right from wrong. I do not trust AI and where we are heading -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: AI is increasingly being used in society and will no doubt soon be entering many more aspects of society. While impressive it is clear to anyone that has used it that it still has many flaws and this is my main reservation when it comes to utilising it in something as nuanced as the judicial system. I feel that the possibility for mistakes and the severtiy of the consequences to people makes the use of AI in the judicial system, at least for now, a bad idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The AI may not know the ins and outs of the case causing a miss judgement. It also does not have the human emotions or ability to recognise them weel which could impact the case. It could rule unfairly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think it is slightly unethical to use AI in the judicial system. Certainly, in its current guise. There is a lot of evidence that AI fails to give correct information. While it would take human emotion out of the decision making process in the judicial system, I don't believe it can be properly relied upon without a lot of work and refinement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I do not think that it is ethical to use AI in the judicial system unless it is for references or an argument. The court system relies on opinions and real life accounts for something that has happened so it should rely on opinions/speeches that come from witnesses themselves and not from an AI. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I am uncertain about AI. This will take away peoples jobs. This is also a job that needs a human to decide and balance right from wrong. I do not trust AI and where we are heading +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - AI is increasingly being used in society and will no doubt soon be entering many more aspects of society. While impressive it is clear to anyone that has used it that it still has many flaws and this is my main reservation when it comes to utilising it in something as nuanced as the judicial system. I feel that the possibility for mistakes and the severtiy of the consequences to people makes the use of AI in the judicial system, at least for now, a bad idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The AI may not know the ins and outs of the case causing a miss judgement. It also does not have the human emotions or ability to recognise them weel which could impact the case. It could rule unfairly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think it is slightly unethical to use AI in the judicial system. Certainly, in its current guise. There is a lot of evidence that AI fails to give correct information. While it would take human emotion out of the decision making process in the judicial system, I don't believe it can be properly relied upon without a lot of work and refinement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I do not think that it is ethical to use AI in the judicial system unless it is for references or an argument. The court system relies on opinions and real life accounts for something that has happened so it should rely on opinions/speeches that come from witnesses themselves and not from an AI. 1: 2,5,1,4,3 1: 2,4,3,1,5 1: 2,4,1,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002502.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002502.soc index e7c5b259..448f6e37 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002502.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002502.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: By the wording of the question this implies it is for adults, not necessarily children, who wold get education, I think. If it is for other adults, then I think there may be introductory / evening classes in some topics, but I don't think it should cover all education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe the government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years as increasing the knowledge of the population is very powerful. This will help the UK increase their standing with the rest of the world and be known as the country that is having high GDP and is very intelectual. Whilst i agree with the free education, I believe it should be limited to UK nationals in the first instance so that the government is focusing on increasing the knowledge of its own population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes - the more education and knowledge people receieve, the better jobs people will get. This means they will earn more. This in turn means they will spend more. Then the economy will grow. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Absolutely yes. These people are British citizens so why should they not receive free education? They have the right to do so. People complain about 'immigrants' and have the belief that these people don't work and are sponging off the state (which is untrue). Surely providing free education would reduce unemployment levels? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years, including private schools and universities. Having a two tier education system is insane, and gives those who can afford to pay a leg up over their peers. This isn't fair and financially restricts say, the next Marie Curie or Alan Turing from fulfilling their potential purely due to the depth of their wallets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - By the wording of the question this implies it is for adults, not necessarily children, who wold get education, I think. If it is for other adults, then I think there may be introductory / evening classes in some topics, but I don't think it should cover all education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe the government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years as increasing the knowledge of the population is very powerful. This will help the UK increase their standing with the rest of the world and be known as the country that is having high GDP and is very intelectual. Whilst i agree with the free education, I believe it should be limited to UK nationals in the first instance so that the government is focusing on increasing the knowledge of its own population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes - the more education and knowledge people receieve, the better jobs people will get. This means they will earn more. This in turn means they will spend more. Then the economy will grow. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Absolutely yes. These people are British citizens so why should they not receive free education? They have the right to do so. People complain about 'immigrants' and have the belief that these people don't work and are sponging off the state (which is untrue). Surely providing free education would reduce unemployment levels? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - The government should provide free education to people who have been in the UK for over 5 years, including private schools and universities. Having a two tier education system is insane, and gives those who can afford to pay a leg up over their peers. This isn't fair and financially restricts say, the next Marie Curie or Alan Turing from fulfilling their potential purely due to the depth of their wallets. 1: 5,4,2,3,1 1: 5,2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,4,5,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002503.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002503.soc index 59cfb4f2..dda07bff 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002503.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002503.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, I think poorer people should have access to a certain number of meals per week/month and that this should be subsidized by the state. This should be means-tested, i.e. depending on circumstances. No one should have to go hungry. Funding for this should be pooled from additional taxes on extreme wealth and corporations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No I do not think free meals should be given to people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The reason I think this way is because disadvantaged backgrounds is a very broad spectrum and people come from those backgrounds for all kinds of reasons. People need encouragement to fend for themselves in this life. It’s all to easy to do nothing whilst the basics in life are provided for you. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think that all people should have access to food and it should be considered a basic human right. Those who are disadvantaged and don't have access to food should be entitled to a basic amount of food. In schools all children should be entitled to free school meals from disadvantaged low income backgrounds. To aid in this there should be some form of means testing to see if people are entitled to free food by checking thier income and household cost to ensuer that people are not taking advantage of the system for their own gain when they don't need free food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think this is a very complex issue. It comes down to the definition of a disadvantaged background. In order to ensure that no children is without food, i would whole-heartedly agree that we should ensure that there is food provision for them, and would have to look at the families economic background the the opportunities are for the family. it depeneds on working history and also employment benefits, it is a very complex matter -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: In schools? Absolutely, it may be the only time some children are able to eat nutritious meals. I'm not sure in other senses how the best way to do this? Until recently food was very cheap in this country and food banks and homelessness was quiet rare, so it's tough to know what kind of funding and infrastructure we would need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, I think poorer people should have access to a certain number of meals per week/month and that this should be subsidized by the state. This should be means-tested, i.e. depending on circumstances. No one should have to go hungry. Funding for this should be pooled from additional taxes on extreme wealth and corporations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No I do not think free meals should be given to people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The reason I think this way is because disadvantaged backgrounds is a very broad spectrum and people come from those backgrounds for all kinds of reasons. People need encouragement to fend for themselves in this life. It’s all to easy to do nothing whilst the basics in life are provided for you. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think that all people should have access to food and it should be considered a basic human right. Those who are disadvantaged and don't have access to food should be entitled to a basic amount of food. In schools all children should be entitled to free school meals from disadvantaged low income backgrounds. To aid in this there should be some form of means testing to see if people are entitled to free food by checking thier income and household cost to ensuer that people are not taking advantage of the system for their own gain when they don't need free food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think this is a very complex issue. It comes down to the definition of a disadvantaged background. In order to ensure that no children is without food, i would whole-heartedly agree that we should ensure that there is food provision for them, and would have to look at the families economic background the the opportunities are for the family. it depeneds on working history and also employment benefits, it is a very complex matter +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - In schools? Absolutely, it may be the only time some children are able to eat nutritious meals. I'm not sure in other senses how the best way to do this? Until recently food was very cheap in this country and food banks and homelessness was quiet rare, so it's tough to know what kind of funding and infrastructure we would need. 2: 1,3,4,5,2 1: 1,3,2,5,4 1: 5,4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002504.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002504.soc index 63c3e619..4ef90745 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002504.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002504.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The problem for greater regulation should lie with the platforms - they should take more responsibility and be better regulated. The problem with bringing the government into the argument is that the current UK government is already too controlling of our freedom of speech. They have banned gatherings, even passive ones such as candlelit vigils on some occasions. Giving the government greater role in regulating social media platforms is an alternative way for them to control what people are expressing and sharing. I would rather see a neutral body set up to regulate social media platforms - the government could be part of this but should not be in control of it. They are not responsible enough in their own right. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, I do not think they should interfere with the constantly evolving world of social media. They have numerous other areas needing attention, this is surely just a diversion from the huge role of dealing with the economy tanking, poverty, climate control, NHS crisis....get on with Governing the country. Getting bogged down in legislation to control social media platforms would be like trying to catch fog in a net. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think the government probably needs some stronger role in regulating social media, as there are a lot of risks involved with large open platforms that can foster problematic groups and false news that can be believed by the masses but be harmful in their teachings. However, I also struggle with the idea that the internet should mostly be a free place, where opinions can be shared openly and responded to in the same way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't think the government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms as people should be able to freely express their opinion online. While I do believe that hateful and discriminatory speech should be policed, I do not believe that the government should be able to control what is or isn't available online. This could lead to a more totalitarian state. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I do believe that the government should play a greater role in regulating social media. I dont think they should get involved to the point where it is solely regulated by them but they do need to play a more active role in how social media is run and managed. There is far too many so called influencers on social media that are being looked upto by younger poeople and children and their content is not monitored nearly enough. There is also a lot of hate filled content inciting violence etc on social media that really does need to be monitored more closely and I believe the government should step up and take a more active role in this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The problem for greater regulation should lie with the platforms - they should take more responsibility and be better regulated. The problem with bringing the government into the argument is that the current UK government is already too controlling of our freedom of speech. They have banned gatherings, even passive ones such as candlelit vigils on some occasions. Giving the government greater role in regulating social media platforms is an alternative way for them to control what people are expressing and sharing. I would rather see a neutral body set up to regulate social media platforms - the government could be part of this but should not be in control of it. They are not responsible enough in their own right. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, I do not think they should interfere with the constantly evolving world of social media. They have numerous other areas needing attention, this is surely just a diversion from the huge role of dealing with the economy tanking, poverty, climate control, NHS crisis....get on with Governing the country. Getting bogged down in legislation to control social media platforms would be like trying to catch fog in a net. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think the government probably needs some stronger role in regulating social media, as there are a lot of risks involved with large open platforms that can foster problematic groups and false news that can be believed by the masses but be harmful in their teachings. However, I also struggle with the idea that the internet should mostly be a free place, where opinions can be shared openly and responded to in the same way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't think the government should have a greater role in regulating social media platforms as people should be able to freely express their opinion online. While I do believe that hateful and discriminatory speech should be policed, I do not believe that the government should be able to control what is or isn't available online. This could lead to a more totalitarian state. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I do believe that the government should play a greater role in regulating social media. I dont think they should get involved to the point where it is solely regulated by them but they do need to play a more active role in how social media is run and managed. There is far too many so called influencers on social media that are being looked upto by younger poeople and children and their content is not monitored nearly enough. There is also a lot of hate filled content inciting violence etc on social media that really does need to be monitored more closely and I believe the government should step up and take a more active role in this 1: 4,1,5,3,2 1: 5,3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,5,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002505.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002505.soc index 7b8076a4..0905ba40 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002505.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002505.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe we are facing a climate emergency. I feel like this is caused by mainly human actions. The greenhouse gases and global temperatures have been rising, and if it continues, this could be catastrophic. The greenhouse gases are causing a hole in the ozone layer and in return this is raising the temperature. We need to be making actions in order to reduce this and try and lessen the blow of the outcome. This is something the world needs to look at and get on board in order to manage and be able to reduce the impact. This is affecting the natural world around us which is really sad to see that future generations will not see some of the things we see in our lifetime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: To answer simply, yes. The worlds temperature is raising which will lead to irreversible problems in the future. Countries are ignoring the need to reduce CO2 emissions (or not reducing quick enough) to help prevent further issues in the future. This is just the beginning of the emergency, the problem will only get worse if human behavior does not change soon. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In my opinion we are but not to the state where all the media is suggesting. In my opinion, they are making it seem worse than it is so we take action before it gets the stage where they say it is. However, if we want to change the climate there is very little the UK can do as we provide only 2% of carbon emissions and are on the lower side of the spectrum. Countries like China that mass produce products are the driving force behind the rising issue. It would be ideal to try and find alternatives that create fewer emissions by finding different suppliers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think we definitely are facing a climate emergency due to global warming, caused by capitalistic greed. I'm very nervous about imminent climate and ecosystem collapse. I think we are already feeling the ramifications of our actions in extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and wildfires. I wonder whether we are going to make any significant changes within my lifetime which will slow down this climate emergency, or whether the lure of money (more and more money) will continue to blind those in power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No we are not. Although the climate is changing it is doing so very slowly. We humans can easily adapt to any changes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe we are facing a climate emergency. I feel like this is caused by mainly human actions. The greenhouse gases and global temperatures have been rising, and if it continues, this could be catastrophic. The greenhouse gases are causing a hole in the ozone layer and in return this is raising the temperature. We need to be making actions in order to reduce this and try and lessen the blow of the outcome. This is something the world needs to look at and get on board in order to manage and be able to reduce the impact. This is affecting the natural world around us which is really sad to see that future generations will not see some of the things we see in our lifetime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - To answer simply, yes. The worlds temperature is raising which will lead to irreversible problems in the future. Countries are ignoring the need to reduce CO2 emissions (or not reducing quick enough) to help prevent further issues in the future. This is just the beginning of the emergency, the problem will only get worse if human behavior does not change soon. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In my opinion we are but not to the state where all the media is suggesting. In my opinion, they are making it seem worse than it is so we take action before it gets the stage where they say it is. However, if we want to change the climate there is very little the UK can do as we provide only 2% of carbon emissions and are on the lower side of the spectrum. Countries like China that mass produce products are the driving force behind the rising issue. It would be ideal to try and find alternatives that create fewer emissions by finding different suppliers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think we definitely are facing a climate emergency due to global warming, caused by capitalistic greed. I'm very nervous about imminent climate and ecosystem collapse. I think we are already feeling the ramifications of our actions in extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and wildfires. I wonder whether we are going to make any significant changes within my lifetime which will slow down this climate emergency, or whether the lure of money (more and more money) will continue to blind those in power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No we are not. Although the climate is changing it is doing so very slowly. We humans can easily adapt to any changes. 2: 4,1,3,2,5 1: 1,4,2,3,5 1: 5,3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002506.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002506.soc index 3d016fca..93bb435e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002506.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002506.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I do not feel we should lower the voting age from 18 to 16, as I am not convinced the majority of people who are 16-17 are fully mature enough to be able to grasp issues that require voting on. I do not feel I was sufficiently mature at 16/17 to understand and make considered opinions on important matters. I do feel there should be some way for them to have an input into decision making, but maybe more through a youth forum or something similar, rather than opening up voting in general. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I do not have a particularly strong opinion on this but without wishing to sound patronising i don't consider 16 year olds to be adults or to have enough experience of life to participate in the voting process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I tend to agree with the lowering of the voting age. In the past few years we have seen an number of future issues for which a majority of older people's opinion is taken as the de facto opinion for the population. Some of the solutions that have been taken are unlikely to affect the older population and we will see those people in the 16-18 eventually be affected much more by the decisions taken today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think for some issues we need to accept that younger people will be affected more, and for longer., and their opinions should be considered. For example, the referendum on Brexit. Young people were predominantly in favour of remaining in the EU, and will have to live with the consequences of older voters wanting to leave, maybe for the rest of their lives. I understand that 16 is an age where maturity and responsibility varies hugely from individual to individual, but I think most 16 year olds who feel strongly, would vote, and others probably wouldn't anyway. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: 16 year olds don't know understand the world at that age. They are wrapped up in their own worlds so to allow them to vote would be misguided as it would be a poor reflection. They will also likely cave to peer pressure and/or just vote what their parents vote. It would make no sense and then we would end up with a dysfunctional government in place worse than we already have. Which is already bad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I do not feel we should lower the voting age from 18 to 16, as I am not convinced the majority of people who are 16-17 are fully mature enough to be able to grasp issues that require voting on. I do not feel I was sufficiently mature at 16/17 to understand and make considered opinions on important matters. I do feel there should be some way for them to have an input into decision making, but maybe more through a youth forum or something similar, rather than opening up voting in general. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I do not have a particularly strong opinion on this but without wishing to sound patronising i don't consider 16 year olds to be adults or to have enough experience of life to participate in the voting process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I tend to agree with the lowering of the voting age. In the past few years we have seen an number of future issues for which a majority of older people's opinion is taken as the de facto opinion for the population. Some of the solutions that have been taken are unlikely to affect the older population and we will see those people in the 16-18 eventually be affected much more by the decisions taken today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think for some issues we need to accept that younger people will be affected more, and for longer., and their opinions should be considered. For example, the referendum on Brexit. Young people were predominantly in favour of remaining in the EU, and will have to live with the consequences of older voters wanting to leave, maybe for the rest of their lives. I understand that 16 is an age where maturity and responsibility varies hugely from individual to individual, but I think most 16 year olds who feel strongly, would vote, and others probably wouldn't anyway. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - 16 year olds don't know understand the world at that age. They are wrapped up in their own worlds so to allow them to vote would be misguided as it would be a poor reflection. They will also likely cave to peer pressure and/or just vote what their parents vote. It would make no sense and then we would end up with a dysfunctional government in place worse than we already have. Which is already bad. 1: 5,1,3,4,2 1: 4,3,1,2,5 1: 4,3,1,5,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002507.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002507.soc index d03ff3a9..9447ce26 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002507.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002507.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although fox hunting does not affect me personally i do think that it is an outdated sport and should be banned to protect the foxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, as fox hunting is a cruel and barbaric sport. We have no reason to continue with it as there are now far more humane methods of pest control without having to turn it into a sport. It can also be cruel to the dogs and horses involved, as they can be subject to mistreatment -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The hunting of animals for sport/fun is a very serious topic. To use modern day weaponry (guns) against natural innocent animals is very upsetting to me. I do not have issues with hunting for food, but fox hunting tends to be for sport/fun or to increase business profit by removing the prey of farmer's animals. I think this is selfish and unnatural. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Fox hunting has no purpose other than for fun and pleasure. It is not something people do to be able to feed their families, sustain a livelihood or anythin of that sort. This does not make it inherently a bad thing, as many things are for pleasure and harmless. However, fox hunting is not harmless. It causes distress, pain and death to innocent animals for no good reason. The majority of people who participate in fox hunting are rich, privileged people who have many other pleasures in life they could enjoy. I don't see the point in tormenting animals for no real gain. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although fox hunting does not affect me personally i do think that it is an outdated sport and should be banned to protect the foxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, as fox hunting is a cruel and barbaric sport. We have no reason to continue with it as there are now far more humane methods of pest control without having to turn it into a sport. It can also be cruel to the dogs and horses involved, as they can be subject to mistreatment +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The hunting of animals for sport/fun is a very serious topic. To use modern day weaponry (guns) against natural innocent animals is very upsetting to me. I do not have issues with hunting for food, but fox hunting tends to be for sport/fun or to increase business profit by removing the prey of farmer's animals. I think this is selfish and unnatural. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Fox hunting has no purpose other than for fun and pleasure. It is not something people do to be able to feed their families, sustain a livelihood or anythin of that sort. This does not make it inherently a bad thing, as many things are for pleasure and harmless. However, fox hunting is not harmless. It causes distress, pain and death to innocent animals for no good reason. The majority of people who participate in fox hunting are rich, privileged people who have many other pleasures in life they could enjoy. I don't see the point in tormenting animals for no real gain. 2: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,1,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002508.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002508.soc index ff3cd3c1..b87a80a0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002508.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002508.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe that there should be a cap on the fees so that nobody is priced out of an education. How that cap is decided I have no idea. I also wonder if some courses should cost more to do as they would have too many people wanting to do them otherwise. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Access to education should be based on ability to learn and develop and not the ability to pay. Ideally, I would like to see university education free at the point of study and then funded via a graduate tax. This would allow the most deserving to study at institutions that reflect their ability and they would pay for that depending on success after graduating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: CONSIDERING CERTAIN UNDEVELOPED SETTELMENTS, THERE SHOULD BE A CAP TO ENABLE LESS PREVILEDGED FOLKS AFFORD QUALITY EDUCATION. IF THERE IS NO PRICE CAP, THE UNIVERSITIES WILL BE JUST A BUSINESS FOR PROFIT -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, as it stops talented and capable people attending and reaching their potential as they can't afford it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe there should be a cap because the cost of university education as well as the likely costs of moving away from home are prohibitive to a lot of people in today's society. Having been to university in the mid-noughties I paid lower fees than students today but am still paying off loans twenty years later. As a parent, I am already worried about how to help my children afford the costs of university and they are only 7 and 10. I believe that if you want to go to uni and are able to achieve the marks to go then money should not be the thing that holds you back. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe that there should be a cap on the fees so that nobody is priced out of an education. How that cap is decided I have no idea. I also wonder if some courses should cost more to do as they would have too many people wanting to do them otherwise. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Access to education should be based on ability to learn and develop and not the ability to pay. Ideally, I would like to see university education free at the point of study and then funded via a graduate tax. This would allow the most deserving to study at institutions that reflect their ability and they would pay for that depending on success after graduating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - CONSIDERING CERTAIN UNDEVELOPED SETTELMENTS, THERE SHOULD BE A CAP TO ENABLE LESS PREVILEDGED FOLKS AFFORD QUALITY EDUCATION. IF THERE IS NO PRICE CAP, THE UNIVERSITIES WILL BE JUST A BUSINESS FOR PROFIT +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, as it stops talented and capable people attending and reaching their potential as they can't afford it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe there should be a cap because the cost of university education as well as the likely costs of moving away from home are prohibitive to a lot of people in today's society. Having been to university in the mid-noughties I paid lower fees than students today but am still paying off loans twenty years later. As a parent, I am already worried about how to help my children afford the costs of university and they are only 7 and 10. I believe that if you want to go to uni and are able to achieve the marks to go then money should not be the thing that holds you back. 2: 2,5,1,4,3 1: 1,3,2,5,4 1: 2,5,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002509.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002509.soc index 9dc063c0..f3d0ddf2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002509.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002509.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe at least some money should be given to improving the railway network. I rarely use railway myself but when I do it's always been to a high standard. A LOT of people that I both know well and know little use this service and when railway lines or railway services are impacted it has a huge detrimental impact on travel, work and disrupts peoples lives. Due to COVID and hybrid conditions a lot of people have moved further out from city centres (also due to affordability), this they rely heavily on trains for transport. With there being more and more restrictions placed on car travel in city centres also trains are an obvious alternative so you may find that people use it more and more often because of this in the future. The infrastructure needs to be there to counter this future change. There are not many alternatives that allows people to travel timeously between low and highly built areas. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, I think this is a very important issue especially because there have been a lot of strikes since last summer and this has affected lots of people -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. They're absolutely disgraceful. More spending is needed to improve the railways. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In my opinion allocating increased funding to enhance the railway network is crucial for reducing traffic congestion, minimising environmental pollution and promoting cleaner air in ubran areas. Secondly, investing in railways can boost the economy by creating jobs both in the short and long term. It stimulates growth in related sectors like manufactoring, technology and construction. Moreover, an improved railway network can enhance overall connectivity, making transport more convenient for everyone (such as people in remote areas). This will allow people to stay together. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe at least some money should be given to improving the railway network. I rarely use railway myself but when I do it's always been to a high standard. A LOT of people that I both know well and know little use this service and when railway lines or railway services are impacted it has a huge detrimental impact on travel, work and disrupts peoples lives. Due to COVID and hybrid conditions a lot of people have moved further out from city centres (also due to affordability), this they rely heavily on trains for transport. With there being more and more restrictions placed on car travel in city centres also trains are an obvious alternative so you may find that people use it more and more often because of this in the future. The infrastructure needs to be there to counter this future change. There are not many alternatives that allows people to travel timeously between low and highly built areas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, I think this is a very important issue especially because there have been a lot of strikes since last summer and this has affected lots of people +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. They're absolutely disgraceful. More spending is needed to improve the railways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In my opinion allocating increased funding to enhance the railway network is crucial for reducing traffic congestion, minimising environmental pollution and promoting cleaner air in ubran areas. Secondly, investing in railways can boost the economy by creating jobs both in the short and long term. It stimulates growth in related sectors like manufactoring, technology and construction. Moreover, an improved railway network can enhance overall connectivity, making transport more convenient for everyone (such as people in remote areas). This will allow people to stay together. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002510.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002510.soc index 2f6d67ee..b492eadd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002510.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002510.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: This is difficult. Of course they should take action against harassment and bullying, but current methods employed are spotty at best. They incorrectly flag banter between friends as abusive and ban users, but on the other hand, allow actual abuse to continue. A middle ground I would say, is a commitment to manually review submitted reports, instead of having an algorithm make the decision. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is hard to say that we can force companies to do things but I do think they have an obligation to protect people from this happening, especially young children. Most companies have access to our data so how can they let this type of behaviour continue without intervention. I'm unsure as to how we would implement the censoring but I think a discussion around better protection needs to happen -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, I think so. The amount of vitriol on social media these days is terrible and can be harmful to a person's mental health. Censoring bullying and harassment means a safe environment for users. Social media companies have an ethical responsibility to look after their users. That being said, many will argue that it isn't free speech if people are being censored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes - people should be able to post and view content that doesnt contain harrassing or bullying behaviour. It has the potential to be triggering to some, and also worryingly could encourage others to join in or do it to others too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes, I think that social media companies are commercial organisations and in a very strong position of power with the data they can see and hold. In the same way that they can target ads and content relevant to users, then they should have the technology to evaluate the content for harassment and bullying. They should also have more people who are easily contactable for people who need their help. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - This is difficult. Of course they should take action against harassment and bullying, but current methods employed are spotty at best. They incorrectly flag banter between friends as abusive and ban users, but on the other hand, allow actual abuse to continue. A middle ground I would say, is a commitment to manually review submitted reports, instead of having an algorithm make the decision. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is hard to say that we can force companies to do things but I do think they have an obligation to protect people from this happening, especially young children. Most companies have access to our data so how can they let this type of behaviour continue without intervention. I'm unsure as to how we would implement the censoring but I think a discussion around better protection needs to happen +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, I think so. The amount of vitriol on social media these days is terrible and can be harmful to a person's mental health. Censoring bullying and harassment means a safe environment for users. Social media companies have an ethical responsibility to look after their users. That being said, many will argue that it isn't free speech if people are being censored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes - people should be able to post and view content that doesnt contain harrassing or bullying behaviour. It has the potential to be triggering to some, and also worryingly could encourage others to join in or do it to others too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes, I think that social media companies are commercial organisations and in a very strong position of power with the data they can see and hold. In the same way that they can target ads and content relevant to users, then they should have the technology to evaluate the content for harassment and bullying. They should also have more people who are easily contactable for people who need their help. 1: 5,2,3,4,1 1: 2,1,5,3,4 1: 1,3,5,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002511.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002511.soc index 5a03f53d..e5ef7cb7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002511.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002511.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think this would be a good idea as holidays are very important for mental and physical wellbeing as broadening your horizons. It may be difficult to administer though as it probably would have to be means-tested. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: This is a difficult question to answer because there are so many unknown variables. I am assuming we are talking about families on a low income who otherwise might not be able to afford to take a weeks holiday. The definition of "away" is also not defined. A week away from home might consist of a week in a caravan, or a week in a hotel in another country. I support the general idea that all families ought to be able to have a week of holiday time together, but I cannot give a firm view on whether or not we should subsidise this because I would need to understand which families were being helped, and what was meant by a holiday. I would be willing to consider subsidising a family on a low income, but I would not wish to subsidise a family on a high income, for example. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Having a family is extremely hard work. It can be stressful and exhausting at times, especially of both parents work full-time. I feel that just one week away could mean absolutely everything to them. It would enable people to go on holiday who may not have had the means before now. Children would get to experience new things, beaches, nature and new parts of the Country/World they may not have had the chance to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, I don't think this is a good idea. It is of course nice for families to get a break and to go on holiday together, but realistically subsidising holidays seems like a band aid for a bullethole. The reason why families can't afford a holiday every year isn't because holidays are too expensive and need subsidising, but rather that wages are low, working conditions are bad, childcare is expensive, groceries are expensive, energy is expensive, housing is expensive, etc., etc., and all of these things come before things like holidays. Do something to support the cost of living instead and the people who want to go on holiday may then find they're able to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe that it beneficial for all families to have a break away from the everyday life but feel that this would be extremely hard to implement. How would we see who can and cant afford to go? Who can't afford because they are spending money on other non essential items and those who maybe due to disabilities/illness/work/caring commitments can't go. I would prefer investment into making sure everyone can eat and pay bills. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think this would be a good idea as holidays are very important for mental and physical wellbeing as broadening your horizons. It may be difficult to administer though as it probably would have to be means-tested. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - This is a difficult question to answer because there are so many unknown variables. I am assuming we are talking about families on a low income who otherwise might not be able to afford to take a weeks holiday. The definition of "away" is also not defined. A week away from home might consist of a week in a caravan, or a week in a hotel in another country. I support the general idea that all families ought to be able to have a week of holiday time together, but I cannot give a firm view on whether or not we should subsidise this because I would need to understand which families were being helped, and what was meant by a holiday. I would be willing to consider subsidising a family on a low income, but I would not wish to subsidise a family on a high income, for example. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Having a family is extremely hard work. It can be stressful and exhausting at times, especially of both parents work full-time. I feel that just one week away could mean absolutely everything to them. It would enable people to go on holiday who may not have had the means before now. Children would get to experience new things, beaches, nature and new parts of the Country/World they may not have had the chance to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, I don't think this is a good idea. It is of course nice for families to get a break and to go on holiday together, but realistically subsidising holidays seems like a band aid for a bullethole. The reason why families can't afford a holiday every year isn't because holidays are too expensive and need subsidising, but rather that wages are low, working conditions are bad, childcare is expensive, groceries are expensive, energy is expensive, housing is expensive, etc., etc., and all of these things come before things like holidays. Do something to support the cost of living instead and the people who want to go on holiday may then find they're able to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe that it beneficial for all families to have a break away from the everyday life but feel that this would be extremely hard to implement. How would we see who can and cant afford to go? Who can't afford because they are spending money on other non essential items and those who maybe due to disabilities/illness/work/caring commitments can't go. I would prefer investment into making sure everyone can eat and pay bills. 2: 4,2,5,1,3 1: 3,1,2,5,4 1: 5,2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002512.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002512.soc index c36d1d69..17dc11d2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002512.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002512.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think there is a reasonable argument for legalising all drugs. This is mainly because the illicit nature of illegal substances means that people cannot always be certain of where they have come from, how pure/ genuine they might be and or how safe they might be to use. If all drugs were made legal, it would be possible to regulate them to the extent that users could access them in safer ways that are less likely to damage their health. I think it's naïve to assume that making drugs illegal prevents users from seeking to access them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I don't believe that all drugs should be legalized. Drugs such as Heroin & cocaine have a more detrimental impact if taken - therefore it's important in my opinion that they are regulated & not easily available. There are drugs such as cannabis that I believe could benefit from legalization - especially for those that benefit from it for medical conditions & not leisure. Drugs such as Heroin & cocaine are highly addictive. That said regulation of them to mean less black market sales could have some benefit. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes I believe we should. By legalising it we can tax it and control distribution and production standards. Taxes can be used for treatment programs and awareness campaigns against the use of drugs and the risks involved. They could also be used to boost healthcare budgets in general. It would help reduce the amount of crime associated with drug use, buying and selling. This has been shown to be a successful policy in Portugal with usage numbers staying the same or going down rather than up. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No we should not we have enough problems with drugs with out it being made easier for people to get them I think we would only be creating more problems -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: i don't think we should legalize all drugs as this wouldn't help to discourage people from using them. I agree that through legalization we can reduce crime, regulate usage more, increase tax from sales to support healthcare for users however hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine serve no benefit to the human body they are highly addictive and destroy peoples lives. legalizing such destructive drugs would send the wrong message to our community about the serious physical, mental and social health consequences of these drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think there is a reasonable argument for legalising all drugs. This is mainly because the illicit nature of illegal substances means that people cannot always be certain of where they have come from, how pure/ genuine they might be and or how safe they might be to use. If all drugs were made legal, it would be possible to regulate them to the extent that users could access them in safer ways that are less likely to damage their health. I think it's naïve to assume that making drugs illegal prevents users from seeking to access them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I don't believe that all drugs should be legalized. Drugs such as Heroin & cocaine have a more detrimental impact if taken - therefore it's important in my opinion that they are regulated & not easily available. There are drugs such as cannabis that I believe could benefit from legalization - especially for those that benefit from it for medical conditions & not leisure. Drugs such as Heroin & cocaine are highly addictive. That said regulation of them to mean less black market sales could have some benefit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes I believe we should. By legalising it we can tax it and control distribution and production standards. Taxes can be used for treatment programs and awareness campaigns against the use of drugs and the risks involved. They could also be used to boost healthcare budgets in general. It would help reduce the amount of crime associated with drug use, buying and selling. This has been shown to be a successful policy in Portugal with usage numbers staying the same or going down rather than up. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No we should not we have enough problems with drugs with out it being made easier for people to get them I think we would only be creating more problems +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - i don't think we should legalize all drugs as this wouldn't help to discourage people from using them. I agree that through legalization we can reduce crime, regulate usage more, increase tax from sales to support healthcare for users however hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine serve no benefit to the human body they are highly addictive and destroy peoples lives. legalizing such destructive drugs would send the wrong message to our community about the serious physical, mental and social health consequences of these drugs. 1: 5,1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,5,3,4 1: 5,2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002513.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002513.soc index dd1237d9..a779176b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002513.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002513.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, plastic waste is a blight on the planet. There are many other options out there instead of plastic bottles, so there really is no need to buy them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Absolutely. There is no need for these items, there are many alternatives for people to use e.g. reusable bottles. Plastic is a blight in our oceans, in hedgerows, littering streets and ending up in landfill or having to be expensively recycled. The plastic itself is also injurious to people as chemicals and toxins leech from the plastic into the products it contains. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: They should be phased out and eventually soon banned. Plastics are causing so many problems with manufacture emissions, pollution and permenant waste, Even though they some are now being made from recycled materials they still are extremely difficult to permenantly remove as waste when the time comes. Surely science can come up with a more eco friendly totally biodegradable sollution in this day and age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes there should definitely be a ban on small plastic water bottles. They are too disposable. In this day and age there is no reason for anyone not to one a reusable bottle. There are aesthetically pleasing, well built alternatives to plastic water bottles. Those using disposable water bottles are purely lazy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, plastic waste is a blight on the planet. There are many other options out there instead of plastic bottles, so there really is no need to buy them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Absolutely. There is no need for these items, there are many alternatives for people to use e.g. reusable bottles. Plastic is a blight in our oceans, in hedgerows, littering streets and ending up in landfill or having to be expensively recycled. The plastic itself is also injurious to people as chemicals and toxins leech from the plastic into the products it contains. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - They should be phased out and eventually soon banned. Plastics are causing so many problems with manufacture emissions, pollution and permenant waste, Even though they some are now being made from recycled materials they still are extremely difficult to permenantly remove as waste when the time comes. Surely science can come up with a more eco friendly totally biodegradable sollution in this day and age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes there should definitely be a ban on small plastic water bottles. They are too disposable. In this day and age there is no reason for anyone not to one a reusable bottle. There are aesthetically pleasing, well built alternatives to plastic water bottles. Those using disposable water bottles are purely lazy. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002514.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002514.soc index f7f3b633..e5eb9770 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002514.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002514.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum wage should increase to counter the inflation of just basic necessities like bread, milk and fruit & veg. There's many people working multiple jobs just to put a roof over their head and eat poorly and unless things change drastically I don't see how it will improve. We need a better infrastructure and a limit to how much we can charge for basic needs whilst increasing the minimum wage by the same percentage the inflation has. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe the Minimum wage should increase. With the raise in inflation and cost of living crisis, we should be trying to align everyone to be able to survive this period of time. If we do not, this could have a more negative impact on the economy as a whole. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes minimum wage should be raised. The cost of living has affected everyone with the most affected being the worse off members of society, increasing the minimum wage would help to assist people in troubling times. Without increasing minimum wage how are we expecting people on minimum wage to keep up with inflation rises etc.? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The minimum wage should be raised to a level that aligns with the current higher cost of living. The price of food, energy, and rent has increased drastically over the past few years, in part because of Brexit, and those on minimum wage are suffering because of it. We need to empower those in low-wage jobs, instead of punishing them, and that empowerment looks like fair financial compensation. We need to help bring people up over the poverty line. To leave the minimum wage where it is, is cruel. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No, the minimum wage should not be raised. Employers should be free to set whatever wage level they deem appropriate. If the employee doesn't like the wage they are offered, and think they can get more elsewhere, then they are free to leave. A minimum wage that continues to rise is incredibly inflationary - it increases the cost of doing business which results in higher prices for all, which in turn reduces the benefit of a minimum wage increase. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum wage should increase to counter the inflation of just basic necessities like bread, milk and fruit & veg. There's many people working multiple jobs just to put a roof over their head and eat poorly and unless things change drastically I don't see how it will improve. We need a better infrastructure and a limit to how much we can charge for basic needs whilst increasing the minimum wage by the same percentage the inflation has. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe the Minimum wage should increase. With the raise in inflation and cost of living crisis, we should be trying to align everyone to be able to survive this period of time. If we do not, this could have a more negative impact on the economy as a whole. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes minimum wage should be raised. The cost of living has affected everyone with the most affected being the worse off members of society, increasing the minimum wage would help to assist people in troubling times. Without increasing minimum wage how are we expecting people on minimum wage to keep up with inflation rises etc.? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The minimum wage should be raised to a level that aligns with the current higher cost of living. The price of food, energy, and rent has increased drastically over the past few years, in part because of Brexit, and those on minimum wage are suffering because of it. We need to empower those in low-wage jobs, instead of punishing them, and that empowerment looks like fair financial compensation. We need to help bring people up over the poverty line. To leave the minimum wage where it is, is cruel. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No, the minimum wage should not be raised. Employers should be free to set whatever wage level they deem appropriate. If the employee doesn't like the wage they are offered, and think they can get more elsewhere, then they are free to leave. A minimum wage that continues to rise is incredibly inflationary - it increases the cost of doing business which results in higher prices for all, which in turn reduces the benefit of a minimum wage increase. 2: 4,1,2,3,5 1: 4,2,3,1,5 1: 5,1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002515.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002515.soc index aa26896b..528924a2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002515.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002515.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: spending less on the military can mean more money is spent on the public for things such as education and healthcare. It would also take the pressure off the government. Less funding into the military could also result in less less conflict -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think that in the current climate it would be more beneficial to focus on the military. This is because we need to protect our countries from the threats that are currently coming out of other places around. I believe that it could be afforded to spread social welfare out more evenly as some people are getting a lot more money than they need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Military is important for our countries defence and public safety. We can not compare both subjects. Social welfare is in crisis with the cost of living crisis and money is is short supply. I would prefer if they were both given a fair amount of money as we must invest in peoples future but we need the military to keep us safe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While we shouldn't ignore the need for a powerful military to act as a deterrent, I feel that the vast sums of money it attracts far exceeds it's usefulness, comparative to how the money could be otherwise spent. The social problems in society are clear and I feel that a few hundred million spent on a few updated jets could be better appropriated to facing more 'real' problems in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe the government should spend less on the military and more on social welfare. There is currently obviously the war in Ukraine which we should all be mindful of, but the people relying on the state are suffering majorly, and the quality of life in general in the UK is declining. Pay is dropping in real terms and costs are increasing. Something desperately needs to be done about this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - spending less on the military can mean more money is spent on the public for things such as education and healthcare. It would also take the pressure off the government. Less funding into the military could also result in less less conflict +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think that in the current climate it would be more beneficial to focus on the military. This is because we need to protect our countries from the threats that are currently coming out of other places around. I believe that it could be afforded to spread social welfare out more evenly as some people are getting a lot more money than they need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Military is important for our countries defence and public safety. We can not compare both subjects. Social welfare is in crisis with the cost of living crisis and money is is short supply. I would prefer if they were both given a fair amount of money as we must invest in peoples future but we need the military to keep us safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While we shouldn't ignore the need for a powerful military to act as a deterrent, I feel that the vast sums of money it attracts far exceeds it's usefulness, comparative to how the money could be otherwise spent. The social problems in society are clear and I feel that a few hundred million spent on a few updated jets could be better appropriated to facing more 'real' problems in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe the government should spend less on the military and more on social welfare. There is currently obviously the war in Ukraine which we should all be mindful of, but the people relying on the state are suffering majorly, and the quality of life in general in the UK is declining. Pay is dropping in real terms and costs are increasing. Something desperately needs to be done about this. 1: 3,2,5,4,1 1: 5,4,3,1,2 1: 4,5,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002516.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002516.soc index d48b9869..934430ad 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002516.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002516.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There needs to be more incentives for individuals to purchase electric vehicles. While in the long term EVs are cheaper to run that traditional diesel/petrol cars, the upfront costs can be prohibitive to many people, especially considering that buying a second hand EV is next to impossible. Government grants would help in offsetting the costs of the car itself as well as installation of the charging port in homes. EVs can also be inconvenient to people in their every day life, thus people require even more incentive to switch from traditional cars. It is the government's responsibility to improve our environmental impact and subsidising EVs is an important way to do this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes. I think electric vehicles are one of the many ways that we need to go in order to help protect the environment which is an ever growing concern, alongside the effects that gas emissions are having on public health (i.e. those with lung conditions). However, cars, especially electric ones can be expensive and many aren't willing to go for an electric option when there are cheaper and worse alternatives available. Having subsidies available would promote the use of electric cars , hopefully improve any bad ideas being have about them not being suitable for their lifestyle and improve the enivornment and public health. This seems like a win for the government as it would have long-lasting beneficial effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, the government should subsidise electric vehicles at all stages: research, production and use across the UK. The government is not doing enough to support net-zero, it has stepped away from some of its own targets to do with this, yet is happy for households to be charged more to go about their daily work (via ULEZ roll-out etc). The government should be offering grants and subsidies to companies to produce these vehicles, to households to buy and run them and to other companies / industries to use them and to provide charging points and back-up services (eg: battery manufacturers, bus companies etc). We no longer have access to European innovation and funding in this area thanks to Brexit, so as the government who took us into that because they wanted the UK to stand alone are still in power, they should be stepping in to support this innovation, not just distancing themselves from the idea because it no longer suits them - and Brexit hasn't been what they wanted it to be! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, as they have made promises to reduce carbon emissions and electric vehicles are an important swap if the targets are to be made. At the moment, Electric and Hybrid options are beyond the budget of many so a subsidy would stimulate sales and the increase in demand should bring down the cost longer term. Petrol and Diesel cars have had their time but its naive to think people needing transport are all going to be able to swing over to the greener option without financial help. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: The government should more heavily subsidize electric vehicles. At the moment during this cost of living crisis, imposing more charges with the ULEZ scheme is creating more and more hardship for people. We all know diesel and petrol vehicles are bad for the planet but not everyone can afford to replace cars at the drop of a hat, and they certainly cant afford charges being imposed on them. If they were more heavily subsidized you will find more people inclined to change to electric. There needs to be more affordability offered to people +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There needs to be more incentives for individuals to purchase electric vehicles. While in the long term EVs are cheaper to run that traditional diesel/petrol cars, the upfront costs can be prohibitive to many people, especially considering that buying a second hand EV is next to impossible. Government grants would help in offsetting the costs of the car itself as well as installation of the charging port in homes. EVs can also be inconvenient to people in their every day life, thus people require even more incentive to switch from traditional cars. It is the government's responsibility to improve our environmental impact and subsidising EVs is an important way to do this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes. I think electric vehicles are one of the many ways that we need to go in order to help protect the environment which is an ever growing concern, alongside the effects that gas emissions are having on public health (i.e. those with lung conditions). However, cars, especially electric ones can be expensive and many aren't willing to go for an electric option when there are cheaper and worse alternatives available. Having subsidies available would promote the use of electric cars , hopefully improve any bad ideas being have about them not being suitable for their lifestyle and improve the enivornment and public health. This seems like a win for the government as it would have long-lasting beneficial effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, the government should subsidise electric vehicles at all stages: research, production and use across the UK. The government is not doing enough to support net-zero, it has stepped away from some of its own targets to do with this, yet is happy for households to be charged more to go about their daily work (via ULEZ roll-out etc). The government should be offering grants and subsidies to companies to produce these vehicles, to households to buy and run them and to other companies / industries to use them and to provide charging points and back-up services (eg: battery manufacturers, bus companies etc). We no longer have access to European innovation and funding in this area thanks to Brexit, so as the government who took us into that because they wanted the UK to stand alone are still in power, they should be stepping in to support this innovation, not just distancing themselves from the idea because it no longer suits them - and Brexit hasn't been what they wanted it to be! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, as they have made promises to reduce carbon emissions and electric vehicles are an important swap if the targets are to be made. At the moment, Electric and Hybrid options are beyond the budget of many so a subsidy would stimulate sales and the increase in demand should bring down the cost longer term. Petrol and Diesel cars have had their time but its naive to think people needing transport are all going to be able to swing over to the greener option without financial help. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - The government should more heavily subsidize electric vehicles. At the moment during this cost of living crisis, imposing more charges with the ULEZ scheme is creating more and more hardship for people. We all know diesel and petrol vehicles are bad for the planet but not everyone can afford to replace cars at the drop of a hat, and they certainly cant afford charges being imposed on them. If they were more heavily subsidized you will find more people inclined to change to electric. There needs to be more affordability offered to people 1: 1,5,3,2,4 1: 5,1,2,4,3 1: 3,2,1,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002517.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002517.soc index 95ffe4b0..60a6f75e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002517.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002517.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: To be truthful, I actually do not know what this means. I did not know politicians could raise money. I do not know what they spend donations on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: One of the most crucial aspects of capping the amounts of total donations is to potentially stop politicians from corruption or being influenced by third parties. After all, the decisions made in a democracy should not be influenced by who and how much someone donates to a politician potentially influencing their decisions. Additionally, having caps on such donations could promote politicians' transparency and therefore be seen as more entrusted to their people -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe there should be a cap because it would encouragement a fairer system and help reduce self interest. politicians take far too much money from donors with little accountability or oversight in our current political system, of which many feel that is endemic with self interest and corruption and has little to do with true democracy, This will help hold our politicians to account, something that does not exist currently. Our politicians seem to make many promises to the people, which never get realised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think there should be a cap on the amount politicians can raise from donations. They could and do get back handed donations from all sorts of people and places which does influence what they do and how they treat certain things. Politics is all corrupt and they only play for themselves most of the time. All they care about is keeping themselves and their buddies pockets full and in control. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - To be truthful, I actually do not know what this means. I did not know politicians could raise money. I do not know what they spend donations on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - One of the most crucial aspects of capping the amounts of total donations is to potentially stop politicians from corruption or being influenced by third parties. After all, the decisions made in a democracy should not be influenced by who and how much someone donates to a politician potentially influencing their decisions. Additionally, having caps on such donations could promote politicians' transparency and therefore be seen as more entrusted to their people +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe there should be a cap because it would encouragement a fairer system and help reduce self interest. politicians take far too much money from donors with little accountability or oversight in our current political system, of which many feel that is endemic with self interest and corruption and has little to do with true democracy, This will help hold our politicians to account, something that does not exist currently. Our politicians seem to make many promises to the people, which never get realised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think there should be a cap on the amount politicians can raise from donations. They could and do get back handed donations from all sorts of people and places which does influence what they do and how they treat certain things. Politics is all corrupt and they only play for themselves most of the time. All they care about is keeping themselves and their buddies pockets full and in control. 2: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002518.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002518.soc index 55794527..b42121e5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002518.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002518.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Absolutely! Smoking is a horrible habit and should be banned completely. We do not need the youth of today taking up this habit, reducing their life and spending uncessary money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: They should increase it without question. The younger a user gets into smoking, the easier it is for them to get addicted and stay addicted. Also an older person is less likely to be influenced by peer pressure. Smoking is bad for health without a doubt so the legal age should definitely be increased -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: At the risk of being unpopular, I'm still surprised it has not been banned from sale altogether. I agree with increasing the legal age for smoking, and as has been mentioned recently in the news, increasing every year, so that children today will never be able to smoke. It destroys lives, puts a burden on the NHS with the endless health problems it causes not only the smoker, but those around them who are forced to inhale second hand smoke. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I honestly don't know what the legal age is for smoking nowadays - I presume it is 18. If so, then it is difficult to increase that age, as legally you are then an adult and can take responsibility for your own actions. Otherwise cigarettes etc would have to classed as a drug, and therefore limited to access on prescription only. SO, if the legal age is below 18, I would support increasing it to 18. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think it should be increased as there's no need for children - 16 year-olds - to be smoking. Increasing the legal age will make it harder to get hold of cigarettes. It will also reduce the number of smoking-related illnesses which will consequently have less of a burden on the healthcare system and economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Absolutely! Smoking is a horrible habit and should be banned completely. We do not need the youth of today taking up this habit, reducing their life and spending uncessary money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - They should increase it without question. The younger a user gets into smoking, the easier it is for them to get addicted and stay addicted. Also an older person is less likely to be influenced by peer pressure. Smoking is bad for health without a doubt so the legal age should definitely be increased +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - At the risk of being unpopular, I'm still surprised it has not been banned from sale altogether. I agree with increasing the legal age for smoking, and as has been mentioned recently in the news, increasing every year, so that children today will never be able to smoke. It destroys lives, puts a burden on the NHS with the endless health problems it causes not only the smoker, but those around them who are forced to inhale second hand smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I honestly don't know what the legal age is for smoking nowadays - I presume it is 18. If so, then it is difficult to increase that age, as legally you are then an adult and can take responsibility for your own actions. Otherwise cigarettes etc would have to classed as a drug, and therefore limited to access on prescription only. SO, if the legal age is below 18, I would support increasing it to 18. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think it should be increased as there's no need for children - 16 year-olds - to be smoking. Increasing the legal age will make it harder to get hold of cigarettes. It will also reduce the number of smoking-related illnesses which will consequently have less of a burden on the healthcare system and economy. 2: 3,5,2,1,4 1: 3,5,1,2,4 1: 3,4,5,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002519.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002519.soc index 101e0e15..23531869 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002519.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002519.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although I disagree with using animals for food and entertainment, I can see the need to use animals to test the safety of medicines and medical procedures to ensure that it is safe to use them on humans before using them on people. This does need to be strictly controlled and only as a last resort prior to a study on the effects on humans. Animals should only be used in scientific research where it is agreed by consensus that there is no other way of verifying the safety of people. They definitely should not be used where there is no risk to human life - ie: cosmetics. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It's very difficult. I grew up in a rural area and as a result of my experiences have been a vegetarian for 40 years and a vegan the past 5. We adopted several former farm animals who we treat as pets. Animals feel fear and pain, but I am struggling if animals can help find a cure for diseases. What I am sure of is that absolutely everything possible should be done to minimise stress. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think that animals should not be used in scientific research as they can be made to suffer and they don't have the ability to consent. There are lots of other ways to conduct scientific research without hurting animals. Although scientific research is important, I think it needs to be done humanely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't think animals should be used in scientific research on the whole, but its entirely dependent on what the cause is - and how useful they believe the testing will be. If there was a similar strain of COVID killing thousands on a daily basis, and testing on animals was our best opportunity for a cure or vaccine, then I would be ok with that. But testing make-up on animals, driven solely for profit, I am not in favour of. It also depends on how many animals, and how cruel the treatment is. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: While I dislike the use of animals in scientific research, I kind of agree with the use for the advancement of humans. It's sort of how I feel about eating meat, I'd rather not but kind of feel it's necessary for my own personal health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although I disagree with using animals for food and entertainment, I can see the need to use animals to test the safety of medicines and medical procedures to ensure that it is safe to use them on humans before using them on people. This does need to be strictly controlled and only as a last resort prior to a study on the effects on humans. Animals should only be used in scientific research where it is agreed by consensus that there is no other way of verifying the safety of people. They definitely should not be used where there is no risk to human life - ie: cosmetics. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It's very difficult. I grew up in a rural area and as a result of my experiences have been a vegetarian for 40 years and a vegan the past 5. We adopted several former farm animals who we treat as pets. Animals feel fear and pain, but I am struggling if animals can help find a cure for diseases. What I am sure of is that absolutely everything possible should be done to minimise stress. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think that animals should not be used in scientific research as they can be made to suffer and they don't have the ability to consent. There are lots of other ways to conduct scientific research without hurting animals. Although scientific research is important, I think it needs to be done humanely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't think animals should be used in scientific research on the whole, but its entirely dependent on what the cause is - and how useful they believe the testing will be. If there was a similar strain of COVID killing thousands on a daily basis, and testing on animals was our best opportunity for a cure or vaccine, then I would be ok with that. But testing make-up on animals, driven solely for profit, I am not in favour of. It also depends on how many animals, and how cruel the treatment is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - While I dislike the use of animals in scientific research, I kind of agree with the use for the advancement of humans. It's sort of how I feel about eating meat, I'd rather not but kind of feel it's necessary for my own personal health. 2: 1,2,4,3,5 1: 4,1,2,3,5 1: 1,3,2,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002520.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002520.soc index f4623cd6..ee1b764b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002520.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002520.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I do not think that people should be allowed to sell their organs on the open market, even is there were stringent laws and practices put in place there would still be abuses of such a market and no doubt the poorest in society would be the ones who would be most abused. I believe it would lead to dangerous practices and medical issues for people down the line. I admit that to those desperate for a transplant themselves or for a loved one may not agree with this stand point but I think there are some lines that we cannot cross as a society and this is one of them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, definitely not. Unfortunately this world is an extremely unfair place with a lot of economic inequality. I worry that poor people will be forced to sell their organs to live, or that people with alcohol/drug/gambling addiction issues may be forced to sell their organs in order to get money to fund their addictions. I think this will affect the health of poorer people disproportionately. I also worry that people will be coerced to sell their organs and they won't even benefit from it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: NO, there is no way that people should be able to sell their organs on the open market. This will lead to only the rich having organ transplants whilst the poor will be left behind to die. I carry an organ donor card and want whoever needs my organs the most to get them and not who has the most money. LIfe is not Squid Game. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not be allowed to sell organs on the open market as it sets a dangerous precedent for wealthy people to be able to harvest organs from the poor. Donors should be adequately compensated for the time they spend donating the organ and recovering from the surgery but I believe this should be ab act of altruism by living donors or organs should be donated after the death or of the donor. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: PEOPLE SHOULD'NT EVEN BE UNDER ANY PRESSURE TO SELL THEIR ORGANS, UNFORTUNATELY THE DESPERATION AS A RESULT OF THE NEED TO SURVIVE HAS A STRONG INFLUENCE ON OUR GENERATION. ALSO, CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT MENTALLY STABLE AND GIVING THESE KINDS OF PERSON THE FREEDOM TO DO AS THEY PLEASE MIGHT JUST BE A LICENSE TO COMMIT HOMICIDES. ORGAN HARVESTING WOULD BECOME A SENSELESS ACTIVITY IN THE SOCIETY IF LET BE +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I do not think that people should be allowed to sell their organs on the open market, even is there were stringent laws and practices put in place there would still be abuses of such a market and no doubt the poorest in society would be the ones who would be most abused. I believe it would lead to dangerous practices and medical issues for people down the line. I admit that to those desperate for a transplant themselves or for a loved one may not agree with this stand point but I think there are some lines that we cannot cross as a society and this is one of them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, definitely not. Unfortunately this world is an extremely unfair place with a lot of economic inequality. I worry that poor people will be forced to sell their organs to live, or that people with alcohol/drug/gambling addiction issues may be forced to sell their organs in order to get money to fund their addictions. I think this will affect the health of poorer people disproportionately. I also worry that people will be coerced to sell their organs and they won't even benefit from it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - NO, there is no way that people should be able to sell their organs on the open market. This will lead to only the rich having organ transplants whilst the poor will be left behind to die. I carry an organ donor card and want whoever needs my organs the most to get them and not who has the most money. LIfe is not Squid Game. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not be allowed to sell organs on the open market as it sets a dangerous precedent for wealthy people to be able to harvest organs from the poor. Donors should be adequately compensated for the time they spend donating the organ and recovering from the surgery but I believe this should be ab act of altruism by living donors or organs should be donated after the death or of the donor. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - PEOPLE SHOULD'NT EVEN BE UNDER ANY PRESSURE TO SELL THEIR ORGANS, UNFORTUNATELY THE DESPERATION AS A RESULT OF THE NEED TO SURVIVE HAS A STRONG INFLUENCE ON OUR GENERATION. ALSO, CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT MENTALLY STABLE AND GIVING THESE KINDS OF PERSON THE FREEDOM TO DO AS THEY PLEASE MIGHT JUST BE A LICENSE TO COMMIT HOMICIDES. ORGAN HARVESTING WOULD BECOME A SENSELESS ACTIVITY IN THE SOCIETY IF LET BE 2: 1,2,4,3,5 1: 1,2,5,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002521.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002521.soc index cdcb2ee1..bf1c84be 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002521.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002521.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes. People who aren't absolutely desperate for money are better members of society! £100 isn't enough to mean that people would suddenly quit working, but it could be the difference between eating and not eating or heating the house and shivering in the cold for some people. Of course you'll get people who will abuse it but on the whole I think everyone could do with a little help at the moment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I am not firmly against the idea of basic income guarantees in principle, but I cannot see a situation whereby anyone would fail to already get at least £100 a month from either wages or benefits (or interest on savings or pensions etc.). My view is that we should not use this to give everyone £100 a month because there is no indication that it would be means tested and even if it was means tested, the cost of checking eligibiliy might be more than the money being given out. I don't think that this is a viable proposition so my view is that we should not use a basic income guarantee system. Arguably we already provide a basic income guarantee of more than £100 a month to those in hardship via the benefits system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No! If everyone was to receive this money not only would this be a huge burden on the country but people who do not need it would be receiving it. It wouldn't in anyway create an even playing field for everyone and would just push the problem of inequality and cost of living crisis even further. . -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: While I think the idea of a Basic Income Guarantee system is an interesting one that has its merits I think £100 a month is far too low to have any real effect on people's lives. £1000 would be more realistic although the costs of such a scheme would have to be examined closely. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No, £100 for someone who earns £100K+ is neither here nor there. Give the money to people who need it most. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes. People who aren't absolutely desperate for money are better members of society! £100 isn't enough to mean that people would suddenly quit working, but it could be the difference between eating and not eating or heating the house and shivering in the cold for some people. Of course you'll get people who will abuse it but on the whole I think everyone could do with a little help at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I am not firmly against the idea of basic income guarantees in principle, but I cannot see a situation whereby anyone would fail to already get at least £100 a month from either wages or benefits (or interest on savings or pensions etc.). My view is that we should not use this to give everyone £100 a month because there is no indication that it would be means tested and even if it was means tested, the cost of checking eligibiliy might be more than the money being given out. I don't think that this is a viable proposition so my view is that we should not use a basic income guarantee system. Arguably we already provide a basic income guarantee of more than £100 a month to those in hardship via the benefits system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No! If everyone was to receive this money not only would this be a huge burden on the country but people who do not need it would be receiving it. It wouldn't in anyway create an even playing field for everyone and would just push the problem of inequality and cost of living crisis even further. . +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - While I think the idea of a Basic Income Guarantee system is an interesting one that has its merits I think £100 a month is far too low to have any real effect on people's lives. £1000 would be more realistic although the costs of such a scheme would have to be examined closely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No, £100 for someone who earns £100K+ is neither here nor there. Give the money to people who need it most. 1: 3,5,2,1,4 1: 2,3,5,4,1 1: 1,4,2,5,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002522.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002522.soc index 62cc340d..493575d3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002522.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002522.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No certainly not at this stage. We need to give it more time to see the final outcomes. All trade deals and arrangements have not been concluded so we cant tell quite how beneficial it is yet. Opposing political parties are using this as a very unhelpful tool for their own gain instead of helping with negotiations and conclusions. Yes their have been problems but they are slowly being ironed out. We need to be patient then decide when we have all the answers -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think it would be a good idea to hold a second referendum now as people have been given enough time to see the lies in the original campaigns. The majority of the promises for the leave campaign have been proven to be lies. As far as I can see there has been no benefit at all to leaving, In fact, it seems to have been quite detrimental to the UK economy. I don't believe people fully understood what they were voting for and the consequences of leaving the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No. There has been so much disruption already in disconnecting from the EU and the economy initially suffered as this transitionary phase happened, a further referendum would do a lot of damage to the economy showing Britain as being indecisive and 'flaky'. A decision has been made; processes, trade agreements etc have been been put in place, to raise a further question mark would have big global companies that invest in the UK worried about the stability of the economy and may decide that other nations are a better option. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, i dont think there should be. We live in a democratic country where an election was held. The results should therefore be upheld. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Although I believe that Brexit was a mistake and that everything that has happened from Brexit has been rubbish quite frankly. I don't think that you can just call a second referendum. The general public unfortunately made their decision and therefore we have to live with the consequences. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No certainly not at this stage. We need to give it more time to see the final outcomes. All trade deals and arrangements have not been concluded so we cant tell quite how beneficial it is yet. Opposing political parties are using this as a very unhelpful tool for their own gain instead of helping with negotiations and conclusions. Yes their have been problems but they are slowly being ironed out. We need to be patient then decide when we have all the answers +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think it would be a good idea to hold a second referendum now as people have been given enough time to see the lies in the original campaigns. The majority of the promises for the leave campaign have been proven to be lies. As far as I can see there has been no benefit at all to leaving, In fact, it seems to have been quite detrimental to the UK economy. I don't believe people fully understood what they were voting for and the consequences of leaving the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No. There has been so much disruption already in disconnecting from the EU and the economy initially suffered as this transitionary phase happened, a further referendum would do a lot of damage to the economy showing Britain as being indecisive and 'flaky'. A decision has been made; processes, trade agreements etc have been been put in place, to raise a further question mark would have big global companies that invest in the UK worried about the stability of the economy and may decide that other nations are a better option. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, i dont think there should be. We live in a democratic country where an election was held. The results should therefore be upheld. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Although I believe that Brexit was a mistake and that everything that has happened from Brexit has been rubbish quite frankly. I don't think that you can just call a second referendum. The general public unfortunately made their decision and therefore we have to live with the consequences. 1: 3,1,4,2,5 1: 3,5,4,1,2 1: 2,3,1,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002523.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002523.soc index 7cdf887e..3212cab7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002523.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002523.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe we shouldn't use Chinese technology for the most critical national infrastructure as they do have a track record for using spy and malware in basic equipment like phones and apps. So by giving one of the worlds biggest powers all our national secrets would end horribly and could be used against us. Especially when their ideals and alignments are with Russia and North Korea. Giving these power houses our infrastructure and how to destroy us would be detrimental. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: If the Chinese technology is effective and useful, then why shouldn't we adopt it too? I think it's a shame to outsource work that could have gone to national businesses. I wonder if the urge to use "Chinese technology" is to reduce costs - we have tended as a country to outsource work to Asia in order to exploit lower work costs. In general I don't see us using their technology as a security risk because I think all of their processes would be carefully vetted by us before implementation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Critical national infrastructure should only be built / provided by nation states that are close allies. At this current time China does not fall into that category so it's technology shouldn't be used. By using potentially hostile state sponsored technology in our national infrastructure we're opening ourselves up to huge security risks both in short and long term. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I am happy for Britain to use Chinese technology as I cannot see that it makes a difference who provides it. Almost all technology is vulnerable to access and control by a third party or country, the solution is to have appropriate security measures and controls in place to prevent such issues. I would prefer to focus on utilizing the best technology rather than fretting over its origin. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I worry with China and technology in what can be done in the background & what this opens us up to as a nation. I would be wary to use for critical purposes as there is so much that is unknown and not sure how this could put us in a bad position. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe we shouldn't use Chinese technology for the most critical national infrastructure as they do have a track record for using spy and malware in basic equipment like phones and apps. So by giving one of the worlds biggest powers all our national secrets would end horribly and could be used against us. Especially when their ideals and alignments are with Russia and North Korea. Giving these power houses our infrastructure and how to destroy us would be detrimental. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - If the Chinese technology is effective and useful, then why shouldn't we adopt it too? I think it's a shame to outsource work that could have gone to national businesses. I wonder if the urge to use "Chinese technology" is to reduce costs - we have tended as a country to outsource work to Asia in order to exploit lower work costs. In general I don't see us using their technology as a security risk because I think all of their processes would be carefully vetted by us before implementation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Critical national infrastructure should only be built / provided by nation states that are close allies. At this current time China does not fall into that category so it's technology shouldn't be used. By using potentially hostile state sponsored technology in our national infrastructure we're opening ourselves up to huge security risks both in short and long term. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I am happy for Britain to use Chinese technology as I cannot see that it makes a difference who provides it. Almost all technology is vulnerable to access and control by a third party or country, the solution is to have appropriate security measures and controls in place to prevent such issues. I would prefer to focus on utilizing the best technology rather than fretting over its origin. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I worry with China and technology in what can be done in the background & what this opens us up to as a nation. I would be wary to use for critical purposes as there is so much that is unknown and not sure how this could put us in a bad position. 2: 1,3,5,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4,5 1: 2,1,3,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002524.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002524.soc index 593edc53..58d1a2e9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002524.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002524.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The minimum wage should be set for every worker regardless of age. The idea that younger people earn less than an older person for doing exactly the same job doesn't rest easy with me. I can't see a good argument about why young people should be paid less than older people for the same job. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes. It is a human right to earn the same amount of money, for the same unit of work, as others doing the same job. The argument that younger people do not have as many bills does not hold sway. Some people live independently at 16, whilst others still live with their parents into their 40's and onwards. Companies should not be able to take advantage of cheap labour, by employing people they can pay less. The economy also benefits from more income earned in terms of taxation etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Introducing a higher minimum wage for workers under 18 is a step towards economic justice. Young workers often have the same living expenses and financial responsibilities as their older counterparts. They do the same job as someone who is older, so they should should be paid the same. It will also encourage more young individuals to enter the workforce, boosting overall employment and the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: yes because it would give them an incentive to want to progress in the workplace and help them move out of home. it should still be low enough tho so that they aspire for promotion +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The minimum wage should be set for every worker regardless of age. The idea that younger people earn less than an older person for doing exactly the same job doesn't rest easy with me. I can't see a good argument about why young people should be paid less than older people for the same job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes. It is a human right to earn the same amount of money, for the same unit of work, as others doing the same job. The argument that younger people do not have as many bills does not hold sway. Some people live independently at 16, whilst others still live with their parents into their 40's and onwards. Companies should not be able to take advantage of cheap labour, by employing people they can pay less. The economy also benefits from more income earned in terms of taxation etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Introducing a higher minimum wage for workers under 18 is a step towards economic justice. Young workers often have the same living expenses and financial responsibilities as their older counterparts. They do the same job as someone who is older, so they should should be paid the same. It will also encourage more young individuals to enter the workforce, boosting overall employment and the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - yes because it would give them an incentive to want to progress in the workplace and help them move out of home. it should still be low enough tho so that they aspire for promotion 2: 2,3,1,4 2: 3,2,1,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002525.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002525.soc index a32e8241..d1576761 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002525.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002525.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No I think we are taxed enough we are already paying more tax than we did 40 years ago if they want to impose this tax they should first look at reducing income tax to make it easier on the general public -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe a carbon tax is warranted, specifically in relation to the most polluting companies and individuals. Currently the blame for climate change is placed on regular individuals who are powerless to do a great deal about it and are just trying to go about their lives. In turn, the most polluting companies and individuals are free to continue doing disproportionate damage to the environment in the name of profit and are protected and even subsidised by the government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No - the government already taxes us on a number of things. Wages, everything we purchase, fuel etc - therefore I believe that they are already taxing us for carbon indirectly. I believe we all have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions, however to impose yet another tax i believe is unfair. The government need to review the taxes that they already impose & utilize them on initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No i do not believe the government should impose a carbon tax, I believe extra taxation during recessions and cost of living crisis will not help the economy or community to thrive. There are a great deal of alternative measures than can be taken to help the environment such as investment in recycling and sustainable practices. Carbon taxation will drive businesses away from our country and deprive the working class even further. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes. I believe global warming and climate change is the most pressing issue of this generation and the next few generations to come. We are in dire need to make significant changes on a societal levels and individual basis. Political decisions in the uk in the last 10 years have been made with more of a focus on Brexit then climate change and as such the government haven't embraced a strong enough policy to combat climate change. A carbon tax, one that is simply not passed directly onto the consumer but shared across the economy, is an affective way to curb CO2 emissions by have a direct financial impact on the individual and the many and can help enact change +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No I think we are taxed enough we are already paying more tax than we did 40 years ago if they want to impose this tax they should first look at reducing income tax to make it easier on the general public +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe a carbon tax is warranted, specifically in relation to the most polluting companies and individuals. Currently the blame for climate change is placed on regular individuals who are powerless to do a great deal about it and are just trying to go about their lives. In turn, the most polluting companies and individuals are free to continue doing disproportionate damage to the environment in the name of profit and are protected and even subsidised by the government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No - the government already taxes us on a number of things. Wages, everything we purchase, fuel etc - therefore I believe that they are already taxing us for carbon indirectly. I believe we all have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions, however to impose yet another tax i believe is unfair. The government need to review the taxes that they already impose & utilize them on initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No i do not believe the government should impose a carbon tax, I believe extra taxation during recessions and cost of living crisis will not help the economy or community to thrive. There are a great deal of alternative measures than can be taken to help the environment such as investment in recycling and sustainable practices. Carbon taxation will drive businesses away from our country and deprive the working class even further. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes. I believe global warming and climate change is the most pressing issue of this generation and the next few generations to come. We are in dire need to make significant changes on a societal levels and individual basis. Political decisions in the uk in the last 10 years have been made with more of a focus on Brexit then climate change and as such the government haven't embraced a strong enough policy to combat climate change. A carbon tax, one that is simply not passed directly onto the consumer but shared across the economy, is an affective way to curb CO2 emissions by have a direct financial impact on the individual and the many and can help enact change 1: 4,3,1,2,5 1: 3,4,1,2,5 1: 4,3,5,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002526.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002526.soc index e88aa2eb..5579eadf 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002526.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002526.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No the minimim wage should not be lowered. I fail to see how anyone would think this was a good idea. People can barely afford to live at the moment as it is without the pittance of a minimum wage being lowered! Creating more jobs will only help people to get into a job, lowering the wage they are given whilst working in that job is not going to help at all. More people will be forced to rely on benefits to top up their income, thereby putting more of a strain on the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, the minimum wage should not be lowered to make more jobs available because in the UK we are currently in the middle of a cost of living crisis and it's the unwaged, those on benefits and those on minimum wages who are particularly struggling. To my knowledge (and in my recent experience with a major employer), a lot of those on minimum wages are also on zero hours contracts so they have no job security either from their minimum wage income. If employers / certain industries can't afford to pay the minimum wage (or proposed increases to it) then the government should be doing more to support such employers and industries. It seems currently that there are plenty of jobs to go around in certain (vital) sectors such as the Care Sector and the minimum wage at its current level already contributes to the considerable number of vacancies because the wage doesn't reflect the responsibilities of the role. More should be done by the government to ensure that all sectors have adequate staffing, including paying people a decent wage for the work they do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Absolutely not. The UK is already struggling with inflation and a cost of living crisis on the wages that are currently paid. Those on minimum wage are not living in luxury in any sense of the word, and reducing the cost of labour even further is only to the benefit of corporations, not those working for them. If a company cannot afford to pay someone a living wage, they should not exist as they are clearly not successful/useful enough within the economy, or are just too greedy in paying the higher ups for their own gain. I see no benefit in creating extra jobs at a lower wage, it becomes a quick race to the bottom - not a race to the top of paying people their worth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Its not a race to the bottom! The minimum wage is already so low it would be a struggle to live on with dignity. If businesses feel they need to pay lower-than minimum wage, perhaps they should address their business model, rather than exploiting people to achieve their profits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: The minimum wage is already too low to be considered a living wage, lowering it further will just disadvantage people working minimum wage jobs and allow businesses to profit off of these workers. Many large corporations make more than enough profit to pay their employees above minimum wage and yet still pay the minimum. The idea that these businesses have fewer jobs available because of the minimum wage being 'too high' is laughable seeing as the top dogs in these companies make 6+ figure salaries. With the cost of living increasing at a faster rate at the moment, the minimum wage should be at the very least increased, not lowered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No the minimim wage should not be lowered. I fail to see how anyone would think this was a good idea. People can barely afford to live at the moment as it is without the pittance of a minimum wage being lowered! Creating more jobs will only help people to get into a job, lowering the wage they are given whilst working in that job is not going to help at all. More people will be forced to rely on benefits to top up their income, thereby putting more of a strain on the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, the minimum wage should not be lowered to make more jobs available because in the UK we are currently in the middle of a cost of living crisis and it's the unwaged, those on benefits and those on minimum wages who are particularly struggling. To my knowledge (and in my recent experience with a major employer), a lot of those on minimum wages are also on zero hours contracts so they have no job security either from their minimum wage income. If employers / certain industries can't afford to pay the minimum wage (or proposed increases to it) then the government should be doing more to support such employers and industries. It seems currently that there are plenty of jobs to go around in certain (vital) sectors such as the Care Sector and the minimum wage at its current level already contributes to the considerable number of vacancies because the wage doesn't reflect the responsibilities of the role. More should be done by the government to ensure that all sectors have adequate staffing, including paying people a decent wage for the work they do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Absolutely not. The UK is already struggling with inflation and a cost of living crisis on the wages that are currently paid. Those on minimum wage are not living in luxury in any sense of the word, and reducing the cost of labour even further is only to the benefit of corporations, not those working for them. If a company cannot afford to pay someone a living wage, they should not exist as they are clearly not successful/useful enough within the economy, or are just too greedy in paying the higher ups for their own gain. I see no benefit in creating extra jobs at a lower wage, it becomes a quick race to the bottom - not a race to the top of paying people their worth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Its not a race to the bottom! The minimum wage is already so low it would be a struggle to live on with dignity. If businesses feel they need to pay lower-than minimum wage, perhaps they should address their business model, rather than exploiting people to achieve their profits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - The minimum wage is already too low to be considered a living wage, lowering it further will just disadvantage people working minimum wage jobs and allow businesses to profit off of these workers. Many large corporations make more than enough profit to pay their employees above minimum wage and yet still pay the minimum. The idea that these businesses have fewer jobs available because of the minimum wage being 'too high' is laughable seeing as the top dogs in these companies make 6+ figure salaries. With the cost of living increasing at a faster rate at the moment, the minimum wage should be at the very least increased, not lowered. 1: 2,4,1,5,3 1: 2,1,5,3,4 1: 2,5,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002527.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002527.soc index 97236c1d..db48bc98 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002527.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002527.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While I don't agree with making it compulsory, it's not really a big deal? Doesn't really impact people that strongly if they have to wear a face covering. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I don't think that we should. I believe if you are unwell, then the individual should take a considered decision whether he/her should wear a face covering for the betterment of others, but do not feel that everyone should be made to wear one. I think from a societal view, it somewhat dehumanises us, and takes away a lot of what makes humans socialise. I believe the right should go the individual, but if people want to wear something for their own protection, or the protection of others, that choice should be available to them too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I don't think that masks should be compulsory in all enclosed spaces. I feel that it should be a personal choice and that if an individual wishes to wear a mask for their own reasons then they should be allowed to and people should accept this. On the other hand if everyone chooses to wear masks then they are not exposed to lots of airborne viruses that the body can naturally fight off and then they will not build up a natural immunity to illnesses which would leave the population vulnerable to more pandemics in the future. Masks are ok worn in a minority but not helpful for the health of a majority. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think anything that can be reasonably done to stop the transmission of infectious diseases and what might affect those more vulnerable than myself should be done. I worked throughout the pandemic and wearing a face covering was not a problem at all. However, a lot of people struggle to take responsibility and if it was made mandatory, it would need to be enforced. Also, in the UK, party gate has eroded what trust was left in the government. At the end of the day, wearing masks to protect others is no big deal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I acknowledge that some people do have health issues that can be mitigated against by the wearing of face coverings but those people can make the choice to wear a covering to protect themselves and most of them do. I don't think face coverings should be compulsory in enclosed spaces unless someone has a contagious infection or a health condition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While I don't agree with making it compulsory, it's not really a big deal? Doesn't really impact people that strongly if they have to wear a face covering. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I don't think that we should. I believe if you are unwell, then the individual should take a considered decision whether he/her should wear a face covering for the betterment of others, but do not feel that everyone should be made to wear one. I think from a societal view, it somewhat dehumanises us, and takes away a lot of what makes humans socialise. I believe the right should go the individual, but if people want to wear something for their own protection, or the protection of others, that choice should be available to them too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I don't think that masks should be compulsory in all enclosed spaces. I feel that it should be a personal choice and that if an individual wishes to wear a mask for their own reasons then they should be allowed to and people should accept this. On the other hand if everyone chooses to wear masks then they are not exposed to lots of airborne viruses that the body can naturally fight off and then they will not build up a natural immunity to illnesses which would leave the population vulnerable to more pandemics in the future. Masks are ok worn in a minority but not helpful for the health of a majority. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think anything that can be reasonably done to stop the transmission of infectious diseases and what might affect those more vulnerable than myself should be done. I worked throughout the pandemic and wearing a face covering was not a problem at all. However, a lot of people struggle to take responsibility and if it was made mandatory, it would need to be enforced. Also, in the UK, party gate has eroded what trust was left in the government. At the end of the day, wearing masks to protect others is no big deal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I acknowledge that some people do have health issues that can be mitigated against by the wearing of face coverings but those people can make the choice to wear a covering to protect themselves and most of them do. I don't think face coverings should be compulsory in enclosed spaces unless someone has a contagious infection or a health condition. 1: 2,3,5,4,1 1: 3,5,2,4,1 1: 2,1,3,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002528.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002528.soc index 7f2e478d..87ca9158 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002528.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002528.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I THIS BOTH ARE VALID AS LONG AS ONE DOESN'T ENCROUCH ON THE LIBERTY OF THE OTHER. WITHIN THIS CURRENT SOCIETY, WE HAVE SEEN HOW THE FREDOM OF SPEACH HAS LED TO THE VERBAL HARRASMENT OF INDIVIDUALS. ALSO, WE HAVE SEEN WHEREIN THE OVER INDULGENCE IN THE PROTECTION VULNERABLE PERSONS HAS LED TO THE VIOLATIONS OF INDIVIUAL RIGHTS TO MAKE A CHOICE. JUST BECAUSE U ARE "A VULNERABLE " PERSON THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED, DOES'NT NEGATE MY STANCE OR OPINIONS. THIS IS SEEN EVIDENTLY IN THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT VS THE RIGHTS OF PARENTING -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, freedom of speech should not mean that people are allowed to use hateful and harmful langage towards other groups. This can be dangerous and lead to certain people being targeted, often the most marginalised groups. People should be allowed to speak freely but not to the point that their words are harmful to others. The right to have freedom of speech should not allow anyone including politicians to use hateful language that causes harm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Freedom of speech does not mean that the speaker has no responsibility for the consequences of their words. If someone chooses to express opinions that endanger vulnerable people then they must face the consequences and be liable for implications of their words. This will no doubt impact on the freedom that people feel they have to express any opinion they might have but this is a price worth paying for the safety of other people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No I do not believe it is. As much as I do agree with freedom of speech, there are a lot of very stupid and very hateful people in this world, just look at the comments on any social media post regarding women in sport, divorce, economic inequality or anything to do with transgender issues and you will find a lot of hate for women, the poor (or often younger generations who haven't had the same opportunities) or anyone who identifies as trans. I think there is a very fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech. I think vulnerable people should definitely be protected from hateful ideas as they may not have the capacity to understand why it is unreasonable, or to fully understand the consequences associated with repeating those ideas and acting on them. This has been used in the past to encourage vulnerable people into extremism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I THIS BOTH ARE VALID AS LONG AS ONE DOESN'T ENCROUCH ON THE LIBERTY OF THE OTHER. WITHIN THIS CURRENT SOCIETY, WE HAVE SEEN HOW THE FREDOM OF SPEACH HAS LED TO THE VERBAL HARRASMENT OF INDIVIDUALS. ALSO, WE HAVE SEEN WHEREIN THE OVER INDULGENCE IN THE PROTECTION VULNERABLE PERSONS HAS LED TO THE VIOLATIONS OF INDIVIUAL RIGHTS TO MAKE A CHOICE. JUST BECAUSE U ARE "A VULNERABLE " PERSON THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED, DOES'NT NEGATE MY STANCE OR OPINIONS. THIS IS SEEN EVIDENTLY IN THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT VS THE RIGHTS OF PARENTING +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, freedom of speech should not mean that people are allowed to use hateful and harmful langage towards other groups. This can be dangerous and lead to certain people being targeted, often the most marginalised groups. People should be allowed to speak freely but not to the point that their words are harmful to others. The right to have freedom of speech should not allow anyone including politicians to use hateful language that causes harm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Freedom of speech does not mean that the speaker has no responsibility for the consequences of their words. If someone chooses to express opinions that endanger vulnerable people then they must face the consequences and be liable for implications of their words. This will no doubt impact on the freedom that people feel they have to express any opinion they might have but this is a price worth paying for the safety of other people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No I do not believe it is. As much as I do agree with freedom of speech, there are a lot of very stupid and very hateful people in this world, just look at the comments on any social media post regarding women in sport, divorce, economic inequality or anything to do with transgender issues and you will find a lot of hate for women, the poor (or often younger generations who haven't had the same opportunities) or anyone who identifies as trans. I think there is a very fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech. I think vulnerable people should definitely be protected from hateful ideas as they may not have the capacity to understand why it is unreasonable, or to fully understand the consequences associated with repeating those ideas and acting on them. This has been used in the past to encourage vulnerable people into extremism. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002529.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002529.soc index 2b3993b3..9fdf84d7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002529.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002529.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: While I feel everyone has a responsibility in reducing inequality I believe the government has a strong role in this. The trouble is there has been evidence of this even in the house of commons itself, they should also not be seen to be getting away with this, it is rife. I'm not sure how they can achieve this but something has to be done. No one should be made to feel less adequate due to sex, background, skin colour, disability status etc. There should be harsher punishments and a closer eye on businesses and individuals in the spotlight. On the other end there are actually assumptions made by people that due to backgrounds / money / power certain individuals are seen as untouchable. While not directly linked people need a voice and a platform to openly discuss these issues and government needs to be seen to be doing more to target and resolve these issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I strongly agree with this statement. Nowadays inequality is a very important issue which needs to be addressed and resolved in the best of ways. People shouldn’t have to be treated differently based on their background, religion or sex orientation and I think it is the government’s job to ensure that everyone is treated in the same way by implementing legislation that protects everyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, government must combat inequality for social stability and economic progress. Policies ensuring equal education, healthcare, and employment can bridge the wealth gap. Support programs like affordable healthcare and education grants empower vulnerable populations, breaking the cycle of poverty. Enforcing workplace fairness and progressive tax reforms further level the playing field. Ultimately, reducing inequality is both a moral duty and an economic requirement, fostering a balanced society and sustainable development. In conclusion, reducing inequality is not just a moral imperative but also an economic necessity. Government policies and initiatives are instrumental in creating a more equitable society, fostering social harmony, and driving sustainable economic development. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I strongly believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality although I do not think that the current government understands what inequality truly is as they are so out of touch with 'normal' people. Lack of money is a huge factor in the opportunities someone has to become successful-for example, how can children who don't have a proper bedroom or food for breakfast be expected to learn and develop in the same way as their peers? Reducing inequality should start with trying to ensure everyone has a basic level playing field when it comes to having adequate food, heating, accommodation and access to public resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While I feel everyone has a responsibility in reducing inequality I believe the government has a strong role in this. The trouble is there has been evidence of this even in the house of commons itself, they should also not be seen to be getting away with this, it is rife. I'm not sure how they can achieve this but something has to be done. No one should be made to feel less adequate due to sex, background, skin colour, disability status etc. There should be harsher punishments and a closer eye on businesses and individuals in the spotlight. On the other end there are actually assumptions made by people that due to backgrounds / money / power certain individuals are seen as untouchable. While not directly linked people need a voice and a platform to openly discuss these issues and government needs to be seen to be doing more to target and resolve these issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I strongly agree with this statement. Nowadays inequality is a very important issue which needs to be addressed and resolved in the best of ways. People shouldn’t have to be treated differently based on their background, religion or sex orientation and I think it is the government’s job to ensure that everyone is treated in the same way by implementing legislation that protects everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, government must combat inequality for social stability and economic progress. Policies ensuring equal education, healthcare, and employment can bridge the wealth gap. Support programs like affordable healthcare and education grants empower vulnerable populations, breaking the cycle of poverty. Enforcing workplace fairness and progressive tax reforms further level the playing field. Ultimately, reducing inequality is both a moral duty and an economic requirement, fostering a balanced society and sustainable development. In conclusion, reducing inequality is not just a moral imperative but also an economic necessity. Government policies and initiatives are instrumental in creating a more equitable society, fostering social harmony, and driving sustainable economic development. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I strongly believe the government should have a role in reducing inequality although I do not think that the current government understands what inequality truly is as they are so out of touch with 'normal' people. Lack of money is a huge factor in the opportunities someone has to become successful-for example, how can children who don't have a proper bedroom or food for breakfast be expected to learn and develop in the same way as their peers? Reducing inequality should start with trying to ensure everyone has a basic level playing field when it comes to having adequate food, heating, accommodation and access to public resources. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002530.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002530.soc index 8c5fd4bb..04eed4a7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002530.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002530.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I am not sure on one hand the government could make million per year on taxes raised by legalising the sale of cannabis but I am sure the sellers will find away around that problem. By legalising would it lead to people moving on from cannabis to much more harder drugs which cause more health problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Legalizing recreational cannabis will definitely curb the black market thereby reducing criminal activity which in turn will promote community safety. I feel it will also promote medical research into it's therapeutic benefits. I also feel it will boost the economy where governments can make revenue from it's taxes on sales and redirect the same money into funding the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I don't think this is a priority, but legalising recreational cannabis would deal a blow to drug trafficking so it would be somehow positive, and it could also be a new source for taxes to help the NHS. I believe most of us have tried cannabis at some point in our lives and it's not such a big deal, and legalising it would help in tackling criminality and have less people sent to overcrowded prisons for such a minor crime. Ultimately, it's for people to choose whether to use cannabis, and I don't think it's any more harmful than alcohol for example. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I do feel that recreational cannabis should be legalised. I realise there is an argument for the fact that it may be a gateway to harder drugs but knowing a few people who use it recreationally who have never been tempted by anything else, and who still lead full lives, working and having families, I do not feel it is such a terrible thing to legalise. I feel if it was legalised, there would be LESS people going onto harder drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes, we should legalise recreational cannabis, for many reasons. Firstly, it's fairly commonly used - we are currently criminalising everyone who smokes/consumes it - a big chunk of the population, very few of whom are doing any harm to anyone else. The medical harms are very low, certainly lower than the medical harms from excessive alcohol use. Legalisation would also free up police time, which could then be spent on tackling more serious crime. Also, we could tax legalised cannabis like we do alcohol - diverting money away from drug dealers and organised crime, towards something worthwhile like public health provision, or drug treatment for more serious addictions. Finally, there should be stricter limits as to what the government can tell us what to consume, and particularly when the personal and societal harms are so low. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I am not sure on one hand the government could make million per year on taxes raised by legalising the sale of cannabis but I am sure the sellers will find away around that problem. By legalising would it lead to people moving on from cannabis to much more harder drugs which cause more health problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Legalizing recreational cannabis will definitely curb the black market thereby reducing criminal activity which in turn will promote community safety. I feel it will also promote medical research into it's therapeutic benefits. I also feel it will boost the economy where governments can make revenue from it's taxes on sales and redirect the same money into funding the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I don't think this is a priority, but legalising recreational cannabis would deal a blow to drug trafficking so it would be somehow positive, and it could also be a new source for taxes to help the NHS. I believe most of us have tried cannabis at some point in our lives and it's not such a big deal, and legalising it would help in tackling criminality and have less people sent to overcrowded prisons for such a minor crime. Ultimately, it's for people to choose whether to use cannabis, and I don't think it's any more harmful than alcohol for example. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I do feel that recreational cannabis should be legalised. I realise there is an argument for the fact that it may be a gateway to harder drugs but knowing a few people who use it recreationally who have never been tempted by anything else, and who still lead full lives, working and having families, I do not feel it is such a terrible thing to legalise. I feel if it was legalised, there would be LESS people going onto harder drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes, we should legalise recreational cannabis, for many reasons. Firstly, it's fairly commonly used - we are currently criminalising everyone who smokes/consumes it - a big chunk of the population, very few of whom are doing any harm to anyone else. The medical harms are very low, certainly lower than the medical harms from excessive alcohol use. Legalisation would also free up police time, which could then be spent on tackling more serious crime. Also, we could tax legalised cannabis like we do alcohol - diverting money away from drug dealers and organised crime, towards something worthwhile like public health provision, or drug treatment for more serious addictions. Finally, there should be stricter limits as to what the government can tell us what to consume, and particularly when the personal and societal harms are so low. 2: 5,2,3,4,1 1: 5,4,2,3,1 1: 3,2,1,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002531.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002531.soc index a406a0f7..0e456757 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002531.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002531.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I'm somewhat conflicted, as they can be very useful - hospitals, schools, travel industries rely on single-use bottles a lot. I don't think that sing-use plastic bottles are a huge threat on the environment, especially when plastic is used in so many other more toxic ways - vaping for example. I think there should be a limit set on how much plastic can be used - many companies now use fully recycled bottles to store their water but would come under the banner of single use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I cannot see a reason not to. There are recyclable alternatives and the damage caused by unnecessary single use plastics is already irreversible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: All single use plastics should be banned in my opinion. There are too many sustainable options available nowadays for us not to ban them. The environmental impact far outweighs the benefits. I recently saw a BBC documentary about albatross chicks and they are being found dead before they can begin to fledge and their bodies are found containing plastic bottle lids and other single use plastic that fills their stomachs and causes them to starve. I would rather use a different sustainable option knowing this information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should ban single-use plastic bottles. The impact on the environment is catastrophic. They take hundreds of years to break down in landfill and leach toxic chemicals into the soil. Energy is required to recycle them. People need to be encouraged to use refillable bottles, it'll be better for the environment and cheaper for individuals too. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Absolutely everything should be done to discourage & hinder the use of single-use plastics. There is no need for the current usage level in today's society and it only seems to be getting worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I'm somewhat conflicted, as they can be very useful - hospitals, schools, travel industries rely on single-use bottles a lot. I don't think that sing-use plastic bottles are a huge threat on the environment, especially when plastic is used in so many other more toxic ways - vaping for example. I think there should be a limit set on how much plastic can be used - many companies now use fully recycled bottles to store their water but would come under the banner of single use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I cannot see a reason not to. There are recyclable alternatives and the damage caused by unnecessary single use plastics is already irreversible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - All single use plastics should be banned in my opinion. There are too many sustainable options available nowadays for us not to ban them. The environmental impact far outweighs the benefits. I recently saw a BBC documentary about albatross chicks and they are being found dead before they can begin to fledge and their bodies are found containing plastic bottle lids and other single use plastic that fills their stomachs and causes them to starve. I would rather use a different sustainable option knowing this information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should ban single-use plastic bottles. The impact on the environment is catastrophic. They take hundreds of years to break down in landfill and leach toxic chemicals into the soil. Energy is required to recycle them. People need to be encouraged to use refillable bottles, it'll be better for the environment and cheaper for individuals too. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Absolutely everything should be done to discourage & hinder the use of single-use plastics. There is no need for the current usage level in today's society and it only seems to be getting worse. 1: 3,4,1,2,5 1: 3,4,5,2,1 1: 5,2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002532.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002532.soc index abdb17ce..5900fe26 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002532.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002532.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No i don't believe it is - we have a lot more rules in the UK compared to the US, although having never been to the US, this is just my opinion. The US I believe have a lot more freedom of rights. in the UK we have things such as CCTV camera's to police the nation, this i believe is not present in the US, this would have a direct impact on what people do & don't do. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes I believe the UK is more multicultural, better educated and has greater exposure to cultures outside its own. As such I believe there is more acceptance by people for cultures that is different to their own.The US tends to have more of a mono culture and there is more pressure to conform to American ideals rather than outside cultures positively influencing the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes I think in this country we need to be cracking down more on criminal to many times criminals get away with just a slap on the wrists for there crimes this would not happen un the US and they are not as soft on immigration -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think that generally the UK is a more tolerant country that the USA. The main reason for this is that in the UK religion tends to encroach far less on the way the country is run and the views of the people. There appears to be far less separation of Church and State in the US which enables extreme conservative viewpoints to dominate. These tend to be intolerant in nature and work in direct opposition to how I feel a sane and just society should operate. An example is the damage done to reproductive rights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes i believe that as a nation, the UK is more tolerant than the US but also perhaps one of the most tolerant countries there is. This is no slight against the US but the UK is an extremely multicultural society where we have seen vast amounts of immigration over the past 60 years. We have vast communities spread across the nation that hold different values and beliefs, that speak different languages and that follow different religions yet all are treated equally and respected. We have politicians and leaders from different ethic backgrounds and celebrate different cultural holidays together as a nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No i don't believe it is - we have a lot more rules in the UK compared to the US, although having never been to the US, this is just my opinion. The US I believe have a lot more freedom of rights. in the UK we have things such as CCTV camera's to police the nation, this i believe is not present in the US, this would have a direct impact on what people do & don't do. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes I believe the UK is more multicultural, better educated and has greater exposure to cultures outside its own. As such I believe there is more acceptance by people for cultures that is different to their own.The US tends to have more of a mono culture and there is more pressure to conform to American ideals rather than outside cultures positively influencing the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes I think in this country we need to be cracking down more on criminal to many times criminals get away with just a slap on the wrists for there crimes this would not happen un the US and they are not as soft on immigration +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think that generally the UK is a more tolerant country that the USA. The main reason for this is that in the UK religion tends to encroach far less on the way the country is run and the views of the people. There appears to be far less separation of Church and State in the US which enables extreme conservative viewpoints to dominate. These tend to be intolerant in nature and work in direct opposition to how I feel a sane and just society should operate. An example is the damage done to reproductive rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes i believe that as a nation, the UK is more tolerant than the US but also perhaps one of the most tolerant countries there is. This is no slight against the US but the UK is an extremely multicultural society where we have seen vast amounts of immigration over the past 60 years. We have vast communities spread across the nation that hold different values and beliefs, that speak different languages and that follow different religions yet all are treated equally and respected. We have politicians and leaders from different ethic backgrounds and celebrate different cultural holidays together as a nation. 2: 5,4,2,1,3 1: 5,4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,5,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002533.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002533.soc index 3b4187b5..0ade4872 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002533.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002533.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Generally speaking - yes. The world is already polluted with litter, in particular plastic, and single use containers only adds to this. While they are useful for takeaways, there are some which have a much smaller impact on the environment. Cardboard based containers are a great alternative as even if not recycled, they biodegrade quickly. But cardboard containers aren't suitable for all kinds of foods, which poses an issue in itself -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should ban single use containers but only if it wont cost the consumer more. The large companies should absorb the extra costs and offer materials like glass that consumers can recycle and receive money from doing so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes I think we should as a lot of these end up in landfill, even when they are put in the recycling centres as they can be contaminated and then are not recycled. They can be very damaging to the environment, some countries have come up with clever ways to combat this in their supermarkets like in Germany, where you take your own containers in for various different food items and also drinks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There is some use for them. Maybe we should ban them but we should also be looking into replacing what the containers are made of. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think we should ban all single use food containers, it is a major cause for excess plastic which harms the environment, both from production and waste. There are much more eco friendly option which do not have the same negative environmental impact, whilst remaining at a similar price point. Moreover, there is the additional benefit of removing microplastics from foods which is a common theme of using single use plastic, whilst the effects of microplastics are not completely known currently the consensus is they are harming both humans and the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Generally speaking - yes. The world is already polluted with litter, in particular plastic, and single use containers only adds to this. While they are useful for takeaways, there are some which have a much smaller impact on the environment. Cardboard based containers are a great alternative as even if not recycled, they biodegrade quickly. But cardboard containers aren't suitable for all kinds of foods, which poses an issue in itself +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should ban single use containers but only if it wont cost the consumer more. The large companies should absorb the extra costs and offer materials like glass that consumers can recycle and receive money from doing so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes I think we should as a lot of these end up in landfill, even when they are put in the recycling centres as they can be contaminated and then are not recycled. They can be very damaging to the environment, some countries have come up with clever ways to combat this in their supermarkets like in Germany, where you take your own containers in for various different food items and also drinks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There is some use for them. Maybe we should ban them but we should also be looking into replacing what the containers are made of. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think we should ban all single use food containers, it is a major cause for excess plastic which harms the environment, both from production and waste. There are much more eco friendly option which do not have the same negative environmental impact, whilst remaining at a similar price point. Moreover, there is the additional benefit of removing microplastics from foods which is a common theme of using single use plastic, whilst the effects of microplastics are not completely known currently the consensus is they are harming both humans and the planet. 3: 5,3,1,2,4 1: 5,1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002534.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002534.soc index cfb4da06..3a79c0ef 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002534.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002534.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe that Britain should use Chinese technology in its critical national infrastructure, but they should monitor the technology closely. The technology may be superior to the technology that Britain has access to, so it may be beneficial to use. However, there might be a risk that spyware, or other malicious things may be included in the technology, so it ought to be thoroughly checked and examined before, during and after use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: China is a hostile country. We are hostile to them due to their aggression towards Taiwan, a peaceful, democratic nation, and the Uighur camps in certain provinces, amongst other things like workers' rights and surveillance. China has shown themselves to be hostile to us as well, banning the BBC and placing spies in important institutions. To that end, we cannot trust them or their technology when it comes to critical infrastructure such as power, water, health, or things related to the armed forces. The Chinese government repeatedly uses supposedly separate companies for its own ends, so we cannot trust Chinese tech even it the makers claim to be unaffiliated with the CCP. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on this. I am aware that there have been controversies involving Chinese technologies and spyware. Like tiktok for example, or many of the cheap Chinese-brand Android phones. I guess it's quite a general question so I'm not totally for or against it, and I'd assume that Britain does use Chinese technology in many aspects of its government / infrastructure etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I do not think that Britain should use Chinese technology. There are many risks with this, including the increased chance of hacking and cyber attacks from China. For example, if Britain were to use Chinese technology for it's own Government infrastructure, China could gain access to incredibly sensitive information relating to national security. This could increase the chance of an attack, and information getting in to the wrong hands. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: There is no harm in using their technology if it works and it beneficial to use. There are leaders in technology and always looking for the next big thing. We would be daft not to use their technology for our own uses. Or we can learn and adapt it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe that Britain should use Chinese technology in its critical national infrastructure, but they should monitor the technology closely. The technology may be superior to the technology that Britain has access to, so it may be beneficial to use. However, there might be a risk that spyware, or other malicious things may be included in the technology, so it ought to be thoroughly checked and examined before, during and after use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - China is a hostile country. We are hostile to them due to their aggression towards Taiwan, a peaceful, democratic nation, and the Uighur camps in certain provinces, amongst other things like workers' rights and surveillance. China has shown themselves to be hostile to us as well, banning the BBC and placing spies in important institutions. To that end, we cannot trust them or their technology when it comes to critical infrastructure such as power, water, health, or things related to the armed forces. The Chinese government repeatedly uses supposedly separate companies for its own ends, so we cannot trust Chinese tech even it the makers claim to be unaffiliated with the CCP. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on this. I am aware that there have been controversies involving Chinese technologies and spyware. Like tiktok for example, or many of the cheap Chinese-brand Android phones. I guess it's quite a general question so I'm not totally for or against it, and I'd assume that Britain does use Chinese technology in many aspects of its government / infrastructure etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I do not think that Britain should use Chinese technology. There are many risks with this, including the increased chance of hacking and cyber attacks from China. For example, if Britain were to use Chinese technology for it's own Government infrastructure, China could gain access to incredibly sensitive information relating to national security. This could increase the chance of an attack, and information getting in to the wrong hands. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - There is no harm in using their technology if it works and it beneficial to use. There are leaders in technology and always looking for the next big thing. We would be daft not to use their technology for our own uses. Or we can learn and adapt it. 1: 5,1,3,4,2 1: 1,5,2,4,3 1: 2,4,1,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002535.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002535.soc index 5612d825..b207a5f4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002535.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002535.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is no reason for single use plastics other than convenience, and the environmental cost of not just disposing of these products but also their creation and recycling as high. We should only be using plastic, an oil-derived product, for necessary items such as medical devices, engineering etc. If an alternative can be used, it should be. Single-use disposable plastics are an abominable waste, andlead to the build-up of microplastics in the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: unnecessary single use plastic items should definitely be restricted in some way but I'm not sure they should be totally banned. i think it would be better to try and reduce use rather than banning them completely -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should. Single-use plastics are destroying the oceans and ocean life. Animals are suffering because of the actions of humans. There are things that we as humans do need, single-use plastics are not one of them. Yes they may be useful for certain things, but they are not more important than the lives of animals -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I agree we should ban them in the interest of the environment and wildlife however we need to find a suitable alternative. Currently I have not come across a satisfactory alternative the papers straws do not serve their purpose for any length of time and metal ones are nasty to use -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes I think that single-use plastics should be banned as they are wasteful. I feel this is important to me as I care about the planet and most importantly I worry about the impact on animals. I do think some things like plastic straws are useful but there are alternatives. I would choose something more sustainable that a single-use plastic if I could. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is no reason for single use plastics other than convenience, and the environmental cost of not just disposing of these products but also their creation and recycling as high. We should only be using plastic, an oil-derived product, for necessary items such as medical devices, engineering etc. If an alternative can be used, it should be. Single-use disposable plastics are an abominable waste, andlead to the build-up of microplastics in the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - unnecessary single use plastic items should definitely be restricted in some way but I'm not sure they should be totally banned. i think it would be better to try and reduce use rather than banning them completely +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should. Single-use plastics are destroying the oceans and ocean life. Animals are suffering because of the actions of humans. There are things that we as humans do need, single-use plastics are not one of them. Yes they may be useful for certain things, but they are not more important than the lives of animals +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I agree we should ban them in the interest of the environment and wildlife however we need to find a suitable alternative. Currently I have not come across a satisfactory alternative the papers straws do not serve their purpose for any length of time and metal ones are nasty to use +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes I think that single-use plastics should be banned as they are wasteful. I feel this is important to me as I care about the planet and most importantly I worry about the impact on animals. I do think some things like plastic straws are useful but there are alternatives. I would choose something more sustainable that a single-use plastic if I could. 1: 1,5,3,2,4 1: 5,1,3,4,2 1: 1,5,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002536.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002536.soc index 2eaeea49..e4a31a22 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002536.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002536.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK is becoming more like the USA every day. The impact of the internet and social media is bringing the USA into the UK everyday and American language and vocabulary are becoming common. Children are learning to talk with American accents which is starting to cause problems in schools. Social issues such as healthcare are becoming more American, with private healthcare more increasingly more available. Racism and social divisions are becoming more noticeable and hate crimes are significantly increasing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The USA has always given an impression of being a wild nation, almost an epitome of a free country. This is the impression the media gives of America. The UK initially seemed to be bordered by more meticulous rules for more broader situations however, the country seems to be a bit more liberal and headed towards America's condition. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe that the UK is becoming more like the USA. Not only are people in the UK putting on more weight, the portion sizes in the UK are getting bigger and bigger. This doesn't help the issue's that the UK are facing in regards to the obesity issue. Being obese is leading to more and more health issues which, in turn, are leading to more and more people draining NHS rescources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: i don't think we are getting like the usa, their way of life and laws are very different to the uk. people in the uk are generally more reserved -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Politically it is yes. The Cinservatives are using tactics that Donald Trump and the Republican party have used. Tactics such as diversions, culture wars, demonising different groups and lying. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK is becoming more like the USA every day. The impact of the internet and social media is bringing the USA into the UK everyday and American language and vocabulary are becoming common. Children are learning to talk with American accents which is starting to cause problems in schools. Social issues such as healthcare are becoming more American, with private healthcare more increasingly more available. Racism and social divisions are becoming more noticeable and hate crimes are significantly increasing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The USA has always given an impression of being a wild nation, almost an epitome of a free country. This is the impression the media gives of America. The UK initially seemed to be bordered by more meticulous rules for more broader situations however, the country seems to be a bit more liberal and headed towards America's condition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe that the UK is becoming more like the USA. Not only are people in the UK putting on more weight, the portion sizes in the UK are getting bigger and bigger. This doesn't help the issue's that the UK are facing in regards to the obesity issue. Being obese is leading to more and more health issues which, in turn, are leading to more and more people draining NHS rescources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - i don't think we are getting like the usa, their way of life and laws are very different to the uk. people in the uk are generally more reserved +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Politically it is yes. The Cinservatives are using tactics that Donald Trump and the Republican party have used. Tactics such as diversions, culture wars, demonising different groups and lying. 2: 1,2,3,5,4 2: 1,3,2,5,4 1: 5,3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002537.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002537.soc index a2bee02b..7869adf1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002537.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002537.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: A voluntary jury service would be made up of people with alterior motives - people who are against incarceration in almost all circumstances etc. On the other hand, jury service is a great inconvenience to most working people. I would support the status quo, compulsory jury service, but give people greater compensation to make up for missed work, increase funds available for childcare, etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: This question is a very difficult one for me. I do agree that they should require you to do the service. It is part of being a citizen of the country and at the end of the day if it was optional then it would not represent a fair and accurate deomgraphic of people. However, based on the knowledge I have for this they do not compensate you very well for your time. The amount of money isn't that much and it could interupt with key work you are doing at your job. I do think though that it is a vital role for the public to undertake and I would feel far more worried if it was voluntary or they selected the people via a method that was less random. In a situatioin like this where as much equality is needed as possible I do believe this is the best way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe taking part in jury service helps to give a fair outcome to the people in court. taking part in jury service allows matters to be dealt with as there are always people available to go and take part. where the jury is made up of people from all backgrounds it saves biased judgements being made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I have a neutral stance on this topic because I do not know much about it. I understand that the government need people to act as impartial jury members during court cases. So in this regard I think that yes the government should require people to do jury service. However I also think there are instances where some people wouldn't be able to attend jury service - for example if they are in any way disabled, or disadvantaged and unable to miss work, or have children to take care of. So therefore I don't think that ALL people should be required to do jury service. This is what I read the original statement as - ALL people. In this question it asks if I should be required to do jury service. Again, I think in some respects yes (because I am physically and mentally able to - and it is needed in our justice system). I also think I should not be required to because I am self-employed and taking time off work means I won't be able to have an income for that time. So I sit somewhere in the middle, as indicated by my response of 'neutral'. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe is fair that a government requires random registered citizens to act as jurys, I personally don't trust how trustworthy popular jurys could be +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A voluntary jury service would be made up of people with alterior motives - people who are against incarceration in almost all circumstances etc. On the other hand, jury service is a great inconvenience to most working people. I would support the status quo, compulsory jury service, but give people greater compensation to make up for missed work, increase funds available for childcare, etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - This question is a very difficult one for me. I do agree that they should require you to do the service. It is part of being a citizen of the country and at the end of the day if it was optional then it would not represent a fair and accurate deomgraphic of people. However, based on the knowledge I have for this they do not compensate you very well for your time. The amount of money isn't that much and it could interupt with key work you are doing at your job. I do think though that it is a vital role for the public to undertake and I would feel far more worried if it was voluntary or they selected the people via a method that was less random. In a situatioin like this where as much equality is needed as possible I do believe this is the best way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe taking part in jury service helps to give a fair outcome to the people in court. taking part in jury service allows matters to be dealt with as there are always people available to go and take part. where the jury is made up of people from all backgrounds it saves biased judgements being made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I have a neutral stance on this topic because I do not know much about it. I understand that the government need people to act as impartial jury members during court cases. So in this regard I think that yes the government should require people to do jury service. However I also think there are instances where some people wouldn't be able to attend jury service - for example if they are in any way disabled, or disadvantaged and unable to miss work, or have children to take care of. So therefore I don't think that ALL people should be required to do jury service. This is what I read the original statement as - ALL people. In this question it asks if I should be required to do jury service. Again, I think in some respects yes (because I am physically and mentally able to - and it is needed in our justice system). I also think I should not be required to because I am self-employed and taking time off work means I won't be able to have an income for that time. So I sit somewhere in the middle, as indicated by my response of 'neutral'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe is fair that a government requires random registered citizens to act as jurys, I personally don't trust how trustworthy popular jurys could be 1: 2,3,1,4,5 1: 2,3,4,1,5 1: 2,1,3,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002538.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002538.soc index 057bcead..e0f7080a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002538.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002538.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It's important to understand our place in the world. With English being the dominant language, students should be reminded that it's not the only language and appreciate the skill others are displaying when they speak English as a foreign language. Learning a second language while young helps with learning further languages later in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Honestly no they should not have too. While a 2nd language is a great thing to have in your back pocket but no one should be forced into it. As they would really care about learning and just be a waste of resources and time. Rather let the place be taken by someone wanting to learn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes students should learn a second language at school like French, because it helps with their brain development and learn about other cultures other than their native language. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes I believe they should because it will give UK-based students an opportunity to compete with other children around the world where languages are more widely encouraged. Whilst English is widely spoken, I believe the skills and determination needed to learn a language will be valuable skills for children to develop. In addition, it will help open opportunities for travel and employment. In addition, when travelling, I think it is important to be able to show some respect towards people who speak different languages and not rely on them being able to speak English. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Children should learn a foreign language as it helps integration and can help them with future employment.. It can help with memory too and believe it helps with sharpening the mind. it can help keep the mind sharp +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It's important to understand our place in the world. With English being the dominant language, students should be reminded that it's not the only language and appreciate the skill others are displaying when they speak English as a foreign language. Learning a second language while young helps with learning further languages later in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Honestly no they should not have too. While a 2nd language is a great thing to have in your back pocket but no one should be forced into it. As they would really care about learning and just be a waste of resources and time. Rather let the place be taken by someone wanting to learn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes students should learn a second language at school like French, because it helps with their brain development and learn about other cultures other than their native language. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes I believe they should because it will give UK-based students an opportunity to compete with other children around the world where languages are more widely encouraged. Whilst English is widely spoken, I believe the skills and determination needed to learn a language will be valuable skills for children to develop. In addition, it will help open opportunities for travel and employment. In addition, when travelling, I think it is important to be able to show some respect towards people who speak different languages and not rely on them being able to speak English. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Children should learn a foreign language as it helps integration and can help them with future employment.. It can help with memory too and believe it helps with sharpening the mind. it can help keep the mind sharp 1: 2,4,1,5,3 1: 4,1,3,5,2 1: 4,3,2,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002539.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002539.soc index 8c4e6ea4..baf13316 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002539.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002539.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, MPs should be there on merit and it is usually the same ones voted in all the time. Change can be good, and were I'm from MPs don't change all that much. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, there should be a term limit for MPs. The reason being that fresh perspective on things would often be useful. If an MP is in for too long they may lose sight of why they got elected in the first place. Also, it should not be considered a full-time job but more like a voluntary effort to serve the good of a community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: MP's seem to have very short term nowadays such as our last prime ministers but I think that giving term limits to MP's will allow more young people to take part and give a newer view to the already, conservative parliament. This is a good thing and will create interesting and valuable policies that align more with young people views. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I do not feel particularly strongly that there should be a term limit for MPs. I would err on the side of that there shouldn't be. We are (or are supposed to be) a country which values meritocracy. Therefore, your time in a job, any job, should be based on how good you are at the job, not on how long you have been in it. I do however feel that the number of MPs in total should be reduced from it's current number of 650. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: yes there should to give others a chance to do a better job, some get complacent doing their job and think they are untouchable +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, MPs should be there on merit and it is usually the same ones voted in all the time. Change can be good, and were I'm from MPs don't change all that much. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, there should be a term limit for MPs. The reason being that fresh perspective on things would often be useful. If an MP is in for too long they may lose sight of why they got elected in the first place. Also, it should not be considered a full-time job but more like a voluntary effort to serve the good of a community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - MP's seem to have very short term nowadays such as our last prime ministers but I think that giving term limits to MP's will allow more young people to take part and give a newer view to the already, conservative parliament. This is a good thing and will create interesting and valuable policies that align more with young people views. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I do not feel particularly strongly that there should be a term limit for MPs. I would err on the side of that there shouldn't be. We are (or are supposed to be) a country which values meritocracy. Therefore, your time in a job, any job, should be based on how good you are at the job, not on how long you have been in it. I do however feel that the number of MPs in total should be reduced from it's current number of 650. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - yes there should to give others a chance to do a better job, some get complacent doing their job and think they are untouchable 1: 2,3,4,1,5 1: 2,5,1,4,3 1: 4,2,1,5,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002540.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002540.soc index e5acc9ac..3dbc9dab 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002540.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002540.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think it's very difficult for me to say this when all I have is a perception of what tolerance is like is the US and so to make generalisations based on perceptions and media snapshots is not ok! From the news, you would think that the US is highly polarised but I don't know how it is like for the majority of people on the ground and in their everyday lives. What I can say is that I have witnessed both the good and bad, in terms of tolerance in the UK in my life. There is clearly intolerance in the UK, but there is much good about the tolerance in many aspects of UK life- Is the US more tolerant- I couldn't even begin to say! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think overall the UK is more tolerant in the US. We have laws in place to make sure that everyone is treated equally and are not prejudiced against. I think the British public are welcoming and accommodating to most people that want to live here and try ti help them to integrate with UK customs. We are a very hospitable people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Honestly I read this question and was not entirely sure how to respond. I guess it depends on what you are referring to, but also not sure on the word 'tolerant' itself. Tolerant in what respect. I am honestly not sure what this question is referring to therefore am unable to give a response here. Perhaps a better word would be more accepting? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No the uk is not more tolerant than the usa The usa deal with criminals. uk haven't got a clue. This is why we have criminals doing things time and time again. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think it's very difficult for me to say this when all I have is a perception of what tolerance is like is the US and so to make generalisations based on perceptions and media snapshots is not ok! From the news, you would think that the US is highly polarised but I don't know how it is like for the majority of people on the ground and in their everyday lives. What I can say is that I have witnessed both the good and bad, in terms of tolerance in the UK in my life. There is clearly intolerance in the UK, but there is much good about the tolerance in many aspects of UK life- Is the US more tolerant- I couldn't even begin to say! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think overall the UK is more tolerant in the US. We have laws in place to make sure that everyone is treated equally and are not prejudiced against. I think the British public are welcoming and accommodating to most people that want to live here and try ti help them to integrate with UK customs. We are a very hospitable people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Honestly I read this question and was not entirely sure how to respond. I guess it depends on what you are referring to, but also not sure on the word 'tolerant' itself. Tolerant in what respect. I am honestly not sure what this question is referring to therefore am unable to give a response here. Perhaps a better word would be more accepting? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No the uk is not more tolerant than the usa The usa deal with criminals. uk haven't got a clue. This is why we have criminals doing things time and time again. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002541.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002541.soc index eddef333..d347cf96 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002541.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002541.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, absolutely, even with some problems it has brought, it has benefited us financially and culturally. It's allowed us to travel and experience the world when previous generations did not get the oppotunity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes in general as there is more people to do skilled jobs in different parts of the world. Its also important that new technologies are available everywhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Globalisation has opened up the whole world. It has provided people with choice and opportunities. It has allowed for much fiercer competition , for example in global sales of everyday items. However this can cause problems such as being unable to return items, or differing laws causing confusion and issues. Therefore globalisation can be a good thing, but can have some negative effects, so is not a great thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Globalization has had some positive impacts for humanity. At an Economic level it has allowed geographic specialisation in production which has helped provide economic benefits across the globe. On a human level, globalisation has helped to share and educate us all, in the diverse cultures of the world, gaining a better understanding of our neighbours on this planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, absolutely, even with some problems it has brought, it has benefited us financially and culturally. It's allowed us to travel and experience the world when previous generations did not get the oppotunity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes in general as there is more people to do skilled jobs in different parts of the world. Its also important that new technologies are available everywhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Globalisation has opened up the whole world. It has provided people with choice and opportunities. It has allowed for much fiercer competition , for example in global sales of everyday items. However this can cause problems such as being unable to return items, or differing laws causing confusion and issues. Therefore globalisation can be a good thing, but can have some negative effects, so is not a great thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Globalization has had some positive impacts for humanity. At an Economic level it has allowed geographic specialisation in production which has helped provide economic benefits across the globe. On a human level, globalisation has helped to share and educate us all, in the diverse cultures of the world, gaining a better understanding of our neighbours on this planet. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002542.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002542.soc index 2489090e..4d83a5e3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002542.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002542.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe we should invest more in social services as they can provide a good impact with people that need it -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In my opinion the government should invest more in science and research than in social services. I think that investing in science will lead to new industries developing, and to greater efficiencies in existing industry. These industries will add to the tax take of the government. This extra income can then pay for the social services we need. Investing in social services will not bring in this increased income, meaning social services will be underfunded in the future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should invest in what is needed at this time, and that i social services. We have an increasing aging population so more older people are in need of help. Children are on the street and homeless now, science won't help them. People are being abused in their homes and many other crimes that social services need resources for -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe we should invest more in science and research because it will be better in the long term. There are a lot of things that we don't understand about our planet. But with more funding for science and research, we could discover so many things. For example, did you know, that we have only explored like 6% of the Earth's oceans? If we could explore more of it, there might be resources there that can help develop our medicine further/ -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: i think we should definatly invest more in social services. There are so many children who unknowinly rely on them to protect and help them without i think so many children or young people would suffer so its vital +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe we should invest more in social services as they can provide a good impact with people that need it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In my opinion the government should invest more in science and research than in social services. I think that investing in science will lead to new industries developing, and to greater efficiencies in existing industry. These industries will add to the tax take of the government. This extra income can then pay for the social services we need. Investing in social services will not bring in this increased income, meaning social services will be underfunded in the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should invest in what is needed at this time, and that i social services. We have an increasing aging population so more older people are in need of help. Children are on the street and homeless now, science won't help them. People are being abused in their homes and many other crimes that social services need resources for +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe we should invest more in science and research because it will be better in the long term. There are a lot of things that we don't understand about our planet. But with more funding for science and research, we could discover so many things. For example, did you know, that we have only explored like 6% of the Earth's oceans? If we could explore more of it, there might be resources there that can help develop our medicine further/ +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - i think we should definatly invest more in social services. There are so many children who unknowinly rely on them to protect and help them without i think so many children or young people would suffer so its vital 2: 2,3,4,5,1 1: 3,4,1,2,5 1: 2,4,3,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002543.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002543.soc index 3c71d5aa..848c55ed 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002543.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002543.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think we should as it is a creative outlet for many people and brings joy to people who go and enjoy the arts, as well as then providing more a livlihood for those who are passionate about it -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, more money should be put towards supporting working-class people in the arts. Currently, the arts scene in Britain is dominated by upper middle class and upper-class voices as they have parents that can support them whereas working-class people cannot afford to support themselves and this needs to change -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think more money should be dedicated to the arts as it encourages people to be more creative. This can help people be more efficient and innovative at work and improve the overall happiness of the country. Starting with money in arts education, children can grow up appreciating the arts and the work that goes into it and this will help them later in life when it comes to job performance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe more money should go into the arts. So many places where people are trained etc, are closing down through lack of funds and it's sad to see. I think everyone should have access to the arts no matter what the medium is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think we should as it is a creative outlet for many people and brings joy to people who go and enjoy the arts, as well as then providing more a livlihood for those who are passionate about it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, more money should be put towards supporting working-class people in the arts. Currently, the arts scene in Britain is dominated by upper middle class and upper-class voices as they have parents that can support them whereas working-class people cannot afford to support themselves and this needs to change +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think more money should be dedicated to the arts as it encourages people to be more creative. This can help people be more efficient and innovative at work and improve the overall happiness of the country. Starting with money in arts education, children can grow up appreciating the arts and the work that goes into it and this will help them later in life when it comes to job performance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe more money should go into the arts. So many places where people are trained etc, are closing down through lack of funds and it's sad to see. I think everyone should have access to the arts no matter what the medium is. 2: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002544.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002544.soc index 52783bf6..d146aff9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002544.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002544.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I suppose it would depend on the size and potential obstruction that the power station would cause. Having huge cooling towers in EVERY town would obviously be ridiculous but I definitely agree that nuclear power should be utilised more. If there were to be more nuclear power stations, they should be handled in a highly scrutinised manner so as to avoid disaster or accidents, as when handled correctly, nuclear power plants are very safe, reliable, and efficient methods of providing power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, I don't think we should build a nuclear power station in every town. Building a nuclear power station in every town will take a massive amount of effort, resources, land and time up. Town residents will most likely voice their displeasure at a nuclear power station being built in their town. People will be worried about the effect it will have on their town, the environment, their future, and if a nuclear disaster were to strike. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Whilst nuclear power is a great thing that we should definitely expand, to stop depending on fossil fuels and imported power, not only would building a nuclear power station in every town cost a huge amount of money that no one has right now, it would also ruin the natural landscape. Many towns retain a certain architecture, culture, and sense of nature, and a huge nuclear power plant in the skyline would ruin that. Additionally, many towns probably don't have the space for it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I do not think that we should build a nuclear power station in every town. This is because this would have a catastrophic health and environmental impact on the country. Nuclear power creates radioactive waste. If this is to get into the air, it can cause severe sickness for humans. This would also have an impact on the environment. Having a nuclear power station in every town would only increase the risk of a disaster taking place. There are many other safer ways to generate energy for the country, which should be considered first. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No, I don't! As much as we need nuclear power to work alongside the others (wind, tidal etc), we should try to use these others before the nuclear. The waste is a big threat to our planet and life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I suppose it would depend on the size and potential obstruction that the power station would cause. Having huge cooling towers in EVERY town would obviously be ridiculous but I definitely agree that nuclear power should be utilised more. If there were to be more nuclear power stations, they should be handled in a highly scrutinised manner so as to avoid disaster or accidents, as when handled correctly, nuclear power plants are very safe, reliable, and efficient methods of providing power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, I don't think we should build a nuclear power station in every town. Building a nuclear power station in every town will take a massive amount of effort, resources, land and time up. Town residents will most likely voice their displeasure at a nuclear power station being built in their town. People will be worried about the effect it will have on their town, the environment, their future, and if a nuclear disaster were to strike. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Whilst nuclear power is a great thing that we should definitely expand, to stop depending on fossil fuels and imported power, not only would building a nuclear power station in every town cost a huge amount of money that no one has right now, it would also ruin the natural landscape. Many towns retain a certain architecture, culture, and sense of nature, and a huge nuclear power plant in the skyline would ruin that. Additionally, many towns probably don't have the space for it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I do not think that we should build a nuclear power station in every town. This is because this would have a catastrophic health and environmental impact on the country. Nuclear power creates radioactive waste. If this is to get into the air, it can cause severe sickness for humans. This would also have an impact on the environment. Having a nuclear power station in every town would only increase the risk of a disaster taking place. There are many other safer ways to generate energy for the country, which should be considered first. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No, I don't! As much as we need nuclear power to work alongside the others (wind, tidal etc), we should try to use these others before the nuclear. The waste is a big threat to our planet and life. 1: 3,4,5,2,1 1: 3,4,2,5,1 1: 1,2,3,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002545.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002545.soc index e7c5fa18..f2fca44c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002545.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002545.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Everyone should be entitled to have enough money to survive. This money should give food, shelter and clothing, that are basic in nature, for there is no reason that they should be embellished with delicacies or fine garments. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes there needs to be a basic level of wage that makes it possible for people to live, eat and pay their bills. It should not be more financially beneficial for people to stay at home and claim benefits, rather than go to work and contribute to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think so yes, as everyone should have basic rights in terms of being able to buy the basics. People who cant afford food or to feed their kids, especially in a cost of living crisis, should have consistent help to afford the basic neccessities. This can also be used for utilities as well, which should always be affordable and people should have the finances to cover this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe we should be in favour of universal basic income. I believe this because there a lots of people in the UK who want to work, but physically or mentally can't. If there was no universal basic income these people would not be able to live independently. There are also lots of people in the UK who DO work but also have to have their income 'topped up' with universal basic income. If there was no universal basic income these hardworking people would not be able to make ends meat. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: to be honest i'm not sure what it would really mean for society and whether it would actually be achievable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Everyone should be entitled to have enough money to survive. This money should give food, shelter and clothing, that are basic in nature, for there is no reason that they should be embellished with delicacies or fine garments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes there needs to be a basic level of wage that makes it possible for people to live, eat and pay their bills. It should not be more financially beneficial for people to stay at home and claim benefits, rather than go to work and contribute to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think so yes, as everyone should have basic rights in terms of being able to buy the basics. People who cant afford food or to feed their kids, especially in a cost of living crisis, should have consistent help to afford the basic neccessities. This can also be used for utilities as well, which should always be affordable and people should have the finances to cover this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe we should be in favour of universal basic income. I believe this because there a lots of people in the UK who want to work, but physically or mentally can't. If there was no universal basic income these people would not be able to live independently. There are also lots of people in the UK who DO work but also have to have their income 'topped up' with universal basic income. If there was no universal basic income these hardworking people would not be able to make ends meat. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - to be honest i'm not sure what it would really mean for society and whether it would actually be achievable. 1: 4,3,5,2,1 1: 4,3,1,2,5 1: 1,3,2,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002546.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002546.soc index 28ae75c9..1fe6d4bc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002546.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002546.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: they are not good as we already have a over populated country and there is no space to house these immigrants. they usually also are unskilled and are a drain on society and usually claim benefits as soon as they come here and don't contribute to society -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes the high level of immigration is good for the UK. The high level of immigration creates a bigger pool of talent and workforce that will be crucial for economic drive of the UK in the next decade. With this pool of talents the best gets to show their value which is good for the society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe it is important to employ skills from different backgrounds and different countries as it benefits the whole population in general, increasing the volume of highly skilled individuals. It also allows for better national services as these said individuals would bring more money to the nation. The UK is such a diverse population and it should be treated as a melting pot. I also believe it is important to provide equal opportunity for all individuals from any backgrounds and it should be a moral duty to provide safe havens for individuals fleeing from dangerous situations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think it depends on the context but just from a numbers point of view, probably not!. culturally i have zero issue with people coming here, especially people looking for work. Asylum is a different thing but immigration, i say bring them in. A great deal of the foreign people ive communicated with at work who are from other lands have been fantastic, most native people.......well, lets say not so much. so if its purely numbers, i guess not due to crowding, but if you just mean high amounts of foreign people then yes, fine, water down the native population -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: The issue with immigration is that of illegal immigration. There are people entering the country who will not be working but will need their daily living needs to be paid for and this is crippling the country for people who are mid to low earners. Resources are in short supply such as our NHS system which is already struggling. The rich do not care about the demands on the NHS because they are rich enough to go private, but if this has to be privatised, then it will become like the USA where you have to pay 10,000 dollars to call out an ambulance and pay much more to have a baby. Finally, there is not enough of cheaper housing available for people to buy and we cannot house all the illegal immigrants. However, non-illegal immigration can bring benefits to the country in terms of innovation. On balance illegal immigration is not good for the country and it is only going to get worse, whereas non-illegal immigrants can benefit our country's industry. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - they are not good as we already have a over populated country and there is no space to house these immigrants. they usually also are unskilled and are a drain on society and usually claim benefits as soon as they come here and don't contribute to society +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes the high level of immigration is good for the UK. The high level of immigration creates a bigger pool of talent and workforce that will be crucial for economic drive of the UK in the next decade. With this pool of talents the best gets to show their value which is good for the society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe it is important to employ skills from different backgrounds and different countries as it benefits the whole population in general, increasing the volume of highly skilled individuals. It also allows for better national services as these said individuals would bring more money to the nation. The UK is such a diverse population and it should be treated as a melting pot. I also believe it is important to provide equal opportunity for all individuals from any backgrounds and it should be a moral duty to provide safe havens for individuals fleeing from dangerous situations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think it depends on the context but just from a numbers point of view, probably not!. culturally i have zero issue with people coming here, especially people looking for work. Asylum is a different thing but immigration, i say bring them in. A great deal of the foreign people ive communicated with at work who are from other lands have been fantastic, most native people.......well, lets say not so much. so if its purely numbers, i guess not due to crowding, but if you just mean high amounts of foreign people then yes, fine, water down the native population +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - The issue with immigration is that of illegal immigration. There are people entering the country who will not be working but will need their daily living needs to be paid for and this is crippling the country for people who are mid to low earners. Resources are in short supply such as our NHS system which is already struggling. The rich do not care about the demands on the NHS because they are rich enough to go private, but if this has to be privatised, then it will become like the USA where you have to pay 10,000 dollars to call out an ambulance and pay much more to have a baby. Finally, there is not enough of cheaper housing available for people to buy and we cannot house all the illegal immigrants. However, non-illegal immigration can bring benefits to the country in terms of innovation. On balance illegal immigration is not good for the country and it is only going to get worse, whereas non-illegal immigrants can benefit our country's industry. 2: 3,2,5,4,1 1: 3,2,4,1,5 1: 5,1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002547.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002547.soc index effecdd7..c7f04036 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002547.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002547.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe this is a nice idea in principle but not quite sure how practical it is in the current climate. Whilst I do think think there needs to be more done to support the arts I don't feel this is the way. The best thing to do make towns and cities look better is to properly stimulate the economy. The more shops that end up derelict and abandoned the worse areas look. I'd far rather the government prioritise this at the moment than public art. That's not to say in a more prosperous time it wouldn't be a bad idea. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, I agree that this is something the government should fund as we live in cities and are affected by our environment. Art is something to be appreciated and it increases the attractiveness of a town. Art brings people together and it would be useful to promote tourism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think it is always a good idea to improve the appearance of cities, so it sounds like a good idea to me. With that being said, there are definitely more pressing issues that require government funding at the moment. I am also not very knowledgeable on what a public art programme would look like exactly and how much it would cost the government so I am not entirely sure my answer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think perhaps some funding could be allocated towards this, however I don't feel this is one of the main urgent causes that the government needs to focus on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe this is a nice idea in principle but not quite sure how practical it is in the current climate. Whilst I do think think there needs to be more done to support the arts I don't feel this is the way. The best thing to do make towns and cities look better is to properly stimulate the economy. The more shops that end up derelict and abandoned the worse areas look. I'd far rather the government prioritise this at the moment than public art. That's not to say in a more prosperous time it wouldn't be a bad idea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, I agree that this is something the government should fund as we live in cities and are affected by our environment. Art is something to be appreciated and it increases the attractiveness of a town. Art brings people together and it would be useful to promote tourism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think it is always a good idea to improve the appearance of cities, so it sounds like a good idea to me. With that being said, there are definitely more pressing issues that require government funding at the moment. I am also not very knowledgeable on what a public art programme would look like exactly and how much it would cost the government so I am not entirely sure my answer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think perhaps some funding could be allocated towards this, however I don't feel this is one of the main urgent causes that the government needs to focus on. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002548.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002548.soc index 9705fd2c..6bf6ad51 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002548.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002548.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I'm a little in two minds about this topic. Part of me feels like the arts is a fundamental part of society that allows for free expression and communication that otherwise would be lost. If a new generation of children weren't exposed to the arts the way other generations were, we might lose a part of humanity that is a great deal of what we are as human beings. Then on the other side of things, in the current state of the world, the funding might be best spent elsewhere. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes they should be funded as they are a big part of what makes the UK appealing. We do not have a lot of attractive things so we can draw on our rich artistic heritage to attract tourism and also promote happiness of the general population. It will help build open and creative minds which will make as a better society overall. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The question of government funding the arts is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. I will argue that it promotes cultural enrichment and economic growth, while on the other hand I can say it stresses the limited resources and the importance of prioritizing other sectors. It is important to strike a balance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't believe the arts should be funded by the government, I feel that in a sucessfull and prosperous state, people would be willing to pay to access arts, such as theatre and galleries. If the money is not being spent by citizens, people perhaps do not have the money to be spending on such frivolities. Money from the government could be spent better else where to improve the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Arts are an important part of opening minds to new possibilities, without which we would stagnate. Funding is important, but not as important as say healthcare or infrastructure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I'm a little in two minds about this topic. Part of me feels like the arts is a fundamental part of society that allows for free expression and communication that otherwise would be lost. If a new generation of children weren't exposed to the arts the way other generations were, we might lose a part of humanity that is a great deal of what we are as human beings. Then on the other side of things, in the current state of the world, the funding might be best spent elsewhere. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes they should be funded as they are a big part of what makes the UK appealing. We do not have a lot of attractive things so we can draw on our rich artistic heritage to attract tourism and also promote happiness of the general population. It will help build open and creative minds which will make as a better society overall. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The question of government funding the arts is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. I will argue that it promotes cultural enrichment and economic growth, while on the other hand I can say it stresses the limited resources and the importance of prioritizing other sectors. It is important to strike a balance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't believe the arts should be funded by the government, I feel that in a sucessfull and prosperous state, people would be willing to pay to access arts, such as theatre and galleries. If the money is not being spent by citizens, people perhaps do not have the money to be spending on such frivolities. Money from the government could be spent better else where to improve the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Arts are an important part of opening minds to new possibilities, without which we would stagnate. Funding is important, but not as important as say healthcare or infrastructure. 1: 1,4,2,3,5 1: 2,1,3,5,4 1: 4,3,1,5,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002549.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002549.soc index a2d7a371..4cba7d63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002549.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002549.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think that it is a necessary evil to do this in order to protect law abiding citizens from drunken people and villains. If a person has nothing to hide, they should not have any problems about privacy issues. I even think towns should employ this, as if facial recognition had been around at the time of the Yorkshire Ripper, perhaps he would have been caught sooner. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I personally don't believe its the right thing to do because its an invasion of peoples privacy and big brother that has gone too far. I understand the technology is there and I appreciate the need for policing cities but where do you stop ? Do you start using facial recognition outside of cities as well , so that wherever you go there is your face being captured and you are being tracked wherever you go. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. The government should use facial recognition in cities. Crime has already gotten out of hand and needs policing. Cameras and facial recognition will act as a deterrent if nothing else. Law enforcement should act on camera footage and not just ignore them.Facial recognition and ID is needed in today's society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe that for certain serious crimes such as rape, sexual assault etc or missing children this would be appropriate. However, it is not appropriate for petty crimes or drug related crimes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think that it is a necessary evil to do this in order to protect law abiding citizens from drunken people and villains. If a person has nothing to hide, they should not have any problems about privacy issues. I even think towns should employ this, as if facial recognition had been around at the time of the Yorkshire Ripper, perhaps he would have been caught sooner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I personally don't believe its the right thing to do because its an invasion of peoples privacy and big brother that has gone too far. I understand the technology is there and I appreciate the need for policing cities but where do you stop ? Do you start using facial recognition outside of cities as well , so that wherever you go there is your face being captured and you are being tracked wherever you go. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. The government should use facial recognition in cities. Crime has already gotten out of hand and needs policing. Cameras and facial recognition will act as a deterrent if nothing else. Law enforcement should act on camera footage and not just ignore them.Facial recognition and ID is needed in today's society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe that for certain serious crimes such as rape, sexual assault etc or missing children this would be appropriate. However, it is not appropriate for petty crimes or drug related crimes. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002550.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002550.soc index b9940d27..e3e02fd5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002550.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002550.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There is no reason why any country should be given unconditional support. It should be decided on a case by case basis. As if not, we would then be obliged to support something bad. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I do not think so. UK should solve its own problems first and make sure the economy is doing well and build a good relationship with other nations. The UK can support USA but it should not be unconditional. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: i dont believe unconditonal support is the correct course of action i believe it is important to approach each situation with critical thinking and coming to conclusions, not blindly follow someone else's direction and decisons especially on an international level. unconditional support could cost the UK face in the international community, which has suffered enough in recent times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think that the relationship between the UK and the US is very important, and that we should support one another, however, any action should be considered very carefully and not entered into just because of our positive relationship. We shouldn't follow each other blindly, but should give any help necessary, within reason. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There is no reason why any country should be given unconditional support. It should be decided on a case by case basis. As if not, we would then be obliged to support something bad. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I do not think so. UK should solve its own problems first and make sure the economy is doing well and build a good relationship with other nations. The UK can support USA but it should not be unconditional. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - i dont believe unconditonal support is the correct course of action i believe it is important to approach each situation with critical thinking and coming to conclusions, not blindly follow someone else's direction and decisons especially on an international level. unconditional support could cost the UK face in the international community, which has suffered enough in recent times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think that the relationship between the UK and the US is very important, and that we should support one another, however, any action should be considered very carefully and not entered into just because of our positive relationship. We shouldn't follow each other blindly, but should give any help necessary, within reason. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002551.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002551.soc index 0d687087..74ecd29d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002551.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002551.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes it's the standard every business/company/employer should not only meet but to exceed. A minimum wage that is not only fair and meets the living wage would make millions of families better off and able to deal with issues better, Pay a better wage and people work harder and give a damn. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, everyone deserves to earn enough to live. Some employers will always try to exploit their employees and a minimum wage is one of the ways we can prevent this. We work hard and should be rewarded accordingly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: A minimum wage is essential to enable workers to live,, pay bills and eat. There are benefits available for low paid workers but the government should not have to subsidise employers. Many people are unemployed and , possibly cannot afford to work on a low wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes due to the living crisis, we cannot expect the private sector to pay the minimum wage, there needs to be standards for businesses hiring staff in the private sector to ensure everyone in society has a baseline of wages to live on. Arguably the national minimum wage is not enough. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes, we should have a minimum wage within the UK because it protects workers and ensures that those working should have the ability to look after themselves on this wage, and hopefully lift some people out of poverty. It will prevent the exploitation of workers, and prevent employers from taking advantage if a minimum wage was not enforced. The national minimum wage has also shown to improve productivity and the mental health of workers so it benefits both the employee and employer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes it's the standard every business/company/employer should not only meet but to exceed. A minimum wage that is not only fair and meets the living wage would make millions of families better off and able to deal with issues better, Pay a better wage and people work harder and give a damn. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, everyone deserves to earn enough to live. Some employers will always try to exploit their employees and a minimum wage is one of the ways we can prevent this. We work hard and should be rewarded accordingly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - A minimum wage is essential to enable workers to live,, pay bills and eat. There are benefits available for low paid workers but the government should not have to subsidise employers. Many people are unemployed and , possibly cannot afford to work on a low wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes due to the living crisis, we cannot expect the private sector to pay the minimum wage, there needs to be standards for businesses hiring staff in the private sector to ensure everyone in society has a baseline of wages to live on. Arguably the national minimum wage is not enough. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes, we should have a minimum wage within the UK because it protects workers and ensures that those working should have the ability to look after themselves on this wage, and hopefully lift some people out of poverty. It will prevent the exploitation of workers, and prevent employers from taking advantage if a minimum wage was not enforced. The national minimum wage has also shown to improve productivity and the mental health of workers so it benefits both the employee and employer. 1: 5,1,2,3,4 1: 5,1,2,4,3 1: 5,1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002552.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002552.soc index f2208ba9..866e51e8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002552.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002552.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although originally fossil fuels were seen as one of the greatest natural resources available to man, we have come to realise that they are both finite and harmful to the environment. The environment would benefit hugely if we all reduced our reliance on fossil fuels and modern technology is allowing us to do so, allowing us to move forward into a brighter future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes we would be much better off as use of fossil fuels causes air pollution which contributes to climate change. Also, fossil fuels can only last so long so once they are gone, they will be good for good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: our dependence on fossil fuels has already caused serious environmental and climate damage, it poses a health hazard by creating pollution and has provoked serious social and geopolitical consequences -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It would be better for society if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. The negative effects of the use of fossil fuels have been well documented, whether this is their impact upon climate change, or the potential for negatively effecting peoples health. There is also the consideration that fossil fuels are a finite product and continuing to use them at the current rate, may deplete them before adequate alternatives have been generated and implemented across society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes, the excessive use of fossil fuels is without doubt causing climate change and damaging the eco system. Switching to clean energy alternatives will eventually lead to cheaper energy, less pollution and more energy security for countries around the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although originally fossil fuels were seen as one of the greatest natural resources available to man, we have come to realise that they are both finite and harmful to the environment. The environment would benefit hugely if we all reduced our reliance on fossil fuels and modern technology is allowing us to do so, allowing us to move forward into a brighter future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes we would be much better off as use of fossil fuels causes air pollution which contributes to climate change. Also, fossil fuels can only last so long so once they are gone, they will be good for good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - our dependence on fossil fuels has already caused serious environmental and climate damage, it poses a health hazard by creating pollution and has provoked serious social and geopolitical consequences +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It would be better for society if we reduced our use of fossil fuels. The negative effects of the use of fossil fuels have been well documented, whether this is their impact upon climate change, or the potential for negatively effecting peoples health. There is also the consideration that fossil fuels are a finite product and continuing to use them at the current rate, may deplete them before adequate alternatives have been generated and implemented across society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes, the excessive use of fossil fuels is without doubt causing climate change and damaging the eco system. Switching to clean energy alternatives will eventually lead to cheaper energy, less pollution and more energy security for countries around the world. 1: 4,5,1,3,2 1: 4,5,1,2,3 1: 1,5,3,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002553.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002553.soc index 0d91ae02..68d14e37 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002553.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002553.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe that we should lower the voting age to 16. This is because it would encourage young people to get more involved in politics at an earlier point in their lives. By 16, you are pretty much seen as an adult already. For example, you can have a job and have children, but you are unable to have a say on how the country is ran and how it can support you. By 16, most young people have a sufficient understanding of the issues facing them and they should have the opportunity to voice those to make the country better for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I do believe that the voting age should be reduced to 16. Whilst many young people at this age may be misinformed or perhaps immature in their views, I believe that there are also those that are passionate about their country, politics, and their futures. I believe that these people deserve a voice. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I don't care much about this topic, but I do think it's unnecessary to lower the voting age. Although it's only two years, I think the life experience and knowledge most gain between the ages of 16 and 18 is significant enough to avoid lowering the voting age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I am not quite sure that we should lower the voting age from 18 to 16. I do not feel as if the brains of the age group in question will have fully developed yet, however every person is different in the way they think and absorb information. It could encourage adolescents to research further by giving them a sense of responsibility, on the other hand it could deter some from participating. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No way! They are still children at 16 and have no idea how the country is run. They cannot possibly have an understanding on the bigger picture and have no life experiences to base their vote on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe that we should lower the voting age to 16. This is because it would encourage young people to get more involved in politics at an earlier point in their lives. By 16, you are pretty much seen as an adult already. For example, you can have a job and have children, but you are unable to have a say on how the country is ran and how it can support you. By 16, most young people have a sufficient understanding of the issues facing them and they should have the opportunity to voice those to make the country better for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I do believe that the voting age should be reduced to 16. Whilst many young people at this age may be misinformed or perhaps immature in their views, I believe that there are also those that are passionate about their country, politics, and their futures. I believe that these people deserve a voice. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I don't care much about this topic, but I do think it's unnecessary to lower the voting age. Although it's only two years, I think the life experience and knowledge most gain between the ages of 16 and 18 is significant enough to avoid lowering the voting age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I am not quite sure that we should lower the voting age from 18 to 16. I do not feel as if the brains of the age group in question will have fully developed yet, however every person is different in the way they think and absorb information. It could encourage adolescents to research further by giving them a sense of responsibility, on the other hand it could deter some from participating. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No way! They are still children at 16 and have no idea how the country is run. They cannot possibly have an understanding on the bigger picture and have no life experiences to base their vote on. 3: 1,2,4,3,5 1: 5,4,3,2,1 1: 4,3,5,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002554.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002554.soc index 4f374cfa..51831f72 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002554.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002554.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: i think they should, the enviroment is on a downward spiral currently and in a bid to reduce it i think any outcome to deter companies or atleast make them aware is a good way forward. with a tax being imposed is making companies responsible for what they are using -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think a carbon tax is beneficial for the environment because if the carbon output of vehicles is reduced, it will help the Earth regulate itself against our emissions and the rate of global warming. Carbon tax will also get people to think about using more environmental modes of transport, which will make our Earth cleaner in the long run. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think the government implementing a carbon tax might have indifferent views with the population. some might agree with it to reduce carbon while others might think it's just taking more money away from them. my opinion of this is neutral however as this could be either a good or bad thing in the end. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: This would obviously bring in more money for the government, but at the end of the day joe public is the one that will have to pay, so while this would benefit the ones at the top it would not benefit the public. So no it should not impose a carbon tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I am very unsure on this. I think it will be very complex to create and to collect. I am not sure whether it will solve the problems of too much carbon. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - i think they should, the enviroment is on a downward spiral currently and in a bid to reduce it i think any outcome to deter companies or atleast make them aware is a good way forward. with a tax being imposed is making companies responsible for what they are using +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think a carbon tax is beneficial for the environment because if the carbon output of vehicles is reduced, it will help the Earth regulate itself against our emissions and the rate of global warming. Carbon tax will also get people to think about using more environmental modes of transport, which will make our Earth cleaner in the long run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think the government implementing a carbon tax might have indifferent views with the population. some might agree with it to reduce carbon while others might think it's just taking more money away from them. my opinion of this is neutral however as this could be either a good or bad thing in the end. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - This would obviously bring in more money for the government, but at the end of the day joe public is the one that will have to pay, so while this would benefit the ones at the top it would not benefit the public. So no it should not impose a carbon tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I am very unsure on this. I think it will be very complex to create and to collect. I am not sure whether it will solve the problems of too much carbon. 2: 5,3,2,1,4 1: 3,1,5,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002555.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002555.soc index 1346951c..9105016c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002555.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002555.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think so as I believe we need more renewable energy, however, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject as to whether or not wind turbines are the most efficient clean option available so I can't really give an informed answer -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: On shore wind farms are good at generating zero-emission energy and would definitely be better than coal or oil power generation. However, on-shore wind farms can take up a lot of land including in areas of natural beauty and would likely make people mad if they were built near their houses. Off-shore wind farms are a better solution as they are more efficient and out of the way of the population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is a great way to create renewable green energy, and they have low operating costs. however, they can also have environmental impacts such as disturbing natural eco systems so it has to be weighed up -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. I think the things are ugly to put it mildly. They ruin the skyline and I just don't like them. Not sure if they're needed or if they are doing any good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: yes, yes, yes. right now we are suffering from the impact of increasing energy cost, fears are growing daily. I would except the government to be doing everything in their power to be adding more on-shore wind turbines. climate control needs to be sorted as our plant is dying. We need these wind turbines. cheap home growers and clean forms of electricity generations +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think so as I believe we need more renewable energy, however, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject as to whether or not wind turbines are the most efficient clean option available so I can't really give an informed answer +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - On shore wind farms are good at generating zero-emission energy and would definitely be better than coal or oil power generation. However, on-shore wind farms can take up a lot of land including in areas of natural beauty and would likely make people mad if they were built near their houses. Off-shore wind farms are a better solution as they are more efficient and out of the way of the population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is a great way to create renewable green energy, and they have low operating costs. however, they can also have environmental impacts such as disturbing natural eco systems so it has to be weighed up +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. I think the things are ugly to put it mildly. They ruin the skyline and I just don't like them. Not sure if they're needed or if they are doing any good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - yes, yes, yes. right now we are suffering from the impact of increasing energy cost, fears are growing daily. I would except the government to be doing everything in their power to be adding more on-shore wind turbines. climate control needs to be sorted as our plant is dying. We need these wind turbines. cheap home growers and clean forms of electricity generations 1: 1,5,3,2,4 1: 5,3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,3,5,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002556.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002556.soc index 92e79544..3bb782f3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002556.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002556.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: You would need to define exactly what is meant by 'cars' and by 'city centre' for me to give a constructive opinion on this in any way. Does "all cars" include, for instance, taxis and private hire vehicles used by the disabled? In that case, I would say 'no, don't ban all cars'. While I do in general feel that increased pedestrianisation of large city centres is a good thing - e.g. making Oxford Street and Soho in London more walkable through installing wider pavements, banning private vehicles between certain times, introducing traffic limiting measures like charges, increasing the amount of public transport - that's a different thing from banning all cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: This is another difficult one, because it is a multifaceted issue. Clearly, there is a strong link between vehicles in the city centre and pollution and so banning cars will reduce pollution. A reduction in pollution will reduce the number of pollution related illnesses and deaths every year. Clearly this is a positive. However, poor governance over many decades has meant that public transport is often of poor quality, infrastructure and overcrowded. Alternatives are not easy to come by. Then there is the affect on the local communities, local jobs and national jobs. At present, with such poor leadership ... -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think that taking cars out of the city centre isn't the way to go. Why would they do this? The city has always had cars and it would alter how the city looks. For as long as I can remember there was always car in the city. My thoughts are that it is only to pedestrian friendly places. I see nothing wrong in having cars in the city. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: This is a tricky one. There are of course going to be benefits environmentally and health wise to try to reduce carbon emissions from city centres. However at the same time there are going to be negative causes of this too. It is not a possibility for everyone to walk or ride a bike to get to wherever they need to go etc. I feel like as with everything we always go to an extreme at first when trying to make a change and then eventually it will balance out over time. The best way lies probably somewhere in the middle. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - You would need to define exactly what is meant by 'cars' and by 'city centre' for me to give a constructive opinion on this in any way. Does "all cars" include, for instance, taxis and private hire vehicles used by the disabled? In that case, I would say 'no, don't ban all cars'. While I do in general feel that increased pedestrianisation of large city centres is a good thing - e.g. making Oxford Street and Soho in London more walkable through installing wider pavements, banning private vehicles between certain times, introducing traffic limiting measures like charges, increasing the amount of public transport - that's a different thing from banning all cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - This is another difficult one, because it is a multifaceted issue. Clearly, there is a strong link between vehicles in the city centre and pollution and so banning cars will reduce pollution. A reduction in pollution will reduce the number of pollution related illnesses and deaths every year. Clearly this is a positive. However, poor governance over many decades has meant that public transport is often of poor quality, infrastructure and overcrowded. Alternatives are not easy to come by. Then there is the affect on the local communities, local jobs and national jobs. At present, with such poor leadership ... +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think that taking cars out of the city centre isn't the way to go. Why would they do this? The city has always had cars and it would alter how the city looks. For as long as I can remember there was always car in the city. My thoughts are that it is only to pedestrian friendly places. I see nothing wrong in having cars in the city. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - This is a tricky one. There are of course going to be benefits environmentally and health wise to try to reduce carbon emissions from city centres. However at the same time there are going to be negative causes of this too. It is not a possibility for everyone to walk or ride a bike to get to wherever they need to go etc. I feel like as with everything we always go to an extreme at first when trying to make a change and then eventually it will balance out over time. The best way lies probably somewhere in the middle. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002557.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002557.soc index 3f192c97..9af51a00 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002557.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002557.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: They should yes, it should start with more information at the educational level. More funds should be allocated to teach about drug use and its effects in Secondary schools. And more widely, there should be campagins arranged by the government and NHS to provide more information on a consistent basis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In theory yes, but I do not see how more funding will work in reality. Children are taught about drug misuse from primary school onwards and through high school. Drugs will always be available both legally and illegally, no matter how much money is spent on programmes to reduce and prevent drug use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: i think more funds might help as long as they are spent wisely and where they'd be the most help, as in on the ground face to face assistants and not on office admin and loads of managers. also there will always be issues its not a curiable situation -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Drugs are substances that affect the physiology of the body, some drugs can be very harmful and afflict the body whereas other drugs (medicinal) can have healing properties and can be conjugated in surgery and other applications of science. A lot of people suffer from recreational drug addictions which in turn ruins their life and eventually leads them to death and so funds and programs should be allocated as a means to rectify the issue as well as seeking to permanently ban the use of recreational drugs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think more funds should be allocated to prevent drug use. Drug use is a very big issue in the UK. Drug use is getting more and more common now within children. More funds should be available to services that help people, not only getting clean from drugs, but also to prevent drug use with younger people. More funding being allocated to prevent drug use would also mean that, on the long run, drug inflicted injuries or emergencies were not putting as much strain on our NHS. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - They should yes, it should start with more information at the educational level. More funds should be allocated to teach about drug use and its effects in Secondary schools. And more widely, there should be campagins arranged by the government and NHS to provide more information on a consistent basis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In theory yes, but I do not see how more funding will work in reality. Children are taught about drug misuse from primary school onwards and through high school. Drugs will always be available both legally and illegally, no matter how much money is spent on programmes to reduce and prevent drug use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - i think more funds might help as long as they are spent wisely and where they'd be the most help, as in on the ground face to face assistants and not on office admin and loads of managers. also there will always be issues its not a curiable situation +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Drugs are substances that affect the physiology of the body, some drugs can be very harmful and afflict the body whereas other drugs (medicinal) can have healing properties and can be conjugated in surgery and other applications of science. A lot of people suffer from recreational drug addictions which in turn ruins their life and eventually leads them to death and so funds and programs should be allocated as a means to rectify the issue as well as seeking to permanently ban the use of recreational drugs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think more funds should be allocated to prevent drug use. Drug use is a very big issue in the UK. Drug use is getting more and more common now within children. More funds should be available to services that help people, not only getting clean from drugs, but also to prevent drug use with younger people. More funding being allocated to prevent drug use would also mean that, on the long run, drug inflicted injuries or emergencies were not putting as much strain on our NHS. 1: 4,5,2,1,3 1: 5,4,3,2,1 1: 5,1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002558.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002558.soc index 257bc3d4..8829f2ea 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002558.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002558.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think that in certain cases it is morally right to use animals in medical research, whilst it is a very difficult to judge what is ethically acceptable in terms of using animals for medical research I think it is a necessity. This stems from the fact that if, for example, thousands of human lives can either be saved or quality of life improves dramatically then the life of an animal is worth testing on. However, this needs to be heavily caveated to make sure it is always done in the most ethical manner with precautions taken to ensure the animal does not suffer, this is due to it being quite a slippery slope which could easily devolve into animals being unethically used is medical research. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I don't think that it is very fair on the animals however it feels like it is a necessity at times as we could be one virus away from wiping ourselves out. A lot of this medical research is important and it feels like it is the only way sometimes to find out how certain viruses or drugs react, a live host is required at times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Morally, no. Animals are innocent, though yes they are useful in medical research, they are exposed to pain and suffering that they should not be experiencing. They did not ask to be brought into this world or to be treated in this way. I do agree with them being used in medical research for animals, as this will give the best results, and frankly animal medical research can't be done without animals. But it isn't right to use them for human medical research. What might cure cancer in a rat may not cure cancer in a human. They are different species from humans entirely, and while yes, we can monitor them to see how research affects them, we can get completely different results from a human subject -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It is but only to a certain extent. I believe animal testing is fine as long as they are aware the animals will not be directly affected or harmed in the process. I believe there should be certain guidelines put in place to make it safe for the animals. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think it's morally right to use animals in medical research. The end doesn't justify the means and animals don't deserve to suffer at the expense of humans. We should be thinking of alternative medical research. Most animals don't even share the same physiology as us anyways. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think that in certain cases it is morally right to use animals in medical research, whilst it is a very difficult to judge what is ethically acceptable in terms of using animals for medical research I think it is a necessity. This stems from the fact that if, for example, thousands of human lives can either be saved or quality of life improves dramatically then the life of an animal is worth testing on. However, this needs to be heavily caveated to make sure it is always done in the most ethical manner with precautions taken to ensure the animal does not suffer, this is due to it being quite a slippery slope which could easily devolve into animals being unethically used is medical research. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I don't think that it is very fair on the animals however it feels like it is a necessity at times as we could be one virus away from wiping ourselves out. A lot of this medical research is important and it feels like it is the only way sometimes to find out how certain viruses or drugs react, a live host is required at times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Morally, no. Animals are innocent, though yes they are useful in medical research, they are exposed to pain and suffering that they should not be experiencing. They did not ask to be brought into this world or to be treated in this way. I do agree with them being used in medical research for animals, as this will give the best results, and frankly animal medical research can't be done without animals. But it isn't right to use them for human medical research. What might cure cancer in a rat may not cure cancer in a human. They are different species from humans entirely, and while yes, we can monitor them to see how research affects them, we can get completely different results from a human subject +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is but only to a certain extent. I believe animal testing is fine as long as they are aware the animals will not be directly affected or harmed in the process. I believe there should be certain guidelines put in place to make it safe for the animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think it's morally right to use animals in medical research. The end doesn't justify the means and animals don't deserve to suffer at the expense of humans. We should be thinking of alternative medical research. Most animals don't even share the same physiology as us anyways. 1: 1,3,2,5,4 1: 5,3,4,2,1 1: 1,3,5,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002559.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002559.soc index 559d7225..5c1f665d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002559.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002559.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I feel neutral about this topic. I don't think I necessarily know what is in our current constitution; and, the UK as a whole doesn't necessarily have a constitution but rather a set of laws, rules and regulations which are constantly evolving anyway, so constantly being rewritten. If this is proposing a differing country, then I have no reason to agree or disagree. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Considering societal evolution and the changing needs of our nation, a thoughtful reexamination of the current constitution may be beneficial. Amendments and updates can ensure it remains relevant, protecting citizens' rights, and addressing contemporary challenges while preserving the core values upon which it was built. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes I think so. A constitution should be under constant review and alteration to better reflect the current state of society and all and any technological and social advancements. Some fundamentals will almost certainly never change, but keeping up to date is important to be relevant. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think the constitution although is dated in some areas still reflects peoples rights. It is important to keep updating and modernising as some parts will become obsolete and outdated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I feel that overall the constitution, that is to say the laws of the land, is okay and more or less fit for purpose. However, it is riddled with obscure and outdated laws which do not reflect the modern times in some ways. These could do with fixing and will help bring the UK into a more modern time. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I feel neutral about this topic. I don't think I necessarily know what is in our current constitution; and, the UK as a whole doesn't necessarily have a constitution but rather a set of laws, rules and regulations which are constantly evolving anyway, so constantly being rewritten. If this is proposing a differing country, then I have no reason to agree or disagree. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Considering societal evolution and the changing needs of our nation, a thoughtful reexamination of the current constitution may be beneficial. Amendments and updates can ensure it remains relevant, protecting citizens' rights, and addressing contemporary challenges while preserving the core values upon which it was built. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes I think so. A constitution should be under constant review and alteration to better reflect the current state of society and all and any technological and social advancements. Some fundamentals will almost certainly never change, but keeping up to date is important to be relevant. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think the constitution although is dated in some areas still reflects peoples rights. It is important to keep updating and modernising as some parts will become obsolete and outdated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I feel that overall the constitution, that is to say the laws of the land, is okay and more or less fit for purpose. However, it is riddled with obscure and outdated laws which do not reflect the modern times in some ways. These could do with fixing and will help bring the UK into a more modern time. 1: 1,2,3,5,4 1: 2,5,1,3,4 1: 2,5,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002560.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002560.soc index 26eb4b4c..33c0fbbd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002560.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002560.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think the government should not provide funding for high-speed rail lines between major cities. As the world is at the moment the money could be spent on more urgent matters such as the cost of living. What the government should do in my opinion is help make the railway services we already have operate properly and reliably. Also encourage the public to use the railway system for environmental reasons by making tickets cheaper. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I am strongly for this as it won't just benefit people travelling to and from work + leisure places. If trains were quicker and became more reliable, it would entice people to use them more often. This would lead to many positive benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, improved transport efficiency, lower carbon emissions, and enhanced economic connectivity. It would also reduce potential road accidents as more people would likely and hopefully commute via train. Finally, for people travelling to and from work, it would create a better quality of life as a lot of people spend a good amount of their day commuting. Therefore if there was a faster option, this would cut down on the commute time and people would therefore be happier. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think the government should provide the funding, especially up in the north. The failure of HS2 shows what the torys think of the north and it is a real disappointment what has happened. Funding for public transport should be at an all time high and high speed trains are an excellent form of transport. More funding should be allocated towards this to decrease the usage of vehicles and give the public more of an option when travelling. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The rail services in the UK are very poor so I think major improvements do need to be made. The government should provide funding for rail improvements however I think there are much more pressing issues to focus on first. The prices of train fares should be reduced or no one will be able to afford a high speed train ticket anyway. Rail improvements would help the economy and help with travel as in comparison to other countries it is very poor. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes; I believe that the government should invest in public transport. This is in the interest of all citizens, as well as the global population due to the lower carbon emissions from greater use of public transport. The railways in the UK have been massively underfunded in recent years, and it should be the government's responsibility to improve them. It also shouldn't be a matter of profit; as a public utility, providing the best service without a profit motive ought to be the primary factor in how rail is run. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think the government should not provide funding for high-speed rail lines between major cities. As the world is at the moment the money could be spent on more urgent matters such as the cost of living. What the government should do in my opinion is help make the railway services we already have operate properly and reliably. Also encourage the public to use the railway system for environmental reasons by making tickets cheaper. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I am strongly for this as it won't just benefit people travelling to and from work + leisure places. If trains were quicker and became more reliable, it would entice people to use them more often. This would lead to many positive benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, improved transport efficiency, lower carbon emissions, and enhanced economic connectivity. It would also reduce potential road accidents as more people would likely and hopefully commute via train. Finally, for people travelling to and from work, it would create a better quality of life as a lot of people spend a good amount of their day commuting. Therefore if there was a faster option, this would cut down on the commute time and people would therefore be happier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think the government should provide the funding, especially up in the north. The failure of HS2 shows what the torys think of the north and it is a real disappointment what has happened. Funding for public transport should be at an all time high and high speed trains are an excellent form of transport. More funding should be allocated towards this to decrease the usage of vehicles and give the public more of an option when travelling. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The rail services in the UK are very poor so I think major improvements do need to be made. The government should provide funding for rail improvements however I think there are much more pressing issues to focus on first. The prices of train fares should be reduced or no one will be able to afford a high speed train ticket anyway. Rail improvements would help the economy and help with travel as in comparison to other countries it is very poor. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes; I believe that the government should invest in public transport. This is in the interest of all citizens, as well as the global population due to the lower carbon emissions from greater use of public transport. The railways in the UK have been massively underfunded in recent years, and it should be the government's responsibility to improve them. It also shouldn't be a matter of profit; as a public utility, providing the best service without a profit motive ought to be the primary factor in how rail is run. 1: 2,4,3,5,1 1: 5,2,4,1,3 1: 2,3,4,5,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002561.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002561.soc index fecb2776..e4dbda7b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002561.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002561.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think that sounds like a nice idea, But the Phone and mail was the pinnacle of communication not so long ago and that wasn't expected to be free. Or libraries where we used to learn thing's. Plus if the state provides it, you can kiss goodbye to cutting edge advancement. Pure capitalism pushes' industries on . Having said that i do believe perhaps sections of society should be entitled to access through maybe some type of subsidy to help with costs -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: no as broadband isn't that expensive and doesn't cost a lot of money. most people can easily afford broadband and if the state paid for it would only increase the burden on the national debt and increased taxes to pay for it -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, absolutely. There are poor families who could start earning money online and having free broadband could help with their children's education. This could make a huge difference to their lives. From my own perspective, I was able to complete a degree entirely online for a much lower cost. This is something that should be more accessible to the poor and it could also benefit the country as a whole because it may mean fewer people on benefits who are able to support themselves using the internet as leverage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although it would have been a good service for the state to provide free broadband access to all its citizens but I don't think that should be done. the cost of free broadband access would so much that the economic implication would have a ripple effect in other facets of the economy. Such a service may lead the country into enormous debt that the benefits of free broadband access will not be able to compensate for. Government should rather redirect allocations for such benefits into other sectors like affordable healthcare and education for all citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think that sounds like a nice idea, But the Phone and mail was the pinnacle of communication not so long ago and that wasn't expected to be free. Or libraries where we used to learn thing's. Plus if the state provides it, you can kiss goodbye to cutting edge advancement. Pure capitalism pushes' industries on . Having said that i do believe perhaps sections of society should be entitled to access through maybe some type of subsidy to help with costs +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - no as broadband isn't that expensive and doesn't cost a lot of money. most people can easily afford broadband and if the state paid for it would only increase the burden on the national debt and increased taxes to pay for it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, absolutely. There are poor families who could start earning money online and having free broadband could help with their children's education. This could make a huge difference to their lives. From my own perspective, I was able to complete a degree entirely online for a much lower cost. This is something that should be more accessible to the poor and it could also benefit the country as a whole because it may mean fewer people on benefits who are able to support themselves using the internet as leverage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although it would have been a good service for the state to provide free broadband access to all its citizens but I don't think that should be done. the cost of free broadband access would so much that the economic implication would have a ripple effect in other facets of the economy. Such a service may lead the country into enormous debt that the benefits of free broadband access will not be able to compensate for. Government should rather redirect allocations for such benefits into other sectors like affordable healthcare and education for all citizens. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002562.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002562.soc index f30c10a7..fac8ef47 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002562.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002562.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, especially on tight sidewalks. Bikes are quiet, and more dangeous to pedestrians than we tend to think. In more open spaces, I believe it's more safe for bikes and pedestrians to mix. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No they shouldn't as it is extremely dangerous for pedestrians walking on the pavement. (sidewalk) It could also be dangerous for the cyclists as they are moving vehicles won't be able to see them as easily as if they were on the road. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: If I was asked to answer specifically yes or no,I would say no. Pedestrians are put at risk by fast moving or unsteady bike riders and can't always move out of the way quick enough or hear the cyclist approaching. Some sidewalks are narrow or otherwise unsuitable for bikes. However, there are often times that it is much safer for a cyclist to be on a sidewalk, usually for the cyclists benefit but sometimes for other road users' benefit. For example in fast heavy traffic on a narrow road it would be safer for everyone for the slower cyclist to be on the sidewalk out of the way. However in that situation the cyclist should monitor their speed and give way to pedestrians. They should also be extra vigilant and use their bell when approaching people on foot or blind spots. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Unless provision has been made (such as a designated pedestrian and designated cycle lane), then bikes should not be ridden on the sidewalk. However this can be contentious in countries where cycling infrastructure is poor. For example in countries such as The Netherlands or Denmark, where there is significant cycling infrastructure, there should be no reason for bikes to be ridden on the sidewalk. However in countries such as the UK which has poor or limited cycling infrastructure, the safest alternative can sometimes be to cycle with due care and attention on the sidewalk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: in general i don't think people should be able to ride bikes on sidewalks and it is dangerous to pedestrians, however in certain circumstances (eg, the road is dangerous, the rider is a small kid) it is safer for bikes to ride on sidewalks than on the road +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, especially on tight sidewalks. Bikes are quiet, and more dangeous to pedestrians than we tend to think. In more open spaces, I believe it's more safe for bikes and pedestrians to mix. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No they shouldn't as it is extremely dangerous for pedestrians walking on the pavement. (sidewalk) It could also be dangerous for the cyclists as they are moving vehicles won't be able to see them as easily as if they were on the road. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - If I was asked to answer specifically yes or no,I would say no. Pedestrians are put at risk by fast moving or unsteady bike riders and can't always move out of the way quick enough or hear the cyclist approaching. Some sidewalks are narrow or otherwise unsuitable for bikes. However, there are often times that it is much safer for a cyclist to be on a sidewalk, usually for the cyclists benefit but sometimes for other road users' benefit. For example in fast heavy traffic on a narrow road it would be safer for everyone for the slower cyclist to be on the sidewalk out of the way. However in that situation the cyclist should monitor their speed and give way to pedestrians. They should also be extra vigilant and use their bell when approaching people on foot or blind spots. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Unless provision has been made (such as a designated pedestrian and designated cycle lane), then bikes should not be ridden on the sidewalk. However this can be contentious in countries where cycling infrastructure is poor. For example in countries such as The Netherlands or Denmark, where there is significant cycling infrastructure, there should be no reason for bikes to be ridden on the sidewalk. However in countries such as the UK which has poor or limited cycling infrastructure, the safest alternative can sometimes be to cycle with due care and attention on the sidewalk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - in general i don't think people should be able to ride bikes on sidewalks and it is dangerous to pedestrians, however in certain circumstances (eg, the road is dangerous, the rider is a small kid) it is safer for bikes to ride on sidewalks than on the road 3: 3,4,5,1,2 1: 2,1,5,4,3 1: 4,3,1,5,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002563.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002563.soc index ffaa2ffe..90ee2ecb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002563.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002563.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: yes. it would remove the stigma of so called benefit scroungers if everyone had the same income. so many people have to worry about money which can have physical and mental effects. if this source of worry and anxiety was removed, people could live happier and more productive lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, I believe tax credit is a good method as it takes the pressure off everyone in the end. When it come on to tax it is very stressful and to leave that up to every individual will cause more good than bad. At the end of the day tax is the reason why we have "free" health care and women don't have to pay money when they give birth like in the US. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Hard to answer as I have little knowledge about tax credits. But in my opinion, the system as it is at the moment does not work for some people. This includes people with non-physical disabilities such as mental health conditions or Autism, where it is hard to prove you are unable to work and need financial support from the government to survive. As a result, the concept of a Universal Basic Income is interesting to me. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I do not think so. We need to assess their financial situation and whether they are able to work and then distribute money according to their need. People can become lazy if we do not assess their ability to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't know very much about this topic, so I have more questions than views. Are these two baically the same? Would a person be better off or worse off if the change was made? What is the reason for a change to be made? If a person wouldn't be penalised by the change, and the system was better for the change, then i can't see any reason why not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - yes. it would remove the stigma of so called benefit scroungers if everyone had the same income. so many people have to worry about money which can have physical and mental effects. if this source of worry and anxiety was removed, people could live happier and more productive lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, I believe tax credit is a good method as it takes the pressure off everyone in the end. When it come on to tax it is very stressful and to leave that up to every individual will cause more good than bad. At the end of the day tax is the reason why we have "free" health care and women don't have to pay money when they give birth like in the US. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Hard to answer as I have little knowledge about tax credits. But in my opinion, the system as it is at the moment does not work for some people. This includes people with non-physical disabilities such as mental health conditions or Autism, where it is hard to prove you are unable to work and need financial support from the government to survive. As a result, the concept of a Universal Basic Income is interesting to me. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I do not think so. We need to assess their financial situation and whether they are able to work and then distribute money according to their need. People can become lazy if we do not assess their ability to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't know very much about this topic, so I have more questions than views. Are these two baically the same? Would a person be better off or worse off if the change was made? What is the reason for a change to be made? If a person wouldn't be penalised by the change, and the system was better for the change, then i can't see any reason why not. 1: 3,1,5,4,2 1: 1,5,3,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002564.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002564.soc index a3d71488..884f06e1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002564.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002564.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The government wants the UK to drive electric vehicles but makes the cost prohibitive. Subsidising electric vehicles would enable more people to purchase electric cars. The cost could be recouped by cleaner air and less health problems caused by pollution. At the moment, most people on average wages cannot afford electric cars -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government need to be putting in policies that are more eco-friendly and support people to make the changes necessary to become more environmentally friendly in their behaviour. Electric vehicles are one way to reduce the impact of diesel and petrol in the UK. In addition, if more people start purchasing electric vehicles then the government can start investing more into the infrastructure to enable a smoother transition from petrol/diesel to electric. Government need to show that they are serious about addressing climate change issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No I'd rather they put more money into Public Transport then people owning cars. it's currently a pain in the arse to use Public Transport as the services need a cash injection and less people owning cars isn't a bad thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think it's a good idea, but I've heard that electric vehicles are not quite as wonderful as we're told. In terms of environmental sustainability, I'd need to do some more research before I'm convinced it's a good idea for them to be heavily subsidised. That said, they're surely better than the current options, at least for now. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: The life time of an electric car is far less than that of petrol or diesel. As the battery life is not as efficient and hugely expensive and the disposal of these electric cars are much higher volume compared to the traditional petrol and diesel vehicles which can have a lifespan of over 20years or more. The electric cars seem to be inefficient and highly expensive. There will need to be more research and development in the electric vehicle space, before the government should subsidize for the masses. Private sector should invest in the technology to make electric vehicle more durable and have a longer term benefit to the environment. Right now the car batteries have a shorter lifespan. So in short no the government should not heavily subsidize. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The government wants the UK to drive electric vehicles but makes the cost prohibitive. Subsidising electric vehicles would enable more people to purchase electric cars. The cost could be recouped by cleaner air and less health problems caused by pollution. At the moment, most people on average wages cannot afford electric cars +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government need to be putting in policies that are more eco-friendly and support people to make the changes necessary to become more environmentally friendly in their behaviour. Electric vehicles are one way to reduce the impact of diesel and petrol in the UK. In addition, if more people start purchasing electric vehicles then the government can start investing more into the infrastructure to enable a smoother transition from petrol/diesel to electric. Government need to show that they are serious about addressing climate change issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No I'd rather they put more money into Public Transport then people owning cars. it's currently a pain in the arse to use Public Transport as the services need a cash injection and less people owning cars isn't a bad thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think it's a good idea, but I've heard that electric vehicles are not quite as wonderful as we're told. In terms of environmental sustainability, I'd need to do some more research before I'm convinced it's a good idea for them to be heavily subsidised. That said, they're surely better than the current options, at least for now. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - The life time of an electric car is far less than that of petrol or diesel. As the battery life is not as efficient and hugely expensive and the disposal of these electric cars are much higher volume compared to the traditional petrol and diesel vehicles which can have a lifespan of over 20years or more. The electric cars seem to be inefficient and highly expensive. There will need to be more research and development in the electric vehicle space, before the government should subsidize for the masses. Private sector should invest in the technology to make electric vehicle more durable and have a longer term benefit to the environment. Right now the car batteries have a shorter lifespan. So in short no the government should not heavily subsidize. 1: 3,5,4,2,1 1: 5,4,3,2,1 1: 5,4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002565.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002565.soc index 5ca0c93b..61b9586b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002565.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002565.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: yes i think they should be partially solar-powered. With the amount of sunlight produced in the uk year round as a natural resource that could be put to use for households espcially families who struggle financially it would be a huge benefit -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes I believe that this is the way forward for new buildings. It is relatively easy to install and maintain and both the householder and the environment will gain from this. It should also apply to new public buildings such as hospitals, schools etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think it would be good to get as much power as we can from the sun. Even though it might not be much where I live, I think every little helps. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe that new buildings having some sort of solar power would be very beneficial. it would provide energy that is very good for the environment and it's clean. buildings that are partially solar-powered can be great for our future. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: It sounds good as an idea. But in actuality, it would cost a lot for this to be implemented. Solar powered is useful in the long run and the buildings that have ths may save some cost in the future. But in the short term, it wouldn't be very cost-effective yet. In addition, countries that have terrible weather or places with a lack of sunlight coverage could render this eco-friendly way of generating power, overall useless. New buildings being partially solar-powered is expensive, unrealistic and dependent on the building location, the country's weather and the amount of financial resources available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - yes i think they should be partially solar-powered. With the amount of sunlight produced in the uk year round as a natural resource that could be put to use for households espcially families who struggle financially it would be a huge benefit +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes I believe that this is the way forward for new buildings. It is relatively easy to install and maintain and both the householder and the environment will gain from this. It should also apply to new public buildings such as hospitals, schools etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think it would be good to get as much power as we can from the sun. Even though it might not be much where I live, I think every little helps. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe that new buildings having some sort of solar power would be very beneficial. it would provide energy that is very good for the environment and it's clean. buildings that are partially solar-powered can be great for our future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - It sounds good as an idea. But in actuality, it would cost a lot for this to be implemented. Solar powered is useful in the long run and the buildings that have ths may save some cost in the future. But in the short term, it wouldn't be very cost-effective yet. In addition, countries that have terrible weather or places with a lack of sunlight coverage could render this eco-friendly way of generating power, overall useless. New buildings being partially solar-powered is expensive, unrealistic and dependent on the building location, the country's weather and the amount of financial resources available. 1: 1,4,2,3,5 1: 3,1,2,4,5 1: 4,2,1,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002566.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002566.soc index 1bd66967..8897bc86 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002566.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002566.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Nuclear power is much more consistent than renewables like wind or solar, similarly low carbon, and can produce a lot of electricity. With competent management there is essentially no risk of an accident like the one at Fukishima, as the UK does not experience serious natural disasters. If the government is serious about continuing to provide the UK with electricity whilst lowering emissions, nuclear power is absolutely essential. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Nuclear power plants are a very efficient and powerful way of generating large amounts of energy. Despite the concerns regarding a disaster, with modern nuclear plants this is extremely unlikely Furthermore, they are also extremely environmentally friendly as they emit no carbon emissions. Nuclear waste can also be disposed of in an entirely controlled and safe manner. I do think nuclear energy will be the future of energy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I do believe we need to move away from using oil, gas and coal so that we can address the climate crisis. I don't know much about nuclear power but I have heard that it is a decent solution to meeting modern energy needs, however I also understand that nuclear power plants create radioactive waste which is hard to dispose of. I would like more information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I know it sounds scary, but we should. Nuclear is one of the best energy sources we have when taken into consideration sustainability and eficiency. General opinion from public about nuclear plants is negative because of disasters from the past, but technology has evolved and it's safe now -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think we should focus on renewable energy rather than nuclear power. There are clean energy options available that provide better outcomes for the environment. Nuclear is not the best option when looking at power alternatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Nuclear power is much more consistent than renewables like wind or solar, similarly low carbon, and can produce a lot of electricity. With competent management there is essentially no risk of an accident like the one at Fukishima, as the UK does not experience serious natural disasters. If the government is serious about continuing to provide the UK with electricity whilst lowering emissions, nuclear power is absolutely essential. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Nuclear power plants are a very efficient and powerful way of generating large amounts of energy. Despite the concerns regarding a disaster, with modern nuclear plants this is extremely unlikely Furthermore, they are also extremely environmentally friendly as they emit no carbon emissions. Nuclear waste can also be disposed of in an entirely controlled and safe manner. I do think nuclear energy will be the future of energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I do believe we need to move away from using oil, gas and coal so that we can address the climate crisis. I don't know much about nuclear power but I have heard that it is a decent solution to meeting modern energy needs, however I also understand that nuclear power plants create radioactive waste which is hard to dispose of. I would like more information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I know it sounds scary, but we should. Nuclear is one of the best energy sources we have when taken into consideration sustainability and eficiency. General opinion from public about nuclear plants is negative because of disasters from the past, but technology has evolved and it's safe now +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think we should focus on renewable energy rather than nuclear power. There are clean energy options available that provide better outcomes for the environment. Nuclear is not the best option when looking at power alternatives. 2: 1,2,4,3,5 1: 5,2,1,4,3 1: 2,1,5,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002567.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002567.soc index c78772a0..136c6fdc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002567.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002567.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Absolutely no tax on meat. I'm not usually a meat eater by choice, as I do sometimes if I fancy it. we may as well put taxes on all food as this is the way it's going to end up. Why would it be a reasonable thing to do on meat. Meat has been eaten since the beginning of time why would they? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I can't see why. On the whole, I believe we are taxed too much already and some of these taxes are by stealth. I can't think of many taxes on foods or even things like tobacco and alcohol that have ever achieved what they aimed to do- unless the aim was to put more money in the government's coffers. In my opinion taxes on meat (or any other food) are a cop-out from dealing with the issue of meat production head on and shows weak leadership and is simply an appeasing strategy and no more. I have never seen any evidence of food taxes being affective. Instead, they (as often is the case) penalise the vulnerable and the least well-off in society, which is not on. I don't agree with this. Any food strategy must have meat and this doesn't! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I'm not really sure what the need for this would be. Is it to stop cheap factory farmed meat from abroad? Is it to encourage more people to vegetarianism? I think most people are already having a tough time at the moment with the cost of living crisis so have probably already cut down on meat consumption. I m a vegetarian myself and would love for more people to stop eating meat but I wouldn't force them to by overpricing it so it unaffordable. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Again another tricky question. I do not believe that the way to try and make change involves taxing someone for making a decision. At the end of the day eating meat comes down to to the individual and it is their choice. I do not think that an increased tax is going to stop people from eating meat (if this is the goal) just by making it a little more expensive. It is too black and white. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I do not think there should be an increased tax on meat. While I agree that excessive human consumption of meat (meat produced through industrial farming, anyway) has negative impacts for people's health, animal rights, and for the planet in terms of increased carbon emissions, I do not think that introducing a 'meat tax' is necessarily the best way to solve these problems. During a cost of living crisis, a lot of people already struggle to buy healthy, protein-rich food to feed themselves. Meat can be a big part of a healthy diet. When it comes to solving the aforementioned questions, perhaps the best way to do that is via a tax on factory farms themselves. Higher welfare, smaller farms could be taxed less. Less supply = higher costs = less consumption +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Absolutely no tax on meat. I'm not usually a meat eater by choice, as I do sometimes if I fancy it. we may as well put taxes on all food as this is the way it's going to end up. Why would it be a reasonable thing to do on meat. Meat has been eaten since the beginning of time why would they? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I can't see why. On the whole, I believe we are taxed too much already and some of these taxes are by stealth. I can't think of many taxes on foods or even things like tobacco and alcohol that have ever achieved what they aimed to do- unless the aim was to put more money in the government's coffers. In my opinion taxes on meat (or any other food) are a cop-out from dealing with the issue of meat production head on and shows weak leadership and is simply an appeasing strategy and no more. I have never seen any evidence of food taxes being affective. Instead, they (as often is the case) penalise the vulnerable and the least well-off in society, which is not on. I don't agree with this. Any food strategy must have meat and this doesn't! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I'm not really sure what the need for this would be. Is it to stop cheap factory farmed meat from abroad? Is it to encourage more people to vegetarianism? I think most people are already having a tough time at the moment with the cost of living crisis so have probably already cut down on meat consumption. I m a vegetarian myself and would love for more people to stop eating meat but I wouldn't force them to by overpricing it so it unaffordable. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Again another tricky question. I do not believe that the way to try and make change involves taxing someone for making a decision. At the end of the day eating meat comes down to to the individual and it is their choice. I do not think that an increased tax is going to stop people from eating meat (if this is the goal) just by making it a little more expensive. It is too black and white. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I do not think there should be an increased tax on meat. While I agree that excessive human consumption of meat (meat produced through industrial farming, anyway) has negative impacts for people's health, animal rights, and for the planet in terms of increased carbon emissions, I do not think that introducing a 'meat tax' is necessarily the best way to solve these problems. During a cost of living crisis, a lot of people already struggle to buy healthy, protein-rich food to feed themselves. Meat can be a big part of a healthy diet. When it comes to solving the aforementioned questions, perhaps the best way to do that is via a tax on factory farms themselves. Higher welfare, smaller farms could be taxed less. Less supply = higher costs = less consumption 2: 5,2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,5,1,3 1: 3,5,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002568.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002568.soc index d3ee614a..cfa46ff1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002568.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002568.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I have to say this has not crossed my mind before, and in theory I dont see why not, but I have no idea how it could ever be impletemented, especially with a conservative government. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Absolutely! It's a communication thing, especially helpful for the older generation. The media are always going on about loneliness and the internet is a fantastic tool to help combat that. And for those who need help with education and learning. The internet is a marvellous thing which I believe we all should be able to have access to in this day and age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think this would be very beneficial as internet is now an essential utility but I would rather that water or electricity be free for everyone. However, I don't know much about how much this would cost so can't really give an 100% opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes I believe broadband should be nationalised and a basic service should be provided for free with an option to pay for higher speeds, internet companies are currently charging far more than they need to in order to make huge profits at the expense of the public. Internet is essential to function in modern society, you cannot get a job today without access to the internet for example so if somebody finds themselves unable to pay for access they won't be able to live properly and as a wealthy developed nation that is unacceptable +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I have to say this has not crossed my mind before, and in theory I dont see why not, but I have no idea how it could ever be impletemented, especially with a conservative government. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Absolutely! It's a communication thing, especially helpful for the older generation. The media are always going on about loneliness and the internet is a fantastic tool to help combat that. And for those who need help with education and learning. The internet is a marvellous thing which I believe we all should be able to have access to in this day and age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think this would be very beneficial as internet is now an essential utility but I would rather that water or electricity be free for everyone. However, I don't know much about how much this would cost so can't really give an 100% opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes I believe broadband should be nationalised and a basic service should be provided for free with an option to pay for higher speeds, internet companies are currently charging far more than they need to in order to make huge profits at the expense of the public. Internet is essential to function in modern society, you cannot get a job today without access to the internet for example so if somebody finds themselves unable to pay for access they won't be able to live properly and as a wealthy developed nation that is unacceptable 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002569.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002569.soc index f5b44046..aa9d7cd4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002569.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002569.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Baby led weaning diets are a great way to introduce food to a baby, it gives them the full experience from exploring textures, temperatures, and smells to the full autonomy of working out how to eat the food. It also allows the child to eat as much or as little as they want. Soon feeding babies can end up force feeding the baby as the guardian may worry they are hungry, whereas baby led allows them to listen to their body so can help reduce food problems in future. It can also help reduce aversions as the baby has had chance to explore a range of textures and food as it comes naturally. Not all babies would be suitable to do baby led feeding so spoon feeding has benefits to babies who would otherwise be unable to eat non pureed food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe both of these have their benefits, spoon-feeding is great for parents who want to feed their babies and slowly introduce them to this new way of feeding. Yet baby-led weaning does offer more benefits in my opinion. It can be extremely messy - I have a 15 month old and therefore know all about this first hand. But babies are supposed to play with their food and explore at their own pace. This has a huge impact on promoting their confidence and independence, experiencing different textures and temperatures, and also allows them to develop their fine motor skills. Babies can begin this from as little as 5 months old, however it's important to ensure that the food is served age-appropriately and that they're supervised at all times. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I don't really have an opinion on this, and I have no real idea what 'baby-led' diets are. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I simply don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion. In general, I'd instinctively expect a 'baby-led' weaning diet to be a better method, but I'd certainly need to find out more to be sure that it was the case. I'd be inclined to trust expert opinion on this subject. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think baby-led weaning diets may well be better for introducing solid foods to babies than spoon feeding . It is a more sensory process over all, the baby can touch and smell the food easily. You can give the baby a variety of food to put in its mouth, it may be a quicker way to wean baby as it can copy it's parents eating different things. However, I think whatever way a parent wants to feed it's baby is down to them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Baby led weaning diets are a great way to introduce food to a baby, it gives them the full experience from exploring textures, temperatures, and smells to the full autonomy of working out how to eat the food. It also allows the child to eat as much or as little as they want. Soon feeding babies can end up force feeding the baby as the guardian may worry they are hungry, whereas baby led allows them to listen to their body so can help reduce food problems in future. It can also help reduce aversions as the baby has had chance to explore a range of textures and food as it comes naturally. Not all babies would be suitable to do baby led feeding so spoon feeding has benefits to babies who would otherwise be unable to eat non pureed food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe both of these have their benefits, spoon-feeding is great for parents who want to feed their babies and slowly introduce them to this new way of feeding. Yet baby-led weaning does offer more benefits in my opinion. It can be extremely messy - I have a 15 month old and therefore know all about this first hand. But babies are supposed to play with their food and explore at their own pace. This has a huge impact on promoting their confidence and independence, experiencing different textures and temperatures, and also allows them to develop their fine motor skills. Babies can begin this from as little as 5 months old, however it's important to ensure that the food is served age-appropriately and that they're supervised at all times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I don't really have an opinion on this, and I have no real idea what 'baby-led' diets are. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I simply don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion. In general, I'd instinctively expect a 'baby-led' weaning diet to be a better method, but I'd certainly need to find out more to be sure that it was the case. I'd be inclined to trust expert opinion on this subject. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think baby-led weaning diets may well be better for introducing solid foods to babies than spoon feeding . It is a more sensory process over all, the baby can touch and smell the food easily. You can give the baby a variety of food to put in its mouth, it may be a quicker way to wean baby as it can copy it's parents eating different things. However, I think whatever way a parent wants to feed it's baby is down to them. 4: 1,2,5,4,3 1: 2,1,5,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002570.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002570.soc index 4882234d..54914a5c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002570.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002570.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: no as it would decrease productivity and also leave us with less hours. the current working week is fine and we have the weekend to relax and enjoy ourselves. while it seems like a good idea I don't think it would work in the long run -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No...there are many reason's why. But it wont be across the board so whats the point. Maybe and i mean maybe a day off for the entire team or workplace as a treat for overall great business performance which can either be a team day out or if you just want to be at home then fine. But a day off a week seem's absurd with the amount of work hours you would lose week on week. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is very important for employers to provide appropriate rest time for their employees and it should be highlighted that they care about the well being and happiness. This would cultivate any business to flourish in every opportunity and the evidence can be recently seen as employees with longer/better quality break perform better in every aspect. This can be seen as more and more companies all across the globe are impletmenting three day weekends which is dramatically different to the old norm. This idea and glorification of the rat race should abolished as it provides an unrealistic ideology of the working environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, employers who do not provide their employee at least a day off from work every week should be forced to do so. Like the old saying goes "all work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy", it is very important for employees to at least a day off every week so they can rest up to stay motivated and productive. These rest days keeps the employees happy and happy employees means higher productive for and business or organisation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think we have an extremely stressful working life and the long weeks are not good for our health. Stress causes time off work anyway, so surely allowing extra time would cancel this issue out? I do see that it could be detrimental to the economy by losing one productive day, however, I don't think I have seen evidence of this from other countries who have actually had a happier and more productive workforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - no as it would decrease productivity and also leave us with less hours. the current working week is fine and we have the weekend to relax and enjoy ourselves. while it seems like a good idea I don't think it would work in the long run +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No...there are many reason's why. But it wont be across the board so whats the point. Maybe and i mean maybe a day off for the entire team or workplace as a treat for overall great business performance which can either be a team day out or if you just want to be at home then fine. But a day off a week seem's absurd with the amount of work hours you would lose week on week. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is very important for employers to provide appropriate rest time for their employees and it should be highlighted that they care about the well being and happiness. This would cultivate any business to flourish in every opportunity and the evidence can be recently seen as employees with longer/better quality break perform better in every aspect. This can be seen as more and more companies all across the globe are impletmenting three day weekends which is dramatically different to the old norm. This idea and glorification of the rat race should abolished as it provides an unrealistic ideology of the working environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, employers who do not provide their employee at least a day off from work every week should be forced to do so. Like the old saying goes "all work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy", it is very important for employees to at least a day off every week so they can rest up to stay motivated and productive. These rest days keeps the employees happy and happy employees means higher productive for and business or organisation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think we have an extremely stressful working life and the long weeks are not good for our health. Stress causes time off work anyway, so surely allowing extra time would cancel this issue out? I do see that it could be detrimental to the economy by losing one productive day, however, I don't think I have seen evidence of this from other countries who have actually had a happier and more productive workforce. 1: 2,1,3,4,5 1: 3,4,5,1,2 1: 3,4,5,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002571.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002571.soc index 85176472..cd2074c2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002571.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002571.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I do not think that employers should be made to set aside a percentage of their profits for employees as employers already pay a wage to their employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe that they should - it doesn't have to be a huge amount but it can be a win-win for both parties. If employees are more likely to be rewarded in this way they are more likely to work harder to achieve their success. It could also encourage better job loyalty/staff retention with a more committed workforce. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No they shouldn't. The boss of any organization should never be paid more than 15 times the lowest paid worker, but it doesn't mean that employees should get a percentage of the profits. How would you work out who was more deserving, the cleaner on £11 an hour doing his job efficiently or the receptionist whose work can't be quantified? It doesn't make sense. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, employers should be required to set aside a percentage of their profits for their employees. Ideally if this was the case, it would be more fair on employees with how much they contribute to the company when majority of the time they are receiving minimum wage. If anything, the extra wage from the employers pockets would be a bonus & would be appreciated by all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I would say it depends how much the employees already make as a standard. if they do not make much then I agree a percentage of profit should be required, not too much but enough for the employee to be making decent money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I do not think that employers should be made to set aside a percentage of their profits for employees as employers already pay a wage to their employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe that they should - it doesn't have to be a huge amount but it can be a win-win for both parties. If employees are more likely to be rewarded in this way they are more likely to work harder to achieve their success. It could also encourage better job loyalty/staff retention with a more committed workforce. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No they shouldn't. The boss of any organization should never be paid more than 15 times the lowest paid worker, but it doesn't mean that employees should get a percentage of the profits. How would you work out who was more deserving, the cleaner on £11 an hour doing his job efficiently or the receptionist whose work can't be quantified? It doesn't make sense. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, employers should be required to set aside a percentage of their profits for their employees. Ideally if this was the case, it would be more fair on employees with how much they contribute to the company when majority of the time they are receiving minimum wage. If anything, the extra wage from the employers pockets would be a bonus & would be appreciated by all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I would say it depends how much the employees already make as a standard. if they do not make much then I agree a percentage of profit should be required, not too much but enough for the employee to be making decent money. 3: 4,2,5,3,1 1: 3,1,2,4,5 1: 1,3,5,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002572.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002572.soc index 239431ed..5ff76a5b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002572.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002572.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe that the church is quite accepting of anyone who desires to go to church even if they are not dress formally. but i also think that out of respect that you should dress formally in a church just out of respect for the surroundings and people involved. People may look down at the people who are dressed informally but i dont think that they would actually in such kick anyone out for being so -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I genuinely don't have much to say on this topic as I think it's totally irrelevant what somebody wears to worship their God. I think religions in general are antiquated and out of touch, and with the current cost of living crisis it will ostracise worshippers who may not be able to afford "smart" enough clothes. The church is crying out for new blood, so they should just be grateful that there are still believers willing to attend church regardless of what they wear! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I've never been to church but given that it's meant to be welcoming to all, I can't see why dressing informally would be a problem, I imagine the majority who go are dressed like that. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, it shouldn't be frowned upon to dress informally for church. What a person wears should not, and is not, a determining factor in their faith or their commitment to their faith. Whether someone is wearing informal and more casual clothes, or more formal attire, does not have any impact on the purpose of visiting a church. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't believe it should be frowned upon to an extent. Churches are a place of worship in which people go to pray, pay their respects, mourn etc. Churchgoers should be able to dress in whatever way makes them the most comfortable, whether that be a suit and tie or a t-shirt and shorts. However, if someone were to wear something that was very inappropriate, so much so that it caused disruption in the church they should be asked to leave. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe that the church is quite accepting of anyone who desires to go to church even if they are not dress formally. but i also think that out of respect that you should dress formally in a church just out of respect for the surroundings and people involved. People may look down at the people who are dressed informally but i dont think that they would actually in such kick anyone out for being so +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I genuinely don't have much to say on this topic as I think it's totally irrelevant what somebody wears to worship their God. I think religions in general are antiquated and out of touch, and with the current cost of living crisis it will ostracise worshippers who may not be able to afford "smart" enough clothes. The church is crying out for new blood, so they should just be grateful that there are still believers willing to attend church regardless of what they wear! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I've never been to church but given that it's meant to be welcoming to all, I can't see why dressing informally would be a problem, I imagine the majority who go are dressed like that. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, it shouldn't be frowned upon to dress informally for church. What a person wears should not, and is not, a determining factor in their faith or their commitment to their faith. Whether someone is wearing informal and more casual clothes, or more formal attire, does not have any impact on the purpose of visiting a church. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't believe it should be frowned upon to an extent. Churches are a place of worship in which people go to pray, pay their respects, mourn etc. Churchgoers should be able to dress in whatever way makes them the most comfortable, whether that be a suit and tie or a t-shirt and shorts. However, if someone were to wear something that was very inappropriate, so much so that it caused disruption in the church they should be asked to leave. 1: 1,4,2,5,3 1: 4,5,3,2,1 1: 4,5,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002573.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002573.soc index ae62aa7a..126da455 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002573.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002573.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes I think all students should have to take a foreign language at school. In the UK, we seriously lack behind other countries with our ability to speak other languages as we assume that we can just get by with English in all walks of life. However, speaking another language not only increases your employability, it also opens so many doors in terms of connecting with other people and cultures in the countries where the chosen foreign language is spoken. It is so enriching to be able to speak another language and allows you to understand more deeply languages and cultures other than English. The more knowledge you have in life, the better you'll be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe students having to take a foreign language in school is important as it starts to teach them about different cultures. If they would not have this they may not be able to understand the differences and similarities between different countries and cultures and I believe this is extremely important. Also it will make students interested in the bigger world and not just their own microcosm. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe it's important for everyone to know at least one additional language to English. This will help young people stand out and be able to communicate with other people all over the world. Although a lot of them can definitely speak English too, you immediately make a much better impression and can get a lot more done if you can speak at least a little bit of the local language. This is great for both businesses, how other countries view the UK or even just on holidays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It depends to what standard. If it is to GCSE then yes i do think but i don't think students should be forced to study a language any further. A basic understanding of a foreign language is a benefit and can assist a student in other subjects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think teaching another language is good in the sense that it helps encourage people learning about other people's cultures and ways of life. It will also encourage people to visit other countries and become more accepting of a globalized world. However, I think it is somewhat limited in the sense that not everyone who learns a language will then go on to use it. The time could perhaps be spent on more useful studies, such as learning life skills such as improving mental health, consumer rights or how to do taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes I think all students should have to take a foreign language at school. In the UK, we seriously lack behind other countries with our ability to speak other languages as we assume that we can just get by with English in all walks of life. However, speaking another language not only increases your employability, it also opens so many doors in terms of connecting with other people and cultures in the countries where the chosen foreign language is spoken. It is so enriching to be able to speak another language and allows you to understand more deeply languages and cultures other than English. The more knowledge you have in life, the better you'll be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe students having to take a foreign language in school is important as it starts to teach them about different cultures. If they would not have this they may not be able to understand the differences and similarities between different countries and cultures and I believe this is extremely important. Also it will make students interested in the bigger world and not just their own microcosm. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe it's important for everyone to know at least one additional language to English. This will help young people stand out and be able to communicate with other people all over the world. Although a lot of them can definitely speak English too, you immediately make a much better impression and can get a lot more done if you can speak at least a little bit of the local language. This is great for both businesses, how other countries view the UK or even just on holidays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It depends to what standard. If it is to GCSE then yes i do think but i don't think students should be forced to study a language any further. A basic understanding of a foreign language is a benefit and can assist a student in other subjects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think teaching another language is good in the sense that it helps encourage people learning about other people's cultures and ways of life. It will also encourage people to visit other countries and become more accepting of a globalized world. However, I think it is somewhat limited in the sense that not everyone who learns a language will then go on to use it. The time could perhaps be spent on more useful studies, such as learning life skills such as improving mental health, consumer rights or how to do taxes. 1: 1,2,3,5,4 1: 1,3,2,5,4 1: 1,3,2,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002574.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002574.soc index 259e5b6e..3f95891d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002574.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002574.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think human-induced climate change is a serious problem. The advancing technology we have now means people live a much higher consumerist lifestyle and this is leading to overproduction of products and overusing resources in a way our planet is not designed for. Climate change will affect the poorest in our world first and by the time wealthier parts of the world feel the impact the issue will likely be very advanced. People cannot change this alone, governments need to lead the way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, very much so. It's been a problem for a while but we're only now realising how far in the hole we are and it may already be too late to reverse it but we can at least slow it down. There's a lot of good being done, but we still need to do more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think that human induced climate change is a very serious problem because the consequences are very serious like ice caps melting, air pollution and extreme weather events. Humans are a big threat to our planet and everyone needs to try and be more environmentally friendly -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes it is. Humans need to find better ways to source things to reduce climate change. in addition, there needs to be policies brought in to help reduce climate change. this could be similar to the plastic bag levy etc. Small things can be done by people on a regular basis - this would be a start. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think that human-induced climate change is a serious problem as we can see, particularly in more recent years, that terrible weather events and mass migrations are happening around the world because those places are no longer livable or are coming close to being unlivable. However, I do not think it is the only problem, as we know that the climate is heating up regardless of what we do, we are just driving it further on. As such, I think sometimes we need to think about whether we should be blaming people or instead be thinking about ways in which we can come to solutions together. Similarly, the planet will be just fine even if we 'destroy' it, so we have to think about why care about it - in reality, it is to protect ourselves, and so we should frame it in this manner. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think human-induced climate change is a serious problem. The advancing technology we have now means people live a much higher consumerist lifestyle and this is leading to overproduction of products and overusing resources in a way our planet is not designed for. Climate change will affect the poorest in our world first and by the time wealthier parts of the world feel the impact the issue will likely be very advanced. People cannot change this alone, governments need to lead the way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, very much so. It's been a problem for a while but we're only now realising how far in the hole we are and it may already be too late to reverse it but we can at least slow it down. There's a lot of good being done, but we still need to do more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think that human induced climate change is a very serious problem because the consequences are very serious like ice caps melting, air pollution and extreme weather events. Humans are a big threat to our planet and everyone needs to try and be more environmentally friendly +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes it is. Humans need to find better ways to source things to reduce climate change. in addition, there needs to be policies brought in to help reduce climate change. this could be similar to the plastic bag levy etc. Small things can be done by people on a regular basis - this would be a start. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think that human-induced climate change is a serious problem as we can see, particularly in more recent years, that terrible weather events and mass migrations are happening around the world because those places are no longer livable or are coming close to being unlivable. However, I do not think it is the only problem, as we know that the climate is heating up regardless of what we do, we are just driving it further on. As such, I think sometimes we need to think about whether we should be blaming people or instead be thinking about ways in which we can come to solutions together. Similarly, the planet will be just fine even if we 'destroy' it, so we have to think about why care about it - in reality, it is to protect ourselves, and so we should frame it in this manner. 1: 1,5,2,3,4 1: 5,1,2,4,3 1: 5,4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002575.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002575.soc index bc0c7d85..2be8c5c5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002575.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002575.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I don't have a strong opinion either way. Although I was a student years ago. I'm not sure what current students are facing, whether is enough support already or if it is needed. There are some issues that cause pressures on students such as cost of living and inflation, and covid causing a dip in education, so may err on the side of for. But it doesn't matter to me either way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think so. I really do not think that accessing the mental health support is very easy nor confidential for students. As a student myself I feel judged when trying to access any support for my mental health and I think this is wrong. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe there should be money for mental health and a support system in place for everyone not just students but I believe the universities or education sites should take some responsibility for their students also not just the govt. ploughing extra funding in. There should be a system of access, support and help from the place of education as a first point of call funded by them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Students are under a lot of pressure to perform. There are insufficient resources available at schools, colleges and universities, although they do their best. More money needs to be spent to ensure that there is a safety net for students. Many university students are away from home and may not have support networks in place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I don't have a strong opinion either way. Although I was a student years ago. I'm not sure what current students are facing, whether is enough support already or if it is needed. There are some issues that cause pressures on students such as cost of living and inflation, and covid causing a dip in education, so may err on the side of for. But it doesn't matter to me either way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think so. I really do not think that accessing the mental health support is very easy nor confidential for students. As a student myself I feel judged when trying to access any support for my mental health and I think this is wrong. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe there should be money for mental health and a support system in place for everyone not just students but I believe the universities or education sites should take some responsibility for their students also not just the govt. ploughing extra funding in. There should be a system of access, support and help from the place of education as a first point of call funded by them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Students are under a lot of pressure to perform. There are insufficient resources available at schools, colleges and universities, although they do their best. More money needs to be spent to ensure that there is a safety net for students. Many university students are away from home and may not have support networks in place. 1: 3,1,4,2 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002576.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002576.soc index 2ef3d53b..e17c7eba 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002576.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002576.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, there is not an ethical argument for raising taxes. Taxes are already being used in ways that are unacceptable to the public, and during the cost of living crisis, we should not be expected to pay even more only to end up homeless sooner. Our taxes should provide healthcare, or services, and to help those in need, but it seems most of our taxes end up in someones pocket. Until our economic situation can be addressed in a way that actually improves the lives of those around the world, taxes should stay the same for the public. Though the richest should be taxed to the same standard that we are, they should not be able to pocket more money than most of us will see in our lifetime. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In the UK, there is great economic inequality. The cost of living crisis is worse than ever, and many people in this country struggle daily to afford basic necessities such as food, rent and energy bills. Whilst this is going on, others in the country are making more money than they ever will need, and wealth is hoarded amongst these people. Raising taxes for these high earners, along with a government that spends its budget wisely and fairly, will easily solve many of the problems millions are facing today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are a few reasons I can think of to raise taxes. The main one that comes to mind is how under-funded the NHS is. The second, which should have been the first, is the fact that poverty still exists at all in this country. I believe in raising taxes for the very wealthy and corporations, lowering it for the less wealthy and small businesses. Or just re-allocating it! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think taxes are necessary to provide the government with funds to maintain services and conditions in the country. Paying taxes is important and beneficial to everyone, however taxes are a large proportion of a person's salary. People who earn more money should pay higher taxes than people who earn less. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I understand the reasoning for doing it, as in to provide better support for things such as the NHS and so on, however I don't agree with it or think it's ethical. Raising taxes and not raising salaries is causing such a big issue for people in terms of cost of living. The rich stay rich, as they aren't wholly affected by the rise in taxes whereas it puts worse off people in an even worse position. It's not something that's in our control or that we're really allowed to have a say on, so it causes a lot of stress and worry in terms of finance, mental wellbeing and general day to day life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, there is not an ethical argument for raising taxes. Taxes are already being used in ways that are unacceptable to the public, and during the cost of living crisis, we should not be expected to pay even more only to end up homeless sooner. Our taxes should provide healthcare, or services, and to help those in need, but it seems most of our taxes end up in someones pocket. Until our economic situation can be addressed in a way that actually improves the lives of those around the world, taxes should stay the same for the public. Though the richest should be taxed to the same standard that we are, they should not be able to pocket more money than most of us will see in our lifetime. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In the UK, there is great economic inequality. The cost of living crisis is worse than ever, and many people in this country struggle daily to afford basic necessities such as food, rent and energy bills. Whilst this is going on, others in the country are making more money than they ever will need, and wealth is hoarded amongst these people. Raising taxes for these high earners, along with a government that spends its budget wisely and fairly, will easily solve many of the problems millions are facing today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are a few reasons I can think of to raise taxes. The main one that comes to mind is how under-funded the NHS is. The second, which should have been the first, is the fact that poverty still exists at all in this country. I believe in raising taxes for the very wealthy and corporations, lowering it for the less wealthy and small businesses. Or just re-allocating it! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think taxes are necessary to provide the government with funds to maintain services and conditions in the country. Paying taxes is important and beneficial to everyone, however taxes are a large proportion of a person's salary. People who earn more money should pay higher taxes than people who earn less. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I understand the reasoning for doing it, as in to provide better support for things such as the NHS and so on, however I don't agree with it or think it's ethical. Raising taxes and not raising salaries is causing such a big issue for people in terms of cost of living. The rich stay rich, as they aren't wholly affected by the rise in taxes whereas it puts worse off people in an even worse position. It's not something that's in our control or that we're really allowed to have a say on, so it causes a lot of stress and worry in terms of finance, mental wellbeing and general day to day life. 2: 1,2,5,3,4 1: 2,1,3,5,4 1: 2,5,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002577.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002577.soc index 0a6ec210..adb4532b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002577.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002577.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe that the voting age should be reduced to 16 years old. Once a person reaches the age of 16, they are able to acquire part-time jobs, paying into the economy by generating revenue through the work that they do and by paying tax on the income they generate. The Government's job is to distribute tax income to support the inhabitants of a country, and if you as an individual have the potential to pay into the system, you should have a say, via voting rights, on how that tax money is spent and by whom. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No I don't think it should as I feel the opinion of a 16 year old would be influenced heavily by their parents and at that age it's very hard to figure out a political stance. The same reason for their opinion being easily influenced through schools and their friends. I think it's much better to keep the voting age at 18 which the individual can slowly learn about politics and create a better stance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes I think the age should be lowered to 16. In many cases 16 year olds are considered adults and have to contribute towards society so I feel their opinion is important. 16 year olds can have jobs, live away from family and have babies so their opinions on society are as important as 18 year olds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think at 16, I personally didn't have a full understanding of politics. If politics was taught as a compulsory subject, then I could see why this would work. The decisions made by governments will impact on young people for longer so the young should be involved in politics to shape their future. I do, however, worry that some young people would be influenced by extreme views without realising the consequences of this due to a lack of real knowledge of politics. I think it is important to engage young people in politics and for them to have a real passion for how the world works. At the moment, I feel as though many feel disillusioned by politics and that it 'isn't for them'. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think the voting age should be reduced to 16 for a few reasons. One is it starts to engage younger people in politics and making them realise they can help create shifts in policies, which would help improve engagement over time. It also allows people this age to vote directly on things that affect them which is only fair, like issues of education. It would also add numbers to the voting pool which is desirable for voter engagement and reflecting more accurately the wants of wider society through voting outcomes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe that the voting age should be reduced to 16 years old. Once a person reaches the age of 16, they are able to acquire part-time jobs, paying into the economy by generating revenue through the work that they do and by paying tax on the income they generate. The Government's job is to distribute tax income to support the inhabitants of a country, and if you as an individual have the potential to pay into the system, you should have a say, via voting rights, on how that tax money is spent and by whom. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No I don't think it should as I feel the opinion of a 16 year old would be influenced heavily by their parents and at that age it's very hard to figure out a political stance. The same reason for their opinion being easily influenced through schools and their friends. I think it's much better to keep the voting age at 18 which the individual can slowly learn about politics and create a better stance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes I think the age should be lowered to 16. In many cases 16 year olds are considered adults and have to contribute towards society so I feel their opinion is important. 16 year olds can have jobs, live away from family and have babies so their opinions on society are as important as 18 year olds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think at 16, I personally didn't have a full understanding of politics. If politics was taught as a compulsory subject, then I could see why this would work. The decisions made by governments will impact on young people for longer so the young should be involved in politics to shape their future. I do, however, worry that some young people would be influenced by extreme views without realising the consequences of this due to a lack of real knowledge of politics. I think it is important to engage young people in politics and for them to have a real passion for how the world works. At the moment, I feel as though many feel disillusioned by politics and that it 'isn't for them'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think the voting age should be reduced to 16 for a few reasons. One is it starts to engage younger people in politics and making them realise they can help create shifts in policies, which would help improve engagement over time. It also allows people this age to vote directly on things that affect them which is only fair, like issues of education. It would also add numbers to the voting pool which is desirable for voter engagement and reflecting more accurately the wants of wider society through voting outcomes. 1: 4,1,5,2,3 1: 1,3,5,4,2 1: 1,5,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002578.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002578.soc index 3e332ee9..b7863b11 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002578.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002578.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I support increasing tax on higher incomes in general. But 80% seems too high. It will leave no motivation for working for higher incomes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: 80% is far too excessive. When you consider people in those homes will pay 50% super tax on incomes, plus massive inheritance tax on the estate when someone dies, and now you want an 80% tax. Surely there's better ways to save money than just the standard default of "tax rich stuff". -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We need to reform tax law in the UK to make it fairer for all. The Ultra rich can afford to pay extra tax. This money can be used for essential services. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No as the rate is far to high and would discourage wealthy people from visiting investing or spending here. It would make more sense to tax less to encourage the wealthy to come here and spend and invest here. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: While I agree that people who earn substantial amounts of money like this, I do not think it is fair to tax 80% of that income. Where would that tax money go? Would it be used to reduce poverty, if so then maybe a lower percentage would be fairer but they have earnt that money and clearly worked hard so why should such a high percentage be taxed. It is because of extreme tax rates like this that rich people then feel they have to try and attempt tax evasion by hiding money overseas. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I support increasing tax on higher incomes in general. But 80% seems too high. It will leave no motivation for working for higher incomes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - 80% is far too excessive. When you consider people in those homes will pay 50% super tax on incomes, plus massive inheritance tax on the estate when someone dies, and now you want an 80% tax. Surely there's better ways to save money than just the standard default of "tax rich stuff". +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We need to reform tax law in the UK to make it fairer for all. The Ultra rich can afford to pay extra tax. This money can be used for essential services. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No as the rate is far to high and would discourage wealthy people from visiting investing or spending here. It would make more sense to tax less to encourage the wealthy to come here and spend and invest here. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - While I agree that people who earn substantial amounts of money like this, I do not think it is fair to tax 80% of that income. Where would that tax money go? Would it be used to reduce poverty, if so then maybe a lower percentage would be fairer but they have earnt that money and clearly worked hard so why should such a high percentage be taxed. It is because of extreme tax rates like this that rich people then feel they have to try and attempt tax evasion by hiding money overseas. 1: 4,2,3,5,1 1: 2,5,4,1,3 1: 2,3,4,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002579.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002579.soc index 999e6d5c..3aacdba8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002579.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002579.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I don't think cars should be equipped with speed limiters as at times, drivers need to go above the speed limit to overtake or to move out of a hazard's way. I don't like being limited on how I can use the car which I paid for. I may want to drive into Europe and drive on roads without a speed limit or take my car to a racing track - so I should have the freedom to drive without a limit when I want to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I dont think that they should but i do think that people should obey the law and make sure that they do what they should. People should be responsible -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: They should in general, as long as the rule is being followed across all drivers in the country. This will be a good idea but it might have some flaws -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: All new cars should have speed limiters fitted. Many new cars already have them fitted and they are useful. It needs to be able to be selected by the driver and have variable settings. It should be able to be switched on and off by the driver. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think from a safety point of view they should but there is also a lot of safe drivers so it may also be good for it to be a choice for car owners. I think they would be a popular choice amongst car owners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I don't think cars should be equipped with speed limiters as at times, drivers need to go above the speed limit to overtake or to move out of a hazard's way. I don't like being limited on how I can use the car which I paid for. I may want to drive into Europe and drive on roads without a speed limit or take my car to a racing track - so I should have the freedom to drive without a limit when I want to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I dont think that they should but i do think that people should obey the law and make sure that they do what they should. People should be responsible +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - They should in general, as long as the rule is being followed across all drivers in the country. This will be a good idea but it might have some flaws +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - All new cars should have speed limiters fitted. Many new cars already have them fitted and they are useful. It needs to be able to be selected by the driver and have variable settings. It should be able to be switched on and off by the driver. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think from a safety point of view they should but there is also a lot of safe drivers so it may also be good for it to be a choice for car owners. I think they would be a popular choice amongst car owners. 1: 4,5,3,2,1 1: 1,4,2,3,5 1: 1,2,5,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002580.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002580.soc index c9229c91..4a76e05d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002580.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002580.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The price of electric cars is currently far too high for the average car buyer to purchase. You will be making poor people even poorer by removing the choice and banning the cars. Modern exhaust systems and additives can reduce emissions further if goverments supported them. Diesel and petrols cars should not be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Long term - most definitely, cars powered by fossil fuels like this are bad for the environment. Short term - no. We, at least in the UK, do not have the infrastructure in place to switch to all electric cars as there are not enough charge points nationwide and the cars also do not have very good range at the moment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think in a sense we should, perhaps not immediately as this could cause major issues but some time in the near future we will have to as there will not be enough petrol to maintain those cars. whether people like it or not electric cars will have to be the future and they should be implemented much more over the years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I do not believe we should completely stop selling petrol & diesel cars. We can gradually becoming more electric/automatic but would be easier to reduce the use of petrol/diesel cars gradually considering a large percentage of people still use them. Plus for a lot of people, they are not able to afford expensive electric cars therefore need to rely on cheaper diesel/petrol vehicles to get around. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No, I do not believe that we should stop selling diesel and petrol cars at the moment as there is no viable and tested alternative available right now. I do not believe that the long-term efficiency and ability to cope with a huge influx of electric cars is proven at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The price of electric cars is currently far too high for the average car buyer to purchase. You will be making poor people even poorer by removing the choice and banning the cars. Modern exhaust systems and additives can reduce emissions further if goverments supported them. Diesel and petrols cars should not be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Long term - most definitely, cars powered by fossil fuels like this are bad for the environment. Short term - no. We, at least in the UK, do not have the infrastructure in place to switch to all electric cars as there are not enough charge points nationwide and the cars also do not have very good range at the moment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think in a sense we should, perhaps not immediately as this could cause major issues but some time in the near future we will have to as there will not be enough petrol to maintain those cars. whether people like it or not electric cars will have to be the future and they should be implemented much more over the years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I do not believe we should completely stop selling petrol & diesel cars. We can gradually becoming more electric/automatic but would be easier to reduce the use of petrol/diesel cars gradually considering a large percentage of people still use them. Plus for a lot of people, they are not able to afford expensive electric cars therefore need to rely on cheaper diesel/petrol vehicles to get around. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No, I do not believe that we should stop selling diesel and petrol cars at the moment as there is no viable and tested alternative available right now. I do not believe that the long-term efficiency and ability to cope with a huge influx of electric cars is proven at the moment. 1: 4,2,3,1,5 1: 2,4,3,5,1 1: 1,5,4,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002581.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002581.soc index e0a5da36..69afdf9c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002581.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002581.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think the monarchy should be the head of the church of England because it will bring people to the church. If it leaves the church of England , people will leave it also. The church needs leadership and someone to answer there critics. I believe the church would not last without the funding from the monarchy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I do not think the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England as I believe there should not be a monarchy and it would be much better for the Church of England to have a new head such as the government or the archbishop. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I am not religious so this doesn't affect me directly. As I am not a part of the affected community I don't think that what I think should have any weight in the discussion. It would be better for members of the Church of England to make the decision for themselves about who heads their organisation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I do not believe the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England. The country is majority secular and the state/religion/monarchy shouldn't be interlnked. The Monarchy take too many resources from the country when they could bring money into the country like France for example. Also with so many people in the country being secular it doesnt make sense for their to be so much emphasis on the monarchy being the head of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think the monarchy should be the head of the church of England because it will bring people to the church. If it leaves the church of England , people will leave it also. The church needs leadership and someone to answer there critics. I believe the church would not last without the funding from the monarchy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I do not think the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England as I believe there should not be a monarchy and it would be much better for the Church of England to have a new head such as the government or the archbishop. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I am not religious so this doesn't affect me directly. As I am not a part of the affected community I don't think that what I think should have any weight in the discussion. It would be better for members of the Church of England to make the decision for themselves about who heads their organisation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I do not believe the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England. The country is majority secular and the state/religion/monarchy shouldn't be interlnked. The Monarchy take too many resources from the country when they could bring money into the country like France for example. Also with so many people in the country being secular it doesnt make sense for their to be so much emphasis on the monarchy being the head of it. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002582.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002582.soc index 31bf31c8..61268f1d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002582.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002582.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, I think this push towards green / renewable energy is going too fast. The possible benefits of reducing pollution and more environmentally friendly processes are good, but might instead lead to the affected companies reducing their investments in this country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, i dont not agree with this, why put more money pressure on people when we are already in a bad way with the current climate. i do not know too many facts around this issue but not sure on what i really think about it -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. a new carbon tax could be an important lever in lowering our carbon emissions, tackling climate change, and dealing with big corporations within the fossil fuel industry. While there may be other possible solutions in this area, if we were to introduce a carbon tax it could help us to finally make some progress on reaching net-zero and sending a message that we are serious about tackling climate change. Large fossil fuel corporations within the industry need to be shown that governments mean business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No. The price of energy continues to increase. Yes that is partially due to corporate greed but it is also related to general inflation. Many UK households simply cannot afford to use electricity of gas and have to skip out on turning the heating on. Adding a tax would only further increase the cost for the consumer. More people would freeze over the winter. Yes I understand that we must eliminate mainstream fossil fuel usage in order to combat climate change. But instead the government should incentivise companies to invest in renewable energy sources though grants etc. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I have to confess, I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed opinion on here so I'll answer according to what information I do have. I think that if the UK is genuinely committed to reducing the use of fossil fuels, taxing the companies who do use them is one of the few ways to achieve that goal as money is all that most businesses understand. However I believe that any taxes gained from the fossil fuel industry should be used on production of sustainable energy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, I think this push towards green / renewable energy is going too fast. The possible benefits of reducing pollution and more environmentally friendly processes are good, but might instead lead to the affected companies reducing their investments in this country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, i dont not agree with this, why put more money pressure on people when we are already in a bad way with the current climate. i do not know too many facts around this issue but not sure on what i really think about it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. a new carbon tax could be an important lever in lowering our carbon emissions, tackling climate change, and dealing with big corporations within the fossil fuel industry. While there may be other possible solutions in this area, if we were to introduce a carbon tax it could help us to finally make some progress on reaching net-zero and sending a message that we are serious about tackling climate change. Large fossil fuel corporations within the industry need to be shown that governments mean business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No. The price of energy continues to increase. Yes that is partially due to corporate greed but it is also related to general inflation. Many UK households simply cannot afford to use electricity of gas and have to skip out on turning the heating on. Adding a tax would only further increase the cost for the consumer. More people would freeze over the winter. Yes I understand that we must eliminate mainstream fossil fuel usage in order to combat climate change. But instead the government should incentivise companies to invest in renewable energy sources though grants etc. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I have to confess, I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed opinion on here so I'll answer according to what information I do have. I think that if the UK is genuinely committed to reducing the use of fossil fuels, taxing the companies who do use them is one of the few ways to achieve that goal as money is all that most businesses understand. However I believe that any taxes gained from the fossil fuel industry should be used on production of sustainable energy. 1: 4,2,1,5,3 1: 5,3,4,1,2 1: 4,5,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002583.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002583.soc index 26bcc787..6ea5381a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002583.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002583.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: This seems fair in theory and I do agree footballers and many other people are incredibly overpaid. However I don't think it's as black and white as saying they shouldn't earn more than the Prime Minister - the skills and industries are very different - what makes the Prime Minister's salary the anchor of all wages? I think there needs to be better pay equality within the industry itself - so the wealth within the football clubs is distributed more evenly to all of the team members - from cleaners, head office, customer service and people serving drinks in the stadium. It should all be relative to the highest earner within the industry. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I don't think it is important to have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. Whilst I think that footballers are paid a considerable, and arguably too high amount, I do not see why it would be capped against the wage of the PM. Whilst the PM works hard, so do footballers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, I don't believe this would be a good idea. There are three reasons for this. 1) Footballers have a limited time when they have the physical capability of performing so they will need to maximise their income during this shorter time. Prime Ministers do a stressful but sedentary work and they have very good post PM benefits. 2) Footballers generate more economic value when they are operating at the highest levels by bringing in ticket sales, something that a PM does not and 3) Footballers are in the entertainment business and therefore do not have any specific term of office thereby adding risk and volatility to their income, something PMs do not have to worry about. Therefore, there should not be a maximum wage cap for footballers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe if there a limit people and businesses will find way to get non-salary methods to get paid more by sponsorships or benifits like shares in a company as payment for example. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Wages represent how much someone's skill is valued and in current society there is too much emphasis of sports and other high paying jobs without respecting the other jobs like teachers, police, health care workers. Public sector workers don't get the high wages of private companies, e.g. football companies, and it is inherently unfair. I agree with having a cap on wages so that the wealth in the country is more evenly distributed, and according to skill. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - This seems fair in theory and I do agree footballers and many other people are incredibly overpaid. However I don't think it's as black and white as saying they shouldn't earn more than the Prime Minister - the skills and industries are very different - what makes the Prime Minister's salary the anchor of all wages? I think there needs to be better pay equality within the industry itself - so the wealth within the football clubs is distributed more evenly to all of the team members - from cleaners, head office, customer service and people serving drinks in the stadium. It should all be relative to the highest earner within the industry. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I don't think it is important to have a maximum wage to ensure that footballers do not earn more than the Prime Minister. Whilst I think that footballers are paid a considerable, and arguably too high amount, I do not see why it would be capped against the wage of the PM. Whilst the PM works hard, so do footballers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, I don't believe this would be a good idea. There are three reasons for this. 1) Footballers have a limited time when they have the physical capability of performing so they will need to maximise their income during this shorter time. Prime Ministers do a stressful but sedentary work and they have very good post PM benefits. 2) Footballers generate more economic value when they are operating at the highest levels by bringing in ticket sales, something that a PM does not and 3) Footballers are in the entertainment business and therefore do not have any specific term of office thereby adding risk and volatility to their income, something PMs do not have to worry about. Therefore, there should not be a maximum wage cap for footballers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe if there a limit people and businesses will find way to get non-salary methods to get paid more by sponsorships or benifits like shares in a company as payment for example. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Wages represent how much someone's skill is valued and in current society there is too much emphasis of sports and other high paying jobs without respecting the other jobs like teachers, police, health care workers. Public sector workers don't get the high wages of private companies, e.g. football companies, and it is inherently unfair. I agree with having a cap on wages so that the wealth in the country is more evenly distributed, and according to skill. 2: 3,1,2,5,4 2: 5,1,3,2,4 1: 1,3,5,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002584.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002584.soc index 9722f500..9dc6e25f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002584.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002584.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, the government should. We should decrease fossil fuels and take advantage of natural resources that do not cause harm to the planet. the UK is naturally windy so we should take advantage of it and build wind turbines that are publicly owned and stop private organisation from maing profit in the middle of a financial crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, i believe that Government should not do so as wind turbines occupy a lot of space on land and that could cause accidents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think the government should encourage building more on-shore wind turbines, as an essential way to have greener energy. Using green energy is a logical approach to reduce the use of fossil energy and mitigate global warming to some degree. The technology of wind turbines is mature and developed, with limited known or easily managed risks, compared to using traditional energy generation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the government should encourage the buildings of on-shore wind turbines. They are a source of green energy with minimal impact on the environment, but concerns about their potential harmful effects should be addressed -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I am not completely sure about onshore wind turbines. While the need for renewable energy is high, I would much prefer offshore solutions personally, than build on green belt areas. So I would probably say I was more against it than for it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, the government should. We should decrease fossil fuels and take advantage of natural resources that do not cause harm to the planet. the UK is naturally windy so we should take advantage of it and build wind turbines that are publicly owned and stop private organisation from maing profit in the middle of a financial crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, i believe that Government should not do so as wind turbines occupy a lot of space on land and that could cause accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think the government should encourage building more on-shore wind turbines, as an essential way to have greener energy. Using green energy is a logical approach to reduce the use of fossil energy and mitigate global warming to some degree. The technology of wind turbines is mature and developed, with limited known or easily managed risks, compared to using traditional energy generation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the government should encourage the buildings of on-shore wind turbines. They are a source of green energy with minimal impact on the environment, but concerns about their potential harmful effects should be addressed +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I am not completely sure about onshore wind turbines. While the need for renewable energy is high, I would much prefer offshore solutions personally, than build on green belt areas. So I would probably say I was more against it than for it. 2: 1,3,4,5,2 1: 4,2,1,3,5 1: 3,1,5,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002585.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002585.soc index 518b85a7..78aedba9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002585.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002585.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes as it seems linked to advertisements. My facebook page and Instagram are just full of advertisements. I also feel that our online behaviour is also targeted by governments. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Everyone should be granted the Legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviours as they provide their data -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: yes, i believe we should be granted the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse behaviour. Some social media platforms have been known to use algorithms that show users content that doesn't give a balanced view, only shows very similar content along same theme and same views and opinions. We should have a right to see a broader content -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Absolutely they should, with the growing increase of online activity, the need for either anonimity or legal right to know how their time online is being monitored/used is their right as a human being. Either if they are being somewhat of a benefit by aiding a marketing team to know current trends or being monitored for some form of antisocial behaviour online, they have a right to know that this is being carried out on them and its being monitored. To not provide this accecss would be misleading and unjust. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think there should be a legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse online behaviour as I don't think most people would understand this information. I think people will continue to use the internet in the same way, regardless of how their behaviour is analysed. If people are concerned about how they use the internet and how it is analysed then maybe they need to reevaluate the way that they use the internet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes as it seems linked to advertisements. My facebook page and Instagram are just full of advertisements. I also feel that our online behaviour is also targeted by governments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Everyone should be granted the Legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse their online behaviours as they provide their data +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - yes, i believe we should be granted the legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse behaviour. Some social media platforms have been known to use algorithms that show users content that doesn't give a balanced view, only shows very similar content along same theme and same views and opinions. We should have a right to see a broader content +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Absolutely they should, with the growing increase of online activity, the need for either anonimity or legal right to know how their time online is being monitored/used is their right as a human being. Either if they are being somewhat of a benefit by aiding a marketing team to know current trends or being monitored for some form of antisocial behaviour online, they have a right to know that this is being carried out on them and its being monitored. To not provide this accecss would be misleading and unjust. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think there should be a legal right to know the algorithms used to analyse online behaviour as I don't think most people would understand this information. I think people will continue to use the internet in the same way, regardless of how their behaviour is analysed. If people are concerned about how they use the internet and how it is analysed then maybe they need to reevaluate the way that they use the internet. 1: 4,3,1,2,5 1: 4,5,3,1,2 1: 4,3,1,5,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002586.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002586.soc index fe287b39..94df1845 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002586.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002586.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: To some extent yes, I think the sharing of information and knowledge has been important as well as the use of technology that comes with globalisation. It has allowed different countries and cultures to connect and we can learn from each other which is important. However, the dominant culture that is part of globalisation (mostly emanating from the US) I do not agree is necessarily the one that people and other countries should adopt. People should still keep a lot of their original culture and should not feel that they necessarily have to bend to the dominant culture. Difference is what makes the world work sometimes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes I believe globalization has been a net positive for humanity. By coming together as a world, it has allowed us to develop more rapidly and advance together. This includes working together to fulfill research in a concerted effort (e.g. healthcare treatments and vaccines) which may not have been possible or may have been slower if countries had tackled these issues independently. Furthermore, globalization will have helped third world countries develop quicker than if they had been left to their own devices, in turn improving the quality of life there and helping to resolve issues such as famine and poor sanitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Although, I initially put that i think it has been net negative the debate is quite tricky when it comes to globalization. Technology has brought a wealth of knowledge and safety to many people that benefit extremely from the ability to communicate and trade with other countries. However, the world has become a place where money is such a big factor in many massive decisions that sometimes peoples lives and their happiness is overlooked in order to make a profit. Therefore, I lie somewhere in the middle but see how so many more people have lived of the past 100 years because of technology growth. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I would definitely agree with this statement. Thanks to globalisation each country can trade the goods they produce and the services they offer which they specialise in with other countries around the world which is great for business. It also allowed us to more easily learn about different countries and their cultures by visiting them on holidays which again is great for the people and the local economy. Globalisation has helped us to share progress on development of technologies, vaccines and has ensured that we can help out and protect one another in times of war or natural disasters. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe it has been positive for humanity. Trading with countries around the world allows for variety of goods and products and enhances co-operation and entrepreneurship. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - To some extent yes, I think the sharing of information and knowledge has been important as well as the use of technology that comes with globalisation. It has allowed different countries and cultures to connect and we can learn from each other which is important. However, the dominant culture that is part of globalisation (mostly emanating from the US) I do not agree is necessarily the one that people and other countries should adopt. People should still keep a lot of their original culture and should not feel that they necessarily have to bend to the dominant culture. Difference is what makes the world work sometimes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes I believe globalization has been a net positive for humanity. By coming together as a world, it has allowed us to develop more rapidly and advance together. This includes working together to fulfill research in a concerted effort (e.g. healthcare treatments and vaccines) which may not have been possible or may have been slower if countries had tackled these issues independently. Furthermore, globalization will have helped third world countries develop quicker than if they had been left to their own devices, in turn improving the quality of life there and helping to resolve issues such as famine and poor sanitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Although, I initially put that i think it has been net negative the debate is quite tricky when it comes to globalization. Technology has brought a wealth of knowledge and safety to many people that benefit extremely from the ability to communicate and trade with other countries. However, the world has become a place where money is such a big factor in many massive decisions that sometimes peoples lives and their happiness is overlooked in order to make a profit. Therefore, I lie somewhere in the middle but see how so many more people have lived of the past 100 years because of technology growth. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I would definitely agree with this statement. Thanks to globalisation each country can trade the goods they produce and the services they offer which they specialise in with other countries around the world which is great for business. It also allowed us to more easily learn about different countries and their cultures by visiting them on holidays which again is great for the people and the local economy. Globalisation has helped us to share progress on development of technologies, vaccines and has ensured that we can help out and protect one another in times of war or natural disasters. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe it has been positive for humanity. Trading with countries around the world allows for variety of goods and products and enhances co-operation and entrepreneurship. 1: 1,3,2,4,5 1: 4,1,2,3,5 1: 1,2,4,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002587.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002587.soc index fd037bdd..1e40610b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002587.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002587.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I honestly have no opinion on this because 1) I have no religion and thus, don't care about who is in charge of the church, and 2) I don't have any interest in the Monarchy, despite the fact I do like having a Monarchy. I have no reason for or against them being the head, I don't know what it "means" for them being the head of the Church of England - what does it involve them doing, exactly? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England due to its historical significance, role in fostering national unity, and its commitment to religious tolerance and inclusivity. This arrangement, deeply rooted in tradition, helps maintain the UK's cultural heritage and its ability to adapt to modern times while preserving its unique traditions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Furthermore, the concept of a herditary monarch as the head of a religious institution can be seen as archaic and incompatible with modern principles of meritocracy and religious freedom. It might be more in line with contemporary values to consider alternative arrangments that ensure religious insititutions operate independently from the state. Ultimately, the future of this relationship should be subject to careful deliberation taking into account the evolving nature of British society, the principles of democracy and the preservation off historical heritage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't hold any opinion over whether the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England. I am not religious and do not care for religious politics. It makes no difference to me in my life which organisation is the head of any church. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Keeping the monarch as the head of the church of England has some downsides. It blurs the line between religion and politics. In our diverse society, it can seem exclusive and out of touch to have a monarch to lead a religious intuition. The system supports privileges and elitism, as it is based on birth, not merit. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I honestly have no opinion on this because 1) I have no religion and thus, don't care about who is in charge of the church, and 2) I don't have any interest in the Monarchy, despite the fact I do like having a Monarchy. I have no reason for or against them being the head, I don't know what it "means" for them being the head of the Church of England - what does it involve them doing, exactly? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England due to its historical significance, role in fostering national unity, and its commitment to religious tolerance and inclusivity. This arrangement, deeply rooted in tradition, helps maintain the UK's cultural heritage and its ability to adapt to modern times while preserving its unique traditions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Furthermore, the concept of a herditary monarch as the head of a religious institution can be seen as archaic and incompatible with modern principles of meritocracy and religious freedom. It might be more in line with contemporary values to consider alternative arrangments that ensure religious insititutions operate independently from the state. Ultimately, the future of this relationship should be subject to careful deliberation taking into account the evolving nature of British society, the principles of democracy and the preservation off historical heritage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't hold any opinion over whether the monarchy should continue to be the head of the Church of England. I am not religious and do not care for religious politics. It makes no difference to me in my life which organisation is the head of any church. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Keeping the monarch as the head of the church of England has some downsides. It blurs the line between religion and politics. In our diverse society, it can seem exclusive and out of touch to have a monarch to lead a religious intuition. The system supports privileges and elitism, as it is based on birth, not merit. 1: 5,4,3,1,2 1: 1,4,5,2,3 1: 3,2,4,5,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002588.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002588.soc index c7a403cf..64a04412 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002588.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002588.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: This is not an area of expertise I have surrounding arts. But I believe that government funding could go on more pressing issues like NHS waiting lists and times, cancer treatment etc, more funding for schools and giving our children the best possible start in life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, why would the government do so? There is plenty of other policies that need funding and arts should be last. A much as I appreciate the arts and the creativity of people, there are plenty of policies that need funding. The repeal of the Vagrancy Act is a important move for the UK but the Police/ authorities should still have the necessary funding to take action where drug use or violence is used. Funding should be used to help this cause. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, art is beautiful and allows people to be themselves - expressive, happy, entertaining and perform with freedom. We have so many immensely talented musicians, actors, performing artists, dancers etc. we should support their skill and give the platform to perform and succeed in their lives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No i believe theres much more important things to be worrying about in the uks current situation and see absolutely no benifit of increasing the funding for arts -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe more funds should be made available for the arts but it doesn't have to be excessive. We see a lot of great art that comes about from modern technology, and so it might be a good option to make access to the technology easier. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - This is not an area of expertise I have surrounding arts. But I believe that government funding could go on more pressing issues like NHS waiting lists and times, cancer treatment etc, more funding for schools and giving our children the best possible start in life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, why would the government do so? There is plenty of other policies that need funding and arts should be last. A much as I appreciate the arts and the creativity of people, there are plenty of policies that need funding. The repeal of the Vagrancy Act is a important move for the UK but the Police/ authorities should still have the necessary funding to take action where drug use or violence is used. Funding should be used to help this cause. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, art is beautiful and allows people to be themselves - expressive, happy, entertaining and perform with freedom. We have so many immensely talented musicians, actors, performing artists, dancers etc. we should support their skill and give the platform to perform and succeed in their lives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No i believe theres much more important things to be worrying about in the uks current situation and see absolutely no benifit of increasing the funding for arts +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe more funds should be made available for the arts but it doesn't have to be excessive. We see a lot of great art that comes about from modern technology, and so it might be a good option to make access to the technology easier. 1: 1,2,3,5,4 1: 1,2,4,5,3 1: 2,1,5,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002589.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002589.soc index e57beaa6..525423b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002589.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002589.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think that police powers go too far in stopping innocent members of the public, if the police were better trained and respected the public more than I may consider it appropriate but at the moment I am against it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, Drug crime and the detrimental effect it has on our society has been a problem for over 100 years! We need to do more to make our society safer and protect the next generation. Allowing police to focus on areas where drug dealing is a clear and present problem just makes good sense in terms of use of police time and resources. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, in such known areas police should be able to stop and search people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: If the area is known for it, that residents and the public would likely agree to it, as per the 'police by consent' model. It may also allow Police to locate other crimes in the area of the drug dealing, such as those carrying weapons, stolen property etc. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I agree that the police should be allowed to do this. Drug crime and gang culture is getting worse every day and the best way that the police can try to reduce this is to find drug dealers in common areas. If I were in an area that was known for drug dealing, I wouldn't have a problem being searched because I would have nothing to hide and would understand and respect the police for doing such random checks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think that police powers go too far in stopping innocent members of the public, if the police were better trained and respected the public more than I may consider it appropriate but at the moment I am against it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, Drug crime and the detrimental effect it has on our society has been a problem for over 100 years! We need to do more to make our society safer and protect the next generation. Allowing police to focus on areas where drug dealing is a clear and present problem just makes good sense in terms of use of police time and resources. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, in such known areas police should be able to stop and search people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - If the area is known for it, that residents and the public would likely agree to it, as per the 'police by consent' model. It may also allow Police to locate other crimes in the area of the drug dealing, such as those carrying weapons, stolen property etc. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I agree that the police should be allowed to do this. Drug crime and gang culture is getting worse every day and the best way that the police can try to reduce this is to find drug dealers in common areas. If I were in an area that was known for drug dealing, I wouldn't have a problem being searched because I would have nothing to hide and would understand and respect the police for doing such random checks. 1: 1,2,3,4,5 1: 4,5,2,3,1 1: 4,2,5,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002590.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002590.soc index adca961f..9b0fa01a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002590.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002590.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Most companies do not have any kind of policy regarding social media, however, I believe a zero-tolerance policy is the way forward provided it is explained to staff exactly how it works ie if they mention they work at company z in any social media correspondence then they will be subject to the full force of the law in the event of making hateful or defamatory statements -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It depends for what kind of job. If we are talking being on your phone whilst important work is meant to be done then yes there should be no tolerance. If say it was something like a barber shop, social media could be used when interacting with clients to help advertise perhaps. for the most part there should be zero tolerance -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It very much depends on what social media is being used & for what reason. For example, if an employee is using snapchat as their way of communicating with their friends/family then that should be allowed as there is no real harm done there. If it was a case of the employee using Facebook, for example, to talk badly about the business or sharing inappropriate things that reflects upon the business as a whole, then it would be understandable to ban the usage of that specific app during work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, I do not believe that companies should have the ability to insist on an all-out ban on the use of social media by their employees, although I do agree that a company has the right to insist that social media is not used during standard working hours. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think so. Social media is a part of our daily lives and it can have its benefits. Companies should establish guidelines and rules for responsible use. This allows employees to use social media without affecting productivity or confidentiality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Most companies do not have any kind of policy regarding social media, however, I believe a zero-tolerance policy is the way forward provided it is explained to staff exactly how it works ie if they mention they work at company z in any social media correspondence then they will be subject to the full force of the law in the event of making hateful or defamatory statements +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It depends for what kind of job. If we are talking being on your phone whilst important work is meant to be done then yes there should be no tolerance. If say it was something like a barber shop, social media could be used when interacting with clients to help advertise perhaps. for the most part there should be zero tolerance +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It very much depends on what social media is being used & for what reason. For example, if an employee is using snapchat as their way of communicating with their friends/family then that should be allowed as there is no real harm done there. If it was a case of the employee using Facebook, for example, to talk badly about the business or sharing inappropriate things that reflects upon the business as a whole, then it would be understandable to ban the usage of that specific app during work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, I do not believe that companies should have the ability to insist on an all-out ban on the use of social media by their employees, although I do agree that a company has the right to insist that social media is not used during standard working hours. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think so. Social media is a part of our daily lives and it can have its benefits. Companies should establish guidelines and rules for responsible use. This allows employees to use social media without affecting productivity or confidentiality. 1: 5,3,4,2,1 1: 5,4,2,3,1 1: 1,2,3,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002591.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002591.soc index 831e3e17..9924fcc6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002591.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002591.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: i would love to say YES! But in reality this really wouldnt work as we would all like different things from our broadband and then it would cause a lot of issues with people getting different things for their freebie. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes. As we've all mentioned at some point or other, the cost of living crisis is having a huge impact on peoples' finances at the moment and having to pay what could be the same amount as a weekly food shop for the sake of having access to the internet is ridiculous in this day and age. We're moving into a digital age and so many organisations (including the govt) are expecting people to use the internet for communication that those who can't afford it are missing out. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No. The broadband needs for many citizens varies widely. Some users need gigabit+ speeds and some people do not even use the internet. Having access to a range of broadband plans at different prices allows the consumer to pay for only what they need. The government would have to use taxes to fund this which would mean increasing taxes or defunding other areas of the government (such as education and healthcare). This could also harm broadband providers who employ many people across the country. I do believe that some people should be provided free internet if they cannot afford it (such as those who need it for school work). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think the point is fast approaching where a basic Internet service should be free to everyone. So much of our lives take place on the Internet, not having access is extremely difficult. While social media and the like is a bonus, things like bank accounts, education and just the access to information are such huge things to be missing out on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I'll be honest that I'm not sure if this is entirely feasible in the current economic situation that the United Kingdom is facing, but as a principle yes. Broadband has become such an essential feature of our every day life - it's how we pay bills, it's how we learn and grow and communicate with each other. Most Government systems and job applications need to be completed online too! I think that by providing a basic level of broadband access to all citizens, free of charge, could be something worthwhile considering and something I would support. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - i would love to say YES! But in reality this really wouldnt work as we would all like different things from our broadband and then it would cause a lot of issues with people getting different things for their freebie. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes. As we've all mentioned at some point or other, the cost of living crisis is having a huge impact on peoples' finances at the moment and having to pay what could be the same amount as a weekly food shop for the sake of having access to the internet is ridiculous in this day and age. We're moving into a digital age and so many organisations (including the govt) are expecting people to use the internet for communication that those who can't afford it are missing out. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No. The broadband needs for many citizens varies widely. Some users need gigabit+ speeds and some people do not even use the internet. Having access to a range of broadband plans at different prices allows the consumer to pay for only what they need. The government would have to use taxes to fund this which would mean increasing taxes or defunding other areas of the government (such as education and healthcare). This could also harm broadband providers who employ many people across the country. I do believe that some people should be provided free internet if they cannot afford it (such as those who need it for school work). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think the point is fast approaching where a basic Internet service should be free to everyone. So much of our lives take place on the Internet, not having access is extremely difficult. While social media and the like is a bonus, things like bank accounts, education and just the access to information are such huge things to be missing out on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I'll be honest that I'm not sure if this is entirely feasible in the current economic situation that the United Kingdom is facing, but as a principle yes. Broadband has become such an essential feature of our every day life - it's how we pay bills, it's how we learn and grow and communicate with each other. Most Government systems and job applications need to be completed online too! I think that by providing a basic level of broadband access to all citizens, free of charge, could be something worthwhile considering and something I would support. 2: 5,2,4,3,1 1: 3,2,1,4,5 1: 5,2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002592.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002592.soc index 5598073b..7195edc5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002592.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002592.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe the UK is better for having a monarchy. The royal family bring in a lot of public interest to this country, a lot of financial interest also. Our country has a lot of history and it is something most of the UK are proud of I believe. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think it's good to have both. The monarchy is a part of history so should still be a part of our society. But a republic is needed so everyone is heard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is better to have a republic. Nobody should be given the influence and wealth that comes with monarchy simply as a result of birth. The state should have representatives who have worked to achieve their position. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think there is tradition in keeping a monarcy and I do like how things are now with UK where it does have a constitutional monarchy and also elected representatives. I do like a republic system way of doing things as well. Societies do better when there is more equality and less people in power at the top controlling things. The monarchy cost the UK a lot of money too, so some say it is unecessary, but I think they do add some value in their roles and bring a sense of community to the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Honestly, I think that it is better to have a monarchy- but without much political power. I think the Royals bring in a lot of tourism and help out the British Economy with bringing in lots of money. I heard that some of the royals bring in nearly a few billions every year by their influence. But I do not think that they should be able to have the right to use tax payer money so easily, such as the grand royal weddings. However, I do recognize that some of them do represent out country well, internationally. But also on the flip side, the current public situation with a few royals doesn't hold well with me. I think that in conclusion that a republic with be the best idea, so that everyone has a voice and are equal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe the UK is better for having a monarchy. The royal family bring in a lot of public interest to this country, a lot of financial interest also. Our country has a lot of history and it is something most of the UK are proud of I believe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think it's good to have both. The monarchy is a part of history so should still be a part of our society. But a republic is needed so everyone is heard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is better to have a republic. Nobody should be given the influence and wealth that comes with monarchy simply as a result of birth. The state should have representatives who have worked to achieve their position. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think there is tradition in keeping a monarcy and I do like how things are now with UK where it does have a constitutional monarchy and also elected representatives. I do like a republic system way of doing things as well. Societies do better when there is more equality and less people in power at the top controlling things. The monarchy cost the UK a lot of money too, so some say it is unecessary, but I think they do add some value in their roles and bring a sense of community to the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Honestly, I think that it is better to have a monarchy- but without much political power. I think the Royals bring in a lot of tourism and help out the British Economy with bringing in lots of money. I heard that some of the royals bring in nearly a few billions every year by their influence. But I do not think that they should be able to have the right to use tax payer money so easily, such as the grand royal weddings. However, I do recognize that some of them do represent out country well, internationally. But also on the flip side, the current public situation with a few royals doesn't hold well with me. I think that in conclusion that a republic with be the best idea, so that everyone has a voice and are equal. 1: 4,3,2,5,1 1: 4,5,2,1,3 1: 4,5,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002593.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002593.soc index b8b44c75..1fb31c22 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002593.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002593.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No we shouldn't. The highest earners should shoulder the highest burden of tax. At a time when we have a large debt burden and cost of living crisis it is only right that people earning a salary that is many times over the median salary should contribute more in percentage terms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No I do not agree that it should be lowered and in fact I think it is in fact the the tax for the lower rate of income that should be lowered. It should be the high earners we are taxing more (the millionaires, billionaires, the tax-dodging big corporations and Tory MPs in the UK) and who should be paying the highest tax levels to ensure that those who are lower earners are not suffering by having to pay so much tax. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, by reducing the income tax from 45% to 30% we are essentially taking money away from the economy and at the same time giving money back to the wealthiest families. For this reason I do not believe this would be a good move for the country and in some cases the tax should possibly be higher depending on industry and situation. If the tax rate was to change then the money gone would have to come out of a budget for something else which will most likely have an impact on the more working/middle class members of society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, in fact, I very much believe that we should increase it. As the cost of living crisis and the rising inflation are destroying millions of families across the country, rich people are continuing to increase their wealth without a care in the world about those suffering. We need to seriously strive for higher equality and make the workplace more fair where everyone gets their share of the profits. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No - the people that earn the top rate of income tax earn more than what is required to live a comfortable life. As such, they should continue to pay 45% tax, and in turn help those less fortunate than themselves and help fund public services which are already struggling with low funding. Furthermore, tax cuts for those in the top rate of income tax would surely result in tax rises for those in the lower income tax bands, which can be seen as unfair, as they may already be struggling to get by as it is. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No we shouldn't. The highest earners should shoulder the highest burden of tax. At a time when we have a large debt burden and cost of living crisis it is only right that people earning a salary that is many times over the median salary should contribute more in percentage terms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No I do not agree that it should be lowered and in fact I think it is in fact the the tax for the lower rate of income that should be lowered. It should be the high earners we are taxing more (the millionaires, billionaires, the tax-dodging big corporations and Tory MPs in the UK) and who should be paying the highest tax levels to ensure that those who are lower earners are not suffering by having to pay so much tax. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, by reducing the income tax from 45% to 30% we are essentially taking money away from the economy and at the same time giving money back to the wealthiest families. For this reason I do not believe this would be a good move for the country and in some cases the tax should possibly be higher depending on industry and situation. If the tax rate was to change then the money gone would have to come out of a budget for something else which will most likely have an impact on the more working/middle class members of society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, in fact, I very much believe that we should increase it. As the cost of living crisis and the rising inflation are destroying millions of families across the country, rich people are continuing to increase their wealth without a care in the world about those suffering. We need to seriously strive for higher equality and make the workplace more fair where everyone gets their share of the profits. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No - the people that earn the top rate of income tax earn more than what is required to live a comfortable life. As such, they should continue to pay 45% tax, and in turn help those less fortunate than themselves and help fund public services which are already struggling with low funding. Furthermore, tax cuts for those in the top rate of income tax would surely result in tax rises for those in the lower income tax bands, which can be seen as unfair, as they may already be struggling to get by as it is. 1: 3,5,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1,5 1: 2,3,5,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002594.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002594.soc index 7f786fd1..81ae3fa2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002594.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002594.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: i'm neutral about this as i don't know how safe this is; personally i'll be too scared to enter a driverless car because of the series of what ifs that will be going through my head -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think that the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of road accidents. I believe that most accidents are caused because people drive carelessly and they do not adhere to the rules around driving e.g. sticking to the speed limit. I also think that accidents are caused by human error, for instance when people are tired or distracted. If driverless cars are introduced then the margin for human error will be removed and the number of accidents should be reduced. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I feel there will be an increase. Where I live in the past few days, a driver was unable to take control of his new electric car and had to be rammed off the road by police. I also do not trust our governments to put in the proper infrastructure for these autonomous vehicles. I would much rather be in control of the car than a computer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I feel that that the initial introduction of driverless cars to the roads would at first result in an incraese in the number of road accidents. This mainly being due to the fact that anything new tends to come with consiquences. Plus any new form of technology generally is never without flaws. These eventually get ironed out. This being said i think that after an initial spike in road accidents while drivers get used to the new technology, it would eventually fall. How long this would take is not within my knowledge. In conjunction with this, if it was to ever get to a point where the large majority of cars on the road were driverless we may actually see a decrease in the number of road accidents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - i'm neutral about this as i don't know how safe this is; personally i'll be too scared to enter a driverless car because of the series of what ifs that will be going through my head +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think that the introduction of driverless cars will result in a decrease in the number of road accidents. I believe that most accidents are caused because people drive carelessly and they do not adhere to the rules around driving e.g. sticking to the speed limit. I also think that accidents are caused by human error, for instance when people are tired or distracted. If driverless cars are introduced then the margin for human error will be removed and the number of accidents should be reduced. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I feel there will be an increase. Where I live in the past few days, a driver was unable to take control of his new electric car and had to be rammed off the road by police. I also do not trust our governments to put in the proper infrastructure for these autonomous vehicles. I would much rather be in control of the car than a computer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I feel that that the initial introduction of driverless cars to the roads would at first result in an incraese in the number of road accidents. This mainly being due to the fact that anything new tends to come with consiquences. Plus any new form of technology generally is never without flaws. These eventually get ironed out. This being said i think that after an initial spike in road accidents while drivers get used to the new technology, it would eventually fall. How long this would take is not within my knowledge. In conjunction with this, if it was to ever get to a point where the large majority of cars on the road were driverless we may actually see a decrease in the number of road accidents. 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002595.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002595.soc index f4debbd4..0093c92c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002595.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002595.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Conversely, detractors assert that the immense costs associated with HS2, both in terms of financial resources and enviromental impacts, raise serious concerns. They question the prioritization of such an infrastructure of project over other pressing societal needs, such as healthcare and education. Moreover, the potential disruption to local communitites and ecosystems cannot be understand. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: If we can build anything that allows us to travel faster and easier then I am all for this, although it is such a huge project and will cost the people a lot of money, and even projections of how much will always go up, so on one hand it's like a "no thanks" but i think once done, it would be very worth while and make everyone happier and life faster for lots of people, so all in all i think yes it should be built. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I support the construction of HS2. This high-speed rail project can reduce travel times, create jobs, and boost economic connectivity and productivity. Additionally, HS2 will ease the burden on existing rail networks, reducing congestion and enhancing the overall efficiency of our transportation system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I am on the fence about whether HS2 is a worthy investment. I think HS2 could provide a valuable link between London and the North. improving economic relations between the region and perhaps moving away from what feels like a "London First" county and supporting the second rate Northern region. However, since COVID-19 and the rise of accessible digital networking platforms such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom, it is now easier than ever for people to meet without travelling great distances and wasting time and resources for the privilege. Furthermore, with how train prices are in the UK right now, I can't see travelling on board the HS2 ever being feasible for working class, therefore resulting in yet another system designed for the rich. I don't think HS2 is a worthy investment, and the money can be better distributed to local authorities to improve local public transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think we should go for HS2 as infrastructure in the UK is falling behind other developed countries. The North of England is falling behind the rest of countries, it is the betrayal to the brexit voters. I am afraid that UK will further relegate without significant investment in infrastructure. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Conversely, detractors assert that the immense costs associated with HS2, both in terms of financial resources and enviromental impacts, raise serious concerns. They question the prioritization of such an infrastructure of project over other pressing societal needs, such as healthcare and education. Moreover, the potential disruption to local communitites and ecosystems cannot be understand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - If we can build anything that allows us to travel faster and easier then I am all for this, although it is such a huge project and will cost the people a lot of money, and even projections of how much will always go up, so on one hand it's like a "no thanks" but i think once done, it would be very worth while and make everyone happier and life faster for lots of people, so all in all i think yes it should be built. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I support the construction of HS2. This high-speed rail project can reduce travel times, create jobs, and boost economic connectivity and productivity. Additionally, HS2 will ease the burden on existing rail networks, reducing congestion and enhancing the overall efficiency of our transportation system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I am on the fence about whether HS2 is a worthy investment. I think HS2 could provide a valuable link between London and the North. improving economic relations between the region and perhaps moving away from what feels like a "London First" county and supporting the second rate Northern region. However, since COVID-19 and the rise of accessible digital networking platforms such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom, it is now easier than ever for people to meet without travelling great distances and wasting time and resources for the privilege. Furthermore, with how train prices are in the UK right now, I can't see travelling on board the HS2 ever being feasible for working class, therefore resulting in yet another system designed for the rich. I don't think HS2 is a worthy investment, and the money can be better distributed to local authorities to improve local public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think we should go for HS2 as infrastructure in the UK is falling behind other developed countries. The North of England is falling behind the rest of countries, it is the betrayal to the brexit voters. I am afraid that UK will further relegate without significant investment in infrastructure. 1: 2,1,5,3,4 1: 3,2,5,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002596.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002596.soc index ed897870..2ad743be 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002596.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002596.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes I think so, otherwise a politician with influential or wealthy friends/acquaintances running against someone who's from a lower class area wouldn't be a fair fight. Politics isn't supposed to be based on how much money you have, or can raise, it should be based on your policies. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes I believe so. I think it’s a controversial issue and I think the public should be concerned as to where the money being donated to politicians is actually going and what charities are actually being funded and supported, as a lot of people cannot afford to donate in these hard times -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I don't really know much about politics and donations. if this is in relation to campaigns then I'm not sure if it is a cap that's needed or more regulation around who can provide donations. For example, take the US Trump election with donations from Russia. This is what should be regulated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't think poilitics should be about money but rather how to help and improve our societies. As such, yes, I think donations should be capped as it only taints everything. It also leads to bad faith actors trying to gain as much money as possible with no real desire to help people. Just look at the politics in the UK and US currently and you will see people caring more about money than people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: This definitely needs to be in place. Without a cap, it leaves the process of raising donations open to abuse and corruption. Trust in politicians is at an all time low due to events in recent years. Clear policies like this need to be in place to restore the confidence of the British public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes I think so, otherwise a politician with influential or wealthy friends/acquaintances running against someone who's from a lower class area wouldn't be a fair fight. Politics isn't supposed to be based on how much money you have, or can raise, it should be based on your policies. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes I believe so. I think it’s a controversial issue and I think the public should be concerned as to where the money being donated to politicians is actually going and what charities are actually being funded and supported, as a lot of people cannot afford to donate in these hard times +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I don't really know much about politics and donations. if this is in relation to campaigns then I'm not sure if it is a cap that's needed or more regulation around who can provide donations. For example, take the US Trump election with donations from Russia. This is what should be regulated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't think poilitics should be about money but rather how to help and improve our societies. As such, yes, I think donations should be capped as it only taints everything. It also leads to bad faith actors trying to gain as much money as possible with no real desire to help people. Just look at the politics in the UK and US currently and you will see people caring more about money than people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - This definitely needs to be in place. Without a cap, it leaves the process of raising donations open to abuse and corruption. Trust in politicians is at an all time low due to events in recent years. Clear policies like this need to be in place to restore the confidence of the British public. 2: 5,1,2,4,3 1: 1,2,4,5,3 1: 2,5,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002597.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002597.soc index ca24d347..5a1dc1cb 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002597.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002597.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, I think so. Some of us may not perefer or just have a thing about lab-grown meat. We should have a right to know if it is contained. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No not at all, meat should be natural and not produced in the lab. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Why would the government want to approve this mandate? What good can come from lab grown meat? Surely fresh foods that haven't been messed around with in a lab are better for us. I would want to know more about why they think this is important before agreeing it should happen. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should not be mandating what is put in to our food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: The population is growing by an alarming rate and lab grown meat will reduce pressure on farmers, as it can be produced quicker and easier than rearing some cattle and animals. Meat grown in a lab could reduce the number of animals needed to be killed and may cut down on slaughter houses that do not treat animals fairly or with respect. Finally, lab grown meat is immune from disease which can effect animals, such as bird-flu, TB, mad cow disease etc. This makes the product safer for consumption and also reduces the need for culling of infected animals. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, I think so. Some of us may not perefer or just have a thing about lab-grown meat. We should have a right to know if it is contained. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No not at all, meat should be natural and not produced in the lab. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Why would the government want to approve this mandate? What good can come from lab grown meat? Surely fresh foods that haven't been messed around with in a lab are better for us. I would want to know more about why they think this is important before agreeing it should happen. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should not be mandating what is put in to our food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - The population is growing by an alarming rate and lab grown meat will reduce pressure on farmers, as it can be produced quicker and easier than rearing some cattle and animals. Meat grown in a lab could reduce the number of animals needed to be killed and may cut down on slaughter houses that do not treat animals fairly or with respect. Finally, lab grown meat is immune from disease which can effect animals, such as bird-flu, TB, mad cow disease etc. This makes the product safer for consumption and also reduces the need for culling of infected animals. 2: 5,3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,4,5,1 1: 3,2,5,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002598.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002598.soc index 82490a61..cb7c0aad 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002598.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002598.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Although banning them would have a very small benefit for the environment, I feel they have more positives than negatives as they're regularly used for parties and events which can save people a lot of time and effort. Also smaller businesses that rely on these will have a massive cost increase if these were to be banned - which will also lead to businesses closing and more job losses. Lastly, with the amount of restrictive laws being introduced the public may start to become frustrated - especially when China, Russia and the USA contribute 40% of the CO2 emissions and they then have to give up their paper plates. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think it's an excellent goal to move towards, but I'm concerned about how to get there. There are times when we need a disposable option with things such as this, or the reliance is so ingrained it would take years for the country to adjust. I think if there were incentives for businesses and customers to move towards reusable when single use is what is usual, then that would help that shift. But an outright ban would be too sudden, and likely not effective, which may lead to them having to back track on the policy. I think alternatives like bamboo forks etc as disposable are better. I think looking at plastics and our inability to recycle properly are more pertinent issues. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I am assuming this refers to single use plastic which is non bio-degradable which I think is definitely a problem and should be banned. If we are including materials that are easily recycled such as bamboo then I would say they should be limited in use but I can understand the need for them in certain situations e.g. at festivals. It would harm areas of hospitality to ban them completely and there should be an alternative option. As with paper straws, this seems to be the tip of a bigger iceberg and that there are other areas of single use items that should be dealt with first and a focus on things that wouldn't cause a huge problem for small businesses e.g. removing unnecessary plastic packaging. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think a blanket ban on single-use plates and cutlery would not be the wise decision. 'Single-use' doesn't have to mean 'carbon-intensive'. Paper plates and wooden cutlery are made from renewable resources, and also have the opportunity to be recycled. Removing single-use items like paper plates just means items will be manufactured via another, potentially more carbon-intensive source, such as plastic, which are technically not 'Single-use' but easily breakable and then non-recyclable. Decisions like this should be consumer-led: If there is demand for those types of items, then manufacture them, and focus on reducing the carbon intensity as much as possible. If there is no demand, then likewise reduce supply to match. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think it would help long term in saving the planet and helping the environment etc However I feel that there are more urgent matters that need to be addressed in society and a ban now could negatively impact some already struggling businesses. I think a more gradual solution would be more beneficial going forward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Although banning them would have a very small benefit for the environment, I feel they have more positives than negatives as they're regularly used for parties and events which can save people a lot of time and effort. Also smaller businesses that rely on these will have a massive cost increase if these were to be banned - which will also lead to businesses closing and more job losses. Lastly, with the amount of restrictive laws being introduced the public may start to become frustrated - especially when China, Russia and the USA contribute 40% of the CO2 emissions and they then have to give up their paper plates. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think it's an excellent goal to move towards, but I'm concerned about how to get there. There are times when we need a disposable option with things such as this, or the reliance is so ingrained it would take years for the country to adjust. I think if there were incentives for businesses and customers to move towards reusable when single use is what is usual, then that would help that shift. But an outright ban would be too sudden, and likely not effective, which may lead to them having to back track on the policy. I think alternatives like bamboo forks etc as disposable are better. I think looking at plastics and our inability to recycle properly are more pertinent issues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I am assuming this refers to single use plastic which is non bio-degradable which I think is definitely a problem and should be banned. If we are including materials that are easily recycled such as bamboo then I would say they should be limited in use but I can understand the need for them in certain situations e.g. at festivals. It would harm areas of hospitality to ban them completely and there should be an alternative option. As with paper straws, this seems to be the tip of a bigger iceberg and that there are other areas of single use items that should be dealt with first and a focus on things that wouldn't cause a huge problem for small businesses e.g. removing unnecessary plastic packaging. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think a blanket ban on single-use plates and cutlery would not be the wise decision. 'Single-use' doesn't have to mean 'carbon-intensive'. Paper plates and wooden cutlery are made from renewable resources, and also have the opportunity to be recycled. Removing single-use items like paper plates just means items will be manufactured via another, potentially more carbon-intensive source, such as plastic, which are technically not 'Single-use' but easily breakable and then non-recyclable. Decisions like this should be consumer-led: If there is demand for those types of items, then manufacture them, and focus on reducing the carbon intensity as much as possible. If there is no demand, then likewise reduce supply to match. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think it would help long term in saving the planet and helping the environment etc However I feel that there are more urgent matters that need to be addressed in society and a ban now could negatively impact some already struggling businesses. I think a more gradual solution would be more beneficial going forward. 1: 2,3,5,1,4 1: 2,1,5,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002599.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002599.soc index 26b5194f..9413e5e7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002599.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002599.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: One reason against cutting corporation tax is that the UK national debt is quite high and the tax income needs to be maintained or increased. A reason against is that a lot of small and medium sized businesses are struggling post covid, and a lot are closing down so any relief would help new growth. Added to that factors such as cost of living crisis and high inflation mean that it is very difficult to run a business in UK nowadays. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I do not know a lot about corporation tax but I believe the implications would be more investment by businesses and hopefully a boost for jobs and the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I feel like I do not know too much about this topic. But I think that corporations probably pay a lot of tax, so possible some cuts may benefit them, especially with high inflations and job cuts, the extra money can help keep their employees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government already gives enough tax breaks to large corporations, with the excuse that they are providing a lot of jobs. But the government is providing subsidizations by proxy as the the people these jobs for large corporations are barely paid a living wage therefore causing them to require to claim benefits to survive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think there is a need to cut corporation tax. It could be argued that you would attract more businesses here if you did. However, the UK is not as attractive a site for business as it used to be due to increased bureaucracy as a result of Brexit so fewer businesses are likely to come. I think cutting tax would not increase the number of businesses here sufficiently to increase tax revenues. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - One reason against cutting corporation tax is that the UK national debt is quite high and the tax income needs to be maintained or increased. A reason against is that a lot of small and medium sized businesses are struggling post covid, and a lot are closing down so any relief would help new growth. Added to that factors such as cost of living crisis and high inflation mean that it is very difficult to run a business in UK nowadays. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I do not know a lot about corporation tax but I believe the implications would be more investment by businesses and hopefully a boost for jobs and the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I feel like I do not know too much about this topic. But I think that corporations probably pay a lot of tax, so possible some cuts may benefit them, especially with high inflations and job cuts, the extra money can help keep their employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government already gives enough tax breaks to large corporations, with the excuse that they are providing a lot of jobs. But the government is providing subsidizations by proxy as the the people these jobs for large corporations are barely paid a living wage therefore causing them to require to claim benefits to survive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think there is a need to cut corporation tax. It could be argued that you would attract more businesses here if you did. However, the UK is not as attractive a site for business as it used to be due to increased bureaucracy as a result of Brexit so fewer businesses are likely to come. I think cutting tax would not increase the number of businesses here sufficiently to increase tax revenues. 1: 5,4,1,3,2 1: 2,5,3,4,1 1: 4,1,5,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002600.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002600.soc index bc6575c2..64eb4c12 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002600.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002600.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Plastic is one of the most used materials for products. If we are to properly combat climate change, you have to put in some sort of limitation to the people that are using plastic to an absurd amount so that they can try and find an alternative. If it isn't taxed they will continue to use this resource as free as they want. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think that plastic products should be taxed because they have an negative effect on the planet as they are very damaging for the environment, from the energy they consume being made to being non recyclable. There needs to be a drive to reduce the amount of plastic being produce, hopefully by introducing a tax it will reduce the production of plastic being made and cause from more alternatives to be found. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I would say yes as the production of plastics (through oil drilling) contributes significantly to CO2 emissions and thus climate change. From a financial perspective, it would be a good way for the government to increase the public coffers. Apart from raising awareness on a very sensitive issue, there is also a monetary value that cannot be ignored. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: i believe that plastic products should be taxed to discourage their production and use given that they cause extensive and long term harm to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe single-use plastic products should be taxed, which would increase the price of these items, and perhaps buyers would think twice about purchasing the items. I think as long as there are alternatives I don't see why they should not be taxed as there are so many other ways to package items in a durable and more sustainable way. Plastic is killing our environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Plastic is one of the most used materials for products. If we are to properly combat climate change, you have to put in some sort of limitation to the people that are using plastic to an absurd amount so that they can try and find an alternative. If it isn't taxed they will continue to use this resource as free as they want. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think that plastic products should be taxed because they have an negative effect on the planet as they are very damaging for the environment, from the energy they consume being made to being non recyclable. There needs to be a drive to reduce the amount of plastic being produce, hopefully by introducing a tax it will reduce the production of plastic being made and cause from more alternatives to be found. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I would say yes as the production of plastics (through oil drilling) contributes significantly to CO2 emissions and thus climate change. From a financial perspective, it would be a good way for the government to increase the public coffers. Apart from raising awareness on a very sensitive issue, there is also a monetary value that cannot be ignored. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - i believe that plastic products should be taxed to discourage their production and use given that they cause extensive and long term harm to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe single-use plastic products should be taxed, which would increase the price of these items, and perhaps buyers would think twice about purchasing the items. I think as long as there are alternatives I don't see why they should not be taxed as there are so many other ways to package items in a durable and more sustainable way. Plastic is killing our environment. 2: 2,5,3,1,4 1: 2,1,3,5,4 1: 3,2,1,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002601.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002601.soc index 0954e116..aef803cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002601.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002601.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It has. Whilst it has bought some good things, closer world community, availability of information, the ability to easily stay in touch with people, it has also sewed division, given greater ability of access to illegal things and brainwashed people by exposing them to "facts" that are wrong. In the main, its a bad thing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It depends on the way you look at it. It has brought some people closer and others apart. Made some people/groups sociable and others anti-social. Has ruined the lives of many and has changed the lives of some people for the better. Has enabled negative addiction through easy access to pornography. It's hard to give a blanket yes or no answer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: yes, the internet is full of negativity. Bullys can hide behind a screen and people are very influenced by things they see online. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet in general is a great thing and is on balance more positive than negative. It has provided great resources to all those who can access it. However it has also had some negative impact - specifically thinking about Social Media and the adverse impact it has had, especially in relation to young people. There are other issues with online gambling, pornography, the dark web etc. The question does not ask if the internet has had more of a negative effect than a positive effect. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think so. It is one of the greatest inventions that allowed information to travel extremely easily. As with other things, it needs critical thinking and filtering before you believe in something and commit to it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It has. Whilst it has bought some good things, closer world community, availability of information, the ability to easily stay in touch with people, it has also sewed division, given greater ability of access to illegal things and brainwashed people by exposing them to "facts" that are wrong. In the main, its a bad thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It depends on the way you look at it. It has brought some people closer and others apart. Made some people/groups sociable and others anti-social. Has ruined the lives of many and has changed the lives of some people for the better. Has enabled negative addiction through easy access to pornography. It's hard to give a blanket yes or no answer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - yes, the internet is full of negativity. Bullys can hide behind a screen and people are very influenced by things they see online. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet in general is a great thing and is on balance more positive than negative. It has provided great resources to all those who can access it. However it has also had some negative impact - specifically thinking about Social Media and the adverse impact it has had, especially in relation to young people. There are other issues with online gambling, pornography, the dark web etc. The question does not ask if the internet has had more of a negative effect than a positive effect. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think so. It is one of the greatest inventions that allowed information to travel extremely easily. As with other things, it needs critical thinking and filtering before you believe in something and commit to it. 2: 4,2,1,5,3 1: 1,3,2,4,5 1: 1,2,4,5,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002602.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002602.soc index b88dd752..8f16a652 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002602.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002602.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think that it is important for inclusivity of everybody that all websites the government run are accessible to the blind. Blind people have just as much right to access information as anybody else, and also government websites usually have important information, or services on them such as benefits, passports etc which blind people should not be restricted to access. It is also very easy in todays modern age to make websites accessible to blind people with text readers or AI integrated chatbots to help people navigate the website. It is not important to me personally as I am not blind (or non of my family) but I could be made blind at any time by an accident and would want to be able to access websites easily if that happened. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Government information websites need to be accessible by all in different formats that can be consumed. We all have the right to this information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think government websites should be made accessible to everyone, not just the blind. Blind people are still people who are affected by government decisions, therefore they and everyone else, have a right to access what should always be public information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes it's only right to let all people no matter what disability they may have the same access to the right information. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: yes, but not just government websites, all websites should be made accessible to the blind. in this day and age with all the modern technology everything should be accessible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think that it is important for inclusivity of everybody that all websites the government run are accessible to the blind. Blind people have just as much right to access information as anybody else, and also government websites usually have important information, or services on them such as benefits, passports etc which blind people should not be restricted to access. It is also very easy in todays modern age to make websites accessible to blind people with text readers or AI integrated chatbots to help people navigate the website. It is not important to me personally as I am not blind (or non of my family) but I could be made blind at any time by an accident and would want to be able to access websites easily if that happened. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Government information websites need to be accessible by all in different formats that can be consumed. We all have the right to this information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think government websites should be made accessible to everyone, not just the blind. Blind people are still people who are affected by government decisions, therefore they and everyone else, have a right to access what should always be public information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes it's only right to let all people no matter what disability they may have the same access to the right information. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - yes, but not just government websites, all websites should be made accessible to the blind. in this day and age with all the modern technology everything should be accessible. 1: 1,2,3,5,4 1: 1,3,2,5,4 1: 1,4,5,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002603.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002603.soc index 29ccefc3..fb764d6a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002603.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002603.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Absolutely. Certain breeds are just not meant to be domesticated animals. There have been a spate of dog attacks in the news recently about XL bully dogs and several deaths due to the powerful nature of these dogs. These dogs have massive jaws and can do so much damage. They really need to be banned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: This is a complex and highly emotional topic. Recently in the UK, there has been a uptrend in owning bigger XL Bully type dogs which seem to be in the news regularly, resulting in life changing situations when these dogs attack humans. In recent months I have also seen several deaths of people trying to fend of big breed dogs. In my opinion, this tragic loss of life could be avoided if there were some restrictions on certain breed types which are known to be aggresive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think that all dog owners should be required to have a license and to be held fully accountable for their pet. There are however some breeds of dogs that I do not think are suitable to have as a pet. They can be unpredictable in their behaviour, no matter how good their relationship is with their owner, and this can sometimes have horrific consequences. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, some breeds of dogs are inheriantly dangerous and bred for that reason. For example the XL bully is bred for it's agression, it's temperment ensures it will be violent and is too big with that mix to be safely around human -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: There is clear evidence that certain breeds of dogs are very dangerous - see the current issues happening in the UK with the American Bully XLs. Clearly these dogs are very dangerous. As these issues continue to happen and it is always the same breed, they should be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Absolutely. Certain breeds are just not meant to be domesticated animals. There have been a spate of dog attacks in the news recently about XL bully dogs and several deaths due to the powerful nature of these dogs. These dogs have massive jaws and can do so much damage. They really need to be banned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - This is a complex and highly emotional topic. Recently in the UK, there has been a uptrend in owning bigger XL Bully type dogs which seem to be in the news regularly, resulting in life changing situations when these dogs attack humans. In recent months I have also seen several deaths of people trying to fend of big breed dogs. In my opinion, this tragic loss of life could be avoided if there were some restrictions on certain breed types which are known to be aggresive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think that all dog owners should be required to have a license and to be held fully accountable for their pet. There are however some breeds of dogs that I do not think are suitable to have as a pet. They can be unpredictable in their behaviour, no matter how good their relationship is with their owner, and this can sometimes have horrific consequences. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, some breeds of dogs are inheriantly dangerous and bred for that reason. For example the XL bully is bred for it's agression, it's temperment ensures it will be violent and is too big with that mix to be safely around human +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - There is clear evidence that certain breeds of dogs are very dangerous - see the current issues happening in the UK with the American Bully XLs. Clearly these dogs are very dangerous. As these issues continue to happen and it is always the same breed, they should be banned. 2: 2,1,3,5,4 1: 2,1,3,4,5 1: 2,4,1,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002604.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002604.soc index dd84eefe..8b945b24 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002604.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002604.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I believe that companies should bot have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. While it's essential for employees to maintain professionalism and not misuse company time, a complete ban on social medial can stifle communication, creativity, and engagement. Instead, companies should establish clear guidelines and encourage responsible social media use, striking a balance between productivity and employee well0being. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No - as its just not constructive, employees will not feel happy to come to work. They should not be micromanaged - no one likes to be micromanaged -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I don't think that companies should have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. I think that using social media during breaks might be beneficial as employees might refocus on work feeling more relaxed. However, it's important to monitor that using social media doesn't distract employees from their tasks. I think ultimately it creates an environment of distrust to ban social media which isn't conducive to better performance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: It depends on how much of a problem this is. If staff have been found to be spending too much time which is affecting their work then yes it should be enforced. However, it should be permissable during breaks or lunch. If it is not affecting work productivity then it should be ok to let staff access social media as long as they are not posting anything about work -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I am not sure if I understand the question fully. Is it something about whether companies should allow or don't allow employees to use social media? Its every ones's personal choice whether to use or not but should not use during work-time. If its about zoro tolatance on descrimination and hate content on the company;s social media platform than yes it should be zero tolarance policy +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I believe that companies should bot have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. While it's essential for employees to maintain professionalism and not misuse company time, a complete ban on social medial can stifle communication, creativity, and engagement. Instead, companies should establish clear guidelines and encourage responsible social media use, striking a balance between productivity and employee well0being. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No - as its just not constructive, employees will not feel happy to come to work. They should not be micromanaged - no one likes to be micromanaged +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I don't think that companies should have a zero-tolerance policy on the use of social media by their employees. I think that using social media during breaks might be beneficial as employees might refocus on work feeling more relaxed. However, it's important to monitor that using social media doesn't distract employees from their tasks. I think ultimately it creates an environment of distrust to ban social media which isn't conducive to better performance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It depends on how much of a problem this is. If staff have been found to be spending too much time which is affecting their work then yes it should be enforced. However, it should be permissable during breaks or lunch. If it is not affecting work productivity then it should be ok to let staff access social media as long as they are not posting anything about work +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I am not sure if I understand the question fully. Is it something about whether companies should allow or don't allow employees to use social media? Its every ones's personal choice whether to use or not but should not use during work-time. If its about zoro tolatance on descrimination and hate content on the company;s social media platform than yes it should be zero tolarance policy 2: 1,3,4,5,2 1: 2,1,3,4,5 1: 1,3,4,2,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002605.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002605.soc index cbb6516e..3cebac9e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002605.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002605.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: hunting for sport has been a decade of tradition. hunting for sport doesnt really affect me as its not really something i ever think about so in that way i guess my blind ignorance may say yes its ok. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No it bloody isn't, it's cruel and unneeded. it's a vile past time and should be ended straight away. Some traditions should be ended and should not be used as an excuse to why they should carry on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I do not believe it is OK for people to hunt purely for sport. Hunting should be done only if it necessary for food, or for an ecological reason such as population reduction or control. There are many other ways that sport hunters can fulfil their need to shoot animals without actually having to kill one, such as target shooting, clay pigeon shooting etc. I cannot see a valid reason to kill an animal for fun. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Absolutely not, its cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans slaying animals. Its disgusting and shouldn't even be a question needed to be asked. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Absolutely never, why should humans feel it's okay to take a life for the sole reason of it being a 'sport'. Innocent animals are killed all the time and for what? So you can brag to your friends later on? It makes absolutely no sense how or why you would get a kick out of hunting as a sport +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - hunting for sport has been a decade of tradition. hunting for sport doesnt really affect me as its not really something i ever think about so in that way i guess my blind ignorance may say yes its ok. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No it bloody isn't, it's cruel and unneeded. it's a vile past time and should be ended straight away. Some traditions should be ended and should not be used as an excuse to why they should carry on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I do not believe it is OK for people to hunt purely for sport. Hunting should be done only if it necessary for food, or for an ecological reason such as population reduction or control. There are many other ways that sport hunters can fulfil their need to shoot animals without actually having to kill one, such as target shooting, clay pigeon shooting etc. I cannot see a valid reason to kill an animal for fun. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Absolutely not, its cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans slaying animals. Its disgusting and shouldn't even be a question needed to be asked. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Absolutely never, why should humans feel it's okay to take a life for the sole reason of it being a 'sport'. Innocent animals are killed all the time and for what? So you can brag to your friends later on? It makes absolutely no sense how or why you would get a kick out of hunting as a sport 1: 3,2,5,4,1 1: 5,3,2,4,1 1: 5,2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002606.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002606.soc index 3aaed2f2..63e366ab 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002606.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002606.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: if by smoking on the job you mean taking a cigarette break in a designated area then yes i think its fine, aslong as it not affecting your workload and you are not taking advantage of those who dont smoke. smoke breaks should come out of your allocated break time though as its unfair on the non-smokers and all workers should be treated the same. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, its a disgusting bad habit and should be banned during the working hours, fine if you want to have it on your unpaid lunchbreak. Allowances for smoking during the working hours should be forbidden, its time wasting and inefficient use of time. Smoking is not a medical condition its a personal choice to smoke and smokers should not be able to just smoke when they feel like it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think that it is a personal choice whether someone smokes or not, however it is not my personal choice to be around people who smoke. If you want to smoke a cigarrette at work then you need to go outside to a designated smoking area where you wont affect anybody else, and non-smokers will know not to go near that area if they dont want to be around cigarette smoke. You should also not get extra time for smoke breaks that people who don't smoke are not able to access. Everyone shouldbe able to have the same amount of time away from their desk. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: As long as you're smoking outside, away from any other non-smokers, I feel that taking 2 minutes to smoke isn't the end of the world. It's something that would never affect me as a non smoker, but if I were an employer, as long as that employee got his/her work done in time, I would have no problem them taking little breaks -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Sure if you go outside and away from the place of work or too a dedicated smoking spot then why not, so long as it's on your break do what you want, If your bothering others by being careless then not so much. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - if by smoking on the job you mean taking a cigarette break in a designated area then yes i think its fine, aslong as it not affecting your workload and you are not taking advantage of those who dont smoke. smoke breaks should come out of your allocated break time though as its unfair on the non-smokers and all workers should be treated the same. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, its a disgusting bad habit and should be banned during the working hours, fine if you want to have it on your unpaid lunchbreak. Allowances for smoking during the working hours should be forbidden, its time wasting and inefficient use of time. Smoking is not a medical condition its a personal choice to smoke and smokers should not be able to just smoke when they feel like it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think that it is a personal choice whether someone smokes or not, however it is not my personal choice to be around people who smoke. If you want to smoke a cigarrette at work then you need to go outside to a designated smoking area where you wont affect anybody else, and non-smokers will know not to go near that area if they dont want to be around cigarette smoke. You should also not get extra time for smoke breaks that people who don't smoke are not able to access. Everyone shouldbe able to have the same amount of time away from their desk. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - As long as you're smoking outside, away from any other non-smokers, I feel that taking 2 minutes to smoke isn't the end of the world. It's something that would never affect me as a non smoker, but if I were an employer, as long as that employee got his/her work done in time, I would have no problem them taking little breaks +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Sure if you go outside and away from the place of work or too a dedicated smoking spot then why not, so long as it's on your break do what you want, If your bothering others by being careless then not so much. 2: 1,3,4,5,2 1: 3,1,5,4,2 1: 3,4,5,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002607.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002607.soc index 6888d8c9..f1b9448f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002607.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002607.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I do not think we should make it compulsory for new homes as it is an investment every household should decide on. It is an expensive investment and not everyone will be able to afford it. Maybe if there were some grants available from the government then it would be easier for most people to buy it. If the new homes will have solar panels then they will become more expensive and maybe will not be selling as fast. I do not understand why are we always focusing on homes only what about all the big companies and their buildings? These are the people earning a lot of profit and they should have solar panels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: New homes should have solar panels for their green credentials. It would reduce reliance on the national grid and also, in the longer run, be cheaper for the user. With the increase in adoption of supporting technologies such as house batteries (which can be charged from the solar panel) and the increased push towards electric cars these do complement each other well. There is also already precident for this with a number of councils building green targets into planning permission (e.g. new builds must have solar panels) to gain planning approval. It also reduces reliance on offshore energy which has been very costly for the average person in the last few years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: For new homes, yes i do there are huge costs around energy and this will help solar panels are renewable energy and the way forward -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think we should consider making solar panels compulsory. It is a sustainable way of creating electricity. This will be better for the environment and is a renewable source of energy. Although I am unsure about how much sunlight the UK gets and whether that would be conducive or an effective energy generator. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think if they are new homes, yes. It's much easier to structure them into newer homes and makes them so much more efficient, it will save money for the buyers. However, not everyone wants them, some people don't like them and they're not always as beneficial as intended. I do think in terms of helping the environment and energy costs, it would be worth it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I do not think we should make it compulsory for new homes as it is an investment every household should decide on. It is an expensive investment and not everyone will be able to afford it. Maybe if there were some grants available from the government then it would be easier for most people to buy it. If the new homes will have solar panels then they will become more expensive and maybe will not be selling as fast. I do not understand why are we always focusing on homes only what about all the big companies and their buildings? These are the people earning a lot of profit and they should have solar panels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - New homes should have solar panels for their green credentials. It would reduce reliance on the national grid and also, in the longer run, be cheaper for the user. With the increase in adoption of supporting technologies such as house batteries (which can be charged from the solar panel) and the increased push towards electric cars these do complement each other well. There is also already precident for this with a number of councils building green targets into planning permission (e.g. new builds must have solar panels) to gain planning approval. It also reduces reliance on offshore energy which has been very costly for the average person in the last few years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - For new homes, yes i do there are huge costs around energy and this will help solar panels are renewable energy and the way forward +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think we should consider making solar panels compulsory. It is a sustainable way of creating electricity. This will be better for the environment and is a renewable source of energy. Although I am unsure about how much sunlight the UK gets and whether that would be conducive or an effective energy generator. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think if they are new homes, yes. It's much easier to structure them into newer homes and makes them so much more efficient, it will save money for the buyers. However, not everyone wants them, some people don't like them and they're not always as beneficial as intended. I do think in terms of helping the environment and energy costs, it would be worth it. 2: 2,1,4,5,3 1: 2,5,4,3,1 1: 2,4,3,5,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002608.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002608.soc index 5580f8f0..38c5fa3c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002608.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002608.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think that the government should definitely encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. I think that climate change is one of the biggest issues if not the biggest one that humanity faces and it's time to start making changes. I think it's worth sacrificing anything including economic growth to preserve the environment and it's essential to use any tools possible to motivate people to switch to electric cars. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, electric cars are better for the environment and sustainability. Offering tax breaks will encourage people to buy and use more electric cars -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Offering tax breaks to electric car owners can be a valuable incentive, supporting eco-friendly transportation and reducing carbon emissions, stimulating innovation. This not only aligns with sustainability goals but also stimulates the electric vehicle market. However, it's crucial to maintain balanced approach to ensure fairness and efficient resource allocation in the tax system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes but as to what those tax breaks are and how long they will be enabled for I am unsure. This tax break should possibly be in place for the purchase of new vehicles. There are concerns around how long the life of the batteries for cars will last. Some studies have shown it can cost up to 8 thousand pounds to replace the batteries on a high mileage car. Perhaps tax breaks should be given in these instances otherwise it will inhibit the purchase of second hand vehicles as not everyone can afford new vehicles. There should also be tax breaks on the installation of charging points -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: If the Government can put pressure and bring down the prices of electric cars then more people can afford to buy cars +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think that the government should definitely encourage the use of electric cars by offering tax breaks to their owners. I think that climate change is one of the biggest issues if not the biggest one that humanity faces and it's time to start making changes. I think it's worth sacrificing anything including economic growth to preserve the environment and it's essential to use any tools possible to motivate people to switch to electric cars. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, electric cars are better for the environment and sustainability. Offering tax breaks will encourage people to buy and use more electric cars +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Offering tax breaks to electric car owners can be a valuable incentive, supporting eco-friendly transportation and reducing carbon emissions, stimulating innovation. This not only aligns with sustainability goals but also stimulates the electric vehicle market. However, it's crucial to maintain balanced approach to ensure fairness and efficient resource allocation in the tax system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes but as to what those tax breaks are and how long they will be enabled for I am unsure. This tax break should possibly be in place for the purchase of new vehicles. There are concerns around how long the life of the batteries for cars will last. Some studies have shown it can cost up to 8 thousand pounds to replace the batteries on a high mileage car. Perhaps tax breaks should be given in these instances otherwise it will inhibit the purchase of second hand vehicles as not everyone can afford new vehicles. There should also be tax breaks on the installation of charging points +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - If the Government can put pressure and bring down the prices of electric cars then more people can afford to buy cars 1: 3,2,1,4,5 1: 4,3,1,5,2 1: 1,3,4,2,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002609.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002609.soc index cade7f8c..c2d23603 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002609.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002609.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, i think a jury is the best way of resolving a case. Mitigating circumstances should mean you don't have to. I think 18 is too young, should be 25. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The law of this land gives everyone the right to a fair trial. Without a fair jury decisions are made irrespective of what should be a fair selection of society. Mandating jury duty would ensure a mixed selection is chosen. However if people do not want to do it then their judgement could be questioned. There are also valid exceptions such as disabilitys or not being impartial as to why you should not be forced to do jury duty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should not require me to do jury service nor anyone else. Again I think this should be on each individual to decide whether this is something they want to do or not. Not everyone will have the time to do this service. We should not be pushed to do something we so not want to do or do not have the skills to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think Jury service is an important part of being in a society. It is our duty to give our opinion and decision towards justice. It is only fair everyone has to give their opinion so there is no bias. On the other hand, Jury duty can be long and people do not get compensation for their time and individuals may have greater responsibilities at home. The topics can be quite distressing and affect people who have trauma and may have a negative effect on their mental health as they are not allowed to talk about their Jury service experience. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think to prevent any bias then yes, people from the public should do it. I also think its a rock and a hard place and some people may be involved in a case that they find disturbing or traumatic. I think anybody who wants to, should volunteer. forcing seems unfair and unnecessary +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, i think a jury is the best way of resolving a case. Mitigating circumstances should mean you don't have to. I think 18 is too young, should be 25. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The law of this land gives everyone the right to a fair trial. Without a fair jury decisions are made irrespective of what should be a fair selection of society. Mandating jury duty would ensure a mixed selection is chosen. However if people do not want to do it then their judgement could be questioned. There are also valid exceptions such as disabilitys or not being impartial as to why you should not be forced to do jury duty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should not require me to do jury service nor anyone else. Again I think this should be on each individual to decide whether this is something they want to do or not. Not everyone will have the time to do this service. We should not be pushed to do something we so not want to do or do not have the skills to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think Jury service is an important part of being in a society. It is our duty to give our opinion and decision towards justice. It is only fair everyone has to give their opinion so there is no bias. On the other hand, Jury duty can be long and people do not get compensation for their time and individuals may have greater responsibilities at home. The topics can be quite distressing and affect people who have trauma and may have a negative effect on their mental health as they are not allowed to talk about their Jury service experience. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think to prevent any bias then yes, people from the public should do it. I also think its a rock and a hard place and some people may be involved in a case that they find disturbing or traumatic. I think anybody who wants to, should volunteer. forcing seems unfair and unnecessary 1: 4,5,3,1,2 1: 2,4,5,1,3 1: 4,2,3,5,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002610.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002610.soc index 4e5fd476..67245072 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002610.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002610.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think we are very reliant on technology in todays world - I feel there is now nothing we can do without using a phone or other technology -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think so, technology has definitely made our lives comfortable and easy but we started to forget a lot of basic skills like I use a calculator to do a lot of easy calculation which can my done in my head! I am not using my brain as much as I should to keep my brain sharp. Social media has also become the source of distraction for everyday life. We are more social in the social media than face to face interactions. If in the future there is a glitch in the system and everything shuts down, will we survive? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I do think that we are too reliant on technology nowadays. I feel that we as a society no longer feel the need to learn new information like previous generations did. Previous generations had a much better capacity to retain knowledge about history, culture, politics, important dates etc. Nowadays we just google something and forget the information and I think this has consequences for our overall memory and brain plasticity. It is important to learn new information, languages etc instead of feeling like the answer is a click away. However, the internet has made it easier for people to retrieve information and make knowledge more accessible so that is positive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we are indeed too reliant on technology in the modern age. While technology has undoubtedly brought about numerous benefits, our excessive dependence on it has led to a disconnect from the real world, privacy concerns, and a growing addiction to screens. Striking a balance between harnessing technology's advantages and preserving our essential human connections and offline experiences is a critical challenge for society today. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes, to the point that people are unable to do activities that would have been normal 40 years ago. We are losing certain skill sets. Also technology controls every aspect of our modern lives and if that technology fails for example in banking, people could lose all their savings with no way of evidencing it. Modern medicine and hospitals, computisation of modern cars all take away the human involvement which can leave us vunerable +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think we are very reliant on technology in todays world - I feel there is now nothing we can do without using a phone or other technology +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think so, technology has definitely made our lives comfortable and easy but we started to forget a lot of basic skills like I use a calculator to do a lot of easy calculation which can my done in my head! I am not using my brain as much as I should to keep my brain sharp. Social media has also become the source of distraction for everyday life. We are more social in the social media than face to face interactions. If in the future there is a glitch in the system and everything shuts down, will we survive? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I do think that we are too reliant on technology nowadays. I feel that we as a society no longer feel the need to learn new information like previous generations did. Previous generations had a much better capacity to retain knowledge about history, culture, politics, important dates etc. Nowadays we just google something and forget the information and I think this has consequences for our overall memory and brain plasticity. It is important to learn new information, languages etc instead of feeling like the answer is a click away. However, the internet has made it easier for people to retrieve information and make knowledge more accessible so that is positive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we are indeed too reliant on technology in the modern age. While technology has undoubtedly brought about numerous benefits, our excessive dependence on it has led to a disconnect from the real world, privacy concerns, and a growing addiction to screens. Striking a balance between harnessing technology's advantages and preserving our essential human connections and offline experiences is a critical challenge for society today. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes, to the point that people are unable to do activities that would have been normal 40 years ago. We are losing certain skill sets. Also technology controls every aspect of our modern lives and if that technology fails for example in banking, people could lose all their savings with no way of evidencing it. Modern medicine and hospitals, computisation of modern cars all take away the human involvement which can leave us vunerable 1: 2,1,3,4,5 1: 3,2,4,5,1 1: 4,2,3,5,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002611.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002611.soc index 962bd15b..ae785841 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002611.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002611.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: i think yes they should increase taxes on the rich, mainly people in the governemnt. they have 3-4 houses being paid a ridiculous amount of money for nothing. They should be paying alot more tax on their money which could be put towards healthcare or something to help the economy -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I dont like to say taxes on rich should be increased. I do believe that tax bands should be more demanding when you go higher which makes a fair envirmoent because the essential cost of living is the same for poor and the rich. The more you earn the more you can give back to goverment and you will also get this back in terms of service, heathcare, protection and a higher standarts of life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: As someone who has grown up with no money, I would say yes to this. Not necessarily by a huge amount but definitely "enough" to help the economy more and to put towards helping others in need - mental health, NHS, education, and much much more. Right now, it always seems that the rich get richer and have amazing lives, while no matter how much and how hard the average Joe/Jane work and try, they are still in a big hole trying to make ends meet and get out. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I do not feel that the rich should be made to pay more taxes as most of us have had the same chances in life. Why should people with more money pay more when most will have worked hard to obtain it. A lot of richer people pay tax two or three time over on their money - paying income tax when they earn, paying capital gains after investing the money they have earned and inheritance tax when they die. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes, we currently have a really bad cost of living crisis in our country with millions of families struggling to pay for the very basics, meanwhile, you have a lot of rich people exploiting the situation and getting even richer with absolutely no care or regard for everyday people. We need to be able to have more money to invest in schools, social services, the environment etc and a great way to get more money is to tax the rich who have far more than enough. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - i think yes they should increase taxes on the rich, mainly people in the governemnt. they have 3-4 houses being paid a ridiculous amount of money for nothing. They should be paying alot more tax on their money which could be put towards healthcare or something to help the economy +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I dont like to say taxes on rich should be increased. I do believe that tax bands should be more demanding when you go higher which makes a fair envirmoent because the essential cost of living is the same for poor and the rich. The more you earn the more you can give back to goverment and you will also get this back in terms of service, heathcare, protection and a higher standarts of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - As someone who has grown up with no money, I would say yes to this. Not necessarily by a huge amount but definitely "enough" to help the economy more and to put towards helping others in need - mental health, NHS, education, and much much more. Right now, it always seems that the rich get richer and have amazing lives, while no matter how much and how hard the average Joe/Jane work and try, they are still in a big hole trying to make ends meet and get out. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I do not feel that the rich should be made to pay more taxes as most of us have had the same chances in life. Why should people with more money pay more when most will have worked hard to obtain it. A lot of richer people pay tax two or three time over on their money - paying income tax when they earn, paying capital gains after investing the money they have earned and inheritance tax when they die. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes, we currently have a really bad cost of living crisis in our country with millions of families struggling to pay for the very basics, meanwhile, you have a lot of rich people exploiting the situation and getting even richer with absolutely no care or regard for everyday people. We need to be able to have more money to invest in schools, social services, the environment etc and a great way to get more money is to tax the rich who have far more than enough. 2: 5,3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,5,2,4 1: 2,1,3,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002612.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002612.soc index 70baf172..930b77b1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002612.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002612.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I don't believe we should encourage everyone to get a degree. I do not believe a degree is necessary anymore, as the value of the degree is lessening with every passing year, while tuition costs are heavily increasing. I believe young people are already pressured to go into high amounts of debt for a subject or field that they may not necessarily end up in, leaving them with excessive debt, and a useless degree. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should encourage everyone to get a degree because a highly educated society is good for everyone. Teaching to a higher education standard helps foster critical thinking. We are watching the cult of Trump amongst poorly educated Americans who are quick to jump to conclusions about "other" - refugees, gay, trans, anyone not "them". We all deserve to carry on learning and to expand our knowledge. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think that alternative forms of education should be emphasied as valid (apprentices, internships etc.). Not everyone is going to thrive in or enjoy an academic setting and lots of academic subjects might be better taught in an alternative, more practical way (such as engineering). -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although earning a degree can be a good opportunity for some people, it is not necessary for everybody. Plenty of people that don't have degrees are successful and have good jobs. Many people get degrees because they think they should but they don't actually need it. Many people end up in debt because of their degree and they never even end up using it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Whilst I wouldn't necessarily encourage everyone to get a degree, I would encourage people to continue learning and to want to learn. I think the love of learning is something that should be encouraged more in school, as should the capability to think critically. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I don't believe we should encourage everyone to get a degree. I do not believe a degree is necessary anymore, as the value of the degree is lessening with every passing year, while tuition costs are heavily increasing. I believe young people are already pressured to go into high amounts of debt for a subject or field that they may not necessarily end up in, leaving them with excessive debt, and a useless degree. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should encourage everyone to get a degree because a highly educated society is good for everyone. Teaching to a higher education standard helps foster critical thinking. We are watching the cult of Trump amongst poorly educated Americans who are quick to jump to conclusions about "other" - refugees, gay, trans, anyone not "them". We all deserve to carry on learning and to expand our knowledge. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think that alternative forms of education should be emphasied as valid (apprentices, internships etc.). Not everyone is going to thrive in or enjoy an academic setting and lots of academic subjects might be better taught in an alternative, more practical way (such as engineering). +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although earning a degree can be a good opportunity for some people, it is not necessary for everybody. Plenty of people that don't have degrees are successful and have good jobs. Many people get degrees because they think they should but they don't actually need it. Many people end up in debt because of their degree and they never even end up using it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Whilst I wouldn't necessarily encourage everyone to get a degree, I would encourage people to continue learning and to want to learn. I think the love of learning is something that should be encouraged more in school, as should the capability to think critically. 1: 1,4,3,2,5 1: 5,2,3,4,1 1: 2,5,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002613.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002613.soc index 2a9384ef..5fb4b2cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002613.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002613.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: yes there should be the opinion representation in management and boards to handle the the illegal activities -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes there should be a union representation in management and boards. This would help to represent and defend the interests and needs of all employees. It is important that everybody is represented and not just a select number of people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There should be union representation in management and boards. Union representation ensures that worker views and concerns are correctly represented in the highest levels of an organisation. Currently, there is no Union representation and that creates issues and difficulties later on when factors like pay, working conditions, retirement benefits etc are set for each year. I am strongly of the opinion that there should be union representation to ensure a fair, just and equitable management of both employees and employers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe when working for anyone, you should be involved with a union who can advocate for you and guide you through your employment to ensure that everything that happens within said job, is all above board. the industrial revolution and the creation of unions should never be forgotten - it is our history that unites us and if we fail to remember why representation and safe employment is necessary, what is the point in any of us working? that would be deliberately lining the pockets of the heirarchy within your job, without yourself or your colleagues being represented. management should have unions, however they should also be subject to assessments that ensures no one is abusing their position of power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe that there should definately be union representation within management and boards. This way ensuring that company practices are conducted within the law and encourage fairness to employees from the top of the company. Although some may see it as a conflict of interests i'd say it was needed to make sure the fair treatment of employees within the workplace while not focusing on pure profit for company top tier employees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - yes there should be the opinion representation in management and boards to handle the the illegal activities +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes there should be a union representation in management and boards. This would help to represent and defend the interests and needs of all employees. It is important that everybody is represented and not just a select number of people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should be union representation in management and boards. Union representation ensures that worker views and concerns are correctly represented in the highest levels of an organisation. Currently, there is no Union representation and that creates issues and difficulties later on when factors like pay, working conditions, retirement benefits etc are set for each year. I am strongly of the opinion that there should be union representation to ensure a fair, just and equitable management of both employees and employers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe when working for anyone, you should be involved with a union who can advocate for you and guide you through your employment to ensure that everything that happens within said job, is all above board. the industrial revolution and the creation of unions should never be forgotten - it is our history that unites us and if we fail to remember why representation and safe employment is necessary, what is the point in any of us working? that would be deliberately lining the pockets of the heirarchy within your job, without yourself or your colleagues being represented. management should have unions, however they should also be subject to assessments that ensures no one is abusing their position of power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe that there should definately be union representation within management and boards. This way ensuring that company practices are conducted within the law and encourage fairness to employees from the top of the company. Although some may see it as a conflict of interests i'd say it was needed to make sure the fair treatment of employees within the workplace while not focusing on pure profit for company top tier employees. 1: 3,5,4,2,1 1: 3,4,5,2,1 1: 5,3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002614.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002614.soc index 6b1a7694..2a789168 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002614.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002614.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think we should invest more in science and research. Education and funding growth through learning will enrich our lives and our future. I think investing more in science and research may also help reduce the need for social services too. I truly value social services and think they're incredibly important so I only just sway towards science. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Its hard to say I think we should invest more in Science and Research, this is because science and research could find cures for diseases or even cancer. Some money should also be invested in social services to help people/families in need especially now with the cost of living crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should invest more in social services to help the most needy in our society -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: absolutely invest in science and research, as this is the future for humanity, if we invest now we're securing our future for the human race, research in scientific breakthroughs could help cure diseases, solve problems such as climate change and help with advances in AI. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: This is a very difficult question as both are important however I believe social services helps people right now, in the moment and so is more important to invest in than research that may or may not help people in the future. I do think that it is important to invest in science and research as this can discover cures for diseases etc etc, however to help people in the moment I believe that the benefits of investing in social services would be felt more widely. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think we should invest more in science and research. Education and funding growth through learning will enrich our lives and our future. I think investing more in science and research may also help reduce the need for social services too. I truly value social services and think they're incredibly important so I only just sway towards science. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Its hard to say I think we should invest more in Science and Research, this is because science and research could find cures for diseases or even cancer. Some money should also be invested in social services to help people/families in need especially now with the cost of living crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should invest more in social services to help the most needy in our society +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - absolutely invest in science and research, as this is the future for humanity, if we invest now we're securing our future for the human race, research in scientific breakthroughs could help cure diseases, solve problems such as climate change and help with advances in AI. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - This is a very difficult question as both are important however I believe social services helps people right now, in the moment and so is more important to invest in than research that may or may not help people in the future. I do think that it is important to invest in science and research as this can discover cures for diseases etc etc, however to help people in the moment I believe that the benefits of investing in social services would be felt more widely. 1: 5,3,4,1,2 1: 1,2,5,4,3 1: 5,1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002615.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002615.soc index ceb9660f..b8c87b5e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002615.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002615.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I understand the premise of this but I feel that abolishing private property will not stop wealth creation is many cases. Owning private property is a right that everyone should hold and that more help and support should be provided to ensure everyone is able to attain home ownership. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe that people should be entitled to their own property especially when they work hard for it. I believe it gives them a piece of mind and security. It can also make their self esteem higher. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: owning private property is up to the individual abolishing this would be like living in a communist state the government do not have the right to tell people that they cant own property -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: At present, the income gap is incredibly wide. I believe that at least some, but not all, of accumulated wealth should go back into the community. If not, it seems we would have people with a lot more money than they know what to do with, and people who are struggling everywhere. That said, if a parent wants to leave their child a nice fortune, I think this should be allowed - they've also worked hard to accumulate that wealth and should be able to accomplish what they want to do with it. So I would say ... maybe beyond a certain amount that is clearly a comfortable sum to set an individual for life (e.g. 10 million), per child the wealthy person has, the rest of the inheritance could go back to the community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: There should always be a right to own property. Intergenerational wealth is an important part of keeping the "cycle" going. I own property and I absolutely want my daughter to inherit it and be better off financially herself. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I understand the premise of this but I feel that abolishing private property will not stop wealth creation is many cases. Owning private property is a right that everyone should hold and that more help and support should be provided to ensure everyone is able to attain home ownership. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe that people should be entitled to their own property especially when they work hard for it. I believe it gives them a piece of mind and security. It can also make their self esteem higher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - owning private property is up to the individual abolishing this would be like living in a communist state the government do not have the right to tell people that they cant own property +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - At present, the income gap is incredibly wide. I believe that at least some, but not all, of accumulated wealth should go back into the community. If not, it seems we would have people with a lot more money than they know what to do with, and people who are struggling everywhere. That said, if a parent wants to leave their child a nice fortune, I think this should be allowed - they've also worked hard to accumulate that wealth and should be able to accomplish what they want to do with it. So I would say ... maybe beyond a certain amount that is clearly a comfortable sum to set an individual for life (e.g. 10 million), per child the wealthy person has, the rest of the inheritance could go back to the community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - There should always be a right to own property. Intergenerational wealth is an important part of keeping the "cycle" going. I own property and I absolutely want my daughter to inherit it and be better off financially herself. 1: 5,4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4,5 1: 1,5,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002616.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002616.soc index b4d3b84e..5cfa5253 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002616.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002616.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: For any family, raising children is expensive. These families are raising the next generation of people to live in the UK. Providing tax breaks helps them lessen the burden of the cost of raising children, especially during this cost of living crisis. There are concerns of how many children and families live in poverty, and such tax breaks will help lessen this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think it is important that families with children are able to afford to live a healthy lifestyle and there are costs associated with children that families without children won't experience (e.g., buying new clothes as children grow). However, I don't know if applying a blanket tax break for families with children is appropriate because some families with children will be far better-off financially than families without children. I think it would be better to give means-tested tac breaks to families with children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe that we should give extra tax breaks to families with children to help them get by. This is because there is an ongoing cost of living crisis where many households across the country are struggling to afford to pay their bills. I also believe that there should be more incentives for people with children because it is difficult for people to start a family because of the cost, which leads to a declining population with lots of old residents and fewer younger people to work to look after them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't think we should give extra tax breaks to families with children. The reason is this category does not differentiate between those who need help and those who don't. You can have four children and be extremely wealthy. Or have no children and struggling to survive. Tax breaks need to evaluate a far wider range of criteria than just whether an individual has children. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes I believe we should. With high inflation and a cost of living crisis, supporting families seems to be a good option. Tax breaks would enable extra income to be freed up for those families with children, and would be a simple government policy to instigate. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - For any family, raising children is expensive. These families are raising the next generation of people to live in the UK. Providing tax breaks helps them lessen the burden of the cost of raising children, especially during this cost of living crisis. There are concerns of how many children and families live in poverty, and such tax breaks will help lessen this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think it is important that families with children are able to afford to live a healthy lifestyle and there are costs associated with children that families without children won't experience (e.g., buying new clothes as children grow). However, I don't know if applying a blanket tax break for families with children is appropriate because some families with children will be far better-off financially than families without children. I think it would be better to give means-tested tac breaks to families with children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe that we should give extra tax breaks to families with children to help them get by. This is because there is an ongoing cost of living crisis where many households across the country are struggling to afford to pay their bills. I also believe that there should be more incentives for people with children because it is difficult for people to start a family because of the cost, which leads to a declining population with lots of old residents and fewer younger people to work to look after them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't think we should give extra tax breaks to families with children. The reason is this category does not differentiate between those who need help and those who don't. You can have four children and be extremely wealthy. Or have no children and struggling to survive. Tax breaks need to evaluate a far wider range of criteria than just whether an individual has children. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes I believe we should. With high inflation and a cost of living crisis, supporting families seems to be a good option. Tax breaks would enable extra income to be freed up for those families with children, and would be a simple government policy to instigate. 1: 3,1,5,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2,5 1: 2,3,4,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002617.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002617.soc index 7c995b27..9305e044 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002617.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002617.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The only thing I can consider about this topic is to upgrade the voting ballot system to electronical system like they are doing in the US. Other than that I believe current voting system is good to preserve democracy while I'm also not very experienced and have deep knowledge about those topics so I'm really keen to read your responses for this question and many thanks for everyone for sharing their opinions. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: i havent voted previously as i dont see a positive part of any one looking for votes but i do think it is flawed in its current state so i am neutral. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I don't know too much about politics so it's a little hard for me to give an opinion on this topic but as far as I can see there always seems to be one party in charge that can do pretty much what they want. I think we should have two or three parties in charge who then have to work together to try and come up with compromises and solutions that work for everyone to ensure we don't end up with decisions that are too radical. It would help to keep the overall balance in the centre. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe the voting system in the UK is fair. I do feel, however, that giving the vote to 16 year olds is fool hardy as they are not equipped mentally or have enough knowledge or experience to make an informed vote. I feel people should be encourage more to vote and political parties should be made to explain their policies in a clear and concise way that everyone can understand. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: This is definitely tricky because I am unsure how it could be improved to make it fair, except maybe some kind of little test for everyone to show we understand what we are voting for and why. We are always lied to by politicians and more so for the lead up to the elections, and then people get swayed to vote based on one or two small bits of information and don't realise the repurcussions - take Brexit for example. I definitely say it needs to be kept at 18+, as 16 is too young to vote or to really know what you want or agree with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The only thing I can consider about this topic is to upgrade the voting ballot system to electronical system like they are doing in the US. Other than that I believe current voting system is good to preserve democracy while I'm also not very experienced and have deep knowledge about those topics so I'm really keen to read your responses for this question and many thanks for everyone for sharing their opinions. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - i havent voted previously as i dont see a positive part of any one looking for votes but i do think it is flawed in its current state so i am neutral. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I don't know too much about politics so it's a little hard for me to give an opinion on this topic but as far as I can see there always seems to be one party in charge that can do pretty much what they want. I think we should have two or three parties in charge who then have to work together to try and come up with compromises and solutions that work for everyone to ensure we don't end up with decisions that are too radical. It would help to keep the overall balance in the centre. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe the voting system in the UK is fair. I do feel, however, that giving the vote to 16 year olds is fool hardy as they are not equipped mentally or have enough knowledge or experience to make an informed vote. I feel people should be encourage more to vote and political parties should be made to explain their policies in a clear and concise way that everyone can understand. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - This is definitely tricky because I am unsure how it could be improved to make it fair, except maybe some kind of little test for everyone to show we understand what we are voting for and why. We are always lied to by politicians and more so for the lead up to the elections, and then people get swayed to vote based on one or two small bits of information and don't realise the repurcussions - take Brexit for example. I definitely say it needs to be kept at 18+, as 16 is too young to vote or to really know what you want or agree with. 1: 5,4,1,3,2 1: 1,3,2,4,5 1: 3,1,2,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002618.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002618.soc index e1738fbb..1c81cff1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002618.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002618.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I do believe the state should provide free tuition to an extent. I do think students should be able to contribute in some way to the school, depending on whether it is private or public. Additionally, depending on their field of study it could be vital for student contribution in order to have facilities available for them but the state should help alongside. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: This is a tricky one. I believe every young adult in this country should have an equal opportunity to attend university. This does not necessarily mean that everyone should attend university - the majority of jobs do not need a university education, and degrees are becoming devalued. However, the current system of high tuition fees and large student loans disproportionately affects student from a lower income background, can put them off, and can leave them more in debt comapared to better-off peers on graduating. As such, I think means-tested grants should be bought back to allow students from lower income families to attend university for free. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think the state should perhaps offer this but only to those who are not able to afford the fees. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe that the state ought to provide free university tuition because it is in everyone's best interests to have a society formed of well educated individuals. Having people be able to freely access high quality education, free of charge, would open up the possibility for a far wider and more diverse range of individuals to not only gain education for themselves, but also be in a position to bring their own talents, perspectives and ideas to the world. This benefits everyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I do believe the state should provide free tuition to an extent. I do think students should be able to contribute in some way to the school, depending on whether it is private or public. Additionally, depending on their field of study it could be vital for student contribution in order to have facilities available for them but the state should help alongside. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - This is a tricky one. I believe every young adult in this country should have an equal opportunity to attend university. This does not necessarily mean that everyone should attend university - the majority of jobs do not need a university education, and degrees are becoming devalued. However, the current system of high tuition fees and large student loans disproportionately affects student from a lower income background, can put them off, and can leave them more in debt comapared to better-off peers on graduating. As such, I think means-tested grants should be bought back to allow students from lower income families to attend university for free. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think the state should perhaps offer this but only to those who are not able to afford the fees. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe that the state ought to provide free university tuition because it is in everyone's best interests to have a society formed of well educated individuals. Having people be able to freely access high quality education, free of charge, would open up the possibility for a far wider and more diverse range of individuals to not only gain education for themselves, but also be in a position to bring their own talents, perspectives and ideas to the world. This benefits everyone. 3: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002619.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002619.soc index 63ee355b..4d725037 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002619.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002619.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I disagree. I believe that this is essentially privatisation of what should be a public right. Whilst the NHS does have extensively long waiting lists for something as necessary and urgent as organs, I believe that it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think this would risk opening up a black market which could lead to people being harmed in order to make money. Instead, I believe all societies should adopt an opt-out system for organ donation. We should be trying to move further away from the idea of profiteering from healthcare and associated issues rather than creating more. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Absolutely not. People living in poverty may be tempted to sell a kidney and perhaps shorten their own lifespan, either by undergoing the surgery or longer term health issues. People would be trafficked, to provide spare organs for rich people. This is not a route I would like society to go. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I would worry that allowing people to do this would result in the exploit of poor and marginalized people, who may feel forced to sell their organs for money. This would widen already existing health inequalities. It would also be incredibly difficult to regulate such a market, and ensure that it was not flooded with poor quality organs that are no use in a medical context. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think that people should be able to sell their organs on the open market. Although I do believe in having freedom of choice, I think that this would be a bad idea because vulnerable people might choose to sell organs out of financial desperation and cause themselves health problems. I think if people were able to sell their organs via a certified medical route instead that it would be a lot safer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I disagree. I believe that this is essentially privatisation of what should be a public right. Whilst the NHS does have extensively long waiting lists for something as necessary and urgent as organs, I believe that it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think this would risk opening up a black market which could lead to people being harmed in order to make money. Instead, I believe all societies should adopt an opt-out system for organ donation. We should be trying to move further away from the idea of profiteering from healthcare and associated issues rather than creating more. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Absolutely not. People living in poverty may be tempted to sell a kidney and perhaps shorten their own lifespan, either by undergoing the surgery or longer term health issues. People would be trafficked, to provide spare organs for rich people. This is not a route I would like society to go. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I would worry that allowing people to do this would result in the exploit of poor and marginalized people, who may feel forced to sell their organs for money. This would widen already existing health inequalities. It would also be incredibly difficult to regulate such a market, and ensure that it was not flooded with poor quality organs that are no use in a medical context. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think that people should be able to sell their organs on the open market. Although I do believe in having freedom of choice, I think that this would be a bad idea because vulnerable people might choose to sell organs out of financial desperation and cause themselves health problems. I think if people were able to sell their organs via a certified medical route instead that it would be a lot safer. 1: 5,3,4,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4,5 1: 3,2,1,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002620.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002620.soc index bea8c0a8..6d79f1bd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002620.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002620.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, art should be nice to look at. Art can be quite subjective and abstract but if it does not evoke any strong emotion upon viewing or experiencing it, then I believe it is a lost opportunity. Any art that is easy on the eyes also has the chance of uplifting and inspiring us - it is difficult to get motivated on seeing art that is visually challenging, so it should be nice to look at. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe that art is subjective, so what may be considered nice to look at is at the opinion of the person who is viewing it. Someone may believe that a piece of art is nice to look at, whilst another person believes that it is not. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I disagree, art is a representation of emoition and feeling in any way the artist wants to express this. Weather someone finds it 'nice to look at' is irrelevant. If the art evokes a feeling or emotion from the person viewing it, then its purpose has been met. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Art is, in its rawest form, a spectrum. it depicts the ugliness and the beauty within our world. take van gogh, his depression was so visceral and gutting however he made some of the most beautiful paintings. a different example would be the viral showcase of womens clothes that depict what they were wearing when they were raped - a sari and a diaper in the same collection. we all know that art is subjective but it is how it is created and how it moves us that portrays its appearance. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: yes the art is a field which looks greatly nice. i is a very interesting field. it one of the most favourite fields of the people in my society +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, art should be nice to look at. Art can be quite subjective and abstract but if it does not evoke any strong emotion upon viewing or experiencing it, then I believe it is a lost opportunity. Any art that is easy on the eyes also has the chance of uplifting and inspiring us - it is difficult to get motivated on seeing art that is visually challenging, so it should be nice to look at. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe that art is subjective, so what may be considered nice to look at is at the opinion of the person who is viewing it. Someone may believe that a piece of art is nice to look at, whilst another person believes that it is not. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I disagree, art is a representation of emoition and feeling in any way the artist wants to express this. Weather someone finds it 'nice to look at' is irrelevant. If the art evokes a feeling or emotion from the person viewing it, then its purpose has been met. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Art is, in its rawest form, a spectrum. it depicts the ugliness and the beauty within our world. take van gogh, his depression was so visceral and gutting however he made some of the most beautiful paintings. a different example would be the viral showcase of womens clothes that depict what they were wearing when they were raped - a sari and a diaper in the same collection. we all know that art is subjective but it is how it is created and how it moves us that portrays its appearance. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - yes the art is a field which looks greatly nice. i is a very interesting field. it one of the most favourite fields of the people in my society 1: 4,3,1,2,5 1: 1,2,4,3,5 1: 3,2,4,1,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002621.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002621.soc index 9c8387d4..61f54cf5 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002621.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002621.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I do not believe everyone should have access to this, however, this would be very helpful for people with lower incomes. This can help ensure children can afford clothing and food while they are studying in schools, people who aspire to develop their skills and career can have extra income to work towards that goal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: This is not some thing I have heard of before. I think to struggling families and individuals who do not qualify for other benefits like cost of living payments due to not qualifying for certain benefits then this would be invaluable. I do feel like it is a lot in general to give away and would question where the money is coming from and if this would affect some people negatively meaning is not beneficial getting the payments. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think we should use a basic income guarantee system, where all people in the UK receive at least £100 per month. I cannot see the downside to such a policy, especially considering the dire economic of the situation in the UK now. Some people may disagree with it because they believe it provides less of an incentive to work, but this sort of policy is necessary to decenter the role of labour and productivity in regards to peoples basic societal needs. Although, rather than this policy, it would naturally be better to have a higher minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I am for the concept of a universal basic income. It's a great idea and is fairer than our current benefits system. In this specific case however, £100 per month isn't exactly going to change lives so I am not sure if I support this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: i think this is a good idea as it tops up peoples basic income and ensures that everyone can afford the necessities such as heating and food . It means people wouldnt have to ask for help as they are guaranteed this basic income to help them +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I do not believe everyone should have access to this, however, this would be very helpful for people with lower incomes. This can help ensure children can afford clothing and food while they are studying in schools, people who aspire to develop their skills and career can have extra income to work towards that goal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - This is not some thing I have heard of before. I think to struggling families and individuals who do not qualify for other benefits like cost of living payments due to not qualifying for certain benefits then this would be invaluable. I do feel like it is a lot in general to give away and would question where the money is coming from and if this would affect some people negatively meaning is not beneficial getting the payments. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think we should use a basic income guarantee system, where all people in the UK receive at least £100 per month. I cannot see the downside to such a policy, especially considering the dire economic of the situation in the UK now. Some people may disagree with it because they believe it provides less of an incentive to work, but this sort of policy is necessary to decenter the role of labour and productivity in regards to peoples basic societal needs. Although, rather than this policy, it would naturally be better to have a higher minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I am for the concept of a universal basic income. It's a great idea and is fairer than our current benefits system. In this specific case however, £100 per month isn't exactly going to change lives so I am not sure if I support this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - i think this is a good idea as it tops up peoples basic income and ensures that everyone can afford the necessities such as heating and food . It means people wouldnt have to ask for help as they are guaranteed this basic income to help them 1: 4,5,3,2,1 1: 3,1,4,5,2 1: 3,2,1,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002622.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002622.soc index d95cf6d0..7275a216 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002622.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002622.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Unfortunately not. Although we are world leading in respects of being free at the point of service, the ability to be able to access those services via a GP are getting worse. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: the NHS is doing the best it can with the resources it's been given by the government. As it is free to everyone in the UK it could be considered world leading, however this comes with several drawbacks such as increased waiting times for patients and increased workload on NHS staff, if the NHS received sufficient funding from the government the NHS would be able to reclaim it's title as world leading healthcare. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Absolutely, our healthcare is one of the best in the world. There is always more that can be done but I really do believe that we are world leading. There are a multitude of ways the NHS has been negatively viewed over the past few years however regardless they are world-leading. (In addition and side note - they should be rewarded and paid more) -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think the NHS is trying it's best to provide world leading care. Though it can struggle (primarily due to financial restrictions) the NHS saves lives every single day. Babies are delivered safely, broken legs are healed and cancer patients are sensitively worked with. The NHS also offers mental health support and treatments for people who may not be recognised as suffering in other countries. Though there is lots of room for improvement, the NHS is absolutely one of the best healthcare providers in the world and it's "free". -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: It defiantly provides world-leading healthcare as it has some excellent Doctors and Nurses. However it does have a lot of challenges such as the extremely long waiting times. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Unfortunately not. Although we are world leading in respects of being free at the point of service, the ability to be able to access those services via a GP are getting worse. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - the NHS is doing the best it can with the resources it's been given by the government. As it is free to everyone in the UK it could be considered world leading, however this comes with several drawbacks such as increased waiting times for patients and increased workload on NHS staff, if the NHS received sufficient funding from the government the NHS would be able to reclaim it's title as world leading healthcare. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Absolutely, our healthcare is one of the best in the world. There is always more that can be done but I really do believe that we are world leading. There are a multitude of ways the NHS has been negatively viewed over the past few years however regardless they are world-leading. (In addition and side note - they should be rewarded and paid more) +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think the NHS is trying it's best to provide world leading care. Though it can struggle (primarily due to financial restrictions) the NHS saves lives every single day. Babies are delivered safely, broken legs are healed and cancer patients are sensitively worked with. The NHS also offers mental health support and treatments for people who may not be recognised as suffering in other countries. Though there is lots of room for improvement, the NHS is absolutely one of the best healthcare providers in the world and it's "free". +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - It defiantly provides world-leading healthcare as it has some excellent Doctors and Nurses. However it does have a lot of challenges such as the extremely long waiting times. 1: 4,1,2,3,5 1: 2,3,4,5,1 1: 3,4,2,5,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002623.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002623.soc index 6e19a991..06730eaa 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002623.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002623.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes. I believe that it is the governments responsibility to look after public's health. I think they have other areas where they can cut back and concentrate on people's health as it is the most important thing in everyones lives. Without good health people will be an even bigger burden on the NHS in treating different health problems or symptoms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: to some extent yes the government have a responsibility to ensure that new medicines are researched but this should be multiple countries researching rather than one -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I'm pretty neutral on the issue, but I'm now leaning towards no. I think big pharma has ample funding independently. Thus, government funds could probably be dedicated to better uses, such as ensuring that everyone has access to the new medicines created, regardless of their income bracket. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think the overall responsibility for the creation of new medicines probably lies with the pharmaceutical companies, however it would be appropriate for the government to support these companies for the greater good. Perhaps the pharmaceutical companies research and develop the products in return for grants/prescribing rights with the NHS when the medicines are ready for use? It's a difficult one, as the pharma companies are private entities, and should the public purse be supporting private businesses? There is a moral element to consider, as people have a right to appropriate healthcare and the government should be behind this all the way. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Medicinal evolution must keep pace with mutations and changes in diseases and viruses etc. The government should fund a large part of this medicine creation and also incentivise big pharma to develop new medicines and vaccines in future to meet the needs of our planet. The recent Covid pandemic should leave no doubt that the development of new medicines is vital to human kind. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes. I believe that it is the governments responsibility to look after public's health. I think they have other areas where they can cut back and concentrate on people's health as it is the most important thing in everyones lives. Without good health people will be an even bigger burden on the NHS in treating different health problems or symptoms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - to some extent yes the government have a responsibility to ensure that new medicines are researched but this should be multiple countries researching rather than one +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I'm pretty neutral on the issue, but I'm now leaning towards no. I think big pharma has ample funding independently. Thus, government funds could probably be dedicated to better uses, such as ensuring that everyone has access to the new medicines created, regardless of their income bracket. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think the overall responsibility for the creation of new medicines probably lies with the pharmaceutical companies, however it would be appropriate for the government to support these companies for the greater good. Perhaps the pharmaceutical companies research and develop the products in return for grants/prescribing rights with the NHS when the medicines are ready for use? It's a difficult one, as the pharma companies are private entities, and should the public purse be supporting private businesses? There is a moral element to consider, as people have a right to appropriate healthcare and the government should be behind this all the way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Medicinal evolution must keep pace with mutations and changes in diseases and viruses etc. The government should fund a large part of this medicine creation and also incentivise big pharma to develop new medicines and vaccines in future to meet the needs of our planet. The recent Covid pandemic should leave no doubt that the development of new medicines is vital to human kind. 2: 4,1,2,3,5 1: 1,2,3,4,5 1: 1,2,3,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002624.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002624.soc index 6514a127..e867b8e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002624.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002624.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: This is VERY difficult, and I am on the fence purely because of "arts", if it was just for healthcare or even for something else, then I would say "maybe". Military is extremely important, as we can see in examples (unfortunately) from the current war between Russia and Ukraine. If we don't have the technology and gear, we will lose and a lot of lives. But then if we don't give enough money to help the struggling NHS system, we will lose many lives too, or people suffering. But because this question asks that it is ALSO for "ARTS" then my vote is a definite no, entertainment shouldn't cut the budget for things that truly matter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I agree with this to a degree, I think we're spending a little too much on our military, but not by a lot. It's sad that we have to waste money on such areas and yet there's enough evil in the world such as Putin and his invasion of Ukraine or terrorists that it's a necessary spend to keep our country and our friends abroad safe. At the same time, we need to balance it with other spending, including the arts and health care sectors to look after and invest in our population. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: coming from marrying into a military background and being on a camp i think there is nowhere enough spent on the military at all. It lacks in alot of aspects for the families left behind and the troops. I do believe that health care does need extra help but not the arts. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: not on arts for sure, healthcare is definitely something we need to work on more intensively and everyone can agree with me on that on if they are invovled in NHS or visited GP recently -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Military spending is a crucial part of the UK government spending. Without our military we would be even more open to attack. I do agree that more money should be spent on healthcare and I believe that the people in society who can afford it, should pay something towards the healthcare they receive - it doesn't all need to be free. As for arts, while I can see the merit in it, there are far more pressing things for the country to spend money on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - This is VERY difficult, and I am on the fence purely because of "arts", if it was just for healthcare or even for something else, then I would say "maybe". Military is extremely important, as we can see in examples (unfortunately) from the current war between Russia and Ukraine. If we don't have the technology and gear, we will lose and a lot of lives. But then if we don't give enough money to help the struggling NHS system, we will lose many lives too, or people suffering. But because this question asks that it is ALSO for "ARTS" then my vote is a definite no, entertainment shouldn't cut the budget for things that truly matter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I agree with this to a degree, I think we're spending a little too much on our military, but not by a lot. It's sad that we have to waste money on such areas and yet there's enough evil in the world such as Putin and his invasion of Ukraine or terrorists that it's a necessary spend to keep our country and our friends abroad safe. At the same time, we need to balance it with other spending, including the arts and health care sectors to look after and invest in our population. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - coming from marrying into a military background and being on a camp i think there is nowhere enough spent on the military at all. It lacks in alot of aspects for the families left behind and the troops. I do believe that health care does need extra help but not the arts. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - not on arts for sure, healthcare is definitely something we need to work on more intensively and everyone can agree with me on that on if they are invovled in NHS or visited GP recently +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Military spending is a crucial part of the UK government spending. Without our military we would be even more open to attack. I do agree that more money should be spent on healthcare and I believe that the people in society who can afford it, should pay something towards the healthcare they receive - it doesn't all need to be free. As for arts, while I can see the merit in it, there are far more pressing things for the country to spend money on. 1: 1,5,4,3,2 1: 1,4,5,2,3 1: 2,1,5,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002625.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002625.soc index 40bb958d..6644bcf7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002625.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002625.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We need more income for public services so yes I think those earning £150K more should pay slightly more tax. However this should only be a small percentage more than the tax rate for higher earned tax payers, say 41 or 42 percent. This money should also be put into a separate pot and utilised for projects that can be attributed to the additional tax rather than just being absorbed into the general funds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Higher rates of income tax should be imposed for those earning more than £150,000 a year. The wealthiest in the UK pay 45% as the top rate of tax, meaning they are still taking home a large salary across the year. Increasing this, by only 1 or 2 percent, would make a huge difference and can be used to support lower income households during the cost of living crisis, such as subsidising energy bills. The wealthiest should pay a little bit more to support those that are worse off in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Taxes should be increased for the wealthy, however, those earning over £150,000 are subject to a tax of 45% already, and nowadays those earning this much are those who work hard for their money and already end up with much less. Rather, the emphasis of increasing taxes should be on those earning a lot more who don't see a difference after paying taxes, such as earning over £250,000, and especially millionaires. A new tax bracket should be imposed with even higher incomes facing even higher taxes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't know what the current rate of tax for the £150K+ bracket is so I don't know if I would want it to be higher. But, I do think that the £150K+ bracket should be highly taxed because nobody needs that much money to live well and many of our public services desperately need funding. Taxing this bracket highly would enable money to be used to reduce income inequality and support lower income households. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes, I think that we should impose higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. I think that anyone earning this amount should allow anyone in the UK to live a very comfortable life, so they can afford to pay higher taxes. There is a great wealth disparity between the richest and poorest in society, and I think that the tax could be used to close this gap to help people out of poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We need more income for public services so yes I think those earning £150K more should pay slightly more tax. However this should only be a small percentage more than the tax rate for higher earned tax payers, say 41 or 42 percent. This money should also be put into a separate pot and utilised for projects that can be attributed to the additional tax rather than just being absorbed into the general funds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Higher rates of income tax should be imposed for those earning more than £150,000 a year. The wealthiest in the UK pay 45% as the top rate of tax, meaning they are still taking home a large salary across the year. Increasing this, by only 1 or 2 percent, would make a huge difference and can be used to support lower income households during the cost of living crisis, such as subsidising energy bills. The wealthiest should pay a little bit more to support those that are worse off in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Taxes should be increased for the wealthy, however, those earning over £150,000 are subject to a tax of 45% already, and nowadays those earning this much are those who work hard for their money and already end up with much less. Rather, the emphasis of increasing taxes should be on those earning a lot more who don't see a difference after paying taxes, such as earning over £250,000, and especially millionaires. A new tax bracket should be imposed with even higher incomes facing even higher taxes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't know what the current rate of tax for the £150K+ bracket is so I don't know if I would want it to be higher. But, I do think that the £150K+ bracket should be highly taxed because nobody needs that much money to live well and many of our public services desperately need funding. Taxing this bracket highly would enable money to be used to reduce income inequality and support lower income households. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes, I think that we should impose higher rates of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per year. I think that anyone earning this amount should allow anyone in the UK to live a very comfortable life, so they can afford to pay higher taxes. There is a great wealth disparity between the richest and poorest in society, and I think that the tax could be used to close this gap to help people out of poverty. 1: 2,5,1,4,3 1: 3,2,1,5,4 1: 3,1,2,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002626.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002626.soc index 30d041e8..bf20333c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002626.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002626.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, definitely, particularly after a series of important crises (i.e. economic, immigration, coronavirus, climate) at the domestic and EU level, a top priority of the government would be to allocate more resources to reduce inequality and alleviate those at risk of poverty and social exclusion. A thriving society is a society that respects itself and harnesses the skills and knowledge of its citizens so in this context it is imperative for the government to invite local authorities, academics, researchers, and other stakeholders and public institutions to contribute to a debate and come up with an implementation plan, especially for the under-developed areas of the UK. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Absolutely! I believe the government our mostly responsible for financial inequality so they could start there by lowering the tax and price inflation for the working class and making sure those with higher pay packets pay higher tax and do not avoid it. For all inequalities in the Country for the most part it begins and ends with our Government so they should be taking a more active role in reducing it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Absolutely, the Government should be involved in reducing inequality. We live in a multicultural society, and any form of abusive behaviour to anybody needs to be stamped out, whether that's racism, sexism, ableism, or abuse against LGBT community. The Government also should be focussed on supporting the poor people through minimum wages, workers rights and fair tax regimes. Strong support for social workers, NHS workers and anybody in the public sector like teachers has a dramatic effect on the less well off -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: government intervention can help prevent extreme income disparities, contributing to economic stability and reducing the risk of financial crises. Government programs can provide a safety net for vulnerable populations ensuring basic needs like healthcare, education and housing are met. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Yes I believe they should be the driving force to take inequality. I believe everyone should be paid fair wages and have good working conditions for a start. Another issue is the rich are getting richer, and many of whom don't pay their fair share of taxes which we can then reinvest back into the economy +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, definitely, particularly after a series of important crises (i.e. economic, immigration, coronavirus, climate) at the domestic and EU level, a top priority of the government would be to allocate more resources to reduce inequality and alleviate those at risk of poverty and social exclusion. A thriving society is a society that respects itself and harnesses the skills and knowledge of its citizens so in this context it is imperative for the government to invite local authorities, academics, researchers, and other stakeholders and public institutions to contribute to a debate and come up with an implementation plan, especially for the under-developed areas of the UK. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Absolutely! I believe the government our mostly responsible for financial inequality so they could start there by lowering the tax and price inflation for the working class and making sure those with higher pay packets pay higher tax and do not avoid it. For all inequalities in the Country for the most part it begins and ends with our Government so they should be taking a more active role in reducing it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Absolutely, the Government should be involved in reducing inequality. We live in a multicultural society, and any form of abusive behaviour to anybody needs to be stamped out, whether that's racism, sexism, ableism, or abuse against LGBT community. The Government also should be focussed on supporting the poor people through minimum wages, workers rights and fair tax regimes. Strong support for social workers, NHS workers and anybody in the public sector like teachers has a dramatic effect on the less well off +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - government intervention can help prevent extreme income disparities, contributing to economic stability and reducing the risk of financial crises. Government programs can provide a safety net for vulnerable populations ensuring basic needs like healthcare, education and housing are met. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Yes I believe they should be the driving force to take inequality. I believe everyone should be paid fair wages and have good working conditions for a start. Another issue is the rich are getting richer, and many of whom don't pay their fair share of taxes which we can then reinvest back into the economy 2: 1,2,5,3,4 2: 1,3,2,5,4 1: 2,1,5,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002627.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002627.soc index f5f0f2d0..3eabf7f9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002627.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002627.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I don't necessarily feel that strongly about this topic either way as I generally avoid sugary drinks. Despite this, I believe raising it is not enough of a deterrent for people to purchase it. I believe a more effective method of reducing obesity would be through improved education on the topic of nutrition and health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think we should tax sugar. Taxing alcohol in Scotland with a minimum unit price has brough health benefits and it seems that the same would happen with sugar and obesity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, I don't think that we should increase taxes on sugar sweetened drinks. People have freedom of choice to buy sugar if they wish. Although I understand that a high sugar diet can cause health issues and put pressure on healthcare services, people should still have their freedom of choice. People who enjoy sugar sweetened drinks as part of a balanced diet should not be penalised because other people have no self control. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think increasing tax on sugar sweetened drinks can be a good incentive to reduce sugar intake in the general population (similar to the increase in tax on alcohol in Scotland). However, I think it would be more effective to regulate from a top-down approach by taxing companies with excessive sugar more, and regulating the amount of sugar allowed in products. This way, consumers (some of which may be poor and have addictions) are not held responsible for corporations dangerous practices -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I would be in favour of this if I knew that the increased revenue was spent on healthcare and better eduation around nutrition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I don't necessarily feel that strongly about this topic either way as I generally avoid sugary drinks. Despite this, I believe raising it is not enough of a deterrent for people to purchase it. I believe a more effective method of reducing obesity would be through improved education on the topic of nutrition and health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think we should tax sugar. Taxing alcohol in Scotland with a minimum unit price has brough health benefits and it seems that the same would happen with sugar and obesity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, I don't think that we should increase taxes on sugar sweetened drinks. People have freedom of choice to buy sugar if they wish. Although I understand that a high sugar diet can cause health issues and put pressure on healthcare services, people should still have their freedom of choice. People who enjoy sugar sweetened drinks as part of a balanced diet should not be penalised because other people have no self control. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think increasing tax on sugar sweetened drinks can be a good incentive to reduce sugar intake in the general population (similar to the increase in tax on alcohol in Scotland). However, I think it would be more effective to regulate from a top-down approach by taxing companies with excessive sugar more, and regulating the amount of sugar allowed in products. This way, consumers (some of which may be poor and have addictions) are not held responsible for corporations dangerous practices +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I would be in favour of this if I knew that the increased revenue was spent on healthcare and better eduation around nutrition. 2: 4,3,1,2,5 1: 3,1,5,4,2 1: 5,1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002628.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002628.soc index 4a9bbf59..fdbd9be7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002628.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002628.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I had thought the voting age is already at 18, however, regarding the requirement for all students to vote, I believe that it would be very beneficial for the UK if done correctly. Younger people will be influenced most by the decisions made by government, a prime example of this is Brexit, if younger people were involved more then it would have reduced the chance of the UK leaving the EU. Nevertheless, young people need to be educated in schools on government policies and voting, to ensure they are able to make a decision based on their future goals and visions. Furthermore, instead of punishing people for not voting, incentives should be given to ensure students want to vote -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: i thought the age was already 18 so i dont see how this would change things, however i believe all students should vote as i think they are the ones that could make a big difference in terms of votes as i think this age group has a poor turnout in terms of poll day . I think if they were required to vote this would make a big difference to politics and the polls in this country . -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: As far as I am aware, the voting age in the UK is 18 - therefore I cannot provide an opinion on raising it to what it currently is. Regarding forcing students to vote, this is not very democratic. Everyone has the right to vote but should not be forced to. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The voting age in the UK is 18 and has been for around 50 years. I do not know why students in particular should be required to vote, as opposed to other social groups. Enforcing voting by law is a topic I am unsure about because although voting is extremely important, not all citizens/ those eligible to vote feel represented by the current political system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No I don't think they should be requiring anyone to vote. If they did a better job of managing the country and following through on plans and promises people would willingly vote for who they deem the best for the job. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I had thought the voting age is already at 18, however, regarding the requirement for all students to vote, I believe that it would be very beneficial for the UK if done correctly. Younger people will be influenced most by the decisions made by government, a prime example of this is Brexit, if younger people were involved more then it would have reduced the chance of the UK leaving the EU. Nevertheless, young people need to be educated in schools on government policies and voting, to ensure they are able to make a decision based on their future goals and visions. Furthermore, instead of punishing people for not voting, incentives should be given to ensure students want to vote +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - i thought the age was already 18 so i dont see how this would change things, however i believe all students should vote as i think they are the ones that could make a big difference in terms of votes as i think this age group has a poor turnout in terms of poll day . I think if they were required to vote this would make a big difference to politics and the polls in this country . +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - As far as I am aware, the voting age in the UK is 18 - therefore I cannot provide an opinion on raising it to what it currently is. Regarding forcing students to vote, this is not very democratic. Everyone has the right to vote but should not be forced to. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The voting age in the UK is 18 and has been for around 50 years. I do not know why students in particular should be required to vote, as opposed to other social groups. Enforcing voting by law is a topic I am unsure about because although voting is extremely important, not all citizens/ those eligible to vote feel represented by the current political system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No I don't think they should be requiring anyone to vote. If they did a better job of managing the country and following through on plans and promises people would willingly vote for who they deem the best for the job. 1: 3,4,5,1,2 1: 1,2,4,3,5 1: 1,3,2,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002629.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002629.soc index 4c02246c..a1e75036 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002629.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002629.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: i would argue yes they definitely do have the majority of responsibility to educate their children regarding pornography, however sex education in school should cover the topic as well, parents instead of just blocking pornographic websites and not approaching the subject, should educate their child about what it is and the negatives and positives associated with it -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes they do have a responsibility as otherwise their children will find out from their school friend's and then they may not be educated properly. Schools should also educate them on the topic. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Who else would that responsibility come down to? My first thought was do we need to be 'taught' about pornography but then on second thought it would probably make the world a little better if people were taught that this is not an accurate representation of 'real life' etc. So I do believe that if it is to be anyone to educate children about pornography it should be the parents. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, the overall responsibility lies with the Parents. We have good security measures on our digital devices which allows us to filter out harmful content and are able to monitor what the child is doing online. During school hours there is not much opportunity or ability to visit harmful sites whereas, at home, there is. There are of course tech savvy children who would be able to bypass the filters but overall it should be the Parents responsibility -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Though I think there's value in sex education/awareness for children, I think pornography should only be discussed with older children and shouldn't be a focus of education. It should merely be presented as what it is: entertainment for adults that can, sadly, enforce standards and stereotypes which may not be very healthy. There should also be a discussion around the risks of pornography. That said, it should still be discussed and should not be presented as tabboo/bad. Sex education from schools or parents should be focussed on facts only. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - i would argue yes they definitely do have the majority of responsibility to educate their children regarding pornography, however sex education in school should cover the topic as well, parents instead of just blocking pornographic websites and not approaching the subject, should educate their child about what it is and the negatives and positives associated with it +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes they do have a responsibility as otherwise their children will find out from their school friend's and then they may not be educated properly. Schools should also educate them on the topic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Who else would that responsibility come down to? My first thought was do we need to be 'taught' about pornography but then on second thought it would probably make the world a little better if people were taught that this is not an accurate representation of 'real life' etc. So I do believe that if it is to be anyone to educate children about pornography it should be the parents. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, the overall responsibility lies with the Parents. We have good security measures on our digital devices which allows us to filter out harmful content and are able to monitor what the child is doing online. During school hours there is not much opportunity or ability to visit harmful sites whereas, at home, there is. There are of course tech savvy children who would be able to bypass the filters but overall it should be the Parents responsibility +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Though I think there's value in sex education/awareness for children, I think pornography should only be discussed with older children and shouldn't be a focus of education. It should merely be presented as what it is: entertainment for adults that can, sadly, enforce standards and stereotypes which may not be very healthy. There should also be a discussion around the risks of pornography. That said, it should still be discussed and should not be presented as tabboo/bad. Sex education from schools or parents should be focussed on facts only. 1: 5,4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,5,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002630.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002630.soc index 37b8ecdd..5136dde4 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002630.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002630.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes we should! If someone is making money on a social media company of a decent amount that could be deemed a stable income then yes there should be some kind of tax they need to pay just as they would any other job. Influencers make a lot of money on social media today and a new tax is necessary to make sure they are paying to our support the Country as would all other jobs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: They shouldn't be taxed any differently to any other company - creating a tax for a specific type of business could put people off trying to innovate and create their own social media startups, as well as that the cost of the additional tax will inevitably fall back onto the customer and could result in customers leaving. Social media is ever present in our daily lives, we should be encouraging growth not discouraging in my opinion. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, I would support the introduction of a new tax on social media companies such as Meta on the grounds of fair competition and a level playing field where all participants should pay their fair share. Maintaining the current situation favours disproportionately the MNCs that tap into the holes of the legislative framework and increase their profits massively. Living in a capitalist society underpinned by competition rules each government should consider the idea of introducing a tax on these companies in order to increase revenues and fund critical sectors such as AI. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Why would we tax Social media companies more? Instead we should be focussing on making sure they don't squirm out of the tax they already should be paying through dodgy loopholes. This also applies to other 'online' businesses like Amazon, what's the point in taxing them more if they'll just avoid paying it somehow? What's more important is the regulation of social media. Ensuring through law that they have strong processes in place to eliminate illegal content, conspiracy theories and outright lies is far more important to society - A lie travels halfway round the world before the truth has got its shoes on - And the Govt should be involved in making sure social media companies fix that or face the consequences -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: social media companies should be taxed in order to apply regulations around social media. It would be also a component of fairness because social media companies are businesses and have many earnings. Tax evasion is a common problem therefore social media companies should be taxed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes we should! If someone is making money on a social media company of a decent amount that could be deemed a stable income then yes there should be some kind of tax they need to pay just as they would any other job. Influencers make a lot of money on social media today and a new tax is necessary to make sure they are paying to our support the Country as would all other jobs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - They shouldn't be taxed any differently to any other company - creating a tax for a specific type of business could put people off trying to innovate and create their own social media startups, as well as that the cost of the additional tax will inevitably fall back onto the customer and could result in customers leaving. Social media is ever present in our daily lives, we should be encouraging growth not discouraging in my opinion. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, I would support the introduction of a new tax on social media companies such as Meta on the grounds of fair competition and a level playing field where all participants should pay their fair share. Maintaining the current situation favours disproportionately the MNCs that tap into the holes of the legislative framework and increase their profits massively. Living in a capitalist society underpinned by competition rules each government should consider the idea of introducing a tax on these companies in order to increase revenues and fund critical sectors such as AI. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Why would we tax Social media companies more? Instead we should be focussing on making sure they don't squirm out of the tax they already should be paying through dodgy loopholes. This also applies to other 'online' businesses like Amazon, what's the point in taxing them more if they'll just avoid paying it somehow? What's more important is the regulation of social media. Ensuring through law that they have strong processes in place to eliminate illegal content, conspiracy theories and outright lies is far more important to society - A lie travels halfway round the world before the truth has got its shoes on - And the Govt should be involved in making sure social media companies fix that or face the consequences +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - social media companies should be taxed in order to apply regulations around social media. It would be also a component of fairness because social media companies are businesses and have many earnings. Tax evasion is a common problem therefore social media companies should be taxed. 1: 2,4,3,1,5 1: 4,5,1,3,2 1: 4,2,5,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002631.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002631.soc index dbe93970..a8f5b335 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002631.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002631.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: yes i think the prisons are full and people in prison dont seem to come out very changed and continue to commit crimes once they get back out . I think we need to work towards prevention and education as a model , starting in schools and working with youths to change their ways from a younger age as a way of preventing them from getting in with the wrong crowds and ending up committing crimes at an older age . -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, we should be. The prison system, and the criminal justice system in general, are both deeply flawed constructs in need of significant systemic and institutional reform. There are too many people in prison for reasonably harmless behaviours, most of which are linked to ingrained socio-economic issues in the UK. Higher numbers of incarcerated peoples should be assisted through social programs such as rehabilitation to be re-integrated into society, and supported in the process. Additionally, there should be more funding and systems introduced in relation to reducing the likelihood of following a path to illegal activities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes. The focus of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, not pure punishment. Society also needs to put effort into solving the problems present which push people into crime in the first place. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: If people are not a danger to society when released and have been or can be rehabilitated then I don't think prison is the answer for them. However they would need to successfully be monitored to avoid re-offending. If this is a viable option then I think it would help reduce costs associated to housing prisoners which could be put towards educating/deterring potential offenders in the first place and hopefully reduce the need of prison for a lot of people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - yes i think the prisons are full and people in prison dont seem to come out very changed and continue to commit crimes once they get back out . I think we need to work towards prevention and education as a model , starting in schools and working with youths to change their ways from a younger age as a way of preventing them from getting in with the wrong crowds and ending up committing crimes at an older age . +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, we should be. The prison system, and the criminal justice system in general, are both deeply flawed constructs in need of significant systemic and institutional reform. There are too many people in prison for reasonably harmless behaviours, most of which are linked to ingrained socio-economic issues in the UK. Higher numbers of incarcerated peoples should be assisted through social programs such as rehabilitation to be re-integrated into society, and supported in the process. Additionally, there should be more funding and systems introduced in relation to reducing the likelihood of following a path to illegal activities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes. The focus of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, not pure punishment. Society also needs to put effort into solving the problems present which push people into crime in the first place. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - If people are not a danger to society when released and have been or can be rehabilitated then I don't think prison is the answer for them. However they would need to successfully be monitored to avoid re-offending. If this is a viable option then I think it would help reduce costs associated to housing prisoners which could be put towards educating/deterring potential offenders in the first place and hopefully reduce the need of prison for a lot of people. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002632.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002632.soc index 6d1c419a..cf461759 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002632.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002632.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Honestly I feel I do not know enough information on the benefits and disadvantages of wind turbines to answer this question thoroughly. I know that environmentally there are lots of benefits so for that reason it seems beneficial to continue to build wind turbines but I am not aware of the disadvantages. Therefore, I cannot really say! -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The beauty of the UK being an Island is there is wind coming from all directions onto it. With the issue with fossil fuels and climate change I believe it is of great benefit to use a source which is available to us every day. I have seen many wind turbines in places like Cornwall and Wales and I think they are a great asset. The government should build more wind turbines to replace other non renewable forms of energy production -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think they should build more turbines to assist with the climate change issue and also create more renewable sources of energy. It will also allow the country to move away from fossil fuels and help the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes because we need more energy in this country. We rely to heavily on coal/gas/oil and have to pay too much. Wind turbines will allow us to crete more energy and bring electric prices down and have a greener future -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Overall i think yes, as from recent events such as the Ukraine war it is vital that the UK diversifies its existing sources of energy, ideally producing more on home soil. There are also the obvious environment benefits which are hugely important considering the current work going on in the climate change space. However I also think it is a tricky subject as at the same time i do not want the british countryside covered with wind turbines, I also wouldn't want one overlooking my garden. Hopefully we can find a good solution, e.g. lots being built in the sea. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Honestly I feel I do not know enough information on the benefits and disadvantages of wind turbines to answer this question thoroughly. I know that environmentally there are lots of benefits so for that reason it seems beneficial to continue to build wind turbines but I am not aware of the disadvantages. Therefore, I cannot really say! +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The beauty of the UK being an Island is there is wind coming from all directions onto it. With the issue with fossil fuels and climate change I believe it is of great benefit to use a source which is available to us every day. I have seen many wind turbines in places like Cornwall and Wales and I think they are a great asset. The government should build more wind turbines to replace other non renewable forms of energy production +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think they should build more turbines to assist with the climate change issue and also create more renewable sources of energy. It will also allow the country to move away from fossil fuels and help the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes because we need more energy in this country. We rely to heavily on coal/gas/oil and have to pay too much. Wind turbines will allow us to crete more energy and bring electric prices down and have a greener future +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Overall i think yes, as from recent events such as the Ukraine war it is vital that the UK diversifies its existing sources of energy, ideally producing more on home soil. There are also the obvious environment benefits which are hugely important considering the current work going on in the climate change space. However I also think it is a tricky subject as at the same time i do not want the british countryside covered with wind turbines, I also wouldn't want one overlooking my garden. Hopefully we can find a good solution, e.g. lots being built in the sea. 2: 5,2,3,4,1 1: 5,3,4,2,1 1: 5,2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002633.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002633.soc index ecf849eb..9147c615 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002633.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002633.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes absolutely. Although not yet perfected (battery longevity and the source of electricity etc), electric vehicles are a big step towards reducing carbon emissions and avoiding climate change. This can only become viable for a lot of people by increasing the number of charging points. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes if we are to move away from reliance on fossil fuels we need to make the move over to electric vehicles ASAP and if you are going to convince people to actually make this switch you need to make charging cars as convenient as possible, increasing the number of charge points would help this -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe we should help sales of electric vehicles by increasing the avaliabilty of charging points, as currently that is one of the biggest constricting factors. Currently most of the UK is under devoloped in EV infrastructure, apart from a few notable cities like Oxford. Adding charing points to petrol stations and car parks of businesses wouldn't incur too much of a cost but would help the on-ramp of people switching over to electric cars greatly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't think increasing the number of charging points would encourage the sale of electric cars as much as a lower price point for electric cars would improve sales. If there is need for more due to rising costs that is a different and more necessary need. I'm not convinced at this stage by electric vehicles being a long running solution to alternative options for transportation so I don't feel strongly about this issue. I think it would be better to look into other options for transportation as electric vehicles are heavier, bulkier and more dangerous due to high acceleration. Even more on the roads now would make me concerned. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think that it would be a good idea to make a lot more charging points as at the moment it is very off-putting as there as so few charging points around and this discourages people from buying electric cars. Electric cars are the future and people should be helped to make the transition to using them by all possible means. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes absolutely. Although not yet perfected (battery longevity and the source of electricity etc), electric vehicles are a big step towards reducing carbon emissions and avoiding climate change. This can only become viable for a lot of people by increasing the number of charging points. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes if we are to move away from reliance on fossil fuels we need to make the move over to electric vehicles ASAP and if you are going to convince people to actually make this switch you need to make charging cars as convenient as possible, increasing the number of charge points would help this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe we should help sales of electric vehicles by increasing the avaliabilty of charging points, as currently that is one of the biggest constricting factors. Currently most of the UK is under devoloped in EV infrastructure, apart from a few notable cities like Oxford. Adding charing points to petrol stations and car parks of businesses wouldn't incur too much of a cost but would help the on-ramp of people switching over to electric cars greatly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't think increasing the number of charging points would encourage the sale of electric cars as much as a lower price point for electric cars would improve sales. If there is need for more due to rising costs that is a different and more necessary need. I'm not convinced at this stage by electric vehicles being a long running solution to alternative options for transportation so I don't feel strongly about this issue. I think it would be better to look into other options for transportation as electric vehicles are heavier, bulkier and more dangerous due to high acceleration. Even more on the roads now would make me concerned. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think that it would be a good idea to make a lot more charging points as at the moment it is very off-putting as there as so few charging points around and this discourages people from buying electric cars. Electric cars are the future and people should be helped to make the transition to using them by all possible means. 1: 2,1,3,5,4 1: 5,3,2,1,4 1: 4,5,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002634.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002634.soc index acb8bf11..5d722253 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002634.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002634.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I don't think they were excessive. If anything, I don't think enough was done at the start. It was incredibly important for the measures to stop the spread of COVID-19, and they did. The issue now is that the government was setting these measures, but not following them themselves. This is why people would now think that they were excessive, especially as it seems like a 'one rule of us and another for them'. I resonate with this point of view, but I think that overall the lockdown measures were needed. It is just unfair that people in higher positions did not follow them whilst the rest of the country had to make so many sacrifices for the safety of the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I dont believe they were honestly excessive. They were what was thought to be the right move at the time. We are all back to our normal lives so it clearly worked. I know we all lost stuff and people but it could have been worse. Criticising the approach after the fact isnt the right thing here. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: the lockdown measures were far too excessive, they caused people serious financial difficulties but did not really do much to control covid. they were more about controlling freedom rather than covid -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I feel they were not to excessive at the time. I think nobody was too sure on the immediate fallout that the virus could have, we never will because we did lockdown. only after vaccination does it seem maybe it was a bit strong. But at the time i would say no -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think that they were a bit excessive. I don't think that the effect that Covid-19 had on the majority of the population was bad enough to make the lockdown measures so restrictive. It was just a glorified flu, and most people were not effected greatly by it. Mainly the elderly or those already with health conditions. It was unfair to expect everybody to go into lockdowns for so long, ruining their mental health, for the safety of the few. Especially when the government were not following their own rules. After the first 6 months, things should have gone back to normal for most people, and those that were worried still should have just optionally self-isolated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I don't think they were excessive. If anything, I don't think enough was done at the start. It was incredibly important for the measures to stop the spread of COVID-19, and they did. The issue now is that the government was setting these measures, but not following them themselves. This is why people would now think that they were excessive, especially as it seems like a 'one rule of us and another for them'. I resonate with this point of view, but I think that overall the lockdown measures were needed. It is just unfair that people in higher positions did not follow them whilst the rest of the country had to make so many sacrifices for the safety of the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I dont believe they were honestly excessive. They were what was thought to be the right move at the time. We are all back to our normal lives so it clearly worked. I know we all lost stuff and people but it could have been worse. Criticising the approach after the fact isnt the right thing here. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - the lockdown measures were far too excessive, they caused people serious financial difficulties but did not really do much to control covid. they were more about controlling freedom rather than covid +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I feel they were not to excessive at the time. I think nobody was too sure on the immediate fallout that the virus could have, we never will because we did lockdown. only after vaccination does it seem maybe it was a bit strong. But at the time i would say no +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think that they were a bit excessive. I don't think that the effect that Covid-19 had on the majority of the population was bad enough to make the lockdown measures so restrictive. It was just a glorified flu, and most people were not effected greatly by it. Mainly the elderly or those already with health conditions. It was unfair to expect everybody to go into lockdowns for so long, ruining their mental health, for the safety of the few. Especially when the government were not following their own rules. After the first 6 months, things should have gone back to normal for most people, and those that were worried still should have just optionally self-isolated. 1: 2,4,1,5,3 1: 5,1,3,4,2 1: 1,4,2,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002635.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002635.soc index 2ef94ea3..f7e9722c 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002635.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002635.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: It's not time to ban all cars from the city centres. This would affect all sectors of the economy and peoples jobs and livelihood. Alternatives to car travel would not be able to cope with higher demand. There are some positives. There will be more green spaces and the city would be more walkable. The negatives outweigh the positives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think that a blanket ban on all areas of the city centre is not a good idea. However, providing more pedestrian areas, green spaces and improved cycle tracks through the cities would help to improve people's experiences. The knock on effect of reducing cars from city centres is also a climate response by reducing carbon use and other emissions into areas that are already overloaded from other sources. Essentially, I think that it would be a good idea to reduce cars in city centres, but not necessarily ban them all from all areas. This must also be balanced with improved public transport -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: It is definitely not time to ban all cars from the city centre. City centres need cars, drivers, parking spaces in order to thrive. If people do not have a convenient way to get into the city centre then city centres will die out and people won't go shopping in them or to eat dinner. People will instead get takeaways or go into other city centres that allow cars. They will shop in retail parks. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't believe this it should at this current time period, due to the cost of living and other factors, not all people can afford to not use a vehicle to go to their jobs. I think it is very important to consider the impacts this ban might have towards the general household/population. I think there should be restrictions presented on certain fuel types/emissions however again not everyone can afford an environmentally clean vehicle. They should promote, incentivise and improve public transport if a ban is considered. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think cars should be banned from the city centre. It will improve the environment such as air quality and noise pollution, therefore make them nicer places to be. This would in turn improve the turnover of local businesses. It will make it safer for children and the elderly to walk around and enjoy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It's not time to ban all cars from the city centres. This would affect all sectors of the economy and peoples jobs and livelihood. Alternatives to car travel would not be able to cope with higher demand. There are some positives. There will be more green spaces and the city would be more walkable. The negatives outweigh the positives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think that a blanket ban on all areas of the city centre is not a good idea. However, providing more pedestrian areas, green spaces and improved cycle tracks through the cities would help to improve people's experiences. The knock on effect of reducing cars from city centres is also a climate response by reducing carbon use and other emissions into areas that are already overloaded from other sources. Essentially, I think that it would be a good idea to reduce cars in city centres, but not necessarily ban them all from all areas. This must also be balanced with improved public transport +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is definitely not time to ban all cars from the city centre. City centres need cars, drivers, parking spaces in order to thrive. If people do not have a convenient way to get into the city centre then city centres will die out and people won't go shopping in them or to eat dinner. People will instead get takeaways or go into other city centres that allow cars. They will shop in retail parks. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't believe this it should at this current time period, due to the cost of living and other factors, not all people can afford to not use a vehicle to go to their jobs. I think it is very important to consider the impacts this ban might have towards the general household/population. I think there should be restrictions presented on certain fuel types/emissions however again not everyone can afford an environmentally clean vehicle. They should promote, incentivise and improve public transport if a ban is considered. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think cars should be banned from the city centre. It will improve the environment such as air quality and noise pollution, therefore make them nicer places to be. This would in turn improve the turnover of local businesses. It will make it safer for children and the elderly to walk around and enjoy. 3: 2,4,1,3,5 1: 3,1,4,2,5 1: 2,4,5,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002636.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002636.soc index 23a1c285..54985623 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002636.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002636.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes I think we should. Providing everyone with basic income means we level out the opportunities and provide people with the time, money and opportunity to be happier and create a sustainable income/job and have better health.. I believe it gives everyone the chance including parents, the homes-less, low income families more options and stops people being pushed so hard they are struggling or worse. There is evidence to show in other countries this has worked very successfully. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Basic income schemes have been trialed in several cities and in Finland. In 2023 there is no excuse for people to be living in poverty, especially considering the rise in cost of living. Everyone is entitled to the basic human rights of food, water, and basic accommodations, and a basic income would ideally, if set at an appropriate level, enable most people (if not all) to afford those things. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe that we should definitely implement a basic income scheme. I believe that everyone should have the right to food and shelter. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I'm not 100% sure I understand this statement; however if it relates to minimum wage being a reasonable living wage, and benefits being reworked so that they cannot be abused, I am for it. Everyone should be able to afford to live on their income, afford housing, food and transport without having it subsidised. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I believe that different careers add different value to society. Should we remove the idea of aiming to be competitive in our jobs it may result in people losing ambition to strive forward in their careers. Also the idea of having a basic income does sound very communist. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes I think we should. Providing everyone with basic income means we level out the opportunities and provide people with the time, money and opportunity to be happier and create a sustainable income/job and have better health.. I believe it gives everyone the chance including parents, the homes-less, low income families more options and stops people being pushed so hard they are struggling or worse. There is evidence to show in other countries this has worked very successfully. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Basic income schemes have been trialed in several cities and in Finland. In 2023 there is no excuse for people to be living in poverty, especially considering the rise in cost of living. Everyone is entitled to the basic human rights of food, water, and basic accommodations, and a basic income would ideally, if set at an appropriate level, enable most people (if not all) to afford those things. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe that we should definitely implement a basic income scheme. I believe that everyone should have the right to food and shelter. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I'm not 100% sure I understand this statement; however if it relates to minimum wage being a reasonable living wage, and benefits being reworked so that they cannot be abused, I am for it. Everyone should be able to afford to live on their income, afford housing, food and transport without having it subsidised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I believe that different careers add different value to society. Should we remove the idea of aiming to be competitive in our jobs it may result in people losing ambition to strive forward in their careers. Also the idea of having a basic income does sound very communist. 2: 1,2,4,3,5 1: 2,1,3,4,5 1: 5,1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002637.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002637.soc index 38c14ccf..d0e98449 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002637.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002637.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I do not particularly want to promote using cannabis for young people, however I feel it is wrong to blanket say no, when there are emerging medicinal uses that show significant benefit and impact. In fact, I'm sure that cannabis has been used in past historic times and likely prehistoric times. I think there is a distorting of the information we are being given as to it's potential benefits and safety. Another issue is really about who controls it and makes money from it, it's something that big pharma would struggle to control, so I wonder if a lot of what we are being informed as fact is really simply the plan to control how we use or think on it so that it can be produced and marketed and profited from. I would also need more information to identify the term 'young people' - are we talking of adults over 18 or young teenagers? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Firstly, it depends how you define 'young'. Is this under 18, under 21 etc? I don't thing 'young' people, ie under 21, have the life experience to be experimenting with a drug such as cannabis. If it were to be legalised, it should only be accessible to over 21's. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There are vast amounts of evidence that suggest that cannabis does far more good than bad when ingested. It is used to treat various medical conditions including epilepsy and anxiety and should be available for medical consumption first and foremost. However, it would be ignorant of me not to comment on the recreational use of cannabis and similarly to its medicinal use, recreationally it poses no great risk to people, including young people who decide to partake. Overall, young people should be able to use cannabis in both medicinal and recreational settings. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: This is a difficult one. I think everything in moderation is ok. I think if a person is a light user than there isn't much risk but a heavy user could be at risk of health issues. i think it should be up to the individual to decide what they want to do as long as they are aware of the consequences. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think cannabis can be used occasionally and infrequently by young people. Consideration needs to be given to what age 'young people' are classed as. I do have concerns about the risk of psychosis but there are also benefits to cannabis use such as decreased social anxiety and decreased pain in people suffering from chronic pain +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I do not particularly want to promote using cannabis for young people, however I feel it is wrong to blanket say no, when there are emerging medicinal uses that show significant benefit and impact. In fact, I'm sure that cannabis has been used in past historic times and likely prehistoric times. I think there is a distorting of the information we are being given as to it's potential benefits and safety. Another issue is really about who controls it and makes money from it, it's something that big pharma would struggle to control, so I wonder if a lot of what we are being informed as fact is really simply the plan to control how we use or think on it so that it can be produced and marketed and profited from. I would also need more information to identify the term 'young people' - are we talking of adults over 18 or young teenagers? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Firstly, it depends how you define 'young'. Is this under 18, under 21 etc? I don't thing 'young' people, ie under 21, have the life experience to be experimenting with a drug such as cannabis. If it were to be legalised, it should only be accessible to over 21's. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There are vast amounts of evidence that suggest that cannabis does far more good than bad when ingested. It is used to treat various medical conditions including epilepsy and anxiety and should be available for medical consumption first and foremost. However, it would be ignorant of me not to comment on the recreational use of cannabis and similarly to its medicinal use, recreationally it poses no great risk to people, including young people who decide to partake. Overall, young people should be able to use cannabis in both medicinal and recreational settings. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - This is a difficult one. I think everything in moderation is ok. I think if a person is a light user than there isn't much risk but a heavy user could be at risk of health issues. i think it should be up to the individual to decide what they want to do as long as they are aware of the consequences. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think cannabis can be used occasionally and infrequently by young people. Consideration needs to be given to what age 'young people' are classed as. I do have concerns about the risk of psychosis but there are also benefits to cannabis use such as decreased social anxiety and decreased pain in people suffering from chronic pain 1: 3,1,4,2,5 1: 3,5,4,1,2 1: 1,2,5,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002638.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002638.soc index b3ebd86d..cea7be7d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002638.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002638.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, at speed can pose a serious danger to pedestrians. A better option is to provide dedicated cycle paths and laws such as those in the Netherlands and Denmark. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should be able to ride sbikes on sidewalks only if there s no other desingnated space for the bikes. Better solution would be to devide the sidewalk into 2 sectin for walking and for bikes and only pedal bikes should be allowed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Ideally, people should not need to ride their bikes on the sidewalk, as there should be proper and safe bike lines. In this case, people should not be allowed to ride bikes on the sidewalk, as they could potentially be dangerous towards pedestrians. However, it is understandable that bikers might prefer to ride on the sidewalk compared to the road if there are no safe bike lanes to ride in. If a cyclist got hit by a car, it could cause extremely serious or even fatal injuries, but if a cyclist hit a pedestrian, it would most likely only cause minor injuries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No because it is dangerous to pedestrians and also children who may be on the sidewalks. Also there is a risk they can hit things such as walls or gates. However young children should be on sidewalks as the roads are far too dangerous, but they should be accompanied by an adult. SIdewalks are for walkers, pedestrians, not wheeled vehicles, there are accidents each year caused by this. THere are also plenty of cycle tracks that cyclists can use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think that adults should ride bikes on sidewalks. I can see a logic for small children riding bikes on sidewalks, as long as they are considerate of others. Small children might need to get more confident before riding on the roads, which might be dangerous. Pedestrians should, however, always feel safe. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, at speed can pose a serious danger to pedestrians. A better option is to provide dedicated cycle paths and laws such as those in the Netherlands and Denmark. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should be able to ride sbikes on sidewalks only if there s no other desingnated space for the bikes. Better solution would be to devide the sidewalk into 2 sectin for walking and for bikes and only pedal bikes should be allowed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Ideally, people should not need to ride their bikes on the sidewalk, as there should be proper and safe bike lines. In this case, people should not be allowed to ride bikes on the sidewalk, as they could potentially be dangerous towards pedestrians. However, it is understandable that bikers might prefer to ride on the sidewalk compared to the road if there are no safe bike lanes to ride in. If a cyclist got hit by a car, it could cause extremely serious or even fatal injuries, but if a cyclist hit a pedestrian, it would most likely only cause minor injuries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No because it is dangerous to pedestrians and also children who may be on the sidewalks. Also there is a risk they can hit things such as walls or gates. However young children should be on sidewalks as the roads are far too dangerous, but they should be accompanied by an adult. SIdewalks are for walkers, pedestrians, not wheeled vehicles, there are accidents each year caused by this. THere are also plenty of cycle tracks that cyclists can use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think that adults should ride bikes on sidewalks. I can see a logic for small children riding bikes on sidewalks, as long as they are considerate of others. Small children might need to get more confident before riding on the roads, which might be dangerous. Pedestrians should, however, always feel safe. 1: 3,2,1,4,5 1: 3,1,5,4,2 1: 3,4,5,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002639.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002639.soc index 214b6a04..cdc2b8f8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002639.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002639.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think the UK should have a system for selecting the monarch, it doesn't really have an old system so it can't be classed as a new system. I don't really think that a hereditary monarch has a place in today's society, it is too antiquated and classist, if we really need a head of state it shouldn't be a hereditary appointment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think the system in place works fine as it is. It is good to hold onto some traditions even if they do not fit in with the modern world. It ground the country and shows where we came from and is a important piece of history. It is an even we can all unite around. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No there shouldn't be a new system as the monarchy is a deeply ingrained part of the UK. Many British people are proud of the monarchy and that pride holds people together. Either abolish it or continue with the current system and tradition. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I believe that the UK should not have a monarchy at all. The monarchy does not benefit us at all, and instead costs a lot of money which could be better spent elsewhere. People argue that keeping the monarchy brings in tourism, however I believe we would have much more tourism if any royal-owned properties were made public and managed like national trust properties for people to visit and look around. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think the UK should have a system for selecting the monarch, it doesn't really have an old system so it can't be classed as a new system. I don't really think that a hereditary monarch has a place in today's society, it is too antiquated and classist, if we really need a head of state it shouldn't be a hereditary appointment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think the system in place works fine as it is. It is good to hold onto some traditions even if they do not fit in with the modern world. It ground the country and shows where we came from and is a important piece of history. It is an even we can all unite around. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No there shouldn't be a new system as the monarchy is a deeply ingrained part of the UK. Many British people are proud of the monarchy and that pride holds people together. Either abolish it or continue with the current system and tradition. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I believe that the UK should not have a monarchy at all. The monarchy does not benefit us at all, and instead costs a lot of money which could be better spent elsewhere. People argue that keeping the monarchy brings in tourism, however I believe we would have much more tourism if any royal-owned properties were made public and managed like national trust properties for people to visit and look around. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002640.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002640.soc index ec24394f..5a445c90 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002640.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002640.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I don't think its right that all people in the UK need to wear a face covering. I believe it has been shown in data studies that wearing face coverings or not has not had the effect of reducing the spread of CovID . I believe it should be down to the individual concerned as to whether they want to wear one if it makes them feel more comfortably covered in their own minds. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: At the moment in the UK there is no need to make people wear a face mask. Covid is now under control and the use of face masks should be totally optional. Should there be another outbreak of a disease then I wouldn't be opposed to making people wear them if the science backed up their use. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, I think it is invasive and not needed. We are no longer in a pandemic therefore it is no longer required. Everyone got vaccinated for a reason. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: This feels like an outdated question. Of course during the prominent period of Covid, this was required by the government in an attempt to reduce the virus. However we are in a different place now and the threat has reduced significantly. And to be honest whilst I am not dismissing that Covid is a real thing, it does appear that everything has been bundled into one (colds, flu etc along with Covid) that there is no clear distinguishment. I do not believe there is any reason to require the population of the UK to wear a face mask. There are also a lot of concerns that came alongside wearing the mask itself along with other measures. I think like with anything, an extreme black and white solution is not the way. You have to look at the individual, everyone is different with different requirements, and not one way of doing thing is correct for all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No. During COVID there were a lot of unknowns about how the virus behaves and it's severity. I think most people now would say that COVID is not particularly dangerous to the majority of the population but is a definite inconvenience. People should be able to wear masks if they would like, in particular if they feel they have a cold, but i don't feel this should be mandatory. Wearing a mask all day is particularly challenging for people who work in customer facing roles for long shifts and other groups of people such as hard of hearing or deaf people who rely on lip reading. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I don't think its right that all people in the UK need to wear a face covering. I believe it has been shown in data studies that wearing face coverings or not has not had the effect of reducing the spread of CovID . I believe it should be down to the individual concerned as to whether they want to wear one if it makes them feel more comfortably covered in their own minds. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - At the moment in the UK there is no need to make people wear a face mask. Covid is now under control and the use of face masks should be totally optional. Should there be another outbreak of a disease then I wouldn't be opposed to making people wear them if the science backed up their use. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, I think it is invasive and not needed. We are no longer in a pandemic therefore it is no longer required. Everyone got vaccinated for a reason. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - This feels like an outdated question. Of course during the prominent period of Covid, this was required by the government in an attempt to reduce the virus. However we are in a different place now and the threat has reduced significantly. And to be honest whilst I am not dismissing that Covid is a real thing, it does appear that everything has been bundled into one (colds, flu etc along with Covid) that there is no clear distinguishment. I do not believe there is any reason to require the population of the UK to wear a face mask. There are also a lot of concerns that came alongside wearing the mask itself along with other measures. I think like with anything, an extreme black and white solution is not the way. You have to look at the individual, everyone is different with different requirements, and not one way of doing thing is correct for all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No. During COVID there were a lot of unknowns about how the virus behaves and it's severity. I think most people now would say that COVID is not particularly dangerous to the majority of the population but is a definite inconvenience. People should be able to wear masks if they would like, in particular if they feel they have a cold, but i don't feel this should be mandatory. Wearing a mask all day is particularly challenging for people who work in customer facing roles for long shifts and other groups of people such as hard of hearing or deaf people who rely on lip reading. 2: 4,5,2,1,3 2: 4,1,5,2,3 1: 4,5,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002641.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002641.soc index d1578a95..6a9f4342 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002641.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002641.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes. I don't think that the law is always the best deterrent for things like alcohol and drugs, but considering that it is at least a controlled substance, I think increasing access to alcohol to younger people is an incredibly bad idea. The amount of alcohol-related deaths in the UK is likely already very high, and drinking culture in this country won't be solved by encouraging more people to drink. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think that reducing the drinking age to 16 would be a very bad idea and I could definitely see it leading to an increase in deaths. The human body is mot yet fully matured at this age, both physically, mentally and emotionally and I think that alcoholic drinking could only have a negative affect. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe lowering the drinking age to 16 would increase alcohol-related deaths simply because I think more teens would start drinking. I also think that it being legal for a 16 year old to drink may mean they drink more and to higher intoxication levels, this could be severe for them as their body's are not fully developed and could possibly feel the damage on their bodies more, like their livers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't think it would. I think the issue with alcohol related deaths is more about the culture of drinking in general. It needs addressed through education in schools, universities, and into adulthood through campaigns targeted at parents especially to help them feel confident in how to deal with children in their care drinking. I think it's also an issue for healthcare to tackle. More regulations around alcohol would be good, but this specific one would have very little impact when children under 16 are drinking anyway. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think it would make much of a difference as if teenagers want to get hold of alcohol they generally can anyway, I don't believe we should drop the drinking age though as I believe 18 is the right age and frankly nobody wants to put up with 16 year old children in bars and pubs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes. I don't think that the law is always the best deterrent for things like alcohol and drugs, but considering that it is at least a controlled substance, I think increasing access to alcohol to younger people is an incredibly bad idea. The amount of alcohol-related deaths in the UK is likely already very high, and drinking culture in this country won't be solved by encouraging more people to drink. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think that reducing the drinking age to 16 would be a very bad idea and I could definitely see it leading to an increase in deaths. The human body is mot yet fully matured at this age, both physically, mentally and emotionally and I think that alcoholic drinking could only have a negative affect. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe lowering the drinking age to 16 would increase alcohol-related deaths simply because I think more teens would start drinking. I also think that it being legal for a 16 year old to drink may mean they drink more and to higher intoxication levels, this could be severe for them as their body's are not fully developed and could possibly feel the damage on their bodies more, like their livers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't think it would. I think the issue with alcohol related deaths is more about the culture of drinking in general. It needs addressed through education in schools, universities, and into adulthood through campaigns targeted at parents especially to help them feel confident in how to deal with children in their care drinking. I think it's also an issue for healthcare to tackle. More regulations around alcohol would be good, but this specific one would have very little impact when children under 16 are drinking anyway. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think it would make much of a difference as if teenagers want to get hold of alcohol they generally can anyway, I don't believe we should drop the drinking age though as I believe 18 is the right age and frankly nobody wants to put up with 16 year old children in bars and pubs. 1: 4,5,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,5,4 1: 4,5,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002642.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002642.soc index f8474fa4..63b21d05 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002642.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002642.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Of course. I believe this world is better when we are as one. I dont agree with countries penalising and restricting others on trade. We are all human and I dont think a lot of countries care about the humans in the countries they are putting restrictions on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: i dont really know enough about globalization to give an answer on this either way -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I believe it has, to case a point from the last question, vaccine for COVID was tackled globally and rolled out. it helps connect human's which can only help us understand each others differences and struggles and of course strength's. Which will be the source of a better future for all mankind -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I think that globalization potentially brings countries together, which I think is very important. We should see the world united as a whole rather than having an 'us' and 'them' mentality. We should have a greater understanding of other cultures and work together to achieve a planet where everyone gets on. However, the word is usually used in terms of big businesses dominating the market, which I don't particularly agree with. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I think that overall it has. Globalisation has meant that everyone now has access to new cultures and markets. This has meant that goods are accessed at a better cost, and people have a higher standard of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Of course. I believe this world is better when we are as one. I dont agree with countries penalising and restricting others on trade. We are all human and I dont think a lot of countries care about the humans in the countries they are putting restrictions on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - i dont really know enough about globalization to give an answer on this either way +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I believe it has, to case a point from the last question, vaccine for COVID was tackled globally and rolled out. it helps connect human's which can only help us understand each others differences and struggles and of course strength's. Which will be the source of a better future for all mankind +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I think that globalization potentially brings countries together, which I think is very important. We should see the world united as a whole rather than having an 'us' and 'them' mentality. We should have a greater understanding of other cultures and work together to achieve a planet where everyone gets on. However, the word is usually used in terms of big businesses dominating the market, which I don't particularly agree with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I think that overall it has. Globalisation has meant that everyone now has access to new cultures and markets. This has meant that goods are accessed at a better cost, and people have a higher standard of living. 2: 4,5,3,1,2 1: 1,4,5,3,2 1: 3,4,1,5,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002643.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002643.soc index 60df4ab1..d4bf5124 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002643.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002643.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I am a bit indifferent on this. But I would lean on introducing a small new tax. People make a lot of money (Influencers) out of posting, and if they are paying for promoting posts on social media, then social media companies should be taxed on this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I think this should be implemented as social media has boomed in the last half a decade, especially after the COVID lockdowns. There are only a few companies that monopolise the market, and they earn a substancial amount for the market. Not only this but due to rises in new technology, it should be considered to be one of the biggest sectors of business. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I really dont know a lot about this subject. However, I believe they are already paying corporation tax. They are making a lot of money and therefore I guess the government would like to introduce a new tax on them. I think rather than introduce a new tax, social media companies should be made to become more accountable on what is on their social media platform and held to account in monetary terms with the use of fines. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Social media has exploded in the last decade. It is used by many as the primary means for communicating their views, desires and thoughts on everything, whether that view is correct, or even wanted by others. Celebrities and influencers especially use this as a means to progress their views on topics with the expectation that their loyal fans with support their views. It can often be used as a platform to throw hate or abuse at others and to stalk or 'follow' in an unwanted way. I think that a tax on how social media is used will help form legislation to ensure that those companies are held to task on how they monitor and police their sites and make sure it is used in the future in a way that only benefits the users without the negative side. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I am a bit indifferent on this. But I would lean on introducing a small new tax. People make a lot of money (Influencers) out of posting, and if they are paying for promoting posts on social media, then social media companies should be taxed on this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I think this should be implemented as social media has boomed in the last half a decade, especially after the COVID lockdowns. There are only a few companies that monopolise the market, and they earn a substancial amount for the market. Not only this but due to rises in new technology, it should be considered to be one of the biggest sectors of business. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I really dont know a lot about this subject. However, I believe they are already paying corporation tax. They are making a lot of money and therefore I guess the government would like to introduce a new tax on them. I think rather than introduce a new tax, social media companies should be made to become more accountable on what is on their social media platform and held to account in monetary terms with the use of fines. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Social media has exploded in the last decade. It is used by many as the primary means for communicating their views, desires and thoughts on everything, whether that view is correct, or even wanted by others. Celebrities and influencers especially use this as a means to progress their views on topics with the expectation that their loyal fans with support their views. It can often be used as a platform to throw hate or abuse at others and to stalk or 'follow' in an unwanted way. I think that a tax on how social media is used will help form legislation to ensure that those companies are held to task on how they monitor and police their sites and make sure it is used in the future in a way that only benefits the users without the negative side. 2: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002644.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002644.soc index acddf8af..02aad772 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002644.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002644.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: If you are smoking in your breaks then yes it is ok. This is because it is your time and as long as you are smoking somewhere respectful to others around you it is your choice. However, if extra smoke breaks are needed then it is unfair to give extra time to some employees and not others. As well as this, there should not be a smoking culture in a workplace in which workers feel pressured to smoke. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I do not think it is okay to smoke on the job at all. Perhaps when you are on break but otherwise no. You are not being paid to smoke, and it has terrible disadvantages to health. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I do not believe it is okay to smoke on the job in the same way that I do not believe it is okay to drink on the job. It is a disgusting, antisocial habit, and too many work places allow additional breaks for smokers which are not extended to non-smokers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Smoking is an incredibly unhealthy habit and should not be encouraged at all in the workplace, or on the grounds at all. You are paid to work, not smoke. If it is in a break and off site, then ok, but I feel we should be striving towards removing this destructive habit from society altogether. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't think so. By smoking on the job, you are taking time away from work and thereby taking time away from the hours your employer pays you for. It is also unfair to colleagues who don't smoke on the job, who end up spending more time working (because comparatively you are regularly away from your work station throughout the day), and likely picking up your slack. I also think its unsociable as even if you smoke outside in a well-ventilated area, doing so regularly will mean you smell strongly of cigarette smoke in your workplace. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - If you are smoking in your breaks then yes it is ok. This is because it is your time and as long as you are smoking somewhere respectful to others around you it is your choice. However, if extra smoke breaks are needed then it is unfair to give extra time to some employees and not others. As well as this, there should not be a smoking culture in a workplace in which workers feel pressured to smoke. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I do not think it is okay to smoke on the job at all. Perhaps when you are on break but otherwise no. You are not being paid to smoke, and it has terrible disadvantages to health. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I do not believe it is okay to smoke on the job in the same way that I do not believe it is okay to drink on the job. It is a disgusting, antisocial habit, and too many work places allow additional breaks for smokers which are not extended to non-smokers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Smoking is an incredibly unhealthy habit and should not be encouraged at all in the workplace, or on the grounds at all. You are paid to work, not smoke. If it is in a break and off site, then ok, but I feel we should be striving towards removing this destructive habit from society altogether. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't think so. By smoking on the job, you are taking time away from work and thereby taking time away from the hours your employer pays you for. It is also unfair to colleagues who don't smoke on the job, who end up spending more time working (because comparatively you are regularly away from your work station throughout the day), and likely picking up your slack. I also think its unsociable as even if you smoke outside in a well-ventilated area, doing so regularly will mean you smell strongly of cigarette smoke in your workplace. 2: 5,4,3,2,1 1: 1,5,2,4,3 1: 1,4,5,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002645.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002645.soc index 45911aff..0f8c05c8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002645.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002645.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, it's the only way for employers to pay the basic wage, although it may change with different ages, such as age 16 may have less income than age 25. It would allow employers to budget for their stadd and ensure everyone has a basic standard of living. Everyone should be included, even zero hours workers and seasonal workers if it is universal. However some employers may see this as an excuse to pay only this rate for most of their staff -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: It is important that everyone has the money to ensure a basic standard of living. Wages should be sufficient for people to afford their bills. Not everyone can work full time, however, so it would make sense that the shortfall could be made up from an alternative source. Universal basic income would provide a safety net, and security for everyone. It might however mean that if you can't work and increase your money, you will always be considered on the bottom rung. Currently if you have savings, then you don't get as much in benefits as others who have spent any savings they would have. This feels unfair, as it rewards those who have't been as careful -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: i do agree there should be a universal basic income to protect the most vulnerable members of the society otherwise there is a serious risk of worker exploitation. I think it provides a good base line and help set a benchmark for government budgets. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Although initially it'll require a high amount of government spending, it'll offer a safety net for the more vulnerable citizens and people in poverty, while being fair to everyone. It could also create a more business friendly country, with more people willing to take risks setting up a business with a consistent safety net behinf them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, it's the only way for employers to pay the basic wage, although it may change with different ages, such as age 16 may have less income than age 25. It would allow employers to budget for their stadd and ensure everyone has a basic standard of living. Everyone should be included, even zero hours workers and seasonal workers if it is universal. However some employers may see this as an excuse to pay only this rate for most of their staff +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is important that everyone has the money to ensure a basic standard of living. Wages should be sufficient for people to afford their bills. Not everyone can work full time, however, so it would make sense that the shortfall could be made up from an alternative source. Universal basic income would provide a safety net, and security for everyone. It might however mean that if you can't work and increase your money, you will always be considered on the bottom rung. Currently if you have savings, then you don't get as much in benefits as others who have spent any savings they would have. This feels unfair, as it rewards those who have't been as careful +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - i do agree there should be a universal basic income to protect the most vulnerable members of the society otherwise there is a serious risk of worker exploitation. I think it provides a good base line and help set a benchmark for government budgets. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Although initially it'll require a high amount of government spending, it'll offer a safety net for the more vulnerable citizens and people in poverty, while being fair to everyone. It could also create a more business friendly country, with more people willing to take risks setting up a business with a consistent safety net behinf them. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002646.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002646.soc index 2a68ae96..27aff8b0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002646.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002646.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I'm honestly not educated enough on this topic to have a strong opinion one way or another. I will say that as a rule anyone who profits from rising house prices is likely a landlord or someone who works in real estate, and those people seem like they are largely scum to me. So a tentative 'yes'. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I believe we should impose a tax on the very wealthy who own multiple properties and use property ownership as their main source of income, I don't believe we should impose a tax on regular home owners who's houses happen to have gone up in value -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, I do not think that we should impose a capital gains tax on owners who profit from rising house prices in the same way that we shouldn't give grants to property owners when house prices fall. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't think we should impose on another tax on property owners that profit from rising house prices, as a sale of a property is already taxed quite heavily and house prices have been rising constantly throughout history (bar a few notable years i.e 2008) so this could further complicate this imposition because it then causes another debate of how far do you backtrack and implement this law. Houses are seen by most as the safest investment, adding more taxes into this could lower the profitability of this and lead to more people opting to rent rather than owning a home. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I don't know what capital gains tax is honestly, but if it's what I assume, a tax on the profit made from buying a home, then I'm not so sure. It would depend on who it would apply to, length of time involved etc. For someone who buys property regularly as a business, I think that wouldn't go amiss depending on the amount of profit. But if that was to apply to everyone who purchased a house, it wouldn't be reasonable as it would apply to nearly everyone depending on the market at the time of sale. It would be a punishment for someone who had sold their house after living their for 10years who had to move for life reasons, especially those on lower income brackets. If it was on "professional" landlords or people who make massive profits on very expensive properties, that would be different. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I'm honestly not educated enough on this topic to have a strong opinion one way or another. I will say that as a rule anyone who profits from rising house prices is likely a landlord or someone who works in real estate, and those people seem like they are largely scum to me. So a tentative 'yes'. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I believe we should impose a tax on the very wealthy who own multiple properties and use property ownership as their main source of income, I don't believe we should impose a tax on regular home owners who's houses happen to have gone up in value +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, I do not think that we should impose a capital gains tax on owners who profit from rising house prices in the same way that we shouldn't give grants to property owners when house prices fall. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't think we should impose on another tax on property owners that profit from rising house prices, as a sale of a property is already taxed quite heavily and house prices have been rising constantly throughout history (bar a few notable years i.e 2008) so this could further complicate this imposition because it then causes another debate of how far do you backtrack and implement this law. Houses are seen by most as the safest investment, adding more taxes into this could lower the profitability of this and lead to more people opting to rent rather than owning a home. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I don't know what capital gains tax is honestly, but if it's what I assume, a tax on the profit made from buying a home, then I'm not so sure. It would depend on who it would apply to, length of time involved etc. For someone who buys property regularly as a business, I think that wouldn't go amiss depending on the amount of profit. But if that was to apply to everyone who purchased a house, it wouldn't be reasonable as it would apply to nearly everyone depending on the market at the time of sale. It would be a punishment for someone who had sold their house after living their for 10years who had to move for life reasons, especially those on lower income brackets. If it was on "professional" landlords or people who make massive profits on very expensive properties, that would be different. 1: 2,1,5,4,3 1: 3,4,5,2,1 1: 5,2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002647.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002647.soc index 7ec8678a..22e5ad9b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002647.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002647.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I can see a need for uniform in early years, to show a sense of unity and belonging. I think it is good that they can identify and feel part of a single group. As they get older I can also see a need to allow expression and freedom of choice, to allow them to grow and not feel stifled by rules and regulations. I feel fairly neutral to the whole situation and can see the benefits in both approaches, but I feel that maybe allowing freedom of choice once in 6th form/college/university is a good way to go. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No there should be a strict uniform in place, specifically one which is affordable to all families. Allowing children to wear what they want can and does lead to bullying and social exclusion for pupils who cannot afford the popular brands. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I think they should. Individual expression is an important part of developing creativity and a sense of identity. It also reflects the realities of the real, adult world. Additionally, I think it would be more cost effective for parents, who otherwise have to buy overpriced uniforms every year. Some might argue that this would give students a license to dress 'inappropriately' but I think this argument reflects more on them than the students themselves, who should be free to wear what they want without judgement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, I do no think so. I feel like school is a place to learn and move forward via education. And clothing should not matter in a place like that. Uniform unifies all the students and keeps them equal. It also reduced any bullying or antisocial behavior due to wearing certain types of clothing. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Whilst some schools take uniform policies too far i do believe that students should not be free to wear whatever they want. There will always be individuals willing to push the boundaries too far for a school setting. This will either be through the use of offensive or inappropriate clothing that would negatively impact a school environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I can see a need for uniform in early years, to show a sense of unity and belonging. I think it is good that they can identify and feel part of a single group. As they get older I can also see a need to allow expression and freedom of choice, to allow them to grow and not feel stifled by rules and regulations. I feel fairly neutral to the whole situation and can see the benefits in both approaches, but I feel that maybe allowing freedom of choice once in 6th form/college/university is a good way to go. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No there should be a strict uniform in place, specifically one which is affordable to all families. Allowing children to wear what they want can and does lead to bullying and social exclusion for pupils who cannot afford the popular brands. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I think they should. Individual expression is an important part of developing creativity and a sense of identity. It also reflects the realities of the real, adult world. Additionally, I think it would be more cost effective for parents, who otherwise have to buy overpriced uniforms every year. Some might argue that this would give students a license to dress 'inappropriately' but I think this argument reflects more on them than the students themselves, who should be free to wear what they want without judgement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, I do no think so. I feel like school is a place to learn and move forward via education. And clothing should not matter in a place like that. Uniform unifies all the students and keeps them equal. It also reduced any bullying or antisocial behavior due to wearing certain types of clothing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - Whilst some schools take uniform policies too far i do believe that students should not be free to wear whatever they want. There will always be individuals willing to push the boundaries too far for a school setting. This will either be through the use of offensive or inappropriate clothing that would negatively impact a school environment. 1: 4,2,1,5,3 1: 1,3,5,4,2 1: 5,1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002648.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002648.soc index ca4e2a36..ff358057 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002648.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002648.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes. Ultimately bribery leads to corruption and serves only those people with money and those in power. Bribery leads to unfair treatment of the common people. Stricter punishments would lead to less bribery and fairer outcomes for all -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: I do not know what the punishment is for a bribe in the UK but by the sound of the question it must not be that strict. I guess it would depend on the level of the bribe that had taken place, what the consequences were etc in order to be able to determine the correct punishment so to speak. The question lacks context and is too general. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I am not sure about this as I do not know what the current punishment is. I concur that bribes are illegal and should be punished with jail time if required. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: i think that people who pay bribes to free people i can understand.. they want their loved ones to be freed. If someone had the ability to pay in similar circumstances to be free would you want to deny them and punish them? I don't think there should be stricter punishments for these circumstances. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: I honestly don't have a very strong opinion on this, primarily as i don't know how strict the UK is on corruption, and what the likely sentences are. I do think bribes and corruption should have a severe punishment as they are serious crimes. However I can't comment on whether those sentences should be made more or less severe due to my lack of knowledge on the topic. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes. Ultimately bribery leads to corruption and serves only those people with money and those in power. Bribery leads to unfair treatment of the common people. Stricter punishments would lead to less bribery and fairer outcomes for all +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - I do not know what the punishment is for a bribe in the UK but by the sound of the question it must not be that strict. I guess it would depend on the level of the bribe that had taken place, what the consequences were etc in order to be able to determine the correct punishment so to speak. The question lacks context and is too general. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I am not sure about this as I do not know what the current punishment is. I concur that bribes are illegal and should be punished with jail time if required. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - i think that people who pay bribes to free people i can understand.. they want their loved ones to be freed. If someone had the ability to pay in similar circumstances to be free would you want to deny them and punish them? I don't think there should be stricter punishments for these circumstances. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - I honestly don't have a very strong opinion on this, primarily as i don't know how strict the UK is on corruption, and what the likely sentences are. I do think bribes and corruption should have a severe punishment as they are serious crimes. However I can't comment on whether those sentences should be made more or less severe due to my lack of knowledge on the topic. 1: 1,2,4,3,5 1: 5,4,3,2,1 1: 2,5,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002649.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002649.soc index 1adfaa15..258e32e3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002649.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002649.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: I think this is a very difficult question to answer. With the presence of globalisation, we are in the time period where we are most connected to the world in terms of technology. The presence of the internet adds anonminity, freedom of expression, access to knowledge and new technology in the world. Yet we have also an increase in problems aswell. It can be used in a malicious and dangerous manner. You are able to spread false information, hate, and there are also existence of predators and other harmful individuals. I think the internet can act as tool on society which can be manuervered to both sides of the spectrum, and it will forever be constantly changing from negative to positive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has definitely had a negative effect on some parts of society, but it has also been a hugely positive influence as well. In terms of the negative, it has created a place where those who would already feel difficulty in socialising a place where they can hide from others and live their lives in a way that promotes isolation and not learn the skills to be better in social situations. More powerfully though, it has provided a place for criminals to communicate and trade without the scrutiny of law providers, and for people to share negative and harmful opinions on others in relatively anonymity and safety. The positives do, however, far outweigh much of this, helping people to overcome isolation, improving communication and learning, access to information (though this has to said with caution as much of the information available is unreliable and unverified), and providing ways to do business in much cheaper ways that could not be done otherwise. So my answer is yes, but also greatly positive -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: I am torn on whether the internet has a negative effect on society. It has made my life easier in so many ways, you can educate yourself virtually for free, I can do my banking on line and is great for communicating with my loved ones. However I do worry that my daughter has easy access to inappropriate materials and the internet is affecting her health due to using it at both home and at school. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has a net positive effect on society. Increased inter-connection between global citizens has helped build social cohesion on many issues and helped us to understand each other better. Financially, the boom of online commerce and improved banking services has added trillions to global GDP. Technology derived from internet use has developed and thrived. There are negative effects that are starting to show now, particularly in younger generations and those with high screen time. There is considered to be some link to higher social media use and higher anxiety and depression rates. Overall, the positives far outweigh the negatives. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: In some ways yes and in others ways no. People use the internet for good things as well as bad. The issue is, that it is overused, there is fake news on there and it can cause huge conspiracy theories etc to spread quickly. People are also addicted which is not a good thing. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - I think this is a very difficult question to answer. With the presence of globalisation, we are in the time period where we are most connected to the world in terms of technology. The presence of the internet adds anonminity, freedom of expression, access to knowledge and new technology in the world. Yet we have also an increase in problems aswell. It can be used in a malicious and dangerous manner. You are able to spread false information, hate, and there are also existence of predators and other harmful individuals. I think the internet can act as tool on society which can be manuervered to both sides of the spectrum, and it will forever be constantly changing from negative to positive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has definitely had a negative effect on some parts of society, but it has also been a hugely positive influence as well. In terms of the negative, it has created a place where those who would already feel difficulty in socialising a place where they can hide from others and live their lives in a way that promotes isolation and not learn the skills to be better in social situations. More powerfully though, it has provided a place for criminals to communicate and trade without the scrutiny of law providers, and for people to share negative and harmful opinions on others in relatively anonymity and safety. The positives do, however, far outweigh much of this, helping people to overcome isolation, improving communication and learning, access to information (though this has to said with caution as much of the information available is unreliable and unverified), and providing ways to do business in much cheaper ways that could not be done otherwise. So my answer is yes, but also greatly positive +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - I am torn on whether the internet has a negative effect on society. It has made my life easier in so many ways, you can educate yourself virtually for free, I can do my banking on line and is great for communicating with my loved ones. However I do worry that my daughter has easy access to inappropriate materials and the internet is affecting her health due to using it at both home and at school. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has a net positive effect on society. Increased inter-connection between global citizens has helped build social cohesion on many issues and helped us to understand each other better. Financially, the boom of online commerce and improved banking services has added trillions to global GDP. Technology derived from internet use has developed and thrived. There are negative effects that are starting to show now, particularly in younger generations and those with high screen time. There is considered to be some link to higher social media use and higher anxiety and depression rates. Overall, the positives far outweigh the negatives. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - In some ways yes and in others ways no. People use the internet for good things as well as bad. The issue is, that it is overused, there is fake news on there and it can cause huge conspiracy theories etc to spread quickly. People are also addicted which is not a good thing. 1: 1,2,5,4,3 1: 2,1,4,3,5 1: 1,2,4,3,5 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002650.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002650.soc index cd8e0390..3065ef53 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002650.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002650.soc @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 5 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, they should not be banned, although they must be regulated to prevent tragedies. Fireworks with a certain amount of flame able material should be banned as this can cause serious accidents. The should only be used in open spaces and if a larger amount is to be used law must ensure that adequate safety measures are taken before hand. Also Fireworks must only be sold and handled by adults depending on the size of the explosion professionals must also be involved. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Fireworks provide a beautiful display for 5th November, and are also used in many other cultures, such as for Chinese New Year, and for Asian weddings. They do, however, cause air pollution, and have caused accidents. I think that they should at least be limited to organised events, such as public displays, not just people using them at home, but with the advances in light displays, maybe they won't been needed in the future, and we can have a similar effect with something that is both safer and less damaging to the environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Fireworks should be banned because they cause a lot of injuries, disturb people with loud noises and are expensive. Also there is a risk of fire in the factory producing them and the risk that they are stolen. Fireworks contribute to global warning as they burn and they also contain chemicals which then pollute the atmosphere. Children can get hold of them unless they are banned. There should be other more eco friendly options like laser lights and virtual reality. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, I don't really enjoy fireworks, but that isn't reason enough to stop other people from enjoying them. The only arguments against them I can think of is that they might be harmful towards people with PTSD from being in the military -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: No, although there are some points that should be considered, such as frightening pets and causing harm if used incorrectly. However, some of my favourite moments have been the social aspect of bonfire night and new year firework display. Creating awareness campaigns around safe usage should be the way forward. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, they should not be banned, although they must be regulated to prevent tragedies. Fireworks with a certain amount of flame able material should be banned as this can cause serious accidents. The should only be used in open spaces and if a larger amount is to be used law must ensure that adequate safety measures are taken before hand. Also Fireworks must only be sold and handled by adults depending on the size of the explosion professionals must also be involved. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Fireworks provide a beautiful display for 5th November, and are also used in many other cultures, such as for Chinese New Year, and for Asian weddings. They do, however, cause air pollution, and have caused accidents. I think that they should at least be limited to organised events, such as public displays, not just people using them at home, but with the advances in light displays, maybe they won't been needed in the future, and we can have a similar effect with something that is both safer and less damaging to the environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Fireworks should be banned because they cause a lot of injuries, disturb people with loud noises and are expensive. Also there is a risk of fire in the factory producing them and the risk that they are stolen. Fireworks contribute to global warning as they burn and they also contain chemicals which then pollute the atmosphere. Children can get hold of them unless they are banned. There should be other more eco friendly options like laser lights and virtual reality. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, I don't really enjoy fireworks, but that isn't reason enough to stop other people from enjoying them. The only arguments against them I can think of is that they might be harmful towards people with PTSD from being in the military +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 5: Statement 5 - No, although there are some points that should be considered, such as frightening pets and causing harm if used incorrectly. However, some of my favourite moments have been the social aspect of bonfire night and new year firework display. Creating awareness campaigns around safe usage should be the way forward. 1: 1,2,5,3,4 1: 5,1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,5,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002651.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002651.soc index 35a16489..7326ce6b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002651.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002651.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, the UK should not apply to rejoin the European Union. The UK has already spent millions on getting out of the EU, and it would be a waste of resources to try and get back in. The EU would make us pay through the nose for our previous error of opting out. The UK would benefit greatly from rejoining the European Union. I believe this because we have received none of the benefits that were promised to Leave Voters, e.g. greater funds for the NHS, and have in fact had a lot of disadvantages, for example, loss of free trade which has had direct impact of the import of food. However, we should balance rejoining with the potential payment we may need to pay to rejoin, and make sure it is worth it. It is my personal opinion that it is too late, and that we never should have left in the first place, but as we have left, we have find our path outside. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The reasons for this were that the UK had already spent a lot of money on leaving the EU and that it would be a waste to spend more money on rejoining. It was also felt that the EU would make the UK pay a lot of money to rejoin, which would be a waste. It was also felt that the EU has not been very helpful during the Brexit negotiations and so the UK would not want to rejoin an organisation that has not been very helpful. However, it was felt that it is too soon to have another referendum on this issue as the country needs time to heal. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should not rejoin the EU. This is because the UK has already spent a lot of money on leaving the EU, and so should not waste more money on rejoining. Also, the EU would make the UK pay through the nose for our previous error of opting out. The EU would also make the UK pay for all the damage the UK has caused to the EU. The UK should be given the chance to develop without the influence of the EU. The UK has already left the EU, and so it is too soon to have another referendum about this matter. The UK has left the EU and so should not rejoin. The referendum should be binding, and a reversal will only cause further divide and protest. The country needs to heal, not be further fractured. There way the EU has behaved during the negotiations and the political and financial unrest across the continent would not be an attractive enough proposition for me to want to rejoin. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already left the EU and the referendum should be respected, that the UK would have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and that the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, the UK should not apply to rejoin the European Union. The UK has already spent millions on getting out of the EU, and it would be a waste of resources to try and get back in. The EU would make us pay through the nose for our previous error of opting out. The UK would benefit greatly from rejoining the European Union. I believe this because we have received none of the benefits that were promised to Leave Voters, e.g. greater funds for the NHS, and have in fact had a lot of disadvantages, for example, loss of free trade which has had direct impact of the import of food. However, we should balance rejoining with the potential payment we may need to pay to rejoin, and make sure it is worth it. It is my personal opinion that it is too late, and that we never should have left in the first place, but as we have left, we have find our path outside. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The reasons for this were that the UK had already spent a lot of money on leaving the EU and that it would be a waste to spend more money on rejoining. It was also felt that the EU would make the UK pay a lot of money to rejoin, which would be a waste. It was also felt that the EU has not been very helpful during the Brexit negotiations and so the UK would not want to rejoin an organisation that has not been very helpful. However, it was felt that it is too soon to have another referendum on this issue as the country needs time to heal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should not rejoin the EU. This is because the UK has already spent a lot of money on leaving the EU, and so should not waste more money on rejoining. Also, the EU would make the UK pay through the nose for our previous error of opting out. The EU would also make the UK pay for all the damage the UK has caused to the EU. The UK should be given the chance to develop without the influence of the EU. The UK has already left the EU, and so it is too soon to have another referendum about this matter. The UK has left the EU and so should not rejoin. The referendum should be binding, and a reversal will only cause further divide and protest. The country needs to heal, not be further fractured. There way the EU has behaved during the negotiations and the political and financial unrest across the continent would not be an attractive enough proposition for me to want to rejoin. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already left the EU and the referendum should be respected, that the UK would have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and that the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. 3: 4,3,2,1 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002652.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002652.soc index 87074e60..72d78882 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002652.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002652.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The emphasis should be on a shift from the current position to more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, addressing triggers for crime and using a multi-agency approach to reduce offending. Currently, on release, the prisoner is told to engage with the probation service but can have little incentive to do so. This means that many cases of breach are brought before the courts which is time consuming and expensive. We need to have a more targeted approach when sentencing. Where the probation service and the magistrates have a greater flexibility and the ultimate sentence of prison is a tariff only for those beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation. This was a fun exercise and although the process of coming to an agreement was slightly laborious at times, in the end it did produce a well thought through and well argued consensus view. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The emphasis should be on a shift from the current position to more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, addressing triggers for crime and using a multi-agency approach to reduce offending. Currently, on release, the prisoner is told to engage with the probation service but can have little incentive to do so. This means that many cases of breach are brought before the courts which is time consuming and expensive. We need to have a more targeted approach when sentencing. Where the probation service and the magistrates have a greater flexibility and the ultimate sentence of prison is a tariff only for those beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The emphasis should be on a shift from the current position to more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, addressing triggers for crime and using a multi-agency approach to reduce offending. Currently, on release, the prisoner is told to engage with the probation service but can have little incentive to do so. This means that many cases of breach are brought before the courts which is time consuming and expensive. We need to have a more targeted approach when sentencing. Where the probation service and the magistrates have a greater flexibility and the ultimate sentence of prison is a tariff only for those beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation. Conclusion: If people feel that they have been treated fairly and the whole system of criminal justice is seen to be fair, then there will be less chance of a future cohort who view themselves as being alienated from society, having nothing to lose and consequently committing crimes. To assist this there needs to be more effective work with families of the convicted so that there are the supports available and practical solutions offered to prevent re-offending. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The emphasis should be on a shift from the current position to more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, addressing triggers for crime and using a multi-agency approach to reduce offending. Currently, on release, the prisoner is told to engage with the probation service but can have little incentive to do so. This means that many cases of breach are brought before the courts which is time consuming and expensive. We need to have a more targeted approach when sentencing. Where the probation service and the magistrates have a greater flexibility and the ultimate sentence of prison is a tariff only for those beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The emphasis should be on a shift from the current position to more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, addressing triggers for crime and using a multi-agency approach to reduce offending. Currently, on release, the prisoner is told to engage with the probation service but can have little incentive to do so. This means that many cases of breach are brought before the courts which is time consuming and expensive. We need to have a more targeted approach when sentencing. Where the probation service and the magistrates have a greater flexibility and the ultimate sentence of prison is a tariff only for those beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation. This was a fun exercise and although the process of coming to an agreement was slightly laborious at times, in the end it did produce a well thought through and well argued consensus view. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The emphasis should be on a shift from the current position to more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, addressing triggers for crime and using a multi-agency approach to reduce offending. Currently, on release, the prisoner is told to engage with the probation service but can have little incentive to do so. This means that many cases of breach are brought before the courts which is time consuming and expensive. We need to have a more targeted approach when sentencing. Where the probation service and the magistrates have a greater flexibility and the ultimate sentence of prison is a tariff only for those beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The emphasis should be on a shift from the current position to more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, addressing triggers for crime and using a multi-agency approach to reduce offending. Currently, on release, the prisoner is told to engage with the probation service but can have little incentive to do so. This means that many cases of breach are brought before the courts which is time consuming and expensive. We need to have a more targeted approach when sentencing. Where the probation service and the magistrates have a greater flexibility and the ultimate sentence of prison is a tariff only for those beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation. Conclusion: If people feel that they have been treated fairly and the whole system of criminal justice is seen to be fair, then there will be less chance of a future cohort who view themselves as being alienated from society, having nothing to lose and consequently committing crimes. To assist this there needs to be more effective work with families of the convicted so that there are the supports available and practical solutions offered to prevent re-offending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The emphasis should be on a shift from the current position to more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, addressing triggers for crime and using a multi-agency approach to reduce offending. Currently, on release, the prisoner is told to engage with the probation service but can have little incentive to do so. This means that many cases of breach are brought before the courts which is time consuming and expensive. We need to have a more targeted approach when sentencing. Where the probation service and the magistrates have a greater flexibility and the ultimate sentence of prison is a tariff only for those beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 1,3,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002653.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002653.soc index 233bfe0c..5bdd49cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002653.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002653.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Most of the participants did not want the UK to rejoin the EU, because we have already left the EU and the referendum should be respected. The UK would also have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There was general agreement that the UK should not rejoin the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already left the EU and the referendum should be respected, that the UK would have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and that the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already left the EU and the referendum should be respected, that the UK would have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and that the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. The group also felt that a second referendum would be divisive, and that a renegotiation of terms was more likely to succeed than an attempt to rejoin the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already left the EU and the referendum should be respected, that the UK would have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and that the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Most of the participants did not want the UK to rejoin the EU, because we have already left the EU and the referendum should be respected. The UK would also have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There was general agreement that the UK should not rejoin the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already left the EU and the referendum should be respected, that the UK would have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and that the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already left the EU and the referendum should be respected, that the UK would have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and that the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. The group also felt that a second referendum would be divisive, and that a renegotiation of terms was more likely to succeed than an attempt to rejoin the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The main reasons for this were that the UK had already left the EU and the referendum should be respected, that the UK would have to pay a large sum to rejoin the EU, and that the EU is currently in a state of flux and not a particularly attractive place to be a member of. However, there was a recognition that the UK has not received the benefits of Brexit that were promised, and that the UK may have to pay a large sum to leave the EU. Therefore, it was felt that the UK should try to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, but that the UK should not rejoin the EU. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002654.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002654.soc index 133fe861..62d7296f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002654.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002654.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. The group felt that this would help to lift low income workers out of poverty and reduce income inequality. However, the group also felt that the minimum wage should be increased in line with inflation and that it should be compared to other Western countries. The group felt that the minimum wage is still low compared to other Western countries. The group also felt that the minimum wage should not be raised to such an extent that it would impact small businesses. The group felt that small businesses could feel the pinch which could result in job losses and unemployment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. The group was of the opinion that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation and cost of living. The group felt that a higher minimum wage would boost morale and production and reduce income inequality. However, the group also felt that small business could feel the pinch which could result in job losses and unemployment. The group felt that the minimum wage should be compared to other Western countries and set according to national inflation levels. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The minimum wage in the UK has risen a lot the past couple of years. However the minimum wage is still low compared to other Western countries. But raising the minimum wage significant would impact small business enormous, which with the current climate is not a good thing. Inflation is rampant and the same salary earned even only two years ago just does not stretch as far in today's times. Minimum wage should be compared to other Western countries and set according to national inflation levels. We need to grow our economy and will struggle against cheaper economies if we don't keep costs low. wages are one of the largest costs for any business. we need to remain cost effective globally whilst investing in more technology.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. The current minimum wage is low compared to other Western countries. Raising the minimum wage would help low income workers and reduce income inequality. However, small businesses would be impacted and the group was concerned that this would lead to job losses and unemployment. The group felt that the government should invest in more technology to help the economy grow and keep costs low. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. The group felt that this would help to lift low income workers out of poverty and reduce income inequality. However, the group also felt that the minimum wage should be increased in line with inflation and that it should be compared to other Western countries. The group felt that the minimum wage is still low compared to other Western countries. The group also felt that the minimum wage should not be raised to such an extent that it would impact small businesses. The group felt that small businesses could feel the pinch which could result in job losses and unemployment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. The group was of the opinion that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation and cost of living. The group felt that a higher minimum wage would boost morale and production and reduce income inequality. However, the group also felt that small business could feel the pinch which could result in job losses and unemployment. The group felt that the minimum wage should be compared to other Western countries and set according to national inflation levels. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The minimum wage in the UK has risen a lot the past couple of years. However the minimum wage is still low compared to other Western countries. But raising the minimum wage significant would impact small business enormous, which with the current climate is not a good thing. Inflation is rampant and the same salary earned even only two years ago just does not stretch as far in today's times. Minimum wage should be compared to other Western countries and set according to national inflation levels. We need to grow our economy and will struggle against cheaper economies if we don't keep costs low. wages are one of the largest costs for any business. we need to remain cost effective globally whilst investing in more technology.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. The current minimum wage is low compared to other Western countries. Raising the minimum wage would help low income workers and reduce income inequality. However, small businesses would be impacted and the group was concerned that this would lead to job losses and unemployment. The group felt that the government should invest in more technology to help the economy grow and keep costs low. 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002655.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002655.soc index f4aa5a51..fb7ba06b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002655.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002655.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Yes, we should raise the minimum wage in the UK. It is important that the minimum wage reflects the cost of living. Employing someone for less than they can live on is wrong. Firms making increased profits should have to increase pay to reflect this success and share some of the rewards with those that actually create the profit through their work and, not as is common nowadays, just reward the shareholders who, really, make no contribution to the firms success. The increase in the minimum wage would go some way to remving that barrier, boosting employment figures, increasing morale and putting less reliance on benefits. Most of the jobs at the lower end of the wage scale are menial and in service industries where hard work brings little reward. There is also a risk that a person on the current minium wage is exploited ny an employer. Placing the onus on that employer to pay a minimum wage that is higher would weed out rogue employers. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. We should do this to ensure that those people who are prepared to work are not disadvantaged by low wages and a low standard of living. The increase should reflect the cost of living and the need for employees to be able to afford to live and save for the future. The increase should be phased in to allow employers to adjust their business models to accommodate the increase. The increase should also be used to reduce the reliance on benefits and incentivise people to work. We should also use the increase to remove rogue employers who exploit employees by paying them a wage that is below the minimum wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The minimum wage should be increased to ensure that it reflects the cost of living and also reflects the contribution that lower paid workers make to the economy. This will help to ensure that people are not exploited by employers and will also help to reduce the reliance on state benefits by people who are able and willing to work. This will help to increase employment and also help to reduce the benefits bill, which is currently unsustainable. However, it should be noted that there is a risk that if the minimum wage is raised, then this will lead to other wages being increased by a similar percentage. This could lead to inflation and also lead to other problems within the economy. It is therefore important to ensure that any increase in the minimum wage is carefully considered and that the impact on the economy is fully understood before any increase is implemented. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. There are many people that wish to work but the financial incentive is not there because the wages are too low. Even when supplemented by state benefits, there is still a lack of incentive due to the fringe advantages of staying within the benefit system. The increase in the minimum wage would go some way to remving that barrier, boosting employment figures, increasing morale and putting less reliance on benefits. Most of the jobs at the lower end of the wage scale are menial and in service industries where hard work brings little reward. There is also a risk that a person on the current minium wage is exploited ny an employer. Placing the onus on that employer to pay a minimum wage that is higher would weed out rogue employers. The basic wage must be able to pay for the basic cost of living plus leave something extra to pay for a reasonable lifestyle and enough to save for the future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, we should raise the minimum wage in the UK. It is important that the minimum wage reflects the cost of living. Employing someone for less than they can live on is wrong. Firms making increased profits should have to increase pay to reflect this success and share some of the rewards with those that actually create the profit through their work and, not as is common nowadays, just reward the shareholders who, really, make no contribution to the firms success. The increase in the minimum wage would go some way to remving that barrier, boosting employment figures, increasing morale and putting less reliance on benefits. Most of the jobs at the lower end of the wage scale are menial and in service industries where hard work brings little reward. There is also a risk that a person on the current minium wage is exploited ny an employer. Placing the onus on that employer to pay a minimum wage that is higher would weed out rogue employers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. We should do this to ensure that those people who are prepared to work are not disadvantaged by low wages and a low standard of living. The increase should reflect the cost of living and the need for employees to be able to afford to live and save for the future. The increase should be phased in to allow employers to adjust their business models to accommodate the increase. The increase should also be used to reduce the reliance on benefits and incentivise people to work. We should also use the increase to remove rogue employers who exploit employees by paying them a wage that is below the minimum wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The minimum wage should be increased to ensure that it reflects the cost of living and also reflects the contribution that lower paid workers make to the economy. This will help to ensure that people are not exploited by employers and will also help to reduce the reliance on state benefits by people who are able and willing to work. This will help to increase employment and also help to reduce the benefits bill, which is currently unsustainable. However, it should be noted that there is a risk that if the minimum wage is raised, then this will lead to other wages being increased by a similar percentage. This could lead to inflation and also lead to other problems within the economy. It is therefore important to ensure that any increase in the minimum wage is carefully considered and that the impact on the economy is fully understood before any increase is implemented. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. There are many people that wish to work but the financial incentive is not there because the wages are too low. Even when supplemented by state benefits, there is still a lack of incentive due to the fringe advantages of staying within the benefit system. The increase in the minimum wage would go some way to remving that barrier, boosting employment figures, increasing morale and putting less reliance on benefits. Most of the jobs at the lower end of the wage scale are menial and in service industries where hard work brings little reward. There is also a risk that a person on the current minium wage is exploited ny an employer. Placing the onus on that employer to pay a minimum wage that is higher would weed out rogue employers. The basic wage must be able to pay for the basic cost of living plus leave something extra to pay for a reasonable lifestyle and enough to save for the future. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002656.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002656.soc index b4211bbb..1457bdae 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002656.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002656.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of reducing the prison population, but with the caveat that this should be done in a way that ensures the public is kept safe. The group felt that this could be achieved by reducing the prison population for low level offenders, and by providing better support for prisoners to reintegrate back into society. The group also felt that the government should look at other ways of punishing criminals, such as community service, as this is a cheaper alternative to prison. The group felt that community service is also a more effective way of preventing reoffending, as it provides the offender with a sense of purpose and helps them to integrate back into society. The group was in favour of increasing apprenticeships, as this would help to reduce unemployment and poverty, which are two of the main drivers of crime. The group felt that the government should look at other countries to see what has worked for them in reducing the prison population. Denmark for instance has had success in reducing prisoners reoffending. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “Prisons should be a place of rehabilitation and not punishment. The government should focus on finding ways to reduce the number of people in prison. More community sentences should be given out, as well as making sure that prisoners have the skills to reintegrate into society when they are released. In addition, there should be a greater focus on the causes of crime and more preventative measures should be taken to stop people committing crimes in the first place. There should also be a greater focus on helping victims of crime. This can be done by making sure that they have access to support and making sure that they are involved in the justice process.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The prison system is overcrowded and it is ineffective in preventing reoffending. Instead of just punishing crime, we should be looking at the root causes of crime, such as unemployment, poverty, and a lack of employability skills. By teaching employability skills to teenagers, we can prevent them from committing their first crimes. By increasing apprenticeships, we can reduce unemployment and poverty, which are both causes of crime. We should also look at increasing community service, so that offenders can give back to the people they have affected by their crimes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, prisons are overcrowded and this is not a good thing for the prisoners or for society. Secondly, the current prison system is not working and we need to look at other ways to prevent crime and to rehabilitate offenders. We should be looking at the root causes of crime and work to prevent them. This could include increasing apprenticeships to prevent unemployment and poverty. We should also be looking at other forms of punishment, such as community service, which is a punishment but also allows the offender to give something back to society. We should also be looking at the Danish prison system, which has been very successful in reducing the number of people who reoffend after being released from prison. The Danish prison system has a strong focus on rehabilitation and education, which is something that we should be looking at in the UK. The Danish prison system is also very different to the UK prison system in that it has a very relaxed atmosphere, which is something that we should be looking at in the UK. We should also be looking at other forms of punishment, such as community service, which is a punishment but also allows the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of reducing the prison population, but with the caveat that this should be done in a way that ensures the public is kept safe. The group felt that this could be achieved by reducing the prison population for low level offenders, and by providing better support for prisoners to reintegrate back into society. The group also felt that the government should look at other ways of punishing criminals, such as community service, as this is a cheaper alternative to prison. The group felt that community service is also a more effective way of preventing reoffending, as it provides the offender with a sense of purpose and helps them to integrate back into society. The group was in favour of increasing apprenticeships, as this would help to reduce unemployment and poverty, which are two of the main drivers of crime. The group felt that the government should look at other countries to see what has worked for them in reducing the prison population. Denmark for instance has had success in reducing prisoners reoffending. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “Prisons should be a place of rehabilitation and not punishment. The government should focus on finding ways to reduce the number of people in prison. More community sentences should be given out, as well as making sure that prisoners have the skills to reintegrate into society when they are released. In addition, there should be a greater focus on the causes of crime and more preventative measures should be taken to stop people committing crimes in the first place. There should also be a greater focus on helping victims of crime. This can be done by making sure that they have access to support and making sure that they are involved in the justice process.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. The prison system is overcrowded and it is ineffective in preventing reoffending. Instead of just punishing crime, we should be looking at the root causes of crime, such as unemployment, poverty, and a lack of employability skills. By teaching employability skills to teenagers, we can prevent them from committing their first crimes. By increasing apprenticeships, we can reduce unemployment and poverty, which are both causes of crime. We should also look at increasing community service, so that offenders can give back to the people they have affected by their crimes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “Yes, we should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, prisons are overcrowded and this is not a good thing for the prisoners or for society. Secondly, the current prison system is not working and we need to look at other ways to prevent crime and to rehabilitate offenders. We should be looking at the root causes of crime and work to prevent them. This could include increasing apprenticeships to prevent unemployment and poverty. We should also be looking at other forms of punishment, such as community service, which is a punishment but also allows the offender to give something back to society. We should also be looking at the Danish prison system, which has been very successful in reducing the number of people who reoffend after being released from prison. The Danish prison system has a strong focus on rehabilitation and education, which is something that we should be looking at in the UK. The Danish prison system is also very different to the UK prison system in that it has a very relaxed atmosphere, which is something that we should be looking at in the UK. We should also be looking at other forms of punishment, such as community service, which is a punishment but also allows the 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002657.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002657.soc index c73dfa26..7acc3fb6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002657.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002657.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. There is a massive difference between the haves and the have nots. people should be able to work hard and still to afford some luxury. The minimum wage should regularly be reviewed in line with inflation. More people than ever are living in poverty and the current system does not take into account the hugely increased recent cost of living. This would provide people with the incentive to remain in work. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. I believe the minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living. The decision to raise the minimum wage in the UK will depend on a variety factors, including political climate, -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I think we should raise the minimum wage in the UK. The current minimum wage is not enough to live on. I think people should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. We should be raising the minimum wage, as it is at the moment people on the lowest wage can not afford to feed their families properly, let alone pay their bills and have a good life. There is is a massive difference between the haves and the have nots. People should be able to work hard and still to afford some luxury. The decision to raise the minimum wage in the UK will depend on a variety factors, including political climate, economic conditions and social priorites. In these days definitely need to raise. People can't afford. The minimum wage should regularly be reviewed in line with inflation. More people than ever are living in poverty and the current system does not take into account the hugely increased recent cost of living. This would provide people with the incentive to remain in work. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “We believe that the minimum wage in the UK should be raised to a level that is enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living. The minimum wage should be regularly reviewed in line with inflation. More people than ever are living in poverty and the current system does not take into account the hugely increased recent cost of living. This would provide people with the incentive to remain in work. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage. I think that it is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. There is a massive difference between the haves and the have nots. people should be able to work hard and still to afford some luxury. The minimum wage should regularly be reviewed in line with inflation. More people than ever are living in poverty and the current system does not take into account the hugely increased recent cost of living. This would provide people with the incentive to remain in work. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. I believe the minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living. The decision to raise the minimum wage in the UK will depend on a variety factors, including political climate, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I think we should raise the minimum wage in the UK. The current minimum wage is not enough to live on. I think people should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. We should be raising the minimum wage, as it is at the moment people on the lowest wage can not afford to feed their families properly, let alone pay their bills and have a good life. There is is a massive difference between the haves and the have nots. People should be able to work hard and still to afford some luxury. The decision to raise the minimum wage in the UK will depend on a variety factors, including political climate, economic conditions and social priorites. In these days definitely need to raise. People can't afford. The minimum wage should regularly be reviewed in line with inflation. More people than ever are living in poverty and the current system does not take into account the hugely increased recent cost of living. This would provide people with the incentive to remain in work. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “We believe that the minimum wage in the UK should be raised to a level that is enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living. The minimum wage should be regularly reviewed in line with inflation. More people than ever are living in poverty and the current system does not take into account the hugely increased recent cost of living. This would provide people with the incentive to remain in work. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage. I think that it is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living.” 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002658.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002658.soc index a7636c04..0462c8b3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002658.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002658.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. We need to do whatever is possible to make the lives of everyone easier. There are too many people reliant on food banks, this in itself shows what a significant problem this is. People on highest wages need to be taxed more to provide the necessary means for everyone to be able to live comfortably. There needs to be a correlation between higher wages against rising costs of produce, goods, transports and services. We should strive to become a high productivity, highly skilled economy and for that to happen the market force mechanism of a higher minimum wage will have to be applied. Those who work should not be struggling for the basic necessities of life. We need to ensure that we stamp down on in-work poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. We all agreed that the cost of living crisis is a major issue and that the minimum wage should be raised to combat this. However, we were aware that the minimum wage is a very sensitive issue, and that it should be raised in a way that does not cause too much inflation or harm businesses. We felt that the government should provide some subsidies to businesses to help them cope with the extra costs of paying higher wages. We also felt that the government should provide subsidies to low income families to help them cope with the cost of living crisis. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. This will help combat the cost of living crisis. The government should help foot the bill to prevent businesses from raising prices and causing too much inflation. We need to do whatever is possible to make the lives of everyone easier. There are too many people reliant on food banks, this in itself shows what a significant problem this is. People on highest wages need to be taxed more to provide the neccesary means for everyone to be able to live comfortably. There needs to be a correlation between higher wages against rising costs of produce, goods, transports and services. We should be striving to become a high productivity, highly skilled economy and fir that to happen the market force mechanism of a higher minimum wage will have to be applied. We also need to ensure that we stamp down on in-work poverty. Those who work should not be struggling for the basic necessities of life. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “We believe that the minimum wage should be raised to combat the cost of living crisis. We also believe that the government should help subsidise the costs of the increase in wages, as it would be unfair for businesses to have to absorb the costs of the wage increase. The raise in minimum wage should be a manageable amount for businesses to handle and not cause them to have to let staff go. We also believe that there should be a correlation between higher wages against rising costs of produce, goods, transports and services. This would ensure that the cost of living crisis does not worsen. We believe that the minimum wage should be raised to combat the cost of living crisis, although the extra costs should be slightly subsidised by the government to prevent businesses from raising prices and causing too much inflation. The raise in minimum wage should be a manageable amount for businesses to handle and not cause them to have to let staff go. We also believe that there should be a correlation between higher wages against rising costs of produce, goods, transports and services. This would ensure that the cost of living crisis does not worsen. We also believe that those who work should not be struggling for the basic necessities of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. We need to do whatever is possible to make the lives of everyone easier. There are too many people reliant on food banks, this in itself shows what a significant problem this is. People on highest wages need to be taxed more to provide the necessary means for everyone to be able to live comfortably. There needs to be a correlation between higher wages against rising costs of produce, goods, transports and services. We should strive to become a high productivity, highly skilled economy and for that to happen the market force mechanism of a higher minimum wage will have to be applied. Those who work should not be struggling for the basic necessities of life. We need to ensure that we stamp down on in-work poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. We all agreed that the cost of living crisis is a major issue and that the minimum wage should be raised to combat this. However, we were aware that the minimum wage is a very sensitive issue, and that it should be raised in a way that does not cause too much inflation or harm businesses. We felt that the government should provide some subsidies to businesses to help them cope with the extra costs of paying higher wages. We also felt that the government should provide subsidies to low income families to help them cope with the cost of living crisis. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. This will help combat the cost of living crisis. The government should help foot the bill to prevent businesses from raising prices and causing too much inflation. We need to do whatever is possible to make the lives of everyone easier. There are too many people reliant on food banks, this in itself shows what a significant problem this is. People on highest wages need to be taxed more to provide the neccesary means for everyone to be able to live comfortably. There needs to be a correlation between higher wages against rising costs of produce, goods, transports and services. We should be striving to become a high productivity, highly skilled economy and fir that to happen the market force mechanism of a higher minimum wage will have to be applied. We also need to ensure that we stamp down on in-work poverty. Those who work should not be struggling for the basic necessities of life. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “We believe that the minimum wage should be raised to combat the cost of living crisis. We also believe that the government should help subsidise the costs of the increase in wages, as it would be unfair for businesses to have to absorb the costs of the wage increase. The raise in minimum wage should be a manageable amount for businesses to handle and not cause them to have to let staff go. We also believe that there should be a correlation between higher wages against rising costs of produce, goods, transports and services. This would ensure that the cost of living crisis does not worsen. We believe that the minimum wage should be raised to combat the cost of living crisis, although the extra costs should be slightly subsidised by the government to prevent businesses from raising prices and causing too much inflation. The raise in minimum wage should be a manageable amount for businesses to handle and not cause them to have to let staff go. We also believe that there should be a correlation between higher wages against rising costs of produce, goods, transports and services. This would ensure that the cost of living crisis does not worsen. We also believe that those who work should not be struggling for the basic necessities of life. 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002659.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002659.soc index 64f1980b..dd09504b 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002659.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002659.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the minimum wage should be raised. We think that it is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage. I think that it is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage. I think that it is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage. It is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the minimum wage should be raised. We think that it is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage. I think that it is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage. I think that it is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “I believe that we should raise the minimum wage. It is important that people are able to live off the money that they earn. It is also important that people are not reliant on benefits to survive. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. It would also help to reduce the reliance on in work benefits. It would also encourage more people to apply for and remain in lower paid, often crucial roles that are the backbone of our society. The minimum wage should be enough for someone working full time (40 hours per week) to live on. You should be able to afford housing, food and some savings when working for minimum wage and only need one employment. To have anything under this benefits only those paying wages as the government have to subsidise those not earning enough. When a big company pays poverty wages and posts millions of pounds in profit that is not useful to the general public. There could be different levels depending on employers and ages but the minimum wage is ridiculously low versus the cost of living.” 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002660.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002660.soc index 85dacf0d..8d18cf7e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002660.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002660.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should rejoin the European Union. This is because the EU is the most effective means of promoting good relations among the members it predisposes members to trade with each other. Leaving has left to a loss of goodwill. We are stronger together economically, politically and militarily. The UK has not seen any benefits of leaving the EU. Instead it has only seen problems and disbenefits. It appears to have harmed our economy and kept us outside of the decision making in Europe. The main item used in the vote to leave (people entering UK) does not seem to have been solved. This all seems to suggest we were better in the EU and hence we should seek to rejoin. The question might be less should we rejoin and more how we rejoin and hence under what terms. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of rejoining the EU, however, they felt that it was important to consider the terms of re-entry. They felt that the referendum was poorly considered and that it would be good to hold another referendum with a more balanced question. They felt that the EU was fundamentally undemocratic, but that it was an effective means of promoting good relations among the members and that it predisposed members to trade with each other. They felt that the EU was damaging to people and the planet, but that it was also a good way of promoting democracy and that it was an effective means of promoting good relations among the members and that it predisposed members to trade with each other. They felt that the EU was fundamentally undemocratic & mired with bureaucracy. Its policies of neo-liberalism are damaging to people & the planet, causing mass destruction of the environment & tearing up communities. They felt that we should be using brexit as an opportunity to do things that the E.U. wouldn't have allowed such as mass state investment in the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group came to the consensus view that the UK should rejoin the EU. The participants felt that the UK has suffered economically and politically since leaving the EU. They felt that the UK would be stronger if it was part of the EU and that the UK would be better able to influence EU policy if it was a member. The participants also felt that the UK has suffered a loss of status since leaving the EU. They felt that the UK is no longer seen as a world leader and that this has damaged the UK's standing in the world. The participants felt that the UK should rejoin the EU but that the UK should negotiate a better deal than it had previously. They felt that the UK should be able to control its borders but that it should be able to trade freely with the EU. The participants felt that the UK should be able to control its laws but that it should be able to trade freely with the EU. The participants felt that the UK should rejoin the EU but that it should be able to control its laws and borders. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be a new referendum on whether the UK should rejoin the EU. The referendum should be conducted in a way that allows for a more nuanced response than the binary choice of remain or leave. It should allow for the possibility of rejoining with conditions, or rejoining with no conditions. It should also allow for the possibility of leaving with no deal, or leaving with a deal. The referendum should be conducted in a way that allows for a more nuanced response than the binary choice of remain or leave. It should allow for the possibility of rejoining with conditions, or rejoining with no conditions. It should also allow for the possibility of leaving with no deal, or leaving with a deal. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should rejoin the European Union. This is because the EU is the most effective means of promoting good relations among the members it predisposes members to trade with each other. Leaving has left to a loss of goodwill. We are stronger together economically, politically and militarily. The UK has not seen any benefits of leaving the EU. Instead it has only seen problems and disbenefits. It appears to have harmed our economy and kept us outside of the decision making in Europe. The main item used in the vote to leave (people entering UK) does not seem to have been solved. This all seems to suggest we were better in the EU and hence we should seek to rejoin. The question might be less should we rejoin and more how we rejoin and hence under what terms. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of rejoining the EU, however, they felt that it was important to consider the terms of re-entry. They felt that the referendum was poorly considered and that it would be good to hold another referendum with a more balanced question. They felt that the EU was fundamentally undemocratic, but that it was an effective means of promoting good relations among the members and that it predisposed members to trade with each other. They felt that the EU was damaging to people and the planet, but that it was also a good way of promoting democracy and that it was an effective means of promoting good relations among the members and that it predisposed members to trade with each other. They felt that the EU was fundamentally undemocratic & mired with bureaucracy. Its policies of neo-liberalism are damaging to people & the planet, causing mass destruction of the environment & tearing up communities. They felt that we should be using brexit as an opportunity to do things that the E.U. wouldn't have allowed such as mass state investment in the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group came to the consensus view that the UK should rejoin the EU. The participants felt that the UK has suffered economically and politically since leaving the EU. They felt that the UK would be stronger if it was part of the EU and that the UK would be better able to influence EU policy if it was a member. The participants also felt that the UK has suffered a loss of status since leaving the EU. They felt that the UK is no longer seen as a world leader and that this has damaged the UK's standing in the world. The participants felt that the UK should rejoin the EU but that the UK should negotiate a better deal than it had previously. They felt that the UK should be able to control its borders but that it should be able to trade freely with the EU. The participants felt that the UK should be able to control its laws but that it should be able to trade freely with the EU. The participants felt that the UK should rejoin the EU but that it should be able to control its laws and borders. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be a new referendum on whether the UK should rejoin the EU. The referendum should be conducted in a way that allows for a more nuanced response than the binary choice of remain or leave. It should allow for the possibility of rejoining with conditions, or rejoining with no conditions. It should also allow for the possibility of leaving with no deal, or leaving with a deal. The referendum should be conducted in a way that allows for a more nuanced response than the binary choice of remain or leave. It should allow for the possibility of rejoining with conditions, or rejoining with no conditions. It should also allow for the possibility of leaving with no deal, or leaving with a deal. 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002661.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002661.soc index bc117d7d..e956d1e0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002661.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002661.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should not apply to rejoin the European Union. The EU is a bureaucratic nightmare that is very expensive. The EU takes very little of our views and opinions into consideration when deciding policy and making laws. The people voted, and a decision was made. We will improve in our financial standing if given the time to do so. We have retaken control of our borders. The cost of being a member was catastrophic. Being in the EU created extra layers of bureaucracy and took away our ability to make our own decisions which keep the heart of the British people at the forefront of what we do. We have many opportunities to benefit from leaving the EU. We need to make rules and laws in our own best interests at times. We also have opportunities to deal with other trading options. We have lost our power when we left the EU. It's ridiculous that I can no longer choose to live in Europe without restrictions and that we have travel restrictions between countries that are so close geographically. We see no benefits to not being in the EU and would like the opportunity to change that. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the UK should not apply to rejoin the EU. The UK is still in the process of leaving the EU and we have not yet seen the benefits of leaving. We believe that the UK has made a democratic decision and should not be looking to backtrack on this. We believe that the UK has many opportunities to benefit from leaving the EU. We believe that the UK should keep close links with the EU but we need to make rules and laws in our own best interests at times. We also have opportunities to deal with other trading options. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The reasons for this were varied, but included the idea that the UK had already made a democratic decision to leave the EU, and that the EU itself was a flawed system that did not take into account the views of the people. It was also felt that the UK would be better off making its own laws and trading with other countries, rather than being restricted by EU laws. However, it was also felt that the UK should maintain close links with the EU, and that it was important to maintain good relations with the EU and its member states. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to rejoining the EU. They felt that the democratic decision had been made and should be respected. They felt that the UK would be able to thrive outside of the EU and that the EU would not be able to function without the UK. They felt that the UK would be able to benefit from trade deals with other countries and that the EU would not be able to function without the UK. They felt that the EU was an outdated institution that was not fit for purpose in the modern world. They felt that the EU was bureaucratic and that it was not in the interests of the UK to be part of such an institution. They felt that the UK would be able to thrive outside of the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not apply to rejoin the European Union. The EU is a bureaucratic nightmare that is very expensive. The EU takes very little of our views and opinions into consideration when deciding policy and making laws. The people voted, and a decision was made. We will improve in our financial standing if given the time to do so. We have retaken control of our borders. The cost of being a member was catastrophic. Being in the EU created extra layers of bureaucracy and took away our ability to make our own decisions which keep the heart of the British people at the forefront of what we do. We have many opportunities to benefit from leaving the EU. We need to make rules and laws in our own best interests at times. We also have opportunities to deal with other trading options. We have lost our power when we left the EU. It's ridiculous that I can no longer choose to live in Europe without restrictions and that we have travel restrictions between countries that are so close geographically. We see no benefits to not being in the EU and would like the opportunity to change that. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the UK should not apply to rejoin the EU. The UK is still in the process of leaving the EU and we have not yet seen the benefits of leaving. We believe that the UK has made a democratic decision and should not be looking to backtrack on this. We believe that the UK has many opportunities to benefit from leaving the EU. We believe that the UK should keep close links with the EU but we need to make rules and laws in our own best interests at times. We also have opportunities to deal with other trading options. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The reasons for this were varied, but included the idea that the UK had already made a democratic decision to leave the EU, and that the EU itself was a flawed system that did not take into account the views of the people. It was also felt that the UK would be better off making its own laws and trading with other countries, rather than being restricted by EU laws. However, it was also felt that the UK should maintain close links with the EU, and that it was important to maintain good relations with the EU and its member states. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to rejoining the EU. They felt that the democratic decision had been made and should be respected. They felt that the UK would be able to thrive outside of the EU and that the EU would not be able to function without the UK. They felt that the UK would be able to benefit from trade deals with other countries and that the EU would not be able to function without the UK. They felt that the EU was an outdated institution that was not fit for purpose in the modern world. They felt that the EU was bureaucratic and that it was not in the interests of the UK to be part of such an institution. They felt that the UK would be able to thrive outside of the EU. 3: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002662.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002662.soc index 56aa2c3a..821f39d2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002662.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002662.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should not apply to rejoin the EU. The country voted to leave the EU and this should be respected. It would be too divisive to apply to rejoin the EU. The UK should be trying to find a stable relationship with the EU where we can start to rebuild trade links with the EU and try to offset the negative economic consequences that have resulted from Brexit. There are far more pressing political issues that face our country right now such as the cost of living crisis, public sector pay and a failing NHS. We should be focussing on these issues and not sparking another divisive Brexit debate which causes confusion amongst the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should not apply to rejoin the European Union. The issue of Brexit has caused huge fracture and division within the electorate and by applying to rejoin, this would create further poltical instability. Instead, The UK should be trying to find a stable relationship with the EU where we can start to rebuild trade links with the EU and try to offset the negative economic consequences that have resulted from Brexit. Our country has voted to leave and even though I voted to remain and would prefer that we had stayed in the EU, I think that it would be disastrous for the UK to try and rejoin. There are far more pressing political issues that face our country right now such as the cost of living crisis, public sector pay and a failing NHS. We should be focussing on these issues and not sparking another divisive Brexit debate which causes confusion amongst the public. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK applying to rejoin the EU. The primary reason for this was that the UK had already held a referendum on this issue and the result was to leave the EU. It was felt that this should be respected and that it would be wrong to try and overturn the result of the referendum. It was also felt that there were more important issues that the government should be focussing on, such as the NHS, the cost of living crisis and public sector pay. It was also felt that the EU had shown itself to be ineffective in dealing with the Covid crisis and that it would be better for the UK to try and find a stable relationship with the EU that would allow trade to continue. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK applying to rejoin the EU. The reasons for this were that it would be divisive and cause political turmoil. The issue of Brexit has caused huge fracture and division within the electorate and by applying to rejoin, this would create further poltical instability. Instead, The UK should be trying to find a stable relationship with the EU where we can start to rebuild trade links with the EU and try to offset the negative economic consequences that have resulted from Brexit. Our country has voted to leave and even though I voted to remain and would prefer that we had stayed in the EU, I think that it would be disastrous for the UK to try and rejoin. There are far more pressing political issues that face our country right now such as the cost of living crisis, public sector pay and a failing NHS. We should be focussing on these issues and not sparking another divisive Brexit debate which causes confusion amongst the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not apply to rejoin the EU. The country voted to leave the EU and this should be respected. It would be too divisive to apply to rejoin the EU. The UK should be trying to find a stable relationship with the EU where we can start to rebuild trade links with the EU and try to offset the negative economic consequences that have resulted from Brexit. There are far more pressing political issues that face our country right now such as the cost of living crisis, public sector pay and a failing NHS. We should be focussing on these issues and not sparking another divisive Brexit debate which causes confusion amongst the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should not apply to rejoin the European Union. The issue of Brexit has caused huge fracture and division within the electorate and by applying to rejoin, this would create further poltical instability. Instead, The UK should be trying to find a stable relationship with the EU where we can start to rebuild trade links with the EU and try to offset the negative economic consequences that have resulted from Brexit. Our country has voted to leave and even though I voted to remain and would prefer that we had stayed in the EU, I think that it would be disastrous for the UK to try and rejoin. There are far more pressing political issues that face our country right now such as the cost of living crisis, public sector pay and a failing NHS. We should be focussing on these issues and not sparking another divisive Brexit debate which causes confusion amongst the public. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK applying to rejoin the EU. The primary reason for this was that the UK had already held a referendum on this issue and the result was to leave the EU. It was felt that this should be respected and that it would be wrong to try and overturn the result of the referendum. It was also felt that there were more important issues that the government should be focussing on, such as the NHS, the cost of living crisis and public sector pay. It was also felt that the EU had shown itself to be ineffective in dealing with the Covid crisis and that it would be better for the UK to try and find a stable relationship with the EU that would allow trade to continue. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK applying to rejoin the EU. The reasons for this were that it would be divisive and cause political turmoil. The issue of Brexit has caused huge fracture and division within the electorate and by applying to rejoin, this would create further poltical instability. Instead, The UK should be trying to find a stable relationship with the EU where we can start to rebuild trade links with the EU and try to offset the negative economic consequences that have resulted from Brexit. Our country has voted to leave and even though I voted to remain and would prefer that we had stayed in the EU, I think that it would be disastrous for the UK to try and rejoin. There are far more pressing political issues that face our country right now such as the cost of living crisis, public sector pay and a failing NHS. We should be focussing on these issues and not sparking another divisive Brexit debate which causes confusion amongst the public. 2: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002663.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002663.soc index 6e9a36e1..a4406ff9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002663.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002663.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the prison population is too high. There are some people who should not be in prison, such as those who are there for petty crimes. The prison service is expensive and in many cases, ineffective. For many crimes, a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public, however, for many other crimes, meaningful punishment can be achieved by other means. The prison service is over-populated and this prevents it from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. We should be looking at ways of punishing people that do not involve locking them up and costing the taxpayer a fortune. For many crimes, a custodial sentence is the only way to protect the public, however there are many other crimes that could be punished in other ways. The prison service is over-populated and this prevents it from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. For some crimes, meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. Short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We should be looking at getting people back into society, working and being useful and we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the prison population is too high. There are many people in prison who do not need to be there, and this is at a great cost to the taxpayer. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the prison service is over-populated. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. We believe that for many crimes a custodial sentence is imposed as a punishment and to protect the public. Crime must not pay and people have to be seen to be paying for their crimes. We believe that for some crimes meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. We believe that short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We believe that prison does not seem to be a disincentive to commit crime, we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the prison population is too high. There are some people who should not be in prison, such as those who are there for petty crimes. The prison service is expensive and in many cases, ineffective. For many crimes, a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public, however, for many other crimes, meaningful punishment can be achieved by other means. The prison service is over-populated and this prevents it from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “We should be trying to reduce the number of people in prison. We should be looking at ways of punishing people that do not involve locking them up and costing the taxpayer a fortune. For many crimes, a custodial sentence is the only way to protect the public, however there are many other crimes that could be punished in other ways. The prison service is over-populated and this prevents it from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. For some crimes, meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. Short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We should be looking at getting people back into society, working and being useful and we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the prison population is too high. There are many people in prison who do not need to be there, and this is at a great cost to the taxpayer. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the prison service is over-populated. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. We believe that for many crimes a custodial sentence is imposed as a punishment and to protect the public. Crime must not pay and people have to be seen to be paying for their crimes. We believe that for some crimes meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. We believe that short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We believe that prison does not seem to be a disincentive to commit crime, we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity. 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002664.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002664.soc index 75f0123e..8de5f8ad 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002664.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002664.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the prison service is over-populated. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. We believe that for many crimes a custodial sentence is imposed as a punishment and to protect the public. Crime must not pay and people have to be seen to be paying for their crimes. We believe that for some crimes meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. We believe that short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We believe that prison does not seem to be a disincentive to commit crime, we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the prison service is over-populated. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. We believe that for many crimes a custodial sentence is imposed as a punishment and to protect the public. We believe that for some crimes meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. We believe that short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We believe that prison does not seem to be a disincentive to commit crime, we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the prison service is over-populated. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. We believe that for many crimes a custodial sentence is imposed as a punishment and to protect the public. Crime must not pay and people have to be seen to be paying for their crimes. We believe that for some crimes meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. We believe that short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We believe that prison does not seem to be a disincentive to commit crime, we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There are several things that need to happen in order to reduce the prison population. First, we need to increase investment in education to provide young people with meaningful activities in which to engage and prepare them for work. This will have an immediate impact on our crime levels, as it is proven that people with more qualifications and good employment are much less likely to commit crimes. Second, we need to look at more effective alternatives to incarceration. People serving sentences of less than 12 months should be serving these in the community where they can benefit from programs such as restorative justice, community service or alternative punishments. For more serious crimes, a custodial sentence should be imposed but meaningful rehabilitation programmes should be provided to prisoners to help them prepare for life outside prison. Third, the prison population can be reduced by looking at rehabilitation programs for prisoners. Currently many prisons are filled with people with low-level mental health issues that should be provided with effective treatment in an environment such as a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison cell. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the prison service is over-populated. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. We believe that for many crimes a custodial sentence is imposed as a punishment and to protect the public. Crime must not pay and people have to be seen to be paying for their crimes. We believe that for some crimes meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. We believe that short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We believe that prison does not seem to be a disincentive to commit crime, we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the prison service is over-populated. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Prisoners given really short sentences for petty crime do not learn their lesson from a few weeks in prison, proven by the significant rate of re-offending by these people. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. We believe that for many crimes a custodial sentence is imposed as a punishment and to protect the public. We believe that for some crimes meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. We believe that short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We believe that prison does not seem to be a disincentive to commit crime, we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the prison service is over-populated. The sheer volume of people in prison prevents the prison service from being able to actively focus on rehabilitation of prisoners that actually need it. Sentencing guidelines for certain crimes should be reviewed, with punishment centred around giving back to the community. Alternative punishments such as community service, fines and tagging should be utilised where possible. We believe that for many crimes a custodial sentence is imposed as a punishment and to protect the public. Crime must not pay and people have to be seen to be paying for their crimes. We believe that for some crimes meaningful punishment can be work in the community or service in some other way but this has to be a punishment and a meaningful consequence for the perpetrators. We believe that short, sharp can be better than long, slow, softly, softly approaches. We believe that prison does not seem to be a disincentive to commit crime, we need to find better ways of reducing criminal activity. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There are several things that need to happen in order to reduce the prison population. First, we need to increase investment in education to provide young people with meaningful activities in which to engage and prepare them for work. This will have an immediate impact on our crime levels, as it is proven that people with more qualifications and good employment are much less likely to commit crimes. Second, we need to look at more effective alternatives to incarceration. People serving sentences of less than 12 months should be serving these in the community where they can benefit from programs such as restorative justice, community service or alternative punishments. For more serious crimes, a custodial sentence should be imposed but meaningful rehabilitation programmes should be provided to prisoners to help them prepare for life outside prison. Third, the prison population can be reduced by looking at rehabilitation programs for prisoners. Currently many prisons are filled with people with low-level mental health issues that should be provided with effective treatment in an environment such as a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison cell. 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002665.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002665.soc index 6f33194a..4f6deed0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002665.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002665.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the minimum wage in the UK should be raised. The cost of living is increasing and wages are not keeping up. This means that many people who are working are living in poverty and relying on benefits to survive. This is not a sustainable situation and it is not fair that people who are working are living in poverty. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people who are working are able to live. It is also the responsibility of employers to ensure that their staff are paid a living wage. This means that the minimum wage should be raised and it should be a legal requirement that all employers pay their staff a living wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the minimum wage should be raised in the UK. We feel that this is the case because of the increasing cost of living and energy crisis. The current minimum wage does not reflect the increase in living costs and therefore it is not enough for people to survive on. We feel that the minimum wage should be raised so that people are not on the verge of homelessness or needing council help. We feel that this is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people are not living in poverty and that they are able to survive on the minimum wage. We feel that the government should not be passing this responsibility onto private companies as they are not responsible for the cost of living crisis. We feel that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the cost of living does not increase so much that the minimum wage does not reflect this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the minimum wage should be raised in the UK to reflect the rising cost of living. However, it is the responsibility of the private sector to ensure that this increase in wages does not get passed back to the consumer/customer. We believe that it is the responsibility of the government to reduce the cost of living for the poorest in society. We believe that this will lift people out of poverty and give them a better chance of getting out of poverty. However, if people are on minimum wage and are receiving benefits to top up their wage, then this is also helpful and can counteract their low wage. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. However, it was noted that it would be difficult for smaller companies to cope with this and the increase in wages would be passed on to the consumer/customer. It was also noted that the minimum wage is not a living wage and so people on the minimum wage would still struggle to survive. It was agreed that people on the minimum wage should be given incentives to work and be rewarded for their hard work, but without passing on the cost to the consumer/customer. The group felt that the minimum wage should be raised to a level that is a living wage and this would help people to get out of poverty. The group felt that this would be a better way of helping people out of poverty rather than giving them benefits. It was agreed that this should fall on private companies to increase wages rather than the government having to pick up the shortfall. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the minimum wage in the UK should be raised. The cost of living is increasing and wages are not keeping up. This means that many people who are working are living in poverty and relying on benefits to survive. This is not a sustainable situation and it is not fair that people who are working are living in poverty. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people who are working are able to live. It is also the responsibility of employers to ensure that their staff are paid a living wage. This means that the minimum wage should be raised and it should be a legal requirement that all employers pay their staff a living wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the minimum wage should be raised in the UK. We feel that this is the case because of the increasing cost of living and energy crisis. The current minimum wage does not reflect the increase in living costs and therefore it is not enough for people to survive on. We feel that the minimum wage should be raised so that people are not on the verge of homelessness or needing council help. We feel that this is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people are not living in poverty and that they are able to survive on the minimum wage. We feel that the government should not be passing this responsibility onto private companies as they are not responsible for the cost of living crisis. We feel that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the cost of living does not increase so much that the minimum wage does not reflect this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the minimum wage should be raised in the UK to reflect the rising cost of living. However, it is the responsibility of the private sector to ensure that this increase in wages does not get passed back to the consumer/customer. We believe that it is the responsibility of the government to reduce the cost of living for the poorest in society. We believe that this will lift people out of poverty and give them a better chance of getting out of poverty. However, if people are on minimum wage and are receiving benefits to top up their wage, then this is also helpful and can counteract their low wage. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the minimum wage in the UK. However, it was noted that it would be difficult for smaller companies to cope with this and the increase in wages would be passed on to the consumer/customer. It was also noted that the minimum wage is not a living wage and so people on the minimum wage would still struggle to survive. It was agreed that people on the minimum wage should be given incentives to work and be rewarded for their hard work, but without passing on the cost to the consumer/customer. The group felt that the minimum wage should be raised to a level that is a living wage and this would help people to get out of poverty. The group felt that this would be a better way of helping people out of poverty rather than giving them benefits. It was agreed that this should fall on private companies to increase wages rather than the government having to pick up the shortfall. 1: 2,4,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002666.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002666.soc index 4f77cb3b..b453c3a1 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002666.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002666.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the minimum wage in the UK is too low. There is a strong case for raising it to a level that is closer to the average wage. This would help to reduce poverty and inequality. However, it is important to recognise that a minimum wage is not the only way to help low paid workers. There are other policies that could help to reduce poverty and inequality, such as a higher tax rate for the highest earners and higher benefits for the lowest earners. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The minimum wage in the UK is low compared to other rich countries. There are many sectors who are poorly paid and even if they are given an increase this is not in line with inflation. It is time to pair fairly a real living wage and end the millions suffering in the UK. Sectors crucial to the country such as our NHS deserve better. While benefits are higher than wages these people have no incentive to take jobs. If wages were higher and benefits frozen for a period work would start to pay again and we could both fill vacancies while reducing the number of benefit claimants. If bosses won’t pay better wages the government should do this through the minimum wage. A minimum wage is not enough, we need a real living wage.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The minimum wage in the UK is low compared to other rich countries in the world. It should be raised and the government should do this through the minimum wage. This will also help to reduce the number of benefit claimants. In addition, the gap between bosses and workers has never been higher. If bosses won’t pay better wages the government should do this through the minimum wage. A minimum wage should be an incentive for school leavers to start work rather than sign on for benefits. Minimum wage should be an incentive to apply for higher paid jobs. However, there is a strong case for there to be a 'national wage', payable to everyone. This would mean that a minimum wage would be much less important, because people would be more relaxed about the need to push for higher wages. Minimum wage should definitely be raised in the UK. There are many sectors who are poorly paid and even if they are given an increase this is not in line with inflation. It it time to pair fairly a real living wage and end the millions suffering in the UK. Sectors crucial to the country such as our NHS deserve better.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. There is a strong argument for the minimum wage to be raised in the UK. This is because the current minimum wage is very low compared to the minimum wage in other rich countries. We should also raise the minimum wage because there is an alleged shortage of workers in the UK. If we raise the minimum wage, this will give people an incentive to work. If people have an incentive to work, this will reduce the number of people on benefits. This will reduce the cost to the government of paying benefits. The government can use the money saved on benefits to pay for the higher minimum wage. We should also raise the minimum wage because the gap between bosses and workers has never been higher. If bosses won’t pay better wages, the government should do this through the minimum wage. We should also raise the minimum wage because there are many sectors who are poorly paid and even if they are given an increase this is not in line with inflation. It is time to pair fairly a real living wage and end the millions suffering in the UK. Sectors crucial to the country such as our NHS deserve better. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the minimum wage in the UK is too low. There is a strong case for raising it to a level that is closer to the average wage. This would help to reduce poverty and inequality. However, it is important to recognise that a minimum wage is not the only way to help low paid workers. There are other policies that could help to reduce poverty and inequality, such as a higher tax rate for the highest earners and higher benefits for the lowest earners. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The minimum wage in the UK is low compared to other rich countries. There are many sectors who are poorly paid and even if they are given an increase this is not in line with inflation. It is time to pair fairly a real living wage and end the millions suffering in the UK. Sectors crucial to the country such as our NHS deserve better. While benefits are higher than wages these people have no incentive to take jobs. If wages were higher and benefits frozen for a period work would start to pay again and we could both fill vacancies while reducing the number of benefit claimants. If bosses won’t pay better wages the government should do this through the minimum wage. A minimum wage is not enough, we need a real living wage.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The minimum wage in the UK is low compared to other rich countries in the world. It should be raised and the government should do this through the minimum wage. This will also help to reduce the number of benefit claimants. In addition, the gap between bosses and workers has never been higher. If bosses won’t pay better wages the government should do this through the minimum wage. A minimum wage should be an incentive for school leavers to start work rather than sign on for benefits. Minimum wage should be an incentive to apply for higher paid jobs. However, there is a strong case for there to be a 'national wage', payable to everyone. This would mean that a minimum wage would be much less important, because people would be more relaxed about the need to push for higher wages. Minimum wage should definitely be raised in the UK. There are many sectors who are poorly paid and even if they are given an increase this is not in line with inflation. It it time to pair fairly a real living wage and end the millions suffering in the UK. Sectors crucial to the country such as our NHS deserve better.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should raise the minimum wage in the UK. There is a strong argument for the minimum wage to be raised in the UK. This is because the current minimum wage is very low compared to the minimum wage in other rich countries. We should also raise the minimum wage because there is an alleged shortage of workers in the UK. If we raise the minimum wage, this will give people an incentive to work. If people have an incentive to work, this will reduce the number of people on benefits. This will reduce the cost to the government of paying benefits. The government can use the money saved on benefits to pay for the higher minimum wage. We should also raise the minimum wage because the gap between bosses and workers has never been higher. If bosses won’t pay better wages, the government should do this through the minimum wage. We should also raise the minimum wage because there are many sectors who are poorly paid and even if they are given an increase this is not in line with inflation. It is time to pair fairly a real living wage and end the millions suffering in the UK. Sectors crucial to the country such as our NHS deserve better. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002667.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002667.soc index f206e761..e4418c61 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002667.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002667.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should not rejoin the European Union. There are many reasons for this, the most important being that it would completely undermine democracy. The people have spoken and it is our duty to respect their decision. There are also other reasons, such as the fact that the UK is not known for being in conflict with any countries, and the security of the UK is not at risk. The UK is also not in a financial crisis, and the cost of living is not a major issue. The UK is also not in a multicultural crisis, and the UK has weathered much worse storms than this. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The reasons for this were that the UK is a sovereign nation and should be able to make its own decisions. Also, the idea of a superstate was seen as a threat to the UK's national identity. However, there was some recognition that the EU does have some benefits, such as the free movement of people, goods, services and capital, but that these could be achieved through other means, such as bilateral agreements. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The reasons for this included the fact that the UK has already left the EU, and the fact that it would be undemocratic to go against the decision of the people in the referendum. However, there was some debate about whether the referendum was a fair process, and whether the people were informed enough to make a decision. The group felt that it was important to have a diverse and multicultural society, and that the UK would benefit from staying in the EU for this reason. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to have a bigger union in order to resolve matters, and that the UK would be stronger as part of a bigger unit. However, the group felt that it would be difficult to rejoin the EU, and that it would be better to focus on making the most of the current situation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should not rejoin the EU. The people have spoken and it is the democratic right of the people to have their say. The referendum was the biggest democratic exercise the UK has ever seen and the result must be respected. There are many reasons to stay out of the EU, not least the cost to the UK economy. The EU has been a disaster for many countries, Greece being a prime example. It is not in the interests of the UK to rejoin the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not rejoin the European Union. There are many reasons for this, the most important being that it would completely undermine democracy. The people have spoken and it is our duty to respect their decision. There are also other reasons, such as the fact that the UK is not known for being in conflict with any countries, and the security of the UK is not at risk. The UK is also not in a financial crisis, and the cost of living is not a major issue. The UK is also not in a multicultural crisis, and the UK has weathered much worse storms than this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The reasons for this were that the UK is a sovereign nation and should be able to make its own decisions. Also, the idea of a superstate was seen as a threat to the UK's national identity. However, there was some recognition that the EU does have some benefits, such as the free movement of people, goods, services and capital, but that these could be achieved through other means, such as bilateral agreements. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of the UK rejoining the EU. The reasons for this included the fact that the UK has already left the EU, and the fact that it would be undemocratic to go against the decision of the people in the referendum. However, there was some debate about whether the referendum was a fair process, and whether the people were informed enough to make a decision. The group felt that it was important to have a diverse and multicultural society, and that the UK would benefit from staying in the EU for this reason. The group also felt that it would be beneficial to have a bigger union in order to resolve matters, and that the UK would be stronger as part of a bigger unit. However, the group felt that it would be difficult to rejoin the EU, and that it would be better to focus on making the most of the current situation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should not rejoin the EU. The people have spoken and it is the democratic right of the people to have their say. The referendum was the biggest democratic exercise the UK has ever seen and the result must be respected. There are many reasons to stay out of the EU, not least the cost to the UK economy. The EU has been a disaster for many countries, Greece being a prime example. It is not in the interests of the UK to rejoin the EU. 2: 3,2,4,1 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002668.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002668.soc index fb1bf344..45022e9e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002668.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002668.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, incarceration should not be seen as a punishment but as a way to bring the criminals back to the society as a fully functional members. Norway's prison system is renowned as one of the most effective and humane in the world. However, if the person is a danger to the society, he should be removed from the society and this is when prison becomes an option. In this case, prisons should be built to accommodate all prisoners. The prison population should be reduced by using alternative punishments to prison, such as community service, for those who are not a danger to the society. In addition, prisons should be more humane and should not be seen as a punishment. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. The prisoner should be rehabilitated and the aim should be to bring them back to the society as a fully functional member. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Prison should not be seen as a punishment. It should be seen as a way to rehabilitate the prisoner so that he can return to the society as a fully functional member. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. In general, prisons should not be overcrowded and inhumane. If the person is a danger to the society, he should be removed from the society and this is when prison becomes an option. In this case, prisons should be built to accommodate all prisoners. The prison population should be reduced by using alternative punishments to prison, such as community service, for those who are not a danger to the society. In addition, prisons should be more humane and should not be seen as a punishment. Prisoners should not be removed from prison in order to reduce the prison population, but more prisons should be built. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. The prisoner should be rehabilitated and the aim should be to bring them back to the society as a fully functional member. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should be trying to reduce the prison population. This should be done by using alternative punishments to prison, such as community service, for those who are not a danger to the society. In addition, prisons should be more humane and should not be seen as a punishment. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. The prisoner should be rehabilitated and the aim should be to bring them back to the society as a fully functional member. There should be more research done on prison effectiveness as there is a need for high quality evidence on what the costs and benefits of imprisonment are compared with other methods of preventing crime. Moreover, we should be looking at countries with a more effective prison system and learning from them in order to build our own prison system more effectively and humanly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, incarceration should not be seen as a punishment but as a way to bring the criminals back to the society as a fully functional member. However, if the person is a danger to the society, he should be removed from the society and this is when prison becomes an option. In this case, prisons should be built to accommodate all prisoners. The prison population should be reduced by using alternative punishments to prison, such as community service, for those who are not a danger to the society. In addition, prisons should be more humane and should not be seen as a punishment. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. The prisoner should be rehabilitated and the aim should be to bring them back to the society as a fully functional member. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, incarceration should not be seen as a punishment but as a way to bring the criminals back to the society as a fully functional members. Norway's prison system is renowned as one of the most effective and humane in the world. However, if the person is a danger to the society, he should be removed from the society and this is when prison becomes an option. In this case, prisons should be built to accommodate all prisoners. The prison population should be reduced by using alternative punishments to prison, such as community service, for those who are not a danger to the society. In addition, prisons should be more humane and should not be seen as a punishment. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. The prisoner should be rehabilitated and the aim should be to bring them back to the society as a fully functional member. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Prison should not be seen as a punishment. It should be seen as a way to rehabilitate the prisoner so that he can return to the society as a fully functional member. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. In general, prisons should not be overcrowded and inhumane. If the person is a danger to the society, he should be removed from the society and this is when prison becomes an option. In this case, prisons should be built to accommodate all prisoners. The prison population should be reduced by using alternative punishments to prison, such as community service, for those who are not a danger to the society. In addition, prisons should be more humane and should not be seen as a punishment. Prisoners should not be removed from prison in order to reduce the prison population, but more prisons should be built. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. The prisoner should be rehabilitated and the aim should be to bring them back to the society as a fully functional member. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should be trying to reduce the prison population. This should be done by using alternative punishments to prison, such as community service, for those who are not a danger to the society. In addition, prisons should be more humane and should not be seen as a punishment. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. The prisoner should be rehabilitated and the aim should be to bring them back to the society as a fully functional member. There should be more research done on prison effectiveness as there is a need for high quality evidence on what the costs and benefits of imprisonment are compared with other methods of preventing crime. Moreover, we should be looking at countries with a more effective prison system and learning from them in order to build our own prison system more effectively and humanly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, incarceration should not be seen as a punishment but as a way to bring the criminals back to the society as a fully functional member. However, if the person is a danger to the society, he should be removed from the society and this is when prison becomes an option. In this case, prisons should be built to accommodate all prisoners. The prison population should be reduced by using alternative punishments to prison, such as community service, for those who are not a danger to the society. In addition, prisons should be more humane and should not be seen as a punishment. The experience of being in prison should be unpleasant, but not to the extent of causing further damage to the prisoner. The prisoner should be rehabilitated and the aim should be to bring them back to the society as a fully functional member. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002669.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002669.soc index 17168dab..9d6e50b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002669.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002669.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, the group was in favour of free childcare. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “I believe that the government should provide free childcare to all parents from the age of 2. It is very expensive for parents to pay for childcare and the government should help out. The government should also help with the costs of childcare for parents who have a low income. It is very important for children to be in a good childcare setting as this is where they learn and develop.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The government should provide universal free childcare for all children aged between 2 and 5 years old. The government should also heavily subsidise childcare for children aged between birth and 2 years old. This will allow parents to get back to work and contribute to the economy and also allow their children to be cared for in a safe and stimulating environment. This will also create jobs for those whom look after the children.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “The government should provide free childcare to all children from birth, but with the option for parents to choose whether to take it up or not. This would help parents get back to work, create jobs for those looking after the children, and also reduce the cost of living for families. However, the government should also heavily subsidise childcare to make it more affordable for all.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, the group was in favour of free childcare. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “I believe that the government should provide free childcare to all parents from the age of 2. It is very expensive for parents to pay for childcare and the government should help out. The government should also help with the costs of childcare for parents who have a low income. It is very important for children to be in a good childcare setting as this is where they learn and develop.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The government should provide universal free childcare for all children aged between 2 and 5 years old. The government should also heavily subsidise childcare for children aged between birth and 2 years old. This will allow parents to get back to work and contribute to the economy and also allow their children to be cared for in a safe and stimulating environment. This will also create jobs for those whom look after the children.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “The government should provide free childcare to all children from birth, but with the option for parents to choose whether to take it up or not. This would help parents get back to work, create jobs for those looking after the children, and also reduce the cost of living for families. However, the government should also heavily subsidise childcare to make it more affordable for all.” 2: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002670.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002670.soc index 3f62a6a0..6195c535 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002670.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002670.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for the free flow of information across the world. This has allowed for the sharing of knowledge and skills, as well as the sharing of news and entertainment. This has allowed for a more connected world. However, there are some negatives to the internet. The internet has allowed for the spread of misinformation, as well as allowing for the spread of hate speech. The internet has also allowed for the spread of dangerous ideologies. However, the positives of the internet outweigh the negatives. The internet has allowed for the sharing of knowledge and skills, as well as the sharing of news and entertainment. This has allowed for a more connected world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has helped people keep in touch, make friends and communicate with people all over the world. It has educated people and with that has empowered and helped people who have learnt skills, further educated people who may not have had access to the internet. However for all positives there are negatives, which means vulnerable people can be taken advantage of and exploited. The internet has helped open up & connect the world in amazing ways, instant access to knowledge, communication, entertainment & work has meant it has all affected our lives in amazing ways. We are using the internet right now as we do this survey! GIving access to a wealth of information at the touch of a button, should be seen as a wonder of civilisation, I could go on my phone & search "Lincolnshire Cathedral" & find a wealth of information just on that subject. It doesn't mean it is without flaws, it can be a dangerous & violent thing also. Glorifying past villains & honoring violent ideology. But there are solutions to combatting these problems. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has allowed people to discover new things from around the world. It has allowed people to be more educated on certain things. It allows people to interact with other people with similar interests around the world. However, the internet also leads to less security. People are able to spread misinformation disguised as facts. People also feel safer being mean over the internet so online bullying has increased. The internet has made the World, the workings of the World, it's people and resources more accessible to all. You can connect with people Globally and access information on anything at all. It is helping to reduce our Carbon footprint by reducing travelling as you can have virtual meetings from anywhere at all. It is not without it's disadvantgaes however. People's social skills may have been compromised and there is also the dark web which makes criminality easier and horrendous issues like people traffiking more accessible. I do feel that such crimes would still exist without the internet however and the advantages of the internet in controlling these crimes will balance it out. Overall I think it is positive. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has allowed people to discover new things from around the world. It has allowed people to be more educated on certain things. It allows people to interact with other people with similar interests around the world. However, the internet also leads to less security. People are able to spread misinformation disguised as facts. People also feel safer being mean over the internet so online bullying has increased. The internet has made the World, the workings of the World, it's people and resources more accessible to all. You can connect with people Globally and access information on anything at all. It is helping to reduce our Carbon footprint by reducing travelling as you can have virtual meetings from anywhere at all. It is not without it's disadvantages however. People's social skills may have been compromised and there is also the dark web which makes criminality easier and horrendous issues like people traffiking more accessible. I do feel that such crimes would still exist without the internet however and the advantages of the internet in controlling these crimes will balance it out. Overall I think it is positive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for the free flow of information across the world. This has allowed for the sharing of knowledge and skills, as well as the sharing of news and entertainment. This has allowed for a more connected world. However, there are some negatives to the internet. The internet has allowed for the spread of misinformation, as well as allowing for the spread of hate speech. The internet has also allowed for the spread of dangerous ideologies. However, the positives of the internet outweigh the negatives. The internet has allowed for the sharing of knowledge and skills, as well as the sharing of news and entertainment. This has allowed for a more connected world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has helped people keep in touch, make friends and communicate with people all over the world. It has educated people and with that has empowered and helped people who have learnt skills, further educated people who may not have had access to the internet. However for all positives there are negatives, which means vulnerable people can be taken advantage of and exploited. The internet has helped open up & connect the world in amazing ways, instant access to knowledge, communication, entertainment & work has meant it has all affected our lives in amazing ways. We are using the internet right now as we do this survey! GIving access to a wealth of information at the touch of a button, should be seen as a wonder of civilisation, I could go on my phone & search "Lincolnshire Cathedral" & find a wealth of information just on that subject. It doesn't mean it is without flaws, it can be a dangerous & violent thing also. Glorifying past villains & honoring violent ideology. But there are solutions to combatting these problems. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has allowed people to discover new things from around the world. It has allowed people to be more educated on certain things. It allows people to interact with other people with similar interests around the world. However, the internet also leads to less security. People are able to spread misinformation disguised as facts. People also feel safer being mean over the internet so online bullying has increased. The internet has made the World, the workings of the World, it's people and resources more accessible to all. You can connect with people Globally and access information on anything at all. It is helping to reduce our Carbon footprint by reducing travelling as you can have virtual meetings from anywhere at all. It is not without it's disadvantgaes however. People's social skills may have been compromised and there is also the dark web which makes criminality easier and horrendous issues like people traffiking more accessible. I do feel that such crimes would still exist without the internet however and the advantages of the internet in controlling these crimes will balance it out. Overall I think it is positive. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has allowed people to discover new things from around the world. It has allowed people to be more educated on certain things. It allows people to interact with other people with similar interests around the world. However, the internet also leads to less security. People are able to spread misinformation disguised as facts. People also feel safer being mean over the internet so online bullying has increased. The internet has made the World, the workings of the World, it's people and resources more accessible to all. You can connect with people Globally and access information on anything at all. It is helping to reduce our Carbon footprint by reducing travelling as you can have virtual meetings from anywhere at all. It is not without it's disadvantages however. People's social skills may have been compromised and there is also the dark web which makes criminality easier and horrendous issues like people traffiking more accessible. I do feel that such crimes would still exist without the internet however and the advantages of the internet in controlling these crimes will balance it out. Overall I think it is positive. 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,1,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002671.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002671.soc index f06ca89c..e80e287f 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002671.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002671.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “In general, the group was in favour of free childcare. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine. However, the group also felt that it is important for the child to be able to bond with the parents at the beginning and that the government should subsidise childcare for all.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “In general, the group was in favour of free childcare. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The group was in favour of free childcare, subsidised by the government. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: “In general, the group was in favour of free childcare. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine. The group also felt that childcare should be free as it is important for the child to be in a safe environment and for the child to be surrounded by children of similar age to them.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “In general, the group was in favour of free childcare. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine. However, the group also felt that it is important for the child to be able to bond with the parents at the beginning and that the government should subsidise childcare for all.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “In general, the group was in favour of free childcare. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The group was in favour of free childcare, subsidised by the government. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - “In general, the group was in favour of free childcare. The group felt that the childcare should be free from a few months old as it is important for the child to bond with the parents at the beginning. The group felt that the childcare should be free to allow parents to get back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that it is important for the economy for parents to get back to work after having a child. The group felt that it would get parents back to work and also create jobs for those whom look after the children. The group felt that child costs are extortionate and the UK is one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. The group felt that not only does getting a parent back to work help them emotionally, it is also a good example for a child to see this daily routine. The group also felt that childcare should be free as it is important for the child to be in a safe environment and for the child to be surrounded by children of similar age to them.” 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002672.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002672.soc index 8faccf8c..6b1183e6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002672.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002672.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has connected people across the world and given them a voice. The internet has also provided educational opportunities across the globe. The internet has enabled huge leaps in science, culture and commerce that would never been possible otherwise. However, the internet has also brought with it challenges. There is misinformation. People with little or no knowledge can spread untruths widely without being sanctioned. The internet needs more control from governments and governments across the world need to come together to agree and implement these controls and rigorously police them. This is a difficult task but it is the only way to combat the spread of misinformation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has connected people across the world and given them a voice. The internet has also provided educational opportunities across the globe. The internet has enabled huge leaps in science, culture and commerce that would never been possible otherwise. However, the internet has also brought with it challenges. There is misinformation. People with little or no knowledge can spread untruths widely without being sanctioned. The internet needs more control from governments and governments across the world need to come together to agree and implement these controls and rigorously police them. The biggest challenge is how to police the internet in a fair and just way. This will require much debate and consultation. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has connected people across the world and given them a voice. The internet has also provided educational opportunities across the globe. The internet has enabled huge leaps in science, culture and commerce that would never been possible otherwise. However, the internet has also brought with it challenges. There is misinformation. People with little or no knowledge can spread untruths widely without being sanctioned. The internet needs more control from governments and governments across the world need to come together to agree and implement these controls and rigorously police them. The controls should be implemented in such a way as to avoid dangerous biases in favour of some views and against others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has connected people across the world and given them a voice. The internet has also provided educational opportunities across the globe. The internet has enabled huge leaps in science, culture and commerce that would never been possible otherwise. However, the internet has also brought with it challenges. There is misinformation. People with little or no knowledge can spread untruths widely without being sanctioned. The internet needs more control from governments and governments across the world need to come together to agree and implement these controls and rigorously police them. This is likely to be a difficult and ongoing process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has connected people across the world and given them a voice. The internet has also provided educational opportunities across the globe. The internet has enabled huge leaps in science, culture and commerce that would never been possible otherwise. However, the internet has also brought with it challenges. There is misinformation. People with little or no knowledge can spread untruths widely without being sanctioned. The internet needs more control from governments and governments across the world need to come together to agree and implement these controls and rigorously police them. This is a difficult task but it is the only way to combat the spread of misinformation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has connected people across the world and given them a voice. The internet has also provided educational opportunities across the globe. The internet has enabled huge leaps in science, culture and commerce that would never been possible otherwise. However, the internet has also brought with it challenges. There is misinformation. People with little or no knowledge can spread untruths widely without being sanctioned. The internet needs more control from governments and governments across the world need to come together to agree and implement these controls and rigorously police them. The biggest challenge is how to police the internet in a fair and just way. This will require much debate and consultation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has connected people across the world and given them a voice. The internet has also provided educational opportunities across the globe. The internet has enabled huge leaps in science, culture and commerce that would never been possible otherwise. However, the internet has also brought with it challenges. There is misinformation. People with little or no knowledge can spread untruths widely without being sanctioned. The internet needs more control from governments and governments across the world need to come together to agree and implement these controls and rigorously police them. The controls should be implemented in such a way as to avoid dangerous biases in favour of some views and against others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has connected people across the world and given them a voice. The internet has also provided educational opportunities across the globe. The internet has enabled huge leaps in science, culture and commerce that would never been possible otherwise. However, the internet has also brought with it challenges. There is misinformation. People with little or no knowledge can spread untruths widely without being sanctioned. The internet needs more control from governments and governments across the world need to come together to agree and implement these controls and rigorously police them. This is likely to be a difficult and ongoing process. 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002673.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002673.soc index 4a8cdbe4..1c41f62a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002673.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002673.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. This is because the current policy is not working and is causing unnecessary deaths. The UK should not be responsible for the whole world, and other countries should be encouraged to help. The UK should also make it easier for people to claim asylum in the UK. Be this by claiming asylum at the British Embassy of the first safe country they enter, or when they enter the UK. Genuine asylum seekers should be welcomed into the UK, supported to build a life and to recover from any trauma they have experienced. They should not have to risk their lives to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current situation is not working and the UK is not equipped to deal with the current influx of asylum seekers. There is a strong need for the UK to help those in need. However, the UK should not be the only country to help asylum seekers and other countries should also provide support. The media needs to stop labelling asylum seekers as dangerous and politicians need to stop labelling asylum seekers as a threat to the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the UK should make it easier for people to claim asylum in the UK. However, this should be done through the correct procedures, as otherwise it may result in an influx of people who are not genuine asylum seekers. The government should make it clear that people who are genuine asylum seekers will be welcomed into the UK and supported to build a life and to recover from any trauma they have experienced. They should not have to risk their lives to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should be able to claim asylum in the UK if they are genuine asylum seekers and have gone through the correct procedure. They should not have to risk their lives to do so. More countries need to be just as helpful, alleviating the strain from any one country. The negative media spin on this situation isn't helping matters and politicians need to stop labelling asylum seekers as dangerous. Every human has a right to a peaceful life and this country needs to help those whose lives are at risk. More job opportunities, and better living conditions need to be provided by a universal network of support. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. This is because the current policy is not working and is causing unnecessary deaths. The UK should not be responsible for the whole world, and other countries should be encouraged to help. The UK should also make it easier for people to claim asylum in the UK. Be this by claiming asylum at the British Embassy of the first safe country they enter, or when they enter the UK. Genuine asylum seekers should be welcomed into the UK, supported to build a life and to recover from any trauma they have experienced. They should not have to risk their lives to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current situation is not working and the UK is not equipped to deal with the current influx of asylum seekers. There is a strong need for the UK to help those in need. However, the UK should not be the only country to help asylum seekers and other countries should also provide support. The media needs to stop labelling asylum seekers as dangerous and politicians need to stop labelling asylum seekers as a threat to the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should make it easier for people to claim asylum in the UK. However, this should be done through the correct procedures, as otherwise it may result in an influx of people who are not genuine asylum seekers. The government should make it clear that people who are genuine asylum seekers will be welcomed into the UK and supported to build a life and to recover from any trauma they have experienced. They should not have to risk their lives to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should be able to claim asylum in the UK if they are genuine asylum seekers and have gone through the correct procedure. They should not have to risk their lives to do so. More countries need to be just as helpful, alleviating the strain from any one country. The negative media spin on this situation isn't helping matters and politicians need to stop labelling asylum seekers as dangerous. Every human has a right to a peaceful life and this country needs to help those whose lives are at risk. More job opportunities, and better living conditions need to be provided by a universal network of support. 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002674.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002674.soc index 962ec896..97de99a9 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002674.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002674.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has increased the availability of information and knowledge for the whole world. This has enabled the spread of ideas and increased communication between people in different countries. The internet has also enabled the development of new technologies and businesses, which has improved the quality of life for many. However, the internet has also been used for the spread of misinformation and the development of harmful technologies. Therefore, the internet has been a net positive for humanity, but more needs to be done to ensure that it is used for good. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has made communication easier and faster, it has made the world a smaller place and made people more aware of what is happening in the world. It has also had a huge impact on the medical field and general quality of life. However, the internet has also had a negative impact. The younger generation is becoming more and more addicted to their screens and are becoming more isolated from the real world. The government and internet providers need to do more to remove bad content and to educate people on how to use the internet safely and privately. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has allowed people to connect with each other in ways that were not previously possible. It has allowed the spread of knowledge and ideas. It has allowed people to be creative and express themselves in ways that were not previously possible. It has allowed people to be entertained in ways that were not previously possible. However, the internet has also been a source of great harm to humanity. It has allowed people to be exploited and taken advantage of in ways that were not previously possible. It has allowed the spread of hateful and harmful ideas. It has allowed people to be entertained in ways that are harmful to themselves and others. The internet is a double-edged sword. It has allowed humanity to flourish in ways that were not previously possible, but it has also allowed humanity to suffer in ways that were not previously possible. It is up to us to use the internet for good and not for evil. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has had a mostly positive impact on humanity. The internet has provided an unprecedented level of access to information and communication, however, this has come at the expense of privacy and security. The younger generations have become hopelessly addicted to the internet, and this has led to a huge degree of isolation from the real world. The internet should be government run and the regulators of the prior free press should be repositioned to prevent the wild west attitude from remaining pervasive. VPN usage should be mandatory and free to break the monopolies and make people use the internet for good and not unlawful or nefarious purpose. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has increased the availability of information and knowledge for the whole world. This has enabled the spread of ideas and increased communication between people in different countries. The internet has also enabled the development of new technologies and businesses, which has improved the quality of life for many. However, the internet has also been used for the spread of misinformation and the development of harmful technologies. Therefore, the internet has been a net positive for humanity, but more needs to be done to ensure that it is used for good. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has made communication easier and faster, it has made the world a smaller place and made people more aware of what is happening in the world. It has also had a huge impact on the medical field and general quality of life. However, the internet has also had a negative impact. The younger generation is becoming more and more addicted to their screens and are becoming more isolated from the real world. The government and internet providers need to do more to remove bad content and to educate people on how to use the internet safely and privately. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has allowed people to connect with each other in ways that were not previously possible. It has allowed the spread of knowledge and ideas. It has allowed people to be creative and express themselves in ways that were not previously possible. It has allowed people to be entertained in ways that were not previously possible. However, the internet has also been a source of great harm to humanity. It has allowed people to be exploited and taken advantage of in ways that were not previously possible. It has allowed the spread of hateful and harmful ideas. It has allowed people to be entertained in ways that are harmful to themselves and others. The internet is a double-edged sword. It has allowed humanity to flourish in ways that were not previously possible, but it has also allowed humanity to suffer in ways that were not previously possible. It is up to us to use the internet for good and not for evil. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has had a mostly positive impact on humanity. The internet has provided an unprecedented level of access to information and communication, however, this has come at the expense of privacy and security. The younger generations have become hopelessly addicted to the internet, and this has led to a huge degree of isolation from the real world. The internet should be government run and the regulators of the prior free press should be repositioned to prevent the wild west attitude from remaining pervasive. VPN usage should be mandatory and free to break the monopolies and make people use the internet for good and not unlawful or nefarious purpose. 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,2,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002675.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002675.soc index 24b5ad83..284f520e 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002675.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002675.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, free childcare is a good thing, but it is important to consider how it is provided and for which age groups. We feel that it is important to offer support to parents in the form of parental leave, and that this should be available to both parents. In addition, we feel that free childcare should be provided from a young age, and that it should be provided in a way that supports children's development and learning, and not just as a childminding service. However, we do not feel that free childcare should be provided from birth, as we feel that it is important for babies to have a consistent primary caregiver in their early months. For this reason, we would support the government providing universal paid parental leave from birth, and providing universal free childcare from, say, 6 months old. We would also offer parents the opportunity to either use free childcare between 6 months and 1 year, or to have paid parental leave for the same period. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The government should provide universal free childcare from the age of three, with the option for parents to take parental leave in the first year of their child's life instead. This would allow parents to bond with their child and recover from the birth, whilst also allowing them to return to work when they feel ready. The cost of childcare can be a barrier to parents returning to work, and universal free childcare would help to alleviate this. It would also help to reduce the gender pay gap, as it would allow more women to return to work after having children. The quality of childcare is very important, and it would be necessary to ensure that the childcare provided is of a high standard. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The government should provide universal free childcare from birth. High quality childcare allows parents to work, making use of their skills and experience and contributing to the economy. It also provides children with a positive environment in which to learn and to develop social skills. Babies benefit from having a consistent primary caregiver in their early months, and parents benefit from the opportunity to bond with their babies and to recover from the physical changes caused by birth and from the social changes caused by having a new family member. For this reason, the government should provide universal paid parental leave from birth, and provide universal free childcare from, say, 6 months old. I would also offer parents the opportunity to either use free childcare between 6 months and 1 year, or to have paid parental leave for the same period. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The government should provide universal free childcare, but not necessarily from birth. High quality childcare allows parents to work, making use of their skills and experience and contributing to the economy. It also provides children with a positive environment in which to learn and to develop social skills. However, I do not necessarily support providing this childcare from birth. Babies benefit from having a consistent primary caregiver in their early months, and parents benefit from the opportunity to bond with their babies and to recover from the physical changes caused by birth and from the social changes caused by having a new family member. For this reason, I would support the government providing universal paid parental leave from birth, and providing universal free childcare from, say, 6 months old. I would also offer parents the opportunity to either use free childcare between 6 months and 1 year, or to have paid parental leave for the same period. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, free childcare is a good thing, but it is important to consider how it is provided and for which age groups. We feel that it is important to offer support to parents in the form of parental leave, and that this should be available to both parents. In addition, we feel that free childcare should be provided from a young age, and that it should be provided in a way that supports children's development and learning, and not just as a childminding service. However, we do not feel that free childcare should be provided from birth, as we feel that it is important for babies to have a consistent primary caregiver in their early months. For this reason, we would support the government providing universal paid parental leave from birth, and providing universal free childcare from, say, 6 months old. We would also offer parents the opportunity to either use free childcare between 6 months and 1 year, or to have paid parental leave for the same period. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The government should provide universal free childcare from the age of three, with the option for parents to take parental leave in the first year of their child's life instead. This would allow parents to bond with their child and recover from the birth, whilst also allowing them to return to work when they feel ready. The cost of childcare can be a barrier to parents returning to work, and universal free childcare would help to alleviate this. It would also help to reduce the gender pay gap, as it would allow more women to return to work after having children. The quality of childcare is very important, and it would be necessary to ensure that the childcare provided is of a high standard. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should provide universal free childcare from birth. High quality childcare allows parents to work, making use of their skills and experience and contributing to the economy. It also provides children with a positive environment in which to learn and to develop social skills. Babies benefit from having a consistent primary caregiver in their early months, and parents benefit from the opportunity to bond with their babies and to recover from the physical changes caused by birth and from the social changes caused by having a new family member. For this reason, the government should provide universal paid parental leave from birth, and provide universal free childcare from, say, 6 months old. I would also offer parents the opportunity to either use free childcare between 6 months and 1 year, or to have paid parental leave for the same period. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The government should provide universal free childcare, but not necessarily from birth. High quality childcare allows parents to work, making use of their skills and experience and contributing to the economy. It also provides children with a positive environment in which to learn and to develop social skills. However, I do not necessarily support providing this childcare from birth. Babies benefit from having a consistent primary caregiver in their early months, and parents benefit from the opportunity to bond with their babies and to recover from the physical changes caused by birth and from the social changes caused by having a new family member. For this reason, I would support the government providing universal paid parental leave from birth, and providing universal free childcare from, say, 6 months old. I would also offer parents the opportunity to either use free childcare between 6 months and 1 year, or to have paid parental leave for the same period. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002676.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002676.soc index 6362520a..48edcfa6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002676.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002676.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very difficult to navigate and in some cases, the process can take years. This means that those who are in genuine need of asylum are often left in limbo, in fear of their lives, while their application is processed. The system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for those in genuine need to access asylum. It is also important that the UK government works with other countries to support them in providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to access the UK. We also recognise that asylum seekers can have an impact on local communities, and that this impact should be recognised by the government, and funding to support local communities should be available. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very difficult to navigate and in some cases, the process can take years. This means that those who are in genuine need of asylum are often left in limbo, in fear of their lives, while their application is processed. The system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for those in genuine need to access asylum. It is also important that the UK government works with other countries to support them in providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to access the UK. In addition, the UK government should provide support to local authorities and individuals who host asylum seekers to ensure that they can meet the needs of those seeking asylum. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very difficult to navigate and in some cases, the process can take years. This means that those who are in genuine need of asylum are often left in limbo, in fear of their lives, while their application is processed. The system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for those in genuine need to access asylum. It is also important that the UK government works with other countries to support them in providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to access the UK. The UK should be proud of its status as a world leader on asylum for Syrian, Afgan and Ukrainian refugees and should continue to support asylum seekers from these countries. However, it is also important to recognise the length of time that it takes to have asylum granted in the UK and to ensure that the process is as quick and efficient as possible. The UK should also ensure that local authorities, or local inhabitants have access to funding to support asylum seekers and their specific needs. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very difficult to navigate and in some cases, the process can take years. This means that those who are in genuine need of asylum are often left in limbo, in fear of their lives, while their application is processed. The system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for those in genuine need to access asylum. It is also important that the UK government works with other countries to support them in providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to access the UK. A scheme should also be created to support families that take in asylum seekers, essentially an extension of the current system for Ukraine refugees, to assist with extra costs locally to support those helping those in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very difficult to navigate and in some cases, the process can take years. This means that those who are in genuine need of asylum are often left in limbo, in fear of their lives, while their application is processed. The system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for those in genuine need to access asylum. It is also important that the UK government works with other countries to support them in providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to access the UK. We also recognise that asylum seekers can have an impact on local communities, and that this impact should be recognised by the government, and funding to support local communities should be available. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very difficult to navigate and in some cases, the process can take years. This means that those who are in genuine need of asylum are often left in limbo, in fear of their lives, while their application is processed. The system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for those in genuine need to access asylum. It is also important that the UK government works with other countries to support them in providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to access the UK. In addition, the UK government should provide support to local authorities and individuals who host asylum seekers to ensure that they can meet the needs of those seeking asylum. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very difficult to navigate and in some cases, the process can take years. This means that those who are in genuine need of asylum are often left in limbo, in fear of their lives, while their application is processed. The system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for those in genuine need to access asylum. It is also important that the UK government works with other countries to support them in providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to access the UK. The UK should be proud of its status as a world leader on asylum for Syrian, Afgan and Ukrainian refugees and should continue to support asylum seekers from these countries. However, it is also important to recognise the length of time that it takes to have asylum granted in the UK and to ensure that the process is as quick and efficient as possible. The UK should also ensure that local authorities, or local inhabitants have access to funding to support asylum seekers and their specific needs. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The current system is very difficult to navigate and in some cases, the process can take years. This means that those who are in genuine need of asylum are often left in limbo, in fear of their lives, while their application is processed. The system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for those in genuine need to access asylum. It is also important that the UK government works with other countries to support them in providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to access the UK. A scheme should also be created to support families that take in asylum seekers, essentially an extension of the current system for Ukraine refugees, to assist with extra costs locally to support those helping those in need. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 1,2,4,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002677.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002677.soc index c21856ed..aa539f69 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002677.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002677.soc @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 2 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has revolutionised the way that people communicate, access information and share knowledge. It has made it easier for people to connect with each other, even across great distances. However, the internet is a double-edged sword and it is important to recognise the negative aspects of the internet as well as the positive. The internet can be used for bullying, exploitation and coercion. It can also be used to spread misinformation and lies, and this can have a negative impact on society. The internet has also had a negative impact on face-to-face interactions, encouraging the development of less complex and more rigid arguments. It is also important to recognise that not everyone has equal access to the internet. The internet has the potential to be a net positive for humanity, but we need to make sure that it is used in a positive way. We also need to make sure that the internet is used in a way that is respectful of people's privacy and personal data. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has revolutionised the way that people communicate, access information and share knowledge. It has made it easier for people to connect with each other, even across great distances. However, the internet is a double-edged sword and it is important to recognise the negative aspects of the internet as well as the positive. The internet can be used for bullying, exploitation and coercion. It can also be used to spread misinformation and lies, and this can have a negative impact on society. The internet has also had a negative impact on face-to-face interactions, encouraging the development of less complex and more rigid arguments. It is also important to recognise that not everyone has equal access to the internet. The internet has the potential to be a net positive for humanity, but we need to make sure that it is used in a positive way. We also need to make sure that the internet is used in a way that is respectful of people's privacy and personal data. In this way, a group of people with a range of views on a complex and controversial topic were able to have a good discussion and debate, and ultimately come to a consensus view that they could all agree on. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no doubt that the internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has revolutionised the way that people communicate, access information and share knowledge. It has made it easier for people to connect with each other, even across great distances. However, the internet is a double-edged sword and it is important to recognise the negative aspects of the internet as well as the positive. The internet can be used for bullying, exploitation and coercion. It can also be used to spread misinformation and lies, and this can have a negative impact on society. The internet has also had a negative impact on face-to-face interactions, encouraging the development of less complex and more rigid arguments. It is also important to recognise that not everyone has equal access to the internet. The internet has the potential to be a net positive for humanity, but we need to make sure that it is used in a positive way. We also need to make sure that the internet is used in a way that is respectful of people's privacy and personal data. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has the potential to be a net positive for humanity, but we need to make sure that it is used in a positive way. We also need to make sure that the internet is used in a way that is respectful of people's privacy and personal data. We hope that you have enjoyed reading this blog post. If you have any feedback or would like to get in touch, please email us at: bloggingcompetition@senseaboutscience.org. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has revolutionised the way that people communicate, access information and share knowledge. It has made it easier for people to connect with each other, even across great distances. However, the internet is a double-edged sword and it is important to recognise the negative aspects of the internet as well as the positive. The internet can be used for bullying, exploitation and coercion. It can also be used to spread misinformation and lies, and this can have a negative impact on society. The internet has also had a negative impact on face-to-face interactions, encouraging the development of less complex and more rigid arguments. It is also important to recognise that not everyone has equal access to the internet. The internet has the potential to be a net positive for humanity, but we need to make sure that it is used in a positive way. We also need to make sure that the internet is used in a way that is respectful of people's privacy and personal data. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has revolutionised the way that people communicate, access information and share knowledge. It has made it easier for people to connect with each other, even across great distances. However, the internet is a double-edged sword and it is important to recognise the negative aspects of the internet as well as the positive. The internet can be used for bullying, exploitation and coercion. It can also be used to spread misinformation and lies, and this can have a negative impact on society. The internet has also had a negative impact on face-to-face interactions, encouraging the development of less complex and more rigid arguments. It is also important to recognise that not everyone has equal access to the internet. The internet has the potential to be a net positive for humanity, but we need to make sure that it is used in a positive way. We also need to make sure that the internet is used in a way that is respectful of people's privacy and personal data. In this way, a group of people with a range of views on a complex and controversial topic were able to have a good discussion and debate, and ultimately come to a consensus view that they could all agree on. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no doubt that the internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has revolutionised the way that people communicate, access information and share knowledge. It has made it easier for people to connect with each other, even across great distances. However, the internet is a double-edged sword and it is important to recognise the negative aspects of the internet as well as the positive. The internet can be used for bullying, exploitation and coercion. It can also be used to spread misinformation and lies, and this can have a negative impact on society. The internet has also had a negative impact on face-to-face interactions, encouraging the development of less complex and more rigid arguments. It is also important to recognise that not everyone has equal access to the internet. The internet has the potential to be a net positive for humanity, but we need to make sure that it is used in a positive way. We also need to make sure that the internet is used in a way that is respectful of people's privacy and personal data. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has the potential to be a net positive for humanity, but we need to make sure that it is used in a positive way. We also need to make sure that the internet is used in a way that is respectful of people's privacy and personal data. We hope that you have enjoyed reading this blog post. If you have any feedback or would like to get in touch, please email us at: bloggingcompetition@senseaboutscience.org. 4: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,1,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002678.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002678.soc index 2ecb2b29..0ea0c686 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002678.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002678.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for the creation of a new society based on the sharing of knowledge, the promotion of innovation and the breaking down of barriers between people. The internet has allowed for the creation of a new society based on the sharing of knowledge, the promotion of innovation and the breaking down of barriers between people. However, the internet has also created new problems, such as the creation of echo chambers and the spread of misinformation. Therefore, it is important that the internet is used in a responsible way, and that people are educated on how to use the internet responsibly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has created a central resource for people to share and innovate outside of physical groupings. Humanity faces huge challenges and innovation is required to solve them, whereas the internet is an engine for innovation through connections. However, it should be seen as a tool that can provide certain benefits and potentials. If it is used wrongly and will create more harm than benefits. The current economic system dictates the use of the internet, meaning that it mainly benefits those who are wealthy and in power. The internet has allowed for easy access to information and communication between people. However, it has also created a more deeply paranoid place rather than create better understanding between us all. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has provided a platform for communication and information sharing, which has increased awareness and understanding of different cultures and issues. It has also allowed for easier access to information and communication, which has increased the potential for innovation and creativity. However, it should be seen as a tool that can provide certain benefits and potentials. If it is used wrongly and will create more harm than benefits. The current economic system dictates the use of the internet, meaning that it mainly benefits those who are wealthy and in power. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has created a central resource for people to share and innovate outside of physical groupings. Humanity faces huge challenges and innovation is required to solve them, whereas the internet is an engine for innovation through connections. The internet has allowed for easy access to information and communication between people. However, it should be seen as a tool that can provide certain benefits and potentials. If it is used wrongly and will create more harm than benefits. The current economic system dictates the use of the internet, meaning that it mainly benefits those who are wealthy and in power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has allowed for the creation of a new society based on the sharing of knowledge, the promotion of innovation and the breaking down of barriers between people. The internet has allowed for the creation of a new society based on the sharing of knowledge, the promotion of innovation and the breaking down of barriers between people. However, the internet has also created new problems, such as the creation of echo chambers and the spread of misinformation. Therefore, it is important that the internet is used in a responsible way, and that people are educated on how to use the internet responsibly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has created a central resource for people to share and innovate outside of physical groupings. Humanity faces huge challenges and innovation is required to solve them, whereas the internet is an engine for innovation through connections. However, it should be seen as a tool that can provide certain benefits and potentials. If it is used wrongly and will create more harm than benefits. The current economic system dictates the use of the internet, meaning that it mainly benefits those who are wealthy and in power. The internet has allowed for easy access to information and communication between people. However, it has also created a more deeply paranoid place rather than create better understanding between us all. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has provided a platform for communication and information sharing, which has increased awareness and understanding of different cultures and issues. It has also allowed for easier access to information and communication, which has increased the potential for innovation and creativity. However, it should be seen as a tool that can provide certain benefits and potentials. If it is used wrongly and will create more harm than benefits. The current economic system dictates the use of the internet, meaning that it mainly benefits those who are wealthy and in power. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. The internet has created a central resource for people to share and innovate outside of physical groupings. Humanity faces huge challenges and innovation is required to solve them, whereas the internet is an engine for innovation through connections. The internet has allowed for easy access to information and communication between people. However, it should be seen as a tool that can provide certain benefits and potentials. If it is used wrongly and will create more harm than benefits. The current economic system dictates the use of the internet, meaning that it mainly benefits those who are wealthy and in power. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002679.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002679.soc index e2d8eac3..616b1202 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002679.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002679.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has provided a vast library of knowledge and information for all to access. It has connected people and communities around the world. It has allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts. However, there are negatives. The internet has been used to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. It has been used to groom and exploit children. It has been used to spread hate and division. The internet has been a net positive for humanity, but it is not without its dangers. Conclusion A consensus statement is more than just a majority opinion. It is a view that all participants agree is the best possible outcome for the group, even if it is not the view of the majority. A consensus statement is reached through a process of debate and dialogue, where all participants have a voice and where the goal is to come to a single view that all participants can accept. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has provided a vast library of knowledge and information for all to access. It has connected people and communities around the world. It has allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts. However, there are negatives. The internet has been used to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. It has been used to groom and exploit children. It has been used to spread hate and division. The internet has been a net positive for humanity, but it is not without its dangers. Conclusion With a total of 500 responses from participants in 30 countries, the results of the crowdsourced survey are hopefully representative of the general opinion of people around the world. The use of crowdsourcing techniques allowed for the gathering of a large number of responses with little cost. It allowed for a diverse range of opinions to be gathered and synthesized into a consensus view. It is hoped that this consensus view can be used to inform future policy decisions related to the Internet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has provided a vast library of knowledge and information for all to access. It has connected people and communities around the world. It has allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts. However, there are negatives. The internet has been used to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. It has been used to groom and exploit children. It has been used to spread hate and division. The internet has been a net positive for humanity, but it is not without its dangers. The dangers can be mitigated by awareness of them and knowledge of how to avoid them. The participants all felt that this was a good outcome. They could see that by engaging in the process of reaching a consensus they had been able to come to a more nuanced and balanced conclusion. However, there was some concern that the process had been too long and arduous. It was suggested that if this process was to be used in the future, it should be condensed into a shorter and more streamlined process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has provided a vast library of knowledge and information for all to access. It has connected people and communities around the world. It has allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts. However, there are negatives. The internet has been used to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. It has been used to groom and exploit children. It has been used to spread hate and division. The internet has been a net positive for humanity, but it is not without its dangers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has provided a vast library of knowledge and information for all to access. It has connected people and communities around the world. It has allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts. However, there are negatives. The internet has been used to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. It has been used to groom and exploit children. It has been used to spread hate and division. The internet has been a net positive for humanity, but it is not without its dangers. Conclusion A consensus statement is more than just a majority opinion. It is a view that all participants agree is the best possible outcome for the group, even if it is not the view of the majority. A consensus statement is reached through a process of debate and dialogue, where all participants have a voice and where the goal is to come to a single view that all participants can accept. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has provided a vast library of knowledge and information for all to access. It has connected people and communities around the world. It has allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts. However, there are negatives. The internet has been used to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. It has been used to groom and exploit children. It has been used to spread hate and division. The internet has been a net positive for humanity, but it is not without its dangers. Conclusion With a total of 500 responses from participants in 30 countries, the results of the crowdsourced survey are hopefully representative of the general opinion of people around the world. The use of crowdsourcing techniques allowed for the gathering of a large number of responses with little cost. It allowed for a diverse range of opinions to be gathered and synthesized into a consensus view. It is hoped that this consensus view can be used to inform future policy decisions related to the Internet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has provided a vast library of knowledge and information for all to access. It has connected people and communities around the world. It has allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts. However, there are negatives. The internet has been used to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. It has been used to groom and exploit children. It has been used to spread hate and division. The internet has been a net positive for humanity, but it is not without its dangers. The dangers can be mitigated by awareness of them and knowledge of how to avoid them. The participants all felt that this was a good outcome. They could see that by engaging in the process of reaching a consensus they had been able to come to a more nuanced and balanced conclusion. However, there was some concern that the process had been too long and arduous. It was suggested that if this process was to be used in the future, it should be condensed into a shorter and more streamlined process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The internet has been a net positive for humanity. It has provided a vast library of knowledge and information for all to access. It has connected people and communities around the world. It has allowed for the sharing of ideas and thoughts. However, there are negatives. The internet has been used to spread misinformation, lies and propaganda. It has been used to groom and exploit children. It has been used to spread hate and division. The internet has been a net positive for humanity, but it is not without its dangers. 2: 2,1,3,4 2: 4,3,1,2 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002680.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002680.soc index 21f3cc7b..8b65b5f2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002680.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002680.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The government should provide free childcare for families with incomes below a certain threshold. It is not the responsibility of the state to look after ones child. Children should be wanted and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else unless there are serious issues. Bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. You should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. Basic childcare is necessary for many families to be able to survive, it allows both parents to work, if able. It should be universal to ensure all who need it are able to access it without issue.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. The group felt that it is important for children to bond with their parents from birth and that this would be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that there is no limit to the amount of children a women can have in the UK and therefore there is no reason for the government to provide universal free childcare. However, the group did agree that there are certain circumstances where the government should provide free childcare. For example, if a parent is unable to look after their child due to illness, disability or death, then the government should provide free childcare. The group also felt that free childcare should be provided to children who are unable to bond with their parents due to neglect or abuse. The group also agreed that free childcare should be provided to parents who are unable to work due to caring responsibilities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The group was split on the question of universal free childcare from birth. The group felt that there should be some provision for families who cannot afford childcare, but that the state should not be responsible for the cost of childcare for all families. There was some concern that if the state was to provide universal free childcare from birth, this would place too much of a burden on the government and the taxpayer, and that this money would be better spent on other areas of public services. The group felt that it is important for children to bond with their parents from birth, and that this would be more difficult if they were placed in childcare. The group felt that if someone chooses to have a child, then they should be able to afford it, and that the burden should not be on the state to look after a private family matter. The group felt that choosing to have a child is an important decision, one which should not be taken lightly, and should include financial affordability. The group felt that universal free childcare is expensive, will require significant government borrowing or reallocation of resources from other important areas of our economy. The group felt that it is not the responsibility of the state to look after ones child.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. However, the group was in favour of free childcare in certain circumstances. For example, if a family is in a situation where they are unable to provide basic care for their child, then the government should step in and provide childcare. This could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The government should provide free childcare for families with incomes below a certain threshold. It is not the responsibility of the state to look after ones child. Children should be wanted and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else unless there are serious issues. Bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. You should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. Basic childcare is necessary for many families to be able to survive, it allows both parents to work, if able. It should be universal to ensure all who need it are able to access it without issue.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. The group felt that it is important for children to bond with their parents from birth and that this would be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that there is no limit to the amount of children a women can have in the UK and therefore there is no reason for the government to provide universal free childcare. However, the group did agree that there are certain circumstances where the government should provide free childcare. For example, if a parent is unable to look after their child due to illness, disability or death, then the government should provide free childcare. The group also felt that free childcare should be provided to children who are unable to bond with their parents due to neglect or abuse. The group also agreed that free childcare should be provided to parents who are unable to work due to caring responsibilities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The group was split on the question of universal free childcare from birth. The group felt that there should be some provision for families who cannot afford childcare, but that the state should not be responsible for the cost of childcare for all families. There was some concern that if the state was to provide universal free childcare from birth, this would place too much of a burden on the government and the taxpayer, and that this money would be better spent on other areas of public services. The group felt that it is important for children to bond with their parents from birth, and that this would be more difficult if they were placed in childcare. The group felt that if someone chooses to have a child, then they should be able to afford it, and that the burden should not be on the state to look after a private family matter. The group felt that choosing to have a child is an important decision, one which should not be taken lightly, and should include financial affordability. The group felt that universal free childcare is expensive, will require significant government borrowing or reallocation of resources from other important areas of our economy. The group felt that it is not the responsibility of the state to look after ones child.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. However, the group was in favour of free childcare in certain circumstances. For example, if a family is in a situation where they are unable to provide basic care for their child, then the government should step in and provide childcare. This could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. 1: 4,3,2,1 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002681.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002681.soc index fc906694..a8b4cef2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002681.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002681.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. However, the group was in favour of free childcare in certain circumstances. For example, if a family is in a situation where they are unable to provide basic care for their child, then the government should step in and provide childcare. This could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. However, the group was in favour of free childcare in certain circumstances. For example, if a family is in a situation where they are unable to provide basic care for their child, then the government should step in and provide childcare. This could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The group was in general opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. The group did agree that free childcare should be provided in certain circumstances. For example, if a family is in a situation where they are unable to provide basic care for their child, then the government should step in and provide childcare. This could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be free childcare in certain circumstances but really families should have the option to remain at home with their children. The state takes over soon enough. The early years bonding with family are so important and the slog of climbing the education pole will come soon enough. The group felt that the government should step in and provide childcare in situations where a family is unable to provide basic care for their child, this could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. However, the group was in favour of free childcare in certain circumstances. For example, if a family is in a situation where they are unable to provide basic care for their child, then the government should step in and provide childcare. This could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. However, the group was in favour of free childcare in certain circumstances. For example, if a family is in a situation where they are unable to provide basic care for their child, then the government should step in and provide childcare. This could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The group was in general opposed to the idea of universal free childcare from birth. The group did agree that free childcare should be provided in certain circumstances. For example, if a family is in a situation where they are unable to provide basic care for their child, then the government should step in and provide childcare. This could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be free childcare in certain circumstances but really families should have the option to remain at home with their children. The state takes over soon enough. The early years bonding with family are so important and the slog of climbing the education pole will come soon enough. The group felt that the government should step in and provide childcare in situations where a family is unable to provide basic care for their child, this could be due to illness, disability, or death of a parent. The group felt that it is important for a child to bond with their parents from birth, and this is something that will be more difficult if they are put into child care. The group also felt that it is important for children to be wanted, and not be brought into this world to be cared for by someone else. The group felt that bonding and nurturing your baby gives them a good start in life and sets out the ground rules for healthy development and forming relationships. The group felt that you should be able to enjoy the early stages of development and gain pleasure from seeing all the milestones. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,1,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002682.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002682.soc index 4eeb272d..18ead695 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002682.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002682.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, there are some circumstances where it is appropriate to change the policy to allow a small number of individuals into the country. This is especially the case where individuals are fleeing from war-torn countries or where they are seeking to escape persecution. In these cases, it is important that the UK continues to play its part in providing a safe haven for people in need. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, we recognise that there are some people who have a genuine need to seek asylum in the UK and that the UK should continue to offer a safe haven to such people. We also recognise that the current asylum seeking system is not working as well as it could and that there is scope for reform. We would like to see a system that is fair, efficient and humane. This would include a system that is able to distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants. We would also like to see a system that is able to process asylum seekers in a timely manner, so that genuine asylum seekers are not left in limbo for many years. Finally, we would like to see a system that is able to offer asylum seekers the support they need to integrate into UK society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should reform its asylum seeking policy but not to make it easier to enter the country. Genuine asylum seeking individuals whilst having the opportunity to enter the UK and ultimately benefit UK society and themselves must be processed in an appropriate manner in order for abuse of the system not to occur. Our infrastructure cannot cope with en masse immigration however the UK will always benefit from experience of individuals from other nations -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, the UK should be open to asylum seekers who are genuinely in need of asylum and have a legitimate claim. The UK should also provide support to other countries in the EU to help them deal with the asylum seeking crisis. The UK should also work with the EU to provide more support to countries outside of the EU, which are the source of many asylum seekers. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, there are some circumstances where it is appropriate to change the policy to allow a small number of individuals into the country. This is especially the case where individuals are fleeing from war-torn countries or where they are seeking to escape persecution. In these cases, it is important that the UK continues to play its part in providing a safe haven for people in need. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, we recognise that there are some people who have a genuine need to seek asylum in the UK and that the UK should continue to offer a safe haven to such people. We also recognise that the current asylum seeking system is not working as well as it could and that there is scope for reform. We would like to see a system that is fair, efficient and humane. This would include a system that is able to distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants. We would also like to see a system that is able to process asylum seekers in a timely manner, so that genuine asylum seekers are not left in limbo for many years. Finally, we would like to see a system that is able to offer asylum seekers the support they need to integrate into UK society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should reform its asylum seeking policy but not to make it easier to enter the country. Genuine asylum seeking individuals whilst having the opportunity to enter the UK and ultimately benefit UK society and themselves must be processed in an appropriate manner in order for abuse of the system not to occur. Our infrastructure cannot cope with en masse immigration however the UK will always benefit from experience of individuals from other nations +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, the UK should be open to asylum seekers who are genuinely in need of asylum and have a legitimate claim. The UK should also provide support to other countries in the EU to help them deal with the asylum seeking crisis. The UK should also work with the EU to provide more support to countries outside of the EU, which are the source of many asylum seekers. 2: 3,1,2,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002683.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002683.soc index 7bc91d8e..9cd568f7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002683.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002683.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The UK is a small island and has limited resources. It is already quite easy to enter the country. Making it easier causes a 'brain-drain' in other countries as it encourages intelligent people to leave their home countries with unrealistic expectations of life in the UK. We should be making it more challenging to get into the country, especially when an asylum seeker has passed through other countries in Europe and chosen not to stay there. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, the current system is unfair and should be changed to make it fairer for genuine asylum applicants. The current system is unfair because it does not consider the circumstances of the individual applicant. The system should be changed to make it fairer for genuine asylum applicants. This is important since the UK has been part of illegal invasions of foreign countries and created population displacements leading to increased asylum applicants. The illegal invasions of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan as well as direct assistance to brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries by the UK has increased asylum needs. This responsibility cannot be ignored and so the asylum system needs to be improved and changed to accommodate the increase in applications. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, this should be done with caution, as it would encourage more migration and exaggerate all of the current problems regarding illegal migration. In addition, the UK is already facing a housing crisis and it is not in a position to support an increase in the population. Therefore, the UK should not make it easier to enter the country. However, the current asylum seeking policy is not working and needs to be changed to accommodate the increase in applications. This is important since the UK has been part of illegal invasions of foreign countries and created population displacements leading to increased asylum applicants. The illegal invasions of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan as well as direct assistance to brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries by the UK has increased asylum needs. This responsibility cannot be ignored and so the asylum system needs to be improved and changed to accommodate the increase in applications. The asylum rules are simple, you should stop in the first neutral country you come to, we are an island how many 'safe' countries have people passed through to get here? We can barely afford to keep our own economy afloat, our children are -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. This is because the UK is already quite generous in the way it treats asylum seekers, and making it easier to enter the country would encourage more people to come to the UK, when in fact the country is already struggling to cope with the current number of asylum seekers. However, there is a strong argument for making the system fairer, and ensuring that asylum seekers are not used as political pawns by the right wing media. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. The UK is a small island and has limited resources. It is already quite easy to enter the country. Making it easier causes a 'brain-drain' in other countries as it encourages intelligent people to leave their home countries with unrealistic expectations of life in the UK. We should be making it more challenging to get into the country, especially when an asylum seeker has passed through other countries in Europe and chosen not to stay there. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, the current system is unfair and should be changed to make it fairer for genuine asylum applicants. The current system is unfair because it does not consider the circumstances of the individual applicant. The system should be changed to make it fairer for genuine asylum applicants. This is important since the UK has been part of illegal invasions of foreign countries and created population displacements leading to increased asylum applicants. The illegal invasions of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan as well as direct assistance to brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries by the UK has increased asylum needs. This responsibility cannot be ignored and so the asylum system needs to be improved and changed to accommodate the increase in applications. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “The UK should change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. However, this should be done with caution, as it would encourage more migration and exaggerate all of the current problems regarding illegal migration. In addition, the UK is already facing a housing crisis and it is not in a position to support an increase in the population. Therefore, the UK should not make it easier to enter the country. However, the current asylum seeking policy is not working and needs to be changed to accommodate the increase in applications. This is important since the UK has been part of illegal invasions of foreign countries and created population displacements leading to increased asylum applicants. The illegal invasions of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan as well as direct assistance to brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries by the UK has increased asylum needs. This responsibility cannot be ignored and so the asylum system needs to be improved and changed to accommodate the increase in applications. The asylum rules are simple, you should stop in the first neutral country you come to, we are an island how many 'safe' countries have people passed through to get here? We can barely afford to keep our own economy afloat, our children are +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the UK should not change its asylum seeking policy to make it easier to enter the country. This is because the UK is already quite generous in the way it treats asylum seekers, and making it easier to enter the country would encourage more people to come to the UK, when in fact the country is already struggling to cope with the current number of asylum seekers. However, there is a strong argument for making the system fairer, and ensuring that asylum seekers are not used as political pawns by the right wing media. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002684.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002684.soc index f5bfa490..663f6543 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002684.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002684.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In principle, the group was in favour of free childcare. However, the group was not convinced that this should be universal. Rather, the group felt that free childcare should be provided to those on lower incomes, with the threshold being set at £30,000 per annum. The group felt that this would allow parents to work and contribute to society, whilst also ensuring that all children get a better start in life by exposure to positive environments, irrespective of their background and homelife. The group felt that this would be a more equitable solution than providing universal free childcare, as it would not require those who do not have children to pay into a system that they will not benefit from. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: “The government should provide free childcare for families with incomes of less than £100,000.00 per year. This will ensure that families who are struggling to pay for childcare will be able to access this service, allowing parents to work and contribute to society, whilst ensuring that all children get a better start in life by exposure to positive environments, irrespective of their background and homelife. The cost of childcare in the UK is at an unacceptable level however if the government provided universal free childcare, there is a concern that people who do not have children would ultimately be paying into a system they will not benefit from which is not equitable. Individuals who choose to have children must take a level of responsibility to fund those children. Given the needs of society currently I would rather a system that allows for free care of the elderly than that of universal free childcare.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of free childcare but with some caveats. The consensus view was that free childcare should be available to those on low incomes and to single parents. There was a concern that free childcare for all would be an unfair burden on the tax payer and that people who do not have children would ultimately be paying into a system they will not benefit from which is not equitable. The group felt that individuals who choose to have children must take a level of responsibility to fund those children. However, the group felt that the cost of childcare in the UK is at an unacceptable level and that if the government provided free childcare, it should be linked to parents being able to work or to undertake training. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of providing universal free childcare, but with some caveats. It was felt that it was important to ensure that this was not a free-for-all and that some form of eligibility criteria should be in place. This would ensure that the scheme was targeted at those who really needed it and that it did not become a free service for all. It was also felt that the scheme should be means tested and that there should be some form of 'skin in the game' for parents. This would ensure that parents still had some level of responsibility for their children and would also encourage them to use the service in a responsible manner. It was also felt that the scheme should be flexible and allow parents to choose the level of childcare they required. This would allow parents to work part-time if they wished to and would also allow parents to choose to work less hours and spend more time with their children. This would also allow parents to work more hours and earn more money if they wished to. It was also felt that the scheme should be flexible enough to allow parents to use the service for a variety of purposes. For example, if a parent was ill and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle, the group was in favour of free childcare. However, the group was not convinced that this should be universal. Rather, the group felt that free childcare should be provided to those on lower incomes, with the threshold being set at £30,000 per annum. The group felt that this would allow parents to work and contribute to society, whilst also ensuring that all children get a better start in life by exposure to positive environments, irrespective of their background and homelife. The group felt that this would be a more equitable solution than providing universal free childcare, as it would not require those who do not have children to pay into a system that they will not benefit from. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - “The government should provide free childcare for families with incomes of less than £100,000.00 per year. This will ensure that families who are struggling to pay for childcare will be able to access this service, allowing parents to work and contribute to society, whilst ensuring that all children get a better start in life by exposure to positive environments, irrespective of their background and homelife. The cost of childcare in the UK is at an unacceptable level however if the government provided universal free childcare, there is a concern that people who do not have children would ultimately be paying into a system they will not benefit from which is not equitable. Individuals who choose to have children must take a level of responsibility to fund those children. Given the needs of society currently I would rather a system that allows for free care of the elderly than that of universal free childcare.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of free childcare but with some caveats. The consensus view was that free childcare should be available to those on low incomes and to single parents. There was a concern that free childcare for all would be an unfair burden on the tax payer and that people who do not have children would ultimately be paying into a system they will not benefit from which is not equitable. The group felt that individuals who choose to have children must take a level of responsibility to fund those children. However, the group felt that the cost of childcare in the UK is at an unacceptable level and that if the government provided free childcare, it should be linked to parents being able to work or to undertake training. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of providing universal free childcare, but with some caveats. It was felt that it was important to ensure that this was not a free-for-all and that some form of eligibility criteria should be in place. This would ensure that the scheme was targeted at those who really needed it and that it did not become a free service for all. It was also felt that the scheme should be means tested and that there should be some form of 'skin in the game' for parents. This would ensure that parents still had some level of responsibility for their children and would also encourage them to use the service in a responsible manner. It was also felt that the scheme should be flexible and allow parents to choose the level of childcare they required. This would allow parents to work part-time if they wished to and would also allow parents to choose to work less hours and spend more time with their children. This would also allow parents to work more hours and earn more money if they wished to. It was also felt that the scheme should be flexible enough to allow parents to use the service for a variety of purposes. For example, if a parent was ill and 1: 1,3,2,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002685.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002685.soc index fba2ebdf..f21de7cc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002685.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002685.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. This would increase the number of people in work, increase the number of people paying into the system and reduce the number of people drawing pensions. The group did however have concerns that this would increase the number of people in poverty in their retirement. The group felt that the retirement age should be raised to 68 but that the government should also introduce a flexible retirement age, where people could choose to retire at 65 or work until 70. This would allow people to choose when they retire, but would also allow people to work for longer if they wanted to and could afford to. The group felt that this would be the best way to balance the needs of the economy and the needs of the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the population is living longer, and is of a better health than previous generations were, with lower rates of cancers and other bad health habits. As a result, people are fitter going into their late careers, and as a result would be able to work for longer, which should then naturally result in a later retirement age. This should have the knock on effect of personal and state pensions increasing as a result of additional time in work, and increase pension payments as a result, reducing elderly poverty. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. We believe that this will create more stress for the older age group, and will put a strain on their health. This will lead to an increase in illness and possibly death, which will be a negative impact on the country. We feel that if the retirement age is raised, it will put a strain on the younger age groups as they will have to work longer hours to make up for the loss of workers. We also feel that this will cause a decrease in the amount of jobs available for the younger age group, as the older age group will be working longer. We believe that the retirement age should be kept at 66, as this is a good age for people to retire, and it will not put a strain on the country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the population is living longer and is of a better health than previous generations were, with lower rates of cancers and other bad health habits. As a result, people are fitter going into their late careers, and as a result would be able to work for longer, which should then naturally result in a later retirement age. This should have the knock on effect of personal and state pensions increasing as a result of additional time in work, and increase pension payments as a result, reducing elderly poverty. However, not everyone wants to or are able to work for longer so we have mixed feelings about this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. This would increase the number of people in work, increase the number of people paying into the system and reduce the number of people drawing pensions. The group did however have concerns that this would increase the number of people in poverty in their retirement. The group felt that the retirement age should be raised to 68 but that the government should also introduce a flexible retirement age, where people could choose to retire at 65 or work until 70. This would allow people to choose when they retire, but would also allow people to work for longer if they wanted to and could afford to. The group felt that this would be the best way to balance the needs of the economy and the needs of the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the population is living longer, and is of a better health than previous generations were, with lower rates of cancers and other bad health habits. As a result, people are fitter going into their late careers, and as a result would be able to work for longer, which should then naturally result in a later retirement age. This should have the knock on effect of personal and state pensions increasing as a result of additional time in work, and increase pension payments as a result, reducing elderly poverty. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. We believe that this will create more stress for the older age group, and will put a strain on their health. This will lead to an increase in illness and possibly death, which will be a negative impact on the country. We feel that if the retirement age is raised, it will put a strain on the younger age groups as they will have to work longer hours to make up for the loss of workers. We also feel that this will cause a decrease in the amount of jobs available for the younger age group, as the older age group will be working longer. We believe that the retirement age should be kept at 66, as this is a good age for people to retire, and it will not put a strain on the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the population is living longer and is of a better health than previous generations were, with lower rates of cancers and other bad health habits. As a result, people are fitter going into their late careers, and as a result would be able to work for longer, which should then naturally result in a later retirement age. This should have the knock on effect of personal and state pensions increasing as a result of additional time in work, and increase pension payments as a result, reducing elderly poverty. However, not everyone wants to or are able to work for longer so we have mixed feelings about this. 2: 1,2,4,3 2: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,1,4,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002686.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002686.soc index c79a3e3a..9de57086 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002686.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002686.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to raising the retirement age to 68. It was felt that this would be unfair to those in this age bracket who may not be able to work due to ill health or caring responsibilities. It was felt that it would be unfair to force people to work longer, especially when they may be in less physically able to do so. It was felt that it would be unfair to force people to work longer, especially when they may be in less physically able to do so. It was also felt that the government should be looking at other ways to save money, such as reducing the number of MPs and the amount of money they are paid. The group felt that it would be better to allow people to work longer if they wish to, but not to force them to do so. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We do not believe that the retirement age should be raised to 68. We believe that this will have a detrimental effect on the 50+ population of this country. We are convinced that there are other ways to save money in the general spending of the treasury. For example, reduce salary of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We believe that it is not fair to make this group of society work for 2 more years, when they are going to need to spend more time looking after themselves. People in this age bracket are also going to be less able bodied and thus may not be able to complete some types of work as well, and they will need to have more time for sick leave due to potential health conditions which are more common to acquire with old age, which will ultimately cost companies more money. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should not raise the retirement age to 68. The majority of people in the 50+ age group are fit and able to work and will be willing to work later in life, however there will be a minority who are not fit enough to work or who do not wish to work later in life. We believe that this group of people should not be forced to work and should be able to retire at the age of 66. This will also save the government money on healthcare costs for this group of people. The government should look at other ways to save money, for example by reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to raising the retirement age to 68. It was felt that this would be unfair to those in this age bracket who may not be able to work due to ill health or caring responsibilities. It was felt that it would be unfair to force people to work longer, especially when they may be in less physically able to do so. It was felt that it would be unfair to force people to work longer, especially when they may be in less physically able to do so. It was also felt that the government should be looking at other ways to save money, such as reducing the number of MPs and the amount of money they are paid. The group felt that it would be better to allow people to work longer if they wish to, but not to force them to do so. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We do not believe that the retirement age should be raised to 68. We believe that this will have a detrimental effect on the 50+ population of this country. We are convinced that there are other ways to save money in the general spending of the treasury. For example, reduce salary of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We believe that it is not fair to make this group of society work for 2 more years, when they are going to need to spend more time looking after themselves. People in this age bracket are also going to be less able bodied and thus may not be able to complete some types of work as well, and they will need to have more time for sick leave due to potential health conditions which are more common to acquire with old age, which will ultimately cost companies more money. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should not raise the retirement age to 68. The majority of people in the 50+ age group are fit and able to work and will be willing to work later in life, however there will be a minority who are not fit enough to work or who do not wish to work later in life. We believe that this group of people should not be forced to work and should be able to retire at the age of 66. This will also save the government money on healthcare costs for this group of people. The government should look at other ways to save money, for example by reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. 3: 1,3,4,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002687.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002687.soc index c3defbdd..f61d69cd 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002687.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002687.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should set a target to be carbon neutral by 2050 and start planning to achieve this. However, we also recognise that this will be very difficult to achieve. Therefore, the government needs to provide the necessary support to help individuals, businesses and the wider community to make the necessary changes. This includes support for research into new technologies, providing grants for home improvement, job retraining, and investment in public transport. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should set a target to be carbon neutral by 2050 as this would help with climate change, greenhouse gases and generally a cleaner country. However, this would require significant changes in industry, transport and energy generation. We would need to increase the use of renewable energy, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and increase the use of public transport. This would require significant investment in infrastructure, transport, energy generation and retraining. The UK would also need to ensure that it was not just offsetting emissions but actually reducing them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral (reach net zero) by 2050. This is an important first step in tackling climate change and will help to ensure that we avoid the worst effects of climate change. The UK should also be clear on how it will go about this. As we learn more, we are discovering that schemes such as carbon offsetting actually contribute very little and can be an example of greenwashing. We need to see schemes that will have a positive impact on British people's lives and livelihoods such as job retraining and grants for home improvement. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. This would help with climate change, greenhouse gases and generally a cleaner country. However, if the UK sets the target to be carbon neutral by 2050 it should be clear on how it will go about this. As we learn more, we are discovering that schemes such as carbon offsetting actually contribute very little and can be an example of greenwashing. We need to see schemes that will have a positive impact on British people's lives and livelihoods such as job retraining and grants for home improvement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should set a target to be carbon neutral by 2050 and start planning to achieve this. However, we also recognise that this will be very difficult to achieve. Therefore, the government needs to provide the necessary support to help individuals, businesses and the wider community to make the necessary changes. This includes support for research into new technologies, providing grants for home improvement, job retraining, and investment in public transport. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should set a target to be carbon neutral by 2050 as this would help with climate change, greenhouse gases and generally a cleaner country. However, this would require significant changes in industry, transport and energy generation. We would need to increase the use of renewable energy, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and increase the use of public transport. This would require significant investment in infrastructure, transport, energy generation and retraining. The UK would also need to ensure that it was not just offsetting emissions but actually reducing them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral (reach net zero) by 2050. This is an important first step in tackling climate change and will help to ensure that we avoid the worst effects of climate change. The UK should also be clear on how it will go about this. As we learn more, we are discovering that schemes such as carbon offsetting actually contribute very little and can be an example of greenwashing. We need to see schemes that will have a positive impact on British people's lives and livelihoods such as job retraining and grants for home improvement. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. This would help with climate change, greenhouse gases and generally a cleaner country. However, if the UK sets the target to be carbon neutral by 2050 it should be clear on how it will go about this. As we learn more, we are discovering that schemes such as carbon offsetting actually contribute very little and can be an example of greenwashing. We need to see schemes that will have a positive impact on British people's lives and livelihoods such as job retraining and grants for home improvement. 2: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,4,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002688.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002688.soc index 907fafad..1317c3c3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002688.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002688.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the concept of national pride is a tricky one. It is one that can be used for good or bad. On the one hand, it can be used to celebrate important figures and contributions to the world from one's country. On the other hand, it can be used to alienate and exclude others. We believe that it is important to have a sense of pride in one's country, but that this pride should be inclusive of all cultures and backgrounds. It is also important to recognise that the concept of 'national pride' is a very personal one and that it is something that should not be forced on anyone. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National pride is a topic one has to be very careful with as it can mean different things to different people. Whereas to some for example the union flag represents the contribution the UK has made to medicine, science and general good to the world, others will see it as a symbol of colonialism and oppression. It is sometimes hard to draw clear distinctions of when national pride celebrates important figures and contributions from its country and when it can be used as an excuse for racism and exclusion. National pride can be encouraged if it is done so along a sensible and representative education. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: National pride is something that is very subjective. It can be used as a tool for both good and bad. In this day and age, it is very important that the UK does not encourage a greater degree of national pride as this can lead to exclusion and racism. Instead, we should be looking to foster a sense of pride at a local level in our communities. This can be achieved by investing in youth facilities for our children and young adults, teaching them to respect and thrive in their local environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: National pride is a very difficult topic to discuss. The way in which national pride is encouraged is very important. The nation is very diverse and it is important that this is celebrated and not used to alienate people. There are many good things about the UK and it is important to celebrate these. The issue is how to do this in a way that does not exclude people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the concept of national pride is a tricky one. It is one that can be used for good or bad. On the one hand, it can be used to celebrate important figures and contributions to the world from one's country. On the other hand, it can be used to alienate and exclude others. We believe that it is important to have a sense of pride in one's country, but that this pride should be inclusive of all cultures and backgrounds. It is also important to recognise that the concept of 'national pride' is a very personal one and that it is something that should not be forced on anyone. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National pride is a topic one has to be very careful with as it can mean different things to different people. Whereas to some for example the union flag represents the contribution the UK has made to medicine, science and general good to the world, others will see it as a symbol of colonialism and oppression. It is sometimes hard to draw clear distinctions of when national pride celebrates important figures and contributions from its country and when it can be used as an excuse for racism and exclusion. National pride can be encouraged if it is done so along a sensible and representative education. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - National pride is something that is very subjective. It can be used as a tool for both good and bad. In this day and age, it is very important that the UK does not encourage a greater degree of national pride as this can lead to exclusion and racism. Instead, we should be looking to foster a sense of pride at a local level in our communities. This can be achieved by investing in youth facilities for our children and young adults, teaching them to respect and thrive in their local environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - National pride is a very difficult topic to discuss. The way in which national pride is encouraged is very important. The nation is very diverse and it is important that this is celebrated and not used to alienate people. There are many good things about the UK and it is important to celebrate these. The issue is how to do this in a way that does not exclude people. 2: 3,1,4,2 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002689.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002689.soc index 06fd5d25..059952b8 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002689.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002689.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There should be more done to encourage national pride. However, it is important to understand what national pride means to different people and to recognise that national pride is not something that can be imposed on people. The way to encourage national pride is to ensure that people feel that they have a stake in the country, that they have a voice, and that they are able to participate in the democratic process. This means that the government should be doing more to ensure that people feel that they have a stake in the country, that they have a voice, and that they are able to participate in the democratic process. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National pride is important, but it is a complex and multi-faceted issue. We should be proud of the achievements of our nation, but not in a way that excludes or oppresses people. National pride should not be something that is imposed upon people, but rather something that is created by people, and this means that it is something that can be created by all people. It is something that is created through the relationships people have with each other, and with the places they live, and so it is something that is local as well as national. National pride is not something that is created by the government, but rather something that is created by the people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. It was felt that it is important to celebrate the achievements of the nation and to promote the good things about the country. However, the group also felt that this should not be at the expense of the achievements of other nations, and that a greater degree of national pride should not be at the expense of the pride felt by those who are not part of the majority culture. It was also felt that national pride should not be at the expense of the environment. The group felt that national pride should be about celebrating the achievements of all the people of the nation, and should be inclusive. The group also felt that a greater degree of national pride should not be at the expense of the good things about the EU. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: National pride is something that can be both a good and a bad thing. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. It can be bad in the sense that it can be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be more done to encourage national pride. However, it is important to understand what national pride means to different people and to recognise that national pride is not something that can be imposed on people. The way to encourage national pride is to ensure that people feel that they have a stake in the country, that they have a voice, and that they are able to participate in the democratic process. This means that the government should be doing more to ensure that people feel that they have a stake in the country, that they have a voice, and that they are able to participate in the democratic process. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National pride is important, but it is a complex and multi-faceted issue. We should be proud of the achievements of our nation, but not in a way that excludes or oppresses people. National pride should not be something that is imposed upon people, but rather something that is created by people, and this means that it is something that can be created by all people. It is something that is created through the relationships people have with each other, and with the places they live, and so it is something that is local as well as national. National pride is not something that is created by the government, but rather something that is created by the people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. It was felt that it is important to celebrate the achievements of the nation and to promote the good things about the country. However, the group also felt that this should not be at the expense of the achievements of other nations, and that a greater degree of national pride should not be at the expense of the pride felt by those who are not part of the majority culture. It was also felt that national pride should not be at the expense of the environment. The group felt that national pride should be about celebrating the achievements of all the people of the nation, and should be inclusive. The group also felt that a greater degree of national pride should not be at the expense of the good things about the EU. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - National pride is something that can be both a good and a bad thing. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. It can be bad in the sense that it can be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002690.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002690.soc index ee7f8465..a4442eb2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002690.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002690.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. We would also like to see the government take into account the strain that this will have on the NHS and care homes and make a provision to ensure that the elderly can retire without feeling that they are a burden to the system. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. We believe that this is a fairer way of generating income for the government, rather than making people work longer. We believe that this will have a much less detrimental effect on the 50+ population of this country. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. We also feel that the government should make more of an effort to create jobs for young people, and make it easier for them to access jobs and training. This would help the economy and the country as a whole. We also believe that the government should make more effort to create jobs for the over 50s who want to work, but are finding it hard to get work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. We would like to emphasise that there are multi-faceted health implications of working longer, including a strain on the NHS and care homes, and a strain on family members if people are not able to retire. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. We would also like to see the government take into account the strain that this will have on the NHS and care homes and make a provision to ensure that the elderly can retire without feeling that they are a burden to the system. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. We believe that this is a fairer way of generating income for the government, rather than making people work longer. We believe that this will have a much less detrimental effect on the 50+ population of this country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. We also feel that the government should make more of an effort to create jobs for young people, and make it easier for them to access jobs and training. This would help the economy and the country as a whole. We also believe that the government should make more effort to create jobs for the over 50s who want to work, but are finding it hard to get work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We have come to the conclusion that we are not in favour of raising the retirement age to 68. We have discussed the health implications of working longer, the lack of jobs for young people, and the strain on the NHS and care homes if the elderly are not able to retire. We believe that the government should look at other ways to save money, such as reducing the salaries of MP's and those in the House of Lords to a more normal and socially acceptable level, and reducing expense limits available to politicians. We also believe that the government should look at other ways to generate revenue from tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires rather than the working people. We would like to emphasise that there are multi-faceted health implications of working longer, including a strain on the NHS and care homes, and a strain on family members if people are not able to retire. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 2,3,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002691.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002691.soc index f5f2e86a..31092adc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002691.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002691.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride is something that can be both a good and a bad thing. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. It can be bad in the sense that it can be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National pride is something that can be both a good and a bad thing. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. It can be bad in the sense that it can be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. The question for us to ask is, how can the principles and processes of a consensus process be used to help us achieve more national pride in a way that is not divisive? -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. However, the concept of national pride is a complex one. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. However, it can also be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: National pride is something that can be both a good and a bad thing. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. It can be bad in the sense that it can be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. National pride should be something that everyone feels they can take part in, by helping to make their community a better place. The group of participants then went on to agree a set of recommendations, based on the consensus statement, +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride is something that can be both a good and a bad thing. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. It can be bad in the sense that it can be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National pride is something that can be both a good and a bad thing. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. It can be bad in the sense that it can be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. The question for us to ask is, how can the principles and processes of a consensus process be used to help us achieve more national pride in a way that is not divisive? +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. However, the concept of national pride is a complex one. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. However, it can also be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - National pride is something that can be both a good and a bad thing. It is good in the sense that it can be an expression of love and loyalty to the place where we live. It can be bad in the sense that it can be a force for division and conflict, and can lead to people feeling that their way of life is superior to others. The challenge for us is to find ways to celebrate what is good about the UK, without making people feel that their way of life is inferior to others. This means celebrating diversity, and the richness of different cultures and traditions. It also means recognising that the UK is part of a wider world, and that we have a duty to work together with other nations to make the world a better place. A key part of this is to recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and that this requires us to reduce our consumption of resources, and to develop alternative ways of living that are less damaging to the planet. National pride should be something that everyone feels they can take part in, by helping to make their community a better place. The group of participants then went on to agree a set of recommendations, based on the consensus statement, 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002692.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002692.soc index bb5c9030..accbcb30 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002692.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002692.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not think that the retirement age should be raised to 68 as people have worked for 50 years and should be allowed to enjoy a good quality of life before getting to their latter years. We do not think that people in their late 60s would be healthy or fit enough to continue at a certain level of working standards and quality. We also do not think that it is fair to ask people to work for so long and not enjoy a bit of old age before falling sick and death. We also think that society is different now, many people want to retire earlier and travel, or explore different hobbies and we do not think that working till you're even older fosters the right type of work culture. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, as the retirement age is already high enough. The health of people in their late 60s is not always good enough to continue working at the same level of quality. The quality of life of people in their late 60s would be negatively affected if the retirement age was raised to 68. The current retirement age of 66 is already a long time to work and the extra 2 years would be detrimental to the quality of life of people in their late 60s. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The age of 66 is already old enough, and people have worked hard for many years. They should be allowed to enjoy their retirement, rather than be forced to continue working for longer. We also believe that it is unfair to expect people in their late 60s to be fit and healthy enough to continue working. The current age of 66 is a good compromise, and we do not believe that it should be raised any higher. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. We feel that people should be allowed to enjoy a good quality of life in their latter years and not be expected to continue working until they are 70. The stress of working in a high-pressure environment can be detrimental to a person's health and can also affect the mental health of the population at large. We also feel that if succession is done correctly, it is not necessary to increase the retirement age as there should be people ready to take on the role. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not think that the retirement age should be raised to 68 as people have worked for 50 years and should be allowed to enjoy a good quality of life before getting to their latter years. We do not think that people in their late 60s would be healthy or fit enough to continue at a certain level of working standards and quality. We also do not think that it is fair to ask people to work for so long and not enjoy a bit of old age before falling sick and death. We also think that society is different now, many people want to retire earlier and travel, or explore different hobbies and we do not think that working till you're even older fosters the right type of work culture. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, as the retirement age is already high enough. The health of people in their late 60s is not always good enough to continue working at the same level of quality. The quality of life of people in their late 60s would be negatively affected if the retirement age was raised to 68. The current retirement age of 66 is already a long time to work and the extra 2 years would be detrimental to the quality of life of people in their late 60s. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The age of 66 is already old enough, and people have worked hard for many years. They should be allowed to enjoy their retirement, rather than be forced to continue working for longer. We also believe that it is unfair to expect people in their late 60s to be fit and healthy enough to continue working. The current age of 66 is a good compromise, and we do not believe that it should be raised any higher. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. We feel that people should be allowed to enjoy a good quality of life in their latter years and not be expected to continue working until they are 70. The stress of working in a high-pressure environment can be detrimental to a person's health and can also affect the mental health of the population at large. We also feel that if succession is done correctly, it is not necessary to increase the retirement age as there should be people ready to take on the role. 3: 1,3,2,4 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002693.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002693.soc index c048b6a2..977a8af6 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002693.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002693.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride comes from living in a country that is cohesive, where members of the community look out for each other and the populace feel that everyone is playing by the same rules, regardless of their status. At the moment, it is is difficult to say that these important foundations exist in the UK. It is important to remember that the UK is made up of several countries, all of which have their own individual identities, traditions and beliefs. Too often national pride is taken to mean English pride and pride in the British monarchy. If it is decided that national pride is important to social cohesion in the UK, then it is suggested that we assess what it means to be British and what it is that we are proud of in current times rather than relying on outdated ideas of what the UK used to be. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: There is a strong argument for promoting a sense of pride in the country and its values, but it is important to be clear about what those values are and how they can be promoted. A sense of pride in the country should not be confused with pride in the monarchy or in the Englishness of the country. A sense of pride in the country can be fostered by highlighting the positive aspects of the country, such as the NHS, the legal system, the welfare state, the education system, the arts, the sciences, sport, the armed forces and the police. The sense of pride should be fostered by all sections of society working together to make the country a better place to live in. It should not be confused with nationalism or jingoism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of promoting a greater degree of national pride. However, it was recognised that this is a complex issue and that there are different interpretations of what national pride means. It was agreed that it is important to promote pride in what is good about the UK, but that it is also important to recognise that there are many different cultures and identities within the UK and that it is important to respect these differences. It was also agreed that it is important to promote a sense of civic pride and pride in one's local environment. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: There should be more of a sense of pride in the UK. However, this should not be at the expense of the different cultures and traditions that exist in the UK. It is important to remember that the UK is made up of several countries, all of which have their own individual identities, traditions and beliefs. It is also important to remember that the UK is a multicultural society and that national pride should not be taken to mean English pride and pride in the British monarchy. If it is decided that national pride is important to social cohesion in the UK, then it is suggested that we assess what it means to be British and what it is that we are proud of in current times rather than relying on outdated ideas of what the UK used to be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride comes from living in a country that is cohesive, where members of the community look out for each other and the populace feel that everyone is playing by the same rules, regardless of their status. At the moment, it is is difficult to say that these important foundations exist in the UK. It is important to remember that the UK is made up of several countries, all of which have their own individual identities, traditions and beliefs. Too often national pride is taken to mean English pride and pride in the British monarchy. If it is decided that national pride is important to social cohesion in the UK, then it is suggested that we assess what it means to be British and what it is that we are proud of in current times rather than relying on outdated ideas of what the UK used to be. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a strong argument for promoting a sense of pride in the country and its values, but it is important to be clear about what those values are and how they can be promoted. A sense of pride in the country should not be confused with pride in the monarchy or in the Englishness of the country. A sense of pride in the country can be fostered by highlighting the positive aspects of the country, such as the NHS, the legal system, the welfare state, the education system, the arts, the sciences, sport, the armed forces and the police. The sense of pride should be fostered by all sections of society working together to make the country a better place to live in. It should not be confused with nationalism or jingoism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of promoting a greater degree of national pride. However, it was recognised that this is a complex issue and that there are different interpretations of what national pride means. It was agreed that it is important to promote pride in what is good about the UK, but that it is also important to recognise that there are many different cultures and identities within the UK and that it is important to respect these differences. It was also agreed that it is important to promote a sense of civic pride and pride in one's local environment. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - There should be more of a sense of pride in the UK. However, this should not be at the expense of the different cultures and traditions that exist in the UK. It is important to remember that the UK is made up of several countries, all of which have their own individual identities, traditions and beliefs. It is also important to remember that the UK is a multicultural society and that national pride should not be taken to mean English pride and pride in the British monarchy. If it is decided that national pride is important to social cohesion in the UK, then it is suggested that we assess what it means to be British and what it is that we are proud of in current times rather than relying on outdated ideas of what the UK used to be. 1: 2,1,4,3 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002694.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002694.soc index 3dd350de..cce4b9a3 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002694.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002694.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride is an important thing for a nation to have. The UK has a rich history of art, literature, science, and culture that should be celebrated. It is important to be proud of who you are and where you come from. National pride can be expressed in many ways, such as celebrating holidays, flying flags, and singing the national anthem. However, it is important that national pride is not expressed in a way that is offensive to other people. It is important to remember that there are many different people in the UK and that they all have their own cultures and traditions. The UK is a diverse nation and it is important that we celebrate this diversity. National pride is a good thing, but it is important to be mindful of how it is expressed. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a greater sense of national pride. However, it was also felt that there is a stigma attached to those who do show national pride, and that this is a barrier to people expressing pride in their nation. It was felt that this stigma is often attached to those who express national pride in a way that is seen to be aggressive or exclusive, and that this is often associated with far-right beliefs. It was felt that this stigma is unfair, and that national pride should not be seen as something that is exclusive to those with far-right beliefs. It was felt that national pride should be something that is inclusive, and that people should be proud of their nation and the people in it. It was felt that this should be something that is celebrated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of more national pride, but with some reservations. National pride should be encouraged, but in a way that does not alienate or discriminate against anyone. National pride should be something that everyone can get behind, and that is not exclusive to any particular group. The group was also in favour of national pride being something that is encouraged by the government, and something that is taught in schools. However, the group was also in favour of the idea that national pride should not be something that is forced on people, but rather something that is encouraged and celebrated. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride is an important thing for a nation to have. The UK has a rich history of art, literature, science, and culture that should be celebrated. It is important to be proud of who you are and where you come from. National pride can be expressed in many ways, such as celebrating holidays, flying flags, and singing the national anthem. However, it is important that national pride is not expressed in a way that is offensive to other people. It is important to remember that there are many different people in the UK and that they all have their own cultures and traditions. The UK is a diverse nation and it is important that we celebrate this diversity. National pride is a good thing, but it is important to be mindful of how it is expressed. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater sense of national pride. However, it was also felt that there is a stigma attached to those who do show national pride, and that this is a barrier to people expressing pride in their nation. It was felt that this stigma is often attached to those who express national pride in a way that is seen to be aggressive or exclusive, and that this is often associated with far-right beliefs. It was felt that this stigma is unfair, and that national pride should not be seen as something that is exclusive to those with far-right beliefs. It was felt that national pride should be something that is inclusive, and that people should be proud of their nation and the people in it. It was felt that this should be something that is celebrated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of more national pride, but with some reservations. National pride should be encouraged, but in a way that does not alienate or discriminate against anyone. National pride should be something that everyone can get behind, and that is not exclusive to any particular group. The group was also in favour of national pride being something that is encouraged by the government, and something that is taught in schools. However, the group was also in favour of the idea that national pride should not be something that is forced on people, but rather something that is encouraged and celebrated. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations. 2: 1,2,4,3 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 3,4,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002695.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002695.soc index cd68d8ad..3be4c977 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002695.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002695.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations, and we should be aware of how this can make others feel. We should also remember that whilst we should celebrate what makes us unique, we should also celebrate what makes us similar to other nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations, or in a way that makes other people feel inferior. We should all have a sense of national pride, but we should also be accepting of others who do not share the same sense of national pride. We should be proud of the things that make us different, but we should also be accepting of the things that make others different. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations. We should also be mindful of the ways in which our national pride makes other people feel inferior, and be mindful of our history, and the impact our past has had on others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations. We should also be mindful of the terrible things we have done in the past, and the terrible things we are still doing in the present. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the good things that we have done and are doing, and to not be afraid to celebrate being British. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations, and we should be aware of how this can make others feel. We should also remember that whilst we should celebrate what makes us unique, we should also celebrate what makes us similar to other nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations, or in a way that makes other people feel inferior. We should all have a sense of national pride, but we should also be accepting of others who do not share the same sense of national pride. We should be proud of the things that make us different, but we should also be accepting of the things that make others different. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations. We should also be mindful of the ways in which our national pride makes other people feel inferior, and be mindful of our history, and the impact our past has had on others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - National pride is something that should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others. We should not be encouraging a sense of nationalism that comes with the sense of superiority over others. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the things that make us unique, the things that make us proud to be British. We should be proud of our history, and the things that we have achieved as a nation. We should be proud of the things that make us different from other countries, and we should celebrate those differences. We should not be afraid to show that we are proud to be British, but we should not be doing it in a way that makes us feel superior to other nations. We should also be mindful of the terrible things we have done in the past, and the terrible things we are still doing in the present. The best way to encourage a greater sense of national pride is to celebrate the good things that we have done and are doing, and to not be afraid to celebrate being British. 2: 1,3,2,4 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002696.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002696.soc index a9c6b902..838f0143 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002696.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002696.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, but we should not stop there. We should set a goal to be carbon negative by 2050 and continue to make progress in this direction. We should not wait for technology to solve the problem, but we should start now to make the changes necessary to reach this goal. We should stop building new buildings that are not carbon neutral. We should stop using fossil fuels for transport and heating. We should invest in green energy and stop using nuclear power. We should plant more trees and stop deforestation. We should stop using single use plastics. We should stop eating meat. We should stop flying for holidays. We should stop using the car for short journeys. We should stop using the car for commuting. We should stop using the car for everything. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, as this is a key step in helping to combat climate change. The UK is a leader in climate change and should be setting an example to the rest of the world in this area. We are already making progress in this area, with more renewable energy being produced and used in the UK, and more electric vehicles being sold. We should be aiming to achieve this goal sooner, as climate change is a major threat to the planet and to society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: The UK should set a zero neutral carbon goal, yes. The goal should be to be carbon neutral by 2030, not 2050. This is because the world is changing very fast and we need to keep up. We need to make a big effort now to make the change to renewable energy and make it affordable for everyone. We need to stop using so much plastic and making so much waste. We need to promote active travel and working from home much more too. We need to make sure that we have enough food to eat and that we don't waste so much food. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 at the latest. The world has changed a lot in the last 100 years and we need to awaken our eyes to the effect that man has on this planet. Industry and technology has run away with itself and pollution of the earth will eventually kill it. We need to protect the planet and take on board climate change and all its problems - famine, mass migration. The UK should set a zero neutral carbon goal, yes. But 2050 is way too late. We should aim to have this done in the next 5 years at the very longest. Most of our electricity can already be generated from wind and solar power, we just need to step up. No more new buildings that are not carbon neutral. It is crazy that we are building new buildings that have no solar panels and no triple glazing. We need to promote active travel and working from home much more too. I think that a goal of being carbon neutral is great for the UK is great, however I don't believe that 2050 is a realistic target. Achievement of the goal depends n a lot of things such as cost, people's commitment, research and technology. I would go further than this +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, but we should not stop there. We should set a goal to be carbon negative by 2050 and continue to make progress in this direction. We should not wait for technology to solve the problem, but we should start now to make the changes necessary to reach this goal. We should stop building new buildings that are not carbon neutral. We should stop using fossil fuels for transport and heating. We should invest in green energy and stop using nuclear power. We should plant more trees and stop deforestation. We should stop using single use plastics. We should stop eating meat. We should stop flying for holidays. We should stop using the car for short journeys. We should stop using the car for commuting. We should stop using the car for everything. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, as this is a key step in helping to combat climate change. The UK is a leader in climate change and should be setting an example to the rest of the world in this area. We are already making progress in this area, with more renewable energy being produced and used in the UK, and more electric vehicles being sold. We should be aiming to achieve this goal sooner, as climate change is a major threat to the planet and to society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The UK should set a zero neutral carbon goal, yes. The goal should be to be carbon neutral by 2030, not 2050. This is because the world is changing very fast and we need to keep up. We need to make a big effort now to make the change to renewable energy and make it affordable for everyone. We need to stop using so much plastic and making so much waste. We need to promote active travel and working from home much more too. We need to make sure that we have enough food to eat and that we don't waste so much food. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 at the latest. The world has changed a lot in the last 100 years and we need to awaken our eyes to the effect that man has on this planet. Industry and technology has run away with itself and pollution of the earth will eventually kill it. We need to protect the planet and take on board climate change and all its problems - famine, mass migration. The UK should set a zero neutral carbon goal, yes. But 2050 is way too late. We should aim to have this done in the next 5 years at the very longest. Most of our electricity can already be generated from wind and solar power, we just need to step up. No more new buildings that are not carbon neutral. It is crazy that we are building new buildings that have no solar panels and no triple glazing. We need to promote active travel and working from home much more too. I think that a goal of being carbon neutral is great for the UK is great, however I don't believe that 2050 is a realistic target. Achievement of the goal depends n a lot of things such as cost, people's commitment, research and technology. I would go further than this 1: 4,1,2,3 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002697.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002697.soc index a83a68f2..c289fb81 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002697.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002697.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We believe that the retirement age should not be raised to 68. We recognise that people are living longer, however, this is not the case for everyone. We believe that the government should be looking at other ways of supporting the pensions crisis, such as encouraging people to downsize their homes and use the assets they have built up over their lives. We believe that there should be more discussion around the concept of retirement, what it means, how it is funded and what the impacts are on younger people. We believe that there is scope to develop roles for people after retirement that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age - or 'retirement with voluntary community work'. This would allow people to retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people, whilst still utilising the skilled labour of older people. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We believe that the retirement age should not be raised to 68. We recognise that people are living longer, however, this is not the case for everyone. We believe that the government should be looking at other ways of supporting the pensions crisis, such as encouraging people to downsize their homes and use the wealth they have built up over their lives. We believe that there should be more discussion around the concept of retirement, what it means, how it is funded and what the impacts are on younger people. We believe that there is scope to develop roles for people after retirement that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age - or 'retirement with voluntary community work'. This would allow people to retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people, whilst still utilising the skilled labour of older people. We would like to see the government commit to keeping the retirement age at 66 and not increasing it any further. We would also like to see the government commit to looking at developing roles for older people that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We believe that the retirement age should not be raised to 68. We recognise that people are living longer, however, this is not the case for everyone. We believe that the government should be looking at other ways of supporting the pensions crisis, such as encouraging people to downsize their homes and use the wealth they have built up over their lives. We believe that there should be more discussion around the concept of retirement, what it means, how it is funded and what the impacts are on younger people. We believe that there is scope to develop roles for people after retirement that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age - or 'retirement with voluntary community work'. This would allow people to retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people, whilst still utilising the skilled labour of older people. This would also encourage people to pay into pensions as they would have a safety net to fall back on, regardless of whether they are still working. We believe that the government should make a commitment that they will not keep on increasing the retirement age. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We believe that the retirement age should not be raised to 68. We recognise that people are living longer, however, this is not the case for everyone. We believe that the government should be looking at other ways of supporting the pensions crisis, such as encouraging people to downsize their homes and use the wealth they have built up over their lives. We believe that there should be more discussion around the concept of retirement, what it means, how it is funded and what the impacts are on younger people. We believe that there is scope to develop roles for people after retirement that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age - or 'retirement with voluntary community work'. This would allow people to retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people, whilst still utilising the skilled labour of older people. We believe that this should be explored in more detail and would recommend that the government should set up a taskforce to look into this. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We believe that the retirement age should not be raised to 68. We recognise that people are living longer, however, this is not the case for everyone. We believe that the government should be looking at other ways of supporting the pensions crisis, such as encouraging people to downsize their homes and use the assets they have built up over their lives. We believe that there should be more discussion around the concept of retirement, what it means, how it is funded and what the impacts are on younger people. We believe that there is scope to develop roles for people after retirement that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age - or 'retirement with voluntary community work'. This would allow people to retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people, whilst still utilising the skilled labour of older people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that the retirement age should not be raised to 68. We recognise that people are living longer, however, this is not the case for everyone. We believe that the government should be looking at other ways of supporting the pensions crisis, such as encouraging people to downsize their homes and use the wealth they have built up over their lives. We believe that there should be more discussion around the concept of retirement, what it means, how it is funded and what the impacts are on younger people. We believe that there is scope to develop roles for people after retirement that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age - or 'retirement with voluntary community work'. This would allow people to retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people, whilst still utilising the skilled labour of older people. We would like to see the government commit to keeping the retirement age at 66 and not increasing it any further. We would also like to see the government commit to looking at developing roles for older people that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that the retirement age should not be raised to 68. We recognise that people are living longer, however, this is not the case for everyone. We believe that the government should be looking at other ways of supporting the pensions crisis, such as encouraging people to downsize their homes and use the wealth they have built up over their lives. We believe that there should be more discussion around the concept of retirement, what it means, how it is funded and what the impacts are on younger people. We believe that there is scope to develop roles for people after retirement that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age - or 'retirement with voluntary community work'. This would allow people to retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people, whilst still utilising the skilled labour of older people. This would also encourage people to pay into pensions as they would have a safety net to fall back on, regardless of whether they are still working. We believe that the government should make a commitment that they will not keep on increasing the retirement age. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We believe that the retirement age should not be raised to 68. We recognise that people are living longer, however, this is not the case for everyone. We believe that the government should be looking at other ways of supporting the pensions crisis, such as encouraging people to downsize their homes and use the wealth they have built up over their lives. We believe that there should be more discussion around the concept of retirement, what it means, how it is funded and what the impacts are on younger people. We believe that there is scope to develop roles for people after retirement that still support the community but allow for a younger retirement age - or 'retirement with voluntary community work'. This would allow people to retire earlier, freeing up jobs for younger people, whilst still utilising the skilled labour of older people. We believe that this should be explored in more detail and would recommend that the government should set up a taskforce to look into this. 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 3,2,1,4 1: 2,3,4,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002698.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002698.soc index 07f2ae59..d82c5b7d 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002698.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002698.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride can be a very good thing. It can help to give people a sense of belonging and pride in their country. It can also be a very dangerous thing if people start to believe their country is better than others. As such, we should not be actively promoting national pride, but rather, we should be promoting being a good global citizen. We should also be teaching about the history of the UK in school, so that people can be proud of their country, but also understand its history and the mistakes that have been made. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: We don't think that it is necessary to actively promote national pride. However, it is important to ensure that the next generation are taught about the history of the UK and how it has shaped the world. This will naturally lead to a sense of pride and belonging. We should also ensure that we celebrate the positive aspects of the UK and ensure that it is not always portrayed in a negative light. We should be proud of the UK, but this should not come at the expense of other nations. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: National pride is a double edged sword. There is a fine line between pride and arrogance. The UK is not perfect, however we have shaped the world in a positive way and we should be proud of this. We should be teaching the next generation about this, so they can be proud of where they come from and understand their role in shaping the future. We should also be teaching them to be accepting of other cultures and beliefs. We should be teaching them to be proud global citizens. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of promoting a greater degree of national pride. However, it was recognised that this could be problematic if it led to a sense of superiority and a lack of appreciation for other cultures. It was felt that the best way to promote national pride was to ensure that the history of the UK was taught in schools, and that this should be done in a way that celebrated the UK's achievements but also acknowledged its failures. It was felt that this would help to instil a sense of pride in the nation's history and culture, and also to help people understand that the UK is not perfect and that it has made mistakes in the past. The group felt that this would help to ensure that any sense of national pride would not be used as a way of making the UK feel superior to other nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride can be a very good thing. It can help to give people a sense of belonging and pride in their country. It can also be a very dangerous thing if people start to believe their country is better than others. As such, we should not be actively promoting national pride, but rather, we should be promoting being a good global citizen. We should also be teaching about the history of the UK in school, so that people can be proud of their country, but also understand its history and the mistakes that have been made. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We don't think that it is necessary to actively promote national pride. However, it is important to ensure that the next generation are taught about the history of the UK and how it has shaped the world. This will naturally lead to a sense of pride and belonging. We should also ensure that we celebrate the positive aspects of the UK and ensure that it is not always portrayed in a negative light. We should be proud of the UK, but this should not come at the expense of other nations. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - National pride is a double edged sword. There is a fine line between pride and arrogance. The UK is not perfect, however we have shaped the world in a positive way and we should be proud of this. We should be teaching the next generation about this, so they can be proud of where they come from and understand their role in shaping the future. We should also be teaching them to be accepting of other cultures and beliefs. We should be teaching them to be proud global citizens. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of promoting a greater degree of national pride. However, it was recognised that this could be problematic if it led to a sense of superiority and a lack of appreciation for other cultures. It was felt that the best way to promote national pride was to ensure that the history of the UK was taught in schools, and that this should be done in a way that celebrated the UK's achievements but also acknowledged its failures. It was felt that this would help to instil a sense of pride in the nation's history and culture, and also to help people understand that the UK is not perfect and that it has made mistakes in the past. The group felt that this would help to ensure that any sense of national pride would not be used as a way of making the UK feel superior to other nations. 1: 2,1,3,4 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002699.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002699.soc index 1325c413..04cbdd14 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002699.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002699.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The UK is an ageing society and this means that people are living longer. This is great news for individuals but not for the economy as a whole. We need to find a way to support people to live longer and healthier lives but also ensure that they can contribute to the economy for as long as possible. The government has already raised the retirement age from 65 to 66, but this has not been enough to address the issues. However, we do not think that the government should force people to work for longer. People should be free to choose to work for as long as they want to. However, we do think that the government should make it easier for people to work for longer if they want to. This could be done by making it easier for people to work part time or to move into a less demanding job. The government should also make it easier for people to retrain or to learn new skills. This will help people to stay in work for longer and will also help to address skills shortages in the economy. We also think that the government should make it easier for people to retire earlier if they want to. This -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The UK is an ageing society and this means that people are living longer. This is great news for individuals but not for the economy as a whole. We need to find a way to support people to live longer and healthier lives but also ensure that they can contribute to the economy for as long as possible. The government has already raised the retirement age from 65 to 66, but this has not been enough to address the issues. However, we do not think that the government should force people to work for longer. People should be free to choose to work for as long as they want to. However, we do think that the government should make it easier for people to work for longer if they want to. This could be done by making it easier for people to work part time or to move into a less demanding job. The government should also make it easier for people to retrain or to learn new skills. This will help people to stay in work for longer and will also help to address skills shortages in the economy. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The UK is an ageing society and this means that people are living longer. This is great news for individuals but not for the economy as a whole. We need to find a way to support people to live longer and healthier lives but also ensure that they can contribute to the economy for as long as possible. The government has already raised the retirement age from 65 to 66, but this has not been enough to address the issues. However, we do not think that the government should force people to work for longer. People should be free to choose to work for as long as they want to. However, we do think that the government should make it easier for people to work for longer if they want to. This could be done by making it easier for people to work part time or to move into a less demanding job. The government should also make it easier for people to retrain or to learn new skills. This will help people to stay in work for longer and will also help to address skills shortages in the economy. The government should also make it easier for people to return to work after a period of unemployment or sickness. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The UK is an ageing society and this means that people are living longer. This is great news for individuals but not for the economy as a whole. We need to find a way to support people to live longer and healthier lives but also ensure that they can contribute to the economy for as long as possible. The government has already raised the retirement age from 65 to 66, but this has not been enough to address the issues. However, we do not think that the government should force people to work for longer. People should be free to choose to work for as long as they want to. However, we do think that the government should make it easier for people to work for longer if they want to. This could be done by making it easier for people to work part time or to move into a less demanding job. The government should also make it easier for people to retrain or to learn new skills. This will help people to stay in work for longer and will also help to address skills shortages in the economy. We also think that there should be an acknowledgement that many people, including health care workers, teachers, and +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The UK is an ageing society and this means that people are living longer. This is great news for individuals but not for the economy as a whole. We need to find a way to support people to live longer and healthier lives but also ensure that they can contribute to the economy for as long as possible. The government has already raised the retirement age from 65 to 66, but this has not been enough to address the issues. However, we do not think that the government should force people to work for longer. People should be free to choose to work for as long as they want to. However, we do think that the government should make it easier for people to work for longer if they want to. This could be done by making it easier for people to work part time or to move into a less demanding job. The government should also make it easier for people to retrain or to learn new skills. This will help people to stay in work for longer and will also help to address skills shortages in the economy. We also think that the government should make it easier for people to retire earlier if they want to. This +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The UK is an ageing society and this means that people are living longer. This is great news for individuals but not for the economy as a whole. We need to find a way to support people to live longer and healthier lives but also ensure that they can contribute to the economy for as long as possible. The government has already raised the retirement age from 65 to 66, but this has not been enough to address the issues. However, we do not think that the government should force people to work for longer. People should be free to choose to work for as long as they want to. However, we do think that the government should make it easier for people to work for longer if they want to. This could be done by making it easier for people to work part time or to move into a less demanding job. The government should also make it easier for people to retrain or to learn new skills. This will help people to stay in work for longer and will also help to address skills shortages in the economy. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The UK is an ageing society and this means that people are living longer. This is great news for individuals but not for the economy as a whole. We need to find a way to support people to live longer and healthier lives but also ensure that they can contribute to the economy for as long as possible. The government has already raised the retirement age from 65 to 66, but this has not been enough to address the issues. However, we do not think that the government should force people to work for longer. People should be free to choose to work for as long as they want to. However, we do think that the government should make it easier for people to work for longer if they want to. This could be done by making it easier for people to work part time or to move into a less demanding job. The government should also make it easier for people to retrain or to learn new skills. This will help people to stay in work for longer and will also help to address skills shortages in the economy. The government should also make it easier for people to return to work after a period of unemployment or sickness. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. The UK is an ageing society and this means that people are living longer. This is great news for individuals but not for the economy as a whole. We need to find a way to support people to live longer and healthier lives but also ensure that they can contribute to the economy for as long as possible. The government has already raised the retirement age from 65 to 66, but this has not been enough to address the issues. However, we do not think that the government should force people to work for longer. People should be free to choose to work for as long as they want to. However, we do think that the government should make it easier for people to work for longer if they want to. This could be done by making it easier for people to work part time or to move into a less demanding job. The government should also make it easier for people to retrain or to learn new skills. This will help people to stay in work for longer and will also help to address skills shortages in the economy. We also think that there should be an acknowledgement that many people, including health care workers, teachers, and 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,2,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002700.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002700.soc index 3d63e105..cd5f536a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002700.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002700.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: There are several major problem with the term carbon. It it really possible for carbon emission to reach a zero level? or are they "net through not just futuristic offsets, which are expensive or unproven. at scale. I think the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. There needs to be a point where everyone is forced to make the changes that are needed to stop producing carbon for the health of the planet. Although it is difficult to see how this will be possible at times there have been advances in this field and people and organisations who are more vocal about changes for the future. I think the problem can seem insurmountable and people struggle to see what they can do to make a different but if there were more stringent timelines in place maybe it would be more achievable. Measures to reduce CO2 are important however all. Electric are definitetlyNOT the answer. Several companies are directing their R and D to hydrogen. They should be encouraged. We shouldn't set a goal for carbon neutral by 2050, because it should be far sooner than that. Climate change is happening at a terribly accelerating rate, any delay will only cause further problems down the road. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Although there are many arguments for and against setting a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, it is the opinion of this group that the UK should set this goal. The UK is one of the largest producers of carbon in the world, and as such it is our responsibility to lead the way in making changes to reduce our carbon emissions. The date of 2050 is ambitious, but necessary to ensure that we make the changes needed to reduce our carbon emissions. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to make the necessary changes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of setting a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, but with some reservations. The reservations were mainly around whether it is feasible to reach this goal, and whether it is the right thing to do. There was some concern that this would lead to a large increase in the cost of living for the average person, and that this would lead to a reduction in the quality of life. It was also felt that there is a lack of understanding of the term carbon neutral, and that this could lead to people feeling that they are not making a difference, when in fact they are. It was also felt that there is a lack of understanding of the term carbon neutral, and that this could lead to people feeling that they are not making a difference, when in fact they are. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. This is a long-term goal, and the UK will need to work hard to achieve this. The UK should set interim goals, to ensure that it is on track to achieve this long-term goal. The UK should also work with other countries to achieve this goal. It is important to work with other countries, to ensure that the UK is not disadvantaged by the actions of other countries. It is also important to work with other countries, to ensure that the actions of the UK are not disadvantaged by the actions of other countries. The UK should also set a goal to reduce CO2 emissions to net zero by 2035. This is a more challenging goal, and the UK will need to work hard to achieve this. The UK should set interim goals, to ensure that it is on track to achieve this long-term goal. The UK should also work with other countries to achieve this goal. It is important to work with other countries, to ensure that the UK is not disadvantaged by the actions of other countries. It is also important to work with other countries, to ensure that the actions of the UK are not +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There are several major problem with the term carbon. It it really possible for carbon emission to reach a zero level? or are they "net through not just futuristic offsets, which are expensive or unproven. at scale. I think the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. There needs to be a point where everyone is forced to make the changes that are needed to stop producing carbon for the health of the planet. Although it is difficult to see how this will be possible at times there have been advances in this field and people and organisations who are more vocal about changes for the future. I think the problem can seem insurmountable and people struggle to see what they can do to make a different but if there were more stringent timelines in place maybe it would be more achievable. Measures to reduce CO2 are important however all. Electric are definitetlyNOT the answer. Several companies are directing their R and D to hydrogen. They should be encouraged. We shouldn't set a goal for carbon neutral by 2050, because it should be far sooner than that. Climate change is happening at a terribly accelerating rate, any delay will only cause further problems down the road. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Although there are many arguments for and against setting a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, it is the opinion of this group that the UK should set this goal. The UK is one of the largest producers of carbon in the world, and as such it is our responsibility to lead the way in making changes to reduce our carbon emissions. The date of 2050 is ambitious, but necessary to ensure that we make the changes needed to reduce our carbon emissions. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to make the necessary changes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of setting a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, but with some reservations. The reservations were mainly around whether it is feasible to reach this goal, and whether it is the right thing to do. There was some concern that this would lead to a large increase in the cost of living for the average person, and that this would lead to a reduction in the quality of life. It was also felt that there is a lack of understanding of the term carbon neutral, and that this could lead to people feeling that they are not making a difference, when in fact they are. It was also felt that there is a lack of understanding of the term carbon neutral, and that this could lead to people feeling that they are not making a difference, when in fact they are. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. This is a long-term goal, and the UK will need to work hard to achieve this. The UK should set interim goals, to ensure that it is on track to achieve this long-term goal. The UK should also work with other countries to achieve this goal. It is important to work with other countries, to ensure that the UK is not disadvantaged by the actions of other countries. It is also important to work with other countries, to ensure that the actions of the UK are not disadvantaged by the actions of other countries. The UK should also set a goal to reduce CO2 emissions to net zero by 2035. This is a more challenging goal, and the UK will need to work hard to achieve this. The UK should set interim goals, to ensure that it is on track to achieve this long-term goal. The UK should also work with other countries to achieve this goal. It is important to work with other countries, to ensure that the UK is not disadvantaged by the actions of other countries. It is also important to work with other countries, to ensure that the actions of the UK are not 2: 3,2,1,4 2: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002701.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002701.soc index c68f28ca..d2e5fd63 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002701.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002701.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride, but there was a strong caveat that this should not be at the expense of other people's pride, or lead to any sense of superiority. It was felt that there is a lot to be proud of in the UK, and that the recent Olympics and Jubilee celebrations had helped to foster a sense of national pride, but that this had not been at the expense of other countries. It was felt that it is important to celebrate the diversity of the UK, and that this is something to be proud of, but that this should not be at the expense of a sense of national pride. It was felt that it is important to remember the history of the UK, and to celebrate the good things, but also to remember the bad things, and to learn from them. It was felt that the recent Olympics and Jubilee celebrations had helped to foster a sense of national pride, but that this had not been at the expense of other countries. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National pride is something that can be a positive thing in some circumstances. In a time of crisis or national celebration, national pride can bring people together and unite them, but this should not be encouraged as a permanent state of being. National pride should not be used as a way of creating a sense of superiority over other nations, or to create a sense of exclusion of others. National pride should be used as a way of celebrating the diversity and successes of the nation, and not be used to encourage people to see themselves as superior to others. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride. However, it was recognised that there is a fine line between encouraging national pride and encouraging nationalism, which can have negative consequences. The group agreed that national pride is something that is often felt by people naturally, and that it can be very beneficial to a society. However, it was recognised that national pride can also be used to divide people, and that it can be used to promote negative views of other countries. The group agreed that it is important to be aware of this, and to ensure that national pride is not used in a negative way. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride, but there was a strong caveat that this should not be at the expense of other people's pride, or lead to any sense of superiority. It was felt that there is a lot to be proud of in the UK, and that the recent Olympics and Jubilee celebrations had helped to foster a sense of national pride, but that this had not been at the expense of other countries. It was felt that it is important to celebrate the diversity of the UK, and that this is something to be proud of, but that this should not be at the expense of a sense of national pride. It was felt that it is important to remember the history of the UK, and to celebrate the good things, but also to remember the bad things, and to learn from them. It was felt that the recent Olympics and Jubilee celebrations had helped to foster a sense of national pride, but that this had not been at the expense of other countries. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National pride is something that can be a positive thing in some circumstances. In a time of crisis or national celebration, national pride can bring people together and unite them, but this should not be encouraged as a permanent state of being. National pride should not be used as a way of creating a sense of superiority over other nations, or to create a sense of exclusion of others. National pride should be used as a way of celebrating the diversity and successes of the nation, and not be used to encourage people to see themselves as superior to others. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride. However, it was recognised that there is a fine line between encouraging national pride and encouraging nationalism, which can have negative consequences. The group agreed that national pride is something that is often felt by people naturally, and that it can be very beneficial to a society. However, it was recognised that national pride can also be used to divide people, and that it can be used to promote negative views of other countries. The group agreed that it is important to be aware of this, and to ensure that national pride is not used in a negative way. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 4,1,2,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002702.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002702.soc index 59f4b067..84d9baa0 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002702.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002702.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The group felt that national pride can be a good thing when it encourages the community to cooperate and work together. The group felt that it is important to be aware of the potential negatives of national pride, and to ensure that it does not become a negative force. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: The group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride, however, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The group also felt that there are many more important things to focus on at this time, such as the cost of living crisis, and the issue of climate change. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The group felt that there is a lot to be proud of in the UK, and that it is important to celebrate this, but that it is also important to celebrate the diversity of the UK, and to be aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The group felt that there is a place for a greater degree of national pride, but that it is important to be aware of the potential for this to be taken over by the right wing, and to be aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The group felt that national pride can be a good thing when it encourages the community to cooperate and work together. The group felt that it is important to be aware of the potential negatives of national pride, and to ensure that it does not become a negative force. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride, however, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The group also felt that there are many more important things to focus on at this time, such as the cost of living crisis, and the issue of climate change. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The group felt that there is a lot to be proud of in the UK, and that it is important to celebrate this, but that it is also important to celebrate the diversity of the UK, and to be aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, the group was very much aware of the potential for national pride to be highjacked by the right wing, and by people with racist and imperialistic views of the world. The group was also aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. The group felt that there is a fine line between national pride and nationalism, and that it is important to be aware of this when considering whether or not to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The group felt that there is a place for a greater degree of national pride, but that it is important to be aware of the potential for this to be taken over by the right wing, and to be aware of the potential for national pride to encourage people to feel superior to others, or to create a national identity that does not include everyone living in the country. 2: 2,3,1,4 1: 1,3,4,2 1: 1,2,3,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002703.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002703.soc index 45762126..8ed655b2 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002703.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002703.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride, but there were some caveats. Firstly, it was felt that this should be done in a way that is not exclusive and that does not lead to division or racism. Secondly, it was felt that it is important to be proud of the good things about the nation, but also to acknowledge the bad things in the nation's history, and to learn from them. It was also felt that it is important to be proud of the nation's achievements, but also to be aware of its failings, and to work to improve them. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride, although there was some debate over whether this should be encouraged by the government or not. It was felt that the government should not be involved in encouraging pride in the nation, but that it could be encouraged by the people themselves. There was also some debate over whether it was appropriate to encourage pride in the nation's history, with some feeling that this should be done and others feeling that it was not appropriate. In the end, the group decided that it was appropriate to encourage pride in the nation's history, as long as this was done in a way which was not exclusionary. It was also felt that the nation's history should be taught in schools, so that people could learn about the nation's history and be proud of it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. We need to feel more confident. However, this should not be at the expense of other cultures and communities, and we should not forget our history. The group felt that it is important to remember the past, and to learn from it, but that this should not be at the expense of the future. The group felt that it is important to celebrate our nation, and to feel proud to be British, but that this should not be at the expense of other nations and communities. The group felt that it is important to be proud of our history, but that this should not be at the expense of other histories and cultures. The group felt that it is important to celebrate our nation, and to feel proud to be British, but that this should not be at the expense of other nations and communities. The group felt that it is important to remember the past, and to learn from it, but that this should not be at the expense of the future. The group felt that it is important to celebrate our nation, and to feel proud to be British, but that this should not be at the expense of other nations and communities. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: We should be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The British people should be proud of their country, and the way of life we have. We are a very free people, and live in a very free society, and this is something to be proud of. We should be proud of our history, and the fact that we have spread freedom and democracy across the world, and have been the greatest force for good in the world. We should also be proud of our culture, and our achievements, and we should celebrate them. We should also be proud of our military, and the fact that we have been prepared to fight for freedom and democracy across the world, and to fight for the freedom of other nations, and we should be proud of the sacrifices they have made. The British people should be proud to be British, and to live in the greatest country in the world, and to be a part of this great nation. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride, but there were some caveats. Firstly, it was felt that this should be done in a way that is not exclusive and that does not lead to division or racism. Secondly, it was felt that it is important to be proud of the good things about the nation, but also to acknowledge the bad things in the nation's history, and to learn from them. It was also felt that it is important to be proud of the nation's achievements, but also to be aware of its failings, and to work to improve them. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride, although there was some debate over whether this should be encouraged by the government or not. It was felt that the government should not be involved in encouraging pride in the nation, but that it could be encouraged by the people themselves. There was also some debate over whether it was appropriate to encourage pride in the nation's history, with some feeling that this should be done and others feeling that it was not appropriate. In the end, the group decided that it was appropriate to encourage pride in the nation's history, as long as this was done in a way which was not exclusionary. It was also felt that the nation's history should be taught in schools, so that people could learn about the nation's history and be proud of it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. We need to feel more confident. However, this should not be at the expense of other cultures and communities, and we should not forget our history. The group felt that it is important to remember the past, and to learn from it, but that this should not be at the expense of the future. The group felt that it is important to celebrate our nation, and to feel proud to be British, but that this should not be at the expense of other nations and communities. The group felt that it is important to be proud of our history, but that this should not be at the expense of other histories and cultures. The group felt that it is important to celebrate our nation, and to feel proud to be British, but that this should not be at the expense of other nations and communities. The group felt that it is important to remember the past, and to learn from it, but that this should not be at the expense of the future. The group felt that it is important to celebrate our nation, and to feel proud to be British, but that this should not be at the expense of other nations and communities. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We should be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. The British people should be proud of their country, and the way of life we have. We are a very free people, and live in a very free society, and this is something to be proud of. We should be proud of our history, and the fact that we have spread freedom and democracy across the world, and have been the greatest force for good in the world. We should also be proud of our culture, and our achievements, and we should celebrate them. We should also be proud of our military, and the fact that we have been prepared to fight for freedom and democracy across the world, and to fight for the freedom of other nations, and we should be proud of the sacrifices they have made. The British people should be proud to be British, and to live in the greatest country in the world, and to be a part of this great nation. 1: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,1,2,4 1: 4,2,3,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002704.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002704.soc index 03dae7f6..ec9d8237 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002704.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002704.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: People should not be forced to work until they are 68. However, it is recognised that people are living longer and this has an impact on the cost of pensions. It is important that people are encouraged to save for their retirement and that the state pension is not their only source of income. It is also important that people have the opportunity to work for as long as they want to and that they are not forced to retire at a certain age. People should be encouraged to work for as long as they are able to and to have a flexible retirement that allows them to reduce their hours and responsibilities as they get older. This would allow people to contribute to the economy for as long as they are able to and to enjoy their retirement when they are no longer able to work. It is important that the government makes people aware of any changes to retirement age well in advance so that people can plan accordingly. This would reduce the impact of any such changes. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: People should not be forced to work until they are 68. However, it is recognised that people are living longer and this has an impact on the cost of pensions. It is important that people are encouraged to save for their retirement and that the state pension is not their only source of income. It is also important that people have the opportunity to work for as long as they want to and that they are not forced to retire at a certain age. People should be encouraged to work for as long as they are able to and to have a flexible retirement that allows them to reduce their hours and responsibilities as they get older. This would allow people to contribute to the economy for as long as they are able to and to enjoy their retirement when they are no longer able to work. It is important that people have fair warning of any changes to the retirement age so that they can plan their finances accordingly. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, people should not be forced to work until they are 68. However, it is recognised that people are living longer and this has an impact on the cost of pensions. It is important that people are encouraged to save for their retirement and that the state pension is not their only source of income. It is also important that people have the opportunity to work for as long as they want to and that they are not forced to retire at a certain age. People should be encouraged to work for as long as they are able to and to have a flexible retirement that allows them to reduce their hours and responsibilities as they get older. This would allow people to contribute to the economy for as long as they are able to and to enjoy their retirement when they are no longer able to work. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: People should not be forced to work until they are 68. However, it is recognised that people are living longer and this has an impact on the cost of pensions. It is important that people are encouraged to save for their retirement and that the state pension is not their only source of income. It is also important that people have the opportunity to work for as long as they want to and that they are not forced to retire at a certain age. People should be encouraged to work for as long as they are able to and to have a flexible retirement that allows them to reduce their hours and responsibilities as they get older. This would allow people to contribute to the economy for as long as they are able to and to enjoy their retirement when they are no longer able to work. In addition, people should be given adequate notice of any changes to the retirement age so that they can plan for their future. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - People should not be forced to work until they are 68. However, it is recognised that people are living longer and this has an impact on the cost of pensions. It is important that people are encouraged to save for their retirement and that the state pension is not their only source of income. It is also important that people have the opportunity to work for as long as they want to and that they are not forced to retire at a certain age. People should be encouraged to work for as long as they are able to and to have a flexible retirement that allows them to reduce their hours and responsibilities as they get older. This would allow people to contribute to the economy for as long as they are able to and to enjoy their retirement when they are no longer able to work. It is important that the government makes people aware of any changes to retirement age well in advance so that people can plan accordingly. This would reduce the impact of any such changes. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - People should not be forced to work until they are 68. However, it is recognised that people are living longer and this has an impact on the cost of pensions. It is important that people are encouraged to save for their retirement and that the state pension is not their only source of income. It is also important that people have the opportunity to work for as long as they want to and that they are not forced to retire at a certain age. People should be encouraged to work for as long as they are able to and to have a flexible retirement that allows them to reduce their hours and responsibilities as they get older. This would allow people to contribute to the economy for as long as they are able to and to enjoy their retirement when they are no longer able to work. It is important that people have fair warning of any changes to the retirement age so that they can plan their finances accordingly. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, people should not be forced to work until they are 68. However, it is recognised that people are living longer and this has an impact on the cost of pensions. It is important that people are encouraged to save for their retirement and that the state pension is not their only source of income. It is also important that people have the opportunity to work for as long as they want to and that they are not forced to retire at a certain age. People should be encouraged to work for as long as they are able to and to have a flexible retirement that allows them to reduce their hours and responsibilities as they get older. This would allow people to contribute to the economy for as long as they are able to and to enjoy their retirement when they are no longer able to work. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - People should not be forced to work until they are 68. However, it is recognised that people are living longer and this has an impact on the cost of pensions. It is important that people are encouraged to save for their retirement and that the state pension is not their only source of income. It is also important that people have the opportunity to work for as long as they want to and that they are not forced to retire at a certain age. People should be encouraged to work for as long as they are able to and to have a flexible retirement that allows them to reduce their hours and responsibilities as they get older. This would allow people to contribute to the economy for as long as they are able to and to enjoy their retirement when they are no longer able to work. In addition, people should be given adequate notice of any changes to the retirement age so that they can plan for their future. 1: 1,2,4,3 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002705.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002705.soc index 3b613a70..8dbca7f7 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002705.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002705.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We should not be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. Whilst it might be nice for morale, this could be achieved by other measures such as supporting the NHS more. The concept of a nation is a difficult one for me as it can imply a sense of 'little England' and harkens back to the divisive politics of the last century. The 'nation state' was linked in the past to a dominant ethnic group, particularly for the new nations created after the first world war and led to terrible treatment of minorities. Saying that, I think people should be proud of aspects of British culture and our historic achievements, but also be clear eyed about the dark aspects of our past. I'd like to see people taking more pride in their local areas and their communities, but that is at a smaller scale than the nation as a whole. In summary, i think to tackle the problems of the 21st century, we may need to think beyond the nation to an international scale. A daunting prospect going beyond anything we've managed before. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the concept of a 'nation' is a difficult one. It can imply a sense of 'little England' and harkens back to the divisive politics of the last century. The 'nation state' was linked in the past to a dominant ethnic group, particularly for the new nations created after the first world war and led to terrible treatment of minorities. Saying that, we think people should be proud of aspects of British culture and our historic achievements, but also be clear eyed about the dark aspects of our past. We'd like to see people taking more pride in their local areas and their communities, but that is at a smaller scale than the nation as a whole. In summary, we think to tackle the problems of the 21st century, we may need to think beyond the nation to an international scale. A daunting prospect going beyond anything we've managed before. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more national pride. However, we did not want to encourage a sense of superiority or xenophobia and so we were keen to encourage pride in the diversity of our nation and its people. We felt that the best way to do this would be to celebrate our diversity and promote awareness of the achievements of different communities. We were also keen to ensure that people were aware of the negative aspects of our past and that we should encourage people to be proud of how far we have come in terms of equality and diversity. We were in favour of encouraging pride in the NHS and other public services and in the role that the UK plays in the world in terms of promoting peace and human rights. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride, but with some caveats. The group felt that there is a danger of encouraging national pride at the expense of other cultures and ethnicities, and that it should be made clear that this is not the intention. The group also felt that national pride should not be encouraged at the expense of local pride and that local communities should be supported in feeling pride in their local area. The group felt that there are many positive aspects of British culture and history that can be celebrated and that it is important to celebrate these aspects of our history. The group felt that it is important to remember the negative aspects of our history and that it is important to be clear eyed about these aspects of our history. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should not be doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. Whilst it might be nice for morale, this could be achieved by other measures such as supporting the NHS more. The concept of a nation is a difficult one for me as it can imply a sense of 'little England' and harkens back to the divisive politics of the last century. The 'nation state' was linked in the past to a dominant ethnic group, particularly for the new nations created after the first world war and led to terrible treatment of minorities. Saying that, I think people should be proud of aspects of British culture and our historic achievements, but also be clear eyed about the dark aspects of our past. I'd like to see people taking more pride in their local areas and their communities, but that is at a smaller scale than the nation as a whole. In summary, i think to tackle the problems of the 21st century, we may need to think beyond the nation to an international scale. A daunting prospect going beyond anything we've managed before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the concept of a 'nation' is a difficult one. It can imply a sense of 'little England' and harkens back to the divisive politics of the last century. The 'nation state' was linked in the past to a dominant ethnic group, particularly for the new nations created after the first world war and led to terrible treatment of minorities. Saying that, we think people should be proud of aspects of British culture and our historic achievements, but also be clear eyed about the dark aspects of our past. We'd like to see people taking more pride in their local areas and their communities, but that is at a smaller scale than the nation as a whole. In summary, we think to tackle the problems of the 21st century, we may need to think beyond the nation to an international scale. A daunting prospect going beyond anything we've managed before. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more national pride. However, we did not want to encourage a sense of superiority or xenophobia and so we were keen to encourage pride in the diversity of our nation and its people. We felt that the best way to do this would be to celebrate our diversity and promote awareness of the achievements of different communities. We were also keen to ensure that people were aware of the negative aspects of our past and that we should encourage people to be proud of how far we have come in terms of equality and diversity. We were in favour of encouraging pride in the NHS and other public services and in the role that the UK plays in the world in terms of promoting peace and human rights. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride, but with some caveats. The group felt that there is a danger of encouraging national pride at the expense of other cultures and ethnicities, and that it should be made clear that this is not the intention. The group also felt that national pride should not be encouraged at the expense of local pride and that local communities should be supported in feeling pride in their local area. The group felt that there are many positive aspects of British culture and history that can be celebrated and that it is important to celebrate these aspects of our history. The group felt that it is important to remember the negative aspects of our history and that it is important to be clear eyed about these aspects of our history. 2: 1,4,3,2 1: 3,4,2,1 1: 2,4,1,3 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002706.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002706.soc index 4022be07..60b6e46a 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002706.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002706.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, it was recognised that there are many factors that need to be considered. Firstly, it was noted that there is a need for a greater degree of national pride. It was noted that there is a sense of apathy in the UK, and a greater degree of national pride would be beneficial. However, it was also noted that a greater degree of national pride would only be beneficial if it was not at the expense of other cultures. It was noted that we live in a multicultural society and that we should celebrate and embrace this. It was also noted that a greater degree of national pride would only be beneficial if it was not at the expense of the environment. It was noted that the environment is in a fragile state and that we should do more to protect it. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. It was agreed that the UK has a rich and diverse culture and history and that we should be proud of this. It was also agreed that there are many things that the UK has achieved that we can be proud of. However, it was also agreed that we should not be complacent and that there is always room for improvement. There was also a discussion on what we mean by 'national pride' and it was agreed that this can mean different things to different people. For some, it can mean a sense of belonging to a community and for others it can mean a sense of achievement and success. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride, but not at the expense of other cultures. There was a strong view that it was important to be proud of where you are from, but that it was also important to embrace other cultures. The group was also of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place before it could start to be more proud of itself. Specifically, the group thought that the country needed to be more united and that people needed to feel that they had more in common with each other. The group was also of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place economically and that people needed to feel that they were not being taken advantage of and that they were getting a fair deal. The group was of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place politically and that people needed to feel that their voices were being heard and that they were being listened to. The group was of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place socially and that people needed to feel that they were not being discriminated against and that they were being treated equally. The group was of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place environmentally and that people needed -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride. It was noted that the UK has a rich history and culture and should be proud of this. It was also noted that the UK has a history of welcoming people from all over the world and that this is something to be proud of. However, it was also noted that the UK has a history of colonialism and this is something that should not be forgotten. The group was of the opinion that the UK should be proud of its history and culture, but also mindful of its colonial past and the impact this has had on other countries and their people. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride. However, it was recognised that there are many factors that need to be considered. Firstly, it was noted that there is a need for a greater degree of national pride. It was noted that there is a sense of apathy in the UK, and a greater degree of national pride would be beneficial. However, it was also noted that a greater degree of national pride would only be beneficial if it was not at the expense of other cultures. It was noted that we live in a multicultural society and that we should celebrate and embrace this. It was also noted that a greater degree of national pride would only be beneficial if it was not at the expense of the environment. It was noted that the environment is in a fragile state and that we should do more to protect it. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of doing more to encourage a greater degree of national pride. It was agreed that the UK has a rich and diverse culture and history and that we should be proud of this. It was also agreed that there are many things that the UK has achieved that we can be proud of. However, it was also agreed that we should not be complacent and that there is always room for improvement. There was also a discussion on what we mean by 'national pride' and it was agreed that this can mean different things to different people. For some, it can mean a sense of belonging to a community and for others it can mean a sense of achievement and success. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride, but not at the expense of other cultures. There was a strong view that it was important to be proud of where you are from, but that it was also important to embrace other cultures. The group was also of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place before it could start to be more proud of itself. Specifically, the group thought that the country needed to be more united and that people needed to feel that they had more in common with each other. The group was also of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place economically and that people needed to feel that they were not being taken advantage of and that they were getting a fair deal. The group was of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place politically and that people needed to feel that their voices were being heard and that they were being listened to. The group was of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place socially and that people needed to feel that they were not being discriminated against and that they were being treated equally. The group was of the opinion that the country needed to be in a better place environmentally and that people needed +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging a greater degree of national pride. It was noted that the UK has a rich history and culture and should be proud of this. It was also noted that the UK has a history of welcoming people from all over the world and that this is something to be proud of. However, it was also noted that the UK has a history of colonialism and this is something that should not be forgotten. The group was of the opinion that the UK should be proud of its history and culture, but also mindful of its colonial past and the impact this has had on other countries and their people. 1: 2,4,3,1 1: 4,2,1,3 1: 3,1,2,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002707.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002707.soc index d31ad405..edb58840 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002707.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002707.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 5 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: We do not believe that the retirement age should be raised to 68. The retirement age is already too high in the UK and the average life expectancy is not high enough to justify a higher retirement age. The current retirement age is already too high and the government should be looking at ways to reduce it rather than increase it. The government should be looking at ways to increase the tax revenue from the wealthy and not making the working class work for longer. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was opposed to raising the retirement age to 68. They felt that it was unfair to force people to work until they are 68 and that there are other ways to increase tax revenue to support the economy. They felt that the current retirement age of 66 was already too high and that people should be able to enjoy their retirement in their later years. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: We should not raise the retirement age to 68. The current retirement age is already very high, and working until 68 is not something that most people are capable of. Additionally, people should be able to enjoy their life after working for 50 years. We should instead look to the wealthy top 1% to help the economy, and not the poorest in society. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the average life expectancy is 80 years old, so by the time someone reaches 66, they are already in their late sixties and will not be able to work for very much longer. Secondly, the current retirement age is already quite high compared to other European countries. Finally, there are many people in physically demanding jobs who will not be able to work for very much longer and may have to retire earlier than 66. Therefore, the retirement age should not be raised. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We do not believe that the retirement age should be raised to 68. The retirement age is already too high in the UK and the average life expectancy is not high enough to justify a higher retirement age. The current retirement age is already too high and the government should be looking at ways to reduce it rather than increase it. The government should be looking at ways to increase the tax revenue from the wealthy and not making the working class work for longer. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was opposed to raising the retirement age to 68. They felt that it was unfair to force people to work until they are 68 and that there are other ways to increase tax revenue to support the economy. They felt that the current retirement age of 66 was already too high and that people should be able to enjoy their retirement in their later years. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We should not raise the retirement age to 68. The current retirement age is already very high, and working until 68 is not something that most people are capable of. Additionally, people should be able to enjoy their life after working for 50 years. We should instead look to the wealthy top 1% to help the economy, and not the poorest in society. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not raise the retirement age from 66 to 68. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the average life expectancy is 80 years old, so by the time someone reaches 66, they are already in their late sixties and will not be able to work for very much longer. Secondly, the current retirement age is already quite high compared to other European countries. Finally, there are many people in physically demanding jobs who will not be able to work for very much longer and may have to retire earlier than 66. Therefore, the retirement age should not be raised. 1: 1,4,2,3 1: 4,1,3,2 1: 1,4,3,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002708.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002708.soc index 7e07790a..45580529 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002708.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002708.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: National pride is something that should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not something that should be encouraged for the sake of it, but it is something that should be encouraged if it is used for a good purpose. For example, it could be used to encourage people to help others, to promote the good things in the country, or to make people feel more at home in the country. However, it is important to be aware of the dangers of national pride, as it can lead to xenophobia and fascism, and it can also be a sorry substitute for spiritual fulfillment and a true sense of community. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: National pride is a concept which can be used for good and bad purposes. It is not something that should be encouraged by the government, but it is something that is naturally felt by many people and is not something that should be discouraged. It is a concept that is difficult to define, but it is generally a sense of pride in one's country and a desire to make it better. It is often confused with nationalism, which is a political ideology. The two concepts are not the same, but they are often conflated. Nationalism is a divisive ideology which has been used to justify many crimes. National pride is a natural human emotion that is often used to justify nationalism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: There is no need to encourage a greater degree of national pride. National pride can easily be misinterpreted as a form of nationalism. Historically, nationalism has been the root of large scale crimes, fascism etc. What needs to be encouraged is a greater degree of belonging into a community where people get to know each other in reality, they develop empathy, social consciousness, learn to understand each other and help each other. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging a greater degree of national pride. The reasons for this were that national pride is often a sorry substitute for spiritual fulfillment and a true sense of community and can lead to xenophobia and fascism. For these reasons, there is no need to encourage a greater sense of national pride for any worthy purpose. The group felt that there is enough national pride in the country and it is visible enough and everyone is aware. The group also felt that there is no particular lack of national pride and that misdirected national pride led to Brexit which the group strongly disagreed with. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - National pride is something that should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not something that should be encouraged for the sake of it, but it is something that should be encouraged if it is used for a good purpose. For example, it could be used to encourage people to help others, to promote the good things in the country, or to make people feel more at home in the country. However, it is important to be aware of the dangers of national pride, as it can lead to xenophobia and fascism, and it can also be a sorry substitute for spiritual fulfillment and a true sense of community. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - National pride is a concept which can be used for good and bad purposes. It is not something that should be encouraged by the government, but it is something that is naturally felt by many people and is not something that should be discouraged. It is a concept that is difficult to define, but it is generally a sense of pride in one's country and a desire to make it better. It is often confused with nationalism, which is a political ideology. The two concepts are not the same, but they are often conflated. Nationalism is a divisive ideology which has been used to justify many crimes. National pride is a natural human emotion that is often used to justify nationalism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There is no need to encourage a greater degree of national pride. National pride can easily be misinterpreted as a form of nationalism. Historically, nationalism has been the root of large scale crimes, fascism etc. What needs to be encouraged is a greater degree of belonging into a community where people get to know each other in reality, they develop empathy, social consciousness, learn to understand each other and help each other. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of encouraging a greater degree of national pride. The reasons for this were that national pride is often a sorry substitute for spiritual fulfillment and a true sense of community and can lead to xenophobia and fascism. For these reasons, there is no need to encourage a greater sense of national pride for any worthy purpose. The group felt that there is enough national pride in the country and it is visible enough and everyone is aware. The group also felt that there is no particular lack of national pride and that misdirected national pride led to Brexit which the group strongly disagreed with. 2: 1,2,3,4 1: 3,4,1,2 1: 4,3,1,2 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002709.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002709.soc index a1ceae76..f0b9dbfe 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002709.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002709.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: “The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 and make every effort possible to meet this goal. If the target is not set or reached, I believe this would be as bad as criminal; refusing to act in the best interests of not just our own country, but the globe and all our children. The future is already looking very grim for the environmental future of the earth, it will be so much worse if we delay further. We already see the devastating effects of climate change at home and around the world, and the amount of carbon we pump into our atmosphere is a direct cause of that. While it is difficult to change how we power our country and the industrial processes we use, with enough effort we should have enough time to do it by 2050. The Government should be imposing even stricter rules and environmental taxes on the corporate environment, as it has been proven they are the biggest polluters. Absolutely, our current rate of emissions is unsustainable, and condemning future generations to suffer. If the target is not set or reached, I believe this would be as bad as criminal; refusing to act in the best interests of not just our own country, but the globe and all our children. The Government should -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The future of our planet is at stake and we need to act now to stop climate change. The UK has a moral obligation to lead the way in the fight against climate change, and to set an example to other countries. We have the technology and the know-how to make this happen, and we should be doing everything in our power to make this happen. If we don’t, we will be condemning future generations to a life of misery. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: “Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 and be well on its way by 2030. The current rate of emissions is unsustainable, and condemning future generations to suffer. The Government should be imposing even stricter rules and environmental taxes on the corporate environment, as it has been proven they are the biggest polluters. We already see the devastating effects of climate change at home and around the world, and the amount of carbon we pump into our atmosphere is a direct cause of that. While it is difficult to change how we power our country and the industrial processes we use, with enough effort we should have enough time to do it by 2050. The UK and others should be aiming to hit this target as quickly as possible. The future is already looking very grim for the environmental future of the earth, it will be so much worse if we delay further.” -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. We believe this is a realistic target that is achievable with the current technology and knowledge. This will require a huge effort from everyone in the country and a big change in the way we live our lives. It is of the utmost importance that we do this, as the future of the earth is at stake. If we do not act now, we will be condemning future generations to a life of suffering and struggle. We should be aiming to reach this goal as quickly as possible, as the longer we wait, the worse the situation will get. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - “The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 and make every effort possible to meet this goal. If the target is not set or reached, I believe this would be as bad as criminal; refusing to act in the best interests of not just our own country, but the globe and all our children. The future is already looking very grim for the environmental future of the earth, it will be so much worse if we delay further. We already see the devastating effects of climate change at home and around the world, and the amount of carbon we pump into our atmosphere is a direct cause of that. While it is difficult to change how we power our country and the industrial processes we use, with enough effort we should have enough time to do it by 2050. The Government should be imposing even stricter rules and environmental taxes on the corporate environment, as it has been proven they are the biggest polluters. Absolutely, our current rate of emissions is unsustainable, and condemning future generations to suffer. If the target is not set or reached, I believe this would be as bad as criminal; refusing to act in the best interests of not just our own country, but the globe and all our children. The Government should +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. The future of our planet is at stake and we need to act now to stop climate change. The UK has a moral obligation to lead the way in the fight against climate change, and to set an example to other countries. We have the technology and the know-how to make this happen, and we should be doing everything in our power to make this happen. If we don’t, we will be condemning future generations to a life of misery. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - “Yes, the UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 and be well on its way by 2030. The current rate of emissions is unsustainable, and condemning future generations to suffer. The Government should be imposing even stricter rules and environmental taxes on the corporate environment, as it has been proven they are the biggest polluters. We already see the devastating effects of climate change at home and around the world, and the amount of carbon we pump into our atmosphere is a direct cause of that. While it is difficult to change how we power our country and the industrial processes we use, with enough effort we should have enough time to do it by 2050. The UK and others should be aiming to hit this target as quickly as possible. The future is already looking very grim for the environmental future of the earth, it will be so much worse if we delay further.” +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The UK should set a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050. We believe this is a realistic target that is achievable with the current technology and knowledge. This will require a huge effort from everyone in the country and a big change in the way we live our lives. It is of the utmost importance that we do this, as the future of the earth is at stake. If we do not act now, we will be condemning future generations to a life of suffering and struggle. We should be aiming to reach this goal as quickly as possible, as the longer we wait, the worse the situation will get. 2: 3,4,2,1 1: 4,2,3,1 1: 4,3,2,1 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002710.soc b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002710.soc index 569d3b62..22122412 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002710.soc +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/00070-00002710.soc @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ # NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4 # NUMBER VOTERS: 5 # NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3 -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing national pride. They felt that the idea of national pride was too closely linked to nationalism and exceptionalism, and that these were dangerous ideas that could lead to xenophobia and a lack of concern for other countries. They felt that it would be better to encourage a pride in our own achievements and the achievements of those around us, rather than pride in our country. They felt that this would lead to a greater sense of community and belonging, without the negative side effects of nationalism. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more national pride. The group felt that this would help to foster a greater sense of community and belonging, which would in turn lead to a greater willingness to work to improve the country for everyone in it. However, the group also felt that it was important to be careful about the type of national pride that was being encouraged. The group felt that it was important to encourage a pride in the country and its people, but that it was also important to avoid encouraging a pride in the country that was exceptionalist or that encouraged a sense of superiority. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the encouragement of national pride did not lead to a greater sense of nationalism or xenophobia, and that it was important to ensure that the encouragement of national pride did not lead to a greater sense of division between the UK and the rest of the world. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride, but with some caveats. The group felt that there was a need for a greater degree of national pride, since this would lead to a greater sense of belonging and community, which would in turn lead to people being more invested in the country and wanting to work to improve it. However, the group was also wary of the potential negative effects of encouraging national pride, since this could lead to the rise of nationalism and exceptionalism, which could in turn lead to xenophobia and a lack of empathy for people outside of the country. The group felt that there was a need to be very careful about the way in which national pride was encouraged, to ensure that it did not lead to these negative effects. -# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: No, we should not be encouraging a greater degree of national pride. The issue of national pride is complicated. On the one hand, national pride can be a good thing, as it can make people care more about their country and the people in it. However, it can also lead to dangerous attitudes such as exceptionalism and nationalism. In the current climate, with Brexit and the rise of nationalism, we should be encouraging a sense of global pride and a sense of belonging to the world, rather than just to one country. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was opposed to the idea of increasing national pride. They felt that the idea of national pride was too closely linked to nationalism and exceptionalism, and that these were dangerous ideas that could lead to xenophobia and a lack of concern for other countries. They felt that it would be better to encourage a pride in our own achievements and the achievements of those around us, rather than pride in our country. They felt that this would lead to a greater sense of community and belonging, without the negative side effects of nationalism. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of encouraging more national pride. The group felt that this would help to foster a greater sense of community and belonging, which would in turn lead to a greater willingness to work to improve the country for everyone in it. However, the group also felt that it was important to be careful about the type of national pride that was being encouraged. The group felt that it was important to encourage a pride in the country and its people, but that it was also important to avoid encouraging a pride in the country that was exceptionalist or that encouraged a sense of superiority. The group also felt that it was important to ensure that the encouragement of national pride did not lead to a greater sense of nationalism or xenophobia, and that it was important to ensure that the encouragement of national pride did not lead to a greater sense of division between the UK and the rest of the world. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of a greater degree of national pride, but with some caveats. The group felt that there was a need for a greater degree of national pride, since this would lead to a greater sense of belonging and community, which would in turn lead to people being more invested in the country and wanting to work to improve it. However, the group was also wary of the potential negative effects of encouraging national pride, since this could lead to the rise of nationalism and exceptionalism, which could in turn lead to xenophobia and a lack of empathy for people outside of the country. The group felt that there was a need to be very careful about the way in which national pride was encouraged, to ensure that it did not lead to these negative effects. +# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - No, we should not be encouraging a greater degree of national pride. The issue of national pride is complicated. On the one hand, national pride can be a good thing, as it can make people care more about their country and the people in it. However, it can also lead to dangerous attitudes such as exceptionalism and nationalism. In the current climate, with Brexit and the rise of nationalism, we should be encouraging a sense of global pride and a sense of belonging to the world, rather than just to one country. 3: 4,1,3,2 1: 2,3,4,1 1: 2,3,1,4 diff --git a/datasets/00070 - habermas/metadata.csv b/datasets/00070 - habermas/metadata.csv index 31555c5b..951010fc 100644 --- a/datasets/00070 - habermas/metadata.csv +++ b/datasets/00070 - habermas/metadata.csv @@ -1,2711 +1,2711 @@ file;file_number;last_modif;md5;modification_type;numAlt;numVot;numUniq;isApproval;isStrict;isComplete;hasCondorcet;isSP;isSC;isSPTree -00070-00000001.soc;1;2025-10-12 19:09:08.929268;cea73e661a0af9ad605360d9f19a9992;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000002.soc;2;2025-10-12 19:09:08.932824;8d033bff8695fbc135a350ed18bf75a6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000003.soc;3;2025-10-12 19:09:08.937726;ee89fe6dced93ba91020a31af8a79b42;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000004.soc;4;2025-10-12 19:09:08.970509;0572afe32cb74c5f98c37f45d56cbf0b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000005.soc;5;2025-10-12 19:09:08.970509;4da5bccbfbbc17fd582de426803fe6c4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000006.soc;6;2025-10-12 19:09:08.970509;dfc4c0f8c3055ebc9d6cd1cb7deb6d62;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000007.soc;7;2025-10-12 19:09:08.986009;c4091305dfa1d11dfe24872703fe9a3c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000008.soc;8;2025-10-12 19:09:08.995351;f9477f604bbbdf0bde475df03ca472f1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000009.soc;9;2025-10-12 19:09:09.005291;31bfffb1b0a10871240ce851d53c7a84;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000010.soc;10;2025-10-12 19:09:09.010688;9868a0397201e971b47ce0d75f056dc5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000011.soc;11;2025-10-12 19:09:09.019934;c097905c5e6ec95f78c11068e1f13f89;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000012.soc;12;2025-10-12 19:09:09.024306;a2b30b5bbce7b0889fd23254902d016e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000013.soc;13;2025-10-12 19:09:09.026495;faadda793c7cd55e9db2ef6c96d6c0bb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000014.soc;14;2025-10-12 19:09:09.027491;fa396990beb3c61fce4c7347c81c8694;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000015.soc;15;2025-10-12 19:09:09.039490;ea9f76eecceac5d24692d4f9bac25747;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000016.soc;16;2025-10-12 19:09:09.039490;053d381c1c56bac8f9be61ad86f52925;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000017.soc;17;2025-10-12 19:09:09.049519;075a822e73602c6a74cde0c3116ada72;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000018.soc;18;2025-10-12 19:09:09.051521;240985408d8acd82e5cdcdd3c9b7b895;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000019.soc;19;2025-10-12 19:09:09.053721;3f47bdf01b0d0cf60f039848fe18327b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000020.soc;20;2025-10-12 19:09:09.053721;b3b0620569bbdb9b6ce2b7cdde6ebe57;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000021.soc;21;2025-10-12 19:09:09.053721;039d5f092715891f7933691a15be275a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000022.soc;22;2025-10-12 19:09:09.053721;76f7d1042960194504d062531982dfdb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000023.soc;23;2025-10-12 19:09:09.080608;d85cba8483dc9999431b0c54cfcd91f7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000024.soc;24;2025-10-12 19:09:09.080608;1c5d53b8bed84a0173a5eaf662532753;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000025.soc;25;2025-10-12 19:09:09.087629;c2f34ed32a4866c868ff76f710f4e108;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000026.soc;26;2025-10-12 19:09:09.089127;afe4f2918d029187332fd4df48b62216;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000027.soc;27;2025-10-12 19:09:09.089127;33e8f966b007a2b506d932518b46654a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000028.soc;28;2025-10-12 19:09:09.089127;f50d20ca58d4fa0ce38a4847447302a9;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000029.soc;29;2025-10-12 19:09:09.099650;b0ba02de75a6c4e3bd3155510ca25eba;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000030.soc;30;2025-10-12 19:09:09.103227;a086f469d3e2cc851a488a72c6a0cebd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000031.soc;31;2025-10-12 19:09:09.107446;950f33876b2003e2de103db3e6e1b279;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000032.soc;32;2025-10-12 19:09:09.107446;55d25453e65bdf283ac8b363f5223109;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000033.soc;33;2025-10-12 19:09:09.107446;6ed33a5c7fbe53450bf0812e59577ad1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000034.soc;34;2025-10-12 19:09:09.124065;a690822820988821a4e0d14ebb7824b5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000035.soc;35;2025-10-12 19:09:09.124065;dd750b5c2b0d23296a3f5ae6244e1c50;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000036.soc;36;2025-10-12 19:09:09.124065;a9c2a8b0e93fe103e88c4eb8c6d9a024;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000037.soc;37;2025-10-12 19:09:09.124065;ad3a6433141db42113c32b34c92ca99b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000038.soc;38;2025-10-12 19:09:09.137639;7e0e6aab906b4ac212d17cff45587fa7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000039.soc;39;2025-10-12 19:09:09.139373;518e2f064816886c13ab771dd8ce3a0a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000040.soc;40;2025-10-12 19:09:09.139373;8a11d59afe43d4eb1143f0b351a0cc3d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000041.soc;41;2025-10-12 19:09:09.139373;7525ccda83fe4e8cd12f133daa89661a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000042.soc;42;2025-10-12 19:09:09.139373;562a5e34c850501488b00722a6fca424;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000043.soc;43;2025-10-12 19:09:09.153679;529d1be64083a72c38626559e5819d7a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000044.soc;44;2025-10-12 19:09:09.153679;5b29a8e77992f494f5f2d2b5ce6da30e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000045.soc;45;2025-10-12 19:09:09.153679;90cd1c0060e5ecd9d5cfd17752b99432;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000046.soc;46;2025-10-12 19:09:09.153679;1169f42624eff1a21a5196b743926929;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000047.soc;47;2025-10-12 19:09:09.153679;42768dfad761e45153f2bf31d9b4c373;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000048.soc;48;2025-10-12 19:09:09.173626;8b584da68d01a25a3ecd6fb6183d7523;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000049.soc;49;2025-10-12 19:09:09.173626;57e6afc1a885220029e74d6aaa234d71;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000050.soc;50;2025-10-12 19:09:09.173626;15be225ead66eadde3793eb545c7b968;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000051.soc;51;2025-10-12 19:09:09.173626;7842fc655425df48b3864b24756ebad1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000052.soc;52;2025-10-12 19:09:09.186913;c7f53a630bc6f8e23ba590037441e575;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000053.soc;53;2025-10-12 19:09:09.188925;d2187adfebc75d20b902cb473616f29e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000054.soc;54;2025-10-12 19:09:09.188925;f1e4efeb56fb10bd3c3f67e72676a7f9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000055.soc;55;2025-10-12 19:09:09.188925;b26bb2680a22e4041643b9a56af55113;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000056.soc;56;2025-10-12 19:09:09.188925;d804a6136bbd89c7fd00ba74cd9782a1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000057.soc;57;2025-10-12 19:09:09.202393;d1472b436edad648fedfa2b549076bd1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000058.soc;58;2025-10-12 19:09:09.204113;f6117728ac653191d38863e7c5a0dc6c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000059.soc;59;2025-10-12 19:09:09.204113;9624c56d18c16a3ad15e92aa9b545b4c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000060.soc;60;2025-10-12 19:09:09.204113;d834e7978990f427ea1432f2b1f8eb49;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000061.soc;61;2025-10-12 19:09:09.220725;d6a32ef27dfb059fe2915d5fd9966e0f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000062.soc;62;2025-10-12 19:09:09.220725;9eff903977ab057e5bcd52d72d51d608;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000063.soc;63;2025-10-12 19:09:09.220725;5a1e1391eb2bae7140e9df4748e3d3d4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000064.soc;64;2025-10-12 19:09:09.220725;4a694b8edda0c4259f0e9f87820e0a46;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000065.soc;65;2025-10-12 19:09:09.220725;b7c9842774fca24bee2747d58bb80129;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000066.soc;66;2025-10-12 19:09:09.237566;4fec73e7a276ff6ace54d2001896a3ad;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000067.soc;67;2025-10-12 19:09:09.237566;342b83a4c0578c0855cb76eee848a95a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000068.soc;68;2025-10-12 19:09:09.237566;1399292dbdefd1738ce32792a9ebd1a6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000069.soc;69;2025-10-12 19:09:09.253209;f53b5cb7569d92dd7036b34aca984120;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000070.soc;70;2025-10-12 19:09:09.256497;48c0d5954cddedcbf3fc751dd82c6e91;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000071.soc;71;2025-10-12 19:09:09.256497;a435cb095e6c698486cc0db8e94a5e1f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000072.soc;72;2025-10-12 19:09:09.256497;6323c72c9dfc47811f215737a577b525;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000073.soc;73;2025-10-12 19:09:09.269865;544222d1ba3712e9d2d5ed17525295f9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000074.soc;74;2025-10-12 19:09:09.273005;2fada6fd381acf42cb2f47e53a0c6396;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000075.soc;75;2025-10-12 19:09:09.276108;ad377f8f66e5052678a168a39fd64bdf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000076.soc;76;2025-10-12 19:09:09.276108;4eefa793d8e8c42371c5a32388f1f0ab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000077.soc;77;2025-10-12 19:09:09.276108;c43cf76c51cd24d8a7da21da02434415;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000078.soc;78;2025-10-12 19:09:09.286408;ae3ec280bfcc3e4649852f2c7f9c8215;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000079.soc;79;2025-10-12 19:09:09.289157;fec2731af12235050779e9fe23ee6990;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000080.soc;80;2025-10-12 19:09:09.289157;b1211ce5f81e1057bfc63b438eafca12;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000081.soc;81;2025-10-12 19:09:09.289157;48f10d2f09ca7f4103a38194d4baac2c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000082.soc;82;2025-10-12 19:09:09.289157;d0f852d7312eabe6458a0687084ff8e1;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000083.soc;83;2025-10-12 19:09:09.303037;679a469fb92acbf3b752e30bd3bb90b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000084.soc;84;2025-10-12 19:09:09.303666;68977e362eea499dac11f3d69677e258;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000085.soc;85;2025-10-12 19:09:09.303666;e1eb836f59d8ba8ccdc0a0d5bd382061;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000086.soc;86;2025-10-12 19:09:09.320044;209ebba025d39ae7fd946bddef0f8ff1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000087.soc;87;2025-10-12 19:09:09.320044;61b11c51fc526ea752337793c6da1ab4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000088.soc;88;2025-10-12 19:09:09.320044;6e4a9d8888977b153f338d0850180a2d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000089.soc;89;2025-10-12 19:09:09.336791;a3ddfb868f279d8455b60d58ba2895da;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000090.soc;90;2025-10-12 19:09:09.336791;ad0f8e4ea3906efc7106a80edafec32d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000091.soc;91;2025-10-12 19:09:09.336791;63893d4604ac9c45dc0bb54a197c96e8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000092.soc;92;2025-10-12 19:09:09.353477;b3f0e111c21d461aab5c697caef75c4f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000093.soc;93;2025-10-12 19:09:09.406283;6cc64ab3175b52f728f90a7c76b098bb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000094.soc;94;2025-10-12 19:09:09.406283;4ab7107e1e0cab52913cc95f41e7e40c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000095.soc;95;2025-10-12 19:09:09.411101;ccca560e7f5d02256c4e4de457d8c60e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000096.soc;96;2025-10-12 19:09:09.415216;3a196531156830931ff53b6a15876327;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000097.soc;97;2025-10-12 19:09:09.419556;1a237e83b6863f2e3a1f435e2517d7ff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000098.soc;98;2025-10-12 19:09:09.419960;efae731b15e4548618176a4928772ac0;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000099.soc;99;2025-10-12 19:09:09.419960;1cf27f36edf11fed9fe2ae775d78545a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000100.soc;100;2025-10-12 19:09:09.419960;9418ad3d7b0d1693cf81fc623cdb8743;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000101.soc;101;2025-10-12 19:09:09.433149;4b07cdf38ec87f1d121d716659da1661;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000102.soc;102;2025-10-12 19:09:09.436844;e978e2244a4839cf193eac2ffa3d0f81;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000103.soc;103;2025-10-12 19:09:09.441270;1651c320afa99fad47ac0afcef933f31;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000104.soc;104;2025-10-12 19:09:09.441270;d190e86dac8a0fc8bd03bbb19b32c484;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000105.soc;105;2025-10-12 19:09:09.445312;4417fc2a220d7a9f6a479af0782629ce;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000106.soc;106;2025-10-12 19:09:09.449092;e9c94a9e0ad70fb7ff46c408de82fcb4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000107.soc;107;2025-10-12 19:09:09.464571;a2afee8c086a909350f198a829edb00c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000108.soc;108;2025-10-12 19:09:09.468527;d427bc05676ef00700557baf614d2342;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000109.soc;109;2025-10-12 19:09:09.471825;f874c00f1799519b80901d8479936217;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000110.soc;110;2025-10-12 19:09:09.472822;6635768d221ef1ba61cdcceac3e5a607;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000111.soc;111;2025-10-12 19:09:09.472822;4b3a3b55ca1b8ff64499ad9e42442dc6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000112.soc;112;2025-10-12 19:09:09.481522;95da406b87c0573e91dd11f707ebcdf4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000113.soc;113;2025-10-12 19:09:09.486142;19e5b2c0aa22b0ccfc9a5cd061c974d5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000114.soc;114;2025-10-12 19:09:09.489466;9b39c1169552e968520b2544ce356055;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000115.soc;115;2025-10-12 19:09:09.497422;ce4f85ff83d132ac1b119df147115984;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000116.soc;116;2025-10-12 19:09:09.501257;8db2ff8d216acd629b937cb1f413d7b0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000117.soc;117;2025-10-12 19:09:09.509283;ab717c7a3d4c6fb9e96cbeb92d91b677;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000118.soc;118;2025-10-12 19:09:09.509283;922636e7512550bcb1ccb8bf67d1c156;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000119.soc;119;2025-10-12 19:09:09.513124;c198c019a5fe11f25ce6092cc5ad12c7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000120.soc;120;2025-10-12 19:09:09.513124;041bb674a6c41636ffc5d979c9bafaa1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000121.soc;121;2025-10-12 19:09:09.520045;c9eb1bc78c5c9494ea8ebd2b85a94850;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000122.soc;122;2025-10-12 19:09:09.520045;29a07c638685878c75223a353f58cc0c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000123.soc;123;2025-10-12 19:09:09.525426;d102150c66be6c5b66f81078db03612d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000124.soc;124;2025-10-12 19:09:09.541137;f2413e9b8a909eb44b705de9cf804a50;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000125.soc;125;2025-10-12 19:09:09.545121;b3958e30ce8561057608c979e07c8e03;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000126.soc;126;2025-10-12 19:09:09.560491;2608a7b9f705a11e555f82d46331baa8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000127.soc;127;2025-10-12 19:09:09.562818;1195810395fe28f3604daacc03411ed3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000128.soc;128;2025-10-12 19:09:09.574607;ee387ad707c9db1b29ae9e2c9d130e81;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000129.soc;129;2025-10-12 19:09:09.586654;65c2a167137d9ecfbbed2d1571b6272f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000130.soc;130;2025-10-12 19:09:09.595456;7eaedd2fa7767487354723859276f515;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000131.soc;131;2025-10-12 19:09:09.599385;e86bb1319c599c13d5134e8dc635420a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000132.soc;132;2025-10-12 19:09:09.603456;2db9daa5e8f03f5822a857f3bb4b7a51;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000133.soc;133;2025-10-12 19:09:09.611924;7c62a17069bbab13c452ac9bd2ba4575;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000134.soc;134;2025-10-12 19:09:09.623258;123be8bc919db0ef0bc40abf6fff1954;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000135.soc;135;2025-10-12 19:09:09.623258;33a2ad7d3826081ceb0670afe19f2731;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000136.soc;136;2025-10-12 19:09:09.628791;db17d0298ad087e086675ce776d549f4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000137.soc;137;2025-10-12 19:09:09.628791;adda13e5fbc3f0b165a0d26ce5e1b5fe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000138.soc;138;2025-10-12 19:09:09.638188;bd704b1efe5de93ae7142f07cbf591c9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000139.soc;139;2025-10-12 19:09:09.640859;a961ea3fd9187022ff4f8dbe3a2af610;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000140.soc;140;2025-10-12 19:09:09.641481;98b4fcfbe793be31d92e746a1524e180;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000141.soc;141;2025-10-12 19:09:09.649170;341b7a3a06f0e16af83ac4cb79110272;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000142.soc;142;2025-10-12 19:09:09.653949;4a8499a8cf0f999561c5923b30762613;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000143.soc;143;2025-10-12 19:09:09.662824;cf245ca32186bce6acce1b0ce9af4434;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000144.soc;144;2025-10-12 19:09:09.666684;b6b8e4f6347d60a21fa0fd8a21aec195;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000145.soc;145;2025-10-12 19:09:09.671129;109248fa2ef6db2fcd09ece5fba8652e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000146.soc;146;2025-10-12 19:09:09.673132;888b13214ba9a92a30c531d1e29cc2f9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000147.soc;147;2025-10-12 19:09:09.692176;3757e4905857de792c16916dbf3d1d63;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000148.soc;148;2025-10-12 19:09:09.692176;a758ae44fa19ab5db69d0b194f2d814e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000149.soc;149;2025-10-12 19:09:09.700033;61063521f4e38f2f7440cc9479b62eef;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000150.soc;150;2025-10-12 19:09:09.700033;c440e0815b35cd7155fcb69d4fcf25d1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000151.soc;151;2025-10-12 19:09:09.704782;21d8b415cd130d95e4f3fcf14ffc6fa3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000152.soc;152;2025-10-12 19:09:09.708069;4faca3e868e454aced4402aacd57fce2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000153.soc;153;2025-10-12 19:09:09.715504;a67bba8d2de9573c0c2c57a07546a4a8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000154.soc;154;2025-10-12 19:09:09.719743;0eeb8f387a072fb14facc25b7027249e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000155.soc;155;2025-10-12 19:09:09.724185;feef2da9ea745749e9d71c40cc62176a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000156.soc;156;2025-10-12 19:09:09.726452;1f194a29f21c23edb83c12025d36eec0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000157.soc;157;2025-10-12 19:09:09.728534;1be4607c96be5c02d1fcbe3b56811ee2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000158.soc;158;2025-10-12 19:09:09.737115;be2a64a25874ffda0073176a27180655;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000159.soc;159;2025-10-12 19:09:09.739173;3752413a16ce593e8c95d62882d291f3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000160.soc;160;2025-10-12 19:09:09.741398;03091638cf1a992d958f63dfd5de1484;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000161.soc;161;2025-10-12 19:09:09.743888;e92aefa4254e837d10e2d49b7d2c1e23;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000162.soc;162;2025-10-12 19:09:09.746928;84ee9447ef7703ab314cb5dde6929800;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000163.soc;163;2025-10-12 19:09:09.756074;6bc96886b17f54f772869bbc198c8b58;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000164.soc;164;2025-10-12 19:09:09.759351;4f725f2a2f0bfd3f678f88706e197568;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000165.soc;165;2025-10-12 19:09:09.761437;b21e4c362e1dccfc59f71b81ea94dd2f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000166.soc;166;2025-10-12 19:09:09.768650;6d1bb70db583ef33d7eee60b790cc9ec;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000167.soc;167;2025-10-12 19:09:09.772327;158037c0ff3d489d1938bccc972eedea;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000168.soc;168;2025-10-12 19:09:09.780411;ccef1a00dbcdf65dfb925f38384041b3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000169.soc;169;2025-10-12 19:09:09.782545;b18127d911d4ef0edd11dff0104d72e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000170.soc;170;2025-10-12 19:09:09.784973;7482ca282c44577ef75c43bcab4c7ac0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000171.soc;171;2025-10-12 19:09:09.795051;c4c7ec9f50e1d7e5871c8e44e48a6b85;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000172.soc;172;2025-10-12 19:09:09.799076;556dc8a98ed4450fa211b14e33dabd9c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000173.soc;173;2025-10-12 19:09:09.802585;79749501f8803edab0e422b78dbc19d1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000174.soc;174;2025-10-12 19:09:09.805865;e06d0a49c1e7927e8016c8b0202f9e64;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000175.soc;175;2025-10-12 19:09:09.807878;3a2d4665e5283028a49898282cb8cb27;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000176.soc;176;2025-10-12 19:09:09.813398;1583de79c58743eaf1a3a3c906f04a80;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000177.soc;177;2025-10-12 19:09:09.815423;69c95f07570b7f50da8c89acaaab09fe;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000178.soc;178;2025-10-12 19:09:09.817444;525288967aee691d170d2aa6b3121ae6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000179.soc;179;2025-10-12 19:09:09.819514;068e964f41b8faec13f5b652117ff40a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000180.soc;180;2025-10-12 19:09:09.828222;be2b6356ac8a8c2802388fae5900cf00;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000181.soc;181;2025-10-12 19:09:09.831212;02e2fb6eb9d5d0e8c7b187ff3d575bc4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000182.soc;182;2025-10-12 19:09:09.841104;699980eb37c24ce4123f2887cdf6f5ba;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000183.soc;183;2025-10-12 19:09:09.845374;f22d71a0c8f161ff7245e4833ce2c311;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000184.soc;184;2025-10-12 19:09:09.847405;81112dc502082f24da8d117afe3e40cf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000185.soc;185;2025-10-12 19:09:09.849467;15bc16c530f540a18fe6d0815e7dd261;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000186.soc;186;2025-10-12 19:09:09.858620;f79a6a42293341ab3d7d210534ea2828;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000187.soc;187;2025-10-12 19:09:09.863692;eac36596c5a21aa9d676b010fa999dcd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000188.soc;188;2025-10-12 19:09:09.865718;5258c7033df67de8b10844c8db0e1b34;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000189.soc;189;2025-10-12 19:09:09.871437;f8a819101bd60e2d461f63f09d0e8870;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000190.soc;190;2025-10-12 19:09:09.871437;ee9bda23da994a50b7ddc4ff67ace9dd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000191.soc;191;2025-10-12 19:09:09.894587;a048ae4569cbbfa872b7be8a0b646ded;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000192.soc;192;2025-10-12 19:09:09.898597;178efdec918c6ccf5a8c81c3177519df;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000193.soc;193;2025-10-12 19:09:09.898597;b293f980d983cd8f4ed78e3c679bf624;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000194.soc;194;2025-10-12 19:09:09.902808;93ffda48b3b2fc38af02df2328578a02;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000195.soc;195;2025-10-12 19:09:09.913513;da7c6172b360cdb90e7a3915878b7030;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000196.soc;196;2025-10-12 19:09:09.923128;b11b4708a0d91d32840a320d97be57ce;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000197.soc;197;2025-10-12 19:09:09.923128;4d1d98b3a7cabdd899bfaa4609fb511b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000198.soc;198;2025-10-12 19:09:09.923128;d34a1e27eef395fb1731194df682806b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000199.soc;199;2025-10-12 19:09:09.936015;a4813360711a915468b61be51cce6eef;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000200.soc;200;2025-10-12 19:09:09.942992;6cca24f34fcfc4350f83e4e758a55a83;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000201.soc;201;2025-10-12 19:09:09.944145;ce6981aaf75240f2fc5b5f9e049620bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000202.soc;202;2025-10-12 19:09:09.944145;961a424a54a898483a4c802696d35217;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000203.soc;203;2025-10-12 19:09:09.944145;ed3b66552a0c6a17db7e3acb47a26399;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000204.soc;204;2025-10-12 19:09:09.953279;d073774756216878cfe61f22f8fadc00;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000205.soc;205;2025-10-12 19:09:09.955242;9bad5f51e8c52411f03e20e33d3a19e5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000206.soc;206;2025-10-12 19:09:09.961265;75d8706f795ef3906c20832d5f91df74;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000207.soc;207;2025-10-12 19:09:09.961265;94c28a24a17aecb109834ada73df840d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000208.soc;208;2025-10-12 19:09:09.961265;63c113d2cd499fc10b255d67d25fd188;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000209.soc;209;2025-10-12 19:09:09.970148;0701057e7f2075517751f3d1b5073388;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000210.soc;210;2025-10-12 19:09:09.972967;d91b4199601570a2ecc832a6552ae5e1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000211.soc;211;2025-10-12 19:09:09.972967;6219dc779986f2a863cbde0f02c12c5f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000212.soc;212;2025-10-12 19:09:09.972967;79e1b0dc8d52846032d0b89661a87782;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000213.soc;213;2025-10-12 19:09:09.972967;0468ea1233e99f7dfe6e111fde24d011;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000214.soc;214;2025-10-12 19:09:09.972967;97a1f254e0bf9899984c70659a798281;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000215.soc;215;2025-10-12 19:09:09.972967;f359586edb175f29ffc5fbe632ecbec4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000216.soc;216;2025-10-12 19:09:09.989305;0c705f5cd56541031c9be8b3a114e191;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000217.soc;217;2025-10-12 19:09:09.990383;6e17300b45b48086ceb385edcd459af4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000218.soc;218;2025-10-12 19:09:09.990383;2c94f1b8d293bc922b7df1e885672aed;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000219.soc;219;2025-10-12 19:09:09.997922;7d99f718ec03aac3c9ec24186aa3cc9e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000220.soc;220;2025-10-12 19:09:09.997922;c8980c9c84f015c2eaa55ea9dfd8ed20;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000221.soc;221;2025-10-12 19:09:10.005244;7b792e52da3606b63f2291035b3207e1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000222.soc;222;2025-10-12 19:09:10.006988;90fe6bd439b46cc7bea23f6b355de07f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000223.soc;223;2025-10-12 19:09:10.006988;97e36856d769389393be0d7c81e8ab51;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000224.soc;224;2025-10-12 19:09:10.006988;3dbf4a0f82793db1572d194e34bfe006;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000225.soc;225;2025-10-12 19:09:10.020391;8a25129a4c9c28e800953b46d6f3310f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000226.soc;226;2025-10-12 19:09:10.020391;a99c7eb9121b558170ab9d01b2179571;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000227.soc;227;2025-10-12 19:09:10.020391;37f352fc681b91baf3e82713a6cee87a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000228.soc;228;2025-10-12 19:09:10.020391;37602b17b5252ce6b98ffed6956b6605;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000229.soc;229;2025-10-12 19:09:10.020391;f54c3eaba53acec493b5ceeee0db118e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000230.soc;230;2025-10-12 19:09:10.036160;aba3a3cdbf2465b73dc33fbd8cde4f1a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000231.soc;231;2025-10-12 19:09:10.036160;fbbc5f5cca2d8ccc4dbc819ad2d3cae1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000232.soc;232;2025-10-12 19:09:10.036160;28462d85cba86aa023cea8010c36c524;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000233.soc;233;2025-10-12 19:09:10.052583;1717fb6866d08cdb3ba7ee20b27ff03a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000234.soc;234;2025-10-12 19:09:10.056611;2b00f87f223516780a447ab80a12e2e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000235.soc;235;2025-10-12 19:09:10.065749;2acd945bc0535a126aa8910cb886bc02;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000236.soc;236;2025-10-12 19:09:10.069215;8a782d088b0f53beea41e2504ce4c90f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000237.soc;237;2025-10-12 19:09:10.072229;6ba4d087feed3b9869e90ef4a7a45e0a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000238.soc;238;2025-10-12 19:09:10.078714;6cae3738159cdc0044acfd77a3051111;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000239.soc;239;2025-10-12 19:09:10.079848;f4859466266eca25c3ee9f70d196c6f8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000240.soc;240;2025-10-12 19:09:10.086715;63f10b398bd72c9198b7d2620bf4d74e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000241.soc;241;2025-10-12 19:09:10.089256;303611737f4887557308244725d988c9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000242.soc;242;2025-10-12 19:09:10.090299;127579b615f98abcfa30d7675352e304;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000243.soc;243;2025-10-12 19:09:10.090299;4b8c6fe2aba5c44b7caef3dabebdea40;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000244.soc;244;2025-10-12 19:09:10.090299;1a2afee3b87061430b262bdd2852b2d2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000245.soc;245;2025-10-12 19:09:10.113073;0f6a6c037527a05deef9c83da2016ca0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000246.soc;246;2025-10-12 19:09:10.120207;4ef9b57381f44ee513740d2291970fee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000247.soc;247;2025-10-12 19:09:10.123252;c2a4ef870a874ef37239bd60b0f427ae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000248.soc;248;2025-10-12 19:09:10.125439;ebb7082646f3a95c62db0a19c6e0d6d4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000249.soc;249;2025-10-12 19:09:10.128062;4d667cf667bdb12b7bb2afb6d8e8a7f7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000250.soc;250;2025-10-12 19:09:10.138189;7909f0d95ef1020ab064b4eb42ac6d44;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000251.soc;251;2025-10-12 19:09:10.141221;8649c76489346fd7c64272f4c66cb809;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000252.soc;252;2025-10-12 19:09:10.145692;aa02c42b024f615cf91a22f7cc7f9914;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000253.soc;253;2025-10-12 19:09:10.147659;75ffde544bf8dfbf8fe28105bef4eba3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000254.soc;254;2025-10-12 19:09:10.149667;516ec91dfc08e619b92b1b1c8c30e519;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000255.soc;255;2025-10-12 19:09:10.153309;d13075999ee57c13c67937de22fe8a1e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000256.soc;256;2025-10-12 19:09:10.158771;70497b926fdb3d230ab4aeef0fa46159;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000257.soc;257;2025-10-12 19:09:10.161789;11ac82a9802f9c54ef6031746e154b53;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000258.soc;258;2025-10-12 19:09:10.169855;2013ed12a3d684e6f6cac3aa172326e9;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000259.soc;259;2025-10-12 19:09:10.172171;df0391106f895c9df9e7154cb5bbd113;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000260.soc;260;2025-10-12 19:09:10.176230;c1c9c3ae41ecd28b4c7b0a00f2c6fce5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000261.soc;261;2025-10-12 19:09:10.176230;92d51a50ec024b4259279ba71f601775;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000262.soc;262;2025-10-12 19:09:10.176230;6b389d2f42ce7238c50c0038b43cd223;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000263.soc;263;2025-10-12 19:09:10.186653;2e75f10d84d394c665c245cfd82bf356;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000264.soc;264;2025-10-12 19:09:10.188829;e7857b7786f0e94214cd9818ea9634f3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000265.soc;265;2025-10-12 19:09:10.191333;5c0717aa5a561ca541e87435c694d382;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000266.soc;266;2025-10-12 19:09:10.193443;35b336b76dc518d57a7222b6ea17e15a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000267.soc;267;2025-10-12 19:09:10.195839;73c7f33f0aff08c5f11bbe584862cb69;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000268.soc;268;2025-10-12 19:09:10.197858;4361a2a3628df6a61d8c66beb3799458;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000269.soc;269;2025-10-12 19:09:10.199880;c95c63eca74ec23496af15da8dc80796;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000270.soc;270;2025-10-12 19:09:10.206221;a723cfbb6773001cbdb18eddb2ff80d9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000271.soc;271;2025-10-12 19:09:10.208243;024dd0211c03fe27134467758b26c11b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000272.soc;272;2025-10-12 19:09:10.215432;994f845e0b40c0ab90f94dcd746f5bfc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000273.soc;273;2025-10-12 19:09:10.218963;2aa93760be73b0ccee4c58373fc53fc1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000274.soc;274;2025-10-12 19:09:10.223207;51d8eabd735e07ec6eb54ca948e6c907;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000275.soc;275;2025-10-12 19:09:10.227263;3c56316c33eb25b649f12ae26d1b129f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000276.soc;276;2025-10-12 19:09:10.230422;bfadf6a07c56c4bf3a3c8ae10be1b56f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000277.soc;277;2025-10-12 19:09:10.232433;11b0e42dff5f37f69c9337a5b0ea43b5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000278.soc;278;2025-10-12 19:09:10.236593;d96b0609754ef27fae2e78f7d8c5cfe9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000279.soc;279;2025-10-12 19:09:10.238775;5dbdf3f18b31968099f41029fa53a44a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000280.soc;280;2025-10-12 19:09:10.240896;8ffd965d6f824bb6c6f5794b5b43e4ea;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000281.soc;281;2025-10-12 19:09:10.250050;cc36d073e6449fac141285ae7ac651cb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000282.soc;282;2025-10-12 19:09:10.255713;1523ce358182e34a3136b83ca1deb64c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000283.soc;283;2025-10-12 19:09:10.261244;36c6be919fc5b415c08b4dda3a35a342;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000284.soc;284;2025-10-12 19:09:10.263277;1a2895272e820b13392ca83922d79661;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000285.soc;285;2025-10-12 19:09:10.265347;acdaddecfa37390f17a19207817701d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000286.soc;286;2025-10-12 19:09:10.271986;1343f83611cc4e3b47899f8c89c5e512;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000287.soc;287;2025-10-12 19:09:10.276014;992f74f26c87217a875a15a9d7ce422b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000288.soc;288;2025-10-12 19:09:10.279029;5e1a2f1c4722e50bc7f0f1a15d895e5d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000289.soc;289;2025-10-12 19:09:10.283132;1158e7da3c7bcd4d5f09e1d9be3d7f33;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000290.soc;290;2025-10-12 19:09:10.286855;95fca3c830d3209bc88469a060610255;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000291.soc;291;2025-10-12 19:09:10.290277;30669f5096ee33a3c2d9a21ca28c43bf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000292.soc;292;2025-10-12 19:09:10.292659;8bca6f36dcb9d290962bb54ce3e4a919;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000293.soc;293;2025-10-12 19:09:10.296387;e0fabd482f029c6d9b497b1f13d32f4a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000294.soc;294;2025-10-12 19:09:10.298596;522744a325f1e078eff86a4cb73bcb17;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000295.soc;295;2025-10-12 19:09:10.300716;3c8da9ade1803eadf6c3c0a687ecc7f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000296.soc;296;2025-10-12 19:09:10.306782;89dd6afaed82c442bb0824d13a5c3bb1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000297.soc;297;2025-10-12 19:09:10.308845;9242c295ed0cbf8904ecd2640e554ec6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000298.soc;298;2025-10-12 19:09:10.313103;38c642792c3949bf86d4bd5896d5bb65;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000299.soc;299;2025-10-12 19:09:10.324358;513e979cfe2b581e63f958054fd32553;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000300.soc;300;2025-10-12 19:09:10.332180;4fe7a2a10b43e0dcc6895910199caa7e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000301.soc;301;2025-10-12 19:09:10.334268;8356ed4b0e0bf91e52eaaf2d060d6036;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000302.soc;302;2025-10-12 19:09:10.337600;92e943d3543004e3cf9fe7d8104633ea;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000303.soc;303;2025-10-12 19:09:10.345660;3369cb8ca70e4c21eccc8648f628d957;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000304.soc;304;2025-10-12 19:09:10.348002;74b697cd248e3e2a3ca8179b6f74636f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000305.soc;305;2025-10-12 19:09:10.350226;411b990108bdc80ad7736f6fe5f4ce22;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000306.soc;306;2025-10-12 19:09:10.353172;e2747890aa2575db359ab2be7b99987a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000307.soc;307;2025-10-12 19:09:10.359368;322016c0d4e2a7339d0e55f00c7dfe5e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000308.soc;308;2025-10-12 19:09:10.362537;322e2b9ae1157283d0d9c5610de3ff57;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000309.soc;309;2025-10-12 19:09:10.367064;679a32218a37d5afb0cced9f965a8980;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000310.soc;310;2025-10-12 19:09:10.369885;cd7b7efa06aa820385248498c85d254a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000311.soc;311;2025-10-12 19:09:10.372880;4349aafeb56a7ef6cd69c4e5242b9ec1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000312.soc;312;2025-10-12 19:09:10.376956;e71afe8971e262c05a2fef021517ffa6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000313.soc;313;2025-10-12 19:09:10.384838;a5cb8d85a217e1d2123b54c2de4c48f6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000314.soc;314;2025-10-12 19:09:10.410700;16e8ddf6db2685b2626bc5cc53c6d9dd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000315.soc;315;2025-10-12 19:09:10.422273;2759c26d8ff1dabb5f69980bf76bc374;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000316.soc;316;2025-10-12 19:09:10.422273;a043320b35fb7f8ee0dc768dd2638cd8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000317.soc;317;2025-10-12 19:09:10.428554;c1555f7ec22dfe13b8824a50c6f3e1c1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000318.soc;318;2025-10-12 19:09:10.433492;aa2601f57e4c2ee3a0b90a40c6b309e7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000319.soc;319;2025-10-12 19:09:10.437450;ffcca363453e56d735254e012c2c0420;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000320.soc;320;2025-10-12 19:09:10.437450;3c50593fd1e137e100f213a96e9db980;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000321.soc;321;2025-10-12 19:09:10.443385;1bb85a455f834cae37688abe78f6b403;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000322.soc;322;2025-10-12 19:09:10.443385;001f9a8585c69c5126d8f8d9512dc4ab;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000323.soc;323;2025-10-12 19:09:10.453317;13feee8158f8a9c6a4e2f5fcf521d6d5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000324.soc;324;2025-10-12 19:09:10.453317;fd9f28a5653965a8943d09ec3c60737e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000325.soc;325;2025-10-12 19:09:10.457333;4addf3e12ee7a63b39d18475c0906d50;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000326.soc;326;2025-10-12 19:09:10.462150;63de787986f09b5c5e7ab9145758ea9d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000327.soc;327;2025-10-12 19:09:10.462150;293ad29d5b29f64d09ab7c5ceab24e46;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000328.soc;328;2025-10-12 19:09:10.466324;72398446f38a5da084410e49fac5c2b7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000329.soc;329;2025-10-12 19:09:10.469095;1f7b1b8dc66512c4fe178eeb874d80bd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000330.soc;330;2025-10-12 19:09:10.476118;4b2531a01570a9a579ac93ce87ebfcfb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000331.soc;331;2025-10-12 19:09:10.476118;14ca0afa8d5d9640564e0b81955c3d60;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000332.soc;332;2025-10-12 19:09:10.480681;20e0105cc2d3e7696a33f258b8e1e9af;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000333.soc;333;2025-10-12 19:09:10.480681;a957f2146b77c61875e2e2450a4a92cb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000334.soc;334;2025-10-12 19:09:10.490190;5348c8ee8af3653a19a7377a56a5d589;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000335.soc;335;2025-10-12 19:09:10.504651;c00db190033a27006ac6df629fbabe72;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000336.soc;336;2025-10-12 19:09:10.504651;a1dae33a5f2a0ebb268c4c108a9eb89b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000337.soc;337;2025-10-12 19:09:10.512689;d69111cdef538389f3a834bace6212b2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000338.soc;338;2025-10-12 19:09:10.521350;c3f3f5cd791da58b22e01973cc0fa907;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000339.soc;339;2025-10-12 19:09:10.524740;84010bf7ba97e2dbb053f48f92e9df13;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000340.soc;340;2025-10-12 19:09:10.524740;deb41462d657d360926b1c20d4fde048;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000341.soc;341;2025-10-12 19:09:10.524740;eddbc13aa29eef64146915ccc5d21a76;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000342.soc;342;2025-10-12 19:09:10.537409;064ddb8f35b8037f2cabc7034e8dac94;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000343.soc;343;2025-10-12 19:09:10.537409;4bb4d9ce192c1cfad8fae466b41f390b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000344.soc;344;2025-10-12 19:09:10.537409;1f1298d56d04b60b7470784aaf0800a9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000345.soc;345;2025-10-12 19:09:10.549411;acfa00e599a3cf1a6437873110c13be5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000346.soc;346;2025-10-12 19:09:10.552670;9f84d8d0c517d0bb1026fd67b2106f87;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000347.soc;347;2025-10-12 19:09:10.562759;67a12f87ad7242e95cc189e18f2f66eb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000348.soc;348;2025-10-12 19:09:10.566760;b04f2569e811f87f204038e69705582e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000349.soc;349;2025-10-12 19:09:10.570824;d88a7e47f1a77aba887e27e9b3ac7efd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000350.soc;350;2025-10-12 19:09:10.570824;dc23e7f3594b3bd1ceeb11d4c9e18e06;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000351.soc;351;2025-10-12 19:09:10.575194;e19f19c946892eff29547525589c15df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000352.soc;352;2025-10-12 19:09:10.582951;baab5b1e4c4bb64a2c9bbf4993b15a6a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000353.soc;353;2025-10-12 19:09:10.594614;41dfa4d50edbf9bbd8b50d92ac915a45;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000354.soc;354;2025-10-12 19:09:10.600187;c0b17c69a0f072256603570cf5a3ec71;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000355.soc;355;2025-10-12 19:09:10.600187;26eec1ddb7723b5fc481c7b40ac9e635;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000356.soc;356;2025-10-12 19:09:10.610610;702fd605ef336e24d8c89122cf2472df;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000357.soc;357;2025-10-12 19:09:10.610610;c4a689d3496fb02915896fc537e726b0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000358.soc;358;2025-10-12 19:09:10.616271;6ca3aea37a0a014e974ddb6628346d33;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000359.soc;359;2025-10-12 19:09:10.622443;c574f563845d41c231d6cd9bd7615e4a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000360.soc;360;2025-10-12 19:09:10.632281;e01645f8216f9e94347f202aa9995f7e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000361.soc;361;2025-10-12 19:09:10.634287;7cb6fa18a7918a05f98d28b5259977fa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000362.soc;362;2025-10-12 19:09:10.637319;e4e568cfddbca5798c6f64f5b60a0baf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000363.soc;363;2025-10-12 19:09:10.638002;4db100f06249d9f3281c4070d4ef4d0b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000364.soc;364;2025-10-12 19:09:10.658952;b08794395b25042ec6a209d4a54280ca;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000365.soc;365;2025-10-12 19:09:10.670569;46362dc7f4e05743f7cd25bdd0eeecf5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000366.soc;366;2025-10-12 19:09:10.675252;5d8ee704af16a4ed684d52e27cb3a2ac;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000367.soc;367;2025-10-12 19:09:10.675252;5ae1bb9cc09b1c1f833cf31dc32261da;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000368.soc;368;2025-10-12 19:09:10.675252;85cc66eecf149032eab3ae647747168e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000369.soc;369;2025-10-12 19:09:10.686332;eae8073fbe8721b72fb1a2be55fc100f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000370.soc;370;2025-10-12 19:09:10.686846;9cefa7c490aabb44bb654b32abccb536;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000371.soc;371;2025-10-12 19:09:10.690758;ec228ba3308a0eb683bf0c491b2b4bd0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000372.soc;372;2025-10-12 19:09:10.690758;f2b7b76f528937c3ab50c060150d01d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000373.soc;373;2025-10-12 19:09:10.690758;a1b36f967e0b331b0ef2f71ed3e2ab21;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000374.soc;374;2025-10-12 19:09:10.702994;221a64a1f04954e85f2d5b7911a903a4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000375.soc;375;2025-10-12 19:09:10.704339;583477c6513711d561b775d3514eb742;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000376.soc;376;2025-10-12 19:09:10.704339;20f0e8fa5e55e76d6ab3eca00b779e4d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000377.soc;377;2025-10-12 19:09:10.714462;ab020c35d9848b2399411220b1ca4174;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000378.soc;378;2025-10-12 19:09:10.714462;3559099e11dfbc5ff01889103972bd81;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000379.soc;379;2025-10-12 19:09:10.720348;91b508fcbeef3d6782e19f1b5ed15ce6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000380.soc;380;2025-10-12 19:09:10.722887;a332a6847b74ad5f4c1ce21a2923dbda;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000381.soc;381;2025-10-12 19:09:10.722887;76ae189057ecb7dc61f71af53bef8fef;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000382.soc;382;2025-10-12 19:09:10.727549;3d432da02b7505eb3b204df85fa5997e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000383.soc;383;2025-10-12 19:09:10.727549;ce40fc48e6abd27546db5a9945d32cdb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000384.soc;384;2025-10-12 19:09:10.731675;09926f997f88e2722e3cc529634acfd0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000385.soc;385;2025-10-12 19:09:10.731675;333483d9973006a0dcdc6d4db9180a08;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000386.soc;386;2025-10-12 19:09:10.735412;c580db18596979c4ca7afd4404875322;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000387.soc;387;2025-10-12 19:09:10.740462;99c7153e018b6103af46feab0260338e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000388.soc;388;2025-10-12 19:09:10.743753;c37614e25debb8ee7d18485a961cc025;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000389.soc;389;2025-10-12 19:09:10.743753;54037c9fa4782bd2cc7bf9440cdf28f0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000390.soc;390;2025-10-12 19:09:10.758581;948555ece3f137c2f8c77ef641ad2fb4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000391.soc;391;2025-10-12 19:09:10.762909;d34277d8bff9c2d472745b6385e6027d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000392.soc;392;2025-10-12 19:09:10.766799;f5a04adf6ef290d7958e9055015c5ce0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000393.soc;393;2025-10-12 19:09:10.770152;709f26cf8539e49e77e043501d264272;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000394.soc;394;2025-10-12 19:09:10.770152;aaf97e024cc2bef704931b801526841e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000395.soc;395;2025-10-12 19:09:10.779353;f7319f8433fa913d016f2e6ae73951fc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000396.soc;396;2025-10-12 19:09:10.785809;55787933aa0442e3bd6849bd2227fe57;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000397.soc;397;2025-10-12 19:09:10.788866;bc15fe7a7ed7938f84d545d4d7a56d50;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000398.soc;398;2025-10-12 19:09:10.790869;57dbfbd8305614666a2d5ceb5a80e985;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000399.soc;399;2025-10-12 19:09:10.793567;391d685cdcaaf89b5282aba0566982f4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000400.soc;400;2025-10-12 19:09:10.793567;1e50b58e598a497d02fb1b7616cd3f2e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000401.soc;401;2025-10-12 19:09:10.798251;a159d1b1d56992cd1c267db0d063d155;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000402.soc;402;2025-10-12 19:09:10.801551;6d1d8bc189997e3b60983285379be2f0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000403.soc;403;2025-10-12 19:09:10.807850;2b447f867d887b36c06ba93dd48c5a10;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000404.soc;404;2025-10-12 19:09:10.807850;ceb77c985e1e1f1e1300ff8b1aa1d6ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000405.soc;405;2025-10-12 19:09:10.817575;40321569db6ca93d12467159e0b1ecf2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000406.soc;406;2025-10-12 19:09:10.817575;8ff45642caf1f19a266d549591e1679c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000407.soc;407;2025-10-12 19:09:10.821111;dabdb0a1f07d9b0b7462384570fb9665;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000408.soc;408;2025-10-12 19:09:10.821111;7c09c07d5db42a6dc125800c7098a9f0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000409.soc;409;2025-10-12 19:09:10.826032;64d6984bc18d8f081b462b5db4ac8959;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000410.soc;410;2025-10-12 19:09:10.830496;471756be18a57613218e547ebe186bfc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000411.soc;411;2025-10-12 19:09:10.835298;32c579ca6df114ad59422a0c898b4e64;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000412.soc;412;2025-10-12 19:09:10.835298;8d33cd129a6bbe65ada9cc8e9c7d65dc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000413.soc;413;2025-10-12 19:09:10.845140;dd973e9045a9090ef5e6560c1538b98a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000414.soc;414;2025-10-12 19:09:10.854789;5d6ec4380d5cf11e631153f6bfada8f0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000415.soc;415;2025-10-12 19:09:10.858705;c6e768925afc30d9fbc167c884cd49e5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000416.soc;416;2025-10-12 19:09:10.862952;c81e43f12a93766a47e128e9fc8c7242;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000417.soc;417;2025-10-12 19:09:10.866789;6def6a8f6cc99139435b5a4d796e68f1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000418.soc;418;2025-10-12 19:09:10.866789;0f5f98d680beadc6b7c67499e24c454d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000419.soc;419;2025-10-12 19:09:10.870420;060ab2807449e075726538b3a2b5dfce;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000420.soc;420;2025-10-12 19:09:10.875230;fcb3d5ab685d159939242a4094af1e98;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000421.soc;421;2025-10-12 19:09:10.875230;1285c2aafef735f8784e4250488932f7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000422.soc;422;2025-10-12 19:09:10.879302;e9ba5f16b9b612e6b5f77fe08f923b4f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000423.soc;423;2025-10-12 19:09:10.883179;0252ea7a8ae1609bc5da711deb72fb2e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000424.soc;424;2025-10-12 19:09:10.886354;8b6603059524f59ddcc1f0d2f360463d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000425.soc;425;2025-10-12 19:09:10.890842;63e90393813ea604c310b174f956b469;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000426.soc;426;2025-10-12 19:09:10.895222;f0af1cc7fb7856aca65b3b92c32d3457;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000427.soc;427;2025-10-12 19:09:10.902171;526191e90394d6f34603993a61974d65;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000428.soc;428;2025-10-12 19:09:10.907596;f0830980457010b97da94702843644c1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000429.soc;429;2025-10-12 19:09:10.924901;1acdf9912b089dd72ff5c9fbaf5dcf40;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000430.soc;430;2025-10-12 19:09:10.929033;dfe3948d61a7ad3add356939640b123c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000431.soc;431;2025-10-12 19:09:10.932898;c961c2f4a9242f995e056fc962747820;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000432.soc;432;2025-10-12 19:09:10.937055;1aa1abba9d89dd1aaeac3b0143170db6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000433.soc;433;2025-10-12 19:09:10.937055;4e04782132c16bc236521c3572981e38;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000434.soc;434;2025-10-12 19:09:10.941871;4e1e2091befbcea0921f7c1d003293b2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000435.soc;435;2025-10-12 19:09:10.941871;ac65ef40e8c65b2a2e146527919c1d74;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000436.soc;436;2025-10-12 19:09:10.946160;fc8cbbf085d9861c25f929f5c9e57a82;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000437.soc;437;2025-10-12 19:09:10.946160;e7cdca989af68b8087b74f4cc5b14b31;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000438.soc;438;2025-10-12 19:09:10.959249;29b1c2f4f3d459779ac801c11e895be0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000439.soc;439;2025-10-12 19:09:10.959249;7bd32fc0cc28dfb2c9e38be065b59aca;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000440.soc;440;2025-10-12 19:09:10.963379;1540e8afd1145a2ae105b648095571d9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000441.soc;441;2025-10-12 19:09:10.963379;25fc0cd502abf8ffec7d8cd39171344a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000442.soc;442;2025-10-12 19:09:10.971216;8a1ff47c20688dd9ace3a0879ede597a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000443.soc;443;2025-10-12 19:09:10.971216;2e99887e5be37a0637720b6a80240a36;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000444.soc;444;2025-10-12 19:09:10.977796;60c41af23246591613d6e2b44529d0fe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000445.soc;445;2025-10-12 19:09:10.982165;f5c9ad4bda7a47bf38aec43e3d2c9c9b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000446.soc;446;2025-10-12 19:09:10.982165;62ca87a6ff21ca194ded0ea9a3bf48a8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000447.soc;447;2025-10-12 19:09:10.987127;6fa21fb1348f7f50f76c2d43da37d5a1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000448.soc;448;2025-10-12 19:09:10.990687;1792faaa32207f268391dd91ee92bb4a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000449.soc;449;2025-10-12 19:09:10.995214;b7b77a770088b9a8c8b39291e55d7f7e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000450.soc;450;2025-10-12 19:09:11.002865;d81e707e7e72567550f87ad884f9ecc9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000451.soc;451;2025-10-12 19:09:11.011909;92aeb824673622f8ca6d0a9d99ecc7d4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000452.soc;452;2025-10-12 19:09:11.011909;767da56f5a3e13f0bfe8cf9e04aa3c70;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000453.soc;453;2025-10-12 19:09:11.018555;343950559575bb92fbf8e91e8b4c5058;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000454.soc;454;2025-10-12 19:09:11.018555;2c6c84dfbc56fcc05bcb87a00bd86d85;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000455.soc;455;2025-10-12 19:09:11.036503;4b7b2d70a89b02721e59b1c335a09145;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000456.soc;456;2025-10-12 19:09:11.036503;ae19db5fc33e9dfe87b049027217815d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000457.soc;457;2025-10-12 19:09:11.036503;9e987e61b9b5442027e30e8fe9bd1d02;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000458.soc;458;2025-10-12 19:09:11.045320;3fd79e7e1c67c03db75aff19b1fe0cdd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000459.soc;459;2025-10-12 19:09:11.045320;9885ee69eaf492d9dace8f83fec8b42f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000460.soc;460;2025-10-12 19:09:11.052913;b137f9d46d78be46ad5516d849eadec0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000461.soc;461;2025-10-12 19:09:11.052913;d2b4524df1ee87dfcefa6b14a803cdd1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000462.soc;462;2025-10-12 19:09:11.052913;ffe085c6e1a4e836c7e316a0b8226a6d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000463.soc;463;2025-10-12 19:09:11.069283;ad552a4436dcd6c30e53298ae38f73aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000464.soc;464;2025-10-12 19:09:11.072481;dcb51747d83e58b14ff523a88dc217cb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000465.soc;465;2025-10-12 19:09:11.075248;517bfa37d25a96b7698ec7e770b64409;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000466.soc;466;2025-10-12 19:09:11.075248;8aed8517d3a8a8e4aebd73a2aa77b38e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000467.soc;467;2025-10-12 19:09:11.075248;c7aba7352bc07ee08716edc624e9b7f6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000468.soc;468;2025-10-12 19:09:11.090911;451b23b53d8c9336fe77a9666a936240;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000469.soc;469;2025-10-12 19:09:11.090911;a44354717fced7c07113f221ea8ad8a0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000470.soc;470;2025-10-12 19:09:11.090911;77283e2973e3eaa455914079245fa89d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000471.soc;471;2025-10-12 19:09:11.108137;bdcd9495bc157e6e492bba7f4b5b9059;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000472.soc;472;2025-10-12 19:09:11.116144;503fc6ee0d21747b9cdf6bb5037f085d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000473.soc;473;2025-10-12 19:09:11.121886;d5d3377687bca276a515aff1581b1b85;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000474.soc;474;2025-10-12 19:09:11.125891;01f052be59b58361bedf6da39ee9d71c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000475.soc;475;2025-10-12 19:09:11.127966;8e293e2f64a94f570a4952622cf7d2df;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000476.soc;476;2025-10-12 19:09:11.129968;47b27e916f73db4c0e3398e5f91f8a16;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000477.soc;477;2025-10-12 19:09:11.131969;507aa11eb5ac3e6f5ac6aeb85c62486b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000478.soc;478;2025-10-12 19:09:11.133971;da78f9f960db84a618c3a52a5bef146f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000479.soc;479;2025-10-12 19:09:11.137712;9dbe3fc66f1733b2a5aeb0e5312c36f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000480.soc;480;2025-10-12 19:09:11.139714;8e79bf7e0286075990c9d38555fbf11f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000481.soc;481;2025-10-12 19:09:11.143717;e74d46cf8955766f205968e49e74c289;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000482.soc;482;2025-10-12 19:09:11.155462;fde00d4b5208fb2da379df2cedabc9ee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000483.soc;483;2025-10-12 19:09:11.157465;29fb6c00131926f006e479d274331c28;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000484.soc;484;2025-10-12 19:09:11.161469;52a659c433dcc61dd3914eef6a846cb4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000485.soc;485;2025-10-12 19:09:11.163472;55cc6782589651aa2d06e938742c3164;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000486.soc;486;2025-10-12 19:09:11.165474;7e69666d1cb822152a7855248b29fe06;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000487.soc;487;2025-10-12 19:09:11.170232;b36172f277b551a6f57875aab583d483;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000488.soc;488;2025-10-12 19:09:11.172277;0a4d7d2b6fbadb9ae41a2dcf1786d9a0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000489.soc;489;2025-10-12 19:09:11.174389;2df2ee21c52e11816c76770d2f196e04;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000490.soc;490;2025-10-12 19:09:11.178707;8f1d54375f5cd5163eea1f63746243d5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000491.soc;491;2025-10-12 19:09:11.180747;557479eaf08fc0867037d39d1be4e524;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000492.soc;492;2025-10-12 19:09:11.184159;12a5e1a574b1dd217b73888602b37fec;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000493.soc;493;2025-10-12 19:09:11.186160;8aeaa293f07f4d9d387927908437422c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000494.soc;494;2025-10-12 19:09:11.188041;c1d44c9100b4a03e42526695e5eafd66;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000495.soc;495;2025-10-12 19:09:11.190844;eac6a833feb30660810b547d260084a3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000496.soc;496;2025-10-12 19:09:11.194140;5c22e928132fafcc8eb5609407b06c27;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000497.soc;497;2025-10-12 19:09:11.196635;9c69a205c13bd3ec0a008cabe6e6bdab;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000498.soc;498;2025-10-12 19:09:11.199724;3492f52d24369bc34588a7b8e8369c82;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000499.soc;499;2025-10-12 19:09:11.204448;bd72c076e6b969be4562673b0a8e4837;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000500.soc;500;2025-10-12 19:09:11.206524;1e47e602624b8cba1daa0a52eab5eeef;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000501.soc;501;2025-10-12 19:09:11.208566;177d3c37e641d3db4fcaa2a6546b7058;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000502.soc;502;2025-10-12 19:09:11.211926;9c3d7c03c4a4c76335e2decf4f3ce73b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000503.soc;503;2025-10-12 19:09:11.216307;52c2231e8f426eb8224f17ed971f9875;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000504.soc;504;2025-10-12 19:09:11.219395;8303271eb50fabfe97a0fcf409b05622;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000505.soc;505;2025-10-12 19:09:11.221418;a6c99621b42a5ab77565c44b7ae3e2bd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000506.soc;506;2025-10-12 19:09:11.227292;6cf96a5e34ee26d890d70fea87bd1e33;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000507.soc;507;2025-10-12 19:09:11.243303;fcf6871d89a571835b043acb7834698a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000508.soc;508;2025-10-12 19:09:11.246795;d518ebc09ca79f1fecd54423da8854ab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000509.soc;509;2025-10-12 19:09:11.254186;c0a7659c86c4abdd68d8e406c58337ff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000510.soc;510;2025-10-12 19:09:11.257217;e25422b74e09b29cf155dc09440a3716;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000511.soc;511;2025-10-12 19:09:11.259323;59c1549bc7529e7f11ef20b8ba66cbb7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000512.soc;512;2025-10-12 19:09:11.261364;80fd3d982b20c3741dc90c632b28067f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000513.soc;513;2025-10-12 19:09:11.263739;66c185bb6b1f53a3e1ff54b96564d907;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000514.soc;514;2025-10-12 19:09:11.268374;838c620957cc585bd786c2757d65fe44;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000515.soc;515;2025-10-12 19:09:11.271544;57705525463ae127792486cb740eb0a9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000516.soc;516;2025-10-12 19:09:11.276971;7c91c9d49c479464670fa2353cec187b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000517.soc;517;2025-10-12 19:09:11.279013;6ab97b36b039f046ea555d9a99e01616;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000518.soc;518;2025-10-12 19:09:11.283513;6a5cc5133668f8cf6e10b26b647e4f91;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000519.soc;519;2025-10-12 19:09:11.292805;f829eca1a8eefd8b8c7ae8af02b9fe08;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000520.soc;520;2025-10-12 19:09:11.295059;dbdc66184329221570c0633559aa100c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000521.soc;521;2025-10-12 19:09:11.298578;223adcbb2da198dc5e46ab4a8250d95b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000522.soc;522;2025-10-12 19:09:11.307437;c5e3466ff7d9d777289459bc8975c767;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000523.soc;523;2025-10-12 19:09:11.312241;0ee0ede9401a7a668d0125c30cdcbce6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000524.soc;524;2025-10-12 19:09:11.319980;d826a5512461fef394c6246e71bbf41f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000525.soc;525;2025-10-12 19:09:11.325529;6f92f9c3c4fb0061dde5744b82e6f3db;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000526.soc;526;2025-10-12 19:09:11.327623;c9672b1e7daf48aca67861c982ce438c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000527.soc;527;2025-10-12 19:09:11.332108;440c3083403ae7ebb9e3dbc439f3ee28;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000528.soc;528;2025-10-12 19:09:11.335836;c7d29fe105704d75d5c641f2a3af8acd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000529.soc;529;2025-10-12 19:09:11.338097;21228274fb3fd53b7b12527800415010;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000530.soc;530;2025-10-12 19:09:11.343613;63ec816a6ba8c314baceff5f0b4b903a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000531.soc;531;2025-10-12 19:09:11.347351;e8b8d4b399d9a5e58699c7f0fbeae91c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000532.soc;532;2025-10-12 19:09:11.349377;eb2e10e47bbc3d4dc820ed5a676a4b41;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000533.soc;533;2025-10-12 19:09:11.355769;3ea3f791e54855682bdfe9b887c87e00;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000534.soc;534;2025-10-12 19:09:11.359192;369d6eb781fcd31620decfc3d1172055;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000535.soc;535;2025-10-12 19:09:11.361487;0b176fc0796d34b89d2545d7489ae1c8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000536.soc;536;2025-10-12 19:09:11.370223;f2d442ec3db519eaf3f26f5a183b14f8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000537.soc;537;2025-10-12 19:09:11.371220;8f3fcbcc533f2bde61b373db387ebcd2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000538.soc;538;2025-10-12 19:09:11.377814;96008f354de1890626f7b86288852d70;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000539.soc;539;2025-10-12 19:09:11.379880;ef9363f82e285ce87e3243ba03aa1feb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000540.soc;540;2025-10-12 19:09:11.382375;28ab1d6ce0edd80ae0ce4e78dd5bc225;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000541.soc;541;2025-10-12 19:09:11.390692;b59cd8033a3c44494d808e6372c47933;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000542.soc;542;2025-10-12 19:09:11.395160;42a9d2b883c9657c42bb63e3296e5a85;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000543.soc;543;2025-10-12 19:09:11.401347;a0cded3449c22cc97b6137ed4e872f96;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000544.soc;544;2025-10-12 19:09:11.414172;9616186bdece509b2f923d9be01d5872;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000545.soc;545;2025-10-12 19:09:11.426615;431257fc3426442a829e41cb55cd0ce6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000546.soc;546;2025-10-12 19:09:11.436366;dc2663dae86d8816089a25338d4ccb5f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000547.soc;547;2025-10-12 19:09:11.439103;ebc70cf552074535d4194847da0149fb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000548.soc;548;2025-10-12 19:09:11.451438;e90a046dd013783d32c8ee0addf0c22c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000549.soc;549;2025-10-12 19:09:11.455869;fb09da1620a442cdcb93fa075f766faa;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000550.soc;550;2025-10-12 19:09:11.458284;f775276ec8a2fcf577f18e161fa2d218;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000551.soc;551;2025-10-12 19:09:11.458284;ddfdc48e4b9d6a0845ba0f897d116f09;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000552.soc;552;2025-10-12 19:09:11.458284;a93e7bca543c51abea59a744e7db59fb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000553.soc;553;2025-10-12 19:09:11.458284;52234034c4ae21f4a4724e416d6407b5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000554.soc;554;2025-10-12 19:09:11.471344;585431b898320e7a092c46585dc0461e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000555.soc;555;2025-10-12 19:09:11.476183;98871bc32e9ccf05c853e28183aedab0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000556.soc;556;2025-10-12 19:09:11.485623;1fb507143e962d1d2c1644feca16927d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000557.soc;557;2025-10-12 19:09:11.490938;3ec16ec33c324a5c74ad8d6d8f0d9137;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000558.soc;558;2025-10-12 19:09:11.505534;60c41dd55de9acf4ee6f4ecaf16c25a6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000559.soc;559;2025-10-12 19:09:11.509135;5e4ccec2fe5dccdb71ba1f5a72250643;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000560.soc;560;2025-10-12 19:09:11.511267;c40d22ea65663b6bfd12a63985df2ef5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000561.soc;561;2025-10-12 19:09:11.520503;1acbf32e789dc0c177429504328aecaa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000562.soc;562;2025-10-12 19:09:11.520503;5e7c3d57d4f2b54c59a67a95bce6defe;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000563.soc;563;2025-10-12 19:09:11.520503;c76bdef96e36a519458c197fcc181f4f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000564.soc;564;2025-10-12 19:09:11.520503;597c145d29530eb2bf54a4a8ade40a9b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000565.soc;565;2025-10-12 19:09:11.520503;8db4b687d87a4933fe8ed0025cb97683;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000566.soc;566;2025-10-12 19:09:11.536023;b6eb8f6c1a9eeebdaeeaed01391040fc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000567.soc;567;2025-10-12 19:09:11.536023;a9fc8d8f3209a1b32bb5db490748afa1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000568.soc;568;2025-10-12 19:09:11.536023;d99a14e2e35a779bc82fb00e4cba8d95;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000569.soc;569;2025-10-12 19:09:11.536023;43196d254bea385ea20f1158e7c1b5ba;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000570.soc;570;2025-10-12 19:09:11.551802;55eb6a3b14a4c88e40ec3cfb84a9b7b7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000571.soc;571;2025-10-12 19:09:11.551802;d116585847238b9e40a8888e47ea4123;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000572.soc;572;2025-10-12 19:09:11.567497;7377fd49c18a6fcfc8e8dcd3e31867af;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000573.soc;573;2025-10-12 19:09:11.567497;70b7c0028849ad0568fd0c29b4627c47;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000574.soc;574;2025-10-12 19:09:11.567497;ef266e0362343366ea8d6befd3de01e2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000575.soc;575;2025-10-12 19:09:11.567497;fb736676c1ac31779397aaa50bff98fd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000576.soc;576;2025-10-12 19:09:11.583458;5a537c6893aeb8744a069286b21f80ec;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000577.soc;577;2025-10-12 19:09:11.590913;50a8fadaf53c7f50bdd08527aff8e313;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000578.soc;578;2025-10-12 19:09:11.599257;57ee0c33cec3da7b8e3f085ed563c195;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000579.soc;579;2025-10-12 19:09:11.599257;cc85dbecd4f123dd6e0ffb2a4c47f7b6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000580.soc;580;2025-10-12 19:09:11.599257;67c25e7e9d020ada82710d5497025f8e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000581.soc;581;2025-10-12 19:09:11.599257;e94bb9cd0a28c22a1026272e2d2575e6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000582.soc;582;2025-10-12 19:09:11.599257;2e1146ac4420986d2bfeed8ff56d75be;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000583.soc;583;2025-10-12 19:09:11.615101;7438d3283829b63241d7c1502d686acd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000584.soc;584;2025-10-12 19:09:11.619280;c7894b429f9958bd3fcc95a2712932a7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000585.soc;585;2025-10-12 19:09:11.620589;5bed7ae16b14f76b94f4a8b8d91d4819;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000586.soc;586;2025-10-12 19:09:11.636328;bd32e50051233147a477553cbafd2047;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000587.soc;587;2025-10-12 19:09:11.636328;880b265b818d9b1c7aa6c7f75a94958d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000588.soc;588;2025-10-12 19:09:11.636328;66cebe98bf0208163a8281fb9c6351f1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000589.soc;589;2025-10-12 19:09:11.651988;1512ba5e211c2193595d243766f607c4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000590.soc;590;2025-10-12 19:09:11.651988;d657f79a80984543f224b92ed033364e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000591.soc;591;2025-10-12 19:09:11.651988;ad94937af0e3d19b311899d2e80e0b9f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000592.soc;592;2025-10-12 19:09:11.719233;b0abe1a6dce46d589c64d8b561130b65;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000593.soc;593;2025-10-12 19:09:11.736250;82fac2c26ff9741c9c13cee9564c4af6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000594.soc;594;2025-10-12 19:09:11.736250;de1750b958a2f51c20bdf34e1c154ab1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000595.soc;595;2025-10-12 19:09:11.736250;a7ba5c29079e909de9763c8a99835f1a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000596.soc;596;2025-10-12 19:09:11.767661;4b8f5f54b55959c4b46fbb1f6295ca2c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000597.soc;597;2025-10-12 19:09:11.799311;29a935a38dcba974cf43895e0e2369d1;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000598.soc;598;2025-10-12 19:09:11.815146;1a75dd4ccef25a75aa53345d30dd4291;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000599.soc;599;2025-10-12 19:09:11.837202;c9444ae8de6c74a2302360bf502d97fb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000600.soc;600;2025-10-12 19:09:11.846318;3bb6740e708b58a39b8d2c9e8f8c4435;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000601.soc;601;2025-10-12 19:09:11.846318;8ac1b3c92eff818f6b6a76b0a0adf868;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000602.soc;602;2025-10-12 19:09:11.853834;2dea07eba91c912b7b3ae2b0da3bb201;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000603.soc;603;2025-10-12 19:09:11.853834;2a042bdd66292842a90c2e6e63a35fc3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000604.soc;604;2025-10-12 19:09:11.853834;0590a9894f0d0bf9717ee8fb08edffa3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000605.soc;605;2025-10-12 19:09:11.853834;b4afb3841a0929099498f9d309870458;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000606.soc;606;2025-10-12 19:09:11.853834;bbb3ff91c1f7241a72f0db4e74c7756f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000607.soc;607;2025-10-12 19:09:11.869464;41d2bfe951396698b84b2c655eff28be;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000608.soc;608;2025-10-12 19:09:11.869464;ea75f180ade92fb72ea4306cf209ccf7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000609.soc;609;2025-10-12 19:09:11.869464;fd594eeaf9057c9981fe4cfdbcc1b317;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True -00070-00000610.soc;610;2025-10-12 19:09:11.869464;a2e01ac985f0930c6a541e5f7cd834d2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000611.soc;611;2025-10-12 19:09:11.885295;51d8a94cd9e13c3d934f08c6a750b2d7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000612.soc;612;2025-10-12 19:09:11.891029;aae9ceed56172ddebded8df5728fccbd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000613.soc;613;2025-10-12 19:09:11.891029;d54357e3f73cc8ddf8b0b2322f55bc2a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000614.soc;614;2025-10-12 19:09:11.891029;4d15df8e6c22a5a53c755f91704605a6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000615.soc;615;2025-10-12 19:09:11.891029;aaf20e69115b6b9d6c50b46c15c4d79c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000616.soc;616;2025-10-12 19:09:11.905303;8b8ab04b5f9af4752c0fabfec3e5b9ad;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000617.soc;617;2025-10-12 19:09:11.909804;b22559bf84fdf41a8684ffc4d0336a4b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000618.soc;618;2025-10-12 19:09:11.909804;e1a91bd094fabfa6abb257f791131b9b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000619.soc;619;2025-10-12 19:09:11.920424;2a40870c2fac4795a00d84eb5fe8e1e9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000620.soc;620;2025-10-12 19:09:11.920424;c2a1450bb6ad2c30b51a829ce57f0774;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000621.soc;621;2025-10-12 19:09:11.920424;ad3e904c5717e2ec8a9ffdce5fb58df6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000622.soc;622;2025-10-12 19:09:11.920424;95c2f745a532803a84b8917c9f5e2780;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000623.soc;623;2025-10-12 19:09:11.920424;5e9443481c2cf8cc82e24bfd692e1a22;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000624.soc;624;2025-10-12 19:09:11.936294;45d011253705b953a3658d84f1357cdf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000625.soc;625;2025-10-12 19:09:11.937669;50bd1b88f04f34dbf0491bcff5e9ff67;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000626.soc;626;2025-10-12 19:09:11.937669;073f8ddfbd0011840d0bb3f6335e5403;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000627.soc;627;2025-10-12 19:09:11.952961;b1780b3593086cceca23fec631c7319f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000628.soc;628;2025-10-12 19:09:11.952961;6b4f08312998284f2cb79bdb46bd1e03;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000629.soc;629;2025-10-12 19:09:11.952961;8093c38d5c0b926dbd70c2a7902d9b78;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000630.soc;630;2025-10-12 19:09:11.952961;8c6c6292b808bb43643ab82a443e6924;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000631.soc;631;2025-10-12 19:09:11.952961;1648e9bc18870a299e76d235b49d347f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000632.soc;632;2025-10-12 19:09:11.968637;317def8ad689fa51e0bb5f83e64f9fe6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000633.soc;633;2025-10-12 19:09:11.968637;bdc9511496f76240d6893891144bab00;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;True;True -00070-00000634.soc;634;2025-10-12 19:09:11.968637;7a4b0213b1c35fd11a126283bad06f87;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000635.soc;635;2025-10-12 19:09:11.984284;bb25a7838076043c7e0541095d64350d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000636.soc;636;2025-10-12 19:09:11.984284;a7b93e51af124ccd4c313a4f83ed8f8a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000637.soc;637;2025-10-12 19:09:11.990856;9672aa4f711c876487b3e27ef6b6a53f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000638.soc;638;2025-10-12 19:09:11.990856;0d1a88ad9c0c4a2954bd8cf1ce52cfb4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000639.soc;639;2025-10-12 19:09:11.990856;6f45e4c607c59ce941ace5cc629aa644;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000640.soc;640;2025-10-12 19:09:12.000279;fd77b161865d45f8300b649035e38381;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000641.soc;641;2025-10-12 19:09:12.000279;6e6107ea2b1629682841baa13ea924bd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000642.soc;642;2025-10-12 19:09:12.000279;8dac3d44c26e83ed75e5046f72111b9e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000643.soc;643;2025-10-12 19:09:12.000279;ece5fd3af335d2b738109414abee6832;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000644.soc;644;2025-10-12 19:09:12.000279;a79db30a11010fee8bc858b8145e5925;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000645.soc;645;2025-10-12 19:09:12.016150;c85533072d704bc54c916cf14f18f179;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000646.soc;646;2025-10-12 19:09:12.016150;bc267a0f3a9ce73950d2d3d460fb009b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000647.soc;647;2025-10-12 19:09:12.016150;a38a50e161dc23511026cf39a0b4fe31;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000648.soc;648;2025-10-12 19:09:12.016150;9913fcd6f54ec28836f0a0fd89de53df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000649.soc;649;2025-10-12 19:09:12.016150;f6fee9374370dd8fdbf8be899ec66751;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000650.soc;650;2025-10-12 19:09:12.036479;a98e1c639867ecfb5e74e54c2d92aa11;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000651.soc;651;2025-10-12 19:09:12.036950;10b977ead17adc05f25a48dec8693d4b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000652.soc;652;2025-10-12 19:09:12.036950;81bd419f799c67e459c34366e90b0e8a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000653.soc;653;2025-10-12 19:09:12.036950;a561123b662cc61104cb9247c279192b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000654.soc;654;2025-10-12 19:09:12.052227;9bb2b99b6329129cb57756e51a275103;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000655.soc;655;2025-10-12 19:09:12.061459;890e5be894f5a5f69c3619424a733ae7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000656.soc;656;2025-10-12 19:09:12.064145;55ba8fe210b56ee88ff8bde6d26f8639;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000657.soc;657;2025-10-12 19:09:12.067882;eb6db972e8dac2c611386764bfb2486c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000658.soc;658;2025-10-12 19:09:12.067882;1c7d9062315bcbe5a72d43e9db3dc8e4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000659.soc;659;2025-10-12 19:09:12.083698;3dacad7fa6b8b42954749453ca7e092f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000660.soc;660;2025-10-12 19:09:12.090779;d6aef431e0e78e35d43cf2852dfcfbae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000661.soc;661;2025-10-12 19:09:12.090779;7bb405642100a41c4fe64460f5b41033;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000662.soc;662;2025-10-12 19:09:12.106753;bed262360412dcb00d5fceb1f5252589;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000663.soc;663;2025-10-12 19:09:12.121315;707bcd1967c27c23457fcfa8077f2a8b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000664.soc;664;2025-10-12 19:09:12.123046;b59d1de33d95db0b73d819e86abc1747;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000665.soc;665;2025-10-12 19:09:12.123046;9d110ea3e3f33f9381ebc4b6d2e47675;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000666.soc;666;2025-10-12 19:09:12.123046;61b2525a46bd67dbc8e5e9811c4ce1b1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000667.soc;667;2025-10-12 19:09:12.138708;e88ab968cf7a7146b7eb8299a0947153;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000668.soc;668;2025-10-12 19:09:12.154757;491e5d0f672f33489b8bd4fb506372a1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000669.soc;669;2025-10-12 19:09:12.154757;eb9eb9c913d0ed390be5c668b8ed6922;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000670.soc;670;2025-10-12 19:09:12.170396;fcda18ca2b1587a32b79aa7758209176;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000671.soc;671;2025-10-12 19:09:12.203623;9e0bdef63d086c326796549dad99b0f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000672.soc;672;2025-10-12 19:09:12.203623;5e4642ec9d5020a218154bfc93a333e2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000673.soc;673;2025-10-12 19:09:12.203623;d908c17fdd12f9cfc14f2c694158e60d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000674.soc;674;2025-10-12 19:09:12.213271;7c25aa3a83ce69c68cea0a3d08c6f631;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000675.soc;675;2025-10-12 19:09:12.219217;194a68c7453d20d5c9761eafb1029c59;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000676.soc;676;2025-10-12 19:09:12.219217;aa3b958427bdd1290754ecf0fb77fd74;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000677.soc;677;2025-10-12 19:09:12.219217;fc0c8cd18b1485e0d21836f6f316be43;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000678.soc;678;2025-10-12 19:09:12.219217;763c70fc66096de5bfd84adeaf182c85;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000679.soc;679;2025-10-12 19:09:12.234944;a13a5ad6c6b45b7f38b1a9c2c9c38fd3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000680.soc;680;2025-10-12 19:09:12.234944;96317b5112f3817ae1ed7e0b6266c3dc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000681.soc;681;2025-10-12 19:09:12.234944;cf22193f22ba4e95bceb847914d6e056;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000682.soc;682;2025-10-12 19:09:12.234944;a1c4be56eab7f45a7305e6f28b565be2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000683.soc;683;2025-10-12 19:09:12.250793;3ce710ebd3f868840db18ad0d8c89c47;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000684.soc;684;2025-10-12 19:09:12.250793;36b0154c105be7d50b3b4006f175c4a1;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000685.soc;685;2025-10-12 19:09:12.283633;357814e7ce2065f2686349b970dcc752;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000686.soc;686;2025-10-12 19:09:12.289410;8a46e4edcbcc838f4483b9be8b6f27f4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000687.soc;687;2025-10-12 19:09:12.292930;6a63ac6f38e95d716bafd952b91f7584;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000688.soc;688;2025-10-12 19:09:12.296956;51f4c39c1b81f2810e74d60e62d6d354;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000689.soc;689;2025-10-12 19:09:12.308015;530fed14d074081fcb509776f8d79459;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000690.soc;690;2025-10-12 19:09:12.312372;2777cd5e56107fdc2ad46615d7d911c8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000691.soc;691;2025-10-12 19:09:12.317536;1d8d3e5530c5952153ecb9446be2cf60;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000692.soc;692;2025-10-12 19:09:12.322897;fc8eb80412016a763fa7f219bec8ef4e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000693.soc;693;2025-10-12 19:09:12.327402;cd77ce11a156f22a3f5fbe21ceb5d53f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000694.soc;694;2025-10-12 19:09:12.330512;7787e1759d9547aeada34541059d9531;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000695.soc;695;2025-10-12 19:09:12.335176;5f29e4602d2b0262971d25c23f776c78;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000696.soc;696;2025-10-12 19:09:12.341577;47fc068e621c14f51d4e31022f0f40d1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000697.soc;697;2025-10-12 19:09:12.345786;6175915cbd35bbf667984245ea16bd9c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000698.soc;698;2025-10-12 19:09:12.353951;be1acaebfcfbb45a5c8b4b63f742fb2f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000699.soc;699;2025-10-12 19:09:12.356152;bf7296940ed3d0fe1600b7765a5ea144;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000700.soc;700;2025-10-12 19:09:12.363396;3ecd493d242ca58c4cfc35bce18a449d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000701.soc;701;2025-10-12 19:09:12.369526;4cbbc0a31afc36b0ebc84397dcf3e77b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000702.soc;702;2025-10-12 19:09:12.374053;2eefa70cc90471b1d6b6733479a77f78;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000703.soc;703;2025-10-12 19:09:12.378380;a78221a8fb0ac7c4c97deca40cfffabd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000704.soc;704;2025-10-12 19:09:12.399770;7724d36f3f26a7c5cd739a8516e2662b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000705.soc;705;2025-10-12 19:09:12.403844;71964e826fa1b07c67b1ab14eacfa930;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000706.soc;706;2025-10-12 19:09:12.420558;81006aea09cb1a381f5d13147ba466c1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000707.soc;707;2025-10-12 19:09:12.440146;b4404c58cdf081422f86f000071bfcac;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000708.soc;708;2025-10-12 19:09:12.442608;da3211cfd5c5e9f3980ff41a3f714bac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000709.soc;709;2025-10-12 19:09:12.446824;5c6751cd5f05d027f6f5c4ffb7fc237d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000710.soc;710;2025-10-12 19:09:12.448862;3ae893eb8cc667c3d8a2f5a4c095afb1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000711.soc;711;2025-10-12 19:09:12.451493;edc855ee73b07d09220b7d6cb18fc08f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000712.soc;712;2025-10-12 19:09:12.453986;26c9bc4fcd56f7f2e3dbb27da76c4475;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000713.soc;713;2025-10-12 19:09:12.456134;707b8a2017b16d62a2f1182190143009;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000714.soc;714;2025-10-12 19:09:12.456480;ad9d245f565d7775fc1ec56d434c1919;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000715.soc;715;2025-10-12 19:09:12.456480;2d1d706b691518e869b3b5801d294313;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000716.soc;716;2025-10-12 19:09:12.467010;929fd08ff537c6d93ea237cb4f25390f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000717.soc;717;2025-10-12 19:09:12.470292;f05a2b4de7604fb72683f8ea14ffd322;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000718.soc;718;2025-10-12 19:09:12.476335;93ddaf6b3f40779a4f1621f9b48f8864;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000719.soc;719;2025-10-12 19:09:12.479319;38bed32d09151c5a99931e8cf8a05c1f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000720.soc;720;2025-10-12 19:09:12.479319;4bbfb0d13f84d7126ea78fc499541b13;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000721.soc;721;2025-10-12 19:09:12.487281;5873f0d305726d9196a659e3136e82a5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000722.soc;722;2025-10-12 19:09:12.491159;7916f2f86b7bf221453b13815e53d454;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000723.soc;723;2025-10-12 19:09:12.491159;6a0b49f3483600bef7057b2cb4df2be3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000724.soc;724;2025-10-12 19:09:12.503126;195fb66324cb06e9c413008f92c7f249;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000725.soc;725;2025-10-12 19:09:12.503126;921f9cde4d2f90876769ae88897026ed;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000726.soc;726;2025-10-12 19:09:12.518790;c00df0936f0241aa6a218a1546ece75e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000727.soc;727;2025-10-12 19:09:12.520311;ace059640a54b4770d2f6a1421f511ec;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000728.soc;728;2025-10-12 19:09:12.520311;404be3d50d3525f64f5a04b163ccc828;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000729.soc;729;2025-10-12 19:09:12.535783;aa86f69ef686fe0940a1679333f3b7eb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000730.soc;730;2025-10-12 19:09:12.539397;1f785a42733baa50311d9515e02dc40f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000731.soc;731;2025-10-12 19:09:12.539397;855a245b2c95c2fb47b8d2e19090a8dc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000732.soc;732;2025-10-12 19:09:12.539397;14ea530bb0bc8a635570cc49a8712de0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000733.soc;733;2025-10-12 19:09:12.552748;8cc8cf4fb8f565a332ed920c808dd38d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000734.soc;734;2025-10-12 19:09:12.555251;30f8aea9a863d366bb0571f8d485d81b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000735.soc;735;2025-10-12 19:09:12.555251;538465d89205bb719a5f50731b424a98;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000736.soc;736;2025-10-12 19:09:12.555251;4f78a2ff494d5e5eef31d867638c41d3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000737.soc;737;2025-10-12 19:09:12.555251;e01370c1d4aa2a6f64b8e2422a72bb6f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000738.soc;738;2025-10-12 19:09:12.571334;ae09d02b4b6721e7345a6200a7a3c75c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000739.soc;739;2025-10-12 19:09:12.574555;a6213f2723fdd8fcec924a5eba5c0386;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000740.soc;740;2025-10-12 19:09:12.574555;f43b017af7e81665712bb21abe16cb69;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000741.soc;741;2025-10-12 19:09:12.585106;3cc91d9c306a4d3fe154b2d1d9275d84;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000742.soc;742;2025-10-12 19:09:12.591017;b95a7b615fc122f10a922015e71189c5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000743.soc;743;2025-10-12 19:09:12.591017;6152ca4d8f40e95c8a124d9167f36b66;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000744.soc;744;2025-10-12 19:09:12.602034;3ece63fe9631b1c1fb04c2caa55ff5da;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000745.soc;745;2025-10-12 19:09:12.617825;e293fbdfd6e5d34aa1f0b361473e7b84;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000746.soc;746;2025-10-12 19:09:12.617825;963a98dbee039fe5bc7c6b4d6fe70806;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000747.soc;747;2025-10-12 19:09:12.617825;b858affff638ecbfe4d185a595e417ee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000748.soc;748;2025-10-12 19:09:12.617825;d0af8fbb62fccb5ae94190c64deb9dca;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000749.soc;749;2025-10-12 19:09:12.633535;7547bdd5755a49a600ad6767a43fb1dd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000750.soc;750;2025-10-12 19:09:12.633535;6eeca9eb3bcf47ba51e6f0e92a7d8315;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000751.soc;751;2025-10-12 19:09:12.633535;05f743c73a2e98d416d33e817783ffbc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000752.soc;752;2025-10-12 19:09:12.633535;0dfd7b0a2c2b4a3b7020ee77ff49fc9b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000753.soc;753;2025-10-12 19:09:12.649215;3b2ab13f697703fd204c8ed77b9aeb24;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000754.soc;754;2025-10-12 19:09:12.649215;05642cc9a61f048bed4d14c911232671;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000755.soc;755;2025-10-12 19:09:12.649215;db7a942021fee088d1b210ef2373c3aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000756.soc;756;2025-10-12 19:09:12.665051;1f83fc6e53c03f3a8f33e6db825e0570;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000757.soc;757;2025-10-12 19:09:12.665051;a466c21a8ffab8dcd2f19ae7a4626b89;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000758.soc;758;2025-10-12 19:09:12.665051;97e1b7f8ff255c705aaf799bc43a51c9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000759.soc;759;2025-10-12 19:09:12.685668;91b6df787ecbb2fc57ce3172c02b5867;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000760.soc;760;2025-10-12 19:09:12.686184;c218fd4709a14c218e6fc298563cd241;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000761.soc;761;2025-10-12 19:09:12.686184;dbcd4402944afe8006601affe2940fc9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000762.soc;762;2025-10-12 19:09:12.691086;3bba6a0ae2548232429da54bb3a4f305;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000763.soc;763;2025-10-12 19:09:12.691086;ce78128afcdbdb9b7ac432c3cbac8872;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000764.soc;764;2025-10-12 19:09:12.691086;ac641e61a37ef9f053956b1bf89dcabf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000765.soc;765;2025-10-12 19:09:12.691086;13c19a2b2f26a6e81654565ceacad09d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000766.soc;766;2025-10-12 19:09:12.702017;0f0adaa36ef5f1f3e7480035621e1dc8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000767.soc;767;2025-10-12 19:09:12.702017;3cfbbbfab1aa8beb27b5d8d0c2f1ed4f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000768.soc;768;2025-10-12 19:09:12.702017;9b973bafab39f846abf8387826c59f1e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000769.soc;769;2025-10-12 19:09:12.702017;2adc0411eb183498c032acbff57066bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000770.soc;770;2025-10-12 19:09:12.702017;63bc632e116ed714a1272278c38fc080;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000771.soc;771;2025-10-12 19:09:12.702017;9d87588747684621618c8b4c1a9e2a61;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000772.soc;772;2025-10-12 19:09:12.718030;f9b02dee7612dbda39fe96d39fde2498;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000773.soc;773;2025-10-12 19:09:12.718030;88e57840247b4777e452e2407ea02fcf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000774.soc;774;2025-10-12 19:09:12.718030;185d57225b133202319d7c9be15f4ba0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000775.soc;775;2025-10-12 19:09:12.718030;da45bdd18dda28b34c4006ec21088d8a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000776.soc;776;2025-10-12 19:09:12.718030;4b73fc89804d63fc84d9a7d7bebdfd69;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000777.soc;777;2025-10-12 19:09:12.734023;7b030bac6216754f3f49a048874d0fb9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000778.soc;778;2025-10-12 19:09:12.734023;bbdc59421c90af9ce4331318b66c2e02;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000779.soc;779;2025-10-12 19:09:12.734023;9f8e5402c03d5a4230d481f7f254af7e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000780.soc;780;2025-10-12 19:09:12.734023;22fc9f95a5ecd08762e4b6c61ec3eae2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000781.soc;781;2025-10-12 19:09:12.749677;125fbc25b5d540663ca5c35bd4f492e4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000782.soc;782;2025-10-12 19:09:12.749677;2445a5b40dbd3cc7bf3193a73b62c5b2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000783.soc;783;2025-10-12 19:09:12.749677;77e6df1966030b3672b2fac9fed6a1d5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000784.soc;784;2025-10-12 19:09:12.765783;c6b4cfc1b69afee258d91d9e806e09b5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000785.soc;785;2025-10-12 19:09:12.765783;2ba8a1b393d34e97d6c1d9a3e90c05f8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000786.soc;786;2025-10-12 19:09:12.765783;0a217e1aef90a05497360fca9fc1bc5d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000787.soc;787;2025-10-12 19:09:12.765783;d990d24a29123e42ee9521771d4224d3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000788.soc;788;2025-10-12 19:09:12.781504;3aab632a931caaded27fc151dbeec05b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000789.soc;789;2025-10-12 19:09:12.785736;34022f0ea65c9538b900fcf823a0c0b4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000790.soc;790;2025-10-12 19:09:12.791134;3fa58a6c965e602129608fba528018c7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000791.soc;791;2025-10-12 19:09:12.791134;565b2978facd963d47ab30d9df5c9d7d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000792.soc;792;2025-10-12 19:09:12.801591;25cba55ae7945e4ccc14eab0d59b6470;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000793.soc;793;2025-10-12 19:09:12.801591;6d5177f2a76ae2d8789aabae176416ac;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000794.soc;794;2025-10-12 19:09:12.801591;2beb25724694e78b83fcb5b4f987ce8f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000795.soc;795;2025-10-12 19:09:12.817690;b78ded5630632eec59ebef1e6d26b280;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000796.soc;796;2025-10-12 19:09:12.817690;19766d975793525aae633cd5e84756a1;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000797.soc;797;2025-10-12 19:09:12.817690;5e81e72e6e20f89ae0452940fab9f7bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000798.soc;798;2025-10-12 19:09:12.833608;8844d00afe1486eea8c302ad8f527a54;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000799.soc;799;2025-10-12 19:09:12.833608;7c40e8da5033f1a2138f30c00efe6047;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000800.soc;800;2025-10-12 19:09:12.833608;509cee79e364228b63da961849c2f648;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000801.soc;801;2025-10-12 19:09:12.833608;acf0c3fbc88f7feb3cee39783c3fb42e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000802.soc;802;2025-10-12 19:09:12.849346;ec969c02805efc4a6b3c9541187891c8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000803.soc;803;2025-10-12 19:09:12.865163;4e362f33859e2206294c8b126d2a7315;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000804.soc;804;2025-10-12 19:09:12.865163;00af9191487473071a7a31aa078dfbb0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000805.soc;805;2025-10-12 19:09:12.880888;49277afcc142499786724bb46403c18c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000806.soc;806;2025-10-12 19:09:12.891250;afba84861ed74972205de50a674509a1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000807.soc;807;2025-10-12 19:09:12.891250;0bf5d7b2cf2cc5d2245c42b7ec8395d4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000808.soc;808;2025-10-12 19:09:12.903194;ce9a80eae34eb817c92383003de18514;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000809.soc;809;2025-10-12 19:09:12.918936;a37ceee3965a4a08205f3e35499870c4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000810.soc;810;2025-10-12 19:09:12.918936;01142b56872120bd31fff11bdf2d6aa9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000811.soc;811;2025-10-12 19:09:12.918936;63556c068489043d983fa5751c6525b7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000812.soc;812;2025-10-12 19:09:12.918936;802ff9f929d16ef79c0d51635c27aef3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000813.soc;813;2025-10-12 19:09:12.918936;4e65a36a7a6962465cb6d37bebdf32c6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000814.soc;814;2025-10-12 19:09:12.918936;d34d26dc8fdb522cf31583fa52857100;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000815.soc;815;2025-10-12 19:09:12.918936;2c4adec8eb7f4ee4a8337b93aa715057;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000816.soc;816;2025-10-12 19:09:12.934922;ed61a920d24d462a031cbf8a16a422f0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000817.soc;817;2025-10-12 19:09:12.934922;062c041332d9a29cf5bf0f63c7c844ee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000818.soc;818;2025-10-12 19:09:12.934922;3bb84d291ab6114d99eb90ce7ba57e45;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000819.soc;819;2025-10-12 19:09:12.950593;94b452feb9d70045b27465bb923d155f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000820.soc;820;2025-10-12 19:09:12.950593;30a404817836ce34f65d77eacdd0f26e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000821.soc;821;2025-10-12 19:09:12.950593;6ed77d7b425703b4710eac0d81c003fc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000822.soc;822;2025-10-12 19:09:12.950593;7fccf15d07e56b49743dd7b54d66e219;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000823.soc;823;2025-10-12 19:09:12.966248;46e7f5657a5520ae98f866c26d717e16;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000824.soc;824;2025-10-12 19:09:12.977213;ee244893f1c9fcd59a4ca9f37962b2e0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000825.soc;825;2025-10-12 19:09:12.986589;b9e04730b29feeab4f50671fb8ce8572;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000826.soc;826;2025-10-12 19:09:13.002605;be55e1a87c77b44290bf8221fdb6f6b7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;True;True -00070-00000827.soc;827;2025-10-12 19:09:13.011142;f47f318bea3af37a984383524035212b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000828.soc;828;2025-10-12 19:09:13.017152;b79f4ea6d022dbb7bf491989e12b36df;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000829.soc;829;2025-10-12 19:09:13.020658;0373ee4a8952825978a37e462c714d24;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000830.soc;830;2025-10-12 19:09:13.024664;72d0a70b3f052f8e1ed1b60f9428c956;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000831.soc;831;2025-10-12 19:09:13.026667;2c636ee0ab1893c90f22db4c3a4b46f2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000832.soc;832;2025-10-12 19:09:13.038508;fa2ff38ee5e3dc0c162a97cc33b0eef5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000833.soc;833;2025-10-12 19:09:13.043364;9cba688757b98f7e992f64d978f06329;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000834.soc;834;2025-10-12 19:09:13.055430;617949db2ead74a2555bf8e361090177;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000835.soc;835;2025-10-12 19:09:13.055430;0fe50dd00212b158144e8213937430bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000836.soc;836;2025-10-12 19:09:13.071217;6064be3e665e12c18791e652b5d1d506;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000837.soc;837;2025-10-12 19:09:13.071217;24584ebfc54736ce3548f077d4043507;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000838.soc;838;2025-10-12 19:09:13.097675;70b232f4ea54da573d689bb2041b4aa3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000839.soc;839;2025-10-12 19:09:13.102912;8472f2a1527ba0fdb9d5d226faaa3cc2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000840.soc;840;2025-10-12 19:09:13.102912;5def23d3f15a05fbc4518819384c7e9a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000841.soc;841;2025-10-12 19:09:13.118770;2266b6589eefa98b0d24619ca62101d2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000842.soc;842;2025-10-12 19:09:13.118770;e6339ae7fc2dfaeff22da9885c31f9a7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000843.soc;843;2025-10-12 19:09:13.134838;1e18c570fa97cb8bbe08cf6d130a291b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000844.soc;844;2025-10-12 19:09:13.136999;0731ff9f170fd6985afdd3eebb41541d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000845.soc;845;2025-10-12 19:09:13.136999;a4f53de91d117d4b7b2280d0e15c8b9c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000846.soc;846;2025-10-12 19:09:13.136999;d597f7fd60b905a71c89a3596f7bf0d6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000847.soc;847;2025-10-12 19:09:13.136999;440f4fe24c26baee983c4153c0fdaef4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000848.soc;848;2025-10-12 19:09:13.152642;e80092ad637ff7d0d7e083e68f1eb007;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000849.soc;849;2025-10-12 19:09:13.152642;c3ded9a2fe6eae87778a7610ffd8e881;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000850.soc;850;2025-10-12 19:09:13.159063;f99b6d4ec6903a167dd129f436beb8bd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000851.soc;851;2025-10-12 19:09:13.159063;caa216023ff283bf7a9a15d20beaf78f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000852.soc;852;2025-10-12 19:09:13.167937;e1f96ca0ccbd428ca2e07cf68da025ca;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000853.soc;853;2025-10-12 19:09:13.191775;8c23d44cec49ec14cfe93793c94d0ed1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000854.soc;854;2025-10-12 19:09:13.205247;dc3d23c693b45c06809c79b6b5305fe4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000855.soc;855;2025-10-12 19:09:13.209893;15df1c1422ab996be58370ba6c904b90;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000856.soc;856;2025-10-12 19:09:13.214394;8548af9f2d04cb04ec946488dfc31b79;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000857.soc;857;2025-10-12 19:09:13.218340;49953c2d51575827da2a4a8290657292;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000858.soc;858;2025-10-12 19:09:13.222998;8f66aea3aad0183de2af3fea7d912120;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000859.soc;859;2025-10-12 19:09:13.227540;4f832e030b33798e395decfecba1d8ed;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000860.soc;860;2025-10-12 19:09:13.236469;948a784a3365a77e568a20d7857f87ed;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000861.soc;861;2025-10-12 19:09:13.239610;093afa63a0f245436b2c6ca8edd034ed;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000862.soc;862;2025-10-12 19:09:13.243129;14b0c5620c8b961ee8ac6e2c79d0751d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000863.soc;863;2025-10-12 19:09:13.247441;3f9ba290a68fd40aa1db60b06cebc215;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000864.soc;864;2025-10-12 19:09:13.251727;91ee7a610f827a569c7818f66bcf7623;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000865.soc;865;2025-10-12 19:09:13.253875;8c2ca4b297b7641fc5849d73fb07110d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000866.soc;866;2025-10-12 19:09:13.259047;c05bf7ac1468f2f6957e3bad6fcc5b1d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000867.soc;867;2025-10-12 19:09:13.261126;4cc66e8f0dca0a0815e399e6109815a6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000868.soc;868;2025-10-12 19:09:13.268890;c898e2640358a90cb793ebf48f70f1e2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000869.soc;869;2025-10-12 19:09:13.271176;24299cbf6dd40d49fa4b9c0c644df0b5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000870.soc;870;2025-10-12 19:09:13.273184;23f8fdb4d0540d4b68c4e13d6846eb57;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000871.soc;871;2025-10-12 19:09:13.277248;17fca3b8d2b17a72ecf0f3d7e38909bd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000872.soc;872;2025-10-12 19:09:13.279241;ff374d998c4decf6f04d065c55b2312b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000873.soc;873;2025-10-12 19:09:13.285181;f39f2809537fb9e0b23524f396caf197;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000874.soc;874;2025-10-12 19:09:13.287201;83d1002870d627761ff92e6f25f942ee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000875.soc;875;2025-10-12 19:09:13.289215;0e25f78055bf3a25e9eb621a03adb21d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000876.soc;876;2025-10-12 19:09:13.297806;220f441a9492943f474894f4a793d417;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000877.soc;877;2025-10-12 19:09:13.301146;ebe6a71385081c22b546159a8216fa63;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000878.soc;878;2025-10-12 19:09:13.307631;2dc574695bef80e227d1f2088787637d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000879.soc;879;2025-10-12 19:09:13.309661;e95a1497ea3d683b71c62cb66dbf5945;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000880.soc;880;2025-10-12 19:09:13.312719;4d304aac6fc680d20c489dddb622c0f9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000881.soc;881;2025-10-12 19:09:13.318564;2ea75c84f4e3fd22b76c2845edee0d40;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000882.soc;882;2025-10-12 19:09:13.320900;c047ade4d1b332892f45aee9dbef004f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000883.soc;883;2025-10-12 19:09:13.323223;cac657ffa11089891ed1040cef4ce66e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000884.soc;884;2025-10-12 19:09:13.325246;e1d50a7dda1084067135d2a316998fc4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000885.soc;885;2025-10-12 19:09:13.327352;517aaae2390ec107811e734d2eb8758d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000886.soc;886;2025-10-12 19:09:13.332884;092d51bfb3f5102b797e754b78a3a5c1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000887.soc;887;2025-10-12 19:09:13.333997;dee6638e654b7b63e67ce0a4c621b6b2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000888.soc;888;2025-10-12 19:09:13.344832;16e4aa4f6af686849092bf733d2d89ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000889.soc;889;2025-10-12 19:09:13.349618;9c3b93458799ca222c9cbaf3c20224fc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000890.soc;890;2025-10-12 19:09:13.352842;dd3f623ec8023c6bd9a3e097a571c395;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000891.soc;891;2025-10-12 19:09:13.356949;ff536e81156cdc18fb443aa8c4c0a4b0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000892.soc;892;2025-10-12 19:09:13.359017;2d6202ca05dbb1250dffc5705494acc4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000893.soc;893;2025-10-12 19:09:13.362308;71e4b4ec0cf51f62b3754695b6807d38;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000894.soc;894;2025-10-12 19:09:13.368946;7131a73ad6cd97519c387673085fa54c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000895.soc;895;2025-10-12 19:09:13.370964;29e29be4e40d114bfd5fc98372aaae05;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000896.soc;896;2025-10-12 19:09:13.374298;ac9704fbfd63ac04c6568f84260b88dc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000897.soc;897;2025-10-12 19:09:13.381957;aa8d41c91722606903af126a5f32feae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000898.soc;898;2025-10-12 19:09:13.393901;cd827a239b2f29820e5f56e451a76a20;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000899.soc;899;2025-10-12 19:09:13.397157;5c339d11859d74a9cf268e272458e32a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000900.soc;900;2025-10-12 19:09:13.401176;8d11dea594de911731c3823e11e978e3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000901.soc;901;2025-10-12 19:09:13.403384;29472d595d21a5fc8c3172d2b57e0679;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000902.soc;902;2025-10-12 19:09:13.415107;f55c9f67867d6bfb73d1836b06433078;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000903.soc;903;2025-10-12 19:09:13.419406;ba464bbdb4e48e99f75a99cc8789fb58;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000904.soc;904;2025-10-12 19:09:13.434211;547aa04b8c604eaaf44f065f9af1fb71;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000905.soc;905;2025-10-12 19:09:13.441931;1f18920552b9c50c4acbe563c4dd6892;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000906.soc;906;2025-10-12 19:09:13.444901;2fdcf9683d8a6736e9542d7243edb3db;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000907.soc;907;2025-10-12 19:09:13.451753;af3604089a719224aed1eb0faef2cb91;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000908.soc;908;2025-10-12 19:09:13.452077;61405fd32652ff3eacb6999d4a72b68a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000909.soc;909;2025-10-12 19:09:13.452077;a811740c87dece781b3e5f0bc5be23da;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000910.soc;910;2025-10-12 19:09:13.452077;e4d7361ca55d48fe822b6e8d172a81c3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000911.soc;911;2025-10-12 19:09:13.468962;daf4f3f5599cc77e99a2bb6b9602866b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000912.soc;912;2025-10-12 19:09:13.468962;d167e9cb366c189f74755ccff3d37013;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000913.soc;913;2025-10-12 19:09:13.468962;57d96c425def586562dafa15b7218152;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000914.soc;914;2025-10-12 19:09:13.484321;e77734d43396e41cd81de089265a87b9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000915.soc;915;2025-10-12 19:09:13.501081;84dbc6293e6b3bbdaec6df87186bf380;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000916.soc;916;2025-10-12 19:09:13.501081;199619b87245cba29fdd031d2eac91ef;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000917.soc;917;2025-10-12 19:09:13.501081;a96cb670a1128f1a678ee6ac603d3da3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000918.soc;918;2025-10-12 19:09:13.516624;12a4fada0866a754d50863a127b143a3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000919.soc;919;2025-10-12 19:09:13.516624;cd14d08f09d29be3abc96bfd1887832f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000920.soc;920;2025-10-12 19:09:13.516624;6c50b469702fd5420ddbdee06fadaad6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000921.soc;921;2025-10-12 19:09:13.516624;54609283a96ead7a90fc33f40095eec4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000922.soc;922;2025-10-12 19:09:13.516624;e89362deefa00ebd8790a25c37523a14;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000923.soc;923;2025-10-12 19:09:13.532261;6fa93546afb577d727184b95a7380d6d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000924.soc;924;2025-10-12 19:09:13.532261;6d8be7af3b389ccdef3b00f92ed614de;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000925.soc;925;2025-10-12 19:09:13.532261;1e6dd0901714a76d8aeac280445a95cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000926.soc;926;2025-10-12 19:09:13.548354;b33f2b32b81fa95df0e143eb7e23a3d7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000927.soc;927;2025-10-12 19:09:13.548354;5a32000aa884e8f147d46415b7224fb3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000928.soc;928;2025-10-12 19:09:13.548354;1268d0af7c522d7be348f432b39584d3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000929.soc;929;2025-10-12 19:09:13.564318;f5c6e3d94f3cacaccef7542814b5c261;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000930.soc;930;2025-10-12 19:09:13.564318;fb9cea27e4f8a44f4ca9032e03c67c39;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000931.soc;931;2025-10-12 19:09:13.564318;51b42a39cea8ad24e60aa35740cbef1f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000932.soc;932;2025-10-12 19:09:13.580102;d509a7a1d56c904e989b99b15f63cbd6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000933.soc;933;2025-10-12 19:09:13.580102;66b2a7d048f4421488559be9bc2e52ca;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000934.soc;934;2025-10-12 19:09:13.580102;4ebbf5f3da22b5fd049b7764f95948a7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000935.soc;935;2025-10-12 19:09:13.580102;b0825b7e906e355b0f8b465139397a42;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000936.soc;936;2025-10-12 19:09:13.592405;c32f8b5a0067a51eca6b00a2bb444c06;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000937.soc;937;2025-10-12 19:09:13.595862;f3d0b7cf1723675bc30dab5756d97c8b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000938.soc;938;2025-10-12 19:09:13.601771;1e0a8e9d6fe7ce9e521af68e1e0c535e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000939.soc;939;2025-10-12 19:09:13.601771;8c4c18a1984d8dd3a94e7a1380153d27;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00000940.soc;940;2025-10-12 19:09:13.601771;35231233d5fe5ad39bef2dbd0d5dc14f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000941.soc;941;2025-10-12 19:09:13.617142;496d3ef486cdbd768160f849df7fbdba;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000942.soc;942;2025-10-12 19:09:13.617142;ef1bf78e680ec4d535c592dee1aca3ba;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000943.soc;943;2025-10-12 19:09:13.632774;9ab349e4181e36268dac3ce6180a966d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000944.soc;944;2025-10-12 19:09:13.638589;7b37b5d9df0456c289b529f7588f396c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000945.soc;945;2025-10-12 19:09:13.643581;9b3e9c6f44a6062b409507d9bf6e137f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000946.soc;946;2025-10-12 19:09:13.646991;67e1a85b069355937f3aded316b473f2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000947.soc;947;2025-10-12 19:09:13.648812;1455b9eae3f7068e33519b2ccfdf4125;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000948.soc;948;2025-10-12 19:09:13.648812;85f534d24de31972df8d46fcc59d0d4d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000949.soc;949;2025-10-12 19:09:13.664548;e6edd2417bb77cadbd38344443358cd6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000950.soc;950;2025-10-12 19:09:13.664548;fd7853ba6f0074469330933bf64eeb85;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000951.soc;951;2025-10-12 19:09:13.664548;807af911d54ff20f6885fec925b218a2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000952.soc;952;2025-10-12 19:09:13.680570;c0284b39d0cc12116e2bcb568f6bc2cb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000953.soc;953;2025-10-12 19:09:13.680570;62bf79779f5e1a9cd7c6a3230a613a71;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000954.soc;954;2025-10-12 19:09:13.680570;e8bc8694c23fe4e95e82138646f310e2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000955.soc;955;2025-10-12 19:09:13.680570;4098a2633575b6984bc515c45de7b09a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000956.soc;956;2025-10-12 19:09:13.680570;38fa055b16a084ee2703e96678884cf5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000957.soc;957;2025-10-12 19:09:13.692741;6cede9961a0ee9c85abfd8f812f45297;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000958.soc;958;2025-10-12 19:09:13.696223;58b825d7cf184ca728e0ac17e8f68c37;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000959.soc;959;2025-10-12 19:09:13.701737;6f8f96ae2a8e23fcf87cb1b2aa45f211;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000960.soc;960;2025-10-12 19:09:13.701737;12a004fc5d77c570ecf00478fb5e51c4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000961.soc;961;2025-10-12 19:09:13.701737;b07e4cc0e35e4b0eae2636868f721a5e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000962.soc;962;2025-10-12 19:09:13.716982;d63da13dadb5b96d1ffeb911489253f6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000963.soc;963;2025-10-12 19:09:13.716982;9af39704c8043c172d7c869a70c52b83;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000964.soc;964;2025-10-12 19:09:13.716982;2fc9e36599b7789624523cb0df9bf073;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000965.soc;965;2025-10-12 19:09:13.732879;439b76dbb1bb77365a529a51dc77acb1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000966.soc;966;2025-10-12 19:09:13.732879;22c88df8f52b813f434e9520e4bffa80;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000967.soc;967;2025-10-12 19:09:13.732879;36ad788653321c183c87098d088dd6a5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000968.soc;968;2025-10-12 19:09:13.748791;165800604729ea3e2e10d4632f9351c6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000969.soc;969;2025-10-12 19:09:13.748791;e0532c00d354768c2b58d02f6219c5e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000970.soc;970;2025-10-12 19:09:13.748791;0b5a1bbbb2384eb2ff8c48b0da642c42;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000971.soc;971;2025-10-12 19:09:13.748791;40d4a0136623d1854b70f4574396363d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000972.soc;972;2025-10-12 19:09:13.764719;7b61d4bcc4c0e65722cfbe3093182c83;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000973.soc;973;2025-10-12 19:09:13.764719;e8c76f96d1405821f53cf95ba597df60;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00000974.soc;974;2025-10-12 19:09:13.764719;2361930b748f0947c81d5d2756aa2e01;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000975.soc;975;2025-10-12 19:09:13.764719;96f5c9cc5f295ca672a53d3a01c43c8a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000976.soc;976;2025-10-12 19:09:13.780357;96c39b3d75980ce64d0a4a237d8af4e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000977.soc;977;2025-10-12 19:09:13.780357;184b1a51ce7ca2d8eeb82131baf62f07;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000978.soc;978;2025-10-12 19:09:13.792873;728375e2187eb02a45d1c0887d2275ad;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000979.soc;979;2025-10-12 19:09:13.796419;32ec64d19c62d1818749ab8ee346028d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000980.soc;980;2025-10-12 19:09:13.796419;eefc995a566a5ab4ee1d5a8de07a73a5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000981.soc;981;2025-10-12 19:09:13.818130;65371f5dafa8de780e0eaef6dc695347;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00000982.soc;982;2025-10-12 19:09:13.818130;b3d68ee961d96856ab1f775c7d1e1e7b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000983.soc;983;2025-10-12 19:09:13.818130;f0f107f6d92d2d89f6d6f60787fe0c3b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000984.soc;984;2025-10-12 19:09:13.833945;712260c1e8a107d19521521a05bcc541;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000985.soc;985;2025-10-12 19:09:13.833945;bc9a2aaa101e524d0716cd29b083e4ba;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000986.soc;986;2025-10-12 19:09:13.833945;426a9e698807bf0d3f8c30dc0e4b66f1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000987.soc;987;2025-10-12 19:09:13.849836;2e5bbd08f1474f5e842eb8c90cde1e6b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000988.soc;988;2025-10-12 19:09:13.849836;5ee8bc9a01032e20954db6525e30c889;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000989.soc;989;2025-10-12 19:09:13.849836;6fcc35b043bb70e06db03447e8a3332c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000990.soc;990;2025-10-12 19:09:13.865525;d23081be472dd992b05c65540cf5e5cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000991.soc;991;2025-10-12 19:09:13.865525;0f3b6c3810e99253ea7c2c35f97b83c3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000992.soc;992;2025-10-12 19:09:13.884465;a569489483e445922bdcd28235ce7c62;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00000993.soc;993;2025-10-12 19:09:13.886491;a71aeba5f893b5f43be0b42e8adfaafa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000994.soc;994;2025-10-12 19:09:13.896400;eef9f81e5945752604801470d6e988c5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00000995.soc;995;2025-10-12 19:09:13.906881;1d28db158941988a4e4426b9ca097033;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00000996.soc;996;2025-10-12 19:09:13.912075;d1321edbac54b1c91ef71bee921f042f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000997.soc;997;2025-10-12 19:09:13.912075;05f49e02ada06db7f854e2023e342d92;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00000998.soc;998;2025-10-12 19:09:13.927826;f0cde4c3afe9e3a36d87ce1ae3f409d9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00000999.soc;999;2025-10-12 19:09:13.927826;16306f465386014c2eced2627da14a19;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001000.soc;1000;2025-10-12 19:09:13.927826;82290506270d544e9ff82bc59ff1f623;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001001.soc;1001;2025-10-12 19:09:13.927826;40674949a7fb45ec0d0a9c8ed8ca218d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001002.soc;1002;2025-10-12 19:09:13.943904;189ae72947ef60d1ad14edaa04ada387;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001003.soc;1003;2025-10-12 19:09:13.943904;65966e22658bb2598be8891f5089be0b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001004.soc;1004;2025-10-12 19:09:13.954765;ced13b6e80ea5c89ab569e004a705ce5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001005.soc;1005;2025-10-12 19:09:13.975575;129ba1ac88b68ad3a826c7181ab57735;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001006.soc;1006;2025-10-12 19:09:13.975575;7d439fd702d7477c5401a0d84ae59e47;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001007.soc;1007;2025-10-12 19:09:13.992948;163f921b83d4931e0719236d16f8335b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001008.soc;1008;2025-10-12 19:09:13.992948;bdc952129a88946c177157705be519b9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001009.soc;1009;2025-10-12 19:09:13.992948;6c943daf994a173c4a2cb0e06b210828;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001010.soc;1010;2025-10-12 19:09:14.007162;90c6c26fc7b98b8e55d2c7609da2b357;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001011.soc;1011;2025-10-12 19:09:14.007162;1f6d38d4852205c7b7d97b44a6f182c5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001012.soc;1012;2025-10-12 19:09:14.007162;f57f5fbb73505bd9efdda620930161a7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001013.soc;1013;2025-10-12 19:09:14.007162;2a55f0ff88e895d1701dacee98fe4ed0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001014.soc;1014;2025-10-12 19:09:14.022796;4e8924d0960f14ac7dbb9feb7dd67245;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001015.soc;1015;2025-10-12 19:09:14.027554;ff4b8f44adade1d888b103d2f95b0ca5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001016.soc;1016;2025-10-12 19:09:14.031194;f8173d3cbe9ae4dd911c950b7a800ace;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001017.soc;1017;2025-10-12 19:09:14.034354;abda8ac7132cd36efbe4e0d554ded38a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001018.soc;1018;2025-10-12 19:09:14.039557;443944e3ce47a199241129220dcf123a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001019.soc;1019;2025-10-12 19:09:14.045003;f2402c5818b8012500b5aa4ea80f0962;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001020.soc;1020;2025-10-12 19:09:14.050467;0f77e6ba32dd4244ffe687e1abc6e434;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001021.soc;1021;2025-10-12 19:09:14.055094;b1632a1be430779298747b994b46ac34;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001022.soc;1022;2025-10-12 19:09:14.063476;c9e037e424caebf07e2e28349eebc76c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001023.soc;1023;2025-10-12 19:09:14.065893;6f0d178cdeebb7d2efe8c625b1040cc4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001024.soc;1024;2025-10-12 19:09:14.067904;209d8b00334cb27914311e52f7d22c94;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True -00070-00001025.soc;1025;2025-10-12 19:09:14.070329;9fef1f40bb6a5210e59711a55c0e979a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001026.soc;1026;2025-10-12 19:09:14.074452;c2c01d6727a84cd9326512f21dc8253d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001027.soc;1027;2025-10-12 19:09:14.077931;02d09d3175a9545d12ed0ed794f7c595;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001028.soc;1028;2025-10-12 19:09:14.082749;9faa4c7a8bc47b5c7c08f87042f2c4c5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001029.soc;1029;2025-10-12 19:09:14.096110;9f919430fee6034fd73d504c888aa03f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001030.soc;1030;2025-10-12 19:09:14.099153;3fbdb0446a86cb3948353706803abdc5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001031.soc;1031;2025-10-12 19:09:14.103163;378a93f92db39b88abf543ce34cc2b16;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001032.soc;1032;2025-10-12 19:09:14.113207;f23f333077f429aa0937934f1bf20c2f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001033.soc;1033;2025-10-12 19:09:14.120125;4f8dc9033ddef2aeb9489924bc34b74e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001034.soc;1034;2025-10-12 19:09:14.134690;2cd7b99999b3015eacc62f33ec3b2386;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001035.soc;1035;2025-10-12 19:09:14.142179;412bb04b74df2ae1d88e4741ffaa69bc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001036.soc;1036;2025-10-12 19:09:14.146204;8d95a629014257af9fd95f660eee652e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True -00070-00001037.soc;1037;2025-10-12 19:09:14.148220;85e0c90447dbe84762c1719366bff147;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001038.soc;1038;2025-10-12 19:09:14.153894;21eb368f80878df186fc7b87bc2380ac;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001039.soc;1039;2025-10-12 19:09:14.155917;4cce302a5a455d6fd152f5f26b3efc44;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001040.soc;1040;2025-10-12 19:09:14.176719;623dae1170c3bfc8d1b2689e3aa4bdc3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001041.soc;1041;2025-10-12 19:09:15.403095;f2c5d26493c33785da2c88697b9754c9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001042.soc;1042;2025-10-12 19:09:15.408762;cc7164152a4789c2872cac32506a056a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001043.soc;1043;2025-10-12 19:09:15.417004;91f144ea6c2f924b9d3f9ef2d1764d47;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001044.soc;1044;2025-10-12 19:09:15.421449;c403f079d6976962515435e0ddcb2af1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001045.soc;1045;2025-10-12 19:09:15.431822;0df6db26cf1276f2a5e3853f3ed5b223;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001046.soc;1046;2025-10-12 19:09:15.447895;db90aaf237dd2a5c8825c8f9395f1389;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001047.soc;1047;2025-10-12 19:09:15.447895;5431efe1b941513ca213db8d984781e2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001048.soc;1048;2025-10-12 19:09:15.447895;3a02f878f0257fb5366824bb125078e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001049.soc;1049;2025-10-12 19:09:15.447895;d677cfc79234cabfbb04e5b6a2cb5270;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001050.soc;1050;2025-10-12 19:09:15.447895;02595beb0456f8855e505bfe0f83cf55;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001051.soc;1051;2025-10-12 19:09:15.464003;ba43b0553a6949bc71e921186d59057a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001052.soc;1052;2025-10-12 19:09:15.464003;b90a5185e42baa64561317951e7a3704;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001053.soc;1053;2025-10-12 19:09:15.483385;36fc2b1717252cb49abad604707b23ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001054.soc;1054;2025-10-12 19:09:15.506415;99f8a245b91093cfd8b89ed3504a3cb0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001055.soc;1055;2025-10-12 19:09:15.510489;c935d88e506fc91501a6296a618598e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001056.soc;1056;2025-10-12 19:09:15.514368;4ef1ed8a8d8647d9de303828e3540c3b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001057.soc;1057;2025-10-12 19:09:15.514368;0d3d125744c1f98efc716543a0790154;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001058.soc;1058;2025-10-12 19:09:15.520080;89c4ab079d70facd44f011273a2db670;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001059.soc;1059;2025-10-12 19:09:15.520080;a2a28532f66565a425f09fb235759e30;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001060.soc;1060;2025-10-12 19:09:15.520080;fdd89d210e3cd9764adc3a7261793b3c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001061.soc;1061;2025-10-12 19:09:15.532629;dcb619ad910a34a940e9da70ba89caa3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001062.soc;1062;2025-10-12 19:09:15.532629;5ad713cbef54a059069a511d125efe16;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001063.soc;1063;2025-10-12 19:09:15.532629;35ed24d99850d1521c94ddd91b29c1f4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001064.soc;1064;2025-10-12 19:09:15.532629;38ae9ff60496a06c30e0e9904d7e8c5e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001065.soc;1065;2025-10-12 19:09:15.532629;4000c972d002f8559a615808e34fd0a8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001066.soc;1066;2025-10-12 19:09:15.546277;41f064ec4a75d302036ad4ca453cf10c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001067.soc;1067;2025-10-12 19:09:15.546277;239de9c2c3e584305102de6acf7b46df;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001068.soc;1068;2025-10-12 19:09:15.561989;28a5f82f39d67a95a4d6a911ea0297b9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001069.soc;1069;2025-10-12 19:09:15.561989;66c4c22deb8da01ec83e708748c8ece4;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001070.soc;1070;2025-10-12 19:09:15.561989;ae1ed26d7e3d982ac751f7af3db857ba;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001071.soc;1071;2025-10-12 19:09:15.561989;7b370c60b3a55c4c2f56298a11f72003;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001072.soc;1072;2025-10-12 19:09:15.580958;02203ac7c223aecc0a518f51e741b029;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001073.soc;1073;2025-10-12 19:09:15.580958;cebbda114332de4b56ed596f36f434c1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001074.soc;1074;2025-10-12 19:09:15.600346;1a2103a3153260cdf529f8bad987af12;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001075.soc;1075;2025-10-12 19:09:15.609381;79749762a72d27f6c35602aa42e01967;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001076.soc;1076;2025-10-12 19:09:15.614222;4dcc11d4afa1359a8ad95267348cc62e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001077.soc;1077;2025-10-12 19:09:15.614222;96b13918ca5270208541fff03d3247d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001078.soc;1078;2025-10-12 19:09:15.630061;0cd2619507d32ddab53483915fc51979;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001079.soc;1079;2025-10-12 19:09:15.630061;07ad0eaeb180ef2824984501ce138737;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001080.soc;1080;2025-10-12 19:09:15.630061;a670d7e4e09576011f010eae2d10815f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001081.soc;1081;2025-10-12 19:09:15.646088;b8b5731e5b6a834ca6a7c5d801d6741b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001082.soc;1082;2025-10-12 19:09:15.646088;2809003185e7cc456e13de1fae36d8b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001083.soc;1083;2025-10-12 19:09:15.646088;28f742e19398e4511fd214870bf69480;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001084.soc;1084;2025-10-12 19:09:15.652932;835f9ddd3e982be962de78fef949355b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001085.soc;1085;2025-10-12 19:09:15.652932;df872240abc3cfdd4dcaf371803de6f8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001086.soc;1086;2025-10-12 19:09:15.652932;1ad923a74ba846e73ad70fbe829aa242;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001087.soc;1087;2025-10-12 19:09:15.661799;46f8336b4055881250c10c409c779422;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001088.soc;1088;2025-10-12 19:09:15.661799;5866e1232039eaf1c96098ca8cd48906;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001089.soc;1089;2025-10-12 19:09:15.661799;7826c9eb9fb2baca21e282cfb0ebaf94;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001090.soc;1090;2025-10-12 19:09:15.677447;ab1213c30a8d7a5a2b62bc8c657db643;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001091.soc;1091;2025-10-12 19:09:15.677447;e58377b8a43b268694e8f5df50ced721;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001092.soc;1092;2025-10-12 19:09:15.694194;a5c34e686f205533315fab0c223da5dd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001093.soc;1093;2025-10-12 19:09:15.697548;b87093894d8ab9b484e9b0504df27683;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001094.soc;1094;2025-10-12 19:09:15.700171;6a0d50b2f738fe267476e926ca0fad54;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001095.soc;1095;2025-10-12 19:09:15.700496;ad5eee74943c86f2e554286a2f3660bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001096.soc;1096;2025-10-12 19:09:15.700496;f9d7843ffcca19d89b9d7a120cf9c5a0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001097.soc;1097;2025-10-12 19:09:15.700496;bd40c7d4936088cbd68a63f993b01acd;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001098.soc;1098;2025-10-12 19:09:15.700496;230c7ca439383d6e3a5a3cbb513e0dff;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001099.soc;1099;2025-10-12 19:09:15.700496;fabcaf378d5d40b2cd8a126e7480e985;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001100.soc;1100;2025-10-12 19:09:15.716141;0e647a8a1d4f599503cfe9408f774829;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001101.soc;1101;2025-10-12 19:09:15.716141;9c1dc624d8b9f7d95412535e994f6258;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001102.soc;1102;2025-10-12 19:09:15.716141;28733972b4923b29072d64ea113d2678;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True -00070-00001103.soc;1103;2025-10-12 19:09:15.716141;3cc6e83743215a0785bcaae3f16f3351;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001104.soc;1104;2025-10-12 19:09:15.731821;0ea8fbcab2e17e17cea7084f1741c053;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001105.soc;1105;2025-10-12 19:09:15.731821;bffa6add1394f656509164ce90845572;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001106.soc;1106;2025-10-12 19:09:15.747922;d61cdf15a7b90aef65276a6cf278270a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001107.soc;1107;2025-10-12 19:09:15.747922;53ccec845cbb0eea0384490b53ac7d2e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001108.soc;1108;2025-10-12 19:09:15.747922;70654e77d502e426f68081d2195df5f2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001109.soc;1109;2025-10-12 19:09:15.747922;c61d5601489e5b5e6741b6132086d38b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001110.soc;1110;2025-10-12 19:09:15.747922;ecbfa15054131ff1c6545f761340d316;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001111.soc;1111;2025-10-12 19:09:15.765255;1dee01108ac3d2e4e0843b0152e7baae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001112.soc;1112;2025-10-12 19:09:15.767234;5328ee793d149f7599f938fdb3b25753;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001113.soc;1113;2025-10-12 19:09:15.767234;4578ecf51e476c739454080f73f272cd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001114.soc;1114;2025-10-12 19:09:15.767234;f156638c0b6b3138c9363a4c4c64e710;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001115.soc;1115;2025-10-12 19:09:15.782602;4ec9f39f08e66c36e5e5a14ad5feda32;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001116.soc;1116;2025-10-12 19:09:15.782602;1bbcda054ce9d28b70e622e4b28acbbf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001117.soc;1117;2025-10-12 19:09:15.794244;2167eeaa46803f0408f608b00097a6bb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001118.soc;1118;2025-10-12 19:09:15.797822;2dc661568e739034c9594d023ec98044;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001119.soc;1119;2025-10-12 19:09:15.797822;3c5916048d8b6cd0281ff97b988fd4eb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001120.soc;1120;2025-10-12 19:09:15.815276;2fac46f23edb5866b2f6dd12f4ce3dfc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001121.soc;1121;2025-10-12 19:09:15.817128;ad6d5940990b0fde3e9f1f5a57dae2a5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001122.soc;1122;2025-10-12 19:09:15.817128;7760223c4682802702d5a82e0bdf90b2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001123.soc;1123;2025-10-12 19:09:15.817128;7b1de972f326fd74a96e8ba5972afb4f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001124.soc;1124;2025-10-12 19:09:15.817128;0d83d41b1a2de0fca545502ba6ef2bd4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001125.soc;1125;2025-10-12 19:09:15.832559;b8a85759b44873cc4824bfaf214c40eb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001126.soc;1126;2025-10-12 19:09:15.832559;833c3d61f5ce66b021cbd671fe5dccf9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001127.soc;1127;2025-10-12 19:09:15.832559;738cdd9cfda8afb716ab644539c76d46;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001128.soc;1128;2025-10-12 19:09:15.832559;ae316186957a9fb66afeb575eb0accd0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001129.soc;1129;2025-10-12 19:09:15.848564;7d745da5d00b426f34b14bf0062ec239;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001130.soc;1130;2025-10-12 19:09:15.848564;05e0f3e8a5770acbf2ff4d981c23c4b3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001131.soc;1131;2025-10-12 19:09:15.864269;1dd290c21067d23f56d0b171b90eb2e2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001132.soc;1132;2025-10-12 19:09:15.864269;6cebecceeada906ad2f4c2ae6bed50c0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001133.soc;1133;2025-10-12 19:09:15.864269;38c852fc68a0a6714141b439f5db9161;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001134.soc;1134;2025-10-12 19:09:15.880311;e8b2a102b76058bc878f682e6daa73b3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001135.soc;1135;2025-10-12 19:09:15.896147;24cf02e4bccacfdb17378b9a5f912592;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001136.soc;1136;2025-10-12 19:09:15.896147;2e05b7fbebf978348bac108a15aaebfb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001137.soc;1137;2025-10-12 19:09:15.896147;c7dab20b29eb3c367991a5c7bd19f763;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001138.soc;1138;2025-10-12 19:09:15.896147;f973c5340e6f8d7dd2c1172351f7bb20;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001139.soc;1139;2025-10-12 19:09:15.914014;78e9528855c3d32b3fdad8861ccf81cf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001140.soc;1140;2025-10-12 19:09:15.917098;e32b7af515e6afae49c4636097014272;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001141.soc;1141;2025-10-12 19:09:15.917098;58ab6ea2686d496237f579e01e14ab07;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001142.soc;1142;2025-10-12 19:09:15.917098;1aaa91cb5885829a9e238973225aa015;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001143.soc;1143;2025-10-12 19:09:15.917098;cc3ef74f867687f640fda2e5d5e84725;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001144.soc;1144;2025-10-12 19:09:15.937916;72006c7dd18b76a537912d8c8c32c134;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001145.soc;1145;2025-10-12 19:09:15.946168;40e9ce03ce55686f2152e4474dbe073a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001146.soc;1146;2025-10-12 19:09:15.950513;241ae5637275cb86927a1d9aa9482be0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001147.soc;1147;2025-10-12 19:09:15.956031;d75731cb8b61e881f241c725715f408b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001148.soc;1148;2025-10-12 19:09:15.957060;fe41bd7c6c13396e329adc959019cc66;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001149.soc;1149;2025-10-12 19:09:15.959416;0bcadc158f47cc3866c1f41436a2cda1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001150.soc;1150;2025-10-12 19:09:15.964687;9c32e14daf5ac26153a585ffd456bd63;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001151.soc;1151;2025-10-12 19:09:15.964687;d2009752d9a48b3208ad1e692cbeb6d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001152.soc;1152;2025-10-12 19:09:15.964687;215945158424a17e13a54d5c5b1deeef;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001153.soc;1153;2025-10-12 19:09:15.964687;76c60bda1a3eb949ae4dc7834ad699f1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001154.soc;1154;2025-10-12 19:09:15.964687;7086ac140ed92ded1512879b5f4a3d14;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001155.soc;1155;2025-10-12 19:09:15.964687;f34363fddd1a13a796e9dd77094234df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001156.soc;1156;2025-10-12 19:09:15.979984;dff4bb4802220bf3e13c16907f781620;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001157.soc;1157;2025-10-12 19:09:15.979984;e46d59117217ae221aca36c1900288ff;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001158.soc;1158;2025-10-12 19:09:15.979984;d8dee643e894d68f9f5f641f3d8a1225;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001159.soc;1159;2025-10-12 19:09:15.979984;4e8a0c506f4d672ded67e6df83d27333;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001160.soc;1160;2025-10-12 19:09:15.996029;aa333b0dacbfcade05528b0261b11849;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001161.soc;1161;2025-10-12 19:09:15.996029;185c47a76098ce046a3d04c827a6bbe1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001162.soc;1162;2025-10-12 19:09:16.011695;a2cc4e91239e0e93d7bd7c8eda723f00;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001163.soc;1163;2025-10-12 19:09:16.011695;bed94f9e39746b72283e98d679d4e345;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001164.soc;1164;2025-10-12 19:09:16.011695;7a3ad6014487c0d5f1eda9e0509a0032;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001165.soc;1165;2025-10-12 19:09:16.027636;d56cb9f45db2a8180327b47e5560a5e4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001166.soc;1166;2025-10-12 19:09:16.027636;ba410c681c18917470377791a72c107d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001167.soc;1167;2025-10-12 19:09:16.027636;edc3c2df05f7b6597947aee13e928e86;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001168.soc;1168;2025-10-12 19:09:16.043638;f5402b310751f22ed5fb76784fd4538b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001169.soc;1169;2025-10-12 19:09:16.051228;6f1c45a3bc0375f92be8b19e67b9ce40;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001170.soc;1170;2025-10-12 19:09:16.054368;6454ca06b0ba5e07ec2fa7081fcd17de;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001171.soc;1171;2025-10-12 19:09:16.054368;bf7d21d95501d5b594b1e0c47da1cc24;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001172.soc;1172;2025-10-12 19:09:16.054368;1a7a8e11269b2448a211c47103b6afa5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001173.soc;1173;2025-10-12 19:09:16.054368;5c6464a5ac5f34680317128cb25023f3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001174.soc;1174;2025-10-12 19:09:16.066983;e31264dbc31a89d2fb4fe844979de79b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001175.soc;1175;2025-10-12 19:09:16.066983;30d945ffd3d774552cb0faa6fea47559;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001176.soc;1176;2025-10-12 19:09:16.066983;b863a928fb8fd80175dbcc96c6233840;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001177.soc;1177;2025-10-12 19:09:16.066983;7b97fbd28a45f35400b3bb04462940db;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001178.soc;1178;2025-10-12 19:09:16.088062;365f9d48cccb9ff6f78667e5cabf0a07;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001179.soc;1179;2025-10-12 19:09:16.088062;3b6377e726b30729af033154ceaffb15;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001180.soc;1180;2025-10-12 19:09:16.094299;b16bcad1f63aa646775d40ff359e920f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001181.soc;1181;2025-10-12 19:09:16.098496;180759d8debb0e1ea7df02bf37bd8545;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001182.soc;1182;2025-10-12 19:09:16.098496;8affdff0779b207fa89dcec6d009f3fb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001183.soc;1183;2025-10-12 19:09:16.098496;e1cdc18d030446562e1b017914bb1396;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001184.soc;1184;2025-10-12 19:09:16.098496;9a96c1d2ad97ab8420daab7473569b42;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001185.soc;1185;2025-10-12 19:09:16.114397;5e80eb055fb278627fdc7c6bb2a74df0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001186.soc;1186;2025-10-12 19:09:16.114397;b64aa0c0298d432f65f952f2c14b2197;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001187.soc;1187;2025-10-12 19:09:16.114397;b2a4dc24ed48c96fb1d2b85c0d09b55d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001188.soc;1188;2025-10-12 19:09:16.130351;45012a868bb37ec625f0ffb32eb412da;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001189.soc;1189;2025-10-12 19:09:16.130351;7c6ae681ec77d94a8640957aa511e3ca;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001190.soc;1190;2025-10-12 19:09:16.130351;bd2f1f9ca20bad59d99cf218d7c68f04;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001191.soc;1191;2025-10-12 19:09:16.146119;a81def149c29390bcb7c723f1f0cff22;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001192.soc;1192;2025-10-12 19:09:16.146119;cd01e461f4d630a1f3436591a8059152;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001193.soc;1193;2025-10-12 19:09:16.146119;78f3aaf3a3ecb36c64dd094e748eda72;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001194.soc;1194;2025-10-12 19:09:16.172423;632650f3a4058cc4d14bdace60d57a21;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001195.soc;1195;2025-10-12 19:09:16.176700;fa3ff7c26683414edc0a6e9eaa76ebca;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001196.soc;1196;2025-10-12 19:09:16.179744;9cd0fec4a5224b2804dde962d95028f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001197.soc;1197;2025-10-12 19:09:16.181942;b9d4ca6b70da6280ae0600159f4c9822;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001198.soc;1198;2025-10-12 19:09:16.185532;4073aa5c9d560638a8ee3d2e8e64daf1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001199.soc;1199;2025-10-12 19:09:16.187590;e0f3f15751060408987df8bba7da6981;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001200.soc;1200;2025-10-12 19:09:16.189671;50a36ac3e7231750ed1618c73c1dd063;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001201.soc;1201;2025-10-12 19:09:16.194691;818585a2f2f426fec96ff0c6a7579803;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001202.soc;1202;2025-10-12 19:09:16.203609;f7a86f64c98491f17fdca8963b022341;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001203.soc;1203;2025-10-12 19:09:16.208071;e91edf99a13030d188bcd8baf33d1cab;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001204.soc;1204;2025-10-12 19:09:16.210135;b25c8b8d4bbb3b0750d0c204e47fde22;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001205.soc;1205;2025-10-12 19:09:16.213730;2cdf0e088427c0518fe6fdbf7f71a935;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001206.soc;1206;2025-10-12 19:09:16.222756;4a127795d9667d9cc1d82245add97d70;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001207.soc;1207;2025-10-12 19:09:16.228897;160b11a1177df9eb05e1cda839b0c6fc;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001208.soc;1208;2025-10-12 19:09:16.228897;54f77b676a27a0a40677dc0d443b7219;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001209.soc;1209;2025-10-12 19:09:16.228897;4b227386dae2fb4c9931cc37dc6b092e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001210.soc;1210;2025-10-12 19:09:16.228897;b591da73c94f6c59d8dc684fc499ea7e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001211.soc;1211;2025-10-12 19:09:16.244893;dc8a96d20ad95970bcfe349efb5ffd24;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001212.soc;1212;2025-10-12 19:09:16.244893;2f02ed29662eeaf20e426ce0267040d1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001213.soc;1213;2025-10-12 19:09:16.256269;89c484e8339e65ba9f8e9e599da795db;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001214.soc;1214;2025-10-12 19:09:16.256269;ff59ed92aad4a96a0af86114b03a8f39;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001215.soc;1215;2025-10-12 19:09:16.264401;b4c7cfc28040d956d8f0717ed3b3cf06;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001216.soc;1216;2025-10-12 19:09:16.264401;bcc3f30c3a6100ba9bddf13f02c81c06;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001217.soc;1217;2025-10-12 19:09:16.264401;1d81fada82912ed38527770e71b0ffdd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001218.soc;1218;2025-10-12 19:09:16.279447;67ae2de800506ac94c6f94e607287462;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001219.soc;1219;2025-10-12 19:09:16.279447;91babb2d98bc7daf4af95ff8e4080686;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001220.soc;1220;2025-10-12 19:09:16.297890;93a02d43ce218f68af55b70b43eeded2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001221.soc;1221;2025-10-12 19:09:16.297890;7140a2db8fd1e68bd68f2780d0ade256;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001222.soc;1222;2025-10-12 19:09:16.297890;7301368c7ce5d224f149250ddade3c8a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001223.soc;1223;2025-10-12 19:09:16.297890;444ae3c2aff4020af26f00fb6986264c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001224.soc;1224;2025-10-12 19:09:16.297890;c781d409cfe18986403d2a3e8a3c9aa7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001225.soc;1225;2025-10-12 19:09:16.297890;9af1e09a229c550bdc74730a2d2dc184;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001226.soc;1226;2025-10-12 19:09:16.297890;bced4639d668934363444882719edd95;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001227.soc;1227;2025-10-12 19:09:16.313534;71fac0a30ae082ff6deaef193a885bc5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001228.soc;1228;2025-10-12 19:09:16.315896;e3aaa835873871ac138f7633113e5e59;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001229.soc;1229;2025-10-12 19:09:16.320361;45c22f200b0ab0cb47d19dc17810de9c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001230.soc;1230;2025-10-12 19:09:16.326367;db5deac20b6f0112db06d9baf5a51d49;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001231.soc;1231;2025-10-12 19:09:16.329181;dcb0c1ced27d158028432044ff06d2f2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001232.soc;1232;2025-10-12 19:09:16.329181;fdbef8c33791e203d209210c1dbbcb9a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001233.soc;1233;2025-10-12 19:09:16.329181;6f6473cee3dd78c9963609788d835a28;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001234.soc;1234;2025-10-12 19:09:16.329181;47d3adb81866c501395626f511ed6718;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001235.soc;1235;2025-10-12 19:09:16.329181;496ea558b382e903d2214cfdc4a0c478;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001236.soc;1236;2025-10-12 19:09:16.329181;4834758753181adc3f4ee3a48c93e7d6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001237.soc;1237;2025-10-12 19:09:16.346858;8c860a9c4e933a6bb08c68b441215798;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001238.soc;1238;2025-10-12 19:09:16.347216;93b483474919864b57c3102f94a1bceb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001239.soc;1239;2025-10-12 19:09:16.351053;460301a0059b758a9c9ff7ec1ff6c636;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001240.soc;1240;2025-10-12 19:09:16.351053;2918fa6e37879dd5e7ac636ff6f53b43;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001241.soc;1241;2025-10-12 19:09:16.362500;2d8a6fdc30f6b2c17bd20fe3fb9ae303;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001242.soc;1242;2025-10-12 19:09:16.362500;c1d04abf00161060bf441a7a68318020;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001243.soc;1243;2025-10-12 19:09:16.362500;f91c4a839b6f2ca6dff75a96b17b23d6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001244.soc;1244;2025-10-12 19:09:16.362500;f286274ca19b4c59de52283da19d3050;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001245.soc;1245;2025-10-12 19:09:16.380161;d44bc58dee2075a3fd3e2991f5c7a5fe;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001246.soc;1246;2025-10-12 19:09:16.380528;d817c3937412738f8ad19db22dfa4183;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001247.soc;1247;2025-10-12 19:09:16.380528;3d094295dbef0d218d2c8ab519a8e708;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001248.soc;1248;2025-10-12 19:09:16.396214;4363aeb1113807d6ad780a8767dbbb3e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001249.soc;1249;2025-10-12 19:09:16.398450;9e159718939801f177b533e2fd199d0b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001250.soc;1250;2025-10-12 19:09:16.400809;77519db38a8dd08036164a153019c027;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001251.soc;1251;2025-10-12 19:09:16.400809;e89dc75e7f721000d0bcb213ad54536e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001252.soc;1252;2025-10-12 19:09:16.413877;3e6da0fd6f11e6eb5221f3e4490e13d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001253.soc;1253;2025-10-12 19:09:16.413877;9a131d1b8cf9ed23d400a746930d0e72;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001254.soc;1254;2025-10-12 19:09:16.413877;8861424633ec6ba37256e5939a5c724c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001255.soc;1255;2025-10-12 19:09:16.413877;0afe2689db07a66c3cb1b703d5a5a4eb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001256.soc;1256;2025-10-12 19:09:16.429305;97d0128126e5e58a4aab2017be789473;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001257.soc;1257;2025-10-12 19:09:16.429305;7b2a7df2d7407b6d82ba19d849f320c5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001258.soc;1258;2025-10-12 19:09:16.442322;c4d5bd11434557d1acd92a53e508a437;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001259.soc;1259;2025-10-12 19:09:16.445128;03c5c23908f712eda4da5b5c9217b38e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001260.soc;1260;2025-10-12 19:09:16.460979;e347e3afe882f7a772663217a394b954;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001261.soc;1261;2025-10-12 19:09:16.460979;7a682a3f9d37808cd1c0c1634e2af15f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001262.soc;1262;2025-10-12 19:09:16.476931;29556f01f2aca5aab58726a970a96025;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001263.soc;1263;2025-10-12 19:09:16.476931;3ee522a021d7336d850e31f8267c097f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001264.soc;1264;2025-10-12 19:09:16.476931;264d1595183f2a90dbfeb1af70755259;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001265.soc;1265;2025-10-12 19:09:16.494642;1b91053edc0f38574d4b8adfb6868f18;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001266.soc;1266;2025-10-12 19:09:16.494642;faf3a8aa5cb75238f1d0f9cee81503fb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001267.soc;1267;2025-10-12 19:09:16.503030;85eceab02336d571a8fcec8b291d2f13;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001268.soc;1268;2025-10-12 19:09:16.508285;e544285a0da8c4cb7459795c894803b5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001269.soc;1269;2025-10-12 19:09:16.508285;3833616ac93484d237a91ec2a442ddcb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001270.soc;1270;2025-10-12 19:09:16.508285;b734ce6fa319e64ca88930609a81a8e3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001271.soc;1271;2025-10-12 19:09:16.523942;4873e99c9cdb4a0897a36f81c2334af6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001272.soc;1272;2025-10-12 19:09:16.523942;9ae54293e85dba391c1d4ae03b69a3e4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001273.soc;1273;2025-10-12 19:09:16.523942;5e0dc84300549f727aaa70efe99832d5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001274.soc;1274;2025-10-12 19:09:16.523942;5c154e7d15601c40e99da7fd8ec3cffd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001275.soc;1275;2025-10-12 19:09:16.539809;7b06080b0562438e878cb3ff625626b8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001276.soc;1276;2025-10-12 19:09:16.539809;4848d94ed748913b93e1654c8d31d6e5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001277.soc;1277;2025-10-12 19:09:16.539809;029ae98a299f13b2d0ec8151c8bdd2f1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001278.soc;1278;2025-10-12 19:09:16.555876;27ac0c1e275595f6adb4176c25a5d65c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001279.soc;1279;2025-10-12 19:09:16.563340;91048757b5e7c6b21d3d2428315c3d2d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001280.soc;1280;2025-10-12 19:09:16.563897;ef109d6c29cb058d74f16516ddcf2ae2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001281.soc;1281;2025-10-12 19:09:16.563897;fa177cd4609bca9aa229bbb689d6e0e2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001282.soc;1282;2025-10-12 19:09:16.563897;2b691479e1db472ccb7ba2d560be3b80;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001283.soc;1283;2025-10-12 19:09:16.579277;0c2cada2fe9cb0a1c1465fa9bce6610c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001284.soc;1284;2025-10-12 19:09:16.584863;4377a9822f675fad38d688d30888f9c3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001285.soc;1285;2025-10-12 19:09:16.584863;c4bcf6829fe523c61c9d7faca2828701;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001286.soc;1286;2025-10-12 19:09:16.594749;ff49be070ebe941a7eb5f25af32211de;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001287.soc;1287;2025-10-12 19:09:16.600629;45c24b16a90c8a190e77190eb56a5f4a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001288.soc;1288;2025-10-12 19:09:16.603813;2a2d7496e94e4ef606deca443a9ee269;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001289.soc;1289;2025-10-12 19:09:16.605817;de3a3da3f8d8e60eca6d1c1dd5656348;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001290.soc;1290;2025-10-12 19:09:16.608795;ed1e558622cdb30b73881a341d4eb8eb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001291.soc;1291;2025-10-12 19:09:16.612533;58a1fb89547297b97525718d8066707c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001292.soc;1292;2025-10-12 19:09:16.621416;42c2d1052f57e869cac42a0d09151eef;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001293.soc;1293;2025-10-12 19:09:16.621416;cfc8712d2cca542a4b39e945c290d942;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001294.soc;1294;2025-10-12 19:09:16.626295;4c1fba369900d86cac6c7ad489b1ca28;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001295.soc;1295;2025-10-12 19:09:16.626295;b47492403c691c5d0615ef157260bac0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001296.soc;1296;2025-10-12 19:09:16.644774;03acb705a5ec3db8379ed387ffc18ea9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001297.soc;1297;2025-10-12 19:09:16.649895;b2f0f95cef98ae076b7e1db9aa15fe8a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001298.soc;1298;2025-10-12 19:09:16.657820;e2170064724ebcea1ca6780974267941;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001299.soc;1299;2025-10-12 19:09:16.657820;9b4721878451d9a872262da8d5721dd4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001300.soc;1300;2025-10-12 19:09:16.663725;62bb097dd52f44c71b3a770c4f60c255;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001301.soc;1301;2025-10-12 19:09:16.673497;b7c3a54e331b38abc36a49b26303fe13;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001302.soc;1302;2025-10-12 19:09:16.678804;ce0ff11480b885c7ecf06417b2461db1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001303.soc;1303;2025-10-12 19:09:16.680807;cb673424aa4f06f1c16d4a547c2bf357;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001304.soc;1304;2025-10-12 19:09:16.689241;a6d5a2dc8b5ba06edad20e5b8321d2ae;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001305.soc;1305;2025-10-12 19:09:16.689241;16078fb987f43813558825f6a1d7f41c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001306.soc;1306;2025-10-12 19:09:16.694676;776f57973d1430dde63f19e9d6f3940a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001307.soc;1307;2025-10-12 19:09:16.697853;509ef7cef665a7ec4bf3e9705ca972e6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001308.soc;1308;2025-10-12 19:09:16.713369;9ac705766c4f3157ae7bee2c2814842b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001309.soc;1309;2025-10-12 19:09:16.715372;4fbcfdb3b50e0165185f7f4c678de1f3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001310.soc;1310;2025-10-12 19:09:16.725121;5dfa34c95539b333413bee37bb89fb0f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001311.soc;1311;2025-10-12 19:09:16.739658;b8a978d484d8c02cf033e20ad202978d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001312.soc;1312;2025-10-12 19:09:16.739658;ca968a589020ec123ca7b082c2ea7ab7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001313.soc;1313;2025-10-12 19:09:16.752803;aa6b9bb801854411898b0ccd5e4c5147;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001314.soc;1314;2025-10-12 19:09:16.763673;d9e3d874c83d5974f4855c2823362d60;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001315.soc;1315;2025-10-12 19:09:16.778815;0dd04bc794832642b68cf070f3e540d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001316.soc;1316;2025-10-12 19:09:16.796929;4c4304bc900f8ac06a70a99bfe225099;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001317.soc;1317;2025-10-12 19:09:16.796929;8a3fec8b12b66c439f588995d6fed566;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001318.soc;1318;2025-10-12 19:09:16.814836;030c227b99b7b45027f020f64947621c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001319.soc;1319;2025-10-12 19:09:16.818842;9546825cc4363cec57e63dc96657c501;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001320.soc;1320;2025-10-12 19:09:16.821970;3e863eac8da240b545feb2d65a716cf8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001321.soc;1321;2025-10-12 19:09:16.825974;bdd70eccc4d7b0cfcc28796c08639b3c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001322.soc;1322;2025-10-12 19:09:16.828463;ab779641aa50ece455d9a6e28079ec41;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001323.soc;1323;2025-10-12 19:09:16.861710;860af7fca9b5a4563e30b67d8dbfebd1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001324.soc;1324;2025-10-12 19:09:16.863636;d0352280e01cdaed84daa17f52fcf276;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001325.soc;1325;2025-10-12 19:09:16.863636;cbee752dd1b6aeb19a40a3e14d004af6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001326.soc;1326;2025-10-12 19:09:16.880193;a4fc989b302ea07d7d6c679f9f637281;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001327.soc;1327;2025-10-12 19:09:16.880193;cc454cb5422773433afb277f6c569b8a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001328.soc;1328;2025-10-12 19:09:16.880193;7362def39fba06c5c00cf80ae7c50f6b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001329.soc;1329;2025-10-12 19:09:16.897465;aae2671e7b95ea36b2463979568087a2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001330.soc;1330;2025-10-12 19:09:16.897465;118f946e88eb50b130a8d9f5a2e60bbc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001331.soc;1331;2025-10-12 19:09:16.897465;335e98e0f4a3b6bd201e8bb91d944cf0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001332.soc;1332;2025-10-12 19:09:16.897465;b3775f514527554cedd91de490712fbb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001333.soc;1333;2025-10-12 19:09:16.897465;2b3d3e50accfeaa5ea1974ab8aa27acf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001334.soc;1334;2025-10-12 19:09:16.913073;9c006905440b74123e440952b451191c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001335.soc;1335;2025-10-12 19:09:16.913869;08eb351ad6e605513c27ed2d2d5f2177;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001336.soc;1336;2025-10-12 19:09:16.913869;7e06af8a91185a3d96751ea040009eda;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001337.soc;1337;2025-10-12 19:09:16.941784;5e4e0196f7fa744d4825dd7af8ed2c8e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001338.soc;1338;2025-10-12 19:09:16.945839;842d54f69c93b521c087e4a68e882106;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001339.soc;1339;2025-10-12 19:09:16.947220;2c2298acbe25dcb0c74cb3591cc28972;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001340.soc;1340;2025-10-12 19:09:16.947220;6af8d3e7a5a68e9632fc620c8f7f9b70;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001341.soc;1341;2025-10-12 19:09:16.947220;8c077aab31e1d9eeceb7534e4c98825a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001342.soc;1342;2025-10-12 19:09:16.963055;24a173f8d0e52c05dbaa90647d879f53;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001343.soc;1343;2025-10-12 19:09:16.964478;2f7a2ff2be89f5cb126b93f9b56e2878;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001344.soc;1344;2025-10-12 19:09:16.980070;e4997df4fa870c93b2d85b58565676f4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001345.soc;1345;2025-10-12 19:09:16.989579;371f0b413e029c2c8a32b25767ca58ec;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001346.soc;1346;2025-10-12 19:09:16.996090;796cf13c1e563c16e02ce723b94e5226;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001347.soc;1347;2025-10-12 19:09:16.996090;738a505f561f57f151561fbf22a2f32a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001348.soc;1348;2025-10-12 19:09:17.011945;ce624be0979f732e1783727c7f7e038f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001349.soc;1349;2025-10-12 19:09:17.016779;1244db124dc76c4531543f79205b0ef8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001350.soc;1350;2025-10-12 19:09:17.027907;1bba9e3e8779413d4aa383af7fb8dfcf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001351.soc;1351;2025-10-12 19:09:17.027907;c18dbc8719d9f9d8c3e8569b0075202a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001352.soc;1352;2025-10-12 19:09:17.027907;8bb9a2be275100efcc7fd7429c2d5c92;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001353.soc;1353;2025-10-12 19:09:17.043952;fe85f40571d92bce94b16f45472904e7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001354.soc;1354;2025-10-12 19:09:17.050422;337177a48b75f0f815ac987cd9dce9ab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001355.soc;1355;2025-10-12 19:09:17.050422;c20f0d0cef9788a948e64f07406b9538;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001356.soc;1356;2025-10-12 19:09:17.060016;797bc2ca096bc8ee370c22b9dcebbad8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001357.soc;1357;2025-10-12 19:09:17.075672;265a8dca74f9e85d6f17bea06884ea85;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001358.soc;1358;2025-10-12 19:09:17.075672;2b1f8f2bae608ec6eb154b7335f732ad;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001359.soc;1359;2025-10-12 19:09:17.091355;bad39f4380b24de7164683530a20bea7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001360.soc;1360;2025-10-12 19:09:17.095246;14780b1a2c4f00fc4976ed4d3e5a1a81;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001361.soc;1361;2025-10-12 19:09:17.107308;a78db542f6ed09671431a50fe3f11d74;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001362.soc;1362;2025-10-12 19:09:17.107308;d52e068ceb7d54858de55781cd6d5492;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001363.soc;1363;2025-10-12 19:09:17.122997;f7d71ed4c473ae12e21e534dd6564659;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001364.soc;1364;2025-10-12 19:09:17.139115;ceb5963bb1d4f171f56ca60ad50e4d61;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001365.soc;1365;2025-10-12 19:09:17.140944;b3abed2b77be38cf62526075e319aa3a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001366.soc;1366;2025-10-12 19:09:17.144947;192d33fd2a6f3027a0964783626c6be2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001367.soc;1367;2025-10-12 19:09:17.144947;e01e84265b56db3652dcaa2a4de65cca;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001368.soc;1368;2025-10-12 19:09:17.155203;0b18ded1e2fadda3c9ef24e8dbb9624f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001369.soc;1369;2025-10-12 19:09:17.155203;fbb850df3cd01869cac84b4aa3a3f64b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001370.soc;1370;2025-10-12 19:09:17.155203;4562a752613f8edffb2a66b8072eeb5e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001371.soc;1371;2025-10-12 19:09:17.155203;8008df809b37c9154d1d051b2e07e2be;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001372.soc;1372;2025-10-12 19:09:17.171145;5dd47e01f3eb52314d2c1b95f7a04b75;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001373.soc;1373;2025-10-12 19:09:17.171145;693f13e740e1ea12c492d886898c3ea4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001374.soc;1374;2025-10-12 19:09:17.171145;da0764c1ca04bcca4b76f61aa84fe64a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001375.soc;1375;2025-10-12 19:09:17.171145;e7c91720574d96fb432a647b7b0a6c12;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001376.soc;1376;2025-10-12 19:09:17.186869;699d95816a70a9e3725c12cf167dfb37;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001377.soc;1377;2025-10-12 19:09:17.186869;fa6a7774625ddaeada1b162dfb1c5af2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001378.soc;1378;2025-10-12 19:09:17.202770;d46de82a0c3197e49ead16ebba5a2dbb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001379.soc;1379;2025-10-12 19:09:17.218530;01eecc0037f70b21d2ce5355ec991b2a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001380.soc;1380;2025-10-12 19:09:17.218530;18754527c32b9c7e57b696cd6958352c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001381.soc;1381;2025-10-12 19:09:17.218530;c887b08159265d1467afdf09676641dd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001382.soc;1382;2025-10-12 19:09:17.218530;0b05c6313336c927ca20a0ca91aaa504;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001383.soc;1383;2025-10-12 19:09:17.218530;8f6ff390123f499fa30e477e611a628f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001384.soc;1384;2025-10-12 19:09:17.234169;7b823934fa584190eaaff059c7af14d0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001385.soc;1385;2025-10-12 19:09:17.234169;8eece774708e0447cbb3998c07b5c2d2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001386.soc;1386;2025-10-12 19:09:17.234169;7901c3ff7d21bb5d41e3ec201cb93d53;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001387.soc;1387;2025-10-12 19:09:17.234169;f0fa01ce487a48e4f32668c17043b7fd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001388.soc;1388;2025-10-12 19:09:17.250298;94a3f7039b1d707ee727bf262370b5e6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001389.soc;1389;2025-10-12 19:09:17.250298;360b5edcfd57605ab4ba3ea384da6aa5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001390.soc;1390;2025-10-12 19:09:17.250298;3f4403d871b090a4488f9c4178ccd58f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001391.soc;1391;2025-10-12 19:09:17.250298;7f4e208c917d5a4d89e1dab730e7c48e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001392.soc;1392;2025-10-12 19:09:17.266026;2e47d0388c96c14cdc62758fdfdfe4fe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001393.soc;1393;2025-10-12 19:09:17.266026;0721757044c6168b1553a2e5839571ac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001394.soc;1394;2025-10-12 19:09:17.266026;3d31f37265157dda2237ac2f803a2dab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001395.soc;1395;2025-10-12 19:09:17.266026;f065941827acd13a9b0972d368a1d2bf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001396.soc;1396;2025-10-12 19:09:17.266026;39a671a0c6f3010dd7f65f3c344135fa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001397.soc;1397;2025-10-12 19:09:17.281794;e27338738acea58b6a3c8e43c1d74df7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001398.soc;1398;2025-10-12 19:09:17.281794;e6ef1967bcf90a973830ce63a68633c8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001399.soc;1399;2025-10-12 19:09:17.281794;5b5d44792188b07eea2fb8813ffa633d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001400.soc;1400;2025-10-12 19:09:17.297518;49960957cef0d276e4515f02bf6e310f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001401.soc;1401;2025-10-12 19:09:17.297518;965fd763986ac01868db141af819ac6a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001402.soc;1402;2025-10-12 19:09:17.297518;3c5adabb4ca855b9e18d89c597d0477e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001403.soc;1403;2025-10-12 19:09:17.297518;013ef94f56869e3946fd1a12dffd8522;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001404.soc;1404;2025-10-12 19:09:17.313230;752cb4e407340a52e58d70e29e1817f2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001405.soc;1405;2025-10-12 19:09:17.313230;5f9d6598f283696c2a37f797bd5defe7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001406.soc;1406;2025-10-12 19:09:17.328922;288f36fcff09558ed53bd245b4917f69;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001407.soc;1407;2025-10-12 19:09:17.328922;01bf5a0e8cb5dcf686bc240ff843aca5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001408.soc;1408;2025-10-12 19:09:17.328922;08172d3fe94d73de59bd6db2ab0cc037;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001409.soc;1409;2025-10-12 19:09:17.344634;bcc40ffd413108238c15f99627d2b60c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001410.soc;1410;2025-10-12 19:09:17.344634;4b75a5cd715f83298878a025c68df6e5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001411.soc;1411;2025-10-12 19:09:17.360573;14a15257e0509347d0f8cea660e2c5f8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001412.soc;1412;2025-10-12 19:09:17.360573;d73adc2416a75a55a3980fc752da23fb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001413.soc;1413;2025-10-12 19:09:17.376347;f8bf9c45d90ae61f1848403aaf045299;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001414.soc;1414;2025-10-12 19:09:17.376347;2175c48850a37670e98a907650ada3c9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001415.soc;1415;2025-10-12 19:09:17.376347;8e8e735e75baa8c4e3ec93045a03bdf6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001416.soc;1416;2025-10-12 19:09:17.395516;28f82f12ee66e8444084f68f53e89749;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001417.soc;1417;2025-10-12 19:09:17.395516;0c9552deea3977a09b52f18fb4b25298;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001418.soc;1418;2025-10-12 19:09:17.408383;4385aebda859512621a3744efe6bbe52;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001419.soc;1419;2025-10-12 19:09:17.408383;6ef0013c47f9a9bdd0422d150567c587;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001420.soc;1420;2025-10-12 19:09:17.408383;248865e83500f2850a92c73ce2abcbeb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001421.soc;1421;2025-10-12 19:09:17.408383;0c7c853d63bcb7ec32d8b07a2229a908;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001422.soc;1422;2025-10-12 19:09:17.408383;af17baddd0ee083693b46c8f8540acad;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001423.soc;1423;2025-10-12 19:09:17.424271;bccb41e8fb40cdaa5cdb3b3136612222;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001424.soc;1424;2025-10-12 19:09:17.424271;28252da1e1197ff7efca6477b96b64a3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001425.soc;1425;2025-10-12 19:09:17.439967;f6fb3cf52fa8ed837269f83794b1952f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001426.soc;1426;2025-10-12 19:09:17.439967;0d9871fd59338532e990eb3c864a5342;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001427.soc;1427;2025-10-12 19:09:17.456009;13c2487c203dd5111bf620a23f26b6b5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001428.soc;1428;2025-10-12 19:09:17.456009;443776e18d6cff5bbccad87b9a509431;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001429.soc;1429;2025-10-12 19:09:17.456009;8651a61467fa437e52f2ae2beeb17806;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001430.soc;1430;2025-10-12 19:09:17.456009;d3aa96b63caeac2dc8ccb6d3f06eb69b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001431.soc;1431;2025-10-12 19:09:17.456009;351735b7399592a84faff1e77a4e9606;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001432.soc;1432;2025-10-12 19:09:17.456009;4888dc6b48bfefada07d46dff1a57c15;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001433.soc;1433;2025-10-12 19:09:17.456009;11cbd06dc4d7000a85cd474f80135f5c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001434.soc;1434;2025-10-12 19:09:17.471994;6c3de68749e5f7da04139344c3fc295a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001435.soc;1435;2025-10-12 19:09:17.471994;cfb0700bfb56db8214d6e45fb652f039;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001436.soc;1436;2025-10-12 19:09:17.471994;09c8de7ae92a930dc78426c54cf06c64;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001437.soc;1437;2025-10-12 19:09:17.487679;0de32e01979a686a55c05b6228393d7a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001438.soc;1438;2025-10-12 19:09:17.495808;4d648a5ca0b23032c5ae19bbfd773ac3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001439.soc;1439;2025-10-12 19:09:17.495808;958255eebb1f1f32e3c28b77297f9a99;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001440.soc;1440;2025-10-12 19:09:17.495808;026529c4637acecfc69f1bcee5060e71;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001441.soc;1441;2025-10-12 19:09:17.503549;105dcf1508fb37014c7822895d6d367e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001442.soc;1442;2025-10-12 19:09:17.503549;7ec44c2d8c1263bc04fc44d55c4f5fde;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001443.soc;1443;2025-10-12 19:09:17.503549;b6916ae4d9f574c471243cc66116635c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001444.soc;1444;2025-10-12 19:09:17.519234;fad3be10d287a92343128b7f582ac9db;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001445.soc;1445;2025-10-12 19:09:17.519234;3bc00cdb4f7d961457fd9561da871dde;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001446.soc;1446;2025-10-12 19:09:17.519234;a00c764900d997b391d19198ce8bf7d2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001447.soc;1447;2025-10-12 19:09:17.535269;2e32e2fa4875dc9fda41dcd013ddf794;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001448.soc;1448;2025-10-12 19:09:17.539275;fe37b074431c0e49b690aedb0c2293ed;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001449.soc;1449;2025-10-12 19:09:17.539275;0e675089dd34edb00bd9816c406f4658;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001450.soc;1450;2025-10-12 19:09:17.539275;7ec6cab2d4ff231a43e18a4ba9a7932d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001451.soc;1451;2025-10-12 19:09:17.551026;f72953d39b34d4b927c5a0c3d3792676;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001452.soc;1452;2025-10-12 19:09:17.551026;c735cb137eb8a7460a80240b50ef7209;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001453.soc;1453;2025-10-12 19:09:17.562815;0364a97033491d858e0cf113f95a6ccf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001454.soc;1454;2025-10-12 19:09:17.578235;b8e281f65f4abea1976694a7ec859b77;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001455.soc;1455;2025-10-12 19:09:17.578235;a5940ecd7fd0c67d9a5c9bf6338f3f15;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001456.soc;1456;2025-10-12 19:09:17.578235;ffa6d065c7c41540990ef5e55e20430e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001457.soc;1457;2025-10-12 19:09:17.593909;5d00bf8f685e01edcb049c3188365f45;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001458.soc;1458;2025-10-12 19:09:17.595913;48122316a6077426a69ce85ef48dc4c0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001459.soc;1459;2025-10-12 19:09:17.609570;e73b1e8ec59a9aa37600409ddf5457f8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001460.soc;1460;2025-10-12 19:09:17.609570;a228ebbb6efcec0616eb6f005f221c6b;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001461.soc;1461;2025-10-12 19:09:17.625338;16a061aeac83509f0c5327fa8cb32ed5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001462.soc;1462;2025-10-12 19:09:17.625338;8e4dbe3c9222b0f643f7f9ac28ee19ec;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001463.soc;1463;2025-10-12 19:09:17.625338;d69136b201ce3965ca2fa89380fdf7e4;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001464.soc;1464;2025-10-12 19:09:17.641168;f537aa92d8df72ec46bc3fce7ffa4621;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001465.soc;1465;2025-10-12 19:09:17.657227;a4506ab08df8f750b02954d01d23b40f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001466.soc;1466;2025-10-12 19:09:17.673040;1b61e9bcacf8fc6c6ab46573b6857a79;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001467.soc;1467;2025-10-12 19:09:17.673040;77de2eda3d4116961d8b4ae3a01f97ad;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001468.soc;1468;2025-10-12 19:09:17.673040;317618ef25daf52d5b209e62c825a499;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001469.soc;1469;2025-10-12 19:09:17.673040;81eabe411c93f9760cc18031c1b14751;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001470.soc;1470;2025-10-12 19:09:17.704938;42d8c701ea9147e278b33e21d90bbe7e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001471.soc;1471;2025-10-12 19:09:17.720648;a50ead77c4ade662d31f56688838c00c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001472.soc;1472;2025-10-12 19:09:17.720648;f66f7195b372059ef23cc78a37386085;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001473.soc;1473;2025-10-12 19:09:17.720648;064928b261a76f5c7d11df5ead684e64;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001474.soc;1474;2025-10-12 19:09:17.720648;f80617d2ceb3bfc7e6f4eae00ccc9d9f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001475.soc;1475;2025-10-12 19:09:17.729301;e5839f78b16a3628add4f73d73b5e78d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001476.soc;1476;2025-10-12 19:09:17.729301;34908c5cd0cf548c1474244b25b97809;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001477.soc;1477;2025-10-12 19:09:17.729301;d02a8f294f4dafad9232a7eab9110219;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001478.soc;1478;2025-10-12 19:09:17.729301;927b1a39d5f21737acb85e3e0a96ea57;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001479.soc;1479;2025-10-12 19:09:17.729301;6d3640fa97a33378c73fff420eb20438;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001480.soc;1480;2025-10-12 19:09:17.729301;cd090d7fbb8f6feebf64cc0dd807a71e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001481.soc;1481;2025-10-12 19:09:17.744747;c0fb61c63c7b5f2962b53746648acf28;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001482.soc;1482;2025-10-12 19:09:17.744747;54aa59e6ec9b1c696b4f821e34e962e8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001483.soc;1483;2025-10-12 19:09:17.744747;9f1d3424a9c09ade2315a3001ef8df4e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001484.soc;1484;2025-10-12 19:09:17.744747;c7b95898118370c5e05dac68f4a55a21;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001485.soc;1485;2025-10-12 19:09:17.744747;f1262403a86beb3a97580f9435ee6692;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001486.soc;1486;2025-10-12 19:09:17.762285;2f305251f75669398fa39e749b63c590;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001487.soc;1487;2025-10-12 19:09:17.762650;9d82136e756a24a3f9603d86dc8df085;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001488.soc;1488;2025-10-12 19:09:17.762650;aceeba9ada9841ae408d25be18c29019;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001489.soc;1489;2025-10-12 19:09:17.762650;f38313cf051eb4908bdb5f19d35baa42;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001490.soc;1490;2025-10-12 19:09:17.762650;b9604f509d401d648b96ef1eb403cd19;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001491.soc;1491;2025-10-12 19:09:17.777920;57bb219506fb3c76746b743a2c27835f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001492.soc;1492;2025-10-12 19:09:17.777920;c2ec9735e48c61a347170fc8512d1cf6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001493.soc;1493;2025-10-12 19:09:17.777920;dcd29f72563161981dfb04754a15fbe2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001494.soc;1494;2025-10-12 19:09:17.796026;cabb4e2d6897a82a68fdeba1a980c021;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001495.soc;1495;2025-10-12 19:09:17.796026;ad627f7e8c4a611f15f66c6dde7a5e22;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001496.soc;1496;2025-10-12 19:09:17.809649;332fdf45fb400b59203c8fc1abe614b4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001497.soc;1497;2025-10-12 19:09:17.812607;f3551526ce8b690a2e158f87023a6a3d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001498.soc;1498;2025-10-12 19:09:17.812607;45da769693ff37caaf8c26beb8924d0e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001499.soc;1499;2025-10-12 19:09:17.812607;f66bfbe982ba1edc4f50bcdda67ece70;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001500.soc;1500;2025-10-12 19:09:17.812607;42dbdb42c0f9efdc014ac4f0329364e6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001501.soc;1501;2025-10-12 19:09:17.812607;61f4acfa581bb493cf6a55b52266d535;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001502.soc;1502;2025-10-12 19:09:17.827939;468fff9eed21df5376618a0d1b9f0ce0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001503.soc;1503;2025-10-12 19:09:17.846004;be0670e09c960801b37e0c8c03491cb6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001504.soc;1504;2025-10-12 19:09:17.846004;8532e611af984140c89998c41572b596;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001505.soc;1505;2025-10-12 19:09:17.846004;da8da92388839718d6ea2d5ef1bfeff7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001506.soc;1506;2025-10-12 19:09:17.854359;d1382b4e44603f1c8578694f41e7cba9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001507.soc;1507;2025-10-12 19:09:17.854359;efe35fdec8e4b36a1c8342a0842d389b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001508.soc;1508;2025-10-12 19:09:17.854359;7e7632012f33fbcb65e473c1c477e46e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001509.soc;1509;2025-10-12 19:09:17.861583;3a9fbd5fa03274c9604cabb73513bd84;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001510.soc;1510;2025-10-12 19:09:17.861583;057eab207120a58b5d917b9a6a4c1964;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001511.soc;1511;2025-10-12 19:09:17.861583;193d9160ada0afe1e577f6b962ed6996;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001512.soc;1512;2025-10-12 19:09:17.877666;fb1e6bd42c00ed375f27c3df8e5b109d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001513.soc;1513;2025-10-12 19:09:17.877666;24714dbaedbc3bf63287a5ae98eb5566;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001514.soc;1514;2025-10-12 19:09:17.877666;9cbae2489b3533c72c415f59f03992c0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001515.soc;1515;2025-10-12 19:09:17.877666;6446c4d4858bc548270f7fa623f3b575;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001516.soc;1516;2025-10-12 19:09:17.895905;49b5dd02db32a0f2508b76e1b16d7bb6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001517.soc;1517;2025-10-12 19:09:17.895905;8c4692c0cd748fc62dbe54857a7bf01c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001518.soc;1518;2025-10-12 19:09:17.911555;0b3d987d5b2eeeaa62eceea68f2abd4f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001519.soc;1519;2025-10-12 19:09:17.911555;5303b77bbca1e61006bfe08aed17a3aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001520.soc;1520;2025-10-12 19:09:17.911555;8f39d2dc6d67f2fe94efa5715f2f84c6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001521.soc;1521;2025-10-12 19:09:17.911555;768f1e0d43d90b8ff8d615e7d8dbeb1c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001522.soc;1522;2025-10-12 19:09:17.927403;e859ecc9c8d7bea7371aab066c0518c4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001523.soc;1523;2025-10-12 19:09:17.929932;2a9fd7bf6ea232497faf0de89a26ab46;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001524.soc;1524;2025-10-12 19:09:17.929932;86293e4db32d5f7280d10495a7cdf757;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001525.soc;1525;2025-10-12 19:09:17.948215;574135d0c17c0902ee1ffd273d958cee;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001526.soc;1526;2025-10-12 19:09:17.960860;4e7875a6f178a4f9c1e3f16ecd9c02e6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001527.soc;1527;2025-10-12 19:09:17.960860;62d19220f28f5fdd5f096584d87d1220;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001528.soc;1528;2025-10-12 19:09:17.976793;64f346e1bca268db2d874a5649c3ad67;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001529.soc;1529;2025-10-12 19:09:17.976793;28d6c1d07dd6159bf3fa448fba7ab092;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001530.soc;1530;2025-10-12 19:09:17.976793;90142d9706d26e69ac4ab42fb2e888aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001531.soc;1531;2025-10-12 19:09:17.992777;88026dce3f670451ceca616b8489e332;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001532.soc;1532;2025-10-12 19:09:17.998014;34918782bbd0f10bca6d51dcc47ca125;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001533.soc;1533;2025-10-12 19:09:17.998014;fa104ce6cd39748edfebeb85a3d4d895;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001534.soc;1534;2025-10-12 19:09:17.998014;9d53fe5570813520e12f7f49661fbadb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001535.soc;1535;2025-10-12 19:09:17.998014;c3c792d53b4ef0749ad33235ae0409d4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001536.soc;1536;2025-10-12 19:09:17.998014;d3e016f60a37bd000581ed7bc91454c9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001537.soc;1537;2025-10-12 19:09:18.008790;18f4e1ff79b2a5ef9ac4b84c35819f3f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001538.soc;1538;2025-10-12 19:09:18.008790;7d3821baa8fd328d678f41d7e4af19f4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001539.soc;1539;2025-10-12 19:09:18.008790;987c2dd8bf84bc9fdd70a166acba28d9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001540.soc;1540;2025-10-12 19:09:18.008790;c42870a557f7036c9fb3c68b00e4ff1b;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001541.soc;1541;2025-10-12 19:09:18.008790;b19ca1dd1c1b1691f4c02a37c698f4d7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001542.soc;1542;2025-10-12 19:09:18.024897;51a5fafa220e9da022ffede2b74db22c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001543.soc;1543;2025-10-12 19:09:18.024897;45702d2579e0e74db878e117086e544d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001544.soc;1544;2025-10-12 19:09:18.024897;8b9dbd998a0501d133437151e0cf4d6a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001545.soc;1545;2025-10-12 19:09:18.024897;1f6386f2c14b64910c0055260ec0811e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001546.soc;1546;2025-10-12 19:09:18.040758;502670f2cc1bcf00e85622e6374c92d4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001547.soc;1547;2025-10-12 19:09:18.040758;bc9c9933cdfa4a0c9fcb1ccd250f450d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001548.soc;1548;2025-10-12 19:09:18.040758;47a5605eb894e546683b1314b09773a5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001549.soc;1549;2025-10-12 19:09:18.040758;47dd5e18e46f80a5d2e3f7f1789e190a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001550.soc;1550;2025-10-12 19:09:18.040758;01b6f78b1748d58e159d799fc7b741cb;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001551.soc;1551;2025-10-12 19:09:18.056721;076e1301b5556d5b27fa5d41546481d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001552.soc;1552;2025-10-12 19:09:18.062644;326d18264f9dac3af234ab84d59e8590;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001553.soc;1553;2025-10-12 19:09:18.062644;c3bb5a9db4a887f2d3cbf9869f86aeb1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001554.soc;1554;2025-10-12 19:09:18.062644;64baa7be6587da8cf3852134560f695a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001555.soc;1555;2025-10-12 19:09:18.062644;9f45d1ac15f85445d76c373df86a22b3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001556.soc;1556;2025-10-12 19:09:18.077937;eac0842e6953faa613c3964ce4f27deb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001557.soc;1557;2025-10-12 19:09:18.077937;5c4bdede68842bca98fe75b2d87886d1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001558.soc;1558;2025-10-12 19:09:18.093001;69588b2d3a62f494807e1fbf45f475d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001559.soc;1559;2025-10-12 19:09:18.094003;daa4a619d816cbc2135023cd7d8ac06d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001560.soc;1560;2025-10-12 19:09:18.098011;50506cf0f47c9e46b486a519ecaf7fe5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001561.soc;1561;2025-10-12 19:09:18.100013;ead0839a8c8de1c472dbae63301daf63;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001562.soc;1562;2025-10-12 19:09:18.100013;face98c4a4a369beb54db124e3f15115;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001563.soc;1563;2025-10-12 19:09:18.109945;c34034cab9bba7e68900a6b4f8b26249;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001564.soc;1564;2025-10-12 19:09:18.112322;a7f7fd11221b9caecac078a1fd6fc06c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001565.soc;1565;2025-10-12 19:09:18.112322;5db6a163bc5a600336c8a92232d9e1f2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001566.soc;1566;2025-10-12 19:09:18.118697;7d749eb37cf816d87dcbce9f65e3327c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001567.soc;1567;2025-10-12 19:09:18.118697;4fcde9e91c396f227ca05060dbb17f67;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001568.soc;1568;2025-10-12 19:09:18.118697;eeee361893f4a55fd84ce0c983c7c291;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001569.soc;1569;2025-10-12 19:09:18.127954;4627cc861385374afafa2f31564595f3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001570.soc;1570;2025-10-12 19:09:18.127954;fc324cc57812f88b463da795ba2c350f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001571.soc;1571;2025-10-12 19:09:18.127954;936c78e0c6d70f9b87769835b496d28e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001572.soc;1572;2025-10-12 19:09:18.127954;5a0fe4974606712d7e346c37d74208b1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001573.soc;1573;2025-10-12 19:09:18.127954;5811b49b7a26c7759095d235cbf936c8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001574.soc;1574;2025-10-12 19:09:18.143888;48754fef19363944de0b0e01b80b83f6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001575.soc;1575;2025-10-12 19:09:18.143888;88e319378c94d7850417ea007d952cdf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001576.soc;1576;2025-10-12 19:09:18.143888;845b920122d8a4ba089e1063eff0f905;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001577.soc;1577;2025-10-12 19:09:18.159572;fbc9bd28877cdcb3fca427b3e96ffd4c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001578.soc;1578;2025-10-12 19:09:18.159572;4af7d797238a0f11ec62426c4220887a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001579.soc;1579;2025-10-12 19:09:18.170052;e2f38d368e3e2b1188606c97661a4ed4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001580.soc;1580;2025-10-12 19:09:18.173171;a62310543191aaece7b916a2d885dc90;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001581.soc;1581;2025-10-12 19:09:18.175502;88c66428957f589474b71fcdba77f56e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001582.soc;1582;2025-10-12 19:09:18.179786;c9b513cdec8d50345794dd4b2b8b8eac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001583.soc;1583;2025-10-12 19:09:18.179786;c4232100f499ca104700c8a7260aab8d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001584.soc;1584;2025-10-12 19:09:18.179786;bb5f89d3bbe45dc87da8f03c8b576ec2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001585.soc;1585;2025-10-12 19:09:18.191208;7db6205ebcc96a5f633d06e623f937c8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001586.soc;1586;2025-10-12 19:09:18.191208;636df35cd1a8186d57a3be08336c42f3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001587.soc;1587;2025-10-12 19:09:18.195924;bd8b82fc2c6ca54664102f0e4f8cf6fd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001588.soc;1588;2025-10-12 19:09:18.195924;d1d669730ce7efa619d2792e0a69ceb6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001589.soc;1589;2025-10-12 19:09:18.195924;1ed4fdf001628b8dab47f788d67d4d02;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001590.soc;1590;2025-10-12 19:09:18.207017;5cfc60e6b93c8c44464468841b3bbb71;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001591.soc;1591;2025-10-12 19:09:18.207017;179cb58d05898ae01bb079a0aa576dee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001592.soc;1592;2025-10-12 19:09:18.207017;2748001016b461dd9ed2468dcc352c8c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001593.soc;1593;2025-10-12 19:09:18.223039;b03056d9c66468b783d31222311ae8e9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001594.soc;1594;2025-10-12 19:09:18.223039;a4ae528d113a657633a45c4016b0ef86;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001595.soc;1595;2025-10-12 19:09:18.229436;c1118096d7d28381225e24718c3571d4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001596.soc;1596;2025-10-12 19:09:18.229436;75e46ca8b2951240979b6ec9b48e4cbb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001597.soc;1597;2025-10-12 19:09:18.229436;262b6aee35c0896f616bc47a4048e950;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001598.soc;1598;2025-10-12 19:09:18.245357;0a356c82e085555eb7fef5c6a8c52bd6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001599.soc;1599;2025-10-12 19:09:18.245357;ee1a193b07a18e5bd1cbad9c0649e2a9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001600.soc;1600;2025-10-12 19:09:18.260583;492827974f2010e57cdc02753cb613c0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001601.soc;1601;2025-10-12 19:09:18.260583;28812add9c06815e785e378935fa65c2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001602.soc;1602;2025-10-12 19:09:18.260583;d158a7c7d683fe260ef36cc00b1017f4;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001603.soc;1603;2025-10-12 19:09:18.278549;db83ed755ba84a1e5ce959e0560181cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001604.soc;1604;2025-10-12 19:09:18.278977;1324bc77f10100fe0e6d6774f56fb874;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001605.soc;1605;2025-10-12 19:09:18.278977;60f16e73d14d3db066705ae657a92645;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001606.soc;1606;2025-10-12 19:09:18.278977;02fd7a39b854b01eb78ccfa1990dfba1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001607.soc;1607;2025-10-12 19:09:18.278977;c0c560115fcb03d2096e79b42abe4d3e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001608.soc;1608;2025-10-12 19:09:18.295843;4dd6d2f9bd68f1c3f7b4fb9e0eb761f1;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001609.soc;1609;2025-10-12 19:09:18.295843;3ff87eb23f2af82a23631f2ab50fa416;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001610.soc;1610;2025-10-12 19:09:18.295843;3b318ac9fa7abcc93339869afd6b4ac1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001611.soc;1611;2025-10-12 19:09:18.295843;8eb9d223f08195b5b23fbd72ea541c61;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001612.soc;1612;2025-10-12 19:09:18.310079;b27501fb88329f1195cc3456377267dc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001613.soc;1613;2025-10-12 19:09:18.312200;22d44a0fa2c385a36f1624d7bd87ba8b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001614.soc;1614;2025-10-12 19:09:18.312200;9e6250c105effaa7acc3a5b1d781c627;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001615.soc;1615;2025-10-12 19:09:18.312200;b23b738ffbb574592a2f0dd530be08d6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001616.soc;1616;2025-10-12 19:09:18.327711;3cd9ae76777104e60c0c2caaf46402b8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001617.soc;1617;2025-10-12 19:09:18.327711;fc473656f6b481ac27f5ff51f3550873;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001618.soc;1618;2025-10-12 19:09:18.327711;62229aa60dbefe093f225812677f28a1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001619.soc;1619;2025-10-12 19:09:18.343418;458843088c046bf49867aa250cd78aa6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001620.soc;1620;2025-10-12 19:09:18.345795;84aa4c3e6a054608a9d1a7f21d713e9e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001621.soc;1621;2025-10-12 19:09:18.345795;69b9674da857dc9a03502b7e01244f44;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001622.soc;1622;2025-10-12 19:09:18.345795;ef0350a760ecdfa0d96dbcf3705e6d8a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001623.soc;1623;2025-10-12 19:09:18.345795;e379ff429b3faed105049f661c8bc6ae;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001624.soc;1624;2025-10-12 19:09:18.345795;3816c8c232a158c122a74d8c699d0fd8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001625.soc;1625;2025-10-12 19:09:18.345795;1812115ffcf0faf634c142d9fcd56815;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001626.soc;1626;2025-10-12 19:09:18.361074;fcf14d1886d58547e2a9501fc83067f3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001627.soc;1627;2025-10-12 19:09:18.361074;b32528847d9b8765efa128eaf0352b25;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001628.soc;1628;2025-10-12 19:09:18.361074;ad46e9a33733fe421c5f742841529d80;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001629.soc;1629;2025-10-12 19:09:18.361074;79447ff5d90d95e3ca07de22e2c21552;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001630.soc;1630;2025-10-12 19:09:18.379246;c94d4ce64bcc5a86525dd95d6dbe4066;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001631.soc;1631;2025-10-12 19:09:18.379246;9ddd53316ef8b7f1072868db553d7466;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001632.soc;1632;2025-10-12 19:09:18.379246;daf227ece3c1964819d5bb031ecd7209;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001633.soc;1633;2025-10-12 19:09:18.379246;ad8448bc8bc1c28486973fdbadc114c9;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001634.soc;1634;2025-10-12 19:09:18.379246;29fac95e1796ccd6ad61c004b244f6f4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001635.soc;1635;2025-10-12 19:09:18.379246;86dd7c472eb5acf8486a22375904fe92;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001636.soc;1636;2025-10-12 19:09:18.394526;0cd45d31a6dac0e5c44adba2db53321e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001637.soc;1637;2025-10-12 19:09:18.396031;7f0953856f1201837baac7398d97410b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001638.soc;1638;2025-10-12 19:09:18.396031;e2b9c216d612ff75266deb59a1c52ea6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001639.soc;1639;2025-10-12 19:09:18.396031;b3f9cd774d9ff492ffcbec350f5c3801;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001640.soc;1640;2025-10-12 19:09:18.396031;c9d5873dd737ec2acf42465e121051b9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001641.soc;1641;2025-10-12 19:09:18.410220;f7ca1a4f25e892b14b31722357d68cca;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001642.soc;1642;2025-10-12 19:09:18.412229;4ad0696065219277c62437f1981a9f34;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001643.soc;1643;2025-10-12 19:09:18.412229;1d4af4c97b1cb25f2ad2dee2f5e0a3f7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001644.soc;1644;2025-10-12 19:09:18.427434;fff179c4ad50e30a707bb208fd8e602b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001645.soc;1645;2025-10-12 19:09:18.430774;50c10c346ebd4cb6fab29b1096d5dc44;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001646.soc;1646;2025-10-12 19:09:18.430774;807ab64c8fc0b0b6d953f7cd7cb14a55;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001647.soc;1647;2025-10-12 19:09:18.430774;5d7983b6f71b5fed5135bbc26cd888df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001648.soc;1648;2025-10-12 19:09:18.430774;3c985f089cdcbff053b0de1e92b2a21b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001649.soc;1649;2025-10-12 19:09:18.443183;7d2b9bc1e57dccb645f7568110c73a96;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001650.soc;1650;2025-10-12 19:09:18.445405;151e6708495772a71788900bfa2caf47;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001651.soc;1651;2025-10-12 19:09:18.445405;1dc11ce33559f27e227d97f5ed4cbb10;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001652.soc;1652;2025-10-12 19:09:18.445405;18e587957ed220f5f588af57ea3782cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001653.soc;1653;2025-10-12 19:09:18.460864;d2acdd89f64968d73b02ac5f03c70881;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001654.soc;1654;2025-10-12 19:09:18.460864;6d4f426a602f1860770b829d46879412;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001655.soc;1655;2025-10-12 19:09:18.476539;15db60b2f2297feea6b04e692870b45a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001656.soc;1656;2025-10-12 19:09:18.488164;f8c46847d21591f4fb629ac9138143bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001657.soc;1657;2025-10-12 19:09:18.497991;acf10781aee824471b2381d75901f1f7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001658.soc;1658;2025-10-12 19:09:18.507988;68e502f7da55e86a7f2bf15968bb346d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001659.soc;1659;2025-10-12 19:09:18.512578;8275c173b4b792a75e68f03ef31f6a12;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001660.soc;1660;2025-10-12 19:09:18.512578;432cb28bcb3a3351a4aa93ba10c80445;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001661.soc;1661;2025-10-12 19:09:18.523618;c0e47fed00838c9b05935bd28be1ed40;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001662.soc;1662;2025-10-12 19:09:18.523618;19f3ad3c83951d0b7b2b5fa68902f69d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001663.soc;1663;2025-10-12 19:09:18.523618;8f38ebece6ea0bf446aa05eabcd63315;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001664.soc;1664;2025-10-12 19:09:18.523618;bf6f213b1889aae9ea340aaede1b3952;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001665.soc;1665;2025-10-12 19:09:18.523618;64bd33afee39625212359a9d8568214f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001666.soc;1666;2025-10-12 19:09:18.539308;3974efbd9f7eb1ff05cdef245d18bdb3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001667.soc;1667;2025-10-12 19:09:18.539308;3b773d3756c21a6f70393961ee5a524c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001668.soc;1668;2025-10-12 19:09:18.555169;f62c5f1347b043ec5283d83d039f4ce6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001669.soc;1669;2025-10-12 19:09:18.555169;ac9a317e7255ce4723add2705c04d608;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001670.soc;1670;2025-10-12 19:09:18.570846;1620ec32aa4a3144f9da2bfe908a4dea;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001671.soc;1671;2025-10-12 19:09:18.570846;2365b2958d9ef026a5fc8c035f07e1a0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001672.soc;1672;2025-10-12 19:09:18.570846;166460d8b1a54890d27da9c74527a907;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001673.soc;1673;2025-10-12 19:09:18.586803;4823f7db92cd0f39f34106f834c66f96;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001674.soc;1674;2025-10-12 19:09:18.586803;d3866d3f2dbe14d4355fecba9cc972f6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001675.soc;1675;2025-10-12 19:09:18.596217;e1fe1bcb46079fc47e6820cdb5c1e7ec;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001676.soc;1676;2025-10-12 19:09:18.596217;f71102d73695690060feed12ee2996d6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001677.soc;1677;2025-10-12 19:09:18.602845;4d465f99893594d626052cdbfc9b0471;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001678.soc;1678;2025-10-12 19:09:18.618964;f2fc3b9f15fc7d2e9bb8ef1ee34ca259;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001679.soc;1679;2025-10-12 19:09:18.618964;1b7d842cfd94a8dfad2843535177e4a0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001680.soc;1680;2025-10-12 19:09:18.618964;a2a63d7f270fa44b872e5d370b74a62a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001681.soc;1681;2025-10-12 19:09:18.618964;c6155572e95f0e229d2ca89f0fb00b5a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001682.soc;1682;2025-10-12 19:09:18.618964;1f61614f78ac49069db1b649195c617c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001683.soc;1683;2025-10-12 19:09:18.635013;989c2fc246872f1c306ba85e9f9b5c3f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001684.soc;1684;2025-10-12 19:09:18.635013;3765a02e3ad062c599bdb010cbdb8b03;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001685.soc;1685;2025-10-12 19:09:18.635013;1f960565730de32b875bb523d250ff6e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001686.soc;1686;2025-10-12 19:09:18.635013;90a867f756ef259cc4332daaab8e4b63;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001687.soc;1687;2025-10-12 19:09:18.650954;44c5c302ebf18738f112be4d6d0ab2ec;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001688.soc;1688;2025-10-12 19:09:18.650954;4cef37d7d283725030df4d0fccf0efc5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001689.soc;1689;2025-10-12 19:09:18.650954;66279c027cdc64ad04c96b3a1a4e65a3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001690.soc;1690;2025-10-12 19:09:18.650954;f0c255196266cb12d3bdd411c22067db;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001691.soc;1691;2025-10-12 19:09:18.666614;d228edd4db2d675aa22e9c592fff1156;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001692.soc;1692;2025-10-12 19:09:18.666614;ec7e97a79e93d963005f2e880e2613b9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001693.soc;1693;2025-10-12 19:09:18.666614;2d3918e656094724def681604b5379fb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001694.soc;1694;2025-10-12 19:09:18.682402;bfe53a15eff7338ed5a202b91bdb5a77;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001695.soc;1695;2025-10-12 19:09:18.682402;0cdbbeeac4e06f7dd85f9bf0b503ce3d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001696.soc;1696;2025-10-12 19:09:18.698124;959228988485b5f46e3be7f40fb250c7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001697.soc;1697;2025-10-12 19:09:18.698124;7aa2c578e701841fb4e74ab23763bb25;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001698.soc;1698;2025-10-12 19:09:18.713926;9441336773f565ef96701326debd8ea6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001699.soc;1699;2025-10-12 19:09:18.713926;e57c138d41c30b8f61551feeabf23dcb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001700.soc;1700;2025-10-12 19:09:18.713926;4cbd6480748dd7c3a76f9e0167e72ada;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001701.soc;1701;2025-10-12 19:09:18.713926;b32db8c3f4e2f01a7b0b38c955a77667;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001702.soc;1702;2025-10-12 19:09:18.713926;1c334a13a11159a474c16bdd57b9736a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001703.soc;1703;2025-10-12 19:09:18.729997;5a15acfd39989b3e1f814bb0822d7b89;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001704.soc;1704;2025-10-12 19:09:18.729997;8dc6f28cbc17ee748a833a4b6ddce909;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001705.soc;1705;2025-10-12 19:09:18.729997;9b6f6cc299b7ece4f72115b2150b478d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001706.soc;1706;2025-10-12 19:09:18.729997;b22890402a1b4b9d605b965f7268f966;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001707.soc;1707;2025-10-12 19:09:18.729997;1b9360f95aa41e447c9256f2af7ad3b7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001708.soc;1708;2025-10-12 19:09:18.745879;7c6ae7738d69a72fdd977f12319ce690;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001709.soc;1709;2025-10-12 19:09:18.745879;c909c4b290d480139a8d95af7707bf01;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001710.soc;1710;2025-10-12 19:09:18.761575;307b96a61a20c6982fae2b648d0b4240;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001711.soc;1711;2025-10-12 19:09:18.761575;c0a217c28f203be4a9c19ee453e294e4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001712.soc;1712;2025-10-12 19:09:18.777430;1b577e9bd99e2c396d660c39227da967;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001713.soc;1713;2025-10-12 19:09:18.777430;0b1804aea0bc83309e25ab5401d9282a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001714.soc;1714;2025-10-12 19:09:18.793291;d37427fb70277f89a9139ce2553ac1f2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001715.soc;1715;2025-10-12 19:09:18.796442;84c25d4c02bc278df0c7a7e8db13d6b8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001716.soc;1716;2025-10-12 19:09:18.808928;b0a8a54dcfb4d944535068237b62c83e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001717.soc;1717;2025-10-12 19:09:18.816801;ab4a3ecb957b58a0321fbd600c0cdf7d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001718.soc;1718;2025-10-12 19:09:18.819936;0b06ad5ce5151829e5a23602d3ef9f66;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001719.soc;1719;2025-10-12 19:09:18.824640;6023fec04a3f78e97aaddea426b76c88;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001720.soc;1720;2025-10-12 19:09:18.824640;b7b86f8598cf4ed83e0f508db916fb3f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001721.soc;1721;2025-10-12 19:09:18.840698;effd1126429afcc1c0acb8dd37844c07;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001722.soc;1722;2025-10-12 19:09:18.856562;c4496f1f68cd44aa7ac96c1e02747e36;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001723.soc;1723;2025-10-12 19:09:18.872375;066afbabadf4c1341a6a687530c3134c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001724.soc;1724;2025-10-12 19:09:18.888218;6450597fa266af9a31501d01fe54c544;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001725.soc;1725;2025-10-12 19:09:18.888218;32b61233d901864d464319799da58fd4;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001726.soc;1726;2025-10-12 19:09:18.888218;54a7cdee5bd21cf30665c388e0522d0e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001727.soc;1727;2025-10-12 19:09:18.896641;4071c0f702668502ec377cd33177ac5e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001728.soc;1728;2025-10-12 19:09:18.896641;665df8c421fe97badf2ab52e96b27d78;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001729.soc;1729;2025-10-12 19:09:18.903359;85912dc12768c30fca8cc11472bba893;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001730.soc;1730;2025-10-12 19:09:18.919327;f68f5d97ecfd1d59a6348a37c2b1dc12;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001731.soc;1731;2025-10-12 19:09:18.919327;cb04dcdfa31e3a8e2f911d0676a3f15e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001732.soc;1732;2025-10-12 19:09:18.919327;5e8053550629316f4041360ceb9a0e67;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001733.soc;1733;2025-10-12 19:09:18.919327;48998cdf1fc4fc8e33d03e7dac36091a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001734.soc;1734;2025-10-12 19:09:18.934971;27721fd6b28de4ca2543b0d7c58537b6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001735.soc;1735;2025-10-12 19:09:18.934971;03d099c06951dd63a5c153f9dc09a27a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001736.soc;1736;2025-10-12 19:09:18.934971;08175285f9b07366de4b30267e12a088;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001737.soc;1737;2025-10-12 19:09:18.934971;50831f1fb1758080cc6a202fadffb8be;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001738.soc;1738;2025-10-12 19:09:18.934971;dec20c144985c8f6f2e767d990e9c17d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001739.soc;1739;2025-10-12 19:09:18.934971;ecf04b4952bbdcea782318143482ddd2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001740.soc;1740;2025-10-12 19:09:18.950680;0616d32c37e4082de473d8bc54007e66;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001741.soc;1741;2025-10-12 19:09:18.950680;e8177c84d90fdd39852158e809679528;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001742.soc;1742;2025-10-12 19:09:18.950680;4d73e5860b7251533edaa7e4055779e2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001743.soc;1743;2025-10-12 19:09:18.950680;92e7a6eb75e6b2ccde975323c65353cd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001744.soc;1744;2025-10-12 19:09:18.950680;5eb752ff5966eaa18720c211c01e9d5f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001745.soc;1745;2025-10-12 19:09:18.966341;ac60b9988262fd5c355867d3d82030cb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001746.soc;1746;2025-10-12 19:09:18.982171;f4ca07b948739e593c45a9420dff1d6d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001747.soc;1747;2025-10-12 19:09:18.982171;33f61f3d8cc53d8cfa9e70d0811f7d4b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001748.soc;1748;2025-10-12 19:09:18.997952;db338da9c9d03b6ca8fdc92ece4eaf87;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001749.soc;1749;2025-10-12 19:09:18.997952;dfe5221e531d48ef75eed29e90affeb0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001750.soc;1750;2025-10-12 19:09:18.997952;b88f15a6b4b0eaedfc1141fcf4828189;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001751.soc;1751;2025-10-12 19:09:18.997952;765ee24b3c00486cfb69811ce7315c33;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001752.soc;1752;2025-10-12 19:09:18.997952;94f9d0d443403382f46044187040571d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001753.soc;1753;2025-10-12 19:09:18.997952;87eaf6b5cad2580594c059280ae7c5ca;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001754.soc;1754;2025-10-12 19:09:19.029940;cfddcf9e7eedff8eb01b3ac7ef4b0362;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001755.soc;1755;2025-10-12 19:09:19.029940;a62c95b2ff7bd4d9b26be11861ece1a6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001756.soc;1756;2025-10-12 19:09:19.029940;476efa97800b834040f34be824ffca18;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001757.soc;1757;2025-10-12 19:09:19.029940;8cf2e898c61b794ef96140bdedba7cd3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001758.soc;1758;2025-10-12 19:09:19.061700;24240cf2751b1ac50f8f75df746ed7e0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001759.soc;1759;2025-10-12 19:09:19.061700;5f581df15b2bc7b7e92ecb44a9dc068a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001760.soc;1760;2025-10-12 19:09:19.061700;44bbaeeb1081232913dcdc078e0a7755;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001761.soc;1761;2025-10-12 19:09:19.077532;2dd82741c0ad121a33853f5233351141;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001762.soc;1762;2025-10-12 19:09:19.077532;cfda93633b3314382bab81c2cc642df3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001763.soc;1763;2025-10-12 19:09:19.094884;cd9f0224b04d198ce95597c76d7b16be;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001764.soc;1764;2025-10-12 19:09:19.098888;c52a99d1bf694edf02d8ce59b16c8182;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001765.soc;1765;2025-10-12 19:09:19.100749;5affe465004575e35aeb6f6adcf0134f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001766.soc;1766;2025-10-12 19:09:19.105366;ef17849ec00c3a2e8747b0f4c9be481a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001767.soc;1767;2025-10-12 19:09:19.108546;533b45853786de68eef687a95ac82a0b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001768.soc;1768;2025-10-12 19:09:19.108546;d8e80c7e98de18e8808cb3208e353bc8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001769.soc;1769;2025-10-12 19:09:19.108546;666b4a57e58846d43479dea5c6b8e3d5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001770.soc;1770;2025-10-12 19:09:19.124204;fae18fc5a936fa429b8536b64373b529;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001771.soc;1771;2025-10-12 19:09:19.124204;d3e77e388c2c5ae4de3d24d169b8a555;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001772.soc;1772;2025-10-12 19:09:19.124204;d15a31b5344babbd4f6856afabaceba0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001773.soc;1773;2025-10-12 19:09:19.140299;569f0a2ab046932e754c712a23544325;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001774.soc;1774;2025-10-12 19:09:19.140299;43a67cadd524526b6857352650b2f264;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001775.soc;1775;2025-10-12 19:09:19.155939;7d85ebbc505bb2b15169578c9de48d0c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001776.soc;1776;2025-10-12 19:09:19.155939;25f1b7d705f377d6e646c514e58fdbd9;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001777.soc;1777;2025-10-12 19:09:19.155939;7157da19bdff49a18051801a6252f145;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001778.soc;1778;2025-10-12 19:09:19.177764;9246be10c355f2f1018b6cff781e5f73;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001779.soc;1779;2025-10-12 19:09:19.177764;e51df7505af295b3dae83b8de06ea67a;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001780.soc;1780;2025-10-12 19:09:19.187661;4a9bff2a231d7a6dc0a60e21b0f7590d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001781.soc;1781;2025-10-12 19:09:19.187661;a20f3602c23578be2ab57ef787c35d28;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001782.soc;1782;2025-10-12 19:09:19.197157;154043fcf092a81d03723458088a044b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001783.soc;1783;2025-10-12 19:09:19.197157;e0387837c56fdc681e0fa98047cc458d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001784.soc;1784;2025-10-12 19:09:19.197157;672960a55519d115136eeb99d49744fd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001785.soc;1785;2025-10-12 19:09:19.203304;da04f1572068de0db243171d1b1ea107;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001786.soc;1786;2025-10-12 19:09:19.203304;133017d922a9b5f32fce7f2679a996e9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001787.soc;1787;2025-10-12 19:09:19.203304;84f1333569e9cb504f510720ac02e20a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001788.soc;1788;2025-10-12 19:09:19.203304;2fb33644336ef5b6f97291bcf4155267;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001789.soc;1789;2025-10-12 19:09:19.219257;a1018790fb0a1c47e7bfe4f8224a6e70;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001790.soc;1790;2025-10-12 19:09:19.219257;40724a6c157d9c0548ba682f1bfb617b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001791.soc;1791;2025-10-12 19:09:19.228064;a7cb229faba565f3c3839217bd23c3ea;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001792.soc;1792;2025-10-12 19:09:19.228064;0499a7600a3de74af1ec642d37df3554;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001793.soc;1793;2025-10-12 19:09:19.228064;edd4c580fcecad5472e85c631e771efa;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001794.soc;1794;2025-10-12 19:09:19.228064;89f80091d89f53daac2da4efab4c7b93;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001795.soc;1795;2025-10-12 19:09:19.243325;9083f0d7c526e61527d2205e2ecbebc4;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001796.soc;1796;2025-10-12 19:09:19.243325;d13f597b0995814f2cf049c57dc53c75;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001797.soc;1797;2025-10-12 19:09:19.261683;a1878f418bb830e69875d69db0c8186e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001798.soc;1798;2025-10-12 19:09:19.261683;eb54cb751a028863c6d47eac25b459fc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001799.soc;1799;2025-10-12 19:09:19.276872;dfcd1700a2b3cc30f692318ed6805760;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001800.soc;1800;2025-10-12 19:09:19.276872;14cd0727bd1765c32243e6f05df92358;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001801.soc;1801;2025-10-12 19:09:19.276872;099ba7e07a82d1ce0b63869a5cadddce;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001802.soc;1802;2025-10-12 19:09:19.276872;37b44bb5de38c07d594381d4fd67ecf1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001803.soc;1803;2025-10-12 19:09:19.292571;d100737fdcb691c026a157048ae4f823;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001804.soc;1804;2025-10-12 19:09:19.294977;f09a4e43d92cbe15569914d5ea5ca8dc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001805.soc;1805;2025-10-12 19:09:19.297482;ea5ebe24700dd2c5900609dc16559278;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001806.soc;1806;2025-10-12 19:09:19.299674;17787bf03eb359da05219ede4e2fdc57;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001807.soc;1807;2025-10-12 19:09:19.299674;260cc7dac8db9d01d691968f1fccd782;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001808.soc;1808;2025-10-12 19:09:19.299674;88aba019f7866c1b20795be60508dc89;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001809.soc;1809;2025-10-12 19:09:19.299674;0c00fa5d40bb5e6cd499a16342e5d4a7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001810.soc;1810;2025-10-12 19:09:19.326449;6e7ad3e1e7797b68def185addcfc3687;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001811.soc;1811;2025-10-12 19:09:19.326449;445089f7c336b85ebe54f6e4f2bf72e8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001812.soc;1812;2025-10-12 19:09:19.326449;7f928965f03ace6ebf7f92f59569016c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001813.soc;1813;2025-10-12 19:09:19.326449;2bc617d12141e7ac3ca6ac9f16d5c431;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001814.soc;1814;2025-10-12 19:09:19.326449;4dc8266c250846c40468a23ccedd3fc3;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001815.soc;1815;2025-10-12 19:09:19.342257;0b22ad711f31ebbef8a97d549dc1e264;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001816.soc;1816;2025-10-12 19:09:19.344611;16d38031c1888567c177edcc0f9c69b9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001817.soc;1817;2025-10-12 19:09:19.344611;c8856219242bd3b8149e955ee13468e1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001818.soc;1818;2025-10-12 19:09:19.360970;7566c6fca7ff9eb7a0e6410ea3653613;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001819.soc;1819;2025-10-12 19:09:19.360970;0e877d4e6d273ddfaceb5bd6a82913e9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001820.soc;1820;2025-10-12 19:09:19.360970;1a4a12c0c086d412a5d069a443d4a779;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001821.soc;1821;2025-10-12 19:09:19.376910;147125fc7f3206344bf2dfed429fcbbb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001822.soc;1822;2025-10-12 19:09:19.376910;7449801c87fe130a56d2b4efad442e0f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001823.soc;1823;2025-10-12 19:09:19.376910;bfcc56deb40bd2b0766f60e048776f7d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001824.soc;1824;2025-10-12 19:09:19.376910;2fb1c68bc2728ef06496dc98d695e67a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001825.soc;1825;2025-10-12 19:09:19.394556;fefb6785d892985782819c2c35625f5d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001826.soc;1826;2025-10-12 19:09:19.397504;a56aa9813e10a57dca841d61bd84add7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001827.soc;1827;2025-10-12 19:09:19.397504;da1cc7626549497949f1e7dccd181263;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001828.soc;1828;2025-10-12 19:09:19.409865;2c9dc6aa78cdaf607ae4930fa836478f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001829.soc;1829;2025-10-12 19:09:19.409865;bf0556efff7ff29b84d7053227ebe448;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001830.soc;1830;2025-10-12 19:09:19.425965;14ac2e7e126d0737c2c892e7d35e6301;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001831.soc;1831;2025-10-12 19:09:19.425965;fbaee38e2b1cc20232fc127b06556ec4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001832.soc;1832;2025-10-12 19:09:19.425965;99cc2a6b18808aa9a4b26ca2e9644058;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001833.soc;1833;2025-10-12 19:09:19.441907;2fbd2b60586cf84242b7ad57fb3c1eb1;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001834.soc;1834;2025-10-12 19:09:19.444894;52d58c782dabea47a63101787bb75c77;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001835.soc;1835;2025-10-12 19:09:19.444894;981e055f408e31266f7d5063ebfca81c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001836.soc;1836;2025-10-12 19:09:19.460190;0074e73132463ad181454f79ed7d94dc;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001837.soc;1837;2025-10-12 19:09:19.460190;4648c809cabd5bd76abd4adcb2727856;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001838.soc;1838;2025-10-12 19:09:19.460190;600dd40efbf769e40dfd4cd2ba0c888b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001839.soc;1839;2025-10-12 19:09:19.477900;c661559dd6b61f36468cf67111b0320d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001840.soc;1840;2025-10-12 19:09:19.477900;29d2fb5ceb0a8924ae22393eda0be662;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001841.soc;1841;2025-10-12 19:09:19.477900;6ddd44c0a9eca66f21a1926556ffb3e1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001842.soc;1842;2025-10-12 19:09:19.477900;52f508ca6a95a37091124529e9a58b4e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001843.soc;1843;2025-10-12 19:09:19.497438;b3ca0bacba9e63df80b8f4f927b8ba41;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001844.soc;1844;2025-10-12 19:09:19.497438;b6b032c4b6bd143f8e316422a76db8cf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001845.soc;1845;2025-10-12 19:09:19.497438;943bd2ad7b2d76114a3e4d2fc7c15603;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001846.soc;1846;2025-10-12 19:09:19.497438;b45495ca636b6ffdb2f47b290694a69a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001847.soc;1847;2025-10-12 19:09:19.508824;3dfe3966d028edb4a08960f11c73ed58;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001848.soc;1848;2025-10-12 19:09:19.524573;a7c0be3d93ac0abe68b536665c9513e7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001849.soc;1849;2025-10-12 19:09:19.524573;9c00340d94e7806a743c12d69d0cc906;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001850.soc;1850;2025-10-12 19:09:19.540476;6d69687b528b58c01c85242ffd1d3a7c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001851.soc;1851;2025-10-12 19:09:19.540476;0537015c39f97079025f254f1d12d5c4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001852.soc;1852;2025-10-12 19:09:19.540476;750804750fc39d1ee8c90b496638a370;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001853.soc;1853;2025-10-12 19:09:19.540476;9a39d118b9afc95f4e523c3dc7569055;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001854.soc;1854;2025-10-12 19:09:19.540476;ae98dffbf77ab60b1cbd60ce87206695;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001855.soc;1855;2025-10-12 19:09:19.540476;4e1be5509def0c31f134a94aed27aeb0;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001856.soc;1856;2025-10-12 19:09:19.540476;92b44dec0465532ec1a318f8927eceba;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001857.soc;1857;2025-10-12 19:09:19.556151;d3f0ada97c9696200ad3447b50b84df1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001858.soc;1858;2025-10-12 19:09:19.556151;38f34fa44d934f933d599dde4cee7da6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001859.soc;1859;2025-10-12 19:09:19.556151;c0c4f995c393ac41d61647a38f2505f6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001860.soc;1860;2025-10-12 19:09:19.556151;b4649c621145235818c1a9ca9fe4a74a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001861.soc;1861;2025-10-12 19:09:19.556151;8c0a3ca4791751386b95aacfb0559ac5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001862.soc;1862;2025-10-12 19:09:19.556151;177b0f005ba126a76ba111941f931b79;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001863.soc;1863;2025-10-12 19:09:19.572149;4a6d5387f55ef5e5a0f2aa272c5ef430;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001864.soc;1864;2025-10-12 19:09:19.572149;dac7cc44321df2cee6b3bb5a833041d5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001865.soc;1865;2025-10-12 19:09:19.572149;ac22be4e89f2f44a52631dd40ccf5cbb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001866.soc;1866;2025-10-12 19:09:19.572149;a7014558419860a8713446e182f7700d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001867.soc;1867;2025-10-12 19:09:19.587951;d6ef5d9652e143919e05b1e5b7f67271;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001868.soc;1868;2025-10-12 19:09:19.587951;01e552a4d21a20fee3a797cdb4a4be91;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001869.soc;1869;2025-10-12 19:09:19.587951;0ee8a0e32d2afd74be1a67f56162265d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001870.soc;1870;2025-10-12 19:09:19.603646;ab38d5a47ffa198113fe6275e557dcf9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001871.soc;1871;2025-10-12 19:09:19.603646;dab9561a50addb7743f7c591b866fc7b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001872.soc;1872;2025-10-12 19:09:19.603646;2499f6a1beeb7cc3ee8cdd39a98debf9;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001873.soc;1873;2025-10-12 19:09:19.603646;d238a7492eea52d8768c1b7f1055a829;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001874.soc;1874;2025-10-12 19:09:19.619457;08f55b6b664b5871bce0bed72bcdebe5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001875.soc;1875;2025-10-12 19:09:19.619457;3d1c39f7b279c13f12af7825222497f5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001876.soc;1876;2025-10-12 19:09:19.619457;b9075e4efcb2430d0393733fe3f34568;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001877.soc;1877;2025-10-12 19:09:19.619457;fd0f7bfd20a2e843b9048f2fe7cd7d4b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001878.soc;1878;2025-10-12 19:09:19.651221;01eb8ea0ad3780e12588115996f8a768;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001879.soc;1879;2025-10-12 19:09:19.651221;3daf3c70873baeae79dcc833b9fdc131;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001880.soc;1880;2025-10-12 19:09:19.651221;f796c5031e8e17eb074c9899efe6f0fd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001881.soc;1881;2025-10-12 19:09:19.670442;e8bb161c1a115b6715e815ec62575353;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001882.soc;1882;2025-10-12 19:09:19.670442;7b0167661a6c2a70d81ff12c5cc3ce39;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001883.soc;1883;2025-10-12 19:09:19.670442;921164277a0babff72a2b3a144690759;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001884.soc;1884;2025-10-12 19:09:19.670442;d0c881174474a201ae7d00b6f18485de;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001885.soc;1885;2025-10-12 19:09:19.698754;09b371f6904e2d66452278d684a5163b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001886.soc;1886;2025-10-12 19:09:19.698754;20e3258f11bb62bb76bbc9f42386d48f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001887.soc;1887;2025-10-12 19:09:19.698754;ad125c768740db88fce9e7ca28b6ec68;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001888.soc;1888;2025-10-12 19:09:19.714616;5b6b2c45c24c6dfc2079a3c3063713e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001889.soc;1889;2025-10-12 19:09:19.714616;4d3388c332418b553efbf7cff10792a0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001890.soc;1890;2025-10-12 19:09:19.714616;5e6d30f0efd38a4c0651896009a9ba1d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001891.soc;1891;2025-10-12 19:09:19.714616;6e414f4cac0820128f1331585f9e1e8a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001892.soc;1892;2025-10-12 19:09:19.730401;c1e37bafaee9c466dd073409be570910;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001893.soc;1893;2025-10-12 19:09:19.730401;bfd3602395ac18569910fb0726406e1d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001894.soc;1894;2025-10-12 19:09:19.746034;58b9e0cd77b9498b3b99533a91a1db5c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001895.soc;1895;2025-10-12 19:09:19.746034;30da5dd1fc9c03ca6ee4bb2772d0876a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001896.soc;1896;2025-10-12 19:09:19.761762;002e90853c39c27858c6cf53f102f516;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001897.soc;1897;2025-10-12 19:09:19.761762;07b7cdb37bc036569c7463016d8bae69;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001898.soc;1898;2025-10-12 19:09:19.761762;dc81250169353363ea12432872785460;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001899.soc;1899;2025-10-12 19:09:19.777587;e03dd94d982ffa90c7eec82336e281e5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001900.soc;1900;2025-10-12 19:09:19.777587;f2d02c77da71c9472eabb02d1aa424a6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001901.soc;1901;2025-10-12 19:09:19.793270;8ba50f2fb238e01715cc1d727482cf1a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001902.soc;1902;2025-10-12 19:09:19.808953;f79ec1801dbdcdcceff5858f6e079274;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001903.soc;1903;2025-10-12 19:09:19.808953;5bd32b3a6875d5bce1020f6d3c8259b5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001904.soc;1904;2025-10-12 19:09:19.808953;6586389e48d7549541fb37bd3ec11d9c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001905.soc;1905;2025-10-12 19:09:19.824803;4e443274290ae7799b296411c553f2d9;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001906.soc;1906;2025-10-12 19:09:19.824803;89713e46e278cebbdbd8e317934a0a82;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001907.soc;1907;2025-10-12 19:09:19.840452;e4584f949cb1baeb0c33f3276b5c9ce2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001908.soc;1908;2025-10-12 19:09:19.840452;cff0873630701c50c51900c3a52b56a4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001909.soc;1909;2025-10-12 19:09:19.840452;9e832bbda510ee7cdd4dd93d6fbd7b92;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001910.soc;1910;2025-10-12 19:09:19.840452;052ab75b9a4b408f7bbbabf53f452c3f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001911.soc;1911;2025-10-12 19:09:19.840452;2cdbcd33ba1952cf1a0b763a0a7c81b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001912.soc;1912;2025-10-12 19:09:19.840452;6f4fd987d1e0c31741bf0a15d665adc3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001913.soc;1913;2025-10-12 19:09:19.840452;0336594a0d23e8b0f17c1bf9074d3d5b;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001914.soc;1914;2025-10-12 19:09:19.871913;a341712f52e4c425170cdfc105fa2351;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001915.soc;1915;2025-10-12 19:09:19.871913;3640512496090ecfbe3d3023ee5492ff;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001916.soc;1916;2025-10-12 19:09:19.871913;4ab0da61bbdc085fe140108d806e6efc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001917.soc;1917;2025-10-12 19:09:19.871913;4078dd74805a93dbd4f664e8e7552db5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001918.soc;1918;2025-10-12 19:09:19.897779;af9e66405e0b5591e9059ed845ae46ec;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001919.soc;1919;2025-10-12 19:09:19.903678;d2eafa6a2083432d0a96afc3475aa0ea;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001920.soc;1920;2025-10-12 19:09:19.903678;b61af987b98fd41f54c54f4cd38baf79;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001921.soc;1921;2025-10-12 19:09:19.903678;128136a654d8fd8ec848c9abbc0d23ef;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001922.soc;1922;2025-10-12 19:09:19.919458;bae72e0341bcbb2a0ac10c3ef10fcbc4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001923.soc;1923;2025-10-12 19:09:19.919458;a31c3232b54f41fc1785a4588679fa2c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001924.soc;1924;2025-10-12 19:09:19.919458;c71e9b17d9fa3efc79cd94e9c9aeedce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001925.soc;1925;2025-10-12 19:09:19.935503;6c2d05ebeebe0806917bb23503e13ea5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001926.soc;1926;2025-10-12 19:09:19.935503;9ff869c85eafe5a5bbc85aece3918080;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001927.soc;1927;2025-10-12 19:09:19.935503;374a2cb8f8e39d0caf7178a55803250a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001928.soc;1928;2025-10-12 19:09:19.935503;8736e351ee9fc6e621e2c4c6794a084f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001929.soc;1929;2025-10-12 19:09:19.935503;1046729382e95557738e28d131002977;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001930.soc;1930;2025-10-12 19:09:19.951181;fa32385418d5261bd1c42e78a773e3d1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001931.soc;1931;2025-10-12 19:09:19.951181;1470e62c94658a2005bbc050fbcdbd34;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001932.soc;1932;2025-10-12 19:09:19.951181;187d862109457ffbba5d09f70040aa6e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001933.soc;1933;2025-10-12 19:09:19.966869;544b0a69b605533100858167d16227b7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001934.soc;1934;2025-10-12 19:09:19.966869;31a0314e9d717b85e55dd16aef8ac963;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001935.soc;1935;2025-10-12 19:09:19.982513;17e9054628be2d0957d37e25ed2b00ad;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001936.soc;1936;2025-10-12 19:09:19.982513;a453e910c021b99c23d5d0873eefd0e0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001937.soc;1937;2025-10-12 19:09:19.982513;7b3d90be2d6fe1f88fd5077bcaff98b6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001938.soc;1938;2025-10-12 19:09:19.982513;67d0f1236a583c9be9490caf939fe9fc;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001939.soc;1939;2025-10-12 19:09:19.982513;6ce3b6626d06527cd9b9a0b6177972b5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001940.soc;1940;2025-10-12 19:09:19.997892;bfbedf463f94519b6c670f024f7fb24d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001941.soc;1941;2025-10-12 19:09:20.004809;e0a3829f6687ad48c16367e773ae24ec;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001942.soc;1942;2025-10-12 19:09:20.017597;2602c2756f443c6d58dd22e5986f745c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00001943.soc;1943;2025-10-12 19:09:20.017597;b680679152e507b2cbfcdb4bb4470695;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001944.soc;1944;2025-10-12 19:09:20.036038;4c5d49ed760c7fd8414493637236c864;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001945.soc;1945;2025-10-12 19:09:20.046525;cf43c03cc9abe330fadc9f86e0e03747;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001946.soc;1946;2025-10-12 19:09:20.046525;4bb3dcc982cfc60eae8757cee64f7d9c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001947.soc;1947;2025-10-12 19:09:20.058848;8e3787415525805ce139aff383c0051f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001948.soc;1948;2025-10-12 19:09:20.077501;5cf3f08a4a242862ea56e34e380d1d52;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001949.soc;1949;2025-10-12 19:09:20.092651;49ecadfe9c10c91a53e6df17c59451cc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001950.soc;1950;2025-10-12 19:09:20.099896;dcf67e8940de2518d327cbdc3958bc84;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001951.soc;1951;2025-10-12 19:09:20.101897;7dcb96ddc143cac75eedbe2d80a24160;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001952.soc;1952;2025-10-12 19:09:20.101897;5690584470fded17847883751a63c6c3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001953.soc;1953;2025-10-12 19:09:20.127561;7b9fcb76a8fdeba0b94ea2aaeda16fb5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001954.soc;1954;2025-10-12 19:09:20.132875;87744adc1ce0815222b4326c0d7c07b6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001955.soc;1955;2025-10-12 19:09:20.134878;1d11ce0411ed45c0d0e0765a36ae01e0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001956.soc;1956;2025-10-12 19:09:20.138882;5b761a981d33d0b6012aefe879485db3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001957.soc;1957;2025-10-12 19:09:20.139891;2919fc299be6b9d38a2ae9d285af375e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001958.soc;1958;2025-10-12 19:09:20.144995;2383300d588d5e5b91d3f2f561e12fe4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001959.soc;1959;2025-10-12 19:09:20.144995;4a25e7f2d9eaf31cdc06cd1b60b11fa8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001960.soc;1960;2025-10-12 19:09:20.150449;714f6c687333a120140418c307e47a1b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001961.soc;1961;2025-10-12 19:09:20.154031;caa6de37a61a6f3e49b6578c9af77cf7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001962.soc;1962;2025-10-12 19:09:20.155767;55e8a9dc810db673355b05deb2b5de24;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001963.soc;1963;2025-10-12 19:09:20.155767;c17def0716fb797594d7eebed7a03a55;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001964.soc;1964;2025-10-12 19:09:20.155767;8ec79af9338d54eccb947f03b1d31fc2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001965.soc;1965;2025-10-12 19:09:20.171625;20ab42aaed926241d51cc9723281e7fd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001966.soc;1966;2025-10-12 19:09:20.171625;59d61343118aa0dd1b98301093a053dc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001967.soc;1967;2025-10-12 19:09:20.171625;ccb9a8838b47127171f739ad4da5b8d2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001968.soc;1968;2025-10-12 19:09:20.187257;5ed74b4ec2be17c17ebc910ca3223591;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001969.soc;1969;2025-10-12 19:09:20.187257;b7e50f20a3e29d49916bcb90cb6438d9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001970.soc;1970;2025-10-12 19:09:20.187257;5a7aa03d75d1df264fb30071f10f9bb9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001971.soc;1971;2025-10-12 19:09:20.187257;a4154f013650cc1ad2ee028191388a5b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001972.soc;1972;2025-10-12 19:09:20.202923;db662af6a864e40de9e43a550e39df7f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001973.soc;1973;2025-10-12 19:09:20.202923;168e9938f3f36db67c8192a9116b3ee9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001974.soc;1974;2025-10-12 19:09:20.202923;3ea0cf2250fef25b38624c5db690c461;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001975.soc;1975;2025-10-12 19:09:20.202923;f264b291c962641e163f700773603433;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001976.soc;1976;2025-10-12 19:09:20.218822;c3bf7efd952ad16a6e5c1e476eb0ca47;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001977.soc;1977;2025-10-12 19:09:20.218822;02605e408b56546175828e77ef89fcb2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00001978.soc;1978;2025-10-12 19:09:20.218822;8afec71a09a1be478701c4b4e4b58a22;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001979.soc;1979;2025-10-12 19:09:20.218822;149e1477d15a68787f089cb838213268;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001980.soc;1980;2025-10-12 19:09:20.218822;1d39ffac5de5a5c353504f8e9fe655b1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001981.soc;1981;2025-10-12 19:09:20.234834;21c81cbc9652ca46ee906a83cd336470;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001982.soc;1982;2025-10-12 19:09:20.234834;dcac6890696c8c4684e3acc7d83cf74d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001983.soc;1983;2025-10-12 19:09:20.234834;83348f7d0813eb54882e7999e48bb3a6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001984.soc;1984;2025-10-12 19:09:20.234834;83552a5f54d2e6f4ac67d4c3fa2a1ec2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001985.soc;1985;2025-10-12 19:09:20.250484;33cb3daae3c18eb0cb32a0bd71a4ae89;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001986.soc;1986;2025-10-12 19:09:20.250484;23da113ac8190f646e51d7df8af672ac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001987.soc;1987;2025-10-12 19:09:20.250484;9f53bebac6d43eed9c09ee8ece4d0bfc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001988.soc;1988;2025-10-12 19:09:20.250484;b0206a71bcbef8be87ef7e903002fdc1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001989.soc;1989;2025-10-12 19:09:20.250484;b8e5b483ec9794eb1ac4d03ee0627d8a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00001990.soc;1990;2025-10-12 19:09:20.250484;94d7079b1ea267e70c6ee6e0b0223944;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001991.soc;1991;2025-10-12 19:09:20.250484;1522b1950b6b803371b6ce519cfe9c11;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00001992.soc;1992;2025-10-12 19:09:20.266136;41587ed55f247f5a60064eb841c7478c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001993.soc;1993;2025-10-12 19:09:20.266136;adfa7c00b5999ccd3545c0b476b9f958;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00001994.soc;1994;2025-10-12 19:09:20.277180;c9d1ed7266e5910b5643db15a4b3fe3c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001995.soc;1995;2025-10-12 19:09:20.277180;17c199966c1e3ad971026173d674649c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00001996.soc;1996;2025-10-12 19:09:20.277180;226bea75110b3e0b4e8292e2b2c00c0e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001997.soc;1997;2025-10-12 19:09:20.292426;0ad2986e85af3a2494685833908e1054;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00001998.soc;1998;2025-10-12 19:09:20.292426;328d3a370129017ce5d693aaf66fa5f0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00001999.soc;1999;2025-10-12 19:09:20.297836;5251d74efe8a05203262ea08d6a5f93f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002000.soc;2000;2025-10-12 19:09:20.305150;8105adce4eacbbf7941292292e582a54;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002001.soc;2001;2025-10-12 19:09:20.310484;71e1362416dcfe950270e68cdb499b8a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002002.soc;2002;2025-10-12 19:09:20.310484;3f00a0f0f971b2c025e32e114dfbdba0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002003.soc;2003;2025-10-12 19:09:20.310484;572ab6edbf6e79259990c926c75d9eb2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002004.soc;2004;2025-10-12 19:09:20.310484;ae4553a642fd116cee8378ccb17aac57;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002005.soc;2005;2025-10-12 19:09:20.310484;a175407ba6f3c5355a5a2ac61a21fb96;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002006.soc;2006;2025-10-12 19:09:20.335008;37ba4ac3235e70ab25df68ef2703c101;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002007.soc;2007;2025-10-12 19:09:20.339012;2e48f60280ae9a5ccd31457bc366002d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002008.soc;2008;2025-10-12 19:09:20.343482;0349095954022d26b70597faa82cd7ac;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002009.soc;2009;2025-10-12 19:09:20.344079;59f61de0f87211dc78c957537da0dbeb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002010.soc;2010;2025-10-12 19:09:20.354288;0d998b275040468f177faf6058318940;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002011.soc;2011;2025-10-12 19:09:20.354288;9e5d84911bac96a29285eb6ad5c86278;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002012.soc;2012;2025-10-12 19:09:20.359275;d5a5cd69659aeb83a161393325b6a5e3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002013.soc;2013;2025-10-12 19:09:20.359275;985604ee489896b29cc1e4fe68554faf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002014.soc;2014;2025-10-12 19:09:20.359275;3e075c9eabf5e9bc25d84d437585a322;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002015.soc;2015;2025-10-12 19:09:20.359275;ba271e76531abc33dab5dfbc13c1ce66;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002016.soc;2016;2025-10-12 19:09:20.377105;375bfa39d1730b95006b9c3a29607251;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002017.soc;2017;2025-10-12 19:09:20.380204;a3a3c73afd7311576d731feae3ca73f2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002018.soc;2018;2025-10-12 19:09:20.385396;85eed28c8f737704fcef952a680b8168;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002019.soc;2019;2025-10-12 19:09:20.385396;dff1de5bbc89c659523c5ce14cd0e07c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002020.soc;2020;2025-10-12 19:09:20.394606;ed2e5e257089920350798fc62007f476;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002021.soc;2021;2025-10-12 19:09:20.394606;4880022102c65901b9907c1016317361;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002022.soc;2022;2025-10-12 19:09:20.410042;58a12632cf14c3b4c78f97a2e13817be;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002023.soc;2023;2025-10-12 19:09:20.410552;60b7fe2155e6f1d02f163399ff566dbb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002024.soc;2024;2025-10-12 19:09:20.410552;8bedd7f3ab36a06e402152fd064a181c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002025.soc;2025;2025-10-12 19:09:20.410552;6314dbb0b42d8a226e8f50cae013dd08;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002026.soc;2026;2025-10-12 19:09:20.425955;37cd556711b102d1a4d71081831db559;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002027.soc;2027;2025-10-12 19:09:20.425955;3e075a0a82f062deb1ad1ba153e45770;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002028.soc;2028;2025-10-12 19:09:20.425955;4aebf67191c841c75249d7fecc64ef41;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002029.soc;2029;2025-10-12 19:09:20.425955;b8ca388fb1241fe90f05d753f26ec04d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002030.soc;2030;2025-10-12 19:09:20.443674;66f9159eba07a2da1e529e989bd0dc16;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002031.soc;2031;2025-10-12 19:09:20.443674;ad493e8539c5802358c6e57b30e64c5a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002032.soc;2032;2025-10-12 19:09:20.443674;8380fa7c3e72885df4d0f7b8b2399d6c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002033.soc;2033;2025-10-12 19:09:20.443674;1e199220a7dc1ad007e1aa614f2fc2e6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002034.soc;2034;2025-10-12 19:09:20.443674;f4bff510a53a849df9a803e1cf74c70c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002035.soc;2035;2025-10-12 19:09:20.459081;fc24a43ae73bd657f65b8fddd6ed10a6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002036.soc;2036;2025-10-12 19:09:20.459081;1c42b754625a3b647fa7dbfd9ce04a3f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002037.soc;2037;2025-10-12 19:09:20.459081;d52cf36b42eb2d69e7bafade114cdf69;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002038.soc;2038;2025-10-12 19:09:20.475114;01968b53f3da62b69be3a6f6a4d0ddbd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002039.soc;2039;2025-10-12 19:09:20.475114;4f49c69f6b98f153457603c1812feac0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002040.soc;2040;2025-10-12 19:09:20.491081;21d52c31a34b97dde04d7363843b7190;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002041.soc;2041;2025-10-12 19:09:20.497830;1f501cbaa2e88e3a47c618d234edac9f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002042.soc;2042;2025-10-12 19:09:20.497830;800ffa3ffc0b82ef02c4728d04ed4565;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002043.soc;2043;2025-10-12 19:09:20.497830;47ecf528c171c54d3671b66c0998fef6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002044.soc;2044;2025-10-12 19:09:20.497830;0c5b150539c945e3f0ac69318b7244f2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002045.soc;2045;2025-10-12 19:09:20.506828;12af4477f7d4597edea221bde85648b1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002046.soc;2046;2025-10-12 19:09:20.506828;02951b0ff13ad4685bb97bd1e25803d2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002047.soc;2047;2025-10-12 19:09:20.506828;58d2410526faebf3af52ab4eb5415146;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002048.soc;2048;2025-10-12 19:09:20.522829;9c1ee882b3939462970d2702e8b4ba24;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002049.soc;2049;2025-10-12 19:09:20.522829;2b006005015ce7c33e68e31afdefd254;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002050.soc;2050;2025-10-12 19:09:20.554680;669d606ab5b4038ad5aa1c10ae33d9e4;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002051.soc;2051;2025-10-12 19:09:20.554680;8105db8350341d62b8e172c3999fd8fc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002052.soc;2052;2025-10-12 19:09:20.554680;77853e9c42ac4d8941dac4c10afeebdc;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002053.soc;2053;2025-10-12 19:09:20.554680;c1eb4744775226ff3996c4e8d382e41e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002054.soc;2054;2025-10-12 19:09:20.554680;d993e47b375fb3c15779ff5db6240bdc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002055.soc;2055;2025-10-12 19:09:20.570396;534eea7525357309f334f4f9a356f9b4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002056.soc;2056;2025-10-12 19:09:20.570396;66ae2377251e97fddff2d780fbf66f54;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002057.soc;2057;2025-10-12 19:09:20.577022;ced0344ef6c7c99dcbed4add94efdf70;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002058.soc;2058;2025-10-12 19:09:20.577022;a43a7a80e8d8128860372cea9a56d6d5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002059.soc;2059;2025-10-12 19:09:20.593810;ca1297403720417fd34dcc8fd2bd841a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002060.soc;2060;2025-10-12 19:09:20.599819;6318ca9fad74861904f85b35ca6942a1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002061.soc;2061;2025-10-12 19:09:20.599819;2032a7a0177e383f8bdeb77d2efef6e2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002062.soc;2062;2025-10-12 19:09:20.599819;394f389b8e9fa3daebb1fac4a9b4d565;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002063.soc;2063;2025-10-12 19:09:20.607777;9d01b339d069ae135a890f5d3f1f6cbd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002064.soc;2064;2025-10-12 19:09:20.623411;c6021acf67b70de2e3307852c93ba103;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002065.soc;2065;2025-10-12 19:09:20.623411;67645909f04db31215673e082cc370ed;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002066.soc;2066;2025-10-12 19:09:20.623411;5cf3098c09e83e37e5743a59f37c115e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002067.soc;2067;2025-10-12 19:09:20.639316;ff1d77dd86186fd46aed8394f8d3ed62;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002068.soc;2068;2025-10-12 19:09:20.643489;0ad04db47f3aa7794cdec2f7baa29c0e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002069.soc;2069;2025-10-12 19:09:20.643489;ca853976e522e3d0915b1269d9609f02;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002070.soc;2070;2025-10-12 19:09:20.655043;a6611ea3167e35b500a61d84697f18f5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002071.soc;2071;2025-10-12 19:09:20.670857;2c536b01eae8c60a200b86add67b10df;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002072.soc;2072;2025-10-12 19:09:20.670857;5e4813537e2f8025a09682b8196d3fb8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002073.soc;2073;2025-10-12 19:09:20.670857;36aadc468d3ffdee6150db0b84b9d3cb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002074.soc;2074;2025-10-12 19:09:20.686763;8f3b2b0db8c2d5b05404df4dd3dbd120;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002075.soc;2075;2025-10-12 19:09:20.686763;090bb82aaba52cbbbead241addfb319b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002076.soc;2076;2025-10-12 19:09:20.702617;32d097fae85220664b8d44ce958dbde2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002077.soc;2077;2025-10-12 19:09:20.702617;c01a4a189c861028d56268e9262eb7d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002078.soc;2078;2025-10-12 19:09:20.702617;bdf726ecabb7ca52063ded4945e7c1ce;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002079.soc;2079;2025-10-12 19:09:20.718388;f151524f14ad73ee14431760b0788116;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002080.soc;2080;2025-10-12 19:09:20.718388;6be1c9512d147a4c06da8daf3472d09d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002081.soc;2081;2025-10-12 19:09:20.734351;8071942221d5da25e84c3819d574adc6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002082.soc;2082;2025-10-12 19:09:20.743589;03b0312144eec783b7523020cfd24c78;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002083.soc;2083;2025-10-12 19:09:20.759639;9ecf0cb9a02453182bc9c61fe343c8f4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002084.soc;2084;2025-10-12 19:09:20.759639;81c87a224e2711590b117fcbe8245216;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002085.soc;2085;2025-10-12 19:09:20.759639;14e9a0d1b61b451a2af1be9b1fdfa7db;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002086.soc;2086;2025-10-12 19:09:20.759639;0a6c34a0899b6ae8a571fd70d4874289;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002087.soc;2087;2025-10-12 19:09:20.775407;875bbba8a1a29bf2a469d1796d58e36b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002088.soc;2088;2025-10-12 19:09:20.779968;52e164de8d0ae0ae40e048203365619f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002089.soc;2089;2025-10-12 19:09:20.779968;2f3dac91bf563824d008ce2bce7847b1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002090.soc;2090;2025-10-12 19:09:20.779968;1da559c9a1dfcec357c8ea068aa05679;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002091.soc;2091;2025-10-12 19:09:20.791213;aa36945c3d27024e0866b97e7453f2db;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002092.soc;2092;2025-10-12 19:09:20.793767;0994709fa011411b1acc13ad51ca456a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002093.soc;2093;2025-10-12 19:09:20.797952;ac74ad9b530a4e6945c5f9f4948debd2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002094.soc;2094;2025-10-12 19:09:20.797952;dc9082a28e86bcbe4807fb724713023e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002095.soc;2095;2025-10-12 19:09:20.797952;c0170026fd6b25837c7d0e750a77e220;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002096.soc;2096;2025-10-12 19:09:20.797952;d1f02b021292ce3284c59b4c665ebf73;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002097.soc;2097;2025-10-12 19:09:20.809949;a8cc1dd1d0da1bbd6696b1ac5bf48667;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002098.soc;2098;2025-10-12 19:09:20.809949;541869f2ca1c82d7560ad6da961070bb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002099.soc;2099;2025-10-12 19:09:20.809949;22e1d0616eae5da3a38e908898b00b33;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002100.soc;2100;2025-10-12 19:09:20.825283;2c2ab122c87520aca6eda7be77152af7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002101.soc;2101;2025-10-12 19:09:20.825283;2e53ca66ff8f5f21ca84b2950eed3d37;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002102.soc;2102;2025-10-12 19:09:20.825283;e267b9cd5169773c139a80ef3e78f900;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002103.soc;2103;2025-10-12 19:09:20.825283;106983487adf9478e19c66ad40c7ecc0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002104.soc;2104;2025-10-12 19:09:20.825283;2049453e2828aeddff9f4b16569c015d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002105.soc;2105;2025-10-12 19:09:20.841040;22eb7486f33d216c290b9444512bea5e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002106.soc;2106;2025-10-12 19:09:20.859041;7a0044b2a58faae808f212793881cb51;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002107.soc;2107;2025-10-12 19:09:20.860059;631ba34f71356454b446c6cda1117a56;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002108.soc;2108;2025-10-12 19:09:20.860059;e623c6f05d2aab3784e84980e60d1248;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002109.soc;2109;2025-10-12 19:09:20.860059;807121c925a036da14d544aac6d2fc0c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002110.soc;2110;2025-10-12 19:09:20.860059;9d061083347afc86371244923fc1aec3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002111.soc;2111;2025-10-12 19:09:20.860059;9e02664dcba6c998ffbb8cc04da53669;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002112.soc;2112;2025-10-12 19:09:20.876207;f00f73c788b5e24c7bab9b45e28e7c1e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002113.soc;2113;2025-10-12 19:09:20.876207;9de05a357856b316f1d1a99724aa4f77;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002114.soc;2114;2025-10-12 19:09:20.876207;9e2962a5e891c1429bde198976d9f620;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002115.soc;2115;2025-10-12 19:09:20.876207;03c6eb5fe85d3927a1ca4238c95e03d8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002116.soc;2116;2025-10-12 19:09:20.876207;c879b40eba29c6c36fc25c44e70dfc6e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002117.soc;2117;2025-10-12 19:09:20.891561;38d8f9c3089c4ebdf753f5c884b6f757;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002118.soc;2118;2025-10-12 19:09:20.898069;915e720423d62080a783cc42434a84d4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002119.soc;2119;2025-10-12 19:09:20.898069;55d68c185626e97ed8474c0eabd7cefa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002120.soc;2120;2025-10-12 19:09:20.907430;ec286b394296fe7902abf9595bcb4af0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002121.soc;2121;2025-10-12 19:09:20.910691;cb56ec888d9f230abf2d424712cd8519;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002122.soc;2122;2025-10-12 19:09:20.910691;cd33ed1589dc8d7d56d98590dc4aafc9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002123.soc;2123;2025-10-12 19:09:20.910691;ab645b2e427cb66f136400311dedf093;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002124.soc;2124;2025-10-12 19:09:20.910691;6383b24e2665c41763beba835f0738d2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002125.soc;2125;2025-10-12 19:09:20.926217;862ed0d824cb4c8a5c0577538a7a94c0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002126.soc;2126;2025-10-12 19:09:20.926217;2096f44446d58eddf73771a8390d7edb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002127.soc;2127;2025-10-12 19:09:20.926217;5bbc9c3047c086a7aae17f41191434d4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002128.soc;2128;2025-10-12 19:09:20.926217;8f3cbbd001f09f536cc0ba0e821d978b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002129.soc;2129;2025-10-12 19:09:20.941727;cae5bf854bc7a59930377a7639eb1a26;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002130.soc;2130;2025-10-12 19:09:20.941727;4c08f6e430e0b2ede94f4a327372d499;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002131.soc;2131;2025-10-12 19:09:20.941727;bf58d46f1bdaa671c92a74ce016f0892;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002132.soc;2132;2025-10-12 19:09:20.957467;ccc6d4e349abafc173e774188e2dac1a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002133.soc;2133;2025-10-12 19:09:20.959839;13ba4cded896d0a047965a94d1251ebc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002134.soc;2134;2025-10-12 19:09:20.959839;7583bffb32805efc09bbc5369c557faf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002135.soc;2135;2025-10-12 19:09:20.959839;12ef4fbe1c7293f3b5e5d3870af4ad7c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002136.soc;2136;2025-10-12 19:09:20.959839;9644ffd586ef1c5048ec70db5232a166;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002137.soc;2137;2025-10-12 19:09:20.978141;8478499508e10fcf87d36fb29f173e73;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002138.soc;2138;2025-10-12 19:09:20.978141;693b6ef58e75e8ee8c2fd1e68202f3d7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002139.soc;2139;2025-10-12 19:09:20.978141;127303f4641fed82e40e9de28a3fe181;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002140.soc;2140;2025-10-12 19:09:20.990893;67f179084b5a767e8b6e14306c1dede0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002141.soc;2141;2025-10-12 19:09:20.990893;79bb811b5e4a0a375c4f8cb559297a15;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002142.soc;2142;2025-10-12 19:09:20.998139;ee562079cafd248b8f07a5fabc50b605;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002143.soc;2143;2025-10-12 19:09:20.998139;28d07bff32384cec90ef9cf1db836b20;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002144.soc;2144;2025-10-12 19:09:21.006879;9c61243a13cb602aa05523406d0f1c8a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002145.soc;2145;2025-10-12 19:09:21.006879;005bae7db0470c0bc0606c7fcba21691;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002146.soc;2146;2025-10-12 19:09:21.006879;0fcd450efca376cc5d8e18ce5919b8b8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002147.soc;2147;2025-10-12 19:09:21.022762;d66eddf2af8de45642b2d57fc1a11533;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002148.soc;2148;2025-10-12 19:09:21.026286;4e8e73a0371b15fa2c29abc7194f0870;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002149.soc;2149;2025-10-12 19:09:21.026286;1a3c9735f1d0bc097593d54b02cd7a95;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002150.soc;2150;2025-10-12 19:09:21.038795;e077b7777d786a538f7f72c23550a372;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002151.soc;2151;2025-10-12 19:09:21.038795;d4c37d817695b4868a699d5041ef337c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002152.soc;2152;2025-10-12 19:09:21.070545;e8a7a90eed4667683286ee675cdffe67;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002153.soc;2153;2025-10-12 19:09:21.070545;da2ad2ad24cfddb553a56bb21331c446;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002154.soc;2154;2025-10-12 19:09:21.070545;c02e3dd88b5e955f1c92f388b0a5b2d1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002155.soc;2155;2025-10-12 19:09:21.070545;1eaa25230328c9b6faec0ac1270280cc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002156.soc;2156;2025-10-12 19:09:21.070545;65fd193f91aada79fe210856bc29a6f8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002157.soc;2157;2025-10-12 19:09:21.086446;a82583277741b78f8c170edd135b97ca;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002158.soc;2158;2025-10-12 19:09:21.086446;9411592df5163104663979fcf55e7254;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002159.soc;2159;2025-10-12 19:09:21.086446;7ea1854a2c9d7172f4d867687bb93c9c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002160.soc;2160;2025-10-12 19:09:21.086446;83478bc8041fdd66c4cb9b822237be76;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002161.soc;2161;2025-10-12 19:09:21.102206;3e075c70eb1a06eb3ee26069ffc3f532;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002162.soc;2162;2025-10-12 19:09:21.102206;65011ea9fff2e9ff85abff2e23ce691c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002163.soc;2163;2025-10-12 19:09:21.102206;a0cee7aa22d321e2394a376c5c8c01b4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002164.soc;2164;2025-10-12 19:09:21.102206;f4cc2412ad4fa8248c7800c9b0fb1984;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002165.soc;2165;2025-10-12 19:09:21.102206;907ac2842fad0b5582b33ee570aae240;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002166.soc;2166;2025-10-12 19:09:21.122858;768b6aa96c421bc42beeb52ddb73e2d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002167.soc;2167;2025-10-12 19:09:21.122858;284713a880ed3c6f30fe31b7e2fe997b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002168.soc;2168;2025-10-12 19:09:21.133715;2ae35302536227f607f5ee7eaf0fc9d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002169.soc;2169;2025-10-12 19:09:21.133715;96f461deab287cea57d63a9144e15889;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002170.soc;2170;2025-10-12 19:09:21.133715;445d32a7731c8727f68faadfc7249e4a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002171.soc;2171;2025-10-12 19:09:21.133715;f2699b2c368b45d396416a6b216a6ea5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002172.soc;2172;2025-10-12 19:09:21.149353;37cefb57dc0b3d4f2b1f4fac4e9af2a9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002173.soc;2173;2025-10-12 19:09:21.165275;84c3bf9260797fb7b86b10ea489fabfb;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002174.soc;2174;2025-10-12 19:09:21.165275;079d0cf71d5462eb8815033ba124d008;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002175.soc;2175;2025-10-12 19:09:21.165275;84e7304fa24a74ce64c57d988c8af08e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002176.soc;2176;2025-10-12 19:09:21.180966;f016d73ff642bf8575f2dd3c5df7e8f2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002177.soc;2177;2025-10-12 19:09:21.180966;eef4c508bec7ed6485735c0ca0a0ea56;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002178.soc;2178;2025-10-12 19:09:21.200631;906af41ecf43300bf66c29ac3b0f6f69;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002179.soc;2179;2025-10-12 19:09:21.202632;b116aae432e53979fb7a76fc245b0db2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002180.soc;2180;2025-10-12 19:09:21.202632;7b4f888c0e318f052ae687fc1aabf058;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002181.soc;2181;2025-10-12 19:09:21.212466;ad4f673a1fe1ffd6287b2674f9c52028;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002182.soc;2182;2025-10-12 19:09:21.212466;2befdab6a98c45ac229b0d92c10ff7fe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002183.soc;2183;2025-10-12 19:09:21.228158;1674fc1d2ef99c70595a0cf0561f1864;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002184.soc;2184;2025-10-12 19:09:21.228158;ad95373789d1adfba9a32280fbbde42f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002185.soc;2185;2025-10-12 19:09:21.228158;cc03f13ddbfaf0f26fa759c7cb7cf4b5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002186.soc;2186;2025-10-12 19:09:21.244101;9622ede79587cb330422039786e77246;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002187.soc;2187;2025-10-12 19:09:21.244101;8cb07c3c7161d24c02c34ffb2193a9c0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002188.soc;2188;2025-10-12 19:09:21.244101;8dff425b6b3299bc8ce3cd5c179f25b0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002189.soc;2189;2025-10-12 19:09:21.259990;72f5cc6db4403fc335ee103662ef2824;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002190.soc;2190;2025-10-12 19:09:21.259990;2deb79eb4edd2fcffc5ad456fedd98b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002191.soc;2191;2025-10-12 19:09:21.259990;7efbe96f5ad642f3e6a549d766d66b2e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002192.soc;2192;2025-10-12 19:09:21.275667;7d5bc0476503212bb801d42419153c4c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002193.soc;2193;2025-10-12 19:09:21.275667;71ec23ea892819a488db7fad657853a7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002194.soc;2194;2025-10-12 19:09:21.291313;c1805f369c487b0ebdc614d6b383c6b6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002195.soc;2195;2025-10-12 19:09:21.291313;f8cefce2620e614d856c292dbe8fb8e4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002196.soc;2196;2025-10-12 19:09:21.298795;9b13b78943949bd914fa90ef8e4ebc3d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002197.soc;2197;2025-10-12 19:09:21.306955;bc42fc397c4de9397d162f424c9758f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002198.soc;2198;2025-10-12 19:09:21.322798;023ac1b57d7908dec6b1e13342889f8f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002199.soc;2199;2025-10-12 19:09:21.322798;db2a59a984a51b0147cfcdccbcd9403a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002200.soc;2200;2025-10-12 19:09:21.338476;06f932811c420647b157b6529dfdc4ae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002201.soc;2201;2025-10-12 19:09:21.338476;114fe05046034fceef5050a31ab5c4fe;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002202.soc;2202;2025-10-12 19:09:21.354273;9ebb0df2f061117804400655b128dcf1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002203.soc;2203;2025-10-12 19:09:21.354273;75d5feaf580e41ec5d6bc06cc29740ff;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002204.soc;2204;2025-10-12 19:09:21.354273;6f1afc118081f9542403b17a52045a61;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002205.soc;2205;2025-10-12 19:09:21.354273;502dea524733977fe281215329d0dbba;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002206.soc;2206;2025-10-12 19:09:21.354273;178e77fae5e9ce11a0ab5fd82530a6f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002207.soc;2207;2025-10-12 19:09:21.354273;59e84ff7678b75c93f009eccccb8c36e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002208.soc;2208;2025-10-12 19:09:21.369934;dfed8b9cbabd73f882714d2e64ba8b0b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002209.soc;2209;2025-10-12 19:09:21.369934;5a6d20761122e5f9a62653dc7f56ced4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002210.soc;2210;2025-10-12 19:09:21.369934;161d4ec81fd46459e74f98ddd2a8f117;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002211.soc;2211;2025-10-12 19:09:21.369934;cfa4322a35146bacc5c6e4ca9375fe68;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002212.soc;2212;2025-10-12 19:09:21.385763;f54c43c197ae4770491e8d416e8bd8dd;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002213.soc;2213;2025-10-12 19:09:21.385763;a9caf543104312333070ba5ae11de24b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002214.soc;2214;2025-10-12 19:09:21.398870;ddcbde2ee2d94238240e766adf986a74;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002215.soc;2215;2025-10-12 19:09:21.401409;7d8fc9e8c96dad8b39df7f5fa7439cc3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002216.soc;2216;2025-10-12 19:09:21.401409;558a793022449c6d9fbbf1d838fe06e0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002217.soc;2217;2025-10-12 19:09:21.401409;c9c124d9195aa83b276e0ccb9302686e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002218.soc;2218;2025-10-12 19:09:21.417395;93a27dea1dfaf02a63d5fa77896efb02;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002219.soc;2219;2025-10-12 19:09:21.417395;38299d7944c2cd9ad5a6e08ff4236966;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002220.soc;2220;2025-10-12 19:09:21.417395;39371624b8ffdb18c3e884bf3cd588b4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002221.soc;2221;2025-10-12 19:09:21.433130;de0db61174543eee4d1aee93f49ec39a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002222.soc;2222;2025-10-12 19:09:21.433130;5cc6469a924d3f47574ea17980b9c97d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002223.soc;2223;2025-10-12 19:09:21.449087;3927652dcc7eb3575b0d1928637d9da5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002224.soc;2224;2025-10-12 19:09:21.449087;fdc2e50b231e6d910d72be8deace6099;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002225.soc;2225;2025-10-12 19:09:21.449087;ab56202be00b1cbd2a1c9497bb38ad5b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002226.soc;2226;2025-10-12 19:09:21.465154;c3ed7563727666b0cf3de592d7facbb5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002227.soc;2227;2025-10-12 19:09:21.480812;89f9a177f7052d520c71a7f02b51f1dc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002228.soc;2228;2025-10-12 19:09:21.480812;194bc5328dbafd596b2454c1d9e8fe56;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002229.soc;2229;2025-10-12 19:09:21.480812;bbdc1ebac7b9865c8b58da7aaa7730d4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002230.soc;2230;2025-10-12 19:09:21.496526;d1e2108ef74b6828c8065c5940aaf83a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002231.soc;2231;2025-10-12 19:09:21.512350;a53c692702b8f44b3c824288a3cfbc0f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002232.soc;2232;2025-10-12 19:09:21.512350;037b3b77d481a6d2970097722978b34e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002233.soc;2233;2025-10-12 19:09:21.512350;9cca4b251eff829b7f893efabf47b8cb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002234.soc;2234;2025-10-12 19:09:21.528021;b2a3b1c2a0f7b8cf8fc5b778d0cf3855;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002235.soc;2235;2025-10-12 19:09:21.528021;103d1db31b7d551f95cb2cc4f3e7122c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002236.soc;2236;2025-10-12 19:09:21.528021;6443e141ac9d973f786fce8f9adf40dd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002237.soc;2237;2025-10-12 19:09:21.528021;426112ca49245c9d8e54cb3ebda1fcfb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002238.soc;2238;2025-10-12 19:09:21.528021;77db605f94a82e1ca3eae9135d794ea5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002239.soc;2239;2025-10-12 19:09:21.544136;4b6e351b00a16e24c6f55a7d6b426b8f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002240.soc;2240;2025-10-12 19:09:21.544136;3446cc335aee49a1710d95906d182e3b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002241.soc;2241;2025-10-12 19:09:21.560012;aeb1291fb4b1ae5445230cf18af79d4a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002242.soc;2242;2025-10-12 19:09:21.560012;0b8f97aa418156098574da62450aa9cc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002243.soc;2243;2025-10-12 19:09:21.592281;13b4ef8792b8c36537b13b8f95e4de70;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002244.soc;2244;2025-10-12 19:09:21.599229;aa0a8181f58a0f71f5edbccf70307066;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002245.soc;2245;2025-10-12 19:09:21.625987;b4ced2c64c338a7a3de26278a5b9dbe3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002246.soc;2246;2025-10-12 19:09:21.625987;44b88e6f0a29a8f773d6d267417211ad;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002247.soc;2247;2025-10-12 19:09:21.625987;4cf6c4c416f257b65ffeed35c3b18f33;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002248.soc;2248;2025-10-12 19:09:21.625987;fa2460c145a4ab5b3d2338b4494202fe;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002249.soc;2249;2025-10-12 19:09:21.641623;ad8e88075a55f2946f8eb2db171ef26a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002250.soc;2250;2025-10-12 19:09:21.641623;dd262ef354dc60e960c6843b6b2fb458;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002251.soc;2251;2025-10-12 19:09:21.657264;a920d1a7f327605fd84db6e3c7507985;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002252.soc;2252;2025-10-12 19:09:21.659292;79fafab967a389c19a00d30199b1f8f7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002253.soc;2253;2025-10-12 19:09:21.659292;b8b1363dda0c2ad42096132ed499bfa7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002254.soc;2254;2025-10-12 19:09:21.659292;f42ed0fc462917c17749f078d2e3a851;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002255.soc;2255;2025-10-12 19:09:21.674925;b23c7739915a32f991437c73c57997fe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002256.soc;2256;2025-10-12 19:09:21.674925;481a1ba3e9c90799d44932b7e474fa47;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002257.soc;2257;2025-10-12 19:09:21.674925;54ff97a54bf3f92c41867ff41fd5f227;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002258.soc;2258;2025-10-12 19:09:21.674925;5445d98260bcf230faca65154412ffc0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002259.soc;2259;2025-10-12 19:09:21.690938;8b2214e4731872756d1a1bd5f3bf53cb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002260.soc;2260;2025-10-12 19:09:21.690938;29c95519409ddb989c0e68fd496d032f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002261.soc;2261;2025-10-12 19:09:21.690938;ffd88a45191825ced5b26f906b3c568a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002262.soc;2262;2025-10-12 19:09:21.706928;e7f5ebbf8a22828b6c2ccec1baeb881c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002263.soc;2263;2025-10-12 19:09:21.722733;a395d7fbb39839e2c78c317b2aa2ed25;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002264.soc;2264;2025-10-12 19:09:21.722733;17b50ac58703899dceac62540b0510cc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002265.soc;2265;2025-10-12 19:09:21.722733;f4be5e263be012ef268d59eca7516af1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002266.soc;2266;2025-10-12 19:09:21.722733;a92a65497d8f85432213874940c899dc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002267.soc;2267;2025-10-12 19:09:21.738674;5b4f244a2c570bf046c7132f1165e96a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002268.soc;2268;2025-10-12 19:09:21.738674;5fd83a70219eeba7456e8d6be45a32de;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002269.soc;2269;2025-10-12 19:09:21.738674;1a1d3ad1f77dc09e4ff079342fa3c7ed;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002270.soc;2270;2025-10-12 19:09:21.754343;00974117eabc2158669ec4e3cc2411ad;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002271.soc;2271;2025-10-12 19:09:21.754343;e7d975f001678ad019d232e64b3d7371;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002272.soc;2272;2025-10-12 19:09:21.754343;ce77d0f902889ed88bd8e62fe41c5dce;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002273.soc;2273;2025-10-12 19:09:21.775833;fe38901b47ae18a02a1f30f59a8373bd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002274.soc;2274;2025-10-12 19:09:21.799407;ae2d12c817e5857007092f915b4ba8a5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002275.soc;2275;2025-10-12 19:09:21.799407;8c1e262cb1c442be5b17143a11d3c687;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002276.soc;2276;2025-10-12 19:09:21.799407;1979e57a1afb6ed9d737e4af0662d72b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002277.soc;2277;2025-10-12 19:09:21.809195;e2c83d31f0a16d44fd6857a1b74bc6ac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002278.soc;2278;2025-10-12 19:09:21.824489;1ccb7d29abc279fbca613befec84d4a5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002279.soc;2279;2025-10-12 19:09:21.824489;d56a01ab5ce58f4bf6dc963cb40430f4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002280.soc;2280;2025-10-12 19:09:21.824489;959e2047889caaa25e9266f014dddd57;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002281.soc;2281;2025-10-12 19:09:21.824489;38a1f9281dadf74c6243408a21be33fc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002282.soc;2282;2025-10-12 19:09:21.824489;74b6ac2b7fb8066760bb3fdea9459b18;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002283.soc;2283;2025-10-12 19:09:21.840236;72b5833b73fa6afff4d3fc223795caeb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002284.soc;2284;2025-10-12 19:09:21.843084;83ce27b7807e182c111424286f7f2fea;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002285.soc;2285;2025-10-12 19:09:21.843084;ed4e9c837625e3266319f94da3a82f0b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002286.soc;2286;2025-10-12 19:09:21.843084;bbb11f790157993cd225bc26271b8031;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002287.soc;2287;2025-10-12 19:09:21.843084;cabe67eff04fc0586783799ff5f66fd6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002288.soc;2288;2025-10-12 19:09:21.859157;3545a2caea7167ea60c78d9b95d824e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002289.soc;2289;2025-10-12 19:09:21.859157;9a6504b4e03c316cd18609fdb4afbf5e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002290.soc;2290;2025-10-12 19:09:21.859157;9c1c1ee9df316693d1f91f11b9c0126a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002291.soc;2291;2025-10-12 19:09:21.859157;5c5c9f570bf8897994260acfd0fd6b67;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002292.soc;2292;2025-10-12 19:09:21.874226;c762c8b6ed83b5b2d4d69e35919feb73;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002293.soc;2293;2025-10-12 19:09:21.874226;852a28c8cb72676e605ca841cbdc3f02;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002294.soc;2294;2025-10-12 19:09:21.890039;362c6553039a93701cf3ee7dc640402d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002295.soc;2295;2025-10-12 19:09:21.892389;2dd7d84c3347e08c77bbd817b433ed3b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002296.soc;2296;2025-10-12 19:09:21.892389;e5326f4e16c19a53b7248c4164bcbcf2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002297.soc;2297;2025-10-12 19:09:21.899500;32fd3dabd2a2ac461f117be7a2bd8df2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002298.soc;2298;2025-10-12 19:09:21.899500;a6ea2a46f3725bf507839aeeaae62f9f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002299.soc;2299;2025-10-12 19:09:21.907927;88e587b4022af5e55d5d65013425e572;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002300.soc;2300;2025-10-12 19:09:21.907927;72a9617c1b80f1dce22fb71f2346d331;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002301.soc;2301;2025-10-12 19:09:21.907927;4a6ce927c2de45467290bb065ea1e947;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002302.soc;2302;2025-10-12 19:09:21.907927;d588b6b90345dcf85745a983c98df336;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002303.soc;2303;2025-10-12 19:09:21.925692;a3a338164093cf919a0e60f546ce9308;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002304.soc;2304;2025-10-12 19:09:21.925692;e4085f6f98466fc3a0eb8c18678878ed;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002305.soc;2305;2025-10-12 19:09:21.925692;be3a14d3ac6f2ded1a9539100da9e1a3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002306.soc;2306;2025-10-12 19:09:21.941236;ba9393733a32ad8a0f0fb4976a456c76;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002307.soc;2307;2025-10-12 19:09:21.941236;91251d600114ef2f492ffb8482148b21;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002308.soc;2308;2025-10-12 19:09:21.941236;e173228f04571e710a58559bf42447c4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002309.soc;2309;2025-10-12 19:09:21.952127;b40fb339458c42ff26fddd36afb52ba6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002310.soc;2310;2025-10-12 19:09:21.957198;56400f8575290da5b0b27f30d7bd0a21;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002311.soc;2311;2025-10-12 19:09:21.959330;4cb42d3c2885d986f5ea74f06bcb4202;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002312.soc;2312;2025-10-12 19:09:21.974572;e6e82c6ef6c2f6780aefb9661bcb88f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002313.soc;2313;2025-10-12 19:09:21.974572;5ba5cdf9771ab5bba885951a42682e44;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002314.soc;2314;2025-10-12 19:09:21.990639;5f54037fed3e8bc24c1daa2b15835757;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002315.soc;2315;2025-10-12 19:09:21.999343;71a90014a8240b99c280ed82f10a13d4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002316.soc;2316;2025-10-12 19:09:22.006467;cebba7467353fab0cbd97243a55b11be;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002317.soc;2317;2025-10-12 19:09:22.026533;d82585eb360623d80c04b600206e48ad;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002318.soc;2318;2025-10-12 19:09:22.036074;ed32f933d06eff8f0448f07e87206569;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002319.soc;2319;2025-10-12 19:09:22.038122;d997031290e5b1a1299ed9f2dc107cad;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002320.soc;2320;2025-10-12 19:09:22.038122;78f08c4c6e07df6686b831a952af513c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002321.soc;2321;2025-10-12 19:09:22.041399;0531948b6be7ac08d488e89220d837ab;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002322.soc;2322;2025-10-12 19:09:22.041399;62227a74a6c7dd44ac8f05e572e52aed;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002323.soc;2323;2025-10-12 19:09:22.041399;4025211d5783ab601ff152554a080e60;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002324.soc;2324;2025-10-12 19:09:22.054219;5755dd39a1b2584396a63c987abafbad;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002325.soc;2325;2025-10-12 19:09:22.054219;90c68f1f5c99d0cbd25ead015d33c38e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002326.soc;2326;2025-10-12 19:09:22.070246;783377e41925d36d6ad8a8a669d39b2f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002327.soc;2327;2025-10-12 19:09:22.070246;79aa143ef5d2ac7b6f1bce204e86bb5f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002328.soc;2328;2025-10-12 19:09:22.070246;78052ffeaa16f2923cd05320d45d75e1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002329.soc;2329;2025-10-12 19:09:22.086313;da583dc0824880fabe979bf0cf6304fb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002330.soc;2330;2025-10-12 19:09:22.099401;f94c7a72a1841994f0bac2e54c5dd858;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002331.soc;2331;2025-10-12 19:09:22.101944;4c4bb7e8ab0e01712c98e820c73ecb81;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002332.soc;2332;2025-10-12 19:09:22.101944;00fa4a8f7184f1c59ea74fe130416c03;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002333.soc;2333;2025-10-12 19:09:22.117981;168ebe9e2e20ee6508f5481ab91a80d2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002334.soc;2334;2025-10-12 19:09:22.125606;9071f6cebf8e092c88019f1e4426dfc7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002335.soc;2335;2025-10-12 19:09:22.125606;b172891d0d9826d444f82150617e8d85;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002336.soc;2336;2025-10-12 19:09:22.125606;2cb383db02247061e715273fd7e71d9f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002337.soc;2337;2025-10-12 19:09:22.125606;9d7d80bd038d90a47fa3b95d218d6c8e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002338.soc;2338;2025-10-12 19:09:22.156555;657bec2167e6c27ad286346c57524eb9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002339.soc;2339;2025-10-12 19:09:22.156555;bec0cbc5b5edd5824af64cc76ee07f26;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002340.soc;2340;2025-10-12 19:09:22.172674;6cb70e71cbaa6a81616b69487c51ecfd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002341.soc;2341;2025-10-12 19:09:22.172674;16da77740880da78e9dcc14d1d1b3e0d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002342.soc;2342;2025-10-12 19:09:22.172674;7a24075044711c78fc0a91ef5abdee48;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002343.soc;2343;2025-10-12 19:09:22.188308;87bcbc0bcde2a5f5cc0dddd04b157ee1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002344.soc;2344;2025-10-12 19:09:22.203987;0541f4f63f04ff755a0bb0dae4457d57;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002345.soc;2345;2025-10-12 19:09:22.203987;5822278615fa9f6d7ef596bbf8b7a42a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002346.soc;2346;2025-10-12 19:09:22.220031;89253b1cc43f97ff1d33f50c924b8965;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002347.soc;2347;2025-10-12 19:09:22.235682;916de2ac7034f461ade139dca354dac1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002348.soc;2348;2025-10-12 19:09:22.235682;73023bc8c87cf1f59214a6c77a37d666;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002349.soc;2349;2025-10-12 19:09:22.235682;036d21d85cc478da0b6637d17aa83fd1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002350.soc;2350;2025-10-12 19:09:22.235682;1addc8b6d6e7feddf37cc340bcd85cbb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002351.soc;2351;2025-10-12 19:09:22.255423;0871ec29853033c9e518fd0ae149f31b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002352.soc;2352;2025-10-12 19:09:22.257281;bd647d3088b21e6c29cdd722c9f756e9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002353.soc;2353;2025-10-12 19:09:22.259284;6b4f7517c74b9d267f8b73ee9b3a7c89;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002354.soc;2354;2025-10-12 19:09:22.267196;52faaa18158c1faa5f02672aa03cb909;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002355.soc;2355;2025-10-12 19:09:22.267196;aa3a449be3101e1ebf9a642d9749d56d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002356.soc;2356;2025-10-12 19:09:22.267196;dc9b85b4897944d27ee7b7270a714843;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002357.soc;2357;2025-10-12 19:09:22.267196;e033223071c7b489641e5d4eee97946c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002358.soc;2358;2025-10-12 19:09:22.283148;c82199f3751a4abc27168155396be465;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002359.soc;2359;2025-10-12 19:09:22.299622;706c8ebc5a333f4807a7d7a770bba6fa;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002360.soc;2360;2025-10-12 19:09:22.301623;04901ffcb09ae08cd694caa5ad25888d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002361.soc;2361;2025-10-12 19:09:22.307627;e53dcae91419a34b3147ab4dcbccaac7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002362.soc;2362;2025-10-12 19:09:22.315132;164e0e4a9dd4f8e9e07add94d9228d68;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002363.soc;2363;2025-10-12 19:09:22.325371;bda43594bf2cf41136992eb6508c9047;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002364.soc;2364;2025-10-12 19:09:22.325371;c52c6cfc932e4d0494916ef3e8e2cd88;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002365.soc;2365;2025-10-12 19:09:22.325371;4df277e4d24b50db5cefbb5a1a3e8421;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002366.soc;2366;2025-10-12 19:09:22.325371;237c1818740775f495c2c7b8b6a8fa03;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002367.soc;2367;2025-10-12 19:09:22.325371;cef792d2a97de05f0bb038df02528d0e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002368.soc;2368;2025-10-12 19:09:22.340656;246a47297a8258115a197ce986827a75;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002369.soc;2369;2025-10-12 19:09:22.340656;b08cb65c1821e844f364c58d4c3a7464;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002370.soc;2370;2025-10-12 19:09:22.340656;d1a62bcb70e3835b3aa2300cbaecb550;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002371.soc;2371;2025-10-12 19:09:22.358782;c530ac22ac897211ea0586b32ee495cc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002372.soc;2372;2025-10-12 19:09:22.358782;43cb86f7025035cc020d8ac31f70f358;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002373.soc;2373;2025-10-12 19:09:22.362997;92e077ee5ad73d65c3bd4c5abce1ef98;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002374.soc;2374;2025-10-12 19:09:22.376244;d1f01bc763f8cdfd6ce32a6467bf89e3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002375.soc;2375;2025-10-12 19:09:22.376244;a0bafb79640053a02be505f1d2d9badf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002376.soc;2376;2025-10-12 19:09:22.390252;8dc8cdcdf4ae79917e2191987c145009;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002377.soc;2377;2025-10-12 19:09:22.390252;9ce20233a501e0704a2394f3c0da9e95;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002378.soc;2378;2025-10-12 19:09:22.390252;2207b0ab447124e70832c3e920e65ec7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002379.soc;2379;2025-10-12 19:09:22.390252;ffae9abbe17c1a39f453b79e434fb17c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002380.soc;2380;2025-10-12 19:09:22.399649;a59396f3bee32b77c9cfb646f5587b43;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002381.soc;2381;2025-10-12 19:09:22.408669;926c5ed59401423194d0f23b8d139978;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002382.soc;2382;2025-10-12 19:09:22.408669;5f53d80df244f7f1a11e8387dee73e20;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002383.soc;2383;2025-10-12 19:09:22.408669;809d9afeae0b98b4d932fd84cb22c0aa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002384.soc;2384;2025-10-12 19:09:22.424005;4ef294d35d2a5880d85af9faaee78152;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002385.soc;2385;2025-10-12 19:09:22.424005;bd1bc7e9bbb0512a56d2b8bf3eb27ced;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002386.soc;2386;2025-10-12 19:09:22.424005;ea0805c935c78ed2f4bb8358a6eb61bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002387.soc;2387;2025-10-12 19:09:22.424005;ffc27f6e38fb1580b78084890fe998c0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002388.soc;2388;2025-10-12 19:09:22.442202;dc054f91c8602ee921f2961874980f27;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002389.soc;2389;2025-10-12 19:09:22.442202;9a9421242e1bf30d037cdc346f7d595b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002390.soc;2390;2025-10-12 19:09:22.442202;1ad9624c7913dbe6ea78041c4085ac27;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002391.soc;2391;2025-10-12 19:09:22.442202;ad16eecc35671db5abec3c632da74f73;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002392.soc;2392;2025-10-12 19:09:22.458538;3ef803a15dd16ef45e500311fc4838f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002393.soc;2393;2025-10-12 19:09:22.474288;8fad1ea58331822bf12c39b962d58a04;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002394.soc;2394;2025-10-12 19:09:22.499667;5f5630ef695044a12d9d1edf7b813e7b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002395.soc;2395;2025-10-12 19:09:22.507487;a72a19cd48d72103250275760b45ed81;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002396.soc;2396;2025-10-12 19:09:22.507487;a4b2438946e8101a011fdbcc84c7977e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002397.soc;2397;2025-10-12 19:09:22.507487;d907fd3c56247759d68e04895946f8d9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002398.soc;2398;2025-10-12 19:09:22.525175;16fc2891f48df3bdcc61cebce0d89a1d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002399.soc;2399;2025-10-12 19:09:22.525175;b2bc72e52a123c332678e9edde647f8b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002400.soc;2400;2025-10-12 19:09:22.544646;83583d303a92333c931b10869714298f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002401.soc;2401;2025-10-12 19:09:22.544646;7092bcbf43dd4717709964c9bbadf359;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002402.soc;2402;2025-10-12 19:09:22.544646;7af2365c6f0e159512707867a04c85c6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002403.soc;2403;2025-10-12 19:09:22.544646;010f428d712e4523e79c74a60d5fa411;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002404.soc;2404;2025-10-12 19:09:22.544646;6ab725b373311c477b92929ceecf49ff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002405.soc;2405;2025-10-12 19:09:22.556539;ceff10a396847704383113f019c416ae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002406.soc;2406;2025-10-12 19:09:22.556539;648570bb0bd80587e1c2e6866f89c985;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002407.soc;2407;2025-10-12 19:09:22.556539;8939e3551b1fc90acdc1292430578790;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002408.soc;2408;2025-10-12 19:09:22.556539;0eb6294241932b1a3bbcf38617d363ed;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002409.soc;2409;2025-10-12 19:09:22.572201;f4b7434e60bdfdc850dfc9e0aafea692;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002410.soc;2410;2025-10-12 19:09:22.572201;a2b110ee5c5a2cffa76b42f5da6b1dfc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002411.soc;2411;2025-10-12 19:09:22.572201;eaa82f3b69bae8cfa23aef25031852b2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002412.soc;2412;2025-10-12 19:09:22.588041;18281c3b74adc1e8ea15c18aa36bf850;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002413.soc;2413;2025-10-12 19:09:22.588041;d7f166e615c40d4094e0e177d0557bb2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002414.soc;2414;2025-10-12 19:09:22.588041;b92b69891d1bdc21696b0d7553b002b6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002415.soc;2415;2025-10-12 19:09:22.588041;8ab2857fb6445c91c4ec9013bf15d487;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002416.soc;2416;2025-10-12 19:09:22.599605;ce48c2dae80741bad5ec10d077fc79f7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002417.soc;2417;2025-10-12 19:09:22.603702;d7a733d59c48e808cbc21adf43064529;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002418.soc;2418;2025-10-12 19:09:22.603702;4716feba0628ab79bb30b61c6c14e0eb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002419.soc;2419;2025-10-12 19:09:22.603702;7937b3de47c9504800c0a1e963fc4773;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002420.soc;2420;2025-10-12 19:09:22.603702;aded6b17361df2a787c6f8935811fad2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002421.soc;2421;2025-10-12 19:09:22.619649;f09b0eb3e5f5b0ef2662e285eb18d111;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002422.soc;2422;2025-10-12 19:09:22.619649;52638f340a6a24bcab59e128df4c8af6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002423.soc;2423;2025-10-12 19:09:22.626598;f541929bed1bf25827dd1b6ee8861af1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002424.soc;2424;2025-10-12 19:09:22.635513;a87d4ddd70bda3efefc9a1de6981fe23;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002425.soc;2425;2025-10-12 19:09:22.635513;b5c9c64d33aa1476daccc9f2d152f490;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002426.soc;2426;2025-10-12 19:09:22.651146;b43fc36b97925998c5ba14accd5d5157;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002427.soc;2427;2025-10-12 19:09:22.651146;99129979a2e67597f73ed7979c61f091;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002428.soc;2428;2025-10-12 19:09:22.666905;bce9483ed544dfa243bab99f9ac12731;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002429.soc;2429;2025-10-12 19:09:22.666905;f1bf6af05132b6f5299db63dec238788;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002430.soc;2430;2025-10-12 19:09:22.682832;88982dff635acf6a4a09e5dfbca864e3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002431.soc;2431;2025-10-12 19:09:22.682832;f484d1c49d1eb0a6d7db977e441432bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002432.soc;2432;2025-10-12 19:09:22.682832;942636e735b7e58d9f6cc6d0596096d7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002433.soc;2433;2025-10-12 19:09:22.699808;48b4d8a1511bf11aa4ded709e8dd1a53;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002434.soc;2434;2025-10-12 19:09:22.714850;ad80bccfcad5099758e8be8d65ad94af;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002435.soc;2435;2025-10-12 19:09:22.714850;387d59859599dc1aedc9882d34beb278;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002436.soc;2436;2025-10-12 19:09:22.714850;26d6933c2db30bacef95eac44d3d52e1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002437.soc;2437;2025-10-12 19:09:22.714850;7ce3d398e33a49ca0b590828e829563e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002438.soc;2438;2025-10-12 19:09:22.730814;c694511b382977ffc06438b823a1a8c4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002439.soc;2439;2025-10-12 19:09:22.730814;cdc381f48d4a99479eedeb18147dd871;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002440.soc;2440;2025-10-12 19:09:22.730814;6887628aa5a8df618e7a003b75de6e5c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002441.soc;2441;2025-10-12 19:09:22.730814;5049569b36683b340bdc06f20f2a0a94;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002442.soc;2442;2025-10-12 19:09:22.746912;2a74fe509a8abb457f9ef325caa68ae5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002443.soc;2443;2025-10-12 19:09:22.746912;f68ba1463042d3dbf2020afbf58b81a7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002444.soc;2444;2025-10-12 19:09:22.746912;5951075468a2d6b3feac85154696155c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002445.soc;2445;2025-10-12 19:09:22.746912;a12334e8b662a49fee0bfb3a4b2e8099;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002446.soc;2446;2025-10-12 19:09:22.762922;ce8346e505e9b6a0301488755b2f1e0f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002447.soc;2447;2025-10-12 19:09:22.762922;7a916760e04721d560dc832ff316f75e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002448.soc;2448;2025-10-12 19:09:22.778831;6b666f5885fa9b8dc2b5cfd8ffd86358;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002449.soc;2449;2025-10-12 19:09:22.778831;266e070324f45024b4a30e94722ab9df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002450.soc;2450;2025-10-12 19:09:22.794609;83a3928c330142902ab2081575ab66e6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002451.soc;2451;2025-10-12 19:09:22.794609;fba1bde4ff5d941bcd5f8b32c7c71742;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002452.soc;2452;2025-10-12 19:09:22.800087;069b928e61e95ba853ae550c4d85f825;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002453.soc;2453;2025-10-12 19:09:22.810330;5e0f343c19ab4e6743d5680fbf1a57fe;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002454.soc;2454;2025-10-12 19:09:22.810330;c697c97c187353bdbe4058dcdf8581c0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002455.soc;2455;2025-10-12 19:09:22.810330;bdee5a58c958e2979a65882d388d467a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002456.soc;2456;2025-10-12 19:09:22.825975;88e4f4258f5a8261781e3ae05372713f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002457.soc;2457;2025-10-12 19:09:22.825975;1919e61011a2cafd2025bc9b802cac27;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002458.soc;2458;2025-10-12 19:09:22.825975;1b10965c92d8c0de56d4898b8d4f3e0a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002459.soc;2459;2025-10-12 19:09:22.842057;de96cf68f9d4c73998bad95d18d155d8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002460.soc;2460;2025-10-12 19:09:22.842057;11be8ad790ee8b55de363114bb150c21;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002461.soc;2461;2025-10-12 19:09:22.842057;278802db368aa647275c9cdfdd3eb455;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002462.soc;2462;2025-10-12 19:09:22.857878;4d5bf18f0b35a4a753c94280f3a6215c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002463.soc;2463;2025-10-12 19:09:22.857878;de473734ad27b82ceb6057d5eb8bdb27;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002464.soc;2464;2025-10-12 19:09:22.857878;064bb6be1fbf7f461f056f593a4b4bf9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002465.soc;2465;2025-10-12 19:09:22.873547;ff2944bec21afd38b4556869e7f72bde;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002466.soc;2466;2025-10-12 19:09:22.873547;7449dae7e6d5fa5ace70eb840524b8af;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002467.soc;2467;2025-10-12 19:09:22.873547;569f1350687ed593e53792373f659740;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002468.soc;2468;2025-10-12 19:09:22.873547;d23529e0ef5cf845435457251fe644ee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002469.soc;2469;2025-10-12 19:09:22.889399;15c3771aba6c2be3d5f42f5b272c1ffe;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002470.soc;2470;2025-10-12 19:09:22.899969;f54ea9d5753d4e5e648a34731ed27f11;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002471.soc;2471;2025-10-12 19:09:22.905494;e8121c10f321099ee21970864078f49c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002472.soc;2472;2025-10-12 19:09:22.905494;7795439720d7a575c7761818ad32e9c5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002473.soc;2473;2025-10-12 19:09:22.905494;780680ffd0787f687c74ceaa796cab8d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002474.soc;2474;2025-10-12 19:09:22.905494;33a34246a86457d925c2b74e29b38ed4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002475.soc;2475;2025-10-12 19:09:22.921305;91c9870a343839c5a367bee155c981d1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002476.soc;2476;2025-10-12 19:09:22.921305;44102a16d29e4f95919e7c56e8115111;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002477.soc;2477;2025-10-12 19:09:22.921305;3ec6c89256a6cc1e96cf8a26f79cf974;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002478.soc;2478;2025-10-12 19:09:22.931260;93f56f58298d7fe488348ac7a895fd2b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002479.soc;2479;2025-10-12 19:09:22.936990;275f2b6cdc0d60d5d8f3de144f191412;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002480.soc;2480;2025-10-12 19:09:22.952693;57224c4afe94566069de850de3c3a0b9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002481.soc;2481;2025-10-12 19:09:22.952693;24d73a48023c25beb361eefbb27bfacb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002482.soc;2482;2025-10-12 19:09:22.952693;5c2f66f81cec2c1ad6abc900e0c9f2aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002483.soc;2483;2025-10-12 19:09:22.968497;0821e051c6a04d4d871461de3f0d3bfe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002484.soc;2484;2025-10-12 19:09:22.968497;8c989091e1877f85b8be70b92bb7d9fd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002485.soc;2485;2025-10-12 19:09:22.984397;4476f27c5c101f918bd49e9635ccd471;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002486.soc;2486;2025-10-12 19:09:22.984397;580a0b5f0f117f0613a83bfb8931fa1e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002487.soc;2487;2025-10-12 19:09:22.999969;161f0e0b5a76ea345dc2867265a7378a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002488.soc;2488;2025-10-12 19:09:22.999969;a5ffc4fe42b670dc09fd725ea28e7510;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002489.soc;2489;2025-10-12 19:09:22.999969;974768670b5d30d0ee76464acc05df44;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002490.soc;2490;2025-10-12 19:09:23.015978;e3ea22379fd3cec915455ab90088230c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002491.soc;2491;2025-10-12 19:09:23.031804;3723627a29cca9b36853cd7298c1ecd1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002492.soc;2492;2025-10-12 19:09:23.038223;35b841f9595ed437241d5ad0da44a404;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002493.soc;2493;2025-10-12 19:09:23.044227;cdc0fdff9d349399df9942539282aea5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002494.soc;2494;2025-10-12 19:09:23.047732;70e2d60b6812737c16ac3130a720d4f6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002495.soc;2495;2025-10-12 19:09:23.058437;f30bccd5599b3f6e90f7113813213a7e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002496.soc;2496;2025-10-12 19:09:23.058437;c4f70fe0a6619615b02e6ceed36bf152;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002497.soc;2497;2025-10-12 19:09:23.074156;af9149feccdc28554fb653ade64ebe1f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002498.soc;2498;2025-10-12 19:09:23.074156;04c50de2122c18255f1c14d34e1a7651;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002499.soc;2499;2025-10-12 19:09:23.074156;54a765a277d9ed6ff36537d8be251274;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002500.soc;2500;2025-10-12 19:09:23.090045;f19bfdcfe9c25928d1c5a347ceec972b;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002501.soc;2501;2025-10-12 19:09:23.090045;9ee01a1fa78b5fb67ce315916151d46c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002502.soc;2502;2025-10-12 19:09:23.090045;1a4ad962261f9f901635214ee26ccf35;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002503.soc;2503;2025-10-12 19:09:23.090045;73d84476f78953215fdd76e0bd2c7acf;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002504.soc;2504;2025-10-12 19:09:23.100078;d59f1f24f5e2c5d1260f78aa5c5159e8;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002505.soc;2505;2025-10-12 19:09:23.100078;bb33fc06ba0b18bb4ae354b9d98fb190;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002506.soc;2506;2025-10-12 19:09:23.105801;9fe8665766fbe07744d1d1137035d12c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002507.soc;2507;2025-10-12 19:09:23.105801;34dd4a9369af40ce477bbed735903dd1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002508.soc;2508;2025-10-12 19:09:23.105801;4f06e013e91a48a9bf59809322714ddc;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002509.soc;2509;2025-10-12 19:09:23.105801;12bc6cceaba018fdfe55101d43f5258f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002510.soc;2510;2025-10-12 19:09:23.121512;d72e70861a30f760e1999184d69bd743;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002511.soc;2511;2025-10-12 19:09:23.137329;6b5fa0017b5d9ecdbf9baf803b2f57e8;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002512.soc;2512;2025-10-12 19:09:23.137329;0a492095b9a9b1643eb70814e46b82f2;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002513.soc;2513;2025-10-12 19:09:23.137329;0452a76530e68132d8c1c290ef2e9074;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002514.soc;2514;2025-10-12 19:09:23.137329;458f5851d4e77e90d597f1959da250bc;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002515.soc;2515;2025-10-12 19:09:23.137329;92b1a56ee662767b3dd6426c90e4433b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002516.soc;2516;2025-10-12 19:09:23.137329;5baedf7d19f1f2fcb6469af514e1628a;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002517.soc;2517;2025-10-12 19:09:23.153094;7f6ff32f0546cc9843c6da73e662b1cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002518.soc;2518;2025-10-12 19:09:23.153094;984aef5737b01126d467aad707312a58;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002519.soc;2519;2025-10-12 19:09:23.153094;178bd776332bad75a9c4a2e0c67b0ee2;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002520.soc;2520;2025-10-12 19:09:23.168939;1e43b34f209246435e8571291199a5fe;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002521.soc;2521;2025-10-12 19:09:23.172941;aa6b122a15d4d1d298b339088db744f0;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002522.soc;2522;2025-10-12 19:09:23.174678;09fbadf195876d1578dc6418d537c221;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002523.soc;2523;2025-10-12 19:09:23.178681;b6091f9206bbbff2fc85451f5af8b968;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002524.soc;2524;2025-10-12 19:09:23.184594;475b174162a2b6b4cae95080cd29a19d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002525.soc;2525;2025-10-12 19:09:23.184594;dd4f0d91c152f8875e06cb36152cff51;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002526.soc;2526;2025-10-12 19:09:23.184594;6a251b9e580e9b0e0ea37bb2c6a1cb56;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002527.soc;2527;2025-10-12 19:09:23.184594;317a2b5489834bdc816403963ac4c31a;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002528.soc;2528;2025-10-12 19:09:23.208459;e59b707cb1bed2ec959a01e055f880cc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002529.soc;2529;2025-10-12 19:09:23.212463;e4b06db1f12e5089eff5f06fb7ffd42f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002530.soc;2530;2025-10-12 19:09:23.216212;405cb7602dff28900424a206580d79f8;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002531.soc;2531;2025-10-12 19:09:23.218215;2ccd57193898713b10b3dbf2539de020;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002532.soc;2532;2025-10-12 19:09:23.218215;7fa419d6157c8e2336c813c2dde7953c;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002533.soc;2533;2025-10-12 19:09:23.231921;38cbc6402b3696d9173df1b93d3a0d6f;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002534.soc;2534;2025-10-12 19:09:23.231921;8c95a61f6038918af4c70babe167ca1d;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002535.soc;2535;2025-10-12 19:09:23.236754;daba5c35edf3fed6520ff7939e113e7e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002536.soc;2536;2025-10-12 19:09:23.236754;fe7bce419cf31520bc0f7a01a80bf1ab;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002537.soc;2537;2025-10-12 19:09:23.241325;01c661922d01278592dcc8dc657bf30e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002538.soc;2538;2025-10-12 19:09:23.256737;30613a74a3b2484f2ed1ce18b6bcd7b9;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002539.soc;2539;2025-10-12 19:09:23.260454;d9ca6f3d789b6fe0be4b23b5e9981575;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002540.soc;2540;2025-10-12 19:09:23.260454;e861911e76f2e71ffca934cee3bdedae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002541.soc;2541;2025-10-12 19:09:23.260454;b7600d8331ce43c1231fa1f161a0d539;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002542.soc;2542;2025-10-12 19:09:23.260454;32676c3b56149714dd00aebc39cae842;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002543.soc;2543;2025-10-12 19:09:23.275256;69b2c761b1cff38248c846db41555a51;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002544.soc;2544;2025-10-12 19:09:23.275256;37b27f477c45e0bed6828ebcaabb015d;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002545.soc;2545;2025-10-12 19:09:23.275256;e7b868eabb8be667b3b795ca64db971b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002546.soc;2546;2025-10-12 19:09:23.275256;bd3b897c4446624b52583a2b2f8ee414;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002547.soc;2547;2025-10-12 19:09:23.290855;6a9747e452358d8c79bfaf956ee7576d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002548.soc;2548;2025-10-12 19:09:23.290855;9590bcd18c23ec3ffc3146a5708f472b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002549.soc;2549;2025-10-12 19:09:23.300457;28b2979f570ef997d3799e553b402648;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002550.soc;2550;2025-10-12 19:09:23.300457;0ed19c117c252a1b21b490d3485b8341;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002551.soc;2551;2025-10-12 19:09:23.307850;772489a86a13b31ba2ff6505d3c78563;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002552.soc;2552;2025-10-12 19:09:23.310503;3cc15a58aebf6d4b618ec49a03587f7b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002553.soc;2553;2025-10-12 19:09:23.312505;cb05fc1430209bab02b94ef15e46e166;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002554.soc;2554;2025-10-12 19:09:23.312505;c6b22e33a0713dfee9894b54207a719d;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002555.soc;2555;2025-10-12 19:09:23.312505;cdbd57dfa2d4fd90d3fb71ac3251233a;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002556.soc;2556;2025-10-12 19:09:23.324266;259ed9de830fc8f9ca369c735170a3f2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002557.soc;2557;2025-10-12 19:09:23.324825;fe08da222e2334cf2db554e4ddcc9894;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002558.soc;2558;2025-10-12 19:09:23.339032;01d1174fb7815ae92cf0a1930d38db9e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002559.soc;2559;2025-10-12 19:09:23.342040;4f0fd578e0ac6b78307f6b319331d591;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002560.soc;2560;2025-10-12 19:09:23.344042;ef373e6521880883867668283f691601;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002561.soc;2561;2025-10-12 19:09:23.346045;ec5c05768380c252c836b8270c89f636;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002562.soc;2562;2025-10-12 19:09:23.357869;d14587488a343f1d092c8c84d230f901;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002563.soc;2563;2025-10-12 19:09:23.357869;c1eec10bd087b71833e4ab6eb2c6cee0;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002564.soc;2564;2025-10-12 19:09:23.357869;0c8932921cc488d2c3eeb5347c58a2dc;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002565.soc;2565;2025-10-12 19:09:23.367437;eb3456d54001d95bcbd63ac7b1a64e39;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002566.soc;2566;2025-10-12 19:09:23.371443;963b398f709efd5da489cb0c13745a85;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002567.soc;2567;2025-10-12 19:09:23.376804;1ab52f1f2911e97f54fd56b4d71a5dde;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002568.soc;2568;2025-10-12 19:09:23.378806;20e793abf43817387dd54487a7a52c7e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002569.soc;2569;2025-10-12 19:09:23.380809;e7bbfc66c7cd32dd13c7eb8cca464ca2;original;5;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002570.soc;2570;2025-10-12 19:09:23.382811;48be5f7c25c38963c0054f26b01c1fe0;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002571.soc;2571;2025-10-12 19:09:23.391129;7ff2651a1d64b36636d18e38c8fb1c40;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002572.soc;2572;2025-10-12 19:09:23.400320;91fc64d64131ec73ee0989950bb1fe22;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002573.soc;2573;2025-10-12 19:09:23.400320;cfacf47c5c06a28fbb81fed682a0d0f3;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002574.soc;2574;2025-10-12 19:09:23.410873;1d57b7551833e43fcb50dacc7e3d3488;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002575.soc;2575;2025-10-12 19:09:23.414878;462245dedf289a8ee499cfccb464db1c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002576.soc;2576;2025-10-12 19:09:23.416880;65781431ee04bce50cf7aa364ad0b3b5;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002577.soc;2577;2025-10-12 19:09:23.416880;c83ff78ad8765487d63e334cbac189c1;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002578.soc;2578;2025-10-12 19:09:23.424523;1053ede384abfd7c58bddd0edc40e6d2;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002579.soc;2579;2025-10-12 19:09:23.424523;04cb4c1e2b377cd85fa2b6cab738d81d;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002580.soc;2580;2025-10-12 19:09:23.429553;0b3ee9a8b74daf7e807257189ae2a952;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002581.soc;2581;2025-10-12 19:09:23.429553;d4567c9903c1133cbda233577f0d26ad;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002582.soc;2582;2025-10-12 19:09:23.429553;3e32e9ed824fb779a878b2ac5e7d780a;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002583.soc;2583;2025-10-12 19:09:23.439929;f04e9e1e541d6ead25ac3e635b69de68;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002584.soc;2584;2025-10-12 19:09:23.439929;23b02bcfd7957b42302d01bee504f394;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002585.soc;2585;2025-10-12 19:09:23.439929;03c3ff3b8a6fd33f7a9b752609e72487;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002586.soc;2586;2025-10-12 19:09:23.456020;9023667a27b6787b857d4b2524dab0fe;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002587.soc;2587;2025-10-12 19:09:23.456020;efc4d34c00dbb623c6db7dbeb24c59df;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002588.soc;2588;2025-10-12 19:09:23.475727;b81c50d6149e281412b1f99b8eb9609b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002589.soc;2589;2025-10-12 19:09:23.475727;3f454dc192df27fa4c465b56a02eb2e9;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002590.soc;2590;2025-10-12 19:09:23.475727;d42afc9a5946b3d1a9656c40ce52b737;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002591.soc;2591;2025-10-12 19:09:23.475727;929b7e025dcf98acee670f7382f37d18;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002592.soc;2592;2025-10-12 19:09:23.491160;786181a3eaac7ca5a4edabe91e3e2ce4;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002593.soc;2593;2025-10-12 19:09:23.502506;17267225c829d4a034cc8ac4f32832f0;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002594.soc;2594;2025-10-12 19:09:23.506489;e55f9da028823ca543b3cc775bb80348;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002595.soc;2595;2025-10-12 19:09:23.506489;7fcf421e519ccfe1dd487d1c4b0e6e8f;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002596.soc;2596;2025-10-12 19:09:23.506489;3f4009d858077c5f3adf986f63607de9;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002597.soc;2597;2025-10-12 19:09:23.522499;ef624b575eb06061a004e6aa25825ba3;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002598.soc;2598;2025-10-12 19:09:23.522499;668b1b621e2783ca8da07d334c1a955b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002599.soc;2599;2025-10-12 19:09:23.522499;e367fa8b1271a9c7c01794543fed975e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002600.soc;2600;2025-10-12 19:09:23.538166;073885c82f6f0ec60fb6f373b32dd050;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002601.soc;2601;2025-10-12 19:09:23.539999;fd4e78480c190de33fcc360a3b5072a6;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002602.soc;2602;2025-10-12 19:09:23.553863;e7dd49481106d65d9879fb505ca3e628;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002603.soc;2603;2025-10-12 19:09:23.553863;8f6c75c12b2769cf71f1bfb9dae33804;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002604.soc;2604;2025-10-12 19:09:23.553863;0257e0e45f7b844378bc6ea924bb4c82;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002605.soc;2605;2025-10-12 19:09:23.569916;f452faa82fbd3323a024434495fc261e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002606.soc;2606;2025-10-12 19:09:23.569916;e1318abe87a869f57aebd6b1d221fa93;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002607.soc;2607;2025-10-12 19:09:23.575526;94ccfd12189c797d5785ddb0ea2b71e0;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002608.soc;2608;2025-10-12 19:09:23.575526;98ac3a00a6a5557f65e6925388e8b979;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002609.soc;2609;2025-10-12 19:09:23.585825;c86788114955c3f740ca1dfc5d481d1b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002610.soc;2610;2025-10-12 19:09:23.591676;87b44a73130366524e9ae9745bda46f4;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002611.soc;2611;2025-10-12 19:09:23.597280;b05f1d782af28aa734d2b92c5f5e4978;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002612.soc;2612;2025-10-12 19:09:23.599282;74d5e6e4551e301fcbdd8ccd485aa0af;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002613.soc;2613;2025-10-12 19:09:23.601785;dbd481ba0b52e89f693071e96432e042;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002614.soc;2614;2025-10-12 19:09:23.603787;5b7e51e6acdcbec637bde2d65c6635bf;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002615.soc;2615;2025-10-12 19:09:23.607791;baddc5bc5eebc1717cf69f83b3b83b09;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002616.soc;2616;2025-10-12 19:09:23.609794;3fee393f463aa63418d849e5078db2e8;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002617.soc;2617;2025-10-12 19:09:23.613798;4a1fbe3bcdb98916255ae85a8427b889;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002618.soc;2618;2025-10-12 19:09:23.617577;c4ca0bf550c5f8e1ba2ee40fe39fff92;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002619.soc;2619;2025-10-12 19:09:23.617577;2d0e7c807e8c25c83d8c6d9fc9c51e7c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002620.soc;2620;2025-10-12 19:09:23.617577;5696bc25af9f3c3ad5f2ddb7d976ca9e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002621.soc;2621;2025-10-12 19:09:23.617577;a91ba1f5c2e246f8a3f75c8d39f4a481;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002622.soc;2622;2025-10-12 19:09:23.627967;4e665f1dbc75bba6d42d91aaf8c9e896;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002623.soc;2623;2025-10-12 19:09:23.627967;163f3e63a7091eea5228b18d0fbf27bc;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002624.soc;2624;2025-10-12 19:09:23.633209;917a3e32b218b35ffb149afe1b972dfc;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002625.soc;2625;2025-10-12 19:09:23.633209;bf0e2ed2e4ce72627d23ff1cbf9b1659;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002626.soc;2626;2025-10-12 19:09:23.633209;574d1cd1d8c1507954131b365855d31a;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002627.soc;2627;2025-10-12 19:09:23.642457;5c002de387f67ef28d6d304a2f2f3f49;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002628.soc;2628;2025-10-12 19:09:23.649291;02e6092126cf7103847727aca4a2009f;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002629.soc;2629;2025-10-12 19:09:23.649291;288e69a5ea1a32ae4856fd933b5002cc;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002630.soc;2630;2025-10-12 19:09:23.655547;3e9ea0dddceb5fcb9e6e923261514b58;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002631.soc;2631;2025-10-12 19:09:23.655547;d2e490fa70cf4a8905d1bce8a7555245;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002632.soc;2632;2025-10-12 19:09:23.665358;74ea571f36c3a18cf2af29048f4d1774;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002633.soc;2633;2025-10-12 19:09:23.665358;c966780e04e82f3c95d1a7c9389393ff;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002634.soc;2634;2025-10-12 19:09:23.677129;f20ea6c902fde02969abc47344d50816;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002635.soc;2635;2025-10-12 19:09:23.681036;cc9796003587628f880b3d8b36d93c80;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002636.soc;2636;2025-10-12 19:09:23.683453;8dfc0ee0238a9eae8bb8e014a337a0de;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002637.soc;2637;2025-10-12 19:09:23.683453;b05ce85f97b06bbe742bf48e3efa4e45;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002638.soc;2638;2025-10-12 19:09:23.683453;abec447dd6d036f64ed0dbd0ed94d8fa;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002639.soc;2639;2025-10-12 19:09:23.683453;66bad74f2556bbdabde4d03447a94ee2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002640.soc;2640;2025-10-12 19:09:23.693772;5bcbfa9b543846b4d0705b1c677c0610;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002641.soc;2641;2025-10-12 19:09:23.696783;59d716c62c801272f87e2f81fa2cf5e2;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002642.soc;2642;2025-10-12 19:09:23.696783;e5a652dec8fcb431daa9593470d3b075;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002643.soc;2643;2025-10-12 19:09:23.700844;4e6c77f18152ae967e5ca39de81f436e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002644.soc;2644;2025-10-12 19:09:23.700844;d43fe92a4a81eac4db0c61aa29941d8a;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002645.soc;2645;2025-10-12 19:09:23.707884;ec1cb5fa8da8e38ed6bd8381a60a0101;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002646.soc;2646;2025-10-12 19:09:23.712765;b75f76c4718d1a24ffa0fd22268c3f07;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002647.soc;2647;2025-10-12 19:09:23.712765;be37ad704df173c1f4d1f2fb4d7b92a9;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002648.soc;2648;2025-10-12 19:09:23.712765;509c46dd06b2bddf612b2b1339702857;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002649.soc;2649;2025-10-12 19:09:23.712765;3a53a1df4fa66a9fceba6af2ab498d9b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002650.soc;2650;2025-10-12 19:09:23.728398;1ae9553021b3a61e92106c77d3a44e0c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002651.soc;2651;2025-10-12 19:09:24.471719;a326c43d9c464bdf91d863990f6abe6c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002652.soc;2652;2025-10-12 19:09:24.490256;ba530ab13e0a7c969ce3055f199d5ab7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002653.soc;2653;2025-10-12 19:09:24.490256;f32593237c06333b8fb8217949e95fd8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002654.soc;2654;2025-10-12 19:09:24.521699;490ace906269fc197218a41f9c907995;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002655.soc;2655;2025-10-12 19:09:24.523792;620420e8b4777d8e22559e62ebe2c97c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002656.soc;2656;2025-10-12 19:09:24.554734;3fd2e140c6873b268383231c9ca79934;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002657.soc;2657;2025-10-12 19:09:24.586381;b98d24ec1178ee2c5cb5f3745bff03d4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002658.soc;2658;2025-10-12 19:09:24.601832;a40e712daf9cff0764bde46247b8434d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002659.soc;2659;2025-10-12 19:09:24.601832;d9dac08e8f59bfdda4e7cf99bbd1eb8c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002660.soc;2660;2025-10-12 19:09:24.617959;eb36c29bbcddae0c2de2212af9efa12c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002661.soc;2661;2025-10-12 19:09:24.617959;23a2022815189d21b0093f5aaf2f284c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002662.soc;2662;2025-10-12 19:09:24.634009;19ce33f5218327898e265df3607fc0db;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002663.soc;2663;2025-10-12 19:09:24.649773;3e3f5ef17ce116f6b3e2b644e1a47779;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002664.soc;2664;2025-10-12 19:09:24.665599;9fb941c5fa7f07ce833c192a4893ee86;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002665.soc;2665;2025-10-12 19:09:24.681281;6c0dd882e77b459d54b52255c79d76cf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002666.soc;2666;2025-10-12 19:09:24.691210;d70e0701add4da19a535699018c0efa6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002667.soc;2667;2025-10-12 19:09:24.744872;74e8ba4310c075406249d72ee205115c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002668.soc;2668;2025-10-12 19:09:24.856410;90353820e122e70f6ccb6c91a4d0c199;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002669.soc;2669;2025-10-12 19:09:24.873747;7aaa3e6a3d0023350b1b2316670e6de4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002670.soc;2670;2025-10-12 19:09:24.875769;da4e3c6ddea7f0511713e013d72ca942;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002671.soc;2671;2025-10-12 19:09:24.889995;343be8aef8a8258dd4eeec8b1ba2353f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002672.soc;2672;2025-10-12 19:09:24.992544;ed9458756b365edb32809a5692d5800f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002673.soc;2673;2025-10-12 19:09:25.006448;f0526c1698375a061fa1da5e322ba2f7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002674.soc;2674;2025-10-12 19:09:25.074921;9973284c008498ceaa37106f49dbfc27;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002675.soc;2675;2025-10-12 19:09:25.074921;457700d608eeed8f727ae21c94e443f8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002676.soc;2676;2025-10-12 19:09:25.132918;4e9ae67c07d1bc42bdba2661d728a9ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002677.soc;2677;2025-10-12 19:09:25.140038;4ecd8cd3cf6d5894e8656d39f8699565;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002678.soc;2678;2025-10-12 19:09:25.170900;85f7620fb66090b9f9055c0035946e06;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002679.soc;2679;2025-10-12 19:09:25.170900;9aff94b8318d9ad503bb250c9e35fb15;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002680.soc;2680;2025-10-12 19:09:25.194667;3b39085b931b8eea2736de80db114c56;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002681.soc;2681;2025-10-12 19:09:25.198615;534dab9f463af035f5e074de6ded7f8b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002682.soc;2682;2025-10-12 19:09:25.202424;c3d8f509d43d7fe71631930cbf819ae2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002683.soc;2683;2025-10-12 19:09:25.218134;2afdd1f055cd23c2cd3e4b237acaab6b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002684.soc;2684;2025-10-12 19:09:25.218134;01c54a069a5863a3e0efeada93600230;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002685.soc;2685;2025-10-12 19:09:25.249836;e0f00648163aec9e785f60ec02473e46;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002686.soc;2686;2025-10-12 19:09:25.249836;168412a07be62d0cc4eea44d7322ecb7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002687.soc;2687;2025-10-12 19:09:25.249836;8aa7a0661ac0cea664e95f7c2c8a0de0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002688.soc;2688;2025-10-12 19:09:25.249836;f7a0f7d18d86d71f6747aec27c9caf2b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002689.soc;2689;2025-10-12 19:09:25.265492;660947c1e665dcc4fa9be4b2c8b7087d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002690.soc;2690;2025-10-12 19:09:25.265492;a3c6f45e881345f6c49030b69046b21c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002691.soc;2691;2025-10-12 19:09:25.281325;2ebe8e04c78b36856066b7482f0e55b0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002692.soc;2692;2025-10-12 19:09:25.281325;b2d5511e78483fa4be7a56f15b463d8b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False -00070-00002693.soc;2693;2025-10-12 19:09:25.302647;9fa5b3cd678a0de7c0b913d0676e452f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002694.soc;2694;2025-10-12 19:09:25.335140;8902e17815cf7cbbd9305347a01aecc0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True -00070-00002695.soc;2695;2025-10-12 19:09:25.340610;090b3b8f9002f5d675dae870b9f81d4f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002696.soc;2696;2025-10-12 19:09:25.357128;c487191323ebbc9e766c7a1e4629e6e8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002697.soc;2697;2025-10-12 19:09:25.357128;e48ea668bcefa4af316e38cd5f876b41;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True -00070-00002698.soc;2698;2025-10-12 19:09:25.357128;c234bbd56f53993ddc20addfefb74f25;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002699.soc;2699;2025-10-12 19:09:25.372752;d2139bceaa0cc9427d7484f39b5f4711;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002700.soc;2700;2025-10-12 19:09:25.387993;3a5afb794e576d5a76a1e4f7b8689772;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;False -00070-00002701.soc;2701;2025-10-12 19:09:25.413721;4d4ed51a9542ddbdd1b3c1ab79cb94fd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002702.soc;2702;2025-10-12 19:09:25.419958;aaec789080f440a0b23cee83ba8a7051;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True -00070-00002703.soc;2703;2025-10-12 19:09:25.429705;e22ffad9428fa9af2f86acb07a1c0d24;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002704.soc;2704;2025-10-12 19:09:25.487908;40a8f409e86877746be4ce65cac02292;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True -00070-00002705.soc;2705;2025-10-12 19:09:25.487908;484dc18894e75a358eaa0152c3a8189a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002706.soc;2706;2025-10-12 19:09:25.502681;7c2f67649035b0147d5d801f52c8f950;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True -00070-00002707.soc;2707;2025-10-12 19:09:25.587005;24926e10e392443a31234053801c5e5b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False -00070-00002708.soc;2708;2025-10-12 19:09:25.587005;47b056eda13f1913d496d11a17759245;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002709.soc;2709;2025-10-12 19:09:25.602686;210d56fa9eabad6bb9a7b92c4eef3232;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True -00070-00002710.soc;2710;2025-10-12 19:09:25.634192;b05f8b084220dcf4c6673c7039bbcabd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000001.soc;1;2025-10-14 11:50:49.018037;be0becaaea8c327ee06c8bb0e3b59b5c;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000002.soc;2;2025-10-14 11:50:49.018037;5ec7f02e2b9a677c404693f1f91b492b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000003.soc;3;2025-10-14 11:50:49.018037;353f4b19e74d2b5ad84e743e84c1252b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000004.soc;4;2025-10-14 11:50:49.047847;f09ee7e6c17b18f2cad6a15b2a610496;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000005.soc;5;2025-10-14 11:50:49.047847;5703b7ab6cfeed1e253e0622d7a3c942;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000006.soc;6;2025-10-14 11:50:49.047847;20caaa82f7574d64dfec8bb5b325530c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000007.soc;7;2025-10-14 11:50:49.064780;0c58fd1391102298c9f7d1e73448bacb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000008.soc;8;2025-10-14 11:50:49.064780;77e9848932379174c0e9d16c8347a8c1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000009.soc;9;2025-10-14 11:50:49.064780;d620987cfb5ffb68e5ab433dcf3a4d5b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000010.soc;10;2025-10-14 11:50:49.081681;cbd4ab91fb6f1138c9eb6a4cdb91ac58;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000011.soc;11;2025-10-14 11:50:49.081681;1f3e45f0bbf0bfef69516592f8dba327;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000012.soc;12;2025-10-14 11:50:49.081681;2c2feb431972c4f69fdf4d3b476ce901;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000013.soc;13;2025-10-14 11:50:49.081681;95991b08fab4863ff9a485aa76db74f6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000014.soc;14;2025-10-14 11:50:49.098021;1399ab2c81144452862afdd1672af879;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000015.soc;15;2025-10-14 11:50:49.098021;9ec27468d65537311b48882fb1b1e26b;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000016.soc;16;2025-10-14 11:50:49.098021;55945db66608cff4bfc705a270c70d73;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000017.soc;17;2025-10-14 11:50:49.113218;2268cc2f0cc080734bfcd186eff60d74;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000018.soc;18;2025-10-14 11:50:49.115058;490ed0dbd5e2529af3c0cce05d73955c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000019.soc;19;2025-10-14 11:50:49.117210;0c6497f2b571be7a0009ba9b600066ff;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000020.soc;20;2025-10-14 11:50:49.118266;9922b96a1e527ce820ba90cdb7fa52c4;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000021.soc;21;2025-10-14 11:50:49.120415;b4997205c99657950a83a733c23bdf4b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000022.soc;22;2025-10-14 11:50:49.122202;557d704b780ef4ba396670ab72b53b8c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000023.soc;23;2025-10-14 11:50:49.132060;9216fbe5b47e62cc2fef0f76124ba639;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000024.soc;24;2025-10-14 11:50:49.132060;03f172efdd46922e0d82a07659d7fee6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000025.soc;25;2025-10-14 11:50:49.132060;8ded8bfa52c88f90f21f9e0c43868884;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000026.soc;26;2025-10-14 11:50:49.132060;2b3d19a3ff868edc0ee8fd7c3f0519f4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000027.soc;27;2025-10-14 11:50:49.147816;b8ebb8fa13b2b6fa65e93c07d9d06032;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000028.soc;28;2025-10-14 11:50:49.147816;5c7e2c7176e61939e7be2abf32289305;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000029.soc;29;2025-10-14 11:50:49.147816;3532d1224fb835c5d5619ab174a6a187;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000030.soc;30;2025-10-14 11:50:49.147816;ea69fc676aa120ddc31d61f269107e07;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000031.soc;31;2025-10-14 11:50:49.147816;9bc22bafe8bc152055f5578207d61ce7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000032.soc;32;2025-10-14 11:50:49.147816;de8d069dbeed2ccc46b6380b888a8ccf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000033.soc;33;2025-10-14 11:50:49.147816;e9aac758565f6331d6f2e719dc94323f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000034.soc;34;2025-10-14 11:50:49.166754;c76ae3548db983428e934dae995dcb20;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000035.soc;35;2025-10-14 11:50:49.166754;4f9dd5486bd52b75bce5433c7a3566f4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000036.soc;36;2025-10-14 11:50:49.166754;907637ec3c889141f5b94a1de73b2ffb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000037.soc;37;2025-10-14 11:50:49.166754;f90b0030c3f336126054aa24d5bb3175;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000038.soc;38;2025-10-14 11:50:49.166754;f88b3ca25a8c28296a6a94317b51ab88;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000039.soc;39;2025-10-14 11:50:49.180672;833b97308af7c4b6fa951e5cca584c80;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000040.soc;40;2025-10-14 11:50:49.181290;31956220d22ccf372b93914e6271f521;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000041.soc;41;2025-10-14 11:50:49.181290;7ca5c6c70488522a7785efff135805f4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000042.soc;42;2025-10-14 11:50:49.181290;ac865b37f7a2d85f3874156f5045b0e2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000043.soc;43;2025-10-14 11:50:49.181290;4bf35ceee98f6a462dc9aa9f7e174840;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000044.soc;44;2025-10-14 11:50:49.196632;c21ea0a67fe07caef20c90e3b8ea02aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000045.soc;45;2025-10-14 11:50:49.197928;452f80fc76244e71416d9bd2a6101c5a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000046.soc;46;2025-10-14 11:50:49.197928;00ee36ef27b33676629320381ad50e44;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000047.soc;47;2025-10-14 11:50:49.197928;e819f0970eb2516b1b31085c83c4a8dc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000048.soc;48;2025-10-14 11:50:49.197928;7bfb467b685154962fd73968dc8266c5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000049.soc;49;2025-10-14 11:50:49.197928;b1eadd319b3737ca6361de252b6f59d7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000050.soc;50;2025-10-14 11:50:49.217129;8ea37de76d8b67a6fe373df57c0dfc9b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000051.soc;51;2025-10-14 11:50:49.217129;a16cf913e47bb2240537f77e1cdacacb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000052.soc;52;2025-10-14 11:50:49.217129;001a442d4f3555c13d9f19d27c9bb0e2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000053.soc;53;2025-10-14 11:50:49.217129;4b48098cce6a06ccefda3d4c43fc7317;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000054.soc;54;2025-10-14 11:50:49.217129;8e57a40b571c992a873f34d89ab55bf9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000055.soc;55;2025-10-14 11:50:49.231892;c7e48381dd253e8a0881df80b2a6268c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000056.soc;56;2025-10-14 11:50:49.231892;cd5fc6a301ad017f4130c29372bfffac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000057.soc;57;2025-10-14 11:50:49.231892;45b87760b0ac64d2eef419f8fb49a896;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000058.soc;58;2025-10-14 11:50:49.231892;adf737e27c1eb8e58b519f0063df8c4d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000059.soc;59;2025-10-14 11:50:49.248250;4ba8a7f23f355aa37f4bc6c2902789a6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000060.soc;60;2025-10-14 11:50:49.250326;a08259f864d1dfd1c2826b84660a6bb8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000061.soc;61;2025-10-14 11:50:49.250326;491ac4ff237147ae23b6ae755fccc5a9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000062.soc;62;2025-10-14 11:50:49.250326;d710ed8cbf0f94b41fc296fedd57837b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000063.soc;63;2025-10-14 11:50:49.250326;42c2eb182479a7f149400b9da5dd4dc1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000064.soc;64;2025-10-14 11:50:49.265056;a6636abdf5c5fd41613c68314d090d85;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000065.soc;65;2025-10-14 11:50:49.267533;49580fefd73cabc689562e871cec3d6c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000066.soc;66;2025-10-14 11:50:49.267533;45659ae6296079012b4d6e343494a4df;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000067.soc;67;2025-10-14 11:50:49.281075;7e2b1a4c5c14c67cdc62caf800442309;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000068.soc;68;2025-10-14 11:50:49.281075;365c8be407e1a34ffbc24093b0d23298;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000069.soc;69;2025-10-14 11:50:49.281075;62e71f79023ac4beb6f38de1db3b24a9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000070.soc;70;2025-10-14 11:50:49.281075;f8595a30752cea971bc16b0daeeec27e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000071.soc;71;2025-10-14 11:50:49.297216;21661c50c923226ac248480467950232;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000072.soc;72;2025-10-14 11:50:49.297814;23629759e3b9ad1ddd9767b886da0419;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000073.soc;73;2025-10-14 11:50:49.297814;dd36c14c87f0e2cab785ae4d5b277fec;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000074.soc;74;2025-10-14 11:50:49.297814;90dffb01f68ca4c4ce933c973bf954ba;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000075.soc;75;2025-10-14 11:50:49.297814;f71d3ec43d1557907b1d8539620032bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000076.soc;76;2025-10-14 11:50:49.297814;7a6120b0d2099da443be5d21eca94a0f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000077.soc;77;2025-10-14 11:50:49.297814;ee4212a8b34d2ec0f2bccf50a1d790a1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000078.soc;78;2025-10-14 11:50:49.314573;e286c1faf6d97e7f37be7ae6b7de6961;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000079.soc;79;2025-10-14 11:50:49.314573;e4518fba1fa0f80b593b729c72530f14;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000080.soc;80;2025-10-14 11:50:49.314573;9d2ed1b88ced1685f2d76f7b66b682b2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000081.soc;81;2025-10-14 11:50:49.314573;cc2c3b5e2a7063387eb4ef64f61a2912;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000082.soc;82;2025-10-14 11:50:49.331443;6dd3a93182e22c73b98be4cf0a4b5284;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000083.soc;83;2025-10-14 11:50:49.331946;0eecdfb309c8812a00aef5715dd88777;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000084.soc;84;2025-10-14 11:50:49.331946;448cab8ae6a3cb4fa0abd42dc3fd7cbb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000085.soc;85;2025-10-14 11:50:49.331946;3915e82c68598ed27adad42bbfdb46a1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000086.soc;86;2025-10-14 11:50:49.351222;9548f4c342f4133b75c605a6246a6d81;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000087.soc;87;2025-10-14 11:50:49.354197;7c8d0ddbf586a2aaf3d4dce0af4eeb9d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000088.soc;88;2025-10-14 11:50:49.354197;f40a89a44666511bcafec6822a4dedcd;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000089.soc;89;2025-10-14 11:50:49.366827;2f47f650c7cecea07f92a4841fbb8225;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000090.soc;90;2025-10-14 11:50:49.366827;2b5b571b8f6401082ca920581967aca5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000091.soc;91;2025-10-14 11:50:49.366827;846f52cee49436f71aef45aa70dab0e5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000092.soc;92;2025-10-14 11:50:49.380932;c257f31cc17ef662e244332787594a10;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000093.soc;93;2025-10-14 11:50:49.414275;9e0bf0dc54f5d554755926c4cfcd38db;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000094.soc;94;2025-10-14 11:50:49.430746;e8ea605f926114ee57f055401f30e0d1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000095.soc;95;2025-10-14 11:50:49.432254;a3731c27909757630853dfeef1155f0c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000096.soc;96;2025-10-14 11:50:49.432254;c02d75e4708496cda6ed15462dd339c6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000097.soc;97;2025-10-14 11:50:49.432254;a2e159bae67721503e8abaa513abf1ec;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000098.soc;98;2025-10-14 11:50:49.432254;87beae72a6d8f2bb39bdf7781ffe0380;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000099.soc;99;2025-10-14 11:50:49.432254;22520c0acf8d3ab025f345a8fda1748b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000100.soc;100;2025-10-14 11:50:49.446542;bf3402a39c508c97ab200618198b5a36;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000101.soc;101;2025-10-14 11:50:49.447646;be8f3a09f4ada5059e92648fe65520ea;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000102.soc;102;2025-10-14 11:50:49.447646;96be6972c301643d10ef75b9a501312f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000103.soc;103;2025-10-14 11:50:49.447646;1f68836db87cc27b4b320efebe5b6246;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000104.soc;104;2025-10-14 11:50:49.463876;1b98820a6bd8637a26101a4e1d169af9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000105.soc;105;2025-10-14 11:50:49.464975;cca03e1606c1b4b5add645fe4b4980cc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000106.soc;106;2025-10-14 11:50:49.466586;70d6f25dcb8f4ad7027a7ceeb7d9efd0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000107.soc;107;2025-10-14 11:50:49.480899;ad68aabc3134acab58c7511edc4255da;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000108.soc;108;2025-10-14 11:50:49.480899;3e4c2264a1d6d963ee4ee8618a9c80ba;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000109.soc;109;2025-10-14 11:50:49.480899;48a54f81a8f346545f4f4b567ea66966;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000110.soc;110;2025-10-14 11:50:49.480899;dca14ca619a4b99fe987ea6e66246e20;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000111.soc;111;2025-10-14 11:50:49.480899;96ed2798e08127e290080938e02c4944;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000112.soc;112;2025-10-14 11:50:49.497761;daf811ca9ac229680eadf75a2c0be942;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000113.soc;113;2025-10-14 11:50:49.497761;72c000a57a6c15e04b15f4b6760c5e03;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000114.soc;114;2025-10-14 11:50:49.497761;5816c3a3892b043bd4e4474c1373cfb8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000115.soc;115;2025-10-14 11:50:49.512776;22233b4235b99b2333ee3173b394db89;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000116.soc;116;2025-10-14 11:50:49.514339;9396260a984b86273fc959012c3fe617;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000117.soc;117;2025-10-14 11:50:49.514339;a71dc3f1babc7e726fc112ff447e9c61;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000118.soc;118;2025-10-14 11:50:49.514339;c00123b14c4a2ee98c937134b632bcd6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000119.soc;119;2025-10-14 11:50:49.514339;79f84433e9e8648d6a265019cf5d12de;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000120.soc;120;2025-10-14 11:50:49.529878;83d2e34c3a595be77fe4f7070c98b5db;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000121.soc;121;2025-10-14 11:50:49.532463;242943b7c2ba81cc56d03197ee87f843;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000122.soc;122;2025-10-14 11:50:49.532463;b43d30f9cdb239e75ac97f501bc16de7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000123.soc;123;2025-10-14 11:50:49.532463;af2dfc064a59751fca6aef5ca4396c73;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000124.soc;124;2025-10-14 11:50:49.550678;638fcb5846522529464046032129182c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000125.soc;125;2025-10-14 11:50:49.550678;0999037aa3590f38d0d4c64f8ec284f1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000126.soc;126;2025-10-14 11:50:49.567513;9b91bcbc7e35c34ed9599d6004743319;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000127.soc;127;2025-10-14 11:50:49.567513;692b8cd9dfdb228f228cf890bce608aa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000128.soc;128;2025-10-14 11:50:49.580827;f0c693d6ad22c864274732ee95cd7af9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000129.soc;129;2025-10-14 11:50:49.580827;6d6fd78389ee62d0c9fa0da3e8d523b8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000130.soc;130;2025-10-14 11:50:49.597444;50eb76fe395d495075066bed8a0372dc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000131.soc;131;2025-10-14 11:50:49.597444;72a45b1849aec7b6a4275193244c411f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000132.soc;132;2025-10-14 11:50:49.597444;58920235516f7a57a129e2fed4142c7a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000133.soc;133;2025-10-14 11:50:49.614367;75c3baf94e991fb73efd48ae969e33aa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000134.soc;134;2025-10-14 11:50:49.630680;c4f21bdf9a7b303cf8807410c2aec4d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000135.soc;135;2025-10-14 11:50:49.632684;74539e0be5dce1df2116d57fe9590216;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000136.soc;136;2025-10-14 11:50:49.632684;92fffd0ab1cf2fd0454825cf6ec61d1a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000137.soc;137;2025-10-14 11:50:49.632684;7e249bd011390cc40417bc07dfdf568c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000138.soc;138;2025-10-14 11:50:49.632684;93b6fe001cb1ff0c2c65e54700d30aed;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000139.soc;139;2025-10-14 11:50:49.646907;26439e0e0fc0d8f43a550ca95fa63440;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000140.soc;140;2025-10-14 11:50:49.647639;82bf6cc3ec153156a63a1113e2ae7c4a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000141.soc;141;2025-10-14 11:50:49.647639;919540783f0f3ef07016600de81f2ee8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000142.soc;142;2025-10-14 11:50:49.647639;152dd207a989533135db271524ee2243;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000143.soc;143;2025-10-14 11:50:49.663946;812dabfe66c7b299e2d83fc88e1ec528;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000144.soc;144;2025-10-14 11:50:49.663946;25c8429984f86005039d4da3d71bf571;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000145.soc;145;2025-10-14 11:50:49.663946;8b5b1ea5f7c53b9de55493239a5abec8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000146.soc;146;2025-10-14 11:50:49.663946;db054a99bc04aba3966940dd2a537533;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000147.soc;147;2025-10-14 11:50:49.684121;d16fda887d6319558ff298dbe4927db7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000148.soc;148;2025-10-14 11:50:49.684121;3374aa1a7844331fdb0efb401d87735f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000149.soc;149;2025-10-14 11:50:49.697330;c9b317883a3ce9de89fb1036cd5d28d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000150.soc;150;2025-10-14 11:50:49.697330;01fc4f35d9060f79951a1f78af650ca4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000151.soc;151;2025-10-14 11:50:49.697330;221d07d851a14be4cf65fd71feecd238;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000152.soc;152;2025-10-14 11:50:49.697330;1bb9ae032101b4bc5e2d44344441b430;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000153.soc;153;2025-10-14 11:50:49.697330;3e7b2d07fc3ff3888f8f10f1c67a506c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000154.soc;154;2025-10-14 11:50:49.697330;c91975c9613f6116ac6a770fa0df5154;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000155.soc;155;2025-10-14 11:50:49.714141;32d1ba4b535fb24a9c25ba8dbbbc3854;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000156.soc;156;2025-10-14 11:50:49.714141;745794872f980652be9e10bdc37af584;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000157.soc;157;2025-10-14 11:50:49.714141;ae52609ca0cb167af8eaf866e40d3fc3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000158.soc;158;2025-10-14 11:50:49.714141;0f0a35f368f6e8cfa29f9cc940d933fc;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000159.soc;159;2025-10-14 11:50:49.729095;eac6677a9212785b66f407d0ca7e4e32;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000160.soc;160;2025-10-14 11:50:49.730578;ad05671a276c29087df4301ee4affe5a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000161.soc;161;2025-10-14 11:50:49.732582;994b000140d3a322e85855b5eff7cc65;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000162.soc;162;2025-10-14 11:50:49.732582;f4b22d21ed8e2e6b89c98382ae15745e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000163.soc;163;2025-10-14 11:50:49.745908;f9cce9a81dd46b19c881fa3b6b55b031;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000164.soc;164;2025-10-14 11:50:49.747495;9c21c28ca05e27dbe3cd465a2a0d9fc2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000165.soc;165;2025-10-14 11:50:49.747495;cf532224cc253722c80e457d91c12645;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000166.soc;166;2025-10-14 11:50:49.747495;e81cfe601bf3849be197bccabfcd281d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000167.soc;167;2025-10-14 11:50:49.762523;71e6b85a8aceba5c69b9f53c285b9586;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000168.soc;168;2025-10-14 11:50:49.764012;0438dff5953880553319c109e3b012f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000169.soc;169;2025-10-14 11:50:49.764012;c568adeebfe83caa03a826eabf98f2d2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000170.soc;170;2025-10-14 11:50:49.764012;c45343a172e3747287d191e8d4e5bed6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000171.soc;171;2025-10-14 11:50:49.783855;13f5dbe03a16bb1f667eb2ba2b4221bb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000172.soc;172;2025-10-14 11:50:49.783855;a5ec52e4570842d5a2e33bb4337d18cc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000173.soc;173;2025-10-14 11:50:49.783855;6500b6fb0c6e51335133261341e33472;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000174.soc;174;2025-10-14 11:50:49.783855;58a9e293413fb17abe50099171545d8f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000175.soc;175;2025-10-14 11:50:49.783855;c917d72bb0eccc9b2be51fbd5b61adcb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000176.soc;176;2025-10-14 11:50:49.798965;3898caeffc9f6207d2797154fbcfc392;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000177.soc;177;2025-10-14 11:50:49.798965;ed1f4e366a4faa37096e79cddcdd31fd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000178.soc;178;2025-10-14 11:50:49.798965;80e81b6b08dd452c09c4965d68232db1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000179.soc;179;2025-10-14 11:50:49.798965;c3996dd0b5f7cf98537679bba67a815a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000180.soc;180;2025-10-14 11:50:49.798965;c3d1661566f0d479dd477f93ea6bd89f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000181.soc;181;2025-10-14 11:50:49.815820;7e1ca3cdc21dacc6a130b99a318af494;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000182.soc;182;2025-10-14 11:50:49.815820;5ec6188f5d55e4655d2a42e15045b238;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000183.soc;183;2025-10-14 11:50:49.815820;720b14e99f944805d88b6621029f80fb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000184.soc;184;2025-10-14 11:50:49.830026;0ed6364726adcfd4c81854e2eaaa56b6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000185.soc;185;2025-10-14 11:50:49.832657;760365d579fc38bc8133c83ebf27171f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000186.soc;186;2025-10-14 11:50:49.833580;305cd52b6c5c92fbd9487debb6ed4ab3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000187.soc;187;2025-10-14 11:50:49.833580;8a41baf0d2a93fc4843a51743eab1ffb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000188.soc;188;2025-10-14 11:50:49.847749;068584ddb2523c175ff97fd82de80b92;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000189.soc;189;2025-10-14 11:50:49.849164;206ed6a77f6774d214fb0d38d4f55458;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000190.soc;190;2025-10-14 11:50:49.849164;e6ae667b62bcaabb8186b15cba420eae;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000191.soc;191;2025-10-14 11:50:49.864048;22d19f68ee79c2c9839aa0255e5ae9b6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000192.soc;192;2025-10-14 11:50:49.864048;49346fec7878cfab74b7d01291d25330;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000193.soc;193;2025-10-14 11:50:49.864048;d2f3bee96db4d46c788bca69fe753081;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000194.soc;194;2025-10-14 11:50:49.864048;79f57d9eab995ed70b12d8473f1fbd10;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000195.soc;195;2025-10-14 11:50:49.880588;6a30989d6decb1ef484e20d041f8bf4c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000196.soc;196;2025-10-14 11:50:49.880588;7462b519575dec37d4e1d0a76b04e952;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000197.soc;197;2025-10-14 11:50:49.880588;e08988cf4f58ecb3d4b32edc93d07cc3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000198.soc;198;2025-10-14 11:50:49.896703;a46f501d10c829eff9842eb55440a925;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000199.soc;199;2025-10-14 11:50:49.900484;6d389473c488f40336423b9767d705d9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000200.soc;200;2025-10-14 11:50:49.900484;e9e0525ecbbaee09de7738f333baaa1b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000201.soc;201;2025-10-14 11:50:49.900484;71615bd3ece8d901500657197f83ea1b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000202.soc;202;2025-10-14 11:50:49.900484;0adb75ff8d2df1fdaa5c12cc5cb88a2b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000203.soc;203;2025-10-14 11:50:49.900484;f0e48e2e080d692c8b2b40dbca0b803f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000204.soc;204;2025-10-14 11:50:49.913785;1f9298f732b1b55d0dedaa67b2c04747;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000205.soc;205;2025-10-14 11:50:49.916885;0c4869a0089610d5aced1319f95f09e8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000206.soc;206;2025-10-14 11:50:49.921018;35751ea4bfd28f634af40d56e8d4b252;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000207.soc;207;2025-10-14 11:50:49.921018;4b52a712f56551b12eafd98f27ad1636;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000208.soc;208;2025-10-14 11:50:49.929060;58ad969952551e62d8f6111e5dd8057d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000209.soc;209;2025-10-14 11:50:49.930398;92dcdacacdb991ca98b30da67e58e5fe;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000210.soc;210;2025-10-14 11:50:49.932906;f7b4c5b13484b126ddc39c6cce0af1d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000211.soc;211;2025-10-14 11:50:49.932906;c0e24ce3c948d8c40cae26c530c2ba00;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000212.soc;212;2025-10-14 11:50:49.932906;e7505d9a28da059ba14fdb566289f34d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000213.soc;213;2025-10-14 11:50:49.932906;3ec2b137e6325349bd457ac765d4078c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000214.soc;214;2025-10-14 11:50:49.932906;7c03fa5f53e8f68c65f67938cf8f2c59;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000215.soc;215;2025-10-14 11:50:49.945616;30aee9d40d96ddae160201c54038518f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000216.soc;216;2025-10-14 11:50:49.947256;6ea6ad2153ca5e30ae0ea05fbf69e1c8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000217.soc;217;2025-10-14 11:50:49.947256;5fd1c6c3fb36ed51fcf7189ffed17117;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000218.soc;218;2025-10-14 11:50:49.947256;6885d80d8098bc4bcbbb959044e6e58d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000219.soc;219;2025-10-14 11:50:49.947256;0e77c389383767da54f12bb8c96c57d3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000220.soc;220;2025-10-14 11:50:49.947256;13a5359ee41373ad04b2625f9e9d9d4a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000221.soc;221;2025-10-14 11:50:49.963715;c50442bf6eb3728fd665e6c2e4b3f539;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000222.soc;222;2025-10-14 11:50:49.963715;e65cc273e4a5aa6d9dcaad027ef0106a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000223.soc;223;2025-10-14 11:50:49.963715;5a540df4c0287787f2f5b54be7cef1f3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000224.soc;224;2025-10-14 11:50:49.963715;3989620ac4dc441f014e3c301fc3c63d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000225.soc;225;2025-10-14 11:50:49.979969;85264d45dd48d09a917aef0da563a20e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000226.soc;226;2025-10-14 11:50:49.980547;aee78eb0b6d951f366157ddb402e6313;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000227.soc;227;2025-10-14 11:50:49.980547;47434c802ff8f65a93d5f8f5e8283953;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000228.soc;228;2025-10-14 11:50:49.980547;bea442be2ac5dd98870bf45a592c6cab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000229.soc;229;2025-10-14 11:50:49.980547;84cdcbf4835385d49459a010de928beb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000230.soc;230;2025-10-14 11:50:49.996523;aefc8b81375607690401a59c29241ed5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000231.soc;231;2025-10-14 11:50:49.998540;cc73fd184fdf30c7ac3d10126278eaf9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000232.soc;232;2025-10-14 11:50:50.000346;e5028c92d854c9836e356791a516302f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000233.soc;233;2025-10-14 11:50:50.000346;29bafc08c3b67c91a53b5a0e93023541;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000234.soc;234;2025-10-14 11:50:50.013263;b794d0b327f10c5449fee62cd8dc13cb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000235.soc;235;2025-10-14 11:50:50.014043;de9edbdd71546b4878ce030c7354df37;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000236.soc;236;2025-10-14 11:50:50.014043;0e3bf732bc7968b28214e10ceb75835d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000237.soc;237;2025-10-14 11:50:50.029877;360413a5eea146a32b3359ad1d8b8e38;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000238.soc;238;2025-10-14 11:50:50.032848;85e1149929fde983a2ec929182ac9cd9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000239.soc;239;2025-10-14 11:50:50.032848;7010f2aa10b4dcee7d20f6523fa66828;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000240.soc;240;2025-10-14 11:50:50.032848;029b55477f7b54dac9f21509f1924e00;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000241.soc;241;2025-10-14 11:50:50.046963;6c3e39bb1891e2f360332fec81ac1e0d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000242.soc;242;2025-10-14 11:50:50.046963;ddfe8d2951e331e53d33910400c67ac8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000243.soc;243;2025-10-14 11:50:50.046963;72cfd2ecaf29731e8e5d9a795b8b5b88;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000244.soc;244;2025-10-14 11:50:50.046963;c059e606357b62913cf21d5fafc67195;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000245.soc;245;2025-10-14 11:50:50.063520;25165bd0ee8c63a129a8bdd770a6b2db;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000246.soc;246;2025-10-14 11:50:50.063520;7ac5a8c0acffb9be141a82c259ea2bb3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000247.soc;247;2025-10-14 11:50:50.080155;603f81702289a9af35707bd1a3f8f6e0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000248.soc;248;2025-10-14 11:50:50.080155;687d162e37b245a4552a94a4bc459a8b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000249.soc;249;2025-10-14 11:50:50.080155;a05cff09543918b4e6225bc9cac0a4d1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000250.soc;250;2025-10-14 11:50:50.080155;53e311fcc9e68e32e58a3d9481e919dc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000251.soc;251;2025-10-14 11:50:50.096870;053e4f51f22c17e204ef037f8566fd23;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000252.soc;252;2025-10-14 11:50:50.096870;8618512cb5849d9a5a510ccbb9bc7c1c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000253.soc;253;2025-10-14 11:50:50.096870;1d2d9f9e727cc2466a3cae631d8a8d0f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000254.soc;254;2025-10-14 11:50:50.096870;37e6d38bf68fae9704618a75d564e505;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000255.soc;255;2025-10-14 11:50:50.096870;8604206199de28ca828c7797f1ecd13e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000256.soc;256;2025-10-14 11:50:50.115579;ad3b32400268d386b4736032fcccaef1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000257.soc;257;2025-10-14 11:50:50.116306;980c67e59e977415e091d3f8e9757be5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000258.soc;258;2025-10-14 11:50:50.126517;d04974609f6be9d7e3a2531d7f4926da;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000259.soc;259;2025-10-14 11:50:50.128518;5a1f4075ff1324ca689d77f034dc1cd9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000260.soc;260;2025-10-14 11:50:50.133201;0095b9fcb1042fd23b7151265261e760;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000261.soc;261;2025-10-14 11:50:50.133201;2239e62f01854ebe6013c3f6e65e3f18;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000262.soc;262;2025-10-14 11:50:50.133201;50ba4722a2a42f9c3c07bbe642922fe7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000263.soc;263;2025-10-14 11:50:50.133201;b4603669772c42c839d57119d62d1670;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000264.soc;264;2025-10-14 11:50:50.133201;cb0894f7f4bd449ec254622c433f82d5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000265.soc;265;2025-10-14 11:50:50.146420;6cd611107c4c63ac8088e2fcea473359;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000266.soc;266;2025-10-14 11:50:50.146890;151a8668d119db27a5cf10dd9949ffd1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000267.soc;267;2025-10-14 11:50:50.146890;9210a8c9d987cc52804ecaaa84cb868d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000268.soc;268;2025-10-14 11:50:50.146890;7b530fe3c4101ab9057c7dcd3fbaefc6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000269.soc;269;2025-10-14 11:50:50.146890;1539ffb91a92b3669330f63da4a14ad7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000270.soc;270;2025-10-14 11:50:50.146890;eb74bc662c882f33d15682629904c35d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000271.soc;271;2025-10-14 11:50:50.162176;ed0e387eba08cf4b38c6fab215fe073c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000272.soc;272;2025-10-14 11:50:50.163460;d15c245e7a0e0b59df8f161c127b1af1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000273.soc;273;2025-10-14 11:50:50.163460;9cd9f330b95bfb60af3bf93d0e9f2a3a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000274.soc;274;2025-10-14 11:50:50.163460;0db81c333e447112b2a5538e016ba975;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000275.soc;275;2025-10-14 11:50:50.180121;6e2fcfbab238686aaebbfa0bd1fd2671;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000276.soc;276;2025-10-14 11:50:50.180121;249b4eb803f245e2b69450f579f7941f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000277.soc;277;2025-10-14 11:50:50.180121;fd60f754fb3f23640a499f763ad992b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000278.soc;278;2025-10-14 11:50:50.180121;9bfa5c527bfe3ed237a03cea06e4b6c1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000279.soc;279;2025-10-14 11:50:50.180121;7b55eea3d571a926b4fc130254c0cc70;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000280.soc;280;2025-10-14 11:50:50.180121;8f6500bcbcb57774786337321185c107;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000281.soc;281;2025-10-14 11:50:50.196774;232b5ba0d2221ac1751f7e72ee3529b4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000282.soc;282;2025-10-14 11:50:50.196774;a88fcd81c0655d81655c3fe9b801e24a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000283.soc;283;2025-10-14 11:50:50.212999;61a91326976760bd8104fd09852d4e62;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000284.soc;284;2025-10-14 11:50:50.215236;699390911f867555fc71d4e336ff4487;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000285.soc;285;2025-10-14 11:50:50.216219;0ac22b99c4c7dc9183c01e6aeead25fc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000286.soc;286;2025-10-14 11:50:50.216219;5786389c9bfd7c8efde3c208e5edf238;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000287.soc;287;2025-10-14 11:50:50.216219;76c9fa863cc944bfb1041b59066c18ec;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000288.soc;288;2025-10-14 11:50:50.230214;045291d7dc992b60ded3ad57f004f56b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000289.soc;289;2025-10-14 11:50:50.233131;3709c19320eb76d7b947ad3cb636400e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000290.soc;290;2025-10-14 11:50:50.233131;1e207f6799309a0a87424928488756e6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000291.soc;291;2025-10-14 11:50:50.233131;a1d801f81129c363746639d55b5c653f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000292.soc;292;2025-10-14 11:50:50.233131;82c70b11bbf7fb8f2dd6be6ca59905af;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000293.soc;293;2025-10-14 11:50:50.246804;2061336e7772dfceba813d1abb292ead;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000294.soc;294;2025-10-14 11:50:50.246804;ce7b89812d30d9766192da9096134376;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000295.soc;295;2025-10-14 11:50:50.246804;e4da254a5f4ec8f06c5ab650cecae141;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000296.soc;296;2025-10-14 11:50:50.246804;9738c25a2da832c2ff4116a80733efac;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000297.soc;297;2025-10-14 11:50:50.246804;6e99b7f6adc06c44035af7735932fd0c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000298.soc;298;2025-10-14 11:50:50.263387;0d4ec69d8cc120d772c70020bc10eef7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000299.soc;299;2025-10-14 11:50:50.263387;72551a0610183d8e92c1f31c2f53ab78;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000300.soc;300;2025-10-14 11:50:50.263387;b51f60b7d058705ffc3b2789eb01a29b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000301.soc;301;2025-10-14 11:50:50.280110;edced5d0b796f1a19f2a6ba33eeeb070;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000302.soc;302;2025-10-14 11:50:50.280110;6d5ac5d4dbbca32b315ec0ed50cd6ef9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000303.soc;303;2025-10-14 11:50:50.280110;e495b240a2fbe470d0fba3210c0027f3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000304.soc;304;2025-10-14 11:50:50.280110;b3b57728a02b9de90d004833ba3e9f92;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000305.soc;305;2025-10-14 11:50:50.295343;2337bb3aee91853f62eee6d9b2e2065c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000306.soc;306;2025-10-14 11:50:50.296837;c6a71f559831967f4e6973d3bdbbe12a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000307.soc;307;2025-10-14 11:50:50.296837;dd7ce6b5215c694b0241aed1425c5689;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000308.soc;308;2025-10-14 11:50:50.296837;c9e0f47bbe245a4f3bacfe70e595803d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000309.soc;309;2025-10-14 11:50:50.296837;b6928a2565003e24153527da8f0661b0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000310.soc;310;2025-10-14 11:50:50.296837;8433b96af1b2ee0eedce466fcf5ec3fd;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000311.soc;311;2025-10-14 11:50:50.314951;43877de385bb1a9911b88d257e8f3b29;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000312.soc;312;2025-10-14 11:50:50.316377;2344aaf611ef9786be54b6e3ceac6e2a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000313.soc;313;2025-10-14 11:50:50.316377;50620d2e43b51384ede9d38c8741e8ac;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000314.soc;314;2025-10-14 11:50:50.346698;892e9fe591b39a2b22166541bab986a2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000315.soc;315;2025-10-14 11:50:50.346698;f6999fb272ebb8dc61395b95ec32aec8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000316.soc;316;2025-10-14 11:50:50.363317;cca99c0b74d1cd555d6dbb29d480db2d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000317.soc;317;2025-10-14 11:50:50.363317;e3683767e601c1677d517718b218efd4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000318.soc;318;2025-10-14 11:50:50.363317;fe1843b307d666ef03126e898dab633e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000319.soc;319;2025-10-14 11:50:50.363317;5f834af73db6cc30352ccadfec2dc657;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000320.soc;320;2025-10-14 11:50:50.363317;eb513a13b315da6389d2571df01550e4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000321.soc;321;2025-10-14 11:50:50.378512;7946c64685731002ee943b2b900d2267;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000322.soc;322;2025-10-14 11:50:50.380147;66db0de89dbf6dd58e9159ceb48ca8ea;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000323.soc;323;2025-10-14 11:50:50.380147;6c44de4ad8ee6dff4f111f07479ce5af;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000324.soc;324;2025-10-14 11:50:50.380147;e33b61500d70b3734fce283480a0092b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000325.soc;325;2025-10-14 11:50:50.380147;9897a1df42a7a336fc6f96a6b616cfed;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000326.soc;326;2025-10-14 11:50:50.396639;6bb34906612d8bb6cc70e07fd06612fc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000327.soc;327;2025-10-14 11:50:50.396639;f8f14ee116ac1b0f4f7616b793852662;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000328.soc;328;2025-10-14 11:50:50.396639;72db79481897916968e8037fdb68388e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000329.soc;329;2025-10-14 11:50:50.396639;196b932d33ce457897473d4c1646199e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000330.soc;330;2025-10-14 11:50:50.411914;c35d8775c490a2075352317b572f2528;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000331.soc;331;2025-10-14 11:50:50.413388;4c2fb1f2b4cfad2ad1de9e7985864c56;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000332.soc;332;2025-10-14 11:50:50.413388;406165593430b281045dde8657b2c52d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000333.soc;333;2025-10-14 11:50:50.413388;d710da1258e1e5301bd7058a10e7ccd3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000334.soc;334;2025-10-14 11:50:50.433172;4662197aa83d211f62bff6173a1e9848;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000335.soc;335;2025-10-14 11:50:50.436177;67b8e218eb7e5826d5fba7f16504aa0c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000336.soc;336;2025-10-14 11:50:50.436177;0ce671cd69b9bb15b726da8705cc9ade;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000337.soc;337;2025-10-14 11:50:50.447234;c3332b29673cc7d746198642fee6c1a6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000338.soc;338;2025-10-14 11:50:50.447234;7a34841253aeaee21f2dcf6367b4b9e4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000339.soc;339;2025-10-14 11:50:50.447234;570b6e39e45db34e0321541f9dafc280;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000340.soc;340;2025-10-14 11:50:50.463322;1cd3cd0fb25813d6318dc46d18b030b1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000341.soc;341;2025-10-14 11:50:50.463322;e55d6b72b4324c019fc9803631f1fceb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000342.soc;342;2025-10-14 11:50:50.463322;bb90e3d76b36afb1800ef35c8ba93720;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000343.soc;343;2025-10-14 11:50:50.463322;6d8bdd36d34423320255e57d6de546d9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000344.soc;344;2025-10-14 11:50:50.463322;2e0ee846ed66e4558aa859428893df27;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000345.soc;345;2025-10-14 11:50:50.479962;cbe4be837696c775496113381fd6f54b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000346.soc;346;2025-10-14 11:50:50.479962;a649aee792deb7d05d72cae6b05854d0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000347.soc;347;2025-10-14 11:50:50.496123;05263e8ba922cef99ff27a1113a08781;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000348.soc;348;2025-10-14 11:50:50.496570;0afb45883027fb8d3d6bf5c21061d0b9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000349.soc;349;2025-10-14 11:50:50.496570;2db68e8f5ef303cf209ee67c244b8a28;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000350.soc;350;2025-10-14 11:50:50.496570;6f28e7ff75e84b69ce95ebab7a4678d7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000351.soc;351;2025-10-14 11:50:50.508253;62d210687358602df08e523acfdd63a1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000352.soc;352;2025-10-14 11:50:50.513371;8a1bb5a51c21e8a2f7571b120f594095;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000353.soc;353;2025-10-14 11:50:50.529435;aac8d664e7a4c5f54422e504c9ca5090;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000354.soc;354;2025-10-14 11:50:50.532990;68c1aa36815261927958c386d95e2487;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000355.soc;355;2025-10-14 11:50:50.532990;10f01f7e6cce176eaca20e10895ad1aa;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000356.soc;356;2025-10-14 11:50:50.532990;0d9e4d6d55d5e5f4fdb6d1d54538f9b4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000357.soc;357;2025-10-14 11:50:50.546735;55879de19322a8a698d72746966872da;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000358.soc;358;2025-10-14 11:50:50.546735;5417984e08ca2fc4d57f5ebd97822ef8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000359.soc;359;2025-10-14 11:50:50.546735;bda3dca8203454ac93a2dae77197ac30;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000360.soc;360;2025-10-14 11:50:50.563204;37a9a186d851b5415dd0bdf336b5eb2f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000361.soc;361;2025-10-14 11:50:50.563204;058d536f3e5459e46f2bc67c719e8806;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000362.soc;362;2025-10-14 11:50:50.563204;b08fcc32a21895d8e9cfaff7209283c5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000363.soc;363;2025-10-14 11:50:50.563204;39b43123fddb64271cbabf5e4d3d2121;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000364.soc;364;2025-10-14 11:50:50.579857;04df8ff43096bd3bcf2458040d3e48bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000365.soc;365;2025-10-14 11:50:50.596637;7ba8b45927a4a1af5ee91fe6e8043ce8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000366.soc;366;2025-10-14 11:50:50.596637;fd5110870b176b6490e45ae2b55b34eb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000367.soc;367;2025-10-14 11:50:50.596637;09cb71f443e534d5e6b36889c4fc82be;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000368.soc;368;2025-10-14 11:50:50.613357;151a18346e36868c344338d573c1ce81;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000369.soc;369;2025-10-14 11:50:50.613357;a28f4e2efc9bfb58ff77dfc449528a44;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000370.soc;370;2025-10-14 11:50:50.613357;7909e0d070786e0ce4da40f66056091f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000371.soc;371;2025-10-14 11:50:50.613357;120d9cda3739d1018bb411d78d11e3db;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000372.soc;372;2025-10-14 11:50:50.629337;c852db681d272d9b0e1b2e987b7ca24d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000373.soc;373;2025-10-14 11:50:50.632902;e8cb3829fcce4886680d1f78132cc4c0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000374.soc;374;2025-10-14 11:50:50.632902;21bf2673be5853dbc0fac1de6b6f5288;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000375.soc;375;2025-10-14 11:50:50.632902;8983a0118eeccaee4992031bc71fe1ae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000376.soc;376;2025-10-14 11:50:50.632902;01d993ffbe01ee895d05e6519fd1a446;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000377.soc;377;2025-10-14 11:50:50.648015;4c369583914bcd6197ef46541d73c685;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000378.soc;378;2025-10-14 11:50:50.649403;4d46b8cf5231443066356f74e167414c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000379.soc;379;2025-10-14 11:50:50.649403;637d3442e9ffa3aa2a58d262936f0512;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000380.soc;380;2025-10-14 11:50:50.649403;293293d79dceb38ca84baa825801ae88;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000381.soc;381;2025-10-14 11:50:50.649403;fcd963d60102f23584271abefe1e8df6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000382.soc;382;2025-10-14 11:50:50.649403;0578e35c9f55614f8066217fdc343547;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000383.soc;383;2025-10-14 11:50:50.663158;91060997c0673d02ac17bc999ceb97b8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000384.soc;384;2025-10-14 11:50:50.663158;31c4a7609f139e6016aabc4051efd20f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000385.soc;385;2025-10-14 11:50:50.663158;6e25a134cf7f2785d1eaaa09ca159231;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000386.soc;386;2025-10-14 11:50:50.663158;1e8d46984a896b1473c6c27cbe9458e4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000387.soc;387;2025-10-14 11:50:50.663158;dfba5da42e53df7c32cb08bc499bddb2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000388.soc;388;2025-10-14 11:50:50.678326;4ce1e3653e0db271dab491cf84c9b73c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000389.soc;389;2025-10-14 11:50:50.679857;ac900b637ab1982c5c060d1f43875d18;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000390.soc;390;2025-10-14 11:50:50.691258;5507750f60ef080bde62b995d3575adb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000391.soc;391;2025-10-14 11:50:50.694999;891e6e64777194817c754dd79778850c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000392.soc;392;2025-10-14 11:50:50.696419;20004d6a9db5c2d1dd90042139395f6a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000393.soc;393;2025-10-14 11:50:50.696419;80f7e657e6f13dc38104529cabdf269d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000394.soc;394;2025-10-14 11:50:50.696419;311931751837e473298c7095667feb51;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000395.soc;395;2025-10-14 11:50:50.696419;43a51d7230d30b6fc1e0be11e961d553;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000396.soc;396;2025-10-14 11:50:50.713027;c1dc877e7b64c2a01d7fda41e177dfeb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000397.soc;397;2025-10-14 11:50:50.713027;e3be9252304ed07d93df66dc6f6520ce;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000398.soc;398;2025-10-14 11:50:50.713027;410c3e3dbccf081c1d67438e7fe65a87;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000399.soc;399;2025-10-14 11:50:50.713027;bb08a2b10dcaf61df80fdcd3eaa83b07;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000400.soc;400;2025-10-14 11:50:50.713027;06179fd96971cc3598564ea5e69e1813;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000401.soc;401;2025-10-14 11:50:50.729800;df11eec9306ff047e9c7d92e8191e099;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000402.soc;402;2025-10-14 11:50:50.729800;279258ee32b552e2b364fd9b97d1aaca;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000403.soc;403;2025-10-14 11:50:50.738797;75153c2023407dac52ff5e32df568738;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000404.soc;404;2025-10-14 11:50:50.740799;f144d0b350fb46078cc2ea8b8965e5d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000405.soc;405;2025-10-14 11:50:50.745918;deecd9ebbc345ac4909c7904ad51fded;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000406.soc;406;2025-10-14 11:50:50.748001;af3fc563c6e364ae004711da5ca79e34;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000407.soc;407;2025-10-14 11:50:50.749415;1a07f9cfbcbca97d4ac8d9174dcc1817;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000408.soc;408;2025-10-14 11:50:50.749415;c0c7902e272a002320b78f3a87ff55c3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000409.soc;409;2025-10-14 11:50:50.749415;f548d3a682b5437a94610545e0804f56;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000410.soc;410;2025-10-14 11:50:50.749415;93bb5ca5d0c33125b5b135e0cca0544c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000411.soc;411;2025-10-14 11:50:50.763062;6567351725ebff8fccb7ec2ae5810bb3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000412.soc;412;2025-10-14 11:50:50.769432;f991fed7731d08c635dd9649e57ef647;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000413.soc;413;2025-10-14 11:50:50.773437;765d5a46a66829c36cdcf348ee23cbbd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000414.soc;414;2025-10-14 11:50:50.779778;3849398bf426905b6a55aa8d8ddcc3bf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000415.soc;415;2025-10-14 11:50:50.779778;d83d102fbdffb82bc15b8b8f1d509c06;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000416.soc;416;2025-10-14 11:50:50.779778;88375a37b1119b6f7e0fccabf5bd2ff2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000417.soc;417;2025-10-14 11:50:50.793329;699d7e4e14e316f72efad4ffec0d1828;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000418.soc;418;2025-10-14 11:50:50.795874;2688cf31166bc818dacdfb74a66be7c0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000419.soc;419;2025-10-14 11:50:50.796366;eefe4c69d4424a1e104db493b0c8860a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000420.soc;420;2025-10-14 11:50:50.796366;560048f6c143817874d52fe3c9cd2139;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000421.soc;421;2025-10-14 11:50:50.796366;7000f5267da87bd9b6133c68a1bfeb69;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000422.soc;422;2025-10-14 11:50:50.796366;8b3158971886c6d777d222d704a7f607;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000423.soc;423;2025-10-14 11:50:50.811995;9fff55a574a96902066ba614540a6552;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000424.soc;424;2025-10-14 11:50:50.812928;d04b2ca317e80c193e9ba7eeab48e22f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000425.soc;425;2025-10-14 11:50:50.812928;77220fc233e06ad6f2e27938da188c19;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000426.soc;426;2025-10-14 11:50:50.812928;83aabe8645624eeed221e3a2f2faabfe;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000427.soc;427;2025-10-14 11:50:50.828506;3bc1e3bba125f5a00d1779478e70932c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000428.soc;428;2025-10-14 11:50:50.832966;54ffe2ad1a12d629c35c908ad1b26250;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000429.soc;429;2025-10-14 11:50:50.846262;79aaeaa35904400a977472d0ff290da7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000430.soc;430;2025-10-14 11:50:50.846262;e07c6750d64fe46a23dee379af9a9170;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000431.soc;431;2025-10-14 11:50:50.861485;1d2d5bb366e8de295c2a54c7eea2b172;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000432.soc;432;2025-10-14 11:50:50.863440;8282d00f3e226c75233110be4c2f0d7c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000433.soc;433;2025-10-14 11:50:50.865662;e46a70a9fc1420de389842c0a47b0836;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000434.soc;434;2025-10-14 11:50:50.867894;cfb551fdd18fd38286bcc0306d49fef4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000435.soc;435;2025-10-14 11:50:50.871905;a1a861f15014c9a34267d339beea0af1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000436.soc;436;2025-10-14 11:50:50.873907;6c6b1083c74572d43abb5fb4a63d761d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000437.soc;437;2025-10-14 11:50:50.875909;d68194b7bc06449c1aa7cb83c4dd03a2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000438.soc;438;2025-10-14 11:50:50.880000;5eb46bee11faa2b75c9b0112383b335d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000439.soc;439;2025-10-14 11:50:50.880000;4a65d50c762dfc557e62fffa15f56e07;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000440.soc;440;2025-10-14 11:50:50.880000;a2d1e524c129dfea2bd3042bfc9e2d56;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000441.soc;441;2025-10-14 11:50:50.880000;489b32f5654c14ba677ac77d799b8a52;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000442.soc;442;2025-10-14 11:50:50.896268;806bcb9d8fbdaea0780a26d7018effe8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000443.soc;443;2025-10-14 11:50:50.896268;f7d3ec4eb1bf2cd41e9d5277d004a2fc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000444.soc;444;2025-10-14 11:50:50.896268;dcae2770a899c0be9c0c8ec1ffcd3959;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000445.soc;445;2025-10-14 11:50:50.896268;04bc456aabfe75d029c8d1b1a6275718;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000446.soc;446;2025-10-14 11:50:50.911843;66086ddc6fb3cab75b5aec7fed8d8688;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000447.soc;447;2025-10-14 11:50:50.912904;4cd6a24d67d43f336d096afa2ad60f98;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000448.soc;448;2025-10-14 11:50:50.912904;641026ac88d70a2e04cf467af2a5062d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000449.soc;449;2025-10-14 11:50:50.912904;2cd371a4e88468d431d86531be1ecd39;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000450.soc;450;2025-10-14 11:50:50.928079;9bb86700b6c2180676cfa547ecd182b1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000451.soc;451;2025-10-14 11:50:50.933070;881e20c0c7ad4a37095aee93635dd59c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000452.soc;452;2025-10-14 11:50:50.933070;1b6a359e00312d776769dbbdc3daaf1f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000453.soc;453;2025-10-14 11:50:50.945121;10212b61197ffb9c160b0ddaa2faa374;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000454.soc;454;2025-10-14 11:50:50.946264;98ff4b8b210ac9d276b0cd856d33ddab;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000455.soc;455;2025-10-14 11:50:50.946264;0083746340c00c009d2efd8d5542e075;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000456.soc;456;2025-10-14 11:50:50.962363;c543597fd7fbb0a5c34bc5addcc77293;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000457.soc;457;2025-10-14 11:50:50.964383;c6a922e00d547fdc8515667a2a9cab0f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000458.soc;458;2025-10-14 11:50:50.966375;d3bec1168332d28cbe96ad5e8edfc553;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000459.soc;459;2025-10-14 11:50:50.966375;84878bd087173056e87a36bc8f27c628;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000460.soc;460;2025-10-14 11:50:50.966375;c0ad0e8cfb63101ae9f7c8ae2ecc84cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000461.soc;461;2025-10-14 11:50:50.979678;220cd8ed2868d3e4986be5a6aad5927d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000462.soc;462;2025-10-14 11:50:50.979678;1ad6da9d9405aee48aea4886840f20d0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000463.soc;463;2025-10-14 11:50:50.979678;3357ece69855cf61f5a42c7dad6f2c63;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000464.soc;464;2025-10-14 11:50:50.995697;5ec87e3802fbbefd7a4590cd2b2390ec;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000465.soc;465;2025-10-14 11:50:50.996145;f97ce0d4ab04dad83453882748dd8f3e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000466.soc;466;2025-10-14 11:50:50.996145;68efcdd9e8711ef47c66e3992cd04bf5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000467.soc;467;2025-10-14 11:50:50.996145;854af31ed83dc1281b48adeb7131b5f5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000468.soc;468;2025-10-14 11:50:51.012817;733c37bba457b4157307241773a8bf2c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000469.soc;469;2025-10-14 11:50:51.012817;7e8e5b078ca1bde9f3c3d192f9d9822a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000470.soc;470;2025-10-14 11:50:51.012817;92a8abefe452beb68cabab7229b4da98;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000471.soc;471;2025-10-14 11:50:51.012817;2eae1834ada79b737c65e1e9174aeafe;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000472.soc;472;2025-10-14 11:50:51.033277;dc532633badcc5dd1802638a85478cea;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000473.soc;473;2025-10-14 11:50:51.033277;f19d5b502491600c872e41217f01901d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000474.soc;474;2025-10-14 11:50:51.033277;45a7cf88d99051a5a38b75571ffdbb2c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000475.soc;475;2025-10-14 11:50:51.046249;0405cfdcb84b1694d229c48ab5f541ce;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000476.soc;476;2025-10-14 11:50:51.046249;56f2420beb2001c0a65833fae957c82d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000477.soc;477;2025-10-14 11:50:51.046249;e07e93540b8d11b24656a44349ddfd78;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000478.soc;478;2025-10-14 11:50:51.046249;899b26293b446bdf13262dde9c09f432;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000479.soc;479;2025-10-14 11:50:51.046249;43e154d64ae8a88e6c3e02a31edecadb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000480.soc;480;2025-10-14 11:50:51.046249;c9fae6e55c15f51486a640523cc612ea;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000481.soc;481;2025-10-14 11:50:51.062815;8569bd93071f22a419ae0864367dd568;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000482.soc;482;2025-10-14 11:50:51.062815;e0f46b09b4210090d2c7726375a6701e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000483.soc;483;2025-10-14 11:50:51.062815;64e7dbe0f8f5d56d0339848b1cc9622f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000484.soc;484;2025-10-14 11:50:51.078926;e374ad552e3d49b287a68b957161e291;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000485.soc;485;2025-10-14 11:50:51.081355;b586a8bd279f202d8604a9ff3ad1a2a0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000486.soc;486;2025-10-14 11:50:51.082307;924b327442c32419aff9d2c55b24c276;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000487.soc;487;2025-10-14 11:50:51.082307;d2ac8fbed8338411e71285288018ba36;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000488.soc;488;2025-10-14 11:50:51.082307;84555d99b06084c284fb0a90ceadbc44;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000489.soc;489;2025-10-14 11:50:51.082307;4698bbfa30f1ddd40bbdadfd794e9a0b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000490.soc;490;2025-10-14 11:50:51.095610;3350887053bd94378382d7458ad997e4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000491.soc;491;2025-10-14 11:50:51.096225;cee624b5ebe436565ec38bc4caa592d4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000492.soc;492;2025-10-14 11:50:51.096225;0955981122c29ef7ae32c103b8cbf2e0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000493.soc;493;2025-10-14 11:50:51.096225;0330c1e6b9d4043634812a0da8e3cd8d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000494.soc;494;2025-10-14 11:50:51.096225;15e16cd40f878cc7152a2f8ff32f8729;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000495.soc;495;2025-10-14 11:50:51.096225;8f7efce5a7e2e69a09a7e364aeac4f9d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000496.soc;496;2025-10-14 11:50:51.112254;2f59125f74ac52284ba50f2f3e4ddac8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000497.soc;497;2025-10-14 11:50:51.112715;9d47d9f18d0f4d38edc6f509750e50f7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000498.soc;498;2025-10-14 11:50:51.112715;c882448b4c1144f03f41c96fe30f486d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000499.soc;499;2025-10-14 11:50:51.112715;e9843e9f4d2e59019cf0e8586abb2c24;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000500.soc;500;2025-10-14 11:50:51.112715;2be0b7300ad058b32e95e6d4013604a5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000501.soc;501;2025-10-14 11:50:51.125187;c63521ef4f9830acd5c6f127a53c4b21;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000502.soc;502;2025-10-14 11:50:51.128193;36547d312143dab382fc9e90a7405dd1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000503.soc;503;2025-10-14 11:50:51.133423;33b87565927b8255323668c7d85a4645;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000504.soc;504;2025-10-14 11:50:51.133423;257298acc463bdd69968b7c9077bcdc4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000505.soc;505;2025-10-14 11:50:51.133423;5836791335e15fcd4f81aed39cbde839;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000506.soc;506;2025-10-14 11:50:51.133423;3e974184468fb473209a382dced59abd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000507.soc;507;2025-10-14 11:50:51.145983;6431912941ca625e2e15833a5bd4ff76;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000508.soc;508;2025-10-14 11:50:51.162598;960cea7170646ae185b8c46ea03824ca;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000509.soc;509;2025-10-14 11:50:51.162598;2e93b125220afb445745a8bef8be552b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000510.soc;510;2025-10-14 11:50:51.162598;6da4fbc94cb22256f426b44ae776820e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000511.soc;511;2025-10-14 11:50:51.162598;8861f9fc5a88d5d2e6ee6ae8bfced5ad;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000512.soc;512;2025-10-14 11:50:51.162598;5981a47994f0532a5af8a26df6e1fc64;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000513.soc;513;2025-10-14 11:50:51.162598;72fe1d001e2f613bfaa01e7171d84558;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000514.soc;514;2025-10-14 11:50:51.182127;d3283197345f1a874853e3731ae0b782;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000515.soc;515;2025-10-14 11:50:51.182127;640332d84db20d6246be2e83cd02f2cf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000516.soc;516;2025-10-14 11:50:51.182127;ffa8416d07a8d7714202579f5211bcb6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000517.soc;517;2025-10-14 11:50:51.182127;4e045cfb16018714ce8134d3815988ec;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000518.soc;518;2025-10-14 11:50:51.196055;12dfd537eea7e47c99ab061d423fee84;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000519.soc;519;2025-10-14 11:50:51.196055;f8a766d97339902d994bac612daddc60;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000520.soc;520;2025-10-14 11:50:51.196055;5f204e48042ad7e1689f95a4829cf474;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000521.soc;521;2025-10-14 11:50:51.212642;40b997798c52da36412c40ad4e73d68c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000522.soc;522;2025-10-14 11:50:51.212642;387017bba4831aeed61a0b62025b303f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000523.soc;523;2025-10-14 11:50:51.212642;f12ce73ce105d4dc1a2538e8dd487474;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000524.soc;524;2025-10-14 11:50:51.229310;2b76f567b3c25539c1751c3be435f903;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000525.soc;525;2025-10-14 11:50:51.233470;455c698c997c47407b927c210e644c56;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000526.soc;526;2025-10-14 11:50:51.233470;a17237a221e1297c2f8e20e7120a319f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000527.soc;527;2025-10-14 11:50:51.240413;14089536dd9cb0ef560df387ad6ca2d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000528.soc;528;2025-10-14 11:50:51.245908;e24f23823189285d25c6b9a25498e972;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000529.soc;529;2025-10-14 11:50:51.245908;0691a2000854f392da41d2f48f00c0d4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000530.soc;530;2025-10-14 11:50:51.245908;c9e064a47c6911247db42837cf94ca50;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000531.soc;531;2025-10-14 11:50:51.245908;5bec3c1ec2377acf5a0387d447d76614;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000532.soc;532;2025-10-14 11:50:51.245908;962513a57f736c82748892aaab307da7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000533.soc;533;2025-10-14 11:50:51.262543;de5ab267ae778b284d98f742c4deccfd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000534.soc;534;2025-10-14 11:50:51.262543;974413d050359fbc568beccdea376dbb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000535.soc;535;2025-10-14 11:50:51.262543;e3be42ccc82682ada4a6ebe4ae98fa54;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000536.soc;536;2025-10-14 11:50:51.279312;858531cd51d360f866a319c2db230ace;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000537.soc;537;2025-10-14 11:50:51.279312;c782624d18f299cad3e56c8f6e65f9e6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000538.soc;538;2025-10-14 11:50:51.279312;165d4fdb646efa4365bc77a664b5d9ff;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000539.soc;539;2025-10-14 11:50:51.279312;e716b5bbe68e967f44aa97eba4b1c769;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000540.soc;540;2025-10-14 11:50:51.279312;c5cbb07f0564bfae04088329e1ce8264;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000541.soc;541;2025-10-14 11:50:51.298784;73ed4d02812ae82374c1b63e459fe137;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000542.soc;542;2025-10-14 11:50:51.298784;ca4c69275ed0b5393530b973d3faf62c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000543.soc;543;2025-10-14 11:50:51.298784;f29226300614ff49cb99485a5faf32fa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000544.soc;544;2025-10-14 11:50:51.312613;53a06b3a6574d6770b278592f8210e91;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000545.soc;545;2025-10-14 11:50:51.329222;4007d3c6959a543c792bb2369b6da1ad;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000546.soc;546;2025-10-14 11:50:51.333434;c08abe86cae7c3c67cfbed69ba6aab21;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000547.soc;547;2025-10-14 11:50:51.333434;c989dbf2b1276e51493aa9e7a9474e9c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000548.soc;548;2025-10-14 11:50:51.345817;5493d6532688de46c7752a6fc0429745;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000549.soc;549;2025-10-14 11:50:51.345817;1c1e22f48e508fd517e56afff88a3300;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000550.soc;550;2025-10-14 11:50:51.345817;b7dc78a1c29e4d01544cca614939f139;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000551.soc;551;2025-10-14 11:50:51.345817;ba0542ddf96dbf6c89abc27d5da21b2b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000552.soc;552;2025-10-14 11:50:51.345817;a00609257a6e5a5a24e1e239357f40a0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000553.soc;553;2025-10-14 11:50:51.345817;ba29f8dd290c80d1f9a0bb98b9338b63;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000554.soc;554;2025-10-14 11:50:51.361424;ccdb9b91c5267045ab854e7ab0777214;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000555.soc;555;2025-10-14 11:50:51.362424;7b0a91b41747c8450a806ca9f6223b6b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000556.soc;556;2025-10-14 11:50:51.362424;03d3d0336c681838466775b4ba62ebb5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000557.soc;557;2025-10-14 11:50:51.379231;951ef9d482b6d025f76e2ae8d9197086;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000558.soc;558;2025-10-14 11:50:51.387997;458bbbfdd5249cbc0b0004a7f21de9d0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000559.soc;559;2025-10-14 11:50:51.396325;bfc14c7695c240bea69595f570a47cee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000560.soc;560;2025-10-14 11:50:51.398479;23917e2831b38a783ed2cdfe304b646f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000561.soc;561;2025-10-14 11:50:51.398479;5b1ca5bc9ff5e0fd10c4eefa8e32e1cd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000562.soc;562;2025-10-14 11:50:51.398479;f112db9463c82fbe291c96cfc5e5f11e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000563.soc;563;2025-10-14 11:50:51.412506;5ad6666caa0cfdf072770c5301380507;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000564.soc;564;2025-10-14 11:50:51.412506;5e8d19d05f1c308768e91446a5195024;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000565.soc;565;2025-10-14 11:50:51.412506;69416ee2e4f826b2fa6fec0e69f6667f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000566.soc;566;2025-10-14 11:50:51.412506;bea5c643c05e214fbbd64ec084b7b9cf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000567.soc;567;2025-10-14 11:50:51.429109;8531540c4ad3f15ea29887bbe4096701;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000568.soc;568;2025-10-14 11:50:51.429109;710515ed7edea213b58b731698808e7b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000569.soc;569;2025-10-14 11:50:51.433420;bfd52d8b20e0ab2d37734ab65b76ccc9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000570.soc;570;2025-10-14 11:50:51.445773;30bb667c941ac268afc6d5d6f7cf90be;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000571.soc;571;2025-10-14 11:50:51.445773;a5ef3ba65dacb56c4a3cd91d617f7815;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000572.soc;572;2025-10-14 11:50:51.445773;9f86906a033ae46ac5c52176a58888fe;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000573.soc;573;2025-10-14 11:50:51.445773;7cce3e8a368d98e0dc8202ddc145c317;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000574.soc;574;2025-10-14 11:50:51.461968;08a252fce5831f90ca5d97a758fdb7f4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000575.soc;575;2025-10-14 11:50:51.462608;b11dd888a716e18cad22cd750e06c208;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000576.soc;576;2025-10-14 11:50:51.462608;e4633235d4c8edce04301289e5973e14;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000577.soc;577;2025-10-14 11:50:51.479054;fc549e02e011e71835a146df332ddaac;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000578.soc;578;2025-10-14 11:50:51.479054;c0453caf6032b225d39dfa234334ebec;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000579.soc;579;2025-10-14 11:50:51.479054;ea655f79e2da03ad384bf77fd6eb7ea7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000580.soc;580;2025-10-14 11:50:51.479054;00d613bcf02a929899bf65e5a201c7bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000581.soc;581;2025-10-14 11:50:51.494220;35cca26d3e4f8e059a2d36ad0e6d2dc8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000582.soc;582;2025-10-14 11:50:51.495788;a0a132806295ce7317e2782ff46cb92b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000583.soc;583;2025-10-14 11:50:51.495788;b44e5fbacafd2c9099c7035b55b8bf48;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000584.soc;584;2025-10-14 11:50:51.495788;38c439a09d9574534e06d888e11b3111;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000585.soc;585;2025-10-14 11:50:51.511886;2254c3e5d041d0afdd0f324925303009;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000586.soc;586;2025-10-14 11:50:51.515428;53ec43f7f1828a382162fcadfbee56cb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000587.soc;587;2025-10-14 11:50:51.515428;a179c64e52810613531364002e67439b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000588.soc;588;2025-10-14 11:50:51.515428;edeacd158ca66b2f5a9338fb8d7b779b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000589.soc;589;2025-10-14 11:50:51.533351;977e37b9e34fbeff6b7f336e38514557;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000590.soc;590;2025-10-14 11:50:51.533351;1c87557c3de6f2da04742eb574ea51c6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000591.soc;591;2025-10-14 11:50:51.545239;d35952ca84361e9dcc29b16f50847f7c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000592.soc;592;2025-10-14 11:50:51.595601;383087dd600a3e172416ab12d782d90d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000593.soc;593;2025-10-14 11:50:51.615478;e2d6689744b9d96ef92b32175a4e787c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000594.soc;594;2025-10-14 11:50:51.620714;bde1c5fa9a590e1c9d0e8e8ecb5bebb9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000595.soc;595;2025-10-14 11:50:51.629208;e5634f8f5af1cff786764cd15968a87c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000596.soc;596;2025-10-14 11:50:51.645890;f23e5a8ac3b2f2856285b2f2352028f2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000597.soc;597;2025-10-14 11:50:51.677600;5c63cc79b4fc64602590386910e372bf;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000598.soc;598;2025-10-14 11:50:51.695518;b1a157e648a48ab91f6d319647a6151a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000599.soc;599;2025-10-14 11:50:51.695518;566dbdfa00b5913c3440a0ec785a1815;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000600.soc;600;2025-10-14 11:50:51.712413;004923480395579ea4352ef5b66cecf7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000601.soc;601;2025-10-14 11:50:51.712413;4e357e1f727a1e175a8bfe620df446e7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000602.soc;602;2025-10-14 11:50:51.712413;8f65a5f4691a7882708aec8f8491457b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000603.soc;603;2025-10-14 11:50:51.712413;7c4a2db481f1d4ec2bbd381b0af9c480;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000604.soc;604;2025-10-14 11:50:51.712413;b41e941bbc0f60fe00599932a34ab326;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000605.soc;605;2025-10-14 11:50:51.727714;b7ed251eec2ddf35e1b6f6ec26edd996;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000606.soc;606;2025-10-14 11:50:51.730731;537ad79f18069e2a168274257759a203;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000607.soc;607;2025-10-14 11:50:51.733611;18673bd3eb4072c4bbf61af67a1fa276;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000608.soc;608;2025-10-14 11:50:51.733611;f54e31384e4dcf03cd2214b73dd37809;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000609.soc;609;2025-10-14 11:50:51.733611;a791b053795f39e33fbaf26cdde0e82d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True +00070-00000610.soc;610;2025-10-14 11:50:51.745559;7f0667bc2a028ed930aa8e8849b46501;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000611.soc;611;2025-10-14 11:50:51.745559;dd7b25c46fc15bd3776693a5ec3351f4;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000612.soc;612;2025-10-14 11:50:51.745559;80a5049267ac4ca729a27b4b53f4a257;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000613.soc;613;2025-10-14 11:50:51.745559;9b673b33902c3facb0867b795ea8d045;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000614.soc;614;2025-10-14 11:50:51.745559;afb5cd6c0f7c0d605cb913d26d32e603;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000615.soc;615;2025-10-14 11:50:51.745559;299ff700c2523a26a4e0e397839b3a69;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000616.soc;616;2025-10-14 11:50:51.761736;606f6fdf49a8535e41b09e7a2937e709;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000617.soc;617;2025-10-14 11:50:51.762228;7e0750ec2b24dcca9ac3795e5ed0860b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000618.soc;618;2025-10-14 11:50:51.762228;f6dbf05589c53092a90a464d7e860012;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000619.soc;619;2025-10-14 11:50:51.762228;c9228c932a7dd894d6514f594d762fbf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000620.soc;620;2025-10-14 11:50:51.762228;7964fc800b02ea6cf216dc22f59f7c4c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000621.soc;621;2025-10-14 11:50:51.778299;f52456642ca0164da56c277b8b0f9d8f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000622.soc;622;2025-10-14 11:50:51.778903;aaf3384d194c181ded1a3dc86d418e88;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000623.soc;623;2025-10-14 11:50:51.778903;fd0efc5ff80b8ce7cc02956ee81c9c1f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000624.soc;624;2025-10-14 11:50:51.778903;b332d416977b6fa04cd586a961ed399f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000625.soc;625;2025-10-14 11:50:51.778903;76aa738da01e7c1dade659efa143a769;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000626.soc;626;2025-10-14 11:50:51.794274;2f4d52867d69a79e868fd6562f4ef4f4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000627.soc;627;2025-10-14 11:50:51.795437;211d6223b1afcd69d6bd5fa5ceeaffbf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000628.soc;628;2025-10-14 11:50:51.795437;801214903d39fcd4e0e6318479af9efb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000629.soc;629;2025-10-14 11:50:51.795437;2b258fa2c49af2266eace27f5183803f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000630.soc;630;2025-10-14 11:50:51.812034;ecc4aa297ad4d923d1bf8b8525948fba;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000631.soc;631;2025-10-14 11:50:51.812034;05c25822e8227dfb2b01f3fb74007827;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000632.soc;632;2025-10-14 11:50:51.812034;a5baa4aa06cfa69045b451ed9866af21;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000633.soc;633;2025-10-14 11:50:51.812034;e6f8bb112e858b6e680297bc2c46484c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;True;True +00070-00000634.soc;634;2025-10-14 11:50:51.829279;edcbfb359b234e7e8768ee5a0813ed0f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000635.soc;635;2025-10-14 11:50:51.833849;54f4e4db71c6e2d20ed8b61d24c9ab0f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000636.soc;636;2025-10-14 11:50:51.833849;1b379dd6f080e47987c0cd9374c29db0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000637.soc;637;2025-10-14 11:50:51.833849;eb0a88dae2503890cc2c4cdd272c1c83;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000638.soc;638;2025-10-14 11:50:51.833849;a34728dfd1ab46285100e31dc60546f3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000639.soc;639;2025-10-14 11:50:51.845465;d11c17a72e202181d676a0c07da7d6cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000640.soc;640;2025-10-14 11:50:51.845465;712a505ff1972455c837b4db3a74146f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000641.soc;641;2025-10-14 11:50:51.845465;6cedaaa2142bd1c480ec8a6661db0878;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000642.soc;642;2025-10-14 11:50:51.853956;9063d22705c19fed906824ec46d37e2e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000643.soc;643;2025-10-14 11:50:51.853956;6dcbe1e6e1b5de87124289546ceffb73;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000644.soc;644;2025-10-14 11:50:51.862141;8910ff7017e326c3293481e30ff55a51;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000645.soc;645;2025-10-14 11:50:51.862141;7dd1805dc58af3ea0c04e720fbccb2ab;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000646.soc;646;2025-10-14 11:50:51.862141;79af4aba9c634027c847e55f8baf1619;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000647.soc;647;2025-10-14 11:50:51.862141;1e1bd50df6494cc12087a11b78130809;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000648.soc;648;2025-10-14 11:50:51.862141;7086ab35bca41a1a4e7bffd2ce4c33df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000649.soc;649;2025-10-14 11:50:51.878922;62ba2945279320cd0fe47619b7e2281e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000650.soc;650;2025-10-14 11:50:51.878922;f04ff7f697f9969aca971543ff5bd070;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000651.soc;651;2025-10-14 11:50:51.878922;c959199b3042b17856a9766aa3528323;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000652.soc;652;2025-10-14 11:50:51.878922;a5b5960cc46a8884dd2d9500ddf44768;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000653.soc;653;2025-10-14 11:50:51.878922;1f9a00ea879c505320b77dca3c9c1665;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000654.soc;654;2025-10-14 11:50:51.895365;8fb3385672ddd78d9e311c17dd7c5f3d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000655.soc;655;2025-10-14 11:50:51.895365;9c32bd834aae524fc790782d32adf727;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000656.soc;656;2025-10-14 11:50:51.911958;3030f6a3271e345d0cd1edff35019d6d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000657.soc;657;2025-10-14 11:50:51.911958;b871e087ddd35697fa896a5c01fadc91;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000658.soc;658;2025-10-14 11:50:51.917718;05a7f51b2b8e7cc660a50e18e8241a5b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000659.soc;659;2025-10-14 11:50:51.917718;9ca090362e1b34dc02e5b766d83026b9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000660.soc;660;2025-10-14 11:50:51.928915;e422be3c136888bbf02f4453cf24b9fa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000661.soc;661;2025-10-14 11:50:51.928915;03d6a14be4159e46d559cba482fb305b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000662.soc;662;2025-10-14 11:50:51.944968;7a0e23875fce4e2f0dccac0938821931;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000663.soc;663;2025-10-14 11:50:51.948680;327b4befabe80653708d187fe54895eb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000664.soc;664;2025-10-14 11:50:51.962037;68fd67da0772514ef8e1a92172dbf81e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000665.soc;665;2025-10-14 11:50:51.962037;c6d73ebf9012fbc405b229237da89065;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000666.soc;666;2025-10-14 11:50:51.962037;8b4332ced6eaf87ab26634c6d5239d41;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000667.soc;667;2025-10-14 11:50:51.978971;dd6becb32063aab5d76f79599a66bc9b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000668.soc;668;2025-10-14 11:50:51.995372;e84a79a0a7ef0c351b3d5507481d4651;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000669.soc;669;2025-10-14 11:50:51.995372;8095716eabbeddcf944d73a7bc26a177;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000670.soc;670;2025-10-14 11:50:51.995372;fcf067b3b07a887fe6964438e7db7510;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000671.soc;671;2025-10-14 11:50:52.028612;2071159571accb61f25879cdb7729896;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000672.soc;672;2025-10-14 11:50:52.033720;72d694f2069bc22512865778df8c2f7f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000673.soc;673;2025-10-14 11:50:52.033720;631e51ffaa17a89756831432ce273a5d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000674.soc;674;2025-10-14 11:50:52.033720;ed8b3832aba928ff54094ad6c788953d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000675.soc;675;2025-10-14 11:50:52.046909;3d8519f4849dd53ede90456813346422;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000676.soc;676;2025-10-14 11:50:52.048227;179fc71f3f4532caa95293ed8238eba2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000677.soc;677;2025-10-14 11:50:52.048227;bbfea30cd23ce9d37bef6f09792acf07;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000678.soc;678;2025-10-14 11:50:52.048227;e24ede3d074a94d111a20fe86b5c03ec;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000679.soc;679;2025-10-14 11:50:52.062056;93691cf27a6d1f7a7c0946e3a245654e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000680.soc;680;2025-10-14 11:50:52.062056;2396bc715f306f29851fe65166e51f49;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000681.soc;681;2025-10-14 11:50:52.062056;7e57c9c667a159589e4920c8154fdbf2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000682.soc;682;2025-10-14 11:50:52.062056;33e46241c7f7608bc658ffd6ffb1a81d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000683.soc;683;2025-10-14 11:50:52.078705;291e10e9ec6fa766f405e15829584750;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000684.soc;684;2025-10-14 11:50:52.078705;f25c672a44ec1583c9c4d71723958b0a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000685.soc;685;2025-10-14 11:50:52.095250;7c63932617856d8aa34be85dc14114f7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000686.soc;686;2025-10-14 11:50:52.110049;950e5bb43940797e32cbc248993eaaa2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000687.soc;687;2025-10-14 11:50:52.111872;1d710d12ad12c6a15e1fc742313f1229;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000688.soc;688;2025-10-14 11:50:52.111872;0401d315565c5ffc7580c22a8a75cd81;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000689.soc;689;2025-10-14 11:50:52.127138;705244bbd69b5d63c68b77fb85dbbf3c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000690.soc;690;2025-10-14 11:50:52.128444;c248fbb23a2e68f36d71933a1ed2dcf0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000691.soc;691;2025-10-14 11:50:52.133848;a0513e0c1e473d62847eecc97102741c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000692.soc;692;2025-10-14 11:50:52.133848;dd62239bc4017130880808572bfc1864;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000693.soc;693;2025-10-14 11:50:52.144725;956f48e67df6133b0b0910ff2de0d079;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000694.soc;694;2025-10-14 11:50:52.145472;45632e75b0eabf9ee6217570c3baa93b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000695.soc;695;2025-10-14 11:50:52.145472;09f05256a6b01365f1ef405c383e3661;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000696.soc;696;2025-10-14 11:50:52.145472;9b595dbc6904749fceb51931be9d5ee5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000697.soc;697;2025-10-14 11:50:52.162414;61881c05d1dfddb9248b342331f2950f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000698.soc;698;2025-10-14 11:50:52.164743;20bc27c884e6ea9eead1f594ce75f41b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000699.soc;699;2025-10-14 11:50:52.164743;72e735b082338864c2f2070a4779c4ed;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000700.soc;700;2025-10-14 11:50:52.178467;23ae621c42e0bbd73a575c20b4441310;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000701.soc;701;2025-10-14 11:50:52.178467;110ee78c17b07d256b7cc2189efb64ac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000702.soc;702;2025-10-14 11:50:52.178467;6363b9d89f641f1e6100dbd7bae4a232;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000703.soc;703;2025-10-14 11:50:52.193843;7b81bf1330d00cb2784a65a273abcad8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000704.soc;704;2025-10-14 11:50:52.211300;4c376df92fd41abdbe268960cf42b496;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000705.soc;705;2025-10-14 11:50:52.211728;15481a8a23c2f2408d143e3d805bd1f0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000706.soc;706;2025-10-14 11:50:52.228412;2bba660d141ff27346cca64f9e5adbeb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000707.soc;707;2025-10-14 11:50:52.245006;bebe6eed92c75ad8e26b6f006c05cedb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000708.soc;708;2025-10-14 11:50:52.245006;88915c1a3e9cc9a904dc851c1ae17a14;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000709.soc;709;2025-10-14 11:50:52.245006;47598fe2a678658646c13227e9481fc4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000710.soc;710;2025-10-14 11:50:52.245006;3cd1f32526077c9b3de3cb289eed4bdc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000711.soc;711;2025-10-14 11:50:52.245006;b4c5c1d78adf32194ced3faf242c875e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000712.soc;712;2025-10-14 11:50:52.261230;8f4428a690bfcce830872fa041cb3354;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000713.soc;713;2025-10-14 11:50:52.263262;373d7beeb47d69652f9e39a6e5b8b518;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000714.soc;714;2025-10-14 11:50:52.264892;c0436e574a742fde0188c45f4711495d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000715.soc;715;2025-10-14 11:50:52.264892;2f2a62490b112bd34af06b93577df381;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000716.soc;716;2025-10-14 11:50:52.264892;0fab911e855851d79a2fd0852b427067;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000717.soc;717;2025-10-14 11:50:52.264892;9573975d5b4676c64eb7fc73e00ac0a4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000718.soc;718;2025-10-14 11:50:52.278341;7cdf72ad4469a18fc6e187539aafdb10;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000719.soc;719;2025-10-14 11:50:52.278341;c529dbb2711b0dcc811c6d8344ddbe56;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000720.soc;720;2025-10-14 11:50:52.278341;f27c66ff1e5e6e77f1fe4fd957a42d6e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000721.soc;721;2025-10-14 11:50:52.293535;2bdb5b1f48a49a002cedcafe8bb84fdb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000722.soc;722;2025-10-14 11:50:52.294984;abafd347b8cb01db2754244e2d41317b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000723.soc;723;2025-10-14 11:50:52.294984;c0974eea242ab81afbd6c7823ae2028d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000724.soc;724;2025-10-14 11:50:52.311680;479a51f7a31dae732f738c6a1d506c2b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000725.soc;725;2025-10-14 11:50:52.311680;3aa6da264cb999c67a6b8b265a1a19e2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000726.soc;726;2025-10-14 11:50:52.311680;a70d4a314c828bccc1c1843c5a9280ee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000727.soc;727;2025-10-14 11:50:52.311680;7d432f1b8302e3a7350509c2b0ad9a1e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000728.soc;728;2025-10-14 11:50:52.328337;a5d2b28d78c7f7bc21225e96aab17e30;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000729.soc;729;2025-10-14 11:50:52.334165;b0bfb227233b0e29a10967bf76b26f50;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000730.soc;730;2025-10-14 11:50:52.334165;aeba93a5aa063dfd76227a1a32c110fc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000731.soc;731;2025-10-14 11:50:52.334165;591886bcbcc33b256c0458054a6450a7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000732.soc;732;2025-10-14 11:50:52.345059;da756f5a274e7624073191f632158fb7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000733.soc;733;2025-10-14 11:50:52.348006;4e3a5bbefbfec7cea17c2c85f476f489;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000734.soc;734;2025-10-14 11:50:52.348006;1a6ed8d2bbc7a4db50343e90d6dd1453;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000735.soc;735;2025-10-14 11:50:52.348006;cc189da26c71e69b8109d17a08fafe4f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000736.soc;736;2025-10-14 11:50:52.354166;8290e0bd2564fcc72d7355dbb9883a7c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000737.soc;737;2025-10-14 11:50:52.354166;4d78028dabf71d55c8f53f7ad4551137;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000738.soc;738;2025-10-14 11:50:52.361565;3d9badd7285720f1ec412279a4f60c41;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000739.soc;739;2025-10-14 11:50:52.364619;02d6165d20ef20a792b345ffccfdbf83;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000740.soc;740;2025-10-14 11:50:52.364619;13864fba8ed25b99e7fd8ebcb5a4a100;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000741.soc;741;2025-10-14 11:50:52.364619;3641178dd314c775102c9e26852c9e9c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000742.soc;742;2025-10-14 11:50:52.380935;ffc2df51a7ed2158d457ebdc940a9284;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000743.soc;743;2025-10-14 11:50:52.380935;65868e7810acbe7fda3d88022a60d3a6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000744.soc;744;2025-10-14 11:50:52.395039;bc166118cf79554f51971a492ed1cc53;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000745.soc;745;2025-10-14 11:50:52.395039;38f9df494764e82dffc00d1db25cbdc0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000746.soc;746;2025-10-14 11:50:52.411593;7f34337a8dedade8c3a385aa04db6810;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000747.soc;747;2025-10-14 11:50:52.411593;374aad156558f876f2ca1f847a3f85cc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000748.soc;748;2025-10-14 11:50:52.411593;1786e5a7a8cdb71ec31711e1fdf50f48;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000749.soc;749;2025-10-14 11:50:52.411593;1bb92c88e293463ab3ada629df6e829a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000750.soc;750;2025-10-14 11:50:52.426785;5d2f1a3dbea498b3fb8f94850b694452;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000751.soc;751;2025-10-14 11:50:52.428282;f0ecdd85a6a65f17d92f454c98283145;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000752.soc;752;2025-10-14 11:50:52.428282;d7c0b7a2095d21c9ce28830ea6d86afc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000753.soc;753;2025-10-14 11:50:52.434247;956a3c29e31be3b24253dad216e38c15;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000754.soc;754;2025-10-14 11:50:52.437011;e128a8f4a91c21c37b1c7b5f6bace458;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000755.soc;755;2025-10-14 11:50:52.443018;e75f107851597a509646d3b66430f971;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000756.soc;756;2025-10-14 11:50:52.445002;ac40eec7c5cb6efcfd9b1abba9bbf089;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000757.soc;757;2025-10-14 11:50:52.445002;6e687260399a657b3b67f6689968d22c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000758.soc;758;2025-10-14 11:50:52.461823;8ba68fc8515a5706c7bf64af5c699248;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000759.soc;759;2025-10-14 11:50:52.466542;421c9c1b4f8410a1a9946c473ad18f74;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000760.soc;760;2025-10-14 11:50:52.478787;b1247a3d193d70d44eb65d8be4fb8ae1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000761.soc;761;2025-10-14 11:50:52.481883;19da844b435ff36b56e35ef598234e3d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000762.soc;762;2025-10-14 11:50:52.481883;ab99c87a0b7327ecc0a726fafa086fd0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000763.soc;763;2025-10-14 11:50:52.481883;c3ad80b95aaf0ee981ff63e689677675;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000764.soc;764;2025-10-14 11:50:52.481883;42dcb9275bf66bcffa8b9a8ae9158981;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000765.soc;765;2025-10-14 11:50:52.495144;37df5bdbdc98277c31288a751482eea9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000766.soc;766;2025-10-14 11:50:52.495144;4ca2304c0d6fde2bf968a3c677a0d21c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000767.soc;767;2025-10-14 11:50:52.495144;8a33a0672bc6e1e66b2e703be60bd5ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000768.soc;768;2025-10-14 11:50:52.495144;d84d57cc60b5d031beae3f44e27b94e1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000769.soc;769;2025-10-14 11:50:52.495144;53c5fee940a7b5c078a2342fa26e2261;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000770.soc;770;2025-10-14 11:50:52.495144;0e55766923dbb418b78d319e6004346c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000771.soc;771;2025-10-14 11:50:52.511512;6c6db4568151214b647def57ca043aea;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000772.soc;772;2025-10-14 11:50:52.511512;cafb0343f496f9433df8428ef909ffe9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000773.soc;773;2025-10-14 11:50:52.511512;05c6deb7e0709c8d72f71c15738829f3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000774.soc;774;2025-10-14 11:50:52.511512;5c9f06a6964be5309d2b20fb4567faf5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000775.soc;775;2025-10-14 11:50:52.520442;0cf0d665f22df6b204f5c950837889ce;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000776.soc;776;2025-10-14 11:50:52.520442;62773902dee7a8e63943de3365214779;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000777.soc;777;2025-10-14 11:50:52.528196;e4a781ac14357860e19ee88d54a2d040;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000778.soc;778;2025-10-14 11:50:52.528196;f37453ecc049f53cc60d26f7011273b2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000779.soc;779;2025-10-14 11:50:52.534118;fac81e9293f4c16420345a8aa7c022d1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000780.soc;780;2025-10-14 11:50:52.534118;f2aabfe2c967e984ffe8567415020001;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000781.soc;781;2025-10-14 11:50:52.544809;faf4e6f70b824b46a4e85f9389df0dbb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000782.soc;782;2025-10-14 11:50:52.552489;f903f5cb479c74a8b7829b538ed913cb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000783.soc;783;2025-10-14 11:50:52.554491;4263c66492f8c319a20b25cbddda1fd1;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000784.soc;784;2025-10-14 11:50:52.561389;94f95ea37e42a148eef7f4b5a979b967;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000785.soc;785;2025-10-14 11:50:52.561389;66d64e9c8dd3daa9ecb015ed0c9125b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000786.soc;786;2025-10-14 11:50:52.561389;7654eff1affc43fe8f4c1f5148326353;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000787.soc;787;2025-10-14 11:50:52.561389;109a38a96b0d4358c0eb0173013f2248;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000788.soc;788;2025-10-14 11:50:52.577610;3b6fae4d6616dd57f27fdec23933bdd5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000789.soc;789;2025-10-14 11:50:52.581227;3e5b0c7b4785778a85e89ddf03ac98ba;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000790.soc;790;2025-10-14 11:50:52.581227;ceda2b9b1c06f86b07b9a01d05121dc4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000791.soc;791;2025-10-14 11:50:52.581227;02ebea1fda451a2075ae48329a5b7735;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000792.soc;792;2025-10-14 11:50:52.594895;5a5e7349af95e2178649120ca936d125;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000793.soc;793;2025-10-14 11:50:52.594895;82cbfbc3471e7a5f6f0e0e760b053e4b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000794.soc;794;2025-10-14 11:50:52.611473;86f8e227b1ab8820c238bb528328f630;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000795.soc;795;2025-10-14 11:50:52.619946;edb4ce7e64482b7c30845769709e8125;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000796.soc;796;2025-10-14 11:50:52.619946;1a6d45fe745774841ace0e0705a040e6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000797.soc;797;2025-10-14 11:50:52.628236;9d85b96c099f7fb3426ae41be80254f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000798.soc;798;2025-10-14 11:50:52.633951;3813cc4ec2962155bcb322ceebd5118a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000799.soc;799;2025-10-14 11:50:52.633951;36fbe5283322bfa921e97814ab89f9f3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000800.soc;800;2025-10-14 11:50:52.633951;32f7dffe910c5fb1822d57b806fc1929;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000801.soc;801;2025-10-14 11:50:52.643357;f3ed93e89fe3ec908f5ea4b77903da1c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000802.soc;802;2025-10-14 11:50:52.647752;cb8b68f6a8c6555e8aa9777938ff56b2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000803.soc;803;2025-10-14 11:50:52.661279;936f2756d3660cefee8e9c7357bb8e8c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000804.soc;804;2025-10-14 11:50:52.661279;1fd56135715aa95bdb095a13bcb6572e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000805.soc;805;2025-10-14 11:50:52.678115;2b109318a5a55b8e52448cdc12c72f0c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000806.soc;806;2025-10-14 11:50:52.678115;1734f8295f30a3d3d4b87c058a773d65;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000807.soc;807;2025-10-14 11:50:52.678115;1c41fb41b561b1f477c99d0e95e1189c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000808.soc;808;2025-10-14 11:50:52.713989;b222ae62f03a288a36bee60caa96dd31;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000809.soc;809;2025-10-14 11:50:52.713989;4cda1d9d28062d222bb7aa5c2afe5181;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000810.soc;810;2025-10-14 11:50:52.726793;987f174f4725c22cbffdf1ab18b18999;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000811.soc;811;2025-10-14 11:50:52.728095;ec4a1c3c750d417e6a81cdcd74e6a8fb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000812.soc;812;2025-10-14 11:50:52.728095;9e56a09619666b4246f6569ab75c5bec;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000813.soc;813;2025-10-14 11:50:52.733882;319c802160140893abb803ab3e0cf4b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000814.soc;814;2025-10-14 11:50:52.733882;b05b53e0bca71f8bcc970856f2f16b0f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000815.soc;815;2025-10-14 11:50:52.733882;7968b1ca751822336c1e5f9e933839e2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000816.soc;816;2025-10-14 11:50:52.744219;8924d5ae615aa2f7dfbb3f57aaf3f588;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000817.soc;817;2025-10-14 11:50:52.744714;65158bff97a116635ca56031d8f2e98e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000818.soc;818;2025-10-14 11:50:52.744714;454c1df547b70b092292b30c0f70f1bc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000819.soc;819;2025-10-14 11:50:52.744714;b30d6e5cf7d771b15ad3767df64e4326;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000820.soc;820;2025-10-14 11:50:52.744714;859429964913263bb297fdb66aa2519a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000821.soc;821;2025-10-14 11:50:52.759911;7faee8693ad278ba88e6735db7c906c3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000822.soc;822;2025-10-14 11:50:52.761177;366b8318c0f8b7ba64934a10930527a0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000823.soc;823;2025-10-14 11:50:52.766006;7aacaa4a23ad5a7a9ce8f6748f142c35;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000824.soc;824;2025-10-14 11:50:52.766006;3dd8a24c1b46378379398ef59bdc94a0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000825.soc;825;2025-10-14 11:50:52.777987;bccbc49d503d5d5e47bdaadbb20ddad0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000826.soc;826;2025-10-14 11:50:52.795108;ccc9d7b728a9faa1e001459ce2f0b532;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;True;True +00070-00000827.soc;827;2025-10-14 11:50:52.797456;3b5dbf9a027fe0eb7232611dec9506a1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000828.soc;828;2025-10-14 11:50:52.797456;e996b2a204f4ea9a9c7750053c5fc998;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000829.soc;829;2025-10-14 11:50:52.810325;0d88d44c90ab8d2363d2d136f480ece4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000830.soc;830;2025-10-14 11:50:52.811345;78ebc320e0596df8c0e2fdabd6fa1ca9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000831.soc;831;2025-10-14 11:50:52.811345;ecb5366979e12466b63787d0f4141beb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000832.soc;832;2025-10-14 11:50:52.811345;c70951cf61e7762fdfac558f34c4e041;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000833.soc;833;2025-10-14 11:50:52.833977;1924c71ef5ba29c8c8496c83295cfa6e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000834.soc;834;2025-10-14 11:50:52.844481;b80416fb75ccff07411d035d2300f83f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000835.soc;835;2025-10-14 11:50:52.844481;25e581c314883d6f72b65e2138fa19c5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000836.soc;836;2025-10-14 11:50:52.844481;2389b87fa123c82bcc1f6888b6b0200c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000837.soc;837;2025-10-14 11:50:52.844481;74bceccfe5d5e02f33e7da3ab72ac8d1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000838.soc;838;2025-10-14 11:50:52.861115;1ea79b542b562553aa73c484eeff5aae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000839.soc;839;2025-10-14 11:50:52.861115;cb7bd2024785d8f372a9bfa47c7dbfe5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000840.soc;840;2025-10-14 11:50:52.861115;6646dbf5abfadc9ee6dcec4d5eb46645;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000841.soc;841;2025-10-14 11:50:52.877896;49d59b66fb1840718e0534603d4c91ff;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000842.soc;842;2025-10-14 11:50:52.877896;010c1ae19c613c0b95bb248a282e47b3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000843.soc;843;2025-10-14 11:50:52.877896;451553c9aefed64b4bbe895051e85967;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000844.soc;844;2025-10-14 11:50:52.894601;12679e2c69bdfd856d03bc71a4d042fd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000845.soc;845;2025-10-14 11:50:52.894601;33ace0236fa8e134e344b053b9b218aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000846.soc;846;2025-10-14 11:50:52.894601;8ea9ad38947d9a1ff1e13bb3f0741f8f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000847.soc;847;2025-10-14 11:50:52.894601;1f506e97b03eb2785c480f5b265a1a0b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000848.soc;848;2025-10-14 11:50:52.894601;0ba6590475c9c14018ca2f6fdd052102;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000849.soc;849;2025-10-14 11:50:52.910669;dd74334e228acd63bbf0a656424880cb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000850.soc;850;2025-10-14 11:50:52.913882;afd4506a3f17fb4d6ee04625e51d940d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000851.soc;851;2025-10-14 11:50:52.914274;b1893bcc13cbd724c09e179a3392a76b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000852.soc;852;2025-10-14 11:50:52.927875;c8465e6b34002bb6ac3fee25eea2dc91;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000853.soc;853;2025-10-14 11:50:52.943008;b392a725fdfc8d6f986ae08fc5f0121c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000854.soc;854;2025-10-14 11:50:52.944461;93f1f618f60e648638a7a879b9d729d5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000855.soc;855;2025-10-14 11:50:52.944461;cd462e342316d55f6f479d269de74da5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000856.soc;856;2025-10-14 11:50:52.961036;8252b78f0635dd682cecbe059ddc73b3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000857.soc;857;2025-10-14 11:50:52.961036;087a0f013c21f371282f180394503ae1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000858.soc;858;2025-10-14 11:50:52.977779;17b25a4cd6534ded206fd55e0053fd1e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000859.soc;859;2025-10-14 11:50:52.977779;b3cc2408bf15cdc748fb98ad8a7e0049;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000860.soc;860;2025-10-14 11:50:52.977779;90a9ce1fc5312a6d65d7d19fed7f44d1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000861.soc;861;2025-10-14 11:50:52.994453;dff7afcfea914a35d27f37e7c802c3e9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000862.soc;862;2025-10-14 11:50:52.994453;93eb8e6350c808539c2489d69ea58b8a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000863.soc;863;2025-10-14 11:50:52.994453;b610f9874e224a17bdde1bf60c942c65;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000864.soc;864;2025-10-14 11:50:52.994453;b40517209bbbec07fdaacdd153ec3d11;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000865.soc;865;2025-10-14 11:50:52.994453;5f6564a2b9019b405ce00d1492d5945b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000866.soc;866;2025-10-14 11:50:53.011594;595040588cf1388bff88b4e1eff43a28;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000867.soc;867;2025-10-14 11:50:53.013874;10e8e23f8117683950ae5de2ef1bb0b4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000868.soc;868;2025-10-14 11:50:53.016298;4067c57f364cc969d54271734faa8423;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000869.soc;869;2025-10-14 11:50:53.016298;7652f55585bf935a900d48ed9d9cfc5f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000870.soc;870;2025-10-14 11:50:53.016298;8377aa74553796be88a1d9e9ed46e595;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000871.soc;871;2025-10-14 11:50:53.027973;53430fdf36a99afe9d720a487eaea8a6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000872.soc;872;2025-10-14 11:50:53.027973;a05b35c7466a910dd5667a571a0bb113;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000873.soc;873;2025-10-14 11:50:53.034292;c0f60be3a0e3184d2b94ebb0abf014c1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000874.soc;874;2025-10-14 11:50:53.034292;5b25d5f9e69a4f20c481c6a7e10ef08d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000875.soc;875;2025-10-14 11:50:53.034292;608489b009e3691e376685b4acfd3c85;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000876.soc;876;2025-10-14 11:50:53.044463;6626428c7e9579c0dbbb1b4102befe29;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000877.soc;877;2025-10-14 11:50:53.044463;ca4184fc9645125756deae24985eaeee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000878.soc;878;2025-10-14 11:50:53.044463;848102dd4cee2211896152cb33834b96;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000879.soc;879;2025-10-14 11:50:53.061050;e0340db26a129857cc872e156bbd74be;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000880.soc;880;2025-10-14 11:50:53.061050;ebc7dbd55a2218289cae583391c62f66;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000881.soc;881;2025-10-14 11:50:53.061050;8c1f41157fed1d773f10d08daa80da44;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000882.soc;882;2025-10-14 11:50:53.072146;541d2b1d7b13970dbaa5e6e7a397889c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000883.soc;883;2025-10-14 11:50:53.074469;02803a4ad1f4a7dd84a46896c864eecd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000884.soc;884;2025-10-14 11:50:53.077177;621b6aba921f690749726e9984ca0eff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000885.soc;885;2025-10-14 11:50:53.077695;63b21806fa7fa60c7a08d666875eb32a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000886.soc;886;2025-10-14 11:50:53.077695;e7590571ec3ec8ceb40231fbf30c1824;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000887.soc;887;2025-10-14 11:50:53.077695;4c2aa356d371ba7000ae3f1611485634;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000888.soc;888;2025-10-14 11:50:53.094324;ff5930edd3e7afdb10c53c40d93316bf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000889.soc;889;2025-10-14 11:50:53.094324;439f0baf914045a037d8619ccef79cfe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000890.soc;890;2025-10-14 11:50:53.094324;1102496c6a4a1937384142880351de53;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000891.soc;891;2025-10-14 11:50:53.094324;82d94da39cb8eb402e4e08a72eeb2da4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000892.soc;892;2025-10-14 11:50:53.110506;6ed5a4de796ebd60944b3c358ea737e4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000893.soc;893;2025-10-14 11:50:53.110914;85717bdc3ea924f6fab16720066f565a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000894.soc;894;2025-10-14 11:50:53.110914;b2bbd2a94c637221b913f9ff78df60bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000895.soc;895;2025-10-14 11:50:53.110914;9be9448e9ce6b94bf3075fd457bfdaf4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000896.soc;896;2025-10-14 11:50:53.127130;236d9a902d94cc629c93fd94ab8db619;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000897.soc;897;2025-10-14 11:50:53.131720;9f102ceb6777149bd9e07501593fbd2b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000898.soc;898;2025-10-14 11:50:53.134610;0a105a142d600d6cf9a61b402cb78d1a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000899.soc;899;2025-10-14 11:50:53.144322;b4e15a2254bbe668215af47c1ea92b5d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000900.soc;900;2025-10-14 11:50:53.144322;117bff5c8444426fc2ed33b5b2f2a040;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000901.soc;901;2025-10-14 11:50:53.144322;652b88bc97f84c778a0c00824f4301cb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000902.soc;902;2025-10-14 11:50:53.144322;f832570ea0f1b733ca9c4847beac6358;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000903.soc;903;2025-10-14 11:50:53.160447;af752541b0da0d4aef5c3f82f02ca700;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000904.soc;904;2025-10-14 11:50:53.160911;aab94657b2733ae2cc6e4a5f585f975f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000905.soc;905;2025-10-14 11:50:53.177510;ff6eb92e1526d4089e5ee9918bfb65a5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000906.soc;906;2025-10-14 11:50:53.177510;72217a75b8c332b32a7f2cb3dea89e3b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000907.soc;907;2025-10-14 11:50:53.177510;0332409d8f0ee1a0b07fefcc97094d6f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000908.soc;908;2025-10-14 11:50:53.177510;bcb8ef3740c2c2f4738a5d08d51a6967;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000909.soc;909;2025-10-14 11:50:53.177510;42f7b3e8807869d397ef40b145fc8262;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000910.soc;910;2025-10-14 11:50:53.193775;e30b17d5cf640308f98adc67728e068b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000911.soc;911;2025-10-14 11:50:53.194202;77f4d8645cac7c9b4b36df62e27422a2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000912.soc;912;2025-10-14 11:50:53.194202;567a6b9e8e36249b5fe12b2ae7f70cf0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000913.soc;913;2025-10-14 11:50:53.210839;a8e0b4fb98effe472e6db061c7ccdc7c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000914.soc;914;2025-10-14 11:50:53.210839;37e8fa193e825060e4c1ea3c59909945;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000915.soc;915;2025-10-14 11:50:53.234580;86bffd8e35ec5a56f809e9665e2ddc40;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000916.soc;916;2025-10-14 11:50:53.234580;c2f211f537e05e1baa64521a83f79a82;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000917.soc;917;2025-10-14 11:50:53.234580;1498a254aa3b82e2bfe4c9654418b7bd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000918.soc;918;2025-10-14 11:50:53.244217;3ae6b66f450444c022a92fae6e5b5e3d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000919.soc;919;2025-10-14 11:50:53.244217;aec28079bbbc801a3a8f23ac1157a78e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000920.soc;920;2025-10-14 11:50:53.244217;01435c61a18e89c5219ded2c3c16711b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000921.soc;921;2025-10-14 11:50:53.244217;e3885e261fdef48ccdac176a39fce3ab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000922.soc;922;2025-10-14 11:50:53.244217;41269f54e1d2c8b7ac1c0054632c3776;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000923.soc;923;2025-10-14 11:50:53.260803;b35101275277e5f5b82d817bb24b3098;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000924.soc;924;2025-10-14 11:50:53.260803;4d75df5418d452f24f63ae916801de5c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000925.soc;925;2025-10-14 11:50:53.276086;e00612cf18009f6c5e010468b8ff4eb6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000926.soc;926;2025-10-14 11:50:53.277480;13cbe2a3c291930e69c0d9f9eab0ef90;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000927.soc;927;2025-10-14 11:50:53.277480;d02039c1e5d23194b6ad7d18694c161b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000928.soc;928;2025-10-14 11:50:53.294075;2487d653e8f8dc3063ed54641269efc9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000929.soc;929;2025-10-14 11:50:53.294075;d20e17bf9fdbd3eb84d4637338f5e555;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000930.soc;930;2025-10-14 11:50:53.294075;87862ea9d66bac60426692f2445fc5be;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000931.soc;931;2025-10-14 11:50:53.294075;e0a6272b3e09ae3c234a6e2499145220;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000932.soc;932;2025-10-14 11:50:53.310728;35f43fe209276694c7a8be634eac95cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000933.soc;933;2025-10-14 11:50:53.310728;128a71efdd6ae3cc44ad320be870d955;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000934.soc;934;2025-10-14 11:50:53.310728;43da19533d2a466610c9dfa38d7fdd27;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000935.soc;935;2025-10-14 11:50:53.310728;128cfb9c92c42d76fd12a1ad552dec23;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000936.soc;936;2025-10-14 11:50:53.326118;59e1da225623634d6d81ec1ed9bf4da8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000937.soc;937;2025-10-14 11:50:53.327548;02c2cc65055536206a4b3c9e6be62cc2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000938.soc;938;2025-10-14 11:50:53.334515;9a704a2dd39cd8c610abb5af8d5c0486;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000939.soc;939;2025-10-14 11:50:53.334515;5edc1d256a28a8c1485b025d93c7bb03;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00000940.soc;940;2025-10-14 11:50:53.334515;d1dacdc402fd4939cbe1edfa2afd012c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000941.soc;941;2025-10-14 11:50:53.351363;f5398fca360c9d3eccc15d6fb345f6f9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000942.soc;942;2025-10-14 11:50:53.360808;6c525d5a3c93979597fde934c1fd86b9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000943.soc;943;2025-10-14 11:50:53.360808;43116ad4c2a2898ac1ee7875b883ceb4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000944.soc;944;2025-10-14 11:50:53.360808;b59d6a6fc6582aea3fc600f29982b6d1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000945.soc;945;2025-10-14 11:50:53.377444;088e19881e972d9c291719a714ea5630;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000946.soc;946;2025-10-14 11:50:53.377444;a7cf559da651c5f6ad3cb14fedbbce45;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000947.soc;947;2025-10-14 11:50:53.377444;d2fe861a0760f12273176d65db04855c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000948.soc;948;2025-10-14 11:50:53.392731;554808c3c76f53fca5b5116095fa2757;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000949.soc;949;2025-10-14 11:50:53.394024;2cd6434745a42e4fb92f3aedcb91c80f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000950.soc;950;2025-10-14 11:50:53.394024;ebbed3f155f5c069312b841bddd8b1fe;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000951.soc;951;2025-10-14 11:50:53.410629;30835ba5fb1e7f8f02bf9d70df94dbe3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000952.soc;952;2025-10-14 11:50:53.410629;cd6ee8be6a4b227197b58d66e92dfe7f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000953.soc;953;2025-10-14 11:50:53.410629;69fffc83369a38b22f2811515c7dff28;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000954.soc;954;2025-10-14 11:50:53.410629;0170e21cd0b51933ffaa3adac5e15f81;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000955.soc;955;2025-10-14 11:50:53.410629;8014881b057da24b63e027575e47e9fa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000956.soc;956;2025-10-14 11:50:53.424227;94f99b3dff65d59572e58712e46ff12a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000957.soc;957;2025-10-14 11:50:53.427384;1675ad312c999b3eee508977fac89416;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000958.soc;958;2025-10-14 11:50:53.427384;ca7bc442b738ea73785731ca401d67df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000959.soc;959;2025-10-14 11:50:53.434537;aa601f7d89b469245b06799c0e8239fa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000960.soc;960;2025-10-14 11:50:53.434537;42480dcdeefc6107477f8ffb505b18fb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000961.soc;961;2025-10-14 11:50:53.446708;89442583731bfc664bd86a0c03c2eaf9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000962.soc;962;2025-10-14 11:50:53.446708;ff973cc0046f0e9744bd19bee1d1d7cd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000963.soc;963;2025-10-14 11:50:53.460714;93105e4e1c28b9338b3aaf41ce382af1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000964.soc;964;2025-10-14 11:50:53.460714;b00950354d1c96eb4d3e09c129392d6a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000965.soc;965;2025-10-14 11:50:53.477305;dda9279cefdd254e01dedc5a4600a8f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000966.soc;966;2025-10-14 11:50:53.477305;812edbc633ef32ce754f291afcc10f61;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000967.soc;967;2025-10-14 11:50:53.477305;4cfc24b0fe928682670b23de6d786400;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000968.soc;968;2025-10-14 11:50:53.477305;5b26f527e17d11eb93750811df3bac73;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000969.soc;969;2025-10-14 11:50:53.477305;5ae1388a2994af534a49a6bedf4d3653;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000970.soc;970;2025-10-14 11:50:53.477305;a4b74684ed54150c8ae814034ddcbadd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000971.soc;971;2025-10-14 11:50:53.493883;2ccecbd25e15d28b98e2c768a439f629;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000972.soc;972;2025-10-14 11:50:53.493883;62ccaa646ec87ba1e0f34c2e8d193eda;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000973.soc;973;2025-10-14 11:50:53.493883;81fe5d3f725db72897e2b31b90f3aad1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00000974.soc;974;2025-10-14 11:50:53.510128;e0aa44e4195481c8daed71904ef1eb04;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000975.soc;975;2025-10-14 11:50:53.510549;d7ca8a38fac35f7d046a6cc44a55c275;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000976.soc;976;2025-10-14 11:50:53.510549;dae708d09953dc103abd56eaa69df460;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000977.soc;977;2025-10-14 11:50:53.510549;8f987b0f1c7c121bf90ba4924db7f5f4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000978.soc;978;2025-10-14 11:50:53.527255;fb4dd5575f7508c814e30e1355397f4d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000979.soc;979;2025-10-14 11:50:53.534563;8cd400f96cdb246002730680815afce3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000980.soc;980;2025-10-14 11:50:53.543887;fb7763237984e091ccdbf55d9da1bb4a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000981.soc;981;2025-10-14 11:50:53.543887;12ecacbda7cb227fe6f35c18c3800c07;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00000982.soc;982;2025-10-14 11:50:53.543887;dc339ed0f05dabf4e3433cfc1a86f1cf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000983.soc;983;2025-10-14 11:50:53.562133;20216597bc1703c7fef59e568e667ba8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000984.soc;984;2025-10-14 11:50:53.563674;cf3a2390160fbfce84e6c7a416114c22;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000985.soc;985;2025-10-14 11:50:53.577286;8555ab572d0268910fff751e0d67e4f3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000986.soc;986;2025-10-14 11:50:53.577286;80051570a8767f3b5073821c4a10b471;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000987.soc;987;2025-10-14 11:50:53.577286;7c29eb28293f4060dfbd45dd131c8bac;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000988.soc;988;2025-10-14 11:50:53.593834;fddf9d6210e180178f636acb01d1411e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000989.soc;989;2025-10-14 11:50:53.593834;ca5979149b1fde3b320be39d31626b8d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000990.soc;990;2025-10-14 11:50:53.593834;bebb6ab57ce204656821c0f1ca610da9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000991.soc;991;2025-10-14 11:50:53.593834;37c77748b582c5e870bc9dd1ae873a96;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000992.soc;992;2025-10-14 11:50:53.610449;2f731b289f786958a0a7037c1cf64fb2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00000993.soc;993;2025-10-14 11:50:53.610449;818b0fa2725fab2a072e5ae704e6d33f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000994.soc;994;2025-10-14 11:50:53.627131;7d812a1fb9caebc928d81d610fa9c84e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00000995.soc;995;2025-10-14 11:50:53.643788;bba4cc93d680120c930d3246209e19a6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00000996.soc;996;2025-10-14 11:50:53.643788;b1abab8df42c656a4a58e143e8bb651c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000997.soc;997;2025-10-14 11:50:53.662399;d5d179bb02e558ecceb48cb85cf72d65;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00000998.soc;998;2025-10-14 11:50:53.663457;067680811a5c84ff9136a48891d54b11;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00000999.soc;999;2025-10-14 11:50:53.663457;5abeadba9133cf83d1f7882a7f7ef7e1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001000.soc;1000;2025-10-14 11:50:53.663457;c25c383e5b1658fd8284ca7165e39356;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001001.soc;1001;2025-10-14 11:50:53.677194;7c9099a697ab69a89aeed476596cfdc9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001002.soc;1002;2025-10-14 11:50:53.677194;73ba48269e02250082fbd00c7de57756;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001003.soc;1003;2025-10-14 11:50:53.677194;3e7665777b584b85c10f725583d10089;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001004.soc;1004;2025-10-14 11:50:53.693324;0e52278dce6e9ed8f30a1f0ba7c6b2d7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001005.soc;1005;2025-10-14 11:50:53.710433;7bd47ea27b4754abf900c057e3a0943f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001006.soc;1006;2025-10-14 11:50:53.710433;fa4d24155852a52476e3a64b40bc9934;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001007.soc;1007;2025-10-14 11:50:53.727071;82e6deb9e49e9625d189adf4e2606a71;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001008.soc;1008;2025-10-14 11:50:53.734829;a746e55b57b3054be407386cee1a691e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001009.soc;1009;2025-10-14 11:50:53.734829;311d6f0d0bc64172b2adfb57a930840d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001010.soc;1010;2025-10-14 11:50:53.743691;02204378214529081a40c26ec01adfcf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001011.soc;1011;2025-10-14 11:50:53.743691;d5839692f423bc903a745f604e183c2b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001012.soc;1012;2025-10-14 11:50:53.743691;3b5037fa371027f2339af03ae1bfe754;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001013.soc;1013;2025-10-14 11:50:53.743691;ed44ad9e20792351aa2133a65eb2c0af;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001014.soc;1014;2025-10-14 11:50:53.760368;4f4453557bc66378ad302e8208193aa6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001015.soc;1015;2025-10-14 11:50:53.760368;bfd60dc9d25852901f350aacddb21ee5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001016.soc;1016;2025-10-14 11:50:53.760368;651c3c1593b4d195b33d7ebb1416e185;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001017.soc;1017;2025-10-14 11:50:53.760368;73d9f6ed990324e22b1cd728994ff21b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001018.soc;1018;2025-10-14 11:50:53.775683;7fda7096babf3fdb8a35fa952eb8ae0f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001019.soc;1019;2025-10-14 11:50:53.779943;0f75eeb99e29e5f56a279d3d717e3a8c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001020.soc;1020;2025-10-14 11:50:53.779943;37cec9cf64c43211bd96c3c64800fd8a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001021.soc;1021;2025-10-14 11:50:53.779943;75675513e799f4cc41d4e4aaafda480d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001022.soc;1022;2025-10-14 11:50:53.793726;7b4290c7fd7d86844dff923ec56b5af9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001023.soc;1023;2025-10-14 11:50:53.793726;27234d2d4a152d3f5d9239a4093fcecc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001024.soc;1024;2025-10-14 11:50:53.793726;309005e89f6dd71e096a38f190505ad8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True +00070-00001025.soc;1025;2025-10-14 11:50:53.793726;da5f96dcca22d4ba982b8d8ba80d2f37;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001026.soc;1026;2025-10-14 11:50:53.793726;78aa3bb299def516a304749c883884aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001027.soc;1027;2025-10-14 11:50:53.810502;b1a297fc8d864f0d776674e9480f285f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001028.soc;1028;2025-10-14 11:50:53.810502;6d769795ba0ad4a0ee6d043ca0f27412;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001029.soc;1029;2025-10-14 11:50:53.810502;8e33229a4722d2515d77fccafc1bc5bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001030.soc;1030;2025-10-14 11:50:53.810502;96b48af1c2fcfcc67c62807c0496871c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001031.soc;1031;2025-10-14 11:50:53.827153;5a8048ede1121a5c95087d7f0a9b592a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001032.soc;1032;2025-10-14 11:50:53.834702;083c68f6cd94b290e9373cb6bbb67ddf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001033.soc;1033;2025-10-14 11:50:53.843657;0b809e7b3ae986fefdfe5140751fc7ab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001034.soc;1034;2025-10-14 11:50:53.843657;f0d80807e43bd6e951f3f9b16248061f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001035.soc;1035;2025-10-14 11:50:53.860297;b7cc17dc24ac4b1d44c7f758cedfe8f6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001036.soc;1036;2025-10-14 11:50:53.860297;f1645d9822d8cc1618a2cb43913e6063;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True +00070-00001037.soc;1037;2025-10-14 11:50:53.860297;3a7dab0014d48105e1fc76a3ad709530;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001038.soc;1038;2025-10-14 11:50:53.860297;568cb72ee912560f369ebf01d1800b1a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001039.soc;1039;2025-10-14 11:50:53.875592;43ad8f81ba0328e9253ab5cbcf962880;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001040.soc;1040;2025-10-14 11:50:53.893585;63c2e04f82f3bb73ac7faacf659ece3b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001041.soc;1041;2025-10-14 11:50:55.009237;921cd374c579170756c8fc21c7fc11a9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001042.soc;1042;2025-10-14 11:50:55.009237;a302259b414cbaed195d06f9b2e2f09d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001043.soc;1043;2025-10-14 11:50:55.026179;f522c41438fe9ad1f955cda23a2ff1ab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001044.soc;1044;2025-10-14 11:50:55.035797;42d4e4ba8a9cb40606645e4a9aa6d5b2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001045.soc;1045;2025-10-14 11:50:55.042975;39f61bd4ec98d5b294e18845fb5451eb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001046.soc;1046;2025-10-14 11:50:55.059938;be3b9b9fc3814ac15e6abeab073045b7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001047.soc;1047;2025-10-14 11:50:55.062363;2cd3374213c2de294f9ff0e0e437e0ae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001048.soc;1048;2025-10-14 11:50:55.062363;c40c7146f272facf913a8ee5b9044709;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001049.soc;1049;2025-10-14 11:50:55.062363;e74c7b0acd1e1c294bfe860bbeb78afb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001050.soc;1050;2025-10-14 11:50:55.062363;d418f46c4648dbb15103bd2cadfbb177;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001051.soc;1051;2025-10-14 11:50:55.062363;acf31e63ddfdda6d89efec4b8830299e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001052.soc;1052;2025-10-14 11:50:55.076031;786a5c01aa92e5bfc100ce4db864d95a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001053.soc;1053;2025-10-14 11:50:55.076031;8085f3d972ee8d730fe41f75caeccf3f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001054.soc;1054;2025-10-14 11:50:55.109145;e525ed85ae1f5d7e98d5e4d065bb4b2f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001055.soc;1055;2025-10-14 11:50:55.109145;75ed21523ed3ab3f8007050aa244bbd1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001056.soc;1056;2025-10-14 11:50:55.109145;39e551bfdae4a5babd52e663b0e37418;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001057.soc;1057;2025-10-14 11:50:55.109145;23e8e41eeeeb195671468623d59089cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001058.soc;1058;2025-10-14 11:50:55.126162;dde9ac2b50be7bbec7a4aaed5b4d63f4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001059.soc;1059;2025-10-14 11:50:55.126162;088ab6838b6c5ccc7812a6bb62d0aee9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001060.soc;1060;2025-10-14 11:50:55.126162;d5294a56aabac5e17a007e70034216c7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001061.soc;1061;2025-10-14 11:50:55.135811;1ffafb6cd18e27cc6e83e262dbccafde;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001062.soc;1062;2025-10-14 11:50:55.135811;c65740a40fabda0baf69c7c08f8e6765;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001063.soc;1063;2025-10-14 11:50:55.142703;5e1bb7bbd8bd9c20e67e429202546411;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001064.soc;1064;2025-10-14 11:50:55.142703;b5eff48ef6078dc80b1078b1ec7660f1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001065.soc;1065;2025-10-14 11:50:55.142703;cfeece53fa3f164822fc00b870a98ddf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001066.soc;1066;2025-10-14 11:50:55.142703;6582ea6646eb8caedba274918f16d9dc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001067.soc;1067;2025-10-14 11:50:55.159165;8f875cc60cffa6e8fa8a4251c51f0c23;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001068.soc;1068;2025-10-14 11:50:55.159165;e2f3931d5e6757e7519b54c07e55405a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001069.soc;1069;2025-10-14 11:50:55.159165;ae8d92b02af5ab0bc8c2f1bdaa1e6b48;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001070.soc;1070;2025-10-14 11:50:55.159165;1986f4a802d841aa02c133231ad050b8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001071.soc;1071;2025-10-14 11:50:55.178380;22f1afe2fcf2c317734b3036763594e5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001072.soc;1072;2025-10-14 11:50:55.178380;39b744f480e1f7b0c9c3e52dc403904c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001073.soc;1073;2025-10-14 11:50:55.178380;c1fb8fd7d4164adeb8fa961c73d190e6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001074.soc;1074;2025-10-14 11:50:55.192608;33da327c10ce325a0de6efac7b386eb1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001075.soc;1075;2025-10-14 11:50:55.209376;c58cf2e4efd88ffec861a345c744ef6b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001076.soc;1076;2025-10-14 11:50:55.209376;20e8e37a6fe7f3716bb3ccdcc3bbfe36;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001077.soc;1077;2025-10-14 11:50:55.225796;ce038bb55b01bc323a5d5d224ad870f5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001078.soc;1078;2025-10-14 11:50:55.235786;96ef9b80f9620e3e20896f054f38f7ac;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001079.soc;1079;2025-10-14 11:50:55.242421;6f0e8826eba6106ac4e45184ce327ba9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001080.soc;1080;2025-10-14 11:50:55.242421;8d14a517159c752f2da3d16ec009a7d2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001081.soc;1081;2025-10-14 11:50:55.242421;98b53592f95901b8ad4d32a6ba2fd7ef;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001082.soc;1082;2025-10-14 11:50:55.242421;e2f773843371b073ba4c41cef05a8535;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001083.soc;1083;2025-10-14 11:50:55.242421;f8ca55867cec2f0319157180ac12a72f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001084.soc;1084;2025-10-14 11:50:55.242421;ac2f07cbf9d7ba7555a8d5c643ede33c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001085.soc;1085;2025-10-14 11:50:55.242421;c48872fd0ea7afd0f4f93b8e6e2d2513;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001086.soc;1086;2025-10-14 11:50:55.258648;83b1c1c0ed79cd8372e748b7fbc030d7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001087.soc;1087;2025-10-14 11:50:55.259173;563b6e3ee416143f236759ec533706fa;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001088.soc;1088;2025-10-14 11:50:55.259173;c0a4ddf12ce2586be03f08f9a25e908c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001089.soc;1089;2025-10-14 11:50:55.259173;c5549aacaaa11699703b09328e0bd094;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001090.soc;1090;2025-10-14 11:50:55.278458;1f8fd9e54118650f14ab460152653fcb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001091.soc;1091;2025-10-14 11:50:55.279057;fd68e650d0c809032a4071d68ad161e2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001092.soc;1092;2025-10-14 11:50:55.292575;44cbb2a6987d9dc3d6c2153d803dd3f9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001093.soc;1093;2025-10-14 11:50:55.292575;6ec602e2254d141a6262bc9ab83d0c7c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001094.soc;1094;2025-10-14 11:50:55.292575;a53a6b69f210c24e1b8f059a7238f94c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001095.soc;1095;2025-10-14 11:50:55.292575;88f2d60b1bd824ef3483b5f6ca46ca9f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001096.soc;1096;2025-10-14 11:50:55.292575;01f314d98e814f40516deac90479b79d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001097.soc;1097;2025-10-14 11:50:55.307631;6d7614e6b9d6fc9afa205aba492a8e7a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001098.soc;1098;2025-10-14 11:50:55.309578;7e41b135ddbba89a5425a9e001cd744e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001099.soc;1099;2025-10-14 11:50:55.309578;b0b1ce28e0a474d7025544ea7bf3b074;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001100.soc;1100;2025-10-14 11:50:55.309578;697a3c16ae60d822ec5dbab8ae85ecb4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001101.soc;1101;2025-10-14 11:50:55.309578;ce2a416e41da132abb27674395eec307;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001102.soc;1102;2025-10-14 11:50:55.326580;53b3d2c27244d5af79581f1a4c5599bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True +00070-00001103.soc;1103;2025-10-14 11:50:55.326580;06d371d733b98d36440ff5f2e7765e13;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001104.soc;1104;2025-10-14 11:50:55.326580;e1b7d84f6df76467d1b6c21b648029bd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001105.soc;1105;2025-10-14 11:50:55.335668;db2b2b0b6b048a317da27efbf66d3375;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001106.soc;1106;2025-10-14 11:50:55.342701;664f36b03cd2150cafea5677e38172a3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001107.soc;1107;2025-10-14 11:50:55.342701;903da6ad74a5241005aa72d346f25b42;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001108.soc;1108;2025-10-14 11:50:55.342701;1fa9fba637bedd9b2e30e8ab9973bf16;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001109.soc;1109;2025-10-14 11:50:55.342701;d0297d15f4c37e154c02a9471176ddb6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001110.soc;1110;2025-10-14 11:50:55.358452;9c3082cb0da248a5e7f82be8bbbd54d2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001111.soc;1111;2025-10-14 11:50:55.360127;92d51fb8929678d2c9fc44065afade8a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001112.soc;1112;2025-10-14 11:50:55.360127;f552ff03eec4a412c376157c2148d626;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001113.soc;1113;2025-10-14 11:50:55.360127;2fc3ecc089d00f32bfc33d6845f30863;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001114.soc;1114;2025-10-14 11:50:55.377018;789039e231eb962a86c23e4be94cfa34;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001115.soc;1115;2025-10-14 11:50:55.379680;4a9cb06d925127ad96846c0071c34b87;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001116.soc;1116;2025-10-14 11:50:55.379680;05594b83b6fda41dd9190988e28d2223;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001117.soc;1117;2025-10-14 11:50:55.394144;1bda7cdb3c77d8582c1f531963f9bd09;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001118.soc;1118;2025-10-14 11:50:55.394144;04ec83599b8f35f77f73f171aaa95ac5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001119.soc;1119;2025-10-14 11:50:55.394144;2c1101eb0b547ab2a477a93b1db8c93f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001120.soc;1120;2025-10-14 11:50:55.413296;33f475237616dd6ddfd8f7a054ab3edb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001121.soc;1121;2025-10-14 11:50:55.414488;1167bc7b282655e7a02b8ebc21e2c7f9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001122.soc;1122;2025-10-14 11:50:55.420251;911c821726ac9dc4b23bd17531dc5f6d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001123.soc;1123;2025-10-14 11:50:55.420251;bb52a1ecae48c88b95ab887b1f2c5f69;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001124.soc;1124;2025-10-14 11:50:55.420251;698f21150fca0d198d529cf997704366;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001125.soc;1125;2025-10-14 11:50:55.431720;7a08679c2a9e7ffebe7cb0be20398cd4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001126.soc;1126;2025-10-14 11:50:55.435739;6b45c2b377c1c7f665e2417b0ffebe0e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001127.soc;1127;2025-10-14 11:50:55.441834;8cf709d0a7882d45fad7c9562d41e8a8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001128.soc;1128;2025-10-14 11:50:55.446273;d6110dcb39e4f9010b10522225a755cc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001129.soc;1129;2025-10-14 11:50:55.448284;ece75f9cca1adf4406f4474f1874fc05;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001130.soc;1130;2025-10-14 11:50:55.454341;b66cdb153a9457b63c07a957d9d575ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001131.soc;1131;2025-10-14 11:50:55.459433;6542fba0ea57383daa43d3ee9caacb12;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001132.soc;1132;2025-10-14 11:50:55.459433;283ab5f1c435bbb3f03becff7f700338;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001133.soc;1133;2025-10-14 11:50:55.475096;02ad3ade144315f13b0af19a89d072c0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001134.soc;1134;2025-10-14 11:50:55.479812;a685dfa9726aff759577db7650cb6d2a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001135.soc;1135;2025-10-14 11:50:55.494940;d758c017138325905fdaa8e0ddeba740;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001136.soc;1136;2025-10-14 11:50:55.494940;51617740c46d2ed869e6097cb19abd6d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001137.soc;1137;2025-10-14 11:50:55.509217;21eda804eb24aebcef70b0609a98d39a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001138.soc;1138;2025-10-14 11:50:55.511523;fbc4760e3bf8f4d67640096a26491a89;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001139.soc;1139;2025-10-14 11:50:55.511523;a8ff7f54a6f3644d2ed99015ee68e806;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001140.soc;1140;2025-10-14 11:50:55.520898;68dbe079aab9c79f981f89d772474985;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001141.soc;1141;2025-10-14 11:50:55.524403;00db39f7bd9ac8e3509369c8f27c9cf1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001142.soc;1142;2025-10-14 11:50:55.525763;b0fb6b2e567f463adfaa801d0125f756;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001143.soc;1143;2025-10-14 11:50:55.525763;347957d6aa83f98ec689b33e98ed6de9;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001144.soc;1144;2025-10-14 11:50:55.535800;f0c646f8db5fa3a6a2a539b46cd289a7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001145.soc;1145;2025-10-14 11:50:55.544743;482c53916df17fe7329f7544d89c649d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001146.soc;1146;2025-10-14 11:50:55.547189;b7a19ee956ffbcb264ec81abd4dc1f3b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001147.soc;1147;2025-10-14 11:50:55.549641;4631a7dd9e061f57b84d31f90391569f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001148.soc;1148;2025-10-14 11:50:55.549641;8aede4c0930b880d9ef1586e499acaa6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001149.soc;1149;2025-10-14 11:50:55.557187;9374758e2ac5f7941bf94d7914a1eb1b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001150.soc;1150;2025-10-14 11:50:55.561470;f0c65b1d20ce22e5862890511ec6089f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001151.soc;1151;2025-10-14 11:50:55.561470;3c5ff2b9e8f97621770d569628419fc1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001152.soc;1152;2025-10-14 11:50:55.561470;a005fc2f6cefeacbc7e4b3748261facd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001153.soc;1153;2025-10-14 11:50:55.561470;53da8362b9441d0c992e3b98c50febb5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001154.soc;1154;2025-10-14 11:50:55.561470;4ae79a4f72dc32599ee9a2108e151257;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001155.soc;1155;2025-10-14 11:50:55.561470;4d66f0a01c8e7753873816fa5bb41f6e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001156.soc;1156;2025-10-14 11:50:55.575817;3f967f5eff9b2eb5b4c56137458de7e8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001157.soc;1157;2025-10-14 11:50:55.575817;6153665f30b1eaf2db7b039014293d0d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001158.soc;1158;2025-10-14 11:50:55.575817;64d249593199c1561bd1434fe3c38a6d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001159.soc;1159;2025-10-14 11:50:55.575817;0229c339ee8fc2cfbf984a1fb43cfa4f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001160.soc;1160;2025-10-14 11:50:55.595182;0eb3693108c4f0b2e977628548aa7fb7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001161.soc;1161;2025-10-14 11:50:55.595182;6712e665b5c0b6f86377bd0249842654;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001162.soc;1162;2025-10-14 11:50:55.608907;32003e40eab71c391b43155f8f366870;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001163.soc;1163;2025-10-14 11:50:55.614984;07b6af272b52e98e76c04804ebe47cb1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001164.soc;1164;2025-10-14 11:50:55.614984;d48863e4a3334bc9be63d4e8a7dc984c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001165.soc;1165;2025-10-14 11:50:55.614984;42508bdb87303bee4b43512bde8a0ec9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001166.soc;1166;2025-10-14 11:50:55.625669;f96923854c24e5324027c8131abeaa5b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001167.soc;1167;2025-10-14 11:50:55.633346;d49c1f595298777e799c4696b55e7396;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001168.soc;1168;2025-10-14 11:50:55.635852;5512a54cb4f299af81e3fe65cf6603cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001169.soc;1169;2025-10-14 11:50:55.640857;8276d9cf9f6e9717add5e0585103ff10;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001170.soc;1170;2025-10-14 11:50:55.642136;89e524659ee4534fe5cdba47321660a6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001171.soc;1171;2025-10-14 11:50:55.642136;930f57c87a01562d39dd7666f1e8b5c9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001172.soc;1172;2025-10-14 11:50:55.642136;bcb60fd159d81dbbae859989e07923b3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001173.soc;1173;2025-10-14 11:50:55.642136;cbf3ee32dff3b0b1eed20290810bb245;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001174.soc;1174;2025-10-14 11:50:55.658303;5e1789c4850714c52aba38daddfdda65;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001175.soc;1175;2025-10-14 11:50:55.658816;96b0fd2f83a35a1d81fa77d93f4cd1f2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001176.soc;1176;2025-10-14 11:50:55.658816;a5caa458072ee38bc728aac0b571b1c3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001177.soc;1177;2025-10-14 11:50:55.658816;9d8592c31292dd6d6adeb9c9f2db1b13;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001178.soc;1178;2025-10-14 11:50:55.676045;38da09bac17e058c872c4b0c4c80c07a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001179.soc;1179;2025-10-14 11:50:55.676045;81ee468f8a914fb0526e8fc18198984c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001180.soc;1180;2025-10-14 11:50:55.676045;f8d019eba1877fb586b2f051204a2398;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001181.soc;1181;2025-10-14 11:50:55.676045;0f5cca0b2b6c1821029a01f00681062d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001182.soc;1182;2025-10-14 11:50:55.692151;82e42dbf09458038530edabec014e124;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001183.soc;1183;2025-10-14 11:50:55.692151;4879a8e7e3a4080438bfe9e2e65103ec;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001184.soc;1184;2025-10-14 11:50:55.692151;2024d9b29fe14015f1463dadbeaa09fd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001185.soc;1185;2025-10-14 11:50:55.692151;5529f1dd9ef4d91fb7c8c36d6ebf2e13;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001186.soc;1186;2025-10-14 11:50:55.710265;c7b4846ea48efc49de781eefd69ecd6e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001187.soc;1187;2025-10-14 11:50:55.711426;e7a4c5337f850845ae3d088d56e295b0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001188.soc;1188;2025-10-14 11:50:55.711426;e9721910f65bb3c66b0b7342037cf58f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001189.soc;1189;2025-10-14 11:50:55.723726;dd1b51eeaa9915d3005eefd7df0cedc7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001190.soc;1190;2025-10-14 11:50:55.725518;a6b4c76390d69cdb18241b2b3a8d1090;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001191.soc;1191;2025-10-14 11:50:55.735836;96cf3d248e6423d87116aa7e9599c4e0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001192.soc;1192;2025-10-14 11:50:55.742123;d0633aea781e63801f4ddc51e9cb94c4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001193.soc;1193;2025-10-14 11:50:55.742123;64f9271224fd3eec99e93764d4824e0e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001194.soc;1194;2025-10-14 11:50:55.754857;dae93b3cbe2f3ec74a56fbf05df26cac;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001195.soc;1195;2025-10-14 11:50:55.758678;250d44839c982295e0a2184bdd29c96e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001196.soc;1196;2025-10-14 11:50:55.758678;21f9260ce9820b91f08cd5f4d81ce227;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001197.soc;1197;2025-10-14 11:50:55.758678;7376400fc581f3eaff69f3bc88d9c8fa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001198.soc;1198;2025-10-14 11:50:55.758678;63e9996d00c033f615f22af00483f5a6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001199.soc;1199;2025-10-14 11:50:55.758678;c17e2a2b5a34c8c93588857dd57f25c1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001200.soc;1200;2025-10-14 11:50:55.770431;54aef1c97435a31a1f165b972f333b7d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001201.soc;1201;2025-10-14 11:50:55.774239;aedf08525b69eab93feda869fd415e91;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001202.soc;1202;2025-10-14 11:50:55.782322;b45aca50b25c54d42816f46c45f83f2c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001203.soc;1203;2025-10-14 11:50:55.786327;2b22ef9eceeb89f9dc6390be4fce1bd3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001204.soc;1204;2025-10-14 11:50:55.788328;0765bfae73681f0d6e8322f74371bfc4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001205.soc;1205;2025-10-14 11:50:55.792134;8b20531bfeab166fced9c60b9005edfe;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001206.soc;1206;2025-10-14 11:50:55.792134;d84cd799b0000017544fec9e013223a8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001207.soc;1207;2025-10-14 11:50:55.811463;fabea295207483f56dbcb33f564eb2e8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001208.soc;1208;2025-10-14 11:50:55.811463;1ef6cdfc736be071a4361451e3873616;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001209.soc;1209;2025-10-14 11:50:55.811463;971449553efb59fdc2f9c74eed0485f0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001210.soc;1210;2025-10-14 11:50:55.811463;dcf163eda7ba4dba0f261308aa4d809e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001211.soc;1211;2025-10-14 11:50:55.825495;647092f3a0421d23d2f9539f9193393b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001212.soc;1212;2025-10-14 11:50:55.825495;c40c815d2e98e6b14ff31dc5bdeca1af;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001213.soc;1213;2025-10-14 11:50:55.835874;b96bfc76a12d5eb167ceb388822b6631;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001214.soc;1214;2025-10-14 11:50:55.842723;a04ed8090c00fc64b48d7c4368d7edf9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001215.soc;1215;2025-10-14 11:50:55.842723;7d6b7cd6a76e58d3a742ccec5f48be0f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001216.soc;1216;2025-10-14 11:50:55.842723;ad83ba689e3842363505d39083394d52;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001217.soc;1217;2025-10-14 11:50:55.858624;151752edf5ebf3f964c673b9e9254d36;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001218.soc;1218;2025-10-14 11:50:55.859114;be39f6c8772561b93eea55188bb11701;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001219.soc;1219;2025-10-14 11:50:55.859114;1a732a5e5d566005a738437affb75884;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001220.soc;1220;2025-10-14 11:50:55.876204;5ceac1c0ef01c2993b602f9a94e8dcee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001221.soc;1221;2025-10-14 11:50:55.876204;ed9238ee333fd7e5679bc2145ef24eca;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001222.soc;1222;2025-10-14 11:50:55.876204;74242e110fa013a046d631a72d9d289e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001223.soc;1223;2025-10-14 11:50:55.876204;92a88c972ec76b1bbf6e3ba8fc15cda2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001224.soc;1224;2025-10-14 11:50:55.876204;44b9c7040d2e5ae56647be74a43368a1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001225.soc;1225;2025-10-14 11:50:55.876204;656f3e6349e5101a25922f54c419f18b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001226.soc;1226;2025-10-14 11:50:55.892149;ad45d9e875df5be678cff7520ece78c9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001227.soc;1227;2025-10-14 11:50:55.892149;28df2baffb4304aa84c12aff336ae9e5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001228.soc;1228;2025-10-14 11:50:55.892149;62d4ca64d6a7ce3d0f7cff801acc3bc9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001229.soc;1229;2025-10-14 11:50:55.892149;02948fbb0fe5174b22dad44bfa159e13;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001230.soc;1230;2025-10-14 11:50:55.906623;c8707068f4b9b0883a7cb734685033d8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001231.soc;1231;2025-10-14 11:50:55.908478;76a36094cad31306d7e16d201e2b14af;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001232.soc;1232;2025-10-14 11:50:55.908478;3b4a1c343ee0aa834d1cac291041e762;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001233.soc;1233;2025-10-14 11:50:55.908478;e8ce939daf9e3e32b19a66329d3a6b7d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001234.soc;1234;2025-10-14 11:50:55.908478;a0a40a243854218f8ea99e9704f401f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001235.soc;1235;2025-10-14 11:50:55.908478;28e09d03be7e7e077122320d89eaffa5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001236.soc;1236;2025-10-14 11:50:55.924806;3d7efb816357a8feb56d2169aabd6922;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001237.soc;1237;2025-10-14 11:50:55.927203;201f8e2db9144b4639278f3bb83f4472;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001238.soc;1238;2025-10-14 11:50:55.928211;e5a0a0fcc5d11865cea1fbd771f666f1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001239.soc;1239;2025-10-14 11:50:55.935870;9a7bdb33cd922f58d3c05ff8dcf38205;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001240.soc;1240;2025-10-14 11:50:55.935870;f7205ff3d67254cf0b1de78a4091c477;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001241.soc;1241;2025-10-14 11:50:55.942410;bd4fad9662b96f3ac3f7ce6a30aeaa8b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001242.soc;1242;2025-10-14 11:50:55.942410;6e33f86e197159b3b8e46849401352ee;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001243.soc;1243;2025-10-14 11:50:55.951654;ebe7e93ec38588c7adfff91dee7b3acd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001244.soc;1244;2025-10-14 11:50:55.953655;7a3b079438b0295e9e32293fc020eab0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001245.soc;1245;2025-10-14 11:50:55.958048;690416fa15207302a81fdfc55a77c12a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001246.soc;1246;2025-10-14 11:50:55.958565;e36f1e34dad83d2f596b0e97cb09ef47;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001247.soc;1247;2025-10-14 11:50:55.958565;8b3941d2a94072e73380d24d34790ef2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001248.soc;1248;2025-10-14 11:50:55.973760;2155984c52012bf450cab7fe5c81551a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001249.soc;1249;2025-10-14 11:50:55.975306;1c4a05d64a2a692e2969d566f97d809d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001250.soc;1250;2025-10-14 11:50:55.975306;79e16201f857e62aa02d1e6a255dac19;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001251.soc;1251;2025-10-14 11:50:55.975306;342e39f5359a617b2e383437e82b5d15;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001252.soc;1252;2025-10-14 11:50:55.990331;2d77431ac5294cc60f926fde72cd62e9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001253.soc;1253;2025-10-14 11:50:55.991898;2521a6953d87d851e5d16470c23f3eee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001254.soc;1254;2025-10-14 11:50:55.991898;b57e6c7fac4f827b0e67fc8355b2bfa8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001255.soc;1255;2025-10-14 11:50:55.991898;166c2ed50f7f608a6e86042ca49ee306;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001256.soc;1256;2025-10-14 11:50:56.008925;d8292be7c98517e4fda77f14748080b6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001257.soc;1257;2025-10-14 11:50:56.008925;9fb9f221fb53e3f73f84fdd3437d895c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001258.soc;1258;2025-10-14 11:50:56.008925;93b0d326a06899e820db968c3598e496;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001259.soc;1259;2025-10-14 11:50:56.029981;366e34e615730c1ec5657b9170906b1e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001260.soc;1260;2025-10-14 11:50:56.041955;084acad85bf4f3897a97ee64963086d0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001261.soc;1261;2025-10-14 11:50:56.041955;00b6c738557fc15fc6c8cb16df523029;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001262.soc;1262;2025-10-14 11:50:56.041955;3ea4571aa02d9891cf487a46ca75d1cc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001263.soc;1263;2025-10-14 11:50:56.057004;de6737a0c177c7c39b296486d7898108;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001264.soc;1264;2025-10-14 11:50:56.058504;d2e66f97fee41632490993abcab0141d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001265.soc;1265;2025-10-14 11:50:56.058504;9303bd96d67a0b438de35857decac9b2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001266.soc;1266;2025-10-14 11:50:56.073786;ee85dfc8cdb639e20eaffcd6eb697414;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001267.soc;1267;2025-10-14 11:50:56.075713;c43a9436b028457dfd9feac3f1e657ac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001268.soc;1268;2025-10-14 11:50:56.075713;b2ec0cd6bfe6d3f34c5c1bace0dcf9ca;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001269.soc;1269;2025-10-14 11:50:56.092297;cec4411005314068482643ed42be39e2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001270.soc;1270;2025-10-14 11:50:56.092297;f6707a3f5a38fce25412f4a9b281d602;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001271.soc;1271;2025-10-14 11:50:56.092297;fff46c0b3d8a70550b9b13714ab1cc3e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001272.soc;1272;2025-10-14 11:50:56.092297;a798b6f56e4e9de8ff10b937861169a4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001273.soc;1273;2025-10-14 11:50:56.092297;26db4a9219541a9b2f3bfb6e8aecc4db;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001274.soc;1274;2025-10-14 11:50:56.112551;f3237b6a8583aad2246a8dc7f7f9c0cb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001275.soc;1275;2025-10-14 11:50:56.117717;5c108f964e7310c7d5a0c06f39aa9c1b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001276.soc;1276;2025-10-14 11:50:56.119719;99a2e5a3628a0b7784c56c7872a0af8c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001277.soc;1277;2025-10-14 11:50:56.121722;cc78304423b466f3df18faa8ae064dc2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001278.soc;1278;2025-10-14 11:50:56.130697;fccb15ec334b1190ea90d7e4e94253de;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001279.soc;1279;2025-10-14 11:50:56.137863;6ad4f307346cfd3f0f6c7b9684db0110;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001280.soc;1280;2025-10-14 11:50:56.139866;a7d941775da2dbe00a3d40c1f8f15f52;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001281.soc;1281;2025-10-14 11:50:56.143796;f37d22328027f1efb46001a53a9cdcb5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001282.soc;1282;2025-10-14 11:50:56.143796;1381f6bb80221acc06cd7c453b250d12;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001283.soc;1283;2025-10-14 11:50:56.158439;d2b804004c7cf263b89cf92b315c2ba1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001284.soc;1284;2025-10-14 11:50:56.158439;611c93ac22d155e363f05f9a45cb946a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001285.soc;1285;2025-10-14 11:50:56.158439;32bb451296755179921b7d17035c0289;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001286.soc;1286;2025-10-14 11:50:56.158439;4e2fe02a17e5aefa6cb01317b2a73eb7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001287.soc;1287;2025-10-14 11:50:56.174989;e09682128629275cb732e15cc7bc0d8b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001288.soc;1288;2025-10-14 11:50:56.174989;4c16b4b97fe8c292efe319a81fdf27b7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001289.soc;1289;2025-10-14 11:50:56.174989;d83e817fc2a0dcdc67fdb79e724b7da6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001290.soc;1290;2025-10-14 11:50:56.174989;ef9af57a63ae12954f0d203b575ba557;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001291.soc;1291;2025-10-14 11:50:56.174989;7ab9d5782f6176c9ded8f629bc2032c6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001292.soc;1292;2025-10-14 11:50:56.191735;3fd3fecbb380305387d72e6757943e13;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001293.soc;1293;2025-10-14 11:50:56.191735;0678e72dc28c07a8376c61edfa6721d0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001294.soc;1294;2025-10-14 11:50:56.207987;36fa49c1f8bbf716021b1fa0095b63b3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001295.soc;1295;2025-10-14 11:50:56.207987;3796a6446b578068a8c2c003e8af5974;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001296.soc;1296;2025-10-14 11:50:56.207987;3a45e5cb1aad5031b8dd01a160bca750;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001297.soc;1297;2025-10-14 11:50:56.224965;8c82e85b18c608994cfcfb888e46e9f2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001298.soc;1298;2025-10-14 11:50:56.224965;2b8694127164dbe21585e1fc87c46846;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001299.soc;1299;2025-10-14 11:50:56.235722;65fe8b435b844328ff5eb9d0eebba4ee;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001300.soc;1300;2025-10-14 11:50:56.235722;2297969ed2bde6b86d0b5a5014589467;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001301.soc;1301;2025-10-14 11:50:56.244423;5637720a49fe1f6ba8bae1b8263a3d7d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001302.soc;1302;2025-10-14 11:50:56.244423;58befe75a71851193a7e0938d24cdef0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001303.soc;1303;2025-10-14 11:50:56.244423;71cd887695f34491bbb70cc3aca28d1b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001304.soc;1304;2025-10-14 11:50:56.258217;3c092561d99f287263ad0752d198199f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001305.soc;1305;2025-10-14 11:50:56.258217;c17c4d2aaaaf615bbdb15ecb226bcf54;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001306.soc;1306;2025-10-14 11:50:56.258217;71b94a80cfb7cc9b48e4083d7a31ebb9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001307.soc;1307;2025-10-14 11:50:56.258217;b8f001b7a431d5ab29d1645c02966bab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001308.soc;1308;2025-10-14 11:50:56.274959;ab460937eb1942d88b7aa1676eace83c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001309.soc;1309;2025-10-14 11:50:56.274959;8a2419d9cac89b88b96131bb9f1f9d24;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001310.soc;1310;2025-10-14 11:50:56.291786;397253e3c78f036c48e8ae62ff804a4a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001311.soc;1311;2025-10-14 11:50:56.308327;ec70421ac7e7395c19d0217156039e19;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001312.soc;1312;2025-10-14 11:50:56.308327;2ffff2417362f49eac70b66a9f05bad4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001313.soc;1313;2025-10-14 11:50:56.308327;3b2ef3612560cc70216dde09280d532b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001314.soc;1314;2025-10-14 11:50:56.325182;278b24b92790e0ee7765f32cdb90e7cc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001315.soc;1315;2025-10-14 11:50:56.342103;d71194640ae6d909355be3a8363b504a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001316.soc;1316;2025-10-14 11:50:56.358542;7fa97b62c4da3bc3170541c4a42b7e07;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001317.soc;1317;2025-10-14 11:50:56.358542;b9cf4297a11930c01a796e0ee890b779;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001318.soc;1318;2025-10-14 11:50:56.358542;51950ef9784095ffae6a8fd63caba6c7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001319.soc;1319;2025-10-14 11:50:56.373524;28e96d990c64d2df02f9a96de5571cbb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001320.soc;1320;2025-10-14 11:50:56.376434;a7a46d5bcb13ae4cb3de7710a53fe81c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001321.soc;1321;2025-10-14 11:50:56.376434;96ceaec765939e2047a9f0228722b208;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001322.soc;1322;2025-10-14 11:50:56.376434;a73796836ccfc0fda42f114eab82b9ae;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001323.soc;1323;2025-10-14 11:50:56.409344;2ff2e911a5e4e87936ff4194eccfc103;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001324.soc;1324;2025-10-14 11:50:56.409344;59ca2f4df37cd3a90acb5b6635b50879;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001325.soc;1325;2025-10-14 11:50:56.409344;03c9ea8ff272c509643c644cdbcd15f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001326.soc;1326;2025-10-14 11:50:56.431001;c0289ba17a8e70ac4072848063638886;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001327.soc;1327;2025-10-14 11:50:56.440011;ad7b86ad40ed8cd53671025d0e250dee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001328.soc;1328;2025-10-14 11:50:56.442610;99dc1abd5c260e3188ea0be5bea761b0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001329.soc;1329;2025-10-14 11:50:56.442610;5a21fcdb2e99284187e6ff11239f61df;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001330.soc;1330;2025-10-14 11:50:56.442610;4ec94c1c295f002b49b185309088e0e9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001331.soc;1331;2025-10-14 11:50:56.442610;d1da024e05e390f6dacd536aef2e84f5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001332.soc;1332;2025-10-14 11:50:56.442610;70e1c8bfc24de6edbf588c22fd044d42;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001333.soc;1333;2025-10-14 11:50:56.458622;6ecb80d70b5212355cd473343bf596fb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001334.soc;1334;2025-10-14 11:50:56.461261;94f2e94fdfc1c34f9d637f5082f9f726;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001335.soc;1335;2025-10-14 11:50:56.461261;40038df2384940eb1d8ef27145244674;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001336.soc;1336;2025-10-14 11:50:56.475861;e255ceba7435e44c904391d85a493e1f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001337.soc;1337;2025-10-14 11:50:56.475861;1425e2a7345ad2c044d71ac91a1a4236;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001338.soc;1338;2025-10-14 11:50:56.491726;339d015da68111907abc68d7f835745f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001339.soc;1339;2025-10-14 11:50:56.496079;a261a8b645eac1ef258b618ad1cc9cfc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001340.soc;1340;2025-10-14 11:50:56.498081;89a7321f43fcf2c4fffa9c653e266b0c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001341.soc;1341;2025-10-14 11:50:56.500083;b797097b45ac82f47b16795e63df89f9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001342.soc;1342;2025-10-14 11:50:56.509419;fdba66562071bd16ed0213173c9b6075;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001343.soc;1343;2025-10-14 11:50:56.509419;ed2b22e36505274ed9be9136b31ef3d6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001344.soc;1344;2025-10-14 11:50:56.509419;7107fd31330eb00bd47b4fe7794d1103;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001345.soc;1345;2025-10-14 11:50:56.524950;3475ec4c250911d963e5e84cde4229c5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001346.soc;1346;2025-10-14 11:50:56.536010;5a5fecf9db86dccd516704c70acde063;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001347.soc;1347;2025-10-14 11:50:56.539340;5c5b878f9191ce5e085e105343afec0b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001348.soc;1348;2025-10-14 11:50:56.541538;bf63c5b31694b8726c0eb81717d7b063;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001349.soc;1349;2025-10-14 11:50:56.541538;8284470cac57849bc7ed9e891650bbbb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001350.soc;1350;2025-10-14 11:50:56.547623;3195a5f91dca2ca70e89afbdd6115bc1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001351.soc;1351;2025-10-14 11:50:56.549625;9be675e25f5ed6645d97af9a156d544f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001352.soc;1352;2025-10-14 11:50:56.549625;df0cb268e343943f805d526e82c89ff2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001353.soc;1353;2025-10-14 11:50:56.556881;faa8945e87839f60cddb20580a39daa8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001354.soc;1354;2025-10-14 11:50:56.559859;3dba39002b508e88106263f98944a8b9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001355.soc;1355;2025-10-14 11:50:56.561195;b647efa3bbea864883f75b1c52bcb7e3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001356.soc;1356;2025-10-14 11:50:56.561195;7f9661a8eab78845392d90a9f3cc00f0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001357.soc;1357;2025-10-14 11:50:56.574874;f44798bf3ee65fc2ae3b0d0de946c476;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001358.soc;1358;2025-10-14 11:50:56.574874;5883ea4aadf7fd7426e7c6b0feb63ff2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001359.soc;1359;2025-10-14 11:50:56.574874;93d238b7750ff974df1310338348f3c5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001360.soc;1360;2025-10-14 11:50:56.592355;1371f6c9e173df8f4cc7c0a1a341c737;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001361.soc;1361;2025-10-14 11:50:56.592355;d932640b0709b99370940055dd37f8a6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001362.soc;1362;2025-10-14 11:50:56.608372;8214489487e25b4d42cfb3c537e1ede4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001363.soc;1363;2025-10-14 11:50:56.608372;f7131f6b4325198a69ae972a15fee1bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001364.soc;1364;2025-10-14 11:50:56.624844;bc9d4aff8c49698bf1ffbd4317395bc6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001365.soc;1365;2025-10-14 11:50:56.630689;2ac1c20cdf65f311640ab79102dead98;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001366.soc;1366;2025-10-14 11:50:56.636077;6835627605fce71b14f07d78db2cee51;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001367.soc;1367;2025-10-14 11:50:56.640029;586ee80717b784cbfe78f168dfbaefe2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001368.soc;1368;2025-10-14 11:50:56.641407;89a06babbb810d8fce396a82c527a992;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001369.soc;1369;2025-10-14 11:50:56.641407;6791f57b385deffb9fb8a32f600f12f0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001370.soc;1370;2025-10-14 11:50:56.641407;be52216e2c157a6c4a1cc9e1b96eb194;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001371.soc;1371;2025-10-14 11:50:56.658015;1846309865d5e1f1a71f28f74d95e2f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001372.soc;1372;2025-10-14 11:50:56.658015;df69307951975da400309355e314a562;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001373.soc;1373;2025-10-14 11:50:56.658015;ceeb43f3d5ac58771b89a6c505019505;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001374.soc;1374;2025-10-14 11:50:56.658015;8ee01addf6f477cc78a10c31acc4a1ba;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001375.soc;1375;2025-10-14 11:50:56.673531;502bf7d08f24d22bb2de63efa6941c82;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001376.soc;1376;2025-10-14 11:50:56.677824;936e3541586bc0ba87a582e503cbd05b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001377.soc;1377;2025-10-14 11:50:56.677824;6ad63e89a987b2a28a2149b498880ce2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001378.soc;1378;2025-10-14 11:50:56.691316;d7f8cdf8ed07142dfe48d45a41034bb3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001379.soc;1379;2025-10-14 11:50:56.707445;86b83b78762a060a461b5407c6ba4ad1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001380.soc;1380;2025-10-14 11:50:56.708213;8bd27d01821678d6bba3161645205b99;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001381.soc;1381;2025-10-14 11:50:56.708213;9c74f17f1098680553ea84d9e7f4e12c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001382.soc;1382;2025-10-14 11:50:56.708213;da092ac6b14fe61c067838a0fc6490a2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001383.soc;1383;2025-10-14 11:50:56.708213;dfe829a67d4f66935888064f89dc57b3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001384.soc;1384;2025-10-14 11:50:56.708213;901034b95372c092d940a4e3fe902926;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001385.soc;1385;2025-10-14 11:50:56.724635;6b3b64c8fa676a7c7417e78000b58ac3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001386.soc;1386;2025-10-14 11:50:56.724635;5c021775728a5d6ffcdadbaccc7091d9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001387.soc;1387;2025-10-14 11:50:56.724635;3cb4402bbc0ed85be285f78f69123d6a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001388.soc;1388;2025-10-14 11:50:56.738368;bc6b0f30b4098bdce4d9e2559f011a91;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001389.soc;1389;2025-10-14 11:50:56.741194;b5924cb1f1812389571147f4031cda5a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001390.soc;1390;2025-10-14 11:50:56.741194;2d59bdb849d9c428dddad502ef41603d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001391.soc;1391;2025-10-14 11:50:56.741194;e62f72a5b9742b4fe72bd3598a9fd3e5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001392.soc;1392;2025-10-14 11:50:56.741194;fb1f1a1dd7dfa8cf4d912f6bf88e6698;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001393.soc;1393;2025-10-14 11:50:56.757745;7ebabd907d074116a2546653984fac54;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001394.soc;1394;2025-10-14 11:50:56.757745;3904ddd4e349684959a0cb4a9ef4aabf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001395.soc;1395;2025-10-14 11:50:56.757745;0abd7784b155a431d59d1dfc40a279d5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001396.soc;1396;2025-10-14 11:50:56.757745;eb5931105036128268809ba8ac9ea19e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001397.soc;1397;2025-10-14 11:50:56.757745;244248e9cbb25ca0470cbc0edb4bca4f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001398.soc;1398;2025-10-14 11:50:56.777007;b7c57b7646a5d5a01d82fbc319e2e079;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001399.soc;1399;2025-10-14 11:50:56.777514;8966e80e6aa95e29b60ecc1349203c8b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001400.soc;1400;2025-10-14 11:50:56.777514;868d13b025a5608bdb0981fe782c75d1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001401.soc;1401;2025-10-14 11:50:56.777514;b9f33b8c66856976f260e723008c073d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001402.soc;1402;2025-10-14 11:50:56.791259;b9182eedf2600a7687212f95d8cbc136;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001403.soc;1403;2025-10-14 11:50:56.791259;1dc6985c8c0f5dde441706904c3fc365;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001404.soc;1404;2025-10-14 11:50:56.807801;a4bf213eeda9d106b3073fdad326531d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001405.soc;1405;2025-10-14 11:50:56.807801;4d1f29320fbc23ad6e499ba84dac51a3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001406.soc;1406;2025-10-14 11:50:56.807801;0e00545787a45d8f176e9e33c12d281b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001407.soc;1407;2025-10-14 11:50:56.825368;eb19f0740071f5632c91f6d07e4bba34;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001408.soc;1408;2025-10-14 11:50:56.825368;0eb786a99a68eb50ddf53b3d9a995034;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001409.soc;1409;2025-10-14 11:50:56.836361;fc827c0688d3b9c9ad663fe49476efee;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001410.soc;1410;2025-10-14 11:50:56.841483;3e4b632a8faa19b6b11e3b45c809d25a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001411.soc;1411;2025-10-14 11:50:56.842345;09036bcac8a5bde76ce979ca7e23984c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001412.soc;1412;2025-10-14 11:50:56.842345;ba72d72a0d6ebf41009e3fa0dbee8225;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001413.soc;1413;2025-10-14 11:50:56.858451;e0e130895e4dab034f0b210efa2689cd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001414.soc;1414;2025-10-14 11:50:56.858451;928887c0792409f7c4aa645d6142bc1c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001415.soc;1415;2025-10-14 11:50:56.874857;babe53d5e66c89c1b358cf691e2faef6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001416.soc;1416;2025-10-14 11:50:56.888992;096c7cc3ab0832501c8c31065e497ce1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001417.soc;1417;2025-10-14 11:50:56.894595;77bf6b4797fabfaacaca949fe7694a44;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001418.soc;1418;2025-10-14 11:50:56.894595;b9251e5c1a583f070e412912d5111c94;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001419.soc;1419;2025-10-14 11:50:56.894595;4f4cf725883e1db1ebd27ba4f40662bd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001420.soc;1420;2025-10-14 11:50:56.894595;8c1ed0fe7a29deff6052052c9ca866c3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001421.soc;1421;2025-10-14 11:50:56.908842;ced1dfaf4da9fb785a1672703b9b999b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001422.soc;1422;2025-10-14 11:50:56.908842;87248d31153e5cd8c5e7ae464cdd25a6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001423.soc;1423;2025-10-14 11:50:56.908842;a7d4ae0358f77e22c4159ddf31b27829;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001424.soc;1424;2025-10-14 11:50:56.924497;726558ca1079007b241556bd0fcab752;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001425.soc;1425;2025-10-14 11:50:56.924497;d1c569f563e57516a35cd09ab92eb843;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001426.soc;1426;2025-10-14 11:50:56.924497;d41f4051d9c7c0a07b137b90cc6f8a3a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001427.soc;1427;2025-10-14 11:50:56.940994;3861af3d4bfc0c23e19e663105020de6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001428.soc;1428;2025-10-14 11:50:56.940994;2e8afebb4a5b905e72bebdd20aeb8e36;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001429.soc;1429;2025-10-14 11:50:56.940994;2d505910ef2c6e0564c635700fefd0f1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001430.soc;1430;2025-10-14 11:50:56.940994;7c5ff5da7193088c5d6cdbb58ad8e4ee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001431.soc;1431;2025-10-14 11:50:56.940994;82f85aeb5af0b05efac928a718ed65ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001432.soc;1432;2025-10-14 11:50:56.958378;15858497b197c4e88ee21a6f2a777edf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001433.soc;1433;2025-10-14 11:50:56.958378;81d2df1481d518dfc8d66826dda986b5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001434.soc;1434;2025-10-14 11:50:56.958378;8b023293a3b2ece3e4d7f590e2053431;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001435.soc;1435;2025-10-14 11:50:56.958378;791759ee51c836cbf536fc98c3868c98;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001436.soc;1436;2025-10-14 11:50:56.974588;81975628e93ddaf9bb4c17e0fae04714;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001437.soc;1437;2025-10-14 11:50:56.974588;126585bfde0d9e7699401284bc291cb3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001438.soc;1438;2025-10-14 11:50:56.974588;8004c179138f1da2783280b217360b8f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001439.soc;1439;2025-10-14 11:50:56.989575;9461b88677ea385f42a44f0a0be42096;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001440.soc;1440;2025-10-14 11:50:56.991908;9e8335622627b6004b967531a56bdb2d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001441.soc;1441;2025-10-14 11:50:56.994516;b9a4c6b0f8327011f49c0775be5704b1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001442.soc;1442;2025-10-14 11:50:56.994516;c697b8cde3dd4f908521757609e82c1b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001443.soc;1443;2025-10-14 11:50:57.007493;9824da849f82afebf3de953cede348b2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001444.soc;1444;2025-10-14 11:50:57.007493;60a2c28d88ae1af74fb3b832ef634eb7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001445.soc;1445;2025-10-14 11:50:57.007493;02c0461d49fe199a45e88262701ad465;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001446.soc;1446;2025-10-14 11:50:57.007493;3b3231510c038f0fd8229f4abc3b962a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001447.soc;1447;2025-10-14 11:50:57.024341;09b89708083f1af8bcfabe1b05c7a712;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001448.soc;1448;2025-10-14 11:50:57.024341;fede87fc74b1e3cd2adccd957dd015b6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001449.soc;1449;2025-10-14 11:50:57.024341;0ba58d4d1c3ec883a6331147aea22afe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001450.soc;1450;2025-10-14 11:50:57.036607;bf6e8913c26a9b56e664e797e3ed141b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001451.soc;1451;2025-10-14 11:50:57.042420;f6a7d2c0dc07456d2d7e6212b480133b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001452.soc;1452;2025-10-14 11:50:57.044135;2941e698f5ed0274fcf42347e554bc83;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001453.soc;1453;2025-10-14 11:50:57.057503;b557319eedbb06b610003926dcfd384a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001454.soc;1454;2025-10-14 11:50:57.057503;794083012f398ecedd96496733cfd10e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001455.soc;1455;2025-10-14 11:50:57.074193;899af1b91bc732528575f78880dcc8f6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001456.soc;1456;2025-10-14 11:50:57.074193;4e763b4f88c12c4b39a68b70616f8e71;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001457.soc;1457;2025-10-14 11:50:57.074193;17a084e27fc56827312b488e38677e1e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001458.soc;1458;2025-10-14 11:50:57.074193;e6237c7d5d7014de581ab46953964d3a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001459.soc;1459;2025-10-14 11:50:57.091073;13f7244c98fffe3f41b9bd559f0e3fdf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001460.soc;1460;2025-10-14 11:50:57.106996;cdc1f293c1948e3d7a9fd0442010ac38;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001461.soc;1461;2025-10-14 11:50:57.110022;4d65f34881f211ed7c32b92c3f2bf83a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001462.soc;1462;2025-10-14 11:50:57.110022;44d596dd75329103d690528d9417860f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001463.soc;1463;2025-10-14 11:50:57.125676;517dcf47b6b2c14cbaa04df5b58f0ec5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001464.soc;1464;2025-10-14 11:50:57.126745;e1067a6ed016e93d484d8943119350fe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001465.soc;1465;2025-10-14 11:50:57.141370;9336c59127684e461d68219c39ed614e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001466.soc;1466;2025-10-14 11:50:57.157376;722f884a9d34c15e43a1e9442aa2cc5e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001467.soc;1467;2025-10-14 11:50:57.157376;fce19bbc9ff2607d6a29a6ac12907d93;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001468.soc;1468;2025-10-14 11:50:57.157376;a4a267452ce0a1f91fd7097acfdf171e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001469.soc;1469;2025-10-14 11:50:57.157376;88914d88d85e7da62e2995fd225515c0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001470.soc;1470;2025-10-14 11:50:57.198956;21e65f8367c2175345ec387b10914634;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001471.soc;1471;2025-10-14 11:50:57.198956;89cd185d0e4cea97460311d86a6f682e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001472.soc;1472;2025-10-14 11:50:57.206928;93e3546c7325226d096e7b9135eeccc8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001473.soc;1473;2025-10-14 11:50:57.209042;f370c2515ba19bc50bf41298c516d7c4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001474.soc;1474;2025-10-14 11:50:57.210565;7f17bc038526b642cdf085a4abf632b2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001475.soc;1475;2025-10-14 11:50:57.210565;2144c677c661a9df5dd03f05c4bfdb21;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001476.soc;1476;2025-10-14 11:50:57.210565;35f56dbde4bf792d8402d730fb01aed0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001477.soc;1477;2025-10-14 11:50:57.210565;d2810028d5272d234f71acdeff9a0738;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001478.soc;1478;2025-10-14 11:50:57.210565;5aef9606a9ee370abf485063e94856a5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001479.soc;1479;2025-10-14 11:50:57.224571;7dfbb1b60d7cdcbfb6012cacff636e53;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001480.soc;1480;2025-10-14 11:50:57.224571;0ab2e1bb4f90cb36fc60073e38ad905c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001481.soc;1481;2025-10-14 11:50:57.224571;990e4c57fd6f9c551158f622b1a58222;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001482.soc;1482;2025-10-14 11:50:57.224571;f3c37aef60afea85dc521968fa465620;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001483.soc;1483;2025-10-14 11:50:57.224571;71523e8fceb1ef475a609d86365ef85c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001484.soc;1484;2025-10-14 11:50:57.241204;303b6d961b9ff813b8d81c65f5586482;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001485.soc;1485;2025-10-14 11:50:57.241204;0d32029ec5bc61cb63e916e496fe9e20;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001486.soc;1486;2025-10-14 11:50:57.241204;121a22bee71bce1812a7d63b0e08ceeb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001487.soc;1487;2025-10-14 11:50:57.241204;1bb53b51333267bf8f2076f10a7c8f3d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001488.soc;1488;2025-10-14 11:50:57.241204;ace447a9dd34ffb7ed7c488cf239ac0a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001489.soc;1489;2025-10-14 11:50:57.241204;cd2e5cc37b84477a03efb0b3ab12498c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001490.soc;1490;2025-10-14 11:50:57.257709;b266827926f86ae59b452a3a627ad807;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001491.soc;1491;2025-10-14 11:50:57.257709;e3bded95c167f788e27fc3915f70d3be;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001492.soc;1492;2025-10-14 11:50:57.257709;09d2473a73ba9bd29cdc2f282b608c89;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001493.soc;1493;2025-10-14 11:50:57.274041;c1c87fe0f78a097500fdfe65fbdd0247;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001494.soc;1494;2025-10-14 11:50:57.274041;c377e7e1860de90bdb109b203248b9ef;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001495.soc;1495;2025-10-14 11:50:57.274041;8e14481c98e0e887dd7395bb77571418;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001496.soc;1496;2025-10-14 11:50:57.274041;0bec9b1da85283359adafb275b1d5af5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001497.soc;1497;2025-10-14 11:50:57.290858;d652d9f02e65226e273b067e440dae35;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001498.soc;1498;2025-10-14 11:50:57.290858;bded96c059036d3e5eeac024d457a5a4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001499.soc;1499;2025-10-14 11:50:57.290858;8cb3ca6a35f61690dc7f310a4a23d3cc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001500.soc;1500;2025-10-14 11:50:57.290858;b5c44e603d3c658e5ede3835538f1b53;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001501.soc;1501;2025-10-14 11:50:57.290858;a793b6f828eb11defff3776097db4db5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001502.soc;1502;2025-10-14 11:50:57.307451;0052e590293f4e0fded874fe77394e87;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001503.soc;1503;2025-10-14 11:50:57.307451;25857d4a700ac8a21707d76e11387a0f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001504.soc;1504;2025-10-14 11:50:57.307451;90d6120bddc8c4389a83084ea7ef4b0f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001505.soc;1505;2025-10-14 11:50:57.324575;3779e2dd888ea06b7a5231844577c4e5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001506.soc;1506;2025-10-14 11:50:57.329587;7c14475c20063b04722a2eddc0364604;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001507.soc;1507;2025-10-14 11:50:57.331590;73fafbd98e7a3bd69785e26fa8b5dbfd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001508.soc;1508;2025-10-14 11:50:57.333592;7cd566aee012b54b5e2d7476c1120eb5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001509.soc;1509;2025-10-14 11:50:57.340683;45a3a081513d14dc93570797a1dab210;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001510.soc;1510;2025-10-14 11:50:57.340683;fe002bc9ec0fe7c1803f1488421913cf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001511.soc;1511;2025-10-14 11:50:57.340683;16fdfdd500a4e5bd4821dd536bf2e890;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001512.soc;1512;2025-10-14 11:50:57.340683;ae5c76b508eca468c2fdd36b6c06264c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001513.soc;1513;2025-10-14 11:50:57.357372;abb40f68791b2c7c8d088ac6777a7d56;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001514.soc;1514;2025-10-14 11:50:57.357372;2301598e11a30a69875c232c46e3f9a3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001515.soc;1515;2025-10-14 11:50:57.357372;73bfb60d1a1c0111a695a63f15fea91c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001516.soc;1516;2025-10-14 11:50:57.373489;6335cba2edf7361a4ed6b9884b38969d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001517.soc;1517;2025-10-14 11:50:57.375181;ddef5e87a8d20c12adf8ae19278f9f29;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001518.soc;1518;2025-10-14 11:50:57.375181;15120edd0690058d1700ca49352be616;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001519.soc;1519;2025-10-14 11:50:57.375181;464f80095983d91e983e491eb9de46a0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001520.soc;1520;2025-10-14 11:50:57.375181;20a9414985026070a97657fab8631ab9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001521.soc;1521;2025-10-14 11:50:57.390877;db07b44f369085945e2b0ee5ee8bb168;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001522.soc;1522;2025-10-14 11:50:57.390877;6522f62d46122a05addfbfc8fab4e249;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001523.soc;1523;2025-10-14 11:50:57.407535;1a1a9c3ad0f1fe7267fb6f45b8f04841;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001524.soc;1524;2025-10-14 11:50:57.407535;c8810e03e8ba740daffceedac8d1786a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001525.soc;1525;2025-10-14 11:50:57.407535;7ab85a0329d9d427a1db46ad04cc8fec;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001526.soc;1526;2025-10-14 11:50:57.427208;f5797a9d1f0badee3d7bfa84d0b50e18;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001527.soc;1527;2025-10-14 11:50:57.436871;1698e199618fc4cb399229a9342b040c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001528.soc;1528;2025-10-14 11:50:57.440869;9f2334c076c0810d351eb0dee77b85c8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001529.soc;1529;2025-10-14 11:50:57.440869;8691a71f6dbc0024de6b44c57e781bc7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001530.soc;1530;2025-10-14 11:50:57.440869;6fd037f3aa3679afd6c28b3dcb76d8db;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001531.soc;1531;2025-10-14 11:50:57.457850;4e2f875c6fa44082a1f7783cb6004fce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001532.soc;1532;2025-10-14 11:50:57.457850;51f661230a94cdc642219f9463fc64ee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001533.soc;1533;2025-10-14 11:50:57.457850;38abf6568157bbeb02d66359e5d0d7d6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001534.soc;1534;2025-10-14 11:50:57.457850;0844cab522c183c9774efc20646d5e5c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001535.soc;1535;2025-10-14 11:50:57.457850;a2c00c4e0ff21f45d630a2f5492db86c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001536.soc;1536;2025-10-14 11:50:57.457850;e8b71f4c0da4cd1571c24879bbffae4d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001537.soc;1537;2025-10-14 11:50:57.473933;3cadf744c3e11fea197e196ee24b8027;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001538.soc;1538;2025-10-14 11:50:57.473933;5c8ee9b928630bf4f0ad6663ee3d5350;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001539.soc;1539;2025-10-14 11:50:57.473933;538bf0f67f687d9f54be1f4751e6a772;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001540.soc;1540;2025-10-14 11:50:57.473933;232699aff744bff1369c9a4b927fabaa;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001541.soc;1541;2025-10-14 11:50:57.473933;ff746163fa58ebb4cf454ce871cc5c6a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001542.soc;1542;2025-10-14 11:50:57.489919;c23867c83bda9017bdaab1d46def20af;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001543.soc;1543;2025-10-14 11:50:57.491054;bbb2c7bff0607068f7cf371d53b4dac8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001544.soc;1544;2025-10-14 11:50:57.491054;8164bdf9b6bb252782ea483a6beaf107;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001545.soc;1545;2025-10-14 11:50:57.491054;4e02dbc504e2c069858372cfcee2581b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001546.soc;1546;2025-10-14 11:50:57.491054;11f24c81eb49dcd66876b3e9820d35f0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001547.soc;1547;2025-10-14 11:50:57.508341;95c96141d7c0570db9163a8a6d424c3a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001548.soc;1548;2025-10-14 11:50:57.508341;235ab543f438c70c87a0a010e33ecd13;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001549.soc;1549;2025-10-14 11:50:57.508341;20e7ddd962e9bbcec48470dd395220d8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001550.soc;1550;2025-10-14 11:50:57.508341;3e2ebdb0fec9bd6452d52a851d159e29;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001551.soc;1551;2025-10-14 11:50:57.524765;f230424fad69e8dd96dee905c614b7bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001552.soc;1552;2025-10-14 11:50:57.524765;5dca1c906e76368ff41e0c82d1c97eef;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001553.soc;1553;2025-10-14 11:50:57.524765;a53aa269fb53f9261cb4ab3f0632a9bb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001554.soc;1554;2025-10-14 11:50:57.539973;cd1be933b594de68e2621fe1f49fa5a5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001555.soc;1555;2025-10-14 11:50:57.542012;f5cb482f2dc72c15754bde493c53130e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001556.soc;1556;2025-10-14 11:50:57.545192;475333dd46a230df62b8b13bd66014a3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001557.soc;1557;2025-10-14 11:50:57.547206;d3c44266e7af7cdb2b941b3bfafd5cd0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001558.soc;1558;2025-10-14 11:50:57.557155;3ec4cd13d84b2620ef00782f66ad5680;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001559.soc;1559;2025-10-14 11:50:57.557155;4a2951c333b33f74ef4ded57a8840152;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001560.soc;1560;2025-10-14 11:50:57.557155;98d2eb537c0e31e1b70a9fbe2aef082c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001561.soc;1561;2025-10-14 11:50:57.557155;8efc42634481bdb95d1f4d00e5ec3ac1;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001562.soc;1562;2025-10-14 11:50:57.557155;3a37b4a55fd479f6f244495f9b14b621;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001563.soc;1563;2025-10-14 11:50:57.573928;65c26c89a077a09cb56616ea7da5697a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001564.soc;1564;2025-10-14 11:50:57.573928;77e483f56e504ca40e83f83f59cffe6f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001565.soc;1565;2025-10-14 11:50:57.573928;341b324689d20bc5a8eab6838663ed32;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001566.soc;1566;2025-10-14 11:50:57.573928;92986682878285ae4d53060617ea0f2d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001567.soc;1567;2025-10-14 11:50:57.573928;500f61f90c00a2b4725117829da635e3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001568.soc;1568;2025-10-14 11:50:57.589922;1f865efe2642b77800d1e09b68e383b6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001569.soc;1569;2025-10-14 11:50:57.590404;ed21615f9da14eab7ff4659448a897af;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001570.soc;1570;2025-10-14 11:50:57.590404;81280fe2d2b5e0122666d4f5493444b2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001571.soc;1571;2025-10-14 11:50:57.590404;e7f33c2417f66da7fabe67841e9d84fd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001572.soc;1572;2025-10-14 11:50:57.590404;4f88b1bfad9ed824eca54d8aabe1d707;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001573.soc;1573;2025-10-14 11:50:57.605784;a1ca055d74c6696d869fb1663cbbdf09;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001574.soc;1574;2025-10-14 11:50:57.607039;a9e5d50698ada7603c3b7bc41f34de34;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001575.soc;1575;2025-10-14 11:50:57.607039;0720aa2e1d776f9376cd6c0ae15cd48d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001576.soc;1576;2025-10-14 11:50:57.607039;d2045a0ac964e208daca6e63a8e881d5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001577.soc;1577;2025-10-14 11:50:57.607039;0d79ff080b1da7df8c979f9e9d6ac1ae;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001578.soc;1578;2025-10-14 11:50:57.622445;f78ca242bb22dfbd0dda0f412e09fc1c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001579.soc;1579;2025-10-14 11:50:57.625388;4e2e57bf1f297cdb4a17232390b5cb2f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001580.soc;1580;2025-10-14 11:50:57.625388;7ef8d819452d257bacc3c9509a41f6ef;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001581.soc;1581;2025-10-14 11:50:57.636933;041da6326f75c3594ceddde26bf6bcd3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001582.soc;1582;2025-10-14 11:50:57.640992;39a233fc96d43d6e0550a85551f85a09;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001583.soc;1583;2025-10-14 11:50:57.648057;623a1c8828a780194fa7f1acb9ea6aa0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001584.soc;1584;2025-10-14 11:50:57.649239;f90b1bb3ed2dbae53595a2b205fba657;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001585.soc;1585;2025-10-14 11:50:57.649239;9b23e805b3a96fbd1fb1b97cc719938c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001586.soc;1586;2025-10-14 11:50:57.649239;2572ba243c04b8dbed966641d9f91839;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001587.soc;1587;2025-10-14 11:50:57.657881;3af1a84eba5e6122c85e3e75d94918cf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001588.soc;1588;2025-10-14 11:50:57.657881;16ac4c71f9451eb899eba5241cced537;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001589.soc;1589;2025-10-14 11:50:57.657881;429fa016e6a3f25d4565a548fb07e08f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001590.soc;1590;2025-10-14 11:50:57.657881;7a46bd899952ccb20da60e5e9e87bd78;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001591.soc;1591;2025-10-14 11:50:57.673901;0f30c3abe4cf6e0f4e2f1791c76f5344;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001592.soc;1592;2025-10-14 11:50:57.673901;2145579e4507644b354a5023f3332def;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001593.soc;1593;2025-10-14 11:50:57.673901;e36e2e28f2ef71966aa30aa1a3a84155;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001594.soc;1594;2025-10-14 11:50:57.673901;dad1fef2100378133c078fe1753d5467;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001595.soc;1595;2025-10-14 11:50:57.689824;d450f3a8bf41b191949a42c9f6cd84b6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001596.soc;1596;2025-10-14 11:50:57.690292;7479687398f41ff4faf0e48b4cced231;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001597.soc;1597;2025-10-14 11:50:57.690292;0573635d3ce4b663a1c0a7fb23b3300e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001598.soc;1598;2025-10-14 11:50:57.690292;2317fe3a4d2235d282a9bb93d0147cfb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001599.soc;1599;2025-10-14 11:50:57.706859;0d0122d0158a7e1b577596188684a377;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001600.soc;1600;2025-10-14 11:50:57.723178;0c29cd6a13b378f7ba26ca0120ae3b3a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001601.soc;1601;2025-10-14 11:50:57.723804;57a200035476e88f64972ca082cb43a8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001602.soc;1602;2025-10-14 11:50:57.723804;5150150557cdec96d1ef88f410d51af9;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001603.soc;1603;2025-10-14 11:50:57.723804;acd6940911e15c1e9c7b6a00fcead819;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001604.soc;1604;2025-10-14 11:50:57.723804;85a2db29e3cd0bc874ba707e9744db60;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001605.soc;1605;2025-10-14 11:50:57.736878;483c5322f70575c8429cfd51b897da19;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001606.soc;1606;2025-10-14 11:50:57.739827;841cd211489f274e902dab014880bb3f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001607.soc;1607;2025-10-14 11:50:57.741926;913d7788c00426d53b325b3b3be6258b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001608.soc;1608;2025-10-14 11:50:57.742929;815cb84554ba5d4f3ded12b62116764f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001609.soc;1609;2025-10-14 11:50:57.742929;ebaf26315d8d45b50b5f62e6497401aa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001610.soc;1610;2025-10-14 11:50:57.742929;70e7f44c2660153f9974be3b807c408f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001611.soc;1611;2025-10-14 11:50:57.756976;bcd9a7b128e3178a237dbbc55682bf7c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001612.soc;1612;2025-10-14 11:50:57.756976;921491419d749b0057bb4bbaa14ba5f7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001613.soc;1613;2025-10-14 11:50:57.756976;3f2810ada74481f511d158f190345c5d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001614.soc;1614;2025-10-14 11:50:57.756976;f388568439e22140e1895111f994560d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001615.soc;1615;2025-10-14 11:50:57.756976;d8274d71fff44896f727b6fa2ceecab3;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001616.soc;1616;2025-10-14 11:50:57.773704;721c7bf80ce1ce8e98c6404caa2d8f9b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001617.soc;1617;2025-10-14 11:50:57.773704;ba31b6757815e35d01ebee275e1e0eac;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001618.soc;1618;2025-10-14 11:50:57.773704;3a416b0b91e7d7e5c29ff1e514bdbc27;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001619.soc;1619;2025-10-14 11:50:57.790236;ff19c8ab69ac7aa55e7276647e6ad476;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001620.soc;1620;2025-10-14 11:50:57.790236;a2059bae35af70fda7ff5c3a57706f1c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001621.soc;1621;2025-10-14 11:50:57.790236;252fb203456d534283856415dec33a83;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001622.soc;1622;2025-10-14 11:50:57.790236;6d2a10abc5c051410ce16419bce2b9e0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001623.soc;1623;2025-10-14 11:50:57.790236;f9de9b8e3656069718907e6981c358a4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001624.soc;1624;2025-10-14 11:50:57.790236;9810a9306988623f0a2cd591a3c42234;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001625.soc;1625;2025-10-14 11:50:57.806822;6c5cd70d90ac252842b34d3e2a4ab581;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001626.soc;1626;2025-10-14 11:50:57.806822;0909d7fd7180e5f4ffca06946214a740;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001627.soc;1627;2025-10-14 11:50:57.806822;a7e57adcdb85c89c9595ed5ba0a1e54b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001628.soc;1628;2025-10-14 11:50:57.806822;62f9c2ef27bb09cfb850db6d3c63cf9a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001629.soc;1629;2025-10-14 11:50:57.822208;1ce4069649735d295e66545187bdbde7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001630.soc;1630;2025-10-14 11:50:57.823531;99dbe5984dbdc572a29c12bf255783cb;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001631.soc;1631;2025-10-14 11:50:57.823531;cd69d4682e4d95478b7bc6cea3d0315d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001632.soc;1632;2025-10-14 11:50:57.823531;9c85ba475d31e874bd46533ddb1bb652;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001633.soc;1633;2025-10-14 11:50:57.823531;1e4511b188e5f9efcfe0b83a44b05169;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001634.soc;1634;2025-10-14 11:50:57.836911;dba86a962f29333a5fcaae656df171fe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001635.soc;1635;2025-10-14 11:50:57.840182;a6c4a74bc6bfaab584774cad50435963;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001636.soc;1636;2025-10-14 11:50:57.840182;675a8152206f71e108c147fba75929dd;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001637.soc;1637;2025-10-14 11:50:57.840182;99d936194e0bd3b940cf9d8cc74bb5b3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001638.soc;1638;2025-10-14 11:50:57.840182;3ef5b4d896455a3b01a83fd8cdd25be5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001639.soc;1639;2025-10-14 11:50:57.840182;ccb2c08551d2143edbc6eb9433873f42;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001640.soc;1640;2025-10-14 11:50:57.855509;ee0f7aca9b78131bc45927dbdabb739b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001641.soc;1641;2025-10-14 11:50:57.857371;5ac7f86015f83521b15c8500ea74d8bb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001642.soc;1642;2025-10-14 11:50:57.859762;d019a7d01e7042627473d8371b7406a4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001643.soc;1643;2025-10-14 11:50:57.859762;0a12a8993e0b42c0a247e12672ed301b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001644.soc;1644;2025-10-14 11:50:57.872995;af294ecd21048d099740429a72b0fbd0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001645.soc;1645;2025-10-14 11:50:57.873641;3a6d46282c6f91257d04fedaabebb96d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001646.soc;1646;2025-10-14 11:50:57.873641;f4d903f334e4f146ab518de9c23f9956;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001647.soc;1647;2025-10-14 11:50:57.873641;5cbb6bd8bc481d0261c5526bbd8a2609;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001648.soc;1648;2025-10-14 11:50:57.873641;e10d42d9058431692c30f7cd9a8272e5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001649.soc;1649;2025-10-14 11:50:57.873641;febdccdc61a7cf5990bdc13c5dda15ee;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001650.soc;1650;2025-10-14 11:50:57.889662;eeefbce30ff97f4d4d6a9685c010c837;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001651.soc;1651;2025-10-14 11:50:57.890226;ff897bf764e6ec0306206de0d4766d3e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001652.soc;1652;2025-10-14 11:50:57.890226;6d2c5ff8fda825db12bcd66b08a24453;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001653.soc;1653;2025-10-14 11:50:57.890226;d6aa0c5b7a93f2a147b68a2ac377672e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001654.soc;1654;2025-10-14 11:50:57.907283;726b7943651d4c8b47a08f873fc985c6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001655.soc;1655;2025-10-14 11:50:57.907283;2c7530e8f81574e60b8f55fa76cc50d2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001656.soc;1656;2025-10-14 11:50:57.907283;91fcc1e98eafd6eeb2372ae220295b66;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001657.soc;1657;2025-10-14 11:50:57.923574;c2cc32386b1e09aa0f73486b8874bcf4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001658.soc;1658;2025-10-14 11:50:57.923574;98e8daa240f561f931527b3954d45eae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001659.soc;1659;2025-10-14 11:50:57.939639;82466510f9f42e30f18c833bb125d236;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001660.soc;1660;2025-10-14 11:50:57.940150;12b759fe7b919d65fc3372d922a6b85e;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001661.soc;1661;2025-10-14 11:50:57.940150;6919b4ccc8212bcd5271da6b1dd9bdc7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001662.soc;1662;2025-10-14 11:50:57.940150;4d2d24cc7508511def9d49988b6cecab;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001663.soc;1663;2025-10-14 11:50:57.940150;f9df9aa1ab67c2930651e23da4446bc4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001664.soc;1664;2025-10-14 11:50:57.940150;70ee52192cae85adf5145811318bc9d4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001665.soc;1665;2025-10-14 11:50:57.940150;74e04866ecf60d7a31e4925bdf66277d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001666.soc;1666;2025-10-14 11:50:57.959367;7aafe7670edd2e4f70a5bf4c6886d9d6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001667.soc;1667;2025-10-14 11:50:57.959367;16765a8847192ae40f2dffeaddf548ab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001668.soc;1668;2025-10-14 11:50:57.973451;022f1c47e79f2073457ca552f14018e6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001669.soc;1669;2025-10-14 11:50:57.973451;c648b4c0b2692bc6d216b8fa2091561f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001670.soc;1670;2025-10-14 11:50:57.988821;1a3a92210655407f6e41737cb79ba10a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001671.soc;1671;2025-10-14 11:50:57.990122;f0f3dfc212d728f5ae47ea9812e80c71;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001672.soc;1672;2025-10-14 11:50:57.990122;da333c02772049e77ece03f910f45074;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001673.soc;1673;2025-10-14 11:50:57.999025;da18ddc4b4f0e97db999df4affe7a87a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001674.soc;1674;2025-10-14 11:50:58.006679;99894025a5a251c34ae3ae97b2eeb680;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001675.soc;1675;2025-10-14 11:50:58.011027;ae90539ab5fd9fe18b4def4daa2fc85c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001676.soc;1676;2025-10-14 11:50:58.015032;16b504045862fe2211cb2c9ec851cabc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001677.soc;1677;2025-10-14 11:50:58.017034;f8c03ff07d5de767ada546c19a37bd09;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001678.soc;1678;2025-10-14 11:50:58.023476;2aed8502d2db9fc2810b4389b2cb27f2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001679.soc;1679;2025-10-14 11:50:58.023476;a5f3c3d58d2d2c5999768379289a6750;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001680.soc;1680;2025-10-14 11:50:58.023476;05263958e650f54148df1f2bc6c92f38;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001681.soc;1681;2025-10-14 11:50:58.037349;5be8063768342a63876e80bbc6e240b1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001682.soc;1682;2025-10-14 11:50:58.040904;6cb1c23a3d550218cc0d59f717ece80d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001683.soc;1683;2025-10-14 11:50:58.040904;30ed52ea2586d519f0ead064dcd91e64;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001684.soc;1684;2025-10-14 11:50:58.040904;8d9508a27f10b0d5e1ccf4bb0128a03f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001685.soc;1685;2025-10-14 11:50:58.040904;a12985516dcaedac6b62f4b73c6e826e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001686.soc;1686;2025-10-14 11:50:58.057065;8aec57b0355cd670dbefa6f17b4d4670;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001687.soc;1687;2025-10-14 11:50:58.057065;16020b6ac34ff2f1c0e66cd4d0900e54;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001688.soc;1688;2025-10-14 11:50:58.057065;0475c7a18843ad2d8cf6405b9fed8c13;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001689.soc;1689;2025-10-14 11:50:58.075129;18ca6bc4cc6e949463cba0a2a8d29b36;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001690.soc;1690;2025-10-14 11:50:58.077110;47f0ae65428caadf2c87aeaa26715da8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001691.soc;1691;2025-10-14 11:50:58.077110;645c45f3edf8759018d93f6d0f03b3b8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001692.soc;1692;2025-10-14 11:50:58.077110;29677341c1c6ecbb99209f807d58c07c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001693.soc;1693;2025-10-14 11:50:58.077110;8d00d2a46263c7ec6b543d57df9a3027;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001694.soc;1694;2025-10-14 11:50:58.077110;a3cb1be443197f336e5e95261e196fbc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001695.soc;1695;2025-10-14 11:50:58.090225;3a141eb7c4a3234792f7e190ac977088;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001696.soc;1696;2025-10-14 11:50:58.090225;5ed8680ad4c0e09f8113fc897e707a27;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001697.soc;1697;2025-10-14 11:50:58.090225;57cdbfec6b998d52d73a12020aa77eec;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001698.soc;1698;2025-10-14 11:50:58.106723;26aa490baff9cd61b6ef8a397d5b73c0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001699.soc;1699;2025-10-14 11:50:58.106723;a11edb33b6e6fd8c5785002b08208a01;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001700.soc;1700;2025-10-14 11:50:58.123382;a5dfd02b07adcf13f6d12969e34571d0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001701.soc;1701;2025-10-14 11:50:58.123382;60967e0cac1a3275253ab546f085e953;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001702.soc;1702;2025-10-14 11:50:58.123382;c233a1f33379fa82c75d92d0c3eae572;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001703.soc;1703;2025-10-14 11:50:58.123382;43280077f5b303d7dcb013fc43a22e55;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001704.soc;1704;2025-10-14 11:50:58.123382;c4daaad8be2b38c8cf29d42464ca492c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001705.soc;1705;2025-10-14 11:50:58.139489;e418f39db39a5c3091e0b0cc34095365;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001706.soc;1706;2025-10-14 11:50:58.140030;888130195c05845b7981f20fc07a796e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001707.soc;1707;2025-10-14 11:50:58.140030;474ea21c72538f40b2ee403cefa35e80;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001708.soc;1708;2025-10-14 11:50:58.155622;a6ce40e8fd932ccdb06dfbd1c88e2b7a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001709.soc;1709;2025-10-14 11:50:58.157110;0244eba9ce691acc76d094a35e2b0f94;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001710.soc;1710;2025-10-14 11:50:58.157110;2d1ed038214d247d7b37ba6e5892c1fc;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001711.soc;1711;2025-10-14 11:50:58.176061;a77d811e1ddb03d432263013a99a9c93;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001712.soc;1712;2025-10-14 11:50:58.177067;c2e65f09ee564c04f8ac5ac9083b2a21;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001713.soc;1713;2025-10-14 11:50:58.177067;2a396bc2cbd0db9f30ca9212c243c361;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001714.soc;1714;2025-10-14 11:50:58.190476;6c60df2594d9e8e2cd1f2dc4796ed9d2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001715.soc;1715;2025-10-14 11:50:58.190476;65083d169e2d1136e7ea68279b26a4ff;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001716.soc;1716;2025-10-14 11:50:58.206568;34143fc46513888a240226b6ea693034;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001717.soc;1717;2025-10-14 11:50:58.206568;7a0aa04015e78bb2b0e40f57ab3e1a19;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001718.soc;1718;2025-10-14 11:50:58.206568;4f1c8a078ab714bb89dbf1cff2748b76;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001719.soc;1719;2025-10-14 11:50:58.223791;b835a9973ceb73bf8008a478cd5401d1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001720.soc;1720;2025-10-14 11:50:58.237656;d6119e136daa6005c31932fe5c344a0d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001721.soc;1721;2025-10-14 11:50:58.240243;6984f8935def99616adc90b657906866;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001722.soc;1722;2025-10-14 11:50:58.240243;228bdbfc2070068fa7ede0f0c091431f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001723.soc;1723;2025-10-14 11:50:58.240243;a368cc20e0f12e137935eaa0458f7dd8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001724.soc;1724;2025-10-14 11:50:58.256977;1aa560c1f5d26bb9003e7a55b8573909;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001725.soc;1725;2025-10-14 11:50:58.256977;62251dec01c988954a41325751b50dd7;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001726.soc;1726;2025-10-14 11:50:58.256977;ecfedf2b3f48e81fd73227040c6ac784;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001727.soc;1727;2025-10-14 11:50:58.273922;1c2674b732971cf15f34440d40a5a5b9;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001728.soc;1728;2025-10-14 11:50:58.273922;f705e85af1ac5bd4bf7a44ebbf9782b9;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001729.soc;1729;2025-10-14 11:50:58.273922;391c9c9dbe4cf2d942ecce04c937a4b5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001730.soc;1730;2025-10-14 11:50:58.273922;170eb8a650393514f55c7dd1329f4e8d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001731.soc;1731;2025-10-14 11:50:58.273922;e98e9fe59b0dc7b0acb518a5b8dc60a7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001732.soc;1732;2025-10-14 11:50:58.273922;a1682d623a85c0f08ab6ad1169bbdbbb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001733.soc;1733;2025-10-14 11:50:58.291472;71c96209e2dab452dd1059928a5aa346;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001734.soc;1734;2025-10-14 11:50:58.295517;8789f0ebe41c44ea5de8f0821405986e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001735.soc;1735;2025-10-14 11:50:58.295517;dec638b1c5ef089efd6a839c168bcaa8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001736.soc;1736;2025-10-14 11:50:58.295517;46725b78f732fae4e56c429006936580;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001737.soc;1737;2025-10-14 11:50:58.307037;d0623d8840a2fc368cc5508224711790;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001738.soc;1738;2025-10-14 11:50:58.307037;01b3dcfb17d2697b2de7ead9ae8c1d11;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001739.soc;1739;2025-10-14 11:50:58.307037;b1c5881077c4e37fc5386c1555f7c8b4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001740.soc;1740;2025-10-14 11:50:58.314729;18813c2aa0d389cc5c9ac9008c797321;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001741.soc;1741;2025-10-14 11:50:58.314729;809e77d1fb6d46b0b7979a01fa962589;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001742.soc;1742;2025-10-14 11:50:58.314729;93e93b7a8659c74c2c251d0036118feb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001743.soc;1743;2025-10-14 11:50:58.323273;b24c8e0d0b9cc1e95e55433b8a85d831;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001744.soc;1744;2025-10-14 11:50:58.323273;7f9fe80543bb9f04484bddfff3324dd6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001745.soc;1745;2025-10-14 11:50:58.323273;4e0fed638ca660d4ce9e81d4f99d194d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001746.soc;1746;2025-10-14 11:50:58.323273;93584f17d386d5db7c24a132dab01e88;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001747.soc;1747;2025-10-14 11:50:58.339767;b152072e65f31a6b6cf18d5df3082166;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001748.soc;1748;2025-10-14 11:50:58.339767;8c8c7681113eebe2ec622510b778df62;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001749.soc;1749;2025-10-14 11:50:58.339767;7b3a829865985a62230916c79ef5e8de;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001750.soc;1750;2025-10-14 11:50:58.339767;2303da7ce31dea6530bf467317cdbfa8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001751.soc;1751;2025-10-14 11:50:58.356495;134ffbdda476cbea3cce075b102cf07c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001752.soc;1752;2025-10-14 11:50:58.356495;673b97c139a895f30aa5f75dea832e48;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001753.soc;1753;2025-10-14 11:50:58.356495;242d5769e4378088e3d2dbd9ff991354;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001754.soc;1754;2025-10-14 11:50:58.356495;11761d7fdef28b1e83893b2420b5ba4f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001755.soc;1755;2025-10-14 11:50:58.356495;c6f67e33f55f01bf88fc1a573ad7baae;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001756.soc;1756;2025-10-14 11:50:58.356495;0cd8566bc2e1f65ec677d2cd5b0f36e3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001757.soc;1757;2025-10-14 11:50:58.356495;f251f93836942df902be788710b05d3f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001758.soc;1758;2025-10-14 11:50:58.373671;ed53c14581c596b96634a4f918829962;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001759.soc;1759;2025-10-14 11:50:58.373671;17f6831330a569a33e6789cdd0de001c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001760.soc;1760;2025-10-14 11:50:58.373671;738f708b2609cd3f39b7de1def6daebc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001761.soc;1761;2025-10-14 11:50:58.393230;f961d5a5c8c9a00d49e81a1864d7aba2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001762.soc;1762;2025-10-14 11:50:58.393230;9c234c2b0f01b902ea63b2f8b47846ca;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001763.soc;1763;2025-10-14 11:50:58.393230;0c78ad08986bb2cc7a06c836654948b1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001764.soc;1764;2025-10-14 11:50:58.393230;ee1a5daf49123884b1a98376ec6c9117;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001765.soc;1765;2025-10-14 11:50:58.393230;560e741ab04fb5ad607cda6dc289c56e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001766.soc;1766;2025-10-14 11:50:58.407112;706289992697fc36f38600e2936186ea;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001767.soc;1767;2025-10-14 11:50:58.407112;b42098ee26296b5d7838a5987e53e48f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001768.soc;1768;2025-10-14 11:50:58.407112;3104b939d068e2573993aa653f527a6d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001769.soc;1769;2025-10-14 11:50:58.407112;a2eb4b5d01fe3d47460f7ce6bd8741ca;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001770.soc;1770;2025-10-14 11:50:58.423020;1a5a2240ac91ba5b303d76d1120cf793;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001771.soc;1771;2025-10-14 11:50:58.423020;547ab1119b21a3b70f52583ed4f8ed8d;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001772.soc;1772;2025-10-14 11:50:58.423020;4470f85c61965880fd1893f0fa4ed6a2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001773.soc;1773;2025-10-14 11:50:58.423020;d1ca3795f27cd22b3570c2932e54a62e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001774.soc;1774;2025-10-14 11:50:58.440132;37da03289c3d21291771e1072b32440a;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001775.soc;1775;2025-10-14 11:50:58.440132;fa6052107e3d977ea79b67f5c0ed025b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001776.soc;1776;2025-10-14 11:50:58.440132;1b6fc8e7a31ae982a4bb068385396b69;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001777.soc;1777;2025-10-14 11:50:58.440132;cac9964a15e10332a06aeb42c4fccf99;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001778.soc;1778;2025-10-14 11:50:58.440132;e4a1793457b4c5f0ae9dc7b85fe03411;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001779.soc;1779;2025-10-14 11:50:58.456416;c9df18148c1096ceca1cc2fe280f9f62;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001780.soc;1780;2025-10-14 11:50:58.456416;e61cd448958273294c59233eafeba532;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001781.soc;1781;2025-10-14 11:50:58.456416;062c7960134b56f12baf82b870941c30;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001782.soc;1782;2025-10-14 11:50:58.456416;12363fb72e67217184b1aa73e473fca2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001783.soc;1783;2025-10-14 11:50:58.456416;687c9e38b672f4195c19f11cf2ab06bd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001784.soc;1784;2025-10-14 11:50:58.471818;b7b46b4db4446971e9dab523c6a6e672;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001785.soc;1785;2025-10-14 11:50:58.473300;2abd1b815e2ca4e3278e08fbb6d6db3b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001786.soc;1786;2025-10-14 11:50:58.473300;670d707fa32a75d0485d1635aceb10fa;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001787.soc;1787;2025-10-14 11:50:58.473300;6c53a6063def22df332b6f2f67e70b4c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001788.soc;1788;2025-10-14 11:50:58.473300;27e37f849886fa13e884d4917e3d9ec2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001789.soc;1789;2025-10-14 11:50:58.489655;6abffa34c6e3c80950df7b077434426d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001790.soc;1790;2025-10-14 11:50:58.489655;ff69df632db90adcfba04dbf33f3e12d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001791.soc;1791;2025-10-14 11:50:58.489655;03a2051255600080e26c032a822d5436;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001792.soc;1792;2025-10-14 11:50:58.489655;c7ae86391c8654b60be0e510089ddca2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001793.soc;1793;2025-10-14 11:50:58.489655;c80a3fcea565cec3f63cd2b002d9ba78;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001794.soc;1794;2025-10-14 11:50:58.508054;13840e9afeef50e373e2eb3e6f0de132;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001795.soc;1795;2025-10-14 11:50:58.509138;bba531633436fda4499684655283e819;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001796.soc;1796;2025-10-14 11:50:58.509138;3d59a1923a235f188c9496975f7cd505;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001797.soc;1797;2025-10-14 11:50:58.522672;ca21579d60fed34bc15591b0debbb9e6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001798.soc;1798;2025-10-14 11:50:58.522672;8a4ebf7359e537ee4b5fedb32c9a3060;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001799.soc;1799;2025-10-14 11:50:58.539412;0b79bc43058b0ecc915fb19a7c206a17;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001800.soc;1800;2025-10-14 11:50:58.539412;c654355149e407a44c9448d639223d3b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001801.soc;1801;2025-10-14 11:50:58.539412;d6c0f769f218c1fec1c738ad1a685515;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001802.soc;1802;2025-10-14 11:50:58.539412;5abc431e514eb9eeb39b3e51f9a57683;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001803.soc;1803;2025-10-14 11:50:58.539412;2b3ad5244e4090cb1ed33fdde149bde1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001804.soc;1804;2025-10-14 11:50:58.556013;5706f6729448b6a288ebf32a99b23b83;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001805.soc;1805;2025-10-14 11:50:58.556013;9dbcb917d858da3c043a30ce16e76e61;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001806.soc;1806;2025-10-14 11:50:58.556013;b8df91b1070bcfdd89a89ca85b139844;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001807.soc;1807;2025-10-14 11:50:58.556013;d6ac7a40ff6acdc749ceace2e0b64d08;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001808.soc;1808;2025-10-14 11:50:58.556013;b63a62e6d8f3aaf38da8eef18f211411;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001809.soc;1809;2025-10-14 11:50:58.556013;1ef6d45a76a6f27c35e08891f17b874e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001810.soc;1810;2025-10-14 11:50:58.556013;ba958e50e48e0af0955ef186731acba5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001811.soc;1811;2025-10-14 11:50:58.556013;7ae5d7bb00646d07da37f633208a9379;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001812.soc;1812;2025-10-14 11:50:58.572618;74d6c6ea53e9f9d7e68d9f6e33d5674b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001813.soc;1813;2025-10-14 11:50:58.572618;1726731904e4956397d02e2e574517d5;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001814.soc;1814;2025-10-14 11:50:58.572618;e0d54872bc84c3e8f021b53ac3115f8d;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001815.soc;1815;2025-10-14 11:50:58.572618;0e1982a7a906ff3e71b2058b3980810a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001816.soc;1816;2025-10-14 11:50:58.572618;ec525ce9c1b1ef08b86ab53aeaf8f1aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001817.soc;1817;2025-10-14 11:50:58.572618;f9774b2e2facb51e0b0918a81fc2750d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001818.soc;1818;2025-10-14 11:50:58.589288;4d02fb02aded66068d1fbb564f4e2eb7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001819.soc;1819;2025-10-14 11:50:58.589288;0914363af9592a1287876f4386055b0c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001820.soc;1820;2025-10-14 11:50:58.589288;e3195d46cfa720bacbb853563bbfa2f8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001821.soc;1821;2025-10-14 11:50:58.606972;06a3b7e51c14ea07603b22c11a68c3d8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001822.soc;1822;2025-10-14 11:50:58.608986;c579a065d0b489c4ecd7f39071d32eb7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001823.soc;1823;2025-10-14 11:50:58.608986;a6308c5ac04bdf48d65676b15b54e814;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001824.soc;1824;2025-10-14 11:50:58.608986;356afb829e0718872da26e4b3384552e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001825.soc;1825;2025-10-14 11:50:58.608986;a7478265ec2cdb6bf99e453d4b9c577b;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001826.soc;1826;2025-10-14 11:50:58.622735;bcb7036026e1a7815c5b4f17f5920a33;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001827.soc;1827;2025-10-14 11:50:58.622735;80dffac2eff4a6a2ecece298a9615636;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001828.soc;1828;2025-10-14 11:50:58.622735;5f9c38b2f6dda71021127d2c680aa87f;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001829.soc;1829;2025-10-14 11:50:58.622735;682a8fa4846316be9e5c36c965d418a4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001830.soc;1830;2025-10-14 11:50:58.639480;f0a60a6017c7087e3804c529ca9cf214;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001831.soc;1831;2025-10-14 11:50:58.644621;747a9a7679d1af666cb01f83632cf8df;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001832.soc;1832;2025-10-14 11:50:58.656049;81e18f206863cbc4f9ddaa427fb062e2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001833.soc;1833;2025-10-14 11:50:58.656049;ab83e0cd0fbcb9f480ffaaaa2132fbdd;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001834.soc;1834;2025-10-14 11:50:58.656049;6b5b53be4f5d9ee7cb9e7db8c50d2fbf;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001835.soc;1835;2025-10-14 11:50:58.656049;d6b15fbc18e9bcb566ce3b9246ccd508;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001836.soc;1836;2025-10-14 11:50:58.672524;f0ea4835eeb0efe6b4f30a80520a6d45;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001837.soc;1837;2025-10-14 11:50:58.672524;9a15109cf2608078e286f9ba846cf911;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001838.soc;1838;2025-10-14 11:50:58.672524;dabf78c72ed9f9173ea8f8ec9b330ea7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001839.soc;1839;2025-10-14 11:50:58.672524;4011db630123222e9fe2b00731cbef86;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001840.soc;1840;2025-10-14 11:50:58.689263;86dd6fc6f1d5b24170f88f9d8eb0a7e2;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001841.soc;1841;2025-10-14 11:50:58.689263;0bbad3ed13fe9f10b809c8e68f460a24;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001842.soc;1842;2025-10-14 11:50:58.689263;a4cdab9c57ff6ca20bb9ab20459e7c8e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001843.soc;1843;2025-10-14 11:50:58.705955;f0136a497bf657cc92cfb63eac06dd44;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001844.soc;1844;2025-10-14 11:50:58.705955;a511be77b7813a259176cb8feb9aee60;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001845.soc;1845;2025-10-14 11:50:58.705955;53e086ed2f5cf208573493cc769eaaa2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001846.soc;1846;2025-10-14 11:50:58.705955;45695607bbd863d93d5fa33754dc265a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001847.soc;1847;2025-10-14 11:50:58.725285;3eb04d423e6c43286b1ee7a4d8a9476a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001848.soc;1848;2025-10-14 11:50:58.725285;324fbf63f13d1bde6ad7ffe863cd0f36;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001849.soc;1849;2025-10-14 11:50:58.725285;5b0698c168df758f1168cb019b403a36;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001850.soc;1850;2025-10-14 11:50:58.739315;395da5d8b15629d5fb375e0dc814b702;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001851.soc;1851;2025-10-14 11:50:58.739315;554fccc0f2c5547c860348b7f69639be;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001852.soc;1852;2025-10-14 11:50:58.739315;7f5408b5a59e5d5456b11315a4e6a021;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001853.soc;1853;2025-10-14 11:50:58.739315;562c6e7e65902fe869d3b49f103a19a1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001854.soc;1854;2025-10-14 11:50:58.755975;be2ff5bd25b384f381a0c4842c4e1ff7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001855.soc;1855;2025-10-14 11:50:58.755975;47dfdf234907bb6b08bfe46be9164035;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001856.soc;1856;2025-10-14 11:50:58.755975;2804a94f8c7b997499c64c676d1c3e28;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001857.soc;1857;2025-10-14 11:50:58.755975;c1b2383dc3f58a41dc946f9cb7e1c649;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001858.soc;1858;2025-10-14 11:50:58.755975;bf3b4f06291d798c8de8ffcff7a81bca;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001859.soc;1859;2025-10-14 11:50:58.755975;98df38a281af50969c2348328df292b5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001860.soc;1860;2025-10-14 11:50:58.755975;975eb26165438d1f8a4861a2218b7360;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001861.soc;1861;2025-10-14 11:50:58.755975;f6defe35ceccf7f0fa2e204e9c7a2180;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001862.soc;1862;2025-10-14 11:50:58.772467;a3ec1f65a47512f9b950e008397c8b2d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001863.soc;1863;2025-10-14 11:50:58.772467;ae9f2e005a2b801c8669d6cbc19289ae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001864.soc;1864;2025-10-14 11:50:58.772467;aeb00cc960d4e7e3689bb9336058d252;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001865.soc;1865;2025-10-14 11:50:58.772467;5e6dae2edc921ea0c30749bdcfce8b7b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001866.soc;1866;2025-10-14 11:50:58.772467;c7c16972bda52e353ab5b2817dc896e5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001867.soc;1867;2025-10-14 11:50:58.789146;d42ae809d50a49c596dc12985e2e627c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001868.soc;1868;2025-10-14 11:50:58.789146;8ab6ccb41d46ba57aacf762b533b0618;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001869.soc;1869;2025-10-14 11:50:58.789146;c26e4ba53dbad29159bba3eafbd8fc9e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001870.soc;1870;2025-10-14 11:50:58.789146;8a9f7f2034b06ad1da8ede39d319c5a2;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001871.soc;1871;2025-10-14 11:50:58.789146;ee9feba6afb6637833f746ba394a11e5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001872.soc;1872;2025-10-14 11:50:58.805778;4c4e1e52c96ca70b6be88846721246c8;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001873.soc;1873;2025-10-14 11:50:58.805778;51c1470ecabd7de93a6a67ecbccc00f9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001874.soc;1874;2025-10-14 11:50:58.805778;184f0240406057632cc69bd83c086f5f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001875.soc;1875;2025-10-14 11:50:58.805778;2f8400ff6a387d0cffe42ec726688b3e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001876.soc;1876;2025-10-14 11:50:58.822545;8518ee8c1351fddfc06aa2c6e9671c63;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001877.soc;1877;2025-10-14 11:50:58.822545;0c7d7f3a83c6cfffb18bdd7beb05cb96;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001878.soc;1878;2025-10-14 11:50:58.822545;0c492963e656e77042e5c2ef0f366617;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001879.soc;1879;2025-10-14 11:50:58.822545;2570bb70cde28f7d547248f81e72e7e9;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001880.soc;1880;2025-10-14 11:50:58.838849;9777491e7c76305dfa41f5303b2377b9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001881.soc;1881;2025-10-14 11:50:58.841983;5c7515592f49a5ccbe5e17b30028300e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001882.soc;1882;2025-10-14 11:50:58.841983;92b4d5f33ee5eb4e30064e704c5d5971;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001883.soc;1883;2025-10-14 11:50:58.841983;38f9b8eed2f6e75e2207427632f43d94;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001884.soc;1884;2025-10-14 11:50:58.856207;f95ce7ee461ba8159f63f45438e849ef;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001885.soc;1885;2025-10-14 11:50:58.856207;f32be8fb986fdf8e6e331d3fca225bcb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001886.soc;1886;2025-10-14 11:50:58.856207;c5b5a0a5394d5d4354c9a594e1c511db;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001887.soc;1887;2025-10-14 11:50:58.856207;68ae52b222cdb08bf37db5e69e0becf4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001888.soc;1888;2025-10-14 11:50:58.872494;6f986db58dc93d3f6dd5e6acb182c2bd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001889.soc;1889;2025-10-14 11:50:58.872494;48f21e63e4acb6686ef1e298e1a62126;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001890.soc;1890;2025-10-14 11:50:58.872494;e71c43c35bd1acdfc3f3b3d4244d2ccc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001891.soc;1891;2025-10-14 11:50:58.872494;226ccc5a2d655c51b12024904b19c4df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001892.soc;1892;2025-10-14 11:50:58.889291;9a0165396a98dbd874053ffb512befb6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001893.soc;1893;2025-10-14 11:50:58.889291;8e7463def75ac87716c630c6ad541874;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001894.soc;1894;2025-10-14 11:50:58.905767;dc4af50c504cf1126b190b6d2cd493eb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001895.soc;1895;2025-10-14 11:50:58.905767;6d68584253c9676c50acda7afbd16ab4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001896.soc;1896;2025-10-14 11:50:58.922748;166bf6af91174a63728f4c5087959e44;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001897.soc;1897;2025-10-14 11:50:58.922748;fe2321b55d500e849f9cfa27cb35a58d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001898.soc;1898;2025-10-14 11:50:58.922748;55c8987652f5324d6d154b7f48b8a03c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001899.soc;1899;2025-10-14 11:50:58.939816;5ec75e5ded6cbfcd0a8a335ef3a997af;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001900.soc;1900;2025-10-14 11:50:58.941813;52a4b9b0b4479337f42ce6f21611ece8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001901.soc;1901;2025-10-14 11:50:58.943108;f52cfd2a343f9bfe491483053c49095e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001902.soc;1902;2025-10-14 11:50:58.956055;1cc14c73eabfdbd02219f239ebbdabbf;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001903.soc;1903;2025-10-14 11:50:58.956055;5ae92f1d4aa1f7b845357d403750fa19;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001904.soc;1904;2025-10-14 11:50:58.956055;a41bdb97e39e0090054c62617fa8f9cd;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001905.soc;1905;2025-10-14 11:50:58.972575;43d4f10a5be111fa489af4f23a2cbe8e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001906.soc;1906;2025-10-14 11:50:58.972575;53d9d6786466a006387981207c2fd8dd;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001907.soc;1907;2025-10-14 11:50:58.972575;6c88bd2bf6e9d76325a0ff109d5fe29c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001908.soc;1908;2025-10-14 11:50:58.972575;6cba9093e75d8a27f333a2832748e811;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001909.soc;1909;2025-10-14 11:50:58.972575;09bfce58b25422cc87ca2b90be81e541;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001910.soc;1910;2025-10-14 11:50:58.989057;aec36a2c5b2ea0fd726935968031e652;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001911.soc;1911;2025-10-14 11:50:58.989057;7b53dc2cf1809af9ace12af22d96b583;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001912.soc;1912;2025-10-14 11:50:58.989057;9cdcb217a5afdccd6bd8c20287595acb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001913.soc;1913;2025-10-14 11:50:58.989057;a63a292740fec4dc4ac11ba786f5bf53;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001914.soc;1914;2025-10-14 11:50:58.989057;80d0b5fd74b9a012914f98e114e65c3d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001915.soc;1915;2025-10-14 11:50:59.004369;1e2fecd079474ccd6955bcb429e3275e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001916.soc;1916;2025-10-14 11:50:59.005770;136bcec42708388346e31413c5c82d44;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001917.soc;1917;2025-10-14 11:50:59.005770;edd16b557a4ede26e25137602a8c9962;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001918.soc;1918;2025-10-14 11:50:59.005770;1ec33663dccc80f8df408f7e0c6f25e6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001919.soc;1919;2025-10-14 11:50:59.005770;f026f3731d7d887291f238817f6f5a74;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001920.soc;1920;2025-10-14 11:50:59.005770;479a7b3930fa07edfdcef75820b6e2cf;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001921.soc;1921;2025-10-14 11:50:59.005770;0efb9a5993ab716becb09ab3ed806aac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001922.soc;1922;2025-10-14 11:50:59.022412;f0ea49eac311fa5604d0b15194a089f1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001923.soc;1923;2025-10-14 11:50:59.022412;4249acd6c4f97ff492b38aeba89c191c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001924.soc;1924;2025-10-14 11:50:59.038862;e395d26d00a93b906efd4e0d99778f3b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001925.soc;1925;2025-10-14 11:50:59.042190;93b97142cd4564aa099f5ec88429bea7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001926.soc;1926;2025-10-14 11:50:59.043066;9dc197f70c769dc9fb8bb475ddb095e9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001927.soc;1927;2025-10-14 11:50:59.043066;122fda81287405d8145e3deffe02b24e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001928.soc;1928;2025-10-14 11:50:59.043066;01afa5a4636881d4346a42b83198c156;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001929.soc;1929;2025-10-14 11:50:59.054213;b70e9bc50d52f9087fbc3bcb434f6be6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001930.soc;1930;2025-10-14 11:50:59.055938;b60d6f2dc277cf7d181be1924db2bd78;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001931.soc;1931;2025-10-14 11:50:59.055938;7a63d0f55df3f1bbc062597c45fc7f62;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001932.soc;1932;2025-10-14 11:50:59.073682;21837fed701ef1406938f089440060b8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001933.soc;1933;2025-10-14 11:50:59.075505;5985e35055847538d493f510a885e008;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001934.soc;1934;2025-10-14 11:50:59.075505;056cfcb4228fa7030d969b9bf68dfda2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001935.soc;1935;2025-10-14 11:50:59.091120;2eebf17e902cebe2b4ed6bbaeacb1d62;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001936.soc;1936;2025-10-14 11:50:59.091120;559598fa99a77e0544af3245a3ed2e0f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001937.soc;1937;2025-10-14 11:50:59.091120;3a7d4de77e5e465923c889f9ffca126d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001938.soc;1938;2025-10-14 11:50:59.091120;5c6c56d84db2183d642c3e7b79a02e78;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001939.soc;1939;2025-10-14 11:50:59.105694;7e883b64be11b6f6695190c88ef33680;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001940.soc;1940;2025-10-14 11:50:59.105694;a3f9a2f87825a89556d593c6267cb04d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001941.soc;1941;2025-10-14 11:50:59.105694;522c655ace44dedfdbd66765f900d414;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001942.soc;1942;2025-10-14 11:50:59.124469;5b2c03b7b843589cd79705fabe600149;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00001943.soc;1943;2025-10-14 11:50:59.124469;b70737181204485d5417cb35b96ef206;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001944.soc;1944;2025-10-14 11:50:59.141947;9f68ec8ec8fbc63704bab1bc0390fb5a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001945.soc;1945;2025-10-14 11:50:59.155714;7a3d1815ad7e7f4a01a7ecfc12544f9b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001946.soc;1946;2025-10-14 11:50:59.155714;d9053c3b1ee7c316818ad4b5192b6750;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001947.soc;1947;2025-10-14 11:50:59.155714;c650510e7405c5b4993a3a3d3ce7aaeb;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001948.soc;1948;2025-10-14 11:50:59.182198;92c224f11a93fa78bc8c78a468168056;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001949.soc;1949;2025-10-14 11:50:59.189838;a03ba8eca8c3c5232abfd225c2d7620b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001950.soc;1950;2025-10-14 11:50:59.189838;0a894b1565e72c475f3a60af390e3484;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001951.soc;1951;2025-10-14 11:50:59.189838;fbb18e461e00443a0d3304579ae23733;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001952.soc;1952;2025-10-14 11:50:59.189838;b1ae39d6857b9a9dd35029abec22a10f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001953.soc;1953;2025-10-14 11:50:59.205442;d1665cdc6a2dc7c7d5fb53c7b1b972b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001954.soc;1954;2025-10-14 11:50:59.205442;f3dc04662fd08d6e82b27baf0faf3717;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001955.soc;1955;2025-10-14 11:50:59.205442;2ffc24c611a92e0e2ae95552aeb34dd1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001956.soc;1956;2025-10-14 11:50:59.205442;b4ea54f244e07128ac2e90eadf8fe4a5;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001957.soc;1957;2025-10-14 11:50:59.205442;bfc53de8655fcc0235d8a5526c836fa7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001958.soc;1958;2025-10-14 11:50:59.218494;bd4977d5f05ca17a9a735e074222b408;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001959.soc;1959;2025-10-14 11:50:59.218494;66ceee1f4d1e4de8ca472577119a3b40;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001960.soc;1960;2025-10-14 11:50:59.222250;5c26ba132508191a4aec1afb2c99ab2a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001961.soc;1961;2025-10-14 11:50:59.222250;4908e0f564f34629e82f65e599a771ec;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001962.soc;1962;2025-10-14 11:50:59.222250;cd353cecb7ed125358822b6b402dcbe2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001963.soc;1963;2025-10-14 11:50:59.237034;70d17bf93da47a93a70e18603b7bf6a2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001964.soc;1964;2025-10-14 11:50:59.239331;7e539e8b656e3c275c95e4bf5194b8f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001965.soc;1965;2025-10-14 11:50:59.239331;ab6687a5d5d8468850d5348fb6137f66;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001966.soc;1966;2025-10-14 11:50:59.239331;7ab9c569339ae81eaea26d4abfa20b4d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001967.soc;1967;2025-10-14 11:50:59.239331;c7659f337cc9164d719312b8aaf84541;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001968.soc;1968;2025-10-14 11:50:59.239331;4588be53a60751e5122a76fa77fb8c36;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001969.soc;1969;2025-10-14 11:50:59.256149;9128c55b47b6feb8179b35f3ddb7881c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001970.soc;1970;2025-10-14 11:50:59.258951;4022e81688b9ee57df7ee399e350862d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001971.soc;1971;2025-10-14 11:50:59.258951;58572757e25a812a61e1eb337e5aed7a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001972.soc;1972;2025-10-14 11:50:59.258951;86971d565c3f1726d29688b331986020;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001973.soc;1973;2025-10-14 11:50:59.258951;5532aea7346f9417b414ed2d54ad8f79;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001974.soc;1974;2025-10-14 11:50:59.258951;5e8d68e139c021acb522cdbf3bebe6eb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001975.soc;1975;2025-10-14 11:50:59.278760;c793397e1c981312e4ca8a8e85887aee;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001976.soc;1976;2025-10-14 11:50:59.281789;6988d30990c932aa8836e0f22573c60f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001977.soc;1977;2025-10-14 11:50:59.284795;7fc18bfee6245a074f49799e18d1e75f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00001978.soc;1978;2025-10-14 11:50:59.288905;71afc36382965e2c0e1172a1bdf4b9c4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001979.soc;1979;2025-10-14 11:50:59.288905;56b3ab990b8b20cd45b200f24faf9ae3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001980.soc;1980;2025-10-14 11:50:59.288905;cce4a98971ad0dc967d0911b89d8c4af;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001981.soc;1981;2025-10-14 11:50:59.288905;f31f87765cfd818c89bf52183b06d20f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001982.soc;1982;2025-10-14 11:50:59.303924;e9b6c36d540a022483a769c88f02dc5d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001983.soc;1983;2025-10-14 11:50:59.305557;1600db30f2a500499e48e45de0fd9989;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001984.soc;1984;2025-10-14 11:50:59.305557;59f10834bfa143e29efcd69fdd9613de;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001985.soc;1985;2025-10-14 11:50:59.305557;a6cf518c6d1fa45bb5ed42b6def57f8f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001986.soc;1986;2025-10-14 11:50:59.305557;2e7844267a89221cdaff5cda6dadfcf0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001987.soc;1987;2025-10-14 11:50:59.305557;1705864be6dcb7cc10495c7e851a953e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001988.soc;1988;2025-10-14 11:50:59.305557;223ff3b0f92507b70b3e774b74102aa4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001989.soc;1989;2025-10-14 11:50:59.305557;23460f3b83d2ac341fda6a543132fc77;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00001990.soc;1990;2025-10-14 11:50:59.322169;34fbc691936da57b1132afccaa6ac00a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001991.soc;1991;2025-10-14 11:50:59.322169;9ee4c0a10ae8400ef3eab5516f0d8ab7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00001992.soc;1992;2025-10-14 11:50:59.322169;0d77dc0296cb6d59ff81cec14425065f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001993.soc;1993;2025-10-14 11:50:59.322169;490d944635ef4bf36a59b617df555770;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00001994.soc;1994;2025-10-14 11:50:59.322169;b47752370e9e5d7b18ead4d655bda7f6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001995.soc;1995;2025-10-14 11:50:59.322169;72508a9d85c2c860634d375fb791a561;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00001996.soc;1996;2025-10-14 11:50:59.337399;f2d535383fb6633c5e8128c38e4dff14;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001997.soc;1997;2025-10-14 11:50:59.339279;d4fd11d895ec2c2c05b41fde6bd340b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00001998.soc;1998;2025-10-14 11:50:59.339279;b3db7867bee3faf7f790c81911ca2dc5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00001999.soc;1999;2025-10-14 11:50:59.339279;b2ed593891fc4a4ed7216483cbf593aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002000.soc;2000;2025-10-14 11:50:59.339279;5786fb1de73037d1bc3e98558027b683;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002001.soc;2001;2025-10-14 11:50:59.354610;a5afe463501f58a3bba3bb4a902cc3c9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002002.soc;2002;2025-10-14 11:50:59.356314;576237234b210d91679e201bfcbcc242;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002003.soc;2003;2025-10-14 11:50:59.356314;03dfedc788288129864b2fd493ffc4a8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002004.soc;2004;2025-10-14 11:50:59.356314;c5e7196fc39d6f37cdc41d3272912609;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002005.soc;2005;2025-10-14 11:50:59.356314;1e8a1ce3fdd47313008254046ce99f61;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002006.soc;2006;2025-10-14 11:50:59.356314;f3ccf5d5848143800aef34d0049518c0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002007.soc;2007;2025-10-14 11:50:59.372904;29f74a0a50a4644f391608c662843168;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002008.soc;2008;2025-10-14 11:50:59.375446;ebcefa6945627795a114023d52f995d0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002009.soc;2009;2025-10-14 11:50:59.375446;219eea9577fe8f2a7b7a423249c81840;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002010.soc;2010;2025-10-14 11:50:59.375446;44fce04118c4ce9a9ea4b91c9da61f1b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002011.soc;2011;2025-10-14 11:50:59.389185;443aa85726d446f441d35c2d78a7e5d5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002012.soc;2012;2025-10-14 11:50:59.389185;98cd685638d11040f5e580aa95cb44e1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002013.soc;2013;2025-10-14 11:50:59.389185;859be0d89ae2ecf60b53a2eb31cadac6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002014.soc;2014;2025-10-14 11:50:59.405432;7874242af428208470197927917419df;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002015.soc;2015;2025-10-14 11:50:59.405432;f2525e37831492c5accd7abbba61add1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002016.soc;2016;2025-10-14 11:50:59.405432;c8fc623953e58ea04eab6a8c9aeb340a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002017.soc;2017;2025-10-14 11:50:59.405432;388894a7ba88eaca4adf31d7a893a0fe;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002018.soc;2018;2025-10-14 11:50:59.422343;af1ff354b2fd9b1d40a8d9527b123da4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002019.soc;2019;2025-10-14 11:50:59.422343;cebc6eeca987846dd701854fc9a0cb71;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002020.soc;2020;2025-10-14 11:50:59.422343;7e64be43395e9e7e07b011ea8db9099f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002021.soc;2021;2025-10-14 11:50:59.422343;a4c214b0e8d31ddecc45a7afd80f86b0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002022.soc;2022;2025-10-14 11:50:59.439273;2df617df882d8955ddb3007bef75bb51;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002023.soc;2023;2025-10-14 11:50:59.439273;685c8c264a81a30bbf3d45bb6f3a6932;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002024.soc;2024;2025-10-14 11:50:59.439273;97a7400ea1c8e6834f84cb9a53fecc51;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002025.soc;2025;2025-10-14 11:50:59.455579;9538764fedb91b6a4744b73fbed0d8b6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002026.soc;2026;2025-10-14 11:50:59.455579;cb457acec05413c31f22211d66116226;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002027.soc;2027;2025-10-14 11:50:59.455579;452a1b2d476b71d3e01e1f52276e8f25;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002028.soc;2028;2025-10-14 11:50:59.455579;db82c5ab470719a5f5d319155334c06a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002029.soc;2029;2025-10-14 11:50:59.455579;9046f21d3a599f9a85c47585326f0912;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002030.soc;2030;2025-10-14 11:50:59.474590;7e7064578efde940c997d4f22d2ba666;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002031.soc;2031;2025-10-14 11:50:59.474590;97f162e53ab335d6f5e6428e16df38d4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002032.soc;2032;2025-10-14 11:50:59.474590;62daf2c965ddc7874519239a79f3b559;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002033.soc;2033;2025-10-14 11:50:59.474590;19ba65de02cab9d42fa3ccb8df62e3af;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002034.soc;2034;2025-10-14 11:50:59.474590;a5ff2782f473a6ca12182b4544cf5009;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002035.soc;2035;2025-10-14 11:50:59.488271;9361a778a597d6ea381a9034bf476084;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002036.soc;2036;2025-10-14 11:50:59.488698;ae033da7a055870404d2c78e433f4e57;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002037.soc;2037;2025-10-14 11:50:59.488698;1760126a76711b77b9aa281e334ab4ec;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002038.soc;2038;2025-10-14 11:50:59.488698;51cc2bc16061b01f53a2bec100c654a3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002039.soc;2039;2025-10-14 11:50:59.488698;f80233adf82cc53cef6db22329ab259d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002040.soc;2040;2025-10-14 11:50:59.488698;a9b721754ea4a20629192ffc6516b8d8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002041.soc;2041;2025-10-14 11:50:59.505306;6df68d2d82a1f96988c1568e21f853d7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002042.soc;2042;2025-10-14 11:50:59.505306;eb310ade12cb3bc468c283342b4e472e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002043.soc;2043;2025-10-14 11:50:59.505306;1d649e27d8b551298e52454ff03ceb04;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002044.soc;2044;2025-10-14 11:50:59.505306;64bfbe5df22b6e9b8495353313f7e651;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002045.soc;2045;2025-10-14 11:50:59.505306;cfe21bc9390d5b6caecbf20cfad722ba;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002046.soc;2046;2025-10-14 11:50:59.505306;78b4dbd4bd6b91c317e5f734abb72083;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002047.soc;2047;2025-10-14 11:50:59.521968;4a35c8620ba4d668b04ed4997d15b986;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002048.soc;2048;2025-10-14 11:50:59.521968;583ef2a6503fd8aaf49204f2c5c7c41c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002049.soc;2049;2025-10-14 11:50:59.521968;063e2bd584b4c6b0abe95ab8d68e5b63;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002050.soc;2050;2025-10-14 11:50:59.539581;546a93a3f53878401c42badcc3300f2e;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002051.soc;2051;2025-10-14 11:50:59.539581;bccee06a304e17d01688d2821232b41f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002052.soc;2052;2025-10-14 11:50:59.539581;f969c2dadee80630810b71b254545ce6;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002053.soc;2053;2025-10-14 11:50:59.539581;43e53dfa5956ec27d4d6256dbab568c4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002054.soc;2054;2025-10-14 11:50:59.555274;91eb352222f78357002495672ea14a16;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002055.soc;2055;2025-10-14 11:50:59.555274;7797fada99cadd1c92962eabf1d07015;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002056.soc;2056;2025-10-14 11:50:59.555274;d44654c96577af1d7e9153ff9191b0eb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002057.soc;2057;2025-10-14 11:50:59.555274;e7e55aec1f4847d4452fbd7889a0e57d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002058.soc;2058;2025-10-14 11:50:59.570683;2ec1cbb872e1969af7326867a0d3aa18;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002059.soc;2059;2025-10-14 11:50:59.577107;c1255a6db59eb0d7662a52b5dc1e835d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002060.soc;2060;2025-10-14 11:50:59.582154;115eb693c018c6fdcfbb7588cdc50cc3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002061.soc;2061;2025-10-14 11:50:59.586543;41763620d7479a0ff5dadbed49c68405;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002062.soc;2062;2025-10-14 11:50:59.589138;ea43c97ba941bc5cc38b72f10f253476;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002063.soc;2063;2025-10-14 11:50:59.591324;c4adc95e39b70c695c9b3a705022f862;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002064.soc;2064;2025-10-14 11:50:59.605063;67319b961df96b0879d98ad89126d38d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002065.soc;2065;2025-10-14 11:50:59.605063;1307aaed625bd565883e57ad17f3f5e1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002066.soc;2066;2025-10-14 11:50:59.605063;465bfb6ea565f756aaa982c38e5c98a0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002067.soc;2067;2025-10-14 11:50:59.605063;273cf5ecb5dc866e0a0113db4aad2f8b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002068.soc;2068;2025-10-14 11:50:59.621913;4ec3567b7e35a9fd5e5045871852ff28;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002069.soc;2069;2025-10-14 11:50:59.630877;d12ef179331ec4698373ab8fc00f17c5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002070.soc;2070;2025-10-14 11:50:59.630877;fdb691c64424d1d2247ff6400cacc38c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002071.soc;2071;2025-10-14 11:50:59.639679;cfad14df0da52d5f6cae91c04f7f082c;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002072.soc;2072;2025-10-14 11:50:59.639679;c8a859792eb5e45daf3dcf255bf9dce6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002073.soc;2073;2025-10-14 11:50:59.639679;a0f4fc6be4e04277c8cceb056a4f243e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002074.soc;2074;2025-10-14 11:50:59.639679;1e8088c9180eca83f8fbc0c0b6380462;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002075.soc;2075;2025-10-14 11:50:59.655438;9956e5dfab638fb987836a2fa8fcee10;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002076.soc;2076;2025-10-14 11:50:59.655438;9acdc321282a958a293c051a0b1da702;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002077.soc;2077;2025-10-14 11:50:59.670787;4c4f79f0e409e2e4e55cb682be171964;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002078.soc;2078;2025-10-14 11:50:59.679285;e6fb4157fdfd65627a2e249708e10c94;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002079.soc;2079;2025-10-14 11:50:59.681310;3e69fd96aea7c5aff1f0973e8b8dedb7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002080.soc;2080;2025-10-14 11:50:59.686350;a28ca4706efa2cfcd732344d0769570a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002081.soc;2081;2025-10-14 11:50:59.691097;bd614e275ac8455a564e0ffbd1b43b23;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002082.soc;2082;2025-10-14 11:50:59.705181;141221b69fc53f0568fe82c9871568e6;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002083.soc;2083;2025-10-14 11:50:59.721765;c0c92da960722ac0059b6ed4796a705e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002084.soc;2084;2025-10-14 11:50:59.721765;1677d5553c2fb5c72140a1dbcebaf65b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002085.soc;2085;2025-10-14 11:50:59.721765;b6e266aee58cde304913b58349828006;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002086.soc;2086;2025-10-14 11:50:59.721765;027e495f63c03ae778bc2a918f5418d7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002087.soc;2087;2025-10-14 11:50:59.721765;d3db6f0654abc6ba2b2d683f6d933b8a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002088.soc;2088;2025-10-14 11:50:59.737054;65ffcabd18bc9dc57319d84feac90649;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002089.soc;2089;2025-10-14 11:50:59.739896;1518523a2ebfcb0554c808089869afa4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002090.soc;2090;2025-10-14 11:50:59.739896;e92abf2c785e6278798ff0e75b6929e1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002091.soc;2091;2025-10-14 11:50:59.739896;acf6b68c8d2110504a68d80d48085f08;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002092.soc;2092;2025-10-14 11:50:59.739896;870d625ea817af4d7f81f4fe6731820b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002093.soc;2093;2025-10-14 11:50:59.754699;2449dfc06d8442d34bc278f137007aff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002094.soc;2094;2025-10-14 11:50:59.755094;9d07ef429f2d98e2eab33ceb66d66120;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002095.soc;2095;2025-10-14 11:50:59.755094;f789304156aeb4cc15d8b1de7c3166b7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002096.soc;2096;2025-10-14 11:50:59.755094;016c67da31dd3fcee70b22bd59f22503;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002097.soc;2097;2025-10-14 11:50:59.755094;656beb9e7e2e1d2143fd986da589fc9b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002098.soc;2098;2025-10-14 11:50:59.755094;221b8c6cd7fe98d663f360a79afec246;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002099.soc;2099;2025-10-14 11:50:59.772533;a496fafe8d4cc131f15a18436bc8416e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002100.soc;2100;2025-10-14 11:50:59.778553;383a16b5c6f10bdb8210c1226b006d41;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002101.soc;2101;2025-10-14 11:50:59.780574;5859ad68171bca3902c2b8f2302285ab;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002102.soc;2102;2025-10-14 11:50:59.783604;175d7fe41396a0e23f26d7807eb3dabc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002103.soc;2103;2025-10-14 11:50:59.785620;2ac3fb2330ac020dc7fc760cbd600799;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002104.soc;2104;2025-10-14 11:50:59.788452;318618f3cec510eb8f5b6db69012fb39;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002105.soc;2105;2025-10-14 11:50:59.788452;c54450450398d825b087be73c9e32c76;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002106.soc;2106;2025-10-14 11:50:59.788452;01b9bd0e55724414f0a09d51c98c8575;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002107.soc;2107;2025-10-14 11:50:59.788452;7e42b4673f1db1dc342779e20afafe16;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002108.soc;2108;2025-10-14 11:50:59.788452;7725a7b6bbb1f67836a943b922dbdadb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002109.soc;2109;2025-10-14 11:50:59.803430;5d51c6b3f8ad0c22de30bed41cbf2e4c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002110.soc;2110;2025-10-14 11:50:59.807837;90fb9c00999413f026881602b7b3d89c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002111.soc;2111;2025-10-14 11:50:59.807837;5f4021eb4e52b0e693b5dab320c225bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002112.soc;2112;2025-10-14 11:50:59.807837;2c7f8ac506b2d17e6de1dc332b1c3b86;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002113.soc;2113;2025-10-14 11:50:59.807837;bb84bdf922d2d842d6ff9cc5bc9ba944;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002114.soc;2114;2025-10-14 11:50:59.821651;9c619e599c93b1ef7707bd3f185ba1aa;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002115.soc;2115;2025-10-14 11:50:59.822031;79a43b49bd0e8a23dddd6279778e7a41;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002116.soc;2116;2025-10-14 11:50:59.822031;95c35f067c06c849464c07fdb5a50863;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002117.soc;2117;2025-10-14 11:50:59.822031;cb423a1da0be845d7312f922e7f0e3c2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002118.soc;2118;2025-10-14 11:50:59.838463;25bd8c94cd6249335c5921a1de0f7674;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002119.soc;2119;2025-10-14 11:50:59.839979;8736558611c8058957453d38ce87b291;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002120.soc;2120;2025-10-14 11:50:59.839979;ee26355e073d9652a8deaf739ec5e489;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002121.soc;2121;2025-10-14 11:50:59.839979;a8a45d368fcb10caf414f01681ea1d7a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002122.soc;2122;2025-10-14 11:50:59.839979;80d9abef5d610c3899f6e8ebe3a94173;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002123.soc;2123;2025-10-14 11:50:59.839979;00220b16201efeb271a8a4eeed4cf9ff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002124.soc;2124;2025-10-14 11:50:59.839979;197ed02ce8197e9b61040532826718ee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002125.soc;2125;2025-10-14 11:50:59.854987;ea9392fd00d5cd5679d836ecb5c9cbbc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002126.soc;2126;2025-10-14 11:50:59.854987;dc7e1b25d0f1e87a0c84c0b7bdf01014;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002127.soc;2127;2025-10-14 11:50:59.854987;c19ab271b8b494cdaf3b94263305a198;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002128.soc;2128;2025-10-14 11:50:59.872487;8bb16c650c3cfd9dcc1736f8533a9ecc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002129.soc;2129;2025-10-14 11:50:59.874816;e1cd1443f74e570b9fc8f286375e64b8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002130.soc;2130;2025-10-14 11:50:59.881878;b0ecc45967b8593f260311a55e51c052;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002131.soc;2131;2025-10-14 11:50:59.884927;d6e715bc2ea099b3d546b0416ed467c2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002132.soc;2132;2025-10-14 11:50:59.888299;d763d2a20bfdfef0ea3a7ba09be73438;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002133.soc;2133;2025-10-14 11:50:59.888299;26c3848e3b71dfa608e2420b1d8fef28;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002134.soc;2134;2025-10-14 11:50:59.888299;c2a648424302e9a5201ba7b24ea8f1b3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002135.soc;2135;2025-10-14 11:50:59.888299;64c3802989b7a2f51505be73059336d6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002136.soc;2136;2025-10-14 11:50:59.905540;d2795272707a3ee77e3d93358d7da856;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002137.soc;2137;2025-10-14 11:50:59.907469;42327fdd2576db27bb2c132fa6e81086;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002138.soc;2138;2025-10-14 11:50:59.907469;7f9556daeb2645f5c1164e38fb053512;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002139.soc;2139;2025-10-14 11:50:59.907469;598c24eb4c00c9085084b55c7fe0b02a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002140.soc;2140;2025-10-14 11:50:59.921646;531ac66e6e9de4d7ce0b5b30abd84341;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002141.soc;2141;2025-10-14 11:50:59.921646;ab80941e078e5abb105526a2d03f7020;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002142.soc;2142;2025-10-14 11:50:59.921646;7712c025bc43efb8b7c20fa1192cf694;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002143.soc;2143;2025-10-14 11:50:59.921646;c059e9ff10002a8f01781cf6e942e42b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002144.soc;2144;2025-10-14 11:50:59.939804;47b0a413f251e9a6e396b942b69853d0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002145.soc;2145;2025-10-14 11:50:59.939804;a900c222421286873e0009709c6c6cd5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002146.soc;2146;2025-10-14 11:50:59.939804;228b8aa7d0244af18f627b12d1771c9d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002147.soc;2147;2025-10-14 11:50:59.939804;04fa1bd6d810b6316812238f49bde460;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002148.soc;2148;2025-10-14 11:50:59.954872;56aab76eaae80611dae1c2cdbe3e8071;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002149.soc;2149;2025-10-14 11:50:59.954872;5543258b17b7244893e59720df2ac24a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002150.soc;2150;2025-10-14 11:50:59.970167;7a9ca32368d613d872fc27d7d23fbcef;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002151.soc;2151;2025-10-14 11:50:59.979908;e2d266adcbbef9312faaef9c7b235579;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002152.soc;2152;2025-10-14 11:50:59.988210;698f2a6c8af07355380622c286e521c8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002153.soc;2153;2025-10-14 11:50:59.988210;37a64fd7f616c913e01097a4ba1c9f7e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002154.soc;2154;2025-10-14 11:50:59.988210;0dc26289b5ac3cc8abf09d4f321e5376;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002155.soc;2155;2025-10-14 11:51:00.004912;1da31fac6fab962dc1374509121358f2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002156.soc;2156;2025-10-14 11:51:00.004912;c785be450aaa661ca05d01570b86563f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002157.soc;2157;2025-10-14 11:51:00.004912;a7fdbaf9d3aad39188901473deb48abe;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002158.soc;2158;2025-10-14 11:51:00.004912;5ddf1b66e2b90c55f03513f797601d32;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002159.soc;2159;2025-10-14 11:51:00.004912;5907109595e00af326d84596e1da5632;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002160.soc;2160;2025-10-14 11:51:00.021146;cee3b4a0ddbca4242ee7cf0d382f99f5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002161.soc;2161;2025-10-14 11:51:00.024662;a57aed183e5712df8ef04c687ea35176;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002162.soc;2162;2025-10-14 11:51:00.024662;5f445b887b4785c9be307858dc0c705c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002163.soc;2163;2025-10-14 11:51:00.024662;7e3175941a806c1000ee168f4c897456;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002164.soc;2164;2025-10-14 11:51:00.038224;744bffb4bf2844fedfd4cd2297fd83ed;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002165.soc;2165;2025-10-14 11:51:00.039728;47d8fd52cdbbf241b221191f0cdefa20;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002166.soc;2166;2025-10-14 11:51:00.039728;0ecca7050b9c628c0e5c4b41032bbcb4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002167.soc;2167;2025-10-14 11:51:00.054839;9d3aaa20da9988ca7df7c5384cd469ff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002168.soc;2168;2025-10-14 11:51:00.054839;6a6176082de81107d570380ae184e15e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002169.soc;2169;2025-10-14 11:51:00.054839;680def265fd30218379f8853b122d351;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002170.soc;2170;2025-10-14 11:51:00.054839;78368fd0513c0637b73a9bc490f8d4ab;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002171.soc;2171;2025-10-14 11:51:00.071064;500e680d5e4c643c5f6d6025ab14fb24;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002172.soc;2172;2025-10-14 11:51:00.077316;8b12da687e586d2ed25807e1021ed831;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002173.soc;2173;2025-10-14 11:51:00.088246;4137bf56c835cf851b8528501933ed9e;original;4;5;1;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002174.soc;2174;2025-10-14 11:51:00.088246;74a19237ac6b91e5b4941ee839e7c8dc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002175.soc;2175;2025-10-14 11:51:00.088246;92e328217bbbf8dd5bf5c1207ed64e5d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002176.soc;2176;2025-10-14 11:51:00.104763;cce66f43c6d3c26f6e8b36feb0f98e42;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002177.soc;2177;2025-10-14 11:51:00.104763;227165eb01e08e13fd8f1b4b39c5e372;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002178.soc;2178;2025-10-14 11:51:00.121038;39eb73549cdd2810c7c5fc9c9aa3a7c4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002179.soc;2179;2025-10-14 11:51:00.123052;232b204a3a657826753dac9241cf0964;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002180.soc;2180;2025-10-14 11:51:00.124063;79161e2147656b7545227e3270c81124;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002181.soc;2181;2025-10-14 11:51:00.124063;dd6e8d37204ac24af4fce8fa61a8289d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002182.soc;2182;2025-10-14 11:51:00.139634;15c8ccd8b427c8400277727c7d6188e7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002183.soc;2183;2025-10-14 11:51:00.149645;82b2086d2b47c25460a0bb7998a3fe39;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002184.soc;2184;2025-10-14 11:51:00.149645;151de45119ec4ff5cb931d51cc597642;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002185.soc;2185;2025-10-14 11:51:00.154967;f75779b73013b034b67c23511f9d4580;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002186.soc;2186;2025-10-14 11:51:00.154967;8327dbe1ebf84fac01d4fae9f8d12760;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002187.soc;2187;2025-10-14 11:51:00.154967;f8480ca8abb6afd743df5313267bc754;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002188.soc;2188;2025-10-14 11:51:00.154967;b1c68cefb7fdd613499760b2a89c84e6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002189.soc;2189;2025-10-14 11:51:00.173122;b9ff23eecd97008b5cfdf96299d3e832;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002190.soc;2190;2025-10-14 11:51:00.177150;8b030050088f52f672a762421e5d626c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002191.soc;2191;2025-10-14 11:51:00.186236;b7d349353b01c9b9a790763643311ad4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002192.soc;2192;2025-10-14 11:51:00.187990;85d733ea0e4082e817bc197844f4abe6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002193.soc;2193;2025-10-14 11:51:00.187990;b666ece0e928f82045cd97e125ce3c6f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002194.soc;2194;2025-10-14 11:51:00.203085;18dc2103af0653f0d7614632e06638ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002195.soc;2195;2025-10-14 11:51:00.204646;5fae2dfe51e661a4604e5423c82d61e1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002196.soc;2196;2025-10-14 11:51:00.204646;996f09c0590423d43794554fb4dbea19;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002197.soc;2197;2025-10-14 11:51:00.221333;f8ea80b76556df4af3fc9e9d8d23a282;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002198.soc;2198;2025-10-14 11:51:00.221333;28fd4afd184fc73da2aa33733213d2bc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002199.soc;2199;2025-10-14 11:51:00.221333;665bacf4ef0a33b13ac5437afe19ce08;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002200.soc;2200;2025-10-14 11:51:00.240704;a631211ea1036902a2ed368f48a0e611;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002201.soc;2201;2025-10-14 11:51:00.240704;51e84185979bd195f6db7b5a2199d688;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002202.soc;2202;2025-10-14 11:51:00.240704;717223886fef1ad5b9d53fa54b5343ff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002203.soc;2203;2025-10-14 11:51:00.240704;c0eebae8ae99c65721775c958b48706a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002204.soc;2204;2025-10-14 11:51:00.254636;ce359e4d10dc43ca35b50478c977973f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002205.soc;2205;2025-10-14 11:51:00.254636;8046e4e1e6183f2bf6297ebb555ff272;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002206.soc;2206;2025-10-14 11:51:00.254636;042a3f73fc9198dba290fad20436a145;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002207.soc;2207;2025-10-14 11:51:00.254636;c6854c333feb9ccbdfea8bc1b27c7b2a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002208.soc;2208;2025-10-14 11:51:00.254636;1424c6e431cee2750160d818342aa173;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002209.soc;2209;2025-10-14 11:51:00.270890;9d1655a3485cd331baa08a392d818825;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002210.soc;2210;2025-10-14 11:51:00.277125;fdc02ccefd7412c6a824b359a9faa7e7;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002211.soc;2211;2025-10-14 11:51:00.279142;8329b84010c8f184b4d140aa59f8a330;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002212.soc;2212;2025-10-14 11:51:00.284187;052640b67a5af335ff939b5dff5d8ee0;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002213.soc;2213;2025-10-14 11:51:00.286458;334705b9b3f47de103890e4d41769df4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002214.soc;2214;2025-10-14 11:51:00.287992;ff8d992a589b0401466d3babfe27e53c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002215.soc;2215;2025-10-14 11:51:00.287992;f592818a6e2bde6e6f2f3ad2ee2ea9b1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002216.soc;2216;2025-10-14 11:51:00.287992;0ac3d8fe138f0695c7e3f853a5020139;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002217.soc;2217;2025-10-14 11:51:00.304451;9d74a1261ace504bb9abd81d61daffd3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002218.soc;2218;2025-10-14 11:51:00.304451;fbc11e1e227b30960260429b46efe936;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002219.soc;2219;2025-10-14 11:51:00.320461;09a6fa50a4d94ecb0abe2efe4c07032b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002220.soc;2220;2025-10-14 11:51:00.321221;f47e98327fddf7c3adf6fd53c70cbcfb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002221.soc;2221;2025-10-14 11:51:00.321221;f5cdfe691c25ab93c4da8c5bd502e63d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002222.soc;2222;2025-10-14 11:51:00.339752;c26b62e98b0521852ba2e5c26654ed85;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002223.soc;2223;2025-10-14 11:51:00.340256;8d2f4e85297f593216ac9ffb01d4ba0a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002224.soc;2224;2025-10-14 11:51:00.344209;e0a63cb03708d1064c9aced33bb34f7f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002225.soc;2225;2025-10-14 11:51:00.344209;56c4ca4278d7a52874fed043dd7738ad;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002226.soc;2226;2025-10-14 11:51:00.354505;b8535d8d45cc993750397c162320454f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002227.soc;2227;2025-10-14 11:51:00.354505;3246fc6819800e71a5cef6a6a4f3b5dd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002228.soc;2228;2025-10-14 11:51:00.354505;9aef375da9ce44f848865f355197321d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002229.soc;2229;2025-10-14 11:51:00.354505;5eb5f896b7dc04e0e9507b5d3cb9a87a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002230.soc;2230;2025-10-14 11:51:00.373021;de3c7ab8623593fcd698515e7a8ef2f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002231.soc;2231;2025-10-14 11:51:00.387423;dde20537a78adf1265cce75da34ee928;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002232.soc;2232;2025-10-14 11:51:00.388028;53056fc368e9b0d0a9fd51cd5b02b56e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002233.soc;2233;2025-10-14 11:51:00.388028;68156cb09110bf965ef8b7cab66f12ba;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002234.soc;2234;2025-10-14 11:51:00.388028;94ec5831270db1d3186835695cb73297;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002235.soc;2235;2025-10-14 11:51:00.404504;065ba5bda60683b2c1491b7234ff70d4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002236.soc;2236;2025-10-14 11:51:00.404504;e847867b613a65f84aa3a149fda0eaa3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002237.soc;2237;2025-10-14 11:51:00.404504;551d2153c0edd5842bd7fb47d0cfc9f9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002238.soc;2238;2025-10-14 11:51:00.404504;3f502d24e0f5bb9f5c7fed888a1f47a8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002239.soc;2239;2025-10-14 11:51:00.404504;c51915baa354cdd3c77b1d95eadbf6db;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002240.soc;2240;2025-10-14 11:51:00.421202;a26aa08cbc661681e5fa863763409f10;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002241.soc;2241;2025-10-14 11:51:00.421202;2db0dd97ecd50cb7c16a9dba1864a8d4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002242.soc;2242;2025-10-14 11:51:00.439623;8f8ec249d7953713161a8524a374d92d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002243.soc;2243;2025-10-14 11:51:00.457552;aa6ff7a10ae6e83e3dbc7ca68dc33047;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002244.soc;2244;2025-10-14 11:51:00.471067;011844d7d4f049b5988d25a42ee3a87a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002245.soc;2245;2025-10-14 11:51:00.488148;2a72f59446123566b2231f5f798dd4c5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002246.soc;2246;2025-10-14 11:51:00.488148;8634f93864529c434f43489e5d9498fc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002247.soc;2247;2025-10-14 11:51:00.488148;ad689a483086e5da52db529d9c44de6d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002248.soc;2248;2025-10-14 11:51:00.488148;d2fdeaf9f81624076dc29ec003aff52e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002249.soc;2249;2025-10-14 11:51:00.504393;c004c74ca4dea5816f49ac51c472ee89;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002250.soc;2250;2025-10-14 11:51:00.504393;1be5e2606f7c431fa3078b6348f8e219;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002251.soc;2251;2025-10-14 11:51:00.504393;240b953fbab36f1cf13d6352ec2899e4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002252.soc;2252;2025-10-14 11:51:00.521209;3131285a422b0db4dde2da59a0510b6b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002253.soc;2253;2025-10-14 11:51:00.521209;89e7ad20319f1a17f86d1f73fcb429dd;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002254.soc;2254;2025-10-14 11:51:00.521209;3e59affcfb31074ef049c487851975cf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002255.soc;2255;2025-10-14 11:51:00.539735;e7b092ce3574d348db8d6d93fe79675c;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002256.soc;2256;2025-10-14 11:51:00.539735;49ac06539a37255b4313ab0b03ba8e89;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002257.soc;2257;2025-10-14 11:51:00.539735;9951f514d2d01552cb38076c23116380;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002258.soc;2258;2025-10-14 11:51:00.539735;732730655c397308e53ea6d9304cfd31;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002259.soc;2259;2025-10-14 11:51:00.555113;d2518f23e80b5b6c53112c155ecf2fb1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002260.soc;2260;2025-10-14 11:51:00.557443;3e1f6a4d189c0d53a0f21552d607d32f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002261.soc;2261;2025-10-14 11:51:00.557443;ac9c4bda58f6eaf8979f66696b2ee531;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002262.soc;2262;2025-10-14 11:51:00.557443;74afffb8a916f6e6bf1466f87d8609a0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002263.soc;2263;2025-10-14 11:51:00.576965;b1d175ac86e3be93d459792d54e93446;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002264.soc;2264;2025-10-14 11:51:00.579297;c3f2f3b83cd9944e54983b9234beb5df;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002265.soc;2265;2025-10-14 11:51:00.584317;6d83d39e57f65b20ecf70831c1f5c251;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002266.soc;2266;2025-10-14 11:51:00.587845;6af5ef5a293b4bde203748da7fd5ce9f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002267.soc;2267;2025-10-14 11:51:00.587845;f44a8664671aff4def8cdcd4dbe93557;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002268.soc;2268;2025-10-14 11:51:00.587845;cd1c9a577ec771f2f324198dc5d99ab2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002269.soc;2269;2025-10-14 11:51:00.587845;adcc2ef0037df0489a994fefa3dbd09c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002270.soc;2270;2025-10-14 11:51:00.604446;cd3dbe47fb9a72a2a2e9575b5a71d523;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002271.soc;2271;2025-10-14 11:51:00.604446;462540510d12e89e6572ba724c21730f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002272.soc;2272;2025-10-14 11:51:00.604446;bba77cce90d4834444c87450c0e4148b;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002273.soc;2273;2025-10-14 11:51:00.625394;1f87a34837aa4804c5b0718e86af15e9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002274.soc;2274;2025-10-14 11:51:00.625394;ae15793bd64f955d2d73133d48b1fdae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002275.soc;2275;2025-10-14 11:51:00.637835;7c854070a53ae66f0f4d0c5f41c04b78;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002276.soc;2276;2025-10-14 11:51:00.639840;4312e73045bb5620dd36766fc059ac85;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002277.soc;2277;2025-10-14 11:51:00.639840;b9e40a991e5f0c4381b2503018fce0e0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002278.soc;2278;2025-10-14 11:51:00.657247;f6b18a5133876a53c07fbcba1084736f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002279.soc;2279;2025-10-14 11:51:00.657247;3bf4989e17e613857d4ff7113640b599;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002280.soc;2280;2025-10-14 11:51:00.657247;e1421c56c0a4fe7009fc0d03f8624b2e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002281.soc;2281;2025-10-14 11:51:00.657247;50eb36e0d9536beb489b8be45171d466;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002282.soc;2282;2025-10-14 11:51:00.670920;982338b00d889e221e764a7ce4b50397;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002283.soc;2283;2025-10-14 11:51:00.670920;a9be8dd2c28a38dcb24441ed1880a539;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002284.soc;2284;2025-10-14 11:51:00.677674;3a866628d4856e5af7344f54b205284c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002285.soc;2285;2025-10-14 11:51:00.677674;c2debe9923ff3c9448eb4aa1a6771be3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002286.soc;2286;2025-10-14 11:51:00.687218;f6cdd180013a80a5351fe5874cd99e47;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002287.soc;2287;2025-10-14 11:51:00.687654;a924bff00fdfccfb6039c3bbf6038649;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002288.soc;2288;2025-10-14 11:51:00.687654;e77ee1da415d6b97eea61584317c76bc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002289.soc;2289;2025-10-14 11:51:00.687654;1f7cc6bfa44dd30f25c83e9527246b1e;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002290.soc;2290;2025-10-14 11:51:00.687654;3d161d2bd81e53c8cc7bab974b2322e3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002291.soc;2291;2025-10-14 11:51:00.687654;90831abfc2405f30a991d678a4662124;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002292.soc;2292;2025-10-14 11:51:00.704242;dd3f115c4bb506455fc92b07655b2dc9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002293.soc;2293;2025-10-14 11:51:00.704242;9c1baeb2611bcf0a88864740c8b42c6b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002294.soc;2294;2025-10-14 11:51:00.720482;8d11707f30bb836f641c3fe383aa80c1;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002295.soc;2295;2025-10-14 11:51:00.720877;b7841bd293927544713654d02945fbc5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002296.soc;2296;2025-10-14 11:51:00.720877;2437024518257107e855d6505b14609f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002297.soc;2297;2025-10-14 11:51:00.720877;b25515f8936316ece470bf1ca3168d4f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002298.soc;2298;2025-10-14 11:51:00.720877;cf6690dcdddaeef47ba837606b50e16e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002299.soc;2299;2025-10-14 11:51:00.737388;38910dcf55ab1e8ae7c7323214f47388;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002300.soc;2300;2025-10-14 11:51:00.740053;3163f6b2463a864e3f12fa9620fc0951;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002301.soc;2301;2025-10-14 11:51:00.740053;c1e0ae32194b2c12b70ec79199bc92c6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002302.soc;2302;2025-10-14 11:51:00.740053;7bd8d603ea0c2b1be967c59a46f29b10;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002303.soc;2303;2025-10-14 11:51:00.754002;b0dc711b44021b1f64b0c91b26d48c43;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002304.soc;2304;2025-10-14 11:51:00.754002;5091fe0c125b853c187642b31d551c30;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002305.soc;2305;2025-10-14 11:51:00.754002;41071bf4ee0b90631c38900674385f12;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002306.soc;2306;2025-10-14 11:51:00.754002;7230dd76f2296f2cc93217bb145a7444;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002307.soc;2307;2025-10-14 11:51:00.771679;2e617d95fea2868d48e343705490af8e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002308.soc;2308;2025-10-14 11:51:00.773484;6a8e7b705420c612718f1df0894c2959;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002309.soc;2309;2025-10-14 11:51:00.773484;451e2715b9f44a95f27504db5ca8ef20;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002310.soc;2310;2025-10-14 11:51:00.773484;869146d3355fbe30b22c186be3929e0c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002311.soc;2311;2025-10-14 11:51:00.787347;58691a30c23d3e35e98be60a67f2762c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002312.soc;2312;2025-10-14 11:51:00.804262;bb9d1ba1f44434da2aa015425eef5575;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002313.soc;2313;2025-10-14 11:51:00.804262;7e95b343d93d8401848c34237714d424;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002314.soc;2314;2025-10-14 11:51:00.804262;a5420130cc265b8ae1d6434c9845e6c5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002315.soc;2315;2025-10-14 11:51:00.820634;67a5bfb51f5ec67ac3dd8f9670fc6343;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002316.soc;2316;2025-10-14 11:51:00.820634;02eb18916c38cd5ea763597d15c63cd5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002317.soc;2317;2025-10-14 11:51:00.840192;d672175eb8a10fd066cdd3b07456a7a5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002318.soc;2318;2025-10-14 11:51:00.840192;e981d553304ce3f284ae20a0d12a5d91;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002319.soc;2319;2025-10-14 11:51:00.854225;c672b414364b5a584afb7da712ea1275;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002320.soc;2320;2025-10-14 11:51:00.854225;5ad9b0f789947fdfe589a941bdb50a8e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002321.soc;2321;2025-10-14 11:51:00.854225;9d762c633df6eefa865b62069d2ce20e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002322.soc;2322;2025-10-14 11:51:00.854225;bccc75ad3807e33ed61ee6801f995c87;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002323.soc;2323;2025-10-14 11:51:00.854225;fad85d547012e1e9ee92b8ffda85fd53;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002324.soc;2324;2025-10-14 11:51:00.869960;e7d5743c40cc05ebf5d1c3d7e6d182c5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002325.soc;2325;2025-10-14 11:51:00.871643;de0bd052606543576e10420bf3a76a0b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002326.soc;2326;2025-10-14 11:51:00.873600;2a43fd43b7686724a369e6f5db6859ef;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002327.soc;2327;2025-10-14 11:51:00.873600;052ea707a486a0fb51e6ab585e26fddd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002328.soc;2328;2025-10-14 11:51:00.873600;616805c9d3a455ce17f6ec14e60f1119;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002329.soc;2329;2025-10-14 11:51:00.873600;a9e58ab465cab6a837d53ec3f65d84c4;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002330.soc;2330;2025-10-14 11:51:00.887258;4365baa1c1c6df4b7b8796469937a967;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002331.soc;2331;2025-10-14 11:51:00.887258;000b6e973bafe6a98fe06e0b1571f34a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002332.soc;2332;2025-10-14 11:51:00.887258;9bc3506ce3cad660a6cb56509fb7c2ce;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002333.soc;2333;2025-10-14 11:51:00.887258;050326cd5ed095eb75bf4f7010c3b748;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002334.soc;2334;2025-10-14 11:51:00.904197;b77f090961d9c2bdaab0f19a247bc801;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002335.soc;2335;2025-10-14 11:51:00.904197;3f14a68969173e83f91c5403ebb60557;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002336.soc;2336;2025-10-14 11:51:00.904197;c6aec00011ee42cea8b0293c745116cf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002337.soc;2337;2025-10-14 11:51:00.920847;2501af12f177cd51742e4d74f07ccf26;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002338.soc;2338;2025-10-14 11:51:00.920847;6d280b5b3e3f509ca8bbd6d9b46fbb9a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002339.soc;2339;2025-10-14 11:51:00.920847;38e2549c708cdfbc0c76139d772303a5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002340.soc;2340;2025-10-14 11:51:00.937803;ac0edb3295911e25d51ab741461f06d9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002341.soc;2341;2025-10-14 11:51:00.940328;0425d3438eb16278aa8081743c9da388;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002342.soc;2342;2025-10-14 11:51:00.940328;b907e7f1e59354c5a52c4835a3d98b8d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002343.soc;2343;2025-10-14 11:51:00.954241;9dc46025393192d331c3f9047c1aa609;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002344.soc;2344;2025-10-14 11:51:00.954241;f36bf8733e3fb0c61f262c9db89cf5f0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002345.soc;2345;2025-10-14 11:51:00.954241;493fb5ae8f70c06d769e9af725a52ac8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002346.soc;2346;2025-10-14 11:51:00.970780;b58012feb0d1d6793748db49b57e378e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002347.soc;2347;2025-10-14 11:51:00.970780;323ce66b8ac31ea9c925b04a1b4e8c85;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002348.soc;2348;2025-10-14 11:51:00.970780;1381c415d355d66244ba7bb1e68b8c4e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002349.soc;2349;2025-10-14 11:51:00.988976;63f57d9560e0d4a7c66f1b39be29b1e3;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002350.soc;2350;2025-10-14 11:51:00.989982;c2224370fab2439af1ba6aff01c14141;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002351.soc;2351;2025-10-14 11:51:00.989982;9bc94964ca9d517ebe62b35337864e02;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002352.soc;2352;2025-10-14 11:51:00.989982;28685d7d1d60b4a552cf07f59d8dee62;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002353.soc;2353;2025-10-14 11:51:00.989982;c47eaff27fba56a1d31629f9a1de2c61;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002354.soc;2354;2025-10-14 11:51:01.004029;e1651aa65bf120a1b3c67dc00d7d98cf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002355.soc;2355;2025-10-14 11:51:01.004029;068d4c7a53c7824aa28ee21b4df68489;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002356.soc;2356;2025-10-14 11:51:01.004029;72b893d7bee0fdd0f5eefa9da59f5d10;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002357.soc;2357;2025-10-14 11:51:01.004029;34bc9562c562742b8c1070867ac2f878;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002358.soc;2358;2025-10-14 11:51:01.020489;1dc0563a03831a25f95a081ebdfbb29f;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002359.soc;2359;2025-10-14 11:51:01.020489;b1a6ccd3e02790297c2103cd999a968d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002360.soc;2360;2025-10-14 11:51:01.020489;10b05ccdd18a70c8338076cf2692b982;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002361.soc;2361;2025-10-14 11:51:01.020489;91ca9304b5235998ab61c60da14260c0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002362.soc;2362;2025-10-14 11:51:01.020489;564f199536c5368d852bde4a9d8640ce;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002363.soc;2363;2025-10-14 11:51:01.037541;97f54687a52cc0bc2e698fe55abf903e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002364.soc;2364;2025-10-14 11:51:01.040392;eb27131df645f1bbffaede01f009629e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002365.soc;2365;2025-10-14 11:51:01.040392;be788ecfe214e169834e59bd6e6c1e39;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002366.soc;2366;2025-10-14 11:51:01.040392;eb02cc53067d25d3b6411dd09c906de4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002367.soc;2367;2025-10-14 11:51:01.040392;e7fcf858810e3f53d890c2c5acca3461;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002368.soc;2368;2025-10-14 11:51:01.053930;ad40d6272990511725429923ee25681c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002369.soc;2369;2025-10-14 11:51:01.053930;fc80b413e96d394229cf9a72e1afbaa0;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002370.soc;2370;2025-10-14 11:51:01.053930;ad99bd112f9ba24c310c15cd4dada0ac;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002371.soc;2371;2025-10-14 11:51:01.053930;f7c41e136a1b980c172959b8c6b65cba;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002372.soc;2372;2025-10-14 11:51:01.053930;19f053b570eca94e8124efda2e8347bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002373.soc;2373;2025-10-14 11:51:01.070223;4e73b13c9bbae836ddc7edd6d8799cbd;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002374.soc;2374;2025-10-14 11:51:01.070836;8df1eb87ebe4b3b4eb8de55d77baac61;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002375.soc;2375;2025-10-14 11:51:01.070836;3f8284ba39f8b4e39d2e96c64ca95289;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002376.soc;2376;2025-10-14 11:51:01.070836;8b9db1fd6211fe6b09e1db7d8d36b1d1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002377.soc;2377;2025-10-14 11:51:01.070836;076a52e98e8c29e04cf0e5d390591062;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002378.soc;2378;2025-10-14 11:51:01.087173;06fad88afff4f60bc9865fa6d74cf3ad;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002379.soc;2379;2025-10-14 11:51:01.089198;938eacd29b802f1525df535922d358a3;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002380.soc;2380;2025-10-14 11:51:01.090256;775722f07a5817f26da312590b4d88c5;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002381.soc;2381;2025-10-14 11:51:01.090256;857aee1359023106a87cbe894e3ec792;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002382.soc;2382;2025-10-14 11:51:01.090256;231c77e6166bc37bc1b118723c3f1e92;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002383.soc;2383;2025-10-14 11:51:01.103810;45f92515032b80636f12cf9130f0a0ae;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002384.soc;2384;2025-10-14 11:51:01.103810;65719d983b11d0c277673152182bc104;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002385.soc;2385;2025-10-14 11:51:01.103810;8e6e9f6b9e062b8b034f58322768bd98;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002386.soc;2386;2025-10-14 11:51:01.103810;cc84ca7f77693d143cea8f1a270f830d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002387.soc;2387;2025-10-14 11:51:01.120641;704e8320ab4969187138e4e52bbd0619;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002388.soc;2388;2025-10-14 11:51:01.120641;1bd4d34f3cac7728fe93409636673c72;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002389.soc;2389;2025-10-14 11:51:01.120641;0aca151b66c67c0034e3920df42b0329;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002390.soc;2390;2025-10-14 11:51:01.135858;2ab27e0e807cceab469e5c6a34ad1ee6;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002391.soc;2391;2025-10-14 11:51:01.140318;278cd55eb3597a9c014cec10e37b71cc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002392.soc;2392;2025-10-14 11:51:01.153854;35fb5afdf905e1d7826539caa4cab50b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002393.soc;2393;2025-10-14 11:51:01.153854;410ccc92fede930b5c4feddd2b99d949;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002394.soc;2394;2025-10-14 11:51:01.153854;f730a2743ed329336bb420abbb094138;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002395.soc;2395;2025-10-14 11:51:01.170626;b4d3f91a941a657497391f563a7aa798;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002396.soc;2396;2025-10-14 11:51:01.170626;c8d5f9d551298ca9c248ffcefc18953b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002397.soc;2397;2025-10-14 11:51:01.170626;2a83d596aec0f46bad75f00584c5697d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002398.soc;2398;2025-10-14 11:51:01.170626;8d32269b85c271df3da02507e51b484e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002399.soc;2399;2025-10-14 11:51:01.170626;837d701fe969215ab60a3f7e70e01d58;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002400.soc;2400;2025-10-14 11:51:01.187212;d4a921f79aa13af0df7a8ff0b388ed28;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002401.soc;2401;2025-10-14 11:51:01.187212;64570d83db61e0e01fe7ccae51d6ddcf;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002402.soc;2402;2025-10-14 11:51:01.187212;4cf75ffba99859eda88bb8ba7098af01;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002403.soc;2403;2025-10-14 11:51:01.187212;0dc4485c0289b5cf2293bd8f75d6bf67;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002404.soc;2404;2025-10-14 11:51:01.187212;bebfbdf31a19398f470fa1bfa1f1db7f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002405.soc;2405;2025-10-14 11:51:01.206942;29088697c18358967e869e9b877ae42d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002406.soc;2406;2025-10-14 11:51:01.206942;4de59a603ffb5965bcd111f6c73fe47f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002407.soc;2407;2025-10-14 11:51:01.206942;f93391ec6bb0f65fcdfea5996154ecbe;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002408.soc;2408;2025-10-14 11:51:01.206942;ed11379807a7498d7140c64ace2b5f33;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002409.soc;2409;2025-10-14 11:51:01.206942;ee6d3b15dbb37b060ee0e9fec5e53dbb;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002410.soc;2410;2025-10-14 11:51:01.220341;6102e894ed3db91261cacb753574604e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002411.soc;2411;2025-10-14 11:51:01.220341;aaf9d8941d0d2b17caca14d8774f1865;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002412.soc;2412;2025-10-14 11:51:01.220341;f98e8627be40c4949481ae6fa7a1ece8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002413.soc;2413;2025-10-14 11:51:01.236310;263f48a17f5b1b53030111d71fe8ed08;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002414.soc;2414;2025-10-14 11:51:01.237082;832dde202e756bed6b318f877644a24e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002415.soc;2415;2025-10-14 11:51:01.240394;52ba1ec4f4c0589c0ea2c0e41369005a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002416.soc;2416;2025-10-14 11:51:01.240394;87a9d6eeee884dea1fa54a363f7a2581;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002417.soc;2417;2025-10-14 11:51:01.240394;c2dc3dc4293e5b23bc34906609e2e28d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002418.soc;2418;2025-10-14 11:51:01.240394;7121ca0d905085f0d1c893843bc5e5c2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002419.soc;2419;2025-10-14 11:51:01.240394;1ebe35825d32ceca684d2bd6cbaea3f6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002420.soc;2420;2025-10-14 11:51:01.251976;0928588b0fdbb19bd8199117ec9fc6e1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002421.soc;2421;2025-10-14 11:51:01.253653;a9c1c21c93f026c5ebe667ab476ad6c1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002422.soc;2422;2025-10-14 11:51:01.253653;64c445556d5fcb26489c0392f9b9e709;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002423.soc;2423;2025-10-14 11:51:01.270300;e8da433b483c57028be274ed0b406fd5;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002424.soc;2424;2025-10-14 11:51:01.270300;3a10d284fd5a4dc672f83b4459483015;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002425.soc;2425;2025-10-14 11:51:01.285992;679819f0269cd1b445870dea9cccc2fc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002426.soc;2426;2025-10-14 11:51:01.286941;2b0471b0b8d25715a32d1f6e0c04023a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002427.soc;2427;2025-10-14 11:51:01.286941;608cb0acd71c03339765768e552c8008;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002428.soc;2428;2025-10-14 11:51:01.303659;05100e1cfc32c775a6c3d9e8df3d6c13;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002429.soc;2429;2025-10-14 11:51:01.303659;667a76dd799ecae56bdb08cf01002bb8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002430.soc;2430;2025-10-14 11:51:01.303659;a95f572cebc81f9248f8ecc94e6cc452;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002431.soc;2431;2025-10-14 11:51:01.322948;a8fd52c7c2c26927f3f80214e5cfec8d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002432.soc;2432;2025-10-14 11:51:01.322948;2d2028e19aaa7c0462fad97c736756d7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002433.soc;2433;2025-10-14 11:51:01.322948;3ffce0bb0418c5729e7f58a4da192997;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002434.soc;2434;2025-10-14 11:51:01.340364;a18622f8d342350f768643278c718311;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002435.soc;2435;2025-10-14 11:51:01.353654;9b001ab16b8944d78346a6087db8c124;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002436.soc;2436;2025-10-14 11:51:01.353654;abd52f364ca766431a5e57fe688e5028;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002437.soc;2437;2025-10-14 11:51:01.353654;28099cae2ab10bc447b701aae71f20c8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002438.soc;2438;2025-10-14 11:51:01.353654;3d51d22aa04e7426854b7324f3709aad;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002439.soc;2439;2025-10-14 11:51:01.353654;451d9d97820a25924ed8aee6d9a5379d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002440.soc;2440;2025-10-14 11:51:01.369088;2015537a30358f47ae2953787464bc27;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002441.soc;2441;2025-10-14 11:51:01.370308;c5f696d5130f5ce8c512d6035e401468;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002442.soc;2442;2025-10-14 11:51:01.370308;2773437a9d75fe7e52dd192f7ff102cf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002443.soc;2443;2025-10-14 11:51:01.370308;643d2d3fd5c027225c4f00aa3575b92b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002444.soc;2444;2025-10-14 11:51:01.370308;4df43ca5f944efb10aff7aadfb134347;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002445.soc;2445;2025-10-14 11:51:01.387219;19fd6fe40ebd0c09cdac9b95130a846e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002446.soc;2446;2025-10-14 11:51:01.387219;d3f5550c63466c2beadadbc0c002cf5f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002447.soc;2447;2025-10-14 11:51:01.387219;f3cd3663d7dd09072305a6f8b86edfcc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002448.soc;2448;2025-10-14 11:51:01.387219;dc3a4973beaf4a46c3bfe84337090139;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002449.soc;2449;2025-10-14 11:51:01.403870;3e212285b03cbf5a58fca1a0027ae0ed;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002450.soc;2450;2025-10-14 11:51:01.403870;80f7b8b53c258fd16f371e8e2ab20dea;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002451.soc;2451;2025-10-14 11:51:01.403870;76589e76ce0e7e81afdc1fd2c0c9bb1b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002452.soc;2452;2025-10-14 11:51:01.421979;08b959d22813aca971259b7be03ccc60;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002453.soc;2453;2025-10-14 11:51:01.437123;ac61b8cbbbc6dd12cda2af74b79981f1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002454.soc;2454;2025-10-14 11:51:01.440460;4ad2d1b3887f2dc15ea42a6d67093c28;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002455.soc;2455;2025-10-14 11:51:01.440460;b78fd768d4fc0d6d1280f5f1bf0a422e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002456.soc;2456;2025-10-14 11:51:01.440460;994a4deb7529d08743b0f5654964e56b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002457.soc;2457;2025-10-14 11:51:01.440460;3baf54ac32f2a23792450880593fbaff;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002458.soc;2458;2025-10-14 11:51:01.452565;52d96838988c0a7c8e699788ed3d1597;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002459.soc;2459;2025-10-14 11:51:01.453739;661249a182ebc6ab1c4810e4ecb1eac3;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002460.soc;2460;2025-10-14 11:51:01.453739;66e7043ba6b4328faf950b8297341628;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002461.soc;2461;2025-10-14 11:51:01.470511;174f218e3a1c01bcc0e539f2edbec19c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002462.soc;2462;2025-10-14 11:51:01.470511;07ec73f9f866699e91590fc4489f34f7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002463.soc;2463;2025-10-14 11:51:01.470511;e32f3c7fc5498663e4a26df4b39b1eb8;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002464.soc;2464;2025-10-14 11:51:01.486576;01c6c740b6932b31b8b73b9ae2d3c34d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002465.soc;2465;2025-10-14 11:51:01.487097;53c8ef5e58b756695ac787d564071b12;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002466.soc;2466;2025-10-14 11:51:01.487097;d58e13053013af58f5ee2954bbaf93bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002467.soc;2467;2025-10-14 11:51:01.487097;d969e9fd44e5da1b43758ec0b76b6341;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002468.soc;2468;2025-10-14 11:51:01.487097;593d628e7db686420c74f3f65ef20409;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002469.soc;2469;2025-10-14 11:51:01.503406;a1dd31dd9e52d11f8411438b05f35363;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002470.soc;2470;2025-10-14 11:51:01.503406;10d826fc34a7bee5507378b999b0f7a6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002471.soc;2471;2025-10-14 11:51:01.503406;a46da680214756ab77e6047dc92d954a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002472.soc;2472;2025-10-14 11:51:01.521076;cd0c9a2724961dc1e2c866a29f834433;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002473.soc;2473;2025-10-14 11:51:01.522891;9d53f8d4a8c13291621496993ada599a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002474.soc;2474;2025-10-14 11:51:01.522891;7d65275de3d184ec361719006bac9a7c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002475.soc;2475;2025-10-14 11:51:01.522891;758770df96dcaa9b13e31b7b8d9a069c;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002476.soc;2476;2025-10-14 11:51:01.522891;04e3e890c6cfa4e428e678baa4329348;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002477.soc;2477;2025-10-14 11:51:01.536900;15d97c66d7315a49ded9d1124c906708;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002478.soc;2478;2025-10-14 11:51:01.540797;3ce5978e351519468112c433ee41fa3d;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002479.soc;2479;2025-10-14 11:51:01.553700;e9e8184d08bedb4245665e95c59d31e0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002480.soc;2480;2025-10-14 11:51:01.553700;42bfde33e8aa3eecf42c59c5bc92586f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002481.soc;2481;2025-10-14 11:51:01.553700;800683740ac68f09cd1f75f1fd7bce89;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002482.soc;2482;2025-10-14 11:51:01.569157;9d5eb25de0863761e4fbf64ad23ce1ed;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002483.soc;2483;2025-10-14 11:51:01.570017;5a79d0b1b4b95263ac120ce0b056e953;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002484.soc;2484;2025-10-14 11:51:01.570017;cd7fd3510d5d533049493b3769e715dc;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002485.soc;2485;2025-10-14 11:51:01.586700;9d5abe6babbfc04b01b9ba3c35c64ace;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002486.soc;2486;2025-10-14 11:51:01.586700;1a09b20aac96ca3c242fe0c6ac4ef638;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002487.soc;2487;2025-10-14 11:51:01.586700;8b47009f41c68b91987c2fa14951d2d8;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002488.soc;2488;2025-10-14 11:51:01.603600;765b2e8ceb64a07ab498c4ff5332bde6;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002489.soc;2489;2025-10-14 11:51:01.603600;9858213d90d649af352a4b2fadb207ba;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002490.soc;2490;2025-10-14 11:51:01.619141;4e1bf43816f3c96e3ec9406879230f81;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002491.soc;2491;2025-10-14 11:51:01.620767;e83163aa6b3c5e14c476567d64714240;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002492.soc;2492;2025-10-14 11:51:01.622843;f11b6ef8834c5502ff99ca45d4ca0a1d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002493.soc;2493;2025-10-14 11:51:01.622843;0dfbb778fc9489cebc7d4c9e10689437;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002494.soc;2494;2025-10-14 11:51:01.622843;2487629ca57531cff2bfdf4b3f92eb65;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002495.soc;2495;2025-10-14 11:51:01.640826;5f0eef590add9456204f7d819e315919;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002496.soc;2496;2025-10-14 11:51:01.640826;55cb75f3ce1682eaa10d48881805cfa8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002497.soc;2497;2025-10-14 11:51:01.653491;7aedb3a0f1bc094cedb0caa576346e12;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002498.soc;2498;2025-10-14 11:51:01.670082;6bce48f348c635802a687a8f55d3096f;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002499.soc;2499;2025-10-14 11:51:01.670082;ecbf593089f28ba9a8ef0491be677ead;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002500.soc;2500;2025-10-14 11:51:01.670082;1b0e0dcb7a0fdc130de7c93fe774704c;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002501.soc;2501;2025-10-14 11:51:01.670082;055ebab748f6d289bcf34e52d0528efa;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002502.soc;2502;2025-10-14 11:51:01.670082;cea1c5fd2c0b8d9fa6f4f84fe9149348;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002503.soc;2503;2025-10-14 11:51:01.670082;5db95941f988cc965d7c3aa0b68fe43d;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002504.soc;2504;2025-10-14 11:51:01.670082;f8d77c5583558635a9b364cc8d613ce8;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002505.soc;2505;2025-10-14 11:51:01.686831;f28fa165aba1d9d0bf4c3178c6b01a80;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002506.soc;2506;2025-10-14 11:51:01.686831;27dee6acc6b5efeb8b80fb922ea316a9;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002507.soc;2507;2025-10-14 11:51:01.686831;9be3740c868b9eb248f2cc9f9aa52a1e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002508.soc;2508;2025-10-14 11:51:01.686831;f6dc46e82376b972bd6452c460ae8389;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002509.soc;2509;2025-10-14 11:51:01.686831;22b13d7ca5f5030d6b8e8006532318cb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002510.soc;2510;2025-10-14 11:51:01.703362;03ac9ce97f3903050ef3107884161ca2;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002511.soc;2511;2025-10-14 11:51:01.703362;bc537c4a1229c0064feadaaa64d20790;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002512.soc;2512;2025-10-14 11:51:01.703362;76ba51ebeb618d3dfe77eb4c12a91882;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002513.soc;2513;2025-10-14 11:51:01.703362;253b8498ed2159d2aed8038edbaeed5e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002514.soc;2514;2025-10-14 11:51:01.703362;ccd1d91b2f5e8c456d94a39fbac4567b;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002515.soc;2515;2025-10-14 11:51:01.703362;c5382bb7e1c572f5f43db1435ab3416c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002516.soc;2516;2025-10-14 11:51:01.718854;0e2b41800ef92b30d4b114105dbd245d;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002517.soc;2517;2025-10-14 11:51:01.720044;3ec23eb231cad516cf102d3b1d3a8dee;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002518.soc;2518;2025-10-14 11:51:01.720044;ec09e0cb4397ced7b92d8cd76f913b09;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002519.soc;2519;2025-10-14 11:51:01.720044;8bddc62caa8a217f5e3555244a7609e2;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002520.soc;2520;2025-10-14 11:51:01.735652;9bc7e56b59fd119e522455c2afb9c5d0;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002521.soc;2521;2025-10-14 11:51:01.739413;76a4257c37559059a1396900743011ed;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002522.soc;2522;2025-10-14 11:51:01.740916;b98afb1cbc4e87ece45ab46859aa7562;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002523.soc;2523;2025-10-14 11:51:01.740916;db69609d7e1a3510b428221974f995d9;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002524.soc;2524;2025-10-14 11:51:01.740916;23569944a21ad82d3493eba969c9ccd1;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002525.soc;2525;2025-10-14 11:51:01.753355;18afd6ca1a3f63491bbe14b3ea3bc0c1;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002526.soc;2526;2025-10-14 11:51:01.753355;98e9a368857f60aa2d249a0d581487f1;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002527.soc;2527;2025-10-14 11:51:01.753355;322cac168cec9ea3ac7b557e977104fb;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002528.soc;2528;2025-10-14 11:51:01.769010;df6e1db713c223a00d403f996137f614;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002529.soc;2529;2025-10-14 11:51:01.769803;edcf08fd013c6b6aa4c1a761b774fce2;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002530.soc;2530;2025-10-14 11:51:01.769803;bac8af41bed30400a264719b8e25d1eb;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002531.soc;2531;2025-10-14 11:51:01.769803;122c7fa980fa7c63ce4d08091aa13d7c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002532.soc;2532;2025-10-14 11:51:01.769803;0a0b113bd8608786cea6c52fce403e6f;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002533.soc;2533;2025-10-14 11:51:01.786605;48cc7e9afcc9126491e4448f4424a6fb;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002534.soc;2534;2025-10-14 11:51:01.791927;a6a94c5b5a23177ff2a271f0bebe4798;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002535.soc;2535;2025-10-14 11:51:01.791927;a82ca1ec2c1f13c809f04693883065a4;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002536.soc;2536;2025-10-14 11:51:01.791927;63ee09eed0e2753fbd4c110e7dbf0de0;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002537.soc;2537;2025-10-14 11:51:01.791927;33f680a13ec85c2b3a35a8a6260f4759;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002538.soc;2538;2025-10-14 11:51:01.791927;b5e0abbdb3dd9245705c1e9108f0be1b;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002539.soc;2539;2025-10-14 11:51:01.801944;879af60c55eb64d33e31758cc34cb7c8;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002540.soc;2540;2025-10-14 11:51:01.803127;5deb137dab8295cb48eab065b8e18e37;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002541.soc;2541;2025-10-14 11:51:01.803127;37a2cbde78d50af5026357a06417dff7;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002542.soc;2542;2025-10-14 11:51:01.803127;5a8a22721370e6132247ab30b063fbd2;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002543.soc;2543;2025-10-14 11:51:01.803127;90c5688af03c0be0554268400a7f145b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002544.soc;2544;2025-10-14 11:51:01.803127;8f3061282d7e7004c7140d71b3924152;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002545.soc;2545;2025-10-14 11:51:01.819971;9a658ca06cf4276dfdc4633bc513f1ee;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002546.soc;2546;2025-10-14 11:51:01.819971;470818836433daf7e835ca0a34de3077;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002547.soc;2547;2025-10-14 11:51:01.819971;f56e6f87d1437ba25570dafc7549111e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002548.soc;2548;2025-10-14 11:51:01.819971;b819616521cdb3c957aec67ab116eea7;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002549.soc;2549;2025-10-14 11:51:01.819971;76394e49dd42966d71e404caa2c56fa0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002550.soc;2550;2025-10-14 11:51:01.819971;d6e55e27d266daf6ddfc27113319b9e2;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002551.soc;2551;2025-10-14 11:51:01.836231;102052b7c3ee0e7f0aea91a926a68862;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002552.soc;2552;2025-10-14 11:51:01.839260;d0bf900d138ab6f367997328f4bf0501;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002553.soc;2553;2025-10-14 11:51:01.840835;e5e8eb36976719ab3076d8b0b5739a9c;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002554.soc;2554;2025-10-14 11:51:01.840835;f6376bbeb349254fc8c83c0e8ab3b0b0;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002555.soc;2555;2025-10-14 11:51:01.840835;692c1f47a37f78f9d1fe138f7f5bef16;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002556.soc;2556;2025-10-14 11:51:01.840835;f624592eb0b41011e2e806a01a4f31ce;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002557.soc;2557;2025-10-14 11:51:01.840835;99be36a977d09f7d1f901a111d0db558;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002558.soc;2558;2025-10-14 11:51:01.853267;2b24559bb9a36ba4b8b9a84c9496c7aa;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002559.soc;2559;2025-10-14 11:51:01.853267;63d933d0b2e609c854cba65ed58bd674;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002560.soc;2560;2025-10-14 11:51:01.853267;cbe6feb34ba66871b66e692e42a9f61c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002561.soc;2561;2025-10-14 11:51:01.853267;0790174ca09f74862bbab147f896b5b8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002562.soc;2562;2025-10-14 11:51:01.869877;07a7cbbea4102c5fc723d332266a1fdc;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002563.soc;2563;2025-10-14 11:51:01.869877;2c1082c03161e0adaf00563f16495f88;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002564.soc;2564;2025-10-14 11:51:01.869877;e3b676b65649e3d52bf5b57b5df33309;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002565.soc;2565;2025-10-14 11:51:01.869877;277889c42f475bb737382a79e6ef7ba7;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002566.soc;2566;2025-10-14 11:51:01.869877;577495160a8ac0165b79729d08f67610;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002567.soc;2567;2025-10-14 11:51:01.869877;2f6f6b13aec9b9be5736371d4305565b;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002568.soc;2568;2025-10-14 11:51:01.886138;700be7c3d29a51c917d1e2727e97853d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002569.soc;2569;2025-10-14 11:51:01.886527;4a7a40804f5797fa387427e00d3b9366;original;5;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002570.soc;2570;2025-10-14 11:51:01.886527;f610a866fd811ba6fc48810f0717c395;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002571.soc;2571;2025-10-14 11:51:01.901906;630c37001fff11cfc050da7c3f720f67;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002572.soc;2572;2025-10-14 11:51:01.903225;5d012e4af19059c8c86d3b38e4d3b128;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002573.soc;2573;2025-10-14 11:51:01.903225;5e7c7040e586970e457374d5071a9c11;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002574.soc;2574;2025-10-14 11:51:01.903225;64363d3ca07ee32be10312cb213420f4;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002575.soc;2575;2025-10-14 11:51:01.903225;dd9539babb6f7c38f675241a98494b2c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002576.soc;2576;2025-10-14 11:51:01.903225;db8f4856771c9cf7a0acdf5c4c009db3;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002577.soc;2577;2025-10-14 11:51:01.919884;44a434926ca94ec24f335cef3cd222c0;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002578.soc;2578;2025-10-14 11:51:01.919884;c5bb64845eb61b3163e67ea55963cff1;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002579.soc;2579;2025-10-14 11:51:01.919884;bcffa4fd46ee24b646a87afc4cf6c5fb;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002580.soc;2580;2025-10-14 11:51:01.919884;223c26f5b7e5ee47c70f428ba72a018f;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002581.soc;2581;2025-10-14 11:51:01.919884;6598810ec07665d5d55bad35f5ff16d4;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002582.soc;2582;2025-10-14 11:51:01.919884;b3bf800f7f2af6353339b7218a7f9743;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002583.soc;2583;2025-10-14 11:51:01.935578;b98ec349876cdd8a3fc374c0a14ddf6a;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002584.soc;2584;2025-10-14 11:51:01.938153;524eecf9a3fea7936f0f76b132e90e6b;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002585.soc;2585;2025-10-14 11:51:01.939155;b91c5b2e87eba5c06236c960b7075e55;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002586.soc;2586;2025-10-14 11:51:01.941414;a84704c495005612ed88e309ae3c7d32;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002587.soc;2587;2025-10-14 11:51:01.941414;eff651388a8dea3ec47439c8f02eeb81;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002588.soc;2588;2025-10-14 11:51:01.941414;806226c2f202ef9a8f41d0faf232e4ac;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002589.soc;2589;2025-10-14 11:51:01.953844;6d5af21eaced7d0aef059a51e8d14c1d;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002590.soc;2590;2025-10-14 11:51:01.953844;2653d405fca830e3ffd536bbc8b40b83;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002591.soc;2591;2025-10-14 11:51:01.953844;a43dbd40d54562c7d656537940395b40;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002592.soc;2592;2025-10-14 11:51:01.953844;0b346c17b22507a2e805b9c40dfcdb24;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002593.soc;2593;2025-10-14 11:51:01.970405;121ff7fcb7291153f083e2b2164c79cc;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002594.soc;2594;2025-10-14 11:51:01.970405;3d24b68f5bc517df9fdfee1dfa80facc;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002595.soc;2595;2025-10-14 11:51:01.970405;58d6acd6617f7e6de768c92c36d9bc70;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002596.soc;2596;2025-10-14 11:51:01.970405;81d8877a54e94406273d079227f1556e;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002597.soc;2597;2025-10-14 11:51:01.987076;c928ec5a46c16133f8d34f25c2c2aad0;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002598.soc;2598;2025-10-14 11:51:01.987076;3df7824bcc2b66822380e469f7ba2253;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002599.soc;2599;2025-10-14 11:51:01.987076;9166f79614413e5a0bb4cf15344255e3;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002600.soc;2600;2025-10-14 11:51:01.987076;f43d9ffd1a640f51164e98a728c72201;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002601.soc;2601;2025-10-14 11:51:01.987076;f11d0754052d6e43cdbc58d4b3607c4e;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002602.soc;2602;2025-10-14 11:51:02.003156;1fae52c4dd83e2ea3bf373f3c4aa5c3e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002603.soc;2603;2025-10-14 11:51:02.003156;762276d67b258926c17ca936f3fc72c5;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002604.soc;2604;2025-10-14 11:51:02.020281;cfa975722b38fb53dedfb019371131c6;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002605.soc;2605;2025-10-14 11:51:02.020281;857e0606329b07ec1e2cf4a39f27b175;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002606.soc;2606;2025-10-14 11:51:02.020281;43b40225b30c52f0c48bcb3e52783073;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002607.soc;2607;2025-10-14 11:51:02.020281;d97757e01551082f811857b6c13c2ca1;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002608.soc;2608;2025-10-14 11:51:02.020281;8492428b2c97cbfb2bc2057a1e93defb;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002609.soc;2609;2025-10-14 11:51:02.037074;630e3f2d634f12328013bb68dc5ef3db;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002610.soc;2610;2025-10-14 11:51:02.041387;dfc71f8d7436adbb0975561fb5f602ad;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002611.soc;2611;2025-10-14 11:51:02.041387;344825dc2f68760336809f9e254c2c99;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002612.soc;2612;2025-10-14 11:51:02.041387;8dd51add1a766a2a184de64dfcabf196;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002613.soc;2613;2025-10-14 11:51:02.041387;027c0ede4fddde4cf80968d969ecef2e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002614.soc;2614;2025-10-14 11:51:02.053083;d1761efa9aabd05a1b90fa1e8285e64e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002615.soc;2615;2025-10-14 11:51:02.055159;9bcc7d17814844eaab24856b6bc1de4c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002616.soc;2616;2025-10-14 11:51:02.055950;a10b1730e26f1a19fd3341187ef7a0f0;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002617.soc;2617;2025-10-14 11:51:02.055950;96e7bb09eb73ea0582396d2b9f0157cd;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002618.soc;2618;2025-10-14 11:51:02.055950;46f88d838597b3a27553046849e0ec43;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002619.soc;2619;2025-10-14 11:51:02.055950;802fdc00625b9a460324650f769ac54f;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002620.soc;2620;2025-10-14 11:51:02.055950;8cd4dfa935b9168ce90e8bc9f91720d3;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002621.soc;2621;2025-10-14 11:51:02.069549;ef2f25194a0b939436bfbb5e65ed3e7c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002622.soc;2622;2025-10-14 11:51:02.069549;c282163e957590d92be042b9962422e9;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002623.soc;2623;2025-10-14 11:51:02.069549;76885b81197e0ec5bcfe68167cb33fcb;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002624.soc;2624;2025-10-14 11:51:02.069549;27017ca7c0305c0b2f1b92bb1adee657;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002625.soc;2625;2025-10-14 11:51:02.069549;4e5c9e62642486a53dd4406056c0f855;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002626.soc;2626;2025-10-14 11:51:02.069549;0b975e76abc64f95ab21f12d949d7e13;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002627.soc;2627;2025-10-14 11:51:02.085268;f90687e215c5c0571cb1e605daba3876;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002628.soc;2628;2025-10-14 11:51:02.086319;98bf1c453673723adf86ffcf9c810b8e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002629.soc;2629;2025-10-14 11:51:02.086319;3e896c6252c9e219d72c802c1def1995;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002630.soc;2630;2025-10-14 11:51:02.086319;b049b1d21e75dc80251eed53c0f4da83;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002631.soc;2631;2025-10-14 11:51:02.086319;cfcbb47903059c2023aefc6c43cb1bca;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002632.soc;2632;2025-10-14 11:51:02.103071;8450a99c3aaf512ad39ab268296bb05c;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002633.soc;2633;2025-10-14 11:51:02.103071;84afb8c9b406517d556ea188de4aac51;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002634.soc;2634;2025-10-14 11:51:02.103071;fb9065d45855b2b75962124011127408;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002635.soc;2635;2025-10-14 11:51:02.103071;bcad61b3589e7cf8772e8bf70c175b29;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002636.soc;2636;2025-10-14 11:51:02.103071;49150e0a07d3c263ec10561de4484d95;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002637.soc;2637;2025-10-14 11:51:02.118403;2246b2f030eae0903b41106106fba07f;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002638.soc;2638;2025-10-14 11:51:02.119683;d46da5a122d83b9c81616e1c83483fc8;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002639.soc;2639;2025-10-14 11:51:02.119683;5fc7f1eeb8d06978aeb73ceb48bd5492;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002640.soc;2640;2025-10-14 11:51:02.119683;dbad051cfe1dd09f29279a37ffc956ba;original;5;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002641.soc;2641;2025-10-14 11:51:02.119683;2ae4963f697a8b73ab236af6218276c3;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002642.soc;2642;2025-10-14 11:51:02.119683;9cf2cea2ad66cd668ee906c3dd7d093b;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002643.soc;2643;2025-10-14 11:51:02.119683;d744088d9d1f508acd92266216f00152;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002644.soc;2644;2025-10-14 11:51:02.135146;1101e9d9b88e352fb6eaf3e2272bfb15;original;5;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002645.soc;2645;2025-10-14 11:51:02.136235;5d43758f3c93d1a3e69aa2a5a8cf12a9;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002646.soc;2646;2025-10-14 11:51:02.141555;72dae81d12f8a715913eb18ad3efd845;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002647.soc;2647;2025-10-14 11:51:02.141555;6cb2869d3572a2ab76652c8e39c27b7c;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002648.soc;2648;2025-10-14 11:51:02.152068;847b39d606c052a073f0d7e912c7f31e;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002649.soc;2649;2025-10-14 11:51:02.154015;9366f74ff724b9f4da1cfd22e219d7f1;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002650.soc;2650;2025-10-14 11:51:02.155919;7b9cecbb46dd1b2810bf27f38cfbb3f7;original;5;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002651.soc;2651;2025-10-14 11:51:02.842456;e44f28a0364d4290608aae9e79f1eb70;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002652.soc;2652;2025-10-14 11:51:02.849982;eb1fb28164c009dddf56d46b004fbf1f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002653.soc;2653;2025-10-14 11:51:02.849982;305f8969fe887de53b2392c9b0d25418;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002654.soc;2654;2025-10-14 11:51:02.866024;86c0732f91f8955f61abbde31f9adc06;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002655.soc;2655;2025-10-14 11:51:02.881976;91060f5c0f163c5c0808e60785656668;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002656.soc;2656;2025-10-14 11:51:02.897855;9d6a3a333e404ff222b801fec2995200;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002657.soc;2657;2025-10-14 11:51:02.929699;dc15d5c4050ade17d8c132ddffd5ca6e;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002658.soc;2658;2025-10-14 11:51:02.929699;22584ff84c128fd30f27941e4d8e443d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002659.soc;2659;2025-10-14 11:51:02.929699;42e881cca2466376a4883cd998b09e5b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002660.soc;2660;2025-10-14 11:51:02.945475;bbe58b476bf771dbbcc6258b04ebf981;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002661.soc;2661;2025-10-14 11:51:02.945475;a765c64f6da71409d3fbd7c9d53f63cc;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002662.soc;2662;2025-10-14 11:51:02.961608;fc100f0cbdc3c0a9b9f41e61cfbbd446;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002663.soc;2663;2025-10-14 11:51:02.988294;653ceef5fbb1b5a2c680a52eee262567;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002664.soc;2664;2025-10-14 11:51:02.993273;47b38fd73f064cc8f2576313a523471d;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002665.soc;2665;2025-10-14 11:51:03.009442;f5c6082ad182d2fb0c0b0e0f92cab960;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002666.soc;2666;2025-10-14 11:51:03.019983;7242adca49e1c4801eaf68f29960e833;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002667.soc;2667;2025-10-14 11:51:03.066795;300332e76622222b257f47be3f03a98b;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002668.soc;2668;2025-10-14 11:51:03.179756;eeb2815e16e00f6dbeffd10689915d8a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002669.soc;2669;2025-10-14 11:51:03.193511;448f6f713822c5f79471c1e6b41d6819;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002670.soc;2670;2025-10-14 11:51:03.193511;66ce702951d699acb32a259c9e282619;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002671.soc;2671;2025-10-14 11:51:03.209600;c01a5b098fef79f45922ff2c556bd31e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002672.soc;2672;2025-10-14 11:51:03.304732;15be56deb8ecbc2033c2ca399ca2d6af;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002673.soc;2673;2025-10-14 11:51:03.320491;c5056d05f249e85dc90a1f24f617a947;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002674.soc;2674;2025-10-14 11:51:03.384401;2e7c10e51e9764174969157207df165e;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002675.soc;2675;2025-10-14 11:51:03.384401;ae492e80488ec3b762e44462d559847b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002676.soc;2676;2025-10-14 11:51:03.432258;85b9dad5810113a8240aca182f3bb62a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002677.soc;2677;2025-10-14 11:51:03.448121;6c21801aae709a1a9e0e38c4d6b6a188;original;4;5;2;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002678.soc;2678;2025-10-14 11:51:03.464043;2508e7273d1c352a33db2f794d0ef50c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002679.soc;2679;2025-10-14 11:51:03.464043;67991b6cd57ff827fdc009dd55f40db4;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002680.soc;2680;2025-10-14 11:51:03.479748;393ea4e736303b22f11f764db994c9fa;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002681.soc;2681;2025-10-14 11:51:03.495796;5e97defb1556a99c7791d6a24f0175e7;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002682.soc;2682;2025-10-14 11:51:03.498194;269cfc8aaae38dfad261545a3fd673ac;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002683.soc;2683;2025-10-14 11:51:03.511457;0c6abe609e45b3f2813b6eaa49b2a637;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002684.soc;2684;2025-10-14 11:51:03.511457;a2936368bfd69c50da75d73b40d37d4a;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002685.soc;2685;2025-10-14 11:51:03.527353;67467ea1eabb0721196dec4bbe194469;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002686.soc;2686;2025-10-14 11:51:03.527353;8afbd2d51972cc7b858586bd11439e73;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002687.soc;2687;2025-10-14 11:51:03.543360;b12210e5d9c56eeda9d3edf8af439b58;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002688.soc;2688;2025-10-14 11:51:03.543360;00e0d36846b45d650b662612a18b6198;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002689.soc;2689;2025-10-14 11:51:03.543360;cca41ae7fbaa14e111e27cb20b540a40;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002690.soc;2690;2025-10-14 11:51:03.543360;adb7b4332ffdddbab86d33f073ae81f1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002691.soc;2691;2025-10-14 11:51:03.559091;2bab409614242294d648351a3e109336;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002692.soc;2692;2025-10-14 11:51:03.559091;c6a8072336235cc2953dd9c5fb8bda53;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False +00070-00002693.soc;2693;2025-10-14 11:51:03.575040;f4ec5a4fbb748f04bf4a387553ecf8cf;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002694.soc;2694;2025-10-14 11:51:03.607136;656427a23fd59d810ce4d227d68d1f9a;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;False;True +00070-00002695.soc;2695;2025-10-14 11:51:03.607136;21047ae5f4d087105444a5c94c5591bb;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002696.soc;2696;2025-10-14 11:51:03.623231;335ae13ced7d402691ffddb2f5dede14;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002697.soc;2697;2025-10-14 11:51:03.623231;ca3e77cfd87bd2ddaa9bd247dc6a7b4b;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;True;False;True +00070-00002698.soc;2698;2025-10-14 11:51:03.638981;4bb9be9c20fa8c76021dd22b58ebdf7c;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002699.soc;2699;2025-10-14 11:51:03.649069;acba7d29de80bffa7ea133841643c8e0;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002700.soc;2700;2025-10-14 11:51:03.655020;aeac10abee65d9d069b502a3a93465c0;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;False;False;False;False +00070-00002701.soc;2701;2025-10-14 11:51:03.670892;595a1d0e3556ae0798159d1baa4d7151;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002702.soc;2702;2025-10-14 11:51:03.686649;e4c3c5f4f87e399f887f138d918a9a6f;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;False;False;True;True +00070-00002703.soc;2703;2025-10-14 11:51:03.686649;8fb533651d3ad82961c5b7136dfc9675;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002704.soc;2704;2025-10-14 11:51:03.750551;23055cb41729aa7e43c73827f75711e1;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;True +00070-00002705.soc;2705;2025-10-14 11:51:03.750551;3fec218f21c6b6f9581f62affb5a577d;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002706.soc;2706;2025-10-14 11:51:03.750551;c371ba36dc577e1840c7a486a56f3546;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;True;True +00070-00002707.soc;2707;2025-10-14 11:51:03.814167;f62611e0eaa1f015cdda461aadce389f;original;4;5;5;False;True;True;True;False;False;False +00070-00002708.soc;2708;2025-10-14 11:51:03.814167;7845bd38b3d75d1876f220e171a867a8;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002709.soc;2709;2025-10-14 11:51:03.829896;872b9836f22b541389a8a393de6052e9;original;4;5;4;False;True;True;True;True;True;True +00070-00002710.soc;2710;2025-10-14 11:51:03.861569;aa7d4049fdba97126ce25efe3b2b8b9a;original;4;5;3;False;True;True;True;False;True;False